ABMA
American
Boiler Manufacturers.
Association
1500 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington VA 22209
DoE
United States
Department
of Energy
Division of Power Systems
Energy Technology Branch
Washington DC 20545
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/7-80-137a
May 1980
Field Tests of Industrial
Stoker Coal-fired Boilers
for Emissions Control and
Efficiency Improvement —
Sited
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.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-80-137a
May 1980
Field Tests of Industrial Stoker Coal-fired
Boilers for Emissions Control and
Efficiency Improvement — Site J
by
P.L Langsjoen, J.O. Burlingame,
and J.E. Gabrielson
KVB. Inc.
6176 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
lAG/Contract Nos. IAG-D7-E681 (EPA), EF-77-C-01-2609 (DoE)
Program Element No. EHE624
Project Officers: R.E. Hall (EPA) and W. Harvey, Jr. (DoE)
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Division of Power Systems/Energy Technology Branch
Washington, DC 20545
and
AMERICAN BOILER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
1500 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation for the assistance
and direction given the program by project monitors W. T. (Bill) Harvey of
the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and R. E. (Bob) Hall of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thanks are due to
their agencies, DOE and EPA, for co-funding the program.
We would also like to thank the American Boiler Manufacturers
Association, ABMA Executive Director, W. H. (Bill) Axtman, ABMA Assistant
Executive Director, R. N. (Russ) Mosher, ABMA's Project Manager, B. c. (Ben)
Severs, and the members of the ABMA Stoker Technical Committee chaired by
W. B. (Willard) McBurney of The McBurney Corporation for providing support
through their time and travel to manage and review the program. The partici-
pating committee members listed alphabetically are as follows:
R. D. Bessette Island Creek Coal Company
T. Davis Combustion Engineering
N. H. Johnson Detroit Stoker
K. Luuri Riley Stoker
D. McCoy E. Keeler Company
J. Mullan National Coal Association
E. A. Nelson Zurn Industries
E. Poitras The McBurney Corporation
P. E. Ralston Babcock and Wilcox
D. C. Reschley Detroit Stoker
R. A. Santos Zurn Industries
We would also like to recognize the KVB engineers and technicians who
spent much time in the field, often under adverse conditions, testing the
boilers and gathering data for this program. Those involved at Site J in
addition to co-author Jim Burlingame were Russ Parker, Mike Jackson, and
Jim Demont.
Finally, our gratitude goes to the host boiler facilities which in-
vited us to test their boiler. At their request, the facilities will remain
anonymous to protect their owr. interests. Without their cooperation and
assistance this program would not have been possible.
KVB 4-15900-545
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES Vl
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY TESTED AND COALS FIRED 9
3.1 Boiler J Description 9
3.2 Overfire Air System 9
3.3 Test Port Locations 9
3.4 Coals Utilized 13
4.0 TEST EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES 15
4.1 Gaseous Emissions Measurements (NOx, CO, CO2/ O2, HC) . 15
4.1.1 Analytical Instruments and Related Equipment . . 15
4.1.2 Recordipcr Instruments 19
4.1.3 Gas Sampling and Conditioning System 19
4.1.4 Gaseous Emission Sampling Techniques 19
4.2 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) Measurement and Procedures .... 21
4.3 Particulate Measurement and Procedures 23
4.4 Particle Size Distribution Measurement and Procedure . 26
4.5 Coal Sampling and Analysis Procedure 27
4.6 Ash Collection and Analysis for Combustibles 29
4.7 Boiler Efficiency Evaluation 30
4.8 Trace Species Measurement 30
5.0 TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS 33
5.1 Overfire Air 33
5.1.1 Particulate Loading vs Overfire Air 33
5.1.2 Nitric Oxide vs Overfire Air 36
5.1.3 Boiler Efficiency vs Overfire Air 37
5.1.4 Overfire Air Flow Rate 38
5.2 Excess Oxygen and Grate Heat Release 38
5.2.1 Excess Oxygen Operating Levels 40
5.2.2 Particulate Loading vs Grate Heat Release ... 40
5.2.3 Nitric Oxide vs Grate Heat Release and Oxygen . 43
5.2.4 Combustibles in the Ash vs Grate Heat Release . 47
5.2.5 Boiler Efficiency vs Grate Heat Release .... 47
5.3 Coal Properties 51
5.3.1 Chemical Composition of the Coals 51
5.3.2 Coal Size Consistency 55
5.3.3 Effect of Coal Properties on Emissions and
Efficiency 55
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
5.4 Particle Size Distribution of Flyash 50
5.5 Efficiency of Multiclone Dust Collector 53
5.6 Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) 63
5.7 Data Tables 63
APPENDICES 70
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No. Page
3-1 Boiler J Schematic 11
3-2 Boiler J Sample Plane Geometry 12
4-1 Flow Schematic of Mobile Flue Gas Monitoring Laboratory . . 20
4-2 SOx Sample Probe Construction 22
4-3 Sulfur Oxides Sampling Train 22
4-4 EPA Method 6 Sulfur Oxide Sampling Train 24
4-5 EPA Method 5 Particulate Sampling Train 25
4-6 Brink Cascade Impactor Sampling Train Schematic 28
4-7 Source Assessment Sampling (SASS) Flow Diagram 31
5-1 Boiler Outlet Particulates vs Overfire Air 34
5-2 Multiclone Outlet Particulates vs Overfire Air 35
5-3 Relationship Between Overfire Air Flow Rate and Static
Pressure Within the Overfire Air Duct - Test Site J . . . 39
5-4 Oxygen vs Grate Heat Release 41
5-5 Boiler Outlet Particulates vs Grate Heat Release 42
5-6 Multiclone Outlet Particulates vs Grate Heat Release .... 44
5-7 Nitric Oxide vs Grate Heat Release 45
5-8 Nitric Oxide vs Oxygen 46
5-9 Boiler Outlet Combustibles vs Grate Heat Release 48
5-10 Bottom Ash Combustibles vs Grate Heat Release 49
5-11 Boiler Efficiency vs Grate Heat Release 50
5-12 Size Consistency of "As Fired" Ohio Coal vs ABMA Recommended
Limits of Coal Sizing for Overfeed Stokers - Test Site J . 57
5-13 Size Consistency of "As-Fired" Kentucky Coal vs ABMA
Recommended Limits of Coal Sizing for Overfeed Stokers -
Test Site J 58
5-14 Particle Size Distribution at the Boiler Outlet and at the
Stack by Brink Cascade Impactor - Test Site J 62
5-15 Particle Size Distribution at the Stack by Method of SASS
Cyclones - Test Site J 64
5-16 Multiclone Efficiency vs Grate Heat Release 66
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No.
2-1 Test Outline for Test Site J 7
2-2 Emission Data Summary 8
3-1 Design Data 10
3-2 Average Coal Analysis 14
5-1 Particulate Loading vs Overfire Air 36
5-2 Nitric Oxide vs Overfire Air 37
5-3 Boiler Efficiency vs Overfire Air 37
5-4 Overfire Air Flow Rate 38
5-5 Ash Carryover 43
5-6 Boiler Efficiency vs Load 51
5-7 Coal Properties Corrected to a Constant 106Btu Basis .... 55
5-8 Fuel Analysis - Ohio Coal 52
5-9 Fuel Analysis - Kentucky Coal 53
5-10 Mineral Analysis of Coal Ash 54
5-11 As Fired Coal Size Consistency 56
5-12 Sulfur Balance 59
5-13 Boiler Efficiency vs Coal 60
5-14 Description of Particle Size Distribution Tests 61
5-15 Results of Particle Size Distribution Tests 61
5-16 Efficiency of Multiclone Dust Collector 65
5-17 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Analyzed in the Site J
SASS Sample 65
5-18 Particulate Emissions 67
5-19 Percent Combustibles in Refuse 67
5-20 Heat Losses and Efficiencies 68
5-21 Steam Flows and Heat Release Rates 69
vi
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The principal objective of the test program described in this report,
one of several reports in a series, is to produce information which will in-
crease the ability of boiler manufacturers to design and fabricate stoker
boilers that are an economical and environmentally satisfactory alternative
to oil-fired units. Further objectives of the program are to: provide
information to stoker boiler operators concerning the efficient operation of
their boilers; provide assistance to stoker boiler operators in planning
their coal supply contracts; refine application of existing pollution control
equipment with special emphasis on performance; and contribute to the design
of new pollution control equipment.
In order to meet these objectives, it is necessary to define stoker
boiler designs which will provide efficient operation and minimum gaseous and
particulate emissions, and -""-fine what those emissions are in order to facili-
tate preparation of attainable national emission standards for industrial
size, coal-fired boilers. To do this, boiler emissions and efficiency must
be measured as a function of coal analysis and sizing, rate of flyash rein-
jection, overfire air admission, ash handling, grate size, and other variables
for different boiler, furnace, and stoker designs.
A field test program designed to address the objectives outlined above
was awarded to the American Boiler Manufacturers Association (ABMA), sponsored
by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) under contract number
EF-77-C-01-2609, and co-sponsored by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under inter-agency agreement number IAG-D7-E681. The program is
directed by an ABMA Stoker Technical Committee which, in turn, has subcontracted
the field test portion to KVB, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
This report is the Final Technical Report for the tenth of eleven
boilers to be tested under the ABMA program. It contains a description of
the facility tested, the coals fired, the test equipment and procedures, and
the results and observations of testing. There is also a data supplement to
this report containing the "raw" data sheets from the tests conducted. The
data supplement has the same EPA report number as this report except that it
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
is followed by "b" rather than "a". As a compilation of all data obtained
at this test site, the supplement acts as a research tool for further data
reduction and analysis as new areas of interest are uncovered in subsequent
testing.
At the completion of this program, a final technical report will
combine and correlate the test results from all sites tested. A report
containing operating guidelines for boiler operators will also be written,
along with a separate report covering trace species data. These reports
will be available to interested parties through the National Technical Infor-
mation Service (NTIS) or through the EPA's Technical Library.
Although it is EPA policy to use S.I. units in all EPA sponsored
reports, an exception has been made herein because English units have been
conventionally used to describe boiler design and operation. Conversion
tables are provided in the Appendix for those who prefer S.I. units.
To protect the interests of the host boiler facilities, each test
site in this program has been given a letter designation. As the tenth
site tested, this is the Final Technical Report for Test Site J under the
program entitled, "A Testing Program to Update Equipment Specifications and
Design Criteria for Stoker Fired Boilers."
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A coal fired traveling grate stoker rated at 70,000 Its steam/hr
was extensively tested for emissions and efficiency between June 3 and
June 30, 1979. This section summarizes the results of these tests and pro-
vides references to supporting figures, tables and commentary found in the
main text of the report.
UNIT TESTED; Described in Section 3.0, page 9.
• E. Keeler Company Boiler
Built 1977
Type MKB
70,000 Ib/hr rated capacity
150 psig operating pressure
Saturated Steam
^ Laclede Stoker
Overfeed stoker
Traveling grate
One row overfire air jets on front wall
COALS TESTED; Individual coal analysis given in Tables 5-8, 5-9 and 5-10,
pages 52-54. Commentary in Section 3.4, page 13, and Section
5.3, page 51.
• Ohio Coal
13,117 Btu/lb
7.85% Ash
1.70% Sulfur
3.59% Moisture
2100°F Initial Ash Deformation Temperature
• Kentucky Coal
13,607 Btu/lb
6.57% Ash
1.58% Sulfur
2.24% Moisture
2205°F Initial Ash Deformation Temperature
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
OVERFIRE AIR TEST RESULTS; Tests were conducted at various overfire air pres-
sures ranging from less than 1" l^O to nearly 8"
H2O. Although these tests were not well defined
the relationship between this variable and boiler
emissions and efficiency were examined with the
following results. (Section 5.1, page 33)
• Particulate Loading
Particulate loading increased whenever overfire air was increased.
