EPA-650/2-73-005-B
August 1975 Environmental Protection Technology Series
-------
EPA-650/2-73-005-b
PROGRAM FOR REDUCTION
OF NOx FROM TANGENTIAL
COAL-FIRED BOILERS
PHASE Ha
NOX CONTR01 TfCHNOlOGY APPLICATION STUDY
by
Ambrose P Selkcr
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
Contract No. 68-02-1367
ROAP No. 21ADG-080
Program Element No. 1AB014
EPA Project Officer: David G. Lachapelle
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy , Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D. C. 20460
August 1975
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the National Environmental Research
Center - Research Triangle Park, Office of Research and Development.
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, have been grouped into series. These broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and applica-
tion of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was
consciously planned to foster technology transfer and maximum interface
in related fields. These series are:
1. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH
2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY
3. ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
4. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
5. SOCIOECONOM1C ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
6. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
9. MISCELLANEOUS
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to
develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and methodology
to repair or prevent environmental degradation from point and non-
point sources of pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment of pollution sources
to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public for sale through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-650/2-73-005-b
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of Task IX of the Phase II - "Program
for Reduction of NO from Tangential Coal Fired Boilers" performed under
A
the sponsorship of the Office of Research and Development of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (Contract 68-02-1367).
The results presented are based on both field performance tests per-
formed at Alabama Power Corporation, Barry #2 and current contractor
experience.
The utilization of overfire air as an NO control technique is discussed
relative to the following areas of interest:
1. Necessary equipment modifications and costs (as of March, 1975) as-
sociated with applying this technology to existing steam genera-
tors.
2. Specific limitations to the general applications of the technology
developed.
3. Emission control and cost effectiveness of applying the developed
technology to new steam generator designs.
iii
-------
DISCLAIMER
"This report was prepared by Combustion Engineering, Inc. as an account
of work sponsored by the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA). Combustion Engineering, Inc. nor any
person acting on behalf of Combustion Engineering, Inc.:
"a. Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied in-
cluding the warranties of fitness for a particular purpose or
merchantability, with respect to the accuracy, completeness,
or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or
that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process
disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned
rights; or
b. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for
damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus,
method or process disclosed in this report."
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page No.
Abstract iii
Disclaimer iv
Contents v
Figures, Tables, and Data Sheets vi
Acknowledgments vii
Conclusions 1
Recommendations 2
Introduction 3
Design and Description of OFA System 7
Discussion 10
Field Test Program 10
Exploratory Study 12
Effect on Unit Performance 13
Economic Evaluation 15
Applicability 19
References 21
-------
FIGURES. TABLES, AND DATA SHEETS
Description Page No.
Gross MW Loading VS Time-Baseline Study 4
Gross MW Loading VS Time-OFA Study 5
Waterwall Corrosion Probe Locations 6
OFA System - New Units 8
OFA System - Existing Units 9
Overfire Air System Costs 16
Table
1 Cost of Electricity Generated 500 MW Plant 18
Data
SJieet Description
1 NO Test Data Summary - Baseline Study 22
A
2 NO Test Data Summary - Biased Firing Study 23
A
3 NO Test Data Summary - Baseline after Modifica-
A
tion Study 24
4A.4B NOX Test Data Summary - OFA Study 25,26
5A Waterwall Corrosion Coupon Data Summary -
Baseline Study 27
5B Waterwall Corrosion Coupon Data Summary -
Biased Firing Study 28
5C Waterwall Corrosion Coupon Data Summary -
OFA Study 29
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the constructive participation of Mr.
D. G. Lachapelle, EPA Project Officer in providing the program direction
necessary to its successful completion.
The cooperation and active participation of Alabama Power Company and
in particular, the personnel of the Barry Steam Plant, were essential
to successful completion of this program.
The results presented in this report represent the effort of many Com-
bustion Engineering, Inc. personnel whose participation was required
for its successful completion and in particular, the technical contri-
butions made by Messrs: M. J. Hargrove and R. W. Robinson.
vii
-------
CONCLUSIONS
1. Prior to incorporating overfire air as an NO control system on ex-
A
isting unit designs, an exploratory test program must be performed
to determine the acceptability of the unit for modification.
2. The costs of installing an overfire air system on an existing unit
could range between 2 to 4 times the cost as included on a new unit
design. Based on March, 1975 estimates existing unit modification
costs could range from 0.2 to 1.5 $/kw, depending on unit size.
3. Approximately 40% of the existing coal fired units in the United
States are of tangential design and could conceivably be modified
to incorporate overfire air systems.
4. Unit size, heat rate and expected life must be considered in decid-
ing whether modifications are justified.
5. Incorporation of an overfire air system will generally not signif-
icantly affect unit performance.
6. A large percentage of the existing tangentially coal fired units in
the United States can meet current EPA standards for NO emission
levels. The necessity of applying the overfire air technique for
NOX control should therefore be established prior to committing a
unit for modification.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Existing Steam Generating Units
The applicability of the technology developed in the course of this pro-
ject should be qualified by the following conditions:
1. Any unit under consideration should be subjected to an exploratory
test program to determine the necessity of modification with respect
to applicable NO compliance limits. The minimum test requirements
/\
recommended for such a study would consist of studying the effect
of available process variables such as excess air level. The mini-
mum test data would consist of NO , CO for combustion efficiency
rt
and sufficient board or test data to identify changes in unit op-
erating characteristics.
2. A review should be made of the unit and turbine useful life expec-
tancy, unit size versus modification costs, and unit heat rate.
New Steam Generating Units
All tangentially coal fired units since approximately 1970 have included
OFA in the original unit design. The OFA system is therefore not con-
sidered as an additional NO control device.
A
-------
INTRODUCTION
The effectiveness of overfire air operation in reducing NOX emissions
from existing utility steam generators was evaluated by selecting and
modifying a test unit and studying the effects of this modification on
unit performance and emission control. The test unit was a natural
circulation, balanced draft design, firing coal through four elevations
of tilting tangential fuel nozzles. Unit capacity at maximum continu-
ous rating (MCR) is 408,000 kg/hr main steam flow with a superheat out-
let temperature and pressure of 538°C and 131.8 kg/cm2. Superheat and
reheat temperatures were controlled by fuel nozzle tilt and spray de-
superheating.
