EPA-600/2-77-155b
December 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
ST. LOUIS DEMONSTRATION FINAL REPORT:
POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-155b
December 1977
ST. LOUIS DEMONSTRATION FINAL REPORT: POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT,
FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
by
P. G. Gorman
L. J. Shannon
M. P. Schrag
.D. E. Fiscus
Environmental Systems Section
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Contract No. 68-02-1324 and 68-02-1871
Project Officers
Carlton C. Wiles
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
James D. Kilgroe
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
J. Robert Holloway
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land
are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The com-
plexity of that environment and the interplay between its components require
a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion and it involves defining the" problem, measuring its impact, and search-
ing for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and
management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of
public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social,
health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the
products of that research; a most vital communications link between the re-
searcher and the user community.
This report provides the results from the study of environmental emis-
sions resulting from the burning of refuse-derived fuel with coal at the
Union Electric Company's Meramec power plant located near St. Louis, Missouri
and an assessment of the equipment and facilities necessary to receive, trans-
port, and burn refuse-derived fuel. The St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel
Demonstration System is the first such demonstration plant in the U.S. The
information presented in this publication will add to the knowledge required
for future successful utilization of refuse-derived fuel.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the results of the evaluation of the equipment
and facilities for the firing of refuse-derived fuel and the assessment of
the gaseous, aqueous, and solid waste discharges associated with firing
refuse-derived fuel during the St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel Project.
Data collection and testing at the Union Electric Company's Meramec
power plant commenced in October 1974 and continued through November 1975.
A corner fired pulverized coal boiler with a nominal 125 MW generating rate
was used for the test program.
A major portion of the effort was directed to the assessment of the
emissions and potential environmental impacts associated with the burning
of coal plus refuse derived fuel in this boiler, including an assessment
of the efficiency of the electrostatic precipitator used as a pollution
control device. This included evaluation of both conventional pollutants
such as total particulates but also potentially hazardous pollutants.
The test program included sampling and analysis of all input/output
streams including coal, refuse-derived fuel, ash, and water used for bot-
tom ash removal. It also included monitoring the boiler performance, the
electrostatic precipitator performance, the firing system performance, and
documentation and analysis of the costs associated with firing refuse-
derived fuel.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures „ vii
Tables xii
Acknowledgments xxii
Summary 1
Equipment and facilities evaluations 2
Environmental evaluations ..... 3
Electrostatic precipitator performance 11
Introduction 13
Equipment and Facilities Evaluation 16
Description of facilities 17
Discussion of equipment and facilities evaluations 18
Environmental Evaluations of Emissions From Combined Firing of
Coal + RDF ' 25
Test and analysis methodology 27
Discussion of emission test results ..... 48
Analysis of Electrostatic Precipitator Performance 139
Assessment of influence of particulate and ESP parameters on
mass efficiency 139
Fractional efficiency of the ESP 155
Conclusions of analysis of ESP performance 163
References 165
Appendices
A. Specifications and information on refuse handling
equipment at the power plant 167
B. Log of operating hours and amount of refuse burned at
power plant for the period September 1974 through
July 1975 172
C. Union Electric information and test data on pneumatic
conveying line materials 184
D. Union Electric summary of boiler corrosion/erosion
studies to date 190
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
E. Results and data for coal-only nonhazardous tests 193
F. Results and data for coal-only hazardous tests 236
G. Results and data for coal + refuse nonhazardous tests . . . 276
H. Results and data for coal + refuse hazardous tests .... 319
I. Analytical quality assurance ' 391
J. Outlet particle size representations ........... 394
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Schematic diagram of Union Electric facilities to receive,
store, and burn RDF* ................... 14
2 Summary of conventional tests at power plant ........ 26
3 Efficiency curve for Meramec boiler. ............ 32
4 Schematic of sluice box system ••••........... 35
5 Sluice sample container. .................. 36
6 Sluice box sampling system ••••»•••••••••••• 37
7 Schematic diagram of tank and filter assemblies. ...... 39
8 Diagram of sluice solids removal from large receiving tank . 40
9 Sketch of ESP and sampling locations ............ 41
10 Schematic illustration of outlet sampling locations. .... 42
11 Schematic illustration of the ESP inlet sampling points. . . 43
12 Diagram of special sampling train and analysis of samples. • 49
13 Analysis methods for samples from special sampling train . • 50
14 Sluice solids accumulation rate (wet basis) versus electric
power generation ••••.•••.«•••.•••.... 56
15 Sluice solids accumulation (dry matter) versus electric
power generation ..................... 57
16 PPM of GO versus percent excess air. ............ 83
vn
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
17 NOx emissions as a function of boiler load 84
18 PPM NOx versus percent excess air ••••••••••.••• 85
19 S02 emissions as a function of boiler load. 86
20 Inlet and outlet particulate concentrations as a function of
boiler load ................ •• 92
21 Particulate emissions as a function of boiler load 94
22 Barium concentration versus particle size .......... 116
23 Beryllium concentration versus particle size. ........ 117
24 Cadmium concentration versus particle size 119
25 Chromium concentration versus particle size .......•• 121
26 Copper concentration versus particle size .......... 122
27 Lead concentration versus particle size ........... 124
28 Silver concentration versus particle size •••••••••• 126
29 Titanium concentration versus particle size ......... 128
30 Vanadium concentration versus particle size ......... 129
31 Zinc concentration versus particle size .......•••• 130
32 Average of ESP efficiency data. ....... 140
33 ESP efficiency as a function of boiler load 141
34 Averages of inlet particle size data. ....... 144
35 Negative log of ESP penetration versus reciprocal of outlet
gas flow rate ••••••••••••••••••••••• 147
36 Calculated particle migration velocity as a function of
outlet gas flow rate* ••••••••••••••••••• 149
viii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number page
37 Particulate penetration as a function of ESP power input. ... 151
38 ESP efficiency as a function of gas volume flow rate. ..... 154
39 Gas volume flow rate as a function of boiler load ....... 156
40 Averages of 1974 to 1975 outlet particle size data 157
41 Averages of 1973 outlet particle size data. . . 158
42 Fractional efficiency data from 1974 to 1975 tests 159
43 Fractional efficiency data from .1973 tests. .......... 160
44 Fractional efficiency of ESP at three boiler loads—-coal-only
tests, November 1974 161
45 Fractional efficiency of ESP at three load/% RDF combinations—
coal + RDF tests, May 1975. 162
A-l Atlas bin ^79
El-a Mean particulate emission data at ESP outlet 196
El-b Variation of ESP efficiency with changes in boiler load .... 197
Fl-a Mean particle emission data at ESP outlet 240
Fl-b Variation of ESP efficiency with changes in boiler load .... 241
F5-a Plot of Brink inlet size results coal-only hazardous tests. . . 264
F5-b Plot of Andersen outlet size results coal-only hazardous tests. 266
Hl-a ESP performance as a function of boiler load 322
H5-a Schematic illustration of the ESP inlet and outlets 353
H5-b Schematic illustration of the ESP inlet sampling points .... 354
ix
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
H5-c Particle diameter versus weight percent less than stated size
for Brink tests (ESP inlet) 359
H5-d Particle size distribution in metric units (ESP inlet) .... 364
H5-e Particle size distribution in English units (ESP inlet).... 365
H5-f Average particle size distribution in metric units (ESP
inlet) 366
H5-g Average particle size distribution in English units (ESP
inlet) 367
H5-h Schematic illustration of outlet sampling location 368
H5-i Particle diameter versus weight percent less than stated size
for Andersen tests (ESP outlets) 380
H5-j Particulate size distribution in metric units (ESP outlets). . 383
H5-k Particulate size distribution in English units (ESP outlets) . 384
H5-1 Average particulate size distribution in metric units (ESP
outlets) 385
H5-m Average particulate size distribution in English units (ESP
outlets) 386
J-l Differential outlet particle size distributions—December 1973
tests at 80 Mw 395
J-2 Differential outlet particle size distributions—December 1973
tests at 100 Mw 396
J-3 Differential outlet particle size distributions—December 1973
tests at 120 Mw 397
J-4 Differential outlet particle size distributions—November 1973
tests (77 Mw, coal-only) 398
J-5a Differential outlet particle size distributions—November 1974
tests (100 Mw, coal-only) - Part 1 399
-------
FIGURES (Concluded)
Number Page
J-5b Differential outlet particle size distributions—November 1974
tests (100 Mw, coal-only) - Part 2 400
J-6a Differential outlet particle size distributions—November 1974
tests (140 Mw, coal-only) - Part 1 401
J-6b Differential outlet particle size distributions—November 1974
tests (140 Mw, coal-only) - Part 2 402
J-7 Differential outlet particle size distributions—March 1975
tests (110 Mw, coal-only) 403
J-8 Differential outlet particle size distributions—March 1975
tests (140 Mw, coal-only) 404
J-9 Differential outlet particle size distributions—May 1975 tests
(100 Mw, coal + RDF) 405
J-10 Differential outlet particle size distributions—May 1975 tests
(140 Mw, coal + RDF) 406
J-ll Differential outlet particle size distributions—November 1975
tests (133 to 135 Mw, coal + RDF) 407
XI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Capital expenditures - power plant RDF-firing facility. .... 22
2 Summary of operating costs for power plant RDF-firing facility. 23
3 Summary of emission test periods and test conditions. . . . • . 28
4 Request form for power plant operating conditions during air
emissions test* .................. 31
5 Analysis spectrum for conventional and potentially hazardous
pollutant emissions tests ••••«............. 45
6 Analysis methods for conventional tests ............ 46
7 Additional analyses and methods for potentially hazardous pol-
lutant emissions tests. ........ . 47
8 Analysis spectrum for each portion of the special sampling
train ............................ 51
9 Tabulation of RDF feedrates and electrical generation attribu-
table to RDF 53
10 Summary of input/output quantities and analysis ........ 55
11 Coal feed heat input lost to bottom ash ............ 59
12 Summary of calculated values for percent of RDF feed heat input
and RDF ash content that is contained in bottom ash • • . • . 61
13 Comparison of sluice solids analysis data ........... 64
14 Compositional analysis of sluice solids (coal + RDF conventional
tests) 65
xii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
15 Compositional analysis of sluice solids (coal + RDF poten-
tially hazardous pollutant tests)* •...*....... 66
16 Summary of results on evaluation of bottom ash (sluice
solids) .......................... 67
17 Comparison of average water analysis data. ......... 69
18 Summary of potentially hazardous pollutant analyses results
for water samples* .................... 70
19 Sluice water bacterial contamination for coal-firing condi-
tions* ........................... 71
20 Sluice water bacterial contamination for coal + RDF firing
conditions ........................ 72
21 Approximate averages of water analysis data. ........ 74
22 Summary of gaseous sampling and analysis performed in con-
ventional pollutant tests* ................ 78
23 Stack gas composition data by Orsat analysis ........ 80
24 Summary of gaseous pollutant analysis results* ....... 81
25 Representative state and federal regulations for SOjj and
emissions for fuel -burning sources ............ 87
26 Summary of chloride results* ........ ...... . . 88
27 Summary of particulate test data (coal-only) ........ 90
28 Summary of particulate test data (coal + RDF) ........ 91
29 Average particulate loadings over entire range of boiler
load and % RDF, in grams/dncm* .............. 93
30 Representative particulate regulations for fuel-burning
sources with heat input ranging between 527.5-1,055 x 10"
kj/hr ........................... 95
xiii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
31 Summary of general analyses results for potentially
hazardous pollutant tests (by Ralston Purina). ...... 98
32 Summary of emission tests at power plant average of SSMS
analysis data (ppm). ................... 99
33 Summary table of hazardous pollutant analysis during coal-
only and coal 4- RDF tests. ................ 101
34 Summary table of potentially hazardous pollutant analysis
for coal-only and coal + RDF tests—ESP inlet and outlet
sample trains. ............. 102
35 Summary of particulate catch analysis for coal-only and coal
+ RDF potentially hazardous tests--ESP inlet and outlet
sample trains. ............ ..... 103
36 General observations on coal and RDF analyses. ....... 106
37 Comparison of average fly ash analysis data. ........ 107
38 Elemental mass balances in grams per hour. ......... 108
39 Comparison of pollutant concentrations 113
40 Comparison of actual measured concentrations of potentially
hazardous pollutants with 1/100 of TLV 135
41 Comparison of calculated maximum ground level concentrations
of potentially hazardous pollutants with 1/100 of TLV. . . 137
42 Summary of data on fly ash resistivity 145
43 Tabulation of ESP electrical measurements and operating con-
ditions. ......................... 150
xiv
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
A-l Equipment specifications—power plant 167
A-2 Equipment parameters - unloading bin 168
A-3 Equipment parameters - Atlas bin 169
A-4 Equipment parameters - pneumatic transport systems to boiler . 171
B-l September 1974 173
B-2 October 1974 174
B-3 November 1974 175
B-4 December 1974 176
B-5 January 1975 177
B-6 February 1975 178
B-7 March 1975 179
B-8 April 1975 180
B-9 May 1975 181
B-10 June 1975 182
B-ll July 1975 183
El-a Log of air emission test activity at power plant during the
period October 28 to November 7, 1974 (Coal-only nonhazard-
ous tests) 199
El-b Particulate emission tests at power plant for coal-only
(October-November 1974) 195
El-c Metal analysis of particulate catch on filters (Coal-only
tests) 198
El-d Summary of stack gas composition data 199
xv
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
E2-a Coal analysis data for coal-only nonhazardous tests 200
E2-b Sluice solids analysis data for coal-only nonhazardous tests . 204
E2-c Fly ash analysis data for coal-only nonhazardous tests .... 205
E2-d River water and sluice water analysis data for coal-only non-
hazardous tests 206
Fl-a Log of air emission test activity at power plant during the
period March 4-8, 1975 (Coal-only hazardous tests) 238
Fl-b Summary of particulate emission test at power plant 239
Fl-c Summary of stack gas composition data 242
F2-a SSMS trace element analysis for coal samples (Concentration in
ppm by weight unless noted otherwise) 243
F2-b SSMS trace element analysis for bottom ash samples (Concentra-
tion in ppm by weight unless noted otherwise) 246
F2-c SSMS trace element analysis for fly ash samples (Concentration
in ppm by weight unless noted otherwise) 247
F3-a Coal analysis data for coal-only hazardous tests 250
F3-b Sluice solids analysis data for coal-only hazardous tests. . . 251
F3-c Fly ash analysis data for coal-only hazardous tests 252
F3-d River water and sluice water analysis data for coal-only
hazardous tests 253
F4-al Tabulation of hazardous pollutant analysis data for coal sam-
ples taken during coal-only hazardous tests 254
F4-a2 Tabulation of hazardous pollutant analysis data for sluice
solids samples taken during coal-only hazardous tests. . . . 255
F4-a3 Tabulation of hazardous pollutant analysis data for fly ash
samples taken during coal-only hazardous tests 256
xvi
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
F4-a4 Tabulation of hazardous pollutant analysis data for water
samples taken during coal-only hazardous tests 257
F4-bl Particulate catch analysis for coal-only hazardous tests—
ESP inlet and outlet sample trains 258
F4-b2 Tabulation of hazardous pollutant analysis data (by MRI)
for coal-only hazardous tests—ESP inlet and outlet sam-
ple trains 259
F4-cl Hazardous pollutant analysis of Brink (inlet) impactor sub-
strates (Coal-only) • 262
F4-c2 Hazardous pollutant analysis of Anderson (outlet) impactor
substrates (Coal-only) 263
F5-a Particulate mass (grams) collected in the Brink inlet parti-
cle sizing impactors 265
F5-bl Andersen analysis summary - Run 20E. 267
F5-b2 Andersen analysis summary - Run 20W 268
F5-b3 Andersen analysis summary - Run 30W 269
F5-b4 Andersen analysis summary - Run 30E 270
F5-b5 Andersen analysis summary - Run 40E 271
F5-b6 Andersen analysis summary - Run 40W 272
F5-cl Precipitator readings: Test No. 2 273
F5-c2 Precipitator readings: Test No. 3 274
F5-c3 Precipitator readings: Test No. 4 275
Gl-a Log of air emission test activity at power plant during May
1975 (Coal + refuse nonhazardous tests) 277
Gl-b Summary of coal and refuse particulate emission tests con-
ducted during April-May 1975 . 278
xvi i
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
Gl-c Summary of stack gas composition data for coal + refuse
nonhazardous tests 279
Gl-d Metal analysis of particulate catch on filters 280
G2-a Coal analysis data for coal plus refuse nonhazardous tests. 281
G2-b RDF analysis data for coal plus refuse nonhazardous tests . 284
G2-c Sluice solids analyses data for coal and refuse nonhazard-
ous tests 287
G2-d Fly ash analysis data for coal' + refuse nonhazardous
tests 288
G2-e River water and sluice water analysis data for coal and
refuse nonhazardous tests 289
Hl-a Log of test activity 320
Hl-b Summary of particulate emission tests at power plant for
November 1975 (Coal + refuse hazardous tests) 321
Hl-c Summary of stack gas composition data coal + refuse -
hazardous (November 1975) 323
H2-a Summary of trace element analyses for coal samples (Con-
centration in ppm by weight unless noted otherwise) ... 324
H2-b Summary of trace element analyses for refuse samples (Con-
centration in ppm by weight unless noted otherwise) . . . 326
H2-c Summary of trace element analyses for fly ash samples (Con-
centration in ppm by weight unless noted otherwise) . . . 328
H2-d Summary of trace element analyses for bottom ash samples
(Concentration in ppm by weight unless noted otherwise) . 330
H3-a Coal analysis data for coal + refuse hazardous tests . . . 332
H3-b RDF analysis data for coal + refuse hazardous tests .... 334
xviii
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
H3-c Fly ash analysis for coal + refuse hazardous tests 336
H3-d Sluice solids analysis data for coal + refuse hazardous
tests 338
H3-e River water and sluice water analysis data for coal + refuse
hazardous tests 339
H4-al Hazardous pollutant analysis data for coal samples taken
during coal + refuse hazardous tests 340
H4-a2 Hazardous pollutant analysis data for refuse samples taken
during coal + refuse hazardous tests 341
H4-a3 Hazardous pollutant analysis data for sluice solid samples
taken during coal + refuse hazardous tests 342
H4-a4 Hazardous pollutant analysis data for fly ash samples taken
during coal + refuse hazardous tests 343
H4-a5 Hazardous pollutant analysis data for water samples taken
during coal + refuse hazardous tests 344
H4-bl Particulate catch analysis for coal + refuse hazardous tests
ESP inlet and outlet sample trains 345
H4-b2 Tabulation of hazardous pollutant analysis data (by MRI) for
coal + refuse hazardous tests—ESP inlet and outlet sample
trains 346
H4-cl Hazardous pollutant analysis of Brink (inlet) impactor sub-
strates coal + refuse tests 349
H4-c2 Hazardous pollutant analysis of Andersen (outlet) impactor
substrates coal + refuse tests 350
H5-a Summary of Brink sampling parameters (ESP inlet) 355
H5-b Particulate mass (grams) collected in the Brink impactor
(ESP inlet) 356
H5-c Cumulative weight percent versus particle size for the
Brink impactor (ESP inlet) 357
xix
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number page
H5-d Brink particulate loading (ESP inlet) 360
H5-e Summary of Brink results (ESP inlet) 361
H5-f Differential stages loading in metric units (Brink) (ESP
inlet) 362
H5-g Differential stages loading in English units (Brink) (ESP
inlet) 363
H5-h Summary of Andersen sampling parameters (ESP outlet) 369
H5-il Andersen analysis summary (Run 1-OE) 370
H5-i2 Andersen analysis summary (Run 1-OW) 371
H5-i3 Andersen analysis summary (Run 2-OE) 372
H5-i4 Andersen analysis summary (Run 2-OW) 373
H5-i5 Andersen analysis summary (Run 3-OE) 374
H5-i6 Andersen analysis summary (Run 3-OW) 375
H5-i7 Andersen analysis summary (Run 4-OE) 376
H5-i8 Andersen analysis summary (Run 4-OW) 377
H5-i9 Andersen analysis summary (Run 5-OE) 378
H5-ilO Andersen analysis summary (Run 5-OW) 379
H5-jl Differential stages loading in metric units (Andersen) (ESP
outlets) 381
H5-J2 Differential stages loading in English units (Andersen) (ESP
outlets) 382
H6-a Precipitator readings: Test No. 1 387
H6-b Precipitator readings: Test No. 2 388
xx
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
H6-c Precipitator readings: Test No. 3 389
H6-d Precipitator readings: Test No. 4 390
1-1 Quality assurance data 393
xxi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under Contract No. 68-02-1871. It describes the work carried out by Midwest
Research Institute (MRI) at the Union Electric Company's (UE) Meramec plant
during the period from December 1973 through November 1975.
Mr. P. G. Gorman, Dr. L. J. Shannon, Mr. M. P. Schrag, and Mr. D. E.
Fiscus were principal authors of this report. Many other MRI personnel contri-
buted to the program in field testing, chemical analysis, and data evaluation
including Mr. P. Constant, Mr. E. Baladi, Dr. M. Marcus, and Mr. J. Shum.
Portions of the laboratory analysis of samples were done by the Research
900 Laboratories of the Ralston-Purine Company in St. Louis, Missouri. South-
ern Research Institute of Birmingham, Alabama, assisted MRI in evaluating the
performance of the electrostatic precipitator at the Meramec plant.
Accomplishments of the numerous tests at the Meramec plant was made pos-
sible by the full cooperation and willing assistance given by Union Electric
Company personnel, especially Mr. Jim Honeywell and Mr. Jim Murphy of the
Meramec plant. Likewise, the personnel from the City of St. Louis (Mr. Jim
Shea and Mr. Nick Young) gave their cooperation in running the processing plant
and delivering refuse-derived fuel as needed during the power plant tests.
The assistance and encouragement of the EPA project officers, Mr. James D.
Kilgroe (IERL/RTP), Mr. J. Robert Hollaway (OSWMP/WDC), Mr. Carlton Wiles
(SHWRL/CINC), and Mr. Harry Freeman (IERL/CI) were important to the success of
the program. Mr. Kilgroe, who was the main project officer during most of the
period, worked closely with MRI staff in planning test activities and inter-
preting test data. His numerous contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
L. J,\3hannon, Director
Environmental and Materials
Sciences Division
July 5, 1977
-------
SUMMARY
The firing of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) as a supplement for coal
in a coal-fired power plant offers an alternative to conventional meth-
ods of municipal waste disposal. The recovery of energy from municipal
solid wastes makes good sense, providing significant insults to the en-
vironment do not occur in the process.
The St. Louis-Union Electric (UE) Refuse Fuel Demonstration System
is the first demonstration plant in the U.S. to process raw municipal
waste for use as a supplementary fuel in a utility boiler. Two separate
facilities comprise the system—a processing plant operated by the City
of St. Louis and RDF receiving, handling, and firing operations at the
Union Electric Company's Meramec plant near St. Louis. At the process-
ing plant, raw solid waste is milled to a nominal 38.1 mm (1-1/2 in.)
particle size and air classified into light and heavy fractions. The
light fraction, approximately 80 to 857» of the incoming municipal ref-
use, is temporarily stored and then hauled 29 km (18 miles) by trans-
port truck to the Meramec plant.
At the power plant (which is the facility of interest in this re-
port) RDF is unloaded from the transport trucks into a receiving bin
from which it is then conveyed pneumatically to a surge bin. A pneumatic
feeder system conveys the RDF from the surge bin through four separate
pipelines directly to the boiler.
These installations provided the opportunity to evaluate the equip-
ment and facilities for the production and firing of RDF and to assess
the gaseous, aqueous, and solid waste discharges associated with the pro-
cessing and firing of RDF. Following an initial series of air pollution
tests at the Meramec plant in late 1973, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in early 1974 contracted with Midwest Research Institute
(MRI) to design and implement a detailed study for the evaluation of the
St. Louis-Union Electric (UE) Refuse Fuel Project. The program was di-
rected to an evaluation of the equipment and facilities and assessment
of the emissions and effluents at both the processing plant and the power
plant. Data collection and testing conducted at the Meramec plant on this
contract were begun in October 1974 and continued through November 1975.
Unit No. 1,.a corner-fired pulverized coal suspension boiler having a
nominal generating rate of 125 Mw was the boiler utilized for this test
program.
-------
Data on plant material flows and operating parameters, plant op-
erating costs, operating characteristics of the plant, and emissions
and effluents resulting from the firing of RDF were obtained. The ac-
quired data were used to evaluate the equipment and facilities, charac-
terize flow streams, and assess potential environmental problems. The
major observations regarding operations of the Meramec power plant and
environmental problems associated with the burning of RDF are presented
next.
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES EVALUATIONS
Operations at the Meramec power plant using RDF as a supplementary
fuel extended over several months and demonstrated that burning 5 to 207<>
RDF as a supplementary fuel in a coal-fired boiler is a viable concept.
During that period, shutdowns did occur for modification and maintenance,
with many short-term shutdowns or reductions in RDF firing rate resulting
from problems with the pneumatic conveying lines and blockages of the
discharge chutes from the Atlas storage bin (surge bin). However, no major
equipment problems were encountered and the burning of RDF had no discern-
ible effect on boiler erosion corrosion.
Leaks in the pneumatic conveying lines to the boiler were a frequent
problem. The erosion of these lines was caused by the abrasive materials
in the RDF. Initially, an air classifier system was not used at the processing
plant for removal of some of the metals and glass. The high levels of abra-
sive materials present in the RDF led to accelerated erosion of the pipe-
lines. However, even after the addition of the air classifier, some metal
and glass fragments remained in the RDF, and erosion of the pneumatic lines
continued to be a problem. Union Electric investigated other materials that
could better tolerate the erosive nature of the RDF because the carbon-
steel pipelines initially specified for this demonstration facility were
not satisfactory.
Accounting information provided by Union Electric was compiled and
evaluated in order to define the capital and operating costs associated
with the firing of RDF. The costs do not include any expense for purchase
of the RDF from the city, nor do they include any credit for the fuel
(coal) that was not burned when RDF was providing a portion of the heat
input. The receiving building at the power plant was owned and operated
by the City of St. Louis. All other equipment was owned and operated by
Union Electric. Since the receiving building was located at the Meramec
plant, costs for this facility were included as part of the operating
cost for the power plant.
-------
The capital cost of the facilities at the Meramec plant was
$945,640. Of this cost, $578,097 represents Union Electric's initial in-
vestment, and $367,543 represents the City of St. Louis' cost for the
receiving building and associated equipment.
Over a 8-month period, from October 1974 to May 1975, operating and
maintenance costs averaged $9.39/Mg ($8.52/ton) of RDF, ranging from
$5.67/Mg to $17.70/Mg ($5.14 to $16.05/ton), not including amortization
of equipment. These cost figures are probably not representative for
other plants because the system usually operated below design capacity
and maintenance costs were high because of the need for frequent repair
and replacement of pneumatic conveying lines. In future well-designed
plants, the operating costs are expected to be lower than those exper-
ienced at the Meramec plant.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
A major portion of the effort at the Meramec plant was directed to
an assessment of the emissions and potential environmental impacts associ-
ated with the combined firing of coal and RDF in the boiler. Potential
emissions associated with the firing of RDF are:
* Air emissions (particulate and gaseous)/ from boiler stack;
* Boiler bottom ash;
* ESP hopper fly ash; and
* Boiler sluice water and ash pond effluent.
In order to assess the potential environmental impacts of these
sources, a test program was designed and executed to compare emissions
when burning Orient 6 coal with those from combinations of Orient 6 coal*
and RDF (coal + RDF). Tests were performed to evaluate both conventional
pollutants (total particulates, S02, BOD, COD, etc.) and potentially haz-
ardous pollutants (Hg, As, Cd, polycyclic organic matter, etc.).
Coal fired during each test was mined from the Illinois-Herrin (No.
6) coal member. The coal is extracted by continuous mining methods
and is cleaned by heavy media washers and flotation units (cells).
It is thermally dried prior to shipment.
-------
The tests involved sampling and analysis of all input/output
streams—including coal, RDF, bottom ash, river water used for boiler
sluicing, and fly ash. The philosophy behind the planning for the tests
was that there would be a greater number of conventional emission tests
covering a wider range of boiler loads and percent RDF, while the tests
for potentially hazardous pollutants would be fewer in number but would
include more extensive analysis of pollutants. The results of the de-
terminations of energy recovery from the RDF and the emissions tests
are highlighted next.
Energy Recovery
The extent of energy recovery from RDF is an important aspect of
any waste-to-energy system. Determinations of the energy recovery from
the RDF were made using data for RDF heating value and feedrate and the
electrical power output attributable to the RDF. The average RDF feed rate
required to generate each unit of power was 1.12 Mg/hr/Mw (1.24 tons/hr/Mw),
and about 87% of the potential energy in the RDF was released as heat in
the boiler. Most of the inefficiency or loss of potential energy in the
RDF is due to loss of combustible materials as bottom ash.
Bottom Ash and Fly Ash
The rate of accumulation of bottom ash increased from an average of
605 kg/hr (1,333 Ib/hr) for Orient 6 coal up to an average of 4,080 Kg/hr
(8,995 Ib/hr) for coal + RDF (at 5 to 10% RDF). The seven-fold increase
noted with the burning of RDF was also accompanied by changes in the chemi-
cal composition of the bottom ash. Compared to levels in the Orient 6
bottom ash, increases in the weight percent of Gu, Pb, Na, Zn, and Or and
decreases in Al, Fe, Li, and S in the coal + RDF bottom ash were noted.
Calculations of the relative amounts of ash in each fuel that are
contained in the bottom ash indicated that the average percent of RDF
ash going to bottom ash was 64.7% versus 8.7% for Orient 6 coal.
Limited tests with fine-grind RDF did not show any decrease in bot-
tom ash accumulation rate compared to the rate for regular-grind RDF.
-------
A comparison of the average properties of the fly ash for coal-only
and coal + RDF firing conditions showed that the major differences in
the fly ash composition are the heating value and iron, lead, zinc, and
chromium content. The coal + RDF fly ash has a higher heating value than
the coal fly ash. The coal fly ash is higher in iron content but lower
in lead, zinc, and chromium content in comparison to the coal + RDF fly
ash. Changes in trace element composition of the fly ash were also noted
when coal + RDF were fired in the boiler. Combined firing causes an in-
crease in the concentration of Sb, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Zn, Br,
and Cl in the fly ash.
Disposal of the bottom ash (i.e., landfilling) from the combined firing
of coal + RDF might create potential water contamination problems, but it
was not possible to assess the impact relative to those that may occur from
disposal of coal-only bottom ash or disposal of raw refuse.
The changes in the major components in the fly ashes are not of a
magnitude that one would expect the disposal of fly ash from the burning
of coal + RDF to pose any more of a problem than the disposal of fly ash
from Orient 6 coal. The changes in trace element concentrations might re-
sult in leaching problems if the fly ash from coal + RDF is placed in a
landfill, but it is difficult to assess the relative impacts.
Water Effluents
Investigations by MRI were restricted to the sluice water discharged
into the ash pond. MRI's study did not include sampling and analysis of
the effluent discharged from the ash pond into the nearby river because
a study of that effluent had already been conducted by Union Electric, and
their results were provided to MRI«
Analysis of the raw river water used for sluicing the boiler and
the water discharged from the boiler after sluicing showed that the dis-
charge water was higher than the river water in total suspended solids
(TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), biological oxygen demand (BOD),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), and pH for both coal-only and coal •+• RDF
tests. Bacteria counts in the discharge stream were lower than in the
river water. In comparing coal-only to coal + RDF data for the discharge
water stream, only TDS increased with the burning of RDF. Analysis for trace
constituents showed little change for coal + RDF sluice water compared to
coal-only sluice water.
-------
Tests by the Union Electric Company indicated that three parameters
in the coal + RDF ash pond effluent do not meet proposed guidelines of
the State of Missouri. The same three parameters--biological oxygen de-
mand, dissolved oxygen, and suspended solids--from the coal-ash pond ef-
fluent meet these guidelines. Twelve other parameters, some for which
there are no guidelines, are higher in the coal + RDF ash pond effluent
than in the coal-only ash pond effluent. These parameters include ammonia,
boron, calcium, chemical oxygen demand, iron, manganese, and total or-
ganic solids. Only sulfates were noticeably lower in the coal + RDF ash
pond effluent. Forty-eight other parameters evaluated did not show any
significant differences between the values measured in coal-only and coal +
RDF ash pond effluents.
Treatment of the effluent from a coal + RDF ash pond would be neces-
sary to insure compliance with effluent guidelines for the three parameters-
biological oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, and suspended solids. Aeration
of a coal + RDF ash pond might be needed to improve BOD and dissolved oxy-
gen. Flocculation techniques might also be required to meet regulations on
suspended solids and possible future regulations on the content of specific
materials in the effluent.
Air Emissions
Testing of air emissions was performed at various times from late
1973 through late 1975. The tests for conventional and potentially haz-
ardous pollutants are discussed next.
Conventional Gaseous Emissions - Except for chloride (Cl) emissions,
the combined firing of coal + RDF did not produce major changes in the
emission of gaseous pollutants compared with the firing of Orient 6 coal
over the range of conditions investigated. Chloride emissions were noted
to increase by about 30%. More detailed information on chloride emissions
is presented later in conjunction with data on potentially hazardous emis-
sions. The emissions of other individual gaseous pollutants are summarized
below.
Carbon monoxide (CO) - The overall average CO concentration for coal
+ RDF tests (89 ppm) was slightly higher than, that for coal-only tests
(82 ppm). The scatter in the data is rather wide, and one cannot conclude
that there was any significant increase or decrease in CO emissions when
burning coal + RDF compared to coal.
-------
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - Within the scatter of data, N02 emissions
expressed in the form of pounds per million Btu as a function of boiler
load did not appear to change when burning coal + RDF as compared to coal.
NC>2 emissions from power plants are a function of the percent excess air,
but the data did not show any trend with excess air or fuel type.
N02 emissions were in the range of 0.22 to 0.37 Kg/106 Kj (0.5 to
0.85 lb/106 Btu) and would comply with current federal and state regula-
tions which limit NOX emissions to 0.3 Kg/106 Kj (0.7 lb/106 Btu) for
new sources.
Hydrocarbons (HG) - Emissions of gaseous hydrocarbons averaged about
9 ppm when burning coal + RDF. Data for coal-only firing conditions were
judged to be in error because the measured values of < 1 ppm are incon-
sistent with numerous other measurements at coal-fired power plants. Hy-
drocarbon emissions expected at coal-fired power plants are on the order
of 10 to 20 ppm. On this basis, it does not appear that the burning of
RDF causes any increase in HG emissions over that which might be expected
from a coal-fired boiler.
Sulfur oxides (SOx) - A slight reduction in the S02 stack gas con-
centration would be expected when RDF is substituted for coal because
of the lower sulfur levels present in the RDF; 0.14 Kg/106 Kj (0.33 Ib S/106
Btu) for RDF versus 0.60 Kg/106 Kj (1.4 Ib S/106 Btu) for Orient 6 coal.
The experimental data for S02 did not show any clear-cut reduction. The
scatter in the data is sufficient to mask any trends in S02 emissions
with changes in fuel.
S02 emissions ranged from 0.86 to 1.81 Kg/106 Kj (2 to 4.2 lb/106
Btu). Comparison of S02 emissions on the basis of pounds per 106 Btu with
existing regulations indicates that S02 emissions would exceed regulations
due to the sulfur content of the coal. Burning of RDF, which is low in
sulfur, would tend to decrease the S02 emissions but the decrease would
not be sufficient to meet the regulations. A shift to a lower sulfur coal
or the installation of an S02 control system are the viable options for
achieving compliance with S02 emission regulations.
Conventional Particulate Emissions - Both Union Electric and MRI performed
tests to determine particulate emissions at the inlet and outlets of the ESP.
The MRI tests were all conducted using EPA Method 5, whereas the Union
Electric tests were conducted in accordance with ASME Power Test Code 27.
-------
Inlet particulate loadings ranged from 3.4 to 7.3 g/dncm (1.5 to
3.2 gr/dscf ), with most of the data grouped around 4.6 g/dncm (2.0
gr/dscf). The data did not show any dependence on boiler load or percent
RDF. In contrast, outlet grain loadings increased with higher boiler
loads and, for given boiler load conditions, the outlet grain loadings
were higher when burning coal + RDF, especially at the higher loads (i.e.,
140 Mw).
Particulate emissions from the ESP ranged from 0.022 Kg/106 Kj (0.05
lb/106 Btu) at 70 Mw to 0.22 Kg/106 Kj (0.5 lb/106 Btu at 140 Mw). Compli-
ance with the more stringent standards which limit emissions to 0.043
Kg/106 Kj (0.1 lb/106 Btu) would not be achieved above 100 Mw regardless
of the fuel mix*
There are several control alternatives which could be considered
for particulate emissions. A list of such alternatives includes: (a)
adding another control device (e.g., cyclone) before or after the ESP;
(b) increasing the size of the ESP (retrofit); (c) restricting power out-
put or percent RDF; (d) modifying the ESP operation (electrical or other
characteristics); (e) use of additives or conditioning agents to improve
collectability of the particulates (i.e., resistivity); and (f) using
fuel of different characteristics (either coal or RDF).
Potentially Hazardous Pollutant Emissions - Air emissions of potentially
hazardous pollutants associated with the burning of Orient 6 coal and
Orient 6 coal + RDF were measured in two sets of tests. The concentra-
tions (micrograms per normal cubic meter) of some pollutants did in-
crease when coal + RDF were fired compared to concentrations for coal-
only conditions. Most of the increases are associated with elements that
exist in higher concentrations in RDF than in coal. Compared to emission
levels noted with Orient 6 coal, burning RDF caused an increase in con-
centrations (i.e., at the ESP outlet) of Be, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ti, Zn, and
F.
Assessment of the impact of potentially hazardous pollutant air emis-
sions is difficult because there are no emission or ambient standards for
most of the pollutants. Problems with the efficiency of the sampling train
for collecting certain gaseous pollutants and inconsistencies in some of
the analytical data made it difficult to clearly define the changes in all
emissions resulting from the use of RDF in place of coal. These problems
compounded the difficulty in assessing impacts.
-------
Given the uncertainties in some of the emission data and the ab-
sence of emission or ambient guidelines for many of the pollutants, our
assessment of the impact of potentially hazardous emissions was conducted
using a methodology employed in other MRI studies. The method involves:
1. Assuming that all of a specific pollutant in the fuel is emitted
in the stack gas.
2. Assuming a dilution factor of 1/1,000 to calculate the resultant
maximum ground level concentration for a specific pollutant.
3. Assuming that the ambient air standard for the pollutant is 1/100
of the threshold level value (TLV) for the specific pollutant.
The first assumption permits the calculation of a pollutant's con-
centration in the stack gas. This assumption results in a conservative
evaluation because it represents the maximum possible concentration. As-
sumption 2 allows the estimate of the probable maximum ground level con-
centration under most dispersion conditions. The factor of 1/1,000 is a
very conservative dilution factor representing restrictive dispersion
conditions and most power plant source characteristics (stack height, gas
temperature, plant size, etc.). The third assumption provides a way of
estimating an acceptable ambient concentration when standards are lack-
ing. A more restrictive value could be assumed (1/300 for 1/1,000 of TLV),
but 1/100 appears more reasonable in view of EPA guidelines for Hg and Be,
and considering that these assumed guideline values are used for comparison
with calculated maximum ground level concentrations.
Comparison of actual measured concentrations of pollutants in the
stack gas, and their resultant maximum ground level concentrations calcu-
lated using 1/1,000 of measured stack gas concentrations, with 1/100 of
TLV for specific pollutants, showed that only one pollutant, Cl, had
a measured stack gas concentration that could produce ground level concen-
trations greater than 1/100 of TLV. This result indicates that Cl emissions
from the Meramec plant may be an environmental problem, primarily due to
the fact that the Orient 6 coal is a high chloride coal, having a chloride
content about the same as that of RDF. Therefore, burning of RDF compounds
the problem. However, Cl may not be the only pollutant that exceeds 1/100
of TLV. Mass balances and other data indicated that some other pollutants
-------
may be partly or entirely emitted in vapor form* Some of these pollut-
ants were not sampled or measured in vapor form because of limitations
in the sampling train. In addition, the impinger samplers used for some
pollutants known to exist as vapors may not have provided high enough
collection efficiency. In view of the preceding facts, the measured stack
gas concentrations may not completely represent the picture.
In order to determine the worst likely situation, we elected to
utilize the three assumptions discussed at the beginning of this section
to determine the impact of the emission of the specific pollutants. The
calculated concentrations of specific pollutants in the stack gas when
burning coal-only, coal + 10% RDF, and coal + 50% RDF were first determined.
The concentrations were calculated using the measured concentrations of
each pollutant in the coal and RDF burned in the boiler. These estimated
stack gas concentrations were then used to estimate resultant maximum
ground level concentration by dividing by the "dilution factor" of 1,000.
Comparison of these maximum ground level concentrations with 1/100 of TLV
led to the stepwise elimination of several pollutants as possible environ-
mental problems.
First, the comparisons show that the ground level concentration would
be less than 1/100 of TLV for several pollutants, even if all that is pres-
ent in the fuel were emitted to the atmosphere either as particulate or
gas. These pollutants are Sb, As, Hg, Se, and F. Some other pollutants (Gd,
Ag, Ti, and Zn) fall into this category except at the high RDF level of 50%.
Second, the maximum ground level concentration of Ba, Be, Gr, Gu, and
V would exceed 1/100 of the TLV if all the pollutants in the fuel were
emitted. However, most of these pollutants are emitted in particulate form,
and their concentration in the stack gas would be considerably lower if a
relatively efficient control device (e.g., > 90% efficiency) were used to
control particulates. With the use of such a control device, the resultant
ground level concentrations of Ba, Be, Cr, Cu, and V would be less than
1/100 TLV except at the 50% RDF level. At the high level of 50% RDF, emis-
sions of Ba, Cr, and Cu may exceed 1/100 TLV.
Third, for the remaining pollutants (Pb, Br, and Cl), the maximum
ground level concentrations may exceed 1/100 of the TLV under all combina-
tions of fuels. This result would occur if these pollutants were emitted
in vapor form or were not collected in a particulate control device. Data
obtained showed that most of the Cl and Br are emitted in vapor form. Data
for Pb are less certain, but they indicated that part may be emitted in vapor
form*
10
-------
In summary, the assessment of potentially hazardous air emissions
showed that three pollutants (Gl, Br, and Pb) may represent an environ-
mental problem even when burning coal-only, with RDF compounding the
problem.
Few control methods are available for such specific potentially hazard-
ous pollutants that may be emitted from power plants in vapor form. S02
scrubbing systems may be effective in controlling some of these pollutants
(e.g., Cl), but additional research will be needed to develop appropriate
control methods.
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR PERFORMANCE
Determination of the performance of the electrostatic precipitator
used to control particulate emissions from the boiler under conditions
of combined firing with coal + RDF was an important facet of the test pro-
gram. Examination of efficiency data for the ESP revealed that:
1. ESP performance decreases with increasing boiler load.
2. Although the scatter in the experimental data increases markedly
at boiler loads above 120 Mw, it appears that above that boiler load,
the burning of coal + RDF does decrease ESP efficiency.
With regard to Item 2, it is important to note that the boiler is
operating in excess of design capacity above 120 to 125 Mw. Operating
the boiler in excess of design may account for a major portion of the de-
crease in ESP performance noted at higher boiler loads.
All available data regarding test conditions and ESP performance were
analyzed to determine:
1. The reason(s) for the observed decrease in performance of the ESP
at boiler loads above 100 Mw.
2. The influence of RDF on ESP performance.
Specific factors having a direct bearing on ESP performance analyzed
were: (a) inlet particle size data, (b) particulate resistivity data,
(c) particulate reentrainment, (d) electrical operating conditions for
the ESP, and (e) gas volume flow rates. The fractional efficiency of the
ESP was also studied to see if the decreased efficiency could be related
to specific ranges of particle sizes.
11
-------
The analysis of ESP performance led to the following conclusions:
1* ESP efficiency decreases with increasing gas volume flow rate,
both for coal-only and coal + RDF conditions.
2« Decreases in efficiency when burning coal + RDF as compared to
coal are probably not attributable to changes in inlet particle size dis-
tribution, inlet grain loading, or to reentrainment problems.
3. Decreases in ESP efficiency when burning coal + RDF as compared
to coal-only are most likely due to the 87» increased gas flow rate and to
changes in the ash and gas properties which occur with the burning of RDF.
4. Changes in the fly ash properties which result from burning RDF
probably cause small changes in particulate resistivity.
5. The small changes in resistivity caused by burning RDF are prob-
ably magnified in terms of their influence on ESP efficiency because mea-
sured resistivities are in a very critical range for the onset of back
corona and other electrical problems.
6. Reductions in overall mass efficiency of the ESP at high boiler
loads, when burning coal + RDF, are associated primarily with increases
in emissions of the larger particles (i.e., 1.0 to 10
12
-------
INTRODUCTION
Union Electric Company (UE), a participant in the St. Louis-Union
Electric Refuse Fuel Demonstration Project, constructed and operated fa-
cilities at its Meramec plant to handle refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from
the city processing plant and fire it, along with coal, in either of two
boilers* Unit No. 1, a corner-fired pulverized coal suspension boiler
having a nominal generating rate of 125 Mw, was the main boiler utilized.
Under the terms of the original demonstration project, UE constructed the
RDF handling and firing system and agreed to burn the RDF that was sup-
plied free of charge by the City of St. Louis processing plant to demon-
strate feasibility of the combined firing of coal + RDF in a utility
boiler.
Construction of the RDF facilities at the power plant began in 1970,
and operation commenced in 1972. The system installed at the UE Meramec
plant basically consisted of the following (see Figure 1):
* Receiving building (including pneumatic conveying facilities);
* Atlas storage and feedout bin;
* Pneumatic conveying lines to the boiler(s); and
* RDF firing system in the boiler(s).
All the equipment except the receiving building, which was provided by the
City of St. Louis, was purchased, installed, and operated by UE.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with Midwest
Research Institute (MRl) to carry out a comprehensive series of equipment
and facilities evaluations and environmental evaluations for the St. Louis
demonstration project. The effort consisted of two parts: the processing
plant, operated by the City of St. Louis; and the power plant, operated by
UE. The objectives and results of the evaluations at the processing plant
are described in an earlier companion report entitled "St. Louis Demonstra-
tion Project Final Report: Refuse Processing Plant Equipment, Facilities,
and Environmental Evaluations."
13
-------
UNLOADING OPERATION
Receiving Building
Trailer Truck
FIRING SYSTEM
Blower
Tangentially fired Boiler
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of Union Electric facilities
to receive, store, and burn RDF.
-------
The objectives of the work conducted at the Meramec power plant were
to (a) define operating characteristics and problems of the RDF handling
system, (b) determine operating costs, and (c) assess environmental problems
associated with the burning of RDF in the boiler. The general methodology
used to achieve these objectives and the results of the work, i.e., evalua-
tion of the equipment operations and associated costs, and the assessment
of environmental problems from the firing of RDF, are the subject of this
report. The report contains three major parts:
!• Equipment and Facilities Evaluations.
2» Environmental Evaluations of Emissions from Combined Firing of Coal
+ RDF.
3» Analysis of Electrostatic Precipitator Performance.
The first of these three major parts presents a description of the
power plant facilities, discussions of operating problems, and analysis of
cost data. The second major part dealing with the environmental evaluations
is extensive and rather complex and is divided into several subsections to
facilitate discussion of the test results covering many pollutants and
parameters. Overall mass efficiency, as well as fractional efficiency, of
the electrostatic precipitator used to control particulate emissions is dis-
cussed in the third part.
15
-------
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES EVALUATION
The primr.ry emphasis of the work at the Meramec plant was on the en-
vironmental evaluations. However, part of the work did include compilation
of data for equipment and facilities evaluations. Some of the data on equip-
ment and facilities were collected during the environmental tests, but most
of the work in this area centered on compilation of information from operat-
ing and accounting records obtained from Union Electric (UE). Information
from these records was extracted for each month covering the 9-month period
from September 1974 up to June 1975 when a strike at UE interrupted opera-
tions of the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) system. This activity concentrated
on the following areas:
* Physical descriptions of equipment.
* Measurement of horsepower and air flows.
* Daily operating log (hours of RDF burning, quantity of RDF
burned, and downtime).
* Maintenance problems.
* Monthly operating costs.
* Monthly maintenance costs.
* Pneumatic conveying line materials. }
/ Tests conducted by UE»
* Boiler corrosion studies. /
The above records, data, and field measurements were utilized in sub-
sequent equipment and facilities evaluations, and also provided comple-
mentary information for the environmental evaluations. Discussions with
UE plant operators regarding general operating characteristics of the equip-
ment were used to supplement the detailed information from plant records.
A short description of the facilities and a synopsis of the general
operating characteristics of the RDF handling and firing system is presented
next, followed by a discussion of the operating data and costs obtained from
plant reco rds.
16
-------
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
This system is basically rather simple, consisting only of a receiving
building, Atlas storage bin, and pneumatic conveying lines*
The receiving building is located at the power plant, but it was built,
owned, and operated by the City of St. Louis as part of the processing sys-
tem* This part of the facility is comprised of a pit having a capacity of
about one truckload, 18 to 23 Mg (20 to 25 tons). The trucks hydraulically
dump their load into the pit. RDF is then pneumatically transferred from
the pit to the Atlas bin. Transfer is accomplished by means of a double-
auger screw conveyor which slowly traverses along the bottom of the pit to
feed the RDF out onto a belt conveyor. The RDF is discharged at the end of
the belt conveyor into a rotary valve (airlock); from there it drops into
the 305-mm (12-in.) pneumatic conveying line that conveys the material from
the receiving building over to the Atlas bin. This operation requires about
1 hr to transfer one truckload of the RDF from the receiving pit to the
Atlas bin.
The pneumatic transfer line from the receiving building enters a cy-
clone separator mounted at the top of the Atlas bin. In this cyclone, the
RDF is separated from the conveying air. The air discharges through the top
of the cyclone, and the RDF drops from the bottom of the cyclone into the
conical-shaped Atlas bin* The storage capacity of the Atlas bin is approxi-
mately 54 Mg (60 tons) or somewhat more than two truckloads.
A pneumatic feeder system conveys the RDF from the Atlas bin through
four separate pipelines directly into firing ports in each corner of the
boiler between the two upper and two lower coal-firing nozzles. Sufficient
velocity is imparted to the particles to carry them into the furnace high-
temperature zones where the particles ignite and burn. Light particles are
carried out with the flue gas, and heavy unburned RDF particles fall into
the boiler ash pit* The boiler supplies a turbine generator with a nominal
rating of 125 Mw* The furnace is 8*5 m deep, 11*6 m wide, and approximately
30.5 m high (28 ft x 38 ft x 100 ft).
The RDF firing system is completely independent of the main combustion
control system. The boiler operator can only initiate or stop RDF firing;
the firing rate can only be adjusted manually at the RDF bin motor control
center. The RDF firing system was designed to provide 10 to 15% of the
boiler heat input, which requires a nominal RDF firing rate of 11 Mg/hr
(12 tons/hr).
17
-------
Particulate matter formed during the combustion process passes through
an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to a 76-m (250-ft) stack. The ESP has
four electrical sets, two side by side and two in the direction of flow.
Electrical input is controlled by manual adjustment of the voltages at each
of the electrical control cabinets. The precipitator has a specific collec-
tion area of 0,443 m^/m-Vmin (135 ft^/1,000 cfm) and was designed to provide
a collection efficiency of approximately 97,5% at a coal combustion gas flow
volume of 11,652 m^/min (411,500 acfm). The flow from the two individual
outlet ducts of the ESP is directed to a single exhaust stack.
DISCUSSION OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES EVALUATIONS
Specifications for the equipment, including measured motor amperages
and air flow rates, are given in Appendix A, The log of operating activity
is presented in Appendix B. The operating log includes a daily record of
operating hours for each pneumatic conveying line and the total operating
hours and quantity of RDF burned.
Although the RDF system at the power plant is not complex, it was the
first of its kind and there were some operating problems as might be ex-
pected. The major operating problems that were identified were associated
with the Atlas storage bin, the pneumatic conveying lines, and the firing
of RDF» Observations on general equipment operating characteristics are
presented next followed by a synopsis of capital and operating cost data.
General Equipment Operating Characteristics
Since the RDF firing system started up in 1972, it was operated on
a semicontinuous basis (~ 8 hr/day) until June 1975, when normal operation
was terminated because of a strike and other factors. During that extended
period of time, shutdowns did occur for modification and maintenance, with
many short-term shutdowns or reductions in RDF burning rate resulting from
problems with the pneumatic conveying lines and other equipment problems.
Overall, the system achieved its primary objective of demonstrating that
the use of RDF as a supplementary fuel in a coal-fired utility boiler is
a viable concept. The operating characteristics of the major system com-
ponents are highlighted in the following subsections.
Atlas Storage Bin - Union Electric personnel found that it was unwise to
load the Atlas bin fully because the RDF tends to pack. When it does, the
bin sweep will not cut into the pile of RDF, thereby restricting the feedout
of RDF from the bin. Similarly, the UE operators prefer not to leave RDF
stored in the Atlas bin, even overnight, if the system is to be shut down,
because of the tendency for RDF to compact and thus restrict the ability
of the system to feed out RDF.
18
-------
The technique used to feed out the RDF from the Atlas bin consists
of two parts: the bin-sweep mechanism and four drag-chain conveyors. The
bin-sweep mechanism has a variable-speed, hydraulically driven "rim" that
revolves around the bin along the bottom circumference. Attached to this
moving rim are four scoop trains, the purpose of which is to cut into the
bottom of the RDF pile. The scoop trains slowly cut their way into the bot-
tom of the pile of RDF and continuously move some RDF along the floor of
the bin into the drag-chain troughs located just below the bottom of the
bin. However, if the RDF is sufficiently packed, the short teeth on each
bucket in the scoop train do not cut into the pile of RDF and merely con-
tinue to move around the edge of the pile.
Under some circumstances the scoop train may cut RDF at the bottom
of the pile, but RDF above will not fall onto the floor of the bin until
the scoop train has cut a considerable distance into the pile, leaving the
remaining RDF piled in the bin in a shape somewhat like a tree from which
the lowest branches have been removed. This phenomenon decreases the RDF
feed rate and is one of the reasons that the UE operators avoid those con-
ditions which they have observed may lead to such problems (i.e., overfill-
ing or extended storage periods).
The bin-sweep system is basically a good concept that has worked rela-
tively well throughout the period of operation, but there is need to improve
its capability for feedout of RDF under all conditions. The hydraulic drive
system on the bin sweep has been a high maintenance area, and UE recommends
use of an electric motor drive in future designs.
Another integral part of the RDF feed system in the Atlas bin is the
drag-chain conveyors. These four conveyors are in troughs below the bin
sweep, so RDF moved along the floor of the bin falls into the troughs and
is then pulled by the drag chain toward the center of the bin and is dis-
charged into the rotary valves (airlocks). The rotary valves feed the RDF
discharged from the end of the drag chain into the associated pneumatic
conveying lines. Plugging of the inlet chutes to the rotary valves, as
well as of the rotary valves, occurred on a sporadic basis. When the plug-
ging occurred, it was necessary to shut the system down and clean out the
blockage.
Pneumatic Firing System for RDF - Four pneumatic conveying lines, 203 mm
(8 in.) diameter, Sch 40, one for each drag chain, transport the RDF from
the Atlas bin to the boiler. The length of these lines is approximately
214 m (700 ft), including several bends and vertical sections to increase
the elevation about 10 m (32 ft). Blowers used for supplying the pneumatic
conveying air are positive-displacement blowers, 30 Kw (40 hp) supplying
about 85 nm-Vmin (3,000 scfm) each. Discharge pressure of these blowers at
the Atlas bin is about 6.9 kPa (1 psig) when no RDF is being fed. Their
19
-------
discharge pressure increases as the RDF feed rate is increased (via the
speed of the drag-chain conveyors) to about 27.6 kPa (4 psig) maximum.
Pressures higher than 20.7 to 27»6 kPa (3 to 4 psig) are considered indi-
cative of plugging problems in conveying lines.
Pneumatic conveying of the RDF from the Atlas bin to the boiler has
worked quite well, but leaks in the lines caused by the erosive charac-
teristics of the RDF were a major problem. The pneumatic lines were a very
high maintenance item, and one or more lines were out of service almost
daily. When leaks occurred, they were frequently temporarily repaired by
the use of rubber belting. Several elbows and sections of pipe were also
replaced from 1972 through 1975. During mid-1975 several elbows were re-
placed with new wear-back elbows manufactured by Radar Pneumatics. The per-
formance of these Radar elbows was not evaluated.
The four pneumatic conveying lines can provide sufficient RDF for
generation of about 20 Mw, which is roughly equivalent to 18 Mg/hr (20
tons/hr) of RDF or about 4.5 Mg/hr (5 tons/hr) of RDF from each line. How-
ever, the system rarely operated at this high rate.
The inordinate amount of downtime on the pneumatic conveying lines was
at least partially due to the fact that initially there was no air classi-
fier system at the refuse processing plant for removal of some of the metals
and glass, etc. The abrasive materials in the RDF initially used probably
led to accelerated erosion of the pipelines. However, even with the air
classifier in service, there were still some metal and glass fragments in
the RDF, and erosion of the pneumatic lines continued to be a problem.
Because of the frequent maintenance problem of leaks and UE original
plans for constructing a larger system in the St. Louis metropolitan area,
UE tried several different materials in various sections of the pneumatic
conveying lines to identify those most resistant to the erosion problem.
A tabular presentation of UE test data is given in Appendix C, along with
UE's interpretation of the results.
Firing Ports and Boiler for RDF - The final step in transporting the RDF
through the pneumatic conveying lines is its injection into the boiler.
Each of the four pneumatic conveying lines leads to a nozzle in each corner
of the furnace. When the RDF is injected into the furnace through each of
the nozzles, the combustible material ignites and burns, along with the
coal. However, the particle size of the RDF is larger than the pulverized
coal, and RDF does contain some metal and glass, etc., which fall into the
ash pit in the bottom of the boiler. Also, some of the larger RDF particles
of plastic, wood, leather, etc., may only be partially burned before they
fall into the ash pit. No problems occurred with the RDF firing nozzles.
20
-------
At boiler loads below 75 Mw, UE operating practice was to stop RDF fir-
ing in order to insure stable flame and boiler operation. Also, the coal
feed rate is automatically controlled in order to maintain the desired boiler
output (Mw), whereas the RDF feed rate is only manually adjustable by the RDF
system operator; even then, the RDF feed rate can vary rather widely depend-
ing on several factors, especially the feed system in the Atlas bin. These
fluctuations in RDF feed rate are compensated for by the automatic control
of the coal feed rate.
UE was also concerned with the possibility that the combustion of RDF
in the boiler might increase corrosion/erosion within the boiler itself.
Therefore, early in the project, UE initiated a test program to evaluate
such effects in the two boilers in which RDF might be burned. Partial re-
sults of UE's study have been summarized by UE and are reported in Appen-
dix D. The burning of RDF had no discernible effect on boiler corrosion/erosion
up to the time this program was completed.
Capital and Operating Costs
Accounting information provided by UE was compiled and evaluated by
MRI in order to estimate the operating costs associated with the firing
of RDF at the Meramec power plant. The costs do not include any expense for
purchase of the RDF from the city, nor do they include any credit for the
fuel (coal) that was not burned when RDF was providing a portion of the heat
input.
As was mentioned earlier, the receiving building at the power plant
was owned and operated by the City of St. Louis. The Atlas bin and all
other RDF handling and firing equipment was owned and operated by UE. How-
ever, since the receiving building was located at the power plant, costs
for this facility have been included as part of the operating cost for the
power plant.
The capital cost of the facilities at the power plant was $945,640,
as shown in Table 1. Of this cost, $578,097 represents UE's investment.
The computed operating costs do not include any interest, taxes or amorti-
zation of the equipment.
Operating costs, and the amount of RDF burned, are presented in
Table 2 for the 8-month period of October 1974 to May 1975. Data in this
table show that the operating and maintenance costs varied from $5.65/Mg
to $17.66/Mg ($5.14/ton to $16.05/ton) with the overall average being
$9.37/Mg ($8.52/ton). These costs are misleadingly high for two reasons.
First, the quantity of RDF burned each month was considerably less than
design, partly because of maintenance problems and partly because the
power plant was not necessarily attempting to operate at design rates for
24 hr/day. Secondly, the maintenance costs were very high and even ex-
ceeded the operating costs, primarily because of the frequent maintenance
21
-------
Table 1. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES - POWER PLANT RDF-FIRING FACILITY-^
Equipment
Surge storage bin $107,000
Pneumatic feeders 35,364
Refuse burners 22,727
Transformer 3,000
Subtotal $168,091
Construction
General construction and installation of equipment $310,971
Miscellaneous iron, steel and materials 10,034
Financing real estate and transportation 3,077
Electrical 24.408
Subtotal $348,490
Engineering $ 61,516
a/
Total capital cost firing facility $578,097-
al Total capital cost of the receiving building and associated equipment,
which is not included in the above, was $367,543.
22
-------
a/
Table 2. SUMMARY OF OPERATING COSTS FOR POWER PLANT RDF-FIRING FACILITIES-
October 1974
RDF burned - Mg
Hours of refuse burning
Average burn rate, Mg/hr
Labor, $
Operating labor and supervision
Maintenance labor and supervision
OJ
Supplies, $
Operating supplies
Maintenance parts and materials
Electrical^/
Total operating cost, $
Cost/Hg of RDF, $
2,126
274
7.8
3,593
7,977
22
11,866^'
383
23,841
11.21
November 1974
1,537
149
10.3
2,685
15,981
21
5,646
204
24,537
15.96
December 1974
1,179
111
10.6
1,327
8,894
21
1,058
11,445
9.71
January 1975
2,234
268
8.3
2,634
6,320
21
4,153
367
13,495
6.04
February 1975
1,064
137
7.8
1,942
9,876
21
6,811-S'
181
18,831
17.70
March 1975
2,061
254
8.1
4,438
12,750
22
1,393
352
18,955
9.20
A^rtjJjTj
3,528
366
9.6
8,151
9,264
44
2,027
528
20,014
5.67
May 1975
1,360
146
9.3
2,284
6,679
22
1,433
211
10,629
7.82
Total
15,090
1,705
8.9
27,054
77,731
194
34,387
2,381
141,747
9.39
_a/ Includes receiving building; does not include any cost for RDF received nor any credit for fuel saved (coal).
_b/ Includes $9,610 to Rader Pneumatics for new wear-back elbows.
_c/ Includes $3,382 to Rader Pneumatics for new wear-back elbows.
_d/ Electrical cost estimated from connected amperage load and hours of operation, assuming unit cost of $0.0086/kwh.
-------
necessary to repair leaks in the pneumatic conveying lines and the cost of
the wear-back elbows that were installed. It is expected that in future
well-designed plants, the operating costs should be below the average of
$9.37/Mg ($8.52/ton).
24
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS OF
EMISSIONS FROM COMBINED FIRING OF GOAL + RDF
A major portion of the effort at the Meramec power plant was directed
to an assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with
the combined firing of coal and RDF in the boiler. Potential emission
sources at the power plant associated with the firing of RDF are:
* Air emissions (particulate and gaseous) from boiler stack;
* ESP hopper fly ash;
* Boiler bottom ash; and
* Boiler sluice water and ash pond effluent.
In order to assess the potential environmental impacts of these sources,
a test program was designed and executed to compare emissions when burning
Orient 6 coal with those when burning combinations of coal and RDF (coal +
RDF). Goal fired during each test was mined from Illinois-Herrin (No. 6)
coal members. The coal is extracted by continuous mining methods and is
cleared by heavy media washers and flotation cells. It is thermally dried
prior to shipment. Tests were performed to evaluate both conventional pol-
lutants (total particulates, S02, BOD, COD, etc.) and potentially hazardous
pollutants (Hg, As, Cd, polycylic organic matter, etc.).
Figure 2 depicts the input/output streams that were sampled, and the
general analysis spectrum for each stream during all the tests for conven-
tional pollutants. The same streams were sampled during the tests for poten-
tially hazardous emissions, but more extensive analyses were performed on
the samples, including the particle-size substrate samples. These additional
analyses of all samples were mainly for the trace components: As, Sb, Ba,
Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Se, Ag, Ti, V, Zn, Cl, Fl, and Br.
25
-------
2 samples per test
Analyze Samples for:
TSS,TDS,BOD,COD,DO,pH,
Alkalinity, Oil and Grease
Raw
River
Water
(for sluice)
Composite of 12 samples per test
Proximate and Ultimate Analysis
Metal Analysis (Fe, Al, Zn.Cr, Pb,
CU,Ag,Na,K,Li)and S,H2O,Ash,
HHV
Coal
RDF
Each truck
Mass Feedrate
Proximate and Ultimate Analysis
Metals (Fe,AI,Zn,Cr,Pb,Cu,Ag,
Na,K,Li)and S, H2O,Ash, HHV
Gas Flow Rate, SOX/NOX,HC
Particulate Mass, Size, etc.
Y
F r-
/
Annlwci<
Boiler
(Monitor
Boiler
Output,
Mw)
Sluice
Water
>
Fly A:
Each slu
y
Measure
Stack
Calculate Mass Flow Rate
Analyze Metals (Fe,AI,Zn,Cr, Pb,Cu,Ag,
Na,K,Li)and S,H2O, Ash, HHV
Each sluice (estimate 2 samples per test)
Measure Flow Rate of Sluice Water
Sample Sluice to Determine % Solids by Filtering Sample
Analyze Filter Residue for Metals (Fe.AI, Zn,Cr, Pb,Cu,Ag,
Na,K,Li)and S, Ash, HHV, H2O
Analyze Filtrate for: TSS.TDS, BOD, COD, DO,pH,
Alkalinity, Oil and Grease
Figure 2. Summary of conventional tests at power plant.
-------
The environmental evaluations that were carried out at the power plant
were extensive and complex. The next section of this report presents the
test and analysis methodology, followed by subsequent sections containing
presentation and discussion of results for each of the four potential emis-
sion sources (e.g., water effluents, stack emissions, etc.).
TEST AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The tests involved sampling and analysis of all input/ output streams--
including coal, RDF, bottom ash, and fly ash. To insure that the requisite
data were obtained to permit a detailed assessment of the environmental im-
pacts of the combined firing of coal and RDF, attention was first directed
to the development of test protocols, including test schedules, test methods,
analysis spectrum, and analysis methods. Individual items in the protocols
are reviewed next.
Test Schedules
An initial series of air emission and ESP efficiency tests had been
conducted by EPA/MRI in December of 1973, while burning coal-only and
coal + RDF.!/ Following that work, EPA contracted with MRI to conduct the
detailed evaluations performed under Contract No. 68-02-1871. Plans were
developed to accomplish the following groups of tests:
1. Conventional emissions (i.e., nonhazardous);
(a) Coal-only conditions, and
(b) Coal + RDF conditions.
2. Potentially hazardous emissions;
(a) Coal-only conditions, and
(b) Coal + RDF conditions.
The philosophy behind the planning for the tests was that there would
be a greater number of conventional emissions tests covering a wider range
of boiler loads and percent RDF, while the tests for potentially hazardous
emissions would be fewer in number but would include much more extensive
analyses of pollutants. Original schedules prepared for carrying out the
tests were modified several times because of operating problems, equipment
breakdowns, and other reasons. Four sets of tests were accomplished during
the periods and under the test conditions summarized in Table 3.
27
-------
Table 3. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST PERIODS AND TEST CONDITIONS
Test date
Goal-only (conventional)
10/31/74
11/1/74
11/4/74
11/5/74
11/5/74
11/6/74
11/7/74
(potentially hazardous)
Coal-only
3/5/75
3/7/75
3/8/75
Coal + RDF (conventional)
4/30/75
5/1/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
5/20/75
5/21/75
5/22/75
Goal + RDF
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
(potentially hazardous)
Power load-Mw
140
140
140
75
75
100
100
140
110
110
100
100
140
140
140
140
100
100
133
134
133
135
Percent RDF-2/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
8
8-9
4-5
10
10
10
10
7-8
7-8
7
7-8
Percent RDF refers to percent of power output attributable to RDF
as determined by drop-load tests wherein RDF feed is shut off
with coal feed held constant.
28
-------
Prior to each test or set of tests, efforts were made to "precondition"
the electrostatic precipitator. That is, if the scheduled tests were to be
coal-only, the objective was to commence burning Orient 6 coal 5 days prior
to the test and continue thereafter without interruption. If the tests were
to be coal + RDF, the objective was to commence burning Orient 6 coal and
RDF 5 days prior to the test and continue thereafter throughout the test
period. Unfortunately, this was not always possible, especially the con-
tinuous burning of RDF for 5 days prior to coal + RDF tests. In some cases,
it was necessary that a test be carried out even though the boiler had been
down 1 or 2 days prior to the test or after the flow of RDF had been inter-
rupted for a few hours preceding the test. However, every reasonable effort
was made to "precondition" the ESP, and in those tests where that was not
possible, subsequent analysis of test data did not indicate that failure
to achieve the prescribed conditioning period had any appreciable effect
on test results.
