&EPA
United States      Industrial Environmental Research  EPA-600/7-79-1045
Environmental Protection  Laboratory          April 1979
Agency        Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Effects of Conditioning
Agents on Emissions
from Coal-fired Boilers:
Test Report No. 2

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-600/7-79-104b

                                                  April 1979
     Effects  of  Conditioning Agents
on Emissions from Coal-fired Boilers:
               Test Report  No.  2
                            by

              R. G. Patterson, J. Long, 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 was done on an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) which uses Apollo Chemical Company's LPA 445
and LAC 51B flue gas conditioning agents.  The ESP is located
at an electric utilities power plant, burning approximately
1 to 21 sulfur coal.
     Tests were conducted with and without injection of the
conditioning agents.  The ESP performance was characterized in
terms of particle collection efficiency and the chemical com-
position of particulate and gaseous emissions.  Fly ash
resistivity and flue gas opacity were also measured.
     Measurements indicate that there was no significant change
in overall penetration (0.4%) between the conditioned and
unconditioned tests.  There was some evidence that the con-
ditioning agents reduced reentrainment during electrode
rapping and possibly improved the fractional collection effi-
ciency slightly for particles smaller than about 5 ym
diameter.

-------
                            CONTENTS
                                                              Page
ABSTRACT. . .	iii

FIGURES 	    v

TABLES	   vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT	viii


SECTIONS

    1. INTRODUCTION 	    1

    2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	    2

    3. PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PARAMETERS 	    5

    4. TESTS	 . . . =	   14


    5. TEST RESULTS	   16

    6. ECONOMICS	-   33


APPENDICES

    A. PARTICLE SIZE DATA	   36

    B. ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS  DATA	   47
                                 IV

-------
                              FIGURES


Number                                                     Page

   1   Plant layout 	   6

   2   Schematic of ESP 3A	   7

   3   ESP voltage-current relationship,  inlet section.  .  .  10

   4   ESP voltage-current relationship,  center east
       section	11

   5   ESP voltage-current relationship,  center west
       section	11

   6   ESP voltage-current relationship, outlet, east
       section	12

   7   ESP voltage-current relationship,outlet, west
       section	12

   8   Particle size distribution showing 90%
       confidence intervals 	  18

   9   Fractional penetration  curves  for  conditioned tests.  20

  10   Fractional penetration  curves  for  baseline  tests  .  .  21

  11   Average penetration curves for runs of May 11
       and May 16	23

  12   Mass concentrations of major elements in
       fly ash with conditioning	24

  13   Mass concentrations of major elements in
       fly ash during baseline test	25

  14   Recorder plate for  duct opacity	30

  15   S02 concentration in flue gas and coal sulfur
       content	.....'.............  32

-------
                              TABLES

Number                                                      Page
   1   Electrostatic Precipitator Designand Test Data.  ...  4
   2   Boiler Load	9
   3   Average Electrical Conditions for ESP B 	 13
   4   Test Methods	15
   5   Summary of Overall Penetrations  	 17
   6   Fly Ash Resistivity	22
   7   ESP Inlet Flue Gas Conditions	27
   8   ESP Outlet Flue Gas Conditions	28
   9   Chemical Analysis of Coal	29
  10   Capital and Operating Costs for Second Test Site. .   . 34

Appendices
  A-l  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 1	37
  A-2  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 2	37
  A-3  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 5	38
  A-4  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 9	38
  A-5  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 10 .... 39
  A-6  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 11 .... 39
  A-7  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 12 .... 40
  A-8  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 13 .   . .   .40
  A-9  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 15 .   . ,   , 41
                                VI

-------
                        TABLES (continued)


Number                                                      Page

 A-10  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 16 .... 41

 A-ll  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 17 .... 42

 A-12  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 20 .... 42

 A-13  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 21 .... 43

 A-14  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Run No. 22 .... 43

 A-15  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run
       No. 3	44

 A-16  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run
       No. 7	44

 A-17  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run
       No. 8	45

 A-18  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run
       No. 14	45

 A-19  Inlet and Outlet Particle Data for Blank Run
       No. 19	46

 B-l   Results of Elemental Analysis of  Fly Ash collected  on
       Cascade Impactor Substrates  	 48
                                 VII

-------
                         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.
                               Vlll

-------
                            SECTION 1
                          INTRODUCTION

     The Particulate Technology Branch of the U.S.E.P.A. Indus-
trial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
NC has contracted with A.P.T., Inc. to conduct a series of
performance tests on electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) which
use flue gas conditioning agents.  This report is the result of
a performance evaluation test conducted at an electric utilities
plant in the Spring of 1978.
     Conditioning agents are used either to improve the overall
particle collection efficiency of ESPs or to reduce the
opacity of the emissions.  The improved performance is often a
result of a decrease in the fly ash electrical resistivity.
However, other effects such as an increase in space charge and
a reduction in rapping reentrainment losses may be more important
than resistivity in some situations.
     The purpose of this test program is to obtain an extensive
data base which may be used to evaluate the effect of gas
conditioning agents on overall ESP performance.  Furthermore, the
tests will identify and quantify any additional pollutants which
may be emitted when using the conditioning system.

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

     A performance test was done on an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) which used an Apollo Chemical Company conditioning system.
The conditioning agents were LPA 445 and LAC 51B.  The chemical
composition of the conditioning agents is proprietary.  ESP
performance was evaluated with and without the use of the condi-
tioning system.  The primary performance criteria were the changes
in the overall and fractional particle penetrations.  The chemical
composition of particulate and gaseous emissions, opacity in the
ESP exit duct, and fly ash resistivity were also measured.
     The data indicate that the average overall penetration (0.4%)
was not affected by the conditioning agent.  These data cover a
wide range of boiler load, volumetric flow, sulfur concentra-
tion and other parameters.
     Due to fluctuations  in boiler load all of the tests are not
comparable.  However, tests run on May 11 with the conditioning
system operating and the tests run on May 16 with the conditioning
system turned off were run while the boiler was operating at a
load of 440 MW.  The three (conditioned) runs on May 11 resulted
in particle penetrations of 0.1, O.2., and 0.11; on May 16
(unconditioned) the resultant penetrations were 0.2, 0.3, and
0.3%.  The apparent change of approximately a tenth of percent
in penetration represents a change of more than 100% in outlet
particulate loading.  The fractional penetration curves also
indicate an improvement in collection of particles from 0.2 ym
to 2.0 ym diameter associated with conditioning.  However, the
improvement is not reflected in the precipitation rate para-
meter (Table 1) .

-------
     The recorder plots of the duct opacity clearly show reen-
trainment "puffing spikes."  The puffing spikes are much larger
during the unconditioned tests than during the conditioned
tests.  The average opacity between "puffing spikes" was
approximately the same for both tests.
     The primary composition of the stack gas was not notice-
ably altered by the injection of the Apollo additives.  The
flue gas sulfur dioxide content fluctuated erratically during
both test periods, corresponding roughly to sulfur content
changes in the coal.  The electrical resistivity of the fly ash
increased slightly during the conditioned tests, but the
difference is statistically insignificant.

