EPA-600/2-78-063
March 1978
Environmental Protection Technology Series
DEMONSTRATION/EVALUATION OF
THE CAT-OX FLUE GAS
DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM-
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 nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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-600/2-78-063
March 1978
DEMONSTRATION/EVALUATION OF
THE CAT-OX FLUE GAS
DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM-
FINAL REPORT
by
R. Bee, R, Reale, and A. Wallo
The Mitre Corporation/Metrek Division
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
Contract No. 68-02-0650
ROAP 21ACZ
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Project Officer: Charles J. Chatlynne
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The text of this report describes the entire Cat-Ox Demonstration
Program. The report was a joint effort of The MITRE Corporation/METREK
Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Illinois Power
Company (IP), and Monsanto Enviro-Chem (MEG). Significant portions
of the process description and construction description sections of
the text were supplied by Monsanto Envirp-Chem, Dr. R. K. Teajue.
Similarly, Illinois Power Company, Mr. J. C. Schmitt, supplied por-
tions of the background and general history section.
Initial planning for the program was done under the direction
of Mr. Gil Haselberger, Environmental Protection Agency, Project
Officer. Subsequent phases of the program were conducted with
guidance provided by Dr. C. J. Chatlynne, Environmental Protection
Agency, Project Officer.
The Illinois Power Company made its facilities available and the
Wood River Power Station supervisory personnel, Mr. P. Hutchison,
Plant Manager, and operating personnel cooperated fully during the
extent of this test program. Mr. D. Korneman and Mr. D. Doiron each
in turn provided the supervisory interface.
The following companies and their staffs performed various tasks
and assisted in the Cat-Ox test and evaluation program in a number of
areas:
• Dow Chemical Corporation,
j
• Midwest Research Institute,
• Radian Corporation, and
• Southern Research Institute.
The MITRE Corporation/METREK Division performed the test and
evaluation and coordinated the efforts for the final report. The
authors would like to thank Mr. George Erskine for his assistance in
structuring and reviewing the report and the other members of the
MITRE/METREK staff who participated in this effort.
The authors would also like to thank Dr. R. Statnick and the
staff of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (RTF) who
gave both technical and material assistance for a number of the test
efforts.
li
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION I
SECTION II
SECTION III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
INTRODUCTION 1-1
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 1-1
Fly Ash Collection 1-6
Flue Gas Reheat and Heat Recovery
System 1-6
Conversion System 1-7
Absorbing Tower 1-7
Acid Mist Eliminator 1-8
Product Handling, Storage and Loading 1-8
Cat-Ox ID Fan 1-9
HISTORY 1-9
CAT-OX PROCESS AND DEMONSTRATION STATUS 1-12
TESTING RESULTS 1-16
CONCLUSION 1-20
PROCESS DESCRIPTION II-l
GENERAL II-l
Flue Gas Cleaning II-3
Flue Gas Reheating II-3
Conversion of S02 to S03 II-4
Heating Recovery II-5
Sulfuric Acid Absorbing System II-6
Product Storage and Loading II-8
BACKGROUND AND GENERAL HISTORY III-l
ORIGINAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE II1-4
Process Construction and Operation III-4
Proposed Time Schedule for the Program III-5
Process Test and Evaluation III-6
Baseline Test Series III-6
The Acceptance Tests Series III-8
One-Year Program Considerations 111-10
ACTUAL COURSE OF EVENTS 111-18
Process Construction and Modification 111-18
STATUS OF PROCESS 111-34
CURRENT STATUS 111-35
Process Wood River Project 111-35
Process and Related Testing 111-37
Instrumentation System 111-39
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
SECTION IV GENERAL INSTRUMENTATION PHILOSOPHY
OVERALL SYSTEM DESIGN
OVERALL CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
Continuous Gas Measurement Subsystem
Time Shared Gas Measurement Subsystem
Flow Measurement Subsystem
Data Recording and Control Subsystems
INTEGRATED INSTRUMENTATION EVALUATION
SECTION V TESTING HISTORY
POLLUTION RELATED TESTING
Baseline Test Measurement Program
Acceptance Test
ESP TESTS
Test Objective
Schedule
Test Results
Conclusion
Main Test Program
Transient Tests
Special Tests
Schedule/Test Plan and Results
CORROSION TESTING
Corrosion Test Program
Testing Procedure
Results from First Test Period
(August 1974 - March 1975)
Observations of Corrosion Activity
Conclusions
SECTION VI SIGNIFICANT RESULTS
PROCESS DESIGN
WOOD RIVER PROCESS DESIGN/OPERATION
APPENDIX A - METREK SYSTEM CONVERSION FACTORS
APPENDIX B - WOOD RIVER POWER STATION CAT-OX HISTORY
APPENDIX C - DISCRETE HARDWARE DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
APPENDIX D - ANALYSES OF COAL, PULVERIZER REJECTS, FURNACE
BOTTOM ASH, AND FLY ASH
APPENDIX E - ENVIRONMENT AT TEST LOCATIONS
iv
V-183
V-196
V-199
VI-1
VI-1
VI-2
A-l
B-l
C-l
D-l
E-l
-------
LIST OF ILLUS07RATIONS-
1 Conceptual Diagram of the Cat-Ox Demonstra-
tion Unit 1-2
2 EPA/IPC Demonstration Cat-Ox Process 1-5
3 Steam Generator and Cat-Ox Process II-2
4 Cat-Ox Instrumentation System IV-4
5 Measurement Point and Instrumentation System
Relationships IV-7
6 Flow Measurement Subsystem IV-10
7 Time-Shared Gas Measurement Subsystem IV-11
8 Flow Measurement Subsystem IV-14
9 Information Recording Flow Chart IV-17
10 Cat-Ox Test Program Acceptance Test V-33
11 Profile of SO Concentration Across Cat-Ox
7/26/73 V-42
12 Profile of SO- Concentration Across Cat-Ox
7/27/73 V-43
13 Profile of SO Concentration Across Cat-Ox
7/28/73 V-44
14 ESP Efficiency vs. Current Density V-56
15 ESP Efficiency vs. Current Density V-56
16 ESP Efficiency vs. Load V-56
17 ESP Efficiency with 4th Section Off V-57
18 ESP Efficiency During Soot Blowing V-57
19 ESP Efficiency for Low Sulfur Coal V-57
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Concluded)
Figure Number Page
20 Fractional Efficiencies for the Cat-Ox
Precipitator V-61
21 dM/d Log D versus Geometric Mean Diameter,
for 103 MW Load Tests V-63
22 dM/d Log D versus Geometric Mean Diameter for
85 MW Load Tests V-64
23 dM/d Log D versus Geometric Mean Diameter
for 70 MW Load Tests V-65
24 Inlet Mass Distribution Calculated from
Cascade Impactor Data V-66
25 Comparison of Computer Simulated and Measured
ESP Efficiencies V-76
26 Comparison of Computed and Measured Size
Fractional Efficiencies for 10 Microamperes
per Square Foot Current Density V-78
27 Comparison of Computed and Measured Size
Fractional Efficiencies for 20 Microamperes
per Square Foot Current Density V-79
28 Comparison of Computed and Measured Size
Fractional Efficiencies for 30 Microamperes
per Square Foot Current Density V-80
29 NO Concentration vs. Coal/Gas Ratio V-lllr
x
30 Conceptual View of Fans and ESP V-146
31 Extrapolated Fractional Efficiency of Control
Devices , V-171
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Page
1 Normal ^Operating Range of Important Variables
; in the Cat-Ox System 11-10
2 Cat-Ox Demonstration Program Instrumentation
Summary IV-16
3 Operation of Time-Shared Subsystem IV-13
4 Channel Assignment Data Acquisition System IV-18
5 Summary of Baseline Test Conditions >'V-3
6 Baseline Measurement Parameters
(continuous and manual measurements) V-5'
7 Baseline Measurement Parameters
(steam generator gauge board readings) v-7
8 Net and Gross Efficiency V-8
9 Sulfur Balance V-14
10 Grain Loading Measurements V-16
11 Comparison of Continuous and Manual S0« at
Locations 1 and 3 with Theoretical Values V-20
12 Comparison of Continuous and Manual NO at
Location 3 X V-21
13 Comparison of Continuous 0- and CO- with
Orsat Measurements at Location 3 V-22
14 Determination of Bound SO and SO- by
Chemical Analysis V-25
15 Determination of Polynuclear Aromatic
Compounds Bound to the Surface of Flue
Gas Particulates V-26
16 Operating Parameters Guaranteed V-34
17 Cat-Ox Gas Velocity Data V-37
vli
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Number Page
18 Particulate Loading for Acceptance Tests V-39
19 Sulfuric Acid Mist Emitted to the Stack V-41
20 Mean SO Loadings Across Cat-Ox V-41
21 Coal Sample Analyses V-45
22 Cat-Ox Sulfuric Acid Strength V-46
23 Electrostatic Precipitator Test Program V-50
24 Parameters Measured During Test Program V-52
25 Measurement Methods V-53
26 ESP Mass Loading and Efficiency at Various
Operating Conditions V-55
27 Fractional Efficiency from SRI Diffusional and
Optical Data V-60
28 Fractional Efficiencies from MRI Impactor
Data V-62
29 Measured SO. Concentration and Mass Flow V-68
30 Average SO- Concentrations and Mass Flow V-69
31 Flue Gas Composition at Economizer and Input/
Output of ESP V-70
32 Comparison of SO and S0? Concentrations V-71
33 Proximate and Ultimate Coal Analysis—
As Received Basis V-72
34 Proximate and Ultimate Coal Analysis—
Dry Basis V-73
35 Chemical Content of Fly Ash Sampled at ESP
Inlet V-75
vili
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Number page
36 Summary of Test Program Design - V-85
37 Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) Tests V-87
38 ESP Subsystem Test Schedule V-88
39 Combustion Gas Flow Rates V-90
40 Particulate Loading Measurement V-91 •'
41 Orsat Analysis (% Volume) V-93
42 0- Concentrations (Percent) V-94
43 C02 Concentrations (Percent) V-95
44 NO Concentrations (ppm) V-96
X
45 SO Concentrations (ppm) V-97
46 Coal Analysis V-99
47 Effective Sulfur Concentration in the Fuel V-100
48 Electrostatic Precipatator Test Results
(Particle) V-102
49 Particle Emission Rate V-105
50 Gas Flow Rates V-108
51 Coal to Gas Ratios V-110
52 Boiler Transients (Assumes Normal Operation
of Cat-Ox) V-118
53 Precipitator Transients (Assumes Normal
Operation of Cat-Ox) V-119
54 Cat-Ox Transients V-121
55 Transient Test Program Summary V-123
Jx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Number Page
56 Power Plant Running Parameters, Test 1 V-125,
57 Emission Test Data TTI V-127
58 Test 2, September 25. Warm Start-up on
Low Sulfur Coal V-128
59 Test 3, March 5, 1975. Load Change
Test: Coal V-131
60 Test 4, September 14, 1976. Load Change
Test: Coal V-132
61 Test 5, September 15, 1976. Load Change
Test: Coal/Gas Mix V-133
62 Test 6, September 17, 1976, Load Change
Test: Coal/Gas Mix V-134
63 Low Sulfur Coal Analysis V-138
c
64 Test Results at Point 14 V-139
45 ESP Electrical Data V-141
66 Data from IPC Subcontractor Tests V-143
67 Test Flow Ration for ESP V-150
68 Gas Traverse of November 15, 1971, 100 MW
B fuel, No Soot Blowing, Normal Excess Air
Normal Burner Angle, Location 2 V-155
69 Gas Traverse of December 2, 1971, 50 MW, A Fuel,
No Soot Blowing, Maximum Air Excess, Normal
Burner Angle, Location2 V-156
70 Stratification at Economizer V-159
71 Test to Determine Typical Differences of
Result from One Point Over Time V-162
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Table Number „
—— Page
72 Test for Comparison Between ESP Side One and
Two V-163
73 Expected Ranges of Sulfur Balance Produced from
the Sampling Location Based on Initial Test
Data V-170
74 Report of Particle Analysis V-173
75 Elemental Content of Test Specimens (Weight %) V-178
76 Corrosion Test Locations and Conditions V-179
77 Initial Measurements of Samples V-184
78 Thickness and Weight After Exposure for First
Test Period V-187
79 Calculated Corrosion Rates (cm/day x 10~ ) V-188
80 Weight of Coupons After Second Period Test V-190
81 Second Test Period - Corrosion Rates
(cm/day x 10"6) V-191
82 Combined Periods Corrosion Rate Data
(cm/day x 10~6) V-192
83 Qualitative Comparison of Coupons Over First
and Second Test Periods V-193
xi
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The catalytic oxidation (Cat-Ox) process is a regenerable type
of flue gas desulfurization process. The process controls sulfur
dioxide (SO ) emissions through the catalytic oxidation of SO to
sulfur trioxide (SO.,). The SO., is then collected as sulfuric acid in
an absorbing tower. Cat-Ox is Monsanto Enviro-Chem1s (MEC) adapta-
tion of the contact sulfuric acid process for SO control.
The EPA/Illinois Power co-funded Cat-Ox demonstration system
constructed at the Illinois Power Company Wood River facility was a
retrofit application in which the system was attached to the 100 MW
Unit No. 4 boiler. A conceptual diagram of the system is shown in
Figure 1 and a picture in Figure 2. The prime objectives of the
system were to (1) remove 85 percent of the SO , and (2) remove
essentially 100 percent of the particulate matter from the flue gas.
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the major subsystems of the demonstra-
tion process. They include:
1. Fly Ash Collection
2. Flue Gas Reheat and Heat Recovery System
3. Conversion System
Cat-Ox is the registered trademark of Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems,
Inc.
1-1
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOB
FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF THE CAT-OX
DEMONSTRATION UNIT
1-2
-------
FIGURE 1
CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF THE CAT-OX
-I DEMONSTRATION UNIT
(CONTINUED)
1-3
-------
FIGURE 2
EPA/IPC DEMONSTRATION CAT-OX PROCESS
-------
4. Absorbing Tower
5. Acid Mist Eliminator
6. Product Handling Storage and Loading
7. Cat-Ox ID Fan.
The systems are described briefly here and in more detail in the text
of the report.
Fly Ash Collection
The existing mechanical particle collector was retained in
service on Unit No. 4 to remove most of the fly ash from the flue
gas. A new Research-Cottrell electrostatic precipitator designed to
reduce grain loading in the flue gas from 1.5 to 0.005 grains/SCF was
installed to work in series with the mechanical collector to remove
essentially all the particulate matter from the flue gas entering the
t
Cat-Ox process. After leaving the electrostatic precipitator, the
cleaned flue gas is heated and is then passed into the converter of
the Cat-Ox System, or, during start-up or unusual operation, can be
by-passed directly to the stack. The fly ash collected by the
precipitators is conveyed pneumatically to the existing ash pit area.
The electrostatic precipitator installation was completed in February
1972 and has been operating with Unit No. 4 since that time.
Flue Gas Reheat and Heat Recovery System
This system entails an external reheat burner manufactured
"N
by Coen (internal reheat burners initially installed were found.
unsatisfactory) and a Ljungstrom heat exchanger. The system is
1-6
-------
designed to bring the flue gas temperature from about 310°F at the
precipitator outlet to 850°F prior to entering the converter. The
Ljungstrom heat exchanger recovers about 400°F of sensible heat from
the flue gas leaving the converter and deposits the heat on the input
side of the converter. The results are that the overall requirement
for added heat is reduced to about 150°F of sensible heat.
Conversion System
Following reheat to conversion temperature, the flue gas enters
the converter where SCL gas reacts with 0 in the presence of the
Cat-Ox catalyst (a vanadium pentoxide catalyst) to form S0_.
The system is designed to convert at least 90 percent of the
S07 to SO- by the exothermic reaction with oxygen in the flue gas.
Normal seal leakage in the Ljungstrom regenerative gas heat
exchanger, however, allows flue gas to by-pass the converter and
reduce the overall removal efficiency of S0« to 85 percent.
Absorbing Tower
The converter exit gas containing SO- is partially cooled in
the Ljungstrom regenerative heat exchanger to a temperature above the
acid dew point of the gas and flows to the absorbing tower. The
S0~ in the flue gas does not combine directly with water in appreci-
able amounts but must be absorbed in the circulating sulfuric acid
in the tower packing'section and then combined indirectly with water
in the acid. Heat of absorption of S0_ in the acid and the sensi-
ble heat removed from the gas raise the circulating acid temperature.
1-7
-------
The gas flows counter-current to the acid in the tower and is further
cooled to about 250°F. Hot acid flows from the bottom of the tower
to the circulating pump and is then pumped through a graphite tubular
acid cooler and returned to the tower at the proper temperature.
Product acid is pumped to storage after further cooling to maintain a
constant acid level in the bottom.
Acid Mist Eliminator
This acid mist eliminator system consists of Monsanto fiber
packed elements which continuously remove the sulfuric acid mist
from the gas at a high efficiency following S0» absorption. The
elements are contained in the top of the absorbing tower above the
packed section which allows the collected acid to drain into the
packed tower. The acid mist eliminator system was designed with a
high efficiency such that the SO, and acid mist content of the flue
gas leaving this mist eliminator was less than the amount normally
emitted in the combustion gas from the steam generation boiler.
Product Handling, Storage and Loading
The product acid is cooled and piped to storage tanks where it
is held until shipment. The cooled acid at full load amounts to 12
gallons per minute of 78 percent KLSO,. This acid is collected in
two 400,000 gallon steel storage tanks. An acid loading pump and
tank-car loading facilities are provided adjacent to the storage
tanks. Tank trucks also may be loaded from this station if desired.
1-8
-------
Cat-Qx ID Fan
This induced draft fan provides the motive force to overcome the
pressure drops over the entire Cat-Ox system.
HISTORY
•• i.n i-.-. , i
In 1962, Monsanto Co., Pennsylvania Electric Co., Air Preheater
Co., and Research Cottrell Corp. started the pilot plant development
of the Cat-Ox process for SO control. The pilot plant operated on
a 400 SCFM slip stream from a pulverized coal-fired boiler and proved
the feasibility of the basic process operation.
A 15 MW prototype plant (24,000 SCFM) was then developed and
tested at Unit No. 2 of Metropolitan Edison Company's Portland
station. The system was an integrated system with a ."Hot Side" ESP
and no reheat system. The plant ^operated from August of 1967 to June
1970 and accumulated about 8000 hours of operating time.
During the latter part of 1969 and the first part of 1970,
Illinois Power Company (IP) was searching for a method to control SO
emissions from their coal burning utility boilers. They commissioned
Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus, Ohio, to perform a study of
the control methods then available to aid their selection. The study
included the use of low sulfur coal as well as available SO removal
processes such as limestone scrubbing, the Wellman-Lord Process,
Mag-Ox, and Cat-Ox. As a result of this study and their independent
considerations, IP selected the Cat-Ox process as a prime candidate
for SO control on their Wood River No. 4 coal fired generation
1-9
-------
unit. Upon making this selection, preliminary talks were initiated
by IP with the process supplier, Monsanto Enviro-Chem (MEC). In
January of 1970, IP and MEC jointly approached the National Air
Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA, the predecessor to the
Environmental Protection Agency) inquiring about joint funding of a
demonstration project of the Cat-Ox system. After considerable
negotiation, a contract was signed on 26 June 1970, between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and IP, with MEC as a subcontractor
to IP. The contract covered the construction and operation of the
Cat-Ox process with capital funding shared approximately equally
between EPA and IP. In addition, Illinois Power Company assumed the
financial obligations of providing the necessary utilities and of
maintaining and operating the Cat-Ox system for a period specified in
the .'contract. :
Unit No. 4 at Wood River normally burned approximately 275,000
tons of coal per year with an average sulfur content of 3.1 percent.
Based on these figures, the Cat-Ox system could produce about 25,000
tons per year of 78 percent concentration sulfuric acid.
Construction of the Cat-Ox system started in January 1971
and the associated Research-Cottrell precipitator designed for Cat-Ox
was completed and placed in service in January 1972. Initial start-
up of the sulfur removal equipment occurred on 4 September 1972
using natural gas for the in-line reheat burners. Because of the
unavailability of natural gas, it was necessary to try to operate the
1-10
-------
in-line reheat burners on #2 fuel oil. After a period of testing, it
became apparent that an external combustion chamber for flue gas
reheat would be required to maintain satisfactory reliability and
continuous operation when using oil as the reheat fuel. ,
Before installation of the external heater,, a performance guar-*
antee test was run and satisfactorily completed using #2 oil as
fuel in the in-line heaters in July 1973. At this point the total
Cat-Ox operating time was 'approximately 602 hours. During the month
of August 1973, the Cat-Ox system was deactivated and laid up in
such a manner as to allow for a long outage. The external burner was
completed in April of 1974, and attempts were made to place the
unit back in operation 7 May 1974.
,. During the period between May 1974 and April 1975, there were
continued attempts to operate the system using the external reheat
burners. A number of malfunctions and process component failures
occurred which prevented successful completion efforts. The problems
included failures of the acid circulation pumps, persistent leaks in
acid coolers and circulation system piping as well as burner and
burner control problems. After continued efforts to repair and
*
operate Cat-Ox, IP stopped further work on the system, taking the
position that some basic system changes (especially in the acid
cooler area) were required before Cat-Ox could be successfully
operated. This position was stated in a meeting among IP, EPA, ,
and MEC held at Wood River on 17 April 1975. Following the meeting
1-11
-------
a layup procedure provided by Monsanto was put into effect and Cat-Ox
was completely deactivated in a manner that was designed to protect
the equipment from freeze or corrosion problems. This was completed
in October of 1975.
The Environmental Protection Agency then performed and funded a
number of technical and economic studies relating to the costs and
benefits of continuing the demonstration program at Wood River. The
results of these studies led to a decision to discontinue the project.
CAT-OX PROCESS AND DEMONSTRATION STATUS
The Cat-Ox pilot plant and prototype plant, the 24-hour accep-
tance test of the Wood River system, and various other tests and
studies indicated that the Cat-Ox process is a technically viable
process. Current technology for particle control is capable of
meeting the inlet requirements for the Cat-Ox process in either the
integrated or retrofit systems. The catalytic converter is capable
of greater than 90 percent SO to SO conversion efficiency. The
77.7 percent H-SO, concentration can be maintained during steady
*
state and transient operation. However, one study indicated that
lengthy start-up conditions could result in the generation of dilute
hot H SO which can cause serious corrosion problems within the
system.
An economic comparison of Cat-Ox with Mag-Ox and Wellman-Lord/
Allied FGD processes showed that the Cat-Ox process required the
*
Cat-Ox Product Acid Strength Study. The MITRE Corp. M75-88, December
1975.
1-12
-------
highest capital investment and the integrated Cat-Ox had the lowest
annual operating costs. The same study indicated that the Cat-Ox
process was less sensitive to coal sulfur content than the other
processes; however, the Mag-Ox process produced the least impact on
the cost of electricity. Although the selling price of the acid and
its "saleability" would have a significant effect on the Cat-Ox
annualized costs this factor is site-specific and could not be
factored into the comparison. The primary market for the dilute
impure acid from the Cat-Ox process is the fertilizer industry. This
industry consumes over half the sulfuric acid manufactured in the U.S.
While the trace elements in the acid produced by Cat-Ox have not been
shown to produce detrimental health and environmental effects when
used in the agriculture industry, more research is required before
any final judgment -can be made.
Though the process design appears technically viable, the Wood
River demonstration was plagued with numerous operational problems.
The problems were related to two basic areas:
• Design. Certaiti characteristics or requirements of the
system and power plant environment were not accounted
for or identified in the initial design of the unit.
- internal reheat system would not function properly
when the system was committed to use oil instead of
gas
- vibration in the power plant environment caused
breakage or wear of the graphite heat exchanger
(primarily at metal-graphite contact points in the
tube bundle)
1-13
-------
- dilute acid caused by lengthy start-ups resulted in
serious corrosion in portions of the system
i \ . PJ
- cooling water quality was quite variable. Unfiltered raw
Mississippi River water varied in quality with the stage
of the river. Flood conditions and high river stages
caused much silt and debris to be drawn into the.cooling
water once through system which fouled and plugged tubular
type coolers. Pluggage of the induced draft fan lube oil
cooler contributed to overheating and damage to the fan
bearings and shaft. Small oil cooler tubes did not permit
passage of debris in the cooling water. Debris plugged
and fouled the graphite acid coolers and probably caused
higher flow velocities which may have contributed to
graphite tube vibration and breakage as mentioned above
due to power plant environmental vibration. The debris
also plugged cooling water control valves complicating
control of the acid temperatures which caused accelerated
{ corrosion and resulted in many acid spills.
• Operation. Power plant personnel were unfamiliar with
chemical plant operations and requirements.
- personnel were unfamiliar with the operating and
maintenance requirements of special alloys, material,
and equipment such as duriron recirculating pumps.
- unfamiliarity with acid handling problems resulted
in the corrosion of areas in the product handling
system.
These problems combined to result in lengthy delays which further
compounded the problems. In addition, long periods of shutdown had
an adverse effect on the process and caused serious deterioration of
some system components. The only system component that was both
operational and functioning without problems since its construction
was the electrostatic precipitator.
After continued attempts to operate Cat-Ox, IP halted repair
efforts on the system and took the position that some, basic
1-14
-------
modifications to the system design were required for the Cat-Ox
demonstration to be successfully completed.
A survey of the plant status funded by EPA indicated that the
major problems outlined earlier along with system deterioration
problems could be solved but would require a major restoration
program.
In the interim, however, IP has chosen to comply with S0»
i
standards by burning low sulfur coal in the Unit No. 5 boiler, and
physical plant arrangement constraints prevent them from employing a
different type of coal for Unit 4. Thus, the demonstration program
would have to be run on low sulfur coal. Though the results based on
low sulfur fuel operation would be useful, they would leave many
i
serious questions unanswered about Cat-Ox operability. Hence,
continuation of the demonstration would be of very limited use; and
accordingly, the program was discontinued.
Discontinuation of the demonstration program neither proves nor
.1
disproves the feasibility of the Cat-Ox system. However, some
inferences from the experiences indicate that the Cat-Ox system would
probably be more desirable in an integrated system application rather
than in a retrofit situation. The benefits associated with the
integrated system application are:
• the reheat system would not be required,
• there could be more advantageous placement of system
components and elimination of long product lines and
poor accessibility of some equipment, and
1-15
-------
• the annual operating costs would be lower for an
integrated Cat-Ox.
TESTING RESULTS
The only testing completed at the Wood River site on an opera-
tional Cat-Ox was the 24-hour acceptance test which indicated that
the system would meet design specifications. However, during the
acceptance test the system did suffer from high pressure drops across
the demister. This problem was probably caused by poor control of
the internal burners which caused the evolution of soot and subsequent
clogging of the mist eliminator packing. The results of this test
and the experiences that followed indicated that a longer acceptance
test for future demonstrations may be desirable.
Illinois Power Company and Monsanto Enviro-Chem personnel agreed
that the acceptance tests did fulfill the performance guarantee. The
data demonstrated that Cat-Ox could produce an acceptable strength
acid while removing sufficient amounts of SO from the flue gas to
meet existing standards. The sulfuric acid mist in the exit gas was
continually below the 1 mg (100 percent H SO )/ACF specified in the
Monsanto Enviro-Chem performance guarantee.
In general, these tests indicated that Cat-Ox would indeed
operate at its design capacity and specifications if the problems "
with the reheat burners could be corrected.
The remainder of tests were performed at a time prior to the
construction of Cat-Ox or with Cat-Ox off-line and inoperable.
1-16
-------
The major areas of testing included:
• Baseline testing (for the main and transient
programs)
• ESP testing (a series of special ESP tests and
the scheduled main test program)
• Corrosion testing, and
• Special ancillary tests.
The baseline tests for the main program and for the transient
test program produced no surprising results. The most significant
conclusion that could be drawn from this series of tests was that
for future testing of FGD systems, baseline testing may not be
required, or at least can be minimized to areas where theoretical or
predictive models are not well defined.
The test also showed that continuous gas testing produced more
repeatable results than manual sampling. The gas and particle data
collected in most cases fit the theoretical predictions very well.
The proximate and ultimate analyses of the coal and the elemen-
tal analysis of pulverizer rejects, furnace bottom ash, and fly ash
did not provide any specific pattern beyond the expected results.
The elemental analyses are of special value, however, in that they
provided the means for determining emission rates to the ambient
atmosphere for a number of elements not usually examined in emission
testing programs.
The ESP was the only portion of the Cat-Ox system which was
continually operational and as a result was most thoroughly tested.
1-17
-------
The results of the ESP tests (special ESP test, main test program and
transient program tests) produced the following conclusions:
• The Cat-Ox ESP can meet the design specifications (outlet
loading of 0.005 grains/SCF for an inlet loading of 1.5
grains/SCF).
• Low sulfur coal reduces collection efficiency.
• The reduction in collection efficiency is not necessarily
proportional to sulfur content.
• The data indicated that "soak times" required to reach
steady state conditions in an ESP after a fuel change may
be on the order of five days in some cases.
• A reduction in load will reduce outlet loading if all
other conditions are constant and the ESP had not pre-
viously reached its lowest output (i.e., if the ESP is
designed for 0.005 gr/SCF or 99.6 percent efficiency and
it reaches 0.005 gr/SCF then even if the load drops, the ESP
would not necessarily reduce emissions below 0.005 gr/SCF).
• The effects of soot blowing on ESP performance are minimal
but the process does seem to decrease collection efficiency.
• Non-uniform flow does exist across the Cat-Ox ESP and can
affect collection efficiency.
• The ESP collection efficiency varies with particle size.
The minimum collection efficiency for particle sizes
between 5 and 0.05 |im seemed to be at about 0.1 jim in
diameter.
As stated earlier, the results from the transient baseline tests
produced no surprising results. The boiler showed no significant
increase in gaseous emissions caused by transient circumstances.
No actual transient tests were performed on an operable Cat-Ox;
however, a theoretical study on the effects of start-ups and load
change on Cat-Ox acid strength did indicate that start-ups in parti-
cular could cause significant decrease in acid strengths and hence
1-18
-------
high corrosion rates if extra care were not taken to control flue
gas flow and temperatures. The effects related to load changes were
easier to control but were less significant.
In general, the results of the corrosion test program agreed
with the observations made on Cat-Ox equipment. All test materials
and components within the Cat-Ox system showed good corrosion resist-
ance with the exception of those areas that were exposed to dilute
acid, acid gases, or condensing flue gas.
In areas of acid exposure the stainless steel, Carpenter
20 cb-3, Inconel, Incoloy, Monel, Duriron, Uniloy, Hasteloy, and
chemical lead samples had the best corrosion resistance. Of the
samples tested in condensing flue gas and acid gas environments the
two stainless steels and Carpenter 20 cb-3 showed the least base
metal loss; however, the large-scale pitting found on these three
samples might be more of a problem then the somewhat higher base
metal loss of the other materials tested.
Other areas of investigation included gaseous stratification,
NO formation in the ESP, material balances, and an examination of
x
particle size versus element content. The details and results of
these investigations are given in subsequent sections of this report;
however, since most of this testing was preliminary, no results are
reported in this summary.
The continuous monitoring system (monitoring NO^, SQ^, THC,
0-, CO., temperature, pressure, and differential pressure) operated
1-19
-------
successfully throughout the program. The automated control and
integrated sampling systems developed no major problems. The only
desirable component that was not monitored in the system was partic-
ulate matter, since a reliable continuous particle monitoring instru-
m£nt was not available. Discussion of the specific equipment utilized
in the continuous monitoring system is detailed in the instrumentation
section of this report.
CONCLUSION
While the Cat-Ox process would seem to be a technically viable
process, it is not as comparably attractive as it was when the
demonstration program was initiated. Hence, it was felt the benefit
associated with continuation of the program could not justify the
costly refurbishment of the system. The data seem to imply that any
new applications of Cat-Ox might best be made as an integrated system
rather than a retrofit system with external burners.
1-20
-------
SECTION II
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
GENERAL
*T M ^f
The Cat-Ox " * flue gas desulfurization system controls S0_
emission by catalytic oxidation of the SO, to SO,. The S0_ is
Z. j j
then collected from the 'flue gas as sulfuric acid in an absorption
tower.
The addition of the Cat-Ox system to The Illinois Power Company
(IPC) Unit No. 4 boiler (100 MW) at the Wood River Station required
the interruption of the exhaust flue gas flow at the entrance to the
stack, diversion through the process, and return of the cleaned gas
to the stack. Boiler operations and particle removal are independent
of the rest of the Cat-Ox system, and can operate during Cat-Ox
maintenance outages by virtue of a gas by-pass around the Cat-Ox
system.
Key objectives of the Cat-Ox system were: (1) to remove 85
percent of the SO from the flue gas, and (2) to remove essentially
100 percent of the particulate matter from the flue gas. The system
is designed to achieve these objectives over the normal boiler
load range.
The Cat-Ox system and boiler are schematically shown in Figure 3.
The process consists of six basic steps which are described as
follows:
f T M
Cat-Ox * *is a proprietary designation of Monsanto Company.
II-l
-------
DUCT A
I
to
J"K
<4D
V
'
®
V
850
•
r
GAS HEAT
EXCHANGER
K
w ^
jSf
REHEAT
BURNER
DUCTB *AIR
1 J M
•^
(5) «>
776 -JV
CONVERTER
850
310 350
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>^^^^
FIGURE 3. STEAM GENERATOR AND CAT-OX PROCESS
-------
Flue Gas Cleaning
The flue gas leaving the existing I.D. fans on No. 4 unit flows
to the Cat-Ox system. Rated design capacity of Cat-Ox for flue gas
rate is 1,120,000 pounds per hour at 310°F and -0.5 inches w.c. The
flue gas passes through an electrostatic precipitator which reduces
the fly ash content of the gases from 1.5 grains/SCF to 0.005 grains/
SCF. The precipitator is approximately 50 feet wide by 42 feet deep
•fg
by 42 feet high and includes 16 hoppers for collection of fly ash.
The gas leaving the precipitator flows either through the SO removal
portion of the Cat-Ox process, or directly to the stack. Dampers and
flues are arranged to permit this. Fly ash which is collected in the
bottom hoppers on the precipitator is pneumatically conveyed to the
existing fly ash disposal system.
Flue Gas Reheating
The cleaned flue gas from the precipitator flows through a
Ljungstrom regenerative gas heat exchanger. The exchanger is 27 feet
6 inches in diameter and 8 feet high and includes facilities for
water washing and soot blowing,.
Prior to this step, an external oil-fired burner supplies heated
recycle flue gas to raise the temperature from 310°F to 350°F. At
full load, the heat input is 14.5 x 10 Btu/hr. The reheat burner is
* \
A good portion of the work performed for this program was performed
prior to the present EPA policy requiring the use of the metric
system. Conversion of the data would be a lengthy task, hence, the
data are presented in their original form and a conversion table is
supplied in Appendix A.
II-3
-------
capable of operating on natural gas or #2 fuel oil. The reheated
flue gas entry is located in the horizontal flue before the gas heat
exchanger and is designated as reheat A.
Heating of the flue gas at this point is done to assure that no
condensation takes place at the cold end of the gas heat exchanger.
The flue gas is heated from 350°F to 776°F as it passes through the
heat exchanger. Additional heated recycle flue gas is introduced
downstream of the gas heat exchanger to bring the flue gas temperature
/ ^
to 850°F where conversion of SO to SO can take place. This reheat
at full load heat capacity is 35.4 x 10 Btu/hr. The introduction
point is located in the vertical flue downstream of the gas heat
exchanger and is designated as reheat B.
Conversion of SO^ to SO,,
With its temperature raised to that required for conversion,
the flue gas passes through the converter where 90 percent of the
SO is catalytically oxidized to SO . This is accomplished^using
*
Monsanto's Cat-Ox A catalyst. In the catalyst beds, the S0« is
converted to S0_ by exothermic reaction with oxygen in the flue
gases as follows:
S02 + 1/2 02 -S03
The heat generated by this reaction, approximately 1,319 Btu/lb
sulfur, helps offset heat losses from equipment and flues. The
*
Registered trademark of Monsanto Company.
II-4
-------
converter is mounted directly above the gas heat exchanger and
contains 8 beds of catalyst in parallel having a total length of 35
feet. Each bed is 12 1/2 inches deep and 30 feet by 30 feet square.
There is a gradual buildup of fly ash in the converter and,
therefore, a gradual increase in pressure drop across the unit over
a period of time. However, fly ash buildup has little effect on the
conversion efficiency of^the catalyst. When the pressure drop
becomes excessive, cleaning of the catalyst is required. Equipment
is provided to mechanically convey, clean, and return the catalyst to
the converter with a minimal loss of material and no loss of activity.
The expected frequency for catalyst cleaning is four times a year.
To facilitate catalyst cleaning, a flue gas bypass is provided after
the precipitator. Without affecting boiler operation, the SO-
removal portion of the Cat-Ox system can be shutdown for cleaning.
Total downtime, including catalyst cool-off, cleaning, and heat-
up is estimated at two days for the complete change of catalyst. It
was estimated that approximately 2.5 percent of the catalyst volume
must be added with each cleaning operation to replace losses due to
screening and mechanical handling.
Heating Recovery
When the flue gas returns to the heat exchanger for temperature
reduction, it is relatively rich in SO . Ninety percent of the S02
has been converted to SO- and it is at a temperature of 850°F.
11-5
-------
Cooling is accomplished by the gas heat exchanger which heats, un-
treated flue gas coming to the converter.
Seal leakage, typical of this kind of regenerative heater, will
allow some of the cool SO gas to bypass the heater and lowers' the
exit temperature at this point. Process design includes 5 percent
leakage. The overall conversion of SO entering the Cat-Ox system is
85.5 percent, accounting for this leakage.
Sulfuric Acid Absorbing System
The converter exit gas rich in SO, is partially cooled in the
Ljungstrom regenerative gas heat exchanger and flows to the absorbing
tower. The SO- gas produced in the converter, even though adequately
cooled, will not combine directly with water in appreciable amounts
i
but must be combined indirectly by dissolving it in circulating
sulfuric acid in the packed section of the absorbing tower. Under
this condition the SO, readily reacts with the water in the acid.
S03 + H20 *H2S04
The gas flows counter-current to the acid in the tower arid is
cooled to about 250°F. The sensible heat removed from the gas
stream by the acid and the heat of absorption of- SO- in the acid
raise the circulating acid temperature in the two acid circulating
pumps and is then pumped through the graphite tubular type aciid
coolers and returned to the top of the tower at the proper tempera-
ture. The temperature of the circulating acid is controlled by by-
passing some of the hot acid around the coolers.
II-6
-------
An a.cid level controller on the tower diverts a portion of the
circulating acid through the product acid coolers. The product acid
pump transfers the -acid from these coolers to one of the two large
storage tanks. The circulating acid pumps are rated at 1,000 GPM
each. Sixty horsepower motors are provided with each pump. The
entire circulating acid system is made of corrosion resistant
materials. Product acid flow at full load is about 12 GPM.
All acid coolers are shell and tube heat exchangers. Water
from the battery limits is pumped through the shell side and returned.
The pressure of the cooling water is maintained above the pressure of
the circulating acid to prevent leakage of acid into the water side
of the cooler. The total flow rate of circulating acid on the
tube side is monitored in the control room. System interlocks will
bypass all flue gas from the boiler directly to the stack and shut-
down the I.D. fan in the Cat-Ox system in the event of insufficient
acid flow to the absorbing tower.
Miscellaneous spills from the acid pumps, coolers, or the
absorbing tower are collected in an acid resistant pit, neutralized
by periodic recirculation with soda ash, and pumped to the fly ash
disposal area. '
Very fine sulfuric acid mist is formed in the gas as it is
cooled in the absorbing tower. These mist particles in the flue gas
are removed along with some entrained droplets of circulating
t
acid in the tower by a mist eliminator in the Cat-Ox system. This
II-7
-------
mist eliminator contains a first section, "S-C section," for particle
removal and a second section, "H-V section," for mist removal. This
highly efficient equipment was developed specifically for the Cat-Ox
system and consists of fiber packed elements. The mist eliminators
operate continuously and have no moving parts. Periodic washing of
the mist eliminators is required because of particle buildup on the
fibers. A semi-automatic wash solution system is provided to accom-
plish this.
The absorbing tower and the mist eliminators are contained within
one vessel with approximate dimensions of 30 feet in diameter by 65
feet high.
The remaining piece of equipment, the I.D. fan, provides the
motive force for the entire system. This fan is powered by two 2,,500
horsepower motors. The flue gas is directed from the mist eliminators
to the fan, and discharges to the existing stack for No. 4 unit. A
variable speed fluid drive coupling is provided with the fan.
Product Storage and Loading
Cooled product acid at 60° Baume is collected iti two 442,000
gallon steel storage tanks. An acid loading pump and tank car loading
facilities are provided adjacent to the storage tanks. Tank trucks
may also be loaded from this station if desired.
Instrumentation for the Cat-Ox system is fully compatible with
the present No. 4 boiler instrumentation. Important process operating
variables are transmitted to the control room for easy monitoring.
II-8
-------
Alarms and interlocks are also provided to safeguard against boiler
upsets due to operation of the Cat-Ox system. Normal operating
ranges of important variables are indicated in Table 1.
11-9
-------
TABLE 1. NORMAL OPERATING RANGE OF IMPORTANT VARIABLES
IN THE CAT-OX SYSTEM
VARIABLE
FlueGas Temperature
Flue Gas to Gas Heat Exchanger
Flue Gas to Converter
SO, Gas to Absorbing Tower
Gas from Mist Eliminators
VALUE
Temperature. °F
340-360
825-875
420-440
235-255
Acid Temperature
Acid to Acid Circulation Coolers
Acid from Product Acid Coolers
275-290
70-110
Flue Gas Pressure
SO- Gas from Converter*
Gas from Mist Eliminator*
Pressure. Inches w.c.
-11 to -19
-41 to -53
Acid Flow
Acid to Absorbing Tower
Flow. GPM
'i
1700-2100
Flue Gas Composition
Gas to Stack
S02 PPM Volume
300-400
*Full Load
11-10
-------
SECTION III
BACKGROUND AND GENERAL HISTORY
In 1969 Illinois Power Company initiated a study of the problem
of sulfur dioxide released by the burning of Illinois coal to generate
electricity. The Battelle Memorial Institute was employed to make a
survey of research and development programs being conducted on sulfur
, e
dioxide removal systems. After intensive study, it appeared that the
Cat-Ox system, following many years of research by the Monsanto
Company, might be a feasible method and the system most nearly ready
for a demonstration installation. !
In 1962, Monsanto Co., Pennsylvania Electric Co., Air Preheater
Co(., and. Research Cottrell Corp., started the pilot plant development
of a FGD process based on catalytic oxidation of SO followed by
collection of sulfuric acid. The pilot plant proved the feasibility
of the basic process operations would occur. The pilot plant handled
a 400 SCFM slip stream from a pulverized coal fired boiler.
The next step in the development was a prototype plant using
commercial size equipment. This unit handled 24,000 SCFM or approxi-
mately"6 percent of the flue gas from the No. 2 unit of Metropolitan
•Edison Company's Portland station. This unit received gas to the
precipitator at 950°F directly from the boiler. This process flow is
referred to as an integrated Cat-Ox System with no reheating of the
flue gas being required. The unit was equivalent to about 15 MW of
generating capacity.
-------
Prototype plant operation began in August 1967 and finished in
June 1970. The plant operated for over 8000 hours with the longest
on-stream period of 30 days. The basic design and operating para-
meters were defined in this period. This then became the basis for
design of a demonstration unit.
In early 1970, Illinois Power Company began negotiations with
the Office of Air Programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to jointly fund a demonstration unit on the 100 MW Unit
No. 4 at the Wood River Power Station of IP. This project has been
jointly funded by the EPA and by Illinois Power Company in an effort
to advance the technology of sulfur dioxide removal by developing a
system that would produce a usable by-product in the form of sulfuric
acid.
Unit No. 4 at Wood River normally burned approximately 275,000
tons of coal per year with an average sulfur content of 3.1 percent.
Based on these figures, the Cat-Ox system should produce about 25,000
tons per year of 78 percent concentration sulfuric acid.
Formal negotiations- for installation of the Cat-Ox demonstation
system were started with the preparation of a preliminary study by
Monsanto Enviro-Chem in February 1970. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency contracted with Illinois Power Company on 26 June
1970, to engage Monsanto Enviro-Chem to design and construct the
Cat-Ox demonstration unit. Capital funding was shared'approximately
equally between the Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois
III-2
-------
Power Company. In addition, Illinois Power Company assumed the
financial obligations of providing the necessary utilities and of
maintaining and operating the Cat-Ox system for a period identified
in the contract.
Construction of the Cat-Ox system started in January 1971
and the associated Research-Cottrell precipitator designed for Cat-Ox
was completed and placed in service in January 1972. Initial start-up
of the sulfur removal equipment occurred on 4 September 1972, using
natural gas for the in-line reheat burners. The system was operated
for approximately 444 hours during the entire testing period. Because
of the unavailability of natural gas, it was necessary to try to oper-
ate the in-line reheat burners on #2 fuel oil. In October 1972, test-
ing with fuel oil was started. The testing period and modifications
continued during the period of November 1972 to June 1973. During
this test period, it became apparent that an external combustion cham-
ber for reheating would be required to maintain satisfactory and
continuous operation when using oil as the reheat fuel. This was
necessary because the difficulty in achieving proper ignition of the
in-line burners on #2 oil would cause excessive contamination of the
catalyst. Also, these burners could not be maintained properly.
Since this would not be acceptable, it was agreed to construct the
external reheat burner using #2 fuel oil with the required heat being
ducted into the system at the present location of the in-line burners.
Before installation of the external heater a performance guaran-
tee test was run and satisfactorily completed using #2 oil as fuel in
III-3
-------
the in-line heaters in July 1973. The Cat-Ox operation that took
r
place during this testing period increased the total operating time
on the Cat-Ox system to approximately 602 hours. During the month of
August 1973, the Cat-Ox system was deactivated and laid up in such a
manner as to allow for a long outage so the external burner could be
installed. The installation of the external burner was completed in
April of 1974 and attempts were made to place the unit back in opera-
tion on 7 May 1974. '
During this start-up a number of problems developed. They in-
cluded a leak in the lead lining of the absorbing tower, the failure
of the impellers in the acid circulation pumps, and leaks in the acid
coolers. After extensive repairs and modifications, another attempt
was made to place the unit in operation on 14 August 1974. But
again in trying to get the system to operate, additional problems
.',
occurred and the system was shut down. Many additional attempts were
made until finally it appeared that it would not be possible to con-
tinue to operate with the problems that existed. A lay up procedure
provided by Monsanto was put into effect and the system was completely
deactivated and laid up to protect the equipment from freeze or
corrosion problems. This was completed in October of 1975.
ORIGINAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE
Process Construction and Operation
The Cat-Ox program was divided into three phases. Phase I
covered process design which includes the preparation of process
III-4
-------
requirements for equipment, piping, flues, instruments, electrical
and insulation, flow diagrams, preliminary block plans and utility
requirements. Also included in Phase I was a capital cost estimate
to determine a guaranteed maximum price.
Phase II included the completion of detailed engineering, pro-
curement of equipment, construction of the system and start-up
operation.
Phase III was the data phase under which the Cat-Ox system was
to be operated consistent with normal power plant operations for a
minimum of one year following the completion of construction^ All
data relative to sulfur dioxide and fly ash removal and to sulfuric
t
acid recovery during this period would be taken and made available
for publication. In addition the EPA would have access to the same
performance data information for a period of four years beyond the
i
initial year of operation.
Proposed Time Schedule for the Program
-•.-• Phase I was to be completed approximately four months from the
effective date of the prime contract which was 26 June 1970. After
the capital cost estimate was received by the U.S. government, there
would be approximately thirty days allowed to audit the estimate and
to secure approval.
The Phase II time schedule called for it to be completed 24
months after the effective date of the prime contract. Phase II
1II-5
-------
would be deemed complete after successful completion of a performance
guarantee test.
Phase III would include the operation of the Cat-Ox system for
the one-year period.
Additional information regarding the Cat-Ox demonstration's
chronological history is presented in Appendix B of this report.
Process Test And Evaluation
The test program for the Cat-Ox project ran coincident with the
phases of the project:
Baseline Test Series (Phase I)
Acceptance Test Series (Phase II)
Main Test Program (Phase III).
The test programs performed during Phase I and scheduled for
Phase III were tasked to METREK a division of The MITRE Corporation.
The acceptance testing was completed by Monsanto and IPC.
Baseline Test Series
An operational test plan for the Cat-Ox demonstration program
was developed for the planning, executing and analysis of the base-
line measurements. The plan included (1) achievable objectives
required by the total Cat-Ox demonstration; (2) background informa-
tion on Illinois Power Company's Wood River Station Unit Number 4;
(3) the requirements, scope, and description of the measurement
program; (4) the requirements and plans for systematically sampling
and analyzing flue gas and ancillary parameters; (5) a complete data
III-6
-------
management system; and/(6) a coordinated set of responsibilities for
joint participation by EPA, Illinois Power, The MITRE Corporation,
and several sub-contractors;
The basic objectives of the test plan were fourfold: (1) define
the relationship between the power unit's settings and operating con-
ditions, (2) determine a baseline of performance for the unmodified
steam generator unit, (3) test and calibrate various measurement
systems for use during the Cat-Ox demonstration, (4) obtain quantita-
tive data required for the establishment of realistic performance
standards.
A complete description of the' power unit was required in order to
make a complete and comprehensive test plan. The description provided
the various ranges of operating conditions and the associated control
variables to be used during the test.
The general considerations used in designing the baseline mea-
surements included required preparations for the test, uniformity of
i .
test conditions, duration to test runs, and instruments and methods
of measurement. The scope of measurement included systems for fuel
sampling and analysis, flue gas sampling and analysis, air and flue
gas thermal structure, flue gas and air weight and humidity, refuse
sampling and analysis, and efficiency calculations.
A complete flue gas sampling and analysis design was made to
include both manual grab samples and continuous monitoring for purposes
of comparison. Three flue gas sampling locations were selected to
III-7
-------
'reflect various significant points in the combustion and stack areas
of the plant. The design provided for selection procedures for in-
strumentation, grab sampling, and required chemical analysis of fuel,
particulate matter and refuse. The selection procedure.provided the
necessary specifications required for sub-contracting of manual
sampling and analytical services and purchase of measurement hardware.
In order to maintain quality control over the experiment a
complete data management plan was developed to specify data control
for sampling, analysis, reduction, and overall evaluation of the test
program. Specifications were prepared showing the basic computations
required to estimate the efficiencies of heat loss during the test.
< i
Because the plan involved participation by various institutions,
i.e., Illinois Power, MITRE, EPA, and sub-contractors, a definitive
set of responsibilities was developed. This included the various
interfacing between all participants and a schedule of milestones
to be completed. The Baseline test program was completed and the
f
results were reported in a MITRE Report M73-42 "Baseline Test Re-
sults."
The Acceptance Tests Series
As a final system acceptance requirement Monsanto Enviro-Chem
performed a 24-hour performance guarantee test.
The performance factors of the Cat-Ox system which were to be
quantified to satisfy the 24-hour performance guarantee period were
defined as follows:
III-8
-------
Monsanto Enviro-Chem will guarantee that the system will
perform as follows based on a continuous operating test of
24 hours substantially consecutive duration:
1. The system shall be capable of operating with a gas flow
of 1,120,000 pounds per hour entering the system at 310°F
and 1.5 inches of water pressure. This defines the rated
capacity of the system.
2. The system shall be capable of producing 60° Baume (77.7 per-
cent H2SO,) sulfuric acid.
3. The exit gases emitted to the stack shall average to contain
not more than 1.0 milligrams 100 percent sulfuric acid mist
per actual cubic foot of gas when the system is operated at
capacity.
4. The conversion of SCv to SO- in the gas reaching the
converter shall be at least 90 percent at rated capacity.
5. The system shall operate so that over 99 percent of the fly
ash contained in the flue gas leaving the boiler is removed,
when the boiler is operating at rated capacity.
6. The system shall remove 85 percent of the SO. contained in
the influent flue gas fed to the system.
The above performance guarantees were subject to the following
conditions:
1. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems' engineering design and written
operating instructions must be followed.
2. Fuel burned is as specified in the questionnaire containing
data furnished by Illinois Power Company, dated 2 April
1970, and the flue gas to the system contains a maximum of
0.26 percent SO. and a minimum of 3.3 percent O^j both by
volume.
3. Flue gas temperature entering the converter is maintained
between 830 and 900 degrees F.
4. Converter is loaded with the specified amount of Cat-Ox A
catalyst.
III-9
-------
Test description and discussions of the test run by Monsanto to
satisfy these requirements are given in Section V.
One-Year Program Considerations
Whereas the 24-hour process performance guarantee test program
was designed to satisfy contractual requirements, the one-year test
program was to satisfy the definition of "adequate demonstration."
Thus, the primary requirement of the program was that it be designed
to quantify the factors defined as they relate to the criteria for
adequate demonstration:
1. Operating characteristics and plant performance
(relative especially to SO, and fly ash removals
and to H^SO, recovery).
2. Maintenance procedures, requirements, and costs.
3. Total process operating costs.
4. Longevity of the catalyst.
5. Catalyst susceptibility to poisons and to fly ash
build-up; frequency and duration to necessary
catalyst screening operations (and losses incurred
thereby).
6. Necessity and frequency of mist eliminator washing
operations.
7. Increase in seal leakage in the regenerative heat
exchanger with time.
8. Corrosivity of all parts of the plant with time,
especially in the acid loop and heat transfer
equipment.
9. Marketability of the product sulfuric acid.
111-10
-------
10. Response of the plant to fuels of varying sulfur
content.
11. Effect of Cat-Ox System failure, if any, on power
production.
12. Component pressure drops.
13. The ability of power plant personnel to operate
and maintain the system.
In addition to this primary requirement, however, the one-year
test program also considered all performance and economic factors
which determine the ability of the Cat-Ox system to meet the criteria
for adequate demonstration.
The overall demonstration program consisted of a Main Test
Program (Steady State) and a Transient Test Program.
Briefly, the areas of testing were to be as follows:
Main Test Program
Performance Measurements
Process Components
Overall Process
Availability/Reliability Studies
Process Components
Overall Process
Transient Test Program
Baseline (Normal Process Operation)
Simulated Malfunctions of a Mild Nature
Naturally Occurring Failures
III-ll
-------
Process and stack measurements were to be made by MITRE to
assess these elements of process performance and to correlate results
with emissions characteristics. Measurement support for the MITRE
effort was provided in part by Midwest Research Institute (MRl). In
turn, funding for this MRI effort was to be provided by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Successful completion of the
Test Program was the responsibility of The MITRE Corporation as
agreed upon in contract with the Environmental Protection Agency and
was contingent on successful operation of Cat-Ox.
Emission Characteristics of Interest—The Cat-Ox process is
designed to desulfurize flue gas, but successful performance of the
system requires particulate matter removal as well. Thus, sulfur
oxides and particulate matter removal are a Cat-Ox design considera-
tion and were monitored in both stack and process. Additionally, the
Cat-Ox process generates significant quantities of sulphates (as SO.
and sulfuric acid mist); careful monitoring for these emissions
was also to be provided.
Finally, the concentrations of nitrogen oxides and total hydro-
i
carbons were monitored. The Cat-Ox process is not designed for the
removal and/or generation of nitrogen oxides and total hydrocarbons;
however, several process components have the potential to affect the
levels of these constituents (reheat burner, catalytic converter, gas
absorber, etc.). Measurements were provided to assess the signifi-
cance of these effects.
111-12
-------
Test Program Elements—The Test Program required imposition of
specified test conditions upon an electrical generating unit which is
operated for profit. Thus, a series of objectives was established for
both power-plant operation and the testing program to insure complete
compatibility during periods of mutual activity. On this basis, the
following objectives were defined for Illinois Power Company:
• Provide electric power in accordance with demand whenever
possible.
*,"'''.
V
• Insure atmospheric emissions from the boiler operation are
in compliance with state and Federal standards for defined
pollutants.
• Insure effluent discharges from facility operation are in,
compliance with state and Federal standards for defined
pollutants at all times.
Similarly, MITRE Te^st Program objectives were defined as follows:
• Determine performance characteristics of the overall Cat-Ox
process and its components when operated under design condi-
tions.
• Assess Cat-Ox performance characteristics over extended
periods of plant operation regarding:
- Performance
- Maintainability
•>
- Availability
- Operating Costs
• Determine effects of Cat-Ox and Power Plant transient operat-
ing conditions on stack emission characteristics.
To meet these objectives the main Test Program Plan was devel-
'* '":
oped, consisting of two phases: The Main (or Steady State) and
the Transient Test Program. By carefully integrating both phases in
111-13
-------
developing this plan, each phase supported the other in providing
information as the measurement program proceeded. Furthermore,
the Main Program testing sequence was established statistically to
reduce test program cost and to insure the maximum amount of nonran-
domly biased data would be collected with the minimal amount of
testing elements of the program are briefly outlined below, and
details of these elements are provided in subsequent sections.
• Design Performance Testing (Main Program)
Process design basis was to be tested by process and stack
measurements under boiler conditions that approximate
the design basis (flue-gas composition and flow rate).
- Measurements were to be made of the overall Cat-Ox process,
from electrostatic precipitator inlet to the stack, as
well as several individual process components. Components
whose performance relative to design were of particular
interest were:
Electrostatic Precipitator
— Reheat System
Catalytic Converter
Gas Absorber/Demister
• Process Maintainability (Main Program)
- Characteristics of the process during actual operating
conditions were to be measured. The same parameters as
measured in the Design Performance Program were also to
be measured in this program.
- Evaluation of the Cat-Ox Process was to be made during a
period of actual plant operation. Some deviations from
design process input were expected and resultant Cat-Ox
process performance measurements provide realistic eval-
uations of system behavior under all normally expected
operating conditions.
Iir-14
-------
• Reliability and Maintainability Evaluations (Main Program)
- Evaluation of power-generation facility and Cat-Ox process
interdependence and system integrity was to be made.
-' Examination pf operating records, operator experience
and detailed plant cost accounting was to provide information
on Cat-Ox dependability with respect to both process per-
formance and economic attractiveness (operating costs).
- Economic evaluation was to be compared with original process
estimates.
• Baseline Process Variations (Transient Program)
- Normal operating transients which were planned during
system operation were to be monitored. Events such as
planned start-ups, shutdowns, and catalyst cleaning
were included in this set.
-• Stack and process measurements were to be made during seven
distinct modes of normally expected process transients.
• Simulated Malfunctions (Mod-1, Transient Program)
Transients which, after careful consideration and study,
were established as likely to occur were to be simulated.
Events which reduce Cat-Ox System Operation in a REVERSIBLE
fashion were to be monitored. Four distinct simulations
were planned for testing (with prior approval by Illinois
Power Company officials).
- Comprehensive process and stack measurements were to be made.
Should an actual transient event occur prior or subsequent
to the planned simulation (e.g., actual coal mill failure)
the measurement program was to be initiated as rapidly
as possible.
- Simulated events were programmed after acceptable levels
of operating experience had been secured.
• Natural disruptions in Process Operation
- Transient events which were expected to seriously degrade
Cat-Ox/Boiler operation were to be measured, if they
occurred, and continued system operation was feasible.
111-15
-------
- Under conditions such as a boiler-tube rupture wherein
irreversible and sustained capacity reductions were ex-
pected, measurements were, to be made for a period of time
in which continuing operation was considered feasible.
Prevention pf permanent system damage and personnel
safety were considered first priority for this element,
however, and tracking of transient response was to proceed
after these objectives were assured.
Program Integration—Priorities in scope, funding, and sponsor
information requirements demanded the Main Test Program not include
elements of the Transient Test Program. Thus, the transient program
was to be conducted during those time periods not formally dedicated
to the Main Test Program.
The Baseline (normal operation) phase of the Transient Test
Program was conducted before and after completion of the Main Test
Program activities (for example, start-up and shutdown measurements).
As such, both instrumentation and personnel requirements are similar
to the Main Test Program. However, with the Transient program, both
manpower-and Instruments were to be dedicated for time periods that
include the particular Main-Program test and the transient event.
During initial phases of the Main Test Program, only Baseline
elements of the Transient Test were to be conducted until sufficient
process operating test data were developed. Should mild malfunctions
occur naturally during this time, simulation of the event would
\
be deleted from that program, and/or the information would be used as
adjunct data and/or to provide tolerable operating limits for future
simulation tests.
111-16
-------
To completely insure overall system integrity during the simula-
tion phase, transients were to be simulated as a multiplicity of
steady states. Wherever possible, variations of a given process
parameter between two operating levels were to be performed in a
step-wise incremental fashion to avoid irreversible system degrada-
tion. Each step was to be held until steady state was attained.
This does not reflect the true transient step response; however, by
providing measures of system performance at various operating levels,
estimates could be made of the true dynamic response.