Test Methods
During each test, air-emission sampling was carried out at the inlet
and outlet of the ESP. Sampling of all other input/output streams was car-
ried out at the same time. Additional sampling of the bottom ash stream
was conducted independently at other times in order to obtain a more com-
plete characterization of this stream. Details of the individual test
methods are discussed below in the following order:
1. Process data;
2. Coal feed stream;
3. RDF feed stream;
4. Fly ash hopper;
5« Sluice water and bottom ash; and
6. Air emissions.
Process Data - Each air-emission test covered a period of about 6 hr; dur-
ing those periods operations in the control room of the power plant were
monitored with hourly readings of all pertinent process data. In addition,
the ESP operating conditions (primary and secondary voltages, amperages,
and spark rates, etc.) were recorded during each test. The ESP operating
conditions were optimized by UE personnel and put on manual control prior
to each test.
29
-------
On the day preceding each test, a load request was submitted to UE
personnel to specify boiler load and other conditions desired for the test,
using the form shown in Table 4. In accordance with information on this
form, the UE operators would establish test conditions at least 2 hr pre-
ceding testing. Approximately 1 hr before start of testing, the coal feed
would be placed on manual control to hold it constant, and RDF feed would
be stopped for a short period of time (?« 15 min) in order to determine the
drop in megawatt output (i.e., the percent of megawatt output attributable
to RDF). The RDF feed was then resumed and the coal feed returned to auto-
matic control for the test period. This drop-load test was also repeated
at the end of each test in order to determine the average percent of boiler
megawatt output due to RDF during the test period. In most instances the
amount of RDF feed was limited by the number of conveying lines available
and other factors. Boiler load was also dictated, in a few cases, by UE
load demands. Other than these types of restrictions, UE made every effort
to operate the plant as desired for the testing and gave full cooperation
to that effort.
Coal Feed Stream - The coal feed system to the Unit No. 1 boiler at the
Meramec station consists of four feeders. Approximately equal portions of
samples from each of the four coal feeders were obtained and combined as
a single composite sample of about 1 liter (0.04 ft3) in size. This sam-
pling was carried out three times during each test at 2-hr intervals, yield-
ing three coal samples for each test.
The coal feed rate for each test could not be determined directly.
However, the feed rate could be calculated from the boiler efficiency
curve shown in Figure 3, since the heating value of the coal and the
portion of total megawatts output due to coal as determined in the drop-
load tests were known.
RDF Feed Stream - When conducting coal + RDF tests, each truckload of RDF
was sampled by obtaining 0.014 to 0.028 m3 (1/2 to 1 ft3) of the small pile
of RDF that continuously accumulates from spillover during truck unloading.
This material was the most representative sample that could be taken from
each truckload.
The feed rate of RDF during each test was determined by the inventory
of RDF in the receiving bin and Atlas bin at the beginning and end of each
test, plus the weight of all trucks unloaded during the test period. The
inventory was based on visual observation of RDF levels in the bins and
previous data obtained on quantity of RDF versus bin levels.
30
-------
Table 4. REQUEST FORM FOR POWER PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS
DURING AIR EMISSIONS TEST
Date of Test
UNIT 1 PRECIPITATOR
TEST CONDITIONS
Operating conditions to be established for the precipitator
test with modifications as noted. These conditions are to be established
by .
1. Electrical load
2. Unit off area control.
3. Boiler on auto combustion control.
4. Boiler oxygen according to operating curve.
5. The coal mills that are in service are to have the loading
balanced from the motor currents. If possible, all coal
feeders set at same rate.
6. Wall sootblowers may be blown on schedule.
7. No other sootblowing during the velocity traverse or
during sampling. Blow all IK blowers on the shift
prior to the tests. Operations will be notified when
sootblowing can proceed.
8. Pull ash from precipitator and air heater hoppers so
that they will be empty prior to sampling period of
the test.
9. No ash sluicing during velocity traverse or sampling
period.
10. I.D. fan amps to be balanced. I.D. fan inlet dampers
to be set on same damper position. If those two condi-
tions cannot be met simultaneously, the preferred con-
ditions will be determined at the beginning of the test.
11. During the tests, all rectifier sets will be on manual
control and set as indicated by test personnel.
12. No refuse firing during this test. Refuse is to be fired
at a maximum sustainable rate during the testing period.
The operating Supervisor will be notified as soon as possible
when changes to these test conditions are required, and when a test is
concluded.
31
-------
10,300
U)
ro
I
UJ
T.
1/1
oo
o
10,200
10,100
_L
_L
Meramec Plant
Unit Nos. 1 & 2
Heat Rate vs. Generat;on
Based upon "Meramec Units 1 & 2
Gross tfeat Rate" Curves
Dated 12/30/63 and Assuming
a 4% Increase in Unit Heat Rate
Since that Time
9800
1
9700
CO
o
9600 g
60
70
80
90 100 110
GROSS GENERATION, MW
120
130
140
Figure 3. Efficiency curve for Meramec boiler.
-------
RDF feed rate could also be approximated in the same manner as that for
coal, using the average heating value of RDF samples and the drop-load test
data* However, this method is subject to considerable inaccuracy since such
calculations assume complete combustion of the fuel, which is essentially
accurate for the coal but is not nearly as accurate for the RDF. The calcu-
lation of RDF feed rate based on inventory changes is also subject to some
inaccuracy, but no other alternatives were available,
Fly Ash Hopper - The electrostatic precipitator which serves the Unit No. 1
boiler was designed with eight fly ash collection hoppers, four being in
parallel nearest the gas inlet and the other four in parallel nearest the
gas outlet. Approximately equal samples of 1/2 liter (0.018 ft^) were taken
from each "inlet" hopper and combined to form one "inlet" sample. Similarly,
the four samples from the "outlet" hoppers were combined into one sample.
These samples, taken twice during each test, were "grab" samples and not
necessarily representative of fly ash that accumulated during the test. The
reason for using this method was that it was decided to duplicate the pro-
cedures used by UE when it conducts its own emission tests, and its procedures
specify that no fly ash be "pulled" from the hoppers during a test. Therefore,
fly ash accumulates in the hoppers during the test, but samples can only be
taken at the very bottom of the hopper. The hoppers were emptied of fly ash
before the beginning of each test to help insure that representative samples
were obtained during the test periods.
The collection rate for fly ash in the hoppers could not be measured
directly, but it could be estimated from the gas flow rates and particulate
loadings measured at the inlet and outlet of the ESP as part of each air-
emission test.
Sluice Water and Bottom Ash - One of the more readily observable effects
of burning RDF was the dramatic change in the character and quantity of bot-
tom ash that is sluiced from the boiler. The development of methods for
quantifying the bottom ash accumulation rate and obtaining representative
samples was made difficult by the variable flow rate of sluice water con-
taining the sluice solids, approximately 31.5 to 190 liters/sec (~ 500 to
3,000 GPM), and the rapid variations in solids content which occurred dur-
ing the sluicing operation.
After some initial trials of methods for directly measuring the
sluice-water flow rate, it was decided that the best method of measuring
the quantity of sluice water would be by means of a flowmeter in the in-
coming river water line that supplies the water for the sluicing operation.
An Annubar flowmetering device was installed in this river water line. How-
ever, it was still necessary to develop a method of representatively sam-
pling the sluice water after it leaves the boiler in order to determine
solids content;
33
-------
A major problem in sampling the sluice water was how to obtain several
subsamples during the sluicing operation with each sample being proportional
to the flow rate. Initially, two swing-through samplers were tried, but these
were not successful. The final method used consisted of a sluice box to spread
the outflow of sluice water, in order to utilize a manual pull-through sampler
and obtain subsamples of the outflow from the sluice box, with the quantity
of each subsample being proportional to the flow rate. Diagrams of the sluice
box and sampling apparatus are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 6 presents
pictures of the system in actual use at the Meramec plant. The sluice box
system was used to collect subsamples at 30-sec intervals in succession at
each of seven points along the outflow from the sluice box.
Each subsample, of 3.8 liters G« 1 gal.), was poured through a filter
bag to separate the solids from the liquid which drained into 190-liter
(50-gal.) drums. Since the sluice period is about 30 min in length, the total
amount of sample obtained was about 228 liters (60 gal.). After the end of
the sluice operation, the exact quantity of liquid sample (filtrate) was
measured and the collected solids were weighed in order to calculate the
average solids content (weight of solids per unit volume of liquid). This
weight was then multiplied by the total quantity of river water to calculate
the total weight of solids discharged during this sluicing operation. Know-
ing the time interval since the preceding sluice, it was then possible to
compute the solids accumulation rate in the boiler. Portions of the solid
and liquid collected during the sampling operation, as well as the incoming
river water, were saved for chemical analysis.
The above procedure was used during each test, except for the series
of coal-only conventional tests, when the other less successful methods
were tried. These earlier tests showed the necessity of separate bottom ash
sampling tests prior to succeeding air-emission tests, in order to investi-
gate the reproducibility of data obtained using the sluice box. Results from
these separate tests are included in the later discussion of all bottom ash
sampling results.
Even though the sluice box sampling method gave reproducible results,
there was no way of knowing the accuracy of the results. This accuracy was
an important question considering that the total of all subsamples was only
about 228 liters (60 gal.), whereas the total volume of each sluice was on
the order of 380,000 liters (100,000 gal.). In an attempt to define better
the accuracy of the sluice box results, two separate series of tests were
carried out, using a large receiving tank, 21 m diameter x 3.7 m high
(70 ft x 12 ft), that had been part of a previous UE test facility. Per-
mission for use of this tank was given by UE« The sluice discharge line
from the boiler was modified so that an entire sluice could be redirected
into the large tank. Filters were installed in the tank so that the liquid
could be drained off, leaving the solids in the tank. These solids were
then removed from the tank and loaded into trucks which were weighed to
34
-------
u>
01
\
I
Figure 4. Schematic of sluice box system.
-------
HANDLE l.»cm Dia.
30.5 cm
SAMPLE CONTAINS*
SLUICE BOX
( See Figure 4 )
DISCHARGE FROM
SLUICE BOX
PLATFORM
SAMPLE CONTAINER PULLED
THROUGH SLUICE DISCHARGE
BY OPERATOR STANDING ON
PLATFORM
Figure 5. Sluice sample container.
36
-------
Figure 6, Sluice box sampling system.
37
-------
determine the weight of solids collected. Data thus obtained were used to
calculate the bottom ash accumulation rate for comparison with similar
data from the sluice box. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the large receiving
tank and associated equipment.
In using the large tank, three coal + RDF sluices were diverted into
the tank, after which it was cleaned out to weigh the solids. Likewise,
four coal-only sluices were diverted and the solids weighed. The results
from both tests verified the accuracy of the previous sluice box data.
Air Emissions - Measurement of air emissions was the most complex part of
all the tests. These measurements centered on determination of particulate
loading at the inlet and outlet of the ESP, particulate size distribution
at the ESP inlet and outlet, and sampling and analyses of gaseous emissions
(SOx, NOx, etc.). Included in the particulate emission tests was analysis
of potentially hazardous pollutants. The sampling train for the potentially
hazardous emissions tests was of a special design as is discussed in a
later section dealing with the analyses spectrum.
Gaseous emissions were determined primarily by specified EPA methods
as are also identified in the section "Analysis Spectrum." In some tests
an instrumented EPA van provided additional gas analysis data.
Particle size distributions were determined by cascade impactor and
diffusion battery techniques. MRI conducted the particle size sampling
during the potentially hazardous emissions tests so that the substrate
samples could be saved for analysis of each size fraction. Southern Re-
search Institute (SRI) conducted the particle size sampling during the
conventional tests and supplemented the impactor testing with diffusion
battery-condensation nuclei counters for further definition of fine par-
ticle emissions and fractional efficiency of the ESP. SRI also measured
the in situ resistivity and the density of the particulates. Specific
information on sampling locations, etc., for the particle size tests are
presented in the individual discussions for each set of tests contained
in the appendices of this report.
Particulate loadings at the inlet and outlet of the ESP were deter-
mined by EPA Method 5,27 Location of the sampling ports for these tests
are shown in Figures 9 through 11. The 18 inlet sampling ports were used
for the particulate emission tests. Some of these same ports (generally
the more inner ports) were used for particle size sampling and gaseous
sampling (Orsat, SOX, NOx, etc.). However, with regard to the particu-
late sampling, the inlet sampling ports were just downstream, 1.8 m
G« 6 ft), from a 90-degree elbow. This was not the most desirable test
location, but it was the only possible location.
38
-------
u>
STEEL TANK WITH CONCRETE BOTTOM
21.4mDIA. 4.6m HEIGHT
MAX. CAPACITY 1,635,000 LITERS
FILTERS HOLDERS
16 FILTER SURFACES 1.5 mX 2.25m
54m2 TOTAL FILTER AREA
25.4cm DIA.
SLUICE DIVERSION
PIPE
TO SLUICE
POND
7.6cm DIA. FILTER
DISCHARGE PIPE
10.2cm DIA.
RUBBER HOSE
(SMOOTH)
SUMP PUMP
3.7KW
1750 RPM
5.1cm DIA.
'RUBBER HOSE
(SMOOTH)
25.4cm DIA. SLUICE
DISCHARGE PIPE
FROM
BOILER
SUMP PIT
MAX. CAPACITY
1438 LITERS
Figure 7. Schematic diagram of tank and filter assemblies.
-------
Clam Shell Crane
Hi - Loader
for Tank
Cleanout
Figure 8. Diagram of sluice solids removal from large receiving tank.
-------
PARTICLE SIZE &
GAS SAMPLING
PORTS (5)
COLLECTION HOPPERS
(Inlet) (Outlet)
OUTLET SAMPLING
PORTS (7)
INLET SAMPLING
PORTS (18)
Figure 9. Sketch of ESP and sampling locations.
-------
1 23+4+5
1.74m *
0.9
m
_
0.9m
_
2.24
m
4+ 3+
-
1.67m1
Outlet A fEost )
Outlet B ( West )
+ Andersen Sampling Ports
* Duct Dimensions are Average Internal Measurements
7 Side Ports were used for Particulate Sampling (EPA Methods)
Figure 10, Schematic illustration of outlet sampling locations,
42
-------
LO
I
r
q , . — —
QA-—.
04cm
XXX
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
hj
hj
"1
hj
n
AA/-m
oocm
i
^
J
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
+ Traverse Points
O Unreachable Points (Obstructed)
X Brink Sampling Points
5432
Sampling Ports
Figure 11. Schematic illustration of the ESP inlet sampling points
-------
Two parallel outlet ducts served the ESP, and seven test ports were
located in the side of both ducts downstream of the discharge from each
induced draft fan. In addition, there were five sampling ports on top of
each duct which were used for the particle size tests and for gaseous
emission sampling* Incidently, these five ports were used for the particu-
late emission sampling that was done in December 1973 (prior to installa-
tion of the seven side sampling ports).
A single separate sampling port in the west outlet duct was used for
drawing the gas sample to the EPA instrument van. This instrumented van
was made available for most of the sampling duration and was equipped
with continuous recording analyzers for CO, C02, S02, NOX, and 02. The
analyzers housed in the EPA van were as follows:
* CO, C02, S02 - Beckman NDIR;
* NOx - Chemiluminescent analyzer; and
* Q£ - Beckman polarographic analyzer (Model No. 4243).
Analysis Spectrum and Analytical Methods
As mentioned previously, the emissions testing consisted of two series
of conventional tests (coal-only and coal + RDF) and two series of tests
for potentially hazardous pollutant emissions (coal-only and coal + RDF),.
The primary difference between the test series was the spectrum of the
broader analyses required in the potentially hazardous pollutant test series.
Specifics regarding the types of analysis and the analytical methods utilized
are discussed next.
Bnissipn Tests for Conventional Pollutants - Samples of all input and output
streams were obtained during each test. The analysis performed on these sam-
ples is indicated in Table 5, and the associated analytical methods are iden-
tified in Table 6. A major part of the analysis was performed by Ralston
Purina Laboratories (Research 900) in St. Louis. Analysis of particulate and
gaseous emissions at the inlet and both outlets was done at MRI.
Emission Tests for Potentially Hazardous Pollutants - The last column in
Table 5 shows the additional analyses that were done on samples taken dur-
ing each of the potentially hazardous pollutant emissions tests. Methods
used for these additional analyses are listed in Table 7.
44
-------
Table 5. ANALYSIS SPECTRUM FOR CONVENTIONAL AND POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT EMISSIONS TESTS
Coal (three composite
samples per test)
RDF (sample each truck)
Analysis spectrum for
conventional tests
S, H20, ash, heating value, Cl"
Proximate and ultimate analyses
Ten metals (Fe, Al, Zn, Cr, Pb, Cu, Ag, Na, K, Li)
S, H20, ash, heating value, Cl"
Proximate and ultimate analyses
Ten metals (listed above)
Particle size distribution
Additions (or deletions) to analysis spectrum
for potentially hazardous pollutant tests
Trace elements (Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg,
Se, Ag, Ti, V, Zn, Br, Cl, F)
Trace elements (listed above)
Fly ash (collected in ESP
hoppers, four samples
per test)
S, H20, ash, heating value
Ten metals (listed above)
Trace elements (listed above)
Identify 10 highest concentration organics
Bacteria (by RP) - total count, fecal coliform,
salmonella
River water and sluice
water (one composite
sample per test)
i_n Sluice solids (i.e., bottom
ash) (one composite sam-
ple per test)
ESP inlet/outlet
TSS, TDS, BOD, COD
pH, total alkalinity, oil and grease
D.O. (by MRI)
S, H20, ash, heating value
Ten metals (listed above)
Particle size distribution
General composition (visual separation by MRI)
Mass loading, H20, Cl"
Particulate - 10 metals (listed above)
Hg (inlet only)
Gases - 02, C02, N2 - by Orsat
S02, 803, NOX (outlets only - EPA Methods
6 through 8)
02, CO, CO2, S02, HC (outlet only - EPA van)
Particle size distribution (by SRI)
Particulate resistivity (by SRI) - inlet only
Legend: MRI - Midwest Research Institute
SRI - Southern Research Institute
RP - Ralston Purina
Cyanide (by RP)
Bacteria (by RP) - total count, fecal coliform,
salmonella
Trace elements (listed above)
Trace elements (listed above)
Bacteria (by RP) - total count, fecal coliform,
salmonella
Delete 10 metals (see below)
Delete S03 Method 8
Particle size distribution (by MRI), analyze sub-
strates for trace elements listed above, except
As, Sb, Hg, and Se
Delete resistivity
Special particulate and gas sampling train was
used to analyze for:
Trace elements (listed above)
Nitrate, sulfate
CN"
POM
Volatile organic acids
Identification of 10 highest concentration
organics
-------
Table 6. ANALYSIS METHODS FOR CONVENTIONAL TESTS2
Samples Parameter
Coal H.O
RDF Ash
Fly ash S
Sluice solids Heating value
Cl
Particle size distribution (sluice solids)
Proxiiute analysis (coal, RDF)
Hyp - (above)
Ash - (above)
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon - by difference
Ultimate analysis (coal, RDF)
Ash - (above)
S - (above)
H
C
N
0 - by difference
Metals
Fe
Al
Zn "
Cr
Pb
Cu
Ag
Na
K
Li
River water and TSS
sluice water TDS
BOD
COD
PH
Alkalinity
Oil and grease •*
D.O. (by MKI)
ESP inlet/outlet Particulate mass
(by MRI) HjO
Hg (inlets only)
cr
Gases
°2 1
C02\
N2
SO 2 (outlets only)
S02/S03 (outlets only)
NOX (outlets only)
Particulate, 10 metals
Fe
Al
Zn
Cr
Pb
Cu
Ag
N.
Li
Particle sixe distribution (by SRI)
Particulate resistivity
(inlet only) (by SRI)
Analysis method or reference
ASTM, D271, for all except RDF (dry to constant weight at 75*C)
ASTM, D271, modified
ASTM, D271-46, modified
Parr Instrument Company, Instrument Manual. Method No. 139
Total chloride - ASTM, D2361-66, modified - chloridimeter
Rotap sieving
ASTM, D271, p. 16, modified
ASTM, Caseous Fuels. Coal and Coke, pp. 22-25, modified
ASTM, Gaseous Fuels. Coal and Coke, pp. 22-25, modified
AOAC, 12th Edition (1975), Method No. 2.049
Iron as Fe (III) oxide, ASTM, Part 19, D2795-2869
Aluminum as Al (III) oxide, ASTM, Part 19, D2795-2869
Use dry ash in acid digestion; analyze by atomic absorption
EPA Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (1974)
Field analysis using Precision Scientific Company galvanic
cell oxygen analyzer
EPA Method 5
EPA Method 5 - impingers
Method described in paper by R. Statnlk (EPA)
Collect in 1 N KOH impingers as part of EPA Method 5;
analyzed by ion selective electrode
Three samples per test; analyzed by Orsat
EPA Method 6 (two samples per test)
EPA Method 8
EPA Method 7 (four samples per test)
Digest in HF, atomic absorption spectrophotometry - flame
b/
Digest in HF, atomic absorption spectrophotometry - flame-
Digest in HF, atomic absorption spectrophotometry - flame
Cascade impactors and diffusion battery-condensation nuclei
counters
In-stack point-to-plane resistivity probe
_a/ Analysis by Ralston Purina unless otherwise indicated.
_b/ Ag analyzed by AAS graphite furnace for samples taken during coal + refuse tests.
46
-------
Table 7. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES AND METHODS FOR POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT EMISSIONS TESTS3'
Parameter
Analysis method
Coal
RDF
Fly ash
River water and
sluice water
Sluice solids
ESP inlet/outlet
Trace elements
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
Cl
F
Trace elements (above)
Trace elements (above)
Identify 10 highest concentration
organics
Bacteria (by RP)
Total count
Fecal coliform count
Salmonella
Trace elements (above)
Bacteria (by RP) (above)
Cyanide (by EP)
Trace elements (above)
Bacteria (by RP) (above)
Particle size distribution
Special sampling train!?'
Trace elements (above)
Nitrate
Sulfate
CN-
POM
Volatile organic acids
Ten highest concentration organics
Digest in HF, AAS, hydride generation
Digest in HF, AAS, hydride generation
Digest in HF, AAS, flame
Digest in HF, AAS, flame
Digest in HF, AAS, graphite furnace
Digest in HF, AAS,
Digest in HF, AAS,
flame
flame
Digest in HF, AAS, graphite furnace
Digest in HF, AAS, cold vapor
Digest in HF, AAS, hydride generation
Digest in HF, AAS, graphite furnace
Digest in HF, AAS, flame
Digest in HF, AAS, flame
Digest in HF, AAS, flame
02 combustion, NaOH trapping, specific ion electrode
02 combustion, NaOH trapping, specific ion electrode
02 combustion, NaOH trapping, specific ion electrode
Same as above
Same as above
Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
AOAC, 12th Edition (1975), Section 46.038, p. 915
Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) for Foods - FDA, 3rd
Edition (1972), Chapter V
Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) for Foods - FDA, 3rd
Edition (1972), Chapter VIII
Same as above
Same as above
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th
Edition (1971), American Public Health Association, etc.
Same as above
Same as above
Cascade impactors
Same as above
Colorimetric with phenoldisulfonic acid
Barium - thorin titration
Fluorometric
Electron-capture gas chromatography
Flame ionization gas chromatography
Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
_a/ Analyses by MRI unless otherwise stated.
_b/ Details of special sampling train and analysis methods are presented later in this report.
47
-------
Sampling for potentially hazardous pollutant emissions at the inlets
and outlets of the ESP required use of a special sampling train which is
depicted in Figure 12.* The front half of the train was designed to deter-
mine mass particulate loading and is the same as EPA Method 5. The remain-
ing part of the train was designed to collect gaseous organic pollutants
and certain inorganic pollutants which were known or suspected to be
emitted partially or wholly in vapor form.
The analyses on each part of the special train were performed (by
MRl) on samples taken during each potentially hazardous pollutant emis-
sions test. In a few cases it was necessary to delete certain analyses
because of insufficient sample or other reasons. However, in most cases,
all the analyses were carried out, using the procedures and analyses
methods summarized in Figure 13.
Selection of the list of specific trace elements for which quantita-
tive analyses were to be carried out on all input/output samples taken
during each potentially hazardous pollutant emissions test was based on
available literature and data for coal-fired power plants and incinerators.
MRI and the project officers evaluated this information, considering the
concentration of each element and toxicity of the element (and its com-
pounds) in selecting elements which were to be analyzed quantitatively
in all samples. Spark source mass spectrometry (SSMS) analysis was also
performed on several samples taken during both sets of potentially hazardous
pollutant emissions tests (coal-only and coal + RDF), and these data have
been included in the tabulation of all analyses results presented later in
this report.
DISCUSSION OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS
This section presents a summary discussion and interpretation of the
emission test results. Comprehensive tabulations of all sampling and analy-
sis results are presented in individual Appendices E through H of this re-
port. The appendices are arranged as follows:
Appendix E - Conventional emissions for coal (seven tests)
Appendix F - Potentially hazardous pollutants for coal (three
tests)
Appendix G - Conventional emissions for coal + RDF (eight tests)
Appendix H - Potentially hazardous pollutants for coal + RDF
(four tests)
* The analysis spectrum for each part of the train is also shown in Fig-
ure 12. This analysis spectrum corresponds to that shown in Table 8.
48
-------
Gelman A
8.9 cm
Probe Cyclone Filter
Analysis Performed
Participate Mass fi\
Moisture
Trace Elements f^\
Except As,Sb,Se,Hg ^-^
Cr,F-,Br-
Nitrate, Sulfate
POM
CN-
(l)
©
(T)
Volatile Organic Acids
10 Highest
Concentration Orgdnics
As,Sb,Se,Hg (^
Mod
G.S.* G.S.* G.S.'
ooo
Cooling
Coil & H2O 1.3 X 1.3cmrfj
Trap Tenax Plug
200ml 200ml Empty
2% 2%
-Ice Bath-
0
0
G.S.* G.S.* G.S.* G.S.*
OO-—O-O-""'
200ml 200ml
Acid
Na2Cr2O7
200ml Empty
Acid
KMnO4
-Ice Bath-
*G.S. - Greenburg-Smitti Impinger
Figure 12. Diagram of special sampling train and analysis of samples.
-------
Ui
o
Acid Dichromote
Acid Permanganate
Na2CO3
Probe
Cyclone
Filter
Tenax Plug
,
Digestion
Reduce with
-^- O2 Combustion.
with NaOH
Trapping
Benzene
Extraction
& Column
Chromatography
_^ Reduce with
Na3BH3
Elemental Analysis:
AAS
Hg Analysis:
Cold Vapor AAS
As, Sb, Se Analysis:
AAS of Hydrides
CN~ (Fluorometric)
_^. F",Br~,Cr Analysis:
Specific Ion Electrode
Analysis:
Barium -Thorin
»~ Analysis:
Phenoidisulfonic Acid
Volatile Organic Acids
FID (GC)
10 Highest
Concentration Organics
GC/MS (Identify Only)
POM Analysis:
Electron Capture GC
Figure 13. Analysis methods for samples from special sampling train.
-------
Table 8. ANALYSIS SPECTRUM FOR EACH PORTION OF THE SPECIAL SAMPLING TRAIN
Particulate
catch
Na2C03
Impingers
H20
Mass
Trace elements As, Sb, Se, Hg
Cl~, F~, Br~ Cl", F", Br"
Tenax
plug
Bichromate
impingers
Permanganate
impingers
As, Sb, Se, Hg As, Sb, Se, Hg
POM
POM POM
CN"
Volatile organic acids
Identify 10 highest Identify 10 highest
concentration organics concentration organics
-------
Data contained within each of these appendices are presented in the
following order:
!• Particulate mass test data.
2. General gas composition data.
3. General analysis of input/output streams (Ralston Purina).
4. Specific analysis results (MRl) (potentially hazardous pollut-
ant tests only).
5. Particle size distribution reports.
Because of the complexity of the sampling and analysis performed and
the many parameters measured, discussion of the results is facilitated by
subdividing the presentation along the lines of major input and output
streams related to the boiler. To that end, the discussions of the results
are presented in the following order:
1. RDF feed rates and energy recovery;
2. Quantification and characterization of bottom ash;
3. Water effluents;
4» Air emissions (particulate and gaseous); and
5. Potentially hazardous pollutant emissions.
RDF Feed Rates and Energy Recovery
The extent of energy recovery from RDF is an important aspect of any
waste-to-energy system. Determinations of the energy recovery from the
RDF were made using data for RDF heating value (higher heating value) and
feed rate and the electrical power output attributable to the RDF»
During each coal + RDF test, the RDF feed rate and heating value were
determined* Drop-load tests were also performed to define the amount of
electrical output (Mw) attributable to the RDF. These data are recorded
in Table 9, which includes the calculated values of tons of RDF per
megawatt-hour and the associated energy input* These results show that
the average RDF feed rate required to generate each unit of power was 1»12
Mg/hr/Mw (1.24 tons/hr/Mw). Another comparison, which is perhaps more mean-
ingful, is to compare the total potential RDF heat input with the amount .
of heat input that is required according to the UE boiler efficiency curve.
52
-------
Table 9. TABULATION OF RDF FEEDRATES AND ELECTRICAL GENERATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO RDF
Ui
Test sequence
and date
Coal + RDF
conventional tests
4/30/75
5/02/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
5/20/75
5/21/75
5/22/75
Coal + RDF potentially
hazardous tests
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
Coal + RDF
(fine grind)
4/22/75
4/26/75
Total Mw Average Mw output RDF feedrate Average heating value of
(% RDF) from RDF^ (MR/hr^/ (kj/kg) (HHV^7
100 (6)
100 (8)
140 (8-9)
140 (4-5)
140 (10)
140 (10)
100 (10)
100 (10)
133 (7-8)
134 (7-8)
133 (7)
135 (7-8)
100 (11)
110 (10)
6.0
8.0
12.0
6.3
14.0
14.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
11,0
11.0
6.14
.9.76
11.75
6.61
10.26
10.35
15.62
12.98
13.61
13.02
12.23
11.16
11.88
11.88
8,404
8,511
9,283
9,525
12,351
11,590
9,937
9,976
12,672
11,972
9,937
12,360
9,248
7,362
Ratio of RDF feedrate Potential heat input
RDF to electrical generation from RDF
• (Mg/hr/Mw) (106 kJ/Mw-hr)
1.02
1.22
0.98
1.05
0.73
0.74
1.56
1.30
1.36
1.31
1.22
1.12
1.08
1.08
Avg. 1.13
8.62
10.42
9.09
10.02
9.07
8.62
15.50
12.94
17.24
15.64
14.16
13.79
9.98
7.94
Avg. 11.65
.a/ Average megawatt output from RDF based on drop-load tests.
J>/ Measured RDF feedrate based on inventory change and truck deliveries.
c/ Wet basis (material as received).
-------
Data on heat input for individual tests show considerable variation, prob-
ably reflecting inaccuracies in measurements of RDF feed rate and megawatt
output (drop-load tests). However, the average RDF heat input of 11.7 x 10^
Kj/Mw-hr (11 x 10" Btu/Mw-hr) and the corresponding average value for gross
input required of 10.2 x 106 Kj/Mw-hr (9.6 x 106 Btu/Mw-hr), indicate that
about 87% of the potential heat contained in the RDF was converted to actual
heat energy. Most of the inefficiency or loss of potential heat energy in
the RDF is due to loss of combustible material as bottom ash. Additional
discussion of this fact is presented in the next section.
Quantification and Characterization of Bottom Ash
Tests were carried out to determine the effect of burning RDF on bot-
tom ash accumulation rates and to characterize changes in the composition
of the bottom ash. Data obtained in these tests were used to determine in-
creases in the quantity of bottom ash, to calculate the percentage of RDF
ash that becomes bottom ash, and to calculate the "burnout efficiency" of
the RDF based on the quantity and heating value of material lost as bottom
ash. All the data were obtained from the sluice box sampling method, except
for two tests using the large receiving tank.
Data obtained from the sluice sampling activities were used to calcu-
late the sluice solids accumulation rates which are presented in Table 10
along with associated data on feed rates of coal + RDF and pertinent sample
analysis results. The data on bottom ash accumulation rate have also been
plotted in Figure 14. Examination of the data in Table 10 shows that the
bottom ash accumulation rate when burning coal ranged from 368 to 1,080 Kg/hr
(810 to 2,376 Ib/hr), averaging about 605 Kg/hr (1,333 Ib/hr). The highest
values were associated with higher power loads (110 to 140 Mw).
Further examination of the data shows that there was a marked increase
in bottom ash accumulation rate when burning coal + RDF. These values were
spread over a range of 2,350 to 7,070 Kg/hr (5,180 to 15,570 Ib/hr) with
the average being 4,084 Kg/hr (8,995 Ib/hr). When burning coal-only, the
sluice solids accumulation rate tended to increase with boiler power load
as expected. However, because of the wide range of data, such a trend was
not discernible when burning coal + RDF. Also, the data did not show a de-
crease in bottom ash accumulation rate when fine grind RDF was burned.
The accumulation rates shown in Figure 14 are on a wet basis, and the
moisture content varied from test to test. This variation was primarily a
function of how well the sample of sluice solids drained through the filter
that was used to separate the liquid from the solids. When results are ex-
pressed on a dry matter basis, as shown in Figure 15, the variability is
reduced. Regardless of how the data are expressed, there is a wide range
in the coal + RDF accumulation rate, especially at the lower power levels.
This finding seems to be consistent with UE experience, in that they pre-
fer to burn RDF when the boiler is operated at higher power loads (> 100
Mw).
54
-------
a/
Table 10. SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT QUANTITIES AND ANALYSIS-
Electrical
output
Mtf
Test date (7. RDF)
Coal -only
2/21/75 98 (0%)
2/21/75. 113 (0%)
2/26/75 131 (07.)
2/27/75 131 (07.)
2/28/75 85 (07.)
2/28/75 127 (0%)
3/3/75 93 (07.)
3/4/75 112 (0%)
-3/4/75 140 (0%)
3/5/75 132 (0%)
3/5/75 138 (0%)
3/7/75 102 (0%)
3/7/75 110 (0%)
3/8/75 110 (0%)
3/8/75 110 (07.)
Coal +• RDF (regular erind)
4/30/75 101 (6%)
4/30/75 101 (67.)
5/2/75 101 (87.)
5/12/75 140 (8-9%)
5/19/75 138 (4-57.)
5/20/75 138 (10%)
5/20/75 138 (10%)
5/21/75 99 (10%)
5/22/75 99 (10%)
11/17/75 133 (7-8%)
11/18/75 134 (7-8%)
11/19/75 133 (7%)
11/20/75 135 (7-87.)
Coal + RDF (fine erind)
4/22/75 100 (11%)
4/26/75 110 (10%)
Receiving tank tests
12/4-12/5/75 120 (0%)
11/12-11/14/75 135 (4-6%)
Calculated^
feed rate
(Kg/hr)
37,981
46,387
51,695
48,201
32,179
48,127
38,616
40,211
50,483
44,832
47,515
38,194
41,019
41,075
41,079
36,150
36,150
35,389
42,848
49,431
45,889
47,059
32,943
33,473
48,717
51,202
52,327
51,035
34,367
37,955
47,120
49,810
Coal
Heating
RDF Sluice
Measured^/ Heating Measured!/
value Moisture Ash feed rate value
(kj/kgl
26,205
24,735
25,619
27,596
27,254
26,816
24,435
T28,238
[28,238
[29,477
L29/.77
[26,999
[26,999
[26,961
[26,961
[26,479
[26,479
26,479
30,415
27,189
27,512
26,828
35,181
26,791
25,605
24,544
23,967
24,809
26,093
26,281
25,956
26,107
(%) (7.) (Kg/hr) (kj/kg)
1 y. A n ft 7 A. .x r*n « 1 _
m , tfU O i / O ^.i— ..mm ii — — \j\Ja 1
19.20 6.10
15.40 9.19
14.50 6.77
12.80 16.58
13.00 9.92
12.00 8.91
[11.50 [11.54
[ll.SO Lll.54
[12.20 [ 7.11
[l2.20 L 7.11
[13.60 [ 6.73
Ll3.60 [ 6.73
[13.10 [ 7.03
U3.10 L 7.03 ^
Moisture Ash accumulation
(?.) O.) rate (Kg/hr)
, ^ ^ C././.
only s 3 **
653
408
490
403
499
404
367
739
712
921
499
826
712
889
Avg 605
[13.77 [6.56 [ 6,145 [8,404 [35.93 [21.63 2,350
Ll3.77 [6.56 [ 6,145 [s,404 [35.93 [21.63 3,774
13.30 6.30 9,765 8,511 33.65 23.03 7,063
c/ 8.78 11,744 9,283 34.98 20.74 3,565
1U08 7.02 6,616 9,525 16.33 25.27 4,663
11.47 6.98 No test 12,351 17.50 26.73 <
12.00 7.16 10,354 11,590 19.78 23.68 4,785
11.87 7.09 15,634 9,937 24.55 24.57 3,733
12.23 6.97 12,985 9,976 24.60 24.09 4,581
8.27 6.63 13,700 10,667 22.67 18.12 3,553
10.06 7.64 13,027 11,972 21.92 19,77 3,462
10.15 7.60 e/ 11,565 24.20 19.63 £/
12.57 6.61 11,159 12,360 22.74 18.70 2,620
13.65 6.54 11,852 9,248 19.50 31.646 4,327
solids (bottom ash)
Heating
value
(kj/kg)
< No
1,524
3,049
1,938
3,945
6.176
5,059
3,010
3,445
5,033
2,780
2,005
c/
1,403
No
3,466
2,063
2,461
2,696
761
4,122
11,049
3,263
13.90 6.53 11,852 7.362 36.71) 21.405 4.563 2,289
Avg. 4,080 (regular anc
. „-,,,
15.30 6.66 < C
v« i""i,jr ^ -,*..—
11.83 7.13 8,195 11,723 27.10 18.79 3,648
1,605
2,963
Moisture
(%)
samples taken
4-
36.63
45.46
32.40
41.00
60.50
53.60
40.60
59.20
47.00
63.50
39.80
.£'
37.50
43.50
44.90
41.00
37.40
29.10
53.80
36.50
37.60
30.10
fine grind)
47.80
42.10
Ash
(%)
>
55.45
43.02
57.69
45.347
20.26
33.51
49.16
27.28
34.47
23.02
50.45
£.<
55.93
44.11
46.50
48.64
53.33
66.58
32.75
57.66
47.31
59.46
42.19
46.61
j|/ All analysis and feedrates are on a wet basis (moisture as received).
b/ Coal feedrate calculated from UE boiler efficiency curve and average heating value of samples taken.
.e/
Sample analysis in error.
RDF feedrate determined from truck delivery weights and bin inventory change; heating value, moisture and ash are average value of samples taken from each truck.
Data not reported due to problems with refuse feed system during test.
_f/ Bottom ash accumulation ' rate was based on sluice box sampling to determine total quantity of sluice solids and on time interval, since preceding sluice.
-------
7000 -
6000
^A
\
16,000
14,000
\
•S 5000
v
Sluice Solids - Cool + RDF
A Regular Grind 7 - 10% RDF
D Regular Grind 4 -6% RDF
O Fine Grind 10 - 11% RDF
X Regular Grind 4 - 6% RDF (Receiving Tank Test)
\
4000
v
£
c
o
75
3
3
U
U
Cool + RDF
Receiving Tank Test
A P
3000
•p
~o
o
-5 2000
1000
Sluice Solids
Coal-Only
1 — Coal -Only
/ Receiving Tank Test
W"
12,000
10,000
8000
6000
4000
2000
s
3
U
u
<
1
80
90
100 no 120
Generation Rate, Mw
130
140
Figure 14. Sluice solids accumulation rate (wet basis)
versus electric power generation.
56
-------
Sluice Solids - Coal + RDF
5000
X
™ 4000
a
"o
c
o
JJ
| 3000
u
u
u
i
£ 2000
J
^
Receiving Tank Test __— - — —
—.—••""" — "
<-i • c i-j ; Coal-Only —
Sluice Solids / „ . . ' . _ .
^ . _ , 1 Receiving Tank Test
Coal-Only — ^
-------
The most important aspect of these data, whether expressed on a wet
or dry matter basis, is that, on the average, the bottom ash accumulation
rate increased by a factor of 6 or 7 when coal + RDF was burned. This in-
crease is especially significant considering the fact that these increases
occurred when only 5 to 10% of the boiler heat was provided by RDF.
The accuracy of the sluice box sampling method was verified by util-
izing a vacant 1,893,000-liter (500,000-gal.) tank located at the Meramec
power plant. The results of the two receiving tank tests are included in
Table 10 and in Figures 14 and 15. The coal + RDF test compares very favor-
ably with the sluice box results, being in the middle of the data range.
The coal-only test resulted in an accumulation rate (wet basis) somewhat
higher than what would be predicted from the sluice box tests. The higher
rate was due in part to the fact that the receiving tank sluice solids con-
tained 47.8% moisture, compared to an average 42% moisture for the sluice
box test results. When the coal-only receiving tank data are converted to
a dry matter basis, the test result compares more closely with the sluice
box data as shown in Figure 15.
It was suspected that the coal-only receiving tank test results might
show a higher accumulation rate because during those tests the moisture
content of the coal was higher (15.3%) than the average moisture content
of coal in previous tests (13.5%). It was also observed during the coal-
only test that the high moisture coal was upsetting the normally smooth
operation of the coal feeders and restricting power output from the boiler.
In summary, the results of the two tests using the receiving tank
generally verify the accuracy of the data obtained using the sluice box
sampling method. However, the two receiving tank tests are not sufficient
to determine whether the wide range in the coal + RDF data is a result of
variability in the sampling method or is a true variation in the nature
of the process.
Data in Table 10 include the calculated feed rate of coal and RDF as
well as the bottom ash accumulation rate and the measured heating value of
each of these streams. From'these data it was possible to calculate the
percent of refuse feed heat input (Kj/hr) that is contained (or lost) in
bottom ash. The percentage of heat loss should be indicative of the ineffi-
ciency of combustion of the RDF.
The methodology used to calculate the percent of RDF heat input that
is lost to the bottom ash involves a two-step calculation. The first step
is to calculate the percent of coal feed heat input lost to the bottom ash
in the coal-only tests using the following expression:
58
-------
Percent of coal feed heat input that is contained in sluice solids =
(Kg/hr of sluice solids) (Kj/Kg heating value of sluice solids)
(Kg/hr of coal feed) (Kg/Kg heating value of coal)
E (Ib/hr of sluice solids) (Btu/lb heating value of sluice solids)
(Ib/hr of coal feed) (Btu/lb heating value of coal)
x 100
(1)
The values calculated using the above equation are shown in Table 11
and ranged from 0.05% to 0.38% with an average of 0.21%.
Table 11. COAL FEED HEAT INPUT LOST TO BOTTOM ASH
% Of coal feed heat input
Test date contained in sluice solids
3/4/75 0.05
3/4/75 0.16
3/5/75 0.11
3/5/75 0.26
3/7/75 0.30
3/7/75 0.38
3/8/75 0.19
3/8/75 0.28
12/4-12/5/75 0.14 (receiving tank test)
The values listed in Table 11 exhibit a rather wide range, unrelated
to the boiler load (Mw). However, all the values are relatively small,
indicating that little of the coal feed heat is lost to bottom ash. A
value of 0,30% was selected for use in the next step of the calculations
to determine coal + RDF heat loss to bottom ash. The coal + RDF loss was
calculated from the expression:
Percent of refuse feed heat input that is contained in sluice solids =
(Kg/hr sluice solids) (HVSS) - (0.0030) (Kg/hr coal) (HVCQAL)
X
100
(Kg/hr RDF)
where HV = heating value, in Kj/Kg, of sluice solids (ss), coal or RDF
Rlb/hr sluice solids) (HVgS) - (0.0030) (Ib/hr coal) (HVcQAl.)
L(ib/hr RDF) (HV£DF)
where HV = heating value, in Btu/lb, of sluice solids (ss), coal or RDF.
(2)
59
-------
Calculations using the above expression were carried out for each
of the coal + RDF tests, and the results are presented in Table 12. These
results show that the calculated percentage of RDF heat input that is lost
in bottom ash ranged from 0 to 26.2% with the average being 10.0%. The
range of the data is rather wide, and the data do not indicate any corre-
lation with boiler load, percent RDF or characteristics of the RDF (e.g.,
percent water or percent ash). The data are not extensive, but they do in-
dicate, based on the average of 10.070, that the combustion efficiency of
the RDF on an energy recovery basis is about 90.0%, as compared to 99.7%
for coal. Also, the two data points for fine-grind RDF did not indicate
any improvement in combustion efficiency for the fine-grind RDF.
The combustion efficiency for RDF of 90%, calculated on the basis of
bottom ash losses, is in reasonable agreement with the 87% combustion ef-
ficiency determined in the preceding section.
Part of the heat input to a coal-fired boiler is also lost in the fly
ash. Tests at the Meramec plant did include determination of heating value
of the fly ash, and the quantity of fly ash could be estimated from the ESP
inlet grain loadings and flow rates. Overall, these tests did not show any
significant difference in inlet grain loading, whether burning coal-only
or coal + RDF. Also, although there was a wide variation in heating value
of the collected fly ash samples, the averages were about the same: 1,549
Kj/Kg (666 Btu/lb) for coal-only and 1,942 Kj/Kg (835 Btu/lb) for coal + RDF.
These average values were higher than expected, but analysis of one fly ash
sample showed that it was 12.8% carbon, which certainly could account for its
heating value of 2,475 Kj/Kg (1,064 Btu/lb). Using these data, the amount of
heat input lost as fly ash was calculated to be on the order of 0.2%. In-
cluding this loss, the average combustion efficiency would be 99.5% for coal
and 89.8% for RDF.
The quantity of bottom ash increased by a factor of 7 when burning
only 10% RDF, and the percent of fuel heat input lost to bottom ash was
0.3% for coal and 10% for RDF. However, the range of heating value of the
sluice solids, as shown in Table 10, does not on the average, show much
change. This result raises the question, "How can the quantity of bottom
ash increase so dramatically, and how can it do so without a corresponding
change in its heating value?"
It is logical that much more of the ash content of the RDF might go
to bottom ash, as opposed to that for coal because the coal is pulverized
to -200 mesh, while the RDF consists of particles which are predominantly
between 2.5 and 38.1 mm (0.1 and 1.5 in.). The data in Table 10 were fur-
ther evaluated in an effort to determine the relative amounts of ash in each
fuel that are contained in the bottom ash. The percent of coal ash contained
in the bottom ash was determined from the data for coal-only conditions using
the expression:
60
-------
Table 12. SUMMARY OF CALCULATED VALUES FOR PERCENT OF RDF FEED
HEAT INPUT AND RDF ASH CONTENT THAT IS
CONTAINED IN BOTTOM ASH
Test
date
(1975)
4/30
4/30
5/02
5/12
5/19
5/20
5/20
5/21
5/22
11/17
11/18
11/19
11/20
4/22
4/26
11/12-
11/14
Electrical
output
Mw
101
101
101
140
138
138
138
99
99
133
134
133
135
100
110
135
% RDF
6
6
8
8-9
4-5
10
10
10
10
7-8
7-8
7
7-8
11
11
4-6
Percent of RDF feed
heat contained
in sluice solids
17.3
14.8
14.2
b/
4.0
No test
10.7
3.2
6.6
4.0
0
-
26.2
10.4
8.5
7.2
Avg. 10.0
Percent of RDF ash
contained in
sluice solids
45.4
49.8
J/
No test
74.1
39.9
64.7
65.0
76.3
58.3
49.4
98.5J fine Srlnd RDF
90.4 (receiving tank test)
64.7
a/ Calculation values were greater than 100%. Therefore, these values
were not used in calculating the average.
b/ Samples not analyzed for heat content or ash.
61
-------
Percent of coal ash contained in sluice solids =
(Kg/hr sluice solids) (% ash in sluice solids)
(Kg/hr coal feed) (7. ash in coal) X
(Ib/hr sluice solids) (% ash in sluice solids) inn~]
L (Ib/hr coal feed) (7. ash in coal) J
(3)
The values calculated for the percent of coal ash contained in sluice
solids averaged 8.77., ranging from 4.4 to 12.8%. Thus, on the average, 8.7%
of the ash in coal goes to bottom ash; the remainder (91.3%) must, there-
fore, go to fly ash. Data reported by Smithl/ show an average expected
value for fly ash within the range of 75 to 90%. The average (91.3%) value
calculated above is certainly not out of line, but is somewhat on the high
side*
The percent of RDF ash contained in the sluice solids is calculated
in a similar manner using the expression:
Percent of RDF ash that goes to bottom ash =
(Kg/hr sluice solids) (% ash)ss - (0.087) (Ke/hr coal) (7, ash)cQAL . nn
(Kg/hr RDF) (% ash in RDF)x
[(Ib/hr sluice solids)(% ash)ss - (0.087) (Ib/hr coal) (% ash)cOAL nnj
L(Ib/hr RDF) (% ash in RDF)x 1UUJ
(4)
Results of these calculations, which are included in Table 12, show
that the percent of the RDF ash that goes to bottom ash ranged from 39.9
to 98.5% for an average of 64*7%. Compared with the coal ash, a much larger
portion of the RDF ash falls into the ash pit. This factor and the uncora-
busted RDF in the residue account for a seven-fold increase in sluice solids
when only 10% of the boiler output is provided by RDF,
Visual inspection of the bottom ash from burning coal indicates a
rather homogenous mixture of particles of coal slag and carbonaceous mat-
ter. When coal + RDF is burned, the bottom ash also contains a variety of
unburned material (wood, plastic, etc.) and noncombustibles (metals, etc.).
62
-------
The average heating value and percent ash of the sluice solids
do not differ as much as might be expected, as shown in the summary of
sluice solids analysis results in Table 13• Other data in the summary
table show increases in weight percent (wt. %), Cu, Pb, Na, Zn and Cr and
decreases in Al, Fe, Li, and S. The decrease in weight percent of Al and
Fe is somewhat surprising. It probably reflects the fact that the coal
slag is relatively high in Fe and Al, which are diluted by the many other
constituents present in the bottom ash when burning RDF« Compositional
analyses of sluice solids by visual separation were carried out for each
coal + RDF test with results shown in Tables 14 and 15. Other chemical and
microbiological analyses were performed on several sluice solids samples,
and these are discussed later in this report.
The preceding discussion on quantification and characterization of
bottom ash (sluice solids) covered several important points which have
been summarized in Table 16. Briefly, these evaluations showed that:
1» There was a dramatic increase in bottom ash accumulation rate
when burning 4 to 10% RDF; the increase indicates that a larger ash pond
or more frequent removal of ash pond residue will be required at facili-
ties that burn RDF as a supplementary fuel.
2. The approximate combustion efficiency of RDF was 90%, compared
to 99.7% for coal.
3. A much greater portion of the ash in RDF goes to bottom ash, as
compared to the ash in coal.
4. A large change in the heating value, ash content or mean particle
size of the bottom ash did not occur when burning coal + RDF as compared
to coal-only.
Water Effluents
The investigations carried out by MRI were restricted to the sluice
water and bottom ash discharged into the ash pond(s). This investigation
did not include sampling and analysis of the effluent discharged from the
pond into the river because a study of that effluent had already been con-
ducted by UE, and their results were provided to us. Results of both in-
vestigations (MRI and UE) are presented and discussed below.
63
-------
Table 13. COMPARISON OF SLUICE SOLIDS ANALYSIS DATA-
a/
Heating value (kj/kg)
Moisture (wt Z)
I. Coal-only
conventional tests
2,242.85
35.14
II. Coal-only
potentially
hazardous
pollutant tests
3,531.33
46.17
III. Coal + PDF
conventional tests
2,679.32
45.28
IV. Coal + RDF
potentially
hazardous
pollutant tests
4,656.42
39.2
Chemical analysis (wt %)
Ash
Aluminum
Copper (CuO)
Iron (Fe2Oj)
Lead (PbO)
Potassium
Sodium (Na20)
Zinc (ZnO)
Chromium (C^
Lithium
Sulfur
Silver
Particle size
60.35
12.17
0.01
13.56
0.01
1.10
0.49
0.01
0.03
0.01
1.74
10 ppm
41.46
7.95
0.01
13.22
0.005
0.76
0.39
0.02
0.02
0.067
0.59
< 5.00 ppm
45.35
5.81
0.14
4.77
0.03
0.75
2.21
0.06
0.42
0.002
0.16
5.00 ppm
52.58
6.39
0.09
4.64
0.03
0.70
2.63
0.09
0.03
0.003
0.18
< 5.00 ppm
Percent larger than 6.35 cm
Percent less than 6.35 cm
Percent less than 3.81 cm
Percent less than 1.91 cm
Percent less than 0.95 cm
Percent less than 0.480 cm
Percent less than 0.240 cm
Geometric mean diameter (cm)
Geometric standard deviation
0
100.00
100.00
96.93
87.93
75.49
62.26
0.330
1.91
0
100.00
100.00
94.64
76.70
52.96
35.59
0.457
2.38
0
100.00
100.00
94.05
78.90
57.35
40.23
0.406
2.45
£/ All results reported on moisture-as-received basis.
Performed by Ralston Purina Company, St. Louis, Missouri.
64
-------
Table 14. COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS OF SLUICE SOLIDS (COAL + RDF CONVENTIONAL TESTS)
Test date (1975)
Mw load
RDF
Composition (wt % - as received)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Fe metal magnetic
Other metal
Organics
Miscellaneous
Coal slag
Dust
Total
4/30
100
5%
0.2
0.5
4.2
3.0
0.6
0.8
0,6
11.0
58.5
20.6
100.0
5/02
100
8%
1.9
5.3
5.6
7.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
12.4
27.4
35.2
100.0
5/12
140
8-9%
0.7
1.7
4.3
3.2
3.4
5.2
1.0
8.5
52.0
20.0
100.0
5/19
140
4-5%
0.2
2.3
4.4
3.1
3.1
1.6
0.2
8.5
55.5
21.1
100.0
5/20^
140
10%
1.3
1.5
7.8
4.8
5.0
1.2
1.8
16.7
32.0
27.9
100.0
5/22
100
10%
1.1
1.5
4.2
11.1
3.4
2.8
1.1
16.9
26.9
31.0
100.0
5/22
100
10%
0.1
1.7
3.0
6.3
1.7
3.0
0.8
12.0
35.2
36.2
100.0
_a/ Pipeline for sluice broken.
-------
cr«
Table 15. COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS OF SLUICE SOLIDS
(COAL + RDF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT TESTS)
Test date (1975)
Mw load
RDF
Composition (wt % - as received)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Fe metal magnetic
Other metal
Organics
Miscellaneous
Coal slag
Dust
11/17
133
7-8%
0.3
1.0
3.8
1.2
4.2
1.9
0.3
12.3
60.6
14.4
11/18
134
7-8%
1.2
0.9
3.5
3.6
5.6
1.7
0.7
15.8
48.2
18.8
11/19
133
7%
0.7
1.2
4.4
2.5
2.1
1.5
1.6
20.7
47.0
18.3
11/20
135
7-8%
1.4
1.3
3.7
2.9
7.6
1.6
0.6
20.2
43.5
17.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
-------
Table 16. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ON EVALUATION OF BOTTOM ASH (SLUICE SOLIDS)
Parameter Coal RDF
Bottom ash accumulation rate^ 605 kg/hr (+ 52%) 4,080 kg/hr (+ 73%)
(wet basis) for coal + RDF
Percent of heat input that is 99.7% 90%
not lost to bottom ash (i.e.,
combustion efficiency)
Percent of ash in fuel that 8.7% 64.7%
goes to bottom ash
Properties of sluice solidsk/ Coal-only Coal + RDF
Heating value (kj/kg) 2,887 3,668
Ash (wt %) 50.91 48.97
Al (A1203) (wt %) 10.06 6.10
Fe (Fe203) (wt %) 13.39 4.71
S (wt %) 1.17 0.17
Geometric mean diameter (mm) 3.3 4.3
a/ Values are on wet basis and refer to sluice solids samples after
most of the free water had drained off.
b/ Averages of data from preceding Tables 10 and 13 through 15.
67
-------
Each test at the power plant included sampling of the bottom ash
sluiced from the boiler, as discussed in the preceding section. That ac-
tivity also included sampling of the river water used for sluicing and the
sluice water discharged from the boiler, in order to compare the two streams
and determine the effect of burning RDF on the sluice water. The samples of
discharged sluice water were taken in conjunction with sampling of sluice
solids (bottom ash), and the term "sluice water" applies to the filtrate
water remaining after most of the solids had been filtered out.
A general set of analyses was carried out on each pair of river water
(RW) and sluice water (SW) samples taken during each conventional pollutant
emissions test. Additional analysis was performed on each pair taken during
the potentially hazardous pollutant emissions tests. A sunaaary of the general
water analysis results, including bacterial analysis, is given in Table 17,
and the potentially hazardous pollutant analyses results are given in Table
18.
Examination of the general analysis results in Table 17 shows that the
sluice water was higher than river water in TSS, TDS, BOD, COD, and pH for
both the coal-only and coal + RDF tests. In comparing coal-only data to coal
+ RDF data for the sluice water, only TDS increased with the burning of RDF.
Somewhat surprisingly, the addition of RDF did not have much effect on the
oil and grease content of sluice water as compared to that for coal. Also,
combined firing apparently did not drastically affect changes in BOD or COD.
Most of the potentially hazardous pollutant analyses (Table 18) pro-
duced "less than" (<) values, a fact which makes interpretation difficult.
One of the exceptions to this was Cl, and the Cl concentration more than
doubled when burning coal + RDF.
Bacterial contamination is of concern in connection with the combined
firing of RDF. Tables 19 and 20 present the results of the analyses for
bacterial contaminants. The data show that the bacterial counts in sluice
water were lower than in the river water. Other observations are:
!• Bacteria levels in the river water were considerably higher for
samples taken in November than those taken in early April.
2. Bacteria levels in the sluice water were generally lower than in
the river water, regardless of whether the plant was burning coal-only or
coal + RDF.
68
-------
Table 17. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE WATER ANALYSIS DATA
Total suspended solids (ppm)
Total dissolved solids (ppm)
Biochemical oxygen demand
(ppm)
Chemical oxygen demand (ppm)
PH
Total alkalinity (ppm)
Oil and grease (ppm)
Cyanide (ppm)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
Bacterial analysis
Total plate count/ml
Fecal colifortn (mpn)/100 ml
Salmonella
I. Coal-only
II, Coal-only
potentially
hazardous
III. Coal + RDF
conventional tests
IV. Coal + RDF
potentially
hazardous
pollutant tests
LVJlLVX^ll UJL*
RW1/
270.29
299.43
10.96
169.46
7.41
123.71
45.20
_
4.8
XfclUJ- fc.WkJV.fc*
s\&f
2,049.14
325.71
121.69
1,184.83
7.70
94.29
51.69
.
4.5
JiW
115.50
413.50
2.06
26.89
7.03
89.25
47.25
0.05
14.9
_SW
434.00
412.50
4.26
139.21
8.66
94.00
15.88
0.05
12.3
_RW
477.75
476.50
19.18
100.73
7.54
100.00
81.50
-
1.8
J3W
324.50
687.50
184.63
633.75
9.61
98.50
49.50
-
1.5
JW
60.00
458.00
10.83
74.85
7.60
134.25
7.25
< 0.05
2.6
_sw
105.00
992.00
22.00
212.68
8.93
155.75
11.25
< 0.05
2.2
8,411.13
1,937.00
Neg.
3,251.38
1,630.25
Neg.
275,500
41,825
Neg.
31,250
9,225
Neg.
_a/ RW = Raw river water,
_b/ SW = Sluice water—after filtering to remove most of the sluice solids.
-------
Table 18. SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSES
RESULTS FOR WATER SAMPLES
Trace pollutant
analysis
(UK/ml)
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
Cl
F
a/
Water samples"
Coal-only
RW
< 0.004
< 0.012
0.78
< 0.03
< 0.0005
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 1.3
0.006
< 0.004
< 0.0005
2.4
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.2
17.4
0.21
SW
< 0.004
<: 0.019
0.59
< 0.03
< 0.0005
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 1.3
0.006
< 0.004
< 0.0005
3.0
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
21.5
0.37
Coal + RDF
RW
< 0.004
< 0.01
< 9
< 0.02
< 0.0004
< 0.15
< 0.06
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.004
< 0.0005
< 1.3
< 0.07
< 0.26
0.5
21.9
0.3
SW
< 0.004
< 0.01
< 9
< 0.02
< 0.0004
< 0.15
< 0.06
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.004
< 0.0005
< 1.3
< 0.07
< 0.26
0.9
59
0.4
a.1 RW = river water
SW = sluice water—after filtering to remove sluice solids
70
-------
Table 19. SLUICE WATER BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION
FOR COAL-FIRING CONDITIONS
Sample and date
coal-only
River water
3/4/75
3/4/75
3/5/75
3/5/75
3/7/75
3/7/75
3/8/75
3/8/75
Sluice water
3/4/75
3/4/75
3/5/75
3/5/75
3/7/75
3/7/75
3/8/75
3/8/75
Sluice solids
3/4/75
3/4/75
3/5/75
3/5/75
3/7/75
3/7/75
3/8/75
3/8/75
Total bacteria
counts /ml
(counts/g)
37
52
14,000
16,000
22,000
5., 2 00
4,300
5,700
36
75
4,500
9,400
2,200
3,400
4,900
1,500
(11,000)
(12,000)
(13,000)
(31,000)
(12,000)
( 5,900)
( 8,000)
( 7,900)
Fecal coliform
MPN/100 ml Salmonella
(MPN/g) + or -
< 3
< 3
750
1,500
9,300 +
910
730
2,300
< 3
< 3
930
9,300
1,500
910
36 +
360
(< 3)
« 3)
« 3)
« 3)
« 3)
(< 3)
« 3) -
(<3)
71
-------
Table 20. SLUICE WATER BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION
FOR COAL + RDF FIRING CONDITIONS
Sample and date
coal + refuse
Total bacteria
counts/ml
(counts/g)
Fecal coliform
MPN/100 ml
(MPN/g)
Salmonella
+ or -
and group
River water
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
34,000
840,000
78,000
150,000
24,000
9,300
110,000
24,000
+ Group B
Sluice water
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
6,400
75,000
38,000
5,600
4,300
4,300
24,000
4,300
+ Group B
Sluice solids
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
(54,000)
(140,000,000)
(81,000)
(43,000)
(< 3)
(< 1,100)
« 3)
(23)
72
-------
3. Bacteria levels in the sluice solids are generally somewhat higher
than in the river water or sluice water, even for the coal-only data. This
result supports the expectation that the solid matter (ash) would tend to
adsorb bacteria from the water and may be part of the reason for Observation
2 above.
4. Raw refuse may contain bacteria levels on the order of 1 x
counts/gr. During the four coal + RDF tests, the sluice solids equaled
that level in only one test and were far below that level in the other
three tests.
In summary, the data on bacteria levels shown in Tables 19 and 20 in-
dicate that burning of RDF in the power plant boiler destroys many of the
bacteria present in RDF, and further, that the bacteria levels in the sluice
water are generally less than that originally contained in the river water.
The sluice water samples were taken where the sluice water enters the ash
settling pond and are therefore not representative of the effluent from the
ash pond into the river. Based on the above results, the sluice water from
burning coal + RDF poses no more of a problem than when coal is burned. The
more important water effluent is the ash pond effluent and the assessment
of that stream is presented next.
Prior to the MRI test program, UE had carried out a study to determine
constituents present in the influent to, and effluent from, the bottom ash
pond used when burning coal + RDF.fl/ Samples of river water were also col-
lected, as were effluent samples from the coal-only ash pond. All samples
were analyzed for many constituents, including those covered in the pro-
posed Missouri Effluent Guidelines. Results of these analyses are shown in
Table 21. Included are averages of the MRI sample analyses results for some
of the same constituents. Examination of these data revealed the following:
* Three parameters in the refuse system bottom ash pond effluent ex-
ceed the proposed Missouri Effluent Guidelines. They are:
. BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) - The RDF system bottom ash
pond effluent generally exceeded the limit of 30 mg/liter.
. Dissolved oxygen - A few of the samples from the RDF system
bottom ash pond effluent contained less than the required dis-
solved oxygen content.
. Suspended solids - The suspended solids content of the RDF
system bottom ash pond effluent generally exceeded the ef-
fluent guideline of 30 ppm (the same as the federal effluent
guideline for steam electric power plants).
73
-------
Table 21. APPROXIMATE AVERAGES OF WATER ANALYSIS DATA2
a.1
Pollutant
BOD5
Dissolved oxygen
Suspended solids
Amnonia
Boron
Calcium (total)
Calcium (dissolved)
COD
Dissolved solids
Iron (total)
Iron (dissolved)
Manganese (total)
Manganese (dissolved)
Oil and grease
Sulfate
TDC
Aluminum (total)
Aluminum (dissolved)
Arsenic (total)
Arsenic (dissolved)
Barium (total)
Barium (dissolved)
Beryllium (total)
Beryllium (dissolved)
Boron (total)
Cadmium (total)
Cadmium (dissolved)
Chloride
Chromium +6 (total)
Chromium 46 (dissolved)
Chromium +3 (total)
Chromium +3 (dissolved)
Chromium (total)
Chromium (dissolved)
Cobalt (total)
Cobalt (dissolved)
Copper (total)
Copper (dissolved)
Cyanide
Units
ppm
Mg/Z
ppn
ppb
ppb
PPm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppm
ppm
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppm
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
River
water
< 10
(10.8)
11
(6)
400
(231)
25
< 10
300
50
< 40
(93)
350
(412)
5,000
150
300
100
5,000
(45,000)
75
20
4,000
100
20
« 10)
20
250
(< 5,000)
250
< 10
« 30)
< 10
< 100
< 10
« 0.5)
< 10
25
(19.6)
< 25
< 25
20
20
20
« 230)
20
50
50
20
« 80)
20
< 10
« 50)
Coal 4- RDF
Effluent
65
6
75
< 20
< 25
500
80
60
500
2,500
150
400
300
10,000
125
35
1,000
100
20
20
250
250
< 10
< 10
< 100
< 10
< 10
25
< 25
< 25
20
20
20
20
50
50
15
15
< 10
ash pond
Influent
200
(103)
11
(1.85)
200
(215)
< 40
< 50
500
60
20-9602'
(423)
500
(840)
7,000
100
1,000
50
50,000
(30,400)
110
50-375J1/
400-8,000^
175
30
« 10)
20
325
« 9,000)
250
< 10
« 20)
< 10
150
10
« 0.5)
< 10
30
(59)
< 25
< 25
60
20
60
(< 150)
20
50
50
10-150&/
«60)
20
< 10
(< 50)
Coal ash
pond effluent
< 10
11
40
< 50
< 50
500
60
< 20
400
500
50
150
100
5,000
140
< 10
750
100
20
20
250
250
< 10
< 10
< 100
< 10
< 10
25
< 25
< 25
20
20
20
20
50
50
15
15
< 10
Proposed
Missouri
effluent
guide line
30
6
30£X
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1,000
None
None
IS.OOOi''
None
None
None
None
None
100
None
2,000
None
500
None
None
100
None
None
50
None
500
None
500
None
None
None
1,000
50
74
-------
Table 21. (Concluded)
Pollutant
Fecal coliform
Floride
Lead (total)
Lead (dissolved)
Mercury (total)
Mercury (dissolved)
Holybedenum (total)
Molybedenum (dissolved)
Nickel (total)
Nickel (dissolved)
Nitrate
Nitrite
Organic nitrogen
pH
Phenol
Phosphate
Selenium (total)
Selenium (dissolved)
Settleable solids
Silver (total)
Silver (dissolved)
Vanadium (total)
Vanadium (dissolved)
Zinc (total)
Zinc (dissolved)
Units
MPN/100 ml
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppm
ppb
ppm
pH units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ml/i/hr
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
River
water
50
(22,000)
300
(25)
< 50
< 50
« 66)
< 2
« 8)
< 2
100
75
< 50
25
< 12
50
< 5
7.5
(7.4)
< 25
1,000
< 35
« 4)
< 50
< 2
< 10
« 0.5)
< 10
75
(< 500)
50
< 100
« 230)
50
Coal + RDF ash pond
Effluent
50
400
< 50
< 50
< 2
< 2
100
75
< 50
25
< 10
50
< 5
7.2
< 25
500
< 35
< 50
< 2
< 10
< 10
70
50
< 100
30
Influent
75
(25,525)
400
(40)
550
< 50
« 2)
5
« 10)
< 5
100
75
< 50
30
< 12
50
< 15
8.4
(9.27)
< 100
1,500
< 35
« 4)
< 50
< 4
< 10
« 0.5)
< 10
100
« 70)
50
300
« 260)
50
Coal ash
pond effluent
< 50
350
< 50
< 50
< 5
< 5
100
75
< 50
25
< 10
50
< 5
8.4
< 25
500
< 35
< 50
< 0.25
< 10
< 10
70
50
< 100
30
Proposed
Missouri
effluent
guideline
200
None
None
100
None
10
None
None
None
1,000
None
None
None
6.0-9.0
100
None
None
50
0.2
None
100
None
None
None
1,000
a/ Approximate average of Union Electric data from figures in original report.it' Values in parenthesis
are averages of MR1 data.
b/ Range shown due to wide data scattering.