-------
     TABLE 1.  ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR DESIGN AND TEST DATA

                            DESIGN DATA
Start in 1968.
Rated for 697 m3/s (1,470,000 ACFM) § 98% efficiency.
Gas velocity 2.14 m/s (7.0 ft/s)
78 ducts per chamber - 9.15 m (30 ft) high, 8.24 m (27 ft) long,
    0.229 m (9 in) wide.
Collection surface area per chamber - 11,739 m2 (126,360 ft2).
Specific collection area (SCA) - 34 m2/m3/s (171 ft/1,000 ACFM).
36 wires/duct - 2.77 mm (0.109 in) diameter, equally spaced with
     respect to plates and each other.
5 electrically isolated transformer-rectifier sets per chamber -
     maximum power consumption approximately 77 kW/set; each set
     rated at 400 line volts, 240 line amps, 45 kV and 1.5 amps
     in the precipitator.
Precipitation rate parameter - W =0.115 m/s (0.377 ft/s).
                                G

                        TEST DATA - ESP 3B
Conditioned - May 11 (5 Tests)
     Average Flow - 431.3   m3/s @ the inlet, 334.9 m3/s @ the outlet
     SCA* - 35.0 m2/m3/s
     W  =0.19 m/s (0.62 ft/s) based on an overall average effi-
      6
          ciency of 99.9%.
Unconditioned - May 16 (3  Tests)
     Average Flow - 461.7  m3/s @ the inlet, 371.7 m3/s at the outlet
     SCA* - 31.6 m2/m3/s
     W  = 0.18  m/s (0.60 ft/s) based on an overall average effi-
      C
          ciency of 99.7%.
*The SCA is based on the outlet flow rates since they are generally
 more reliable (White, 1963).

-------
                             SECTION 3
                PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PARAMETERS

     The utilities power plant which was the emissions source
for this study operates at a total output of 1,600 MW.  The
testing was performed on unit No. 3, a Babcock § Wilcox boiler
which is rated at 480 MW.  Normal operation results in a daily
average of 300 MW producing 24,820 kPa (3,500 psi) steam at
593°C (1,000°F).
     Two parallel ESPs are used to collect the fly ash produced
by unit No. 3.  The plant layout is shown schematically in
Figure 1.  The gas flow through each unit depends on pressure
drop through the air preheaters.  The inlet ducting drops in
elevation by about half a diameter through an offset bend and
into a diverging section immediately before the ESP.  Twelve
inlet sampling ports are located at the upstream edge of this
diverging section.  At the downstream end of the ESP is a
diverging section where four outlet sampling ports are located.
The ESPs are divided into five sections, each one electrically
isolatable and each one equipped with a transformer-rectifier
set.  This configuration is presented schematically in Figure 2,
Magnetic impact type rappers operating every two minutes remove
the collected fly ash from the plates.  The ash falls into
hoppers and is subsequently transferred by a pneumatic handling
system to a water sluicing tank and settling pond.
     The flue gas conditioning system was provided by Apollo
Chemical Corporation.  Two conditioning agents were injected;
LPA 445 and LAC 51B.  LPA 445 was injected through six nozzles
into the economizer section where the flue gas temperature was
approximately 600°C.  LAC 51B was injected downstream from the

-------
           COMBUSTION
              AIR
           PREHEATER
INLET SAMPLING
    PORTS      OUTLET
              SAMPLING
               PORTS
UNIT 3

BOILER
         PRIMARY AIR
           HFATFE    LAL blB
           HEATER   INJECTION
                     NOZZLES
UNIT 4

BOILER
          Figure 1.  Plant layout,

-------
GAS FLOW
h 	 ? 74 m

I


! -1 1-
23 cm 23 cm
INLET
SECTION



fFMTFR

EAST

CENTER
WEST

. 74 m 	 *•

OUTLET
FA^T

OUTLET
WEST
78 DUCTS
                Figure  2.   Schematic of  ESP 3A  (not drawn to scale).

-------
air preheater through four nozzles.  The flue gas at this injec-
tion point was approximately 120°C.  The injection rate for both
additives was automatically controlled with the coal feed rate:
0.31 cm3 LPA 445/kg of coal (0.075 gal/ton) and 0.42 cm3 LAC 51B/kg
of coal (0.10 gal/ton).
     During the test period the boiler was operated at levels
above the average load (300 MW) but generally below full load.
The generator output is  summarized in Table 2.  Previous to the
installation of the conditioning system the stack gas particulate
loading exceeded compliance limits (0.1 kg/J; 0.24 lbs/1-06 BTU) -
for generator output in excess of 300 MW, hence boiler load levels
were high enough to provide representative emissions.
     Current-voltage characteristics were generated for ESP 3B
for both the conditioned and unconditioned test periods (Figures
3-7).  The conditioned gas curves demonstrate increases in
voltage and decreases in current relative to the baseline curves.
However the inlet section of the ESP was inoperable on April 21
when the V-I data were being obtained during the conditioned
test period.  This very likely accounts for the significant
difference between the conditioned and baseline cases.  With the
inlet section shorted there will be no particle collection, hence
particle concentration will be much greater in the following
sections.  The higher concentration of charged particles will
result in a substantial  space charge which will act to suppress
the corona currents.  This explanation is consistent with the
observation that the difference is smaller in the outlet section
where the particle concentration is not as high and the space
charge consequently not  so great.
     The normal operating conditions of ESP 3B are presented
in Table 3.  The 5 kV drop in the average secondary voltage
may have been due to meter or voltage divider malfunction and
should not be considered as indicative of a system alteration.
This is borne out by the fact that neither the currents nor effi-
ciencies change as would be expected for a significant voltage drop.