Scheduling of simulated mild malfunctions was done in such a
fashion so that no measurements were planned during early Cat-Ox
operation. A modest program of simulation was subsequently planned
with tests of least possible impact on system integrity schedule
first.
Subsequently, as the level of effort for the Main Test Program
declined (all component tests completed), an increased level of
transient simulation testing was planned.
Finally, no transients that offered a probability of permanent
system degradation were to be simulated. Should a natural event of
this nature occur, sustained measurements of system performance
would have been made insofar as no damage to personnel and equipment
was anticipated.
111-17
-------
ACTUAL COURSE OF EVENTS
Process Construction and Modification
The following is a brief summary of the actual course of events
during the construction and modification stage of the Cat-Ox system.
Phase I—-Phase I, which was the design, engineering and cost
estimate phase of this project, was completed on 26 October 1970. A
design manual was issued'containing processed design information along
with necessary detailed design engineering and specification necessary
to prepare the capital cost estimate. The capital cost estimate
was reviewed by Illinois Power Company and the US EPA and the guaran-
teed maximum cost was accepted on 26 November 1970.
Phase II—Design, Construction and Start-up. Final design was
started during Phase I and was essentially completed by 31 December
1971. Necessary drawings and specifications were prepared for the
procurement and installation of all equipment, instruments, structures,
foundation, electrical switchgear and other materials necessary for the
Cat-Ox system. All equipment and major material items were purchased
from this information.
The proposed installation using the Cat-Ox process was reviewed
with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The Illinois EPA
issued a construction permit to Illinois Power Company on 20 April
1971 for the installation of the Cat-Ox system on Wood River Unit No. 4.
Field construction work started in March 1971 with the driving
of piling. Piling installation was completed on 14 April 1971
and work was begun in early May on foundations.
111-18
-------
The precipitator foundation.concrete was poured on 28 May 1971,
and by the end of June considerable precipitator support steel
was in place and pre-assembly of the precipitator hoppers was
well underway. Foundation rings for the acid storage tanks were
beginning to be erected and foundations for the converter and gas
heat exchanger were also poured during the month of June 1971.
By the end of July 1971 precipitator erection was proceeding
well and was about 35 percent complete. Support steel for the gas
heat exchanger and converter was delivered and erection was begun.
Foundations for the acid storage tanks were complete.
At the end of August 1971, the precipitator erection was
about 50 percent complete and the gas heat exchanger erection was
about 10 percent complete.
By the end of September 1971, precipitator erection was about
75 percent complete, gas heat exchanger erection about 50 percent
complete, and the acid storage tank erection, which was begun during
the month, was about 50 percent complete. In the meantime, construc-
tion of electrical services to the battery limits by Illinois Power
was underway and proceeding well.
As of 31 October 1971 the precipitator steel work was complete
and the "tie-in" shutdown was planned to begin on November 13.
Erection of the gas heat exchanger was approximately 98 percent
complete, and four flue sections at the precipitator inlet were being
111-19
-------
put into place. The acid storage tanks were about 90 percent complete
and the absorbing tower excavation was begun.
During November 1971 the overall erection of equipment was
about 45 percent complete. The acid storage tanks were completed and
successfully held water. The absorbing tower foundation and grillage
were completed and the erection of the tower was begun. Also, erec-
tion of the converter was begun and flue erection continued with the
inlet and outlet being put into place. Ejection of the fly ash piping
was approximately 45 percent completed.
During December 1971, the precipitator tie-in shutdown was
started. Overall erection of equipment was about 55 percent complete.
The absorbing tower shell erection was about 75 percent complete.
Erection of the converter was continuing, about1 £5 percent complete.
Precipitator insulation was about 95 percent complete. Electrical
and piping work required for the precipitator was proceeding on
schedule.
At the end of January 1972 precipitator tie-in was complete
and was put into service on 28 January 1972.
An overall in depth review of the project schedule following
the precipitator tie-in and start-up indicated that the construction
completion and system start-up would be around 26 June 1972.
This was a slippage in the schedule of about three weeks. The major
factor causing this was the step-by-step construction of the absorb-
ing tower lead lining, brick lining and internals. The absorbing
111-20
-------
tower shell and converter erection continued normally with a few
working days lost due to bad weather. Both mist eliminator tube
sheets were in place in the tower and installation of converter bed
grating and screens was begun. Insulation of the precipitator was
complete and the inlet flue to the precipitator was insulated and
being covered with metal lagging.
During February 1972 excavation and forming of the remainder
of the foundation was ..resumed. Pipe prefabrication and erection
was continuing; electrical installation and plate work subcontractors
were continuing their work.
In the month of March 1972 precipitator guaranteed performance
/
tests were run. Preliminary results indicated the precipitor was
meeting the guarantee. The Nooter Corporation completed work on the
last of their equipment which included the absorbing tower and
converter. Alberici Construction Company completed work on the
gas heat exchanger and the majority of the flues and left the site.
The lead lining and brick lining on the absorbing tower was started.
During April 1972 the lead lining work in the absorbing t'ower was
completed and all foundation work was finished. Brick work, insulation
and electrical work continued as did the piping and mechanical work.
The induced draft fan assembly was started.
By the end of May 1972 the ID fan erection was about 80 percent
complete. Brick work, insulation and electrical work were continuing and
painting on,the site was started. Also the catalyst handling system
111-21
-------
was completed and checkout of the equipment was started and the
equipment placed into service. A start-up team composed generally
of Monsanto Central Engineering Department personnel was assembled
and was ready to begin some of the checkouts on equipment. After
the checkout and start-up of the catalyst handling system, approxi-
mately 10,000 liters of Cat-Ox A catalyst was loaded into the storage
bin, transferred into bed #8 of the converter, and then put back into
the bin for storage. It was found that 1 percent of the catalyst was
lost as fines during handling. An undetermined small amount was lost
du6 to mishaps, spills and so forth. Generally, the system performed
well and breakage of the catalyst was about as expected.
At the end of June 1972 mechanical and piping work was about 93
percent complete. Erection of the ID fan and the flue erection
was completed. Also all brick work was essentially complete. In-
sulation, electrical work and painting continued during the month.
Almost all work was completed by the end of July 1972 with only
a small amount of insulation and electrical work to be completed.
With the advent of construction completion the start-up phase was
begun. On 20 July 1972 the induced draft fan and hydraulic coupling
was given an oil flush. On 24 July 1972, 66° Baume (78 percent)
sulfuric acid was unloaded from a railroad car and put to one of two
acid storage tanks for future use.
All through the month of August, different systems and equipment
associated with the Cat-Ox were checked out and placed into operation.
111-22
-------
On 16 August 1972, the inlet duct blanking plate that separated
the flue gas from the Cat-Ox system was removed leaving only the
inlet damper to block the flow of flue gas to the Cat-Ox system.
On 17 August 1972, sulfuric acid was transferred from the
acid storage tank to the absorbing tower and acid was circulated
through the tower. The Cat-Ox outlet blanking plate was removed. On
18 August 1972, the loading of the catalyst into the converter was
begun. The first attempt to light off the in-line furnace was tried
on 27 August 1972. The first actual light off of the burners was
accomplished on 29 August 1972 using natural gas as the fuel.
On 30 August 1972 all of the catalysts had been loaded into the
converter and all bins including the spare catalyst storage bin were
full.
The start-up of the Cat-Ox system was scheduled for
2 September 1972, and the attempt was made. However, there were
numerous problems that occurred during this period such as acid leaks
and burner problems. But on 4 September 1972, a high enough tempera-
ture was achieved so that the by-pass damper could be closed and the
Cat-Ox was actually on line for the first time with sulfuric acid
being made.
On 5 September 1972 the Cat-Ox was continuing to operate on-
line and sulfuric acid was transferred to the storage tanks to
maintain the level in the absorbing tower; this acid strength
was approximately 76.5 percent. During the period from 6 September
111-23
-------
through 19 September, the Cat-Ox system operated on a sporadic basis
with the longest continuous run being the period from 13 September
through 18 September. Numerous problems occurred during this
period but some operation was able to take place on most of the
days during that period. On 19 September a large severe acid leak
occurred. The cause of the leak was a failure in a discharge expan-
sion joint on one of the acid recirculation pumps. Because of the
hot acid condition, the fumes and the amount of acid on the ground
caused difficulty in getting into the area. The C«t-0x was shutdown
and extensive clean up operations were started in order to neutralize
the acid and to make necessary repairs.
On 24 September the Cat-Ox system was started back up but again
acid leaks required the system to be shutdown, and a maintenance
program was put into effect to make the necessary leak repairs.
On 6 October 1972, the Cat-Ox system was started back up.
During this period one of the acid recirculation pump bearings failed
and that pump had to be taken out of service for maintenance.
During the period of 6 October through 14 October, the ,Cat-Ox
was operated every day with some outages occurring during those periods<
During the period of 16 October through 30 October, the Cat-Ox
system was out of service to make a number of modifications. Late on
30 October the Cat-Ox system was started back up and did operate
on 31 October.
111-24
-------
On 1 November 1972, the Coen representatives were trying to
operate the B reheat burner and were having considerable difficulty.
At that time it was decided to shut the Cat-Ox down for major
burner repairs and testing of the burners on fuel oil. To do the
burner testing on fuel oil, it was decided that the catalyst had
to be completely removed from the converter and a number of the
mist eliminators removed and others blanked off to protect them
from the soot that would be developed during the testing of the
burners using fuel oil.
During the period of 2 through 6 November, blanking plates
were installed on the inlet and outlet. The absorbing tower was
drained and washed down. On 6 November the process of removing the
I
catalyst from the converter was started. By 15 November, all cata-
lyst had been removed from the converter and was stored for later
use.
During the latter part of November 1972, representatives
from Coen Company were testing the use of fuel oil on both re-
heat burners. As a result of this burner testing, it was decided
that considerable modification of the burners was required. So
on 1 December 1972 a lay-up operation was put into practice to
protect the Cat-Ox system from corrosion and freezing.
On 19 February 1973 representatives of the Coen Company and
their contractors were on site to begin the burner modifications.
On 22 March 1973, the Cat-Ox blanking plates were removed from
111-25
-------
the inlet and outlet ducts to provide for burner checkouts.
Burner testing started on 23 March and continued through 26 March.
On 1 April 1973, damage to the induced draft fan bearings and shaft
occurred. This necessitated a shutdown from that period until
11 May to make repairs on the induced draft fan.
On 12 May 1973 testing of the burners was commenced again.
The burner testing lasted through 25 May. On 29 May the loading
of the catalyst back into the converter was begun and was completed
on 2 June. During this time some broken tubes were found in the
acid coolers, necessitating a maintenance program for repairing
and plugging the tubes in the coolers.
On 6 May 1973 the reinstallation of the mist eliminators
was begun. During this time 8 broken ceramic grid support bars were
being replaced in the absorbing tower. On 18 May 1973 a mist
eliminator wash procedure was put into operation to clean them as
completely as possible. This was finished on 22 May. During this
time, additional leaks developed in the acid piping and coolers and
repairs had to be made. On 27 May an attempt was made to light off
the burners and restore the Cat-Ox to operation.
During the period of 28 June through 3 July 1973, attempts were
made to put the system into operation, but numerous acid leaks and
other failures of equipment kept the Cat-Ox from actually operating
to make acid.
111-26
-------
On 5 July the blanking plates were installed in the inlet
and outlet ducts and all acid pumped out of the absorbing tower,
and the system opened up for washing and cleaning of the absorbing
tower to make necessary repairs. On 20 July the system was prepared
for operation and the Cat-Ox system was placed back into service.
From the period 21 July through 29 July the Cat-Ox system was in
operation each day. \During the operation, there were instances
when the burners were not operating. The mist eliminator washing was
continuous through much of the test sequence. The 24-hour perform-
ance test was conducted during this sequence of operations. It began
officially at 11:00 a.m. on 26 July. At 4:00 p.m. on 28 July the
performance test was discontinued; however, the Cat-Ox system re-
mained in service but at a reduced load. There were some times
during the performance tests in which the reheat burners were not
operating; however, it was Monsanto1s contention that the 24-hour
performance test was successful, and it was accepted.
During the period of 29 July to 1 August, the Cat-Ox system
was continued in operation. However at 10:00 a.m. on 1 August, it
was shutdown. On 2 August, the inlet blanking plate was installed
and the procedure for taking the Cat-Ox system out of service for
maintenance was performed. Through most of the month of August
work proceeded to prepare the Cat-Ox system for a lengthy outage
in order to install the new external burner system.
111-27
-------
On 6 November 1973 removal of the in-duet reheat burners
was started.
Modification of the Reheat System—During the period between
6 November 1973 to April 1974 the installation of an external
combustion chamber progressed. This external combustion chamber
was to provid'e the heat necessary to replace the two in-line
burners of the original Cat-Ox design.
During January 1974 the installation of the external com-
bustion chamber and equipment was in full swing, the A & B in-
line reheat burners had been removed and the foundation and
structural steel,erected for the combustion chamber. All major
items of equipment had been received and were on the site except
for the recycle blower.
f
During March 1974 construction of the external combustion
system was progressing satisfactorily and plans were being made
for its start-up early in April.
Operation of the Cat-Ox System After Combustion Chamber
Installation—On 8 April 1974, the pilot gas burner was lit off
in the external combustion chamber, and a drying out process for the
refractory in the combustion chamber was started shortly afterwards.
On 15 April testing of the external combustion chamber using fuel oil
was started. On 18 April an attempt was made to transfer acid to the
absorbing tower, but it was found that the acid line was plugged
and acid could not be transferred. This product acid line from
111-28
-------
the storage tanks to the absorbing tower was found to be plugged
with solidified corrosion products, and necessitated cutting and
flushing the line until cleared.
During the period from 2 May through 13 May a number of repairs
to miscellaneous equipment were made including repair of acid line
leaks, and leaks in the absorbing tower lead lining as weLl as
repairs to the catalyst handling system so that additional catalysts
could be added to the beds to top them off.
On 23 May 1974 repairs were started on the leaks in the
absorbing tower using a potassium silicate solution.
On 3 June 1974 the blanking plates were removed and the Cat-Ox
system prepared for start-up, with acid being added to the absorbing
tower. On 4 June the external combustion system was placed into
operation and on,5 June warming up of the Cat-Ox system was started.
In the period from,7 June through 27 June 1974, attempts were
made to circulate acid through the absorbing tower but acid cooler
leaks, bearing failures in acid recirculation pumps, and broken
impeller problems in the acid pumps caused shutdowns and resulted
in considerable maintenance being done to these items during the
entire period.
On 28 June the blanking plates were installed back in the inlet
and outlet ducts. More leaks were found in one of the acid coolers
and additional tube plugging in that cooler was required. On
10 July 1974 a piping change in the cooling water piping to and
111-29
-------
from the induced draft fan lube oil cooler was started. This was
necessary to eliminate some of the temperature control problems of
the oil from the lube oil cooler.
During the period of 29 July through 13 August 1974 the acid
recir^ulation pumps were rebuilt and a new casing and impeller
was installed on the product acid pump. Also additional tubes
were plugged in one of the acid coolers.
On 14 August, all three acid pumps were operated for checkout
and the blanking plates were pulled and the reheat burner system
placed into operation. On 15 August, the reheat burner temperature
was at 800°F, but there were problems in the air dampers on the
reheat burner system. In the afternoon it was necessary to shutdown
to repair a leak in the acid product line and to work on the dampers.
The reheat burner system was placed back into service in the evening
of 15 August and the temperature was held at 1050°F to dry out the
combustion furnace. The operation of the reheat burner system was
continued on 16 August, but a leak in the acid discharge header from
the recirculation pump caused a shutdown about 5:50 p.m. and on
17 August, the blanking plates were reinstalled in the inlet and
outlet ducts.
During the period of 17 August through 28 August, a number
of repairs were made to the acid coolers and the acid recirculation
system. On 17 September 1974 a masonry contractor removed damaged
refractory brick from the combustion chamber of the reheat burner
111-30
-------
system. During the period of 17 September through 25 October
substantial repairs were made to two of the acid coolers. On 25
October, a fire was lit in the reheat burner system to dry out the
refractory in the combustion chamber. This drying out continued
through 31 October and on into the first part of November. On
2 November 1974 the drying out of the reheat burner combustion
chamber was completed and work was done on a new design connection at
the transition point where the duct from the reheat burner system
went into the reheat B area.
On 3 December 1974 a steam coil hot air heater was placed
in service to keep moisture out of the catalyst beds. On 10 December
1974 a hydrostatic test was conducted on the product acid line
to the storage tanks and during the period of 11, 12 and 13 December
flushing and drying of the product acid line was done. During
the rest of December and January 1975, only minor operations were
conducted to test the ID fan. Meanwhile, work continued on the new
design connection at the "B" transition.
On 28 January 1975 a small gas fire was placed in the reheat
burner combustion chamber to dry out and cure the refactory. This
continued through 30 January at which, time the temperature was
raised to 1800° to check out the combustion chamber. At this time
testing the burner on the fuel oil was started. The testing of
the combustion chamber on fuel oil continued through 3 February
but difficulty was experienced with the gas pilot torch. Also on
3 February acid was transferred from the storage tanks to the
111-31
-------
absorbing tower to fill the cooler pumps and acid lines for tests.
On 4 February all three acid recirculation pumps were run with no
leaks observed. Reheat burner chamber checkout continued! On
6 February a tube leak occurred in the X04 acid cooler and it had to
•\
be isolated. On 7 February the reheat burner checkout continued with
more reliability of the pilot being experienced. On 10 February the,
reheat burner was fired successfully several times but then difficulty
i
occurred on the air/oil differential control. On 25 February acid
was transferred back from storage in order to test the acid coolers
and pumps. On 26 February the fuel oil fire was established in
the reheat burner and the acid pumps were started up but leaks
appeared in the acid coolers differential control. On 25 February
acid was transferred back from storage in order to test the acid
coolers and pumps. On 26 February the fuel oil fife was established
in the reheat burner and the acid pumps were started up but leaks
appeared in the acid coolers so the reheat burner was shutdown and
the acid coolers drained.
During the period of 27 February through the end of March acid
cooler work was continued and on several occasions the acid* coolers
\
were tested and additional leaks were found resulting in more repair
work. On 8 April 1975 all acid from the north storage tank was
pumped to the south acid storage tank. Also an attempt was made to
pump acid from the absorbing tower back to the storage tank but
difficulty was experienced in the product acid line.
111-32
-------
At this point in time, Illinois Power requested that the costly
attempts to repair Cat-Ox be stopped pending further agreement on how
to proceed with the demonstration program. Toward this end EPA
contracted Dow Chemical Company and Radian Corporation with support
from MITRE/METREK to investigate the required means and costs to
refurbish Cat-Ox as well as the costs and benefits of continuing the
demonstration program.
On 12 May the product acid line was flushed with water and blown
dry with air. ' On 14 August 1975 the catalyst from the #1 bed of the
converter was conveyed to the storage tank in preparation for screen-
ing.
During the period of 7 August through 22 August, all of the
catalyst was :transferred through the sifter for cleaning purposes
and replaced back in the beds. When it was completed, it was found
that the #8 bed was down approximately ten feet. After an inspection
it was found that large quantities of the catalyst had fallen down
between the beds and into the gas spaces of the ducts. This area
was cleaned and approximately 100 to 200 bushels of catalyst were
removed from these spaces.
On 22 September 1975 the absorbing tower was opened up and
the mist eliminator wash system placed into operation. The upper
and lower mist eliminator tube sheets were completely washed down and
all pf the aci,d area of the absorbing tower was washed and cleaned.
111-33
-------
Through the period of 29 September through 3 October, the Cat-Ox
system was opened up for inspection by personnel of the Dow Chemical
Company and MITRE Corporation.
i
On 17 October the Cat-Ox system was laid up and all cooling
water systems drained for freeze protection.
In June of 1975 the Monsanto Enviro-Chem System, Inc., supplied
the Illinois Power Company with a procedure for "mothballing" the
Cat-Ox system. Illinois Power Company performed the necessary work to
lay the Cat-Ox system up to prevent as much as possible corrosion and
damage to the equipment as it sat idle.
STATUS OF PROCESS
The basic parameters of the Cat-Ox process were defined and
have been sufficiently tested for confidence in design. However, the
question still remains on the overall integration of this process
into a power plant operation.
The demonstration unit built for the Wood River Station was
a retrofit or reheat unit. The gas fired reheat Cat-Ox process
has successfully met the performance guarantees at the 100 MW size,
i
but needs to have a longer testing period to evaluate overall opera-
bility.
The oil-fired, in-line reheat system met the performance guaran-
tees, but overall operation was not satisfactory with in-line burners.
The oil fired system with an external burner was not successfully
operated because of other equipment problems.
111-34
-------
The concept of total integration of the Cat-Ox process with the
boiler was tested in the prototype plant. The integrated unit
with hot flue gas entering at 950°F has been tested for a longer
period of time. Although operated successfully at 15 MW, this was a
"slip stream." It remains to be demonstrated that the full output of
a boiler could go through the Cat-Ox system without interfering with
the boiler operation.
The process parameters for successful design and operation
of a Cat-Ox system have been defined in the development to date.
In specific areas, there is some further work needed on materials
of construction. Additional work is needed on the integration of the
Cat-Ox process into the control and operation of the boiler, particu-
larly on start-up and shutdown.
CURRENT STATUS
Process Wood River Project
f
In June of 1975 Monsanto Enviro-Chem provided Illinois Power
with a procedure for mothballing a Cat-Ox unit. As much as could
be done, Illinois Power Company completed the lay up procedure on the
Cat-Ox equipment. There was some equipment, because of its condition
and its need for extensive maintenance or complete replacement, that
kept it from getting the complete mothballing treatment.
During this inactive or mothballing stage there was some equip-
ment that required periodic operation such as turning over of the
induced draft fan and rotating the Ljungstrom air heater. In the
111-35
-------
process of operating the induced draft fan, a leak occurred in the
lubricating oil system and the oil was lost from the system. Because
of the extensive repairs that would be required, the fan is being
left in the inactive state. The same type of situation occurred in
regard to the Ljungstrom air heater. A periodic rotation of the air
heater was performed, but a leak developed in the oil line for
lubrication so it became necessary to stop the periodic operation of
. -^JH' '
this piece of, equipment also. It is felt that the non-operation of
the air heater will not be any problem to it since there are periods
of time in which the air heater can be left without operation and not
cause any problems with the bearings or the air heater unit itself.
In the case of the induced draft fan the condition of the bearings
and the shaft on that fan are such that if it ever did become neces-
sary to operate the unit extensive repairs would be required on the
fan.
' /-
The major sections of the Cat-Ox system such as the two acid
storage tanks and the absorbing tower have all been completely
cleaned out and dried out so that there should not be any accelera-
tion of corrosion in this equipment. The converter has been left
with the catalyst in place, and there is a steam heated system
01
supplying warm air into the converter to keep the catalyst dry. It
would be difficult in making an evalutation of the Cat-Ox in its
current stage to enumerate the condition of all of the equipment
without becoming too detailed for this particular section o'f the
111-36
-------
report. There have been several evaluations made on the Cat-Ox
system that do give detailed conditions of the equipment and if such
detail is required then those reports should be consulted.
Process and Related Testing
The Baseline Test program was performed on schedule and as
planned with no significant difficulties. The results of the test
program are described in Section 5 of this document. Both the
Test Plan and the Test Results were completed and published as
MITRE Documents MTR-6053 and M73-42 respectively.
The Monsanto acceptance tests were also completed. These
tests brought out some problems in the system (primarily with the
internal burners) which were to be resolved prior to the start-up of
the demonstration program. The test results are also discussed in
section 5 of this report. IP and Monsanto agreed that the test
series was acceptable proof that the system would operate.
The main test program was not completed since the Cat-Ox one
year demonstration program could not be initiated because of the
i
problems encountered. One portion of the test program was completed,
it was the first series of ESP tests which are described in section
5. These tests comprised a series of subsystem (ESP) tests which did
not require the operation of Cat-Ox. A number of Transient program
tests were also performed. These tests were mainly baseline tests to
determine the changes that occurred in emissions under normal start-ups
and load changes in the boiler. These tests were also performed when
Cat-Ox was not in operation.
111-37
-------
A corrosion test program was performed at Cat-Ox. While most of
the testing was completed under non-operational conditions, some
testing was performed under start-up conditions. A study consisting
of observations of equipment conditions was; also part of the test
program.
Official tests scheduled for the external burner were never run.
However, MITRE did assist Monsanto and IP on some of the preliminary
tests and obtained some initial data.
A comprehensive series of ESP tests was also performed and
reported in Document No. EPA-600/2-75-037 of the Environmental
Protection technology series. The report is summarized in Section V,
"ESP Tests."
During the period of time in which the start-up of Cat-Ox was
delayed, EPA expressed interest in MITRE performing a number of
ancillary tests.
The tasks included:
1. Perform a photographic site survey and prepare a slide
presentation showing the condition of Cat-Ox
2. Examine the effects of low sulfur coal on Unit 4 ESP
performance
3. Examine the effect of non-uniform gas flow rate on ESP
performance
4. Investigate correlations between particle size and trace
metal content for fly-ash
5. Evaluate NO formation in the ESP
x •>
6. Perform material balances of SO-, SO- sulfate and trace
metals
111-38
-------
7. Investigate gas stratification
*
Task 1 was completed and used to assist Dow Chemical personnel
in their cost for assessment refurbishing of the Cat-Ox unit. The
results were published in MITRE working paper WP-11262.
An informal work plan was established for items 2 through 7;
however, due to limited resources, equipment, and personnel, only very
low level and short-term testing was possible. Section V of this
report outlines these areas and discusses efforts to investigate
these problems.
Another subtask was a MITRE study on the effects of start-up
and load changes on Cat-Ox Acid strength. The study results were
published in MITRE Document M75-88.
Instrumentation System
The MITRE/METREK instrumentation system was completed prior
\
to completion of the external burner and the first Cat-Ox start-up
attempts. The major portion the instrumentation was operational
until approximately two weeks before the site withdrawal was initiated.
The instrument system operated successfully during the ESP
efficiency tests, the first series of the main test program tests, and
all ancillary tests, transient tests, and burner tests.
The system was dismantled 25 October 1976 and returned to EPA
at a later date. The complete description of the equipment and
system is presented in Section IV of this report.
111-39
-------
SECTION IV
GENERAL INSTRUMENTATION PHILOSOPHY
In evaluating the performance of a process as complex as Cat-
Ox over a span of a year or more, the most desirable approach to
measuring the various involved parameters is a totally automated
instrumentation network that continuously records data in a computer-
compatible format. An automated, continuous measuring system has
several advantages. One advantage is to obtain real time results.
Also, immediate availability of data provides an early check on
performance of instrumentation so that necessary repairs can be made
quickly, and data loss minimized. Installation of continuous mea-
suring instrumentation is cost effective for measurement programs
like the one year Cat-Ox measurement program. In this time frame the
initial cost of the equipment purchased and installed is offset by
reduced man power requirements during program duration. Also, when
utilizing continuous recording instrumentation, there is a tremen-
dous advantage to storing the information on magnetic tape so that
it can be readily processed by computer. The process of transfer-
ring data from strip charts to punched cards is error prone and
expensive in time and manpower when large quantities of data are
involved.
Unfortunately, a totally automated, continuous measuring instru-
mentation system was impossible to design for the one-year Cat-Ox
evaluation (demonstration) for the following reasons:
IV-1
-------
• Automatic instrumentation for measuring certain para-
meters (for example SO, concentrations in flue gas)
did not exist.
• Certain instruments, although automatic in nature, were
more suited for laboratory use rather than in situ.
• All instrumentation requires calibration, tune-ups, and
repairs periodically. The time period between calibrations
range from twice daily for some instruments, to months for
others.
The solution to the above problems was solved by designing
an automated system to measure as many of the desirable parameters
as possible and supplementing it with a team of skilled personnel
to take manual samples. By employing a team of manual sampling
experts, the evaluation could be enhanced in two ways: a) gaps
left by the instrumentation system could be filled, and b) a second
source of data would be available for adding confidence to the ac-
curacy of the automated instruments.
Along with the manual sampling team, a small independent staff of
technicians would be available for the periodic repair, tune-up, and
calibration of the automated instruments.
The combination of an automated instrumentation system, a
manual sampling team, and a maintenance/calibration staff was con-
sidered the most cost effective, accurate and thorough means of
obtaining data for an evaluation of the Cat-Ox process.
OVERALL SYSTEM DESIGN
The design for the evaluation of the Cat-Ox process performance
included both manual and continuous measurement methods as stated in
IV-2
-------
the previous section. As a rule continuous measurement techniques
were used where acceptable instrumentation was available. Parameters
of the greatest interest that could not be monitored by instrumen-
tation were the measurement of SO gas, H SO mist, and particulate
matter. In some cases it was desirable to employ both continuous and
manual methods dependent on measurement location and the desired
accuracy.
A summary of the parameters to be measured and the method
used is shown in Table 2.
OVERALL CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
The overall continuous measurement system superimposed on the
Cat-Ox process is shown in Figure 4.
The overall system is divided into 4 main subsystems: The
continuous gas measurement subsystem, the time shared gas measuring
subsystem, the flow measurement subsystem, and the data acquisition,
recording and controlling subsystem. For clarity Figure 5 is a
simplified block diagram showing the overall instrumentation network.
Inputs to the major subsystems are identified as measurement points as
shown in Figure 4.
Gas concentrations from the stack (Point 14) were measured con-
tinuously by the continuous gas measurement subsystem. This location
was also measured periodically by the time shared gas measuring sub-
system. During those time periods when both gas measuring subsystems
were simultaneously sampling from the stack, a correlation between
jy-3
-------
FIGURE4
CAT-OX INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM
IV-4
-------
FIGURE4
CAT-OX INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM
(CONTINUED)
IV-5
-------
TABLE 2
CAT-OX DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
INSTRUMENTATION SUMMARY
Parameter
so2
N00/N0
2 x
Total Hydrocarbons
co2
H20 Vapor
°2
SO. Gas
H2S04 Mist
Particulate
AP (Dynamic Pressure)*
P (Static Pressure)
Temperature*
C = Continuous
M = Manual
C
C
C
C M
C M
C M
M
M
M
C M
C M
C M
Continuous Equipment Manual
Manufacturer Model Techniques Method
DuPont
DuPont
Beckman
Bendix
MSA
Beckman
L&N**
L&N
L&N
461C
400
UNOR-6
LIRA M202
F-3
1912
1912
1992
UV Absorption
UV Absorption/
Oxidation
Flame lonization
NDIR***
NDIR***
EPA Method 8 Train
EPA Method 8 Train
EPA Train (Plus In
Stack Filter)
S Type Pitot and
Inclined Draft Gauge
Thermocouple and
L&N Millivolt
Standard
* Continuous in-duct temperature/pressure
** Leeds and Northrup
*** Nondispersive Infrared
rakes were designed and built by United Sensor and Control
-------
ANY SEVEN POINTS
(EXCLUDING NO MEASUREMENT)
©©©©©©©©
TIME-SHARED GAS
MEASUREMENT
SUBSYSTEM
DATA
CONTROL
FLOW MEASUREMENT
SUBSYSTEM
DATA RECORDING &
CONTROL SUBSYSTEM
IT
CONTINUOUS GAS
MEASUREMENT SUBSYSTEM
1
.
FIGURE 5
MEASUREMENT POINT AND INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM RELATIONSHIPS
-------
the two systems would be made. Gas concentrations were measured at
six other locations in the Cat-Ox process by the time-shared gas
}
subsystem such that individual Cat-Ox process elements could be
studied.
With the exception of Point 6, flow measurements were made
wherever gas measurements were made so that mass flow rates could be
computed. Flow measurements could not be made at Point 6 due
to the limited access to that location. In addition to the locations
where both gas and mass flow were made, there are several others
where flow measurements alone were made. At those points the flow
measurements could be combined with manually measured gas concentra-
tions or used alone for the evaluation of individual Cat-Ox elements.
Data from the gas and flow measurement subsystems were automat-
ically recorded on strip charts, by printers, and on magnetic tape.
Strip chart and printer data were used for a real time assurance that
the instrumentation was operating properly and also as a back-up
data source in the event that magnetic tape data were lost. Data
recorded on magnetic tape were used for subsequent computer proces-
sing, thus eliminating the tedious and error-prone task of transfer-
ring data from strip charts to punched cards. Synchronized to the
data recording equipment was a function controller which was designed
to perform certain automatic control functions such as switching of
the time shared gas subsystem, gas analyzer calibration, and blowback
of sampling lines.
IV-8
-------
Continuous Gas Measurement Subsystem
Figure 6 shows the flow diagram of the gas measurement subsystem
which was designed to sample gas continuously from the midpoint of the
stack. S02 and Q^ concentrations were measured by instrumentation
located in an environmentally controlled building near the stack
sample ports. Flue gas was drawn through a simple probe to a heated
water trap and external filter. The gas was then conveyed to an SO
analyzer via an electrically heated teflon gas line (Dekoron line).
Next, the gas passed through a refrigerator-condenser to remove
water vapor. Finally, the flue gas was pumped through a sampling
handling system into the 0. analyzer. The refrigerator-condenser
removed excessive water vapor which could cause corrosion of the 0~ •
analyzer sample cell.
Time Shared Gas Measurement Subsystem
Figure 7 shows the flow diagram of the time shared gas measure-
ment subsystem. Flue gas is drawn to the analyzers through a filtered
probe which was either an in-the-duct filter or an external heated
filter. The gas from the probe was passed through heated traps and
then through heated teflon gas lines (Dekoron lines). The gas lines
were heated to prevent the condensation of water vapor and hydrocar-
bons.
Gas was sampled from seven different locations by a multipoint
sequential sampler. The gas was aspirated through the seven lines
continuously except during blowback. Each line was then selected
IV-9
-------
IfcMHKKA 1 IIKk / PHkSSIIWk "-1 w^j-n-i. i-u
HAKE 1 PRESSURE
Timmnu ir— iKM^'autk
u >
I
PLUE GAS 11 i STATIC
| * FLOW kLLOiUJLiL
TEMPERATURE "^^ ' r
TRANSMITTER
CH TRANSMITTER
L»
^H
T
E
M S
P C
E A
R N
A N
T E
U R
R
E
1
RAROMF,T"Tr,
PRESSURE
r TRANSDUCER
A-D CONVERTER
TEMPERATURE
AMPLIFIER
FIGURE 6
FLOW MEASUREMENT SUBSYSTEM
-------
HEATED
SAMPLE
HANDLING
FIGURE 7. TIME-SHARED GAS MEASUREMENT SUBSYSTEM.
-------
sequentially by switching pneumatic valves drawing a< fraction of the
gas into the analyzers. The gas lines from the sequential sampler
to the combined S07 - NO/NO- analyzer and the THC and water vapor
analysers were also heated for the same reasons given above. The
flue gas to the CO and 0 analyzers was first passed through a
refrigerator-condenser in order to remove the water vapor, thereby
preventing water vapor interference in the C0_ analyser and corrosion
in the 0« analyzer.
Operation of the time shared gas measurement subsystem is shown
in Table 3. The subsystem is sequenced automatically on a one-hour
time ba.sis by the control subsystem. Flue gas was drawn into the
analyzers from one particular line for a period of approximately
7'minutes, and then the same line was blown back by high pressure
air for approximately one minute to to remove particulate matter from
the ceramic filter. Subsequently, each of the remaining lines was
sampled in succession in the same manner until the sequence was com-
pleted. Then, all of the analyzers were automatically zeroed against
nitrogen (except for the SO - NO/NO^ analyzer), and then spanned
against a calibration gas. The SO-- NO/NO, analyzer is provided with
blowback air and is also designed to zero on the blowback air which is
passed through the sample cells of the analyzer.
Flow Measurement Subsystem
The flow measurement subsystem is shown in Figure 8. Gas flow
is determined by measuring differential pressure, static pressure,
IV-12
-------
TABLE 3. OPERATION OF TIME-SHARED SUBSYSTEM
POINT
I1
8
10
14
ALL ANALYZERS
OPERATION
SAMPLE
BLOWBACK
SAMPLE
BLOWBACK
SAMPLE
BLOWBACK
SAMPLE
BLOWBACK
SAMPLE
BLOWBACK
SAMPLE
BLOWBACK
SAMPLE
BLOWBACK
ZERO
SPAN
TIME PERIOD
MINUTES
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
2
2
60
IV-13
-------
MPERATUB
R/
nmr
FLUE
IE/PRESSURE
JCE
TUTU—
GAS
MI^HHMMI
•
1
1
|
L
1
1. „
e=
DIFFFRF.NTIAL
p-DWOCTTRE1
TRANSMITTER
STATIC
PRESSURE
TRANSMITTER
.
TEMPERATURE
t
-+
f
r—
VOLUME
FLOW
CONVERTER
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE
TRANSDUCER
fU AUT*
^ LnAKl
RECORDER
i »
T
F,
M
p
E
A
1'
U
R
E
S
c
A
N
N
E
R
A-D CONVERTER
TEMPERATURE
AMPLIFIER
FIGURE £
FLOW MEASUREMENT SUBSYSTEM
-------
and temperatures which are combined in an analytical relationship
to calculate flow. Since the cross-section of ducting is relatively
large throughout the steam generator and Cat-Ox process, it was
.necessary to measure these parameters at a number of points within
any particular duct in order to obtain a representative measurement.
Therefore, the cross-section of the duct was divided into a number
of sampling points based on the ASME power test codes, and an array
of combined temperature/pressure rakes was used to sense differen-
tial pressure, static pressure, and temperature at the selected
sampling points.
The magnitudes of the differential pressures and static pres-
sures were measured by pressure transmitters and were normally
recorded directly on strip charts and magnetic tape. Since tempera-
ture was measured at many more locations in the system than is
required for flow measurements, the temperature sensors, which were
irbn-constantan thermocouples, were input through a constant tempera-
ture enclosure to a scanner. The scanner acted as a switch to
connect thermocouples from various locations to a temperature-
compensated amplifier which amplified, linearized, and temperature
compensated the signal prior to entry into the analog to digital
converter. The constant temperature enclosure maintained the con-
necter junctions at constant temperature so that voltages that were
generated cancelled out.
IV-15
-------
In addition to recording the three parameters directly, a
specialized analog computer identified as the volume flow control
could be utilized at the output of any of the flow measurement
instruments.
There were nine flow measurement locations which were nearly
identical; however, at two of the locations, the economizer and the
stack where differential pressures were particularly low, it was
necessary to use an electronic manometer in place of the differen-
tial pressure transmitter.
Data Recording and 'Control Subsystem
The outputs of the analyzers, transmitters and other sensors
were provided on magnetic tape as shown in Figure 9. The data
acquisition system has a basic capacity of 50 channels which was
expanded with an additional twenty channels by means of a low noise
temperature scanner. Eight channels were assigned to gas concentra-
tion measurements, ten to static pressure, nine to differential
pressure, one to gas volume flow, three to channel identification (of
the sequential sampler) and ambient measurements, and fourteen spares
(for use in the event additional data would be added).
Table 4 summarizes the discrete channel assignments as they
were connected.
The scanner connected the analog signal from each channel
in sequence to the analog to digital converter which*descretizedrt
the analog signal. The data from the analog, to digital converter
IV-16
-------
GAS (8)
STATIC PRESSURE (10)
DIFF. PRESSURE (9)
VOLUME FLOW
& SPARE (6)
I.D. &
AMBIENT (3)
TEMPERATURE (14)
SCANNER
INPUT FROM
TEMPERATURE
SCANNER
CONTROL
SIGNALS
A-D CONVERTER
*
*•
h
COUPLER
t
-I
Q*£)
MAGNETIC
TAPE
SYNC TO
TEMPERATURE
SCANNER
FIGURE 9
INFORMATION RECORDING FLOW CHART
IV-17
-------
TABLE 4. CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM
CHANNEL
IDENTIFICATION
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 .;
23
24
25
26
27
28-32
PARAMETER
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.
S.P.
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
A P
4 P
A P
Volume Flow
Spare Channels
LOCATION
so2 (i.v.)
N02/N0
o2 (i.v.)
co2
H?0 vapor
THC
S02 (R.S.)
02 (R.S.)
Point 1'
Point 1
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 8
Point 10
Point 11
Point 13
Point 14
Point 1'
Point 1
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 8
Point 10
Point 11
Point 14
All Flow Locations
UNITS
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Watetf
Inches of Water
t
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
Inches of Water
IV-18
-------
TABLE 4. (Continued)
CHANNEL
IDENTIFICATION
33
34
35
36*
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
'47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
PARAMETER
Channel Identification
Barometric Pressure
Relative Humidity
Ambient Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
LOCATION
N/A
I.V.
Input F.D. Fan
Input F.D. Fan
C.J. Reference
H,0 Trap, Point 1'
H.O Trap, Point 4
HO Trap, Point 5
H.O Trap, Point 6
H.O Trap, Point 8
H.O Trap, Point 10
H20 Trap, Point 14 (I.V.)
HO Trap, Point 14 (R.S.)
H.L.I.V.
M.S.G.S. Output
Point 13
AHAI
AHAO
AHGI
AHGO
Point 1
Point 3
Point 4
Point 5
Point 8
Point 10
UNITS
V.D.C.
Inches Mercury
Percent
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
Channels 36-49 tentatively assigned depending on fabrication
of signal conditioning.
IV-19
-------
TABLE 4. (Concluded)
CHANNEL
IDENTIFICATION
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69 '
PARAMETER
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
Temperature
LOCATION
Point 11
Point 14
so2 (i.v.)
N02/N0x
o2 (i.v.)
C02
H20 Vapor (L.R.)
H20 Vapor (H.R.)
THC
S02 (R.S.)
0, (R.S.)
UNITS
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
"Fahrenheit
LEGEND
I.V. Instrumentation Van
THC., ..Total .Hydrocarbons
R.S. Roof Shed
S.P. Static Pressure
A P Differential Pressure
V.D.C. Volts Direct Current
F.D. Forced Draft
C.J. Cold Junction
H.L.I.V. Heated Line Instrumentation Van
M.S.G.S. Multi-Point Sequential Gas Sampler
AHAI Air Heater Air In
AHGI Air Heater Air Out
AHGI Air Heater Gas In
AHGO Air Heater Gas Out
L.R. Low Range
H.R. High Range
IV-20
-------
were transmitted to the coupler to be put into proper format for
recording on magnetic tape. A printer was utilized for the-visual
recording of selected data. In addition, a teletypewriter (TTY) was
employed as an input/output device.
The scanner was normally operated at one scan per minute,
but was capable of operating at better than one scan/5 seconds.
The digital clock generated time in days, hours, and minutes, and
provided a reference signal to the function controller. The func-
tion controller initiated start-stop commands to perform remote
;
control functions such as sequencing of the time-shared gas measure-
ment subsystem, calibration of the analyzers, and blowback of the
probes.
INTEGRATED INSTRUMENTATION EVALUATION
r>
I
Overall, .the instrumentation system was reliable and compre-
hensive.
Time-sharing of the gas analyzers was a cost-effective and
workable approach to measuring several gas concentrations from
multiple locations. The system was very flexible and allowed a wide
i,
variation in test locations, times, and constituents. Portions of
the system could be easily isolated to enable calibration or repair
while the other portions of the system were operational. Though not
totally an automated system the integrated system could easily
function unattended for a period of hours freeing operators to
perform manual sampling tests where required.
IV-21
-------
Use of low noise scanner to time-share the temperature measuring
thermocouples was also a very good technique.
On refining the operation of the continuous measurement instru-
mentation the greatest emphasis should be placed on using instrumen-
tation with long-term stability. Instrumentation that required
<
frequent calibration was costly in manpower and tedious in its
repetition. Evaluation of specific pieces of the test system is
presented in Appendix C.
IV-22
-------
SECTION V
TESTING HISTORY
This section describes the results and conclusions determined
from tests of Cat-Ox for support of the Cat-Ox system. All the tests
described below are primarily emission related tests with the excep-
tion of the corrosion tests.
POLLUTION RELATED TESTING
Baseline Test Measurement Program
Test Objective—The objectives of the Baseline Measurement test
were to determine the relationship between control settings and
operating conditions for Unit No. 4 Steam generator and flue gas
properties at the inlet of Cat-Ox plus characterize baseline perform-
ance in terms of operability, reliability and emission levels prior
to installation of the process (Cat-Ox). These tests were also to
test 'and calibrate measurement procedures to be used in the one-year
test program. The quantitative data obtained could be used to
support the establishment of realistic performance standards for
emitted pollutants.
Test Schedule—A test program was developed which consisted of
twenty-one separate tests, each of approximately ten hours duration.
These twenty-one tests were conducted over a five-week period begin-
ning 8 November 1971 and ending 9 December 1971.
V-l
-------
Each of the twenty-one tests represented a particular combina-
tion of operating levels for the major steam generator parameters
(load factor, fuel type, soot blowing, and excess air). The combina-
tions of operating levels were selected so as to provide the maximum
of information in a minimum number of tests, varying the parameters
on a "one-at-a-time" basis.
Two supplementary gas traversal tests were also conducted to
determine the pattern of leakage at the air heater (measurement
position No. 2) and the gas flow pattern midway in 'the stack (measure-
ment position No. 3).
A supplementary test was also conducted in which all factors
were held constant except for burner angle, which was varied in steps
from the minimum to maximum position.
For all of the tests, key steam generator operating parameters
were monitored, samples of coal and ash were obtained at various points
in the steam generator, gas samples were manually obtained, particle
grain loadings were determined by manual sampling, and tempera-
tures, pressures, gas flows, and gas concentrations were monitored by
a MITRE designed continuous measurement system.
A summary of the Baseline test conditions is presented in
Table 5. As indicated in the table, four load levels and four fuel
options were examined in the tests. Two levels of soot blowing were
investigated - no soot blowing and maximum soot blowing. However, in
V-2
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF BASELINE TEST CONDITIONS
TEST
NUMBER
11
9
8
12
7 .
6
1
18
13
4
5
10
20
2
3
17,
19
21
14
15
22
DATE
NOV 8
NOV 9
NOV 10
NOV 11
NOV 12
NOV 15-16
NOV 14-15
NOV 16-17
NOV 17-18'
NOV 18-19
NOV 21-22
NOV 22-23
NOV 23-24
NOV 29-30
NOV 30-DEC 1
DEC 1-2
DEC 2-3
DEC 3-4
DEC 6-7
DEC' 7-8
. DEC 8-9
LOAD
FACTOR
100 MW
100 MW
100 MW
100 MW
100 MW
100 MW
75 MW
50 MW
35 MW
75 MW
75 MW
100 MW
50 MW
75 MW
75 MW
50 MW
50 MW
35 MW
50 MW
50 MW
75 MW
FUEL**
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORMAL
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
MINIMUM
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
NORMAL
MAXIMUM
NORMAL
MAXIMUM
NORMAL
NORMAL
MINIMUM
NORMAL
*Reduced level of soot blowing
**Type A -> Peabody Coal "2.7 Ibs sulfur/10 Btu
' Type B •* Freeman Coal * 1.6 Ibs sulfur/10^ Btu ,
Type C •* Mixture of Freeman and Natural Gas ("l.(0 Ibs sulfur/10 Btu)
Type D -* Metallurgical Coal « 1.0 Ibs sulfur/106 Btu
V-3
-------
one test'early in the series, an intermediate level of soot blowing
was examined.
Three levels of excess air were examined as shown in Table 5 -
minimum excess air, normal excess ^ir, and maximum excess air. The
parameters measured at the sampling locations are presented in Table
6, while those that were connected with the boiler control are
«
presented in Table 7.
Test Results—The results of the test program are presented in
this section. A more detailed description of testing and analysis is
presented in the report "Baseline Measurement Test Results for the
Cat-Ox Demonstration Program" (EPA-R2-73-189).
Net and gross efficiencies were computed for all of the 21
tests in the Baseline Measurement Program and are presented in
Table 8.
The efficiency calculations performed were basically those of
the ASME publication PTC 4.1 using the heat loss method. Adjustments
have been made, where required, based on the Illinois Power Company's
\
computer performance calculations.
Gas mass flows and gas volume flows were computed for Location 1'
(economizer) for SO , CO , 0 , N , and total gases. Mass flows and
volume flows were also computed at Location 3 (midway in stack) for
NO , CO , 0 , and N , and for total gases.
V-4
-------
TABLE 6. BASELINE MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS (CONTINUOUS AND MANUAL MEASUREMENTS)
LOCATION 1
(PRIOR TO ECONOMIZER)
f
in
CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
02
SO2
TEMPERATURE, AIR HEATER, AIR IN
TEMPERATURE, AIR HEATER, AIR OUT
TEMPERATURE, AIR HEATER, GAS IN
TEMPERATURE, AIR HEATER, GAS OUT
TEMPERATURE, AIR ENTERING FORCED DRAFT FAN
HUMIDITY, AIR ENTERING FORCED DRAFT FAN
PITOT TUBE AP 1
STATIC PRESSURE V GAS FLOW MEASUREMENT
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE \
MANUAL MEASUREMENTS
S03
S02
HO,
CO
C02
ORSAT 02
ORSAT C02
ORSAT CO
LOCATION 2
(BETWEEN UPPER AND LOWER
TUBES OF AIR HEATER)
(NO CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT AT THIS LOCATION)
GRAIN LOADING
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICLES
BOUND CONSTITUENTS ON PARTICLES
PITOT TUBE AP
STATIC PRESSURE
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS FLOW MEASUREMENT
-------
LOCATION 3
(MIDWAY IN STACK)
OTHER LOCATIONS
TABLE 6 (CONCLUDED)
BASELINE MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS (CONTINUOUS AND MANUAL MEASUREMENTS)
CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
GAS FLOW MEASUREMENT
PITOT TUBE AP
STATIC PRESSURE
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE
GRAIN LOADING
so2
NOX
02
HYDROCARBON
CO
C02
(NO CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENTS AT OTHER LOCATIONS)
MANUAL MEASUREMENTS
S03
S02
NOX
CO
ORSAT 02
ORSAT CO 2
ORSAT CO
Hg VAPOR
C02
GRAIN LOADING
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICLES
BOUND CONSTITUENTS ON PARTICLES
PITOT TUBES AP
STATIC PRESSURE
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS FLOW MEASUREMENT
PROXIMATE & ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COAL
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF COAL
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BOTTOM ASH
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF AIR HEATER ASH
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL SEPARATOR ASH
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF PYRITE REJECTS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF BOTTOM ASH
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF AIR HEATER ASH
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL SEPARATOR ASH
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF PYRITE REJECTS
-------
TABLE 7. BASELINE MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS
(STEAM GENERATOR GAUGE BOARD READINGS)
CONDENSER VACUUM (PSI)
ATM PRESS. AT AIR INTAKE (IN OF H )
HUMIDITY AT AIR INTAKE (%)
(INTEGRATOR LOG READINGS)
BOILER STEAM FLOW (LBS./HR.)
BOILER FW FLOW (LBS./HR.)
BEVEL GAS FLOW (LBS./HR.)
SH SPRAY FLOW (4TH FLOOR) (LBS./HR)
RH SPRAY FLOW (ATH FLOOR) (LBS./HR)
'A' COAL SCALE (CLICKS)
*B' COAL SCALE (CLICKS)
'C' COAL SCALE (CLICKS)
'D* COAL SCALE (CLICKS)
(GAUGE BOARD READINGS)
(UTILITIES SECTION)
CONDENSER PRESSURE (IN OF H )
(FEEDWATER & STEAM SECTION) g
DRUM PRESS (PSI)
D.C. HEATER PRESS (PSI)
4A BFP DISCH (PSI)
4B BFP DISCH (PSI)
BLR FEED HDR (PSI)
FW FLOW TO BLR (LBS./HR.)
MAINSTREAM TEMP (°F)
THROTTLE PRESSURE (PSI)
HOT REHT TEMP. (°F)
COLD REHT TEMP. (°F)
4A RH SPRAY VALVE (%)
4B RH SPRAY VALVE (%)
BURNER TILT (%)
4A SH SPRAY VALVE (%)
4B SH SPRAY VALVE (%)
AIR & FUEL SECTION
4A FD FAN DISCH. (IN OF R20)
4B FD FAN DISCH. (IN OF H20)
FURN. DRAFT ( IN OF H2O)
RHTR. OUTLET (IN OF H2O)
SUPHTR OUTLET (IN OF H20)
ECON. OUT (IN OF H,0)
4A AIR HEATER OUT (IN OF H20)
4B AIR HEATER OUT (IN OF H20)
4A DUST COL. OUT (IN OF H20)
4B DUST COL. OUT (IN OF H20)
STACK INLET (IN OF H20)
FLUE GAS 02 (%)
STEAM FLOW (LBS./HR.)
AIR FLOW (LBS./HR.)
UNIT GROSS GEN. (MW)
AH 4A GAS OUT (°F)
AH 4B GAS OUT (°F)
4A MILL (AMPS)
4B MILL (AMPS)
4C MILL (AMPS)
4D MILL (AMPS)
4A ID FAN (AMPS)
4B ID FAN (AMPS)
4A FD FAN (AMPS)
4B FD FAN (AMPS)
4A MILL FEEDER (%)
4B MILL FEEDER (%)
4C MILL FEEDER (%)
4D MILL FEEDER (%)
GAS VALVE (%)
4A ID FAN SPEED (RPM)
4B ID FAN SPEED (RPM)
4A ID FAN DAMPER (%)
4B ID FAN DAMPER (%)
4A FD FAN SHTOFF DAMP. (%)
4B FD FAN SHTOFF DAMP. (Z)
4A FD FAN VANES (%)
4B FD FAN VANES (%)
FUEL AIR RATIO SET PT. (%)
-------
TABLE 8. NET AND GROSS EFFICIENCY
DATE
11/8/71
11/9/71
11/10/71
11/11/71
11/12/71
11/15/71
11/16/71
11/17/71
11/18/71
11/19/71
11/22/71
11/23/71
11/24/71
11/30/71
12/1/71
12/2/71
12/3/71
12/4/71
12/7/71
12/8/71
12/9/71
MITRE
TEST
NUMBER
11
9
8
12
7
1
6
18
13
4
5
10
20
2
3
17
19
21
14
15
22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A -
A
0
SOOT
BLOWER
HO
MO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES ,
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BUHNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NET
EFFICIENCY
87.8
88.6
88.2
88.8
88.9
90.0
89.9
90.7
90.8
90.9
88.8
88.9
88.5
90.8
91.0
90.9
89.0
88.6
88.1
89.9
90.7
GROSS
EFFICIENCY
(«
87.7
88.6
88.1
88.8
88.9
89.9
89.8
90.6
90.7
90.9
88.7
88.8
•88.4
90.7
90.7
90.8
88.9
88.4
88.0
89.8
90.7
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
V-8
-------
The flow rates for these gases at the two locations were based
upon the results for the various measurement of mass and volume flow
and presented in tabular form in Appendix D. The implications of
the data are briefly discussed here.
i
The SO flow rate at location I1 (stated in terms of mass flow -
Ibs per minute) appears to be consistent with the sulfur content of
^
the fuel. The average mass flow for three 100 MW type A fuel tests
)
(tests 8, 12, and 7) is 117.4 Ibs/minute. The average sulfur content
of the coal consumed in these three A fuel tests was 3.42 percent (on
"as fired" dry basis). This average is greater than the 112.5 Ibs
per minute recorded for test 6, a 100 MW type B fuel test which
*
consumed fuel with a 2.88 percent sulfur content. Both sets of
tests in turn showed greater SO mass flow than test 10, a 100 MW
type C fuel test (simulated 1.08 percent sulfur fuel). In a similar
comparison, the average SO flow rate for three 75 MW type A fuel
tests (tests 4, 2, and 3) is 84.8 Ibs/minute. These three tests
if
utilized coal of 3.32 percent average sulfur content. This average
was approximately equal to the 75 MW type B fuel test (test 1) which
utilized coal with an average sulfur content of 3.29 percent sulfur.
Both the type A and B fuel tests showed a greater mass flow of SO
than the 75 MW type C fuel test (test 5) which utilized gas and coal
to simulate a 0.86 percent sulfur coal. The 75 MW type D fuel test
(test 22) produced an SO mass flow that was higher than expected;
however, the analysis of the coal consumed in this test showed it to
V-9
-------
be of 1.4 percent sulfur content rather than the expected 0.5 percent
sulfur content. The SO mass flow rates noted for this test were
therefore consistent with this measured sulfur content. Similar
relationships were found in the 50 MW tests with types A, B, and C
levels. No significant changes in SO mass flow were found which
were traceable to changes in the soot blowing cycle or in excess air
,i
settings.
An examination of the mass flow of CO at location 1' shows that
for a fixed fuel type the CO. mass flow decreases with decreasing
load levels (as would be expected with the reduced coal feed rates
associated with the lower loads). The data also illustrate that,
for a fixed load level, the CO mass flow rates were not significantly
different for fuel types A, B, and C.
Measurements of the 0 flow rates at location 1' show that the
0. mass flow rate decreases with decreasing load level, and, for a
fixed load level, is not significantly different for fuel types A and
B. Tests performed on C type fuel produced 0 mass flow rates which
were both greater and lower than the corresponding tests with A and B
fuel dependent upon the load level. The greatest differences
were found between tests with fixed load level and fixed fuel types
where excess air was the varied parameter.
Flow rates for N. mass flow show that the N. mass flow rate
decreases with decreasing load level, and for fixed load levels are
not significantly different for fuel types A, B, and C. .For fixed
V-10
-------
load levels and fixed fuel types, greater N mass flow was found for
the maximum excess air test.
The flow rates for total gas flow show the same relationships as
the individual gases (i.e., same,decrease with decreasing load level
and same increase with increased excess air).
Tests performed on A type fuel at location 3 indicated NO mass
flow rates were both greater and lower than the corresponding tests
with B fuel dependent upon the load level. However, for all load
:•
levels, the NO flow rates with C fuel (predominantly natural gas)
were significantly lower than the tests performed with A and B
fuels.
The SO flow rates measured at location 3 and relationships are
similar to those noted for S02 at location 1', i.e., for a fixed fuel
\-
type the S0« mass flow is reduced for reduced load levels. Inconsis-
tencies were, found in the comparison between the 100 MW A fuel test
(tests 8, 12, and 7) and the 100 MW B fuel test (test 6). Although
the sulfur content was lower for the B fuel, the SO mass flow
measured on test 6 was greater than the average S0« mass flow for
tests 8, 12, and 7. The results from test 10 did show the lower
levels for SO. mass flow expected for a 100 MW C fuel test. The
average S0? mass flow rate for the three 75 MW A fuel tests (tests 4,
2, and 3) is approximately equal to the mass flow for the 75 MW B
fuel test (test 1); however, as was previously noted, the sulfur
content of the coal consumed in these tests was approximately constant.
V-ll
-------
As was true of the measurements at location 1, the A and B fuel tests
performed at the 75 MW load level produced higher S0« mass flows than
measured in the 75 MW C fuel test. ' Similar relationships were found
in the 50 MW tests with A, B, and C fuels.
The CO- flow rates measured at location 3 for fixed fuel types,
show that the CO. mass flow decreases with decreasing .load levels and
that for a fixed load level, the C0_ mass flow rates were not signifi-
cantly different for fuel types A, B, and C.
The 0? data collected at location 3 show that the 0. mass flow
rate decreases with decreasing load level and for a fixed load level
is not significantly different for fuel types A and B. Tests performed
with C fuel produced 0^ mass flows that were both greater and lower
than the corresponding tests with A and B fuel dependent upon the
load level. Differences were found in 0? mass flow rate between
tests at the 50 MW load level with type A fuel where excess air was
varied (tests 19, 14, and 15). Similar differences were not found
for 100 MW type A fuel tests where excess air was varied.
Flow rates for N« at location 3 illustrate that the N_ mass flow
rates decrease with decreasing load levels, and for fixed load levels
are not significantly different for fuel types A, B, and C. For
fixed load levels and fixed fuel types, greater N2 flow was found for
the maximum excess air tests.
The flow rates for all measured gases show the same relation-
ships as shown for the individual gases (i.e., same decrease in flow
V-12
-------
rate with decreasing load level and same increase with increased
excess air).
For each of the tests performed in the baseline program, the
average coal consumption rate was determined utilizing the manual
coal scale readings. The average sulfur content of the coal (as
determined by chemical analysis) was then used with the coal scale
readings, to determine the rate of sulfur fed to the steam generator.
Average SO. mass flow readings from the continuous instrumentation
system at the stack were then used to determine the average sulfur
flow at the stack:
Where,
n. 1£ Ibs SO. . , •,.„,*. Ibs SO,,
Ibs sulfur _ _ 2_ molecular weight sulfur _ _ 2_
minute minute molecular weight S0_ minute
The rate of sulfur feed into the steam generator was then compared
with the rate of sulfur flow through the stack.
