v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/7 79-229
Laboratory October 1979
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Evaluation of the
Ames Solid Waste
Recovery System
Part II:
Performance of the
Stoker Fired Steam
Generators
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-229
October 1979
EVALUATION OF THE AMES SOLID WASTE RECOVERY SYSTEM
Part II: Performance of the Stoker Fired
«
Steam Generators
by
D. Van Meter, A. W. Joensen, W. L. Larsen
R. Reece, J. L. Hall
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
D. E. Fiscus, R. W. White
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri
EPA Grant No. R803903-01-0
To the Department of Public Works
City of Ames, Iowa 50010
Project Officers
Carlton C. Wiles
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Robert A. Olexsey
Energy Systems Environmental Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion, Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution con-
trol methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-
Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and improved
methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and economically.
On August 30, 1975, the first continuous full-scale, solid waste re-
covery system for the processing and burning of municipal solid waste as a
supplementary fuel for power generation commenced operation in the City of
Ames, Iowa. This report provides the results from the study of the perfor-
mance of the stoker fired steam generators at the City of Ames. The results
and/or conclusions of this report may be utilized to determine what problems
might be encountered when converting from burning coal only to coal plus
refuse derived fuel and to determine what might be done to avert or reduce
those problems. The information contained herein will be of interest to
those designers or users who are contemplating or working with a system
similar to Ames. Requests for further information regarding performance
of stoker fired steam generators utilizing refuse derived fuel should be di-
rected to the Fuels Technology Branch, IERL, Cincinnati.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
iii
-------
PREFACE
The project entitled "Evaluation of the Ames Solid Waste Recovery System"
encompasses such a large scope of work and has generated such a large amount
of data that the annual report on year 01 is divided into three parts.
Part I, entitled "Summary of Environmental Emissions: Equipment, Facil-
ities, and Economic Evaluations" provides a summary of the environmental emis-
sions and boiler performance of stoker fired boilers burning refuse derived
fuel (RDF) and coal; characterization of the RDF produced by the processing
plant; processing plant and equipment performance evaluations; and an economic
analysis of the processing plant.
Part II, entitled "Performance of the Stoker Fired Steam Generators"
evaluates the thermodynamic and mechanical performance of the stoker boilers
while burning RDF as a supplemental fuel with coal.
Part III, entitled "Environmental Emissions of the Stoker Fired Steam
Generators" is presented in two volumes. Volume I includes the results and
discussion, while Volume II includes appendices of data tabulations. The re-
port includes sample analysis of the input and output streams associated with
the operation of the stoker fired boilers while burning coal only and coal
plus RDF; characterization of the fuel (coal and RDF), ash and stack effluents;
and statistical analysis of the data.
The portion of the project covering environmental emissions from the stoker
boilers is jointly funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of Energy (DOE). These results are published jointly by both
agencies in Part III.
The balance of the project is funded by the EPA and these results are
published in Part I and Part II.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
The project entitled "Evaluation of the Ames Solid Waste Recovery System"
encompasses such a large scope of work and has generated such a large amount
of data that the annual report on year 01 is divided into three parts.
Part I, entitled "Summary of Environmental Emissions: Equipment, Facil-
ities, and Economic Evaluations" provides a summary of the environmental emis-
sions and boiler performance of stoker fired boilers burning refuse derived
fuel (RDF) and coal; characterization of the RDF produced by the processing
plant; processing plant and equipment performance evaluations; and an economic
analysis of the processing plant.
Part II, entitled "Performance of the Stoker Fired Steam Generators"
evaluates the thermodynamic and mechanical performance of the stoker boilers
while burning RDF as a supplemental fuel with coal.
Part III, entitled "Environmental Emissions of the Stoker Fired Steam
Generators" describes the environmental impact of the stoker boiler cofiring
operation. The report includes sample analysis of the input and output
streams associated with the operation of the stoker fired boilers while
burning coal only and coal plus RDF; characterization of the fuel (coal and
RDF), ash and stack effluents; and statistical analysis of the data.
The portion of the project covering environmental emissions from the
stoker boilers is jointly funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Department of Energy (DOE). These results are published jointly by
both agencies in Part III.
The balance of che project is funded by the EPA and these results are
published in Part I and Part II.
v
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Preface iv
Abstract v
Figures viii
Tables xii
Acknowledgments xv
1. Introduction 1
2. Project Administration 3
3. System Description 5
4. Power Plant Modifications - RDF Firing 12
5. Test Procedure 18
6. Operational Narrative 22
7. Boiler Performance Results 24
Excess air 24
Boiler efficiency 27
Particulate collector efficiency 32
Fuel utilization 37
Chemical analysis of fuel, grate ash, and collector ash 46
Slagging-fouling indices 47
Ash fusion temperatures 48
Ash flow rates 48
Interim sampling of RDF (EPA Task No. 5) 48
8. Corrosion Investigation 57
Objectives 57
Experimental procedures 57
Test results and analysis 59
Summary 75
Appendices
A. Original boiler design conditions 76
B. Boiler design conditions after modification
for RDF firing 87
C. Major boiler performance 91
D. Characteristics of ash and other related properties .... 120
E. Miscellaneous performance data 140
F. Interim sampling of RDF 150
G. Description of mechanical performance of Atlas bin and
pneumatic transport lines 165
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Organizational diagram 4
2 Power plant flow diagram 6
3 Elevation view of boiler No. 5.. 7
4 Elements of a spreader stoker 8
5 Elevation view of Ames power plant sectioned through
boiler No. 6 9
6 Plan view flow diagram - pneumatic ash removal system ... 11
7 Power plant pneumatic transport system 13
8 Riley pneumatic stoker 14
9 Modified traveling grate stoker fired boiler No. 5 16
10 Modification spreader traveling grate stoker boiler
No. 6 17
11 Boiler unit Nos. 5 and 6 sampling locations 21
12 Excess air of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of
RDF heat input 25
13 Excess air of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of
boiler steam load 26
14 Direct boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as
a function of boiler steam load ....... 28
15 Direct boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as
a function of RDF heat input 29
viii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
16 Indirect boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6
as a function of RDF heat input 30
17 Indirect boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6
as a function of boiler steam load 31
18 Average boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6
as a function of RDF heat input 33
19 Average boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6
as a function of boiler steam load 34
20 Particulate collector efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and
6 as a function of RDF heat input 35
21 Particulate collector efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and
6 as a function of boiler steam load 36
22 Fuel utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function
of RDF heat input) as determined from calculated ash flow
rates 38
23 Fuel utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and'6 as a function
of boiler steam load, as determined from calculated ash
flow rates 39
24 Fuel utilization of boiler units Nos* 5 and 6 as a function
of RDF heat input, as determined from measured ash
flow rates 40
25 Fuel utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function
of boiler steam load, as determined from measured ash
flow rates 41
26 RDF utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function
of RDF heat input, as determined from calculated ash
flow rates 42
27 RDF utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function
of boiler steam load, as determined from calculated
ash flow rates 43
ix
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
28 RDF utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function
of RDF heat input, as determined from measured ash
flow rates
29 RDF utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function
of boiler steam load, as determined from measured ash
flow rates ...
30 Initial deformation temperature, under reducing atmosphere,
of boiler unit No. 5 at 60% boiler steam load .....
31 Initial deformation temperature, under reducing atmosphere,
of boiler unit No. 5 at 80% boiler steam load ...... 50
32 Initial deformation temperature, under reducing atmosphere,
of boiler unit No. 5 at 100% boiler steam load ...... 51
33 Initial deformation temperature, under reducing atmosphere,
of boiler No. 6 at 80% boiler steam load . . ....... 52
34 Ash rate of boiler unit No. 5 as a function of RDF heat
input and 60% boiler steam load .... ......... 53
35 Ash rate of boiler unit No. 5 as a function of RDF heat
input and 80% boiler steam load. ............. 54
36 Ash rate of boiler unit No. 5 as a function of RDF heat
input and 100% boiler steam load ............. 55
37 Ash rate of boiler unit No. 6 as a function of RDF heat
input and 80% boiler steam load ............. 56
38 Outer surface of unused portion of boiler waterwall tube . •
39 Exposed side of outer surface of boiler waterwall tube . . •
40 Exposed side of outer surface of boiler waterwall tube ...
41 Exposed front face of boiler superheater tube .......
42 Scale and deposit on boiler superheater tube
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Pace
43 Scale and deposit on boiler superheater tube 68
44 Bottom of scale cusp lying adjacent to metal surface of
boiler superheater tube 70
45 The region near the center of curvature of the cusp .... 71
46 Scale and deposit interface on boiler superheater tube ... 72
F-2 Heating value of refuse derived fuel (RDF) versus moisture
and ash content for daily samples ....... 164
G-l Conveyor speed control addition for Atlas control system . . 170
G-2 Overall system block diagram 171
xi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of Factorial Experimental Design Showing Test
Designation ........... '
2 Boiler Tube Corrosion Deposit and Scale Analyses 7^
A-la Boiler Performance Design - Unit 5 (S.I. Units) 76
A-lb Boiler Performance Design - Unit 5 (English Units) .... 78
A-2a Unit 5 Fan Performance Design (S.i. Units) 80
A-2b Unit 5 Fan Performance Design (English Units) 8^
A-3 Unit 5 Equipment Design Details 82
A-4a Unit 6 Fan Performance Design (S.I. Units) 83
A-4b Unit 6 Performance Design (English Units)
85
A-5 Unit 6 Equipment Design Details
87
B-l Boiler Performance Design • . • '
89
B-2 Pneumatic Transport System
Qfl
B-3 Overfire and Distributor Air System
91
C-l Boiler EPA Test Matrix Designation
93
C-2a Ultimate Analysis of Coal
C-2b Ultimate Analysis of Refuse-Derived Fuel
97
C-2c Ultimate Analysis of Coal and Refuse-Derived Fuel Mixtures.
C-3a Calculation of Ash in Fuel (Pyrite and H20 of Hydration
Correction)
xii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
C-3b Ultimate Analysis of Grate Ash ......... 101
C-3c Ultimate Analysis of Collector Ash 103
C-3d Combined Ash Analysis 105
C-4a Calculated Boiler Performance Data 107
C-4b Calculated Boiler Performance Data 109
C-4c Calculated Boiler Performance Data' ..... 112
C-5a Boiler Operating Data 115
C-5b Boiler Operating Data 118
D-l Ash Fusion Temperatures (°C) for Coal, RDF, Grate, and
Collector Ash 120
D-2 Average Ash Fusion Temperatures (°C) for Coal, RDF, Grate,
and Collector Ash .......... .. 126
D-3 Chemical Analysis (Major Elements) of Coal, RDF, and Fuel
Mixtures Ash 128
D-4a Chemical Analysis (Major Elements) of Grate Ash ...... 132
D-4b Chemical Analysis (Major Elements) of Collector Ash .... 134
D-5 Base/Acid Ratio Slagging and Fouling Indices 136
D-6 Base/Acid Ratio, Slagging/Fouling Factor Calculation
Parameters ..... 138
E-l Forced and Induced Draft Fan Motor Amperes 140
E-2 Flue Gas and Combustion Air Volume Flow Rates 141
E-3 Size Distribution of RDF Discharged From Atlas Bin .... 143
E-4 Fuel-RDF Utilization 144
E-5 Stack Heat Losses—Indirect Boiler Efficiency 146
xiii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
E-6 Measured Ash Flow-Rate Ratios , 148
F-l Bulk Density, Heating Value, and Proximate and Ultimate
Analysis of RDF Discharged From Atlas Bin 151
F-2 Laboratory Analysis of RDF Ash 152
F-3 Fusion Temperature of RDF Ash 153
F-4 Sampling Schedule ..................... 154
F-5 Moisture Free and Ash Free Values of Daily Samples of RDF
Discharged From Atlas Bin ....... ... 155
F-6 Size Distribution of RDF Discharged From Atlas Bin .... 157
F-7 Laboratory Analysis of Clinker Ash Removed From Stoker
Boiler No. 5, Firing Coal Plus RDF 159
F-8 Variability of Daily Values of Characteristics of RDF
Discharged From Atlas Bin 160
xiv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The system evaluation of the Ames Solid Waste Recovery System is a major
research program funded by the EPA, and ERDA*with earlier additional partici-
pation by the American Public Power Association (APPA). This project is being
performed jointly by the City of Ames, Iowa; Engineering Research Institute of
Iowa State University; Ames Laboratory/ERDA; and Midwest Research Institute
(MRI). This report presents the results and conclusions of the investigation
on the stoker fired steam generator units Nos. 5 and 6, and it includes contri-
butions from all of the above participants.
The EPA-sponsored portion of the program was directed by Mr. Carlton C.
Wiles of the Municipal'Environmental Research Laboratory, Solid and Hazardous
Waste Research Division, Office of Research and Development; and Mr. Robert
Olexsey, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Energy,
Minerals and Industry.
Individuals charged with responsibility for major implementation of the
various tasks in this research program are listed below.
City of Ames
Mr. Arnold Chantland - Director of Public Works
Mr. Keith Sedore - Director of Electric Utility
Mr. Merlin Hove - Assistant Director of Electric Utility
Mr. Jerry Temple - Superintendent of Process Plant
Iowa State University
Dr. Paul Peterson - Director, Engineering Research Institute
Professor Alfred W. Joensen - Department of Mechanical Engineering -
EPA Project Coordinator
Dr. Jerry L. Hall - Department of Mechanical Engineering - Principal
Investigator
Professor Delmar Van Meter - Department of Mechanical Engineering
Dr. John C. Even - Department of Industrial Engineering
Dr. Keith Adams - Department of Industrial Engineering
Dr. William L. Larsen - Department of Engineering Materials and Science
xv
-------
Midwest Research Institute
Mr. Douglas E. Fiscus - Program Manager
Mr. Robert White - Associate Mechanical Engineer
Mr. Joseph Slanina - Research Technician
Mr. Pat Shea - Senior Chemical Engineer
ERDA - Ames Laboratory*
Dr. Velmer A. Fassel - Deputy Director, Ames Laboratory
Mr. Howard Shanks - ERDA Project Coordinator
Other individuals contributing to the sampling, data reduction, and re-
port preparation are listed below.
Engineering Research Institute
William Bathie, Mechanical Engineer Don Erickson, Laboratory Assistant
Gary Severns, Research Associate Don Young, Laboratory Assistant
Roger Wehage, Research Associate Doug Ryan, Laboratory Assistant
Ron Reece, Technician Betsy Morgan, Laboratory Assistant
John Carroll, Research Assistant Mike Lind, Laboratory Assistant
Larry Scheier, Research Assistant Erv Mussman, Laboratory Assistant
Tom Fries, Research Assistant Richard Cool, Laboratory Assistant
Tom Hay, Laboratory Assistant David McAnich, Laboratory Assistant
In addition, there were several others who helped during portions of the
various phases of the project. These names are too numerous to mention, but
the efforts were greatly appreciated and their contribution is hereby
acknowledged.
*During the conduct of the study, ERDA became the U. S. Department of Energy
(DOE). Hereafter in this report, the agency which is now DOE will be
referred to as ERDA.
xvi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Ames Solid Waste Recovery System is a continuously operating system
that is processing municipal solid waste (MSW) for use as a supplemental fuel
in the existing steam generators of the Ames Municipal Power Plant. This sys-
tem consists of a nominal 136-Mg/day (150-ton/day) processing plant, a 454-Mg
(500-ton) Atlas storage bin, pneumatic transport systems and the existing mu-
nicipal power plant. The processing plant incorporates two stages of shredding,
ferrous and nonferrous metal recovery and an air density separator. The three
steam generators consist of one pulverized coal tangentially fired unit (No. 7),
two spreaders, return traveling grate, and stoker fired units (Nos. 5 and 6).
The EPA Grant No. R803903-01-0 for the 1st year of research study of the
Ames Solid Waste Recovery System was officially awarded February 4, 1976. A
detailed work plan was submitted in March 1976, and included: (a) environ-
mental evaluations of steam generator units Nos. 5, 6, and 7, including the
particulate collector; (b) boiler performance study; (c) boiler corrosion
studies; (d) economic evaluation of the solid waste process plant and of the
city power plant; and (e) interim characterization of the RDF.
This report concerns itself with the determination of the following ob-
jectives :
Evaluation of boiler efficiency.
. RDF fuel utilization.
Particulate collector efficiency.
Other boiler performance behavior including excess air flow, charac-
terization of coal, RDF, grate and collector ash including major chem-
ical analysis, ash softening temperatures and calculation of slagging
and fouling indices.
Corrosion experience.
The actual studies commenced June 1, 1976. Because of boiler unit avail-
ability at the power plant, major research emphasis was on the environmental
evaluation and boiler performance of the stoker fired units Nos. 5 and 6, while
firing coal and coal-RDF.
-------
This report will present results and conclusions of the tests performed
on the stoker fired units during June 1, 1976, to September 1, 1976. A sep-
arate report on the evaluation of the refuse processing plant (1) has been
prepared. A detailed report on the boiler environmental emissions will be
submitted separately.
(1) Even, J. C., S. K. Adams, P. Gheresus, A. W. Joensen, J. L. Hall, D. E.
Fiscus, C. A. Romine. Evaluation of the Ames Solid Waste Recovery Sys-
tem. Part I: Summary of Environmental Emissions: Equipment, Facili-
ties and Economic Evaluations. Engineering Research Institute, Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa 50011. October 1977.
-------
SECTION 2
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
The involvement of various research organizations and funding agencies
on this project resulted in organizational arrangement as shown in Figure 1.
Specific tasks are directed and monitored by the principal investigators who
are required to forward results as developed. These data were forwarded to
MRI for use in their preparation of monthly and quarterly progress reports.
These reports were then forwarded to EPA through the City of Ames project man-
ager. MRI was also charged with the responsibility of comparing data results
with those resulting from the EPA—St. Louis—Union Electric Company demonstra-
tion facility. Ames Laboratory/ERDA was responsible for development of any
new analytical techniques and the major share of analysis of collected species,
Additional analysis of coal, RDF, and ash was performed by the Research 900
and the ACU-Laboratories.
-------
I EPA/CINN
CITY OF AMES - A. CHANTLAND
ERDA - R. BUTENHOFF
AMES LABORATORY - H. SHANKS
ERI (ISU) - A.W. JOENSEN
MIDWEST RESEARCH
INSTITUTE -
D. FISCUS
R. WHITE
ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSION CHARACTERIZATION
- DEVELOP ANALYSIS
TECHNIQUES
- LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF
COLLECTED SAMPLES
- LABORATORY PREPARATION
OF SAMPLES
ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSION
CHARACTERIZATION
J L HALL
D. VAN METER
W.W. BATHIE
- INSTRUMENTATION
- TESTING
- LAB PREP OF COLLECTED
SAMPLES
- CALCULATION OF RESULTS
- REPORT PREPARATION
ECONOMIC
EVAL.
S.K. ADAMS
J. EVEN
CORROSION
BOILERS
W. LARSEN
BOILER AND
MF.CH.
PERFORMANCE
D. VAN METER
A.W. JOENSEN
Figure 1. Organizational diagram.
-------
SECTION 3
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The Ames power plant consists of three turbine-generator (T-G) units with
their respective steam generators. Boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 discharge into a
common steam header such that the steam output from boiler No. 5 can supply
T-G No. 6, and vice-versa if necessary. Unit No. 7 operates as a separate
unit. A general flow arrangement for all three units is shown in Figure 2.
All references to unit designation which follow in the report allude to
the steam generator.
Unit No. 5 is a Riley type RP steam generator rated at a continuous steam
flow of 43,000 kg/hr (95,000 Ib/hr), 4,340 kPa gage/440°C (630 psig/830°F) with
feedwater supplied at 170°C (340°F). Riley Company overthrow coal spreaders
(four each) are used along with a continuous return traveling grate. Although
this unit was designed for front furnace wall natural gas firing, difficulty
in control of steam temperatures forced abandonment of this operational mode
several years ago. A single hopper located in the boiler convection pass is
used to collect cinders and these are reinjected into the furnace by use of a
separate cinder air return fan. An elevation cross-section view is shown in
Figure 3. The forced draft fan and combustion inlet is located in the basement.
The induced draft fan is located just above the operating floor and above the
mechanical fly ash collector.
Unit No. 6 is a Union Iron Works steam generator with a design continuous
steam flow rating of 57,000 kg/hr (125,000 Ib/hr). Coal feeding is provided
by a Hoffman Company underthrow spreader with a continuous return traveling
grate. Rated steam conditions are 4,340 kPa gage/440°C (630 psig/825°F) when
feedwater is supplied at 180°C (350°F). Hoppers located both under the boiler
convection pass and the economizer section collect cinders or combustible car-
ryover for reinjection into the furnace. Cinder return air is supplied from
the overfire air fan. The forced draft fan is located in the basement and the
induced draft fan is located 17 m above the operating floor. Mechanical dust
collectors are used to remove fly ash and are located 13 m above the main floor.
A general arrangement is shown in Figures 4 and 5.
-------
Refuse Fuel
from Classifier
Cyclone
33MW
Tangential ly
Fired Boiler
No. 7
12MW
Spreader Stoker
Traveling Grote
Boiler No. 6
Figure 2. Power plant flow diagram.
-------
Figure 3. Elevation view of boiler No. 5.
-------
Steam
Tubes .
Boiler
Coo\ Trajectory
X X
x /
/
/ /' / / /
/ / / / /
' ' / ,
' ' / I I
/ ' ' I
I I / '
• I ' I '
' I / ' I
, / ' Moving Grote /
Coal
Distributor
\
Siffings
<:
/
• . . 4
^. _J
"X.
\
» •
'Drag
Seals -"
\ - 1 li
^^
Drive
""" Sprocket
r
Bottom
Ash
Figure 4. Elements of a spreader stoker*
-------
Figure 5. Elevation view of Ames power plant sectioned through boiler No. 6.
-------
Four natural gas burners are located in the furnace sldewall, two on each
side arranged in staggered positions. Gas firing is normally used during the
summer when economical interruptible (or dump) gas is available. A detailed
listing of design data is tabulated in Appendix A.
Both units Nos. 5 and 6 utilize a pneumatic vacuum (or dry) bottom and
fly ash removal system. A United Conveyor Corporation pneumatic system conveys
ash from grate hoppers, grate sifting hoppers, mechanical fly ash collectors
(multiclove), and stack dropout ash to a tiled storage silo located on the east
side of the plant. The ash storage bin is emptied once daily. A flow sche-
matic is shown in Figure 6.
10
-------
-o - - o
Collector
-N-
Boiler No. 6
o o o
Vacuum System
Ash Storage Silo
Stack
Siftings
0
o
Col lector
' Boiler No. 5 '
-O-U
O . Grate Siftings
I
O I O 1 O I Grate Hopper Ash
N
O Hopper Openings
X Isolation Values
Figure 6. Plan view flow diagram - pneumatic ash removal system.
-------
SECTION 4
POWER PLANT MODIFICATIONS - RDF FIRING
Refuse derived fuel can be pneumatically conveyed from the Atlas storage
bin through any of four 203-mm transport pipelines to boiler Nos. 5, 6, and 7.
A flow diagram of this pneumatic transport system is shown in Figure 7. The
transport pipelines are labeled A, B, C, and D. Each line was designed to
convey approximately 3.6 mg/hr (4 ton/hr). Lines A, B, C, and D can also
supply RDF to unit No. 7.
Lines A and D are used to supply RDF either to unit No. 5 or 6. Extreme
wear encountered in operation resulted in the use of straight spool inserts
instead of the diverter valve. Thus, if it is desired to switch RDF firing
from unit No. 5 to unit No. 6 or vice-versa, different geometry inserts must
be installed. RDF is fired on a continuous basis until the Atlas storage bin
is emptied.
Riley Corporation pneumatic distributors are used to inject RDF directly
into the furnace of each unit. Two distributors with fan, silencer, and
piping were installed in the front furnace wall of each unit. Distributor
construction details are shown in Figure 8.
The two distributors for unit No. 5 were installed in the front waterwall
area formerly occupied by the gas burners. Unit No. 6 required more extensive
front wall modification for installation of the RDF distributors.
Part of the required combustion air (known as overfire air) is introduced
through the back and front furnace wall region just above the grate area. This
overfire air promotes mixing and turbulence so as to allow complete combustion
to occur.
The original overfire air system for unit No. 5 utilized a single row of
nozzles in the rear wall and also in the front wall. In addition, the four
Riley coal spreader assemblies use an upper plate which is perforated to allow
injection of overfire air which also aids in distribution of coal. A separate
4 liters/sec cinder return air fan provides for reinjection of cinders into
the furnace.
12
-------
Figure 7. Power plant pneumatic transport system.
-------
Air Inlet
Air Control Damper
Distribution Nozzle
Distribution Tray
Distribution Tray Control
Figure 8. Riley pneumatic stoker.
14
-------
The modification provided for two sets of rear overfire air nozzles, eight
upper and seven lower. The cinder return fan was retained. A set of eight
upper nozzles was installed at the original front wall elevation. A larger
overfire air fan silencer with appropriate piping was also required. A gen-
eral arrangement is shown in Figure 9.
The unit No. 6 overfire air system utilized two rows of nozzles in the
back wall with a set of seven cinder return nozzles. A set of nine front wall
nozzles was located just below the Hoffman coal spreaders.
The modification resulted in two back wall sets of 13 nozzles each, and
an additional set of 15 upper front wall nozzles. The lower set of nine lower
front wall nozzles was retained. The arrangement for unit No. 6 is shown in
Figure 10.
The distributor air system for each boiler uses two sets of nozzles. An
upper nozzle (or orifice) is positioned in each of the Riley pneumatic dis-
tributors. Its original purpose was to inject RDF into the furnace. A lower
set of four distributor air nozzles is positioned below the pneumatic dis-
tributor.
Operation over a time period resulted in a buildup of the deposits on the
back wall. Current firing practice does not use any of the distributor air
nozzles in either boiler. The movable pneumatic distributor plate was posi-
tioned in the down position to try and reduce any major back wall impact.
Therefore, only pneumatic transport line air is used to inject the RDF into
the furnace.
Performance specifications for operation after modification are tabulated
in Appendix B.
15
-------
DISTRIBUTOR
FAN
OVERFIRE
AIR FAN
RDF
PNEUMATIC
TRANSPORT
E
•*
n
Figure 9. Modified traveling grate stoker fired boiler No. 5.
-------
DISTRIBUTOR
AIR FAN
FURNACE
—WATERFALL
*-RDF
DISTRIBUTOR
AIR
OVERFIRE
AIR FAN
OVERFIRE
AIR
COAL
OVERFIRE AIR
CINDER ASH
REINJECTION
0.79m
*
Figure 10. Modification spreader traveling grate stoker boiler No. 6.
-------
SECTION 5
TEST PROCEDURE
The amount of testing and sampling required to effectively characterize
the operation and effluents of the power plant is an important consideration.
The amount of data required dictates the testing time, number of people re-
quired, and the analytical resources necessary to respectively accomplish test-
ing, analysis of results, and correlation of the measured variables with fac-
tors which can be controlled in the power plant.
In this study, it was determined that two major factors could be con-
trolled at various levels. These factors were the load based on steam flow
and the amount of RDF based on heat energy input in the boiler. The levels
of these factors were chosen to be 60, 80, and 100% nominal load, and 0, 20,
and 50% RDF. A factorial experimental design with three replications was de-
vised for each boiler as summarized in Table 1. Thus, for boiler unit No. 5
the statistical design is a 3 x 3 x 3 full factorial experiment with 27 runs
needed to fill the data matrix of this experiment. In addition, testing of
two different size (and design) traveling grate stoker fired boilers (units
Nos. 5 and 6) was accomplished at one load setting (80%) to obtain a relative
size comparison for all emission data at a given fixed load. The tests ac-
complished to date are shown in Table 1.
Since the Ames Municipal Power Plant is an operating facility, the ap-
propriate test loads for any test day were based on the actual plant loading
that existed throughout the summer; these loads were extremely dependent on
weather conditions.
The input fuel flows and boiler load were held as constant as possible;
thus, steady-state conditions were attained prior to start of a test. Storage
hoppers containing grate (bottom), collector (fly), and siftings ash were emp-
tied prior to the start of each test.
Iowa coal was used for unit No. 5 since the sulfur content is generally
higher than that found in Wyoming coal. This single coal was used to reduce
potential variation in coal properties that could result from the mixing of
Iowa and Wyoming coals. Since RDF is nominally low in sulfur content, it was
18
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
SHOWING TEST DESIGNATION
Stoker Boiler No. 5
Coal Used: Iowa
\% Load
%M>\
0
20
50
60
4A.4B
20
21 S/
36
8
9A.9B
33
1
34
35
80
5
16
17
6
12
13
2
10
15
100
32 ^/
7
14
19
3
18
Stoker Boiler No. 6
Coal Used: Mixture of
50% Iowa, 50% Wyoming
\%Load
% RDFN^
0
20
50
80^
24
29
30
25
26
27
22
23
28
g/ Test 21 conducted while pulling ash from boiler to determine any change in
performance and/or emissions due to ash removal.
b/ Bottom ash not weighed because of ash removal difficulties (slagging in boiler
and clinkering of ash).
c/ Boiler No. 5 cannot operate at 100% steam load and 50% RDF without severe
ash problems due to lack of excess air. Therefore, the third test in series
was not conducted.
d/ Load was changed from the originally planned 100% to 80% steam load to be
more typical of capability of boiler and air supply for refuse burning. This
change was essential from experience gained during testing of Boiler No. 5.
19
-------
desired to learn if stack sulfur emissions could be reduced substantially by
the use of an Iowa coal plus RDF fuel mix.
After equilibrium operating conditions were reached, all necessary pre-
surveys were completed for the required environmental sampling evaluation.
Normal actual test time for data acquisition was 4 to 5 hr and this was
necessary for completion of the environmental sampling. Results of the en-
vironmental study are being prepared as a separate joint EPA-ERDA agency re-
port.
During a test on either unit, samples were obtained at all points shown
in Figure 11. Goal, RDF, and grate ash samples were obtained at 1-hr inter-
vals and then mixed to yield a composite sample. All stack effluents were
sampled according to EPA prescribed procedures.
Coal samples were collected at the discharge of the conveyor belt into
a 90-kg kopper scale, located immediately above the boiler coal feed dis-
tributor.
Grate ash was sampled laterally across the traveling grate as it dumped
the ash into the bottom hopper. Collector (fly) ash was periodically sampled
from a bottom opening as the ash was vacuum removed after the completion of
the specific test.
RDF samples were obtained at the storage bin by inserting a fixed-volume
container below the drag conveyor as it dropped the RDF down into the air-lock
feeder of the pneumatic transport line.
Grate and collector ash flow rates were measured in the following manner.
Prior to the official start of the test, with the unit at the desired load,
all ash hoppers were emptied, and in turn, the ash storage silo was emptied.
At test completion, grate ash and collector ash were removed or "pulled"
separately. Separate removal of the grate ash from the bottom hopper into the
ash silo allowed for truck removal and subsequent weighing at the RDF process
plant scale. Collector ash removal was then completed with subsequent weigh-
ing. As bottom grate ash or collector ash was removed from the ash silo it
was sprayed with water to control dust. This water flow was metered and the
weight was deducted from the total amount weighed.