                                8

-------
                TABLE  2.  BOILER LOAD
Date

4/12/78
4/18/78
4/19/79
4/20/78
4/21/78
4/22/78
5/10/78
5/11/78
5/16/78
4/17/78
    Boiler Load
         MW
         460
         460
         460
460 (380 mid-day)
440 (450 afternoon)
440 (350 before 11 AM)
420 (320 mid-day)
         440
         440
         400

-------
          o
             80
             70
             60
          c


          x"  50
          H
          i—i

          w  40

          w
          Q

          H  3°
          2
          W

          |  20



          5  10
                O
baseline

conditioned data not available due

to shorted T/R controls.
                      10       20       30      40

                          SECONDARY  VOLTAGE,  kVDC
                                  50
Figure 3.  ESP voltage-current  relationship,  inlet  section.
                             10

-------

           >H
           H
           I-LJ
           H

           I
           Oi
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

 0
                O baseline
                Q conditioned
          10      20      30       40
             SECONDARY VOLTAGE, kVDC
                                                       50
Figure 4. ESP  voltage -current  relationship,  center east
          section.
              80
              70
           5  60
              50

              40
           w  30
           Q
           g  20
           OJ
           e*
           3  10
                 O baseline
                    conditioned
                       10      20      30      40
                          SECONDARY VOLTAGE, kVDC
                                           50
Figure 5.  ESP voltage-current relationship, center west
           section.
                               11

-------
              80
           «  70
            u
           ^ 60
             "  50
            2 40
            W
            Q

            H
            w
30


20


10


 0
    Q baseline

    O conditioned
                         10       20       30       40
                             SECONDARY  VOLTAGE,  kVDC
                                          50
Figure 6.    ESP voltage-current  relationship  outlet,  east
            section.
            B
            U
            c
             •v
            >-
            H
 80


 70


 60


 50

 40


 30
            gj   20
                10


                 0
                   O baseline
                   Q conditioned
                  0
J_
                           JU
          10      20      30      40
              SECONDARY VOLTAGE, kVDC
                                50
Figure 7.   ESP  voltage-current  relationship outlet,  west
            section.
                                  12

-------
      TABLE  3.  AVERAGE ELECTRICAL CONDITIONS  FOR  ESP  3B
DATE
INLET
Secondary
Voltage
kVDC
4/17
4/18
4/19
4/20
4/21
4/22
5/10
5/11
5/16
5/17
5/18
45.5
44.0
42.0
42.7
	
	
32.8
34.3
32.7
35.5
32.4
Average totals
Conditioned :


OUTLET WEST
OUTLET EAST
Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary
Current Voltage Current Voltage Current
DC amps kVDC DC amps kVDC DC amps
1.30
1.26
1.47
1.36
1.32
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.31
1.30
1.28
across ESP:
4/17-4/20 -
5/10-5/11 -
39.5
40.0
37.0
38.8
43.8
38.9
36.7
38.2
36.8
36.3
36.5
Secondary
Voltage
41.0 kVDC
35.8 kVDC
1.20
1.30
1.12
1.29
1.31
1.30
1.33
1.26
1.28
1.28
1.22
41.0
42.0
39.2
40.0
41.5
39.8
36.0
37.0
36.5
37.0
36.0
Secondary
Current
1.35 A
1.33 A


1.50
1.40
1.45
1.48
1.48
1.50
1.38
1.36
1.38
1.37
1.34
Current
Density
1. ISxlO'1* A/m2
1.13x10-* A/m2
Baseline:
5/16-5/18 - 35.5 kVDC
1.31 A
A/m2
                              13

-------
                             SECTION 4
                               TESTS

     The field test spanned the period from April 17, 1978 through
May 18, 1978.  On April 21 the inlet section of ESP 3B was
shorted and tests were suspended on April 22 due to problems
arising from this malfunction.  The conditioned tests were
resumed on May 10 and completed May 11.  After a deconditioning
period, the unconditioned tests commenced on May 16 and were
concluded on May 18.  Table 4 summarizes the tests performed and
methods employed.
                                14

-------
TABLE 4.  TEST METHODS
ANALYTE


Particulate

Flue Gas
(Composition)
Flue Gas
(Physical
Properties)
TEST
Mass § size distribution
Overall collection
efficiency
Resistivity
S0<» =
Elemental composition
% Oz
% CO 2
% CO
% HaO
SOz concentration
SO 3 concentration
NH3 concentration
Velocity
Static pressure
Molecular weight
Density
METHOD
Cascade impactor
Modified method 5 and
cascade impactor
In-situ point to probe plane
Acid-base titration
bromophenol blue as indicator
Ion excited x-ray emission
Orsat
Wet-bulb dry bulb impinger
catch
Dupont S0.2 stack analyzer
Controlled condensation
Kjeldahl method
S-type pitot
Calculated "from composition
and temperature
          15

-------
                            SECTION 5
                          TEST RESULTS

PARTICULATE
     Overall and fractional penetrations for ESP 3B were deter-
mined from particle mass data using in-stack cascade impactors.
There is no change in average penetrations for the two tests.
Both tests, conditioned and baseline, result in an average
overall penetration of 0.41 with a standard deviation of 0.3.
The results of the tests run at identical boiler loads do,
however, indicate a slight improvement in overall penetration
for the conditioned case.  Table 5 summarizes the results for
each impactor run.  Also included are the results from the
modified Method 5 which demonstrates the difference in penetra-
tion between the parallel ESPs on unit No. 3.
     The size distributions from the inlet and outlet sampling
ports for both cases are illustrated in Figure 8.  Detailed
particulate data are presented in Appendix "A".   The volume
median diameters (VMD) decrease from roughly 20 ym at the inlet
to slightly below 10 ym at the outlet which is consistent with
the total penetration results, as is the generally good
agreement between the distributions for the different cases.
Extrapolation was necessary to estimate the VMD for the inlet
cases because a pre-cutter was needed on the inlet impactor runs
to reduce the total sample load.   The average cut point for the
pre-cutter ranged from approximately 6 to 7 ymA* for these tests,
 The convention of using "ymA" for aerodynamic diameters  and "ym"
for physical diameters is adhered to in this report.   The aerodyna-
mic diameter "d  " is related to the physical particle diameter
"V *••       pa
                        v • vcv
                               16

-------
             TABLE 5.   SUMMARY OF OVERALL  PENETRATIONS
Run No. Boiler Load
MW
Inlet Cone.
mg/DNm3
Outlet Cone. Overall Pcnct .
mg/DNm3 %
With Conditioning Agent
2
5
7 Blank
8 Blank
9
10
11
12
13

1-M5 (3A)
1-M5 (3B)
460
460
NA
NA
320
450
440
440
440



Without Conditioning
14 Blank
15
16
17
20
19 Blank
21
22

NA
440
440
440
NA
NA
NA
410

4,200
21,900
12,200
5,140
6,620
5,850
6,460
7,570
10,500

6,330
6,750
Agent
7,460
9,850
8,420
10,600
7,890
7,400
6,060
9,060

30.0
43.3
28.0
27.0
17.0
60.3
7.5
11.3
6.4
Average
Std. Dev.
183.0
69.9
16.8
7.9
21.8
29.7
10.9
9.8
44.3
95.9
Average
Std. Dev.
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
2.9
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.8
1.1
0.4
0.3
*Runs 2 through 7 were run from 4-17-78 through 4-22-78.
                                 17

-------




e
, DIAMETER, \.
^~i
u
£
hJU
a.
UJ
•i
i— J
u
H-
Oi
a.


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 i II III ill
I A 1 '

- _
1 _A «
1 A 1

H>J
- HH

1 A 1
( A 1

KH
kri ' A '
' i A i —

— —
K>^ ' — ^^
i & i
0 CONDITIONED
INLETS
0 UNCONDITIONED
|OJ 1 	 A 1
r-n 1 LJ-H
- *^H A CONDITIONED
OUTLETS
pp = 2.3 g/cm3
i <\ i
KH

  0.10.20.5 12     5    10    20   30  40  50  60  70  80    90

             CUMULATIVE MASS UNDERSIZE,  I

Figure 8.   Particle size distribution showing  90%  confidence
           intervals.