However, coal fines were also higher during the high overfire air
tests. Therefore, the results are inconclusive. (Section 5.1.1,
page 33)
• Nitric Oxide
Nitric oxide emissions tended to increase as overfire air pressure
increased. (Section 5.1.2, page 36)
• Boiler Efficiency
Boiler efficiency decreased an average 2.0% when overfire air
pressure was increased. (Section 5.1.3, page 37)
• Overfire Air Flow Rate
Overfire air flow rate, as measured by a standard pitot tube, was
shown to contribute 10% of the combustion air at full load, 8% Oo,
and 8.5" H2O pressure at the jets. (Section 5.1.4, page 38)
A Carbon Monoxide
The carbon monoxide monitor was out-of-service and, therefore, no
CO data were obtained.
BOILER EMISSION PROFILES; Boiler emissions and efficiency were measured at loads
of 50%, 75%, 85% and 100% of the units design capacity.
The measured values are presented as functions of grate
heat release and excess oxygen. (Section 5.2, page 38)
0 Excess Oxygen Operating Levels
The normal or "as-found" excess oxygen ranged from a low of 7.5%
02 at full load to a high of 12.2% 02 at 50% capacity. (Section
5.2.1, page 40)
• Particulate Loading
At full load the uncontrolled particulate loading ranged from 0.70
Ib/lO^Btu to 1.44 lb/106Btu. The uncontrolled particulate loading
dropped off to as low as 0.37 lb/106Btu at 50% loading. However,
the data is suspect due to sampling difficulties. The controlled
particulate loading ranged from 0.18 to 0.23 lb/106Btu at full load
and dropped to as low as 0.11 lb/106Btu at 50% load. (Section 5.2 2
page 40) '
4 KVB 4-15900-545
-------
• Nitric Oxide
Nitric oxide concentration averaged 0.362 i.052 lb/106Btu on
this unit. It increased with increasing oxygen by 0.096 Ib
NO/106Btu/% 02 at full load. At constant ©2, nitric oxide
concentration increased with load. (Section 5.2.3, page 43)
• Combustibles in the Ash
Combustible content of the uncontrolled flyash ranged from 24
to 36% and was invarient with load. Combustible content of the
bottom ash ranged from 7 to 31% and tended to increase as load
increased. (Section 5.2.4, page 47)
^ Boiler Efficiency
Boiler efficiency averaged 81.6% overall with five tests indi-
cating efficiencies in the range 82.6% to 83.5%. (Section 5.2.5,
page 47)
COAL PROPERTIES; Of the two coals tested, the Kentucky coal was considered a
better coa~ than the Ohio coal because of its higher Btu
content, and lower sulfur, ash and fines. The observed
effect of these coals on emissions and efficiency were as
follows. (Section 5.3.3, page 55)
• Particulate Loading
Both coals produced similar particulate mass loadings., (Figures
5-5 and 5-6, pages 42 and 44)
• Nitric Oxide
Both coals produced similar levels of nitric oxide. (Figures
5-7 and 5-8, pages 45 and 46)
• Sulfur Balance
Of the sulfur in the Ohio coal, 90.6% was detected in the flue
gas as SO2 and 803, and 1.3% was detected in the bottom ash and
flyash. Of the sulfur in the Kentucky coal, 121.4% was detected
in the flue gas and 2.9% in the ash. The origin of the inaccuracies
in the sulfur balance is very likely in the fuel sulfur deter-
mination. (Table 5-12, page 59)
• Combustibles in the Ash
Combustibles in the bottom ash were invarient with coal. Com-
bustibles in the flyash averaged 25% for Ohio coal and 31% for
Kentucky coal. (Figures 5-9 and 5-10, pages 48 and 49)
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
Boiler Efficiency
Kentucky coal averaged 0.7% higher boiler efficiency than Ohio
coal because of its lower moisture and hydrogen content.
(Table 5-13, page 60)
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FLYASH:
Four particle size distribution measure-
ments of the flyash were made. They
indicate that 25% of the uncontrolled
flyash is smaller than 3 micrometers while
70 to 80% of the controlled flyash is
smaller than 3 micrometers. (Section
5.4, page 60)
EFFICIENCY OF MECHANICAL DUST COLLECTOR:
The average measured dust collector
efficiency was 74.3%. The data is
suspect for the same reason that the
uncontrolled particulate loading data
is suspect. (Section 5.5, page 63)
SOURCE ASSESSMENT SAMPLING SYSTEM (SASS):
Flue gas was sampled for polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons and trace ele-
ments during one full load test on
each of the two coals. Data will be
presented in a separate report at the
completion of this test program.
Section 5.6, page 63)
The Test Outline and Emission Data Summary are presented in Tables 2-1
and 2-2 on the following pages. For reference, additional data tables are in-
cluded in Section 5.6. A "Data Supplement" containing all the unreduced data
obtained at Site J is available under separate cover for those who wish to
further analyze the data. The "Data Supplement" has the same EPA document number
as this report except that it is followed by the letter "b" rather than "a".
Copies of this report and the Data Supplement are available through EPA and the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
TABLE 2-1
TEST OUTLINE FOR TEST SITE J
FIRING CONDITIONS
TEST MEASUREMENTS BY TEST NUMBER
% Boiler
Capacity
100
85
75
50
Coal
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Kentucky
Gaseous
Emissions
3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16
6,15
7
2
8
1
9
Particulate
Loading
5, 14
6
7
2
8
1
9
Other
Tests
16 SASS & SOx,
13 Brink
15 SASS & SOx
KVB. 4-15900-545
-------
TABLE 2-2
oo
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
% Design
Date Capacity
6/03/79
6/04/79
6/05/79
6/06/79
6/12/79
6/13/79
6/14/79
6/15/79
6/16/79
6/19/79
6/20/79
6/28/79
6/30/79
48
74
100
100
103
99
85
73
50
103
97
94
93
Coal*
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
Excess
Air, %
84
95
52
71
56
58
66
70
129
56
68
56
68
02
%
dry
10.2
10.6
7.5
9.1
7.9
8.1
8.7
9.0
12.2
7.9
8.8
7.9
8.9
C02
%
dry
8.1
10.4
9.0
10.2
10.1
9.6
9.4
7.0
10.1
9.9
9.9
8.9
NO as NO2
lb/106
Btu
0.398
0.416
0.316
0.353
0.393
0.337
0.378
0.277
0.418
0.282
0.383
0.322
0.438
NO SOx Uncontrolled
ppm lb/106 Particulate
dry Btu lb/106Btu
291
304
231
258
287
247
276
203
306
206
280
236 1.968
320 2.877
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.369
.779
—
—
.442
.699
.462
.574
.617
— —
.984
—
—
Controlled
Particulate
lb/106Btu
0.115
0.188
—
—
0.228
0.182
0.167
0.114
0.185
— —
0.224
—
—
1 - Ohio Coal
2 - Kentucky Coal
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY TESTED
AND COALS FIRED
This section discusses the general physical layout and operational
characteristics of the boiler tested at Test Site J. The coals utilized in
this test series are also discussed.
3.1 BOILER J DESCRIPTION
Boiler J was manufactured by E. Keeler Company in 1977. It is a
type MKB boiler designed for 250 psig, and capable of a maximum continuous
capacity of 70,000 pounds of steam per hour at 150 psig and saturated temper-
ature using feedwater at 220°F.
The unit has a Lacl^e stoker with a traveling grate. Coal is mass
fed to the front end of the grate and ash is continuously discharged at the
back end. There is no suspension burning. Undergrate air is controlled in
six zones. Design data on the boiler and stoker are presented in Table 3-1.
The boiler is equipped with a multiclone dust collector and there is
no flyash reinjection.
3.2 OVERFIRE AIR SYSTEM
The overfire air system on Boiler J consists of one row of air jets
on the front wall. The jets are 3'10" above the grate and 30° below the
horizontal. The overfire air is supplied by an independent fan. At maximum
flow the pressure is about 10" H20.
3.3 TEST PORT LOCATIONS
Emission measurements were made at two locations — at the boiler out-
let (before the multiclone dust collector) and the dust collector outlet (stack)
The locations of these sample sites are shown in Figure 3-1. Their geometry is
shown in Figure 3-2.
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
TABLE 3-1
DESIGN DATA
TEST SITE J
BOILER: Manufacturer E. Keeler Company
Type MKB
Boiler Heating Surface 8,460 ft2
Design Pressure 250 psig
Tube Diameter 2-1/2 "
FURNACE: Volume 4,005 ft3
STOKER: Manufacturer Laclede
Type Traveling Grate
Width 14'0"
Length 15'3"
Effective Grate Area 213 ft2
HEAT RATES: Steam Flow 70,000 Ib/hr
Input to Furnace* 76.7x10^ Btu/hr
Furnace Width Heat Release* 5.48xl06 Btu/hr-ft
Grate Heat Release* 360xl03 Btu/hr-ft2
Furnace Liberation* 19.1xl03 Btu/hr-ft3
* The heat input and heat release rates were determined
from coal feed rates and are not necessarily those of
the manufacturer.
KVB 4-15900-545
10
-------
(P 03
,r
U
\ /
ASH
HOPPER
STACK
SAMPLING
PLANE
Figure 3-1. Boiler J Schematic
KVB 4-15900-545
11
-------
J — - - .
3 + + o +
3 +0 + .
0 + + + 4
4 4 4 O 4
4 4 O 4 4
O4
4
4
L
C
C
t
2'2'
Boiler Outlet Sampling Plane
Cross Sectional Area = 30.65 ft2
+ Particulate Sampling Points
O Gaseous Sampling Points
A sOx Sampling Points
D SASS Sampling Point
4'10"
Stack Sampling Plane
Cross Sectional Area = 18.35 ft2
Figure 3-2. Boiler J Sample Plane Geometry
KVB 4-15900-545
12
-------
Whenever particulate loading was measured, it was measured
simultaneously at both locations using 24-point sample traverses. Gaseous
measurements of C>2' C02' co and N0 were obtained by pulling samples individu-
ally and compositely from six probes distributed along the width of the boiler
outlet and from one probe at the dust collector outlet. NC>2 and unburned
hydrocarbons were measured by a heated sample line attached to one of the
middle gaseous probes at the boiler outlet. SOx measurements and SASS samples
for organic and trace element determinations were each obtained from single
points within the dust collector outlet duct.
3.4 COALS UTILIZED
Two coals were test fired at Test Site J. These are referred to as
Ohio coal and Kentucky coal ^ - this report. The primary coal tested was the
Ohio coal, which was supplied by C and W Mining (Columbiana County, Lisbon,
Ohio). The secondary coal was a higher Btu coal and it was supplied by
Island Creek Coal company. It came from the Spurlock mine in Salisbury,
Kentucky.
Coal samples were taken for each test involving particulate or SASS
sampling. The average coal analyses obtained from these samples are pre-
sented in Table 3-2. The analyses of each individual coal sample are pre-
sented in Section 5.0, Test Results and Observations, Table 5-8, 5-9, and
5-10.
KVB 4-15900-545
13
-------
TABLE 3-2
AVERAGE COAL ANALYSIS
TEST SITE J
Proximate (As Rec'd)
% Moisture
% Ash
% Volatile
% Fixed Carbon
Btu/lb
% Sulfur
Ohio Coal
3.59
7.85
37.83
50.73
13117
1.70
Kentucky Coal
2.24
6.57
39.09
52.10
13607
1.58
Ultimate (As Rec'd)
% Moisture
% Carbon
% Hydrogen
% Nitrogen
% Chlorine
% Sulfur
% Ash
% Oxygen (diff)
3.05
74.74
5.13
1.66
0.19
1.75
7.05
6.43
1.96
76.77
09
23
13
43
25
6.14
KVB 4-15900-545
14
-------
4.0 TEST EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES
This section details how specific emissions were measured and the
sampling procedures followed to assure that accurate, reliable data were
collected. Note that carbon monoxide (CO) was not measured at this test site
due to problems with the CO monitor.
