fxEPA
         United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
          Industrial Environmental Research  EPA-600/7-79-104a
          Laboratory          April 1979
          Research Triangle Park NIC 27711
Effects of Conditioning
Agents on Emissions from
Coal-fired Boilers:
Test Report No. 1

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-600/7-79-104a

                                                   April 1979
     Effects  of Conditioning Agents
on Emissions from  Coal-fired  Boilers:
                Test Report  No.  1
                            by

            R.G. Patterson, P. Riersgard, R. Parker, and S. Calvert

                    Air Pollution Technology, Inc.
                  4901 Morena Boulevard, Suite 402
                    San Diego, California 92117
                     Contract No. 68-02-2628
                   Program Element No. EHE624A
                  EPA Project Officer: Leslie E. Sparks

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

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

-------
                            ABSTRACT

     A field performance test has been conducted on an electro-
static precipitator (ESP) which uses sulfur trioxide as the con-
ditioning agent.  The ESP is located at an electric utilities
power plant, burning approximately 1$ sulfur coal.
     Tests were conducted with and without injection of the
conditioning agent.  The ESP performance was characterized in
terms of particle collection efficiency and the chemical com-
position of particulate and gaseous emissions.  Fly ash resis-
tivity and duct opacity were also measured.
     Results show an average increase in overall efficiency from
80% to 95% with injection of the conditioning agent.  This is
accompanied by a decrease in fly ash resistivity, a decrease in
opacity, and an increase in sulfur trioxide concentration entering
and leaving the precipitator.
                                111

-------
                            CONTENTS

                                                              Page
Abstract	iii
Figures	vi
Tables	vii
Acknowledgment 	   iy

Sections
   1.  Introduction	    1
   2.  Summary and Conclusions
          Results	    3
          Conclusions	    5
   3.  Description of Test
          Plant Design	    6
          Operating Conditions 	  .  	    9
          Test Methods and Schedule	12
   4.  Test Results
          Collection Efficiency	15
          ESP Performance Predictions	   21
          Flue Gas Composition	   24
          Elemental Analysis 	   27
          Resistivity	   32
          Opacity	   32
          Coal Composition	   35
   5.  Economics	   38
References	40
                                 IV

-------
                      CONTENTS (continued)





                                                              Page



Appendices



   A.  Particulate Sampling Methods	41



   B.  Particle Size Data	45



   C.  Particulate Sulfate Data	54



   D.  Input Data for the ESP Performance Model	56



   E.  Elemental Analysis Data	58

-------
                             FIGURES
Number
Page
   1   Plant layout .....................   7

   2   ESP inlet section voltage-current relationships. ...  11

   3   ESP outlet section voltage -current relationships ...  11

   4   Inlet size distribution for conditioned tests
       showing 90% confidence intervals ...........  16

   5   Inlet size distribution for baseline tests
       showing 90% confidence intervals ...........  17

   6   Outlet size distribution for conditioned tests
       showing 90% confidence intervals ...........  18

   7   Outlet size distribution for baseline tests
       showing 90% confidence intervals ...........  19

   8   Grade penetration curves for S03 conditioned
       tests .........................  22

   9   Grade penetration curves for baseline tests ......  23

  10   Controlled condensation system ............  26

  11   SOa concentration of flue gas at ESP inlet ......  29

  12   Mass concentrations of major elements in fly
       ash with S03 conditioning ...............  30

  13   Mass concentrations of major elements in fly
       ash from baseline test ................  31

  14   In-stack opacity probe ................  34

  15   Opacity in outlet duct ................  36

Appendix

 A-l   Modified EPA sampling train with in-stack
       cascade impactor ...................  43
                                VI

-------
                             TABLES





Number^                                                       Page



   1    Electrostatic Precipitator Design Information ....  8



   2    Boiler Load Data	10



   3    Summary of Overall Efficiencies 	  20



   4    ESP Inlet Flue Gas Conditions	25



   5    ESP Outlet Flue Gas Conditions	25



   6    Concentration of S03 in Flue Gas	28



   7    Inlet Fly Ash Resistivity	33



   8    Chemical Analysis of Coal	37



   9    Capital and Operating Costs 	  39




Appendices



  B-l   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 1	46



  B-2   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 2	46



  B-3   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 12	47



  B-4   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 13	47



  B-5   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 14	48



  B-6   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 16	48



  B-7   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 17	49



  B-8   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 21	49



  B-9   Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 23	50



  B-10  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 24	50
                                 VII

-------
                       TABLES (continued)


Number

 B-ll     Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 26	51

 B-12     Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run 28	51

 B-13     Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run 3.  .  .  52

 B-14     Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run 5.  .  .  52

 B-15     Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run 10  .  .  53

 B-16     Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run 19  .  .  53

 C-l      Results of Particulate Sulfate Tests	55

 D-l      Input Data for the ESP Performance Model	57

 E-l      Minimum Sensitivities  of Elements 	  59

 E-2      Results of Elemental Analysis of Fly
          Ash on Cascade Impactor Substrates	60
                               Vlll

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT

     A.P.T. wishes to express its appreciation to Dr.  H.J.  White
who provided valuable consultation, and to Dr. Leslie Sparks,
the EPA Project Officer, for excellent coordination and technical
assistance in support of this test program.  The assistance and
coordination provided by plant personnel at the test site also is
sincerely appreciated.
                                IX

-------
                            SECTION 1
                          INTRODUCTION

     The Particulate Technology Branch of the U.S.  EPA In-
dustrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC has contracted with A.P.T., Inc. to conduct a series
of field test performance evaluations of electrostatic preci-
pitators (ESP) which use flue gas conditioning agents to im-
prove their performance.  This report presents the results of
the first field test conducted at an electric utilities power
plant which burns low sulfur coal.  Sulfur trioxide injection
is used to condition the flue gas before it enters the electro-
static precipitator.
     Flue gas conditioning agents are used primarily for main-
taining high particulate collection efficiency in electrostatic
precipitators operating on high electrical resistivity fly ash
resulting from the combustion of low sulfur coals.   Flue gas
conditioning is not usually designed into a new installation
but rather is used as a corrective measure for a precipitator
which is unable to meet emission or opacity standards.
     Many potential conditioning agents have been investigated
and a number are available commercially.  Conditioning agents
may be injected in the boiler or may be injected downstream
from the air preheater.  Their effectiveness will depend to
some extent on the flue gas composition and temperature.
     The improved collection efficiency associated with flue
gas conditioning generally is attributed to a decrease in the
fly ash electrical resistivity.  However, other mechanisms such
as an increase in space charge and a reduction in rapping re-
entrainment losses may be more important than resistivity in
some situations.

-------
     This test program is being conducted to obtain an exten-
sive data base for evaluating the effectiveness of various
conditioning agents.   It is planned that each test will provide
sufficient data to identify the important mechanisms in effect
and to quantify any additional process emissions which result
from the use of the conditioning system.

-------
                            SECTION 2
                     SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

     A field performance test has been conducted on an ESP which
uses sulfur trioxide injection for flue gas conditioning.  The
ESP is located at an electric utilities power plant,  burning
approximately 1% sulfur coal.
     Tests were conducted with and without injection  of the
conditioning agent.  The ESP performance was characterized in
terms of overall and grade particle collection efficiency and
the chemical composition of particulate and gaseous emissions.
Fly ash resistivity and in-stack opacity were also measured.
RESULTS
     The ESP has a design efficiency of 951 when burning high
sulfur coal.  When low sulfur coal is burned, the precipitator
cannot maintain its design efficiency without gas conditioning.
During the unconditioned tests it was observed that sparking
was much more frequent than during the conditioned tests.
     The overall and grade collection efficiencies were deter-
mined from particle size and mass data obtained using in-stack
cascade impactors.  Overall efficiencies were also obtained
using a modification of EPA Method 5.  The overall mass ef-
ficiency when S03 injection was used for gas conditioning
averaged 94.91.  Without S03 injection, the average efficiency
decreased to 80.2%.  The grade penetration curves showed im-
proved collection for all particle sizes measured (from about
0.3 to 5 ym dia.) when the conditioning agent was used.  How-
ever, the improvement appears to be more pronounced for the
larger particle sizes.
     The measured overall and grade efficiencies compared well
with the ESP performance model  (Sparks, 1978) for conditioned
and baseline tests.