                           18

-------
Consequently, extrapolation into the 20 ym range for  the physical
VMD for the inlet mass loading is subject to some question.
However, the estimated VMD of 20 ym and geometric standard
deviation of about 3.0 are consistent with published  data for
pulverized coal-fired boilers (Oglesby, 1970).
     The grade penetration curves present evidence from the par-
ticulate data that there is a difference between the  conditioned
and unconditioned tests.  A logarithmic spline fit to the cumu-
lative mass curves for simultaneous inlet and outlet  samples
was used to generate the grade penetration curves shown in
Figures 9 and 10.  The conditioned test curves appear to average
a lower penetration for fine particles than the unconditioned
test.  This is borne out when the average curves for the tests
run during similar plant operation are plotted  (Figure 11);
however, the standard deviations of the data render the difference
between the curves questionable.
     An ESP performance model (Sparks, 1978) was used to generate
the predictions  of ESP penetration shown in Figure 11.  Clearly
the precipitator performed with much greater efficiency than
the model predicted.  For the conditioned case  this may be due
to the additives; however, baseline performance  is also nearly
an order of magnitude better than predicted.
     Fly ash samples were analyzed for sulfate  particles and
elemental composition.  Fly ash  resistivity was  measured in-situ.
The particulate  sulfate for all  runs that were  analyzed was
below the 1 ppm  detection limit  for the method  employed.  The
resistivity and  elemental composition  data  are  presented in
Table 6 and Figures 12  and 13,  respectively.  The elemental  com-
position results are  estimated  from results based on a  0.125  cm2
area of the substrate which was  analyzed by ion-excited X-ray
emission.  The viewing  area  is  representative of the mass  col-
lected but correlation  to the volume sampled  is  necessarily  an
approximation.   Detailed  results  from  the  elemental  analyses  are
also presented in Appendix "B".   There is  little or  no  signifi-
cant change  in these  parameters  for  the  two cases.
                                 19

-------
c
o
•H
4J
U
CO
O
H
P-l
2
w
a.
     0.3



     0.2





     0.1
0.05

0.04


0.03



0.02
0.01
    0.005


    0.004

    0.003



    0.002





    0.001


        0.1
             I    I
        I  I I I I
       RUN
       NO. 1
                      I    I  I  I  111
             I
I
I  I  I  I  I I
I   I   I  l I  i l
           0.2 0.3 0.40.5     1.0     2    345


                PARTICLE PHYSICAL DIAMETER, yra*
                                      10
   Figure 9. Fractional penetration  curves  for  conditioned tests

   * Calculated from aerodynamic diameter using a  particle
     density of 2.3 g/cm3
                             20

-------
c
o
o
rt
o
h-1
H


W
    0.3


    0.2




    0.1
0.05
0.04

0.03


0.02




0.001




0.005

0.004

0.003


0.00
0.001

     0.1
                 I    I   I   II I  I T I
                                     I     I   T  1ITFT
           RUN
           NO. 16
              20
                 I     i
                              l I  i l
                                      I  	I
                0.2   0.3 0.4 0.5     1.0     2     345

                     PARTICLE PHYSICAL DIAMETER, ym*
                                                            10
    Figure 10.   Fractional penetration curves for baseline tests

    * Calculated from aerodynamic diameter using a
      particle  density of 2.3 g/cm3
                             21

-------
                 TABLE  6.  FLY ASH RESISTIVITY
          Date                   Temperature        Resistivity
                                 °C     (°F)            n-cm
 With conditioning agent
          4/20                  117     (242)         6.5  x  1010
          4/21                  114     (238)         9.0  x  1010
          4/22                  107     (225)         6.7  x  101C
          4/22                  110     (230)         5.4  x  1010
                                            Avg.     6.9  x  10lfl
                                        Std.  Dev.     1.5  x 1010
Without conditioning agent
          5/17
          5/18
108
141
(227)
(286)
Avg.
Std. Dev.
8.5 x 101U
4.7 x 1010
6.6 x 1010
2.7 x 1010
                                22

-------
c
o
L)
flj
o
(—I
H



W

W
    0.5

    0.4

    0.3


    0.2   |_
0.1





0.05

0.04

0.03



0.02





0.01





0.005

0.004

0.003



0.002
     0.001
              I     I   I   I  I I  I I
                                            I     I   I  II  111
                                              UNCONDITIONED

                  x\  CONDITIONED
                 	  PREDICTION

                 	 AVERAGE
                   I
I   I   I  I I  I I
                                        I
                                                 I   I   I
      0.1      0.2  0.3 0.40.5      1       2

                       PHYSICAL DIAMETER,
                                                 345
                                                              10
    Figure  11.   Average penetration curves for runs of May 11
                 and May 16.
                                   23

-------
260
240
220
/-N 2°°
m
1 180
Q
CXJ
^ 160
0 140
i— i
3 120
E-
55
HJ
u 100
o
° 80
60
40
20
0
-
-
_
—
-
-
-
-1
Illlil 	




1,
L










i




i
r

1






it. .....i. Illh
Na Mg Al Si S K
STAGE
CUT DIAMETER*
~1 ° iim
*• Q Q iim

^. 0 ym
~n O r urn

~0.5 ym
	 0.25 ym
•
1 	 0.1 ym





•
,. Illllll .1,,,..
-
-
-
-
-

||
Ca Ti Fe
Figure 12.  Mass concentrations of major elements
            in fly ash with conditioning.

* Physical diameter;  calculated from aerodynamic

-------
260
240

220
1* t* \J
~ 200
e
^ 180
bC
& 160
z:
o
r 140
H
z 120
PL!
U
2 100
o
U
80
60
40
20
-
-

_

-

-

.
|l








r
1





m

.


-


*-
-
-
Illllll il...
Na** Mg
STAGE
CUT DIAMETER*




iz ym
~5 . 5ym
~2.0 ym
~n QQ urn


~0 . 5 ym
	 -0.25 ym
1 	 ~0.1 ym
























1









li- 	 	



II,.. 1
** Al Si S K
-
-

-

~~

















III" -I 	
™"

-


~

-






"•
—
ill,
Ca Ti Fe
Figure 13.  Mass concentrations of major elements
            in fly ash during baseline test.

