EPA-650/2-73-019-b
August 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY SERIES
'^^^^^^S^^^^^ii!^
•lliilplll
-------
EPA-650/2-73-019-B
FULL-SCALE
DESULFURIZATION OF STACK GAS
BY DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION
VOLUME II -
APPENDICES A THROUGH H
by
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Interagency Agreement TV-30541A
Project Officer: Richard D. Stern
Control Systems Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
TVA Contracting Officer: Dr. F. E. Gartrell, Director
Division of Environmental Planning
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, TN 37401
Prepared for
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
August 1973
-------
Dry Limestone Preparation Equipment
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
CONTENTS
Volume 1
Main Text
Page
Abstract v
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xix
Acknowledgement xxi
Summary and Conclusions 1
Introduction 21
Test Program 31
A. Objectives and Overall Approach 31
B. Test Facility 32
1. Unit 10 Boiler 32
2. Limestone Injection Process Equipment 32
3. Sampling Stations 40
4. Laboratory Capability 41
C. Phase I Shakedown 43
1. Objectives 43
2. Approach 43
3. Results 46
4. Conclusions 77
D. Phase II Dust Distribution Studies 79
1. Objectives 79
2. Approach 79
3. Results 79
4. Conclusions 104
E. Phase III Process Optimization Ill
1. Objectives Ill
2. Approach Ill
3. Results 119
4. Conclusions 164
F. Phase IV Long-Term Operation 171
1. Objectives 171
2. Approach 171
3. Test Results 174
4. Conclusions 198
-------
CONTENTS
Volume 2
Page
APPENDIX A-STATISTICS ON BOILER AND LIMESTONE SYSTEM A-l
APPENDIX B-WATER-COOLED PROBE DEVELOPMENT B-l
APPENDIX C-TESTING, SAMPLING, AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES C-l
APPENDIX D-COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FOR PHASE I TESTS D-l
APPENDIX E-INSTANTANEOUS DUST DISTRIBUTION STUDIES E-l
APPENDIX F-LIMESTONE INJECTION EFFECTS ON SOLIDS
COLLECTION SYSTEM F-l
Report and Analysis of Field Tests at Shawnee Station Prepared
for the EPA by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc.
APPENDIX G-LIMESTONE INJECTION EFFECTS ON DISPOSAL
WATER QUALITY G-l
Introduction G-l
Evaluation Program G-2
Summary and Conclusions G-31
Data Storage Format G-35
APPENDIX H-ADDITIONAL HEAT REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS H-l
-------
CONTENTS
Volume 3
Page
APPENDIX I-LIMESTONE FACTORS
Section A, Reactivity with Sulfur Oxides 1-3
I. Introduction and Objectives 1-3
II. Approach 1-3
III. Results and Conclusions 1-4
Limestone Type 1-4
Chemical Form of the Additive 1-4
Particle Sife 1-5
Calcination Temperature 1-5
Catalysts . 1-5
IV. Abstracted Results of Individual Projects 1-6
Illinois State Geological Survey 1-6
Tennessee Valley Authority 1-6
Babcock & Wilcox 1-8
Peabody Coal Company 1-8
In-House EPA 1-9
V. Recommendation on Limestone Properties for Application
to the Dry Limestone Injection Process 1-11
Section B, Limestone Availability in the United States 1-13
I. Introduction and Objectives 1-13
II. Approach 1-13
III. Results 1-13
Potential Demand - Power Plants 1-13
Carbonate Rock Reserves 1-16
Mining and Production 1-19
IV. Supply/Demand Relationship of Carbonate Rocks
for Pollution Control 1-22
Proximity of Carbonate Rock Deposits to Power Plants 1-22
Potential Demand Relative to Production 1-22
Costs 1-23
V. Conclusions 1-31
-------
Volume 3
(Continued)
Page
VI. Recommendation for Application to Dry Limestone
Injection and other Limestone-Based Processes 1-32
Section C, Definitions 1-33
Section D, References 1-35
APPENDIX J-MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF THE LIMESTONE INJECTION
PROCESS
I. Introduction and Objectives J-3
11. Summary of Modeling Activities J-5
III. Discussion J-23
IV. Conclusions J-26
V. References J-27
APPENDIX K-UTILIZATION OF LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLY ASH K-l
I. Introduction and Objectives K-3
II. Approach K-3
III. Results and Conclusions K-3
A. Unmodified Fly Ash Utilization K-3
B. Limestone-Modified Fly Ash Utilization K-12
IV. Summary K-19
V. Recommendations K-19
A. Unmodified Fly Ash K-20
B. Wet-Collected Limestone-Modified Fly Ash K-21
VI. References K-22
APPENDIX L-PROCESS ECONOMICS
i
I. Introduction L-l
/
Design Premises L-2
Base Case L-l 1
Actual Investment L-13
Investment Projections L-13
Annual Operating Cost L-18
Lifetime Operating Cost L-24
-------
Volume 3
(Continued)
Page
II. Summary of Results and Conclusions L-27
Investment L-27
Relative Investment Cost Distribution L-27
Annual Operating Cost L-32
Relative Operating Cost Distribution L-36
Lifetime Operating Cost L-36
Results of Sensitivity Analysis L-59
III. References and Abstracts L-88
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
EPA policy is to express all measurements in Agency documents in metric units.
When implementing this policy results in undue cost or difficulty in clarity, the National
Environmental Research Center-Research Triangle Park (NERC-RTP) provides conversion
factors for the particular nonmetric units used in the document. For this report these
factors are:
British , Metric
Multiply By To Obtain
feet 3.0480 x 10'1 meters
feet2 9.29 x 10'2 meters2
feet/sec. 3.0480 x 10'1 feet/sec.
feet3/min. 4.720 x 10'1 liters/sec.
grains (troy) 6.48 x 10~2 grams
grains/dry s.c.f. @ 70° F 2.464 grams/meter3 @ 0° C
gallon 3.785 liters
inch 2.5400 x 10"2 meters
micron 1.0 x 10"6 meters
ounce (troy) 3.1103 x 101 grams
pound 4.536 x 10"1 kilograms
pound/in.2 7.03 x 10'2 kg/cm2
quart 9.463 x 10"1 liters
tons/hr. 2.520 x lO"1 kg/sec.
-------
APPENDIX A
Statistics on Boiler and Limestone System
-------
A-l
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT STATISTICS
GENERAL DATA
POWERHOUSE 4 SERVICE BAY
Location
On left tank of Ohio Biver 13 mllee downstream from mouth of
Tennessee River at Paducah, Kentucky
Access
Highway .
Railroad
Water . .
1.1 miles constructed from Kentucky
State Highway No. 305
3.4 miles constructed from Paducah & Illinois
Railroad at Chllee, Kentucky
Coal unloading dock on 9-ft navigable channel
connected with Inland Waterway System
Chronology
Initial appropriations:
Units 1-4 January 6, 1951
Units 5-6 July 5, 1952
Units 7-10 ; . July 15, 1952
Construction started at site January 6, 1951
Commercial operation:
Unit 1 April 9, 1953
Unit 2 June 21, 1953
Unit 3 October 10, 1953
Unit U January 8, 195U
Unit 5 October 1, 1951*
Unit 6 November 1, 1951*
Unit 7 December 23, 1954
Unit 8 March 15, 1955
Unit 9 July 19, 1955
Unit 10 1956
Power Installation
Rated capacity, units 1-10 ,
Capability, units 1-10 .
135,000 kw each; 1,350,000 kw total
150,000 kw each; 1,500,000 kw total
Coal Consumption (approx)
Annual, 10-unlt plant . . . 4,100,000 tons based on 80 percent
plant load factor
Per hour, each unit 58 tons operating at rated load
Per kvh, each unit . . 0.78 Ib based on 12,000 Btu per Ib coal
and operating at max. capability and
2 In. Eg absolute exhaust pressure
Structural Data
Foundation:
Material .... Water-bearing gravelly sand etratun; '-ipllft
controlled by relief well aja~*e-
Allowable bearing pressures:
Powerhouse 5 tons per eil7.0
Size 66 In. id, 62.5 ft long, 6-1/8-ln. vail
Weight 321.»:0 Ib
Design pressure 2050
Furnaces
Type . . Water cooled, divided by cantor vail with one
each side, manually adjustable air re£iat»r
Principal dimensions . . 46 ft vld« bj2U ft do»p >»y ^ n hl^>
Heating surface 1*,T?O *l ft
Total volume 72,000 c« ft
-------
A-2
Ash Handling
Steam Generators--Continued
Superheaters (primary and secondary)
Type Continuous tube, pendant
Tube size • 2 la. od
Heating surface 68,500 sq ft
Design pressure 2050 pslg
Design temperature 1°°3 F
Reheaters
Type Continuous tube, pendant
Tube size 2 In. od
Rated capac'*" earh unit 870,000 Ib per hr
Design pressure 510 pslg
Design temperature 1003° F
Operating Inlet pressure *t25 pslg, design*
Operating outlet pressure ^03 pslg, design*
Operating Inlet temperature 6UO° F, design*
Operating outlet temperature 1003° F, design*
* Varies with load.
Air Preheaters (2 per unit)
Manufacturer Air Preheater Corp.
Type LJungstrum, counterflow, regenerative
Size 25-vane, 5^-in. elements, 66-ln. casing
Heating surface 118,600 sq ft each
Design temperature gases:
Entering 719° F
Leaving 306° F uncorrected
Design temperature air:
Entering 80° F
608°
Leaving
F
Firing Equipment (per unit)
Burners 16; forced draft, circular
Pulverizers It; spring-loaded ball bearings
Feeders It; Integrally mounted
Lightlng-off torches 16; oll-mechanlcal atomizatlon-
electrlc Ignition
Controls
Combustion Electronic-pneumatic; manufactured by
Republic Flow Meters Co.
Feedwater 3-element, electronic-pneumatic, mfd by
Republic Flow Meters Co.
Superheater and reheater . . . Desuperheater and gas reclrcu-
latlng; mfd by Bailey Meter Co.
Method
Bottom ash
Dry fly ash .
Jetted from two hoppers by high-pressure water
through transport piping to disposal area
Exhausted by vacuum created by water Jets In
hydroveyor and Jetted to disposal area
Fly Ash Collectors (2 per unit)
Type and size AC-130 cyclone; U groups of It No. 13FAC
Manufacturer Buell Engineering Co., Inc.
Rated capacity 239,000 cfm @ 305° F
Efficiency 85 percent (guaranteed overall)
Pressure drop 3-05 In. HgO at rated capacity
Bottom Ash System
Type . . . Manually operated hydraulic Jetting system to fill
Manufacturer United Conveyor Corp.
Water Pumps
Bottom ash sluice
Fly ash sluice
• • 5 (total)--3, 8-ln. discharge, 10-in.
suction; SDO type; 2800-gpm rated
capacity; 735-ft head; mfd by Byron-
Jackson Co.; 2, 10-in. discharge,
10-in. suction; DMD type; 2800-gpm
rated capacity; 710-ft head; mfd
by Economy Pumps, Inc.
TO type; 2300-gpm rated capacity; U80-ft
head; mfd by Peerless Pump Division
Dust Collectors
At Coal Bunkers (l per unit)
Type and capacity Cyclone; 1*500 cfm
Manufacturer Kirk & Blum Mfg Co.
At Coal Scales (l per unit)
Type and capacity Multiclone; 1200 cfm
Manufacturer Western Precipitation Corp.
At Coal Conveyor Transfer Point (2 - total)
Type and capacity Multiclone; U500 cfm
Manufacturer American Blower Corp.
Fans
Forced Draft (2 per unit)
Type and size American H.S., single Inlet; No. 900
Manufacturer American Blower Corp.
Rated capacity 208,000 cfm each
Rated static pressure (at test block) 10.8 In. HjO
Rated temperature (at test block) lUO° F
Control Inlet louvers
Design temperature (air leaving fan) lUO° F
Motors .... 500 hp, 707 rpm, squirrel cage, drip-proof pro-
tected; mfd by Allls-Chalmers Mfg Co.
Induced Draft (2 per unit)
Type and size Sirocco, double Inlet; No. 775
Manufacturer American Blower Corp.
Rated capacity 292,000 cfm each
Bated static pressure (at test block) 16 In. HpO
Rated temperature (at test block) 320 F
Control . Inlet louvers
Motors . . . 1000 hp, 586 rpm, squirrel cage, drip-proof pro-
tected; mfd by Allls-Chalmers Mfg Co.
Turbogenerators
Foundations
Type
Reinforced concrete frame
Turbines
Manufacturer Weetlnghouse Electric Corp.
Type and speed Tandem compound, triple-flow exhaust,
condensing, reheat; 3&00 rpm
Hated capacity, each unit 135,000 kv
Maximum capability, each unit 150,000 kw
Throttle pressure 1800 pslg
Throttle temperature , 1000° F
Reheated steam pressure 390 pslg at capability load
Reheated steam temperature .... 1000° F at capability load
Number of stages, each unit Ult
Extraction points and
stage numbers 7 (16, 21, 30, 36, 38, UO, U2)
Design backpressure 2 in. Eg absolute
Total rotor weight 105,000 Ib
JTurblne heat rate (guaranteed at maximum capability
and 2 In. Hg absolute exhaust pressure) . . 7807 Btu per kwh
Net plant heat rate (expected at maximum capability
and 2 in. Hg absolute exhaust pressure) . . 9399 Btu per kwh
-------
A-3
Turbogenerators "Continued
Generators
Manufacturer Weetlnghouse Electric Corp.
Rating, each . . 150,000 leva, 135,000 kw, 0.9 pf, 3 ph, 60 cy,
18,000 v, 3600 rpm, 1*810 amp, 0.9 ecr
Maximum capability, each 168.5UO kva, 150,000 kw,
0.89 pf, 5ltOO amp
Temperature rise Stator, 60° C; rotor, 85° C
Cooling Hydrogen, 0.5 pelg @ rated capacity,
15 pslg @ maximum capability
Hydrogen treatment Vacuum detraining
Rotor weight 105,000 Ib
Stator weight 397,600 Ib
Excitation:
Units 1-6 Pilot exciter
Units 7-10 Magamp amplifier
Exciter rating 350 kw, 375 v, 900 rpm, shunt wound,
direct connected
Pilot exciter rating:
Units 1-6 3.0 kw, 250 v, 900 rpm, compound wound,
direct connected
Units 7-10 13 kw, 125 v, 17l»5 rpm, magamp type,
motor generator set
Neutral grounding . . Transformer, 75kva, 18,000-220 v; second-
ary resistor, 0.27 ohm, 1*70 amp (60 sec)
Surge protection Lightning arresters only
Generator Leads
Connections Unit type, no generator voltage switching
Rating (at 35° C rise above kO° C
ambient temperature indoor) 6000 amp
Bus material:
Units 1-U Square copper tubing
Units 5-10 Two aluminum channels
Bus enclosure:
Indoor Segregated phase
Outdoor Expanded aluminum and aluminum framing
supported on structural steel
Manufacturer Designed and fabricated by TVA
Auxiliary Power
. Ul60 and U80 volts
Voltage
Normal, starting and emergency supply .
Common and Unit Boards
Voltage and type .... 1*160 and U80 v; metal-clad swltchgear
Breaker rating:
Iil60-volt 250,000 kva
I*80-volt 25,000 amp
Manufacturer: ;
Itl60-volt Weatlnghouse Electric Corp.
I*30-volt I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.
Control Batteries
Voltage and rating 250 volts; 1 hr, klk amp
Type 25-plate, heavy-duty, glass-cell
Manufacturer Electric Storage Battery Co.
Condensers - - Continued
Tubes
Number, each unit l'J,300
Dimensions, each tube:
Outside diameter 7/5 lr..
Overall length JO ft
Material Inhibited admiralty
Manufacturer:
Units 1-1* Wolverine Tube Division
Units 5-10 Revere Copper i Brass, Inc.
Feedwater Equipment
Closed Heaters (6 per unit)
Type Horizontal
Manufacturer The Lumnua Co.
Shell design pressure:
Heater No.
1 650 pslg
2 1*75 paig
3 250 pelg
5, 6, 7 50 pslg and 30 In. Eg vac
Tubes:
Design pressure, pslg . . HP heaters, 2900; LP heaters, 250
Material HP, 70-30 Cu Nl; LP, Inhibited admiralty
Deaeratlng Heaters (l per unit)
Type Deaerating tray
Manufacturer Cochrane Corp.
Storage tank dimensions 11 ft dlam, 1*2 ft ^ in.
overall length
Design pressure 65 pslg
Capacity 1,038,3110 Ib per hr
Evaporators (l per unit)
Type Horizontal, single effect
Manufacturer The Lummus Co.
Evaporative capacity 20,000 Ib per hr
Design pressure Shell, 75 paig; tube, 225 pslg
Design temperature Shell, 350° F; tube, 850° F
Tube material Monel
Boiler Feedwater Pumps (3 per unit)
Stages and type 11-stage; horizontal, centrifugal
Rated capacity, each 1102 gpm
Rated head 6140 ft
Manufacturer Ingersoll-Rand Co.
Motors 2000 hp, 3570 rpm, manufactured by
Elliott Hfg Co.
Condensate Pumps (2 per unit)
Stages and type 3-stage vertical
Rated capacity, each 1700 spa
Rated head 370 ft
Manufacturer Foster Wheeler Corp.
Motors 250 hp, Il60 rpm, manufactured by
General Electric Co.
Condensers (I per unit)
General Data
Type Horizontal, single pass, surface
Manufacturer Foster Wheeler Corp.
Surface area 70,000 sq ft
Internal Water Treatment
Sodium phosphate pumps . . 10; duplex-plunger type; manufactured
by Froportioneers, Inc.; 65> gph §
2300 pel rated capacity; 5-hp aotor
Sodium sulphite and sodium
hydroxide pumps 12; duplex-plunger type, one head
for sulphite and one for cansttc;
mfd by Propertlcneere, Inc.; 2.27
gph® 750 psi rated cap. each bead;
1/3-hp motor
Design Conditions (at rated load)
Steam condensed, each unit . . . . 695,000 Ib per hr
Backpressure 2 In. Hg absolute
Cooling water:
Flow 107,600 gpm
Temperature 79° F
Tube velocity 7.07 ft per sec
Tube cleanliness 85 percent
Mechanical Control Equipment
Unit Control Boom
Principal features . .
Centralized control; two vntts In on*
roon; supplied bj Republic Flo*
Meters Co.
-------
A-4
Principal Piping
Fabricator
Benjamin F. Shaw Co.
Main Steam
Material:
Dhlts 1-1* .... Alloy steel; A-182 -1(9T; 2-l/U£ Cr, 1$ Mo
Ttolts 5-10 . . Alloy steel; A-158-50T-P11; 1-1/Uft Cr, 1/2J Mo
Design pressure 1935 pslg
Design temperature 1003° F
Flov sections:
Full 16.25 In. od, 2.375 In. wall thickness
Half 13.5 In. od, 2 In. wall thickness
Steam to Beheater
Material Steel A-106, Grade B
Design pressure 500 pslg
Design temperature 665° F
Flov sections:
Full .... 20 In. od, sch. 1*0 or 0.593 in. wall thickness
Half .... Ik in. od, seh. Uo or 0.1*37 In. wall thickness
Steam from Beheater
Material . . . Alloy steel; A-158-51T-P11; 1-1/U£ Cr, 1/2$ Mo
Design pressure 1*70 pslg
Design temperature 1003° F
Flow sections:
Full .... 20 in. od, sch. 80 or 1.031 In. wall thickness
Half .... 16 In. od, sch. 80 or 0.81*3 in. wall thickness
Heating .Ventilating & Air Conditioning
Powerhouse
Building heating 18,200 Ib steam per hr
Air preheating 228,000 Ib steam per hr
Ventilating air 1*,187,000 cfm supplied; 2,1*72,000 cfm
exhausted
Air conditioning . . Control rooms, 75 tons; shift engineer's
office, 3 tons; packaged unit type;
manufactured by Worthlngton Corp.
Delivery-Continued
Rail
Trackage . . . 20.3 miles incl yards and all permanent tracks
Storage yards .... Capacities: loaded yard, 1*20 cars; empty
yard, 31*0 cars; Interchange yard, U80
cars; cars move by gravity from dumper
to empty storage with speed controlled
by a friction-type electronically oper-
ated retarder system, fully automatic
and with optional manual control, mfd
by General Railway Signal Co.
Locomotives Two 80-ton dlesel-electrlc, manufactured
by General Electric Co.
Rotary car dumper . . . Maximum capacity, 70-ton car: eighteen
50-ton cars per hr; manufactured by
Heyl i Patterson, Inc.
Scales . . . Capacity, 325,000 Ib; platform size, 13 by 56 ft;
manufactured by Fairbanks, Morse & Co.
Crushing , Storage & Conveying
Structures
Hopper building .... Reinforced concrete substructure; steel
frame 62 by 68 ft by 35 ft high
Sample preparation
building North side of hopper building; steel frame,
flat roof, 19 by 69 ft by 12 ft high
Surge hopper building Steel framing 21* by 3!* ft
by 71 ft high
Crusher building . . . Belnforced concrete substructure, steel
frame 60 by 76 ft by 63 ft high
Architecture:
Hopper, surge hopper,
and crusher buildings . . Steel frame, gray face brick base
with insulated (surge hopper
uninsulated) maroon asbestos-
protected steel V-beam siding
above, steel sash, aluminum
windows In conveyor control room
Conveyors . . . Uninsulated maroon asbestos-protected steel
V-beam siding, uninsulated black asbestos-
protected corrugated steel roofing sheets
Heating and ventilating,
hopper, sample preparation,
and crusher buildings 317 kw; 1*2,500 ofm
Air conditioning, hopper and
sample preparation building ... 17.1* tons; built-up direct-
expansion system; mfd by
the Trane Co.
Service Bay (shop area)
Heating lUOO Ib steam per hr
Ventilating air . . 65,800 cfm supplied; 102,500 cfm exhausted
Air conditioning (store-
keeper's office) 5 tons; packaged unit type; mfd by
NevIngsr Mfg Co., Inc.
Service Bay (offlee area)
Heating 2270 Ib steam per hr
Ventilating air . . . 18,900 cfm supplied; 1*U,800 cfm exhausted
Air conditioning . . loi tons; built-up, central water chilling
system; manufactured by York Corp.
COAL HANDLING FACILITIES
Delivery
Barge
Harbor 31*55 ft long, 9-ft navigable depth
Unloading dock . . 3160 ft 1
-------
A-5
Crushing , Storage 4 Conveying--Continued
Conveyor System
Manufacturers:
Belt conveyors Link-Belt Co.
Belts . . Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and B. F. Goodrich Co.
Vibrating feeders and grizzlies Jeffrey Mfg Co.
Belt weighing scales Fairbanks, Morse 4 Co.
Principal equipment features:
Belts to bunkers 2 systems
Reclaiming hoppers 2
Water Treatment Plant
Structure
Belt widths and capacities:
Car dumper to crusher building . .
Surge hopper to crusher building .
Barge unloaders to surge hopper
All others
Width,
inches
! 5"t
. 148
. U2
Capacity,
tons per hr
900
1200
900 each
700
Electrical Features
Equipment voltage rating . . *n60-volt board for T")0-hp motors;
480-volt board for smaller motors
Control Central control room for coal crushing,
storage, and conveying equipment
Control board manufacturer Allls-Chalmers Mfg Co.
WATER SUPPLY
Circulating Water for Condensers 4
Raw Water System
General Data
Source Ohio River
Hlver stages (pool of Dam
No. 53 it Grand Chain) . . Extreme minimum, El. 288; maximum,
El. 31|5: normal minimum, El. 290
Flow .... 112,000 gpm per unit; 1,120,000 gprc for 10 units
Treatment . Chlorinated to Inhibit slime growth
Intake
Channel Excavated, about 2000 ft to Ohio River
Structure:
Type . . . Reinforced concrete, 53 by 338 ft by 70 ft high,
about UOO ft ncrth of powerhouse
Heating and ventilating 1U5 kw; 30,000 cfm
Trashracks .... 2 per unit, 12 ft 8 in, wide by 21 ft high
... 2 per unit, 10 ft wide; manufactured
by Link-Belt Co.
... 2 per unit; vertical mixed-flow type;
600-hp, 322-rpm motor; 56,000-gpm
capacity; 35-ft head; manufactured
by Worthington Corp. with Westing-
house motors
Gantry crane 30-ton capacity; manufactured by
Milwaukee Crane & Service Co.
Traveling screens
Circulating pumps
Conduits
Intake . . .
Discharge . .
Manufacturer
Discharge
Structure . .
Channel . . .
10; 78-ln.-dlam reinforced concrete pipe;
total length, U62U ft
10; 78-in.-diam reinforced concrete pipe;
total length, 6601 ft
Lock Joint Pipe Co.
. . . Reinforced concrete headwall with stoplog
guides about 500 ft north of powerhouse
Excavated, about 2500 ft to Ohio River; minimum
water elevation in channel controlled by steel
sheet pile cellular weir adjacent to river
Chlorinator Building
Type .... Steel frame structure, 50 by 57 ft by 19 ft high
Chlorine storage Tank oar or ton containers
Chlorinators 2; 6000 Ib per diy with evaporators;
automatically operated on inter-
mittent program control
Architecture:
Open structure . . Steel frame with maroon Psbeatos-protected
steel V-beam siding and corrugated glass
Low-level area . . . Exposed steel frame, gray brick walls,
steel sash
Heating and ventilating 52 kw; UOOO cfm
Reinforced concrete aubstnict
51 by £7 ft by n ft
.. Exposed structural steel f rsme , grey
brick exterior valla, al-jclr.-^r; w:r.
Heating and ventilating . •. ........ 113 'CJ- -_ ->,y,
Architecture
Equipment
Settling basins . . . . k; 23 ,OUO-gal effective capacity eaiii;
'•-hr retention
Filters It; l»8-8q-ft size; 96-gpc capacity e---.'-.
Storage wells . . . Filtered, 12,800 gal; softened, 2!-,:30 gel;
donee tic, Id ,650 ga~-
Pumps:
Raw water supply 3 Of 200-gpx cap. ^ 100-ft head
Filter wash water 1 of 720-gpai cap. 1 32-ft head
Softener supply 3 of 160-gpsi cap. s 50-ft head
Soft water service 3 of 160-gpm cap. § 298-ft head
Domestic water supply .... 2 of 4o-gpm cap. e 20-ft head
Domestic water service ... 2 of 150-gpm cap. § l6o-ft head
Softening .... Zeolite system; manufactured by Hungerfor-d i
Terry, Inc.; capacities: 320 gpc at dealy.
rate, U280 kllograins of hardness rencved
between regenerations, k tanks
CONTROL BUILDING
Structure
Location Adjoining switchyard south of powerhouse,
opposite unit 5
Type and dimensions:
Subotructure 15-ft-deep concrete basement,
monolithic walls and slab
Superstructure . . Steel framing 60 by 130 ft by 25 ft high
Architecture . ". . Gray face brick base with Insulated nercor.
asbestos-protected steel V-beani siding
above; exposed steel frame and gray face
brick vails for low-level office area;
aluminum windows
Heating and ventilating 141 kw; 25,500 cfm.
Air conditioning . . . 30-ton-capaclty, built-up direct expan-
sion system, mfd by WorthIngton Corp.
Switchboards
Arrangement . . Instruments, recorder, automatic load control,
d-c boards and benchboard in control rooa;
duplex-type relay boards in separate rooc
Manufacturer Allls-Chalmers MfgCo.
TRANSFORMERS
Main Power
Number and type. . 10; FOA (forced oil, forced air cooled), 3 pfa
Rating 17.1-161 krr, 170,000 kra
Manufacturer General Electric Co.
Common Auxiliary Power
Number and type 2; OA/FA (oil imoeraed, air cooled/
forced air cooled?, ? pfa
Rating 161-U.16 kr, 20,000/25,000 kra.
Manufacturer General Electric Co.
Unit Auxiliary Power
Number and type 10; OA/FA (oil Innerswd, air cooled/
forced Mr coded), * ph
Rating 17.1-^.lf kr, 9,OOC/11,2V **»
Manufacturer Veettnghouee Klecxrlc Corp.
-------
A-6
SWITCHYARD
l6l-Kv Yard
Bays 26, Including 13 line
Conductors Aluminum tubing, welded construction
Disconnect switches . . 1600-63,000 amp momentary, 1200-63,000
amp momentary, 1200-1*2,000 amp momen-
tary; mfd by Delta-Star Mfg Co.
Oil circuit breakers . . . Ten 1600 amp, 10,000,000 kva Inter-
rupting capacity, 3/20 cycle reclosing;
thirteen 1200 amp, 10,000,000 leva Inter-
rupting capacity, 3/20 cycle recloslng;
mfd by Westlnghouse Electric Corp.
OTHER ELECTRICAL FEATURES
Cables
Power:
5-kv .... Single conductor, AVCSB (asbestos and varnished.
cambric Insulated, shielded, asbestos braided)
and ROSJ (ozone resisting, rubber Insulated,
shielded, rubber Jacketed)
600-volt . . . Single conductor, AVA (asbestos and varnished
cambric Insulated, asbestos braided) and ROJ
(rubber Insulated, rubber Jacketed) and multi-
conductor MI (mineral Insulated)
Control:
600-volt .... Multiple conductor, ROJJ (rubber Insulated.
rubber Jacketed, overall Jacketed)
Lightning Arresters
Rating, l6l-kv circuit ll*5 kv maximum line to ground
Manufacturer General Electric Co.
Communication Systems
Telephone . . . PAX, manual, line carrier, microwave and radio
Printer telegraph .... Microwave
Paging and Intercommunication Powerhouse area
Telemetering Line carrier and microwave
Automatic load control Line carrier
Illumination
System Single phase, 220/110 volts
Turbine room Incandescent high bay units
Boiler house Firing aisle, Industrial fluorescent;
other areas, incandescent
Control building .... Control room, Indirect Incandescent;
other areas, fluorescent
Service bay Mostly fluorescent
Yard . . Incandescent for coal handling, street lighting, and
flood lighting; 13 flood light towers 100 ft high
with bank of 1500-watt floodlight unite totaling
70 lamps and 105 kw In coal storage yard
OTHER BUILDINGS 4 YARD FEATURES
Buildings
Storage Concrete block base with steel framing and
uninsulated asbestos-protected steel
above; 6l by 20? ft by 27 ft high;
equipped with Austin-Western U-ton,
rubber-tired mobile crane
Utility .... Exposed structural steel frame, gray face brick
exterior walls, blue corrugated glass high-
level windows; repair shop area, 60 by 120
ft by 28 ft high with 8 exterior rolling
steel doors
Carpenter ehop . . At south end utility building, steel frame,
flat roof, 20 by 1*0 ft by 12 ft high
Beating and ventilating 336 kw; 93,000 cfm
Yard
Ash disposal area:
Location West of and adjacent to coal storage yard
Area 1U5 acres
Capacity ll*0 unit-years
Future area To the west of Initial area
Mobile equipment . . . One 20-ton Bucyrus-Erle No. 22B rubber-
tired crane, dleeel powered, 3A-cu-yd
Erle-Strayer bucket, for general yard
service _ _
Parking areas Capacity, 300 automobiles
Miscellaneous Radio antenna and anemometer tower
on top of water tank
-------
A-7
LIMESTONE SYSTEM STATISTICS
LIMESTONE RECEIVING EQUIPMENT
Car Unloaders (Two)
Manufacturer Barber-Greene
Model No. 358
Belt Width 2U inches
Belt Speed 100 F.P.M.
Rated Capacity 120 tons/hr. max.; 80 tona/hr. min.
Motor 5 hp, 1730 rpm, Westinghouse
Conveyor, Stocking-Out
Manufacturer Continental
Model
Belt Width 2U inches
Belt Speed 500 F.P.M.
Rated Capacity 120 tons/hr.
Motor 20 hp, 1755 rpm, Westinghouse
Conveyor, From Truck Hopper to Receiving Hopper
Manufacturer Barber-Greene
Model No. 76
Belt Width 18 inches
Belt Speed
Rated Capacity 120 tons/hr.
Motor 10 hp, 1735 rpm, Westinghouse
Belt Feeder
Manufacturer Barber-Greene
Model No. ^32
Belt Width -. 18 inches
Belt Speed
Rated Capacity 25 tons/hr. max.
Motor ". 1 hp, 1750 rpm, Marathon
Truck Hopper
Capacity. . .
Fuel Oil Pump
Manufacturer York-Shipley, Inc.
Model ". :;o. yji
Rated Capacity ICi- 3.P.H.
Motor 3/U hp, 1725 rpm, General Zlectri:
LIMESTONE GRINDING EQUIPMENT
Bucket Elevator
Manufacturer Link-Belt
Type :;o. 1
Rated Capacity 30 tons/hr.
Motor 3 hp, 1800 ric
Surge Tank
Hated Capacity.
.1000 cubic ft.; 48 tons; 20 tons/hr.
5 cubic yards
C.V. Volumetric Belt Feeder
Manufacturer Kardinge
Rated Capacity 30 tons/hr.
Motor 1/2 hp, variable speed, Dyna
Ball Mill
Manufacturer Hardinge
Type & Size Conical Ball Mill,
10'-0" Dia. X 72" Cylinder Length
Shell Speed 18 rpm
Counter-Shaft Speed 15^ rpm
Rated Capacity 20 tons/hr. <§ Harogrove
Grindability Index of 50
Product Fineness Up to 80$ Minus !+00 Mesh §
rated capacity and Grindability Index 50
Grinding Media Forged Steel Grinding Balls
Motor U50 hp, 1170 rpm, Westinghouse
Speed Reducer Falk No. 1135 YFI, Single Reduction -
Parallel Shafts, 7.609 to Bated
Receiving Hopper
Capacity
.U0.8 tons or 20 tons/hr.
LIMESTONE DRYING EQUIPMENT
Dryer
Manufacturer Hardinge Company
Type Class X H-10, Oil-Fired, Concurrent Flow
Size 70" I.D. X It5'-0" Long
Capacity 20 tons/hr. of minus 1-1/2 inch stone
Shell Speed 6.1 rpm
Motor 30 hp, 1185 rpm, Westinghouse
Speed Reducer Falk No. 2080 - YZ, Double Reduction,
23.51 to 1 Ratio
Gyrotor Classifier
Manufacturer Hardinge
Size No. 108
Motor 10 hp, 38-190 rpm. Sterling Electric
Electric.Ear
Manufacturer.
Model . . . .
.Hardinge
Air Blower
Manufacturer Chicago Blower
Size No. 16-1/2 SJA EBSK
Motor 15 hp, 3520 rpm, General Electric
Combustion Chamber
Manufacturer Hardinge
Rated Capacity lk-5 million btu/hr. max.
Automatic Burner
Manufacturer York-Shipley, Inc.
Type & Size FA - 350
Firing Rate . ICA G.P.H.
Air Compressor
Manufacturer General Electric
Type 5
Rated Capacity. --3 cfa
Motor 1-1/2 hp, 1720 rpm, General Slectric
-------
A-8
Dryer Exhaust Fan
Manufacturer Clarage
Si-e i Type 121 X L
Hated Capacity 9500 cfm @ 1^11 rpm & 33-9 bhp
Rated Static Pressure 10.2 in.-1^0
Rated Temperature • 260°F.
Voter- . ." 30 hp, 1800 rpm, Westinghouse
Dryer Exhaust Cyclone Dust Collector
Manufacturer Ducon Co., Inc.
Ty-oe SDM
Size 250
Rated Capacity 9500 cfm @ 1^11 rpm & 33-9 bhp
Air Compressor
Manufacturer Fuller-Kinyon
Type C110
Discharge Pressure 27 psig max.
Motor 50 hp, 710 rpm, Reliance
Dust Collector
Manufacturer Mikro-Pulsalre
Model 64S - 8 - 20
Motor 10 hp, 1760 rpm
LIMESTONE INJECTION EQUIPMENT
Circulation Fan
Manufacturer Clarage
Type & Size 133 XL
Rated Capacity 25,000 cfm @ 1110 rpm & 111.3 bhp
Rated Static Pressure 18.8 in.-I^O
Hated Temperature 200°F.
Motor 125 hp, 1775 rpm, Westinghouse
LBESTOHE STORAGE EQUIPMENT
Storage Tank
Rated Capacity 6600 cubic ft.; 316.8 tons; 20 tons/hr.
Cyclone Dust Collector
Manufacturer Ducon Co., Inc.
Type SDM
Size 650
Bated Capacity 25,000 cfm
Transport Pump
Manufacturer Fuller-Kinyon
Type H2S, 7"
Rated Capacity 30 tons/hr.
Motor 30 hp, 1170 rpm, Reliance
Feed Tank
Bated Capacity 3000 cubic ft.; ik.k tons; 20 tons/hr.
Dust Collector
Manufacturer Flex-Kleen
Model 81* CT 30
Screw Conveyors
Manufacturer Link-Belt
Size 9" Dia.
Speed U6.3 rpm max., ^.6 rpm min.
Motor 3 hp, 1800 rpm, Reeves
Rotary Seal
Manufacturer. . . . , Detroit Stoker Co.
Size 10"
Speed 22 rpm max., 2.2 rpm min.
Motor 3 hp, 1800 rpm, Reeves
Transport & Injection Air Compressors
Manufacturer Allis-Chalmers
Model us
Discharge Pressure 20 psig.® 67 bhp
Motor 50 hp, 875 rpm, Allis-Chalmers
-------
APPENDIX B
Water-cooled Probe Development
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
WATER-COOLED PROBE DEVELOPMENT
To obtain data across the Planes A-A and B-B it was necessary for TVA to develop
moveable, water-cooled probes. The probes had to be capable of extended periods of
insertion in the furnace in order to obtain gas temperatures, pitot pressure measurements,
and also to secure dust from the gas by isokinetic sampling. Probes had to be totalty
supported outside the furnace, much like sootblowers. A total of 14 probes plus spares were
required. All probes were constructed at TVA's Service Shops, Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
Each probe required (1) water supply for cooling, (2) compressed air to operate
aspirator used in dust sampling, (3) 32-volt power for dust tube heat tracing, (4)
thermocouple lead wire, (5) tubing for pitot measurement, (6) probe drive power cable, (7)
manometer for aspirator control settings. Items 1 through 5 were arranged in umbilical
fashion.
A section view through a probe is shown in Figure B-l. Probes were 29 feet for the
east side and only 26 feet on the west side because of interference with the powerhouse
endwall. Type 316 stainless steel tubing, 2-1/2 inches in O.D. served as outer structural
member with a top fin welded to guide movement through support rollers and add strength.
Movement was by a chain drive attached to the cold end of probe. This proved
generally satisfactory because when occasional binding occurred the drive pin would shear
thus preventing a more serious rupture elsewhere. Guidance adjacent to the boiler was by
top and bottom rollers while at the probe drive end a wheel-in-track was used. Only the
lowest probe (Station 6) in Plane B-B required guidance and suspension somewhat different.
Considerable development effort was required at the dust inlet hole where slag
wanted to stick. This problem was finally solved by a toroidal ring through which small
holes were drilled allowing air to jet outward and keep the nozzle slag free. Account was
taken of this air which would subsequently be ingested with the dust sample.
Considering the hundreds of hours during which these probes were in the furnace
they proved capable of obtaining the desired results. Experience led to satisfactory
maintenance procedures and no major problems were encountered.
Detailed procedures employed in the use of these probes are covered in the sampling
writeups for Stations 4 thru 7, in Appendix C. Of course, the purpose of taking dust samples
was to determine the amount of sulfur pickup and relative proportions of fly ash and lime.
Sulfur dioxide content of gas at Plane A-A was determined by a wet chemical technique
using an H2O2 scrubber and titrating the reacted solution with NaOH. Oxygen levels in
Plane A-A were measured with a Beckman Field O2 analyzer connected to the water-cooled
probe outlet.
In figure B-2 are shown the four water-cooled probes located on the west side of
unit 10 at Plane A-A. The motor and gearbox for the chain drive of each pro be are shown in
figure B-3. Note the water cooling hoses and dust collection equipment attached to the end
of each probe. A two-man team normally operated each probe and its associated
instrumentation.
-------
SECTION VIEW OF 24-" WATER-COOLED PROBE
19-20
19—20
BILL OF MATERIAL
PART NC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
PART NAME
Probe Head
Water Jacket, Inner
Water Jacket. Outer
Water Jacket^ Outer
Water Baffle Tube
Tubing
Tubing
3/4" Nozzle
Fin
Tubing
Swage! ok
Swagelok
Swage! ok
Coupling
End Plate
Cooling Water Outlet
Cooling Water Inlet
Plug
Spacer
Spacer
Air Ring
MATERIAL
Stainless Steel
M n
ii n
ii n
n n
Copper
Stainless Steel
n n
n n
M n
n n
n n
n n
Stainless Steel
Carbon Steel
n n
n n
n n
Stainless Steel
M n
M n
DESCRIPTION
Ref Dwg SA 133
3/4" O.D.x.035"wall x 26'
21/2" O.D.x.065"wall x 12'
2 l/2"O.D.x.l88"wall x 14'
1 l/2"O.D.x.035"wall x 25 '-11 5/8"
3/16" x.035"wall x 31'
1/4" x.049"wall x 28'-2"lengths
Ref Dwg SA 155
l/4"xl/4x 24'-31/8fllong
l/4"x.028"wall x 27' -3"
l/4"tube tol/8"male pipe thread
l/4"tube tol/4"pipe
3/4 "tube to buttweld fitting
1/8 "pipe coupling
2 l/2"O.D.xl/4"
1" pipe coupling
n n
n M
7/16"O.D.x,nfi?R'' wall v V'lg
3/16"n.D.x.nfi?R"Wan y V'lg
Ref Dwg SA 125
DO
-------
Limestone Injection System (SO2 Removal) - Test probe on "B" side of unit number 10 boiler. (Showing nozzle end)
-------
c
33
m
oo
co
00
Limestone Injection System (SO2 Removal) - Test probe on "B" side of unit number 10 boiler.
(Showing drives and other test equipment on the probe.)
-------
APPENDIX C
Testing, Sampling and Analytical Procedures
-------
C-l
APPENDIX C
TESTING, SAMPLING, AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
1. General
Dust samples taken during the test program were analyzed in two categories. The
first provided rapid information for daily evaluation of test results and the second catagory
provided information on samples requiring time consuming analyses. The first category
work was done at Shawnee's field test laboratory trailer; the second at TVA's Power Service
Center chemical laboratory in Chattanooga.
2. Sample Preparation and Processing
Sample Station 1 - Coal (See figure 11 repeated on page C-32.)
Coal samples were taken continuously during each test from each of the four coal
scales of unit 10. These generated a single composite sample for a single test. The composite
was crushed to 1/4 to 0 inch and then two 1-quart portions riffled out. Identification of the
sample conforms to test numbers. One quart was pulverized for the field laboratory for the
determination of sulfur. The second quart was air dried, riffled, and pulverized to fill two
2-ounce bags. One 2-ounce portion was a holdback sample retained at the field laboratory.
The second 2-ounce portion was sent to the plant laboratory for proximate determination,
with the exception of every fourth sample which was sent to the Chattanooga laboratory for
proximate, ultimate, and ash-fusion determination. In addition, sulfur forms and ash
composition were determined on every tenth sample.
In order to provide hourly information on sulfur fluctuations in the coal, grab
samples (1 quart each scale composited every hour) were crushed, riffled, and a 60-gram
portion pulverized and sent to the field laboratory. This portion was held back for 10 tests
and then discarded.
Sample Station 2 - Bottom Ash
These ash samples were expected to provide little information. One composited grab
sample was collected from the east and west furnace bottoms through a manhole access.
Each sample was divided into two half-gallon containers, prepared and sent to the field
laboratory for determination of calcium and sulfate content. The samples consistently
contained very low (0.5%) SO2 and (5.0%) CaO.
Sample Station 3 - Limestone
As Received Limestone.
One grab sample of 25 pounds a shipment was crushed to 1/4 by 0 inch and riffled
into two 1-quart containers, one going to the field laboratory and one to the Chattanooga
laboratory. Calcium and moisture content were determined in the field laboratory; particle
size and complete assay were run in the Central Laboratory.
Pulverized Limestone.
Samples of pulverized limestone were taken from the feed tank by means of a
pipe-thief with several openings along its lower portion to admit representative stone. The
-------
C-2
particle size index was determined on each daily composite using the Fisher Sub-Sieve
Sizer. Calcium content was also run in the field laboratory. Particle size distribution was
determined for a selected five samples in the Central Laboratory and a complete assay on a
daily composite for every tenth test.
Sample Stations 4, 5, 6, and 7 (East and West)
Velocity, Temperature and Dust Sampling Probes
Water-cooled probes were positioned to obtain the subject samples at each of 48
points in Plane A-A (or 36 points in Plane B-B). Each point was the center of equal areas 3'
x 4' for which velocity and temperature measurements were taken for determination of
isokinetic sampling rate conditions. Dust sampling initially was 15 minutes per point but
was later reduced to 2-1/2 minutes to permit obtaining a full traverse in approximately 20
minutes. The few grams of dust collected in preweighed jars inserted into each probe (1 jar
per point) provided enough for field lab determination for weight, and content of calcium,
sulfur and carbonate. The remaining portion of each sample was stored for project duration.
Refer to Figure 22 for Plane A-A layout.
More specific details on probe sampling are covered in Procedures, below.
Sample Station 8 - Boiler Outlet Plane C-C
Dust, O2 and SO2 were sampled by probes as shown in the configuration Figure
24. Six points were sampled continuously for dust during testing to generate one composite
sample per side per test. A small portion (about 60 g.) was split out for field quantitative
determination of calcium, sulfur and qualitative determination of carbonate. The remainder
was shipped to the Central Lab where particle size distribution and complete assay were
made on every tenth sample if results indicated the need. The sampling probe was 3/4-inch
diameter and was equipped with the same type sample jars as for the water-cooled probes.
Each sample was of 15 minute duration.
A fixed sampling system was installed for SO2 measurements; the composite flow
samples from east and west sides were continuously measured by UV analyzers on each
side. Originally, the heat traced sample lines were of 316 stainless steel but they failed by
apparent stress corrosion cracking. These lines were replaced by an all teflon tubing system
which operated satisfactorily. O2 sampling was accomplished by probes inserted into the
same ports as dust sampling probes.
See Procedures for more details.
Sample Stations 9, 11, and 12 - Dust
These locations were for dust sampling during periods of evaluation of mechanical
collectors and precipitators. They conformed to standard procedures for such sampling
locations and are covered in Appendix F.
Sample Stations 10 and 13 - Fly-Ash Hoppers
Fly ash samples from mechanical collector and precipitator hoppers were obtained
in the dry state from sluice lines upstream of hydroveyors during selected tests. CaO and
SO2 were normally determined on these samples. Bulk samples were made available to
investigators seeking possible end use of the fly ash - limestone mixture.
-------
C-3
3. Detailed Sampling Procedures
Coal Sampling (Station 1)
a. Equipment Required
1. Coal scoop
2. 5-gallon cans with lids, 8 required
3. Crusher
4. Riffles
b. Sampling Location
At unit 10 Richardson coal scales on elevation 345.
c. Sampling Procedure
Samples were obtained from each of the four (4) coal scales sequentially and
repetitiously. The samples from each scale were deposited in a 5-gallon can. There was one
bucket per scale. There should be a minimum of 5 gallons of coal sampled per scale per test,
or a total of 20 gallons of raw coal. At the conclusion of a test, the total aggregate samples
were crushed to 4 mesh, composited, and riffled into two quarts and clearly identified. Of
these two quarts, one quart went to the field laboratory for sulfur analysis and holdback.
The other quart was air dried, by plant personnel, to determine the air-dried moisture loss.
This sample was crushed to 60 mesh and riffled to two ounce samples and packaged for
shipment to the Central Laboratory for proximate or ultimate analysis and possible ash
fusion, sulfur forms, and ash compositions analysis.
d. Sample Identiticiaton
The raw coal samples were labeled immediately after the initial riffling to two quart
increments as to time, test number, and test date.
Sample Processing and Storage
There was a variety of samples—coal, limestone, fly ash, bottom ash, etc.—which
needed to be prepared for analysis, stored, and then distributed for the various analyses.
After processing, the samples were placed in an area designated for sample storage.
Bottom Ash Sampling (Station 2)
a. Equipment Required
1. Long handled shovel ,!
2. 2-1/2-gallon Mason jars per test
Sampling Location: Basement of Unit 10
The sample was obtained through the access doors on the furnace ash sluice hopper,
north end on both east and west sides.
b. Sampling Procedure
With the shovel placed through the access door samples of slag were obtained from
several spots atop the pile on north end only. This was done about midway in the test
period and reduced to 2 half-gallon samples.
c. Sample Identification
The bottom-ash samples were identified immediately after collection according to
sample type, sample location, test number, and test date.
-------
C-4
d. Sample Analysis and Storage
Immediately after being properly identified, the samples were carried to the Field
Laboratory where they were analyzed and stored or packaged for transportation to the
Central Laboratory. Because of the small value of results obtained from bottom ash samples
they were soon dropped from the procedure.
Limestone Sampling (Station 3)
Raw Limestone
a. Equipment Required
1. Shovel
2. One-gallon can w/lid
3. Labels
b. Sample Location
Stone was taken from several points in the truckload dumped into the receiving
hopper.
c. Sample Identification
Cans were identified by labels applied immediately after collection according to
location, date and time of samples.
Pulverized Limestone
a. Equipment Required (See Figure C-l).
1. Sampling thief - This device consisted of 2 concentric pieces of pipe with a series
of 12 holes spaced 7 inches apart so that when forced into the limestone pile the stone
would enter the holes. Rotation of the outer pipe resulted in covering the holes and securing
the sample. The counter balanced thief was then withdrawn, bottom plug removed and
sample discharged into can.
2. One-gallon cans w/lids
3. Labels
b. Sample Location
Representative samples were obtained during each test from limestone withdrawn by
the thief from atop the feed tank located inside the powerhouse.
c. Sample Identification
Samples are labeled immediately after collection according to type stone, sample
location, test number and test date.
Temperature, Velocity, and Dust Sampling (Stations 4, 5, 6, and 7)
a. Equipment needed
1. Water-cooled probe with attachments for temperature traverse, velocity pressure
traverse, and dust sampling.
2. Elapsed time stopwatch.
3. Slide rule.
4. Instruction book and sampling rate tables.
5. Sample collector (preweighed glass jar).
-------
C-5 FIGURE C-l
SAMPLING THIEF FOR LIMESTONE AT FEED TANK
I 1
Q.
l/>
00
LU
_J
o
CM
\
HANDLE TO
ROTATE INNER TUBE
SAMPLING PORTS
REMOVABLE
END PLUG
COUNTER
WEIGHT
THINWALL
TUBING
DETAIL "A"
-------
C-6
6. Channellock pliers.
7. Wire brush.
b. Sampling procedure
Temperature, velocity, and dust traverses were run using either the eight probes at
the Plane A-A or the six probes at the vertical plane behind the first bank of superheater
tubes. Plane B-B. After obtaining temperature and velocity, a sampling rate was computed
that was equivalent to an average isokinetic sampling at the nozzle. Each measurement
required less than 1/2 minute to obtain.
The following procedures were used for:
Temperature traverse
The temperature traverse was made with a shielded platinum, platinum-10%
rhodium thermocouple inserted into the water-cooled probe with the thermocouple leads
running to a Speedomax recorder (Figure C-3). Before beginning the temperature traverse,
the recorder must be standardized and the probe must be prepared.
Instrument check:
1. Mark date, test number, probe number, test points, and observers' names on
both data sheets (see Figures C-4, C-5).
2. Open the recorder door (see Figure C-6) and turn the toggle switch located
inside the recorder to the "On" position. The recorder should be left on for the
duration of the sampling.
3. Place switch (A) in the "short" position.
4. Turn "span calibrate knob" (red inner knob) to the fully counterclockwise
position.
5. Turn "Zero MV Control" to zero and lock.
6. Turn "Add to Zero Control" to zero.
7. Turn "Span MV Control" (black outer knob) to 25.
8. Turn "Zero Suppression" to either zero + or zero -.
9. Recorder pen should read zero. Mark Zero Check on recorder chart along with
Test Number and Date.
10. Set "Add to Zero" on 10.
11. Turn chart drive switch on "fast" speed.
12. The recorder pen should read 40% of chart.
13. Return "Add to Zero" control to zero. Stop chart drive and mark "Calibration
Span Check" on recorder chart.
14. Dial in with the "Zero MV" control the millivolt on a PT + 10% Rh vs. Pt
thermocouple corresponding to ambient temperature (see millivolt table). Mark
ambient temperature on data sheet.
15. Mark recorder span MV on data sheet.
-------
1, TEMPERATURE SET-UP
'AZAR RECORDER
THERMOCOUPLE WIRES
ASPIRATOR
M~
WATER-COOLED PROBE ARRANGEMENTS
2, VELOCITY SET-UP
.-AZAR RECORDER
PROBE END
WATER HOSES
AIR
TRANSDUCER
^^-RUBBER TUBING
PROBE END
3, SAMPLER SET-UP
FRONT ASSEMBLIES
-RUBBER TUBING
(MEAS. SAMPLERAP)
MANOMETER
THERMOMETER
\
SHIELD
GAS TEMPERATURE
PROBE
PROBE END
VELOCITY
(AP) PROBE
CYCLONE SAMPLER
SAMPLE JAR
DUST SAMPLER
PROBE
AIR
GAS'FLOW
UPWARD
O
c
;o
rn
o
U)
-------
Time
C-8
Shawnee Steam Plant
Project 21+38
Temperature and Velocity Data Sheet
Test Stations k - 7
Test Point
Date 2/16/71
Temperature
Recorder
Reading
Test No.
Probe No.
Observers
MV
(Exhibit 3)
S-302
AW
Daniel
King
Temperature °F
(Exhibit k}
2:20
k AW 1
2
3
h
5
6
l+l
kl
U2
kk
kk
ho
10.25
10.25
10.50
11.00
11.00
10.00
1935
1935
1975
2050
2050
1900
Ambient Temp.
85
Recorder Span
25
Velocity
Velocity
Recorder Pressure, In HgO
Time Point Reading (Exhibit 5 or 5A)
2:25
k AW 1
2
3
U
5
6
61
ko
±7
2k
24
5^
.3050
.2000
.2350
.1200
.1200
.2700
Velocity Cc
(See Veloci"
Ft/Min.
inversion
by Tables)
Ft/Sec.
en
Recorder Span
10
Remarks:
-------
SLP 7-B
(Rev. 10-15-70)
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
PROJECT 2438
DUST SAMPLE DATA SHEET
TEST STATIONS 4-7
Date 2/16/71
Test No. S-302
Probe No. 4 AW
Observers Daniel
King
Time
Begin
End
2:40
2:42Vz
2:43%
2:46
2:47
2:49%
2:50%
2:53
2:54
2:56%
2:57%
3:00
Elapsed
Min.
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Test
Point
4AW 1
2
3
4
5
6
Static
Press. At
Sampler
- "W.G.
Sampler
Temp.
°F
160
160
160
160
160
160
(1)
Exhibit 6
Correction
Factor
.240
.240
.236
.225
.225
.243
(2)
Nozzle CFM
Sampling
Rate Table
14.25
11.54
12.61
9.15
9.15
13.31
(l)x(2)=(3)
Flue
Gas
CFM
3.42
2.77
2.98
2.06
2.06
3.24
(4)
Seal
Air
CFM
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
1.14
(3)+(4)
Sampler
Total
CFM
4.56
3.91
4.12
3.20
3.20
4.38
A P
"H2O
Exhibit 8
14.8
10.9
11.9
7.2
7.2
13.8
o
Probe Seal Air Setting 1.14 CFM
Figure C-5
-------
FIGURE C-6
C-10
CALIBRATE ZERO
SHORT
TC® PT
CAL. DAMP ON
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER
CONTROLS
ZERO"
ZERO
10
50
100 "
SPAN MV
CAL. SPAN
10.
0
ADD TO ZERO
40
ZERO MV
AZAR UNIT
Recorder Input Selector Switch
Calibrate Control
Zero Adjustment
(D) Calibrate Push Button
(T) Excitation Control Switch
(?) Damping Control
The above controls (B-F) are effective only when the recorder selector
switch (A) is in the PT position.
-------
C-ll
Probe Check:
1. Remove the end plug from the probe and install the thermocouple shield.
Position the thermocouple bead in the center of the shield opening by advancing
the thermocouple 1/4 inch at a time until the bead appears from the probe
channel, then 1/8 inch until centered.
2. Seal the pressure taps to the cyclone inlet and outlet.
3. Check if dust tube and sample holder are hot.
4. Water cooling -
Is pressure gage at 50 psig or above?
Is valve on probe open?
The water temperature will increase as probe is moved into the boiler. If
temperature exceeds 150° F (as measured by dial thermometer in outlet
water) immediately withdraw probe from boiler.
5. Open the flowmeter needle valve and supply air to the dust sampling nozzle at a
rate of 2 cfm.
6. Open the air supply to the aspirator and set the proper aspiration rate (about
1-1/2 turns on the valve).
7. Check air flow across thermocouple.
8. Close air supply to the aspirator.
Operation:
1. Move probe to first test point and set proper aspiration rate (wide open valve).
2. Turn chart drive on "Fast."
3. Mark starting time on both data sheet and on chart.
4. Set recorder input selector switch (A) to "TC" position for 15 seconds.
5. Return recorder input selector switch (A) to "Short" position.
6. Mark test point number on chart.
7. Move probe to next test point and repeat items (4), (5), and (6) until traverse is
completed.
8. Mark stop time on data sheet and on chart.
9. Turn chart drive "Off."
10. Withdraw probe from furnace.
Instrument operator -
Mark average recorder readings on data sheet.
Convert recorder readings to M.V. (Figure C-7) and enter on data sheet.
Convert millivolts to temperature (Figure C-8) and enter on data sheet.
Probe operator -
Remove thermocouple shield.
Deslag thermocouple bead.
Retract thermocouple wire.
Replace end plug in probe.
-------
C-12
Figure C-7
25% Span
Rec. Rdng. %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
M.V.
.25
.50
.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
6.25
6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7.50
Rec. Rdng. %
31
32
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
59
60
M.V.
7.75
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.75
9.00
9.25
9.50
9.75
10.00
10.25
10.50
10.75
11.00
11.25
11.50
11.75
12.00
12.25
12.50
12.75
13.00
13.25
13.50
13.75
14.00
14.25
14.50
14.75
15.00
Rec. Rdng. %
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
M.V.