20
-------
FLOW RATE
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
HEATING VALUE
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS & TRACE ELEMENTS
ASH SOFTENING TEMPERATURE
FILTER PARTICULATE TRACE ELEMENTS
IMPINGER WATER TRACE ELEMENTS
EMISSION RATES OF PARTICULATE
PARTICULATE TRACE ELEMENTS
IMPINGER WATER TRACE ELEMENTS
EMISSION RATES OF PARTICULATE
AND GASEOUS SPECIES
PARTICULATE SIZING
HUMIDITY
BAROMETER
INTAKE
TEMPERATURE
VOLUME FLOW
DENSITY
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
HEATING VALUE
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS &
TRACE ELEMENTS
ASH SOFTENING
TEMPERATURE
TEMPERATURE
FLOW RATE
FLOW RATE
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS &
TRACE ELEMENTS
SOFTENING TEMPERATURE
FLOW RATE
TEMPERATURE
PRESSURE
FLOW RATE
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS &
TRACE ELEMENTS
SOFTENING TEMPERATURE
Figure !!• Boiler unit Nos« 5 and 6 sampling locations.
-------
SECTION 6
OPERATIONAL NARRATIVE
As testing progressed throughout June and July, a buildup of ash and sub-
sequent plugging occurred in the slag-screen tube area of unit No. 5 at the
inlet of the superheater. Beginning on July 23, 1976, "puffing of gases" ema-
nating from furnace openings began to occur. In an earlier test at 20% RDF
flow, there were several instances when the furnace draft (gage) pressure went
positive yet no flue gases would be emitted from the furnace openings around
the spreaders. The opinion was that slugs of RDF entered the furnace and would
undergo combustion, causing localized positive pressure. The static pressure
top for furnace draft and induced-draft fan control was located at approxi-
mately the same level as the RDF injection assembly.
After July 23, there were an increased number of incidents as reported
by the boiler operators where puffs of black smoke leaked out from around the
coal spreaders while the furnace draft went positive for a few moments.
On August 2, a weld on the boiler steam line nonreturn valve developed a
leak which necessitated a shutdown for repairs. By this time severe plugging
of the inlet region to the superheater section had occurred.
Cleanup of the boiler was made. A decision was also reached to begin
testing of unit No.. 6 while allowing for some necessary maintenance on unit
No. 5 to be completed.
The Iowa coal appeared to have an increased number of fines and this al-
lowed the negative furnace pressure or draft to "suck in" these fines and de-
posit them on the grate directly in front of the spreader assembly. This in
turn, resulted in an inability to provide sufficient heat release for steam
generation and subsequent dropping of load. This occurred on July 24, 1976,
when at 100% load, a test abort resulted.
During testing of unit No. 5, it appeared that at 100% steam load, in-
sufficient combustion air was supplied through the grate while the induced-
draft fan was at its full-open control position. This was attributed to the
large amount of air injected by the RDF pneumatic transport air. Measurements
of the A and D transport lines indicated approximately 1.9 m^/sec of air flow
were used to inject the RDF.
22
-------
When unit No. 5 was shut down for cleaning and for repair of the non-
return steam valve weld leak, testing was then performed on unit No. 6.
Earlier experience obtained from firing unit No. 6 in the spring indicated
less wall slagging occurred when the boiler carried lower steam loads and
more air. Also, Iowa-Wyoming coal was used in the earlier tests.
Based on this past behavior, a mutual decision was reached that unit
No. 6 would be tested at 80% steam load using a 50% mix of Iowa-Wyoming coal.
Upon completion of the tests at 80% steam load on unit No. 6, testing
was resumed in unit No. 5 on August 24, 1976.
When the analysis of the major elements of the coal, RDF, grate and
collector ash were completed; slagging and fouling indices were calculated
for comparative purposes. A high sodium content appears in the RDF which
results in a high fouling index. This is discussed later in the report.
The indication of high excess air flow rates by ORSAT flue gas measure-
ments seem substantiated by the boiler operator's comments that the induced
draft fans were running wide open especially at the higher steam loads. When
testing unit No. 6, this effect was noticed immediately when logging the
forced draft and induced draft fan drive motor amperes as indicated on the
control panel. Fan motor average amperes for unit No. 6 are shown in Table E-l.
No instrumentation for this effect was available on unit No. 5.
Calculated volume flow rates for flue gas and combustion air based on
flue gas measurements are shown in Table E-2. Comparison of the actual flow
rates at different loads with the original design flow rates (see Appendix A)
shows the actual rates are larger.
Several procedures to reduce superheater plugging on unit No. 5 have been
attempted. The Appollo Chemical Corporation was contacted by plant personnel
and this company injected their additives into the RDF transport lines. The
objective was to try to soften the accumulated slag on the superheater tubes
so that the material would drip off. This proved unsuccessful.
In January 1977, a new procedure was incorporated by Ames power plant
personnel. At approximately 4 PM every afternoon, RDF firing is stopped and
the boiler load is measured to 34,000 kg/hr (75,000 Ib/hr) for about 2 hr,
then, normal firing at about 27,200 kg/hr (60,000 Ib/hr) of steam generation
is resumed. The consensus of operating personnel is that the slag buildup is
reduced with some dripping down or fall off of the slag material taking place.
In addition, long travel soot blowers are being installed in the superheater
region of unit No. 5. Unit No. 6 does contain soot blowers in the superheater
region.
23
-------
SECTION 7
BOILER PERFORMANCE RESULTS
EXCESS AIR
Figures 12 and 13 show the excess air for the tests as a function of per-
cent RDF heat input and boiler steam load. The firing of the two stoker units
was manually controlled by the boiler operator until the fire and boiler opera-
tion appeared to be "right," based on the operators' experience. The flue gas
was sampled, and the boiler operators were informed of the C02 and 02 content
so they would have an indication of how much excess air they were running. At
the higher steam loads, the amount of air which could be supplied was limited
by the capacity of the induced draft fan. This problem was especially acute
when RDF was being burned because of the additional air supplied by the RDF
transport lines. Air flow through RDF transport line A is 904 liters/sec and
line D is 768 liters/sec; these values are based on two separate sets of flow
measurements with air alone.
Due to the variability in the coal (some of the Iowa coal had a large
amount of fines) and the boiler operators, there was considerable variability
in the excess air achieved. There are, however, some trends which are worth
noting because of the effect that they have on the boiler performance param-
eters. Figures 12 and 13 show that generally the excess air increased when
any refuse was burned. This is due to the extra air which was being supplied
by the pneumatic RDF feeders. The boiler operators were not fully aware of
the amount of air this was contributing and hence, tended to leave the forced
draft fan settings about the same as when firing coal alone. In a sense, this
was to be expected since the additional air coming through the pneumatic RDF
feeders did not come through the grate where the fuel was burning and thus,
did not contribute to the primary combustion air. The average increase in ex-
cess air (for all loads on boiler unit No. 5) was 8.0% for 20% RDF and 13.7%
for 507, RDF as compared to coal alone (0% RDF). Boiler unit No. 6 excess air
increased approximately 14% for RDF compared to coal alone.
Figure 13 indicates that the amount of excess air for unit No. 5 decreased
substantially as percent steam load increased. This was true of all levels of
RDF heat input. The excess air ranged from an average of 130% at 60% steam
load, 109% at 80% load, to 69% at 95% steam load. Boiler unit No. 6 averaged 86%
24
-------
1
Excess Air
Versus
RDF Heat Input
O 60% Load
a 80% Load
A 100% Load
Open Symbols Boiler *5
Solid Symbols Boiler *6
1
10
20 30 40
RDF Heat Input, Percent
50
60
Figure 12* Excess air of boiler units Nos» 5 and 6 as a
function of RDF heat input.
25
-------
180
160
140
_ 120
c
V
u
100
80
60 -
Excess Air
Versus
Boiler Steam Load
O 0% RDF
D 20% RDF
A 50% RDF
Open Symbols Boiler
Solid Symbols Boiler
60 80
Steam Load, Percent Rated Output
100
Figure 13. Excess air of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a
function of boiler steam load*
26
-------
excess air at 80% load, ranging from 70% for coal alone, 96% for 20% RDF and
92% for 50% RDF heat input. In summary, excess air increased significantly
when RDF was burned due to air injected by the pneumatic RDF feeders, but ex-
cess air decreased markedly as steam load increased due to the capacity limi-
tations of the induced draft fan.
BOILER EFFICIENCY
The thermal efficiencies of the boiler units were determined by both the
direct and indirect methods according to the following relationships.
_ Q Steam _ Steam flow rate [kg/hr] x [hout - hin] [kj/kg]
11 direct ~ Heat input ~ Fuel firing rate [kg/hr] x HHVfuel [kj/kg]
and 7] indirect = 1 < loss
Heat input
where Qloss = Qloss ^dry flue 8as) + ^loss (combustible in ash)
+ QIOSS (water in flue gas) + QIOSS radiation*
Figures 14 and 15 show the boiler efficiency calculated by the direct
method for varying percent RDF heat input and percent load, while Figures 16
and 17 show boiler efficiency calculated by the indirect method. The agreement
between the values obtained by the two methods is less consistent than one might
hope. This could be due to uncertainties in the determination of coal and RDF
flow rates, excess air, and heating values of coal and RDF.
The indirect boiler efficiency versus percent RDF heat input (Figure 16)
indicates that there is a decrease in efficiency as RDF heat input increases.
The direct method, Figure 14, verifies this except in the case of boiler unit
No. 5 at 60 and 100% load. This decrease is most likely due to the increase
in excess air when refuse was burned (approximately 1,900 liters/sec of air
injection by pneumatic RDF feeders). The increase in excess air (see Figure
12) ranged from 10 to 30% when RDF was fired compared to coal alone. This
would be sufficient to account for the observed decrease in boiler efficiency.
One should not automatically conclude that it would be possible to restrict
the air supplied under the grate by the forced draft fan and thereby hold ex-
cess air constant. The air would not come through the grate as primary air
and thus would probably cause an increase in combustible lost in the ash. In
addition there might be considerable problems with slagging and fouling if the
excess air were limited. An alternate approach would be to separate the trans-
port air from the pneumatic RDF feed lines by cyclone separation and inject
the RDF by gravity or a screw conveyor.
* Estimated from ASME Power Test Code.
27
-------
85
80
c
V
(J
X
u
jj 75
70 -
Direct Boiler Efficiency
Versus
Boiler Steam Load
O 0% RDF
a 20% RDF
-1 50% RDF
Open Symbols Boiler
Solid Symbols Boiler
I
I
J
.60 80
Steam Load, Percent Rated Output
100
Figure 14. Direct boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6
as a function of boiler steam load*
28
-------
85 _
80
* 75
70
Direct Boiler Efficiency
Venus
RDF Heat Input
O 60% Load
a 80% Load
A 100% Load
Open Symbols Boiler '5
Solid Symbols Boiler '6
I
I
10 20 30 40
RDF Heat Input, Percent
50
60
Figure 15. Direct boiler efficiency of boiler units
Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of RDF heat input.
29
-------
85,-
Indirect Boiler Efficiency
V«rsu»
RDF Heat Input
O 60% Load
0 80% Load
A 100% Load
Op*n Symbols BoiUr *5
Solid Symbols Bo!l«r '6
10
20 30 40
RDF H«a» Input, P«re«nf
50
60
Figure 16. Indirect boiler efficiency of boiler units
Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of RDF heat input.
30
-------
80
u
75
70
Indirect Boiler Efficiency
Versuj
Boiler Steam Load
O 0%RDF
0 20% ROF
A 50% RDF
Open Symbols Boiler '5
Solid Symbols Boiler '6
60 80
Steam Load, Percent Rated Output
100
Figure 17. Indirect boiler efficiency of boiler units
Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of boiler steam load.
31
-------
Figures 18 and 19 show the average of the direct and indirect method
boiler efficiency versus percent RDF heat input and percent steam load.
The same general trends previously mentioned are noted.
The results indicate that there was no significant change in the percent
of the heat input leaving as combustible in the ash which tends to support
the hypothesis that the burning of RDF did not have a direct detrimental ef-
fect on boiler efficiency.
Another factor which possibly affected the boiler efficiency was the
slag and fouling deposit buildup on the boiler tubes due to the burning of
RDF. Since the various levels of steam load and percent RDF heat input were
scheduled In a random fashion, there is no way to quantify or correlate the
effect of slag buildup on thermal efficiency. Thus, it must be classed as
an uncontrolled and unmeasured variable.
In summary, the only direct effect of burning RDF on the measured in-
direct boiler efficiency was a 1-1/2% decrease due to the increased moisture
content of the RDF (50% by heat input).
PARTICULATE COLLECTOR EFFICIENCY
Figures 20 and 21 portray the effect of percent RDF heat input and per-
cent load on the particulate collector efficiency. These efficiencies were
measured by determining the total particulate loading before and after the
multiclone particulate collectors with an EPA Method 5 train and calculating
the collection efficiency as follows:
^collector = 1 - mass of particulate out of the collector
mass of particulate into the collector
Figure 20 shows that there was an increase in collector efficiency as the
percent RDF heat input increased for unit No. 5 at 80 and 100% load. For
60% load, the collection efficiency decreased slightly when 60% RDF was
burned. Particulate collection efficiency for boiler unit No. 6 did not vary
significantly with percent RDF. The tendency for the efficiency of the col-
lector to increase with percent RDF is plausible when one recognizes that
the particles in the flue gas which come from the RDF are larger in size than
those from coal alone. Since the multiclones are more efficient at separat-
ing larger particles, the efficiency should increase as percent RDF in-
creases*
Figure 21 indicates that the collection efficiency was greatest at 80%
load for all levels of RDF. Values of efficiency for boiler unit No. 5
average 71.2, 87.2, and 80.0% at 60, 80, and 100% load, respectively.
32
-------
85 r-
Average Boiler Efficiency*
Versus
RDF Heat Input
* Average Efficiency
O 60% Load
a 80% Load
& 100% Load
Open Symbols Boiler '5
Solid Symbols Boiler '6
Direct Efficiency + Indirect Efficiency
20 30 40
RDF Heat Input, Percent
50
60
Figure 18• Average boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6
as a function of RDF heat input.
33
-------
85 r-
80
c
70
Average Boiler Efficiency*
Versus
Boiler Steam Load
O 0% RDF
D 20% RDF
A 50% RDF
Open Symbols Boiler #5
Solid Symbols Boiler *6
'Average Efficiency = Direct Efficiency + Indirect Efficiency
0'
60 80
Steam Load, Percent Rated Output
100
Figure 19. Average boiler efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6
as a function of boiler steam load.
34
-------
1001-
o
H-
u
90
z
UJ
E 80
O
u
LU
|
U
70
60
I
Particulate Collector Efficiency
Versus
RDF Heat Input
O 60% Load
a 80% Load
A 100% Load
Open Symbol Boiler 5
Solid Symbol Boiler 6
I
0 20 40
RDF HEAT INPUT, PERCENT
60
Figure 20. Particulate collector efficiency of boiler units Nos,
5 and 6 as a function of RDF heat input.
35
-------
100
z
LU
g 90
LU
U
Z
LU
y so
LU
o
I—
u
O
u
70
60
i
Particulare Collector Efficiency
Versus
Boiler Steam Load
O 0% RDF
D20% RDF
A 50% RDF
Open Symbol Boiler 5
Solid Symbol Boiler 6
60 80
STEAM LOAD, PERCENT RATED OUTPUT
100
Figure 21. Particulate collector efficiency of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6
as a function of boiler steam load.
36
-------
Boiler unit No. 6 collector efficiency averaged 79.7% at 80% load. The over-
all collector efficiency for all runs was 79.5% for boiler unit No. 5.
FUEL UTILIZATION
Figures 22 and 23 relate the percent of the total fuel heat input lost
due to combustible (primarily carbon) loss in the ash as a function of percent
RDF heat input and percent boiler steam load. These results are calculated
by determining the amount of ash by using an ash balance and the fuel and ash
ultimate analysis. Figures 24 and 25 show the same information except the ash
was determined by weighing the ash accumulated over the entire duration of the
run. Although there are some differences in the losses calculated by the two
methods, the trends as percent RDF and percent load varied are similar. The
results show that there was no significant change in the percent of total heat
input lost as the percent RDF heat varied from 0 to 50%. The average loss for
unit No. 5 was approximately 4.1% using measured ash flow rates and 5.6% for
calculated ash flow rates. The heat loss to the ash for boiler unit No. 6 was
only 2.1% (average of calculated and weighed ash method). There was a slight
increase in the heat loss in the ash as percent load increased. This can be
explained by the fact that excess air decreased markedly with load (discussed
elsewhere), and that the grate loading (fire bed depth) increased resulting
in some incomplete burning.
Figures 26, 27, 28, and 29 depict the percentage of the RDF heat input
which was lost as combustibles in the ash. The combustible loss in the ash
attributable to RDF was calculated as follows: the amount of combustibles
from the coal is assumed to be the same when burning a mixture of coal and
RDF as when burning coal alone (at a fixed level of load).
For coal alone:
% Coal Heat Value in Ash = 2Mash x Heat Valueash
Heat Input from Coal MCOal x Heat Valuecoal
For coal and RDF:
% RDF Heat Value in Ash =
Heat Input From RDF
% Coal Loss to Ash
2Mash x Heat Valueash - Mcoal x Heat Valuecoal x 100
MRDF x Heat ValueRDF
where M = mass (kg)
A question can be raised regarding the assumption that the coal combus-
tible loss remains the same when firing coal + RDF. In fact, the coal loss
may decrease with the presence of RDF due to the higher excess air flow rates
37
-------
12 r-
10
Fuel Utilization (Combustible Loss)
Versus
RDF Heat Input
Calculated Ash Flow Rates
O - 60% Load
0 - 80% Load
A - 100% Load
Open Symbols Boiler '5
Solid Symbols Boiler #6
10
20 30 40
RDF Heat Input, Percent
50
60
Figure 22* Fuel utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of RDF
heat input) as determined from calculated ash flow rates*
38
-------
12 p-
10
c
0)
u 8
Fuel Utilization (Combustible Loss)
Versus
Boiler Steam Load
Calculated Ash Flow Rates
O - 0% RDF
a - 20% RDF
A - 50% RDF
Open Symbols Boiler #5
Solid Symbols Boiler #6
3 6
D
a.
o
-------
12 r-
c
Fuel Utilization (Combustible Loss)
Versus
RDF Heat Input
Measured Ash Flow Rates
O - 60% Load
a - 80% Load
a. - 100% Load
Open Symbols Boiler *5
Solid Symbols Boiler *6
10
20 30 40
RDF Heat Input, Percent
50
60
Figure 24* Fuel utilization of boiler units Nos* 5 and 6 as a function of RDF
heat input, as determined from measured ash flow rates*
40
-------
12 r-
10
i!
0} O
O- O
»•
*
c
Q.
O
I
I
Fuel Utilization (Combustible Loss)
Versus
Boiler Steam Load
Measured Ash Flow Rated
O - 0% RDF
D - 20% RDF
A - 50% RDF
Open Symbols Boiler ^5
Solid Symbols Boiler #6
60 80
Steam Load, Percent Rated Load
100
Figure 25. Fuel utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of
boiler steam load, as determined from measured ash flow rates.
41
-------
12 r
10
0)
if 8
a.,
a
a>
RDF Utilization (Combustible Loss)
Versus
RDF Heat Input
Calculated Ash Flow Rate
O- 60% Load
D- 80% Load
A-100% Load
Open Symbols Boiler ^5
Solid Symbols Boiler #6
Values for 0% RDF are Percent
of Coal Heat Input
10
20 30 40
RDF Heat Input, Percent
50
60
Figure 26.
RDF utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of
RDF heat input, as determined from calculated ash flow rates.
42
-------
12 r-
10 -
c
Q)
* 8 -
8
§•
RDF Utilization (Combustible Loss)
Versus
Boiler Steam Load
Calculated Ash Flow Rates
O - 0% RDF
O - 20% RDF
A - 50% RDF
Open Symbols Boiler *5
Solid Symbols Boiler #6
Values for 0% RDF are Percent
of Coal Heat Input
Figure 27.
60 70 80 90
Steam Load, Percent Rated Output
RDF utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of
boiler steam load, as determined from calculated ash flow rates.
-------
12 r
10
§ 8h
10
RDF Utilization (Combustible Loss)
Venus
RDF Heat Input
Measured Ash Flow Rate
O 60% Load
Q 80% Load
A100% Load
Open Symbols Boiler *5
Solid Symbols Boiler *6
Values for 0% RDF are Percent
of Coal Heat Input
20 30 40
RDF Heat Input, Percent
50
60
Figure 28» RDF utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of RDF
heat input, as determined from measured ash flow rates*
44
-------
12 i-
10
c
9)
£ 8
<
c
Q.
RDF Utilization (Combustible Loss)
Versus
Boiler Steam Load
Measured Ash Flow Rates
O - 0% RDF
D - 20% RDF
A - 50% RDF
Open Symbols Boiler *5
Solid Symbols Boiler ^6
Values for 0% RDF are Percent
of Coal Heat Input
60 70 80 90
Steam Load, Percent Rated Output
100
Figure 29.
RDF utilization of boiler units Nos. 5 and 6 as a function of
boiler steam load, as determined from measured ash flow rates.
45
-------
relative to coal flow. This would tend to make the coal heating value loss
less and tend to increase the apparent loss from the RDF. It is quite likely
that the inconsistent behavior of RDF utilization values were due to the above
assumption. It is significant to note that the total fuel combustible loss
remained essentially constant with increased RDF burning rates. In summary,
RDF was successfully burned with a utilization efficiency of approximately 95%.
There was no decrease in the utilization efficiency of RDF as compared to coal
alone at a given boiler steam load.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FUEL, GRATE ASH, AND COLLECTOR ASH
Laboratory analysis of coal, RDF, grate ash, and collector ash by the
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) method at the Ames Laboratory/ERDA, provided a list
of trace elements. Included in the trace elements were aluminum (Al), silicon
(Si), titanium (Ti), potassium (K), and iron (Fe). The method would allow for
detection of sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), and phosphorus (P). All of these
specified elements expressed as oxides constitute what is known as the major
chemical analysis of the mineral ash of coal. This analysis was also extended
to RDF. In addition, when the grate ash and collector ash were analyzed in
the laboratory, similar chemical analyses were determined. These elements, in
oxide form, were expressed as weight percent of the "ashed" material. These
major elements form a basis for calculation of slagging and fouling indices.
The elements analyzed by the Ames Laboratory were converted to the
oxide form. Sodium, magnesium and phosphorous analyses were determined
by a commercial laboratory. The sum of these oxide weights, when expressed
as percent weight of the fuel, grate ash, or collector ash should be equal
to the mineral ash weight percent as determined in the normal "ultimate
analysis" laboratory procedure.
It was indicated that the reported analysis of Al, Si, Ti, K, and Fe as
analyzed by XRF was sensitive to detection limits. In order to account for
the difference in ash content weights calculated from the sum of the chemical
oxides and the ash weight percent reported in the ultimate analysis, the
ratio of the latter to the former was used to correct the oxides calculated
from the trace element analysis.
The corrected major chemical analyses expressed in the oxide form for
coal, RDF, grate ash, and collector ash are shown in Tables D-3 and D-4. It
should be noted that higher amounts of both silica (Si02) and sodium oxide
(Na20) are present in the RDF. Visual observations of RDF while being sampled
indicated high-ground glass interspersed among the material.
46
-------
SLAGGING-FOULING INDICES
Potential slagging-fouling problems are evaluated by relationships
that involve the major chemical elements of mineral ash expressed in oxide
form. These are:
Slagging Index = (Base/Acid) x (% Sulfur on Dry Coal Basis)
Fouling Index = (Base/Acid) x (% Na20)
where
Na20 + K20 + Fe203 4- CaO + MgO
Base/Acid =
Si02 + A120
Although previously developed for coal, these indices were calculated
for coal, RDF, grate ash, and collector ash. These values are shown in
Table D-5 .
Potential difficulty of slagging in the furnace wall section or fouling
in the boiler convection passes is based on the criteria as follows:
Slagging Type Slagging Index
Low less than 0.6
Medium 0.6 - 2.0
High 2.0 - 2.6
Severe greater than 2.6
Fouling Type Fouling Index
Low less than 0.2
Medium 0.2 - 0.5
High 0.5 - 1.0
Severe greater than 1.0
The most significant influence is the higher sodium content of the RDF
and its effect on the fouling index. Severe buildup and ultimate plugging in
the slag- screen/ superheater section of unit No. 5 resulted in the shutdown
and cleanup of the boiler. Upon completion of the testing phase on September
1, 1976, this unit was switched from using 100% Iowa coal to a 50% mixture
each of Iowa and Wyoming coal.
Unit No. 6 has not experienced the severe plugging and this may be due
to the geometry of tube arrangement at the superheater inlet region. In
addition, furnace exit temperatures are not available so this behavior is still
being investigated.
The application of slagging index may not be appropriate due to the
potential presence of clear, brown or green ground glass by itself in the
47
-------
injected RDF. The initial fusion temperatures of clear glass (800°C), brown
and green glass (900°C) when not mixed may promote the presence of soft viscous
or sticky material after furnace injection and melting. With nonoperation of
the distributor air nozzles, slag buildup occurs mostly along the front fur-
nace wall and the sidewall areas in the region of the coal spreader and refuse
injectors. Slag buildup occurred along the bottom back wall of both units.
In any case, the injection of large amounts of air into the furnace coup-
led with the slag-covered walls would tend to decrease the heat transfer in
the furnace region and raise the furnace exit temperature of the flue gas en-
tering the superheater section. Hence, the fly ash suspended in the flue gas
would be softer and tend to form deposits and buildup. Examination of boiler
control board gas temperatures for unit No. 5 indicates that flue gas tempera-
tures upon entering and leaving the economizer increased by 10 to 14°C when
burning RDF.
ASH FUSION TEMPERATURES
Ash fusion temperatures, as determined by ASTM method 1857, of the coal
RDF, grate ash, and collector ash for each test run are shown in Appendix D.
No specific correlation of behavior has been determined yet, although in
general, RDF fusion temperatures were anywhere from 40 to 90°C lower than
those for coal. A comparison of the initial fusion temperature, under a re-
ducing atmosphere, for various steam loads is shown in Figures 30 through 33.
ASH FLOW RATES
Measured grate and collector flow rates, expressed as kg of ash per
100 kg of steam flow are shown in Figures 34 through 37. Generally, grate
ash and total ash flow rates increased with increases in RDF firing rates.
INTERIM SAMPLING OF RDF (EPA TASK NO. 5)
Initial characterization of RDF was made during the period April 1976,
through June 1976. The sampling procedure and results are discussed in great
detail in Appendix F.
48
-------
1200 r
Initial Deformation Temperature
Under Reducing Atmosphere
Unit #5 - 60% Boiler Steam Load
U
o
1
LU
O.
LU
H-
o
t/n
£
1150
noo
1050
c
RDF
GA
CA
Coal
Refuse Derived Fuel
Grate Ash
Collector Ash
O 0% RDF
D 20% RDF
A 50% RDF
I
I
RDF
GA
CA
SAMPLE
Figure 30. Initial deformation temperature, under reducing
atmosphere, of boiler unit No. 5 at 60% boiler
steam load.
49
-------
1200i-
1150
u
§ 1100
1050 -
Initial Deformation Temperature
Under Reducing Atmosphere
Unit *5 - 80% Boiler Steam Load
C - Coal
RDF - Refuse Derived Fuel
GA - Grate Ash
CA - Collector Ash
O 0% RDF
a 20% RDF
A 50% RDF
I
I
RDF
GA
SAMPLE
Figure 31. Initial deformation temperature, under reducing at-
mosphere, of boiler unit No. 5 at 80% boiler steam
load.
50
-------
1200r
1150
£
S
o
a.
1100
Initial Deformation Temperature
Under Reducing Atmosphere
Unit *5 -100% Boiler Steam Load
O 0%
0 20%
A 50%
C -Coal
RDF - Refuse Derived Fuel
GA - Grate Ash
CA - Collector Ash
RDF
Sample
GA
CA
Figure 32* Initial deformation temperature* under reducing atmosphere, of
boiler unit No* 5 at 100% boiler steam load.
51
-------
1200i-
Initial Deformation Temperature
Under Reducing Atmosphere
Unit #6 - 80% Boiler Steam Load
U
o
1150
a.
Z
O
GO
u_
1100
1050
C - Coal
RDF - Refuse Derived Fuel
GA - Grate Ash
CA - Collector Ash
1 L_
O 0%RDF
D 20% RDF
* 50% RDF
RDF
GA
CA
SAMPLE
Figure 33. Initial deformation temperature, under reducing at»osphere
of boiler No. 6 at 80% boiler steam load.
52
-------
4.Or
Ash Rote versus RDF Heat Input
Boiler *5 - 60% Boiler Steam Load
Collector Ash
Grate Ash
Total Ash: Includes
ParHculate Exiting Stack
20 30
RDF HEAT INPUT, PERCENT
Figure 34. Ash rate of boiler unit No. 5 as a function of RDF heat
input and 60% boiler steam load.
53
-------
4.0
3.0
O)
8
2.0
1.0
Ash Rote versus RDF Heat Input
Boiler *5 - 80% Boiler Steam Load
O Collector Ash
D Grate Ash
A Total Ash: Includes
Porticulafe Exiting Stack
10 20 30
RDF HEAT INPUT, PERCENT
40
50
Figure 35. Ash rate of boiler unit No. 5 as a function of RDF
heat input and 80% boiler steam load.
54
-------
4.Or
Ash Rate versus RDF Heat Input
Boiler '5 - 100% Boiler Steam Load
O Collector Ash
a Grate Ash
Total Ash: Includes
Particulate Exiting Stack
20 30
RDF HEAT INPUT, PERCENT
Figure 36. Ash rate of boiler unit No. 5 as a function of RDF
heat input and 100% boiler steam load.
55
-------
4.o r
3.0
0
| 2.0
LO
I
0
8
u
I
1.0
10
Ash Rote
Versus
RDF Heat Input
Boiler #6-80% Boiler Steam Load
O Collector Ash
a Grate Ash
& Total Ash: Includes
Particulate Exiting Stack
20 30 40
RDF Heat Input, Percent
50
Figure 37. Ash rate of boiler unit No* 6 as a function of RDF heat
input and 80% boiler steam load*
56
-------
SECTION 8
CORROSION INVESTIGATION
OBJECTIVES
The basic objectives of the corrosion studies conducted to date are
as follows:
• Plant protection—The detection, measurement and prevention of
corrosion processes which, if allowed to continue, would create
a hazard to personnel or any deterioration of the physical plant
other than that associated with normal operations which do not in-
volve the burning of refuse.
• Determination of causes of corrosion—The study of the mechanism,
rate, and the processes and chemical substances associated with
any corrosive attack more severe than that associated with normal
operations.
It was decided not to use a test probe for obtaining corrosion data.
While the use of such a probe might have generated data more directly compar-
able with that obtained by other researchers, it was felt that the data would
not be as applicable to service conditions as was desired. Probes are fixed
in their location and do not duplicate either the external or internal en-
vironments of boiler and superheater tubes. In addition, there would have been
problems in shipping and disassembling probe components and interpreting data
from devices built by others. Therefore in situ exposures of actual boiler
and superheater tubes were used to obtain data.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
On February 25, 1976, during a scheduled shutdown of boiler unit No. 5,
several sections of waterwall boiler tube were removed and replaced with sec-
tions cut from a single piece of spare tubing. In addition, one superheater
tube was also replaced using a previously unused spare tube section.
The waterwall tubing specified in the blueprints for the original unit
is identified by the trade name, "Electrunite" which is a Republic Steel
57
-------
Corporation trade name referring to a plain carbon steel having 0.2 to 0.3%
carbon. The tube used for test purposes was a tube taken from the stock of
spares. The composition was not known at the onset of the test.
Analysis of a portion of the spare waterwall tube installed for test
purposes is as follows:
C - 0.12% S - 0.022%
Mn - 0.39% Cr - 0.01%
Si - 0.20% Mo - 0.01%
P - 0.014%
A tube having this chemical analysis would meet the present chemical
requirements for ASTM Method A178, Grade A steel or ASTM Method A192 steel.
The superheater tube test specimen was also taken from the stock of
spares. The specified material for the superheater tubes is type SA209,
Grade Tl carbon-molybdenum steel.
