EPA-650/2-74-053



JUNE 1974
Environmental Protection  Technology  Series

-------
                                EPA-650/2-74-053
PARTICULATE COLLECTION  STUDY,
     EPA/TVA FULL-SCALE  DRY
   LIMESTONE  INJECTION  TESTS
                      by

                   R.F. Brown

           Cottrell £' vironmental Systems, Inc.
           Division of Research-Cottrell, Inc.
                  P. O. Box 750
              Bound Brook. N. J. 08805
              Contract No. CPA 22-69-139
                ROAPNo. 21ACY-16
             Program Element No. 1AB013
            EPA Project Officer: R.D. Stern

             Control Systems Laboratory
         National Environmental Research Center
        Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                  Prepared for

         OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                   June 1974

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication.  Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                  11

-------
                           -111-
                         ABSTRACT
A particulate control system consisting of a mechanical
cyclone-electrostatic precipitator combination has been
evaluated on a full-scale boiler without and with limestone
injection (dry) into the boiler for sulfur oxide removal.

The main objective of the study was to determine the effects
of dry additive injection on the particulate control equip-
ment and evaluate system modification alternatives including
a cost benefit analysis that will maintain stack particulate
emissions  with injection equivalent to about 2.8% sulfur
and 15.5% ash coal-firing without injection.

Two separate test programs by Cottrell Environmental Systems
were conducted, one in December, 1969 which quantified the
collection system on coal-firing only to serve as a perfor-
mance baseline and the other in July, 1971 in which coal sul-
fur and flue gas temperature, along with limestone particle
size and amount injected were studied at two levels.  A third
more comprehensive test program without limestone injection
by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the summer of 1970 has
been used to establish the baseline conditions for the elec-
trostatic precipitator and boiler flue gas.  Mechanical col-
lector performance did not vary substantially whether fly ash
alone was collected or in combination with coarse or fine
limestone.  Efficiencies measured were in the 50 to 60% range
depending upon pressure loss across the collector.  Therefore,
the overall efficiency of the dust collection equipment was
a significant function of the precipitator performance and
inlet loading only.  In general, as expected, the electro-
static precipitator performance was adversely affected by
limestone injection.  It was found that the precipitation
rate parameter without and with limestone injection was main-
ly a function of corona power density input, and that the
power level and therefore the performance reached without
excessive sparking was lower in the limestone injection cases.

The average particulate emission rate and flue gas conditions
found on #10 boiler at Shawnee Station of TVA with the pres-
ently installed dust collection equipment were 412 Ibs/hr
and 570,000 cfm at 309°F.  Cost estimates for size modifi-
cation to the presently installed precipitator to maintain
baseline emission with limestone injection have been con-
sidered for flue gas temperatures into the precipitator of
250 and 309.  Other options such "hot" precipitator, gas

-------
                            -IV-
conditioninq and precipitator energization modifications have
been discussed but since actual performance data for these
alternatives was beyond the scope of this experimental pro-
gram, only speculative comments have been made as to expected
results.  For coarse limestone injection, the present precipi-
tator on boiler #10 at 309F would have to be increased in
size about 45% in order to maintain the desired emission
level stipulated above.  If it is feasible to reduce the gas
temperature to about 250F, the size increase required would
only be 17%.  On the other hand with fine limestone injection,
the size increases at 309 and 250F would be 225% and 56% re-
spectively.

For the grassroots plant, the evaluation shows a cold pre-
cipitator  (250F)  as the best option on a cost basis.

-------
                            -v-
                         SUMMARY
The KnvJronmenl.il Protection Aqoncy is sponsoring a variety
of proqrnms to develop Lechnically feasible and economic
means for removing sulfur oxides from stack gases of fossil
fuel-fired boilers.  One such means is the injection of dry
limestone into the hot gas zone of the boiler where the gas-
eous sulfur oxides react with the finely dispersed additive
to form solid sulfur-additive compounds which can be removed
from the flue gas in mechanical and/or electrostatic precipi-
tator collectors.

This report presents solid collection system performance
results obtained from 37 test runs on a full-scale plant
firing pulverized coal and having a dry additive injection
system.  The major variables studied include flue gas tem-
perature into the dust collecting equipment, coal sulfur,
and additive stoichiometry and particle size.  Two levels
of each variable were investigated.  These tests and data
from other pertinent sources have been analyzed and corre-
lated.  The results are summarized as follows:

    (1) The performance of the mechanical collector
        was relatively insensitive to all test con-
        ditions of injection or non-injection ranging
        between 50 and 60% efficiency.  On the other
        hand, the overall efficiency of the dust
        collection system varied broadly between 72
        and 99% depending significantly on the
        electrostatic precipitator performance.  With-
        out limestone injection, flue gas temperature
        and volume, and coal sulfur were the critical
        variables while with injection, the particle
        size of the additive was another important
        parameter.

    (2) The precipitation rate parameter was a signi-
        ficant semi-logrithmic function of the corona
        power input density.


        W = 0.47+0.161n P  (No Injection)
                         f\

        W = 0.52+0.121n P  (Coarse Additive Injection)
                         £\

        W = 0.46+0.141n P  (Fine Additive Injection)
                         £\

        where,
              W = precipitation rate parameter (FPS)

              P = corona power input density
                  (kilowatts/1000 ft2 of collecting
                  surface)

-------
                       -VI-
    In  genera],  the  precipitator  performance
    was poorer  with  limestone  injection because
    the maximum corona input power  density
    attainable  was lower,  particularly when fine
    limestone was injected.

(3)  A correlation of use  in  sizing  electrostatic
    precipitators was found  by examining the
    affects  of  the parameters  of  limestone par-
    ticle  size,  flue gas  temperature,  coal sulfur
    and limestone injection  rate  on corona power
    input  density.   The correlation resulted  in
    the following equations:
    (coarse)
                             10.0    3.87
                             ~L     ~T
    (fine)

      PA =  -0.990  +  0.199S  -


    where,
        S - coal  sulfur  fired (tons/hr)
        L = limestone  injected (tons/hr)
                                         _2
        T = flue  gas temperature  (°F x 10  )

    By use  of  these  equations and the correlation
    between precipitation rate parameter  and
    power density  shown  above, and standard design
    equations,  it  is possible to  size a precipita-
    tor within  the following  limiting conditions:

        Coal Sulfur  Fired (S)
            1.0  to  3.2  tons/hr

        Limestone  Feedrate  (L)
            5.3  to  16.8 tons/hr.

        Flue Gas  Temperature   (T)
             (240  to 315) (10-2)°F.

        Stoichiometry  0.28(L/S) = 1.0 to  4.0

(4)  Mechanical collector fractional efficiency curves
    based on Bahco analysis of collected  samples
    for fly ash ash  alone and fly ash plus additive
    reaction products  were  essentially the same
    ranging from 25% on  the 5 micron size to  90 to
    95% on  the greater than 25 micron size.  However,

-------
                        -vii-
    the electrostntac prccipitator fractional
    efficiency curve on fly ash alone was nearly
    constant over A  particle size range  from 2  to
    30^,  i.e.  80  t-.o  90%.   With  limestone injection,
    t.h*j bloc'rocilat j c precipitator showed decreas-
    inq collection efficiency as particle size
    increased.  The  fly ash alone had an average
    mean size by  weight of 19 microns at the
    mechanical collector inlet  while  with both
    coarse  and fine  limestone injection, the mean
    size was about 9  microns.

    The average particulate loading at the
    mechanical outlet-precipitator inlet varied
    linearly with limestone injection rate
    ranging from  1.5  grains per scf at 0 feedrate
    to  about 4.0  grains at 16 tons/hr.

(5)  Laboratory particle resistivity measurements,
    in  general, were  higher than in-situ resis-
    tivities on samples from the same test both
    with and without  limestone  injection.

    The criticality  of coal sulfur and moisture
    on  particle resistivity was verified by
    in-situ measurements without limestone in-
    jection, particularly at the  lower  gas tempera-
    tures.

    With limestone injection, the effect of
    sulfur  appeared  to be random, but moisture
    conditioning  at  lower temperatures was still
    evident.

(6)  The precipitation rate parameter  degradation
    as  a function of  particle resistivity was
    demonstrated.  However, the critical range  of
    resistivity seemed to be occurring in the
    10H to 1Q13  ohm-cm range which is somewhat
    higher  than published figures. A possible
    explanation is the "in-situ" resistivity
    measuring technique.

(7)  There was no  obvious correlation  between the
    chemical composition of the particulate and
    the performance  of the precipitator.

(8)  An  optical sensor installed on the precipita-
    tor outlet duct  provided a  good qualitative
    indication of boiler and dust collecting
    equipment operation.  There appeared to be  a
    linear  relationship between outlet particulate
    loading and sensor output voltage.  However,
    the necessity for maintaining clean  lenses  was
    evident.

-------
                       -Vlll-
 (9) Using a baseline of 412 pounds emitted/hr and
    570,000 cfm of flue gas at 309F, estimated
    costs of the fly ash only electrostatic pre-
    cipitator  (installed) at 309F was compared
    with one at 600F.  In addition, size modifi-
    cations and costs for electrostatic precipi-
    tators with coarse and fine limestone injec-
    tion  (2 x stoichiometry) were compared at 250,
    309, and 600F.

    The following summarizes the results:
Electrostatic Precipitator      ******
Cost and Size Factors       250F  309F  309F   600F   (See pqs,
	                           171 and
                                                       172)
  Cost
Installed    ($/Kilowatt)

  No      Injection          -    2.21  2.99   5.85

  Coarse  Injection         2-58  3.21  3.95   7.10

  Fine    Injection         3.44  7.20  8.89   7.10

 Size
Factor    (x no injection
           at 309F = 1.0)

  No      Injection          -    1.0   1.35   2.44

  Coarse  Injection         1-17  1-45  1.79   2.96

  Fine    Injection         1-56  3.25  4.02   2.96

             * Follows Mechanical Collector
           ** Straight Precipitator
    Coarse limestone at a flue gas temperature
    around 25OF emerged as the best alternative
    for the limestone injection cases when only
    considering precipitator size modification.

    However, the present Shawnee boiler flue
    gas is about 3OOF and would require cooling
    in order to take advantage of the 25OF re-
    sult.  This added cost could offset the
    difference between coarse limestone at 309F
    at S3.21/KW and $2.59/KW at 250F.  With fine
    limestone injection, the precipitator size
    requirements at 250F are still at a minimum
    but as above, extra cost for gas cooling
    would be required.  With fine limestone in-
    jection, the requirements at 309F and 600F
    are for all practical purposes equivalent.

-------
                     -IX-
It is of interest to compare a straight hot
precipitator at 600F with a straight 309F pre-
cipitator on fine limestone injection.

The size factors are 2.96 and 4.02 respectively
with the installed $/KW being $7.10 and $8.89
respectively.  Clearly, the hot precipitator
is advantageous for this case.

-------
               TABLE OK CON'TJIKTS
TITLE P?.GE 	
ABSTRACT 	
SUMMARY 	
I.
II.
III.










IV.
V.





VI.

INTRODUCTION1 	
TECHNICAL APPROACH 	
TEST METHODS 	


3. Particulate Sampling 	
4 . Test Sections 	
5. In-Situ Resistivity 	
6. Laboratory Resistivity 	
7. Skeletal or True Densitv 	
8. Particle Size 	
9. Stack Opacity 	
10- Coal Analysis 	 ' 	
TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURES 	
TEST RESULTS AND SAMPLE ANALYSES 	
1. Test Data 	
2. Coal Analyses 	


5. Chemical Analyses 	
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS . .
1. Electrostatic Precipitator Performance


.... 1
.... 3
.... 6
.... 6
.... 7
.... 8
.... 11
.... 13
.... 13
.... 22
.... 24
.... 26
. . . .' 26
.... 28
. . . -. • 38
..... 38
.... 38
.... 39
.... 39
.... 39
.... 70
.... 70
A. Theoretical Considerations of Electrostatic
   Performance As A Function of   Corona Power  .  .   72
B. Correlation of Precipitator Performance
   With Corona Pc\;or Input	77
C. Correlation of Precipitator Corona Power
   Input VJith Process Variables	91
Performance of The Combination Mechanical-
Electrostatic Dust Collector	97
A. Correlation of Particle Size 7*nd Dust.
   Collector Performance  	   99
Discussion of Particle Resistivity Data  	   129
A. Correlation of In-Situ And Laboratory
   Measurements  	   129
B. Relationship of Particle Resistivity, Flue
   Gas Temperature, and Coal Sulfur  (No
   Limcr.tone Injection)   	140
C. Relationship of Particle Resistivity, F]ue
   Gas Temperature, and Coal Sulfur  (VJith
   Limestone Injection)   	   140
D. Relationship fiett.-oen Precipitation Rate
   Parameter and Particle Resistivity   	   143

-------
 TAKJ.H OF CO.MTKHTS  (Continued)
                                                              >aqe
      4. Discu.'-.jjion of Chemical Analyses Results	147
         7v, Kelationship of Calcium -Compounds at
            Electrostatic Precipitator Inlet V'ith
            Limestone Feedrate  	   147
         B. Examination of Particle Resistivity At The
            PrecipiLator Inlet Ah 7\ Function of
            Calcium Oxiue/Sulfur Ratio for High and Low
            Temperature Flue Gas	151
      5. Review of Optical Sensor Data	153
VIJ.  TECHNO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES
      FOR MAINTAINING THE STACK EMISSION RATK WITH
      LIMESTONE INJECTION EQUIVALENT TO A BASELINE
      CONDITION OF NO LIMESTONE INJECTION  	   166
      1. Size Hodificatjon of The Presently Insiailed
         Dust Collecting System  	   168
      2. Installation of A "Hot" Precipitator   	   171
      3. Gas Cooling Ahead of The Dust Collection System  .  .   173
      4. Gas Conditioning Ahead of The Dust Collecting
         System	173
      5. Electrical Energization of The Precipitator ....   175
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS	384

      BIBLIOGRAPHY 	   186

      TECHNICAL DATA/ABSTRACT SHEET	188

-------
  TABLE or  COUTTNTS (Continued)
                           LIST OP XIGURFS
 FIGURE  1   -  EQUIPMENT FOR MAKING GAS VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS
             AND  TAKING PARTICULATE SAMPLES 	   9

 FIGURE  2   --  SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF BOILER #10 SHAWNEE
             STATION,  TVA	   12

 FIGURE  3   -  DETAILS OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR INLET
             SAMPLING  STATION  	   14
 FIGURE  4   -  DETAILS OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR OUTLET -
             ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLING
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 12
FIGURE 13
FIGURE 14
FIGURE 15
- DETAILS OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR OUTLET
SAMPLING STATION 	
- IN-SITU RESISTIVITY APPARATUS 	
- POINT-PLANE RESISTIVITY CELL 	
•- LABORATORY RESISTIVITY MEASURING APPARATUS . . .
- SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF LABORATORY RESISTIVITY
MEASURING APPARATUS 	
- CROSS-SECTION DIAGRAM OF MEASURING CELL USED IN
LABORATORY RESISTIVITY APPARATUS 	
- SCHEMATIC OF ELECTRIC CIRCUIT FOR LABORATORY
RESISTIVITY APPARATUS 	
- APPARATUS FOR MEASURING SKELETAL OR TRUE
DENSITY OF PARTICULATE 	
- liAHCO CENTRIFUGAL PARTICLE CL7kSS3FIEU 	
- FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAM OF THE OPTICAL SENSOR ....
- SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
ARRANGEMENT AND ELECTRICAL HOOK-UP 	
] 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
21
23
2r>
27
29
FIGURE 16 - REPRESENTATIVE TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY
            TRAVERSE AT THE MECHANICAL COLLECTOR  INLET
            ("B" SIDE)	    33

FIGURE 17 - REPRESENTATIVE TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY
            TRAVERSE AT Ti'.K MECHANICAL COLLECTOR  OUTLET  -
            PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLE STATION  ("B" SIDE)  .  .    34

FIGURE 18 - REPRESENTATIVE TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY
            TRAVERSE AT THE PKECIP1TATOK OUTLET SAMPLING
            STATION  ("B" SIDi-J)	    35

      ": 19 - PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION OF
            CORONA POWER DENSITY FOR TESTS WITHOUT LIMESTONE
            INJECTION	    78

-------
TABU: OF CONTENTS  (continued)
                          LIST OK FIGURI.S
                                                              paac
FIGURE 20 - COMPARISON  OF  DATA FROM FIGURE 19 WITH
            PUBLISHED DATA OF  SOUTHERN RESEARCH
            INSTITUTE FOR  VARIOUS FLY ASH PRECIPITATOR
            INSTALLATIONS  - REF.  (11)	   82

FilGURE 21 - LOSS IN COLLECTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION
            OF POWER RATE  FOR  TESTS WITHOUT LIMESTONE
            INJECTION	   84

FIGURE 22 - COMPARISON  OF  DATA FROM FIGURE 21 WITH
            PUBLISH!:!) DATA OF  SOUTHERN RESEARCH
            INSTITUTE FOR  VARIOUS FLY ASH PRECIPITATOP.
            INSTALLATIONS  - REF,  (11)	   85

FIGURE 23 •- PRECIPITATION  RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION
            OF CORONA POWER DENSITY FOR TESTS WITH
            LIMESTONE INJECTION 	   87

FIGURE 24 - LOSS IN COLLECTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION
            OF POWER RATE  FOR  TESTS WITH LIMESTONE
            INJECTION	   89

FIGURE 25 -• PREClPlT/iTION  RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION
            OF POWER DENSITY FOR  TESTS WITH LIMESTONE
            INJECTION (GAS TEMPERATURE AND LIMESTONE
            PARTICLE SIZE  ARE  IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY). ...   92

FIGURE 26 - PARTICLE SIZE  ANALYSES  OF LIMESTONE FEED
            SAMPLES USED IN SECOND  CES TEST SERIES  ....   95

FIGURE 27 - PARTICLE FJHB  ANALYSES  OF MECHANICAL
            COLLECTOR INLET SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE
            INJECTION (TESTS 1A,  IB,  3A,  4A,  5A,  5B). .  .  .   ]01

FIGURE 28 - PARTICLE SIZE  ANALYSES  OF ELECTROSTATIC
            PRKCIPITATOR INLET SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE        »
            INJECTION (TESTS 3A,  '1A,  4B,  5A,  5B)   	   102

FIGURE 2S) - PARTICLE SEZE  ANALYSES  OF ELECTROSTATIC
            PRECIP1TATOR OUTLET SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE
            INJECTION (TESTS 2A,  3A,  3D,  413)	   1C3

FIGURE 30 - PARTICLE SIZE  ANALYSES  OF MECHANICAL HOPPER
            SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 1A,
            113, ?A, 3A,  4A,  5A, !5B)	   104

FIGURE 31 - PAP.TICLE SIZE  ANALYSE!!  OF ELECTROSTATIC
            fJRKC.n>lYATOK HOPPER SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE
            INJECTION (TESTS 3 A,  IB,  2A,  3A,  4A,  5A, 5B) .  .   105

-------
  TAB),I.-:  OF  COMTUHTS  (Continued}
                          LIST  OF  FIGURES
FIGURE 32 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF  ELECTROSTATIC
            PRECIPI7ATOR INLET  S7vHPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE
            INJECTION  (TESTS  16,  19, 20,  21,  22)	106
FIGURE 33 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF  ELECTROSTATIC
            PKECIPTTATOR HOPPER SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE
            INJECTION  (TESTS  16,  21, 22)	107
FIGURE 34 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
            INLET SAMPLES WITH  COARSE  LIMESTONE IN-
            JECTION  (TESTS 14,  15, 32,  33)	108
FIGURE 35 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF  ELECTROSTATIC
            PRECIPITATOR INLET  SAMPLES WITH COARSE  LIME-
            STONE INJECTION  (TESTS 10,  11, 14,  15,  25,  32,
            33)	:	109

FIGURE 36 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF  ELECTROSTATIC
            PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLES WITH  COARSE
            LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 11, 14)  	   110
FIGURE 37 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF  MECHANICAL
            COLLECTOR HOPPER  SAMPLES WITH COARSE  LIME-
            STONE INJECTION  (TESTS 14,  15, 32,  33)	Ill

FIGURE 38 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF  ELECTROSTATIC
            PRECIPITATOR HOPPER SAMPLES WITH  COARSE
            LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS  14, 15)  	   112
FIGURE 39 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL  COLLECTOR
            INLET SAMPLES WITH FINE LIMESTONE  INJECTION
            (TESTS 2, 3, 5,  6, 8)	' .  .   113
FIGURE 40 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF  ELECTROSTATIC
            PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLES  WITH FINE  LIMESTONE
            INJECTION (TESTS  2, 3r 4,  5, 6, 8,  17,  18,  23,
            24, 26,  27, 28,  29, 30)  	114
FIGURE 41 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF  ELECTROSTATIC
            PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLES WITH FINE
            LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS  2, 3,  4, 5,  6, 23,
            24, 26)	115
FIGURE 42 - PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
            HOPl'ER SAMPLES WITH FINE LIMESTONE  INJECTION
            (TESTS 2, 3, 5,  6, 8)	116

-------
 TAP,],).; OF CONTENTS  (Continued)
                         LIST OF FJ.OURES
FIGURE 43 - PARTICLE  SlZf.  ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATIC
            PRECiPIT/'TOR HOPPER SAMPLES VITH FINE
            LIKESTOKE INJECTION (TESTS .17,  18, 23, 24) . .  .  117

FIGURE 44 - FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY  CURVE FOR MECHANICAL
            COLLECTOR  ...................  122

FIGURE 45 - FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY  CURVES FOR
            ELECTROSTATIC  PRECIPITATOR ...........  123

FIGURE 4G -- ELECTROSTATIC  PKL'CIPITATOR PART1CULATE INLET
            LOADING AS A FUNCTION  OF LIME STONE FEEDRATE  .  .  128

FIGURE 47 - IN-SITU RESISTIVITIES  OBTAINED  ON FULL-SCALE
            AND PILOT SCALE  PULVERIZED COAL-FIRING
            BOILERS WITHOUT  LIMESTONE INJECTION  ......  131

FIGURE 48 -- IN-SITU RESISTIVITIES  OBTAINED  ON FULL SCALE
            AND PILOT SCALE  PULVERIZED COAL FIRING BOILERS
            WITH LIMESTONE 3NJPICTDON ............  132

FIGURE 49 - IN-SITU RESISTIVITY DATA OBTAINED BY K.J. McLEAN
            AT TVA S11A17NEE STATION,  BOILER  S10 DURING THE
            CES SECOND TEST  SERIES .............  134

FIGURE 50 - RESISTIVITY OF FLY  ASH SAMPLES  FROM VARIOUS
            COALS FIRED IN PILOT PLANT OF B&W  .......  136

FIGURE 51 - IN-SITU AND LABORATORY RESISTIVITIES FOR
            REACTED ADDITIVE-FLY ASH SAMPLES FROM B&W
            PILOT PLANT ..................  136
                        i
FIGURE 52 - IN-SITU AND LABORATORY RESISTIVITIES FOR
            REACTED ADDITIVE-FLY ASH MIXTURES FROM B&W
            PILOT PLANT ..................  337

1'IGURU 53 - IN-SITU AMD LABORATORY RESISTIVITIES FOR
            REACTED ADDITIVE-FLY ASH MIXTURES FROM B&W
            PILOT PLANT ..................  137

FIGURE 54 - LABORATORY  RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF
            PRECIPITATOR INLET  SAMPLES AS A FUNCTION OF
            GAS TEMPERATURE  WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION  .  .  138

FIGURE 55 - LABORATORY  RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON
            PRL'CIPITATOR INLET  SAMPLES AS A FUNCTION OF
            GAS TEMPERATURE  WITH LIMESTONE  INJECTION ....  139

FIGURE 56 - IN-SITU KKS15JT3 VJ'i'V VS.  TEMPERATURE
            RELATIONS!! I P FOU VARIOUS COAL SULFUR (NO
            L.1 ME STONE INJECT JON)  ..............  142

-------
 T.AKT.E OF CONTENTS  (Continued)
                        LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 57 - TN-SITU RESISTIVITY VS. TEMPERATURE
            RELATIONSHIP FOR VARIOUS COAL SULFURS  (WITH
            LIMESTONE INJECTION) ..............   144

FIGURE 58 - APPROXIMATE PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER VS.
            RESISTIVITY RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT AMD WITH
            LIMESTONE INJECTION  ..............   145

FIGURE 59 - CALCIUM OXIDE AT ELECTROSTATIC INLET AS A
            FRACTION OF LIMESTONE FEEDRATE TO THE BOILER  .  .   150

FIGURE 60 - PARTICLE RESISTIVITY AS A FUNCTION OF THE
            CaO/S RATIO AT THE PRECIPITATOR INLET   .....   152

FIGURE 61 - SIMPLIFIED SYSTEM DIAGRAM OF THE RESEARCH
            COTTRELL, INC. PROPRIETARY OPTICAL SENSOR  ...   154

FIGURE 62 - DATA OBTAINED ON PARTICULATE LOADING USING
            AN OPTICAL MONITOR   ..............   157

FIGURE 63 - TYPICAL OPTICAL SENSOR CHART ON SHAWNEE #10
            BOILER ("B" SIDE) WJTH AND WITHOUT LIMESTONE
            INJECTION  ...................   159

FIGURE 64 - TYPICAL PRECIPITATOR VOLTAGE VS. CURRENT
            CHARACTERISTIC .................   177

FIGURE 65 - TYPICAL PRECIPITATOR ENERGIZATION ARRANGEMENTS  .   182

-------
 TABLE OF C03TE11TS  (Continued)
                                                              aqe
                        LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I      COMPLSVZD TESTS  (FIRST CAMPAIGN) CONTRACT
             CPA ?y.~69"139	    36

TABLE II     COMPLETED TESTS  (SECOND CAMPAIGN) CONTRACT
             CPA 22-69-139 MODIFICATIONS 6 AND 7	    37

TABLE III    SUMMARY OF THE TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
             ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SERIES ...    40

TABLE IV     SUMi-'-ARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
             ENVIKOKriUSiTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SERIES ...    41

TABLE V      SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
             ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SERIES ...    42
TABLE VI     SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
             ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES  .  .    43
TABLE VII    SUMtfAE* OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
             ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES  .  .    44

TABLE VIII   SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S FIRST TEST
             SERIES	    45

TABLE IX     SUHKARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S FIRST TEST
             SERIES	    46

TABLE X      SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S SECOND
             TEST SERIES	    47
TABLE XI     SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S SECOND
             TEST SERIES	    48

TABLE XII    SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S SECOND
             TEST SERIES	    49
TABLE XIII   SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S SECOND
             TEST SERIES	    50

TABLE XIV    SUMMARV OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S SECOND
             TEST SERIES	    51

TABLE XV     SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S SECOND
             TEST SERIES	    52

TABLE XVI    COAL ANALYSES FOR BOTH COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL
             SYSTEM'S TEST SERIES	    53

TABLE XVII   COAL ANALYSES FOR TVA'S FIRST TEST SERIES  .  .    54

TABLE XVIII  COAL ANALYSES FOR BABCGCK AND WILCOX PILOT
             TEST PROGRAM   	    55

-------
   TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (Continued)
                            LIST  OF  TABLES
                                                                p:ige
TABLE XIX

TABLE XX

TABLE XXI

TABLE XX Jl

TABLE XXIII


TABLE XXIV



TABLE XXV


TABLE XXVI


TABLE XXVII


TABLE XXVIII

TABLE XXIX

TABLE XXX

TABLE XXXI


TABLE XXXII

TABLE XXXIII

TABLE XXXIV

TABLE XXXV
PARTICLE  SIZE ANALYSES  FOR  COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL
SYSTEM'S  FIRST TEST  SERIES  	
PARTICLE  SIZE ANALYSES  FOR  COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S  SECOND  TEST SERIES  .  .  .
PARTICLE  SIZE ANALYSES  FOR  COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S  SECOND  TEST SERIES  .  .  .
PARTICLE  SIZE ANALYSES  FOR  COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S  SECOND  TEST SERIES  .  .  .
LABORATORY AND IN-SITU  RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL  SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST
SERIES  	
LABORATORY AND IN-STTU  RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL  SYSTEM'S SECOND
TEST SERIES  	

LABORATORY AND IN-SITU  RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR COTTRELL ENCIRONMENTAL  SYSTEM'S SECOND
TEST SERIES	'	

LABORATORY AND IN-SITU  RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
FOR BABCOCK AND WILCOX  PILOT TEST  PROGRAM  .  .  .

SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING THE FIRST CES TEST  SERIES  .
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING THE SECOND TEST SERIES.  .  .
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LIMESTONE USED DURING
SECOND CES TEST SERIES  	
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA USED IN CORRELATIONS

FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF DUST COLLECTORS -
FLY ASH ONLY 	
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF DUST COLLECTORS -
FIN1? LIMESTONE •	
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF DUST COLLECTORS -
COARSE LIMESTONE 	
SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES ON
SAMPLES FROM BOTH CES TEST SERIES   .
IN-SITU RESISTIVITY DATA OBTAINED BY SOUTHERN
RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT TVA SHAWNEK STATION,
BOILER JI10 DURING THE CES SECOND TEST SERIES .
56

57

58

59


60


61


62

63

64

65

69
94

119

120

121

125


13 J

-------
 TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Con(:j nuod)
                         LIST  OF  TAHLKE
                                                              pacje
TABLE XXXVI    DATA SUMMARY  - FUL3,  SCALE  DOLOMITE
               INJECTION TfiST RESULTS  OBTAINED BY
               RESEARCH COTTRELL, INC. AT A LARGE
               MIDWEST UTILITY  	  135

TABLE XXXVIT   DATA USJ'JD FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
               PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER AND PARTICIPATE
               RESISTIVITY	  146
TABLE XXXVIII  SUMMARY OF DATA  USED  TN SECTION ON CHEMICAL
               ANALYSES  (PPS. 147-lb3)  	  148

TABLE XXXIX    DATA '.'AKEil FROM  THE OPTICAL SENSOR RECORDER
               CHARTS	156

TABLE XL       SUMMARY OF 1970  TVA TEST RESULTS USED IN
               ESTABLISHING  BASELINE BOILER AND PARTTCULATE
               COLLECTOR OPERATING PARAMETERS  FOR NO
               LIMESTONE INJECTION  	  167

TABLE XLI      SUMMARY OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR SIZE
               MODIFICATIONS AND COSTS FOR THE PRESENTLY
               INSTALLED DUST COLLECTING  SYSTEM REQUIRED
               TO MAINTAIN A STACK EMISSION RATE EQUIVALENT
               TO BASELINE NO LIMESTONE INJECTION  	  170
TABLE XLII     SUMMARY OF THE "HOT" PRCCIPITATQR SIZING
               AND COSTING FOR  SHAWNEE STATION BOILER #10
               WITH AND WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
               (STRAIGHT PRECIPITATOR) 	  172
TABLE XLTI1    SUMMARY OF GAS COOLING AS  AN OPTION FOR
               COARSE OR FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION  	  174

-------
                                -1-
I.  INTRODUCTION



   This report is submitted as a partial fulfillment of the re-



   quirements for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Contract



   CPA 22-69-139 and presents the results of a full-scale study



   to quantify the operation of a combination mechanical collec-



   tor electrostatic precipitator dust collection system with



   and without dry limestone injection.   This study is part of



   the overall program being undertaken at the Shawnee power



   generating station of the Tennessee Valley Authority for the



   control of sulfur oxide emissions from a full-scale utility



   boiler.  Definition of the effects of dry additive injection



   on the particulate control equipment operation and the recom-



   mended system modifications, including cost benefit data to



   maintain stack particulate emissions with injection equivalent



   to that of 2.7% sulfur and 10% ash coal-firing without in-



   jection are the primary requirements of this study.  A further



   requirement is to recommend investigative programs to be con-



   sidered for future study.







   Two test campaigns were conducted by Cottrell Environmental



   Systems, Inc. during this study:







        The first occurred in December,  1969 and related to



        the quantification of the dust collection system per-



        formance without additive injection.  The main pur-



        pose of the data acquisition was for use as a base-



        line in defining the effects of subsequent additive



        injection;

-------
                             -2-
     The second was in July, 1971 during limestone in-



     jection and consisted of controlling four parameters



     at two levels which included two boiler variables



     (coal sulfur and flue gas temperature), and two



     limestone injection variables (amount and particle



     size).