-------
     Elemental analyses of certain cascade impactor particulate
samples  (outlet only) were conducted for the conditioned and
baseline tests.  The conditioned tests showed an increase in
the mass of sulfur leaving the ESP as particulate (2.5 mg/DNm3)
relative to the baseline tests (0.4 mg/DNm3).  Mass emissions
of all other elements analyzed were lower in the conditioned
tests than in the baseline tests.  This is consistent with the
lower overall penetration measured for the conditioned tests.
     In-situ fly ash electrical resistivity was measured using
a point-to-plane probe at the ESP inlet for the baseline and
conditioned tests.  The average resistivity for the baseline
case was 1.7 x 1011  ft-cm.    When S03 conditioning was used,
the average resistivity decreased to 4.7 x 1010 fi-cm.
     The opacity of the flue gas was measured in the outlet
duct of the ESP for the conditioned and baseline tests.  The
average opacity was 401 during the conditioned tests and 80%
during the baseline tests.
     Sulfur trioxide concentrations were determined at the
ESP inlet and outlet using the controlled condensation method
(Maddelone, 1977).  The average S03 concentration during the
conditioned tests was 10.9 ppm at the inlet and 8.1 ppm at
the outlet.  Theoretically,  from a material balance, 32 ppm
of S03 were injected.  The equivalent of approximately 24 ppm
S03 was accounted for on the fly ash.  During the baseline
tests the S03 concentration averaged 1.6 ppm at the inlet
and 1.0 ppm at the outlet.   The sulfur content of the fly
ash leaving the ESP decreased from 2.5 mg/DNm3 for the con-
ditioned tests to 0.4 mg/DNm3 for the baseline tests.
     The S02 concentration in the flue gas varied from about
650 to 800 ppm at the inlet and from about 600 to 700 ppm at
the outlet.  The lower concentration at the outlet may have
been caused by in-leakage of air.  This hypothesis is consis-
tent with an observed increase in 02 concentration at the
outlet.  The unconditioned (baseline) tests showed about 13%

-------
less S02 at the inlet and outlet,  however fluctuations  in the
sulfur content of the coal are more than enough to account for
the observed change in S02 concentration.
     Coal samples were analyzed for the conditioned and base-
line tests.  The sulfur content averaged 1.1 wt I during the
conditioned tests and 0.8 wt \ during the baseline tests.
Otherwise, the samples were very similar with about 11  wt %
ash and very low levels of alkali  metals (Na, K, Li, Ca).
CONCLUSIONS
     The results of this field test clearly indicate that the
S03 flue gas conditioning system successfully increased the
ESP efficiency from about 801 to near the design efficiency
of 95% when low sulfur coal fly ash is being collected.  The
mechanism for improvement appears  to be, at least in part, a
decrease in fly ash resistivity.  This is consistent with the
observation of a higher sparking rate during the baseline
tests.
     The grade efficiency curves indicate a more pronounced
improvement in collection of large particles.  This could be
the result of a reduction in reentrainment associated with
use of the conditioning agent.
     There was no significant change in S02 concentration
associated with use of the S03 conditioning system.  Observed
S02 fluctuations could be accounted for by variations in the
sulfur content of the coal.  The sulfur content of the fly
ash and the outlet concentration of S03 increased signifi-
cantly when the conditioning agent was injected.

-------
                            SECTION 3
                       DESCRIPTION OF TEST

PLANT DESIGN
     The plant has six power generating units and a seventh unit
under construction.  Testing was performed on unit No. 3 which
has a boiler rated at 44 megawatts.  Unit No. 3 has a maximum
operating capacity of 58 megawatts producing 10,000 kPa (1,450
psi) steam at 540°C (1,005°F).  The location of the S03 injection
ports, and inlet and outlet sampling ports is shown in Figure 1.
     The ESP, installed downstream from the air preheater
(Ljlingstrom type) , has a design efficiency of 95% when burning
high sulfur coal.  It is preceded by a bank of axial entry cy-
clones of undetermined efficiency.  The ESP consists of two
sections in series; i.e., an inlet and an outlet section.  Each
has a transformer-rectifier (T/R) set which can be electrically
isolated into a right and left subsection.  The wire current is
full wave rectified.  Design information for the ESP is given in
Table 1.
     The configuration of the precipitator can be seen in Figure
1.  The flue gas flows through the axial entry cyclones where it
is directed upward past the S03 injection nozzles into a bend
with turning vanes.  There is a diverging section immediately
before the ESP.   Downstream from the ESP the flue gas converges
and is directed upward and over the top of the precipitator to
the induced draft fan.  Turning vanes are provided to improve
flow distribution.
     The eight inlet sampling ports are at the upstream edge of
the diverging section before the ESP.  The four outlet ports are
located immediately following the bend over the precipitator.

-------
                                             OUTLET
                                             PORTS
FLOW
               CYCLONES
               Figure 1.   Plant  lavout.

-------
            TABLE  1.   ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR DESIGN
                       INFORMATION
Startup date
Design gas flow
Design gas velocity
Design specific
   collector area

Design efficiency

Precipitation rate

Overall configuration
Plates
Wires
Electrical
 1972
 104 actual m3/s  (217,000  actual  ft3/min)
 1.05 m/s  (3.4  ft/s)

 36 m2 per actual m3/s  (182  ft2 per  1000
   actual ft3/min)
 95%

 IV  - 0.084 m/s  (0.274  ft/s)
 G
 2 series chambers
 3 electrical sections  in  parallel
  per chamber
 36 parallel gas passages

 37 plates per  chamber  (cold rolled
  steel sheets)
 plate height - 9.5 m  (31  ft)
 plate length each section - 2.7 m
  (9 ft) for total length in direction
  of flow of 5.5m (18 ft)
 plate-to-plate spacing -  0.23 m  (9  in.)
 total surface  area of plates - 3,730 m2
  (40,180 ft2)

 12 equally spaced wires per gas passage
 wire diameter  - 2.8 mm (0.11 in.)
 wires are hanging type, placed in the
  center 16.4 mm (1/4 in.) of the
  plate-plate space

 2 transformer-rectifier sets which
  were electrically insolatable into
  6 subsections
maximum power consumption - -50 kW

-------
     Fly ash is removed from the wires and plates by vibrators
which operate for about one minute every five minutes.   The col-
lected ash falls into hoppers beneath the ESP.  The manually acti-
vated ash handling system pulls the ash from the hoppers with
suction from a water ejector nozzle and deposits it in a silo.
The silo is emptied by truck.
     The S03 injection system converts hot vaporized S02 and air
into S03 over a vanadium pentoxide (V05) catalyst.   It is injected
into the flue gas downstream from the air preheater and cyclone at
490°C (920°F) through five rows of nozzles.  The flue gas is ap-
proximately 160°C (320°F) at the injection point.  The S02 is
stored in bulk liquid form and consumed at a constant rate of
approximately 46 Ibs/hr at full load of 58 MW.  For 100% con-
version of S02 to S03, this corresponds to a maximum addition of
32 ppm of S03 to the flue gas stream.