4.1 GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS (NOx, CO, CO2, O2/ HC)
A description is given below of the analytical instrumentation, re-
lated equipment, and the gas sampling and conditioning system, all of which
are located in a mobile testing van owned and operated by KVB. The systems
have been developed as a result of testing since 1970, and are operational
and fully checked out.
4.1.1 Analytical Instruments and Related Equipment
The analytical system consists of five instruments and associated
equipment for simultaneously measuring the constituents of flue gas. The
analyzers, recorders, valves, controls, and manifolds are mounted on a panel
in the vehicle. The analyzers are shock mounted to prevent vibration damage.
The flue gas constituents which are measured are oxides of nitrogen (NO, NOx),
carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), and gaseous hydro-
carbons (HC) .
Listed below are the measurement parameters, the analyzer model
furnished, and the range and accuracy of each parameter for the system. A
detailed discussion of each analyzer follows:
Constituent: Nitric Oxide/Total Oxides of Nitrogen (NO/NOx)
Analyzer: Thermo Electron Model 10 Chemiluminescent Analyzer
Range: 0-2.5, 10, 25, 100, 250, 1000, 2500, 10,000 ppm NO
Accuracy: il% of full scale
Constituent: Carbon Monoxide
Analyzer: Beckman Model 315B NDIR Analyzer
Range: 0-500 and 0-2000 ppm CO
Accuracy: tl% of full scale
lO/B 4-15900-545
15
-------
Constituent: Carbon Dioxide
Analyzer: Beckman Model 864 NDIR Analyzer
Range: 0-5% and 0-20% CC>2
Accuracy: il% of full scale
Constituent: Oxygen
Analyzer: Teledyne Model 326A Fuel Cell Analyzer
Range: 0-5, 10, and 25% 02 full scale
Accuracy: il% of full scale
Constituent: Hydrocarbons
Analyzer: Beckman Model 402 Flame lonization Analyzer
Range: 5 ppm full scale to 10% full scale
Accuracy: ±1% of full scale
Oxides of nitrogen. The instrument used to monitor oxides of nitrogen
is a Thermo Electron chemiluminescent nitric oxide analyzer. The instrument
operates by measuring the chemiluminescent reaction of NO and 03 to form NC-2.
Light is emitted when electronically excited N02 molecules revert to their
ground state. The resulting chemiluminescence is monitored through an optical
filter by a high sensitivity photomultiplier, the output of which is linearly
proportional to the NO concentration.
Air for the ozonator is drawn from ambient air through a dryer and
a ten micrometer filter element. Flow control for the instrument is accomplished
by means of a small bellows pump mounted on the vent of the instrument down-
stream of a separator that prevents water from collecting in the pump.
The basic analyzer is sensitive only to NO molecules. To measure NOx
(i.e., NO+NO2), the NO2 is first converted to NO. This is accomplished by a
converter which is included with the analyzer. The conversion occurs as the
gas passes through a thermally insulated, resistance heated, stainless steel
coil. With the application of heat, NO2 molecules in the sample gas are re-
duced to NO molecules, and the analyzer now reads NOx. NOo is obtained by the
difference in readings obtained with and without the converter in operation.
Specifications: Accuracy 1% of full scale
Span stability il% of full scale in 24 hours
Zero stability -1 ppm in 24 hours
Power requirements 115-10V, 60 Hz, 1000 watts
Response 90% of full scale in 1 sec. (NOx mode),
0.7 sec. NO mode
Output 4-20 ma
KVB 4-15900-545
16
-------
Sensitivity 0.5 ppm
Linearity *1% of full scale
Vacuum detector operation
Range: 2.5, 10, 25, 100, 250, 1000, 2500, 10,000 ppm
full scale
Carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide concentration is measured by a
Beckman 315B non-dispersive infrared analyzer. This instrument measures the
differential in infrared energy absorbed from energy beams passed through a
reference cell (containing a gas selected to have minimal absorption of infra-
red energy in the wavelength absorbed by the gas component of interest) and a
sample cell through which the sample gas flows continuously. The differential
absorption appears as a reading on a scale from 0 to 100 and is then related
to the concentration of the specie of interest by calibration curves supplied
with the instrument. The operating ranges for the CO analyzer are 0-500 ppm
and 0-2000 ppm. (Note: this intrument was out-of-service at Site J)
Specifications: Span stability ll% of full scale in 24 hours
Zero stability ±1% of full scale in 24 hours
Ambient temperature range 32°F to 120°F
Line voltage 115±15V rms
Response 90% of full scale in 0.5 or 2.5 sec.
Precision il% of full scale
Output 4-20 ma
Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide concentration is measured by a Beckman
Model 864 short path-length, non-dispersive infrared analyzer. This instrument
measures the differential in infrared energy absorbed from energy beams passed
through a reference cell (containing a gas selected to have minimal absorption
of infrared energy in the wavelength absorbed by the gas component of interest)
and a sample cell through which the sample gas flows continuously. The dif-
ferential absorption appears as a reading on a scale from 0 to 100 and is then
related to the concentration of the specie of interest by calibration curves
supplied with the instrument. The operating ranges for the CO2 analyzer are
0-5% and 0-20%.
Specifications: Span stability il% of full scale in 24 hours
Zero stability ±1% of full scale in 24 hours
Ambient temperature range 32°F to 120°F
Line voltage 115-15V rms
Response 90% of full scale in 0.5 or 2.5 sec.
Precision *1% of full scale
Output 4-20 ma
KVB 4-15900-545
17
-------
Oxygen. The oxygen content of the flue gas sample is automatically
and continuously determined with a Teledyne Model 326A Oxygen analyzer.
Oxygen in the flue gas diffuses through a Teflon membrane and is reduced on
the surface of the cathode. A corresponding oxidation occurs at the anode
internally and an electric current is produced that is proportional to the
concentration of oxygen. This current is measured and conditioned by the
instrument's electronic circuitry to give a final output in percent Oo by
volume for operating ranges of 0% to 5%, 0% to 10%, or 0% to 25%.
Specifications: Precision il% of full scale
Response 90% in less than 40 sec.
Sensitivity 1% of low range
Linearity il% of full scale
Ambient temperature range 32-125°F
Fuel cell life expectancy 40,000%-hours
Power requirement 115 VAC, 50-60 Hz, 100 watts
Output 4-20 ma
Hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are measured using a Beckman Model 402
hydrocarbon analyzer which utilizes the flame ionization method of detection.
The sample is drawn to the analyzer through a heated line to prevent the loss
of higher molecular weight hydrocarbons. It is then filtered and supplied to
the burner by means of a pump and flow control system. The sensor, which is
the burner, has its flame sustained by regulated flows of fuel (40% hydrogen
plus 60% helium) and air. In the flame, the hydrocarbon components of the
sample undergo a complete ionization that produces electrons and positive ions
Polarized electrodes collect these ions, causing a small current to flow through
a circuit. This ionization current is proportional to the concentration of
hydrocarbon atoms which enter the burner. The instrument is available with
range selection from 5 ppm to 10% full scale as CH4-
Specifications: Full scale sensitivity, adjustable from 5 ppm CH^ to
10% CH4
Ranges: Range multiplier switch has 8 positions: XI,
X5, X10, X50, X100, X5-0, XlOOO, and X5000. In
additi >n, span control provides continuously variable
adjustment within a dynamic range of 10:1
Response time 90% full scale in 0.5 sec.
Precision +1% of full scale
Electronic stability ±1% of full scale for successive
identical samples
KVB 4-15900-545
18
-------
Reproducibility -1% of full scale for successive
identical samples
Analysis temperature: ambient
Ambient temperature 32°F to 110°P
Output 4-20 ma
Air requirements 350 to 400 cc/min of clean, hydro-
carbon-free air, supplied at 30 to 200 psig
Fuel gas requirements 75 to 80 cc/min of pre-mixed
fuel consisting of 40% hydrogen and 60% nitrogen
or helium, supplied at 30 to 200 psig
Electrical power requirements 120V, 60 Hz
Automatic flame-out indication and fuel shut-off valve
4.1.2 Recording Instruments
The output of the four analyzers is displayed on front panel meters
and are simultaneously recorded on a Texas Instrument Model FL04W6D four-pen
strip chart recorder. The recorder specifications are as follows:
Chart size 9-3/4 inch
Accuracv ±0.25%
Linearity <0.1%
Line voltage 120V±10% at 60 Hz
Span step response: one second
4.1.3 Gas Sampling and Conditioning System
The gas sampling and conditioning system consists of probes, sample
lines, valves, pumps, filters and other components necessary to deliver a
representative, conditioned sample gas to the analytical instrumentation. The
following sections describe the system and its components. The entire gas
sampling and conditioning system shown schematically in Figure 4-1 is con-
tained in the emission test vehicle.
4.1.4 Gaseous Emission Sampling Techniques
Boiler access points for gaseous sampling are selected in the same
sample plane as are particulate sample points. Each probe consists of one-
half inch 316 stainless steel heavy wall tifcing. A 100 micrometer Mott Metal-
lurgical Corporation sintered stainless steel filter is attached to each
probe for removal of particulate material.
KVB 4-15900-545
19
-------
.
_
1
1
^,.,.,0.
InpH
n
I
•^ o
n
r?
1
n
1
JM
O O O — |
..n
-IM.. r.i,.,
J-
?r""L,
;:
ij
HO-tiO.
*** "*"
r~u;
kti*J[=
x:r4-
"0^"" "J
---., i _ i
R ! t!"l!lry
».i.d
fil i
ul! !
1
Figure 4-1. Flow Schematic of Mobile Flue Gas Monitoring Laboratory
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
Gas samples to be analyzed for C>2, CC>2/ CO and NO are conveyed to the
KVB mobile laboratory through 3/8 inch nylon sample lines. After passing
through bubblers for flow control, the samples pass through a diaphragm pump
and a refrigerated dryer to reduce the sample dew point temperature to 35°F.
After the dryer, the sample gas is split between the various continuous gas
monitors for analysis. Flow through each continuous monitor is accurately
controlled with rotometers. Excess flow is vented to the outside. Gas samples
may be drawn both individually and/or compositely from all probes during each
test. The average emission values are reported in this report.
4.2 SULFUR OXIDES (SOx) MEASUREMENT AND PROCEDURES
Measurement of SO2 and 803 concentrations is made by wet chemical
analysis using both the "Shell-Emeryville" method and EPA Method 6. In the
She11-Emeryville method the o^s sample is drawn from the stack through a
glass probe (Figure 4-2), containing a quartz wool filter to remove particu-
late matter, into a system of three sintered glass plate absorbers (Figure 4-3)
The first two absorbers contain aqueous isopropyl alcohol and remove the sul-
fur trioxide; the third contains aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution which
absorbs the sulfur dioxide. Some of the sulfur trioxide is removed by the
first absorber, while the remainder, which passes through as sulfuric acid
mist, is completely removed by the secondary absorber mounted above the first.
After the gas sample has passed through the absorbers, the gas train is purged
with nitrogen to transfer sulfur dioxide, which has dissolved in the first
two absorbers, to the third absorber to complete the separation of the two
components. The isopropyl alcohol is used to inhibit the oxidation of sulfur
dioxide to sulfur trioxide before it gets to the third absorber.
The isopropyl alcohol absorber solutions are combined and the sulfate
resulting from the sulfur trioxide absorption is titrated with standard lead
perchlorate solution using Sulfonazo III indicator. In a similar manner, the
hydrogen peroxide solution is titrated for the sulfate resulting from the
sulfur dioxide absorption.