* Physical diameter; calculated from aerodynamic
  diameter using a density of 2.3 g/cm3
**Denotes amount was  less  than this minimum  detectable limit

-------
 FLUE  GAS
      The primary  composition  of  the  gas  is consistent from inlet
 to  outlet and  from  conditioned to unconditioned  tests.  The con-
 centrations by volume percent of C02, 02, CO, H20, and S02, are
 presented in Tables  7 and  8.  The S02 concentration fluctuations
 closely follow the  change  in  the sulfur  content  of the coal.
 Sulfur trioxide concentrations were  near the method limit of
 detection, consequently long  sampling times were required, mag-
 nifying analytical  errors  and possibly producing erroneous data.
 Generally the  S03 concentration was  below 1 ppm  and showed no
 statistically  significant  changes for the two cases.  The ammonia
 concentration  of  the flue  gas was below  the method limit of
 detection of 1 ppm.  The flue gas composition is clearly unaffected
 by  the additives  and consequently would  appear to have nothing
 to  do with any performance changes due to the conditioning agents.
     Opacity is one property  of the  stack gas which may reflect
 the operation  and mechanism of the conditioning  additives.  The
 opacity was continuously monitored in the ESP outlet duct for
 the duration of both test periods.    During the first week of the
 conditioned tests the opacity averaged approximately 30%.  It
 rose slightly on April 21 when the inlet section of the ESP became
 inoperable.   When testing was resumed after repair to the
 precipitator,  the opacity had decreased  to 151 and was steady
 during the remaining conditioned tests.
     After the Apollo system was turned off, the nature of the
 stack gas opacity changed dramatically.   Figure  14 illustrates
 the contrast;  the spikes on the trace are due to reentrainment
puffs during rapping.  Clearly the conditioning agent effectively
dampens reentrainment even though the minimum or baseline opacity
appears unchanged.  Determining the  effective opacity quantita-
tively during  the unconditioned test is  obviously difficult, but
the qualitative difference is clear.
COAL
     Coal samples were taken from the coal pulverizers and from
 the coal conveyor.  Table 9 contains the results of the chemical

                                26

-------
                             TABLE  7.   ESP INLET FLUE GAS CONDITIONS (DAILY AVERAGE)
to
•-j
Date
4/17/78
4/18/78
4/19/78
4/20/78
4/21/78
4/22/78
5/10/78
5/11/78
5/16/78
5/17/78
Flue Gas
Temperature
°C
123
129
129
123
119
107
114
121
116
116
Flue Gas Composition, Vol. /Vol.
%02 %C02 %H20 S02 ppm
4.4
4.4 14.0 3.3
—
3.5
3.2 14.6
5.0 13.9 3.4
6.6 12.6 6.2
3.0 15.4 8.6
5.7
5.7
--
--
836
1,118
779
849
612
1,080
729
962
Average
Velocity
m/s
15.4
--
--
18.5
--
--
14.4
17.1
17.7
15.1

-------
                            TABLE 8.  ESP OUTLET FLUE GAS CONDITIONS (DAILY AVERAGE)
K)
OO
Date
4/17/78
4/18/78
4/19/78
4/20/78
4/21/78
4/22/78
5/10/78
5/11/78
5/16/78
5/17/78
Flue Gas
Temperature
°C
123
129
116
123
114
115
123
130
120
120
Flue Gas Composition, Vol. /Vol.
%02 %C02 %H20 SO 2 ppm
4.4
3.4 14.8 3.3
--
4.1
5.4 13.8
5.1 13.8 6.1
7.4 11.6 6.2
3.9 14.8 8.6
5.7
5.7
--
—
836
1,120
779
849
612
1,080
729
962
Average
Velocity
m/s
13.4
-_
—
12.1
—
—
10.8
12.1
10.2
10.5

-------
                              TABLE 9.  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF COAL*
NJ
to
              Date
Sodium
        Analyte (Wt,

Potassium   Lithium
Calcium   Magnesium   Sulfur
4/20 am
4/20 pm
4/21 am
4/21 am
4/21 pm
4/22 am
5/16,17
5/18 am
5/18 pm
0.009
0.011
0.014
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.008
0.007
0.004
0.030
0.040
0.033
0.042
0.048
0.032
0.032
0.035
0.027
0.00018
0.00025
0.00038
0.00026
0.00034
0.00023
0.00018
0.00020
0.00012
0.070
0.090
0.160
0.100
0.120
0.150
0.090
0.070
0.040
0.020
0.040
0.080
0.050
0.070
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.020
1.6
1.6
2.6
1.1
1.5
1.2
0.9
1.5
1.4
            *From coal  conveyer

-------
CONDITIONED                                     BASELINE



          Figure  14.   Recorder  plate  for  duct  opacity.

-------
analysis of the samples.   The coal sulfur content is also
plotted in Figure 15.  The S02 concentration closely follows the
change in the sulfur content of the coal.  The sulfur content of
the coal is generally high enough to prevent collection diffi-
culties associated with resistivity.  The sulfur content
cannot, however, be directly related to the resistivity values
reported above.
                                 31

-------
to
       co


       w

       PL,

       2
       2
       O
W
U

O
u

 CM
O
CO
1700

1600

1500


1400

1300


1200

1100

1000

 900


 800

 700

 600


 500

 400
                                                              |_J COAL SULFUR

                                                              O  S02
                                                       -L
            4/19  20 21 22 23  24   25  26
                              5/10 11  12 13  14  15  16   17  18


                                   DATE
                                                                           2.0

                                                                           1.9


                                                                           1.8

                                                                           1.7  *
                                                                                 «v


                                                                           1'6  I
                                                                                H

                                                                           l-s  §
                                                                                u
                                                                                  1
                                                                                  1.
                                                                                       UH
                                                                                       CO
1.2
     i-j

1.1  c
     CJ

1.0


0.9

0.8
                            Figure 15.  S02 concentration  in  flue  gas
                                        and coal sulfur content.

-------
                            SECTION  6
                            ECONOMICS
     The ESP conditioning system for unit 3B went on line in
1977.  Several conditioning systems were tested and evaluated,
settling on the reported system in January,  1978.
     The capital and operating costs are shown in Table 10.
                                33

-------
TABLE 10.  CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR SECOND TEST SITE,  1978
                            Per Unit
2 Pump Skids
Equipment Lease
Generation
Approximate Unit Heat Rate
Approximate Coal Heating Value
Chemical Feed Rate
Chemical Feed Rate

Chemical cost/ton coal = (0.1 ||^- x
                                     $160,000
                                       43,000 per year
                                     2,495,232 X 1000 kWh
                                     10,000 Btu/kWh
                                     11,800 Btu/lb
                                     0.1 gal/ton LAC - 43
-------
                            REFERENCES
Oglesby, Sabert et al., A Manual o£ Electrostatic Precipitator
     Technology, Southern Research~Institute, Birmingham, Alabama,
     1970.

Sparks, L. E., "SR-52 Programmable Calculator Programs for
     Venturi Scrubbers and Electro-Static Precipitators,"
     EPA 600/7-78-026, March 1978.