OPERATING CONDITIONS
     The unit was operated at full load for the duration  of the
test.  It was controlled to produce a constant steam rate.  Full
load was limited by the air intake dampers.  The maximum design
flow of the ESP was 104 m3/s (217,000 ACFM).  The flow during
the test was slightly lower at 102 m3/s (217,000 ACFM).  As can
be seen from Table 2, the power output of the plant increased
on January 31.  This was caused by chlorination of the conden-
sers; a cleaning operation which makes the condensers more ef-
ficient, thus enabling higher output from the turbines for the
same steam rate.
     Voltage current relationships were determined for the ESP
during both the conditioned and baseline test periods (Figures
2 and 3).  The normal operating point at both the inlet and out-
let of the ESP was a voltage of 50 kV and a current density of
        o
24 nA/cm .  The test data were generated by adjusting the primary
voltage manually and recording the resulting primary and secondary
currents.  A secondary voltage meter was not available so that
secondary voltage had to be calculated from the power transmitted
that is:

-------
TABLE 2.  BOILER LOAD DATA
  Date
Boiler Load
     MW
1/25/78
1/26/78
1/27/78
1/31/78
2/1/78
2/5/78
2/6/78
2/7/78
    57.5
    57.5
    57.5
    58
    58
5
5
    58.5
    58.4
    58.4
            10

-------
6
u
E-
i—<
CO
H
Z
tu
OS
OS
E
o
CO

w
Q

f-
Z
uu
OS
os

u
35



30


25



20



15



10



 5


 0
        D 1/31/78 CONDITIONED

           2/7/78 BASELINE


                           O
                              0
                                 o
                       J_
                               _L
                                   _L
      30
           35       40      45      50


               SECONDARY VOLTAGE,  DC kV
                                               55
60
       Figure 2.   ESP inlet section voltage-current
                  relat ionships.
    30



    25



    20


    15



    10



     5


     0
    D 1/31/78 CONDITIONED

    A 2/7/78

       BASELINE
       30       35       40      45      50


                   SECONDARY VOLTAGE, DC kV
                                               55
                                                   60
       Figure 3.   ESP outlet section voltage-current
                  relat ionships .
                           11

-------
                         V2 = 0.85  	                      (1)
                                     I2
where  Vi § V2 = primary and secondary voltages, V
       Ii § I2 = primary and secondary currents, A
          0.85 = efficiency assumed for the transformer -
                 rectifier set
     Two factors contribute to the scatter of data on the curves:
1) sparking, particularly during the unconditioned (baseline)
tests, made the meters jump continually so that they were very
difficult to read accurately; 2) the lack of a secondary voltage
meter necessitated calculations which  multiplied the errors in-
herent in the meter readings.
     The current-voltage relationships for the inlet and outlet
sections of the ESP are shown in Figures 2 and 3,respectively.
The solid lines represent least squares fits to the data.  The
inlet section shows a marked shift to the right for the condi-
tioned case compared to the baseline case.  This shift implies
a higher operating voltage is possible for a given current when
the conditioning agent is used.  This is consistent with the ef-
fect anticipated with a decrease in fly ash resistivity.   The
outlet section (Figure 3) does not show any clear trends.
     No spark meter was available but the sparking was clearly
increased during the unconditioned case.  Sparking persisted to
the lowest secondary voltage.
TEST METHODS AND SCHEDULE
     Field tests of the ESP were conducted with and without in-
jection of the flue gas conditioning agent.   Variances were ob-
tained from the proper agencies for periods covering the  un-
conditioned tests.
     The field test spanned the period January 25  to February 7,
1978.   Testing of the conditioned case started on  January 25 and
ended on February 2.   The boiler unit was shut down three days
for boiler tube repairs (January 28,  29, 30)  during this  time.
                                 12

-------
A three-day deconditioning period allowed the ESP to come to
steady state before the baseline (unconditioned)  tests,  which
started February 5 and lasted through February 7.
     The particulate analyses included size,  mass, resistivity
and chemical composition.  Size distributions were obtained at
the inlet and the outlet of the ESP with calibrated cascade im-
pactors.  A modified EPA Method 5 train was used  for total mass
determinations.
     The resistivity of the particulate fly ash entering the ESP
was monitored with an in-situ point-to-plane resistivity probe.
Plume opacity in the outlet duct of the ESP was measured using
a modified opacity meter and was recorded on a continuous basis.
     Coal samples were obtained daily and analyzed to characterize
the coal composition during the testing period.
     Information on the ESP design, maintenance and operation
were obtained from power plant personnel through  survey forms
and personal communications.  The current-voltage relationships
for each section of the ESP were determined for conditioned and
unconditioned tests.  Annual operating and maintenance costs were
obtained for the ESP, flue gas conditioning equipment and chemicals
     Samples of particulate matter collected with a cascade im-
pactor at the ESP inlet and outlet were analyzed  to determine
the elemental composition as a function of particle size.  The
amount of particulate sulfate collected on the impactor substrates
was determined with an acid-base titration using  bromophenol blue
as the indicator.  Ion excited X-ray emission analysis was used
to determine the elemental composition.
     The flue gas velocity and static pressure were measured at
the inlet and outlet using calibrated S-type pitot tubes.  The
molecular weight and density of the gas was determined by measur-
ing the gas composition and temperature.  The concentration of
water vapor was determined from measurements of  the wet and dry
bulb temperature in the stack.
                                  13

-------
     S02 concentrations entering and leaving the ESP were deter-
mined using a Du Pont S02 stack analyzer (model 459).  The output
from the S02 analyzer was recorded on a continuous basis during
the field test.
     The concentration of S03 entering and leaving the ESP was
determined with the controlled condensation method as described
by Maddelone (1977).
                                14

-------
                             SECTION 4
                           TEST RESULTS

COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
     Overall  and  fractional collection efficiencies  were deter-
mined from particle  size and mass data obtained  using in-stack
cascade impactors.   Overall efficiencies were  also obtained
using a modification of EPA Method 5  (M5).  The  sampling trains
and procedures  are presented in Appendix "A".
     Particle size distributions at the ESP inlet  are presented
in Figures 4  and  5 for  the conditioned and baseline  tests,res-
pectively.  The inlet size distributions were  very consistent
with a geometric  mass median diameter  (MMD) of 8.5 ym* and a
geometric standard deviation of about  4.
     The size distributions at the ESP outlet  are  presented in
Figures 6 and 7 for  the conditioned and baseline tests.   The out-
let particles were smaller for the conditioned tests (MMD = 2.2
ym, a  = 3.7) than for the has el ine tests  (MMD  = 3.7 ym, a  =4.1).
     c>                                                    &
     A summary  of the overall efficiencies is  presented in Table
3.  The modified  M5  test results give  somewhat higher mass load-
ings than do  the  impactor results.  Inlet run  "2-M5" is suspect
because the nozzle tip  may have contacted a layer  of fly ash on
the bottom of the duct.  The average  efficiency  data show an in-
crease from 80.2% to 94.9% associated  with injection of the con-
ditioning agent.

* The convention used in this report is that physical particle diameters
  are shown as ym  and aerodynamic particle diameters are  shown as ymA.  The
  physical particle  diameter is related to the aerodynamic particle diameter
  by:                       d  = d  (p  C')^2
                            pa    p   p
  where d   = aerodynamic particle diameter, ymA; p =  particle density, g/cm3
       pa                                   p
       d  = physical particle diameter, ym; C1 = Cunningham slip correction
        "                                   factor, dimensionless

                                 15

-------
OS
w
w
a
P-I
PL,


U
i—i
LO
    10.0
     9.0
     8.0
     7.0

     6.0

     5. 0

     4.0


     3.0
     2.0
     1.0
     0.9
     0.8
     0.7
     0.6

     0.5

     0.4

     0.3


     0. 2
0.1
                                      II
                                 H-CH
                           h-CM
                    H-CH
              I-CH
           i-CH
                   1
                        1
                        I
l
1   1
II
       0.2 0.5  1   2    5    10     20   30  40  50 60  70   80
                  CUMULATIVE MASS UNDERSIZE, I

    Figure 4.   Inlet size  distribution for conditioned
               tests showing 901 confidence intervals.
    * Density assumed to be 2.3 g/cm3
                             16

-------








*
E
Di
w
H
W
i— i
o
PJ
*— J
o
1 — 1
H
Oi


^
i — i
C/}
>-
o:
d,





1U .
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.

3.


2.



1.
0.

0.
0.
0.
0.


0.
0.

0.
0.
u
0
0
0
0
0
0

0


0



0
9

8
7
6
5


4
3

2
1
_ i 1 I i I ill h|OH' '
_
—
~ -
-
•™ ^
K)H
— —


_
K>H


— t-OH —
_

-
-
- —
i-CH


~ —
_
OH
"
ill i i i i i 1 i i
    0.2  0.5  1   2    5   10    20   30  40  50 60  70   80

              CUMULATIVE MASS UNDERSIZE, %

Figure 5.   Inlet size distribution for baseline
           tests showing 90% confidence  intervals.

* Density assumed to be 2.3 g/cm3
                         17

-------
W
E-H
W
U
i— (
H
u
i— i
CO
>->
    20
    10
   0.2
I
                  o
                                            T   1—

                                               hCH
                                             hCM
                                       l-CH
                              h-CH
I
                                    I
I
I
              5    10     20   30   40   50   60   70   80

                 CUMULATIVE MASS UNDERSIZE,  %
   Figure 6.  Outlet size distribution  for  conditioned
              tests showing  901  confidence  intervals.