The gas sample is drawn from the flue by a single probe made of
quartz glass inserted into the duct approximately one-third to one-half way.
KVB 4-15900-545
21
-------
Flue Wall
Asbestos Plug
Ball Joint
Vycor
Sample Probe
Heating
Tape Pryometer
and
Thermocouple
Figure 4-2. SOx Sample Probe Construction
Bal
Joint )\\}
Dial Thermometer
Pressure Gauge
Volume Indica
tor
Vapor Trap Diaphragm
Pump
Dry Test Meter
Figure 4-3. Sulfur Oxides Sampling Train
22
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
The inlet end of the probe holds a quartz wool filter to remove particulate
matter. It is important that the entire probe temperature be kept above
the dew point of sulfuric acid during sampling (minimum temperature of 260°c).
This is accomplished by wrapping the probe with a heating tape.
EPA Method 6, which is an alternative method for determining S02
(Figure 4-4), employs an impinger train consisting of a bubbler and three
midget impingers. The bubbler contains isopropanol. The first and second
impingers contain aqueous hydrogen peroxide. The third impinger is left dry.
The quartz probe and filter used in the Shell-Emeryville method is also used
in Method 6.
Method 6 differs from Shell-Emeryville in that Method 6 requires
that the sample rate be proportional to stack gas velocity. Method 6 also
differs from Shell-Emeryville in that the sample train in Method 6 is purged
with ambient air, instead of nitrogen. Sample recovery involves combining
the solutions from the first .ad second impingers. A 10 ml aliquot of
this solution is then titrated with standardized barium perchlorate.
Two repetitions of Shell-Emeryville and two repetitions of EPA
Method 6 were made during each test.
4.3 PARTICULATE MEASUREMENT AND PROCEDURES
Particulate samples are taken at the same sample ports as the gaseous
emission samples using a Joy Manufacturing Company portable effluent sampler
(Figure 4-5) . This system, which meets the EPA design specifications for
Test Method 5, Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources
(Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 27, page 24888, December 23, 1971), is used
to perform both the initial velocity traverse and the particulate sample
collection. Dry particulates are collected in a heated case using first a
cyclone to separate particles larger than five micrometers and a 100 mm glass
fiber filter for retention of particles down to 0.3 micrometers. Condensible
particulates are collected in a train of four Greenburg-Smith impingers in an
ice water bath. The control unit includes a total gas meter and thermocouple
indicator. A pitot tube system is provided for setting sample flows to obtain
isokinetic sampling conditions.
KVB 4-15900-545
23
-------
PROBE (END PACKED'
WITH QUARTZ OR
PYREX WOOL)
STACK WALL
MIDGET IMPINGERS
MIDGET BUBBLER
GLASS WOOL
ICE BATH
THERMOMETER
THERMOMETER
L SILICA GEL
tf) DRYING TUBE
RATE METER NEEDLE VALVE
PUMP
SURGE TANK
Figure 4-4. EPA Method 6 Sulfur Oxide Sampling Train
KVB 4-15900-545
24
-------
cz:
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
- PROBE
TEMPERATURE
SENSOR
IMPINGER TRAIN OPTIONAL.MAY BE REPLACED
BY AN EQUIVALENT CONDENSER
HEATED AREA
PITOTTUBE
THERMOMETER
FILTER HOLDER
REVERSE-TYPE
PITOT TUBE
THERMOMETER
PITOT MANOMETER
ORIFICE
IMPINGERS ICE BATH
BY PASS VALVE
VACUUM
GAUGE
THERMOMETERS
DRY GAS METER
MAIN VALVE
AIRTIGHT
PUMP
CHECK
VALVE
VACUUM
LINE
Figure 4-5. EPA Method 5 Particulate Sampling Train
KVB 4-15900-545
25
-------
All peripheral equipment is carried in the instrument van. This
includes a scale (accurate to -0.1 mg), hot plate, drying oven (212°F), high
temperature oven, desiccator, and related glassware. A particulate analysis
laboratory is set up in the vicinity of the boiler in a vibration-free area.
Here filters are prepared, tare weighed and weighed again after particulate
collection. Also, probe washes are evaporated and weighed in the lab.
4.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENT AND PROCEDURE
Particle size distribution was measured using two methods. These
are the Brink Cascade Impactor and the SASS cyclones. Each of these particle
sizing methods has its advantages and disadvantages.
Brink. The Brink cascade impactor is an in situ particle sizing de-
vice which separates the particles into six size classifications. It has the
advantage of collecting the entire sample. That is, everything down to the
collection efficiency of the final filter is included in the analysis, it
has, however, some disadvantages. If the particulate matter is spatially
stratified within the duct, the single-point Brink sampler will yield erroneous
results. Unfortunately, the particles at the outlets of stoker boilers may be
considerably stratified. Another disadvantage is the instrument's small
classification range (0.3 to 3.0 micrometers) and its small sample nozzle
(1.5 to 2.0 mm maximum diameter). Both are inadequate for the job at hand.
The particles being collected at the boiler outlet are often as large as the
sample nozzle.
The sampling procedure is straight forward. First, the gas velocity
at the sample point is determined using a calibrated S-type pitot tube. For
this purpose a hand held particulate probe, inclined manometer, thermocouple
and indicator are used. Second, a nozzle size is selected which will main-
tain isokinetic flow rates within the recommended .02 - .07 ft3/min rate at
stack conditions. Having selected a nozzle and determined the required flow
rate for isokinetics, the operating pressure drop across the impactor is
determined from a calibration curve. This pressure drop is corrected for
temperature, pressure and molecular weight of the gas to be sampled.
KVB 4-15900-545
26
-------
A sample is drawn at the predetermined AP for a time period which is
dictated by mass loading and size distribution. To minimize weighing errors,
it is desirable to collect several milligrams on each stage. However, to
minimize reentrainment, a rule of thumb is that no stage should be loaded
above 10 mg. A schematic of the Brink sampling train is shown in Figure 4-6.
SASS. The Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) was not designed
principally as a particle sizer but it includes three calibrated cyclones
which can be used as such. The SASS train is a single point in-situ sampler.
Thus, it is on a par with cascade impactors. Because it is a high volume
sampler and samples are drawn through large nozzles (0.25 to 1.0 in.), it
has an advantage over the Brink cascade impactor where large particles are
involved. The cut points of the three cyclones are 10, 3 and 1 micrometers.
A detailed description of the SASS train is presented in Section 4.8.
4.5 COAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Coal samples at Test Site J were taken during each test from the
weigh lorry, as coal was being added to the boiler. The samples were pro-
cessed and analyzed for both size consistency and chemical composition. This
is close enough to the furnace that the coal sampled simultaneously with
testing is representative of the coal fired during testing. In order to col-
lect representative coal samples, ten pounds of coal were taken from each
batch added from the weigh lorry.
The sampling procedure is as follows. At the start of testing one
increment of sample is collected from the weigh lorry. This is repeated for
each batch of coal added during the test (three to five hours duration) so
that a 7 to 12 increment sample is obtained. The total sample is then riffled
using a Gilson Model SP-2 Porta Splitter until two representative twenty-point
samples are obtained.
The sample to be used for sieve analysis is air dried overnight.
Drying of the coal is necessary for good separation of fines. If the coal is
wet, fines cling to the larger pieces of coal and to each other. Once dry,
the coal is sized using a six tray Gilson Model PS-3 Porta Screen. Screen
KVB 4-15900-545
27
-------
PRESSURE TAP
FOR 0-20"
MAGNAHELIX
CYCLONE
STAGE 1
STAGE 2
STAGE 3
EXHAUST
STAGE 4
STAGE 5
FINAL FILTER
DRY GAS
METER
FLOW CONTROL
VALVE
I ELECTRICALLY HEATED PROBE
DRYING
COLUMN
Figure 4-6. Brink Cascade Impactor Sampling Train Schematic
KVB 4-15900-545
28
-------
sizes used are 1", 1/2", 1/4", #8 and #16 mesh. Screen area per tray is
14"xl4". The coal in each tray is weighed on a triple beam balance to the
nearest 0.1 gram.
The coal sample for chemical analysis is reduced to 2-3 pounds by
further riffling and sealed in a plastic bag. All coal samples are sent to
Commercial Testing and Engineering Company, South Holland, Illinois. Each
sample associated with a particulate loading or particle sizing test is given
a proximate analysis. In addition, composite samples consisting of one incre-
ment of coal for each test for each coal type receive ultimate analysis, ash
fusion temperature, mineral analysis, Hardgrove grindability and free swelling
index measurements.
4.6 ASH COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FOR COMBUSTIBLES
The combustible consent of flyash is determined in the field by KVB
in accordance with ASTM D3173, "Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and
Coke" and ASTM D3174, "Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke."
The flyash sample is collected by the EPA Method 5 particulate sample
train while sampling for particulates. The cyclone catch is placed in a desic-
cated and tare-weighed ceramic crucible. The crucible with sample is heated
in an oven at 230°F to remove its moisture. It is then desiccated to room
temperature and weighed. The crucible with sample is then placed in an
electric muffle furnace maintained at a temperature of 1400°F until ignition
is complete and the sample has reached a constant weight. It is cooled in a
desiccator over desiccant and weighed. Combustible content is calculated as
the percent weight loss of the sample based on its post 230°F weight.
At Test Site J the bottom ash samples were collected in several in-
crements from the ash pit after testing. These samples were mixed, quartered,
and sent to Commercial Testing and Engineering Company for combustible deter-
mination. Multiclone ash samples were taken from ports near the base of the
multiclone hopper. The sample, approximately two quarts in size, was sent to
Commercial Testing and Engineering Company for combustible determination.
KVB 4-15900-545
29
-------
4.7 BOILER EFFICIENCY EVALUATION
Boiler efficiency is calculated using the ASME Test Form for Abbre-
viated Efficiency Test, Revised, September, 1965. The general approach to
efficiency evaluation is based on the assessment of combustion losses. These
losses can be grouped into three major categories: stack gas losses, com-
bustible losses, and radiation losses. The first two groups of losses are
measured directly. The third is estimated from the ABMA Standard Radiation
Loss Chart.
Unlike the ASME test in which combustible losses are lumped into
one category, combustible losses are calculated and reported separately for
combustibles in the bottom ash, combustibles in the mechanically collected ash
and combustibles in the flyash leaving the boiler.
4.8 TRACE SPECIES MEASUREMENT
The EPA (IERL-RTP) has developed the Source Assessment Sampling
System (SASS) train for the collection of particulate and volatile matter in
addition to gaseous samples (Figure 4-7). The "catch" from the SASS train
is analyzed for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and inorganic trace
elements.
In this system, a stainless steel heated probe is connected to an
oven module containing three cyclones and a filter, size fractionation is
accomplished in the series cyclone portion of the SASS train, which incor-
porates the cyclones in series to provide large quantities of particulate
matter which are classified by size into three ranges:
A) >10 ym B) 3 ym to 10 ym C) 1 ym to 3 ym
Together with a filter, a fourth cut (<1 ym) is obtained. Volatile organic
material is collected in an XAD-2 sorbent trap. The XAD-2 trap is an integral
part of the gas treatment system which follows the oven containing the cyclone
system. The gas treatment system is composed of four primary components:
the gas conditioner, the XAD-2 organic sorbent trap, the aqueous condensate
collector, and a temperature controller. The XAD-2 sorbent is a porous poly-
KVB 4-15900-545
30
-------
Convection
ov^n
Miter
Gat cooler
Dry te*l nwter
Figure 4-7. Source Assessment Sampling (SASS) Flow Diagram
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
mer resin with the capability of absorbing a broad range of organic species
Some trapping of volatile inorganic species is also anticipated as a result
of simple impaction. Volatile inorganic elements are collected in a series
of impingers. The pumping capacity is supplied by two 10 cfm high volume
vacuum pumps, while required pressure, temperature, power and flow conditions
are obtained from a main controller.