The results of the sulfur balance calculations are summarized
in Table 9. These results are based upon measurement of the SO.
concentration of the stack gas with the exception of test 15 in
which SO. concentrations measured at location 1 (economizer) were
corrected using estimated system leakage values to provide an esti-
mate of S0? concentration in the stack. In all cases, the measure-
ments of S09 concentrations do not include measurement of the sulfur
exhausted from the stack as SO- or the sulfur adsorbed on the ash as
SO
„ and SO,. The results provided in Table 35 show good agreement on
V-13
-------
TABLE 9. SDLFUR BALANCE
DATE
11/8/71
11/9/71
11/10/71
11/11/71
11/12/71
11/15/71
11/16/71
11/17/71
11/18/71
11/19/71
11/22/71
11/23/71
11/24/71
11/30/71
12/1/71
12/2/71
12/3/71
12/4/71
12/7/71
12/8/71
12/9/71
MITRE
TEST
NO.
11
9
8
12
7
1
6
18
13
4
S
10
20
2
3
17
19
21
14
15
22
LOAD
(MW)
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
SO
50
35
50
SO
75
FUEL
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
c
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
HO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM
MIN
MAX
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
KIN
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
MAX
NORM
MAX
NORM
NORM
MIN
NORM
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORN
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
NORM
MIN
NORM
NORM
AVERAGE ,, .
COAL FLOW1*'
(103 LB/HR)
8S.O
83.5
63.7
83.9
84.2
64.8
90.1
48.3
32.3
63.2
34.0
46.4
26.0
66.2
65.2
45.4
50.5
32.4
47.0
46.3
63.2
X SULFUR
IN COAl
-------
the sulfur balance leading to the conclusion that the total combined
error in SO and gas flow measurements was low. As noted in Table 9,
in all cases except two (tests 1 and 6), the sulfur feed rate
exceeded the sulfur flow rate measured in the stack indicating that
there were, in fact, small unmeasured losses of sulfur.
Grain loadings were determined at location 2 and location 3 for
all tests by means of manual measurements. These manual measurements
were taken by the Midwest Research Institute using the sampling train
and the operating techniques specified in the Federal Register of
23 December 1971 (Volume 36, Number 247).
A summary of the grain loading results is provided in Table 10.
The emission rates shown in Table 10 were computed using the measured
grain loadings and the manually determined gas mass.flow with the
appropriate conversion factors to provide values in terms of pounds
of particulate matter per hour.
The mechanical collection efficiencies shown in Table 10 were
calculated using the emission rates for the two locations (location
2 prior to collection and location 3 after collection). Because of
the configuration of the ducting, this collection efficiency reflects
an ash removal capability that is a result, not only of the effects
of the mechanical collector proper but, also, of the lower tubes of
the air heater, and the ducting between the air heater and the stack.
For this reason, the efficiencies shown are not absolute values but
are to be considered as relative measurements to be used only in
V-15
-------
TABLE 10. CHAIN LOADING MEASUREMENTS
DATE
11/8/71
11/9/71
11/10/71
11/11/71
11/11/71
11/16/71
11/15/71
11/17/71
11/18/71
11/19/71
11/22/71
11/23/71
11/24/71
11/30/71
12/1/71
12/2/71
12/3/71
12/4/71
12/7/71
12/8/71
12/9/71
Kirn
TEST HO.
(OLD)
11
9
8
12
7
6
1
It
13
4
5
10
20
2
3
17
19
21
14
15
22
LOAD
PACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
100
75
50
35
75
75
100
SO
75
73
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL
T»PE
A
A
A
A
A
I
I
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
HO
NO
YES*
IBS
HO
m
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
ID
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
Alt
NOIH.
DIN.
MAX.
NOW.
NORM.
NORM.
HORM.
NORH.
WWII.
ION.
NOW.
.NOW.
NOW.
NOW.
NAX.
NOW.
MAX.
NOW.
HOW.
HIB.
NOW.
AIR
BURNER
AHGLE
NOW.
NOW.
NOW.
HOW.
NOW.
NORM.
HOW.
NOW.
NOW.
NOW.
HOW.
HOW.
HOW.
HOW.
HOW.
HOW.
HOW.
NOW.
HIM.
HOW.
NOW.
GRAIN LOADING
CRAINS/SCF
LOCATION 2 LOCATION 3
4.15 0.9S
4.58 0.88
4.41 0.94
4.25 1.16
5.09 1.44
5.38 1.50
4.48 1.34
5.58 1.08
7.80 I.JO
9.70 1.42
3.79 1.00
4.27 0.66
3.23 0.39
5.71 1.24
6.12 1.38
3.63 1.12
6.03 0.87
4.18 0.68
6.35 1.15
7.05 0.85
3.72 0.54
2.69 1.12
4.82 1.16
4.10 0.90
2.80 0.75
GRAINS/ACF
LOCATION 2 LOCATION 3
2.42 0.61
2.64 0.58
2.55 0.60
2.44 0.75
2.94 0.91
2.96 0.93
2.49 0.85
3.14 0.68
4.57 0.98
5.67 0.93
2.30 0.68
2.45 0.43
1.89 0.59
3.23 0.78
3.49 0.90
2.20 0.76
3.52 0.57
2.47 0.45
3.85 0.79
4.28 0.60
2.27 0.37
1.62 0.77
2.76 0.76
2.40 0.60
1.62 0.48
EMISSION RATE
LB/BE.
LOCATION 2 LOCATION 3
9128 —
8460 —
9796 2166
8252 2474
10596 3104 .
9808 2930
8990 1856
9830 1672
3408 926
6176 1072
4978 1335
11160 2573
3676 1164
9096 1268
7256 1215
7080 1067
4482 659
2412 1023
4862 1248
4222 956
4286 1200
MECHANICAL
COLLECTOR
EFFICIENCY (I)
—
-
77.8
70.0
70.5
70.0
79.5
83.0
72.9
82.7
73.2
J6.9
68.5
86.0
83.3
84.9
85.3
57.5
74.4
77.5
72.0
ASH CONTENT
OF COAL
AS RECEIVED BASIS
10.03
9.89
10.25
10.75
10.07
11.30
10.42
12.15
13.13
10.35
13.57
16.69
15.94
9.85
10.00
10.14
9.56
9.14
10.78
10.44
6.61
•Reduced level of loot bloving
-------
test-to-test comparisons. The ash content of the coal determined
by laboratory analysis is also provided in Table 23 as a factor
affecting the measured grain loading.
As noted in Table 10, tests were performed with type A fuel at
two load levels (100 MW and 50 MW) in which operating conditions were
held constant except for soot blowing.
In the first of these comparisons test 7, an average value of
5.23 grains/SCF was measured at location 2. This represents an
increase over the average grain loading measured in tests 11, 9, and
8 (4.38 grains/SCF). For these three tests, no soot blowing was used
during the period of the test. The average ash content of the coal
for tests 11, 9 and 8 was approximately equal to that measured for
test 7, indicating that the differences in grain loading were not
attributable to this source.
For these same tests, the grain loading measurements at
location 3 were also higher for the test in which soot blowing was
.i •'
conducted.
At the 50 MW level, the average grain loading measured at
location 2 was 6.70 grains/SCF for test 17. In this test, soot
blowing was used during the test. This result is higher than any of
the grain loading measurements obtained for the 50 MW A fuel tests in
which soot blowing was not conducted (tests 19, 14, and 15). As was
the case with the 100 MW comparisons, these 50 MW tests utilized coal
of approximately the same ash content.
V-17
-------
Two tests were run in which soot blowing was used and all other
operating parameters were constant except for fuel type. In the
first of these tests (test 18), B fuel was utilized. This fuel has a
higher ash content than the A fuel, and for this B fuel test an
average grain loading of 8.75 grains/SCF was recorded at location 2.
This represents an increase over the results recorded for test 17, in
which A fuel was utilized. For the A fuel test, an average grain
j -
loading of 6.70 grains/SCF was measured. These two tests indicate
the degree of change in grain loading that is attributable to differ-
i ', • '
ences in ash content of the coal.
No specific patterns were found in the analysis of results in
terms of the mechanical collection efficiencies. However, in general
it was noted that greater efficiencies were noted for the tests in
which B fuel was utilized.
The scope of the Baseline Measurement Test included manual
measurements as well as measurements obtained by the continuous
measurement systems. The manual gas measurements for NO , CO, CO,.,
and S02 were determined by laboratory analysis of a grab sample.
Measurements of 0. and CO- were made by means of Orsat Analysis. In
this section the results obtained from the continuous measurement
system, and, where appropriate, a comparison is made with theoretically
expected gas concentrations.
V-18
-------
Table 11 compares continuous and manual measurement results for
SO with theoretical.* Table 12 gives NO manual as compared to NO
*• X
continuous measurements. These values should be comparable since N0_
was found to be very small. No theoretical values for NO were
x
calculated since there is no convenient algorithm to calculate it. ,
Table 13 compares 0 and CO Orsat results with continuous results.
Values for CO were below detectible limits.
For those tests (Table 11) where data were available from both
the manual and continuous measurements a comparison shows that at
location 1 the average of the manual samples is 82 percent of the
average of the theoretical values. For these same tests, the average
of the continuous measurements is 95 percent of the theoretical values*
i
The extremes of the manual measurements occur in test 5 where the
manual value is 61 percent of the theoretical value, and test 13 where
the manual value is 135 percent of the predicted value. The extremes
for the continuous measurement at location 1 occur in test 5 where
i
the continuous measurement is 40 percent of the theoretical value and
test 13 where the continuous measurement is 119 percent of the theore-
tical value.
At location 3, the average of the manual measurements is 76 per-
cent of the average of the theoretical values for the tests having
both manual and continuous measurements. For these same tests, the
Calculated by methods from Clarke & Davidson, "Manual for Process
Engineering Calculations."
V-19
-------
TABLE 11. COMPARISON OF CONTINUOUS AMD MANUAL SOj AT LOCATIONS 1 AND 3 WITH THEORETICAL VALUES
DATE
11/8/71
11/9/71
11/10/71
11/11/71
11/12/71
11/15/71
11/16/71
11/17/71
11/18/71
11/19/71
11/22/71
11/23/71
11/24/71
11/30/71
12/1/71
12/2/71
12/3/71
12/4/71
12/7/71
12/8/71
12/9/71
NITRE
TEST
NUMBER
11
9
8
12
7
1
6
18
13
4
5
10
20
2
3
17
19
21
14
15
22
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
SO
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
TEST CONDITIONS
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES**
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
LOCATION 1
MANUAL
2541.3
1884.4
1571.1
1582,1
1272.8
1569.0
1847.5
1995.8
538.8
561.7
546.5
1812.9
17«2.2
1543.9
1732.6
1415.2
CONT.
2055.0
2220.0
2216.3
2281.9
2393.6
2074.1
1997.1
1715.0
1632.1
2307.3
352.5
387.9
471.9
1938.8
2141.3
2085.0
1897.5
1875.0
1743.8
2107.5
735.0
THEORETICAL
S02 AT
LOCATION 1
2075-
2211
2340
1957
1949
1480
1366
2551
888
683
627
2098
2220
2480
2070
2221
LOCATION 3
MANUAL
1306
1703
1800
1854
1767
1154
752
1917
443
426
386
1429
1305
861
451
COST.
1755.0
2042.1
1905
1897.5
1479.0
1371.0
2080.0
630.0
536.3
566.3
1740.0
1875.0
1980.0
1815.0
1680.0
1782.9
2062.5
THEORETICAL*
SO, AT
LOCATION 3
1764
1879
1989
1663
1657
1258
1161
2168
755
580
533
1783
1887
2108
1759
1888
*15 percent leakage assumed between 1 and 3
**reduced level of soot blowing
-------
TABLE 12. COMPARISON OF CONTINUOUS AND MANUAL NO,; AT LOCATION 3
DATE
11/8/71
11/9/71
11/9/71
11/10/71
11/10/71
11/11/71
11/11/71
11/12/71
1-1/12/71
11/16/71
11/16/71
11/15/71
11/15/71
11/17/71
11/17/71
11/18/71
11/18/71
11/19/71
11/19/71
11/22/71
11/22/71
11/23/71
11/23/71
11/24/71
11/24/71
11/30/71
11/30/71
12/1/71
12/1/71
12/2/71
12/2/71
12/3/71
12/3/71
12/4/71
12/4/71
HITRE
TEST
NO. (OLD)
11
9
9
8
8
12
12
7
7
6
6
1
1
18
18
13
13
4
4
5
5
10
10
20
20
2
2
3
3
17
17
19
19
21
21
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
50
50
35
35
75
75
75
75
100
100
50
50
75
75
75
75
50
50
50
50
35
35
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
J
B
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES*
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
'NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
HIN.
MIN.
MAX.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MEASURED EXCESS AIR
LOCATION 2
81.5
64.2
64.2
59-6
59.6
43.2
43.2
38.6
38.6
42.7
42.7
61.9
61.9
72.5
72.5
87.8
87.8
30.7
30.7
35.4
35.4
52.7
52.7
30.3
30.3
35.0
35.0
47.1
47.1
38.5
38.5
64.3
64.3
51.7
51.7
LOCATION 3
64.2
36.6
36.6
47.3
47.3
60.5
60.5
38.3
38.3
40.3
40.3
57.4
57.4
58.5
58.5
69.3
69.3
27.4
27.4
42.5
, 42.5
41.3
41.3
34.4
34.4
36.8
36.8
52.5
52.5
38.3
38.3
69.3
69.3
61.2
61.2
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MANUAL NO
LOCATION Z
397
304
390
433
513
505
287
363
447
481
464
463
246
485
464
587
319
385
339
. 328
223
243
279
267
467
552
294
410
341
347
436
358
344
389
MANDAL NOX
LOCATION 3
651
378
411
$53
591
349
436
321
437
466
466
~ 419
461
570
684
387
443
330
271
308
367
264
235
262
412
450
426
558
323
295
406
403
368
276
CONTINUOUS NO
MEASUREMENTS
LOCATION 3
285
350
395
365
335
375
333
240
100
105
150
145
345
335
340
345
195
REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
-------
TABLE 13.
COMPARISON OF CONTINUOUS 02 AND O>2 WITH ORSAT MEASUREMENTS AT LOCATION 3
DATE
11/8/71
11/9/71
11/10/71
11/11/71
11/12/71
11/15/71
11/16/71
11/17/71
11/18/71
11/19/71
11/22/71
11/23/71
11/24/71
11/30/71
12/1/71
12/2/71
12/3/71
12/4/71
12/7/71
12/8/71
12/9/71
MITRE
TEST
NUMBER
11
9
8
12
7
1
6
18
13
4
5.
10
20
2
3
17
19
21
14
IS
22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
°2
com.
--_-
.0625
.071
.0675
.075
.0852
.062
.032
.060
.0706
.0615 .
.0807
.074
.086
.0776
.0705
.0695
.0565
ORSAT
.084
.058
.070
.080
.060
.078
.062
.079
.088
.047
.065
.065
.057
.058
.074
.066
.088
.082
.061
.067
.063
co2
CQNT.
.135
.141
.138
.1355
.128
.142
.124
.1311
.1264
..140
.132
.1348
.126
.125
.1411
.138
.1362
ORSAT
.108
.128
.110
.1225
.125
.118
.126
.116
.104
.131
.103
%
.099
.106
.131
.118
.126
.104
.106
.126'
.122
.126
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
V-22
-------
average of the continuous measurement is 100 percent of the average
of the theoretical values. The extremes for the manual measurements
occur in test 21 where the manual value is 24 percent of the theore-
tical value and test 1 where the manual value is 111 percent of the
theoretical value. The extremes for the continuous measurement
occur in test 21- where the continuous measurement is 89 percent of
the theoretical value and test 1 where the continuous measurement is
.; ' *•
114 percent of the theoretical value.
Table 12 provides a comparison of the continuous and manual
measurements for NO at location 3. Manual measurements taken at
'* *»
location 2 are also provided in this table. No consistent patterns
are noted in Table 12 with respect to the effect of test conditions
on NO concentrations, with the exception of fuel type. For the test
•» L
performed with C fuel (gas and coal mixed) the NO levels were
X
significantly lower than for the tests-performed with A and B fuel.
A comparison of continuous 0. and C0« measurements and Orsat
measurements is provided in Table 13. A comparison of the average of
the continuous 0. and the Orsat 0. measurements shows good agreement
whereas the average of the continuous C02 measurements were higher
than the average of the Orsat CO,- measurements.
Ultimate and proximate analyses of coal were performed on each of
the 21 tests on an as received and daily basis. Proximate analyses
were also performed on fly ash removed from the dust collector and air
V-23
-------
heater arid ash samples from th'e furnace bottom and pulverizer reject.
The results of these analyses are presented in Appendix*D.
Trace element concentrations were determined on four of the
tests in the Baseline Program in the coal pulverizer rejects from the
coal mills, bottom ash (slag), and the fly ash collected in the air
heater, the mechanical collector, and locations 2 and 3.
The trace element concentrations 'were also determined for samples
of fly ash collected from location 2 and location 3 for four tests
in the program. The results of the trace elemental analyses are
summarized in Appendix D along with the proximate and ultimate
analyses.
Additional trace elemental analyses were provided by EPA on
pulverized coal for six of the test runs are also listed in Appendix D.
Bound constituents were determined by chemical analysis for fly
ash samples collected at location 2 and location 3. The results of
these analyses are provided in Tables 14 and 15.
As noted in Table 14, the bound SO concentration (measured as
sulfates) range from 0.15 microgram to 0.88 microgram per milligram of
particulate matter. For the two tests representing these extremes
(test 22 and test 8), the measured particle emission rates at location
3 were, respectively, 1200 Ibs/hour and 2166 Ibs/hour. The measured
gaseous SO mass flow rates at location 3 for these tests were 1452
Ibs/hour and 3810 Ibs/hour, respectively. Multiplying the bound S0«
concentration ranges by the particle emission rates provides a
V-24
-------
TABLE 14.
DETERMINATION OF BOUND S02 AND
BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
TEST
NO.
8
8
1
1
5
5
i
tt 17
17
22
22
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
75
75
75
75
50
50
75
75
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
B
B
C
C
A
A
D
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
MAX.
MAX.
NONE
NONE
EXCESS
AIR
MAX.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
S02
MICROGRAM/
MILLIGRAM
PARTICULATE
0.77
0.88 .
0.30
0.39
0.16
0.16
0.37
0.35
0.4
0.15
S03
MICROGRAM/
MILLIGRAM
PARTICULATE
5.77
7.65
9.34
24.10
0.67
15.84
13.69
3.77
2.25
1.63
LOCATION
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
-------
TABLE 15. DETERMINATION OF POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
BOUND TO THE SURFACE OF FLUE GAS PARTICULATES
DATE! 11/10/71 11/15/71 11/22/71
MITRE
TEST NO.: 8 1 5
TEST CONDITIONS
Load Factor: 100 75 75
Fuel Type: ABC
Soot Blower: None None None
Excess Air: Maximum Normal Normal
Burner Angle: Normal Normal Normal
TOTAL
RECOVERY %
Location 2 100.0 No Peaks s 91.7
Location 3 '100.0 17.7 100.0
BENZO(cOPYRENE
(Vg)
Location 2 21.80
Location 3. 259.89 126.00
CONCENTRATION
(ug/mg)
Location 2 0.17
Location 3 3.00 0.87
OTHER POSSIBLE
COMPONENTS
Location 2 Anthanthrene
Location 3 Anthanthrene
12/2/71
17*
50
A
Maximum
Normal
Normal
25.0
31.2
200.00
185.90
0.72
0.83
Chrysene ;
12/9/7]
22
75
D
None
Normal
37.5
No peaks
74.67
1.16
1,2-Benzanthrecene
* Two samples were collected at each location during this test. Both samples were
combined for the determination of surface adsorbed polynuclear aromatic compounds.
V-26
-------
mass emission rate of bound S02 in terms of Ibs/hour. Comparison of
the mass rate against the gaseous mass flow rates shows that the
amount of bound S02 released to the atmosphere is on the order of 10~10
of the mass released in gaseous form.
Measurement of gaseous SO mass flow rates was not successfully
accomplished in the baseline test due to problems with sample handling.
For this reason, no comparison can be made between the adsorbed SO
(measured as sulfites) and the gaseous S0_.
Table 15 is self-explanatory and provides the polynuclear aro-
matic hydrocarbons bound to the surface of 'the particulates matter.
Highest confidence should be placed on those tests with the highest
percent of recovery (i.e., the percentage of the original mass which
can be accounted for as extracted organic material and particulate
fly ash). As noted in Table 15, the organic materials found were
Benzo(a)Pyrene, and possibly Anthanthrene, Chrysene, and 1,2-
Benzanthrecene.
The chemical state of the sulfur adsorbed on the surface of fly
ash samples was also determined by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The results of these analyses appear in detail in M73-42, "Baseline
Measurement Test Results for Cat-Ox Demonstration Program." Three
techniques were used by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to examine
each of ten fly ash samples: photoelectron spectroscopy (ESCA),
surface area determination by the BET method, total sulfur determina-
tion by combustion analysis. One of the specimens was also examined
by infrared spectroscopy.
V-27
-------
The following are firm conclusions that can be made:
1. The photoelectron spectroscopy results show that the oxida-
tion state of sulfur on the surfaces of all ten samples is
+6.
2. The high intensities of photoelectron peaks arising from
sulfur indicate that in all samples most of the sulfur is
segregated at the surface rather than distributed homogen-
eously in the solid phase.
3. Surface area measurements and total sulfur determinations
show that the degree of surface coverage by sulfate salts
varies 5-40 monolayers.
4. The spectrum of the sample studied by infrared spectroscopy
shows that sulfur is present on the surface as sulfate
rather than as adsorbed SOg. Apparent discrepancies between
this conclusion and the findings of MRI can be explained by
the greater sensitivity of the wet chemical methods used by
MRI as compared with infrared spectroscopy.
The following observations were also made; however, it was felt
that more study would be needed before they could be stated as firm
conclusions:
1. Binding energies of $2 p electrons, determined by photoelec-
tron spectroscopy, closely match those for sulfates of
polyvalent cations such as Fe+^, Fe+ , and Ca*^. The sulfur
may be present on the fly ash surfaces as calcium or iron
sulfate.
t
2. Photoelectron peaks for silicon were broadened. This
suggests the presence of more than one chemical state of
silicon. The +4 oxidation state, indicating silicates of
SiC^j is definitely present, but lower oxidation states may
be present also. Different glass phases containing silicon
may also have caused the peak broadening. More study is
necessary to be sure that the broadening of the silicon
peaks is not due to interference by other elements.
V-28
-------
Conclusions—All primary objectives of the Baseline Measurement
Test were achieved in the five-week period of testing on Steam
Generator Unit No. 4 of the Wood River Station of the Illinois Power
Company.
A relationship was defined between control settings and opera-
ting conditions for Unit No. 4 and flue gas properties at the Cat-Ox/
Steam Generator interface; baseline performance of the steam generator
was characterized in terms of emission levels and quantitative data
were obtained which can be used to support the establishment of
realistic performance standards. Operating experience was also
obtained in the testing and calibration of the measurement procedures
and hardware to be used in the one-year demonstration test, and
quantitative information was obtained on the overall operability and
reliability of Steam Generator Unit No. 4.
Data are provided in this report in the form of tabular results
for a set of twenty-one separate tests, each at different operating
conditions. To maintain those conditions during each test (a period
of approximately ten hours), it was necessary to control load factor,
fuel type, soot blowing, and excess air.
In general, no test results were found that were significantly
different from anticipated results, either in terms of magnitude or
in terms of effects of the parameters examined.
Net and gross efficiencies were, on ,the average, higher at a 75
MW load level when compared with average values at 100 MW and 50 MW
V-29
-------
load levels, but the differences were not of a magnitude to be
significant. No significant differences were found in net and gross
efficiencies for the three types of fuel tested at the 100 MW level.
Measured gas mass flow rates for sulfur dioxide were consistent
with control settings and sulfur content of the fuel. Measured gas
flow rates for carbon dioxide were not significantly different for
the three types of fuel tested. Oxygen mass flow rates decreased with
decreased load level, and were found not to be significantly different
for the two fuel types for a fixed load level. Measured gas mass
flow rates for nitric oxide were significantly lower for tests
performed with the fuel type that was predominantly natural gas than
for tests performed with the other two fuel types.
Total gas mass flow rates were derived from the measured flow
*.
rates for individual gases (i.e., same decrease with decreasing load
level and same increase with increased excess air).
The results of a sulfur balance computation, comparing measure-
ments of sulfur flow input to the system in the fuel with sulfur flow
output for the system in the stack gas, were in good agreement for
all tests. The results led to the conclusion that the total combined
error in sulfur dioxide and gas flow measurements was low.
Grain loading measurements were found to be consistent with the
ash content of the fuels utilized and the soot blowing cycle employed.
No specific patterns were found in the analysis of results in terms
of mechanical collection efficiencies.
V-30
-------
In the comparisons between manual sampling and continuous
measurement results with theoretical expected values of gaseous
concentrations, closer agreement was found between the continuous
measurement results and the theoretical values.
The proximate and ultimate anlayses of the coal and the elemen-
tal analysis of pulverizer rejects, furnace bottom ash, and fly ash
did not provide any specific pattern beyond the expected results.
The elemental analyses are of special value, however, in that they do
provide the means for determining emission rates to the ambient
atmosphere for a number of elements not usually examined in emission
testing programs.
V-31
-------
Acceptance Test
The only information gathered on the totally operational
Cat-Ox system was collected during the Monsanto/IPC Performance
Guarantee Test. All the data presented and analyzed in this section
/
are taken from the Monsanto report of those tests.* Discussions
relating to Cat-Ox system acceptance and history are covered in
Section 1 of this document. Only the test results and their implica-
•* i •
tions toward the systems operation are discussed here. Figure 10
shows the test plan for sample and information retrieval based on an
uninterrupted 24-hour test.
Test Objectives—The prime objective of this test series was to
demonstrate that Cat-Ox could fulfill the requirements of the Process
Performance Guarantee agreed upon between Monsanto and 1PC on July 9,
1970.
The operating requirements are listed in Table 16. Monsanto
guaranteed the fulfillment of the conditions specified in Table 16 if
the Enviro-Chem Engineering design and operating instructions were
followed. The fuel type burned in Unit 4 was to be the same as
i
specified by IPX! on April 2, 1970. The flue gas was to contain no
more than 0.26 percent S0« and no less than 3.3 percent 0 . The
converter would be loaded with the specified amount of Cat-Ox A
Catalyst and have an input temperature maintained between 830°F and
*"Performance Guarantee Test, Cat-Ox System - Unit 4 Wood River
Station IPC," July 1973, B.C. Ward, Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems,
Inc.
V-32
-------
f
ELAPSED TEST TIME
(HOURS)
Unit 4 Data
Cat-Ox Data
Coal Sample
Acid Sample
C4-nj->1r M-| nt- T narMney
S02 Ppt. Inlet
S02 Converter Inlet
S02 Converter Outlet
S02 Stack Inlet
Inlet
Gas Composition Ppt.
Inlet
Gas Composition
Stack
Pitot Traverse Ppt.
Inlet
Pitot Traverse
Stack
0^ 123456789 10
XXXXXXXXXX X
XXXXXXXXXX X
XXX
XXX
cXXXcXXXXcXXX X
cXXXXcXXXXXX X
cXXXXcXXXXcXX X
XXXXXXXXXX X
„
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X - X X
XXX
cXXXXcXXXXcXXXXcXX
X cX XX X cX X X X cX X X X cX
XcXXXXcXXXXcXXXXcX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-< *• -4 >-
-< >- -< >-
X - Data Point
c - Instrument Calibration
FIGURE 10. CAT-OX PLANNED ACCEPTANCE TEST
-------
TABLE 16. OPERATING PARAMETERS GUARANTEED
Maximum Capacity Input Flue Gas
Acid Strength
Mist Emitted
SO, •*• SO Conversion
Fly Ash Removed
SO. Removed
1,120 x 10 Ib/m <§ 310°F 1.5" H2
>. 60° Baume (77.7% H2S04>
<1.0 mg 100% H SO./ACF @ capacity
90% or greater
99% @ rated capacity
V-34
-------
900°F. Further, it was required that all equipment interfaced with
Cat-Ox be in good operating condition.
Schedule and Results—The performance guarantee test began at
1700 hours 26 July 1973 after some initial analyzer problems. The
load was set at 98 MW since tests on 25 July 1973 indicated mass
flow at Unit 4 boiler capacity (102 MW) was in excess of design by
about 8 percent. Nine and one-half hours into the test the by-pass
damper tripped open from excess pressure at the output of the ESP and
at the Mist Eliminator (0235, 27 July 1973).
Preliminary flow calculations shows that at 98 MW the boiler
mass flow exceeded Cat-Ox capacity by 9 percent (1.22-1.23 x 10
Ibs/hr). As a result, the unit load was lowered to 92 MW.
Testing continued until 1130 hours 27 July 1976 when an I.D.
fan outage bccurred. Everything indicated that Cat-Ox was under
control at the time of the outage. The system was started again at
1330 hours with no explanation for the outage available.
Since neither outage described above could be shown due to
Cat-Ox malfunction, at 2130 hours 27 July 1973 Cat-Ox had officially
completed the 24-hour Guarantee Test period. Cat-Ox continued to
operate after that point and the following outages occurred:
1. 2300 hours 27 July 1973 (25-1/2 hours) 5 hours out due
to failure of "B" burner during an electrical storm
2. 0815 hours 28 July 1973 (29-3/4 hours) 30 minute coal flow
fluctuations caused "B" burner out
V-35
-------
3. 1600 hours 28 July 1973 (32 hours) load was lowered to 72
MW to further prove extended reliability.
The testing of the burners on fuel oil at 72 MW continued to 0900
hours 27 July 1973.
It was mutually agreed by Enviro-Chem personnel and Illinois
Power personnel that the test period between 1700 hours 26 July 1973
and 2300 hours 27 July 1973 constituted an "acceptable 24 substan-
tially consecutive hour performance test period." The data outside
this test period were also deemed acceptable since an excessive
flow rate was experienced early in the test period.
Gas Flow Measurement—Volume flow was measured at two locations:
at the input to the ESP and at the mid-point of the stack. All
measurements were made in accordance with the 1971 (December 23)
Federal Register.
The Cat-Ox system design capacity is 1,120,000 Ibs/hr at 310°F,
1.5 in HO. Initial tests on 25 July 1973 before the start of the
24-hour test resulted in flow rates of 1.22-1.23 X 10 Ib/hr at 102
MW. For this reason, the tests were run at 98 MW initially. However,
measurements on 16 July 1973 indicated mass flow at this load was
also above rated capacity (Table 17 lists the volume flow data
gathered during the test period). The load was subsequently lowered
to 92 MW which produced a flow nearer the rated capacity. The 02
readings at the economizer were below 4 percent. At one duct
V-36
-------
TABLE 17. CAT-OX GAS VELOCITY DATA
f
U5
Date
7/26/73
7/26/73
7/27/73
7/28/73
Actual Time
Hours
1200-1300
2300-2400
1400-1500
0930-1030
Location
Ppt. inlet
Stack
Ppt. inlet
Stack
Ppt. inlet
Stack
Ppt. inlet
Stack
Gas Flow
ACFM
401,559
440,575
392,916
356,455
381,936
368,562
389,471
377,546
Gas Temp.
°F
326
239
303
239
340
240
333
240
Molecular
Weight
29.19
29.10
29.47
29.47
29.07
29.14
29.44
28.95
Gas Flow
Ib . /hour
1,213,000
1,491,000
1,234,000
1,222,000
1,128,000
1,247,000
1,176,000
1,266,000
-------
the ESP inlet the 0 measurement was 6-7 percent while at the other
duct, it remained below 4 percent.
It was noted that the flow over one side of the ESP (the side
with 6-7 percent 0 ) was lower than the other side. The effects of
this variable input flow on the ESP is discussed in the special tests
section.
Fly Ash Removal—Particle loading measurements were performed
at the stack and input of the ESP using the ASME method. At the
stack, standard alundum thimbles were replaced by 47 mm Gelman Fiber-
glass units. Sample handling procedures outlined in Federal Register
23 December 1971 were followed.
Table 18 lists the results of the mass loading tests. Tests 4-3
and 4-4 included a loading of 0.008 and 0.007 gr/SCF, respectively
(efficiency of 99.5 percent). Mass loading results from tests 4-1 and
4-2 were much higher. The filters were contaminated with a green
crystalline material which was not apparent on the filters in any of
the other tests. Test 4-1 and 4-2 were performed when the unit was
operating above the rated capacity. Hence, these filters were con-
sidered contaminated and results erroneous. The fly ash removal
values presented in Table 18 are for the Cat-Ox system only. When the
fly ash removal of the mechanical collector is combined with these
results, the additive removal exceeds the required value.
*The system is described in "Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfuric Acid
Manufacturing Processes," U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. 979-AP-13, 1965.
V-38
-------
TABLE 18. PARTICLE LOADING FOR ACCEPTANCE TESTS
f
u>
VO
Actual Time ESP Inlet
Test No. Date Hours
4-1 7/26/73 1240-2200
4-2 7/27/73 0040-0230
0500-0820
4-3 7/27/73 1400-1900
4-4 7/27/73 2300-
Stack
gr/ACF , gr/SCF* gr/ACF gr/SCF
0.983 1.730 0.031
0.823 1.382 0.049
0.958 1.736 0.005
Aborted during
0.049
0.076
0.008
electrical
,% Removal
(gr/SCF basis)
97.2
94.5
99.5
4-5
7/28/73 1100-1440
0.866
1.523
0.004
0.007
99.5
-------
Acid Mist—Sampling for acid mist was performed at the stack with
a Brink BMS-10 Mist Sampler System. The tests were run simultaneously
with particle sampling and the results are presented in Table 19.
It is apparent from the table that the loading never exceed the 1.0
milligram 100 percent H-SO./ACF during these tests. Sampling
performed during mist eliminator washing indicated no increase in
H SO, mist during that phase of the operation.
S0« Conversion and Removal Table 20 is a summary of the S07 data
gathered during the test. Since all locations could not be recorded
simultaneously, the SO. data were integrated over a sampling period and
conversion efficiencies were calculated from these results. As can be
seen from the table, the conversion and removal efficiency was greater
than 90 percent, hence, meeting the performance guarantee requirements.
A discrepancy in SO values at the converter inlet and ESP
inlet is apparent, the former being 89 percent of the latter.
Though gas dilution from the burners could account for some of the
disagreement, the majority is probably due to the sampling at the
converter. This location has gas flows that are extremely turbulent
and segregated.
Figures 11 to 13 show a SO profile across the various locations.
Coal Analysis—Coal samples were taken from the four coal mills
and integrated for analysis. The results are presented in Table 21.
There were no unusual or surprising results produced from this analysis.
Cat-Ox Acid Strength—Table 22 presents the results of acid
strength test performed on segregated samples taken from the product
V-40
-------
TABLE 19. SULFURIC ACID MIST EMITTED TO THE STACK
Date
7/26/73
7/27/73
7/27/73
7/28/73
7/28/73
Actual Time
(Hours)
1220-2130
0030-0230
0500-0900
1105-1130
1540-1915
0535-0755
1100-1352
Mist Loading
mg 100% H?SOU/ACF
0.529
0.433
0.251
0.440
0.275
TABLE 20. MEAN S02 LOADINGS ACROSS CAT-OX
Location
ESP Inlet
Converter Inlet
Converter Outlet
Stack Inlet
24 Hour Test Data
ppm S02/hours of
monitoring
2203/23.2
1947/16.7
133/22.7
173.5/16.7
Accumulated Data
ppm S02/hours of
monitoring
2183/38.7
1958.5/28
139/34.7
188/27.7
S0_ Conversion
SO- Removal
93.2
92.1
92.9
91.4
V-41
-------
ppm
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0(
so2
— • Precipitator inlet
X Converter inlet
— D Stack inlet
o Converter outlet
( ) Unreliable data
— • -
—•-..•
—
— (a)
— --•'
_ D -*— <
1 1 1 1 1
Start
*r *
xjX^
(x)
(x)
(a)
i
1 1
iypass
)amper
Open
1
-'"\
V~^
•• >* N JJL^ "~*»,
"--*_ / * ^
^••sr
o o % 0 0
1 ~° 1 1 1
300 0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 241
Actual Time, Hours
till
FIGURE 11
PROFILE OF SO- CONCENTRATION ACROSS CAT-OX
7/26/73
0000 0300 0500 0700
Performance Guarantee Test
-------
-------
ppm S02
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Mill Outage
Burner B
Failure
Continuous
Measurements
Terminated
•Precipitator inlet
xConverter inlet
DStack inlet
OConverter outlet
()Unreliable data
vLoad Reduced
to 72 Mw
0000 0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200 1400
Actual Time, Hours
FIGURE 13
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
PROFILE OF SO CONCENTRATION ACROSS CAT-OX
7/28/73
-------
TABLE 21. COAL SAMPLE ANALYSES
Composition
% by weight
as received
C
H
S
N
0
Ash
V
Heating Value
Btu/lb
7/26/73
1900 hours
65.74
4.34
3.42
1.09
10.26
11.54
3.61
11,900
2300 hours
65.89
4.33
3.41
1.09
10.16
11.44
3.67
11,930
7/27/73
0800 hours
66.53
4.51
3.40
1.09
9.87
10.60
4.00
12,100
1500 hours
66.31
4.52
3.43
1.08
9.59
11.30
3.09
12,080
Composite
66.17
4.44
3.42
1.09
10.22
11.12
3.54
12,020
Fuel
Specification
4/2/70
61.43
4.38
3.11
9.46
10.12
11.50
11,070
f
J>
Ln
-------
TABLE 22. CAT-OX SULFURIC ACID STRENGTH
Date
7/26/73
7/26/73
7/27/73
7/27/73
7/27/73
7/27/73
7/27/73
7/28/73
7/29/73
7/29/73
Actual Time
(Hours)
1800
2300
0400
0800
1100
1900
2400
0600
0200
0600
Acid Strength
86.4
85.9
83.5
81.5
78.9-
80.6
80.6
79.3
76.0
76.2
Segregated acid
7/26/73 - 7/29/73 78.7
V-46
-------
Acid concentrations were established by concentration density deter-
minations. The initially high acid strength was caused by high acid
temperature at the exit of the absorbing tower (330°F) and higher gas
flows. More typical conditions were experienced as acid temperature
decreased (0800 27 July 1973).
Conclusions—Illinois Power Co. and Monsanto Enviro-Chem person-
nel agreed that between 1700 hrs 23 July 1973 and 2300 hours 27 July
1973 Cat-Ox fulfilled the performance guarantee.
The data demonstrated that Cat-Ox could produce an acceptable
strength acid while removing sufficient amounts of SO- from the flue
gas. The H2SO, mist in the exit gas was continually below the 1 mg
(100 percent H2SO,)/ACF specified. The particle measurements also
met the specified standards with the exception of tests 4-1 and 4-2
which were contaminated. The problems experienced with.those filters
were probably due to sampling at lower than acceptable temperatures
and were erroneous. These tests also indicate the first observations
of non-uniform flow over the ESP. The effect of non-uniform flow
on the ESP will be negative and is discussed later in Section V.
However, what is pertinent here is that had the flow been uniform the
ESP efficiency would have most likely increased.
Two problems hindered Cat-Ox operation:
1) Problems with the initial burners
2) Overloading of the Brinks mist eliminator with ash from the
oil burners
Both problems were the result of the poor internal burner reliability.
V-47
-------
The tests also emphasized that the Unit 4 boiler would have to
be operated slightly below its maximum.capacity or with some gas
by-pass so as not to exceed Cat-Ox capacity.
In general, these tests indicated that Cat-Ox would indeed
operate at its design capacity and specifications if the problems with
the reheat burners could be corrected.
V-48
-------
ESP TESTS
Test Objective
The primary objective of this test program was to evaluate the
ESP as a control device with regard to ESP performance characteris-
tics not extensively measured in the past. The precipitator is
integrated with the flue gas output of the 100 MW unit 4 steam
generator. The ESP was designed to remove 99.6 percent of the
particulate matter entering it or maintain an output of 0.005 gr/SCF
or less. These were the requirements necessary to satisfy the inlet
conditions to the Cat-Ox SO control process.
The specific areas of ESP investigation include the efficiency
of particle collection as a function of particle size from 0.01 [j.m
to 5 (Jim and the comparison of the effects of various parameter varia-
tions between measured results and computer-predicted results. The
computer simulation model was developed by SRI under a separate EPA
contract.
Schedule
The actual test schedule and ESP control settings are shown in
Table 23. A total of 15 tests were performed. The original test
sequence was modified to obtain additional time for a reliable
particle count in the diffusional particle size at the inlet of the
ESP and because unit No. 4 generator developed difficulties during
the test program.
V-49
-------
TABLE 23. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR TEST PROGRAM
..TEST
HO.
1
2
3
15
g
4
1
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
HUH
NO.
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2 .
DATE
(1973)
Sept. 11
(Night)
12
13
(Day)
14
(O«y) .
15
(Day)
16-19
19
(D>y)
19
(Day)
20
(Day)
21
(Day)
22
(Day)
24-25
(Night)
25-26
(Night)
26-27
(Sight)
27-28
(Night)
28-29
(Right)
29
Oct. 1
(Day)
WEEK
lie
1
I
2nd
\
1
3rd
1
4th
STEAM GENERATOR
OPERATING CONDITIONS
LOAD
103
95
70
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
"• ss
70.
70
70
70
103
COAL
High Sulfur
Klgh Sulfur
High Sulfur
High Sulfur
Klgh Sulfur
High Sulfur
High sulfur
High Sulfur
High Sulfur
High Sulfur
High Sulfur,
High Sulfur
High Sulfur
High Sulfur
Lou Sulfur-
SOOT
BLOWING
None
Ketractablaa
Wall
Hen*
Nona
Nona
Nona
Nona
None
None
None
None
None
Nona
None
None
ESP
OPERATING CONDITIONS*
PLATE
Automatic
(55 UA/ft2)
Automatic'
Automatic
—
—
Automatic
20 »A/fl2
10 UA/ft2
30 «A/ft2
Automatic
Automatic
30 «A/ft2
20 UA/ft2
10 UA/ft2
Automatic
TRANSFORMER
SETS"
Normal
Normal
4th Sect. Off
—
—
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
„,
Normal
TEST OBJECT1VBK
(Milbrtitlon of gaB volume flow
MM checkout equipment; SRI install voltage
divider*
ESP performance with soot blowing
ESP performance with lost section off
f •'•
Characterisation of EPS inlet for diffusion*.!
Particle site range (0.01-0. 15 tin)
Steam generator under repair
Characterisation of ESP inlet fet diffusions!
Particle Slxe Range (0.01-0.13 um)
ESP performance under normal operation
ESP performance at lover current density
ESP performance at lower current deneiey
4
ESP performance at lower 'current density
ESP performance at intermediate load
ESP performance, at low load
ESP performance at low load and current density
ESP performance at low load and current density
ESP performance at low load and current density
Conversion to low-sulfur coal'
ESP performance with low-sulfur coal
-
Collecting plate rapping conditions and discharge wipe vibration conditions constant throughout teat program.
V-50
-------
As can be seen from Table 23 for each variation of Plate current
i
22 2
i.e., 30 (aA/ft, 20 (jiA/ft , 10 (o.A/ft , or automatic operation, a series
of tests was run. For each test for a given set of conditions (coal,
soot blowing, plate currents or transformer sets), the steam generator
was operated at 103 MW, 85 MW, or 70 MW. A number of tests were
repeated as shown in Table 23. The steam generator was brought to
each specific load about 4 hours prior to the test. In some cases
(during low load tests) the 4 hour pre-soak could not be satisfied
because demands on IP required them to maintain a higher load during
the pre-soak period.
.Table 24 shows the parameters measured for each test. Table 25
shows the method employed for each test as well as locations where
samples or data were taken.
Three different methods of particle sizing were used to cover
the entire 5 |u.m to 0.01 JJLHI range. Sampling was anise-kinetic since
the particle size range of interest does not require isokentic
sampling.
Along with the on site analysis, ash, fly ash and coal samples
were sent out for chemical analysis. These data along with the other
.'
data were used to characterized the flue gas entering the ESP and
leaving the ESP such that any variation or fluctuation in the composi-
tions or character of the steam generation effluents which might
result in a change in ESP efficiency would be recorded. A more
comprehensive explanation of measurement methods and parameters is
V-51
-------
TABLE 24. PARAMETERS MEASURED DURING TEST PROGRAM
TEST
HO.
1
2
3
15
8
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
SUN
NO.
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
r
DATE
(1973)
Sept. 11
(Night)
12
13
(Day)
14
(Day)
15
(Day)
16-19
19
(Day)
19
(Day)
20
(Day)
21
(Day)
22
(Day)
24-25
(Night)
25-26
(Sight)
26-27
(Night)
27-28
(Night)
28-29
(Night)
29
Dct. 1
(Day)
WEEK
IB
\
t
i
2nd
i
3
1
1
f
<1
4th
MITRE
GAS CONCENTRATION
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GAS VOL. FLOW
AP SP T
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MANUAL
GB CS SV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X-
X
X
X
SRI
MANUAL
SV IR CN CL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,
X
Inli
X
ml
X
out:
X
Out]
X
Out]
X
out:
X
X
.t)
X
t)
X
et)
X
et)
X
et)
X
et)
MRI
MANUAL
ML I S03
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LEGEND
AP Differential Pressure
SP Static Pressure
T Gas Temperature
GB Gauge Board Readings
CS Coal Samples
SV Secondary Voltage
IR In-Situ Resistivity
CN Condensation Nuclei
CL Climec Counter
ML Haas Loading
I Impactor
A3 Ash Samples
SO. Gaseous SO-
V-52
-------
-------
given in the MITRE publication, "Test Evaluation of Cat-Ox High
Efficiency Electrostatic Precipitator," EPA-600/2-75-037.
Test Results
The Cat-Ox ESP has been designed to operate under normal
operating conditions for the Unit 4 steam generator with an effi-
ciency of 99.6 percent. Deviations from normal operating conditions
will affect the ESP performance. Table 26 shows the results of the
mass loading tests. Four of the 24 tests were subject to erroneous
data as indicated in Table 26.
The results gathered from the tests can best be summarized
in graphic form. Figures 14 through 19 show ESP performance vs. the
various operating conditions investigated.
•<
The operating conditions at Figure 14 are: load, 103 MW; flow,
approximately 308,000 SCFM; coal, 3.58 percent sulfur. The figure
indicates that efficiency is generally unaffected at current densities
22 2
between 55 |j.A/ft to 30 (jiA/ft . For current density below 30 |o.A/ft
collection efficiency decreases significantly. The penetration
(I/collection efficiency) shows an increase by a factor of about 16
for a current density decrease of 3 times (i.e., penetration goes
from 0.17 to 0.22 at 30 |iA/ft to from 2.69 to 3.82 at a current
density of 10|J.A/ft). Figure 15 (load-70 MW, flow 203,750) shows
results similar to those found in the higher load tests. The effi-
2 2
ciency remained constant from 55 |o.A/ft to 30 |J.A/ft and then de-
2
creased after 30 (J.A/ft . At this lower load (70 MW) an increase in
V-54
-------
TABLE 26. ESP MASS LOADING AND EFFICIENCY
AT VARIOUS OPERATING CONDITIONS
TEST RUN t
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2 '
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-2
14-1
M-2
OPERATING CONDITIONS
LOAD
103
103
103
103
103
103
85
70
1
70
70
70
103
FUEL*
HIGH SULFUR
3.54% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.48% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.38% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.44% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.46% wt.
•
HIGH SULFUR
3.67% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.56% wt.
HIGH .SULFUR
3.68% wt.
°KIGH SULFUR
3.81% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.75% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.60* wt.
LOW SULFUR
1.11% wt
• .
PLATE
CURRENT
AUTOMATIC
(55 MA/ft*>
.
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
20 «A/fl2
10 WA/ft2
30 HA/.ft2
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
30 tlA/ft2
20 |lA/ft2
10 llA/ft2
AUTOMATIC
SPECIAL
SOOT BLOW '
4TH' SECTION OFF
.'
l«
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
IDLE!
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
MASS LOADING
GR/DSCF
1.6406
0.0148
1.6459
0.0089
1.3025
0.0208
1.2929
0.0159
1.4312
0.0081
1.4748
0.0045
1.2860
0.0125
1.3086
0.0150
1.4489
0.0554
1.3277
0.0357
1.4020
0.0031
1.3687
0.0023
2.3658
1.4372
0.0140
1.2311
0.0101
1.0265
0.0302
1.1870
0.0088
1.2843
0.0351
1.3063
0.0121
1.3465
0.0123
1.2982
0.0211
1.2161
0..0277
0.9030
0.0038
0.8444
0.0049
GR/ACF
0.9870
0.0092
0.9950
0.0054
0.8127
0.0128
0.8230
0.0098
0.9118
0.0051
0.9168
0.0028
0.7987
0.0077
0.8057
0.0093
0.9033
0.0351
0.8179
0.0226
0.8649
0.0020
0.8226
0.0015
1.4689
0.9163
0.0087
0.7600
0.0061
0.6426
0.0183
0.7057
0.0054
0.7580
0.0216
0.8049
0.0075
0.8096
0.0076
0.7706
0.0133
0.7190
0.0173
0.5504
0.0023
0.5114
0.0030
Ib/HR
3629.11
36.79
4031.30
21.88
2989. n
51.80
2998.22
40.27
3247.51
20.14
3333.57
11.54
3085.08
31.37
3061.56
38.25
3246.70
141.91
3118.33
94.23
3106.46
8.08
3056.38
6.23
4356.20
2708.30
30.32
1931.38
15.48
1626.41
47.48
1731.44
14.86
1915.80
58.18
2089.63
20.11
2130.74
19.91
2038.85
34.73
1812.58
47.70
2008.13
9.48
1911.69
12.41
EFFICIENCY
99.10
99.46
98.40
98.77
. 99.43
99.70
99.03
98.85
96.18
97.31
99.78
99.83
(Leaky Probe)**
99.03
<88Z leokinettc)**.
99.18
97.06
<6»en Filter)**
99.26
• 17.27
(erven Filter)**
99.07
99.09
98.38
97.72
99.58
99.42
•Percentage cf eulfur it ehovn on en u received beei*.
eee Teble 12 end 13.
**Condltion« vhlch precluded cooputecion of efficiency.
For coal enelyeil.
V-55
-------
f
Ul
ON
100
OPERATING CONDITIONS;
103 MH, HIGH SULFUR COAL
60 50 40 30 20 10
CURRENT DENSITY - uA/ft
100
95
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
70 MH, HIGH SUEFUR COAL
60 50 40 30 20 10
CURRENT DENSITY - |*A/ft2
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
55 nA/ft2, HIGH SULFUR COAL
0 100
1 99
2 ,98
*« S
4 §96
o
5 95
\
88% ISOKINETIC
100 90 80 70
LOAD - MW
FIGURE 1*
ESP EFFICIENCY VS.
CURRENT DENSITY
FIGURE 15
ESP EFFICIENCY VS.
CURRENT DENSITY
FIGURE 16
ESP EFFICIENCY
VS. LOAD
-------
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
t-n
OPERATING CONDITIONSt
103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 55 |iA/ft^ 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR 55jiA/ft2 103 ^ 55 ^/ft2
0 1001 1 1 1 1 1 r-|0 . 1001- T-^—-i 1 1 10
-LUU
go
9*
i 98
1
H-
U
M
En Q7
3 •*'
g
H
S
H
^ 96
O 96
O'
05
(
1
f
! —
P
C
H
1
E
\
\
5
i
3
;'
V
V
^>
F"
g
?
6
0
u
i
<*
1
k
^
^
= ,
)
^
9
•4
r.
.
i 98
95
;r
ra
,E§
_;<».
^»^
3
FIGURE 1-7
ESP EFFICIENCY WITH
4TH SECTION OFF
FIGURE 18
ESP EFFICIENCY DURING
SOOT BLOWING
FIGURE, 19
ESP EFFICIENCY FOR
LOW SULFUR COAL
-------
ESP efficiency should theoretically exist because of the reduced flow
in the ESP; however, this was only observed at current densities
below 30 |jtA/ft. The data may have been influenced by unknown or
uncontrolled phenomena within the ESP. This will be discussed later
in the report. Figure 16 shows the efficiency vs. load for a number
of loads.
Figure 17 indicates a decrease of about one percent in effi-
ciency will occur (tripling of penetration) if the fourth section of
the ESP is off (equivalent to reducing the ESP length by 25 percent,
10 feet).
Tests 4-1 and 4-2 (no soot blowing) and 2-1 and 2-2 are com-
pared to show the effect of soot blowing in ESP performance. During
2-1, the retractables on the superheaters were energized; and during
2-2, the wall blowers were energized. The results indicated that the
wall blowers have little effect while the retractables cause an
efficiency decrease of 0.3 to 0.6 percent. This may represent a
worse than normal case since blowers were continuously cycled during
the test.
The results from test 14-1 and 14-2 indicate that the low
sulfur coal had little effect on ESP efficiency. Since measurements
showed no increase in ash resistivity, the results may be plausible.
However, since experience with other low sulfur coals have shown a
significant decrease in ESP efficiency, the effects of low sulfur
coal were investigated again later in the test program.
V-58
-------
The particle size distribution and fractional efficiency were
investigated for particles below 5 |j.m. The measurements were per-
formed using cascade impactors, a Climet optical particle counter and
diffusion batteries with CN counters. A thorough discussion about
sampling methods and procedure is given in "Test Evaluation of
Cat-Ox High Efficiency Electrostatic Precipitation."
Table 27 and Figure 20 give the data obtained from the optical
counter and the diffusion batteries (particle sizes between 0.01 [i.m
and 0.15 p.m). The data are presented as a function of efficiency and
were determined by the equation
MT. - Mrt.
Ii Oi
Efficiency
where
M . = measured mass for size range i at the input of ESP.
Mn- = measured mass for size range i at the output of ESP.
Table 28 gives the ESP efficiency vs. particle size for the impactor
data. In general the efficiencies are lower than expected, which,
could be the result of some H SO contamination. However, a mecha-
nism by which contamination could occur could not be determined (see
EPA-600/2-75-037). The particle size distribution obtained at the
inlet and outlet is presented in Figures 21, 22 and 23. Again in
comparing the outlet data with the optical counter, the impactor data
seem to be contaminated. Figure 24 is the mass distribution from
make up tests performed at the ESP inlet.
.1
V-59
-------
TABLE 27. FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY FROM SRI DIFFUSIONAL AND OPTICAL DATA*
Test No.
Date
Power 1
Supply >
Settings J
Size (um)**
0.015
0.037
0.078
0.11
0.135
0.46
0.68
1.0
1.25
1.4
1-5
3.
9/14
Automatic
4th
Section
Off
95
97.7
96.8
93.2
94
97.8
98.8
98.7
99.2
99.75
99
A
9/19
Automatic
97.9
99.1
98.6
97.1
97.5
96.8
98.6
98.9
99.55
99.55
99.85
5.
9/20
20 uA/ft2
Efficiency %
90
95.5
93.5
87
88
96.3
98.6
99.3
99.65
99.8
99.7
j>
9/21
10 uA/ft2
82
92.3
88
76
78
91.3
96.2
98.2
98.8
99.4
99.4
7
9/22
30 uA/ft2
98.5
99.35
'99
98
98.2
98.1
99.4
99.6
99.83
99.8
99.85
* Operating conditions: 103 MW, high-sulfur coal (3.49% weight average,
as received, for tests indicated).
i
** Efficiency data in the size range 0.01 - 0.15 |im (diffusional data)
are lower limits.
V-60
-------
0.01
1.0
Q
"**•
1 50
H
o\ H
§
PM
90
9?
99.9
* •'**'*
• o
• x
a X • •
x „
n x X
D
0 °
DIFFUSIONAL DATA .
1 1
0 TEST #3, 10/14/73, 103 MW,
0 TEST #4, 10/19/73, 103 MW,
-
X TEST #5, 10/20/73, 103 MW,
D TEST #6, 10/21/73, 103 MW,
A TEST #7, 10/22/73, 103 MW,
AjfcA
A AO
A ^'^Aw
•3k - V ^El
* A 8 °*
A w D
9 n
A O
a
, OPTICAL DATA
1 1
HIGH SULFUR, AUTOMATIC, 4th SECT. OFF
HIGH SULFUR, AUTOMATIC
o
HIGH SULFUR, 20(oA/ft
HIGH SULFUR, 10 |iA/f t2
HIGH SULFUR, 30 jiA/f t2
99. y
99
^
90 £5
u
w
0
H
50 |
B
M
O
3
8
1.0
0:01
0.01
0.10 1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER (ym)
FIGURE 20
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCIES FOR THE CAT-OX PRECIPITATOR
10
-------
TABLE 28. FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCIES FROM MRI IMPACTOR DATA*
Test
No.
5
6
7
9
10
f
S 12
13
14
Date
9/20
9/21
9/22
9/25
9/26
9/27
9/28
9/29
10/1
Load
(MW)
103
103
103
85
70
70
70
70
103
Goal
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
Plate Current
(pA/ft2)
20
10
30
Automatic
Automatic
30
20
.10
Automatic
Particle Diameter, Geometric Mean
4 2 1 0.8
97
87
98
99
99
97
99
99
98
.05
.91
.89
.61
.04
.96
.28
.24
.79
96.08
89.92
97.97
99.65
98,02
97.75
97.95
98.26
V
98.19
91.89
85.73
96.90
99.30
96.39
94.78
97.08
94.51
95.79
90.03
84.44
95.80
98.93
95.11
92.67
95.71
93.14
95.15
(lira)**
0.4
85.44
85.61
91.73
97.32
89.33
82.67
88.65
98.66
94.33
* Data reduction for particle size distribution was performed by EPA.
** Efficiencies generally lower due to contamination of impactor stages by H-SO, condensation.
-------
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
- O
O 5-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.44% wt.)*, 20 M.A/ft'
.* 5-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.44% wt.), 20 pA/ft2
O 6-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.46% wt.), 10 (j.A/ft2
• 6-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.46% wt.), 10 p.A/f t2
V 7-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.67% wt.), 30 |J.A/ft2
r 7-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.67% wt.), 30 |iA/ft2
14-1, LOW SULFUR (1.11% wt.),
AUTOMATIC
14-2, LOW SULFUR (1.11% wt.)§
AUTOMATIC
(DATA REDUCTION PERFORMED
BY EPA)"
*As received
INLET
ESP
OUTLET
ESP
I
0.01
0.1 1.0
GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER (ym)
10.0
FIGURE 21
dM/d LOG D VERSUS GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER FOR 103 MW LOAD TESTS
V-63
-------
10.0
1.0
Q
3
-O
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.01
A 9-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.56% wt.)*» AUTOMATIC
09-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.56% wt.)» AUTOMATIC
(DATA REDUCTION PERFORMED BY EPA)
*As received
INLET,
ESP I A'
OUTLET A-
ESP
a
J
0.1 1.0 10.0
GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER (ym)
FIGURE 22
dM/d LOG D VERSUS GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER FOR 85 MW LOAD TESTS
V-64
-------
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
A iO
D 10
O 11
O 11
A 12
• 12
• 13
* 13
1, HIGH SULFUR (3.68% wt.)*, AUTOMATIC
2, HIGH SULFUR (3.68% wt.), AUTOMATIC
1, HIGH SULFUR (3.81%wt.), 30 (j.A/ft2
2, HIGH SULFUR (3.81% wt.), 30jjiA/ft2
1, HIGH SULFUR (3.75% wt.), ,
20 g.A/f t"
>2, HIGH SULFUR (3.75% wt.),
20
-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.60% wt.),
10
-2, HIGH SULFUR
(3.60% wt.), 10
(DATA REDUCTION PERFORMED,,
BY EPA)
*As received
- INLET
ESP
OUTLET
ESP
I
I
0.01 0.1 1.0
GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER (jam)
10.0
FIGURE 23
dM/d LOG D VERSUS GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER FOR 70 MW LOAD TESTS
V-65
-------
10
A TEST 4, REPEATED, 10/30/73, 103 MM, HIGH SULFUR
O TEST 4, REPEATED, 10/30/73, 103 MM, HIGH SULFUR
D TEST 4, REPEATED, 10/31/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR
X TEST 3, REPEATED, 11/1/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR
,1.0!
H,
H
3
CO
W
CO , I
g:J
CO
D
O
a
o
x
A
a°
A
o
D
A O
1.0 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER (vim)
100
FIGURE 24
INLET MASS DISTRIBUTION CALCULATED FROM CASCADE IMPACTOR D'ATA
V-66
-------
In situ resistivity measurements were performed by the parallel-
disc measurement technique and the electric field-current density
technique. The procedures and advantages of both methods are dis-
cussed in EPA-600/2-75-037.
i
Table 29 gives the SO, mass flow rates at the inlet and outlet
of the ESP. In most tests, the SO, concentration was lower at the
outlet of the ESP, implying that some mechanisms (possibly readsorb-
tion by fly ash) were removing SO . Table 30 shows the average
values for SO- for the 103 MW high and low sulfur tests and the
70 MW high sulfur coal test.
Table 31 lists the results of the gas analysis during the
tests. The SO. concentrations for the high sulfur coal averaged
about 2,267 ppm and 424 ppm for the low sulfur coal. Table 32
compares the SO and SO concentrations in the gas. At the inlet
SO, was approximately 0.7 percent of the S02 and at the outlet
about 0.3 percent of the S0_.