   * Density assumed to be 2.3 g/cm3
                         18

-------
OS
PJ
Q

W


i—i
H


O,



U

CO

a:
a.
     20
     10
    0.2
j.
                           _L
_L
J.
              5     10     20   30  40   50   60

                  CUMULATIVE MASS UNDERSIZE, I
                                   70
                 80
   Figure  7.   Outlet  size distribution for baseline
              tests  showing 901 confidence intervals

   *  Density  assumed  to be 2.3 g/cm3
                          I

                         19

-------
        TABLE  3.   SUMMARY OF OVERALL EFFICIENCIES
Run #
With S03
1
2
12
13
14
16
1-M5*
2-M5*
Average
Standard
Without S03
17
21
23
24
26
28
3-M5*
Average
Standard
Inlet
Concentration
mg/DNm3
2,535
2,500
2,375
2,605
2,525
3,139
2,289
12,590
Deviation
2,297
2,470
2,483
2,595
2,449
2,154
4,179
Deviation
Outlet
Concentration
mg/DNm3
104.8
105.3
127.9
145.1
136.3
101.4
265.6
208.3

588.3
428.2
503.3
514.1
426.6
510.2
605.5

Overall
Efficiency
%
95.9
95.8
94.6
94.4
94.6
96.8
88.4
98.3
94.9
2.9
74.4
82.7
79.7
80.2
82.6
76.3
85.5
80.2
3.8
* Modified EPA Method 5
                               20

-------
     Grade penetration curves were computed from the simultan-
eous inlet and outlet test data.   The computation was based on
a logarithmic spline fit to the cumulative mass concentration
curves obtained from the cascade impactor data (Lawless,  1978).
The results are presented as Figures 8 and 9.
     The conditioned tests show considerably lower penetration
(higher efficiency) than the baseline tests.  The improvement is
particularly apparent for large particles.
     Each day one impactor run was made to collect a particulate
sample for sulfate analysis.  The fly ash on the substrate was
analyzed with an acid/base titration using Bromophenol Blue as
the indicator.  The results showed the sulfate concentration to
be below the detectable limit of 1 ppm.  One exception was the
final filter of the outlet impactor which showed measurable
amounts of SOi; on some runs.  However, this may have been an ar-
tifact resulting from condensation of moisture in the probe.
Moisture which collected on the probe wall may have contained
sulfate ions.  When the sampling ended, the liquid could have
drained down to the final filter as the probe was being withdrawn,
The final filter was wet after some runs.  The detailed table of
results is presented in Appendix "C".
ESP PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS
     Performance of the precipitator was predicted using a cal-
culator program which models ESP performance (Sparks, 1978).  The
predicted performance is based on a model developed by Southern
Research Institute (Gooch, 1975).  The predicted baseline overall
efficiency of the ESP is 79.9%, which compares with the measured
value of 80.8%.  When the resistivity of the fly ash is reduced
to the conditioned level of 4.7 x 1010 fi-cm, the predicted over-
all efficiency is 92.9%. The measured overall efficiency was
94.9%
     Grade penetration curves were calculated with the program
and are shown in Figures 8 and 9.  These figures show a slightly
higher penetration than the measured values.
                                 21

-------
     1.0
o
o
rt
(H
o
t—I
H



W

W
OH
     0.1
    0.01
                                       I   i  I
               13
              I   l  l  I  I l
I    I    I  I  l  I i
        0.2
                                                   10
                     PARTICLE  DIAMETER,  ym
        Figure  8.   Grade  penetration curves  for
                    S03  conditioned tests.

        *  Density  assumed to  be  2.3 g/cm3
                         22

-------
     1. 0
*
c
o
u
rt
?-i
M-i
O
h-H
E-
E-
U4
z
PJ
OH
     0.1
    0.01
        0.2
I   I   I  I I  I I I
                                        IIIi i  l

                                     PREDICTED
                            NUJN NO.2 8 -
                             17.
                             23    N
                             26      v
                             21       \
                             24
1   I   I  I I  I I
                                      10
                       PARTICLE  DIAMETER,
        Figure 9-   Grade  penetration curves for
                    baseline tests.

        * Density assumed to be 2.3 g/cm3
                           23

-------
     The parameters  input  to  the program are derived from data
obtained during the  test period.  These are shown in Table D-l
in Appendix  "D".
FLUE GAS COMPOSITION
     The flue gases  were sampled with an Orsat analyzer, a Du Pont
S02 analyzer and a controlled condensation sulfate system (CCS) .
The CCS was used to  measure the quantity of S03.
     Flue gas velocity was determined with calibrated S-type pitot
tubes.  The velocity was measured at 48 points over the cross-sec-
tion of the ducts.   The velocity varied erratically over the test
period at both inlet and outlet, as shown in Table 4.  This may
have been caused by  turbulence from the downstream turning vanes.
     The concentrations of 02, C02, H20, and S02 are shown in
Tables 4 and 5 for the inlet and outlet.  The 02 concentration
is higher at the outlet (Table 5) than the inlet (Table 4).   Dis-
crepancies may be attributed to in-leakage of air since the ESP
operates at a negative pressure of 3.2 kPa (13" W.C.).   Using the
average 02 concentrations, an in-leakage rate of 7.5% was com-
puted between the inlet and outlet of the ESP.   This compares
well with the leakage rate computed by comparing S02 concentrations
     The concentrations of S03entering and leaving the ESP was
determined by the controlled condensation system (CCS)  as des-
cribed by Maddelone  (1977).  A schematic of the CCS is  shown in
Figure 10.  This method is designed to operate at high temperature.
The sampling probe is maintained at a temperature of 315°C (600°F)
and the quartz filter holder is heated by a heating mantle so that
a gas outlet temperature of 290°C (550°F)  is maintained.  This
temperature is required to ensure that H2SOi»will not condense in
the filter holder.   The separation of S03  from S02  is achieved by
cooling the gas stream below the dew point of H2SOi,  but above the
H20 dew point, thus preventing interference from SOa.   The con-
densed acid was then titrated with 0.2 N NaOH using Bromophenol
Blue as the indicator.
     The probe nozzle was  turned downstream during  the  sampling
period to reduce the quantity of large particles reaching the

                                 24

-------
TABLE 4.  ESP INLET FLUE GAS CONDITIONS (DAILY AVERAGE)
Date
1/25/78
1/26/78
1/27/78
1/31/78
2/1/78
2/5/78
2/6/78
2/7/78

Date
1/25/78
1/26/78
1/27/78
1/31/78
2/1/78
2/5/78
2/6/78
2/7/78
Flue Gas
Temperature
°C
142
139
145
133
146
135
147
--
TABLE 5. ESP
Flue Gas
Temperature
°C
144
--
145
147
152
146
--
—
Flue Gas Composition,
%02 %C02 %H20
6.1
5.5
6.6
4.4 14.1 4.0
3.9 14.6 4.5
5.0 14.0 5.6
4.5 14.2 4.4
4.7 14.2
OUTLET FLUE GAS CONDITIONS
Flue Gas Composition,
%02 %C02 %H20
2.2
6.2
4.0
4.9
5.3 14.0 5.0
4.8
6.1
6.0 13.0
Vol. /Vol.
S02 ppm
730
710
720
730
840
650
680
670
(DAILY AVERAGE)
Vol. /Vol.
S02 ppm
700
650
660
680
680
600
620
620
Average
Velocity
m/s
5.8
5.2
5.0
5.9
5.5
5.7
5.2
--

Average
Velocity
m/s
8.8
8.9
9.2
9.6
8.7
8.8
8.8
—

-------
QUARTZ LINED HEATED
       PROBE
                         POWER
                       SUPPLIES
                                                           CONSTANT TEMPERATURE
                                                                   BATH
                                                          GRAHAM CONDENSER
                         QUARTZ FILTER HOLDER WITH
                         HEATING MANTLE

                                   SILICA
                                    GEL
                       SAMPLING
                        TRAIN
                                            ICE CHEST WITH
                                              IMPINGERS
              Figure 10.   Controlled condensation system.