KVB 4-15900-545
32
-------
5.0 TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
This section presents the results of tests performed on Boiler J.
Observations are made regarding the influence of the control parameters on
stack emissions and on boiler efficiency. The control parameters examined
include overfire air (OFA), excess air expressed in terms of excess oxygen,
boiler load expressed in terras of grate heat release, and coal properties.
Sixteen tests were conducted over a one-month period to develop this
data. Startup problems on the boiler and time constraints on the test crew
prevented some of the desired data from being obtained. In addition, the
carbon monoxide analyzer used by the test crew was out of service during
these tests. Those tests successfully completed are outlined in Tables 2-1
and 2-2 of the Executive Summary. Discussion of the data follows.
5.1 OVERFIRE AIR
The overfire air GOFA) system on Boiler J consisted of a single row
of jets on the front water wall three feet 10 inches above the grate. Air
flow to these jets can be manually controlled by the operators who normally
maintained low OFA pressures. The operators feel that low overfire air gives
them better efficiency and less clinkering on the grate.
During the testing of this unit, tests were run at several different
overfire air pressures. However, because of the previously mentioned startup
problems and time constraints, several key tests were not completed. This makes
the task of sorting out trends due to overfire air a difficult one at this site.
Nevertheless, some trends are evident as described in the following discussions.
5.1.1 Particulate Loading vs Overfire Air
Particulate loading increased whenever overfire air increased, at con-
stant load. This trend was true at both the boiler outlet and after the
mechanical dust collector as shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2.
KVB 4-15900-545
33
-------
o
o
LD
00 o
z °
o <=>
^ csi
-v. O
CD O
_i in
8
ID
O
£ o
o
GO
0 2.00 4.00
OVERFIRE RIR
£ : uou LOUD + : MED LORD
FIG. 5-1
BOILER OUT PflRT.
TEST SITE J
6.00 8.00
INCHES WRTER
X '
I HIGH LORD
10.00
VS. OVERFIRE RIR
34
4-15900-545
-------
DO
O
O
O
LO
CsJ
O
O
O
(\J
QQ O
_J O
in
DC
cc
Q_
UJ
^
O
O _
O
O
LO
O
0
T
T
2.00
OVERFIRE
: LOW LORD
4.00
6.00 8.00
INCHES WRTER
—,
10.00
: HED LORD X : "ED-HIGH
; HIGH LORD
FIG. 5-2
MULTICLONE OUT PRRT. VS. OVERFIRE flIR
TEST SITE J
4-15900-545
35
-------
However, it is important to note that in each case the coal fines
were higher whenever overfire air was higher. This coincidence raises
the very real possibility that coal fines were at least partly responsible for
the observed change in particulate loading. In each of the other ten stokers
studied under this program, increasing overfire air pressure had the effect
of either reducing or having no effect on the particulate loading.
The test data are presented along with three key variables in Table
5-1. It is noted here that coal is also a variable. Because the variables
coal and coal fines were not controlled, the relationship between particulate
loading and overfire air at this site is undefined.
TABLE 5-1
PARTICULATE LOADING VS OVERFIRE AIR
VARIABLES
PARTICULATE LOADING
100% Load
Low OFA
High OFA
High OFA
75% Load
Low OFA
High OFA
50% Load
Low OFA
High OFA
OFA
"H30
4.0
7.7
7.8
2.5
3.5
0.8
2.3
Coal
Designation
Kentucky
Ohio
Ohio
Kentucky
Ohio
Ohio
Kentucky
% Coal
Fines
5
11
37
11
18
11
18
Boiler Out
lb/106Btu
0.699
0.984
1.442
0.574
0.779
0.369
0.617
Multiclone Out Ttest
lb/106Btu N*
0.182
0.224
0.228
0.114
0.188
0.115
0.185
6
14
5
8
2
1
9
5.1.2 Nitric Oxide vs Overfire Air
There is a general trend for nitric oxide to increase as overfire
air increases on this unit. As with the particulate data, this statement must
be qualified by noting that other variables are involved which could have in-
fluenced the data.
KVB 4-15900-545
36
-------
Data from four selected tests are presented in Table 5-2. These
four tests were conducted under similar conditions of boiler load and excess
oxygen, the two variables known to affect nitric oxide formation. The trend
in nitric oxide concentration is apparent.
TABLE 5-2
OFA
"H20
1.0
4.0
5.8
7.8
TEST
Load
%
103
99
94
103
NITRIC OXIDE VS OVERFI]
CONDITIONS
02
%
7.9
8.1
7.9
7.9
Coal
Ohio
Ky
Ky
Ohio
% Coal
Fines
18
5
5
37
NO as N02 Test
lb/106Btu No.
0.282 13
0.337 6
0.322 15
0.393 5
5.1.3 Boiler Efficiency vs Overfire Air
Boiler efficiency was observed to decrease by an average two percent
when overfire air was increased. This decrease in efficiency was the combined
result of increased dry gas losses and increased combustible losses. The ob-
served change in efficiency may not be due solely to overfire air changes.
Other variables not under our control could have been involved.
The average heat loss data for the full load Ohio coal tests is pre-
sented as a function of overfire air in Table 5-3.
TABLE 5-3
BOILER EFFICIENCY VS OVERFIRE AIR
HEAT LOSSES, %
Dry Flyash Bottom Ash % BOILER
Gas Combustibles Combustibles Other EFFICIENCY
Low OFA
(Tests 7, 13) 8.96 0.11 1.70 6.54 82.69
High OFA
(Tests 5, 14, 16) 9.85 0.41 2.56 6.54 80.64
37 KVB 4-15900-545
-------
5.1.4 Overfire Air Flow Rate
The rate at which air is injected into the furnace above the grate
was measured by traversing the overfire air supply duct with a standard pitot
tube. This measurement was repeated at three overfire air flow rates
corresponding to static pressures of 0.5, 2.5 and 8.5 "H20. The test data
are presented in Table 5-4. The percentage of combustion air supplied by
the overfire air jets is based on a calculated 120,000 Ib/hr combustion air
requirement at full load and 8% 02-
TABLE 5-4
OVERFIRE AIR FLOW RATE
Overfire Air Air Flow Rate % Combustion Air Supplied by
Pressure, "H?O Ib/hr OFA @ 8% O2 and 100% Capacity
0.5 3,535 3%
2.5 7,021 6%
8.5 11,931 10%
Figure 5-3 relates the measured overfire air flow rates to static
pressure in the overfire air duct. Bernoulli's equation for fluid flow through
an orifice predicts a linear relationship between flow rate and the square
root of the pressure drop. It is for this reason that the overfire air data
is plotted against the square root of the static pressure. It is seen that
the measured relationship is nearly linear.
5.2 EXCESS OXYGEN AND GRATE HEAT RELEASE
The boiler at Test Site J was tested for emissions and boiler efficienc
at loads ranging from 50 to 100% of design capacity. Oxygen levels ranged from
7.5% to 12.2% in these tests. This section profiles the various emissions and
the boiler efficiencies as a function of the variables oxygen and boiler load
KVB 4-15900-545
38
-------
. 1 .. . I..
I I
3 6 9 12
OVERFIRE AIR FLOW RATE, 103LB/HR
Figure 5-3. Relationship Between Overfire Air Flow Rate and
Static Pressure Within the Overfire Air Duct -
Test Site J.
KVB 4-15900-545
39
-------
Boiler steam loading is expressed in terms of grate heat release
so as to provide a common basis of comparison between units of different
sizes and designs. On Boiler J, 100% capacity corresponds to 350,000 Btu/
-^
hr-ft grate heat release.
5.2.1 Excess Oxygen Operating Levels
Figure 5-4 depicts the various conditions of grate heat release and
excess oxygen under which tests were conducted on Boiler J. Solid symbols
are used to distinguish tests which included particulate mass loadings from
those which did not.
At the design capacity of 70,000 Ib steam/hour, the unit was operated
in the range 7.5% to 9.1% excess oxygen (52% to 71% excess air). As the load
dropped, the excess air requirement increased. At 75% of capacity 9.0-10.6%
O2 (70-95% excess air) was used, and at 50% of capacity 10.2-12.2% O2
(84-129% excess air) was used.
These levels do not necessarily represent minimum or optimum conditions
because a low air limit was not established. They represent the normal as-
found operating conditions for this unit.
5.2.2 Particulate Loading vs Grate Heat Release
Particulate loadings were measured simultaneously at the boiler out-
let and after the dust collector by EPA Test Method 5. The geometry of the
boiler outlet duct on Boiler J was such that velocity readings in the lower
two thirds of the duct were either null or negative in direction. As a result,
only the upper third of the duct could be sampled for particulates. For this
reason, the boiler outlet, or uncontrolled, particulate data should be con-
sidered suspect. The data presented may be considered an accurate measure
of the particulate concentration in the upper third of the duct only. The dust
collector outlet, or controlled, particulate data does not have this restriction
and may be considered fully reliable.
The boiler outlet, or uncontrolled, particulate data is
presented in Figure 5-5 as a function of grate heat release. Although suspect,
the data is in the expected range for a mass fired traveling grate stoker. At
KVB 4-15900-545
40
-------
o
o
(\J
g
o o
CD
_
CC O
LU O
Q_
CO
o
o
CD
UJ
o
£ ^"
X
o
0
,
THIS PLOT SHOWS THE RANGE IN OXYGEN LEVEL UNDER WHICH TESTS
WERE CONDUCTED. SOLID SYMBOLS REPRESENT PARTICULATE LOADING
TESTS. SHADED AREA EMPHASIZES THE TREND WITH LOAD.
100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
GRRTE HERT RELERSE 1000 BTU/HR-SQ FT
: OHIO com.
: KY. com.
FIG. 5-4
OXYGEN
TEST SITE J
VS. GRRTE HERT RELERSE
41
4-15900-545
-------
o
o
LO
Csj
o
o 0 -
\ o
QD O
_l LO
o
o
LO _
O
DQ
~r~ ~T~ T~ ~~r~ nr
100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
GRRTE HERT RELERSE 1000 BTU/HR-SQ FT
D
: OHIO COM.
'• KV-
FIG. 5-5
BOILER OUT PflRT
TEST SITE J
VS. GRRTE HERT RELERSE
•»-! 5900-545
-------
full load, the particulate loading ranges from a low of 0.70 lb/106Btu to a
high of 1.44 lb/106Btu. This loading drops off at lower loads.
Figure 5-6 presents the dust collector outlet particulate loading
as measured at the stack. This data, assumed to be entirely accurate, also
shows an increase in particulate loading with increasing load. At full load,
the particulate loading ranges from 0.182 to 0.228 lb/106Btu, and drops to
as low as 0.114 lb/106Btu at lower loads.
Ash carryover was determined for several tests by comparing the ash
content of the uncontrolled flyash with the ash content of the coal. The
average ash carryover for this unit was 10%. The data is presented in Table
5-5.
TABLE 5-5
ASH CARRYOVER
FIRING CONDITIONS
Test
No.
5
7
2
1
6
8
9
Load
%
103
85
74
48
99
73
50
°2
%
7.9
8.7
10.6
10.2
8.1
9.0
12.2
OFA
"H?0
7.8
4.3
3.5
0.8
4.0
2.5
2.3
Coal
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ky
Ky
Ky
Ash in Coal
lb/106Btu
8.13
5. 32
5.27
4.65
2.99
3.79
9.40
Ash in Flyash
lb/106Btu
1.100
0.348
0.585
0.270
0.512
0.367
0.431
% Ash
Carryover
13.5
6.5
11.1
5.8
17.1
9.7
4.6
Average 9.8%
5.2.3 Nitric Oxide vs Grate Heat Release and Oxygen
A total of thirteen nitric oxide data points ^ere obtained under
various operating conditions. This data is plotted as a function of grate heat
release in Figure 5-7, and as a function of oxygen in Figure 5-8.