15.25
15.50
15.75
16.00
16.25
16.50
16.75
17.00 •
17.25
17.50
17.75
18.00
18.25
18.50
18.75
19.00
19.25
19.50
19.75
20.00
20.25
20.50
20.75
21.00
21.25
21.50
21.75
22.00
22.25
22.50
-------
C-13
Figure C-8
Temperature Versus Millivolts (MV)
Millivolts
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
6.25
6.50
6.75
7.00
7.25
7.50
7.75
8.00
8.25
8.50
8.75
9.00
9.25
9.50
9.75
10.00
10.25
10.50
Temperature
700
750
800
845
890
935
980
1030
1070
1120
1160
1200
1245
1290
1330
1375
1420
1460
1500
1540
1580
1620
1660
1700
1740
1780
1820
1860
1900
1935
1975
Millivolts
10.75
11.00
11.25
11.50
11.75
12.00
12.25
12.50
12.75
13.00
13.25
13.50
13.75
14.00
14.25
14.50
14.75
15.00
15.25
15.50
15.75
16.00
16.25
16.50
16.75
17.00
17.25
17.50
17.75
18.00
Temperature
2010
2050
2090
2130
2165
2200
2240
2280
2315
2350
2390
2430
2460
2500
2535
2590
2615
2650
2690
2725
2765
2800
2840
2880
2915
2955
2990
3030
3075
3110
-------
C-14
Velocity Pressure Traverse
Instrument check:
1. Flip excitation control switch (F) "On."
2. Turn "Zero M.V. Control" to "Zero."
3. Set recorder input selector switch (A) to "PT" position.
4. Set "Span M.V. Control" (black outer knob) on five or ten, as required. (Red
inner knob should be fully counterclockwise.)
5. With pressure transducer at static conditions (pressure leads disconnected at
transducer), zero recorder with zero adjust control (C).
6. Press calibrate button (D). Adjust "Calibrate Control" (B) until recorder scale
reads as follows (dependent on transducer used and the M.V. span setting).
Recorder Scale, %
Transducer Ser. No.
11597
11598
11599
11600
11601
11602
11647
11655
11656
11657
11658
11659
11660
11661
11662
11663
M.V. Setting
4.66
4.51
4.43
4.56
4.46
4.53
4.42
4.90
4.94
4.73
4.79
4.87
4.88
4.78
5.12
4.90
5 M.V. Span
93.2
90.2
88.6
91.2
89.2
90.6
88.4
98.0
98.8
94.6
95.8
97.4
97.6
95.6
-
98.0
10 M.V. Span
46.6
45.1
44.3
45.6
44.6
45.3
44.2
49.0
49.4
47.3
47.9
48.7
48.8
47.8
51.2
49.0
7. Release calibrate button (D) and repeat steps (5) and (6) until recorder scale % is
obtained. (Setting is correct when pen sweeps from zero to required recorder
scale %.)
8. Return recorder input selector switch (A) to "Short" position.
9. Lock "Zero Adjust" (C) and "Calibrate Control" (B).
10. The recorder is now calibrated to read pressure differential with 0.25 inch of
water equivalent to 5 M.V. and 0.5 inch of water equivalent to 10 M.V.
-------
C-15
Probe Check:
1. Wire brush pitot openings.
2. Blow out pitot leads with compressed air.
Warning - Never apply compressed air to transducer. Diaphram is easily ruptured
by small (greater than 1-1/2" W.G.) pressure differences.
Operation:
1. Move probe to first test point.
2. Turn chart drive on "Fast."
3. Mark starting time on both data sheet and on chart.
4. Set recorder input selector switch (A) to "PT" position for 15 seconds.
5. Return recorder input selector switch (A) to "Short" position.
6. Mark test point number on chart.
7. Move probe to next point and repeat item 4, 5, and 6 until traverse is completed.
8. Turn chart drive "Off."
9. Mark stop time on data sheet and on chart.
10. Mark span MV setting on data sheet.
11. Withdraw probe from furnace.
12. Disconnect the transducer hose leads from the transducer and probe.
13. Mark average recorder readings on data sheet.
14. Convert recorder readings to In. H2O. (If recorder span is 5 MV, go to Figure
C-9; if recorder span is 10 MV, go to Figure C-10.)
Enter velocity pressure, inches H2O, on data sheet.
Dust Traverse
Calculations:
A dust sample will be collected isokinetically (based on the average velocity
measured) from each of the six test points. In order to do this, certain calculations
must be made.
1. Turn to Figure C-ll.
2. Obtain correction factor corresponding to each test point temperature and enter
i
it in column (1).
3. With test point temperature and velocity pressure, obtain nozzle CFM from
sampling rate tables. Enter value in column (2).
4. Multiply column (1) by column (2) and enter flue gas CFM in column (3).
5. Add flue gas CFM (3) to seal air CFM (4) to obtain sample total CFM.
6. Turn to Figure C-12, Aerotec Cyclone Calibration Curve. Obtain AP, inches
H2 O, corresponding to the sampler total CFM.
Probe check:
1. Wire brush dust sampling nozzle.
2. Be sure that nozzle and air slot are clear of obstruction.
3. Blowback dust tube. (Procedure: (1) close the ball valve ahead of the sample, (2)
turn the aspirator off, and (3) open air blowback valve.)
-------
C-16
Figure C-9
Recorder Reading Versus Velocity Press.
Recorder Span 5 MV
Rec.
Rdng. %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Vel. Press.
In. H2O
.0025
.0050
.0075
.0100
.0125
.0150
.0175
.0200
.0225
.0250
.0275
.0300
.0325
.0350
.0375
.0400
.0425
.0450
.0475
.0500
.0525
.0550
.0575
.0600
.0625
.0650
.0675
.0700
.0725
.0750
Rec.
Rdng. %
31
32
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
59
60
Vel. Press.
In. H2O
.0775
.0800
.0825
.0850
.0875
.0900
.0925
.0950
.0975
.1000
.1025
.1050
.1075
.1100
.1125
.1150
.1175
.1200
.1225
.1250
.1275
.1300
.1325
.1350
.1375
.1400
.1425
.1450
.1475
.1500
Rec.
Rdng. %
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Vel. Press.
In. H2O
.1525
.1550
.1575
.1600
.1625
.1650
.1675
.1700
.1725
.1750
.1775
.1800
.1825
.1850
.1875
.1900
.1925
.1950
.1975
.2000
.2025
.2050
.2075
.2100
.2125
.2150
.2175
.2200
.2225
.2250
-------
C-17
Figure C-10
Recorder Reading Versus Velocity Press.
Recorder Span 10 MV
Rec.
Rdng. %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Vel. Press.
In. H2O
.0050
.0100
.0150
.0200
.0250
.0300
.0350
.0400
.0450
.0500
.0550
.0600
.0650
.0700
.0750
.0800
.0850
.0900
.0950
.1000
.1050
.1100
.1150
.1200
.1250
.1300
.1350
.1400
.1450
.1500
.1550
.1600
.1650
.1700
Rec.
Rdng. %
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Vel. Press.
In. H2O
.1750
.1800
.1850
.1900
.1950
.2000
.2050
.2100
.2150
.2200
.2250
.2300
.2350
.2400
.2450
.2500
.2550
.2600
.2650
.2700
.2750
.2800
.2850
.2900
.2950
.3000
.3050
.3100
.3150
.3200
.3250
.3300
.3350
Rec.
Rdng. %
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Vel. Press
In. H2O
.3400
.3450
.3500
.3550
.3600
.3650
.3700
.3750
.3800
.3850
.3900
.3950
.4000
.4050
.4100
.4150
.4200
.4250
.4300
.4350
.4400
.4450
.4500
.4550
.4600
.4650
.4700
.4750
.4800
.4850
.4900
.4950
.5000
-------
C-18
Figure C-11
Temperature Correction Factor for Dust Sampling
Temperature
1200
1245
1290
1330
1375
1420
1460
1500
1540
1580
1620
1660
1700
1770
1780
1820
1860
1900
1935
1975
2010
Correction Factor
.345
.336
.328
.321
.313
.305
.299
.292
.285
.280
.274
.268
.265
.261
.256
.251
.247
.243
.240
.236
.233
Temperature
2050
2090
2130
2165
2200
2240
2280
2315
2350
2390
2430
2460
2500
2535
2590
2615
2650
2690
2725
2765
2800
Correction Factor
.225
.222
.220
.217
.215
.212.
.209
.207
.204
.202
.199
.197
.195
.192
.189
.187
.185
.183
.181
.178
.176
-------
C-19
Figure C-12
Aerotec Cyclone Calibration Curve
Total CFM AP, In. H2O
1.00 .8
1.05 .9
1.10 .9
1.15 1.0
1.20 1.1
1.25 1.1
1.30 1.2
1.35 1.3
1.40 1.4
1.45 1.5
1.50 1.6
1.55 1.7
1.60 1.8
1.65 1.9
1.70 2.0
1.75 2.1
1.80 2.2
1.85 2.4
1.90 2.5
1.95 2.6
2.00 2.7
2.05 2.9
2.10 3.0
2.15 3.1
2.20 3.3
2.25 3.5
2.30 3.7
2.35 3.9
2.40 4.0
2.45 4.1
2.50 4.3 ,
2.55 4.5
2.60 4.7
2.65 4.9
2.70 5.1
2.75 5.2
2.80 5.4
2.85 5.6
2.90 5.8
2.95 6.0
3.00 6.2
Total CFM
3.05
3.10
3.15
3.20
3.25
3.30
3.35
3.40
3.45
3.50
3.55
3.60
3.65
3.70
3.75
3.80
3.85
3.90
3.95
4.00
4.05
4.10
4.15
4.20
4.25
4.30
4.35
4.40
4.45
4.50
4.55
4.60
4.65
4.70
4.75
4.80
4.85
4.90
4.95
5.00
AP, In. H20
6.5
6.7
6.9
7.2
7.4
7.7
7.9
8.2
8.4
8.7
8.9
9.2
9.5
9.7
10.0
10.3
10.6
10.9
11.1
11.4
11.7
11.9
12.2
12.5
12.9
13.0
13.4
13.8
14.1
14.4
14.8
15.1
15.5
15.8
16.2
16.5
17.0
17.4
17.7
18.0
-------
C-20
4. Set seal air flow to the dust nozzle at 2 CFM.
5. Zero water level in manometer and connect tubing between manometer and
pitot tube lines.
6. Replace rubber washer in sample holder.
7. Mark label on empty sample jar with date, test number, probe, point, test
station, and test observer.
8. Insert sample jar in sample holder and secure.
Operation:
1. Move probe to first test point.
2. Set required AP across the sampler by adjusting aspiration rate and start elapse
timer.
3. Hold the AP value during entire sampling period by readjusting aspiration rate.
4. When blowback is needed, stop aspirator and elapse timer. Blowback for about
15 seconds. Reset aspirator to the AP and restart elapse timer.
5. Sample dust for 2-1/2 minutes of elapsed time.
6. Stop aspirator and remove the sample bottle, being sure not to lose any dust.
7. Cap the bottle and double check the marking for test number, point number,
and test date.
8. Record elapsed sampling time and clock time on the data sheet and on the
sample bottle.
9. Collect and carry dust samples to chemical laboratory when dust traverse is
completed.
Temperature, Velocity, Dust, SO2 and O2 Sampling at Station 8
Equipment Required:
1. Nozzle
2. Sample probe
3. Aspirator
4. Cyclone separator
5. Pitot tube
6. O2 analyzer
7. SO2 analyzer
8. Potentiometer - thermocouple tables
9. Asbestos gloves
10. Draft gauge (inclined manometer)
11. C clamp
12. Rubber tubing
13. Red gauge oil
Sampling location - At boiler outlet at approximately elevation 375' 8", unit 10.
Sampling Procedure - Dust
Layout of Plane C-C is shown in Figure 24. For dust sampling, probes were
inserted at 6 locations along the boiler outlet duct and aspiration rates were set according to
-------
C-21
calculated values determined from temperature and velocity pressure measurements. Each
sample was obtained during a 15-minute sampling period.
Sample Identification
Each dust sample jar was identified immediately after collection as follows:
BOFA - Test number - probe number - point number - test date
(Example) BOFA - 1 Pt8 - Pt8A - February 16, 1971
Where BOFA = Boiler outlet Fly Ash
1 = Test number
Pt8 = Test point 8
Pt8A = Test point 8; probe A
February 16, 1971 = Test date
Sample weighing and storage
Immediately after being properly identified, the samples were carried to the
laboratory to be weighed; then distributed for further analysis.
Sampling Procedure - SO2 and O2
Six, fixed position probes inserted into the boiler outlet duct at Plane C-C were
joined to provide a common sample from the east side and another common sample from
the west side. Each sample line was connected to a Dupont 400 ultra-violet SO2 analyzer to
provide a continuous readout of SO2 level. Daily, each analyzer was checked against
standard calibration gas having an SO2 content near that of real flue gas. Carborundum
filters at the inlet lines were back blown daily to remove dust. Hand marking of time and
events was done on the stripcharts which served as source material for calculation of SO2
removal rates.
Oxygen measurements could also be taken through the SO2 sampling system but
were usually taken via probes inserted into dust probe ports. Probes could be connected to
provide an average of 3 samples per side or to give individual traverses, as desired. A vacuum
pump drew the sample through a drying column and a Beckman polarographic O2 analyzer.
4. Analytical Procedures - Field Laboratory
This section contains only those procedures used at Shawnee and excludes standard
methods for coal analyses used at the Central Laboratory.
Procedure Analysis
1. Calcium oxide in fly ash-lime mixture
2. Magnesium oxide in fly ash-lime mixture
3. Total sulfur in fly ash-limestone mixture and in coal by high temperature
combustion
4. Density determination of fly ash-lime mixture or limestone
5. Average particle size and specific surface of ground limestone
6. Hydration test to determine the degree of overburn of CaO in fly ash-lime
mixture
7. Precision of routine field laboratory analytical techniques
-------
C-22
1. CALCIUM OXIDE IN FLY ASH-LIME MIXTURE
The following procedure is a modification of the accepted EDTA titration for calcium oxide
in lime and limestone.
1. Weigh out 0.2000 ± 0.0002 g of fly ash-limestone mixture into 300 ml Erlenmeyer
flask.
2. Add 10 ml of dilute hydrochloric acid (1 volume water + 1 volume hydrochloric acid).
3. Boil for one minute (cover with small watch glass to minimize losses).
4. Dilute to 100 ml with deionized or distilled water.
5. Add 5 ml of 1:1 triethanolamine and 5 ml concentrated ammonium hydroxide, stirring
after each addition.
6. Adjust pH to 12-13, using 20% potasium hydroxide solution. (If no pH meter is
available, add 20 ml of 20% potassium hydroxide solution.)
7. Add 40 mg Calcein indicator.
8. Titrate rapidly with 0.1 M EDTA solution to a purple end point, using a black
background and diffused daylight.
9. Calculate
ml x 0.0056 x 100 = 0/0 CaO
0.2
Calcein Indicator Grind together 0.2 g Calcein indicator, 0.12 g thymolphthalein, and 20 g
potassium chloride in a porcelain mortar. Transfer to a bottle and keep capped.
-------
C-23
2. MAGNESIUM OXIDE IN FLY ASH-LIME MIXTURE
The following procedure titrates total calcium oxide and magesium oxide. The magnesium
oxide is obtained by difference.
1-4. Dissolve sample as described above.
5. Add 20 ml 1:1 triethanolamine and 25 ml concentrated ammonium hydroxide, stirring
after each addition.
6. Check pH. Add 20% potassium hydroxide to bring pH to 10 if necessary.
7. Add 40 mg of Phthalein Purple.
8. Titrate rapidly with 0.1 M EDTA solution to a colorless end point, using a white
background.
9. Calculate
ml (II) ml (I) x 0.0040 x 100 = % M Q
0.2 y
Phthalein Purple Indicator - Grind together 0.1 g phthalein purple indicator, 0.005 g methyl
red, 0.05 g naphthol green, and 10 g potassium chloride in a porcelain mortar. Transfer to a
bottle and keep capped. It is convenient to use a calibrated scoop for measuring the 40 mg
of indicators.
-------
C-24
3. TOTAL SULFUR IN FLY ASH-LIMESTONE MIXTURE AND IN COAL
BY HIGH TEMPERATURE COMBUSTION
Summary—The sample is burned in a stream of oxygen. Approximately 95% of the sulfur is
converted to sulfur dioxide, and a furnace factor is used to obtain accurate results. The
furnace factor is obtained by analyzing a sample of known sulfur content and calculating
the recovery percentage. The combustion gases are passed into a titrator containing an acid
solution of potassium iodide and starch. A small amount of potassium iodate is added and a
blue color develops.
KIO3+5KI+6HC1 =6KC1+3I2
I2 + starch = starch iodide blue
As sulfur is released, it bleaches the blue color by converting the I2 to HI
S02 +I2 +2H2 O = H2 S04 +2HI
and more iodate solution is added to maintain the blue coloration. The amount of standard
iodate consumed during the combustion is a measure of the sulfur content of the sample.
Apparatus
A high temperature furnace made by LECO* and shown in Figure C-13 was used for rapid
sulfur determinations. Figure C-14 shows the automatic sulfur titrator and Figure C-15the
LECO purifying train.
Procedure
Solutions
Potassium lodate-lodine Solution (1 ml KIO3 = 0.5 mg S.)—Dissolve 1.11 g KIO3 and 5 g Kl
in distilled water and dilute to exactly 1 liter. (It is desirable to dissolve 6-8 pellets of KOH in
the water before adding KIO3 and Kl.)
Starch Solution—Make a suspension by adding 2 g Arrowroot starch to 50 ml distilled water.
Add this mixture, with stirring, to 150 ml of boiling distilled water. Allow to boil for 2
minutes. Cool to room temperature and add 6 g Kl.
A single determination requires about 7 minutes.
^Laboratory Equipment Company
-------
C-25
LECO FURNACE
FIGURE C-13
MODEL 521-500
UPPER RING ADAPTER
CASTING
SCREEN GUARD
GRID CURRENT
TAP SWITCH
GRID CURRENT
AMMETER
HIGH VOLTAGE
CIRCUIT PILOT
LIGHT-RED
FUSE
HIGH VOLTAGE
SWITCH
KNOCK-OUT PLUG OR S.P.S.T
IGNITER SWITCH
UPPER CABINET ASSY.
CATALYST FURNACE
PLUG JACKS
CATCH PAN
TRAY ASSY.
LOWER GUARD
PLATE CURRENT
AMMETER
VARIABLE TEMP.
CONTROL RECEPTACLE
FILAMENT CIRCUIT
PILOT LIGHT-GREEN
FILAMENT SWITCH
POWER SWITCH
COMBUSTION GAS
INLET OR OUTLET
OVERLOAD RESET BUTTON
LOCKING MECHANISM HANDLE
-------
FIGURE C-14
C-26
AUTOMATIC SULFUR TITRATOR
MODEL 532
INLET TO TITRATION VESSEL
503-7
DETACHABLE FLOAT VALVE
518-30 TITRATION VESSEL ASSEMBLY
(WITH 518-24
GLASS LIGHT DIRECTOR)
518-45 PHOTOCELL
WITH CONNECTORS
549-20 OFF-ON SWITCH
518-9 LIGHT SOCKET \
(BAYONET TYPE)
549-26 END POINT KNOB
DRAIN STOPCOCK
549-58 FUSE
TUBING CONNECTIONS 3/16 I.D.
BY 5/16 O.D. PLASTIC EXCEPT
1/4 I.D. BY 3/8 O.D. FOR DRAIN.
CONNECT "A" TO "A" OF FIG VI
WITH GLASS TUBING IN WHICH CASE
BUTT JOINTS ARE HELD TOGETHER
WITH PLASTIC TUBING. USE A
SMALL PLUG OF GLASS WOOL SOME-
WHERE IN THIS LINE.
518-16 IODATE BURET
518-17 PYREX "L"
532-4 VALVE HOUSING
518-10
MANIFOLD
549-76 BULB (WHITE)
518-47 RED JEWEL
544-110 WHITE PILOT
LIGHT
532-31 DOUBLE THROW
SWITCH
518-42 MANUAL BUTTON
501-27 ASPIRATOR BULB
-------
C-27
FIGURE C-15
LECO PURIFYING TRAIN
MODEL 516
ALL TUBING CONNECTIONS
BLACK RUBBER 1/4 I.D.
OXYGEN ~°~f
OUTLET
ROTOMETER BALL
NO 516-4
NEEDLE VALVE
ASSY. 516-23
DIAL ONLY
NO 521-27
ROTOMETER BALL
NO 501-67
FLOWRATOR BALL
STOP ASSY.NO 516-14
ALL GROMMETS 9/16 DIA MOUNTING x 5/16 I.D,
r FLOWRATOR BALL STOP ASSY. NO 516-14
CAPS NO 516-11
ACID TOWER
NO 516-6
OXYGEN" INLET
CON. H2S04
TO THIS LEVEL
DRY REAGENT TOWER NO 516-5
-------
C-28
4. DETERMINATION OF DENSITY OF FLY ASH-LIME OR LIMESTONE
This analysis is a prerequisite for determing average particle size by means of the Fisher
Sub-Sieve Sizer. Since there is a hydratable fraction in the fly ash-lime mix, no water can be
used.
For the following procedure, only a 50-ml volumetric flask, a 50 ml. burette, an analytical
balance, and mineral spirits are required.
Procedure
1. Weigh a clean, dry 50-ml volumetric flask.
2. Put 5 to 10 grams of sample into flask and reweigh.
3. Fill flask to volume with mineral spirits, from 50-ml burette.
4. Sample weight divided by 50-titration gives sample density.
Time required per analysis about 10 minutes.
-------
C-29
5. AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE AND
SPECIFIC SURFACE OF GROUND LIMESTONE
Fisher Sub-Sieve Sizer— The Sub-Sieve Sizer operates on the air-permeability principle for
measuring the average particle size of powders. The principle finds its basis in the fact that a
current of air flows more readily through a bed of coarse powder than through an otherwise
equal bed of fine powder.
Preliminary Data— Before average particle size can be determined, it is necessary to know the
true density of the material and the optimum porosity point. Optimum porosity point is
obtained by following the instructions in the Fisher Instruction Manual. True density is
obtained by displacement in light oil.
Calibration— Calibration may be effected by either of two means. Daily calibration should
be made by using the Fisher Sub-Sieve Sizer Calibrator. This is a secondary standard
consisting of a synthetic ruby orifice mounted in a tube similar to a sample tube. The
calibrator is used as described in the attached sheet under Catalog No. 14-31 1V2.
Periodically, the Sub-Sieve Sizer should be calibrated against National Bureau of Standards'
Sample No. 114, a powdered Portland Cement of certified specific surface. This calibration
is described in the Fisher Instruction Manual.
Measuring Particle Size— Follow instructions as outlined in the Fisher Instruction Manual.
Calculations— No calculation is necessary for average particle size. The value is read directly
off the Calculator Chart.
To obtain specific surface, substitute in the following equation:
<- = 6x 104
~
in which
Sw = specific surface in cm2 /gram
p = true density
dm = average particle diameter in microns
-------
C-30
6. HYDRATION TEST TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF OVERBURN
OF CaO IN FLY ASH-LIME MIXTURE
1. Weigh 1 gram of the fly ash-lime mix into a tared 3A crucible and record net weight.
2. Ignite sample at 1,300°F- in muffle furnace with a little aspiration for one hour.
Desiccate until cool and reweigh. Record weight.
3. Pipet 5 ml of water into the crucible, let stand for 1/2 hour.
4. Evaporate water, from the crucible, under an infra-red lamp (approximately 15 minutes
at 250 watt setting).
5. Place crucible in drying oven for 1 hour oven temperature should be 260° C.
6. Remove from oven and desiccate; reweigh the dish and its contents. Record weight gain.
Calculation:
% CaO (Free) = % CaO (in sample) - %SO2 (in sample) x-5-^-*
64
% wt gain of r.an = Weight gain of Sample x 100
% CaO (Free) x Sample weight
100
*Molecular weights of CaO
S02
-------
C-31
Hydrochloric Acid Solution—Measure 30 ml of concentrated acid and add to 1,970
ml of distilled water.
LECO Furnace Operation
Turn on filament switch and high voltage switch and allow to warm up for 45
seconds.
Titrator Operation
With tine oxygen flow set at 1 1/min add hydrochloric acid solution to the middle of
the bell shaped portion of the titration vessel. Add the starch solution directly to the
titration vessel. Always fill to the same point. Turn on the power switch 549-20 and allow
the instrument to warm up with the 532-31 double throw switch in neutral (center) position.
Turn the end point control 549-26 to the extreme left. Turn the double throw to end point
(down) position, and slowly rotate the end point control in a clockwise direction until it has
added KIO3 in the amount to give a solid medium blue color. Leave the end point control in
this position. Refill the KIO3 buret. About three buret divisions give the proper color if the
starch is properly prepared. Place switch in titrate position.
Sample Loading
Weight *0.2500 ± 0.0002 grams fly ash-limestone mixture and transfer to a Leco
crucible. Add two level scoops of low sulfur iron powder and one scoop of granular tin. Do
not mix these with sample. Cover crucible with porous cover and place on furnace pedestal.
Raise and lock sample into position. At completion of combustion period, read buret and
remove sample crucible. Drain and refull titration vessel and refill KIO3 buret.
Calculation
% Sulfur in sample = buret reading x 2.5
(F) (sample weight)
The furance factor (F) is determined by analyzing a sample of known sulfur content.
It will be between 0.92 and 0.97.
The sample weight may be varied if sulfur is too high to titrate with the KIO3
solution.
*For coal analysis this sample loading becomes "Weigh 0.0500 to 0.0725 ± 0.0002 grams.'
-------
C-32
7. PRECISION OF ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Fisher Avg.
Particle Size, yi
JUO
5.05
5.00
5.02
5.02
5.02
4.98
5.00
5.15
5.00
x = 5.03
cr= ±0.05
CaO in Lime-Fly Ash Mixture, %
41.81
41.37
41.73
42.29
42.00
42.12
42.21
41.30
42.17
42.52
x =41.95
a = ±0.35
Sulfur in Coal
2% Level
2.13
2.17
2.07
1.90
2.02
1.93
1.99
2.10
2.07
2.08
x = 2.05
a=±0.09
Sulfur in Coal
4% Level
4.11
4.08
4.11
4.00
4.24
4.09
4.14
4.24
4.16
4.07
x =4.12
cr = ±0.08
SO4 in Lime-Fly Ash, %
(As SO2)
3.84
3.62
3.78
3.54
3.72
3.51
3.51
3.69
3.72
3.73
x = 3.67
(T= ±0.11
-------
SHAWNEE UNIT 10
SAMPLING STATIONS
STATION 3
LIMESTONE
STATIONS 4,5,6
STATIONS 4,5,6,7
n
Ul
OJ
o
c
u
m
-------
APPENDIX D
Computer Printouts for Phase I Tests
-------
Table 1-1
Summary of Phase I Tests
Test
No.
1
2
3
It
5
6
7
8
9
10R2
11
12R3
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2U
25
?6
27
28
6A
7A
8A
2A
1»A
29
1A
Injection
Location
Lower Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Lower Rear
Lower Rear
Lower Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Front
Front
Front
Front
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
''pper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Lower Rear
Lower Rear
Lower Rear
Upper Real-
Upper Rear
Upper Rear
Lower Rear
Stoich.
1.86
1.55
1.8U
3.10
3.68
2.11
2.30
2.1+3
l.U?
1.33
1.53
l.ll
1.76
1.U6
1.75
1.50
1.01
1.77
1.16
1.69
0.87
1.76
1.07
1.70
1.29
1.29
1.10
1.13
1.19
1.72
2.01
1.11
1.39
0.86
1.1*1*
Plant
Composite
S in Coal, %
2.U
2.6
2.2
1.6
l.U
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.5
3.8
3-3
3.6
2.2
3.3
2.1
3.2
3-5
2.1*
3-0
3-0
2.6
1.7
3.7
3.2
U.O
U.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.1*
2.1
1.9
1.7
2.7
Injection
Velocity,
Ft. /Sec.
130
132
59
127
67
68
130
68
91*0
91*0
195 -
198
101
192
91*5
91*0
131
131
132
132
131*
131
68
67
68
131
69
135
69
132
68
133
132
136
130
Initial S0?
Load
MW
lUo
11*0
11*3
ll*l*
1U2
ll*2
lUO
11*0
ll+O
139
139
139
11*2
11)1*
ll*2
11*2
ll*2
11*1
lU2
l'*2
138
lUO
ll*0
139
116
118
120
117
137
139
ll*0
138
139
78
138
Excess Air, %
E
26.5
35-5
27.3
25.0
18.0
21.7
18.3
23.5
llt.l
35.5
29.6
37.7
37.7
37.7
Uo.o
29.6
29.6
29.6
38.2
38.2
L6.0
25.0
33.8
32.9
22.1
30.1*
11.9
26.5
22.8
17.3
22.1
35.5
27.3
27.0
25.U
W
2U.3
33-3
20.0
20.0
16.7
23-9
19.2
20.0
18.0
32.9
31.3
35-0
37.7
37.7
33 = 3
31.3
31.3
37.3
39.1
39-1
16.6
15.1*
28.8
39-1
23.5
30.1*
11.0
28.2
23.5
21.6
23.5
32.1
20.7
28.0
29.2
Level, ppm
E
18UO
1600
1880
1190
12UO
11*80
201*0
1900
22UO
21*00
21*00
2360
1600
1800
1600
2680
2520
2680
2200
21*00
2200
1600
2720
21*80
3000
3200
I960
1800
2l*00
2080
2080
1620
1760
1560
21*1*0
W
181*0
161*0
1880
1190
121*0
15UO
2120
18UO
2160
21*80
21*1*0
21*00
1600
1800
1520
2680
21*00
21+80
??00
2160
2080
1680
2760
21*80
2920
3200
2000
1900
2360
I960
2000
1520
1660
11*1*0
2U80
Injection
Angle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+1*5
+1*5
-1*5
-1*5
-1*5
0
0
-1*5
0
-1*5
-1*5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Particle
Size Ho.
l+.O
i*.o
1*.5
l*.l*
1+.2
U.2
1*.6
1*.5
'+.7
5-0
5.0
5.0
U.7
l*.6
I+.8
'*.7
i*.8
U.7
'*.7
U.7
5-1
U.8
U.U
U.6
5.2
U.8
5.7
5.7
U.U
U.8
U.5
5.1
U.3
5.0
5.1
Limestone
Utilization, %
E
11.3
11. U
6.8
9-U
7.2
6.2
5.2
7.3
10. U
9-U
7.9
15.1
7.1
5.9
9-9
20.1
1U.5
11.9
ri.l
9.0
7.2
11.8
11.0
5.6
6.7
7-9
10.2
12.5
9-5
6.9
6.5
10.3
6.9
12.3
7.U
W
11.7
15.1
7.7
10.1
6.3
6.6
6.5
5.7
9.0
10.0
8.6
13.9
9-1
7-2
12.8
16.5
13.0
13.7
12.5
9.0
10.1
11.1
12.5
7.6
5.1
8.7
11.3
13.8
8.6
6.1
7.U
12.2
8.0
17.0
6.1
Limestone
SOP
Distribution Index* Removal, %
E
5.U
11.0
16.6
lU.2
18.2
10.2
11.0
11.8
15.0
12.6
lU.2
12.9
17.7
1U.7
11.8
lU.2
19.9
18.6
12.3
11.9
10.3
18.0
18.7
13.2
13.2
12.3
8.1
12.0
13. '*
U.9
7.0
13.7
13-: o
9.0
U.I
W
6.5
13-5
1U.1
11.8
16.3
11.8
8.8
11.9
12.7
12.3
12.7
15.2
15.8
16.1
1U.1
12.3
15-9
20.9
10.0
10. U
7.5
13.6
15.0
11.0
u.8
10.3
8.1
11.2
16.7
9.6
11.5
13. U
15. U
8.5
11. U
E
15.1
23.0
15.2
1U.8
1U.8
11. U
11.0
12.0
13.2
13.1
U.7
6.1
1U.1
16.8
27.3
15-3
8.1
ll.O
13.3
1U.3
8.2
17.3
9-U
6.7
8.7
U.3
8.7
ll.l
6.9
11.2
11.2
11.3
lU.2
13.0
10.9
W
10.8
20.1
7.3
1U.8
1U.8
10.3
9.U
10.9
lU.2
11.0
11.0
12. U
12.9
U6.8
26.2
13.7
16.0
17.2
11.9
1.U.2
6.5
15.0
5.8
U.7
8.9
5.7
U.5
11.9
U.3
10.9
10.8
17.1
21.7
1U.5
8.6
Tjf.fi Appendix E
-------
D-2
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - CIVISIUN OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXICE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FLLL-SCALE LIMESTuNE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST IMO.l DATE: MAY 12, 197C
ThST CuNCITIONS
UNIT LCAC, Mrt
bGILER LOAD, MLBS/HR
CUAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLEtDtGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STUICHIGMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT -
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
WEST 24.3
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
1 3. C
VOLATILE
MATTER
31. 1
FIXED
CARBON
44.3
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.C6 1.21 64.83
ASH
11.6
SULFUR
2.4C
140
985
122039.
0.147
130
0
LCWER REAR
2061
4.0
1.86
43T15
EAST 26.5
SULFUR
2.4
ASH
11.60
MOISTURE
13.00
% LiMESTCNE UTILIZED, BulLER OUTLET - WEST 11.7 EAST 11.3
SC2.RtMCVAL EFF 1CIENCY,fc,BOILER CUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
AtST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
12.2 17.6 13.8 14.1 10.7 15.0
SU2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
5858.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
664C.
DIFFERENCE
782..
-3814.
CAU MATERIALS BALANCE 1C052. 6238.
THEORETICAL CAC IN DUST, *,SAMPLING PLANE 41.52
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 4.71 EAST 4.64
-------
D-3
TEST NO. 1 DATE: MAY 12, 1970 INPUT DATA
1 MAY 12, 1970 ACTUAL 1 I 0.00294 l.CO 0.41
130 S85 4.C 2061 0 LCWER REAR 43T15 140
13.0 31.1 44.3 11.6 2.4
c.
RATE
122039.
WEST
EAST
EXA
24.3
26.5
STO
1.86
T BO
715.
728.
$ BA
0.83
S FA
4.55
4.56
0.
C
33
35
L/C
15
FA
.94
.29
C BA
14.51
SOB
1840.
1840.
C MECH
45.92
SOD
1560.
1520.
C
1
ELEC
3.63
SOA
1720.
1760.
S MECH
2.62
DELS 8
140.
220.
S ELEC
2.42
DELS E
240.
320.
24 TEST POINTS,SAMPLING PLANE A-A.WEST SIDE
MV
11.50
11.30
9.80
12.00
9.00
8.30
12.00
13.00
13.50
13.50
13.50
12.50
10.00
11.50
12.00
12.00
12.00
11.50
9.80
11.00
11.40
11.50
11.50
11.00
VP
0.21
C.24
0.08
0.13
0.08
0.12
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.17
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.15
0.09
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.10
0.11
0..10
STAT
-6.00
-6.00
-6,00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
T SAMP
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
DUST
0.51
0.67
0.09
0.49
0.44
0. 10
0.56
0.76
0.59
0.49
0.21
0.03
0.35
0.15
0.29
0.18
0.50
0.05
0.61
0.37
0.61
1.C5
0.40
0.09
CAO
61.54
45.44
46.13
41.55
45.61
44.97
54.18
51.73
55.85
46.90
57.30
62.93
48.43
45.46
49.48
46.48
49.93
68.59
49.25
50.09
49.37
50.19
54.69
61.92
S02
0.63
0.78
1.23
1.52
1.54
1.80
0.76
0.88
1.33
0.94
1.07
0.44
2.16
2.11
1.75
1.41
1.22
1.26
1.32
0.78
0.95
0.48
0.63
0.63
S02 PPM
1840. OC
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
AVERAGE CAO IN DUST,S,SAMPLING PLANE
51.58
-------
D-4
TEST NO. i DATE: MAY 12, ISTO
24 TEST POINTS,SAMPLING PLANE A-A,EAST SIDE
MV
9.50
9.5J
9.50
9.80
1C. 00
8.80
11.50
11.80
12.00
12.50
12.50
11.80
11. CO
1 1 . 50
1 1 . 30
11.50
11.50
11.00
9.30
9.80
10.00
1C. 50
10.80
1C. 00
VP
C.07
0.06
G.07
0.10
0.12
0.09
C.ll
C.04
0.15
C.16
0.17
C.19
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.11
C.08
0.1C
C.05
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.05
STAT
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6. 00
-6. 00
-6. GO
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6. CO
-6.0C
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
-6.00
T SAMP
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160. CO
160.00
160. CO
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
DUST
0.04
0.44
0.25
0.31
0.89
1.17
0.09
0.27
0.30
0.12
0.26
0.59
0.59
0.21
0.62
0.17
C.04
0.58
0.43
0.54
0.41
0.28
0.29
0.43
CAO
42.41
55.73
59.92
54.42
47. 72
47.92
54. 7b
54.77
60.11
t>0.35
55.47
48.81
49.31
53.67
53.46
48. 18
46.26
40.93
47.03
48.81
51.94
44.52
42.13
42.11
SU2
0.65
0.81
1.84
0.68
0.75
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.85
0.60
0.47
1.32
0.71
0.85
1.12
1.03
0.85
1.33
1.27
1.18
1.09
0.82
1.14
1.26
S02 PPM
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1340.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840. 50
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1840.00
1340.00
1840.00
AVERAGE CAO IN OUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 50.03
-------
D-5
TEST NU. 1 DATE: MAY 12, 197C
SAMPLING PLANE A-A,WEST SlOE
LIMESTONE DISTRIBUTION INDEX
SAMPL ING
LOCAT ICN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
S02
PPM
1840.
184C.
184C.
1840.
1840.
1840.
194C.
1840.
1840.
184C.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1340.
1840.
184C.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
CAG GK LUG
GRNS/CUFT
2.15
1.94
0.44
1.80
2.06
0.37
2.06
2.68
" 2.33
1.59
0.81
0.15
2.07
0.96
1.87
0.89
2.05
0.36
6.33
2.56
3.85
5.2J
2.07
0.55
VELCCITY
FT/SEC
67.1
71.3
3S.3
53.6
38.2
45.6
69.7
73.2
72.6
74.2
75.8
62.1
34. 2
32.7
36.4
44.6
57.5
43.9
19.6
32.3
35.8
46.3
48.6
45.6
S02
CUhT/SEC
C.0235
'7.0253
0.0153
C .0182
0.0157
0.0197
0.0237
0.0236
0.0228
0.0233
0.0238
C.02"5
0.0132
0.0115
C.C124
0.0152
C.C196
0.0154
0.0076
0.0116
O.C126
O.C162
O.C170
0.0164
CAlJ
GKNS/SEC
27.
27.
4.
18.
18.
4.
27.
34.
29.
20.
11.
2.
15.
6.
13.
7.
22.
3.
26.
16.
26.
46.
19.
5.
TriEUKET GAG
GRNS/SEC
23.
25.
15.
18.
16.
20.
24.
24.
23.
23.
24.
21.
13.
11.
12.
15.
20.
15.
8.
12.
13.
16.
17.
16.
AVERAGE CAO GR LUG,GRNS/CUFT = 1.97
R = 0.230
T = C.848
I
AVG. % UFF THEORETICAL 54
SIGfA U CFF) 58
SUM 112
GHI-SQUARE i% OFF) 198
SIGMAU CAC IN DUST) 6.6
AVG.STOICH.DEVIATION 56.8C
Y ASH LOADING, GRNS/CUFT, AT
1.34
1.74
2.21
£.52
2.33
2. 50
1.15
2.56
0.51
1.84
1.91
3.95
STANDARD CONDITIONS
2.53
1.8C
1.02
5.19
2.45
0.61
2.06
1.72
- - AVERAGE=
0.45
0.09
0.16
0. 34
1.96
-------
TEST NO. 1
DATE:
D-6
MAY 12, 1970
SAMPLING PLANE A-A,UEST SIDE
EFFECTIVE STOICHIGMETRY
SAMPLING
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
^0
21
22
23
24
S02
CUFT/SEC
0.0235
O.C253
O.C153
C.C182
0.0157
O.C197
O.C237
0.0236
C.C228
C.C233
O.C238
O.C205
C.C132
O.C115
C.C124
C.C152
C.C196
C.0154
C.C076
O.C116
C.0126
C.C162
C.C170
G.C164
CAO
GRNS/SEC
27-
27.
4.
18.
18.
4.
27.
34.
29.
20.
11.
2.
15.
6.
13.
7.
22.
3.
26.
16.
26.
46.
19.
5.
RATIO
CAO/SG2
1169.
1054.
238.
978.
1117-
199.
1120.
1459.
1267.
864.
443.
80.
1127.
520.
1014.
483.
1116.
195.
3439.
1394.
2092.
2844.
1126.
296.
STOICHIO
QUAN.CAC
1.C69
0.964
C.217
0.894
1.022
0.182
1.024
1.334
1.158
C.790
0.405
0.074
1.031
0.476
0.927
0.442
1.021
C.178
3.145
1.275
1.913
2.601
1.029
0.271
S02 RECOVERED
FRACTION
0.355
0.327
0.085
0.307
C.342
O.C72
0.343
0.421
0.378
0.277
0.153
0.030
0.345
0.177
0.316
C. 166
C.342
O.C71
0.725
C.407
0.544
0.656
0.344
0.105
CUFT
0.008
0.003
O.OC1
0.006
0.005
0.001
0.008
0.010
C.009
0.006
0.004
O.C01
0.005
0.002
0.004
C.003
0.007
0.001
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.011
0.006
0.002
EFFECTIVE STOICHIOMETRY = 0.934
S02 REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
1.0
1.4
0.5
2.9
3.0
0.6
1.3
2.0
2.4
1.4
0.7
0.0
4.0
1.9
2.9
1.2
2.2
3.3
7.4
1.7
3.2
2.2
1.0
0.2
AVERAGE POINT STOICHIOMETRY = 0.977
TEMPERATURES,DEGREES FAHRENHEIT AVERAGE =
2126. 2096. 1867. 2201. 1742. 1631.
2201. 2351. 2426. 2426. 2426. 2276.
1897. 2126. 2201. 2201. 2201. 2126.
1667. 2052. 2111. 2126. 2126. 2052.
2119.
DUST LOADING,GRNS/CUFT,AT STANDARD CONDITIONS
3.49 4.27 0.95 4.33 4.51
3.80 5.19 4.17 3.39 1.42
4.28 2.11 3.77 1.91 4.11
12.35 5.12 7.8C 10.43 3.79
0.82
0.24
0.52
0.88
GAS VELOC ITY,FT/SEC
67.1 71.3 39.3
69.7 73.2 72.6
34.2 32.7 36.4
19.6 32.3 35.8
LIMESTONE UTILIZED,PERCENT
0.9 1.5 2.3
1.2 1.5 2.1
3.9 4.1 3.1
2.3 1.4 1.7
53.6
74.2
44.6
46.3
3.2
1.8
2.7
0.8
AVERAGE =
38.2 45.6
75.8 62.1
57.5 43.9
48.6 45.6
50.8
3.0
1.6
2.1
1.0
3.5
0.6
1.6
0.9
-------
TEST NO. 1 DATE:
SAMPLING PLANE A-A,EAST SIDE
D-7
MAY 12, 1970
LIMESTONE DISTRIBUTION INDEX
SAMPLING
LOG AT ICN
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
S02
PPM
184G.
Id40.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
184C.
184C.
184C.
184C.
ld4C.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
184C.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
1840.
GAG GR LUG
GKNS/CUFT
0.19
2.95
1.67
1.59
3.68
5.38
0.47
2.34
1.48
0.49
1.13
2. 09
2.71
1.07
2.77
0.78
0.21
2.32
2.65
2.78
2.61
1.70
1.53
2.43
VELCCITY
FT/SEC
36.4
33.7
36.4
43.9
48.4
4C.3
4fc.6
29.5
57.5
6C.3
62.1
64.4
47.9
48.6
54.5
4S.6
41.4
45.6
3G.5
39.3
34.2
31.8
3b.l
31.3
S02
CUFT/SEC
O.C144
O.G134
O.C144
0.0171
0.0186
0.0168
C.0170
0.0102
0.0196
0.0199
0.0205
O.C222
0.0173
0.0170
0.0193
G.0170
0.0145
0.0164
O.C123
Q.0153
0.0132
0.0118
C.G128
0.0120
CAU
GRNS/SEC
1.
21.
13.
15.
37.
49.
4.
13.
16.
5.
13.
25.
25.
10.
29.
7.
2.
21.
18.
23.
19.
11.
11.
16.
THEURET CA1
GRNS/SEC
15.
14.
15.
18.
20.
18.
18.
11.
21.
21.
22.
23.
18.
16.
2C.
18.
15.
17.
13.
16.
14.
12.
14.
13.
AVERAGE CAO GR LDG,GRNS/CUFT = 1.96
R = 0.226
T = 0.848
l
AVG. * UFF THEORETICAL 48
SIGNA U OFF) 37
SUM 85
CHI-SQUARE (% OFF) 153
SIGPM* CAO IN DUST) 5.4
AVG.STOICH.DEVIATION 51.32
FLY ASH LOADING,GRNS/CUFT,AT STANDARD CONDITIONS -
C.26 2.34 1.12 1.33 4.03
C.39 1.93 C.98 0.48 0.91
2.79 0*92 2.41 0.83 0.24
2.98 2.91 2.41 2.12 2.11
• AVERAGE=
5.84
2.19
3.35
3.34
2.01
-------
TtST ,^u. i DATE:
SAMPLING PLANE A-A,EAST SIDE
D-8
HAY 12, 1970
EFFECTIVE STOICHICMETRY
SAMPLING
LUC AT 10^
i
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
i6
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
SC2
CAU
CLFT/SEC GRiMS/SEC
T.C144
r.-134
T.C14A
C . r 1 7 1
r.:i86
C.0168
c.riTO
C..
37.
49.
4.
13.
lo.
5.
13.
25.
25.
10.
29.
7.
2.
21.
18.
23.
19.
11.
11.
16.
KAT I U
CAU/S02
103.
1604.
9G7 .
8o4.
1996.
2922.
254.
1273.
606.
265.
014.
1137.
1475.
580.
1503.
421.
112.
1263.
1439.
1508.
1416.
923.
834.
1319.
STCICHIC S02 RECOVERED SG2 REMOVAL
iUAN.CAQ FRACTION CUFT EFFICIENCY
O.C94
1.467
C.830
C.790
1.827
2.672
T.232
1.164
C.737
0.242
C.562
1.040
1.349
C.530
1.375
C.385
0.102
1.155
1.316
1.379
1.295
C.344
C.763
1.2C7
0 . C 3 8
0.452
C.288
0 . 2 77
0.527
0.666
C .091
€.380
0.261
0.095
0.206
0.347
C.425
0.195
C.431
0.146
O.C41
0.377
0.417
0.432
C . 4 1 2
0.292
0.268
0.390
0. 101
U . 0 C 6
0. ?04
0.005
0. "'10
0.011
O."02
0. ^04
0.^05
0.^02
0.004
0 . -^ 0 8
0.007
0.003
0 .008
0.002
C.0^1
0.006
0.005
0.007
0.005
0.003
0. ^3
0.^05
0. 1
1.9
2.2
0.9
2.5
4.3
0.3
1.6
0.9
0.3
0.4
2.5
1.7
0.7
2.5
0.7
0.2
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.4
1.4
1.8
3.2
EFFECTIVE STUICHIUMETRY - -.942
FAHRENHEIT
1820.
2201.
2G96.
1897.
1867.
2276.
2126.
1973.
1897.
2276.
2126.
2C22.
1711.
2171.
2052.
1897.
TENPERATUREStCEGRLES
1820. 1820.
2126. 2171.
2052. 2126.
1789. 1867.
OUST LOAD ING,GRNS/CLFT,AT STANDARD CONDITIONS
C.45 5.30 2.79 2.92 7.7"
C.85 4.28 2.47 0.97 2.04
5.50 1.99 5.17 1.61 0.44
5.63 5.69 5.02 3.81 3.64
AVERAGE POINT STOICHIJMETRY = 0.973
AVERAGE = 2008.
11.22
4.29
5.68
5.76
GAS VELUCITY,FT/SEC
36.4 33.7 36.4
48.6 29.5 57.5
47-9 48.6 54.5
30.5 39.3 34.2
43.9
60.3
48.6
31.8
AVERAGE =
48.4 40.3
62.1 64.4
41.4 45.6
35.1 31.3
43.8
LIMESTONE
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.4
LTILIZEC,PERCENT
1.3 2.7
1.4 1.2
1.4 i.8
2.1 1.8
1.1
1.0
1.9
1.6
1.4
0.7
1.6
2.4
1.6
2.4
2.8
2.6
-------
D-9
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - LIVISION OF PUrfEP PRJDUCTUM
SULFUK OXIDE REMOVAL FHCM POWER PLANT STACK G/\S
FILL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTICN TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST Nu.2 DATE: MAY 13, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LLAD, f*rt
BOILEP LCAD, MLbS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LuCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - wEST
33.3
140
990
115476.
^.133
132
UPPER REAR
2r'61
4.C
1.55
43T15
hAST 3
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE ACTUAL
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON ASH
6.3 32.6 46.6 12.5
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON SULFUR
4.26 1.27 68.10 2.60
SULFUR
2.6
ASH
12.50
MOISTURE
8.30
LIMfcSTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 15.1 EAST 11.4
S02 REMOVAL E FF 1C IENCY, %, tiO ILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
20.6 22.9 17.5 16.8 2-^.1 23.1
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
6057.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
5818.
DIFFERENCE
-249.
-1767.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 868C. 6913.
THEORETICAL CAC IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 37.35
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 4.8C EAST 4.73
-------
D-10
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - CIVISION OF POWER PKGOUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FRCM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FLLL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.3 DATE: MAY 20, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCLiAL
INJECTICN VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTICN ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STQICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
tXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
20.0
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
9.6
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.2
FIXED
CARBON
44.9
143
990
11TC40.
0.133
59
0
UPPER REAR
2061
4.5
1.84
43T15
EAST 27.3
CCAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.15 1.23 66.25
ASH SULFUR
13.3 2.2
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
2.20 13.30 9.60
I LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 7.7 EAST 6.8
S02 REMOVAL EFFIC IENCYTS,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
7.3 15.4 14.3 14.9 7.3 15.2
SG2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
515C.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
5093.
DIFFERENCE
-57.
209.
CAC MATEPI/SLS BALANCE 3722. 8930.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,3,SAMPLING PLANE 35.91
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 5.69 EAST 5.40
-------
D-ll
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF PO^EK PKOOUCTION
SULFUR GXIOt REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST .>JLJ.4 DATE: MAY 21, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCADt MH
BOILER LOAD, MLBS/HR
COAL HATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/L8COAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, hT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIGMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
2C.
999
122862.
C.164
127
0
UPPER REAR
2061
4.4
3.10
81T8
EAST 25.0
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE ACTUAL
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON ASH
10.1 31.6 46.7 11.6
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON SULFUR
4.2P 1.27 67.39 1.60
SULFUR
1.6
ASH MOISTURE
11.60 10.10
% LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 10.1 EAST 9.4
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,*,60 ILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 ! METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
16.7 17.4 20.3 19.3 14.d 14.8
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
3932.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
3805.
DIFFERENCE
-126.
-4289.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 11290. 7001.
THEORETICAL CAG IN DUST,£,SAMPLING PLANE 44.20
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 4.86 EAST 4.69
-------
D-12
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWF.R. PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXICt REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FILL-SCALb LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TtST NO.5 DATfc: MAY 26, 197C
TtST CONDITIONS
J.MIT LCAD, Mw
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL PATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, L8S/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
iNJbCTICK ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMtSTCNF TYPE, SCR NO.
PARTICLfc SIZE, MICRONS
STOIChlCMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCtSS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
16.7
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
S.8
VOLATILE
MATTER
31.5
FIXED
CAR60N
46.3
142
99C
114800.
C.I 71
67
r
UPPER REAR
2C61
4.2
3.68
81T8
EAST 16.0
CuAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.18 1.26 66.95
ASH
12.4
SULFUR
1.40
SULFUR
1.4
ASH
12.40
MOISTURE
9.30
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST o.3 tAST 7.2
S02 REMOVAL EFFIC ItNCY,2,BOILER CUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
18.5 18.7 18.5 19.2 14.8 14.8
S02 MATERIALS BALANCfc
INPUT,LBS/HR
3214.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
3991.
DIFFERENCE
776.
-3306.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 1C999. 7693.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,S,SAMPLING PLANE 43.59
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.38 EAST 5.33
-------
D-13
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - C-IVISION OF POWER PRLJDUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FRCM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTICN TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST Nu.e DATE: MAY 27, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MM
bGlLER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DECREES
INJECTICN ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, 8CR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
23.9
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
AVERAGE
MOISTURE
IC.O
VOLATILE
MATTER
3C.8
FIXED
CARBON
142
986
115664.
0.126
68
0
LOWER REAR
2061
4.2
2.11
81T8
EAST 21.7
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.23 1.30 65.77
ASH
10.7
SULFUR
1.77
SULFUR
1.8
ASH
10.70
NOISTURE
10.00
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 6.6 EAST 6.2
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,*,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 ! METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
12.6 13.2 1C.8 10.3 10.3 11.4
SC2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR OUTPUT,LBS/HR
4095. 4664.
DIFFERENCE
569.
-2400.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 8166. 5766.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANt 39.75
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 4.49 EAST 4.56
-------
D-14
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OP POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR CXIDt REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTICN TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.7 DATE: MAY 28, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/L8COAL
INJECTICN VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTICN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STJICHIGMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
19.2
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
1C.9
VOLATILE
MATTER
31.7
FIXED
CARBON
45.5
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.15 1.24 66.39
ASH
11.9
SULFUR
2.00
140
961
118879.
0.152
130
r\
U
LOWER REAR
2061
4.6
2.30
81T8
EAST 18.3
SULFUR
2.0
ASH
11.90
MOISTURE
10.90
% LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 6.5 EAST 5.2
S02 REMOVAL EFFIC IENCY,*,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
13.3 14.6 13.2 11.9 9.4 11.0
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
4755.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
5596.
DIFFERENCE
840.
-1316.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 10124. 8809.
THEORETICAL CAC IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 41.71
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 5.04 EAST 5.07
-------
D-15
TENNESSEE VALLtY AUTht-klTY - CIV1SICN OF PJWEft PRODUCTION
SLLFUR UXiuc :K
ER LCAJ, MLto/HR
RATE, LBS/hK
STCKt HATE, LbS/LrtCCAL
CTICN VELCCITV, rl/SEC
ANGLE tUt-u.-vL'ES
ELTVATIuu
TYPE, ijCK .NO.
DICKONS
CTICK
CTICN
STLNE
ICLE SIZE,
CHIOeTRY
bUAL TYPE,CLi\ThALT uu.
EXCESS Alft,PbKCE.iCY, 4,i3L)ILtR OUTLET
METHJD 1 ' METHOD 2 METHOD 3
vsEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
14.1 15.9 13.1 14.5 10.9 12.0
MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HK
4927.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
6350.
DIFFERENCE
1422.
-1710.
CAu HAI ERI/LS BALANCE 10912. 9202.
TMEUKETICAL CAG IN- JUSTUS,SAMPLING PLANE 43.t>6
ThEuRET ICAL FLY ASH,bKNS/CUHTtSAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 5.05 EAST 4.93
-------
D-16
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - LIVISION OH POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDt REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTICN TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.9 DATE: JULY 16, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LOAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HK
LIMESTONE KATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTICN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE TYPE, 3CR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
ST01CHCMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
18.0
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
8.6
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.6
FIXED
CARBON
45.0
140
1030
116952.
0.121
940
n
UPPER REAR
2061
4.7
1.47
81T8
EAST 14.1
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.18 1.24 66.66
ASH SULFUR
13.8 2.5
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
2.50 13.80 8.60
% LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 9.0 EAST 10.4
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,X,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
16.6 15.6 13.7 12.0 14.2 13.2
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
5848.
OUTPUT,LbS/HR
6289.
DIFFERENCE
441.
-1185.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 7929. 6744.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,«,SAMPLING PLANE 32.94
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 6.12 EAST 6.20
-------
D-17
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION CJF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FRCM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FILL-SCALE LIMESTONE IlMJECTICN TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST N0.1CR2 DATE: JULY 22, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCADf MW
80ILEP LOAD, MLBS/HR
COAL PATE, L8S/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, L6S/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
32.9
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
8.4
VOLATILE
MATTER
33.1
FIXED
CARSON
43.3
139
979
115743.
0.166
940
r\
UPPER REAR
2061
5.0
1.33
BITS
EAST 35.5
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.13 1.21 65.53
ASH
15.2
SULFUR
3.80
SULFUR
3.8
ASH
15.20
MOISTURE
8.40
LIMESTCME UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 10.0 EAST 9.4
S02 REMOVAL EFF1CIENCY,X,BOILER CUTLET
METHOD 1 • METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
12.5 14.4 11.5 11.4 11.6 13.1
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
8796.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
9277.
DIFFERENCE
481.
-180C.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 10765. 8965.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,$,SAMPLING PLANE 37.96
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 6.^0 EAST 5.90
-------
D-18
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FLLL-SCALE LIMESTONE .INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST Nu.ii DATE: JULY 23, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOAD, HW
80ILEP LOAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, 6CR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STUICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
31.3
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
8.8
VOLATILE
MATTER
33.5
FIXED
CARBON
43.9
139
985
114542.
0.167
195
0
FRONT
2061
5.0
1.53
81T8
EAST 29.6
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4-19 1.22 66.39
ASH SULFUR
13.8 3.3
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
3.30 13.80 8.80
LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 8.6 EAST 7.9
S02 REMOVAL EFFIC IENCY,%,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
13.4 5.7 11.7 8.2 11.0 4.7
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
7560.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
8999.
DIFFERENCE
1439.
-2840.
CAO MATEPULS BALANCE 1C718. 7877.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 40.41
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.44 EAST 5.50
-------
D-19
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHURITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST N0.12R3 DATE: AUGUST 4, 1<37C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
35.0
CUAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON
6.3 32.8 44.5
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.17 1.23 66.37
ACTUAL
139
998
114423.