The data and samples from these tests and other pertinent


        (1-5)*
sources,       i.e. Tennessee Valley Authority, Southern Re-



search Institute, Research-Cottrell,  Inc., Babcock and Wilcox,



Co., and Dr. K. J. McLean, EPA visiting associate from Wol-



longong University, Australia, have been analyzed and corre-



lated.   The results are contained in subsequent sections of



this report.
* The numbers in superscript refer to the bibliography at

  the end of the text.

-------
                                -3-
II. TECHNICAL APPROACH



    Because of the chemical and physical properties of the in-



    jected additive material,  the characteristics as well as



    the quantity of particulate to be collected will vary sub-



    stantially.  These variations, including the degree of affect



    on the operating parameters of the dust collection system,



    must be monitored and evaluated in order to size and cost



    the system.  The changes in particulate loading, specific



    gravity and particle size  distribution will affect the per-



    formance of the mechanical colelctors which precede the



    electrostatic precipitator.  This in turn will vary the



    quantity and nature of the dust entering the precipitator,



    resulting in operational changes.  Of particular significance



    will be the change in the  electrical conductivity of the dust



    caused mainly by the removal of sulfur trioxide from the flue



    gas by the alkaline additive and the higher bulk resistance



    of limestone.







    In the collection of fly ash-limestone reaction products by



    an electrostatic precipitator, the most critical parameter



    is the bulk electrical resistivity of the particulate.  Values



    above 10   to 10  ohm-cm result in reduced electrical power



    to the precipitator and poor performance.  This particular


                                                           f 6 — 9)
    subject has been treated extensively in the literature



    and will be covered in more detail in subsequent sections of

-------
                              -4-
this report.  A comparison of present results with past
experience will also be discussed.


The main operational parameters that were monitored during
the test program include:

     1. Particulate Characteristics  (Fly Ash, Fly Ash-
        Limestone Reaction Products)
        (a) Specific Gravity
        (b) Particle Size Analysis  (Bahco and Sieve)
        (c) Bulk Electrical Resistivity  (Laboratory)
        (d) In-Situ Electrical Resistivity
        (e) Chemical Analysis
            (1) Loss on Ignition
            (2) 8^2, A1203, Fe203, CaO, MgO, Ti02
                Na20, K20, S04=, S03=, S=


     2. Collector Variables
        (a) Particulate Loadings Inlet and Outlet
            (ESP and MC)
        (b) Pressure Drop of Mechanical Collector
        (c) Current-Voltage Characteristics of ESP
        (d) Sparking Rate of ESP
        (e) Particulate Collection Efficiency  (ESP
            and MC)


     3. Boiler Variables
        (a) Flue Gas Analysis  (02, S02, H20)
        (b) MW Load, Steam, Air
        (c) Flue Gas Temperature, Pressure
        (d) Gas Volume
        (e) Coal-Firing Rate
        (f) Limestone Addition Rate

-------
     4. Additive Characteristics
         (a) Particle Size Analysis  (Bahco and Sieve)
         (b) Electrical Resistivity  (Laboratory)
         (c) Chemical Analysis
            (1) CaO, MgO, Fe0 , Si0
     5. Coal Analysis
        (a) Sulfur
            (1) Pyritic
            (2) Organic
            (3) Sulfate
        (b) Ash
        (c) Moisture
The objective of the test program was to provide an assessment
of the particulate collecting system with and without additives
for use in establishing the additional gas cleaning equipment
required to maintain stack particulate emissions at levels
associated with  2.8% sulfur 15.5% ash coal-firing.  In addi-
tion, other alternatives such as gas cooling, hot precipi-
tator, gas conditioning, and type of electrical energization
were evaluated.

-------
                                 -6-
III.  TEST METHODS



      The test methods used were in compliance with the ASME-



      PTC 27 and ASME-PTC 28 with regard to determining gas



      volume, particulate loading and analyzing the collected



      material.






      1. Gas Velocity Measurements are required to obtain the



         necessary data for determining:



         (a) Total gas volume being treated by the dust



             collector.



         (b) Distribution and flow pattern of gas enterincr



             the collector.



         (c) The sampling rates required to obtain represen-



             tative particulate loadings entering and



             leaving the collector.






         The equipment used to make these measurements during



         the test program reported herein is shown schematically



         in Figure l(a).  It consisted of a Stauscheibe pitot



         tube with inclined draft gauge for velocity head



         readings, plus a thermocouple and potentiometer for



         simultaneous temperature measurements.







         The gas velocity was calculated from the equation:






                                                TD h"
                    v = 15.6 k         = 13.37

-------
                            -7-
      Where,
             v  = Gas Velocity - FPS
             TD = Duct Temp.  °F + 460-°R
             h  = Velocity Head - "H20
             P  = Duct Pressure - "Hg
                = Barometric  pressure +_
                  Duct Static Pressure ("H?Q)
                             13.6
             k  = 0.855 = Stauscheibe pitot tube
              p           factor
           15.6 = Constant for flue gas from
                  pulverized  coal combustion.
   The total gas volume was calculated from the equation:

                   V = 60 Av                        (2)

      Where,
             V  = Total Gas Volume - ACFM
             A  = Flue Cross-Sectional Area Where
                  Velocitv Traverse Made - Ft^
             v  = Average gas velocity obtained
                  from traverse - FPS
             60 = seconds/minute


2. Moisture Content of the gas was determined bv hot-gas
   psychrometry which involves determining the wet and drv
   bulb temperatures of the gas.  The following equations
   are used to calculate the moisture content:
                e = e1 - 0.01 (td-tw), and          (3)

-------
                              -8-
      Where,
            e  = Vapor pressure of qas - "Hg
            e^ = Vapor pressure of saturated gas
                 at tw - "Hg
            t
-------
                    FIGtt...  1

 EQUIPMENT FOR MAKING  GAS  VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS

        AND TAKING  PARTICULATE SAMPLES
     Stauscheibe
     Pitot Tube
  Thermocouple
                       (a)
           Manometer
  Sample
  rNozzle and
   Probe
    Cyclone
With Glass
Jar Hopper
                                                         Inclined
                                                         Draft Gauge
     Potentiometer
                                Inclined
                                Draft  Gauge

                                   Dial Thermometer
                                                  Bag Filter
              Exhaust Fan
    Control
j>'  Valve
                                                              Gas
                                                              Outlet
                                 i
                                 vo
                                 I

-------
                          -10-
The total cubic feet of gas sampled was calculated from
the equations:
           Vp = 3930 AA kp
                                                (6)

                                                (7)
   Where,
         V  = Volume sample rate at each
              traverse point - CFM
                                     2
         A  = Sample nozzle area - Ft
         k  = 0.855 = Stauscheibe pitot tube
          p   factor
         Tg = Sample train temperature - °R
         T  = Duct temperature - °R
         hp = Velocity head at each sample
              point - "H2O
         V  = Total volume sample rate - CFM
         N  = Number of sample points
         V_ = Total volume sampled - Ft  @
          b   70 F and 30" Hq
         B  = Barometric pressure - "Hq
         t  = Samplinq time at each point -
              minutes
      3930  = Calibration constant of cyclone orifice

-------
                             -11-
   The amount of particulate collected was determined by
   drying and reweighing the cvclone sampler jar and
   filter bag.  The particulate loading was calculated
   using the equation:
                  D =   C    .
                          VS
       Where,
             D  = Particulate loading - grains/Ft  @
                  70 F and 30"Hg
             D_ = Net weight of particulate
                  collected - grams
             Vq = Total volume sampled - Ft  @
                  70 F and 30 "Hg
          15.43 = Conversion factor, grains to arains
   The efficiency of the collector was determined bv the
   equation:
       Where ,
             E  = Efficiencv - %
             D_ = Inlet particulate loading -
                  grains/Ft^
             DO = Outlet particulate loading -
                  grains/Ft3
4.  Test Sections were located in areas of reasonably straight
   runs of duct work and free of interference from nearby
   equipment.  Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the boiler,

-------
                                                      Primary
                                                      Reheater
                                       Superheaters
              a
         Electrostatic
          Precipitator
Stack
    Optical
    Sensor
          ID
          Fan
 Precipitated
   Outlet    \
Sample Station\
 (See Fig.5)
          A/V
  Mechanical ^
  Outlet Sample
    Station

Mechanical
Collector
(See Fig.4)
                                                                            Limestone
                                                                            Injection
                                                                             Ports
                                                                                        to
                                                                                         i
urners
                                    Mechanical Inlet
                                    Sample Station
                                      (See Fig.3)
                                          FD Fan
                                   FIGURE  2
              SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF  BOILER  #10 SHAWNEE STATION, TVA

-------
                              -13-
   collectors, and associated eauipment showing the location



   of the sampling areas.  Figures 3 through 5 detail the



   actual dimensions and number of sample points used at



   the mechanical collector inlet and the electrostatic



   precipitator inlet and outlet.







5.  In-Situ Resistivity measurements were made using a



   portable apparatus (Figure 6)  designed and supplied bv



   Research-Cottrell, Inc.  The apparatus measures the



   electrical resistance of a layer of dust precipitated



   from flue gas under actual operating conditions.  It



   consists of a small electrostatic point-plane precioitator



   (Figure 7), an iron constantan thermocouple located near



   the plane, and a control unit for supplying power and



   measuring voltage and current.







6.  The Laboratory Resistivity measurements were made in



   apparatus shown photographically and schematically in



   Figures 8 and 9.  The cell shown in ^igure 10 is mounted



   in an electrically heated and thermostatically controlled



   chamber capable of reaching temperatures in the 650°F



   range.  In addition, humidity can be controlled from



   bone dry up to 30 or 40% bv volume.  The schematic



   electrical circuitry is shown in Figure 11.

-------
                               -14-
                                  Duct Area = 72.6 Ft'
                                    (each side)
                                                      Bottom
                                        "A"  Side
     Cyclone
  Take off at*
Two Elevations
As Shown Above
                         Boiler
                       Centerline
                   Gas
                   Flow,
                              3'-3 3/8"
        From
       Air Heater
 Gas
' F10W
                     Cyclone
                    Mechanicc
                    Collectoi
    \
                                          Hopper
                               Cyclone Boiler
                               Flange    Duct
                                         Flange
                          FIGURE 3
               DETAILS OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR

                   INLET SAMPLING STATION

-------
                         -15-
                 2'-5"
                 H-   -H
                4-    4-
                4-    H-    +    +
      4-
                            4-    4-    -h
                     Duct Area=204Ft
                -f
                -1-    4-
4-    4-
                                  4-    4-
t-    4-
                                              17'-1/2"
                 FIGURE 4
     DETAILS OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
OUTLET - ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR INLET
             SAMPLING STATION

-------
                    -16-
'-3 3/
           21 _9 ii
             ^
         4-
         TT    TT
                  TT   TT
                     t-
            -h    +    -t
                Duct Area=147.
t     f
                  13'-1/2"
               t    -4-     t    +
                     -t-    +
                             t
                                      t
T
                                            2 i_
               FIGURE 5

       DETAILS OF 'ELECTROSTATIC
  PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLING  STATION

-------
          FIGURE 6
IN-SITU RESISTIVITY APPARATUS
POWER SUPPLY AND METERING UNIT
        AND POINT-PLANE CELL

-------
                             -18-
Flue Gas & Dust
  Flow Direction
          Thermocouple
                              i	Corona Point
                         FIGURE 7
               POINT-PLANE KESISTIVITY CELL

-------
FIGURE 8 - LABORATORY RESISTIVITY MEASURING APPARATUS


-------
                 -20-
     Water
    Reservoir

   Pressure
Equalizing Tube

Needle Valve'

 Sight Glass

    Heaters
                                     Manometer
                                         Conductivity
                                           Cell
                                      Air Heater Duct
                                         Rotameter
                                      Air Supply
                                      5-10 PSIG
                    Dryers
           FIGURE 9

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF LABORATORY

RESISTIVITY MEASURING APPARATUS

-------
                        -21-
                    FIGURE  10
             CROSS-SECTION  DIAGRAM  OF

         MEASURING  CELL  USED  IN  LABORATORY

               RESISTIVITY  APPARATUS
                            Measuring
                            Electrode
        Air  Flow
     With Controlled
        Moisture
   Sintered Metal
       Disc
High Voltage
 Electrode
                    FIGURE  11

          SCHEMATIC OF  ELECTRIC CIRCUIT

       FOR LABORATORY RESISTIVITY APPARATUS
                   Current Meter
                                                Dust
                                               Conductivity
                                                Cell
                        ^Voltmeter
  H-V
Rectifier
 0-15KV

-------
                             -22-
7.  The skeletal or true density of the particulate samples
   was determined by the pycnometer method.   Approximately
   a 5-gram sample is transferred to a weighed pycnometer
   bottle of known volume and reweighed.   The bottle is
   half filled with a suitable liquid (selected on the basis
   of dust solubility being a minimum) and placed in a dessi-
   cator-type container which can be evacuated (see Figure 12).
   After all air has been removed from the dust sample, the
   pycnometer bottle is filled to capacity,  thermally
   equilibrated and reweighed.  The dust  density is calculated
   as follows:

                          W -W
                     vi - -Irr1
                        _
                     d  ~
                      p ~ V=V                       (ID
      Where,
            W  = Weight of pycnometer bottle - grams
            W_ = Weight of pycnometer + dust - grams
            W, = Weight of pycnometer + dust +
                    liquid - grams
            V, = Volume of liquid - cubic centimeters
            V  = Volume of pycnometer - cubic
             "      centimeters
            d, = Density of liquid - grams/cubic
                    centimeters
            d  = True density of dust - grams/cubic
             "      centimeters

-------
               -23-
                                    To Vacuum
                                     Source
                                     Dessicator
                                Pycnometer
                                 Bottle
           FIGURE 12

APPARATUS FOR MEASURING SKELETAL

 OR TRUE DENSITY OF PARTICULATE

-------
                             -24-
8. The particle size distributions were made by sieve and
   Bahco methods.   A set of 3 inch U.S. Standard sieves and
   pan are weighed.  The sieves are then nested reading 50~
   mesh (297 microns),  100-mesh (149 microns),  200-mesh (74
   microns), 325-mesh (44 microns) and pan from top to bottom.
   About a 2 gram sample of dried dust is placed on the top
   sieve and covered.  The set of sieves is then placed in a
   Ro-tap and shaken for twenty minutes.  The sieves are
   brushed lightly and reweighed.  The weight of fractions
   is obtained by difference and final results  are calcu-
   lated as "percent fraction separated" and reported as
   "cumulative percent finer".

   The Bahco method of sub-sieve particle sizing uses a cen-
   trifugal classifier (see Figure 13) which operates at
   3500 RPM.  The sample is introduced into a spiral-shaped
   air current flowing toward the center.  Depending on the
   size, weight and shape of the particles, a certain
   fraction is accelerated by centrifugal force toward the
   periphery of the whirl, while the remainder is carried
   toward the center.  By varying flow through the use of
   throttles, the dust sample can be divided into a number
   of fractions between about 2 and 30 microns.  This particu-
   lar method is not absolute but must be calibrated with a
    standard sample of known distribution based on an absolute
    method.

-------
                          FIGURE 13
            BAHCO CENTRIFUGAL PARTICLE CLASSIFIER
1  Rotor Casting
2  Fan
3  Vibrator
4  Adjustable Sl'ide
5  Feed Hopper
6  Revolving Brush
7  Feed Tube
8  Feed Slot
9  Fan Wheel Outlet
10 Cover
11 Rotary Duct
12 Feed Hole
13 Brake
14 Throttle Spacer
15 Motor - 3520 RPM
16 Grading Member
17 Threaded Spindle
18 Symmetrical Disc
19 Sifting Chamber
20 Catch Basin
21 Housing
22 Radial Vanes

-------
                              -26-
 9.  The stack opacity was monitored by means of an optical



    sensor designed and supplied by Research-Cottrell,  Inc.



    A schematic diagram of the system is shown in Figure 14.



    A light source and optical sensor are contained in  sealed



    housings mounted on opposite sides of a duct.  Sufficient



    sensitivity and flexibility are provided to permit  full



    scale recorder calibration corresponding to 20 up to 100%



    optical obscuration for aerosol paths ranging from  6 to



    30 feet.  (20% is a No. 1 Ringelmann and 100% a No.  5



    Ringelmann).   Normally, a 0-5 Ringelmann scale calibration



    is used to encompass peak emission periods such as  soot-



    blowing .








    A clean gas reference signal is continually compared with



    the dirty gas signal by means of a differential signal



    amplifier whose signal is recorded continually as optical



    density readout.









10.  Coal Analyses were provided by Smith, Rudy and Company,



    chemists in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania while other  chemical



    analyses of particulate samples were performed by the TVA



    laboratory chemists located in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

-------
                 Dirty Gas Signal
Removable
  Window
                  Optical Sensor  (Meas.)
   Measuring  Beam

 -~ Induced Air Purge
                        Flue or Stack
  Differential
Signal Amplifier
Removable
  Window
•'.'. - v
  	-I
  Induced Air Purge

      Optical Sensor  (Ref)

       ~\ Clean Gas Ref. signal
         Light
         Source
                    Reference Beam
                     Voltage
                     Regulator
                                                               Optical  Density  Readout
                                             ill
                                                                          Regulated
                                                                         Power Supply
                   Isolation Transformer


                     Electrical Input

                     115  V.  50/60 Hz
                                                                                            to
                                      FIGURE 14
                       FUNCTIONAL DIAGRAM OF THE OPTICAL SENSOR

-------
                                -28-
IV.   TEST CONDITIONS AND PROCEDUKliS
     The initial test campaign without additive injection was
     conducted with a boiler generated load of about 140 mega-
     watts with very little variation.  No attempt was made
     to control the coal sulfur.  Soot-blowing was curtailed
     during the tests.  Mechanical and electrical precipitator
     hoppers were emptied at the beginning and end of each test
     period at which time samples were taken.  This procedure
     ensured representative hopper samples.  Both "A" and "B"
     precipitators of boiler No. 10 were tested during this
     campaign.  (See Figure 15 for schematic diagram of elec-
     trostatic precipitator).  Coal feed rates and samples were
     obtained by monitoring and grab-sampling the coal feeders.
     Boiler conditions were recorded from the control room panels

     Main operating difficulties encountered were with the
     electrostatic precipitators in the form of  short circuits
     caused by broken discharge electrodes.

     The  second test  series was conducted  with and  without
     additive injection.   Boiler generated load  was difficult
     to control because of external conditions of  low water
     level  in the  river supplying  the condensers.   As a  result,
     load varied  from 125  MW to 148 MW during  the  test period.

-------
                                                FIGURE 15

                             SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR

                                   ARRANGEMENT AND ELECTRICAL HOOK-UP
                    Optical
                    Sensor
                                                                        Electrical  Sets
                                                                       Full Wave Hook-up
                                                 	^	H^ _£
Electrical
  Sets
Full Wave Hook-up
                                                                                                    VO
                                                                                                     I
                                         Gas Flow

                                      From Boiler No. 10

-------
                           -30-
Extreme ambient temperature conditions at the mechanical



collector inlet sampling station (160-180 F.) caused



equipment failure and hampered the sampling personnel.



The sampling equipment was revised by inserting a flexi-



ble hose between the sampling probe and the Aerotec Sam-



pler.  This allowed placement of the sampler in a somewhat



cooler location.







The limestone feeder tripped-off at high feed rates.  This



was finally resolved by air-cooling the feeder motor.  The



electrostatic precipitator transformer-rectifier controls



were erratic in operation.  The silicon controlled rectifier



firing circuit was too sensitive to sparking which caused



the precipitator voltage to be lowered at the first occurence



of sparking rather than at an optimum rate.  The problem



was solved by replacing faulty resistors in the control



circuit.







As shown in Figure 15, the "A" and "B" side of the electro-



static precipitator are electrically interconnected.  For



the tests where temperature on the "B" side was reduced to



about 250 F. by fan biasing, the "A" side gas temperature



would rise to over 350 F.  This meant that the "A" side



dust resistivity could influence the operation of the "B"



side portion of the electrostatic precipitator.  This

-------
                           -31-
interference was corrected by deenergizing the "A" side and



using the electrical sets to energize only the "B" side.








Soot blowing, condenser repairs, and hopper enptying took



more time than originally anticipated and modifications in



test and operating procedures were instituted.  In order



to complete as much of the statistically designed test pro-



gram as possible within reasonable cost and schedule con-



straints, the following changes in procedure were agreed



upon:





     1. The velocity and temperature traverses before



        each test were eliminated.  The gas tempera-



        ture and pressure drop of the mechanical



        collector were adjusted by fan biasing to



        give the desired test conditions at the



        electrostatic precipitator inlet.  Previous



        velocity and temperature traverses at similar



        mechanical collector conditions  (temperature



        within 5°F and pressure drop within 10%)were



        then used to obtain isokinetic sampling.



        Figures 16 to 18 are representative tempera-



        ture and velocity traverses for the three



        sampling stations.

-------
                            -32-
     2. Elimination of sampling at the mechanical



        inlet for most tests allowed the use of these



        two samplers, one each, on the ESP inlet and



        outlet or a total of three samplers at each



        of these locations.  Time per test was thus



        reduced to 50 minutes from 75 minutes thereby



        improving test scheduling without reducing



        the amount of dust collected.







Tables I and II list the completed tests for both campaigns,

-------
                     PICA. £ 16
REPRESENTATIVE  TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSE


TOP — , ^


Avy. Velocity - 60.4 FI
Avg. Temperature =
ACf-'M of Gas - (60.4) (7:


Pol torn 	 — 31



AT THE MECHANICAL COLLECTOR INLET ("B" SIDE!
TT TT
61.2 54.8
4 4
310 F 315 F
65.2 57.3
4 -H
318 F 312 F
>S
2,6) (60) = 263,157
6'<.J 57.3
H- -i-
330 F 314 F

60.? 61.?
4 -f-
3J4 F 3J1 F
LI r " •












" ' rr
61.2 66.3
4 4
312 F 308 F
58.7 63.1
-1- -1-
315 F 312 F

60.1 61.1
4- -r
3] 8 F 315 F

57.4 58.2
4 4
310 F 308 F
j

-------
                                -34-
                              FIGURE 17
REPRESENTATIVE TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSE AT THE MECHANICAL
       OUTLET - PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLE STATION  ("B" SIDE)

1=

"
1=

t
t

t
19.2
-h
293F
18.5
293F
15.3
•h
298F
15.3
4-
305F
15.3
4-
311F
13.7
311F
21.5
295F
19.2
298F
19.3
298F
21.6
311F
21.6
315F
19.4
313F
21.5
295F
19.3
298F
19.3
296F
24.6
311F
24.6
315F
19.4
313F
15.2
4
293F
19.2
293F
15.3
296F
21.6
-h
311F
21.6
313F
21.6
313F
11.8
293F
19.2
293F
19.3
4-
298F
19.4
307F
19.4
313F
19.4
311F
                    Avg.  Velocity  =19.1  FPS
                    Avg.  Temperature  = 303F
                    ACFM  of  Gas =  (19.1) (204) (60)  = 233,784

-------
                          -35-
                        FIGURE 18
REPRESENTATIVE TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSE AT THE
    PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLING STATION  ("B" SIDE)
                                               JEL
• ' ' 	
33.5
4-
273F
34.0
4-
291F
34.1
4-
297F
34.0
4-
293F
34.0
+
291F
26.1
4-
277F
26.1
-1-
277F
34.0
4-
293F
30.4
4-
291F
32.6
4-
291F
21.4
+•
287F
21.5
-h
291F
26.4
4-
297F
24.7
4-
299F
30.5
+
297F
21.1
+
264F
26.1
+-
278F
28.8
•h
293F
26.4
4-
301F
28.9
+
297F
21.1
4-
267F
24.7
-h
303F
30.5
4-
299F
32.8
+
301F
32.8
-h
305F
20.8
4-
243F
26.1
4-
277F
32.8
4-
303F
32.6
•h
293F
28.9
-1-
301F
          Avg. Velocity =  28.C FPS
          Avg. Temperature =  2'C9F
          ACFM of Gas =  (28.6) C;47.1) (60)  =  252,424

-------
                           -36-
                         TAB1J:  I
            COMPLETED TESTS  (FIRST  CAMPAIGN)
                 CONTRACT CPA  22-69-139
Test
Number
1A*
IB*
2A
3A*
3B*
4A*
4B*
5A*
. SB*
Additive Stoich.
XT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gas Temp.
x?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Particle Size
XT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% S in Coal
Xa
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
•*•
+ .
Date
Perfoi-med
12/11/69
12/11
12/12
12/14
12/13
12/14
12/13
12/15
12/15
KEY:
LEVEL
+
-
X2
289-318
238-256
X4
2.30-4.10
1.00-2.29
* Mechanical Collector  Inlet  Sample  Taken

-------
                               -37-


                            TABI.h  II

                COMPLETED  Fl.STS  (SI'COXI)  CAMPAIGN)

           CONTRACT CPA 22-69-139  MODI I' ICAT ION'S  6  & 7
Test
Humbcr
1
2*
3*
4«
5*
6*
8*
9
10
11
. 25
19
20
21
22
23
24 •
28
29
30
16
17
IS
26
27
14*
15*
32*
33*
Additive Stoich
Xi
0

-
+
-
+
-
0
•+•
+
-
0
0
0
0
-
4.
-
-
-
0
+•
+
-
-
•f
+
-
-
Gas Tcnp
X2
+
+
-
4-
-
+
-
-
.
+
-
-
•f
-
+
+
+
+
-
•f
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
-
Particle Size
X3
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
+
•t
•i
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
+
•»•
+
+
'; S in Coal
*A
+
+
+
-
+ •
+
+
_
.
_
-
<0. 8 ^
<0.8
<0.8
<0.8
<0.8
^0.8
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
- "
+
+ '
Date
Performed
7/9/71
7/10
7/12
7/13
7/14
7/15
7/19
7/20
7/21
7/22
7/23
7/24
7/26
KEY;
LEVEL
t
-
Xl
2.0-4.0
0.5-2.0
X2
289-51S°F
25S-256°F
*3
COURSE (SO'.-'IOOM)
FINE (S05o-400M)
*<
2.30-4.10
1.00-2.29
   * Mechanical  Collector Inlet famplc
NOTE:  All tests  were run r'l "B" side.  Jlowevcr,  first  five
       tests hnU  ploctrj ca'; equipment encrgi:in£  lioth  "A"
       and "B"  sides.  lesi1 six on h.id onl\ "B" side
       onerci=cd.  one set pir section (ftillw.ive).

-------
                                -38-
V.  TEST RESULTS AND SAMPLE ANALYSES



    1. Test Data



       Tables III through XV summarize the data from both



       the CES test programs, and the TVA test programs.



       All runs were made on Boiler No. 10 at Shawnee



       Station.  However, the TVA tests were conducted on



       the "A" precipitator while the first CES test pro-



       gram was on both "A" and "B" precipitators and the



       second was on the "B" only.  (See Figure 15).







       Since the flue gas and particulate to both "A" and



       "B" precipitators came from the same boiler, there



       is no obvious reason to expect any significant



       difference in results due to the side tested, and



       for analysis purposes the test data can be con-



       sidered comparable?  The only exception is the



       optical sensor data which was recorded on the "B"



       side and a quantitative analysis requires test



       data from the "B" side.  However, a qualitative



       evaluation of the data can include "A" side tests



       as well.







    2. Coal Analyses



       Tables XVI through XVIII summarize coal sample an-



       alyses for both the CES and TVA programs, and the



       Babcock and Wilcox pilot plant work at Alliance, Ohio,

-------
                           -39-
3. Particle Size Analyses (Bahco, sieve and specific



   gravity)



   Tables XIX through XXII summarize the Bahco and sieve



   analyses of samples obtained during the CES test pro-



   grams.  Included are limestone feed samples, fly ash



   samples and reacted limestone fly ash mixtures.







4. Resistivities



   Tables XXIII through XXV summarize all laboratory



   and in-situ resistivity measurements made on samples



   from the CES programs.  Table XXVI shows resistivi-



   ties obtained on fly ash from various coals used in



   the Babcock and Wilcox pilot program.







5. Chemical Analyses



   Tables XXVII through XXIX summarize all the chemical



   analyses obtained on the particulate samples from



   both of the CES test programs.  These analyses were



   performed by TVA personnel at their Chattanooga,



   Tennessee laboratory.

-------
                     -40-
                  TABLE III

SUMMARY OF THE TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
  ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SERIES
              (December, 1969)
Test
No.
1A
IB
2A
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
53
Peed Rate
Tons/Hr.
Coal
57.0
57.0
55.0
58.0
59.0
58.0
59.0
57.0 '
57. a
Lircstonc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ear.
Press.
"Hq
29.61
29.75
29.71
29.75
29.91
29.88
29.75
29.98
29.96
Duct
Press.
ID Tan
in "H20
-13.90
-13.25
-13.60
-13.30
-12.75
-13.10
-12.75
-12.30
-12.75
I.n-Situ
Resistivity
Pptr. Inlet
Tenp.
o ^»~
-—
	
293
318
293
312
302
	
	
OHM-CM
___
—
4.8xI09
2.1X1010
2.6X1011
4.7X1010
.3.0X1011
	
	
Elcc. PTJtr.
Inlet T
Op
-
-
293
318
293
312
302
	
	
Gas Vol .
MACFM
275
255
275
273
237
270
230
276
230
Vol.
F?S
6.2
5.7
6.2
6.1
5.3
6.1
5.2
0.2
5.2
                    (a)
Test
y.o.
1A
IB
2A
3A
3B
4A
45
&
51J
Unit
Load
140
140
137-14-1
110
140
141
1-:]
140
140
Steam
M Lbs.
Per !!r.
S/&
965
940-1000
SCO
960
962
S55
970
9CO
Air
Per Hr.
1030
1020
1000-1C30
1020
1010
1020
102C
1020
1020
Flue Gas %
bv Voluirc
Oi
J.O-b.O
2.3-4.0
3.0-5.0
2.0-4.0
2.0-4.0
2.0-4.0
2.0-4.0
3.2-5.0
3.2-3.9
H-JO
	
	
8.3
	
	
9.1
7.7
	
	
KC Inlet
iCTfp ,
00
295
300
297
30C
303
300
210
22C
200
*P "H?0
A'-:
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
2 . 3
2.2
2.2
2.2'
XC
4.40
3. SO
4.20
', . 30
3. SO
•'..00
3. EG
4. 3D
3.75
?otr.
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
C.3
0.3 ;
0.3
                    (b)

-------
                -41-
               TABLH IV
 SUMMARY OF'TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRtiLL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST SCRIES
           (December, 1969)
•
Test
No.
1A
13
2A
3A
35
47*
4E
5A
53
T-R Set B2 - Outlet Section
.Sp^LS
Nin.
. 	
78
	
— —
143
	
145
	
130
volts
*c
—
300
	
—
233
	
229
	
300
7-.r.ps
;.c
—
73
	
—
50
	
50
	
SO
KVolts
DC
	
33.8
	
	
25.2
	
25.3
	
23. S
Aro-;
DC
	
.26
	
— —
.1-i
	
.13
	
.32
T-R Set A2 - Outlet Section
Mil".
0
	
3
100
	 jr-
200
	
15
•
Volts
f-C
305
	
310
200
- - ~~~
250
	
330
•^—
Air.ns
A<-
70
	
79
SO
•"**- —
50
	
50
-•—
K volts
DC
34.4
	
34.9
22.5
— — -•
28.2
	
37.2
— —
f.ips
DC
0.30
	
.32
.26
• * •
.24
	
.24
• •
                    (a)

Tast
No.
1A
13
2 A.
3A
3b
4A
4B
3A
5B
r-F. Set Bl - Inlet Section
Spfcs
Mm.
1-50
143
85
150
160
250
3=0
70
C5
Volts
AC
330
345
355
250
233
250
228
350
305
Amps
rc
60
63
75
40
35
30
34
60
73
KVol ts
DC
37.2
38.8
40.0
28.2
26.2
28.2
25.6
39.4
34.4
;>.:nos
DC
.28
.30
.34
.12
.105
.12
.10
.40
;,33
p
T-R Set Al - Center Section
Snks
.':J.n.
150
145
95
150
15B
150
158
118
140
Volts
AC
315
330
350
278
283
265
268
330
305
trips
*C
60
73
88
50
C5
50
57
90
EO
KVolts
DC
35.5
37.2
39.4
31.2
31.8
29.8
30.2
37.2
34.4
A^-.os
nc
.33
.40
.50
.24
.35
.24
.23
.46
.44
                    (b

-------
                TABLE V
 SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE  COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST  SERIES
            .(December, 1969)
Test
No.
LA
13
2A
3A
•33
4A
4B
5A
'53
Power
WrtttS
1000 ACFM
73
89
102
38
40
42
34
91
113
Wntts
1000 Ft*
720
740
940
360
3GO
410
300
850
1000
Grain Loading @ 70 °F
& 30 "Hg-Gr/Ft3
KG
Inlet
3.17
3.09
	
3.22
3.14
•2.73
3.31
3.20
2.95
MC Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
	
	
	
1.45
1.37
1.19
1.20
1.42
1.26
Pptr.
Outlet
.036
	
	
	
0.227
—
0.328
0.112
0.045
Removal
Efficiency
%
KG
	
	
	
55.0
56.4
56.5
63.8
55.7
57.3
ESP
	
	
	
	
83.5
	
72.8
92.8
96.4
Overall
98.7
	
	
	
92.6
	
91.5
96.5
98.3
M4 rtT-af- < «*•
Vel. W
FFS/CMPS
	
	
	
	
.190/5.8
	
.13/5.5
.41/12.5
.43/13.1

-------
                TABLE VI
 SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES
              (July, 1971)
Teat
1
:
*
/.
5
fc
•:
0
JO
I'nlt
l-"y
1"*
'?7
'JT
1 10
1.! 1
K.Z
i:»
i : .
•• L"*
'A ., "ILI
1 ^
56
I"
Jf
!&
Zc
2)
22
2]
i t 1
l ' >
139
1 1-
m
140
I4T
i-=i
i "•
a* ,,.
7?
' T"
Stcr.-n
V. l.bs
Per <:r
n-i-
t, no
ft •»*%
i .T r. o
1 for,
: n -n
ir. •"
1010
:ni"
li'l n
•>»o
l.T"
9'.o
"SP
1CTU
•H'J
001
n.-in
"Ifl
9!'0
PSO
".-.T
1* ,,! | ,-M
? ? [ i T o
£i
«:<»
JC
ji
i-s:
i '.i
MS
r,f
'* -.if.
o«n
M"0
.,,pn
].":'0
Air
M Lbs
Per
!!our
in.™
1070
n-n
1 1 :r
1 1 O f,
;:.i(
' :m>
l,.nr.
' ;no
IO--0
Lli/0
Flue
CAS
•- ly
Vol .