In order to evaluate unit performance during the study, necessary steam,
water, air and gas temperature and pressure measurements were performed
as well as NO , CO, 02, HC, S02 and carbon loss determinations to assess
emission performance. The specific results of the test program are in-
cluded in Final Report EPA-650/2-73-005a and are therefore not present-
ed herein. The test program was conducted in three phases consisting
of baseline and biased firing portions conducted prior to modification
and baseline and overfire air portions conducted after unit modifica-
tion. The effect of the modification on unit performance was found to
be insignificant and the test data summaries for each phase are shown
on Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4. Short term comparative corrosion tests were
run over thirty day periods using corrosion coupons. During this eval-
uation normal operation with OFA was achieved. The unit load schedules
for the baseline and biased firing and overfire air evaluations are
shown on Figures 1 and 2 and the respective data summaries are shown
on Sheets 5A, 5B and 5C. Corrosion coupon locations are shown on
Figure 3.
-------
150
125
100
75
50
25
"•Y
I ! .1
2/6/74 7/7/74 |
U1
^
'• Vi
,u
' I I
2/8/74 I 2/9/74 | 2/10/74
2/11/74
AVG. GROSS MM/HR
30 DAY PERIOD
87.7 MW/HR
2/12/74 | 2/13/74 2/14/74 |
2/22/74 [ 2/23/74 | 2/24/74
3/6/74
J J/7/74 ~ j'l_3/8/74 )' 3/9/74
3/10/74
3/11/74 "| ^j/12/74 _
CORROSION PROBE EXPOSURE TIME - DAYS
Figure 1; Gross MW Loading Vs. Time
Study
- Baseline Corrosion Probe
-------
AVG. GROSS MU/HR -
.. .,,ij.,j;|. ..... -.HKWtfiH H!:| -ri
9-15 J-16 9-19 I _9-20
m
CORROSION PROBE EXPOSURE TIME - DAYS
Figure 2: Gross MW Loading Vs. Time
Study
- Overfire Air Corrosion Probe
-------
PROBE
NOS.
ABOVE
EACH
LOCATION]
-3
e-
/\
D
D
D
D-
'V
'V
-n-
-------
Design and Description of OFA Systems
The overfire air system as incorporated in tangential coal fired fur-
naces consists of air compartments and nozzles, ductwork, flow control
dampers and nozzle tilting mechanisms. A typical arrangement of this
system is shown on Figure 4. The overfire air compartments and nozzles
are designed as vertical extensions of the corner windboxes unless as in
the case of some existing units, modification at that location is not
possible due to structural considerations.
In the latter case, as was the situation with the test unit, the separ-
ate compartments and nozzles were installed within three meters of the
top of the existing windbox. As shown on Figure 5, this arrangement re-
quires additional ductwork for supplying air to the OFA system.
Control dampers for regulating the OFA flow rate should be coordinated
with the windbox fuel and auxiliary air compartment dampers to correctly
proportion air flow as required for various operating modes.
An independent OFA nozzle tilt mechanism should also be provided on
retrofits of existing units to permit coordinating these nozzles with
the fuel and air nozzle tilts.
The overfire air nozzles and ducts should be sized for 15% of the
full load secondary air flow using the same nozzle and duct velocities
as the windbox. Each overfire air port consists of two nozzles above
each windbox, usually as an extension of the windbox.
Secondary air does not include coal pulverizer transport air.
-------
oo
0
0
A.
F
A
F
A
A
7
A
F
— — .
r-
"^
*
7^
/-=*
7^
^
^*
^
^
F-FUEL AND AIR
A-AIR
0-OVERFIRE AIR
Figure 4: Typical Overfire Air l/indbox Extension Coal Firing
-------
F-FUEL AND AIR
A- AIR
0-OVERFIRE AIR
Figure 5: Schematic Overfire Air System, Barry No. 2
-------
DISCUSSION
Field Test Program
The field performance tests conducted at Barry No. 2 firing eastern bi-
tuminous coal showed that an overfire air system on a tangential coal
fired furnace can reduce NO emissions with no detriment to unit opera-
tion or maintenance. NO reductions of 20 to 30% were obtained with 15
/\
to 20 percent overfire air when operating at a total unit excess air of
approximately 15 to 20 percent as measured at the economizer outlet.
This condition provided an average fuel firing zone stoichoimetry of
95 to 100 percent of theoretical air. Stoichiometries below this level
did not result in large enough decreases in NO levels to justify their
use. Biased firing (removing the top burner elevation from service),
while potentially as effective, necessitated a reduction in unit load-
ing and is therefore less desirable a method of NO control. In es-
n
sence, this method uses the uppermost fuel and air compartment as a
windbox extension.
When using overfire air as a means of decreasing the theoretical air
(TA) to the fuel firing zone the percent carbon in the fly ash and CO
emission levels were less affected than when operating with low excess
air. This is due to the ability to maintain acceptable total excess
air levels as measured at the economizer outlet during overfire air op-
eration while the theoretical air (TA) to the fuel firing zone is re-
duced.
* A minimum of 20 percent excess air was established for the Barry No.
2 tests.
10
-------
Furnace performance as indicated by waterwall slag accumulations, visual
observations and absorption rates was not sifnificantly affected by
overfire air operation.
On existing units where, for structural reasons, an overfire air port
might not be installed as a windbox extension, test results indicate
that the centerline of the overfire air port be kept within 3 meters of
the centerline of the top fuel elevation. Distances greater than 3
meters did not result in decreased NO levels. Changes within the 3
A
meters limit did affect NO levels slightly with the NO levels increas-
X X
ing as the distance decreased.
The overfire air nozzles should tilt in unison with the fuel nozzles
where possible. Tilting the overfire air and fuel nozzles towards each
other directs the overfire air into the fuel admission zone thereby
negating the original intent, while tilting the nozzles away from each
other may result in decreased flame stability. If the overfire air
nozzle tilt is fixed in a horizontal position NO levels would probably
A
then vary to a limited extent with fuel nozzle position. In other
words, the N0x levels may increase or decrease as the total included
angle between the fuel and OFA nozzles is decreased or increased re-
spectively.
The results of the 30 day baseline, biased firing and overfire air cor-
rosion coupon runs indicate that the overfire air operation for low NO
optimization did not result in significant increases in corrosion coupon
degradation. The results of this study are shown on Sheets 5A, 5B and
5C. Potential long term corrosion effects were not evaulated as part
of this program.
11
-------
Exploratory Field Test Program - Existing Units
To determine both the necessity and acceptability of applying the OFA
technique for NO emissions control on existing tangentially fired
rt
units, an evaluation should be performed prior to committing the unit to
modification.
This evaluation should include the study of existing process variables
such as excess air as an NO control method. If these techniques should
A
prove unsatisfactory, the program should then be expanded to evaluate
the effect of biased firing on NO emissions. This technique consists
A
of removing the top fuel elevations from service and using the up-
per air and fuel compartments for the introduction of overfire air.