£/ Federal effluent guidelines for steam electric power plants cover only total suspended solids, and
Oil and Grease, and are the same as those for Missouri.
75
-------
Thirteen parameters, for most of which there are no guidelines,
are different in the coal + RDF ash pond effluent as compared to
the coal-only pond effluent, as follows:
• Ammonia^ - A significant increase in ammonia content was
noted in the effluent during RDF firing.
• Boron - There is a slightly lesser amount of dissolved boron
in RDF-firing water effluents than in coal-firing water effluents.
• Calcium - Total and dissolved calcium contents were increased
by RDF firing by approximately 20 to 30%. Both modes of fir-
ing showed calcium content above river water content.
. COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) - RDF firing increases the COD in
the effluent.
. Dissolved solids - Results are erratic but do suggest that
RDF burning does increase the dissolved solids content of the
effluent stream.
• Iron - Both total and dissolved iron are clearly increased by
RDF burning, although both are below river water iron content,
and dissolved iron was always well below the proposed Missouri
guideline.
. Manganese - Both total and dissolved manganese are clearly in-
creased by RDF burning.
. Oil and grease - RDF firing increases the oil and grease con-
tent of the wastewater. (MRI data did not indicate much effect
of RDF firing on pond influents and indicated in many cases
that the oil and grease content of the river water was above
the standard of 15,000 ppb.)
Sulfate - RDF firing showed a noticeable drop in sulfate con-
tent of the effluent stream.
. TOG (Total Organic Carbon) - TOC content was definitely in-
creased by RDF firing.
Forty-eight of the 64 parameters did not show any significant dif-
ferences between the values measured in the coal and coal + RDF
ash pond effluents*
76
-------
In summary, the tests by the Union Electric Company indicate that three
parameters in the coal + RDF ash pond effluent do not meet proposed guide-
lines of the State of Missouri.—' The same three parameters—biological oxy-
gen demand (BOD), dissolved oxygen, and suspended solids--from the coal ash
pond effluent meet these guidelines as shown in the following comparison.
COMPARISON OF ASH POND EFFLUENT MEASUREMENTS WITH
MISSOURI EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
Dissolved Oil and
oxygen Suspended grease
BOD (ppm^ (mg/l) solids (ppm) (ppb)
Coal + RDF ash 50-100 3-10 10-150 1,000-20,000
pond
Coal ash pond < 10 . 10-14 10-50 1,000-25,000
Missouri effluent < 30 > 6 < 30 15,000
guidelines
Federal effluent guidelines for steam electric power plants limit
discharges of total suspended solids (TSS) to 30 ppm and oil and grease
to 15 ppm. Treatment of the effluent from a coal + RDF ash pond might
be necessary to insure compliance with effluent guidelines.
Aeration of a coal + RDF ash pond might be needed to improve BOD and
dissolved oxygen. Flocculation techniques might be required to meet regu-
lations on suspended solids as well as possible future regulations on the
content of specific materials in the effluent.
Increasing the dissolved oxygen level in the effluent may be accom-
plished by aeration which may also help reduce BOD. Settling or filtra-
tion would reduce TSS and BOD. An alternate strategy would be to add a
flocculant to the sluice water discharged from the boiler to promote sub-
sequent settling in the ash pond. An alum/lime flocculant could be used
and would probably require the addition of about 22.7 Kg/day (50 Ib/day).
The purpose of the flocculant would be to promote settling for decreasing
the TSS in the effluent. It is expected that the flocculant would also
aid in reducing BOD. Aeration equipment could then be used near the out-
flow end of the pond to increase dissolved oxygen and further reduce BOD
levels.
77
-------
If flocculation were not effective in reducing TSS, it might be neces-
sary to divide the pond or construct a second pond* The first pond would
be for primary settling. Water would be pumped from the first pond through
a filter (e.g., sand bed filter) and then into the second pond which would
be equipped with the aeration equipment. The second pond would have to be
large enough to provide a "quiet zone" to achieve the required increase
in dissolved oxygen. This strategy would be more expensive than the use
of flocculants.
Air Emissions
A major portion of the effort on this program was directed to the in-
vestigation of air emissions resulting from the combined firing of coal 4-
RDF. Activities involved the measurement of conventional and potentially
hazardous gaseous and particulate pollutants. Particle size distributions
at the inlet and outlet of the ESP were also measured to help define ESP
performance. The performance of the ESP is the subject of a later chapter
of this report. A synopsis of the results of the work on air emissions
follows.
Conventional Gaseous and Particulate Emissions - Emission tests for con-
ventional gaseous and particulate pollutants covered a wide range of boiler
loads and percent RDF. Highlights of the tests are presented next.
Gaseous emissions - Most of the tests conducted by MRI included sam-
pling and analysis for the gaseous emissions listed in Table 22.
Table 22. SUMMARY OF GASEOUS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
PERFORMED IN CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT TESTS
Gas Sampling method Sampling location
^2» C02, Orsat Outlets only
CO
S02/S03 EPA Methods 6 or 8 Outlets only
NOx EPA Method 7 Outlets only
Cly Impingers in Method 5 train Inlet/outlet
Hgv Statnick Method^/ Inlet only
78
-------
Table 23 summarizes the results of the Orsat analysis. In addition,
other pollutants were determined via the instrumented EPA sampling van
that was located on-site during most of the MRI tests. Instruments in
this van monitored concentrations of 02, CO, C02, S02» and HC from one
of the outlet ducts.
Some other pollutants that may be emitted partially or wholly in
vapor form are discussed later in conjunction with the data on poten-
tially hazardous pollutant emissions. Cl and Hg analyses of input/output
streams are included in that later discussion, but some of the results
for these two gaseous emissions will be discussed in this present section
because sampling for these pollutants was carried out in all the tests.
A summary of the gaseous pollutant concentrations is given in Table
24. Discussion and evaluation of the results that were obtained for the
gaseous pollutants are presented in the following subsections.
Carbon monoxide (GO) - The overall average CO concentration for
coal + RDF (89 ppm) was slightly higher than that for coal (82 ppm) but
the scatter in the data is rather wide. As shown in Figure 16, there is no
apparent relationship between the CO concentrations and the percent excess
air. Based on these data, we conclude that the substitution of RDF (up to
10%) for coal does not influence CO emissions.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - Figure 17 presents N02 emissions in kilo-
grams per million Kj as a function of boiler load. Within the scatter of
the data, there does not appear to be any significant change in N02 emis-
sions when burning coal + RDF as compared to coal-only. NOX emissions from
power plants are a function of the percent excess air, but the data in
Figure 18 are again too scattered to determine any such relationship.
Sulfur oxides (S02) - S02 concentrations shown in Table 24 have
been used to calculate S02 emissions on the basis of kilograms of S02
per million Kj of heat input. The data are presented in Figure 19. The
scatter in the data is sufficient to mask any trends in S02 emissions
with changes in fuel.
Average 803 concentrations for coal + RDF (8.4 ppm) are lower than
the average for coal-only (12.7 ppm) primarily because of several low values
reported for the 1973 coal + RDF tests. Discounting that test data, the 803
emissions appear about the same for both fuels, but the scatter in the data
is sufficient to mask any trends.
Representative emission regulations for SOX (and NOx) f°r fuel-
burning sources using solid fuel are shown in Table 25. Comparison of the
experimental data for N02 emissions with existing regulations shows that
NOx emissions comply with most regulations. Comparison of S02 emissions
on the basis of heat content (Figure 19) with existing emission regula-
tions listed in Table 25 shows that SOx emissions exceed most regulations.
79
-------
Table 23. STACK GAS COMPOSITION DATA BY ORSAT ANALYSIS
Test Date
CO
Average outlet analysis (%)~
a/
C02
02
Calculated-
percent excess air
Coal-only (1973)a-/
12/10/73
12/06/73
12/12/73
Coal-onlv (conventional)
11/05/74
11/05/74
11/06/74
11/07/74
10/31/74
11/01/74
11/04/74
Coal- only (hazardous)
03/07/75
03/08/75
03/05/75
Coal + RDF (1973)£/
12/14/73
12/09/73
12/09/73
12/10/73
12/05/73
12/05/73
12/13/73
12/12/73
12/04/73
12/11/73
12/12/73
Coal + RDF (conventional)
04/30/75
05/02/75
05/21/75
05/22/75
05/12/75
05/19/75
05/20/75
05/20/75
Coal + RDF (hazardous)
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
--
--
--
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
..
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
<0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
<0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
(13.6)
(13.6)
(14.6)
(6.7)
(6.6)
(5.7)
11.0
10.9(12.4)
12.2(12.9)
12.2(14.1)
13.5(13.5)
13.6(13.5)
13.2(13.9)
8.0
8.1(6.4)
6.9(6.5)
6.6(6.5)
5.2(5.2)
5.3(5.7)
5.5(5.3)
12.9(12.1)
12.6(12.1)
13.5(11.2)
(15.0)
(14.5)
(14.5)
(14.7)
(14.5)
(14.5)
(15.2)
(13.3)
(14,5)
(13.5)
(15.6)
12.7
11.7
13.8(15.0)
14.1(15.0)
13.8(15.0)
13.3(15.0)
15.1(16.0)
15.0(17.0)
13.3
13.7
13.5
12.9
6.1(7.6)
6.4(8.1)
5.3(7.8)
(6.0)
(7.0)
(6.0)
(5.6)
(6.0)
(5.5)
(5.9)
(6.0)
(6.5)
(5.8)
(5.3)
6.2
7.3
5.0(4.3)
4.9(4.5)
5.1(3.3)
5.7(3.9)
3.6(2.9)
3.8(2.9)
5.4
5.2
5.3
5.9
j|/ Numbers in parentheses are from EPA instrument van. All others by Orsat.
b/ H-> by difference.
cl Excess air calculated from Orsat analysis whenever available. Excess air =
79.7
79.8
79.7
81.0
81.0
80.9
81.2
81.3
81.1
81.3
81.0
81.0
81.2
79.0
78.5
79.5
79.7
79.5
80.0
78.9
80.7
79.0
80.7
79.1
81.1
81.0
81.2
81.0
81.1
81.0
81.3
81.2
81.3
81.1
81.2
81.2
100
0.264
(46.7)
(45.6)
(37.2)
59.8
61.0
47.7
44.5
32.0
32.9
34.5
39.9
42.7
32.8
(40.4)
(51.0)
(40.0)
(36.3)
(40.0)
(35.2)
(39.9)
(39.2)
(45.3)
(37.4)
(34.0)
40.8
51.8
30.4
29.7
31.3
36.3
20.2
21.5
33.6
32.1
32.8
38.0
(02 - 0.5 CO)
N, - 0 + 0.5 CO
80
-------
Table 24. SUMMARY OF GASEOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS RESULTS2
a/
Boiler load (Mw)
and (7. RDF)
CO (ppra)
•EPA van
NO* (ppra)
SOg (ppm) S03 HC (ppm)
EPA van Method 7 EPA van Method 6 Method 6 Method 8 EPA van
S02 (ppm)
Hgv
Statnick
Method
Cr (mg/K3)
Method 5-impingers
Inlet Outlet
Coal-only (conventional)
12/10/73
12/06/73
12/12/73
80 (07.)
100 (07.)
120 (07.)
-Coal-only (conventional)
11/05/74
11/05/74
11/06/74
11/07/74
10/31/74
11/01/74
11/04/74
00
Coal-only (potentially hazardous)
3/07/75 110 (07.)
3/08/75 111 (07.)
3/05/75 140 (07.)
Overall average (coal-only)
62
75
42
75 (07.)
75 (07.)
100 (07.)
100 (07.)
140 (07.)
140 (07.)
140 (07.)
-
130
108
122
132
132
165
255
360
278
298
319
352
265
320
297
316
244
108
100
239
256
900
800
1,130
868
956
1,030
1,070
1 ,305
1,560
- -
-
1,202
-
-
-
833
843
899
1,094
1,117
1,117
1,303
803
606
653
927
-
-
~
744
741
667
1,054
848
1,152
862
-
-
867
.
0.<£7
24. O^
24.8
6.4
8.8
9.3
12.9
21.3
15.7
e/
e/
e/
4.5
7.0
0.0
5.5
11.0
4.4
0.0
290
377
339
-d/-
•d/-
•d/-
-d/-
-d/-
-d/-
-d/-
12.7
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
16.2
8.2
40.8
Avg.
21.7
251
399
216
289
470
378
270
354
-------
Table 24. (Concluded)
Test
date
Boiler
load (Mw) CO (ppm)
and (% RDF) EPA van
Coal + RDF (conventional)
12/14/73 80 (97.)
12/09/73 80 (18%)
12/09/73
12/10/73
12/05/73
12/05/73
12/13/73
12/13/73
12/04/73
12/11/73
12/12/73
Coal + RDF
00
to 4/30/75
5/02/75
5/21/75
5/22/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
5/20/75
Coal + RDF
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
80
80
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
(187.)
(27%)
(9%)
(9%)
(97.)
(18%)
(97.)
(9%)
(187.)
80
85
65
62
75
75
63
68
62
62
60
NO* (ppm)
EPA van
263
400
340
295
250
240
267
234
220
347
275
Method 7
.
"8y (Pg/Nm )—
SO? (ppm) S02 (ppm^SOJ "c Statnick
EPA van Method 6 Method 8
1,070
900
Method 8 EPA van Method
Cly (mg/M3)
Method 5-irapingers
Inlet
4.8S.' - c/
22.2^ - e/
O.OS/ £/
-
-
.
-
.
.
.
-
887
1,060
1,000
1,230
1,590
900
1,000
1,030
34. 5^' - S.J
23.5£/ ' I/
0.0£( - e/
o.o*' - ll
1.0£/ - e/
Q.OS./ - e/
0.0£/ - e/
0.0£/ - «/
Outlet
293
416
401
470
413
467
355
322
408
458
421
(conventional)
100
100
100
100
140
140
140
140
(potentially
133
134
133
135
Overall average
(57.)
(87.)
(10%)
(107.)
(8-97.)
(4-5%)
(10%)
(107.) >
hazardous)
(7-87.)
(7-8%)
(7%)
(7-87.)
(Coal + RDF)
-
-
47
44
74
51
238
300
.
-
-
-
89
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
285
198
205
-
-
258
-
.
-
98
236
48
300
192
961
1,050
800
1,010
875 - 1,369
996
820
1,018
1,096
1,027
1.312
1,082
1,011 1.129 1,127
6.3 - 11
7.7 - 18
3.0 4
3.1 3
17.3 19.0 3
12.0 3
8.0 3
7.5 3
66 . 1
16.2
22.3
19.8
8.4 8.8 J
6
.5
1
4
9
3
9
2
avg
31.1
-
509
715
576
483
545
-
561
440
184
492
603
511
-
453
666
454
434
598
592
548
540
194
516
561
454
_§/ Outlet concentrations unless otherwise specified.
W Inlet only. .
c/ SO-j determined by controlled condensation method.—
d/ Values tor Cl" not reported because of error in analysis method (chlortdlmoter). All other tc-sts, except those in 1973, were analyzed by ion
selective electrode.
_§/ Hg values determined 1973 tests were extremoly low ( 0.0! Hg/m ) and .ire believed to have been in error.
Blanks Indicate sampling not done.
-------
250 r
200
150
_D
o
E
Q.
Q.
o
u
50
10
]()
20
oo
8-9
O Coal -Only
• Coal + RDF (Number
beside point indicates
% RDF )
o
18
1
1
1
1
30 40 50
Excess Air, Volume Percent
60
70
Figure 16. ppm of CO Versus percent excess air.
83
-------
"~
0.40
0.35
-^ 0.30
O
Z
V,
^S
* 0.25
°o
\
o>
Z 0.20
O
I
X
O 0.15
0.10
0.05
n
—
• (18)
o<0)
"•(0) «(9)
(0)
• •(27)
—
- ^ (9)««(0) *(0)
• f Q\ * \ "/
o(0) °<7-8>
•(9) *08> -
•(0)
•(18) o(7-8) (8-9)o»(0)
•(9)
0(8) «(0)
o ^5}
\ /
"*
_
(0)
l(0) 0(7-8)
_
• EPA Van °<7)
0 EPA Method 7
Numbers in Parentheses Correspond to % RDF Energy
I | 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 ! ..! 1 1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Csl
O
Z
vt
0.6 -2-
3
2
0.5 ^
in
Z
o
0.4 »/>
UJ
X
o
Z
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
75
100
BOILER LOAD, Mw
Figure 17. NOx Emissions as a function of boiler load.
84
-------
400
•9%
• 9%
• 18%
300
ID
_i
o
i
Q.
*fc
X
O
z
200
• 7-8%
•27%
18 %•
i8-9%
9%V8% o
• 9%
•7 QO/
7-8%
• 9%
15%
18%
100
i7-8%
Note:
Numbers beside points
indicate % RDF
0
I I
• 7%
I
I
I
I
O Coal-Only (EPA Van)
a Coal-Only (EPA Method 7)
• Coal +RDF (EPA Van)
• Coal + RDF (EPA Method 7)
I
I
I
0
10
20 30 40 50
EXCESS AIR, VOLUME PERCENT
60
70
Figure 18. ppm NO Versus percent excess air.
85
-------
•(18)
1.75
1.50
1.25
3
3
O
^ i.oo
l/l
z
o
I
m 0.75
CM
O
0.50
0.25
n
~
.(9)
0(7) .
•(9)
•(9)
(27)! (8)i(10) •(») (7<7-8)o*
U7jl(18) (5)'(9) ;(18) (7_8)o
0 * .(10)
• .(4-5)
• (10) .(8-9)
• ' •(10)
o
o
o —
o Method 6 S/
A Method 8 2/
• EPA Van
Numbers in Parentheses Indicate % RDF _
9/ Data acquired using Methods 6 and 8 are presented only
for those tests where EPA van data are not available. -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !
4.0
3.0
D
"%
M
O
EMISSIONS, 1
CM
O
1.0
n
75
100
BOILER LOAD. Mw
Figure 19. SC>2 Emissions as a function of boiler load.
86
-------
Table 25. REPRESENTATIVE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR SOX
AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR FUEL-BURNING SOURCES^/
Allowable SOx emissions
Kg/106 K1 (lb/106 Btu)
Allowable NOX emissions
Kg/106 K1 (lb/106 Btu)
Jurisdiction Existing sources New sources Existing sources New sources
Federal
Colorado
Connecticut
Indiana
Iowa
Illinois
Missouri
0.52 (1.2)
0.13
0.24
2.58
2.15
0.77
1.00
(0.3)
(0.55)
(6.0)
(5.0)
(1.8)
(2.3)
0.39 (0.9)
0.52 (1.2)
0.21 (0.5)
0.30 (0.7)
0.30 (0.7)
0.30 (0.7)
0.30 (0.7)
Improved control of S02 emissions would be needed for a combined coal +
RDF system of this size and type operating under the conditions studied
in this program. However, a slight reduction in the S02 stack gas concen-
tration would be expected when RDF is substituted for coal because of the
lower sulfur levels present in the RDF fuel, 0.14 Kg/106 Kj for RDF versus
0.60 Kg/106 Kj for Orient 6 coal (0.33 Ib S/106 Btu for RDF versus 1.4 Ib
S/106 Btu for Orient 6 coal). A shift to a lower sulfur coal or the instal-
lation of an S02 control system are the two viable options for achieving
compliance with S02 emission regulations. If S02 sampling techniques were
used, they might also help to reduce emissions of other pollutants (e.g.,
Cl~).
Hydrocarbons (HC) - Examination of the hydrocarbon data in Table
24 indicates a large increase in gaseous hydrocarbon concentrations when
burning coal + RDF (from 1 up to 8.8 ppm). We suspect, however, that
the low values for coal-only (< 1 ppm) were erroneous because gaseous HC
concentrations expected in coal-fired power plant emissions are on the
order of 10 to 20 ppm.Z/ On this basis, it does not appear that burning
of RDF causes any significant increase in HC emissions over that which
might be expected from a coal-fired boiler.
Mercury vapor (Hgv) - Mercury vapor concentrations in the stack
gas were sampled in all tests because of the known toxicity of this pollu-
tant. Unfortunately, the 1973 test data were unreasonably low, indicating
that some sampling or analysis error had been made. The two sets of conven-
tional tests produced more reasonable values, although they still appeared
to be somewhat low. Corresponding fuel analysis for Hg content was not per-
formed in conventional tests. The two sets of potentially hazardous tests
showed the highest Hg values. A 50% increase in the concentration of Hg
in the stack gas apparently occurred when RDF was substituted for coal in
the potentially hazardous pollutant tests. Further evaluations of this pol-
lutant are presented later in the discussion of potentially hazardous pol-
lutants.
87
-------
Chlorides (Clv) - Gaseous chloride concentrations were determined
in each test at both the ESP inlet and outlets as part of the Method 5 sam-
pling trains. The first impingers in the "back half" of the sampling trains
contained alkaline-absorbing solutions which were analyzed for chlorides
(assumed to be present as HG1 in the stack gas).
Initial analyses results were found to be in error because of an
interference in the chloridimeter analysis method, that is, by some uniden-
tified contaminant in field samples. Once this problem was identified, most
of the samples were reanalyzed by ion selective electrode. These results
are presented in Table 26 along with corresponding fuel analysis.
Table 26. SUMMARY OF CHLORIDE RESULTS
Test series
Coal-only (1973)
Coal-only nonhazardous
Coal-only hazardous
Coal + RDF (1973)
Coal + RDF - nonhazardous
Coal + RDF - hazardous
Average Cl in fuel
(ppm)
Coal
3,900
3,410
4,140
3,667
4,090
3,350
RDF
•*
4,100
3,370
3,970
Average Cl" in
outlet stack
(ms/r3
fm-
335
a/
373
402
535
453
a/ Original analyses were in error but samples had not been saved.
Chloride concentrations in the stack gas appeared to increase
about 30% for coal + RDF in comparison to concentrations noted for coal-only.
Considerable variability occurred in the Cl content of each individual
fuel during the individual tests,and the increases in stack gas concen-
tration of Cl might be due to this variation rather than to the combined
firing of coal + RDF.
Data on the analysis of the fuels and the following equation
can be used to estimate expected concentrations of chloride in the stack
gas assuming all the pollutant in the fuel is emitted in the stack gas:
(ppm Cl in fuel) x 0.1 = mg/Nm3 Cl in stack gas
88
-------
From this relationship and the data in Table 26, it can be seen
that the stack concentrations are about what would be expected if most of
the chloride in the fuel is volatilized, probably in the form of HG1.
The finding that most of the chloride in the fuel is volatilized
is significant. The Cl contents in the Orient 6 coal and RDF used are about
the same, but the levels for the Orient 6 coal are unusually high in com-
parison with other coals. Therefore, if a similar installation were burn-
ing a lower Gl content coal, the percentage increase in Gl concentrations
would be considerably more when burning RDF than was noted at the Meramec
plant. More discussion of Gl~ emissions and their impact is presented in
the section on potentially hazardous pollutants.
Particulate emissions (total mass) - Numerous tests were performed
by MRI and UE from late 1973 through late 1975 to determine particulate
emissions at the inlet and outlets of the ESP. MRI and UE carried out
separate tests in 1973 for coal-only and coal + RDF firing conditions.
Later, in 1974 to 1975, MRI carried out four series of comprehensive tests
under Contract No. 68-02-1871. Union Electric also conducted another series
of independent tests in 1975. The MRI tests were all conducted using EPA
Method 5, whereas the Union Electric tests were conducted in accordance
with ASME Power Test Code 27.
Results of all the tests that were done for particulate emissions
are summarized in Tables 27 and 28. Particulate loading data are plotted
in Figure 20. Inlet particulate loadings ranged from 3.4 to 6.2 g/dNm
(1.5 to 2.7 gr/dscf), with most of the data being around 4.6 g/dNm3
(2.0 gr/dscf). Data scatter increased with increasing boiler load.
The data do not show any dependence on boiler load or percent RDF. In
contrast, outlet particulate loadings appear to increase with higher
boiler loads. The data scatter also increased with increased boiler load,
especially for coal + RDF conditions.
Information presented above reflects all the test data obtained by
UE and MRI, but it is worthwhile to note that different test methods were
used (ASME PTC-27 and EPA Method 5) which may produce different results.
Overall averages of the inlet particulate loadings obtained by Union Elec-
tric and MRI were in good agreement, as shown below in Table 29, with MRI
data slightly lower than those of Union Electric. MRI outlet data were
somewhat higher than Union Electric data, but the averages minimize the
differences that occurred primarily at higher loads.
89
-------
Table 27. SUMMARY OF P ARTICULATE TEST DATA (COAL-ONLY)
Test
date
Coal Only
Union Electric
10/18/73
10/18/73
10/16/73
10/17/73
10/17/73
10/19/73
10/19/73
11/30/73
Union Electric
3/21/75
3/21/75
3/19/75
3/19/75
3/18/75
3/18/75
3/20/75
3/20/75
MRI data-''
12/10/73
12/06/73
12/12/73
Power output
Mw (7, RDF)
Data!/
75 (07.)
75 (0%)
101 (0%)
100 (07.)
100 (0%)
139 (07.)
140 (07.)
104 (07.)
Data!/
75 (07.)
75 (07.)
100 (07.)
100 (07.)
140 (07,)
140 (07.)
141 (OZ)
141 (0%)
80 (07.)
100 (07.)
120 (0%)
Concentration grams /dncm Outlet gas flow!/ ESP efficiency—''
Inlet
4.37
4.48
5.38
4.42
4.67
4.14
4.74
4.48
5.95
5.93
6.18
5.38
5.15
5.17
5.83
5.77
3.57
4.12
4.39
Outlet
0.057
0.046
0.082
0.066
0.092
0.108
0.114
0.192
0.073
0.069
0.137
0.117
0.201
0.204
0.265
0.263
0.098
0.114
0.160
dncm/min (m /min )
-t-
I
1
Measured flow
rate not re-
ported by U.E.
1
4r
4,928 (8,071)^
4,843 (7,958)-'
6,347 (10,450)^
6,145 (10,139)-'
8,609 (14,387)^7
8,609 (14.387)!/
8.836 (14,670)^
8,808 (14.726)!7
6,500 (10,110)
7,505 (11,781)
8,780 (13,339)
(%)
98.7
99.0
98.5
98.5
98.0
97.4
97.6
95.7
98.8
98.8
97.8
97.8
96.1
96.1
95.5
95.5
97.2
97.2
96.4
MRI data (Coal-only conventional)
11/05/74
11/05/74
11/06/74
11/07/74
10/31/74
11/01/74
11/04/74
75 (07.)
75 (07.)
100 (07.)
100 (07.)
140 (07.)
140 (0%)
140 (0%)
e/
e/
£/
3.96
5.29
e/
e/
0.07l£/
0.085£/
0.082-'
0.101^
0.206^'
0.240S/
0.263S/
6,032 (9,487)
4,984 (8,015)
6,627 (10,592)
6,627 (10,393)
9,770 (15,831)
9,657 (15,123)
9,459 (15,151)
98.5
98.2
98.2
97.5
96.1
94.8
94.3
MRI data (coal-only ootentiallv hazardous)
3/07/75
3/08/75
3/05/75
a.1 Summation oC
Jj/ Efficiency =
110 (07.)
Ill (07.)
140 (0%)
5.51
4.94
£/
gas flow in both outlet ducts.
Inlet cone. - Outlet cone. fRasod
Inlet cone.
_c/ Weighted average of concentration in
Q.149^
0.094S/
0.252-'
on grams /dncm)
6,938 (10,790)
6,768 (10,818)
8,836 (13,225)
97.3
98.1
94.5
both outlet ducts.
_d/ Gas flows were based on combustion calculation.
_e/ Test data on
calculated
inlets were invalid due
to leaks in
Mot measured gas flows.
sampling train
assuming that inlet particulate loading was 4.58
. Therefore, ESP efficiency was
grams /dncm (2.00 grains /dscf ).
V Air Pollution Test Report, 1973 test data (Reference 1).
21 Test Report by Union Electric - dated November 3, 1975.
90
-------
Table 23. SUMMARY OF PARTIGUIATE TE3T DATA (COAL + RDF)
Test
date
C,Ml J- RDF
Ur.ton Electric
11/29/73
11/29/73
11/23/73
11/28/73
11/26/73
11/27.73
11/27/73
11/30/73
Union Electric
4/09/75
4/10/75
4/10/75
4/02/75
4/02/75
4/06/75
4/22 '75
4/22/75
4/12/75
4. 12 75
4 '15 '-
4/01 75
4 '01/75
4-03 75
4 '17 75
4 17 75
4/21/75
4 '21/75
MR I datai'
12. '14 ,'73
12/09/73
2/09 '73
2/10 '73
2/05/73
2 '05/73
12/13/73
12 '13/73
12/04/73
'.2/11/73
12 12/73
MR I data (Coal
- '30/75
5 '02/75
5/21/75
5 '22/75
5/12/75
3/19 '' 75
3 '20/75
5, '20 '75
MR I data (Coal
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20,75
a/ Summation of
b/ Efficiency »
Power output
Mw (% RDF)
datai''
75 (13.27.)
75 (14.77.)
100 (14.87.)
100 (15!.)
140 (107.)
140 (107.)
140 (10%)
140 (11.47.)
data^
75 (107.)
75 (10%)
75 (107.)
100 (107.)
100 (10%)
100 (10%)
100 (10%)
100 (10%)
102 (10%)
101 (10%)
135 (10%)
140 (10%)
139 (107.)
140 (10%)
140.5 (10%)
140 (10")
140 (10%)
139 (10%)
80 (9%)
80 (187.)
80 (18%)
SO (27%)
100 (97.)
100 (9%)
100 (97.)
100 (18%)
120 (9%)
120 (9%)
120 (18%)
+ RDF conventional)
100 (57,)
100 (8%)
100 (10%)
100 (107.)
140 (8-97,)
140 (4-5%)
140 (10%)
140 (10%)
Concentration grams /dncm
Inlet
4.76
4.32
4.87
4. 74
3.82
4.05
4.83
4.78
4.14
3.87
3.98
5.63
S/
4.48
5.24
5.10
4.26
4.16
6.06
5.24
7.30
5.65
7.12
5.97
4.14
4.16
4.26
4.51
4.35
4.76
4.46
4.21
4.16
4.69
4.78
4.12
3.68
4.69
5.01
4.60
4.05
5.56
3-2?
5.40
Outlet
0.103
0.103
0.174
0.160
0.160
0.275
0.320
0.275
0.064
0.048
0.055
0.172
0.137
0.112
0.080
0.087
0.089
0.089
0.391
0.270
0.432
0.339
0.378
0.320
0.149
0.178
0.094
0.055
0.069
0.069
0.128
0.169
0.114
0.146
0.206
0.101
0.137
D.103^
0.140-'
0.199-'
0.085?'
0.243?
0.529-
c
0.343-
0.634'/
Outlet gas flow-' ESP
dncm/min (m /tnin)
i
\
Measured flow
ported by UE
1
v
4,786 (7,788)!'
4,928 (8,043)!'
4,928 (8,015)-'
6,089 (9,997)-
6,287 (10,337)!'
6,259 (10,195)^'
6,230 (10,054)-''
6,315 (10,308)-
6,145 (9,940)1
6,060 (9,827)1'
8,723 (14,302)^'
9,147 (15,151)1'
8,864 (14,811)!'
8,354 (13,207l!'
8,439 (14,188)!'
3,298 (13,962)!'.
8,326 (13,650)!,
8,071 (13,424)-
6,429 (10,167)
6,230 (10,082)
6,230 (10,082)
6,287 (9,855)
7,307 (11,866)
7,193 (11,809)
7,646 (12,461)
7,193 (11,809)
8,496 (14,273)
8,694 (13,792)
8,241 (13,254)
7,193 (11,781)
7,165 (11,583)
6,853 (11,498)
7,193 (11,753)
8,921 (14,443)
8,354 (13,509.1
9,261 (14,755)
9,176 (14,641)
efficiency^'
(7.)
97.8
97.6
95.4
96.6
95.8
93.2
93.4
94.2
98.5
98.8
98.6
97.0
97.0
97.5
98.5
98.3
97.9
97.9
93.5
94.9
94.1
94.0
94.7
94.6
96.4
95.7
97.8
98.8
98.4
98.6
97.1
96.0
97.3
96.9
95.7
97.6
96.3
97.8
97.2
95.7
97.9
95.6
84.1
92.5
88.3
-"- RDF potentiallv hazardous)
133 (7-8%)
134 (7-8%)
133 (77.)
135 (7-8%)
4.19
5.83
6.09
4.30
0.293
0.522
0.350
0.332
9,232 (14,500)
9,289 (14,698)
9,119 (14,726)
9,147 (15,151)
93.0
91.1
94.2
92.3
gas flew in both outlet ducts.
Inlet cone. - Outlet
Inlet cone.
cone. (Based
£.' Weighted average of concentration in both outlet
d/ Gas flows uere based on combustion calculation.
e/ Teat data on
calculated
inlets vere invalid
assuming that inlet
due to leaks in
on g/dncm).
ducts.
Not measured
gas flows.
sampling train. Therefore, ESP efficiency was
particulate loading was 4.58
g/dnm3 (2.00 gr/dscf).
I/ Mr Pollution Test Report, 1973 test data.
2j Test Report by Union Electric - dated November 3, 1975
91
-------
7.0
6.0
?
^ M
t 4
u
5 "s.o
_.
5
4 iC
3,5
3.6
g1
1"
.5 S
= -6
'p ^3.^
^ I
f 2
COAL* RDF '00
100
o UE Data
• MRI Data
(Nuntar b«tid« point
indieer«% RDF)
-
7
• 010
- a
10
.7-8
-
oio '°°
8-9*
10*
aio ]0D
010
• 8
°-« 100
013 .27 0X " 11°
18* •
•^
• 18 {
=,5 ;« „ ?_97;8
°10 "~* «9 ^o -
• 10 IO-°
010
010 100
• 18
-
4-5 •
10.
7-8 <-5
•
__!/=
7 • %aba
./ IO^g-11
.'" .9 ?"8 **•'
1 Q^fcl 5 ^_
l->. '?t "' "
10 27, , , i | ! ... _i
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4 g>
J'~ u.
"«^
'5 8
2.2 « 1
2.1
2.0
1.9
1 .8
1.7
1.6
1.5
>
0.3
?
0.2 5
0 t
.S ^
0 'I
0.1 z
o
0
6.0r
0.0 -
COAL ONLY
a UE Data
• MRI Dota
•8
00
- 0.3
- 0.2^
O.I -J
^
o
too no
3oi,er Looo I'.'w)
130 140
^0 80
100 no
Boiler Load ( Mw )
Figure 20. Inlet and outlet particulate concentrations as a function of boiler load.
-------
Table 29. AVERAGE PARTIGUIATE LOADINGS OVER ENTIRE RANGE OF BOILER
LOAD AND % RDF, IN GRAMS/DNGM
(GRAINS/DSCF)
Inlets Out 1 et s
Coal-only Goal + RDF Coal-only Coal + RDF
UE 5.13 (2.24) 4.90 (2.14) 0.130 (0.057) 0.190 (0.083)
MRI 4.53 (1.98) 4.60 (2.01) 0.146 (0.064) 0.220 (0.096)
Since most particulate emissions regulations place limitations on
the quantity of particulate that may be emitted per unit of heat input
(Kg/10^ Kj) rather than outlet particulate loadings or ESP efficiency,
the particulate emission data were converted to this basis. ESP outlet
emissions in the form of Kg/106 Kj are plotted in Figure 21 as a function
of boiler load. Representative regulations governing particulate emissions
from fuel-burning sources (coal) of the size of the Meramec plant are pre-
sented in Table 30 for comparison. It is clear from Figure 21 and Table 30
that compliance with the more stringent standards is not achieved above
100 Mw regardless of the fuel mix, and that firing RDF does accentuate
the problem to some extent. An improved control system or operating mode
would be necessary if this plant were required to meet the stringent stan-
dards. A comprehensive discussion of the performance of the ESP at the
Meramec plant is presented in the last chapter of this report.
There are several control alternatives which could be considered
for reducing particulate emissions at the Meramec plant. A list of such
alternatives includes: (a) adding another control device (e.g., cyclone)
before or after the ESP; (b) increasing the size of the ESP (retrofit);
(c) restricting power output or percent RDF; (d) modifying the ESP opera-
tion (electrical or other characteristics); (e) use of additives or condi-
tioning agents to improve collectability of the particulates (i.e., resis-
tivity); and (f) using fuel of different characteristics (either coal or
RDF).
Addition of another control device for reducing particulate emissions
is suggested because the test data discussed in the next chapter indicated
that the increased particulate emissions were primarily associated with
larger particles. The addition of a properly designed cyclone after or
possibly before the existing ESP might be effective in collecting these
larger particles. However, this combination would probably not raise the
overall efficiency more than that of the present ESP when burning coal-
only at low loads.
93
-------
.(8) ;
0.200
0.150
o
05
^
o
C
O
LLJ
5 o.ioo
D
£
0.050
0.025
-
•(5) -
-
.(8)«(10) .
.(8)
•(0) '
.(0) -
*(o) ;
*(9) -(0)
.(10)
• (9)
•(0)
.08)
• (8)
•(9) *XO) .(18)
•(9) .(5) .(9)
• (0) !
(0).t>(27) •00) .(0)
•08)
i i i i i i t i i i i i i i t
0.50
0.40
CO
E
0.30 \
—
^
o
irt
'§
uu
o
_D
U
0.20
0.10
70
80
90
100
120
130
140
Boiler Load, Mw
Figure 21. Particulate emissions as a function of boiler load
(number in parentheses correspond to percent RDF energy).
-------
Table 30. REPRESENTATIVE PARTICULATE REGULATIONS
FOR FUEL-BURNING SOURCES WITH HEAT INPUT RANGING
BETWEEN 527.5-1,055 x 106 KJ/HR
Juri s diet ion
Federal
Colorado
Connecticut
Indiana
Iowa
Illinois
Missouri
Maximum allowable
particulate emissions
Kg/106 Ki (lb/106 Btu)
Existing sources New sources
0.043
0.086
0.344
0.344
0.043
0.086
(0.1)
(0.2)
(0.8)
(0.8)
(0.1)
(0.2)
0.043 (0.1)
0.043 (0.1)
0.043 (0.1)
0.258 (0.6)
0.258 (0.6)
0.043 (0.1)
95
-------
The addition of another control device is an alternative for an exist-
ing facility which might elect to burn RDF as a supplementary fuel. For a
new facility specifically designed to burn RDF, it is expected that the
installed control system would be designed to achieve the desired collection
efficiency when burning RDF.
The effective collection area of the ESP might be increased by the
addition of another ESP in series with the existing one. The size of such
an addition would depend on the desired overall collection efficiency and
would be limited by available space and other factors.
Another alternate control strategy is to limit the boiler output and/
or the percent of RDF fired. Viability of this strategy is dependent on the
emission level that must be achieved and options available to the specific
plant.
Another possible control strategy might be that of modifying or re-
adjusting the ESP controls (i.e., voltage, amperage, etc.) to improve
collection efficiency. This approach is only suggested as a possibility.
It would be up to plant operators and control equipment vendors to deter-
mine if the approach is feasible at any given facility and the extent to
which it might improve control device performance.
Rather than change ESP operation, it may be possible to use addi-
tives or conditioning agents to improve the collectability of particles.
These techniques have been utilized in the past, with some success, and
similar methods may be appropriate when firing RDF. Such techniques usually
lower the resistivity of the particulate, thereby improving their collect-
ability in an ESP. This approach may be especially appropriate for situa-
tions like those at the Meramec plant where the measured resistivity of
the particulate was in a very critical range (> 2 x 10*-" ohm-cm).*
Utilization of fuels having different characteristics than those
used at the Meramec plant might also serve to decrease emissions. For
instance, if the coal used produced particulate with lower resistivity,
burning of RDF might have less effect on ESP efficiency. Also, if the
RDF were dried prior to its use, a decrease in the flue gas flow rate
should occur* Such a decrease should help to minimize decreases in ESP
efficiency caused by the firing of RDF.*
The chapter on ESP performance discusses particulate resistivity and
flue gas flow rates measured during the emission tests.
96
-------
Potentially Hazardous Pollutant Emissions - Potentially hazardous pollutant
emissions associated with burning Orient 6 coal and Orient 6 coal + RDF were
measured in two sets of tests. The input/output streams were sampled in the
same manner as was done for the conventional air-emissions test, but the anal-
yses performed on the samples were more comprehensive. The discussion of the
results of tests for potentially hazardous pollutant emissions will be divided
into a subsection dealing with overall pollutant emissions and a section re-
lated to specific pollutants.
Overall pollutant emissions - Samples collected during these tests
were subjected to different degrees of analysis by Ralston Purina, Accu-Labs,*
and MRI. Coal, RDF, fly ash, and bottom ash samples were sent to Ralston
Purina for the same general analyses which that laboratory had provided for
all input/output streams sampled during any emissions tests at the Meramec
plant. Table 31 presents a summary of the results of those analyses. Accu-
Labs performed spark source mass spectrometry (SSMS) analyses on samples
of the coal, RDF, fly ash, and bottom ash. The SSMS analyses were performed
to obtain a semiquantitatiye indication of the detailed composition of these
streams. A summary of the SSMS analyses is presented in Table 32. MRI labora-
tories performed detailed quantitative analyses for a selected list of ele-
ments in the input/output streams. The elements selected for analyses were
chosen in consultation with the EPA project officers. Tables 33 through 35
are summaries of the analyses conducted by MRI. The MRI analyses included
checking of results by duplicate analyses and by analysis of standard
reference materials. This quality assurance effort is described in Appendix
I along with an evaluation of the precision and accuracy obtained.
All the analyses of input/output streams shown in Tables 31 through
33 and Table 35 have been expressed as concentrations (usually in micro-
grams per gram), while the analyses from the special sampling trains
(Table 34) are expressed as concentrations in micrograms per dry normal
cubic meter (both for the particulate and vapors). The latter concentra-
tions (micrograms per cubic meter) are useful for determining removal effi-
ciency across the ESP, and for comparison of emissions. However, analyses
of the particulate catches (Table 35) have also been tabulated in micrograms
per gram so that they can be directly compared with fly ash analyses and
analyses of other input/output streams.
The general analyses performed by Ralston Purina (RP) (Table 31) included
some of the pollutants for which MRI conducted detailed analyses, and the
RP data are included for comparison purposes and completeness of data pre-
sentation. The SSMS analyses cover a long list of elements, and the results
are only semi quantitative (i.e., the value reported for any element may be
accurate to within a factor of 10). The SSMS analysis defines the spectrum
of pollutants which could be emitted and can be used as a cross-check for
other analysis results.
* Accu-Labs, Wheatridge, Colorado.
97
-------
Table 31. SUMMARY OF GENERAL ANALYSES RESULTS FOR POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT TESTS (BY RALSTON PURINA)
vo
oo
Moisture {wt 7.)
Chemical analysis (wt %)
Aluminum (A^O-j)
Copper (CuO)
Iron (Fe203)
Lead (PbO)
Potassium (K^O)
Sodium (NajO)
Zinc (ZnO)
Chromium
Lithium
Silver
Cl*
Coal (wt 7.. wet basis)
Coal-only Coal 4- RDF
teats tests
13.00
1.47
0.001
1.29
0.004
0.16
0.11
0.004
0.001
0.002
< 5 ppm
0.414
10.26
1.51
0.002
1.26
0.002
0.17
0.09
0.006
0.002
0.001
5 ppm
0.335
RDF (wt %, wet basis)
Coal + RDF tests
22.55
1.366
0.052
1.009
0.042
0.334
1.348
0.068
0.018
0.001
< 5 ppm
0.397
Bottom ash
(wt °/,t wet basis)
Coal-only
tests
46.17
7.95
0.01
13.22
0.005
0.76
0.39
0.02
0.02
0.067
< 5 ppm
Coal -f RDF
tests
39.2
6.39
0.09
4.64
0.03
0.70
2.63
0.09
0.03
0.003
< 5 ppm
Fly ash (wt %. wet basis)
Coal-only Coal + RDF
tests tests
< 0.10
22.63
0.013
22.83
0.034
2.38
1.73
0.0598
0.0188
0.0134
< 5 ppm
0.13
19.86
0.027
14.55
0.10
2.41
1.37
0.13
0.02
0.01
< 5 ppm
-------
Table 32. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TESTS AT POWER PLANT
AVERAGE of SSMS ANALYSIS DATA (PPM)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutetium
Ytterbium
Thu Ilium
Erbium
Holmium
Dysprosium
Terbium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Coal
Coal-only
tests
1.7
3.2
0.04
2.3
* 1.06
**
-
-
-
-
Internal
Standard
0.05
0.58
~1.4
~0.15
0.63
0.25
"1.38
0.1
2.4
0.1
3.1
^0.46
1.41
18
8
34.3
22
63
0.08
0.23
«0.44
0.07
0.28
Internal
Standard
0.12
*>0.04
-
-
-
Coal + RDF
tests
1.04
2.8
=-0.21
17.8
<0.27
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
Standard
«0.13
0.24
2.13-
-
<0.35
~0.13
••1.2
"0.21
0.87
0.14
0.7
0.24
0.63
37.8
23.8
87.0
27.8
57.0
1.6
2.5
~0.35
1.4
0.43
Internal
Standard
0.13
-
-
-
-
RDF
Coal + RDF
tests
4.2
5.6
9.3
~2167
=-0.16
-
.
-
-
.
Internal
Standard
101
0.63
5.1
1.0
2.8
0.11
0.47
0.19
4.9
0.73
0.62
1.1
2.7.
15
5.7
67
36
=•1967
2.6
0.53
-
86
130
Internal
Standard
28
7.1
-
-
-
Flv
Coal-only
tests
8.1
13
7.4
290
3.6
**
.
.
-
.
Internal
Standard
5.6
2.1
2.2
0.55
5.0
0.27 .
0.61
0.61
10.7
0.74
1.7
2.6
3.0
40
18
400
50
«5170
4.4
2.3
0.1
10.1
14.4
Internal
Standard
2.6
3.9
-
-
.
ash
Coal + RDF
tests
13.8
11.9
4.4
667
3.2
-
_
.
-
.
Internal
Standard
3.4
0.5
4.3
0.94
5.8
0.29
1.4
0.58
12
2.0
2.1
2.9
8.1
39
15.2
155
74
570
7.2
1.8
-
22
42
Internal
S tandard
4.5
1.2
-
-
-
Bottom
Coal-only
tests
25
24
0.47
30
0.72
.
_
_
-
,
Internal
Standard
4.6
0.77
7.9
1.0
7.0
0.30
1.2
0.93
18
3.2
3.2
5.0
12
68
27
150
130
=-1500
15
1.2
-
1.5
9.9
Internal
Standard
0.68
0.40
-
-
-
ash
Coal + RDF
tests
4.7
5.6
0.47
337
«0.24
.
.
_
.
_
Internal
Standard
10.1
0.58
3.7
0.58
3.0
0.14
0.56
0.40
5.6
0.81
0.69
1.01
2.7
21.3
5.7
80.7
38.3
900
3.9
0.39
-
8.5
18.6
Internal
Standard
1.5
0.71
-
-
-
99
-------
Table 32. (Concluded)
Element
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
Selenium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Chlorine
Sulphur-2/
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
Coal
Coal- only
tests
2.4
2.9
30.7
12.6
39.7
45
1.3
1.1
1.8
1.5
1.3
30.7
20
9.8
3.9
S3 4 7 00 w
9.8
33.3
19
643.3
2.6
«4267
1516.7
583.3
«,2033
26
> 0.837.
-112C =-
410
«4683
69
NR
NR
NR
60
0.9
0.71
Coal + RDF
tests
7.8
10.4
39.0
43.3
183
28.3
41.3
2.12
14.5
5.3
2.03
89.7
11.9
32
18.7
8133
11.0
63.7
63.3
1266.7
4.1
873.3
2033.3
800
733.3
171.3
>1%
3400
606.7
710
85.3
NR
NR
NR
46.7
0.44
0.69
RDF
Coal + RDF
tests
44
15
303
19
587
78
58
3.8
22
3.3
12
~4833
=•2867
=-827
330
>U
=-773
""1993
35
>0.83%
1.5
>17.
>0.677.
=-2233
>17.
>0.57.
>1%
>1%
>0.83%
>U
467
NR
NR
NR
2.77
0.26
106
Fly
Coal-only
tests
15
21
61
184
=-1177
337
14.2
9.3
180
49
40
»6900
240
303
67
>1%
630
207
"1080
>0.83%
35
>lt
>U
257
""5800
=»3000
>17.
w4633
>17.
>1%
1113
NR
NR
NR
>933
23
367
ash
Coal + RDF
tests
33
21
150
53
710
86
8
3.6
140
20
16
=•1200
237
223
58
>17.
213
130
117
>0.5£
20.7
>U
>0.67%
70
~4800
=•3067
>1%
>17.
>0.83*
>0.67%
110
NR
NR
NR
430
14.3
430
Bottom
Coal-only
tests
18
32
230
110
=-1400
110
3.4
0.94
13
1.4
13
300
150
100
41
>17.
360
130
100
>0.57.
27
>1%
>17.
130
"4800
="4400
>1%
>n
>U
=-1500
110
NR
NR
NR
100
2.4
430
ash
Coal + RDF
tests
10
13
123
24
437
92
13.3
0.94
15.1
2.8
6.5
»800
560
290
101
>17.
363
790
100
«4567
4.5
U
«3933
»462
="2567
="2800
>U
>17.
>0.837.
>1%
217
NR
NR
NR
200
1.5
323
_a/ Sulfur values unreliable (very low for coal} high for refuse).
** Mercury not analyzed.
NR = Not reported.
All elements not reported < 0.1 ppm weight.
100
-------
Table 33. SUMMARY TABLE OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DURING COAL-ONLY AND COAL + RDF TESTS
Trace (tWs
pollutant Coal
analysis tests
Sb-' 0.8
As-' 0.8
Ba 76
Be 0.32
Cd 0.28
Cr 33
Cu 45
Pb 64
Hg < 0.3
Se 3 . 02
Ag 0.06
Ti 545
V 42.2
Zn 53
Br 72
CIS' 5,000
F 123
POM
1 (7,12-
Dlmethylbenz-
[ajanthracene) NA
2 (BenzofaJ-
pyrene) NA
3 (3-Methyl-
cholanthrene) NA
4
-------
Table 34. SUMMARY TABLE OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS FOR
COAL-ONLY AND COAL + RDF TESTS—ESP INLET AND OUTLET SAMPLE TRAINS
Pollutant concentration
O
M
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ag
Tl
V
Zn
Br"
cr
Volatile organic acid
POM
1 (7,12-Dimethylbenz-
falanthracene)
2 (Benzofa]pyrene)
3 (3-Methylcho-
lanthrenc)
4 (Dibenzfa.h]-
anthracene)
5 (BenzPclphenan-
thtene)
6 (Dibenztc,^)-
carbazole)
Inlet
Coal-only tests
Mln Imum
< 0.88
(27.2)
22.4
(< 4.8)
12 , 100
12.9
6.72
791
364
470
1.54
(8.Z)
99.9
(19.9)
5.44
6,430
896
-
504
(2,190)
1,20Q£/
(216, OOO)!/
1,050
(3,300)
NA
MA
(<• 440)
< 0 . 84*1/
(1.32)
f 0.84^'
(< 5.87)
< 0.28>1/
« 1.69)
< 0.56iS/
(< 5.14)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Maximum
1.54
(31.4)
38.1
(24.4)
18,800
24.3
55.2
938
677
640
4.05
(40.8)
119
(47.0)
60.7
15,500
2,100
-
662
(10.SOO)
1,480£/
(399,000)!''
3,500
(6,240)
NA
NA
(< 1,170)
f. 1.66t/
r< 27.7)
< 1.66*1''
<< 11.7)
* 0.83h/
(2.48)
< i.ioi!/
(11.4)
HA
NA
NA
NA
Average
< 1.25
(29.1)
30.5
(f 12.0)
15,500
19.3
23.9
875
530
550
2.73
(21.7)
109
(30.2)
39.8
9,460
1,610
Coal
Minimum
< 8.38
« 1.0)
17.5
(15.'.)
6,020
37.4
36.0
960
688
3,700
5.45
(16.2)
32.3
(19.7)
8.75
34,500
241
1,420 15,030
586
(7.610)
1,330£/
(289,000)!'
2,080
(4,610)
NA
NA
(< 686)
e l,33h/
(* 14.3)
< 1,33&'
(< 7.85)
i 0.53il/
(* 1.96)
< 0.8SJ>/
C« 7.26)
NA
NA
NA
NA
881
(2,910)
5.450I/
(185.000)!/
< 327
(5,020)
NA
NA
(<279)
< 1.26
« 3.2)
< 1.26
(< 3.19)
< 0.42
(< 0.92)
1.12
« 3.19)
< 2.51
(<9.16)
< 4.19
(8.17)
+ RDF tests
Maximum
< 11.7
(< 1.28)
<25.1
(23.1)
11,700
81.7
53.1
1,400
1,580
4,440
16.3
(66.1)
61.9
(73.1)
18.4
50,800
875
5,430
2,040
(5,400)
2,330!'
(600,000)!'
< 496
(7,110)
NA
NA
(< 284)
< 1.75
(5.78)
< 1.75
(<3.32)
< 0.58
(< 1.09)
< 1.26
« 3.32)
< 3.0
(73.0)
< 4.67
(< 12.8)
Averaae
< 9.56
(< 1.12)
f 21.4
(19.6)
8,140
53.3
41.7
1,120
1,020
4,030
10.8
(34.0)
44.0
(40.2)
12.2
40,000
519
5,210
1,410
(4,400)
3.9101/
(408,000)!'
< 396
(5,910)
NA
NA
« 281)
< 1.43
(* 4.1)
< 1.43
« 3.24)
< 0.48
(< 0.98)
« 1.18
(< 3.24)
< 2.81
(S 30.5)
< 4.39
(* 10.2)
Outlet
Coal-onty tests
Minimum
0.05
(22.7)
1.17
(< 5.5)
81.6
0.29
1.37
< 17.3
7.48
60.3
0.39
NA
-
(22.2)
0.10
< 57.7
37.3
148
*l
7l,670)
d7
(152,000)f/
d/
(1,430)
NA
NA
(<498)
NA!^
(< 13.8)
NAil/
(5.42)
NAi/
(< 1.67)
NAl/
(< 5.09)
MA
NA
NA
NA
Maximum
0.67
(38.9)
68.5
(< 9.1)
767
2.64
6.98
521
57.5
121
< 1.37
MA
-
(83.7)
13.7
1,150
154
154
d/
111, 100)
d/
7479,000)f/
dj
74,820)
NA
NA
(< 728)
NAi/
(32.4)
NA!/
(* 8.57)
NAi/
(< 2.46)
NAi/
(
(1.89)
0.62
1,470
25.5
445
«/
(3,690)
d/
(188,000)!'
NA
(4,530)
NA
NA
(< 619) j (< 233)
NA^/
<* 20)
NAi/
(* 7.01)
NAl/
(<2.04)
NAi/
« 6.19)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA4'
(< 3.33)
NAi/
(< 3.33)
NAi'
(< 0.77)
NAd/
(< 2.67)
NAd/
(< 6.33)
RAd/
(< 10.33)
+ KOF tests
Maximum
6.39
«2.2)
16.0
« 10.5)
813
7.52
13.7
149
132
448
4.14
NA
d/
(38.1)
5.32
3,090
168
597
*l
7s, 350)
d/
7833, 000)1'
NA
(7,550)
NA
NA
(< 603)
NAd/
(< 8.62)
NAd/
(< 8.62)
NAi/
« 1.98)
NAd/
(< 6.9)
NAd/
(41.4)
HAd/
«26.7)
Average
3.53
« 1.54)
12.7
(< 7.17)
497
4.96
9.05
108
87.8
343
2.66
NA
d/
(23.5)
2.75
2,460
111
517
d/
74,630)
d/
7^79, OOO)!/
NA
(5,810)
NA
NA
(< 420)
NAd/
(< 5.56)
SA!/
(^5.56)
NAi/
(< 1.47)
NAd/
(<4.84)
NAd/
(* 18.2)
NAd/
(< 19.1)
a/ Concentration based on analysis of parttcularc catch. Values in parentheses are vaporous concentration (Mg/Nnr).
b_/ Results for Sb and As during coal-only tests are suspected.
c/ Vaporous Hg concentration bas ed on anaJys is of Statnick train.—
d/ Not enough sample to analyze.
e/ By chloridimeter.
f/ Bv ion selective electrode.
&l Results not reported because of interferences In analysis.
Jl/ Froisi fly ash andlysei.
NA •- Not analvred.
-------
Table 35. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE CATCH ANALYSIS FOR COAL-ONLY AND COAL +
RDF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS TESTS -- ESP INLET AND OUTLET SAMPLE
TRAINS
O
u>
Pollutant (M.R/R, dry basis)
a/
b/
c/
d/
e/
f./
Sb^7
As^^
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
US
Se
Ag
Tl
V
Zn
Br"
cr
F"
POM-7
1
2
3
4
Results for Sb and As during
Insufficient sample.
By chloridimeter.
By ion selective electrode.
From fly ash analysis.
POM's are identified in Table
NA = Not analyzed.
Coal
tests
SO. 33
7.1
4,450
4.4
4.8
217
121
131
0.61
21
10.4
2,130
357
287
140
337^7
589,
<0.3£/
<0.3^
<:0.1-
<0.2^
coal-only
34.
Inlet
Coal + RDF
tests
<2
£4.7
1,670
10.8
8.7
233
206
853
2.3
9.0
2.7
8,350
104
1,110
289
873^7
<83
<0,3
<0.3
<0. 1
^0.25
tests are suspect
Outlet
Coal
tests
1.46
162
1,860
10.3
29.6
624
209
583
£7.9
42.1
29
sl,620
708
1,600
b/
b/
b/
NA-7
NA^
NAC7
NA-
due to analysis
Coal + RDF
tests
10.0
36.0
1,300
12.7
25
293
228
982
7.5
b/
6.4
5,470
280
1,500
b/
b/
NA
NA-7
NAb/
NA-7
m~
problems .
-------
MRI analyses of the input/output streams and the special sampling
trains are the primary focus for the characterization of the potentially
hazardous pollutants. MRI analytical work was focused on the analysis of
selected elements collected by the special sampling trains in order to
identify those pollutants whose concentrations may significantly increase
when burning coal + RDF as compared to coal-only. As noted previously, the
special sampling trains were designed for the purpose of determining
the emissions of certain specific pollutants that were known from pre-
vious work to be partially or completely in vapor form (Sb, Se, As,
etc.). It is possible that other pollutants might also exist partially
in the vapor form. Approximate mass balances are used to aid in identi-
fying which pollutants may exist in the vapor form.
Interpretation of the analyses from the special sampling train is
aided by the corresponding analysis of the input/output streams. For in-
stance, if the analyses of the fuels indicate that the RDF contains a much
higher concentration of some element other than coal, then this should
be reflected in higher concentrations of that pollutant in one (or more)
output streams. Conversely, if analysis of the ESP inlet particulate
catch shows higher concentrations of some element when burning coal +
RDF, the analyses of collected fly ash should also show an increase.
Before proceeding with a more specific interpretation of the ana-
lytical data, it is pertinent to describe some approximations that are
useful in examining the analysis results shown in the tables. First, the
weight of fly ash collected by the ESP is about 10% of the quantity of
fuel. Therefore, the concentration of any element should be about 10
times higher in the fly ash than in the fuel, in order to account for
all of that element in the fly ash stream alone. Second, the quantity
of bottom ash is less than 1% of the quantity of fuel, when burning coal.
Therefore, the concentration of any element would have to be at least 100
times higher in the bottom ash to account for all of that element as
bottom ash alone. However, when burning coal + RDF, the quantity of bot-
tom ash is greater and somewhat variable, so estimates are not quite as
simple. Third, approximately 10 Nm3 of flue gas are emitted per kilogram
of coal consumed. Therefore, if the concentration of an element were 1
ppm in the coal, its concentration in the flue gas would have to be about
100 p,g/Nm^ to account for all the element as flue gas alone.
These three approximate relationships are useful in evaluating dis-
crepancies in the results of analyses. In several cases, results of anal-
yses by different techniques are not in agreement with results of analyses
on similar streams (e.g., collected fly ash and ESP inlet particulate
catch). Perhaps most important, analyses of samples from separate tests
104
-------
under similar conditions cover such a wide range that the average value
may be very misleading. In such cases, the three approximate relationships
provide some means of judging which values are out of line or which anal-
yses may be totally incorrect and should be disregarded.
During the coal-only and coal + RDF potentially hazardous pollutant
tests, particle size distributions of particulate emissions were determined
at the inlet and outlet of the ESP by cascade impactor techniques. After
each impactor stage was weighed, the substrate was saved and returned to
MRI. Identical substrates (or stages) from all tests (e.g., coal-only haz-
ardous) were then composited in an attempt to obtain a sufficient quantity
of samples for elemental analysis by particle size. The composited stage
samples for the inlets from both sets of potentially hazardous tests were
analyzed for each of the potentially hazardous elements discussed previously,
except for As, Sb, Hg, and Se which were not analyzed because of insufficient
sample size. Composited stage samples for the outlets from the coal + refuse
tests were similarly analyzed. Unfortunately, the quantity of outlet samples
from the coal-only tests-was not sufficient for analysis, except for the
last (smaller) stages. The reason for this was that in the coal-only test
the ESP was operating at higher efficiency, with most of the emissions
being the smaller particles which are caught on the last stages of the
impactor.
Although the lack of sufficient quantity of samples for the coal-only
outlets prevented completion of all analyses, the results for the inlets
and coal + RDF outlets do provide a good deal of useful information.
The extensive data on individual pollutant emissions are difficult
to present in a manner which permits easy assessment of the overall impli-
cations. We have elected to present some general observations based on
Tables 31 through 35, and then discuss the results on an element-by-element
basis in subsequent subsections.
Table 36 presents general notes on the specific element analysis of
coal and RDF samples. The general analysis of fly ash reported by Ralston
Purina is presented in Table 37. The previous Tables 33 through 35 were
used to prepare the comparative mass balances for individual elements shown
in Table 38. Average mass flows calculated for the two sets of potentially
hazardous pollutant tests (coal-only and coal + RDF) were also used in
the mass balance calculations. Examination of the preceding tables indi-
cate that:
105
-------
Table 36. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON COAL AND RDF ANALYSES
Elements which are in
higher concentration in
RDF than in coal
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ag
Ti
Zn
Br
Bi
W
Sb
Sn
Ni
P
Na
Li
Comments on distribution
of concentration
Ba increased in bottom ash and in fly ash.
Cd increased in fly ash and ESP outlet
particulate.
Cr increased in bottom ash and fly ash*
Cu increased in bottom ash and ESP outlet
particulate.
Pb increased in bottom ash, fly ash, and ESP
outlet particulate.
Hg increased in bottom ash, fly ash, and ESP
outlet particulate (see discussion of Hg in
section on gaseous emissions).
No increase noted for silver in any output
streams.
Ti increased in bottom ash, fly ash, and ESP
outlet particulate.
Zn increased in bottom ash, fly ash, and ESP
outlet particulate.
Br increased in bottom ash and fly ash, but
most of the Br is emitted as a vapor.
No increase in bottom ash or fly ash, but most
is collected as fly ash.
W increased in bottom ash.
Sb increased in bottom ash and fly ash.
Sn increased in bottom ash and fly ash.
Ni increased in bottom ash, but most is present
in fly ash.
SSMS data for P are difficult to interpret.
Na increased in bottom ash.
Li increased in fly ash.
106
-------
Table 37. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE FLY ASH ANALYSIS DATA^/
Heating value (kj/kg)
Moisture (wt %)
Chemical analysis (wt 70)
Ash
Aluminum (A1203)
Copper (CuO)
Iron (Fe203)
Lead (PbO)
Potassium (K20)
Sodium (N
Zinc (ZnO)
Chromium (
Lithium
Silver
Sulfur
!• Coal-only
ange Average
II. Coal + RDF
Range
Average
51-7,169
0.1-0.54
1,551
0.26
933-4,110 2,361
0.06-0.44 0.21
77.6-97.7
19-24.8
0.01-0.02
15.3-27.8
0.02-0.05
2.1-2.5
1.4-1.9
0.04-0.08
0.02-0.03
0.01-0.02
-
0.2-0.8
93.4
21.7
0.01
18.4
0.03
2.3
1.7
0.06
0.025
0.015
< 5.0 ppm
0.55
85.4-93.4
14.6-22.1
0.01-0.06
11.8-15.9
0.05-0.17
2.3-2.9
1.0-2.5
0.07-0.26
0.02-1.1
-
-
0.35-0.75
90
19.4
0.02
14.1
0.10
2.4
2.0
0.14
0.30
0.01
< 5.0 ppm
0.52
_a/ All results reported on moisture-as-received basis.
107
-------
Table 38. ELEMENTAL MASS BALANCES!/ IN GRAMS PER HOUR
Elaaant
Sb
Al
t*
Bl
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
H«
Sa
A"
Tl
V
Zn
Br
Cl
F
Condition
C
C+RDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+PDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+HDF
C
C+fDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+RDF
C
C+BDF
C
C+8DF
C
C+EDF
C
C+RDF
a
Coal
30
< 44.8
30
<44.8
2,850
< 19,700
12.0
< 58.2
10.5
9.86
1,240
1,410
1,690
762
2,400
753
< n.3
U.2
U3
62.7
2.25
8.96
20,400
30,700
1,580
1,660
1,990
2,380
2,700
4,970
188,000
218,000
4,610
2,020
b
SSL
< 29.6
8,340
< 11.8
136
2,790
2.470
4,590
39.4
< 10.3
31.6
9,910
168
5,890
1,770
48,600
< 503
« + b
Total Inpgfc
30
< 54.7
30
< 74.4
2,850
8,340-28,000
12.0
< JO.O
10.3
146
1,240
4,200
1,690
3.230
2.400
3,340
< 11.3
50.6
113
62.7-73.0
2.25
40.6
20,400
40,600
1,580
1,830
1,990
8,270
2,700
6,740
188,000
267 ,000
4,610
2,020-2,523
c
lo^to. Aab
0.09
< 2.12
0.34
< 4.24
246
5,160
1.81
6.15
0.77
6.36
256
1,430
80.8
3,920
< 70.5
871
0.13
0.25
1.13
3.26
1.76
3.60
2,150
11,100
79.6
278
64.9
1,290
8.6
144
80.0
1,510
36.1
< 44.5
ESF Jnlat
rarttculata Vapor
0.68 13.1
< 3.06 < 0,62
14.7 c 5.4
* 11.9 10.8
9,210
4,230
9.11
27.3
9.94
22.0
449
589
250
321
271
2,160
1.26 9.77
5.82 18.7
43.5 13.6
22.8 22.1
21.5
6.83
4,410
21,100
739
263
594
2,808
290 3,420
731 2,420
698 130,000
2,210 224,000
1,220 2,070
< 210 3,250
d
FlY «ah .
0.74
7.69
13.2
28.4
914
3,220
29.0
32.6
5.6
23.8
342
513
302
433
442
2,120
0.5
3.7
23.4
18.3
7.8
5.2
11,000
17,600
768
741
818
59
182
112
< 627
189
161
a f
ISP OutUt
Farticulata Vapor
0.10 12.9
2.0 < 0.83
11.3 x 3.38
7.2 t 3.94
130
260
0.72
2.54
2.07
5.0
43.7
58. 6
14.6
4}. 6
40.8
196
f 0.55 NA <9.77>
1.5 MA (18.7)
2.95 20.8
2/ 12 . J
2.03
1.28
X 113
1,0»4
49.6
56.0
112
300
'U 2,590
1! 2,550
J/ 167,000
21 263,000
11 1,520
2/ 3,200
Total Output
13.83
9.69-12.66
24.8-28.2
35.6-43.9
1,290
8,640
31.5
41.3
8.44
35.2
642
2,000
397
4,400
483-553
3,190
10.4-10.9
24.2
48.3
34.7+?
11.6
10.1
13,150-13,300
29,800
897
1,075
995
4.040
2,660-2,890
2,880-3,430
167,000
266,000
1 ,750+?
s. 3,410+?
Averages for coal-only and for coal 4- RDF tests. Average flow rates for e«ch atrt«B are shown below in Footnote 3, and Claw rate
quantities for each pollutant were calculated from average analyses shown in Tables 31 through 13*
.27 No analysis reported because of Insufficient sample.
MA - Not analyc*d.
-------
Table 38. (Concluded)
_3/ Mass flows for elemental mass balances (dry basis).