' .0
'. .-1
2 . o
_
•'..2
I./
4.5
3.1
2.7
4.3
"!70 1 -t.t
10-10
M'.i
10C5
IJ'iO
'. •>»?
Ill »
i n -j o
inpo
ipoft
1 nro
'"70
1RSO
in,--;
,„.,„
inr-.:
fGfl 71T
4.7
1.1
4.0
C.7
5.0
S.3
r, ^
^ 	
5 P
t •)
/ r.
f ?
^ 7

•:.P.
., ,
•Til ! IP'ii) | '..0
?luc
Cr. s
»/by
Vol.

R.O
r,.p
1! .3
r,.7
9.0
7.0
6.3
8.0
7.7
6.3
7.3
5.8
S.fi
4 .3
5.1
5.4
4.9
/! 7
,. s
ri t.
C..2
K ^1
r. .r,
4.7
I."!
6.1
6.9
6.3
KG
Inlet T.
•P.
114
314 .
?70
••77
2« 5
1'2
77f.
?G5
770
111
310
763
?60
?rt
310
757
310
7F.O
11 n
11 f.
71 R
273
31 0
2f!l
11 1
?r,n
319
310
7^,0
£
AH

2.S
7.7
1.2
2.".
7.9
T> "I!
KC
1 ^C
1.5
T.»

1 7
1.8
7 . f> il . 5
7.5

2.r,
2."
2.5
2.5
7.'.
2.6
2.S
2.8
2.5
7. .r,
?.r,
L_2.5
7.5
2.G
2.5
2.7
7.1
3.3

1.'.
1.5
1. 7
1.1
1.7
1.5
1.3
l.r,
1 .4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.4
? -
3.1
7.7 |3.7
f .6
2. 1
3.5
3.2
"
Pptr
0.5

0.1

0.4
o.s
o.s
0.5
0.5
P. 5
0.5
1.4
0.5
n.f
0.5
0.5
0 5
0.5
0.5
o.r,
0.5
P. 5
P. 5
0.5
0.5
n i
0.5
n.s
0.5
i 	 1
food Rnte
i'cni/1'r.
Co.-i | ].in . •;
r)q>r,
17.7
5R.°
R7.0
fi?.2
«;i .?
C2.1
C1.fi
f.'. . 3
f.7.5
5;. 3
Cl.Q
c • •*
r,?.i
c:.o
'. r. . 7
5«.4
n
7 .•;•;
R.^O

4.7S
; i . r. o
11. IS

15. 7S
15.71
14 . 1 ft
J 4 . 1 S
0
0.70
?.lr.
0
0
P
0
1.80
3.45
10.55
7.05
6.45
11. JS
r, .75
j.30
n.so
7.ns

I3ar. Prcr.r,

79.87
79.70
?°.PS
79. fll
71.B3
2y. /(-
79.7-)
79. C-o
?9.fi7
20.7?
20.71
70.89
79.00
29. 8C
29.84
."".Rl
7".P7
79.05
29. R2
29.32
29.68
29.7(1
79.75
29.90
79.90
23.33
21'. 70
29.70
Duct Press.
ID Pan In.
"11,0
-13.5
-13.7
-1".3
-14.8
- 1 3 . 9
-13.5
-17.1
-11.5
-12.0
-17.5
-12.6
-11 .7
-11.0
-1 1 .1
-12.0
-17.0
-12.1)
-17.0
-17.1
-17.2
-12.1
-11 .8
-17.1
-11 .7
-12.1
-11 .1
-12.1
-10.0
-11 .2
Elce. Prcelnitatcr
Inlet T.
•F.
293
314
1 251
305
?46
301
25G
246
251
290
289
744
241
713
2C9
23B
7B1
241
289
292
296
253
269
242
290
241
298
289
241
Gas \ol
509

2«4
-"7
?5K
3 12
•>74
26i
Jfi?
2'4
2q,
256
JSP
f.t
1*7
?10
>P«
7fi4
262
234
r»i'
K -I
f *
S .7
a ^
s ^
f 0
fi.J
5 q _j
S 4
r 4
r A
S 7
S g
,t ,
K 1
^ a
ft c
1 Q
6.3
6.4
284 6.4
268
296
265
292
2'. 'i
:'jj
?eo
259
6.0
6.4
6.0
6.6
S .8
E.C
6.5
S.3 _

-------
               TABLE VII
 SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM THE COTTRELL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST SERIES
              (July, 1971)
1 -r-* *--. r
.7r:;K:;'
VM'.I
AT
Li '••> h«
t 1 1* | !""
3 In:
"V l~.-3~"
T~nT
•) • • ••
C •>!
: i !•>!
"•• i';
j 	 j 01
t '. . :
^ i • : : i
: ;n
1 .?_.
I'S
:;*• ~
23:
_!Ji_
!"1
73"
~:7i~
l-1-.l-t S-cf.r-.
*;?*
i.19-
• 15
. j
• 5
! J
:c
r. volt^
:».»
:>.=
J3.S
'*-.'
;? i
21.2
~:1 -7-
7; :».2
1 37
**
1 »
27
25 J
.-. ir-Ji:- J '2
•> \. -15 )'. 4 I •!
' 1 "•
'. 1 5 "
Li'.Li'
L • ! 1 "''
r-'.'-U'J-
l_».-_J-'/'_
_J'._U2-_
?7 »'
t£~> i»~
L " ! ''
r!i_L»
r:i
:•.:
SI
.-«
?'.'. j <3
Jrl
1 • !
71 i
?' *
'-£•
•~4
1 ;
72

27
77
-Ii'J_±L_
7! 1
2? n
26.4

? '. . 3
T«'
'"!"ss?"
.".i
.n7c
.ma
j.1-5
.'jn
.ifil
s . i o •
o rp.
17.1 1 0 «
^1
10. < \0.?",'
21 S
:: ;
2! <
:jj±-
»' %
7S.7
7S 2

70.3
Lk-i.]
s . 2 -.
b_*-.
!i^
o : i
£.1"
T-n
fEi^
'Set M— Cinter G«etlon
Voltoj A.-ipa
••C 1 ••NT
_rs fl?7*
73 J112
70 172
73
70
53
OS
7J
75
ro
70
79
75
7'-
75
S3
55
53
07
f.»
: 77
IDS
:74
:ii
221
216
174
174
274
71 f
1' 9
272
:•;
J!l
43
•10
'10
-s
«s
<5
23
17
30
•5
• S
25
«S
X Volte
DC
33. C
21.75
21.6
21.2
7y»P*
DC
O.JO-
o.on.
O.C5"
o.occ
22.5 O.OC
23.8 | O.OC"
2?.C | .11*
20. «
:s.i
2C.S
;i>.o
12.7
25.0
<5 i 2-1.3
-*—
OS
<9
14
1 1l\ • 5
-TTflTo-
7 5
u_»
_^.-k 	 •-; —
•> . 9 •> J V 7
o.: :
0 IV
_L'l

15S
C? 1 7M
•i
37
•5
10
12
<5
10
RC 1 253 j Jl
21.1
17.3
32.4
2?. I
25.2
?0.1
!•».<•
2«.3
20.7
77.7J
24 0

.0"S
.cso
.0',3
.or.o
.0?tl
.07'.
.C',0
.043
0 '2"
0.70-
0.2;r
0.11
0.0?
o.c?
0 0'.
C 0"
0.11
9.C'.
71. Si 0.1P
?0.2j 0.17
T-R
SpXs/
HlB.
J5
100
100
10S
100
no
100
100
no
107
29
0
22
:D
30

0
27
;s
30
0
30

30
9
• s
Sot H2— Outlei Section
Vclta
174
337
180
151
'95
167
242
?es
2C3
?.7
293
217
234
225
1D3
20G
7(4
263
139
705
115
14:

215
_>.-.!_
19!
251
.-'.!
AC
• 10
•10
<0
«5
«5
c5
00
73
41
i:
«5
21
25
?4
JO
77
80
f.5
01
'.3
K.
•S
<3
7,
51
67
H VoltalAnp*
"•; 1 rw
20.9
22.35
21.5
18.4
71.5
20.0
2.,.9
3<.l
31.4
75. S
?4.3
2C.3
?3 0
:e.i
23.7
31. S
32.9
7C f
2<.S
23.5
i9.3
J3.3
21.7
23.7
00 ?
31.4
.O'.C
.040
.OiO
.01-:
.020
.nil
.??>
. 3)0
la*;
.Ot!l
.0(1
.100
.103
.ICO
.otn
.353
.211
o.:c
o :.-
G.I 0
0.30
O.Cl
0.1?
C.ll
O.?l
o.m
I Grain LoA
3?<
7C8 .
1 MC
tnloc
l.o
P.inol
5.46
5.10
3.23
3.22
6.37
7.23
—
—
— ".
e '15
6.J7
	
—
—
__
—
^^
—
	
—
—
	
_«.
9.23
0.13
MC Outlet
Pftr. tnlp
Fl-nple
1,'JS
2.27
r.ri
3 .74
2.36
).)«
1.23
2.19
3.73
?.9J
3.75
1.43
2.30
2. 315
4.42
2.49
2.3)
2.82
7.07
3.S9
7.29
3.27
3.22
3.4?
4.61
3.42
Pptr.
9.3)
0.44
1 .57
1 .63
1.71
1 95
0.35
0.12
0.12
0.75
0.93
0 5?i
f.390
0 214
O.SO
0.19
0.12
0.13
0.79
1.73
1.17
0.11
0.74
0 4?
0.5*
0.51
1.15
0 71
0.18

II
tff

64.3
56.7
31 .6
4« 1
.«!_«
D.R



51 9
Jr. ?




m^^


. 	

~
— |

S
cnov«l
lcl*nffw, t

77 .4
30 8
24.7
30. S
\2i»
«9 2
"S .5
SO }
76 3
86 .7
72.6
9? '
64.1
91.9
91. «
S» 1
54 .7
(a o
"•i.4
It, 7
B.'.t
P» 1
67 0
9« . g
94..,'

91 9
69 7
49 C
*! *

95 7



,.„«,.
97 B


	
"•
	


. _.

—
_
"•"
97 i
97.3
VrT"« CB

C 21/7 )

0 t&/l f
0 PS/1 6



0 41/13 !
0 76 '7 9


0 1 9 'S T

0 It 5/5 0

0. 4  3
0 17/S.J
O.Jl/J 0
0.2V.S
o.2» .•.:

0.41/11.0

-------
                    TABLE VIII
SUMMARY- OF TEST DATA FROM TVA' S  FIRST  TEST  SERIES
               (July-August,  1969)

Test
r*o •
^
5
/
15
24
25
27
23
30
3i
23
24
16
3J
3D
1 .
f ^
"I ..
Gas
Flow
.". ACFJ!
258
252
203
227
282
302
230
. 2.11
2.5
2:1
235
237
235
327
324
340
373
Unit
Load
KW
140
142
134
130
144
143
125
124
139
141
137
137
133
137
136
137
136
Pptr.
Eff .
%
95.8
95.6
97.2
98.0
94.9
94.4
96.7
97.6
97.8
S8.4
96.6
95.7
53.7
95.8
94.0
^94.9
[ 95.0
Pptr.
Gas
Tenp.°F
303
303
308
312
304
304
271
271
263
268
272
272
| 323
317
f- 317
308
308
Lime-
stone
Rate
Tons/Hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
! o
[ 0
TO A T"P C
VI A lib
103 ACFM
S4.3
98.9
132.2
108.8
101.4
92.9
102.0
130.1
210.9
202.4
| 108.3
{ 100.1
87.9
13G.O
104.4
i 108.9
i £3.2

W A lib
103 FT2
818
839
8SO
831
963
945
858
1056
1534
1506
930
866
873
1438
1139
I 1247
j 1108
MIGRATIOI
W
FT/SEC.
0.46
0.44
0.40
0.50
0.47
0.49
0.4S
0.50
0.4G
0.51
0.48
0.45
0.46
0.53
0.51
0.57
0.63
J VELOCITY
v;
CM/SEC.
13.9
13.4
12.2
15.2
14.3
14.9
14.6
15.4
14.1
15.6
14.7
13.8
13.9
17.7
15.6
17.3
19.1
GrAirJ LOADING
Q32cr-23.S2' rr
OvJi'Lll
grs./f c^
0.0712
0.0697 j
0.0-^91
O.C30S
0.0352
0.123-;
0.0^3:
O.C;o:'
O.C2CC
0.0215
O.C455
o.cs:3 i
:
0.0752
O.C3CC I
0 . C 2 ", 9
O.CS17
O.C73

-------
                     TABLE IX
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S FIRST TEST SERIES
                (July-August, 1969)
Test
; >;/; f
•
It
5
7
io
24
I' 5
Z7
23
:o
. i
'. 2
2-;
;a
:s
29
t -
^2
T-R SET
Spks
Mm
154
195
214
329
27
40
140
291
70
132
167
177
I 69
15
16
23
92
PRI
Volts
AC
335
342
335
345
360
363
329
284
342
320
324
348
333
350
351
336
322
1A (FULL WAVE)
PRI
Amps
AC
84
86
97
90
89
93
90
87
102
93
3D
38
93
111
112
112
106
SEC,
Amos
DC
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.22
0.245
0.26
0.235
0.22
0.29
0.29
0.24
0.235
KV
Avg.
40.
40.8
40.0
41.2 i
43.0 ;
43.4
39.3
33.9
40.9
33.2
33.7
41.6
0.255 I 39.8
0.325 I 41.8
0.33 41.9
0.325 -10.2
0.29
38.5
T-R SET
Soks
.''in
129
150
193
105
U
14
121
139
63
100
130
132
-17
15
16
23
S2 .
PHI"
Volts
f-C
J41
360
327
355
372
377
3
-------
                        BLE X
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'A SECOND TEST SERIES



                 (June-July, 1970)
Test
?:c.
4
^
3
10
LLj
u

i S
"7
'• 3
_\2 	
•> 1
73
T ;
??
?7]
266
269
277
278
?30
?R3
Unit
Load-
MW
1/iQ
i-;o
1 a-}.
127
330
.Jr^n
ill
_J £. J
140
143
145
141
501 1 1 -1 1
o o -• j i j i
-,00 n."l2
30?
?7ll
377
77C1
2<53
2C9
?F.fJ
?.1. i
6.3
fi.3
5.7
f .0
C.2
6.7
t; i
5.4
6.8
5.1
5.5
5.2
5.4
Lime-
stone
Rate
^Tons/Sir.
0
1] .0
9.5
0
9.0
0
5.0
9.D
0
5.0
10.0
0
0
10
0
5.5
9.5
0
5.15
10.0
5.0
10.0
0
5.5
1 0.0
0
0
4.5
Coal
Rate
Tonp/Kr^.
62.5
62'. 5
64
56.5 1
58
62.5 i
63 !
63
62.5 I
66.5 i
6S i
r>3
66.5
r,3
C=3 !
64
61
59.5 !
59.5 '
59.5 !
62.5 i
63
62.5
6 C . 5 I
C2 i
6£
64
66.5

-------
                       ^E  XI
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S  SECOND TEST SERIES
                 (June-July,  1970)



IGSt
\'o.
4
•*
=3
L2_
ll
ii
•-•i

•7
Jfl
19
21
?3
i •.
?£
?.7
?3
70
"*!
"?
7 l
•> r
"J '
"S
' -i
:o
•-.2
-3

W ATTC

103 ACFM
35.9
27.3
44.1
35.7
JD.10
27.4
in. 7
d.3
15.6
9.7
7.0
14.7
48.8
32.2
8H.6
23.1
2 3. J
i'l'j.a
31.4
20. &
69.8
^ L .10
50.5
53.2
47.8
53. !>
67 . j
40.7

WATTO

103 FT2
346
262
367
281
01
250
96
75
14G
91
66
140
4G
0.30
0.23
0.32
0.3-1
0.26
C.27
0.41
0.30

VELOCITY
'•j
• • /
cm/sec
10.9
6.4
7.5
8.1
4.3
8.5
5.6
5.6
7.9
4.5
3.0
6.3
10.0
5.9
12. 
-------
n
                          xii
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S  SECOND TEST  SERIES

                  (June-July,  1970)

Test
No.
4
s
c
1 n.
11
13
;
1 ' ->
• 7
\ ?
.19
1 1
?3
?-'-
?;;
7 7
- °
- •>
— :'n —
1 --•
I '•'
~ G
I .'«
i
i f:

-I
T-R SET 1A (PULL WAVE)
SPKS
Win.
0
C
0
18'J
2] 0
ino
395
IftO
?1 5
215
215
20'j
140 	
1 •', '
:r.o
305
lf.p.
30
If. 5
PRI
Volts
AC
235
275
?50
250
">CO
2i')0
1'JC
] f-2
?30
205
200
2'iO
255
PRI
Amps
PS
70
Sec.
Amps
nr
0 ]5
0.15 -i
315 ' 0.0 ',
35 0.05
KV
i«. n
32.8
? '-• . 3
20.6
0 0.03 2"» . 9
30 s 0.0-55
10 i 0 . i ) !
0
15
10
in
2f)
40
0 . 0 L 5
o . o •;
L3l.O
:• / . 7
T-^ S"T 2A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS1
"in.
120
	 3
y 4 c l
- o .
• 17;-
f 1-^ =
1 - v^
..i.?-? !| -r-

O.fM j 2; .4 || 10.
0.03 123.5;
0.0 {5 1 2'. .2
0.035
2? 5 Vi f!.0.~>
330
73 (i . : '-.
225 "? T 0 . 0 <"<
2.'0
3 '1 5
•>35
1 r, . | ? 1 0
5 ° 0 1 7. 7 0
•' <; 0 i 2 -, 0
20
0.0 '»
j n _ ;
LiC^
r i «. . i
? ' . °.
L ?r, .->
1 •> 5 0.3 | •'.  1 2KO r.r, i o.i-
410
-I \> -3
430
150
160
( •, ? . 2
j_ . , . ".
1 ? ! . .
270 1 '>'•' 0.1 .5 !
2C5
200
.r "i 0.115
(>.0
C . 1 •' 5
310 80 0.1'S
270 60
0.11
j V..'.
? '. . C,
!i 7 . ';
32.2
1 -•'-•
i -c.-
I "-

, -- .
. — .
1 	

—

- / .
. '
„ .

. .
-
_ .
] ~ ' •
?n
Volts
AC
2:50
PRI
AC
30
2J5 22
szc.
.^••10 s
nc
0.08
KV
Avg.
29.8
0. 05 26 . a
j i J 43 i 0.103: i S . 8
2_>5
—l-iV
45 | O.ui) | 30.4
20 i 0.05 /:t>.2
2n5 ' 33 O.IJ5
2 j'j

220
2 + Q
^60
-i^
-S-o-
10
10
3 ij
~~ _ t | . j
j^i. , (33
2 iO
^ ^ -^
.. J3
.' i:j
	 :";3~
iJ . 0 3
C . 02
0. ua
O.uG
0. 05
~O.C3'J~
J'l .0
Jfa . J
—I-3-!.'-!-
2G.2
2"5.0
Jl .0
0.&73 2y.8
J.3o
""07! 75"
2v. . 2
JiTtf
20 ' 0 . 0 tj ' J f> . 2.
2 J
7 i
~T2^
j ^ 'J
0 . Jt
•J72T
26. 2
0 . ] o :i 2 y . 8
C.u~j" 27. 4"
T-R SET 3A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS
.'lin.
155
160
500
180
2 'JO
Ib5
1'JS
r ji3
li'O
183
iyo
105
ibO
— ri1? — l
uo
•4!?=
loC.
^76 O.::0 , 3j.s 1 bOO
-0,. | 33
.. 7 j i J ^
. -3
i 7T!
uL»
! o/
0.1-,
3o..O
U.i^5" 32. li
U . 2 U"~ p3 -1 . 0
o. 2
' .< ^3
03 C.iw3
33 . 2
03 . fa
45 | 0.125 21.6
buO
500
500
300
PRI
volts
AC
233
11JG
PRI
Anps
AC
50
125
250 'j 00
200
I100
i7"0
1:10
205
ll)3
163
13b
L'/O
330
~JJ523
-T7CT-
Tiij "
liTj
^20
l_2 ;o
— ^vr —
300 i i'10
1 j j J^ 0
210
15
0
16
sec.
Air.ps
DC
0.10
O.OG
G.2'0
0. 10
C.02
KV
AVfT.
27. S
22.7
2 'j . „
2J.9
u.:
C . o 1 ' ?0 . j
1.2 C . O'1 • 2 1 . ->
2 3 i C, . <; \>
2', . ,
U 0. 0^ l 1 y. /
0
0
15
L,0
0. 02
0
0. Cj
ly.7
1.-..1
^ u . J
0". L>J"T 3'J". ".
•; j i) . _ ;
I 	 GJ
2^
JO
C j
3"?
i;

| ^ti . 0
PJ y . •;
j *" '
37 | O.i/ | ^~ . 'j
V, J
. 1. 1 i j - . j
2oO | -'.0 | 0.1&
^_. 0
                                                                         vo
                                                                          I

-------
                           XIII.
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S  SECOND TEST SERIES


                   (June-July,  1970)
Test
No.i_
44
46
47
18
50
51
52
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
62
64
65
6t>
68
69
70
72
73
74
Gas
Flow
M ACFM
299
2yi
283
280
239
237
239
285
285
280
279
279
283
302
296
294
293
290
287
275
273
227
222
223
Unit
Load
MW
144
142
139
140
142
142
143
140
141
141
142
142
144
141
143
142
142
142
140
140
142
139
140
143
Pptr.
Eff .
%
85.3
92.6
77.3
83.4
93.7
91.1
89.6
89.8
71.3
79.3
94.9
88.3
82.0
91.6
81.3
93.4
82.6
74 .0
85.6
78.6
78.8
88.5
68.0
87.2
Pptr.
Gas
Temp.
OF
316
JOb
306
306
307
313
320
310
. 310
310
304
304
304
304
304
310
310
310
309
309
309
311
311
311
Ultimate Coal
Analysis (Dry)
Ash
%
15.9
17.1
15.8
15.7
14.0
14.0
14.3
13.7
13.6
13.7
14.0
13.2
12.9
13.8
14.0
14.2
13.6
.13.6
14.8
16.3
15.8
20.2
14.0
16.2
Sulphur
%
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.7
2.8
3.C
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.6
2.6
3.1
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
Ash
Sulphur
Ratio
5.9
6. J
5.9
5.2
5.2
5.0
4.9
5.1
4.9
4.9
5.0
4.9
5.2
5.3
5.4
4.6
4.9
5.2
5.9
6.8
6.6
6.1
5.8
6.8
Lime-
stone
Rate
Tons/Hr.
9-5
U
5.0
10.0
0
5.0
10.0
0
3.3
2.25
0
2.3
1.25
0
1.2
0
5:0
10.5
0
1.4
5.5
0
1.3
5.5
Coal
Rate
Tons/Hr.
68
64
62
62.5
64
64
to. 5
62.5
63
63
64
64
68
63
66.5
64
64
64
62.5
62.5
64
62
62.5
66.5
                                                                         I
                                                                        (Jl
                                                                        o
                                                                         I

-------
                    TABLE XIV


SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S  SECOND TEST SERIES


                  (June-July,  1970)


NO. 2
-^*__




•=~~"~

J-J


T t

i.Q


'.-1
( J
t b
^ j

- 0
C £
•>3
"/•;

WATTS
103 ACFM
21.7
6277
19.7
18.1 I
72.3
33.8
29. S
57.1
21. 6
20.5
63.2
27.1
22.1
59.6
3 •', . G
94.1
30.7
22.1
A 1.4 "
24.3
21. 7
G1.5
3-J . 4
3~2T^

WATT^
103 FT2
219
623
187
171
582
2G9
237
548
207
193
593
2b5
211
606
345
931
302
216
400
225
199
470
257
243

MIGRATION
W
ft/sec
0.32
U.4J
" U:2^'
0.23
0.31?
' O.J2
0.30
0.36
0.20
0.24
0.45
0.3J
0.2;
0.42
0.27
" 0.44
0.28"
" 0.21 "
O.Ji
0.23
0.2J
0.27
0.26
U.^b

VELOCITY
W
cm/ sec
9.8
13.1
' V.2
y.b
11.3
9.8
9.2
11.1
b.l
7.5
14.2
10.2
S.3
12.8
a. 3
13.6
ft.tt
6. &
9.5
7.2
"7.2
' '8.4
e.o
V.B
flFlAIN LOADING
@ 32°F and 29.92"Kg
OUTLET
grs/ft3
0.319
0.1J22
0.311
(J.329
O.OiiiiO
O.Ki
U.22JJ
O.l4a
O.i62
0.3J4
O.OJ/0
0.246
0.27&
0. Oi;65
0.24JI
0. Oy-Jl
0".3oJ
o.4ia
0.21-1
0.319
0.3b2
3.129
0.162
0.214
                                                                               I
                                                                               U1

-------
                     TABLE XV
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FROM TVA'S  SECOND  TEST  SERIES
                   CJune-July,  1970)

Test
XC.T
A4
~ K>'
47
+£>
b'o
~ 53
' 52"
~ it
!>S
Se
5S
50
id
L'Vi
T fc-2
t«-
't>5
tfc
03
1-9"
: '1C
*~ 72
t?J
[—74—
T-R SET 1A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS
170
155
1G5
170
160
]65
16S
160
Io5
165
1GO
165
165
155
1GO
150
165
158
160
165
165
160
162
165
PR I
Volts
AC
235
2'J5
230
225
320
210
230
255
240
235
290
200
235
310
290
315
240
230
285
250
250
310
255
240
PRI
Amps
AC
35
55
30
30
60
35
31
40
30
30
47
30
30
70
50
70
37
30
50
37
35
60
35
37
SEC
Amps
DC
0.07
0.145
0.065
0.065
0.14
0.08
KV
Avq.
28.083
35.25J
27.485
26.888
38.240
2 G . f .'• 0
0.07 27.433
0.035 30. 4 M
0.07 1 28.0 (30
0.065 j 2S.083
0.105
0.075
0.07
0.15
0.10
C.175
0.08
0.07
0.105
0.08
0.07
34.053
31.070
28.0H3
37 . (.43
34.fi35
37.643
28. o:'.0
27..'.'j5
34.038
, 2 9 . 8 / 1>
2 9 . 0 / .>
0.13 37.0-.3
0.075 30.4/.J
0.065
28.630
T-R S2T 2A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS
Min.
170
PRI
Volts
AC
240
160 290
180
230
135 i 225
165 i 230
180 243
180
235
165 290
180
IdO
230
230
170 250
180
IdO
240
235
1-10 , 330
Ib5
145 •
170
"Do
160
255
300
240
235
275
170 " 240
170 240
PRI
Amps
AC
30
57
30
27
56
33
30
60
30
30
47
28
30
60
45
61
35
31
SEC.
Amps
DC
0.06
0.155
0.07
0.065
0.135
0.085
0.08
0.14
0.03
O.OS
0.11
0.08
0.075
0.17
KV
Avg.
28.680
3/1 .655
27.485
26.888
33.460
29.278
28.083
34.655
27 .485
27.485
31.070
28.680
28.083
35.350
0.115 31.6G8
|_ 0.175
0. 085
0.08
50 | 0.13
32
0.09
30 o.oes
35.350
23.680
28.083
32.863
28.630
23.630
Ia5 270 | 50 i 0.12 32.265
175 i 245
175
245
32
32
0.08
0.08
29.278
29.278
T-R SET 3A (FULL WAVE)
SPKS
Min
270
160
170
170
160
165
165
160
Ifa5
168
PRI
Volts
AC
215
280
195
190
L270
225
220
285
205
205
155 1 295
163
165
225
205
160 280
1S5 220
120 335
1KO 210
182 210
175 260
180 205
180 : 195
175 2CO
ISO | 230
180
230
PRI
Amps
AC
25
45
25
25
50
29
24
•1'j
20
20
60
20
20
40
27
67
23
19
29
20
20
37
25
27
SEC.
Amps
DC
0.110
0.24
0.03
0.07
0.23
0.12
0.11
0.26
0.08
0.07
0.30
0.11
f .09
G.19
0.12
0.37
0.17
0.09
0.13
KV
Avq .
25.6
33.4
23.3
22.7
32.2
^a .8
2 fr.2
34.0
2 •! . 4
24 .4
35.2
26.8
24.4
33. '.
2fj. A
40.0
2J.O
2b.O
30.0
0.07 ! 2-', .4
0.06
2J.3
0. ib 3_ . 0
0.11
O.li
27.4
' 27.4
                                                                        cn
                                                                        M
                                                                         i