Water vapor measurments ranged from about 10 percent to 7
percent by volume averaging 9.2 percent at the inlet and 8.1 percent
at the outlet.
The results of coal analysis (proximate and ultimate) are shown
in Tables 33 and 34 on a "as received" and "dry" basis, respectively.
The high sulfur coal averaged 3.58 percent S while the low sulfur
coal was 1.11 percent S. The ash content was higher for the high
sulfur coal than for the low sulfur coal. The chemical analysis of
V-67
-------
TABLE 29. MEASURED S03 CONCENTRATION AND MASS FLOW
TEST
NO.
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
i
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-2
14-1
14-2
\
T nn limlfVH
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OBTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
IHLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
ISLET
OUTLET
OPERATING CONDITIONS
LOAD
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
85
85
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
103
103
COAL
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
1
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
LOW SULFUR
LOW SULFUR
SPECIAL
SOOT BLOWING
RETRACTABLES
WALL BLOWERS
4th SECTION OFF
4th SECTION OFF
__
-.
..
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
PLATE
CURRENT
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
20 vA/ft2
20 |iA/ft2
10 VA/ft2
10 UA/ft2
30 JlA/ft2
30 UA/ft2
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
30 (jA/ft2
30 (iA/ft2
20 (jA/ft2
20 (lA/ft2
10 (jA/ft2
10 , A/ft2
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
SO- CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
9.1
5.0*
—
5.1*
27.9
5.6
47.7
3.5
21.1
8.1
15.8
.9
2.9
15.4
6.0
' 5.9*
9.8
23.7
13.0
1.7
17.9
6.B*
10.7
5.3
5.9*
4.7
4.7
6.4*
5.9*
5.1*
25.1
1.6
18.5
6.1
5.0
5.8*
21.5
1.8
8.7
5.6
19.5
1.9
7.8*
1.'4
4.4*
5.4*
9.3
2.9
(Ib/DSCF)
1.89 x 10"*
1.02 x 10 *•
~ f
1.05 x 10 *
5.78 x 10"!?
1.16 x }0
9.86 x 10"*
.71 x 10~*
4.36 x. 10"?
1.68 x 10
3.27 x 10"?
.19 x 10"°
.59 x 10"*
3.18 x 10"°
1.24 x lOl*,
1.23 x 10 6
2.02 x 10"*
4.89 x 10"°
2.70 x 10"?
.35 x 10"6
3.69 x 10"?.,
1.4 x 10"*
2.21 x 10"?
1.09 x 10
1.21 x 10"**
.98 x 10
.97 x 10"*
1.31 x 10"6
1.23 x 10"**
1.05 x 10"*
5.18 x 10"*
.33 x 10"°
3.83 x 10"*
1.26 x 10"""
1.04 x 10"*
1.20 X 10"*
4.44 x 10"*
.38 x 10""
1.81 x 10"*
1.16 x 10"*
4.04 x 10"*
.38 x 10"°
1.61 x 10"**
.28 x 10"°
.90'x 10"?*
1.12 x 10"**
1.93 x 10"?
.60 x 10"*
MASS
FLOW
(Ib/Hr.)
29.27
17.72*
—
18.14*
92.88
20.25
160.08
12.61
69.27
29.21
51.75
3.91
9.91
55.97
20.31
21.90*
31.69
87.76
44.40
6.47
57.24
25.79*
34.40
20.51
15.60*
12.63
12.80
19.83*
13.51*
11.27 *
57.46
3.63
39.12
14.82
10.86
13.92 *
49.73
4.44
20.05
13. 11*
44.42
4.37
16.80 *
3.37
14.01
19.65 *
30.59
10.61
NOTE:
*At detectable limit of analytical method.
V-68
-------
TABLE 30. AVERAGE SO. CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS FLOW
LOAD
103
103
i
70
t
COAL
HIGH SULFUR
LOW SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
S03 CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
16.5
8.0
9.3
2.9
14.7
2.9
(Ib/DSCF)
3.4 x 10~6
1.7 x 10~6
1.9 x 10~6
0.6 x 10"6
3.4 x 10"6
0.5 x 10~6
S03 MASS FLOW
(Ib/Hr.)
54.7
29.5
30.6
10.6
36.9
6.1
V-69
-------
TABLE 31. FLUE CAS COMPOSITION AT ECONOMIZER AND INPUT/OUTPUT OF ESP
Teat
Nu»b3
9/14
115
9/15
18
9/19
14
9/19
li
9/20
16
9/21
17
9/22
19
9/24-25
• 10
9/25/26
111
9/26-27
III
9/27-2S
113
9/21-29
fl4
10/1
f4 (»
10/30
14 («)
10/31
*3 (R) 1
11/1
Run Nunber
fl
(10:03a»-2:10tia)
12
<3:30m-7:45n»>
<10:05»-l:13pa)
12
(2:1SHB-B:15|»)
Single Run
(10:30«-5:30l»)
Single Run
11
(l:00w-5:00i»)
12
(6:57i»-9:3Sa>)
11
(9:56a»-l:20i>»)
12
<2:20n»>-6:45i»)
fi
(10:05aii- 12:320.)
12
U:3Sn-5:OOl»)
fl
(9:50a»-l:00i»)
(2:OOPB-5:OOPB>
11
U2:26»-3:05aB)
12
(4:20a»-6:58a«>
fl
(12:^-3:158.)
12
(4:00w-7:02u>
fl
(12:01«»-4:00a.)
12
(4:15«-7:12«a)
fl
(12:00»»-3:30«.)
12
<3:52aB-6:55a>)
(12:00
fl
(10:20»-l:20i»)
f2
(l!55p~3:57p.)«
Single Rim
U:15«-4:15piO
Single Run
U0:00--5i30p.>
Sin«le tun
(8:20- -12:35»1
so2
Input Output
Econonlzer ESP ESP
(ppm) (pp.) (pp.)
2561 2405 I860
2535 2280 172S
2276 2229 1525
2415 2235 1530
2490 2340 2295
2469 2310 2274
2445 2235 2235
2385 2190 2220
2325 2025 2138
2325 2190 2190
2400 2175 2280
2430 2250 2250
2400 2235 2235
2468 2280 2235
2520 2295 2295
2430 2265 2325
2520 2305 2325
2595 2370 2385
2655 2400 -' —
2685 2400 2355
2610 2400 2400
2505 2250
2385 2115 2175
480 458
420 390
2618 2430 2400
2409 2205 2295
2559 2334 2175
co2
Input Output
Economizer ESP ESP
«> m m
15.4 14.9 12.4
15.2 14.3 11.9
15.1 13.9 11.4
14.8 13.6 11.4
15.3 14.7
15.5 14.8 14.8
15.5 14.8 14.7
14.6 14.6 14.6
15.0 14.2 14.2
15.2 14.8 14.6
15.3 14.5 14.6
15.2 14.5 14.5
14.8 14.1 14.2
14.5 14.5
14.5 14.7 14.6
15.3 14.8 15.0
15.6 14.8 15.0
15.7 14.8 15.0
14.3 14.7 14.2
15.0 14.7 14.5
15.7 14.6 14.7
15.5 14.7 14.9
14.7 14.7 14.7
14.9 14.5 14.2
15.5 14.8 14.8
15.6 14.8 14.8
15.6 14.6 14.4
°2
Input Output
Economizer ESP ESP
m (» <«
3.7 6.0 10.1
3.7 5.6 10.3
4.3 6.2 11.7
4.1 6.5 11.8
IS S 7 in fl
3.8 5.8
3.7 5.2 5.5
3.5 5.6 5.6
3.2 4.4 5.5
3.7 5.8 5.6
4.0 5.0 5.4
3.9 5.4 5.5
4.1 5.8 5.8
4.2 5.9 5.8
4.7 6.1 6.2
4.5 6.1 6.2
4.2 5.7 5.6
3.6 5.9 5.3
3.7 5.9 5.8
3.5 5.9 5.7
3.6 5.7 6.0
3.7 5.9 5.4
3.6 5.8 5.5
3.6 5.8 5.6
3.5 5.8 5.3
4.0 5.5 5.8
3.5 5.5 5.6
3.3 5.4 4.9
3.3 5.4 5.0
»2°
Input Output
Economizer ESP ESP
m «) <«
— — —
— — —
—
-
—
5.5 5.1
5.9 5.0 5.5
4.8 5.6
6.2 5.2 5.6
6.7 5.3 6.8
7.2 5.8
5.2 4.9 5.1
6.8 6. 6.1
6.5 6.3 6.6
7.1 6.1 5.7
8.2 6.5 6.5
8.0 6.8 6.9
7.6 7.2
7.9 6.6
11.2 6.1 5.3
7.3 6.4 6.8
6.7 7.1 7.0
7.2 6.0 5.25
7.1 7.7 7.8
-------
TABLE 32. COMPARISON OF SO,.
AND S02 CONCENTRATIONS 3
TEST
NO.
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
. 6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-2
14-1
14-2
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
ISLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
, OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
S03
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
9.1
5.0*
5.1*
27.9
5.6
47.7
3.5
21.1
8.1
15.8
0.9
2.9
15.4
6.0
5.9*
9.8
23.7
13.0
1.7
17.9
6.8*
10.7
5.3
5.9*
4.7
4.7
6.4*
5.9*
5.1*
25.1
1.6
18.5
6.1
5.0
5.8*
21.5
1.8
8.7
5.6*
19.5
1.9
7.8*
1.4
4.4*
5.4*
9.3
2.9
S02
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
2405
2280
2229
2235
2310
2274
2235
2235
2190
2220
2025
2138
2190
2190
2175
2280
2250
2250
2235
2235
2280
2235
2295
2295
2265
2325
2305
2325
2370
2385
2400
2400
2355
2400
2400
2250
2115
2175
458
390
S03/S02
Percent)
0.4
~
1.3
2.1
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.5
1.1
0.6
0.1
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.1
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
2.4
V-71
-------
TABLE 33. PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE COAL ANALYSIS—AS RECEIVED BASIS
Test
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
Carbon
(% Wt.)
66.23
67.96
66.90
66.36
66.83
66.24
66.11
66.84
66.87
67.05
, 66.54
67.05
72.71
67.25
Hydrogen
(% Wt.)
5.12
4.67
5.24
5.04
5.18
5.19
5.13
5.21
5.26
5.26
5.23
5.11
5.48
5.16
Nitrogen
(% Wt.)
0.99
1.06
1.02
1.03
1.02
1.09
0.99
0.95
0.99
0.89
0.99
1.00
1.21
0.99
Sulfur
(% Wt.)
3.54
3.48
3.38
3.44
3.46
3.67
3.62
3.56
3.68
3.81
3.75
3.60
1.11
3.51
Oxygen
(% Wt.)
13.26
12.76
12.32
13.03
12.95
13.34
12.76
13.13
12.83
12.59
12.59
12.84
13.04
12.73
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
Moisture
(% Wt.)
3.62
3.65
3.69
3.77
4.02
4.21
3.61
4.10
3.60
3.61
3.50
3.55
4.19
3.65
Ash
(% Wt.)
10.86
10.07
11.14
11.10
10.56.
10.47
11.39
10.31
10.37
10.40
10.90
10.40
6.45
10.36
Volatile
Matter
(% Wt.)
37.56
37.86
37.73
37.54
37.84
38.20
37.49
38.35
38.19
38.01
37.82
37.91
34.48
38.06
Fixed
Carbon
(% Wt.)
47.96
48.42
47.44
47.59
47.58
47.12
47.51
47.24
47.84
47.98
47.78
48.14
54.88
47.93
Heat of
Combustion
(Btu/lb)
12,114
12,096
12,113
12,006
12,077
12,136
11,991
12,088
12,202
12,211
12,065
12,210
12,813
12,066
f
^1
N5
Average High Sulfur = 3.58% by weight
Average High Sulfur Ash = 10.64% by weight
-------
TABLE 34. PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE COAL ANALYSIS—DRY BASIS
Test
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
Carbon
(% Wt.)
68.72
70.53
69.46
68.96.
69.63
69.15
68.59
69.70
69.37
69.56
68.95
69.52
75.89
69.80
Hydrogen
(% Wt.)
4.90
4.43
5.02
4.80
4.93
4.93
4.91
4.96
5.04
5.04
5.02
4.89
5.23
4.93
Nitrogen
(% Wt.)
1.03
1.10
1.06
1.07
1.06
1.14
1.03
0.99
1.03
0.92
1.03
1.04
1.26
1.03
Sulfur
(% Wt.)
3.67
3.61
3.51
3.57
3.60
3.83
3.76
3.71
3.82
3.95
3.89
3.73
1.16
3.64
i
Oxygen
(% Wt.)
10.41
9.88
9.38
10.05
9.78
10.02
9.89
9.89
9.98
9.74
9.81
10.04
9.73
9.85
Ash
(% Wt.)
11.27
10.45
11.57
11.55
11.00
10.93
11.82
10.75
10.76
10.79
11.30
10.78
' 6.73
10.75
PROXIMATE
Volatile
Matter
(Z Wt,)
38.97
39.29
39.18
39.01
39.42 •
39.88
38.89
39.99
39.62
39.43
39.19
39.31
35.99
39.50
ANALYSIS
Fixed
Carbon
(% Wt.)
49.76
50.26 .
49.25
49.44
49.58
49.19
49.29
49 . 26
49.62
49.78
49.51
49.91
57.28
49.75
Heat of
Combustion
(Btu/lb)
12,569-
12,554
12,577
12,476
12,583
12,669
12,440
12,605
12,658
12,668
12,502
12,659
13,373
12,523
f
~J
CO
Average High Sulfur = 3.72% by weight
Average High Sulfur Ash = 11.06% by weight
-------
fly ash for certain critical elements and total sulfates is presented
in Table 35.
The SRI ESP computer systems model was utilized to project
the variation in efficiency expected for a variation in volume flow
rate. The results of the computer simulation with the experimental
data superimposed are shown in Figure 25 for the four levels of
current density employed in the test program. The computer simulation
curves are based on the Deutch exponential collection efficiency
equation, which has been substantiated experimentally>for ideal
2
operating conditions. The field measured data for the 10 p.A/ft
current density approximates the theoretical curve; however, as the
current density is increased, the field measured data systematically
deviate from the theoretical curves such that the efficiencies at the
larger gas volume flow rates become higher than at the smaller gas
volume flow rates. The implication is that the computer simulation
program does not account for some of the phenomena that could cause
slight changes in efficiency at the high levels of performance being
obtained. These phenomena are complex and may possibly be related to
the effect of ion density on the electric field, diffusion charging,
and non-uniform gas flow.
The computer model does not include factors to account for
particle re-entrainment. Therefore, the model is primatily useful
for extrapolating the gross behavior of precipitators, rather than
for predicting the absolute efficiency of a particular ESP unit. The
V-74
-------
TABLE 35. CHEMICAL CONTENT OF FLY-ASH SAMPLED AT ESP IKLET
Test
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
C
(% Wt)
2.76
2.21
1.63
1.28
3.09
1.14
1.94
2.20
1.06
0.75
1.50
3.74
H
(% Wt) (
0.39
0.12
0.70
0.51
0.36
0.40
0.60
0.70
0.46
0.61
0.35
0.47
K
% Wt)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Al
(% Wt)
6.7
6.5
6.4
8.2
$.2
10.4
8.4
8.5
6.6
6.8
7.9
9.5
Ca
(% Wt)
1.73
1.76
1.90
2.46
2.29
0.58
2.15
2.23
1.80
1.72
1.82
1.42
Fe
(% Wt)
9.0
8.3
8.2
7.9
8.0 -
8.1
9.5
9.7
9.3
9.6
9.0
4.7
Li
(% Wt)
0.0071
0.0071
0.0077
0.0074
0.0063
0.0070
0.0075
0.0074
0.0068
0.0054
0.0086
Mg
(% Wt)
0.045
0.029
0.038
0.062
0.052
0.049
0.053
0.058
0.043
0.046
0.043
0.041
K
(% Wt)
1.22
0.99
1.22
1.29
1.21
1.15
1.36
1.44
1.13
1.30
1.19
1.37
SI
(% Wt)
11.6
11.4
12.0
12.6
12.7
15.1
13.6
13.1
12.2
13.5
12.9
12.6
Na
(% Wt)
0.29
0.39
0.52
0.48
0.39
0.65
0.42
0.41
0.37
0.37
0.29
0.27
Sulfate
(% Wt)
3.2
1.7
2.8
2.8
3.7
3.0
5.2
3.7
4.6
7.1
' 1.7
f
•vj
Ul
-------
99.9i-
99.0
B
90.0
0.0
AUTOMATIC
MEASURED:
© AUTOMATIC
A 30 |j.A/f t2
D 20 (lA/f t2
O 10 (iA/f t2
J_
COMPUTER
SIMULATION
J_
I
100 200 300 400
VOLUME FLOW RATE, ACFM
500
FIGURE 25
COMPARISON OF COMPUTER SIMULATED AND MEASURED ESP EFFICIENCIES
V-76
-------
result of neglecting re-entrainment primarily influences the computed
versus measured performance in the particle sizes greater than 1 jxm.
Therefore, the -computer simulation for 10, 20, and 30 microamperes
per square foot was run for size-fractional efficiencies in this
range. The results of this simulation are shown, together with the
size-fractional efficiency as determined by measurement, in Figures
26, 27, and 28. The break in the predicted simulation curve results
fr'om the unavailability of a suitable theory to explain the transition
from the region where field charging dominates to the region where
diffusional charging dominates. In the lower limit region of the
\
measured data, the experimental points represent the lowest possible
level of efficiency. Consequently, the measured data in this region
are not a true measure of the efficiency and have been connected to
the optically measured data to show, in general, that the form of the
curve agrees with theory.
V-77
-------
99.999
99.99
99.9
99
90
1ES1 6-1, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 110 |*A/ft
O COMPUTER SIMULATED
A MEASURED
* LOWER LIMIT REGIONH
(ACID CONDENSATION)
j«-OPTICAL-«*|
I
_L
0.01
0.1 1.0
PARTICLE SIZE, ym
10.0
FIGURE 26
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND MEASURED SIZE FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR 10 MICROAMPERES PER SQUARE FOOT CURRENT DENSITY
V-78
-------
99.999
99.99
99.9
H
H
U
M
99
90
TEST 5-2, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 20 (JiA/ft
O COMPUTER SIMULATED
A MEASURED
»LOWER LIMIT REGION
(ACID CONDENSATION)
("••OPTICAL*-!
I
0.01
0.1 1.0
PARTICLE SIZE, ym
10.0
FIGURE 27
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND MEASURED SIZE FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCIES
- FOR 20 MICROAMPERES PER SQUARE FOOT,CURRENT DENSITY
V-79
-------
99.999
99.99
EFFICIENCY (%)
VO
vo
.
vo
H
w
EJ "
o
90
0
0.
TEST 7-1, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 30 (xA/ft
O COMPUTER SIMULATED
A MEASURED
•Ml
\
•\ '/
\ //
\ »//
, V_-/4//
S / O
\A /» /
^ ^ / \ /
^~y V
••LOWER LIMIT REGION*"] |*- OPTICAL-*)
(ACID CONDENSATION)
1 1
01 0.1 1.0 10.
PARTICLE SIZE, urn
FIGURE 28
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND MEASURED SIZE FRACTIONAL
EFFICIENCIES FOR 30 MICROAMPERES PER SQUARE FOOT
CURRENT DENSITY
V-80
-------
Conclusion
In the normal mode of operation for the Unit 4 steam generator
(i.e., 103 MW load, high-sulfur coal, and ESP functioning automatical-
ly), the total ESP efficiency was measured to be in the 99.43 to
99.70. percent range, indicating that the ESP was operating either at
or close to the design efficiency (99.6 percent). A change to
low-sulfur coal (1.11 percent S, as received) under these same
operating conditions showed no significant loss in efficiency.
A decrease in load from 103 MW to 70 MW, with a corresponding
decrease in gas volume flow from an average of 308,000 SCFM to
203,750 SCFM, resulted in a decrease of ESP efficiency as opposed
to the expected, increase in efficiency. An explanation of this
result cannot be made based on the available data; more data are
required, particularly at the lower load levels, to provide a defini-
tive statistical result.
The ESP efficiency is nearly constant for ESP current densi-
2 2
sities from 55 p.A/ft (automatics) to 30 (j.A/ft . As current den-
2
sities decreased below 30 |J.A/ft collection efficiency begins to
drop, reaching a value ranging from 96.18 percent to 97.31 percent
2
at a current density of 10 (JiA/ft . Resulting fly ash penetration
(I/collection efficiency) increases to values'of from 2.69 percent to
2
3.82 percent at 10 p.A/ft from values of 0.17 percent to 0.22 percent
o
at 30 |j.A/ft . Therefore, on the average, penetration increased by a
factor of approximately 16 for a factor of 3 decrease in current
density.
V-81
-------
With the fourth section of the ESP off, a loss in efficiency
t • -
of one percent with a corresponding tripling of the fly ash penetra-
tion was observed. This result shows the effect of having a smaller
•v ',
precipitator, shorter in length by approximately 10 feet (25 percent
of total length).
Soot blowing using only the wall blowers had no discernible
effect on ESP efficiency or outlet grain loading; however, soot
blowing using the retractable blowers dropped the efficiency by 0.3
to 0.6 percent and caused approximately a doubling of the fly ash
penetration.
The data involving measurement of particle size efficiency
resulted in some difficulties. One problem was contamination of
impactor data at the precipitator outlet by condensation of H.SO,.
In addition, similar contamination was observed in the condensation
nucleii (CN) apparatus; however, good results were obtained with the
Climet optical counter in the 1.5 |im to 0.46 p.m size range. A drop
in efficiency from 99.85 to 96.80 percent from the large particle
size to the small particle size was determined for the ESP in the
automatic mode of operation.
Even though the CN results were contaminated by H9SO, condensa-
tion, a lower limit of efficiency was determined in the diffusional
size of range from 0.01 |im to 0.15 (J.m. The ESP efficiency was
greater than 97 percent over this range.
V-82
-------
The resistivity measurements of the low-sulfur coal were
approximately the same as for the high-sulfur coal, corroborating the
high ESP efficiency obtained during the low-sulfur coal test. The
resistivity may have been dominated by surface conductivity in the
presence,of high concentrations of water vapor and S0_.
The ESP efficiencies determined from the measured data were
compared with efficiencies determined by the SRI ESP computer
systems model. In a comparison of total efficiency versus, gas
volume flow, the measured data verified the validity of the simulation
model at the lower current densities, but deviated from the model at
the higher current densities. Comparisons were also made of measured
i
fractional efficiencies and computed efficiencies. There was general
agreement between the measured and computed data.
This series of tests left two unexplained deviations from the
expected results. First, the low sulfur coal was expected to reduce
ESP efficiency and did not. Though the resistivity of the ash was
similar to high sulfur coal ash a possible reason why no reaction was
noted could be due to insufficient operating time on the ESP. On
subsequent tests, it was noted that a period of several hours was
required to purge the ESP system of residual ash material when the
fuel type was changed. Further investigations of this possibility
are discussed in the special test section of this report.
Another area was the decrease in efficiency with decrease in
load for the higher current densities. The anticipated results
V-83
-------
may have been obscured by the loss of data points and the need to
obtain sufficient data to indicate a statistical trend. Conversely,
existing analytical expressions do not define all of the significant
phenomena occurring in commercial precipitators. The possible causes
for the decrease in efficiency are further discussed in the Special
Tests portion of Section V.
Main Test Program
v
The main test program was to be a series of test groups that
entailed the comprehesive testing of the Cat-Ox overall system and
its sub-system. Table 36 gives a summary of the main test program.
The specific details and description of the individual tests are
outlined in "Test Plan for Cat-Ox Demonstration" MITRE document
M76-24. Only one group of tests (on the electrostatic precipitator)
wa.s completed since the Cat-Ox system remained inoperable during the
extent of the contract. The Transient Test Program (integrated into
the main steady state test program) is discussed in the next section.
Test Objective—This series of electrostatic precipitation tests
was to be the first in a program of approximately 18 tests series
(the main test program) which were designed to determine the perform-
ance characteristics of the total Cat-Ox. The entire program along
i
with specific details on this test is outlined in "Test Plan for
Cat-Ox Demonstration" MITRE document M76-24. The main objective was
to test the Cat-Ox ESP subsystem to determine if it was performing as
designed and to quantify its performance under a range of conditions.
V-34
-------
TABLE 36. SUMMARY OF TEST PROGRAM DESIGN
T ESP-2-1
SUBSYSTEM
TIME PERIOD
(WEEKS)
NUMBER
OF TESTS
DESIGN
STEAM GENERATOR
VARIABLES
Electrostatic Precipitator
No test (Cat-Ox Process
Start-Up)
Converter, Heat Exchanger
Heat Exchanger Soot Blowing
No Testing
Absorbing Tower
Heat Exchanger Soot Blowing
Converter, Heat Exchanger
No Testing
Mist Eliminator Wash
Absorbing Tower
Converter, Heat Exchanger
No Testing-
Steam Generator
Cat-Ox Process Maintenance
(Catalyst cleaning, Heat
Exchanger Wash)
Converter, Heat Exchanger
Mist Eliminator
Absorbing Tower
No Testing
Mechanical Collector,
Precipitator and Overall
System (Particulate)
Converter, Heat* Exchanger
No Testing (Catalyst
Cleaning)
Converter, Heat Exchanger
No Testing
Overall System
,1
1
2
12
Full Factorial
Load, fuel, soot
blowing
3 Fractional Factorial I Load, excess air
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
j3
1
Special
Random
Complete
Block
Special
Fractional Factorial
Special
Random
Complete Block
Fractional Factorial
Fractional Factorial
Special
Load
II Load, excess air
Load
III Load, excess air
I Load, excess air
Special
Load
3 Special Load
Fractional Factorial II Load, excess air
Fractional Factorial II Load, excess air
Fractional Factorial I Load, fuel, excess
air
No Testing
Overall System
2%
Vt
Fractional Factorial II Load, fuel, excess
air
No Testing
Overall System
Fractional Factorial III Load, fuel, excess
air
V-85
-------
No other tests in the main test program were completed since the
Cat-Ox one-year demonstration was never initiated.
Schedule—Table 37 shows a list of the tests and desired condi-
tions for each test. There were three variables: load, fuel, soot
blowing. The load to be set at 100 MW, 80 MW and 60 MW for four
tests each while fuel type and soot blowing were varied. The test
was originally designed for high and low sulfur fuels; however, due
to the lack of low sulfur coal a mixture of gas and coal was,employed.
<,
Excess air was to be set at 4.0 percent 0 and burner angle was
normal.
Particle sampling at the input and output of the ESP was per-
formed by personnel from the Midwest Research Institute while test
coordination, continuous gas analysis and coal sampling was performed
by MITRE personnel.
A total of 15 tests were run; only 12 were required. The three
extra tests had to be run to repeat tests 1, 6 and 11.
The test schedule was modified for the following reasons: test 1
was repeated because a particulate matter sampling line broke during
the first test. Tests 6 and 11 were repeated because the sampling
filters were found to be contaminated. This was probably the result
of ambient air cooling the filter below the dew point. Table 38
shows the actual test schedule including the extra tests. As can be
seen from the table, the schedule was rearranged to fit into Illinois
V-86
-------
TABLE 37. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR (ESP) TESTS
CHANGE OF EFFICIENCY AND
OUTPUT GRAIN LOADING VS. TIME
DESIGN PERFORMANCE
99.672
.005 GRAINS/STANDARD
CUBIC BOOT, 32°F
MEASURED PARAMETERS
& OPERATIONAL INTEGRITY
MASS FLOW OF PARTICULATE -
POINTS i, 3
MONITORING & ANALYSIS
PERIODICALLY
SUBSYSTEM OPERATING STATUS
SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE OF ESP
BEFORE AND AFTER
f
co
CHANGE OF ELECTRICAL
CHARACTERISTICS VS. TIME
CHANGE OF ELECTRO-MECHANICAL
CHARACTERISTICS VS. TIME
TEST SETTINGS AS
SPECIFIED BY
ILLINOIS POWER
COMPANY
TEST SETTINGS AS
SPECIFIED BY
ILLINOIS POWER
COMPANY
PRIMARY VOLTAGE
PRIMARY CURRENT
SECONDARY CURRENT
INTEGRITY OF DISCHARGE
RECORD PERIODICALLY
RECORD PERIODICALLY
OPERATION OF ELECTRODE
VIBRATORS, FREQUENCY AND
INTENSITY
OPERATION OF PLATE
RAPPERS, FREQUENCY AND
INTENSITY
OPERATION OF HOPPER LEVEL
INDICATORS
OPERATION OF HOPPER
VIBRATORS
CORROSION
TEMPERATURE -
310°F
MATERIALS, POINT 3 -
C-1008 CARBON STEEL,
316 STAINLESS STEEL,
COR-TEN
TEMPERATURE, POINT 3
CORROSION RATES
MONITOR TEMPERATURE
-------
TABLE 38. ESP SUBSYSTEM TEST SCHEDULE
Test
No.
12
1
9
11
5
6
4
7
6R
11R
10
8
2
3
Date
9/12/74
9/13/74
9/15/74
9/16/74
9/17/74
9/18/74
9/19/74
9/22/74
9/23/74
9/24/74
9/26/74
9/27/74
Excess
Air
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Load
100
100
80
60
80
60
80
80
60
60
100
100
Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal'
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal/
Gas
Coal/
Gas
Coal
Coal/
Gas
Coal/
Gas
Coal/
Gas
Soot
Blowing Comment
Yes
No
No ESP Noisy
No Green Filter
Yes
Yes Green Filter
No
Yes
Yes Repeat for 6 and
No 11
No
Yes
No
Yes
V-88
-------
Power Company's schedule so as to produce a minimal amount of inter-
ference with normal operation.
Originally, the sulfur content of the fuel was to be about 3.6
percent for the high sulfur and 1.8 percent for the low sulfur
(achieved by burning gas in combination with coal as a fuel).
However, during this test period, the Illinois Power gas meter was
functioning improperly and resulted in variable effective sulfur
control for the low sulfur fuel.
Results—Table 39 shows,the results of measured volume flow data
collected at the inlet and outlet of the ESP. As can be seen from
3
the table, the mass flow for the 100 MW tests ranged between 19 x 10
3
to 22.2 x 10 Ib/min. of stack emission while 60 MW tests ranged from
3 3
10.5 x 10 to 13.5 x 10 Ib/min. In general for a given load the
coal/gas fuel had a lower total mass emission than the all coal
fuel.
Table 40 lists the grain loading and total particle mass rates
at the ESP input and output. As would be expected, the inlet grain
loading for the coal tests is approximately double that of the coal/
gas fuel tests. Tests 9 and 11 are exceptions and are questionable;
they will be discussed in the conclusions section. Tests 6 and 11
were found to have contaminated filters and hence were repeated
(tests 6R and 11R). The gaseous results collected during tests 6 and
11 were uneffected by the contaminated filters and are presented in
this section.
V-89
-------
TABLE 39. COMBUSTION GAS FLOW RATES
TEST
t
1
9
11R
11
12
5
6R
6
2
4
10
3
7
8
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
. 3
3
3
4
4
4
INLET TO ESP
, ACTUAL STANDARD MASS*
FLOW FLOW FLOW
CF/Min DSCF/Mln Lbs/Mln
399,300
353,267
215,343
248,348
426,630
319,762
234,636
224,977
410,776
284,630
228,751
400,237
311,763
231,831
261,106 20,984
230,635 ' 18,304
133,409 10,536
158,838 13,286
278,298 22,116
203,090 16,544
147,207 11,430
141,296 11,517 '
241,197 19,649
175,350 14,207
133,353 10,895
235,869 19,186
193,781 15,620
136,551 11,095
OUTLET TO ESP
ACTUAL STANDARD MASS**
FLOW FLOW FLOW
CF/Min DSCF/Mln Lbs/Min
421,474
339,450
249,241
246,615
434,405
313,730
248,323
240,860
404,039
285,020
250,376
427,492
314,330
240,851
270,173 19,993
209,927 17,098
150,604 12,011
159,152 12,906
267,568 21,779
195,843 15,963
155323' 12,568
148,482 11,915
239,107 19,546
172,039 13,983
146,644 12,070
250,724 20,558
192,380 15,616 '
141,783 11*624
* (1) all coal fuel, no soot blowing, (2) all coal fuel, soot blowing,
(3) coal/gas fuel, no soot blowing, (4) coal/gas fuel soot blowing
** Mass Flow includes water vapor
V-90
-------
TABLE 40. PARTICLE LOADING MEASUREMENT
vo
TEST # DATE
1
9
11R
12
5
6R
2
4
10
3
7
8
9/13
9/15
9/23
9/12
9/17
9/23
9/26
9/19
9/24
9/27
9/22
9/24
LOAD
100 Coal
80 Coal
60 Coal
100 Coal
80 Coal
60 Coal
100 Coal/
Gas
80 Coal/
Gas
60 Coal/
Gas
100 Coal/
Gas
80 Coal/
Gas
60 Coal/
Gas
INLET PARTICDLATE LOADING OUTLET PARTICULATE LOADING
STANDARD ACTUAL TOTAL EMITTED STANDARD ACTUAL TOTAL EMITTED
GR/DSCF GR/ACF tfc/HR GR/DSCF GR/ACF Lb/HR
0.81720
1.89488
0.58979
0.90276
0.87957
1. 13817
0.44007
0.26700
0.35764
0.49395
0.44195
0.43285
0.53437
1.23709
0.36539
0.58888
0.55864
0.71407
0.25840
0.16449
0.20849
0.29110
0.27470
0.25495
1828
3745
674
2153
1531
1436
910
401
409
998
734
507
0.00421
0.02777
0.01155
0.00810
0.00384
O.OQ201
0.00181
0.00224
0.00200
0.00214
0.00248
0.00267
0.00270
0.01717
0.00698
0.00499
0.00240
0.00126
0.00107
-
0.00135
0.00117
0.00216
0.00152
0.00157
9.75
49.46
14.90
18.56
6.45
2.67
3.71
3.31
2.51
4.60
A. 10
3.25
-------
Table 41 lists the Orsat analysis and the water vapor concentra-
tions at the ESP inlet and outlet while Tables 42, 43, 44 and 45 list
the continuous gas analysis for 0 , CO , NO and SO-, respectively.
A, £. X 2.
The continuous gas analyses were performed on gas samples extracted
from the economizer, ESP inlet, ESP outlet and the stack.
For the most part, all calculations requiring gas concentrations
data are done using the continuous data primarily because these data
were collected and averaged over the entire test period while the
manual data (gaseous) were from grab samples taken at the beginning
or end of the test). The continuous data seem moire reliable. The
data show an average 0 concentration at the ESP inlet of 4.7 percent
and at the outlet of 5.4 percent. This is the predicted direction
change since one would expect to have some air leakage into the flue
gas. The manual data shows the opposite change (5.3 percent at the
inlet and 4.3 percent at the outlet). This type of change would only
result if there was sampling error, stratification of gas or rapid
oxidation in the ESP. The latter two are highly unlikely in these
magnitudes. The Orsat showed ESP inlet and outlet data for CO to be
13.6 percent and 13.9 percent respectively (opposite of the expected
change). The continuous analysis indicated an average CO. of 14.8
percent at the inlet and 14.7 percent at the outlet (the expected
direction of change caused by air leakage). On the basis of this
comparison, the continuous gas data seems more realistic and depend-
able.
V-92
-------
TABLE 41. OBSAT ANALYSIS (% Volume)
TEST WO- DATE
INLET
OUTLET
co
co
co
co
1
9
11R
11
12
5
6R
6
2
4
10
3
7
8
9-13-74
9-15-74
9-23-74
9-16-74
9-12-74
9-17-74
9-23-74
9-18-74
9-26-74
9-19-74
9-24-74
9-27-74
9-22-74
9-24-74
4.9%
5.8
5.0
6.8
5.0
5.2
5.0
6.2
4.2
3.8
5.7
4.7
5.9
5.7
15.8
15.1
'13.8
15.4
15.5
17.4
13.8
15.4
11.8
14.1
10.5
12.0
9.7
10.5
0
0
.1
0
.3
0
.1
0
.1
0
0
.1
0
0
7.3
5.5
6.3
8.5
6.0
8.3
4.7
8.6
12.6
9.9
13.1
12.1
11.3
12.0
4.6%
4.2
5.7
4.4
4.1
5.1
4.7
4.6
4.6
3.6
4.8
4.5
5.9
4.8
15.3
16.7
12.0
18.3
15.5
16.9
12.0
17.3
11.9
13.5
11.2
12.4
10.0
11.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
8
8.9
9.1
6.9
9.7
8.6
8.3
9.4
12.9
10.8
14.1
12.8
12.9
13.4
V-93
-------
TABLE 42. 0 CONCENTRATIONS (PERCENT)
.^\
1R
9
11
11R
12
5
Q
6R
2
ft
10
3
7
8
..ECONOMIZER
4.2
4.9
4.3
3.0
4.4
4.1
4.4
3.6
3.7
4.1
4<1
3.9
4.3
3.6
ESP
INLET
5.2
5.7
5.3
4.0
5.3
5.1
5.1
4.4
4.8
5.2
4.8
4.9
5.3
4.1
ESP
OUTLET
5.2
5.7
5.8
4.9
5.3
5.3
'6.0
5.3
4.8
5.7
5.4
5.0
5.4
5.2
STACK
5.9
6.5
6.6
5-9
5.9
6.0
6.6
6.1 '
5.6
6.3
6.6
5.8
6.5
5.9
V-94
-------
TABLE 43. C(>2 CONCENTRATIONS (PERCENT)
Nk
TEST NO. X^p
1
9
11R
11
12
5
6R
6
2
4
10
3
7
8
ECONOMIZER
14.9
15.2
15.3
16.0
17.1
15.2
15.3
15.?
14.7
15.5
14.6
14.1
15.3
14.1
ESP
INLET
14.7
14.8
14.7
15.6
16.8
14.8
15.1
14.9
14.3
15.2
14.3
13.9
14.7
14.0
ESP
OUTLET
14.7
14.7
14.5
15.5
16.7
14.7
14,8
14,7
14.3
15.2
13.9
14.0
14.7
13.6
STACK
14.4
14.4
14.3
15.2
16.2
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.0
14.4
13.7
13.5
14.1
13.2
V-95
-------
TABLE 44. NO CONCENTRATIONS .(PPM)
X *"
xJV ECONOMIZER
X^T!
TEST NO. Ntt
1 261
9 - 263
11R 337
11 1 268
12 1 254
5 262
6R 314
6 1 218
2 \ 170
4 160
10 123
3 J233
7 149
8 120
ESP
INLET
159
268
283
268
243
265
298
278
191
137
128
213
149
112
ESP
OUTLET
247
268
265
258
24?
270 '
283
253
182
125
124
208
140
107
STACK
248
250
243
225
230
246
278
264
163
153
105
175
128
95
V-96
-------
TABLE 45. S02 CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
TES'T NO. >J0
1
9
11R
11
12
5
6R
6
2
4
10
3
7
8
ECONOMIZER
2524
2794
2734
2629
2509
2652
2613
2400
1796
900
1095
1345
983
1175
ESP
INLET
2470
2734
2634
2475
2509
2610
2538
2310
1789
880
1121
1350
963
1225
ESP
OUTLET
2471
2711
2528
2453
2505
2562
2400
2310
1737
825
1116
1373
973
1152
STACK
2431
2615
2400
2340
2445
2454
2340
2205
1590
735
1069
1305
860
1090
V-97
-------
Table'46 gives the results of the proximate and ultimate coal
analyses performed on samples from each test. The results are
presented on a dry basis along with the as-received moisture content.
The average moisture content of the coal was about 4.3 percent by
weight, while the sulfur averaged 3.55 percent by weight as a dry
basis or 3.42 percent on an as received basis. The average heat of
combustion of the coal is 12,627 Btu/lb on a dry basis.
As described earlier, in order to meet the two sulfur level
fuels parameter, a mix between coal and gas was set for the low sulfur
fuel tests. The value was to be one half of the high sulfur fuel. A
I
combination of one part coal (measured in Btu) and one equivalent
part gas (measured in Btu) would produce an effective sulfur level
approximately one half that of the coal. However, an erroneous
IP gas flow meter allowed too much gas into the mix during some
tests resulting in varying sulfur levels. The corrected coal and gas
flows were computed and listed in Table 47 along with the corrected
effective sulfur level of the fuel for each test. The data are only
presented for those tests which produced acceptable particle data.
The average effective sulfur content of the all coal tests was 3.47
' i
percent sulfur as received. The gas feed error was such that it was
fairly consistent for a given load, the averages for the 100, 80 and
60 MW low, sulfur fuel tests were 1.7 percent, 1.36 percent and 1.43
percent sulfur, respectively.
The ESP efficiency was calculated by the equation:
V-98
-------
TABLE 46. COAL ANALYSIS
DRY BASIS
T
/ . ////. //* ///* ///A // // /&
i
9
11R
11
12
5
6R
6
2
4
10
3
7
8
/$$'
4.41
4.32
4.56
4.44
4.65
4.31
4.74
4.38
3.76
4.35
3.86
4.45
4.16
4.19
10.27
13.66
10.76
11.65
10.10
12.28
10.46
10.60
10.79
10.58
9.71
9.81
10.14
10.23
'//
41.15
36.37
41.03
39.95
40.38
39.42
40.85
40.97
41.0
39.59
40.87
40. 95
42.10
41.16
// /& t
48.58
49.97
48.21
48.40
49.52
48.30
48.69
48.43
48.21
49.83
49.42
49.24
47.76
48.61
3.38
3.60
3.74
3.59
3.60
3.71
3.78
3.53
3.10
3.94
3.10
3.42
3.78
3.45
//*
12,713
12,186
12,651
12,530
12,727
12,376
12,659
12,697
12,565
12,711
12,773
12,780
12,769
12,646
7/ //
69.98
67.43
69.11
68.25
69.60
67.56
69.50
,69.20
69.26
69.56
70.51
70.62
69.61
69.79
5.14
4.88
5.11
4.51
5.00
4.77
5.05
5.15
5.00
5.25
4.91
5.19
5.14
5.09
/////
1.10
1.11
1.13
1.09
1.13
1.10
1.10
1.14
1.11
1.13
1.18
1.15
1.15
1.14
10.13
9.32
10.15
10.91
10.57
10.58
10.11
10.38
10.74
9.54
10.59
9.81
10.81
10.30
V-99
-------
TABLE 47. EFFECTIVE SULFUR CONCENTRATION IN THE FUEL
DATE
9/13/74
9/26/74
9/27/74
9/19/74
9/17/74
9/23/74
9/22/74
9/24/74
9/15/74
9/24/74
9/23/74
9/12/74
9/18/74
9/16/74
TEST
MO.
1R
2
3
4
5
6R
7
8
9
10
11R
12
6
11
LOAD
TH
100
100
100
80
80
60
80
60
80
60
60
100
60
60
MW
ACT
100+
100+
101+
79+
80-
65
79+
60
80-
60
60
100
60+
63.5
COAL FEED RATE
NO/HR BTU/HRX106
(as received)
90,440 1099
44,840 542
45,080 551
22,000 267
67,200 796
47,920 578
22,720 274
21,440 258
74,920 874
21,440 258
47,920 578
89,400 1085
49,341 599
54,509 653
% SULFUR
(as received)
3.23
2.98
3.27
3.77
3.55
3.59
3.62
3.31
3.44
3.31
3.59
3.43
3.38
3.43
GAS -FEED RATE
CF/HRX103 BTU/HRX10b
(as received)
419.6 432
406 419
443 457
459 473
330 340
330 340
FUEL
BTU/HRX106
1099
974
969
724
796
578
747
599
874
599
578
1085
,599
653
EFFECTIVE
% SULFUR
3.23
1.66
1.86
1.39
3.55
3.59
1.33
1.43
3.44
1.43
3.59
3.43
3.38
3.43
§
1. Percent Sulfur Same From 8 & 10 Assume 8 Write
2. Aver Value for BTU/Hr Test 8 & 10
3. BTU Content of Gas 1030 BTU/LF @60 F
-------
%EFF = (MASS LOADING AT INLET)-(MASS LOADING AT OUTLET)
(MASS LOADING AT INLET) X
The results are presented in Table 48.
Specifications for the ESP design require an output of no more
than 0.005 grains/SCF. The ESP met this specification on all tests
but 9, 11 and 12. Test log notes indicated the ESP was functioning
improperly during test 11 and test 9. During test 9 it was noted
that the ESP was noisy, primary voltages and average precipitator
currents were fluctuating during the tests and could not be held
constant. However, the average precipitation current averaged
overall of test 9 (0.51 mA) was comparable to the average for all the
other tests (0.52 mA). Test 11 had a much lower average precipitation
current, 0.46 mA. This test was also noisy and during the test one
stage overloaded and cut off temporarily but was evidently reenergized.
i
Hence, these two tests do not typify normal operating parameters and
hence cannot be fit into the test pattern as originally planned.
No explanation for the high outlet loading on test 12 could be
determined. Another strange data point was the inlet loading of test
4. It was nearly one half that of the other similar tests. Hence,
even though the outlet given loading was 0.0024 g/DSCF (the 4th
lowest of 12 tests), the efficiency was the fourth worst of the 12
tests.
As a result of above discussion, data from tests 9 and 11
are considered invalid and are not used to compare the effects
V-101
-------
TABLE 48. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPATOR TEST RESULTS (PARTICLE)
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Power Plant
Load (MW)
100
100
100
80
80
60
80
60
80
60
60
100
Excess Air
(% Oxygen)
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 ,-
• 4.0
4.0
4.1
Fuel Sulfur
Content (%)
3.6
2.31
1.8
2.31
3.6
3.6
2.31
2.31
3.6
2.31
3.6
3.6
Soot
Blowing
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
-
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No .
No
Yes
Moisture^
Content (Vol. %)
7.65
12.75
12.45
10.35
8.45
6.50
12.1
12.7
7.2
13.6
7.7
7.85
Loading .
(Grains/Dry SCF)
Inlet Outlet
0.8172
0.44007
0.49395
0.267001
0.87957
(1)
1.13817
(11
0.44195
0.432851
0.89488
0.35764U)
0.58979W
0.90276
0.00421
0.00181
0.00214
0.00224
0.00384
0.00201
0.00248
0.00267
0.02777
0.00200
0.0155
0.00810
Efficiency
(% particulate
removal)
99.46
99.59
99.57
99.16
99.56
99.88
99.44
99.38
98.53
99.44
98.04
99.12
f
o
fO
(1) Samples which deviated from isokinetic condition by more than + 10%
(2) Average of Inlet and Outlet measurements
-------
of the controled parameters. Test 4 and possibly 12 also have
questionable reliability.
Comparison of the efficiency versus load for the valid coal
tests (1, 5, 6, and 12), as expected, showed that the efficiency
increased with decrease in load (mass flow through the ESP). The
coal/gas fuel tests showed an opposite effect. Subsequent discus-
sions in the stratification and non-uniform flow test sections of
this report provide possible explanations for this. It should be
t
noted, however, that due to the error in gas flow measurement there
was considerable differences in the total ash content of the coal/gas
fuel among various loads and, as a result, the comparison of these
tests assuming similar fuel type may be invalid.
All comparable pairs of tests (1 and 12, 2 and 3, and 10 and 8)
showed a decrease in efficiency with soot blowing of 0.34, 0.02 and
0.06 percent respectively. Exceptions were Tests 4 (questionable)
and 7, which showed an increase of 0.28 percent. One would expect
/ A
soot blowing to have less of an effect on the coal/gas tests (2/3 and
10/8) since there is significantly less loading during these tests.
The increase in efficiency with the 80 MW coal/gas tests (4/7),
however, is unexplainable and is assumed invalid.
The results (0.34 percent decrease in efficiency with soot
blowing) of the coal test seems comparable to the results found
during the first ESP tests which found between 0.3 and 0.6 percent
!
decrease in efficiency with soot blowing.
V-103
-------
Comparison of efficiency for the two fuels used in the 100 MW
test cases indicated a 0.13 percent and 0.45 percent increase with
the,coal/gas mix fuel with and without soot blowing, respectively.
>
The 80 and 60 MW tests could only be compared for the soot blowing
and indicated an opposite response of 0.16 and 0.40, respectively.
Table 49 shows the total particle emission rate and emission
per Btu input. For the coal tests, the mass emitted/Btu input
decreases with decreasing load quite apparently. For the coal/gas
mix, there seems to be a slight increase with decreasing load;
however, the differences are very slight compared with coal and are
in the area of the detectable limits for the method. The difference
in slope of the load vs. mass emitted/BTU between different fuel
mixes seems to be more strongly dependent upon the efficiency of the
boiler as opposed to ESP performance since the total mass emitted
decreases with decreasing load for a^l valid test conditions and
fuels. However, the coal does show a sharper decrease in mass
emitted per decrease in load as compared with the coal/gas mixture.
The coal test produced 70 to 50 percent decrease in mass emitted per
20 MW change vs. 25 to 10 percent decrease per 20 MW change with the
coal/gas mix.
Concentration of 0_, initially (the beginning of each test) set
for 4 percent at economizer, averaged 4.04 percent at the economizer,
4.7 percent at the ESP inlet, 5.4 percent at the ESP outlet, and 6.2
percent at the stack. The increase in 0. concentration of samples
further away from the boiler is due to air leakage into the system.
V-104
-------
TABLE 49. PARTICLE ^MISSION RATE
1R
9
11R
12
5
6R
2
4
10
3
7
8
Total Mass
Emitted
(particle)
9.75
49.46*v
s 14.90*
18.56
6.45
2.67
3.71
3.31
2.51
4.60
4.10
3.25
Total Particles
Emitted per Btu
Input Ib/Btu x 10^
0.0088
0.0565*
0.0257*
0.0171
0.0081
0.0046
0.0038
0.0045
0.0041
0.0047
0.0054
6.0054
*Invalid Test Points
V-105
-------
The 0 concentration at the economizer average 4.11 percent for the
coal tests and 3.95 percent for the coal/gas mix tests. See Table 42
for 0 concentration for each test.
Concentration of CO. (Table 43) as expected decreased in samples
taken further from the boiler. The CO- concentrations averaged 15.2
percent, 14.8 percent 14.7 percent, and 13.4 percent for the economizer
ESP inlet and outlet and stack, respectively. The average CO concen-
tration at the economizer for the coal tests was 15.5 percent and for
the coal/gas tests 14.7 percent. This difference is expected since
the CO concentration for a given excess air value is lower for gas
than coal.
The average NO was 228.2 ppm at the economizer, 220.9 ppm at the
A
ESP inlet, 212.3 ppm at the outlet, and 200.2 ppm at the stack. The
NO concentration showed a marked decrease (43 percent decrease at
x
economizer) with the coal/gas fuel (concentration of 159 percent) as
opposed to coal (concentration 280 percent).
A reduction in SO levels was also expected and during the coal/
gas tests as opposed to coal tests. The reduction in S0? concentration
for the coal/gas mixture as compared to the coal was 54 percent at
the economizer, the all coal averaged 2,652 ppm SO while the coal/gas
average was 1,216 ppm SO-. The S0_ concentrations at the economizer,
ESP inlet and outlet and the stack was concentrations 2,036 ppm,
1,972 ppm, 1,937 ppm and 1,849 ppm, respectively. (Table 45 gives SO
concentrations for each test.)
V-106
-------
Table 50 lists the average mass flow rate and mass emitted/BTU
input for 0 , CO , NO and S09. The values are averages of the
-------
TABLE 50. GAS FLOW RATES
TEST
1
9
11R
11
12
5
6R
6
2
4
10
3
7
8
IbLOAD
100
80
60
60
100
80
60
60
100
80
60
100
80
60
CONDITION
Coal
No
Soot
Blowing
Coal
Soot-
Blowing
Coal/
gas no
Soot
Blowing
Coal/
Gas
Soot
Blowing
Mass Flow Ib/min Ib Emitted/ (Btu Input x 10 )
02
1231
1119
563
787
1289
925
667
717
1028
844
636
1073
921
589
cu2
4786
3982
2845
2706
5603
3606
2678
2772
4209
3236
2419
'
4160
3479
2354
*
NOX
6.2
5.5
3.6
4.0
6.2
5.0
4.1
3.6
4.4
2.2
1.8
5.0
2.7
1,5
S02
126
115
71
77
132
100
71
65
86
29
32
67
38
34
02
67.23
76.85
58.46
72.33
71.29
69.75
69.26
71.84
63.33
69.98
63.72
66.43
73.97
59.01
CU2
261.38
273.48
295.43
248.71
309.90
271.94
272.89
277.75
259.33
268.32
242.38
257.58
279.43
235.87
NOX
0.33
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.34
0.37
0.42
0.36
0.27
0.18
0.18
0.30
0.21
0.15
su2
6.88
7.89
7.37
7.07
7.30
7.54
7.37
6.51
5.29
2.40
3.20
4.14
3.05
3.40
V-108
-------
decrease in 0« (excess air decrease of 3 percent) there is a decrease
in NO and S0n emission per Btu of fuel.
x 2
No reliable information relating to load vs. emissions could be
obtained from the coal/gas fuel tests since the coal/gas ratio varied
from load to load. The SO^ emission/Btu input tended to follow the
i \
coal/gas ratio more than any other controlled parameters. Table 51
gives the approximate ratios for the coal/gas tests. The 80 MW tests
averaged 0.0183 Ibs S02 per 10 Btu input with a 0.58: 1 coal/gas
ratio while the highest ratio 1.29:1 coal/gas produced an average
0.0317 lbs/10 Btu input. Figure 29 plots these values and shows that
the predicted ratio for the 60 MW tests (0.0220 Ib S02/10 Btu input)
agrees very well with the actual coal/gas ratio. This would imply that
>
the coal/gas ratio is the major controlling factor for the SO pounds
of emissions per Btu input and hence, explains the S07 variations
during the tests with coal/gas mixtures for fuel. However, this is
not the case for NO or CO as can be seen from similar comparisons. •>
X JL
Comparison of the all coal fuel to the coal/gas fuel on a load
to load basis indicate that SO. and NO emissions are significantly
lower per input Btu as opposed to the coal fuel. CO also shows a
decrease with the coal/gas fuel. And as expected, water vapor is
higher for coal/gas fuel (11.8 percent ELO) as opposed to coal
(7.1 percent E^O average).
Conclusions—The ESP Design Specifications require the ESP to
have an output grain loading of less than or equal to 0.005 gr/SCF.
V-109
-------
TABLE 51. COAL TO GAS RATIOS
Test Number
1
9
11R
12
5
6R
Ratio
1:0
1:0
1:0
1:0
1:0
1:0
Test Number
2
4
10
3
7
8
Ratio
1.25:1
0.58:1
0.76:1
1.32:1
0.58:1
0.76:1
V-110
-------
1:1
Ratio
0.58
0.0183
0.0317
FIGTOE 29. NO CONCENTRATION VS. COAL/GAS RATIO
lbs/10 Btu Heat Input
-------
The ESP successfully met this requirement on most of the 12 tests.
The efficiency was also at or near the design specifications for most
of the tests. Two of the three tests where the ESP was performing
below specs (loading > 0.005 gr/SCF) were probably the fault of the
ESP. The units were exceptionally noisy during these two tests and
no reason could be determined for this electrical noise. However,
the unit corrected itself shortly after, the test.
The all coal fuel tests indicated that ESP efficiency increases
J
with decreasing load as expected. The coal/gas tests produce the oppo-
site effect; however, it is felt that the following factors may have
influenced the coal/gas tests 'to negate any comparison among loads:
(a) Fuel ratios varied among loads
(b) Stratification of gases'seemed more apparent during coal/gas
tests.
(c) There is a possibility of non-uniform flow affecting these
tests. ,
The tests indicated a decrease in ESP collection efficiency
with soot blowing. The effect was more pronounced on the coal tests
than the coal/gas tests.
The ESP efficiency was higher with the all coal fuel at 100 MW
while at 80 MW and 60 MW the coal/gas mixture showed better ESP
collection efficiency.
, (
The total mass of particles emitted decreased with decreasing
load for all tests. However, the decrease for the coal/gas fuel was
less than for coal.'
V-112
-------
A comparison of the particle emissions per Btu of fuel input
showed that in general there was a decrease in emission per Btu fuel
input with decrease in load for the coal tests. The coal/gas fuel
test, however, produced the lowest emission/Btu fuel input at 100 MW.
The emission level increased at 80 MW and tend«d to stay the same or
drop at 60 MW.
The following observations are outside the original objective of
the ESP test. However, they may be of some use in further investi-
i
gation of coal fired boilers and fuel mixing. The total mass flow of
gaseous pollutants increased with increasing load. No discernable
pattern of mass flow in SO,, or NO could be determined for small
2 x
changes «5 percent) in excess air.
' The levels of CO , SO and NO mass flow decreased significantly
b «£• *L
with the coal/gas fuel as opposed to the coal fuel.
The mass emissions of NO and SO per Btu input of fuel was
X ^
highest at the 80 MW level and decreased for the 100 MW and 60 MW
with coal.
No comparison could be made between load on the coal/gas tests
since the coal/gas ratio varied from load to load. It was noted that
the SO output/Btu input followed the coal/gas ratio very closely.
NO output/Btu input did decrease with the addition of gas but it
X
did not follow the ratio as the SO- output did.
Overall, the ESP did perform acceptably for the operation of
the Cat-Ox unit. The tests^however, did not produce all the expected
V-113
-------
data relating to the effects of low sulfur fuel, load change and soot
blowing for two reasons:
1) Coal/gas mixture'is not an adequate replacement for low
sulfur coal.
2) Uncontrolled parameters like non-uniform flow, stratification
and air leakage were not accounted for in the theoretical
prediction.
These parameters will be discussed and investigated in Sections V.
Transient Tests
Objective—The transient test program was a study integrated
into the Main Cat-Ox Test Program (Steady State). The object of the
transient tests was to determine the impact of transient events on
s
the emissions from a coal-fired boiler with a Cat-Ox FGD system
attached to it. The events were categorized by the type,of circum-
i i
stance leading to that particular event. There were three general
transient situations identified in the system's operation.
• Planned
• Unexpected/Controlled
• Immediate
The planned event is typified by the scheduled shutdown of the
boiler or Cat-Ox system for planned maintenance. For example, the
boiler is regularly shutdown once a year for inspection and mainte-
nance.' The Cat-Ox system was expected to shutdown approximately
every three months for 48 hours or more to allow for cleaning of the
catalyst beds. All equipment would be expected to be operating
V-114
-------
properly and the shutdown would take place in an orderly and con-
trolled fashion. A restart; of the boiler and the Cat-Ox system is
also defined as a planned and orderly procedure.
The second class of events characterized by some'unexpected
change in operating parameters or equipment malfunction can have a
i.
very broad range of conditions and resultant actions. For example, a
serious leak in a boiler tube may necessitate shutdown of the boiler
in as rapid a manner as practical. This might allow sufficient time
'• j
to complete normal shutdown procedures or it might cause the deletion
of steps in the procedure because of time constraints. An important
characteristic of this class is that the initial event does not
immediately cause the boiler or Cat-Ox to shutdown as do events such
as the loss of-the boiler fire or the disengagement of the Cat-Ox ID
fan. Many system malfunctions in this group (unexpected/controlled)
may allow long term system operations (hours to days) with little
more than a slight loss in system efficiency. Examples of this type
might be failure of one coal mill, the failure of a section of the
electrostatic precipitator or the development of a void in one of the
• ?••
catalyst beds. In such instances, a controlled shutdown of the
Cat-Ox and the boiler could be planned and executed with minimal
disruption caused by the initial malfunction. This latter subgroup
would strongly resemble a normal or programmed system shutdown
described in the first group discussed.
The last grouping of events are those that arise primarily
through equipment malfunctions or failures and that result in an
V-115
-------
immediate shutdown (minutes to fractional hours) of either the boiler
or the Cat-Ox process. In general these events can result in no
stable or long term degraded operating configuration and will necessi-
tate the total system or Cat-Ox shutdown to prevent further damage to
equipment and effect necessary repairs. An example of such a failure
would be a water wall tube failure which could either extinguish the
boiler fire or be severe enough to cause serious disruption of the
*
combustion process. A similar type of situation in the Cat-Ox system
*
would be the loss of acid circulation in the absorption tower.