Coal-only (average of three tests at 110» 110, and 140 Mw)
37.5
Coal
x 106
g/hr
RDF Bottom ash
0.43 x 106 g/hr
ESP inlet
2.07 x 106 g/hr
L(0.45 x 106 Nm3/hr)_
Fly ash
2.00 x 10b g/hr
ESP outlet
0.07 x 10° g/hr
(0.45 x 106 Nm3/hr)
Coal H- RDF (average of three tests at 133, 133, and 135 Mw; 7 to 8% RDF)
Coal
RDF
Bottom ash
44.8 x 106 g/hr 9.86 x 10b g/hr 2.12 x 10° g/hr
ESP inlet
2.53 x 10b g/hr
(0.55 x 10 Nm3/hr)
Fly ash
ESP outlet
"2.33 x 10b g/hr 0.20 x 10b g/hr
(0.55 x 106 Nm3/hr)
-------
!• RDF has about the same Al and Fe content as coal, which is sur-
prising.
2. RDF is considerably higher than coal in Na, with the effect of
increasing the Na content of the bottom ash.
3» The major portion of those elements listed in Table 31 is con-
tained in the fly ash, as expected, with the exception of Cl and possibly
Ag.
4. Burning RDF causes an increase in concentrations of some pollut-
ants in bottom ash and fly ash as shown below.
Bottom ash Fly ash
Sb
As
Ba Ba
Cd Gd
Cr
Gu Gu
Pb Pb
Hg
Zn Zn
Br Br
Cl Cl
5« RDF is higher in Ag than coal, but both the bottom ash and fly
ash are lower in Ag when burning RDF, which is difficult to understand.
6. Analytical data for the special sampling train for the sus-
pected gaseous pollutants (Sb, As, Se, Hg, Br, Cl, and F) verify that
substantial portions of these pollutants are emitted as gases.
7. Burning RDF produces a significant increase in emissions (i.e.,
at the ESP outlet) of: Be, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ti, Zn, and F.
8. No quantitative conclusions can be drawn from the data in Table
34 relative to PCM emissions because of limited sensitivity of the anal-
ysis methods.
110
-------
The mass balances on potentially hazardous pollutants indicate that
both the quantities (g/hr) and concentrations (^g/g) of some elements
(e.g., Ba, Cr, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Zn, and Cl) increase in the bottom ash
produced from the combustion of coal + RDF. These changes in composition
might lead to subsequent water contamination problems if the bottom ash
was disposed of in a landfill, but it is not possible to quantify these
effects.
Changes in the trace element composition of the fly ash were also
noted when coal + RDF were fired in the boiler. Combined firing causes
an increase in the concentration of Sb, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Zn,
Br, and Cl in the fly ash.
The changes in the major components in the fly ashes (Table 37)
are not of a magnitude to lead one to expect that the disposal of fly
ash from the burning of coal + RDF should pose any more of a problem than
the disposal of fly ash from Orient 6 coal. The changes in trace element
concentrations might result in leaching problems if the fly ash from
coal + RDF is placed in a landfill, but the mechanics of individual ele-
ment leaching from landfills are not well understood, and it is not possible
to quantify the influence of changes of trace element compositions on sub-
sequent leaching in a landfill.
Of primary interest in this project was the identification and quanti-
fication of those pollutants whose emissions from the stack may increase
when burning RDF rather than coal. However, the efficiency of the ESP de-
creased when burning RDF which means that the total particulate emission
increased (by about a factor of 3)." Therefore, the emission of individual
particulate pollutants should increase if their concentration in RDF is
at least equal to that in coal. Realizing this, the evaluation of the ef-
fect of burning RDF on the emission of specific individual particulate
pollutants should first be oriented to those whose concentration increased
in the emitted particulate. For instance, if the concentration of a pollutant
doubles in the emitted particulate when burning approximately 10% RDF, this
doubling may be representative of an increase in emissions had the ESP
efficiency been the same. Since a significant portion of some pollutants
might also be emitted as a vapor, this possibility had to be considered in
examining the data to evaluate the effect of burning RDF on gaseous pollu-
tant emissions, which should be essentially independent of ESP efficiency.
* ESP efficiency is discussed in a later chapter of this report.
Ill
-------
A summary of the data on increases in pollutant concentrations in
emitted particulate and on increases of some gaseous pollutants is given
in Table 39. The concentrations of some pollutants did increase when RDF
was substituted for coal. Most of the increases are associated with ele-
ments that exist in much higher concentrations in RDF than in coal. Con-
versely, a few pollutants appeared to increase in concentration, even
though their concentration is lower in RDF than in coal.
The concentration of some pollutants did not appear to increase, even
though their concentration in RDF is much higher than in coal. However,
this result may be misleading because the increased input of the pollutants
from the RDF could not be accounted for in any output stream (bottom ash,
fly ash or emitted particulates), and the data indicated that some of the
pollutants may be emitted in gaseous form. Thus, data summarized in Table
39 do not necessarily reflect all pollutant emissions that may have increased
when burning RDF. Also, even when the particulate concentration of a pollu-
tant did show an increase, the total increase in emissions may be greater
if part of the emissions is in vapor form. A list of the pollutants, for
which the data indicated that a portion may be emitted in vapor form, is
shown in the last column of Table 39.
A more detailed discussion of the analytical data on an element-by-
element basis is presented next.
Specific pollutant emissions - The foregoing general observations are
amplified by a more complete discussion and evaluation of results for each
element or pollutant in the following subsections.
Antimony (Sb) - The concentration of Sb in coal of about 0.8 ppm
(Table 33) is in reasonable agreement with the average SSMS values of 0.07
and 1.4 ppm. However, the data in Table 33 for Sb in RDF (< 1 ppm) are
much lower than the SSMS value of 86 ppm. It would appear that the value
of < 1 ppm is too low because there was a marked increase in Sb concentra-
tion in the fly ash and ESP particulate catches when burning RDF.
When RDF was substituted for coal, the concentration of Sb in
the emitted particulate increased by a factor of 6.8 (680%). However,
the vapor concentration decreased, resulting in an overall decrease in
emissions of Sb when burning 7 to 8% RDF. These data are not certain
because mass imbalances may mean that sampling of the vapor fraction was
inefficient.
Since Sb is suspected to be a vaporous pollutant at stack tempera-
ture, collection of Sb should have occurred mainly in the "back half" of
the special sampling train. Data in Table 34 show that a major portion
may exist in vapor form. However, the data indicate that in the coal-only
tests, almost all was in vapor form, whereas in the coal + RDF tests only
about 10% may have been in vapor form.
112
-------
Table 39. COMPARISON OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
Average concentration of pollutants in
coal and RDF
Element
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
"g
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
Cl
F
Coal (Ug/g)
0.8, < 1
0.8, < 1
76, < 440
0.32, < 1.3
0.28, 0.22
33, 32
45, 17
64, 17
< 0.3, 0.25
3.0, 1.4
0.06, 0.20
545, 686
42, 37
53, 53
72, 111
5,000, 4,870
123, 45
RDF (UJS/R)
3.4X
280
1,500
NAb/ Br
NAr. cl
NA-
in vapor form rnal-nnly r.na I + RDF Relative
Suspected (ug/Nm3) (^R/NnT3) increase
Sb 28.7 < 1.54
As < 7.5 < 7.2
Cd
Pb
Hg 21.7s7 34.0s7 t.5X
Se 46.3 23.5
Br 5,760 4,630
Cl 372,000 479,000 1.3X
F 3,380 5,810 1.7X
a.1 Value for Sb and As is uncertain because SSMS shows higher value in RDF, which appears to be supported by increases in collected fly ash.
Jj/ Insufficient sample for analysis.
cl Hg vapor sampling was done only at the ESP inlet.
-------
Mass balance calculations for Sb (Table 38) show that the total
output of Sb was about equal for both coal-only and coal + RDF conditions,
but that total output was less than one-third of the total input. This
large negative imbalance may have been due to analysis problems, but it
is also possibly caused by poor collection efficiency for vaporous Sb in
the impingers used in the sampling trains. Even if the latter is true,
the mass balances have a very unusual aspect in that coal + RDF test data
show much higher Sb quantities in the particulate at the ESP inlet and
outlet, but much lower Sb quantities in vapor form, which is supported
by the fly ash data. This result would seem to indicate that the burning
of RDF results in more of the Sb being in particulate form rather than
vapor. If the shift to particulates is actually true, selective adsorption
of Sb may have occurred.
Arsenic (As) - Analyses of coal and RDF for As (Table 33) are
not definitive because of detection limits on the methods. As a result,
it was not possible to ascertain if RDF contains more As than coal. A sim-
ilar situation existed for bottom ash. On the other hand, the fly ash anal-
ysis shows that the concentration of As doubled when burning RDF. For both
coal and coal + RDF, the fly ash collected in the hoppers nearest the ESP
outlet was higher in As (and Sb) than the fly ash collected in the hoppers
nearest the ESP inlet. This result is consistent with the data in Table 34,
which show that a significant portion of these two pollutants exist in
vapor form and may partially condense preferentially on the smaller parti-
cles.
Mass balances for As (Table 38) show a rather large negative im-
balance, leading to the suspicion that vaporous As was not efficiently
collected in the sampling train. Because of the probable poor collection
and the analysis limits, it is not possible to make quantitative compari-
sons of emissions.
Barium (Ba) - Examination of the data in Table 33 shows that the
concentration of Ba in RDF was about three times higher than in coal, re-
sulting in large increases in the concentration of Ba in bottom ash and
fly ash. Mass balances for Ba (Table 38) reflect the same results.
The overall Ba mass balance for coal + RDF was reasonably good,
but that for coal-only showed a negative imbalance. This imbalance was
probably due to a sampling or analysis error because the mass flow of
Ba in particulate at the ESP inlet (coal-only) appears to be much too high,
while the Ba in fly ash appears to be somewhat low.
114
-------
Figure 22 presents the results of the analysis for barium as a
function of particle size for the ESP inlet and outlet samples. The left
margin in Figure 22, and subsequent figures relating element concentra-
tion versus particle size, shows the corresponding analysis of the particu-
late catch (Table 35) for comparison purposes. The curve of inlet particle
size versus composition is misleading because all are "less than" values;
no specific conclusions can be drawn except that the data do confirm that
the average coal-only inlet particulate value (4,450 |ig/g - Table 35)
probably was erroneously high. No outlet particle size versus composition
data were obtained because the blank values for the filter substrates
were too high in Ba.
These results show that there were substantial increases in
barium in bottom ash and collected fly ash, both in concentrations (fig/g)
and quantity (g/hr). The emission of barium from the stack increased in
quantity (doubled) when burning RDF, but the concentration of Ba in the
emitted particulate did not increase; this observation is consistent with
decreased ESP efficiency when burning coal + RDF and the fact that Ba is
probably a nonvolatile pollutant.
Beryllium (Be) - The concentration of Be in RDF (< 1.2 |4.g/g) is
not more than that in coal (0.32 to < 1.3 |0.g/g) and no increase was noted
in concentration of Be in bottom ash or fly ash when burning RDF. However,
the ESP inlet particulate catch appeared to increase in Be concentration,
but the outlet particulate catch showed only a slight increase.
The coal-only mass balance for Be (Table 38) showed a large posi-
tive imbalance (output > input), and it was suspected that this was related
to the discrepancy in mass flow rates at the ESP inlet versus that of col-
lected fly ash. Mass balance calculations made using the SSMS data (Table
32) indicated that the input quantities should be higher, which would im-
prove the imbalance.
Beryllium concentrations as a function of particle size at the
ESP inlet and outlet are presented in Figure 23. All the inlet Be analyses
are "less than" values so the curves are somewhat misleading. However, the
results do tend to verify that there was little change when burning coal +
RDF. The outlet data (coal + RDF) show that the concentration of Be does
not increase very much with decreasing particle size with the possible
exception of the very small sizes tending to indicate that Be is not a
volatile pollutant.
115
-------
Concentration
Participate Catch
( Moss Trai n )
' C C+RDF
I |
(2900)
1
a>
3.
2000
1000
C-f-RDF
Barium (Outlet)
(No data becuase filter
blank was high i n Ba.)
Cyclone SI • S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 Filter
Coal-Only 15* 11.4 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2
| 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L_
Coal + RDF
* Estimated
Cutoff Size
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (,um)
7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 h-
11.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Participate Catch
(Mass Train)
(< 18000)
10.4
Coal-Only 80.4
4.9
10.2
2.7 1.7
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE
5.3
2.3
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
Coal + RDF 82.0
i i i i
8.1 4.7 1.8 1.5
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
0.4
1.3
Figure 22. Barium concentration versus particle size.
116
-------
Concentration
Participate Catch
(Mass Train)
' C ^C + RDF1
f I
* Estimated
Cutoff Size
Cool-Only
Coal + RDF
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
O>
5.
11.4 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2
19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE Cum)
7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [ 1 h
11.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Participate Catch *j£
(Mass Train) \
' C "c+RDF ,3
I 1 400r
200 -
Coal-Only 8.4
Coal + RDF 10.4
Coal-Only 80.4
Coal + RDF 82.0
4.9
10.2
2.7 1.7 1.1
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (yum)
5.3
2.3
1.1
8.1
4.7 1.8 1.5
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.3
Figure 23. Beryllium concentration versus particle size,
117
-------
Overall, the data indicate that Be concentrations in RDF are
lower than in coal, but that total Be emissions increase by about 20%
when burning RDF because of decreased ESP performance, not because of
increased Be concentrations in the emitted particulate.
Previous work by EPA—' has shown that power plants burning
coal that typically contains 1 to 2 (lg/g of Be would not result in am-
bient concentrations that exceed the guideline of 0.01 |j,g/m3. Thus, it
does not appear that burning of RDF would represent an environmental
problem, as far as Be emissions are concerned.
Cadmium (Cd) - Data in both Tables 32 and 33 indicate that con-
centration of Cd in RDF is higher than in coal by more than a factor of 30.
This increase resulted in at least a doubling of the concentration of Cd
in bottom ash and fly ash when burning coal + RDF. The data in Table 35 show
that the concentration of Cd in the ESP outlet particulate catch was higher
than in the inlet particulate catch for coal-only and coal + RDF, but that
the concentration in the ESP outlet particulate catch did not increase when
burning coal + RDF. This result indicates that some of the Cd may be in
vapor form, but apparently burning RDF does not increase the Cd concentra-
tion at the ESP outlet.
Inlet particle size results presented in Figure 24 show that the
concentration of Cd was higher when burning coal + RDF compared to coal-
only. There is some trend towards increasing concentration with decreasing
particle size. The outlet particle size results show a steeper increase in
concentration with decreasing size, especially for the finer particles when
burning coal + RDF. This is not necessarily in conflict with the outlet
particulate catch data (Table 35), which indicated that, overall, the concen-
tration of Cd in the outlet particulate was about the same when burning coal-
only and coal + RDF. However, the outlet particulate certainly showed a
marked trend of increasing concentration with decreasing particle size when
burning RDF, supporting the possibility that some portion of the Cd may be
in vapor form.
The Cd mass balance in Table 38 shows a reasonably good balance
for the coal-only test, with much of the Cd being output as fly ash. For
coal + RDF, the mass balance is highly negative, meaning that the large in-
crease in input from RDF is not accounted for in any of the output streams,
nor in the ESP inlet particulate. This again leads to the suspicion that
Cd might have been emitted in vapor form.
Chromium (Cr) - Data in Tables 31 and 33 are in agreement, show-
ing that the concentration of Cr in coal was 10 to 20 ppmj whereas in RDF,
the concentration was 200 to 300 ppm. Both tables also indicate relatively
small increases in the Cr concentrations in bottom ash when burning RDF.
Table 33 indicates a substantial increase (& 50%) in the concentration
of Cd in fly ash when burning RDF, but the ESP inlet particulate catch
(Table 35) does not show this much increase.
118
-------
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(Mass Train)
' C C+RD?
I I
* Estimated
Cutoff Size
-B-
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
o>
200 r
Cadmium (Outlet)
Cyclone SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
S8 Filter
15* 11.4 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2
I 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 h-
19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE Gum)
7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I'-
ll.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Particulate Catch *JJ
(Mass Train) \
' C "c+RDF? ^
T t
*-
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
Coal-Only
/W
100
0
Cyc
8.
h
10.
Cadmium (Inlet)
— -- -r — iiriir^-^ ;
one 51 S2 S3 S4 S5 Filt<
4 4.9 2.6 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.
[ |
1 1
4 4.9 2.7 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (/urn)
80.4 10.2 5.3 2.3 1.1 0.5 0.
1 1 1
8.1
4.7 1.8 1.5
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
0.4
1.3
Figure 24. Cadmium concentration versus particle size,
119
-------
Both of the mass balances (Table 38) show about a 50% negative
imbalance, which might be interpreted to mean that part of the pollutant
could have been emitted as a vapor. There is no support for this conclu-
sion in increased concentrations of Gd in the inlet/outlet fly ash hoppers,
but the ESP inlet/outlet particulate catches do exhibit some increase al-
though it is less when burning RDF.
The data on chromium concentration as a function of particle size
are presented in Figure 25. The data do not show much difference except
possibly for the very small particles where the concentration appears to be
higher when burning coal-only. The outlet curve does not show a marked trend
of increasing concentration with decreasing size. Therefore, Cr does not
appear to be a volatile pollutant, so it is difficult to explain the nega-
tive mass imbalances noted previously. Overall, the data indicate that the
RDF is much higher in Cr than coal, but the concentration of Cr in the
emitted particulate did not increase. The Cr emissions (g/hr) did increase
slightly when burning RDF, but the increase was less than the proportional
decrease in ESP efficiency.
Copper (Cu) - The analysis for Cu (Tables 31 and 33) shows that
the RDF is much higher in Cu (250 ppm) than the coal (17 to 45 ppm).
This increase resulted in a large increase in the concentration of Cu in
the bottom ash (188 ppm versus 1,847 ppm). Also, data in Tables 33 and
35 show an increase in the concentration of Cu in the particulate into
the ESP but only a very small increase in the concentration of Cu in the
emitted particulate (ESP outlet).
This element exhibits a very flat curve of concentration versus
size over most of the size range with inlet curves being very close together
(Figure 26)• This fact seems to confirm that the burning of RDF does not in-
crease the concentration of Cu in the emitted particulate, and that Cu is a
relatively nonvolatile pollutant.
The mass balances for Cu (Table 38) reflect the above comments,
and the coal + RDF balance is reasonably good. A large negative imbalance
was found for the coal-only tests, and there appears to be either an error
in bottom ash or coal analysis. However, the bottom ash analysis is verified
in all Tables 31 through 33, whereas the coal analyses in the same three
tables range from 10 to 45 ppm. Since the higher value was used in the mass
balance, it appears that the imbalance was probably due to this fact.
120
-------
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(MossTrain)
01
lo.ooor
5,000
•Estimated
Cutoff Size
Chromium (Outlet)
(No outlet data for coal only
because loading was too
light for reliable analysis)
Cyclone SI S2 S3 54 S5 S6 S7 S8 Filter
Coal-Only 15* 11.4 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 06 04 02
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—h-
Coal + RDF 19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (/am)
Cool-Only 7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
h—i 1 i 1 1 1 1 i H
Coal +RDF 11.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(Mass Train) .--.
C C+RDr1 \
1 1 ^
2,000-
V . Chromium (Inlet) y
\ C/
1,000- N. /
\ / (<620)
Oil 111
Cool-Only
Coal + RDF
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
Cyclone SI S2 S3 S4 55 Filter
8.4 4.9 2.6 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.2
III !
Ill 1
10.4 4.9 2.7 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE Cum)
80.4 10.2 5.3 2.3 1.1 0.5 0.2
I 1
1 1
82.0 8.1 4.7 1.8 1.5 0.4 !.3
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
• Figure 25. Chromium concentration versus particle size.
121
-------
Concentration
Particulote Catch
(Mass Train)
C C+RDF* 4000
3000
2000
o>
1000
-B- —
Coal-Only
Cool + RDF
•Estimated
Cutoff Size
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
Copper (Outlet)
Cyclone SI S2
S3
S4
55 S6
S7
S8 Filter
15* 11.4 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2
I \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE Gum)
7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
11.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(Mass Train)
' C C+RDF °>
* * 7500
5000
2500
_ff^__ ft
Cyc
r-
-
"
Copper (Inlet)
— -/'
one SI S2 S3 S4
Coal-Only 8.4 4
1
1
Coal +RDF 10.4 4.
Coal-Only 80
Coal +RDF 82
.4 10
.0 8
9 2.6 1.7 1.0
| i 1
9 27 \\7 l!l
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (jum)
.2 5.3 2.3 1.1
i i [
1 4.7 l.'s I .'s
C+RDF
f
£'*•
S5 Filter
0.6 0.2
-\
0.6 0.3
0.5 0.2
1 — H
0.4 1.3
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Figure 26. Copper concentration versus particle size,
122
-------
In summary, the much higher concentration of Cu in RDF produces
a large increase in the concentration of Cu bottom ash and a smaller in-
crease in fly ash. However, it apparently does not significantly increase
the concentration of Cu in the emitted particulate. Even so, the total Cu
emissions shown in Table 34 are tripled when burning RDF. This increase
occurs because the average mass flows used in computing the elemental mass
balances reflect a factor of 3 increase in particulate emissions when
burning RDF.
Lead (Pb) - The concentration of Pb in RDF (466 ppm) is much higher
than that in coal (16 to 64 ppm), resulting in large increases in the con-
centration of Pb in both bottom ash and fly ash. More important, the data in
Table 35 show that the concentration of Pb in the particulate matter into and
out of the ESP was increased when burning coal + RDF.
Lead concentration in the emitted particulate increased by 70%
when burning only 7 to 8% RDF, reflecting the much higher concentration
of Pb in RDF as compared to coal. Overall, the concentration of particu-
late Pb in the stack emissions increased from 82 pg/Nm^ (coal-only) to
343 ug/Ntn3 when burning coal-+ RDF. Also, the concentration of Pb in the
particulate matter out of the ESP was substantially higher than that at
the inlet, both for coal-only and coal + RDF, suggesting that part of the
Pb may exist in vapor form.
Inlet and outlet curves of particle size versus concentration
shown in Figure 27 demonstrate a marked departure when burning RDF as
compared to coal. The inlet coal-only curve is relatively flat with a
sharp increase for the smallest particle sizes. When burning RDF, the
concentration of Pb is much higher, and the concentration increases pro-
gressively with decreasing particle size which should be characteristic
of a volatile pollutant. Both mass balances show a large negative imbal-
ance supporting the conclusion regarding the volatile aspects of Pb.
Mercury (Hg) - The concentration of Hg in the RDF is much higher
than that in coal; since most of the Hg is volatilized, it resulted in
about a 50% increase in Hg emissions when RDF was substituted for coal.
Also, the data in Table 33 show that the higher Hg concentration in the
RDF results in increased Hg concentrations in the bottom ash and in the
collected fly ash.
Selenium (Se) - Data in Table 33 indicate that the concentration
of Se in RDF is less than in coal. The data also show decreases in the con-
centration of Se in bottom ash and fly ash for the coal + RDF tests. These
decreases are caused both by the lower concentration in the RDF, and a
lower concentration of Se in the coal used during the coal + RDF tests.
Selenium was one of the pollutants suspected to exist partially
in vapor form. Results shown in Table 34 verify that a large portion of
the Se does exist in vapor form. Likewise, the data in Tables 33 and 35
show higher concentrations of Se in the ESP outlet particulate than in
the ESP inlet particulate for both coal-only and coal + RDF tests.
123
-------
Concent rat ion
Particulate Catch
(Mass Train)
^
at
5.
-B-
-fl-
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Lead (Outlet)
* Estimated
Cutoff Size
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
Coal-Only
Coal -t-RDF
Concentration
Particulate Catch
( Mass Train ) "^
Cyclone SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 Filter
15* 11.4 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE Gum)
7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4- 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
I I I I L 1 I I I I
11.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
4.6
Coal + RDF 10.4 4.9
Coot-Only 80.4 10.2
2.7 1.7 1.1
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (//m)
5.3
2.3
1.1
0.6
0.5
Coal -I-RDF 82.0
H 1 1 h
8.1 4.7 1.8 1.5
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.3
Figure 27• Lead concentration versus particle size,
124
-------
Because the RDF contains less Se than the coal, the burning of
RDF tends to decrease emissions of this pollutant.
Silver (Ag) - The concentration of Ag in RDF (3.2 ppm) is con-
siderably higher than in coal (0,06 to 0.20 ppm). However, the other re-
sults are inconsistent because they indicate that the concentration of
Ag decreased in the bottom ash and fly ash when burning coal + RDF. The
analysis of collected fly ash (Table 33) also indicates a decrease in Ag
concentration across the ESP. Analyses of particulate catches at the ESP
inlet and outlet show the opposite but are not considered reliable because
the range of the data for individual tests is extremely wide. Reflecting
these problems, the coal-only mass balance has a high negative imbalance,
while that for coal + RDF has a high positive imbalance. Therefore, no
definitive conclusions can be drawn.
The inlet curves of particle size versus composition shown in
Figure 28 indicate that the concentrations are about the same when burning
coal and coal + RDF. In addition, the outlet coal + RDF curve is relatively
flat, giving no indication that Ag might be a vaporous pollutant. Thus,
these results do not provide help in explaining the inconsistencies in Ag
analysis results described earlier.
It is noteworthy to point out that the inlet particle size versus
composition curves exhibit a very pronounced deviation. That is, there ap-
pears to be a very sharp increase in Ag concentration on Stage 2 or 3. One
would suspect that this were an analysis error had it occurred in only one
set of tests* Instead, it appears in both sets of tests which seems very
unusual. If real, its explanation is open to conjecture.
Titanium (Ti) - Data in Table 33 show that the concentration of
Ti in RDF (1,000 ppm) is about twice that in coal C« 500 ppm). Other data
in the same table show that this increase caused only a small increase in
the concentration of Ti in bottom ash. A greater increase is noted in the
concentration in collected fly ash, although the data for fly ash are un-
certain because of the large difference in analysis results for the ESP
inlet and outlet collection hopper samples.
Data in Table 35 indicate that the concentration of Ti was about
four times higher in the ESP inlet and outlet particulate catches when burn-
ing coal + RDF. Both mass balances for Ti showed a negative imbalance that
could indicate that part of the Ti is emitted in vapor form. If Ti is emitted
in vapor form, we would expect higher concentrations of Ti at the ESP out-
let than at the inlet. This expectation is not realized based on data in
Table 35.
125
-------
Concentration
Participate Catch
(Mass Train)
' C
I I
* Estimated
Cutoff Size
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
Coar-Only
Coal + RDF
CD
5.
200 r
100
Silver (Outlet)
o
Cyclone SI 52 S3
15* 11.4 6.8 4.4
1 1 1
C+ RDF
S4 S5 S6 57 S8
3,0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4
1 II 1 1
I
Filter
0.2
I
19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (/urn)
7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I'-
ll.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Participate Catch *-~
(Mass Train) \
' C "c+RD? J
I I 200
100
Silver (Inlet)
Coal-Only
Cool + RDF 10.4
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF 82.0
n<
Cyc
^ ^
one SI
8.4 4.9
h
/
S2
2.6
1
1
S3 S4 S5
1.7 1.
I
1
0 0.6
i
Filter
0.2
I
i
4.9 2.7 1.7 1.1
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (/urn)
0.6
8.1 4.7 1.8 1.5 0.4
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Figure 28. Silver concentration versus particle size,
0.3
80.4
1
10.2
1
5.3
2.3
1 _ -
1.1
1
0.5
0.2
1
1.3
126
-------
Inlet curves of particle size versus concentrations presented in
Figure 29 appear to be erratic, and the Stage 0 (cyclone) results are quite
different from those for the overall ESP inlet particulate catches (Table
35). Thus, it is difficult to draw any clear conclusions from the inlet
size/concentration curves. On the other hand, the inlet curves do not give
any indication that Ti might be emitted as a vapor, but no outlet particle
size analysis was available for comparison. Thus, it is difficult to account
for the negative mass imbalances noted earlier.
Vanadium (V) - Table 33 shows that the V concentration in RDF is
less than in coal. The burning of RDF does not increase the concentration
of V in bottom ash or fly ash; more important, the data in Table 35 show
that the concentration of V in the emitted particulate is decreased when
burning RDF.
The data in Table 35 show that the concentration of V is higher
in the ESP outlet particulate catch than in the inlet particulate catch
for both coal-only and coal + RDF. Again, this fact and the negative mass
imbalances (Table 38) could indicate that part of the V may be emitted in
vapor form. However, elemental analyses by particle size for the ESP inlet
show relatively flat curves, except for the last impactor stage (Figure
30). Therefore, it does not appear that the mass imbalances would have
been due to emission of V as a vapor.
Zinc (Zn) - The concentration of zinc in the RDF was 597 ppm
(Table 33), about 10 times higher than in the coal (53 ppm). This increase
was reflected in marked increases in the concentration of Zn in bottom ash
and fly ash. The concentration of Zn in the ESP inlet particulate catch
(Table 35) is also higher when burning RDF, whereas the outlet particulate
catches are about the same. However, the coal-only particulate catch data
are incomplete, representing only one test. The particulate catches (Table
35) show that the outlet concentration is higher than the inlet, both for
coal-only and coal + RDF.
Particle size versus concentration curves presented in Figure 31
for the ESP inlet verify that concentrations are higher when burning RDF,
but there is little evidence that the concentration increases as the size
decreases. Unfortunately, we were not able to obtain data on concentra-
tion of Zn for ESP outlet particle sizes that might have shown whether or
not the concentrations are higher when burning coal + RDF. Thus, from the
limited amount of elemental analysis by particle size, it does not appear
that the negative mass imbalances shown in Table 38 could be due to emission
of Zn in vaporous form.
127
-------
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(Mass Train)
' C C+RD?
CO
5.
lOO.OOOp
50,000
Titanium (Outlet1)
(No outlet data because
blank values were too high )
' C+RDF
* Estimated
Cutoff Size
Cyclone 51 52 S3 54 55 56 57 58 Filter
Coal-Only 15* 11.4 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2
h-H 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 h-
Coal + RDF 19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE Cum)
Coal-Only 7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 K
Coal + RDF 11.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(AAass Train)
10,000
5,000
(2800)
,300)
¥(2130)
(1300)
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
0
Cyc
8.
r-
10.
i I I I i I
one 51 52
4 4
4 4.
9 2
9 2
6
7
AVG.
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
80.
4 10
82.0 8
.2 5
1 4.
3
7
53
1
1
PARTICLE
2
1.
7
7
SIZE (yU
3
8
S4
1.
1.
m)
1.
1.
0
1
1
5
55
0
0
0
0.
6
6
5
4
Filter
0.2
0.3
0.2
1
1
1.3
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Figure 29, Titanium concentration versus particle size.
128
-------
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(Mass Train)
' C C+RDF1
I 1 10,000
5,000
-G-
* Estimated
Cutoff Size
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
Coar-Only
Coal + RDF
0 =
Vanadium (Outlet)
(No data because blank
value was too high )
_L
_L
_L
Cyclone 51 52 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 58 Filter
15* 11.4 6.8 4.4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H
19.7* 14.6 10.5 6.8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (yum)
7.2 3.3 8.4 6.4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
I—H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h-
11.8 25.5 17.0 14.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(Mass Train) *^J
4.9
2.7 1.7 1.1
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (>um)
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF 82.0
8.1
0.6
0.4
4.7 1.8 1.5
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Figure 30. Vanadium concentration versus particle size.
0.3
.4
10.2
1
1
5.3
I
1
2.3 1.1 0.5
1 i
1
0.2
i
I 1
1.3
129
-------
*•"* >r
8-|
oo o ^
»_, 35 •— *o
4 ^. JL m
TT-H
(1400) L
(950)
t t
C C+RDF
(Mass Train)
Particulate Catch
Concentration
Coal-Only
Coai + RDF
* Estimated
Cutoff Size
Coal-Only
Coal + RDF
o
^
400
200
0
Cyc
15
19.
-
Zinc (Outlet)
(No data because filter
blank was high in Zn)
1
1 1 I 1 1
lone 51 52 S3 S4 S5 56 57 S8 Filter
* 11.4 6.8 4
i
7* 14.6 10.5 6
4 3.0 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2
I 1 1 1 ' 1
8 4.6 3 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.3
AVG. PARTICLE SIZE (yum)
7.
11
2 3.3 8.4 6
|
1
8 25.5 17.0 14
4 5.9 13.4 24.9 16.5 7.4 6.7
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 ! 1
.0 8.0 5.9 6.8 4.6 2.0 4.6
OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Concentration
Particulate Catch
(Mass Train) "^
lo.ooor
5,000 -
Cyclone
Coal-Only 8.4
Coal + RDF
Coal-Only
Coal -i- RDF
1
.4
1
4.
9
1
2
7
AVG.
.4
1
1
.0
10
i
1
8.
.2
1
5
4.
3
7
1
PARTICLE
2
1.
7
SIZE (fji
3
8
1
m)
1.
1.
1
1
5
0
0
0.
6
5
4
1
0.3
0.2
I
1
1.3
% OF TOTAL COLLECTED
Figure 31. Zinc concentration versus particle size.
130
-------
Bromine (Br) - The data in Table 33 indicate that the concentra-
tion of bromine in RDF (180 ppm) is about twice that in coal (72 and 111
ppm). There was also an increase in the concentration of Br in the bottom
ash and collected fly ash for the coal + RDF tests. The data in Table 34
and the mass balances (Table 38) show, as expected, that most of the Br is
probably emitted as a vapor. The average mass balances for the coal-only
and coal + RDF tests do not show an increase in the vaporous Br emissions,
but based on the average value for coal, it can be calculated that Br emis-
sions may increase by about 40% when burning 10% RDF if all the Br in the
fuel is emitted as vapor.
Chloride (Cl) - Chloride was discussed in an earlier section on
gaseous emissions, where it was pointed out that most of the chloride is
emitted in gaseous form (assumed to be HCl). The concentration of Cl in
the RDF is very close to that in the coal, but the Orient 6 coal is a high
chloride coal. Even so, addition of RDF did apparently increase the concen-
tration of Cl in the bottom ash and sluice water. Although the concentration
of Cl may be the same in the -two fuels, the lower heating value of the RDF
means that the total weight of fuel input is at least 10% higher when RDF
is providing 10% of the electrical output. Therefore, the Cl emissions would
increase by at least 10%. The measured increase in Cl concentration in the
stack was more like 30%, but this may have been due to variability in the
Cl content of the fuels.
Since the Cl content of the Orient 6 coal and RDF is about the
same, the burning of RDF would not have a large effect on Cl emissions.
If a lower Cl content coal were being used, there would be a large relative
increase in Cl emissions when burning RDF, but total emissions from the RDF
are still about the same as burning a high chloride coal. However, such
levels of Cl" emissions may be significant, as is discussed later in the
section on impact of potentially hazardous emissions.
Fluorides (F) - Analysis results for F in coal and refuse, as
shown in Table 33, indicate that refuse contains about the same or lower
concentration of F as coal. Further, the analyses indicate that the con-
centration of F in bottom ash and fly ash decreased when burning RDF. Data
in Table 34 support the expectation that most of the F is probably in vapor
form, but there is some conflict in the analytical results, which is re-
flected in the mass balances (Table 38). For instance, the coal-only mass
balance has a large negative imbalance, while the coal + RDF balance has a
positive imbalance. Also, for the coal-only balance, the ESP inlet particu-
late quantity is much larger than that collected as fly ash, which does
not seem reasonable.
131
-------
Measurement of gaseous fluoride emissions showed that the con-
centration increased from 3,380 |j,g/Nm3 for coal and up to 5,810 |j,g/Nm3
when burning coal + RDF, even though the F content of RDF is about the
same or less than that in coal.
Of primary concern in the analytical data is the indication that
the concentration and quantity of F vapor in the stack emissions increased
when burning RDF. If the concentration of F in the RDF is actually equal
to or less than that in coal, it would seem improbable that the concentra-
tion of F vapor would increase by the amounts shown when burning RDF. The
lack of agreement in the mass balances casts doubt on such a conclusion,
because the quantities of F collected as fly ash and bottom ash are in
reasonable agreement, and both are quite small in comparison with the input
quantities. For these reasons, we believe that some errors probably oc-
curred in the sampling and analysis of F vapors (i.e., collection effi-
ciency of the impinger used in sampling F vapor emissions). On this basis
and considering the relative concentration of F in coal and refuse, it
was concluded that burning of RDF probably does not significantly increase
the F emissions.
Polycvclic organic matter (POM) - Most of the POM analytical re-
sults are shown in Table 34, but it is not entirely complete because par-
ticulate catch analyses could not be performed on outlet samples due to
lack of sufficient sample quantity. Also, interpretation of the results
that were obtained is difficult because most were below detection limits
of the analysis method and are therefore reported as "less than" values.
Previous studies by Hangebrauck—' have indicated that POM emis-
sions increase as combustion efficiency decreases. Since large power plants
and refuse incinerators operate with relatively high efficiency, their POM
emissions are generally lower than less efficient units such as residential
furnaces or smaller commercial incinerators. If burning of RDF in the
St» Louis plant had resulted in increased POM emissions to levels as high
as these less efficient combustion sources, it would certainly have been
above the detection limits of the analysis method. Therefore, there appears
to be no indication that burning of RDF at St. Louis had any major effect
on POM emissions, at least within the detection limits of the analytical
method.
Ten highest concentration organics - Some samples, including
those from parts of the special sampling train, were extracted with cyclo-
hexane and analyzed by GG/MS in an attempt to identify the 10 highest con-
centration organics. Composite samples that were so analyzed were:
Inlet and outlet fly ash samples
Tenax
132
-------
Tenax blank
Na2C03 impinger solution
Front half particulate catch (inlets only)
The initial screening of the extracts from these samples by FID-
GC produced a number of fairly significant chromatographic peaks that might
be attributable to silicon-like materials. The possible presence of silicon-
like materials might not be surprising because a large portion of the ash
in coal is composed of silica. However, the presence of vaporous silicon
compounds (e.g., impinger and Tenax samples) might be unexpected. Unfortu-
nately, these (or other) compounds could not be specifically identified
because of the sensitivity limits of the MS (Varian MkT CH-4). The detec-
tion limit for this instrument, expressed in terms of the samples that
were analyzed, was approximately as follows:
Fly ash < 0.3 jig/g
Tenax < 6 p,g/Mm3 (< 0.01 ppm by volume)
Na2C03 impingers < 6 fig/Mm3 (< 0.01 ppm by volume)
Front half particulate catch, < 15 M-g/g
Although the GC/MS analytical system did not have high sensitivity,
the detection limits are low enough to permit us to say that the results in-
dicate that the concentration of higher molecular weight organics is rela-
tively low.
Cyanide - The Na2CC>3 impinger solutions were analyzed in an at-
tempt to determine cyanide concentration, but the analysis was subject to
too many interferences; no reliable results were obtained.
Nitrates and sulfates - It was originally intended that the
Na2CO-j impinger solutions would be analyzed for nitrates and sulfates, but
the importance of other analyses and their sample size requirement necessi-
tated that these analyses be deleted.
Volatile organic acids - The Na2C03 impinger solutions were ana-
lyzed for volatile organic acids. However, the low concentrations and large
volumes of impinger solutions limit the results because all samples showed
concentrations of volatile organic acids as "less than" values.
133
-------
Impact of potentially hazardous pollutant emissions - Assessment of
the impact of potentially hazardous emissions is difficult because there
are no emission or ambient standards for most of the pollutants. Problems
with the efficiency of the sampling train for collecting certain gaseous
pollutants and inconsistencies in analytical data make it difficult to
define clearly the change in emissions resulting from the use of RDF in
place of coal.
Given the uncertainties in the emission data and the absence of emis-
sion or ambient guidelines, our assessment of the impact of potentially
hazardous emissions was conducted with a methodology employed in other
MRI studies.UjJJL/ The method is based on three important assumptions:
!• Assuming that all of a specific pollutant in the fuel is emitted.
This first assumption permits the calculation of a pollutant's concentra-
tion in the stack gas and results in a conservative evaluation because it
represents the maximum possible concentration.
2. Assuming a dilution factor of 1/1,000 to calculate the resultant
maximum ground level concentration for a specific pollutant. Assumption 2
allows the estimate of the probable maximum ground level concentration
under most dispersion conditions. The factor of 1/1,000 is a very conserva-
tive dilution factor representing restrictive dispersion conditions and
most power plant source characteristics (stack height, gas temperature,
plant size, etc.).
3. Assuming that the ambient air standard for the pollutant is 1/100
of the threshold limit value (TLV) for the specific pollutant. This third
assumption provides a way of estimating an acceptable ambient concentra-
tion when standards are lacking* A more restrictive value could be assumed
(1/300 for 1/1,000 of TLV) but 1/100 appears more reasonable in view of
EPA guidelines for Hg and Be,—' and considering that these assumed guide-
line values are used for comparison with calculated maximum ground level
concentrations.
Actual measured concentrations of pollutants in the stack gas are
shown in Table 40 along with maximum ground level concentrations calcu-
lated using the 1/1,000 dilution factor. Table 40 also includes the value
of 1/100 TLV for the specific pollutants. Examination of Table 40 indicates
that only one pollutant, Cl, had a measured stack gas concentration that
could produce ground level concentrations greater than 1/100 of TLV. This
result indicates that Cl emissions from the Meramec plant may be an en-
vironmental problem, primarily due to the fact that the Orient 6 coal is a
high chloride coal. Burning of RDF compounds the problem. However, Cl may
not be the only pollutant that exceeds 1/100 of TLV. Mass balances and
other data indicated that some other pollutants may be partly or entirely
emitted in vapor form. Some of these pollutants were not sampled or measured
in vapor form because of limitations in the sampling train. In addition,
134
-------
Table 40. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL MEASURED CONCENTRATIONS OF POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS WITH 1/100 OF TLV
to
Ln
Measured concentration—
in stack gas
a/
Resultant maximum^' ground
level concentration (lag/NnP) at
dilution fa_ctpr_of 1,000
Pollutant
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
Cl
F
Coal-only
29.0s7 ,
d/
< 33.4^
402-/ ,
r /
1.23s/
4.82S'
C 1
< 128s/
32.3s/
81.9s7
p /
2U?1/
55.5s7
4.76s7/
r /
< 354s'
96. 8£/
15l£/ /
e/
5,760- ,
372,000s7
3,380£/
_a/ Particulate and/or vapor.
b/ Dilution factor of 1,000
_c/ Particulate
d/ Particulate
only.
and vapor.
Coal + 7-8%
d/
^'4. 5~™
d/
< 19.9-'
497C/
~"c/
4.9&S/
9.05s7
10&£/
87.8s7
e/
34.0s/
01
23.5s/
r /
2.75s7
r* /
2,460s'
111—/
517s7 .
e/
4,630s7
479,000s
S.SIOS/
represents very
RDF Coal- only
0
<
0
0
0
<
0
0
0
0
0
<
0
0
5
.029
: 0.033
.402
.001
.005
: 0.128
.032
.082
.022
.055
.005
: 0.354
.097
.151
.76
372
3
restrictive
.38
dispersion
Coal + 7-8% RDF
< 0.004
< 0.20
0.497
0.005
0.009
0.108
0.088
0.343
0.034
0.023
0.003
2.46
0.111
0.517
4.63
/ -ir\
5.81
conditions.
Cl
1/100 of TLV
(iWNm3)
0.50
0.50
5.0
0.02
0.50
1.0
2.0
1.5
0.50
2.00
0.10
100
1.0
50.0
7
70
20
_e/ Vapor only.
-------
the impinger samplers used for some pollutants known to exist as vapors
may not have provided high enough collection efficiency. In view of the
preceding facts, the measured stack gas concentrations may not completely
represent the picture.
In order to determine the worst likely situation, we elected to
utilize the three assumptions discussed at the beginning of this section
to determine the impact of the emission of the specific pollutants shown
in Table 40. The calculated concentrations of specific pollutants in the
stack gas when burning coal-only, coal + 10% RDF and coal + 50% RDF are
presented in Table 41. The concentrations were calculated using the mea-
sured concentrations of each pollutant in the coal and RDF burned in the
boiler. These estimated stack concentrations were then used to estimate
resultant maximum ground level concentration, dividing by the "dilution
factor" of 1,000.
The entries in Table 41 provide comparisons of the maximum ground
level concentrations for three fuel combinations with 1/100 of the TLV,
assuming that all of the pollutant in the fuel is emitted from the stack*
Examination of this table leads to a stepwise elimination of several pol-
lutants as possible environmental problems.
First, examination of Table 41 shows that the ground level concen-
tration would be less than 1/100 of TLV for several pollutants, even if
all that is present in the fuel were emitted to the atmosphere either
as particulate or gas. These pollutants are Sb, As, Hg, Se, and F. Some
other pollutants (Cd, Ag, Ti, and Zn) fall into this category except at
the high RDF level of 50%.
Second, the maximum ground level concentration of Ba, Be, Cr, Cu,
and V would exceed 1/100 of the TLV if all the pollutants in the fuel
were emitted. However, most of the pollutants are emitted in particulate
form and their concentration in the stack gas would be considerably lower
if a relatively efficient control device (e.g., > 90% efficiency) were
used to control particulates. With the use of such a control device, the
resultant ground level concentrations of Ba, Be, Cr, Cu, and V would be
less than 1/100 TLV except at the 50% RDF level. At the high level of
50% RDF, emissions of Ba, Cr, and Cu may exceed 1/100 TLV.
Third, the maximum ground level concentration of Pb, Br, and Cl may
exceed 1/100 of the TLV under all combinations of fuels. These three pol-
lutants are likely to be emitted partly or completely in vapor form.
136
-------
U)
Table 41. COMPARISON OF CALCULATED MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS WITH 1/100 OF TLV
Pollutant concentrations.' Calculated maximum concentration—
in fuel (ppm)
Pollutant
Sb
fiS
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
«S
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
Cl
F
Coal
1
1
76
1
0.3
33
45
64
0.3
3
0.2
686
42
53
111
5,000
123
RDF
1
3
846
1.2
13.8
283
250
466
4.0
1
3.2
1,005
17
597
180
4,930
50
Coal only
100
100
7,600
100
30
3,300
4,500
6,400
30
300
20
68,600
4,200
5,300
11,100
500,000
12,300
in stack R.IS dig/Mm^)
Coal + 107. RUF
110
150
23,100
110
290
8,400
8,900
14,600
100
280
80
79,400
4,000
16,200
13,200
533,000
11,700
Coal + 50% RDF
130
300
76, 100
150
1,210
26,000
23,700
43,300
360
210
290
117,200
3,300
54,200
20,500
646 , 000
9,700
ground
at
Coal only
0.10
0.10
7.6
0.10
0.03
3.3
4.5
6.4
0.03
0.30
0.02
68.6
4.2
5.3
11.1
500
12.3
Resultant maximum
level concentration (|ig/Nm )
dilution factor of
Coal + 107, RDF
0.11
0.15
23.1
0.11
0.29
8.4
8.9
14.6
O.ZO
0.28
0.08
79.4
4.0
16.2
13.2
533
11.7
1,000
Coal + 50% RDF
0.13
0.30
76.9
0.15
1.21
26.0
23.7
43.3
0.36
0.21
0.29
117.2
3.3
54.2
20.5
646
9.7
1/100 of TLV
pg/Nm3
0.50
0.50
5.0
0.02
0.50
1.0
2.0
1.5
0.50
2.00
0.10
100
1.0
50
7
70
20
£/ Fuel data from Table 33.
b/ Stack gas concentrations calculated by assuming all pollutant in fuel is emitted in stack gas (10 Mm3 of flue gas per kg of coal, 6.5 Urn3 per kg of RDF).
-------
These evaluations were based on a very restrictive dilution factor
of 1,000. A less restrictive dilution factor, which might still repre-
sent the dispersion conditions that exist the majority of the time, is
on the order of 10,000 rather than 1,000. However, even under these con-
ditions, the resultant maximum ground level concentration of Cl would
still be very close to 1/100 of its TLV. The same is true for Pb if a
significant portion is emitted as a vapor, and it should be noted that
the comparison with 1/100 of TLV for Pb (1.5 |J.g/NnP) coincides with the
California ambient air standard for Pb.
The assumption that all the Pb is emitted with the stack gases is
not supported by the analysis of bottom ash (see Table 33). Most of the
Br and Cl appears to be emitted as a gas, but only a part of the Pb seems
to be emitted as a vapor.
In summary, the hazardous pollutant emissions testing indicates that
the use of RDF as a supplementary fuel increases the emissions of several
pollutants compared to emission levels for coal. The data also led to the
tentative conclusion that some of the pollutants may be emitted partly in
vapor form, even though for some it was thought that this result was not
probable (e.g., Cd). The comparison of estimated ground level concentra-
tions of specific pollutants with an assumed ambient standard of 1/100 of
the TLV for each pollutant indicates that three of the pollutants may
represent potential environmental problems—Pb, Br, and Cl. For all three
of these pollutants, the data and evaluations indicate that the possible
environmental problems are not caused by the burning of RDF, but rather
that the problems exist even if only coal were used as the fuel. The use
of RDF as a supplementary fuel acts to compound the problem.
138
-------
ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR PERFORMANCE
Determination of the performance of the ESP used to control particu-
late emissions under conditions of combined firing with coal + RDF was an
important facet of the engineering analysis of particulate emissions data.
Inlet and outlet particulate loading and particle size distribution data
combined with ESP operating characteristics were used in the analysis of
the ESP. Highlights of the analysis are presented in the following sections
of this chapter.
ASSESSMENT OF INFLUENCE OF PARTICULATE AND ESP PARAMETERS ON MASS
EFFICIENCY
The mass efficiency of the ESP was calculated from the following equa-
tion.
Efficiency 7 = Inlet Particulate Loading - Outlet Particulate Loading x 10Q
Inlet Particulate Loading
In the above equation, particulate loadings were expressed on a basis of
dry, standard conditions. Figure 32 presents a comparison of the overall
average ESP efficiencies for both Union Electric and MRI tests. The effi-
ciencies from the MRI data were lower than those of Union Electric, especially
at the higher boiler loads. Both sets of data show decreasing efficiency at
higher loads and lower efficiencies when burning RDF. The MRI efficiency
range is lower than the Union Electric efficiency range. Differences in the
test methods, which is most critical in measuring outlet particulate load-
ings, probably account for the variation. Subsequent discussions and data
analysis will be restricted to consideration of MRI (EPA Method 5) data.
Figure 33 presents a comparison of ESP efficiencies for MRI tests for
coal-only and coal + RDF-firing conditions. Examination of Figure 33 re-
veals that:
139
-------
JS
O
99
98
97
-.96
£
95
C
«
ID
Q.
l/l
LU
94
93
92
91
90
70
• Coal-Only- UE - D C + RDF
ACoal-Only- MRI - A C + RDF
80
90
100 110
Boiler Load, Mw
120
130
140
Figure 32. Average of ESP efficiency data.
-------
ioo-
99
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
>^
o
| ^O
£
UJ
3; 89
88
87
86
85
84
83
o
0
x
N
o
h
X o
\
\
\
\
o
\
\
\
\
\
\ o
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
A
• Coal-Only
82 h ° c«»l + R°F
81 -
80
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Boiler Load (Mw)
Figure 33. ESP efficiency as a function of boiler load.
141
-------
1. ESP performance decreases with increasing boiler load.
2. Although the scatter in the experimental data increases markedly
at boiler loads above 120 Mw, it appears that above that boiler load, the
burning of coal + RDF has an effect on ESP efficiency.
With regard to Item 2, it is important to note that the boiler is
operating in excess of design output above 120 to 125 Mw.* Operating the
boiler in excess of design may account for a major portion of the decrease
in ESP performance noted at higher boiler loads.
Reference to Table 30 and Figure 21 indicates that compliance with
the Missouri regulation, 0.086 Kg/106 Kj (0.2 lb/106 Btu), would not be
achieved above 120 Mw, even when firing coal. Further, compliance with
more stringent regulations, 0.043 Kg/106 Kj (0.1 lb/106 Btu), is not
achieved above 100 Mw when burning RDF and may be doubtful even if burning
only coal. An improved control system or operations at boiler loads below
100 Mw would be necessary if this plant were required to meet the stringent
regulations. If an improved control system were to be installed, it would
have to be capable of limiting outlet particulate concentrations to less
than 114 mg/dncm (0.05 grains/dscf) at 140 Mw in order to meet the regula-
tion of 0.043 Kg/106 Kj (0.1 lb/106 Btu) with approximately 98.5% efficiency,
The selection of an improved control system for the Meramec boiler
or for some other similar combined-firing facility would be aided if the
reasons for the decreased ESP performance could be established. Attempts
were made to determine the reason for the observed decrease in performance
of the existing ESP at boiler loads above 100 Mw and, more specifically,
the influence of RDF on this decreased performance. Key parameters such
as—Inlet Particle Size Distribution, Particulate Resistivity, Particu-
late Reentrainment, ESP Electrical Operating Conditions, and Gas Volume
Flow Rates--which are known to influence ESP performance,were analyzed.
Each factor is discussed in the following subsections,
Inlet Particle Size Distribution
The performance of an ESP is a strong function of the particle size
of the material to be collected. Particle size data from the various tests
were reviewed to determine if variations in particle size distributions at
the ESP inlet could account for the decrease in ESP performance.
ESP designed for 97.5% efficiency at 125 Mw and 11,638 m3/min (411,000
acfm).
142
-------
Figure 34 is a comparison of particle size data taken at the ESP
inlet for all of the MRI tests. The inlet particle size distributions
exhibited little dependence on boiler loads. The curves in Figure 34 are
the composites for a variety of boiler loads for each fuel condition.
No significant variations in the inlet particle size data occurred in
these tests as shown in Figure 34. The coal-only particulate is actually
somewhat finer than the coal + RDF particulate. In view of the lack of
dependence of the particle size data on boiler load and the nominal
changes with variation in fuels, the decrease in ESP performance cannot
be attributed directly to changes in inlet particle size distributions.
Particulate Resistivity
Changes in the resistivity of particulate matter can influence per-
formance of an ESP. Some tests performed at the Meramec plant included
in situ_ measurement of particulate resistivity at the inlet to the ESP.*
Results of these measurements are summarized in Table 42. Examination of
the data in Table 42 shows that in the first set of data (coal-only - 1974)
all of the resistivities were" in the range of 2.4 to 4.7 x 1010 ohm-cm,
whereas most of the resistivities in the second set of data (coal + RDF -
1975) were above 1.7 x IQH ohm-cm. These data would seem to indicate
that the coal + RDF fly ash has a higher resistivity than that for coal.
However, two of the measurements in the set of data for 1975 coal + RDF
tests showed relatively low resistivities, about the same as for the 1974
coal-only tests. Also, the 1973 data for coal fall in the same range as
all the data for coal + RDF. It is not clear that there is any consistent
difference in resistivity when burning coal + RDF, as compared to coal.
Recent work reported by Southern Research Institutei3-' indicates
that volume resistivity can be related to: the atomic percent of Fe,
Na, and Lij the temperature; and the porosity of the fly ash. Measurements
of resistivity at the Meramec plant were all taken at about the same tem-
perature. Porosity of the fly ash was not measured, but chemical percent-
ages of Fe, Na, and Li were determined for collected fly ash samples ob-
tained in the 1974 and 1975 tests. These analysis results are included in
Table 42. Differences exist in Fe and Na content between the coal and
coal + RDF fly ash samples. On the average, the Fe content decreased in
the coal 4- RDF samples while the Na increased. These relative changes tend
to offset each other, as far as their predicted influence on electrical
resistivity, according to the SRI correlation. Considering the overall
range of the resistivity data, and the exceptions that occurred in the
second set of data, one is forced to conclude that other factors besides
chemical content of Na and Fe were influencing the resistivity measurements
* Measurements of resistivity were performed by Southern Research Institute.
143
-------
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
99.99 99.9 99.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
50
10
E
o
£
i.o
1
I
T
I
Till
f
I
1 0.5 0.20.1 0.05 0.01
50
I
I
I
0»
O*
•o
*>
o*
Cool- Cool &
Only Refuse
O • 1973 Tests
1974-75 Tests
0.11 I I I I I I I
10
1.0
0.1
0.010.050.10.20.5 12 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.899.9 99.99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 34. Averages of inlet particle size data.
144
-------
Table 42. SUMMARY OF DATA ON FLY ASH RESISTIVITY
Test date
Coal-only conventional
11/05/74
11 05/74
11/06/74
11/07/74
10/31/74
11/01/74
11/04/74
Coal + RDF conventional
4/30/75
5/02/75
5/21/75
5/22/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
c /on/ 7^
Coal-only conventional
12/06-
12/12/73
Coal + RDF conventional
12/04-
12/14/73
Mw (% RDF)
75 (07.)
75 (07.)
100 (07.)
100 (07.)
140 (07.)
140 (07.)
140 (07.)
100 (5%)
100 (87.)
100 (107.)
100 (107.)
140 (8-97.)
140 (4-5%)
140 (107.)
140 (107)
80, 100, 120 (07.)
80, 100, 120 (9-27%)
ESP
efficiency
(7.)
98.5
98.2
98.2
97.5
96.1
94.8
94.3
97.8
97.2
95.7
97.9
95.6
84.1
92.5
88.3
96.4-97.2
95.7-98.8
Measured
resistivity
^ohra-cra)
2.8 x 10
3.4 x 10
3.6 x 10
4.7 x 10
2.4 x 1010
Probe malfunction
3.8 x 1010
Avg.
No data
2.0 x 10
5.3 x 101U
No data
No data
4.2-17 x 10
1.8 x 1011
No data
Avg.
1 x 10U-5 x 10U
6 x 1010-4 x 10U
Chemical
wt 7. Fe
11.42
11.43
11.31
12.52
11.07
-
11.46
11.54
10.85
10.22
~
-
8.96
9.52
-
9.89
composition of fly
ash samples
wt 7. Na wt 7. Li
1.23 0.01
1.22 0.01
1.35 0.02
1.18 0.14
1.12 0.02
-
1.05 0.01
1.19
1.57 0.01
1.42 0.01
~
~ ""
1.45 0.01
1.45 0.01
-
1.47
NA
NA = Not analyzed.
-------
(e.g., porosity). Also there is no clear indication of a relationship
between measured resistivity and the decreased ESP efficiency which oc-
curred with the burning of RDF.
Particulate Reentrainment
The possibility that particulate reentrainment might be contributing
to the decrease in ESP performance was also assessed. A semiquantitative
method suggested by WhitelA/ was used for this assessment. As discussed
in Reference 14, the following relationship can be used to make a prelimi-
nary evaluation of particulate reentrainment:
(5)
! = .!_(- Io8
V AW
where A = collection area
V = gas volume flow rate
W = particle migration velocity
Q = 1-T| = particulate penetration
T\ = ESP overall efficiency
White's method involves plotting precipitator losses as a function
of precipitator gas volume or gas velocity on semilog paper, and observ-
ing the break or point of departure of the resulting curve from the straight
line characteristic of the exponential precipitation formula given by the
preceding equation. A plot of Eq. (5) should be a straight line passing
through the origin. A departure from the linear relationship as the gas
volume flow rate increases is an indication of possible particulate reen-
trainment problems. Figure 35 presents a plot of the test data in the
format of the preceding equation. Examination of Figure 35 indicates there
is not a clear-cut departure from the linear relationship.
Another method described by White that may provide indications of
reentrainment involves rearrangement of Eq. (5) to calculate the precipi-
tation parameter W (particle migration velocity) according to Eq. (6):
W = - (- log Q)
A
(6)
146
-------
o
c
• Coal-Only
O Coal + RDF
106/(m3/Min.)
Figure 35. Negative log of ESP penetration versus reciprocal cf outlet gas flow rate.
-------
In the theoretical precipitation equation, the particle migration
velocity, W , should be constant with increasing gas flow in a given ESP.
However, with the onset of reentrainment there would be a decrease in
efficiency and a corresponding decrease in W . Thus, a plot of the cal-
culated values of W versus the gas flow rate (V) should be a horizontal
straight line up to the higher gas flow rates. If reentrainment occurs,
the line would curve downward at higher flow rates, indicating reentrain-
ment. Data from the tests have been plotted in this manner in Figure 36.
Calculated values of W fall mostly within a horizontal band, without
any apparent downward departure that would be indicative of reentrain-
ment. Based on the preceding analyses methods, it was concluded that
there was no reason to attribute a significant portion of the decrease
in ESP performance to particulate reentrainment.
ESP Electrical Parameters
The electrical operating parameters for the ESP were evaluated to
determine if changes in those parameters occurred which could have resulted
in deterioration of ESP performance. Table 43 presents a summary of the
electrical measurements for all the MRI tests. No dependence on boiler
load was noted, but it is evident that power levels are lower when RDF is
substituted for coal in the boiler. Also, moisture content of the gas
stream is higher when burning RDF, compared to levels measured for coal.
Lower power levels would be expected to degrade ESP performance. Fig-
ure 37, which presents a plot of the negative log of penetration versus
electrical power input (Kw/lO^ m-Vmin), confirms the expected decrease in
performance. The data in Figure 37 indicate that as power input decreases,
the efficiency may drop off more rapidly when burning coal + RDF than when
burning only coal*
The question of why it was necessary to operate at lower ESP power
input levels when burning coal + RDF was addressed next. Some insight can
be gained by referring back to the resistivity data in Table 42 which
show two important relationships: (a) resistivities were all in the range
of about 1 x 10^°-5 x 1011 ohm-cm; and (b) coal + RDF resistivities were
generally higher than those for coal, with the exception of the three coal-
only tests in December of 1973.
The first point is important because it has been shown, according to
White,ii' that back corona phenomena may occur in a precipitator when the
bulk electrical resistivity of the collected particle layer exceeds approxi-
mately 2 x 1C)10 ohm-cm and can become severe for resistivities greater than
about 1 x 10)11 ohm-cm. Since the measured resistivities fall within this
critical range, the deleterious effects of back corona phenomena may have
been an important factor in reducing ESP efficiency when burning coal + RDF.
148
-------
PARTICLE MIGRATION VELOCITY W, M/Min.
VD
CO
-o
0
O
5 -
I
m
o
CO
CO
\
1 8
tri
—
-I • 1
-
— I
c
o
* 0 • ° 0
o n n
a. 8.1
t ~£
3 ""
1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1
1
O
i O O
o
m 9
0 >
0 0 .• 00
o
• ° .
o
0 °
o o
0 • •
1 1 1 1 1
1
o
1 1 1*1
to
o
NJ
DO
CO
O
Figure 36
PARTICLE MIGRATION VELOCITY W, Ft./Mn.
Calculated particle migration velocity as a function of outlet gas flow rate.
-------
Tflble 43. TABULATION OF ESP ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Ui
O
Average primary measurements
Test
date
Coal-only
12/10/73
12/06/73
12/12/73
11/05/74
11/05/74
11/06/74
11/07/74
10/31/74
11/01/74
11/04/74
3/07/75
3/08/75
3/05/75
Coal + RDF
12/14/73
12/09/73
12/09/73
12/10/73
12/05/73
12/05/73
12/13/73
12/13/73
12/04/73
12/11/73
12/12/73
5/02/75
5/21/75
5/22/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
5/20/75
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/30/75
Power output
Mw (7. RDF)
80 (07.)
100 (0%)
120 (0%)
75 (0%)
75 (07.)
100 (07.)
100 (07.)
140 (07.)
140 (07.)
140 (07.)
110 (0%)
111 (0%)
140 (0%)
80 (9%)
80 (187.)
80 (18%)
80 (27%)
100 (9%)
100 (97.)
100 (9%)
100 (18%)
120 (9%)
120 (9%)
120 (18%)
100 (8%)
100 (10%)
100 (10%)
140 (8-9*)
140 (4-5%)
140 (10%)
140 (10%)
133 (7-87.)
134 (7-8%)
133 (7%)
135 (7-87.)
Voltage
(volts)
295
295
290
288
289
299
293
300
303
306
277
281
290
266
266
268
265
261
263
263
255
271
258
278
240
244
268
261
262
233
253
246
263
271
Current
(ampa)
42
43
42
45
45
45
45
44
44
45
43
42
44
41
41
39
40
39
39
41
42
40
39
43
45
45
45
43
44
44
45
47
45
45
Power
(Kw)
12.3
12.8
12.2
13.0
13.0
13.4
13.2
13.1
13.3
13.7
11.9
11.8
12.8
10.9
10.9
10.4
10.6
10.2
10.2
10.7
10.7
r, ^
10.9
10.0
12.0
10.8
11. 0
12.2
11.1
11.5
10.3
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.2
Secondary
voltage
(Kv)
36
37
33
32
32
33
32
33
34
33
31
32
32
25
32
33
31
32
33
27
25
. .
30
27
not recorded ~-
30
25
26
29
28
28
25
28
26
28
30
Secondary
current
(rnA)
265
280
269
294
290
290
292
280
285
293
275
270
282
263
258
249
256
254
248
254
265
252
246
279
283
285
290
285
278
274
283
293
286
290
Spark rate
(sparks/mln)
88
14
13
11
12
20
6
31
34
11
62
68
54
84
61
122
90
115
114
70
32
109
108
77
8
19
85
59
70
20
3
0
1
36
ESP power input
(kw/10 m /rain)
1,218
1,088
915
1,370
1,621
1,264
1,271
826
879
904
1,102
1,091
968
1,073
1,081
1,031
1,077
858
865
858
907
—
791
756
1,035
939
936
844
823
780
703
787
791
802
805
ESP
efficiency
(7.)
97.2
97.2
96.4
98.5
98.2
98.2
97.5
96.1
94.8
94.3
97.3
98.1
94.5
97.8
98.8
98.4
98.6
97.1
96.0
97.3
96.9
95.7
97.6
96.3
97.8
97.2
95.7
97.9
95.6
84.1
92.5
88.3
93.0
91.1
94.2
92.3
Average inlet
temperature
(*C)
150
154
153
150
154
153
152
155
159
152
154
153
154
153
158
160
152
158
157
156
159
165
155
151
154
159
161
156
163
154
189
209
162
156
153
154
Inlet moisture
(7. by vol)
6.1
7.5
7.7
•/
a/
&l
6.5
7.1
a/
J/
7.4
7.0
7.4
7.9
10.9
10.1
10.8
9.0
10.6
8.9
10.0
9.7
9.0
9.3
9.7
12.8
12.2
11.6
10.4
10.2
J/
10.8
9.6
8.7
9.3
8.8
&l Inlet moisture could not be determined because of sampling problems.
-------
o
c
0)
a
a
_c
I
Higher
Efficiency ?
o/
o
/o
Lower
Efficiency
• Coal Only
OC+RDF
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
ESP Power Input Kw/)06 m3/Min.
Figure 37. Particulate penetration as a function of ESP power input.
151
-------
The second point may be equally important because the higher resis-
tivities for coal + RDF are associated with lower ESP power input levels
but are not necessarily associated with higher secondary currents (i.e.,
current density). Examination of data in Table 43 shows that the secondary
currents for the three coal-only tests in December 1973 were relatively
low in comparison with those for all coal + RDF tests, even though the
power levels were higher in the coal-only tests. In fact, all of the
December 1973 tests (coal-only and coal + RDF) show lower secondary cur-
rents than most subsequent tests.
Examination of the resistivity data in Table 42 and the secondary
currents in Table 43 indicates: (a) highest power levels and high sec-
ondary currents are associated with low resistivity coal-only tests (in
November 1974); (b) intermediate power levels but moderate secondary
currents are associated with the three high resistivity coal-only tests
in December 1973; (c) lowest power levels and lowest secondary currents
are associated with high resistivity coal + RDF tests (in December 1973),
with the power levels dictated by spark rate limitations Ga 100 sparks/min
maximum); and (d) low to intermediate power levels, but high secondary
currents are associated with medium to high resitivity coal + RDF tests
(in May 1975). These four observations are generally consistent with the
possible occurrence of back corona effects leading to decreased efficiency
when burning coal + RDF.
The occurrence of back corona was also suggested by SRI in the eval-
uation of its portion of the work on this project. SRI stated that some
back corona probably occurred at currents greater than 260 mA. during the
coal + RDF tests (May 1975), but there were no indications of back corona
during the coal-only tests (November 1974) in which the fly ash resistivity
was lower.
One might logically wonder why lower secondary currents were not
used during the coal + RDF tests if it were known that back corona might
lead to lower efficiencies at high secondary currents. The reason is that
the procedure used to "optimize" the ESP electrical conditions was to
increase the input power until the maximum possible secondary voltage
was obtained without exceeding either a spark rate of 150 sparks/min or
the secondary current limit of 300 mA. As noted by SRI, when back corona
occurs, the best operating point is difficult to define, and the procedure
outlined above was used.
152
-------
Many factors can affect resistivity of particulates and promote or
retard the occurrence and severity of back corona* A few of the factors
are moisture content, temperature, 863 and composition of the collected
particulate layer. Whiteiz.' noted that the water-soluble portion of the
fly ash, although usually only a few percent or less, is of great impor-
tance in determining the electrical resistivity of particulates. Combus-
tion of RDF could cause small changes in resistivity of the collected
fly ash, leading to back corona and decreased ESP efficiency. Such re-
sistivity changes might be small but have very significant effects on
ESP efficiency because the measured resistivities are quite close to
the critical range of 2 x 10^0-1 x 1QH ohm-cm for onset of back corona.