-------
 filter.   If  the  amount  of material  on  the  filter  is  kept  small,
 the  overall  recovery  of the  CCS  is  better.
      The  results  of the CCS  analysis are shown in Table 6.  The
 concentration  of  S03  was higher  at  the  inlet  in both cases im-
 plying  that  the  fly ash is adsorbing S03 in the ESP.  For the
 conditioned  tests, the  measured  level  of S03  was  10.9 ppm at the
 inlet.  This is  less  than the  32 ppm calculated from the  S02 in-
 jection rate.  The remaining sulfate may be on the surface of the
 fly  ash.
      S02  entering and leaving  the ESP was  determined using a Du
 Pont  S02  stack analyzer (Model 459).  The  output  from the S02
 analyzer  was recorded on a continuous basis during the field test
 period.   The S02  analyzer was  switched  from the ESP  inlet to the
 outlet at one-hour intervals.   The inlet S02 concentration is
 plotted for the test  period  in Figure  11.  The conditioned tests
 show  a reasonably steady concentration  of  700 to  770 ppm  (at
 the  inlet).  During the baseline tests  the S02 concentration was
 about 670 ppm.  The lower S02  concentration is most  likely a re-
 sult  of the lower sulfur content in the coal  during  the baseline
 tests.
 ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS
     The  elemental composition of the particulates at the ESP out-
 let was determined as a  function of particle  size.  The particu-
 lates were collected  on  1.0  mil Mylar film substrates coated with
 Apiezon "L" grease in a  cascade impactor.  These substrates were
 then analyzed for chemical composition with proton induced  -ray
 fluorescence (Ensor et  al.,   1968).  Mylar substrates coated with
 Apiezon "L" grease exhibit a low background of trace elements when
 analyzed.
     The results of the  analysis, as received, are shown in Ap-
pendix "E".  Figures  12  and  13 show the flue gas concentration
 for the detectable elements  with particle  size as the parameter.
These figures show that  the  concentration  of particulate sulfur
 increased from 0.4 to 2.5 mg/DNm3 when  the conditioning agent
was injected.

                                 27

-------
          TABLE 6.  CONCENTRATION OF S03 IN FLUE GAS
   S03 Concentration
With Conditioning Agent,
      ppm by vol.
     S03 Concentration
Without Conditioning Agent,
       ppm by vol.
Run
Number
1
2
3
4
5


Avg.
a
g
Inlet
6.4
14.6
11.6
*
*


10.9
4.1
Outlet
*
5.8
8.0
9.1
9.5


8.1
1.7
Run
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Avg.
a
g
Inlet
*
4.4
1.6
1.7
*
2.0
1.2
2.2
1.3
Outlet
*
1.1
*
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.2
                              28

-------
1-0
vo
      Cu
      CL
     E-

     W



     C
     U
O
in
1000



 900



 800



 700



 600



 500



 400



 300
                                                  1
              JAN 25    26    27    28   29   30
                                             31 FEB1


                                              DATE
                         Figure 11.  S02 concentration of  flue  gas  at  ESP inlet.

-------
6

n
                                  STAGE

                               CUT DIAMETER
§  4
I— t

H
<
OS
W  7
U  J

o
u
lIlL   ll.llll  ..L...  .Ill	I...

Si        S       K      Ca      Ti
       Al
Fe
                                                                Zn
          Figure 12.   Mass concentrations of major  elements

                      in fly ash with S03 conditioning.
                                    30

-------
U
7
6

en
e
§ 5
DC
I 4
H
OS
H
W
u 3
o
2
1
0















ll,
1




r









1 1

Cl




^^•••^^^HV
—







Ill
STAGE
JT DIAMETER
-32 ymA
-14 ymA
~ 5 . 3 ymA
~2.6 ymA
-1.5 ymA
~0. 75ymA
~0.40ymA







„ iniii,










i










"* 1
-






-
-
1111 — iiiiiii
Al
Si
Ca
Ti
Fe
Zn
   Figure 13.  Mass concentrations of major elements
               in fly ash from baseline test.
                            31

-------
 RESISTIVITY
      Dust  resistivity  is  defined  as  the  resistance of the dust
 layer to electrical  current, measured  in ft-cm.  The dust re-
 sistivity  was measured at the  outlet with the Southern Research
 Institute in-situ point-to-plane resistivity probe (Smith et al. , 1977)
      The dust resistivity is determined  from,

                                  A V
                            '  =   £r                         (2)

 where  p = dust  resistivity, Q-cm
        A = plate surface  area, cm
        V = voltage, V
        t = dust  layer  thickness,  cm
        I = current, A
      Table 7 shows the  results of the dust resistivity measure-
 ments  during the conditioned and  baseline tests.  With S03 con-
 ditioning, the average  resistivity decreased by a factor of four,
 from  1.7 x 10nn-cm to  4.7 x 1010n-cm.
      The corresponding  precipitation rate, W , increased with
                                            6
 the conditioning  from  0.05 m/s (0.15 ft/s) to 0.08 m/s (0.27
 ft/s).  Fly ash  resistivity and precipitation rate data, from
 previous field performance tests  predicted precipitation rates
 of 0.05 m/s (0.16 ft/s) and 0.09  m/s (0.28 ft/s) for the above
 resistivities (White,  1974).  The good agreement between ob-
 served  and predicted values indicates both the representative
 nature  of this test and the functional relationship that exists
 between resistivity and precipitator efficiency.
 OPACITY
     The opacity  in the outlet duct of the ESP was monitored
 continuously during the tests with a Lear-Siegler RM4 opacity
meter modified for portable use.   A schematic of the probe is
 shown in Figure  14.
                                 32

-------
             TABLE 7.   INLET FLY ASH RESISTIVITY
                            Temperature          Resistivity
          Date               °C    (°F)              ^-cm
With conditioning agent
          1/26               121   (250)          3.9  x  1010
          1/27               132   (270)          7.6  x  1010
          1/31               137   (279)          1.5  x  1010
          2/1                139   (283)          5.7  X  1010
Without conditioning  agent
                             Average              4.7 x 1010
                             a                   2.6 x 1010
                               g
           2/5                 133  (272)           1.5 x 10n
           2/5                 137  (278)           1.6 x 10n
           2/6                 136  (277)           2.0 x 10n
           2/6                 137  (278)           1.3 x 1011
           2/7                 142  (287)           2.3 x 10n
           2/7                 142  (288)           1.7 x 10n
Average              1.7 x
 B
                                                  0.4 x 1011
                                  33

-------
                   i
i
RETROFLECTOR
                     FLUE GkS PATH
                                                                       HANDLE
                                                             LEAR SIEGLER
                                                             TRANSMISSOMETER
                    Figure 14.   In-stack opacity probe.

-------
     During the conditioned test, the opacity was in the range of
401, as shown in Figure 15.  The gap during the conditioned test
is from a  shutdown  of the No. 3 unit.  The opacity rose to the
limit of the scale set on the opacity meter after injection of
the conditioning agent was stopped.  After switching to a higher
range, the opacity measured approximately 80%.
COAL COMPOSITION
     Coal samples were withdrawn from the coal entering the pul-
verizers every two hours  to obtain five or six samples per day.
These samples were mixed and a portion taken for analysis.  The
size of the coal entering the pulverizers ranged from 1 mm to
3 cm in diameter.  Plant analyses of the coal were also made
available and are included in Table 8.
     The sulfur concentrations of the samples taken by A.P.T.
show some deviation from plant data.  This may be attributable
to different sampling times.  The conditioned period shows a
higher level of sulfur.  This increased sulfur content would
cause a higher concentration of S02 in the flue gas, as was
observed.
                                   35

-------
cx
o
90




80




70



60




50




40




30




20




10
SO2 TURNED OFF
                                          I
                                         I
JAN  25    26   27    28    29    30
                                         31 FEB 1


                                          DATE
                            Figure 15.  Opacity in outlet duct,

-------
              TABLE 8.   CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF  COAL
Analyte
Sodium
Potassium
Lithium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sulfur
Sulfur*'
Ash*
Volatile
   hydrocarbons*
Fixed carbon*
Heat content*
   Sample from
Conditioned Period
_ Dry wt. %
      0.013
      0.06
      0.00019
      0.19
      0.02
      1.09
      0.88
     10.7