In addition to the duration of this initial transient, an under-
standing of the resulting stabilized state operation must be gained
in order to determine the impact of the initial event. For instance
the fact that the power plant must operate for a period of 48 hours
without Cat-Ox SO control during catalyst bed cleaning may be as
important as the non-steady state emissions caused by the process shut-
down and start-up. No attempt will be made in this study to assess
the relative importance. Apart from the initial event that causes a
transient operating condition, one must also examine the duration of
the transient condition. For purposes of clarification in this
discussion, the term "transient" will be defined as the period
between the initial event that caused a departure from planned or
normal operation and the time the process again reaches a stabilized
operating condition. This stabilized condition may be back to
normal, degraded in some manner, or result in the shutdown of the
process or system.
V-116
-------
Schedule—The initial investigation of transient events resulted
in the identification of the transient situations,listed in Tables
52, 53 and 54. These tables list the event, time required to stabil-
ize and areas of possible impact. Though all these transients could
have a possible effect on emissions, only a portion of these events
were scheduled for simulation or study. A number of events or
situations were excluded from the test program due to the possible
consequences (damage or harm to personnel or equipment) of the
simulation (generally in the immediate event class) or because
simulation of other events would produce a reasonable replication of
circumstances caused by the original event. Table 55 lists the
schedule tests to be performed that were feasible and acceptable to
IPC. The test plan also allowed flexibility to monitor events that
occurred during operation that were unexpected or unplanned.
Results—
During the period of time that Cat-Ox was inoperative, a number
of unscheduled tests were performed on the boiler alone. The purpose
of these tests was ,to verify that no unexpected emission related
changes occurred within the boiler prior to Cat-Ox. It was also felt
that a better characterization of boiler transient emission would be
valuable in analyzing the effects of similar transients when Cat-Ox
was operable.
Unit No. 4 was started from a "cold" condition and brought into
operation over an 18 hour period. The lengthy inoperative period
V-117
-------
TABLE 52. BOILER TRANSIENTS (ASSUMES NORMAL OPERATION OF CAT-OX)
f
>^
H*
Tranalent
Malfunction
Bolter Start-Dp
Bolter Shutdown
rniTiuaiil
Load Increaae
Load Beductiott
Coal mil Failure
Super neater Tube
Behaatar lube
Coal mil Tack
Chelnbreak.
Blown Better Tube.:
Hall Tuba
m Bolter Tm
Bolter Mouth
Bridging
Turbine u~-i™ t— i
rrobleaa
Bolter Shutdown
ntrgeocy
Fuel Change
Baiaaion Characteriatica
Beault Tine (Concentrations)
SOj BjSOj Part
(Cat-Ox off line)
Slow increaaa In heat Bra. T I I
until Bin. load condition
Slow reduction In heat Wn- -. -. -.
load and preaaure. farta Hra
allowed to cool in con-
trolled wanner
Coal Bill brought on mn- f t t
line, burner angle Hra
increaaad
Coal Bill ahutdow Mm- J t
burner angle lowered Hra
Three Mwalnlnj mllla Bra- — — t
.ttewpt to cover load Day.
MS of Max. Cap.
Seduction In capacity mn- -" ? 1
•eduction In capacity Bra
Three . ta rfll ml -, T
pick or iBwecloury
load, fuel ana rich
Fire teat mn 1 — ?
Bolter hack preaaure mn t * '
•ah Buildup Hra t It
Droptead, cool mn- T t \
bolter and turbine fln
Mm f ft
Flue gaa aakaup Bre t t t
chaagea
Stabilized Operating Bzduion Characteriatles
Modea/Conflgur*i:lon« (Concentratlona
S02 H2S04 Part
Boiler will atabillre N H N
at nonal load level
Cat-Ox would iSe taken _
off Una if poeelble
prior to coaplete
ahutdown
Stahlllxed high load N t T
with Increased gee
flow
Stabilized lower teed H H B
with reduced gaa flow
Seduced load, reduced HUB
gaa flow
Operate until unit can t t
be ehutdown for repalra
(Burner f ollowe) Bone H H H
beck to noreel
Shutdown 000
Bolter would be ahut
down If prohteB una
not corrected
Boiler would either
Boiler would be ehot
down if prohteB wee
•arioua
Cat-ox would be
taken off line if
poaalbte prior to
eeavtete riiutdoan
Cat-Ox will reaaln on t t t
line and eteblllze at
new condition*
Operating
Toterancea
Long Tern
Long Ten
Long Ten
Long Ten
Long Ten
Medial Ten
t
Long Ten
Long Ten
-------
TABU S3. PMECfPITATOX •nUWSlanS
. nrKBATlCWt OF CAT-OX)
Malfunction
Mission Characteristics
(Concentrations)
SO,
Stabilized Operating
Modes/Coif iguratlon
nlsslon Characteristics
(Concentrations)
Part
'Operating
Toler<
Preciplcator Scart-
Preelpltator i
• Precipltstor Snut-
placed back on line
until toller was op
to ndniaal operating
level
I off
line In noraml -
rtlcolate
Of. Cat-Ox
off line as
a* possible
Start-Out In
Preclpltator
Insufficient
Lapping of
Collection Flacea
Lapping
internally for
possible cause
Mn
Sec-
eollectico
efficiency
•ent. reduced col-
lection efficiency
FreclpUnror
Vibration Tine
Incorrect wire
electrode Blacharge
Clinkers In
Preclpitator
collection efficiency
~ collection efficiency
Stop Boiler-!
Internally for
possible i
Bra -
Bra —
High Ash Le«el In
Preclpltntor Hopper controls ;
clinkers
I for.
Done In connection
with n boiler Bhnt-
dnn, Cat-Ox would
i off- line
:tion
wltb n boiler shut-
down. Cat-Oi wonld
be taken off'line
Cat-Ox wmld be taken
off line as qnlckly
as possible
Cat-Ox taken off line
Added paniculate load
rter 1
i for i
Added partlcnlate load
to converter bed. early
shutdown for cleanlnR
Added partlculatc load
to converter bed, early
•fantdcriu for cle«nln|t
Added partlcnlate load
to converter bed. early
i for » ~
Cat-Ox taken off line
If precipitaror
!• aborted out.
Cat-Ox will be
taken off line
I t
t f
» t
' t
Long Tent
Preclpltaor
would
stabilize
In noraal
operating
conditions
partlcnlate
enission
atandards
Short Ten
based on
partlcnlate
Long Tern
(days) If
necessary
Long Ten
(days) if
necessary
Long Ten
(days) If
necessary
Long Ten
(days) If
necessary
particnlate
enission
standard
Short Ten
if precl-
pltator is
lost baaed
on particu-
late
ewisslon
Frecipitator
Hopper Plugged
nay short-i
controls aj
clinkers
If preclpitator
IB shorted owt,
Cst-Ox will be
taken off line
Short Ten
if precl-
pitator is
lost based
on partl-
culate
enlssion •
standards
-------
TABLE S3. (Concluded)
Transient
Malfunction
Result Tine Eaisaion Characteristics
(Concentrations)
SOj H2S04 Part
Stabilized Operating
Modes/Configurations
EaiBslon Characteristics Operating
(Concentrations) Tolerances
S02 ' HjSO^ Part
Ash Conveyor
Plugged
Hopper Vibrator
Plugged
Hopper Hutu:
Failure
Failure of ID Pan
on Roof of
Precipltator
Kay short-out
controls and font
clinkers
May short-out
controls and form •
clinkers
Condensation, caking
of ash, corrosion of
Hin- -*
Bra
t
Entrance of fly Ash
in top housing of
preclpltator
Hrs
Bra -»
If precipltator is
aborted out, Cat-Ox
will be taken off line
If precipltator Is
shorted out, Cat-Ox
will be taken off line
Hay cause shutdown
to correct service
probleaa
Cat-Ox taken off
line if precipl-
tator fails
Short Tent
if precipl-
tator is
lost based
on partic-
ulate
esdsalon
standards
Short Ten
if precipl-
tator la
lost baaed
on partic-
ulate
esjlaslon
standards
Short Ten
if precipl-
tator ia
loat baaed
ulate
emission
standard*
Short Ten
if precipi-
tator is
lost baaed
on partic-
ulate
eaisslon
standards
-------
TABLE 54. CAT-nX TRANSIENTS
Tranaient
Malfunction
Cat-Ox Shutdown
Programmed
Cat-Ox Start Up
.
Cat-Ox Shutdown
Emergency
Acid Pump Failure
Temperature or
Preaaure Changes In
Absorbing Tower
and Add Cooling
System
Absorbing Tower and
Acid Cooling-High
Temp Flue Gas
Low Circulating
Acid Flow
Low Acid Level
In Absorbing Tower
Heat Exchanger
Electric Drive
Rotor Failure
Re-Beat Burner
Failure
Re-Heat Burner
Fuel Change
Coejbustor Control
Console Failure
Failure of
Combustion Air
Blowers
Low 503 Gas Pressure
in Converter
High and LowaP
in Hist Eliminator
Cat-Ox Pressure
Controller
Halfunctlons
High Flue Gas
Pressure in
Absorbing Tower
Emission Characteristics
Result Tine (Concentrations)
SOj "j10* Part
Normal procedure for Hra t I
catalyst bed cleaning ,
Will be brought on Hrs i t i
line with boiler
operating
(No problem In)
Cat-Ox Hln i I •
Possible line Mln — ' —
rupture and
breakages
Temp>550°F Min t I t
will cause Cat-Ox
shutdown
High Acid Temp Hln T t t
5" HjO in S.C. or Hln -« t 7
<20" H20 In H.V.
Eliminator would loose
efficient process
shutdown
Flue gas leakage metal ? t T t
strain
Poor Distribution of Hln — ' T
liquid and gas flow
through packed aection
Stabilised Operating Emission Characterlatlcs
Modes/Configuration (Coneentrationa)
SO- "2^°4 Part
Cat-Ox off line ' ' *
Cat-Ox operating at J T 1
boiler load '
Cat-Ox off line ' 111
Cat-Ox. off line T 1 1
,
Cat-Ox off line ' ' *
.C-
Cat-Ox off line if \ -* \
problea Is not
corrected quickly
Cat-ox off line T 1 T
fc
Cat-Ox off line f J t •
If problem Is not
resolved quickly
Cat-Ox off line if t - T
problem Is not cor-
rected quickly
Could cause emission to ? ? ?
go either way depending
on new fuel
Cat-Ox off line fit
Cat-Ox off line T i f
Pressure sensor will T • t
cause ID fan to trip out
to prevent equipment
collapse
Cat-Ox off line ' t 1 T
B
Cat-Ox off line T i 1
Cat-Ox off line * *
Operating
Tolerancei
Long Ten
Long Ten
Long Ten
Long Ten
Long Term
Long Ten
Long Ten
Long Ten
,
Long Ten
Long Ten
using new
fuel
Long Tent
Long Ten
Long Ten
Long Ten
Long Ten
-------
TABLE 54. (Concluded)
GnaracterlBtlci
SO,
Ugh SO, br-pana rate
and S02 cnlaalona to
aanephere
Car-Ox abutdovn
f on Heat
5
lold Spot* la
•ptete
SOf+SOj. SO} valau
D.J.
Bra-
Dcys
ralon of Daya
Caul^t bed coollnt to
add eacalyat My cau*c
Opermtlon with Ugh
Cat-On noat be >bnt-
do ahntdom If problen t
la not reaolved quickly
-------
TABLE SS. TRANSIENT TEST PROGRAM SUMMARY
TEST SUBJECT
BOILER LOAD CHANGE +
BOILER FUEL CHANGE
BOILER SHUTDOWN
BOILER START UP
CAT-OX START IIP
CAT-OX SHUTDOWN
CAT-OX BURNER FUEL CHANGE
PARTIAL ESP FAILURE
CONVERTER TEMPERATURE DECREASE
ABSORPTION TONER ACID TEMPERATURE
CHANGE
ABSORPTION TOWER ACID FLOW CHANGE
BOILER TUBE FAILURE
CONVERTER TEMPERATURE INCREASE
Number of
Scheduled
Tests
6
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
Frequency
of Natural
Occurrence
Frequent
Daily
High
Sulfur
Coal to
Natural Gas
At least
once per
year for
mainten-
ance
At least
4 tines
per year
for bed
cleaning
>10/year
6-10/year
Expected
Parameter
Variation
Up and Down
Between 60
and 90 MW
Up and Down
Between Cold
Boiler and 60
MW
Up and Down
Between Cold
Cat-Ox and
operating
temperature
100Z to three
sections
failed
850°F Down to
800° F 1
280°F ± 20°F
2000 Gallons/
minute
±1000- Gallons/
minute
Estimated
Duration of
Transient
40 Minutes
4 Hours
8 Hours
8 Hours
8 Hours
1 Hour
15 Minutes
45 Minutes
30 Minutes
Up
30 Minutes
Up
Long Term
30 Minutes
Estimated
Duration
of Test
4 Hours
8 Hours
10 Hours
10 Hours
4 Hour
4 Hours
6 Hours
8 Hours
6 Hours
Measurement
Points
Utilized
1 14
1 14
1 14
1 11,14
1 11. 14
1 14
1 14
1 10. 14
1 10, 14
1 10, 14
1 14
1 14
1 10. 14
Conment
Cut 1 Section at a tine
Changed in 10* steps
Changed in 5* steps
Turn a circulation pump on
or off
NOTE: All Natural Failure Testing to be monitored subject to:
No risk to personnel
No risk to instrumentation and equipment
-------
resulting from a scheduled maintenance (about three weeks) allowed
the turbine to cool down to ambient temperature. The difference in
the start-up monitored during this test ("cold" start-up) and a ;
start-up that occurs after a short outage resulting from possibly a
tube leak is the rate at which the unit is brought on line. When the
boiler is in operation for only a few days the turbine remains hot
i
and the unit can be brought into operation at a much greater pace.
However, in this particular case the unit must be brought to operating
temperature slowly. It took 12 to 13 hours before Unit No. 4 was
generating any power and about 13 to 15 hours before coal could be
used.
The auxiliary oil burners were lit at about 12:30 a.m.,
26 January 1975. It took until 4:00 a.m. for the boiler to build up
50 pounds of pressure at which time the turbine was allowed to turn.
At 12:30 p.m. gas became available and replaced the oil. The first
coal mill became operational at 2:30 p.m. Approximately 35 MW of
i
power was being generated at 7:10 p.m. when the instruments were
shutdown. Table 56 lists plant data over the test period.
Points 1", 3, and 14 had the sampling lines operational. The
emissions at these locations were analyzed for SO., NO , THC, C00,
<£ X ^ ,'
0- and HO. All the data were recorded on strip charts and all but
THC and H_0 were recorded on a magnetic tape. Table 57 lists the
results taken off the strip charts.
V-124
-------
TABLE 56. POWER PLANT RUNNING PARAMETERS, TEST 1
NJ
Ul
Time
12 am
1 '
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 ,
^
t
12 am
1 pm
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30
5:00
5:30
6:00
6:30
7:00
7:30
8: 00pm
Load
MW
Q
'
^
^
/
5
7
10
12
13
14
14.5
22
26
33
40
45
Coal Flow
Tons/Hr(3>
0
'
1
..
r
0
6
13
14
15
15
22
22
27
29
32
Gas
103FT3/Hr,
Q
t
\
i
f
0
26
41
441
31
33
33
34
32
Air Flow
104CF/Hr
15
17
18
A
\
V
f
18
23
23
25
1
k -
27
27
27
34
34
33
35
35
36
Steam Flow
104 Ib/Hr
0
A
v
0
0
0
5
12
12
12
13
13
15
19
23
28
29
31
32
(1) Operator stated he had
about 50 x 103. At this
time while computer reads
44 x 103.
(2) The Oil Flow Meter is not
in operation.
(3) Coal Flow Readings from
the Control Room are normally
1.5 times the Coal Flow
determined by the Coal Scales.
-------
TABLE 57. EMISSION TEST DATA TTI
t-1
Is)
Test #TT1
Location: Point 1' (ECON)
Time
1 am
2 am
3 am
4 am
5 am
6 am
7 am
8 am
9 am
10 am
11 am
12 am
1 pm
2 pm
3 pm
4 pm
5 pm
6 pm
7 pm
S0_ ppm
__
60
60
1 1
> r
60
50
50
60
90
30
30
270
360
510
9005
10506
NO ppm
B.D.L.
4
>
^
r
B.D.L.
180
220
190-210
370- 3451
320-330
THC ppm
__
38
16
44
22
38
42
40
33
33
8
16
46
44
152
0
2
2
4
co2%
_ _
4.0
4.0
5.2
5.4
4.4
A
4.4
4.8
4.8
4.0
4.0
8.03
10.4
10.2
12.0
12.8
o2%
„
18.3
19.3
19.5
20.0
19.5
19.5
19.5
20
18.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
15. 04
12.0
12.5
10.0
8.5
H20%
..
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.8
4.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
5+
(1) Possible NO reading of 25 ppm
(2) Peeked to 40 ppm drop to zero
(3) Varied 4 to 10 percent
1/26/75
Description: First Transient Test,
Power Plant Start-up
Cold Turbine
Started Oil Fire 12:30 am
Changed to gas 12:30 pm
Placed first coal mill in
operation 2:30 pm.
(4) Varied 17.5 to 13 percent
(5) Peaked to 1590 ppm low of 730 ppm
(6) Peaked to 1260 ppm low of 700 ppm
-------
No significant amounts of SO were noted in either the oil or
the gas fuels. Though the SO- levels for both cases were near the
"noise level" of the instruments the oil showed about twice as much
SO- as gas (60 ppm and 30 ppm, respectively). Once the boiler was
fired on coal, the S02 level began to increase steadily, starting at
about 30 ppm at 2:30 p.m. to about 1200 ppm and at 7:00 p.m. At this
point it was still increasing.
The total hydrocarbon measurements were generally around 35 to
i
45 ppm for the gas and oil fires. At one point in time (about the
time when Illinois Power was changing from oil to gas) THC content of
the stack gas. exceeded 100 ppm for about a three minute period. Once
coal was fired THC content was below 10 ppm. It should be noted that
background levels for THC have indicated between 5 and 15 ppm depending
,on sampling line.
The CO- concentrations remained 4 to 5 percent until coal
was added at 2:30 p.m. when it began to increase. At 7:00 p.m., CO.
was 12.8 percent. Similarly, 02 was steady from 18 to 20 percent
until coal burning was initiated. At this time, 0, concentration
began to drop. At 7:00 p.m. it was about 8 percent. Concentra-
tions of these two gases give an indication to the combustion gas flow
in the stack as 0. decreases and CO. increases. One can generally
assume that the amount of combustion gas in the stack is increasing.
HO increased at a fairly steady rate during the test. It
started at about 1.5 to 2 percent and at 7:00 p.m. was above
5 percent.
V-127
-------
NO concentrations were low during the gas and oil stages of
nAp
start-up. The highest value recorded prior to 2:30 p.m. was 20 ppm
which was probably N02. However, 20 ppm is well within the noise
level of the instruments and may be only noise. Once coal was fired
NO steadily increased to a high value of 370 ppm at 6:00 p.m.
X
Primarily all the NO was NO. The instrument only sensed NO- a few
X «'
times and the highest value was 40 ppm. The increase in NO at 2:30
,/ X
was probably more due to the increased temperature and fuel rate than
the addition of coal to the boiler. The gas and oil fires were con-
trolled to maintain a slow constant rise in temperature. However,
at 2:30 when the coal was added, the objective was to increase
temperature to produce electricity. Hence, the boiler was hotter
and more NO was produced.
Test 2, as opposed to Test 1, was a start-up from warm condi-
tion (the boiler was inoperative for a short period and hence
could be brought into operation much faster). The unit was producing
power after only 4 hours. The observations were basically the-same
as the cold start-up but covered a shorter period of time. Table 58
lists the results of this test. Again, S0_ increased as coal flow
j
increased and NO. seemed to increase as temperature increased.
Results were similar to the cold start-Up tests but the low sul-
fur coal resulted in lower S09 emissions.
f
Tests 3, 4, 5, and 6 were all load change tests. There was no
significant difference among the tests except that test 3 was a
V-128
-------
TABLE 58. TEST 2, SEPTEMBER 25. WASH START-OP ON LOW SULFUR COAL
TIME
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
LOAD
MW
.9
10
12
25
38
54
7.4
COAL FLOW
TONS/HR
0
0
• o
10
20
25
0
48
GAS
103FT3/HR
180
\
r
180
0
1
AIR FLOW
104CF/HR
15
15
15
24
26
60
-STEAM FLOW
104 LB/HR ,
30
30
30
35
38
58
t-1
N3
VO
TIME
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
S02
ppm
690
690
675
780
810
N02
ppm
BDL
BDL
BDL
ADL*
^
f
C02
5.6
5.8
9.6
12.8
13.2
14.8
02
15
14.7
12.5
10.3
9.3
8.8
•
*About 15 ppm to 30 ppm
-------
high sulfur coal test and 4 was low sulfur coal and tests 5 and 6
were combination coal and gas for at least a portion of the tests.
As expected SCL increased with increase in coal. No significant
changes could be related to the transient nature of the load changes.
Tables 59, 60, 61, and 62 present the results of data collected during
these tests.
One attempt was made to monitor a Cat-Ox start-up; however, heat
exchanger problems caused the start-up to be terminated. No transient
tests were performed on Cat-Ox since it did not operated after this
point.
Conclusions—The results from the baseline tests produced no
surprising information. The boiler showed no significant increase in
gaseous emissions caused by transient circumstances.
No actual transient tests were performed on an operable Cat-Ox;
however, a theoretical study on the effects of start-ups and load
change on Cat-Ox acid strength did indicate that start-ups in particu-
lar could cause significant decrease in acid strengths and hence
corrosion rates if extra care were not taken to control flue gas flow
and temperatures early in the Cat-Ox start-ups. Load changes were
easier to control. The detailed study is presented in MITRE document
M75-88, "Cat-Ox Product Acid Strength Study," December 1975.
V-130
-------
TABLE 59. TEST 3, MARCH 5, 1975. LOAD CHANGE TEST: COAL
CO
I-1
TIME
1:00 PM
1:30 PM
2:00 PM
LOAD
MW
101
92
70
I
COAL
TON/HR
65
60
45
4r
AIR
104FT?HR
70
56
50
t
STEAM
70
56
45
1
TIME
1:00 PM
1:30 PM
2:00 PM
so2
ppm
2280
2205
2190
NOX
ppm
__
395
425
C02
—
14.4
14.4
%2
— —
7
6.8
THC
ppm
BLD
BLD
-------
TABLE 60. TEST 4 SEPTEMBER 14, 1976 LOAD CHANGE TEST: COAL
U>
to
TIME
11:00 AM
11:30 AM
12:00 PM
12:30 PM
1:00 PM
LOAD
MW
40
40t
45
83
100
COAL
TONS/HR
23
23
33
45
45
GAS
FLOW
-'
some gas
to make
100 MW
AIR FLOW
104 FT^HR
37
37
55
65
65
STEAM FLOW
104FT3/HR
25
25
45
45
45
TIME
11:00 AM
11:30 AM
12:00 PM
12:30 PM
S02
ppm
660
690
1020
1020
CO,,
%
13.2
14.4
15.4
15.2
02
%
11
8.8
6.3
6.0
-------
TABLE 61. TEST 5 SEPTEMBER 15, 1976 LOAD CHANGE TEST: COAL/GAS MIX
f
TIME
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
LOAD
MW
50
78
85
85
COAL
TONS/HR
45
50
47
48
GAS
0
0
started to
add 140
140
STEAM
104FT^HR
58
60
60
60
AIR
10 F$HR
54
62
62
62
TIME
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
so2
ppm
990
1000
1005
990
C02
%
14.4
14.6
14.8
—
02
%
5.8
6.2
6.2
—
-------
TABLE 62. TEST 6 SEPTEMBER 17, 1976 LOAD CHANGE TEST: COAL/GAS MIX
TIME
8:00 AM
8:30 AM
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
TIME
8:00 -
8:30 AM
8:30 -
9:00 AM
9:00 -
9:15 AM
9:15 -
9:30 AM
9:30 -
10:00 AM
LOAD
MW
25
45
82
100
100
soz
ppm
712
720
780
735
705
COAL FLOW
TONS/HR
35
40
50
57
57
C02
%
14
15
15.4
15.4
GAS FLOW
103FT^HR
80
150
02
%
9.5
7.0
6.0
^
6.0
AIR FLOW STEAM FLOW
*| f\ f TTTjJtrD 1 C\ 14* 'I'1 A/til?
x v/ " •*• / fijx J. \J j? • A y ri-ty
35 20
55 42
68 65
70 68
Comment
gas increased here
-------
Special Tests
Ancillary Test Block—During the period of time that Cat-Ox was
inoperable, discussions with EPA determined a list of six areas that
might be investigated if time and equipment were available. The
scope of these tasks were limited by the funds already allotted
for Cat-Ox and the use of equipment currently available. The six
items were:
• Examine the effects of low sulfur coal on the ESP at IPC
unit 4 boiler (low resistivity ash)
• Examine the effect of gas flow rate flow rate on ESP
efficiency
• Evaluate NO formation in the ESP
x
• Investigate gas stratification
• Perform material balances on SO., SO., sulfate and trace
metals
• Determine any correlation between particle size and trace
metal content of fly ash.
Test plans or at least preliminary baseline type test plans to
determine if the desired objective could be obtained within the scope
of the project were completed. Some testing on data collection efforts
were performed at least in a preliminary mode for most of the tasks.
Schedule/Test FXan and Results
Low Sulfur Fuel Tests—The effects of low sulfur coal on ESP
performance was investigated and compared with the ESP performance for
V-135
-------
the normal high (3.6 percent sulfur) sulfur coal. The comparison
between ESP performance for each of the fuels was made on a mass of
particulate matter emitted/Btu fuel input basis instead of ESP
efficiency.
The tests were compared in this manner for two reasons. First,
comparison in this way will relate directly to the environmental
standards set out fot particle removal efficiency while ESP effi-
ciency does not necessarily directly relate to emission levels, but
only to ratio of removal of particles in versus particles emitted.
Also, the constraints of,the tasks required use of only available
equipment, and only one particle sampling train was available (two
are required for ESP efficiency determination).
The tests were run according to EPA Method 5 as outlined in the
>
Federal Register New Source Standards, 23 December 1971. The train
was modified with an instack filter because a heated probe of suffi-
cient length was not available.
A series of three tests was run with a specific low sulfur coal
after allowing more than 24 hours of soak time and the 'tests were spaced
at least 24 hours apart. Unit 4 was then to switch to high sulfur
coal and a series of four tests under similar circumstances were*run.
,A11 samples were taken at point 14 at mid-point of the Unit 4 stack.
Two other groups of similar tests were discussed with IP and
planned; however, the required equipment (EPA Sampling Train) became
unavailable prior to the scheduled tests.
V-136
-------
The effect of low sulfur coal fly ash on the ESP can vary with
the type of coal. The low sulfur coal tested during the Electrostatic
Precipitator Tests (MITRE Report M75-51) surprisingly caused no
degradation to the efficiency of the precipitator over the test
duration. Since low sulfur coal is not used in Unit 4 regularly,
there have been no other attempts to verify or explain these results.
It is believed the low-sulfur test and conditioning durations in the
subject report may have been too brief.
During the first week in December 1975, Illinois Power Company
used low sulfur coal purchased from the "Blue Diamond Coal Company"
in the No. 4 boiler.
The proximate and ultimate analysis is shown in Table 63. Sample
1 was extracted from a train of 19 cars and Sample 2 from a train of
22 cars. Both trains were supposed to have come from the same
.'
Starfire mine, however, the analysis of the coals indicated to
Illinois Power that each train was from a separate Blue Diamond Mine.
The first being from the Starfire Mine and the second from the
Leatherwood Mine.
A total of seven tests were run by MITRE—three on low sulfur
and four with the Illinois #6 seam high sulfur coal normally used by
Wood River. The results and data are presented in Table 64.
The low sulfur coal was in use for about two days prior to
I r-
testing in order to condition the flue gas path. The first test
V-137
-------
TABLE 63. LOW SULFUR COAL ANALYSIS
PROXIMATE
As
% Moisture
« Volatile Matter
1 Fixed Carbon
% Ash
% Sulfur
B.T.U.
SAMPLE 1
Received
2.70
34.64
54.10
8.56
0.97
13057
(train 1)
Dry
35.60
55.60
8.80
1.00
13420
SAMPLE 2
As Received
. 5.28
33.63
49.69
11.40
1.00;
12190
(train 2)
Day
35.50
52.46
12.04
1.06
12870
ULTIMATE
% Carbon
% Hydrogen
% Oxygen, by difference
% Nitrogen
% Ash
I Sulfur
% Chlorine
% Moisture
72.54
5.36
7.10
1.74
6.96
1.10
0.13
5.07
76.41
5.65
7.49
1.83
7.33
1.16
0.13
—
69.32
4.62
6.43
1.43
11.64
0.80
0.21
5.55
73.39
4.90
6.81
1.51
12.32
0.85
0.22
•.'•.
Mine •
Starfire
Leatherwood
V-138
-------
TABLE 64. TEST RESULTS AT POINT 14
f
vo
TEST
NO.
LSI
LS2
LS3
HS1
HS2
HS3
HS4
DATE
^^^^_*w
12/3/75
12/4/75
12/5/75
12/9/75
12/12/75
1/12/76
1/14/76
LOAD
MW
GROSS
100
100
95
102
82
99
102
FEED RATES
COAL
TPH
52
57
45
60
50
53
45
AIR
xlO*LB/hr
66
66
63
70
57
70
70
STEAM RATE
xlO* LB/t,r
66
66
63
70
57
69
70
STACK GAS
MASS LOADING
gr/scf
.00985
.0135
.0787
.0295
.0094
.0094
.0111
MOISTURE
% BY VOLUME
7.9
8.6
7.6
12.2
14.0
12.6
11.4
-------
indicated a level of plant emissions equivalent to those experienced
with standard operation and the normal high sulfur coal. However,
the second test showed a significant increase in emissions as well as
poor ESP electrical operation* (Table 65), a number of stages were
noisy (electrically) and serious static charge was noted in the stack
gas and on the probe. All conditions worsened on the third low
sulfur test—output grain loading increased almost 600 percent; all
but one of the ESP stages were noisy and some would reach overload
voltage and temporarily shut off. The static charge in the stack gas
and on the probe was very apparent. The sampling probe had to be
i
grounded to keep the operators from being shocked. The high secondary
voltage low secondary current condition is typical of back corona
conditions caused by resistive fly ash. The reentrainment of charged
ash by sparking could have caused the probe charge observation.
Following the low-sulfur test shown, approximately two days' soak time
was given to the unit when it was returned to high sulfur coal, which
may have been insufficient. The first test indicated abnormally high
emission for this particular coal; however, all later tests indicated
normal operation was restored.
During the first and second low sulfur tests, independent
tests were run in parallel with MITRE1s (through IP). These tests
were performed at the output of the ESP (Pt3) and produced results
*Secondary kV readings not available.
V-140
-------
TABLE 65. ESP ELECTRICAL DATA
TRISET # 1
TEST #
LSI
LS2
LS3
HSl"
HS2
HS3
HS4
LSI
LS2
LS3
HSl
HS2
HS3
HS4
LSI
LS2
LS3
HSl
HS2
HS3
380
300+40
280+10
360
320
350
360
• I
0.40
0.25+0.03
0.28+0.1
0.42
0.4
0.41
0..42
75
50+10
60+5
75
75
75
HS4 75
2
390
370+10
330+20.
330
280
310
310
E.
0.65
0.61+0.01
0.;35+0.5
0.45
0.42
0.44
0.44
90
85+2
60+5
70
70
60
70
3
325±40
290+15
260+10
380
340
380
380
S. P. AVG
0.3+0.05
0.3+0.02
0.26+0.1
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.4
E. S. P.
60+10
65+5
60+5
80
80
80
70
4
PRIMARY
320±15
290+10
290+10
340
340
340
340
5
VOLTAGE
280±15
240+20
280+20
360
340
380
360
6
Off Scale
Low
360
320
320
7
310+1°
320+30
330+10
320
280
300
300
8
TT
270
290
300
280
270
240
250
. SECONDARY CURRENT (MA)
0.41+0.01
0.5+0.01
0.40+0.2
0.32
0.44
0.30
0.28
0.19+0.01
0.18+0.01
0.18
0.27
0.26
0.28
0.27
0.3
0.3
• 0.29
0.29
0.25
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.14+0.01
0.14
0.15
0.15 .
0.17
0.15
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.56
0.57
0.56
PRIMARY CURRENT (Amps)
80+5
90+5
90+10
65
85
60
60
40
25+5
40+5
55
52
55
55
50
50
50
50
55
40
40
80
75+5
75+5
85
85
85
80
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
V-141
-------
similar to MITRE1s results. The first day's tests averaged around
0.005 gr/DSCF, and the second day's was slightly above 0.01 gr/DSCF.
No IP ..sponsored tests were run after this date (See Table 66).
HO data in Table 66 do not agree with MITRE values. The Orsat
0^ values appear to be in error. The test 1 outlet grain loading
(ASME) is substantially lower than MITRE1s (method 5). The test 3
values are in agreement, however.
These baseline tests suggested a number of implications regard-
ing Cat-Ox process operation with low-sulfur coal. First, the low
sulfur coal (at least this.itype) did degrade ESP performance as is
typically found in other power stations. The increasing grain
loading with usage implies more than five days of soaking is required
to reach stable operating conditions. There is a strong possibility
that insufficient soak time is the reason no difference in emissions
between low sulfur and high sulfur coal was measured during the ESP
baseline tests (EPA Report 600/2-75-037). Much more testing is
required to determine any quantitative effects of low sulfur coal on
ESP performance, since there were not enough data collected to
determine if the output emissions had leveled off by the third low
sulfur test (fifth day) or were still changing. A possibility also
exists that the large decrease in efficiency could be related to the
second type of low sulfur coal used rather than the first type.
It does seem necessary that the ESP be at least tuned specifi-
cally for the low sulfur coal to be used if it is to be in operation
V-142
-------
TABLE 66. DATA FROM IPC SUBCONTRACTOR TESTS
Date
Inlet to ESP
Mositure %
DSCF/Min
Loading gr/DSCF
Outlet from ESP
Moisture
DSCF/Min
Loading (gr/DSCF).
% Removal
^BM^^^^H^^_^^_^^_Hnlw,^^^^_^B.MBV^^^^MMK
Panel Readings
Gross Power
Air M Ib/hr
Steam M Ib/hr
o2 %
°2
co2
(Dry basis)
12-3 12-3
5.9 6.2
340,500 340,500
0.4938 0.6646
5.8 5.0
314,200 336,500
0.0056 0.0051
98.86 99.23
97 MW (computer printout)
650
660
3. 8 (economizer)
7.5 8.9
13.5 11.8
12-4
6.4
316,100
0.8149
5.7
292,900
, 0.0139
98.29
••••^^^••••••••^BaiHVBVBHVHiaHHI^^
97.6 MW
655
673
3.9
13.0
6.5
V-143
-------
for any extended length of time. Tuning effort would jointly involve
IPC and the ESP manufacturer's personnel. More comprehensive testing
would be desirable to quantify the effects of low sulfur coal on
/
efficiency.
This low sulfur test series was run on a low level of effort due
to the limited equipment and number of personnel on site. Only
particles and volume flow were measured since the gas measurement
equipment was not in operation and the manpower was not available to
operate it.
IPC is currently using another type of low sulfur coal which
does not seem to have the drastic effect on the ESP as the low sulfur
coal that was employed, for these tests. However, diie to equipment
and time restraints no quantitative results could be determined for
this coal.
Flow Rates vs. ESP Efficiency—The primary concern of this task
was to investigate the effects of nonuniform* flow across the ESP
with respect to removal efficiency. Interest in this problem arose
after the results of the "Test Evaluation of Cat-Ox High Efficiency
Electrostatic Precipitator" (EPA Report 600/2-75-037) indicated that
the measured removal efficiencies did not agree with predicted
theoretical efficiencies.
*In this instance the term nonuniform implies varying flow over
individual sides of the ESP and does not mean or consider effects
inside the ESP.
V-144
-------
It was assumed during the tests and in the theoretical calcula-
tions that flow in volume/sec./area cross section was uniform
throughout the ESP.. There are other parameters which were assumed
constant and may have also contributed to the discrepancies between
measured and theoretical efficiencies; however, nonuniform flow at
one or more of the load levels was a prominent problem. Some evidence
of nonuniform flow was noted as far back as the 24 hour acceptance
tests. The configuration of the ID fans and ESP for unit 4 are
,'
conceptually shown in Figure 30. Each fan is controlled independently
t J
and there is no automatic means to assure equal flow through each
fan. A short time after the ESP tests, described in M75-51, Illinois
Power found the fans (RPM and amperage) out of balance and balanced
them. After that, however, preliminary checks performed while
setting up the DP transmitters in the MITRE measurement system
i
indicated large draft difference existed (static pressure 1.0 Vs
+0.4 in. HO) between the two sides of the input duct to the ESP,
which may imply different flow rates.
The effects of nonuniform flow on efficiency can be theoretically
predicted using the formula
, -("•*)
1 - e x '
Where
- *! - fractional efficiency of ESP
W = rate constant or drift velocity in ESP
V-145
-------
INPUT MEASUREMENT
POINTS (1)
MEASUREMENT
FLOW TO STACK OR
-~- M , -- ' - minim—T_LJ
CAT-OX
ID FAN
A
FROM X. ( (ID FAN
BOILER ^XXl B
INPUT MEASUREMENT
POINTS (1)
FIGURE 30
CONCEPTUAL VIEW OF FANS AND ESP
-------
A = Plate Area
F = Volume Flow
W,A,F are dimensionally consistent units
Now assuming the following:
ft ^
W.A - 1.174 x 10 ft /min for each ESP side
F = (Total' 410,900 ft /min or if uniform
205,450 ft3/min
Then the efficiency* assuming uniform flow would be equal for both
sides of the ESP and is given by:
1.e-l-174xl06/205,450
I - 1 - 0.0033 - 99.67%
Assuming an input grain loading of 1.5 gr/SCF (higher than normal)
the output of the ESP would be:
1.5g/SCF - (1.5 x .9967) = 0.005 gr/SCF(
the outlet stopper in this unit is 0.005 gr/SCF so the guaranteed
removal would in this case be 99.67 percent.
*From "Pollution Engineering Manual," U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare.
V-147
-------
If the same total flow, grain loading, plate area and Adrift
velocity are used the effect of nonuniform flow can be predicted if
we assume 40 percent of the total flow (164,360 CFM) is through Fan A
and therefore Side A of the ESP while 60 percent of flow is through
Side B (246,540 CFM); then efficiency across side A is:
. -1.174 x 106/164360
1-e
*! = 1-.0008 = 99.92%
Hence Side A emits:
1.5 - (1.5 x .9992) = 0.0012 gr/SCF
For Side B:
r, . ^(-1.174/246540) x 106 = ^^%
Hence B emits 1.5 - (1.5 x .9915) gr/SCF = 0.0128 gr/SCF
Then for non-uniform flow (40 percent A-60 percent B)
The total particulate matter emitted (M ) is:
e
Mg = (.4 x .0012 gr/SCF) + (.6 x .0128 gr/SCF)
• .0048 + .0077 = .0125 gr/SCF
This is an increase over uniform flow of 2.5 times.
It should be noted that for these calculations the precipitator
rate parameter W was assumed a constant when in actuality it is also
V^-148
-------
a function of velocity due to the wide range of particle sizes.
Hence the rate parameter can also be affected by nonuniform flow.
The actual effect would have to be determined experimentally since
sufficient data are not available to calculate it.
Considering this theoretical argument as well as the unresolved
ESP test data and experience indicating that the Cat-Ox ESP does at
times run under nonuniform conditions, a number of exploratory tests
were planned in order to develop baseline information on nonuniform
flow.
All initial tests were to be 'run at about 80 Mft. This would have
allowed the. unit a wider latitude of imbalance since the ID fans would
not have operated at full load. The volume flow across Sides A & B
were to be set uniform for at least the first and last two tests and set
at three different nonuniform settings for a series of six tests in
between.* Table 67 shows some possible settings for the flow ratios
t
during a test sequence. The flows would be set by measuring velocity
over each side of the ESP inlet prior to a test. Attempts were to
be made to keep the excess air settings and coal type the same for all
tests. Tests at other loads would be scheduled as required. The
settings were hypothetical and were never finalized with IP since EPA
sampling equipment was unavailable at the planned test periods and time
and manpower availability were limited after that time frame.
*Due to normal variations in flow overtime at a power plant the
test period should be kept as short as possible, i.e., 2 to
3 hours.
V-149
-------
TABLE 67. Test Flow Ration for ESP
TEST#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FLOW
A
50%
50%
70%
70%
30%
30%
40%
40%
50%
50%
SETTING
B
50%
50%
30%
30%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
V-150
-------
Though no specific testing could be accomplished with respect
to nonuniform flow, some older test data (from the ESP tests) were
sufficiently complete to make some preliminary comparisons and
observations as to the effects of nonuniform flow.
The flow conditions were recorded for two tests:
Test A 9/13/74 100 MW Load
111. High sulfur fuel No Soot Blowing
Inlet -.0.81720 gr/SCF Outlet - 0.00421 gr/SCF
Test B 100 MW
111. High sulfur fuel ' No Soot Blowing
Inlet - 0.90276 Outlet - 0.00810
Since the flow over each side of the ESP on test A differs by less
than 1 percent, test A is used in the Duestch equation to empirically
determine the precipitation velocity parameter.
Test A
X = 1033816.4
Then using this parameter in the test B case we see that if flow were
uniform across the ESP
1033816.4
T,. !-e" 213902'5 = 1-e-4'833
T1= 99.21 percent
the measured efficiency was 99.12 percent, slightly lower.
Further investigation into the data indicated that the flow was
not uniform going into each side of the ESP. Side A showed a flow of
V-151
-------
2.214 x 10 CFM indicating about 54 percent of the flow was in side A
and 46 percent in side B. If we apply this to the Deutsch equation
as in the example, the efficiencies for each side were:
A = !-e-4-669 = 99.06%
B- iV5'008 = 99.33%
This implies the outlet grain loading of side A is theoretically
> 3 3
0.00849 gr/ft and side B is 0.00605 gr/ft the average loading for the
v 3
ESP would be 0.0074 gr/ft which gives an efficiency of 99.18 percent
which is fairly close to the measured result.
The indication from these calculations is that the nonuniform
flow effect is not large enough to cause the problems or disagreements
experienced in the ESP tests discussed earlier. However, there
may be a combined effect which includes nonuniform flow and other
\
parameter variations which may decrease efficiency. In any case, the
effect of differing flow rates into each side of the ESP has the
potential to have drastic effects on ESP efficiency and for any
comprehensive test program should be planned to prevent or measure
and compensate for this problem.
NOX Formation in the ESP—The formation of ozone (03) in an ESP
due to corona discharge and its activity in the ESP was investigated
as part of this task. It was felt that generated 0_ might react to form
V-152
-------
NO. There was no available method to determine ozone concentrations
in the ESP and the parameters to make theoretical estimates were not
accessible, hence the task was investigated solely by looking for the
possible second order effects of ozone (i.e., increase in NO concen-
tration due to 0_). Ozone concentrations, however, were expected to
be very low if present due to the low spark rate of this ESP. Reactions
from 0 should produce a different ratio in NO:NO and SO :SO between
the inlet and the outlet of the ESP, since it is unlikely that 0- will
remain stable and untreated for any length of time in this atmosphere.
A number of tests* were run monitoring the ESP for NO and NO
fc 2L
at the inlet and the outlet the NO values ranged from about 430 ppm
A
'I
to 490 ppm but showed no statistical evidence of change between the
inlet or outlet that was greater than the standard deviation or that
was not the result of other causes (system leakage). The NO data
i
were just within the detectable range for the calibration and settings
of the instrument. However, no pattern could be determined that
indicated any increase on the outlet side of the ESP. A second
series of tests were run monitoring N0« only (this allowed the
instrument to be calibrated such that its sensitivity was greater).
The results were similar in that no significant increase (>8 ppm) was
detected in between the inlet and outlet measurements.
Similar investigations into SO /SO concentrations produced no
evidence that ozone was causing an increase in S0.
*A11 tests were run when the ESP was at positive pressure.
V-153
-------
A few samples of fly ash were collected and analyzed to determine
if some of the products could be occluded on the surface of the fly
,t
ash.- No significant results were obtained.
The problem of measuring ozone formation and its fate in an
operational ESP was found to be beyond the capabilities of the
equipment available at the Cat-Ox site. Factors such as the low
level of ozone generation and its uncertain fate, combined with
possible system leakage, and power plant variationm, made it difficult
to make any determination without a full scale test program.
Any future investigations into these effects should include an
t
ozone measurement as well as a more sensitive NO measurement system
x '
The regional ESP parameter to theoretically determine ozone formation
should also be available and the parameters controlled.
Gas Stratification—The phenomenon of gas stratification has
been known to occur in boilers for some time. The primary objective
of the stratification study was to determine if the phenomenon did
exist at this facility and what effect it might have on ESP per-
1formance.
The first series of tests run investigating stratification was
performed at the air heater. Results of a typical test are pre-
sented in Tables 68 and 69. Each point was sampled for about 5
minutes. The tests quite readily showed the presence of stratifi-
cation due to air leakage. This condition (caused by flue gas
dilution with 'air) can be identified when analysis from point to
V-154
-------
TABLE 68. GAS TRAVERSE OF NOVEMBER 15, 1971
100 MW, B FUEL, NO SOOT BLOWING, NORMAL EXCESS AIR
NORMAL BURNER ANGLE, LOCATION 2
PORT POINT
4 STRAIGHT 1
2
3
4
5 .,
6
7
8
9
10
4 SIDE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
so
£.
1530 PPM
1620 PPM
1620 PPM
1590 PPM
1575 PPM
1635 PPM
1680 PPM
1785 PPM
1836 PPM
1770 PPM
1710 PPM
1836 PPM
1837 PPM
1800 PPM
1890 PPM
1890 PPM
1950 PPM
1860 PPM
1950 PPM
1860 PPM
0
'
7.3%
7.1%
7.1%
7.5%
7.6%
7.0%
6.7%
5.8%
5.4%
6.2%
6.4%
5.2%
5.1%
5.5%
4.7%
4.9%
4.2%
5.0%
4.3%
5.0%
PORT POINT
1 SIDE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 STRAIGHT 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
so.
— 2
1710 PPM
1800 PPM
1905 PPM
1920 PPM
1983 PPM
1920 PPM
1950 PPM
1890 PPM
1965 PPM
1830 PPM
1680 PPM
1797 PPM
1848 PPM
1755 PPM
1764 PPM
1770 PPM
1896 PPM
1845 PPM
1845 PPM
1830 PPM
°o
—2
5.8%
5.2%
4.3%
4.0%
3.5%
4.1%
3.8%
4.4%
3.6%
4.8%
6.0%
5.1%
4.6%
5.5%
5.5%
5.3%
4.1%
4.7%
4.5%
5.0%
V-155
-------
TABLE 69. GAS TRAVERSE OF DECEMBER 2, 1971
50 MW, A FUEL, NO SOOT BLOWING, MAXIMUM AIR EXCESS,
NORMAL BURNER ANGLE, LOCATION 2
PORT POINT
PORT POINT
4 STRAIGHT 1
2
3 ,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4 SIDE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SO
2
1452 PPM
1470 PPM
1650< PPM
1650 PPM
1737 PPM
1818 PPM
1836 PPM
1830 PPM
1866 PPM
1773 PPM
1659 PPM
1680 PPM
1818 PPM
2010 PPM
1980 PPM
2067 PPM
1950 PPM
2037 PPM
1833 PPM
1818 PPM
°2
9.9%
9.8%
8.6%
8.5%
7.8%
7.4%
6.8%
7.6%
7.2%
7.8%
8.4%
8.4%
7.4%
6.2%
6.3%
5.9%
6.6%
6.0%
7.4%
7.4%
1 SIDE
1 STRAIGHT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1767 PPM
1743 PPM
1845 PPM
2025 PPM
2004 PPM
1950 PPM
2004 PPM
1980 PPM
1968 PPM
1959 PPM
1740 PPM
1905 PPM
1950 PPM
1896 PPM
1785 PPM
1917 PPM
2013 PPM
1965 PPM
1980 PPM
1998 PPM
7.5%
6.5%
6.2%
6.7%
7.5%
6.5%
5.8%
6.2%
6.1%
6.0%
7.3%
7.8%
7.0%
5.5%
5.7%
6.2%
5.9%
6.0%
6.1%
6.2%
V-156
-------
point show S02 and 02 changes occurring in opposite directions.
Though the boiler conditions do fluctuate while operating parameters
are unchanged the magnitude of the variations are not of the order
found here, i.e., point 1 side 1 was 5.8 percent 0 while point was
3.6 percent 0^. Normal changes are less than +1 percent 0-.
Differences in gas concentrations caused by stratification of
gas due to poor mixing was not as apparent. Some areas where SO
and 01 changes did not fit the patterned change (opposite direction
to each other) such as Table 68; side position 4, 5 to 6; "straight"
position 1, 8 to 9, 9 to 10 and 4 to 5 showed some discrepancy. How-
ever, the variations were too limited to draw any final conclusions
from this test series.
The main observations were that sampling times for each point
should be longer and test times shorter to reduce the effects of
normal boiler fluctuations.
This series of tests was run at the economizer. The purpose was
to make a determination of stratification in the economizer but
not necessarily quantify it. Analysis of the preceding tests
indicated that it would be possible to determine the presence of
stratification in the economizer by a simple traverse across the
economizer. This would reduce the effect of fluctuating boiler
conditions with time by:
• reducing the total test time
i
• making it possible to increase sampling time to greater than
the 5-7 minute period determined in the previous tests.
V-157
-------
The actual sampling time was 10-15 minutes per point. A second
sampling probe was continuously in operation at location 4. The data
collected by it were used to assure that there was no significant
changes in the average boiler condition. The sample was monitored
for S0_ and 0 .
The actual stratification measurements were made at 8 points
across the economizer. The data collected at each point for CO ,
0- and S02 were averaged and listed in Table 70.
The table shows some significant differences in the constant
concentrations from point to point. Some, like point 1 (high 0
low SO- and C0_) can be explained by air leakage into the economizer.
However, other differences such as between points 4 and 5 where S0«
and 0« decrease from 4 to 5 for all tests %hile C0« stays relatively
constant (except for test 3) indicate the presence of stratification.
Other changes (such as between point 2 and point 3 on tests 2 and 4
where S0? is constant and 0 increases considerably) can only be
explained by stratification.
Though similar trends were seen in all tests between points 4
and 5 in general the stratification is variable from test to test.
This might indicate -that the stratification is dependent on burner
characteristics, fuel variables, fuel flow rate, and fuel air ratio
at the burner area.
This idea is further supported by experiences during coal/gas
fuel tests. It was observed (though not recorded) that there were
V-158
-------
in
vo
TEST 1
TABLE 70. STRATIFICATION AT ECONOMIZER
TEST 2 TEST 3
TEST 4
SAMPLING
POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
so2
1980
2280
2190
2130
2070
2340
2370
2310
°2
7.5
6.1
5.9
6.3
6.1
5.1
4.9
5.2
co2
13.5
14.0
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.5
14.6
14.6
so2
2100
2430
2430
2400
2130
2280
2310
°2
7.1
4.6
5.1
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.2
co2
13.6
14.7
14.4
14.4
14.5
14.5
14.6
so.
2445
2700*
2535
2652
2618
2685
2715
2730
°2
5.5
5.5
5.0
5.4
5.0
5.1
4.5
4.3
co2
14.5
14.8
14.8
15.0
14.7
15.2
15.0
15.5
so2
2430
2730
2730
2730
2715
2745
2785
2715
°2
6.6
4.4
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.4 ,
4.4
4.3
co2
14.8
15.2
15.2
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
15.4
*questionable data, stripchart problem.
-------
abnormally high differences in gaseous concentrations measured
from various points during these tests. It was noted in the test
logs that decreases in SO concentrations from one point to another
were as much as 10 to 15 percent while Oj concentrations remained
constant or decreased also. Since the gas has very low sulfur
content and is fed into the boiler at different locations than the
high Sulfur coal these variances in concentrations would be a logical
observation if stratification did exist. The data would further
strengthen the concept that variations in fuel flow or air/fuel ratio
at the burner do not mix sufficiently well to create a uniform gaseous
mixture. However, stratification due to incomplete mixing seems to
/
exist even though Reynolds number calculations and turbulent flow
characteristics imply it should not. There is no doubt from the data
that stratification due to air leaks and incomplete gas mixing
at the burners exists within the economizer.
A third series of stratification test was performed at the inlet
to the ESP to determine if the combustion gases are still stratified
at the ESP and hence a potential cause for changes in ESP collection
efficiencies different than those resulting from theoretical predic-
tions.
Since it was not possible to have two sampling systems (one
,;
to monitor stratification between points and one to monitor variations
at a single point due to boiler variations) two tests were run
V-160
-------
sampling at one point but employing the same procedure as would be
used while testing for stratification during multipoint testing.
As described earlier, the ESP inlet flow is divided into two
separate ducts. Instead of traversing tfye ESP inlet, the tests were
run by determining one sampling location, on each side of the ESP,
selected such that the data would be unaffected (or affected as
little as possible) by air leakage. The sampling was then alternated
between these points. Though riot a point by point measure of stratifi-
'cation this would measure it on a large scale.
Initial traverses to determine the proper points at which to
locate the sampling nozzles so as to obtain samples unaffected by
ambient air leaks determined that there was stratification of gases
in the ESP inlet caused by air leakage. This type of stratification
was confined to an area near the ESP walls and was only present
during times when the inlet was under negative pressure. This
implies the air leakage was localized near the ESP inlet.
The identification of stratified combustion gases entering the
inlet which were not caused by air leakage near the sampling area was
not conclusive. Table 71 gives the results of tests used to determine
background variations at the individual sampling points. Table 72
shows the variation of gaseous concentrations from gases entering
each side of the ESP. As can be seen from the tables the differences
in concentrations between the two sides' of the ESP did at times
(2 tests) exceed the maximum expected differences found by sampling
V-161
-------
TABLE 71. "TEST TO DETERMINE TYPICAL DIFFERENCES OF RESULT FROM
ONE POINT OVER TIME"
Series A - sampling from ESP side one only (all under constant operating conditions)
TEST #
S0_ ppm
o2% -
co2%
Al
2010
6.08
13.97
A2
2018
6.0
14.02
A3
2033
5.8
14.13
A4
2014
5.94
14.08
A5
1988
5.69
14.10
Average
2013
5.9
14.06
% Variance*
2.2
4.7
1.1
f
fO
Series B - Sampling from ESP side two only
TEST #
S02 ppm
o2%
co2%
Bl
1727
8.44
13.0
B2
1677
8.00
13.16
B3
1722
8.00
13.07
B4
1690
7.97
13.10
B5
1713
8.21
12.97
Average
1706
8.12
* 13.06
% Variance*
2.6
5.8
1.5%
*Defined here as (Maxium Reading - Minumum ReadingjJ/Average and is a measure of the maximum ex-
pected difference.
-------
TABLE 72. TEST FOR COMPARISON BETWEEN ESP SIDE ONE AND TWO
TEST SERIES C^
ESP SIDE
so2
°2
co2
1
1979
16.53
14.23
2 %
2037
6.25
14.13
C2
difference 2
2.9
4.4 -
0.7
2040
5.84
14.05
1 %
2050
5.89
13.95
Dl
difference 1
0.5
0.9
0.7
1.7 96
8.06
12.97
2 % difference
1778
8.0
12.78
1.0
.7
1.5
TEST SERIES
ESP SIDE
so2
°2
CO,
D2
2
1815
7.91
12.80
1 2
1740
8.63
12.33
. difference
4.
8.
3.
2
7
7
El
1
2002
6.13
14.08
2
1997
6.09
13.9
% difference
0.
0.
1.
3
7
3
E2
2
1968
6.08
13.78
1 5
2027
6.5
13.6
i difference
3.0
6.7
0.9
f
OJ
TEST SERIES Fj^
ESP SIDE 1
so.
°2
co2
1930
6.56
13.9
F2
2 % difference 2
1911
6.1
13.93
1.
7.
0.
0
2
2
1971
6.5
13.65
1
19.
6.
13.
%
87
4
65
F
difference 1
1.0 1947
1.5 ~6.3
13.5
3
2 %
1955
6.0
.. 13.8
difference
0.
4.
2.
4
8
2
-------
one point, implying possible stratifications. However, these dif-
ferences for the majority of tests were below the expected maximum
differences which would tend to imply no stratification. The result
i
was that this type of stratification is not normally present at
ithe ESP inlet or below detectable limits for the measuring system.
In any case it is felt that the difference in gaseous concentrations
at these locations are not large enough to cause any serious degrada-
tion to the Cat-Ox ESP.
This test series identified problems of gas stratification
due to dilution of the combustion gases with air along the walls of
all three sampling locations tested. Stratification of combustion
•s
gases not due to air leaks could only be positively verified at the
• economizer location. The data indicated that this stratification arises
from differences in fuel/air ratio or fuel type being feed into the
individual burners of the boiler.
The magnitude of the stratification indicates that the stratifi-
cation will have little effect on ESP performance (excluding very
large air leaks such as open ports). However, the effect on sampling
results could be significant if multiple sampling points are not
employed or at least a preliminary traverse perform to determine points
of average concentration.
Material Balances—The concern of this task was to determine
material balances for sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, sulfates and
V-164
-------
trace, elements. The task involved the performance of sulfur, SO
S03 and sulfate balances in an initial test series since the analysis
of the collected samples would be less effected by contamination
problems then would be the analysis for trace elements. Once suf-
ficient data were collected to produce a sulfur and sulfur product
balance, another series of tests would be run with much more care in
sample handling and would require specialized sampling equipment to
develop a trace element and toxic material balance. To determine the
material balance, samples of all input and output materials will be
extracted from the following locations.
• Coal samples after mill (as fired)
• Slag samples
• Mechanical collector
'(
• ESP sample (collected material from hoppers)
• Particle emission sample
• Gaseous SO./SO. sample
.- ; Z J
The coal samples were to be collected at the output of the mills
and would be integrated over the test period. The ASTM method des-
cribed in earlier base line test documents were to be employed here.
All samples were to be packaged for shipment immediately after each
test.
The slag samples and mechanical collector samples were to be
made up of combined grab samples taken some time after the start of
V-165
-------
the test and one taken near the end of the test. These samples were
then to be packaged for shipment immediately after each test.
The individual ESP ash samples were to be collected from
a number of different stages in the precipitator and would not have
been combined. By analyzing samples from successive stages, it must
have been possible to determine the uniformity or non-uniformity of
sulfur content of the particulate material in the ESP. Samples from
each stage were to be taken after the beginning of the test and prior
to the end and then integrated before packaging for shipment.
The SCL/SO samples were to be extracted from the gas stream by
the EPA Method 8. The solution samples were to be recovered according
to Method 8 for later analysis on site. Since only one EPA train was
available and was to be used for the SO./SO. tests, a second train
(ASTM type) was to be borrowed form Illinois Power Co. for use as the
particle collection train. The train was modified by replacing
the thimble filter with an in stack fiberglass disc filter. The
small weight of the fiberglass filter would require less of a collected
sample weight size for accurate results. It would also make the
system more comparable to EPA Method 5.
The volume flow data and mass loading data were to be measured
and computed before the particulate sample was shipped out for
analysis to an independent lab along with the other solid samples.
The plant operating data would have been recorded 3 times during
the test. The test was to be run on a non-interference basis; the
V-166
-------
parameters were to be recorded but IPC would not have been requested
C
to change them for the test.
All operational instruments were to be running during the test.
The data were to be recorded on strip charts and analyzed on site after
the testing was completed. Analysis of manual SO and SO. samples
'-"-. .,.
were also to be performed on site.
'-' The initial number of tests required would depend on the plant
operating parameters and sampling conditions. Under optimal
conditions (uniform operating parameters and sampling conditions)
for tests' would adequately represent the system. If the system
load or fuel changes, eight tests could produce enough data to
determine representative values for a sulfur balance, including
SO , SO and sulfates. The material balance for those elements
would probably require a greater number of tests as well as more
uniform and constant plant operating conditions since sampling
times will be longer. This is the result of the requirement for
longer samples and more careful sampling techniques to assure
reproducible, accurate and measurable samples.
The scheduled test series was never run. During the period of
•
time when equipment and manpower were available, IPC was employing a
mix of high and low sulfur coal in Unit 4 (they were buying low
sulfur coal arid using their stock of high sulfur coal). By the time
the unit was operating normally, the EPA sampling train was no longer
available.
V-167
-------
However, some initial data were collected to determine Yanges of
measurements. (See Table 73 for the results of this data collection.)