In summary, it is apparent that the burning of coal + RDF restricted
ESP power input to lower levels than in coal-only tests. Small increases
in resistivity which may also have caused some attendant back corona ef-
fects are the likely reasons for the restriction on power input.
Gas Volume Flow Rate
Gas volume flow rates in excess of the design value for the ESP were
measured in several of the tests. The performance of an ESP is a strong
function of the gas volume flow rate as indicated by the Deutsch equation:
1 - 7] = exp (- - W)
(7)
Figure 38 presents a comparison of all data on flow rates versus
ESP efficiency and predicted ESP efficiency based on the Deutsch equation.
Outlet gas flow rates are used in Figure 38 because the physical problems
associated with inlet measurements at the boiler may have resulted in some
errors in the inlet gas volume flow rates. Examination of Figure 38 shows
that the data generally follow the functional dependence suggested by the
simple Deutsch equation, although there is considerable data scatter. The
design flow rate for the ESP is 11,652 m3/min (411,500 acfm) with an ef-
ficiency of 97.5% for coal as the fuel. It is apparent from Figure 38 that
many of the test data were obtained for flow rate conditions which ranged
from 0 to 36% above the design capacity of the ESP.
153
-------
99
^
•>w
>
CL.
to
Deutsch Equation
8
10 12 14 16 18 20
ESP OUTLET FLOW VOLUME, 103 M3/Min.
Figure 38. ESP efficiency as a function of gas volume flow rate.
154
-------
Field measurements of outlet gas volume flow rates have been plotted
as a function of boiler load (Mw) in Figure 39. This figure indicates a
linear relationship between flow rate and boiler load, but also shows that
the measured flow rates may cover a rather wide range at a given load con-
dition. The data show that flow rates for coal + RDF fall on the upper edge
of the coal-only range, except at the highest power load (140 Mw). For all
load conditions below 140 Mw, the average coal + RDF flow rates are about
8% higher than coal-only flow rates, reflecting the effect of lower heating
value and higher moisture content in the RDF.
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF THE ESP
Cascade impactors were used to conduct particle size sampling in
the inlet and outlet ducts of the ESP during each MRI test. In addition,
during the two sets of conventional air emission tests, SRI conducted
other tests using cascade impactors and diffusion battery/condensation
nuclei counters to determine particle size distributions.
The inlet particle size distributions did not exhibit any signifi-
cant changes with boiler load or fuel type. Outlet particle size distri-
bution would be expected to show more variation, especially considering
the decreased ESP efficiency noted in some tests when burning coal + RDF.
A summary of the outlet particle size results is given in Figures 40 and
41. Additional data are presented in Appendix J.
In general, the mass median diameter of the particles increases with
increased boiler load and with addition of refuse. The 1973 outlet data
covered about the same range of mass median diameters as the later (1974
to 1975) coal-only data, which are consistent with the overall mass effi-
ciencies determined in those tests. Likewise, the later coal + RDF tests
showed lower overall ESP efficiency and the outlet particle size increased
compared to the 1973 coal + RDF tests.
These observations indicate that the increased emissions noted with
increasing boiler load and the substitution of RDF for coal are associ-
ated with increased emission of larger particles.
Inlet and outlet particle size distributions were used to prepare
fractional efficiency curves for the ESP. Figures 42 to 45 illustrate
the resultant curves. Comparison of these figures leads to interesting
observations which are summarized as a function of particle size inter-
vals as follows:
155
-------
16 -
15 -
14
13
O
<
O
12
10
70
80
o
o
I I I I I
I I I
90 100 no
Boiler Load, Mw
120
—I 600
o
o
o
500
o
o
"o
Q
400
O
o
• Coal-Only
O Coal + RDF
I I I
300
130
140
Figure 39. Gas volume flow rate as a function of boiler load.
156
-------
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
99.99 99.999.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5
50
2 1 0.5 0.20.1 0.05 0.01
50
10
1.0
i r
i r
i i i i i i r
140
133
1
O Coal-Only
• Coal + RDF
O.ll L
III I
10
1.0
0.1
0.010.050.10.20.5 12 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.899.9 99.99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 40. Averages of 1974 to 1975 outlet particle size data.
157
-------
WEIGHT % CREATED THAN STATED SIZE
99.99 99.999.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 21 0.5 0.20.10.050.01
i 1—i 1—i—i—r~i—i—r
50
10
E
a.
2
5
uu
U
1.0
I . . I
O Coat-Only
• Coal + Refuse
0.11 ill I I I 1
I ] I [ I I I I
I I
50
10
1.0
0.1
0.01 0.050.10.20.5 12 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99.99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 41. Averages of 1973 outlet particle size data.
158
-------
0.1
Ln
99.99
99.9
99.8
99
98
95
90
* 8°
e^
> 70
u
5 60
U
£ 50
UJ
Z 40
O
5 30
UJ
O 20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.1
10
r "•--•'
I I I i I I
10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, /
99.99
99.9
99.8
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
- 5
- 2
- 1
-0.5
- 0.2
- 0. 1
-0.05
I I I I 1 I In m
• Coal + RDF
O Coal-Only
Figure 42. Fractional efficiency data from 1974 to 1975 tests.
-------
99.99
0.1
10
99.9
99.8
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
g 30
u
O
20
10
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.01
I III
>—80 MW
.—100 MW
80MW
120 MW
— 120 MW
• Coal + RDF
O Coal-Only
T-T-199.99
- 99.9
- 99.8
- 99
- 98
- 95
- 90
- 80
- 70
- 60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
1 I
I 1 I I
0.01
0.1
10
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure 43. Fractional efficiency data from 1973 tests.
-------
U.UI
0.1
0.5
1
2
5
sx> in
gx 1 V
0 20
i 3°
tL 40
5 50
LLJ
°- 60
70
80
90
95
98
99
1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
~ A
_ A
A
0 a D D D
0 o o 0
—
—
—
—
_ Diffusional and Optical
O 140 Mw
D 1 00 Mw
- A 77 Mw
Impactors
• 140 Mw
• 100 Mw
A 77 Mw
—
I I I 1 1 1 1 1
I
A
a A
0 D
0
1
1
A
D
o
u
v
1 1
A 8
D O
0
uai-Tir-m m:.. TTT n w-
A
8
Ml
e A
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
—
—
—
A _ ~~
• A • * —
• A A
i :•••••-
> _
—
—
—
—
Extrapolated Data
(Coal -only, Nov. 1974)
Data enclosed in rectangle is considered
less accurate than remainder.
i i
MM
— >
i i i i i 1 1 1
yy.yy
99.9
99
98
95*.
90 z"
LU
80 §
70 ^
/A ^
60 o
._
50 £
40 3
30 0
u
20
10
5
"2
1
0.01
0.1 1.0
PARTICLE DIAMTER.yum
10
Figure 44. Fractional efficiency of ESP at three boiler loads--coal-only tests, November 1974.
-------
S3
O
I
z
LU
a.
U.UI
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
99.8
1 1 1
~S n A
~Q
— D
Diffusional
1
MM
1
1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
.
1 1
6
a
and
A
O
a
Optica
A A
U
a
a
O
A
1
§
1
- 0 140 Mw/ 10% RDF
_ 0'l40Mw/5%RDF
A 100Mw/10% RDF
— Impactors
• 140 Mw
~~ • 140 Mw
A
A
i.
ai
1
O
Q
A
A
A
B
0 _
m
• A
•p
INN
—
—
—
A"
A _
W
m
Extrapolated Data —
/10% RDF
/5% RDF
_ A 100 Mw/10%RDF
—
1 1
1 ! 1
(Coal
+ RDF, May 1975)
Data enclosed in rectangle is considered
less accurate than remainder.
1
1 1
1 1 1
I I
I i I I 1
99.99
99.9
99.8
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.01
0.1 1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER, /u m
10
(J
z
LLJ
u
z
O
O
u
Figure 45. Fractional efficiency of ESP at three load/% RDF combinations — coal + RDF tests, May 1975.
-------
* Collection efficiencies for particle sizes of 0.01 to 0.1 ^m were
generally higher for coal-only conditions compared to coal + RDF
conditions.
* The usual decrease in ESP efficiency for particles of about 0.3
|j,m was about the same for coal and coal + RDF although the de-
crease is more pronounced for coal.
* The expected increase in ESP efficiency in the 1.0 to 10.0 p,m
size range was observed for coal-only and coal + RDF conditions
at 100 Mw; however, for coal + RDF at 140 Mw, the ESP efficiency
remained at a fairly low level (e.g., 70%) over the size range
of 1.0 to 10.0 fj,m.
Another interesting observation is that at 100 Mw the collection
efficiency for particles of 0.01 to 0.10 |j,m and 1.0 to 10.0 ^m was about
the same for coal-only and for coal + RDF which is also consistent with
the overall mass efficiencies, that were determined during these tests.
In conclusion, the outlet particle size distribution data and the
fractional efficiency curves confirm the reductions in overall ESP effi-
ciency at high boiler loads when burning coal + RDF compared to coal con-
ditions. More significantly, they show that the reduced overall mass ef-
ficiencies resulted primarily from increases in emissions of the larger
particles. It is likely that large particulates generated from RDF com-
bustion would be of lower density than corresponding particulates from
coal combustion. Such decreases in density, combined with the fact that
gas flow rates up to 36% in excess of design capacity were noted in the
140-Mw tests, could result in a lower residence time in the ESP for the
large particulates from RDF» This "sweeping action" could account for
the decrease in efficiency noted for the large particulates from RDF»
CONCLUSIONS OF ANALYSIS OF ESP PERFORMANCE
The preceding analyses have led to the following conclusions:
1. ESP efficiency decreases with increasing gas-volume flow rate
as expected, both for coal-only and coal + RDF conditions.
2. Decreases in efficiency when burning coal + RDF as compared to
coal are probably not attributable to changes in inlet particle size dis-
tribution, inlet grain loading or to reentrainment problems.
163
-------
3. Decreases in ESP efficiency when burning coal + RDF as compared
to coal are most likely due to the 8% increased gas flow rate and to changes
in the ash and gas properties which occur with the burning of RDF.
4. Changes in the fly ash properties which result from burning RDF
probably cause small changes in particulate resistivity.
5. The small changes in resistivity caused by burning RDF are probably
magnified in terms of their influence on ESP efficiency because measured
resistivities are in a very critical range for the onset of back corona or
other electrical problems that decrease ESP performance.
6. Reductions in overall mass efficiency of the ESP at high boiler
loads when burning coal + RDF are associated primarily with increases in
emissions of the larger particles (i.e., 1.0 to 10 p,m).
164
-------
REFERENCES
1. Shannon, L. J., et al., "St. Louis/Union Electric Refuse Firing Air
Pollution Test Report," EPA Report EPA-650/2-74-073, August 1974.
2. "Environmental Protection Agency--Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources," as published in the Federal Register, Vol.
36, No. 247, Part II, p. 24888, December 23, 1971.
3. Smith, W. J., and C. W. Gruber, Atmospheric Emissions from Goal
Combustion—An Inventory Guide, U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio, Public Health Service Pub-
lication No. 999-AP-24, April 1966.
4. "Wastewater Analysis from Refuse Burning System Ash Pond," Union
Electric Company, St. Louis, Missouri, April 15, 1974.
5. Statnick, R. M., D. K. Oestreich, and R. Steiber, "Sampling and Anal-
ysis of Mercury Vapor in Industrial Streams Containing Sulfur Di-
oxide," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Chemical Society, August 1973.
6. Driscoll, J. N., and A. W. Berger, "Improved Chemical Methods for
Sampling and Analysis of Gaseous Pollutants from the Combustion
of Fossil Fuels," Final Report, Contract No. CPA 22-69-95, Walden
Research Corporation.
7. Cuffe, S. J., and R. W. Serstle, "Emissions from Coal-Fired Power
Plants: A Comprehensive Summary," U»S« Department of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-
35 (1967).
8. Hangebrauck, R. P., et al., "Sources of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons
in the Atmosphere," U»S» Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-33 (1967).
165
-------
9. Selker, A. P., "Program for Reduction of NOX from Tangential Goal-
Fired Boilers, Phase II," EPA Report prepared by Combustion Engineer-
ing, Inc., Windsor, Connecticut, EPA-650/2-73-005-a, June 1975.
10, "Background Information on the Development of National Emission Stan-
dards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos, Beryllium, and Mercury,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1973.
11. Cowherd, C., M. Marcus, C. Guenther, and J. L. Spigarelli, "Hazardous
Emission Characterization of Utility Boilers," Report prepared
by Midwest Research Institute for the Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-650/2-75-066, July 1975.
12. Gorman, P., J. Nebgen, and I. Smith, "Evaluation of the Magnitude
of Potentially Hazardous Pollutant Emissions from Coal- and Oil-
Fired Utility Boilers," Report prepared by Midwest Research In-
stitute under EPA Contract No. 68-02-1097, May 1976.
13. Bickelhaupt, R. E., "Influence of Fly Ash Compositional Factors on
Electrical Volume Resistivity," Report for the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency by Southern Research Institute of Birmingham, Alabama,
EPA-650/2-74-074, July 1974.
14. White, H. J., Industrial Electrostatic Precipitation, Addison-Wesley
Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts.
166
-------
APPENDIX A - SPECIFICATIONS AND INFORMATION ON REFUSE HANDLING EQUIPMENT AT THE POWER PLANT
Table A-l. EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS — POWER PUNT
Equipment
Receiving bin
Receiving bin
conveyor
Surge bin
Manufacturer Model Capacity
Miller-Hoft 95 m'
Atlas Systems, Inc. 252 m
East 7001 Trent Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99211
Physical size
Height - 3.7 m
Length - 6.2 m
Width - 4.2 in
Length - 10.5 m
Width - 1.2 m
Inverted truncated
cone - 12.2 m dia.
base, 3.5 m
Motor (kw) Other specifications
Auger - 56
Airlock - 11
Blower - 75
5 Sweep top
Sweep conveyor - 30
Drag conveyor - 3.7
Airlock -3.7
Pneumatic system
Boilers
Precipitators
Radar Pneumatics
6005 N. E. 82nd Avenue
Portland, Oregon
Combustion Engineering
New York, New York
Research Cottrell
New York, New York
dia. top, 10 m
height
30.5 cm to surge
bin
20.3 cm dia., 174.7 m
to boiler
Blower - 30 Blowers by Sutorbilt
50.8 Mg coal/hr Height - 30.5 m
41,958 kg/hr Depth - 8.5 m
steam
510°C/9653 kPa
125 Mw
Width - 11.6 m
Plate area - 5,180 m2
Ash pond
Union Electric
32,550 m surface
area, 0-1.8 ra depth
7.6 m stack
Bottom ash is sluiced
Boiler No. 1 installed 1951
Boiler No. 2 installed 1953
Plate to plate spacing - Inlet 22,2 cm,
outlet 25.4 cm
Corona wire dia. - 2.8 mm, specific
collection - area - 0.443 m2/m3/min
migration velocity -
15 cm/sec
Design efficiency 97.5%, installed
1951 and 1953.
Overflow pipe at 1.8 m depth
-------
Table A-2. EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS - UNLOADING BIN
Physical size of bin: 3.7 m high; 6.2 m long; 4.2 m wide
Belt length and width: 10.5 m long, C/L head to tail pulleys
1.2 m wide, smooth
20 degree troughing rolls on 1.0 m centers
Airlock diameter and width: 0.9 m diameter; 1.5 m wide
Blower design: Sutorbilt Model No. 12 x 36 - 3,100, 885 RPM
Measured air flow: 81.3 mVmin.
Amps
Motor KW rating, voltage, RPM
Auger
Conveyor belt
Air lock
Blower
Auger traverse^/
KW
55.9
3.7
11.2
74.6
0.4
RPM
1,775
1,740
1,765
1,770
1,780
Volts
460
460
460
460
100
4>
3
3
3
3
DC
Name
Plate
92
6.5
20
116
5.8
Actual
40
5.2
11.5
100-120
5.8
Pneumatic transfer line: 30.5 cm
a/ Auger traverse: Dodge Scr Drive Variable Speed DC Motor. Maximum
1,780 RPM at 100 volts DC.
168
-------
Table A-3. EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS - ATLAS BIN
Physical size of bin (see attached drawing) Amps
Motor KW rating, voltage, RPM KW RPM Volts
Sweep conveyor 30 1,700 460
Drag Conveyor No. 1 3.7 1,745 460
Drag Conveyor No. 2 3.7 1,745 460
Drag Conveyor No. 3 3.7 1,745 460
Drag Conveyor No. 4 3.7 1,745 460
Air Lock No. 1 3.7 1,730 460 3 7.0
Air Lock No. 2 3.7 1,730 460 3 7.0
Air Lock No. 3 3.7 1,730 460 3 7.0
Air Lock No. 4 3.7 1,730 460 3 7.0
Blower No. 1 40 1,770 460 3 49 40
Blower No. 2 40 1,770 460 3 49 26
Blower No. 3 40 1,770 460 3 49 28
Blower No. 4 40 1,770 460 3 49 26
169
-------
r
86cm
15.2
cm
ELEVATION
Figure A-L. Atlas bin.
170
-------
Table A-4. EQUIPMENT PARAMETERS - PNEUMATIC TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS TO BOILER
Transport lines, ID and length: 20.3 cm, 213.4 m
Blowers, design: Sutorbilt 8 x 20 - 3,000, 1,140 RPM
Blower motors, KW rating, voltage, RPM HP V RPM 0
Four identical motors 30 460 1,770 3
Amperage: Name plate Actual
49 26-40
Blower discharge pressure (normal): 2.0-4.0 psig
Measured air flows at 86°F, 29.82 in. Hg barometric pressure:
X;L 65.7 m3/min
X2 63.9 nrVmin
X3 69.1 m3/min
XA 66.4 nrVmin
171
-------
APPENDIX B
LOG OF OPERATING HOURS AND AMOUNT OF REFUSE BURNED AT POWER PLANT
FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1974 THROUGH JULY 1975
172
-------
Table B-l. SEPTEMBER 1974
U)
Operating hours for
pneumatic lines
Date
1 (Sunday)
Xl
^i
^3
X4
Hours
refuse
burned
Mg
refuse
burned
Mg RDF
delivered tc
power plant
2 (Holiday - Labor Day)
3
4
5
6
7 (Saturday)
8 (Sunday)
9
10
11
12
13
14 (Saturday)
15 (Sunday)
16
17
18
19
20
21 (Saturday)
22 (Sunday)
23
24
25
26
27
28 (Saturday)
29 (Sunday)
30
Total
10.16
14.58
14.66
14.00
7.66
8.83
-
10.5
13.83
13.5
12.83
10.66
12.25
13.16
9.00
11.5
10.16
187.28
12.25
14.58
2.91
12.16
7.66
6
15.33
13.66
13.83
13.5
10.33
7.00
10.25
11.33
11.33
9.00
11.16
182.28
12.25
14.58
14.91
14.00
5.83
13.75
15.33
13.66
13.83
9.91
7.83
6.83
9.66
10.66
10.58
11.5
7.33
192.44
4.33
-
3.00
12.16
7.66
13.75
15.33
13.66
13.83
13.5
10.33
9.91
10.83
12.66
12.83
11.00
10.5
175.28
12.25
14.58
14.91
14.00
7.66
13.75
15.33
13.66
13.83
13.5
4.83
10.66
12.25
13.16
11.33
11.5
11.16
208.36
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
!/
a/
£/
a/
a/
a/
a/
«/
a/
b/
b/
b/
y
b/
y
b/
b/
y
b/
y
113.6
130.2
132.0
105.7
164.9
142.6
789.0
a_/ No record of refuse (Mg) burned until 12/27/74.
b/ No MRI record of RDF (Mg) delivered to power plant until 9/23/74.
-------
Table B-2. OCTOBER 1974
Operating
hours for
pneumatic lines
Date
1
2
3
4
5 (Saturday)
6 (Sunday)
7
8
9
10
11
12 (Saturday)
13 (Sunday)
14 (Holiday - Columbus Day)
15
16
17
18
19 (Saturday)
20 (Sunday)
21
22
23
24
25
26 (Saturday)
27 (Sunday)
28 (Holiday - Veteran's Day)
29
30
31
Total
xl
11.5
22.75
2.00
19.33
0.5
11.25
8.91
13.58
14.5
8.5
14.16
1.66
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.66
11.5
6.25
1.5
159.49
X2
21.91
24.00
20.00
21.00
6.00
10.58
2.00
11.83
14.5
8.16
14.16
14.16
14.75
3.16
14.08
0.33
0.33
13.33
13.66
9.25
6.25
1.5
244.94
x3
19.33
8.75
19.5
19.00
0.5
10.5
2.75
13.08
12.25
14.33
13.83
14.16
14.33
3.16
10.91
7.75
6.5
10.91
12.5
10.33
6.33
1.5
232.2
X4
20.5
20.16
15.75
21.0
6.0
7.53
8.91
12.91
12.16
14.33
.
9.00
14.75
3.16
14.08
7.5
5.33
12.66
1.16
-
-
I—
206.89
Hours
refuse
burned
20.50
24.00
20.00
21.00
6.00
11.25
8.91
13.58
14.5
14.33
14.16
14.16
14.75
3.16
14.08
7.75
5.33
13.33
13.66
11.5
6.25
6.5
273.70
Mg
refuse
burned
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
S/
a/
a/
a/
£/
a/
a/
a/
a/
I/
a/
a/
a/
Mg RDF
delivered to
power plant
228.7
222.8
232.6
187.6
£/
96.7
68.6
146.8
114.1
111.8
130.8
133.1
93.2
37.1
76.9
52.7
49.8
63.3
121.8
16.3
104.6
69.0
36.0
2,394.3
a_l No record of refuse (Mg) burned until 12/27/74.
b_/ 10/5/74 is a Saturday. UE firing RDF delivered on 10/4/74.
-------
Table B-3. NOVEMBER 1974
Operating hours for
pneumatic lines
Date
*1
1 6.66
2 (Saturday)
3 (Sunday)
4 Planned
5 (Holiday - Election Day)
6 Planned
7 Planned
8 Planned
9 (Saturday)
10 (Sunday)
11 (Holiday - Veteran's Day)
12 8.75
13 13.75
14 14.33
15 3.00
16 (Saturday)
17 (Sunday)
18
19
20
21
22
23 (Saturday)
24 (Sunday)
25
26
27
28 (Holiday - Thanksgiving)
29
30 (Saturday)
Total
14.16
13.5
4.33
14.33
14.25
14.75
15.0
7.66
General
144.47
x2
6.66
maintenance
maintenance
maintenance
maintenance
13.83
12.84
11.5
11.5
12.33
13.33
7.75
6
maintenance
95.74
3 4
5.0
outage for boiler
outage for boiler
outage for boiler
outage for boiler
7.75
13.75
14.16
2.91
10.75
13.5
11.5
6.33
5.16
9.66
6.66
7.75
Hours Mg
refuse refuse
burned burned
6.66
8.75
13.75
14.33
3.00
14.16
13.5
11.5
14.33
14.25
14.75
15
7.66
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
Mg RDF
delivered to
power plant
35.2
50.8
111.3
130.8
18.9
123.9
111.9
126.2
116.6
120.0
126.8
113.7
48.0
at city refuse processing plant
5.0 107.88
144.98
1,200.0
a/ No record of refuse (Mg) burned until 12/27/74.
-------
Table B-4. DECEMBER 1974
Operating hours for
pneumatic lines
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Date
(Sunday)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Holiday - Christmas)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
Total
xl
13.83
11.00
16.83
Maintenance
Maintenance
10.75
14.33
10.5
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
5.0
15.15
14.0
111.39
X2
10.00
outage,
outage,
-
outage,
outage,
outage,
outage,
outage,
outage,
outage,
outage,
outage,
outage,
-
-
-
10.00
Hours
refuse
^3 ^4 burned
7.66
10.00
16.5
Atlas bin -
Atlas bin -
1.0
14.33
10.5
city refuse
city refuse
city refuse
city refuse
city refuse
city refuse
city refuse
city refuse
city refuse
city refuse
3.5
7.3
12.4
83.19
12.25 13.83
10.00 11.00
16.83 16.83
bearing failure
bearing failure
10.75 10.75
14.33 14.33
10 10
processing
processing
processing
processing
processing
processing
processing
processing
processing
processing
5.0 5
13.3 15
14.0 14
106.46 111
.5
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
.0
.15
.0
.39
Mg
refuse
burned
a/
i/
a/
a/
Mg RDF
delivered to
power
plant
107.7
98.0
142.3
32.5
68.7
131.9
a/ 82.4
- ADS
- ADS
- ADS
- ADS
- ADS
- ADS
- ADS
- ADS
- ADS
- ADS
38
117
139
295
drag
drag
drag
drag
drag
drag
drag
drag
drag
drag
.1
chain
chain
chain
chain
chain
chain
chain
chain
chain
chain
failure
failure
failure
failure
failure
failure
fa i lu re
fai lure
failure
failure
22.0
.9 117.5
.7
.7
135.1
976.2
a/ No record of refuse (Mg) burned until 12/27/74.
-------
Table B-5. JANUARY 1975
Operating hours for
pneumatic lines
Date xl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
(Holiday -
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Holiday -
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
New Years Day)
11.
12
3
10
12
-
7.
11.
10.
75
75
2
5
X2 X
11
9
10
8
11
12
7
13
9
3
.25
.5
.25
.5
.75
.75
.8
X4
9
12
14
12 ,
12
10.75
-
9
3.5
Hours
refuse
burned
11.75
12
14
12
12
12.75
7.75
13
10.5
Mg Mg RDF
refuse delivered to
burned power plant
-
74
117
119
114
-
53
136
73
.4
.8
.5
.7
.2
.3
.4
140
93
135
38
114
53
53
135
54
.1
.2
• >
.6
.7
.5
.0
.0
.4
Martin Luther King)
14
13.
10.
10.
14
12
8.
5.
15.
14.
15
15
2
5
5
25
5
5
5
13
-
5
6
9
6
-
14
8
10
7
9
-
.5
.25
.5
-
.5
.5
.25
12
13.3
10.5
7.25
14
6
14.25
10.75
-
-
5.5
14.5
14
13.3
10.5
10.5
14
12
14.14
14
15.5
14.5
15
15
-
122
95
115
126
97
85
115
113
97
115
116
.5
.7
.9
.0
.6
.5
.2
.9
.9
.0
.3
138
122
111
89
125
96
84
106
113
97
114
116
.1
.9
.7
.2
.8
.6
.7
.2
.3
.7
.0
o
To Lai
226.15
183.30
190.30
268.19
1,890.7
2,195
-------
Table B-6. FEBRUARY 1975
00
Operating hours for
pneumatic lines
Date 1 2 3 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Holiday -
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Holiday -
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
-
-
6.25
15.25
12.75
7
8.25
Lincoln's Birthday)
14.25
10
Washington's Birthday)
First day of double
3.5
1
4.5
Maintenance outage,
13.5
Maintenance outage,
Maintenance outage,
Maintenance outage,
15.5
7.5
13.25
14.25
5.5
3.25
6.75
11
11
grind test
5.75
1
4
Atlas bin
2
Atlas bin
Atlas bin
Atlas bin
13.
7.
13.
-
_
1.
14.
8
10
Hours
refuse
burned
25
5
5
5
25
15
7
13
15
12
7
13
14
12
.5
.5
.5
.25
.75
.75
.25
.75
. All RDF saved for
5.
0.
-
75
25
- hydraulic
-
- hydraulic
- hydraulic
- hy
draul tc
5
1
4
,75
.5
system
13
.5
system
system
s
ystem
Mg Mg RDF
refuse delivered to
burned power plant
124
44
101
126
57
60
95
127
-
.0
.4
.1
.4
.4
.4
.5
.8
shredding on
38
-
-
.4
123.
59.
100.
125.
74.
60.
95.
127.
90.
2/19
29.
33.
70.
1
0
6
0
8
2
1
2
0
54.6
7
1
5
failure
70.7
70.
7
failure
failure
failure
Total
96.25
78.75
74.00
137.00
845.3
1,113.3
-------
Table B-7. MARCH 1975
Operating hours for Hours
pneumatic lines refuse
Date
1 (Saturday)
2 (Sunday)
3
4
5
6
7
8 (Saturday)
9 (Sunday)
10
11
12
13
14
15 (Saturday)
16 (Sunday)
17
18
19
20
21
22 (Saturday)
23 (Sunday)
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Total
XT x2
15.00 6.00
15.75
13.50
8.50
9.00
7.50
15.00
9.00
14.50
-
Planned maintenance
12.00
-
1.00
Planned maintenance
14.50
11.00
23.00 12.00
29.50 29.50
23.00 23.00
19.75 19.75
12.50 20.50
7.66 7.66
261.66 118.41
X3
2.50
15.00
6.00
7.00
2.00
4.50
9.00
9.00
14.00
-
outage
-
-
1.00
outage
16.00
11.00
19.00
8.75
-
-
-
_
124.75
^4 burned
15
15.75
13.5
8.5
9.0
7.5
15
9
14.5
-
Mg
refuse
burned
87.1
103.4
50.8
67.1
76.2
54.4
62.6
57.1
119.7
30.1
- city refuse processing plant
12
-
1
54.4
-
-
- city refuse processing plant
16
11
19
24
23
19.75
6.50 20.5
7.66
6.50 261.66
177.8
146.0
123.4
283.0
139.7
124.3
135.1
162.4
2,062.5
Mg RDF
delivered to
power plant
119.9
85.9
85.6
66.0
76.0
54.7
62.3
56.3
119.3
38.0
53.7
54.3
18.6
158.2
162.6
192.7
212.1
138.5
103.0
133.7
198.1
2,189.6
-------
Table B-8. APRIL 1975
oo
o
Operating hours for
pneumatic lines
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 (Sunday)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27£/
28
29
30
Hours
refuse
*1 ^2 X^ X4 burned
15.80
19.85
22.00
4.50
7.50
15.25
22.50
18.25
9.00
16.00
12.00
4.00
20.50
11.50
15.50
13.00
15.50
11.50
3.00
17.50
10.20
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
14.75
2.00
10.25
18.00
0
15.80
20.15
21.50
3.50
7.30
16.00
20.50
19.25
8.50
15.45
10.75
15.00
9.00
7.75
15.00
13.00
15.50
11.50
3.00
10.00
10.00
outage
outage
outage
14.75
2.00
10.25
24.25
10.50
15.50
19.15
21.50
4.00
6.50
10.25
1.50
15.25
9.00
-
1.25
-
16.00
11.50
15.50
11.75
9.75
3.00
3.00
10.00
10.00
- boiler
- boiler
- boiler
14.70
2.00
5.50
20.25
21.00
15.80
19.15
21.90
3.25
7.50
16.25
7.00
-
-
16.00
13.50
13.00
19.50
11.25
8.75
12.25
9.75
3.00
3.00
8.00
8.50
tube failure
tube failure
tube failure
14.50
1.25
-
0
11.50
16
20
22
5
8
16
23
19
9
16
14
15
21
12
16
13
16
12
3
18
10
15
2
10
24
21
Mg
refuse
burned
249
225
184
19
77
149
150
142
72
146
151
172
139
135
221
28
197
55
54
186
141
-
-
-
-
-
Mg RDF
delivered to
power plant
229.1
222.8
220.1
0
75.8
184.7
164.4
142.8
71.9
164.6
149.1
184.9
138.3
116.6
229.2
37.0
196.3
75.9
53.2
146.5
161.2
143.0
-
134.5
117.0
130.1
Total
329.85
330.20
257.85
244.60
376.0
2,893.0
a/ 4/27/75 is a Sunday. UE firing RDF delivered on Saturday 4/26/75.
3,489.1
-------
Table B-9. MAY 1975
oo
Operating hours for Hours Mg
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
pneumatic
Date xl X2
6.00 6.75
0.33 13.00
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
Maintenance outage
Maintenance outage
Maintenance outage
(Holiday - Truman's Birthday)
0 13.50
0 5.00
0 8.00
5.50 12.50
4.75 8.00
Maintenance outage
Maintenance outage
Maintenance outage
13.50 13.50
24.00 11.00
13.50 0
8.50 8.50
4.75 5.50
7.75 7.75
Maintenance outage
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Holiday - Memorial Day)
Maintenance outage
Maintenance outage
Maintenance outage
Maintenance outage
(Saturday)
lines refuse refuse
X3 X4 burned burned
6.75 6.25 7 120
13.00 13.00 13 114
- broken boiler tube
- broken boiler tube
- broken boiler tube
13.50 14.50 15 143
5.00 5.00 5 57
8.00 8.00 8 56
8.50 14.50 15 220
8.00 8.00 8
- receiving building bearing failure
- receiving building bearing failure
- receiving building bearing failure
13.50 13.50 14 168
15.50 24.00 24 101
0 11.75 14 152
8.50 8.50 9 114
5.10 5.50 6 98
7.75 7,75 8 16
- hamtnermill electrical failure
- harnmermill electrical failure
- hammermill electrical failure
- hammermill electrical failure
- hammermill electrical failure
Mg RDF
delivered to
power plant
142.9
144.7
143.3
75.6
56.5
182.3
38.5
177.4
141.3
150.1
106.0
114.2
0
Total
88.58
113.00
113.10
140.25
146.0
1,360.5
1,472.8
-------
Table B-10. JUNE 1975
oo
Operating houts for
pneumatic lines
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Date
(Sunday)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
Hours Mg Mg RDF
refuse refuse delivered to
xl ^2 X3 X^ burned burned power plant
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
Decision
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
not
to operate
to operate
to operate
to operate
to operate
to operate
to operate
6,50
to operate
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
(Saturday)
(Sunday)
Decision
not
3.00
to operate
outage -
outage -
outage -
outage *
outage -
outage -
to allow
to allow
to allow
to allow
to allow
to allow
to allow
0
to allow
outage -
outage -
outage -
0
to allow
hammermill electrical failure
hammermill electrical failure
hammermill electrical failure
hammermill electrical failure
hammermill electrical failure
hammermill electrical failure
highest
highest
highest
highest
highest
highest
highest
6,50
highest
repair
repair
repair
3.00
highest
probability
probability
probability
probability
probability
probability
probability
6.50
probability
of electrical
of electrical
of electrical
3.00
probability
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
7
of
completing
completing
completing
completing
completing
completing
completing
62
completing
environmental
environmental
environmental
environmental
environmental
environmental
environmental
.6 62.6
environmental
tests
tests
tests
tests
tests
tests
tests
tests
substation
substation
substation
3
of
41
completing
.7 41.7
environmental
tests
30
Planned maintenance outage
9.50 0 9.50
9.50
10
104.3
104.3
-------
Table B-ll. JULY 1975
oo
Date
Operating hours for Hours Mg Mg RDF
pneumatic lines refuse refuse delivered to
xl X2 X3 X4 burned burned power plant
1 Planned maintenance outage
2 Planned maintenance outage
3 Planned maintenance outage
4 (Holiday - Independence Day)
5 (Saturday)
6 (Sunday)
8 ...... 59.0
9 - .-.-.-.
10 ------ 237.4
11 .-.--. 19.6
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total 316.0
a/ Strike at Union Electric power plant from July 12, 1975, to October 28, 1975.
-------
APPENDIX C
UNION ELECTRIC INFORMATION AND TEST DATA ON
PNEUMATIC CONVEYING LINE MATERIALS
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
I9OI GRATIOT STREET - ST. LOU IS
MAILING ADDRESS:
ft_- P.O.BOX 149
March 26, 1976 ST. LOUIS, M
Mr. Paul G. Gorman
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Dear Mr. Gorman:
Attached is a brief summary of our experience with wear
resistant materials in the pneumatic transport piping of the Energy
Recovery Project at our Meramec Plant.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Paul R. Brendel, Asst. Mgr.
Solid Waste Utilization Systi
Attachments
PRB/mmb
184
-------
Evaluation of Piping Materials
for Pneumatic Transport
of Refuse Derived Fuel
All of the original piping in the pneumatic transport system for
refuse derived fuel (RDF) at Meramec Plant was 20.3 cm (8") Schedule 40 car-
bon steel pipe. Early in the operation of the prototype the abrasive nature
of the milled waste manifested itself in rapid wear of the piping, especially
at bends and elbows. For example, a 20.3 cm (8") pipe bend developed a hole
after only 13 days of operation, after conveying only 162 Mg (179 tons) of
material. Obviously, carbon steel is not a suitable material for this ser-
vice.
This problem prompted a thorough study of various means of securing
long term service of the piping system. Experience was gained in two general
ways; first, from the emergency repairs applied to permit continued service,
and second, from trial of a large variety of materials with known or adver-
tised wear resistant properties. The attached tabulation lists our experi-
ences with various materials.
Our conclusions, based on the study, can be summarized best by
separate discussions concerning elbows and piping:
I. Elbows
a) The most promising device found was a pipe bend fabricated from glass
fiber reinforced epoxy resin lined with high alumina ceramic. The
highest wear areas are lined with the ceramic in curve tile form,
whereas the remaining areas are covered with small, spherical parti-
cles of the ceramic. The test pipe bend was in service 197 days and
handled 5,198 Mg (5,731 tons) of material with only superficial wear.
It is still serviceable today. Due to its light weight, it can be
handled easily by two workmen without special hoisting equipment,
and hence has minimal support structure requirements.
b) Another satisfactory elbow is a "wear back" type elbow which has a
series of removable plates installed on the wearing side. At the
elbow's outlet an "entrainment tip" redirects the material into the
center of the straight pipe downstream to minimize wear of the straight
section. One of these elbows was in service 107 days and carried
4,172 Mg (4,600 tons) with slight abrasion of the R35 wear resistant
plates. The entrainment tip, fabricated of plain carbon steel ex-
perienced more severe wear. This type elbow promises satisfactory
service and possesses the advantage that the material lining the
wear plates can be optimized to provide best wear characteristics for
the service imposed. The entrainment tip should also be made of wear
resistant material, rather than carbon steel. This type elbow is
heavy and bulky and requires hoisting equipment for installation and
requires adequate supports.
185
-------
II. Piping
a) The glass fibre reinforced epoxy elbow lined with alumina
ceramic material was installed with adjacent straight
pipe spool pieces of similar material. Instead of the
composite interior of tiles and beads, beads line the
entire inside surface of the pipe. Its wear characteristics
duplicated that of the elbow. This fact plus its light
weight, recommends it highly for RDF use. We foresee
the need to periodically rotate the straight pipe runs
to prevent wearing through the coating at its bottom.
b) A number of types of pipe commonly used in conveying
ash slurry and similar abrasive materials were considered
also. Materials range from high silicon cast iron and
nickel bearing cast iron, to basalt (a volcanic rock
found in West Germany), Termination of the Energy
Recovery Project in November 1975 prevented field
evaluation of such materials. Doubtless, these materials
have the capability of providing long term service.
Practical considerations such as original cost, installation
costs, and extreme weight must be considered in applying
such piping to an RDF system.
The results of our studies indicate that it is possible to
operate RDF piping systems with a good degree of reliability. We do
not suggest that the materials described are the only ones available;
on the contrary, we will continue to search for better materials for
this service. Reference to commercial products which we found
satisfactory does not imply indorsement or recommendation of them
by Union Electric Company.
P. R. Brendel
March 26, 1976
186
-------
EVALUATION OF WEAR RESISTANT MATERIALS AN|) ILKM REPAIR DEVICES AS OF 12/1/75
- ITEM
1
Z
3
4
i
_l
30
-1 6
7
8
9
10
It
DESCRIPTION
Carbon ateel acrap pipe patch
applied to pip* bend
Scrap Initiated rubber and
duck coil conveyor belt atrlpa
•trapped to pipe bend
Arnuklrt rubber pad applied
to pipe bend
Rubber pipe reinforced vltb
ateel wire, u»ed a> elbow
Devcon VR Z eoorr and Cr. 7
fllot abraelve applied to
pipe bend
Pecora Purnace Cenent applied
to ploe bend
Hardback Wearing Coaztouod
applied to pip* bead
Carbon ateel box left caitty,
to be filled vith refuee,
attached to pipe bend
Expanded Betel In carbon
ateel box, attached to
Jllce bend
Steel floor grating In carbon
• tee! box, 'attached to pipe
bend
SIZE
20.3 cm Sch. 40-8.2™
wa 1 1 tli ickness
9.3 mm thick
12.7-19.1 rn thick
1.9 cm x 45. 7 cm
x 25.4 cm
20.3 cm pipe size
x 12.7 mm thick
Troweled from 12.7-
25.+ mm thick
Troweled from "12.7-
~5./* mm thick
20.3 cm high, 11
gauge steel
20.3 cm high
20.3 cm high
MANUFACTURER
Rader Poeunatlce, Inc.
Portland. Oregon
Unknown
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Akron, Ohio
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Akron, Ohio
Unknown
Devcon Corp.
Danvera, Maia,
Earltyivllle. Pena.
Hordberg Machinery Group
Raxnord, Inc.
Milwaukee. Hltcanaln
Heranec Plant
Pillar & Box -
Meramec Plant
Filler & Box -
Meranac Plant
Rader Pneumatlcfl, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
Meramec Plant
Union Electric Co.
Mvramrtc Plant-St. Louts
Ho.
Oberjuerge Rubber Co.
St. Louis. Mo.
OberjuerRe Rubber Co.
St. Louis. Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
Specialty Chemical Dlv.
Kexnord, Inc.
Mnramec Plant
Filler i Bon -
Meramec Plant
Fi 1 li-r & Box -
_Mor,imtr Plant
LOCATION
— USED —
20.3 cm
pipeline
20.3 cm
pipeline
20.3 em
plpol Inr
30.5 cm plpeltn
2nd pipe bend
I'll. ) cm pi po
bond X 3F
•0 3 cm
bend XIII
Ix-ncl X1H
fii pel Inr
20. 3 cm pipe
bend .11A-X4A;
X1B, X2B
20. '3 cm pi pe
bend X3B
21.3 cm pipe
bi-nd XiB
BECINNING
SERVICE
4-4-72
8- 14-72
6-20-72
9-1-72
9-20-72
9-1 5*72
1-10-73
1-23-73
1-J3-73
DATE/lit
HOLE ID
5-20-72
8-29-72
6-27-72
10-3-7J
10-5-72
3-6-73
**
3-6-73
*+
3-6-73
**
DAYS/SERVICE
BEFORE
13
11
4
14
3
32
*
24
*
24
*
NO. /PLACES
IN
SERVICE
47
10
44
1
1
2
8
1
1
REDUCTION
(IF
THICKNESS
mm t* 7,
8.2-1 007,
9.3-1007.
!9. 1- 100?
19.1-1007.
12.7-1 em::
1007.
1007.
Not
Applicable
Not
Appl Icable
Not
Applicable
HG Of
REFUSE
EXPOSED
TO MAT 'I..
162.3
336.4
r'j . 3
1,356.9
,,,.o
513.4
i, i •. . :
414.5
JAMES D. MUSPHY - 12/6/74
REVISED: 1/15/76
-------
EVALUATION OF HEAR BESTSTANT MATERIALS AND F.LBUW REPAIR DEVICES AS l>r 12/J/7J
ITEM
12
13
14
15
00 I*
00
17
18
19
20
21
22
DESCRIPTION
Firwaat KS-4 caetable re-
fractory in carbon ateel
box. attached to pipe bend
Devcon Fleune held In
carbon atcel box. attached
to nitered pipe joint
Type 30* italnleai steel
plate and carbon steel
plate
PersMnffar platea nade of
tungsten carbide grit caat
with aa alloy aatrl* bond
to a foraed ahect ateel pan
Dua- Plate liner In Rider
Hark II elbow
"Trovelon" liner In Rader
Hark 11 elbow
Aluelna ceramic blocka
attached to liner of Rader
Kark II elbow
Abretlit til» attached to
liner of Rader Hark II
elbow
Replaceable R35 caat seR-
nents In a Rader Hark III
elbow
Cerast Core pipe bend vlth
two spool piece*
Ceram Surf compound applied
bend
SIZE
20.3 cm high
20.1 cm high
Total thickness ol
plates, 9.} im + 9.5 mm
+ 12.7 m - 11-7 mm
55.9 cm x 35.6 cm
x 0.95 era thick
19.1 urn thick
9.5 mm thick
27.2 mm thick
31.8 mm thick
12.7 ran thick
20. 3 cm pip" size,
6.8 nun wall thickness,
3.2 ran linc.ir thicknes
19.1 ran thick
MANUFACTURER
Flller-A.P. Creen Co.
Hexlco, Mo.
Box-Meramec Plant
Filler-Devcon Corp.
Danvara, Hatiachuaetta
Box-Meranec Plant
Unknown
Permanence Corporation
Detroit, Michigan
Liner-Unknown
Elbow-Rader Pneumatics,
Inc.. Hemphli, Tenn.
Llner-Rader Pneumatics,
Inc. -Memphis, Tenn.
ELbow*Rader Pneumatics,
Inc. -Memphis , Tenn.
Llner-C.E. Refractories
Combustion Eng. -Valley
Forge, Penn.
Elbow-Rader Pneumatics
Memphis, Tenn.
Llner-Schmelzbasaltwerk
Kalenborn-Llnz, West
Germany
Elbow-Rader Pneumatics
Memphis, Tenn.
Segments-Rader Pneumatics
Memphis , Tenn.
Elbow-Rader Pneumatics
Memphis. Tenn.
A.O. Smith-Inland, Inc.
Little Rock, Ark.
A.O, Smith-Inland, Inc.
Little Rock, Arkansas
SUPPLIER
Flllcr-A.P. Green Co.
Mexico, Mo.
Box-Meramec Plant
Filler-Midwest Tool &
Supply Co. -St. Louis, Mo.
Box-Meramec Plant
Meramec Plant
Permanence Corporation
Detroit, Michigan
Liner 1, F.lbow -
Rader Pneutna ticn, Inc.
Momplil s , Tprni.
Ruder Pneumatics, Inc.
Memphis, Tenn.
Liner & F.lbow - Rader
Pnpumat Icfl-Mpmphls, Tenn.
Llner-M.II. Dctrlik
Chicago, Illinois
rlhow-Ratlor Pneumatics
Memphl s , Tenn .
Memphis , Tenn.
Ucslfall Co.
S.ipplnpton, Mo.
Wrwlfall Co.
LOCATION
USED
20.3 cm pipe
bend X1D-X4D;
X3I, X4I; X3J,
X4J; X1E-X4F.;
X1F, X2F; XIC,
XJC; X4K, X2C-
X4C
line 10°
mlt ered joint
Inlet box of
•cparator
cyclone
Inlet box of
separator
cyclone
21.3 cm
tlbou XIH
20.1 cm
elbow X3II
.20.1 cm
elbow X11I
20.3 coi
elbow XIII
20.3 cm elbows
X1A-X4A; X1H-
X4B; X1C-X4C
20. 1 rm pip<>
hi-nd X4.I
20.3 c,,i
BEGINNING
SERVICE
DATE
1-23-73
1-23-73
6-14-72
2-13-74
2-2-73
3-13-73
3-27-74
8-27-74
11-25-74
9-28-73
11-10-75
DATE/lst
HOLE IN
MATERIAL
2-1-73
*»
6-24-74
***
1-19-73
No holes
12-1-75
3 -A- 74
3-27-74
9-13-74
No holes
12-1-75
No holes
12-1-75
****
Mo holes
12-1-75
No holes
DAVS/SERVICE
BEFORE
1st HOLE
8
*
136
*
75
No holes
241
85
76
72
No holes
96
No holes
107
No holes
197
No holes
NO. /PLACES
IN
SERVICE
20
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
12
1
1
KliDUCTTON
OF
THICKNESS
mm & Z
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
n.H-iom
0.8-87.
19.1-1007,
9.rj-IOO7.
n locks
severe ly
cracked &
broken
3.2-107
1.6-137-
1.6-167.
0-0"'.
Mfi OF
REFUSE
EXPOSED
TO MAT'L.
172.1
3237. b
8044.0
25454.4
1973.4
*
1 'o.O
?086.9
J421.7
4172.3
5198. i
329.1
-------
EVALUATION OF WEAR RESISTANT MATERIALS AND ELBCTJ REPAIR DEVICES AS OF 12/1/75
ITCH
23
24
25
26
27
1— >
00 28
VO
29
30
)1
12
33
DESCRIPTION
Tungsten carbide tiles,
fiber-glut tape and epcncy
cenent wrapped around pipe
bend
Wearcarb tungsten carbide
tilei attached with epoxy
cement to tteel pitch for
pipe bend
Stonhard Hi-Temp. 1800
Lining applied to outside
surface of pipe bend
Alrco 388 electrodes
depoalted on steel patch
for pipe bend
Vulcalloy 233 electrodea
deposited on liner for
Kader Mark II elbow
Dlaivu 10999 flame sprayed
on steel patch for pipe
bend
Ultlmlun NU2 electrodes
deposited on iteel patch
for pipe bend
Vulcalloy 237 electrodes
deposited on steel patch
for pipe bend
Durafrax Flateleti -
(Sintered alumina) fiber-
glass tape and epoxy cement
wrapped around pipe bend
Arlcite alumina ceramic
blocks attached to fabricated
wearback
Cera Our alumina ceramic
blocks attached to fabricated
vearback
SUE
12.7-25.4 ran x
0.8 mm thick
0.8 mm thick
76.2 mm thick
Single pass, about
6.4 mm thick
Single pass, about
6.4 ram thick
1.6 mm thick
Single pass, about
4.8 mm thick
Single pa.ss, about
6,4 mm thick
12.7 mm thick
25.4 mm thick
25.4 ran thick
MANUFACTURER
Kin ton Carbide, Inc.
Irvln, Penn.
Teledyne Firth Sterling
McKeegport, Penn.
Stonhard, Inc.
Maple Shade, N.J.
Air Reduction Co.
Mev York, N.Y.
Llner-Certanlum Alloys &
Research-Cleveland, Ohio
Elbov-Rader Pneumatics,
Memphis^ Tenn.
Eutectic Welding Alloys
Chicago, Illinois
Eutectic Welding Alloys
Chicago, Illinois
Certaniuin Alloys & Re-
search-Cleveland, Ohio
Carborundum Co.-
Niagra Falls, New York
Refractories & Abrasives
Dlv.
Dura Wear Corporation
Birmingham, Alabama
SUPPLIER
Ktnton r.i rbtcle , Inc .
Irwin, Pnnn.
Teledyne Firth Sterling
McKeesport, Penn.
_ . .
Maple Shade, N.J.
Sanders Welding Supply
Co. -St. Luuls, Mo.
Research-Fl ori ssant , Mo.
Elbow-Rader Penumatics,
Memphis, Tenn.
Chicago^ 11 linois
. .Ill' All
Chicago, 1 1 linois
search-Florissant , Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
Ivan F. ftauman Co.
St. trails, Mo.
Dura Wear Corporation
Birmingham, Alabama
LOCATION
USED
30.5 cm pipe-
line, 1st pipe
bend
20.3 cm pipe
bend X4D
20.3 cm pipe
bend X2F
20.3 cm pipe
bend X3F
20. 3 cm elbow
XIII
20.3 cm pipe
bend XII)
20.3 cm pipe
bend X3D
20.3 cm pipe
benH X4E
20.3 cm pipe
bend X2E, X2G
10° milered
Joints XI
pipeline
10° milered
joints of X4
pipeline
BEGINNING
SERVICE
DATE
l-lt-74
4-27-74
7-16-74
3-30-74
4-3-74
7-24-74
7-29-74
7-31-74
8-21-74
7-30-74
6-19-75
DATE/ 1st
HOLE IN
MATERIAL
1-23-74
No holes
3-17-75
*****
No holes
12-1-75
5-30-74
8-27-74
2-14-75
No holes
3-20-75
*****
No holes
12-1-75
No holes
12-1-75
No holes
12-1-75
No holes
12-1-75
DAYS/ SERVICE
BEFORE
1st HOLE
6
Mo ho lea
125
No holes
60
25
33
90
No holes
96
No holes
138
No holes
109
No holes
159
No holes
16
NO. /PLACES
IN
SERVICE
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
REDUCTION
OF
THICKNESS
"
No wear,
tiles broke
loose from
tape
0-07,
6.4-1007,
6.4-1007.
1.6-1007.
1.6-337.
3.2-507.
0.8-6%
0-07.
0-07.
MG OF
REFUSE
EXPOSED
TO MAT'L.
329.1
3400.6
1795.3
742.1
914.0
3075.1
2885.7
4007.2
3830.0
5813. 3
438.2
JDM/d«
James D. Murphy
December 6, 1974
* Before first time plugged; ** Pipe bend plugged with refuse; **
December 6, 1974
Revised January 15, 1976
"'• Box plugged with refuse; **** (jse XI pipeline because of lower blower speed; ***** Patch had no hoi
badly eroded t
es, pipe bend too
o support patch .
-------
APPENDIX D
UNION ELECTRIC SUMMARY OF BOILER CORROSION/EROSION
STUDIES TO DATE
by
Paul R. Brendel
Assistant Manager
Solid Waste Utilization System
July 23, 1975
190
-------
BOILER CORROSION AND EROSION STUDY
ST. LOUIS/UNION ELECTRIC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
In order to evaluate any possible deleterious effects on boiler tubing
resulting from combination coal and refuse burning, a comprehensive test-
ing program has been developed and is being actively pursued at present.
Prior to startup of the refuse burning installation on Units 1 and
2 at Meramec Plant the following sections of new tubing were installed in
the steam generators:
Unit - 1 Unit - 2
Date Installed December 1971 February 1972
Waterwall SA 210 SA 210
Reheater - SA 213 T22 SA 213 T22
Secondary
Superheater SA 213 T5C SA 213 T5C
During a scheduled maintenance outage of Unit 1 in September 1974
these samples were removed for evaluation. During the period December
1971 through September 1974 exposure of the specimens to coal and refuse
combustion was as follows:
Hours Unit on Load 19,116
Mg of Coal Burned 683,354
Mg of Refuse Burned 4,628
Hours Refuse Burned 1,594
Portions of the Unit 1 samples were metallographically examined at
Union Electric*s laboratory and were also sent to Monsanto Company, St.
Louis for electron microprobe examination. Results indicated no boiler
tube degradation other than would normally be associated with 100% coal
burning operations. Essentially no lead, zinc or chloride compounds were
found in the tube scale.
Subsequent to the above analytical work, during a scheduled mainte-
nance outage of Unit 2 in March 1975 the specimens installed in February
1972 were removed. During the period covered, this unit burned approx-
imately 29,931 Mg of refuse, representing a substantial increase of ex-
posure compared to Unit 1.
191
-------
Portions of these specimens were sent to Battelle Memorial Institute,
Columbus, Ohio for complete investigation of deposits, scale and tube
wastage mechanisms. This work has been completed. Microscopic X-ray de-
fraction and X-ray emission tests and other procedures which were per-
formed indicated that scale, deposits and metal wastage was only that which
would be expected from coal combustion environments.
In addition to the above test results, no physical evidence or boiler
tube failures can be attributed to the firing of solid waste in combina-
tion with pulverized coal in Meramec Units 1 and 2.
Further corrosion investigations have also been in progress through
use of two high temperature probes, one waterwall corrosion probe and one
"cold end" probe (installed in the gas stream entering the electrostatic
precipitator), purchased from Combustion Engineering Corporation and in-
stalled in Meramec Unit 2. The high temperature probes were made of
347SS, 321SS, T9 and T22 alloys. The waterwall probe was made of carbon
steel (SA192). Exposure of the probes was as follows:
Refuse Coal Boiler Refuse
Probe Mg Mg Hours Hours
HT No. 1 2,706 46,751 1,408 294
HT No. 2 6,603 97,581 2,249 706
Waterwall 17,708 341,027 8,999 2,091
The high temperature probes were removed because of various mechani-
cal defects in the probes themselves (not corrosion related) and due to
boiler operation considerations. All four probes have been sent to
Combustion Engineering's Kreisinger Development Laboratory at Windsor,
Connecticut for evaluation. No data on these samples is available at
this time.
A new high temperature probe containing welds in 347SS, 304SS, T9
with a 347 weld and Til and T22 materials has been fabricated by Combus-
tion Engineering and installed in Meramec Unit 2. The primary purpose of
this probe is to determine if stress corrosion cracking is a factor in
refuse burning operations.
The above summary must be considered as only partial and therefore
inconclusive as regards corrosion effects of refuse and coal burning, and
merely constitutes an update on our efforts. Full definitive information
will be released when all testing and evaluation is completed.
192
-------
APPENDIX E
RESULTS AND DATA FOR COAL-ONLY NONHAZARDOUS TESTS
During the period of October 28 to November 7, 1974, a series of seven
emission tests were conducted by MR.I, assisted by Southern Research
Institute (SRI). MRI conducted the particulate emission tests using EPA
methods, as well as various gaseous emission tests, and obtained samples
of coal, fly ash, and sluice water for analysis. SRI monitored ESP opera-
tion, and obtained particle size measurement data.
Results of the tests are presented in the order listed below.
E. Coal-Only Nonhazardous Tests
(seven tests, October 28 to November 7, 1974)
El. Air Emission Test Data
Table El-a. Log of test activity
Table El-b. Mass emission
Figure El-a. ESP outlet loadings
Figure El-b. ESP efficiency
Table El-c. Metal analysis on particulate filter catches
Table El-d. Gas composition data
E2. Tabulation of Analysis Results on Input/Output Streams (by Ralston
Purina)
E3. Particle Size and ESP Characteristics (SRI Reports)
E3-a. SRI Report - particle size data (cascade impactors) and
ESP characteristics
E3-b. SRI Report - particle size data (condensation nuclei
counters and diffusion batteries)
193
-------
Table El-a. LOG OF AIR EMISSION TEST ACTIVITY AT POWER
PLANT DURING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 28 TO NOVEMBER 7, 1974
(Coal-Only Nonhazardous Tests)
Date
10/30/74
10/31/74
11/1/74
11/2/74
11/3/74
11/4/74
11/5/74
11/6/74
11/7/74
Test activity
Dry run
Run No. 1 (140 Mw)
Run No. 2 (140 Mw)
No tests on Saturday and Sunday.
Boiler was shut down for repair
over part of weekend.
Run No. 3 (140 Mw)
Run No. 4 and No. 5 (75 Mw)
Run No. 6 (100 Mw)
Run No. 7 (100 Mw)
194
-------
Table El-b. PARTICULATE EMISSION TESTS AT POWER PLANT FOR COAL-ONLY (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1974)
ESP Inlet
ESP Outlet
Boiler load Particulate concentration Gas flow
Test No.
1
2
3
u->
Ln 4
5
6
7
(nominal)
140
140
140
75
75
100
100
Mw
Mw
Mw
Mw
Mw
Mw
Mw
(g/dncm)
5.29
0.82-/
0.89^
0.92^'
2 . 13^'
- a/
3.96
(dncm/min)
10,924
10,613
11,009
6,651
6,651
8,462
8,150
Particulate concentration Gas flow
mg/dncm
|OA
(OB
(OA
1 OB
(OA
IOB
-------
VO
0.15r-
O)
~ 0.10
O
Z
O
z
O
0
60
Curve A - Previous MRI Coal-Only Tests (December 1973)
Curve B- Previous UE Coal-Only Tests (October-November 1973)
O - Results of Recent MRI Tests (October 28-November 7, 1974)
80
100
BOILER LOAD. Megawatts
120
O
O
_J
140
Figure El-a. Mean partlculate emission data at ESP outlet
-------
VO
100 r-
LU
U
u
- 95
U yD
O
I
CL
u
90
B
Curve A - Previous MRI Coal-Only Tests (December 1973)
Curve B - Previous UE Coal-Only Tests (October-November 1973)
O - Results of Recent MRI Tests (October 28-November 7, 1974)
I
I
I
I
70
80
90 100 110 120
GROSS GENERATION, Megawatts
130
- Calculated using average value for inlet of 4.58 grains/dncm (2.00 grains/dscf).
Figure El-b. Variation of ESP efficiency with changes in boiler load
O
o
o
140
150
-------
Table El-c.
METAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICULATE CATCH ON FILTERS
(COAL-ONLY TESTS)
1-1
1-OE
1-OW
2-1
2-OE
2-OW
3-1
3-OE
3-OW
4-1
4-OE
4-OW
5-1
5-OE
5-OW
6-1
6-OE
6-OW
7-1
7-OE
7-OW
Fe
SSL
8.7
8.4
8.8
7.3
7.8
8.0
7.2
7.4
7.7
7.2
9.5
8.7
5.3
9.8
8.5
27.6
9.7
10.4
6.8
12.5
15.0
Zn
l£E2l
683
734
733
564
543
567
1,020
902
1,000
653
807
701
544
768
576
3,040
533
950
863
1,200
1,240
Cu
(ppm)
161
307
251
149
151
171
124
191
182
158
39.7
143
183
305
404
1,520
152
74
153
440
213
Pb
(ppm)
318
480
138
459
570
551
471
534
572
119
809
923
729
874
914
3,800
9,540
9,040
478
959
1,060
Li
iEPjal
144
162
192
142
153
155
134
127
127
163
265
253
150
323
285
291
208
190
98
314
276
Ag
lEffiL
< 2.5
< 2.5
< 2.5
<2.5
<2.5
< 2.5
299
<2.5
< 2.5
< 2.5
<2.5
< 2.5
< 2.5
< 2.5
447
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
<2.5
Na
!%i
2.87
1.68
1.88
1.53
1.22
1.24
-13.7^
1.47
1.32
2.42
2.39 1
2.10
3.98
2.55
2.24
24.6
8.06
2.17
Cr
(ppm)
337
347
367
319
272
326
252
310
322
419
,030
458
349
937
531
232
329
534
-1.101/229
2.49
2.76
521
480
K
ffiL
2.25
2.05
2.67
3.84
2.01
2.27
2.19
2.14
2.00
2.71
2.54
2.19
2.03
2.06
2.11
3.43
2.53
2.43
0.93
3.09
3.41
Al
SSL
14.4
9.5
8.7
11.4
9.0
10.0
12.1
7.6
10.7
10.8
12.1
8.7
15.2
14.7
12.8
18.3
10.2
10.1
10.3
16.5
15.6
aj Negative values resulting from high blank value.
198
-------
Table F.l-d. SUMMARY OF STACK GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Orsat
Percent Boiler Load-MW
Cos
Cate Te«t No, Refuse Nominal (Actual) m /mln
10/31/74 1-1 0-Coat Only 140 (137)
10/31/74 1-OE 0-Coal Only 140 (137)
10/31/74 1-OW 0-Coal Only 140 (137)
11/1/74 2-1 0-Coal Only 140 (140)
11/1/74 2-OE 0-Coal Only 140 (140)
11/1/74 2-OW 0-Coal Only 140 (140)
11/4/74 3-1 0-Coal Only 140 (141)
11/4/74 3-OE 0-Coal Only 140 (141)
11/4/74 3-OW 0-Coal Only 140 (141)
11/5/74 4-1 0-Coal Only 75 (77)
11/5/74 4-OE 0-Coal Only 75 (77)
11/5/74 4-OM 0-Coal Only 75 (77)
11/5/74 5-1 0-Coal Only 75 (78)
11/5/74 5-OE 0-Coal Only 75 (78)
11/5/74 5-OW 0-Coal Only 75 (78)
11/6/74 6-1 0-Coal Only 100 (102)
11/6/74 6-OE 0-Coal Only 100 (102)
11/6/74 6-OW 0-Coal Only 100 (102)
11/7/74 7-1 0-Coal Only 100 (101)
11/7/74 7-OE 0-Coal Only 100 (101)
11/7/74 7-OW 0-Coal Only 100 (101)
17,320
8,037
7,783
17,065
7,556
7,556
16,527
7,613
7,528
10,047
5,236
4,245
10,414
3,538
4,471
12,452
5,094
5,490
12,509
4,924
5,462
a/ Inlet partlculate loadings, determined by Method 5
end wall of the ESP--Port No. 18).
£/ Some S02 values by Method 8 appear to be
_d/ Kg analysis based on method in report au
low.
thored by
Analysis (No by Dlf Terence) Plant Instrument EPA Instrument Van Method 6 Method 8
Flow Moisture CO
dncm/mln (7. by Volume) (7.)
10,924
4,896
4,868
10,613
4,811
4,839
11,009
4,783
4,783
6,651
3,339
2,689
6,651
2,179
2,802
8,462
3,170
3,453
8,150
3,113
',509
, were in error
R. Statnlck of
7.1
7.8
7,9
3.3!'
5.1
6.4
2.51/
8.2
8.2
3.4*'
6.8
7.2
6.2i>
8.3
7.7
l.oi'
7.9
7.2
6.5
7.9
7.2
due
EPA.
< 0.1
f 0.1
< 0,1
^. 0.1
< 0.1
, 0.1
- 0.1
, 0.1
< 0.1
c 0.1
* 0.1
.. O.I
< O.I
. 0.1
«- 0.1
, 0.1
, 0.!
< 0.1
.- 0.1
.- 0.1
, 0.1
co2 o2
(7.) (7.)
10.3 9.2-'
13.5 5.0
13.4 5.4
11.0 8.7^'
13.6 5.4
13.6 5.2
11.7 8.2^'
13.2 5.4
13.2 5.6
8.4 10.9-'
11.3 7.7
10.8 8.2
10.3 .9.3^'
11.8 7.2
10.0 8.9
6.8 13. Ot'
11.9 7.2
12.4 6.5
9.8 9.6^'
12.2 6.6
12.2 6.6
apparently to lakes In tl
N2
80.5
81.5
81.2
80.3
81.0
81.2
80.1
81.4
81.2
80.7
81.0
81.0
80.4
81.0
81.1
80.2
80.9
81.1
80.6
81.2
81.2
ir sampling
02 02 CO C02 SO, ' S02
(7.) (%) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
4.1
1,209 '
5.2 132 13.5 1,070 1,024
4.0
1,362
5.7 132 13.5 1,305 1,244
3.6
1,559
5.3 165 13.9 1,560 1,665
5.4
912
No data — Leak In sample line 753
5.5
835
6.4 130 12.4 868 850
•t.2
888
6.5 108 12.9 956 910
5.0 -
1,168
6.5 122 14.1 1,030 1,019
[ train (except ptrhips for Runs Nos. t and 1). Tli
so2
(ppm)
693S/
1,003
__
1,116
1,187
__
499-'
1,224
__
728
760
15^'
741
..
807
527
__
1,023
1,084
is is i,vl
ii2so4
(ppm)
15.1
10.7
__
29.2
13.3
__
17.5
13.8
._
42.4
7.2
,_
7.3
5.4
..
6.7
10.9
--
7.9
10.6
dr tired
(I.e..
Method 7
NO
(ppm)
327
266
__
359
272
__
303
184
._
350
287
__
347
357
..
330
201
--
376
264
bv
ckrd
nc ,1 r
EFA Nethodi/
He
,ig/m3
10.95
--
--
4.38
--
--
ND
--
--
4,51
--
--
7.02
--
--
ND
--
--
5.47
--
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table E2-a. COM, ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL-ONLY NON11AZARDOUS
O
O
Date, 1974
Test No. and sample Identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Heating value (kj/kg)*/
Moisture (wt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt 7,)3.f
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen (by difference)
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt 7.)i/
Al (A1203)
Cu (CtiO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
LI
Ap,
Cl
1A
HO
0
26,861
13.20
7.45
65.98
5.36
1.41
1.39
5.21
32.67
46. 60
1 . 64
0.001
1.25
0.001
0.18
0.13
0.003
0.003
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
10/31
IB
140
0
28,673
13.00
6.92
67.24
5.28
1.40
1.39
4.77
33.67
46.41
1.52
0.001
1.31
0.002
0.15
0.13
0.01
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
0.373
1C
140
0
26,821
12.80
7.27
67.18
5.21
1.42
1.49
4.63
33.87
46.06
1.57
0.001
1.28
0.002
0.17
0.12
0.004
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
2A
140
0
25,767
11.70
9.85
64.88
5.03
1.40
1.80
5.34
33.14
45.31
2.18
0.001
1.70
0.002
0.24
0.13
0.004
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
0.298
11/1
2B
140
0
20,614
11.20
10.11
63.83
4.26
1.40
1.71
7.49
32.04
46.65
2.15
0.001
1.61
0.002
0.28
0.13
0.01
0.003
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
2C
140
0
26,276
12.40
10.38
64.63
4.79
1.38
1.78
4.64
33.33
43.89
2. IB
0.001
2.02
0.002
0.28
0.12
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
-------
Table E2-a. (Continued)
Date, 1974
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse ,
Heating value (kj/kg)?/
Moisture (wt %)
Proximate and ultimate analyses Jwt %)-'
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen (by difference)
Vol.itile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt ?„)£/
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fc (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
tl
Ag
Cl
3A
140
0
25,873
11.80
11.05
61.78
4.65
1.35
2.50
6.87
36.23
40.92
2.11
0.001
1.93
0.002
0.24
0.11
0.01
0.003
0.001
< 0.0001
O.K,9
11/4
3B
140
0
26,199
12.20
10.21
63.60
5.08
1.38
2.34
5.19
36.78
40.81
1.78
0.001
2.19
0.002
0.22
0.11
0.01
0.003
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
3C
140
0
27,165
12. 60'
6.49
65.63
4.95
1.60
1.55
7,18
35.48
45.43
1.31
0.001
1.16
0.002
0.15
0.10
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
4A
75
0
28,000
12.70
6.01
67.75
6.96
1.47
1.32
3.79
32.72
48.57
1.30
0.001
1.16
0.002
0.13
0.12
0.002
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
0.469
11/5
4B
75
0
27,429
12.20
6.48
63.80
5.24
1.48
1.32
9.48
32.99
48.33
1.40
0.001
1.19
0.002
0.15
0.12
0.003
0.002
0.002
< 0.0001
NR
4C
75
0
28,107
13.10
6.20
67.36
5.24
1.44
1.31
5.35
32.76
47.94
1.32
0.001
1.12
0.002
0.14
0.12
0.01
0.001
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
-------
Table E2-a. (Continued)
N5
O
Date, 1974
Test No. and sample Identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Heating value (WAg)4'
Moisture (wt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt '/.)—
Ash
Carbon
Hyd rogcn
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen (by difference)
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt 7.)—'
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
LI
Ag
Cl
5A.