The chemical analysis of the test superheater tube is:
C - 0.10% S - 0.030%
Mn - 0.42% Cr - 0.04%
Si - 0.17% Mo - 0.50%
P - 0.014%
This analysis conforms to the requirements for Grade Tl or Tib steel of
ASTM Specification A209 and A250.
The test tubes were installed as replacement sections in existing water-
wall and superheater tubes in regular service. Waterwall tube locations
were chosen so as to provide possible reducing conditions (south wall),
impingment from fuel distributors (west wall) and deposition of fines and
slag from distributors (east wall). The superheater tube was installed near
the center of the bank of tubes where hot gas and ash first contact the
superheater.
The locations of the waterwall tube test sections were as follows:
South wall tube (later referred to as specimen No. 25)—This tube
was the sixth from the west wall and was a section about 1 m long with the
bottom end being very nearly 61 cm above the grate. This corresponds to a
location where problems might be anticipated if there were a reducing atmos-
phere near the fuel bed.
58
-------
East wall tube—This 1-m section had its bottom end 1.6 m above the
grate and lay against the east wall between and below the fuel distributors.
West wall tube — This 1-m section was on the wall facing the fuel dis-
tributors and the bottom end was 2.4 m above the grate. The tube was the
14th from the south wall.
Superheater tube—The specimen was the 17th front superheater tube from
the south side of the unit.
Firing of unit No. 5 containing the test tubes began on February 28, 1976,
and ran intermittently until May 10, for a total of 1,018.5 hr. During this
time the coal was approximately a 50-50 mixture of Iowa and Wyoming coal. Coal
constituted 507, of the BTU input, the balance being RDF. RDF was added at the
507» BTU level in excess of 90% of the firing time.
TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Approach and Definition
The information most desired is that which measures any loss in the
strength or serviceability of the tubes, especially as contrasted to the com-
parable loss of identical parts exposed only to the combustion products of
coal. Such loss of serviceability might be expressed as uniform loss of metal
thickness, local loss of metal thickness (pitting), cracking (stress-corrosion
cracking, thermal stress cracking), microstructural alteration, etc. No one
parameter or no small group of indexes of metal degradation should be arbi-
trarily selected, nor should attention be focused on some to the exclusion
of others. To do so is to run the risk of overlooking important data or
potential damage. Moreover, it can tend to establish one parameter of a
complex process as the only valid criterion for evaluation.
The mechanism and depth of attack of metal surfaces was selected as the
first index of performance. These observations are made after exposures of
only one duration. Therefore, nothing can be said regarding rates of metal
damage.
Making the tacit assumption that metal damage is a function of external
environment, deposits and scales which remain on the metal tubes after ex-
posure, was also evaluated. Clearly, as observed at room temperatures, these
compounds do not correspond identically with the gaseous or thermal environ-
ment which existed during exposure and thus are limited expressions of the
environment of exposure. However, it appears very probable that any inter-
action between the metal tubes and their environment can be safely assumed
to be between the tubes and the solids and liquids to which they were exposed
and which, to a large degree, remained on the tubes after combustion ceased.
59
-------
No attempt is made in this report to relate the composition, presence or
structure of deposits and scales with the fuels employed, though that is
ultimately a question of importance to consider.
It should be noted that while the average composition and net amount of
scales and deposits found after cooldown may be similar to those at tempera-
ture, the structure is apt to differ markedly as a consequence of mechanical
factors such as thermal contraction, as well as chemical factors related to
cooling in a very complex multicomponent system. After considerably more
study, it may be possible to begin the extrapolation from conditions at the
time of observation to those which existed during exposure.
In this report differentiation is made between scales and deposits.
Scales are meant to embrace those substances formed on the surfaces of metal
tubes by a chemical interaction between one or more components of the tube
with some part of the environment. This can be thought of as a product of
chemical attack. The product itself may also undergo subsequent changes or
interactions.
Deposits, on the other hand, are regarded as materials physically located
on or near the tube surface but which have not entered into chemical reactions
with the tube. Thus, while they may reveal important information about the
products and nature of the fuel and the combustion process, they do not
materially influence the tube except indirectly such as by changing surface
temperatures, altering diffusion rates, reacting with underlying scales, etc.
In this work initial attention is given to scales rather than deposits
in the belief they were more directly related to actual or potentially
damaging changes in the tubes themselves. Nevertheless, in part to correlate
with prior work and to document the nature of the materials which constitute
the effective environment of the metal tubes, some attention has been given
to deposits.
Metallographic Studies of Tubes and Scales
The waterwall tube is low carbon steel having substantial decarburiza-
tion and massive grains on the hot-worked external surface. The tube wall
thickness varied sufficiently around the periphery so that thickness mea-
surements could not be used to show loss of wall thickness. However, these
surface features served as markers which permitted semiquantitative esti-
mates of metal loss.
Figure 38 is a reference photograph of a piece of unused waterwall
tubing showing the decarburization, large grains, and adhering mill scale,
all of which persisted in exposed specimens.
60
-------
Figure 38» Outer surface of unused portion of boiler waterwall
tube, (negative No. 21682).
The surface decarburization and massive grains were produced during manu-
facture and are means for locating the original surface. Also shown is
one patch of cracked mill scale which was forced into the metal surface
during tube forming. Similar patches of residual mill scale are noted on
exposed samples. 250X
61
-------
The site of anticipated maximum attack is the exposed face of the water-
wall tube nearest the grate (sample No. 25). This is shown in Figure 39.
There is a slight roughening of the surface, and a thin adherent scale has
formed. However, surface loss is essentially nil. Additional photographs
taken around the periphery, as exemplified by Figure 40, show diminishing
surface scale and no evidence of measurable surface metal loss.
Inspection of the water side of these tubes showed that the scale was
thin and adherent with no evidence of surface attack.
The scale on the superheater tube is significantly different from that
on the waterwall, as shown in Figure 41. Ihe innermost scale is black,
possibly Fed. There are numerous sites where the oxide at the metal interface
is cusped, shows attached spherical regions nearly enclosed by metal, or
shows apparently detached (in the plane of polish) spheres of oxide lying
below the metal surface. None of these features extend more than one grain
into the metal and thus, are not regarded as serious, but they do represent
an oxidation mechanism which is presently not understood.
Above the inner black oxide layer is a gray scale which is probably
Fe30^. It is distinctly layered, showing it to be a fresh scale formed in
situ and not adhering mill scale. Interspersed in this scale layer is a
fairly uniformly distributed second phase, light in color, and having a form
suggesting that it may have been liquid at operating temperatures. Numerous
regions, such as those shown in Figure 41, are found where the light phase
appears to be highly concentrated. These regions are always associated with
an inward curvature of the scale. The scale layers lie parallel to the curved
surface, strongly suggesting that in these regions there was preferential
attack of the metal with the scale forming on the surface of a hemispherical
pit.
Above the two-phase, (Fe.,0 + light phase), layered gray scale is the
original top scale , probably Fe-O . It also is gray and lies parallel
to the original metal surface. Closely parallel to this layer is a layer of
the light phase, lying both above and (sometimes) below the T?e~Q layer.
Above these well defined layers is the innermost part of the heterogeneous
deposit.
Figure 42 is a view of a similar scale formation formed on a section
of the superheater tube adjacent to that shown in Figure 41; thus, it is not
directly facing the gas flow but is more toward the side of the tube. Many
of the features of the scale are the same as that shown in Figure 41, but one
notable difference is the very thin layer of black oxide adjacent to the metal.
The depressions corresponding to concentrations of light phase are, in this
case, depressions in the metal surface.
62
-------
' '
Figure 39. Exposed side of outer surface of boiler waterwall tube.
(negative No. 21678).
Sample No. 25, a waterwall tube located 61 cm above the grate. Decar-
burization and large grains are characteristic of the original surface.
A thin layer of adherent oxide is visible; other scales and deposits have
fallen off during handling. Wavy lines are copper flakes embedded in
plastic to form an electrically conductive mount. Loss of surface metal
is nil. 250X
63
-------
w
Figure 40» Exposed side of outer surface of boiler waterwall tube.
(negative No. 21677).
Sample No. 25, at a position approximately 30 degrees around from the fire
side toward the furnace wall side of the tube. Large grains are absent but
decarburization and impressed mill scale mark original surface. Some black
oxide has formed beneath the cracked gray Fe304» Metal loss is nil. 250x
64
-------
Figure 41•
No. 21669).
Exposed front face of boiler superheater tube, (negative
Ferritic metal substrate overlain by a layer of black iron oxide. Note some
extensions of black oxide into the metal in the form of hemispherical
cusps and one nearly separated subsurface sphere. Light gray layer is
Fe3°4 containing a fine dispersion of a lighter phase which exists in greater
concentration at the centers of inward-curving "dimples". Above this is a
thin layer, probably Fe203, which is the uppermost scale layer. Parallel
to this layer is frequently found a layer of the light phase. Above the
well-defined scale layers is the heterogeneous deposit.
250x
65
-------
Figure 42. Scale and deposit on boiler superheater tube*
(negative No. 21668).
Shown are heterogeneous deposit lying on layered, cusped scale. Note the
association of concentrations of the white phase with the cusps. The black
oxide layer adjacent to the metal is very thin and the scale is essentially
unbroken. 250X
66
-------
Figure 43, showing a region very near to that shown in Figure 42,
demonstrates the observation that heavy concentrations of inner black oxide
are strongly associated with cracks in the gray Fe.,0 layer. The amount of
such cracking diminishes from the upstream (referring to gas flow over the
tube) to the downstream side. Cracking and black oxide are virtually absent
on the downstream side.
Combining the observations in Figures 41, 42, and 43, one is led to the
conclusion that the black oxide forms only after a well-developed ^e^O, layer
exists and becomes cracked. In Figure 41, for example, the curvature of the
inner surface of the Fe~0 layer is only faintly replicated on the metal
surface which has apparently been leveled by the growth and intrusion of black
oxide through cracks. Where the Fe 0 is not damaged, it lies directly on
the metal surface.
The top layer of scale, which may be Fe^O-j, and which apparently formed
initially on the metal surface, is fairly smooth where it is observed, as in
Figures 41 and 42. Where cusps in the Fe«0, layers are found, as in Figures
41 and 43, they are invariably associated with white scale near the center of
curvature of the cusp. As shown in Figure 41, this concentration of white
scale lies below the layer of scale which was first to form. On the other
hand, wherever black oxide is found, it appears to have leveled the metal
surface under the Fe-jO^ scale. In Figure 43, where black oxide is barely
present, the cusped Fe30^ essentially penetrates the metal and both the oxide
and the metal have the same topography.
Based upon morphology only, one is led to suspect that oxide cusps, and
thus pitting of the underlying metal, occur as a consequence of the white
scale which may concentrate in local areas and which may form after (perhaps
penetrating) the first oxide scale. For reasons unknown, the Fe-jO, layer may
crack and separate from the metal causing new black oxide to form in the void.
It is not presently known whether this oxide is FeO, as might be judged by
the color, or whether it is Fe,0/ (or some other compound) whose appearance
is black because of different morphology resulting from different conditions
of formation. One difficulty with the hypothesis of the formation of FeO is
that its lower temperature of stability in the binary iron-oxygen system is
550°C, well above the expected tube temperature of 500°C. Phase stability
will need to be examined in the light of all major elements and compounds
present in the system as well as their activities and disassociation pressures,
Preliminary microprobe data are as yet insufficient to detect the dif-
ices
tentative
ferences in Fe/0 ratios of FeO and Fe~0 so oxide identification is presently
After the confirmation by microprobe of the presence of sulfur in all
parts of the scale, an additional set of photomicrographs was taken at higher
67
-------
Figure 43* Scale and deposit on boiler superheater tube* (negative
No* 21667).
Shown are external deposits and considerable lateral fracturing of the gray
scale* Fractures are filled with black oxide* 2.5Ox
68
-------
magnifications in an attempt to reveal more clearly the sulfur distribution.
Figures 44 through 46 are photographs at 1500X of, respectively, the Fe304
layer adjacent to the superheater tube metal at the location of a cusp, the
concentration of white phase at the center of a cusp, and the scale-deposit
interface away from a cusp. These photographs show conclusively that what
appears to be an FegO^ layer at lower magnifications is in fact a two-phase
mixture of Fe304 with a white, sulfur-rich phase. This white phase lies both
above and below the thin first layer of oxide (Figure 46) and is also present
at the center of cusps in a form suggestive of the presence of a liquid at
high temperatures.
Further interpretation of the mechanism and kinetics of formation of
this white phase will depend upon the positive identification of the phase
itself and the study of its thermodynamic properties.
Microprobe Analysis of Scales and Deposits
A microprobe analysis was performed on the scale formed upon the super-
heater. Levels of K, Na, Ca, and Si were substantially uniform across the
scale and all values fell in the range of 0.23 to 1.00% by weight, with some
tendency for the higher values in the deposit as compared to the scale.
Preliminary results indicate that the black scale layer of Figure 41
contains about 5.2% S. Readings at points successively outward through the
Fe 0, layer show values of 11.8, 17.7, and 18.2% S, the highest concentration
occurring in the vicinity of the accumulation of white phase. Sulfur content
in the deposit was 17.2%. There is a corresponding decrease in iron in the
scale, being highest (60%) in the inner black layer, lesser (52 to 54%) in the
Fe 0. layer, and lower still (29%) in the deposit.
Until methods are further refined, these numbers cannot be taken exactly,
but they do show a substantial concentration of sulfur in the scale, leading
to the present belief that the light phase is some type of sulfur-containing
compound. Attempts to physically separate and analyze this light phase by
microprobe and X-ray diffraction have not yet been successful.
Preliminary microprobe results suggest that this analytical method may
be useful in establishing which elements are commonly found in the same loca-
tion, thus providing a valuable supplement to X-ray diffraction analysis.
For example, on several samples of scale and deposits, Ca, Si, and Al were
found to be located together, suggesting formation of compounds such as
CaA^SO^; while Na and K were found in association with S, suggesting the
existence of compounds such as ^280^. Results to date, however, do not
warrant identification of particular compounds.
69
-------
Figure 44. Bottom of scale cusp lying adjacent to metal surface of
boiler superheater tube, (negative No. 21836).
Scale is two-phased with white, sulfur-rich phase uniformly dispersed.
Ferrite grains are out of focus because the plane of polish of the scale
differs from that of the metal. 1500X
70
-------
Figure 45• The region near the center of curvature of the cusp*
(negative No. 21838).
Note the high concentration of the white, sulfur-rich phase and a morphology
suggesting the possibility of the presence of liquid at high temperatures.
1500X
71
-------
Figure 46* Scale and deposit interface on boiler superheater tube*
(negative No. 21840).
This view shows a region having no underlying cusps* Note the concentration
of white sulfur-rich phase above, and especially below* the thin layer of
initially formed oxide* The inner scale has finely divided white phase;
the deposit has larger and irregular white areas* 1500X
72
-------
Bulk Chemical Analysis of Deposits
During the process of removal of the boiler tube samples, the surface
deposits were lost. However, samples of deposits were obtained from many
locations in unit No. 5 as part of a separate attempt to classify deposits.
Samples were taken close to the locations where tubes were removed, and thus,
should be reasonable approximations of the deposits which existed on the tube
samples.
Sample 2 was taken from a position approximately 60 cm above the grate
on the north wall. Deposit configurations on this wall were nearly mirror
images of those on the south wall from which tube sample No. 25 was taken.
Sample 18-C1 was taken from a superheater tube and represents inner deposit
and outer scale material; while 18-C2, also from a superheater tube, is a
sample of deposit material. Chemical analysis results for these samples
are given in Table 2.
TABLE 2. BOILER TUBE CORROSION DEPOSIT AND SCALE ANALYSES
Weight percent
Sample No. 2 Sample 18-C1 Sample 18-C2
Element near grate superheater scale superheater deposit
Pb
S
Sn
Zn
Cl
Al
Ca
Fe
K
Mg
Na
0.0016
0.409
0.0047
0.0156
<600 ppm
7.32
7.86
9.08
1.12
1.19
1.57
0.840
12.0
0.0160
0.495
<600 ppm
4.70
7.23
26.6
3.31
0.688
4.06
0.580
9.76
0.0147
0.0487
<600 ppm
5.02
9.33
7.86
3.54
0.736
1.30
These results show that chlorine is apparently not present in scales or
deposits at any significant level. Iron is present, as expected, in greater
amounts in a scale sample than in deposits. Most notable however, is the
high concentration of sulfur in the superheater scale and deposit, and the
possible association of sodium and potassium with high sulfur levels in the
scale. These gross chemical analysis results confirm the microprobe findings
of high sulfur contents in both the scale and the deposit.
73
-------
Discussion
While present analyses are not sufficient to warrant a positive conclu-
sion, there is strong evidence that sulfur is the one element of concern with
regard to scaling of metal tubes. It is concentrated in areas where pitting
is found, it is present in greater concentrations in superheater tube scales
and deposits than in waterwall deposits, and it may be associated with sodium.
Liquid oxides have been found in other corrosion environments containing so-
dium and sulfur and we observe oxide morphologies suggesting liquid phases
near pitting sites in the superheater scale. On the other hand, there is no
evidence of any substantial role of chlorine in any scaling.
It should be noted that although pitting has been observed, the degree
of damage in terms of metal loss or penetration is presently extremely slight.
Maximum observed pit depths in superheater tubes are of the order of 0.025 mm
(0.001 in.). Loss of metal from waterwall tube surfaces is much less. Al-
through high sulfur levels are a cause for concern, it appears that this con-
cern would be that catastrophic corrosion (such as is known to occur in some
oxide-sulfide systems) might occur at some future time. It should be remem-
bered that the source for sulfur in this environment is the coal and that the
presence of solid waste reduces the sulfur content. Thus, since the unit in
question was burning coal alone long before solid waste was introduced, the
tubes have already demonstrated that they are capable of resisting even
higher sulfur atmospheres for many years with no damage.
On the other hand, successful service under a higher sulfur potential is
no guarantee of success at a lower one. Moreover, when, the sulfur is present
along with elements now present in different proportions, or present now com-
pared with virtual absence before the introduction of solid waste fuel, cor-
rosion problems might increase. The mere presence of a sulfur-rich phase in
both the scales and deposits of the superheater is a justifiable cause for
concern until the system is thoroughly understood.
As this report was being written, a new set of samples was being in-
stalled. The tubes being reported upon here were initially installed using
available spares before there was adequate opportunity for measuring and
examining the test tubes. The new set now being installed was thoroughly
cleaned prior to installation. During this cleaning process it was found
that the superheater tube had a protective coating which totally masked a
highly pitted metal surface. It appears that the stock tubing had lain in
water or some other corrodent to a depth of about one-third the tube diameter
until considerable pitting developed at the liquid/air interface, and some had
developed below the liquid surface. The corroded tube was then bent into a.
"U" shape and coated.
74
-------
The first reaction to this discovery was to discount the finding of pits
in the belief that the sulfur-rich scale did not cause pits but rather fol-
lowed the contour already present. However, this does not adequately explain
the fairly level initial layer of scale overlying the pit. Moreover, even if
pits were initially present, if they served as sinks for sulfur there would
be cause for concern.
Upon further reflection it was realized that the pitted tubes provide
an opportunity for more, rather than less, reliable data. The corroded sur-
face which lies on the upstream side of the U bend on one leg of the U, lies
on the downstream side on the other. Thus, in each U sample there is the op-
portunity to examine both pitted and unpitted surfaces, each both facing
toward and away from the stream of combustion products. These variables will
be examined on both the present tube samples and those now being exposed.
SUMMARY
Examination by metallography, microbe, and chemical analysis of water-
wall tubes, superheater tubes and their scales, and deposits show that during
exposure to firing of a mixture of 50% coal and 50% solid waste for a period
of 1,018.5 hr, the corrosion of the waterwall tubes was virtually zero.
Corrosion of superheater tubes, if any, did not exceed approximately 0.025 mm.
The scale on the superheater tube contained sulfur in amounts ranging up to
approximately 12 to 1870. It is not known whether in this amount, and in the
presence of the other elements known to also be present, this constitutes a
potential for catastrophic corrosion.
Chlorine in both waterwall and superheater tube scales is present in
amounts below the limit of detection of the analytical method used (<600 ppm)
and is not thought to constitute a significant factor in tube corrosion.
Future work will be directed primarily toward more complete and quanti-
tative understanding of superheater tube scales and the actual and possible
mechanisms of corrosive attack by the phases found to occur.
75
-------
APPENDIX A - ORIGINAL BOILER DESIGN CONDITIONS
TABLE A-la. BOILER PERFORMANCE DESIGN - UNIT 5 (S.I. units)
Performance data - One steam generating unit, 43,091 kg of steam per hour maximum continuous capacity;
4,445 kPa operating pressure; 171°C feed water, steam temperature 443°C; fuel - Iowa Coal; moisture 15.72;
V.M. 32.49; F.C. 32.98; ash 18.81; Btu as fired 9,696; ultimate analysis, C 50.50, 0 6.25, S 4.15, V 0.91,
H 3.66; fusion temperature ash 1,066°C.
Ratings
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Kilograms of steam per hour actual evaporation
MJ in steam above feed water temperature
Temperature of gases leaving furnace, °C
C02 in boiler exit gases
Percent excess air in boiler exit gases
Temperature of boiler exit gases, °C
Temperature of economizer exit gases, °C
Temperature of water leaving economizer (enter 171°C)
Water pressure drop thru economizer, kPa
C02 in economizer exit gases
Temperature of air for combustion (room temperature) °C
Total steam temperature leaving superheater, °C
Steam pressure drop thru superheater and control, kPa
Boiler drum pressure, kPa
Draft loss thru boiler and superheater (cm H20)
Draft loss thru economizer (cm H20)
Draft loss thru dust collector (cm 1^0)
Draft loss thru ducts and dampers (cm I^O)
Furnace draft (cm H^O)
Total static suction at fan (kPa)
Air pressure drop thru ducts and dampers (kPa)
Air pressure in windboxes (kPa)
(continued)
11,340
29,331
12.7
45
288
179
213
7
12.7
27
420
14
4,459
0.25
0.43
0.33
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.69
6.89
27,216
70,372
13.7
35
321
191
217
41
13.7
27
442
83
4,528
1.40
2.54
1.83
0.33
0.25
0.62
2.07
10.34
43,091
111,308
1,032
13.7
35
352
204
224
97
13.3
27
443
207
4,652
3.05
5.84
4.57
0.76
0.25
1.42
5.52
13.79
49,895
128,928
1,082
13.7
35
371
218
228
131
13.3
27
443
276
4,721
4.06
8.13
6.10
1.01
0.25
1.92
6.89
17.24
-------
TABLE A-la. (continued)
Ratings
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Total static pressure at fan (kPa)
Kilograms of fuel per hour
Kilograms of air per hour
Kilograms of gas per hour leaving unit
Overall efficiency complete unit percent
Heat release in furnace: kJ per cubic meter per hour
(not including heater recovery)
Kilograms coal/m2 grate surface per hour per hour
Heat released per square meter grate surface per hour
HEAT BALANCE
Dry flue gas loss at exit
Loss due to hydrogen and fuel moisture at exit
Loss due to moisture in air at exit
Loss due to radiation
Loss due unburned combustibles
Manufacturer's margin
Total losses
Efficiencies of complete unit
0.27
1,696
17,237
18,597
81.0
242,183
71.3
1,533,131
7.54
6.10
0.18
2.48
1.20
1.50
19.00
81.0
0.45
3,983
37,648
41,277
82.7
566,336
167.5
3,577,306
7.54
6.14
0.19
1.03
0.90
1.50
17.30
82.7
0.70
6,350
59,874
66,224
82.0
905,392
266.6
5,678,264
8.35
6.20
0.20
0.65
1.10
1.50
18.00
82.0
0.87
7,439
70,307
78,018
81.1
1,058,154
312.5
6,677,638
8.96
6.26
0.22
0.56
1.40
1.50
18.90
81.1
Performance based on reburning the cinder carryover from boiler and dust collector.
The unit consists of P79-28 plus WW boiler, H.S. 934 m2; plus water walls, H.S. 186 m2; economizer,
H.S. 502 m2; superheater for 443°C; two Riley spreader traveling grate stokers 2.44 m x 5.18 m shaft
centers - 24 m2 area; four Peabody gas burners; furnace volume 150 m^; LP-6870.
-------
TABLE A-lb. BOILER PERFORMANCE DESIGN - UNIT 5 (English units)
oo
Performance data - One steam generating unit, 95,000 Ib of steam per hour
630
V.M.
N 0.
maximum continuous
capacity ;
psig operating pressure; 340°F feed water, steam temperature 830°F; fuel - Iowa Coal; moisture 15.72;
32.49; F.C. 32.98; ash 18.81; Btu as fired 9,190; ultimate
91, H 3.66; fusion temperature ash 1,950°F.
analysis ,
C 50.50,
0 6.25, S
4.15,
Ratings
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Pounds of steam per hour actual evaporation
K. Btu in steam above feed water temperature
Temperature of gases leaving furnace, °F
C02 in boiler exit gases
Percent excess air in boiler exit gases
Temperature of boiler exit gases, °F
Temperature of economizer exit gases, °F
Temperature of water leaving economizer (enter 340° F)
Water pressure drop thru economizer, psi
C0£ in economizer exit gases
Temperature of air for combustion (room temperature) °F
Total steam temperature leaving superheater, °F
Steam pressure drop thru superheater and control, psi
Boiler drum pressure, psig
Draft loss thru boiler and superheater
Draft loss thru economizer
Draft loss thru dust collector
Draft loss thru ducts and dampers
Furnace draft
Total static suction at fan (inches water gage)
Air pressure drop thru ducts and dampers
Air pressure in windboxes
25,000
27,800
12.7
45
550
355
415
1
12.7
80
788
2
632
0.10
0.17
0.13
0.10
0.10
0.60
0.1
1.0
60,000
66,700
13.7
35
610
375
423
6
13.7
80
827
12
642
0.55
1.00"
0.72
0.13
0.10
2.50
0.3
1.5
95,000
105,500
1,890
13.7
35
665
400
435
14
13.3
80
830
30
660
1.20
2.30
1.80
0.30
0.10
5.70
0.8
2.0
110,000
122,200
1,980
13.7
35
700
425
442
19
13.3
80
830
40
670
1.60
3.20
2.40
0.40
0.10
7.70
1.0
2.5
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-lb. (continued)
Ratings
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Total static pressure at fan (inches water gage)
Pounds of fuel per hour
Pounds of air per hour
Pounds of gas per hour leaving unit
Overall efficiency complete unit, percent
Heat release in furnace: Btu per cubic foot per hour
(not including heater recovery)
Pounds of coal per square foot of grate surface per hour
Heat released per square foot of grate surface per hour
HEAT BALANCE
Dry flue gas loss at exit
Loss due to hydrogen and fuel moisture at exit
Loss due to moisture in air at exit
Loss due to radiation
Loss due to unburned combustibles
Manufacturer's margin
Total losses
Efficiencies of complete unit
1.1
3,740
38,000
41,000
81.0
6,500
14.6
135,000
7.54
6.10
0.18
2.48
1.20
1.50
19.00
81.0
1.8
8,780
83,000
91,000
82.7
15,200
34.3
315,000
7.54
6.14
0.19
1.03
0.90
1.50
17.30
82.7
2.8
14,000
132,000
146,000
82.0
24,300
54.6
500,000
8.35
6.20
0.20
0.65
1.10
1.50
18.00
82.0
3.5
16,400
155,000
172,000
81.1
28,400
64
588,000
8.96
6.26
0.22
0.56
1.40
1.50
18.90
81.1
Performance based on reburning the cinder carryover from boiler and dust collector.
The unit consists of P79-28 plus WW boiler, H.S. 10,055 sq ft; plus water walls, H.S. 2,000 sq ft; econ-
omizer, H.S. 5,400 sq ft; superheater for 830° F; two Riley spreader traveling grate stokers 8 ft x 17 ft
shaft centers - 256 sq ft area; four Peabody gas burners; furnace volume 5,300 cu ft; LP-6870.
-------
TABLE A-2a. UNIT 5 FAN PERFORMANCE DESIGN
Design performance - SI units
Steam flow, kg/hr
Forced draft fan
kg air/hr at 38°C
m-Vmin
Static pressure (N/mr)
Fan power (watts)
Induced draft fan
kg gas/hr
Gas temperature, °C
m-'/min
Fan power (watts)
Flue gas temperature, °C
Leaving furnace
Leaving boiler
Leaving economizer
Water temperature, °C
Entering economizer
27,216
37,648
552
12,411
5,369
41,277
191
838
12,230
321
191
171
43,091
59,874
881
19,305
13,572
66,225
204
1,379
45,488
1,032
352
204
171
49,895
70,307
1,034
24,132
20,507
78,018
218
1,676
1,082
218
171
Test block
80,739
1,189
31,716
32,811
90,719
246
2,064
119,312
Heat release
Coal flow kg/hr 3,983 6,350
Heat release
(J/m2) x 106
grate 30.9 49.0
Furnace volume = 150 wr
Grate area = 24 m2
80
-------
TABLE A-2b. UNIT 5 FAN PERFORMANCE DESIGN
Design performance - English units
Steam flow, Ib/hr
Forced draft fan
Ib air/hr at 100°F
CFM
Static pressure
Fan H.P.
Induced draft fan
Ib gas per hr
Gas temperature, °F
CFM
Fan H.P.
Flue gas temperature
Leaving furnace
Leaving boiler
Leaving economizer
Water temperature
Entering economizer
60,000
83,000
19,500
1.8
7.2
91,000
375
29,600
16.4
610
375
340
95,000
132,000
31,100
2.8
18.2
146,000
400
48,700
61.0.
1,890
665
400
340
110,000
155,000
36,500
3.5
27.5
172,000
425
59,200
1,980
-
425
340
Test block
178,000
42,000
4.6
41.0
200,000
475
72,900
160.0
Heat release
Coal flow, Ib/hr 8,780 14,000
Heat release
Btu/ft2 grate 315,000 500,000
Furnace volume = 5,300
Grate area = 256 ft2
81
-------
TABLE A-3. UNIT 5 EQUIPMENT DESIGN DETAILS
Boiler:
Manufacturer
Type
Heating surface
Volume
Economizer:
Manufacturer
Heating surface
Tube size
Furnace water walls:
Heating surface
Spreader stoker:
Manufacturer
Type
Width x length
Auxiliary blowers:
Manufacturer
Type
Capacity
Pressure
Motor
Use
Fly ash collector:
Manufacturer
Type
Size
Forced draft fan:
Manufacturer
Type
Rated speed
Motor
Drive manufacturer
Drive type
Induced draft fan:
Manufacturer
Type
Rated speed
Motor
Drive manufacturer
Drive type
Riley Stoker Corporation
RP79-28 plus WW
934 m2
150 m2
Riley Stoker Corporation
5,400 sq ft
0.05 m O.D.
186 m2
Riley Stoker Corporation
Spreader-traveling grate
2 - 2.44 m x 5.18 m
Clarage
No. 7C
Co.
2.2 kW
Cinder return
Power Eng.