This evaluation should be conducted at the maximum possible unit loading
with one pulverizer out of service and otherwise normal operation.
During biased firing operation, changes in total excess air required to
maintain acceptable CO levels, the amount of carryover from the furnace
outlet and furnace slagging tendencies should be observed. Carryover
could be visually observed while increased slagging might be evaluated
both visually and in terms of bottom ash handling system performance.
Outlet steam temperatures and air heater exit gas temperatures should
also be observed for comparison to normal operation.
The minimum instrumentation necessary for a comprehensive evaluation is
as follows:
12
-------
Unit Performance
Superheat (S.H.) Outlet Temp.
Reheat (R.H.) Outlet Temp.
R.H. & S.H. Spray Flows
Gas Temp. Lvg. Air Heater (A.H.)
Excess Air Lvg. A.H.
Furnace Carryover
Furnace Slagging
Unit Gas Side Pressure Drop
Calibrated Board Data*
Calibrated Board Data*
Calibrated Board Data*
Thermocouple Grid in A.H.
Outlet Duct
Gas Sampling Grid in A.H.
Outlet Duct
Visual Observation
Visual Observation and Ash
System Performance, Noz-
zle Tilt Changes & De-
superheating sprays
Calibrated Board Readings*
Emissions Performance
NOX, CO & 02
Gas Sampling Grid in A.H.
Inlet Duct
Effect on Unit Performance
The application of OFA as an NO control device spreads out the furnace
y>
fire which reduces flame intensity and temperature and the initial oxy-
gen concentration. These effects combine to limit the formation of NO
compounds with the reduced oxygen apparently affecting the fuel bound
nitrogen NO formation.
* If not available, test instrumentation should be considered.
13
-------
In the case of coal firing, the NO emissions originate from two
sources, fuel bound and atmospheric nitrogen (NO) Total = (NO)F , N +
{NO)M in air.
N2
The Barry 2 test results indicated that as long as the total excess oxy-
gen (fuel compartment Op + OFA Op) as measured at the economizer remains
unchanged from the baseline condition, unit performance would remain un-
affected. In some cases, however, a slightly increased total oxygen may
be required to prevent an increase in CO and unburned carbon emission
levels. This situation could be simulated with a biased firing test
(top fuel elevation out of service) conducted during the exploratory
program to determine the necessity of unit modification. While this
approach will necessitate a reduction in unit loading, testing should
be conducted at the highest possible loading obtainable for comparison
to normal unit operation.
Otherwise, overall steam generator performance, including fan power,
final steam temperatures, furnace wall tube temperatures and corrosion,
and unit efficiency remain essentially unchanged.
The effect on furnace slagging has been found to be minimal with the
coal used in this program and the coals studied in parallel programs
conducted at the Barry Station. However, since coal types vary widely
the effect of changing firing zone stoichiometries on slagging tenden-
cies should be evaluated during the exploratory program, again by using
the biased firing technique. Where evaluating units with spare coal
pulverizer capacity, this check should, if at all possible, be made at
or close to full unit rating, particularly from the standpoint of evalu-
ating unit slagging tendencies. A minimum evaluation period of one
week is recommended for studying slagging tendencies.
On some units, the spreading out of the furnace fire might result in
some combustible carryover from the unit furnace to the superheat sec-
14
-------
tions. The tendency toward this condition can also be evaluated during
the exploratory program by visual observation and watching for changes
in unit performance.
Economic Evaluation
The cost of incorporating overfire air systems on existing and new unit
designs was evaluated for steam generating units from 125 to 1000 MW
capacity. The results of this study are shown on Figure 6.
The cost estimates for the revision of existing units are based on stud-
ies performed on units within this size range including the actual costs
for modification of the Barry 2 unit. The cost estimates presented for
including the overfire air system in new unit designs are based on cur-
rent experience with these systems.
The accuracy of the March, 1975 cost estimates is plus or minus ten per-
cent. Because the overfire air system is included as an integral part
of new unit design, it is not therefore, considered as an optional or
additional emissions control device. The costs for existing units could
be from 0.2 to 1.5 $/kw, due to variations in existing unit design and
construction which might make modifications more complicated. These
costs may also vary and escalate with the prevailing economic climate.
The largest four windbox (single cell) furnaces manufactured to date
have been of a 625 MW size at which point eight windbox furnaces (gen-
erally divided into two cells) have been selected. Since an eight wind-
box tangentially fired furnace has double the firing corners of a four
windbox furnace, the costs of windboxes and ducts increase significantly.
The resulting increase in the cost of electricity generated is approxi-
15
-------
1.50
1.25
1.00
_- 0.75
o
o
0.50
0.25
0.00
EXISTING UNITS MODIFICATION COSTS
4 WINOBOX FURNACES-T 8 WINDBOX FURNACES
CO
O
O
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
200 400 600 800
UNIT SIZE, mw
NEW UNITS INSTALLATION COSTS
1000
4 WINDBOX FURNACES-7 8 WINDBOX FURNACES
200
400 600 800
UNIT SIZE, mw
1000
Figure 6: Overfire Air System Costs - Tangential Coal Fired Steam
Generators - March, 1975 Equipment Costs
16
-------
mately 0.03% for a typical new 500 MW plant costing 500 $/kw using coal
costing 0.70 $/10 BTU, as illustrated in Table 1. The overfire air sys-
tem increases capital costs by 0.2 $/kw, and all other costs are un-
changed. The mills/kwhr increase is 0.006.
An existing 500 MW plant has overfire air system costs up to 0.7 $/kw.
Generation costs for a 500 $/kw plant increase by up to 0.10% or 0.021
mills/kwhr. An existing 500 MW plant which was installed for 250 $/kw
and receives coal costing 0.35 $/10 BTU has.much lower operating costs
than the previous example. The cost increase percentage is 0.17%, but
the increase in mills/kwhr remains unchanged at 0.021, as shown in the
last column of Table 1.
* March, 1975 equipment costs for 500 MW Coal Fired Power Plant with
Limestone S02 Scrubbing System.