Expected trace element concentration ranges for the coal, slag,
mechanical collector ash, and hopper ash were determined in the
baseline study. Preliminary values for the ESP outlet particulate
matter and the ESP collected fly ash were determined from two samples
taken by The MITRE Corporation for analysis. Dow Chemical Company
Contract Research Department personnel had the samples analyzed. The
results are presented in the following section.
The preliminary test results were in the expected ranges. The
data should only be considered as preliminary since the required
sample handling procedures could not be employed (the outlet sample
was collected by a stainless steel sampler hence some contamination
of elements from stainless is expected).
Particle Size vs. Element Content—The objective of this task
was' to investigate the relationship between particle size and element
content of fly ash and from a coal fired boiler. Theoretical pre-
dictions as well as tests results from the ESP tests discussed
earlier in Section V indicate that ESP collection efficiencies vary
with varying particle size. If the elemental content varies with
particle size in such a manner that size ranges that indicate poor
collection efficiencies have elevated levels of toxic trace elements
then there could be a potential environmental problem employing the
V-168
-------
TABLE 73. EXPECTED RANGES OF SULFUR BALANCE
PRODUCED FROM THE SAMPLING LOCATION BASED
ON INITIAL TEST DATA
so sp_4 1
Stack 0.2-0.28% 5.40 ppm
Particle from <0.0003 ppm <0.3 ppm 2.9%
Stack
Range from - "". - 0.3-0. (
Slag
Hopper Ash
Mechanical Collector
ESP Collector Ash
Coal - - - 3-2-3'!
V-169
-------
specific collecting device 'to that particular particle emission
problem.
The potential problem areas, however, are not limited to
ESP's. All conventional particle collection equipment has demon-
strated a sensitivity to particle size. Figure 31 gives a simplified
relationship between particle size and collection efficiency of
various systems. In actuality, the variation is not as uniform or
as simple as shown here; however, the basic trends are generally
considered correct. The ESP test section gives the specific re-
lationships for the Cat-Ox ESP.
Samples of the IP Unit 4 emissions were to be taken from
three locations:
• The Input to the ESP
• The Material Collected in the ESP
• The Stack for Total Emitted Fly Ash
Material collected at the ESP inlet and stack would have been sized
during collection. Sampling times 'would have to be .long to collect
enough sample in each range to allow for accurate analysis. The
samples of material collected by the ESP. would have to be sized after
collection. Separate samples were to be collected from each stage of
the ESP to determine if any size segregation occurred during collection.
All samples were to be analyzed for various trace elements and com-
pounds, primarily those of high toxicity on potential carcinogens.
V-170
-------
99.99
(0.01
0,01
0.01
0.1 1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
FIGURE 31. EXTRAPOLATED FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY
OF CONTROL DEVICES
*Extiracted from Proceedings: "The User and Fabric Filter Equipment
Specialty Conference," Niagra Falls Frontier Section, APCA, October
1973, page 20.
V-171
-------
The results obtained from the ESP inlet samples would typify the
emission of a coal fired boiler and mechanical separation of this
!
type. Comparing the trace element content of various size ranges of
this sample with expected collection for the size range of a specific
collection system may have an important input to determine, if that
system is applicable to this type of emission.
Samples from the ESP and the stack would give an indication to
the magnitudes of effect that size has on collection efficiency
and hence in emission rates for specific trace elements. Table 74
would be typical of these data, however, some contamination of the
ESP outlet (stack) «sample due to a stainless steel collector might
have occurred.
This test series as outlined here would also indicate if the size
range or elemental content of material collected in the ESP differs
't
from ESP collection stage to collection stage.
Comparison of element content vs. size range between ESP inlet
and stack samples plus the size variation with mass for the same sam-
ples give an indication if any collection efficiency variations might
be an effect or more affected by the actual elemental content rather
than size. This could be the case if looking at a simplified hypothe-
tical case the inlet sample showed 50 percent of the sample was greater
than 5^j.m of which 0.03% was Zn while a hypothetical stack sample in-
dicated the greater 5|j.m range was 0.001 percent Zn. This might then
imply that the greater the 5(o.m portion of the sample is nonuniform in
V-172
-------
TABLE 74. REPORT OF PARTICLE ANALYSIS***
Electrostatic
Precipltator
10-29-75
Electrostatic
Precipitator Outlet
(Stack)
% Silica (Si62) 52.1
% Calcium (CaO) 2.8
% Magnesium (MgO) 1.0
% Total Sulfur (S) 1.0
% Sodium (Na) ^ 0.74
% Potassium (K)^ 2.1
% Lithium (Li) 0.012
% Sulfides (S) 0.0003
% Sulfates (SO^) 2.9
% Sulfites (S03) 0.3
% Chlorides (Cl) 0.008
% Aluminum (Al)* 26
% Iron (Fe)* 6.2
% Boron (B)* '0.13
% Titanium (Ti)* 1.1
% Vanadium (V)* 0.03
% Copper (Cu)* 0.0012
% Chromium (Cr)* 0.028
% Beryllium (Be)* 0.00001
% Zinc (Zn)* 0.028
% Lead (Pb)* 0.003
% Cadmium (Cd)* 0.0001
% Arsenic (As)* -0.001
% Antimony (Sb)* 0.001
% Manganese (Mn)* 0.026
% Nickel (Ni)* 0.0052
% Tin (Sn)* 0.001
% Barium (Ba)* 0.001
% Fluorides (F) 0.017
% Total Carbon (C) 0.8
% Nitrites (NO,)** 0.096
% Nitrates (NO^)** 3.4
% Ammonia-Ammonium
Nitrogen (NH^)** 0.09
44.2
2.5
0.9
4.4
0.52
1.7
0.008
0.0003
13.1
0.3
0.015
20
5.6
0.13
0.9
0.03
0.0015
0.16
0.00001
0.028
0.003
0.0001
0.001
0.001
0.032
0.084
0.001
0.001
0.086
0.5
0.092
16
0.15
* By Emission Spectroscopy
** By Ion Chromatography - All other values were by Chemical Methods
*** Performed by Dow Chemical Co., Texas Division
V-173
-------
element content and the ESP collection efficiency favors the high Zn
particles in that size range. There is no basid for the above
hypothesis; however, it does demonstrate the type of information that
could be correlated and determined from a comprehensive test of this
nature.
This type of test could draw correlations between:
• Particle size vs. elemental content of uncontrolled boiler
emissions
• Particle size vs. collection efficiency for a given col-
lecting stage
• Elemental content vs. particle size for a given collecting
stage
• Elemental content vs. collection efficiency for a given
size range
The data could be valuable in evaluation of ESP applications to
specific technologies as the evaluation of the use of various control
techniques on coal fired boilers.
The data discussed earlier were only from two samples, one from
the ESP outlet and one of the ESP. Neither sample was sized. The
general analysis did indicate some minor differences in constituent
content; however, some of the differences could be related to the
sampling methods.
V-174
-------
Test Support—The continuous monitoring system and MITRE staff
cooperated with IP on a number of tests that they ran. During
these tests, MITRE operated the S<>2, C02 and 0 analyzers for a
requested time period and presented the new data to IPC. The tests
were performed on Wood River Units No. 4 and No. 5.
Similar test support was given during the testing of Unit No. 4
for the RAPS* program. Raw data on SO., CO- and 0 concentrations
were given to the sampling personnel after the test.
MITRE performed some preliminary tests on the external burner.
The objective of the tests were two fold:
1) to test a special EPA water cooled probe constructed
for the official burner tests, and
2) to assist MEC personnel in evaluating the Coen burner
performance by obtaining particle data during set-up
operations.
The tests indicated the probe would not cool uniformally in
the original configurations. The probe was modified to correct the
problem. Later tests indicated the modifications were adequate.
A total of three particle samples were taken. The raw data
were given to Monsanto personnel on site and was used to determine
what burner configuration produced the best results.
*RAPS, Regional Air Pollution Study.
V-175
-------
CORROSION TESTING
Corrosion due to the Cat-Ox environment was to be evaluated in
two ways. The primary evaluation was to be from a planned test
program while the secondary method was through observations of
corrosion of actual equipment.
Corrosion Test Program
Corrosion rates are measured by the weight loss method as sug-
gested i'h 1971 ASTM Book of Standards section G-l, Preparing, Cleaning"
and Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens, and G-4, Recommended Practice
for Conducting Plant Corrosion Tests. Corrosion specimens were
installed at 11 locations throughout the Cat-Ox process. Ten locations
were maintained and analyzed by MITRE and one location was maintained
by Illinois Power Company personnel.
Selection of the materials to be tested was based on the following
criteria:
(a) Material was used in the Cat-Ox system
(b) Material is frequently used for simlar application
(c) Material is well known for its corrosion resistance
(d) Material was recommended by manufacturer.
The major metals used in the Cat-Ox system include; C-1008
carbon steel, cor-ten steel, carpenter 20 stainless steel, chemical
lead, USS T-l, and dur-iron. The carbon steel C-1008 is used through-
out the process as ducting for the flue gas, structural support,
piping for acid, and storage containers for acid. When used in acid
V-176
-------
or high S03 areas it is lined with teflon, chemical lead or a re-
factory. Carpenter 20 stainless is used in a number of acid pipes
arid pumps usually after the acid passes the product cooler. Cor-ten
is employed in the Cat-Ox ID fan and the external burner by-pass.
The lining of the absorbing tower is chemical lead. Dur-iron is
used in the acid recirculation pumps where temperatures are too
high .for Carpenter 20 to be used. USS T-l makes up a portion of the
ID fan.
Other materials to be tested included AISI Type 316 stainless
steel, Armco 22-13-5 stainless steel, modified Cor-ten A, alonized
C-1008 carbon steel, Incoloy alloy 825, Inconel alloy 625, Monel
alloy 410, and Uniloy LR-HL alloy. Table 75 lists all materials
tested and their composition. Table 76 lists the locations where
corrosion racks were placed, temperature and conditions as well as
materials tested at each location. The materials listed in Table
76 were the coupons initially installed, some were added or deleted
during the test program.
Testing Procedure
Prior to insertion into the Cat-Ox process, all specimens were
cleaned with soap and water, and then acetone. The samples were
weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg and mounted on specimen racks. The
support rod for the specimens was 316 stainless steel. The specimens
were insulated from each other by teflon sleeves which fit between the
V-177
-------
TABLE 75. ELEMENTAL CONTENT OF TEST SPECIMENS (WEIGHT Z)
Ho. Type
1 AISI, 316 Stainless
2 Carp. 20 C63
3 ABMCO 22-13-5
4 USS Cor-ten A
5 Mod. Car-ten A
6 A-36 Steel (C-1008)
7 Chemical Lead
8 OSS T-l Type A
9 Alooized C-1008
10 Incoloy Alloy 825
11 Inconel Alloy 625
12 Monel Alloy 400
13 Onlloy LR-HC
14 Hasteloy C-276
15 Copper
16 Bur-Iron
C
.06
.027
.044
.11
.09
.10
.12
.21
.03
.05
.15
.018
.02
1.0
Mn
1.25
.24
5.28
.39
.38
• 38/
.50
1.0
;5
.25
1
.48
1.0
0.7
P
.028
.021
.027 ...
.098
.006
.035
Max
.035
-
-
-
.005
.03
S
.014
.003
.007
.026
.024
.045
Max
.04
Max
.015
.008
-12
.007
.03
Si
.52
•42
.45
.44
.34
.20
.35
.25
.25
.25
•e.Ol
.05
14.5
Cu
.13
3.22
—
.36
.27
2.5
-
31.5
<.01
-
Hi
12.0
33.66
12.52
.33
.31
42
61
66.5
Balance
Balance
Cr
17.6
19.61
21.10
.66
.63
,'
.40
.65
21.5
21.5
15.13
14-16.5
4-5Z
Ho
2.63
2.36
2.14
.009
.15
.25
3
9
• -
15.97
15-17
.
.040 N
.84 Cb •»• Tu
.16 V .14Cb .28 N
.091 Zr
f
.03 .01 .0005
.08 U .03 T .005 B
-
30 Fe, .9T., .1 Al
2.5 Fe, .2T:, .2 Al
1.25 Fe
3-76 W,<. 001^ <.0l£f 26V
4-7 Fe, 3-4.5 W, 2.5Co, .35 V
remainder iron
-------
TABLE 76. CORROSION TEST LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS
POINT
3
4
5
8
10
11
13
A
B
C
D
LOCATION
Electrostatic precipitator
outlet
Flue gas to gas heat exchanger
(downstream of burner A) -
Flue gas from gas heat
exchanger
Flue gas from converter
Flue gas to absorber
Flue gas from demlster
Flue gas to stack (down-
stream of new I.D. fan)
Acid from absorbing tower
Recirculating acid to product
cooler
Acid from product cooler
Absorber (mist eliminator)
@ 4th 6" port
@ a 4" port
opposite side
from rakes
@ 4th 6" port
<§ 4" port below
robes
@ 4" port on
top of ducting
@ 6" port 2nd
from right
@ 6" port
@ Blanking
plant
@ Blanking
plant with
special valve
@ 3 diameter
above pumps
@ mist elimi-
nator on
filter
CONDITION
Flue gas
Flue gas
Flue gas at
high
Flue gas plus
S°3
Flue gas plus
SO, at lower
temperature
Flue gas SO
removed
Flue gas SO.
removed
Acid
Acid
Acid at lower
temperature
Acid and flue
gas
TEMPERA-
TURE
310
350
776
850
440
249
249
282
205
100
205-
440
MATERIALS*
1 thru 6 and 9
1 thru 9
1 thru 6
1 thru 6 and
8 thru 13
1 thru 9
1 thru 9
1 thru 6 and
8, 9
Illinois Power
1 thru 13
1 thru 7
9 thru 13 and 16
1 thru 8
^Numbers referenced Table 75
-------
sample and the rod. Larger diameter teflon spacers were used to keep
the specimens apart. Due to temperatures in excess of 600°F at Points
5 and 7, glass sleeves and asbestos spacers were used in place of
t
teflon. This method of mounting the specimens was to prevent damage
to or loss of specimens by causes other than corrosion as well as
eliminate the possibility of galvanic effects caused by metal to metal
contact of specimens or between process elements and the specimens.
Coupons were removed for inspection periodically with the exception of
the rack in the absorbing tower and the rack in the acid pipe from the
absorbing tower. These two locations could only be inspected during
those times when the process was not operating. The condition and
appearance of the holder and specimen were carefully noted. The
specimens were photographed, reweighed and replaced. An additional
examination under low magnifications was performed to check for
localized corrosion. The photographs of the clean specimens served
as a record of the surface appearance. A written record was kept
on the appearance and adhesion of any coatings or films on the
surface of the specimen.
Samples were cleaned prior to weighing by the following
procedure:
(1) Coupons were cleaned with acetone to remove
organic depos its.
(2) Coupons were scrubbed with a fiber brush and
mild soap.
V-180
-------
(3) Should electrolytic cleaning be required, the coupons
were to be immersed in a 5 percent (weight) sulfuric
acid solution to which 0.2 percent by volume of organic
inhibitors has been added. Solution temperature were
to be 165°F. A carbon anode was to be installed and a
cathode current density of 2000 amps/sq. meter would be
maintained for 3 minutes.
To check for possible weight loss due to the cleaning method
!
at least one sample was cleaned, weighed and recleaned and weighed
w> - '"" *
again. A lower weight after recleaning was considered cause to
suspect the cleaning method of removing some base metal. Appropriate
t
measures were taken to correct for this error if it existed.
'.
After inspection, the samples were replaced in a different
order for the next three month period to minimize errors resulting
from symmetric location of the sample on the rack.
Due to space limitations, no duplication of specimen type was
possible at any one location. However, as the test program proceeded,
certain samples proved to be inferior early in the program (by the
first 2 inspections) these samples were replaced by materials used
in the Cat-Ox process wherever possible. Specimens of metals used
in the Cat-Ox process were of specific interest since they could
give insight to the expected life of materials and equipment.
Visual examination of Cat-Ox equipment was made whenever possible.
These inspections were to supplement actual measurement and provide
additional information relating to pitting or localized corrosion.
V-181
-------
For identification purposes, a record was kept of the relative
position of the test specimens on the holder. Therefore, if identifi-
cation marks were obliterated by corrosion, careful handling would have
maintained sample identity. The primary identifications were made
• I
by means of stamped code numbers on each sample. The stamped
number gives additional information in that a specimen showing
preferential attack at the stamped area is an indication of that
specimen's susceptibility to corrosion when coldworked. This in-
formation was useful in determining if special testing relative
to coldworked materials was warranted. While the presence of this
localized attack is a positive indication of the material's sus-
ceptibility, the absence of attack is not a guarantee of immunity
to attack, particularly with regard to equipment.
A distinction was made between pits and localize corrosion
occurring under or at the insulating spacers as opposed to the exposed
surfaces. Pitting at or under the insulating spacers is an indication
of the susceptibility of the material to "concentration cell" effects
while pitting on the surface indicates the intrinsic corrosive nature
of the environment. It should be noted that even severe pitting is
not sufficient grounds for rejection of a material only an indication
of the need for further testing.
Calculation of Corrosion
The corrosion rate is calculated from the equation:
£ - Wf)/pAt]
V-182
-------
where
C = Corrosion rate (cm/day)
W.= Initial ..weight, of specimen (gm)
Wf= Final weight of specimen (gm)
o
P • Density of specimen (gm/cm ).
A = Surface area of specimen (cm )
t • Duration of test (days)
If the density is eliminated from the equation, the corrosion rate
o
can be represented in mg/mm -day or weight loss per area and time
which is also an acceptable representation.
Weight loss is a suitable method for measuring corrosion if
the corrosion is uniform. When significant pitting or localized
corrosion occurs, measurement of pitting depth by a depth gage, micro-
meter calipers, or microscope may be more useful. A pitting factor
ratio is the ratio of the deepest metal penetration to' the average
metal penetration as measured by the weight loss method.
Results From First Test Period (August 1974 - March 1975)
The conditions listed in Table 76 apply when the Cat-Ox unit is
operational. During this test period the unit operated less than
one week. The actual conditions experienced at each location and
appearance of the sample coupons are described in Appendix C. The
corrosion rates calculated in this.period can therefore be assumed
to be representative of corrosion during inoperable phases.
The initial dimensions and weights for all coupons prior to
exposure are given in Table 77. The length, width or diameter of all
V-183
-------
TABLE 71. INITIAL MEASUREMENTS 0? SAMPLES
D - Diameter + 1/64"
LxH-- Length & Width + 1/64"
T - Thickness + .001"
We - Weight In grans
Coupon
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LxW
2
2
1.984
2
2
2
2
2x2.031
Point 3
T
.122
.130
.117
.122
.102
.133
.082
.139
Wt
60.5406
65.2732
54.6652
59.3054
48.9226
65.1515
56.1697
64.8900
LxW
1.984
1.984
1.953
1.984
1.984
2
1.984
1.875
2x1
.953
Point 4
T
.123
.129
.117
.122
.102
.133
.075
.205
.136
Wt
60.4548
64.9381
54.2835
59.0471
48.9894
64.8693
51.2764
87.7236
62.6735
•
LxW
1.984
1.984
1.953
1.984
1.984
1.984
x2
D -
2.219*
Point 5
T
.124
.134
.116
.123
.102
.134
.038
Wt
60.8008
66.9018
54.0630
59.4252
49.1383
65.3785
20.7201
LxW
2
1.984
1.953
2
2
2
1.984
2.031
2.031
X2.063
Point 1C
T
.122
.128
.117
.122
.102
.134
.076
.210
.136
)
Wt
60.3297
64.1425
54.6391
59.3925
49.0570
65.4236
51.4701
101.9234
63.1919
L&W
1.984
1.984
1.969
1.984
1.984
2
2
2
2
Point 1
T
.121
.128
.117
.123
. .102
.134
.072
.205
.132
1
Wt
59.6630
64.1011
54.5473
59.3931
48.8649
65.1810
50.8789;
100.0267
63.8938
•Installed after the 1 Inspection (about March 1975)
-------
TABLE 77. (Continued)
D - Diameter, Inches + 1/64
LxW - Length & Width Inches + 1/64
T - Thickness, Inches + 1/1000
Wt - Weight, grains
toupon
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
LxW
1.984
1.984
1.938
1.984
1.984
1.984
1.984
1.891
2x2.031
Point 13
T
.122
.134
.117
.123
.102
.134
.083
.219
.132
Wt
60.3654
67.4002
54.1547
59.4024
49.0159
65.1787
55.9968
94.0102
63.6742
]
D
1.234
1.234
1.234
1.234
1.234
1.234
1.234
1.219*
1.234*
1.250*
1.047
>olnt "B1
T
.123
.130
.117
.123
.103
.126
.059
.138
.039
.249
.241
t
Ut
16.4078
17.6418
15.4812
15.9452
13.3420
17.6561
11.2080
20.2405
5.6776
37.2459
23.1737
t
LxW
1.984
1.984
1.938
1.984
1.984
1.984
2
2x1.938
1.234D
1.234D
tl.984D*
1.984
2.219D*
1.980*
Bint "C
T
.123
.134
ais
.122
.102
.134
.073
.132
.124
.130
.137
.109
.039
.248
II
Wt
60.6629
66.8597
54.0926
59.3842
48.9435
65.2592
50.7757
62.2933
25.4724
27.8973
57.7793
59.5047
21.0294
105.9420
P
LxW
2
2
1.875
2
2
2
2
1.875
1.031
olnt "D1
T
.121
.131
.117
.122
.102
.133
.082
.219
.133
**
Wt
59.8302
65.9454
54.5860
59.3598
49. 3501
65.2021
56.2211
93.9338
63.1189
1
LxW
2
2
1.938
2
2
2
2
2x2.031
1.5D
1.5D
1.5D
1.938*
2.031
Point 8
T
.123
.132
.117
.122
.103
.134
.205
.140
.123
.131
.138
.108
ft
Wt
60.5013
65.7984
54.6110
59.3701
49.4223
65.4078
101.3501
64.6319
25.2999
27.8923
30.6931
59.4540
'Installed after First Inspection (March 1975)
"Not Removed for Weighing During this Period
ttfev Sample Polished for Experimental Purposes
-------
samples tested did not change a measurable amount with the exception
of samples 4, 5, and 6 at Point "B". Coupons 5 and 6 were totally
destroyed while 4 decreased by 0.1 inches. Table 78 gives the
thickness and final weight of the coupons from each location where
the racks were removed and analyzed.
Table 79 gives the calculated corrosion rates of the specimens
at the location tested. The corrosion rates are presented in metric
units (cm/day). The more frequently used units are the English
mils per year (mpy) where:
1 cm/day = 1.437 x 10 mpy
A metal exhibiting 1 mpy (6.96 x 10 cm/day) is generally con-
sidered to have high resistances to the corrosive products. A rate
from 0.5 to 5 mpy (3.5 x 10 to 35 x 10 cm/day) termed good resis-
—fi ™fi
tance and 2 to 10 is (14 x 10 to 70 x 10 cm/day) moderate re-
sistance. The terms "fair resistance" or "moderate attack" imply
corrosion to about 60 mpy (~ 420 x 10 cm/day).
The largest corrosion rates were for the Gor-ten and carbon
steel samples at Point "B". The corrosion rates for these coupons
were excessive and, as a result, the metals were rejected for this
application. Locations 10, 11 and C experienced more corrosion than
the other areas; however, no samples showed enough of a rate to be
rejected on the first test period. Samples 2 and 3 at Point C and
sample 4 at Point 4 experienced no measurable corrosion. Sample 7
at Points 3 and 13 showed a weight gain caused by the surface of the
samples being impregnated with fly ash due to the high temperatures
V-186
-------
TABLE 78. THICKNESS AND WEIGHT AFTER EXPOSURE FOR FIRST TEST PERIOD
toupon
(umber
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Point 3
T Wt
Inches gran
N.C. 60.5338
65.2619
54.6563
59.2000
48.8815
65.0758
N.C. 56.6362
N.C. 64.8725
Point 4
T Wt
Inches gran
N.C. 60.4439
N.C. 64.9188
N.C. 54.2693
.124 59.0560
.105 48.9885
.136 64.8677
.074 51.2709
.207 87.7236
.137 62.6735
Point 5
T Wt
Inches gram
B.C. 60.7999
66.8879
54.J1617
59.4224
49.1291
N.C. 65.3530
New
Point 8
T Wt
Inches gram
N.C. 60.4914
N.C. 65.7814
N.C. 54.6013
N.C. 59.2998
N.C. 49.3753
N.C. 65.3084
N.C. 101.2672
N.C. 64.6306
N.C. 25.2966
N.C. 27.8939
N.C. 30.6931
N.C. 59.4502
Point 10
T Wt
Inches gran
N.C. 60.2586
64.0944
54.5818
59.0369
48.3291
N.C. 64.9200
50.3937
100.9619
N.C. 62.4690
Point 11
T Wt
Inches gram
N.C. 59.2686
63.1929
54.2255
.130 58.6864
.109 47.7530
.142 63.5579
.073 50.8080
.212 99.6167
.133 63.0428
Point 13
T Wt
Inches gram
N.C. 60.3599
67.3994
54.1515
59.1515
48.9827
65.1422
56.0906
98.8816
N.C. 63.6368
Point "8"
T Wt
Inches gram
N.C. 16.4060
N.C. 17.6385
N.C. 15.4781
.06 3.7583
0 0
0 0
N.C. 11.1694
New
New
Nev
N.C. 23.1130
Point "C"
T Wt
Inches gram
N.C. 60.6554
N.C. 66.8633
N.C. 54.0956
.121 55.6875
.100 47.2034
.132 62.4704
.073 50.7680
.111 51.8934
N.C. 25.2869
N.C. 27.8584
N.C. 30.5037
.109 59.4998
New
T •• Thickness
Wt - Weight
N.C. - No Change from Initial Measurement
-------
TABLE 79. CALCULATED CORROSION RATES
(cm/day x 10~6)
Coupon
Number
1
2
3
l>
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Polished
12
13
14
IS
16
172 Days
8 Ft. 3
0.089
0.145
0.126
1.42
0.546
1.01
(1)
0.595
203 Days
9 Ft. 4
0.123
0.214
0.170
(1)
0.010
0.018
0.047
0.065
0.480
_
229 Days
@ ft. 5
0.009
0.132
0.013
0.028
0.092
0.25
3
256 Days
8 ft. 8
0.087
0.145
0.092
0.617
0.415
0.871
0.673
0.011
0.062
(1)
0.514
0.032
V
200 Days
@ Ft. 10
0.840
0.537
0.696
4.12
8.32
3.58
5.85
9.90
7.92
197 Days
9 ft. 11
4.59
10.62
3.91
8.42
13.11
18.80
6.68
4.43
10.26
99 Days
@ Pt. 13
0.127
0.018
0.077
0.722
0.777
0.796
(1)
3.05
0.843
188 Days
@ Pt. B
0.080(2)
0.143(2>
0.142
555.8
>550
>690
1.39<2>
(3)
(3)
(3)
3.68<2>
220 Days
@ Pt. C
0.078
(1)
(1)
38.9
18.1
28.9
0.059
105.4
4.25
0.866
3.28
(3)
0.044
(3)
(3)
Density
gm/cm3
8.00
8.07
7.83
7.79
7.69
7.83
11.15
7.87
7.78
8.10
8.33
8.74
9.31
8.91
8.95
6.74
(1) Sample showed no weight loss or gained weight, see text
(2) Sample was damaged, coupon number 16 was damaged badly others seemed minor
(3) New coupon to rack
-------
at those locations. Because of this and since no lead is used at 3,
4 and 13, it is felt that no useful information would be gained by
having samples of lead at these points. Hence, the samples were
replaced with more useful coupons during the next inspection.
In general, all the coupons at Points 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 13
exhibited high to good resistance to corrosion.-in the respective
atmospheres. While at Points B and C the stainless steels, lead
and nickel base alloys showed high resistance, the carbon steels and
Cor-ten showed very poor to moderately good resistance.
Table 80 lists the weight and dimensions of the coupons (if
changed) after the last test period. Tables 81 and 82 list the
corrosion rates for all locations and coupons for the 2nd test
period and the combined 1st and 2nd test period (over entire exposure
time).
To aid in evaluating the results, Table 83 gives the corrosion
rates of all metals at the respective points, for 1st, 2nd and
combined tests in a qualitative form. The qualitative ranges are
given below:
> 1 x 10 cm/day - very high resistance
> 7 x 10 cm/day - high resistance
4 to 35 x 10"6 cm/day - good resistance
14 to 70 x 10 cm/day - moderate resistance
60 to 420 x 10~6cm/day - fair resistance
moderate attack
V-189
-------
TABLE 80. WEIGHT OF COUPONS AFTER SECOND PERIOD TEST
N.C. «• No change of dimensions >.005 in.
-------
TABLE 81. SECOND TEST PERIOD - CORROSION RATES (on/day x 10~*)
•a
5
Location
Coupon f
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
3 4 5 8 10
(319 Days) (427 Days) (392 Days) (366 Days) (200 Days)
0.0707 0.0150. 0.0088 0.0228 0.06S8
0.0132 0.0005 0.0224 0.013ft " 0.0618
0.0023 0.0023 0.0211 0.0026 0.0698
0.6365 3.4500 0.4051 0.0859 1.2017
0.4621 4.2359 0.3877 0.0340 0.1642
1.1086 9.2760 0.1274 .. 0.0080 0.0917
0.1245 0.0426
7.9039 0.0591 0.7293
0.2506 2.3715 0.0207 0.2998
0.0134
0.0181
0.1194
0.0034
11 B C
(429 Days) (229 Days) (214 Days)
0.1664 0.1827 O.O096
0.2592 0.0644 0.0399
0.0134 0.0867 0.0112
3.6037 25.3147
4.2076 7.6164
2.7340 3.0602
0.4321 0.1292 0.7072
0.5655
1.5620
0.2376
0.0780
23.7625 5.7064
9.3621
0.1697
0.1794 0.1149
22.0255 5.2575
0.3304
D
(761 Days)
2.3813
3.3108
2.6687
7.259
4.7603
8.2977
0.0641
5.1746
2.9412
-------
TABLE 82. COMBINED PERIODS CORROSION KATE DATA (cm/day x 10 )
Location
Coupon 13 4
1 0.0781 0.0498
2 0.0597 0.0695
3 0.0455 0.0562
4 0.9111 2.2839
5 0.5005 2.8744
6 1.0722 6.2928
7 0.0994
8 5.2921
9 0.3712 1.6073
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
5 8 10
0.0088 0.0224 0.6893
0.0644 0.0687 0.2152
0.0183 0.0003 0.2691
0.2663 0.4991 2.1315
0.3186 0.1975 2.8880
0.1704 0.3629 1.8916
2.9761
0.3090 3.6495
0.0132 2.7946
0.0338
N.C.
0.2827
0.0145
N.C.
11 B C
1.5598 0.1364 0.0443
3.4925 0.1002 0.0010
1.2419 0.1118 N.C.
2.5642 32.26
4.2874 12.7990
7.7878 16.1662
0.4874 0.5368 0.1361
1.7824
4.1029
2.2904
0.5914
23.7625* 2.8137
9.3621*
0.1061
0.1794* 0.1149*
22.0255* 5.2575*
1.825
D
2.3813
3.3108
2.6687
7.259
4.7603
8.2977
0.0641
5.1746
2.9412
*Sople only in 2nd period
-------
TABLE 83. QUALITATIVE COMPARISON OF COUPONS OVER FIRST AND SECOND TEST PERIODS
Location - 3
Coupon
* 1st 2nd Com
13
14
IS
16
4 5 8 M 11 B C
1st 2nd Coo 1st 2nd Con 1st 2nd Com 1st 2nd Com 1st 2nd Com 1st 2nd Com 1st 2nd Com
1st 2nd Coa
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
HVV VHH VVV V
V V V
V H/G H/G • V
V V V V H H V
V
V
V
V*l
V
VTI
V
V«f
V
V V
V V
V V
V V
V V
V V
E/C
H/G
G
G
H
V
V
V
H
•ft
n
H
H
H
tt/P
H/l»
6
P/M
u/n
G/H
R/G
G
Vt] IT* « M*
H V™ V V"
VH VA V VA
n v* • V*
H R F
H/P H/P T
H/w H/u r
HP T
U f
V V H* V V*
V H
H H/G
M/G
»V V
V V
VU V
V V
H G/M M
P/M P P/fef
t»fn b b/n
M/P n P/M
n/w n u/n
VVV
F
H/G V H
VVV
H H/G R
G
H/P
H/b
V
H/G
H
KEY
V -
H -
G -
M -
F -
* «
very high resistance
high resistance
good resistance
•oderate resistance
fair resistance
(moderate corrosion)
damaged during 1st period
V V
H/C H/G
H/G
V H*
-------
From Table 81 it can be seen that the only major corrosion during
this period occurred at locations B, C, and D. Those coupons most
affected included the Cor-tens and various carbon steels (coupon
numbers 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9) plus copper and high copper alloys (15 &
12). Most of the specialty alloys did very well. Comparing corro-
sion rates here between period 1 and 2 in general, the corrosion rates
over period 2 were less probably because of less exposures to acid
during this period.
The only area where coupons 1, 2 and 3 did not show very high
resistance was at location D, which is to be expected. These
coupons were in place over the entire time period between test 1 and
test 2. It is likely that most of the corrosion occurred during the
first test period, when the acid was stored in the absorbing tower
and the blanking plate to Cat-Ox near point 11 was open. Both these
conditions seem to have caused accelerated corrosion conditions at
point 10 and point 11, respectively. Table 82 points out the dif-
ference quite clearly, at point 10 during period 1. When acid gases,
caused by the H.SO, stored in the tower were present, corrosion rates
were an order of magnitude higher on almost all coupons. At point 11
during the 1st period, when the blanking plate was open, corrosive
elements of hot flue gas were able to condense out. During the
second test period the plate was closed and no condensing was noted.
As a result, corrosion rates were as much as three orders of magnitude
V-194
-------
less during the second period. Coupons 1, 2 and 3 make this es-
pecially apparent.
Location 4 showed the only inconsistent results. The stainless
steel type metals (coupons 1, 2 and 3) indicated more corrosion
resistence (not significant) in period 2 as would be expected since
during attempted start-ups of period 1 this location was relatively
cold when it was exposed to hot flue gases, causing condensation of
corrosive products on the coupons. The Cor-tens and Carbon steel (4,
5, 6, 8 and 9), however, showed more resistence during the first
period. At point 11 it was noted that coupons 1,2, and 3 were
more effected (percentage increase of corrosion rate was greater, but
rate itself was not necessarily so) by the condensing flue gas than
the coupons; however, both were effected adversely.
In locations 3, 5, and 8, Table 83 shows that there is very
little change in corrosion rates between test periods. Again this is
to be expected since conditions at these locations were much the
same over both periods. The only difference was that the coupons
were at higher temperatures for a short period of time during period
1 but this seemed to have no serious effect on corrosion.
All results discussed below are only for non-operational condi-
tions and should not necessarily be a basis for selecting or recom-
mending materials for operational conditions.
The results of these coupon corrosion tests seem to indicate
that all the materials tested do well in non-operational condi-
tions if not exposed to cold, acid gases or condensing flue gas.
V-195
-------
Areas where acid is present require lead or'specialty metals. Metals
4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 or 15 do not seem to stand up as we'll as the other
samples.
In areas of acid gases and condensing flue gas only sample 1
through 9 were tested. Coupons 1, 2, 3 and 7 seem to hold up best.
However, it is uncertain if the extensive pitting on coupons 1, 2,
and 3 in> the presence of condensing flue gas, might not 'be more of
a problem than the slightly higher corrosion rates of the other
samples.
i
Observations of Corrosion Activity
The purpose of this section is to record and describe the
observations made relative to corrosion activity within the Cat-Ox
system. All observations are based on non-operational conditions.
Though Cat-Ox was operational for a short period, the length of such
periods was insignificant compared with the total non-operational
exposure. As a result the corrosion must be assumed the result of
non-operational conditions. This does not imply that the conditions
were less severe than operational conditions, only that they are
different. The discussion is divided by major components of the
Cat-Ox system:
1. Electrostatic Precipitator
2. Reheat Burner
3. Ljungstrom Gas Heat Exchanger
4. Catalyst Bed and Converter
5. ID Fan
i
V-196
-------
6. Acid Recirculation System
7. Product Handling System
r
Electrostatic Precipitator—
1 The ESP is the only subsystem of Cat-Ox that was operational
over the observation period. The unit showed no adverse effects
resulting from corrosion.
Reheat Burner—
This subsystem was under ambient conditions for most of the time
and it only operated during a few test runs and never at full capacity.
There was no significant corrosion.
Ljungstrom Gas Heat Exchanger—
The gas heat exchanger displayed no sign of corrosion damage,
though the supporting equipment and ducting to this subsystem showed
some sign of light rusting but no significant damage.
Converter—
The converter did not operate over the observation period,
however, the catalyst handling system experienced conditions which
would be similar*if Cat-Ox was operable.
The converter and catalyst handling system are in very good
condition. The subsystem shows typical signs of weathering but no
i
damaging corrosion.
Absorbing Tower—
The absorbing tower is in good condition from a corrosion stand-
point. In general, it has not operated with the exception of previously
V-197
-------
described attempted start-ups and the period of time it was exposed
to weak acid that was stored in this tower. The stainless steel and
Carpenter 20 Components in the upper section of the tower showed some
minor pitting. The pitting though a potential problem was not
developed to an extent which could be considered structurally danger-
ous. Exposed carbon steel areas at the top of the tower showed
moderate rusting but again no structural damage.
Main Cat-Ox ID Fan—
The fan is in basically good condition. There is a moderate
amount of rusting in the fan and ducting but no serious damage.
Acid Recirculation System—
Though affected by other problems, the recirculating pumps are in
good condition relative to corrosion. The supports and pit area for
the pumps, however, are severely corroded. Condensing flue gas
dripping into the pit area is the prime cause of the corrosion.
Damage is severe enough to require complete replacement of pump
structural supports and at least an overhaul of the pit area.
The graphite heat exchangers, which were prone to leaking
(though not the direct result of corrosion), have experienced serious
corrosion damage on the cooling-water side. The cooler steel baffles
and tie rods are, in many cases, beyond repair.
The Teflon and Carpenter 20 cb-3 recirculation piping has shown
no external traces of corrosion. It is suspected that the carpenter
V-198
-------
20 cb-3 piping has suffered corrosion but the magnitude is difficult
to access.
Product Acid System—
This subsystem has been most affected by corrosion. The condi-
tions experienced have been probably more severe than if the unit were
operational. As a result of unsuccessful start-ups and lengthy storage
periods the system was exposed to very corrosive weak acid. The plain
steel product piping, which was marginal for the designed 78 percent
H.SO, it was exposed to, continually leaked and had to be repaired.
Similar circumstances existed for the carpenter 20 cb-3 product pumps
which were also repaired (replaced impellers or castings) a number of
times.
The storage tanks also suffered major corrosion damage. The
south acid storage tank had a corroded area 21 inches wide 36 inches
from the bottom of the tank which experienced a greater than 40
percent loss of the base metal. The north tank had a similar band
only 1-3 inches wide about 5 inches from the bottom of the tower.
These selective corrosion bands are again the results of weak acid
which, in this instance, probably floated on the top of a slightly
stronger layer of H.SO,.
Conclusions
In general the results of the corrosion test program agreed
with the observations made on Cat-Ox equipment. All test materials
V-199
-------
and components within the Cat-Ox system showed good corrosion resis-
tance with the exception of those areas that were exposed to acid,
acid gases, or condensing flue gas.
In areas of acid exposure the stainless steel, Carpenter 20
cb-3, Inconel, Incoloy, monel, Duriron, uniloy, Hasteloy and
chemical lead samples had the best corrosion resistance. Of the
samples tested in condensing flue gas and acid gases the 2 stainless
steels and Carpenter 20 cb-3 showed the least base metal loss;
however, the large scale pitting in condensing flue gas area found
on the samples might be more of a problem then the somewhat higher
base metal loss of the other material.
V-200
-------
SECTION VI
SIGNIFICANT RESULTS
PROCESS DESIGN
The tests preceding the Wood River demonstration, the 24-hour
acceptance test of the Wood River system and various studies indicated
that the Cat-Ox process is a technically viable process. Current
technology for particle control is capable of meeting the inlet
requirements for the Cat-Ox process in either the integrated or
retrofit systems. The catalytic converter is capable of greater
than 90 percent SO to SO conversion efficiency. The 77.7 percent
H-SO, concentration can be maintained during steady state and transient
operation. Lengthy start-up conditions, however, may result in the
'i
generation of dilute hot H SO. which can cause a corrosion problem.
Economic comparison with Mag-Ox and Wellman-Lord/Allied FGD
processes showed that the Cat-Ox process required the highest capital
investment and the integrated Cat-Ox had the lowest annual operating
j
costs. The Cat-Ox process was less sensitive to coal sulfur content
than the other processes. However, Mag-Ox produced the least impact
on the cost of electricity. The selling price of the acid and its
"saleability" would have a significant effect on the Cat-Ox annual-
ized costs. The primary market for the dilute impure acid is the
VI-1
-------
fertilizer industry that consumes over one half of the sulfuric acid
s
produced in this country and though the trace elements in the acid
produced by Cat-Ox have not been shown to produce toxic health and
environmental effects, more research is required before any final
judgment can be made.
WOOD RIVER PROCESS DESIGN/OPERATION
Though the process design appears technically viable, the Wood
River site was plagued with numerous operational problems. The
problems were related to two basic areas:
• Design. Certain power plant or system characteristics or
requirements of the power plant environment were not ac-
counted for or identified in the initial design of the
unit.
- Internal reheat system would not function properly
when the system was committed to use oil instead of gas.
This resulted in lengthy start-ups.
- Vibration in the power plant environment was assumed to
cause breakage or wear of the graphite heat exchanger
(primarily at a metal to graphite contact point in the
tube bundle). Acid or water flow may also have contri-
buted to the vibrations.
- Dilute acid caused by lengthy start-ups resulted in
serious corrosion in portions of the system.
- Inability to isolate some equipment so it could be main-
tained with the system in service resulted in added
shutdowns.
• Operation. Power plant personnel were unfamiliar with
chemical plant operations and requirements.
- Personnel were unfamiliar with the operating and mainte-
nance requirements of special alloys, materials and
equipment such as duriron recirculating pumps
- Unfamiliarity with acid handling problems resulted in the
corrosion of areas in the product handling system.
VI-2
-------
These problems combined to result in lengthy de.lays which
further compounded the problems. In addition, long periods of
shutdown had an adverse effect on the process and caused serious
deterioration of some system components. The only system component
which was operational and functioning without problems since its
construction was the electrostatic precipitator.
A survey of the plant status indicated that the major problems
outlined above or caused by system deterioration could be solved by
a major restoration program. However, IPC has chosen to comply with
SCL standards by burning low sulfur coal in the Unit 5 boiler and
physical constraints prevent them from employing a different type of
coal for Unit 4. The demonstration program would have to be run on
low sulfur coal. Though the results based on low sulfur fuel operation
would be useful, they would leave many serious questions about Cat-Ox
operability unanswered. Hence, continuation of the demonstration
would be of very limited use; accordingly, the program was discontinued.
As stated earlier, discontinuation of the program neither proves
nor disproves 'the feasibility of the Cat-Ox system. However, some
•i
inferences from the experiences indicate that the Cat-Ox system
would probably be more desirable as an integrated system application
rather than in a retrofit situation. The benefits associated with the
integrated system application are:
• the reheat system would not be required;
• there could be more advantageous placement of system compo-
nents and elimination of long product lines and poor
accessibility of some equipment; and
VI-3
-------
• the annual operating costs would be lower for an integrated
Cat-Ox, '
Furthermore, other more economical regenerable FGD systems have
been demonstrated to a more advanced stage in retrofit situations.
Little benefit could, therefore, be realized from the large expen-
diture to refurnish the retrofit Cat-Ox demonstration system.
r , i
TESTING
The only testing completed on an operational Cat-Ox was the
24-hour acceptance test which indicated that the system will meet
design specifications. However, during the acceptance test the '
system did suffer from high pressure drops across the demister. The
problem was probably caused by poor burner control of the internal
burners which caused the evolution of soot and subsequent clogging
of the mist eliminator packing. The results of this test and ex-
periences that followed indicated that a longer acceptance test for
future demonstrations may be desirable.
The baseline tests for the main program and the transient
test program produced no surprising results. The data collected in
most cases fit the theoretical predictions very well. The most sig-
nificant conclusion that could be drawn from this series of tests was
that for future testing of FGD systems, baseline testing may not be
required, or at least can be minimized to areas where theoretical or
predictive models are not well defined.
The ESP was the only portion of the Cat-Ox system that was con-
tinually operational and as a result was most thoroughly tested. The
i
VI-4
-------
results of the tests produce the following conclusions:
*t
• The Cat-Ox ESP can meet the design specifications.
i i
• Low-sulfur coal reduces collection efficiency.
• The reduction in collection efficiency is not necessarily
proportional to sulfur content.
• The data indicated that "soak times" required to reach steady
state conditions in an ESP after a fuel change may be on the
order of five days in some caseSi.
• A reduction in load will reduce outlet loading if all other
conditions are constant and ESP had not previously reached
its stopper1 output (i.e., if the ESP is designed for 0.005 gr/
SCF or 99.6 percent efficiency and it reaches'0.005gr/SCF even
if load drops, the ESP would not necessarily reduce emissions
below 0.005gr/SCF).
• The effects'of soot blowing on ESP performance are minimal
but it does seem to decrease collection efficiency.
( <
• Nonuniform flow does exist across the Cat-Ox ESP and can
affect collection efficiency.
• The ESP collection efficiency varies with particle size.
The minimum collection efficiency particle sizes between
, 5 and 0.05 |am seemed to be about 0.1 jam in diameter.
Other areas of the testing investigated include gaseous stra-
tification, NO formation in the ESP, materials balances, and
X
particle size versus elemental content. The details and results of
the investigations are given in the test descriptions but since most
of the testing was preliminary, no results are presented here.
The results of the corrosion tests are summarized in Table 83.
i
The table shows that for the conditions experienced by the samples,
corrosion resistance was generally high to very high. The major
exceptions were in areas of direct contact with weak acid or condensing
VI-5
-------
flue gas (points 11, B, and C). In these areas, the special alloys or
lead were superior to the carbon steel (C-1008), Cortens, or alonized
C-1008.
The continuous monitoring system (monitoring NO , SO , THC, 0 ,
X fc £•
COj, temperature, pressure, and differential pressure) operated suc-
cessfully throughout the program. The automated control and integrated
sampling systems developed no major problems. The only desirable
element lacking in the system was a reliable continuous particle moni-
toring instrument.
VI-6
-------
APPENDIX A
METRIC SYSTEM CONVERSION FACTORS
Length
Units
•VHiMflMBMMW
Irin
1 ft
1 yd
1 mile
cm
2.54
30.48
91.44
2.609344 x 10!
m
0.0254
0.3048
0.9144
1.609344 x 10:
Area
Units
cm
m
1 in;
1 ft2
i yd2 3
1 mile
Volume
Units
lin3
1ft3
1 qt
1 gal (U.S.)
6.4516
929.0304
8361.273
2.589988 x 10
cm
16.38706
28316.85
946.353
3785.412
10
6.4516 x 10 *
0.09290304
0.8361273
2.589988 x 10(
liter
0.01638706
28.31685
0.946353
3.785412
Mass
Units
1 oz (avdp)
1 Ib (avdp)
1 ton
28.34592
453.5924
907184.7
M
0.02834952
0.4535924
907.1837
Metric ton
0.9071847
A-l
-------
Energy
Units
1 Cal (gram) =
Temperature
Units
X degrees F -
Particulate loading
Units
1 gr/CF
Corrosion rates
Units
1 cm/day =
APPENDIX A (CONCLUDED)
Btu kWh
,-3
3.965557 x 10
1.162222 x 10
-6
5/9 (X - 32) degrees C
2.289 gm/m
1.437 x 10 mils per year
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
WOOD RIVER POWER STATION CAT-OX HISTORY
This appendix contains an internal letter from IPC with the maintenance
history of the Cat-Ox process at Wood River.
B-l
-------
March 29, 1976
P. T. Hutchison
Plant
Wood River Power Station
Cat-Ox History
Attached please find a chronological history of the Cat-Ox
system, as transcribed from the Operations Department log book and
other sources. The intent of this tabulation is to present, in
rough form, the various events which occurred during the four (4)
years since the project was begun. This is in no way a complete
history, but^ill serve to identify the many problems which came
up during operation. References are shown to allow readers to go
into the original documentation if desired.
Attachment D. E. Korneman
E
B-2
-------
CAT-OX
CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY
REFERENCE LIST
REF.
NO. REFERENCE SOURCE
1 Leonard Const. Co. Daily Report
2 I. P. C. Cat-Ox Operation Log
3 I. P. C. Plant Supv. Log
4 Monsanto Performance Test Report
B-3
-------
Cat-Ox
Chronological History
Date
3-02-71
3-17-71
1-28-72
7-20-72
7-24-72
7-27-72
8-03-72
8-04-72
8-07-72
8-08-72
8-10-72
8-11-72
EVENT
J. S. Alberici, 1st day on job, laying out pile
location.
Driving Pile.
i
Unit 4 started after overhaul, with Precip.
in service.
Oil flush, I.D. Fan & Hydralic Coupling.
Unloading acid from car to acid storage tanks.
Operated Catalyst Handling System.
4A, 4B cooling water pumps run, system filled.
Fuel Oil System filled, checked out.
Air Heater wash water checked, acid neutralization.
Pit water, & drain checked out.
Air heater rotated, acid system released to IPC.
Safety showers valved in, checked.
Pumped acid from storage to Absorbing Tower.
Acid leak at a tower nozzle flange.
Checked rotation, Acid Recirculation Pumps.
Acid leak at Absorbing Tower inlet duct flange.
Circulating acid through coolers & Tower
Removed Recirc. Pump inlet strainers
ID fan Lube Oil Pumps run, leaks observed, #4
pump rough. Pumped approx. 800 gal. acid from
Abs. Tower to N. storage tank. Brick mortar
repointed in Abs. Tower inlet duct, acid splash
on brick noted.
Page (1
REF.
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8i-16-72 Removed Cat-Ox intlet duct blanking plate. 1 2
B-4
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
i
PAGE 2
DATE ' EVENT REF.
8-17-72 Transferred acid from N. storage tank to Abs. Tower 2
Removed Cat-Ox outlet blank plate, 1,2
Circulating acid through tower. 2
8-18-72 Operated combustion air fans on A & B reheat 2
burners to contain flue gas leakage past dampers 2
Operated Cat-Ox ID fan. Cat-Ox inlet damper and 2
ID fan outlet damper frozen. Loading catalyst 2
to converter from barrels. 2
I
8-19-72 ID fan on, inlet damper open 15%, outlet open 10% 2
GHX on, burners being checked out. 2
8-21-72 Filling converter with catalyst. Freeing up
dampers. 1,2
8-24-72 ID fan run 600 RPM for 3 hrs., resulting in 2
condensation in Abs. Tower, strength of acid 2
lowered from 75% to 65%. 2
8-27-72 Attempted light off of Coen burners on gas fuel 2
failed.
8-28-72 Product pump used to pump dilute acid from Absorbing 2
Tower to storage tank. 2
8-29-72 A & B burners test fired on gas fuel with numerous 2
jumpers. Absorb. Tower gas inlet duct flange leaking 2
any time acid being circulated & fan off. Unit 4 2
off line 2308 for R.H. or S.H. tube leak and Precipi- 2
tator inspection. 2
8-30-72 Converter catalyst beds & storage bin full, 2
acid headers drained. 2
9-01-72 Ran several interlock tests while Unit 4 off. 2
Repacked Abs. Tower inlet flange, repair was quoted 2
as being not final solution. Burner A not available. 2
Start-up of Cat-Ox scheduled for 9-2. 2
B-5
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 3
i,.
DATE EVENT REF.
9-02-72 Unit 4 on 0137. Trouble with Cat-Ox outlet damper 2
Locked at 70% open for run. B reheat burner 2
fired for 20 tnin. after many attempts. Attempted 2
start-up discontinued until 9-03. 2
9-03-72 IPC Operator and MEGS. Start-up Eng. sprayed with 2
acid from valve packing. Showered, no injury. All
No valve packing bonnet acid deflector on valve. This
Absorbing Tower duct leaking at rate 3 drops/sec. Page
IP. Maint. repaired valve bonnet leak, tightened Ref.
packings on Recirculation Pump & under direction 2
of MEGS broke pump packing gland. Burner B gave
trouble all day.
9-04-72 Burner "B" restarted, by 2:00 p.m. Cat-Ox up to
operating temperatures, by-pass damper closed,
Unit at 50 MW, stack yellow-brown, SO 300-400ppm.
9-05-72 Cat-Ox on line. Burner "B" holding temperatures at
50 MW, will not hold at 88 MW. Most controls
being operated manually. Approx. 8" acid transferred
to storage to maintain level. Acid strength 76.5%
mag. flow meter not working. Bad indication. A.C.
Control Power lost accidently. Cat-Ox tripped off.
9-06-72 Restarted Cat-Ox, ran well all day.
9-07-72 At 2 a.m., Cat-Ox shutdown, severe leak at acid flow-
meter, acid in electrical conduits, control boxes.
9-10-72 Started Cat-Ox, by-pass closed at 11:00 p.m., 50 MW.
9-11-72 Cat-Ox shutdown, bad acid leak at Recirc. Pump
discharge header expansion joint. Joint replaced
same day.
9-12-72 Cat-Ox operated on limited rate early in day, off at
9:12 a.m., on at 4 p.m., up to operating temperatures,
by 7:30 p.m., with by-pass damper closed. Unit at
100 MW.
B-6
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 4
DATE EVENT REF.
9-13-72 Cat-Ox on line, load reduced to 53 MW for evening, All
when increased to 100 in a.m. Burner 8 tripped This
off, relit satisfactory. Cat-Ox off at 7:30. Page
Restart at 3:00 p.m., several burners on "B" Ref.
not firing. 2
9-14-72 Cat-Ox on line, B burner trips on load pickup,
restarted OK. Coen still tuning burner.
9-15-72 Burner off, Cat-Ox off 10:12 a.m. for burner
work by Coen. Restart at 8:15 p.m. By-pass open
40% at 100 MW at midnight. Having trouble reaching
operating temperatures.
9-16-72 At 52 MW, by-pass closed at 2:30 a.m., temperatures
nearly to design, 12 burner tips not firing.
Cat-Ox tripped at 8:00 a.m., high Precip. outlet
pressure on load pickup, restarted.
9-17-72 Cat-Ox on, acid sample 77.17% at 8:30 a.m. Having
to throttle product pump disch. valve to control
product flow, auto-valve did not work, resulted in
high pump packing leakage. By-pass damper open
part way most all day with Unit at 100 MW, attempting
to raise temperatures to design. 5 ft. acid in storage.
9-18-72 Temperatures up to proper level at 00:00, 100 MW
by-pass closed. At 03:00 a.m. 6'-9" acid in storage.
12 nozzels not firing in B burner. Coen man tripped
fuel gas valve at 1:30 pm, relit at 4:00 p.m. At
11:00 p.m., by-pass closed, temperatures up to
operating levels, acid strength decreased to 57%
during time temperatures were low.
9-19-72 At 00:25 a.m., 80 MW, temperatures normal, S02 at
200-240ppm. 16 B burner nozzles not firing at
04:30, acid strength at 76.3%, raising acid
temperature to 2808F to increase strength to
78%. At 0645 a.m., got low level alarm on Abs.
Tower, operator checked and found entire ground
B-7
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
DATE
EVENT
9-19-72 area of Cat-Ox covered with acid, heavy fumes. All
Cat-Ox removed from service at 6:52 a.m., had to This
trip acid pumps from switchgear breakers, since , Page
normal stop switch was inaccessible due to acid Ref.
fumes and liquid on ground. Eventually found arid 2
isolated leak on PO 4 acid recirc. pump discharge
expansion joint. Approximately 2000 gal. acid'
spilled. Liquid caustic used to neutralize.
9-20-72 Clean up and repairs. Found ID fan running
without cooling water. Waste Pit Pump found with
cracked casing. PO 3 and PO 4 Acid Recirc. Pumps
found to be frozen, acid had corroded through
bearing oil cups & allowed oil to empty, bearings
also damaged. PO 4 pump motor tested and found
to be shorted in motor leads .from acid.
9-21-72 Expansion joint failure inspected by vendor and
MEGS materials rep. Poor quality control in
teflon material reported as cause for crack.
Impeller of Waste Pit Pump found broken, stainless
steel banding scraps found in pump thought to be
the cause of failure. Splash guards designed
for around expansion joints.
9-24-72 PO 4 Acid Recirc. Pump, started, noisey, shutdown
not safe to operate. PO 3 ran OK. At 1:00 a.m.,
Cat-Ox with by-pass closed, 75 MW. Acid recirc.
flowmeter failed. Difficulty in controlling acid
, temperatures due to poor design of control system.
Manually throttling HX inlet water valves. Unit to
100 MW @ 9:05 a.m. Coen man accidently tripped "B"
burner, relit. Acid strength at 79.06%, reduced
temperature to 280, strength to 77.74%. At 5:00 p.m.
shut system down to repair acid leaks in pipe lines,
10-02-72 Pumping acid to storage from Absorbing Tower.
Vendor of teflon expansion joints ran tests and
condemned all piping & expansion joints. All to
be replaced."
B-8
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 6
DATE EVENT REF.
10-06-72 Pumping acid to Absorbing Tower from storage, new All
teflon piping installed. Fired "B" burner at This
8:30 p.m. Warming up system to 750°F maximum. Page
2
10-07-72 Unit at 82 MW, by-pass closed at 1:00 p.m.
Acid strength at 80.64% at 8:15 p.m., 81.11%
at 10:15 p.m., unit stabilized at 10:30 p;m.
10-08-72 Unit at 100 MW, by-pass closed. Load reduced at
2:30 a.m. ta 80 MW, had to open by-pass to 10%
to avoid gas flow bump and burner flameout. At
7:00 a.m., load up to 100 MW, S02 at stack at
170-180 ppm. Running with 1 circulation pump,
two acid coolers, no flow regulation on acid side,
orange-brown stack plume. A burner tried during
day without success.
10-09-72 Unit at 100 MW, Cat-Ox on line, by-pass closed.
At 0100, unit load reduced to 80 MW. Acid strength
78% _+_ 0.5%. Noted increase in AP across converter
from 3 to 4 in. wg* during previous 24 hours. Acid
storage tank 9'-8". Cat-Ox removed from service
5:45 p.m., Unit 4 Boiler off at 7:35 p.m., due to
tube leaks, in S.H. and R.H.
10-11-72 Unit 4 on at 9:19 p.m. Acid pumps PO 3 and PO 4
started, and shutdown. PO 3 pump had leak in the
discharge valve packing, PO 4 had a bad pump bearing,
very noisey.
10-12-72 Washing mist eliminators, to reduce'gas pressure
A P, resulted in weakened acid. Burner B fired
at 3:00 a.m., Cat-Ox in service at 7:45 a.m. with
22 in. wg mist eliminator Pressure had trouble
maintaining design gas temperatures from "B"
burner.
10-13-72 Unit at 100 MW with by-pass closed, temperatures
not fully up, burner firing at maximum rate will
not increase gas temperatures. At 80 MW, burner
holding temperatures at design. At 3:00 a.m.,
B-9
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 7
DATE EVENT REF.
10-13-72 acid at 81.3%, lowered temperature to decrease All
Continued washing of mist eliminator elements Page
reduced AP to 16 inches. Converter pressure Ref,
diff. at 6.0 inches, 10 inches is design max. 2
I. D. fan suction at -52" at 1015 RPM, this is
design maximum suction.
10-14-72 Burner controls testing during period midnight to
3:30 a.m. with by-pass opened.
10-15-72 Cat-Ox partly on. burner B tripped followed by
a load drop from 100 to 80 at 0015 a.m.
Neither would relight. Shut Cat-Ox completely
down for modification work. Work to be done.
(1) install automatic acid temperature C.V. in
water supply to heat 'exchangers, (2) change cooling
water pressure control to local, manual, (3)
Install air operators on acid recirc. pumps to
control pressure while pump is started to protect
acid coolers. (4) Modify burner gas piping, (5)
Install constant voltage power supply for instruments
(6) Install waste pit level alarm probes.
10-30-72 Prepare to start up. At 5:00 p.m. B burner lighted.
I
10-31-72 At midnight, converter up to 840°F, "A" burner failed
to light. Tried to raise ,$cid temperature with new
water control valve, resulted in starving water flow
to ID fan oil cooler. Had to return to manual throttling
of acid cooler inlet valves. Burner B tripped several
times, jumpers used to get relit. Acid storage tank
at 12'-2-3/8" Mist eliminator washed to reduce 30"
differential to 23". By-pass damper opened at 26" to
reduce gas flow & diff. "B" burner tripped numerous
times, was finally left off for Coen rep. due in on
Nov. 1.