     33.5
  SOrJoules/kg
  (13,OOOBtu/lb)
    Sample  from
Unconditioned Period
	Dry wt. %	
       0.016
       0.06
       0.00014
       0.18
       0.02
       0.78
       0.85
      11.1

      33.6
      55.7
  30rjoules/kg
  (13,100Btu/lb)
*Averages of daily data received from the plant
                                  37

-------
                            SECTION 5
                            ECONOMICS

     The ESP for unit No. 3 was put on line in 1972 at a cost
of $1.4 million.  It normally operates at full load capacity
of 58 megawatts.  The flue gas conditioning system was in-
stalled two years later.  The cost of the S03 system was not
available.  The summary of the available cost data shown in
Table 9 is based on dollar values as of the first half of
1977.  Maintenance and operating costs for the ESP shown do
not reflect the cost of power to supply the high voltage.
                                38

-------
               TABLE 9.  CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
                         UNIT NO. 3 1977 COSTS


A.  Installed capital costs:

    ESP, $24 per kW, Total $1,358,000;  on-line 1972

    Conditioning equipment: Total $ *;  on-line 1974


B.  Annual operation and maintenance costs (Does not include
    electric power or chemical cost):

    ESP                    $57,693

    Conditioning equipment $ 2,845
C.  Chemical costs:

    Conditioning agent, unit cost
                    $160/ton (with
                      freight)

                    $140/ton (freight
                      not included)
                        yearly consumption  55,600 kg/year

                        yearly cost         $9,814
D.  Average unit costs:

    ESP

    Gas conditioning
0.159 mills/kW-hr

0.035 mills/kW-hr (including S02 cost)

0.0078 mills/kW-hr (without S02 cost)
     *  This  value  not  supplied  by  plant  records
                                  39

-------
                         REFERENCES


Ensor, D. S., T. A. Cahill, and L. E. Sparks, "Elemental Analysis
     of Fly Ash from Combustion of a Low Sulfur Coal," APCA
     Meeting 1968, Paper No. 75-33.7, June 1975.

Gooch, J. P., J. R. McDonald, S. Oglesby, Jr., "A Mathematical
     Model of Electrostatic Precipitation," EPA 650/2075-037
     April 1975.                                            '

Lawless, P. A., "Analysis of Cascade Impactor Data for Calculating
     Particle Penetration," Research Triangle Institute, EPA Con
     tract No. 68-02-2612,  Task 36, 1978.

Maddelone, R. et al., "Process Measurement Procedures:  Sulfuric
     Acid Emissions," February 1977.

Smith, W. B. et al.,  "Procedures Manual for Electrostatic Precini
     tator Evaluation," EPA Contract No.  68-02-2131,  Southern
     Research Institute, March 1977.

Sparks, L. E. "SR-52  Programmable Calculator Programs for Venturi
     Scrubbers and Electro-Static Precipitators  " EPA 600/7-78-0?*
     March 1978.                                               UZ6

White, H. J.  "Resistivity Problems in Electrostatic Precip-
     itation," APCA,  Vol. 24, No. 4, April 1974.
                               40

-------
        APPENDIX "A"





PARTICULATE SAMPLING METHODS
               41

-------
           APPENDIX "A".  PARTICIPATE SAMPLING METHODS

CASCADE  IMPACTOR TEST METHOD
     Cascade impactor measurements were taken at the inlet and
outlet of the ESP to determine the collection efficiency as a
function of particle size.  Calibrated UW Mk III cascade impactors
were used.  A schematic is shown in Figure A-l.
     The particle mass entering and leaving the ESP was deter-
mined from the sum of the mass collected on all the stages (in-
cluding the nozzle of the in-situ cascade impactor).
     Greased Mylar and Reeve Angel glass fiber substrates were
used.  Substrates were baked at 205°C (400°F) for four hours and
desiccated for two hours prior to weighing.  To minimize weight
loss and trace element contamination with greased substrates,
Apiezon L grease was used.  Blank test runs with twenty minutes
of exposure to the actual flue gas were performed to confirm no
weight gain on Reeve Angel substrates in the presence of S02.
     The elemental composition of the fly ash was determined as
a function of particle diameter.   Fly ash samples were taken at
the ESP outlet for this purpose daily.  Particulate samples were
obtained with a UW Mk III  cascade  impactor using 1  mil  Mylar sub-
strates,  coated with Apiezon L grease.  The Mylar  substrates and
Apiezon L grease were shown to have a low background of trace
elements.
     Particulate sulfate entering and leaving the ESP was obtained
from the chemical analysis of the cascade impactor substrates
(Reeve Angel glass fiber substrates).  This was done on one inlet
and one outlet run per day, as the same set of substrates could
not be used for both chemical and gravimetric analysis.
     The particulate sample was dissolved in C02-free distilled
water and the amount of sulfate present was determined by a ti-
tration with NaOH with Bromophenol Blue as indicator.
                                 42

-------
                               THERMOMETER
             CASCADE
             IMPACTOR
                                             IMPINGER TRAIN
STACK
 WALL
         I
         I
         |	
       THERMOMETERS
                                            ICEBATH
                                                          ROTAMETER
                                                         VACUUM
                                                         GAUGE
           ORIFICE METER    DRY GAS METER
                      VACUUM
                        PUMP
                                                                       SILICA
                                                                        GEL
                                                                       DRYER
Figure A-l.  Modified EPA sampling train with in-stack cascade impactor.

-------
EPA METHOD  5 MEASUREMENTS
     EPA Method 5 measurements were made to determine accurate
overall mass collection efficiencies.  The location of the test
ports in the duct were such that a standard Method 5 would re-
quire 48 five-minute samples.  The sampling time was reduced
from five minutes to three minutes each to expedite the test.
The molecular weight and gas density were determined with a
standard Orsat analysis, according to EPA Method 3.
500 mg SAMPLE FOR BIOASSAY TESTING
     Particulate samples (500 mg) were collected at the ESP
outlet with one sample collected for each test condition (that
is, with and without flue gas conditioning).
     During the conditioned test a sample was scooped from
the fly ash pile at the outlet.   During the baseline tests
a Method 5 train was used to collect a sample on a filter.
These samples were forwarded to  the EPA project officer.
                                44

-------
   APPENDIX "B"




PARTICLE SIZE DATA
         45

-------
 TABLE B-l.  INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #1
                     Taken 1/25/78 at 11:50 am
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
S amp 1 e
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,510
2,240
1,830
1,680
965
391
123
34.9
21.4
d
pc
(ymA)


30.9
13.5
5.24
2.70
1.57
0.89
0.50

d
P
(ym)


20.26
8.80
3.34
1.67
0.92
0.48
0.23


0.0373

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

105
80.2
72.9
70.0
60.4
31.5
11.7
4.76
2.56
d
pc
(ymA)


22.3
9.77
3.78
1.88
1.13
0.64
0.36

d
p
(ym)


14.6
6.32
2.37
1.12
0.63
0.31
0.14


0.273

TABLE B-2.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #7
        Taken 1/27/78 at 2:40 pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,490
2,120
1,570
1,370
655
328
197
59.8
22.8
d
pc
(ymA)

33.5
14.7
5.68
2.93
1.71
0.96
0.55


d
P
(ym)

21.99
9.57
3.63
1.82
1.02
0.52
0.26



0.0351

OUTLET
cum
(mg/DNm3)

105
81.1
71.3
67.4
55.2
30.4
14.8
6.41
3.62
V
(ymA)


23.6
10.3
4.00
1.99
1.20
0.68
0.38

dP
(ym)


15.4
6.70
2.52
1.20
0.68
0.34
0.15


0.359

N:  20°C, 1 atm;
(P
                ;  ymA =
               46
                                               P =2.3g/cm3

-------
TABLE B-3.
           INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #12


                    Taken 1/31/78 at 1:40 pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
fj Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,380
2,260
1,470
1,050
486
185
70.2
25.1
20.1
d
pc
(umA)


31.2
13.7
5.29
2.72
1.58
0.91
0.47

d
P
(urn)