$/KW
Coal Handling, Storage, Pulverizing, Ash Handling 44
S02 Scrubber System 75
Boiler, Air Heaters, Fans, Stack 62
Steam Turbine-Generator, Piping, Heaters, Water
Treatment, Condenser, Cooling Towers 92
Structures, Sitework Foundations, Offices, Land,
Workshops, Controls, Switchgear, Transformers 63
Subtotal 336
Engineering, Construction 44
Contingency 37
Interest During Construction 83
Total 500
17
-------
TABLE 1. COST OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED - 500 MW PLANTS
00
Capital Costs $/kw
Annual Cap. Cost $
Annual Fuel Cost $
Labor & Maint. (5) $
Total Annual Cost (6) $
Electricity Cost (7)
Mills/kwhr
Increase - %
Increase - Mills/kwhr
Net Heat Rate 9500 Btu/Kwhr
March
New
plant
without
overfire air
500.00
40,000,000 (1)
18,000,000 (3)
8,100,000
66,100,000
24.481
—
___
, 1975 Equipment
New
plant
with
overfire air
500.20
40,016,000
18,000,000
8,100,000
66,116,000
24.487
0.024
0.006
Costs
Recent
existing
with added
overfire air
500.70
40,056,000
18,000,000
8,100,000
66,156,000
24.502
0.086
0.021
Older
existing
without
overfire air
250.00
20,000,000 (2)
9,000,000 (4)
8,100,000
37,100,000
13.741
—
___
Older
existing
with added
overfire ail
250.70
20,056,000
9,000,000
8,100,000
37,156,000
13.762
0.153
0.021
Based on: (1) Annual Fixed Charge Rate of 16% x 500 $/kw x 500,000 kw.
(2) 16% x 250_$/kw x 500,000 kw.
(3) 0.70 $/10° BTU coal cost x 5400 hr/yr x 500,000 kw x 9500 BTU/kwhr.
(4) 0.35 $/106 BTU coal cost x 5400 hr/yr x 500,000 kw x 9500 BTU/kwhr.
(5) Labor and maintenance cost of 3.0 mills/kwhr.
5400 hr/yr at 500 MW - 2700 gwhr/yr.
Cost at plant bus bar; transmission and distribution not included.
-------
The increases in generating costs (mills/kwhr) for typical 100 MW plants
are approximately double the increases for 500 MW plants. The increases
for 600 MW plants with divided furnaces are 25% to 35% higher; and the
increases for 1000 MW plants are the same as for 500 MW plants.
Transmission and distribution costs are not included in these compari-
sons. These examples are only typical; a specific plant has to be
evaluated on its particular economic criteria.
Applicability
Existing Steam Generating Units
In a specific existing plant, the exploratory field test program will
provide the data to determine whether an overfire air system is needed
to meet N0¥ limits. If so, the biased firing tests will show operating
/\
effects such as combustible loss, corrosion, or furnace slagging. Fa-
vorable results from the field tests should be followed by an evaluation
as shown in Table 1 to determine whether modification costs are econom-
ically justified.
Economic considerations include plant age and efficiency. Will the
plant continue to operate long enough to pay off the investment? The
annual capital cost is inversely proportional to the number of years.
Steam generator size also has an effect on the relative economics of
overfire air system modifications. For example, the minimum modifica-
tion cost is about $100,000, which is 4$/kw for a 25 MW unit. With
complications, 10$/kw is possible for a 25 MW unit.
Approximately 40% of the existing coal fired units in the United States
are of tangential design and could conceivably be modified to incorpo-
rate overfire air systems, if the field test and economic evaluation
19
-------
results are favorable. Since 1949, approximately 320 tangential units
have been put into service without overfire air systems.
New Steam Generating Units
At the current levels of NO limits, an overfire air system should be
A
included as a standard design feature of a new unit. The technology is
proven, and the cost is minimal when included in the original design.
20
-------
REFERENCES
1. Crawford, A. P., Manny, E. H. and Bartok, W., "Field Testing:
Application of Combus
From Utility Boilers"
Application of Combustion Modifications to Control NO Emissions
rt
21
-------
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
PARRY #2
C-E POWER SYSTEMS
FIELD TESTING AND
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
BASE LIU STUDY
NOX TEST DATA SUMMARY
TrsT No
PURPOSE or TEST
DATL
1 OAD
MA IN STEAM FLOW
Fxcris AIR ["CON OUTLET
THCO AIR To FUEL FIRING ZONE
FufL TLCV IN SCRV.
Fuel NOZZLE TILT
s*^ Aux
1 pn FUEL
?- „. 1 1 Aux
gg MFUEL
_j Pj s |»c"j PUEL
g 5 ° Aux
.r o Vi "n"j F-UEL
^ Aux
UNIT FrnciEiJCY
HAS V/EIGHT FNT A H
110
''O*
CQ
c-g2
ro^
ro
iic
n?
TARPON Loss IN FLVASM
n'ir,T I OAD IMC
Mrf
lO'Tta/H?
£
£
De a
•c
•c
lO^G/HR
PPM - at o
GR/10bCAL *
PPM - 0)5 0
GR/10°CAL
PPM - Oj{ 0
GR/10°C«L *
PPM - 0? 0
f, A H. IN '
# A II OUT
ff
CR/SCM
J.
1 1 -30-73
66
219
35.5
130.6
ABC
+3
20
30
20
30
20/20
30
20
0
0
529
488
88 3
352
631
1 337
2298
6 770
24 51
.0316
144
5.59
7 28
29
2
1/2 LOAD
11-30-73
65
224
17 5
117 1
ABC
+7
0
30
0
30
20/10
30
10
0
0
498
446
88 2
360
489
1.030
2318
6 794
142 26
182
.160
3.20
5 61
.97
3
EXCESS AIR VAR
11-30-73
67
214
58.9
151 3
ABC
+3
50
30
50
30
50/50
30
50
0
0
548
517
87.6
412
718
1 519
1644
4.841
8 05
.0104
0.0
7 89
9.09
17
£
- CLEAN
3/4 LOAD
1-18-74
93
316
12.6
109.2
ABC
+8
30
20
60
20
80/80
20
50
0
0
500
499
89.3
386
429
900
1635
4 769
39 09
0499
0.0
2.40
5 14
.96
5
FURN CONO.
11-14-73
124
404
22.7
117.9
ALL
+3
60
20
100
20
100/100
20
100
20
100
539
514
89 0
554
494
1.041
1641
4.815
31 16
0400
509
3 96
6.24
.48
4 19
6
FULL LOAD
11-28-73
123
407
11.7
107.2
ALL
0
100
30
100
30
100/100
30
10O
30
100
539
524
89 1
578
357
761
1434
4 254
152 88
.198
0 0
2 26
4 63
57
7
11-28-73
123
405
30 8
125 3
ALL
0
100
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
538
524
89 «j
592
664
1 403
1455
4 278
32 91
0423
0 0
5 0?
6 87
20
TEST No
PurpoiE or TEST
PATI
I OAO
MAIN pTCAf FLOW
Fxrrss AIR FCON OUTLET
THEG AIR To FUEL FIRING ?ONC
IUCL I°LEV IN SERV
TUEL I'OZZLE TILT
.Aux
SHO TPMPfRATUPE
RHO ICMPCRATURC
UNIT FrriciCNCY
"i«o WEIGHT FNT A.II
,'0
fO
TO
HC
0
flRHO': Los*". Itj FLYAIH
C.A. VAR. MOD DIRTY FURN.