-------
               -53-
           TABLE  XVI
 COAL ANALYSES  FOR  BOTH  CQTTRF.LL
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S TEST SERIES
   (December, 1969 5 July, 1971)
Run(i;
No.
1A61B
2A
3A
3U
4A
4U
SAG SB
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
1J
14
IS
JG
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2S
29
30
*/.
33
Moi sturc
10.10
5. 30
9.90^
10.40
9.40
S..SO
S.OO
10.30
11 .00
9. JO
10.<>U
10. SO
S./O
JO. 'JO
10. SO
10. SO
11.10
9.20
!0.10
8.50
8. -10
S.60
7.yo
S.20
7.20
6.90
S.9U
8. 90
7.- 10
S.70
s.:o
7 . 20 |
Vol.
Comb.
!!at tcr
33.93
3f>. 1 0
5i Go
j 2 . 5 !>
32.87
51 .99
30. SI
29.1 .>
2 'J . 2 2
50.52
jO. 2b
:s.s2
2S.6G
j J . 9 2
3 1 . ° 2
5 0 . 3 b
34 .SI
1 w . C 0 3 3 . « 0
S . 5 0 j i 5 . 2 i>
10. ?>) 1 3-1 .(••'
S.60
J (• . 4 7
Fixed
Carbon
-14.52
J S . S D
15. S9
•15.86
•15.90
4 3.. S3
4 .0 . / 9
45.62
45.06
4-1 .35
•: 1 . 2 S
4. ''.64
41.55
12.60
41 .00
40.20
J1.57
41.73
4 -I . 1 6
45.3 •!
'! 5 . '. 8
16. SO
4 j .OS
'12.71
'I3.S9
•13.63
Jl . 13
J0.09
'M.I A
•16. OS
•1 J . 5 'J
59 . 70
1 1 70
.: 2.43
S 7 . 4 4
^7.99
Ash
11 .45
12.11
10.75
11.15
9. »7
12.44
9.7S
13.39
14 .02
13.42
IS . 12
1 ... h 0
IS. 01
1-1.11
16. U5
16.39
16. ^1
14.0)
13.15
13.49
1-1.13
13.79
1 S . b 9
1 1) . S 7
1S.S9
19.19
21 . 15
22.15
1 S . 5 0
1 1- . 5 0
1 2 . o 5
1 J . 2 3
1 S . 1 •-'
15.79
10.97
J 'J . '.i •
Sulfur
Pyritic
1.44
2.24
1 . 25
0. S2
1 .16
0.9-1
1 .67
1 . 59
1.41
1.47
O.Od
1.59
1 .64
1 .48
0.7S
0.77
O.S2
1.55
1 . 2/
0. 72
0. 92
1 .24
0. it
0. J4
0.25
0. 30
0.55
0. j6
1.07
1 . 2S
1 . U4
1 .74
1 . IS
1 .50
2 70
2. IS
Organic
1.32
1 .44
U.SS
1 .06
1 .52
0.92
1 .52
O.SS
1 .01
0.96
0.67
o. y&
0.31
1 .00
0.77
0.79
0.80
1 .US
O.S9
0.70
0.67
O.S4
o .sy
0.57
0.5S
0.65
0.6S
O.SO
0.3/
0.94
O.uS
1 .46
i . v :
Sul fate
0.04
0. 04
0.02
0. 02
0.03
0.03
0.03
Total
2.80
5.72
2.15
1.90
-J.71
i .sy
3.22
0.10 1 2.37
0. 13
2.55
0.12 I 2.55
0.04
0.14
!_O.OS
0.11
0. 07
0. 04
0.06
0. 06
0. 06
0. 03
0. 05
0.05
0. 03
0. 04
0.0?
0. 02
0.04
0. 06
0. On
0.05
0. OJ
0.14
0 ! 0
1.22 I O.OS
1 . 57
2.69
2.65
2.59
1 .62
1 .60
1 .63
2 .69
Ash
Sui ru-
4.2
j . ^
5.0
5. 9
3 . 4
6.6
3.0
5.6
5.5
5 . 3
13. 5
5. 4
6.9
5.4
9 9
10.2
9.8
S. 2
2.22 i S.y
1 . •: S
1 . 62
2.15
O.S.I
0. SS
O.S6
0.95
: .o?
1 . L'2
2.00
2.27
1.75
3 . 34
2 . 30
2.66
9. 5
8. 7
6.5
25. 7
25.4
21 .6
20. 2
19.$
IS. 1
9. 5
5.9
7 . 4
5.5-
6 ft
5.S
120 50.10 i . Oo 4.2
1 .57
0.22
J . 04
J . i»

-------
                -54-
              TABLE XVII
COAL ANALYSES FOR TVA ' S FIRST TEST SERIES
           (July-August, 1969)
TVA
TEST
NO.
4
5
7
16
24
25
27
28
30
31
33
34
36
38
39
41
42
MOISTURE
11.9
12.2
13.0
9.2
9.4
9.6
11.4
10.9
9,9
10.3
10.7
10.9
8.8
8.3
8.3
7.9
8.3
VOL.
COMB.
MATTER
34.62
33.80
32.80
35.05
34.34
33.99
31.36
32.34
35.50
34.44
12.24
:i.90
34.11
34.39
34.35
33.89
34.00
FIXED
CARBON
42.99
42.85
42.72
42.77
43.94
44.93
43.50
43.93
44.42
44.67
45.63
45.98
44.41
45.57
44.75
45.04
46.07
ASK
10.48
11.15
11.48
12.98
12.32
11.48
13.73
12.83
10.18
10.58
11.43
11.26
12.68
11.74
12.10
13.17
11.33
TOTAL
SULFUR
2.73
3.16
3.39
2.63
3.08
2.44
2.04
2.41
2.70
2.69
2.14
1.69
3.01
3.39
3.76
3.59
3.02
HEATING
VALUE
ETU/LB .
11,189
10,993
10,823
11,168
11,298
11,327
10,738
10,968
11,533
11,401
11,171
11,191
11,300
11,545
11,527
11,448
11,580
ASH
SULF'JR
3.8
3.5
3.4
4.9
4.0
4.7
6.7
5.3
3.8
3.9
5.3
6.7
4.2
3.5
3.2
3.7
3.8

-------
                                                 TABLE XVIII
                                    COAL
ANALYSES  FOR BABCOCK  AND WILCOX

     PILOT TEST  PROGRAM
                                                 (1967-1969)




fronliule Anilyili t Dry
Volatile natter
Fined Carbon
Aih
BTU/lb Dry
Ultliute Anilyeli t Dry
Cerbon
Hydrogen
Nitre-Ren (Calculated)
Sulfur
An*l
Oxygen (Difference)
Sulfur Forma X Dry x«* Sulfur
Fyrllle •
Sulfece,
Organic (Difference)
Total
Chlorine 1 Dry
Alh Conpodtlon X
SlOj

Fe20]
T102
C»0

lta?0
K20
SO) (CrevlBOlrle)
Aih Hiilon Teirpereture *f*
Atmoapnere
ss
SH
FT 1/16
FT (fUt)


B-2279L
lac Shipment

37.4
47.4
11.2
12.1)0

67.}
4.6
1.3
4.3
D.2
7.1

2.7
0.1
1.5
4.3
0.02
39.
16.
27.
0.
9.
0.
0.
2.


Red. Oxtd.
1940 2240
1990 2300
201.0 2340
2J40 2460
2170 2)10
STANDARD TEST COALS
oxsorr STOW RAW
C-13167
2nd Shipment
1st Box

38.6
48.2
13.0
11.160f

68.7
4.9
1.4
4.2
12. B
1.0

1.4
0.9
1.9
4.2
0.07
36.
13.
28.
0.4
9.0
O.J
0.6
2.3
12.9

Red. Oxld.
19SO 2230
2000 2340
2040 2380
2310 2300
2390 2)40


C-13311
2nd Shipment
2nd Box

17.6
47.9
14.1
•-

•
-
•
•
•
"

•
•
"
4.2
-
mm
•
•
•
•
•
e.
-
•

Re . Quid.
• •
• e*
-


<• 13273
Orient 13
Hint*.

35.3
&9.S
14.7
12.150

•
•
-
-
-
•

0.8
<0e 1
0.6
1.4
--
12.
24.
9.0
0.6
6.0
1.0
1.4
1.9
"

Rrd. Oxld.
2070 2200
2270 2410
2330 2460
2740 2670
2810 2860
TV

C- 131 74
AtXlnaon
Mine .

14.4
46.7
IB. 9
11.360

• •
• •
•-
•-
«
••

2.6
0.2
1.2
4.0
•-
42.
17.

OJ4
13.
0.9
0.0
1.6
"

Red. Oxld.
1950- 2160
1990 2220
2020 2250
2270 24ti&
I4BO JJ4B
A TEST COALS

C- 13279
Old Ben 124
Mine

IB. a
10.2
11. 0
12.760

•
-
•
•
-
"

1.3
40. i
1.3
2.6
"
41.
22.
17.
0.3
6.0
1.0
1.3
l.T
"

Red. Oxld.
2070 2270
2140 2360
2180 2410
2 ft 50 2670
2780 27)0


C-I31I9
Little Joe Mine

37.0
46.9
16.1
11,980

•






1.9
0.1
1.6
1.6
0.01
11.
24.
18.
0.)
1.0
1.0
0.)
2.4
••

Red. Oxtd.
1990 2440
2170 2480
2240 2500
2600 2710
2710 28110
LICMITC
COAI.
C-IJ176
Korth Ikihnl.
1 Ixnl t e

43.3
48.0
8.7
11.020

61 •
4
1.
0.
1.
19.

O.I
•jQ I
0.6
O.I
--
2).
8.
11.
0.4
24.
9.0
1.0
0.4
"

*ed. 0*1 il.
2270 2280
2350 2)20
2)80 2)40
24)0 2)70
2550 Z1IO
HIM!
SVI FU*
COAL
c-iim
Pr'l-otly Colt

32.4
It 0
12.6
9.3)0

49 0

i!o
11.2
32.6
0.)

10.9
0.1
7.0
1J.2
-•
10.
18.

o!4
1.0
0.4
0.1
1.1


*rd null).
l«"0 2)70
20/0 IMO
2110 7S50
:thO 2570
IMO 7580
                                                                                                                  tn
                                                                                                                  en
lC«lc. »cu (DuLon|)

•ASTH D»l(n>lloni

-------
                   TABLE  XIX
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES  FOR  COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL


           SYSTEM'S FIRST TEST  SERIES


                 (December,  196'9)
eur.ulntivo Per Cent BY Ueiqht taaa Than Indicated Particle Dinnoter

W».llf
i
la
!P.
3 A
:.-,
•1U
5 A
H.-hco
2i>
5.8
10.2
6.4
2.8
4 .0
3.0
'- •: | '• . 2
?\
-.;.
JO
.A
43
J*\
',•»
j;>
3\
'a
:T
IA61D
2 A
.•l'^.J
3Ai<\
5A150
1A£13
2 A
3/U47V
5A65B
« '.
11.9
10. 6
12.0
12.0
9.2
11. 5
13.8
25.4
9.3
13.6
2.2
3.8
Mch. Inlet
>'cch. Inlet
Mcch. Inlet
Mcch. Inlet
Ilccli. Inlet
Nccli. Inlet
P[)tr. Inlet
Pjitr. Inlet
Tptr. Inlet
Pntr. Inlet
P|itr. Inlet
Pplr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
l>]>tr. Out lot
Fplr. Outlet
P[>tr. Outlet
r'cch. coll. Hopper
1. C.-tch

i:ccli. coll. iio^j.cr
& Catch
Koch. Coll. Hopper
t Catch
llcch. Pptr. Hopper
Electrostatic
Collector
Elect. Pptr. Hopper
elect. Pptr. Hopper
t Catch
Elect. Pptr. Hopper
& Catch
                                                                          I
                                                                          (J\

-------
                    TABLE XX
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES FOR COTTRELL  ENVIRONMENTAL
           SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST  SERIES
                   (July,  1971)


! 0.
6
e
14
r3
T.
-a
_ -^~-
2
2
7
3
1
3
4
f.
S
5
1
C
6


a
G
—TO —
11
".
i M
:-i
! !4
1 15
1 15
i "
Cumulative Per Cent Dv Melqht Less Than Indicated Particlb Dinircter
Dohco
?!.
16.3 ^_
IS. 2
10.8
15. 5
11.0
lu.U
9.7
e.2
9.0
Iff. E
7.0
G.-;
3.G
7.8
0.0
4.4
7.0
7.0
~~s.V~
r,.o
4.0
5.2
rf.2
- •••

5.0
6.0
•j.u
4.0
9.2
J.O
7.4
3.8
3.5
5 u
. 42.0
47.5
20.0
44.0
43.0
2(1.0
27.5
33.5
3C.O
10.0
32.4
39.4
1C.1
46. 0
40.D
20.2
39.0
31!. 0
22.4
40.0
34.4
21. C
47.0
" -

31.0
3U.O
J1.2
20.0
40. 0
29. G
25.0
32.0
23. G
10u
61.5
67. 5
42.0
65.0
65. 0
43.5
42.5
55.8
03.0
82.5
54.0
71.0
~~4l!o"
81.2
72.4
44.0
74.0
72.0
4G.O
75.8
CO. 4
44.0
79.6


65.3
75.0
71.8
41.0
7S.8
GO.O
4G.4
70.0
C3.0
20 u
75,0
79.0
49.0
77.0
7G.O
52.0
51.0
7G.O
95.5
93. G
74.0
92.0
67.0
95. 5
92.4 .
70.0
94 .0
90.0
71.0
95.0
08.2
68. 4
95.0


88.8
94. G
"91 .-§ 	
G5.2
9G.O
05.5
G9.6
93.5
91.0
30 u
_J&>£
82-.0
52". 0
111.5
ec.o
!>5.0
54.5
84.8
9G.9
94.9
83.0
97.4
80.0
97.4
97.2
82.0
98.2
94.2
83.8
98.6
93.0
00.5
98.0


93.0
07.5
96. 6
77. G
98.9
33.6
80.5
98.2
97.0
Sieve
44u
. -?.?,!__
94.3
62.5
97.1
96.0
G4.5
62.4
92.9
93. G
90.6
90.4
9V. ^5
90.0
98.3
93.5
83.9
95.4
39.1
92.1
97.3
99.4
89.0
99 .'3
65.7
oo. S
9G.4
90.3
' 96.6"
86.2
9~9'.5
SS.L
91.6
98.7
98.3
74u
„ ?}s5 -,
99.1
64.4
39.2
97.9
82.2
78.5
97.1
54. G
ri.e
96.2
•|9.5
94 .6
98.6
94.3
92.1
95.8
59 1
94.4
98.3
99.7
95.6
99.5
C9.J
94.1
97.2
93.2
97. E '
92.9
99.5
Vj.S
95.1
98.9
9G.O
149u
-lftPj-9
100.0
79.2
99.9
99.9
85.6
82.4
99.41
95.8
93.2
99.3
99.8
99.15
99.04
95.4
9S.S
97.2
76.2
98.9
98.8
99.9
98.1
99.87
97.8
so./
97.5
99.8
'99'. 9
95.5
99.7
CO . ^
98.9
99.0
99.5
297u
100. 0
100.0
94.0
100.0
100.0
96.0
95.5
99.78
97.6
96.9
99.7
99.9
99.76
""gY.V"
97.9
93.3
98.9
07.0
99.6
99.2
'99N.96
98.8
99.92
99.1
99.4
97.8
99.9
99.9"
98.6
99.7
99.94
99.4
93.2
99.5
SP.CR.
qm/ce
2.68 '
2.G1
2. GO
2.51
2.34
2.54
2.50
2.85
2.80
2.75
2.49
2.48
2.36
3.07
2.56
1.89
3.11
2.86
2.70
2.30
1.38
2.39
2.G6
	
2.31
2.G3
2.50
" 3.11
2.53
2.91
2.91
2.48
2.5S
2.50
Sample
Source
Limestone Feed Tank
Lines tono Feed Tank
Limestone Feed Tank
Limestone Feed Tank
Limestone Feed Tank
Limestone Feed T^nV.
Limestone i'ccd Tank
Koch. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
l-'cch. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
rptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Koch. Inlet
PptrT Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Mcrh. Inlet
rptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
"ech. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
rptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Potr. Outlet
!'.ceh. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Ncch. Inlet
P,)tr. Inlet
Ppir. Iilct

-------
                   TABLE XXI
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES FOR COTTRELL  ENVIRONMENTAL

           SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST  SERIES
                   (July,  1971)

1
•:o.
17
13
i l!i
U
?o~*
*^"tf~~
23
23
24
2 >'i
20
26
2C
27
27
21)
' / >: "
2'J
JO
30
20
32
32
33
33
2
3
0
0
3
It
IS
Cumulative Por Cent By Weight Less Than Indicated Particle nimrotar
Dahco
7 H
5.0
6.5

11.0
u.5
li.i
13.0
1G.O
15.0
14.0
13. Z"-
2.8
11 .2
7.8
1.'.

13.2
— —
5.0
	
10. G
.12.2
9.6
9.8
lb.2
1C.O
4.8
4.4
3.1
2.3
3.C
2.B
2.2
3? 2.fe
33
3.0
Su
29.8
33.0
	
42.0
:o.o
52.0
SI. I!
06. 0
55. 6
57.2
52.2
44. C
il.8
3U.O
25.6

b'J.G
— —
37.8
	
50.4
70.0
31.6
40.0
44 .0
48.4
14. C
14.2
12.5
10.2
13.0
11.8
11. C
12.6
10.8
lOii
62.0
73.0
	
C3.B
52.0
U2.0
82.0
85.0
04.0
G4.5
79. C
77.0
83.0
C9.6
Cl.O
1
85. G
— —
70.4
	
79.6
90.2

99.2
94.7
35.7
91.1
67.8
93. S
87.0
87. G
82.2
87.0
149g
99.4
99.3
98.6""
99.1
53.0
99~."lT"
99.4
99.2
99.5
90.6
99.4
99.5
99.0 1
97.6
99.5

90.9
7. .1
90.7
99.1
99.3
99 .5
98.2' s
99.8
99.3
99. G
99.7
99.9
99.4
99.2
93.5
9G.1
94.0
96.3
97.3
297u
99.8
99. G
99.6
99.77
99.77
99TGT"
95. 7
99.4
99.9
90.8
99.8
99.7
99.4
98.0
99.8
'
99.2
19. G
99.1
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.7
99.9
99.99
100.00
99.99
99.93
99.92
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.7
SP.CR.
cim/cc
2.47
2.09
_—
2.37
2.51
2" 62
2.63
2.67
2.21
2.75
2.76
2.71
- 4.33
2.63

— — •
2.89
2.83
2.37
2.6G
3.02
3.93
2. 62
2.69
3.11

2.85
2.9C
2.1i2
2.49
T.71
	 2Y03"
3.04
2.74
2.60
Saipylo
Source
rptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Fptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
rp'-r. 7nlLt
rptr. Outlet
Fptr. Inlot
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Tptr. Inlet
1'ptr. Outlet
Pptr. lilct
Pptr. Ojtlct
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Outlet
Ilcc'i. I-ict
Pptr. Inlet
Ilecli. Inlut
Potr. Irlet
."cch.tnical Hoppers
"*~ -B- Side 	 ••
1. 2. S, 6
                                                                         I
                                                                         Ul
                                                                         CO
                                                                         I

-------
                   TABLE XXII

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL
           SYSTEM'S SECOND TEST  SERIES

                   (July, 1971)
Hun
15
1C
H
17
10
21
22
23
"24
Cumulative Per Cent By Weight Less Than Indicated Particle Diarreter
Hah co
2u
17.8
16.8
Ib.B
16.2
17.2
14.0
17.5
17.5
18.0
5u
60.4
58.0
bO.G
61. G
62.0
54.0
61.8
57.8
53.0
lOu
88.2
80.0
87.0
83.0
88.2
89.0
86.0
82.8
32.3
20n
98.2
97.4
9.7.2
97.8
98.1
92.6
96.2
95.0
94.2
30w
99.58
99.3
99.1
99.2
99.5
94.5
93.4
97.9
5S.3
Sieve
44u
99.9
99.8
5'j.d
99.5
99.9
96.9
98.3
98.1
97.3
74g
99.9
99.94
5*9.3
99.6
99.99
97.6
98.7
98.8
99.2
149u
100.00
99.96
?<> .95
99.7
100.00
99.6
99.5
99.8
59.7
297vi
100.00
100.00
99.95
100.00
100.00
99.95
99.8
99.91
100.00
SP.GR.
qn/cc
2.63
2.29
2.43
2.65
2.75
2.16
2.46
2.55
2.56
Sanple
H* O •••*
O* *T3 ft
O rr
M 1
U H-
M 0
« D
H-
M
.» *a
i -0
U> CO rr
* *(
•
c\
''

-------
                   TABLE XXIII

LABORATORY AND IN-SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
   FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S FIRST
                  TEST SERIES

                (December,  1969)
r.un
:!o.
1A
13
3 A
•!A
SA
SB
1A
ID
3 A
4A
',D
'jh
50
2 A
3 A
3B
1A
1D
SA
•jn
2A
2 A
30
13
53
Sample-
Source
A!l Inlet
All I->lot
All In lot
A!l Ii let
All Ir.let
A'l InlcL
r.c
MC
i:c
MC
KC
i:c
MC
Pi>tr. Inlot
P|>tr. Inlet
I'lJtr. Inlet
P[>tr. Inlrt
P[»tr. Inlet
I'pLr. Inlet
Ppcr. Inlot
PnLr. Out Lot
Pptr. Outlet
Pptr. Outlet
P^tr. Outlet
Putr. Outlet
tab Kdflisfclvltv - OI1M CM (G« Moisture in GB9)
Z50»F.






I.lxl0ij
1.4x10"
1.4xl013
Z.lxlO1''
9.0xl0li!
l.SxlO12
S.lxlO1'4
1.2xl012
1.4xl012
l.CxlO12
l.GxlO12
2.3*10"
o.oxio12
3.4X1012
6.8tl012
1.2JC1012
l.OxlO12
1.1-1011
l.lxlO12
3*?T






1.4X101'4
l.Sxlfl"
2.Sxl012
9.0xlOLi
l.«xl OiJ
1.7xl01'
1.3xlOli
g.oxio11
5.1x]OiL
S.OslO11
G.OxlO11
l.OxlO12
l.CxlO12
l.SxlO12
l.flxlO12
3.9xl011
S.'.xlO11
2.7N1011
4.5<10ii
430«r'.






l.CxlO11
1.6x10"
2.3S10111
6.BX1010
l.lxlO12
4.5M010
l.lxlO12
5.4X.1011
S.lxlO10
l.lrlO11
9.0K1010
2.7X1011
1.7«10"
l.CxlO11
1.7X1011
l.SxlO11
1 .4XJO"1
e.C'iu10
1.6x10*°
S50°F






l.lxlO1"
l.OxlO11
1.2X1010
9.0xlOU
1.2X1011
G.BxlO9
3.4x10"
4.5xlOi0
S-OxlO3
9.0xl010
S.OxlO9
l.BxlO1"
S.OxlO3
D.OxlOJ
l.lxJO10
1.4xl010
1.5X1010
c.e<3o9
3.5-109
650'F.






1.1x10*
1.2xl0lu
9.0xlOK
9.0xlOU
l.OxlO1"
1.2X109
C.UxlO10
C.BxlO9
9.0x10°
5.4x10°
O.OxlO8
l.SxlO9
l.lxlO9
1.4x10^
l.lxlo'J
1.3xl09
1.2xl09
6 OxlOU
C.8'10°
Temp
•r
509
510
520
520
G34
G3D







293
311)
293
312
302







!n-Situ
Resistivity
I.«xl010
4.3X1010
l.JxlO10
1.2X1010
3.7xl09
l.lxlO10







4.8xl09
2.1xL010
2.G.S1011
4.7;-.1010
S.OxLO11







                                                                         o
                                                                         I

-------
                 TABLE XXIV
LABORATORY AND IN-SITU RESISTIVITY  MEASUREMENTS
   FOR COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL  SYSTEM'S  SECOND
                 TEST SERIES
                 (July,  1971)

"o.
10
20
:i
22
23
7 \
~'j
33
31
1
2
j 3
;
3
0
r.
»
10
11
14
10
Id
17
' ^i
i >
1->
27
i < .
30

Sar.nl c
Pni-. Inlet
?p:r. I-lct
P:.i.r. Inlet
Pi Ur. Inlet
t>; nr. Inl = b
p- :r . inl'-t
I'.'.r. I-ilut
P|-'..r. liilt-L
I'f.tr. Iii]«.-c
Pi tr . Inlet
1',-Lr. lnl< L
Ppi.«-. Inl"t
P:>£r. Inlet
P!'l.r. Jnl"!.
fptr. Inli:t
!•. Li . Jnlot
I'l Lr. In]ot
1», S.r. Inlet
I': f . lnl=t
!•; ir . I :il us
li• r . In! r t
\^:.c. I-ilct

200"F.
3.4xl013
4.SxlC10
9.0xl012
l.OxlO13
6.8xl012
D.OxlO12
3.0/.1012
3.0, SO11
2.7X1012




















Lab Re
250"F.
5.4xI013
2.1>.1013
1.4xl014
5.4xl013
6.8xl013
2.7xl014
--
—
__




















sistivity -
300-F.
4.5xl013
2.7xl013
2.3xl013
2.7x3013
4.5xl013
i.-sxio14
g.oxio13
C.SxlO13
3.9xl013




















OIIM-CM (61
350°F.
3.9xl013
2.3xl013
1.4xl013
2.7xl013
3.9xl01J
9.0vlo13
__
__
__




















Moisture ii
400"F.
5.4xl012
9.0xl012
4.5xl012
9.0xl012
2.7xl013
e.ovio13
1.4xl014
1.4xl014
5.4xl013




















i Gas)
500°F.
3.4xlOX1
5.4X1011
2.1xlOU
1.4xl012
2.7xl012
9-OxlO13
,3.4xl013
1.4xl014
3.9xl013





















SOO'F.
1.9xl010
5.4>:1010
1.3xlOi0
l.lxlO11
9-OylO11
I.«vl013
1.4>:1013
6-OxlO13
6.8xl012





















°F
260
330
260
322
323
3?8
320
325
?60
315
312
250
325
2G3
323
285
280
2SO
.320
320
262
270
2G2
310
270
326
272
2G3
320

Resistivity
2.8xl01C
1.6<10-i
1.4.xlOU
1.8xlOil
3.7xlC12
2. ?.c!Ci2
S.OslC12
8.3X1011
9-lxlO11
l.lxlO11
1.2- 1C"1
5.7X1010
l.CxlO11
2.1x.CaI
5.6-10"
1.6X1011
3.8MP11
6.7X1011
6-lxlO11
8.9-xlO11
I.«xl011
2.9xl012
2.3X1011
S.GsJC11
1.4xlOi2
2.4X1011
1 .SxlO11
4.3x10^
9.0xlOi2

-------
                      TABLE XXV






LABORATORY AND IN-SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FOR




 COTTRELL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM'S  SECOND TEST SERIES




                      (July,  1971)
Run
No.
4
9
10
25
30
Source
Sample
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr. Inlet
Pptr . Inlet
Lab Resistivity - OHM-CM (6% Moisture in Gas)
200°F
2.7xl09
4.5x10°
3.3X1010
4.5xl012
3.9xl012
300°F
6.8X1011
2.7xl09
9.0X1011
3.9xl013
3.4xl013
400°F
2.5xl012
9.0xl010
1.3xl013
9.0xl013
4.5xl013
500°F
1.6xl012
1..3X1010
3.4xl012
2«7xl013
l.BxlO13
600°F
2.7X1011
3.0xl09
2.5X1011
5.4xl012
3.0xl012
650°F
1.4xlOU
l.SxlO9
g.oxio10
3.9xl012
'l.SklO12
Temp
°F.
325
280
260
270
320
In-Situ
Resistivitv
l.SxlO11
3.8X1011
6.7X1011
1.4xl012
9.0y.l012 '
i
. . j

-------
                       -03-
                  TAJJI.I XXVI

LABORATORY  AND  IN-SI "I I) R I S 1 S'l I VJJI Y Ml ASH RI Ml.Ml S
   FOR HABCOLK  AND WI l.COX  P 1 LO'I  TI-ST I'RCK.RAM

                  (1967-1969)


Legend

e





o




A

A

0


0
H

D

Test
No.

67- M
68-4-1
68-7-10
68-4-11
68-5-2
69-2-11
69-4-2
69-4-4
69-4-5
69-4-6
69-:-8
69-4-13
69-4-15
69-4-19
69-4-21
69-4-25
69-5-1
69-S-S
69-7-7
69-11-11
69-11-13
69- .2-5

Coal
No.

B- 22791





C-13167




C-13273

C-13274

C-13279


C- 13319
C-13376

C- 13378
Laboratory Resistivity, onn-on

300 F
1 ?
3.2x10"
4.0xl012
l.SxlO13
.
.
-
2.SX1012
3.4xl012
2.7xl013
2.W2
-
1.2X1012
•
2.1X1012
-
4.SX1011
.
-
4.5X1012
l.SxlO11
-
8.4xl012

600 F
in
6.7xl010
2-OxlO10
3.9xlOH
.
.
-
8.4x10°
6.8xl09
6-SxlO11
3.9xl010
-
6.8xl09
-
4.5xl09
-
6.8xl09
.
-
6.8xl09
1.4xl09
-
S.4xl09
AC In Situ
Ten^j

-
9.0X1010
l.SxlO13
.
.
-
l.OxlO12
2.SX1012
2.7xl013
2.5xl012
-
l.Oxl-,12
-
2.1X1012
-
4.0xl011
.
-
4.0xl012
l.SxlO11
-
S.OxlO12
In Situ Resistivity, ohm- or.

Temp, F

-
SOS
299
460
425
300
' 270
310
300
305
300
310
310
300
320
310
305
355
313
400
365
295

Resistivity

.
l.OxlO10
2.7xl010
1.6X1010
4.3xl09
1.9X1011
1.7xlOU
1.6X1011
2.6X1010
2.6X1010
1.3X1011
l.lxlO11
l.SxlO11.
3.4xlOU
4.4X1010
4.6X1011
S.lxlO11
7.2X1010
S.7xl010
3.2xl010
6.2.X109
1.4X1012
         •  o
          A
           A
Standard Test Coal
Colbert Steam Plant (TVA)
Orient #3 Mine (TVA)
Ackinson Mine (TVA)
Old Ben #24  Mine  (TVA)
Little Joe Mine (TVA)

-------
                 TABLE XXVII
  SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED  ON
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING THE FIRST CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date

12-11-69
2-11
12-11
12-11
12-12
12-12
12-12
2-13
2-13
2-13
2-13
2- 14
2-14
12-14
12-14
2-14
2-14
2-15
2-15
2-15
2-15
12-15
! ' - ^
' 1_-JL.">
1

Sample
Identification

MC Inlet
ML" Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
M C llonpcr
LSP Honper
'V Cutlet
V!C Inlet
MC Out let
M T Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP HopDcr
VC Inlet
MC Out let
'•!L Inlet
MC Outlet
M C II o ••> P c r
LSP l!o-jper
-\K Inlet

CES
Test No .

1A

—
IB
2A
—
—
3B
4B
4B
—
3A
3A
4A
4A
-
—
5A
5A
5B
5B
—
—
—

TVA
Lab No.