11-01-72 Coen rep. attempted to start B burner, with no success.
Decision made to shutdown Cat-Ox for major burner
repairs & testing on oil. Acid strength raised to 78%
before transferring to storage. Catalyst to be removed,
B-10
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 8
DATE EVENT ' REF.
11-01-72 some mist eliminators to be removed, & remainder blanked
to protect from oil soot while setting burners to fire
fuel oil.
11-2,3,4 Blanking plates installed on inlet & outlet, absorbing
tower drained and washed down.
11-06-72 Removing catalyst to storage trucks.
11-15-72 All catalyst removed, Coen starting to test reheat
burners on oil. Blanking plates removed...
11-16,- "A" burner testing. Burns oil fairly well; however,
17-72 must have natural gas fire established to light
oil initially, trouble with flame scanners.
11-18 B burner testing on fuel oil. Cannot light even
natural gas, trouble with pilot. Insufficient gas
available from supplier to continue test.
Stainless steel lining in B burner duct shows
buckling.
i
11-20- Continue attempting to get burners to operate on
11-29 oil with sufficient heat output and clean burning.
11-30 Meeting of Coen & MEGS on burner problems resulted
in plans for extensive in-duct burner modifications.
New equipment to be installed through winter to
improve burner capability, reliability and combustion
include (1) Burner nozzle combustion chambers, (2)
Metered fuel, metered air combustion control system
(3) Factory testing of prototype improvements, to
assure MECS of design change effectiveness.
12-01.-72 Cat-Ox out of service, routine equipment operation
2-19-73 to protect from corrosion, freezing, drying.
B-ll
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 9
DATE EVENT REF.
2-19-73 Coen and contractors in to start burner modifi- All
cations, MEGS people in examining Brinks mist This
eliminators for recommendations on further use, Page
appear fairly dirty with oil soot. Opinion of Ref.
MEGS that elements should clean up satisfactorily. 2
3-22-73 Blanking plates removed for burner checkout.
3-23,26 Burnehrs being tested with gas and oil, not
successful in obtaining reliable operation.
4-01-73 I. D. fan bearing temperature alarm prompted
check by MEGS & IPC instrument man. Alarm
found to be true, fan bearings wiped, shaft
scored. Cause believed to be lack of oil due
to manual flow control valve being too far
closed. Further checking showed a partially
plugged oil cooler. The tubes in the cooler
were too small for usual river water service
resulting in pluggage on tube sheets. Cooling
water flow & pressure available to coolers also
reduced by effect of new acid temp, control valve.
Blanking plates installed for ID fan work.
5-11-73 Blanking plates removed, fan repairs complete.
Added temperature thermocouples to bearings,
and put temperatures on recorder in Cont. Room.
Also added oil pressure switches which will
trip fan on low oil pressure to bearings.
5-12-16 Coen testing burners.
5-16 Blanking plates installed for burner cleaning.
Cleaned ID fan lube oil cooler.
5-17 Coen cleaning burners, modifying burner controls,
etc.
5-18 Pulled blanking plates.
5-19,20, Coen test firing burners.
21
B-12
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 10
DATE EVENT REF.
5-21 IPC cleaned lube oil cooler. 2
5-22,23 Burner testing, particulate tests run by MEGS, 2
showed .017, .018 gr/SCF at outlet of B burner 2
while firing oil, precipitator guarantee is .005. 2
5-24,25 Continued testing of burners, IPC installed 2
blanking plates on 5-25. 2
5-29- IPC started loading catalyst through sifter 2
to converter. 2
5-31 Found 11 broken tubes in X-03 acid cooler. 1,2
One tube previously plugged in June 1972 1,2
6-02-73 Completed refilling converter w/catalyst, short Remainder
approximately 20,000 liters to fill 8th bed and of
for storage. Page
Ref.
6-06-73 Mist eliminator elements being reinstalled in Abs. 1,2
Tower, eight broken ceramic grid support bars are
being replaced in the absorbing tower. Coen
cleaning burner nozzles.
6-09-73 Completed filling of converter with catalyst
6-18-73 Started washing mist eliminator elements with
water and Sodium, Tripoly Phosphate and Robinol
X-100. Malfunction with pump and PRV. Blanking
Plates removed from outlet. Larger motors in-
stalled on Burner Combustion Air Fans.
6-19,20- Continued washing of Mist Eliminator; attempted to
73 water wash gas heat exchanger, insufficient water
pressure.
6-22-73 Completed M. E. wash, transferring acid from storage
to absorbing tower. Leaks observed at mag. flow-
meter, tube sheet drain on Absorbing tower. Water
leak on X04 acid cooler head, several inoperative
pressure gauges. Due to numerous problems, acid
pumped back to storage tank.
B>-13
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 11
DATE EVENT REF.
6-23-73 Acid leaks observed on inlet and outlet of P03 1,2
Circlating Pump, and on inlet P04 Circ. Pump, at
flanges. Tube sheet drain duriron sleeve t
blanked off to stop acid leak. Drive pulleys
on A and B Burner Combustion Air Fans replaced
with original to slow speed down to within
manufacturer's max recommended. 2
MEGS found several bad teflon expansion joints 1,2
on Acid Cooler piping, bad welds observed on
split flanges.
6-25-73 Pumping acid from storage to absorbing tower. 1,2
I. D. fan started to keep flue gas in ducts,
while blankfng plates were being removed. High
bearing temperatures caused the I.D. fan to be
shutdown. Lube oil cooler was opened, found
fouled and cleaned. Attempting to start up
Cat-Ox system, 20 in. wg. differential across mist
eliminator, could not get a burner lighted.
At 7:00 p.m., Unit 4 taken off to repair S. H.
tube leak.
6-27-73 Attempting start-up, using P04 pump and X03, X04 acid 2
coolers. Many attempts to get A & B burners lighted
on gas fuel. Acid leaks on acid,cooler expansion
joints, 3 drops per minuted. Mist eliminator dif-
ferential at 20 in. with I. D. at minimum for burner
off.
6-28-73 Low acid alarm in absorbing tower, tripped I. D. fan 2
and B burner. Pumped more acid to tower from storage.
B. burner on at 6:15 a.m. Operated with by-pass open,
inlet damper to Cat-Ox at a maximum of 6% open, Mist
Eliminator AP limited to 20 inches max. Circulation
pump P02 packing leaking, switched to P03. Placed
X05 acid cooler in service, X04 temperature too high.
6-29-73 Started washing mist eliminators with wash systems @
125 gpm, 30 second intervals. Washing discontinued
when control valve malfunctioned. Operated B burner
with by pass damper open and small amount of gas
B-14
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
DATE EVENT
6-29-73 going through to assist in cleaning mist eliminators.
Tried to maintain 850°F at converter and 213°F gas
temperature to tower while circulating acid.
Controlling acid temperature with manual valves
on coolers. Topped catalyst beds off with 2 drums
of catalyst.
6-30-73 Mist eliminator washing stopped by failure of control
valve. Acid being circulated with P03 pump and
through X05 cooler. Working on burner controls.
Repaired MEW valve, started washing ID fan at 755 rpm,
M.E. at 20.8 inches pressure Maximum differential was
20 inches by design. Continued washing reduced diff.
to 19.3 in. at 740 rpm,
7-01-73 New Operating instructions from MECS start-up engineers
at 9:45 a.m.; opened inlet damper to 10%, increased
fan speed to 900 rpm, resulting in 28 inc. diff. on M.E.,
continued washing at these conditions. At 2:30 p.m.,
mist eliminator'diff. at 29.2 in. at 910 rpm; at 11:05
p.m. M.E. diff. at 27.7 in. at 900 rpm, SO. in stack at
1680 ppm.
7-02-73 During midnight shift, ID fan speed increased to obtain
30 in. diff. on M. E. Acid circulation pump P03 shut „
off 1:00 a.m. to repair packing leak, and F02 started.
,P02 pump casing broke and spilled 2" of acid from
absorbing tower. System restarted at 4:00 a.m. with
29.5 in. diff. on M.E. Two more wash cycles on M. E.
done during a.m. At 2:30 p.m., P04 acid pump was
started and immediately failed with a hole in the pump
casing. MECS reported that thermal shock was probable
cause for two pump failures; P03 pump started and
stopped without trouble. System shutdown at 3:25 pm
with 28.9 in. diff. on M.E. at 910 rpm of ID fan.
7-03-73 Gas heat exchanger (GHX) drive motor tripped off due to
excessive seal drag* MECS had ordered ID fan shutoff
before GHX was cooled down. Temperature at GHX at
580°F. GHX restarted with both air and electric
B-15
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 13
DATE EVENT REF.
7-03-73 drives at 10 am and allowed to cool. IPC maintenance
working on acid pumps, to isolate for further operation
without leaks, pump isolation valves would not hold.
During evening shift, ID fan restarted, M.E. diff. at
30 in. @ 905 rpm, S02 at 1800 ppm. Decided to shut
system down at 11:00 pm, started cooling system down.
f
7-04-73 Cooling converter down, at 6:50 am temperature to
400°F, at 6:55 am ID fan off.
7-05-73 Installing blanking plates, pumping acid to storage. 2
Storage at 9'9-1/2, absorbing tower at 24-1/2"
before emptying. Opening manways on absorbing
tower to allow removal of M.E. elements.
7-06-73 Washing and cleaning M.E. floor, for work inside, 1,2
flushing out bed and absorbing tower.
7-07-73 Absorbing tower inspected, no support bar damage 1,2
floor of inlet duct cracked and buckled. Removing
HV mist eliminator elements, packing showed large
amounts of black, charred soot-like material.
7-09-73 Finished removing HV M.E. elements, to be 1,2
repacked at "Fabpack".
Further inspection of Absorbing Tower inlet duct,
insulation refractory material is soft and
appears to be in poor condition.
7-10-73 Absorbing tower emptied with squegee and portable 1,2
pump, there is no provision to completely drain
tower. Contractors working on acid leaks and valves.
7-11-73 Began replacing H.V. mist eliminator elements. 1,2
7-12,13, Installing repacked, mist eliminator elements. 1,2
14
B-16
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 14
DATE EVENT REF.
7-15-73 Completed installation of M.E. elements, flanges 1,2
sealed with Carbo-Kroze.
7-16-73 Removed acid pumps P02 and P04 for repair, cleaned 1,2
ID fan oil cooler, repaired and replaced some M.E.
tube sheet drain nozzles at lower level of Abs. Tower,
used telfon sleeves inside broken Duriron sleeves.
Repairing expansion joint acid leaks at acid coolers,
modifying electric controls on lube oil pumps.
7-17-73 Cleaning absorbing tower closing manways. Norton 1,2
Company representative in to inspect aladur bars
in absorbing tower.
\
7-18-73 New pressure switch installed on I.D. Fan Lube Oil 2
system for fail-safe operation on Low Lube Oil
Pressure.
7-19-73 Blanking plates removed from inlet & outlet ducts. 2
7-20-73 Slide gates on converter catalyst inlet pipes 2
were frozen, had to be freed up by hand before
air operation would work. Pumping acid from storage
to tower. Mist eliminator tube sheet drain leaking
acid at sleeve into absorbing tower. Acid was pumped
back to storage to allow leak to be blanked off.
7-21-73 Acid was pumped from storage to absorbing tower. 2
Burners lighted on gas. At 7:00 pm started to wash
,t S.C. section of mist eliminator with 3.2 in. pressure
drop. Only one acid circulation pump available and in
service,
7^22-73 By-pass daijiper closed at 70 M.W. unit load during 2
12-8 shift. Lost A and B burners between 8 am and
9 am. After several attempts relighted B burner
at 10:00 a.m. Lost B burner again at 2:00 pm,
B-17
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
DATE EVENT
7-22-73 relighted at 5:00 pm, 5 nozzles not burning.
Continued washing mist eliminator until 9:45 pm.
At 10:35 pm, product acid pump in service with
storage tank at 7'-11-1/2".
•i •
7-23-73 At 6:30 am, stopped product pump. During day shift,
-Unit at 100 M.W., had trouble maintaining operating
temperatures with B burner; also trouble lighting
off. Mist eliminator diff. still high at 4.3" on
S.C. section, washing helped only slight amount. At
6:45 pm, a severe electrical storm cause a.trip of
the Cat-Ox. Had bad acid flow indication and had to
jumper interlock to allow startup, trouble lighting
B burner caused by dirty flame scanners.
7-24-73 At 5:30 am, product acid being transferred to
storage. Tank level 8"-10". Mist eliminator
diff. at 8.0" on H.V. and 3.9" on S.C. at 100MW.
The S.C. section was washed, but diff.
did not improve.
7-25-73 S.C. Mist Elim. diff. increased to 4.1 inches
during 12-8 shift and washing started. At 2 am,
B burner lost on load drop, restarted at 2:45 am.
Both A & B burners lost at 7:30 am, on unit load
pickup, relit at 7:50 am. Burns on gas fuel. Shut
Cat-Ox down to remove flow restriction orifice in
cooling water line. Relit burners A & B at 5:30 pm.
At 6:30 pm, lost A burner, relit at 6:50 pm. At
10:40 pm, lost A burner while closing by-pass damper,
relit at 10:55 pm. At 10:30 began washing* S.C,.
mist eliminator section with 4.6" diff.
7-26-73 Acid pumped to storage during 12-8 shift. At
6:45 am, started washing S.C. mist eliminator with
4.2 in diff. Performance test officially started
at 11:00 am, with burners A & B on oil fuel.
B-18
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 16
DATE EVENT REF.
7-27-73 At 2:35 am, by-pass damper opened to reduce 2
high Cat-Ox. Unit load reduced to 94MW and
H.V. Mist Eliminators were washed 3 times.
Acid strength checked at 83.5%, high due to
high acid temperatures, only one acid circ.
pump. At 11:30 am, B burner went out, problems
relighting, two oil nozzles not firing after
started. At 11:35 am, Cat-Ox tripped due to
ID fan motor trip. Cause unknown. Fan on &
burners relit at 1:20 pm. By-pass closed at 1:45 pm.
Washing both S.C. and H.V. mist eliminators
continually. Product acid at 80.6%; At ll:00pm
burner B tripped off, considerable trouble
relighting with even gas.
7-28-73 At 1:20 am, oil fire established. Continuous 2,4
washing of H.V. mist eliminator to keep draft loss
below trip point. Two small acid leaks reported, one
at drain sleeve on absorbing tower, one in product
pump. At 8:15 am., lost B burner^ by-pass opened.
At 9:00 am, burner on and by-pass closed. Perform-
ance test discontinued at 4:00 pm, unit to remain
in service for observation. Load reduced to 72 MW -
to maintain acceptable draft loss.
7-29-73 Bad packing leak on product pump. At 9:00 am, 2
transferred B burner to gas, lost fire in progress,
relit on gas, 3 nozzles not firing. Continued
washing H.V. and S.C. mist eliminator sections with
H.V. at 9.3 in. at 5:00 pm and 13.8 in at 9:00 pm.
The third acid cooler placed in service at 5:30 pm,
to increase acid cooling capacity.
7-30-73 Having trouble maintaining acceptable acid temper- 2
atures, suspected acid cooler pluggage. Most of
flue gas being by-passed to control acid temp-
eratures. Alternately firing gas rand oil to
observe burner performance. By-pass damper closed
when unit load reduced to 70 M.W. at 11:30 pm.
B-19
-------
Cat-Qx History Cont'd.
PAGE 17
-,
DATE EVENT REF.
7-31-73 Sharp increase in acid pressure on pump 2
discharge, indicates acid system pluggage.
Pressure increased from 24 psig to 45 psig in
24 hours. Burner on gas fuel. Unable to control
high acid temperatures at 100 MW with by-pass
closed. Burner B outlet temperature at 680°,
hence conversion rate down. Continuous mist
eliminator washing. Acid strength at 81.52%
at 10:00 pm, high strength result of high acid
temperatures.
8-01-73 Bad leak on drain sleeve at absorbing tower. At 2
0:30 am, burner B shutdown, starting to cool
unit down. Increase in absorbing tower level
indicates acid cooler leak, water leaking into
acid; cooling water valved out. Drained abs.
tower, washing mist eliminators. Probable tube
leak in X05 acid cooler.
8-02-73 Inlet blanking plate installed, washing of mist 2
eliminators continued. Acid cooler X05 head
removed, tube sheet plugged with remains of
feroprene expansion joint cover put in absorbing
tower inlet duct.
8-03-73 Outlet duct blanking plate installed. ^Acid coolers 2
X03 and X04 opened and found to be plugged with
fero-prene similar to X05, this was cause for poor
acid temperature control and high acid pressures.
8-04-73 X03 acid cooler has four new leaks, making a total 2
of 20 bad tubes.
8-06-73 Inspection of mist eliminator, absorbing tower etc. 2
8-08-73 Absorbing tower bottom cleaned. Bad teflon valve 2
lining found on inlet to coolers.
B-20
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 18
DATE EVENT REF.
8-09-73 Misc. maintenance work being done to prepare 2
to unit for long outage to install new external
8-29-73 burner.
;
11-01-73 All cooling water systems drained for freeze 2
protection.
11-06-73 Demolition of in-duct burners started. 2
4-05-74 During outage, X03 cooler had 6 tube leaks 2
plugged and 14 new tubes installed. Major
part of External Burner construction complete.
Starting equipment checkout.
4-08-74 Pilot gas burner lit with gas. 2
4-10-74 Gas pilot used to dry refractory in burner. 2
4-11-74 Gas fire established in main burner to dry out 2
refractory. Temperature of 1110°F reached in
burner shell.
4-12-74 Temperature brought up to 1500°F in burner to 2
cure refractory. Unit 4 returned to service
after overhaul.
4-15-74 Started testing burner on oil. 2
4-16, Burner testing & checkout. 2
17-74
4-18-74 Burner testing, part of insulation on burner outlet
duct appeared to be burning, contractor reviewing
insulation specifications vs. temperatures on ducts.
Sump pit pump inlet nozzle broke when pump started.
Attempted to transfer acid to absorbing tower on
4-12 shift, line is plugged, could not get any flow.
4-19-74 Found acid transfer pump base, packing gland, and 1
rear housing corroded badly from effects of
packing leak and water.
B-21
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 19
.?
DATE EVENT REF.
4-20-74 Product acid line from storage plugged with 2
solidified. Acid and corrosion products,
cutting line open and flushing out.
5-1-74 Product acid line washed out and dried with
compressed air for 2 hrs.
5-2-74 One leak in product line repaired and acid 2
transferred to absorbing tower. P03 acid
circulation pump started with several acid
leaks around the acid pumps.
5-3-74 Reheat burner fired with a small amount of flue 2
gas passing through Cat-Ox. Found several leaking
tubes in ID Fan Oil cooler when it was opened for
cleaning. Catalyst levels found to be low in
beds #3 and 7. Packing leak on P04 acid pump.
5-4-74 Two tubes plugged on lube oil cooler. Acid line 2
5-6-74 to product acid cooler found to be plugged and
being cleaned out. Further testing on burner.
Two small leaks in drain lines from mist elim.
5-7-74 Repairing plugged and leaking product acid lines 1,2
around product pump & coolers. Acid in abs. tower
checked at 59%. Leak in absorbing tower lead lining
found.
5-8-74 Acid pumped to storage to repair leaks in abs. tower.
5-9-74 Absorbing tower washed for contractor to repair leaks,
Topped off #3 catalyst bed.
5-10-74 Repair on ME drain pipes by contractor.
5-11-74 IPC Maint. repaired catalyst elevator. 2
5-13-74 All catalyst beds topped off.
B-22
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 20
DATE EVENT RfiF.
5-14-74 Repairs to lead lining, brickwork, and burner Ref. 2
duct insulation by contractors continue. All
This
5-23-74 Contractor pumping potassium silicate solution Page
between steel shell and lead lining to stop
leaks, too much pressure, heaved bottom of
absorbing tower, ruptured lead lining.
5-30-74 Additional potassium silicate pumped into space
between lead and steel following internal repairs.
Found one inch orifice in wrong line at acid tanks,
was to have been in recirculation line, was in fill
line.
5-31-74 Pulled head off one product acid cooler, to check
for plugging, found clean. Heavy rains and surface
water flooded inside of acid tank impoundment, no
drain provided. Water got into transfer pump motor.
6-3-74 Blanking plates removed for start-up. Acid pumped to
abs. tower from storage.
6-4-74 Fire in burner established at 9:30 a.m., could not
increase firing rate due to frozen air dampers. At
3:30 pm, dampers were operable and burner relighted.
At 9:30 p.m., the "B" outlet damper was found to
operate the inverse of design.
6-5-74 At 9:00 a.m., burner lighted, warming up system.
Burner shutdown later to repair leak in product
acid pump.
6-6-74 Product acid pump repaired. Absorbing tower level
went up and suspect a leak in acid cooler.
Product pump would not pump acid out of tower as
fast as leak was admitting water, resulted in level
in abs. tower increasing to point where acid ran
back into inlet duct and hopper under GHX. Leak iso-
lated to X04 cooler. A tube leak developed in the
ID Fan Lube Oil cooler and the lube oil was lost
into the cooling water system.
B-23
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
DATE EVENT
6-7-74 Repaired tube leaks in lube oil cooler, total
of 9 now plugged.
6-11-74 Inspection of ID fan & hydraulic coupling
bearings. No damage was found.
6-14-74 Installed low and high level devices on
hydraulic coupling oil reservoir.
6-17-74 Six tubes found leaking in X04 acid cooler.
6-22-74 Acid pumped into absorbing tower from storage.
6-24-74 Circulating with 2 pumps, ID fan started,
burner lighted off & warming up of burner
started. The P02 circulating pump quit pumping,
P04 has a bad bearing.
6-25-74 Acid pumped to storage for repair of acid circul-
ating pumps. The P02 pump found to have a broken
impeller. Leaks in product acid line to storage
and at product pump repaired.
6-26-74 The impeller was removed from the P04 pump and
found to have cracks around the center hub.
6-27-74 Acid circulation pump P03 also found to have
cracked impeller. Causes for cracks believed
to be thermal or mechanical shock. Material
is very brittle, and subject to cracking. The
product acid pump was disassembled and found to
have severe metal wastage & corrosion on the
impeller, casing, and back pump cavitation due
to insufficient flow, there is no minimum
flow recirculation line provided on this pump.
Weak acid is also very corrosive to the pump
materials.
6-28-74 Installed blanking plates in the inlet & outlet
ducts. More leaks found in the X04 acid cooler.
PAGE 21
REF.
Ref.2
All
This
Page
fi-24
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
DATE EVENT
7-5-74 Seven more tubes were plugged in the X04 acid
cooler.
7-10-74 A piping change in the cooling water piping to
and from the lube oil cooler was started. This
will eliminate the temperature control problems
with the lube oil cooler. Also incorporated
in the piping changes, is a provision to allow
on-stream back washing of the cooler.
7-29-74 Replaced acid transfer pump casing, rear cover,
8-13-74 and housing. Installed new casing and impeller
on product pump. The P02 and P03 pumps had a
new impellers installed. The P04 circ. pump
was replaced with a new pump purchased from
Sunoco. Two more tubes were plugged in the X04
cooler. An orificed recirculation line was
installed between the product pump and the
absorbing tower.
8-14-74 Operated all 3 circulating acid pumps for checkout.
Cooling water holding at 6 psi above acid pressure
in coolers. Acid strength in tower at 69.65%.
Blanking plates pulled. Reheat burner lighted
at 8:15 pm, and starting to warm up unit.
8-15-74 R. H. burner at 800°F all morning, acid strength
lowered to 38%. Air dampers on R. H. burner
binding, not allowing full firing. Shut unit
down at 1:15 pm to repair acid leak in product
line and free air dampers. Relighted burner at
6:15 pm, holding temperature at 1050° to dry
out burner.
8-16-74 Fire tripped aceidently by Coen man at 10:50 a.m.
relit at 1:00 p.m. Found leak in discharge header
of acid circ. pumps, shut unit down at 5:50 pm.
8-17-74 Blanking plates installed.
B-25
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 23
DATE EVENT REF.
8-28-74 Two sections of teflon lined pipe, on the circ. All
acid system replaced. Some refractory brick Page
has failed from the top arch of the R.H. burner. Ref.
2
9-3-74 Ran P02 acid circ. pump, one flange leak
tightened up. X04 acid cooler found to have
acid tube leak.
9-4-74 Head removed from X04 to repair leaks.
9-9-74 Two more tubes plugged in X04, a total of 16 now
plugged in the 1st pass section.
9-13-76 Pulling tube bundle out of X04 cooler for
inspection.
9-17 Masonry contractor removing damaged brick -from R.H.
burner. X04 cooler tube bundle pulled out and many
tubes found to be cut and gouged by inlet baffle
plate and multi-pass baffles, also, serious
corrosion to metal internals noted.
10-17-74 Reassembling the X04 acid cooler. The steel shell
was blast cleaned and painted with two coats of
epoxy paint. Thirty-six tubes in the 1st pass
section were removed and the tube sheet plugged.
The inlet water baffle was relocated into the
inlet pipe. Two rows of 1st pass tubes were coated
with RTV at each baffle plate.
10-19-74 The X03 acid cooler tube bundle was pulled and
inspected. Its condition was worse than X04,
will leave it out.
10-25-74 Started drying out new refractory in R. H. burner
with small propane burner.
B-26
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
DATE EVENT
10-29/3*1 Continue drying new refractory. Contractor in to
repair burned, and warped duct ab B transition
area. Excessive expansion without adequate
expansion allowance caused severe warping,
tearing and buckling of 8. S. duct.
11-2 Completed drying of reheat burner. Work continues
on new design connection at "B" transition.
"\
12-3-74 New steam coil hot air heater placed in service to
keep moisture out of catalyst beds.
12-10-74 Ran hydrostatic test on product acid line to
storage.
12-11.12 Flushing and drying product acid line. Relocating
water inlet baffle on X05 cooler to pipe location
further away from tubes.
12-13 Completed air dry of product acid line.
1-15-75 Steam pressure regulator valve froze and broke on
R. H. burner.
1-16-75 Removed" blanks in product acid line.
1-23-75 Test ran cooling water system to check for leaks,
found OK.
1-24-75 Test ran Cat-Ox I.D. Fan and lube oil pumps.
1-28-75 Lighted minimum gas fire in R. H. burner to dry
out and cure refractory.
1-29 Continue drying burner with low gas fire.
1-30-75 Completed drying out burner with gas. Raised outlet
temp, to 1800°F for checkout. Started to test
burner with fuel oil.
PAGE 24
REF.
All
This
Page
Ref.
2
B-27
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
DATE EVENT
2-3-75 Continue checkout of burner on fuel oil,
having considerable difficulty with gas
pilot. Acid was transferred from storage
to fill coolers, pumps and lines.
2-4-75 Test ran 3 acid circ. pumps with no leaks
observed. Pumped part of acid back to
storage. Reheat burner checkout continues,
still trouble with pilots.
2-6-75 R. H. burner checkout continues. Tube leak
isolated to X04 acid cooler.
2-7-75 R. H. burner checkout continues, pilot will now
light fairly reliably. Head to be pulled on
X04 acid cooler.
2-10-75 R. H. burner fired successfully several times.
Air/Oil differential control froze and ruptured.
2-12-75 Some of the plugs in X04 tube sheet found to be
weeping, drilled out and repaired.
2-25- Acid was transferred from storage to fill the
coolers and pumps.
2-26- At 10:35 a fuel oil fire was established in the R.H.
burner. At 1:30 pm, the P03 acid pump was started
and leaks appeared in the X04 and X05 coolers.
The burner was shutdown, and the acfii coolers
drained.
2-27- Continued work on plugging leaking tubes
3-20 on acid coolers and testing.
3-21-75 Acid being transferred from storage to fill coolers
and lines. Acid leak at X05 cooler and at storage
tank.
PAGE 25
REF.
All
This
Page
Ref
2
B-28
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
i
PAGE 26
DATE EVENT REF.
3-22-75 Acid lines and coolers filled with acid and All
P03 pump started. P03 pump developed an acid This
leak at packing and P04 pump was started. Page
Leaks were found in both X04 and X05 coolers.
Acid drained for cooler repairs.
3-29-75 Acid transferred from storage to fill coolers,
lines, and raise the level in the absorbing
tower.
i
3-30-75 Acid circulation pump P02 shutdown and X04 cooler
drained due to additional leaks.
4-8-75 Acid transferred from the North storage tank to
the South tank. Attempted to pump acid from
absorbing tower to storage, line appears plugged,
no flow.
4-9-75 Pumping acid to storage with the P04 circ. pump.
5-12-75 The product acid line was flushed 3 hours with water
and blown dry with air.
7-14-75 The catalyst in #1 Bed was conveyed to storage in
preparation for screening.
8-7,8-75 The catalyst from #2 bed was run into #1 bed through
the sifter; the #3 bed was sifted into the #2 bed.
8-9,10,11 Catalyst was run from the #4 bed to the #3 bed
through the sifter.
8-20-75 Completed sifting of all catalyst, finished with
#8 bed down approximately 10'.
8-22 Found large quantities of catalyst between the beds
in the gas spaces. This has come through the bed
screens during sifting and operation. Removed
approximately 100-200 bushels from these spaces.
B-29
-------
Cat-Ox History Cont'd.
PAGE 27
DATE EVENT REF.
9-19-75 The catalyst heater was returned to service,! All
This
9-22-75 The absorbing tower manways were opened and Page
the mist eliminator wash system was operated. 2
9-23-76 The upper and lower mist eliminator tube sheets
were washed down. The acid trough areas were
washed down.
9-29- Several manways were opened for
10-03-75 Dow personnel to inspect the unit. The P02
acid circulation pump, the product pump and
the transfer pump and the transfer pump were
disassembled for inspection. Heater was turned
off on converter.
10-16-75 Doors on converter closed and steam heater put
in service.
10-17-75 Steam to reheat burner valved out, all cooling
water systems drained for freeze protection.
B-30
-------
, APPENDIX C
DISCRETE HARDWARE DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
This section evaluates the actual performance of equipment that
was integrated into a complex measurement network to measure various
parameters involved with the Cat-Ox process. The complexity of the
measurement network derives from the fact that Cat-Ox itself is
complex from the standpoint of studying the effects of individual
process elements.
Equipment evaluations are intended solely as a study of the
usefulness of instrumentation measurement techniques as applied to
the Cat-Ox instrumentation system, and are not intended to be either
positive or negative product endorsements.
i ,
Due to the large number of individual components needed to
complete the instrumentation system, the components have been
grouped into four areas relative to their respective uses. The four
areas are: volume flow, gas analysis, data acquisition, and miscel-
laneous instrumentation and equipment.
Volume Flo'7
Volume flow measurements were needed to calculate mass flow.
Volume flow can be computed by the analytical relationship of
differential pressure, static pressure, temperature and duct cross-
sectional area. When volume flow has been computed- and gas compo-
sition determined, mass flow can be derived.
Cr-1
-------
Rakes, United Sensor and Control—To conform with volume flow measure-
i r
ment techniques, as suggested by the ASME power test codes, and
because of the large duct cross sectional areas involved, a very
large number of flow sensors were required. The individual flow
sensors consisted of standard type pitots for static and differential
pressures, and shielded iron-constantan thermocouples for tempera-
tures. Pitots and thermocouples were paired in close proximity to
form a single sample point. Between two and seven sample points were
c
contained on a single aerodynamic foil to produce a rake. Each
location used two or more rakes in concert to represent a flow
measurement location. Rakes for each particular location were
identical in manufacture. For example, Point 14 (stack) had two
rakes, each rake had five pairs of sensors, each pair of sensors
consisted of one pitot and one thermocouple. Table C-l shows the
number of rakes at each flow measurement location and the number of
sensors per rake.
Sensor pairs were positioned on their respective foils such
that when all rakes for a particular flow measurement location were
installed, the sensors were centered in sample areas based on the
ASME power test codes. The above foils were attached to standard
6"-150# type 302 stainless steel pipe flanges. The flanges in turn
were bolted to similar flanges permanently installed at appropriate
flow measurement access ports.
Figure C-l shows a typical access point.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-l
PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE RAKE DISTRIBUTION
o
OJ
MEASUREMENT
LOCATION
1
1
3
4
5
8
10
14
NUMBER OF RAKES
PER ASSEMBLY
6
8
6
4
6
6
4
2
NUMBER OF SAMPLE
POINTS PER RAKE
5
3
3
5
2
3
7
5
TOTAL NUMBER OF
SAMPLE POINTS
30
24
18
20
12
18
28
10
AREA OF MEAS
LOCATION (
509
174
136
76.5
133
310
99
452
-------
o
J
ff
I.D
DU
1
1
.OF
CT
I.D. OF DUCT
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
O
O
0
o
JO
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o —
o —
o —
o —
o —
• 7%"
\
6" D. SCH 40
FLANGED PIPE PORTS
*
FIGURE C-l
POINT 4-INPUT GAS HEAT EXCHANGER
-------
With the exception of Point 1'(economizer), all rakes were
self-supporting. At point 1' support hangers for each rake were
located at the approximate midpoint of the duct.
Installation and removal of the rakes was straightforward
when two or more persons were available; howevar, moderate care had
to be exercised to prevent damage to the pitrotf as their clearance
tolerances were close.
The abrasion and corrosion resistance of the rakes were very
good. At point 1' (economizer) where the rakes were installed for
over three years, there were no visible signs of physical degrada-
tion. Point 1, ESP input, where the flow is higher and grain
loadings are of the order of 0.5 to 1 gr/SCF the probes did show
signs of abrasion. The most effected area was around silver soldered
joints.
!
All rakes were 316 stainless steel except at point 11 which was
inconel. Since the unit operated only a short time,.the conditions
at point 11 differed from those expected and probes at that point
showed some corrosion activity which blocked the static pressure
ports (see Corrosion Section).
Outputs from the thermocouples were terminated in standard
iron-constantan male connectors. The connectors were mounted to the
back side of the rake flange. In operation all thermocouples at a
particular location were connected in parallel with each other and also
C-5
-------
to an iron-constantan extension wire. The extension wire, in
turn, connected the rakes to the temperature measuring system.
Without exception, the temperature measuring portion of the
rakes operated superbly.
Outputs from each pitot were terminated in two 1/4 inch tube
type compression fittings. One output represented the static pressure
part of the pitot, the other was for differential pressure. All
static pressure outputs at each location were parallel connected with
1/4 inch nylon tubing. All differential pressure outputs were
connected in a similar manner. The paralleled outputs, which in
effect pneumatically averaged them, were also connected to drip pots
and solenoid operated air purges. The air purge was used to reverse
flush all pitots, except during brief measurement periods, in order
to prevent fly ash from plugging the pitots. During the measurement
period, static and differential pressures were connected to appro-
priate transmitters.
Generally, the usability of the rakes as continuous measure-
ment flow sensors was very good. A more desirable approach to
flow measurements would be a simpler flow sensing system with fewer
sampling points and large pitots, possibly S-type. The above would
be, of course, dependent on the desired accuracy of flow measurements.
The largest drawback to the rakes was their awkwardness caused by
the bulky size coupled with cramped sampling locations.
C-6
-------
Pressure Transmitters—
Two types of pressure transmitters were employed for the flow
measurement system. They were Leeds and Northrup models 1912 and 1972
and GGS Datametrics Barocel units.
Leeds and Northrup Models 1912 and 1972—Seventeen Leeds and
Northrup transmitters were used, ten for static pressures and seven
for differential pressures.
The transmitters were well engineered for a power plant environ-
ment. They are ruggedly constructed and are made to stand alone in
that they contain their own power supply and electronics. Documenta-
tion of the instrument, field service, and factory support and
consultation services were all excellent.
The major disadvantage of the transmitter was its susceptability
to drift out of desired calibration limits. To compensate for the
drift of the instruments it was necessary to calibrate the transmit-
ters on a weekly basis. Calibration required two persons; one to
temporarily affix a certain known weight to the balance section of
the transmitters, and a second person to monitor the results at a
remote location (the instrumentation area) and inform the first
person of required calibration adjustments to the instrument.
This process proved, to be tedious and time consuming.
If the instruments had a longer time span stability or simpler
calibration procedure they would be very well suited for a continu-
ous measurement system.
C-7
-------
Electronic Manometers, CGS Datametrics 1023—Electronic manometers
^^ %,
were chosen to measure the low differential pressured encountered at
measurement points 1' and 14. The units are able to measure very
small differential pressures. Their lower limit of sensitivity
extends well below the limits encountered in a typical power plant,
or would be,expected from a process such as Cat-Ox.
Calibration of the units was very easily accomplished and
was needed fairly infrequently (weeks between calibrations). However,
because of the minimal time, calibration could be done daily with
little disruption to the test. 'Documentation of the units and
factory support and consultation services were very good.
A minor disadvantage of the Barocel units was that their sensi-
tivity and response time was so good that minor fluctuations of
S
differential pressures were faithfully sensed by the instruments
causing "hash" on the recorders. To eliminate the "hash" for more
v
usable records, both pneumatic and electrical damping were employed
to smooth the response and output of the instruments. Pneumatic
damping was accomplished by adding large sealed containers in parallel
i»
with the sensor inputs. Electrical smoothing consisted of resistor/
capacitor networks on the electrical outputs of the units.
In general, the electronic manometers operated satisfactorily
v
for the continuous measurement program.
Temperature Transmitters, Scanner—Two types of temperature
i -
transmitters were used to convert the millivolt outputs of thermo-
C-8
-------
couples to a voltage convenient for recording and/or monitoring. A
scanner was used so that one temperature transmitter could handle
many thermocouple outputs on a time-sharing basis.
For this measurement system outputs from the up to 20 thermo-
couples could be connected to a junction strip in a constant tempera-
ture enclosure. The enclosure maintained equal junction temperatures
such that EMFs generated by dissimilar metals would effectively
cancel each other out. Copper wires from the constant temperature
enclosure were connected to appropriate channel inputs of the tempera-
,'
ture scanner. An interface circuit received information from the
data acquisition system, and, in turn, controlled the temperature
scanner for channel selection. The single output of the scanner was
connected to the digital temperature indicator which converted the
millivolt output of the thermocouples to voltages convenient for
recording and/or monitoring. The output of the digital temperature
/
indicator went to the interface circuitry, and, at the correct
recording times, from there to the data acquisition system.
Temperature Transmitter, Leeds and Northrup Model #1992—To
measure temperatures using iron-constantan thermocouples for the
purpose of continuous recording, a transmitter is required. The
transmitter does several things: First, it amplifies the millivolt
output of the thermocuples to a voltage or current to a recordable
level; second, it linearizes the thermocouple output; and finally, it
C-9
-------
compensates for the cold temperature junction of copper to iron and
copper to constantan metal wires.
The Leeds and Northrup transmitters were factory adjusted so
that their output corresponded to the ratio of 1 millivolt to
a temperature of 1°F at the type J thermocouple. For example,
a temperature of 650°F was converted by the transmitter to 650
millivolts (or .650 volts).
The Leeds and Northrup transmitters performed the above func-
tions in a satisfactory manner and fitted very well into the Cat-Ox
continuous measurement system.
Temperature Transmitter/Display Ircon Data Systems 3J16F—Along
with performing the function of a temperature transmitter the Ircon
unit also contained an integral display. The display was a digital
readout which showed temperature directly in degrees Fahrenheit.
This type of transmitter/display is highly recommended for
use in a continuous measurement system.
Thermocouple Scanner, Monitor Laboratories 1100—Used in conjunc-
tion with the Ircon unit, the scanner model formed an excellent
mulit-point temperature measuring system. The scanner was used to
select appropriate thermocouple outputs and switch those outputs to
the digital temperature indicator.
A small amount of interface circuitry was needed to synchronize
the temperature scanner to the data acquisition system. The inter-
C-10
-------
face circuitry was straightforward in design. It was designed,
constructed and installed by MITRE personnel.
Gas Analysis Instrumentation—
The design goal for the gas analysis instrumentation was
to incorporate continuously measuring analyzers to automatically
monitor gas concentrations at several locations within, prior to,
and following the Cat-Ox process. A total of seven locations were
determined to be of interest for gas analysis.
Because the initial cost of gas analysis instrumentation was
1
relatively high and multiple locations were of interest, a multipoint
sequential sampler was incorporated. The sampler allowed a single
set of gas analyzers to monitor a number of locations on a time
sharing basis.
Sequential Sampler - Dupont Instruments—The sequential sampler
was, in effect, a seven way pneumatic switch. Seven heated gas lines
(Dekron lines) connected the sampler to appropriate sample points.
All lines were continuously aspirated (except during blowback) by the
sampler which also provided individual electrical controllers for the
heated lines. Sample lines were selected by energizing a solenoid
valve which in turn supplied instrument air to the appropriate piston
operated ball valve. The solenoid valves could be energized either
automatically by the function controller or manually by a custom built
switching box.
C-ll
-------
In operation the sequential sampler proved to be a reliable
and durable instrument with good documentation. Field service when
needed was excellent.
SO NO Analyzer Dupont 461. Both SO, and NO measurements were
m* A *> *"
made by the Dupont 461 analyzer. Separate sample cells were used
for measuring SO. and NO- gases. A source of ultraviolet radiation
violet radiation and an aspirator were common to both sample cells.
Spectral photometric adsorption techniques (NDUV) were used for
measuring the gas concentrations.
The instrument did not measure concentrations of NO directly.
The sequence used to measure N0« in flue gas was as follows:
1. First a sample was drawn into the NO, sample cell
2. The sample cell was isolated and a direct measure-
ment of NO- was made.
3. Oxygen at approximately 60 PSIG was introduced into
the cell.
4. NO in the sample cell was oxidized to NO- which was
measured by the instrument.
5. After an approximate 15 ,minute oxidation time, the cell
was flushed and the cycle restarted.
To derive the concentration of NO it was therefore necessary to
mathematically substract the initial concentration of NO from
the total indication at the end of the oxidation cycle.
C-12
-------
The above method for determining NO concentrations proved to
j^
t
be somewhat awkward and difficult to synchronize to the data acquisi-
tion system. A direct determination of separate NO and NO concentra-
tions would be much more desirable.
Direct determinations of concentrations of S00 gas were made
\ 2
continuously (except during blowback) by the analyzer. The S0_
instrument operated very well and is well suited for an automatic
continuous gas measuring system.
Calibration of the instrument was maintained by using certified
calibration gases for spanning the analyzers and zeroing them
with instrument air.
Included with the analyzers was, a control station which in-
cluded separate strip chart recorders for the two analyzers.
S02 Analyzer - Dupont 460—This instrument was similar in
design to the Dupont 461 analyzer, the difference being that it
analyzed only SO. gas concentrations.
Refer to the previous section for an evaluation and description
of this instrument.
Oxygen Analyzer - Beckman Instruments Model F-3—For 02 con-
centrations in flue gas, the Beckman analyzer was used. Theory of
operation of the instrument involved measuring the paramagnetic effect
of oxygen in a sample cell. ,
To protect elements of the sample cell from corrosion, water
vapor was removed from the flue gas by a refrigerator-condenser.
C-13
-------
The instrument operated very successfully as a part of the
measurement system. A somewhat slow response (tens of seconds)
was the only undesirable effect noted.
For calibrating the instrument, a certified gas mixture was
used for spanning and pure nitrogen for zeroing.
Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer Beckman Instruments #400—Due to
extremely low levels of hydrocarbons that were in the flue gas, an
evaluation of the instrument is difficult to make. The instrument did
appear to be capable of operating effectively in a continuous measure-
ment system.
Operation of the instrument was based on the flame-ionization
technique of measuring total hydrocarbons. •*
COo Analyzer Bendix UNOR-6—This instrument operated very well
,t
as part of the continuous measurement system. Measurements were made
by spectal photometric absorption methods (NDIR). '
Water vapor was removed from the flue gas prior to the instrument
to prevent a possible interference of the measurement.
A certified gas mixture was used to span the analyzer. Pure
nitrogen was used to zero the analyzer.
Water Vapor Analyzer MSA LIRS M202 (modfied)—A production model
MSA LIRA M202 water vapor analyzer was factory modified such that it
would cover the ranges of water vapor expected in the flue gas of the
Cat-Ox process. The factory modifications included two ranges of full
C-14
-------
scale measurements (0-5% or 0-15%) selectable by a front panel switch
and a heated sample handling system.
The measurement method used was spectral photometric absorption
(NDIR). Calibration of the instrument was accomplished by using a
certified gas mixture containing ethane which has similar photometric
absorption characteristics as water vapor. Pure nitrogen was used
to zero the instrument.
The instrument was well made with good documentation and
good field service when needed.
A problem encountered with the instrument was its suscept-
ability to drift out of calibration. To compensate for the drift it
was necesary to recalibrate the instrument, often on an hourly
basis.
If the above mentioned drift problem could be corrected, the
instrument would be well suited for a continuous measurement system.
Refrigerator/Condenser-Bendix—To remove water vapor from the
flue gas, a refrigerator/condenser system was used. Water vapor was
removed from the flue gas to prevent corrosion of the 02 analyzer's
sample cell and to prevent an interference of the CO measurement.
Along with the refrigerator/condenser were two pumps which maintained
the correct flow and pressure of the flue gas for analysis by the 02
and C02 instruments.
After extended periods of use (months) the pumps had to be
rebuilt for proper operation (as could be expected). A minor
C-15
-------
modification was made to the system to protect it from over pressure
that could result when the SO /NO analyzer was blowing back the
^ X
sample lines.
Other than periodically rebuilding the pumps and the minor
modification made to the unit, it was an excellent system.
Sample Handling System - Bendix—For the proper sample pres-
sures and flow rates to the 0 and CO analyzers, a sample handling
system was used. Included in the system were:
1. Pressure regulators to regulate the correct flue gas
. pressure to the analyzers.
2. Rotometers to adjust and indicate the flow rates of
flue gas and calibration gases to the analyzers.
3. Solenoid valves to switch between flue gas and
calibration gases to the analyzers.
The sample handling system operated without any problem for the
>
entire time it was used in conjunction with the gas analysis instru-
>
mentation.
Data Acquisition and Associated Equipment
Electrical outputs of the analyzers and transmitter were
recorded on magnetic tape for subsequent computer processing.
Strip chart recorders were available for real-time monitoring of
selective instruments and as backup for the magnetic tape records.
A function controller, synchronized to the data acquisition
time base, was used to control certain automatic functions such as
sampling point selection and blowback of the pressure measuring
pitots.
C-16
-------
TABLE D13
ELEMENTAL CONTENT OF FLUE GAS PARTICULATE MATTER
MITRE Test No. 20:
50 MW, C Fuel, No Soot Blowing, Normal
Excess Air, Normal Burner Angle
ELEMENTAL CONTENT, WEIGHT PERCENT
ELEMENT
Al
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ga
Ge
Hg
K
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Sb
. Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
V
Zn
LOCATION 2,
AIR HEATER,
SAMPLE NO.
213-2*
9.90
0.3
0.0005
2.62
<0.0005
0.012
0.175
0.012
5.60
0.06
0.07
0.0000
3.25
,0.570
0.067
0.04
0.581
0.135
0.014
0.06
0.05
0.1
0.006
1.40
0.005
0.04
0.08
LOCATION 3,
STACK,
SAMPLE NO.
213-3*
9.51
0.3
0.0008
1.10
0.0026
0.011
0.926
0.019
6.47
<0.02
0.07
0.0003
2.28
0.560
0.107
0.00
0.911
0.515
0.017
0.04
0.005
<0.1
0.003
1.37
0.004
<0.04
0.16
* Midwest Research Institute's Sample Number
D-17
-------
the analog to digital converter was processed by the coupler sub-
element for entry to the magnetic tape.
Data were recorded by nine track magnetic tape deck at 800 bits
per inch. Each tape record consisted of twelve decimal numbers
called "constant data" which were set by thumbwheel switches on the
control panel, followed by 70 fields, each containing channel number
(and/or'sign followed by five decimal digits). These numbers were
recorded in American Standard Code for Information Interchange
(ASCII).
Control functions for the data acquisition system were init-
iated by an integral time base. The time base also supplied in-
formation to a decimal display and the magnetic tape deck for
recording day of year (Julian Calender) and time of day (hours and
minutes).
A teletype unit was incorporated such that a hard copy of
recorded data could be obtained. This unit was also used as an input
device for entering pertinent information to the magnetic tape.
As received, the data acquisition system had two minor
malfunctions which prevented satisfactory operation. They were:
1. The sensing circuit for the time base was very susceptible
to electrical noise which would cause erroneous time
base information. The above circuit was re-engineered by
MITRE personnel and subsequently operated correctly.
2. A current sinking resistor in the teletype unit was of
the wrong value. The resistor was replaced by MITRE
personnel which corrected false data being recorded
by the teletype.
C-18
-------
In redesigning the time sensing circuit, it was noted that
individual circuit boards were constructed by questionable techniques.
While the documentation was excellent, the questionable construction
techniques of the circuit boards deferred expeditious troubleshooting
and/or repair of the unit.
In extended operation, another more serious problem was noted
with the data acquisition system. That was the susceptibility of
certain switch contacts and circuit board edge connectors to corro-
sion. Corrosion effects would raise the nominal resistance of the
contacts to a value which would derate the operability of the system
substantially.
The data acquisition system was located in a partially environ-
mentally controlled building in close proximity to the economizer
section of the Unit No. 4 boiler. It was assumed that products
leaking from the boiler or economizer of the No. 4 unit were resppn-
•sible for the corrosion of the contacts. Therefore, it is recommended
that the data acquisition system and associated equipment be located
in a strictly controlled environment or that all electrical contacts
be constructed of highly non-corrosive materials.
With the exception of the above mentioned problems, the
data acquisition system operated very well in its role for a con-
tinuous measurement system.
Function Controller Data Graphics Corporation DGC-110-- A
function controller was time synchronized with the data acquisition
C-19
-------
system. The purpose of the function controller was to activate
certain remote devices (relays, solenoids, etc.) at specified times
on a repeatable one hour basis. The function controller had forty
timing control units (T.C.U.s) each of which was independent of the
others and capable of operating several devices. Start and stop
times controlled by the T.C.U.s were selected by thumbwheel switches
located on the front panels of the individual units.
T.C.U.s were constructed as subassemblies which were plugged
into a main frame housing. Construction and subsequent operation of
the subassemblies and main frame were both excellent. Documentation
of the unit was excellent.
Evidence of slight switch corrosion effects were noted, but not
'i
the degree of severity as with the data acquisition system.
Overall operation of the function controller was excellent.
Strip Chart Recorders M.F.E., M22fM23? H26-CAHA—Recorders were used
c '
in conjunction with the data acquisition system for several reasons.
First, they provided a backup record source in the event that magnetic
r
tape data were lost or invalid. Second, they were real time records
that on-site personnel could use to study trends of selected instru-
ments more easily than decommutating data from teletype or printer
records. Finally, the recorders served as an aid in calibrating
instruments.
M.F.E. recorders used heated stylis on a special paper to
produce records. Chart speed and input ranges were switch selectable.
C-20
-------
Switch contact corrosion was observed as mentioned in the
previous two sections. The corrosion was moderate but did not
impair the normal operation of the recorders.
This type of recorder is highly recommended mainly because of
its flexibility in selecting chart speed and input sensitivity.
Strip Chart Recorders - Leeds and Northrup Speedomax M Mark II—
Leeds and Northrup recorders used ink pens on normal chart
paper to produce records. Chart speed and full scale sensitivity
were factory set leaving no latitude for field changes.
The Leeds and Northrup recorders were generally acceptable
for a continuous measurement system.
Miscellaneous Instrumentation and Equipment
Included in this section is equipment not specialized to the
previous major subsystems. Two major pieces of equipment have not
been previously described or evaluated, those being a particle
and heated gas sampling lines.
Gellman Particle Monitor—
!
Theory o-f operation of the Gellman Particle Monitor was based
on beta ray absorption techniques.
Operation of the instrument was as follows:
1. A porous paper tape was positioned between a radioactive
source and detector (Gieger-Mueller tube).
2. A count of beta particles via the detector and associated
electronics was made to determine the absorbence of the
paper tape.
C-21
-------
3. Particles were desposited on the paper tape by isokene-
tically sampling the flue gas and passing the sampled
stream through the paper tape which acted as a filter
medium and collected the particulate matter.
4. A second count of beta particles was then made to arrive
at an absorbence figure for the deposited particulate
matter.
5. From the second beta particle count and by calculating
the amount of flue gas sampled, particle mass per standard
cubic foot of flue gas could be derived.
6. The monitor would advance the paper tape such that a fresh
section of paper was in place and the operation would
repeat. (
The Gellman Particle Monitor resembled a laboratory instrument
rather than one for on-site use for several reasons. One reason was
the difficulty encountered in maintaining isokinetic sampling rates.
Also, due to the temperature and moisture content of the flue gas,
the paper tape tended ,to break.often. The Geiger-Mueller tube was
rather fragile and tended to break easily. Dilution of the flue gas
was necessary to be in the useful measurement range of the instrument.
And finally, the measuring head which was bulky, had to be located
right at the desired sampling port which represented problems of
supporting it and protecting it from the ambient environment.
Generally the beta-tape absorption technique appears to be
a good approach to automatic particle measuring, but for this
particular instrument some major equipment modifications would
be required for reliable continuous measurements. As designed, the
instrument could not stand the adverse effects of field operation.
C-22
-------
Dekoron Line and Electrical Heat Controllers—Flue gas samples
were conveyed to the gas analyzers by a heated teflon gas line
(Dekoron line). The Dekoron line used consisted of a 3/8 inch teflon
tube traced with electrical heating wires, insulated with plastic
foam and sheathed with a flexible plastic tubing. Current to the
heating wires was controlled by an electrical unit which used a
thermistor to sense the temperature of the flue gas and automatically
control the amount of current to the heating wires.
The maximum continuous lengths of Dekoron available were 100
feet. Splice kits were available to extend the length of the line
but each one hundred foot section required a separate temperature
controller due to voltage limitations.
Temperature differentials (ambient temperature to flue gas
temperature) up to about 250°F could be maintained by the Dekoron
line. This proved to be a little less than desired in cases where
ambient temperature was low (mid winter).
C-23
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYSES OF COAL, PULVERIZER REJECTS,
FURNACE BOTTOM ASH, AND FLY ASH
RESULTS OF ULTIMATE AND PROXIMATE ANALYSES
As indicated in "Baseline," Section V, ultimate and proximate
analyses of pulverized coal from the coal mills were performed for
«•
each of the 21 tests in the Baseline Program. These analyses were
performed both on an "as received" basis and on a "dry" basis. The
analyses were performed by two separate laboratories, the Industrial
Testing Laboratories (subcontractor to the Midwest Research Institute)
and the Illinois Geological Survey. The results from the laboratories
were then averaged as shown in Table Dl and Table D2. The first and
second digit of the sample number shown on these tables and on subse-
quent tables correspond to the MITRE test numbers (i.e., CS 01002
corresponds to a coal sample from MITRE test number 1).
Proximate analyses were also performed on samples of fly ash re-
moved from the dust collector and the air heater. These analyses
i
were performed by the Industrial Testing Laboratories (subcontractor
to the Midwest Research Institute) for selected tests in the program
and are summarized in Tables D3 and D4.
Proximate analyses were also performed on samples of ash taken
from the furnace bottom (slag samples) and from the pulverizer reject
chute on the coal mills. The results of these analyses as reported
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l
PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF COAL
SAMPLE
NUMBER
CS01002
CS02002
CS03002
CS04002
CS05002
CS06002
CS07002
CS08002
CS09002
CS10002
CS11002
CS12002
CS13002
CS14002
DRY BASIS
PROXIMATE ANALYSES
S
10.86
11.0
10.9
10.32
10.7
10.5
10.43
10.7
10.6
10.82
11.1
14.09
14.8
14.4
11.8
10.42
10.2
10.3
10.64
10.8
10.7
10.27
10.3
10.3
17.26
10.43
10.3
11.15
10.8
13.60
14.2
13.9
11.30
11.5
11.4
fL
si
rf
38.74
41.2
40.0
37.85
40.6
39.2
38.07
41.2
39.6
38.45
40.0
39.2
35.21
37.0
36.1
40.4
38.62
41.6
40.1
38.53
40.9
39.7
38.67
40.7
39.7
33.04
39.23
41.6
40.4
37.79
41.3
397T
35.95
38.5
37.2
37.13
40.5
38.8
|
g
|
50.40
47.8
49.1
51.83
48.6
50.2
51.50
48.1
49.8
50.74
48.9
49.8
50.70
48.2
49.5
47.9
50.96
48.2
49.6
50.83
48.3
49.6
51.06
49.0
50.0
49.70
50.34
48.1
4972"
51.06
47.9
49.5
50.45
47.3
48.9
51.57
48.1
49.8
ULTIMATE ANALYSES
i
1
70.25
70.07
70.16
71.30
70.41
70.86
70.69
70.29
70.49
70.79
70.15
70.47
69.28
68.19
68.74
70.10
71.99
70.48
71.24
71.54
69.97
70.76
71.86
70.21
71.04
66.46
70.93
70.52
70.73
70.22
69.92
70.07
68.82
67.99
68.41
70.58
70.10
70.34
a
1
g
4.94
4.89
4.92
4.85
4.88
4.87
4.79
4.85
4.82
4.92
4.86
4.89
4.74
4.55.'
47S5
4.85
4.93
4.81
4.87
4.97
4.87
4.92
5.02
4.73
4.88
4.42
4.95
4.80
4788
4.84
4.83
4784
4.73
i.59
4.66
4.77
4.87
4.82
a
jl|
g
1.39
1.32
1.36
1.22
1.41
1.32
1.31
1.40
1.36
1.36
T738
1.52
1.36
1.30
1.31
1.23
1.27
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.37
1.27
1.32
1.48
1.31
1.26
T729
1.30
1.26
1728
1.39
1.33
T736
1.39
1.32
1.36
€
§
3.23
3.35
3.29
3.01
2.99
3.00
3.44
3.46
3.45
3.48
3.55
3.52
1.89
1.91
T790
2.88
3.40
3.42
3.41
3.50
3.51
3.51
3.50
3.57
3.54
1.71
3.47
3.54
3.51
3.31
3.41
3.36
2.58
2.62
2760
2.87
2.88
2.88
i
£
9.33
9.39
9.36
9.30
9.60
9.45
9.34
9.35
9.35
8.63
8.93
1778
8.48
9.21
8784
9.09
7.95
9.82
8.89
8.07
9.62
8.85
7.98
9.93
8.96
8.67
8.91
9.55
9723
9.18
9^77
9.48
8.88
9.25
5757
9.09
9.37
9.23
*
M 3
11
1
12,624
12,632
12,628
12,664
12.655
12,660
12.138
12.656
12,397
12,630
12.546
12,588
12,267
12.151
12,209
12,570
12,645
12,694
12,670
12,625
12.613
12,619
12,697
12.677
12.687
11,719
12,595
12.656
12,626
12,500
12.588
12,544
12,260
12.148
12,204
12,641
12,561
12,601
SOURCE OF
ANALYSIS
ITL*
ISCS**
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
TTL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
* INDUSTRIAL TESTING LABORATORIES
** ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
D-2
-------
TABLE D-l (Concluded)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
CS15002
CS17002
CS18002
CS19002
CS20002
CS21002
CS22002
DRY BASIS
PROXIMATE ANALYSES
•
10.91
10.6
10.8
10.58
10.4
10.4
12.64
-ftf
9.97
JOJ,
10.1
16.61
9.52
9.4_
- 9.5
" 6.94
H-
ba
VOLATIL
MATTER
38.50
«i!_
39.9
38.95
41.5
40.2
36.31
fti-
39.62
m-
32.85
56.43
41.6
35.46
37.4
36.4
|
I
50.59
4B.1
49.3
50.47
48.1
49.3
51.05
m-
50.41
fcfr
50.54
34.05
49.0
57.60
55.9
56TT
ULTIMATE ANALYSES
I
70.53
70.83
70.63
70.58
70.73
70.66
69.71
69.49
69.60
71.09
71.41
71.25
67.52
71.72
72.07
71.90
75.85
76.13
76.00
i
4.81
4.86
735
4.83
4.84
4.84
.78
.62
.70
.86
.91
.89
4.45
4.87
4.97
4.92
4.97
4.93
4.95
'I
1.36
1.35
1.36
1.17
1.36
1.27
1.55
1.40
OB
1.18
,' 1.33
1.26
1.36
1.39
1.33
1.36
1.75
1.62
1.69
i
3.61
3.45
3.53
3.57
3.65
3.61
2.61
2.73
2^67
3.54
3.72
3.63
1.75
3.15
3.31
3.23
1.39
1.41
1740
I
8.78
8.92
8.85
9.27
,9.01
9.14
8.71
9.05
8^88
9.36
8.41
O9
8.31
9.35
8.97
O6
9.13
9.20
9.17
•>
$
HEATING
BTU/LB.