No. 1420
1.51 m3/s
81.3 kPa
14.9 kW, 3,450 rpm
Cverfire air
Western Precipitation Corporation
Multiple cycle 9VG12
108-6
American Blower Corporation
No. 360 double inlet double width type HS
series 82 class II heavy duty
1,120 rpm
37.3 kW, 1,200 rpm
American Blower Corporation
Type No. 18
American Blower Corporation
7-1/2 double inlet 2/3 double width
835 rpm
111.9 kW, 900 rpn
American Blower Corporation
Type No. 27
82
-------
TABLE A-4a. UNIT 6 FAN PERFORMANCE DESIGN
Design performance - SI
Steam flow, kg/hr
Flow rates
Air, kg/hr
Coal, kg/hr
Flue gas, kg/hr
Temperature, °C
Gas leaving boiler
Gas leaving economizer
Fan performance
Forced draft fan
kg air/hr at 38°C
m^/min
Fan power (watts)
Induced draft fan
kg gas/hr
Gas temperature, °C
m^/min
Static suction (N/m^)
Fan power (watts)
units
18,144
25,038
2,712
27,941
25,038
348
4,847
27,941
149
532
5,860
17,151
36,287
48,081
5,398
53,977
293
179
48,081
668
11,931
53,977
179
1,110
21,856
50,708
56,699
73,936
8,346
83,089
324
210
73,936
1,025
27,218
83,089
210
1,798
51,780
111,109
83
-------
TABLE A-4b. UNIT 6 FAN PERFORMANCE DESIGN
Design performance - English units
Steam flow Ib/hr
Flow rates
Air, Ib/hr
Coal, Ib/hr
Flue gas, Ib/hr
Temperatures, °F
Gas leaving boiler
Gas leaving economizer
Fan performance
Forced draft fan
Ib air/hr at 100°F
CFM
BHP
Induced draft fan
Ib gas/hr
Gas temperature, °F
CFM
Static suction
BHP
40,000
55,200
5,980
61,600
55,200
12,300
6.5
61,600
300
18,800
0.85
23
80,000
106,000
11,900
119,000
560
355
106,000
23,600
16.0
119,000
355
39,200
3.17
68
125,000
163,000
18,400
183,200
615
410
163,000
36,200
36.5
183,200
410
63,500
7.51
149
84
-------
TABLE A-5. UNIT 6 EQUIPMENT DESIGN DETAILS
Boiler:
Manufacturer
Type
Heating surface
Tube size
Drum si ze
Superheater:
Manufacturer
Type
Temperature control
Heating surface
Tube size
Economi zer:
Manufacturer
Type
Heating surface
Tube size
Furnace water walls:
Heating surface (projected)
Side walls
Rear walls
Front walls
Tube size and spacing
Spreader stoker:
Manufacturer
Type
Width x length
Drives
Auxiliary blower:
Manufacturer
Type
Capacity
Pressure
Motor
Use
Fly ash collector:
Manufacturer
Type
Size
Union Iron Works
"VO" single pass
1,297 m2
0.06 m OD
1.37 m ID and 1.07 m ID
Union Iron Works
2 - Stage, pendent
Mud-drum, heat exchanger
About 214 m2
0.05 m
Union Iron Works
Extended surface, field assembled
1,347 m2
0.05 m
43 m2
14 m2
28 m2
0.09 m OD on 0,15 m centers
Hoffman Combustion Engineering Company
4 C - CAD, continuous ash discharge
4.62 m x 5.33 m
2-Reeves (stoker), 1-Reeves (grate)
Buffalo Forge Company
No. 35 - 5 - CD
1.79 m3/s
6.73 kPa
18.6 kW
Overfired air and reinjection
American Blower Corporation
Mechanical, series No. 342
20 WG
(continued)
85
-------
TABLE A-5. (continued)
Gas burners:
Manufacturer
Type
Number and size
Gas pressure1 rating, kPa
The Engineer Company
K-24, gun type
Four, No. 3 size
117 kPa
Forced draft fan:
Manufacturer
Type
Rated speed
Motor kw and rafr.
Drive mfr. and type
Induced draft fan:
Manufacturer
Type
Rated speed, rpm
Motor
Drive mfr. and type
American Blower Corporation
No. 397 DI, Series 82 HS
1,150 rpm
44.7 - General Electric
American Blower Corporation
Gyrol No. 171F5R
American Blower Corporation
No. 511 DI, Series 90 Sirocco
860
186 kW - General Electric
American Blower Corporation
Gyrol No. 280F8R
86
-------
APPENDIX B - BOILER DESIGN CONDITIONS AFTER MODIFICATION FOR RDF FIRING
TABLE B-l. BOILER PERFORMANCE DESIGN
SI units
Boiler number
Steam flow /kg x 103\
\Hr /
Outlet steam conditions
40
4.2 x 106/439
57.4
4.37 x 106/444
Heat input (J x 109)
Coal
Refuse
Total
Fuel flow (kg/hr x 103)
Coal
Refuse
Excess air
Air flow (kg/hr x 103)
Overfire air
Conveyor transport
Mill tempering
A.H. leakage
F.D. fan
Total air flow
English units
Steam flow, pph x 103
Outlet steam conditions, psi/°F
Heat input, Btu x 106
Coal
Refuse
Total
61
60
120
2.8
5.2
50
As required
NA
NA
NA
55 a-'
55
88
609/823
58
57
117
93
93
190
4.2
8.0
30
As required
NA
NA
NA
73 *7
73
126.5
634/831
88
88
176
(continued)
87
-------
TABLE B-l. (continued)
English units
Boiler number
Fuel flow, pph x 10
Coal
Refuse
Excess air, %
Air flow, pph x 103
Overfire air
Conveyor transport air
Mill Tempering
A.H. leakage
F.D. fan
Total air flow
6.1
11.4
50
As required
NA
NA
NA
122
9.3
17.6
30
As required
NA
NA
NA
162£/
162
a/ Minus overfire air flow.
88
-------
TABLE B-2. PNEUMATIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM
Boiler number
Furnished by
Pipe size, in ram (in.)
Number of pipes
Refuse handling capacity, each
pipe, maximum kg/hr (Ib/hr)
Transport air flow
rate, each pipe m-Vmin (scfm)
Transport air velocity, m/sec
(ft/sec)
Owner
203 (8)
2
3,629 (8,000)
40 (1,400)
36.6 (120)
203 (8)
2
3,629 (8,000)
40 (1,400)
36.6 (120)
89
-------
TABLE B-3. OVERFIRE AND DISTRIBUTOR AIR SYSTEM
Overfire air
(scfm)
kW (BHP)
Static pressure, mm H20 (in. H20)
N, rpm
Manufacturer; Zurn
Silencer; Aerocoustic Corporation
Distributor air
m-Vmin (scfm)
kW (bhp)
Static pressure, mm H20 (in. 1^
N, rpm
Manufacturer; Zurn
Silencer; Aerocoustic Corporation
92.74 (3,275)
17.2 (23)
711 (28)
3,480
1312-B
Type 0
CI 3.3-2
45.31 (1,600)
6.0 (8)
432 (17)
3,480
9SS
CI 1.6-3
155.74 (5,500)
50.7 (68)
1,067 (42)
1,770
1325-A
Type 0
CI 5.5-4
56.63 (2,000)
8.9 (12)
610 (24)
3,480
1311-A Type 0
CI 2.1
90
-------
APPENDIX C - MAJOR BOILER PERFORMANCE
TABLE C-l. BOILER EPA TEST MATRIX DESIGNATION
Date
6- 8-76
6-10-76
6-15-76
6-17-76
6-21-76
6-23-76
6-25-76
6-28-76
6-30-76
7- 2-76
7- 6-76
7- 8-76
7- 8-76
7-16-76
7-17-76
7-19-76
7-19-76
7-23-76
7-24-76
8- 2-76
8- 2-76
8-26-76
8- 5-76
8- 6-76
8- 9-76
8-10-76
8-11-76
8-12-76
8-13-76
8-16-76
8-18-76
Boiler
unit
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
5
5
5
5B-Bd/
5
5
5
5
5B-Bd/
5
5
5B-Bd/
5B-Bd/
5
5
5B-Bd/
5B-Bd/
5
5
5B-Bd/
5B-Bd_/
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
% Load
60%
80%
100%
60%
80%
80%
100%
60%
60%
80%
100%
80%
80%
100%
80%
80%
80%
100%
100%
60%
60%
60%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
Fuel-/
C -
C -
C -
C
C
C -
C -
C -
C -
C -
C
C -
C -
C -
C -
C
C
C -
C -
C
C
C -
C -
C H
C
C H
C H
c ^
c ^
c
c
h RDF
1- RDF
1- RDF
(- RDF
h RDF
h RDF
1- RDF
h RDF
1- RDF
h RDF
h RDF
h RDF
h RDF
t- RDF
f- RDF
H RDF3./
h RDF
h RDF
- RDF
- RDF
- RDF
% Refuse
50%
50%
50%
0%
0%
20%
20%
20%
20%
50%
0%
20%
20%
20%
50%
0%
0%
50%
20%
0%
0%
50%
50%
50%
0%
20%
20%
20%
50%
0%
0%
Test
designation
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
1
2
3
4^-' A and B
5
6
7
8
9— A and B
10
11
12
-------
TABLE C-l. (continued)
Date
8-24-76
8-24-76
8-25-76
8-26-76
8-26-76
8-27-76
Boiler
unit
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
5B-Bd/
5B-Bd/
5
5B-Bd/
5B-Bd/
5
% Load
100%
100%
60%
60%
60%
60%
Fuela/
C
C
C + RDF
C + RDF
C + RDF
C
% Refuse
0%
0%
20%
50%
50%
0%
Test
designation
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
31 d7
32 1/
33
34 d/
35 -d-/
36
SL/ Coal for tests on boiler No. 5 is Iowa coal; on No. 6, 50% Wyoming
and 50% Iowa coal.
JD/ Test conducted while pulling ash to determine if boiler performance and
emissions change when ash is pulled.
sj Boiler load dropped and test terminated early.
.d/ B-B indicates back-to-back testing.
92
-------
TABLE C-2a. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COAL
VO
Co
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
K, Load/
'/. RDF
- COAL
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Heating value
kj/kg fuel
20,900
20, 900
21,500
20,800
20,900
21,000
282.8
21,400
21,000
20,900
20,400
20,925
411.3
21,400
21,900
21,600
21,633
251.7
21,600
20,800
20,800
21,067
461.9
21,700
21,300
21,400
21,467
208.2
20,700
21,700
21,000
21,133
513.2
Moisture
kg/kg fuel
0.142
0.142
0.133
0.150
0.119
0.137
0.012
0.149
0.148
0.149
0.124
0.143
0.012
0.105
0.118
0.114
0.112
0.007
0.154
0.134
0.136
0.141
0.011
0.142
0.143
0.134
0.140
0.005
0.156
0.122
0.146
0.141
0.017
Ash content
kg/kg fuel
0.199
0.199
0.180
0.180
0.226
0.197
0.019
0.187
0.198
0.196
0.207
0.197
0.008
0.223
0.192
0.195
0.203
0.017
0.181
0.200
0.199
0.193
O.OU
0.192
0.197
0.192
0.194
0.003
0.197
0.194
0.190
0.194
0.00 A
Carbon
kg/kg fuel
0.482
0.482
0.512
0.496
0.498
0.494
0.013
0.495
0.505
0.492
0.494
O.A97
0.006
0.489
0.51A
0.521
0.508
0.017
O.A98
0.498
0.496
O.A97
0.001
0.503
0.497
0.508
0.503
0.006
0.473
0.505
0.504
0.494
0.018
Hydrogen
kg/kg fuel
0.0347
0.0347
0.0397
0.0279
0.0321
0.0338
0.0043
0.0312
0.0316
0.0389
0.03A1
0.0340
0.0035
0.0421
0.0359
0.0375
0.0385
0.0032
0.029A
0.03A
0.0335
0.0323
0.0025
0.0362
0.0408
0.0416
0.0395
0.0029
0.0299
0.0342
0.0359
0.0333
0.0031
Oxygen
kg/kg fuel
0.0688
0.0688
0.0498
0.0933
0.0634
0.0688
0.0157
0.0706
0.0516
0.0576
0.0737
0.0634
0.0105
0.0733
0.0802
0.0758
0.076A
0.0035
0.0792
0.0739
0.0726
0.076A
0.0035
0.0604
0.0568
0.0581
0.0584
0.0018
0.0630
0.0797
0.0689
0.0705
0.0085
Sulfur
kg/kg fuel
0.0738
0.0738
0.085
0.0516
0.0614
0.0691
0.0129
0.068
0.0656
0.0656
0.066A
0.0664
0.0011
0.0673
0.0592
0.0562
0.0609
0.0057
0.0591
0.0596
0.062
0.0602
0.0016
0.0662
0.0659
0.0671
0.066A
0.0006
0.0814
0.0647
0.055A
0.0672
0.0132
Chlorine
kg/kg fuel
NT
NT
0.00058
O.OOOA9
0.00068
0.00058
0.00010
NT
NT
NT
0.00049
0.00049
0
NT
0.00058
0.00049
0.00054
0.00006
NT
0.00039
0.00049
0.00054
0.00007
NT
NT
NT
0
0
NT
0.00039
0.00049
0.00044
0.00007
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-2a. (continued)
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
-------
TABLE C-2b. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL
bn
EPA
cast
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg
a
5
16
17
Avg*
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avs
*"o
a
% Load/
% RDF
- RDK
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Heating value
kj/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,400
13,200
13,200
16,000
13,700
1,579
13,300
14,300
13,300
13,633
577.4
0
0
0
0
0
12,900
13,700
13,100
13,233
416.3
13,000
13,900
12,700
13,200
624.5
MolttCure
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.229
0.233
0.233
0.146-
0.210
0.043
0.191
0.203
0.259
0.218
0.036
0
0
0
0
0
0.211
0.207
0.195
0.204
0.008
0.239
0.197
0.211
0.216
0.021
Aah concent
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.161
0.135
0.135
0.113
0.136
0.020
0.184
0.139
0.173
0.165
0.023
0
0
0
0
0
0.209
0.149
0.152
0.170
0.034
0.137
0.166
0.208
0.170
0.036
Carbon
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.279
0.295
0.295
0.354
0.306
0.033
0.319
0.316
0.313
0.316
0.003
0
0
0
0
0
0.295
0.298
0.314
0.302
0.010
0.290
0.293
0.313
0.299
0.013
Hydrogen
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0166
0.0173
0.0173
0.0288
0.0200
0.0058
0.0326
0.0188
0.0182
0.0232
0.0081
0
0
0
0
0
0.0228
0.0231
0.0248
0.0236
0.0011
0.0198
0.0242
0.0232
0.0224
0.0023
Oxygen
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.306
0.315
0.315
0.354
0.323
0.021
0.270
0.318
0.233
0.274
0.043
0
0
0
0
0
0.256
0.318
0.308
0.294
0.033
0.308
0.311
0.238
0.286
0.041
Sulfur
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0062
0.0026
0.0026
0.0025
0.0035
0.0018
0.0019
0.0022
0.0024
0.0022
0.0003
0
0
0
0
0
0.0049
0.0032
0.0036
0.0039
0.0009
0.0028
0.0047
0.0037
0.0037
0.0010
Chlorine
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0026
0.0019
0.0019
0.0021
0.0021
0.0003
0.0019
0.0024
0.0016.
0.0020
0.0004
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
0.0023
0.0023
0.0022
0.0002
0.0023
0.0034
0.0027
0.0037
0.0006
Deniity
kR/m3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
129
124
113
122
122
6.8
123
116
123
120
3.8
0
0
0
0
0
130
140
120
130
9.7
126
124
125
125
1.2
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-2b. (continued)
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
or
% Load/
% RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
- RDF
80/0
ao/o
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Heating value
kj/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
12,900
12,900
11,500
12,433
808
11,100
11,700
11,400
424
0
0
0
0
0
13,200
13,000
12,800
13,000
200
11,600
12,600
12,100
12,100
500
Moisture
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0.215
0.229
0.192
0.212
0.019
0.301
0.226
0.264
0.053
0
0
0
0
0
0.202
0.228
0.235
0.222
0.017
0.311
0.256
0.281
0.283
0.028
Ash concent
kg /kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0.154
0.169
0.242
0.188
0.047
0.171
0.191
0.181
0.014
0
0
0
0
0
0.136
0.162
0.155
0.151
0.013
0.144
0.170
0.131
0.148
0.020
Carbon
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0.373
0.299
0.308
0.327
0.040
0.283
0.285
0.284
0.001
0
0
0
0
0
0.324
0.304
0.298
0.309
0.014
0.274
0.287
0.286
0.282
0.007
Hydrogen
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0.037
0.0195
0.0251
0.0272
0.0089
0.0230
0.0174
0.0202
0.0040
0
0
0
0
0
0.0162
0.0217
0.0185
0.0188
0.0028
0.00642
0.0142
0.0131
0.0112
0.0042
Oxygen
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0.211
0.278
0.227
0.240
0.035
0.214
0.265
0.240
0.036
0
0
0
0
0
0.316
0.278
0.288
0.294
0.020
0.260
0.267
0.279
0.269
0.010
Sulfur
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0.0082
0.003
0.004
0.0051
0.0028
0.0043
0.009
0.0067
0.0033
0
0
0
0
0
0.0037
0.0039
0.0024
0.0033
0.0008
0.0023
0.0033
0.0027
0.0028
0.0005
Chlorine
kg/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0.0023
0.0025
0.0018
0.0022
0.0004
0.0032
0.0052
0.0042
0.0014
0
0
0
0
0
0.002
0.0029
0.0024
0.0024
0.0005
0.0022
0.0022
0.0067
0.0037
0.0026
Density
kg/m3
0
0
0
0
0
III
138
126
125
14
140
126
133
10
0
0
0
0
0
111
136
121
123
12
132
137
124
131
7
-------
TABLE C-2c. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COAL AND REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL MIXTURES
vO
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
-------
TABLE C-2c. (continued)
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
VO
00 UNIT (
r. Load/
% RDF
100/0
100/0
1 00/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
> - FUEL
Heating value
kj/kg fuel
21,700
20,800
20,800
21,100
519.6
18,300
18,600
16,800
17,900
964.4
15,100
15,800
15,450
494.9
Moisture
kg /kg fuel
0.132
0.137
0.127
0.132
0.005
0.159
0.161
0.162
0.161
0.002
0.240
0.181
0.211
0.042
Asli content
kg/kg fuel
0.193
0.194
0.221
0.203
0.016
0.188
0.173
0.216
0.192
0.022
0.188
0.191
0.190
0.002
Carbon
kg /kg fuel
0.508
0.515
0.496
0.382
0.010
0.459
0.440
0.420
0.440
0.020
0.368
0.382
0.375
0.010
Hydrogen
kg /kg fuel
0.0358
0.0345
0.0354
0.0352
0.0007
0.0303
0.030
0.0343
0.0315
0.0024
0.0252
0.0274
0.0263
0.0016
Oxygen
kg/kg fuel
0.070
0.566
0.0555
0.231
0.291
0.113
0.155
0.129
0.132
0.021
0.145
0.186
0.166
0.029
Sulfur
kg /kg fuel
0.0605
0.0618
0.0651
0.0625
0.0024
0.0486
0.0398
0.0368
0.0417
0.0061
0.032
0.0291
0.0306
0.0021
Chlorine
kg/kg fuel
0.00126
0.00049
0.00039
0.00071
0.00048
0.0011
0.00134
0.00112
0.00119
0.00013
0.0018
0.00342
0.00261
0.00115
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
21,700
21,900
20,800
21,467
585.9
18,900
19,000
18,800
18,900
100
15,200
15,600
15,600
15,467
230.9
0.183
0.181
0.185
0.183
0.002
0.194
0.200
0.190
0.195
0.005
0.268
0.226
0.247
0.247
0.021
0.113
0.104
0.124
0.1V4
0.010
0.120
0.122
0.139
0.127
0.010
0.131
0.156
0.119
0.135
0.019
0.524
0.529
0.511
0.521
0.009
0.458
0.457
0.453
0.456
0.003
0.363
0.367
0.374
0.368
0.006
0.0361
0.0479
0.0366
0.2143
0.0067
0.0294
0.0292
0.0297
0.0294
0.0003
0.0185
0.0202
0.0217
0.0201
0.0016
0.111
6.109
0.0966
0.106
0.008
0.175
0.166
0.161
0.167
0.007
0.205
0.215
0.223
0.214
0.009
0.032
0.0283
0.0462
0.0355
0.0094
0.022
0.0247
0.0254
0.0240
0.0018
0.013
0.0143
0.0109
0.0127
0.0017
0.00058
0.00049
0.00049
0.00052
0 .00005
0.00085
0.00215
0.00104
0.00135
0.00070
0.00165
0.00172
0.00437
0.00258
0.00155
NT = Not tested.
-------
TABLE C-3a. CALCULATION OF ASH IN FUEL (PYRITE AND H20 OF HYDRATION CORRECTION)
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
CT
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
)5
Avg.
a
^ Load/
7. RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
RDF
heat input
(%>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.3
24.7
24.8
16.4
22.05
3.94
54.7
55.6
68.3
59.53
7.61
0
0
0
0
0
22.7
32.3
28.4
27.80
4.83
47.3
49.9
40.2
45.8
5.02
Coal ash
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
19.9
19.9
18.0
18.0
22.6
19.7
1.9
12.52
13.02
12.89
16.56
13.75
1.887
7.58
6.58
4.33
6.16
1.66
18.1
20.0
19.9
19.3
1.1
12.86
11.34
11.62
11.94
0.81
8.15
7.61
8.98
8.25
0.69
RDF ash
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.32
4. 63
4.63
2.26
4.21
1.34
12.15
9.14
13.46
11.58
2.22
0
0
0
0
0
6.90
8.79
6.00
7.23
1.42
8.03
10.09
10.97
9.70
1.51
Fuel avg.
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
19.9
19.9
18.0
18.0
22.6
19.7
1.9
17.8
17.6
17.5
18.8
17.9
0.6
19.7
15.7
17.8
17.7
2.0
18.1
20.0
19.9
19.3
1.1
19.8
17.7
17.6
18.37
1.24
16.2
17.7
19.9
17.93
1.86
Correction—
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
0.149
0.149
0.536
-0.199
-0.324
0.0622
0.338
0.0736
-0.016
-0.006
-0.0584
-0.002
0.0551
-0.0584
-0.041
-0.046
-0.049
0.009
-0.041
-0.171
-0.111
-0.1077
0.0651
0.0225
-0.0058
0.0323
0.0163
0.0198
0.1368
-n.0056
-0.089
0.0141
0.1142
b/
Total AWA-
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
20.05
20.05
18.54
17.801
22.28
19.744
1.721
17.87
17.58
17.49
18.74
17.92
0.57
19.64
15.66
17.75
17.68
1.99
18.06
19.83
19.79
19.227
1.011
19.82
17.69
17.63
18.38
1.25
16.34
17.69
19.81
17.95
1.75
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-3a. (continued)
i
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg*
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
% Load/
% RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
RDF
heat input
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
21.3
27.2
30.2
26.23
4.53
41.6
45
43.3
2.40
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
21.8
22.0
21.3
1.1
48.9
55.4
49.5
51.3
3.6
Coal ash
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
19.3
19.4
22.1
20.3
1.59
14.17
10.60
10.94
11.90
1.97
9.115
7.555
8.335
1.103
11.3
10.4
12.4
11.4
1.0
8.096
7.106
8.884
8.029
0.891
3.899
3.975
3.815
3.896
0.080
RDF ash
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
4.649
6.714
10.70
7.35
3.08
9.643
11.58
10.61
1.37
0
0
0
0
0
3.94
5.131
4.988
4.666
0.650
9.202
11.679
8.072
9.651
1.845
Fuel avg.
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
19.3
19.4
22.1
20.3
1.59
18.8
17.3
21.6
19.23
2.18
18.8
19.1
18.95
0.21
11.3
10.4
12.4
11.4
1.0
12.0
12.2
13.9
12.7
1.0
13.1
15.6
11.9
13.5
1.9
Correction"
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
-0.099
-0.078
-0.205
-0.127
0.068
-0.035
0.062
-0.0408
-0.05
0.01
-0.024
-0.0404
-0.03
0.01
-0.1333
-0.148
0.0975
0.061
0.138
-0.1421
-0.0095
-0.1152
-0.0889
0.0701
-0.034
-0.0308
-0.0691
0.0446
0.0212
b/
Total AWA-
kg ash/
100 kg fuel
19.20
19.32
21.89
20.14
1.52
18.77
17.36
21.56
19.23
2.14
18.78
19.06
18.92
0.20
11.17
10.25
12.50
11.31
1.13
11.86
12.19
13.78
12.61
1.03
13.07
15.57
11.83
13.49
1.91
a/ Correction factor* - corrects for pyrite In fuel and water of hydratton in fuel ash.
b/ AHA - as weighed ash - laboratory analysts.
-------
TABLE C-3b. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF GRATE ASH
GraLe ash control
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
ff
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
7. Load/
% RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Mineral
(7.)
85.83
89.41
83.85
83.85
89.16
86.42
2.74
84.71
88.68
89.98
90.48
88.46
2.61
87.78
89.76
91.78
89.77
2.00
87.12
87.61
88.07
87.60
0.48
81.05
84.07
82.49
82.54
1.51
90.31
88.12
92.03
90.15
1.96
Carbon
<%>
9.21
6.92
12.25
12.25
5.97
9.32
2.92
10.9
7.32
5.99
5.78
7.50
2.37
8.13
7.25
5.66
7.01
1.25
8.35
9.69
8.38
8.81
0.77
14.21
12.23
12.59
13.01
1.05
6.88
8.03
5.60
6.84
1.22
Hydrogen
<%)
0.77
0.54
0.73
0.73
1.42
0.84
0.34
0.88
0.84
0.70
1.02
0.86
0.13
0.8'
Q.9l
0.93
0.90
0.06
0.71
0.54
0.76
0.67
0.12
1.01
0.95
0.79
0.92
0.11
0.68
0.97
0.66
0.77
0.17
Sulfur
tt)
4.19
3.13
3.17
3.17
3.45
3.42
0.45
3.51
3.16
3.33
2.72
3.18
0.34
3.25
2.05
1.63
2.31
0.84
3.82
2.16
2.79
2.92
0.84
3.73
2.75
4.13
3.54
0.71
2.13
2.88
1.71
2.24
0.59
kg measured ash/
100 kg fuel
8.62
8.62
13.82
13.64
10.62
11.06
2.57
11.71
12.97
12.97
13.49
12.79
0.76
14.15
13.75
14.56
14.15
0.42
11.86
10.94
11.68
11.49
0.49
12.83
12.29
12.66
12.59
0.28
12.72
12.32
11.89
12.31
00.42
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-3b. (continued)
O
ro
Grate ash content
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg*
a
25
26
27
Avg*
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
% Load/
% RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Mineral
(%)
88.53
88.16
84.05
86.91
2.49
84.16
87.22
86.49
85.96
1.60
87.39
82.68
85.04
3.33
89.66
94.57
96.20
93.48
3.40
95.46
94.82
94.09
94.79
0.69
96.01
95.83
96.43
96.09
0.31
Carbon
CO
7.81
8.06
12.46
9.44
2.62
11.30
8.95
8.68
9.64
1.44
8.99
13.32
11.16
3.06
7.50
2.48
1.32
3.77
3.28
2.56
2.63
3.34
2.84
0.43
2.54
2.28
2.12
2.31
0.21
Hydrogen
(%)
0.86
0.94
0.51
0.77
0.23
0.45
0.70
0.74
0.63
0.16
0.38
1.01
0.70
0.45
0.66
0.94
0.83
0.81
0.14
0.53
0.68
0.93
0.71
0.20
0.33
0.59
0.60
0.51
0.15
Sulfur
<%)
2.80
2.84
2.98
2.87
0.09
4.09
3.13
4.09
3.75
0.54
3.24
2.99
3.12
0.18
2.18
2.01
1.65
1.95
0.27
1.45
1.87
1.64
1.65
0.21
1.12
1.30
0.85
1.09
0.23
kg measured ash/
100 kg fuel
13.21
NT
NT
13.21
0
14.14
13.97
15.14
14.42
0.63
11.62
11.01
11.32
0.43
9.66
5.67
7.16
7.50
2.02
8.73
8.67
7.45
8.28
0.72
7.29
8.84
8.68
8.27
0.85
NT «* Not tested.
-------
TABLE C-3c. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COLLECTOR ASH
O
OJ
Collector ash
EPA
tesi-
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
I
34
35
Avg.
O
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
7o Load/
% RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Mineral
(%)
86.37
86.37
83.90
88.90
77.18
85.54
4.84
88.52
91.53
91.53
88.65
90.06
1.70
95.09
93.95
96.26
95.10
1.16
82.09
86.47
84.75
84.44
2.21
84.54
90.17
90.17
88.29
3.25
90.18
93.48
82.90
88.85
5.41
Carbon
(%)
11.38
11.38
8.39
8.39
20.15
11.94
4.83
8.58
5.80
5.80
8.71
7.22
1.64
3.37
4.57
2.16
3.37
1.21
15.21
11.05
12.67
12.98
2.10
12.5
5.17
5.17
7.61
4.23
7.00
3.73
13.7
8.14
5.08
(cone limed)
Hydrogen
(%)
0.61
0.61
0.55
0.55
0.82
0.63
0.11
0.57
0.43
0.43
0.79
0.56
0.17
0.51
0.34
0.67
0.51
0.17
0.63
0.55
0.65
0.61
0.05
0.41
0.44
0.44
0.43
0.02
0.85
0.38
0.79
0.67
0.26
Sulfur
«)
1.64
1.64
2.16
2.16
1.85
1.89
0.26
2.33
2.24
2.24
1.85
2.17
0.21
1.03
1.14
0.91
1.03
0.12
2.07
1.93
1.93
1.98
0.08
2.55
4.22
4.22
3.66
0.96
1.97
2.41
2.61
2.33
0.33
kg measured ash/
100 kg fuel
2.83
2.83
4.21
2.94
5.19
3.60
1.06
5.72
6.33
6.33
6.58
6.24
0.37
3.69
3.79
3.64
3.71
0.08
7.08
7.52
6.57
7.06
0.48
6.01
6.92
6.17
6.37
0.49
4.49
4.35
4.86
4.57
0.26
-------
TABLE C-3c. (continued)
O
-p-
CollecLor ash
EPA
Lest
11
31
32
Avg.
CT
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
7. Load/
% RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Mineral
00
85.38
82.31
70.71
79.47
7.74
85.78
91.56
86.96
88.10
3.05
89.23
86.90
88.06
1.65
87.55
82.36
84.34
84.75
2.62
88.08
88.04
87.73
87.97
0.21
81.60
89.52
90.46
87.19
4.87
Carbon
<*)
12.16
15.03
26.71
17.97
7.71
11.30
5.29
9.62
8.74
3.10
7.63
9.57
8.60
1.37
10.38
15.18
13.24
12.93
2.41
9.20
9.21
10.11
9.51
0.52
15.36
8.16
6.98
10.17
4.54
Hydrogen
(%)
0.32
0.59
0.68
0.53
0.19
0.59
0.51
0.57
0.56
0.04
0.90
0.72
0.81
0.13
0.42
0.88
0.62
0.64
0.23
0.73
0.48
0.54
0.58
0.13
0.69
0.69
1.16
0.85
0.27
Sulfur
(%)
2.14
2.07
1.90
2.04
0.12
2.33
2.64
2.85
2.61
0.26
2.24
2.81
2.53
0.40
1.65
1.58
1.80
1.68
0.11
1.99
2.22
1.62
1.94
0.30
2.35
1.63
1.40
1.79
0.50
kg measured ash/
100 kg fuel
7.39
NT
NT
7.39
0
2.69
3.01
2.89
2.86
0.16
2.89
3.13
3.01
0.17
4.35
4.65
3.69
4.23
0.49
5.48
4.06
2.22
3.92
1.63
3.39
2.28
3.07
2.91
0.57
NT =• Not tested.
-------
TABLE C-Jd. COMBINED ASH ANALYSIS
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
0
I
34
35
Avg.
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
\ Load/
I RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Mineral
«)
86.01
88.31
85.22
85.37
83.73
85.73
1.67
86.05
89.86
90.70
89.72
89.08
2.07
89.60
91.04
93.16
91.27
1.79
85.10
87.10
86.67
86.29
1.05
86.14
86.38
85.20
85.91
0.62
90.27
89.65
89.13
89.68
0.57
Carbon
(7.)