20.45
8.90
3.37
1.68
0.93
0.49
0.21


0.0399

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

128
102
83.6
77.7
61.3
40.3
27.0
20.9
20.1
d
pc
(umA)


23. 5
10.3
3.99
1.92
1.18
0.84
0.37

d
p
(pm)


15.38
6.67
2.51
1.15
0.67
0.44
0.14


0.556

 TABLE B-4.
             INLET AND  OUTLET  PARTICLE  DATA  FOR  RUN  #13


                     Taken  1/31/78  at  2:25  pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,260
2,370
1,620
1,160
557
222
85.6
22.7
7.56
d
PC
(ymA)


31.2
13.7
5.29
2.72
1.59
0.90
0.51

d
P
(vim)


20.45
8.90
3.37
1.68
0.93
0.49
0.23

0.0397

OUTLET
M
mcum
(mg/DNm3)

145
123
106
93.9
70.3
40.5
20.3
9.39
5.16
d
PC
(ymA)


23.7
10.4
4.02
2.00
1.21
0.68
0.38

d
P
(um)


15.3
6.74
2.53
1.20
0.68
0.34
0.15

0.543

N:  20°C, 1 atm;dpa = dp (pp
^; ymA


 47
                                                ; p  = 2.3 g/cm3
                                                  p

-------
TABLE B-5.
             INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #14
                      Taken 1/31/78 at 4:20 pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
S amp 1 e
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,530
2,400
1,610
1,280
429
195
87.7
37.6
10.0
d
pc
(ymA)


31.4
13.8
5.32
2.74
1.59
0.91
0.47

d
P
(vim)


20.59
8.96
3.39
1.68
0.93
0.49
0.21

0.0399

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

136
112
102
96.5
82.7
55.3
40.4
33.9
32.0
d
pc
(ymA)


23.5
10.3
3.98
1.92
1.17
0.84
0.37

d
p
(ym)


15.38
6.67
2.51
1.15
0.67
0.44
0.14

0.369

 TABLE B-6.
             INLET AND OUTLET  PARTICLE  DATA FOR RUN #16
                      Taken  2/1/78  at 4:10  pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

3,150
2,780
1,910
1,600
713
287
69.6
13.9
8. 36
V
(ymA)


33.1
14.5
5.62
2.89
1.69
0.95
0.54

d
P
(ym)


21.73
9.45
3.59
1.79
1.00
0.52
0.25

0.0359

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

101
79.2
73.7
72.2
50.5
24.0
8.78
2.87
1.08
t
d
pc
(ymA)


22.0
9.63
3.72
1.85
1.12
0.63
0.35

d
p
(ym)


14.37
6.23
2.33
1.10
0.63
0.31
0.13

0.558

N: 20°C, 1 atm;
                       (p  C')55; ymA=ym(g/cm3)!s;  p  = 2.3g/cm3
                             48

-------
 TABLE B-7.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #17
         Taken 2/5/78 at 8:15 am
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
S amp 1 e
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,280
2,110
1,550
1,180
774
393
155
49.5
6.19
d
pc
(ymA)


35.3
15.4
5.98
3.08
1.78
1.03
0.53

d
P
(ym)


23.1
10.1
3.83
1.92
1.06
0.57
0.24


0.0323

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

588
398
365
344
208
84.0
26.0
7.59
4.34
d
pc
(ymA)


23.6
10.3
4.00
1.93
1.18
0.84
0.37

H
p
(ym)


15.4
6.70
2.52
1.16
0.67
0.44
0.14


0.369

 TABLE B-8.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #21
         Taken 2/5/78 at 2:30 pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET

M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,440
2,180
1,490
1,360
675
296
104
32.0
2.67

dpc
(ymA)


32.6
14.3
5.53
2.85
1.65
0.95
0.49


dP
(ym)


21.4
9.31
3.53
1.77
0.98
0.52
0.22


0.0375

OUTLET

cum
(mg/DNm3)

428
290
253
214
136
67.9
25.2
8.85
7.87

V
(ymA)


23.7
10.4
4.01
1.93
1.18
0.84
0.37


dP
(ym)


15.98
6.72
2.53
1.16
0.67
0.44
0.14


0.305

N:  20°C, 1 atm;
                ^ ; ymA = ym(g/cm3)!s;  p  = 2.3 g/cm3
                 49

-------
TABLE B-9.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #23
         Taken 2/5/78 at 4:45 pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER
Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
S amp 1 e
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,550
2,340
1,720
1,580
811
339
144
16.9
2.82
d
pc
(ymA)


33.6
14.7
5.69
2.93
1.70
0.98
0.51

d
P
(ym)


22.0
9.58
3.64
1.82
1.01
0.54
0.23

0.0354

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

503
365
348
336
203
117
59.0
32.6
27.4
d
P
(ymA)


23.6
10.3
3.99
1.92
1.18
0.84
0.37

d
P
(ym)


15.41
6.69
2.51
1.15
0.67
0.44
0.14

0.307

TABLE B-10.
 INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #24
          Taken 2/6/78 at 1:10 pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER
Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET

cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,570
2,200
1,570
1,270
658
379
196
32.2
7.43
d
pc
(ymA)


31.9
14.0
5.40
2.78
1.62
0.92
0.52

d
P
(ym)


20.9
9.09
3.44
1.72
0.96
0.50
0.24

0.0404

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

514
403
360
304
282
178
128
109
104
d
pc
(ymA)


22.7
9.93
3.84
1.91
1.15
0.65
0.36

d
P
(ym)


14.83
6.43
2.41
1.14
0.65
0.32
0.14

0.334

N: 20°C, 1 atm; d  = dp (PpC')% ; ymA= ym(g/cm3)Js; pp= 2.3 g/cm3
                             50

-------
TABLE B-ll
             INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN #26


                      Taken 2/6/78 at 4:00 pm
IMP ACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER
Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
S amp 1 e
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,470
2,270
1,600
1,400
597
173
51. 7
18.1
7.75
d
pc
(ymA)


32.4
14.2
5.50
2.83
1.65
0.93
0.53

d
P
(ym)


21.3
9.25
3.51
1.75
0.98
0.51
0.24


0.0387

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

427
356
272
259
141
91.5
34.5
11.7
7.91
d
pc
(pmA)


23.2
10.2
3.94
1.96
1.18
0.66
0.38

d
P
(urn)


15.21
6.59
2.48
1.18
0.67
0.33
0.15


0.316

TABLE B-12,
              INLET AND  OUTLET  PARTICLE  DATA  FOR  RUN  #28


                      Taken  2/6/78  at 6:10 pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter

Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

2,150
1,940
1,330
926
483
212
66.5
15.3
12.8

d
pc
(ymA)


32.3
14.1
5.47
2.82
1.64
0.93
0.53

d
P
(ym)


21.2
9.21
3.49
1.75
0.97
0.51
0.24

i
0.0391

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

510
354
312
301
174
87.9
33.4
10.8
8.20

d
pc
(ymA)


22.7
10.4
4. 01
2.00
1.20
0.68
0.38


d
P
(ym)


14.82
6.72
2.53
1.20
0.68
0.34
0.15


0.305

N: 20°C, 1 atm;  dna = dn (pn C ' )
                 pa   p   p
                                 ymA = ym(g/cm3 )  \  P = 2 . 3 g/cm
                              51

-------
TABLE B-13.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR BLANK RUN #3
         Taken 1/25/78 at 3:45 pm
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
Loading
mg
17.6
151.0
-0.1
-0.3
-0.4
-0.3
-0.3
-0.6
-0.3
-0.4
V
(ymA)


26.8
11.8
4.45
2.28
1.29
0.72
0.42


0.051
OUTLET
Loading
mg
7.7
41.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.3
-0.1
-0.3
-0.2
-0.3
0.0
d
pc
(ymA)


21.3
9.3
3.49
1.82
1.02
0.57
0.33


0.349
TABLE B-14.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR BLANK RUN #5
         Taken 1/27/78 at 9:10 am
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
Loading
mg
8.9
105.6
0.0
-2.0
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
-0.2
0.0
0.0
V
(ymA)