0.132
198
r>
FRONT
2061
5.0
1.11
81T8
EAST 37.7
ASH SULFUR
16.4 3.6
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
3.60 16.40 6.30
% LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 13.9 EAST 15.1
S02 REMOVAL EFFIC IENCY,5g,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 i METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
12.3 6.3 11.3 8.9 12.4 6.1
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
8238.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
7917.
DIFFERENCE
-322.
-3487.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 8463. 4975.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,2,SAMPLING PLANE 31.08
THEORETICAL FLY ASH.GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 6.48 EAST 6.36
-------
D-20
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - CIVISION GF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NU.13 DATE: JULY 29, 197Q
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOAD, MW
3UILER LOAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, L8S/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, 8CR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHICMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
37.7
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
9.1
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.3
FIXED
CARBON
46.1
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.22 1.26 67.41
ASH
12.5
SULFUR
2.20
142
1007
116000.
0.128
101
0
FRONT
2061
4.7
1.76
81T8
EAST 37.7
SULFUR
2.2
ASH
12.50
MOISTURE
9.10
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 9.1 EAST 7.1
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,*,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
16.7 18.2 11.8 11.6 12.9 14.1
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
5104.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
6018.
DIFFERENCE
914.
-1883.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 8319. 6436.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,2,SAMPLING PLANE 36.46
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 4.68 EAST 4.68
-------
D-21
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION L)F PUWEK PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIUE REMOVAL FROM POfcER PLANT STACK GAS
FILL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNPE UNIT 10
TEST NU.14 DATE: JULY 2<3, 1S)70
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOAD, Mfc
BOILER LCAD, ML8S/HR
COAL'RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJLCTICM VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE-. TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STJIChlGMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - rtEST
37.7
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
9.1
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.3
FIXED
CARBON
46.1
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.22 1.26 67.41
1000
116000.
0.157
192
ASH
12.
SULFUR
3.30
FRONT
4.6
1.46
81T8
EAST 37.7
SULFUR
3.3
ASH
12. 5C
MOISTURE
9.10
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 7.2 EAST 5.9
S02 REMCVAL EFFIC IENCY,S,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 t METHOD 2 METHOD 3
fcEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
16.3 16.3 7.8 7.5 16.8 16.8
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
7656.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
6833.
DIFFERENCE
-823.
-2443.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 10204. 7761.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 41.31
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- rtEST 4.64 EAST '4.64
-------
D-22
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SLLFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FRCM POWER PLANT STACK GA'S
FLLL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAwNtE UNIT 10
TEST NO.15 DATE: JULY 31, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, Nw
ciOILEF LCAD, MLBS/HR
v,OAL PATfc, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/L8COAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJLCTICN ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NJ.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICFICMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
hXChSS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
33.3
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOIiTURE
9.6
VOLATILE
MATTER
35.2
FIXED
CARBON
51.0
1004
123310.
0.118
945
0
UPPER REAR
2061
4.8
1.75
81T6
EAST 40.0
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROCEN CARBON
4.17 1.19 75.10
ASH
13.8
SULFUR
2.10
SULFUR
2.1
ASH
13.80
MOISTURE
9.6.)
cIMbSTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 12.8 EAST 9.9
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,*,BOILER CUTLET
METHOD 1 MtTHCD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
29.6 38.3 19.4 19.7 26.2 27.3
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
5179.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
5406.
DIFFERENCE
227.
-242.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 8153. 7911.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,$,SAMPL ING PLANE 32.39
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 4.71 EAST 4.50
-------
D-23
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FILL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.16 DATE: AUGUST 11, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STUICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
31.3
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
8.9
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.1
FIXED
CARBON
43.4
142
1001
119970.
0.160
940
0
UPPER REAR
2061
4.7
1.50
81T8
EAST 29.6
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.C8 1.20 64.82
ASH
15.6
SULFUR
3.20
SULFUR
3.2
ASH MOISTURE
15.60 8.90
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 16.5 EAST 20.1
S02 REMOVAL EFF 1C IENCY,$,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD i ' METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
16.5 19.1 17.6 14.7 13.7 15.3
SC2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
7678.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
9292.
DIFFERENCE
1614.
-4732.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 10755. 6023.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,%,SAMPLING PLANE 36.49
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 6.29 EAST 6.36
-------
D-24
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCT ION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POKER PLANT STACK GAS
FLLL-SCALfc LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.17 DATE: AUGUST 11, 197G
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, Mb
dOlLEP LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL PATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/L6COAL
INJECTICN VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJtCTlCN ANGLE,DEGRtES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIi'lESTCNE TYPE, bCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICFICMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NU.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
31.3
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON
8.1 32.1 42.8
CCAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.C5 1.19 S4.27
ACTUAL
142
118750.
0 .117
131
45
UPPER REAR
2061
4. a
1.01
81T8
EAST 29.6
ASH SULFUR
17.0 3.5
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
3.3C 17.00 8.10
% LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 13.0 EAST 14.5
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,*,BOIL6R CUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
16.5 6.6 15.3 14.1 16.0 8.1
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
8312.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
8848.
DIFFERENCE
535.
-70.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 7785. 7714.
THEORcTlCAL CAO IN DUST,S,SAMPLING PLANE 27.83
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 6.96 EAST 7.05
-------
D-25
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF PUWEK PRODUCT IJ.4
SULFUR UXIUE REMOVAL FROM POWtR PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NU.18 DATE: AUGUST 12t 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCACt MW
BOILEP LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/L6COAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
I.NiJECTICN ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE TYPE, OCR NO.
PARTICLE SUE, MICRONS
STUICHICMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
37.3
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
1C.5
VOLATILE
MATTER
30.3
FIXED
CARBON
41.7
141
1010
120379.
C.I 35
131
45
UPPER REAR
2061
4.7
1.77
81T8
EAST 29.6
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
3.68 1.15 61.84
ASH
17.5
SOLFUR
2.40
SULFUR
2.4
ASH
17.50
MOISTURE
10.50
% LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 13.7 EAST 11.9
S02 REMOVAL EFFIC IfcNCY,ZfBOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
26.0 16.7 21.2 16.6 17.2 11.0
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
5778.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
8392.
DIFFERENCE
2613.
-1799.
CAC MATERIALS BALANCE 9105. 73C7.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,2,SAMPLING PLANE 30.18
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 7.?1 EAST 7.33
-------
D-26
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.19 DATE: AUGUST 13, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOAD, MW
BOILER LOAD, MLBS/HR
COAL FATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJhCTICN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
39.1
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON
7.6 32.9 45.6
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.23 1.25 67.44
ACTUAL
995
120356.
0.115
132
-45
UPPER REAR
2061
4.7
1.16
81T8
EAST 38.2
ASH SULFUR
13.7 3.0
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
3.00 13.70 7.80
Z LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 12.5 EAST 11.1
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,2,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
14.5 16.6 12.6 10.4 11.9 13.3
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR OUTPUT,LBS/HR DIFFERENCE.
7221. 8602. 1380.
-1651.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 7755. 6104.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 31.99
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.12 EAST 5.15
-------
D-27
TENNESSEE VALLbY AUTHORITY - DIVISION UF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POhER PLANT STACK GAS
FLLL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAHNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.20 DATE: AUGUST 13, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LdS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, bCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STJICHICMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCcSS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
39.1
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
7.9
VOLATILE
MATTER
33.1
FIXED
CARBON
44.9
CCAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.21 1.24 66.97
ASH
14.1
SULFUR
3.00
142
1000
117500.
0.167
132
-45
UPPEK REAR
2061
4.7
1.69
31T8
EAST 38.2
SULFUR
3.0
ASH
14.10
MOISTURE
7.9?
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 9.0 EAST 9.0
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,g,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
16.6 18.7 13.5 12.9 14.2 14.3
SC2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
7050.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
8329.
DIFFERENCE
1279.
-1987,
CAO MATER I/LS BALANCE 10994. 9008.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,Z,SAMPLING PLANE 39.89
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST b.?9 EAST 5.33
-------
D-28
1ENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMEST.ONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.21 DATE: AUGUST 24, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, Mrt
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LOS/LdCOAL
INJECTION' VELOCITY, FT/SEC
IlMJcCTILN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRUNS
STOiCHlCMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
16.6
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
9.5
VCLATILE
MATTER
35.b
FIXED
CARBON
48.0
13b
1003
113425.
0.075
134
-45
UPPER REAR
2061
5.1
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN
4.C4
NITROGEN
1.13
CARBON
72.62
ASH
16.5
SULFUR
2.60
0.87
81T6
EAST
16.0
SULFUR
2.6
ASH
16.50
MOISTURE
9.50
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, aOILER OUTLET - WEST 10.1 EAST 7.2
S02 REMCVAL EFF 1C IENCY,
METHOD 1
WEST EAST
8.5 10.8
BOILER CUTLET
METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST
11.5 12.0 6.5 8.2
SU2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
5893.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
7867.
DIFFERENCE
1969.
2286.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 4766. 7052.
THEORETICAL CAO IN OUSF,%,SAMPLING PLANE 20.30
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 6.56 EAST 6.59
-------
D-29
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FRCM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.22 DATE: AUGUST 25f 197C
TEST CUNCIT IONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LOAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STUICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
15.4
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON
1C. 6 30.9 43.6
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.C1 1.19 64.03
ACTUAL
140
1016
119000.
0.099
131
0
UPPER REAR
2061
4.8
1.76
81T8
EAST 25.0
ASH SULFUR
14.9 1.7
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
1.70 14.90 10.60
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 11.1 EAST 11.8
S02 REMCVAL EFFICIENCY,X,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
19.4 24.3 17.2 19.5 15.0 17.3
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
4046.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
4809.
DIFFERENCE
763.
-926.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 6601. 5675.
THEORETICAL CAC IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 27.13
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 6.77 EAST 6.31
-------
D-30
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION UF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDt REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.23 DATE: AUGUST 27, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTICN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
28.8
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
8.6
VOLATILE
MATTER
34.9
FIXED
CARBON
41.5
140
1005
116341.
0.130
68
0
UPPER REAR
2061
4.4
1.07
81T8
EAST 33.8
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.15 1.19 65.35
ASH
15.0
SULFUR
3.70
SULFUR
3.7
ASH MOISTURE
15.00 8.60
LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 12.5 EAST 11.0
S02 REMOVAL EFF 1CIENCY,*,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 , METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
6.6 11.2 8.3 8.6 5.8 9.4
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
8609.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
9736.
DIFFERENCE
1127.
-3124.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 8474. 5350.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 32.69
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 6.10 EAST 5.89
-------
D-31
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR UXIOE REMOVAL FROM POwER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECT ICN TESTS AT SHAWNfcE UNIT 10
TEST NO.24 DATE: AUGUST 26, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOADt Mw
BOILER LCAD, MLDS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/L8COAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZ6, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - HESF
39.1
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
9.9
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.5
FIXED
CARBON
43.9
139
1008
118095.
0.180
67
-45
UPPER REAR
2061
4.6
1.70
81T8
EAST 32.9
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.12 1.21 65.59
ASH
13.7
SULFUR
3.20
SULFUR
3.2
ASH
13.70
MOISTURE
9.90
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - KEST 7.6 EAST 5.6
SU2 REMOVAL EFF ICIENCY,%,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 i METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST 6AST WEST EAST WtST EAST
6.3 9.0 10.7 9.8 4.7 6.7
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
7558.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
10052.
DIFFERENCE
2494.
-1448.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 11910. 10462.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,X,SAMPLING PLANE 42.40
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- HEST 5.12 EAST 5.34
-------
D-32
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - CIVISION GP POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDt REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LlMESTUNt INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NU.25 DATE: AUGUST 31, 1970
TEST CONCITIONS
UNIT LCALJ, MW
BOILER LOAD, MLtJS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTICN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTCNt TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STU1CHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
116
856
107088.
0.174
68
0
UPPER REAR
2061
5.2
1.29
RECLAIMED
23.5 EAST 22.1
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
5.5
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.1
FIXED
CARBON
44.3
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.12 1.22 65.63
ASH
18.1
SULFUR
4.00
SULFUR
4.0
ASH
18.10
MOISTURE
5.50
LIMbSTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 5.1 EAST 6.7
SU2 REMCVAL EFFICIENCY,g,80ILER CUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
9.3 9.2 36.1 21.8 8.9 8.7
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
8567.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
10126.
DIFFERENCE
1558.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 10440. 37891. 27451.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 35.01
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 7.87 EAST 7.95
-------
D-33
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - (DIVISION Of- POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR GXIOE REMOVAL PROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FLLL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.26 DATE: AUGUST 31, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, Mw 118
60ILEP LOAD, MLBS/HR 864
COAL RATE, L8S/HR 1C5365.
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL 0.178
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC 131
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES -45
INJECTION ELEVATION UPPER REAR
LIMESTCNE TYPE, BCR NO. 2061
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS 4.8
STOICHIOMETRY 1.29
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO. RECLAIMED
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST 30.4 EAST 3C.4
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE ACTUAL
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON ASH SULFUR
7.2 32.9 42.2 17.7 4.2
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
4.07 1.18 64.38 4.20 17.70 7.20
* LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST b.7 EAST 7.9
S02 REMCVAL EFFICIENCY,X,BOILER CUTLET
METHOD 1 ' METHOD 2. METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
6.5 5.0 10.3 10.5 5.7 4.3
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE INPUT,LBS/HR OUTPUT,LBS/HR DIFFERENCE
8851. 10356. 1505.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 10508. .9281. -1227.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,3,SAMPLING PLANE 36.C4
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 7.31 EAST 7.31
-------
D-34
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDfc REMOVAL FROM POwER PLANT STACK GAS
FLLL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.27 DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCADt MW
60ILEP LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATEf LBS/L8COAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHICMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
120
853
101333.
0.072
69
-45
UPPER REAR
2061
5.7
1.10
81T3
11.0 EAST 11.9
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
VOLATILE
MATTER
MOISTURE
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN
4.C9 1.22
FIXED
LARuON
44.6
CARBON
65.34
ASH
14.6
SULFUR
2.30
SULFUR
2.3
ASH
14.60
MOISTURE
9.40
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 11.3 EAST 10.2
S02 REMOVAL EFF 1C IENCY,*,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
12.8 9.4 9.6 10.4 11.5 8.7
SC2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
4661.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
4981.
DIFFERENCE
320.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 4083. 3715. -373.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 21.65
THEORETICAL FLY ASH.GkNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 6.81 EAST 6.77
-------
D-35
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - LIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NU.28 DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAO, MW
BOILER LOAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, L8S/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/L8COAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJtCTICN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTCNE TYPE, 8CR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STUICHICMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
28.2
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
VOLATILE MXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON
S.8 31.8 45.1
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.14 1.23 66.11
ACTUAL
117
857
97904.
0.073
135
0
UPPER REAR
2061
5.7
1.13
81T8
EAST 26.5
ASH SULFUR
13.3 2.5
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
2.50 13.30 9.80
% LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 13.8 EAST 12.4
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,%,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 ' METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
13.6 12.2 12.9 12.7 11.9 11.1
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
4895.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
5267.
DIFFERENCE
372.
163.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 4004. 4167.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 23.52
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.36 EAST 5.42
-------
D-36
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NO.29 DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LOAD, MW
BOILER LGAD, MLBS/HR
COAL PATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTICN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
28.0
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
8.4
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.9
FIXED
CARBON
45.9
78
571
67087.
0.048
136
0
UPPER REAR
2061
5.0
0.86
UNKNOWN
EAST 27.0
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.24 1.26 67.71
ASH
12.8
SULFUR
1.70
SULFUR
1.7
ASH
12.80
MOISTURE
8.40
% LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 17.0 EAST 12.3
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,*,BOILER CUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
18.2 18.1 16.4 16.2 14.5 13.0
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
2281.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
2893.
DIFFERENCE
612.
483.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 1804. 2288.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 17.36
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.17 EAST 5.20
-------
D-37
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNbE UNIT 10
TEST N0.1A DATE: AUGUST IS, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL PATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, L6S/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOIChlOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
29.2
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
1C.3
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.3
FIXED
CARBON
44.2
133
995
119927.
0.128
0
0
LOWER REAR
2061
5.1
1.44
81T8
EAST 25.4
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.13 1.22 65.70
ASH
13.2
SULFUR
2.70
SULFUR
2.7
ASH
13.20
MOISTURE
10.30
% LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 6.1 EAST 7.4
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,3,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 .' METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
11.6 14.7 7.0 5.9 8.6 10.9
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
647t>.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
8115.
DIFFERENCE
1639.
-3133.
CAO MATEPIALS BALANCE 8601. t>467.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,«,SAMPLING PLANE 35.20
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPL ING PLANE- WEST 5.27 EAST 5.41
-------
D-38
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FfLL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST N0.2A DATE: SEPTEMBER 10t 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
32.1
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
9.C
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.2
FIXED
CARBON
44.9
138
1003
117286.
0.076
133
0
UPPER REAR
2061
5.1
1.11
81T8
EAST 35.5
COAL ANALYSIS - LLTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.15 1.23 66.25
ASH
13.9
SULFUR
2.10
SULFUR
2.1
ASH MOISTURE
13.90 9.00
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 12.2 EAST 10.3
S02 REMCVAL EFFICIENCY,*,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
20.2 13.8 19.0 16.6 17.1 11.3
SU2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
4926.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
5662.
DIFFERENCE
736.
1821.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 4994. 6815.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,S,SAMPLING PLANE 23.45
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.51 EAST 5.38
-------
D-39
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTICN TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST N0.4A DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 197C
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW 139
BOILER LOAD, MLBS/HR 1040
COAL RATE, LBS/HR 121016.
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCCAL 0.087
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC 132
INJECTICN ANGLE,DEGREES 0
INJECTION ELEVATION UPPER REAR
LIMESTCNE TYPE, BCR NO. 2061
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS 4.3
STOICHICMETRY 1.39
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO. RECLAIMED
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST 2C.7 EAST 27.3
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE ACTUAL
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARBON ASH SULFUR
9.1 33.3 43.7 13.9 1.9
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
4.16 1.22 66.05 1.90 13.90 9.10
LIMESTCNE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 8.0 EAST 6.9
S02 REMOVAL Ef-F 1C IENCY, %, BO ILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
27.4 lfa.4 14.5 14.5 21.7 14.2
SG2 MATERIALS BALANCE INPUT,LBS/HR OUTPUT,LBS/HR DIFFERENCE
4599. 5340. 741.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 5899. 7826. 1927.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 25.96
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.99 EAST 5.71
-------
D-40
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - DIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FLLL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST N0.6A DATE: AUGUST 20, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, ML8S/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/L8COAL
INJECTICN VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTICN ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STUICHICMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
23.5
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE ACTUAL
VOLATILE FIXED
MOISTURE MATTER CARbOiM ASH
8.2 31.7 42.1 18.0
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON SULFUR
3.99 1.17 63.32 2.60
137
1005
127814.
0.105
69
0
LOWER REAR
2061
4.4
1.19
81T8
EAST 22.8
SULFUR
2.6
ASH MOISTURE
18.00 8.20
LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 8.6 EAST 9.5
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,%,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
5.4 8.6 10.9 9.9 4.3 6.9
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
6646.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
8328.
DIFFERENCE
1682.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 7519. 6675. -845.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 24.63
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 7.95 EAST 7.99
-------
D-41
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - CIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FROM POWER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTICN TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST N0.7A DATE: AUGUST IS, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTICN VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTICN ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, 8CR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
21.6
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
•9.5
VOLATILE
MATTER
32.2
FIXED
CARBON
44.7
139
1014
125734.
0.129
X32
0
LOWER REAR
2061
4.8
1.72
«1T8
EAST 17.3
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.14 1.23 66.07
ASH SULFUR
13.6 2.3
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
2.30 13.60 9.50
LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 6.1 EAST 6.9
S02 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY,%,BOILER OUTLET
METHOD 1 METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
14.1 14.9 11.3 11.2 10.9 11.2
SQ2 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
5784.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
6984.
DIFFERENCE
1201.
-279.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 9088. 8809.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,*,SAMPLING PLANE 34.70
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.77 EAST 5,96
-------
D-42
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - CIVISION OF POWER PRODUCTION
SULFUR OXIDE REMOVAL FRCM POKER PLANT STACK GAS
FULL-SCALE LIMESTONE INJECTION TESTS AT SHAWNEE UNIT 10
TEST NU.8A DATE: AUGUST IS, 1970
TEST CONDITIONS
UNIT LCAD, MW
BOILER LCAD, MLBS/HR
COAL RATE, LBS/HR
LIMESTONE RATE, LBS/LBCOAL
INJECTION VELOCITY, FT/SEC
INJECTION ANGLE,DEGREES
INJECTION ELEVATION
LIMESTONE TYPE, BCR NO.
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
STOICHIOMETRY
COAL TYPE,CONTRACT NO.
EXCESS AIR,PERCENT - WEST
23.5
COAL ANALYSIS - PROXIMATE
ACTUAL
MOISTURE
9.2
VOLATILE
MATTER
31.8
FIXED
CARBON
45.0
140
1010
125734.
0.159
68
C
LOWER REAR
2061
4.5
2.01
81T8
EAST 22.1
COAL ANALYSIS - ULTIMATE
HYDROGEN NITROGEN CARBON
4.13 1.23 66.02
ASH SULFUR
14.C 2.4
SULFUR ASH MOISTURE
2.40 14.00 9.20
LIMESTONE UTILIZED, BOILER OUTLET - WEST 7.4 EAST 6.5
S02 REMOVAL EFF1C IENCY,S,BO ILER OUTLET
METHOD 1. METHOD 2 METHOD 3
WEST EAST WEST EAST WEST EAST
13.6 14.7 14.1 12.3 10.8 11.2
S02 MATERIALS BALANCE
INPUT,LBS/HR
6035.
OUTPUT,LBS/HR
7497.
DIFFERENCE
1462.
CAO MATERIALS BALANCE 11201. 10037. -1164.
THEORETICAL CAO IN DUST,%,SAMPLING PLANE 38.89
THEORETICAL FLY ASH,GRNS/CUFT,SAMPLING PLANE- WEST 5.87 EAST 5.93
-------
APPENDIX E
Instantaneous Dust Distribution Studies
-------
E-l
APPENDIX E
Instantaneous Dust Distribution via Holography
Use of the technique in the region of interest (Plane A-A, 376-foot elevation) was
desired but the absence of opposing ports required investigation of laser back scatter
through a single port or recording side scatter by the combination of two of the several
existing ports at this elevation. Mathematical modeling and laboratory tests were performed.
Preliminary light scattering measurements with a continuous wave helium-neon laser
indicated that the limestone distribution at Plane A-A was not spatially uniform nor was the
distribution constant or repetitive with time. However, the same observation was made with
fly ash alone, and since the scattered light intensity was seen to increase by a factor of about
2 with limestone addition, it appeared that the limestone and fly ash were moving together
through the boiler.
Effort was discontinued at that time primarily due to current limitations of the
technique for application to the boiler. Attenuation of light scattered in the backward and
side directions greatly limited the depth of boiler penetration, and particle velocity
components due to turbulence, etc., were expected to blur the quality of holograms. In
addition, particle number density could only be estimated within a factor of 2 and no
technique was available to distinguish between lime and fly ash.
Although these techniques indicated some potential for determining instantaneous
concentrations of lime in fly ash, additional development efforts were required. This fact
coupled with the expected lack of correlating SO2 concentration data and the conclusion
that furnace turbulence controls dust distribution led to termination of this activity.
Lasers have been used previously to study rocket exhaust conditions but holograms
produced at Shawnee are believed to be the first obtained in a boiler furnace.
The following paragraphs and figures are taken directly from TRW Report No.
14103-6001-RO-OO. (See reference E-l.)
3.3 TWO-BEAM HOLOCAMERAi
The Phase III holography studies conducted at the 365-foot elevation of Unit 10
utilized a two-beam transmission holocamera designed to record not the direct transmitted
beam but instead, low angle forward scattered light. The two-beam holocamera differed
from the Gabor setup in that the reference illumination was physically removed from the
scene volume and passed around the outside of the boiler with the use of additional optics.
The reference illumination, termed the "reference beam" is incident on the holographic
plate in an unmodified state. As such, it is readily duplicated and facilitates reconstruction
of the developed plate.
Application of a two-beam holographic technique proved absolutely essential in
studying particulate matter dispersed over large distances in the operating boiler. Thermal
-------
E-2
gradients, some indication of turbulence and the presence of large ensembles of particles,
heavily attenuated the laser light (scene beam) passing through the boiler. Single-beam or
Gabor holography is dependent upon a portion of the illumination passing through the
scene in an unmodified state. This unmodified portion of the illumination serves as the
reference beam which, when duplicated, reconstructs the recorded scene. In the case of the
boiler studies, the heavy attenuation and modification of the laser beam encoded all of the
illumination making it impossible to produce a meaningful reconstruction.
The two-beam holocamera configuration eventually selected for work at the boiler is
a modification of more conventional transmission holocamera arrangements. The particles
contained within the recorded scene volume are not imaged directly onto the holographic
plate. Rather, the presence of particles in the scene is detected by scattered light.
Verification of the low angle forward scattered light holocamera technique was first
accomplished under the separate sponsorship of the TRW independent research program.
The holographic arrangement used during these early tests is shown schematically in Figure
14. The arrangement utilized a 5-inch-diameter collimating telescope, two front-surface
mirrors, a glass wedge beam splitter and a corner prism. The light beam from the pulsed
ruby laser was directed through the beam splitter and corner prism and projected across a
scene volume of approximately 45 feet. The unexpanded scene beam was purposely directed
so as not to impinge on the holographic plate. The wedge beam splitter diverted about 4
.percent of the light energy into the collimating telescope to form the 5-inch-diameter
reference beam. The reference illumination was directed around the scene volume. The two
front-surface mirrors directed the beam onto the hologram plate at an angle of nearly 10
degrees. In contrast, the scene beam (as seen in the diagram of Figure 14) consisted only of
that portion of the light scattered at a low forward angle from objects placed to intercept
the unexpanded laser beam. The technique is relatively independent of the temporal
coherence of the ruby laser.
The apparatus described above was used to demonstrate the feasibility of recording
forward scattered light on holographic plates using a conventional Q-switched ruby laser. A
series of tests was conducted in which scattered light from tufts of cotton, glass fibers and
chalk dust was successfully recorded. The results of these tests are described in Section 4.
Verification of the technique led to the design and installation of a scattered light
transmission holocamera at elevation 365 feet on the Unit 10 boiler.
The holocamera optical component arrangement for the Phase III tests at elevation
365 feet on Unit 10 is shown in the plan view diagram of Figure 15a. The pulsed ruby laser
illuminator for the holocamera was installed on a shelf positioned approximately 8 feet
above the ground floor elevation of 345 feet. This installation is shown in Figure 16. The
proximity of the laser to the boiler and holocamera components is shown in Figure 15b
which is a perspective drawing of the test setup. From this illustration, it is seen that light
was passed from the laser source to the beam splitter box (refer to Figure 15) by means of a
periscope arrangement.
-------
E-3
The laser input beam was directed into a horizontal plane at the desired boiler port
elevation ('x/SSS feet) by the periscope. The beam next entered the first optical package
which consisted of a prism (No. 3), wedge beam splitter assembly and a collimating
telescope. Referring to Figure 15, it will be seen that a portion of the laser input beam
passed through the beam splitter assembly and proceeded directly across the front (south)
side of Unit 10 to a prism box placed before the inlet port of the boiler. The laser beam is
directed by the final reflector (prism No. 4) so as to enter the boiler and traverse the 24 feet
of combustion volume. This last prism was set so that the light just missed the exit port on
the far side or rear north wall. As in the Figure 14 test configuration, the laser beam did not
fall directly on the holographic plate. Particles within the illuminating beam scattered light
from the beam. Some of the light scattered at low angles in the forward direction emerged
from the rear port and fell on the holographic plate to form the scene beam.
The reference illumination is formed by reflecting a portion of the laser light at the
wedge beam splitter (Figure 15). The reference beam is passed through a negative lens and
expanded to a 5-inch-diameter and then collimated. With the reference beam expanded to
illuminate the holographic plate, it is passed by two front surface mirrors to the plate at an
angle of 15 degrees with respect to the nominal axis of the emerging scene light. The angle
of separation between the scene and reference beams is not critical. A design value of 10 to
30 degrees was selected as providing adequate viewing angle separation (on reconstruction)
and at the same time simplify the tasks of camera and mirror mounting and of matching the
optical path lengths of the scene and reference beams.
The camera and shutter assembly shown in Figure 17 is designed to accept standard
4x5 photographic film or plate holders. As described earlier in Section 3.2, it is fitted with
two mechanical shutters, a slow-acting capping shutter which helps to protect internal parts
from dust and radiant heat, and a fast-acting "focal-plane1' shutter. Each time an exposure is
to be made, the following sequence of events is typical:
• The film holder is loaded into the shutter mechanism, and the dark slide pulled.
• The laser flashlamp capacitor banks are charged.
• The capping shutter is opened by energizing its electrical solenoid.
• The focal-plane shutter is tripped by energizing its solenoid. A microswitch operated
from a cam on the focal-plane shutter mechanism sends a trigger pulse to the laser
power supply at the instant the focal-plane shutter is fully open. Laser flash duration
is approximately 50 nsec; total exposure of the film to flame light is approximately
50 msec before the focal plane shutter is completely closed again.
• The dark slide is replaced and the exposed film is either removed to the dark room
for processing or stored for later processing.
-------
SCATTERED BEAM FROM PARTICLE
HOLOGRAM
PARTICLE FIELD
CORNER
REFLECTOR
^
SCENE BEAM STOP
WEDGE BEAM
SPLITTER
FRONT SURFACE MIRROR
m
Figure 14. Schematic diagram of two-beam scattered light holocamera
-------
E-5
FttM HCtVCR IMTALLATtOM —y
3-oV
J/ 1 I'wiot »Z"L)
PKISM aOX-tNLCT POST OCTAIL
•CM.C: 114" • r-o'
Figure 15a. Plan view of two-beam holocamera
installation at elevation 365 feet
FILM HOlOtR AND
SHUTTER MECHANISM
LIMESTONE
INJECTION POKT
NORTH WALL
EL£V VT - 6'
LIMESTONE
INJECTION POUT
SOUTH WALL
ELEV 339' - 9"
EXPANDING AND
COLLIMATING OPTICS
WEDGt BEAM
SPLITTER
CORNER PtISM
GROUND FLOO*' ELEV M5
Figure 15b. Perspective view of holocamera
installation at Unit 10
-------
E-6
Filter Tape Sampler Investigation
The second approach to determine limestone distribution in the furnace was by a
moving paper tape dust sampler. This involved mounting a sampler at the end of a
water-cooled probe, aspirating flue gas across the moving paper tape and analyzing the
concentration of deposited dust. This work was done early in 1971 in connection with
Phase II, Dust Distribution Studies.
Equipment consisted of a fractional hp motor and tape holder for movement of the
tape across sampling heads into which the 26-foot long tube entered. Aspirating air and a
small cyclone separator were used as in the normal probe configuration. All this equipment
was attached to the working end of the probe. Testing was performed with isokinetic gas
sampling up to 4 CFM at 160 ° F and 1 atmosphere. Tape 1.5 inches wide was used at speeds
up to 100" per minute without loss of sample from the tape but higher speeds caused
trouble and some loss of sample. Testing was carried out with and without limestone
injection to the boiler. Considerable effort was spent in sizing clearance between sampling
heads to prevent scraping off deposits. This became more critical as course grind limestone,
still below about 7 microns, was injected as compared to fine grind limestone. Air leakage
around the sampling head would increase also for coarse size limestone use.
Development problems concerned (1) tape strength which limits the volume of gas
that can be drawn through the tape, (2) detrimental effects of large size particles, (3)
electrical problems with tape drive, (4) particle retention on the tape, (5) expense of
analyzing dust density on the tape by atomic absorption technique, (6) and interpretation
of results. Analysis of tapes was done by TVA and of the data by EPA. One component
analysis, say for calcium, would cost about $1.50 per determination. The time schedule
along with development problems mentioned above resulted in termination of further effort
on this technique. (See reference E-2.)
Limestone Distribution Index - Sigma
Early study was given to analytical techniques that would be suitable for expressing
the quality of limestone distribution vis-a-vis the presence of sulfur dioxide in furnace gas.
The results of the dust distribution study can best be compared by use of an index
to relate the quantities of dust and sulfur dioxide across the sampling plane. Limestone will
be perfectly distributed relative to sulfur dioxide in the boiler if each molecule of sulfuf
i
dioxide has equal opportunity to react with a particle of limestone. The development of an
index will be based on this definition with perfect distribution equal to unity. It will be
assumed that the velocity, temperature, dust loading, and sulfur dioxide concentration at
each sampling point is typical of the area of the sampling plane represented by that point.
By summation of areas, the total amounts of sulfur dioxide and limestone can be
determined and the actual amounts at each point compared with prorated portions of the
total. A simple correlation coefficient between the observed distribution and the theoretical
-------
E-7
based on the amount of sulfur dioxide will be expressed as the distribution index.
The standard equation for the correlation coefficient is:
2 XY n XY
R = —
\ASX2 n X2 ) (2 Y2 n Y2 )
X = Limestone distribution needed based on sulfur dioxide
distribution
Y = actual limestone distribution
n = number of sampling points
This calculation will be made with a computer. The calculation for the example case is
shown in Table 1.
Values of the distribution index will range from plus 1 to minus 1 with 1 indicating
the limestone is distributed exactly like the sulfur dioxide. A value of minus 1 would
indicate the highly unlikely situation of complete segregation of limestone and sulfur
dioxide.
It is anticipated that grain loading (grns/ft3), SO2 (ppm) and gas velocity (ft/sec-)
will be measured at several sampling points in each sampling plane. As an example, assume
there will be six equally spaced sampling points in a test plane. (Figure 1) Table 1
shows the hypothetical grain loading, SO2, and gas velocity at each sampling point. If the
velocity, grain loading, and SO2 data collected at each of the sampling points are typical of
the values for one square foot in this area of the duct, then by multiplying the velocity
(column 4) by the grain loading (column 3) one obtains the total grains of limestone passing
through a square foot of the duct each second at each sampling location (column 6).
By converting ppm SO2 to a fraction and multiplying it by the velocity, one can
determine the number of cubic feet of SO2 passing each sampling point in a second. This is
shown in column 5.
The total grains of limestone passing all sampling points (534) can be prorated in the
same fashion as the distribution of SO2 at each point shown in column 5. Column 7 shows
this proration. To the extent th^at columns 6 and 7 differ, the distribution is less than
perfect.
©
©
© ©
Figure 1
Hypothetical Sampling Location
-------
E-8
Table 1
Limestone Distribution Index
(1)
Sampling
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
(2)
S02
ppm
2000
2500
2100
1900
2700
2200
(3)
Limestone
Grain Loading
Grns/ft3
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.7
2.0
3.0
(4)
Velocity
ft/sec
45
70
50
50
72
48
(5)
S02
ft3 /sec
.0900
.1750
.1050
.0950
.1944
.1056
.7650
(6)
Y
Limestone
Grns/sec
45
56
60
85
144
144
534
(7)
X
Theoretical
Limestone
Grns/sec*
63
122
73
66
136
^
534
Correlation Coefficient:
S X2 = 632 + 1222 + 732 + 6& + 1362 + 742 = 52.510
2 Y2 = 452 + 562 + 602 + 852 + 1442 + 1442 = 57,458
2 XY= (63)(45)+(122)(56)+(73)(60)+(66)(85)+(136)(144)+(74)(144) = 49,897
X=Y = 534/6 = 89
R = 2 X Y
n X Y
49897- (.6) (89) (89)
V/(2X2-nX2)(SY2-nY2) /[52510-(6)(89)2 ][57458-6(89)2
R= 49897 47526 = 2371 = .337
7036
V/(52510-47526) (57,458-47526)
*Based on distribution of SO,.
-------
E-9
References
E-l Mathews, B. J. and R. F Kemp, "Holographic Determination of Injected Limestone
Distribution in Unit 10 of the Shawnee Power Plant," TRW Report No.
14103-6001-RO-OO, June 1970.
E-2 Williams, T., "Progress in Development of Filter Tape Sampler and Procedure," TVA
internal report dated March 25, 1971.
-------
APPENDIX F
Limestone Injection Effects on Solids Collection System
-------
F-1
APPENDIX F
Report and Analysis Of Field Tests At Shawnee Station Of TVA,
Including A Techno-Economic Evaluation Of Options For Maintaining
The Stack Emission Rate With Limestone Injection Equivalent To A
Baseline Of No Limestone Injection
Contract No. CPA 22-69-139
Particulates Collection Study
TVA Dry Limestone Tests
Prepared For:
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Prepared by:
COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.
Division of Research-Cottrell, Inc.
Post Office Box 750
Bound Brook, New Jersey 08805
October 31, 1972
-------
F-3
ABSTRACT
A particulate control system consisting of a mechanical cyclone-electrostatic 'precipitator
combination has been evaluated on a full-scale boiler without and with limestone injection
(dry) into the boiler for sulfur oxide removal.
The main objective of the study was to determine the effects of dry additive injection on
the particulate control equipment and evaluate system modification alternatives including a
cost benefit analysis that will maintain stack emissions with injection equivalent to about
2.7% sulfur and 10% ash coal-firing without injection.
Two separate test programs by Cottrell Environmental Systems were conducted, one in
December 1969 which quantified the collection system on coal-firing only to serve as a
baseline and the other in July 1971 in which coal sulfur and flue gas temperature, along
with limestone particle size and amount injected were studied at two levels. A third test
program by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the summer of 1970 has been used to
establish the baseline conditions for the electrostatic precipitator and boiler flue gas.
Mechanical collector performance did not vary substantially whether fly ash alone was
collected or in combination with coarse or fine limestone. Efficiencies measured were in the
50 to 60% range depending upon pressure loss across the collector. Therefore, the overall
efficiency of the dust collection equipment was a significant function of the precipitator
performance and inlet loading only. In general, as expected, the electrostatic precipitator
performance was adversely affected by limestone injection. It was found that the
precipitation rate parameter without and with limestone injection was mainly a function of
corona power density input, and that the power level and therefore the performance
reached without excessive sparking was lower in the limestone injection cases.
The average particulate emission rate and flue gas conditions found on No. 10 boiler at
Shawnee Station of TVA with the presently installed dust collection equipment were 412
Ibs/hr and 570,000 cfm at 309° 'F Cost estimates for size modification to the presently
installed precipitator to maintain baseline emission with limestone injection have been
considered for flue gas temperatures into the precipitator of 250, 309, and 600F. Other
options such as gas conditioning and precipitator energization modifications have been
discussed but since actual performance data for these alternatives was beyond the scope of
this experimental program, only speculative comments have been made as to expected
results. For coarse limestone injection, the present precipitator on boiler No. 10 at 309F
would have to be increased in size about 45% in order to maintain the desired emission level
stipulated above. If it is feasible to reduce the gas temperature to about 250F, the size
increase required would only be 17%. On the other hand with fine limestone injection, the
size increases at 309 and 250F would be 225 and 56% respectively.
For the grassroots plant, the evaluation shows a cold precipitator (250F) as the best option
on a cost basis.
-------
F-5
SUMMARY
The Environmental Protection Agency is sponsoring a variety of programs to develop
technically feasible and economic means for removing sulfur oxides from stack gases of
fossil fuel-fired boilers. One such means is the injection of dry limestone into the hot zone
of the boiler where the gaseous sulfur oxides react with the finely dispersed additive to form
solid sulfur-additive compounds which can be removed from the flue gas in mechanical
and/or electrostatic precipitator collectors.
This report presents the results obtained from 37 test runs on a full-scale plant firing
pulverized coal and having a dry additive injection system. The major variables studied
include flue gas temperature into the dust collecting equipment, coal sulfur, and additive
stoichiometry and particle size. Two levels of each variable were investigated. These tests
and data from other pertinent sources have been analyzed and correlated. The results are
summarized as follows:
1. The performance of the mechanical collector was relatively insensitive to all test
conditions of injection or non-injection ranging between 50 and 60% efficiency. On the
other hand, the overall efficiency of the dust collection system varied broadly between
72 and 99% depending significantly on the electrostatic precipitator performance.
Without limestone injection, flue gas temperature and volume, and coal sulfur were the
critical variables while with injection, the particle size of the additive was another
important parameter.
2. The precipitation rate parameter was a significant semi-logrithmic function of the corona
power input density.
W = 0.47+0.16 In PA (No Injection)
i
W = 0.52+0.12 In PA (Coarse Additive Injection)
W = 0.46+0.14 In PA (Fine Additive Injection)
where,
W = precipitation rate parameter (FPS)
PA = corona power input density
(kilowatts/1000 ft2 of collecting surface)
In general, the precipitator performance was poorer with limestone injection because the
maximum corona input power density attainable was lower, particularly when fine
limestone was injected.
-------
F-6
3. A correlation of use in sizing electrostatic precipitators was found by examining the
effects of the parameters of limestone particle size, flue gas temperature, coal sulfur and
limestone injection rate on corona power input density. The correlation resulted in the
following equations:
(coarse)
PA =-1.435 - 0.336S + i^°-
A
L T.
(fine)
PA = -0.990 + 0.199S - P^4 + i^i
A L T
where,
S = coal sulfur fired (tons/hr)
L= limestone injected (tons/hr)
T ='flue gas temperature (°F x 10"2 )
By use of these equations and the correlation between precipitation rate parameter and
power density shown above, it is possible to size a precipitator for the following limiting
conditions:
Coal Sulfur Fired (S)
1.0 to 3.2 tons/hr
Limestone Feedrate (L)
5.3 to 16.7 tons/hr.
Flue Gas Temperature (T)
(240 to 315) (10"2)°F
Stoichiometry 0.28 (L/S) = 1.0 to 4.0
4. Mechanical collector fractiona.1 efficiency curves for fly ash alone and fly ash plus
additive reaction products were essentially the same ranging from 25% on the 5 micron
size to 90 to 95% on the greater than 25 micron size. However, the electrostatic
precipitator fractional efficiency curve on fly ash alone was nearly constant over the
entire particle size range, i.e., 80 to 90%. With limestone injection, the electrostatic
precipitator showed decreasing collection efficiency as particle size increased. The fly ash
alone had an average mean size by weight of 19 microns at the mechanical collector inlet
while with both coarse and fine limestone injection, the mean size was about 9 microns.
The average particulate loading at the mechanical outlet-precipitator inlet varied linearly
with limestone injection rate ranging from 1.5 grains per scf at 0 feedrate to about 4.0
grains at 16 tons/hr.
-------
F-7
5. Laboratory particle resistivity measurements, in general, were higher than in-situ
resistivities on samples from the same test both with and without limestone injection.
The criticality of coal sulfur and moisture on particle resistivity was verified by in-situ
measurements without limestone injection, particularly at the lower gas temperatures.
With limestone injection, the effect of sulfur appeared to be random, but moisture
conditioning at lower temperatures was still evident.
6. The precipitation rate parameter degradation as a function of particle resistivity was
demonstrated. However, the critical range of resistivity seemed to be occurring in the
1011 to 1013 ohm-cm range which is somewhat higher than normal.
7. There was no obvious correlation between the chemical composition of the particulate
and the performance of the precipitator.
8. An optical sensor installed on the precipitator outlet duct provided a good qualitative
indication of boiler and dust collecting equipment operation. There appeared to be a
linear relationship between outlet particulate loading and sensor output voltage.
However, the necessity for maintaining clean lenses was evident.
9. Using a baseline of 412 pounds emitted/hr and 570,000 cfm of flue gas at 309F,
estimated costs of the fly ash only electrostatic precipitator (installed) at 309F was
compared with one at GOOF. In addition, size modifications and costs for electrostatic
precipitators with coarse and fine limestone injection (2 x stoichiometry) were compared
at 250, 309, and 600 F.
The following summarizes the results:
t
Electrostatic Precipitator
Cost and Size Factors 250F 309F 600F
Cost
Installed ($/Kilowatt)
No Injection 2.21 5.85
Coarse Injection 2.58 3.21 7.10
Fine Injection 3.44 7.20 7.10
Size
Factor (x no injection
at309F= 1.0)
No Injection - 1.0 2.44
Coarse Injection 1.17 1.45 2.96
Fine Injection 1.56 3.25 2.96
-------
F-8
Coarse limestone at a flue gas temperature around 250F emerged as the best alternative
for the limestone injection cases when only considering precipitator size modification.
However, the present Shawnee boiler flue gas is about 300F and would require cooling in
order to take advantage of the 250F result. This added cost could offset the difference
between coarse limestone at 309F at $3.21/kW and $2.59/kW at 250F. With fine
limestone injection, the precipitator size requirements at 250F are still at a minimum but
as above, extra cost for gas cooling would be required. The requirements at 309F and
GOOF are for all practical purposes equivalent.
-------
F-9
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract F-3
Summary F-5
I. Introduction F-19
II. Technical Approach F-21
III. Test Methods F-23
1. Gas Velocity Measurements F-23
2. Moisture Content F-25
3. Particulate Sampling F-25
4. Test Sections F-26
5. In-Situ Resistivity F-26
6. Laboratory Resistivity F-32
7. Skeletal or True Density F-32
8. Particle Size F-32
9. Stack Opacity F-38
10. Coal Analysis F-38
IV. Test Conditions and Procedures F-41
V. Test Results and Sample Analyses F-49
1. Test Data F-49
2. Coal Analyses F-49
3. Particle Size Analyses F-49
4. Resistivities F-49
5. Chemical Analyses F-49
VI. Analysis and Discussion of Test Results F-81
1. Electrostatic Precipitator Performance • F-81
A. Theoretical Considerations of Electrostatic Performance
As A Function of Corona Power F-82
B. Correlation of Precipitator Performance With Corona Power Input. F-84
C. Correlation of Precipitator Corona Power Input With
Process Variables F-94
2. Performance of The Combination Mechanical-Electrostatic Dust
Collector F-99
A. Correlation of Particle Size and Dust Collector Performance .... F-99
3. Discussion of Particle Resistivity Data F-123
A. Correlation of In-Situ and Laboratory Measurements F-123
B. Relationship of Particle Resistivity, Flue Gas Temperature,
and Coal Sulfur (No Limestone Injection) F-127
-------
F-10
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
C. Relationship of Particle Resistivity, Flue Gas Temperature,
and Coal Sulfur (With Limestone Injection) F-137
D. Relationship Between Precipitation Rate Parameter and
Particle Resistivity F-137
4. Discussion of Chemical Analyses Results F-137
A. Relationship of Calcium Compounds at Electrostatic
Precipitator Inlet With Limestone Feedrate F-142
B. Examination of Particle Resistivity At The Precipitator Inlet
As A Function of Calcium Oxide/Sulfur Ratio for High
and Low Temperature Flue Gas F-142
5. Review of Optical Sensor Data F-146
VII. Techno-Economic Evaluation of Various Alternatives for Maintaining the
Stack Emission Rate With Limestone Injection Equivalent to a Baseline
Condition of No Limestone Injection F-159
1. Size Modification of The Presently Installed Dust Collecting System F-159
2. Installation of A "Hot" Precipitator F-161
3. Gas Cooling Ahead of The Dust Collection System F-161
4. Gas Conditioning Ahead of The Dust Collecting System F-161
5. Electrical Energization of The Precipitator F-165
VII I. Recommendations F-171
Bibliography F-173
-------
F-ll
FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 - Equipment for Making Gas Velocity Measurements and
Taking Particulate Samples F-24
Figure 2- Schematic Diagram of Boiler No. 10 Shawnee Station, TVA F-27
Figure 3- Details of Mechanical Collector Inlet Sampling Station F-28
Figure 4 - Details of Mechanical Collector Outlet - Electrostatic
Precipitator Inlet Sampling Station F-29
Figure 5- Details of Electrostatic Precipitator Outlet Sampling Station F-30
Figure 6- In-Situ Resistivity Apparatus F-31
Figure 7- Point-Plane Resistivity Cell F-33
Figure 8- Laboratory Resistivity Measuring Apparatus F-34
Figure 9 - Schematic Diagram of Laboratory Resistivity
Measuring Apparatus F-35
Figure 10- Cross-Section Diagram of Measuring Cell Used In
Laboratory Resistivity Apparatus F-36
Figure 11 - Schematic of Electric Circuit for Laboratory Resistivity Apparatus .... F-36
Figure 12 - Apparatus for Measuring Skeletal or True Density of Particulate F-37
Figure 13- Bahco Centrifugal Particle Classifier F-39
Figure 14 - Functional Diagram of the Optical Sensor F-40
Figure 15 - Schematic Diagram of Electrostatic Precipitator Arrangement
and Electrical Hook-up Fr-42
Figure 16 - Representative Temperature and Velocity Traverse at the
Mechanical Collector Inlet ("B" Side) F-44
Figure 17 - Representative Temperature and Velocity Traverse at the
Mechanical Collector Outlet - Precipitator Inlet Sample Station ("B"Side) F-45
Figure 18 - Representative Temperature and Velocity Traverse at the
Precipitator Outlet Sampling Station ("B" Side) F-46
Figure 19 - Precipitation Rate Parameter as a Function of Corona Power
Density for Tests Without Limestone Injection F-85
Figure 20- Comparison of Data from Figure 19 with Published Data of
Southern Research Institute for Various Fly Ash Precipitator
Installations - Ref. (11) F'87
Figure 21 - Loss in Collection Efficiency as a Function of Power Rate
for Tests Without Limestone Injection F-89
Figure 22 - Comparison of Data from Figure 21 with Published Data of Southern
Research Institute for Various Fly Ash Precipitator Installations -
Ref. (11) F-90
-------
F-12
FIGURES
(Continued)
Page
Figure 23 - Precipitation Rate Parameter as a Function of Corona Power
Density for Tests with Limestone Injection F-92
Figure 24- Loss in Collection Efficiency as a Function of Power Rate
for Tests with Limestone Injection F-93
Figure 25 - Precipitation Rate Parameter as a Function of Power Density
for Tests with Limestone Injection (Gas Temperature and Limestone
Particle Size are Identified Separately) F-95
Figure 26 - Particle Size Analyses of Limestone Feed Samples Used in
Second CES Test Series F-97
Figure 27 - Particle Size Analyses of Mechanical Collector Inlet
Samples Without Limestone Injection (Tests 1A, IB, 3A, 4A, 5A, 5B) F-101
Figure 28 - Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator Inlet
Samples Without Limestone Injection (Tests 3A, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) .... F-102
Figure 29 - Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator Outlet
Samples Without Limestone Injection (Tests 2A, 3A, 3B, 4B) F-103
Figure 30- Particle Size Analyses of Mechanical Hopper Samples Without
Limestone Injection ( Tests 1A, IB, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 5B) F-104
Figure 31 - Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator Hopper
Samples Without Limestone Injection (Tests 1 A, 1B, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 5B) F-105
Figure 32 - Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator
Inlet Samples Without Limestone Injection (Tests 16, 19, 20, 21, 22) . F-106
Figure 33 - Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator
Hopper Samples Without Limestone Injection (Tests 16, 21, 22) .... F-107
Figure 34 - Particle Size Analyses Mechanical Collector Inlet Samples
With Coarse Limestone Injection (Tests 14, 15, 32, 33) F-108
Figure 35 - Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator Inlet
Samples With Coarse Limestone Injection (Tests 10, 11, 14,
15, 25, 32, 33) F-109
Figure 36 - Particle Size Analysis of Electrostatic Precipitator Outlet
Samples With Coarse Limestone Injection (Tests 11, 14) F-110
Figure 37 - Particle Size Analyses of Mechanical Collector Hopper
Samples With Coarse Limestone Injection (Tests 14, 15, 32, 33) . . . . F-lll
Figure 38 - Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator Hopper
Samples With Coarse Limestone Injection (Tests 14, 15) F-112
Figure 39- Particle Size Analyses of Mechanical Collector Inlet
Samples With Fine Limestone Injection (Tests 2, 3, 5, 6, 8) F-113
Figure 40- Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator
Inlet Samples With Fine Limestone Injection (Tests 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8, 1?, 18. 23, 24, 26, 27, 23 29, 30) F-114
-------
F-13
FIGURES
(Continued)
Page
Figure 41 - Particle Size Analyses of Electrostatic Precipitator
Outlet Samples With Fine Limestone Injection (Tests 2, 3,
4. 5, 6, 23, 24, 26) F-115
Figure 42 - Particle Size Analyses of Mechanical Collector Hopper
Samples With Fine Limestone Injection (Tests 2, 3, 5, 6, 8) F-116
Figure 43 - Particle Size Analysis of Electrostatic Precipitator
Hopper Samples With Fine Limestone Injection (Tests 17, 18,
23,24) F-117
Figure 44 - Fractional Efficiency Curve for Mechanical Collector F-121
Figure 45 - Fractional Efficiency Curves for Electrostatic Precipitator F-122
Figure 46- Electrostatic Precipitator Particulate Inlet Loading
as a Function of Limestone Feedrate F-126
Figure 47 - In-Situ Resistivities Obtained on Full-Scale and Pilot
Scale Pulverized Coal-Firing Boilers Without Limestone
Injection F-128
Figure 48 - In-Situ Resistivities Obtained on Full-Scale and
Pilot Scale Pulverized Coal Firing Boilers With
Limestone Injection F-129
Figure 49 - In-Situ Resistivity Data Obtained by K. J. McLean at TVA
Shawnee Station, Boiler No. 10 During the CES Second Test Series . . F-131
Figure 50 - Resistivity of Fly Ash Samples From Various Coals
Fired in Pilot Plant of B&W F-133
Figure 51 - In-Situ and Laboratory Resistivities for Reacted
Additive-Fly Ash Samples From B&W Pilot Plant F-133
Figure 52- In-Situ and Laboratory Resistivities for Reacted
Additive-Fly Ash Mixtures From B&W Pilot Plant F-134
Figure 53 - In-Situ and Laboratory Resistivities for Reacted
Additive-Fly Ash Mixtures from B&W Pilot Plant F-134
Figure 54 - Laboratory Resistivity Measurements of Precipitator
Inlet Samples as a Function of Gas Temperature Without
Limestone Injection F-135
Figure 55- Laboratory Resistivity Measurements on Precipitator Inlet
Samples as a Function of Gas Temperature With Limestone Injection F-136
Figure 56- In-Situ Resistivity vs. Temperature Relationship for
Various Coal Sulfur (No Limestone Injection) F-138
Figure 57- In-Situ Resistivity vs. Temperature Relationship
for Various Coal Sulfurs (With Limestone Injection) F-139
-------
F-14
FIGURES
(Continued)
Page
Figure 58 - Approximate Precipitation Rate Parameter vs. Resistivity
Relationship Without and With Limestone Injection F-140
Figure 59 - Calcium Oxide at Electrostatic Inlet as a
Fraction of Limestone Feedrate to the Boiler F-144
Figure 60 - Particle Resistivity as a Function of the
CaO/S Ratio at the Precipitator Inlet F-145
Figure 61 - Simplified System Diagram of the Research Cottrell, Inc.,
Proprietary Optical Sensor F-148
Figure 62 - Data Obtained on Particulate Loading Using an
Optical Monitor F-150
Figure 63 - Typical Optical Sensor Chart on Shawnee No. 10 Boiler
("B" Side) With and Without Limestone Injection F-151
Figure 64- Typical Precipitator Voltage vs. Current
Characteristic F-166
Figure 65 - Typical Precipitator Energization Arrangements F-169
-------
F-15
TABLES
Page
Table I Completed Tests (First Campaign) Contract CPA 22-69-139 F-47
Table II Completed Tests (Second Campaign) Contract
CPA 22-69-139 Modifications 6 and 7 F-48
Table III Summary of the Test Data From the Cottrell Environmental
System's First Test Series F-50
Table IV Summary of Test Data From the Cottrell Environmental
System's First Test Series F-51
Table V Summary of Test Data From the Cottrell Environmental
System's First Test Series F-52
Table VI Summary of Test Data From the Cottrell Environmental
System's Second Test Series F-53
Table VII Summary of Test Data From the Cottrell Environmental
, System's Second Test Series F-54
Table VIII Summary of Test Data From TVA's First Test Series F-55
Table IX Summary of Test Data From TVA's First Test Series F-56
Table X Summary of Test Data From TVA's Second Test Series F-57
Table XI Summary of Test Data From TVA's Second Test Series F-58
Table XII Summary of Test Data From TVA's Second Test Series F-59
Table XIII Summary of Test Data From TVA's Second Test Series F-60
Table XIV Summary of Test Data From TVA's Second Test Series F-61
Table XV Summary of Test Data From TVA's Second Test Series F-62
Table XVI Coal Analyses for Both Cottrell Environmental
System's Test Series F-63
Table XVII Coal Analyses for TVA's First Test Series F-64
Table XVIII Coal Analyses for Babcock and Wilcox Pilot
Test Program F-65
Table XIX Particle Size Analyses for Cottrell Environmental
System's First Test Series F-66
Table XX Particle Size Analyses for Cottrell Environmental
System's Second Test Series F-67
Table XXI Particle Size Analyses for Cottrell Environmental
System's Second Test Series F-68
Table XXII Particle Size Analyses for Cottrell Environmental
System's Second Test Series F-69
Table XXIII Laboratory and In-Situ Resistivity Measurements for
Cottrell Environmental System's First Test Series F-70
-------
F-16
TABLES
(Continued)
Page
Table XXIV Laboratory and In-Situ Resistivity Measurements for
Cottrell Environmental System's Second Test series F-71
Table XXV Laboratory and In-Situ Resistivity Measurements
for Cottrell Environmental System's Second Test Series •. . . F-72
Table XXVI Laboratory and In-Situ Resistivity Measurements
for Babcock and Wilcox Pilot Test Program F-73
Table XXVII Summary of Chemical Analyses Performed on
Samples Taken During the First CES Test Series F-74
Table XXVIII Summary of Chemical Analyses Performed on
Samples Taken During the Second Test Series F-75
Table XXIX Chemical Analyses of Limestone Used During
Second CES Test Series F-79
Table XXX Summary of Test Data Used in Correlations F-96
Table XXXI Fractional Efficiency of Dust Collectors -
Fly Ash Only F-118
Table XXXII Fractional Efficiency of Dust Collectors -
Fine Limestone F-119
Table XXXI11 Fractional Efficiency of Dust Collectors -
Coarse Limestone F-120
Table XXXIV Summary of Particle Size Analyses on
Samples From Both CES Test Series F-124
Table XXXV In-Situ Resistivity Data Obtained by Southern
Research Institute at TVA Shawnee Station, Boiler No.