White, Harry J., Industrial Electrostatic Precipitation, Addison-
     Welsey Publishing Co., Inc.,1963.
                                   35

-------
   APPENDIX "A"



PARTICLE SIZE DATA
       36

-------
TABLE A-l.  INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO.  1
            Taken  4/17/78 at 9:45 am.  Boiler  load 460 MW.
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER
Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

5,141
3,613
1,327
499
173
62
22
17
16
d
PC
(ymA)

6.57
22.88
10.02
3.88
1.93
1.16
0.65
0.37

. d
P
(um)

4.22
14.97
6.49
2.45
1.16
1.66
0.33
0.14


0.086

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

198.2
167.4
140.4
48.6
14.5
5.7
2.8
1.4
1.1
d
pc
(ymA)


23.44
10.27
3.97
2.05
1.19
0.67
0.37


d
P
Cum)


15.35
6.66
2.51
1.25
0.68
0.34
0.15


0.282

 TABLE  A-2.   INLET  AND  OUTLET  PARTICLE  DATA FOR RUN NO.  2
            Taken 4/17/78 at 1:15 pm.  Boiler load 460 MW.
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

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

4,209
935
578
445
199
77
29
19
15
V
(umA)

6.58
22.89
10.03
3.88
2.00
1.15
0.66
0.34

"P
(pm)

4.22
14.98
6.50
2.44
1.21
0.65
0.33
0.12


0.176

OUTLET
Mcum
(mg/DNm3)

29.9
22.9
13.4
9.0
5.4
1.7
0.5
0.5
0.2
V
(ymA)


23.82
10.44
4.04
1.95
1.19
0.64
0.37

d
P
(ym)


15.60
6.77
2.56
1.18
0.68
0.32
0.15


0.411

 N: 20°C, 1 atm;  ymA = ymtg/cm3)"'
                              37

-------
TABLE A-3.  INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO. 5
            Taken 4/20/78 at 9:00 am.  Boiler load 460 MQ.
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER
Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

21,860
5,479
4,496
1,549
422
138
64
43
31
d
pc
(ymA)

6.27
21.83
9.56
3.70
1.84
1.11
0.62
0.35

OUTLET
d
P
(ym)

4.02
14.28
6.19
2.32
1.10
0.62
0.30
, 0.13


0.159

M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

43.3
29.8
21.0
17.4
10.6
4.6
2.9
1.5
1.5
d
pc
(ymA)


23.54
10.31
3.99
1.92
1.18
0.63
0.37

d
P
(ym)
_

15.41
6.69
2.52
1.16
0.67
0.31
0.15


0.547

 TABLE A-4.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO.  9
Taken 4/20/78 at 10:30 am.  Boiler load 320 MW.
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER
Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET OUTLET
M
Mcum
(mg/DNm3)

6,630
979
556
471
178
67
31
17
12
d
V
(ymA)

7.28
25.34
11.10
4.30
2.21
1.28
0.74
0.38

d
P
(ym)

4.69
16.60
7.21
2.73
1.35
0.74
0.38
0.15

0.346

M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

17.7
11.3
5.5
3.2
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
d
pc
(ymA)


31.04
13.60
5.26
2.54
1.55
0.83
0.49

H
, P
(wm)
.
31.04
20.36
8.86
3.36
1.57
0.92
0.44
0.23

0.311

 N:   20°C,  1 atm;  ymA
                             38

-------
  TABLE A-5.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO. 10
Taken 5/10/78 at 2:30 pm.  Boiler load not
available.
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

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

5,857
881
459
395
177
74
34
19
15
d
pc
(ymA)

7.45
25.96
11.37
4.40
2.27
1.32
0.74
0.42


d
P
(urn)

4.80
17.00
7.39
2.79
1.39
0.76
0.39
0.18


0.219

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

60.3
48.3
16.1
9.6
5.0
2.2
1.2
0.7
0.5
d
pc
(ymA)


31.93
13.99
5.41
2.69
1.62
1.92
0.53


d
P
(ym)


20.94
9.11
3.46
1.66
0.96
0.50
0.25


0.735

  TABLE A-6.
 INLET AND  OUTLET  PARTICLE  DATA FOR RUN NO. 11
 Taken  5/10/78  at  4:30 pm.   Boiler load 440 MW,
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

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

6,486
1,292
761
642
308
141
57
28
21
d
V
(ymA)

7.47
26.03
11.40
4.41
2.27
1.31
0.76
0.37

d
P
(ym)

4.81
17.05
7.40
2.80
1.39
0.76
0.39
0.16


0.166

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

7.5
5.2
4.2
4.1
3.0
1.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
d
v
(ymA)


21.71
8.51
3.68
1.77
1.08
0.58
0.34

^
p
(ym)


14. 2C
6.16
2.3:
i.oe
0.61
0.28
0.13


0.951

N: 20°C, 1 atm;  ymA = ym(g/cm3)

                            39

-------
 TABLE  A-7.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO.  12
Taken 5/11/78 at 10:30 am.  Boiler load 440 MW.
IMP AC TOR
STAGE
NUMBER
Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm3)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

7,620
1,863
1,008
582
216
86
38
27
20
d
pc
(ymA)

6.41
22.33
9.78
3.78
1.95
1.13
0.64
0.35


d
P
(ym)

4.12
14.61
6.34
2.38
1.18
0.64
0.32
0.14


0.225

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

11.2
8.2
7.0
6.2
4.8
2.7
1.2
0.8
0.5
d
PC
(ymA)


22.76
9.97
3.86
1.92
1.16
0.65
0.37


d
P
(ym)


14.90
6.46
2.44
1.16
0.66
0.32
0.15


1.30

 TABLE  A-8.   INLET  AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO.  13
             Taken 5/11/78 at 1:15 pm.  Boiler load 440 MW.

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

M
cum
(mg/DNm3)
9,843
862
650
455
184
65
28
23
13
d
pc
(ymA)
6.24
21.73
9.52
3.68
1.90
1.10
0.63
0.32

d
P
(ym)
4.00
14.22
6.17
2.32
1.14
0.62
0.31
0.12


0.159

OUTLET

M
cum
(mg/DNm3)
6.4
4.7
4.1
3.7
2.8
1.5
0.7
0.5
0.3

d
pc
(ymA)
21.38
9.37
3.63
1.75
1.07
0.57
0.33

d
P
(ym)
13.99
6.07
2.28
1.05
0.60
0.27
0.12


1.48

N: 20°C, 1 atm;  ymA - ym(g/cm3)^

                           40

-------
 TABLE  A-9.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO.  15
Taken 5/16/78 at 12:00 pm.  Boiler load 440 MW,
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

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

9,851
1,408
657
447
167
62
31
21
16
d
pc
(umA)

6.41
22.33
9.78
3.79
1.95
1.13
0.64
0.35


d
P
(urn)

4.11
14.61
6.33
2.39
1.18
0.64
0.32
0.14


0.180

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

7.9
5.1
4.5
3.7
2.8
1.3
0.7
0.5
0.4
d
pc
(ymA)


