&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
------- |