C-34
C-48
C-53
C-35
C-41
C-49
C-54
C-43
C-38
C-45
C-51
C-36
C-42
C-37
C-44
C-50
C-55
C-39
C-46
C-40
C-47
C-52
C-56
C-57

%
Si02

46.8
46.3
49.9
46.8
48.0
45.6
47 .4
49. S
46.5
50. 1
46.0
47 .6
50. 1
47.3
50.6
45.6
50.3
43 .4
50.1
42 .6
49.6
43.6
49. S
47.4

%
A1203

20.9
20.2
23.2
20. 1
20.7
20.0
21 .4
24 .1
20. 9
23. 7
20.6
21 .9
24 .5
21 . 1
24 .0
19.9
24 .0
19.8
23.4
19. 3
23.0
18.5
22.9
21.0

%
Fe2°3

16.7
16.9
10. 6
16.3
14.2
18. 2
13.6
9.7
13 .6
10. 1
14 .6
16 .4
10. 1
16 .0
10. 2
17.9
10. 1
25 . 1
14 . 1
22 .0
14 . 1
24 .0
12.6
13.5

%
CaO

7.0
7 .1
4 . 7
6.4
5 .4
6.7
5 . 3
4 .5
6 .7
4.5
7 .7
6.6
4.0
6 .3
4 . 1
6.9
4 .2
5 . 5
2 .4
3. 8
2.9
4 .6
3 . 1
5 .9

%
MgO

1.0
1.0
1 .2
1 . 1
1 .0
1 . 1
1 . 2
1 .3
1 .0
1 .4
1 . 1
1.0
1 .5
0.9
1 . 2
1.0
1 .3
1 .0
1.2
0.9
1 .3
1 .0
1 .4
1 .2

%
Ti02

0.7
0.9
1 . 1
0.9
1 .0
0.9
1 .1
1 . 0
0.7
0.9
1 .0
0.7
1 .0
0.7
1 .0
0.8
1 . 1
0.8
1 .0
0.9
1 .0
0.9
1. 1
1 . 1

%
Na20

0.8
0.6
0.8
0. 7
0.6
0. 5
0.6
1 .0
0.9
1 . 0
0.6
0. 7
0.9
0.8
1 .0
0. 5
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.4
0. 5
0.3
0.6
0. 7

%
K20

2.2
1 . 7
2 . 0
2 . 2
2. 3
1 . 7
1 . 9
2 . 3
2. 0
2 . 1
1 . 7
2 .0
2. 3
2 . 0
2 . 2
1 .4
1 . 9
1 . 8
2.0
1 . 8
1 . 9
1 . 4
1 . 9
1 . 7

%
S°4~

1.3
1 .6
2 .8
1 .8
2.5
1 . 5
2 .5
1 . 2
1 .0
1 .2
1 . 1
0.9
1 .6
1 . 1
1 .5
0.8
1 .7
0.9
1 .6
0. 7
1 . 3
0.8
1 .6
2 . 2

%
Loss on
Ignition

2.2
2.6
2.7
3 .9
2.8
2.3
2.8
3. 1
4 .6
2 .7
3.1
2.2
2.5
2.4
2. 1
4.0
2 .8
3.2
2.6
5.0
3.0
3. 1
2 .5
3. 2


-------
                  TABLfc XXVIII
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES  PERFORMED ON  SAMPLES
     TAKEN DURING THE SECOND  CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date
7-10-71
it
n
!•
ii
7-13-71
it
n
n
n
7-14-71
ii
ii
n
n
7-15-71
n
ii
7-24-71
n
Sample
Identification
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
CES
Test No.
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
9
10
11
14
14
TV A
Lab No.
C-883
C-881
C-882
C-774
C-773
C-895
C-893
C-894
C-790
C-789
C-898
C-896
C-897
C-794
C-793
C-899
C-901
C-903
C-907
C-905
% S =
<0.1

















\

















?

% S04 =
6.4
7.8
6.3
4.9
6.7
4.8
5.6
4.0
2.6
4.6
5.3
6.6
5.0
4.4
4 .7
4.4
4.5
5.2
5.4
7.3
% S0? =
6.7
10.8
2.0
0.1
0.1
7.8
10.5
3.0
0.3
1 .1
9.6
12.3
8.5
0.2
0.5
<0. 1
11.7
7.9
8.2
7.9
Total
%S
4 .8
6.9
2.9
1.7
2 .3
4.7
6.1
2.5
1 .0
2.0
5.6
7. 1
5.1
1 .6
1.7
1 .5
6.2
4 .9
5 .1
5.6
\ CaO
30.8
28.6
19.9
32.5
24.2
33.0
30.0
30.2
22.0
32.5
33.3
31 .4
22.1
37.5
24. 1
4.5
23.5
31 .6
35 .6
33.9

-------
                  TABLE XXVIII   (continued)
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED  ON  SAMPLES
     TAKEN DURING THE SECOND CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date

7-24-71
it
it
7-24-71
ii
ti
ii
it
7-22-71
7-22-71
7-20-71
it
ti
ii
ii
n
7-20-7]
ti
ii
n
Sampl e
Identification
•
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper

MC Outlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
CES
Test No.

14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
17
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
TVA
Lab No.

C-906
C-814
C-813
C-910
C-908
C-909
C-817
C-816
C-912
C-915
C-917
C-918
C-830
C-919
C-920
C-832
C-931
C-922
C-835
C-923
% S =

<0.1

















t

















7

% S04 =

5.6
4.5
5.2
5.6
6.9
5. 5
4.3
6.0
4.4
5.5
0.8
4.4
0.6
0.8
7.2
0.8
0.8
5.3
0.8
1.6
% so3=

5.0
0.5
0.9
7.7
10.8
5.5
0.6
1 .1
6.5
7.5
0.3
3.7
0. 1
0.9
4.4
<0.0
0.2
3.0
<0. 1
0.6
Total
%S

3.9
1 .7
2.1
5 .0
6.6
4.0
1 .7
2.4
4.0
4.8
0.4
2.9
0.3
0.6
4.2
0.3
0.4
2.9
0.3
0.8
% CaO

28.0
46.5
24.6
36. 7
34.7
26.6
49.3
31 .4
26.9
33.6
1.4
9.8
1 .7
2.2
13.4
2.2
1 .1
11 .8
1 .4
5.6

-------
                  TABLE XXVIII   (continued)
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES  PERFORMED ON  SAMPLES
     TAKEN DURING THE SECOND  CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date

ii
ii
ii
ii
"
"
ii
ii
7-19-71
7-23-71
H
7-21-71
1 1
II
7-26-71
ri
li
li
Ii

Sample
Identification

ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
ESP Hopper
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Outlet
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper

CES
Test No.

22
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
32
32
32
32

TVA
Lab No.

C-924
C-838
C-925
C-926
C-842
C-927
C-928
C-846
C-929
C-931
C-934
C-936
C-938
C-940
C-944
C-942
C-943
C-873
C-872

% S =

<0.1

















\

















^

% S04~

3.7
0.7
1.9
2.5
1 .6
4.0
3.7
3.0
5.9
6.0
5.3
8.4
6.9
6.7
6.5
8.7
7.2
4.5
7. 1

% S0^ =

1. 1
<-0.1
1 .1
1.4
^0. 1
1 .9
1.4
ziO. 1
8.6
7.6
8.5
2.8
4.1
5.0
4 .5
9.7
10.6
0.4
0.3

Total
%S

1 .7
0.3
1 .1
1.4
0.6
2.1
1 . 8
1.0
5.4
5.0
5. 2
3.9
3.9
4 .2
4.0
6.8
6.6
1 .7
2.5

% CaO

6.2
2.8
5.9
16.2
9.8
18.8
17.6
15. 1
26.0
30.8
28.8
38.6
28.8
27. 2
27.7
27.7
23.5
29 .7
24 .9


-------
                  TABLE XXVIII  (continued)


SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED ON SAMPLES

     TAKEN DURING THE SECOND CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date

7-26-71
11
ii
M
ii















Sample
Identification
•
MC Inlet
MC Outlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper















CES -
Test No.

33
33
33
33
33















TVA
Lab No.

C-947
C-945
C-946
C-877
C-876















J, Q =
•8 i>

<0.1



1















% S04 =

6.0
8.3
6.4
4.6
8.8















% SO-T

6.7
7.9
10.8
0.3
0.2















Total
%S

4.7
5.9
6.4
1.6
3.0















% CaO

25.5
26.3
21 .0
31.6 1
26.6















                                                                        CO
                                                                        I

-------
                TABLE XXIX
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF LIMESTONE USED DURING

          SECOND CES TEST SERIES
Test
Date

7-10-71

7-24-71
7-26-71
Sample
Identification

Limestone
98% Gyroclass
(Fine)
Limestone
20% Gyroclass
(Coarse)
Limestone
20% Gyroclass
(Coarse)
CES
Test No.

2

14
32
TVA
Lab No .

C-772

C-812
C-871
% H20
(105°C)

0.1

<0.1
<0.1
%
CaO

54.9

54.9
55.0
%
MgO

0.2

0.2
0.2
\
C03~

55.6

55.7
55.0
                                                                        VO
                                                                         I

-------
                                 -70-
VI.  ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS



     The main sources of data used in the analysis and corre-



     lation of the test results are two CES test programs at



     Shawnee (December, 1969 and July, 1971),  two TVA test



     programs (July-August, 1969 and June-July, 1970), SRI test



     program at Shawnee during July, 1971, Research-Cottrell,



     Inc. tests at a midwest power station during limestone



     injection tests (February, 1967) and Babcock and Wilcox



     pilot plant study (1967-1970).







     1. Electrostatic Precipitator Performance



        The precipitator is a Research-Cottrell, Inc. design



        installed on the unit 10 steam generator at TVA



        Shawnee Station, Paducah, Kentucky.  The boiler is



        a B&W pulverized coal, front-fired unit rated at



        175 megawatts designed to produce one million pounds



        of steam per hour at 1800 psig and 1000/1000°F.  The



        dust collecting equipment is a Buell mechanical



        cyclone designed for 65% efficiency followed by the



        Research-Cottrell, Inc. precipitator designed for



        95% efficiency.   (Overall design efficiency is 98%).







        The boiler is fired with about 60 tons per hour of



        coal containing an average of 10% ash and 2.7% sul-



        fur.  Combustion of this fuel produces about

-------
                         -71-
585,000 cfm of flue gas at 300°F containing 2200 ppm
by volume S0_ and about 3 grains of fly ash per
standard cubic foot.

The precipitator shown in Figure 15 consists of two
units ("A" and "B") each including three sections as
follows:

     Inlet Section of 33 opzel plate ducts
     each 9" x 30" high x 4.5' long.
     Center Section of 33 opzel plate ducts
     each 9" x 30' high x 4.5' long.
     Outlet Section of 33 opzel plate ducts
     each 9" x 30' high x 6.0' long.

There are 20 magnetic impulse-gravity impact rappers
per precipitator and 4 electrical sets with automatic
control rated at 70 KV   ,  750 ma each.
                      peak

The  total collecting  area of  the precipitator  is
59,400  ft2.   The  cross-sectional  area  is  1,485  ft  .
The  secondary electrical readings  without  limestone
injection,  i.e.  those at the  precipitator  can  be
estimated from  the following  expression using  the
transformer primary readings:
     Sec. KVavg<  =  (0.1195)(primary voltageAC Volts)   (12)

-------
                            -72-
      Sec' 'ma
= [(5.96) (primary current^ amps)-77.2j  (13)
   The first basis for analysis of precipitator perfor-
   mance was a function of corona power input.  A brief
   look at theoretical considerations of this approach
   follows.
A. Theoretical Considerations of Electrostatic Precipi-
   tator Performance As A Function of Corona Power
          1-E = Q = e~   W                             (14)
          W = dp E0 Ep                                 (15)
                4 TT
   where,
    E  = Fractional efficiency of precipitator
    Q  = Fractional loss from precipitator
    A  = Collecting electrode area of precipitator
    V  = Gas flow rate through precipitator
    W  = Precipitation rate parameter
    d  = Particle diameter
     P
    E  = Charging field in precipitator
    E  = Precipitating field in precipitator
    n  = Gas viscosity
   Combining equations  (14) and  (15) gives:

                                                       (16)

-------
                        -73-

The precipitator total corona power normally is a func-
tion of the applied voltage, precipitator size, elec-
trode geometry, and gas and particulate characteristics,
It is generally known from the literature   f11^ that
as a useful first approximation, the precipitation
rate parameter is related linearly to the corona
power/ft  of collecting electrode area as shown be-
low.  However, there has been some conflict between
this approach and experimental results obtained dur-
ing this study.  A more detailed discussion of this
matter is contained in subsequent sections.
                  Pc=eCAEoEp
    where,
      P  = Precipitator corona power input
       c
       cf- = Precipitation parameter dependent upon
           gas and particle characteristics, and
           precipitator electrode geometry to a
           minor extent.

Equation  (16) can be rewritten as:
Thus, for similar particle size, and gas and particle
characteristics, Equation  (18) shows that:
                        P       a
              In Q = -k ^.  =-^W                   (19)

From which is obtained the relationship that:


                  I* = £  , or                         (20)

-------
                       -74-
W is directly proportional to precipitator corona

        2
power/ft  of collecting electrode, which means that


by doubling the corona power to precipitator de-


signed for 90% efficiency, one can theoretically


increase the efficiency to about 99%.  However,


for practical considerations, the attainment of


the corona power in a precipitator necessary to


obtain the design efficiency requires the examina-


tion of factors which determine and affect corona


power.



(a) Particle Characteristics


    (1) Particle Size - This can reduce corona


        power by suppressing corona current at a


        given voltage through space charge pheno-


        mena.  However, sub-micron particles of


        fairly high loadings are necessary in


        order to produce a significant affect.



    (2) Electrical Resistivity -  When the ash


        resistivity exceeds about 10   to 10


        ohm-cm, the effective corona power is re-


        duced.  Generally, the first effect is


        increased sparking requiring a voltage


        reduction in order to hold a preselected


        sparkrate.  Lower corona current and


        power input results causing a decrease in


        collection efficiency.  In order to com-


        pensate for the lower power, it becomes


        necessary to enlarge the precipitator un-


        til the total power requirements for the

-------
                           -75-





        desired  efficiency  are met.   Note  that


        the corona  power per unit  area  of  pre-


        cipitator is  lower,  but  increased  area,


        increases the total  corona power to  the


        desired  level.





        With very high dust  resistivity, a con-


        dition known  as "back corona" sets in,


        characterized by very high currents,  low


        voltages and  no sparking.  Precipitation


        practically stops and can  only  be  restored


        by  lowering the dust resistivity.





        On  the other  hand, extremely  conductive

                                       4
        particles of  less than about  10 ohm-cm


        may be reentrained and escape collection.





(b)  Gas  Characteristics


    CD  Temperature - Increase in  gas temperature


        reduces  gas density  and  reduces sparkover


        potential and increases  the rate of  rise of


        current  with  voltage.  The result  is that


        for increased  qas temperature, at least up


        to  levels of  approximately 1000°F, higher


        temperature operation allows  increase in


        power density.   The  affect of this increase


        in  power density is  to elevate  the precipi-


        tation rate parameter, W.

-------
                        -76-
(2)  Pressure  - Small  increases  in  gas  pressure



    raise  the precipitator sparking  voltage



    proportionately while  the corona current



    decreases at a  fixed voltage.  Again,  the



    corona current  at sparking  is  not  signifi-



    cantly changed, so that the net  effect is to



    increase  corona power  as gas pressure  in-



    creases and vice  versa.







(3)  Composition - Determines the kind  of gas ions



    formed in corona.   Electronegative and high



    molecular weight  gases tend to form low



    mobility  ions,  reducing corona current and



    raising sparking  voltage.







    Gases  such as sulfur trioxide  and  water  vapor



    condition the ash by affecting its electrical



    resistivity.  Sulfur trioxide  is a critical



    factor which depends mainly on the amount of



    sulfur in the coal.  However,  excess air,



    residence time  of sulfur dioxide in an opti-



    mum temperature zone,  catalytic  materials in



    the ash such as iron oxide, etc. can also

-------
                          -77-



         influence  the  amount  of sulfur trioxide


         present.   Generally,  moisture is not effec-


         tive  as  a  conditioning agent until  low gas


         temperatures are  reached, e.g. 200-225°F,


         and even then  large amounts  (percents) are


         required,  while concentrations on the order


         of parts per million  by volume of sulfur


         trioxide can radically change precipitator


         performance.



B. Correlation Of Precipitator Performance  With Corona Power

   Input


   The data used for this analysis are  taken from Tables


   III through XV.   The corona power inputs shown in


   these Tables were calculated by the  use  of Equation 12


   and the secondary currents taken from the electrical


   set panels.  The sparking rate  of the precipitator was


   maintained between 50 and 200  sparks/min. in an attempt


   to control the power input to  sparking a constant for


   all tests.





   In order to establish a baseline operating condition


   of corona power  input and precipitator performance,


   only tests without limestone injection have been used


   for the first correlation.   In  Figure 19, the precipi-


   tation rate parameter W in ft/sec is plotted as a


   function of corona power input  expressed as a density

                                    2
   parameter,  i.e.  kilowatts/1000  ft of precipitator


   collecting surface.   From equation 20, expectations


   are that the correlation will  be a linear one.  How-


   ever, it is of interest to note that the data appear

-------
                                                FIGURE 19
                              PRECIPITATION  RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION OF CORONA

                           POWER DENSITY  FOR TESTS WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
    0. G7r2
O
^
O
CM
  O
O O
4-> LO
c
O
(3
4J
•r4
a
-H
O
O
        •-18
    n f",i
    U. JO
0.40-
    0.27-
    -16
        - 2
                                                              CES  (July,  1971)  Special
                                                                Low  Sulfur Tests
                                                              TVA First Test Series
                                                                 (July-August, 1969)
                                                              TVA Second  Test Series
                                                                 (June-July, 1970)	
                                                                                                 oo
                                                                                                  I
            0.1  0.2  0..3   0.4  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.8   0.9   1.0   1.1   1.2  1.3 1.4  1.5   1.6   1.7  1.8
                    Corona Power Input Density, P   (Kilowatts/1000 Ft  Collecting Surface)
                                                 f\

-------
                          -79-
to fit a curved function rather than the linear
one predicted by theoretical considerations.  The
precipitation rate parameter is leveling off or even
decreasing at the higher power densities where the
value of the rate parameter is in the range of 0.5 to
0.6 ft/sec.  This is somewhat higher than the typical
average value of 0.4 to 0.5 ft/sec for fly ash precipi-
tators.  There may be some level of power input above
which a diminishing benefit is derived and other factors
such as gas distribution, particle size, rapping losses,
electrostatic reentrainment, etc. become the over-riding
considerations in precipitator performance.  In fact,
experimental work    with an electrostatic precipitator
on high pressure pipeline natural gas containing oil
contaminant has shown that at very high electrical field
strengths  (five to ten times normal), a decrease in the
precipitation rate parameter occurs due to electrostatic
force reentrainment from the collecting surface.


Regression analyses of the data  (42 sets) using the
equation forms,

              y = a + bx                             (21)
              y = a + b Inx                          (22)
              y = a + bx + ex                        (23)

  where,
    y = precipitation rate parameter, W  (FPS)
                                                  2
    x = corona power input density, PA  (KW/1000 Ft )

were performed with a GE Mark I computer.  The 4 sets of

-------
                          -80-
special low sulfur coal tests, although plotted in Figure



19, have been excluded from the regression analyses.







The following results were obtained:




     W = 0.21 + 0.25 P.                              (24)
                      A



     Correlation Coefficient =0.84


     F - Ratio Test Statistic = 98
     W = 0.47 + 0.16 In P                            (25)
                         A



     Correlation Coefficient = 0.87


     F - Ratio Test Statistic = 120
     W = 0.11 + 0.57 P. - 0.20 P_2                   (26)
                      A         A



     Correlation Coefficient =0.89


     F - Ratio Test Statistic = 75
These equations are limited to corona power density data

                                                         2
falling in the range of 0.15 to 1.5 kilowatts per 1000 ft



of collecting surface which encompasses the normal op-



erating range of fly ash precipitators.  All three



equations are reasonably good representations of the data



with the quadratic form of equation  (23) producing the



best fit.

-------
                          -81-
Previously published data^ by Southern Research Institute


for a variety of fly ash installations is contained in


Figure 20 along with a plot of the data from Figure 19.


Although there is considerable scatter in the data points,


it is quite apparent that there is a strong relationship


between the precipitation rate parameter and the corona


power input density.  In the range of 0.1 to 1.2 kilo-

             2
watts/1000 ft  of collecting surface, there is fair agree-


ment between the published data and the results of this


report.  It is postulated that the flue gas temperature


and coal sulfur which affect the particulate conductivity


are the main parameters causing the data scatter.  These


variables will be examined in subsequent sections of this


report.





Another way of analyzing precipitator performance is to


plot the loss in particulate collection efficiency as a


semi-logarithmic function of the corona input power


expressed as a rate i.e. watts per 1000 actual cubic feet


of flue gas per minute.  (See equation 19).





The same no limestone injection tests as analyzed above


were used for this correlation and the data are plotted


in Figure 21.  A regression analysis was performed using


the form of equation 21 where,

-------
                                             FIGURE 20


            COMPARISON OF DATA FROM FIGURE 19 WITH PUBLISHED  DATA OF SOUTHERN RESEARCH

                 INSTITUTE FOR VARIOUS  FLY ASH PRECIPITATOR INSTALLATIONS  REF (11)
M
0)

o ,
s
id


£o

Q) OJ
C
O
•H
.p
fO
-p
0
o
M
0. 07
Orto
. J<3'
0.40
0.27
0.14
20
1 Q
1 ft _


2
U
OJ
-10 ^
c
8 -

-A —
- 2 —







O
O








°o
fl
oO
^^^-
x
X





o
c









0
>
X





0

•o<9>
2
•






5* «
A
X*






•
X
X*
<






:*,
0 0

}





o
^
o. <







x
0
>


°x
.
O




0







0









o
o
o









	 Q — SRI Published Data







£\ Data Displayed in Figure 19
















I
oc
         0   0.1  0.2  0..3  0.4   0.5   0.6  0.7   0.8  0.9  1.0  1.1   1.2   1.3  1.4  1.5   1.6   1.7  1.8
                 Corona Power Input Density, PA  (Kilowatts/1000  Ft   Collecting Surface)

-------
                          -83-
     y = In of the loss in precipitator collection
         efficiency Q expressed as a fraction
     x = precipitator corona input power, PV
         (watts/1000 ACFM of flue gas)

The following equation resulted:

               In Q = -1.507 - 0.0138 Py            (27)

               Correlation Coefficient = 0.85
               F-Ratio Test Statistic = 112

Equation 27 is limited to values of precipitator corona
input power rates in the range of 15 to 215 watts per
1000 ACFM of flue gas which encompasses the normal opera-
ting range of fly ash precipitators.  In Figure 22 the
previously published data     of Southern Research
Institute is plotted along with the results from this
report shown in Figure 21.  Again the data points are
scattered.   However, the dependence of precipitator
performance on corona power input rate in watts per
1000 ACFM of flue gas treated is obvious.  There is
fair agreement between the published data and results
contained in this report.  A resolution of the scatter
in data requires a more detailed examination of such
variables as gas temperature, coal sulfur, particulate
size, gas velocity, rapping mode, etc.  which all affect
corona power input and precipitator performance.  A

-------
                                       FIGURE 21-

                        . LOSS IN. COLLECTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION

                  OF POWER RATE FOR TESTS  WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
c
o
•H
-U
u
n)
CX.
•H

-rH

 a



 r^
.-i
 0
 . ;
    0.01
     0.02
u
c
1)
•H
u
•H
'4--
"4-1
w
c
c;
-H
I
0)
rH
H
0
CJ
u .

0.

0.
0.

0.
0.




u J

04

05
06

08
10




0.20




0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60


0.80

1.00
         0









•x'
4^
•















9
./<#
A*






[




i «...
•
•
• «^
4Sf
B*ST
•











U
-------
                                    FIGURE 22
COMPARISON OF DATA FROM FIGURE 21 WITH PUBLISHED DATA OF SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOR VARIOUS FLY ASH PRECIPITATOR INSTALLATIONS - REF. (11)
oss in Precipitator Collection Efficiency, p. (Fraction)
OOOO 0 OOOOOO 0 O
0  U> N> MOOOOO
30000 o o co • u> NJ










o
0

A
/

/










o
>° 82


'4 •
> 0







o
u •
0 . Q
n 9 /
/
O





„

.9
n/<
22
• /^i °











0 ,
L/
?«•.••
i n

•










/
9 .
o
A —
w
o









0















— © — SRI Published Data

'
o









O Data Displayed in Figure 21















-85-
Precipitator Collection Efficiency, E (Percent)
01 oo r- vo tn **  o\ CT\ c\ (Tv cri  oo t^- vo u> 
-------
                           -86-
discussion of these parameters is contained in subsequent
sections of this report.


Data from tests with limestone injection (51 sets) are
plotted in Figure 23.  The 2 sets of special low sulfur
coal have been omitted.  The precipitation rate parameter
W in ft/sec is shown as a function of corona power input
density expressed in kilowatts/1000 ft  of precipitator
collecting surface.  Note the maximum level of input
power density attainable is about one-half that of the No
Limestone injection tests.  As discussed previously, the
limestone additive has increased the electrical resis-
tivity of the particulate to the extent that the preset
optimum sparking rate of the precipitator chosen for the
test program, i.e. 50-150 sparks/min is reached at much
lower voltage and corona current input resulting in de-
creased corona power.


Regression analyses of the data presented in Figure 20
using the equations 21, 22, and 23 resulted in the
following respectively:

               W = 0.15 + 0.40 P.                     (28)
                                f\
       Correlation Coefficient = 0.68
       F-Ratio Test Statistic = 42

               W = 0.42 + 0.11 In PA                  (29)

       Correlation Coefficient = 0.73
       F-Ratio Test Statistic = 55

-------
                                   FIGURE 23

PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION OF CORONA


POWER DENSITY FOR TESTS WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION

. G7
0. 52
:-
:o Paramcte
'Sec.
0
*
•c*
o
CC -U
?. ^
o 0.27
•H
-^>
d
*j
a
-H
U
0.14






•
Brf
3
/





•V
o !<
^
>v/ —
/'m *
^0»

•
•




•
B
BSB/
n,8
» o




•
•
Gs
i rT CN C
0.1  0.2   0..3   0.4  0.5   0.6  0.7   0.3   0.9  1.0   1.1   1.2  1.3 1.4   1.5  1.6   1.7
  :orcr.a  Power  Input Density, Pa  (Kilov:atts/1000 Ft  Collecting Surface)

-------
                           -88-
              W = 0.10 + 0.78 P  - 0.54 P 2             (JO]



      Correlation Cocf fj cj en I = 0.71

      F-Ratio Tost Statistic - 24
These equations are limited to a corona power density range

                                2
of 0.05 to 0.7 kilowatts/1000 Ft  of precipitator collect-


ing surface, which although quite low, are typical values


for a precipitator collecting high resistivity particu-


late.  All three equations give equally significant data


representations with the semi-logarithmic form of equation


22 giving a slightly better correlation.  The data points


from Figure 19 (No Limestone injection) are plotted on


Figure 23 for comparison.  In general, it appears that


for equal corona power input densities there is no sig-


nificant difference in the precipitation rate parameter


whether limestone is injected or not.  However, it should


be reiterated that the maximum level of corona power in-


put density attainable and the resultant precipitator


performance is significantly lower with limestone injec-


tion.  In Figure 24 the loss in precipitator particulate


collection for the No Limestone injection tests is plotted


as a semi-logarithmic function of the corona input power


expressed as a rate  (watts per 1000 actual cubic feet of


flue gas per minute).

-------
                                           FIGURE  24

                           LOSS IN COLLECTION EFFICIENCY AS A FUNCTION OF

                         POWER RATE FOR TESTS WITH LIMESTONE  INJECTION
c
o
•H
-P
O
(0
O
c
a
•M
u
-H
C
o
•H
-P
u
o
 o
 u

 S-J
 o
 -U
 ti
 -U
 •rH
 a,
 •H
 u
 o
 M
 n
 W
 O
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.2C
0.3C
0.40
0.5C
0.6G
0.8C
l.OC









*
|
i
i

•<

52
o / o
^ °
>v>r>


i
n
^
°8
X Q -O «
X cr
UQ°
0°



*" EQ. 31
pa '-^
•
o








i


1 I

V/
r>










0
O


C









>















O CES Data (July, 1971
-- TVA Data From The Sec
Test Series (June-J
1970)
^) Data From Figure 21.
(No Limestone Injec
















o
o








)
•oncl
'uly,
:tion)






0 25 5'0 75 100 125 150 175 200 22
99
                                                                                        98
97
96

95

94


92
                                                                                        90
80
70


60

50

40


20
       M
       CD
       O
       H-

       H-
       rt

       rt
       O
       o
       o
(D
O
rt
H-
O
       H
       P-
       n
       h1-
       CD
       D
       O
O
i-1
O
o
                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         00
                                                                                                         UD
                                                                                                         I
                 Precipitator Corona Input Power Rate, Py  (Watts/1000 ACFM Of  Flue Gas)

-------
                           -90-
A regression analysis of the No Limestone injection data
shown in Figure 24 was performed using the form of equation
21.  The following result was obtained:
              InQ = -0.868 - 0.026PV                    (31)

        Correlation Coefficient = 0.66
        F-Ratio Test Statistic = 43
Equation 31 is limited to precipitator corona input power
rates of 5 to 80 watts per 1000 ACFM of flue gas which is
the lower range of normal fly ash precipitator operation
but still typical when high resistivity ash is encountered.


The No Limestone injection data from Figure 21 are also
plotted on Figure 24 for comparison.  In comparable ranges
of corona power input rates, there is fair correlation of
data regardless whether limestone is injected or not.  How-
ever, the rates attainable with No Limestone injection are
much higher resulting in increased performance.


The test data with limestone injection are more scattered
than the No Limestone injection data, but still show the
strong dependence of precipitator performance on corona
power input.

-------
                              -91-
C. Correlation of Precipitator Corona Power Input With Process
   Variable"!?

   In order to make the results of the test program more

   useful for predicting precipitator performance and sizing

   with limestone injection, a more detailed analysis has

   been made using only the test results from the Cottrell

   Environmental System's second test series (July, 1971)

   in which a statistically designed experiment investigated

   four variables at two levels, i.e. limestone particle size,

   flue gas temperature, coal sulfur and limestone to sulfur

   stoichiometry.  Other variables such as precipitator

   sparking rate and rapping mode were held essentially con-

   stant.  The four variables have been correlated with corona

   power input density which in turn allows estimating the

   precipitation rate parameter from Figure 25 with subsequent

   sizing of the electrostatic precipitator for any gas vol-

   ume and collection efficiency specified.  A summary of

   pertinent data used for this analysis is contained in

   Table XXX.  In Figure 25, the precipitation rate and

   corona power input data  (Table XXX) have been plotted so

   as to be able to identify the injected limestone particle

   size and flue gas temperature for each point.  Note tfhat

   the coarse limestone injection generally resulted in

   higher precipitation rates at equivalent corona power input,

   and the lower gas temperatures allowed increased corona

   power input.   (As indicated earlier, this latter result

-------
                                                FIGURE 25

                             PRECIPITATION RATE PARAMETER AS A FUNCTION OF CORONA

                           POWER DENSITY FOR TESTS WITH LIMESTONE  INJECTION

                  (GAS  TEMPERATURE AND LIMESTONE PARTICLE SIZE ARE IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY)


                                       (Data  Points From Table  XXX)
•.
i
c

•-;
••••
 :
O  O
-U  d)
'-  LO
«  \
   -U
r:  EL,
o

V.(jt
0.53
0.40
0.27
-20-
1 R
i O
•1 fi -

'14
in-.
OOS/UIO 1
g o c;
" ? I
C
'V






V




V
^^
X ~
A8
i
°e
1




E
D
-s
/
-s








^
^








^
-^







D
^







A
Lc
3/










Eg. 32




I Ea. 33












O
a




























Fine Limestone (High Temp.)
Fine Limestone (Low Temp.)
Coarse Limestone (High Temp.)
Coarse Limestone (Low Temp.)
























	
I
hfi
S3
I
              0.1   0.2  0..3   0.4.0.5   0.6   0.7   0.8  0.9   1.0   1.1   1.2  1.31.4  1.5   1.6  1.7   1.8



                Corona Power Input Density,  P  (Kilcwatts/1000  Ft2 Collecting Surface)
                                               f\

-------
                           -93-
can be explained on the basis of lower particulate resis-
tivity at the decreased gas temperature resulting in
higher voltage and corona current input before the preset
spark limitation).  Using the simpler form of Equation 22
which is nearly as good a fit as Equation 23, a separate
regression analysis on the coarse and fine limestone test
results was performed involving 7 and 11 sets of data,
respectively.