75
0
27,463
13.50
6.50
65.78
5.01
1.45
1.31
6.45
31.74
48.26
1.45
0.001
1.13
0.003
0.14
0.12
0.004
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
11/5
SB
75
0
27,479
13.80
5.95
67.34
5.47
1.43
1.41
4.60
32.02
48.23
1.30
0.001
1.09
0.002
0.14
0.12
0.002
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
0.408
5C
75
0
27,605
14.00
6.10
66.32
5.31
1.65
1.20
5.42
31.71
48.19
1.29
0.001
1.17
0.003
0.13
0.12
0.002
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
6A
100
0
27,550
12.30
6.32
68.77
5.88
1.45
1.32
3.96
34.21
47.17
1.37
0.001
1.16
0.002
0.13
0.13
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
11/6
6B
100
0
28,191
13.10
6.37
67.21
5.16
1.49
1.42
5.25
32.30
48.23
1.38
0.001
1.18
0.002
0.14
0.13
0.003
0.003
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
6C
100
0
28,016
11.60
6.29
66.71
5.59
1.49
1.53
6.79
31.70
50.41
1.38
0.001
1.19
0.002
0.14
0.13
0 . 004
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
0.343
-------
Table E2-a. (Concluded)
NJ
O
Date, 1974
Test No. and sample Identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Heating value (kj/kg)^'
Moisture (wt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (vt 7.)-'
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen (by difference)
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (vt Z)5/
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr 0)
Li 2
Ag
Cl
7A
100
0
27,398
10.60
7.88
67.76
5.26
1.43
1.70
5.37
31.15
50.37
1.71
0.002
1.46
0.002
0.16
0.12
0.004
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
11/7
7B
100
0
26,906
11.90
7.67
67.74
5.57
1.43
1.63
4.06
32.38
48.05
1.96
0.002
1.44
0.002
0.16
0.12
0.004
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
NR
7C
100
0
27,216
12.70
8.40
66.30
5.62
1.41
1.62
3.95
32.40
46.50
1.88
0.001
1.54
0.002
0.18
0.13
0.001
0.002
0.001
< 0.0001
0.328
a/ All analysis data reported on moisture-ns-receivcd basis.
NR - Not run.
-------
Table E2-b. SLUICE SOLIDS ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL-ONLY NONHAZARDOUS TESTS3
NJ
O
Date, 1974
Test No.
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Moisture (%)
Heating value (kJ/kg)-/
Chemical analysis (wt, %)
Ash
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
Li
S
Ag
10/31
1
140
0
39.80
4,483.67
53.55
11.94
0.01
10.60
0.01
1.07
0.53
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.26
< 0.001
11/1
2
140
0
25.60
-1,768.7
68.47
13.57
0.01
16.87
0.01
1.35
0.50
0.01
0.03
0.01
2.54
< 0.001
11/4
3
140
0
32.80
2,258.06
62.84
12.51
0.01
13.70
0.01
1.16
0.50
0.02
0.02
0.01
1.01
< 0.001
11/5
4
75
0
19.70
3,458.30
69.06
12.50
0.01
20.72
0.01
1.09
0.35
0.02
0.03
0.01
6.44
< 0.001
11/5
5
75
0
45.20
1,261.13
52.17
11.06
0.01
11.27
0.01
1.01
0.49
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.77
< 0.001
11/6
6
100
0
35.70
1,357.06
60.22
13.01
0.01
13.01
0.01
1.09
0.52
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.96
< 0.001
11/7
7
100
0
47.20
1,113.01
56.02
10.58
0.01
8.74
0.01
0.90
0.52
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.17
< 0.001
a] All analysis data reported on moisture-as-received basis.
-------
Table E2-c. FLY ASH ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL-ONLY NONIIAZARDOUS TESTSi
a/
Date, 1974
Test No. and sample Identification-
Percent refuse
Boiler load (HW)
Moisture (7.)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)
Ash
Al (Al203>
Cu (CuO)
Fo (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
V. (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
LI
S
Ag
Date, 1974
Test No. and sample Identification
Percent refuse
Boiler load (MW)
Moisture (7.)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Chemical analysis (wt . 7,)
Ash
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fc (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
LI
S
As
1A
0
140
0.49
2,023.55
89.86
18.96
0.02
15.81
0.05
2.07
1.51
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.47
< 0.001
11/5
4B
0
75
0.27
339.81
97.44
20.46
0.01
1 6 . 66
0.03
2.39
1.78
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.49
< 0.001
10/31
IB
0
140
0.47
1,123.04
94.46
20.49
0.02
16.53
0.04
2.25
1.80
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.51
< 0.001
5A
0
75
0.54
370.39
94.39
19.82
0.01
16.33
0.03
2.36
1.65
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.65
< 0.001
2A
0
140
0.32
1,069.66
92.90
20.34
0.02
15.33
0.04
2.28
1.72
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.63
< 0.001
11/5
5B
0
75
0.25
233.25
97.36
20.84
0.01
16.65
0.03
2.40
1.72
0.53
0.02
0.01
0.47
o.nni
ll/l
2B
0
140
0.33
1,230.52
97.18
21.09
0.01
15.91
0.03
2.43
1.36
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.16
< 0.001
6A
0
100
0.11
1,756.06
95.00
21.38
0.02
16.15
0.04
2.26
1.83
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.68
< 0.001
1
3A
0
140
0.34
366.35
95.18
20.56
0.01
16.37
0.03
2.36
1.42
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.60
< 0.001
11/6
613
0
100
0.18
50.15
97.22
21.68
0.01
16.72
0.03
2.16
1.85
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.49
< 0.001
.1/4
3B
0
140
0.26
398.47
97.05
20.38
0.01
17.08
0.02
2.38
1.31
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.38
< 0.001
7A
0
100
0.17
140.44
97.73
22.67
0.01
17.89
0,03
2.17
1.60
0.05
0.03
0.14
0.52
< 0.001
11/5
4A
0
75
0.45
620.34
94.87
19.64
0.01
16.32
0.03
2.38
1.67
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.65
< 0.001
11/7
7B
0
100
0.45
183.80
94.57
21.21
0.02
16.46
0.04
2.23
1.92
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.83
< 0.001
<»/ All analysis data reported on mol stiirc'-as-roceivod b;isls.
j>/ "A" samples wore from F.SP hoppers nearest Inlet, "n" samples wnre from I~SF hoppers nearest nut let.
-------
Table E2-d. RIVER WATER AND SLUICE WATER ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL-ONLY NONHAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1974 10/31
Test No. 1 .
Sample identification*/ RW SW
Percent refuse 0 0
Boiler load (Mw) 140 140
Total suspended solids (ppm) 36.0 1,324.0
Total dissolved solids (ppm) 408.0 456.0
Biochemical oxygen demand (ppm) 5.58 47.5
Chemical oxygen demand (ppm) 3.24 487.0
PH 7.2 7.5
Total alkalinity (ppm) 128.0 88.0
Oil and grease (ppm) 40.0 34.8
Dissolved oxygen (mg/ liter) 8.8 7.8
11/1
2
RW SW
0 0
140 140
8.00 2,472.0
432.0 492.0
5.94 146.5
520.3 2,598.0
7.4 7.4
172.0 120.0
36.0 42.0
8.2 8.0
11/4
3
raj sw
0 0
140 140
72.0 1,376.0
280.0 292.0
6.48 138.0
536.0 2,176.0
7.4 8.0
136.0 44.0
46.8 34.0
4.3 2.9
11/5
4
KH SW
0 0
75 75
408.0 3,820.0
356.0 268.0
15.8 149.8
38.1 435.0
7.7 8.2
92.0 96,0
33.2 68.0
3.0 2.8
11/5
5
RH SW
0 0
75 75
456.0 1,564.0
360.0 364.0
11.58 132.9
32.20 1,970.0
7.6 7.6
124.0 96.0
58.4 95.6
3.2 3.2
11/6
6
RW sw
0 0
100 100
624.0 1,756.0
124.0 252.0
27.73 23.6
39.20 211.5
7.6 7.6
114.0 120.0
63.6 46.0
3.2 3.3
11/7
7
m sw
0 0
100 100
288.0 2,032.0
136.0 156.0
5.59 213.5
17.20 416.30
7.0 7.6
100.0 96.0
38.4 41.4
3.4 3.5
ro
o
a/ RW is river water.
SW is sluice water, sampled after majority of solids had settled out.
-------
E3-a SORI-EAS-74-418
PRECIPITATOR OPERATION AS PART OF MIDWEST
REFUSE FIRING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
COAL FIRE TEST
Joseph D. McCain
Herbert W. Spencer
Wallace B. Smith
December 20, 1974
PRELIMINARY REPORT
TO
Midwest Research Institute
425 - Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
207
-------
REPORT OF PRECIPTTATOR OPERATION AS PART OF MIDWEST
REFUSE FIRING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
COAL FIRE TEST
INTRODUCTION
Southern Research Institute personnel assisted in a
test program with the Midwest Research Institute and the
U. S.. Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the
electrostatic precipitator performance of the Unit I precipitator
at the Union Electric Meremac Power Station using Orient 6 coal.
The test was performed to provide baseline conditions at three
power loads (75, 100, and 140 megawatts) for a later test where
refuse will be burned in conjunction with fossil fuels. SRI
provided measurements of the particle size distributions,
particulate resistivity, and the electrical conditions in the
precipitator during portions of this test program.
TEST RESUI.TS
Particle Size Distributions
Inlet and outlet particle size distributions were obtained
using three measurement techniques — cascade impactors to obtain
data on a mass basis over the size range from about 0.5 urn to
about 10 jim; optical pair tic le counters to obtain data from about
0.3 urn to 1.5 ym and diffusional methods to obtain data from about
0.01 urn to about 0.2 ym. Only the size distributions and fractional
efficiencies calculated from the impactor measurements are in-
cluded in this report. The results of measurements using the
optical and diffusional techniques will be provided in a separate
report to be submitted upon completion of the data reduction.
Modified Brink Cascade Impactors were used for all impactor
inlet sampling while Andersen Mark III Impactors were used at
the outlet. A total of 14 inlet samples were obtained at a
plant load of 140 MW, 8 at a load of 100 MW, and 7 at a load of
77 MW. An analysis of the data from each load condition indi-
cated that there was no statistically significant variation in
the inlet size distribution with plant load changes, although
qualitatively, there appeared to be a tendency toward a reduction
in concentration of large (>10 pm) particles accompanied by an
increase in concentration of 0,5 ym and smaller particles at
the two lower values of plant load. These apparent changes at
reduced plant loads differed by less than one standard deviation
208
-------
from the mean value at full load; therefore, for the purposes
of calculating fractional efficiencies, the inlet data from
all tests were averaged rather than using the samples obtained
under each specific load condition. Excluding the results
from two runs which showed anomalously high values, the average
total particulate loading at the inlet, as determined from the
impactor samples was 2.00 grains/SDCF (4.56 x 103 mgm/DSCM) with
a standard deviation at 1.32 grains/SDCF (3.01 x 10* mgm/DSCM).
Figure 1 shows the average inlet size distribution in terms of
cumulative mass concentration of particles smaller than or equal
to the indicated size in milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
For the purposes of this report, all sizes are reported
as Stoke's diameters based on a particle density of 2.6 grams/cm3.
This density was determined from inlet and outlet dust samples
using a helium picnometer. The aerosol sample volumes required
for the impactor measurements were inadequate for precise deter-
minations of water content, and therefore, a value of 7% H20 by
volume was assumed. Reasonable deviations of the actual values
from the assumed value-would not lead to any significant changes
in the results reported here.
All inlet samples were obtained at flow rates of approximately
0.03 ACFM and sampling durations of 15 minutes. Andersen Mark III
Cascade Impactors were used for outlet sampling with one impactor
each for the two outlet ducts. Sampling times with the Andersens
were also 15 minutes at flow rates of 0.5 ACFM. Each impactor
run samples two points in its respective duct with alternate samples
in each duct being taken on alternate sides of the ducts, thus
obtaining a four point approximation to a traverse with each
pair of runs on each duct. A total of 13 valid outlet runs were
obtained with a unit load of 140 KW, 9 runs at 100 MW, and
6 runs at 77 MW. Average outlet mass concentrations for the three
conditions were 0.120 (a=.029) grains/SDCF (270 mgm/DSCM),
0.063 (ff=.013) grains/SDCF (144 mgm/DSCM), and 0.052 (a=.011)
grains SDCF (119 mgm/DSCM) for the respective unit loads of
140 MW, 100 MW, and 77 MW. The average outlet size distributions
for each of the unit load conditions are shown on a cumulative
basis in Figure 2.
It can be seen from Figure 2 that the measured concentrations
of particles having sizes smaller than about 0.6 to 0.7 ptm
do not change in the predicted manner with unit load changes.
If the inlet size distribution were, in fact, constant, this
could be the result of an effect due either to a direct deposition
of gas phase materials, probably H2SO<», on the impactor substrates,
or of condensation of H2SOu on the fly ash within the duct. The
latter could occur as the result of a temperature drop across the
precipitator. Such condensation on particulate would tend to
209
-------
10000
-
Ul
H 1000
GO
'
p 100
<
.
:
SB
Jl a
i
UN
ml
Ha a
- & t ^—
I ; I i
—-
trt
T" 1
10
O.I
Figure 1.
1.0 10
PARTICLE DIAMETER, ^m
Cumulative particle size data taken at the ESP
inlet using Brink Cascade Impactors (average of
27 runs). Particle density = 2.6 gm/cm3.
100
210
-------
O 140 MW
D 100 MW
A 77 MW
100
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure 2. Cumulative particle size distribution taken at
the ESP outlet using Andersen Mark III Cascade
Impactors. Particle density = 2.6 gra/cm3.
211
-------
have a more noticeable effect on the fine particle mass
concentration than on the large particle end of the size spectrum.
Three blank runs at the outlet were made with filters preceding
the impactor in order to determine the magnitude of any inter-
ference due to possible gas phase interactions on the substrates.
Substrate weight increases were found and subsequent chemical
analysis of the blanks indicated that hydrated HaSOi, was the
most probable cause of the increase. Weight gains on the
blank runs average about 1.4 mg per stage, which is enough
mass to represent a serious interference. These results indicate
that the presence of acid gases could have affected the impactor
size distributions. It is not possible, however, to subtract the
weight gained by the impactor stages during the blank runs from
the normal particulate stage catches to obtain a "true particulate
stage weight," because in some cases, the blank runs gained
more weight than the normal runs for the same sampling time.
A preliminary examination of the data obtained with the
optical particle counter suggests that this data also shows
an increase in the concentration of fine particles in the outlet
gas stream. This, if true, might indicate that H2SOi» condensation
on particulate in the flue gases was the dominant mechanism
in producing the anomalous results in the outlet data below
1 ym in size.
The efficiencies as calculated from the impactor data
for the average of each of the three load conditions are
shown in Figure 3.
Electrical Conditions
The Meremac Unit I precipitator has four separate power
supplies (1A, IB, 1C, ID). Figure 4 indicates the location of
the precipitator sections supplied by the different sets.
During the test, the primary and secondary voltages and
currents, and the spark rate of each set were monitored. The
complete set of readings is tabulated in Table I.* This
table indicates that no significant changes in electrical con-
ditions occurred during the test.
Prior to the test, the power supply readings were monitored
by Union Electric personnel for 10 days. These readings
*Secondary voltage readings were corrected by multiplying
by the following factors: 1A east and west by 1, IB east by .981
and west by 1, 1C east by 1.02 and west by 1.03, ID east and west
by 1.03. These factors were determined by use of laboratory
calibrated probes.
212
-------
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY, %
MM 999 998
99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 _ 10 5 _ '..'... .°:5 °:2. V
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 O.i 1
Figure 3.
20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 95 98 S9
PENETRATION, %
Fractional collection efficiency of the ESP under
three load conditions. Calculated from data shown
in Figures 1 and 2.
213
-------
Precipitator Power Supply Sections
Inlet
1C
1A
ID
IB
Outlet
Figure 4
214
-------
TABLE I
POWER SUPPLY READINGS, UNIT 1 PRECIPITATOR
ONION ELECTRIC, MEREHAC POWER PLANT
SECONDARY
VOLTAGE
LOAD, POWER
DVTE TIME MW SUPPLY
10/30/74 11:45 1A
IB
1C
ID
1:45 140 1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
10/31/74 10:00 140 1A
IB
1C
ID
11:53 1A
IB
1C
ID
1:40 1A
IB
1C
ID
3:10
3:30 1A
IB
1C
ID
11/1/74 10s 30 140 1A
IB
1C
ID
11:30 1A
IB
1C
ID
12 : 30 1A
IB
1C
ID
11/4/74 10:00 140 1A
IB
1C
ID
12:00 140 1A
IB
1C
ID
3:00 1*
IB
1C
ID
PRIMARY
VOLTAGE, V
260
310
310
292
290
320
305
300
280
320
310
300
280
310
310
_ 300
280
310
310
300
280
310
310
300
280
310
310
300
280
310
310
300
290
310
320
300
290
310
320
300
300
320
325
300
295
310
315
300
290
309
310
300
PRIMARY
EAST/WEST,
CURRENT, A kV
39
42
41
44
Maximized
47
45
42
46
47
45
42
45
46
43
41
45
46
43
41
45
46
43
41
45
46
43
41
45
46
43
42
45
46
43
41
45
46
43
41
45
47
44
42
46
47
44.5
42
46
47
44.2
42
45.8
33/33
33/32
36/34
31/31
Settings
34/35
33/32
35/33
32/32
34/35
33/33
34/36
32/32
33.5/35
33/32.5
36/34
32/32
34/35
32.5/33
36/34
32/32
34/35
32/33
36/34
32/32
33/34
31.S/33
36/34
31.5/31.5
35/36
33/32.5
35/38
32/32
35.5/35
33/32.5
34.5/37.5
32/32
35.5/35
32.5/33
34.5/37.5
32/32
35/36
31.5/32
32.5/36
31.5/31
34.5/35.5
32/31.5
36.5/34.5
31.5/31
33.5/35
32/31.5
36/34
31.5/31
SECONDARY
CURRENT, mA
237
266
278
275
290
290
285
290
285
290
284
290
280
280
280
290
280
275
280
290
278
275
280
290
280
275
280
286
280
280
283
290
280
280
285
285
285
280
280
286
295
290
295
29S
295
290
295
295
295
290
295
295
SPARK RATE,
l/min
10
20
10
35
20
15
5
-
-
-
-
80
10
70
20
30
20
45
20
45
30
40
15
20
10
25
10
80
10
70
20
50
10
25
10
45
43
30
10
-
30
0.
-
~
15
0
10
0
30
5
215
-------
TABLE I
(Continued)
LOAD,
DATE TIME MW
11/5/74 9:45 75
2:00
3:55
4:45
11/6/74 9:25 100
12:15
1:55
11/7/74 8:30 100
11:30
2:00
POWER
SUPPLY
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
PRIMARY
VOLTAGE, V
265
297
300
285
275
298
300
285
275
295
300
287
275
295
302
285
275
298
280
310
310
300
280
310
310
295
280
308
310
295
278
302
305
290
275
302
300
290
275
300
308
288
PRIMARY
CURRENT, A
47
44.8
46
43
47
44.8
42.5
46
46.5
44.5
42
45. 6
46.5
44.2
42
45.5
46.5
44.1
47
45
42
45.5
47
44.5
42
45.5
46.8
44.8
42
45.4
47.2
45
42.5
45.8
47
45
42.5
45.8
46.8
44.8
42.0
45.2
SECONDARY
VOLTAGE
EAST/WEST
kV
33/33.4
30.5/32.5
35/32.5
30/30
33/33.5
31/30
33/34.5
29.5/33
33.5/33
31/30
33/35
30/30
33.3/33
31/30
34.5/33.5
30/30
33/33.5
31/30
34/35
32/32
35.5/34
31/31.5
33.5/34
32/32.2
35.5/34
31/31
34/34
31.5/33
35/34
31/31
33/33.5
31/31
35/33.5
30.5/31
33/33.5
32.5/30.5
34.5/33.5
31/30.5
33/33
31/30.5
35/33
30/30.5
SECONDARY
CURRENT, mA
292
290
296
300
290
290
299
295
290
296
295
290
289
285
294
292
286
285
290
290
290
295
290
290
290
291
290
290
290
291
294
295
295
295
290
292
292
292
288
290
290
290
SPARK RATE,
f/min
20
0
22
0
22
0
20
0
20
0
24
3
25
0
20
0
30
0
50
10
38
8
25
0
25
5
25
0
45
10
3
0
20
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11/8/74
216
-------
indicated that the secondary voltage readings stabilized approxi-
mately 5 days after the power sets were turned on. Approximately
twenty-four hours prior to the test, the power supplies were
turned onto manual control. They were maintained on manual
control throughout the test period. The initial plan for
maximizing the electrical conditions was to increase the. input
power until the maximum possible secondary voltage was obtained
without significant sparking. Since power supply current limits
were reached before the above conditions were obtained, the
secondary currents were all adjusted to approximately 290 mA
(max 300 mA). This current setting corresponded to an average
current density of 82.6 nA/cm2 (7.6 x 10~5 A/ft2) in the inlet
sections and 97.5 nA/cm2 (8.95 x 10 5 A/ft2) in the outlet
sections.
These values are close to the practical limits for dust
with resistivities of 2 x 1010 ft-cm. The inlet spark rate
meters indicated that some sparking occurred at these settings
and it is doubtful that .electrical power input to the inlet
could have been increased significantly. After each test
condition, secondary current-voltage characteristics were
measured. In Figure 5, the I-V characteristics for the 1A and
IB Sections are plotted for power plant output of 75 and 140
megawatts.
A complete set of I-V tables is given in Appendix I.
Resistivity Measurements
In-situ resistivity measurements were made using a point-to-
plane resistivity probe. No significant variations in resistivity
were detected. The results of the measurements are given in
Table II. The average value of resistivity calculated at
sparkover between parallel discs for all tests was 3.15 X 1010 fl-cm.
The standard deviation for the nineteen measurements was
1.34 x 1010 n-cm.
Birmingham, Alabama
December, 1974
3403-PR
217
-------
300
280
INLET OUTLET
• O 75 MEG WATT
• D 140 MEG WATT
16
24 28
SECONDARY VOLTAGE,kV
Figure 5.
I-V Characteristic Power Sets 1A (Inlet)
and IB (outlet).
218
-------
Table II. In-Situ Resistivity Measurement
Meremac Power Station
Resistivity
Test
1
2
3
4
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
3-3
3-4
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
6-3
7-1
7-2
Load
Date Time MW
10/30 10:00 140
11:00
13:30
15:00
10/31 9:00 140
11:00
13:30
11/1 9:00 - 140
10:00
11/4 13:00 140
15:00
11/5 8:00 75
11:20
13:45
15:45
11/6 8:00 100
11:00
13:30
11/7 8:30 100
13:30
Inlet Temperature
Port No. °F
6 165.6
165.6
162.8
168.3
165.6
165.6
165.6
of Sparkover
n-cm
2.2 x 1010
1.7 x 1010
2.0 x 1010
1.4 x 1010
5.8 x 1010
2.0 x 1010
1.8 x 1010
Probe
Malfunction
173.9
165.9
165.9
160
151.7
172.2
173.9
171.1
172.2
171.1
165.6
3.5 x 1010
4.1 x 1010
1.4 x 10!0
4.2 x 1010
2.5 x 1010
4.3 x 1010
2.7 x 1010
4.1 x 1010
4.1 x 1010
5.4 x 1010
3.9 x 1010
Average 3.15 x 1010 n-cm.
Standard deviation 1.34 x 10
TO
219
-------
APPENDIX I
MEREMAC POWER PLANT
UNCORRECTED I-V CHARACTERISTICS
75 meg watts
Nov. 5, 1974
Panel
mA
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
LA Vest
kV
18.0
22.0
24.0
25.0
26.5
27.5
28.2
29.0
29.9
30.2
30.8
31.8
32.0
32.9
33.0
100 meg
18.0
22.7
24.5
25.7
26.7
27.7
28.5
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.7
32.0
32.5
33.0
33.5
140 meg
17.0
22.0
25.0
26.0
28.0
28.2
29.0
30.0
30.7
31.2
32.0
32.2
33.2
33.7
34.0
East
kV
17.3
21.5
23.0
24.8
26.0
27.0
27.5
28.5
29.0
29.9
30.2
30.9
31.4
31.8
32.3
watts
18.0
22.1
23.9
25.2
26.2
27.1
28.1
29.0
29.3
30.0
30.7
31.2
31.8
32.2
33.0
watts
17.0
21.7
24.0
25.0
26.2
27.2
28.0
29.0
29.7
30.2
31.0
31.2
32.0
32.5
33.2
Panel IB
mA
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
Nov. 6,
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
Nov. 4,
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
West
kV
17.0
20.0
21.6
23.2
24.0
25.0
25.9
26.9
27.2
28.0
28.9
29.2
30.0
30.2
31.0
1974
17.6
20.9
22.4
23.8
24.8
25.5
26.5
27.2
28.0
29.0
29.8
30.1
30.6
31.2
31.8
1974
19.0
21.5
22.5
24.0
25.2
26.2
27.2
28.0
29.0
29.5
30.1
30.5
31.2
31.7
32.2
East
kV
17.2
20.0
21.8
23.2
24.0
25.0
26.0
26.9
27.2
28.0
29.2
29.2
30.0
30.5
31.0
18.2
21.0
22.5
23.7
25.0
26.0
27.0
27.7
28.5
29.0
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.5
32.0
18.7
21.7
23.0
24.2
25.6
26.2
27.4
28.2
29.0
29.5
30.0
30.5
31.0
31.4
32.0
Panel 1C
mA
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
West
kV
19.0
21.5
22.5
24.5
25.2
26.0
27.0
27.5
28.0
29.0
29.5
30.0
30.7
21.0
31.5
19.0
22.2
23.7
25.0
26.0
26.7
27.7
28.2
28.7
29.7
30.2
30.7
31.0
31.4
32.0
19.0
21.7
23.5
24.7
25.5
26.5
28.0
28.2
29.5
30.0
30.2
30.4
31.2
32.0
32.5
East
kV
19.0
22.0
23.7
25.0
26.0
27.1
28.0
29.0
29.5
30.0
31.0
31.5
32.0
32.8
33.0
18.7
22.7
24.7
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.2
29.9
30.2
31.0
31.7
32.2
33.0
33.7
34.0
19.2
23.0
24.5
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0
29.9
30.5
31.2
32.0
32.3
33.0
34.0
34.8
Panel ID
mA
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
West
kV
16.5
19.3
20.3
21.5
22.9
23.4
24.0
25.1
25.5
26.3
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.3
28.7
17.2
19.8
21.1
22.0
23.1
24.0
25.0
25.8
25.3
27.2
27.8
28.1
28.8
29.2
29.8
17.8
20.5
21.5
22.8
23.9
24.5
25.6
26.1
26.9
27.4
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.4
30.0
East
kV
17.0
19.5
20.8
22.0
23.0
24.0
24.8
25.1
26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.4
29.0
17.5
20.2
21.7
23.0
24.0
24.7
25.5
26.2
27.0
27.7
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.5
30.9
18.0
21.2
22.0
23.0
24.2
25.0
26.0
26.5
27.2
28.0
28.5
29.0
29.2
29.7
30.2
220
-------
E3-b SORI-EAS-75-062
PRECIPITATOR OPERATION AS PART OF MIDWEST
REFUSE FIRING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
COAL FIRED TESTS
Joseph D. McCain
Wallace B. Smith
February 10, 1975
FINAL REPORT
TO
Midwest Research Institute
425 - Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
221
-------
INTRODUCTION
Optical and Diffusional Data
Southern Research Institute personnel assisted in a test
program with the Midwest Research Institute and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the electrostatic
precipitator performance of the Unit I precipitator at the
Union Electric Meremac Power Station using Orient 6 coal. The
test was performed to provide baseline conditions at three
power loads (75f 100, and 140 megawatts) for a later test where
refuse will be burned in conjunction with fossil fuels. SRI
made measurements of the particle size distributions, partic-
ulate resistivity, and the electrical conditions in the pre-
cipitator during this test program. The results of the
measurements of resistivity, electrical conditions, and size
distributions on a mass basis obtained with cascade impactors
were provided in a previous report. This final report provides
inlet and outlet size distributions measured with optical single
particle counters and condensation nuclei counters using
diffusional techniques, together with the fractional efficiencies
derived from these data.
DISCUSSION
This report includes the results of measurements made with
condensation nuclei (CN) counters and diffusion batteries to
obtain particle size distribution information on a concentration
by number basis over the size interval of 0.01 ym to 0.2 ym and
measurements with an optical particle counter to obtain similar
data over the size range from 0.3 urn to 1.5 ym. Both the CN
counters and optical particle counters are commercial instruments
designed for particulate concentrations about equal to those
normally found in ambient air. For testing flue gas aerosols,
extensive dilution is required. Figure 1 shows the experimental
setup used to obtain the optical and diffusional data. A pre-
collector cyclone is used on the sampling probe to remove large
particulate which might clog the sample metering orifice. This
cyclone removes most of the particulate above 2-3 ym in diameter,
so that the upper limit for accurate sizing is about 1.5 ym diameter
when this setup is used. Because of the complexity of the system,
and a lack of duplicate setups that would permit simultaneous
222
-------
Flowmeters
Cyclone Pump
Process
Exhaust
Line
Neutral!zer
Diffusion
Battery
CN Counters
Flowmeter
Particulate
Sample Line
Aerosol
Photometer
Diffusional Dryer
(Optional)
Dilution
Device
Cyclone
(Optional)
Neutralizer Pressure
Manometer
Manometer
Balancing
Line
Recirculated
Clean Dilution
Air
Filter
Pump
Bleed
Figure 1. Optical and Diffusional Sizing System
223
-------
inlet and outlet sampling, the measurements were made at
single points at the inlet and outlet of the precipitator
with inlet and outlet data being obtained on different days.
Fractional efficiencies derived from the data thus obtained
are subject to errors resulting from the single point
sampling and from any temporal variability of the influent
particulate concentration and size distribution.
Outlet data were obtained at a unit load of 140 MW on
October 31, November 1, and November 4; at a load of 100 MW
on November 6; and at a load of 77 MW on November 5. Inlet
data were obtained on November 7 at unit loads of 140 MW and
100 MW. No inlet measurements were made at a load of 77 MW.
Fractional efficiencies for the 77 MW unit load were obtained
by using the 100 MW inlet values.
An interference similar to the sulfate deposition problem
discussed in the report of the impactor tests results also
occurred in this series of tests. The diluter is operated
at, or slightly above ambient temperature and the hot flue gas
is diluted with relatively cool, clean air. It was found that
for high sample flow rates (low dilution ratios), a condensation
phenomena frequently occurred, creating a high concentration of
submicron particles. We interpret this as evidence that the
temperature and dilution ratio must be maintained above some
minimum values corresponding to the dew point for condensation
of SO3. The upper limit for temperature is that which corresponds
to the maximum permissible temperature for samples entering
the CN and optical counters (^ 48.9°C). Thus, the only practical
way to avoid condensation is to•use 'relatively high dilution
factors. This, in turn, means that the counters must be operated
on the high sensitivity ranges and are subject to larger
uncertainties than normally occur when this system is used.
The size calibrations of the optical counter are based
on polystyrene latex (PSL) particles (transparent, non-absorbing
particles) having a refractive index of 1.6. If the particles
being sampled are absorbing or have refractive indices different
from that of the PSL calibration particles, the true sizes will
differ from the indicated values. Estimates of the Stokes
diameters corresponding to the indicated equivalent PSL
diameters of the aerosol particles sampled were obtained by
turning a diffusion battery on its side so that the narrow
channels were horizontal, and using it as a dynamic sedimentation
chamber. In this case, the trajectory of a particle is similar
to that shown in Figure 2, where
224
-------
DIFFUSION BATTERY
SLIT
Figure 2. Method of measuring particle size by sedimentation
225
-------
Q = aerosol flow rate (cm3/sec),
yo = height of particle entering the channel (cm),
h = height of slit (0.1 cm),
1 = horizontal displacement of particle before
settling to bottom of channel (cm), and
y /h = the collection efficiency of the battery for a
given size particle if 1=L, the length of the
diffusion battery.
In making this comparison, the optical counter is only
used to make relative concentration measurements, and the
Stokes diameters are independent of the index of refraction.
For some sources, the PSL and Stokes diameters are very nearly
the same, depending upon the particle index of refraction and
mass density. Table I includes a comparison of the PSL and
Stokes diameters for the Meremac tests, and Figure 3 shows
both data sets plotted on the cumulative size distribution.
The Stokes diameters are considered to be more accurate in
this case, and hence, were used in the calculations of the
precipitator fractional efficiency.
Table I gives measured values of particle concentrations in
numbers of particles per cubic centimeter (wet, 22.2°C) in the flue
gases under the various test conditions. The values given are
the total concentrations by number of all particles having
diameters equal to or larger than the indicated values, but smaller
than about 1.5 ym. As previously stated, particles larger
than 1.5 ym are removed from the sample gas stream by a
cyclone precollector in order to reduce probe plugging problems.
The size distributions are presented graphically in
Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The cumulative size distributions
show both PSL and sedimentation diameters for the optical data.
Figures 7 and 87 the differential, or dN/d log D, size
distributions are derived from the cumulative plots using only
the diffusional and sedimentation data. Notice that the
actual data points on the cumulative plots do not overlap
between the optical and diffusional techniques, but a smooth
curve is used to join the data and thus extrapolate over the
region from about 0.2 ym diameter to 0.7 ym diameter. The
dN/d log D plots show increasing particulate concentrations
corresponding to increased boiler loads, except in the size
range from about 0.1 ym to 1 ym, where an opposite trend was
observed. This is consistent with the impactor results previously
reported. Although this effect could be related to condensation
of some type, or in the case of impactors, adsorption of vapors
by the glass fiber substrates, No definite causes for this
226
-------
TABLE I
CONCENTRATIONS BY NUMBER OF PARTICLES HAVING DIAMETERS EQUAL TO OR LARGER
THAN INDICATED VALUES
Optical and Diffusional Data
Inlet
Unit Load:
Particle Dia. , ym
Method .008 14
NJ .014 10
NJ
^ Diff.: .064 6
.103 2
.172 7
PSL Dia. Stoke 's Dia.
!.30 .65 1
.50 .85 4
.70 1.03 4
1.3
140
.4
.8
.64
.93
.8
.52
.43
MW
x 106
x 106
x 106
x 106
x 10 5
x 10"
x 10 3
.28 x 102
.52
x 102
10
8
5
2
7
3
9
1
6
100
.1
.48
.17
.53
.6
.17
.9
.47
.2
MW
x 106
x 10e
x 10s
x 106
x 10 5
x 10"
x 103
x 10 3
x 102
Outlet
, 140
1.7 x 106 7
1.56 x 106 6.4
1.00 x 106 4.2
5.8 x 105 2.9
3.3 x 105 1.5
100
x 105
x 105
x 10s
x 105
x 105
1.42 x 103 2.14 x 103
3.62 x 102 4.6
2 x 101 1.8
-
x 102
x 10 '
-
77
3.7 x 105
3.1 x 105
2.0 x 10s
1.4 x 10s
3 x 10"
3.42 x 103
6.46 x 102
3.0 x 101
-
Concentrations in number of particles per SCC
-------
•o7f=-!
IO
I
O
c
CO
O
UJ
o
o
<
X
tr
UJ
UJ
cr
o
to
UJ
_i
o
IE
I06
Hi >°3
UJ
p
_l
I 10'
o
10'
0.01
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETERS
DIFFUSIONAL
INLET
O» 40 mw DATA
A A lOOmw DATA
OPTICAL-
I
I
O.I
1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER,A*m
Figure 3. Inlet size distributions (optical and diffusional)
228
-------
rO
UJ
CO
O
UJ
O
O
cr
Ld
UJ
cr
o
CO
LJ
o
i-
oc
cr
ai
m
LU
O
I02
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETERS
PSL
DIAMETERS
77 MEGAWATT TESTS
10'
0.01
O.I
PARTICLE DIAMETER
1.0
Figure 4. Outlet size distribution (optical and diffusional)
at 77 MW boiler load.
229
-------
I06
o
»-
o:
<
Q.
I05
rO
I
6
uT
N
O
UJ
o
o
z
z
X
(r in4
ui "J
ID
§
13
O
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETERS
PSL
DIAMETERS
100 MEGAWATT TESTS
0.01
O.I
PARTICLE DIAMETER,/*m
1.0
Figure 5. Outlet size distribution (optical and diffusional)
at 100 MW boiler load
230
-------
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETERS
140 MEGAWATT TESTS
PARTICLE DIAMETER , fim
Figure 6.
Outlet size distributions (optical and diffusional)
at 140 MW boiler load
231
-------
10
8
10'
10
E
o
N.
6
~!06
105
10'
0.01
1
O.I
PARTICLE SIZE ,
140 mw
1.0
Figure 7. Inlet particle distribution for 100 and 140 MW tests
232
-------
10'
I06
10
o
x.
O.OI
I I I I I I I
O 140 mw TEST
0 100 mw TEST
a 77 mw TEST
I I I I I I I I
O.I
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
IIIITTT
Figure 8. Outlet particle size distributions
1.0
233
-------
phenomenon can be stated at this time; agreement between the
two techniques would seem to indicate that the size distribu-
tions in this region are representative of the flue gas
aerosol. Figure 9 shows the fractional efficiencies calculated
from the diffusional and optical data for each condition
of unit load. The size range from 0.2-0.7 ym is labeled as
"extrapolated data" and may be less accurate than the data
above and below these sizes. These data are included for
completeness and for comparison with tests to be performed
later. The minimum in collection efficiency which appears
at about 0.4 ym is consistent with results we have obtained
on other electrostatic precipitators and with ESP theory.
Qualitative Summary of Particle Sizing
Size distribution data and fractional efficiency data
have been presented over the size range from 0.01 to 10 ym
diameter. The measurements were all affected and made more
difficult by SOX interferences. In addition, the correlation
between the sizes obtained with a single particle counter
(Royco 225) based on PSL calibrations did not agree with
sedimentation (or Stokes) diameters, which depend on particle
density and shape. The data are consistent; however, and the
three techniques used show the same trends in precipitator
performance with boiler operation condition.
(1) Outlet particulate concentrations increase with
boiler load, except for the size range from
0.1-1 ym where the concentration remains about the
same, or shows a reverse trend. The total grain
loading agrees well with mass train data obtained by
MRI.
(2) Inlet particulate concentrations remained about the
same for all tests except for the .1 to 1 ym size
range in which higher concentrations occurred as the
unit load was reduced.
(3) Fractional efficiency curves for the three conditions
all are of a shape typical of ESP performance. The
curves join reasonably well where data taken by
different techniques overlap or approach one another.
Birmingham, Alabama
February, 1975
3403-Final Report
234
-------
S3
U)
Ln
V
_O
°1
O
(T
UJ
2
UJ
Q.
O.I
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
1 1
—
_
1 ? «
° 0
_
—
— '
_
1 1 1 1 1 1
A ^
D
° O
1
i i \
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
—
_
A
A" " * . A .-
n A
01^1
u
0
DIFFUSIONAL AND OPTICAL
O 140 mw
O 100 mw
— A 77 mw
_ IMPACTORS
• 140 mw
~ • 100 mw
_ A 77 mw
1 1
0.01
AAS|Q. !"•"-.
D O
D
0
^J
.
• • A • —
^A ^ *
^ •
—
_
EXTRAPOLATED DATA
1 1 1 1 1 (
i
1 1 1
O.I
—
^_
—
1
Ml! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3».y
99.9
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
i
1.0 10.0
y
0
y
UJ
o
U-
u_
UJ
0
H-
O
UJ
_J
o
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure 9. Fractional efficiency of ESP at three boiler loads. Data enclosed in
rectangle is considered less accurate than remainder.
-------
APPENDIX F
RESULTS AND DATA. FOR COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS
236
-------
During the period of March 3 to 8, 1974, three air emission tests were con-
ducted by MRI. These tests were carried out using a Modified Method 5 samp-
ling train, which basically consisted of several additional impingers for
collection of the potentially hazardous pollutants. MRI also conducted
particle size measurements using cascade impactors and substrates were re-
tained for hazardous pollutant analyses.
Results that were obtained are presented in the order listed below.
F. Coal-Only Hazardous Emission Tests
(three tests, March 3 to 8, 1974)
Fl. Air Emission Test Data
Table Fl-a. Log of test activity
Table Fl-b. Mass emissions
Figure Fl-a. ESP outlet loadings
Figure Fl-b. ESP-efficiency
Table Fl-c. Gas composition data
F2. SSMS Analysis of Input/Output Samples
Table F2-a. SSMS analysis data for coal samples
Table F2-b. SSMS analysis data for bottom ash samples
Table F2-c. SSMS analysis data for fly ash samples
F3. Tabulation of Analysis Results on Input/Output Samples (by Ralston-
Purina)
F4. Tabulation of Hazardous Pollutant Analysis Results (by MRI)
Table F4-a. Analysis of input/output samples
Table F4-b. Analysis of filter catches and impingers, etc.
Table F4-c. Analysis of impactor substrates
F5. Particle Size Data and ESP Characteristics (by MRI)
Table F5-a. Inlet size data (Brink)
Table F5-b. Outlet size data (Andersen)
Table F5-c. ESP readings
237
-------
Table Fl-a. LOG OF AIR EMISSION TEST ACTIVITY AT POWER
PLANT DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 4-8, 1975
(Coal-Only Hazardous Tests)
Date
3/4/75
3/5/75
3/6/75
3/7/75
3/8/75
Test activity
Run No. 1 (dry run)
Run No. 2 (140 Mw)
Boiler taken down to repair tube leaks
Run No. 3 (110 Mw) - power load re-
stricted because one exhauster was
out for repair
Run No. 4 (110 Mw)
238
-------
Table Fl-b. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSION TEST AT POWER PLANT
VO
ESP Inlet ESP Outlet
Test Boiler load - MW Particulate concentration Gas flow Particulate concentration
no.£/ Date nominal (actual) (g/dncm) (dncm/min) ' (mg/dncm)
2 3/5/75 140 (140) 2.798^ 10,386 233 ,
275 252~
3 3/7/75 110 (110) 5.516 8,886 98.2 /
218
4 3/8/75 110 (111) 4.942 . 8,716 82.4 /
110.0 *~
Gas flow
(dncm/min)
4,670
4,160
3,962
2,972
3,849
2,915
Precipitator
efficiency (%)
94 . sk/
97.3
98.1
a/ Test No. 1 was a dry run.
b/ Inlet grain loading for Test No. 2 is low, probably due to problems with sampling train that occurred during this test. Therefore,
ESP efficiency has been calculated based on assumed inlet grain loading of 4.58 g/dncm (2.00 gr/dscf).
c/ Weighted average based on gas flow.
-------
NS
Z
O
J= 0.3
z
uu
U
§70.2
U o
3.
,20.1
0 §
60
Curve A - Previous MRI Coal-Only Tests (December 1973)
Curve B - Previous UE Coal-Only Tests (October-November 1973)
O - Results of 7 MRI Tests in Oct-Nov 1974
A - Results of 3 MRI Tests in March 1975
80
100
BOILER LOAD, Megawatts
120
140
0.15
0.10 .»
O
Z
a
0.05
g
z
2
O
Figure Fl-a. Mean particle emission data at ESP outlet
-------
NJ
100 r
LU
U
z
LU
u 95
LU
OS
o
u
LU
90
70
Curve A - Previous MRI Coal-On I/Tests (December 1973)
Curve B - Previous UE Coal-Only Tests (October-November 1973)
O - Results of 7 MRI Tests in Oct-Nov 1974 J/
A - Results of 3 MRI Tests in March 1975
80
90
100
no
120
130
140
GROSS GENERATION, Megawatts
Calculated using average value for inlet of 4.58 grams/dncm (2.00 grains/dscf).
150
Figure FL-b. Variation of ESP efficiency with changes in boiler load
-------
Table Fl-c. SUMMARY OF STACK GAS COMPOSITION DATA
N3
•e-
Moisture Orsat analysis (N? by
Test Percent Boiler load - MW Gas flow
Date
3/5/75
3/7/75
3/8/75
no. refuse nominal (actual) m3/min
2-1 0-Coal only 140 (140) 16,754
2-OE 6,849
2-OW 6,368
3-1 0-Coal only 110 (110) 14,093
3-OE 6,169
3-OW 4,613
4-1 0-Cofll only 110 (111) 13,980
4-OE 6,226
4-OW 4,585
dncm/min
10,
4,
4,
8,
3,
2,
8,
3,
2,
Plant instrument EPA instrument
Test
No.
3/5/75 2-1
2-OE
2-OW
3/7/75 3-1
3-OE
3-OW
3/8/75 4-1
4-OE
4-OW
02 02 CO C02 S02
(%) (%) (ppm) (%) (ppm)
4.3
386
670
160
886
962
972
716
849
915
van
IIC
(ppm)
(7. by
volume)
7.4
6.8
7.9
7.4
7.3
7.9
7.0
8.1
8.3
Transmis-
someter (7.)
CO
(Z)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Method
S02
(ppm)
_
C02
02
difference)
(%) (7.)
13
13
13
12
12
12
il
12
.3
.3
.7
.5
.9
.9
.3
.4
12.8
6
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
7.
6.
6.
6
5
1
6
1
1
8
6
1
Method 7
]
*>x
N2
(7.)
81.1
81.2
81.2
80.9
81.0
81.0
80.9
81.0
81.1
EPA Method
"Sv
(ppm) (pg/m3)
618, 688
7.8 7 11.2 (off)
4.2
< 1
41
-
-
893, 713
7.6 8 12.1 (off)
4.6
< 1
(off)
-
-
616, 596
8.1 6 12.1 (off)
< \
(off)
-
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
_
196
282
-
143
73
-
147
53
40.8
16.2
8.2
Method 5
Clv
(mg/m3)
216
152
388
251
479
461
399
378
NA
-------
Table F2-a. SSMS TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR COAL SAMPLES
(CONCENTRATION IN PPM BY WEIGHT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
E lament
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutetium
Ytterbium
Thulium
Erbium
Holmium
Dysprosium
Terbium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Coal, run
No. 2
1.4
2.4
0.08
2.2
< 0.77
-
-
-
_
-
Internal
Standard
0.03
0.88
< 0.99
< 0.11
0.44
0.32
< 0.84
0.06
1.6
-
2.2
0.28
2.0
23
5.8
44
22
46
0.06
0.22
0.34
0.02
0.28
Internal
Standard
Coal, run
No. 3
0.77
4.0
0.02
1.1
< 0.91
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
Standard
0.05
0.22
1.2
< 0.13
,0.46
0.16
1.2
0.08
2.5
0.12
2.6
0.66
1.4
12
8.6
22
21
81*
0.05
0.26
< 0.37
0.11
0.33
Internal
Standard
Coal, run
No. 4
2.8
3.2
0.02
3.6
< 1.5
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
Standard
0.06
0.65
< 2.0
< 0.21
0.99
0.27
2.1
0.15
3.1
0.07
4.4
< 0.44
0.84
19
9.6
37
23
77
0.12
0.20
< 0.61
0.09
0.24
Internal
Standard
243
-------
Table F2-a. (Continued)
Element
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
Se lenium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Ch lorine
Sulphur
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluroine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Coal, run
No. 2
0.14
0.07
-
-
-
1.4
1.9
48
5.9
51
44
1.6
0.81
1.5
0.91
0.91
31
36
7.0
3.0
«* 4,100
4.0
34
19
600
3.0
> 0.5%
450
930
~ 1,100
30
> 0.5%
810
280
820
45
NR
NR
Coal, run
No. 3
0.08
< 0.02
_
_
_
3.0
2.5
24
15
26
34
1.2
1.2
2.5
1.8
1.3
20
9.1
8.3
3.5
> 0.5%
8.3
26
15
470
1.8
» 4,500
800
390
*» 2,800
26
> 1%
950
220
730
62
NR
NR
Coal, run
No. 4
0.14
< 0.04
—
•
-.
2.7
4.2
20
17*
42
57
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.8
1.8
41
15
14
5.1
> 0.5%
17*
40
23
860
3.0
*» 3,200
« 3,300
430
« 2,200
22
> 1%
« 1,600
730
» 3,500
100
NR
NR
244
-------
Table F2-a. (Concluded)
Coal, run Coal, run Coal, run
Element No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
Carbon NR NR NR
Boron 65 43 72
Beryllium 0.64 0.76 1.3
Lithium 0.17 0.46 1.5
NOTES: All elements not reported < 0.1 ppm weight
NR - Not Reported
* - Non uniformly distributed
245
-------
Table F2-b. SSMS TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR BOTTOM ASH SAMPLES
(CONCENTRATION IN PPM BY WEIGHT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
(Coal-Only Hazardous)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutetium
Ytterbium
Thulium
E rbium
Holmium
Dysprosium
Terbium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Bottom ash, run
No. 2-'
25
24
0.47
30
0.72
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
4.6
0.77
7.9
1.0
7.0
0.30
1.2
0.93
18
3.2
3.2
5.0
12
68
27
150
130
- 1,500
15
1.2
-
1.5
9.9
Internal
standard
0.68
0.40
Element
Palladium
Rhod ium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
Selenium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Chlorine
Sulphur
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
Bottom ash, run
No. 2-'
.
-
-
18
32
230
110
- 1,400
110
3.4
0.94
13
1.4
13
300
150
100
41
> 17.
360
130
100
> 0.57,
27
> 17=
> 17o
130
- 4,800
°- 4,400
> 17o
> 1%
> 1%
- 1,500
110
NR
NR
NR
100
2.4
430
a/ NR = Not reported.
All elements not reported < 0.1 ppm weight.
Only one sample was analyzed (Run No. 2).
246
-------
Table F2-c. SSMS TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR FLY ASH SAMPLES
(CONCENTRATION IN PPM BY WEIGHT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
E lement
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutetium
Ytterbium
Thulium
Erbium
Holmium
Dysprosium
Terbium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Fly ash, run
No. 2
6.7
10
8.8
150
2.4
Fly ash, run
No. 3
Fly ash, run
No. 4
12
19
8.2
480
4.4
5.7
11
5.2
240
4.0
Internal
Standard
4.4
3.6
1.6
0.43
3.7
0.17
0.38
0.35
7.1
0.63
1.2
2.8
2.5
17
12
430
32
> 1%
2.7
2.8
0.11
6.3
24
Interna 1
Standard
Internal
Standard
8.8
1.4
3.1
0.85
8.1
0.33
0.75
0.77
13
1.2
2.2
2.6
2.3
37
22
400
42
> 0.5%
4.4
3.3
0.10
13
10
Internal
Standard
Internal
Standard
3.7
1.3
2.0
0.36
3.1
0.30
0.69
0.7
12
0.40
1.6
2.4
4.2
67
20
370
77
510
6.2
0.70
0.10
11
9.3
Internal
Standard
247
-------
Table F2-c. (Continued)
Element
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirc onium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
Selenium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Chlorine
Sulphur
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Fly ash, run
No. 2
2.9
7.6
-
-
_
13
13
37
71
830
170
18
11
160
33
43
> 170
150
330
59
> 1%
= 1,300
130
540
> 0.5%
20
> 17.
> 17o
520
> 0.57o
^ 2,800
> 17.
a: 3,900
> 17c
> U
s= 2,000
NR
NR
Fly ash, run
No. 3
3.5
3.3
-
_
••
12
18
62
180
~ 1,500
440
17
10
250
66
40
> 17,
300
300
92
> 170
310
340
« 1,400
> 17o
44
> 17,
> 17o
130
> 17o
~ 2,600
> 17o
> 0.57.
> 1%
> 17»
920
NR
NR
Fly ash, run
No. 4
1.5
0.64
_
M
_
20
32
85
300
^ 1,200
400
7.7
7.0
130
49
36
700
270
280
50
> 170
280
150
== 1,300
> 1%
40
> 17,
> 17,
120
« 2,400
« 3,600
> 17o
> 0.57=
> 17o
> 1%
420
NR
NR
248
-------
Table F2-c. (Concluded)
Element
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
Fly ash, run
No. 2
NR
> 1,000
30
340
Fly ash, run
No. 3
NR
> 1,000
28
470
Fly ash, run
No. 4
NR
800
12
290
NOTES: All elements not reported < 0.1 ppm weight
NR - Not reported
249
-------
Table F3-a. COAL ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS±'
Ul
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample Identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuge
Heating value (kJ/kg)
Moisture (vt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (vt %)£/
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (vt %)£/
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (R20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
LI
Ag (ppm)
Cl
2A
140
0
29,021
12.25
6.97
64.90
5.07
1.58
1.10
8.13
34.90
45.88
1.54
0.001
1.004
0.025
0.18
0.12
0.003
0.0008
0.0008
< 5
0.385
3/5
2B
140
0
29,656
12.25
6.75
65.95
5.35
1.55
1.05
7.10
34.96
46.04
1.63
0.001
0.904
0.0009
0.17
0.11
0.002
0.0009
0.0009
< 5
NR
2C
140
0
29,681
12.31
7.60
64.18
5.10
1.56
1.15
8.10
33.63
46.46
1.57
0.001
1.133
0.002
0.18
0.14
0.005
0.002
0.002
< 5
NR
3A
110
0
27,036
13.91
6.75
64.28
5.28
1.54
1.32
6.92
33.09
46.25
1.36
0.001
1.727
0.003
0.15
0.12
0.002
0.0008
0.007
< 5
0.489
3/7
3B
110
0
26,761
13.23
6.83
63.85
5.36
1.55
1.45
7.73
33.19
46.75
1.35
0.001
1.995
0.002
0.15
0.13
0.009
0.0008
0.0007
< 5
NR
3C
110
0
27,192
13.66
6.62
62.95
5.59
1.53
1.20
8.45
34.80
44.92
1.44
0.001
1.590
0.0008
0.15
0.09
0.002
0.0008
0.008
< 5
NR
4A
110
0
27,122
12.82
7.49
68.33
5.63
1.54
1.33
2.84
34.08
45.61
1.39
0.001
1.034
0.002
0.17
0.10
0.002
0.002
0.0009
< 5
0.367
3/8
4B
110
0
27,000
13.35
6.73
63.65
5.01
1.55
1.41
8.30
33.72
46.20
1.45
0.001
1.071
0.002
0.15
0.10
0.004
0.0008
0.0007
< 5
NR
4C
110
0
26 , 744
13.23
1
6.85
63.58
5.80
1.52
1.49
7.53
33.91
46.01
1.52
0.001
1.199
0.002
0.15
0.10
0.003
0.0008
0.0007
< 5
NR
a/
All analyses data reported on nolature-as-recelved basis.
NR - Not run.
-------
Table F3-b. SLUICE SOLIDS ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS='
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample identification
Percent refuse
Boiler load (MW)
Moisture (7.)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)5/
Ash
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe20 )
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
Li
S
Ag (ppm)
Bacterial analysis
Total plate count/g
Fecal coliform (MPN)/g
Salmonella
Particle size
Percent > 6.35 cm
Percent < 6.35 cm
Percent < 3.81 cm
Percent < 1.91 cm
Percent < 0.95 cm
Percent < '0.47 cm
Percent < 0.24 cm
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation
3/4
1A
0
140
36.63
1,523
55.45
12.03
0.01
19.02
0.005
1.05
0.40
0.02
0.02
0.006
0.72
< 5"
11,000
< 3
Neg.
0
100.00
100.00
100.00
72.60
44.70
19.20
5.33
2.11
IB
0
140
45.46
3,049
43.02
7.14
0.01
12.48
0.007
0.82
0.45
0.02
0.02
0.006
0.32
< 5
12,000
< 3
Neg.
0
100.00
100.00
98.60
89.60
78.00
65.60
2.79
2.11
3/5
2A
0
140
32.40
2,053
57.69
9.69
0.02
18.29
0.005
1.13
0.47
0.02
0.03
0.005
0.18
< 5
13,000
< 3
Neg.
0
100.00
100.00
100.00
94.40
83.60
71.90
2.29
1.86
2B
0
140
41.00
3,945
45.34
8.43
0.02
15.46
0.01
0.78
0.70
0.02
0.02
0.005
1.56
< 5
31,000
< 3
Neg.
0
' 100.00
100.00
79.10
58.20
36.40
16.70
7.11
2.60
3/7
3A
0
110
60.50
6,176
20.26
4.68
0.01
5.69
0.003
0.40
0.16
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.23
< 5
12,000
< 3
Neg.
0
100.00
100.00
100.00
97.30
93.8
90.30
2.03
1.54
3B
0
110
53.60
5,060
33.51
5.93
0.02
9.38
0.003
0.54
0.30
0.02
0.01
0.003
1.04
< 5
5,900
< 3
Neg.
0
100.00
100.00
100.00
97.50
90.40
83.0
2.03
1.63
3/8
4A
0
110
40.60
3,011
49.16
9.78
0.01
17.21
0.004
0.86
0.36
0.02
0.02
0.50
0.30
< 5
8,000
< 3
Neg.
0
100.00 '
100.00
97.70
95.40
84.60
67.3
2.54
1.91
. 4B
0
110
59.20
3,444
27.28
5.89
0.01
8.24
0.002
0.50
0.26
0.01
0.02
0.002
0.37
< 5
7,900
< 3
Neg.
0
100.00
100.00
100.00
98.40
92.40
84.1
2.03
1.51
a/ All analysis data reported on moisture-as-received data.
251
-------
Table F3-c. FLY ASH ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS2
a/
Ul
N3
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample identification^/
Percent refuse
Boiler load (Mw)
Moisture (%)
Heating value (kJ/kg)
Chemical analysis (wt. %)
Ash
Al (A120)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
Li
S
Ag (ppm)
Bacterial analysis
Total plate count/g
Fecal coliform (MPN)/g
Salmonella
2A
0
140
< 0.10
900.2
96.7
21.3
0.0124
18.7
0.0260
2.30
1.57
0.0489
0.0191
0.0133
0.380
< 5
< 10
< 3
Neg.
3/5
2B
0
140
< 0.10
2,338
90.7
22.5
0.0156
27.4
0.0376
2.49
1.92
0.0640
0.0202
0.0145
0.690
< 5
10
< 3
Neg.
3A
0
110
< 0.10
3,256
90.5
21.3
0.0112
27.8
0.0289
2.40
1.77
0.0485
0.0180
0.0124
0.450
< 5
< 10
< 3
Neg.
3/7
3B
0
110
< 0.10
7,179
77.6
22.9
0.0144
27.2
0.0347
2.52
1.66
0.0779
0.0191
0.0133
0.700
< 5
< 10
< 3
Neg.
4A
0
110
< 0.10
2,480
94.6
24.8
0.0115
18.2
0.0231
2.16
1.51
0.0427
0.0175
0.0130
0.470
< 5
< 10
< 3
Neg.
3/8
4B
0
110
< 0.10
4,968
81.7
23.0
0.0159
17.7
0.0347
2.42
1.93
0.0766
0.0191
0.0139
0.720
< 5
< 10
< 3
Neg.
a/ All analysis data reported on moisture-as-received basis.
b/ "A" samples were from ESP hoppers nearest inlet,
"B" samples were from ESP hoppers nearest outlet.
-------
Table F3-d. RIVER WATER AND SLUICE WATER ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1974 3/4 3/5 3£7 3/8
Test No. 1A IB 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B
Sample identification^/ RW SW RW SW RW SW RWSWRWSWRWSWRWSWRWSW
Percent refuse 000 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0
Boiler load (Mw) 112 112 140 140 140 140 140 140 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 UO
Total suspended solids (ppm) 56.0 392.0 64.0 312.0 92.0 592.0 160.0 412.0 164.0 588.0 132.0 492.0 96.0 340.0 160.0 344.0
Total dissolved solids (ppm) 340.0 368.0 356.0 380.0 332.0 384.0 356.0 380.0 480.0 432.0 464.0 408.0 540.0 464.0 440.0 484.0
Biochemical oxygen demands (ppm) 1.80 3.87 1.80 8.55 1.75 3.15 2.05 5.40 3.00 2.61 2.20 2.00 2.60 5.13 1.30 3.33
.j Chemical oxygen demand (ppm) 19.0 110.0 14.7 105.0 32.5 152.0 32.5 119.0 27.6 270.0 35.0 156.0 30.2 101.0 23.6 99.70
Ul
W pH 7.10 8.50 7.10 8.90 7.40 8.70 7.40 8.80 6.80 8.60 6.80 8.60 6.80 8.60 6.80 8.60
Total alkalinity (ppm) 90.0 104.0 84.0 96.0 92.0 108.0 86.0 98.0 92.0 82.0 88.0 82.0 90.0 92.0 92.0 90.0
Oil and grease (ppm) 46.0 <5.0 63.0 <5.0 67.0 18.0 122.0 67.0 49.0 12.0 21.0 10.0 5.0 < 5.0 5.0 <5.0
Cyanide (ppm) < 0.05 <0.05 < 0.05
-------
Table F4-al. TABULATION OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA
FOR COAL SAMPLES TAKEN DURING COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1975 3/5 3/7 3/8
Test No. 234
Power load (Mw) 140 110 110
Trace pollutant analysis
(ug/g) dry basis
0.63 0.66 1.10
As^/ 0.9 0.6 NA
Ba 74 91 62
Be 0.35 0.30 0.32
Cd 0.45 0.23 0.16
Cr 36 37 26
Cu 63 31 42
Pb 69 62 62
Hg < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3
Se 2.92 3.30 2.83
Ag 0.07 0.09 0.03
Ti 465 607 563
V 29.4 50.2 46.9
Zn 45 74 40
Br 56 82 78
Cl^ 4,451 4,778 5,690
F 147 62 159
a/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low. Probable errors in
analysis. Refer to SSMS data for comparisons.
b_/ By chloridimeter.
NA = Not analyzed.
254
-------
Table F4-a2. TABULATION OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA FOR
SLUICE SOLIDS SAMPLES TAKEN DURING COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1975 3/5 3/7 3/8
Test No. 234
Power load (Mw) 140 110 110
Trace pollutant analysis
(ug/g) dry basis
0.17 0.19 0.23
0.8 1.0 0.7
Ba 665 507 545
Be 3.7 5.1 3.7
Cd . 1.7 2.3 1.4
Cr 650 650 484
Cu 148 269 148
Pb < 164 < 164 < 164
Hg < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3
Se 2.61 NS 2.64
Ag 3.6 4.5 4.3
Ti 5,220 3,650 6,150
V 724 , 179 101
Zn 111 263 80
Br 22 18 20
479 60 20
120 90 43
a/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low. Probable errors in
analysis. Refer to SSMS data for comparison.
b/ By chloridimeter.
NS = No sample.
255
-------
Table F4-B3. TABUIATION OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA FOR FLY ASH
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS
t-0
Ol
Date, 1975
Teat No.
Power load (Mw)
Trace pollutant analysis
(pg/O dry basls)g7
sbb/
As*'
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Tt
V
Zn
Br
ci£/
F
POM
1 (7,12-Dlmethylbenz[a]anthrncene)
2 (Benzo[a]pyrene)
3 (3-Meth.ylcholanthrene)
4 (Dlbenz[a,h]anthracene)
5 (Benz[c:]phenanthrene)
6 (Dlbenz[£,glcarbazole)
I
0.52
4.6
770
16
2.7
174
86
268
0.2
6.91
NA
7,200
500
331
21
39.3
49
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.2
NA
NA
3/5
2
140
0
0.57
8.3
330
17
3.4
188
166
273
0.6
NS
4.7
4,500
401
500
24
39.6
65
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.2
NA
NA
I
0.23
4.6
540
13
2.6
130
70
178
0.2
NS
4.9
8,100
394
282
27
59.3
55
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.2
NA
NA
3/7
3
110
0
0.30
7.8
240
14
2.8
132
96
201
0.2
8.79
1.3
1,900
251
498
39
119
119
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.2
< 0.2
NA
NA
I
< 0.15
5.3
570
13
2.2
256
83
200
< 0.2
10.6
2.0
8,500
379
328
28
39.9
140
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.2
NA
NA
3/8
4
110
0
0.45
9.0
290
15
3.2
142
402
208
< 0.2
20.7
7.0
2,700
378
510
39
39.8
139
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.2
NA
NA
a/ I * Indicates sample taken from ESP hoppers nearest Inlet.
0 • Indicates sample taken from ESP hoppers nearest outlet.
b/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low. Probable errors in analysis. Refer to SSMS for comparison.
c/ By chloridlmeter.
NS ™ No sample.
NA • Not analyzed.
-------
Table F4-a4. TABUIATION OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA FOR WATER SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING COAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1975
Test No.
Power load (Mw)
Trace pollutant analysis—
frig/ml)
Sbk/
Ask/
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
Cl-/
F
3/5
2
140
RW
< 0.004
< 0.012
1.03
< 0.03
< 0.0005
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 1.3
0.007
< 0.004
< 0.0005
5.1
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.2
16.4
0.20
SW
< 0.004
< 0.021
0.46
< 0.03
< 0.0005
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 1.3
0.005
< 0.004
< 0.0005
1.0
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.3
21.2
0.50
3/7
3
110
RW
< 0.004
< 0.012
0.62
< 0.03
< 0.0005
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 1.3
0.006
< 0.004
< 0.0005
1.0
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.2
18.8
0.21
SW
< 0.004
0.022
0.46
< 0.03
< 0.0005
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 1.3
0.006
< 0.004
< 0.0005
2.8
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.2
23.3
0.36
3/8
4
110
RW
< 0.004
< 0.012
0.70
< 0.03
< 0.0005
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 1.3
0.006
< 0.004
< 0.0005
1.0
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.2
16.9
0.22
SW
< 0.004
< 0.014
0.85
< 0.03
< 0.0005
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 1.3
0.006
< 0.004
< 0.0005
5.3
< 1
< 0.2
< 0.2
20.1
0.24
a/ RW is river water; SW is sluice water.
b/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low.
for comparison.
£/ By chloridimeter.
Probable errors in analysis. Refere to SSMS data
-------
Table F4-bl. PARTICUIATE CATCH ANALYSIS FOR COAL-ONLY
HAZARDOUS TESTS--ESP INLET AND OUTLET SAMPLE TRAINS
Ul
00
Date, 1975
Po we r 1 os d
Test No. and location
Pollutant Qig/g)
Sb*'
As*'
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br-
d /
ci -
F"
POM
1
2
3
4
a/ Results for Sb and As
b/ Filter blank too high
£/ Insufficient sample.
d/ By chloridimeter.
NA = Not analyzed.
21
0.55
8
6,700
4.6
2.4
320
130
168
0.55
NS
19
2,300
320
b/
180
529
1,250
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
3/5
20E
0.34
5
2,900
2.4
17
120
81
259
£/
NS
59
2,700
200
b/
£/
c/
£/
NA£/
c/
c/
""
are suspect, due
low
2.43
250
2,800
4.9
25
1,900
210
279
c/
NS
16
4,200
450
b/
c/
c/
£/
NA£/
c/
NA-7
11
< 0.16
6.9
2,200
4.4
10
170
123
116
0.47
18.1
11
2,800
380
£/
120
217
304
< 0.3
< 0.3
3/7
1 1 A
J_OE
1.65
230
b/
3.0
14
550
320
899
< 14
NS
90
< 800
380
b/
c/
c/
£/
NA-''
c/
30W
1.42
163
b/
3.6
32
401
230
555
1.8
42.1
6.2
< 600
520
b/
c/
c/
£/
NA-/
/
NA
NA-, io.is NA£/ NA£/
NA£/
to analysis
< 0.2
problems
NA
•
NA
41
0.27
6.3
b/
4.2
2
160
111
109
0.82
24
1.1
1,300
370
287
120
265
212
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.2
3/8
40E
0.64
280
1,000
32
60
< 210
347
732
£/
NS
1.2
< 700
1,300
1,800
c/
c/
£/
NA£/
/
NA
NA-/
NA-
40W
2.28
42
742
16
NA
560
68
772
£/
NS
1.6
< 700
1,400
1,400
c/
£/
£/
NA-/
^^^« /
NA —
NA-/
NA-
NS
No sample.