10 During the CES Second Test Series F-130
Table XXXVI Data Summary - Full Scale Dolomite Injection
Test Results Obtained by Research Cottrell, Inc.
at a Large Midwest Utility • F-132
Table XXXVII Data Used for Relationship Between Precipitation
Rate Parameter and Particulate Resistivity F-141
Table XXXVIII Summary of Data Used in Section on Chemical
Analyses (PPS. 147-153) F-143
Table XXXIX Data Taken From the Optical Sensor Recorder Charts F-149
Table XL Summary of 1970 TVA Test Results Used in Establishing
Baseline Boiler and Particulate Collector Operating
Parameters for No Limestone Injection F-160
-------
F-17
TABLES
(Continued)
Table XLI Summary of Electrostatic Precipitator Size
Modifications and Costs for the Presently Installed
Dust Collecting System Required to Maintain a Stack
Emission Rate Equivalent To Baseline No Limestone
Injection
Table XLI1 Summary of the "Hot" Precipitator Sizing and
Costing for Shawnee Station Boiler No. 10 With and
Without Limestone Injection (Straight Precipitator) .
Table XLI 11 Summary of Gas Cooling as an Option for
Coarse or Fine Limestone Injection
Page
F-162
F-163
F-164
-------
F-19
I. INTRODUCTION
This report is submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements for Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Contract CPA 22-69-139 and presents the results of a full-scale
study to quantify the operation of a combination mechanical collector electrostatic
precipitator dust collection system with and without dry limestone injection. This study is
part of the overall program being undertaken at the Shawnee power generating station of
the Tennessee Valley Authority for the control of sulfur oxide emissions from a full-scale
utility boiler. Definition of the effects of dry additive injection on the particulate control
equipment operation and the recommended system modifications, including cost benefit
data to maintain stack particulate emissions with injection equivalent to that of 2.7% sulfur
and 10% ash coal-firing without injection are the primary requirements of this study. A
further requirement is to recommend investigative programs to be considered for future
study.
Two test campaigns were conducted by Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc., during this
study:
The first occurred in December 1969 and related to the quantification of the dust
collection system performance without additive injection. The main purpose of the
data acquisition was for use as a baseline in defining the effects of subsequent
additive injection;
The second was in July 1971 during limestone injection and consisted of controlling
four parameters at two levels which included two boiler variables (coal sulfur and
flue gas temperature), and two limestone injection variables (amount and particle
size).
The data and samples from these tests and other pertinent sources,1"5* i.e. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Southern Research Institute, Research-Cottrell, Inc., Babcock and Wilcox, Co.,
and Dr. K. L. McLean, EPA visiting associate from Wollongong University, Australia, have
been analyzed and correlated. The results are contained in subsequent sections of this
report.
*The numbers in superscript refer to the bibliography at the end of the text.
-------
F-21
TECHNICAL APPROACH
Because of the chemical and physical properties of the injected additive material, the
characteristics as well as the quantity of particulate to be collected will vary substantially.
These variations, including the degree of effect on the operating parameters of the dust
collection system, must be monitored and evaluated in order to size and cost the system.
The changes in particulate loading, specific gravity and particle size distribution will affect
the performance of the mechanical collectors which precede the electrostatic precipitator.
This in turn will vary the quantity and nature of the dust entering the precipitator, resulting
in operational changes. Of particular significance will be the change in the electrical
conductivity of the dust caused mainly by the removal of sulfur trioxide from the flue gas
by the alkaline additive and the higher bulk resistance of limestone.
In the collection of fly ash-limestone reaction products by an electrostatic precipitator, the
most critical parameter is the bulk electrical resistivity of the particulate. Values above 101 °
to 101' ohm-cm result in reduced electrical power to the precipitator and poor
performance. This particular subject has been treated extensively in the literature6"9 and
will be covered in more detail in subsequent sections of this report. A comparison of present
results with past experience will also be discussed.
The main operational parameters that were monitored during the test program include:
1. Particulate Characteristics (Fly ash, Fly ash-Limestone Reaction Products)
(a) Specific Gravity
(b) Particle Size Analysis (Bahco and Sieve)
(c) Bulk Electrical Resistivity (Laboratory)
(d)ln-Situ Electrical Resistivity
(e) Chemical Analysis
(l)Loss on Ignition
(2) SiO2, AI2 O3, Fe2 O3,, CaO, MgO, TiO2 Na2 O, K2 O, S04 =, SO3 =, S=
2. Collector Variables
(a) Particulate Loadings Inlet and Outlet (ESP and MC)
(b) Pressure Drop of Mechanical Collector
(c) Current-Voltage Characteristics of ESP
(d) Sparking Rate of ESP
(e) Particulate Collection Efficiency (ESP and MC)
3. Boiler Variables
(a) Flue Gas Analysis (O2, SO2, H2 O)
(b)MW Load, Steam, Air
(c) Flue Gas Temperature, Pressure
-------
F-22
(d)Gas Volume
(e) Coal-Firing Rate
(f) Limestone Addition Rate
4. Additive Characteristics
(a) Particle Size Analysis (Bahco and Sieve)
(b) Electrical Resistivity (Laboratory)
(c) Chemical Analysis
(l)CaO, MgO, Fe2O3. SiO2
5. Coal Analysis (a)
(a) Sulfur
(1) Pyritic
(2) Organic
(S)Sulfate
(b)Ash
(c) Moisture
The objective of the test program is to provide an assessment of the particulate collecting
system with and without additives for use in establishing the additional gas cleaning
equipment required to maintain stack emissions at levels associated with 2.7% sulfur, 10%
ash. coal-firing. In addition, other alternatives such as gas cooling, hot precipitator, gas
conditioning, and type of electrical energization will be evaluated.
-------
F-23
TEST METHODS
The test methods used were in compliance with the ASME-PTC 27 and ASME-PTC 28 with
regard to determining gas volume, particulate loading and analyzing the collected material.
1. Gas Velocity Measurements are required to obtain the necessary data for determining:
(a) Total gas volume being treated by the dust collector.
(b) Distribution and flow pattern of gas entering the collector.
(c) The sampling rates required to obtain representative particulate loadings entering and
leaving the collector.
The equipment used to make these measurements during the test program reported
herein is shown schematically in Figure l(a). It consisted of a Stauscheibe pitot tube
with inclined draft gauge for velocity head readings, plus a thermocouple and
potentiometer for simultaneous temperature measurements.
The gas velocity was calculated from the equation:
Th
%
=13.37
~Th
v= 15.6k
Where,
v = Gas Velocity - FPS
TD = Duct Temp. ° F + 460° R
h = Velocity Head- "H2O
P = Duct Pressure - "Hg
= Barometric pressure ±
Duct Static Pressure ("H2O)
13^6
k = 0.855 = Stauscheibe pitot tube factor
15.6 = Constant for flue gas from pulverized coal combustion
The total gas volume was calculated from the equation:
V = 60 Av (2)
Where,
V = Total Gas Volume - ACFM
A = Flue Cross-Sectional Area Where Velocity Traverse Made - Ft2
v~ = Average gas velocity obtained from traverse - FPS
60 = seconds/minute
-------
FIGURE 1
EQUIPMENT FOR MAKING GAS VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS
AND TAKING PARTICULATE SAMPLES
Stauscheibe
Pitot Tube
Thermocouple
(a)
Inclined
Draft Gauge
Potentiometer
Manometer
Cyclone
With Glass
Jar Hopper
Inclined
Draft Gauge
Dial Thermometer
Bag Filter
Sample
Nozzle and
Probe
Exhaust Fan
Control
Valve
Gas
Outlet
(b)
-------
F-25
2. Moisture Content of the gas was determined by hot-gas psychrometry which involves
determining the wet and dry bulb temperatures of the gas.. The following equations are
used to calculate the moisture content:
e = e1 0.01 (td-tw),and (3)
M=(— e— } (lOO\ (4)
()
Where,
e = Vapor pressure of gas - "Hg
e1 = Vapor pressure of saturated gas at tw - "Hg
t^ = Dry bulb temperature - °F
tw = Wet bulb temperature - °F
M = Moisture in gas - %
B = Barometric pressure - "Hg
Sf = Flue pressure - "Hg
3. Particulate Sampling was done by means of the large volume Aerotec sampling
equipment which is shown schematically in Figure l(b). The equipment consists of a
sample nozzle and probe connected to the dust separating elements which include a high
efficiency cyclone with a glass jar hopper and a filter bag (both predried and weighed)
followed by a fan for drawing the gas through the sampling train. The gas flow rate is
monitored by measuring the pressure drop across the calibrated cyclone and can be
varied to maintain isokinetic sampling by means of a valve located at the filter bag outlet.
The gas temperature is measured at the cyclone outlet with a dial thermometer and the
gas pressure is assumed to be the same as the main duct pressure which is determined by
barometer and a static pressure measurement.
The total cubic feet of gas sampled was calculated from the equations:
Where,
V 's (6)
VS 42gffi ( Vt)(^) t (7)
V = Volume sample rate at each traverse point - CFM
An = Sample nozzle area - Ft2
-------
F-26
k = 0.855 = Stauscheibe pilot tube factor
Tg = Sample train temperature °R
TQ = Duct temperature °R
hp = Velocity head at each sample point "H2O
Vj = Total volume sample rate - CFM
N = Number of sample points
Vs = Total volume sampled Ft3 @ 70 Fand 30" Hg
B = Barometric pressure - "Hg
t = Sampling time at each point minutes
3930 = Calibration constant of cyclone orifice
The amount of particulate collected was determined by drying and reweighing the
cyclone sampler jar and filter bag. The particulate loading was calculated using the
equation:
,(DC 1(15.43)
\/
vs
Where,
D = Particulate loading - grains/Ft3 @ 70 F and 30 "Hg
Dp = Net weight of particulate collected grams
Vs = Total volume sampled Ft3 @ 70 F and 30 "Hg
15.43 = Conversion factor, grams to grains
The efficiency of the collector was determined by the equation:
Where,
E = Efficiency %
D| = Inlet particulate loading - grains/Ft3
DQ = Outlet particulate loading grains/Ft3
4. Test Sections were located in areas of reasonably straight runs of duct work and free of
interference from nearby equipment. Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the boiler,
collectors, and associated equipment showing the location of the sampling areas. Figures
3 through 5 detail the actual dimensions and number of sample points used at the
mechanical collector inlet and the electrostatic precipitator inlet and outlet.
5. In-Situ Resistivity measurements were made using a portable apparatus (Figure 6)
designed and supplied by Research-Cottrell, Inc. The apparatus measures the electrical
-------
Stack
Optical
Sensor
ID
Fan
Primary
Reheater
Superheaters
Electrostatic
Precipitator
PrecipitatoV
Outlet \
Sample Station\
(See Fig.5)
A/y
Mechanical ^
Outlet Sample
Station
Mechanical
Collector
(See Fig.4)
Limestone
Injection
Ports
urners
Mechanical Inlet
Sample Station
(See Fig.3)
FD Fan
FIGURE 2
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF BOILER #10 SHAWNEE STATION, TVA
-------
F-28
2'-l 1/4"
4-
4-
T
6'-5 5/8"
-t-J-
—13'-8
"B" Side
Duct Area = 72.6 Ft
(each side)
4-2 1/2"
Top
Bottom
Cyclone
Take off at"
Two Elevations
As Shown Above
Boiler
Centerline
Gas
Flow.
£-3 3/jJ-
From
Air Heater
Gas
1OW
Cyclone
Mechanica
Collectoi
Cyclone Boiler
Flange Duct
Flange
FIGURE 3
DETAILS OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
INLET SAMPLING STATION
-------
F-29
2'-5"
T
2'-10"
-H
4- 4- -f
4- 4- + +
•4 H-
Duct Area=204Ft'
+• -h
4- 4-
-h
K
12 '-1/2"
4
17'-1/2"
FIGURE 4
DETAILS OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
OUTLET - ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR INLET
SAMPLING STATION
-------
F-30
ll'-3 3/i
TT TT TT TT TT
13'-1/2"
TT
T- + f- + ^
4- T- +- + -t-
Duct Area=147.lFt
t- T- +• ^ •f-
+ t + t +
+ T 1- + t-
T-
t
t
2'-3'
FIGURE 5
DETAILS OF ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLING STATION
-------
F-31
FIGURE 6 - IN-SITU RESISTIVITY APPARATUS
POWER SUPPLY AND METERING UNIT
-------
F-32
resistance of a layer of dust precipitated from flue gas under actual operating conditions.
It consists of a small electrostatic point-plane precipitator (Figure 7), an iron constantan
thermocouple located near the plane, and a control unit for supplying power and
measuring voltage and current.
6. The Laboratory Resistivity measurements were made in apparatus shown
photographically and schematically in Figures 8 and 9. The cell shown in Figure 10 is
mounted in an electrically heated and thermostatically controlled chamber capable of
reaching temperatures in the 650° F range. In addition, humidity can be controlled from
bone dry up to 30 or 40% by volume. The schematic electrical circuitry is shown in
Figure 11.
7. The skeletal or true density of the particulate samples was determined by the
pycnometer method. Approximately a 5-gram sample is transferred to a weighed
pycnometer bottle of known volume and reweighed. The bottle is half filled with a
suitable liquid (selected on the basis of dust solubility being a minimum) and placed in a
dessicator-type container which can be evacuated (see Figure 12). After all air has been
removed from the dust sample, the pycnometer bottle is filled to capacity, thermally
equilibrated and reweighed. The dust density is calculated as follows:
Vl = W3-W2
d,
<»>
Where,
W = Weight of pycnometer bottle grams
W2 = Weight of pycnometer + dust grams
W3 = Weight of pycnometer + dust + liquid grams
Vj = Volume of liquid cubic centimeters
Vp = Volume of pycnometer cubic centimeters
dj = Density of liquid - grams/cubic centimeters
dp = True density of dust grams/cubic centimeters
8. The particle size distributions were made by sieve and Bahco methods. A set of 3 inch
U.S. Standard sieves and pan are weighed. The sieves are then nested reading 50-mesh
(297 microns), 100-mesh (149 microns), 200-mesh (74 microns), 325-mesh (44 microns)
and pan from top to bottom. About a 2 gram sample of dried dust is placed on the top
sieve and covered. The set of sieves is then placed in a Ro-tap and shaken for twenty
minutes. The sieves are brushed lightly and reweighed. The weight of fractions is
obtained by difference and final results are calculated as "percent fraction separated"
and reported as "cumulative percent finer."
-------
F-33
Flue Gas & Dust
Flow Direction
Thermocouple
Disc
Corona Point
Plane
FIGURE 7
POINT-PLANE RESISTIVITY CELL
-------
FIGURE 8 - LABORATORY RESISTIVITY MEASURING APPARATUS
-------
F-35
Water
Reservoir
• —
Pressure
Equalizing Tube"
Needle Valve ~~ —
Sight Glass
- -
Heater s^\_
0 ,_
' -^
^-,
— f*
tk.
•^
«
^
r
;>.
•6
C^i^rMAm^lUi
tgpg
MHV£)
U
i- _ .
i
1
i
L-
-s-
^
. - —
.^ •—
^^_^-~ Manometer
rf£
t
, -
» m_ ^^ _ m _ «— — —.*»
^y.1. •• .-tjjj -^ ^ ri'\---..'£l "***
f*
/
/
r
Hot
Fan
Plate
_L
)
J
_l_
^Bi^^nr ^ •
1
yu
^ Conduc tivi tv
^^^ Cell
____ — Air Heater Duct
\
L ^^ Chamber
^^^ Valve
y^
^ — Rotameter
1 ^ Air Supply
5-10 PSIG
Dryers
FIGURE 9
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF LABORATORY
RESISTIVITY MEASURING APPARATUS
-------
F-36
FIGURE 10
CROSS-SECTION DIAGRAM OF
MEASURING CELL USED IN LABORATORY
RESISTIVITY APPARATUS
Measuring
Electrode
r
Air Flow
With Controlled
Moisture
Sintered Metal
Disc
High Voltage
Electrode
FIGURE 11
SCHEMATIC OF ELECTRIC CIRCUIT
FOR LABORATORY RESISTIVITY APPARATUS
Current Meter
o-
7=Voltmeter
Dust
Conductivity
Cell
H-V
Rectifier
0-15KV
-------
F-37
To Vacuum
Source
Dessicator
Pycnometer
Bottle
\ \ \\ \
FIGURE 12
APPARATUS FOR MEASURING SKELETAL
OR TRUE DENSITY OF PARTICULATE
-------
F-38
The Bahco method of sub-sieve particle sizing uses a centrifugal classifier (see Figure 13)
which operates at 3500 RPM. The sample is introduced into a spiral-shaped air current
flowing toward the center. Depending on the size, weight and shape of the particles, a
certain fraction is accelerated by centrifugal force toward the periphery of the whirl,
while the remainder is carried toward the center. By varying flow through the use of
throttles, the dust sample can be divided into a number of fractions between about 2 and
30 microns. This particular method is not absolute but must be calibrated with a
standard sample of known distribution based on an absolute method.
9. The stack opacity was monitored by means of an optical sensor designed and supplied by
Research-Cottrell, Inc. A schematic diagram of the system is shown in Figure 14. A light
source and optical sensor are contained in sealed housings mounted on opposite sides of
a duct. Sufficient sensitivity and flexibility are provided to permit full scale recorder
calibration corresponding to 20 up to 100% optical obscuration for aerosol paths ranging
from 6 to 30 feet. (20% is a No. 1 Ringelmann and 100% a No. 5 Ringelmann).
Normally, a 0-5 Ringelmann scale calibration is used to encompass peak emission periods
such as sootblowing.
A clean gas reference signal is continually compared with the dirty gas signal by means of
a differential signal amplifier whose signal is recorded continually as optical density
readout.
10. Coal Analyses were provided by Smith, Rudy and Company, chemists in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, while other chemical analyses of particulate samples were performed by the
TVA laboratory chemists located in Chattanooga, Tennesseee.
-------
F-39
FIGURE 13
BAHCO CENTRIFUGAL PARTICLE CLASSIFIER
1 Rotor Casting
2 Fan
3 Vibrator
4 Adjustable Slide
5 Feed Hopper
6 Revolving Brush
7 Feed Tube
8 Feed Slot
9 Fan Wheel Outlet
10 Cover
11 Rotary Duct
12 Feed Hole
13 Brake
14 Throttle Spacer
15 Motor - 3520 RPM
16 Grading Member
17 Threaded Spindle
18 Symmetrical Disc
19 Sifting Chamber
20 Catch Basin
21 Housing
22 Radial Vanes
-------
Dirty Gas Signal
Removable
Window
Removable
Window
Optical Sensor (Meas.)
s Measuring Beam
Induced Air Purge
Flue or Stack
Differential
Signal Amplifier
Induced Air Purge
Optical Sensor (Ref)
Clean Gas Ref. Signal
)
Light
Source
Reference Beam
Voltage
Regulator
Optical Density Readout
Regulated
Power Supply
Isolation Transformer
Electrical Input
115 V. 50/60 Hz
FIGURE 14
FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAM OF THE OPTICAL SENSOR
-------
F-41
IV. TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES
The initial test campaign without additive injection was conducted with a boiler generated
load of about 140 megawatts with very little variation. No attempt was made to control the
coal sulfur. Soot-blowing was curtailed during the tests. Mechanical and electrical
precipitator hoppers were emptied at the beginning and end of each test period at which
time samples were taken. This procedure ensured representative hopper samples. Both "A"
and "B" precipitators of boiler No. 10 were tested during this campaign. (See Figure 15 for
schematic diagram of electrostatic precipitator). Coal feed rates and samples were obtained
by monitoring and grab-sampling the coal feeders. Boiler conditions were recorded from the
control room panels.
Main operating difficulties were encountered with the electrostatic precipitators in the form
of short circuits caused by broken discharge electrodes.
The second test series was conducted with and without additive injection. Boiler generated
load was difficult to control because of external conditions of low water level in the river
supplying the condensers. As a result, load varied from 125 MW to 148 MW during the test
period.
Extreme ambient temperature conditions at the mechanical collector inlet sampling station
(160-180 F.) caused equipment failure and hampered the sampling personnel. The sampling
equipment was revised by inserting a flexible hose between the sampling probe and the
Aerotec Sampler. This allowed placement of the sampler in a somewhat cooler location.
The limestone feeder tripped-off at high feed rates. This was finally resolved by air-cooling
the feeder motor. The electrostatic precipitator transformer-rectifier controls were erratic in
operation. The silicon controlled rectifier firing circuit was too sensitive to sparking which
caused the precipitator voltage to be lower at the first occurrence of sparking rather than at
an optimum rate. The problem was solved by replacing faulty resistors in the control circuit.
As shown in Figure 15, the "A" and "B" side of the electrostatic precipitator are electrically
interconnected. For the tests where temperature on the "B" side was reduced to about 250
F. by fan biasing, the "A" side gas temperature would rise to over 350 F. This meant that
the "A" side dust resistivity could influence the operation of the "B" side portion of the
electrostatic precipitator. This interference was corrected by deenergizing the "A" side and
using the electrical sets to energize only the "B" side.
-------
FIGURE 15
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
ARRANGEMENT AND ELECTRICAL HOOK-UP
Optical
Sensor
Side
Side
Electrical Sets
Full Wave Hook-up
.__.?
^^ .^— . -r- t-i ^ 1
<;
o
)
3
6 "
c
Q
)
_
A
-A
~v
»
1
— 1_
Electrical
Sets
Full Wave Hook-up
24'-9"
24'-9"
Gas Flow
From Boiler No. 10
-------
F-43
Soot blowing, condenser repairs, and hopper emptying took more time than originally
anticipated and modifications in test and operating procedures were instituted. In order to
complete as much of the statistically designed test program as possible within reasonable
cost and schedule constraints, the following changes in procedure were agreed upon:
1. The velocity and temperature traverses before each test were eliminated. The gas
temperature and pressure drop of the mechanical collector were adjusted by fan biasing
to give the desired test conditions at the electrostatic precipitator inlet. Previous velocity
and temperature traverses at similar mechanical collector conditions (temperature within
5° F and pressure drop within 10%) were then used to obtain isokinetic sampling. Figures
16 to 18 are representative temperature and velocity traverses for the three sampling
stations.
2. Elimination of sampling at the mechanical inlet for most tests allowed the use of these
two samplers, one each, on the ESP inlet and outlet or a total of three samplers at each
of these locations. Time per test was thus reduced to 50 minutes from 75 minutes
thereby improving test scheduling without reducing the amount of dust collected.
Tables I and II list the completed tests for both campaigns.
-------
FIGURE 16
REPRESENTATIVE TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSE
AT THE MECHANICAL COLLECTOR INLET ("B" SIDE)
Top
ffc-
TT TT
61.2 54.8
4 +
310 F 315 F
65.2 57.3
+• +-
318 F 312 F
r
61.2 66.3
+ +
312 F 308 F
58.7 63.1
4- H-
315 F 312 F
Avg. Velocity = 60.4 FPS
Avg. Temperature =
ACFM of Gas = (60.4) (72.6) (60) = 263,157
Bottom
63.3
310 F
60.2
314 F
57.3
H-
314 F
61.2
4-
311 F
60.1
4-
318 F
57.4
+
310 F
61.1
H-
315 F
58.2
+
308 F
-------
F-45
FIGURE 17
REPRESENTATIVE TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSE AT THE MECHANICAL
OUTLET - PKECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLE STATION ("B" SIDE)
t=
*
t
t
t
t
19.2
293F
18.5
293F
15.3
298F
15.3
4-
305F
15.3
4-
311F
13.7
4-
311F
21.5
295F
19.2
H-
298F
19.3
298F
21.6
-h
311F
21.6
315F
19.4
313F
21.5
295F
19.3
298F
19.3
t-
296F
24.6
311F
24.6
315F
19.4
313F
15.2
293F
19.2
293F
15.3
296F
21.6
-t
311F
21.6
313F
21.6
313F
11.8
293F
19.2
293F
19.3
-h
298F
19.4
307F
19.4
-h
313F
19.4
311F
Avg. Velocity =19.1 FPS
Avg. Temperature = 303F
ACFM of Gas = (19.1) (204) (60) = 233,784
-------
F-46
FIGURE 18
REPRESENTATIVE TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSE AT THE
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLING STATION ("B" SIDE)
1 I
33.5
-}-
273F
34.0
-h
291F
34.1
297F
34.0
-f-
293F
34.0
291F
L-J
26.1
-h
277F
26.1
-|-
277F
34.0
293F
30.4
-)-
291F
32.6
291F
21.4
-|-
287F
21.5
•h
291F
26.4
297F
24.7
-i-
299F
30.5
297F
21.1
-h
264F
26.1
-h
278F
28.8
•H
293F
26.4
4-
301F
28.9
297F
21.1
-h
267F
24.7
+•
303F
30.5
299F
32.8
-h
301F
32.8
305F
20.8
H-
243F
26.1
H-
277F
32.8
303F
32.6
f
293F
28.9
3 OIF
Avg. Velocity = 28.6 FPS
Avg. Temperature = 289F
ACFM of Gas = (28.6) (147.1) (60) = 252,424
-------
F-47
TABLE I
COMPLETED TESTS (FIRST CAMPAIGN)
CONTRACT CPA 22-69-139
Test
Number
1A*
IB*
2A
3A*
3B*
4A*
4B*
5A*
SB*
Additive Stoich.
XT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gas Temp.
x?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Particle Size
x^
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% S in Coal
X4
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
Date
Performed
12/11/69
12/11
12/12
12/14
12/13
12/14
12/13
12/15
12/15
KEY:
LEVEL
+
X2
289-318
238-256
X4
2.30-4. 10
1 .00-2.29
* Mechanical Collector Inlet Sample Taken
-------
F-48
TABLE II
COMPLETED TESTS (SECOND CAMPAIGN)
CONTRACT CPA 22-69-139 MODIFICATION'S 667
Test
Number
1
2*
3*
4*
5*
6*
8*
9
10
11
25
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
29
30
16
17
18
26
27
14*
15*
32*
33*
Additive Stoich.
x.
0
-
-
+
-
•f
-
0
+
+
-
0
0
0
0
-
4-
-
-
-
0
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
Gas Temp.
*2
+
+
-
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
-
Particle Size
*3
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
+
•f
+
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
% S ill Coal
*„
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
-
-
_
-
<0.8
<0.8
<0.8
<0.8
<0.8
£0.8
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
+
Date
Performed
7/9/71
7/10
7/12
7/13
7/14
7/15
*
7/19
7/20
7/21
7/22
7/23
7/24
7/26
KEY:
LEVEL
•f
-
Xl
2.0-4.0
O.S-2.0
X2
289-518°F
25S-256°F
*»
COURSE (50%-400M)
FINE (80%-400M)
X4 .
2.30-4.10
1.00-2.29
* Mechanical Collector Inlet Sample Taken
NOTE: All tests were run on "B" side. However, first five
tests had electrical equipment energizing both "A"
and "B" sides. Test six on had only "B" side
energized, one set per section (fullwave).
-------
F-49
V. TEST RESULTS AND SAMPLE ANALYSES
1. Test Data
Tables III through XV summarize the data from both the CES test programs, and the
TVA test programs. All runs were made on Boiler No. 10 at Shawnee Station. However,
the TVA tests were conducted on the "A" precipitator while the first CES test program
was on both "A" and "B" precipitators and the second was on the "B" only. (See Figure
15.)
Since the flue gas and particulate to both "A" and "B" precipitators came from the same
boiler, there is no obvious reason to expect any signficant difference in results due to the
side tested, and for analysis purposes the test data can be considered comparable. The
only exception is the optical sensor data which was recorded on the "B" side and a
quantitative analysis requires test data from the "B" side. However, a qualitative
evaluation of the data can include "A" side tests as well.
2. Coal Analyses
Tables XVI through XVIII summarize coal sample analyses for both the CES and TVA
programs, and the Babcock and Wilcox pilot plant work at Alliance, Ohio.
3. Particle Size Analyses (Bahco, sieve and specific gravity)
Tables XIX through XXII summarize the Bahco and sieve analyses of samples obtained
during the CES test programs. Included are limestone feed samples, fly ash samples and
reacted limestone fly ash mixtures.
4. Resistivities
Tables XXIII through XXV summarize all laboratory and in-situ resistivity measurements
made on samples from the CES programs. Table XXVI shows resistivities obtained on fly
ash from various coals used in the Babcock and Wilcox pilot program.
5. Chemical Analyses
Tables XXVII through XXIX summarize all the chemical analyses obtained on the
particulate samples from both of the CES test programs. These analyses were performed
by TVA personnel at their Chattanooga, Tennessee, laboratory.
-------
F-50
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF THE TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SERIES
(December, 1969)
Test
No.
1A
IB
2A
3A
33
4.\
4B
5A
5B
Feed Rate
Tons/Hr.
Coal 1
57.0
57.0
55.0
58.0
59.0
58.0
59.0
57.0
57.0.
Liir.c stone
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
Bar.
Press.
"Hg__
29.61
29.75
29.71
29.75
29.91
29.88
29.75
29.98
29.96
Duct
Press.
ID Fan
in "H?O
,
-13.90
-13.25
-13.60
-13.30
-12.75
-13.10
-12.75
-12.30
-12.75
In-Situ
Resistivity
Pptr. Inlet
Temp.
Op
=
293
318
293
312
302
OHM-CM
=====
4.8xl09
2.1X1010
2.6X1011
4.7X1010
S.OxlO11
Elec. Pptr.
Inlet T
op
.
293
318
293
312
302
•
— —
Gas Vol .
XACFM
275
255
275
273
237
270
230
276
230
Vel.
F?S
=====
6.2
5.7
6.2
6.1
5.3
6.1
5.2
£.2
5.2
(a)
Test
Ko.
1A
IB
2A
3A
3B
4A
48
5A
5J5
Unit
Load
140
140
137-144
140
140
141
141
140
140
Steam
M Lbs.
Oev tir>
S70
955
940-1000
9&0
960
962
955
970
9GO
Air
LiOS . •
Per K.-T.
1030
1020
1000-1030
1020
1010
1020
I02C
1020
1020
Flue Gas %
bv Volurr.e
Oi
3.0-5.0
2.3-4.0
3.0-5.0
2.0-4.0
2.0-4.0
2.0-4-.0
2;0-4.0
3.2-5.0
3.2-3.9
H?O
8.3
9.1
7.7
KG Inlet
Tei^p .
et>
295
300
237
300
303
300
310
23C
290
AP "Ii2O
AH
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2'
KG
4.40
3. SO
4.20
4.30
3.80
4.00
3. SO
4.30
3-75
?ntr.
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
!
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
I
(b)
-------
F-51
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SERIES
(December, 1969)
T'est
No.
1A
13
2A
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
53
T-R Set D2 - Outlet Section
Spks
Kin .
.
78
- • -•
143
145
130
Volts
AC
300
— —
233
229
300
An-.cs
AC
73
— —
50
50
80
KVolts
DC
33.8
25.2
25.3
33.8
Ar.pr;
DC
.26
— —
.14
.13
.32
T-R Set A2 - Outlet Section
Man.
0
3
100
-- —
200
15
— —
Volts
AC
305
310
200
1 '• "
250
330
— —
Anns
AC
70
79
50
*
50
50
*
KVolts
DC
34.4
34.9
22.5
—
28.2
37.2
—
Anps
DC
0.30
.32
.26
.24
.24
(a)
Test
Ko.
1A
13
2A
3A
3B
4A
4B
5*
5B
T-R Set Bl - Inlet Section
Spks
Win.
3:50
148
85
150
360
150
160
70
85
Volts
AC
330
345
355
250
233
250
228
350
305
Amps
AC
60
63
75
40
35
30
34
80
73
KVolts
DC
37.2
38.8
40.0
28.2
26.2
28.2
25.6
39.4
34.4
Amps
DC
.28
.30
.34
.12
.105
.12
.10
.40
.33
T-R Set Al - Center Section
Spks
Min .
150
145
95
150
158
150
158
118
140
Volts
AC
315
330
350
278
283
265
268
330
305
Anps
AC
60
73
88
50
65
50
57
90
80
KVolts
DC
35.5
37.2
39.4
31.2
31.8
29.8
30.2
37.2
34.4
Amos
DC
.33
.40
.50
.24
.35
.24
.28
.46
.44
(b)
-------
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SERIES
.(December, 1969)
Tast
No.
1
13
2A
3A
33
4A
4B
5A
'5B
Power
WclttS
1000 ACFM
73
89
102
38
40
42
34
91
113
Watts
1000 Ft2
720
740
940
360
360
410
300
850
1000
Grain Loading @ 70 °F
S 30 "Hg-Gr/Ft3
MC
Inlet
3.17
3.09
3.22
3.14
'2.73
3.31
3.20
2.95
MC Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
1.45
1.37
1.19
1.20
1.42
1.26
Pptr.
Outlet
.036
0.227
0.328
0.112
0.04.5
Removal
Efficiency
%
MC
55.0
56.4
56.5
63.8
55.7
57.3
ESP
83.5
72.8
92.8
96.4
Overall
98.7
92.6
91.5
96.5
98.3
Migration
Vel. W
FPS/CMPS
.190/5.8
.18/5.5
.41/12.5
.43/13.1
(Jl
ho
-------
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES
(July, 1971)
Tost
!.*o.
1
^
*
4
5
(s
P,
0
10
! I
It- j
'.'j
)6
17
If
;s
20
z;
n
23
34-
It
li
27
2$
2f
3o
*2
*3
Unit
Lo.v.l
>V.-7
1 V./
3?<
127
MP
1-10
M.I
Mi
11?
M:;
Mi
J5S
1 '.!
1> i
139
1)8
137
1X0
140
U9
U<»
MO
!X-
?4!
MR
i*a
197
13B
OC
'./If'
' Stcr-rn
K I,bs
Per Kr,
075
890
0?r>
1 Of.O
!i%nr>
1 0-0
itv.'o
1010
IfllO
HMO
!)s;o
loco
9>-;o
9BP
1000
9H<)
qoq
9 ^0
VftO
980
960
'K,T
VT1
OfO
moo
moo
101)0
osn
'1(10
Mr
M Lbs
?cr
Hour
inr.o
1020
pr-:n
)Mr
loos
::or.
1 100
IC'90
1100
1050
10VO
l')70
10.10
10',3
IOCS
1)00
115>3
1115
1000
10(!0
10'>0
1 nr,o
1070
10SO
1 or, «;
io-,n
l^fi/!
7HO
10110
Flue
CUB
°2
», Dy
Vol.
5.0
<; ..1
3 . 0
««.
•! .2
5.;
4.5
3.1
2.7
4.3
l.t
4.2
0.3
4.0
C.2
5.0
5.3
C.2
5 P
.2
9.0
7.0
6.3
8.0
7.2
6.3
7.3
5.8
5.6
4 .8
5.1
5.4
4.9
A .7
•i.S
r>./!
6.2
fi.l
5.6
-1 .7
r. .4
6.1
6.9
C.D
KG
Inlet T.
"F.
•U4
334
?70'
327
265
.122
27f>
?C5
?70
til
310
263
260
2r2
310
257
310
260
11 0
11 /,
11 R
273
310
2fil
311
200
309
310
760
ip "K?0
AH
2.7
2.6
2.2
3.2
2.4
2.8
MC
i*£_
1.5
2.3
f, .3
3.2
3.8
2.6 h . 5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2..»
2.5
2.5
?.4
2.6
2.5
2.8
2.5
?..6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.7
2.1
2.7
2.6
2.4
3.3
1.3
l.r>
3.5
3.2
3.3
1.2
1.5
J.3
1.6
'..4
3. "5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.4
3.7
3.3
3.7
3.G
3.2
Pptr
o.s
0.5
0. 3
o. <;
0. t.
Oj5
0.5
(1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0./1
0.5'
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
P. 5
0.5
0.5
0. 5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Food Pntc
Tons/Hr.
Cool
pr>.o
57.0
5S.5
72. 1
f.f, .r,
iLLJ"
66. »
67.5
P.O. 3
•^0.5
r-->.r.
sn.n
57.2
sn.o
62.0
6?. 2
61.2
61.1
63. G
f.'. .3
(.?. . 5
57.9
Cl.O
C i . 2
62.1.
02. C
'45.7
5K.4
Iiimcstiono
n
7.5S
B. 50
o. no
4.75
ll.f.O
11 .5 5
0
15.75
15.25
M.10
M . 4 5
0
0.70
?.15
0
0
0
0
1.80
3.45
10.55
7.05
6.45
U.J5
0.25
j.30
n.so
7.H5
______
Bar. Press
"!Tcf
70 07
29.87
29.7?
?. ° . R 5
29. R3
?9.83
2v. /(•
2.9.73
29. f 9
29.67
29.72
20.71
2.9. fl9
2.9.90
29.86
29. (14
2".fi3
2.9.R7
29. 05
29.82
29.82
29.68
29. 7fl
29.75
29.90
29.90
23.89
2 '.' . 7 0
29.70
Duct Press.
ID Fan In.
"11,0
-13.5
-13.2
-10.3
-14 .8
-n .9
-13.5
-12.3
-11.5
-12.0
-12. 5
-12.6
-11.7
-11.0
-11.1
-12.0
-12.0
-) 2.0
-12.0
-12.1
-12.2
-12.1
-11 .8
-12.1
-11.7
-12.1
-11.1
-12.1
-10.0
-11 .2
Eloc. Procinitator
Inlet T
! "P.
1 293
' 314
! 251
305
246
3oi
256
' 246
251
290
289
244
241
7-n
2C9
238
280
241 .
289
292
296
253
289
242
290
241
288
2H9
241
Gas Vol
JLfcCfil-
299
292
2«4
257
25«
302
274
264
26?
2?4
2R5
256
259
?^f.
?fl?
259
Jftfi
264
282
294
284
268
286
265
292
2 VI
:02
2CR
259
Vol.
?P5
f. 1
f. K
<; 7
o r
5.7
6.1
. 6 3
5T9
5.9
C.A
f ^
5.7
5.R
1.7
«,"»
•;.«
K.t.
l.q
6.3
6.4
6.4
f .0
6.4
6.0
6.6
5.8
6.6
6.S
5.8 _
On
-------
TABLE VII
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES
(July, 1971)
| 7-?. 5*»". Tl — TrTn-t Section
*:.:* h.:;'
Vr> I X '.
AC
1 S 1 '.* \ 1,1
2 T>
179
3 1 111 jli-I
5 :::
172
ire
5 11) H '<
J 07
j_5 L?r>
0 i ''5
<<9
2)8
3-M
i j >•>•> :•»
AC
•10
-.20
Ul3
*• * 0
• s
•, 5
33
3 C
r, volt^
DC
;2.9
:3.B
12. S
72.9
;o.i '
21.2
It .1 '
?«.;
JS ! !9.2
17
5 i ';•*
6 I'SCI
7 ',07
_iil_
_»*_
2?0
1?.
27
25
- l.r-j.:'^ 1 i«
"7 i -'5
i
i i s *
1 i?Lii
! :: | '•>
74 '.:3
1 ?', i 9'-
2«. :••>:
27 '''
75 17?
29 :<">
_J-« 102
Gx_!»
31 "
T. * I 71
J-iiJ "
:vs ! 50
214
43
l'?j 57
!-3 1 51
237
I'.'J
J<7
715
211
54
l 3
72.1
22.8
28.4
55.9
A.-ni
-..031
.032
.rii
.070
,070
.0(0
.1:"
.i20_
.! in
,(lKH
.oil
.075
o.io:
O.Cf!'
22.1 ] 3. Of.'
) 7 . S j 0 . < 4 V
M,7 JO. 27:
30.4
25.5
22.3
22.4
29.3
23. J
22 ! 27.1
25
25
1?4 1 27
77.7J 2J
275 | 40
75. 7
25. 2
22.0
2S.3
17.3
7- li 'Set M— Csnter Section
Tpkn/
Mir..
Vol to
AC
25 '275
73 1 192
70 i 172j
70
70
53
58
7J
75
CO
70
70
75
75
75
S3
55
0.20't 50
0.17
S.2<
0.27
0 . t rt
C.r7
9.! 1
0.10
O.Off
0.99
0.11
0.19
67
fie
C8
59
1 75
69
, G4
75
77
177
138
174
231
221
210
174
174
274
215
20]
K,8
270
271
2 '. ••,
231
171
173
220
173
:-!5
170
201
168
GO I 214
fiC
253
.NC
<3
<10
'10
,',
<5
TF/C.- r?
0.24/7.1
0.05/1.6
0.06/1 .8
0.05/1.6
0.03/1 .0
0.35,". 1.0
0.34/10.4
0.43/13.1
0.26/7.1
O.J3/10.1.
0.79/J.8
0.19/5.7
0.37/1T.25
0.165/5.0
0.41/17.5
0. SB/17. 7
0.44/11.4
0 3C/11 n
0.13/4.0
0.15/4.4
O.SP/li.J
0.17/5.1
0.26/a.O
0.7«/«.J
0.7,7/f .J
O.U/j.j
0.43/14.5
0.41/11.0
CJ1
-------
TABLE VIII
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S FIRST TEST SERIES
(July-August, 1969)
Test
No.
4
5
n
t
16
24
25
27
23
30
31
23
34-
3(5
33
39
** -.
|<2
Css
F low
X ACFM
258
252
200
227
282
302
230
. 2-11
215
221
235
237
295
327
324
340
273
Unit
T,o arj
MW
140
142
134
130
144
143
125
124
139
141
137
137
138
137
_i3JLj
137
136
Pnt-T-
Ff £
%
95.8
95.6
97.2
98.0
94.9
94.4
96.7
97.6
97.8
98.4
96.6
95.7
S3. 7
95.8
94. 0
^94.9
95.0
Pnf-T
fia<5
Temp.°F
303
303
308
312
304
304
271
271
268
268
272
272
323
317
317
308
308
Lime-
Ratrt
Tons/Hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
i °
0
! o
0
0
c
I o
WZiTTQ
103 ACFM
.94.3
98.9
132.2
108.8
101.4
92.9
102.0
130.1
210.9
202.4
108.3
100.1
| 87.9
136.0
104.4
j 108.9
1 88.2
TVT7\rpmo
103 FT2
818
839
890
831
963
945
858
1056
1534
1506
930
866
873
1438
1139
1247
j 1108
MIGRATION
FT/SEC.
0.46
0.44
0.40
0.50
0.47
0.49
0.48
0.50
0.46
0.51
0.48
0.45
0.46
0.58
0.51
0.57
0.63
I VELOCITY
w
cri/SEC.
13.9
13.4
12.2
15.2
14.3
14.9
14.6
15.4
14.1
15.6
14.7
13.8
13.9
17.7
15.6
17.3
19.1
GPAIN L07-.DI^G
fi32°F-23.S2"K7
Ci\ 'T r "*"•
grs./f t-3
0.0712
0.06S7 j
0.0491
O.C30S
0.0952
0.1234
0,0433
0.03 92
O.C2GC I
0.0215 |
O.C455 i
0.0553 i
O.G792 j
O.C5S"3 !
0 . C G 3 9 i
O.CS37 ~|
0.076 |
Ul
CJ1
-------
TABLE IX
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S FIRST TEST SERIES
(July-August, 1969)
Test
INC.
4
5
7
16
24
25
27
23
20
;i
33
24
;t
:s
39
41
42
T-R SET 1A (FULL WAVE)
Spks
Min
i
154
195
-. 214
.329,
27
40
140
291
78
132
167
177
69
15
16
28
92
PRI
Volts
AC
335
342
335
345
360
363
329
284
342
320
324
348
333
350
351
336
322
PRI
Amps
AC
84
86
97
90
89
93
90
87
102
98
89
88
93
111
112
112
106
SEC.
Amps
DC
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.22
0.245
0/26
0.235
0.22
0.29
0.29
0..24
0.235
0.255
0.325
0.33
KV
Avg.
40.
40.8
40.0
41.2
43.0 !
43.4 '
39.3
33.9
40.9
38.2
38.7
41.6
39.8
41.8
41.9
0.325 40.2
0.29
38.5
T-R SET 1A (FULL WAVE)
Soks
Min
129
150
193
105
I?-
14
121
139
63
100
130
132
47
15
16
28
32
PRI
Volts
AC
341
360
327
358
3'72
377
348
317
353
326
344
332
372
350
351
335
322
PRI
Amps
AC
86
83
92
85
83
86
78
72
94
94
80
75
81
111
112
112
106
SEC.
Amps
DC
0.215
0.215
0.22
0.21
0.205
0.22
0.20
0.195
0.255
0.24
0.21
0.195
0.20
0.325
!0.33
:0.325
10.29
KV
Avq.
40.8
43.0
39.1
42.8
44.5
45.1
41.6
37.9
42.8
38.9
41.1
39.7
44.5
41.8
41.9
40.7
38.5
T-R SET 3A (FULL WAVE
Spks
Min
148
145
141
: 148
I 143
145
143
167
1
2
140
142
143
123
145
135
: 138
PRI
Volts
AC
269
267
285
278
268
262
266
337
318
328
280
265
275
315
245
286
296
PRI.
AiTiDS
AC
51
46
50
50
59
50
48
78
105
IOC
62
48
47
84
48
64
65
SEC.
Amps
DC
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.20
0.28
0.22
0.25
0.41
0,60
0.62
0.29
0.26
0.21
0.46
KV
T.va .
32.1
31.9
34.0
33.2
32.0
31.3
31.8
•10.3
38.0
39.2
33.5
31.7
32.9
37.6
0.21 J29.3
0.32
0.30
34.7
35.4
Ul
en
-------
TABLE X
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'A SECOND TEST SERIES
(June-July, 1970)
Test
No.
4
"%
5
\.a_
u
13
".4
15
:.i
1.3
\9
21
23
P-'i
26
2.7
28
30
?1
?'.:
?•<
- r
i£
?ft
.. .':£
40
•52
43
Gas
Flow-
M ACYM
286
2S5
247
234
239
271
266
Unit
Load-
MW
140
140
]42
127
130
140
141
269 144
277 140
278
260
2R3
301
one.
296
300
302
279
277
?79
298
289
7R9
314
311
311
306
306
143
145
141
143
141
141
142
142
134
334
134
140
141
140
1 4 3
144
144
142
143
Pptr.
Eff .
%
89.4
73.4
83.3
86.8
70.3
84.3
70.9
70.9
8.1.4
61.2
47.0
JZ3.3
85.7
68.7
9?,J
68.8
67.9
94 .7
78.8
81.8
83.8
76.3
86.3
85.8
78.2
79.8
01.3
82.7
Pptr.
Gas
Temp-°F
309
309
303
315
315
315
315
3] 5
317
317
317
320
311
311
31.1
311
3D1
.313
313
313
316
3.16
316
314
314
314
3.16
316
Ultimate Coal
Analysis (Dry)
Ash
%
14.4
15.0
14.2
13.3
13.9
14.3
19.3
2.3.8
16.7
23.7
28.6
14.5
19.2
16.6
16.7
16.3
u.15.1
.18.9
17.3
18.5
21.8
15.3
15.7
18.3
15.4
15.3
17.7
16M
Sulphur
%
2.0
1.4
2.2
2.9
4.1
2.9
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.4
3.4
3.1
2.6
2. 4
3.3
2.9
3.0
2.5
3.n
Ash
Sulphur
Ratio
7.2
10.7
6.5
4.6
3.4
4.9
8.3
3. 3
6.2
9.1
11.9
6. 9
8.0
i>-. 9
S . A
6.3
6.3
5.7
6.0
6.2
8.7
£ T
2.9 1 5.4
2.7 1 6.8
3.0
2.8
3.4
3.0
5. 1
5. 5
5.2
5.4
Lime-
stone
Rate
Tons/Hr .
0
11.0
9. 5
0
9.0
0
5.0
9.5
0
5.0
10.0
0
0
10
0
5.5
9.5
0
5.15
10. 0
5.0
10.0
0
5.5
10.0
0
0
4.5
Coal
Rate
Tons/Hr.
62.5
62.5
64 !
56.5
58
62.5 1
63
68 !
62.5 !
66.5 i
69 !
63
66.5
63 i
C-.3 i
64 !
64
59. 5 i
59.5 '
5 9.5 !
62.5 :
63
62.5
66.5
68
68
61
66.5
71
Ul
-------
TABLE XI
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA ' S SECOND TEST SERIES
(June-July, 1970)
rriA cf.
No.
4
•\
3
1_Q
11
13
'-4
.n5
17
18
19
21
23
O 4
26
2.7
28
30
M.
32
?4
•j r
36
3S
-j
40
42
•-43
WATT<5
103 ACFM
35.9
27.3
44.1
35.7
10.10
27.4
.10.7
8.3
15.6
9.7
7.0
14.7
48.8
32.2
8S.6
23.1
23.3
140.8
34.4
20.6
69.8
41.10
50.5
53.2
47.8
53.9
67.3
, 40.7
WAT"!"? -
103 FT2
346
262
367
281
81
250
96
75
146
91
66
140
494
324
b83
234
237
1407
321
133
700
399
491
563
500
554
633
420
MIGRATION
i
ft/ sec
0.36
0.21
0.24
0.26
0.16
0.28
0.18
0.18
0.26
0.14
0.10
0..21
0.32
0.19
0.42
0.19
0.19
0.46
0.24
0.26
0.30
0.23
0.32
0.34
0.26
C.27
0.41
0.30
VELOCITY
'•j
<« /
cm/sec
10.9
6.4
7.5
8.1
4.9
8.5
5.6
5.6
7.9
4.5
3.0
6.3
10.0
5.9
12.9
5.9
5.8
14. 0
7 .3
8.1
9.2
7.1
9.3
10.4
8.1
3.5
12.7
9.1
GRAIN LOADING
9 32°F an •.'. 2 9.52 "He
f -i ",'P I "",'
ars/fi:
0.153
0.448
G.2(j-t
C . 1 < 5
0.652
0.167
0.522
0.643
0.304
0.075
1.13'J
0.362
0 . 2 i. J
0.1,74
0. Icij
0.431
0.5.0
0.':723
0 . j y o
(J . j 7 '/
0 . > f; 9
0 ..47.'
0.237
•J.270
o . •; i c
0.25b
0.126
0.254
71
en
00
-------
TABLE XII
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA ' S SECOND TEST SERIES
(June-July, 1970)
Tost
No.
4
=;
8
10 .
n
n
.. 4
'• 15
• "; 7
19
19
•>i
23
?•',
26
1 ?.7
LjJi_
** .*%
j ., •; .
'/ *"
_jZI
x -'S
" .'l
.' 0
-'2
•n
T-R SET 1A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS
Min^
0
0
0
185
210
1.80
195
180
215
215
215
20 '3 ~*
140
145
lr>0
16.5
1 6 5
30
If) 5
1 r, '.;
PRI
Volts
AH
285
275
250 '
250
200
260
190
162
230
205
200
220
255
PRI
Amps
AC
fi5
70
38
35
0
Sec.
Amps
_ nr
0.35
0.155
KV
A"rr .
34.0
32.8
r0.06 120.3
0.05
0.03
30 i 0.065
29.8
23. 9
31.0
10 i 0.03 22.7
0
.15
10
10
20
40
225 1 35
330
225
220
385
235
230
590 i 270
490
485
400
4 9 5
430
150
160
250
2KO
270
2G5
290
75
0.015
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.035
0.035
10.3 *
27.4 |
24.4 *
23.9
2 (, . 2
30.-;
o.or> | :•>* .3
0 . 1 •?. \ 'I 9 . -3
23 i_O.OG It. .3
20
0.05 26.2
115 0.3 ! 46.0
38
C.CG5 jJ2S. 0
33 0.075 j .77. -i
65
O.l* i 32.2 j
r> o i o . .1 2 \ .. •,• . .-,
CO 1 0.1-: 1 .'I.-'.
5iH
5.3
r,o
310 80
270 1 60
0. 135 ! i'.'. 1:
0.125 i ••> I . ':
0 . 1 <". 5
0 . 1 •'. 5
0.11
?..; .(>
37.0
32.2 •
T-* SET 2 A (FULL WAVE)
SFKE
Min.
| 120
! 1-3
\ 4, ~ "'
1 160
! 1 / 0
| 145 i
i J.OO 1
_ O i :
J. O v i
J. o :,• i
- •_ -
— -
_ 0 ^
i ~~ '
— ~j .
j
—
. .
-: .' _'
.. .1"
. — .
-! - .
. . .
-: ' .
• i / '-'
?r.i
Volts
AC
2:">0
PRI
Ar.ps
AC
30
2.^5 22
SEC.
Aiaps
DC
0.08
O.C5
2 .i 0 43 0.105
255
45
2'.'.Q 20
0.09
0 . 0"5~"
2.s5 ! 55 O.J.35
2^0 : 21 ( 0.05
KV
Avg.
29.8
26.8
29.8
30.4
26.2
34.0
26.2
2vO '42 0.02 23.9
.liii
220
2j.O
260
70
10
10
35
0. 03
0.06
^.03"
0.0851
23.6~
26.2
25.0
31.0
2^0- 34 0 . 0 7 o 2 i) . 8
^ ^ c ^.' ^ 0.06 2 6 . .'.
3 J C i 0 o
220 20
* *: \j
.: .>D
!•: 2 u
20
~7", —
u "*
UTTas
3b.a '
0 . 0 u 2 (> . 2
0. 06
-OT2T"
26.2
33.2
J . 1 i'j '6 2^.8
:. j& ^3 j 0.07J ! 27 . 4
_ o o i / 0
:50 | 55
J7j
.i JO
D2
69
0720 i 3.>.4
0.14
3i.O
0.145 J2~. B
U.2(J 1 34.0
i 7 0 (j i J . 2 0 5 | J 2 . 2 i
2i)D c7 G-liOJ 3s. 2
j U lj
^03
UD 0. iSS
45
0.125"
jo . 8
31.6
T-R SET 3A (FULL WAVE) ;
SPKS
Min.
155
160
500
100
190
1.85
195
215
PRI
Volts
AC
233
190
250
200
160
r?u
iao
205
190 | IblD
185
190
185
150
T5B
165
135'
170
330
' ' ' ' ri
150 3"25_j
155 210
160
14' 2
205
— 770 —
PRI
Amps
AC
50
125
'10
15
0
16
]_•;
~2~i~
0
0
0
15
50
•1 L)
GU
- ^.j. •
20
— 7jb—
155 i 2-iO 32
i o 'J
r-5Ud
500
500
500
D'JO
DOO
IJa
210
^b-^
I5£D_
220
240
~~2"Tb '
~T5"5 —
— rTD —
i;
••'15
1-4"°
SEC.
A;nps
DC
0.10
KV
Avq .
27.8
0.06 i 22.7
0.20 ; 2'j.lJ
0.16 23.9
C.02 19.1
0. 04 ; 20. j
O.O-i , 21. S I
o . ;; 6 2 -i . ••; ~i
0.02
0.02
0
0. 03
0".23
iy-U
19.7 J
16.1 >
20. J t
r 3 i> . ••! ;
1 u . 2 ••; [ '.'. !>.;•: ;
0.3b
0.15
. j;^_4
25. 0 ;
0.17 2-J.--1 i
u"."35 4-';. 2 ;
0) 1 I •", i • • i
. I-.1 | -. o . » :
j . 0 /
U . 3 U 2 y . c
p:.in I'o.^ i
-!o i o.is i 2a. ^
•10 o . JL y ! i' i) . :•:
~~I7~~
j^O | LJ
"• 260 j .'.0
0. 10 '-6 . J J
o-ar^.-.-
o.2-r jj.-j i
OTT(T| 3i.O
Ul
Id
-------
TABLE XIII ,.V
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA ' S SECOND TEST SERIES
(June-July, 1970)
Test
No.#
44
46
47
48
50
51
52
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
62
64
65
66
68
69
70
72
73
74
Gas
Flow
M ACFM
299
295
283
280
239
237
239
285
285
280
279
279
283
302
296
294
293
290
287
275
273
227
222
223
Unit
Load
MW
144
142
139
140
142
142
143
140
141
141
142
142
144
141
143
142
142
142
140
140
142
139
140
143
Pptr.
Eff .
%
85.3
92.6
77.3
83.4
93.7
91.1
89.6
89.8
71.3
79.3
94.9
88.3
82.0
91.6
81.3
93.4
82.6
74.0
85.6
78.6
78.8
88.5
88.0
87.2
Pptr.
Gas
Temp.
op
316
306
306
306
307
313
320
310
310
310
304
304
304
304
304
310
310
310
309
309
309
311
311
311
Ultimate Coal
Analysis (Dry)
Ash
%
15.9
17.1
15.8
15.7
14.0
14.0
14.3
13.7
13.6
13.7
14.0
13.2
12.9
13.8
14.0
14.2
13.6
13.6
14.8
16.3
15.8
20.2
14.0
16.2
Sulphur
%
2.7
2. /
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.8
3.C
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.6
2.6
3.1
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
Ash
Sulphur
Ratio
5.9
6.3
5.9
5.2
5.2
5.0
4,8
5.1
4.9
4.9
5.0
4.9
5.2
5.3
5.4
4.6
4. 9
5.2
5.9
6.8
6.6
8.1
5.8
6.8
Lime-
stone
Rate
Tons/Hr.
9.5
U
5.0
10.0
0
5.0
10.0
0
3.3
2.25
0
2.3
1.25
0
1.2
0
5:0
10.5
0
1.4
5.5
0
1.3
5.5
Coal
Rate
Tons/Hr.