 The following equations were obtained:


       (Coarse)     W = 0.522 + 0.121 In PA            (32)
               Correlation Coefficient =0.80
               F-Ratio Test Statistic = 16
       (Fine)       W = 0.46 + 0.136 In PA             (33)
               Correlation Coefficient =0.81
               F-Ratio Test Statistic = 9


 Equations 32 and 33 are limited to values of precipitator
 corona input power densities in the range of 0.05 to 0.70
 kilowatts per 1000 Ft2 of collecting surface.   The coarse
 and fine limestone particle size distributions from ran-
 domly selected tests (Table XXX)  are shown in Figure 26.
 Separate regression analyses on coarse and fine limestone
 injection correlating the corona input power density to  the
 four process variables tested were performed.   (See Table
 XXX for  data used).   From theoretical considerations and

-------
                         TABLE XXX
         SUMMARY OF TEST DATA USED IN CORRELATIONS

         (CES Limestone Injection Tests, July 1971)
Test
No.
2
4
6
8
10
11
14
15
17
18
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
Flue Gas
Temp . , °F
314
305
301
256
251
290
289
244
243
289
253
289
242
290
241
288
289
241
Limestone
Particle
Size
F(D
F
F
F
C(2>
C
C
C
F
F
C
F
F
F
F
F
C
C
Limestone
Ton/Hr
Feed
7.55
9.50
11.60
11.15
16.75
15.25
14.10
14.45
9.70
9.15
10.55
7.05
6.45
11.15
6.25
5.30
8.50
7.85
Sulfur
Ton/Hr
Fired
1.47
0.99
1.79
1.63
1.08
1.11
1.60
1.39
0.93
1.25
1.25
1.31
1.07
2.04
1.43
1.67
1.85
2.28
Stoichio-
metry.
CaO/S02l ;
1.44
2.69
1.81
1.92
4.34
3.85
2.47
2.91
2.92
2.05
2.36
1.51
1.69
1.53
1.22
0.89
1.29
0.96
Precipitation
Rate
Parameter
FPS
0.24
0.06
0.03
0.35
0.43
0.26
0.33
0.29
0.37
0.17
0.50
0.17
0.26
0.29
0.27
0.18
0.48
0.43
Power
Density
Watts/Ft2
0.093
0.057
0.096
0.460
0.372
0.164
0.139
0.275
0.220
0.112
0.674
0.129
0.296
0.334
0.213
0.199
0.396
0.708
(1)  F - Fine (80%-400 Mesh)
(2)  C - Coarse (50%-400 Mesh)
(3)  Assumes limestone is 100%  CaCO3 and all sulfur in the
    coal appears in the flue gas as S02

-------
                                            FIGURE 26
W
W ^
Q) 0)
J 4->
  0)
•H Q

S Q)
  rH
>i U
CQ -H
  JJ
-P >-l
C rt3
0) O.
o
^ T3
Q) a)
ft -P
  05
a) u
>-H
•H T3
4J C
(0 M
 3
99.9
99.5.

y y . u
98 0-

95 . Cr
90.0-
80.0-
er» fV
o u . (j~

20 . fr
10. a
. 0 -
2.0 J
i n -


0.1-
]

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF LIMESTONE FEED SAMPLES






-







USED IN SECOND CES TEST SERIES











Fine Limestone
Test No. 6,8,23
24







/
/





.
N
i
^
S&
^







,
V
^





\

p
H






?AH









(**-






ro













/
^
s*^%^
<&£s^
^2

*z$sr

^-~_



xl
Y*
v_

X
£-





^

X
,x.
^^



Coarse Limestone
Test No. 14 ,32,33















m





/
'*


/
^
^










S
7_




'/A
s










' SIEVE

\

I ! '




x*3^
i?
s~











—^


























—

































"II 1 1
2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80100 200 400 600 1C
                                     Particle  Diameter  (Microns)

-------
                          -96-
past operational experience, expectations were that the



corona power input would vary directly with the amount



of sulfur in the coal, and inversely with the amount of



limestone injected and the gas temperature  (range 240



to about 325 F).







The following equation form was used for the analyses:


                         c    d
           y = a + bx, + -  + -                      .,..
           *         1   x2   x3                     (34)




  where,


       y  = precipitator corona power input


            density, P   (killowatts/1000 Ft2
                      f\

            collecting surface).



       x, = coal sulfur fired, S  (tons/hr)



       x_ = limestone injected, L  (tons/hr)


                                            -2
       x., = flue gas temperature, T  (°F x 10  )






The resultant equations were:



    (Coarse)  PA = -1.435 - 0.336S + igi2. + 2i§Z     (35>




          Correlation Coefficient = 0.96


          F-Ratio Test Statistic = 12
    (Fine)    Pft - -0.990 + .1998 -       + ™L     <36>



          Correlation Coefficient = 0.83


          F-Ratio Test Statistic = 5
Equations 35 and 36 are limited to the following ranges

-------
                                -97-
   representing actual test conditions which are realistic in
   practice:
         Coal Sulfur Fired  (S)     1.0 to 3.2tons/hr
         Limestone Feedrate  (L)    5.3 to 16.8tons/hr
         Flue Gas Temperature  (T)  (240 to 315)(10~2)°F
         Stoichiometry 0.28  (L/S)  1.0 to 4.0
   The ratio of limestone feedrate  (L) to coal sulfur fired
   (S) is a function of Stoichiometry and if the assumption
   is made that the limestone is 100% CaCO3 and all the coal
   sulfur fired appears in the flue gas as sulfur oxides, the
   following relationship is established:
         Stoichiometry      = 0.28                        (37)
   By using equations 32, 33, 35, and 36, it is possible to
   predict precipitator corona power input and performance
   with limestone injection based on the process variables of
   limestone size, injection rate, coal sulfur and flue gas
   temperature provided the equation limitations indicated
   are met.


2. Performance of the Combination
   Mechanical-Electrostatic Dust Collector

   The dust collecting equipment on Shawnee, Boiler No. 10
   (see Figure 2) is a combination multitube mechanical collector

-------
                          -98-
followed by an electrostatic precipitator.   In early years,



when 90% collection efficiency was satisfactory, the eco-



nomics were against combination units.  However, demands



for high efficiency changed this, resulting in utilization



of combination unit principles where advantageous, as dis-



cussed below.







    Technical advantages  cited for the combination  unit



    are the complementary affects,  e.g.  mechanical  effi-



    ciency drops  off with lower gas throughput while



    precipitator  efficiency increases  with  higher collect-



    ing area to volume  ratios.   Conversely,  mechanical



    efficiency increases  with high throughput  while pre-



    cipitator performance decreases.   Furthermore,  grit



    collection is more  readily done with a  mechanical



    while  fine particulate is more effectively removed



    with a precipitator.   With a combination unit,  elec-



    trical failure of the precipitator or other outage



    still  permits some  collection with a mechanical.



    Removal of grit particulate ahead  of the precipitator



    can reduce erosion  losses.   A multiple  tube mechani-



    cal preceding the electrostatic in a close couple



    will also improve gas distribution as well as reduce



    the dust loading allowing the use  of a  smaller  pre-



    cipitator.

-------
                                -99-
      Disadvantages of the combination unit are the high
      draft loss of the mechanical collector which repre-
      sents a higher operating cost  (typically, about
      0.25 KW per thousand CFM per inch of draft loss),
      and also higher capital costs for fans, flues, etc.
      With mechanical collectors as primary units, dis-
      charge electrode rappers are a necessity and plate
      rapping may also be more difficult because of compac-
      tion of the finer dust.  Abrasion and plugging of
      the mechanical tubes can be a consideration.


   In the present case where dry limestone is injected into
   the boiler for sulfur oxide removal, all the technical ad-
   vantages cited above are favored and the use of a combination
   collector is desirable, particularly in the case of coarse
   limestone.
A. Correlation of Particle Size and
   Dust Collector Performance

   The most important parameters in determining the performance
   of a mechanical collector are dust particle size and speci-
   fic gravity.  Normally, maximum performance is obtained
   when pressure loss across the collector is between 2.5 and
   4 inches of water.  On the other hand, the electrical

-------
                            -100-
properties of the dust and level of applied electrical



power are critical parameters in an electrostatic precipi-



tator with particle size of lesser importance.







A critique of particle size as it is related to dust collec-



tor performance on Shawnee Boiler No. 10 follows:







A plot of the particle size analyses contained in Table XIX



through XXII are shown graphically in Figures 26 through 43.







Figure 26 shows particle size distributions of the raw



limestone feed for both the coarse and fine grinds.  Note



that the grind was very uniform with the fine having a geo-



metric mean size by weight of about 6 microns and the



coarse 17 microns.







Size distributions for fly ash obtained during no limestone



injection tests (both CES test series) are shown in Figures



27 through 33.  Figures 34 through 43 present particle size



distributions of samples taken during the limestone injec-



tion runs (second CES test series).







Using the average distribution curves from the above figures,



fractional efficiency curves were calculated for both the



mechanical and electrostatic collectors.  Differences in

-------
                        FIGURE  27
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR INLET SAMPLES
WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 1A, 1B,3A, 4A, 5A, 5B)
99.9

99.5"
99 .0"
QQ (1 .
y o . v
95.0-
90. 0

en n ,



10.0
5n
• U -
.0
1.0

A 1


































x^
^r -•


-« • i














X
r^














X
X
X














^
X
,x













f*
^xO
x^x

X





BAHCO
i r








4
Xl,x
x]
"^?







^.






y

•
K"









-« —





/

X
X













.
jr
_^
^











- si




^x^
x^^
x
Xx
X











EVE


XI


^


X

JT












— »_






























































                                                                             !
                                                                             t '
                                                                             C
                                                                             r-J
                                                                             I
4   6  8 10    20
                                40  60 80 100  200  400 600  1000
                  Particle Diameter  (Microns)

-------
                                     FIGURE 28
C
n
.c
en
VI M
0) (I)
^ 4J
 >i O
 CO -H
  ^J
 4-J ^
 c «3
 0) 0,
 o
 H T5
 -H
 (0 M
iH
 3
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR


INLET SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 3A, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B)

99. 9

99.5
99.0'
Q D f\ .
y o . u
90.0-
en n .
9w * U •
O A A
20 . 0 "
10.0
5.0 -
2.0 '
1.0 '
r> i















'

















s
Sss
Y/
V
















s
22
//
9













j
f/
kj/
*















^
V









BAHCO







/

TX?
Z
















/«
^t
z












— ^—






j^
^











«






^
X"
**















j

^r
x*















^=^
^^
••^












- SIEVE





:p-
^













— ^
































































                                                                       I
                                                                       H
                                                                       O
4   6  8 10    20
                                                 40   60 80 100  200   400 600  1000
                                 Particle Diameter  (Microns)

-------


FIGURE 29


PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
OUTLET SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2A,3A,3B
99.9
a
£ 99.5
on A -i
99.0
" 98 0 -
O Q)
-P 1
•H'Q
U
•H
>i U
« -H
-P
•p ^ 500-
c m ^w.u
OJ £X
o
^ T3 i
CJ 0)
01 t! 20 0-
nj «u . u
0) U
•H T3 10.0
-P C
*H 5.0 -
3
3 2.0
1 . 0

n i

























Sjt
*<#;
i//
.






















^


















/>
/

















/









3AHCO
-t






/'

S

















S*S
&












f i








^
P1










^








^

















"^
^
















	 -
'^
j^**^











- SIEVE

f





*^»













•>


































—







,4B)



















—

                                                                 -
                                                                 .-
                                                                 I
4   6  8 10   20    40  60 80 100  200  400 600 1000




     Particle Diameter  (Microns)

-------
           FIGURE 31
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL HOPPER SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
99.9

99.5'
99 . 0
w . 98 0 -
w W o . u
O Q)
^Q! 95.0-
^ 1 C
0>-3 90-°
•H Q
QJ 800-
S  -H
*J C
^H 5.0 .
U 1 A '
1 . 0

n i
















^




(TESTS 1A , IB , 2A , 3A, 3B , 4A, 4B , 5A , 5B)















^




















'^*

















2

















s
?















s
J/fy
*£-
*r




BAHCO
f\ \











sty
&£-
r






— *—








$











tt







-



















^












SI



X'

^
l'












EVE



/jf
v9















— •>-





































—


1




















• — ••,


                                                                o
                                                                >&l
                                                                I
4   6  8 10   20    40  60 80 100  200  400 600  1000
     Particle Diameter  (Microns)

-------
                    FIGURE 31
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
Q o o
sy • y
§
99.5"
99.0'
W Q O f\ .
w M 98.0-
o i U
CD -H
4-1
•P *-i e;n n
c ro =>u'u
o
M TJ
(1) 0)
Cb -U n n n
Cximulative '
Indica
3 t-i (0 LH M K
. . • 0 C
-> o o o • •
0 C














s






HOPPER SAMPLES WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION











~~7/
//
yr







(TESTS 1A,1B,2A,3A,4A,5A,5B)










///
f















^
$$/









BAH









i










0





s

&












1





#
•'


/









%







/
/
/v
/
f








-» —






A
?
/















x
'A
/














/
s~s .
22
/













- SIEVK

-

/v
a
X















1 — ^.
































































                                                                          -
                                                                          .
             6  8 10
20
40  60 80 100  200  400 600 1000
               Particle Diameter (Microns)

-------
                                             FIGURE 32
D)
CO M
0) 0)
•H Q

& (U
  H
>i CJ
CQ-H
  -P

C fl3
Q) £X
U
U t3
(U 0)
pt ^j
  ro
0) U
> -H
•H T)
*J C
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLES
WITHOUT. LIMESTONE INJECTION
99.9

99.5
99.0
OP n -
7O • U
95.0-
90 . U
80 0 -

50 0
*
O A f\ _
10.0-
5.0 -
. 0
i.o •

n i
(TESTS 16,19,20,21,22)















4
















/
//
(/x
K-


H^ 	










jr
X
/*
f S





R








^
X
/
"r~.
x












/
'
/
T
X











/
/
//
/ s
ts
s








AHCO
1




>
X
y



X
^
X^










^







.


•-**


X
,/










-«•—



^


s
/













u**


„ 	 '
^^^^
X
jS/
X
'











xr












- SIEVE





















	 ^






























































I
M
O

I
                           4   6  8 10    20     40  60 80 100   200  400  600  1000
                                 Particle Diameter (Microns)

-------
                                              FIGURE 33
in
W t-l
0) 0)
*j -p
  0)
•H Q
« -H
  4J
•U H
C nJ
0) cu
U
M t3
G>  "H
•H T3
-P C
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR HOPPER SAMPLES
WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 16,21,22)

99.9

99.5
99.0'
98.0-
95 . u •
90.0-
OU . U -

50.0-

20. fl-
ic. o-
5.0 -
2.0 '
1.0
0.1













y


















/&
/v
07
V




^

I








/fo
yf














/
&
^r















t
/














/
Xx^,












BAHCO
1 1

j... |


yi

X
^


?













— ^—





»••

X


X1
Ix













^




X*
X"















«,
*^
X*














,*>

(-x^















- SIEVE
!

^2
s^
















— *-
































































o
-J
1
                           4   6  8 10    20     40  60 80 100  200   400 600  1000
                                 Particle Diameter  (Microns)

-------
                                        FIGURE  34
s
w

(U (U
tr-H
•H Q
fl)
S i U
« -H
  4J
-P M
c fd

o
l-i 13
(1) 0)
pt 4_>
  to
(1) U
>-M
U

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES MECHANICAL
COLLECTOR INLET SAMPLES

WITH COARSE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 14,15,32,33)
99.9

99.5'
99 . 0
95.0-
y-. A f\ -1
90 .0
80 0 -


50 0
*
•
10.0
5.0 •
. 0
. 0
ft 1
































s
//
y/
/
















/
'/
/
'




B










S
>

/^













(
^

'













j
-------
n
w n
0) O
>J -u
  O
j ) p
G
5 Q)
  rH
>i U
« -H
  -P
4J >-4
c m
 -H
•H 73
-u c
(0 M
u
                                       FIGURE 35

           PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES  OF ELECTROSTATIC  PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLES

               WITH COARSE LIMESTONE INJECTION  (TESTS  10,11,14,15,25,32,33)
        99.9
        0.1
C
c
I
                         4   6  8 10    20    40  60 80 100  200  400 600  1000
                               Particle Diameter (Microns)

-------
            FIGURE 36
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOP OUTLET SAMPLES
O Q O
99 . 9
C
£ 99.5"
99.0-
CO o o n
KJ H 98 . 0
o o
jj o c n
' o U . U -
Jh'o
4J
4-> ^i K n n
D(J . U -
C 
23
/





F










i
22
?Z
















9








AHCO








/^/
^
/

















W^
/^











^





Jd
V













-«—



X*

x-'
It
















X
xl
X'















-------
                         FIGURE 37
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR HOPPER SAMPLES
OQ Q t
yy .y
§
S 99.5"
99.0"
W Q o r>
w w yo .u
O <1>
n*J 95.0-
-u e
x« 90.0-
•H Q
iii o n n
oU . U -
S Q)
iH
>i U
CQ -H
4J
jj j-i c rt n
c Id 50.0-
U
M T)
o;  -H
•5 -a 10.0-
4J C
^M 5.0 -
3
§ 2.0 '
1.0
0.1
WITH COARSE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 14,15,32,33)
















S























.<

















•s

















££,

















$
r"*'















^£


—




RAHCO

















-
^







— <^—










E
K









^







/
'#
















^












^_5J




.
x^

2












EVE




-/—
'














— *-




































































             4   6  8 10    20
40  60 80 100  200  400 600 1000
                  Particle Diameter  (Microns)

-------
         FIGURE  38
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR HOPPER SAMPLES
WITH COARSE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 14.15)
no o
yy . y
S
g 99. 51
99.0*
W QQ ft .
Ul M 30 . U
0) 01
^*{ 95.0-
4-) S
•giS 9°-°"
-rH Q
OR n n
o u . u H
3 d)
>i 0
ffl -H
•u M ^n n~
C 
-------
                                      FIGURE 39
I
LI
w
o
  iH
>, u
« -H
  4J
-P >-l
C (3
(U Cu
O
M T3
0) Q)
•H *"O
-P C
n3 M
f»
I


U
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR INLET SAMPLES
99.9

99.5 '
99.0
Q 0 f) .
95.0-
90 . U
80 0 -

50 0 -

•? A n .
f-\J . U
10.0
5.0 -
. 0
1.0

n T
WITH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2,3,5,6,8)















>
f

















>
x^x
s

















X
£/x
^




B












/J
//
*















x^
^
^














>^
~j&?2-
s^
r







AHCO.
L







&\
^x










^







c>












^






X
^


















s
*?
,**














.^
jS^
r ^^














SIEVE




'\
\"
's
1*













•*•
































































UJ
I
                          4   6  8 10    20     40  60 80 100  200  400  600  1000
                                Particle Diameter  (Microns)

-------
                                    FIGURE 4Q

          PARTICLE SIZE  ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLES

     WITH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2,3,4,5,6,8,17,18,23,24,26,27,28,29,30)
        99.9
s
tn
w M
OJ O
-H Q
(U
3 0)

>i U
03 -H
  4-1
11 j_j

0) (X
u

(U 0)
0) U

•H -a
-P C
 3
 E

 U
                             6  8 10    20     40  60 80 100  200   400  600 1000
                               Particle Diameter  (Microns)

-------
                                         FIGURE 41
M
U M
Q) 0)
J -P
  (U
11 P
£ 8
CTi-M
•rH Q
V
& 0)
  rH
>, O
CO -M
  4J
4J M
C (0
 -rl
•H tl
OJ C
a M
u
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR OUTLET SAMPLES
WITH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2,3,4,5,6,23,24,26)
99.9

99.5
99.0
98 0 1
95.0-
o A n -i
90 . u
80 0 -

50 0 -

O f\ rt ^
Av »\f
10.0
5.0 -
. 0
. 0

n i















/















.,
/
//
(/ /
7-














f
X
/
/












/
/^
X

/












.
r
/

/











j>
/
X
X
X
X













X

^
^





X









RAHCO 1 •*







-^





s
'

s*







•» '


X





^

x









1

-------
                         FIGURE 42

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR HOPPER SAMPLES
99.9
c
10
£ 99.5'
99.0
W QQ ft .
W H S8.U
O i 0 .
CQ -H
4J
+• J^ cn 0 -
c ta DU-U
fli QJ
o
Lj Tl
4) 0)
P^ -P on n-
nj 20.0-
0) O
-H'-O 10.0
-P C
(0 M c rt
rH 5'° '
3
2 .0
1.0 '

n T
WTTH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 2,3,5,6,8)













.


X
—


















.^




















<&
s



I

\












/
3fr
>















^
^^




AHCO
1


'








^X/
/jpr
'jfr
















^
df
c_.
,






*i








$











•^ —






/
/,
'

















/
/^
'













/ J
/yi
yy^
//
V













SIEVE



77
f
















— «.













•


















































                                                                             o
                                                                             I
             4   6  8 10    20     40  60 80 100   200   400  600 1000
                  Particle Diameter (Microns)

-------
                                              43
n
CO »-l
a) a)
12 0)
  rH
>t O
ffl -M

jj Jl
c 

Q) O
> -H
•H T3
-P C
         PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSES OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR HOPPER  SAMPLES


                   WITH FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION (TESTS 17,18,23,24)
99.9


.99.5
99.0
98.0
        95.0-
          .0
10.0

5.0  n
        2.0

        1.0
        0.1
                             AHCO
ft
                                              SIEVE
                         4   6  8 10    20     40   60 80 100  200  400  600 1000
                               Particle Diameter (Microns)

-------
                          -118-
size distribution between inlet, outlet, and hopper catch



samples served as a basis for these calculations.  The



results for no limestone injection are contained in



Table XXXI and for limestone injection in Tables XXXII



and XXXIII.  For comparative purposes, the collector frac-



tional efficiency curves are shown in Figures 44 and 45.



Mechanical collector efficiencies on fly ash alone ranged



from about 25% on the 5 micron size to 90 to 95% on great-



er than 25 microns.  However, the electrostatic collector



fractional efficiency was nearly constant, i.e. between



80 and 90% over the entire size range.  In general, the



mechanical efficiencies on fly ash plus additive reaction



products is about the same as on fly ash alone or perhaps



a little lower.  However, the electrostatic collector



fractional efficiency was about 90% on 5 micron material



and 70% on 25 micron when coarse limestone was injected.



With fine limestone injection, the efficiency varied from



65% on 5 micron to 25% on 25 micron particulate.  This



can be logically explained by the fact that, in general,



higher levels of corona power input density were attain-



able with the coarse injection and therefore higher elec-



trical forces were available for holding material on the



precipitator collecting surface.

-------
                              TABLE XXXI
        FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF DUST COLLECTORS  - FLY ASH  ONLY

                        (CES Test Series No.  1)

Micron
Size
Interval

0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
>30

MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet

6.5
9.5
7.0
7.0
4.0
10.0
8.0
3.0
5.0
40.0
100.0
Outlet

4. 7
10.7
8.1
5 .5
3.4
3.8
3.4
1 . 1
0.4
1.5
42.6
Hopper

2.0
2 .0
2.6
2 .3
2 .0
4.6
6. 3
4.0
4.0
27.6
57.4
Hopper
$
Outlet

6.7
12.7
10. 7
7.8
5.4
8.4
9. 7
5. 1
4.4
29. 1
100.0
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet

11 .0
25.0
19.0
13.0
8.0
9.0
8.0
2 .0
1.5
3.5
100.0
Outlet

2. 7
3. 5
2.2
1 .4
0. 7
1 . 1
0. 9
0 . 1
0. 3
0. 7
13.6
Hopper

13. 8
25.0
15.5
10.4
5.2
7.8
4. 3
0.9
0.9
2.6
86. 4
Hopper
$
Outlet

16.5
28.5
17. 7
11 .8
5.9
8.9
5. 2
1.0
1 .2
3.3
100.0
PERCENT f
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY1 J
Mechanical
Collector

29.9
15. 8
24.4
29.5
37.1
54. 7
65.0
78.4
91 .0
92. 3

Electrostatic
Precipitator

83.6
87. 8
87. 7
88. 3
88.2
87.6
82 . 7
90 .0
75.0
78.8

(1)  Hopper (100)
    Hopper +  Outlet

-------
                               TABLE XXXII
       FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF  DUST COLLECTORS - FINE LIMESTONE

Mi cron
Size
Interval
0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
>30

MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet
6.5
13.5
12.0
11.0
9.0
13.0
12 .0
3.0
4.0
16.0

100.0
Outlet
4. 3
8.4
8.0
6.7
3.6
5. 8
4.0
0.9
0.-9
0.9

43.4
Hopper
1 .7
3.1
3.7
2 .8
2 .3
6.2
5 .7
1 . 1
5.0
25.0

56.6
Hopper
&
Outlet
6.0
11.5
11 .7
9.5
5.9
12.0
9.7
1.9
5.9
25.9

100.0
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet
10.0
23.0
18.0
15.0
8.0
11.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

100.0
Outlet
2 .9
8.6
6.9
4.6
3. 1
3. 8
1.9
1. 3
1.4
3.7

38. 2
Hopper
11. 1
19.2
13.2
6.2
3.1
4.9
2 .2
0. 3
0.5
1 .1

61. 8
Hopper
5
Outlet
16.5
27.8
20.1
10. 8
6.2
8.7
4. 1
1 .6
1 .9
4. 8

100.0
PERCENT
FRACTIONAL EFFICI ENCY ( l J
Mechanical
Collector
28.4
27.0
31 .6
29.5
39.0
51. 7
58. 8
58.0
84.9
96.5


Electrostatic
Precipi tator
79.3
69. 1
65. 7
57.4
50.0
56. 3
53.6
18.8
26. 3
23.0

                                                                                     ro
                                                                                     o
                                                                                      i
(1)    Hopper  (100)

    Hopper  +  Outlet

-------
                            TABLE XXXIII
    FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF DUST COLLECTORS  -  COARSE  LIMESTONE

                        (CES Test Series No.  2)

Micron
Size
Interval

0-2
2-4
4-6
6-8
8-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
>30

MECHANICAL COLLECTOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet

11.0
17.0
11.0
9.0
6.0
11.0
7.0
3.0
5 .0
20. 0

100.0
Outlet

3.4
11.0
10. 3
6.8
4.4
5.3
3.4
0.5
1.5
1.9

48.5
Hopper

1.8
2.8
3.6
2.1
2. 1
4. 1
4.1
1.5
3.1
26.2

51.5
Hopper
§
Outlet

5.2
13.8
13.9
8.9
6.5
9.4
7.5
2.0
4.6
28.1

100.0
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
FRACTION IN INTERVAL
Inlet

7.0
23.0
21.0
14.0
9.0
11 .0
7.0
1.0
3.0
4.0

10.9
Outlet

0.6
2.4
1.9
1 .6
1.0
1 .4
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.5

89. 1
Hopper

14.2
28.4
19.6
9.8
4 .6
8.0
2.7
0. 3
1 .1
0.4

100.0
Hopper
§
Outlet

14.8
30. 8
21.5
11.4
5.6
9.4
3.7
0.4
1.5
0.9


PERCENT
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY1 J
Mechanical
Collector

34.6
20. 3
25.9
23.6
32.2
43.5
54.7
75.0
67.5
93. 3

E lect ros t ati c
Precipi tator

95.9
92 . 3
91.3
86. 1
82. 2
88.8
73.0
75.0
73. 3
44 . 4

                                                                                      I
                                                                                      M
                                                                                      to
                                                                                      M
                                                                                      I
(1)    Hopper (100)
    Hopper +• Outlet

-------
100	
                                -122-
                       Particle Diameter - Microns

-------
    100
                                  -123-
     90
        \
     80
            A
-P
c
0)
O
H
0)
(X
 u
 c
 a)
 •H
 O
 •H
•
-------
                         -124-
Table XXXIV summarizes the geometric mean sizes and speci-



fic gravities of all particle size analyses on samples from



both Cottrell Environmental Systems test series.   The fly



ash at the mechanical inlet for all no limestone  injection



tests had an average mean size by weight of about 19 microns



with a range of 12 to 30 microns for individual tests.  The



particulate from both the coarse and fine limestone injec-



tion tests had an average mean size of 8.5 to 9.5 microns



regardless of injection rate.  The individual tests ranged



between 6 to 13 microns.  As stated before, the raw lime-



stone mean particle size ranged from 6 microns for fine to



17 microns for coarse.







The most plausible explanation for the particle size results



obtained at the mechanical collector inlet with limestone



injection is that the boiler, air heater, ductwork, etc.



ahead of the mechanical collector are acting as a primary



mechanical collector, particularly on the very fine and



very coarse material.  The fine limestone can plate out on



surfaces by mechanical and thermal diffusion or electro-



static mechanisms while the coarse material is collected




in low velocity ductwork areas and hoppers below the air



heater by gravity, and impaction mechanisms.  The overall



effect of these collection mechanisms would be to make the

-------
 -' •"",=••!  PF      ' 1CI.T S IZ!   \N -
c-.  -vvpirs  F-i'-1"  BOTH C:L;S -IES:
       (Tron  Firurcs 26  to 45)
S amp I e
Point

Limestone
Feeder
Lime stone
Feeder
MC Inlet
ESP Inlet
ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
ESP Hopper
LSP Inlet
USP Hopper
MC Inlet
L S T Inlet
Des cription

Coarse
Fine
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash
On ly
Fly Ash
On ly
Fly Ash
On ly
Fly Ash
Only
Fly Ash 5 Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash f, Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Product s
Test Numbers

14, 32, 33
6, 8, 23, 24
1A§B, 3A,
4A$B, 5A§B
1ASB, 3A,
4A$B, 5A§B
2A, 3A5B, 4B
1A5B,2A,3ASB,
4A&B,5A5B
1A§B, 2A, 3A,
4A, 5A&B
16, 19, 20,
21, 22
16, 21 , 22
14, 15, 32,
33
10, 11, M,
15, 25, 32 ,
33
Average
Geometric
Mean
Size (p)

17
6.0
19
5. 5
4.5
28
4.6
7.0
4.0
8.5
6.0
Speci fie
Gravity

2.55
2.54
2.36
2. 31
1.98
2. 32
2.04
2.53
2. 30
2.69
2.67
Range of
Geometric
Mean Si ze For
Indi vidual
Tests (y)

15 - 20
5-7
12 - 30
5-6.5
3.5 - 5.5
24 - 33
4.2 - 5.2
4.5 - 9
3.8 - 4.3
6.2 - 13
5-7

-------
      TA^Li.  \X\IV  (Continued)
 SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZL ANALYSES
ON SAMPLES FROM  BOTH CES TEST STRHS
      (From Figures  26  to 45)
Samp 1 e
Point

ESP Outlet
MC Hopper
HSP Hopper
MC Inlet
IS!1 Inlet

I.SP Our 1 c t

"." i.^-pe r
1 ^ '•' i ^ ' i1 L- r
i
i
Description

Fly Ash 6 Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash f, Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash 5 Coarse
Limestone Reaction
Products
Fly Ash 5 Fine
Limestone Reaction
Pro ducts
Flv Ash f, Fine
Limestone Reaction
Products
Flv -\sh c, Fine
Lirestone Reaction
Products
Fly -\sh 5 fine
i . ^. s -,> ,e Ren .- 1 ion
P re 
-------
                         -127-
particle size distribution at the mechanical collector



inlet more uniform, and less dependent on the size distribu-



tion and amount of injected limestone.  Other possibilities



include agglomeration or attachment of fines to larger



particles (fly ash) by impaction, ineffective dispersion



of fines during injection, better calcination on the coarse



material resulting in decreased size by carbon dioxide loss,



and higher utilization of fines in reacting with sulfur



oxides causing an increase in particle size of the reaction



products.








The average particle loading at the mechanical outlet-



precipitator inlet varies with limestone injection rate



(see Figure 46)  from about 1.5 grains/SCF with no limestone



addition to about 4.0 grains/SCF with 16 tons/hour lime-



stone feed into the boiler.

-------
                                           FIGURE 46
    ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR PARTICUIATE INLET LOADING AS A FUNCTION OF LIMESTONE FEEDRATE
6.0
5.0-
4.0
 3.0
                                                                                                   1XJ
                                                                                                   00
                                                                                                   I
 2.a
                                                                                         Q
 i.o
                           Q
O   No  Limestone


O   Fine  Limestone


O   Coarse  Limestone
           8          1*0

Limestone Fcedrate,  Tons/Hr
                                                                 12
                 1*4
16
18

-------
                              -129-
3.  Discussion of Particle Resistivity Data

   A.  Correlation of In-Situ and Laboratory
      Resistivity Measurements

      As discussed in an earlier section of the report,  a
      fundamental parameter in electrostatic precipitation is
      the electrical resistivity of the particulate.   Many
      industrial dusts are poor conductors and as a result
      inhibit the performance of precipitators.  Generally,
      the critical value above which precipitation is dele-
      teriously affected is somewhere between 10   and 10
      ohm-cm.* '   The gas temperature and moisture content are
      the two main factors having the strongest influence on
      resistivity.  Secondary agents present in some  indus-
      trial  gases, e.g.  sulfur trioxide,  can drastically
      change resistivity.  It is this particular agent which
      appears to cause the differences in laboratory  and in-
      situ resistivity of fly ash from coal fired boilers.
      (Sulfur trioxide cannot be simulated conveniently  in the
      laboratory test gas.)   Furthermore, the addition of
      large  amounts of alkali material such as ground limestone
      to the boiler flue gas which removes the sulfur trioxide
      by chemical reaction is believed to result in degraded
      precipitation rates.  An objective of the test program
      was to measure the effects of limestone injection  on
      resistivity and precipitation rates.