-------
Table F4-b2. TABULATION OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA (BY MRI) FOR
OOAL-ONLY HAZARDOUS TESTS--ESP INLET AND OUTLET SAMPLE TRAINS
Date, 1975
Power load (Mw)
Test No. and location
Pollutant concentration (ug/Nm )-
Sbt'
As~
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg-
Se
Ag
Tl
V
Zn
Br"
Cl"
F"
N03~
OA3*
Voltile organic acid
POM
1 (7, 12-Dime thy lbenz[ a] anthracene)
2 (Benzo[a]pyrene)
3 (3-Methylcholanthrene)
4 (Dibenzfa^hjanthracene)
5 (Benz[c]phenanthrene)
6 (Dibenz£cf£Jcarbazole)
11
1.54 (26.5-27.8)
22.4 (18.2-30.5)
18,800
12.9
6.72
896
364
470
1.54 (40.8)
NS (23.8)
53.2
6,440
896
e/
504 (2.190)
1,480^' (216, 000)a/
3,500 (6,240)
NA
NA
NA (< 1,170)
< 0.84 « 27.7)
< 0.84 (< 11.7)
< 0.28 (1.02-3.94)
< 0.56 (10.7-12.1)
NA
NA
3/5
140
2QE
0.08 (22.7)
1.17 (7.9-8.3)
676
0.56
3.96
28.0
18.9
60.3
'd_/ (NA)
NS (22.2)
13.7
629
46.6
e/
d/ (1,670)
d/ (152,000)a/
d/ (1,430)
NA
NA
NA (< 728)
NA-' (< 13.8)
NA^-' (2.87-7.96)
NA^' (< 1.67)
NA^ (< 5.09)
NA
NA
20W
0.67 (26-26.7)
68.5 (< 7.8)
767
1.34
6.85
521
57.5
76.4
d/ (NA)
NS (83.7)
4.38
1,150
123
e/
d/ (3,790)
d/ (388,000)£'
d/ (4,820)
NA
NA
NA (< 710)
NA-' (25.3-39.5)
NA-' (< 6.31)
NA^' (< 1.82)
NA^ « 5.52)
NA
NA
-------
T.ible F4-b2. (Continued)
N)
ON
O
Date, 1975
Power load (Mw)
Test No. and location
Pollutant concentration (ng/Nm3)5.'
Sb*/
A s-
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg-
Se
Ag
Tl
V
Zn
Br"
r~
N03~
so-
Voltile organic acid
POM
1 (7, 12 -Dime thy IbenzfaJ anthracene)
2 (Benzo[ajpyrene)
3 (3-Methylcholanthrene)
4 (Dibenzra_,h] anthracene)
5 (Benzfcjphenanthrene)
6 (Dlbenz[c_,g]carbazole)
H
< 0.88 (31.4)
38.1 (< 4.8)
12,100
24.3
55.2
938
677
640
2.59 (16.2)
99.9 (16.4-23.4)
60.7
15,500
2,100
e/
662 (9,830)
1,2001' (251,000)&/
1,680 (4,280)
NA
NA
NA (< 440)
< 1.66 (< 13.9)
< 1.66 (< 5.87)
< 0.83 (< 1.69)
< 1.10 (< 5.14)
NA
NA
3/7
110
30 E
0.16 (28.2)
22.6 (< 5.5)
e/
0.29
1.37
54.0
31.4
88.2
< 1.37 (NA)
NS (23.8-35.1)
8.83
< 78.5
37.3
e/
d/ (3,500)
d/ (479,000)a/
d/ (3,780)
NA
NA
NA « 500)
NA-' (< 15.8)
NA-' (< 6.66)
NAj' (< 1.92)
NA- (< 5.83)
NA
NA
30W
0.31 (38.9)
35.5 (< 7.1)
e/
0.79
6.98
87.4
50.1
121
0.39 (NA)
9.18 (41.4-55.9)
1.35
< 131
113
e/
d/ (11,000)
d/ (461,000)E/
d/ (4,030)
NA
NA
NA (< 642)
NA-' (< 20.3)
NA- (< 8.57)
NA^ (< 2.46)
NA- (< 7.49)
NA
NA
-------
Table F4-b2. (Concluded)
NJ
Date, 1975
Power load (Mw)
Test No. and location
Pollutant concentration Oig/Nnr')-
sbi>
As-
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg-'
Se
Ag
Tl
V
Zn
Br"
Cl"
F"
N03'
S0=
Volatile organic acid
POM
1 (7, 12 -Dime thy lbenz[ a] anthracene
2 (Benzo[aj pyrene)
3 (3-Methylcholanthrene)
4 (Dibenzf a_,h] anthracene)
5 (Benz|"c] phenanthrene)
6 (Dibenz[_c,j£] carbazole)
a/ Concentration based on analysis of
collected at itnpingers (i.ig/Nm-').
l>/ Results for Sb and As are suspect.
c/ Vaporous Hg concentration based on
d/ Not enough sample to analyze.
e/ Filter blank too high.
f/ By chloridimeter.
g/ By ion selective electrode.
h/ Particulate concentration from fly
*I
1.33 (28.8)
31.1 (< 6.7)
e/
20.8
9.89
791
549
539
4.05 (8.2
119 (47.0)
5.44
6,430
1,830
1,420
593 (10,800)
1.310I/ (399,000)
1,050 (3,300)
NA
NA
NA (< 499)
< 1.48 (0.94-1.69)
< 1.48 (< 5.99)
< 0.49 (< 1.72)
< 0.99 (< 5.24)
NA
NA
particulate catch. Values
analysis of Statnick train
ash analyses.
3/8
110
40E
0.05 (24.7)
23.1 (< 7.4)
82.4
2.64
4.94
< 17.3
28.6
60.3
d_/ (NA)
NS (30.5)
0.10
< 57.7
107
148
d/ (3,490)
d/ (378,000)
d/ (1,880)
NA
NA
NA (< 498)
NA (9.96-24.9)
NA (< 6.64)
NA (< 1.91)
NA (< 5.81)
NA
NA
in parenthesis are vaporous
data.
40W
0.25 (31.0)
4.62 (< 9.1)
81.6
1 76
NA
61.6
7.48
84.9
d/ (NA)
NS (63.3)
0.18
< 77.0
154
154
d/ (11,100)
d/ (NA)
d/ (4,340)
NA
NA
NA (< 634)
NA (< 20.1)
NA « 8.46)
NA (< 2.43)
NA (
-------
Table F4-cl. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS OF BRINK (INLET) IMPACTOR SUBSTRATES^/ (Coal-Only)
Element
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
£> Copper
N>
Lead
Silver
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
b/
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
Cyclone
680
2.3
0.7
1,600
59
100
0.8
14,000
200
250
Stage 1
730
< 7.6
4.0
220
180
310
2.4
7,500
400
770
Stage 2
< 700
< 14
4.9
230
320
390
4.0
7,900
440
1,000
Ug/g
Stage 3
< 1,700
< 34
7.6
280
510
470
200
8,900
440
1,300
Stage 4
< 3,300
< 66
24
330
930
440
4.9
8,500
610
1,300
Stage 5
< 2,000
< 410
25
1,700
4,400
3,500
25
< 14,000
< 3,000
2,400
Filter
£/
< 380
230
1,900
6,200
4,900
41
< 5,100
< 2,900
£/
a/ Insufficient sample for As, Sb, Hg, and Se analysis.
b/ Coal-only hazardous tests - all impactor test subtrates were composited in attempt to obtain suf-
ficient sample for all analysis.
c/ Filter blank too high.
-------
Table F4-c2. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS OF ANDERSON (OUTLET) IMPACTOR SUBSTRATES^/ (Coal-Only)
UK/S
Element
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
M Copper
Lead
Silver
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Test
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Stage
0
680
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
12,000
£/
8
Stage
1
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
a/
£/
a/
Stage
2
a/
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
a/
£/
a/
Stage
3
a/
£/
£/
£/
£/
£'/
£/
a/
£/
a/
Stage
4
a/
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
£/
a/
£/
a/
Stage
5
a/
£/
sJ
£/
£/
£/
£/
a/
£/
a/
Stage
6
a/
< 50
21
3,300
620
1,500
£/
a/
2,600
a/
Stage
7
a/
< 75
34
3,600
920
2,200
£/
a/
2,100
a/
Stage
8
a/
< 170
61
10,000
1,900
2,900
£/
£/
9,200
a/
Final
filter
a/
< 190
69
3,000
1,100
-
£/
£/
2,600
a/
a/ Filter blank too high or insufficient sample.
b_/ Insufficient sample for As, Sb, Hg, and Se analysis. All impactor test substrates were composited in
attempt to obtain sufficient sample for all analyses.
£/ There was insufficient sample, for several elements, on Stages 1 through 5 because of higher ESP ef-
ficiency during coal-only tests.
-------
10.(
I
u
V
(U
E
1.0
o
Q_
0.1
0.01 0.1
Legend:
— "^~^™"
4-
Run 3-
Run 3-
Run 4-
Run 2-
-AM
-PM
-AM
-AM
10 40 70 95
Weight % Less than Stated Size
99.8 99.99
Figure F5-a. Plot of Brink Inlet Size Results Coal-Only Hazardous Tests
264
-------
Table F5-a. PARTICULATE MASS (GRAMS) COLLECTED IN THE BRINK INLET PARTICLE SIZING IMPACTORS
to
Stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Total
2 -I -AM
0.00463
0.00419
0.00261
0.00090
0.00075
0.00017
0.00052
0.01377
2-I-PM
0.02144
0.00476
0.00298
0.00102
0.00066
0.0
0.00010
0.03096
Cumulative weight
Stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
2-1 -AM
Cum. % BCD
33.62
64.05 2.27
83.01 1.33
89.54 0.91
94.99 0.47
96.22 0.30
100.00
2-I-PM
Cum. % BCD
69.25
84.63 2.27
94.25 1.33
97.55 0.91
99.68 0.47
99.68 0.30
100.00
3 -I -AM
0.02974
0.00561
0.00243
0.00146
0.00081
0.0012
0.00002
0.04019
percent: cyclone,
3-I-AM
3-1 -PM
0.13589
0.01276
0.00564
0.00177
0.00088
0.00032
0.00013
0.15739
all stages
3-I-PM
Cum. % BCD Cum. % BCD
74.00 86
87.96 2.12 94
94.00 1.25 98
97.64 0.85 99
99.65 0.44 99
99.95 0.28 99
100.00 100
.34
.45 1.82
.03 1.06
.15 0.72
.71 0.37
.92 0.23
.00
4-I-AM
0.10878
0.00768
0.00333
0.00109
0.00048
0.00010
0.00003
0.12149
, filter
4-I-AM
Cum. 7o BCD
89.54
95.86 1.78
98.60 1.04
99.50 0.704
99.89 0.36
99.98 0.22
100.00
4-I-PM
0.01139
0.00459
0.00340
0.00262
0.00084
0.00010
0.0
0.02294
4-I-PM
Cum. 70 BCD
49.65
69.66 2.21
84.48 1.30
95.90 0.88
99.56 0.46
100.00 0.29
100.00
BCD = Effective cutoff diameter (micrometers) for particles of density 2.6.
-------
10.0
I i.o
o
5
o.i
o.oi o.i
Legend;
Run2-OE
Run2-OW
Run3-OW
Run3-OE
Run 4-OW
10 40 70 95
Weight % Less than Stated Size
99.8 99.99
Figure F5-b. Plot of Andersen Outlet Size Results Coal-Only Hazardous Tests
266
-------
ro
cr>
vj
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/fl
PUN NUMBER
DATE
.AM,,,-
PLATE
* PAN
,6b99*
162504
.86947
. 86210
.65615
.65647
.63357
.64664
.6408.1
2-OE
030575
PAN
FOR
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
OENS1TV=
IHP.EFF.C=
TARE
PL'VTE
* PAN
.65665
.82360
.86834
.86103
.85509
.8534(1
.02685
.84526
.63932
2.ISOO
.140
PAN
F0»
TAKE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Table F5-bl. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY - RUN 20E
SAMPLING
RME
.46300 CFM
t ILTI-u WT
TOTA'L «T
.OOld-H GM
OM
-WITHOUT FILTER- — WITH FIl_TE« —
TAH?
OF
PLATE
.65685
.82360
.86634
.86103
.85509
.85346
.62865
.84628
.83932
SAMl't. f
WEIGHT
IOM)
.00313
.00144
.00113
.00107
.00106
.00299
.00472
.00336
.00151
WEIOHT
PEHCENT
15.34
7.06
5.54
5.24
5.19
14.65
23.13
16.46
7.40
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
15.34
22.39
27.93
33.17
30.36
53.01
76.14
92.60
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
14. J7
4.52
5.12
4.64
4.00
13.54
21. 3T
15.21
6.64
CUM .
WEIGHT
PERCENT
14.17
20.69
25.60
30.65
35.45
48.98
70.35
B5.56
92.39
J(- T
VEL.
ICM/S)
35.65
66.48
110.92
1S3.35
32D.96
76B.73
1437.47
2874.94
C»RTIC.
OIAH.
(MICRt
6.64
5.51
3.73
2.53
1.62
. "0
.46.
.1?
-------
Table F5-b2. ANDKRSBN ANALYSIS SUMMARY - RUN 2(V
ON
CO
RUN NUMOEH 2-Ot* DENSITY"
DATE OJ0575 IMP.EFF.C"
?.(.00 SAMPlINO
.140 RATE " .44600 CFM
FILTF.H
TOTAL
WT" .0016S OM
WT» .03264 5M
-WITHOUT FILTEH-
5TAOEX
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
T/fl
SAMPLt
PLATE
• PAN
.69317
.64130
.6*322
.66340
.65176
.64961
.85827
.0466.)
.86837
PAN
FOR
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
6.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARt
PLATE
* PAN
.68993
.64074
.63714
.66015
, 64942
.64939
.85188
.84305
.06665
PAN
fun
TAKE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAWt
OF
PLATt
.68993
.64074
.63714
.66015
.64942
.64554
.95186
.R4305
.86685
1AMPI f.
WEIGHT
(CM)
.00324
.00056
.00606
.003*5
.00234
.00403
.00639
.00358
.00152
WEI9HT
PERCENT
10.45
1.81
19.62
10.49
7.55
13.00
20.6?
11.55
4.90
CUM.
WEI04T
PERCENT
10.45
1?.26
31.88
42.37
49.92
62.92
63.54
95.10
100.00
—WITH FUTEM--
VE1GHT
PERCENT
9.93
1.72
1A.63
9.96
T.I7
12.35
19.58
10.97
4.66
CUM.
WE10HT
PERCENT
9.93
ll.t>4
-10. 2t
40. ?3
47.40
5«.74
79.. V
90. ?9
94.94
JET
VEL.
(CM/SI
38.19
71.22
118.82
196.42
349.19
844.95
1539.9?
3IU9.H5
PtSTIC
01AM.
(MICP)
8.54
5.32
3.60
?.44
l.%6
.77
.46
.31
-------
Table F5-b3. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY - RON 30W
RUN NUMBER 3-OW
DATE 030775
DENSITY"
.600 SAMPLING FILtfH WT« ,0012s GM
,140 HATi: « .50?00 tFM TOTAL *T" ,01"OS C-H
-WITHOUT riLTLR- --WITH HLTt<»--
VO
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
i/e
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
bAMPLf
PLATE
• PAN
.62055
.89623
.86864
.90573
.85335
.91466
.89694
.88?71
.BB08(>
PAN
ron
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
lARt
PLATE
* PAN
.61H92
.89623
.88706
.90408
.85182
.91202
.89261
.87950
.87<>63
PAN
TOM
TARE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAKE
OF
PLATE
.61f92
'.09623
.88706
.90408
.8518?
.91202
.89261
.87950
.87963
<;AHP| F
HEIGHT
COM)
.00163
0.00000
.OOlbB
.00165
.00153
.00264
.00433
.00321
.00173
WEIOHT
PERCENT
9.16
0.00
8.88
9.27
8.60
14.83
24.33
18.03
6.91
CUM.
WEIOHT
PERCENT
9.16
9.16
18. OJ
27.30
35.90
50.73
75.06
93.09
100*00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
a. 66
0.00
a. 29
a. 66
a. 03
13.86
22.73
16.85
6.46
CUM.
WEIOHT
PERCENT
e.-;6
fl.56
16.65
25.51
33.54
47.40
70.13
86. V8
•J3.44
JtT
VEL.
(CM/S>
38.65
72.06
120.26
198.79
353.41
855.17
1558.55
3117.10
PiPI 1C
01 AM.
(MICR)
P. 48
5.?1?
3.b8
2.43
1.55
.76
.06
.31
-------
Table F5-b4. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY - RUN 30E
NJ
«^J
O
STAOE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
RUN NUHMER
DATE
SAMPLE
PLATE
« PAN
.*0818
.84493
.03612
.83095
.6522')
.69?29
.89721
.89760
.85690
3-OE
030775
PAN
F (W
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
DENSITY"
1MP.EFF.C-
TARE
PLATE
* PAN
.60788
.04450
.83592
.88021
.65167
.68032
.89283
.83959
.83541
?.f 00
.140
PAN
FOfr
TARE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
SAMPLING FILTffc *T« .001?* OM
RATi " .46600 CFM TOTAL WT=» ,01T»U OM
-WITHOUT FILTER- —WITH FILTER—
TARE
or
PLATE
.60788
.84450
.83592
.88021
.65167
.68032
.99283
.889S9
.69541
IAMPI.F
WF.IGMT
(OM)
.00030
.00043
.00020
.00034
.00062
.00197
.00438
.00301
.00149
HEIGHT
PERCENT
2.3S
3.36
1.57
2.67
4.87
15.46
34.38
23.63
11.70
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
2.15
5.73
7.30
9.97
14.84
30.30
64.68
88.30
100.00
WFIGHT
PERCENT
2.15
3.08
1.43
Z.43
4.43
14.09
31.33
21.03
10.66
tWM.
«EI8MT
PERCENT
2.15
5.22
6.65
9.1)8
13.52
27.61
5H.94
B0.47
91.13
JET
VEL.
JCM/5
35.08
66.91
IIU '.3
104.54
328.07
793. fl5
1446.78
2893.57
PAR71C.
OIAM.
(MICR)
5.49
3.71
2.52
1.61
.79
.48
.32
-------
Table F5-b5. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY - RUN 40E
to
RUN
DATE
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
?/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
NUMBER
SAMPLE
PLATE
* PAN
.64269
.8B900
.66414
.87927
.85576
.88031
.88944
.89»800
.140
PAN
FOP
TAME
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
RAU
.46500 CFM
f
TOTAL
«T"
WT»
.0011T GM
.01870 OH
-WITHOUT F1LTLR- "KITH Ml.TfH--
TANF
OF
PLATE
.64257
.88777
.86323
.87833
.85468
.87786
.88406
.69529
.86136
'".AMPi F
WEIOHT
IOM)
.00032
.00123
.00091
.00094
.OOlOB
.00^45
.00538
.00356
.00174
WEIGHT
PERCENT
1.82
6.98
5.17
5.34
6.13
13*91
30.55
20.22
9.88
CUH.
WEIOHT
PERCF.NT
1.12
8.80
13.97
19.31
?5.4«
39.35
69.90
90.12
100*00
WtlOHT
PERCENT
1.70
6.55
4.85
5.01
5.75
13.05
£6.65
18.96
9,27
CUH.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
1.70
8.25
13.10
18.10
?3.86
36.90
65.55
84.50
93. TT
JIT
VEL.
(CM/5
37.34
69.64
116.19
192.06
341.44
626.21
1505.77
3011.54
(MtCRl
e.63
S.3B
3,64
2.47
1.59
.78
.47
.31
-------
Table F5-B6. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY - RUN 40W
NJ
^
N3
RUN NUHRlfc 4-OW HENS I TV-
DATE 030875 1HP.EFF.C=»
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/«
SAMPLE
PLATE
« PAN
.66363
.91286
.88650
.9019*
.04751
,8»996
.68546
.87036
.B6160
PAW
FOP
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
6.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
PLATE
* PAN
.66348
,91257
.86614
.90144
.84693
.88778
.88045
.8F.7IO
.86010
£.600 SAMPLING
.140 KATE » .4*400 CFM
PAN
ro»
TARE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
OF
m.ATf
.66348
.9I?57
.68614
.90144
.84693
.88778
.86045
.86710
.86010
'-.AMPLE
WEIGHT
(OMI
.00015
.000?9
.00036
.000', 0
.00058
.ooata
.00501
.00326
.00 ISO
rilTt.H WTa .00111 OM
TOTAL KT« .Ol49b 6>t
-WITHOUT FlLTt:«- — WITH FlLTER"
WEIOHT
PERCENT
l.Ofl
3. 09
2.60
J.61
4.19
15.74
36.17
?3.68
10.43
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
1.08
3.10
5.78
9.39
13.57
29.31
65.49
89.17
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
1.00
1.94
a.*i
3.34
3.88
14.57
33.49
21.93
10.03
O;M .
•EIGHT
PERCENT
1.00
2.94
5.35
0.69
12.57
27.14
60.63
«?.5S
9?. 58
JtT
VEL.
(CM/SI
37.27
69.50
U5.95
191.67
340.74
a?*. 51
ISO?. 67
3005.33
P/VRT1C
01 AM.
(MICR)
H.fr4
5.39
3.64
?.»7
1.58
.78
.47
.31
-------
Table F5-cl. PRECIPITATOR READINGS: TEST NO. 2
DATE: 3/5/75
TEST: NO. 2
Generator load , Mw
Oxygen, °/0
Exit gas temp., °C
Outlet gas draft, mm H20
Barometric pressure, mm Hg
Rapper setting
Primary voltage /cur rent
C
D
A
B
Precipitator voltage, KV
A
B
C
D
Precipitator cur rent/ spark rate
A
B
C
D
10:40 A.M.
140
4.0
160
266.7
774.2
Volts/amps
300/43
290/45
270/45
300/42
East/west
34/33
32/32
32/34
30/31
ma sparks/min
280/40
275/70
300/70
290/80
Time
3:15 P.M.
140
4.0
160
271.8
755.1
Volts/amps
290/44
300/43
300/42
270/45
East/west
34/33
32/32
32/34
30/30
ma sparks/min
270/25
270/70
290/20
280/55
ma = milliamps.
273
-------
Table F5-c2. PRECIPITATOR READINGS: TEST NO. 3
DATE: 3/7/75
TEST: NO. 3
Generator load, Mw
Oxygen, 7»
Exit gas temp., °C
Outlet gas draft, mm H20
Barometric pressure, mm Hg
Rapper setting
Primary voltage/current
A
B
C
D
Precipitator voltage, KV
A
B
C
D
Precipitator current/spark rate
A
B
C
D
10:50 A.M.
110
4.2
160
190.5
760.2
Volts/amps
250/43
300/45
280/40
280/45
East/west
32/32
31/31
32/31
29/29
ma sparks/min
270/65
290/90
270/40
290/100
Time
3:30 P.M.
110
4.3
160
190.5
762.5
Volts/amps
260/44
970/42
280/40
275/43
East/west
32/33
31/31
31/32
30/30
ma sparks/min
270/65
270/50
270/40
270/50
ma = milliamps.
274
-------
Table F5-c3. PRECIPITATOR READINGS: TEST NO. 4
DATE: 3/8/75
TEST: NO. 4
Generator load, Mw
Oxygen, °/0
Exit gas temp., °C
Outlet gas draft, mm 1^0
Barometric pressure, mm Kg
Rapper setting
Primary voltage/current
A
B
C
D
Precipitator voltage, KV
A
B
C
D
Precipitator current/spark rate
A
B
C
D
10:30 A.M.
110
5.2
160
190.5
780.1
Volts/amps
260/45
300/43
280/40
290/44
East/west
. 32/33
31/32
32/31
30/30
ma sparks/min
260/90
275/80
270/40
280/60
Time
1:45 P.M.
110
4.3
160
190.5
775.7
Volts /amps
260/44
300/41
270/38
290/43
East/west
33/33
32/32
31/33
30/30
ma sparks/min
270/65
270/80
260/70
275/60
ma = milliamps.
275
-------
APPENDIX G
RESULTS AND DATA FOR COAL + REFUSE NONHAZARDOUS TESTS
A series of eight coal + refuse air emission tests was conducted during the
period April 30 to May 22, 1975. Like the first series of coal-only nonhaz-
ardous tests, MRI again conducted the particulate emission tests (EPA Method
5), gas analysis tests, and collected samples of other input/output streams.
SRI monitored ESP operation and obtained particle size measurement data.
It was originally intended that these tests would cover a complete range of
power loads and percent refuse. However, actual testing was restricted by
several mechanical failures and other operating problems.
Results that were obtained for the tests conducted by MRI and SRI are pre-
sented herein, in the order listed below.
Gl. An Emission Test Data
Table Gl-a. Log of air emission test activity
Table Gl-b. Particulate emission test results and ESP efficiency
Table Gl-c. Gas composition data
Table Gl-d. Metal analysis of particulate catch on filters
G2. Tabulation of Analysis Results on Input/Output Samples (by Ralston
Purina)
G3. Particle Size and ESP Characteristics (SRI report)
276
-------
Table Gl-a. LOG OF AIR EMISSION TEST ACTIVITY AT POWER
PLANT DURING MAY 1975
(Coal + Refuse Nonhazardous Tests)
Date
4/30/75
5/1/75
5/2/75
5/3 to 5/10/75
5/12/75
5/13 to 5/17/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
5/20/75
5/21/75
5/21/75-5/22/75
5/22/75
Test activity
Run No. 1 (dry run)--100 Mw at 5% refuse
No test—bin sweep malfunction
Run No. 2 — 100 Mw at 8% refuse
No tests--boiler tube leaks repaired
Run No. 3--140 Mw at 8-10% refuse
No tests--screw conveyor bearing out at receiving
building
Run No. 4--140 Mw at 5% refuse
Run No. 5--140 Mw at 107= refuse
Run No. 6--140 Mw at 10% refuse
Run No. 7--100 Mw at 10% refuse
Run No. 8--100 Mw at 10% refuse
No test--hanmermill electrical malfunction. Test
series terminated.
277
-------
Table Gl-b. SUMMARY OF COAL AND REFUSE PARTICULATE EMISSION TESTS CONDUCTED DURING APRIL-MAY 1975
Ni
-j
00
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Boiler load-Mw
nominal
Date
4/30/75
5/1/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
5/20/75
5/21/75
5/22/75
(%
100
100
140
140
140
140
100
100
refuse)
(5)
(8)
(8-9)
(4-5)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
ESP
Particulate
cone.
(g/dncm)
4
5
5
3
1
5
5
4
.69
.01
.56
.32
.40
.40
.60
.05
inlet
Gas flow
ESP outlet
(dncm/min)
8,207
8,320
10,301
9,735
10,471
9,735
7,330
7,556
OE
OW
OE
OW
OE
OW
OE
OW
OE
OW
OE
OW
OE
OW
OE
OW
Particulate
cone .
(g/dncm)
0.110 . ,
0.094 °'103b/
°'158 0 lAOb/
0.117
°'146 0243k/
0.336 ' ^
0.414 0 529b/
0.636
°'153 0 342b/
0.551 '
°-50° 0 634b/
0.776
°'°96 0.199k/
0.336
0.085 b/
0.087
Gas flow
(dncm/min)
4,500
2,703
4,160
3,000
4,358
4,556
4,075
4,273
4,839
4,415
4,698
4,471
3,934
2,915
4,132
3,056
Precipitator
efficiency
a)
97.
97.
95.
84.
92.
88.
95.
97.
8
2
6
1
5?/
3
7
9
a/ Inlet grain loading is low, probably-due to problems with sampling train. Therefore the ESP efficiency was
calculated using an assumed inlet loading of 4.58 g/dncm (2.0 gr/dscf).
b/ Weighted average based on gas flow.
-------
Table Cl-c. SUMMARY OF STACK CAS COMPOSITION DATA FOR COAL + REFUSE NOMIAZARDOIIS TESTS
Teat
Date No.
4/30/75 t-I
1-OE
1-OU
5/1/75 2-1
2-OE
2-OW
5/12/75 3-1
3-OE
3-OW
5/19/75 4-1
4-OE
4-OU
5/20/75 5-1
5-OE
5-OW
5/20/75 6-1
6-OE
6-OW
5/21/75 7-1
7-OE
7-OW
S/22'75 8-1
8-OE
8-OW
I
re fuse
5
5
5
8
a
8
8-9
8-9
8-9
4-5
4-5
4-5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
a_/ Sampling error tn
£/ Averages of
data.
Boiler load-Mw
nominal
(actual)
100
100
100
100
100
100
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
100
100
100
100
100
100
I H20.
Orsat analysis Plant
Moisture 1 (pro)
-------
Table Gl-d. METAL ANALYSIS OF PARTICULATE CATCH ON FILTERS
N>
00
0
Sample
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
K
(ug/g)
9,100
4,400
9,500
10,000
11,000
11,000
11,305
11,400
Na
(ug/g)
11,000
13,000
11,000
13,000
15,000
14,000
17,000
14,000
Pb
(ug/g)
1,180
1,590
1,820
1,850
2,130
1,700
2,600
2,710
Fe
JS1
8.2
8.2
9.2
6.6
8.3
8.2
5.5
8.6
Cu
(ug/g)
140
170
190
205
260
190
230
220
Al
SSL
8.5
8.1
8.6
7.4
8.0
8.2
8.7
8.0
Cr
(ug/g)
200
300
190
190
210
190
220
210
Zn
(ug/g)
1,000
1,600
1,500
1,400
2,000
1,400
2,700
2,400
Ag
(ug/g)
2.6
3.1
3.5
2.2
2.0
1.6
3.7
3.8
Li
(ug/g)
130
120
110
120
130
120
120
130
Combined
outlets
1-0
2-0
3-0
4-0
5-0
6-0
7-0
8-0
28
22
15
14
13
12
19
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
24,000
17,000
11,000
14,000
16,000
13,000
19,000
960
1,400
1,790
1,410
2,000
1,550
2,200
9.2
7.9
6.2
7.6
8.4
6.2
12.5
Insufficient !
440
400
280
250
320
220
490
sample
15.5
8.3
7.3
6.5
8.2
6.6
9.6
1,245
260
320
270
990
190
260
4,100
3,900
2,600
1,900
2,600
1,600
3,400
7.3
3.6
8.7
5.0
1.7
4.5
0.9
250
160
110
130
134
100
140
-------
Table G2-a. COAL ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL PLUS REFUSE NONHAZARDOUS TESTS1-'
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse .
Heating value (kJ/kg)-
Moisture (wt %)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt 7,
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt %)— '
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
T J
Lfl~
Ag
Cl
1A
100
5
26,945
12.60
)~
7.11
57.31
5.05
1.56
1.45
14.92
32.34
47.95
1.09
0.001
1.27
0.004
0.19
0.53
0.004
0.07
0.001
0.001
0.398
4/30
IB
100
5
26,539
14.10
6.25
62.09
4.48
1.41
1.31
10.36
36.00
43.65
1.01
0.001
1.11
0.004
0.16
0,45
0.003
0.05
0.001
0.001
NR
1C
100
5
25,950
14.60
6.33
59.84
4.68
1.60
1.31
11.64
31.66
47 .-41
0.96
0.001
1.02
0.003
0.17
0.45
0.003
0.06
0.001
0.001
NR
2A
100
8
26,353
13.70
6.26
64.81
4.52
1.45
1.28
7.98
33.59
46.45
1.426
0.001
0.93
0.002
0.15
0.11
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.000
NR
5/2
2B
100
8
26,990
12.50
•
6.25
62.90
4.37
1.51
1.28
11.19
33.63
47.62
1.47
0.001
0.93
0.002
0.14
0.11
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.381
2C
100
8
26,096
13.70
6.40
64.63
4.56
1.47
1.22
8.07
32.52
47.38
1.52
0.001
0.93
0.002
0.15
0.12
0 002
0.001
0.001
0.001
NR
3A
140
8-9
30,427
0.92
8.68
73.40
5.41
1.63
2.43
7.53
38.23
52.17
1.86
0.002
1.67
0.004
0.19
0.08
0.005
0,002
0.001
0.001
NR
5/12
3B
140
8-9
30,416
0.77
8.88
71.80
5.50
1.66
2.26
9.13
42.22
48.13
1.86
0.001
1.71
0.004
0.14
0.08
0.012
0.002
0.001
< 5 . 0 ppm
NR
3C
140
8-9
30,401
0.91
8,79
74.40
5.81
1.58
2.11
6.40
39.04
51.26
1.88
0.002
1.59
0.005
0.16
0.09
0.008
0.002
0.001
< 5.0 ppm
NR
-------
Table G2-a. (Continued)
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Heating value (kj/kg)5/
Moisture (wt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
N> Oxygen
S3 Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt 7.)£/
Al (A1203>
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na 0)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
Li
Ag
Cl
4A
140
4-5
27,026
9.84
7.)S/
7.46
67.74
5.55
1.52
1.13
6.76
35.73
46.97
1.83
0.001
1.09
0.003
0.21
0.11
0.002
0.001
0.001
< 5.0
0.433
5/19
4B
140
4-5
27,260
11.60
7.13
65.50
4.82
1.48
0.88
8.59
35.39
45.88
1.77
0.001
0.83
0.001
0.20
0.09
0.002
0.001
0.001
ppn. < 5 . 0 ppm
NR
4C
140
4-5
27,279
11.80
6.84
62.58
4.74
1.49
1.24
11.31
37.62
43.74
1.61
0.001
1.07
0.003
0.17
0.11
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 5.0 ppm
NR
5A
140
10
27,322
12.50
6.76
64.74
4.82
1.48
1.43
8.27
39.52
41.22
1.52
0.001
1.32
0.002
0.17
0.11
0.002
0.001
0.001
< 5.0
NR
5/20 ,
5B
140
10
27,310
11.80
7.23
64.21
4.65
1.24
1.26
9.61
37.37
43.60
1.72
0.001
1.25
0.003
0.18
0.12
0.003
0.002
0.001
ppm: < 5.0 ppm
NR
5/20 ,
5C
140
10
27,907
10.10
6.94
66.87
4.78
1.46
1.86
7.99
38.78
44.18
1.40
0.001
1.86
0.002
0.15
0.11
0.004
0.001
0.001
< 5 . 0 ppm
0.392
6A
140
10
26,614
12.30
8.26
62.89
4.67
1.47
1.22
9.19
36.55
42.89
2.01
0.002
1.20
0.004
0.21
0.12
0.004
0.002
0.002
< 5.0
NR
6B
140
10
26,168
12.00
6.77
67.97
4.48
1.53
1.51
5.74
34.52
46.71
1.52
0.002
1.28
0.004
0.17
0.11
0.004
0.001
0.001
ppm < 5.0
0.436
6C
140
10
27,705
11.70
6.42
66.93
5.43
1.49
1.41
6.62
33.49
48.39
1.41
0.001
1.28
0.003
0.15
0.11
0.003
0.001
0.001
ppm < 5.0 ppm
NR
-------
Table G2-a. (Concluded)
NJ
00
U)
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Heating value (kj/kg)^'
Moisture (wt %)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt 7.)— '
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt 7.)—'
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na 0)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
Li
Ag
Cl
7A
100
10
27,346
12.20
6.36
64.81
4.68
1.52
1.35
9.08
40.11
41.33
1.45
0.002
1.16
0.002
0.15
0.11
0.003
0.001
0.001
< 5.0 ppm
NR
5/21
7B
100
10
26,798
12.30
8.23
64.09-
4.77
1.48
1.28
7.85
34.66
44.81
2.17
0.001
1.09
0.002
0.21
0.10
0.002
0.002
0.001
< 5 . 0 ppm
NR
7C
100
10
27,518
11.10
6.69
65.32
4.61
1.24
1.44
9.60
35.62
46.59
1.61
0.001
1.22
0.003
0,16
0.11
0.005
0.001
0.001
< 5 .0 ppm
0.404
8A
100
10
26,982
11.70
7.54
66.49
4.76
1.49
1.44
6.58
35.80
44.96
1.88
0.001
1.16
0.003
0.20
0.11
0.005
0.002
0.001
< 5 . 0 ppm
NR
5/22
8B
100
10
26,418
12.30
7.00
65.04
5.74
1.50
1.47
6.95
38.84
41.86
1.64
0.002
1.11
0.003
0.17
0.10
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 5 . 0 ppm
NR
8C
100
10
26,971
12.70
6.37
63.99
4.57
1.50
1.25
9.62
35.19
45.74
1.50
0.001
1.10
0.002
0.16
0.11
0.002
0.001
0.001
< 5.0 ppm
0.420
a/ All analysis data reported on moisture-as-received basis.
NR Not Run
-------
Table G2-b. RDF ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL PLUS REFUSE NONHAZARDOUS TESTS2-''
Date
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse ,
a I
Heating value (kj/kg)5'
Moisture (wt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt 7)— ^
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt %)-'
Al (A1203)
oo Cu (CuO)
** Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
Li
Ag
Cl
Particle size
Percent > 6.35 cm
Percent < 6.35 era
Percent < 3.81 cm
Percent < 1.91 cm
Percent < 0.95 cm
Percent < 0.47 cm
Percent < 0.24 cm
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation
1A
100
5
8,331
36.20
21.40
21.56
3.24
0.52
0.15
16.93
36.38
6.02
1.45
0.01
0.75
0.04
0.51
1.26
0.05
0.017
0.001
0.000
NA
0.0
100.0
100.0
97.0
75.0
49.4
31.5
4.67
2.336
4/30
IB
100
5
8,463
34.00
23.42
19.73
3.17
0.56
0.18
18.94
36.74
5.84
1.46
0.03
0.82
0.05
0.47
1.54
0.06
0.017
0.000
0.000
NA
0.0
100.0
100.0
91.5
67.7
42.8
26.4
5.54
2.480
1C
100
5
8,417
37.60
20.06
19.22
2.57
0.51
0.18
19.86
36.20
6.14
1.33
0.01
0.64
0.03
0.47
1.27
0.05
0.017
0.001
0.001
0.280
0.0
100.0
94.9
88.7
66.8
39.9
22.5
6.12
2.627
2A
100
8
8,324
34.80
22.86
20.54
3.04
0.53
0.15
18.08
36.98
5.36
1.65
0.02
0.75
0.04
0.47
1.54
0.06
0.016
0.001
0.000
EA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2B
100
8
9,540
31.70
22.53
24.79
3.85
0.55
0.16
16.42
41.99
3.78
1.54
0.01
0.80
0.04
0.50
1.39
0.06
0.016
0.000
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/2
2C
100
8
8,966
33.30
20.60
23.61
3.34
0.56
0.17
18.42
40.31
5.79
1.59
0.003
0.76
0.04
0.48
1.23
0.08
0.014
0.000
0.001
0.317
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/12
2D
100
8
7,215
34.80
23.12
22.10
3.37
0.57
0.16
15.88
36.62
5.46
1.68
0.004
0.77
0.03
0.56
1.43
0.03
0.016
0.000
0.000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3A
140
8-9
9,559
34.60
21.97
22.11
3.29
0.49
0.18
17.36
37.08
6.35
1.54
0.01
0.87
0.05
0.44
1.44
0.07
0.015
0.001
0.001
NA
0.0
100.0
100.0
92.3
66.9
40.8
30.8
5.44
2.533
3B
140
8-9
9,708
34.40
20.27
23.49
3.68
0.52
0.22
17.42
38.78
6.55
1.34
0.01
0.72
0.05
0.38
1.44
0.06
0.016
0.001
0.000
NA
o.b
100.0
100.0
91.6
64.3
39.6
23.4
5.92
2.450
-------
Table G2-b. (Continued)
Date
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse a<
Heating value (kj/kg)-
Moisture (wt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt %)— '
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt %)-/
Al (A1203)
N> Cu (CuO)
00
Ui Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr (Cr20)
Li
Ag
Cl
Particle size
Percent > 6.35 cm
Percent < 6.35 cm
Percent < 3.81 cm
Percent < 1.91 cm
Percent < 0.95 cm
Percent < 0,47 cm
Percent < 0.24 cm
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation
3C
140
8-9
9,391
33.80
22.31
22.57
3.75
0.54
0.20
16.83
37.51
6.38
1.53
0.01
0.77
0.05
0.41
1.67
0.06
0.016
0.001
0.000
NA
0.0
100.0
100.0
93.7
69.9
44.8
28.0
5.23
2.433
5/12
3D
140
8-9
8,543
36.10
19.81
22.17
3.28
0.47
0.15
18.02
38.42
5.67
1.43
0.03
0.68
0.05 -
0.41
1.38
0.05
0.013
0.001
0.000
0.341
0.0
100.0
100.0
95.3
71.1
45.3
28.1
5.11
2.381
3E
140
8-9
9,215
36.00
19.33
23.17
3.65
0.52
0.16
17.17
38.16
6.51
1.53
0.01
0.75
0.05
0.40
1.24
0.05
0.017
0.001
0,000
NA
0.0
100.0
100.0
95.4
73.1
46.8
29.1
4.95
2.370
4B
140
4-5
11,887
16.50
25.16
31.11
5.17
0.79
0.24
21.03
52.49
5.85
1.89
0.05
1.07
0.07
0.62
1.57
0.07
0.017
0.001
0.001
0.386
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4C
140
4-5
11,028
21.30
24.15
28.06
4.11
0.64
0.18
, 21.56
47,28
7.27
1.85
0.03
0.99
0.05
0.58
1.69
0.08
0.013
0.001
0.000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/19
4D
140
4-5
12,755
14.80
25.15
31.49
4.62
0.58
0.24
23.12
54.72
5.33
1.92
0.01
0.96
0.06
0.59
1.83
0.07
0.014
0.001
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/20
4E
140
4-5
11,959
12.70
26.63
31.41
4.76
0.65
0.26
23.59
53.57
7.10
1.98
0.02
1.02
0.07
0.59
1.82
0.09
0.015
0.001
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5A
140
10
12,350
17.50
26.73
28.99
4.24
0.60
0.23
21.71
47.82
7.95
1.99
0.03
1.03
0.07
0.57
1.83
0.08
0.024
0.001
0.000
0.362
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6A
140
10
11,499
19.10
27.08
29.24
4.24
0.63
0.23
19.48
46.94
6.88
1.96
0.03
1.07
0.06
0.61
1.91
0.08
0.014
0.001
0.000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Table G2-b. (Concluded)
Date
Test No. and sample Identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Heating value 6.35 cm
Percent < 5.35 cm
Percent < 3,3! cm
Percent < 1.91 cm
Percent < Q.95 cm
Percent < 0.47 cm
Percent < o.24 cm
Geometric mean diameter (mm)1
Geometric standard deviation
6B
140
10
12,324
18.40
21.57
30.94
4.55
0.70
0.22
23.62
51.25
8.78
1.87
0.01
0.97
0.04
0.53
1.38
0.08
0.001
0.001
0.001
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/20
6C
140
10
11,400
20.30
24.99
28.67
4.48
0.60
0.22
20.74
48.28
6.43
1.82
0.03
0.92
0.05
0.52
1.78
0.08
0.025
0.001
< 5 ppm
0.414
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6D
140
10
11,140
21.30
21.08
30.54
4.79
0.62
0.21
21.46
50.43
7.19
1.63
0.01
0.80
0.05
0.51
1.43
0.08
0.016
0.001
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/
7A
100
10
10,367
22.60
23.81
26.78
4.06
0.56
0.21
21.98
48.51
5.08
1.71
0.01
0.96
0.06
0.53
1.70
0.08
0.023
0.001
0.000
NA
0.0
100.0
100.0
91.1
49.1
31.6
20.4
7.26
2.467
'21
7B
100
10
9,505
26.50
25.34
27.86
3.45
0.54
0.21
16.10
42.37
5.79
1.66
0.02
1.15
0.05
0.51
1.87
0.08
0.025
0.001
0.000
0.266
0.0
100.0
100.0
95.2
74.8
50.9
31.1
4.70
2.381
5/
8A
100
10
9,804
25.20
23.41
24.83
3.52
0.53
0.21
22.30
44.15
7.24
1.69
0.01
1.00
0.06
0.55
1.55
0.07
0.017
0.001
0.000
NA
0.0
100.0
97.5
92.8
52.2
34.9
22.3
6.73
2.546
'22
SB
100
10
10,150
24.00
24.77
23.86
3.46
0.58
0.22
23.11
43.10
8.13
1.60
0.02
1.03
0.04
0.49
2.00
0.06
0.012
0.001
< 5 ppm
0.327
0.0
100.0
100.0
93.3
81.4
55.6
34.0
4.32
2.369
al All analyses data reported on moisture as-received basis.
NA •= Not Analyzed
-------
Table 02-
SLUICE SOLIDS ANALYSES DATA FOR COAL AND REFUSE NONI1AZARDOUS
CO
Date (1975)
Test No.
Boiler load (megawatts)
Refuse (%)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Bulk density (Kg/m3)
Moisture (wt. 7.)-''
Composition (wt. 7.)^
(sample 1A and IB combined)
Paper
Plastic
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metal
Other metals
Organlcs
Coal slag
Dust (smaller than 1.6 mm sq)
Miscellaneous
Chemical analysis (wt. 7.)-^
Ash
Al (A1203)
Cu (CuO)
Fe (Fe203)
Pb (PbO)
K (K20)
Na (Na20)
Zn (ZnO)
Cr
Li
Ag
S
* Less than 5 ppm
Particle size
Percent larger than 6.35 cm
Percent less than 6.35 cm
Percent less than 3.81 cm
Percent less than 0.95 cm
Percent less than 0.47 cm
Percent less than 0.24 cm
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation
4-30
1A
100.7
6.0
5,033.0
862.4
47.00
0.2
0.5
4.2
3.0
0.6
0.8
0.6
58.5
20.6
11.0
34.47
5.03
0.29
3.49
0.02
0.69
1.15
0.06
2.01
0.002
0.007
0.10
0.0
100.0
100.0
66.7
41.7
25.0
5.33
2.26
4-30
IB
101.4
6.0
2,779.3
862.4
63.50
0.2
0.5
4.2
3.0
0.6
0.8
0.6
58.5
20.6
11.0
23.02
3.31
0.07 '
3.09
0.01
0.50
0.84
0.04
1.04
0.001
0.007
0.13
0.0
100.0
100.0
69.2
38.4
23.0
6.10
2.55
5-2
2
100.9
8.5
2,005.9
815.9
39.80
1.9
5.3
5.6
7.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
27.4
35.2
12.4
50.45
5.50
0.06
4.11
0.03
0.97
2.61
0.06
0.06
0.002
0
0.13
0.0
100.0
100.0
70.9
52.6
40.4
4.57
2.66
5-12
3
140.5
7.5
2,224.8
952.2
45. (£/
1.5
1.7
4.3
3.2
3.4
5.2
1.0
52.0
20.0
19.1
59.70
8.11
0.21
8.29
0.03
0.76
2.59
0.05
0.05
0.003
*
0.59
0.0
100.0
100.0
78.2
46.4
21.9
4.83
2.09
5-19
4^/
137.8
4.3
1,401.6
907.3
37.50
0.2
2.3
4.4
3.1
3.1
1.6
0.2
8.5
55.5
21.1
55.93
7.61
0.06
6.26
0.03
0.95
2.63
0.04
0.05
0.003
*
0.10
0.0
100.0
100.0
79.2
59.9
41.9
4.06
2.51
5-20
(&.I
137.7
10.0
3,465.5
862.4
43.50
1.3
1.5
7.8
4.8
5.0
1.2
1.8
37.0
27.9
16.7
44.11
5.47
0.06
3.97
0.03
0.69
2.33
0.04
0.04
0.002
*
0.10
0.0
100.0
100.0
81.6
58.1
39.6
4.06
2.33
5-22
7
99.3
10.0
2,063.2
815.9
44.90
1.1
1.5
4.2
11.1
3.4
2.8
1.1
26.4
31.0
16.9
46.50
5.26
0.10
3.87
0.04
0.67
2.88
0.12
0.03
0.002
*
0.06
0.0
100.0
100.0
82.6
63.0
44.8
3.81
2.43
5-22
8
99.0
10.0
2,461.4
815.9
41.00
0.1
1.7
3.0
6.3
1.7
3.0
0.8
35.2
36.2
12.0
48.64
6.18
0.23
5.06
0.04
0.74
2.66
0.05
0.04
0.003
*
0.10
0.0
100.0
100.0
85.2
63.6
48.1
3.56
2.23
a/ Analyses are all reported on a moisture-as-received basis (I.e., drip dry).
b/ No data reported for test No. 5 because sluice pipe was being repaired.
c_/ Assumed moisture value due to analysis error.
-------
Table G2-d. FLY ASH ANALYSIS DATA FOR
COAL + REFUSE NON11AZARDOUS TESTS-
Date, 1975
• /
Test No. and sample Identlf icatlon^'
Boiler load
-------
Table G2-e. RIVER WATER AND SLUICE WATER ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL AND REFUSE NONHAZARDOUS TESTS
Date (1974) 4/30 4/30
Test number 1A IB
Sample identification^ RW SW RW SW
Percent refuse 5555
Boiler load (Mw) 100 100 100 100
Total suspended 440.0 332.0 1,666.0 280.0
solids (ppm)
Total dissolved
solids (ppm) 264.0 248.0 336.0 600.0
°° Biochemical oxygen 106.0 164.0 2.95 149.0
demands (ppm)
Chemical oxygen
demand (ppm) 162.0 819.0 424.0 905.0
pH 7.5 9.70 7.5 9.7
Total alkalinity 92.0 104,0 96.0 100.0
(ppm)
Oil and grease (ppm) 148.0 32.0 144.0 32.0
Dissolved oxygen 2.3 2.5 1.8 1.4
(mg/4)
5/2 5/12 5/19 5/20 5/22 5/22
2 34678
RW SW RW SW RW SW RW SW RW SW RW SW
8 8 8-9 8-9 4-5 4-5 10 10 10 10 10 10
100 100 140 140 140 140 140 140 100 100 100 100
192.0 184.0 516.0 316.0 308.0 168.0 252.0 208.0 240.0 276.0 208.0 832.0
556.0 672.0 832.0 744.0 488.0 412.0 540.0 948.0 268.0 1,076.0 528.0 600.0
10.0 260.0 12.4 277.0 2.36 102.0 9.44 143.0 < 5.0 289.0 5.31 143.0
70.9 400.0 10.6 504.0 22.4 370.0 78.0 754.0 34.8 788.0 3.14 530.0
7.8 9.7 7.5 9.6 7.6 9.50 7.6 9.6 7.10 9.8 7.7 9.3
92.0 88.0 92.0 96.0 104.0 108.0 108.0 96.0 96.0 100.0 120.0 96.0
12.0 16.0 48.0 56.0 36.0 44.0 48.0 52.0 100.0 76.0 116.0 88.0
1.5 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.1 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.0
a/ RW is river water.
SW is sluice water sampled after majority of solids had settled out.
-------
SORI-EAS-75-316
G3 PRECIPITATOR OPERATION AS PART OF MIDWEST
REFUSE FIRING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
COAL & REFUSE TESTS
Kenneth M. Gushing
Herbert W. Spencer
Wallace B. Smith
June 27, 1975
FINAL REPORT
TO
Midwest Research Institute
425 - Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
290
-------
INTRODUCTION
Southern Research Institute personnel assisted in a test
program with Midwest Research Institute and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to evaluate the electrostatic precipitator
performance of the Unit 1 precipitator at the Union Electric
Meramec Steam Plant during May, 1975. Previous tests during
November, 1974 gave baseline performance using Orient 6 coal
only. The most recent tests were a combination of coal and
refuse. The power load and percent refuse combinations tested
were 140 megawatts and 10% refuse, 140 megawatts and 5% refuse,
and 100 megawatts and 10% refuse. SRI made measurements of the
particle size distributions, particulate resistivity and the
electrical conditions of the precipitator during the test period.
This report provides inlet and outlet size distributions obtained
with cascade impactors, optical particle counters, and condensation
nuclei counters using diffusion batteries, and results of
measurements of the resistivity and electrical conditions. Using
the particle size distributions, the precipitator fractional
efficiency has been determined at each load/refuse condition
tested.
TEST RESULTS
I. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
Inlet and outlet particle size distributions were obtained
using three measurement techniques - cascade impactors to obtain
data on a mass basis over the size range from about 0.5 micrometers
to 10 micrometers; optical particle counters to obtain data from
about 0.3 micrometers to 1.5 micrometers; and condensation nuclei
counter/diffusional methods to obtain data from about 0.01 micro-
meters to about 0.2 micrometers.
Cascade Impactor Data
Modified Brink Cascade Impactors were used for all impactor inlet sam-
pling while Andersen Mark III Cascade Impactors were used at the outlet. All
inlet samples were obtained at flowrates of approximately 849 cm3/min (0.03
ACFM) and sampling durations of 15 minutes. A total of 3 inlet samples were
obtained for a plant load/percent refuse combination of 140 megawatts/5%
refuse; 4 at 140 megawatts/10% refuse; and 6 at 100 megawatts/10% refuse. An
analysis of the data from each load condition indicated that there was no
291
-------
statistically significant variation in the inlet size distri-
bution with plant load or percent refuse changes. Qualitatively,
however, there appeared to be a tendency toward a reduction in
concentration of large (>10 pun) particles along with an increase
in concentration of 0.5 pm and smaller particles at the 100 MW/10%
refuse level as compared to the 140 MW/10% refuse level. These
apparent differences between load/refuse levels differed by less
than one standard deviation from the mean value of all the inlet
data. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating fractional
efficiencies, the inlet data from all tests were averaged rather
than using the samples obtained under each specific condition.
The average total particulate loading at the inlet as determined
by the impactor samples was 1.37 gr/SDCF (3.14 x 103 mgm/DSCM)
with a standard deviation of 0.3 gr/SDCF (6.87 x 102 mgm/DSCM).
Figure 1 shows the average inlet size distribution in terms of
cumulative mass concentration of particles smaller than or equal
to the indicated size in milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
For the purpose of this report, all sizes are reported as
Stoke"s diameters based on a particle density of 2.4 grams/cm3.
This density was determined from inlet and outlet dust samples
using a helium picnometer. The aerosol sample volumes required
for the impactor measurements were inadequate for precise deter-
mination of water content, therefore a value of 10% HaO by volume
was used. Reasonable deviation from this average by the actual
values would not lead to any significant change in the results re-
ported here.
Andersen Mark III Cascade Impactors were used for all out-
let sampling with one impactor for each of the two outlet ducts.
Sampling times with the Andersens were 30 minutes with flowrates
of 0.5 ACFM. Each impactor sampled two points in its respective
duct with alternate samples in each duct being taken on alternate
sides of the ducts, thus obtaining a four point approximation to
a traverse with each pair of runs in each duct. A total of 6
valid outlet runs were obtained with a unit load/percent refuse
combination of 140 MW/10% refuse, 4 runs at 140 MW/5% refuse, and
7 runs at a 100 MW/10% refuse combination. The average outlet
mass concentration at the 140 MW/10% refuse rate was 0.20 grains/SDCF
(4.66 x 102 mgm/DSCM) with a standard deviation of 0.1 grains/SDCF
(2.37 x 102 mgm/DSCM). The average outlet mass concentration for
the 140 MW/5% refuse rate was 0.16 grains/SDCF (3.59 x 102 mgm/DSCM)
with a standard deviation of 0.087 grains/SDCF (1.98 x 102 mgm/DSCM).
The average outlet mass concentration for the 100 MW/10% refuse
combination was 0.049 grains/SDCF (1.12 x 102 mgm/DSCM) with a
standard deviation of 0.023 grains/SDCF (5.2 x 101 mgm/DSCM). The
average outlet size distribution for each of the three unit load/per-
cent refuse combinations are shown on a cumulative basis in Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows both inlet and outlet impactor data plotted
on a differential basis as derived from Figures 1 and 2. By
taking the outlet/inlet ratio, the fractional penetration of the
precipitator is obtained. Subtracting this from 100% gives the
fractional efficiency as shown in Figure 13.
292
-------
IOOOO
o
co
o
o»
UJ
N
CO
O
UJ
I
z
<
I-
co
CO
UJ
_i
CO
CO
Ul
o
1000
1.0 10.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure 1,
100.0
Cumulative particle size data taken at the ESP inlet
using Brink Cascade Impactors (average of 14 runs).
Particle density = 2.4 gm/cm3.
293
-------
1000
o
(f>
o
X
LJ
M
co 100
o
UJ
to
<
X
to
to
UJ
to
1
UJ
<
_J
D
2
o
10
•I I
1!
. _. 11
O 140 MW/10% REFUSE
O !40MW/5% REFUSE
A 100 MW/10% REFUSE
1
0-1
Figure 2.
1.0 10.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
100.0
Cumulative particle size distribution taken at
the ESP outlet using Andersen Mark III Cascade
Impactors. Particle density = 2.4 gm/cm3.
294
-------
o
to
o
N.
E p
— I02
T>
O
10'
10'
0
O.I
• INLET AVERAGE
a OUTLET 140 MW/10% REFUSE
O OUTLET !40MW/5% REFUSE
A OUTLET 100 MW/10% REFUSE
I
I
1.0 10.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER , urn
100.0
Figure 3. Differential inlet and outlet particle size
distributions.
295'
-------
To help reduce possible error due to contamination of the
outlet Andersen substrates by SOX products, all the outlet sub-
strates were conditioned for 8 hours by pulling filtered flue
gas through the substrates in a conditioning chamber located
inside the inlet duct. Final results indicate that this aided
in reducing anomalous weight gain on the lower stages of the
Andersen impactor. Also, a check on this conditioning was made
by running Andersen blanks during the tests. These blank runs
indicated a much smaller weight gain by the conditioned substrates
as compared to those run last November. Because of the scatter
of the conditioned substrate weight gains during the blank runs,
however, there could not be a subtraction of blank substrate
weight gains from the true impactor runs.
Optical and Diffusional Data
Both the condensation nuclei counters and optical particle
counters are commercial instruments designed for particulate
concentrations about equal to those normally found in ambient
air. For testing flue gas aerosols/ extensive dilution is required.
Figure 4 shows the experimental setup used to obtain optical and
diffusional data. A precollector cyclone is used on the sampling
probe to remove large particulate matter which might clog the
sample metering orifice. This cyclone removes most of the partic-
ulate above 2-3 micrometers in diameter, so that the upper limit
for accurate sizing is about 1.5 ym diameter with this setup.
While inlet and outlet measurements were made during the
same time period, only single point sampling occurred due to the
complexity of the equipment involved in these measurements.
Fractional efficiencies derived from the data thus obtained
are subject to error resulting from the single point sampling
and from any temporal variations due to flue gas mixing during
the finite time for flue gas passage from inlet to outlet locations.
The size calibrations of the optical counter are based on
polystyrene latex (PSL) particles (transparent, non-absorbing
particles) having a refractive index of 1.6. If the particles
being sampled are absorbing or have a refractive index different
from that of the PSL particles, the true sizes will differ from
the indicated values. Estimates of the Stoke's diameters
corresponding to the indicated equivalent PSL diameters of the
aerosol particles sampled were obtained by turning a diffusion
battery on its side so that the various channels were horizontal
and using it as a dynamic sedimentation chamber.
In making this comparison, the optical counter is used only
to make relative concentration measurements, and the Stokes
diameters are independent of the index of refraction. For some
296
-------
Flowmeters
Cyclone Pump
Process
Exhaust
Line
Flowmeter
Particulate
Sample Line
Neutralizer
//]^
*-' Dilution
\ Device
Diffusion
Battery
Cyclone
(Optional)
Manometer
Recirculated
Clean Dilution
Air
Filter
Orifice
Manometer
Aerosol
Photometer
Diffusional Dryer
(Optional)
Charge
Neutralizer Pressure
Balancing
Line
(X
Pump
Bleed
Figure 4. Optical and Diffusional Sizing System
297
-------
sources, the PSL and Stokes diameters are very nearly the same,
depending upon the particle index of refraction and mass density.
Table I includes a comparison of the PSL and Stokes diameters
for the Meramec tests, and Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 show
both data sets plotted on the cumulative size distribution.
The Stokes diameters are considered to be more accurate in this
case, and hence, were used in the calculation of the precipitator
fractional efficiency.
Table I gives measured values of particle concentrations in
numbers of particles per cubic centimeter (wet, 72°F) in the flue
gases under the various test conditions. The values given are
the total concentrations by number of all particles having
diameters equal to or larger than the indicated values, but smaller
than about 1.5 pm. As previously stated, particles larger than
1.5 um are removed from the sample gas stream by a cyclone pre-
collector in order to reduce probe plugging problems.
The size distributions are presented graphically in
Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
The cumulative size distributions show both PSL and sedi-
mentation diameters for the optical data. Figures 11 and 12,
the differential, or dN/d log D, size distribution are derived
from the cumulative plots using only the diffusional and sedimen-
tation data. Notice that the actual data points on the cumulative
plots do not overlap between the optical and diffusional tech-
niques, but a smooth curve is used to join the data and thus
extrapolate over the region from about 0.2 ym diameter to 0.7 pm
diameter.
Figure 13 shows the fractional efficiency calculated from all
the data for each unit load/percent refuse condition tested.
The size range from 0.2-0.7 urn is labeled as "extrapolated data"
and may be less accurate than the data above and below these
ranges. These data are included for completeness and for compari-
son with the previous tests.
II. ELECTRICAL CONDITIONS
The Meramec Unit I precipitator has four separate power
supplies (1A, IB, 1C, ID). Figure 14 indicates the location
of the precipitator sections supplied by the different sets.
During the tests/ the primary and secondary voltages and currents,
and the spark rate of each set were monitored. The complete set
of readings is tabulated in Table II. This table indicates
that the power supplies were operated with higher spark rates
and with slightly lower current densities for the 140 MW test
298
-------
N3
TABLE I
CONCENTRATIONS BY NUMBER OF PARTICLES HAVING DIAMETERS EQUAL TO OR LARGER
THAN INDICATED VALUES
Optical and Diffusional Data
INLET
OUTLET
140MW/5%
REFUSE
140MW/10%
REFUSE
100MW/10%
REFUSE
Particle Dia., ym
Method
Diff.:
.01 3. 3x10 7
.02
.06 7.7xl06
.10 3.4xl06
< .18 6.4xl05
3.1xl07
-
l.OxlO7
3.3xl06
7.6xl05
4.3xl07
-
1.6xl07
S.OxlO6
2.1xl06
PSL Dia.. Stoke 's Dia.
!.34
.43
.58
..2
..4
.58-. 64 l.lxlO5
.74-. 79 8.4x10*
.80-. 86 3.0x10*
>.95 8.8xl03
>.95 3.9xl03
1.6xl05
1.2xlOs
4.9x10*
2.1x10*
1.1x10*
1.3xl05
9.6x10"
4.3x10*
1.9x10*
9. 9x10 3
140MW/5%
REFUSE
3.2xl06
3.1xl06
1.6xl06
8.5xl05
2. 3x10 5
2.2x10*
1.6x10*
5.4x10'
1.3xl03
5.3xl02
140MW/10%
REFUSE
2.0xl06
1.6xl06
1.2xlOs
7. 3x10 5
2.5xl05
3.1x10*
2.2x10*
7.7xl03
1.9xl03
8.6xl02
100MW/10%
REFUSE
1.7X106
l.SxlO6
9. 2x10 5
4. 2x10 5
1.3xl05
1.5x10*
1.1x10*
3.9X103
9.4xl02
4. 1x10 2
Concentrations in number of particles per SCC
-------
o
UJ
>
-------
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETERS
INLET
140 MW/5% REFUSE
O.I
PARTICLE DIAMETER
1.0
Figure 6. Inlet size distribution (optical and diffusional).
301
-------
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETERS
Cx _
DIAMETERS —»• \
».^ ^
INLET
IOOMW/10% REFUSE
0.01
Figure 7,
PARTICLE DIAMETER,urn
Inlet size distribution (optical and diffusional)
302
-------
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETERS
OUTLET
140 MW/10% REFUSE
o
0.01
PARTICLE DIAMETER .
Figure 8. Outlet size distribution (optical and diffusional)
303
-------
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETERS
OUTLET
140 MW/5% REFUSE
0.01
PARTICLE DIAMETER, Jim
Figure 9. Outlet size distribution (optical and diffusionai;
304
-------
10'
to
E
o
c
LL)
O
10'
SEDIMENTATION
DIAMETER
OUTLET
IOOMW/10% REFUSE
\
\
•o-
•OPTICAL
1
0.01
1.0
O.I
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure 10. Outlet size distribution (optical and diffusional)
305
-------
to
u
01
o
O I40MW/IO% REFUSE
D I40MW/ 5% REFUSE
100 MW/10% REFUSE
0.01
.0
10.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
Figure 11. Inlet differential particle size distributions.
306
-------
10'
» '°6
I
o>
o
I05
10'
0.01
O I40MW/IO% REFUSE
D 140 MW/ 5% REFUSE
£ IOOMW/10% REFUSE
O.I 1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER,
10.0
Figure 12. Outlet differential particle size distributions.
307
-------
00
o
00
O
LJ
LU
a.
0.01
0.05
O.I
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
99.8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
_
—
—
—
—
_ &
3 Q &
O O 8 &
"* d °
a
— a
—
._
—
—
—
—
1 I 1
1 1 1
1 j
A *
O
a
a
A A
A
_
6_
8 a 1
L.
1
o
H
Xl
v
\
\
\
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
—
—
—
A"
A A _
A
—
A
• •"
• •
• " _ •-
• • " _
^ —
—
EXTRAPOLATED DATA ~
DiFFUSIONAL AND OPTICAL
— 0 I40MW/IO% REFUSE
_ a 140 MW/ 5% REFUSE
A 100 MW/ 10% REFUSE
— IM FACTORS
— • 140 MW/ 10% REFUSE
• I40MW/ 5% REFUSE
A IOOMW/IO%REFUSE
0.01
0
.1
i i i
1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
99.99
99.9
99.8
99
98 *
95 >-"
o
90 5
o
80 £
70 m
60 0
L^
50 b
40 !ti
30 §
20
10
5
2
1
O 5
\J .w
0.2
.0 10.0
Figure 13
PARTICLE DIAMETER N
Fractional efficiency of ESP at three LOAD/% REFUSE combinations.
enclosed in rectangle is considered less accurate than remainder.
Data
-------
Precipitator Power Supply Sections
Inlet
1C
1A
ID
IB
Outlet
Figure 14
309
-------
TABLE II
POWER SUPPLY READINGS, UNIT 1 PRECIPITATOR
UNION ELECTRIC MERAMEC STEAM PLANT
DATE
5/2/75
10
h-1
O
5/12/75
TIME
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
0920
1030
1130
1230
1350
LOAD, MW/
% REFUSE
100/10%
140/10%
POWER
SUPPLY
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
PRIMARY
VOLTAGE, V
235
300
265
290
235
310
280
300
250
310
270
300
230
300
270
300
235
300
280
300
250
285
270
275
240
285
260
275
250
285
270
270
250
285
270
270
250
285
270
270
PRIMARY
CURRENT, A
43
42
43
46
44
41
44
46
43
42
42
45
43
40
42
46
43
41
42
46
46
46
46
44
46
46
46
44
46
46
46
44
46
45
46
44
46
46
46
44
SECONDARY
VOLTAGE
EAST/WEST ,
kV
29/29
31/32
28/28
30/30
28/29
31/32
31/30
30/29
30/31
31/33
29/30
30/30
30/30
28/29
31/33
29/30
29/30
31/32
31/29
29/27
29/31
29/30
26/27
31/29
29/30
30/29
26/27
30/28
29/31
29/30
26/27
30/28
29/31
30/28
27/27
30/29
30/31
30/29
26/27
30/28
SECONDARY
CURRENT, mA
260
280
290
295
260
270
295
295
260
275
285
300
260
270
285
300
255
260
285
295
275
290
290
290
275
290
290
295
275
290
290
295
285
300
285
300
285
290
285
295
SPARK
RATE
»/min
55
70
75
40
25
55
100
180
40
110
60
90
25
75
110
50
40
50
180
100
60
75
70
50
35
90
75
10
45
150
85
10
160
200
140
60
90
180
100
15
-------
TABLE II
(Continued)
DATE
5/19/75
TIME
1235
LOAD, MW/
% REFUSE
140/5%
5/20/75
1340
1445
1545
1240
1350
1445
1545
1655
140/10%
POWER
SUPPLY
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
PRIMARY
VOLTAGE, V
235
290
260
260
235
290
260
260
235
290
260
260
235
290
260
250
235
285
260
260
250
290
290
270
240
290
250
250
250
290
275
260
250
270
290
250
240
250
250
230
PRIMARY
CURRENT, A
46
44
44
45
45
44
44
45
45
44
44
45
45
44
44
45
45
44
44
45
45
44
44
44
45
44
44
44
44
44
43
44
44
44
43
44
45
44
44
44
SECONDARY
VOLTAGE
EAST/WEST ,
kv
28/30
30/30
27/25
29/27
28/29
30/30
29/27
27/26
28/29
30/30
29/27
27/26
28/30
30/29
29/27
27/25
28/29
29/28
29/27
27/26
29/31
30/31
32/30
27/28
28/29
29/30
28/26
24/26
30/32
29/31
32/30
25/27
30/31
29/28
31/29
25/25
27/28
25/27
27/25
23/23
SECONDARY
CURRENT, mA
275
280
295
290
275
280
295
285
275
280
295
285
270
280
295
285
275
285
295
285
270
270
300
275
270
270
300
275
270
280
300
275
265
275
290
275
260
275
290
270
SPARK
RATE
l/min
10
90
5
30
55
165
10
50
55
165
10
50
0
180
50
10
0
160
0
75
20
250
40
110
10
180
15
10
45
300
10
100
10
60
35
50
10
60
20
-------
TABLE II
(Continued)
DATE
TIME
LOAD, MW/
% REFUSE
POWER
SUPPLY
PRIMARY
VOLTAGE, V
PRIMARY
CURRENT, A
SECONDARY
VOLTAGE
EAST/WEST,
kV
SECONDARY
CURRENT, mA
U)
I—"
ro
5/21/75
5/22/75
1800
1900
2000
2245
2345
0045
0145
0245
0345
0445
100/10%
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
1A
IB
1C
ID
220
245
230
230
240
245
245
225
220
230
230
230
220
265
230
250
210
265
230
250
210
265
235
250
210
265
235
250
215
265
235
250
215
265
230
250
250
260
260
260
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
46
44
45
45
45
44
45
45
46
44
45
45
46
44
45
45
46
45
45
45
46
45
45
45
46
45
44
45
26/27
24/24
26/24
22/22
29/31
23/23
26/25
22/22
28/28
23/23
26/25
23/22
26/26
27/27
25/24
25/25
26/26
27/27
24/24
25/25
25/26
26/26
24/24
25/25
25/25
26/26
24/24
24/24
25/26
27/27
24/24
25/25-
26/26
27/27
25/25
25/25
29/29
27/28
27/29
26/26
265
270
290
270
265
270
290
270
270
270
270
290
270
280
300
280
270
280
300
280
270
280
300
280
270
280
300
280
270
280
300
285
270
280
300
285
270
285
300
285
-------
than for the 100 MW conditions. On May 20, the spark rates
appeared to decrease starting at approximately 3:00 pm and continued
to be low until 4:45 am on May 22. This change in electrical opera-
tion was probably related to the decrease in ash resistivity
observed May 22.