The data forms the expected trends with oxygen and load even though it
is somewhat diffuse due to the many uncontrolled variables during testing. The
KVB 4-15900-545
43
-------
CD
o
o
ID
(\J
O
°
CD O
_l O
LT)
CC
CC
Q_
o ~
uj •
o
H o
0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
GRflTE HEflT RELEflSE 1000 BTU/HR-SQ FT
OHIO cm.
' KY-
FIG. 5-6
MULTICLONE OUT PRRT,
TEST SITE J
VS. GRflTE HEflT RELEflSE
4-15900-545
44
-------
CD
o
o
o
LO
o
o
o bi-
^ o
DO O
_J O
CO
o
o
UJ CXI
Q
I—I
X
o
si
0
A
\
AVERAGE NO =
0.362 LB/106BTU
A
NITRIC OXIDE IS EXPRESSED AS POUNDS
WITH ACCEPTED PRACTICE
TO BE CONSISTENT
100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
GRflTE HEflT RELERSE 1000 BTU/HR-SQ FT
0 : OHIO COOL
FIG. 5-7
NITRIC OXIDE
TEST SITE J
: KY-
VS. GRflTE HEflT RELEflSE
4-15900-545
45
-------
o
o
o
Ul
o
•z. o
s?
\ o
CD O
_J O
CD
O
O
X
o
0 o
I— I y
cc °
100% LOAD
50% LOAD
75% LOAD
T
T
0
4.00
OXYGEN
6.00
8.00 10.00 12.00
PERCENT, DRY
A : LOW LOB + : HED LOC
FIG. 5-8
NITRIC OXIDE
TEST SITE J
X :
; HIGH LORD
VS. OXYGEN
4-15900-5-45
46
-------
nitric oxide concentration increases with increasing oxygen with a slope of
approximately 0.096 Ib NO/106Btu/% O2 as determined by linear regression
analysis of the eight full load tests. At constant 02, nitric oxide con-
centration increases with increasing load. The average nitric oxide con-
centration on this unit was 0.362 1.052 lb/10 Btu expressed as NO2-
5.2.4 Combustibles in the Ash vs Grate Heat Release
The combustible fraction of the boiler outlet flyash and bottom ash
was determined for several ash samples corresponding to the particulate and
SASS tests. The test data are plotted as a function of grate heat release in
Figures 5-9 and 5-10. See discussion of combustibles vs size in Appendix E.
The average combustible content of the boiler outlet flyash samples
was 27.6%. This combustible level was relatively constant with load, but
appeared to be slightly higher for the Kentucky coal than for the Ohio coal,
i.e., 31% vs 25%, respectively.
The average combustible content of the bottom ash samples was 20.6%.
Here, the combustible level appears to increase somewhat with load as shown
in Figure 5-10. Both coals had similar combustible levels.
5.2.5 Boiler Efficiency vs Grate Heat Release
Boiler efficiency was determined by the heat loss method for eleven
of the tests. The boiler efficiency data are plotted as a function of grate
heat release in Figure 5-11.
The drop in efficiency due to overfire air increases is very notice-
able in this figure. The high overfire air test data, indicated by solid
symbols, averaged two percent lower than the low overfire test data. This
relationship was mentioned previously in Section 5.1.3, Boiler Efficiency vs
Overfire Air.
Boiler efficiency averages 81.6% overall, with four low overfire air
tests indicating efficiencies in the range 82.6% to 83.5%. Boiler efficiency
decreases with load, as shown in Table 5-6. This decrease is primarily due to
the increased dry gas loss.
KVB 4-15900-545
47
-------
o
•
o
o
o
CO
UJ
LJ
cc o
LU
Q_ O
CD
go o
£— .
s?
o
0=
o
CD
T
T
T
0
100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
GRflTE HEflT RELEflSE 1000 BTU/HR-SQ ET
COBL
; KY. co«_
FIG. 5-9
BOILER OUT COMB.
TEST SITE J
VS. GRflTE HEflT RELEflSE
4-15900-545
43
-------
o _
o
o
CD
UJ
O
CC O
LU
Q- O
CD
CD
2—
o
en
(X
o
c\j
o
CD
0
A
o
100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
GRRTE HEflT RELERSE 1000 BTU/HR-SQ FT
: OHIO com
: KY. CORL
FIG. 5-10
BOTTOM RSH COMB.
TEST SITE J
VS. GRRTE HERT RELERSE
49
4-15900-545
-------
o
o
LO
OO
O
O
•
O
LU
O
cc o
LU O
Q_
§
UJ
01 8
UU CD
d LO
O tD
CD
SOLID SYMBOLS REPRESENT HIGH OVERFIRE AIR TESTS
-r -r ~r T HT
100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0
GRflTE HERT RELERSE 1000 BTU/HR-SQ FT
0
: OHIO COM.
- caft-
FIG. 5-11
BOILER EFFICIENCY
TEST SITE J
VS. GRRTE HERT RELERSE
50
4-15900-545
-------
TABLE 5-6
BOILER EFFICIENCY VS LOAD
100%
75%
50%
Load
Load
Load
Dry Gas
9.37
9.88
11.37
AVERAGE HEAT
Combustible
2.26
1.98
1.49
LOSSES, %
Radiation
0.57
0.73
1.09
Other
5.84
5.65
5.82
BOILER
EFFICIENCY , %
81.96
81.76
80.23
5.3 COAL PROPERTIES
Two coals were tested in Boiler J. These coals are identified in
this report as Ohio coal and Kentucky coal. This section discusses the
chemical and physical properties of these two coals, and discusses their ob-
served influence on boiler emissions and efficiency.
5.3.1 Chemical Composition of the Coals
Representative coal samples were obtained during each particulate and
SASS test. From each sample, a proximate analysis was obtained. Composite
coal samples, containing portions of each individual sample, were also collected
for each coal. The composite samples were given complete coal analysis in-
cluding proximate, ultimate, ash fusion and minerals in the ash.
The moisture, ash and sulfur content of the two coals are compared on
a heating value basis in Table 5-7. Such a comparison is often more meaningful
than percentage by weight. This table shows the Kentucky coal to be the better
coal in terms of its lower moisture, ash and sulfur, and its higher heating
value.
The coal analysis for each individual sample are tabulated in Tables
5-8, 5-9, and 5-10.
KVB. 4-15900-545
51
-------
TABLE 5-8
FUEL ANALYSIS - OHIO COAL
TEST SITE J
en
NJ
TEST NO.
PROXIMATE (As Rec)
% Moisture
% Ash
% volatile
% Fixed Carbon
Btu/lb
% Sulfur
ULTIMATE (As Rec)
% Moisture
% Carbon
% Hydrogen
% Nitrogen
% Chlorine
% Sulfur
% Ash
% Oxygen (diff)
ASH FUSION (Red)
Initial Deformation
Soft (H=W)
Soft (H=1/2W)
Fluid
HARDGROVE GRINDABILITY
FREE SWELLING INDEX
% EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE
01
2.89
6.31
37.43
53.37
13572
1.06
02
3.12
7.06
37.62
52.20
13405
1.52
05
4.44
10.22
37.19
48.15
12570
2.18
07
2.93
7.11
38.89
51.07
13373
1.68
13
4.85
8.23
36.71
50.21
12810
1.64
14
3.18
8.23
38.91
49.68
13101
1.82
16
3.73
7.77
38.06
50.44
12990
2.02
COMP AVG
3.05 3.59
7.05 7.85
37.93 37.83
51.97 50.73
13368 13117
1.75 1.70
3.05
74.74
5.13
1.66
0.19
1.75
7.05
6.43
2100°F
2250°F
2400°F
2535°F
53
4
2.94
STD
DEV
0.78
1.26
0.84
1.70
357
0.36
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
TABLE 5-9
FUEL ANALYSIS - KENTUCKY COAL
TEST SITE J
Ul
TEST NO.
PROXIMATE (As Rec)
% Moisture
% Ash
% Volatile
% Fixed Carbon
Btu/Lb
% Sulfur
ULTIMATE (As Rec)
% Moisture
% Carbon
% Hydrogen
% Nitrogen
% Chlorine
% Sulfur
% Oxygen (diff)
% Ash
ASH FUSION (Red)
Initial Deformation
Soft (H=W)
Soft (H=1/2W)
Fluid
% EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE
HARDGROVE GRINDABILITY
FREE SWELLING INDEX
06 08 09 15
2.02 1.94 2.91 2.09
4.18 5.31 11.76 5.02
40.58 40.35 35.85 39.58
53.22 52.40 49.48 53.31
13966 13995 12511 13954
1.30 1.40 2.57 1.03
COMP AVG
1.96 2.24
6.14 6.57
39.08 39.09
52.82 52.10
13624 13607
1.43 1.58
1.96
76.77
5.09
1.23
0.13
1.43
7.25
6.14
2205°F
2335°F
2465°F
2580°F
2.07
49
6
STD
DEV
0.45
3.49
2.20
1.80
731
0.68
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
TABLE 5-10
MINERAL ANALYSIS OF COAL ASH
TEST SITE J
Coal
Test No.
Silica
Alumina
Titania
Ferric Oxide
Lime
Magnesia
Potassium Oxide
Sodium Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Phos. Pentoxide
Undetermined
Silica Value
Base: Acid Ratio
T250 Temperature
% Pyritic Sulfur
% Sulfate Sulfur
% Organic Sulfur
Ohio
16
1.39
0.10
0.53
Ohio
Comp
42.48
26.60
1.29
22.09
2.11
83
91
0.35
1.43
0.40
0.38
62.92
0.39
2425°F
0.97
0.05
0.73
Ky
15
0.26
0.02
0.75
Ky
Comp
44.08
26.46
1.51
17.80
2.28
0.78
1.78
0.80
1.
0,
85
31
1.89
67.88
0.33
2515°F
0.68
0.02
0.73
KVB 4-15900-545
54
-------
TABLE 5-7
COAL PROPERTIES CORRECTED TO A CONSTANT 106 BTU BASIS
Ohio Coal Kentucky Coal
Moisture, Ib/lO^Btu 2.7 1.6
Ash, lb/106Btu 6.0 4.8
Sulfur, lb/106Btu 1.3 1.2
Heating Value, Btu/lb 13,117 13,607
5.3.2 Coal Size Consistency
Coal size consistency was determined for each coal sample obtained
at Site J. The individual coal samples were screened at the site using 1",
1/2", 1/4", #8 and #16 square mesh screens. The results of these screenings
are presented in Table 5-11. It is noted that the Kentucky coal, which was
considered the better coal in terms of moisture, ash, sulfur and heating value,
averaged slightly lower fines than the Ohio coal.
The coal size consistency measurements are presented on a statistical
basis in Figures 5-12 and 5-13. Here, the standard deviation of the coal size
consistency measurements are compared with the ABMA recommended limits for
overfeed stokers. Both coals are sized on the low fines side of the ABMA recom-
mended limits for overfeed stokers. This sizing is considered acceptable and
should have no undesirable effects on the emissions.
5.3.3 Effect of Coal Properties on Emissions and Efficiency
The following discussion examines how emissions changed, or did not
change, when coal was the variable. Frequent references are made to Figures
in Section 5.2, Excess Oxygen and Grate Heat Release, which illustrate the
relationships.
Excess Oxygen Operating Conditions. Figure 5-4 shows that several
tests with each coal were run under similar oxygen load conditions and may be
used for comparitive purposes. These include Tests 6 and 15 for Kentucky coal
and Tests 3, 5 and 13 for Ohio coal. Also, Ohio coal Test 7 and Kentucky coal
Test 8 are similar enough for comparative purposes.
55 KVB 4-15900-545
-------
TABLE 5-11
AS FIRED COAL SIZE CONSISTENCY
Test
No.