68
64
62
62.5
64
64
66.3
62.5
63
63
64
64
68
63
66.5
64
64
64
62.5
62.5
64
62
62.5
66.5
71
en
o
-------
TABLE XIV
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S SECOND TEST SERIES
(June-July, 1970)
Test
No. &_
A 4
i O
-. /
id
sO
51
5 2
I-*
5 2
3 <-•
36
l; 9
•:-0
':• i
\,2
(.••-,
(. 5
( 6
i 3
iS
'/O
12
73
74
tv/Ammo
103 ACFM
21.7
62.7
19.7
18.1
72.3
33.3
29.5
57.1
21.6
20.5
63.2
27.1
22.1
59.6
34.6
94.1
30.7
22.1
41.4
24.3
21.7
C1.5
34. 4
32.4
TVTA fprpc
103 FT2
219
623
187
171
582
269
237
548
207
193
593
255
211
606
345
931
302
216
400
225
199
470
257
243
MIGRATION
ft/sec
0.32
0.43
0.23
0.28
0.37
0.32
0.30
0.36
0.20
0.24
0.46
0.33
0.27
0.42
0.27
0.44
0.28
0.21
0.31
0.23
0.23
0.27
0.26
0.25
VELOCITY
cm/sec
9.8
13.1
7.2
8.6
11.3
9.8
9.2
11.1
6 .1
7.5
14.2
10.2
8.3
12.8
B.b
13.6
8.8
6.6
9.5
7 .2
7.2
8.4
8. 0
7.8
GRAIN LOADING
@ 32°F and 29.92"Hg
OI ITT FT1
grs/ft3
0.319
0.1022
0.311
0.329
0. 0990
0.145
0 . 228
0.149
0.362
0.334
0. 0870
0.24G
0.279
0.0965
0.243
0.0941
0. 362
0.418
0.214
0.319
0.352
0.129
0. 162
0.214
-------
TABLE XV
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA' S SECOND TEST SERIES
CJune-July, 1970)
Test
44
*
i
i
t
h«
7
-ft
>&
ii
52"
"T*
55"
Sv
58.
' 5?
i'O
1
»1
62
64-
f
"~
"1
^
';&
!*
5<*
rw
r~72~~
73
T-R SET 1A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS
Min
170
155
165
170
160
165
165
160
165
165
160
165
165
155
160
150
165
158
160
165
165
160
162
165
PRI
Volts
AC
235
295
230
225
320
240
230
255
240
235
290
260
235
310
290
315
240
230
285
250
250
310
255
240
PRI
Amps
AC
35
55
30
30
60
35
31
40
30
30
47
30
30
70
50
70
37
30
50
37
35
60
35
37
SEC
Amps
DC
0.07
0.145
0.065
0.065
0.14
0.08
KV
Avq.
28.083
35.253
27.485
26.888
38.240
26. MO
0.07 27.485
0.085
0.07
30.473
28.680
0.065 j 28.083
0.105
0.075
0.07
0.15
0.10
0.175
0.08
0.07
0.105
0.08
0.07
0.13
0.075
0.065
34.655
31.070
28.083
3 7 . (> 4 b
34.655
37.643
28. 680
27 . 4 J5
34. 058
29.8/5
12 9. 8/5
37.045
30.473
28.680
T-R SET 2A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS
Min.
170
160
180
185
165
180
180
165
180
180
170
180
180
PRI
Volts
AC
240
290
230
225
230
L_245
235
290
230
230
250
240
235
140 300
165
255
145 "" 300
170 240
170
235
160 1 275
170 ! 240
170 ' 240
155 270
175 245
175
245
PRI
Amps
AC
30
57
30
27
56
33
30
60
30
30
47
28
30
60
45
61
35
31
50
32
SEC.
Amps
DC
0.06
0.155
0.07
0.065
0.135
0.085
0.08
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.08
0.075
0.17
0.115
0.175
0. 085
0.08
0.13
0.09
30 1 0.085
50
32
32
0.13
0.08
0.08
KV
Avq.
--~ — ^=j
28.680
34.655
27.485
26.888
33.460
29.278
28.083
34.655
27.485
27.485
31.070
28.680
28.083
35.850
31.668
35.350
28.680
28.083
32.863
28.680
28.680
32.265
29.278
29.278
T-R SET 3 A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS
Min
270
160
170
170
160
165
165
160
165
168
155
163
165
160
PRI
Volts
AC
215
280
195
190
270
225
220
285
205
205
295
225
205
280
165 220
120
335
180 210
182 i 210
175
260
180 205
180 i 195
175
180
180
260
230
230
PRI
Amps
AC
25
45
25
25
50
29
24
45
20
20
60
20
20
40
27
67
23
19
29
20
20
37
25
27
SEC.
Amps
DC
0.110
0.24
0.08
0.07
0.23
0.12
0.11
0.26
0.08
0.07
0.30
0.11
C.09
0.19
0.12
0.37
0.17
0.09
0.13
0. 07
0.06
0.16
0.11
0.11
KV
Avq .
25.6
33.4
23.3
22.7
32.2
26.8
26.2
34.0
24.4
24.4
35.2
26.8
24.4 1
33.4
26.2
40.0
25.0
25.0
30.0
24.4
23.3
31.0
27.4
27.4
-------
F-63
TABLE XVI
COAL ANALYSES FOR BOTH COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S TEST SERIES
(December, 1969 § July, 1971)
Run(l
No.
1AUB
2A
3A
3B
4 A
4 13
SAG SB
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
JO
11
14
15
J 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32.
33
Moisture
10.10
5.90
9.90^
10.40
9.40
8 .SO
8.00
10.30
11 .00
9.30
10.90
10.80
8.70
10.90
10.50
10.80
11.10
9.20
10.10
8.30
8.40
8.60
7.90
8.20
7.20
6.90
8.90
8.90
7.40
S.70
8.20
7.20
In •* -\
V . - ll
s.so
10.90
S.60
Vol.
Comb .
Matter
33.93
36.10
55.66
34.59
35.53
34 . 93
36.<15
50.69
31 . 92
32.93
29.40
51 .96
31 .74
32.39
52 . 39
32.61
30.92
35.06
5 2 . S i>
52.87
51.99
30.81
29.13
29.22
30.52
50. 2S
28.82
28.86
52.92
31 .92
36.36
34.81
33 . C-0
35.26
3 -I . d ;'
36.47
Fixed
Carbon
44.52
45.89
45.89
43.86
45.90
45.83
45.79
45.62
45.06
44.55
41.28
42.64
41.55
42.60
41 .00
40.20
41.57
41.73
44.16
45 .34
45.48
46.80
43.08
42.71
43.89
43.65
41.15
40.09
41.18
46. OS
42.59
59 . 76
41.70
4 2 . 4 5
37.44
37 . 99
Ash
11 .45
12.11
10. 7S
11.15
9.17
12.44
9.78
13.39
14.02
13.42
1 S . 4 2
14.60
18.01
14.11
16.05
16.59
16.41
14.01
15.15
13.49
14.13
15.79
19.89
19.87
18.59
19.19
21.15
22.15
18.50
15.50
12.SS
13.23
15.1 0
15.79
10.97
19.9-1
Sulfur
Pvrit ic
1.44
2 . 24
J .25
0.82
1 .16
0.94
1.67
1.39
1.41
1.47
0.66
1.59
1 .64
1 .48
0.78
0.77
0.82
1 .55
1.27
0.72
0.92
1 . 24
0.22
0.24
0.25
0.30
0 . 55
0.36
1.07
1.28
1 .04
1.74
1 . IS
1 .36
2.70
2 . 25
Organic
1.32
1 .44
0.88
1.06
1 .52
0. 92
1.52
0.88
1 .01
0.96
0.67
0.96
0.91
1 .00
0.77
0.79
0.80
1 .08
O.S9
0.70
0.67
0.84
0.59
0.57
0.5S
0.65
0.68
0.80
O.S7
0.94
0.65
1.46
1.02
1.22
1 .26
1 .57
Sulfatc
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0. 10
0.15
0. 12
0.04
0.14
0.08
0. 11
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.06
0. 05
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.14
0.10
o.os
0. 10
0.22
Total
2.80
3.72
2.15
1.90
2.71
1 .59
5.22
2.37
2.55
2.55
1 .37
2.69
2.63
2.59
1 .62
1.60
1 .68
2.69
2.22
1 .45
1 .62
2.15
0.84
O.SS
0.86
0.95
1 .07
1.22
2.00
2.27
1 .75
3.34
2. 30
2.66
4 . 00
4 . 04
Ash
Sulfur
4.2
o . 5
5.0
5. 9
3.4
6.6
3.0
5.6
i . 3
S.5
13.5
5.4
6.9
5.4
9 .9
10.2
9.8
5.2
S.9
9 . 3
8 . 7
6 .5
23.7
23.4
21 .6
20.2
19. S
1S.1
9.5
5.9
7.4
5.5
6 . 6
5.2
4 . 2
4 . y
-------
F-64
TABLE XVII
COAL ANALYSES FOR TVA'S FIRST TEST SERIES
(July-August, 1969)
TVA
TEST
NO.
4
5
7
16
24
25
27
28
30
31
33
34
36
38
39
41
42
MOISTURE
11.9
12.2
13.0
9.2
9.4
9.6
11.4
10.9
9.9
10.3
10.7
10.9
8.8
8.3
8.3
7.9
8.3
VOL.
COMB.
MATTER
34.62
33.80
32.80
35.05
34.34
33.99
31.36
32.34
35.50
34.44
32.24
:-i.9o
34.11
34.39
34.85
33.89
34.00
FIXED
CARBON
42.99
42.85
42.72
42.77
43.94
44.93
43.50
43.93
44.42
44.67
45.63
45.98
44.41
45.57
44.75
45.04
46.07
ASH
10.48
11.15
11.48
12.98
12.32
11.48
13.73
12.83
10.18
10.58
11.43
11.26
12.68
11.74
12.10
13.17
11.33
TOTAL
SULFUR
2.73
3.16
3.39
2.63
3.08
2.44
2.04
2.41
2.70
2.69
2.14
1.69
3.01
3.39
3.76
3.59
3.02
HEATING
VALUE
BTU/LB .
1
11,189
10,993
10,823
11,168
11,298
11,327
10,738
10,968
11,533
11,401
11,171
11,191
11,300
11,545
11,527
11,448
11,580
ASH
SULF'JR
3.8
3.5
3.4
4.9
4.0
4.7
6.7
5.3
3.8
3.9
5.3
6.7
4.2
3.5
3.2
3.7
3.8
I
-------
TABLE XVIII
COAL
ANALYSES FOR BABCOCK AND WILCOX
PILOT TEST PROGRAM
(1967-1969)
Proximate Analyala X Dry
Volatile Hatter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
BTU/lb Dry
Ultimate Analyala X Dry
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen (Calculated)
Sulfur
A.h
Oxygen (Difference)
Sulfur Form X Dry gaa Sulfur
Pyrltlc •
Sulf.te
Organic (Difference)
Total
Chlorine X Dry
Aih Competition X
SIO,
f\ 0
T102
CaO
HgO
hajO
K20
SO} (Gravimetric)
Aih fualon Temperature *F*
AtMoipher.
IT
SS
8H
FT 1/16
rr (rue)
B-22791
1st Shipment
37.4
47.4
15.2
12,150
67.5
4.6
1.3
4.3
15.2
7.1
2.7
0.1
1.5
4.3
O.OZ
39.
16.
27.
0.5
9.0
0.3
0.6
2.2
3.4
Red. Oxld,
1940 2240
1990 2300
2060 2340
2340 2460
2)70 2510
STANDARD TEST COALS
COLBERT STEAM PLANT
C-13167
2nd Shipment
l«t Box
38.8
48.2
13. Q
12,S60t
68.7
4.9
1.4
4.2
12 8
8.0
1.4
0.9
1.9
4.2
0.07
36.
13.
28.
0.4
9.0
0.5
0.6
2.3
12.9
Red. Oxld.
1950 2250
2000 2340
2040 2380
2310 2500
2390 2540
C-13331
2nd Shipment
2nd Box
37.6
47.9
14,5
--
m
_
m
.
—
-
-•
m m
„..
4.2
-.
„
•
.
•
•
.
mm
—
Red. Oxld.
» ••
€>• •>•
;.
r 13273
Orient 13
Mine
35.5
49.8
14.7
12,150
0.8
<0 1
o!6
1.4
--
52.
24.
9.0
0.6
6.0
2.0
1/4
1.9
Red. Oxtd.
2070 2200
2270 2410
2330 2460
2740 2670
2810 2860
TV
C-13274
Atklnaon
Mine . .
34.4
46.7
18.9
11,360
— f
».
._
..
— —
--
2.6
0.2
1.2
4.0
--
42.
17.
18.
0.4
13.
0:9
0.6
1.6
Red. Oxld.
1950 2)60
1990 2220
2020 2230
2270 2466
146Q 2540
A TEST COALS
C-13279
Old Ben '24
Mine
38.8
50.2
11.0
12,760
m
m
f
m
„
-
1.3
<0 1
ils
2.6
--
45.
22.
17.
0.5
6.0
l.Q
1.3
1.7
Red. Oxld.
2070 2270
2140 2360
2180 2410
2650 2670
2780 2750
C-13319
Little Joe Mine
37.0
46.9
16.1
11,980
•._
„
„
..
— .
--
1.9
0.1
1.6
3.6
0.03
51.
24.
18.
0.5
1.0
1.0
O.i
2.4
Red. Oxld.
1990 2440
2170 24BO
2240 2500
2680 2710
1710 2800
LIGNITE
COAL
C-13176
North Ibtknta
43.3
48.0
8.7
11,020
65.6
4.5
1.4
0.7
8.7
19.1
O.I
o'.t>
0.7
--
25.
a.
n.
0.4
24.
9.0
3.0
0.4
Red. 0« hi.
2270 2280
2350 2320
2380 23&0
2450 7170
2550 2410
Ml (.11
SULFUR
COAL
c-m;s
Prnl-uily Co.if
Ci*np/iny
12.4
15.-0
12.6
9.110
49.0
3.7
1.0
11.2
32.6
0.5
10.9
0.3
2.0
13.2
--
30.
18.
45.
0.'.
1.0
0.4
0.3
1.1
••
Rrd. fluid.
1^0 2370
2(1/0 2MO
2110 2JiO
24HO 2S70
JMO 2S80
71
cr>
en
(Cale. ftu
Oili(Mtloni
-------
TABLE XIX
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SERIES
(December, 196'9)
j:o.
!
1A
in
i "A
•; A
•113
5A
Cumulative Per Cent Zf Weight Less Than Indicated Pnrticlo Diameter
lU-.hco
2u
3.8
10.2
6.1
2.B
2 A
3A
:>u
•',3
1ASID
2A
j'Hi43
3Ai4A
5At5B
1A613
2A
3A44A
SAtSB
6.S
11.3
10.6
12.5
12.0
9.2
11.5
13.8
25.1
9.3
13.6
2.2
3.8
•2.2
3.4
3.4
17.5
13.0
13.0
14.8
5u
18.0
20.0
17.0
12.2
13.0
13.8
1C.U
37.0
40.0
•16.6
49.'.
49.2
43.6
40.0
50.0
43.4
4<>.6
52.6
8.2
10.8
7.4
10. E
9.8
56.0
49.6
48.0
51.0
10 u
30.0
42.2
28.5
26.0
28.0
26.2
30.2
60.0
74.2
76.6
76.
78.0
75.6
76.2
73.8
76.0
Bl. 8
79.0
20.8
24.0
17.0
24.2
20.2
81.5
78.0
86.0
79.8
20u
41.0
62.0
43.0
44.4
49.2
42.0
35.6
89.6
90.4
93.2
93.6
93.6
94 .2
94.0
89.2
93.8
92.5 "
92.0
40.6
45.4
34. U
41.0
37.8
93.2
94.0
93.0
95.0
30u
48.0
71.8
53.0
46.0
62.4
51.0
54.0
95.5
95.0
T7T£
97.4
97.4 '
98.2
98.0
94.2
96.8
94.8
95. 0
50.4
59.8
47.4
48.2
50.0
96.8
97.8
97.2
98.2
Sieve
44u
66.2
69.0
74.0
07.0
66.2
77.8
84.0
86. '2
89.0
*~91 ~2
92.0
90.0
89.4
" 92.4'
86.0
62..0
_ 73.4
86.5
86.2
78.0
82.5
86.0
86.5
38.0
89.0
68.0
63.0
74u
74.0
97.0
84.0
92.8
87.2
84.8
65.0
90.4
92.4
9 4 ~2
96.8
95.2
93.6
95.2
88.0
8g.8
83.8
89.8
89.6
94.2
87.2
89.0
69.8
91.5
94.5
96.8
93.0
149g
95.2
97.9
95.0
98.0
95.4
92.2
92.4
95.0
95.8
97. C
98.6
97.9
97.0
97.8
93.5
95.8
91.5
94.0
98.9
97.8
SS.O
98.7
97.8
98.6
99.0
99.5
98.2
297g
90.6
99.8
99.4
99.7
99.7
95.6
96.0
97.8
98.0
98.3
99.1
99.0
98.8
99.1
97.8
98.0
95.6
97.0
99.7
99.4
99.6
99.78
99.72
99.6
99.6
99.9
99.5
SP.GR.
qn/cc
2.17
2.65
2.16
2.31
2.58
2.41
2.26
2.40
2.16
2.24
2.40
2.41
2.34
2.53
1.97
1.71
2.05
2.20
1.64
2.38
2.38
2.37
2.15
2.26
1.64
2.21
Sairpla
Source
Moch. Inlet
Kcch. Inlet
Mcch. Inlet
Moch. Inlet
Kcch. Inlet
Modi. Inlet
Koch. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
1'p tr . Ou 1 1 c t
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Outlet
Moch. Coll. Hopper
S Catch
Mech. PpLr.
I'.ccH*. Coll. Hopper
£ Catch
Mech. Coll. Hopper
& Catch
Mech. Pptr. Hopper
Electrostatic
Collector
Elect. Pptr. Hopper
Elect. Pptr. Hopper
S Catch
Elect. Pptr. Hopper
& Catch
O)
-------
TABLE XX
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES
(July, 1971)
! 0.
6
8
14
23
24
32
33
..2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4 '
5
5
S
6
6
6 '
8
8
8
*~ IT
_iL_
LJLi_
14
14
IS
• 13
1C
Cumulative Per Cent Bv Weiqht Less Than Indicated Particlb Diameter-
Banco
2u
16.5~_
19.2
10.8
15.5
15.0
10.0
9.7
8.2
9.0
Iff. 8
7.0
6.4
3.G
7.8
9.0
L 4>4
7.0
7.0
5 .'2'*""
C, .8
"4.0 "
5.2
3.2
— *
5.0
6.0
1'J
99.1
C4.4
99.2
97.9
82.2
78.5
~977l
94.6
fl.6
96.2
•<9.5
94.6
98.6
94.3
92.1
95.8
59.1
94.4
98.3
99.7
95.6
99.5
89.3
9<.l
97.2
99.2
97. S '
92.9
"~99~S
V'».5
95.1
98.9
98.0
149u
100.0
100.0
79.2
99.9
99.9
85.6
82.4
99.41
95.8
93.2
99.3
99.8
99.15
99.04
95.4
95. S
97.2
76.2
98.9
98.8
99.9
98.1
99.87
97.8
yb.2
97.5
99.8
99'. 9
95.5
99.7""
03. S
98.9
99.0
99.5
297w
J.00.0
100.0
94.0
;oo.o
100.0
96.0
95.5
99.78
97.6
96.9
99.7
99.9
99.76
99.1
97.9
98.3
98.9
87.0
99.6
99.2
99.96
98.8
99.92
99.1
99.4
97.8
99.9
99.99
90.6
99.7
99.94
99.4
99.2
99.5
SP.GR.
cjm/cc
2.68
2.61
2.60
2.51
2.34
2.54
2.50
2.85
2.80
2.75
2.49
2.48
2.36
3.07
2.56
1.89
3.11
2.86
2.70
2.30
1.38
2.39
2.66
2.31
2.63
2.50
3.1<»
2.53
2.91
2.91
2.48
2.55
2.50
Sample
Source
Limestone Food Tank
Limestone Feed Tank
Limestone Feed Tank
Limestone Food Tank
Limestone Feed Tank
Limestone Feed Tank
Limestone Feed Tank
Koch. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Moch. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
rptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Mech. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Mcoh. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Koch, Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Potr. Outlnt
Koch. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Koch. Inlot
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlot
CD
•vj
-------
TABLE XXI
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES
(July, 1971)
Mo.
17
18
IB
1'J
20
ii
""iV.
23
23
2-i
~2-, '
25
26
26
27
27
28
Zl!
29
JO
30
30
32
32
33
33
2
3
5
G
3 —
14
15
32
33
Cumulative Per Cent By Weight Less Than Indicated Particle niaircter
Dahco
7 V
5.0
6.S
11.0
"- H. "5
is. a
•13.0
16.0
15.0
1-).0
13.2
8.8
11 .2
7.8
4.<
••
13.2
— — —
5.0
10.6
22.2
9.6
9.8
IS. 2
10.0
4.8
4.4
3.5
2.3
— 3.6
2.8
2.2
2. "8
3.0
Su
29.8
33.0
42.0
••svTo"-
52.0
51.8
56.0
55.6
57.2
52.2
44.6
51.8
30. 0
25.6
5'J.C
— — —
37.8
50.4
70.0
31.6
40.0
44.0
48.4
14. G
14.2
12.5
10.2
13.0
11.8
11.6
12.6
10.8
lOu
62.0
73.0
63.8
11 52 :o—
82.0
82.0
85.0
04.0
84.5
79.8
77.0
83.0
69.6
61.0
-,
85.6
"
78.4
79.6
90.2
42.0
80.4
64.0
30.8
28.2
27.6
26.0
22.2
27.0
22.4
23.0
24.2
23.0
20g
87.8
93.6
81.0
73.6
96.2
96.4
97.2
94.2
96.0
93.0
93.2
96.0
89.8
88.2
•
96.2
/
94.5
—
93.8
96.5
71.4
95.4
70.2
95.8
48.0
45.0
44.0
39.6
46.0
36.8
38.0
40.2
40.0
30 n
95.0
98.0
— —
88.0
?:.o
98.8
99.0
99.4
96.2
98.3
96.0
96.5
98.4
94.2
95.8
— —
98.2
— —
97.4
-.
98.0
97.8
79.6
98.2
S4.0
98.6
60.2
56.0
56.0
51.0
58.0
45.0
48.0
50.2
51.8
Sieve
•Mx
98.0
97.9
95.9
92.2
b3.9
98.6
98.2
98.3
98.3
,97.6
98.2
98.8
98.1
93.2
98. G
98.0
9b.G
97.9
90.9
98.6
98.4
93.3
99.4
95.6
98.8
88.3
M.I
80.1
79.7
90.2
64.9
64.7
83.2
79.5
74u
98.5
98.3
96.6
97.9
93.0
99.0
98.9
98.8
98.9
97.9
98.8
99.1
98.6
S6.G
99.1
98.4
97.1
98.1
98.3
99.0
98.9
94.8
99.7
y?.s
99.2
94.7
35.7
91.1
87.8
93. S
87.0
~87i6
82.2
87.0
149u
99.4
99.3
98.6"-
99.1
35.0
99~."4T~
99.4
99.2
99.5
98.6
99.4
99.5
99.0
97.6
99.5
98.9
3-.1
98.7
99.1
99.3
99.5
98.2
99.8
99.3
99.6
99.7
93.3
99.4
99.2
99.5
9G.1
94.0
_J96^3
97.3
297u
99.8
99.6
99.6
99.77
99.77
99.64
99.7
99.4
99.9
98.8
99.8
99.7
99.4
98.8
99.8
99.2
59. 6
99.1
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.7
99.9
99.99
100.00
99.99
99.93
99.92
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.7
SP.GR.
qro/cc
2.47
2.09
_—
2.37
2.51
2.62
2.63
2.67
2.21
2.75
2.76
2.71
4.33
2.63
— —
2.89
2.83
2.37
2.6G
3.02
3.93
2.62
2.69
3.11
2.85
2.98
2.52
2.49
2.71
2.83
3.04
2.74
2.80
Sample
Sourco
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Fptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Potr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
1-ptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Mech. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Mech. Inlut
Potr. Inlet
Mechanical Hoppers
"" "B" Side *•
1. 2, 5, 6
71
CT>
00
-------
TABLE XXII
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES
(July, 1971)
Run
No.
15
1C
14
17
18
21
22
23
24
Cumulative Per Cent By Weight Less Than Indicated Particle Diameter
Hahco
2u
17.8
16.8
J.3.B
16.2
17.2
14.0
17.5
17.5
18.0
5u
60.4
58.0
S9.C
61.6
62.0
54.0
61.8
57.8
53.0
lOg
88.2
86.0
87.0
88.0
08.2
89.0
86.0
82.8
32 . 8
20y
98.2
97.4
9,7.2
97.8
98.1
92.6
96.2
95.0
94.2
30v
99.58
99.3
99.1
99.2
99.5
94.5
93.4
97.9
£6.9
Sieve
44vi
99.9
99.8
a\> . d
99.5
99.9
96.9
98.3
98.1
97.3
74n
99.9
99.94
i>9.3
99 .6
99.99
97.6
98.7
98.8
99.2
149w
100.00
99.96
99.95
99.7
100.00
99.6
99.5
99.8
59. 7
297u
100.00
100.00
99.95
100.00
100.00
99.95
99.8
99.91
100.00
SP.GR.
gm/cc
2.63
2.29
2.43
2.65
2.75
2.16
2.46
2.55
2.56
Sample
Sourco
i
C/5 " FV
n. T3 (t>
n 13 o
(0 rr
W H-
i-- n
•« CJ
^-•
to
13
» "O
Cn d) rt"
3 H
v
-------
TABLE XXIII
LABORATORY AND IN-SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST
TEST .SERIES
(December, 19691)
Run
;;o.
1A
IB
3A
:1010
3-OxlO11
7i
o
-------
TABLE XXIV
LABORATORY AND IN-SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S SECOND
TEST SERIES
(July, 1971)
"o.
15
20
::i
22
&
2-1
. :&
! J2
33
1
2
3
4
j
6
c
9
10
11
14
10
10
17
13
2'j
2.»
27
;>•.
30
Snnnlc
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pt-tr. Inlet
Pp'cr. Inlet
Pj.tr. Inlet
Pi.tr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlcjt
Pptr. Inlet
iT'tr. inlet
P;.tr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Tnlot
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlot
I'ptr. Inltst
l-I'tr. Inlot
Pptr. Inlet
P;:tr. Inlet
Pi.tr. Inlot
I': Ir. Inlut
I'pLr. Inlet
P! 1 r. I n lot
I'i'tr. Inlot
Pptr. Inlut
1't-Lr. Inlut
Pl^tr. Inlot
Pi'hr. TnJot
I'pfcr. In let
t-|Ar. Inlot
200°F.
3.4X1013
4.5X1010
1 0
9.0x10
l.GxlO13
6.8:-:1012
O.OxlO12
3.0xl012
3-OxlO11
2.7xl012
Lab Re
250°F.
5.4xl013
2.1xl013
1.4xl014
5.4xl013
6.8X1013
2.7xl014
—
—
__
sistivity -
300°F.
4.5xl013
2.7xl013
2.3X1013
2.7xl013
4.5xl013
1.4xl014
9.0xl013
6.8xl013
3.9xl013
OHM-CM (6t
350°F.
3.9xl013
2.3xl013
1.4xl013
2.7xl013
3.9X101-3
g.Oxio13
__
__
__
i Moisture i
400°F.
5.4xl012
9.0xl012
4.5xl012
9.0xl012
2.7xl013
e.oxio13
1.4xl014
1.4xl014
5.4xl013
n Gas)
SOO°F.
3.4X1011
5.4X1011
2.1X1011
1.4xl012
2.7X1012
9.0xl013
,3.4xl013
1.4xl014
3.9xl013
600eF.
1.9xl010
5.4X1010
1.3xlOi0
l.lxlO11
9.0/1011
l.lxlO13
1.4xl013
6.8xl013
6.8xl012
°F
260
330
260
322
323
328
320
325
260
315
312
250
325
268
323
285
280
260
O20
320
262
270
262
310
270
326
272
263
320
Resistivity
2.8X1010
l.BxlO-11
1.4X1011
l.SxlO11
3.7xl012
2. 9:<1012
5.0X1012
8.3X1011
9-lxlO11
l.lxlO11
1.2X1012
5.7X1010
l.GxlO11
2.1xiCAl
s.r.xio11
i.exio"
3-SxlO11
6.7X1011
6.5xlOX1
8.9X1011
1.4X1011
2.9xl012
2.3X1011
5.6xlOU
1.4-xlO12
2.4X1011
1 . 5x!0:1
•S.3xlOU
9 . Ox 1 0 1 2
-------
TABLE XXV
LABORATORY AND IN-SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FOR
COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES
(July, 1971)
Run
No.
4
i
9
10
25
30
Source
Sample
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr . Inlet
Lab Resistivity - OHM-CM (6% Moisture in Gas)
200°F
2.7xl09
4.5xlOG
3.3xl010
4.5xl012
3.9xl012
300°F
G.SxlO11
2.7xl09
g.oxio11
3.9xl013
3.4xl013
400°P
2.5xl012
9.0xl010
1.3xl013
9.0xl013
4.5xl013
500°F
1.6xl012
1.3xl010
3.4xl012
2*7xl013
l^xlO13
600°F
2.7X1011
3.0xl09
2.5xlOU
5.4xl012
3.0xl012
650°F
1.4X1011
l.SxlO9
9.0xl010
3.9xl012
1.8xl012
Temp,
°F.
325
280
260
270
320
In-Situ
Resistivity
l.SxlO11
3.8xl01L
6.7X1011
1.4xl012
9.0X1012
...
-------
F-73
TABLE XXVI
LABORATORY AND IN-SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR BABCOCK AND WILCOX PILOT TEST PROGRAM
(1967-1969)
Legend
•
o
A
A
*
0
•
n
Test
No.
67-7-1
68-4-1
68-7-10
68-4-11
68-5-2
69-2-11
69-4-2
69-4-4
69-4-S
69-4-6
69~',-8
69-4-13
69-4-1S
69-4-19
69-4-21
69-4-25
69-5-1
69-S-S
69-7-7
69-11-11
69-11-13
69-..2-S
Coal
No.
B- 22791
C-13167
C- 13273
C- 13274
C- 13279
C- 13319
C-13376
C-13378
Laboratory Resistivity, ohm-cm
300 F
i •>
3. 2x10^
4.0xl012
l.SxlO13
2.5xl012
3.4xl012
2..7X1013
2.7xl012
1.2xl012
2.1xl012
4.SX1011
4.SX1012
l.SxlO11
8.4xl012
600 F
-in
6.7xl010
2.0xl010
3.9X1011
S.4xl09
6.8xl09
6.8X1011
3.9xl010
6.8xl09
-
4.Sxl09
6.8xl09
6.8xl09
1.4xl09
S.4xl09
At In Situ
Temp
9.0xl010
l.SxlO13
.
l.OxlO12
2.5xl01Z
2.7xl013
2.5X1012
-
l.Oxl.12
2.1xl012
-
4.0xlOU
4.0xl012
l.SxlO11
S.OxlO12
In Situ Resistivity, ohtn-on
Temp, F
SOS
299
460
42S
300
270
310
300
305
300
310
310
300
320
310
305
355
313
400
365
295
Resistivity
.
l.OxlO10
2.7xl010
1.6X1010
4.3xl09
1.9xl01X
1.7xlOU
1.6X1011
2.6xl010
2.6X1010
l.SxlO11
l.lxlO11
l.SxlO11
3.4X1011
4.4xl010
4.6X1011
S.lxlO11
7.2X1010
5.7X1010
3.2xl010
6.2X109
1.4xl012
-------
TABLE XXVII
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING THE FIRST CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date
12-11-69
12-11 .
12-11
12-11
12-12
12-12
12-12
12-13
12-13
12-13
12-13
12-14
12-14
12-14
12-14
12-14
12-14
12-15
12-15
12-15
12-15
12-15
12-15
_
Sample
Identification
MC Inlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
MC Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
AH Inlet
CES
Test No.
1A
—
—
IB
2A
—
—
3B
4B
4B
—
3A
3A
4A
4A
—
—
5A
5A
SB
5B
—
—
—
TVA
Lab No.
C-34
C-48
C-53
C-35
C-41
C-49
C-54
C-43
C-38
C-45
C-51
C-36
C-42
C-37
C-44
C-50
C-55
C-39
C-46
C-40
C-47
C-52
C-56
C-57
%
Si02
46.8
46.3
49. 9
46.8
48.0
45 .6
47.4
49.8
46.5
50.1
46.0
47.6
50.1
47.3
50.6
45.6
50.3
43.4
50.1
42.6
49.6
43.6
49.8
47.4
%
A12°3
20.9
20.2
23.2
20.1
20.7
20.0
21.4
24.1
20.9
23.7
20.6
21.9
24.5
21.1
24.0
19.9
24.0
19.8
23.4
19.3
23.0
18.5
22 .9
21.0
%
Fe2°3
16.7
16.9
10.6
16.3
14.2
18.2
13.6
9.7
13 .6
10.1
14.6
16.4
10.1
16.0
10.2
17.9
10.1
25.1
14.1
22.0
14.1
24.0
12.6
13.5
%
CaO
7.0
7.1
4.7
6.4
5.4
6.7
5.3
4.5
6.7
4.5
7.7
6.6
4.0
6.3
4.1
6.9
4.2
3.5
2.4
3.8
2.9
4.6
3.1
5.9
%
MgO
1 .0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1 .3
1.0
1.4
1 . 1
1.0
1 .5
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.3
1 .0
1.2
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.2
%
Ti°2
0.7
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
%
Na2°
0.8
0.6
0.8
0. 7
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
1 .0
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.7
%
K20
2 .2
1 .7
2.0
2.2
2.3
1 .7
1.9
2 .3
2.0
2.1
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.2
1.4
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.4
1.9
1.7
%
so4=
1 .3
1 .6
2.8
1 .8
2 .5
1.5
2.5
1.2
1 .0
1. 2
1 . 1
0.9
1.6
1.1
1 .5
0.8
1 .7
0.9
1.6
0.7
1 .3
0.8
1.6
2.2
%
Loss on
Ignition
2.2
2.6
2.7
3.9
2.8
2.3
2.8
3.1
4.6
2.7
3.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.1
4.0
2.8
3.2
2.6
5.0
3.0
3. 1
2,. 5
3.2
-------
TABLE XXVIII
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING THE SECOND CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date
7-10-71
n
ii
ti
ii
7-13-71
n
ii
it
n
7-14-71
n
n
n
ii
7-15-71
M
n
7-24-71
M
Sample
Identification
*
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
CES
Test No.
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
9
10
11
14
14
TVA
Lab No.
C-883
C-881
C-882
C-774
C-773
C-895
C-893
C-894
C-790
C-789
C-898
C-896
C-897
C-794
C-793
C-899
C-901
C-903
C-907
C-905
0, c~
•6 O
<0 .1
V
% SO 4
6.4
7.8
6. 3
4 .9
6.7
4. 8
5.6
4.0
2 .6
4.6
5 .3
6.6
5.0
4.4
4 .7
4.4
4 .5
5.2
5 .4
7 .3
% S0^~
6.7
10.8
2.0
0.1
0. 1
7 .8
10.5
3.0
0.3
1 .1
9.6
12.3
8 .5
0. 2
0. 5
<0. 1
11.7
7 . 9
8.2
7. 9
Total
%S
4 .8
6. 9
2.9
1 . 7
2 .3
4.7
6.1
2 .5
1 .0
2.0
5.6
7 . 1
5 .1
1 .6
1 .7
1 .5
6.2
4.9
5 . 1
5 .6
% CaO
30. 8
28.6 j
19.9 I
32 .5 |
24.2 [
33.0
30 .0
30. 2
22.0
32.5 I
f
33.3
31 .4
22.1 (
37.5 j
24.1 |
4.5 I
23.5
31 .6
35 .(•>
3 3 . 9
f
-vl
en
-------
TABLE XXVIII (continued)
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING THE SECOND CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date
7-24-71
ii
ii
7-24-71
ii
M
it
ii
7-22-71
7-22-71
7-20-71
n
it
n
n
n
7-20-73
n
H
n
Sampl e
Identification
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
--
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
CES
Test No.
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
17
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
TVA
Lab No.
C-906
C-814
C-813
C-910
C-908
C-909
C-817
C-816
C-912
C-915
C-917
C-918
C-830
C-919
C-920
C-832
C-921
C-922
C-835
C-923
% S~
<0 . 1
V
% SO 4
5 .6
4.5
5 .2
5.6
6.9
5.5
4.3
6.0
4.4
5.5
0.8
4.4
0.6
0.8
7.2
0.8
0.8
5 .3
0.8
1.6
% SO-T
5 .0
0.5
0.9
7.7
10.8
5 .5
0.6
1 .1
6.5
7.5
0.3
3.7
0.1
0.9
4.4
*0.0
0.2
3.0
<0.1
0.6
Total
%S
3.9
1 .7
2 .1
5 .0
6.6
4 .0
1 . 7
2 .4
4.0
4 .8
0.4
2.9
0.3
0.6
4.2
0.3
0 .4
2.9
0.3
0.8
% CaO
28. 0
46.5
2 4. -6
36.7
34.7
26.6
49.3
31 .4
26.9
33.6
1.4
9.8
1.7 j
2.2 |
13.4 j
2 .2
1 . 1
11 .8
1.4
5 .6
ji
01
-------
TABLE XXVIII (continued)
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING THE SECOND CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date
ii
it
M
it
it
it
it
ti
7-19-71
7-23-71
it
7-21-71
it
ii
7-26-71
M
it
" \
ii
Sample
Identification
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
CES
Test No.
22
22
'"" 23
23
23
24
24
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
32
32
32
32
TVA
Lab No.
C-924
C-838
C-925
C-926
C-842
C-927
C-928
C-846
C-929
C-931
C-934
C-936
C-938
C-940
C-944
C-942
C-943
C-873
C-872
% S~
<0.1
v
T
% S04
3. 7
0. 7
1 .9
2.5
1 .6
4 .0
3.7
3.0
5 .9
6.0
5.3
8.4
6.9
6.7
6.5
8.7
7 . 2
4 .5
7. 1
% SO^
-
1 . 1
^0 . 1
1 . 1
1 .4
*0.1
1 .9
1.4
*0. I
8.6
7.6
8.5
2 .8
4. 1
5 .0
4 .5
9.7
10.6
0.4
0.3
Total
%S
1 . 7
0.3
1 . 1
1 .4
0.6
2 .1
1 .8
1 .0
5.4
5.0
5. 2
3.9
3.9
4.2
4. 0
6. 8
6.6
1 . 7
2.5
% CaO
6.2
2.8
5 .9
16.2
9.8
18.8 !
17.6
15. 1
26. 0
30. 8
28. 8
38.6
28.8 |
27.2 |
27.7 j
27.7
23.5
29.7
2 4 . 9
-------
TABLE XXVIII (continued)
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING THE SECOND CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date
7-26-71
u
it
u
u
Sample
Identification
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
CES
Test No.
33
33
33
33
33
TVA
Lab No.
C-947
C-945
C-946
C-877
C-876
% S"
<0 .1
V
% S0a~
6.0
8.3
6.4
4.6
8.8
% so3~
6.7
7.9
10.8
0.3
0.2
Total
%S
4.7
5.9
6.4
1 .6
3.0
% CaO
1
25.5
26.3
21 .0
31.6 |
26.6
[
i
I
[
7]
00
-------
TABLE XXIX
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LIMESTONE USED DURING
SECOND CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date
7-10-71
7-24-71
7-26-71
Sample
Identification
Limestone
98% Gyroclass
(Fine)
Limestone
20% Gyroclass
(Coarse)
Limestone
20% Gyroclass
(Coarse)
CES
Test No.
2
14
32
TVA
Lab No.
C-772
C-812
C-871
% H20
(105°C)
0. 1
<0.1
<0.1
%
CaO
- 54.9
54.9
55.0
%
MgO
0.2
0.2
0.2
%
C03
55 .6
55.7
55 . 0
-------
F-81
VI. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
The main sources of data used in the analysis and correlation of the test results are two CES
test programs at Shawnee (December 1969 and July 1971), two TVA test programs
(July-August 1969 and June-July 1970) SRI test program at Shawnee during July 1971,
Research-Cottrell, Inc., tests at a midwest power station during limestone injection tests
(February 1967) and Babcock and Wilcox pilot plant study (1967-1970).
1. Electrostatic Precipitator Performance
The precipitator is a Research-Cottrell, Inc., design installed on the unit 10 steam
generator at TVA Shawnee Station, Paducah, Kentucky. The boiler is a B&W pulverized
coal, front-fired unit rated at 175 megawatts designed to produce one million pounds of
steam per hour at 1800 psig and 1000/1000° F. The dust collecting equipment is a Buell
mechanical cyclone designed for 65% efficiency followed by the Research-Cottrell, Inc.,
precipitator designed for 95% efficiency. (Overall design efficiency is 98%.)
The boiler is fired with about 60 tons per hour of coal containing an average of 10% ash
and 2.7% sulfur. Combustion of this fuel produces about 585,000 cfm of flue gas at
300° F containing 2200 ppm by volume SO2 and about 3 grains of fly ash per standard
cubic foot.
The precipitator shown in Figure 15 consists of two units ("A" and "B") each including
three sections as follows:
Inlet Section of 33 opzel plate ducts each 9" x 30" high x 4.5' long.
Center Section of 33 opzel plate ducts each 9" x 30' high x 4.5' long.
Outlet Section of 33 opzel plate ducts each 9" x 30' high x 6.0' long.
There are 20 magnetic impulse-gravity impact rappers per precipitator and 4 electrical
sets with automatic control i^ated at 70 KVpeak ^50 ma each.
The total collecting area of the precipitator is 59,400 ft2 The cross-sectional area is
1,485 ft2 The secondary electrical readings, i.e. those at the precipitator can be
estimated from the following expression using the transformer primary readings:
Sec. KVavg = (0.1 195) (primary voltageAC Vo,ts) (12)
Sec. lma = [(5.96) (primary currentAC arnps)-77.2] (13)
The first basis for analysis of precipitator performance was a function of corona power
input. A brief look at theoretical considerations of this approach follows.
-------
F-82
A. Theoretical Considerations of Electrostatic Precipitator Performance As A Function of
Corona Power
= -A
W
1-E = Q = :/.w (14)
W = dp Eo Ep (15)
where,
E = Fractional efficiency of precipitator
Q = Fractional loss from precipitator
A = Collecting electrode area of precipitator
V = Gas flow rate through precipitator
W = Precipitation rate parameter
d_ = Particle diameter
EQ = Charging field in precipitator
ED = Precipitating field in precipitator
r\ = Gas viscosity
Combining equations (14) and (15) gives:
InQ = r-A V_P 2 PJ (16)
Both theoretical and experimental considerations have shown that:
Pc =ocAE0Ep (17)
where
Pc = Precipitator corona power input
a = Precipitation parameter dependent upon gas and particle
characteristics, and precipitator electrode geometry to a
minor extent.
Equation (16) can be rewritten as:
In Q = dP Ji (18)
Thus, for similar particle size, and gas and particle characteristics, Equation (18) shows
that:
In Q= -kfc = --0 W (19)
-------
F-83
From which is obtained the relationship that:
Pc = W, or
(20)
W is directly proportional to precipitator corona power/ft2 of collecting electrode, which
means that by doubling the corona power to a precipitator designed for 90% efficiency,
one can theoretically increase the efficiency to about 99%. However, for practical
considerations, the attainment of the corona power in a precipitator necessary to obtain
the design efficiency requires the examination of factors which determine and affect
corona power.
(a) Particle Characteristics
(1) Particle Size This can reduce corona power by suppressing corona current at a
given voltage through space charge phenomena. However, sub-micron particles of
fairly high loadings are necessary in order to produce a significant affect.
(2) Electrical Resistivity When the ash resistivity exceeds about 1010 to 101'
ohm-cm, the effective corona power is reduced. Generally, the first effect is
increased sparking requiring a voltage reduction in order to hold a preselected
sparkrate. Lower corona current and power input results causing a decrease in
collection efficiency. In order to compensate for the lower power, it becomes
necessary to enlarge the precipitator until the total power requirements for the
desired efficiency are met. Note that the corona power per unit area of
precipitator is lower, but increased area, increases the total corona power to the
desired level.
With very high dust resistivity, a condition known as "back corona" sets in,
characterized by very high currents, low voltages and no sparking. Precipitation
practically stops and can only be restored by lowering the dust resistivity.
On the other hand, extremely conductive particles of less than about 10" ohm-cm
may be reentrained and escape collection.
(b)Gas Characteristics
(1) Temperature - Increase in gas temperature, normally reduces the voltage at which a
precipitator will spark, but the corona current at any given voltage increases.
Further, the corona current at which a precipitator sparks is not significantly
changed by temperature, but the voltage is reduced, resulting in a net decrease in
corona power as temperature increases and vice versa.
-------
F-84
(2) Pressure Small increases in gas pressure raise the precipitator sparking voltage
proportionately while the corona current decreases at a fixed voltage. Again, the
corona current at sparking is not significantly changed, so that the net effect is
to increase corona power as gas pressure increases and vice versa.
(3) Composition - Determines the kind of gas ions formed in corona. Electronegative
and high molecular weight gases tend to form low mobility ions, reducing corona
current and raising sparking voltage.
Gases such as sulfur trioxide and water vapor condition the ash by affecting its
electrical resistivity. Sulfur trioxide is a critical factor which depends mainly on
the amount of sulfur in the coal. However, excess air, residence time of sulfur
dioxide in an optimum temperature zone, catalytic materials in the ash such as
iron oxide, etc., can also influence the amount of sulfur trioxide present.
Generally, mositure is not effective as a conditioning agent until low gas
temperatures are reached, e.g. 200-225°F, and even then large amounts
(percents) are required, while concentrations on the order of parts per million by
volume of sulfur trioxide can radically change precipitator performance.
B. Correlation Of Precipitator Performance With Corona Power Input
The data used for this analysis are taken from Tables III through XV. In order to
establish a baseline operating condition of corona power input and precipitator
performance, only tests without limestone injection have been used for the first
correlation. In Figure 19, the precipitation rate parameter W in ft/sec is plotted as a
function of corona power input expressed as a density parameter, i.e. kilowatts/1000 ft2
of precipitator collecting surface. From equation 20, expectations are that the
correlation will be a linear one. However, it is of interest to note that the data appear to
fit a curved function rather than the linear one predicted by theoretical considerations.
The precipitation rate parameter is leveling off or even decreasing at the higher power
densities where the value of the rate parameter is in the range of 0.5 to 0.6 ft/sec. This is
somewhat higher than the typical average value of 0.4 to 0.5 ft/sec for fly ash
precipitators. There may be some level of power input above which a diminishing
benefit is derived and other factors such as gas distribution, particle size, rapping losses,
electrostatic reentrainment, etc. become the over-riding considerations in precipitator
performance. In fact, experimental work10 with an electrostatic precipitator on high
pressure pipeline natural gas containing oil contaminant has shown that at very high
electrical field strengths (five to ten times normal), a decrease in the precipitation rate
parameter occurs due to electrostatic force reentrainment from the collecting surface.
-------
FIGURE 19
PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION OF CORONA
POWER DENSITY FOR TESTS WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
-p
0)
O
QJ
-------
F-86
Regression analyses of the data (42 sets) using the equation forms,
y = a + bx (21)
y = a + b In x (22)
y = a + bx + ex2 (23)
where,
y = precipitation rate parameter, W (FPS)
x = corona power input density, PA (KW/1000 Ft2)
were performed with a GE Mark I computer. The 4 sets of special low sulfur coal tests,
although plotted in Figure 19, have been excluded from the regression analyses.
The following results were obtained:
W = 0.21 + 0.25 PA (24)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.84
F - Ratio Test Statistic = 98
W = 0.47+ 0.16 In PA (25)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.87
F = Ratio Test Statistic =120
W = 0.11 + 0.57 PA - 0.20 PA2 (26)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.89
F - Ratio Test Statistic = 75
These equations are limited to corona power density data falling in the range of 0.15 to
1.5 kilowatts per 1000 ft2 of collecting surface which encompasses the normal operating
range of fly ash precipitators. All three equations are reasonably good representations of
the data with the quadratic form of equation (23) producing the best fit.
Previously published data1' by Southern Research Institute for a variety of fly ash
installations is contained in Figure 20 along with a plot of the data from Figure 19.
Although there is considerable scatter in the data points, it is quite apparent that there is
a strong relationship between the precipitation rate parameter and the corona power
input density. In the range of 0.1 to 1.2 kilowatts/1000 ft2 of collecting surface, there is
fair agreement between the published data and the results of this report. It is postulated
that the flue gas temperature and coal sulfur which affect the particulate conductivity
are the main parameters causing the data scatter. These variables will be examined in
subsequent sections of this report.
Another way of analyzing precipitator performance is to plot the loss in particulate
collection efficiency as a semi-logarithmic function of the corona input power expressed
as a rate i.e. watts per 1000 actual cubic feet of flue gas per minute. (See equation 19.)
-------
FIGURE 20
COMPARISON OF DATA FROM FIGURE 19 WITH PUBLISHED DATA OF SOUTHERN RESEARCH
INSTITUTE FOR VARIOUS FLY ASH PRECIPITATOR INSTALLATIONS REF(11)
Precipitation Rate Parameter, W
Ft/Sec
O O O O C
* • 1 • •
v-* to ^ en C
, .Jv _ -3 0 , CO t -
_ 1 A
• i o ""'
u -. X ~>—~
i-1
1 Ct ~* !
u
Q)
in K
' J-0 \
e
C
- 8 •<
o
o (
o
0
°o
A
°v
x
%
o
d
•
<
..-, X
r
/"I
, 8
0
K
o
•o<3>
xi
?* 0
*
•
1 /
1
°*x
0 0
»
0
x^
o. (
/
o
•)
°x
O
O
, .,.., .....
o
o
o
o
0
^ SRI Published Data
/"} Data Displayed in Figure 19
Tl
00
0 0.1 0.2 0..3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Corona Power Input Density, p (Kilowatts/1000 Ft2 Collecting Surface)
-------
F-88
The same no limestone injection tests as analyzed above were used for this correlation
and the data are plotted in Figure 21. A regression analysis was performed using the
form of equation 21 where,
y = In of the loss in precipitator collection efficiency Q expressed
as a fraction
x = precipitator corona input power, Py
(watts/1000 ACFM of flue gas)
The following equation resulted:
In Q = 1.507 0.0138 Py (27)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.85
F-Ratio Test Statistic =112
Equation 27 is limited to values of precipitator corona input power rates in the range of
15 to 215 watts per 1000 ACFM of flue gas which encompasses the normal operating
range of fly ash precipitators. In Figure 22 the previously published data11 of Southern
Research Institute is plotted along with the results from this report shown in Figure 21.
Again the data points are scattered. However, the dependence of precipitator
performance on corona power input rate in watts per 1000 ACFM of flue gas treated is
obvious. There is fair agreement between the published data and results contained in this
report. A resolution of the scatter in data requires a more detailed examination of such
variables as gas temperature, coal sulfur, particulate size, gas velocity, rapping mode,
etc., which all affect corona power input and precipitator performance. A discussion of
these parameters is contained in subsequent sections of this report.
Data from tests with limestone injection (51 sets) are plotted in Figure 23. The 2 sets of
special low sulfur coal have been omitted. The precipitation rate parameter W in ft/sec is
shown as a function of corona power input density expressed in kilowatts/1000 ft2 of
precipitator collecting surface. Note the maximum level of input power density
attainable is about one-half that of the No Limestone injection tests. As discussed
previously, the limestone additive has increased the electrical resistivity of the
particulate to the extent that the preset optimum sparking rate of the precipitator
chosen for the test program, i.e. 50-150 sparks/min is reached at much lower voltage and
corona current input resulting in decreased corona power.
Regression analyses of the data presented in Figure 20 using the equations 21, 22, and
23 resulted in the following respectively:
W = 0.15 + 0.40 PA (28)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.68
F-Ratio Test Statistic = 42
-------
FIGURE 21
LOSS IN COLLECTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION
OF POWER RATE FOR TESTS WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
O
5i
cc
*.
O
•H
O
•H
fl
O
-H
-P
O
0)
H
H
O
O
(0
4J
•H
Q)
-H
O
0)
C!
•H
V)
CO
0
U.U1
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.10-
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60.
0. 80
1.00
•
•
A.
p^—
•
•
• *-x
jf
•
9
U<<
° (^
9x^
^s^% ^
^
1
- - -•
O Q
? ^^
°
0
O ^
s^
O
9
/
^ 1
^ 1 Eq .
/
27 |
O
0
^ CES First Test Series
W (December, 1969)
A CES Second Test Series
m (July, 1971)
I CES (July, 1971) Special
Low Sulfur Tests
OTVA First Test Series
(July-August, 1969)
A TVA Second Test Series
w (June-July, 1970)
98
97
96
95
94
92
90
80
70
60
50
40
25
0
n
(D
O
P-
13
H-
rt
P
rt
O
O
O
O
ft
H-
O
Hi
Hi
H-
O
H-
CD
3
O
CD
n
O
CD
00
0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Precipitator Corona Input Power Rate, Py (Watts/1000 ACFM Of Flue Gas)
-------
FIGURE 22
COMPARISON OF DATA FROM FIGURE 21 WITH PUBLISHED DATA OF SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOR VARIOUS FLY ASH PRECIPITATOR INSTALLATIONS - REF. (11)
c
0
•H
-P
O
(0
0(
o
c
0)
•H
U
•H
|i 1
|l I
K
O
•H
-P
O
0
H
O
O
t-t
O
-P
ctf
-P
-H
•H
O
° 8°
* o i
J?
/* •
1 •
25 5
n
u
O •
u • W
O /
J°o /
"/
•0
/^
/•&
• /u O
A O u
/ *
n x
/
fa.**
> •
^ o
w
Q
•
/
0
0
u
u
o
'
— 0 — SRI Published Data
O Data Displayed in Figure 21
i 75 100
-
yy
98
97
96
95
94
92
90
80
70
60
50
40
20
0
125 150 175 200 225
0)
O
I-1-
T3
H-
Ct-
fu
rt
O
O
O
0)
O
rt-
H-
O
w
i-h
H)
H-
o
H-
(D
O
(D
(-!
O
(D
to
o
Precipitator Corona Input Power Rate,
(Watts/1000 ACFM of Flue Gas)
-------
F-91
W = 0.42 + 0.11 In PA (29)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.73
F-Ratio Test Statistic = 55
W = 0.10 + 0.78 PA - 0.54 PA2 (30)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.71
F-Ratio Test Statistic = 24
These equations are limited to a corona power density range of 0.05 to 0.7
kilowatts/1000 Ft2 of precipitator collecting surface, which although quite low, are
typical values for a precipitator collecting high resistivity particulate. All three equations
give equally significant data representations with the semi-logarithmic form of equation
22 giving a slightly better correlation. The data points from Figure 19 (No Limestone
injection) are plotted on Figure 23 for comparison. In general, it appears that for equal
corona power input densities there is no significant difference in the precipitation rate
parameter whether limestone is injected or not. However, it should be reiterated that the
maximum level of corona power input density attainable and the resultant precipitator
performance is significantly lower with limestone injection. In Figure 24 the loss in
precipitator particulate collection for the No Limestone injection tests is plotted as a
semi-logarithmic function of the corona input power expressed as a rate (watts per 1000
actual cubic feet of flue gas per minute).
A regression analysis of the No Limestone injection data shown in Figure 24 was
performed using the form of equation 21. The following result was obtained:
InQ = 0.868 - 0.026PV (31)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.66
F-Ratio Test Statistic = 43
Equation 31 is limited to precipitator corona input power rates of 5 to 80 watts per
1000 ACFM of flue gas which is the lower range of normal fly ash precipitator operation
but still typical when high resistivity ash is encountered.
The No Limestone injection data from Figure 21 are also plotted on Figure 24 for
comparison. In comparable ranges of corona power input rates, there is fair correlation
of data regardless whether limestone is injected or not. However, the rates attainable
with No Limestone injection are much higher resulting in increased performance.
The test data with limestone injection are more scattered than the No Limestone
injection data, but still show the strong dependence of precipitator performance on
corona power input.
-------
FIGURE 23
PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION OF CORONA
POWER DENSITY FOR TESTS WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION
Q)
•P
OJ
^ o
d)
0) W
-P\
td 4J
c
O
•H
-P
cd
4J
•H
ft
•H
O
0)
M
O.H/
0.53
0.40
0.27
0.14
(
—
•
"J
f
*•
•V
o 3
) 0.1 0.
•
*£*
te^
• •
1 o
•
•
Gs
•'•
" '
•O
X
•^8
-0|
O
^
V
ft
^^— —
'/x
. — —
•
/
••^-
\
•^*" ^
^
2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.
ft
Eq. 30
°S
O o
00
o
o
H Eq. 28
1
H Ecr
. 29
)
O
o
o
o
n
o
O
0
• CES Data (July, 1971)
_ TVA Data From The Second
™ Test Series (June-July,
1970)
\J Data Displayed in Figure 19
(No Limestone Injection)
8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.
f
4 1.5 1.6 1.7
zu
• 1 ft
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
T3
h
(D
O
H-
'O
H-
ft
0) Tl
[T
-------
FIGURE 24
LOSS IN COLLECTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF
POWER RATE FOR TESTS WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION
O
•H
-P
O
(0
O
G
Q)
•H
O
•H
m
4-1
w
o
•H
-p
CJ
0)
o
u
o
4-»
(0
•P
•H
CX
•H
O
(U
H
em
H
W
w
o
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.2C
0.3C
0.4C
0.5C
0.6C
0.8C
^
4)
•
• * y
"+Jrv
..y* • •
/S* *
•
•
+
1
j:
4
O-
j*
T:
°X
y
o
CrO °
• —
*
1
X O
S9
o
o
p
S8
IT
o
o
Eq . 31
O
0 25 50
75
" \j
0
O
c
)
o
o
0 CES Data (July, 1971)
— TVA Data From The Second
• Test Series (June-July/
1970)
^) Data From Figure 21.
(No Limestone Injection)
—
—
100 125 150 175 200 22
yy
98
97
96
95
94
92
90
80
70
60
50
40
20
5°
CD
O
H-
13
H-
ft
(D
ft
O
O
O
(D
O
ft
H-
O
W
Hi
Hi
H-
O
H-
(D
3
O
n>
K
o
CD
to
to
Precipitator Corona Input Power Rate, Py (Watts/1000 ACFM Otr Fluo Gas)
-------
F-94
C. Correlation of Precipitator Corona Power Input With Process Variables
In order to make the results of the test program more useful for predicting precipitator
performance and sizing with limestone injection, a more detailed analysis has been made
using only the test results from the Cottrell Environmental System's second test series
(July 1971) in which a statistically designed experiment investigated four variables at
two levels, i.e. limestone particle size, flue gas temperature coal sulfur and limestone to
sulfur stoichiometry. Other variables such as precipitator sparking rate and rapping
mode were held essentially constant. The four variables have been correlated with
corona power input density which in turn allows estimating the precipitation rate
parameter from Figure 25 with subsequent sizing of the electrostatic precipitator for
any gas volume and collection efficiency specified. A summary of pertinent data used
for this analysis is contained in Table XXX. In Figure 25, the precipitation rate and
corona power input data (Table XXX) have been plotted so as to be able to identify the
injected limestone particle size and flue gas temperature for each point. Note that the
coarse limestone injection generally resulted in higher precipitation rates at equivalent
corona power input, and the lower gas temperatures allowed increased corona power
input. (As indicated earlier, this latter result can be explained on the basis of lower
particulate resistivity at the decreased gas temperature resulting in higher voltage and
corona current input before the preset spark limitation). Using the form of Equation 22,
a separate regression analysis on the coarse and fine limestone test results was performed
involving 7 and 11 sets of data, respectively.