18.55
8.13
3.13
1.56
0.94
0.53
0.28


d
p
(um)


12.12
5.25
1.96
0.92
0.52
0.25
0.10


1.30

TABLE A-10.
 INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE  DATA  FOR  RUN  NO.  16
 Taken  5/16/78  at  12:30 pm.  Boiler  load 440 MW,
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

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

8,424
2,664
1,413
601
177
64
23
16
12
d
pc
(ymA)

6.42
22.36
9.80
3.79
1.95
1.13
0.65
0.33

d
P
(ym)

4.12
14.63
6.35
2.39
1.18
0.64
0.32
0.12


0.225

OUTLET
cum
(mg/DNm3)

21.8
18.5
15.3
12.5
8. 1
4.1
2. 1
1.2
0.8
d
pc
(ymA)


19.85
8.70
3.36
1.62
0.99
0.53
0.30

d
p
(ym)


12.98
5.62
2.10
0.96
0.55
0.25
0.11


1.13

 N:  20°C,  1  atm;   ymA  =  ym(g/cm3K
                            41

-------
 TABLE A-11.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO. 17
Taken 5/16/78 at 3:30 pm.  Boiler load 440 MW.
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

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

10,570
2,847
1,855
547
180
66
32
23
16
d
pc
(ymA)

6.34
22.07
9.67
3.74
1.93
1.12
0.63
0.35


d
P
(ym)

4.07
14.44
6.27
2.36
1.17
0.64
0.32
0.14


0.187

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

29.8
12.9
9.8
8.1
4.6
2.4
0.8
0.3
0.1
d
pc
(ymA)


19.25
8.43
3.26
1.62
0.98
0.55
0.30


d
p
(ym;


12.58
5.45
2.04
0.96
0.54
0.26
0.11


1.20

 TABLE A-12.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR RUN NO. 20
Taken 5/17/78 at 10:30 am.  Boiler load not
available.
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

Precutter
§ Nozzle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Sample
Volume
(DNm9)
INLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

7,885
1,171
493
337
146
62
31
23
16
V
(ymA)

6.35
22.10
9.68
3.75
1.93
1.11
0.64
0.32

d
P
(ym)

4.08
14.46
6.27
2.37
1.17
0.62
0.32
0.12


0.234

OUTLET
Mcum
(mg/DNm3)

10.9
7.1
5.7
4.8
2.9
1.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
V
(ymA)


L9.44
8.52
3.29
1.59
0.97
0.51
0.30

d
P
(ym)


12.71
5.51
2.06
0.94
0.54
0.24
0.10


1.19

N: 20°C, 1 atm;  ymA
         ym(g/cm3)
              42

-------
TABLE A-13.
             INLET  AND  OUTLET  PARTICLE DATA  FOR  RUN NO.  21
             Taken  5/17/78 at  11:45  am.   Boiler  load  not
             available.
IMP AC TOR
STAGE
NUMBER

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

6,072
1,387
637
379
123
58
35
25
18
d
pc
(ymA)

6.25
21.76
9.53
3.69
1.90
1.10
0.63
0.31

d
P
(ym)

4.01
14.24
6.17
2.32
1.15
0.66
0.32
0.12


0.242

OUTLET
M
cum
(mg/DNm3)

44.3
36.6
24.7
17.4
9.2
4.5
2.2
1.3
0.8
d
pc
(ymA)


19.64
8.60
3.32
1.60
0.98
0.52
0.30

d
P
(Vim)


12.84
5.56
2.08
0.9S
0.54
0.24
0.11


1.46

 TABLE A-14.
             INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE  DATA  FOR RUN  NO.  22
             Taken  5/17/78  at  11:10  pm.  Boiler load 510 MW,
IMPACTOR
STAGE
NUMBER

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

9,085
1,782
667
388
124
60
38
32
20
d
PC
(ymA)

5.96
20.76
9.09
3.52
1.81
1.05
0.59
0.33



d
P
(ym)

3.82
13.58
5.89
2.22
1.09
0.59
0.29
0.12


0.214

OUTLET
M
"cum
(mg/DNm3)

97.8
85. 5
53.5
30.7
12.9
6.0
3. 3
2.5
1.9
d
PC
(umA)


19.86
8.70
3.37
1.67
1.01
0.57
0.31


d
P
(ym)


12. 9i
5.6;
2.11
0.9<
0.56
0.27
0.11

11 1
. 12

N: 20°C, 1 atm;
                 ymA = ym(g/cm3)
                            43

-------
TABLE A-15.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR BLANK RUN #3
          Taken 4/18/78
Impactor
stage
number
Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Inlet
Loading
mg
146.1
64.5
2.90
0.30
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cut Dia.
ymA


22.04
9.66
3.74
1.92
1.12
0.63
0.33

Sample volume, DNm3 °-076
Outlet
Loading
mg
7.0
14.0
0.20
3.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.4
32.7
Cut Dia.
ymA


23.98
10.51
4.06
2.02
1.22
0.69
0.39

0.338
 TABLE  A-16.
 INLET AND OUTLET  PARTICLE DATA  FOR  BLANK  RUN  #7
          Taken 4/20/78
Impactor
stage
number
Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Inlet
Loading
mg
595.0
251.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
Cut Dia.
ymA


25.28
11.07
4.28
2.21
1.28
0.72
0.41

Sample volume, DNm3 0.070
Outlet
Loading
mg
3.1
10.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cut. Dia.
ymA


24.81
10.87
4.20
2.09
1.26
0.71
0.41

0.495
S:  20°C,  1  atm
        ymA =   ym (g/cm3)Js
                  44

-------
TABLE A-17.
INLET AND OUTLET  PARTICLE  DATA  FOR BLANK RUN  #8
          Taken 4/21/78
Impactor
stage
number
Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Inlet
Loading
mg
1011.0
308.7
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
Cut Dia.
ymA


23.95
10.49
4.06
2.09
1.22
0.69
0.38

Sample volume, DNm3 0.257
Outlet
Loading
mg
1.5
6.2
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cut Dia.
ymA


31.60
13.84
5.36
2.67
1.61
0.91
0.52

0.30Q
TABLE A-18.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR BLANK  RUN  #14
          Taken 5/16/78
Impactor
stage
number
Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Inlet
Loading
mg
1040. 0
214. 0
1.90
4.30
2.70
1.20
0.70
0.50
0.30
0.10
Cut Dia.
ymA


21.30
9.33
3.61
1.86
1.07
0.62
0.31

Sample volume, DNm3 0.170
Outlet
Loading
mg
2.6
8.3
0.00
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
Cut. Dia.
ymA


20.20
8.85
3.42
1.65
1.01
0.54
0.31

0.720
 S:  20°C, 1 atm
        ymA =  ym
                               45

-------
TABLE A-19.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR BLANK RUN  #19
          TAKEN 5/17/78