9.94
8.54
11.2
11.3
12.4
10.68
1.48
10.1
6.69
5.92
7.00
7.43
1.84
6.94
6.43
4.58
5.98
1.24
11.1
10.3
10.2
10.53
0.49
9.74
9.55
9.97
9.75
0.21
6.91
6.80
8.17
7.29
0.76
Hydrogen
(7.)
0.716
0.565
0.682
0.685
1.15
0.760
0.226
0.768
0.670
0.601
0.924
0.741
0.140
0.758
0.756
0.849
0.788
0.053
0.678
0.544
0.713
0.645
0.089
0.803
0.756
0.666
0.742
0.070
0.728
0.801
0.701
0.743
0.052
Sulfur
tt)
3.33
2.59
2.90
2.92
2.72
2.89
0.28
3.08
2.78
2.93
2.36
2.79
0.31
2.70
1.77
1.41
1.96
0.67
3.12
2.06
2.42
2.53
0.54
3.32
3.31
4.16
3.60
0.49
2.09
2.75
2.00
2.28
0.41
Heating value ash
mj/kg ash
4.69
3.93
5.03
5.06
6.08
4.96
0.78
4.78
3.47
3.13
3.90
3.82
0.71
3.68
3.42
2.89
3.33
0.40
5.01
4.44
4.70
4.72
0.29
4.74
4.61
4.70
4.68
0.07
1.57
3.69
3.95
3.74
0.19
kg controlled emissions/
100 kg fuel
1.581
2.077
0.872
1.637
3.636
1.961
1,031
0.944
2.889
1.139
3.082
2.014
1.128
0.835
2.32
2.89
2.01
1.06
0.899
0.810
2.26
1.32
0.814
0.750
0.601
0.730
0.694
0.081
0.446
0.592
0.675
0.571
0.116
Total kg measured ash/
100 kg fuel
13.07
13.58
18.93
18.27
19.50
16.67
3.09
18.47
22.22
20.46
23.16
21.08
2.07
18.84
11.76
21.11
19.90
1.14
19.83
19.29
20.51
19.88
0.612
19.64
19.78
19.55
19.66
0.116
17.67
17.28
17.42
17.46
0.199
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-3d. (continued)
EPA.
U'St
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
CT
22
23
28
Avg.
a
X Load/
% RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Mineral
(%)
87.34
85.44
89.51
87.43
2.04
84.48
88.11
86.57
86.39
1.82
87.80
83.83
85.82
2.81
88.88
88.38
91.67
89.64
] .77
92.33
92.27
91.90
92.17
0.23
90.16
93.91
94.47
92.85
2.34
Carbon
c/.)
9.46
11.3
6.85
9.20
2.24
11.3
8.20
8.86
9.45
1.63
8.69
12.3
10.50
2.55
8.57
8.92
5.87
7./V
1.67
5.38
5.13
5.67
5.39
0.27
7.74
4.07
3.72
5.18
2.23
Hydrogen
(%)
0.655
0.780
1.17
0.868
0.269
0.478
0.661
0.708
0.616
0.122
0.495
0.935
0.715
0.311
0.571
0.910
0.750
0.74A
0.170
0.615
0.604
0.796
0.672
0.108
0.476
0.620
0.785
0.627
0.155
Sulfur
(%)
2.55
2.48
2.47
2.50
0.04
3.74
3.03
3.86
3.54
0.45
3.02
2.94
2.98
0.06
1.98
1.79
1.71
1.83
0.14
1.68
2.00
1.63
1.77
0.20
1.62
1.40
1.03
1.35
0.30
Heating value ash
mj/kg ash
4.37
5.15
4.21
4.58
0.50
4.84
3.99
4.36
4.40
0.43
3.92
5.78
4.85
1.32
3.89
4.48
3.21
3.86
0.64
2.85
2.78
3.20
2.94
0.23
3.44
2.39
2.47
2.77
0.58
kg controlled emissions/
100 kg fuel
0.723
3.532
4.342
2.866
1.899
0.767
0.562
0.608
0.646
0.108
0.423
0.731
0.577
0.218
1.35
1.18
0.724
1.08
0.323
0.977
1.26
1.69
1.31
0.359
1.58
1.59
1.20
1.46
0.221
Total kg measured ash/
100 kg fuel
21.31
NT
NT
21.31
0
17.55
17.55
18.62
17.90
0.619
14.90
14.88
14.89
0.020
15.41
11.51
11.59
12.84
2.23
15.17
14.0
11.38
13.52
1.94
12.24
12.71
12.95
12.63
0.358
NT
Not tested.
-------
TABLE C-4a. CALCULATED BOILER PERFORMANCE DATA
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
kv%.
O
8
9A
9B
33
tor%*
a
1
34
35
**&•
a
5
16
17
**&•
O
6
12
13
Avg*
a
2
10
15
*v%.
a
t. Load
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
RDF
heat
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.7
24.1
24.2
16.0
21.5
3.8
53.9
54.9
67.7
58.8
7.7
0
0
0
0
0
22.2
31.6
27.7
27.2
4.7
46.5
49.2
39.5
45.1
5.0
Firing
rate of
coal
(kg/hr)
4,477
4,477
4,238
4,293
4,490
4,395
120
3,766
3,219
3,219
3,557
3,440
269
1,864
1,926
1,179
1,656
414
5,388
5,718
5,357
5,487
200
4,253
3,601
3,680
3,845
356
2,741
2,812
3,236
2,930
268
Heating
value of
coal
(MJ/kg)
20.9
20.9
21.5
20.8
20.9
21.0
0.3
21.4
21.0
20.9
20.4
20,9
0.4
21.4
21.9
21.6
21.6
0.3
21.6
20.8
20.8
21.1
0.5
21.7
21.3
21.4
21.5
0.2
20.7
21.7
21.0
21.1
0.5
Firing
rate
of RDF
(kg/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,875
1,678
1,678
S89
1,530
437
3,617
3,697
4,136
3,817
279
0
0
0
0
0
2,103
2,666
2,384
2,384
282
3,896
4,366
3,6)2
3,958
381
Heating
value of
RDF
(HJ/kg)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.4
13.2
13.2
16.0
13.7
1.6
13.3
14.3
13.3
13.6
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
12.9
13.7
13.1
13.2
0.4
13.0
13.9
12.7
13.2
0.6
Heat Incut
Steam
flow
(kg/hr)
25,850
25,850
25,620
25,620
25,400
25,670
190
25,850
25,850
25,850
25,850
25,850
0
26,300
25,620
26,080
26,000
350
34,470
34,690
34,920
34,690
230
34,010
34,010
34,920
34,320
520
34,470
34,250
33,570
34,100
470
Coal
(GJ/hr)
93.57
93.57
91.12
89.29
93.84
92.28
2.00
80.59
67.60
67.28
72.56
72.01
6.21
39.89
42.18
25.47
35.85
9.06
116.38
118.93
111.43
115.58
3.81
92.29
76.70
78.75
82.58
8.47
56.74
61.02
67.96
61.91
5.66
RDF
(CJ/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.25
22.15
22.15
14.22
20.44
4.18
48.11
52.87
55.01
52.00
3.53
0
0
0
0
0
27.13
36.52
31.23
31.63
4.71
50.65
60.69
45.87
52.40
7.56
Fuel
(GJ/hr)
93.57
93.57
91.12
89.29
93.84
92.28
2.00
103.84
89.75
89.43
86.78
92.45
7.71
88.00
95.05
80.48
87.84
7.29
116.38
118.93
111.43
115.58
3.81
119.42
113.22
109.98
114.21
4.80
107.39
121.71
113.83
114.31
7.17
Kj/kg steam
ee nerated
3,620
3,620
3,557
3,485
3,694
3,595
78.41
4,017
3,472
3,460
3,357
3,577
298.2
3,346
3,710
3,086
3,381
313.4
3,376
3,428
3,191
3,332
125.6
3,511
3,329
3,149
3,330
181.0
3,115
3,554
3,391
3,353
221.9
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-4a. (continued)
O
00
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT b
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
O
22
23
28
Avg.
a
T. Load
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
RDF
heat
«)
0
0
0
0
0
20.8
26.6
29.5
25.6
4.4
40.9
44.3
42.6
2.4
0
0
0
0
0
19.5
21.2
21.5
20.7
l.l
47.8
54.6
49.3
50.6
3.6
Firing
rale of
coal
(kg/hr)
6,220.6
6,972.2
6,628.3
6,607.0
376.3
5,019.4
4,368.5
4,583.1
4,657.0
331.7
4,112.7
3,587.9
3,850.5
371.1
6,640.1
6,607.9
6,556.2
6,601.6
42.3
5,684.9
5,569.2
5,364.2
5,539.3
162.4
3,356.6
2,727.9
3,848.7
3,311.2
562.0
Heating
value of
coal
(MJ/kg)
21.7
20.8
20.8
21.1
0.5
20.6
22.4
21.0
21.3
0.9
20.2
22.1
21.2
1.3
21.7
21.9
20.8
21.5
0.6
21.2
21.7
21.6
21.5
0.3
21.6
22.2
21.7
21.8
0.3
Firing
rate
of RDF
(kg/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
2,174.1
2,830.9
3,617.8
2,874.4
723.0
5,317.5
5,531.1
5,424.5
151.1
0
0
0
0
0
2,286.6
2,591.8
2,551.0
2,476.6
165.7
5,956.6
5,977.0
6,744.9
6,226.0
449.4
Heating
value of
RDF
(MJ/kg)
0
0
0
0
0
12.9
12.9
11.5
12.4
0.8
11.1
11.7
11.4
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
13.2
13.0
12.8
13.0
0.2
11.6
12.6
12.1
12.1
0.5
Steam
flow
(kg/hr)
41.960
42,180
40,140
41,430
1,120
42,180
40,820
39,920
40,970
1,140
39,920
41,740
40,820
1,280
45,590
44,910
46,050
45,510
570
45,810
46,040
44,910
45,590
6OO
44,910
44,910
44,450
44,760
260
Coal
(GJ/hr)
134.99
145.02
137.87
139.29
5.16
103.40
97.85
96.25
99.17
3.75
83.08
79.29
81.19
2.68
144.09
144.71
136.37
141.72
4.65
120.52
120.85
115.87
119.08
2.78
72.50
60.56
83.52
72.19
11.48
Heat
RDF
(GJ/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
28.05
36.52
41.60
36.39
6.85
59.02
64.71
61.87
4.02
0
0
0
0
0
30.18
33.69
32.65
32.17
1.80
69.10
75.31
81.61
75.34
6.26
input
Fuel
(GJ/hr)
134.99
145.02
137.87
139.29
5.16
131.45
134.37
137.85
134.56
3.20
142.10
144.00
143.05
1.34
144.09
144.71
136.37
141.72
4.65
150.70
154.54
148.52
151.25
3.05
141.60
135.87
165.13
147.53
15.51
Kj/kg steam
generated
3,217
3,438
3,435
3,363
126.7
3,116
3,292
3,453
3,287
168.6
3,560
3,450
3,505
78
3,161
3,222
2,961
3,115
136.5
3,290
3,357
3,307
3,318
34.83
3,153
3,025
3,715
3,298
367.0
-------
TABLE C-4b. CALCULATED BOILER PERFORMANCE DATA
o
VO
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
7,, Load
7. RDF
80/0
80/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/21.7
60/24.1
60/24.2
60/16.0
60/53.9
60/54.9
60/67.7
80/0
80/0
80/0
Direct
74.15
74.17
74.87
76.24
74.96
74.88
0.85
66.51
76.77
77.11
81.34
75.43
6.30
80.42
74.23
88.49
81.05
7.15
78.90
80.19
86.48
81.86
4.06
Boiler efficiency
Indirect
75.90
77.37
76.89
79.44
76.97
77.31
1.31
73.43
74.07
72.97
75.84
74.08
1.26
71.52
79.53
75.15
75.40
4.01
75.83
75.83
74.88
75.51
0.55
(continued)
Average
(*)
75.03
75.77
75.88
77.84
75.97
76.10
1.04
69.97
75.42
75.04
78.59
74.76
3.56
75.97
76.88
81.82
78.22
3.15
77.37
78.01
80.68
78.69
1.76
Orsat analysis
C02 7o
6.63
7.26
8.99
9.73
8.07
8.14
1.26
6.56
7.02
6.46
7.51
6.89
0.48
6.56
7.41
7.78
6.89
0.63
7.35
7.55
7.24
7.38
0.16
02 7o
9.23
9.31
10.37
9.61
10.72
9.85
0.66
9.59
10.00
12.68
11.26
10.88
1.39
11.54
11.16
11.16
11.29
0.22
9.44
11.65
11.75
10.95
1.31
N2 %
84.14
83.43
80.65
80.65
81.21
82.02
1.65
83.86
82.99
80.86
81.23
82.24
1.43
81.90
81.46
81.01
81.46
0.45
83.20
80.80
81.01
81.67
1.33
-------
TABLE C-4b. (continued)
Boiler efficiency
EPA
test
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
7. Load
% RDF
80/22.2
80/31.6
80/27.7
80/46.5
80/49.2
80/39.5
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20.8
100/26.6
100/29.5
100/40.9
100/44.3
Direct
(%)
V
75.24
79.81
84.33
79.79
4.55
85.35
75.62
80.82
80.60
4.87
81.62
79.02
78.64
79.76
1.62
83.52
83.79
77.73
81.68
3.42
74.42
79.19
76.81
3.37
Indirect Average
(%) (%)
74.42
74.91
75.02
74.78
0.32
76.50
76.68
74.08
75.75
1.45
80.12
78.24
77.82
78.73
1.22
75.34
78.50
77.00
76.95
1.58
72.02
76.07
74.05
2.86
(continued)
74.83
77.36
79.68
77.29
2.43
80.93
76.15
77.45
78.18
2.47
80.87
78.63
78.23
79.24
1.42
79.43
81.15
77.37
79.32
1.89
73.22
77.63
75.43
3.12
Orsat analysis
C02 %
7.72
8.36
8.96
8.35
0.62
8.70
8.47
7.72
8.30
0.51
11.53
11.06
9.78
10.79
0.91
9.10
9.78
11.08
9.99
1.01
7.95
10.07
9.01
1.50
02 %
10.39
10.24
9.62
10.08
0.41
9.40
9.69
10.14
9.74
0.37
6.74
7.01
9.12
7.62
1.30
8.23
8.41
7.11
7.92
0.70
8.85
8.85
8.85
0.0
N2 %
82.43
81.40
81.42
81.75
0.59
81.90
81.83
82.15
81.96
0.17
81.74
81.92
81.10
81.59
0.43
82.67
81.81
81.81
82.10
0.50
83.20
81.08
82.14
1.50
-------
TABLE C-4b. (continued)
Boiler efficiency
EPA
test
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
% Load
%RDF
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/19.5
80/21.2
80/21.5
80/47.8
80/54.6
80/49.3
Direct
(%)
82.42
80.94
87.88
83.75
3.66
79.58
77.47
78.88
78.64
1.07
82.37
85.96
70.23
79.52
8.24
Indirect
(7.)
78.89
77.80
82.79
79.83
2.62
78.51
78.40
79.34
78.75
0.51
79.10
79.15
77.92
78.72
0.70
Average
(%)
80.66
79.37
85.34
81.79
3.14
79.05
77.94
79.11
78.70
0.66
80.74
82.56
74.08
79.13
4.46
C02 %
8.90
8.63
11.90
9.81
1.82
8.88
8.52
9.09
8.83
0.29
9.69
9.21
8.51
9.14
0.59'
Orsat analysis
02 %
10.04
9.31
6.27
8.54
2.00
10.01
10.45
8.90
9.79
0.80
8.82
9.80
9.82
9.48
0.57
N2 %
81.05
82.06
81.83
81.65
0.53
81.11
81.03
82.01
81.39
0.54
82.09
80.99
81.67
81.58
0.56
-------
TABLE C-4c. CALCULATED BOILER PERFORMANCE DATA
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
I
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
% Load
7o RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/21.7
60/24.1
60/24.2
60/16.0
60/53.9
60/54.9
60/67.7
80/0
80/0
80/0
By N2 balance
183.79
158.01
92.53
92.14
122.89
129.87
40.51
207 .62
185.21
195.21
150.43
184.62
24.57
194.62
192.57
173.61
186.93
11.58
157.49
138.63
148.89
148.34
9.44
7, Excess Air
By 02 balance
114.94
106.65
89.81
82.07
105.88
99.87
13.48
127.60
125.37
171.00
126.66
137.66
22.25
151.92
146.25
137.54
145 .24
7.24
105.73
125.94
131.93
121.20
13.73
(continued)
Calculated orsat
Corrected
166.44
144.80
91.46
89.31
117.90
121.98
33.57
188.62
171.68
189.69
145.12
173.78
20.81
184.09
182.32
165.66
177.36
10.17
145.21
135.11
144.52
141.61
5.64
C02 %
6.35
6.94
8.50
9.43
7.78
7.80
1.22
6.36
6.81
6.25
7.23
6.66
0.45
6.47
7.29
7.70
7.15
0.63
7.10
7.26
6.96
7.11
0.15
02 7»
13.43
12.72
10.58
10.46
11.96
11.83
1.30
14.11
13.63
14.06
12.87
13.67
0.57
13.99
13.85
13.40
13.75
0.31
12.91
12.52
12.88
12.77
0.22
N2 7,
79.86
79.95
80.41
79.77
79.91
79.98
0,25
79.28
79.33
79.47
79.61
79.42
0.15
79.40
78.72
78.81
78.98
0.37
79.69
79.91
79.85
79.82
0.11
-------
TABLE C-4c. (continued)
EPA
test
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
0
11
31
32
Avg.
a
1
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
% Load
% RDF
80/22.2
80/31.6
80/27.7
80/46.5
80/49.2
80/39.5
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20.8
100/26.6
100/29.5
100/40.9
100/44.3
By N2 balance
144.04
126.23
107.60
125.96
18.22
144.88
146.64
154.69
148.74
5.23
56.47
61.32
81.82
66.54
13.46
108.78
100.15
66.60
91.84
22.28
152.87
96.60
124.74
39.79
7o Excess air
By 02 balance
111.05
102.02
87.45
100.17
11.91
101.71
105.79
114.25
107.25
6.40
44.85
46.97
72.80
54.87
15.56
74.05
73.84
50.21
66.03
13.70
97.42
75.09
86.26
15.79
(continued)
Calculated orsat
Corrected
135.79
120.42
102.66
119.62
16.58
134.71
136.59
144.39
138.56
5.13
53.54
58.02
79.76
63.77
14.02
99.97
93.63
61.73
85.11
20.49
138.70
90.06
114.38
34.39
C02 %
7.45
8.13
8.72
8.10
0.64
8.45
8.32
7.60
8.12
0.46
11.10
10.63
9.36
10.36
0.90
8.86
9.55
10.88
9.76
1.03
7.81
9.93
8.87
1.50
02 %
12.61
12.04
11.25
11.97
0.68
12.40
12.49
12.81
12.57
0.22
7.97
8.52
9.95
8.81
1.02
11.04
10.61
8.69
10.11
1.25
12.59
10.60
11.60
1.41
N2 %
79.67
79.58
79.76
79.67
0.09
78.87
78.99
79.41
79.09
0.28
80.46
80.40
80.25
80.37
0.11
79.78
79.55
80.13
79.82
0.29
79.37
79.22
79.30
0.11
-------
TABLE G-4c. (continued)
EPA
test
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
% Load
% RDF
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/1.95
80/21.2
80/21.5
80/47.8
80/54.6
80/49.3
% Excess air
By N2 balance
109.35
107.79
58.06
91.73
29.17
126.86
135.57
122.26
128.23
6.76
132.28
142.90
164.27
146.48
16.29
By 02 balance
95.11
86.75
44.37
75.41
27.20
103.19
112.46
89.06
101.57
11.78
90.69
108.49
117.36
105.51
13.58
Corrected
106.34
102.85
54.54
87.91
28.95
121.70
130.29
113.91
121.97
8.19
122.09
133.98
153.39
136.49
15.80
Calculated orsat
co2 %
8.72
8.49
11.57
9.59
1.72
8.74
8.38
8.97
8.70
0.30
9.58
9.16
8.46
9.07
0.57
02 7,
11.20
11.03
7.70
9.98
1.97
11.78
12.11
11.41
11.77
0.35
11.78
12.15
12.83
12.25
0.53
N2 %
79.90
80.32
80.35
80.19
0.25
79.33
79.36
79.44
79.38
0.06
78.53
78.58
78.62
78.58
0.05
-------
TABLE C-5a, BOILER OPERATING DATA
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
I
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
% Load/
% RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
Steam
flow
(kg/hr)
25,900
25,900
25,600
25,600
25,600
25,700
164
25,900
25,900
25,900
25,900
25,900
0
26,300
25,600
26,100
26,000
361
34,500
34,700
34,900
34,700
200
Coal
(kg/hr)
4,480
4,480
4,240
4,290
4,490
4,400
120
3,770
3,220
3,220
3,560
3,440
270
1,860
1,930
1,180
1,660
410
5,390
5,720
5,360
5,490
200
RDF
(kg/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,880
1,680
1,680
890
1,533
440
3,620
3,770
4,140
3,840
270
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
Total
(kg/hr)
•
4,480
4,480
4,480
4,480
4,480
4,480
0
5,650
4,900
4,900
4,450
4,980
500
5,480
5,620
5,320
5,470
150
5,390
5,720
5,360
5,490
200
Steam
temp*
(°G)
449
449
439
440
435
442
6
444
438
438
435
439
4
442
449
449
447
4
457
453
457
456
2
Steam
pressure
(MPa)
4.15
4.15
4.21
4.22
4.24
4.19
0.04
4.21
4.17
4.16
4.22
4.19
0.03
4.18
4.25
4.33
4.25
0.08
4.15
4.20
4.22
4.19
0.04
Air
in
(°c)
33
33
30
32
36
33
2
34
30
31
35
32
2
35
34
37
35
2
32
34
37
34
3
-------
TABLE C-5a. (continued)
EPA
test
6
12
13
Avg«
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg»
a
3
18
Avg.
a
% Load/
% RDF
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
Steam
flow
(kg/hr)
34,000
34,000
34,900
34,300
520
34,500
34,200
33,600
34,100
458
42,000
42,000
40,100
41,400
1,200
42,200
40,800
39,900
41,000
1,200
39,900
41,700
40,800
1,300
Coal
(kg/hr)
4,250
3,600
3,680
3,840
350
2,740
2,810
3,240
2,930
270
6,220
6,970
6,630
6,610
380
5,020
4,370
4,580
4,660
330
4,110
3,590
3,850
370
RDF
(kg/hr)
2,100
2,670
2,380
2,380
290
3,900
4,370
3,610
3,960
380
0
0
0
0
0
2,170
2,830
3,620
2,870
730
5,320
5,530
5,420
148
(continued)
Total
(kg/hr)
6,350
6,270
6,060
6,230
150
6,640
7,180
6,850
6,890
270
6,220
6,970
6,630
6,610
380
7,190
7,200
8,200
7,530
580
9,430
9,120
9,270
219
Steam
temp.
446
452
450
449
3
455
460
451
455
5
442
456
444
447
8
439
454
433
442
11
464
456
460
6
Steam
pressure
(MPa)
4.12
4.19
4.21
4.17
0.05
4.17
4.16
4.21
4.18
0.03
4.25
4.21
4.22
4.23
0.02
4.23
4.19
4.18
4.20
0.03
4.20
4.23
4.22
0.02
Air
in
31
33
35
33
2
32
30
34
32
2
34
37
35
35
2
32
35
34
34
2
30
37
34
5
-------
TABLE C-5a. (continued)
EPA
test
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
7, Load/
% RDF
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Steam
flow
(kg/hr)
45,600
44,900
46,000
45,500
600
45,800
46,000
44,900
45,600
600
44,900
44,900
44,500
44,800
200
Coal
(kg/hr)
6,640
6,610
6,560
6,600
30
5,690
5,570
5,360
5,540
167
3,360
2,730
3,850
3,310
561
RDF
(kg/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
2,290
2,590
2,550
2,480
163
5,960
5,980
6,740
6,230
445
Total
(kg/hr)
6,640
6,610
6,560
6,600
40
7,980
8,160
7,910
8,020
129
9,320
8,710
10,600
9,540
965
Steam
temp.
446
448
445
446
2
449
446
448
447
2
444
445
447
445
2
Steam
pressure
(MPa)
4.40
4.45
4.50
4.45
0.05
4.45
4.48
4.45
4.46
0.02
4.53
4.45
4.44
4.47
0.05
Air
in
38
39
44
41
3
37
42
40
40
3
41
38
41
40
2
-------
TABLE C-5b. BOILER OPERATING DATA
00
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
n
I
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
Water to
economizer
<°C>
152
152
151
153
129
147
10
152
150
149
134
146
8
147
135
135
139
7
159
138
139
146
12
159
158
157
158
1
159
156
140
152
10
Water from
economizer
<°C>
204
194
184
144
180
181
23
205
211
205
188
202
10
197
192
194
193
3
199
184
182
188
9
203
200
201
201
2
205
202
186
197
10
Flue gas
to
economizer
("<:)
279
278
285
285
283
282
3
287
290
288
291
289
2
286
297
303
295
9
293
300
285
293
8
295
299
303
299
4
308
297
296
300
7
Flue gas
from
economizer
<°C)
195
200
200
192
198
197
4
210
212
210
200
208
5
206
201
203
203
3
214
205
202
207
6
217
220
224
220
4
215
218
215
216
2
Partlcolate
collector
<°c)
194
195
199
196
191
195
3
206
205
206
194
203
6
206
199
201
202
4
208
204
205
206
2
212
214
218
215
3
213
216
211
213
3
To
stack
(°C>
172
170
169
170
174
171
2
194
189
191
167
185
12
179
171
174
175
4
189
174
171
178
10
192
203
200
198
6
190
201
181
191
10
Met
bulb
(°C)
20
20
17
18
21
19
2
18
13
16
23
17
4
21
22
23
22
1
18
21
24
21
3
17
21
23
20
3
21
16
20
19
3
Dry
bulb
CO
32
32
20
24
31
28
6
31
18
24
31
26
6
30
30
28
29
1
30
27
31
29
2
25
29
33
29
4
28
24
35
29
6
Spec! fir
humidity
kg M20/
kg DA?-/
0.0114
0.0114
0.0106
0.0103
0.0109
0.0109
0.0005
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0104
0.0082
0.0015
0.0120
0.0137
0.0151
0.0136
0.0016
0.0073
0.0134
0.0160
0.0104
0.0043
0.0086
0.0124
0.0140
0.0117
0.0028
0.0130
0.0077
0.0083
0.0097
0.0029
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-5b. (continued)
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg*
a
3
18
Avg.
(/
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
w
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
i/
Water to
economi zer
<°C)
161
147
145
151
9
164
138
144
149
14
167
143
155
17
169
169
167
168
I
167
167
167
167
0
166
167
165
166
1
Water from
economizer
<°C)
195
192
189
192
3
201
186
177
188
12
204
182
193
16
230
229
216
225
8
230
230
231
231
1
233
232
232
232
I
Flue gas
to
economizer
(°C)
295
306
304
.302
6
299
309
299
302
6
311
306
308
4
321
320
306
316
8
321
321
321
321
0
323
323
322
323
1
Flue gas
from
economizer
<°C)
217
207
206
210
6
218
216
210
215
5
226
209
218
12
205
''04
194
201
6
205
206
204
205
I
206
205
201
204
3
Particulate
collector
(°C)
213
204
205
207
5
218
213
209
213
5
223
213
218
7
205
205
195
202
6
209
211
209
210
1
199
211
207
206
6
To
stack
<°C)
197
199
196
197
2
202
189
192
194
7
193
199
196
4
190
189
188
189
1
183
180
180
181
2
198
195
205
199
5
HeL
bulb
(°C)
20
19
23
21
2
20
18
20
19
1
_
-
-
-
19
16
26
20
5
23
26
24
24
2
23
18
21
21
3
Dry
bulb
(°C>
29
23
28
27
3
31
31
26
29
3
23
28
26
4
23
19
30
24
6
29
30
30
30
1
30
23
30
28
4
Specific
humidity
kg H20/
kg DA
0.0111
0.0127
0.0163
0.0134
0.0027
0.0100
0.0073
0.0124
0.0099
0.0026
0.0119
0.0180
0.0150
0.0043
0.0106
0.0096
0.0187
0.0148
0.0047
0.0159
0.0189
0.0170
0.0173
0.0015
0.0131
0.0111
0.0119
0.0120
0.0010
a/ Dry air
-------
APPENDIX D - CHARACTERISTICS OF ASH AND OTHER RELATED PROPERTIES
TABLE D-l. ASH FUSION TEMPERATURES ("O FOR COAL, RDF, GRATE, AND COLLECTOR ASH
RDF Heat,
EPA 7.
UNIT 5
607. Load
07. RDF
4A 0.0
and
B
20 0.0
21 0.0
36 0.0
60% Load
20% RDF
8 21.9
9A 23.2
9B 23.3
33 16.0
Sample
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grace ash
Coll. ash
rr
1193
-
1160
1049
1127
-
1077
1116
1121
-
1071
1104
1177
-
1188
1116
1199
1110
1143
1099
1193
1088
1132
1088
1149
1088
1149
1088
1232
1110
1149
1093
Reducing
ST
1232
-
1193
1054
1132
-
1093
1121
1132
-
1077
1116
1179
-
1193
1127
1221
1149
1154
1104
1221
1127
1149
1093
1188
1127
1154
1093
1238
1121
1160
1099
atmosphere
HT
1243
-
1210
1060
1138
-
1099
1127
1143
-
1082
1127
1182
-
1216
1132
1227
1171
1160
1116
1227
1160
1160
1104
1199
1160
1160
1104
1243
1132
1171
1104
FT
1254
-
1227
1066
1143
-
1116
1143
1154
.
1093
1138
1185
-
1238
1149
1232
1232
1166
1121
1238
1210
1171
1110
1210
1210
1171
1110
1249
1149
1177
1110
Oxldizlnz
IT
1260
-
1227
1188
1249
-
1238
1227
1210
.
1238
1243
1213
-
1227
1221
1238
1138
1221
1182
1232
1127
1193
1160
1243
1127
1199
1160
1238
1143
1193
1149
ST
1232
-
1254
1193
1254
-
1249
1232
1216
.
1249
1249
1216
-
1232
1232
1243
1154
1232
1188
1243
1143
1204
1166
1260
1143
1210
1166
1243
1154
1199
1154
atmosphere
HT
1304
.
1266
1199
1260
.
1260
1238
1221
.
1254
1254
1218
.
1238
1238
1249
1177
1238
1199
1249
1166
1216
1171
1266
1166
1221
1171
1249
1166
1204
1160
FT
1343
.
1299
1204
1266
.
1282
1271
1227
.