The following equations were obtained:
(Coarse) W = 0.522 + 0.121 In PA (32)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.80
F-Ratio Test Statistic = 16
(Fine) W = 0.46+ 0.136 In PA (33)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.81
F-Ratio Test Statistic = 9
Equations 32 and 33 are limited to values of precipitator corona input power densities
in the range of 0.05 to 0.70 kilowatts per 1000 Ft2 of collecting surface. The coarse and
fine limestone particle size distributions from randomly selected tests (Table XXX) are
shown in Figure 26. Separate regression analyses on coarse and fine limestone injection
correlating the corona input power density to the four process variables tested were
performed. (See Table XXX for data used). From theoretical considerations and past
operational experience, expectations were that the corona power input would vary
directly with the amount of sulfur in the coal, and inversely with the amount of
limestone injected and the gas temperature (range 240 to about 325 F).
-------
FIGURE 25
PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION OF CORONA
POWER DENSITY FOR TESTS WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION
(GAS TEMPERATURE AND LIMESTONE PARTICLE SIZE ARE IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY)
(Data Points From Table XXX)
0)
-P
•P
ftf
§
•H
4->
«d
-p
•H
O
0)
M
o
U.67
0.53
0.40
0.27
0.14
-20—
1 0
• lo —
1 Pi
— i U • —
14
1 O — r
l£l
O
0)
-10 "
g
- 8 —
0
-4-X
y
s
V
-•-
/
«•<
°x
g/
^c
[
•
D
x^
^
k
^.x-
^
-------
TABLE XXX
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA USED IN CORRELATIONS
(CES Limestone Injection Tests, July 1971)
Test
No.
2
4
6
8
10
11
14
15
17
18
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
Flue Gas
Temp . , °F
314
305
301
256
251
290
289
244
243
289
253
289
242
290
241
288
289
241
Limestone
Particle
Size
F(l)
F
F
F
C<2>
C
c
C
F
F
C
F
F
F
F
F
C
C
Limestone
Ton/Hr
Feed
7.55
9.50
11.60
11.15
16.75
15.25
14.10
14.45
9.70
9.15
10.55
7.05
6.45
11.15
6.25
5.30
8.50
7.85
Sulfur
Ton/Hr
Fired
1.47
0.99
1.79
1.63
1.08
1.11
1.60
1.39
0.93
1.25
1.25
1.31
1.07
2.04
1.43
1.67
1.85
2.28
Stoichio-
metry
CaO/S02^ ;
1.44
2.69
1.81
1.92
4.34
3.85
2.47
2.91
2.92
2.05
2.36
1.51
1.69
1.53
1.22
0.89
1.29
0.96
Precipitation
Rate
Parameter
FPS
0.24
0.06
0.03
0. 35
0.43
0.26
0.33
0.29
0.37
0.17
0.50
0.17
0.26
0.29
0.27
0.18
0.48
0.43
Power
Density
Watts/Ft2
0.093
0.057
0.096
0.460
0.372
0.164
0.139
0.275
0.220
0.112
0.674
0.129
0.296
0.334
0.213
0.199
0.396
0.708
(1) F - Fine (80%-400 Mesh)
(2) C - Coarse (50%-400 Mesh)
(3) Assumes limestone is 100% CaC03 and all sulfur in the
coal appears in the flue gas as S02
en
-------
FIGURE 26
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF LIMESTONE FEED SAMPLES
USED IN SECOND CES TEST SERIES
W
W M
0) 0)
A -P
QJ
-»-> £
.£ rt
tn-H
•H Q
CQ -H
4J
•P >-)
C (d
CD P<
O
M T)
-rH
•H T3
-P C
(0 H
u
99.9
99.5.
99.0'
98.0.
95.a
90.
2.0
1.0
0.1-
Fine Limestone
Test No. 6 ,8 ,23
24
-%r
A
V-
Coarse Limestone
Test No. 14,32,33
-BAUCQ
^7
s*
SIEVE:
HEX
71
~vl
6 8 10 20 40 60 80100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
F-98
The following equation form was used for the analyses:
Y = a + bx, + £. + d (34)
X2 X3
where,
y = precipitator corona power input density, P^ (kilowatts/1000 Ft2
collecting surface)
Xj = coal sulfur fires, S (tons/hr)
x2 = limestone injected, L (tons/hr)
x3 = flue gas temperature, T (°F x 10"2 )
The resultant equations were:
(Coarse) PA = -1.435 0.336S + !2£ + MZ (35)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.96
F- Ratio Test Statistic = 12
(Fine) PA = -0.990 + .1995 °-694 + fLZ4. (35)
M L T
Correlation Coefficient = 0.83
F-Ratio Test Statistic = 5
Equations 35 and 36 are limited to the following ranges representing actual test
conditions which are realistic in practice:
Coal Sulfur Fired (S) 1.0 to 3.2 tons/'hr
Limestone Feedrate (L) 5.3 to 16.8 tons/hr
Flue Gas Temperature (T) (240 to 315) (10'2) °F
Stoichiometry 0.28 (L/S) 1.0 to 4.0
The ratio of limestone feedrate (L) to coal sulfur fired (S) is a function of Stoichiometry
and if the assumption is made that the limestone is 100% CaCO3 and all the coal sulfur
fired appears in the flue gas as sulfur oxides, the following relationship is established:
Stoichiometry - = 0.28 - (37)
SO2 S
By using equations 32, 33, 35, and 36 it is possible to predict precipitator corona power
input and . performance with limestone injection based on the process variables of
limestone size, injection rate, coal sulfur and flue gas temperature provided the equation
limitations indicated are met.
-------
F-99
2. Performance of the Combination Mechanical-Electrostatic Dust Collector
The dust collecting equipment on Shawnee, Boiler No. 10 (see Figure 2) is a
combination multitube mechanical followed by an electrostatic precipitator. In early
years, when 90% collection efficiency was satisfactory, the economics were against
combination units. However, demands for high efficiency changed this, resulting in
utilization of combination unit principles where advantageous, as discussed below.
Technical advantages cited for the combination unit are the complementary
effects, e.g. mechanical efficiency drops off with lower gas throughput while
precipitator efficiency increases with higher collecting area to volume ratios.
Conversely, mechanical efficiency increases with high throughput while
precipitator performance decreases. Furthermore, grit collection is more readily
done with a mechanical while fine particulate is more effectively removed with a
precipitator. With a combination unit, electrical failure of the precipitator or
other outage still permits some collection with a mechanical. Removal of grit
particulate ahead of the precipitator can reduce erosion losses. A multiple tube
mechanical preceding the electrostatic in a close couple will also improve gas
distribution as well as reduce the dust loading allowing the use of a smaller
precipitator.
Disadvantages of the combination unit are the high draft loss of the mechanical
collector which represents a higher operating cost (typicall-,, about 0.25 KW per
thousand CFM per inch of draft loss), and also higher capital costs for fans,
flues, etc. With mechanical collectors as primary units, discharge electrode
rappers are a necessity and plate rapping may also be more difficult because of
compaction of the finer dust. Abrasion and plugging of the mechanical tubes can
be a consideration.
In the present case where dry limestone is injected into the boiler for sulfur oxide
removal, all the technical advantages cited above are favored and the use of a
combination collector is desirable, particularly in the case of coarse limestone.
A. Correlation of Particle Size and Dust Collector Performance
The most important parameters in determining the performance of a mechanical
collector are dust particle size and specific gravity. Normally, maximum performance is
obtained when pressure loss across the collector is between 2.5 and 4 inches of water.
On the other hand, the electrical properties of the dust and level of applied electrical
power are critical parameters in an electrostatic precipitator with particle size of lesser
importance.
-------
F-100
A critique of particle size as it is related to dust collector performance on Shawnee
Boiler No. 10 follows:
A plot of the particle size analyses contained in Table XIX through XXII are shown
graphically in Figures 26 through 43.
Figure 26 shows particle size distributions of the raw limestone feed for both the coarse
and fine grinds. Note that the grind was very uniform with the fine having a geometric
mean size by weight of about 6 microns and the coarse 17 microns.
Size distributions for fly ash obtained during no limestone injection tests (both CES test
series) are shown in Figures 27 through 33. Figures 34 through 43 present particle size
distributions of samples taken during the limestone injection runs (second CES test
series).
Using the average distribution curves from the above figures, fractional efficiency curves
were calculated for both the mechanical and electrostatic collectors. Differences in size
distribution between inlet, outlet and hopper catch samples served as a basis for these
calculations. The results for no limestone injection are contained in Table XXXI and for
limestone injection in Tables XXXII and XXXIII. For comparative purposes, the
collector fractional efficiency curves are shown in Figures 44 and 45. Mechanical
collector efficiencies on fly ash alone ranged from about 25% on the 5 micron size to 90
to 95% on greater than 25 microns. However, the electrostatic collector fractional
efficiency was nearly constant, i.e. between 80 and 90% over the entire size range. In
general, the mechanical efficiencies on fly ash plus additive reaction products is about
the same as on fly ash alone or perhaps a little lower. However, the electrostatic
collector results show higher efficiency for collection of the fines with efficiency
decreasing as the particle size increases. It is postulated that the generally lower
precipitator power densities achievable in the limestone injection tests in combination
with high dust resistivity and increased sparking have reentrained the larger particles
more easily than the fines which tend to stick to the plates once collected.
Further confirmation of this premise is evident in Figure 45 where the fractional
efficiency on coarse material for coarse limestone injection is markedly higher than for
fine limestone. This can be logically explained by the fact that, in general, higher levels /
of corona power input density were attainable with the coarse injection and therefore
higher electrical forces were available for holding material on the precipitator collecting
surface.
Table XXXIV summarizes the geometric mean sizes and specific gravities of all particle
size analyses on samples from both Cottrell Environmental Systems test series. The fly
ash at the mechanical inlet for all no limestone injection tests had an average mean size
-------
FIGURE 27
rtJ
W
w n
(!) 0)
^ 4J
0)
,| i g
•H Q
0)
IS (0
l~l
>i O
«-H
-P
+J M
C fO
-------
FIGURE 28
(0
W
W H
(U 0)
H! -P
tn-H
•H a
(1)
& Q)
iH
>i O
CQ-H
•P
•P H
C (0
0) 0^
O
»-i >d
(U 0)
PM -P
-H
•H TJ
-P C
nl H
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
INLET SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 3A, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B)
99.9
99.5'
99.0'
qo o .
y o . u
95.0-
90.0-
RO. n
en n -
3 U . U ••
on n
f.\j . 0
10.0-
5.0 -
2.0 •
1.0 '
n i
/
/•
///
V
V
/<
^/y
//
*
B
/
//
//
?
AH(
v
^*
:o
/
//
^^
Y
A
ft
?
— *—
c
r
-«—
x^
^
^-«
£*
jt*
^
^^
^-^
^^
- SIEVE
'&
r
_ ».
^~
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE ?.9
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
OUTLET SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2A,3A,3B,4B)
99.9
(0
w
w M
0) (I)
I I g
.c ?3
•H Q
(1)
PQ-H
I i ^i
C n)
O
0) 0)
Pi ^J
0) O
£> -H
•rH T3
o
OJ
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 30
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL HOPPER SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
99.9
c
£j 99.5'
99 .0
w on o-
W Wl y O m \i
0) Q)
^•g 95.0-
•^.Jj 90 . U
•H Q
m on n -
H
>i O
PQ -H
•P
•p M sn n -
ss
O
Q) Q)
^ "*"* 200
Q) O
> -H •,««
•H T> 10.0'
•P C
tl M en
H J . U -
3 2.0
U , n .
1.0
0.1
«•
(TESTS 1A,1B,2A,3A,3B,4A,4B,5A,5B)
*£0&^-
^
V
Fj
^
X
t
AHCO
1
*
jfy
^^
yV"
^*
'
— ^~
>
#
K^
•a
.
<<
/
A
^
X
.-^
^
r
- SIEVE
_j
•
/}f
/x
1 — «-
Tl
H-*
O
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
to
CO M
0) <1)
^ -P
0)
tn-H
•H Q
flJ
& (U
H
>i O
«-H
-P
4J M
fi fd
-H
•H T)
•P CJ
«tf H
U
FIGURE 31
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
HOPPER SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
99.9
99.5'
99. 0
Qft n •
95.0'-
f\ f\ A _
90 . U
fto o .
500-
on r\ .
10.0-
5.0 -
.0
1.0 "
A 1
/
/
/y
jjy
^« , n
^
y^
r^
R
/<
V
^
^
y
y^
^^
AHCO,
r
^
/^
/
/
K/
/!/
y
-
w
•
^
y
/
(/
V
/
X
.X^O
^/^X*^
- SIEVE
^
^
-|^-
o
01
6 8 10 20
40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 32
a
U)
U) M
O (U
•H Q
& 0)
&.S
4-^ M
c m
o
^ T)
f
s
if
<
y
y/
X' y/
Xx
Ox
X
:o
y]
^
x
/
s
X
i
^ .
-
,1'
***
X
x
~4»—
^^
x
/
^*
_^^
i&*
X
s/
X
/
'
x
- SIEVE
1
X'
_^.
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 33
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR HOPPER SAMPLES
WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 16,21,22)
99.9
c
g 99.5'
99.0
w . op o-
w M yo . u
0 (!)
^^ 95.0-
^ i g
OVH 90.0
•H Q
!2 Q) 80. 0
>i O
M-H
•P
4J M 50 0-
X'x
^x*^
- SIEVE
_X
*x^
•^
6 8 10
20
40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
W
W M
0) Q)
0
•H Q
Q)
C rt
0>P<
o
^ nd
Q) -H
•H T)
-P d
FIGURE 34
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES MECHANICAL COLLECTOR INLET SAMPLES
WITH COARSE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 14,15,32,33)
99.9
99.5
99.0
98.0
95.0
90.0
20.0
10.0-
5.0
2.0
1.0
0.1
AHCO
ft
^
SIEVE
o
00
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 35
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLES
WITH COARSE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 10,11,14,15,25,32,33)
99.9
CJ
flS
W
M H
a) a)
hq 4J
a>
CJVH
•H Q
(U
IS <])
(U 04
U
k T3
a) a)
CM -p
n)
-------
FIGURE 36
rt
A
EH
w
co
a)
0)
•H Q
0)
& 0)
-p M
C nJ
-H
•H -d
-P C
(fl H
u
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLES
99.9
99.5'
99.0"
qp n •
y o . u
95.0-
90 . U
80 0 -
"
9 n rt -
/, u . u
10.0-
5.0 -
.0
1.0
0.1
'
WITH COARSE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 11,14)
/J
#/
V
f
-^ - - -
X
tf
B
rt(
y
*
,
^
.,
y^
trs
r
AHCO,
f
1 1
s*S
7s
'
•f
_
f
•H
1-
-«—
^
X'
^
^^
X
1X1
x-
1X^^X1
1 .x*
r
- SIEVE
1
1
X
1
^i
—
71
h-»
(—'
O
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 37
g
W V4
Q) *^
,>
^55*
^^
AHCO,
r
^^
^
^
^
-*—
^
x
y
/^
^
- SIEVE
^f—
J>
— ^
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 3 8
to
en M
CD iO
« -H
4-)
-P ^1
C (0
0) (^
O
M T3
(U 0)
PH -P
IT)
QJ U
>-H
•H t)
•P fi
(d H
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR HOPPER SAMPLES
99.9
99.5 '
99 .0
qp n -
y a , (J
95.0-
90.0
fin n -
^ n n .
-
10.0
5.0 -
2.0 '
1.0 '
n i
>
WITH COARSE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 14,15)
y
>J0
MS
/#
Y
A
/W
$r
f
B
/
#>
f
^
AHCO
r
/
ffi
//
nr '
»*>
J/
/0
w
— ^->
\^"^\
3-apu
-«•—
,w^'
•*-**J1
^L*
- SIEVE
1 f
— »-
IV)
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 39
c
(d
w
w M
•H Q
i O
PQ-H
4J
O
M »O
0) 0
0) O
•5 3
4J C
g
U
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR INLET SAMPLES
99 9
99.5 '
99.0
op n -
95.0-
90 . U
-
50 0 -
O A A.
10.0
5.0 -
.0
1.0
n i
WITH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2,3,5,6,8)
>
x
J/ft
f
X
'//
s
B
X
x/
^
AHC
X
x
'
:o
^
xxx
x^X
X^
Xl^
^x
^
g
-«• —
X
^
^
xJ
-*^
>x
^/r.
-------
FIGURE 4Q
C
rt
CO
W M
Q) Q)
^ -P
•H Q
0)
& 0)
H
>i O
PQ-H
4J
4J M
G 16
0) IX
O
^ T3
o) a)
CU JJ
id
0) O
>-H
•H «O
4J C
(d H
O
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
'H FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS
99.9
99.5'
99.0
QQ ft •
y o . u
95.0-
A A A -
90 . U
80 0 -
^n n -
3 v . U "•
•)f\ A.
f>\J . U
10.0
5.0 -
.0
1.0 "
n i
2,3,
4,5,6,8,17,18,23
/
>
/,
//
//
/
y
X
/
/
A
/
B
^y
/
/
/
AH(
/
^
f
/
/
//
yy
'/
/
r°
'"y
/
x
/
- f
r '"
*
«
[^
*-^
— —
-••—
^
^
— •*"
X*
?*•
—«
X^
Uf^
| ^
- SIEVE
^ '
^
INLET SAMPLES
,24,26,27,28,2
— *-
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 41
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLES
WITH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2,3,4,5,6,23,24,26)
99.91
<3
£ 99.5'
99.0
55 i QR n -
0) o>
^U 95.0-
r| t g
01-H 90-°
•H Q
0) 800-
& 0 ou.u-
H
4-1
4J V4 500-
C
x
/"^
x
x
^X
AHCO
r
X
^
/*
s
^
.*
jX
X
x^
^
,x
x'
x
,x
x
X
all
Y**
S^
_x
X
FVF
'
X"*^
^
X
•^
71
i—*
I—"
CJI
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 1000
Particle Diameter (Microns)
-------
FIGURE 42
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR HOPPER SAMPLES
WITH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2,3,5,6,8)
99.9
C
(0
W
(0 S-l
0) 0)
,C 3
•H"Q
IS O
H
>i O
m -H
-------
FIGURE 43
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR HOPPER SAMPLES
WITH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 17,18,23,24)
99.9
rt
£j 99.5 '
99. 0
. . Q R n -
w M yo . u
i O
CQ-H
4->
•*J M 500-
Q) Q*
0
^ 4J on n-
nj f,\) . u
-------
TABLE XXXI
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF DUST COLLECTORS - FLY ASH ONLY
(CES Test Series No. 1)
Micron
Si ze
Interval
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
>30
MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet
6.5
9.5
7.0
7.0
4.0
10.0
8.0
3.0
5.0
40.0
100.0
Outlet
4. 7
10.7
8.1
5 .5
3.4
3. 8
3.4
1.1
0.4
1.5
42.6
Hopper
2 .0
2.0
2.6
2 .3
2 .0
4.6
6. 3
4.0
4.0
27.6
57.4
Hopper
5
Outlet
6.7
12.7
10. 7
7. 8
5.4
8.4
9. 7
5.1
4.4
29.1
100.0
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet
11 .0
25. 0
19.0
13.0
8.0
9 .0
8.0
2.0
1.5
3.5
100.0
Outlet
2. 7
3.5
2 .2
1 .4
0. 7
1 .1
0.9
0 .1
0. 3
0. 7
13.6
Hopper
13. 8
25.0
15.5
10.4
5.2
7.8
4. 3
0.9
0.9
2.6
86. 4
Hopper
§
Outlet
16.5
28.5
17. 7
11. 8
5 .9
8.9
5. 2
1.0
1.2
3.3
100 .0
PERCENT
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY1 J
Mechani cal
Col lector
29.9
15. 8
24.4
29.5
37.1
54. 7
65.0
78.4
91 .0
92. 3
El ectrostati c
Precipit ator
83.6
87. 8
87. 7
88. 3
88. 2
87.6
82. 7
90.0
75.0
78. 8
71
i—"
H-'
00
(1) Hopper (100)
Hopper + Outlet
-------
TABLE XXXII
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF DUST COLLECTORS - FINE LIMESTONE
Mi cron
Si ze
Interval
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
>30
MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet
6.5
13.5
12.0
11.0
9.0
13.0
12 .0
3.0
4.0
16.0
100.0
Outlet
4. 3
8. 4
8.0
6. 7
3.6
5. 8
4.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
43.4
Hopper
1. 7
3. 1
3. 7
2 . 8
2 .3
6.2
5 . 7
1 . 1
5.0
25. 0
56. 6
Hopper
§
Outlet
6.0
11.5
11 . 7
9.5
5 .9
12 .0
9 .7
1. 9
5.9
25.9
100.0
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet
10.0
23.0
18.0
15.0
8.0
11.0
9.0
2 .0
2.0
2.0
100.0
Outlet
2 .9
8.6
6.9
4.6
3. 1
3. 8
1.9
1. 3
1.4
3. 7
38. 2
Hopper
11.1
19.2
13. 2
6.2
3. 1
4.9
2 .2
0. 3
0.5
1 . 1
61. 8
Hopper
§
Outlet
16.5
27. 8
20 . 1
10. 8
6. 2
8. 7
4. 1
1.6
1 .9
4.8
100. 0
PERCENT ,n
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY1 J
Mechani cal
Collector
28.4
27.0
31 .6
29 .5
39 .0
51. 7
58. 8
58.0
84.9
96. 5
Electrost ati c
Precipi t ator
79 . 3
69 . 1
65. 7
57.4
50.0
56. 3
53.6
18.8
26. 3
23.0
(1) Hopper (100)
Hopper + Outlet
-------
TABLE XXXIII
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF DUST COLLECTORS - COARSE LIMESTONE
(CES Test Series No. 2)
M i cron
Size
Interval
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
>30
MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet
11.0
17.0
11 .0
9.0
6.0
11.0
7.0
3. 0
5 .0
20.0
100.0
Outlet
3.4
11.0
10. 3
6. 8
4. 4
5. 3
3.4
0.5
1.5
1.9
48.5
Hopper
1 .8
2 .8
3.6
2 .1
2 . 1
4.1
4.1
1 .5
3. 1
26. 2
51.5
Hopper
§
Outlet
5.2
13.8
13.9
8.9
6.5
9.4
7.5
2.0
4.6
28.1
100.0
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet
7.0
23.0
21.0
14.0
9.0
11 .0
7.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
10.9
Outlet
0.6
2 .4
1 .9
1 .6
1.0
1 .4
1.0
0.1
0.4
0. 5
89. 1
Hopper
14. 2
28.4
19 .6
9 . 8
4 .6
8.0
2 . 7
0. 3
1 .1
0.4
100.0
Hopper
$
Outlet
14.8
30. 8
21 .5
11 .4
5 .6
9.4
3.7
0.4
1 .5
0.9
PERCENT
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY11-1
Mechani cal
Col lector
34.6
20. 3
25.9
23.6
32.2
43.5
54. 7
75. 0
67.5
93. 3
Electrost ati c
Precipi tator
95.9
92. 3
91. 3
86. 1
82. 2
88.8
73.0
75.0
73.3
44. 4
71
i—"
o
(1) Hopper (100)
Hopper + Outlet
-------
100
-p
c
0)
u
pt,
I
u
QJ
•H
U
•H
4-1
W
c
o
•H
-P
U
(U
rH
rH
O
u
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
F-121
FIGURE 44
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY CURVE FOR
MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
No Limestone Injection
Coarse Limestone Injection
Fine Limestone Injection
10
15
20
25
Particle Diameter - Microns
-------
100
-p
c
cu
o
M
U
O
U
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
FIGURE 45
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY CURVES FOR
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
No Limestone Injection
Coarse Limestone Injection
Fine Limestone Injection
\
U
10
15
20
25
Particle Diameter - Microns
-------
F-123
by weight of about 19 microns with a range of 12 to 30 microns for individual tests. The
particulate from both the coarse and fine limestone injection tests had an average mean
size of 8.5 to 9.5 microns regardless of injection rate. The individual tests ranged
between 6 to 13 microns. As stated before, the raw limestone mean particle size ranged
from 6 microns for fine to 17 microns for coarse.
The most plausible explanation for the particle size results obtained at the mechanical
collector inlet with limestone injection is that the boiler, air heater, ductwork, etc.
ahead of the mechanical collector are acting as a primary mechanical collector,
particularly on the very fine and very coarse material. The fine limestone can plate out
on surfaces by mechanical and thermal diffusion or electrostatic mechanisms while the
coarse material is collected in low velocity ductwork areas and hoppers below the air
heater by gravity, and impaction mechanisms. The overall effect of these collection
mechanisms would be to make the particle size distribution at the mechanical collector
inlet more uniform, and less dependent on the size distribution and amount of injected
limestone. Other possibilities include agglomeration or attachment of fines to larger
particles (fly ash) by impaction, ineffective dispersion of fines during injection, better
calcination on the coarse material resulting in decreased size by carbon dioxide loss, and
higher utilization of fines in reacting with sulfur oxides causing an increase in particle
size of the reaction products.
The average particle loading at the mechanical outlet-precipitator inlet varies with
limestone injection rate (see Figure 46) from about 1.5 grains/SCF with no limestone
addition to about 4.0 grains/SCF with 16 tons/hour limestone feed into the boiler.
3. Discussion of Particle Resistivity Data
A. Correlation of In-Situ and Laboratory Resistivity Measurements
As discussed in an earlier section of the report, a fundamental parameter in
electrostatic precipitation • is the electrical resistivity of the particulate. Many
industrial dusts are poor conductors and as a result inhibit the performance of
precipitators. Generally, the critical value above which precipitation is deleteriously
affected is somewhere between 1010 and 1011 ohm-cm.6 The gas temperature and
moisture content are the two main factors having the strongest influence on
resistivity. Secondary agents present in some industrial gases, e.g. sulfur trioxide, can
drastically change resistivity. It is this particular agent which appears to cause the
differences in laboratory and in-situ resistivity of fly ash from coal fired boilers.
(Sulfur trioxide cannot be simulated conveniently in the laboratory test gas.)
Furthermore, the addition of large amounts of alkali material such as ground
limestone to the boiler flue gas which removes the sulfur trioxide by chemical
reaction is believed to result in degraded precipitation rates. An objective of the test
program was to measure the effects of limestone injection on resistivity and
precipitation rates.
-------
TABLE XXXIV
SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES
ON SAMPLES FROM BOTH CES TEST SERIES
(From Figures 26 to 43)
S amp 1 e
Point
Limestone
F eeder
Limestone
Feeder
MC Inlet
ESP Inlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
ESP Inlet
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
ESP Inlet
Des cription
Coarse
Fine
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash $ Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash § Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Test Numbers
14, 32, 33
6, 8, 23, 24
1A§B, 3A,
4A§B, 5A£B
1A§B, 3A,
4A$B, 5A$B
2A, 3A§B, 4B
1A£B,2A, 3A$B,
4A$B,5A$B
1A§B, 2A, 3A,
4A, 5A§B
16, 19, 20,
21, 22
16, 21, 22
14, 15, 32,
33
10, 11, 14,
15, 25, 32,
33
Average
Geometric
Mean
Size (y)
17
6.0
19
5. 5
4.5
28
4.6
7.0
4.0
8.5
6.0
Speci f i c
Gravity
2 .55
2.54
2 . 36
2. 31
1.98
2. 32
2.04
2 .53
2 . 30
2.69
2.67
Range of
Geometric
Mean Size For
Individual
Tests (y)
15 - 20
5-7
12 - 30
5 - 6.5
3.5 - 5.5
24 - 33
4.2 - 5.2
4.5-9
3.8 - 4.3
6.2 - 13
5-7
-------
TABLE XXXIV (Continued)
SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES
ON SAMPLES FROM BOTH CES TEST SERIES
(From Figures 26 to 43)
S amp 1 e
Point
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
ESP Inlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
Description
Fly Ash £ Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash § Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash § Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash § Fine
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash § Fine
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash § Fine
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash § Fine
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash § Fine
Limestone Reaction
Products
Test Numbers
11, 14
14, 15, 32, 33
14, 15
2, 3, 5, 6 , 8
2,3,4,5,6,8,
17, 18,23,24,
26,27,28,29,30
2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
23, 24, 26
2, 3, 5, 6, 8
17, 18, 23, 24
Average
Geome tri c
Mean
Size (y)
6.6
30
4.2
9 .5
5. 8
6.5
23
4. 1
Spe ci fie
Gravity
3. 05
2. 85
2 .53
3.08
2 .78
2 .09
2 . 71
2 .63
Range of
Geometric
Mean Size For
Individual
Tests (y)
5.8-8
26 - 40
3.8 - 4.7
8-13
4.5 - 8.5
4.5 - 11
20 - 27
3.9 - 4.3
01
-------
FIGURE 46
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR PARTICULATE INLET LOADING AS A FUNCTION OF LIMESTONE FEEDRATE
•H
(TJ
^™* rui
0) =
4J o»
nJ •
3 CN
O i^s
•H
-P PM
M O
(tf t^
SB
H
6.0
5.a
4.0.
3.0
o 2.g
71
\j
O No Limestone
Fine Limestone
Coarse Limestone
0
10
Limestone Feedrate, Tons/Hr
12
16
18
-------
F-127
In Figure 47, the in-situ resistivities obtained for coal firing only on full-scale boilers
at Shawnee Station of TVA and a large midwest utility, and on a pilot scale
combustor at Babcock and Wilcox Company Research Center are plotted as a
function of gas temperature. Figure 48 displays in-situ resistivities obtained during
limestone injection tests by the same organizations. The Shawnee data was obtained
by Southern Research Institute2 (see Table XXXV), K. J. McLean5 (see Figure 49),
and Cottrell Environmental Systems (see Tables XXIII through XXV). The midwest
utility data was obtained by Research-Cottrell, Inc.3 (see Table XXXVI). The pilot
scale Babcock and Wilcox data4 for coal firing is reproduced in Figure 50 and shown
for comparison with full-scale data as a dotted line polygon in Figure 47. Similarly,
the Babcock and Wilcox limestone injection data is reproduced in Figures 51
through 53 and shown as a dotted line polygon in Figure 48.
Laboratory resistivity measurements obtained on precipitator inlet samples taken
during the Cottrell Environmental Systems test series are shown in Figures 54
(without limestone injection) and 55 (with limestone injection). The in-situ
measurements from Figures 47 and 48 are superimposed on this data as solid lined
polygons. Note that although the data is scattered, due to variations in ash
composition, coal sulfur, etc., there is a general indication that laboratory
measurements are higher than in-situ at a given gas temperature. Of further interest
is that at temperatures in the 550 to 650° F range, the resistivities (lab and in-situ)
are coming closer to coinciding, while at temperatures below 500° F agreement is
poor. This is further evidence that the flue gas and laboratory test gas are not
equivalent, and trace constituents in the flue gas are affecting resistivity due to
surface conductivity (most prevalent at low gas temperatures), but are not critical at
the high temperatures where the bulk resistivity of the constituents of the ash is
controlling.
B. Relationship of Particle Resistivity, Flue Gas Temperature, and Coal Sulfur (No
Limestone Injection)
In general, the higher the percentage sulfur in the coal, the more sulfur trioxide
appearing in the flue gas. Typically, 1 to 2% of the coal sulfur is converted to the
trioxide. This amounts to about 3 to 6 parts per million by volume in the flue gas
for 0.5% sulfur coal and six times this amount for 3% sulfur coal. Normally, 15 to
25 parts per million at 300° F is sufficient to condition the dust surface by sulfuric
acid condensation giving resistivities in the 101 ° ohm-cm range or lower. At lower
temperatures, less amounts of sulfur trioxide are required and gas moisture content
becomes more important. Conversely, at high temperatures, the bulk resistance of
the material is controlling, and the coal sulfur and moisture are not critical. Figure
56 is a plot of particle resistivity as a function of flue gas temperature for a range of
coal sulfur. The data were taken from Tables XXIII through XXV. and Table XXV.
-------
FIGURE 47
IN-SITU RESISTIVITIES OBTAINED ON FULL-SCALE & PILOT SCALE
BOILERS WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
rnaT.-FTRTKin
.15
IxlO14.
IxlO13-
»-»
S
O
J^
3 IP
o ixKrl
EH
H
| 1
H
IxlO10-
n r - T A ^.
ixio
IxlO8.
A CES-Shawnee
(Dec., 1969)
A CES-Shawnee
(July, 1971)
CES-Shawnee
| Special Low Sulfur
(July, 1971)
^ K. J. McLean -
W Shawnee (July, 1971)
_ SRI -Shawnee
O (July, 1971)
B&W-Pilot Plant
"""•"- TVA Coals (1967-
1969)
n R-C, Inc. -Midwest
U Utility (1967)
f «N>
/ !
l±
\ ^
1 •
Lrv/
X
\.'
* 0
o*N
O "^ ',
/
U
• ^
V
V
«^
o
o
0
/^
\
A.
Encompasses Data From
Figure 49 , Tables XXIII
through XXV, XXXV and
XXXVI
>
s^^
X
X
T-
\s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
s
\
•v
s
^*m
i
Encompasses Data
from Figure 50.
*.
\
X
».
J
^•••1^
450
^
•I
•*-*Mi««M
"^
•^ •.
•^>
H
500 550 600 650
00
GAS TEMPERATURE (°F)
-------
FIGURE 48
IN^SITU RESISTIVITIES OBTAINED ON FULL SCALE AND PILOT SCALE PULVERIZED COAL
FIRING BOILERS WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION
S
U
t
s
H
>
H
EH
W
H
c/>
a
1x10" -
IxlO14.
IxlO13-
IxlO12.
1x10 -
lxlOlQ-
lxl'09 *
IxlO8
-
A CES-Shawnee
A (July, 1971)
CES-Shawnee
B Special Low Sulfur
(July, 1971)
A K.J. McLean-Shawnegi
(July, 1971)
O SRI-Shawnee
(July, 1971)
B&W-Pilot Plant
~" (1967-1969)
,-. R-C, Inc. Midwest
u Utility, (1967)
x.
•
4
, , A
/x
/*
n '^
^
i^
AAA
~ A
A
:^W
n V.
/
£**+ m
/
En coi
Figur
thro
^\
T-
'
fci
\
\
i
\
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
mpasses Data fro]
9 49, Tables XXI
agh XXV, XXXV an
XXXVI
+^
\
\
Tl
II
a
t
Encompasses Data
from Figures 51
through 53 .
\
\
\
450
\
r
500 550 600 65
N)
<£>
GAS TEMPERATURE (°F)
-------
TABLE XXXV
IN-SITU RESISTIVITY DATA OBTAINED BY SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT
TVA SHAWNEE STATION, BOILER #10 DURING THE CES SECOND TEST SERIES
Date
July 15
July 16
July 21
July 22
Reported
Injection Rate
of CaC03,
Lb ./Min.
333
333
333
167
333
333
Temp . ,
oF
340
255
273
407
360
417
Resistivity, ohm cm, at various electric fields
1.0 KV/cm
4.0 x 1011
2.5 KV/cm
_ —
5.0 x 1011
5.0 KV/cm
3.0 x 1010
4.0 x 1011
4.5 x 10
1. 3 x 10J^
1.1 x 10
8.0 x 1011
10.0 KV/cm
2.7 x 1010
2.4 x 10J}
4.5 x 10
1. 7 x lO1^
1.0 x 101<5
1.2 x 1012
15.0 KV/cm
_ _ _
1.5 x 10 JJ
4.5 x 10
2.3 x lo}^
9.0 x 10
1.6 x 1012
20.0 KV/cm
9,0 x 101(?
4.5 x 10
2.6 x 10^
8.0 x 10
2.0 x 1012
(a) With Limestone Injection
co
o
Date
July 15
July 16
July 21
July 22
Temp . ,
Op
375
376
266
273
305
330
375
385
Resistivity, ohm cm, at various electric fields
1.0 KV/cm
2. 3 x 1010
7.0~x~1010
5.5 x 1010
5 . 8 x lOJjj
8.0 x 101U
2.5 KV/cm
1.4 x 1010
8.0 x 1010
4.0 x 1010
5.0 x 1010
5.0 x 10*°
7.0 x 10iU
5.0 KV/cm
8.0 x 109
3.5 x 10 u
3.5 x loJJJ
2. 3 x 10^"
1. 8 x 10
5.0 x 1010
4.0 x 10J°
6.0 x 10
10.0 KV/cm
5.0 x 10^
2.0 x 10iU
1.2 x 10^
8.0 1 107
1.0 x 10iU
4.2 x 1010
3.0 x loj°
4.6 x 10iU
15.0 KV/cm
l.sTlO10
6.0 x 107
3.6 x 1010
3.8 x 1010
20.0 KV/cm
1. 8 x 1010
5.0 x 107
3.0 x 1010
(b) Without Limestone Injection
-------
F-131
FIGURE 49
IN-SITU RESISTIVITY DATA OBTAINED BY K.J. McLEAN AT TVA
SHAWNEE STATION, BOILER #10 DURING THE CES SECOND TEST SERIES
U
o
I
H
H
EH
H
W
w
rt
EH
CO
ID
Q
1 x 10
14
1 x 10
13
1 x 10
12
1 x 10
11
1 x 10
10
1 x 10'
1 x 10
1 x 10
O Without
Limestone
• With Limestone
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE - °F
-------
F-132
TABLE XXXVI
DATA SUMMARY - FULL SCALE DOLOMITE
INJECTION TEST RESULTS OBTAINED BY
RESEARCH-COTTRELL, INC. AT A LARGE MIDWEST UTILITY
Parameter
Dolomite In j ected-Tph
Coal Fired - Tph
Gas Vol. @ Pptr, ACFM
Gas Temp. @ Pptr. °F
S02 PPM by Volume
SO^ PPM by Volume
Dust Concentrations
(gr/SCFD)
Mechanical Inlet
Precipitator Inlet
Precipitator Outlet
Efficiencies %
Mechanical
Pre cipi t ator
Overall
In-Situ Resistivity -
ohm- cm
Precipitation Rate
FPS
Boiler
Reheat
6
60
492,000
287
1,950
Nil
6. 10
1. 32
0.60
78. 3
55.0
90.2
1 x 1012
0. 15
S up e rh e a t
0
65-70
568,000
270
2,550
17
3. 70
0. 74
0.16
80. 0
78. 8
95. 8
1 x 108
0. 34
-------
FIGURE 50
S
o
s
§
H
>
H
EH
W
H
CO
w
10 F
1(T -
10
RESISTIVITY OF FLY ASH
SAMPLES
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
-
.
-
-
-
IN
FROM VARIOUS COALS FIRED
PILOT PLANT OF B&W
1
1
1
•w
/
N
\
i
N
\
i
d
&s
\
\
Labor
r^O* -^
i \~
•\
y
foal Ixjrplc So.
• B-22791
O C-1J167
A C-:J273
- A C-13274 -
• C-13279 ~
0 C-13319
• C-13J76
O C-J3J78
atory
•
. In-S
-
-
itu I
-
10" -
10-^-
10 -
10 -
FIGURE 51
IN-SITU AND LABORATORY
RESISTIVITIES FOR REACTED ADDITIVE-
FLY ASH SAMPLES FROM B&W PILOT PLANT
10
15
10
14
10
10
10
10
13
12
11
10
10"
/-•
~— Laborat
.In-Situ
ry
71
i—'
00
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE, °F
-------
FIGURE 52
IN-SITU AND LABORATORY
RESISTIVITIES FOR REACTED ADDITIVE-
FLY ASH MIXTURES FROM B&W PILOT PLANT
FIGURE 53
IN-SITU AND LABORATORY
RESISTIVITIES FOR REACTED ADDITIVE-
FLY ASH MIXTURES FROM B&W PILOT PLANT
15
S
U
S
ffi
O
I
>H
EH
H
>
H
EH
CO
H
CO
EH
CO
D
Q
ID'
10'
10
11
10"
10'
/TK
W LI
•^ Laboratory-]
In-Situ
^p— Laboratory
CO
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE, °F
-------
u
i
H
>
M
f-i
W
H
W
W
1x10
lxl014J
1x10
1x10
1x10
8
FIGURE 54
LABORATORY RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON PRECIPITflTOR INLET SAMPLES
AS A FUNCTION OF GAS TEMPERATURE WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
CES-Shawnee
(Dec., 1969)
CES-Shawnee
(July, 1971)
CES-Shawnee Low Sulfur
Tests (July, 1971)
Encompasses Data
from Figure 47,
UJ
CJI
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
GAS TEMPERATURE (°F)
-------
o
I
c-i
H
>
H
^
C.Q
H
CO
W
1x10'
1x10'
ixiouH
IxlO10
1x10'
1x10
FIGURE 55
LABORATORY RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLES
AS A FUNCTION OF GAS. TEMPERATURE W-ITH LIMESTONE INJECTION
Encompasses Data
from Figure 48 .
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
GAS TEMPERATURE (°F)
-------
F-137
The midwest utilities data are from unpublished Research-Cottrell, Inc.,
reports.12'13 The criticality of coal sulfur and moisture on particle resistivity are
graphically demonstrated in the lower temperature ranges (varies five orders of
magnitude for 0.5 to 4.0% sulfur), while at the higher temperatures the effect is
nearly independent of coal sulfur (varies about one order of magnitude).
C. Relationship of Particle Resistivity, Flue Gas Temperature, and Coal Sulfur (with
Limestone Injection)
Normal expectation with a dry alkaline additive, such as limestone to the boiler or
into flue gas, is a chemical reaction with the sulfur oxides formed, particularly the
trioxide, resulting in a decreased conditioning effect and a higher particulate
resistivity. Consequently, the sulfur content of the coal will become relatively
independent in its affect on resistivity. In Figure 57, the particulate resistivity is
plotted as a function of flue gas temperature with the coal sulfur indicated for
each data point. The data were taken from tables and reports as noted above. Of
particular interest is the observation that coal sulfur appears to affect the
resistivity in a random manner. Nevertheless, the data still shows the affect of low
temperature surface conditioning on resistivity. Apparently, this is due mainly to
the moisture in the gas plus a few parts per million of sulfur trioxide not removed
by the limestone. (See Table 4.14 in Reference 4, and Tables 41 and 44 in
Reference 2.)
D. Relationship Between Precipitation Rate Parameter and Particle Resistivity
In establishing the precipitation rate parameter of a dust, the most critical single
parameter is the electrical resistivity. Figure 58 graphically demonstrates the
degradation of the precipitation rate parameter with resistivity. Two solid
line-curves, taken from the literature6'7 are shown. Data points (Table XXXVII)
from the Shawnee tests, and a large midwest utility, are plotted for comparison
purposes. Verification of the degradation noted above is indicated. However, the
critical range of resistivity seems to be occurring between values of 101 1 and
1013 ohm-cm. Obviously, more specific data are required to quantitatively
establish the relationship between precipitation rate parameter and resistivity.
4. Discussion of Chemical Analyses Results
All the chemical analyses on particulate samples obtained during the test program
were performed by TVA personnel at the Chattanooga, Tennessee, Laboratory
(see Tables XXVII through XXIX). A summary of the data used in the following
discussion and correlations are contained in Table XXXVIII.
-------
s
u
s
H
E-t
CO
I
u
H
F-138
FIGURE 56
IN-SITU RESISTIVITY VS. TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP
FOR VARIOUS COAL SULFURS (No Limestone Injection^
1x10
13
1x10
12
1x10
11
1x10
10
1x10'
1x10
8
1x10
<\0.8
\
\
Q.SQ
1.5
A
A- 85
3.7
/
/
/
(3.2
DQ
• O
K
\
\
\
i
.9
ZA0.9
A 2 . 4 H .
A-x 2.2
1?8
j.
/
/
/
\
N
i ^v^
)
^-^
>•*"
^xX
A2.8
-7^-2 ^
•
DATA POINT LEGEND
)0.8
^t^
"""^v..
A3. 2 ^
A CES (Shawnee #10)
O SI
o*-
NOTE: Nv
pe
II (Shawnee #10)
•C,Inc. (Midwest Utili
unbers by data points
•rcent sulfur in coal.
i
ties)
are
200. 300 400 500 600
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE, °F
700
-------
F-139
FIGURE 57
IN-SITU RESISTIVITY VS. TEMPERATURE
RELATIONSHIP FOR VARIOUS COAL SULFURS
(With Limestone Injection)
S
o
i
w
o
H
>
H
H
CO
H
CO
w
I
o
H
&
1x10
13
1x10
12
1x10
11
1x10
10
1x10'
1.
2.oA
4.0/X 4,
1.6A2/1
3.9QT
^ • 4i—\^ c
1 2'6
/
/A2.-6
. O3.1
^A 2.7
A 3.3
T o _^^
. ^\^\ -^- • ^r
L {^±^ ^f
#2.6
3/Y\2.7
Z^i:2
7
Al.4
L.80
Q3.1
.
1
^**
Q2.0
'
DATA POINT LEGEND
AcES CShawnee S10)
O SRI (Shawnee # 10)
••
NOTE: Numbers by data points
are % sulfur in coal
•
200
300
400
500
600
700
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE, °F
-------
FIGURE 58
CO
•P
Q)
g
(tf
}-)
td
4J
a
O
-H
4*
CO
•P
•H
&
•H
O
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.2Q
0.10
APPROXIMATE PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER VS. RESISTIVITY RELATIONSHIP
WITHOUT AND WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION
1x10
ID'
IN-SITU PARTICULATE RESISTIVITY, OHM-CM
-------
TABLE XXXVII
DATA USED FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER AND PARTICULATE RESISTIVITY
Source
CES
First Test
Series
Shawnee #10
December 1969
R-C,Inc.
Midwest Utility
CES
Second Test
Series
Shawnee #10
July 1971
R-C,Inc.
Midwest Utility
Test No.
5A, 5B
3B, 4B
9, 16
19, 21
20, 22
6, 14
10, 17
4, 11
8
2, 30
18, 26
23, 24
25, 27
28, 32
29
33
Flue Gas
Temp .
op
300
298
275
260
326
270
322
261
323
285
316
318
326
271
323
265
260
287
Coal
Sul fur
%
3.22
1.90
1 .54
0. 85
0.90
3. 20
2.66
1 .61
1.53
2.59
2 .61
2 .20
1 . 15
1. 87
3. 70
2. 30
4.04
3.20
In-Situ
Res is ti vi ty
ohm- cm
4. 8 x 109
2. 8 x 1011
1.6 x 1012
8.4 x 1010
1. 8 x 1011
1.0 x 108
7. 3 x 1011
4. 5 x 1011
4.1 x 1011
1.9 x 1011
5.1 x 1012
4. 0 x 1011
1 ?
3. 3 x 10
1 2
1 . 3 x 10
3.4 x 1012
4. 3 x 1011
9. 1 x 1011
1.2 x 1012
Fptn. Rate
Parameter
FPS
0.42
0. 19
0. 26
0.49
0.47
0. 34
0. 18
0 .40
0 . 16
0. 35
0.21
0. 17
0. 14
0. 38
0 . 39
0. 27
0 .43
0. 15
Comment
No
Limestone
Inj ection
With
Limes tone
Injection
-------
F-142
A. Relationship of Calcium Compounds at Electrostatic Precipitator Inlet with
Limestone Feedrate
Since the dust collecting equipment is a combination mechanical-electrostatic
unit, it is of interest to determine the effect on the dust chemical composition at
the precipitator inlet caused by the mechanical collector for no, coarse, and fine
limestone injection. One basis for doing this is to correlate the total amount of
calcium reported as calcium oxide, as a function of the amount and particle size
of the limestone fed into the boiler. Using the measured inlet grain loadings and
gas volumes at the precipitator inlet, a rate in tons/hour of calcium oxide was
calculated from the sample analyses. These were then plotted as a function of
limestone feedrate in tons/hour in Figure 59. As expected, the amount of calcium
compounds found at'the precipitator inlet is a function of feedrate. Unexpected is
the randomness of the data points with respect to particle size of the limestone. A
regression analysis of Table XXXVIII data (22 sets) using the form of equation
21, where:
Y = Calcium oxide at precipitator inlet, tons/hours
X = Limestone feedrate to boiler, tons/hour
was performed. The data point from Test 10 was discarded, since it appears
completely alien to the other test data points and there is no convenient way of
determining whether it is bad or a real point. The following result was obtained:
Y = 0.12 + 0.071X (38)
Correlation Coefficient = 0.91
F - Ratio Test Statistic = 99
This equation is limited to limestone feedrates in the range of 0 to 15 tons/hour.
The conclusions are that the amount of calcium oxide found at the precipitator
inlet is significantly related to the feedrate in a linear manner, and neither the
particle size of the limestone or the flue gas temperature at the dust collecting
system is significant.
B. Examination of Particle Resistivity at the Precipitator Inlet as a Function of
Calcium Oxide/Sulfur Ratio for High and Low Temperature Flue Gas
In Figure 60, the in-situ particle resistivity at the precipitator inlet has been
plotted as a function of the CaO/S ratio in the particulate. The high and low flue
gas temperature ranges are indicated separately. There appears to be no obvious
correlation. However, in general, the lower gas temperature data seem, on the
average, to result in a lower particle resistivity for the same CaO/S ratio.
Nevertheless, it is concluded that nothing of significance is contained in Figure 60
relative to resistivity and CaO/S content of the particulate.
-------
TABLE XXXVIII
SUMMARY OF DATA USED IN SECTION ON
CHEMICAL ANALYSES (PPS.147-153)
Test
No.
2
6
8
9
10
11
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
% CaO
MC
Inlet
30.8
33.0
33.3
—
—
35.6
36.7
_—
__
__
__.
__
__
__
__
__
— B--,
__
27 7
25.5
ESP
Inlet
28.6
30.0
31.4
4.5
23.5
31.6
33.9
34.7
33.6
1.4
2 2
1.1
5.6
5:9
18.8
26.0
30.8
28.8
38.6
28.8
27 2
26.3
Ratio
CaO/S
ESP Inlet
4.1
4.9
4.4
3.0
3.8
6 .4
6.0
5.3
7.0
3.5
3.7
2.7
7.0
5.4
8.9
4.8
6.2
7.4
9.9
7.4
6.5
4.1
4.5
CaO At
ESP Inlet
(Tons/Hr)
0.48
0.64
0.91
0.05
0.43
1.03
1.19
1.08
0.69
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.13
0.14
0.47
0.80
0.59
0.60
1.12
0.78
0.84
1.11
0.75
o(1)
Gas
Temp,
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
L
Precipitation
Rate Parameter
W(FPS)
0.24
0.03
0.35
0.34
0.43
0.26
0.33
0.29
0.17
0.41
0.58
0.44
0.36
0.13
0.15
0.50
0.17
0.26
0.29
0.27
0.18
0.48
0.43
Limestone
Feedrate
(tpns/hr)
7.55
11.60
11.15
0
16.75
15.25
14.10
14.45
9.15
0
0
0
0
1.84
3.45
10.55
7.05
6.45
11.15
6.25
6.30
8.50
7.85
(2)
Type
Limestone
F
F
F
—
C
Particle (3)
Resistivity
Ohm -flm
1.2xl012
5.6X101!
1.6X1011
? RVT nil
fi . 7vi n11
C fi.q^in-L1
C
C
F
-
-
-
—
F
F
C
F
n
F
F
F
C
C
a.Qxin1}
l, .4v] o1-1-
....AJ5.x,10}f
2.8X1011
l.SxlO11
1.4X1011
l.SxlO11
3.7x10-^
2.9x101^
1.4x10^
2.4X1011
l.SxlO11
5.9x10-^
4".3xlO-LJ-
9.0x10^
8.3X1011
9-lxlOJ-J-
71
»—»
CO
(1)
(1)
H = 290
L = 240
to
to
320°F
260°F
(2) F = 50% by weight less than 6 microns
(2) C = 50% by weight less than 17 microns
(3) In-Situ at Prec'ipitator Inlet
-------
CO
<
-p
-------
Figure 60
PARTICLE RESISTIVITY AS A FUNCTION OF THE
CaO/S RATIO AT THE PRECIPITATOR INLET
1x10
13
-P
•H
>
•H
-P
w
•H
W
0)
•rH
-P
M
rtS
1x10
1x10
1x10
Gas Temp.
240-260°F
290-320°F
02468
Ratio of CaO/S At The Precipitator Inlet
-------
F-146
Generally, the bulk chemical composition of the particulate and the performance
of the precipitator elude correlation. An extensive research program into the
chemical composition and physical nature of the particle surface is required.
5. Review of Optical Sensor Data
A proprietary Research-Cottrell, Inc., optical sensing instrument to determine
dust concentrations was installed on the "B" side of Boiler No. 10 at Shawnee
Station (see Figures 14 and 15). A simplified system diagram is shown in Figure
61. After standardizing with clean gas in measuring path and use of slope and
intercept controls, the dust and reference signals are equal and of opposite
polarity under a wide range of light source intensities when measuring path is
clean.
EA = -EB (39)
With dirty gas, EA decreases with increasing particle concentration and -Eg
remains constant.
Summing amplifier adds signals EA and -Eg and multiplies sum by its gain Gc to
provide amplified difference signal to recorder.
Recorder Reading = Gc EA + (-Eg) (40)
After an installation has been standardized, the reference signal -Eg is equal to the
maximum difference signal for that installation. For 0-5 Ringleman calibration,
full-scale recorder voltage = (Gc) (-Eg). Maximum summing amplifier output is
limited to about 13 volts.
The instrument was operative during the first CES and second TVA test series.
Component failure (signal amplifier) during the second CES test series aborted
further use of the instrument. Since all TVA tests were conducted on the "A"
side, the correlation of nearly all the dust loadings with optical readout data are
only quantitative. (Assumes comparable performance of the "A" and "B" side
precipitators.) Table XXXIX summarizes data taken from the recorder charts
during the first CES test series and the second TVA test series. A plot of the
results (Figure 62) shows a fair correlation between the recorder chart reading
(millivolts) and the precipitator outlet loading (grains/SCF). A critical
consideration noted in the use of the optical sensor was the necessity for cleaning
the lenses of the monitor periodically (at least daily). This requirement is
evidenced by the two separate curves shown in Figure 62.
Figure 63 is a typical section of the optical sensor recorder chart showing various
boiler and dust collector operating modes, e.g. coal firing only, response when
-------
F-147
additive is started and stopped, precipitator rapping puffs, boiler soot blowing,
etc. This particular section of chart covers the time period beginning about 8:30
a.m. on July 1, 1970, and running continuously til about 3:00 p.m. on July 3,
1970. During this time period, TVA was running tests 37 through 44 from their
second test series on the "A" side precipitator. Pertinent operating conditions are
noted on the chart (Figure 63, pages F-151 through F-157). As can be seen on this
chart, the optical sensor provides a good qualitative indication of boiler and dust
collecting equipment operation. However, additional refinements and evaluation
are necessary for its modification into a quantitative particulate monitoring
instrument.
-------
FIGURE 61
SIMPLIFIED SYSTEM DIAGRAM OF THE
RESEARCH-COTTRELL, INC. PROPRIETARY OPTICAL SENSOR
Normal
>. Dust
% J
-O0.9 E
A/ Sensor >Gain
Test
A
EA = ^A x eA = Dust Signal
A
A
!
I _
i Dirty Gas Path
!
/L) Common Light Source
i
i
1 Clean Air Path
"G
c
Zero r
Test |
^ J
V
r
lope
v
\ Normal
XXvv-i
)!
> !
j V^//^^^^^"*
X
Normal
r-
l
?ain /
v
^
v
^ Zero
>Dust
Output
Selector
O
v/
•}
Ref' Recorder
0 - 1QV
EB = GB x eB = Reference Signal
71
i—*
*>
c»
Reference Amplifier
-------
F-149
TABLE XXXIX
DATA TAKEN FROM THE OPTICAL SENSOR RECORDER CHARTS
Test
NO.
1A(CES)
2A
5A
3B
4B
5B
38 (TVA)
39
40
42
43
44
46
47
48
50
51
52
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
62
64
65
66
68
69
70
72
73
74
Chart Reading
(Millivolts)
1.8
2.8
2.5
3.7
3.7
2.7
3.1
3.7
3.0
2.9
3.5
4.0
2.8
3.3
3.6
1.9
2.6
3.2
1.1
2.4
2.3
1.6
2.0
2.1
1.2
1.9
1.4
2.4
3.1
1.6
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.9
4.0
ESP Outlet
Loading
(gr/SCF)
0;036
0.321
0.112
0.227
0.328
0.045
0.270
0.416
0.207
0.126
0.263
0.3,19
0.080
0.313
0.329
0.099
0.146
0.228
0.49
0.362
0.333
0.087
0.246
0.278 ,
0.097
0.243
0.094
0.363
0.418
0.211
0.319
0.352
0.129
0.162
0.213
Type
Firing
Coal
tir
y
Coal + Additive
t
Coal
f
Coal + Additive
t
Coal
Coal + Additive
\
Coal
Coal + Additive
t
Coal
Coal + Additive
\
Coal
Coal + Additive
|
Coal
Coal + Additive
Coal
Coal + Additive
t
Coal
Coal + Additive
i
Coal
Coal + Additive
J
Condition
Df Optical
Sensor
Lenses
Dirtv
t
r
Clean
15
i
T
Dirty
Lime- (1)
stone
Addition
Rate
0
w
V
Medium
Hiqh
0
0
Medium
Hiah
0
Medium
Hiqh
0
Medium
Hiqh
0
Low
Low
0
Low
Low
0
Low
0
Medium
Hiqh
0
Low
Medium
0
Low
Medium
(1)
Low = 1 to 3.5 tons/hour
Medium = 4.5 to 5.5 tons/hour
High = 9 to 10 tons/hour
-------
FIGURE 62
DATA OBTAINED ON PARTICULATE LOADING
USING AN OPTICAL MONITOR
4.0
3.0
'B'
'B1
'B1
[]
o
en
O
2.0.