FULL LOAD
E A VAR. DIRTY TURN
1/2 LOAD FULL LOAD
MJ,
"
f
Pec
•c
•c
f'
IO\G/HR
PPM - 0" 0^
C.R/1" CAL '
PPM - 1- 0
r,R/in'fAL
PPM -Jr1, o.
GR/I06CAL '
PPM - nf 0
*, A H IN
* A II OUT
rl
11-15-73
126
411
21 5
116 9
ALL
•18
60
30
100
30
100/100
TD
100
30
too
548
533
89.6
421
.814
1171
3.458
45 75
.0=191
61
3.78
5 31
.16
11-19-73
122
403
13 0
108 5
ALL
-22
100
30
100
30
ino/ioo
30
100
30
100
533
510
89 6
50?
361
748
2052
5.92?
431.3
.545
128
2 47
4. CO
.27
11-19-73
124
405
26.0
120 8
ALL
-22
100
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
544
531
89 6
581
1.198
2179
6 251
5.48
0069
1 .54
4 41
6 64
.05
12-5-73
66
211
32 7
128 0
ABC
0
20
30
20
30
20/20
30
20
0
0
518
476
88 3
536
1 118
2348
6.821
297.59
378
O.O
5 26
6 99
58
12-4-73
74
206
51 2
144 1
ABC
0
50
30
50
30
50/50
33
50
0
0
148
•SOB
87 9
•>&<*
658
1.170
2164
6 267
220 56
.?80
0 0
7.20
8.63
20
11-16-73
125
412
20 7
115.7
ALL
-22
100
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
•539
•528
89 ?
5^6
499
1 O37
1117
5 538
40. 8r'
.052
.">! "*
3.66
6 01
.17
11-16-73
125
406
24 3
119 ?
ALL
-2?
100
30
100
30
i no/ mo
31
inn
30
no
141
S29
89 T
5G7
-or
1 ?2'
i?7n
3.985
•" 51
04 •>
"If17
4 IP
6 4?
10
?2
sum
-------
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
BARRY fZ
C-t POWER SYSTEMS
FIELD TESTING AMD
PCRTORMAMCE RESULTS
BIASED FIRING STUDY
NOX TEST DATA SUMMARY
Test No.
Purpose of Test
Date
Load
Main Steam Flow
Excess Air Econ Outlet
Theo Air to Fuel Firing Zone
Fuel Elev In Serv.
Fuel Nozzle Tilt
A Aux.
, ffl Fuel
Q, 1 1 Aux
So nn Fuel
u ^^_ Aux /Aux .
lj u £ j"P) Fuel
K a! o 1 Aux .
i §>* Er| Fuel
"V Aux.
SHO Temperature
RHO Temperature
Unit Efficiency
Gas Weight Ent A H
N0x
SO2
CO2
CO
HC
0,
°?
Carbon Loss in Flyash
Test No
li
Biased Firing
1/2 Load
MW
10JKg/HR
X
X
Deg
°C
°C
X ,
10JKg/HR
GR/106CAL2
PPM -,X 0,
GR/10bCALZ
PPM -,X 0.
GR/IO'CAL*
PPM - X 0.
X A H. In'
X A H. Out
X
1-19-74
66
199
50.1
105.8
ABC
-9
50
20
SO
20
50/50
20
50
100
100
546
496
87.9
341
594
1.206
1721
4 861
33 38
.0412
0 0
7.10
8.54
32
20
Biased Firing
Purpose of Test
Date
Load
Main Steam Flow
Excess Air Econ Outlet
Theo. Air to Fuel Firing Zone
Fuel Elev in Service.
Fuel Nozzle Tilt
xv Aux.
' m Fuel
% m 1 1 flux
So m Fuel
u _ _ X Aux /Aux
ri £ V H Fuel
S a Lj ftux
V Aux
SHO Temperature
RHO Temperature
Unit Efficiency
Gas Weight Ent A H
N0x
l°l
so?
CO2
CO
HC
o?
Carbon Loss in Flyash
Dust Loading
MW.
10JKg/HR
X
X
Deg.
°C
°C
X ,
103Kg/HR
PPM -,X 0,
GR/10 CAL
PPH -,X 0.
GR/10 CAL
PPM -,X 0.
GR/10 CAL
PPM - X 0,
X A H In'
X A.H Out
X
GR/SCM
Max Load
12-6-73
102
314
24 2
94 7
BCD
-5
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
SO
544
515
aa a
451
285
599
2277
6 661
26 61
0341
0 0
4 165
7 31
25
8 65
li
- 1 Fuel Elev.
3/4 Load
1-18-74
96
297
26.7
121.7
ABC
0
50
20
50
20
50/50
20
50
100
100
539
506
89.3
430
543
1.142
1682
4 922
29.10
0372
0 0
4.55
7 19
34
21
- 1 Fuel Elev
3/4 Load
1-18-74
94
308
29.0
97 3
BCD
+10
100
100
50
20
50/50
20
50
20
SO
512
469
89 6
435
331
696
1566
4 578
31.28
0400
0 0
4 76
8 37
30
]2_
Out of
f
12-3-73
100
315
21 1
116.5
ABC
-15
50
30
50
30
50/50
30
50
100
100
529
501
89.1
439
397
840
2422
7 137
45.63
.0588
0 0
3 72
6 08
.46
22
Out of
f—
1-19-74
64
208
48 0
112.5
BCD
0
100
100
50
20
50/50
20
50
20
50
501
448
87.8
360
520
1 124
1861
5.593
29.10
0382
0.0
6.93
8.40
20
li
li
Service - Air Dampers Open
—Max Load — 9f
12-4-73
103
321
22 2
117.5
ABD
-15
50
30
50
30
50/100
100
50
30
50
543
520
89 3
455
373
792
2553
7.536
38 51
.0497
012
3.885
5 80
.37
23
12-5-73
99
321
21.8
117 2
ACD
-10
50
30
100
100
50/50
30
50
30
50
523
486
88 9
428
387
.795
2292
6 543
35.48
.0443
012
3.825
6 30
.42
24
Service - Air Dampers Open
— 1/2 Load
1-19-74
64
211
47.0
141 4
ACD
0
50
20
100
100
50/50
20
50
20
50
507
454
87.9
361
485
1 043
2245
6 710
22.41
0293
0 0
6 85
8.58
11
1
1-19-74
66
202
47.0
141 3
ABD
-15
50
20
50
20
50/100
100
50
20
50
544
513
87 7
356
609
1 282
1807
5 288
27 54
0353
0.0
6 79
6.87
.21
23
SHEET S
-------
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
B»RRV H2
C-E POWER SYSTTMS
FIELD TESTING AND
PERFORMANCE: RESULTS
NOX TEST DATA SUMMARY
BASELINE STUDY AFTER MODIFICATION
TEST HO.