1266
1277
1221
,
1243
1243
1260
1249
1243
1204
1254
1243
1227
1182
1282
1243
1232
1182
1254
1182
1210
1166
(continued)
120
-------
TABLE D-l. (continued)
RDF Heat,
EPA
Sample
Reducing atmosphere
IT
ST
HT
FT
Oxidizing atmosphere
IT
ST
HT
FT
607. Load
507. RDF
53.9
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1143
1116
1066
NT
1149
1154
1082
NT
1152
1177
1088
NT
1154
1210
1110
NT
1243
1138
1154
NT
1246
1166
1171
NT
1249
1182
1182
NT
1252
1210
1204
NT
34
54.9
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1227
1138
1127
1127
1232
1149
1132
1135
1238
1166
1138
1143
1243
1188
1143
1149
1243
1154
1166
1177
1249
1160
1171
1188
1254
1177
1177
1199
1260
1216
1182
1210
35
69.3
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1177
NT
1138
1138
1182
NT
1143
1149
1188
NI
1149
1166
1199
NT
1160
1177
1216
NT
1171
1182
1221
NT
1177
1138
1227
NT
1182
1199
1232
NT
1188
1216
80% Load
07. RDF
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1149
1154
1071
1199
1182
1077
1210
1193
1082
1221
1221
1088
1266
1199
1199
1277
1227
1204
1282
1238
1210
1299
1249
1216
16
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1171
1060
1227
1177
1071
1138
1182
1077
1149
1188
1082
1154
1238
1204
1182
1249
1221
1196
1254
1232
1210
1260
1249
1227
17
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1116
1060
1066
1118
1066
1082
1121
1071
1088
1124
1077
1110
1227
1232
1193
1232
1238
1227
1238
1243
1260
1246
1254
1271
(continued)
121
-------
TABLE D-l. (continued)
RDF Heat,
EPA 7o Sample
Reducing atmosphere Oxidizinp; atmosohere
IT ST HT FT IT ST HT FT
807. Load
207. RDF
22.2
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1204
1121
1121
1138
1243
1160
1138
1143
1254
1171
1149
1149
1266
1227
1154
1160
1243
1160
1199
1188
1260
1177
1210
1199
1271
1193
1216
1210
1288
1266
1221
1227
12
31.6
Coal
Refuse
Crate ash
Coll. ash
1249
1060
1110
1104
1288
1160
1121
1132
1310
1177
1127
1143
1332
1210
1132
1171
1254
1149
1171
1177
1288
1171
1182
1188
1310
1193
1193
1199
1332
1243
1199
1227
13
27.7
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1199
1104
1116
1110
1221
1154
1121
1116
1227
1182
1127
1121
1238
1243
1132
1127
1232
1160
1188
1182
1243
1188
1210
1188
1249
1204
1221
1193
1260
1260
1227
1199
807. Load
507. RDF
46.5
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1093
1077
1071
1088
1104
1138
1082
1116
1110
1160
1088
1143
1121
1221
1116
1171
1254
1132
1149
1171
1293
1149
1177
1182
1338
1166
1193
1193
1371
1254
1243
1204
10
49.2
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1154
1110
1071
1088
1157
1154
1088
1104
1160
1171
1099
1121
1163
1210
1138
1160
1249
1132
1121
1132
1252
1166
1138
1154
1254
1177
1149
1171
1257
1216
1171
1199
15
39.5
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1149
1110
1088
1082
1154
1132
1104
1110
1160
1160
1116
1127
1166
1221
1127
1160
1260
1143
1127
1149
1266
1160
1160
1171
1271
1188
1177
1193
1277
1249
1238
1249
(continued)
122
-------
TABLE D-l. (continued)
EPA
RDF Heat,
7. Sample
Reducing atmosphere
Oxidizing atmosphere
IT
ST
HI
FT
ST
HT
FT
1007. Load
07. RDF
11
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1177
1138
1071
1179
1149
1082
1182
1154
1088
1185
1160
1093
1279
1188
1193
1282
1210
1204
1285
1221
1210
1288
1227
1216
31
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1149
1093
1132
1160
1099
1143
1171
1110
1152
1177
1118
1160
1254
1227
1204
1260
1238
1216
1271
1249
1227
1277
1260
1254
32
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1127
1171
1116
1129
1177
1127
1132
1182
1138
1135
1191
1149
1182
1227
1221
1185
1232
1232
1188
1238
1243
1191
1249
1249
1007. Load
207. RDF
20.3
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1204
1116
1093
1132
1232
1149
1110
1138
1243
1177
1121
1143
1254
1216
1132
1154
1238
1160
1193
1193
1243
1171
1204
1199
1249
1182
1232
1204
1260
1221
1243
1216
14
26.6
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1168
1099
1082
1088
1171
1160
1099
1121
1174
1182
1110
1132
1177
1238
1121
1171
1277
1171
1182
1171
1279
1193
1210
1188
1282
1204
1221
1204
1285
1249
1243
1232
19
29.5
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1163
1138
1104
1110
1166
1143
1116
1116
1168
1149
1127
1121
1171
1154
1149
1127
1232
1166
1193
1188
1235
1171
1221
1193
1238
1177
1232
1199
1241
1182
1254
1204
(continued)
123
-------
TABLE D-l. (continued)
RDF Heat,
EPA 7. Sample
Reducing atmosphere Oxidizina atmosohere
IT ST HI FT IT ST HT
FT
100% Load
50% RDF
40.9
Coal 1110 1154 1166 1177
Refuae 1066 1154 1177 1238
Grate ash 1077 1088 1093 1132
Coll. ash 1060 1088 1127 1154
1243 1249 1254 1293
1132 1166 1193 1260
1171 1188 1204 1238
1166 1182 1188 1199
18 44.3 Coal 1149 1160 1166 1171
Refuse 1066 1143 1160 1199
Grate ash 1082 1104 1121 1154
Coll. ash 1099 1104 1110 1116
1227 1229 1232 1235
1138 1160 1177 1204
1143 1171 1182 1193
1149 1154 1160 1166
UNIT 6
80% Load
0% RDF
24
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1127
1088
1093
1132
1099
1099
1138
1110
1104
1143
1121
1110
1204
1227
1188
1210
1232
1193
1216
1238
1199
1221
1243
1210
29
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1160
1082
1132
1166
1093
1138
1167
1104
1143
1171
1116
1149
1260
1249
1243
1266
1254
1249
1271
1260
1254
1277
1263
1260
30
0.0
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1143
1077
1121
1146
1082
1127
1149
1088
1132
1152
1093
1138
1246
1243
1204
1249
1252
1221
1252
1254
1232
1254
1266
1249
(continued)
124
-------
TABLE D-l. (continued)
RDF Heat,
EPA 7. Sample
Reducing atmosphere
IT ST HI FT
Oxidizing atmosphere
IT ST HT FT
807. Load
207. RDF
25
19.5
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1193
1116
1110
1099
1199
1127
1121
1104
1204
1138
1138
1116
1210
1149
1177
1127
1227
1149
1193
1182
1232
1160
1204
1193
1238
1171
1216
1204
1243
1182
1227
1216
26
21.2
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1166
1104
1071
1116
1171
1116
1088
1127
1174
1132
1099
1138
1177
1160
1149
1149
1241
1154
1177
1221
1243
1160
1193
1227
1246
1171
1216
1232
1249
1193
1221
1249
27
21.5
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1160
1121
1071
1121
1166
1127
1082
1132
1171
1132
1093
1143
1174
1154
1104
1154
1218
1160
1193
1216
1221
1171
1199
1227
1224
1177
1204
1238
1227
1204
1210
1254
807. Load
507. RDF
22
47.8
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1132
1038
1066
1082
1138
1138
1104
1093
1143
1154
1138
1104
1149
1193
1177
1116
1204
1116
1116
1210
1210
1149
1143
1216
1216
1166
1166
1221
1221
1210
1199
1227
23
54.6
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1152
1149
1004
1099
1154
1154
1099
1104
1157
1160
1116
1116
1160
1166
1149
1127
1224
1154
1110
1149
1227
1160
1121
1160
1229
1171
1149
1171
1232
1182
1166
1182
28
32.2
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
1160
1093
1110
1127
1163
1104
1127
1132
1166
1116
1149
1138
1171
1127
1166
1143
1229
1149
1188
1188
1232
1160
1193
1193
1235
1182
1204
1204
1238
1193
1216
1216
IT * Initial deformation temperature.
ST - Softening temperature.
HT • Hemispherical temperature.
FT " Fluid temperature.
NT - Hot taken.
125
-------
TABLE D-2. AVERAGE ASH FUSION TEMPERATURES CO FOR COAL, RDF. GRATE, AND COLLECTOR ASH
Reducing atmosphere
Teat
UNIT 5 - 607.
01 RDF
4A, 4B,
20, 21,
36
202 RDF
8, 9A,
9B, 33
507. RDF
I, 34, 35
807. Load
0% RDF
5, 16, 17
20% RDF
6, 12. 13
50% RDF
2, 10, 15
Sample
Load
Coal
Refuse
Crete eeh
Coll. eah
Coel
Refuse
Crete aih
Coll. ash
Coel
Refuse
Crete esh
Coll. ash
Coel
Refuse
Crete esh
Coll. esh.
Coel
Refuse
Crete esh
Coll. esh
Coel
Refuse
Grece esh
Coll. esh
Avg.
a
Avg.
(7
Avg.
a
Avg.
a
Avg.
a
Avg.
-------
TABLE D-2. (continued)
Reducing atmosphere
Test
1007. Load
0% RDF
11, 31,
32
20* RDF
7, 14, 19
507. RDF
3, 13
UNIT 6 - 80%
07. RDF
24, 29,
30
207. RDF
25, 26,
27
507. RDF
22, 23,
28
Sample
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Load
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Coal
Refuse
Grate ash
Coll. ash
Avg.
a
Avg.
a
Avg.
a
Avg.
a
Avg.
CJ
Avg.
a
Avg.
-------
TABLE D-3. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (MAJOR ELEMENTS) OF COAL, RDF,
AND FUEL MIXTURES ASH
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
(7
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
11
31
32
Avg.
a
1
14
19
Avg.
a
3
IS
Avg.
a
7. Load/
7. 8DF
- COAL
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
30/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
Basis - 7. mineral ash
A1203
19.66
19.79
21.44
20.38
18.76
20.01
0.99
16.09
20.33
19.37
19.18
18.74
1.84
21.88
17.49
21.14
20.17
2.35
20.73
21.40
23.17
21.77
1.26
15.06
20.64
19.36
18.35
2.92
20.01
22.16
21.56
21.24
1.11
19.91
21.90
20.26
20.69
1.06
13.10
17.90
15.82
15.61
2.41
21.56
19.91
20.74
1.17
SiO,
34.22
32.74
41.04
41.41
39.46
37.77
4.02
39.01
38.81
37.94
39.06
38.71
0.52
36.36
39.72
40.37
38.82
2.15
36.92
40.95
40.79
39.55
2.22
32.67
35.21
35.92
34.60
1.71
35.42
35.59
41.22
37.41
3.30
33.85
42.46
41.56
39.29
4.73
41.51
37.04
39.09
39.21
2.24
36.58
36.94
36.76
0.25
Ti02
0.65
0.67
0.63
0.67
0.55
0.63
0.05
0.60
0.60
0.53
0.59
0.59
0.02
0.67
0.60
0.67
0.65
0.04
0.64
0.67
0.61
0.64
0.03
0.47
0.54
0.57
0.53
0.05
0.69
0.59
0.66
0.65
0.05
0.59
0.68
0.58
0.62
0.06
0.58
0.56
0.63
0.59
0.04
0.37
0.57
0.47
0.14
K20
0.95
0.96
1.21
1.22
1.12
1.09
0.13
1.17
1.01
1.02
1.08
1.07
0.07
I. 00
1.00
1.12
1.04
0.07
0.94
1.13
1.09
1.05
0.10
0.93
1.10
1.10
1.04
0.10
0.90
1.04
1.14
1.03
0.12
1.13
1.16
1.14
1.14
0.02
1. 11
0.94
1.22
1.09
0.14
1.07
1.13
1.10
0.04
CaO
18.46
18.57
14.44
15.22
18.91
17.12
2.12
18.65
16.35
18.04
18.06
17.78
0.99
15.68
18.38
16.37
16.81
1.40
17.32
12.32
12.80
14.31
2.60
24.75
19.70
18.94
21.13
3.16
13.09
17.06
13.42
14.52
2.20
21.36
11.90
16.12
16.46
4.74
22.09
18.18
18.80
19.69
2.10
17.10
18.47
17.79
0.97
Fe203
25.19
26.42
20.06
19.35
19.36
22.08
3.44
23.65
22.06
21.51
20.86
22.02
1.19
23.26
21.79
19.37
21.47
1.96
22.44
22.11
20.60
21.72
0.98
24.50
21.85
23.15
23.17
1.33
29.05
22.56
21.02
24.21
4.26
22.23
20.70
19.67
20.87
1.29
20.32
24.37
23.42
22.87
1.84
22.45
21.93
22.19
0.37
Na20
0.094
0.094
0.189
0.377
0.143
0.180
0.117
0.081
0.081
0.363
0.135
0,290
0.383
0.175
0.135
0.135
0.143
0.023
0.148
0.148
0.135
0.144
0.008
0.822
0.054
0.054
0.310
0.443
0.067
0.189
0.135
0.130
0.061
0.148
0.202
0.135
0.162
0.036
0.094
0.135
0.135
0.121
0.024
0.108
0.135
0.122
0.019
MgO
0.43
0.43
0.696
0.895
0.514
0.593
0.201
0.415
0.431
0.431
0.464
0.435
0.021
0.464
0.464
0.431
0.453
0.019
0.481
0.514
0.514
0.502
0.018
0.431
0.398
0.431
0.420
0.019
0.431
0.497
0.547
0.492
0.058
0.497
0,597
0.497
0.530
0.058
0.413
0.481
0.514
0.470
0.050
0.464
0.531
0.498
0.047
P205
0.32
0.32
0.321
0.458
1.21
0.526
0.387
0.298
0.344
0.275
0.550
0.367
0.125
0.504
0.412
0.390
0.435
0.060
0.344
0.229
0.275
0.283
0.058
0.367
0.504
0.504
0.458
0.079
0.321
0.298
0.275
0.298
0.023
0.298
0.390
0.023
0.237
0.191
0.252
0.390
0.390
0.344
0.080
0.275
0.344
0.310
0.049
(continued)
128
-------
TABLE 0-3. (continued)
EPA
test
7. Load/
7. RDF
Basis - 7. mineral ash
A1203 S102 Ti02 K20 CaO Fe203 Na20
MgO
P,0
2U5
UNIT 6 - COAL
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
- RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
30/50
18.55
19.64
19.64
19.28
0.63
21.04
22.92
16.15
20.04
3.49
16.79
17.88
17.05
17.24
0.57
38.57
37.77
36.24
37.53
1.18
36.88
35.78
38.60
37.09
1.42
40.57
38.40
38.60
39.19
1.20
0.96
0.90
0.82
0.89
0.07
0.38
0.87
0.91
0.89
0.02
0.87
0.77
1.23
0.96
0.24
1.10
1.04
0.94
1.03
0.08
1.01
0.93
1.10
1.01
0.09
1.10
1.04
1.13
1.09
0.05
16.85
17.70
17.42
17.32
0.43
19.19
15.67
19.30
18.05
2.06
18.40
18.12
17.73
13.08
0.34
21.04
19.42
21.98
20.81
1.29
17.80
20.50
21.53
19.94
1.93
19.58
21.36
20.31
20.42
0.89
0.809
0.728
0.512
0.683
0.154
0.661
0.944
0.647
0.751
0.168
0.782
0.687
0.755
0.741
0.049
1.56
2,12
1.69
1.79
0,29
2.17
1.68
1.23
1.69
0.47
1.34
1.29
2.45
1.69
0.66
0.573
0.733
0.733
0.680
0.092
0.367
0.687
0.504
0.519
0.161
0.573
0.458
0.710
0.580
0.126
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.27
17.98
18.15
17.00
17.10
1.32
16.58
18.17
18.16
17.64
0.92
0
0
0
0
0
11.84
15.94
16.12
14.63
2.42
16.18
16.23
17.68
16.70
0.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42.43
42.72
43.13
44.49
43.19
0.91
44.33
44.89
44.88
44.70
0.32
0
0
0
0
0
44.24
45.09
48.63
45.99
2.33
43.26
45.86
44.62
44.58
1.30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.909
2.379
2.401
2.928
2.404
0.416
2.392
2.446
2.445
2.428
0.031
0
0
0
0
0
1.880
1.967
1.988
1.945
0.057
2.957
2.021
2.156
2.378
0.506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.789
2.569
1.729
2.550
2.409
0.466
2.870
2.533
2.532
2.645
0.195
0
0
0
0
0
2.068
2.529
2.485
2.361
0.254
2.334
2.572
2.371
2.426
0.128
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24.59
19.98
20.17
18.23
20.74
2.71
20.73
17.21
17.20
13.38
2.04
0
0
0
0
0
26.51
20.86
18.10
21.82
4.29
18.83
21.86
20.41
20.37
1.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.432
5.138
5.187
5.101
5.215
0.149
4.305
5.590
5.589
5.161
0.742
0
0
0
0
0
6.078
4.347
4.899
5.275
0.696
7.158
5.327
4.598
5.694
1.319
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.597
5.581
5.581
6.026
5.446
0.604
5.608
5.729
5.729
5.639
0.070
0
0
0
0
0
4.624
5.365
4.839
4.943
0.381
6.079
4.326
5.203
5.369
0.643
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.139
2.752
2.752
2.852
2.624
0.327
2.703
2.819
2.835
2.786
0.072
0
0
0
0
0
2.238
2.752
2.222
2.404
0.301
2.487
0.7793
2.421
1.896
0.967
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8478
0.8936
0.8936
0.8249
0.8650
0.0343
0.4812
0.6187
0.6187
0.5729
0.0794
0
0
0
0
0
0.5270
0.6416
0.7103
0.6263
0.0926
0.7013
0.5270
0.5499
0.5927
0.0947
(continued)
129
-------
TABLE D-3. (continued)
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
17
25
26
27
Avg.
o
22
23
28
Avg.
a
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
<7
% Load/
7. RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
- RDF
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
- FUEL (COAL
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
Basis - 7. mineral ash
A1203
0
0
0
0
0
15.76
16.90
13.18
15.28
1.91
16.43
14.51
15.47
1.36
0
0
0
0
0
18.46
14.99
16.02
16.49
1.78
15.76
16.37
16.94
16.36
0.59
+ RDF)
19.66
19.79
21.44
20.38
18.76
20.01
0.99
15.82
19.52
18.95
18.74
18.26
1.66
Si02
0
0
0
0
0
42.85
46.97
41.31
43.71
2.93
43.36
42.23
42.80
0.80
0
0
0
0
0
43.67
43.18
45.97
44.27
1.49
44.61
46.31
49.85
46.92
2.67
34.22
32.74
41.04
41.41
39.46
37.77
4.02
40.12
40.15
39.72
40.15
40.04
0.21
Ti02
0
0
0
0
0
2.584
2.275
1.848
2.236
0.370
2.606
1.747
2.177
0.607
0
0
0
0
0
2.308
1.874
2.279
2.154
0.243
2.335
2.380
2.241
2.319
0.071
0.65
0.67
0.63
0.67
0.55
0.63
0.05
1.03
1.21
1.18
1.06
1.12
0.09
ICjO
0
0
0
0
0
2.501
2.356
2.491
2.449
0.081
2.389
2.127
2.258
0.185
0
0
0
0
0
2.485
2.451
2.149
2.362
0.185
2.335
2.524
2.779
2.546
0.223
0.95
0.96
1.21
1.22
1.12
1.09
0.13
1.71
1.54
1.26
1.34
1.46
0.20
CaO
0
0
0
0
0
23.43
18.77
27.57
23.26
4.40
22.01
27.42
24.72
3.83
0
0
0
0
0
22.01
21.77
18.23
20.67
2.12
20.68
18.39
14.79
17.95
2.97
18.46
18.57
14.44
15.22
18.91
17.12
2.12
20.61
17.59
18.77
18.09
18.77
1.32
Fe203
0
0
0
0
0
4.418
4.388
5.304
4.703
0.520
4.561
4.329
4.445
0.164
0
0
0
0
0
4.349
6.921
6.056
5.775
1.309
5.503
4.616
4.841
4.987
0.461
25.19
26.42
20.06
19.35
19.36
22.08
3.44
17.63
16.26
15.92
17.71
16.88
0.92
Na20
0
0
0
0
0
5.203
5.176
4.327
4.902
0.498
5.850
4.448
5.149
0.991
0
0
0
0
0
3.505
5.675
5.122
4.767
1.128
5.769
6.106
5.244
5.706
0.434
0.094
0.094
0.189
0.377
0.148
0.180
0.117
1.57
1.97
2.48
1.31
1.83
0.51
MgO
0
0
0
0
0
2.736
2.570
3.333
2.880
0.401
2.106
2.686
2.396
0.410
0
0
0
0
0
2.504
2.421
3.134
2.686
0.390
2.487
2.454
2.487
2.476
0.019
0.43
0.43
0.696
0.895
0.514
0.593
0.201
0.9850
1.23
1.23
0.9416
1.10
0.15
P2°5
0
0
0
0
0
0.5270
0.5958
0.6416
0.5881
0.0577
0.6874
0.5041
0.5958
0.1296
0
0
0
0
0
0.7103
0.7103
1.031
0.8172
0.1852
0.5270
0.3478
0.8249
0.7332
0.1790
0.32
0.32
0.321
0.458
1.21
0.526
0.387
0.4798
0.5323
0.4869
0.6050
0.5260
0.0576
(continued)
130
-------
TABLE D-3. (continued)
EPA
test
1
34
35
Avg.
<7
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
rt
2
10
15
Avg.
a
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
7
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
7. Load/
7. RDF
60/50
60/50
60/50
30/0
ao/o
80/0
80/20
30/20
80/20
30/50
30/50
30/50
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
- FUEL
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
A1203
18.38
17.94
18.82
18.38
0.44
20.73
21.40
23.17
21.77
1.26
14.00
18.64
18.03
16.91
2.53
17.76
18.56
19.51
18.61
0.83
19.91
21.90
20.26
20.69
1.06
L3.90
17.56
14.65
15.37
1.93
18.67
16.63
17.65
1.44
(COAL + RDF)
18.55
19.64
19.64
19.23
0.63
20.29
20.41
16.11
18.94
2.45
16.13
16.84
16.98
18.94
0.46
Si02
41.62
43.12
43.88
42.87
1.15
36.92
40.95
40.79
39.55
2.22
36.49
39.35
40.94
38.93
2.26
40.02
41.83
43.01
41.62
1.51
33.85
42.46
41.56
39.29
4.73
41.91
41.10
40.07
41.03
0.92
40.40
40.15
40.28
0.18
38.57
37.77
36.24
37.53
1.18
38.85
33.12
40.97
39.31
1.48
43.15
43.83
45.53
44.17
1.23
Ti02
1.81
1.81
2.05
1.89
0.14
0.64
0.67
0.61
0.64
0.03
0.9353
1.15
1.13
1.07
0.12
2.02
1.46
1.45
1.64
0.33
0.59
0.63
0.58
0.62
0.06
1.19
1.24
1.17
1.20
0.04
1.63
1.28
1.46
0.25
0.96
0.90
0.82
0.89
0.07
1.29
1.19
1.35
1.28
0.08
1.81
1.88
1.85
1.85
0.04
Basis
K20
2.23
2.01
2.22
2.15
0.12
0.94
1.13
1.09
1.05
0.10
1.306
1.71
1.65
1.56
0.22
1.74
1.97
1.79
1.83
0.12
1.13
1.16
1.14
1.14
0.02
1.53
1.51
1.78
1.20
0.15
1.31
1.73
1.77
0.06
1.10
1.04
0.94
1.03
0.08
1.44
1.41
1.44
1.43
0.02
1.89
2.06
2.15
2.03
0.13
- 7. mineral ash
CaO
19.01
17.61
17.02
17.88
1.02
17.32
12.82
12.80
14.31
2.60
25.33
20.19
18.61
21.38
3.51
16.46
19.98
17.11
17.85
1.87
21.36
11.90
16.12
16.46
4.74
22.49
18.47
22.68
21.21
2.38
19.87
23.90
21.39
2.85
16.35
17.70
17.42
17.32
0.43
20.01
17.60
18.96
13.86
1.21
19.86
18.31
15.92
18.03
1.98
Fe203
10.74
11.14
8.65
17.88
1.34
22.44
22.11
20.60
21.72
0.98
18.42
14.63
15.94
16.33
1.92
16.21
12.09
12.36
13.55
2.30
22.23
20.70
19.67
20.37
1.29
15.87
16.50
15.41
15.93
0.55
12.36
11.25
11.81
0.78
21.04
19.42
21.98
20.31
1.29
13.90
16.20
16.55
15.55
1.44
10.58
9.86
10.56
10.33
0.41
Na20
3.76
3.81
4.49
4.02
0.41
0.148
0.143
0.135
0.144
0.08
2.08
2.31
1.94
2.11
0.19
3.59
3.01
2.81
3.14
0.41
0.148
0.202
0.135
0.162
0.036
1.64
2.14
1.99
1.92
0.26
3.35
2.75
3.05
0.42
0.809
0.728
0.512
0.683
0.154
1.49
2.44
2.09
2.01
0.48
3.97
4.41
3.52
3.97
0.45
MgO
1.94
2.01
2.30
2.08
0.19
0.481
0.514
0.514
0.502
0.018
1.03
1.40
1.14
1.19
0.19
1.64
0.6685
1.53
1.28
0.53
0.497
0.597
0.497
0.530
0.058
1.12
1.31
1.76
l.uO
0.33
1.39
1.84
1.62
0.32
1.56
2.12
1.69
1.79
0.29
2.27
1.91
1.84
2.01
0.23
2.07
2.09
2.47
2.21
0.23
P205
0.4889
0.5479
0.5679
0.5349
0.0411
0.344
0.229
0.275
0.283
0.058
0.4198
0.5624
0.5854
0.5225
0.0897
0.5440
0.4371
0.4199
0.4670
0.0672
0.298
0.390
0.023
0.237
0.191
0.3350
0.4729
0.5012
0.4364
0.0889
0.5076
0.4411
0.4744
0.0470
0.573
0.733
0.733
0.680
0.092
0.4665
0.6944
0.6736
0.6115
0.1260
0.5436
0.7258
0.7808
0.6834
0.1242
131
-------
TABLE D-4a. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (MAJOR ELEMENTS) OF GRATE ASH
EPA
teat
7. Load/
% RDF
Al,0
2U3
Basis - % mineral ash
SiO,
TiO,
CaO
MgO
P205
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
a
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
<7
6
12
13
Avg.
(7
2
10
15
Avg.
<7
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
13.18
10.98
13.57
13.66
12.40
12.76
1.11
9.973
7.990
11.14
11.67
10.19
1.63
11.62
12.40
12.31
12.11
0.43
14.24
14.50
12.30
13.68
1.20
9.598
12.84
9.716
10.718
1.839
11.94
8.671
10.49
10.37
1.64
8.191
14.23
10.30
10.91
3.06
11.20
12.32
11.60
11.71
0.57
9.624
10.04
9.83
0.29
32.63
28.80
29.86
30.06
29.57
30.18
1.45
33.48
34.99
35.74
32.53
34.19
1.45
43.88
43.46
45.35
44.23
0.99
30.03
30.72
23.11
29.62
1.35
30.16
19.92
31.17
27.08
6.22
35.82
37.54
42.24
38.53
3.32
25.20
35.72
28.87
29.33
5.34
35.65
31.74
32.83
33.41
2.02
34.15
38.02
36.09
2.74
0.6098
0.5801
0.8905
0.8963
0.7006
0.7355
0.1509
0.5475
0.5510
0.6287
0.5227
0.5625
0.0459
0.9398
1.047
1.514
0.9416
0.3387
0.4817
0.8292
0.8381
0.7163
0.2032
0.6166
0.5818
0.6340
0.6108
0.0266
0.8200
0.8523
0.9252
C.3658
0.0539
0.4329
0.6840
0.5000
0.5390
0.1300
0.6108
0.6846
0.9345
0.7433
0.1696
0.6789
0.9373
0.3081
0.1827
1.612
1.462
1.449
1.453
1.433
1.483
0.073
1.349
1.304
1.375
1.473
1.375
0.071
1.487
1.625
1.771
1.628
0.142
1.466
0.1238
1.364
0.9846
0.7472
1.092
1.144
1.148
1.128
0.0312
1.145
1.311
1.264
1.240
0.036
1.056
1.436
1.364
1.285
0.202
1.407
1.125
1.520
1.351
0.203
1.052
1.525
1.289
0.334
34.76
41.26
25.49
25.66
30.22
31.48
6.67
32.85
33.17
35.48
26.16
31.92
4.01
24.16
24.71
25.86
24.91
0.87
38.41
24.26
25.92
29.53
7.73
23.68
24.98
21.11
23.26
1.97
16.50
21.30
15.76
18.02
3.29
24.97
18.40
29.07
24.15
5.38
30.06
19.17
26.17
25.13
5.52
19.01
24.87
21.94
4.14
16.20
15.92
26.61
26.78
24.14
21.93
5.46
19.01
17.85
12.65
27.64
19.29
6.22
12.71
16.76
13.20
14.22
2.21
14.37
28.32
30.41
24.37
3.72
31.75
36.32
32.09
33.39
2.55
28.58
24.37
24.04
25.66
2.53
38.63
29.59
29.90
32.71
5.13
17.47
31.47
23.53
24.16
7.02
31.06
18.80
24.93
8.67
0.1348
0.1348
0.7010
0.5662
0.4718
0.4017
0.2569
1.604
2.440
1.550
HD
1.865
0.499
3.141
ND
ND
3.141
0
0.1348
0.3370
0.2157
0.2292
0.1013
1.739
2.858
2.372
2.323
0.561
3.662
3.437
3.303
3.334
0.092
0.5122
ND
JJD
0.5122
0
2.116
1.914
2.184
2.071
0.140
2.385
3.478
3.182
0.419
0.5306
0.5306
1.011
0.8954
0.8125
0.7560
0.2175
0.8456
1.244
1.028
ND
1.0392
0.1994
1.393
ND
ND
1.393
0
0.5306
0.6632
0.5969
0.5969
0.0663
1.028
1.343
1.161
1.177
0.153
1.426
1.492
1.459
1.459
0.033
0.6632
ND
HD
0.6632
0
1.128
1.094
1.161
1.128
0.034
1.128
1.724
1.426
0.421
0.3437
0.3437
0.4125
0.02291
0.2521
0.2750
0.1520
0.3437
0.4583
0.4125
ND
0.4048
0.0577
0.6645
ND
ND
0.6645
0
0.3437
0.2521
0.2521
0.2826
0.0529
0.3437
0.0229
0.5958
0.3208
0.2871
0.5041
0.5270
0.5270
0.5194
0.0132
0.3437
ND
ND
0.3437
0
0.3666
0.4812
0.06874
0.5194
0.2129
0.4125
0.5958
0.5042
0.1296
(continued)
132
-------
TABLE D-4a. (continued)
EPA
test
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
•/. Load/
7. RDF
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
A1203
13.76
15.05
14.09
14.30
0.67
14.73
13.58
11.64
13.32
1.56
11.45
11.82
11.64
11.64
0.19
Si02
34.01
38.94
38.40
37.12
2.70
42.65
37.31
43.47
41.14
3.34
48.73
47.19
47.43
47.78
0.83
T102
0.8128
0.8465
0.8466
0.8353
0.0195
1.073
0.7894
0.8781
0.9135
0.1451
1.018
0.7901
0.8786
0.8956
0.1149
Basis
KjO
1.463
1.301
1.339
1.369
0.088
1.393
1.284
1.311
1.329
0.057
1.320
1.285
1.442
1.349
0.082
- % mineral ash
CaO
24.80
18.22
17.87
20.30
3.90
17.89
22.76
18.90
19.85
2.57
18.15
18.82
19.46
18.81
0.66
Fe203
23.07
23.31
25.12
23.83
1.12
17.36
20.22
18.47
19.85
1.44
10.74
11.46
11.17
11.12
0.36
Na20
0.08090
0.4179
0.5662
0.3550
0.2487
1.685
2.130
2.817
2.211
0.570
5.823
5.864
4.705
5.464
0.658
MgO
1.476
1.343
1.227
1.349
0.125
2.421
1.642
1.990
2.018
0.390
2.056
2.039
2.603
2.233
0.321
P2o5
0.5270
0.5729
0.5499
0.5499
0.0230
0.8020
0.2750
0.5270
0.5499
0.2636
0.7103
0.7333
0.6645
0.7027
0.0350
None detected.