-------
                         -130-
In Figure 47, the in-situ reb.istivj.Lic.-5 obt.j im>d  lor


coal firing only on full-scale boilers at Shawnc-i-  Sta-


tion of TVA and a large midwest utility, and on a  pilot


scale combustor at Babcock and Wilcox Company Research


Center are plotted as a function of gas temperature.


Figure 48 displays in-situ resistivities obtained  during


limestone injection tests by the same organizations.


The Shawnee data was obtained by Southern Research Insti-


tute*2* (see Table XXXV), K. J. McLean(5) (see Figure 49),


and Cottrell Environmental Systems  (see Tables XXIII


through XXV).  The midwest utility data was obtained by


Research-Cottrell, Inc.(3*  (see Table XXXVI).  The pilot

                             (4)
scale Babcock and Wilcox data    for coal firing is


reproduced in Figure 50 and shown for comparison with


full scale data as a dotted line polygon in Figure 47.


Similarly, the Babcock and Wilcox limestone injection


data is reproduced in Figures 51 through 53 and shown as


a dotted line polygon in Figure 48.
Laboratory resistivity measurements obtained on precipi-


tator inlet samples taken during the Cottrell Environ-


mental Systems test series are shown in Figures 54


(without limestone injection) and 55  (with limestone


injection).  The in-situ measurements from Figures  47


and 48 are superimposed on this data as solid lined


polygons.  Note that although the data is scattered, clue:

-------
                                   FIGURE 47
IN-SITU RESISTIVITIES OBTAINED ON FULL-SCALE & PILOT SCALE PULVKPTZFD
                      BOILERS WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
IxlO15
IxlO14
IxlO13-
S
u
1
X
~4
M
S n
w IxlO11
M
U
IxlO11
IxlO9-
1x1 08






^ CES-S1
(Dec.
CES-S1
A (July
CES-S1
B Speci<
(July
dRi K< J>
& Shawn*
SRI-SI
^ (July
	 B&W-P
TVA C
1969




lawnee
r 1969)
lawnee
, 1971)
lawnee
al Low Sulfur
, 1971)
McLean-
26 (July, 1971
nawnee
, 1971)
ilot Plant
Dais (1967-
Inc. -Midwest
ty (1967)



J







r r^
TL



•
l^/
i



*••
X
X
>
*•••
o o

X


/
•₯S^
'x
X
o
o
o
v__













Encompasses Data From
Figure 49 , Tables XXIII
through XXV, XXXV and
XXXVI

>
X
X
^^^^ <


s
\
>*
4
•— -^«







Encorrpasses Data
f roir Figure 50 .
v I
^*
— ^—

r~~~
-

— .
— ..




^->
3



i
u
t->
1
                                    300   350    400    450    500     550   600   650
                                GAS TEMPERATURE  (°F)

-------
CJ
i
U
K
                                               FIGURE 48

             IN-SITU RESISTIVITIES OBTAINED  ON FULL SCALE AND PILOT SCALE PULVERIZED COAL

                               FIRING  BOILERS  WITH LIMESTONE INJECTION
    1X10
        15
    IxlO
        14
    IxlO
        13
    IxlO11,
     ixio9 H
   CES-Shawnee
A  (July, 1971)

   CES-Shawnee
   Special  Low  Sulfur
    (July, 1971)
0 K.J.  McLean-Shawneg
    (July, 1971)

O SRI-Shawnee
    (July, 1971)
   B&W-Pilot Plant
    (1967-1969)


P-,  R-C,  Inc. Midwest
U  Utility, (1967)
     IxlO3
 Encompasses Data from

Figure 49,  Tables XXIII

 through XXV, XXXV and

         XXXVI
        Encompasses Data
        fron Figures 51
          through 53 .
                                                                     __ f
                                                                                                     -
                                                                                                     :
           0     50                              300    35C   400   450   SCO     550   600   650

                                            GAS  TEMPERATURE (°F)

-------
                            TABLE  XXXV

IX-SITU RESISTIVITY DATA OBTAINED  BY  SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AT
 TVA SKAWNEE STATION,  BOILER  #10 DURING THE CES SECOND TEST SERIES
Da*te
July 15
July 16
July 21
July 27!
Reported
Injection Rate
of CaCOs,
Lb./Min.
333
333
333
167
333
333
Temp. ,
oF
340
255
273
407
360
417
Resistivity, ohm cm, at various electric fields
1.0 KV/cm
...
	
:::
4.0 x 1011
2.5 KV/cm
	
	
:::
5.0 x 1011
5.0 KV/cm
3.0 x 1010
4.0 x 10?}
4. 5 x 10
1. 3 x lo}*
1.1 x 101
    (b) Without  Limestone  Injection

-------
                              -134-
                         FIGURE 49

   IN-SITU RESISTIVITY  DATA  OBTAINED BY K.J. McLEAN AT TVA

SHAWNEE STATION, BOILER #10  DURING THE CES SECOND TEST SERIES
     I

     o
     I

     B
     V
     H
     EH
     H

     1
     en
     CD
     Q
1 x 101
1 x 1013-
12 -
1 x 101
o11-

1 x 10
.9
1 x 10
i x in8
T in'








•









• •
•



0
00









O Without
Liir.es tone
• With Limestone











                  0     100    200    300     400   500   600


                          FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE - °F

-------
                       -135-
                     TABLi;  XXXVI
        DATA SUMMARY  -  FULL  SCALE  DOLOMITE
        INJECTION TEST  RESULTS  OBTAINED BY
RESEARCH-COTTRELL,  INC.  AT A  LARCH MIDIVEST UTILITY
Parameter

Dolomite Injected-Tph
Coal Fired - Tph
Gas Vol. @ Pptr, ACFM
Gas Temp. @ Pptr. °F
SO? PPM by Volume
SO^ PPM by Volume
Dust Concentrations
(gr/SCFD)
Mechanical Inlet
Precipitator Inlet
Precipitator Outlet
Efficiencies %
Mechanical
Precipitator
Overall
In-Situ Resistivity -
ohm-cm
Precipitation Rate -
FPS
Boiler
Reheat

6
60
492,000
287
1,950
Nil
6.10
1.32
0.60
78.3
55.0
90.2
1 x 1012
0. 15
Superheat

0
65-70
568,000
270
2,550
17
3.70
0.74
0.16
80.0
78.8
95.8
1 x 108
0.34

-------
y



5

 i

:_-

H
>
H
: '
EH
Cfl
                    FIGURE 50



               RESISTIVITY OF  FLY ASH

          SAMPLZS FROM VARIOUS COALS FIRED

               IN PILOT PLANT  OF B&W
                                                              FIGURE 51
                                              10
                                              10
                                              10
                                              10
                                              10
                                              10
                                              10

IN-SITU AND LABORATORY
RESISTIVITIES FOR REACTED ADDITIVE-
FLY ASH SAMPLES FROM B&W PILOT PLANT
)15
)14
)13
)12
r11
,10
.9

-
-
-
-
-
-

?
1 s\
^



p 	
»
a



#f
0^
^
.A
t*
VAJ
V U

— Lah

. 	 In-
I

-
-
>oratqrv
i
—i
j
-4
I
-Sit-jl
3
-
                                                                                                I
                                                                                                H
                                                                                                OJ

                                                                                                I
              200   300   400  500   600  700
                                                  100    200   300  400  500  600
                                  FLUE  GAS TEMPERATURE, °F

-------
s
u
EH
H
>
H
EH
W
^
'..
D
Q
                    FIGURE 52

             IN-SITU AND LABORATORY

       RESISTIVITIES FOR REACTED ADDITIVE-

       FLY ASH MIXTURES  FP.OM B&W PILOT PLANT
                 FIGURE 53
10
io14

io13
io12

TO11

TO10
3













-




^,O . "^/"l
X {/-*
'•'*» i
:> ; 1
1 /r«
-




r?
i
^
I
i
i


^i
?.-4?;
•
•
3 D
-^» e
fa
/H
/


^^
N« H
\
*\
* • \
\^ r
S


— Lat

- In-
-


joratc

•Situ*
-
-
ry
        100   200   3i\i   «00  500  GOO    700
   100   200   300   400   500  600   700
                                   FLIT. GAS  TEMPERATURE,  °F

-------
    1x10
    1x10
    1x10
)
:~
•-•
CO
M
w
     1x10
                                          FIGURES  4

                  LABORATORY RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON PRECIPITftTOR INLET SAMPLES

                    AS A FUNCTION OF GAS TEMPERATURE WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
   -h
CES-Shawr.ee
(Dec., 1969)

CES-Shavvr.ee
(July, 1971)

CES-Shawnee Low Sulfur
Tests  (July, 1971)
                      Encompasses Data

                       from Figure 47.
          0      50     100    150   200  • 250     300    350   400   450    500    550   600    650


                                            GAS  TEMPERATURE (°F)

-------
IJ
1
>l
—
H

—

Lo
H
(/>
• -

s
    1x10
    1x10
    1x10
                                             FIGURX  35

                 LABORATORY  RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS ON PRECIPITATOR INLET SAMPLES

                     AS A  FUNCTION OF GAS TEMPERATURE WITH  LIMESTONE INJECTION
                                          Encompasses Data

                                           from Picture 48.
                 50    100   150    200    250    300    350   400   450    500


                                             GAS TEMPERATURE (°7)
550   COO    630

-------
                            -140-
   to v.ir idiLions in tj:,h cornpOL. i L j.on, coul '.uifur, rti:.,
   there is a general indication that laboratory mouL.un.-
   ments are higher than in-situ at a given gas temperature
   Of further interest is that at temperatures in the  550
   to 650°F range,  the resistivities (lab and in-situ) arc
   coming closer to coinciding, while at temperatures
   below 500°F agreement is poor.  This is further evidence
   that the flue gas and laboratory test gas are not equi-
   valent,  and trace constituents in the flue gas are
   affecting resistivity due to surface conductivity  (most
   prevalent at low gas temperatures),  but are not critical
   at the high temperatures where the bulk resistivity of
   the constituents of the ash is controlling.
B. Relationship of Particle Resistivity, Flue Gas
   Temperature, and Coal Sulfur  (No Limestone Injection)

   In general, the higher the percentage sulfur in the coal,
   the more sulfur trioxide appearing in the flue gas.
   Typically, 1 to 2% of the coal sulfur is converted to
   the trioxide.  This amounts to about 3 to 6 parts per
   million by volume in the flue gas for 0.5% sulfur coal
   and six times this amount for 3% sulfur coal,  formally,
   15 to 25 parts per million at 300°F is sufficient to
   condition the dust surface by sulfuric acid condensation

-------
                            -Ui-
   giving resistivities in l!ir> 10   ohin-crti range or lower.
   At lower temperatures, less amounts of sulfur trioxide
   are required and gas moisture content becomes more impor-
   tant.  Conversely, at high temperatures, the bulk resis-
   tance of the material is controlling, and the coal sulfur
   and moisture are not critical.  Figure 56 is a plot of
   particle resistivity as a function of flue gas tempera-
   ture for a range of coal sulfur.  The data were taken
   from Tables XXIII, XXXV, and XXXVI.  The midwest
   utilities data are from unpublished Research-Cottrell,
   Inc. reports.   '     The criticality of coal sulfur
   and moisture on particle resistivity are graphically
   demonstrated in the lower temperature ranges (varies
   five orders of magnitude for 0.5 to 4.0% sulfur),
   while at the higher temperatures the effect is nearly
   independent of coal sulfur (varies about one order of
   magnitude).
C. Relationship of Particle Resistivity, Flue Gas
   Temperature, and Coal Sulfur  (with Limestone Injection)

   Normal expectation with a dry alkaline additive, such as
   limestone to the boiler or into flue gas, is a chemical
   reaction with the sulfur oxides formed, particularly the
   trioxide, resulting in a decreased conditioning effect

-------
2


^
H

>
H
fr
CO
H
in
w
&

w




I
                             -142-



          IN-SITU RrSISTIVI'J'Y  VS. TEMPliRATURF. RELATIONSHIP



          FOR VARIOUS COAL SUT,FUKS   (Tlo Limestone Injection)
mo13-

12
1X10


IxlO11-



10
1x10 —


• „ « *v •*
1x10 —


IxlO8 -




1x10
OvO.8
\
\
Q. 8 r-%
1.5~


A

/\.8b





—'A
3.7
/

/
/
s-9^^
Vly v_^







1.8
\
\
\
\
1.
9
Ao.o



ZX2.7 Q
A 2.4 "2.
A^ 2.2
1°8
^.
/
/
/



•MM













t

\
\



;• "^--.^

3

^ 	


•











i
^\jd)0.8
A2-8
A 2. 2
"™" "••





DATA POINT LEGEND
^^


A3. 2 ^



M»
A CES (Shawnee #10)
O SRI (Shawnee #10)

Q R-C,Inc. (Midwest Utilities)
NOTE: Numbers by data points are
percent sulfur in coal.








             200
300         400       500         600




      FLUK GAT,  TEMPI-RATURi:,  °F
                                                                    700

-------
                            -143-
   and a higher particulate resistivity.  Consequently, the
   sulfur content of the coal will become relatively inde-
   pendent in its affect on resistivity.  In Figure 57, the
   particulate resistivity is plotted as a function of flue
   gas temperature with the coal sulfur indicated for each
   data point.  The data were taken from tables and reports
   as noted above.  Of particular interest is the observa-
   tion that coal sulfur appears to affect the resistivity
   in a random manner.   Nevertheless, the data still shows
   the affect of low temperature surface conditioning on
   resistivity.  Apparently, this is due mainly to the mois-
   ture in the gas plus a few parts per million of sulfur
   trioxide not removed by the limestone.  (See Table 4.14
   in Reference 4, and Tables 41 and 44 in Reference 2.)
D. Relationship Between Precipitation Rate Parameter
   and Particle Resistivity

   In establishing the precipitation rate parameter of a
   dust, the most critical single parameter is the elec-
   trical resistivity.  Figure 58 graphically demonstrates
   the degradation of the precipitation rate parameter with
   resistivity.  Two solid line-curves, taken from the
   literature,*6' 7* are shown.  Data points  (Table XXXVII)
   from the Shawnee tests, and a large midwest utility, are
   plotted for comparison purposes.  Verification of the

-------
                                 -144-



                               FIGURE 57






                  IN-SJTU RESISTIVITY VS. TEMPERATURE


                 RELATIONSHIP FOR VARIOUS COAL .SULI'URS


                      (V?itli Limestone Injection)
l
§
EH
to
H
CO

S
H
    1x10
         13
1x10
    12
     1x10
    11
     1x10
         10
      1x10'
            200.




















1.
2. (A
4.0/\ 4
i.eA;/
3.9Qf
1.6$\2.
? Jf\ A
^ • ^/ •• ^ /-
/
f&2.6

.


'
*
O3.1
ZA 2.7
A 3.3
L^^X^
^2.6
^/XV2.7
Z^i:^
7
Al.4


L.SQ







Q3.1

i
^**

0 2-°


'








-



1
''


•



-




DATA POINT LEGEND
ACES (Sh-awnee HO)
w
O SRI (Shawnee #10)
NOTE: Numbers by data points
are % sulfur in coal

•

•

j
                 300
400
500
600
700
                             FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE, °F

-------
                                                     ORE 58
                APPROXIMATE PRECIPITATION  RATE PARAMETER VS.  RESISTIVITY RELATIONSHIP

                                  WITHOUT AND T7ITH  LIMESTONE  INJECTION
W
-.
M
a
03
H
(0
o
*J
c
c
•H
-u!
fC
-1-1
-H
n.
-H
CJ
O
     0.60
     0.50
     0.40
         1x10
10
      10"             10"           10'


IN-SITU  PARTICULATE RESISTIVITY, OHM-CM

-------
                       TABLE  XXXVII
            DATA  USED  FOR  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PRECIPITATION RATE  PARAMETER  AND PARTICIPATE RESISTIVITY


Source

CES
First Test
Series
Shawnee fflO
December 1969

R-C ,Inc.
Midwest Utility





CES
Second Test
Series
Shawnee #10
July 1971




R-C , Inc.
Midwest Uti lity


Test No.
5A, SB

3B, 4B
9, 16
19, 21
20, 22
	

6, 14
10, 17
4, 11
8

2, 30
18, 26
23, 24
25, 27
28, 32
29
33
	
Flue Gas
Temp .
0F
300

298
275
260
326
270

322
261
323
285

316
318
326
271
323
265
260
287
Coal
Sulfur
%
3.22

1.90
1.54
0.85
0.90
3.20

2.66
1.61
1.53
2.59

2.61
2.20
1. 15
1. 87
3. 70
2 . 30
4.04
3.20
In-Situ
Resistivity
ohm-cm
4. 8 x 109
1 1
2. 8 x 10
1.6 x 1012
10
8.4 x 101U
1 1
1. 8 x 10
1.0 x 108

7.3 x 1011
4.5 x 1011
4. 1 x 1011
1.9 x 1011
12
5. 1 X 10
4. 0 x 1011
1 2
3.3 x lO1^
1 2
1. 3 x 10
3.4 x 1012
4. 3 x 1011
9.1 x 1011
1.2 x 1012
Hptn. Rate
Parameter
FPS
0.42

0. 19
0. 26
0.49
0.47
0. 34

0. 18
0.40
0.16
0 .35

0.21
0. 17
0. 14
0. 38
0. 39
0.27
•0.43
0.15


Comment



No
Limestone
In j ection









With
Limes tone
Injection






-------
                            -147-
   degradation noted above is indicated.  However, the
   critical range of resistivity seems to be occurring
   between values of 10   and 10   ohm-cm.  Obviously, more
   specific data are required to quantitatively establish
   the relationship between precipitation rate parameter
   and resistivity.
4. Discussion of Chemical Analyses Results

   All the chemical analyses on particulate samples obtained
   during the test program were performed by TVA personnel
   at the Chattanooga, Tennessee Laboratory (see Tables
   XXVII through XXIX).   A summary of the data used in the
   following discussion and correlations are contained in
   Table XXXVIII.
A. Relationship of Calcium Compounds at Electrostatic
   Precipitator inlet with Limestone Feedrate

   Since the dust collecting equipment is a combination
   mechanical-electrostatic unit, it is of interest to
   determine the affect on the dust chemical composition at
   the precipitator inlet caused by the mechanical collec-
   tor for no, coarse, and fine limestone injection.  One
   basis for doing this is to correlate the total amount of

-------
                        TABLE XXXVIII

              SUMMARY OF DATA USED IN SECTION ON

                 CHEMICAL ANALYSES (PPS.147-153)

Test
No.
2
6
8
9
10
11
34
15
18
19
?0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
%
MC
•Inlet
30.8
33.0
33.3
—
—
—
35.6
36.7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
27.7
25.5
CaO
ESP
Inlet
28.6
30.0
31.4
4 .5
23.5
31.6
33.9
34 .7
33.6
1.4
2.2
1.1
5.6
5.9
18.8
26.0
30.8
28.8
3H.6
28.8
27.2
27.7
26.3

±xa txo
CaO/S
ESP Inlet
4.1
4.9
4.4
3.0
3.8
6 .4
6.0
5.3
7.0
3.5
3.7
2.7
7.0
5.4
8. 9
4. 8
6.2
7.4
9.9
7.4
6.5
4.1
4.5
f*aO ZV4-
l^aU /it
ESP Inlet
(Tons/Hr)
0.48
0.64
0.91
0.05
0.43
1.03
1.19
l.OB
0.69
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.13
0.14
0.47
0.80
0.59
0.60
1.12
0.78
0.84
1.11
0.75

(1)
Gas
Temp,
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
L
Precipitation
Rate Parameter
W(FPS)
0.24
O.C3
0.35
0.34
0.43
0.26
0.33
0.29
0.17
0.41
0.58
0.44
0.36
0.13
0.15
0.50
0.17
0.26
0.29
0.27
0.18
0.48
0.43
Tjimp^tont
Feedrate
•(tons/hr)
7.55
11.60
11.15
0
16 .75
15.25
14.10
14.45
9.15
0
0
0
0
1.84
3.45
10.55
7.05
6.45
11.15^
6.25
6.30
8.50
7.85

(2).
Type
_Liitie_s tone
F
F
F
-
C
C
C
C
F
-
-
-
-
F
F
C
F
F
F
F
F
C
C
f 3)
Particle l '
Resistivitv
Olvi— r*1*!
1 "•
1.2X101"
5.6X10-L1
1.6x1^--
i fivi nil
fi.7vi n11
fi.Svi n11
a.gvin11
1 .4v! rii-
5rf >{i .v1
2 .8x1^-""
1 . 8xl011
1.4xlOil
1.8xlOLi
3 . 7x 1 " - -'
2.9xll"l-
1.4x1012 *
2.4xlC:i
1 c; v l r, 1 1
"5.9:.-::1:1
4 .^-:n r1- *
9.0x1.1'^
P.lvlO-11
9.1x10 ' ;
                                                                               CO
                                                                                I
(1)  H  = 290 to 320°F
(1)  L  = 240 to 260°F
(2)  F = 50%  by weight less than 6 microns
(2)  C = 50%  by weight less than 17  microns
(3)  In-Situ  at Precipitator Inlet

-------
                         -149-
calcium reported as calcium oxide, as a function of the



amount and particle size of the limestone fed into the



boiler.  Using the measured inlet grain loadings and



gas volumes at the precipitator inlet, a rate in tons/hour



of calcium oxide was calculated from the sample analyses.



These were then plotted as a function of limestone feed-



rate in tons/hour in Figure 59.  As expected, the amount



of calcium compounds found at the precipitator inlet is



a function of feedrate.  Unexpected is the randomness



of the data points with respect to particle size of the



limestone.  A regression analysis of Table XXXVIII data



(22 sets) using the form of equation 21, where :






     Y = Calcium oxide at precipitator inlet, tons/hour



     X = Limestone feedrate to boiler, tons/hour






was performed.  The data point from Test 10 was discarded,



since it appears completely alien to the other test data



points and there is no convenient way of determining



whether it is bad or a real point.   The following result



was obtained:





         Y = 0.12 + 0.071X                         (38)



             Correlation Coefficient =0.91



             F - Patio Test Statistic = 99

-------
     1.20
en
<

4J
C
H
C
M
0
*J
    1.00
o
.
  U)
4-
  Ci
  U
U
C
     °-80
     0.60-
     0.40-
     0.20
                                                 Figure  59.

                            CALCIUM OXIDE AT ELECTROSTATIC INLET AS A FUNCTION

                                    OF LIMESTONE FEEDRATE  TO THE BOILER






V '




.
X

r '
_0 2




2


»
n
•
^ Eq. 38


4


6
B


^



3 1
o

X


X
/



D
B



Gas Temp.
Lo Hi
O © No Limestone
Q £} Fine Limestone
i-i Coarse Limestone

0 1

2 1



4 I




D


6
                                                                                                            U1
                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            I
                                         Limestone Feedrate  To  Boiler,  Tons/Hr

-------
                           -151-

   This equation is limited to limestone feedrates in the
   range of 0 to 15 tons/hour.


   The conclusions are that the amount of calcium oxide
   found at the precipitator inlet is significantly related
   to the feedrate in a linear manner, and neither the
   particle size of the limestone or the flue gas tempera-
   ture at the dust collecting system is significant.
B. Examination of Particle Resistivity at the
   Precipitator Inlet as a Function of Calcium Oxide/
   Sulfur Ratio for High and Low Temperature Flue Gas

   In Figure 60, the in-situ particle resistivity at the
   precipitator inlet has been plotted as a function of the
   CaO/S ratio in the particulate.  The high and low flue
   gas temperature ranges are indicated separately.  There
   appears to be no obvious correlation.  However, in
   general, the lower gas temperature data seem, on the
   average, to result in a lower particle resistivity for
   the Svime CaO/S ratio.  Nevertheless, it is concluded
   that while no significant trends are obvious in Figure
   60 relative to resistivity and CaO/S content of the
   particulate, this could suggest that under the con-
   ditions tested, stoichiometry has little or no effect
   on resistivity.


   Generally, the bulk  chemical composition of  the parti-

-------
                                 • Figure  60



                  PARTICLE RESISTIVITY AS A FUNCTION OF THE


                    CaO/S RATIO AT  THE PRECIPITATOR INLET
I
o
•H

-P
tfl

•H

m
01
•H
•u
M
(fl
     1x10
         13
     1x10
         12
1x10
         11
     1x10
         10


























0
0
0 °


o



0
k o
n




o

0 0




O O
o
U o


c







Gas form
O 240-260°F
O 290-320°F


                        2          4           6           8


                    Ratio of CaO/S At  The Precipitator Inlet
                                                               10

-------
                            -153-
   culato and the performance: of t lie pnu: i pi I ill or i-lmlf



   correlation.  An extensive research program into the



   chemical composition and physical nature of the particle



   surface is required.
5. Review of Optical Sensor Data




   A proprietary Research-Cottrell, Inc. optical sensing



   instrument to determine dust concentrations was installed



   on the "B" side of Boiler #10 at Shawnee Station (see



   Figures 14 and 15).   A simplified system diagram is



   shown in Figure 61.   After standardizing with clean gas



   in measuring path and use of slope and intercept controls,



   the dust and reference signals are equal and of opposite



   polarity under a wide range of light source intensities



   when measuring path  is clean.
                           = -EB                      (39)
   With dirty gas, EA decreases with increasing particle



   concentration and -Eg remains constant.








   Summing amplifier adds signals EA and -EB and multiplies



   sum by its gain Gc to provide amplified difference sig-



   nal to recorder.

-------
                           FIGURE 61
               SIMPLIFIED SYSTEM DIAGRAM OF  THE

      RESEARCH-COTTRELL, INC. PROPRIETARY OPTICAL SENSOR
      Normal
Dust   f—O0.9EA
Sensor ^Gain
        Test
                        EA = GA x eA  =  Dust Signal
                             Normal
I  Dirty  Gas Path
I
r£\ Common Light Source
i
i
!  Clean  Air Path
Zero
Test
                                            -<
                                             Gain
                                                     >*v
                                                     O     Output
                                                          5elector
                                                     O
                             Normal
                                               1 Zero
                                                       Ref.
                                                               Recorder
                                                                0 - 10V
                        EB = GB x eB = Reference  Signal
               Reference

-------
                         -155-
      Recorder Reading =  Gc   EA +  (-EB)           (40)







After an installation has been standardized, the refer-



ence signal -Eg is equal to the maximum difference  signal



for that installation.  For 0-5 Ringleman calibration,



full scale recorder voltage =  (Gc)(-EB).  Maximum



summing amplifier output is limited to about 13 volts.







The instrument was operative during the first CES and



second TVA test series.  Component failure  (signal



amplifier) during the second CES test series aborted



further use of the instrument.  Since all TVA tests were



conducted on the "A" side, the correlation of nearly all



the dust loadings with optical readout data are only



qualitative.  (Assumes comparable performance of the



"A" and "B" side precipitators.)  Table XXXIX summarizes



data taken from the recorder charts during the first CES



test series and the second TVA test series.  A plot of



the results (Figure 62) shows a fair correlation between



the recorder chart reading (millivolts) and the precipi-



tator outlet loading  (grains/SCF).  A critical considera-



tion noted in the use of the optical sensor was the



necessity for cleaning the lenses of the monitor period-



ically (at least daily).  This requirement is evidenced



by the two separate curves shown in Figure 62.

-------
                        -156-
                    TA1JLE XXXIX
DATA TAKEN FROM THE OPTICAL SENSOR  RECORDER CHARTS
Test
No.
1A(CES)
2A
5A
313
413
5B
38 (TVA)
39
40
42
43
44
4G
47
48
50
51
52
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
(.:>
(>••]
Gb
G(>
68
69
70
72
73
74
Chart Reading
(Millivolts)
1.8
2.8
2.5
3.7
3.7
2.7
3.1
3.7
3.0
2.9
3.5
4.0
2.8
3.3
3.6
1.9
2.6
3.2
1.1
2.4
2.3
1.6
2.0
2.1
1.2
1.9
1.4
2.4
3.1
1.6
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.9
4.0
ESP Outlet
Loading
(gr/SCF)
0.036
0.321
0.112
0.227
0.328
0.045
0.270
0.416
0.207
0.126
0.263
0.319
0.080
0.313
0.329
0.099
0.146
0.228
0.49
0.362
0.333
0.087
L 0.246
0.278
0.097
0.243
0.094
0.363
0.418
0.211
0.319
0.352
0.129
0.162
0.213
Type
Firing
Coal



r;

Coal + Additive
*
Coal
f
Coal + Additive
\
Coal
Coal + Additive
\
Coal
Coal + Additive
f
Coal
Coal + Additive
|
Coal
Coal + Additive
1
Coal
Coal + Additive
Coal
Coal + Additive
I
Coal
Coal + Additive
t
Coal
Coal + Additive
*
Condition
3f Optical
Sensor
Lenses
Dirtv


































Clean











.-











-
»
Dirtv


Lime- (l)
stone
Addition
Rate
0



Y1
V
Medium
Hiqh
0
0
Medium
High
0
Medium
Hiqh
0
Medium
Hiqh
0
Low
Low
0
Low
Low
0
Low
0
Medium
Hiqh
0
Low
Medium
0
Low
Medium
     (1)
        Low = 1 to 3.5 tons/hour
        Medium = 4.5 to 5.5 tons/hour
        High = 9 to 10 tons/hour

-------
   4.0-i-
 i
r^
•H
                                               FIGf  •? 62


                                 DATA  OBTAINED ON PARTICIPATE LOADING

                                       USING  AN OPTICAL MONITOR
                                                        'B'
                                                                      r*
c  3.0
             •B
                                       A
                                    a
                                                                            L]
                                                                                             O
C
•
C

CO
c
o
•r-!
2.0.
   1.0-
                                                         A
                        O
                                              O
                                     C
                 U O  No Limestone

                 A ^  Lo Limestone

                 D O  Medium Limestone

                 O O  Hi Limestone
              Clean
               Lens
                                                                    \.
                                                                      Di
                                                                    irty
                                                                    Lens
                                                                  I
                                                                 0.30
                          0.10
0.20
0.40
                             Electrostatic Precipitator Outlet  Loading, Grain/SCF
                               ("A" side, except where  indicated at  data point)

-------
                           -158-
Figure 63  is a typical section of the optical sensor



recorder chart showing various boiler and dust collec-



tor operating modes, e.g. coal firing only, response



when additive is started and stopped, precipitator



rapping puffs, boiler soot blowing, etc.   This parti-



cular section of chart covers the time period beginning



about 8:30AM on July 1, 1970 and running continuously



til about 3:00PM on July 3, 1970.  During this time



period, TVA was running tests 37 through 44 from their



second test series on the "A" side precipitator.  Per-



tinent operating conditions are noted on the chart



(Figure 6"3', pages 159 through 165).  As can be seen on



this chart, the optical sensor provides a good qualita-



tive indication of boiler  and dust collecting equipment



operation.  However, additional refinements and evalua-



tion are necessary for its modification into a quanti-



tative particulate monitoring instrument.

-------
                         -159-
                        1 of 7
    A .
   •X  -•,  ,     ;.  :

                   •t!
rzrr:7?~nir"T~ "rirr
    IT             it  1:

                                    10:/I 3 AM
Peaks are rapping  losses
from third section of
precipitator.