Purpose of Test
Date
Load MW
Main Steam Flow lO^KG/HR
Excess Air Econ Outlet X
Theo Air to Fuel Firing Zone X
Fuel Elev In Serv
OFA Nozzle Tilt DEG
Fuel Nozzle Tilt DEG
Excess Air Var. - Clean Furnace Cond.
is
U 0.
OFA
'AUX
Fuel
Aux
Fuel
A H
Si. JFuel
~0>RfcT=^Fuel
Aux
SHO Temperature
RHO Temperature
Unit Efficiency
Gas Weight Ent
NOX
S02
SO?
CO
CO
HC
02
02
Carbon Loss In Flyash
°C
"C
X
1Q3KG/HR
PPM - OX 02
GR/106CAL
PPM - OX 02
GR/10°CAL
PPM - OX 02
GR/10&CAL
PPM - OX 02
X A H In
X A H Out.
X
r*
6/25/74
62
219
33.5
127 1
ABC
0
3
0
0
20
30
20
30
20/20
30
20
0
0
492
435
88 4
335
444
929
3678
10.718
27 54
0351
0
5 36
7 35
29
6/25/74
62
213
16 0
113.4
ABC
0
6
0
0
0
30
0
30
10/10
30
10
0
0
468
402
88 8
270
335
701
3621
10.551
375 77
4790
0
2 95
5 52
23
"I*
6/25/74
64
217
64.7
155.4
ABC
0
-14
0
0
50
30
50
30
50/50
30
50
0
0
536
499
87 4
413
640
1 339
2611
7 606
34.66
0442
0
8 36
9.70
1 06
6/27/74
92
315
15.5
111.0
ABC
0
2
0
0
30
20
60
20
80/80
20
50
0
0
504
466
89.8
398
327
684
2634
7 674
109.70
1398
0
2 87
5.5
11
6/19/74
131
450
21 0
115.3
ALL
0
-13
0
0
80
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
528
488
88 4
593
404
846
2251
6 559
26 37
0336
0
3 71
7 36
75
IIOA iliiuin t.uau
6/27/74
127
441
12 4
107 1
ALL
0
-3
0
0
100
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
524
487
89.2
546
330
692
2677
7 800
127 2
1622
0
2 36
5.75
51
*n
6/27/74
125
423
25.4
119 5
ALL
0
-22
0
0
100
35
100
35
100/100
35
100
35
100
518
480
89 5
559
477
1 000
2707
7 889
21 74
0277
0
4 34
7 02
74
TEST NO
Purpose of Test
Date
Load MW
Main Steam Flow 1Q3KG/HR
Excess Air Econ Outlet X
Theo Air to Fuel Firing Zone X
Fuel Elev In Serv
OFA Nozzle Tilt DEG
Fuel Nozzle Tilt DEG.
I OFA
OFA
Aux
Fuel
Aux
] Fuel
LAux /Aux.
Fuel
Aux
] Fuel
Aux
SHO Temperature
RHO Temperature
Unit Efficiency
Gas Weight Ent A.H
NOX
N02
S02
S02
CO
CO
HC
ol
Carbon Loss in Flyash
"C
°C
103KG/HR
PPM - OX 02
GR/106CAL
PPM - OX 02
GR/IO^CAL
PPM - OX 02
GR/10&CAL
PPM - OX 02
Z A H In
X A.H Out
X
8 9 10
E A Var - Mod Dirty Furnace
K Maximum Load H
11 M ' H
E A Var - Dirty Furnace
1/2 Load Maximum Load
6/20/74
130
440
17 8
112 3
ALL
0
-21
0
0
80
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
526
486
89 0
565
470
985
1941
5 655
24 31
0310
0
3.24
6 8
22
6/20/74
129
446
12 1
106 9
ALL
0
-17
0
0
80
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
528
483
88 9
542
334
699
2482
7 232
97 16
1239
0
2.31
6 19
42
6/28/74
125
428
26.6
120 5
ALL
0
-6
0
0
100
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
524
480
89 5
584
431
902
2500
7 283
23 55
0300
0
4.5
7 48
61
6/26/74
65
246
30 9
124 6
ABC
0
-16
0
0
20
30
20
30
20/20
30
20
0
0
507
457
89 3
363
373
782
2558
7 453
26.28
0335
0
5 04
7 55
17
6/26/74
68
218
63 1
154 0
ABC
0
-16
0
0
50
30
50
30
50/50
30
50
0
0
531
498
88 0
419
626
1.310
2461
7 171
23 85
0304
0
8 23
10 75
05
6/28/74
126
432
22 0
116 2
ALL
0
-6
0
0
100
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
524
496
89 0
575
391
819
2564
7 470
23 4
0298
0
3 86
7 3
36
6/28/74
125
425
25 9
119 9
ALL
0
-6
0
0
100
30
100
30
100/100
30
100
30
100
529
499
89 4
583
431
902
2629
7 661
22 92
0292
0
4 4
7 15
25
?1
-------
ALABAMA POWCR COMPANY
PAI--Y r
C-E Povr SYSTEMS
Fc-LD T-STinr ANP
PEPFOPMANCC RESULTS
NOX TEST DATA SUMMARY
OVERFIRE AIR LOCATION, RATE & VELOCITY VARIATION
TEST NO
Purpose of Test
Date
Load , MH
Mam Steam Flow lO^KG/HR
Excess Air Econ Outlet %
Theo Air to Fuel Firing Zone S
Fuel Elev In Serv
OFA Nozzle Tilt DEC
Fuel Nozzle Tilt DEC
lOFA
'AUX
I Fuel
1 Au«
I Fuel
Aux /Aux
iFuel
I Aux
J Fuel
Aux
SHO Temperature
RHO Temperature
Unit Efficiency
Gas Weight Ent A H
"Ox
N02
SO?