1
2
5
7
13
14
16
Comp
Ohio Coal
Average*
PERCENT PASSING STATED
1" 1/2" 1/4"
77.5
83.5
94.2
77.2
89.5
84.4
81.0
84.9
83.9
35.8
45.0
67.3
23.8
42.8
35.2
37.5
43.5
41.1
10.8
17.9
37.0
7.4
18.4
10.9
19.8
19.7
17.5
SCREEN SIZE
#8 #16
5.2
8.3
19.2
3.9
13.2
6.7
11.6
11.6
9.7
4.4
5.8
11.5
3.3
9.9
5.3
8.2
8.6
6.9
6
8
9
15
Comp
Kentucky Coal
Average*
90.6
97.0
94.0
94.0
94.5
20.8
44.6
53.1
23.9
34.3
4.8
10.9
18.0
4.8
10.1
3.3
5.1
9.5
3.3
5.7
2.9
4.2
7.4
3.0
4.5
93.9
35.6
9.6
5.3
4.4
*Data from Composite Samples are not Included in Averages
KVB 4-15900-545
56
-------
50
16 8 1/4 1/2
SIEVE SIZE DESIGNATION
ABMA Recommended Limits of Coal
Sizing for Overfeed Stokers
Standard Deviation Limits of
Ohio Coal Size Consistency
Figure 5-12.
Size Consistency of "As Fired" Ohio Coal vs ABMA
Recommended Limits of Coal Sizing for Overfeed
Stokers - Test Site J.
KVB 4-15900-545
57
-------
SIEVE SIZE DESIGNATION
ABMA Recommended Limits of Coal
Sizing for Overfeed Stokers
Standard Deviation Limits of
Kentucky Coal Size Consistency
Figure 5-13.
Size Consistency of "As-Fired" Kentucky Coal vs
ABMA Recommended Limits of Coal Sizing for
Overfeed Stokers - Test Site J.
KVB 4-15900-545
58
-------
Particulate Mass Loading. There is no indication at either the
boiler outlet or at the dust collector outlet that particulate emissions
differed between the two coals. This conclusion is best illustrated in
Figures 5-5 and 5-6 where the data is plotted as a function of grate heat
release and differentiated as to coal.
Ash Carryover. The average ash carryover for burning Kentucky
coal was 10.5% as opposed to 9.2% for Ohio coal. Because of the large
variations in the data, this difference is not significant. In fact,
Kentucky coal ash carryover ranged from 4.6% to 17.1% and Ohio coal ash
carryover ranged from 5.8% to 13.5%.
Nitric Oxide. There is insufficient evidence to state that firing
Kentucky coal resulted in a different level of nitric oxide emissions than
when firing Ohio coal. The emission levels are similar for similar loads
and oxygen levels. The data are presented in Figures 5-7 and 5-8.
Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3)
were measured in the flue gas during one test on each of the two coals. Along
with the measured sulfur concentrations in the coal and bottom ash, a sulfur
balance was attempted. The results, reflecting some inaccuracies in the
data, are presented in Table 5-12. The source of the imbalance is not known.
TABLE 5-12
SULFUR BALANCE
Ohio Coal
(Test 16)
Kentucky Coal
(Test 15)
Sulfur In
Fuel
lb/106Btu
as SO,
Sulfur In
Flue Gas
lb/106Btu
as SO?
Sulfur In
Bottom Ash
lb/!06Btu
as SO?
Sulfur In
Flyash
lb/106Btu
as SO j
3.110
1.476
2.819
1.792
0.038
0.039
0.004
0.004
KVB 4-15900-545
59
-------
Combustibles in the Ash. Combustible concentrations in the bottom ash
were similar for both coals, averaging 20.6% for each. This data is presented
in Figure 5-10. Combustible concentrations in the boiler outlet flyash
averaged 25.0% for Ohio coal and 31.0% for Kentucky coal. This data is pre-
sented in Figure 5-9.
Boiler Efficiency. Boiler efficiency was higher while burning
Kentucky coal by about 0.7%. One of the reasons for this difference was its
lower moisture and hydrogen content. Table 5-13 presents the heat losses and
boiler efficiency of two test sets where coal is the primary variable.
Figure 5-11 presents the boiler efficiency data graphically as a function of
grate heat release with coal type designated.
TABLE 5-13
BOILER EFFICIENCY VS COAL
Ohio Coal (.Test 7)
Kentucky Coal (Test 8)
Ohio Coal (Test 13}
Kentucky Coal (Test 6)
Dry
Gas
8.93
7.98
8.98
9.27
HEAT
Moisture
Related
4.29
3.94
4.65
4.06
LOSS, %
Combus-
tible
1.88
2.46
1.74
1.17
Other
2.13
2.23
2.03
2.05
BOILER
EFFICIENCY
82.77
83.39
82.60
83.45
5.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF FLYASH
Four particle size distribution determinations were made on the flyash
emitted by Boiler J. The conditions under which these tests were conducted,
and the methodology used, are given in Table 5-14. The results of these tests
are summarized in Table 5-15.
The data obtained with a Brink cascade impactor are presented in
Figure 5-14. These measurements were made simultaneously at the boiler outlet
and at the stack after the dust collector and I.D. fan, under full load
conditions while firing Ohio coal.
KVB 4-15900-545
60
-------
TABLE 5-14
DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TESTS
TEST SITE J
Test
No.
13A
13B
15
16
Coal
Ohio
Ohio
Ky
Ohio
Design
Capacity
%
103
103
94
93
22
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.9
OFA
1.0
1.0
5.8
6.8
Sample Particle Size Distribution
Location Methodology Used
Blr. Out
Stack
Stack
Stack
Brink Impactor
Brink Iropactor
SASS Cyclones
SASS Cyclones
TABLE 5-15
RESULTS OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TESTS
TEST SITE J
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SIZE CONCENTRATION
Test
No^
13A
13B
15
16
Sample
Location
Blr. Out
Stack
Stack
Stack
% Below
3 yim
25.0
81.0
68.6
80.9
% Below
10 ym
75.2
80.9
Ib/lO^Btu
Below 3 urn
0.25
0.80
0.48
0.37
Ib/lO^tu
Belew 10 ym
0.53
0.37
KVB 4-15900-545
61
-------
80
[Full'load Ohio Coal Test No. 13 |
Stack | 4.
—*
w 50
- ! -
_^_
20
.
~
Boiler Outlet |
•
0.1
0.3 1 3
EQUIVALENT PARTICLE DIAMETER, MICROMETERS
Figure 5-14.
Particle Size Distribution at the Boiler Outlet
and at the Stack by Brink Cascade Impactor -
Test Site J.
KVB 4-15900-545
62
-------
Figure 5-15 shows the results of two SASS cyclone measurements at
the stack. Both of these tests were at full load, one on Ohio coal and one
on Kentucky coal.
5.5 EFFICIENCY OF MULTICLONE DUST COLLECTOR
The collection efficiency of the multiclone dust collector was
determined in eight tests under varying boiler operating conditions. The
data were obtained by measuring the particulate loading simultaneously at
the inlet and outlet of the dust collector. Test data are presented in
Table 5-16 and plotted as a function of grate heat release in Figure 5-16.
The average measured dust collector efficiency was 74.3%. As
mentioned previously in this report, the boiler outlet (collector inlet)
particulate data is based on measurements in the upper third of the duct
only- Therefore, this data may not be reliable. At the same time, however,
it should be recognized that the boiler outlet particulate loading does fall
in the expected range for overfeed mass fired stokers. Thus, any error is
believed to be small.
5.6 SOURCE ASSESSMENT SAMPLING SYSTEM (SASS)
Two SASS tests were run at Test Site J. These two tests, no's 15 and
16, were conducted at full load and high overfire air on each of the two coals.
The SASS samples have been processed by combined gas chromatography/mass spectros-
copy for polynuclear content, seven specific polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(Table 5-17), and trace elements. All SASS test results will be reported under
separate cover at the conclusion of this test program.
5.7 DATA TABLES
Tables 5-18 through 5-21 summarize the test data obtained at Test
Site J. These tables, in conjunction with Table 2-2 in the Executive Summary,
are included for reference purposes.
KVB 4-15900-545
63
-------
80
50
Full Load Ohio Coal Test 16
Full Load Kentucky Coal Test 15
20
,:.
W
i-
o.i
3 10
EQUIVALENT PARTICLE DIAMETER, MICRCMETERS
Figure 5-15.
Particle Size Distribution at the Stack by
Method of SASS Cyclones - Test Site J.
KVB 4-15900-545
' :
-------
TABLE 5-16
Test
No.
01
02
05
06
07
08
09
14
EFFICIENCY OF MULTICLONE
TEST SITE J
Coal Load Particulate Loading
Type % Collector Inlet
Ohio 48.2 0.369
Ohio 73.8 0.779
Ohio 102.6 1.442
Ky 98.6 0.699
Ohio 84.9 0.462
Ky 73.1 0.574
Ky 49.6 0.617
Ohio 97.1 0.984
DUST COLLECTOR
li>/106Btu
Collector Outlet
0.115
0.188
0.228
0.182
0.167
0.114
0.185
0.224
Collector
Efficiency , %
68.8
75.9
84.2
74.0
63.9
80.1
70.0
77.2
AVERAGE 74.3
TABLE 5-17
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS
ANALYZED IN THE SITE J SASS SAMPLE
Element Name
7,12 Dimethylbenz (a) anthracene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Benzo (c) phenanthrene
3-methyl cholanthrene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,h) pyrene
Dibenzo (a,i) pyrene
Dibenzo (c,g) carbazole
Molecular
Weight
256
278
228
268
252
302
302
267
Molecular
Formula
C20H16
C22H14
C18H12
C21H16
C20H12
C24H14
C24H14
C2QH13N
KVB 4-15900-545
65
-------
o
•
o
o
o
GO
LU
C_J
CC O
LU
D_ O
CD
• o
O
o
-------
TABLE 5-18
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS
TEST SITE J
Test
No.
H
JH
o
rt
3
s
D3
«
8
W EH
J W
J J
OK
t^
0 D
co
D
Q
01
02
05
06
07
08
09
14
01
02
05
06
07
08
09
14
Coal
Type
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ky
Ohio
Ky
Ky
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ky
Ohio
Ky
Ky
Ohio
Load
48.2
73.8
102.6
98.6
84.9
73.1
49.6
97.1
48.2
73.8
102.6
98.6
84.9
73.1
49.6
97.1
°2
10.2
10.6
7.9
8.1
8.7
9.0
12.2
8.8
9.7
10.8
8.3
8.7
9.2
9.2
11.5
9.0
EMISSIONS
lb/106Btu
0.369
0.779
1.442
0.699
0.462
0.574
0.617
0.984
0.115
0.188
0.228
0.182
0.167
0.114
0.185
0.224
gr/SCF
0.137
0.276
0.602
0.314
0.193
0.240
0.168
0.399
0.045
0.065
0.092
0.078
0.067
0.047
0.054
0.089
Ib/hr
15.0
44.1
115.6
48.2
29.7
33.2
22.0
75.7
4.68
10.6
18.3
12.6
10.7
6.60
6.60
17.2
Velocity
ft/sec
33.96
53.47
62.67
59.08
51.34
40.87
37.78
58.64
20.23
30.62
33.68
31.69
28.85
21.42
19.41
31.73
TABLE 5-19
PERCENT COMBUSTIBLES IN REFUSE
TEST SITE J
0
u
o
H
0
j
O
u
Test
No.