A
i.o-
A
O
O
O
€>•
A A
D •
o«
f \.
an Di
No Limestone
Lo Limestone
Medium Limestone
Hi Limestone
Clean
Lens
irty
Lens
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
Electrostatic Precipitator Outlet Loading, Grain/SCF
("A" side, except where indicated at data point)
-------
1 of 7
F-151
LJ'i-Ll ' ' -' .'--I --
— =
•- 1 1_.--^» - -
2 4
MILLIVOLTS
10:43 AM
Peaks are rapping losses
from third section of
precipitator.
FIGURE 63
TYPICAL OPTICAL SENSOR CHART
ON SHAWNEE #10 BOILER
("B" SIDE) WITH AND WITHOUT
LIMESTONE INJECTION
10:40 AM
Chart Speed = 2"/Minute
Boiler Load = 143 MW
Coal Ash = 18.3%
Coal Sulfur = 2.7%
Pptr. Eff. = 85.8%
Pptr. Outlet Loading = 0.27 gr/SCF
8:40 AM (July 1, 1970)
Start - Chart Speed = l"/Hour
Limestone Feed Rate = 5.5 Tons/Hour
(NOTE: 0 to 10 millivolts equivalent
to 0 to 5 Ringelmann)
-------
2 of 7
btatEE:
_ Jli_l4±LIl
h
0
•lUijKrm-:..
iMiiii
2 4
MILLIVOLTS
3:20 PM
Normal Coal Firing
Limestone Feed Off
1:20 PM
Boiler Load = 144 MW
Coal Ash = 15.4%
Coal Sulfur = 3.0%
Pptr. Eff. = 78.2%
Pptr. Outlet Loading
=0.42 gr/SCF
11:45 AM
Limestone Feed Rate = 10.0 tons/hour
10:45% AM
Chart Speed = l"/hour
Rapping Loss
10:44 AM (July 1, 1970)
-------
F-153
I ; __'„ _. ... ..i
3 of 7
1:00 AM (July 2, 1970
Normal Coal Firing
During This Period
Boiler Load = 144 MW
8:00 PM
Boiler Load = 144 MW
Coal Ash = 15.3%
Coal Sulfur = 2.8%
Pptr. Eff. = 79.8%
Pptr. Outlet Loading
= 0.26 gr/SCF
4:15 PM (July 1, 1970)
-------
F-154
4 of 7
L_ •
10:00 AM
Normal Coal Firing
Boiler Load = 142 MW
Coal Ash = 17.7%
Coal Sulfur =3.4%
Pptr. Eff. = 91.3%
Pptr. Outlet Loading
=0.13 gr/SCF
6:00 AM
2:00 AM (July 2, 1970)
2 4
MILLIVOLTS
-------
F-155
5 of 7
i ' ! " ~~\
zrzttzzzi:
[ _J
h-— -4' I M iriti
r-r-— t-rrt
• I— -i-H-r
7:00 PM
Normal Coal Firing
During This Period
Limestone Feed Off
2:40 PM
Boiler Load = 144 MW
Coal Ash = 15.9%
Coal Sulfur =2.7%
Pptr. Eff. = 85.3%
Pptr. Outlet Loading =0.32 gr/SCF
Limestone Feed Rate = 9.5 Tons/Hour
12:50 PM
Boiler Load = 143 MW
Coal Ash = 16.1%
Coal Sulfur =3.0%
P!tr. Eff. = 82.7%
Pptr. Outlet Loading =0.26 gr/SCF
Limestone Feed Rate =4.5 Tons/Hour
10:55 AM (July 2, 1970)
0
MILLIVOLTS
-------
F-156
6 of 7
5:00 AM (July 3, 1971)
Normal Coal Firing
During This Period
1:00 AM (July 3, 1970)
Normal Coal Firing
During This Period
8:00 PM (July 2, 1970)
MILLIVOLTS
-------
F-157
7 of 7
,- L :
2 4
MILLIVOLTS
Boiler Soot Blowina
12:00 PM
Normal Coal Firing
During This Period
6:00 AM (July 3, 1970)
-------
F-159
VII. TECHNO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES FOR
MAINTAINING THE STACK EMISSION RATE WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION
EQUIVALENT TO A BASELINE CONDITION OF NO LIMESTONE INJECTION
The baseline conditions for no limestone injection used in this evaluation were determined
by first selecting a coal having between 2.5 and 3.5% sulfur as being typical of that burned
at the Shawnee Station. Then the boiler and electrostatic precipitator operating parameters
were established by averaging test results obtained by the Tennessee Valley Authority in
1970 when this type of sulfur coal was fired. (Table XL summarizes these results.) The
mechanical collector performance was established by averaging test results obtained by
Cottrell Environmental Systems in 1969. (Table V.) The average baseline conditions
obtained in this manner for Shawnee Station were (1) a boiler burning 2.8% sulfur and
15.5% ash coal at a rate of 63.3 tons/hour, resulting in a 141 megawatt load and a flue gas
volume of 570,000 cfm at 309° F having a particulate loading of 3.32 grains/SCF (70° F and
29.9"Hg) at the dust collector inlet; (2) a particulate collection system consisting of a 57.4%
efficient cyclone followed by a 91.3% efficient electrostatic precipitator (precipitation rate
parameter of 0.39 FPS) resulting in an overall efficiency of 96.3% and a stack emission rate
of 0.122 grains/SCF or 412 pounds/hour.
For purposes of this evaluation, an injection stoichiometry of 2.0 moles of CaO/mole S in
the coal was established.
Using the baseline condition of 63.3 tons/hour of 2.8% sulfur coal, a limestone injection
rate of 11.1 tons/hour was calculated.
Five basic alternatives were considered in the techno-economic evaluation, i.e. size
modification of the presently installed dust collecting system, use of a "hot" electrostatic
precipitator, gas cooling ahead of the dust collecting system, gas conditioning ahead of the
dust collecting system, and type of electrical energization for the precipitator.
1. Size Modification of the Presently Installed Dust Collecting System
Examination of the performance data of the mechanical collector without and with
coarse or fine limestone injection shows no significant differences, i.e., the removal
efficiency was essentially unaffected, ranging on the average between 50 and 60%
removal. However, the particulate loading at the mechanical inlet and outlet will vary
with the coal ash content and amount of additive injection. The mechanical
outlet-electrostatic inlet loading, as a function of limestone feedrate, has been shown
previously in Figure 46. The performance of the precipitator is significantly affected
by the particle size of the limestone injected (Table XXX) with the coarse giving the
higher precipitation rate parameter. Accordingly, the overall efficiency and the
-------
TABLE XL
SUMMARY OF 1970 TVA TEST RESULTS USED IN ESTABLISHING
BASELINE BOILER AND PARTICULATE COLLECTOR OPERATING
PARAMETERS FOR NO-LIMESTONE INJECTION
(1)
Test
No.
42
46
50
54
58
61
64
68
72
Avg,
ESP Particulate
Loading (gr/scf)
Inlet
1.446
1.392
1.559
1.465
1.737
1.119
1.449
1 .463
1.119
1.416
Outlet
0.126
0.102
0.099
0.149
0.087
0.097
0.094
0.214
0.129
0.122
ESP
Efficiency
(%)
91.3
92.6
93.7
89.8
94.9
91.6
93.4
85.6
88.5
91.3
Flue Gas
Temp .
(°F.)
316
306
307
310
304
304
310
309
311
309
Gas
Volume _
(ACFMxlO )
306
295
289
285
279
302
294
287
227
285
(2)
Coal Analysis(%)
Sulfur
3.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.6
3.1
2.5
2.5
2.8
Ash
17.7
17.1
14.0
13.7
14.0
13.8
14.2
14.8
20.2
15.5
Pptn.
Rate
Parameter
(FPS)
0.41
0.43
0.37
0.36
0.46
0.42
0.44
0.31
0.27
0.39
Boiler
Load
(MW)
142
142
142
140
142
141
142
140
139
141
Coal
Firing
Rate
(tons/hr)
64.0
64.0
64.0
62.5
64.0
63.0
64.0
62.5
62.0
63.3
CTl
O
(1) Tests run with no limestone injection and a precipitator
sparking rate of about 150/min.
(2) Tests with coal sulfur between 2.5 and 3.5%.
-------
F-161
resulting emission rate from the stack will be a significant function of the electrostatic
precipitator performance and inlet particulate loading only. For purposes of comparing
required size modifications for the baseline no injection, and the coarse or fine
limestone injection cases, it has been assumed that the precipitation rate parameter is
unaffected in the 290 to 310° F flue gas temperature range. Using data contained in
Figures 19 or 46, and Tables XXX or XL, a precipitator size modification and cost
evaluation has been made for the presently installed dust collecting system. Results are
summarized in Table XLI.
The estimated precipitator capital cost (installed) of $5.25/ft2 of collecting plate area
includes the base precipitator flange to flange, support steel, insulation, foundations,
and labor to supervise and install the precipitator. It does not include the ash handling
system and any mark-up for profit which can vary widely, depending upon the vendor.
2. Installation of a "Hot" Precipitator
The use of a straight "hot" precipitator at 600°F (air heater inlet gas temperature)
would eliminate the dust resistivity problem and, whether limestone is injected or not,
the precipitation rate parameter would be constant, e.g., in the range of 0.3 FPS.
Adjusting the baseline gas volume to 600° F and eliminating the mechanical collector
(assume 57.4% efficient on fly ash and 55% efficient on fly ash plus limestone reaction
products), the new precipitator inlet gas volume and particulate loadings would be
788,000 ACFM and 3.32 grains/SCF for no injection, and 6.88 grains/SCF for 2X
stoichiometric injection. On the basis of the above assumptions, a "hot" precipitator
has been sized and costed that would reduce particulate emissions to 0.122 grains/SCF
Results are summarized in Table XLI I.
3. Gas Cooling Ahead of the Dust Collecting System
With an alkaline additive injected into the gas stream which removes most of the sulfur
trioxide by chemical reaction, it is possible to design a dust collecting system to
operate at about 250° F without danger of corrosion due to sulfuric acid condensation.
Since the present system, normally operates about 300°F, it would be necessary to
cool the gas about 50° F. This could be accomplished by the addition of more heat
transfer surface or possibly by injection of atomized water with the added benefit of
moisture conditioning. Table XLI 11 summarizes results of an evaluation using gas
cooling ahead of the dust collecting system.
4. Gas Conditioning Ahead of the Dust Collecting System
The use of conditioning agents, such as sulfur trioxide (sulfuric acid), to reduce dust
resistivity and improve precipitator performance is well known. However, with the
-------
F-162
TABLE XLI
SUMMARY OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR SIZE MODIFICATIONS
AND COSTS FOR THE PRESENTLY INSTALLED DUST COLLECTING
SYSTEM REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A STACK EMISSION RATE
EQUIVALENT TO BASELINE NO-LIMESTONE INJECTION
Condition
Flue Gas Temperature, °F .
Sulfur Feed Rate, tons/hr^ ^
Limestone Feed Rate, tons/hr
Injection Stoichiometry ,
moles CaO/mole S
Gas Volume, ACFM
r 2 ")
Pptr. Inlet Loading, gr/cf J
@ 70F § 29.9"Hg
Pptr. Outlet Loading, gr/cf
@ 70F $ 29.9"Hg
Pptr. Efficiency, %
Power Density, KW/1000 ft2 ^
f 41
Precipitation Rate, FPS^ }
Precipitator Area, Ft
Pptr. Size Factor
X Base Size
Pptr. Capital Cost (Installed)^-5'
$/KW
Baseline No
Limestone
Inj ect ion
309
1 .77
0
0
570,000
1 .416
0.122
91 .3
0.70
0.39
59,400
1 .0
2.21
Coarse
Limestone
Inj ection
309
1 .77
11 .1
2
570,000
3.10
0.122
96.1
0.23
0.36
85,800
1 .45
3 .21
Fine
Limestone
Inj ection
309
1 . 77
11 .1
2
570,000
3. 10
0.122
96.1
0.15
0.16
193,000
3 .25
7.20
(1) Based on 63.3 tons/hr of coal @ 2.8% sulfur.
(2) Taken from Figure 46 or Table XL.
(3) Taken from Figure 19 or Table XXX.
(4) Taken from Table XL or XXX.
(5) Based on a boiler load of 141 megawatts and
precipitator capital cost (installed) as defined
in the text. ($5.25/ft2 collecting plate area).
-------
F-163
TABLE XLII
SUMMARY OF THE "HOT" PRECIPITATOR SIZING
AND COSTING FOR SHAWNEE STATION BOILER #1
WITH AND WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
(Straight Precipitator)
Condition
Flue Gas Temperature, °F .
Sulfur Feed Rate, tons/hr
Limestone Feed Rate, tons/hr
Injection Stoichiometry ,
moles CaO/mole S
Gas Volume, ACFM
Pptr. Inlet Loading, gr/cf
@ 70F § 29.9"Hg
Pptr. Outlet Loading, gr/cf
@ 70F S 29.9"Hg
Precipitator Efficiency, %
Precipitator Rate, FPS
i
2
Precipitator Area, Ft
Precipitator Capital Cost
(installed), $/KW
No Limestone
In j ect ion
600
1 . 77
0
0
788.000
3.32
0. 122
96.3
0.30
144 .500
5 .85
Coarse or Fine
Limestone
In j ect ion
600
1 .77
11 .1
2
788 .000
6 .88
0.122
98. 2
0.30
176.000
7.10
(1) Based on a boiler load of 141 megawatts and
precipitator capital cost (installed) of
$5.70/ft2 collecting plate area.
-------
F-164
TABLE XLIII
SUMMARY OF GAS COOLING AS AN OPTION FOR
COARSE OR FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION
Condition
Flue Gas Temperature, F
Sulfur Feed Rate, Tons/Hour
Limestone Feed Rate, Tons/Hour
Injection Stoichiometry ,
Moles CaO/Mole S
Gas Volume, ACFM
Pptr. Inlet Loading, gr/cf
8 70°F & 29.9"Hg
Pptr. Outlet Loading, gr/cf
@ 70°F § 29.9"Hg
Precipitator Efficiency, %
Power Density, KW/1000 Ft2
Precipitation Rate, FPS
2
Precipitation Area, Ft
Pptr. Capital Cost (Installed) '1'
$/KW
Coarse
Limestone
In j ection
250
1. 77
11. 1
2
526,000
3. 10
0. 122
96. 1
0. 51
0.41
69,300
2.58
Fine
Limestone
In j e ction
250
1. 77
11. 1
2
526,000
3. 10
0.122
96. 1
0. 30
0.31
92,300
3.44
'Based on a boiler load of 141 megawatts
and precipitator capital cost (installed)
of $5.25/ft2 collecting plate area.
-------
F-165
addition of large amounts of alkali, the conditioning effect may be cancelled.
Nevertheless, if the additive surface has been sulfated ahead of the conditioning
injection point, it may still be possible to improve precipitator performance by sulfur
trioxide addition. On this basis, and assuming the precipitation rate with coarse or fine
limestone injection will be improved to the no limestone level, a size and cost of a
precipitator for limestone injection has been determined. At 309° F, with a
precipitation rate of 0.39 FPS and a required efficiency of 96.1% for 570,000 ACFM,
the collecting area is 70,000 ft2 The precipitator capital cost (installed) per kilowatt
generated is $2.94.
5. Electrical Energization of the Precipitator
Basically the precipitator electrical system consists of the electrical load (precipitator),
the power conversion equipment (high voltage power supply), and the power control
equipment (low voltage control). Single stage industrial gas-cleaning precipitators are
generally energized by H-V direct current which is derived from commercial alternating
current power supply lines. Power conversion is accomplished in the H-V power supply
by means of A-C voltage transformation and H-V rectification, usually without ripple
filtering. Precipitator energization is controlled by the L-V control which regulates
electrical input to the H-V power supply. The combination of an H-V power supply and
its associated L-V control is commonly called an electrical set. Most large precipitators
are internally subdivided to provide a number of isolated electrical sections or
collecting zones. These precipitator subdivisions are made longitudinally, transversely,
or in a longitudinal/transverse arrangement in relation to precipitator gas flow stream.
Each section or collecting zone represents a discrete electrical load requiring an
electrical set for energization.
A single-stage precipitator is essentially a gaseous electrical discharge device which in
most cases is operated at pressures close to atmospheric and temperatures ranging from
ambient to several hundred degrees. As such it has a nonlinear voltage-current
characteristic with discontinuities as illustrated in Figure 64. Except for insulator
leakage, negligible current flows until sufficient voltage exists between the discharge
electrode and the collecting electrode to initiate a corona discharge (corona starting
voltage). Increasing the voltage above the corona start point causes precipitator current
to rise sharply until the voltage becomes sufficiently high to cause random, momentary
sparkover "snaps" between the discharge electrode and the collecting surface (sparking
region). At this point the gaseous discharge is highly unstable and can readily transfer
from the sparking mode to the power arc mode. The power arc mode is characterized
by sustained low voltage and heavy currents which are limited only by the power
supply system impedance. The corona region just prior to and slightly into the sparking
-------
F-166
FIGURE 64
TYPICAL PRECIPITATOR VOLTAGE VS CURRENT CHARACTERISTIC
<
"S.
e
0)
fn
h
3
O
Power Arc
I I
Sparking
Region
Corona
Region
Voltage - KV
-------
F-167
region is the useful portion of the precipitator voltage-current characteristic for
particulate collection. Fundamental research has shown that precipitator performance
is initially dependent upon maintaining the highest possible voltage on the precipitator
electrode system. It has also been shown that some benefits are gained by operation
under controlled sparking conditions again due to higher operating voltage. Normally,
the discharge electrode is operated with negative polarity because negative corona
permits higher voltage operation before sparkover than positive polarity.
Basically, the voltage levels required are a function of the precipitator electrode
geometry—including discharge electrode cross-sectional size and shape and the
discharge wire to collecting surface spacing. The current flow, at a given voltage, is a
function of the size of the precipitator section—being dependent upon the discharge
electrode length and collecting surface area. In practice, corona voltage and current
levels are further modified by plant operating conditions such as: type and
concentration, temperature, and pressure; and electrode deposits and alignment.
Actual precipitator electrode configurations are selected to permit stable corona
conditions and relatively high sparking voltages in addition to practical considerations
of durability and economy. Since sparking voltage is generally governed by the closest
discharge electrode to collecting electrode spacing, it has been found that electrical
sectionalization of a large precipitator permits higher operating voltages and reduces
dust loss due to an individual sparkover. Differences in particulate concentration
throughout the precipitator also affect the corona and sparking characteristics. Thus,
sectionalization permits each treating zone to be energized more closely to ideal levels
for the particular zone.
Back corona is a description term applied to a very undesirable gaseous discharge
phenomena which occurs in precipitators treating particulate matter having resistivities
greater than'v-lO10 ohm-cm. Under this condition, a corona discharge occurs on the
dust layer on the collecting electrode as well as the discharge electrode.
With negative polarity, the typical electrical characteristic of the precipitator is
drastically altered by back corona. The sparkover voltage for the precipitator is
lowered to 50% or less than normal and a stable heavy-current, low-voltage discharge
can occur. In this latter case, rated current flows at perhaps 30% or less of the voltage
normally associated with the electrode structure. Needless to say, particulate collection
falls far below design with back corona because of the low interelectrode voltage.
Normal corona on the discharge electrodes appears as sharply defined tufts of light
which lie along straight lines, formed by the wires. The back corona appears as more
diffuse tufts of light randomly spread over the collecting electrode area.
-------
F-168
Traditionally, back corona problems have been alleviated by: reducing participate
resistivity by process change; use of conditioning agents; and increased precipitator
sectionalization. It has been found that back corona conditions can also be solved by
controlling the voltage wave shape. This is possible since a time factor, quite analogous
to that of a capacitor, is involved in the establishment of back corona. Thus, use of
impulse voltages provides means to raise sparkover and peak operating voltage under
back corona conditions.
Radar type pulse systems which provide sharply rising voltage pulses have been
experimentally applied and found advantageous in high-resistivity problem areas.
However, their commercial application has so far been precluded by: general lack of
understanding, economy, apparatus complexity, and certain electrical component
deficiencies.
As previously mentioned, large precipitators are normally subdivided into discrete
electrical sections. Figure 65(a) shows typical precipitator energization arrangements
for a sectionalized precipitator. The Figure 65(b) arrangement is often beneficial since
gas inlet sections tend to operate at lower corona power levels (high voltage, low
current, heavy sparking) as compared to gas outlet sections. Half-wave energization
does have the disadvantage that dissimilar sections cannot be properly energized—the
energization level is limited by the power section. Also it has been found in certain
high-power electrical set arrangements (50 KW or larger sets) that a spark transient
disturbance in one HW section can cause magnetic circuit unbalance which unduly
prolong the disturbance.
During the present test program, all precipitator sections were energized full-wave.
Possible performance improvement might be achieved by moresectionaiization, half-
wave or pulse energization. Additional testing is required to establish this.
-------
FIGURE 65
TYPICAL PRECIPITATOR ENERGIZATION ARRANGEMENTS
Precipitator
Gas
Inlet
-
^mm-
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
" - —I
1
1
1
1
_ _
> *l
Gas
Inlet
Precipi tat or
9999
High Voltage Power Supplie
±
Electrical
I
I
Input
3 Controls — .,
Electrical
Input
i
1
Figure 65(a)
All Sections Full-Wave
Figure 65(b)
Ha 1 f- IV n v o Inlet Sections
FulI-IVavo nutlet Sections
-------
F-171
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the use of dry limestone injection into the boiler hot gases, as a means of
significantly reducing sulfur oxide emissions, appears to be only a stop gap measure useful in
existing power plant boilers, the deleterious affects on electrostatic precipitator
performance are analogous to those experienced when burning low sulfur coals, particularly
the sub-bituminous western coals. In view of this more general problem, it is recommended
that further experimental work be performed.
1. The present test program has clearly shown the effect of corona input power density
on the precipitation rate parameter. The most critical variable that determines corona
power is the particulate resistivity. There are basically four ways of combating high
resistivity, i.e., use of a large precipitator, use of some form of conditoning such as
moisture, ammonia, sulfur trioxide, etc., control the flue gas temperature entering the
precipitator, or change the voltage waveform of electrical energization and/or increase
sectionalization. The first three have been the subject of numerous investigations,
however, the latter, although known to be effective, has never been really investigated
using a carefully planned experimental program. Accordingly, it is recommended that
this be done using full-wave, half-wave and pulse energization along with variations in
sectionalization.
2. The fact that precipitator performance during the special low sulfur coal tests of this
program was as good or better than when firing the higher sulfur coals points out the
need for establishing additional means other than coal sulfur for predicting expected
performance. Recent experimental work by the Bureau of Mines14 has correlated the
ratio of MgO + CaO jn the ash to resistivity. Also, the Na2O of the ash alone appears
Na2O + SO3
to be significant.
It is recommended that experimental work relating precipitator performance to coal
ash and fly ash chemical constituents be performed.
3. Recent state particulate emission codes are establishing stack opacity as a means of
determining compliance. Therefore, it is recommended that further work in
quantifying an optical sensor, such as the Research-Cottrell instrument, be undertaken.
-------
F-173
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Tennessee Valley Authority, Results Report No. 54, "Electrostatic Fly Ash Collector
Performance Test, Shawnee Steam Plant Unit 10," July 9 - August 6, 1969.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Results Report No. 62, "Electrostatic Fly Ash Collector
Performance with Limestone Injection, Shawnee Steam Plant Unit 10," June 9 - July
15, 1970.
2. Southern Research Institute, Final Report to EPA, Office of Air Programs, Contract
CPA70-149, "A Study of Resistivity and Conditioning of Fly Ash," pp.84-96.
3. Walker, A. B., "Effects of Desulfurization Dry Additives on the Design of Coal-Fired
Boiler Particulate Emission Control Systems," paper presented at the 73rd Annual
General Meeting of the CIM, Quebec City, April 1971.
4. Attig, R. C. and Sedor, P., "Additive Injection for Sulfur Dioxide Control A Pilot
Plant Study," B&W Research Center Report 5960, PHS Contract No. 86-67-127.
5. McLean, Kenneth J., "An Evaluation of the Kevatron Model 223 Electrostatic
Precipitator Analyser," July 1971.
6. White, H. J., Industrial Electrostatic Precipitation, Addison Wesley, 1963, LC No.
62-18240.
7. Sproull, W. T., "Laboratory Performance of a Special Two-Stage Precipitator for
Collecting High Resistivity Dust and Fume," American Chemical Society, New York,
N.Y., September 1954.
8. Busby, H. G. T., "Efficiency of Electrostatic Precipitators as Affected by the Properties
and Combustion of Coal," Journal of the Institute of Fuel, May 1963.
9. Lowe, H. J., et al, "The Precipitation of Difficult Dusts," Institute of Electrical
Engineers, Colloquium on Electrostatic Precipitators, February 1965.
10. Robinson, M. and Brown, R. F., Letter to the Editors, "Electrically Supported Liquid
Columns in High-Pressure Electrostatic Precipitators," Atmospheric Environment,
Volume 5, PP. 895-896, 1971.
-------
F-174
11. Southern Research Institute, A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part I
- Fundamentals and Part II - Application Areas, prepared for the NAPCA under
Contract CPA-22-69-73, August 25, 1970.
12. Shepard, J. C., "Field Resistivity Measurements at a Midwest Utility Burning Low
Sulfur Coal" (unpublished Research-Cottrell, Inc., report, August 1972).
13. Pfoutz, B. D., "Precipitator Performance and Sulfur Emission from Pulverized Coal
Fired Boilers with Dolomite Injection" (unpublished Research-Cottrell, Inc. report,
June 1967).
-------
APPENDIX G
Limestone Injection Effects
on Disposal Water Quality
-------
G-l
Introduction
Increased demand for a high quality environment and the resulting influx of new
pollution abatement technology has focused added attention on the management of the
interrelated aspects of land, water, and air pollution control. It is becoming increasingly
important to evaluate the effects of proposed waste control methodologies on the total
environment. An inescapable byproduct of any separation process is the concentrated waste
product and rarely is it possible to develop practical treatment methods for specific waste
occurring in any of the three basic environmental areas without affecting at least one other
area; thus, a program for the assessment of effects on water quality was included in the
initial planning of the full-scale limestone injection project.
Ash Handling System
The Shawnee ash collection and disposal system is typical of many coal-fired
thermal power plants. The ash is removed from the gas stream by mechanical separators and
electrostatic precipitators in series and is then pumped to the ash disposal area. The water
used to sluice collected ash to the disposal area is discharged to a receiving stream, the Ohio
River, after the suspended solids have settled from it. During boiler injection of limestone,
solid reaction products and unreacted lime is removed from the gas stream along with the
fly ash. Unit 10 at Shawnee is equipped with mechanical cyclone separators in series with
electrostatic precipitators. The combined system removes in excess of 98 percent of the fly
ash; 66 percent in the mechanical units and approximately 95 percent of the remaining ash
in the precipitators. (The collection efficiency of the system when limestone is utilized is
discussed in appendix F.) The Shawnee units are equipped with V-type wet bottom hoppers
for the collection of bottom ash and hoppers for collection of the pyrites which are rejected
from the pulverizers. Ash from these hoppers and solids from dust collectors at various
points in the coal-handling system are pumped to a settling pond. The clarified liquid
effluent flows without treatment to the receiving stream, the Ohio River.
The Shawnee Steam Plant discharges an average of 20 million gallons per day from
its ash disposal system. Sluicing from the mechanical collector hoppers accounts for
approximately 30 percent of the flow and electrostatic precipitator sluicing represents
approximately 22 percent. Of the remaining flow, bottom ash sluice is some 21 percent,
pyrite sluice is about 17 percent, and the remaining 10 percent is derived from dust
collectors, line cleaning, and miscellaneous flows. Since the portion of the injected
limestone that is removed from the gas stream is collected by the mechanical and
electrostatic collectors, only these require significant additional sluice flow.
Waste products from the limestone injection system affect the waste disposal system
in three ways: (1) they increase the quantity of liquid effluent because additional flow is
required to sluice the added volume of waste products; (2) they increase the amount of
suspended solid waste and alter its settling characteristics; and (3) they alter the quality of
the disposal pond water.
-------
G-2
Evaluation Program
Objectives
The program for the evaluation of the effects of limestone injection on the plant ash
disposal system, and subsequently on the environment, was designed to define the changes
in overall quality of water being discharged from the system and to determine the increased
quantity of sluice water required and the increased solids loading on the ash settling pond.
Specifically the objectives of the evaluation program were:
1. To evaluate quantitatively the effects on water quality of the various limestone
types injected.
2. To estimate the potential effects on the water quality of receiving streams from a
multi-unit or large-scale limestone injection installation.
3. To determine the increase in quantity of water required to transport the increased
solid wastes and to estimate the effect of the increased discharge on water quality of
receiving streams.
4. To determine the increase of solid waste produced due to limestone injection and to
estimate the effect of this increase on land use.
5. To evaluate the effects on the settling characteristics of ash contained in sluice
water.
The water quality sampling portion of the program was designed specifically to
provide the necessary data to (1) identify resulting water quality changes due to limestone
injection, (2) determine, if possible, the correlation between input variables and resulting
water quality alteration, and (3) determine the potential degradation of receiving streams.
Methodology
Table 1 outlines the sample parameters determined at the onset of the evaluation
program, along with the methods and equipment used. Subsequent to the initial sampling,
an emission spectrographic analysis was made of an ash sluice sample from a unit without
limestone injection and one collected from unit 10 during injection. Table 2 lists the
constituents identified in each analysis. The identification of the elements listed is positive;
however, the quantitative measurements are only approximations. Analysis of several
parameters was added to the program following review of the spectrographic results and
these are shown in Table 3, together with a list of heavy metals and trace elements which
were scheduled for periodic determination during the long-term test phase. Curtailment of
that testing period limited the amount of trace element data obtained.
Since only unit 10 was utilized for limestone injection it was necessary to isolate, for
sampling purpose's, the sluicing operations of this unit from the other units of the plant.
Also, it was necessary to determine the effect of limestone injection on each type of
collector sluicing to provide a basis for projection of the data. Similar sampling was
conducted on units other than 10 to provide baseline or background concentration for
normal ash sluicing.
-------
G-3
Table 1
Sample Program
Sample
Parameter
Calcium
Hardness
Magnesium
Dissolved Solids~
Suspended Solids
Sulfate
Sulfite
PH
Alkalinity
Conductance
Color
Chloride
Iron
Manganese
Silica
Method
Specific Ion Electrode
with EDTA Titration
Specific Ion Electrode
with EDTA Titration
EDTA Titration (Using a
Magnesium Indicator)
or by difference
C onduc t ime t r i c
Gravimetric
Turbidimetric
Titration with Sodium
Thiosulfate (Starch
Indicator)
Electrometric
Titration (.02N H2SO^)
Conductimetric
Visual Comparison using
Platinum-Colbalt Standards
Specific Ion Electrode
Titration with Silver
Nitrate
Atomic Absorption
Atomic Absorption
Technicon Auto-Analyzer
Equipment
Orion Meter No.
Electrode Model 92-20
Orion Meter No,
Electrode Model 92-32
Burette and Reagents
Dissolved Solids Meter
Balance, Matched
Filters, Oven
Turbidimeter
Burette and Reagents
pH Meter and Buffers
pH Meter, Burette
and Reagents
Conductivity Meter
Matched Nessler Tubes
Orion Meter No.
Electrode Model
Water Quality Laboratory
Chattanooga
Water Quality Laboratory
Chattanooga
Water Quality Laboratory
Chattanooga
-------
G-4
Table 2
Spectrographic Analysis of Ash Sluice Water
Element Found
Calcium
Iron
Aluminum
Silicon
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Titanium
Manganese
Zinc
Tin
Copper
Silver
Strontium
Vanadium
Molybdenum
Gallium
Mercury
Lead
Boron
Nickel
Barium
Chromium
Phosphorus
Mechanical Collector,
Unit 7
No Limestone
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Trace Constituent
Minor Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Wot Detected
Trace Constituent
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Not Detected
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Mechanical Collector,
Unit 10
Limestone Test kA
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent
Major Constituent (-)*
Major Constituent (-)*
Major Constituent (-)*
Major Constituent (-)*
Minor Constituent
Minor Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent**
Trace Constituent**
Trace Constituent
Trace Constituent
*Less than other major components, but more than minor quantities.
-^-Quantity is at the lower limit of detection for emission spectrograph.
-------
G-5
Table 3
Sample Program
Sample
Parameter
Sodium
Potassium
Aluminum
Silver
Lead
Barium
Mercury
Copper
Arsenic
Cadmium
Method
Routine Analysis
Atomic Absorption
Atomic Absorption
Colormetric Aluminon
Equipment
Water Quality Laboratory
Chattanooga
Water Quality Laboratory
Chattanooga
Water Quality Laboratory
Chattanooga
Heavy Metals - Trace Elements
Atomic Absorption
Atomic Absorption
Atomic Absorption
Acid Digestion - Flameless
Atomic Absorption
Atomic Absorption
Colormetric SDDC
(Standard Methods)
Atomic Absorption
Water Quality
Chattanooga
Water Quality
Chattanooga
Water Quality
Chattanooga
Water Quality
Chattanooga
Water Quality
Chattanooga
Water Quality
Chattanooga
Water Quality
Chattanooga
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
-------
G-6
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the sampling locations. Most of the samples
were collected from locations 1 and 1A. The required isolation of unit 10 necessitated
sampling directly from the sluice pipe outlet rather than the pond and obtaining comparable
background data made sampling from normal ash removal'operations on other unit pipe
outlets mandatory. Location 2 indicates the source of the ash pond discharge samples and
location 3 shows the placement of the ash pond monitor for pH and conductivity. Mean
values of all data collected from locations 1, 1A, and 2 have been tabulated and are
presented throughout this report. Examples of the computer printout formats for the types
of data stored are shown at the end of this appendix.
Waste Quantities
The increase in solid and liquid waste caused by the injection of limestone was
determined from theoretical projections and plant sluice flow records. Although
measurement of the nonfilterable or undissolved solids in the sluice flow gives an indirect
measurement of the added solid waste produced, it seemed desirable to use theoretical
factors since (1) the lowered efficiency of the electrostatic precipitator during limestone
injection lowers the solid waste collected and thus the measurable quantity in the sluice
flow, and (2) sluicing operations produce a pulsing, nonuniform flow of highly variable
solids content.
Figure 2 shows the theoretical increase in solid waste produced as a function of
stoichiometric limestone injected for the assumed SO2 removal efficiencies. This figure also
shows the theoretical increase in sluice flow required assuming the same concentration of
solids in the ash-limestone sluice as in the ash sluice.
The actual ash burden and sluice flows shown on figure 2 were projected to a
stoichiometry of 1 and a 20 percent SO2 removal from actual test conditions. The ash
burden is less than the theoretical because of factors already discussed. The sluice flow is
affected by these factors also; however, the flow is further lessened by the increased
concentration of solids in the ash-limestone sluice from the electrostatic precipitators during
limestone injection. The average solids in the sluice water during normal operations is about
1.2 percent. Sluice flow from the mechanical and electrostatic precipitators contains more
solids than the discharge from the other sources, averaging about 1.5 percent. Similar
sampling of the sluice water from unit 10 shows that significantly more solids are suspended
in the water from the electrostatic precipitator hoppers during limestone injection tests than
during normal operation. The average solids content is 2.5 percent, an increase of 67
percent. The solids content of the mechanical collector sluice water shows no such increase.
Because of the higher density, less than the calculated flow is sufficient for limestone
injection. It is assumed that addition of limestone products allows the ash-mix to flow from
the hoppers more easily; however, this was not further investigated.
Theoretical increases in sluice flow were used to project water quality data to
full-scale conditions. Figure 2 shows that for the Shawnee plant this is not greatly different
from actual conditions. The quantity of water discharged from the ash sluice system of
-------
Figure 1
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING LOCATIONS
From
collection
system -
Sluice
Pipe
SAMPLE POINT
Pond
Overflow
Pond
Outlet
SAMPLE POINT
2
o
SAMPLE POINT
3
To Ohio River
SAMPLE POINT I - Unit 10 Pipe Outlet - Limestone Injection
SAMPLE POINT IA-Unltsl-9 Pipe Outlets - No Injection, Background Only
-------
550
500 -
O-ACTUAL ASH BURDEN - SHAWNEE
A-ACTUAL SLUICE FLOW-SHAWNEE
§ 450
o
o
z
o
to
o
O
Q.
UJ
O
CE
^
m
400
350
30°
250
200
3.57o SULFUR
I 27o ASH
207o S02 REMOVAL AT 1.0 STOICHIOM ETRY
357o S02 REMOVAL AT 2.0 STOICHIOMETRY
1.0
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO: LIMESTONE FEED
2.0
THEORETICAL TOTAL ASH BURDEN AND SLUICE FLOW
LIMESTONE INJECTION
4.4
4.0
o
o
3.6 u-
o
z
p
V.
w
3.2
o
_J
_J
<
o
2.8
2.4
o
5
2.0
1.6
9
00
Figure 2
-------
G-9
coal-fired electric power generating plants is dependent on the type of fuel-feed system, the
percent ash in the coal, the type of ash collection system, the efficiency of the collection
system, the type of pumping system and quantity of coal burned. The following data
tabulation is taken from a review of typical plants of the pulverized fuel type:
Ash Collector Efficiency Percent Ash Average Flow
System of System in Coal Gals./Ton Coal
Mechanical 60-68 11-lU lUOO-1600
Electrostatic Precipitators 90-98 11-lU 1500-1900
Mechanical-Electrostatic 96-98 11-lU 1500-2200
Much of these data are based on flows obtained from pump records and may vary
from the actual flow by as much as 20 percent, but do indicate the approximate magnitude
of sluice water discharged. The Shawnee Steam Plant discharges an average sluice flow of
about 1,600 gallons per ton of coal burned.
Results
Background Water Quality
Sampling of ash sluice for the development of background or baseline information
on units generating with no limestone injection resulted in obtaining 104 separate samples
on which over 1,500 determinations were made. Table 4 lists the concentrations of various
parameters for each type of sluice. While individual samples exhibit some variation within
the types of sluice, the variation from type to type is much greater.
A composite mixture of presumed conservative chemical parameters, based on
weighted flows, should represent the pond effluent quality with respect to these parameters.
(Table 5 shows the Ohio River intake water quality analysis used in this determination.)
With the exception of calcium, hardness, and dissolved solids, all interrelated parameters,
the computed composite values are not significantly different from the values obtained from
analysis of pond effluent samples (figure 1, location 2 ) shown in table 6. The actual
differences are essentially all due to the variation in calcium concentrations. The calcium
concentrations from the sluice pipes were from 15 to 25 percent higher than concentrations
at the pond outlet, indicating a loss of calcium from precipitation, adsorption or other
mechanisms. Table 6 also includes some concentration data for parameters not included in
table 4. These determinations were not made on individual sluice types except during
limestone injection.
A continuous conductivity recorder, Delta Scientific Model 3314, and a recording
battery-operated pH meter, Photovolt Aquacord Model 130, were used to monitor the ash
pond effluent for 28 days (figure 1, location 3). The mean three-hour pH was 11,5 and
values ranged from 11.2 to 12.4. The three-hour mean conductivity was 1200 M mhos and
the range was 900 to 1700. The values were within ± .2 pH units and ± 10 percent of the
conductivity of instantaneous grab sample values.
-------
G-10
Table
Sluice Water Quality
Parameter
pH Su
Phen Alk CaCOo mg/1
T Alk CaCOo mg/1
Residue Total mg/1
Residue Tot Fit mg/1
Tot Hard CaCOo mg/1
Calcium Ca mg/1
Mgnsium Mg mg/1
Chloride Cl mg/1
Cnductvy At2C micromho
Silica SiCvj mg/1
Sodium Na mg/1
Ptssium K mg/1
Mangnese Mn ug/1
Iron Total ug/1
Iron Ferrous ug/1
Zinc Zn ug/1
Aluminum Al ug/1
Color PT-CO Units
Turb JKSN JU
Sulfate SOi,. mg/1
Sulfite SOo, mg/1
ase Test (Baseline Data)
No Limestone Injection)
Mean Concentration
Type 1
9.9
102
156
1*1072
603
310
202.3
101.7
10
8UU
7-2
32.00
17- 5U
1223
1*8035
310
2572
lUll
6
106
2U7
2.30
Type 2
11.3
525
51k
13665
2001*
657
U2U.3
233.1
9
2**0l*
7-9
17.88
11.00
2l*5l*
U2678
762
1308
5
71
177
2.20
Type 3
10.0
83
13U
505U
U68
309
239-0
70.0
8
680
8.1
1313
23666
7
70
130
1.25
Type h
8.5
26
71*
853
208
176
131-5
UU.7
7
2^5
5.9
20
600
20
50
U3
.7*
Type 1 - Electrostatic Precipitators
Type 2 - Mechanical Collectors
Type 3 - Bottom Ash
Type U - Pyrite
-------
G-ll
Table 5
Intake Water Quality
Shawnee Steam Plant
Ohio River Mile 9^5.5
Cone
Parameter Mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen 6.0
pH 8.0
Alkalinity (Pheno) 0
Alkalinity (Total) 59-0
Hardness (CaC03) 59-0
Calcium 17.0
Magnesium ^.0
Iron (Total) 1.1
Dissolved Solids 180.0
Total Solids 230.0
Sulfate • 15 - 0
Conductance (M Mohs) 160.0
-------
G-12
Table 6
Baseline Concentration
Ash Pond Overflow
Parameter
pH Su
Phen Alk CaCOo mg/1
T Alk CaCOo mg/1
Residue Total mg/1
Residue Tot Fit mg/1
Tot Hard CaCO^ mg/1
Calcium CaCOo mg/1
Mgnsium CaCOo mg/1
Chloride Cl mg/1
Conductivy At2^C micromho
Silica Si02 mg/1
Sodium Na mg/1
Ptssium K mg/l
Mangnese Ma ug/1
Iron Total ug/1
Copper Cu ug/1
Zinc Zn ug/1
Silver Ag ug/1
Barium Ba ug/1
Aluminum Al ug/1
Color PT-CO Units
Turb JKSN JU
Sulfate SO^ mg/1
Sulfite SOo mg/1
Nitrate NOo mg/1
Phosphate PO^ mg/1
Mercury Hg ug/1
Cadmium Cd ug/1
Lead Pb ug/1
Titanium Ti ug/1
Chromium Cr ug/1
Arsenic As ug/1
Mean
11.2
188
218
869
798
375
2U6.1
136.6
11
1085
6.U
13.00
6.12
10
188
21
176
262
5
6
133
2.03
.05
100 <
50<
60
-------
G-13
Since the composite of individual sluice types was reasonably representative of the
pond effluent, the individual types with limestone injection could be compared to the
corresponding type without injection. The actual effect of limestone injection was thus
determined by type. For projection of limestone effect on full-scale installations, a
composite was used.
Although the hardness concentration and total dissolved solids (total filterable
residue) of the normal ash pond discharge exceed generally desirable water quality
concentration even prior to limestone injection, only the pH exceeds generally established
effluent guidelines. The pH of this discharge will, however, meet stream standards since the
Ohio River provides ample dilution to reduce the pH to acceptable limits beyond a very
short mixing zone. Thus, prior to the limestone injection, the ash sluice discharge is, with
the exception of pH, acceptable for release to the river under regulations presently existing
in most areas of the country.
Water Quality; Limestone Injection
Sampling Program
During limestone injection 105 samples of ash-limestone sluice water were collected
from location 1 (figure 1) and over 2,100 individual analyses were made. This sampling of
each type of sluicing operaton, electrostatic, mechanical, bottom ash, and pyrite, was
grouped according to test phase. The data designated Actual Test were collected during
Phase I and II of the test program, Prec. Test during the precipitator testing, and the
Aragonite, Marl, and Long-Term designations are self-explanatory. The separation of the
precipitator test phase from the initial test phases is a matter of record keeping and the
separation of data has no analytical significance. Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 show the mean
concentration values for each sample phase.
Data Analyses
In analyzing resulting concentration data, an attempt was made to correlate certain
parameter concentrations with 'test input variables that obviously should affect the water
quality to some degree. However, since the test program had demonstrated that variation of
controlled and uncontrolled process variables were difficult to correlate with test results and
since the sluice water quality is affected by other factors such as constituent solubilities,
influent water quality, unreacted products and sluice flow density, meaningful correlations
were not greatly expected. Figures 3, 4, and 5 are computer printouts of linear correlation
analysis of limestone feedrate vs soluble calcium, limestone feedrate vs total dissolved solids.
stoichiometry vs soluble sulfate, respectively. These examples indicate that no significant
correlation exists, or more meaningful, that no significant correlation can be determined.
Brief attempts at correlation by nonlinear and multivariate analysis proved equally
nonproductive, and correlation analysis was not further investigated.
The lack of input-output correlation does not, however, negate the value of the data
for determination of the general level of water quality effects from limestone injection or
-------
G-14
Table 7
Sluice Water Quality
Limestone Injection (Actual Test)
Mean Concentration
Parameter
pH Su
Phen Alk CaCCL mg/1
T Alk CaCOo mg/1
Residue Total mg/1
Residue Tot Fit mg/1
Tot Hard CaCCU mg/1
Calcium Ca mg/1
Mgnsium Mg mg/1
Chloride Cl mg/1
Cnductvy At2^C micromho
Silica SiOo mg/1
Sodium, Na mg/1
Ptssium K mg/1
Mangnese Mn ug/1
Iron Total ug/1
Zinc Zn ug/1
Color PT-CO Units
Turb JKSH JU
Sulfate SO^ mg/1
Sulfite SOo mg/1
Aluminum Al ug/1
Limestone Type BCR No.
Average Stoichio
SC-2 Fly Ash Bioloutl % By Wt.
S02 in Bot Ash % By Wt .
Limestone Feedrate lb/lb Coal
Type 1
12.2
2179
2338
35233
UU60
2362
1179.3
1187.3
63
11*073
2.7
57.16
96.66
97
5577
835
5
116
U72
15.78
5000
2061
2.09
U.02
2.35
.1U
Type 2
12. U
2360
2U86
23777
12116
2566
1311.1
1261.1
UO
15677
2.0
36.66
55.50
81
30U5
218
5
120
288
12.27
1180
2061
2.0U
U.02
2.55
.1U
Type 3
11.2
53U
597
1*136
1991
793
U08.8
382.7
10
25^5
5.7
1^.66
6.80
362
12581
27^
6
8U
165
5.88
132
2061
2.00
U.OU
2.U1
.lU
Type h
9.2
23
8U
728
188
213
163.3
50.0
9
310
3.5
12
70
U8
5.83
2061
2.99
3.22
.50
.15
Type 1 - Electrostatic Precipitators
Type 2 - Mechanical Collectors
Type 3 - Bottom Ash
Type h - Pyrite
-------
. G-15
Table 8
Sluice Water Quality
Limestone Injection (Precipitator Test)
Mean Concentration
Parameter
pH Su
Phen Alk CaCOo mg/1
T Alk CaCOo mg/1
Residue Total mg/1
Residue Tot Fit mg/1
Tot Hard CaCOo mg/1
Calcium Ca mg/1
Mgnsium Mg mg/1
Chloride Cl mg/1
Cnductvy At2,-C micromho
Silica Si02 mg/1
Color PT-CO Units
Turb JKSN JU
Sulfate SO^ mg/1
Sulfite SOo mg/1
Limestone Type BCR No.
Average Stoichio
S02 Fly Ash Boil Outl % By Wt.
S02 in Bot Ash % By Wt.
Limestone Feedrate Ib/lb Coal
Type 1
11.1*
875
1003
22666
3683
1093
866.6
226.6
15
5033
6.7
7
101
1*53
3.83
2061
1.67
;. 3.6i
.50
L .12
Type 2
11.9
2150
2266
19333
91*50
1733
883.3
850.0
21
12700
1.3
5
93
253
8.00
206l
1.67
3.6l
• 50
.12
Type 3
11.1
379
1*50
3l*U8
11*33
735
558.3
176.6
12
2223
1*.6
6
75
178
7-50
2061
1.67
3.6l
.50
.12
Type 1 - Electrostatic Precipitators
Type 2 - Mechanical Collectors
Type 3 - Bottom Ash
-------
G-16
Table 9
Sluice Water Quality
Limestone Injection
(Aragonite and Mich Marl)
Mean Concentration
Parameter
pH Su
Phen Alk CaCOo mg/1
T Alk CaCO.. mg/1
Residue Total mg/1
Residue Tot Fit mg/1
Tot Hard CaCOo mg/1
Calcium Ca mg/1
1-lgnsium Mg mg/1
Chloride Cl mg/1
Cnductvy At2^C micromho
Silica Si02 mg/1
Sodium Wa mg/1
Ptssium K mg/1
Mangnese Mn ug/1
Iron Total ug/1
Zinc Zn ug/1
Aluminum Al ug/1
Color PT-CO Units
Turb JKSN JU
Sulfate SO^ mg/1
Sulfite SO-} mg/1
Limestone Type BCR No.
Average Stoichio
S02 Fly Ash Boil Outl % By Wt.
S02 in Bot Ash % By Wt.
Limestone Feedrate Ib/lb Coal
Aragonite
Type 1 Type 2
Mich Marl
Type 1 Type 2
11.3
238
298
169^0
1220
9>+0
750.0
190.0
26
1^30
10.6
37.80
15.70
lUUo
132600
5960
1660
7
lUo
382
5.60
1683
2.97
3.12
.2k
12. U
23^8
2U36
21360
98^0
3020
2600.0
17
107^0
5.U
15.81*
19.00
336
19396
662
12^0
6
125
272
13-20
1683
2.97
3.12
.2U
12.2
1933
2020
koooo
9600
1800
800.0
1000.0
>+5
10866
16.5
58.00
87.00
520
3200
1630
8
116
U70
9.00
2129
2.16
3.7^
.Uo
12.0
1773
1823
25000
9033
3300
2U25.0
875.0
1U
10513
2.5
15.50
2U.OO
UlUo
7550
1U70
8
108
333
5.83
2129
2.16
3-7U
.Uo
Type 1 - Electrostatic Precipitators
Type 2 - Mechanical Collectors
-------
G-17
Table 10
Sluice Water Quality
Limestone Injection (Long-Term)
Mean Concentration
Parameter
mg/1
pH Su
Phen Alk CaCO
T Alk CaC0
Residue Total mg/1
Residue Tot Fit mg/1
Tot Hard CaCO^ mg/1
Calcium CaCOo mg/1
Mgnsium CaCCU mg/1
Chloride Cl mg/1
Cnductvy At2cC micromho
Silica Si02 mg/1
Sodium Na mg/1
Ptssium K mg/1
Mangnese Mn ug/1
Iron Total ug/1
Copper Cu ug/1
Zinc Zn ug/1
Silver Ag ug/1
Barium Ba ug/1
Color PT-CO Units
Chromium Cr ug/1
Turb JKSN JU
Sulfate SO, mg/1
Sulfite SCT mg/1
Mercury Hg^ug/1
Nitrite N02-N mg/1
Nitrate NOg-N mg/1
Arsenic As ug/1
Cadmium Cd ug/1
Lead Pb ug/1
Aluminum Al ug/1
Titanium Ti ug/1
Type 1
12. h
2300
2klh
17571
111U2
Uo85
3UU2.8
6U2.8
9
12685
1-9
15.57
U2.00
25^2
1U2000
512
^771
50
3500
9
680
157
885
10. lU
3-7
.01
.Itl
Type 2
12.3
1938
2023
17190
875U
3072
2677.2
395-^
16
10827
2.0
10. UU
1U.83
31^5
70777
2U5
1775
65
3000
5
725
93
U92
7-27
.U
.01
.5^
90
590
3^33
27
83
110
Uoo
1116
13
Type 1 - Electrostatic Precipitators
Type 2 - Mechanical Collectors
-------
G-18
LIMESTONE INJECTION
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR DISCHARGE
X = Limestone Feedrate (Lbs/lbs Coal)
Y = Calcium as CaCO /10
VARIABLE
X
Y
MEAN
0.1UU667
117.933
VARIANCE
8.U0952E-1*
5178.92
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
TOTAL
REGRESSION
ERROR
D. F.
Ik
1
13
INDEX OF DETERMINATION
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
F-RATIO TEST STATISTIC
PARAMETER
A
B
X-ACTUAL
0.15
O.lU
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.07
0.1
O.lU
O.lU
0.15
0.15
VALUE
60.98U2
393.658
Y-ACTUAL
33
5U
260
120
32
120
90
90
ho
90
70
200
200
170
200
STD DEVIATION
2.89992E-2
71.96U7
MEAN
SQUARE
5178.92
182U.U7
5U36.96
SUM OF
SQUARES
72501*. 9
182U.U7
70680.5
2.5163UE-2
0.15863
0.335568
95 PCT CONFIDENCE LIMITS
-155.855 277-82U
-1077.89 1865.21
Y-CALC
120.033
116.096
131.81*3
131.81*3
127.906
112.16
120.033
120.033
127.906
88.51*02
100.35
116.096
116.096
120.033
120.033
95 PCT PREDICTION LIMITS
•1*5. 0609
•U6.9537
•1*1.0672
•1*1.0672
•1*1.1623
•5U.1537
•1*5.0609
•1*5.0609
.1*1.1623
•109.619
•77.1738
•U8.9537
•1*8.9537
•1*5.0609
•1*5.0609
285.127
281. lU6
30U. 75 2
30l*.752
296.97!*
278.1*73
285.127
285.127
296.97!*
286.699
277 . 87!*
281. lU6
281. 1U6
285.127
285.127
Figure 3
-------
G-19
LIMESTONE INJECTION
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR DISCHARGE
X = Limestone Feedrate (Lbs/lbs Coal)
Y = Total Dissolved Solids
VARIABLE
X
Y
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
TOTAL
REGRESSION
ERROR
MEAN
0.1UU667
35233.3
D. F.
1
13
VARIANCE
INDEX OF DETERMINATION
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
F-RATIO TEST STATISTIC
PARAMETER
A
B
X-ACTUAL
0.15
O.lU
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.07
0.1
O.lU
O.Ik
0.15
0.15
VALUE
3205^.9
21970.5
Y-ACTUAL
11*000
26000
36000
1*8000
61*000
1*0000
33000
19000
20000
38500
39000
39000
28000
56000
28000
STD DEVIATION
2.89992E-2
13691*. 2
MEAN
SQUARE
1.87531E+8
5.68303E+6
2.01519E+8
1.87531E+8
SUM OF
SQUARES
2.625l*3E+9
5.68303E+6
2.61975E+9
2.l61*6E-3
U.65253E-2
2.82009E-2
95 PCT CONFIDENCE LIMITS
-9691.1*3 73801.3
-261335. 305276.
Y-CALC
35350.5
35130.8
36009.6
36009.6
35789.9
31*911
35350
35350
'35789.9
33592.9
3^252.
35130.8
35130.8
35350.5
35350.5
95 PCT PREDICTION LIMITS
3566.35
3355.06
2720.7
2720.7
321*0.57
2892.12
3566.35
3566.35
32U0.57
4557.1
7^.7705
3355.06
3355.06
3566.35
3566.35
6713^.7
66906.5
69298.6
69298.6
68339.3
66930.1
6713U.7
6713^.7
68339.3
7171*2.8
68U29.2
66906.5
66906.5
6713U.7
6713^.7
Figure 4
-------
G-20
LIMESTONE INJECTION
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR DISCHARGE
X = Stoichiometry
Y = Sulfate (as S
VARIABLE
X
Y
MEAN
2.1986T
472
VARIANCE
0.924884
2T517.1
SOURCE OF
VARIATION
TOTAL
REGRESSION
ERROR
D. F.
Ik
1
13
INDEX OF DETERMINATION
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
F-RATIO TEST STATISTIC
PARAMETER
A
B
X-ACTUAL
1.
1.
3.
3.
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
58
68
91
91
02
18
87
87
03
88
43
VALUE
316.25
70.8382
Y-ACTUAL
270
360
410
620
860
380
390
1*00
.380
500
51*0
750
350
550
320
STD DEVIATION
o. 961709
165.883
MEAN
SQUARE
27517-1
64975-7
24635.7
SUM OF
SQUARES
38521*0
64975.7
320264.
0.168663
0.410686
2.63746
95 PCT CONFIDENCE LIMITS
90.7959 541.705
-23.6l6l 165.293
Y-CALC
1*28.175
1*35-259
593.228
593.228
601.02
1*70.678
1*1*8.718
1*48.718
488.387
389.214
449.426
417.549
417.549
449.426
449.426
95 PCT PREDICTION LIMITS
72.3144
80.8268
206.769
206.769
210.102
119.644
96.3181
96.3181
136.678
21.2371
97.1085
59.0896
59.0896
97.1085
97.1085
784.035
789.69
979.686
979.686
991.938
821.712
801.118
801.118
840.096
757.19
801.744
776.008
776.008
801.744
801.744
Figure 5
-------
G-21
for the projection of these effects to full-scale installations for problem definition. Figures 6
and 7 are examples of the distribution with a single population mean. The assumption of a
single population mean is, of course, not valid; however, the data fit was sufficient to allow
the use of mean values for definition and projection of effects. (Refer to the corresponding
example data printout sheets at the end of this appendix for the range of input values
covered by this group analysis.)
Injection Effects
Results of the extensive water quality determinations indicate that the most
significant major quantity parameters affected are pH, dissolved solids concentration and
hardness. In addition, the sulfate and magnesium concentrations and alkalinity are greatly
increased. Table 11 shows the increase in concentrations of each of these parameters. The
total effect is even greater, however, since the total quantity of aqueous waste from these
sluice operations is also increased by the increased flow. The total soluble calcium
concentration is somewhat higher than anticipated as is the total soluble magnesium, which
is quite soluble as MgSO4.
The pH of the sluice is elevated slightly; however, it is highly buffered in the range
above 10 due to the added calcium. The most significant effect of this added alkalinity is to
require much more dilution in the stream for neutralization or to require large quantities of
additional acid if treatment is utilized. Figure 8 shows the acid required for neutralization of
the sluice with and without limestone injection.