502
CO
CO
HC
02
Carbon Loss In Flyash
°C
103KG/HR
PPM - OS 02
GR/10&CAL
PPM - M 02
GR/10
PPM -
GR/1C
PPM - 02 02
Z A H In
i A H Out
S
IS
li
W
ISA
OFA Damper Position Variation
19
* —
7/10/74
97
336
28.5
114 5
BCD
0
-5
0
0
0
0
so
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
518
457
90 0
458
345
723
1892
5 512
28 10
0358
0
4 74
6 51
51
7/10/74
98
340
27 1
96.7
BCD
0
-5
100
0
0
0
50
30
SO/ SO
30
50
30
SO
510
452
89 8
447
254
533
1973
S 750
29 96
.0382
0
4 SS
6 49
59
7/10/74
100
338
25 6
95.8
BCD
0
-5
0
100
0
0
SO
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
514
457
89 7
442
254
533
2092
6.097
32 4
0413
0
4.36
6 08
63
7/12/74
100
344
26 6
84.8
BCD
0
-4
100
100
0
0
SO
30
SO/ SO
30
50
30
50
524
476
89 6
466
229
479
2397
6 984
48 08
.0613
0
4.5
6 32
.54
7/11/74
100
338
24.8
89.3
BCD
0
-4
50
50
0
0
SO
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
521
486
89 3
468
232
486
2684
7 821
39 20
0500
0
4 25
6 05
.32
TEST HO
Purpose of Test
20
li
22
II
Date
Load
Ham Steam Flow
MU
103KG/HR
Excess Air Econ Outlet S
Theo Air
Fuel Elev
to Fuel Firing Zone 1
In Serv
OFA Nozzle Tilt
Fuel Nozzle Tilt
r~
l"~
i ^^
a ' 1"
Si? L
yS5§
sl°p?
z° IE
\s
OFA
OFA
Aux
Fuel
Aux
Aux /Aux
Fuel
Fuel
Aux
SHO Temperature
RHO Temperature
Unit Efficiency
Gas Weight Ent A H
NOX
N02
S02
S02
CO
CO
HC
°2
Carbon Loss in Flyash
DEG.
DEC
»c
•c
1Q3KG/HR
PPH - OS 02
GR/1Q6CAL
PPM - OS 0?
GR/lO^CAt
PPM - OS 02
GR/1Q6CAL
PPM - OS 02
S A H. In.
S A.H Out.
S
OFA Damper Position Variation
7/11/74
100
344
25 4
100 5
BCD
0
-4
0
0
100
0
50
30
50/50
30
SO
30
SO
524
479
90 2
468
323
677
1821
5 308
28.79
0367
0
4 33
6 14
49
7/12/74
102
342
25 4
117.4
ABC
0
-4
0
0
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
0
0
532
498
90 1
476
483
1 012
1814
5 284
25 16
0321
0
4 33
6.05
46
7/12/74
102
341
27 9
90 4
ABC
0
-4
100
100
100
100
SO
30
50/50
30
50
0
0
524
491
89 0
494
329
689
2259
6 583
25 79
0329
0
4 67
6.46
54
7/12/74
102
346
28 1
96 9
ABC
0
-4
50
50
50
50
50
30
50/50
30
50
0
0
521
485
89.1
492
336
704
2417
7.042
25 28
0322
0
4 69
6 72
60
"HTT
-------
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
PARRY |2
C-L" POWER SYSTCMO
FIELD TESTING AND
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
TEST NO
Purpose of Test
Date
Load MM
Main Steam Flow 103KG/HR
Excess Air Econ Outlet t
Theo Air to Fuel Firing Zone X
Fuel Elev In Serv
OFA Nozzle Tilt DEG
Fuel Nozzle Tilt DEG.
• QS
S8
on
*.>„*. FBI Fuel
rf fcr £ X Aux /Aux
Sl°rnFuei
• Q1 1 lAux
FBI Fuel
VAux
SHO Temperature
RHO Temperature
Unit Efficiency
Gas Height Ent A H
NOX
W>2
S02
S02
CO
CO
HC
02
02
Carbon Loss In Flyash
°C
°C
103KG/HR
PPM - OX Oi
GR/106CAt
PPM - OX 02
GR/10°CAL
PPM - OX 02
GR/10&CAL
PPM - OX 02
'I A H In
'I A.H Out
Z
NOX TEST DATA SUMMARY
OFA TILT VARIATION
24
25
26
27.
28
OFA 4 Fuel Nozzle Tilt Variation
29
K
7/29/74
124
407
25 9
94 2
ALL
0
-5
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
538
532
89 6
548
339
710
2450
7 140
25 4
0324
0
4 4
5 9
37
7/29/74
124
418
23 7
92 4
ALL
0
-23
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
521
508
89 3
566
290
609
2920
8 511
27 1
0346
0
4 1
6 0
.37
7/29/74
124
412
25 1
93 2
ALL
0
+19
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
524
527
88 9
585
368
770
3310
9 647
31.8
0406
0
4 3
6 2
40
7/29/74
125
407
22 3
91 5
ALL
-30
-5
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
527
533
89.3
557
344
721
3160
9 208
22.1
0282
0
3 9
6 0
29
7/29/74
125
414
20 2
89.6
ALL
-30
+22
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
524
535
88 6
586
404
.846
3370
9 820
28 2
0360
0
3 6
5 8
29
7/29/74
124
418
23 7
92 6
ALL
+30
-21
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
521
505
89 4
544
285
596
3240
9 443
49 4
0630
0
4 1
5 4
49
LOAD VARIATION AT OPTIMUM CONDITIONS
TUT HO..
Purpose of Test
30
Max Load
32
21
Load Variation at Optimum Conditions
ad 1/2 Load Max. Load
34
3/4 Load
35
1/2 Load
Dote
Load
Main Steam Flow
MW
103KG/HR
Excess Air Econ Outlet X
Theo Air to Fuel Firing Zone Z
Fuel Elev In Serv
OFA Nozzle Tilt
Fuel Nozzle Tilt
| | OFA
1 IOFA
1 TV Aux
o. m Fuel
08 rj AUX
UJJ Fuel
_j u L X Aux. /Aux
Ka ofnFuel
:.- en | | Aux
fin Fuel
\7 Aux
SHO Temperature
RHO Temperature
Unit Efficiency
Gas Weight Ent A H
NOX
NOH
S02
S02
CO
CO
HC
02
02
Carbon Loss In Flyash
Dust Loading
DEG
DEG
•c
°C
X
103KG/HR
PPM - 0| 02
GR/106CAL
PPM - OX 02
GR/lfl6CAL
PPM - OX 0?