Impactor
stage
number
Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Inlet

Loading
mg
746.4
191.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cut Dia.
ymA


22.13
9.69
3.75
1.93
1.12
0.64
0.32

Sample volume, DNm3 0.127
Outlet

Loading
mg
4.0
6.8
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cut Dia.
ymA


20.02
8.77
3.39
1.64
1.00
0.53
0.31

1.12
                               46

-------
TABLE A-17.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR  BLANK RUN  #8
          Taken 4/21/78

Impactor
stage
number
Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Inlet
Loading
mg
1011.0
308.7
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
Cut Dia.
ymA


23.95
10.49
4.06
2.09
1.22
0.69
0.38

Sample volume, DNm3 0.257
Outlet
Loading
mg
1.5
6.2
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cut Dia.
ymA


31.60
13.84
5.36
2.67
1.61
0.91
O.S2

0.30Q
 TABLE  A-18.
 INLET  AND  OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR BLANK RUN #14
           Taken 5/16/78
Impactor
stage
number
Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Inlet
Loading
mg
1040. 0
214. 0
1.90
4.30
2.70
1.20
0.70
0.50
0.30
0.10
Cut Dia.
ymA


21.30
9.33
3.61
1.86
1.07
0.62
0.31

Sample volume, DNm3 0.170
Outlet
Loading
mg
2.6
8.3
0.00
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
Cut. Dia.
ymA


20.20
8.85
3.42
1 .65
1 .01
0.54
0.31

0 .720
  S:  20°C,  1  atm
         ymA  =   ym (g/cm3)>i
                   45

-------
TABLE A-19.
INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE DATA FOR BLANK RUN #19
          TAKEN 5/17/78

Impactor
stage
number
Probe
Pre-filter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
Inlet
Loading
mg
746.4
191.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cut Dia.
ymA


22.13
9.69
3.75
1.93
1.12
0.64
0.32

Sample volume, DNm3 0.127
Outlet
Loading
mg
4.0
6.8
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Cut Dia.
umA


20.02
8.77
3.39
1.64
1.00
0.53
0.31

1.12
                                46

-------
     APPENDIX "B"




ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS DATA
             47

-------
               TABLE  B-l.   RESULTS  OF  ELEMENTAL  ANALYSIS  OF  FLY
                           ASH ON CASCADE  IMPACTOR  SUBSTRATES.
01
M
Crrt
HJ
3 4->
cn 
4* 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9* 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
23 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ng/cm2o£ substrate
Na
0.12
0.34
0.20
0.12
0.095
0.10
0.085
0.20
0.27
0.17
0.11
0.083
0.069
0.069
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.06
0.054
0.051
0.047
0.14
0.29
0.055
0.074
0.052
0.045
0.047
Mg
0.032
0.086
0.052
0.030
0.025
0.028
0.022
0.052
0.067
0.043
0.030
0.022
0.018
0.018
0.034
0.035
0.029
0.016
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.03
0.073
0.039
0.019
0.014
0.012
0.012
Al
0.74
0.22
0.22
0.050
0.025
0.028
0.022
1.70
0.38
0.22
0.070
0.022
0.018
0.018
1.06
0.031
0.17
0.11
0.016
0.014
0.006
1.10
1.77
0.42
0.11
0.014
0.012
0.012
Si
0.93
0.50
0.44
0.21
0.051
0.025
0.017
1.88
0.84
0.48
0.22
0.065
0.027
0.016
1.2
0.10
0.44
0.26
0.095
0.028
0.042
1.2
2.5
0.83
0.33
0.044
0.012
0.009
S
0.012
0.030
0.022
0.020
0.017
0.099
0.034
0.010
0.019
0.018
0.010
0.015
0.013
0.013
0.021
0.013
0.016
0.003
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.011
0.009
0.045
0.029
0.028
0.029
0.019
K
0.088
0.13
0.10
0.080
0.056
0.040
0.027
0.18
0.19
0.11
0.090
0.056
0.031
0.022
0.11
0.14
0.08
0.075
0.039
0.023
0.025
1.4
0.55
0.25
0.13
0.038
0.022
0.019
Ca
0.074
0.23
0.19
0.26
0.16
0.15
0.17
0.11
0.20
0.16
0.17
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.066
0.13
0.10
0.085
0.097
0.093
0.079
0.095
0.42
0.20
0.13
0.083
0.073
0.087

Ti
0.035
0.063
0.045
0.045
0.034
0.033
0.029
0.052
0.076
0.039
0.040
0.030
0.018
0.026
0.039
0
0.028
0.026
0.017
0.014
0.019
0.047
0.26
0.088
0.042
0.018
0.016
0.018
Fe
0.36
0.50
0.31
0.45
0.24
0.10
0.083
0.53
0.88
0.57
2.7
1.1
0.18
0.21
0.28
0.48
0.21
0.19
0.11
0.043
0.056
0.48
3.2
1.0
0.43
0.14
0.058
0.067
* Conditioned test
                                        48

-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
  REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/7-79-104P
                           2.
                                                      3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Effects of Conditioning Agents on Emissions from
Coal-fired Boilers: Test Report No. 2
                                 REPORT DATE
                                 April 1979
                                6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
  AUTHOR(S)
E.G.Patterson, J.Long, R.Parker, and S. Calvert
                                8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Air Pollution Technology, Inc.
4901 Morena Boulevard, Suite 402
San Diego,  California  92117
                                10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                E HE 62 4 A
                                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 PERIOD COVERED
                                ^   Final; 4/78 - 7/78
                                14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                  EPA/600/13
^SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES iERL-RTP project officer is Leslie E. Sparks, MD-61, 919/541-
2925.
 16. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of a field performance test of an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) which uses Apollo Chemical Co. fs LPA 445 and LAC 51B flue gas conditioning
agents. The ESP is at an electric utility power plant, burning approximately 1% to
2% sulfur coal. Tests were conducted with and without injection of the conditioning
agents. ESP performance was characterized in terms of particle collection efficiency
and the chemical composition of particulate and gaseous emissions. Fly ash resisti-
vity and dust opacity were also measured. Measurements show that there was no
significant change  in overall efficiency (99.6%) between the conditioned and uncondi-
tioned tests. There was some evidence that the conditioning agents reduced entrain-
rnent during electrode rapping and possibly improved the fractional efficiency sli-
ghtly for particles smaller than about 5 micrometers in diameter.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                 DESCRIPTORS
                                          b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                   c. COSATI Field/Group
 pollution
 Flue Gases
 Treatment
 Coal
 Combustion
Fly Ash
Electrical Resis-
 tivity
Dust
Opacity
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Conditioning Agents
 Electrostatic Precipitation
13 B
21B
14 B
21D

13H
20C
11G
 ,37 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

 Unlimited
                     19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                     Unclassified
                         21. NO. OF PAGES
                            58
                    20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                     Unclassified
                         22. PRICE
   Form 2220-1 (»-73)
                                         49

-------