01
02
05
07
13
14
16
AVG
06
08
09
15
AVG
Boiler Multiclone
Outlet Collector Hopper
26.7 29.86
24.9 12.09
23.7
24.7
—
_ _
25.0
26.8
36.0
30.1
31.0
Bottom
Ash
20.17
15.47
19.57
18.58
30.93
18.97
20.62
20.26
30.75
7.23
24.09
20.58
67
KVB 4-15900-545
-------
TABLE 5-20
HEAT LOSSES AND EFFICIENCIES
TEST SITE J
i
to
13
01
02
05
06
07
08
09
13
14
15
16
w
3
w
3
^4
a
11.26
11.77
9.54
9.27
8.93
7.98
11.48
8.98
9.36
8.84
10.66
S3
H
EH
to >J
H W
0.25
0.28
0.40
0.17
0.26
0.16
0.27
0.44
0.29
0.18
0.28
1 C^
U fa
ll
O 1/3
M PQ
3.93
4.09
4.11
3.89
4.03
3.78
4.21
4.21
4.15
3.85
4.20
BUSTIBLES
FLYASH
s
O S3
a H
0.14
0.28
0.49
0.27
0.16
0.29
0.26
0.06
0.35
0.30
0.40
2
H
BUSTIBLES
TOM ASH
S EH
O O
O «
1.58
1.22
2.42
0.90
1.72
2.17
1.00
1.68
3.54
1.78
1.72
S
(0
H
E-i
AL COMB US
REFUSE
£H
EH H
1.72
1.50
2.91
1.17
1.88
2.46
1.26
1.74
3.89
2.08
2.12
IATION
M BOILER
a o
< «
OH fTl
1.10
0.73
0.53
0.55
0.63
0.73
1.07
0.53
0.56
0.57
0.58
EASURED
S
g
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
'AL LOSSES
EH
O
EH
19.76
19.87
18.99
16.55
17.23
16.61
19.79
17.40
19.75
17.02
19.34
U
w
H
u
H
w
M
O
PQ
80.24
80.13
81.01
83.45
82.77
83.39
80.21
82.60
80.25
82.98
80.66
KVB 4-15900-545
68
-------
TABLE 5-21
STEAM FLOWS AND HEAT RELEASE RATES
TEST SITE J
Test
No.
1
2
3*
4*
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
Capacity
48
74
100
100
103
99
85
73
50
103
97
94
93
Steam Flow
Ib/hr
33,766
51,652
70,000
70,000
71,822
69,016
59,463
51,200
34,699
71,719
68,000
65,760
64,808
Heat Input
40.7
56.6
76.7
76.7
80.2
69.0
64.2
57.9
35.7
69.4
77.0
71.8
67.5
Heat Output***
lO^tu/hr
40.3
61.7
80.0
80.0
85.7
82.5
71.1
61.1
41.4
87.7
81.2
78.6
77.3
Front Foot
Heat Release
106Btu/hr-ft
2.91
4.04
5.48
5.48
5.73
4.93
4.59
4.14
2.55
' 4.96
5.50
5.13
4.82
Grate Furnace
Heat Release Heat Release
IQ^tu/hr-ft2 IQ^tu/hr-ft3
191
266
360,
360
377
324
301
273
168
326
362
337
317
10.2
14.1
19.1
19.1
20.0
17.2
16.0
14.5
8.9
17.3
19.2
17.9
16.9
* Tests 3 and 4, steam flows and heat release rates are estimated
** Heat input data based on coal weigh lorry readings and coal heating value
*** Heat Output data from steam tables
KVB 4-15900-545
69
-------
APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A English and Metric Units to SI Units .... 72
APPENDIX B SI units to English and Metric Units .... 73
APPENDIX C SI Prefixes 74
APPENDIX D Emissions Units Conversion Factors 75
APPENDIX E Flyash Combustible Content vs Particle Size 76
71
-------
APPENDIX A
CONVERSION FACTORS
ENGLISH AND METRIC UNITS TO SI UNITS
To Convert From
in
in2
ft
ft2
ft3
To
cm
cm2
m
m2
m3
Multiply By
2.540
6.452
0.3048
0.09290
0.02832
Ib
IbAr
lb/106BTU
g/Mcal
BTU
BTU/lb
BTUAr
J/sec
JAr
BTU/ftAr
BTU/ftAr
BTU/ft2Ar
BTU/ft2Ar
BTU/ft3Ar
BTU/ft3Ar
psia
"H20
Rankine
Fahrenheit
Celsius
Rankine
FOR TYPICAL COAL FUEL
ppm @ 3% 02 (SO2)
ppm @ 3% O2 (803)
ppm @ 3% 02
(NO)*
(N02)
(CO)
Kg
Mg/s
ng/J
ng/J
J
JAg
w
w
w
W/m
J/hr/m
W/m2
JAr/m2
W/m3
JAr/m3
Pa
Pa
Celsius
Celsius
Kelvin
Kelvin
ng/J (lb/106Btu)
ng/J (lb/106Btu)
ng/J (lb/106Btu)
(lb/106Btu)
(Ib/lO^tu)
ng/J
ng/J
0.4536
0.1260
430
239
1054
2324
0.2929
1.000
3600
0.9609
3459
3.152
11349
10.34
37234
6895
249.1
C
C
K
K
5/9R-273
5/9(F-32)
C+273
5/9R
0.851 (1.98xlO~3)
1.063
0.399
0.611
0.372
(2.47xlO-3)
(9.28xlO~4)
(1.42xlO-3)
(8.65xlO~4)
ng/J (lb/l06Btu) 0.213 (4.95xlO~4)
ppm @ 3% 02
ppm @ 3% 02
ppm @ 3% 02 (CH4)
g/kg of fuel**
*Federal environmental regulations express NOx in terms of N02;
thus NO units should be converted using the NO2 conversion factor.
**Based on higher heating value of 10,000 Btu/lb. For a heating value
other than 10,000 Btu/lb, multiply the conversion factor by
10,000/ (Btu/lb) .
KVB 4-15900-545
72
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVERSION FACTORS
SI UNITS TO ENGLISH AND METRIC UNITS
To Convert From
To
Multiply By
cm
cm''
m
in
in2
ft
ft
0.3937
0.1550
3.281
10.764
35.315
Kg
Mg/s
ng/J
ng/J
J
JAg
J/hr/m
J/hr/m2
J/hr/m3
W
w
W/m
W/m2 '
W/m3
Pa
Pa
Kelvin
Celsius
Fahrenheit
Kelvin
Ib
Ib/hr
Ib/lO^TU
g/Mcal
BTU
BTU/lb
BTU/ft/hr
BTU/ft2/hr
BTU/ft3/hr
BTU/hr
J/hr
BTU/ft/hr
BTU/ft2/hr
BTU/ft3/hr
psia
"H20
Fahrenheit
Fahrenheit
Rankine
Rankine
2.205
7.937
0.00233
0.. 0041 8
0.000948
0.000430
0.000289
0.0000881
0.0000269
3.414
0.000278
1.041
0.317
0.0967
0.000145
0.004014
F
F
R
R
1.8K-460
1.8C+32
F+460
1.8K
FOR TYPICAL COAL FUEL
ng/J
ng/J
ng/J
ng/J
ng/J
ng/J
ng/J
ppm @ 3% O2 (SO2)
ppm @ 3% 02 (SO3)
ppm @ 3% O2 (NO)
ppm @ 3% O2 (NO2)
ppm @ 3% 02 (CO)
ppm @ 3% O2 (CH4)
g/kg of fuel
1.18
0.941
2.51
1.64
2.69
4.69
0.000233
KVB 4-15900-545
73
-------
APPENDIX C
SI PREFIXES
Multiplication
' Factor Prefix SI Symbol
1018 exa E
1015 peta P
1012 tera T
G
10 mega M
10^ kilo k
10 hecto* h
101 deka* da
10 deci* d
10 centi* c
10~3 ndlli m
10~6 micro u
10~^ nano n
10~12 pico p
1CT15 femto f
10~18 atto a
*Not recommended but occasionally used
KVB 4-15900-545
74
-------
APPENDIX D
EMISSION UNITS CONVERSION FACTORS
FOR TYPICAL COAL FUEL (HV = 13,320 BTU/LB)
Multiply
TO "-\ By
Obtain
% Height in Fuel
S N
lbS/106Btu
S02 K>
grams/106Cal
S02 N02
PPM
(Dry * 3% O2)
SOx NOx
Grains/SCF.
(Dry 8 12* CO2)
S02 N02
% Height
In Fuel
S
0.666
0.310
0.405
3.2x10
-4
0.225
1.48
5.76x10"
z
.903
Ibs/lO^tu
SO,
1.50
N02
Z
7
(.556)
Z
9.8xlO~4
(2.23)
2.47
(.556)
14.2x10"
(2.23)
SO,
2.70
grams
yi06Cal
(1.8)
no.
z
4.44
Z
5.6x10
,-4
(4.01)
(1.8)
25.6x10'
(4.01)
sox
758
v.
PPM
(Dry « 3% 02)
NOX
S02
505
281
1736
704
.676
Grains/SCF _
(Dry 6 12% C02)
(.448)
(.249)
1.11
(.448)
1127
391
1566
8.87xlO"4
(.249)
6.39x10"
NOTE: 1. Values in parenthesis can be used for all flue gas constituents such as oxides of carbon,
oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, hydrocarbons, particulates, etc.
2. Standard reference temperature of 530°R was used.
KVB 4-15900-545
75
-------
APPENDIX E
FLYASH COMBUSTIBLE CONTENT VS PARTICLE SIZE
Nine flyash samples were obtained from the mechanical dust col-
lector hopper at Site J. Each sample was sieved with a 20 mesh screen, and
the combustible content of each size fraction was determined. The data, pre-
sented below, indicate that the larger size fraction contains twice the
combustibles content of the smaller size fraction on a mass percentage basis.
Test No.
% Weight
Passing 20 Mesh
5
6
7
8
9
13
14
15
16
Average
& Std Dev
81.9
77.5
83.8
81.4
82.7
85.6
77.0
82.9
86.9
82±3
% Combustible
in Flyash
Passing 20 Mesh
% Combustible
In Flyash Larger
than 20 Mesh
43±12
KVB 4-15900-545
76
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
E PA- 600/7-80-137a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
.TITLE AND SUBTITLE Field Tests of Industrial Stoker Coal-
ired Boilers for Emissions Control and Efficiency
improvement—Site J
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
P.L.Langsjoen, J.O.Burlingame, and
J. E. Gabriels on
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
KVB, Inc.
6176 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE624
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-IAG-D7-E681 and
DoE-EF-77-C-01-2609
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development*
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 6/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
^^SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ffiRL-RTP project officer is R. Hall. (*)Cosponsors are DoE (W.
Harvey Jr.) and the American Boiler Manufacturers Assn. EPA-600/7-78-136a,
-.79-041a,-130a,-147a,-80-064a,-065a,-082a,112a> and -136a cover sites A-I.
RACTThe report gives results of field measurements made on a 70,000 Ib steam/
hr coal-fired overfeed stoker with chain grate. The effects of various parameters
on boiler emissions and efficiency were studied. Parameters include overfire air,
excess oxygen, grate heat release, and coal properties. Measurements include O2,
CO2, NO, SO2, SOS, uncontrolled and controlled particulate mass loading, and
combustible content of the ash. In addition to test results and observations, the
report describes the facility tested, coals fired, test equipment, and procedures.
Full-load uncontrolled particulate loading on this unit averaged 0.89 Ib/million Btu,
while full-load controlled particulate loading averaged 0.20 Ib/million Btu. Full-
load NO emissions averaged 0.36 Ib/million Btu.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATl Field/Group
Air Pollution
Boilers
Combustion
Coal
Field Tests
Dust
Stokers
Improvement
Efficiency
Flue Gases
Fly Ash
Particle Size
Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Oxides
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Combustion Modification
Spreader Stokers
Chain Grate Stokers
Particulate
Overfire Air
13 B
13A
21B
2 ID
14B
11G
14G
07B
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
83
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
77
------- |