133
-------
TABLE D-4b. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (MAJOR ELEMENTS) OF COLLECTOR ASH
EPA
teat
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
t7
5
Ic
17
Avg.
n
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
1
11
31
32
Avg.
•7
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
1. Load/
% RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
30/0
80/0
30/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
30/50
80/50
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
A1203
14.82
14.82
17.44
17.67
14.65
15.88
1.53
16.62
16.59
16.59
15.70
16.38
0.45
NS
16.45
15.60
16.03
0.60
13.94
14.73
16.20
14.96
1.15
13.80
13.32
13.45
13.52
0.25
14.56
14.74
14.66
14.65
0.09
16.99
16.65
15.79
16.48
0.62
15.98
15.08
11.51
14.19
2.36
15.59
10.11
12.35
3.87
S102
33.54
33.54
36.75
37.23
35.84
35.38
1.75
42.24
42.63
42.63
39.87
41.84
1.33
NS
45.09
44.33
44.96
0.18
34.96
36.95
36.70
36.20
1.03
34.71
38.39
38.74
37.28
2.23
44.36
43.44
42.96
43.59
0.71
41.23
38.78
37.38
39.13
1.95
43.06
37.33
32.57
37.82
5.25
37.33
38.26
37.80
0.66
Ti02
0.8319
0.8319
1.064
1.077
0.6249
0.8859
0.1885
1.128
1.270
1.270
1.045
1.178
0.111
NS
1.464
1.676
1.570
0.150
0.8958
0.9188
0.8575
0.8907
0.0310
1.152
1.105
1.115
1.124
0.025
1.732
1.501
1.582
1.605
0.117
0.7890
0.8305
0.7464
0.7886
0.0421
1.285
1.471
0.9132
1.223
0.284
1.538
0.9290
1.234
0.431
Basis
K20
1.604
1.604
1.358
1.382
1.712
1.732
0.134
2.205
2.102
2.102
1.901
2.078
0.127
NS
2.183
2.209
2.196
0.013
1.752
1.852
1.723
1.777
0.066
1.300
2.130
2.149
2.026
0.196
2.325
2.310
2.023
2.219
0.170
2.037
1.686
1.866
2.219
0.176
2.316
2.081
1.508
1.968
0.416
2.109
1.534
1.822
0.407
- 7. mineral a*h
CaO
19.58
19.58
21.35
21.62
20.47
20.52
0.96
23.22
22.84
22.84
20.09
22.25
1.45
NS
13.19
19.73
13.96
1.09
21.39
19.10
18.01
19.50
1.73
18.62
24.44
24.66
22.57
3.43
18.24
20.59
17.46
18.76
1.63
24.92
17.79
20.05
20.92
3.64
22.96
18.13
25.96
22.37
3.92
19.54
25.03
22.29
3.38
Fe203
28.45
28.45
18.32
18.56
24.34
23.72
5.04
11.86
10.99
10.99
18.00
12.96
3.38
XS
9.929
8.658
9.294
0.399
25.81
24.89
25.27
25.32
0.46
26.44
16.03
16.13
19.55
5.97
13.34
13.89
16.74
14.66
1.83
12.59
22.14
22.63
19.12
5.66
11.12
21.26
23.34
18.57
6.54
19.73
18.92
19.33
0.57
Na20
0.2292
0.2292
1.281
0.5931
0.2966
0.5258
0.4481
0.9166
1.429
1.429
1.591
1.341
0.293
MS
3.801
3.990
3.396
0.134
0.05392
0.5122
0.3235
0.2965
0.2303
1.267
2.130
1.146
1.514
0.537
2.494
1.429
2.305
2.076
0.568
0.3909
0.6875
0.3100
0.4628
0.1988
1.227
1.995
1.928
1.717
0.425
1.914
2.480
2.197
0.400
MgO
0.5969
0.5969
1.409
0.9783
0.7130
0.8588
0.3448
1.277
1.459
1.459
1.310
1.376
0.096
MS
2.222
2.321
2.272
0.070
0.8125
0.7296
0.6301
0.7241
0.0913
1.592
1.741
1.724
1.686
0.082
2.056
1.459
1.608
1.708
0.311
2.558
0.8622
0.7461
1.389
1.014
1.459
1.492
1.608
1.520
0.078
1.542
1.990
1.766
0.317
P20j
0.3437
0.3437
0.5270
0.3895
0.8478
0.4903
0.2135
0.5499
0.6874
0.6874
0.4812
0.6015
0.1031
NS
0.6645
0.9853
0.8249
0.2268
0.3895
0.3208
0.2750
0.3284
0.0576
0.6187
0.7103
0.8478
0.7256
0.1153
0.8936
0.6416
0.6645
0.7332
0.1394
0.6964
0.5729
0.4812
0.5835
0.1080
0.5958
0.6187
0.6645
0.6263
0.0350
0.7103
0.7562
0.7333
0.0325
(continued)
134
-------
TABLE D-4b. (continued)
EPA
test
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
'/, Load/
% RDF
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
A1203
14.64
15.30
14.52
14.82
0.42
15.29
15.94
15.92
15.72
0.37
12.96
15.71
18.01
15.56
2.53
Si02
35.16
35.82
37.01
36.00
0.94
37.18
33.85
39.89
36.97
3.03
35.11
39.17
42.75
39.01
3.82
Ti02
1.549
0.8907
0.9059
1.115
0.376
1.539
1.492
1.264
1.432
0.147
1.331
1.714
1.746
1.597
0.231
Basis
K20
2.097
1.525
1.633
1.752
0.304
2.083
2.004
1.992
2.026
0.049
1.950
2.194
2.223
2.122
0.150
- 7. mineral ash
CaO
24.31
20.40
20.18
21.63
2.32
23.03
23.41
19.31
21.92
2.27
23.72
23.81
18.21
21.91
3.21
Fe203
17.95
22.39
22.18
20.84
2.51
15.93
18.53
16.36
16.94
1.39
20.57
11.88
10.61
14.35
5.42
Na20
1.564
0.6201
0.6201
0.9647
0.5969
2.157
2.116
2.251
2.175
0.069
1.523
2.710
3.141
2.458
0.338
MgO
2.023
2.321
2.106
2.150
0.154
1.990
1.923
2.222
2.045
0.157
2.106
2.023
2.587
2.239
0.305
P205
0.7103
0.7332
0.8478
0.7638
0.0737
0.8020
0.7332
0.8020
0.7791
0.0397
0.7332
0.7791
0.7332
0.7485
0.0265
NS
135
-------
TABLE D-5. BASE/ACID RATIO SLAGGING AND FOULING INDICES
EPA
UNIT
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a«7
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
Nominal load/
nominal RDF
5
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Basic
acid
ratio
0.83
0.87
0.58
0.58
0.68
0.71
0.14
0.79
0.67
0.73
0.69
0.72
0.05
0.69
0.72
0.60
0.67
0.06
0.71
0.58
0.54
0.61
0.09
1.07
0.76
0.78
0.87
0.17
0.78
0.70
0.57
0.67
0.10
Coal
Fouling
Index
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.22
0.10
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.62
0.09
0.21
0.28
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.02
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.02
0.89
0.04
0.04
0.32
0.49
0.05
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.04
Slagging
Index
7.10
7.50
5.70
3.50
4.80
5.72
1.65
6.30
5.10
5.60
5.20
5.60
0.50
5.20
4.90
3.80
4.60
0.70
5.00
4.00
3.90
4.30
0.60
8.20
5.80
6.10
6.70
1.30
7.50
5.20
3.70
5.50
1.90
Basic
acid
ratio
_
-
-
-
-
.
-
0.66
0.57
0.56
0.54
0.58
0.05
0.57
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.03
_
-
-
-
-
0.72
0.58
0.49
0.59
0.11
0.59
0.55
0.54
0.56
0.02
RDF
Fouling
Index
_
-
-
-
-
.
-
3.05
3.19
3.10
3.25
3.15
0.09
3.21
2.97
2.97
3.04
0.14
_
-
-
-
-
3.31
3.10
2.36
2.92
0.50
3.59
2.66
2.83
3.03
0.50
Slagging
Index
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.53
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.27
0.18
0.13
0.14
0.17
0.15
0.02
_
-
-
.
-
0.44
0.23
0.22
0.30
0.13
0.35
0.32
0.25
0.32
0.05
Basic
acid
ratio
0.83
0.87
0.58
0.58
0.68
0.71
0.14
0.75
0.63
0.66
0.66
0.68
0.05
0.61
0.58
0.54
0.58
0.04
0.71
0.58
0.54
0.61
0.09
0.94
0.68
0.65
0.76
0.16
0.66
0.61
0.56
0.61
0.05
Fuel
Fouling
Index
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.22
0.10
0.12
0.06
1.17
1.25
1.64
0.86
1.23
0.32
2.29
2.22
2.41
2.31
0.10
0. 11
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.02
1.95
1.57
1.28
1.60
0.34
2.38
1.84
1.56
1.93
0.42
Grate ash
Slagging
Index
7.10
7.50
5.70
3.50
4.80
5.72
1.65
4.30
3.39
3.55
4.05
3.82
0.42
1.76
1.53
0.99
1.43
0.39
5.00
4.00
3.90
4.30
0.60
5.16
3.21
3.27
3.88
1.11
2.94
2.07
1.91
2.31
0.60
Basic
acid
ratio
1.15
1.47
1.25
1.24
1.34
1.23
0.08
1.27
1.29
1.10
ND
1.22
0.11
0.76
1.23
1.17
1.72
1.37
0.30
1.47
2.00
1.40
1.62
0.33
1.05
1.11
0 85
1.00
0.13
Fouling
Index
0.16
0.20
0.87
0.70
0.63
0.51
0.32
2.03
3.14
1.70
Nn
2.29
0.75
2.39
ND
ND
2.39
0
0.17
0.40
0.37
0.31
0.13
2.55
5.71
3.31
3.86
1.65
3.42
3.83
2.82
3.36
0.51
Slagging
Index
4.80
4.60
3.95
3.93
4.62
4.49
0.37
4.44
4.07
3.46
ND
3.99
0.49
2.47
4.69
4.45
4.79
4.64
0.17
5.48
5.50
5.76
5.58
0.16
2.23
3.21
1.46
2.30
0.88
Collector ash
Basic
acid
ratio
1.03
1.03
0.80
0.78
0.94
0.91
0.12
0.66
0.64
0.64
0.76
0.68
0.06
NS
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.01
1. 00
0.90
0.86
0.92
0.08
1.00
0.88
0.86
0.91
0.08
0.63
0.66
0.68
0.66
0.02
Fouling
Index
0.24
0.24
1.03
0.46
0.28
0.45
0.34
0.60
0.92
0.92
1.21
0.91
0.25
NS
2.19
2.37
2.28
0.13
0.05
0.46
0.28
0.26
0.20
1.27
1.87
0.98
1.38
0.45
1.58
0.95
1.56
1.37
0.36
Slagging
Index
1.68
1.68
1.73
1.44
1.71
1.65
0.12
1.53
1.44
1.44
1.40
1.45
0.06
NS
0.66
0.54
0.60
0.08
2.07
1.73
1.65
1.82
0.22
2.55
3.71
3.63
3.30
0.65
1.25
1.60
1.77
1.54
0.27
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-5. (continued)
CO
Basic
Nominal load/ acid
EPA nominal RDF ratio
11
31
32
Avg.
o
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
O
Z5
26
27
Avg.
-------
TABLE D-6. BASE/ACID RATIO, SLAGGING/FOULING FACTOR CALCULATION PARAMETERS
00
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
CT
Nominal
% Load/
1 RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Actual
Steam r"**7
load
(T.)
60.00
60.00
59.47
59.47
58.95
59.59
0.44
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
0.0
61.05
59.47
60.53
60.35
0.81
80.00
80.53
81.05
80.5
0.53
78.95
78.95
81.05
79.7
1.21
80.00
79.47
77.89
79.1
1.10
i«7r
heat
tt)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.3
24.7
24.8
16.4
21.5
3.84
54.7
55.6
68.3
58.83
7.70
0
0
0
0
0
22.7
32.3
28.4
27.2
4.72
47.3
49.9
40.2
45.1
5.01
Multiplication factor
Coal
1.591
1.601
1.278
1.290
1.489
1.219
1.329
1.336
1.400
1.723
1.482
1.364
1.420
1.417
1.335
1.276
1.349
1.403
1.482
1.343
1.356
oxiae
RDF
0
0
0
0
0
1.182
1.285
1.207
1.067
1.467
1.214
1.511
0
0
0
1.310
1.047
1.079
1.066
1.016
1.495
calculation
Grate ash
1.869
2.075
1.114
1.122
1.420
1.656
1.629
1.768
1.433
1.450
1.402
1.389
1.824
1.084
1.102
1.428
1.630
1.413
1.543
1.444
1.419
for
Collector
ash
1.041
1.041
1.139
1.154
0.9fi',6
1.468
1.436
1.436
1.116
NS
1.185
1.222
1.081
1.204
1.101
1.371
1.444
1.457
1.333
1.375
1.261
Coal
Mnisture free
sulfur
kg/kg
0.0860
0.0860
0.0980
0.0607
0.0697
0.0801
0.0148
0.0799
0.0770
0.0771
0.0758
0.0775
0.0017
0.0752
0.0671
0.0634
0.0686
0.0060
0.0699
0.0688
0.0718
0.0702
0.0015
0.0772
0.0769
0.0775
0.0772
0.0003
0.0964
0.0737
0.0649
0.0783
0.0163
RDF
sulfur
kg/kg
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0080
0.0034
0.0034
0.0029
0.0044
0.0024
0.0023
0.0028
0.0032
0.0028
O.OOO5
0
0
0
0
0
0.0062
0.0040
0.0045
0.0049
0.0012
0.0037
0.0059
0.0047
0.0048
0.0011
Fuel
Weighted
su Ifur
kg/kg
0.0860
0.0860
0.0980
0.0607
0.0697
0.0801
0.0148
0.0576
0.0535
0.0535
0.0617
0.0566
0.0039
0.0288
0.0263
0.0185
0.0245
0.0054
0.0699
0.0688
0.0718
0.702
0.0015
0.0550
0.0472
0.0501
0.0508
0.0039
0.0444
0.0339
0.0343
0.0375
0.0060
Fraction coal
kg coal/kg fuel
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0.6694
0.6574
0.6574
0.8000
0.6961
0.0695
0.3397
0.3427
0.2222
0.3015
0.0687
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0.6700
0.5754
0.6052
0.6169
0.0484
0.4137
0.3924
0.4728
0.4263
0.0417
Fraction RDF
kg RDF/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3306
0.3426
0.3426
0.2000
0.3040
0.0695
0.6603
0.6573
0.7778
0.6985
O.O687
0
0
0
0
0
0.3300
0.4246
0.3948
0.3831
0.0484
0.5fl63
0.6076
0.5272
0.5737
0.0417
(continued)
-------
TAULE b-(>. (continued)
U>
VO
Actual
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg,
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT b
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
(7
22
23
28
Avg.
a
Nominal
Z Load/
Z RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
ao/o
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Steam
load
(Z)
97.37
97.89
93.16
96.1
2.59
97.89
94.74
92.63
95.1
2.65
92.63
96.84
94.7
2.98
80.40
79.20
81.20
80.27
1.01
80.80
81.20
79.20
80.40
1.06
79.20
79.20
78.40
78.93
0.46
RDF
heat
(Z)
0
0
0
0
0
21.3
27.2
30.2
25.6
4.43
41.6
45.0
42.6
2.40
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
21.8
22.0
20.73
1.08
48.9
55.4
49.5
44.87
11.48
Miltlpllt
oxide
Coal RDF
1.453 0
1.327 0
1.479 0
1.407 1.284
1.377 1.373
1.492 1.945
1.487 1.238
1.443 1.451
1.131 0
1.079 0
1.169 0
1.156 1.207
0.967 1.168
1.313 1.009
1.076 1.201
1.200 1.226
1.122 1.174
calculation
Grate ash
1.533
1.206
1.274
1.558
1.422
1.206
1.483
1.157
1.088
1 195
1.216
1.230
1.117
1.233
1.163
1.130
1.265
Collector
ash
1.567
1.036
1.056
1.450
1.432
1.203
1.415
1.223
1.169
1.111
1.158
1.168
1.326
1.120
1.097
1.162
1.197
Coal
Moisture free
sulfur
kg/kg
0.0697
0.0716
0.0746
0.0720
0.0025
0.0746
0.0720
0.0727
0.0737
0.0024
0.0810
0.0675
0.0743
0.0095
0.0392
0.0346
0.0567
0.0435
0.0117
0.0363
0.0423
0.0438
0.0408
0.0040
0.0397
0.0456
0.0311
0.0388
0.0073
RDF
Moisture free
sulfur
kg/kg
0
0
0
0
0
0.0104
0.0039
0.0050
0.0064
0.0035
0.0062
0.0116
0.0089
0.0038
0
0
0
0
0
0.0046
0.0051
0.0031
0.0043
0.0010
0.0033
0.0044
0.0038
0.0038
0.0006
Fuel
Weighted
average
sulfur
kg/kg
0.0697
0.0716
0.0746
0.0720
0.0025
0.0578
0.0474
0.0439
0.0497
0.0072
0.0421
0.0355
0.0388
0.0047
0.0392
0.0346
0.0567
0.0435
0.0117
0.0273
0.0309
0.0314
0.0299
0.0022
0.0178
0.0185
0.0145
0.0169
0.0021
Fraction coal
kg coal/kg fuel
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0.6981
0.6057
0.5580
0.6206
0.0712
0.4361
0.3935
0.4148
0.0301
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0.7102
0.6833
0.6782
0.6906
0.0172
0.3610
0.3130
0.3838
0.3526
0.0361
Fraction RDF
kg RDF/kg fuel
0
0
0
0
0
0.3019
0.3973
0.4420
0.3804
0.0716
0.5639
0.6065
0.5852
0.0301
0
0
0
0
0
0.2898
0.3167
0.3218
0.3094
0.0172
0.6390
0.6870
0.6162
0.6474
0.0361
-------
APPENDIX E - MISCELLANEOUS PERFORMANCE DATA
TABLE E-l. FORCED AND INDUCED DRAFT FAN MOTOR AMPERES
EPA % Load/ Forced draft Induced draft
test % RDF fan amps fan amps
UNIT 6
24 80/0 49 240
29 80/0 48 230
30 80/0 40 173
25 80/20 49 270
26 80/20 49 273
27 80/20 48
22 80/50 45
23 80/50 45
28 80/50
140
-------
TABLE E-2. FLUE GAS AND COMBUSTION AIR VOLUME FLOW RATES
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
or
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
O
% Load/
% RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Steam
load
60.00
60.00
59.47
59.47
58.95
59.58
0.44
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
0
61.05
59.47
60.53
60.35
0.81
80.00
80.53
81.05
80.53
0.53
78.95
78.95
81.05
79.65
1.21
80.00
79.47
77.89
79.12
1.10
RDF
heat
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.7
24.1
24.2
16.0
21.5
3.84
53.9
54.9
67.7
58.83
7.70
0
0
0
0
0
22.2
31.6
27.7
27.2
4.72
46.5
49.2
39.5
45.1
5.01
Flue gas collector
inlet (m3/S)
27.71
25.18
23.18
22.35
25.44
24.77
2.10
31.36
37.14
32.94
28.86
32.58
3.48
29.18
30.81
30.22
30.07
0.83
31.31
33.95
32.39
32.55
1.33
32.48
33.40
34.32
33.40
0.92
31.57
34.19
33.84
33.20
1.42
Air in
Std. m3/S
18.72
17.20
13.95
12.24
15.48
15.52
2.56
20.17
16.92
18.20
15.61
17.73
1.94
17.33
15.98
13.48
17.73
1.95
20.83
21.35
20.72
20.82
0.49
19.97
17.10
16.18
17.75
1.98
15.51
17.60
19.73
17.61
2.11
(continued)
141
-------
TABLE E-2. (continued)
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
CT
7
14
19
Avg»
CT
3
18
Avg.
a
24
29
30
Avg,
-------
TABLE E-3. SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF RDF DISCHARGED FROM ATLAS BIN
(as received, all percents by weight)
Size (mm) standard ASTM E-ll designation
Date
(1976)
6-8
6-10
6-15
6-23
6-25
6-28
6-30
6-30
7-2
7-8
7-8
7-16
7-17
7-23
7-24
8-5
8-6
8-10
8-11
8-12
8-13
8-25
8-26
8-26
Mean
Sample
No. .§/
EPA 1
EPA 2
EPA 3
EPA 6
EPA 7
EPA 8
EPA 9A
EPA 9B
EPA 10
EPA 12
EPA 13
EPA 14
EPA 15
EPA 18
EPA 19
EPA 22
EPA 23
EPA 25
EPA 26
EPA 27
EPA 28
EPA 33
EPA 34
EPA 35
% larger than
63
2.62
4.50
0.75
5.38
9.15
9.12
4.91
1.44
1.07
4.97
8.47
3.71
7.26
4.47
3.48
2.31
5.85
1.45
3.41
7.77
4.02
14.15
6.33
50.49
6.96
% smaller than
63
97.38
95.50
99.25
94.62
90.85
90.88
95.09
98.56
98.93
95.03
91.53
96.29
92.74
95.53
96.52
97.69
94.15
98.55
96.59
92.23
95.98
85.85
93.67
49.51
93.04
38.1
92.21
86.62
93.55
88.75
77.13
81.38
88.44
87.96
92.02
88.53
85.96
88.50
84.99
88.83
86.86
88.25
89.23
84.10
91.66
79.23
84.26
71.15
90.26
40.45
84.60
19.0
77.10
71.78
77.86
69.40
52.53
64.98
69.70
63.58
72.13
69.96
66.18
71.49
69.59
69.50
68.87
68.28
74.42
61.26
79.50
57.88
64.96
51.06
65.34
28.88
66.09
9.5
45.94
44.28
48.76
39.03
29.19
38.05
40.48
31.07
32.37
32.00
28.48
30.64
34.64
30.56
37.06
40.72
41.62
32.27
52.63
31.98
35.92
29.59
34.98
24.89
36.13
4.8
25.78
23.31
23.87
20.25
13.83
19.57
20.77
14.55
15.00
18.13
12.94
18.06
19.58
14.31
19.31
19.77
23.43
15.31
25.82
17.21
18.41
14.33
18.56
13.48
18.57
Geometric
Mean
diameter
10.2
11.3
9.9
12.0
16.4
13.3
11.8
13.7
12.4
12.8
14.3
12.7
12.8
13.2
12.4
11.9
11.1
14.0
9.6
14.9
13.1
17.4
12.8
28.8
13.1
Standard
deviation
2.38
2.55
2.28
2.46
2.58
2.66
2.47
2.31
2.19
2.38
2.37
2.34
2.52
2.29
2.45
2.43
2.48
2.41
2.38
2.63
2.51
2.74
2.43
3.15
2.54
a/ Sample number corresponds to environmental sampling test designation.
-------
TABLE E-4. FUEL-RDF UTILIZATION
Total ash combustible loss
based oni^'
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
•3
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
a
7. Load/
% RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Calculated
ash flow (7.)
5.5
4.5
5.4
5.4
8.3
5.8
1.4
5.6
3.9
3.5
4.4
4.4
0.9
5.2
3.6
3.7
4.1
0.9
5.2
5.2
5.5
5.3
0.2
6.0
5.4
5.6
5.7
0.3
4.1
4.4
5.5
4.7
0.7
Measured
ash flow (%)
2.9
2.5
4.4
4.7
5.7
4.0
1.3
4.3
4.2
3.5
4.6
4.3
0.6
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.1
0.2
4.6
4.1
4.6
4.4
0.3
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.0
0.1
3.9
3.8
4.2
3.9
0.2
Ash combustible loss due
to RDF based on&
Calculated
ash flow (%)
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.8
2.0
3.7
2.7
0.9
3.9
4.6
1.8
2.7
3.0
1.4
_
-
-
-
-
8.7
5.6
6.4
6.9
1.6
2.7
3.5
5.7
4.0
1.5
Measured
ash flow (%)
«
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.2
4.7
1.8
7.7
5.4
2.7
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.2
0.3
_
-
-
-
-
6.8
6.3
6.7
6.6
0.3
3.2
4.0
3.7
3.7
0.4
(continued)
144
-------
TABLE E-4. (continued)
Total ash combustible loss
based onsg/
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
a
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
a
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
a
7. Load/
% RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Calculated
ash flow (X)
4.7
6.0
5.3
5.3
0.6
6.2
4.4
6.7
5.7
1.2
5.7
8.5
7.1
2.0
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.4
0.2
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.2
0.4
3.3
2.6
2.0
2.7
0.7
Measured
ash flow (X)
4.3
6.0
5.3
5.2
0.8
4.7
3.8
4.8
4.4
0.6
3,9
5.4
4.7
1.1
2.7
2.4
1.8
2.3
0,5
2.3
2.1
1.9
2.1
0.2
2.8
2.0
2.1
2.3
0.4
Ash combustible loss due
to RDF based on:.b/
Calculated
ash flow (7.)
.
-
.
-
-
9.3
1.9
9.9
7.0
4.4
6.4
12.4
9.4
4.3
»
.
.
-
-
0.6
0.6
3.6
1.6
1.7
4.3
2.8
1.7
2.9
1.3
Measured
ash flow (%)
.
.
-
-
2.7
0.0
4.1
2.3
2.1
2.1
5.7
3.9
2.6
—
-
.
.
-
2.3
1.2
0.6
1.4
0.9
3.3
1.7
1.8
2.2
0.9
_a/ Based on total fuel heat input.
_b/ Based on RDF heat input.
145
-------
Table E-5. Stack Heat Losses — Indirect Boiler Efficiency
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
a
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
a
6
12
13
Avg.
a
2
10
15
Avg.
CT
'/, Load/
% RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Heat loss
free moisture (%)
1.9
1.9
1.7
2.0
1.5
1.8
0.2
2.6
2.7
2.7
1.8
2.4
0.4
2.8
2.7
4.1
3.2
0.8
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.1
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.5
0.1
3.5
2.8
3.0
3.1
0.4
Heat loss
day flue gas (%)
14.3
13.2
11.6
10.1
11.4
12.1
1.7
14.9
14.7
15.7
12.8
14.5
1.2
15.0
9.5
12.3
12.3
2.8
13.6
13.5
13.9
13.6
0.2
13.4
12.2
12.0
12.5
0.8
11.7
12.1
13.8
12.5
1.1
146
-------
Table E-5 (continued)
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
cr
7
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
cr
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
cr
25
26
27
Avg.
cr
22
23
28
Avg.
cr
% Load/
% RDF
100/0
100/0
100/0
100/20
100/20
100/20
100/50
100/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Heat loss
free moisture (%)
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
0.1
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.5
0.1
4.5
3.2
3.8
0.9
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
0.1
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
0.1
4.8
4.0
4.3
4.4
0.4
Heat loss
day flue gas (%)
9.2
9.4
10.6
9.7
0.7
12.8
10.8
9.9
11.2
1.5
14.7
10.4
12.5
3.0
11.3
11.6
8.1
10.3
2.0
11.8
12.1
11.3
11.7
0.4
9.7
11.1
11.7
10.9
1.0
147
-------
Table E-6. Measured Ash Flow-Rate Ratios
EPA
test
UNIT 5
4A
4B
20
21
36
Avg.
cr
8
9A
9B
33
Avg.
a
1
34
35
Avg.
a
5
16
17
Avg.
cr
6
12
13
Avg.
cr
2
10
15
Avg.
cr
7o Load/
7, RDF
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/0
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/20
60/50
60/50
60/50
80/0
80/0
80/0
80/20
80/20
80/20
80/50
80/50
80/50
Total
ash
(kg/hr)
585.14
607.82
802.87
784.73
875.45
731.20
127.83
1,038.74
1,088.64
1,002.46
1,029.67
1,039.88
35.98
1,034.21
1,111.32
1,120.39
1,088.64
47.36
1,070.50
1,102.25
1,097.71
1,090.15
17.17
1,247.40
1,238.33
1,188.43
1,224.72
31.75
1,170.29
1,238.33
1,192.97
1,200.53
34.64
Ash ratio kg ash/ 100 kg steam
Collector
0.49
0.49
0.70
0.49
0.91
0.62
0.19
1.25
1.20
1.20
1.13
1.20
0.05
0.77
0.82
0.75
0.78
0.04
1.11
1.24
1.01
1.12
0.12
1.12
1.27
1.07
1.16
0.10
0.86
0.91
0.99
0.92
0.06
Grate
1.49
1.49
2.29
2.29
1.86
1.88
0.40
2.56
2.46
2.46
2.32
2.45
0.10
2.95
3.01
2.99
2.98
0.03
1.85
1.80
1.79
1.82
0.03
2.46
2.26
2.20
2.29
0.10
2.45
2.58
2.43
2.49
0.08
Stack
particulate
0.28
0.38
0.14
0.28
0.65
0.35
0.19
0.21
0.55
0.22
0.53
0.38
0.19
0.21
0.51
0.56
0.43
0.19
0.15
0.14
0.34
0.21
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.11
0.02
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.02
Total
2.26
2.36
3.13
3.06
3.42
2.85
0.51
4.02
4.21
3.88
3.98
4.02
0.14
3.93
4.34
4.33
4.29
0.23
3.11
3.18
3.14
3.14
0.04
3.67
3.64
3.40
3.57
0.15
3.40
3.62
3.55
3.52
0.11
148
-------
Table E-6 (continued)
EPA
test
11
31
32
Avg.
a
1
14
19
Avg.
a
3
18
Avg.
CT
UNIT 6
24
29
30
Avg.
CT
25
26
27
Avg.
a
22
23
28
Avg.
-------
APPENDIX F - INTERIM SAMPLING OF RDF
LABORATORY RESULTS
Fourteen weeks of random sampling of RDF discharged from the Atlas bin to
the boilers is now complete. Tables F-l, F-2, and F-3 show the laboratory
analysis results received to date.
Table F-4 shows the sampling schedule and the identification of each
sample number as to the date and day of the week it was taken. The following
tables (F-l, F-2, and F-5) use only the sample number for identification.
Table F-l presents the bulk density, moisture, heating value and proxi-
mate and ultimate analysis. Table F-2 presents the chemical analysis of RDF
ash. Table F-3 shows the ash fusion temperatures of RDF ash. Figure F-l
shows the procedure for determination of bulk density.
RDF ash is relatively high in silica (Si02), one of the major constit-
uents determining the slagging characteristics of an ash. It is desirable to
have low silica content. However, interpretation of these ash analysis re-
sults, as well as the ash fusion temperatures, moisture, bulk density, heating
value, and proximate and ultimate analysis can best be made after the same
categories of data are available for the coal used at Ames.
Although not part of the random sampling schedule, on 9 different
days, samples of RDF discharged from the Atlas bin were sized using laboratory
sieve machines to determine the screen size. This was done to check out the
screening procedure. Results from these nine tests are presented in Table F-6.
In early March 1976, the second stage shredder was taken out of service
due to a bearing failure and was not placed back in service until March 28,
1976. Therefore, samples No. 1 and 2 are single shredded RDF. The major
effect of single versus double shredding is on particle size and possibly
bulk density.
The single stage data were deleted from the mean calculations for the
particle size because its effect was very apparent. However, the single shred
data were included in all the other data constituents because there was not
a definite change in values due to single stage shredding. The screen size
distribution is reported in detail. However, to make comparisons easier, the
geometric mean diameter and the geometric standard deviation were calculated.