                                          FIGURE 63
                               TYPICAL OPTICAL SENSOR CHART

                                    ON  SHAWNEE flO ROLLER

                                 ("B" SIDE)  WITH AND WITHOUT

                                    LIMESTONE INJECTJ ON

                                     10:40 AM
                                     Chart Speed  =  2"/Minute
                               Boiler  Load  =143  MW
                               Coal Ash  = 18. 3%
                               Coal Sulfur  =2.7%
                               Pptr. Eff. = 85.8%
                               Pptr. Outlet Loading
                     = 0.27 qr/SCF
                                    8:40 AM   (July  1,  T'70)
                                    Start  -  Chart ;-;•••••!    1 "/!'>-.ur
                               Limestone Fend  Rate    ''•>.'.>  Ton--./l:on
                      (IJOTH:  0 to  10  r.i M i

-------
                           -160-
                                                          2 of 7

                                       3:20 PM
                                       Normal Coal Firing
   " "' ' ' '    *
          ^. •-^•.v.r;^:^J^ ' -•	{—;—!—\~^~A
   1 ' i 1 -•. -- i. •..••K
  _i 1 ' —'''V"-ri»ii=
     '    "-^-

        flffi'': i i I !-N4-~H
        '• '.., ' !'«'».	'	'	:	'

                                       Limestone Feed  Off
                                       1:20 PM
                               Boiler  Load = 144 MW
                               Coal Ash = 15.4%
                               Coal Sulfur =3.0%
                               Pptr. Eff. = 78.2%
                               Pptr. Outlet Loading = 0.42 gr/SCF


                                       11:45 AM
                               Limestone  Feed Rate = 10.0 tons/hour
•10:45% AM
Chart Speed =  l"/hour
                                      Rapping  Loss
                                     10:44 AM  (July 1, 1970)
2         4

   MILLIVOLTS

-------
                                       -161-
                       £:£3§BB
L.,.-......- L-4- ,	r_ .. ,_i	.*-- -5,
r • '  ... ..!_•!	. T •_	=»r-:- -s
              .._._.. .,.  —   ^

                 I *
                -•
-------
                         -162-
    4 of  7


               -I—^
     -,_ »- —TS^. 1--
      it- r^j^^^*^	„__. ^	i	i
                                     10:00  AM
                                     Normal Coal Firing
                              Boiler Load  = 142 MW
                              Coal Ash  = 17.7%
                              Coal Sulfur  =3.4%
                              Pptr. Eff. = 91.3%
                              Pptr. Outlet Loading
= 0.13 gr/SCF
                                    6:00 AM
                                     2:00 AM (July 2, 1970)
2         4

 MILLIVOLTS

-------
                                  -163-
                                                                 5 of  7
q:
! -i
14-'
 3x"]~3:
-H-r1-!	r
                 jfc
                 '.
        u	

   U—
   ii
               — '<:
                                            7:00 PM
                -
             - ' -  :"   i
           L'~:   ^WT  ~ '-'-
    _U.
J.I i

                "I—l^e -^T5?"" ;  I !  i~T~ "
                                              Normal  Coal  Firing
                                              During  This  Period
                                             Limestone Feed Off
                                             2:40 PM
                                      Boiler  Load = 144 MW
                                      Coal Ash = 15.9%
                                      Coal Sulfur =2.7%
                                      Pptr. Eff.  = 85.3%
                                      Pptr. Outlet Loading. = 0.32 gr/SCF
                                      Limestone Feed Rate = 9.5 Tons/Hour
                                              12:50  PM
                                      Boiler Load = 143 MW
                                      Coal Ash = 16.1%
                                      Coal Sulfur = 3.0%
                                      Pptr. Eff. = 82.7%
                                      Pptr. Outlet Loading  =0.26 gr/SCF
                                      Limestone Feed Rate =4.5  Tons/Hour
                                             10:55 AM  (July 2,  1970)
          2         4

           MILLIVOLTS

-------
                             -164-
                                                           6  of  7
rti
                                        5:00 AM  (July  3,  1971)

    2         4
     MILLIVOLTS
                                         Normal Coal Firing
                                         During This Period
                                        1:00 AM  (July 3, 1970)
                                         Normal Coal Firing
                                         During This Period
                                       8:00 PM  (July 2,  1970)

-------
                        -165-
                                                      7 of 7



;

i i 1

— - -








1




_j-j — L














' t
•
' -4
.-i. ' ; I


^j
2         4
  MILLIVOLTS
                                      Boiler Soot Blowing

        .•—			•
                                 12:00 PM
                                     Normal Coal Firing
                                     During This Period
                                    6:00 AM  (July 3, 1970)

-------
                                 -166-
VII. TECHNO-ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES FOR
     MAINTAINING THE STACK EMISSION RATE WITH LIMESTONE
     INJECTION EQUIVALENT TO A BASELINE CONDITION OF NO LIME-
     STONE INJECTION

     The baseline conditions for no limestone injection used in
     this evaluation were determined by first selecting a coal
     having between 2.5 and 3.5% sulfur as being typical of
     that burned at the Shawnee Station.  Then the boiler and
     electrostatic precipitator operating parameters were estab-
     lished by averaging test results obtained by the Tennessee
     Valley Authority in 1970 when this type of sulfur coal was
     fired.  (Table XL summarizes these results.)  The mechani-
     cal collector performance was established by averaging
     test results obtained by Cottrell Environmental Systems in
     1969.   (Table V.)   The average baseline conditions obtained
     in this manner for Shawnee Station were - (1)  a boiler
     burning 2.8% sulfur and 15.5% ash coal at a rate of 63.3
     tons/hour,  resulting in a 141 megawatt load and a flue gas
     volume of 570,000 cfm at 309°F having a particulate load-
     ing of 3.32 grains/SCF (70°F and 29.9"Hg)  at the inlet to
     the particulate collection system; (2) a particulate
     collection system consisting of a 57.4% efficient cyclone
     followed by a 91.3% efficient electrostatic precipitator
     (precipitation rate parameter of 0.39 FPS) resulting in
     an overall efficiency of 96.3% and a stack emission rate
     of 0.122 grains/SCF or 412 pounds/hour.

-------
                       TABLE XL

 SUMMARY OF 1970 TVA TEST RESULTS USED IN ESTABLISHING

  BASELINE BOILER AND PARTICULATE COLLECTOR OPERATING

        PARAMETERS FOR NO-LIMESTONE INJECTION
(1)
Test
No.
42
46
50
54
58
61
64
68
72
Avg.
ESP Particulate
Loading (gr/scf)
Inlet
1 .446
1.392
1.559
1.465
1.737
1.119
1 .449
1.463
1 .119
1.416
Outlet
0. 126
0.102
0.099
0.149
0.087
0.097
0.094
0.214
0.129
0. 122
ESP
Efficiency
91.3
92.6
93.7
89.8
94.9
91 .6
93.4
85.6
88.5
91.3
Flue Gas
Temp.
C°F.)
316
306
307
310
304
304
310
309
311
309
Gas
Volume ,
(ACFMxlO )
306
295
289
285
279
302
294
287
227
285
(2)
Coal Analysis(%)
Sulfur
3.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.6
3.1
2.5
2.5
2.8
Ash
17.7
17.1
14.0
13.7
14.0
13.8
14.2
14.8
20.2
15.5
Pptn.
Rate
Parameter
• (FPS)
0.41
0.43
0.37
0.36
0.46
0.42
0.44
0.31
0.27
0.39
Boiler
Load
(MW)
142
142
142
140
142
141
142
140
139
141
Coal
Firing
Rate
(tons/hr)
64 .0
64.0
64.0
62.5
64.0
63.0
64.0
62.5
62.0
63.3
(1)  Tests  run with no limestone injection and a precipitator
    sparking  rate of about 150/min.

(2)  Tests  with coal sulfur between 2.5 and 3.5%.

-------
                           -168-
For purposes of this evaluation, an injection stoichiometry
of 2.0 moles of CaO/mole S in the coal was established.


Using the baseline condition of 63.3 tons/hour of 2.8%
sulfur coal, a limestone injection rate of 11.1 tons/hour
was calculated.


Five basic alternatives were considered in the techno-
economic evaluation, i.e. size modification of the presently
installed dust collecting system, use of a "hot" electro-
static precipitator, gas cooling ahead of the dust
collecting system, gas conditioning ahead of the dust
collecting system, and type of electrical energization for
the precipitator.
1. Size Modification of the Presently Installed Dust
   Collecting System

   Examination of the performance data of the mechanical
   collector without and with coarse or fine limestone
   injection shows no significant differences, i.e.  the
   removal efficiency was essentially unaffected,  ranging
   on the average between 50 and 60% removal.  However,
   the particulate loading at the mechanical inlet and
   outlet will vary with the coal ash content and amount

-------
                        -169-
of additive injection.  The mechanical outlet-electro-



static inlet loading, as a function of limestone feed-



rate, has been shown previously in Figure 46.  The



performance of the precipitator is significantly affected



by the particle size of the limestone injected (Table



XXX) with the coarse giving the higher precipitation



rate parameter.  Accordingly, the overall efficiency



and the resulting emission rate from the stack will be



a significant function of the electrostatic precipita-



tor performance and inlet particulate loading only.  For



purposes of comparing required size modifications for




the baseline no injection, and the coarse or fine lime-



stone injection cases, it has been assumed that the



precipitation rate parameter is unaffected in the 290



to 310°F flue gas temperature range.  Using data con-



tained in Figures 19 or 46, and Tables XXX or XL, a



precipitator size modification and cost evaluation has



been made for the presently installed dust collecting



system.  Results are summarized in Table XLI.








The estimated precipitator capital cost (installed) of



$5.25/ft2 of collecting plate area includes the base



precipitator flange to flange, support steel, insulation,



foundations, and labor to supervise and install the



precipitator.  It does not include the ash handling

-------
                           -170-
                        TABLF XI. f

SUMMARY 01'  IJLIiCTRO STATIC PR PC 1 P J TATOK  SIZI. MOD1I-1 TCA'I IONS

  AND COS'IS  FOR  1'IIP  1'RI.S1 NTI.Y TNSTM.Ll'H  DUST COLLECT I \'G

   SYSTLM  Rf.QUIRi: 1)  TO MAINTAIN A STACK  EMISSION RAT I.

     EQUIVALENT  10  BASl'.LINi: NO-I.1MCSTO.\T INJECTION

                     (ESP Follows MC)
Condi 1 1 on

Flue Gas Temperature , °F .
Sulfur Feed Rate, tons/hr^ •*
Limestone Feed Rate, tons/hr
Injection Stoichiometry ,
moles CaO/molc S
Gas Volume, ACFM
(21
Pptr. Inlet Loading, gr/cf
@ 70F f, 29.9"Hg
Pptr. Outlet Loading, gr/cf
§ 70F 5 29.9"Hg
Pptr. Efficiency, %
Power Density, KW/1000 ft2 ^
Precipitation Rate, FPS^4'
Precipitator Area1, Ft
Pptr. Sizei'^actor
X Base Size
Pptr. Capital Cost (Installed) ^
$/KW
Baseline No
Limestone
Injection

309
1 .77
0
0
570,000
1 .416
0.122
91.3
0.70
0.39
59,400
1.0
2.21
Conrse
Limestone
Injection

309
1 .77
11 . 1
2
570,000
3.10
0.122
96.1
0. 23
0.36
85,800
1.45
3.21
Fine
Limes tone
Injection

309
1 . 77
11.1
2
570,000
3. 10
0. 122
96.1
0. 15
0.16
193,000
3.25
7.20
  (1) Based on  63.3  tons/hr of coal @  2.8%  sulfur.

  (2) Taken from  Figure 46 or Table XL.

  (3) Taken from  Figure 19 or Table XXX.

  (4) Taken from  Table XL or XXX.
  (5) Based on  a  boiler load of 141 megawatts and
      prccipitator  capital cost (installed)  as defined
      in the  text.  ($5.25/ft2 collecting  plate area).

-------
                          -171-




   system and any mark-up for profit which can vary widely,



   depending upon the vendor.
2. Installation of a "Hot" Precipitator




   The use of a straight "hot" precipitator at 600°F (air



   heater inlet gas temperature)  would eliminate the dust



   resistivity problem and, whether limestone is injected



   or not, the precipitation rate parameter would be con-



   stant, e.g. in the range of 0.3 FPS.








   Theoretical considerations show the precipitation



   rate parameter is a function of particle size.  How-



   ever, practical experience has shown that this does



   not become important until the size approaches the



   submicron range.  Therefore the injection of coarse



   or fine limestone which had little material in this



   range will not affect the precipitation rate parameter



   substantially.








   Adjusting the baseline gas volume to 600°F and elimi-



   nating the mechanical collector (assume 57.4% effic-



   ient on fly ash and 55% efficient on fly ash plus



   limestone reaction products),  the new precipitator



   inlet gas volume and particulate loadings would be



   788,000 ACFM and 3.32 grains/SCF for no injection,



   and 6.88 grains/SCF for 2X stoichiometric injection.



   On the basis of the above assumptions, a "hot" pre-



   cipitator has been sized and costed that would reduce



   .particulate emissions to 0.122 grains/SCF.  Results



   are surttmarized in Table XLII.

-------
                        -172-
                     TABLE XLII
        SUMMARY  OF  THE "HOT" PRECIPITATOR SIZING
       AND COSTING  FOR SHAWNEE STATION BOILER #10
          WITH AND  WITHOUT LIMESTONE INJECTION
                (Straight  Precipitator)
Condition

Flue Gas Temperature, °F.
Sulfur Feed Rate, tons/hr
Limestone Feed Rate, tons/hr
Injection Stoichiometry ,
moles CaO/mole S
Gas Volume, ACFM
Pptr. Inlet Loading, gr/cf
@ 70F § 29.9"Hg
Pptr. Outlet Loading, gr/cf
@ 70F § 29.9"Hg
Precipitator Efficiency, %
Precipitator Rate, FPS
2
Precipitator Area, Ft
Precipitator Capital Cost^
(installed), $/KW
No Limestone
In j ect ion

600
1.77
0
0
788.000
3.32
0.122
96.3
0.30
144.500
5.85
Coarse or Fine
Limestone
Inj ection

600
1 .77
11 .1
2
788.000
6.88
0. 122
98.2
0.30
176.000
7 .10
(1)  Based  on  a  boiler load of  141  megawatts  and
    precipitator capital  cost  (installed)  of
    $5.70/ft2 collecting  plate area.

-------
                           -173-
3. Gas Cooling Ahead of the Dust Collecting System
   With an alkaline additive injected into the gas stream
   which removes most of the sulfur trioxide by chemical
   reaction, it is possible to design a dust collecting
   system to operate at about 250°F without danger of
   corrosion due to sulfuric acid condensation.  Since the
   present system, normally operates about 300°F, it would
   be necessary to cool the gas about 50°F.  This could be
   accomplished by the addition of more heat transfer sur-
   face or possibly by injection of atomized water with
   the added benefit of moisture conditioning.  Table XLIII
   summarizes results of an evaluation using gas cooling
   ahead of the dust collecting system.
4.  Gas Conditioning Ahead of the Dust Collecting System
   The use of conditioning agents,  such as sulfur trioxide
   (sulfuric acid), to reduce dust  resistivity and improve
   precipitator performance is well known.  However,  with
   the addition of large amounts of alkali,  the condition-
   ing affect may be cancelled.   Nevertheless, if the
   additive surface has been sulfated ahead of the condi-
   tioning injection point, it may  still be possible  to
   improve precipitator performance by sulfur trioxide
   addition.  On this basis, and assuming the precipitation
   rate with coarse or fine limestone injection will  be
   improved to the no limestone level, a size and cost of
   a precipitator for limestone injection has been determined.

-------
                  -174-
               TABLH XLIII
 SUMMARY OF GAS COOLING AS AN OPTION FOR

   COARSE OR FINE LIMESTONE INJECTION
Condition

Flue Gas Temperature, F
Sulfur Feed Rate, Tons/Hour
Limestone Feed Rate, Tons/Hour
Injection Stoichiometry ,
Moles CaO/Mole S
Gas Volume, ACFM
Pptr. Inlet Loading, gr/cf '
@ 70°F 5 29.9"Hg
Pptr. Outlet Loading, gr/cf
@ 70°F 5 29.9"Hg
Precipitator Efficiency, %
Power Density, KW/1000 Ft2
Precipitation Rate, FPS
Precipitation Area, Ft2
Pptr. Capital Cost (Installed) (1^
$/KW
Coarse
Limestone
Inj ection

250
1. 77
11. 1
2
526,000
3.10
0. 122
96. 1
0.51
0.41
69,30*0
2.58
Fine
Limestone
In j ection

250
1. 77
11. 1
2
526,000
3. 10
0. 122
96. 1
0. 30
0.31
92,300
3.44
'Based on a boiler load of 141 megawatts
 and precipitator capital cost (installed)
 of $5.25/ft2 collecting plate area.

-------
                           -175-
   At 3098F, with a precipitation rate of 0.39 FPS and a



   required efficiency of 96.1% for 570,000 ACFM,  the



   collecting area is 70,000 ft2.  The precipitator capital



   cost (installed)  per kilowatt generated is $2.94.
5.  Electrical Energization of the Precipitator



   Basically the precipitator electrical system consists



   of the electrical load (precipitator),  the power con-



   version equipment (high voltage power supply),  and the



   power control equipment (low voltage control).   Single



   stage industrial gas-cleaning precipitators are



   generally energized by H-V direct current which is



   derived from commercial alternating current power



   supply lines.  Power conversion is accomplished in



   the H-V power supply by means of A-C voltage trans-



   formation and H-V rectification, usually without



   ripple filtering.  Precipitator energization is con-



   trolled by the L-V control which regulates electrical



   input to the H-V power supply.  The combination of a



   H-V power supply and its associated L-V control is



   commonly called an electrical set.  Most large  pre-



   cipitators are internally subdivided to provide a



   number of isolated electrical sections  or collecting



   zones.  These precipitator subdivisions are made



   longitudinally, transversely, or in a longitudinal/

-------
                         -176-








 transverse arrangement in relation to precipitator gas



 flow stream.   Each section or collecting zone represents



 a discrete electrical load requiring an electrical set



 for energization.








 A single stage precipitator is essentially a gaseous



 electrical discharge device which in most cases is



 operated at pressures close to atmospheric and tem-



 peratures ranging  from ambient to several hundred



 degrees.  As  such  it has a non-linear voltacre-



 current characteristic with discontinuities as illus-



 trated in Figure 64.  Except for insulator leakage,



 negligible current flows until sufficient voltage



 exists between the discharge electrode and the



 collecting electrode to initiate a corona discharge-



(corona starting voltagej   Increasing the voltage



 above the corona start point causes precipitator



 current to rise sharply until the voltage becomes



 sufficiently  high  to cause random,  momentary spark-




 over "snaps"  between the discharge electrode and the



 collecting surface,  (sparking region)   At this point



 the gaseous discharge is highly unstable and can



 readily transfer from the sparking mode to the power



 arc mode.  The power arc mode is characterized by



 sustained low voltage and heavy currents which are



 limited only  by the power supply system impedance.

-------
                           -177-
                        FIGURE 64


TYPICAL PRECIPITATOR VOLTAGE VS CURRENT CHARACTERISTIC

    c
    4)  .
    H
    U
               Power Arc
                                               Sparking
                                               Region
                                               Corona
                                               Region
                   Voltage - KV

-------
                        -178-
The corona region just prior to and slightly into the



sparking region is the useful portion of the precipi-



tator voltage-current characteristic for particu-



late collection.  Fundamental research has shown



that precipitator performance is initially dependent



upon maintaining the highest possible voltage on the



precipitator electrode system.  It has also been



shown that some benefits are gained by operation



under controlled sparking conditions again due to



higher operating voltage.  Normally the discharge



electrode is operated with negative polarity be-



cause negative corona permits higher voltage op-



eration before sparkover than positive polarity.








Basically the voltage levels required are a function



of the precipitator electrode geometry - including



discharge electrode cross-sectional size and shape



and the discharge wire to collecting surface spacing.



The current flow, at a given voltage, is a function




of the size of the precipitator section - being de-



pendent upon the discharge electrode length and



collecting surface area.  In practice, corona voltage



and current levels are further modified by plant



operating conditions such as:  type and concentration,



temperature, and pressure; and electrode deposits



and alignment.

-------
                        -179-
Actual precipitator electrode configurations are



selected to permit stable corona conditions and



relatively high sparking voltages in addition to



practical considerations of durability and economy.



Since sparking voltage is generally governed by the



closest discharge electrode to collecting electrode



spacing, it has been found that electrical section-



alization of a large precipitator permits higher



operating voltages and reduces dust loss due to an



individual sparkover.  Differences in particulate



concentration throughout the precipitator also affect



the corona and sparking characteristics.  Thus,



sectionalization permits each treating zone to be



energized more closely to ideal levels for the par-



ticular zone.







Back corona is a description term applied to a very



undesirable gaseous discharge phenomena which occurs



in precipitators treating particulate matter having



resistivities greater than '•'lO   ohm-cm.  Under this



condition, a corona discharge occurs on the dust



layer on the collecting electrode as well as the



discharge electrode.







With negative polarity, the typical electrical charac-



teristic of the precipitator is drastically altered by

-------
                        -180-










back corona.  The sparkover voltage for the precipi-



tator is lowered to 50% or less than normal and a



stable heavy-current, low-voltage discharge can occur.



In this latter case, rated current flows at perhaps



30% or less of the voltage normally associated with



the electrode structure.  Needless to say, particu-



late collection falls far below design with back



corona because of the low interelectrode voltage.



Normal corona on the discharge electrodes appears



as sharply defined tufts of light which lie along



straight lines, formed by the wires.  The back



corona appears as more diffuse tufts of light



randomly spread over the collecting electrode area.








Traditionally, back corona problems have been alle-



viated by:  reducing particulate resistivity by process



change; use of conditioning agents; and increased pre-



cipitator sectionalization.  It has been found that



back corona conditions can also be solved by con-




trolling the voltage wave shape.  This is possible



since a time factor, quite analogous to that of a



capacitor, is involved in the establishment of back



corona.  Thus, use of impulse voltages provides



means to raise spark-over and peak operating vol-



tage under back corona conditions.

-------
                    -181-
Radar type pulse systems which provide sharply



rising voltage pulses have been experimentally



applied and found advantageous in high-resistivity



problem areas.  However their commercial applica-



tion has so far been precluded by:  general lack



of understanding, economy, apparatus complexity,



and certain electrical component deficiencies.







As previously mentioned, large precipitators are



normally subdivided into discrete electrical sec-



tions.  Figure 65 (a) shows typical precipitator



energization arrangements for a sectionalized



precipitator.  The Figure 65 (b) arrangement is



often beneficial since gas inlet sections tend to



operate at lower corona power levels  (high vol-



tage, low current, heavy sparking) as compared



to gas outlet sections.  Half wave energization



does have the disadvantage that dissimilar sec-



tions cannot be properly energized - the energiza-



tion level is limited by the power section.  Also



it has been found in certain high-power electrical



set arrangements (50KW or larger sets) that a spark



transient disturbance in one HW section can cause



magnetic circuit unbalance which unduly prolong



the disturbance.

-------
                      FIGURE 65
          TYPICAL PRECIPITATOR ENERGIZATION ARRANGEMENTS
      Precipitator
     Precipitator

Gas 	
Inlet















-
-

-








]
1

" "• f ~









-
-

-







«••





^ if

Gas 	
Inlet


jX High Voltage Power Supplie.





s^





V
IB


_

^



•••

./
!
i
~*
!









-

_





•^

*-





^.




i
M
00
NJ
1

   9929
Electrical

1

T
i
i * .
T

T
)<4/j^-Low Voltage Controls . 	 .,
Electrical
T





1
Input Input
  Figure 65(a)
All Sections Full-Wave
  Figure 65(b)
Half-lVave Inlet  Sections
Full-Wave Outlet Sections

-------
                       -I H 1-
During the present test program, all precipitator



sections were energized full wave.  Possible per-



formance .improvement might be achieved by nore



sectionalization, half wave or pulse energization.



Additional testing is required to establish this.

-------
                                -184-
VIII.   RECOMMENDATIONS




       Although the use of dry limestone injection into the boiler



       hot gases,  as a means of significantly reducing sulfur



       oxide emissions, appears to be only a stop gap measure use-



       ful in existing power plant boilers,  the deleterious affects



       on electrostatic precipitator performance are analogous to



       those experienced when burning low sulfur coals, particularly



       the sub-bituminous western coals.   In view of this  more



       general problem, it is recommended that further experimental



       work be performed.








       1.  The present test program has clearly shown the affect of



       corona input power density on the precipitation rate para-



       meter.   The most critical variable that determines  corona



       power is the particulate resistivity.   There are basically



       four ways of combating high resistivity,  i.e.  use of a large



       precipitator,  use of some form of conditioning such as



       moisture, ammonia, sulfur trioxide, etc.,  control the flue



       gas temperature entering the precipitator,  or change the



       voltage waveform of electrical energization and/or  increase



       sectionalization.   The first three have been the subject of



       numerous investigations, however,  the latter,  although



       known to be effective, has never been really investigated



       using a carefully planned experimental program.  Accordingly,



       it is recommended that this be done using fullwave, half-

-------
                           -185-
wave and pulse energization along with variations in sec-



tional izat ion.







2. The fact that precipitator performance during the special



low sulfur coal tests of this program was as good or better



than when firing the higher sulfur coals points out the



need for establishing additional means other than coal sul-



fur for predicting expected performance.  Recent experi-


                                  (14)
mental work by the Bureau of Minesx  ' has correlated the



ratio of Nf o + so  in tne asn to resistivity.  Also, the



     of the ash alone appears to be significant.
It is recommended that experimental work relating precipi-



tator performance to coal ash and fly ash chemical con-



stituents be performed.







3. Recent state particulate emission codes are establishing



stack opacity as a means of determining compliance.  There-



fore, it is recommended that further work in quantifying an



optical sensor, such as the Research-Cottre11 instrument,



be undertaken.

-------
                          -186--
                        BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1)  Tennessee Valley Authority,  Results  Report No.  54,
    "Electrostatic Flyash Collector Performance Test,
    Shawnee Steam Plant Unit  10",  July  9 -  August 6,  1969

    Tennessee Valley Authority,  Results  Report No.  62,
    "Electrostatic Flyash Collector Performance with  Lime-
    stone Injection, Shawnee  Steam Plant Unit  10",  June 9
    July  15,  1970.
(2)  Southern Research Institute,  Final  Report to  FPA,
    Office  of Air Programs,  Contract  CPA70-149,  "A  Study
    of Resistivity and Conditioning of  Fly  Ash",  PP 84-96.
(3)  Walker,  A.  B.,  "Effects  of  Desulfurization  Dry  Addi-
    tives  on the  Design  of Coal-Fired  Boiler  Particulate
    Emission Control  Systems",  paper presented  at the  73rd
    Annual General  Meeting of the  CIM,  Quebec City,
    April  1971.
(4) Attig,  R.  C.  and  Sedor,  P.,  "Additive  Injection  for
   Sulfur  Dioxide  Control  - A  Pilot  Plant Study", B&W
   Research Center Report  5960,  PHS  Contract  No.  86-67-127
(5) McLean,  Kenneth J.,  "An  Evaluation  of  the  Kevatron
   Model  223  Electrostatic  Precipitator Analyser",
   July,  1971.
(6)  White,  H.  J.  "Industrial  Electrostatic  Precipitation"
    Addison Wesley,  1963,  LC  No.  62-18240.
(7)  Sproull,  W.  T.,  "Laboratory  Performance  of  a  Special
    Two-Stage Precipitator  for Collecting  High  Resistivity
    Dust and  Fume",  American  Chemical  Society,  New  York,
    N.  Y.,  September 1954.


(8)  Busby,  H. G.  T.,  "Efficiency of  Electrostatic Precipi-
    tators  as Affected by the Properties and Combustion of
    Coal",  Journal  of the Institute  of Fuel, May, 1963.

-------
                            -187-
 (9)  Lowe,  II.  J. , et  al,  "The  Precipitation of Difficult
     Dusts",  Institute of  Electrical Engineers, Colloquium
     on  Electrostatic Precipitators, February, 1965.
(10)  Robinson, M.  and  Brown, R. F., Letter  to the  Editors,
     "Electrically Supported Liquid Columns in High-
     Pressure Electrostatic Precipitators",  Atmospheric
     Environment,  Volume  5, PP. 895-896, 1971.
(11)  Southern Research  Institute,  "A Manual of Electrostatic
     Precipitator  Technology,  Part I - Fundementals  and
     Part  II - Application Areas",  prepared for  the  NAPCA
     under Contract  CPA-22-69-73,  August  25,  1970.
(12)  Shepard,  J.  C.,  "Field Resistivity Measurements  at  a
     Midwest Utility  Burning  Low Sulfur Coal"  (unpublished
     Research-Cottrell,  Inc.  report, August, 1972).


(13)  Pfoutz, B. D.,  "Precipitator  Performance  and  Sulfur
     Emission  from Pulverized Coal Fired  Boilers with
     Dolomite  Injection"  (unpublished Research-Cottrell,  Inc,
     report, June, 1967).
(14)  Selle,  S. J., Tufte, P. H., and Gronhovd, G.  H.,  "A
     Study of the Electrical Resistivity of Fly Ashes  From
     Low-Sulfur Western Coals Using Various Methods",
     Bureau  of Mines,  U.S.  Department  of the  Interior,
     Grand Forks, N.D., Paper #72-107,  65th Annual Meeting
     APCA, Miami Beach, Florida, June,  1972.

-------
                         	188-
                                TECHNICAL RtPORT DATA
                          (l'lfn\i' rriiiJ liiilini ii-iii\ tin llu ri'\ CM< In /»/<• <
I  Id i-nii I at}
 KPA-050/2-74r053
•t 1 1 ii
Particulate Collection Study, EPA/TVA Full-Scale
 Dry  Limestone Injection Tests
 R.F. Brown
9 PERFORMING OROANI2A1 ION NAME ANO ADDRESS

 Cottrell Environmental Systems, Inc.
 Division of Research-Cottrell, Inc.
 P.O. Box 750,  Bound Brook,  NJ 08805
                                                      3. RLCiriLNrS ACCESSIOIVNO
                                                      5 rui'unr DATb
                                                      June 1974
                                                      G PUirORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                      8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION HfcPORT NCI
                                                      9606
                                                     10 PRCiGRAM LLEMbNI NO
                                                     1AB013: ROAP 21ACY-016
                                                     11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO

                                                     CPA 22-69-139
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

EPA, Office of Research and Development
NERC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                     13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                     Final; Through 5/73	
                                                     14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
          The report evaluates a particulate control system--a mechanical-cyclone/
electrostatic-precipitator (ESP) combination on TVA/Shawnee's full-scale No.  1?
boiler—with and without injecting dry limestone into the boiler for SO2 removal.  The
study determined the effects of dry injection and evaluated modification alternatives
(including cost benefits) to maintain particulate emissions with injection equivalent
to baseline particulate emissions (412 Ibs/hr and 570,000 cfm at 309F, with 2. 8%
sulfur and 15. 5% ash coal-firing) without injection. Cyclone performance did not vary
substantially with limestone injection: efficiencies remained about 50-60%.  Generally,
ESP performance was adversely affected by dry injection. Cost estimates for size
modification to the currently installed ESP to  maintain baseline emission with dry
injection were considered. With coarse limestone, the present ESP at 309F would
have to be increased in size about 45% to maintain baseline  emissions.  Reducing gas
temperature to about 250F will increase the size only  about 17%. With fine limestone,
size increases at 309F and 250F would be 225% and 56%, respectively.  For the grass-
roots plant, a cold (250F) ESP appears  to be the best option on a cost basis.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                          I) IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                     COSATI I iLlil/Oroup
Air Pollution
Dust  Collectors
Limestone
Coal
Combustion
Boilers
                   Sulfur Oxides
                   Cost Analysis
                   Cyclone Separators
                   Electrostatic Precip-
                     itators
                   Sulfur
                   FlvAsh	
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Dry Limestone Injection
Particulates
13B
13A, 14A
     07A
2 ID
2 IB
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Unlimited
                                         19 SECURITY CLASS (Ilia Report)
                                         Unclassified
                                                                   21
                           NO Ol I'AGES
                              197
                                          20 SECURITY CLASS (Tins page)
                                          Unclassified
                                                                   22 PRICE
CPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------