Comparison of the sluice data obtained during the long-term phase with that
obtained during short-term runs indicates that the calcium and hardness concentrations were
somewhat increased in the long-term run. (See tables 7 and 10.) The long-term data also
fluctuated less widely. The average feedrates and stoichiometry were similar during each run
and the same limestone type was used. The resulting higher concentration may be due to
more stable sluicing operations when limestone is used fully during all hours of the day;
however, this cannot be fully substantiated since insufficient data were obtained during the
long-term phase. All projections aVe based on the earlier test data.
Comparison of the sluice water during injection of the Fredonia Valley stone, BCR
2061, with sluice during Aragonite, BCR 1683, and Michigan Marl, BCR 2129,
indicates that there are not significant differences in quality. Both aragonite and marl sluice
are somewhat higher in soluble magnesium, sodium, and potassium and lower in calcium
than the Fredonia stone. The calcium and dissolved solids data from the electrostatic
precipitators during aragonite testing appears extremely low and since the mechanical
collector sluice shows no such unusual variation, the validity of the precipitator data as a
representative sample is questionable.
Projection of the sluice data to full-scale utilization at Shawnee at low Ohio River
flows indicates that no present stream standards should be exceeded. Projections are based
on a composite analysis of the concentrations (indicated as actual test) weighted by
theoretical flows for each type of sluice. A river flow of 48,100 cubic feet per second (cfs)
-------
G-22
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION
Actual Test
Electrostatic Precipitators
Residue - Tot Fit
MANDSD
VERSION 11/02/70
ARITHMETIC MEM, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION
INDIVIDUAL SET NUMBER 1
SAMPLE VALUES:
2200 U900 8800 13000 18000 10000 13000 UOOO 7600
1U800 7600 18000 lUOOO 21*000 12000
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF POPULATION PARAMETERS
NUMBER OF VALUES = 15
ARITHMETIC MEAN = 11U60
STANDARD DEVIATION = 5708.92
SAMPLE VARIANCE = 3.25917E+7
UNBIASED ESTIMATES OF POPULATION PARAMETERS
ARITHMETIC MEAN = 11U60
STANDARD DEVIATION = 5909-29
VARIANCE = 3-U9197E+7
Figure 6
-------
G-23
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION
Actual Test
Mechanical Collectors
Calcium ' CACO (mg/1 ' 102)
MANDSD
VERSION 11/02/70
ARITHMETIC MEAN, VARIANCE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION
INDIVIDUAL SET NUMBER 1
SAMPLE VALUES:
lU 16 2.U 22 12 18 9.2 8.U 11 10 10 It 7
16 llj- 16 20 26
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF POPULATION PARAMETERS
NUMBER OF VALUES = 18
ARITHMETIC MEAN = 13.1111
STANDARD DEVIATION = 5-96628
SAMPLE VARIANCE = 35-5965
UNBIASED ESTIMATES OF POPULATION PARAMETERS
ARITHMETIC MEAN = 13-1111
STANDARD DEVIATION = ,6.13926
VARIANCE = 37.6905
Figure 7
-------
G-24
Type of
Sluice
Mechanical
Mechanical
Mechanical
Mechanical
Mechanical
Mechanical
Mechanical
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Table 11
Sluice Water Quality
Limestone Injection
Parameter
Ca
Mg
Hardness
pH
Total Alkalinity
sou
Total Dissolved Solids
Ca
Mg
Hardness
PH
Total Alkalinity
sok
Total Dissolved Solids
Mean
Concentration
1311*
1261*
2560*
12. h**
2U86
288
12,116
1179*
1187*
2362* '
12.U**
2338
U72
11,U60
% of Mean
Concentration of
Normal Operation
310
390
Not applicable
U30
165
600
585
1180
760
Not applicable
1500
190
1900
* As CaCO,
** Median Value; Units
-------
14
1
12
10
8
x
Q.
— WITHOUT LIMESTONE
WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION ADDED
9
r\3
en
25ml SAMPLE
J_
J_
_L
10 20 30 40 50 60
Ml 1/50 N H2S04
70
80
90
100
ACID TITRATION-MECHANICAL COLLECTOR SLUICE
Figure 8
-------
G-26
was used as is required for maximum concentration analysis by the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission for this portion of the Ohio River. The allowable concentrations are
based on the following maximum in the stream: dissolved solids, 500 mg/l; sulfates, 150
hardness, 25 percent rise up to 150 mg/l; pH 9.0. These represent no particular set of
standards but are levels often recommended or used by regulatory agencies as limits or
guidelines. The most significant factor in this evaluation, however, is the very large flow of
water past the Shawnee plant, even at critically low flows. The ratio of critical stream flow
level, in cubic feet per second, to plant output, in megawatts, for Shawnee is 27.5. This is an
extremely high ratio. In a survey of some 25 coal-fired steam plants the ratio ranged from
0.3 to 27.5; the maximum being the Shawnee plant. Critical flow levels used were the
seven-day duration minimun flow occurring once in 10 years. Other flow levels are often
used such as 1 day-20 year and 1 day-10 year minimum. Figure 9 shows the percent of
allowable concentration in the stream if a full-scale limestone projection process were
operated at a plant with a ratio of 1.0.
Figure 9 represents a projection of Shawnee data to an actual plant; and the plant
size, river flow, and raw water analysis used in the projection are actual. The hypothetical
water quality criteria discussed above was the basis for the maximum limits. The projection
shows that the dissolved solids exceed the limits. The hardness value shown is actual
concentration and the rise exceeds the recommended 25 percent. Although this hardness
increase would not represent a significant water quality degradation by itself, it uses such a
large percent of the residual dilution capacity of the stream as to be undesirable. The pH
requires such a large portion of the total flow that a significant mixing zone would likely
result.
The use of effluent standards to supplement stream standards is becoming more and
more prevalent. EPA and many states have issued guidelines for effluent standards, some of
which apply to all industries and others only to specific industries. Generally, the effluent
standards place limits on constituents of organic origin trace metals or toxic materials, and pH.
As of the date of this report, EPA has not issued its guidelines for the power industry. Table
12 lists the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) effluent standards
for the Ohio River and effluent guidelines proposed by the state of Tennessee. Each of these
standards cover all industrial discharges.
Only a very limited number of trace element and heavy metals analyses were made
due to the curtailment of the long-term phase and in most cases only four sets of data are
available. However, these data are sufficient to indicate the probable areas of concern. When
limestone is utilized, concentrations of zinc, silver and lead exceed the limits of one or both
of the standards specified in table 12. Barium, cadmium, copper, and manganese approach
the limits indicated. All of these constituent concentrations are greatly increased by the
limestone injection. Iron (total) is indicated as exceeding standards; however, much of this is
lost in the pond and it is doubtful if limits will be exceeded. In general, the concentration of
iron in the sluice is less during limestone injection than when no limestone is used.
-------
FLYASH (MECH. ft ESP)
;.l LIMESTONE INJECTION ADDED
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
HARDNESS*
SO
4
pH**
20 40 60 80 100
PERCENT OF ALLOWABLE STREAM CONCENTRATION
120
^ACTUAL CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
**PERCENT OF AVAILABLE DILUTION REQUIRED
WATER QUALITY OF RECEIVING STREAM
AT CRITICAL PLANT LOAD AND STREAMFLOWS
Figure 9
-------
G-28
Table 12
Effluent Standards
Parameter
ORSANCO
Std. (Max. Limit)
State of Tennessee
Effluent Guidelines
(Daily Average)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Copper
Cyanide
Iron (Total)
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nichel
pH*
Selenium
Silver
Sulfate
Zinc
—
—
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05*
—
0.20
—
.05
—
.005
—
5.0-9.0
—
0.05
—
__
mg/1
250
1.0
1.0
5-0
0.01
3.0
1.0
0.03
10.0
0.1
10.0
.005
3.0
6.0-9.0
0.01
0.05
lUOO
2.0
* Hexavalent
-------
G-29
ORSANCO includes a limit of 1,400 mg/l sulfates as an effluent maximum. The
concentration during limestone injection only approaches this limit; however, a higher SO2
removal percentage may cause the limit to be exceeded.
Investigation of water quality during wet limestone pilot plant operations showed
that selenium may be found in the ash and the limestone sluice. A single analysis of sluice
water from the dry injection process indicated selenium of 0.02 mg/l in the ash sluice and
0.04 in the limestone sluice. Both of these exceed recommended standards.
The analysis of soluble heavy metals and toxic elements in the aqueous waste stream
from any proposed limestone injection process could likely be the major factor, together
with pH, in determining the suitability of discharging the waste to receiving streams without
treatment. Since treatment of various metals in such large quantities of water is not
generally economically feasible, closed-cycle operation would likely be required.
The estimated costs for converting an existing ash pond, with discharge to the river,
to a limestone-ash pond with recycle for a plant the size of Shawnee is shown below.
Materials
Pumping and Piping $ 700,000
Electrical, Instruments,
Controls, Miscellaneous 300,000
Installation and
Construction 3,500,000
Total $4,500,000
This cost estimate includes construction of increased pond capacity for
approximately 10 years storage. The additional costs were estimated for an existing plant
only; new plant costs would likely be quite different.
Limestone Effects on Settling Rates
Figure 10 shows the effect of limestone injection on ash settling rates. Slurries of ash
sluice water were thoroughly mixed for five minutes and then allowed to settle for specified
periods and a sample of the supernatant liquid removed for analysis. The supernatant was
analyzed for turbidity by Helliqe Turbidimeter. The test conditions following limestone
injection were: mechanical hopper 4.9 percent SO4; 32.5 percent CaO, and electrostatic
precipitator hopper; 6.7 percent SO4 ; 24.2 percent CaO. From the figure it can be seen that
limestone injection significantly increases the settling time for the mechanical sluice;
however, the increase in settling time for the electrostatic sluice and mixed sluice is
relatively minor. If a JTU level of 10 units is assumed to be an acceptable discharge level.
increased settling time required with limestone injection is two hours. The increase in
settling time requires an increase in the effective retention volume of pond for satisfactory
clarification of the waste water. (The generally accepted maximum for drinking water is five
JTU.) A level of 25 units would usually be considered satisfactory; and at this level, an even
lower increase in settling time is required.
-------
G-30
MECHANICAL ASH
0 NO LIMESTONE
LIMESTONE ADDED
ELECTROSTATIC ASH
a NO LIMESTONE
© LIMESTONE ADDED
ASH MIXTURE
A NO LIMESTONE
@ LIMESTONE ADDED
12 14 16
TIME-HOURS
SETTLING TIMES-FLY ASH
EFFECT OF LIMESTONE ADDITION
-------
G-31
The compaction or density of the settled ash-limestone mixture was lessened due to
the increase in total amount of fine material. Analysis of the settled mixture showed the
percent moisture ranged from 12 percent in the heavy ash to 52 percent in the fine material.
This is essentially the same as in the fly ash alone, 9 percent to 55 percent. The density of
the small sample of settled ash-limestone was 83 pounds per cubic foot while the ash alone
was 94 pounds per cubic foot. An average ash density of 100 pounds per cubic foot is
usually used for design purposes.
Summary and Conclusions
Since the program for the assessment of waste disposal problems associated with
limestone injection was not designed as a controlled test but as an evaluation of general
effects, the wide variation in water quality data was not unexpected. The resulting data is
sufficient, however, to make certain conclusions concerning potential problems.
It is evident that discharge of aqueous waste from limestone injection systems can
increase the dissolved solids and hardness of receiving streams sufficiently to exceed some
existing stream standards, especially where plants are located contiguous to streams with
relatively low critical minimum flows. In addition, sulfates and magnesium may also be
above desirable concentrations, especially if a high magnesium or dolometic limestone is
used. In general, if the ratio of the critical minimum flow, in cfs, to the plant capacity, in
megawatts, is less than two, stream standards may be exceeded. The pH of settling pond
discharges from limestone injection processes may also cause stream levels to exceed
standards.
The need to provide adequate insurance for protection of the aquatic environment
and beneficial water uses has led to the establishment of effluent standards. The discussion
in the proceeding section of this appendix outlines several potentially toxic constituents
which are likely to exceed the recommended limits of effluent standards. In addition, if a
limit on the discharge of sulfates is recommended, then the process may cause sluice water
concentrations to exceed the maximum value.
The normal ash sluice at Shawnee is quite alkaline, and the added unreacted calcium
and injection reaction products not only raise the pH but also highly buffer the effluent in
the range above 10 units. The normal ash sluice does not meet proposed standards; however,
the effect of the buffering is to require such large quantities of acid for deneutralization that
treatment costs become prohibitive. For a plant with a neutral pH of the normal ash sluice,
the addition of limestone injection would likely cause the discharge to exceed effluent
limits.
No economically feasible method for treating the dissolved solids and hardness in
such a large flow is known and treatment of the highly buffered pH is also considered
-------
G-32
impractical. For example, one treatment method considered technically feasible for
treatment of the dissolved solids, distillation, would require an annualized expenditure of 4
to 6 million dollars for capitalization and operation of the system for the 10-unit Shawnee
plant utilizing a limestone injection process. Closed cycle sluice water operation is feasible
although there will be added costs due to additional and larger pumps, larger and longer
pipelines, and more frequent replacement and it is very likely that recycle of such high
concentrations of dissolved solids will greatly increase maintenance problems. The increase
in alkalinity and dissolved solids from closed-loop operation is quite significant even without
limestone injection. Table 13 shows the water quality of a plant operating with closed cycle
and no limestone.
The limestone injection process will add considerable quantities of liquid and solid
wastes to normal plant operations. Theoretical determinations are generally satisfactory for
estimating these quantities. The density of the settled solid waste is adversely affected, as is
the particulate settling rates, although neither effect is highly significant.
Data Projection
The data presented in this appendix may be used to obtain a general estimate of the
magnitude of waste disposal problems resulting from limestone injection. However, certain
precautions must be taken in projecting these data to potential uses of the system.
Utilization of other limestone in different modes of operation may create greater or lesser
problems and the quality of the waste and its potential for water quality degradation is
dependent on the type of coal, limestone feedrate or stoichiometry, type of boiler, type of
ash collection system, and SO2 removal efficiency. Table 14 shows the differences in normal
sluice water quality of several plants. Additionally, the data obtained during the test phases
fluctuated widely due partially to the complex chemical nature of the sluice water but
apparently due more significantly to the normal variation in input parameters that occurred
even during controlled test conditions. Potential users then must make an attempt to define
the magnitude of the major and trace soluble constituents of their proposed system,
determine the acceptability of discharge of this waste, both from the standpoint of existing
and proposed standards and damage to the environment, and evaluate the costs of corrective
measures.
The acceptability of such discharges has been generally based on stream standards
which allow utilization of residual dilution capacity in receiving streams. However, it seems
quite apparent that effluent standards will be widely implemented in the near future and'
that curtailment of all discharges, where feasible, is the ultimate goal. These circumstances'
would seem to require an evaluation of closed-cycle operation as a part of any proposed dry
limestone injection system.
-------
G-33
TABLE 13
CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM
ASH SLUICE WATER
Date
February 24
March 22
April 12
April 20
April 25
May 4
May 16
June 30
July 18
July 25
August 5
August 10
September 9
September 20
October 13
November 4
November 17
November 23
December 7
December 14
January 17
January 30
February 16
Average
Alkalinity as CaCO,
12.28
OH
Tot al-
Hardness
Micromhos
12.68
12.20
12.40
12.30
12.25
12.20
12.15
12.10
12. 40
12.20
12.20
12.20
12.20
12.20
12.00
-1 S* 1 f*
12. kO
12.30
12.20
,_ ._ \
12.1*0
12.20
_ 1
12.40
12.30
12.50
1,350
950
1,200
950
1,100
700
650
900
i,4oo
1,000
1,000
1,400
1,200
1,200
600
1,100
i,4oo
700
1,100
1,100
1,200
1,200
1,700
1,500
1,050
1,1*00
1,050
1,200
800
800
1,000
1,500
i,4oo
1,100
1,500
1,300
1,1*00
700
1,200
1,500
770
1,200
1,200
1,300
1,300
2,200
250
225
300
180
200
150
250
200
250
200
200
200
250
250
250
200
180
200
250
250
300
1,607
1,231
1,385
1,231
1,231
906
923
1,009
1,300
1,370
1,300
1,368
1,505
1,150
701
1,33^
1,830
1,419
1,112
1,197
1,710
1,283
2,052
7,270
4,900
6,050
*-* ^ « s w
4,850
3 ** S v
5,400
3,610
™J 9 *-*-*- \s
3,855
4,200
4,730
4,825
J -*- — ,S
4,770
^ 3 I 1 ^
5,560
5,800
5,150
3,000
5,520
6,500
4,830
4,300
4,450
5,420
4,900
7,550
1,191
1,233
225
1,314
5,106
NOTE: Coal - 0.6 sulfur; 16 percent ash; 12,000 Btu per pound
Collection System - Mechanical, 85$ efficiency
-------
G-34
Table
Results of Analysis of Ash Pond Effluent From Typical Plants
Constituents
(mg/1 except as noted)
Average flow (mgd)
Dissolved oxygen
pH
Alkalinity (pheno)
Alkalinity (total)
Solids (total)
Hardness (CaCOg)
Calcium
Magnesium
Iron (ferrous)
Iron (total)
Manganese (total)
Silica
Chloride
Sulfate
Specific conductance (umhos)
Plant A
7.0
9.33
11.8
259
279
h6h
296
llU
3.0
0.0
0.21
0.08
6.9
21.9
8^.5
1260
Plant B
5-0
9-98
12.0
186
20k
388
276
106
3.0
0.01
0.10
0.03
13.7
5.69
69.5
1110
Plant C
10.0
Q.k
9-6
lU.o
Uo.o
U22
183
65.3
5.0
0.0
1.12
0.17
h.yk
70. U
93.5
551
Plant D
19.0
9-0
11.0
-
163
786
338
130
3.17
0.02
0.50
0.03
51.9
71.6
1^5
870
Plant E
12.0
8.6
9-0
5.0
7^.0
237
128
^3.6
U.63
0.0
0.55
0.02
1.91
20.6
6.7
332
-------
G-35
Data Storage Format
The following pages are examples of the computer printouts of stored data. All collected
water quality data is available in this retrieval format.
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPH A 1 OR ACTUAL TEST
FLFr.TRflSTATir. PBFr Af.Tll TFST
DATF
n«5ii7n
O51270
051970
052170
052570
052770
o«i?B7n
060170
060270
091070
091170
121070
121070
121570
121670
RANGE
MEDIAN
: ARITH
TIMF
1405
1230
i?5n
1055
1115
1240
1445
1225
1645
1445
1240
1830
1840
1220
1315
MEAN
VSA-MPIOr. UNIT
DEPTH OR
FEEf RUN
in
10
in
10
10
10
i n
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
LOCATION CODE SFfilAI
TEST LIMFSTONF
NO. TYPE
BCR NO.
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
2n6i
2O61
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
2O61
2061
2O61
AVERAGE
STOICHIO
1_<5fl
1.68
3.91
4.02
2.18
1.87
2.43
1.03
1.88
1.43
1.43
1.88
1.88
2.99
1.88
2.09
S02FLYAS
BOIL OUTL
Z BY WT-
4.56
4.21
3.11
2.68
2.91
3.26
4.40
3.11
5.00
5.00
5.00
5«00
2,32
4.30
4«O2
000005
SQ2 IN
BOT ASH
X BY WT.
5.00
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.24
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.76
.50
2-35
BFFllRF
CAO INJ
PPM
2OOO
1800
1190
1200
1540
2O8O
2O8O
1570
1700
1370
137O
1870
2250
1060
1700
1693
DURING
CAO INJ
PPM
18OO
1640
950
1000
1260
142O
1590
1290
1320
2000
2OOO
1880
1640
1050
1590
1522
AFTFR
CAO INJ
PPM
?nnn
1700
1190
1200
1460
IfiOO
1840
1610
1570
3030
3O30
2180
1460
1840
1700
1851
CAOEI YASH
BOIL OUTL
X BY UT-
34.62
37.90
40.21
36.70
43.66
43.94
34.23
36.59
43.70
43.70
44.94
41.13
10.71
40.67
40.11
LIMESTON
FEEDRATE
LBALB COAL
-15
.14
.18
.17
.13
- 15
.17
.07
.10
.14
-14
.15
.15
.10
.15
.14
ei f-rtan
J5ATF
n^n-rn
061570
OA177A
061870
O62270
062370
RANGE
Mpn i AM
ARITH
^TATl
tIMF
141ft
1420
143Q
1325
1415
1605
MEAN
rr POFT pfepr TF^T
WSAMPI nr . IIWIT
DEPTH OR
FEET RUN
1 oTATinN cnnF SFPTAI
TEST LIMESTONE
NOo TYPE
BCR NO.
2061
2061
2O61
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
AVERAGE
STOICHIO
1 -72
1.72
1-63
1.65
1-65
.09
1-65
1.67
SO2FLYAS
BOILOUTL
2 BY WT.
1-76
4.17
3.99
3.05
3.12
1.12
3.76
3.61
nnnm n
S02 IN
BOT ASH
X BY WT.
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
BEFORE
CAO INJ
PPM
1660
1720
2100
2280
2240
2600
940
2170
2100
DURING
CAO INJ
PPM
16nn
1560
1880
2000
2140
2420
860
1940
1933
AFTER
CAO INJ
PPM
1700
1800
1950
2100
2300
2340
640
2025
2031
CAOFLYASH
BOIL OUTL
1 BY WT.
42- ?1
40.77
31^92
28.72
37-01
40.41
13.49
38-71
36.84
L TMESTQN
FEEDRATE
IR/IR T.DAL
-13
.13
.11
.12
.12
.14
.03
.12
.12
9
CO
-vj
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR ACTUAL TEST
ELECTROSTATIC PREC ACTU TEST
LUCATION CODE SERIAL 000005
DATE TIME VSAMPLOC COMPOSITE STREAM
GfcPTH CODE FLOW ,
FfcET CUFT/SEC
051170 1405
051270 1230
051970 1250
052170 1055
052570 1115
052770 1240
052870 1445
060170 1225
060270 1645
091070 1445
091170 1240
121070 1830
121070 1840
121570 1220
121670 1315
1 RANGE
MEDIAN
ARITH MEAN
ELECTROSTATIC PREC PREC TEST
DATE TIME VSAMPLOC COMPOSITE STREAM
DEPTH CODE FLOW
FEET CUFT/SEC
061070 1410
061570 1420
061770 1430
061870 1325
062270 1415
062370 1605
RANGE
MEDIAN
ARITH MEAN
PH PHtN ALK
SU
11«3
Ilo9
12o5
1203
12o6
Ilo8
12.2
11.7
12.2
12
12»5
lol
i ."! o %
Uo±
CAC03
MG/L
520
1300
2100
2400
2700
2300
2000
tiOO
1800
2900
1670
3300
3200
3300
2400
2780
^-00
2179
T ALK RESIDUE
CAC03
MG/L
580
1500
2200
2900
2900
2500
2200
900
2000
3000
1700
3400
3400
3400
2500
2820
2500
2338
LOCATION CODE SERIAL
PH
SU
10.7
10.8
12oO
11.9
11.2
12.0
Io3
lloS
11.4
PHEN ALK
CAC03
MG/L
170
240
1900
1500
240
1200
1730
720
875
T ALK
CAC03
MG/L
220
370
2000
1700
330
1400
1780
885
1003
TOTAL
MG/L
14000
26000
36000
48000
64000
40000
33000
19000
20000
38500
39000
39000
28000
56000
28000
50000
36000
35233
000010
RESIDUE
TOTAL
MG/L
19000
20000
19000
21000
32000
25000
13000
20500
22666
RESIDUE
TOT FLT
MG/L
2200
4900
8300
13000
13000
10000
13000
4000
7600
14800
7600
18000
14000
24000
12000
21800
12000
11460
RESIDUE
TOT FLT
MG/L
900
1200
9600
4600
1300
4500
8700
2900
3683
ORTHOP04 TOT HARD
P04 CAC03
MG/L MG/L
740
1600
3000
3000
3200
3000
3200
1200
2300
1100
900
3000
3000
3400
2800
2660
3000
2362
ORTHOP04 TOT HARD
P04 CAC03
MG/L MG/L
600
700
1600
1260
800
1600
1000
1030
1093
CALCIUM
CA
MG/L
330.0
540.0
2600.0
1200.0
320.0
1200.0
900.0
900.0
400.0
900.0
700.0
2000.0
2000.0
1700.0
2000.0
2280.0
900.0
1179.3
CALCIUM
CA
MG/L
600.0
600.0
700.0
iioo.'o
800.0
1400.0
800.0
750.0
866.6
MGNSIUM
MG
MG/L
410.0
1100.0
400.0
1800.0
2900.0
1800.0
2300.0
300.0
1900.0
200.0
200.0
1000.0
1000.0
1700.0
800.0
2700.0
1000.0
1187.3
MGNSIUM
MG
MG/L
.0
100.0
900.0
160.0
.0
200.0
900.0
130.0
226.6
00
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR ACTUAL TEST
ELECTROSTATIC PREC ACTU TEST
LOCATION CODE SERIAL 000005
DATE
051170
051270
051970
052170
052570
052770
052870
060170
060270
091070
091170
121070
121070
121570
121670
RANGE
TIME VSAMPLOC
DEPTH
FEET
1405
1230
1250
105b
1115
1240
1445
1225
1645
1445
1240
1830
1340
1220
1315
MEDIAN
ARITH
MEAN
CHLORIDE
CL
MG/L
12
8
100
160
73
93
99
22
43
89
71
43
37
51
47
152
57
63
CNOUCTVY
AT25C
MICROMHO
2700
5400
11000
16000
23000
13000
16000
5600
9200
19200
10000
23000
16000
26000
15000
23300
15000
14073
SILICA
SI02
MG/L
406
2o9
60?-
loO
401
2,2
2.0
1.7
200
2.0
2o9
Io7
5»2
2ol
2.7
SODIUM PTSSIUM MANGNESE
NA
MG/L
34o
33o
44 o
62c
110.
60o
77*
52o
57o
CO
00
CO
00
00
00
00
00
16
K
MG/L
37o
20o
2000
84o
00
00
00
00
190«00
490
180.
660
9 60
00
00
50
66
MN
UG/L
80
80
80
20
20
360
120
30
40
340
80
97
IRON IRON COPPER
TOTAL FERROUS CU
UG/L UG/L UG/L
1COOO
13000
9500
50 <
50 <
5500
1500
6500
4100
12950
5500
5577
ZINC SILVER BARIUM
ZN AG BA
UG/L UG/L UG/L
380
90
770
2100
2010
575
835
O
CO
ELECTROSTATIC PREC PRfcC TEST
DATE TIME VSAMPLOC CHLORIDE CNDUCTVY
DEPTH CL AT25C
FEET MG/L MICROMHO
061070 1410
061570 1420
061770 1430
061870 1325
062270 1415
062370 1605
RANGE
MEDIAN
ARITH MEAN
LOCATION CODE SERIAL 000010
SILICA
SI02
MG/L
SODIUM
NA
MG/L
PTSSIUM
K
MG/L
MANGNESE
MN
UG/L
IRON IRON COPPER
TOTAL FERROUS CU
UG/L UG/L UG/L
ZINC SILVER BARIUM
ZN AG BA
UG/L UG/L UG/L
21
25
5
14
13
16
20
15
15
1400
1600
14000
5800
1600
5800
12600
3700
5033
12.0
6«0
2.2
9.8
6.0
6.7
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR ACTUAL TEST
PKEC PREC TfcST
LOCATION C'JUt-. SERIAL 000010
DATE TIMt VSAMPLOC NICKcL
DtPTH IMI
FEET UG/L
061070 1410
06ii70 1420
061770 14-30
061870 1325
062270 1416
062370 1605
RANGE
NE1JIAN
ARITH MEAN
ELECTROSTATIC PREC ACTU TEST
DATt TIME VSAMPLOC NICKEL
OEPTH NI
FEET UG/L
05117C 1405
051270 1230
051970 1250
052170 1055
052570 1115
052770 1240
052870 1445
060170 J.225
060270 1645
091070 1445
091170 1240
121070 1S30
121070 1540
121570 1220
121670 1315
RANGE
MEDIAN
ARITH MEAN
REOGX FLUOiUOc CDLUR CHROMIUM
ORP F PT-CO CK
MV MG/L UNITS UG/L
10
10
5
5 <
10
p
5
7
7
LUCATIUN CODE SERIAL
RtDOX FLUORIDE COLOR CHROMIUM
URP F PT-CO CR
MV MG/L UNITS UG/L
5 <
5 <
5
5 <
5 <
5 <
? <
K
5 <
5
5
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
TURB
JKSN
JU
100
:>.5(j
60
100
100
100
90
100
101
000005
TURB
JKSN
JU
100
100
100
100
100
75
90
100
100
100
100
200
200
125
150
i25
100
116
SULFATh
S04
MG/L
4CO
430
200
530
610
500
410
490
4i>3
SULFATS
SO 4
MG/L
270
360
410
620
860
380
390
400
300
500
540
750
350
550
320
390
•sOO
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR ACTUAL TEST
ngr.TgrsTAiir p.iEr. J.-.TH T^T
inr.ATinM r.nor- «;.-•> T..I nononi
HATh MMc VSAKPI Of. Al.liMtMIIM TTTflN'IlIM
DEPTH
.4L
TI
051271, 1230
n
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR BASE TEST
ELECTROSTATIC PREC BASE TEST
DATE TIME VSAMPLOC COMPOSITE STREAM
DEPTH CODE FLOW
FEET CUFT/SEC
042170 1345
042270 0935
042370 1013
042370 1019
042470 1010
042470 1020
042770 1405
042770 1425
042870 0725
042870 0735
042970 0900
043070 0715
050170 1245
050470 0950
050670 1435
051670 0905
051870 0910
060370 1357
060470 1215
060470 1220
060570 1210
061270 1210
061270 1215
061570 1105
061570 1115
061670 1300
061670 1315
061970 1120
061970 1130
062470 1000
062470 1005
120170 1035
120170 1115
120470 0705
120470 0715
120470 1035
120470 1045
120970 0730
120970 0740
120970 1430
121070 0735
121470 0715
030271 0955
RANGE
MEDIAN
ARITH MEAN
LOCATION CODE SERIAL 000001
PH PHEN ALK
SU
11.2
7.0
8.9
7.0
7.2
11.1
11.2
9.9
9.6
10.0
7.5
10.8
9.8
11.5
11.3
8.2
10.8
11.1
10.4
9.5
909
8.6
9.3
10.5
10.4
10.9
11.0
10.8
10.8
11.1
11.0
10.0
9.9
9<,2
9.0
10.0
10.2
11.9
10.9
8.9
10.1
7.3
10.7
4.9
10.1
9.9
CAC03
MG/L
150
0
12
0
0
220
190
56
54
62
0
130
61
240
220
0
120
120
62
50
60
12
34
130
100
250
290
120
120
200
200
89
63
22
19
73
66
570
86
15
65
0
82
570
66
102
T ALK RESIDUE RESIDUE
CAC03
MG/L
200
44
100
57
56
280
240
100
110
110
62
190
94
270
290
79
170
140
120
140
130
100
83
170
160
300
340
160
160
260
260
170
130
88
79
130
120
610
98
70
120
34
120
576
130
156
TOTAL TOT FLT
MG/L
3000
770
2400
740
1300
44000
24000
11000
18000
16000
1100
26000
20000
8300
19000
3100
29000
4400
12000
12000
24000
5000
16000
23000
19000
16000
19000
18000
18000
26000
23000
1700
12000
3600
3200
16000
11000
28000
4200
14000
16000
11000
21300
43260
16000
14072
MG/L
550
160
250
150
160
1400
900
350
500
500
170
800
600
800
1200
190
700
600
440
600
480
330
500
600
600
1000
1100
600
600
1000
1000
900
420
290
290
600
460
2100
500
500
500
260
320
1950
500
603
P04
MG/L
HARD CALCIUM MGNSIUM
03
VL
250
120
180
120
140
840
170
240
380
380
400
520
400
240
760
200
480
280
240
320
240
200
240
280
320
400
400
360
320
560
560
140
170
140
130
130
110
130
280
440
360
180
560
730
280
310
CA
MG/L
220.0
70.0
160.0
58.0
60.0
740.0
88.0
220.0
180.0
170.0
160.0
290.0
350.0
72.0
720.0
160.0
240.0
200.0
160.0
200.0
160.0
160.0
180.0
240.0
200.0
320.0
320.0
280.0
280.0
180.0
240.0
140.0
160.0
140.0
110.0
110.0
90.0
110.0
160.0
120.0
140.0
140.0
682.0
160.0
202.3
MG
MG/L
30.0
50.0
20.0
62.0
80.0
100.0
82.0
20.0
200.0
210.0
240.0
230.0
50.0
170.0
60.0
40.0
240.0
80.0
80.0
120.0
80.0
40.0
60.0
40.0
120.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
40.0
380.0
320.0
« 5<
10.0
• 5*
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
120.0
320.0
220.0
40.0
379.5
80.0
101.7
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR BASE TEST
ELtCTROSTATIC PREC bASd TEST
LOCATION CODE SERIAL OOOOOi
DATE TIME VSAMPLOC
DEPTH
FEET
042170 1345
042270 0935
042370 1013
042370 1019
042470 1010
042470 1020
042770 1405
042770 1425
Ot2870 0725
042870 0735
042970 0900
043070 O?!^
050170 1245
050470 0950
050670 1435
051870 0905
051870 0910
060370 1357
060470 1215
060470 1220
060570 1210
061270 1210
061270 1215
061570 1105
061570 llib
061670 1300
061670 1315
061970 1120
061970 1130
062470 1000
062470 1005
120170 1035
120170 1115
120470 0705
120470 0715
120470 1035
12C470 1045
120970 0730
120970 0740
120970 1430
121070 0735
121470 0715
030271 0955
RANGE
MEDIAN
AR1TM MEAN
CHLORIDE
CL
MG/L
12
9
7
8
6
11
4
8
7
7
6
8
S
7
10
7
8
12
12
13
13
14
14
11
12
11
11
10
10
7
7
1
1C
8
7
22
20
20
19
21
21
15
7
21
10
iO
CNDUCTVY
AT25C
MICRQMHO
780
220
340
220
240
1600
1400
530
720
730
260
1200
eso
1200
1500
270
1000
930
660
900
720
470
790
930
900
1500
1500
940
970
1400
1400
< 1200
580
400
400
800
600
2500
700
700
620
340
400
2280
780
844
SILICA
SI02
MG/L
11.0
9.1
9.1
7,3
8.6
4.9
7.5
7.9
4.8
7.5
7.7
6.2
3.6
4oO
6.7
9.4
7.6
7»4
7.5
7,2
SOOIUfl PTSSIUM MANGNESE
NA K MN
MG/L MG/L UG/L
580
380
140
10
70
100
76,00 36«,00 310G
20.00 16U00 1500
16.00 9.00 900
16.00 11.00 920
56.00 24.00 1900
34.00 17.00 1400
38.00 31.00 4600
15»00 4»90 2100
17UGO 9*00 650
61,00 31.10 4590
20.00 16oOO 900
32.00 17«54 1223
IRON IRON COPPER
TOTAL FERROUS CU
UG/L UG/L UG/L
35000
15000
17000
310
4500
16000
47COO
100000
56000
55000
90000
110000
12000
28000
87000
105500
41000 310
48035 310
HKC.
ZN
UG/L
SILVER
AG
UG/L
BARIJh
8A
UG/L
O
^
oo
7500
3800
2100
2000
4^00
2600
140
140
670
7360
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR BASE TEST
OATC
04^170
0*^70
042370
042370.
042^76
042470
042770
042770
042870
042870-
042S70
043070
05017C
050470
050670
051870
051370
060370
060470
060470
060570
0'6i270
061270
061570
061570
061670
06I67C
061970
061970
06H47C
06247C
120170
120170
120470
120470
120470
120470
120970
'120970
120970
121070
121470
030271
PRcC BASc TCST
VSAMPLGC NICKEL
OfcPTH NI
FEtT UG/L
LOCATION COUt SERIAL 000001
1345
0935
1013
10.1.9
1010
1020
1405
1425
0725
0735
0900
0715
1245
0930
1435
0905
0910
Z357
1220
1210
1215
1115
1300
1315
1120
1130
1000
j.005
1035
IliS
0705
0715
1035
1045
0730
Q74C
1430
0735
07i5
0955
RANGE
MEDIAN
ARITH MEAN
REOOX FLUGfUDt COLOR CHROMIUM
OKH F PT-CG CR
MV MG/L UNITS UG/L
5
10
5
10
15
10
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
5 <
5
5
5
5 <
5
5
5
5
5
K
**
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
5 <
5 <
5 <
5 <
5
5
5
5
c;
5
5
5
10
5
6
TURB
JKSN
JU
175
100
50
125
200
100
63
90
100
100
175
70
100
95
100
150
90
40
30
40
100
150
125
100
100
150
150
125
100
100
125
100
150
40
50
140
150
65
65
100
100
175
110
170
100
106
SULFATE
S04
MG/L
72
31
78
37
57
660
260
130
270
270
50
430
380
60
340
200
400
52
190
350
140
190
320
260
330
280
280
300
350
570
530
800
150
100
100
360
190
230
76
360
220
110
76
769
230
247
SULFITE SULFIDE MERCURY
S03 S HG
MG/L MG/L UG/L
Io50
2oOO
o20
2.20
.80
o20
.50
.50
.20
.50
loOO
.20
.80
.50
1.30
1.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
IODIDE
I
MG/L
BOO
28 OXf
MG/L
1.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.0.0
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
7.00
6. 00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
6.90
2.00
2.30
9
.&>
45.
-------
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR BASE TEST
FI
PREP. RASH TF<:T
r.nnp SPRTAI ooonm
DATE TIME VSAHPinr aillHTMtlM TTTANTUH
DEPTH
AL
UG/L
TI
042270 0935
04?^70 im^
042370 1019
047470 1010
042470 1020
04977O 14O«5
042770 1425
042870 0735
042970 0900
043070 0715
050170 1245
050470 0950
05O67O 1435
051870 0905
051870 0910
060370 1357
Of.0470 iy' S
060470 1220
060570 1210
061270 1210
061 270 121 =5
06157C 1105
061 S7O 1115
061670 1300
061670 i "61 5
061970 1120
061970 1130
06247C 1000
0^^670 inns
120170 1035
17O17O 1116
120470 0705
1?u470 O7J1;
120470 1036
LZDA7J1 J_0*-^
120970 07 JO
120970 14 30
1210 Tfi 07_!i
12J 470 07 r;
« .U14N
2800 1 <
7 GOO 1 <
.^00 1 <
ft no 4 -
2VOO 1 <
200 1 <
fcfjO ] < -
^00 1 <
27(JU 3 . ......
A U 0 1
1-.-11 1
en
-------
bLECIHOSIAIIC, MICHIGAN MARL. ACTUAL TEST
FLFr.TRfl MITH
MARI ACTU TFST
inrATTniM r.nriE SFRIAL
DATF TIMP VSAMPlfir. UNIT TFST 1 TMFSTDNF AVFRAGF
O52O71 1O45
052071 1440
052171 1405
RANGE
MEDIAN
ARITH MEAN
DEPTH OR NO, TYPE STOICHIO
FFFT RUN BCR NO.
in
10
10
10
10
2129 ?_7R
2129 .98
2129 2.74
1*80
2129 2o74
2129 2»16
SD2FLYA5;
BOILOUTL
S! BY WT.
^. T",
2.68
4.79
2.11
3.75
3.74
000015
sn2 TN
RFFHRF
BOT ASH CAO INJ
Z BY WT. PPM
_40
.40
.40
.40
.40
1 ^0
2690
?410
1360
2410
2143
DURING AFTFR
CAO INJ CAO INJ
PPM PPM
-------
ELECTROSTATIC, MICHIGAN MARL, ACTUAL TEST
ELECTKC MICH MARL ACTU TEST
LOCATION CODE SERIAL 000015
DATE TIKE VSAMPLOC NICKEL RcOOX FLUUKIUc CULOR CHROMIUM TURB SULFATE SULFITi SULFIDE MtRCURY IODIDE BOD
DfcPTH N! ORP F PT* CU CP JKSN SC4 SU3 S HG I 28 DAY
F£6T UG/L f'V KG/L UNITS UG/L JU MG/L MG/L MG/L UG/L MG/L MG/L
Ut>iG7I 1045
05^171 --.40S
MWN
AF-ITH «cAr:
AU 125 310 IcOU
i'.' 100 46(j 17,00
:- 125 640 a3oOO
25 3.3<> 22oOO
•3 116 470 13o66
o
ACTU 7;
r:crrn
_LlifJ_
T1TAI-.-TI1K
II
0^;i)7l 104^
05t071 1't'rj
o5x-!7; ».
-------
MECHANICAL, ARAGONITE,
MFf.H. ARAKDNITF Af.TII TFST
DATF TIMF
O^O?;71 1005
030471 1040
030471 1205
030471 1530
030571 1050
RANGF
MEDIAN
AR1TH MtAN
VSAMPLOf. UNIT
DEPTH OR
FEPT RUN
in
10
10
10
10
10
10
i nr.ATiniv cnne SFRTAI
TFST LIMESTHNF AVERAGE
NO. TYPE STOICHIO
BCR NO.
1AR3
1683
1683
1683
1683
1683
1683
^_7ft
3.16
3.08
1.67
3.69
2.0?
3.16
2.97
SD2FLYAS
BOILOUTL
Z BY WT.
?_5n
3.73
2.68
3.16
3.56
l.?3
3.16
3.12
ACTUAL TEST ~~~
OOOO14
S02 IN
BEFORE
DURING AFTFR CAflFI VASH 1 IMFSTHM
BOT ASH CAO INJ CAO INJ CAO INJ BOIL OUTL FEEDRATE
X BY UT_ PPM PPM PPM X BY UT_ 1 R/l B CflAI
.?7
.22
.20
.29
.27
.04
.22
.24
1 56.O
1300
1150
1210
1290
39fl
1290
1298
flsn i i so
1020 1080
940 111O
990 1140
900 12OO
17O 12O
940 1140
940 1136
4?m45
30.46
3O. 15
25.99
39.54
17«46
30.46
33.91
.. MECH...ARAGQW
DATE TIME
.. 03037I_1005
03U471 1040
030471 1205
'030471 1530
-030571 1050
D AMft£
MEDIAN
.. .ARITH MEAN
IITE ACJU TfcST
VSAMPLGC..COMPQSir£
DEPTH CODE
FEET .._
-
MECH. ARAGONITE ACTU TEST
DATE TIME VSAMPLOC CHLORIDE
DEPTH CL
FEET M6/L
030371 1005 31
030471 i040 6
030471 1205 5
030471 1530 22
030571 1050 22
RANGE 26
MEDIAN 22
ARITH MEAN 17
STREAM
FLOW
CUF1/SEC
CNDUCTVY
AT25C
MICROMHO
1800
15000
11400
12600
12900
13200
12600
10740
LOCATION CODE SERIAL
PH PHEN ALK T ALK i
CAC03 CAC03
SU MG/L MG/L
11.7 .340 _ . .380,. ..
I2»7 3100 3200
12.6 2500 2600
12.6 2800 2900
12.6 3000 3100
..1*0. 2760 .2820.
12e6 2800 2900
12»4 2348 243.6
LOCATION CODE SERIAL
SILICA SODIUM PTSSIUM
SI02 NA K
MG/L MG/L MG/L
24.0 36oOO 19.00
.6 14.00 19.00
.9 12.00 19.00
.8 10.00 15.00
.9 7.20 23.00
23*4 28.80 8.00
.9 12.00 19.00
5.4 15.84 19.00
000014
RESIDUE
TOTAL
MG/L
. .21100..
14900
24200
28600
18000
13 TOO .
21100
21360
000014
MANGNESE
MN
UG/L
920
240
130
360
30
890 .
240
336
RESIDUE
TOT FLT
MG/L
_ 1500
13500
10200
11700
12300
12000
11700
9840
IRON
TOTAL
UG/L
92000
2000
1000
1300
680
91320
1300
19396
ORTHQP04 TOT HARD CALCIUM MGNSIUM
P04 CAC03 CA MG
UG/L MG/L . _ MG/J 116/1 _.
1100
-------
MECHANICAL, ARAGONITE, ACTUAL TEST
MECH» ARAGQNITE
ACTU T ST
i_UCHTlU.\ CODE SERIAL U00014
DATE TIME VSAMPLDC NICKEL REDOX
DEPTH NI ORP
FEET UG/L MV
FLUOR Iu£
F
MG/L
COLOR
PT-CQ
UNITS
CHROMIUM
CR
UG/L
TURB
JKSN
JU
SULFATE
S04
MG/L
SULFITE
S03
MG/L
SULFIDE
S
MG/L
MERCURY
HG
UG/L
ICOIDE
I
MG/L
BOO
28 DAY
HG/L
030371 1005
030471 1040
030471 1205
030471 1530
030571 1050
RANGE
MEDIAN
ARITH MEAN
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
6
175
125
125
iOC
100
75
125
125
380
270
220
320
170
210
270
272
11»00
15oOO
lloOO
16oOO
13oOO
5»00
13«00
13o20
MFf.H. ARAnnNTTF
ar.TU TI-ST
nr.ATinN r.nnp
OOOO14
DATE TTMP VSAHPLI-iC. AlUMTNUM TITANIUM
DEPTH
FFI£T
AL
TI
O3O371 1OO<5
030471 1040
030471 1205
030471 1530
0^0571 1050
KANCF
MtOlAN
ARITH MEAN
5600
TOO
200
;>oo
6SOO
200
1?4D . .. .
-------
APPENDIX H
Additional Heat Requirement Calculations
-------
H-l
Appendix H
Additional Heat Requirement Calculations
Determination of Additional Heat Requirement Calculations in Coal-Fired Boilers Due to
Limestone Injection
Injection of dry ground limestone (CaCO3) into coal-fired boilers for reaction with
sulfur oxides in the flue gas consumes a portion of the heat normally used in producing
power. Operating experience for an existing 150-MW plant without limestone injection
shows that generation of electricity requires approximately .78 Ibs. coal per kWh. However,
when dry limestone injection is used, additional coal must be supplied to the boiler to
compensate for the net heat change resulting from calcination of the limestone and CaSO4
formation.
A schematic diagram of the boiler showing inlet and exit temperatures of reactants
and products is shown in figure H-l.
The total heat effect of limestone injection is calculated in the following case
examples, based on a 150-MW unit burning coal containing either 0.8%, 3% or 5% sulfur,
92% of which is emitted as SO2 in the boiler flue gas. For the 0.8% sulfur coal, the heat
effect is shown assuming injection of a 5 to 1 mole ratio of calcium carbonate to sulfur in
coal, whereas for 3% and 5% sulfur coals, the heat effect is shown for injection of a 2 to 1
mole ratio of calcium carbonate to sulfur in coal. EPA-TVA test data for dry limestone
injection indicated that for a 0.8% sulfur coal, 5% of the SO2 in the gas reacts with the
calcium carbonate for each unit of stoichiometry injected, whereas data for 3% and 5%
sulfur coals showed that 10% of the SO2 reacts per unit of calcium carbonate stoichiometry
injected.
Although it is not certain whether the injected limestone sequentially calcines, then
reacts with SO2 as in equations (1) and (2) below or reacts directly as in equation (3), the
thermodynamics of the system are the same.
CaCO3 ; ^-CaO + CO2 (1)
CaO + SO2 + 1/2 02 >-CaSO4 (2)
CaCO3 + SO2 + 1/2 02 *-CaSO4 + CO2 (3)
Since the total heat change involved in the reactions is a state function and hence,
dependent only upon the inlet and outlet conditions of the reactants and products, the total
heat effect is independent of the reaction path and intervening temperatures. So that all
computations and results can be given in terms of CaCO3 input to the boiler, equations (1)
and (3) are used in the examples to follow. Quantity X represents the fraction of the
injected limestone which reacts with SO2 (eq. 3) and 1-X represents the fraction of
limestone leaving the boiler as calcium oxide (eq. 1). All calculations are based on the calcite
polymorph.
The enthalpy relation for reaction (1) is shown below.
-------
FIGURE H-l
H-2
REACTANT AND PRODUCT TEMPERATURES
FROM POWER PLANT BOILERS WITH DRY LIMESTONE INJECTION
REACTION
PRODUCTS
310 °F
HEAT TO TURBINE
HEAT LOSSES
LIMESTONE & AIR
110 °F
COAL AMBIENT
-------
H-3
CaCO,
110° F (316° K)
Heat 1
CaO +CO2
310°F(427°K) 310°F (427''K)
dT
CaCO,
316
Sensible heat change
AH,
CaC03
310°F (427° K)
where AHj is the heat of reaction at 310° F (427° K),
427
dT
CaCOq
316 represents the sensible heat change of CaCO3 and Heat 1 is the total heat
effect expressed in cal/gram-mole. Thus,
42J
Heat 1 = AHj + f Cf
-"316
dT
(4)
CaCO3
This heat effect, Heat 1, is calculated as follows. The standard heat of reaction, AH,0, of
CaCO3 to CaO and CO2 is calculated to be 42,500 cal/gram-mole from tabulated heats of
formation (1) by means of equation (5)
= AH°j
+AH
CaO
-AH<
CO,
CaCOo
(5)
AH, = AC' dT
where AH0/ represents the standard heat of formation of the compound in question.
The heat of reaction at 310° F (427° K.), AH!, is now calculated from equation (6)
(6)
where AC' represents the difference in reactant and product heat capacities and AH^ is an
integration constant evaluated from the known standard;heat of reaction, AH,0 Because
enthalpy is a state function, as discussed earlier, its value depends only on initial and final
states and not reaction path. Although calcium carbonate is heated to 1800° F. or higher in
the boiler, the heat of reaction depends only on inlet reactant and exit product
temperatures indicated in figure H-l.
The necessary heat capacity data are taken from a Bureau of Mines publication (2)
from which the following equation for calculating AC ' was derived.
-------
H-4
"3
= -2.74 2.06 x 10 T + 2.58 x 10s
where T = temperature, °K
T
'2
Substitution of ACi into equation (6) followed by integration yields equation (8) which is
used to calculate the heat of reaction, AHt at 310° F
AHi = -2.74 T -1.03 x 10 '3 T2 2.58 x 10s + 44,274
T (8)
The heat of reaction was calculated to be +42,312 cal/gram-mole at 310° F (427° K).
The sensible heat portion of Heat 1 was found from equation (9) to be +2,479
cal/gram-mole.
(Sensible Heat) CaCO3 =
316
(9)
dT
CaCO3
Substitution of the sensible heat and heat of reaction, AHj , into equation (4), yields
a total calcination heat effect, Heat 1, of 44,791 cal/gram-mole.
A fraction (X) of the calcium carbonate injected reacts with sulfur dioxide and
sulfur trioxide in the combustion gases, as shown in Equation (3). Usually SO3 content of
flue gas is a small fraction of the total sulfur oxides and for purposes here is assumed as
SO2 . The enthalpy changes of calcium sulfate formation are shown below.
CaCO3 +SO2 +1/2 O2 Heat2
110°F(316°K) 310°F(427°K) 310°F(427°K)
427
) dT
CaCO3 Sensible Heat Change
316
+ C02
310°F(427°K) 310° F
(427° K)
310°F(427°K)
CaCO3
310° F(427° K) + SO2 + 1/2 O2
310°F(427°K)
427.
[Cp dT
where _J CaCO3, and AH2
316
are the sensible heat change of CaC03 and the heat of reaction at 310° F: There are no
sensible heat changes for O2 and SO2 because these materials are already present in the
absence of limestone injection and therefore make no additional heat demands. The total
heat effect of calcium sulfate formation, Heat 2, is
Heat 2 =
427
C
316
dT
CaCO3
AH2
(10)
-------
H-5
As with Heat 1, this heat effect is calculated from heat capacity data and standard heats of
formation. The standard heat of reaction, AH2°, is calculated to be -76,970 cal/gram-mole
from equation (11).
AH2°=AH°/ + AH°f -AH°f -AH°f ,,,.
C02 CaS04 S02 CaC03 { '
The heat of reaction, AH2, at 310° F is calculated from equation (12) where AC?, and AH 2
are respectively, the difference between product and reactant heat capacities and an
integration constant evaluated from the standard heat of reaction, AH2 °
AH2 = /ACp2 dT+ AH02 (12)
The following equation for calculating AC2 was derived:
ACp = -12.05 + 18.08 x 10'3T + 6.18 x 10s T'2 (13)
Substitution of ACp2 into equation (12) followed by integration yields equation (14) from
which the heat of reaction AH2 at 310° F is calculated to be -78,306 cal/gram-mole.
AH2 = -12.05T + 9.04 x 10'3 T2 + 6.18 x 10s -76,256 (14)
The sensible heat change of CaCO3 is found to be 2,479 cal/gram-mole.
Substitution of this value and AH2 into equation (10) yields a heat effect, Heat 2, of
-75,827 cal/gram-mole.
For example, the limestone can be considered 95% CaCO3. The remaining 5% is
assumed to be 4.5% inert impurities with the same heat capacity as calcium carbonate and
0.5% liquid H2 O. The net heat effect, Heat 3, due to inert impurities is found from equation
(15) to be +117 cal/gram-mole of CaCO3 used
427
Heat 3 = 0.045 / C dT (15)
Enthalpy relations for the water injected into the boiler along with the limestone are shown
below
H20 (9. ,316° K) _ !li»-H20 (g,373°K) _ ^H2O (g.373°K) - VH2° (9-427° K)
h2
The heat effect, Heat 4, due to water injection is the sum of the individual heat
effects, h, h2 and h3, shown above, and found to be 311 cal/gram-mole of CaCO3.
The total heat consumed by limestone injection is found from equation (16) where
NC £Q , and X are, respectively, gram-moles of calcium carbonate, and the fractional
conversion of CaCO3 to CaSO4.
Total Heat = NCaCO [(l-X)(Heat 1) + X (Heat 2) + Heat 3 + Heat 4)| (16)
-------
H-6
The four terms of equation (16) represent, respectively, heat consumed in calcining
calcium carbonate, conversion of calcium carbonate to calcium sulfate, sensible heat of the
inert impurities in the limestone and enthalpy changes for 0.5% liquid water. Results in
Table 1 show that significant heat effects are due primarily to CaCO3 calcination and
CaSO4 formation.
A 150-MW unit (requiring .780 Ibs. coal/kWh with no limestone injection)
consumes 117,000 Ibs. of coal/hr. For Base Case l.this coal requires 6.63 x 104 gram-mole
of CaCO3/hr. which is equivalent to a heat loss of 2.62 x 109 gram cal/hr. (1.04 x 107
Btu/hr.). Assuming 12,000 Btu/lb. of coal, to maintain a 150-MW output, 868 Ib/hr. of
additional coal are required to make up for heat losses due to the first increment of CaCO3.
This additional coal will require an additional but smaller increment of CaCO3 which in turn
requires more coal, etc. By iteration the total additional coal required was found to be 874
Ibs/hr. of coal which is equivalent to a coal firing rate of .786 Ibs. coal /kWh. Similar
calculations were made for Base Cases 2 and 3. Results are shown below:
% S in Additional Stoichio- Total Coal Requirement
Coal Coal-lb/hr. metry Ibs/hr. Ibs/kWh
Base easel 0.8 874 5X 117,874 .786
Base case 2 3.0 1127 2X 118,127 .788
Base case 3 5.0 1901 2X 118,901 .793
Defining efficiency losses as the percentage ratio of additional coal to total coal
required without injection, power plant efficiency losses due to limestone injection for the
0.8, 3.0 and 5.0 percent S cases were calculated to be 0.75%, 0.97%, and 1.62% respectively.
References
1. Handbook of Chemistry, N. A. Lange, Ed. 10th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1967.
2. K. K. Kelley, Contributions to the Data on Theoretical Metallurgy, High-Temperature
Heat - Content, Heat Capacity, and Entropy Data for the Elements and Inorganic
Compounds, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 584.
-------
H-7
Table 1
Heat Required from Boiler—150 MW Installation
Base Case 1 Base Case 2 Base Case 3
CaCO3 Calcination
Cal/g-mole, CaCO3
Btu/lb mole, CaCO3
CaSO4 Formation
Cal/g-mole, CaCO3
Btu/lb-mole, CaCO3
Inert Limestone Impurities
Cal/g-mole, CaCO3
Btu/lb-mole, CaC03
Water
Cal/g-mole, CaCO3
Btu/lb-mole, CaCO3
Total
Cal/g-mole, CaCO3
Btu/lb-mole, CaCO3
42,731
.374
-3488
-.031
117
.001
311
.003
39,671
.347
40,670
.356
-6975
-.061
117
.001
311
.003
34,123
.299
40,670
.356
-6975
-.061
117
.001
311
.003
34.123
.299
-------
H-8
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA-650/2-73-019-a, -b, -c
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power Plant Stack Gas by Dry
Limestone Injection—Full Scale Demonstration and Support
Proier.ts (Volumes T TT and
5. Report Date
August 1973
6.
7. Autnor(s)
F.E. Gartrell
8' Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
hteragency Agreement
TV-30541A
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
EPA, Office of Research and Development
NERC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
u. Abstracts The rep0rt. g^eg results of a. test program of dry limestone injection,
demonstrated on a 150-Mw pulverized-coal-fired boiler at TVA's Shawnee Plant. The
program included: equipment shakedown, dust distribution studies, process optimi-
zation, and long-term injection trials. It identified major process variables; evaluated
distribution of lime dust in the boiler, effect of operating variables on distribution,
and resulting effects on SO2 removal; evaluated the sensitivity of SO2 removal to key
operating and process variables; evaluated conditions for optimum SO2 removal;
studied process effects on boiler operation and maintenance, on solids collection
equipment, and on water quality; and completed a process economics study. The pro-
gram is discussed in context with previous investigations and EPA-sponsored sup-
port activities. Appendices contain test program detail results and results of EPA
support projects. Because of low SO2jremoval efficiencies and the potential for major
reliability problems, it does not appear
that dry limestone injection will play an
important role in controlling SO2 emis-
sions from power plants.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Air Pollution
oal
Des ulfur ization
Limestone
Boiler
Dust
Sulfur Dioxide
alcium Oxides
Economic Analysis
7b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Dry Limestone Injection
17c. COSATI Fjeld/Group
Reliability
Electric Power Plants
Flue Gases
18. Availability Statement
Unlimited
19.. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
360
22. Price
FORM NTI5-3S (REV. 3-72)
USCOMM-DC I4982-P74
------- |