150
-------
TABLE F-l. BULK DENSITY, HEATING VALUE, AND PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE
ANALYSIS OF RDF DISCHARGED FROM ATLAS BIN
(as received, all percents by weight, ASTM method D271 for all
values except bulk density)
Sample No.
(test day)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mean
Sample No.
(test day)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mean
Bulk
density
(kg/m3)
134.7
97.0
152.2
104.4
129.5
157.0
127.8
122.5
156.0
137.6
122.4
116.1
125.5
113.8
128.3
Carbon
(%)
32.58
32.27
28.36
33.59
32.41
27.98
29.41
33.90
32.66
31.33
26.57
30.23
31.03
29.72
30.86
Heating
value
(kJ/kg)
13,328
12,406
11,475
13,812
13,120
12,084
11,875
13,948
15,219
13,099
11,909
13,413
13,914
13,104
13,050
Hydrogen
(%)
4.91
4.36
4.21
4.61
4.88
4.64
4.98
5.08
4.96
4.68
4.20
5.08
4.95
5.18
4.77
Moisture
(°/\
\'°)
22.00
19.38
29.24
18.65
19.71
31.77
28.32
20.97
19.92
25.61
25.10
20.82
20.92
20.05
23.03
Oxygen
(%)
28.32
25.40
15.84
27.14
24.02
14.92
19.94
25.21
21.99
24.00
20.51
24.56
23.38
25.10
22.88
Ash
(%)
11.12
17.44
21.38
15.24
17.99
19.39
15.61
13.74
19.48
13.55
22.52
18.25
18.77
18.76
17.37
Sulfur
(%)
0.46
0.60
0.23
0.29
0.33
0.64
0.88
0,60
0.44
0.30
0.27
0.29
0.36
0.26
0.43
Volatile
matter
(%)
57.54
58.21
48.56
59.21
56.69
46.57
52.48
57.22
55.55
54.46
51.12
56.16
54.99
56.32
54.65
Chlorine
(%)
0.25
0.26
0.20
0.16
0.17
0.25
0.22
0.14
0.21
0.20
0.26
0.32
0.19
0.59
0.24
Fixed
carbon
(%)
9.34
4.97
0.82
6.90
5.61
2.27
3.59
8.07
5.05
6.38
1.26
4.77
5.32
4.87
4.94
Nitrogen
(%)
0.36
0.29
0.54
0.32
0.49
0.41
0.64
0.36
0.34
0.33
0.57
0.45
0.40
0.34
0.42
151
-------
TABLE F-2. LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF RDF ASH
Ash of RDF discharged from Atlas bin, ASTM method D2795
(% by weight)
Sample No.
(test day)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mean
Sample No.
(test day)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Si02
42.54
41.82
49.95
46.80
50.20
51.60
44.25
54.10
54.00
43.22
51.41
49.18
48.27
47.32
48.19
CaO
14.75
15.48
11.60
12.90
12.90
11.80
15.30
11.90
10.45
10.40
13.72
12.14
12.52
12.02
A1203
11.90
13.53
10.20
13.30
11.70
11.60
10.40
8.45
11.30
18.17
9.39
11.61
11.73
11.20
11.75
MgO
2.49
2.26
3.19
2.55
2.19
2.18
1.95
2.46
2.13
2.04
2.57
2.63
2.37
2.30
Fe203
3.91
2.99
8.13
3.69
3.93
3.76
3.65
4.46
4.45
3.46
2.91
4.28
4.57
5.90
4.29
Na20
4.83
3.68
3.46
3.88
3.90
4.60
3.73
5.08
4.19
4.07
5.22
4.86
4.59
5.13
Ti02
1.42
1.76
1.11
1.41
1.68
1.67
1.20
1.07
1.35
1.30
1.28
1.47
1.55
1.96
1.45
K20
1.70
1.52
2.16
1.64
1.57
1.73
1.54
1.65
1.87
2.26
1.67
2.10
2.04
1.75
P205
1.12
0.99
0.66
0.52
0.70
0.28
0.78
0.36
0.96
0.88
0.73
1.25
0.99
0.85
0.79
Mean 12.71 2.38 4.37 1.80
152
-------
TABLE F-3. FUSION TEMPERATURE OF RDF ASH
Ash of RDF discharge from Atlas bin
ASTM Method D1857
Nomenclature
IT = Initial deformation temperature
ST = Softening temperature (H = W)
HT = Hemispherical temperature (H - -*
FT = Fluid temperature
H = Cone height
W = Cone width
W)
Temperature (°C)
Date Sample No
Reducing
(1976) (test day) IT
March 17
March 23
April 2
April 7
April 15
April 19
April 27
May 6
May 12
May 20
May 25
June 4
June 7
June 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1110
1121
1127
1132
1127
1127
1127
1154
1149
1038
1032
1038
1121
1082
ST
1116
1127
1138
1143
1138
1132
1132
1171
1160
1138
1154
1166
1166
1116
atmosphere
HT
1121
1132
1143
1154
1149
1138
1138
1199
1171
1176
1176
1188
1182
1149
FT
•1127
1138
1149
1160
1160
1143
1143
1249
1182
1210
1204
1221
1216
1182
Oxidizing atmosphere
IT
1121
1132
1149
1143
1138
1138
1138
1171
1166
1149
1166
1182
1188
1104
ST
1127
1138
1154
1154
1149
1143
1143
1204
1193
1193
1188
1204
1193
1132
HT
1132
1143
1160
1166
1160
1149
1149
1238
1210
1216
1210
1227
1221
1149
FT
1138
1149
1166
1171
1171
1154
1154
1282
1227
1243
1227
1249
1232
1188
Mean
Standard deviation
Confidence interval
at 95% confidence +
coefficient
1106 1143 1158 1177 1149 1165 1181 1197
41.47 18.15 23.57 37.42 23.48 28.62 37.10 45.53
72
31
41
65
41
50
64
79
153
-------
TABLE F-4. SAMPLING SCHEDULE (RANDOM SAMPLING OF RDF AT
ATLAS BIN DISCHARGE)
Sample No. Day of week Date (1976)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Wednesday
Tuesday
Friday
Wednesday
Thursday
Monday
Tuesday
Thursday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Friday
Monday
Monday
March 17-/
March 23§/
April 2
April 7
April 15
April 19
April 27
May 6
May 12
May 20
May 25
June 4
June 7
June 14
a/ Single stage shredding due to second stage shredder
out of service because of bearing failure. Second
stage shredder back in service on March 28, 1976,
and tests 3 through 14 are double shredded refuse.
154
-------
TABLE F-5. MOISTURE FREE AND ASH FREE VALUES OF DAILY SAMPLES OF
RDF DISCHARGED FROM ATLAS BIN
(all percents by weight)
Sample No.
(test day)
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
n
X
Sx
.V. %
Moisture
% as
received
22.00
19.38
29.24
18.65
19.71
31.77
28.32
20.97
19.92
25.61
25.10
20.82
20.92
20.05
14
23.03
4.212
18.29
Ash
As
received
11.12
17.44
21.38
15.24
17.99
19.39
15.61
13.74
19.48
13.55
22.52
18.25
18.77
18.76
14
17.37
3.170
18.25
%
Moisture
free
14.26
21.63
30.21
18.73
22.41
28.42
21.78
17.39
24.33
18.21
30.07
23.05
23.74
23.46
14
22.69
4.685
20.64
Heating
value
As Moisture
received free
13,328
12,406
11,475
13,812
13,120
12,084
11,875
13,948
15,219
13,099
11,909
13,413
13,914
13,104
14
13,050
1,021.6
7.83
17,087
15,388
16,217
16,978
16,341
17,711
16,567
17,649
19,005
17,609
15,900
16,940
17,595
16,390
14
16,956
922.8
5.44
(kJ/kg)
Moisture and
ash free
19,929
19,635
23,237
20,891
21,061
24,743
21,180
21,364
25,116
21,530
22,737
22,014
23,072
21,414
14
21,995
1,619.4
7.36
155
-------
Handle-
Inner Cone of Atlas Bin
RDF Conveyed in
Trough in Bin Floor
Bin Floor
Bulk Density
Sample Container.
Volume = 0.0167749m3
(0.5924ft3)
Drag Bars
Drag Conveyor
-Discharge Chute
To Airlock Feeder
for Pneumatic
Conveying System
PROCEDURE
Sample container placed below drag conveyor discharge, container filled and
then removed from discharge chute. Container then leveled off and weight
determined.
Two or more conveyors normally used for conveying refuse. Above procedure
repeated for each conveyor in use. Bulk density reported is total weight of
RDF collected divided by total volume.
Bulk Density = Z samPle container weight
(Number of samples) (0.0167749 m3)
Figure F-l. Procedure for determination of bulk density.
156
-------
Ul
TABLE F-6. SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF RDF DISCHARGED FROM ATLAS BIN
(as received, all percents by weight)
Size (mm) standard
Date
(1976)
3-23b/
4-22
5-6
5-12
5-20
5-25
6-4
6-7
6-14
Mean-
Sample
No.!/
2
-
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
% larger than
63
1.
3.
0.
1.
0
1.
3.
3.
0.
1.
Note: First stage shredder
Second stage shredder
a/ Sample
b/ Single
number
stage
from Table
4
2
8
2
1
3
8
1
7
grate
grate
F-4.
shredding due to
63
98.6
96.8
99.3
98.8
100.0
98.9
96.7
96.2
99.9
98.4
size - 229 x
size - 76 x
second stage
ASTM E-ll designation
7<, smaller than
38.1
79.9
85.2
88.5
93.9
91.1
93.2
89.0
84.3
95.1
88.9
229 mm.
127 mm.
shredder
19.0
18.7
65.5
67.7
81.5
75.8
71.0
73.3
66.2
68.9
65.4
out of
9.5
14.5
38.2
40.4
58.1
58.0
48.6
50.9
41.5
38.4
43.2
service
4.8
10.3
22.2
22.5
35.1
28.6
26.5
23.3
24.5
25.3
24.3
because
Geometric
Mean
diameter
22.6
12.4
11.7
8.4
9.2
10.2
10.5
12.0
11.1
12.0
of bearing
Standard
deviation
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
failure
17
56
46
36
42
42
47
64
35
42
.
Second stage shredder not back in service until March 28, 1976.
c/ Mean does not include single stage shredding data from March 23, 1976.
-------
This method assumes a straight line logarithmic distribution of particle
size. The geometric mean diameter is the size at which half the particles
are larger than the mean and half are smaller. The geometric standard de-
viation is the disperison about the mean. A value close to one indicates a
small dispersion, while a large value indicates that particles are widely
distributed over a large size range.
On April 4, 1976, a large clinker or solidified mass of ash was removed
from boiler No. 5. A sample of this clinker was analyzed for ash chemical
composition for comparison purposes. These data are presented in Table F-7.
The chemical analysis is not greatly different from the RDF ash except
that this clinker had over twice as much Fe2C>2 than the average for RDF ash
(10.31% versus 4.297o). At this point it is assumed that the higher
is due to the effect of the coal.
VARIABILITY OF RESULTS
As expected there was considerable variation from day to day in the
sample results. Following in Table F-8 is the range of data (maximum and
minimum values) encountered, as well as the mean or average value and the
standard deviation and confidence interval.
Also listed is the total number of samples in the mean and the standard
deviation. The coefficient of variation was also calculated. Coefficient
of variation (CV) is a measure of variablility because it expresses the stan-
dard deviation as a percent of the mean. As the absolute value of one charac-
teristic increases over that of a different characteristic, the standard
deviation may also increase.
A larger standard deviation does not necessarily mean larger variability,
and thus CV is a method of accommodating this restriction. The formula for
CV is as follows:
CV (7=) = Sx (100)
where "X = mean; and
Sx = standard deviation.
An analysis of Table F-8 shows that the variability expressed as CV
often becomes quite high when the mean values are very low, such as for sulfur,
chlorine, nitrogen, ash ?2®5> an<* screen size larger than 63 mm.
158
-------
TABLE F-7. LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF CLINKER ASH REMOVED
FROM STOKER BOILER NO. 5, FIRING COAL PLUS RDF
ASTM method D279
(sample removed from boiler April 5, 1976)
Ash analysis (% by weight)
Si02
A12°3
Fe203
Ti02
P205
CaO
MgO
Na20
K20
01 gain
51.99
11.75
10.31
1.04
0.76
12.94
1.98
3.53
1.24
0.05
159
-------
TABLE F-8. VARIABILITY OF DAILY VALUES OF CHARACTERISTICS OF RDF DISCHARGED
FROM ATLAS BIN (as received, all percents by weight)
Range
Item
Analysis of RDF
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Heating value (kJ/kg)
Moisture (7.)
Ash (%)
Volatile matter (70)
Fixed carbon (7»)
Carbon (7«)
Hydrogen (7o)
Oxygen (7»)
Sulfur (7o)
Chlorine (7o)
Nitrogen (70)
Particle size
Geometric mean diameter mmS/
Percent larger than 63 mm
Maximum
value
157.0
15.219
31.77
22.52
59.21
9.34
33.90
5.18
28.32
0.88
0.59
0.64
12.4
3.8
Minimum
value
97.0
11.475
18.65
11.12
46.57
0.82
26.57
4.20
14.92
0.23
0.14
0.29
8.4
0
X
mean
128.3
13.050
23.03
17.37
54.65
4.94
30.86
4.77
22.88
0.43
0.24
0.42
10.7
1.7
n
number
of
samples
14
14 1
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
8
9
Sx
standard
deviation
18.14
,021.6
4.212
3.170
3.702
2.405
2.224
0.324
3.903
0.190
0.110
0.106
1.392
1.421
Variability
about the
mean
at 9~57o
confidence
coefficient
10.5
589.8
2.43
1.83
2.14
1.39
1.28
0.19
2.25
0.11
0.06
0.06
1.2
1.1
CV
coefficient
of variation
(7o)
14.1
7.83
18.29
18.25
6.77
48.64
7.21
6.79
17.06
44.77
45.12
25.44
13.02
85.85
(continued)
-------
TABLE F-8. (continued)
Range
Item
Analysis of RDF ash
sto2 (%)
A12°3 W)
Fe2C>3 (%)
Ti02 (%)
P205 (%)
CaO (7o)
MgO (%)
Na20 (%)
K90 (%)
z
Maximum
value
54.10
18.17
8.13
1.96
1.25
15.48
3.19
5.22
2.26
Minimum
value
41.82
8.45
2.91
1.07
0.28
10.40
1.95
3.46
1.52
X
mean
48.19
11.75
4.29
1.45
0.79
12.71
2.38
4.37
1.80
n
number
of
samples
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Sx
standard
deviat ion
4.059
2.288
1.332
0.256
0.276
1.608
0.312
0.598
0.244
Variability
about the
mean
at 95%
confidence
coefficient
2.34
1.32
7.69
0.15
0.16
0.93
0.18
0.35
0.14
CV
coefficient
of variation
(%)
8.42
19.47
31.04
17.74
34.86
12.66
13.10
13.68
13.56
a/ Particle size does not include high value on March 23, 1976, due to single stage shredding.
-------
Ash fusion temperatures were not included in Table F-8 because results
are not complete for the full 14 days of tests.
The ranking of analysis constituents from the least to the highest vari-
ability basis the CV is as follows:
RANKING - LOWEST TO HIGHEST VARIABILITY
RDF
RDF ash
Volatile matter (smallest variability)
Hydrogen
Carbon
Heating value
Geometric mean particle diameter
Bulk density Ti02
Oxygen
Ash
Moisture
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Chlorine
Fixed carbon
Particle size larger than 63 mm (highest variability)
Si02 (smallest variability)
CaO
MgO
K20
Fe2°3
P205 (highest variability)
MOISTURE FREE AND MOISTURE AND ASH FREE RDF HEATING VALUE
Table F-5 shows the variability of RDF heating value on a moisture as
received basis. There is an expected but important relationship of increasing
heating value with decreasing moisture and ash content. Therefore, heating
value of RDF was calculated on both a moisture free and a moisture and ash
free basis.
The statistical standard deviation Sx and the CV were calculated for the
daily sample data to determine if variability of RDF heating value changes
when expressed on a moisture free or moisture and ash free basis.
Table F-5 shows the results of these calculations. Variability as ex-
pressed by CV is highest for moisture free ash and lowest for moisture free
heating value. Heating value CV is lower on a moisture free basis than on
an as-received basis. However, on a moisture and ash free basis, heating
value CV is lower than on an as-received basis, but higher than on the mois-
ture free basis.
162
-------
The reason for this is not apparent from the ash CV analysis. Ash as
received has practically the same CV as moisture. However, the CV for mois-
ture free ash is higher than for as received ash. Therefore, the moisture
has a damping effect on ash variability. However, when the higher variability
ash is removed from the heating value calculation, the heating value CV in-
creases. Therefore, even though it has the highest variability, the ash is
damping the heating value variability.
Figure F-2 shows the relationship between heating value and moisture con-
tent and ash content. There was a 717= correlation between heating value and
moisture. There was not a good statistical percentage correlation between
heating value and ash content due to the scatter in the data.
However, Figure F-2 shows that the Ames RDF heating value is inherently
higher than what was observed during the St. Louis tests. The boiler sees
RDF heating value as is, with the moisture and ash content that is actually
present. The question arises as to whether the higher heating value at Ames
is due to the lower moisture and ash content. The answer is yes, but the
higher heating value at Ames is not entirely due to lower moisture and ash
content as shown below.
Moisture (%) (as received)
Ash (To) (as received)
Heating value (kj/kg)
As received
Moisture free
Moisture and ash free
Ames
(average of
14 daily samples)
23.03
17.37
13,050
16,956
21,995
St. Louis
(average of
97 daily samples
26.55
21.71
10,636
14,494
20,570
The heating value of the combustibles (moisture and ash free heating
value) in the Ames RDF is also higher than the St. Louis RDF. The reasons for
this may be answered when processing plant tests are conducted and an analysis
for RDF for percent paper, plastic, etc., is conducted.
The question of whether this is a statistical significant difference at
a given statistical confidence level is not answered in this report. Since
the St. Louis data represent 97 days of tests and the Ames data to date rep-
resent only 14 days of tests, it is prudent to wait until more test day data
are available at Ames before a statistical difference calculation is made.
163
-------
22,000 f-.
i. 20,000 -
u. £
O "-
= 18,000 -
Average of Moisture &
Ash Free Heating Values
Ames RDF Best Fit Curve
-Id/kg = 21,995-227.1 (% Moisture Free Ash)
10
15 20
% ASH (Moisture Free)
25
30
35
O
oe ••-•
•o
U. 4f
O .>
o
z
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
-Average of Moisture Free Heoting Values
Ames RDF Best Fit Curve
71% Correlation
kJAg= 17,002-171.6 (% Moisture)
St. Louis RDF
Best Fit Curve •
I
10
15 20
% MOISTURE
25
30
35
Figure F-2. Heating value of refuse derived fuel (RDF)
versus moisture and ash content for daily samples.
164
-------
APPENDIX G - DESCRIPTION OF MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE OF ATLAS BIN
AND PNEUMATIC TRANSPORT LINES
TRANSPORT LINE ELBOWS
Within a relatively short time after the start-up of refuse burning, the
power plant personnel noticed that severe wear was occurring in the transport
lines between the Atlas Storage Bin and the various boilers. This severe
wear was a particular problem in the transport line elbows since this wear
created holes in the transport line elbows.
The original transport line elbows were made of mild steel and were
referred to as "wearback" elbows. Since these "wearback" elbows were original
equipment, a cost per elbow is not readily available. Due to the abrasive
wear of the processed refuse, these elbows were found to have a life of only
approximately 1,000 hours.
In an attempt to increase the life of these "wearback" elbows, power
plant personnel hard-rodded the wear susceptible surfaces. This hard-rodding
process consisted of placing a bead of weld metal in a cross-hatched pattern
on the surface in question. A 6.35 mm to a 12.7 mm square was the cross-
hatched pattern spacing. This process added about $100.00 to the cost of the
"wearback" elbows and increased the elbows' life to approximately 1,700 hours.
The power plant then purchased another type of transport line elbow
known as "astroloy". It is unknown what specific material these elbows were
constructed from. These elbows cost $160.00 per elbow and had an operating
life of approximately 650 hours.
At the present time, the power plant is using a transport line elbow known
as "Castalloy CR 25". The material from which these elbows are constructed
is unknown, except that their hardness is 500 Bhn. These elbows cost $230.00
per elbow and have performed for better than 2,000 hours with no sign of
severe wear. Due to the promising performance of these "Castalloy CR 25" el-
bows, the power plant personnel are installing the same type elbows in the
transport line between the processing plant and the Atlas Storage Bin. These
larger elbows will cost approximately $495.00 per elbow.
165
-------
SWEEP SYSTEM SHUTDOWN
On June 16, 1976, the sweep system in the Atlas Storage Bin experienced
a mechanical failure which resulted in the shutdown of refuse removal from
the Atlas Storage Bin and necessitated extensive repairs.
The following is a consensus of the events leading up to the aforemen-
tioned shutdown. All details referred to are found on Atlas Systems drawing
3000053.
Due to the inherent vibrations in the system and possibly a maintenance
oversight, the lock screw on the thrust wheel assembly loosened on at least
one and likely more than one. Once the lock screw had loosened, the adjusting
screw could back off. This combination of events would allow the sweep ring,
which was originally set up and designed to operate in a circular path, to
travel in an elliptical path which would become more pronounced as the adjus-
ting screw backed off further. At some point in time, the elliptical path
became such that at least one drag ring sweep scraper was able to hook itself
on a structural element. Since the drag ring was under power and the scraper
was hooked, something had to give and in this case the scraper was the weaker
element. When the scraper broke, it wedged itself between the bin floor and
the suspension rollers which support the weight of the sweep ring. The weight
supported by the suspension roller was too large to allow the roller to roll
over the broken scraper and the power on the drag ring allowed at least one
suspension roller assembly to be torn from its brackets on the drag ring al-
though two suspension roller assemblies were replaced. Once the suspension
roller was removed, the thrust wheel assembly would be forced to carry a
vertical load for which it was not designed. This vertical load then sheared
the set pin on the bottom of the thrust roller assembly and also drove the
lower thrust roller off the thrust roller assembly. Once this roller was off,
the drag ring could move down due to the loss of the suspension roller and
move in due to the imbalance of the thrust roller assembly. With the drag
ring in this configuration, subsequent thrust roller assemblies would ex-
perience an undesigned vertical load due to the drag ring's own weight and
power. A total of eight thrust roller assemblies were replaced. As the thrust
rollers failed, the drag ring came in contact with what can be referred to as
structural piers in the Atlas Storage Bin. The drag ring then sheared mater-
ial from these structural piers until the load to do this exceeded the over-
load setting and shut the system down.
SWEEP DRIVE SYSTEM SHUTDOWN
On August 2, 1976, the sweep drive system in the Atlas Storage Bin ex-
perienced a mechanical failure which resulted in the shutdown of the refuse
removal from the bin.
166
-------
The following is a consensus of the events leading up to the aforemen-
tioned shutdown. All details referred to can be found on Atlas Systems
drawing 3500055 with the exception of an idler tension maintaining cable, which
is not shown.
The mechanical failure occurred when the chain in the chain drive which
transferred power from the DC motor's drive shaft to the cycloidal sprocket
drive shaft fell off its sprockets. The cycloidal sprocket drives the sweep
drag chain. The chain fell off its sprockets after a cable which maintained
tension on the idler sprocket broke. The cable broke due to the fatigue
type shock loadings imposed when the idler sprocket would move at its pinned
supports. This movement was possible due to the elongation of the pin's
hole. This elongation of the holes was due to a misalignment of the chain
between the DC motor drive shaft's sprocket, the cycloidal drive shaft's
sprocket, and the idler sprocket which put an increased loading on the bracket
supports. The effects of this misalignment were accelerated by the use of
the manual mode of operation for the refuse removal system rather than the
automatic mode of operation as the system was designed to function. Power
plant personnel found that the automatic mode failed to supply the necessary
flow rates and consequently the manual mode was used. The misalignment of
the chain was due to a failure to set the spacers on the idler sprocket
correctly. This failure was considered to be the proximate cause of the shut-
down on August 2, 1976.
ATLAS STORAGE BIN CONTROL SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
In order to reduce wear in the Atlas Storage Bin's refuse removal system
and to be able to provide a uniform volume flow of refuse from the Atlas
Storage Bin, the Ames power plant's personnel modified the existing control
system. This modified system was first put into operation on October 8, 1976.
To be able to understand the need for the modifications that were made,
a brief description of the pre-modified control system will be made.
The control system consisted of three control modes; manual, automatic,
and timer, in the manual mode, the operator has direct control over the sweep
and outfeed conveyor speeds. In this mode, the set point, outfeed conveyor
speed, and material depth inputs are ignored by the system. Because of the
variable nature of the refuse stored in the bin, it is very difficult to
maintain a desired flow rate in the manual mode without running the sweep at
an accelerated rate and overfilling the outfeed conveyor troughs. Running
the sweep too fast can cause system overload and accelerated wear on the sys-
tem components which should be avoided.
167
-------
The automatic mode is a closed loop where the logic control unit is
provided a setpoint by the operator which may be volumetric rate or level in
the outfeed conveyor. This setpoint is compared to the achieved material flow
rate or level into correspondence with the setpoint by increasing or decreasing
the sweep speed.
The timer mode is a safety device to prevent the sweep buckets strings
from becoming buried in the bin. Whenever the sweep speed drops below a
preset speed, usually 5 to 15%, the control system reverts to the timer mode
and beyond the operator's control. In this mode, the sweep is operated for
approximately 3 out of every 15 minutes at approximately 20% speed. This
will allow the sweep bucket strings to work to the outside of any new material
being fed into the bin or any material falling from an undercut.
Ames power plant personnel discovered from operating the Atlas Storage
Bin that the automatic mode failed to deliver a uniform volume flow of refuse
whenever the bin was very full or nearly empty. When the bin was very full,
very little sweep movement was required to fill the outfeed conveyor troughs.
As this material would pass under the level sensor, the control unit would
sense a full trough and stop the sweep. Then the trough emptied, the control
unit would sense the empty trough and send the sweep speed to its maximum
of 200% until the level sensed a full trough again. This oscillation of the
sweep was highly undesirable. When the bin was nearly empty, only a few of
the sweep buckets would actually contact the refuse pile and consequently the
outfeed conveyor would sense intermediately a full trough and then an emptied
trough as the bucket's contents passed under the level sensor. This meant
that the sweep would again oscillate between 0 and 200% sweep speeds.
As an intermediate solution, the Ames power plant personnel operated
the system in the manual mode rather than the intended automatic mode. In the
manual mode, the sweep speed was set at 150% resulting in the overfill of the
outfeed conveyor troughs but assuring a full trough at all times. Thus, the
outfeed conveyor speed could be set to obtain a given volume flow rate.
This solution was not desirable since with the sweep speed so high, any wear
in the sweep system components was accelerated.
The modification made to the control system was the addition of a circuit
to allow for automatic outfeed conveyor speed control. Now the operator sets
a desired flow rate and the control circuit automatically senses the outfeed
conveyor trough height and monitors the outfeed conveyor speed and sweep
speed. If the level should change, the conveyor speed would immediately be
increased or decreased to meet the flow rate requirement and subsequently
the sweep speed would increase or decrease. The advantage is in a quick
response to fluctuations in trough material level. The disadvantage is in
accelerated wear in the outfeed conveyor system. Initial operation has shown
that very favorable volume flow rate control is maintained with the sweep
168
-------
speed at about 80% with little fluctuation. To aid the sweep system in main-
taining sufficient material in the outfeed conveyor, the reference level in
the outfeed conveyors has been reduced from 0,33 m originally, to 0,18 m and
finally to 0.13 m« This modification does cause the outfeed conveyor to op-
erate at a higher speed to maintain a given volume flow rate* To avoid hav-
ing the system go into the timer mode and out of the operator's control dur-
ing periods of slow sweep speed, the power plant personnel have altered the
sweep speed control so that the minimum sweep speed is 30% whenever the sweep
system is in operation.
Figure G«-l is a block diagram of the control modification drawn from a
sketch supplied by Mr« Harold Alt of the Ames power plant's electrical
department. Figure G-2 is a block diagram of the overall control system be-
fore the modifications shown if Figure G-l were made»
169
-------
Manual Speed Control (
(PWR Plant)
Manual Speed Control |
(PRO-EL-CO Panel)
iLocal
fRemote
On PWR
Local = PWR Plant
Remote = PRO-EL-CO
(panel under bin)
Override
Logic
Flow Rote
Operator Control ( o-
( PWR Plant only)
0
@
Rafe
Adjust,
etc.
Panel
Manual i
i
Auto """
Flow Rate Set Point
(continuous readout)
(on PRO-EL-CO panel only)
PWR Plant PRO-EL-CO
Flow Rate Meters
Speed Control to
' Conveyor A
GE Power Unit
PWR Plant PRO-EL-CO
Speed Meters
(l.) Separate switching for each conveyor
(sweep speed - automatic - manual - switched separately also)
(?) New items supplied by PRO-EL-CO
3. Conveyor A Shown, but Conveyors B, C, & D are identical
ight 1
isor^x*^
Height
Sensor
•^ — —•\
To Sweep Speed Control
(low paddle controls
sweep speed on Auto)
" ' •'• Conveyor A
Figure G-l» Conveyor speed control addition for Atlas control system.
-------
Operator Volume
Rate Input
Weight Auto
NA Process Input
Conveyor
Speed
Manual Sweep
Speed Control
Manual Conveyor
Speed Control
Volume
Setpoint
O—' OT*—O O—' Cr«-O
I Man.
Timer Mode
Preset Speed
Approx 20%
Weight Rate
Setpoint NA
1 O
Auto.
LOGIC AND CONTROL
I. Preconditioning Amp
2. Competitor
3. Memory (Integrator)
4. Multiplier
Material Depth
Material Depth
Sensor
BELT NA
CONVEYOR
OUTFEED
CONVEYOR
•v. I'.V.-. K"i .•:-•.;.. -.-.-r.-ff.; -.;.'&'&
'•^•^. -• *^~" • ..'.•--.•.. -*y^
Figure G-2. Overall system block diagram.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-229
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EVALUATION OF THE AMES SOLID WASTE RECOVERY SYSTEM
PART II: Performance of the Stoker Fired Steam
Generators
5. REPORT DATE
October 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
A. W. Joensen, D. Van Meter, J. L. Hall, W. L. Larsen,
R. Reece, D. E. Fiscus, R. W. White
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
'9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Engineering Research Institute
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1NE-624
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant No. R803903-01-0
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab . - Cinn, OH
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
interim Feb. 5,1976-Feb. 4,1977
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Carlton C. Wiles (513)684-7881; Robert A. Olexsey (513)684-4363
16. ABSTRACT
The report describes the thermodynamic and mechanical performance and corrosion
evaluation of the stoker boilers while burning RDF as a supplemental fuel with coal.
It can be stated that refuse derived fuel (RDF) may be successfully fired in these
stoker boilers with no insurmountable problems. A high refuse fuel utilization was
encountered: up to 50% RDF on a heat input basis has been successfully fired. Based
on the current method of RDF injection, high excess air flow rates were encountered.
Ultimate fouling of the superheater section of boiler No. 5 was experienced. Calcu-
lation of the fuel fouling index would seem to verify this behavior. Soot blowers
will be installed to reduce this behavior.
There was no trend of change in the percent of the total boiler heat input lost
in the ash versus percent RDF heat input. The burn out of RDF was equivalent to that
for coal. Corrosion tests conducted to date indicated there was no increase in
corrosion due to burning RDF.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Coal
Corrosion
Refuse
Evaluation
Combustion
Air Pollution
Maintenance
Municipal wastes
Particulates
Stationary sources
Boilers
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
188
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
172
e US GOVERNMENT MINTING OFFICE: IMO -657-146/5496
------- |