28.9
12.7
4.80
2.47
1.39
0.78
0.45


0.044
OUTLET
Loading
mg
13.0
29.6
0.0
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
35.9
V
(ymA)


20.6
9.1
3.4
1.8
0.99
0.55
0.32


0.410
N: 20°C, 1 atm; d

      dp (pp
                              52
                                               Pp=2.3g/cm3

-------
TABLE B-15.
             INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR BLANK RUN #10
                   Taken 1/31/78 at 8:25 am
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET

Loading
mg
5.2
160.1
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.3
0.0
A
v
(ymA)


28.3
12.4
4.69
2.41
1.36
0. 76
0.44


0.047
OUTLET

Loading
mg
13.8
58.5
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
10.4
d
V
(ymA)


20.4
8.92
3.34
1.73
0.98
0.55
0.32


0.583
TABLE  B-16.
              INLET AND  OUTLET  PARTICLE  DATA FOR BLANK RUN #19
                   Taken  2/5/78  at  10:30  am
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Probe
Pre-f ilter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
S amp 1 e
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
Loading
mg
14.2
122.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
V
CymA)


26.6
11.7
4.42
2,28
1.29
0.72
0.42



0.042
OUTLET
Loading
rag
36.1
87.5
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
6.3
dpc
(ymA)


20.6
9.1
3.4
1.8
1.0
0.55
0.32



0.168
N: 20°C, 1 atm; d   = dp (pp
                               ; ymA = ymCg/cm3)31; pp = 2.3 g/cm3
                             53

-------
      APPENDIX "C"





PARTICULATE SULFATE DATA
             54

-------
                          TABLE C-l.  RESULTS OF PARTICULATE  SULFATE TESTS,
                                      mg/DNm3 OF GAS SAMPLED

Run No.
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Conditioned Tests
2
Inlet
2.10
1.05
0.90
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Outlet
1.49
0.21
0.17
0.23
0.27
0.19
0.19
0.15
8
Inlet
1.14
0.33
1.14
0.49
0.33
0.65
0.65
0.49
Outlet
0.13
0.08
0.14
0.18
0.14
0.16
0.13
0.14
Baseline Tests
11
Inlet
*
*
*
*
*
2.60
*
*
Outlet
1.09
0.23
*
*
*
*
*
*
18
Inlet
1.08
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Outlet
0.09
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.33
22
Inlet
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Outlet
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6.72
29
Inlet
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Outlet
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.28
Ul
t/1
      *  Below detectable limit

-------
              APPENDIX "D"



INPUT DATA FOR THE ESP PERFORMANCE  MODEL
                    56

-------
                     TABLE  D-l.   INPUT  DATA FOR  THE ESP  PERFORMANCE MODEL PROGRAM*
Case
Baseline
0.1-2 ym
Baseline
2-20 ym
S03 Conditioning
0.1-2 ym
SOj Conditioning
2-20 ym
d
Pi
8.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

a
g
4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

a
1.16

0.948

2.85

2.25

b
0.300

0.817

1.06

2.33

c
0.212

-3.50x10-*

0.486

0.00265

y^c
0.36

0.36

0.36

0.36

a
0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

N
2

2

2

2

S
0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

di
0.1

2

0.1

2

df
2.0

20

2

20

Ad
0.1

1

0.1

1

Enter Data


Mass mean particle diameter, d   ( ym)                  Number of baffled sections, Ng
                              t &

Geometric standard deviation, a                         Sneakage-reentrainment fraction, S
                               o

First curve fit parameter for migration velocity, a     Initial particle diameter, d^  (ym)


Second curve fit parameter for migration velocity, b    Final particle diameter, df (ym)


Third curve fit parameter for migration velocity, c     Particle diameter increment, Ad  (ym)


Specific collector area, A /Q,, (cm2/Acm3/sec)

Normalized standard deviation of gas velocity distribution, a
  Sparks (1978)

-------
     APPENDIX "E"




ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS DATA
           58

-------
             APPENDIX "E".   ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS DATA

     Thirty elements were included in the UC Davis X-ray
Analysis of the cascade impactor substrates.  Of these thirty
only eight were present in significant amounts.  Table E-l
lists the thirty elements and representative minimum resis-
tivities.
     Table E-2 presents the weight per substrate area, by
cascade impactor stage, for the eight elements which were
present in large enough amounts to be of interest.
          TABLE E-l.  MINIMUM SENSITIVITIES OF ELEMENTS,
                      ng/cmz
          Na  2,158          V   172          Hg    725
          Mg    615          Cr  149          Pb    864
          Al    653          Mn  150          Sn    374
          Si    613          Fe  157          Ag  1,856
          S     470          Co  151          Br    459
          Cl    443          Ni  116          Rb    740
          K     279          Cu   89          Sr  1,013
          Ca    198          Zn  107          Zr  1,502
          Ba    550          Pt  566          Mo  2,351
          Ti    168          Au  652          Pd  4,660
                                  59

-------
              TABLE  E-2.   RESULTS  OF  ELEMENTAL  ANALYSIS
                          OF  FLY ASH  ON CASCADE IMPACTOR
                          SUBSTRATES
00
3 4->

16*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
34**
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24**
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ng/cm2

Al

2430
2657
8322
2836
2920
206
***

60832
21055
25877
25513
4621
4628
1750

***
11464
32192
37295
10990
3922
^1539

Si

5147
6870
15504
5222
5351
855
***

101540
37357
40427
41872
8201
8921
3483

1509
21887
52636
60104
20011
7084
2953

S

5665
8467
2543
4739
5904
4116
4399

***
1427
261
467
350
506
286

1133
3113
679
***
397
565
400

K

1434
1201
4276
1273
1562
510
148

21842
6452
9008
8380
1796
1686
743

5550
2923
10957
13488
3988
1530
655

Ca

3513
4365
4507
3926
2560
1508
1562

16813
12073
7398
7562
3886
4415
3817

7763
6252
9717
10504
6607
5410
1713

Ti

1940
1312
5180
1606
2212
784
604

29718
7032
10654
8568
2102
2046
1056

8802
3384
12378
14556
4372
1998
519

Fe

22088
20449
33215
10695
15078
5436
2100

201947
34750
62852
49857
12375
13017
5520

56112
17258
82818
99906
27685
11698
5211

Zn

244
277
266
166
257
155
165

1480
348
464
388
154
472
106

598
236
420
597
316
183
141
  * Conditioned test
 ** Baseline test
*** Below significant limit
                                    60

-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                          (Please read Inunctions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/7-79-104a
        2.
                                   3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Effects of Conditioning Agents on Emissions from
 Coal-fired Boilers: Test Report No. 1
                                   5. REPORT DATE
                                   April 1979
                                   6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
 R.G.Patterson, P.Riersgard, R.Parker, and
  S. Calvert
                                   8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Air Pollution Technology, Inc.
 4901 Morena Boulevard, Suite 402
 San Diego, California 92117
                                   10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                   EHE624A
                                   11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                    68-02-2628
 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 PERIOC C
            Task Final; 1/78 - 4/78
                                                         COVERED
                                   14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                     EPA/600/13
 ,5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
T£RL_RTp
                                                       j,
16.
 The report gives results of a field performance test of an electrostatic precipitator
 (ESP) which uses SOS an the conditioning agent. The ESP is at an electric utility
 power plant, burning approximately 1% sulfur coal. Tests were conducted with and
 without injection of the SO3. The ESP performance was characterized in terms of
 particle collection efficiency and the chemical composition  of particulate and gaseous
 emissions. Fly  ash resistivity and dust opacity were also measured. Results show
 an average increase in overall efficiency from 80% to  95% with  injection of the SOS.
 This is accompanied by a decrease in fly ash resistivity, a decrease in opacity, and
 an increase in SOS concentration entering and leaving  the ESP.  Approximately 80%
 of the injected SOS escaped the ESP.
 7.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
 Pollution
 Flue Gases
 Treatment
 Coal
 Combustion
 Sulfur Trioxide
   Electrostatic Pre-
     cipitation
   Fly Ash
   Electrical Resisti-
     vity
   Opacity
                                          b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Conditioning Agents
                                                                   c. COSATl Field/Group
13B
21B
14B
21D

07B
13H
                                    20C
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Unlimited
                                          19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                           Unclassified
                                                21. NO. OF PAGES

                                                    71
                                          20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                           Unclassified
                                                                   22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                         61

-------