GR/106CAL
PPM - OX 02
X A H In
X A H Out
X
GR/SCM
7/30/74
125
416
21 6
90.7
ALL
0
-4
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
538
536
89 0
574
339
710
1680
4 896
26 1
0333
0
3 8
5 3
61
8 64
7/31/74
97
314
25 2
89 4
ABC
-12
-16
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
0
0
525
514
89 1
456
338
708
1730
5 043
26 1
0333
0
4 3
5 7
39
7/31/74
65
204
46.9
88 5
AB
0
-5
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/0
0
0
0
0
535
514
89 2
341
396
828
1740
5 070
24 4
0311
0
6 8
8 2
.32
7/31/74
122
409
27 4
94 6
ALL
-22
-22
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
30
50
521
521
89 0
584
333
697
2430
7 083
24 8
0316
0
4 6
6 3
24
7/31/74
95
310
27 4
90 6
ABC
-22
-22
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/50
30
50
0
0
506
493
88 2
472
291
608
2490
7 256
26 4
0337
0
4 6
6.3
33
8/1/74
64
204
45 9
88 5
AB
-10
-15
100
100
100
100
50
30
50/0
0
0
0
0
512
493
89 0
329
313
655
2420
6 960
25 0
0319
0
6 7
8 4
15
?6
-------
Alabama Power Company
Barry #2
C-E Power Systems
Field Testing and
Performance Results
WATERWALL CORROSION COUPON
DATA SUMMARY
WEIGHT LOSS EVALUATION
Probe Probe Coupon
Loc. No. No.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Avg. Wt. Loss/Test 2.6381 MG/CM*
BASELINE TEST
Initial Wt.
GR.
199.2937
201.3871
198.3883
195.8045
199.1977
199.6807
202 .8649
202.3445
199.0122
202.2508
201 .9826
199.6584
202.5778
200.8579
202.7075
197.7676
199.5913
197.4684
194.9513
202.0694
Final Wt.
GR.
199.1341
201.2135
198.2384
195.6946
199.0534
199.5009
202.7226
202.2442
198.8632
202.1171
201.8976
199.5954
202.5080
200.7484
202.5924
197.6750
197.2730
194.7783
201.9251
Wt. LOSS
GR.
.1596
.1736
.1499
.1099
.1443
.1798
.1423
.1003
.1490
.1337
.0850
.0630
.0698
.1095
.1151
.0926
.1954
.1730
.1443
Wt. Loss/
Coupon
MG/CtT
3.1643
3.4418
2.9719
2.1789
2.8609
3.5647
2.8213
1.9885
2.9541
2.6507
1.6852
1.249
1.3838
2.1769
2.282
1.8359
3.874
3.4299
2.8609
Avg. Wt. Loss/
Probe
MG/CM
2.9392
2.8088
2.13475
1.91965
3.38826
27
SHEET 5A
-------
Alabama Power Company
Barry #2
C-E Power Systems
Field Testing and
Performance Results
WATERWALL CORROSION COUPON
DATA SUMMARY
WEIGHT LOSS EVALUATION
Probe Probe Coupon
Loc. No. No.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Avg. Wt. Loss/Test 4.6429 MG/CIT
BIASED FIRING TEST
Initial Wt.
GR.
197.9531
202.1660
198.3393
200.5603
199.3158
196.2751
202.8709
200.2327
198.8940
199.8790
196.0683
199.3342
199.5078
198.7039
198.3125
200.8838
197.9655
202.9412
199.1306
198.2205
Final Wt.
GR.
197.6484
201.8659
198.0383
200.2799
199.1437
196.0480
202.5541
200.0655
198.7626
199.6842
195.8721
199.1690
199.3628
198.4853
198.1121
200.6771
197.7001
202.5809
198.7976
198.0234
Wt. Loss
GR.
.3047
.3001
.3010
.2804
.1721
.2271
.3168
.1672
.1314
.1948
.1962
.1652
.1450
.2186
.2004
.2067
.2654
.3603
.3330
.1971
Wt. Loss/
Coupon
MG/CM*
6.0411
5.9499
5.9678
5.5593
3.4121
4.5026
6.2810
3.3150
2.6051
3.8622
3.8899
3.2753
2.8748
4.3341
,9732
,0981
,2619
,1435
,6022
Avg. Wt. Loss/
Probe
HG/CIT
5.8795
4.3777
3.4081
3.8201
5.7289
3.9078
28
SHETT
-------
Alabama Power Company
Barry #2
C-E Power Systems
Field Testing and
Performance Results
WATERWALL CORROSION COUPON
DATA SUMMARY
WEIGHT LOSS EVALUATION
Coupon
No.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Avg. Wt. Loss/Test 4.4419 MG/CM'
OVERFIRE AIR TEST
Initial Wt.
GR.
200.7678
196.0684
199.6433
197.8187
200.7026
593.7075
199.1897
199.4476
199.3119
199.0463
202.8354
201.2249
397.4898
191.8528
192.7875
Final Wt.
GR.
200.5465
195.8121
199.3849
197.6419
199.1437
593.2000
198.9156
199.1351
198.9858
198.7404
202.6125
200.9784
397.2000
191.6484
192.5909
Wt. Loss
GR.
.2213
.2563
.2584
.1768
.2802
.5075
.2741
.3125
.3261
.3059
.2234
.2465
.2898
.2044
.1966
Wt. Loss/
Coupon
MG/crr
4.3876
5.0815
5.1235
3.5053
5.5554
3.3540
3.3540
3.3540
5.4344
6.1958
6.4654
6.0649
4.4292
4.8872
2.8729
2.8729
4.0525
3.8979
Avg. Wt. Loss/
Probe
MG/CFT
4.5244
3.9044
6.0401
3.7656
3.9752
29
SHEET 5C
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inslruetiom on the reverse before completing)
|1 Hf-PORTNO
EPA-650/2-73-005-b
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
4 T.TLE ANDSUBT.TLE program for Reduction of NOX from
Tangential Coal-Fired Boilers, Phase IIa--NOx
Ciontrol Technology Application Study
5 REPORT DA
August
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
I AL.THORIS)
Ambrose P. Selker
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
') PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
1AB014; ROAP 21ADG-080
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-02-1367
L —
1? 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
Task DC Final; 7/73 - 3/75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
The report gives results of Task DC of a program to reduce NOx from tangential coal-
fired boilers. Results are based on current contractor experience, as well as on
field performance tests performed at Alabama Power Corporation's Barry Unit No. 2.
7Tr,e of overfire air as an NOx control technique is discussed relative to: equipment
modifications and costs (as of March 1975) associated with applying this technology
to existing steam generators; limitations to the general application of developed
technology; and emission control and cost effectiveness of applying developed tech-
nology to new steam generator designs.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI I icId/Croup
Air Pollution
Nitrogen Oxides
Hollers
Coal
Combustion Control
Cost Effectiveness
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Tangential Firing
Overfire Air
Combustion Modification
13B
07B
13A
21D
21B
14A
•I OIRTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
37
rnlimited
20 SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
PA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-30-
------- |