12,557
12.631
12,594
12.637
12.681
12,659
12,299
12.347
12,323
12,732
12.730
12.731
11,654
12,858
12.821
12,840
13,413
13.393
13,403
SOURCE OF
ANALYSIS
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
D-3
-------
TABLE D-2
PROXIMATE ADD ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF COAL
SAMPLE
NUMBER
AS RECEIVED BASIS
PROXIMATE ANALYSES
ULTIMATE ANALYSES
SOURCE OF
ANALYSIS ,
CS01002
CS02002
CS03002
CS04002
CS05002
CS06002
0807002
CSO8002
CS09002
CS10002
CS11001
4.02
H-'
4.52
itr
4,13
**•
4.31
H-
3.69
10.42
m-
9.85
tf
10.00
37.18
48.38
10.33
ifif
13.37
4.1
3.89
3.66
3.66
3.29
3.84
Iff
11.3
10.01
-w-
10.25
ttfr
9.89
H-
16.69
10.03
36.14
M-
36.30
Htf
36.79
m-
33.91
ft*"
38.7
37.12
49.49
49.37
48.55
48.83
67.43
67.13
67TF
66.08
m
67.77
67.48
6T783
67.74
m
66.72
45.9
48.98
37.12
48.97
37.26
49.19
31.93
37.22
»
48.07
48.41
67.22
69.19
M
68.92
67.17
68701
69.23
6^
64.27
68.19
67 49
6T7K
5.19
5.13
5.05
5.19
4.98
5.10
5.17
!£
5.19
5.24
4.64
3.20
m
1.33
1*27
1.31
1.16
1.26
1.30
HI
1.46
1.24
1.26
HI
1.23
1.32
1.43
1.26
Hi
3.10
12.53
2.87
Hf
3.30
Hi
3.33
12.99
1.82
2.76
3.27
12.62
12.53
ifrii
12.09
12.29
12719
11.45
12.08
TOT
12.3<
11.10
12,092
12.111
12,102
12,138
12J149
12,144
12,086
11,814
11 713
11.764
12,0.55
3.37
m
3,37
11.04
10.95
8
1.65
3.34
11.32
11.98
12.96
12747
12,163
12.109
12,136
12,163
12.169
12.201
11,333
12,111
12,112
12.112'
ITL*
ISGS**
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ML
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISOS
AVERAGE
ISGS
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
* INDUSTRIAL TESTING LABORATORIES
•* ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
-------
TABLE D-2 (Concluded)
•-••
SAMPLE
HDMBER
CS12002
-
CS13002
CS14002
CS15002
CS17002
•
CS18002
CS19002
C820002
CS21002
CS22002
AS RECEIVED BASIS
i
3.59
3.9
377"
3.45
lif
4.58
4.4
4.5
4.30
4.6
4.5
4.12
4.4
O~
3.88
4.2
4.0
4.08
4.6
4.04
4.00
4.6
4.3
4.71
*§-
§
10.75
10.4_
10.6
13.13
13.4
10.78
m-
10.44
tf
10.14
TotiT
12.15
12.2
12.2
9.56
w-
15.94
9.14
8.91
9.1
6.61
H-
||
36.43
39.L.
38.1
34.71
m-
35.43
3B.7
37.1
36.84
39.4
38.1
37.35
39.7
157J-
34.90
37.2_
36.1
38.00
m-
31.53
54.17
39.7
33.79
*F
1
i
49.23
46.0
48.71
*5.5
47.1
49.21
45.9
48.42
M-
48.39
m-
49.07
46.4
47.7
48.36
45.2_
46.8
48.50
32.69
46.8
54.89
53.1
54.0
|
67.70
67.19
67745
66.45
65.41
65.93
67.35
67.01
__
67.50
ws
67.67
67.62
67765
67.00
66.57
66.79
68.19
68.12
68716
64.80
68.85
68.75
68.80
72.28
ft*
i
•
5.06
5.07
5757
4.95
4.83
4.89
5.06
5.15
5.11
5.08
I7ii
5.09
5.11
sTio
5.03
4.90
4.97
5.12
1716
4.72
5.12
5.25
I7l9
5.23
1.24
5.24
1
1.25
1.22
T724
1.34
1.28
1.31
1.33
1.26
1730
1.30
1.29
1729
1.12
fcS
1.49
1.35
1.42
1.13
1.27
1.20
1.30
1.33
LZL.
T73o
1.67
1.54
1.61
1
3.19
•3.28
3.24
2.49
2.52
2.51
2.74
2.75
2.74
3.45
3717
3.42
3.49
3.46
2.51
, 2.62
2.57
3,.39
•L?!
3.47
1.68
3.02
3^16
3709
1.32
1.34
1.33
1
9.18
12.85
TT76T
11.64
12.28
11.96
12.74
12.87
12. SI
12.23
12.60
12.42
12.56
12.52
12.54
11.82
12.40
12.11
12.61
li-11
12.36
11.56
12.54
12.65
12.60
12.89
13.18
13.04
|
II
12,051
12.097
12,080
11,837,
11.686
11,762
12,062
12 .009
12,034
12,017
12.050
12,034
12,116
12.123
12,120
11,813
11.829
11,821
12,213
12.144
12,179
11,184
12,344
12.231
12,288
12,781
12.724
12,753
SOURCE OF
ANALYSIS
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL'
ISGS
AVERAGE '
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
ITL
ITL
ISGS
ITL
ISGS
AVERAGE
D-5
-------
TABLE D-3
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FLY ASH FROM DUST COLLECTOR
SAMPLE
NUMBER
SA01004
SA03004
SA05004
SA06004
SA08004
SA10004
SA13004
SA18004
SA20004
SA21004
SA22004
AS RECEIVED
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, %
MOISTURE
0.16
0.19
0.10
0.23
0.11
0.15
0.24
0.23
0.16
0.25
0.16
CO
tn
99.61
99.00
99.02
99.29
98.62
99.14
97.61
98.95
97.46
97.38
97.69
VOLATILE MATTER
0.78
1.11
0.91
0.86
1.86
0.72
1.13
0.80
0.29
1.85
0.87
•K
HI
tu
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.02
0.02
2.09
0.52
1.28
SULFUR
0.38
0.26
0.30
0.26
0.61
0.36
0.53
0.41
0.30
0.66
0.27
HEATING VALUE,
BTU/LB.
20
30
48
0
91
12
80
0
146
148
167
DRY BASIS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, %
99.77
99.19
99.12
99.52
98.77
99.30
97.84
99.18
97.62
97.62
97.85
VOLATILE MATTER
0.78
1.11
0.91
0.86
1.86
0.72
1.13
0.80
0.29
1.85
0.87
FIXED CARBON
--
~
—
—
—
—
1.02
0.02
2.09
0.53
1.28
SULFUR
0.38
0.26
0.30
0.26
0.61
0.36
0.53
0.41
0.30
0.66
0.27
HEATING VALUE,
BTU/LB.
20
30
48
0
91
12
80
0
146
148
167
-------
TABLE D-4
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF AIR HEATER HOPPER ASH
SAMPLE
NUMBER
SA01002
SA05002
SA06002
SA08002
SA10002
SA13002
SA18002
SA21002
SA22002
AS RECEIVED
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, %
VI
M
0.26
0.18
0.12
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.25
0.21
•
98.52
98.82
99.21
98.43
97.78
98.03
98.17
98.13
97.17
VOLATILE MATTER
1.72
2.26
2.12
2.79
2.38
0.94
1.10
1.36
1.76
FIXED CARBON
—
—
—
—
—
0.84
0.53
0.26
0.86
SULFUR
0.52
0.84
0.67
0.74
0.39
0.61
0.39
0.58
0.57
HEATING VALUE,
BTU/LB.
168
68
46
120 '
195
143
135
120
271
DRY BASIS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, %
CO
98.78
99.00
99.33
98.60
97.97
98.22
98.37
98.38
97.37
VOLATILE MATTER
1.72
2.26
2.12
2.79
2.38
0.94
1.10
1.36
1.76
j-
—
—
—
—
0.84
0.53
0.26
0.87
SULFUR
0.52
0.84
0.67
0.74
0.39
0.61
0.39
0.58
0.57
HEATING VALUE,
BTU/LB.
168
68
46
120
195
143
135
120
272
-------
by the Industrial Testing Laboratories are summarized in Table D5 and
Table D6.
»
The results of these analyses were used to calculate a system
sulfur balance and compare actual measured data against theoretical
predictions (Section V).
RESULTS OF ELEMENTAL ANALYSES >
i
Trace element concentrations were determined on four of the tests
in the Baseline Program in the coal pulverizer rejects from the coal
mills; bottom ash (slag); and the fly ash collected in the air heater,
the mechanical collector, and locations 2 and 3. The results of these
analyses are summarized in Tables D7 and D10.
Trace element concentrations were also determined for samples of
fly ash collected from location 2 and location 3 for four* tests in
the program. The results of these analyses are summarized in Tables
Dll through D15.
Additional trace elemental analyses were provided by EPA on pul-
verized coal for six of the test runs as summarized in Table D16.
;
Except for Table D16, which provides the results as parts-per-
million, all results of the elemental analyses are reported in terms
of weight percent. In the case of the analysis of fly ash at loca-
tion 3, the results must be multiplied with the fly ash emission rate
to determine emission rates to the ambient atmosphere.
D-8
-------
TABLE D-5
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF SLAG SAMPLES
SAMPLE
NUMBER
PA01001
PA03001
PA05001
PA10001
PA21001
PA22001
AS RECEIVED
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, Z
MOISTURE
10.32
34.24
11.53
36.85
40.56
35.83
•
86.74
63.52
88.26
61.74
58.00
63.93
VOLATILE MATTER
2.11
1.66
0.38
1.19
1.08
0.19
FIXED CARBON
-0.83
0.58
~
0.22
0.36
0.05
SULFUR v
0.48
0.39
0.03
0.12
0.24
0.14
HEATING VALUE,
BTU/LB.
374
241
13
145
113
DRY BASIS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, Z
W
96.72
96.60
99.76
97.77
97.58
99.62
VOLATILE MATTER
2.35
2.52
0.43
1.88
1.81
0.30
1
0.93
'0.88
—
0.35
0.61
0.08
1
0.53
0.59
0.05
0.19
0.41
0.22
HEATING VALUE, ,
BTU/LB.
417
366
15
230
190
25
VO
-------
TABLE D-6
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF PULVERIZER REJECT SAMPLES
SAMPLE
NUMBER
RJ01001
RJ03001
RJ05001
RJ10001
RJ21001
RJ22001
AS RECEIVED
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, %
MOISTURE
0.81
1.28
3.90
3.40,
0.78
0.54
m
3
54.26
50.93
33.94
38.94
53.19
51.11
VOLATILE MATTER
20.88
10.45
26.72
24.51
15.21
18.48
M
fe
24.05
37.34
15.44
33.15
30.82
29.87
SULFUR
26.07
27.61
16.95
11.27
20.86
20.68
HEATING VALUE,
BTU/LB.
4,567
4,994
8,143
7,521
4,354
.4,794
DRY BASIS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, %
' e
<
54.70
51.59
35.15
40.31
53.61
51.39
VOLATILE MATTER
21.05
10.59
27.67
25.37
15.33
18.58
fe
24.25
37,82
15.99
34.32
31.06
30.03
SULFUR
26.28
27.97
17.56
11.67
21.02
20.79
HEATING VALUE,
BTU/LB.
4,604
5,059
8,434
7,786
4,388
4,820
-------
TABLE D-7
COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS IS COAL, PULVERIZER REJECTS, SLAG, AND FLY ASH
(MITRE TEST NO. 1, 75 MW, B FUEL, NO SOOT BLOVING. NORMAL EXCESS AIR, NORMAL BURNER ANGLE)
ELEMENTAL CONTENT BY HEIGHT (HEIGHT PERCENT)
ELEMENT
Al
Ba
Be
Ca
W
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ga
Ge
Hg
K
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
HI
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
V
Zn
PULVERIZED
COAL ,
CS01002*
0.960
<0.03
< 0.0002
0.250
0.0006
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.995
0.08
0.0
< 0.0002
0.155
0.073
0.009
<0.002
0.06
0.009
<0.003
<0.07
<0.06
<0.05
< 0.0005
<0.098
<0.01
<0.02
0.11
PULVERIZER
REJECTS,
RJ01001*
0.490
<0.03
< 0.0002
1.61
0.0004
<0.003
0.002
0.003
13.1
<0.07
0.0
0.00006
0.127
0.071
0.007
< 0.002
0.044
0.0009
<0.003
<0.07
<0.06
<0.05
<0.0005
<0.094
0.006
<0.02
0.011
SLAG,
PA01001*
9.25
0.3
0.0004
3.45
<0.005
0.006
0.016
0.007
16.2
<0.02
<0.07
0.0003
1.48
0.519
0.057
0.00
0.379
0.013
0.009
0.06
<0.05
<0.1
0.004
1.31
0.008
0.04
0.038
FLY ASH FROM
AIR HEATER
ASH HOPPER ,
SA01002*
7.20
0.02
0.001
4.88
0.0009
0.004
0.010
0.008
14.8
<0.07
0.0
0.00003
1.48
0.500
0.090
<0.002
0.270
0.010
0.003
<0.06
<0.06
<0.05
0.004
0.380
0.006
<0.02
0.040
FLY ASH FROM
MECHANICAL
SEPARATOR ,
SA01004*
8.05
0.03
0.0008
1.96
0.002
0.004
0.013
0.007
10.7
<0.08
0.0
0.00004
1.80
0.280
0.036
0.002
0.460
0.040
<0.003
<0.07
<0.07
<0.05
0.003
0.550 '
<0.01
<0.02
0.057
FLUE CAS
PARTICULARS,
LOCATION 2,
AIR HEATER ,
DUCT, 206-2**
9.40
<0.04
0.001
2.38
0.016
0.006
0.05
0.010
11.7
<0.06
0.0
< 0.00002
1.84
0.620
0.050
<0.003
0.590
0.05
0.020
<0.06
<0.05
<0.05
0.003
0.580
0.010
0.02
0.59
FLUE GAS
P ARTICULATES,
LOCATION 3,
STACK ,
206-3**
9.24
<0.04
0.0,01
0.970
0.002
0.007
0.740
0.020
11.1
<0.06
0.0
0.002
2.36
0.660
0.080
<0.003
2.06
0.200
0.020
<0.06
<0.05
<0.05
<0.001
0.660
0.005
0.03
0.090
* MITRE SAMPLE NUMBER
** MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE SAMPLE NUMBER
D-ll
-------
TABLE D-8
COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS IN COAL, PULVERIZER REJECTS, SLAG & FLY ASH
(MITRE TEST NO. 3, 75 MM, A FUEL, NO SOOT BLOWING, MAXIMUM EXCESS
AIR, NORMAL BURNER ANGLE)
ELEMENTAL CONTENT BY WEIGHT (WEIGHT PERCENT)
ELEMENT
Al
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
' Fe
Ga
Ge
Hg
K
Mg
Hfi
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Sb
Sa
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
V
Zn
PULVERIZED
COAL,
CS03002*
0.900
<0.2
<0.0002
0.480
-------
TABLE D-9
COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS IN COAL, PYRITES, SLAG, AND FLY ASH
(MITRE TEST No. 22, 75 MW, D FUEL, MO SOOT BLOWING, NORMAL EXCESS AIR, NORMAL BURNER ANGLE)
ELEMENT
Al
Ba
Be
C*
Cd
Co
Cr
Ctt
F«
Gt
Gt
Hg
K
Mg
Mn
Mo
N«
Nl
Fb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Tl
Tl
V
Zn
PULVERIZED
COAL,
CS22002*
0.600
<0.2
<0.0002
0.250
<0.005
<0.002
0.0005
0.520
<0.05
<0.07
0.0001
0.131
0.050
0.002
0.00
0.053
<0.002
<0.005
<0.05
<0.09
<0.1
<0.0005
0.065
<0.008
<0.04
0.011
ELEMENTAL CONTENT BY WEIGHT (WEIGHT PERCENT)
PULVERIZER
REJECT,
RJ22001*
0.500
<0.2
<0.0002
1.28
0.005
,0.004
0.002
17.3
<0.02
<0.07
0.00000
0.110
0.105
0.014
0.00
0.063
0.001
0.011
0.04
0.08
<0.1
0.003
0.040
0.006
<0.04
0.087
SLAG,
PA22001*
8.40
0.4
0.0008
4.55
0.007
0.018
0.006
16.6
<0.02
<0.07
0.00000
0.253
0.567
0.073
0.00
0.400
0.010
0.008
0.02
<0.05
<0.1
0.007
1.22
0.008
<0.04
0.026
FLY ASH FROM
AIR HEATER
HOPPER,
SA22002*
6.40
0.4
0.0006
7.90
0.006
0.020
0.008
17.0
<0.03
<0.007
0.00006
0.835
0.461
0.117
0.00
0.312
0.013
0.006
0.03
0.03
<0.1
0.009
0.780
0.004
<0.04
0.030
FLY ASH FROM
MECHANICAL
SEPARATOR,
SA22004*
9.50
<0.2
0.001
1.78
0.007
0.023
0.009
6.70
<0.03
<0.007
<0. 00001
1.75
0.480
0.038
0.00
0.624
0.026
0.007
0.03
0.05
<0.1
0.000
1.78
0.004
<0.04
0.046
FLUE GAS
P ARTICULATES,
LOCATION 2,
AIR HEATER,
221-2**
10.0
0.3
0.001
2.09
0.018
0.342
0.012
7.84
<0.02
<0.07
0.0004
1.62
0.530
0.070
0,00
0.529
0.165
0.015
0.03
0.08
<0.1
0.003
1.61
0.01
<0.04
0.064
FLUE GAS
P ARTICULATES,
LOCATION 3,
STACK,
221-3**
9.50
0.3
0.002
1.33
0.014
0.626
0.021
8.24
<0.02
<0.07
0.0001
1.80
0.505
0.124
0.00
0.722
0.390
0.020
0.04
0.05
<0.1
<0.0005
1.64
0.008
<0.04
0.127
* MITRE SAMPLE NUMBER
** MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE SAMPLE NUMBER
D-13
-------
TABLE D-10
COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS ID COAL, PULVERIZER REJECTS, AMD BIT ASH
(MITRE TEST NO. 5, 75 MB, C FUEL, NO SOOT BLOWING, NORMAL EXCESS
AIR, NORMAL BURNER ANCLE)
ELEMENTAL CONTENT BY HEIGHT (WEIGHT PERCENT)
ELEMENT
Al
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ga
Ge
Hg
K
Mg
Mn
Ho
Na
Nl
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
V
Zn
PULVERIZED
COAL,
CS05002*
PULVERIZER
REJECT,
RJ05001*
1.55
0.00
<0.0002
0.120
0.002
<0.004
0.000
0.002
2.30
<0.06
0.0
<0. 00003
0.290
0.08S
0.006
<0.003
0.10
0.004
0.007
<0.06
<0.05
<0.05
<0.001
0.200
<0.005
<0.02
0.007
SLAG,
PAOS001*
10.2
<0.04
0.0006
5.36
0.021
0.004
0.009
0.009
9.43
<0.06
0.00
0.00002
2.68
0.720
0.075
<0.002
0.635
0.031
0.009
<0.06
<0.05
<0.5
0.009
0.575
0.008
0.62
0.045
FLY 'ASH FROM
AIR HEATER
HOPPER,
SAO 5002*
7.20
0.3
0.0004
7.00
0.007
0.025
0.010
19.7
<0.03
<0.007
0.00000
0.935
0.424
0.114
0.00
0.370
0.010
0.010
0.02
0.05
<0.1
0.006
0.870
0.008
<0.04
0.030
FLY ASH FROM
MECHANICAL
SEPARATOR,
SA05004
10.15
0.4
0.0006
3.35
0.006
0.013
0.009
6.63
<0.03
<0.007
<0. 00001
1.87
0.580
0.051
0.00
0.220
0.017
0.007
0.04
0.02
<0.1
0.009
1.69
0.006
<0.04
0.060
FLUE GAS
P ARTICULATES,
LOCATION 2,
AIR HEATER
DUCT, 211-2**
9.56
0.5
0.0008
3.40
0.014
0.249
0.011
7.27
0.03
<0.07
0.00005
1.77
0.533
0.073
<0.04
0.991
0.239
0.018
0.04
0.060
<0.1
0.004
1.40
0.006
<0.04
0.072
FLUE CAS
P ARTICULATES,
LOCATION 3,
STACK,
211-3**
7.35
0.3
0.0007
1.39
0..016
1.08
0.016
10.8
<0.06
<0.07
0.00008
1.50
0.422
0.200
0.00
0.750
0.600
0.014
<0.06
<0.05
<0.1
<0.003
0.965
0.008
<0.04
0.10
* MITRE SAMPLE NUMBER (OLD)
** MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE SAMPLE NUMBER
D-14
-------
TABLE Dll
ELEMENTAL CONTENT OF FLUE GAS PARTICULATE MATTER
MITRE TEST NO. 13: 35 MW, B FUEL, NO SOOT BLOWING,
NORM. EXCESS AIR, NORM. BURNER ANGLE
ELEMENTAL CONTENT, WEIGHT PERCENT
ELEMENT
Al
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ga
Ge
Hg
K
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
V
Zn
As
Si
LOCATION 2,
AIR HEATER.
NO. 209-2*
21.7
.008
.009
1.82
.0009
.01
.15
.01
8.22
<.04
2.2
.89
.06
.003
6.29
.08
.03
<.04
<.04
<.04
.001
.59
.006
.04
.08
LOCATION 3,
STACK,
NO. 209-3*
13.65
<.04
.0007
.62
.001
.011
1.68
.016
8.7
<.05
1.74
.51
.14
<.002
.88
.63
.02
<.06
<.05
<.05
<.0009
.50
.005
.03
.11
* Midwest Research Institute's Sample Number
D-15
-------
TABLE D12
ELEMENTAL CONTENT OF FLUE GAS PARTICULATE MATTER
MITRE Test No. 8: 100 MW, A Fuel, No Soot Blowing,
Maximum Excess Air, Normal Burner Angle
ELEMENTAL CONTENT, WEIGHT PERCENT
ELEMENT
Al
Ba '
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ga
Ge
Hg
K
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
V
Zn
LOCATION 2,
AIR HEATER,
SAMPLI NO.
203-2*
30.9
0.4
0.002
1.33
0.004'
0.030
0.050
0.030
14.8
0.07
<0.09
0.0006
2.54
0.770
0.090
<0.002
83.6
0.05
0.110
0.170
0.150
0.07
0.003
0.790
0.020
0.02
0.060
1.
0,
0,
11
LOCATION 3,
STACK,
SAMPLE NO.
203-3*
31.8
0.6
0.002
14
003
020
0.220
0.040
7
<0.08
0.00
0.0004
2.42
0.670
0.080
0.008
48.6
0.09
0.160
0.130
0.06
0.07
<0.0005
0.930
0.010
<0.02
0.080
* Midwest Research Institute's Sample Number
D-16
-------
Temperature measurements were controlled by a subsystem con-
sisting of a separate scanner, temperature transmitters and other
assopiated equipment.
Data Acquisition System - Data Graphics Corporation Cat-12—
The Data Acquisition System had a basic capacity of 50 channels
which was expanded, as discussed previously, with an additional
twenty channels by means of a low noise temperature scanner.
The data acquisition system consisted of six main sub-elements
which were: the scanner, an analog to digital converter with display,
a time base with display, a coupler, a,magnetic tape recorder and
a teletype.
Figure 7 (Section IV) shows the overall data acquisition system.
The scanner connected the analog signal from each channel
in sequence to the analog to digital converter which processed the
analog signal.
Unused channels could be skipped by discrete channel over-
ride control on the front panel.' of the scanner. Scan rates and
channel dwell times could be switch selected from the front panel
also. The scanner was normally operated at one scan every two
minutes with a dwell time of one second.
Outputs from the analog to digital converter were decoded
to decimal digits and displayed on the front panel of the scanner.
The display was used for real time system checks and for calibrating
certain instruments. Binary coded decimal (BCD) information from
C-17
-------
TABLE D14
ELEMENTAL CONTENT OF FLUE GAS PARTICULATE MATTER
MITRE Test No. 20: 50 MW, A Fuel, No Soot Blowing
MAXIMUM EXCESS Air, Normal Burner Angle
ELEMENTAL CONTENT, WEIGHT PERCENT
LOCATION 2, LOCATION 3,
AIR HEATER, STACK,
SAMPLE NO. SAMPLE NO.
ELEMENT 217-2* 217-3*
Al 9.00 7.75
Ba 0.3 <0.2
Be 0.001 0.001
Ca 2.80 1.17
Cd 0.0022 0.001
Co 0.008 0.013
Cr 0.125 0.725
Cu 0.010 0.020
Fe 11.9 11.4
Ga <0.02 <0.02
Ge <0.07 <0.07
Hg 0.0001 0.0002
K 1.54 ' 1.42
Mg 0.470 0.430
Mn 0.049 0.149
Mo 0.00 0.00
Na 0.570 0.738
Ni 0.120 0.493
Pb 0.007 0.005
Sb 0.04 0.04
Se 0.04 0.04
Sn <0.003 <0.003
Ti 1.25 1.21
Tl 0.008 0.006
V <0.04 <0.04
Zn 0.066 0.088
* Midwest Research Institute's Sample Number
D-18
-------
TABLE D15
ELEMENTAL CONTENT OF FLUE GAS PARTICULATE, MATTER
MITRE Test No. 20: 50 MW, A Fuel, No Soot Blowing, Normal
Excess Air, Normal Burner Angle
ELEMENTAL CONTENT, WEIGHT PERCENT
ELEMENT
Al
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ga
Ge
Hg
K
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
Ti
Tl
V
Zn
LOCATION 2,
AIR HEATER,
SAMPLE NO.
216-2*
8.40
<0.2
0.001
2.57
<0.0005
0.010
0.330
0.026
10.9
<0.02
<0.07
0.0001
1.50
0.485
0.063
<0.04
0.591
0.237
0.015
0.04
0.05
<0.1
0.005
1.28
0.006
<0.04
0.168
LOCATION 3,
STACK,
SAMPLE NO.
216-3*
5.90
<0.2
0.0008
0.660
<0.0012
0.019
1.58
0.020
11.1
<0.02
<0.07
0.0002
1.20
0.351
0.230
0.00
0.570
1.37
0.012
0.04
0.05
<0.1
<0.003
0.920
0.006
<0.04
0.075
*Midwest Research Institute's Sample Number
D-19
-------
ELEMENTAL ANALYSES OF COAL FOR CAT-OX BASELINE PROGRAM*
MITRE Test
Element No.
and Isotope
. 110
TABLE D-16
COAL FOR CA
(Concentrations in ppm)
3 5 14 18 20 22
Al"
As76
100
Au 98
139
Ba139
Br80
Br82
Ca49
115
Cd"3
Ce141
Cl38
Co58 •
Co60
Cr51
1 "»i
Ce134
C«64
Cu66
IAS
Dy165
Eu152nl
Eu152m8
Fe59
Ga72
150
Gd159
Ge75
181
Hfi81
203
Hg^03
128
f .L&W
116
In116
192
Iri9^
8080
<1.2
.,10
34
20
3
3640
110
8.83
1220
<30
3.07
18.0
1.56
29
<20
0.58
0.2
.13
13,700
<2
<60
<4
.50
<.5
<1
<0.03
1.9
13,300
4.8
0.7
48
3.9
22
5640
110
16.2
2760
<80
5.22
21.4
2.58
<20
«.40
0.76
0.32
.26
9500
4.0
<40
<120
.81
<.6
<.05
<0.02
2.2
10,800
2.44
.06
45
3.4
9.0
3290
200
10.6
1250
<60
3.84
19.3
2.03
<20
<50
0.67
.30
.19
11,600
5.5
<4
"150
.60
.16
<2
0.029
1.6
12,100
<5
0.15
53
32.5
19
<50
<90
13.0
1450
70
4.40
19.4
2.35
.'20
<20
0.77
. 0.31
0.20
10,900
4.2
<30
<-40
.65
1.91
1.8
.073
6.7
17,200
7.00
.003
92
7
20
7740
<300
21.1
2820
<90
5.98
2
-------
MITRE Test
Element No.
and Isotope
TABLE D-16 (Concluded)
14
18
20
22
K
La140
Lu77
Mg27
Mn56
Mo99
T01
Mo
Na24
Nd14
Hi65
197
Pt-l"7
Rb86
Rb88
Re186
104
Rh10*
S37
So46
124
Sb"*
Se75
153
Sm1"
Sr87
Sn117
Sn123
Sn125
Ta182
Tb160
Th232
Ti51
u 23q
v52
w l87
Yb175
Z«65
Zr95
2464
5.7
.36
<850
53
700
-------
GASEOUS FLOW RATES
Tables D18 to D28 give the results of the gas analysis. The
results in these tables were used as a basis for emissions rates
described in the text as well as for the sulfur balanced calculations
also discussed in "Baseline Tests," Section V.
D-22
-------
TABLE D-17
FLOW KATES FOR S<>2 AT LOCATION 1
MITRE
TEST
SATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 i>
11/22/7* 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 , 22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FT3 PER
MIN.)
1615.9
1474.7
1615.5
1118.8
1615.4
679.6
491.8
1144.3
196.3
257.0
173.9
990.3
1276.6
673.7
785.9
589.3
738.1
404.4
VOLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
FT3 PER
MIN.)
680.2
619.9
673.8
471.2
630.3
282.4
212.3
474.3
81.8
104.9
75.1
416.6
534.8
305.9
335.2
246.7
313.1
160.7
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
121.4
110.6
120.2
84.1
112.5
50.4
37.9
84.6
14.6
18.7
13.4
74.3
95.4
54.6
59.8
44.0
55.9
28.7
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-23
-------
TABLE D-18
FLOW HATES FOR O>2 AT LOCATION 1
MITRE
TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9 in 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/20/71 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL SOO
TYPE BLO
A NO
A NO
A NO
T EXCESS
HER AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
A YES* NORM.
A YES
B NO
B NO
B YES
B NO
A NO
C NO
C YES
C NO
A NO
A NO
A YES
A NO
A NO
A NO
A NO
D NO
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANCLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FTJ PER
MIN.)
52,496
49,606
32,095
61,879
41,805
29,212
44,388
31,738
50,692
32,441
58,996
50,973
34,738
32,097
VOLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
Fl3 PER
MIN.)
22,097
20,690
13,519
24,142
17,374
12,610
18,397
13,226
20,695
14,004
24,821
21,354
15,771
13,689
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
2,709
2,536
1,657
2,959
2,130
1,546
2,255
1,621
2,537
1,717
3,042 .
2,617
1,933
1,678
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-24
-------
TABLE D-19
FLOW RATES FOR 0, AT LOCATION 1
MITRE
TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/22/71 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21 '
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100*
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
so
75
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
HO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FT* PER
MIN.)
36,456
23,993
23,683
24,176
34,897
19,240
19,274
14,817
12,806
13,537
11,375
20,304
33,311
12,118
24,573
12,632
13,178
23,107
VOLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
FT3 PER
MIN.)
15,345
10,086
9,878
10,183
13.615
7,996
8.320
6.141
5,337
5,526
4,911
8,542
13,955
5,501
10,480
5,288
5,589
9,181
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
1,368
899
880
908
1,213
713
742
547
476
493
438
761
1,244
490
934
471
498
818
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-25
-------
TABLE D-20
FLOW RATES FOR NZ AT LOCATION 1
(NO FRACTION COUNTED AS N.)
MITRE
TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/22/71 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL SCO
TYPE BLO
A NO
A NO
A NO
T EXCESS
HER AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
A YES* NORM.
A YES
B NO
B NO
B YES
B NO
A NO
C NO
C YES
C NO
A NO
A NO
A YES
A NO
A NO
A NO
A NO
D NO
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
'NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.,
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
PER MIN.)
638,546
600,010
482,031
710,484
334,532
252,178
435,611
512,065
598,158
324,657
430,498
510,615
275,612
356,697
VOLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
FT 3 PER
MIN.)
268,778
250,261
203,034
277,195
139,029
108,361
180,539
213,394
244,201
140,152
181,120
213,906
125,127
152,125
MASS
FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
20,968
19,524
15,839
21,625
10,846
8,493
14,084
16,648
19,051
10,934
14,130
16,688
9,762
11,868
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-26
-------
TABLE D-21
FLOW RATES FOR ALL GASES AT LOCATION 1
(S02, C02, 02, N2 WITH
NO FRACTION COUNTED AS N.)
MITRE
TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71, 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
li/22/71 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FT3 PER
MIN.)
729,113
646,283
674,916
539,421
808,876
396,257
301,155
495,961
556,805
662,644
368,647
510,788
596,175
323,141
414,153
VOLUME
T.OW
(STANDARD
FT3 PER
MIN.)
306,900
271,668
281,504
227,207
315,582
164,682
130,003
205,551
232,039
270,528
159,142
214,900
249,749
146,705
176,629
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
25,166
21,598
23,061
18,488
25,910
13,739
10,818
16,971
18,759
22,099
13,101
18,008
20,644
12,240
14,540
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-27
-------
TABLE D-22
FLOW RATES FOR HO AT LOCATION 3
MITRE
TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/22/71 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
TEST
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A""
A
A
B
B''
B
B
A
C
C
c
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
CONDITIONS
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FT-* PER
MIN.)
221.8
151.7
149.7
118.5
115.0
74.4
55.7
102.4
56.6
35.5
26.5
88.8
109.5
62.3
84.8
30.9
38.8
47.1
57.9
VOLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
FT •* PER
KIN.)
142.3
97.5
94.7
75.3
73.3
48.8
37.2
66.5
38.0
23.3
18.2
58.2
72.5
42.1
57.0
. 21.0
25.2
31.3
36.9
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)'
11.9
8.1
7.9
6.3
6.1
4.1
3.1
5.6
3.2
1.9
1.5
4.9
6.1
3.5
4.8
1.8
2.1
2.6
3.1
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-28
-------
TABLE D-23
FLOW RATES FOR SOj AT LOCATION 3
MITRE
TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/22/71 5 i
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
TEST
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
CONDITIONS
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
Fp PER
MIN.)
554.9
679.3
806.8
608.5
765.7
304.7
219.6
606.1
167.1
192.5
102.0
452.1
586.4
361.2
381.1
259.4
341.1
589.1
OLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
FTJ PER
MIN.)
356.0
436.0
510.2
386.6
488.1
199.9
146.8
393.6
112.1
126.1
70.1
296.5
388.5
243.9
256.2
176.1
221.6
374.9
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
63.5
77.9
91.0
69.0
87.1
35.7
26.2
70.2
20.0
22.5
12.5
52.9
69.3
43.5 .
45.7
31.4
39.6
66.9
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-29
-------
TABLE D-24
FLOW RATES FOR C02 AT LOCATION 3
MITRE
TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/22/71 , 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL SOOT
TYPE BLOW
A NO
A NO
A NO
A YES*
A YES
B NO
B NO
B YES
B NO
A NO
C NO
C YES
C NO
A NO
A NO
A YES
A NO
A NO
A NO
A NO
D NO
EXCESS
ER AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
-• NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FT3 PER
MIN.)
46,737
47,415
53,335
45,041
55,686
27,973
20,501
41,380
32,880
47,093
22,775
36,375
41,285
24,589
26,459
19,297
27,002
25,786
39,472
VOLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
FT3 PER
MIN.)
.,
29,281
30,454
33,728
28,611
35,502
18,351
13,705
26,869
22,059
30,837
15,656
23,856
27,350
16,605
17,789
13,102
17,547
17,116
25,120
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
3,675
3,733
4,134
3,507
4,352
2,249
1,680
3,293
2,704
3,780
1,919
2,924
3,352
2,035
2,180
1,606
2,151
2,098
3,079-,
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-30
-------
TABLE D-25
FLOW RATES FOR 0- AT LOCATION 3
MITRE
TEST
DATE i NUMBER
11/8/71 '' 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/22/71 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
. 100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
TEST
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B -.
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
CONDITIONS
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FT-5 PER
MIN.)
29,742
30,965
24,720
22,680
27,238
15,408
13,646
18,067
8,485
21,542
12,721
15,979
25,256
13,498
18,059
11,990
13,501
12,987
16,412
VOLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
FT^ PER
MIN.)
19,079
19,888
15,632
14,407
17,365
10,108
9,122
11,731
5,693
14,106
8,744
10,479
16,731
9,116
12,142
8,141
8,773
8,620
10,445
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
1,700
1,773
1,393
1,284
1,548
901
813
1,046
507
1,257
779
934
1,491
812
1,082
726
782
768
931
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-31
-------
TABLE D-26
FLOW BATES FOR NZ AT LOCATION 3
MITRE
TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/22/71 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 20
11/30/71 2
12/1/71 3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 15
12/9/71 22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD
FACTOR
100
100
100
100 ,
100
75
100
50
35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A,
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
MIN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FT-* PER
MIN.)
347,624
307,852
316,059
250,990
319,719
162,228
125,742
231,253
223,571
290,170
144,559
206,926
245,528
143,898
165,008
122,802
150,424
148,038
233,098
VOLUME
FLOW
(STANDARD
FTJ PER
MIN.)
222,996
197,725
199,870
159,437
203,830
106,427
84,060
150,157
149,993
190,009
99,370
135,709
162,654
97,177
110,937
83,378
97,752
98,260
148,345
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
17,397
15,425
15,593
12,438
15,902
8,303
6,558
11,714
11,701
14,823
7,752
10,587
12,689
7,581
8,655
6,505
7,626
7,666
11,573
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-32
-------
TABLE D-27
FLOW HATES FOR ALL GASES AT LOCATION 3
(NO, S02, C02, 02, & N2)
MITRE
' TEST
DATE NUMBER
11/8/71 11
11/9/71 9
11/10/71 8
11/11/71 12
11/12/71 7
11/15/71 1
11/16/71 6
11/17/71 18
11/18/71 13
11/19/71 4
11/22/71 5
11/23/71 10
11/24/71 ' 20
11/30/71 1"'"'2"
12/1/71 '3
12/2/71 17
12/3/71 " 19
12/4/71 21
12/7/71 14
12/8/71 ; 15
12/9/71 22
TEST CONDITIONS
LOAD'
FACTOR
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
50 '
'• 35
75
75
100
50
75
75
50
50
35
50
50
75
FUEL
TYPE
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
c
c
c
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
SOOT
BLOWER
NO
NO
NO
YES*
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
EXCESS
AIR
NORM.
HUN.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
MAX.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
BURNER
ANGLE
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
NORM.
MIN.
NORM.
NORM.
VOLUME
FLOW
(ACTUAL
FT3PER
MIN.)
424,879
387,063
395,070
319,438
403,524
205,988
160,163
291,409
265,160
359,034
180,184
259,821
312,764
182,408
209,992
154,380
191,306
186,857
289,629
VOLUME
FLOW
T* PER
MIN.)
272,554
248,601
249,835
202,917
257,256
135,135
107,071
189,217
177,894
235,102
123,858
170,399
207,196
123,184
141,181
104,818
124,319
124,027
184.322
MASS FLOW
(LB. PER
MIN.)
22,848
21,017
21,219
17,305*
21,894
11,493
9,080
16,129
14,936
19,885
10,465
14,503
17,608
10,476
11,968
8,869
10,600
10,534
15,653
* REDUCED LEVEL OF SOOT BLOWING
D-33
-------
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENT AT TEST LOCATIONS
This Appendix contains the test location environment records and
the physical descriptions of the sample coupons before and after
each test. The location environment section gives a brief description
of the actual conditions at the specific test locations for each
test. These descriptions are significantly different in most cases
from those expected when the system is operating (Table 76 of the
text). The physical appearance of the coupons is given to aid those
interested in corrosion but requiring more data than the weight loss
v
data given in the text. The appearance is described by coupon number
and the actual material is given in Table 75, elemental content of
test specimens.
Conditions at Location "B" (Recirculating Acid to Product Cooler)
After initial attempts to start Cat-Ox in August 1974 failed,
the acid was stored in the absorbing tower instead of being transferred
to the storage tanks. As a result, these coupons were immersed in
an acid whose strength varied between 65 and 50 percent.
The corrosion rack at this location is placed within a specially
designed valve which allows the rack to be removed while acid is in
the lines. Illinois Power Company personnel attempted to operate the
valve with the corrosion rack still in pace resulting in some minor
E-l
-------
damage to a number of the coupons. Though this reduces the sensi-
tivity of the analysis, the information gained here was quite useful
and is felt adequate to produce reliable results.
Since coupons of 5 and 6 were totally destroyed in only a.three
month period, these samples were rejected. Similarly, the corrosion
rate for number 4 was two orders of magnitude higher than the other
metals; hence, it, too was rejected for this type of application.
Table E-l describes the physical appearance of coupons taken out
of Point "B".
Conditions at Location "C" (Acid From Product Cooler)
Coupons in this area are exposed to acid when the acid pro-
duct pump is run. During this test period, the pump was operated
very little and hence the direct exposure to H.SO, was minimal.
Coupons which indicate significant corrosion will be rejected to make
room for new samples due to the space limitations in this area.
Table E-2 describes the sample conditions.
Conditions at Point 3 (Output of ESP)
The coupons in this location were exposed to flue gas at about
320°F. Particulate loading in this area ranged between 0.02 to 0.004
grains/SCF. These samples were removed for about 15 to 30 minutes
a day during the ESP tests in September, but except for this they
remained in the flue gas stream continuously. Table E-3 presents a
physical description of each coupon after exposure. Conditions should
be the same with Cat-Ox on-line.
E-2
-------
TABLE El
First Period
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES ON REMOVAL FROM LOCATION "B"
Coupon No. Initial Appearance Appearance After Washing
1 Clean surface *No corrosion visible
2 Clean surface No corrosion visible
3 Clean surface *No corrosion visible
4 Surface covered with Rust colored, excessive
green-blue deposits visible corrosion
and rust
5 Destroyed
6 Destroyed
7 Clean surface *No corrosion visible
16 Clean surface *No corrosion visible
14 (Sample added 2/11/75 to Replace 5,6, and 4)
12 (Sample added 2/11/75 to Replace 5, 6, and 4)
15 (Sample added 2/11/75 to Replace 5, 6, and 4)
*Damaged by value
**Samples 4, 5, and 6 were rejected
E-3
-------
TABLE E2
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES ON REMOVAL FROM LOCATION "C"
Coupon No.
1
2
3
4
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Initial Appearance
Clean, No corrosion
Clean, No corrosion
Clean, No corrosion
Sulfate covered
Sulfate covered
Sulfate covered
Clean, No corrosion
Sulfate covered
Clean
Clean, No corrosion
Covered with crystalline
Clean, No corrosion
New
New
New
Appearance After Washing
Minor tarnished area in
one corner
No corrosion
No corrosion
Pitted and extensive
corrosion
Pitted and extensive
corrosion
Pitted and extensive
corrosion
No corrosion
Pitted and extensive
corrosion
Surface rough on one
side
No corrosion
Deposits of Cu on surface
No corrosion
E-4
-------
TABLE E3
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 3
Coupon No.
1
4
5
6
7
9
Initial Appearance
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Appearance After Cleaning
Dull steel color, no
noticeable corrosion
Dull steel color, no
noticeable corrosion
Dull steel color, no*
noticeable corrosion
Reddish black oxide surface
Reddish black oxide surface
Black surface, no rust
Dark grey color
Metallic gray color
E-5
-------
Conditions at Point 4 (Input to Heat Exchanger)
These samples have been exposed to ambient conditions during
most of this test period. During the attempted Cat-Ox start-up in
August of 74, the samples were exposed to flue gas and temperatures
exceeding 200°F for a period less than two full days. The physical
description of the coupons is given in Table E4.
Conditions at Point 5 (Input to Converter)
The conditions at this point were ambient for most of the test
period. However, for about five days this location was exposed to
flue gas and temperatures between 200°F and 800°F. See Table E5
for a physical description of samples.
Conditions at Location 8
These coupons were not checked prior to the first corrosion
report. The conditions over the first test period were generally
ambient except for about a one week period when temperatures were as
high as 800°F for a short period of time. During this short period
the atmosphere was a dilution of flue gas. Table E6 describes the
coupon appearance.
Conditions at Point 10 (Input to Absorbing Tower)
Under normal conditions these coupons would be in an ambient
atmosphere when Cat-Ox is not operational. After the last start-up
attempt, the acid was stored in the base of the absorbing tower which
is directly connected to Point 10. As a result the coupons were
exposed to acid gas during this test period. Temperature was at
E-6
-------
TABLE E4
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 4
Coupon No. Initial Appearance
___ .V - I -ILOIIJUlJf—-- - ._ J-.JL-IJLJiniL TL-|_
1 Coupon was covered with
a thin layer of white and
rust colored deposits
Covered with a thin layer
}f rust colored deposits;
surface had a greenish-
yellow color in one spot
3n the front and back
Just deposits on one
sdge; also greenish-
yellow material on one
edge
Dark and light rust
colored oxide layer
surface; yellow deposit
on one corner
Covered with rust colored
oxide layer with yellow
deposit on one corner
Covered with rust colored
oxide layer with yellow
deposit in top corner
Some rust colored depos-
its on outside but no
layer of any material
Appearance After Cleaning
Surface showed minor pit-
ting over entire coupon,
most prevalent near
mounting hole
No significant corrosion;
visible surface was normal
Surface showed minor
pitting over entire coupon,
most prevalent near'
mounting hole
Rust over entire surface;
back surface slightly
smoother
Rust over entire surface
except for two areas
covered by yellow deposit
where little or no
oxidizing took place
Rust over entire surface
except for two areas
covered by yellow deposit
where little or no
oxidizing took place
Dark gray except bottom
back area, which is light
gray
E-7
-------
TABLE E4
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 4 (CONCLUDED)
Coupon No. Initial Appearance Appearance After Cleaning
8 Light colored layer Surface evenly rusted
of rust
9 Light colored layer of Center shows less oxide
rust, but more flakey than rest of sample; no
or layered than No. 8 I.D. No. visible
*Note: When the term rust deposit is used, it implies that the rust was
from some external metal and collected on the coupon.
E-8
-------
TABLE E5
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES FROM POINT 5
FIRST PERIOD
Coupon No.
1
4
5
Initial Appearance
Deposits of granular
material, burned
tarnished color
Spots of rust on
outer edge's
Spots of rust on
outer edges
Tenuous layer of
oxide
Tenuous layer of
oxide
Tenuous layer of
oxide
Appearance After Washing
Tarnished as material that
has been hot
Same burned tarnished color
rust spots
Tarnished as material that
has been hot
Black or dark color
Rough surface, black or dark
rust color
Dark rust and black color
E-9
-------
TABLE E6
DESCRIPTION OF COUPONS AT POINT 8
FIRST PERIOD
Appearance
Before Washing
Appearance
After Washing
1 Tarnished surface with some orange- Tarnished or burned in some
brown green deposits (spots) areas, stains where deposits
were
2 Small,rust pits and spots of brown Pitted areas and some tarnish,
and yellow deposits (pits near or spots at deposits
edge).
3 Similar to #1 less deposits
4 Surface covered with rust and de-
posits
5 Surface covered with rust and de-
posits
Same as #1 (blue-black tarnish)
Dark rust color
Dark rust color one side shows
roll grains due to rusting in
localized boundaries.
6 Surface covered with rust arid de- Black metal and rust (heaviest
posits not as heavy in center near edges)
8 Surface covered with rust and de-
posits
9 Same as #4 but not as heavy rust
only, in spots
Black, metal and rust (heaviest
near edges)
Small pits arid rust not heavy
10 Deposits on surface mostly yellow Similar to #2
and white some rust deposit
11 Same as #3
Same stain from deposits
12 Heaviest deposits evenly cover sur- No noticeable corrosion
face light green and white some
rustic color
13 Less deposits than others
No noticeable corrosion
E-10
-------
ambient for most of the test period. Table E7 describes the coupons
after removal from the test location.
Conditions at Point 11 (Output From Mist Eliminator)
During operational conditions, this area is exposed to the flue
gas after it passes the mist eliminator. When Cat-Ox is not operating,
the area is by-passed by direct flow. Though the flue gas does
not flow through Point 11 when the by-pass is open some of the gas
will circulate into this stagnant area as a result of turbulance and
normal mixing of gases. This area is at ambient temperature and
therefore, the corrosive gas condenses on the coupons. See Table E8
for physical description.
Conditions at Point 13 (Input to Stack)
Point 13 was similar to Point 3 except the temperature was about
250°F. Table E9 gives the physical description of the samples.
C.2 Environment at Test Locations During 2nd Test Period
Conditions at Location "3"
The coupons at Location 3 were exposed to flue gas at 320°F.
The particulate loading in this area is about 0.02-0.004 gr/scf.
The coupons where in this atmosphere continuously except during Unit
No. 4 down times or when they were removed during a particulate test
(30 days total time). Table E10 gives the sample appearance on removal
of the rack.
Conditions at Location "4"
These coupons have been exposed to ambient conditions over
most of this period of the test period. The only exception was
E-ll
-------
TABLE E7
Coupon No.
1
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 10
Initial Appearance Appearance After Cleaning
Covered with layer of
yellow material
Blue yellow material
on surface
Yellowish green material
on surface
White and yellow
material on surface
White & yellow material
on surface
Surface cover with
white and gray
material
Surface white and gray
and black
White coating, black
underneath
White coating, one area
approximately 1/2" thick
One region in upper right
was discolored (dull), much
of surface appears grainy
(silvery & shiny regions)
apparently small pits, most
frequent 1/8" from mounting.
hole
A number of discolored or
dull regions, no significant
corrosion, surface smooth
Same grainy surface (small
pits) as number 1
Tarnished color (rust and
black and blue color) no
visible corrosion
Tarnished color (rust and
black and blue color) no
visible corrosion
Tarnished and surface defor-
mation over most of sample,
showed less corrosion where
tenuous white material was
Black and dark gray color,
minor pitting
Tarnished and rough
One spot rusted, significant
corrosion in area where large
buildup was, also some pitting
E-12
-------
Coupon No.
1
TABLE E8
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 11
Initial Appearance Appearance After Cleaning
Covered with loose
granular black and
brown material
Covered with loose
granular black and
brown material
Covered with loose
granular black and
material
Loose flakey layer of
rust chips off in large
flakes
Loose flakey layer of
rust chips off in large
flakes
Loose flakey layer of
rust chips off in large
flakes but some areas
of outer rust layer are
tenuous (remain stuck to
surface)
Surface black and gray,
some small rust deposits
Similar to number 4 but
rust chipped off in
smaller pieces and sur-
face beneath layer washed
light rust color
Rusty surface but no
flaking more granular
Extensive pitting generally
smaller than 1/64"
Extensive pitting, some
exceeding 1/64" in depth
approximately 3 to 4 1/64"
per 1/4 x 1/4" area
Pitting smaller and less
than number 1
Rough surface evenly
oxidized
Rough surface evenly
oxidized
Rough surface evenly
oxidized
Surface black and gray
Rough surface evenly
oxidized
Smoother surface than
other samples but covered
with rust, number clearly
visible
E-13
-------
Coupon No.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
TABLE E9
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT
FIRST PERIOD
Initial Appearance
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
Covered with fly ash
POINT 13
Appearance After Washing
No corrosion
No corrosion
No corrosion
No corrosion
Like no. 4 but light
color and narrow ribbons
of rust approximately
1 mm. wide and parallel.
Also curved around mounting
hole
Same as no. 4 but corroded
around mounting hole
Fly ash scorched to surface
Rusted, rough surface
Rough surface
E-14
-------
1 Covered with
2 Covered with
3 Covered with
4 Covered with
5 Covered with
6 Covered with
7 Covered with
TABLE 110
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 3
SECOND PERIOD
fly ash Stainless shine no visible corrosion
fly ash Stainless shine no visible corrosion
fly ash Stainless shine no visible corrosion
fly ash Reddish-black oxide along cold roll grains
fly ash Reddish-black oxide along cold roll grains
fly ash Reddish-black oxide along cold roll grains
fly ash Rust-red patches in gray metallic surface
E-15
-------
during a series of reheat burner start-ups and test. During these
tests (two weeks intermittently) the temperature varied between
ambient and 400°F. The atmosphere was a dilute flue gas. Table Ell
describes the coupons.
Conditions at Location "5"
Conditions at Location 5 were similar to 4 except during the
reheat burner test when the temperatures were slightly elevated.
t
Table El2 describes the sample coupons.
Conditions at Location "8" (2nd period)
Coupons at pt "8" during this period were at ambient conditions
for most of the test period. The only abnormalities being the presence
of catalyst dust. During a very short period of burner tests,
temperatures were slightly above ambient at this location. Table E13
describes the coupon appearance.
Conditions at Location "10"
Conditions at pt 10 were also near ambient conditions for most
of the test with the exception of about 5 days when the burner was
being tested. Temperatures at 10 were slightly elevated during the
tests. Also for about one month acid was stored in the absorbing tower
hence the coupons were exposed to some acid gases during this period.
However, overall conditions were less corrosive then the prior test
period. Table E14 describes the appearance of the samples on removal
and washing.
E-16
-------
TABLE Ell
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 4
SECOND PERIOD
1- No corrosion deposits clean surface
2. No corrosion deposits clean surface
3« No corrosion deposits clean surface
4. No corrosion deposits rusted surface
5. No corrosion deposits rusted surface
6. No corrosion deposits rusted surface
7. Dark gray over surface
8. Rusted flaky surface
9- Rusted surface, granular, loose and
uneven
Minor pitting most prevalent
at mounting hole
Very minor pitting almost
unnoticeable
same as #1
Even and tightly bound rust
surface
Tightly bound but slightly
pitted rusted surface
same as #5
same as before washing
Some tightly bound flakes
and uneven surface
Uneven rusted surface
E-17
-------
TABLE El2
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 5
SECOND PERIOD
(no difference was noted before or after washing)
1. No deposits appearance before and after washing tarnished, no
visible corrosion
2. No deposits appearance the same before and after washing tarnished
very minor pitting
3. same as #1
4. Black burned appearance tiny localized rust along same grain
boundaries
5. same as #4
6. same as #4
(initially covered with catalyst dust)
E-18
-------
TABLE El3
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 8
SECOND PERIOD
(No difference was noted after washing except that all coupons had
an initial light coating of catalyst on removal from location.)
1. Clean surface tarnished (like high temperature discoloration)
2. Clean surface - very tiny pits (unnoticeable without magnifying glass)
3. Same as #1
4. Black color with localized reddish black rust - tightly bound
5. Same as #4
6. Same as #4
8. Evenly rusted surface fairly tight bound
9. Metallic gray with localized rust over most of surface
10. Darker tarnished color
11. Clean surface
12. Clean surface
13. Clean surface
E-19
-------
TABLE E14
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 10
SECOND PERIOD
Before Washing After Washing
1. Small deposits of salt
spotting the surface
2. Same as #1
3. Same as #1
4. Salt deposits spotting
surface layer as #1
5. Same as #4
6. Same as #4
7. Same as #4
8. Same as #4
9. Same as #4
Surfaced covered with tiny pits
similar to sand blastirig effect
(pits deepen under salt spots).
Similar to #1, less pitting.
Similar to #1, plus blue-green
stain in one area on surface.
J
Rusted surface (small loose flakes)
with tightly bound rust beneath
flakes. Areas where deposit
of were are not rusted but
considerable metal is gone.
Same as #4
Same as #4
Black-gray surface - no
visible corrosion.
Same as #4 but more granular
rather than flaky.
Same as #8
E-20
-------
Conditions at Location "11"
Conditions at pt 11 were ambient with some traces of stack gas
in the atmosphere in this area; however (since the by-pass plate
was closed during this test period) the overall conditions were much
less corrosive than the prior test period. Table E15 describes the
appearance of the samples.
Conditions at Point "B"
Coupons at this location were exposed to acid for about 1 month
j
of the test period. Acid strength was between 55 percent and 70
percent H SO, . During the rest of this test period the location
was either empty or filled with water. Temperature was ambient.
Table #9 describes the sample appearance. See Table E16.
Conditions at Point "C"
Conditions at location "C" were the same as at "B" except that
direct exposure to acid only took place when the product pump was
3
running, hence exposure was minimized. See Table E17 for .sample
appearance.
Conditions at Point "D"
— ? —-—^—
The coupons in "D" were exposed for a test period including test
periods 1 and 2 for other coupons. They were not removed during
the first test period due to difficult access.
Acid was stored in the base of the absorbing tower for about 6
months of this test period, hence it would be expected that the
coupons were exposed to some acid gases during this period along
E-21
-------
TABLE El5
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT 11
SECOND PERIOD
Before Washing
1. Covered with specks of rust
2. Same as #1
3. Same as #1
4. Rusted (loose) flakey surface
5. Same as #4
6. Same as #4
7. Grey-black surface
8. Rusted (loose) flaky and
granular surface
9. Same as #8
After Washing
Extensive pitting.
Extensive pitting, some exceed
1/64".
Extensive pitting.
Tightly bound rust, surface
pitted.
Same as #4.
Flaky surface - tightly bound.
Same as before washing.
Granular rust surface - tightly
bound.
Fine granular rust surface
tightly bound.
E-22
-------
TABLE E16
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT LOCATION B
SECOND PERIOD
1. Clean surface
2. Clean surface
3. Clean surface
7. Clean surface
12. Covered with blue (salt)
deposits (appears copper
sulphate)
14. Clean surface
15. Covered with blue (salt)
deposits
16. Clean surface
No visible corrosion.
No visible corrosion.
No visible corrosion.
No visible corrosion.
Stained surface-some metal
corrosion visible.
Clean surface—no corrosion.
Stained surface-heavy grain
boundary corrosion.
Dark-gray - no visible corrosiont
E-23
-------
TABLE E17
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT "C"
SECOND PERIOD
1. Clean surface -some salt
deposits.
2. Clean surface - some salt
deposits.
3. Clean surface - some salt
deposits.
4. Rust, frosted with salt
deposits.
5. Rust, frosted with salt
deposits.
6. Rust, frosted with salt
deposits.
7. Clean surface—some salt
deposits.
10. Clean surface—some salt
deposits.
11. Clean surface—some salt
deposits.
12. Clean surface—some salt
deposits. Some copper rust
with coating on coupon.
12p. Clean surface—some salt
deposits. Some copper color
coating on coupon.
e
13. Clean surface—some salt
deposits.
14. Clean surface—some salt
deposits.
Clean, no visible Corrosion.
Clean, no visible corrosion.
Clean, no visible corrosion.
Pitted and tight, rusted surface.
/
Pitted and tight, rusted surface.
Pitted and tight, rusted surface.
Dark gray color - no,visible corro-
sion.
Tiny pitted surface.
No visible corrosion.
?
Stained surface—some small minor
pitting.
Stained surface—some small minor
pits.
No visible corrosion.
No visible corrosion.
15. Frosted with blue salt deposits Some pitting and corrosion along
on surface. grain boundaries.
E-25
-------
with some very dilute flue gas which backed up from the open
by-pass at Pt. 11. The coupons were exposed to operating conditions
for less than two weeks during the next test period. Other than
this time temperatures were never ambient. See Table E18 for coupon
i
appearance description.
E-25
-------
TABLE E18
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES AT POINT "D"
SECOND PERIOD
*The mist eliminator was washed prior to removal of these samples,
hence no befpre wash observations are possible.
1. Surface covered with localized pitting > 1/64" in size.
2. Surface covered with localized pitting'- more intensive than #1.
(size 1/64")
3. Surface pitted worse than #1 - less than #2.
4. Rusted surface tightly bound beneath granular loose cover.
5. Rusted surface tightly bound beneath granular loose cover.
6. Rusted surface - flakey (small flakes) rough surface.
7. Stained with rust from elsewhere light gray.
•!
8. Same as #4.
9. Rusted surface - very fine granular surface, evenly covered.
E-,26
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
w
PA-600/2-78-063
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
LE AND SUBTITLE Demonstration/E valuation of the
2at-Ox Flue Gas Desulfurization System--Final
Report
5. REPORT DATE
March 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
R. Bee, R. Reale, and A. Wallo
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
M77-23
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Mitre Corporation/Metrek Division
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21ACZ
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0850
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
ERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTEsIERL_RTp project Officer is,Charles J. Chattynne, Mail Drop 61,
919/541-2915.
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives a comprehensive summary of the experience gained and
the problems encountered during the Cat-Ox demonstration program. The report
outlines the process design and construction, as well as operating experience and
problems. Test results and conclusions derived from baseline testing, acceptance
testing, ESP testing, transient testing, and a number of special tests and studies
associated with the system are reported.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Flue Gases
Desulfurization
Catalysis
Oxidation
Coal
Combustion
Design
Construction
Testing
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Catalytic-Oxidation
Process
13B
21B
07A,07D
07B,07C
21D
14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited .
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
423
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
E-27
J-i ••' £» I
HOVFRNMFM PRINTING OFFICE, 197.-6.0- 013 •* 19 2REG1ON NO. 4
------- |