Before each test, the power supplies were turned onto manual
control and were maintained in this way throughout each test
period. The electrical conditions were maximized by increasing
the input power until the maximum possible secondary voltage
was obtained without exceeding a spark rate of 150 sparks per
minute. Using this procedure current densities ranging from
73.2 nA/cm2 to 85.5 nA/cm2 were obtained. These values are near
the theoretical limits for the production of back corona based
on the measured average resistivity of 1.4 x 10i: fi-cm and are
above what are considered by some to be the practical limits for
operation with a resistivity of 1.4 x 101J fi-cm.
The V-I characteristics plotted in Figures 15, 16, and 17
for the unit load percent refuse combinations of 140 MW/10%
refuse and 140 MW/5% refuse, and 100 MW/10% refuse indicate that
some back corona probably occurred at currents greater than 260 mA.
When back corona occurs the best operating point is difficult to
define and the procedure outlined above was used.
During the previous baseline test no indications of back
corona were observed which agreed with the lower value of resis-
tivity (2 x 1010 ft-cm) obtained on the baseline test.
A complete set of V-I tables is given in Table III for the
refuse test.
III. RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
In-situ resistivity measurements were made using a point-to-
plane resistivity probe. The results of the measurements are
presented in Table IV. Because of the time period between dates
on which the 100 MW/10% refuse data were taken, it is difficult to
explain whether the differences in resistivity are due to coal or
refuse. The average value of the resistivity calculated at
sparkover between parallel discs for all tests was 1.46 x 10ll ft-cm,
The standard deviation for the 10 measurements was 7.00 x 1010 fi-cm,
Birmingham, Alabama
June, 1975
3484 - FINAL REPORT
313
-------
INLET OUTLET
• O EAST
WEST
IA IB
10% REFUSE
12 , 1975
Figure 15.
20 25
SECONDARY VOLTAGE, kV
I-V Characteristic Power Sets lA (Inlet) and
IB (outlet).
314
-------
300
140 MW/ 5 % REFUSE
MAY 19,1975
Figure 16.
20 25
SECONDARY VOLTAGE,kV
I-V Characteristic Power Sets 1A (Inlet) and IB
(outlet).
30
315
-------
IOOMW/10% REFUSE
MAY 2 , 1975
20 25
SECONDARY VOLTAGE, kV
Figure 17. I-V characteristics of power sets 1A (Inlet) and IB
(outlet).
316
-------
III
MERAMEC POWER STATION
V-I CHARACTERISTICS
May 19, 1975
140 MW LOAD/5% REFUSE
Panel 1A
mA
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
East
kV
15
19.2
21.6
23.4
24.7
26
27.2
28.5
West
kv
16
20.2
22.5
24
25.5
27.4
28.4
28.7
Panel IB
mA
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
East
kV
15.2
18.9
21
23.8
26
27.5
29
28
West
kV
15.5
18.9
21
24
27
27.5
28
26
Panel 1C
mA
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
East
kV
17.8
20
22.4
24
25.5
26.8
28
29
West
kV
16.5
19.5
21.2
23
24
25
27
27.2
Panel ID
mA
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
East
kV
15
17.8
19.7
21.4
22.6
25
26.5
27
West
kV
14.5
17
19
20.4
21.9
23
24.8
26.5
U)
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
May 2,
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
May 12
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
280
300
15.
18.
21
23.
26
27.
29
28
1975
15
20
22.
25.
29
29.
29.
25.
, 1975
15
18.
21
23.
26
28
28.
27
2
9
8
5
8
5
2
8
5
3
,3
,5
100 MW LOAD 10% REFUSE
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
15.5
18.2
21
23
24.2
25.5
28.5
30
15
19.5
21.8
22.2
25
27
30
30
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
15
20
22.8
25.5
29
29.2
29.8
25.5
14
18.5
21.2
23
27.8
29.2
29
29
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
16
18.2
21
21.2
23.5
25.5
26.8
29
16.5
18.2
20
21.8
25
25
26.2
29.2
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
300
15
17.2
20
22
25
27.6
28.2
26
16
17.5
20
22
25
27
28
23
140 MW LOAD/10% REFUSE
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
280
300
15
19.5
22
24
25.5
27
28.5
29
29
15.5
21
23.5
25
27
29.5
30
30.5
30.5
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
280
300
15
18.3
21
23.3
26
28
28.5
27
15
18.5
21.2
23.6
25.7
28
29.2
28
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
280
300
17.5
21.5
24
25
26.5
27
30
31
17
20.5
22.5
24
25.5
26.8
28.5
30
20
60
100
140
180
220
260
280
300
14
18.3
20
21.3
22.5
24.5
26.5
27.5
14
18.2
19
20.5
22. 5
24
26
26. 5
-------
TABLE IV
IN-SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
MERAMEC POWER STATION
RESISTIVITY
TEST
3A
3B
3C
3D
co
t~~*
oo
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
DATE
5/2/75
5/2/75
5/2/75
5/2/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
5/20/75
5/22/75
5/22/75
TIME
0900
1020
1145
1350
1235
1445
1215
1400
0015
0120
LOAD, MW/
% REFUSE
100/10%
100/10%
100/10%
100/10%
140/10%
140/5%
140/5%
140/10%
140/10%
100/10%
100/10%
INLET TEMPERATURE OF SPARKOVER
PORT # °F n-cm
6
6
6
6
NO
6
6
6
6
6
6
154.4
154.4
154.4
153.9
DATA
165.6
165.6
165.6
327.2
287.2
287.2
1.7X1011
2. 1x10 : l
2. 2x10 : l
l.SxlO1 1
1.7X101 l
4.2xl010
l.SxlO1 l
2. 1x10 J l
S.lxlO1 °
S.SxlO1 °
Average 1.46X1011 £2-cm
Standard deviation 7.00xl010 ft-cm
-------
APPENDIX H
RESULTS AND DATA FOR COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS
During the period of November 17 to 20, 1975, four air emission tests were
conducted by MRI. Like the previous coal only hazardous tests, the modified
Method 5 sampling train was used and MRI again conducted particle size
measurements using cascade impactors with the substrates being analyzed
for the hazardous pollutants. Results that were obtained are presented in
the order listed below.
Hi. Air Emission Test Data
Table Hl-a. Log of test activity
Table Hl-b. Mass emissions and ESP efficiency
Figure Hl-a. Graph of ESP efficiency data
Table Hl-c. Gas composition data
H2. SSMS Analysis of Input/Output Samples
Table H2-a. SSMS analyses of coal samples
Table H2-b. SSMS analyses of RDF samples
Table H2-c. SSMS analyses of fly ash samples
Table H2-d. SSMS analyses of bottom ash samples
H3. Tabulation of Analysis Results on Input/Output Samples (by Ralston-
Purina)
H4. Tabulation of Hazardous Pollutant Analysis Results (by MRI)
Table H4-a. Analysis of input/output samples
Table H4-b. Analysis of filter catches and impingers, etc.
Table H4-c. Analysis of impactor substrates
H5. Particle Size Report (by MRI)
H6. ESP Readings
319
-------
Table Hl-a. LOG OF TEST ACTIVITY
11/11/75 to
11/16/75
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
Started burning Orient 6 coal and RDF on 11/11/75.
RDF feed interrupted for a total of about 22 hr on
11/13 and 11/14 due to lack of RDF and plugging prob-
lems in Atlas bin. Conducted big tank bottom ash
tests on 11/12, 11/13, and 11/14.
Test No. 1 (133 Mw, 7-87, RDF).
Test No. 2 (134 M», 7-87. RDF).
After test bin sweep stopped and was down for 12 hr.
Test No. 3 (133 MB, 7% RDF).
RDF feed showed near end of test due to bridging in
Atlas bin.
Test No. 4 (135 Mw, 7-8% RDF).
320
-------
Table Ill-b. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSION TESTS AT POWER PLANT
FOR NOVEMBER 1975 (COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS)
ESP Inlet
Test No.
date
1
(11/17/75)
03 2
N5 L
*-* (11/18/75)
3
(11/19/75
A
(11/20/75)
Participate
Average boiler concentration
load-Mw grams /dncnt
and (7.) refuse (grams /m3)
133 (7-8%) 4.19
(2.63)
134 (7-8%) 5.83
(3.78)
133 (7%) 6.09
(3.91)
135 (7-8%) 4.30
(2.72)
ESP Outlet
Gas flow
dncm/mln
Lm3/mtn)
10,754
17,150
9,113
14,122
10,782
16,754
10,811
17,093
Particulate
concentration
grama /dncm
OE 0.222
OW 0.373 .
Avg 0.293-
OE 0.533
OW 0.508,
Avg 0.522-
OE 0.277
OW 0.460 ,
Avg 0.350-
OE 0.213
OW 0.506 ,
Erams/m
(0.140)
(0.243)
(0.332)
(0.327)
(0.176)
(0.277)
(0.130)
(0.300)
Gas flow
dncm/mln
4,839
4,387
5,236
4,047
5,434
3,679
5,434
3,707
(tn3/mln)
7,726
6,764
8,405
6,283
8,575
6,141
8,886
6.254
ESP
efficiency
93.07=
91.17.
94.2%
92 . 37,
Avg 0.332-
aj Weighted average based on gas flow.
-------
100 r
8
o
95
A
A
i
X
o
•5 90
A
A
CO
LLJ
85
Previous MR! Tests
• Coal Only
OCoal & Refuse
Recent MRI Tests ( Nov 1975)
A Coal & Refuse
80
70 80
Figure Hl-a,
90 100 no
Boiler Load - MW
120
130
140
ESP performance as a function of boiler load.
322
-------
Table Hl-c. SUMMARY OF STACK GAS COMPOSITION DATA COAL -I- REFUSE - HAZARDOUS (November 1975)
Orsat analysis
Date
11/17/75
11/17/75
11/17/75
11/18/75
11/18/75
Oj 11/18/75
fO
1-0 11/19/75
11/19/75
11/19/75
11/20/75
11/20/75
11/20/75
Test
No.
1 I
1 OE
1 OH
2 I
2 OE
2 OW
3 I
3 OE
3 OW
4 I
4 OE
4 OW
Power load Mw Moisture
(Z refuse)
133 (7-8)
133 (7-8)
133 (7-8)
134 (7-8)
134 (7-8)
134 (7-8)
133 (7)
133 (7)
133 (7)
135 (7-8)
135 (7-8)
135 (7-8)
(7. by volume)
9.6
7.9
6.9
8.7
9.9
9.6
9.3
10.3
11.5
8.8
9.4
9.3
(N7 by difference)
% CO
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< O.I
< O.I
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
7. CO ?
13.9
13.6
13.0
14.4
13.6
13.8
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.9
13.3
12.4
7. 07
4.8
5.2
5.6
4.4
5.3
5.0
5.1
5.3
5.3
4.8
5.7
6.0
- dry Plant instrument EPA Instrument van Method 6ii'
% N2 7. 07
81.3 4.1
81.2
81.4
81.2 3.4
81.1
81.2
81.4 3.3
81.2
81.2
81.3 3.1
81.0
81.6
07 CO CO? 507 SO? (ppm)
EPA van no longer
on site 1,096
2123/
-
865
1,189
1,158
1,466
-
963
1,201
Method 7-'
NO* (ppm)
_
65
131
-
283
189
-
No samples
48
-
338
262
Method 5^'
Cl" (mR/Nm:
440
-
540
184
199
189
492
498
534
603
551
570
' EPA method^/
3) Hgy (Hg/Nm3)
66.1
-
-
16.2
-
-
22.3
-
-
19.8
-
<»/ S02 values are averages of two samples. Low values of 212 for run 1 OW Indicate possible sampling error.
b_/ NOx values are average of four samples.
£/ Cl~ determined as part of Method 5 train, using 27. NS2C03 solution In first two impingers after the filter analysis by ion selective electrode.
d/ Hgv analysis baaed on method in report authored by R. Statnlck of EPA.
-------
Table H2-a. SUMMARY OF TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSES FOR COAL SAMPLES
(CONCENTRATION IN PPM BY WEIGHT UNLESS NOTED OTHEFWISE)
(Coal + Refuse Hazardous)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Ha f nium
Lutetium
Ytterbium
Thulium
Erbium
Holmium
Dysprosium
Tellium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Coal , run
No. 1
1.4
3.4
0.21
31
< 0.27
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
0.16
0.24
3.2
-
< 0.35
0.14
1.2
0.14
0.60
-
0.49
0.17
0.44
54
34
98
23
75
1.4
2.0
< 0.35
1.3
0.60
Internal
standard
-
-
—
Coal, run
No. 2
1.4
3.4
< 0.21
15
< 0.27
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
< 0.12
0.24
1.6
-
< 0.35
0.15
1.4
0.37
1.4
0.14
1.1
0.39
1.0
54
34
120
54
75
2.8
4.6
0.34
2.0
0.30
Internal
standard
0.13
-
_
Coal , run
No. 4
0.33
1.6
< 0.21
7.3
< 0.27
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
< 0.12
0.24
1.6
-
< 0.35
< 0.11
< 0.95
< 0.12
0.60
-
0.49
0.17
0.44
5.4
3.4
43
6.4
21
0.60
0.91
0.35
0.98
0.40
Internal
standard
-
-
•*
Average
1.04
2.8
« 0.21
17.8
< 0.27
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
** 0.13
0.24
2.13
-
< 0.35
« 0.13
« 1.2
» 0.21
0.87
0.14
0.7
0.24
0.63
37.8
23.8
87.0
27.8
57.0
1.6
2.5
*• 0.35
1.4
0.43
Internal
standard
0.13
-
—
324
-------
Table H2-a. (Concluded)
Element
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
Selenium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Chlorine
Sulphur
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Ni trogen
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
Note: NR
All
Coal, run
No. 1
-
4.1
20
48
59
160
37
51
2.3
20
- 4.9
1.8
110
14
32
28
> 10,000
17
55
55
- 1,500
4.9
•* 1,400
- 2,800
=- 5,000
- 5,000
300
> 1%
- 3,300
710
970
63
NR
NR
NR
40
0.33
0.60
= Not reported .
Coal, run
No. 2
-
9.7
9.2
48
59
320
37
51
3.3
15
10
3.9
110
14
32
14
> 10,000
8.0
36
100
•• 1,500
4.9
610
°- 2,100
«- 5,000
- 5,000
150
> n
- 5,000
710
190
130
NR
NR
NR
40
0.67
1.2
elements not reported < 0.1 ppm
Coal, run
No. 4
-
9.7
2.0
21
12
6?
11
22
0.77
8.4
1.0
0.39
49
7.7
32
14
- 4,400
8.0
100
35
800
2.5
610
*• 1,200
~ 1,400
- 1,200
64
> 1%
*• 1,900
400
970
63
NR
NR
NR
60
0.33
0.26
weight.
Average
-
7.8
10.4
39.0
43.3
183.0
28.3
41.3
2.12
14.5
5.3
2.03
89.7
11.9
32
18.7
w 8,133
11.0
63.7
63.3
1,267
4.1
873
2,033
800
733
171
> 1%
*• 3,400
607
710
85.3
NR
NR
NR
46.7
0.44
0.69
325
-------
Table H2-b. SUMMARY OF TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSES FOR REFUSE SAMPLES
(CONCENTRATION IN PPM BY WEIGHT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
(Coal + Refuse Hazardous)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutetium
Ytterbium
Thulium
Erbium
Holmium
Dysprosium
Tellium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Refuse, run
No. 1
2.5
5.6
9.3
- 3,000
< 0.15
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
46
0.77
3.7
1.0
2.5
-
0.42
0.19
3.9
0.57
0.48
1.1
2.7
15
5.7
94
46
- 1,800
1.8
0.58
-
69
130
Internal
standard
34
8.6
_
Refuse, run
No. 2
5.8
5.6
9.3
- 3,000
< 0.15
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
46
0.77
7.9
1.0
3.3
0.11
0.42
0.19
3.9
0.81
0.69
1.1
2.7
15
5.7
54
39
*• 1,800
1.8
0.58
_
69
130
Internal
standard
34
8.6
_
Refuse, run
No. 4
4.4
5.6
9.3
> 500
0.17
-
-
-
-
_
Internal
standard
210
0.36
3.7
1.0
2.5
-
0.56
0.19
6.8
0.81
0.69
1.1
2.7
15
5.7
54
23
•• 2,300
4.3
0.44
_
120
130
Internal
standard
15
4.0
_
Average
4.2
5.6
9.3
~ 2,167
- 0.16
-
-
_
_
_
Internal
standard
101
0.63
5.1
1.0
2.8
0.11
0.47
0.19
4.9
0.73
0.62
1.1
2.7
15
5.7
67
36
- 1,967
2.6
0.53
_
86
130
Internal
standard
28
7.1
_
326
-------
Table H2-b. (Concluded)
Refuse, run Refuse, run
Element
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Neobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
Selenium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Chlorine
Sulphur
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
Note: NR =
All
No. 1
.
-
61
16
160
14
690
56
80
4.7
31
. 1.4
13
> 5,000 «*•
*• 3,400 =*
- 1,300
330
> 17o
*• 1,300
*• 2,500 *•
50
> 17»
2.7
> 17,
> 1%
~ 1,400 -
> 17o
> 0.57.
> 1%
> 17o
> 17o
> 17o
590
NR
NR
NR
430
0.28
76
Not reported .
elements not reported
No. 2
.
-
26
16
450
14
380
110
34
2.0
13
1.4
9.8
4,500
2,800
590
330
> 17o
360
2,500
27
> 0.57o
1.0
> 17o
> 0.57,
1,600
> 17c
> 0.57o
> 1%
> 17=
> 0.5%
> 17o
220
NR
NR
NR
200
0.28
220
< 0.1 ppm
Refuse, run
No. 4
.
-
46
12
300
29
690
67
60
4.7
23
7.0
13
> 5,000
*• 2,400
590
330
> 17o
660
980
27
> 17o
0.81
> 17o
> 0.57,
- 3,700
> 17»
> 0.57o
> 17»
> 17o
> 17»
> 17o
590
NR
NR
NR
200
0.21
22
weight.
Average
—
-
44
15
303
19
587
78
58
3.8
22
3.3
12
» 4,833
=* 2,867
*• 827
330
> 17c
~ 773
*• 1,993
35
> 0.837o
1.5
> 17o
> 0.677o
°- 2,233
> 17»
> 0.57o
> 17,
> 17o
> 0.837o
> 17o
467
NR
NR
NR
277
0.26
106
327
-------
Table H2-c. SUMMARY OF TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSES FOR FLY ASH SAMPLES
(CONCENTRATION IN PPM BY WEIGHT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
(Coal + Refuse Hazardous)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutetium
Ytterbium
Thulium
Erbium
Holmium
Dysprosium
Tellium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Fly ash, run
No. 1
4.4
5.6
2.0
600
2.0
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
2.1
0.36
3.7
0.83
3.3
0.21
0.84
0.40
9.0
1.9
1.6
2.5
6.2
34
13
100
46
490
8.6
1.2
-
15
23
Internal
standard
3.4
0.86
_
Fly ash, run
No. 2
25
19
9.3
700
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
4.6
0.77
5.5
1.0
7.0
0.53
2.8
0.93
18
3.2
3.2
5.0
12
68
27
270
130
900
6.5
1.2
-
35
81
Internal
standard
6.8
2.0
»
Fly ash, run
No. 4
12
11
2.0
700
3.3
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
3.6
0.36
3.7
1.0
7.0
0.14
0.56
0.40
9.0
0.81
1.6
1.1
6.2
15
5.7
94
46
320
6.5
2.9
-
15
23
Internal
standard
3.4
0.86
_
Average
13.8
11.9
4.4
667
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
Internal
standard
3.4
0.5
4.3
0.94
5.8
0.29
1.4
0.58
12
2.0
2.1
2.9
8.1
39
15.2
155
74
570
7.2
1.8
-
22
42
Internal
standard
4.5
1.2
_
328
-------
Table H2-c. (Concluded)
Element
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Neobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
Selenium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Chlorine
Sulphur
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
Fly ash, run
No. 1
-
26
16
160
51
690
110
8.0
9.4
61
7.0
13
*• 1,200
280
220
57
> 1%
130
130
150
> 0.5%
8.1
> 1%
> 0.57o
120
*• 4,800
"- 2,400
> n
> 17.
> 0.5%
> 17.
110
NR
NR
NR
430
2.8
430
Fly ash, run
No. 2
-
61
32
160
79
*• 1,200
93
8.0
9.4
130
38
23
°- 1,200
280
290
76
> 17o
230
130
100
> 0.57o
27
> 1%
> 17o
24
- 4,800
*• 4,400
> 17c
> 17c
> 17o
>0.57o
110
NR
NR
NR
430
28
430
Fly ash, run
No. 4
.
-
12
16
130
29
240
56
8.0
7.1
230
14
13
*• 1,200
150
160
41
> 17o
280
130
100
> 0.57,
27
> 1%
> 0.57=
65
*• 4,800
*• 2,400
> 1%
> 1%
> 17.
> 0.57o
110
NR
NR
NR
430
12
430
Average
.
-
33
21
150
53
710
86
8
8.6
140
20
16
*• 1,200
237
223
58
> 17o
213
130
117
> 0.57o
20.7
> 17o
> 0.677o
70
*• 4,800
- 3,067
> 17o
> 17o
> 0.837o
> 0.6770
110
NR
NR
NR
430
14.3
430
Note: NR = Not reported.
All elements not reported < 0.1 ppm weight.
329
-------
Table H2-d. SUMMARY OF TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSES FOR BOTTOM ASH SAMPLES
(CONCENTRATION IN PPM BY WEIGHT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
(Coal + Refuse Hazardous)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutetium
Ytterbium
Thulium
Erbium
Holmium
Dysprosium
Tellium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Bottom ash,
run No. 1
2.5
5.6
0.47
250
< 0.15
-
-
-
_
-
Internal
standard
4.6
0.60
3.7
0.75
2.5
0.14
0.56
0.40
3.9
0.81
0.69
0.83
2.7
15
5.7
54
23
900
3.2
0.29
-
3.5
23
Internal
standard
1.5
0.86
_
Bottom ash,
run No. 2
5.8
5.6
0.47
380
0.41
-
-
-
-
_
Internal
standard
4.6
0.36
3.7
0.5
3.3
0.14
0.56
0.40
9.0
0.81
0.69
1.1
2.7
15
5.7
94
46
900
4.3
0.29
-
6.9
9.9
Internal
standard
1.5
0.40
_
Bottom ash,
run No. 4
5.8
5.6
0.47
380
< 0.15
-
-
-
-
_
Internal
standard
21
0.77
3.7
0.50
3.3
0.14
0.56
0.40
3.9
0.81
0.69
1.1
2.7
34
5.7
94
46
900
4.3
0.58
-
15
23
Internal
standard
!-5
0.86
_
Average
4.7
5.6
0.47
337
« 0.24
-
-
_
_
_
Internal
standard
10.1
0.58
3.7
0.58
3.0
0.14
0.56
0.40
5.6
0.81
0.69
1.01
2.7
21.3
5.7
80.7
38.3
900
3.9
0.39
-
8.5
18.6
Internal
standard
1.5
0.71
_
330
-------
Table H2-d. (Concluded)
Element
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Neobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
S e 1 enium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Chlorine
Sulphur
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
Bottom ash,
run No. 1
.
-
6.1
6.9
110
14
240
56
16
0.94
33
2.3
' 6.5
600
560
290
76
> 1%
200
790
100
> 5,000
5.4
> 1%
.*• 3,400
•*• 1,200
«• 2,400
=- 1,600
> 1%
> 1%
> 1%
> 1%
110
NR
NR
NR
200
1.2
430
Bottom ash,
run No. 2
.
-
12
16
150
29
690
56
8.0
0.94
6.1
3.0
6.5
*• 1,200
560
290
76
> 1%
230
790
100
~ 3,700
5.4
> 1%
«*• 3,400
65
~ 4,000
•• 2,400
> 1%
> 17.
> 17.
> 17o
320
NR
NR
NR
200
1.2
320
Bottom ash,
run No. 4
_
-
12
16
110
29
380
110
16
0.94
6.1
3.0
6.5
600
560
290
150
> 1%
660
790
100
> 5,000
2.7
> 17.
> 5,000
120
°- 1,300
01 4,400
> 1%
> 17.
> 0.57.
> 17.
220
NR
NR
NR
200
2.1
220
Average
_
-
10
13
123
24
437
92
13.3
0.94
15.1
2.8
6.5
fa 800
560
290
101
> 17.
363
790
100
» 4,567
4.5
> 17. •
w 3,933
w 462
=- 2,567
=* 2,800
> 17.
> 17.
> 0.837.
> 17.
217
NR
NR
NR
200
1.5
323
Note: NR = Not reported.
All elements not reported < 0.1 ppm weight.
331
-------
Table H3-a. COAL ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS
U>
LO
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Heating value (kj/kg
Moisture (wt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (tft %)-/
(A1203)
(CuO)
(Fe203)
(PbO)
(K20)
(Na20)
(ZnO)
(Cr20)
LI
Ag (ppm)
Cl
1A
25,904
7.960
7,)S.I
6.811
65.348
4.013
1.496
1.463
12.91
31.48
53.75
1.458
0.001
1.458
0.002
0.112
0.112
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.371
11/17
IB
133
7nlM
-Oh
25,108
8.520
7.135
65.774
4.117
1.435
1.702
11.31
30.37
53.97
1.420
0.001
1.770
0.002
0,154
0.120
0.008
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.370
1C
25,803
8.320
5.941
65.826
3.988
1.477
1.329
13.110
30.71
55.026
1.099
0.002
0.683
0.002
0.128
0.113
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.363
2A
24,565
10.500
7.241
63.545
4.045
1.367
1.360
11.93
30.61
51.650
1.644
0.003
1.064
0.002
0.180
0.074
0.009
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.301
11/18
2B
~o/o"
24,394
9.590
8.309
61.931
3.788
1.368
1.74
13.27
31.1
51.000
2.061
0.003
1.437
0.002
0.238
0.040
0.003
0.001
0.002
< 5
0.356
2C
24,675
10 . 100
7.372
62.660
3.866
1.347
1.402
13.25
32.10
50.43
1.777
0.003
0.485
0.001
0.212
0.033
0.004
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.350
-------
Table H3-a. (Concluded)
OJ
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Hw)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Moisture (wt 7.)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile matter
Fixed Carbon
Chemical analysis (wt 7.)—'
(A1203)
(CuO)
(Fe203)
(PbO)
(K20)
(Na20)
(ZnO)
(Cr20)
Li
Ag (ppm)
Cl
3A
22,932
9.550
7,)£/
7.833
64.400
4.016
1.444
1.556
11.20
29.67
52 . 95 .
1.614
0.001
1.598
0.002
0.179
0.099
0.007
0.001
0.001
< 5
0.327
11/19
3B
^
133
1 la
25,400
9.000
7.689
63.973
3.904
1.428
1.429
12.58
31.58
51.73
1.715
0.002
1.230
0.002
0.185
0.078
0.024
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.329
3C
23,566
11.900
7.286
62.287
3.832
1.358
1.43
11.90
30.04
50.77
1.457
0.001
1.348
0.002
0. 160
0.090
0.004
0.001
0.001
< 5
0.331
4A
25,093
13.000
6.438
64.032
4.730
1.492
1.348
8.961
28.79
51.765
1.243
0.002
1.365
0.003
0.141
0.117
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.304
11/20
4B
* « —
24,830
12 . 500
6.606
63.350
4.174
1.463
1.347
10.56
28.96
51.93
1.209
0.003
1.295
0.003
0.140
0.114
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.300
4C
24,507
12 . 200
6.769
63.040
4.012
1.491
1.291
11.20
29.06
51.97
1.388
0.001
1.401
0.002
0.154
0.116
0.003
0.002
0.001
< 5
0.321
a/ All analyses are on wet basis (moisture as received).
-------
Table in-b. RDF ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL 4- REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS^'
U)
GJ
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample Identification
B(1 1 1 1> f ffvn/1 f MM\
OL 1C 17 lOdu ^rlwy
Heating value (kJ/kg)
Moisture (wt %)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (ut
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile natter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt 7,)—'
(A1203)
(CuO)
(Fe203)
vPbO)
(K20)
(Na20)
(ZnO)
(Cr20)
Li
AS
Cl
Screen analyses (%)
Percent > 6.35 cm
Percent < 6.35 cm
Percent < 3.81 cm
Percent < 1.91 cm
Percent < 0.95 cm
Percent < 0.47 cm
Percent < 0.24 cm
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation
1A
14,043
22.600
*)«/
13.390
34.288
4.969
0.510
0.124
24.12
57.28
6.734
1.154
0.059
0.517
0.021
0.269
0.856
0.057
0.011
0.002
< 5.0
0.406
0
100.0
100.0
87.5
60.0
38.7
25.0
6.22
2.599
IB
12,289
24.20
16.828
29.865
4.207
0.552
0.121
24.22
53.97
5.003
1.279
0.047
1.010
0.038
0.318
0.964
0.069
0.012
0.001
< 5.0
0.315
0
100.0
100.0
92.6
40.9
26.1
17.0
7.92
2.356
1C
11,504
23.20
22.963
26.878
3.978
0.602
0.169
21.21
48.0
5.837
1.794
0.019
0.932
0.034
0.379
1.656
0.065
0.020
0.002
< 5.0
0.271
0
100.0
98.5
81.3
61.1
41.0
27.6
6.30
2.823
11/17
ID
133
— 7-8%
12,971
21.90
18.275
31.162
4.366
0.575
0.187
23.52
52.95
6.873
1.416
0.043
0.757
0.050
0.325
1.371
0.075
0.021
0.001
< 5.0
0.721
n
100.0
94.1
87.1
38.7
25.8
17.7
8.64
2.606
IE
11,959
22.80
21.076
28.641
4.038
0.692
0.193
22.56
48.36
7.56
1.273
0.065
0.873
0.041
0.373
1.555
0.075
0.037
0.002
< 5.0
0.283
0
100.0
100.0
90.9
64.9
42.8
28.5
5.59
2.556
IF
12,188
22.60
17.105
30.728
4.358
0.685
0.193
24.32
51.63
8.66
1.319
0.038
0.708
0.050
0.328
1.038
0.060
0.031
0.001
< 5.0
0.381
0
100.0
100.0
87.9
66.1
43.5
29.0
5.61
2.624
1C
13,748
21.40
17.213
31.047
4.433
0.599
0.189
25.12
54.47
6.917
1.315
0.036
0.859
0.046
0.313
1.189
0.072
0.011
0.002
< 5.0
0.353
0
100.0
100.0
89,6
61.0
39.1
34.3
5.69
2.707
-------
Table ID-b. (Concluded)
10
LO
Ol
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample identification
Boiler load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Keating value (kj/kg)
Moisture (wt %)
Proximate and ultimate analyses (wt
Ash
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Oxygen
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Chemical analysis (wt 7,)i'
(A1203)
(CuO)
(Fe203)
(PbO)
(K20)
(Na20)
(ZnO)
(Cr20)
Li
Ag
Cl
Screen analyses (7.)
Percent > 6.35 cm
Percent < 6.35 cm
Percent < 3.81 cm
Percent < 1.91 cm
Percent < 0.95 cm
Percent < 0,47 cm
Percent < 0.24 cm
Geometric mean diameter (ran)
Geometric standard deviation
2A
12,309
21.60
*)!/
18 . 502
31.830
4.508
0.602
0.118
22.84
52.77
7.134
1.419
0.072
1.530
0.043
0.333
1.323
0.075
0.012
0.001
< 5.000
0.267
0
100.0
100.0
82.6
50.0
32.6
21.7
7.37
2.653
2B
11,513
22.90
19.429
29.915
4.441
0.626
0.108
22.57
50.27
7.402
1.484
0.035
0.954
0.040
0.336
1.343
0.074
0.013
0.001
< 5.0
0.311
0
100.0
100.0
86.1
58.4
38.6
25.7
6.32
2.653
11/18
2C
134
11,711
22.90
21.357
28.912
4.163
0.603
0.100
21.97
49.57
6.168
1.328
- 0,026
1.128
0.058
0.380
1.621
0.075
0.031
0,002
< 5.0
0.309
0
100.0
100.0
85.6
54.4
34.4
24.4
6.78
2.641
2(1
13,088
19.50
17.066
33.729
4.838
0.63
0.121
24.11
55.54
7.889
1.425
0.074
0.707
0.033
0.316
1.167
0.061
0.014
0.001
< 5.0
0.579
0
100.0
100.0
90.6
36.2
23.7
15.6
8.51
2.344
2E
11,237
22.70
22.494
28.060
4. '066
0.578
0.131
21.97
46.92
7.885
1.260
0.222
1.498
0.060
0.331
1.811
:0.068
0.019
0.001
< 5.0
0.300
0
100. 0
96.1
82.5
62.4
41.6
27.3
6.27
2.854
11/19
3A
1 T1
i
11,566
24.20
19.632
29.335
4.177
0.569
0.144
21.94
48.97
7.201
1.192
0.025
1.037
0.043
0.322
1.549
0.066
0.011
0,001
< 5.0
0.388
0
100.0
100.0
96,4
46.7
31.5
20.0
7.00
2.372
4A
13,171
20.90
17.56
32.747
4.548
0.627
0.174
23.44
53.39
8.147
1.744
0.024
0.927
0.037
0.313
1.250
0.058
0.012
0.001
< 5.0
0.653
0
100.0
100.0
57.6
43.1 •
27.3
18.2
9.78
2 . 907
11/20
4B
135
7 - 87D
12,742
21.52
18.286
32.648
4.803
0.642
0.181
21.92
51.16
9.03
1.280
0.018
1.072
0.033
0.366
1.313
0.065
0.013
0.001
< 5.0
0.532
0
100.0
97.1
86.1
59.1
35.7
22.6
6.68
2.654
4C
11,166
25.80
20.257
28.122
4.155
0,586
0.185
20.88
46.74
7.197
1.179
0.026
1.639
0.041
0.334
1.568
0,077
0.017
0.001
< 5
0.282
0
100.0
100.0
92.3
68.5
42.6
27.2
5.44
2.465
a/ All analyses are on wet basis (moisture as received).
-------
Table 113-c. FtY ASH ANALYSIS FOR COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS
OJ
co
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample Identification
Percent refuse
Boiler load (Mw)
Moisture (7.)
Heating value (kJ/kg)
Chemical analysis (wt %)-
Ash
A1203
CuO
Fe203
(PbO)
(K20)
(Na20)
(ZnO)
(Cr20)
LI
S
Ag (ppm)
Bacterial analysis
Total pl.ttc count/g
Fecal coliform (MPN)/g
Sa Imone 1 la
11/17
Inlet 1A
"
LJJ
0.100
2,994
94.605
19.110
0.020
18.448
0.108
2.252
1.930
0.136
0.018
0.011
0.730
< 5
50
< 3
Negative
Outlet 1A
7
0.140
179.1
93.597
18.345
0.020
18.907
0.115
2.218
2.003
0.147
0.019
0.011
0.860
< 5
< 10
< 3
Negative
Inlet 2 A
0.100
1,268
94.605
21.854
0.033
12.299
0.110
2.658
1.107
0.132
0.017
0.011
0.470
< 5
< 10
< 3
Negative
11/18
Outlet 2A
0.200
2,779
89.797
18.229
0.030
13.829
0.117
2.344
1.518
0.148
0.019
0.010
0.750
< 5
40
< 3
Negative
Inlet 2B
7HT i . i. . . i
0.130
2,493
94.997
21.279
0.033
12.445
0.106
2.508
1.187
0.128
0.019
0.020
0.430
< 5
< 10
< 3
Negative
Outlet 7B
0.110
2,889
91.301
19.264
0.031
13 . 786
0.121
2.283
1.570
0.147
0.019
0.010
0.730
< 5
< 10
< 3
Negative
Inlet 3A
0.160
2,531
95.904
22 . 154
0.029
12.851
0.084
2,561
0.901
0.104
0.017
0.011
0.510
< 5
< 10
< 3
Negative
11/19
Outlet 3A
0.140
NR*
92.499
21.275
0.033
12.765
0.110
2.599
1.175
0.142
0.018
0.011
0.680
< 5
< 10
< 3
Negative
Inlet 3B
— 7%
133
0.180
500
95.597
22.370
0.030
12.619
0.082
2.610
0.874
0.111
0.018
0.011
0.480
< 5
< 10
< 3
Negative
Outlet 3B
0.160
314
91.996
20 . 883
0.033
12.695
0.106
2.585
1.049
0.137
0.018
0.011
0.690
< 5
< 10
< 3
Negative
*NR - Not Reported
-------
Table H3-c. (Concluded)
Oo
Date, 1975
Teat No. and sample identification
R«4 1 «»• 1 r\<*A /Mu\
Boner ioaa (.rnf)
Moisture (Z)
Heating value (k J/kg )
Chemical analysis (wt 7.)-/
Ash
A1203
CuO
Fe203
(PbO)
(K20)
(Na20>
(ZnO)
(Cr20>
Li
S
Ag (ppm)
Bacterial analysis
Total plate count/g
Fecal coliform (MPN)/g
Sa Imone 1 la
11/20
Inlet 4A
< 0.1
1,400
93.900
18.498
0.020
16.526
0.091
2.197
1.512
0.127
0.018
0.009
0.560
< 5
30
< 3
Negative
Outlet 4A
< 0.1
1,156
90.900
18.816
0.026
14.998
0.099
2.372
1.418
0.136
0.017
0.009
0.780
< 5
10
< 3
Negative
Inlet 4B
7H11
-O/o — ~"
135
< 0.1
1,119
94.100
18.444
0.020
16.562
0.103
2.2.30
1.713
0.119
0.018
0.010
0.570
< 5
70
< 3
Negative
Outlet 4B
< 0.1
115
90.800
17.524
0.025
14.982
0.098
2.306
1.289
0.134
0.018
o.oto
0.770
< 5
130
< 3
Negative
£/ All analyses on wet basis.
-------
Table H3-d. SLUCDE SOLIDS ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL 4- REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS^/
00
Date, 1975
Test No. and sample Identification
Percent refuse
Boiler load (Mw)
Moisture (%)
Heating value (kj/kg)
Chemical analysis (wt %)~f
Ash
(A1203)
(CuO)
(Fe,03)
(PbO)
(K20)
(Na20)
(ZnO)
(Cr20)
LI
S
Ag (ppm)
Bacterial analysis
Total plate count/g
Fecal collform (MPN)/g
Salmonella
Particle size
Percent > 6.35 cm
Percent < 6.35 era
Percent < 3.81 cm
Percent < 1.91 cm
Percent < 0.95 cm
Percent < 0.47 cm
Percent < 0.24 cm
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Geometric standard deviation
11/17
1
7-8% •
133
37.400
2,697
53.330
7.200
0.063
5.546
0.030
0.693
2.474
0.047
0.043
0.003
0.144
< 5
54,000
< 3
Negative
0
100.0
100.0
94.6
80.3
54.3
35.9
4.29
2.373
11/18
2
7-8%
134
29.100
760
66.575
7.057
0.150
3.841
0.039
0.865
3.455
0.251
0.035
0.003
0.213
< 5
140,000,000
< 1,100
Negative
0
100.0
100.0
83.3
73.3
60.0
43.3
4.45
2.866
11/19
3
7%
133
53.80
4,121
32.749
5.698
0.035
4.126
0.018
0.498
0.999
0.026
0.012
0.002
0.310
< 5
81,000
< 3
Negative
0
100.0
100.0
99.5
80.8
55.8
43.8
3.86
2.297
11/20
4
7-8%
135
36.50
11,048
57.658
5.622
0.092
5.028
0.033
0.726
3.592
0.051
0.040
0.003
0.044
< 5
43,000
< 23
Negative
0
100.0
100.0
98.8
81.2
59.3
37.9
3.94
2.242
a/ All analyses on wet basis (moisture as received).
-------
Table H3-e. RIVER WATER AND SLUICE WATER ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS
VO
Date, 1975
Sample identification
Percent refuse
Boiler load (Mw)
Total suspended solids (pptn)
Total disolved solids (ppm)
Biochemical oxygen demands (ppm)
Chemical oxygen demands (ppm)
pH
Total alkalinity (ppm)
Oil and grease (ppm)
Cyanide (ppm)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/liter)
Test 1
11/17
RW SW
7-87.
133
76.0
460.0
33.6
224.0
7.4
136.0
< 5
< 0.05
3.8
48.0
624.0
6.0
29.7
9.0 •
160.0
15.0
< 0.05
2.4
Test 2
RW
7-
1 ; / ' 8
SW
8%
134
104.0
480.0
3.1
15.1
7.3
131.0
12.0
< O.U5
2.0
40.0
2,076.0
34.0
289.0
8.9
164.0
14.0
< 0.05
2.3
Test
3 11/19
RW SW
77.
133
48.0
452.0
3.3
23.0
7.8
118.0
<"5
< 0.05
2.3
124.0
560.0
13.8
182.0
8.7
125.0
8.0
< 0.05
2.0
Test 4
RW
7-
11/20
SW
8%
135
12.0
440.0
3.3
37.3
7.9
152.0
7.0
< 0.05
2.2
208.0
708.0
34.2
350.0
9.1
174.0
8.0
< 0.05
2.0
Bacterial analysis
Total plate count/ml
Fecal coliform (MPN)/100 ml
Salmonella
34,000 6,400
24,000 4,300
Postive Neg
Group B
840,000 75,000 78,000
9,300 4,300 110,000
Neg Neg Neg
3 is, 000
24,000
Postive
Group B
150,000 5,600
24,000 4,300
Neg Neg
-------
Table H4-al. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA FOR COAL
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1975 n/17 11/18 11/20
Test No. 124
Power load (Mw) -^33 ^^ ^5
% Refuse 7_8 7_8 7_8
Trace pollutant analysis
(ug/g) dry basis
Sb*/
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
< 1
< 1
< 440
< 1.1
0.22
25.7
12.2
18.8
0.27
1.3
0.12
657
30
39.1
104
5,000
34
< 1
< 1
< 440
< 1.8
0.24
26.1
21.6
12.8
0.28
1.0
0.24
765
50
47.4
107
2,400
55
< 1
< 1
< 440
< 1.1
0.21
42.8
17.2
18.8
0.20
1.9
0.25
635
32
73.1
122
7,200
45
a_/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low. Probable errors in
in analysis. Refer to SSMS data for comparisons.
b_/ By ion selective electrode.
340
-------
Table H4-a2. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA FOR REFUSE
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1975 11/17 11/18 11/20
Test No. 1 24
Power load (Mw) 133 134 135
% Refuse 7-8 7-8 7-8
Trace pollutant analysis
(ug/g) dry basis
Sb-/ < 1 < 1 < 1
As^/ < 3 < 3 < 3
Ba 680 957 900
Be < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.2
Cd . 24.9 8.4 8.0
Cr 341 280 228
Cu 261 311 178
Pb 460 482 456
Hg 4.7 3.7 3.5
Se < 1.1 < 1-02 < 1.0
Ag 3.3 3.5 2.7
Ti 1,000 991 1,024
V 15 24 13
Zn 540 630 620
Br 200 180 160
Cl^ 3,600 4,200 7,000
F . < 52 < 54 < 48
a/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low. Probable errors
in analysis. Refer to SSMS data for comparisons.
b/ By ion selective electrode.
341
-------
Table H4-a3. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA FOR SLUICE
SOLID SAMPLES TAKEN DURING COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1975 11/17 11/18 11/20
Test No. 123
Power load (Mw) 133 134 135
Percent (%) Refuse 7-8 7-8 7-8
Trace pollutant analysis
(yig/g) dry basis
Sb2/ < 1 < 1 < 1
As^/ < 2 < 2 < 2
Ba 2,100 2,800 2,400
Be 2.8 3.6 2.4
Cd 4.8 1.7 2.4
Cr 805 650 570
Cu 552 3,606 1,383
Pb 430 448 354
Hg 0.09 0.16 0.11
Se 1.52 1.87 1.22
Ag 1.5 1.3 2.4
Ti 5,572 5,153 5,009
V 120 166 108
Zn 666 518 647
Br^ f 86 48 70
1,500 290 920
< 22 < 18 < 22
a_/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low. Probable errors in
analysis. Refer to SSMS data for comparison.
b/ By ion selective electrode.
342
-------
Table H4-a4. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA FOR FLY ASH
SAMPLES TAKEN DURING COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1975
Test No.
Power load (Mw)
7o Refuse
11/17
1
133
7-8
11/18
2
134
7-8
11/20
4
135
7-8
Trace pollutant analysis
Qig/g) dry basis-'
0
0
0
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
2.4
9.4
1,200
12.4
9.9
230
146
880
1.8
6.1
3.7
8,094
309
1,044
87
53
29
3.8
20
790
12.6
11.6
242
162
957
1.5
9.5
1.7
7,705
311
1,114
83
< 390
80
2.7
8.8
1,800
17.8
9-1
221
245
881
0.7
3.9
2.2
7,542
336
1,010
68
156
38
4.9
12
1,800
15.1
11.1
221
238
1,075
1.1
8.5
2.5
7,460
352
1,187
76
< 350
100
2.7
10.0
1,400
12
8.2
222
150
791
2.1
6.3
1.5
7,638
273
908
86
< 330
44
3.0
13
1,300
13.7
10.9
189
177
861
2.4
13.4
1.7
6,996
325
1,037
70
< 330
123
a/ I = Sample taken from ESP hoppers nearest inlet.
0 = Sample taken from ESP hoppers nearest outlet.
b/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low. Probable errors in analysis.
Refer to SSMS data for comparisons.
c_/ By ion selective electrode.
343
-------
Table H4-a5. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS DATA FOR WATER SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS
Date, 1975
Test No.
Power load (Mw)
% Refuse
Trace pollutant
(ug/ml)
Sb"
As*/
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br
Cl-/
F
11/17
analysis^'
RW
< 0.004
< 0.01
< 9
< 0.02
< 0.0004
< 0.15
< 0.06
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.004
< 0.0005
< 1.3
< 0.07
< 0.26
0.5
23
0.3
1
133
7-8
SW
< 0.004
< 0.01
< 9
< 0.02
< 0.0004
< 0.15
< 0.06
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.004
< 0.0005
< 1.3
< 0.07
< 0.26
0.8
88
0.4
11/18
RW
< 0.004
< 0.01
< 9
< 0.02
< 0.0004
< 0.15
< 0.06
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.004
< 0.0005
< 1.3
< 0.07
< 0.26
0.5
21.3
0.3
2
134
7-8
SW
< 0.004
< 0.01
< 9
< 0.02
< 0.0004
< 0.15
< 0.06
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.004
< 0.0005
< 1.3
< 0.07
< 0.26
0.9
43
0.3
11/20
KW
< 0.004
< 0.01
< 9
< 0.02
< 0.0004
< 0.15
< 0.06
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.004
< 0.0005
< 1.3
< 0.07
< 0.26
0.6
21.2
0.3
4
135
7-8
SW
< 0.004
< 0.01
< 9
< 0.02
< 0.0004
< 0,15
< 0.06
< 0.02
< 0.01
< 0.004
< 0.0005
< 1.3
< 0.07
< 0.26
0.9
46
0.4
a/ RW is river water; SW is sluice water.
b/ Analysis results for Sb and As are quite low.
to SSMS data for comparisons.
£/ By ion selective electrode.
Probable errors in analysis. Refer
344
-------
Table H4-bl. PARTICULATE CATCH ANALYSIS FOR COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS -
ESP INLET AND OUTLET SAMPLE TRAINS
CO
.e-
Ui
Date, 1975
Power Load (Mw)
70 Refuse
Test No. & Location
Pollutant, (pg/g_)
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br~
Cl'k-/
F"
POM-/
1
2
3
4
1-1
< 2
< 6
1,600
9.7
8.6
229
189
940
1.3
7.7
4.4
8,316
105
1,200
312
1,300
< 87
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.3
11/17
133
7-8
1-OE
21
60
1,300
12.1
25
307
220
1,200
13
a/
6.1
6,600
430
2,000
NA
a/
NA
NA-/
NA*/
NA*/
NA*/
1-OW
5.1
43
1,200
11.8
31
400
230
1,200
4.9
a/
4.1
7,200
290
1,600
NA
a/
NA
NA*/
NA*/
NA*/
2-1
< 2
3
2,000
14.0
9.1
240
270
760
1.8
10.6
1.5
8,700
150
930
349
400
< 85
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.2
11/18
134
7-8
2-OE
12
27
1,100
13.1
15
240
210
590
4.9
a/
10
5,800
300
960
NA
£/
NA
NA-/
NA*./
NA*/
NA*/
2-OW
8
24
1,600
14.8
27
260
260
690
5.1
a/
5.1
5,800
330
1,100
NA
a/
NA
NA*/
NA*-/
NA*-/
NA^/
4-1
< 2
< 5
1,400
8.7
8.4
230
160
860
3.8
8.80
2.2
8,040
56
1,200
205
920
< 76
< 0.3
< 0.3
< 0.1
< 0.26
11/20
135
7-8
4-OE
10
37
1,600
13.9
37
360
270
1,500
8.9
a/
2.9
7,200
120
2,400
NA
a/
NA
NA-/
NA*/
NA3/
4-OW
4
25
1,000
10.4
15
190
180
710
8.2
a/
10
6,000
210
950
NA
a/
NA
NA*-/
NA*-/
NA*./
NA*./
a/ Insufficient sample.
b_/ By ion selective electrode.
£/ POM Identification: 1 (7,12-dirnethylbenz[a]anthracene)
2 (Benzo[j|]pyrene)
3 (3-methylcholanthrene)
4 (dibenz£a,jijanthracene)
NA = Not analyzed.
Note: Samples from Test No. 3 were not analyzed.
-------
Table H4-b2. TABULATION OF HAZARDOUS POLUJTANT ANALYSIS DATA (BY MRI) FOR
COAL + REFUSE HAZARDOUS TESTS--ESP INLET AND OUTLET SAMPLE TRAINS
Date, 1975
Power load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Test No. and location
Pollutant concentration (ua/Nm3)— /
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
1-. /
Hgt/
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br'
ci-i/
F"
CN-1/
NOj-
S0=
Volatile organic acid
POM!'
1
2
3
4
5
6
1-1
< 8.38 (< 1.0)
< 25.1 (20.3)
6,710
40.7
36.0
960
792
3,940
5.45 (66.1)
32.3 (18.3-21.0)
18.4
34,800
440
5,030
1,310 (4,900)
5,450 (438,000)
< 365 (5,020)
-
c/
sJ
N' « 279)
< 1.26 (4.38-7.17)
< 1.26 (< 3.19)
< 0.42 (< 0.92)
< 1.26 (< 3.19)
< 2.51 (< 9.16)
< 4.19 (2.59-13.8)
11/17
133
7-8
1-OE
4.67 (< 0.47)
13.3 (0.77-2.34)
289
2.69
5.56
68.3
48.9
267
2.89 (MA)
c/ (1.09-2.69)
1.36
1.47
95.6
445
NA (NA)
c/ (833,000)
NA
_
c/
£/
£/
NAE/ (c/)
NA£/ (c/)
NA£/ (£/)
NA£/ (c/)
NA£/ (c/)
NA£/ (c/)
1-OW
1.90 (< 0.90)
16.0 (3.63-5.67)
448
4.40
11.6
149
85.8
448
1.83 (NA)
£/ (18.0-19.6)
1.53
2,690
108
597
NA (5,000)
£/ (533,000)
NA (4,530)
—
s.f
c/
NA (< 233)
NA^7 (< 3.33)
NA=' « 3.33)
MAS' (< 0.77)
NA£/ (< 2.67)
NA£/ (< 6.33)
NA£/ (< 10,33)
-------
Table H4-b2. (Continued)
Date, 1975
Power load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Test No. and location
Pollutant concentration (ug/Nm3)-'
sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Kg-/
Se
Ag
Ti
V
Zn
Br"
Cl-1/
*\
N03"
S04
Volatile organic acid
POM!/
1
2
3
4
5
6
2-1
< 11.7 (< 1.28)
17.5 (22.5-23.6)
11,700
81.7
53.1
1,400
1,580
4,440
10.5 (16.2)
61.9 (27.2-28.1)
8.75
50,800
875
5,430
2,040 (2,910)
2,330 (185,000)
< 496 (7,110)
£/
£/
NA (< 284)
< 1.75 « 3.32)
< 1.75 (< 3.32)
< 0.58 (< 1.09)
< 1.17 (< 3.32)
< 2.92 (72.5-73.5)
< 4.67 (< 3.79-15.6)
11/18
134
7-8
2-OE
6.39 (< 1.96)
14.4 (< 9.75)
586
6.97
7.99
123
112
314
2.61 (NA)
c/ (15.6-18.6)
5.32
3,090
160
511
NA (4,140)
£/ (203,000)
NA (7,300)
c/
£/
NA (<: 429)
NA£/ (< 6.13)
NA£/ (< 6.13)
NA£/ « 1.41)
NA£/ (< 4.91)
NA^ (< 12.3)
NA£/ (< 19.02)
2-OW
4.06 << 2.11)
12.2 (5.39-10.9)
813
7.52
13.7
132
132
351
2.59 (NA)
c/ (36.6-39.5)
2.59
2,950
168
559
NA (3,690)
c/ (183,000)
NA (7,550)
c/
£/
NA (< 469)
NA£' (< 5.47)
NA£/ (< 5.47)
NA£/ (< 1.80)
NA£/ (< 5.47)
NA£/ (40.6-42.2)
NA£/ (< 21.09)
-------
Table H4-b2. (Concluded)
CO
4S
OO
Date, 1975
Power load (Mw)
Percent refuse
Test No. and location
11/20
135
7-8
4-1 4-OE
4-OW
Pollutant concentration
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
< 8.59 (< 1.08)
< 21.5 (14.4-16.3)
6,020
37.4
36.1
988
683
3,700
16.3 (19.8)
37.8 (72.0-74.2)
9.45
34,500
241
5,160
881 (5,400)
3,950 (600,000)
< 327 (5,600)
£/
S.I
NA (< 280)
< 1.29 (< 3.2)
< 1.29 (< 3.2)
< 0.43 (< 0.92)
< 1.12 « 3.20)
< 3.0 (<9.2)
< 4.30 « 12.8)
2.12 (< 1.65)
7.85 (< 8.41)
340
2.95
7.85
76.4
57.3
318
1.89 (NA)
c/ (31.1-34.6)
0.62
1,530
25.5
509
NA (4,990)
c/ (549,000)
NA (5,010)
£/
c/
NA (< 366)
NA£/ (< 4.27)
NA^ (< 4.27)
NA£^ (< 1.40)
NA0-7 (< 4.27)
NA£/ (< 14.0)
NA£/ « 18.3)
2.02 (< 2.2)
12.6 (< 10.5)
505
5.25
7.57
95.9
90.9
359
4.14 (NA)
c/ (30.2-33.9)
5.05
3,030
106
480
NA (5,350)
c/ (569,000)
NA (4,660)
c/
S.I
NA (< 603)
NA£/ (< 8.62)
NA^ « 8.62)
NA^ (< 1.98)
NAC-/ (< 6.90)
NA£/ (< 17.6)
NA£/ (< 26.7)
Se
Ag
Tt
V
Zn
Br"
ci-1/
F*
curs./
NC-3-
304
Volatile organic acid
POM!/
1
2
3
4
5
6
a/ Concentration based on analysis of particulate catch. Values in parentheses are vaporous concentration
collected by impingers. (ug/Nm^).
b/ Vaporous Hg concentration based on analysis of Statnick train data; NA " not analyzed.
c/ Not enough sample to analyze. Note: Analyses were not performed on samples from Test No. 3.
d/ By ion selective electrode.
si Results not reported because of interferences in analysis.
I/ POM identification: 1 (7 ,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene)
2 (benzo[ai]pyrene)
3 (3-methylcholanthrene)
4 (dibenz[a,h]anthracene)
5 (benz[c]phenanthrene)
6 (dibenz[c,£]carbazole)
-------
a/
VO
Table H4-cl. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS OF BRINK (INLET) IMPACTOR SUBSTRATES!
COAL + REFUSE TESTS
Element
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyclone
880
6.9
4.5
450
410
740
10
13,000
600
1,800
Stage 1
< 1,000
< 21
21
175
320
1,300
5.1
6,700
270
2,400
Stage 2
< 1,800
< 36
31
270
550
2,100
160
4,900
400
3,100
Ug/g
Stage 3
< 4,200
< 85
44
280
520
3,000
7.3
9,100
< 630
3,300
Stage 4
< 5,500
< 110
59
370
620
3,300
6.8
7,800
< 820
3,500
Stage 5
< 18,000
< 370
60
< 620
6,500
1,800
9.2
< 8,300
< 2,800
8,125
Filter
w
< 280
260
< 430
9,300
-
110
< 5,700
4,300
b/
a/ Insufficient sample for As, Sb, Hg, and Se analysis.
b/ Filter blank too high. (All impactor test substrates were composited in attempt to obtain suf-
ficient sample for analysis.)
-------
Table H4-c2. HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT ANALYSIS OF ANDERSEN (OUTLET) IMPACTOR SUBSTRATES^/ COAL + REFUSE TESTS
ua/e
Element
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
g Copper
Lead
Silver
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Stage 0
2,000
< 15
11
580
150
640
2.4
4,900
290
260
Stage 1
a/
13
8.4
1,300
400
580
3.3
24,000
620
a/
Stage 2
a/
13
12
1,300
340
740
3.0
28,000
760
a/
Stage 3
a/
23
14
1,200
430
580
7.6
32,000
860
a/
Stage 4
a/
28
25
1,600
390
1,800
6.2
54,000
1,300
a/
Stage 5
a/
40
38
2,300
550
2,800
4.2
88,000
2,000
a/
Stage 6
a/
47
47
2,100
980
3,700
10
85 , 000
2,100
£/
Stage 7
a/
48
65
3,200
830
4,400
30
92,000
2,600
a/
Stage 8
a/
< 130
120
7,400
2,200
5,800
26
-
6,300
a/
Final
filter
a/
< 29
280
1,500
15,740
3,300
3.7
11,000
720
a/
a/ Filter blank too high.
b/ Insufficient sample for As, Sb, Hg, and Se analysis. All substrates were composited in attempt to
obtain sufficient sample for all analysis.
-------
H5
PARTICLE SIZE MEASUREMENTS DURING COAL + REFUSE -
HAZARDOUS TESTS (NOVEMBER 1975)
MRI Report by Dr. E. Baladi
351
-------
PARTICLE SIZE DETERMINATION
COAL + HAZARDOUS TESTING (NOVEMBER 1975)
The last series of air emission tests at the Union Electric Power Plant
were carried out in November 1975. These tests included determination of
particle size distributions at the inlet and outlet of the ESP using cas-
cade impactor techniques. The particle size tests were done in conjunc-
tion with mass emission tests and other sampling activities. A total of
four mass particulate tests were carried out, but more than one particle
size test was done during each mass train test. The test conditions for
each of the tests were nearly identical and were as follows:
Date and test No. Power load (% refuse)
11/17/75 1 133 Mw (7-8)
11/18/75 2 134 Mw (7-8)
11/19/75 3 133 Mw (7)
11/20/75 4 135 Mw (7-8)
Results of the particle size determinations that were done during the above
four series of tests are presented below.
-\
^
PARTICULATE SIZING
Two kinds of particle-sizing instruments were used in the sampling. The
Brink Cascade Impactor (BMS II), manufactured by Monsanto EnviroChem System,
Inc., was used to sample the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) inlet. The
outlets of the ESP were sampled by using the Andersen Sampler (Mark III)
manufactured by Andersen 2000, Inc.
Methods 3 and 4 of the Federal Register were followed in the determination
of the major components of the flue gas (C02> 02, CO, N2, H20) for each run.
Brink Impactor (ESP Inlet)
Nine particle size runs were conducted at the inlet to the ESP using the
Brink Impactor (Figures H5-a and H5-b)» Table H5-a presents a summary of
the Brink Impactor sampling parameters. The weight of the individual impac-
tor1 s stages and the total mass for each of the nine runs were given in
Table H5-b. Table H5-c presents the cumulative weight percent versus ef-
fective cutoff diameter (Dp) of each stage for these runs. The effective
cutoff diameter, in microns, is based on previous measurement of particle
density (1 cc = 2.6 g).
352
-------
PARTICULATE
PORTS
ANDERSEN
PORTS
\ /
N
PARTICULATE
PORTS
ANDERSEN
PORTS
n\ /
PRECIPITATOR
B
PRECIPITATOR
123456789
D n n n n 3 n n _ _
INLET PORTS
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
J_ JL J1_JI_ Il_ n_ IL_ Q_ !!_ _-•-'
EAST
1
I
WEST
Figure H5-a. Schematic illustration of the ESP inlet and outlets,
353
-------
UJ
Ul
E
cs
.g 1 / 111
ftAr-m 4—
154cm *
XXX
n > (
+
4-
"*"
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6\/5 4321
4- Traverse Points
O Unreachable Points (Obstructed)
X Brink Sampling Points
•Sampling Ports
66cm
Figure H5-b. Schematic illustration of the ESP inlet sampling points
-------
Table H5-a. SUMMARY OF BRINK SAMPLING PARAMETERS (ESP INLET)
Ln
Run
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
9-1
a/
b/
Date
11-17-75
11-17/75
11-18-75
11-18-75
11-18-75
11-19-75
11-19-75
11-20-75
11-20-75
See Figure
°C - degree
Sampling!/
location
and duration
(min)
Port 9
Port 6
Port 9
Port 3
Port 9
Port 9
Port 3
Port 9
Port 3
A-l.
s Celslui
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
B
Inlet gas Moisture
composition (%) content
C02
8.3
8.3
14.4
14.4
14.4
13.5
13.5
13.9
13.9
02
11.3
11.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
5.1
5.1
4.8
4.8
CO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N2
80.4
80.4
81.2
81.2
81.2
81.4
81.4
81.3
81.3
(7.)
9.7
9.7
8.8
8.8
8.8
9.5
9.5
9.0
9.0
Molecular
Weight
Dry
29.78
29.78
30.40
30.40
30.40
30.30
30.30
30.40
30.40
Actual
28.64
28.64
29.31
29.31
29.31
29.13
29.13
29.28
29.28
Gas temp .
at sampling
point
154.4
154.4
165.5
140.6
165.5
157.2
135.0
162.8
135.0
Baro. Static
pressure pressure
(mm Hg)b/ G™ H2<»-
762
762
765
765
765
761
761
746
746
-259
-259
-259
-259
-259
-259
-259
-259
-259
Gas velocit;
at sampling
point
(m/s)£/
12.5
12.5
14.3
12.5
14.3
14.3
12.5
14.3
12.5
r
Nozzle
diamete
(mm)-'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Drink
r AP
(mm Hg)i/
76.2
76.2
99.1
76.2
99.1
99.1
76.2
99.1
76.2
Flow
rate
0.0023
0.0023
0.0027
0.0023
0.0027
0.0027
0.0023
0.0027
0.0023
Sample
volume
J (m3)c/
0.0116
0.0116
0.0133
0.0139
0.0158
0.0158
0.0139
0.0158
0.0139
mm Hg = millimeter of mercury
mm H20 ™ millimeter of water
m/s « meter per second
mm • millimeter
m'/mln = cubic meter per minute
m' = cubic meter
-------
Table H5-b. PARTICULATE MASS (GRAMS) COLLECTED IN THE BRINK IMPACTOR (ESP INLET)
Ui
Stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Run 1-1
0.00972
0.00119
0.00090
0.00030
0.00019
0.00009
0.00021
Run 2-1
0.02907
0.00101
0.00088
0.00030
0.00031
0.00004
0.00016
Run 3-1
0.02122
0.00212
0.00071
0.00015
0.00006
0.00006
0.00011
Run 4-1
0.00161
0.00079
0.00059
0.00023
0.00023
0.00005
0.00019
Run 5-1
0.02660
0.00315
0.00117
0.00043
0.00029
0.00007
0.00026
Run 6-1
0.01839
0.00153
0.00093
0.00038
0.00031
0.00012
0.00043
Run 7-1
0.00470
0.00159
0.00120
0.00032
0.00045
0.00010
0.00024
Run 8-1
0.02943
0.00239
0.00134
0.00065
0.00049
0.00008
0.00042
Run 9-1
0.00312
0.00052
0.00060
0.00040
0.00038
0.00009
0.00028
Total
0.01260
0.03177
0.02443
0.00369
0.03197
0.02209
0.00860
0.03480
0.00539
-------
Table H5-c. CUMULATIVE WEIGHT PERCENT VERSUS PARTICLE SIZE FOR THE BRINK IMPACTOR (ESP INLET)
OJ
Ln
Stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Run 1-1
Cum. wt. "ISJ
77.14
86.59
93.73
96.11
97.62
98.33
100.00
Run 6-1
Cum. wt. %2/
83.25
90.18
94.39
96.11
97.51
98.05
100.00
Dpb/
4.20
2.26
1.33
0.91
0.55
0.30
Dpk/
4.20
2.11
1.23
0.84
0.44
0.27
Run 2-1
Cum. wt. 7»
91.50
94.68
97.45
98.39
99.37
99.50
100.00
Run 7-1
Cum. wt. 7»
54.65
73.14
87.09
90.81
96.05
97.21
100.00
D£
4.20
2.26
1.33
0.91
0.55
0.30
Dp
4.20
2.26
1.33
0.91
0.55
0.30
Run 3-1
Cum. wt. 7,
86.86
95.54
98.44
99.06
99.30
99.55
100.00
Run 8-1
Cum. wt. %
84.57
91.44
95.29
97.15
98.56
98.79
100.00
Dp.
4.20
2.11
1.23
0.84
0.44
0.27
Dp.
4.20
2.11
1.23
0.84
0.44
0.27
Run 4-1
Cum. wt. %
43.63
65.04
81.03
87.26
93.49
94.85
100.00
Run 9-1
Cum. wt. 70
57.88
67.53
78.66
86.08
93.13
94.80
100.00
D£
4.20
2.26
1.33
0.91
0.55
0.30
Dp.
4.20
2.26
1.33
0.91
0.55
0.30
Cum.
83
93
96
98
98
99
100
Run 5-1
wt. 7.
.20
.06
.72
.06
.97
.19
.00
Dp.
4.20
2.11
1.23
0.84
0.44
0.27
a/ Cumulative weight percent includes particulate collected on the back-up filter, all stages and cyclone..
b_/ Dp « Effective cutoff diameter (microns).
-------
Figure H5-c illustrates graphically the particulate diameter versus the
weight percent less than stated size for the ESP inlet tests.
Table H5-d presents the Brink particulate loading at the sampling points.
Referring to this table, it can be seen that Port 3 sampling location con-
sistently yielded lower particulate loadings whereas Port 9 (and Port 6)
loadings are near those that have been determined by Method 5 sampling.
The reason for this is attributed to the location of Ports 9 (and 6) which
are nearer the middle of the duct and away from the inclined sidewall.
A summary of the Brink results is presented in Table H5-e. The differential
mass loading is presented in Tables H5-f and H5-g in metric and English units,
respectively. Figures H5-d and H5-e are graphical presentations of the mass
loading (dm/d log D) versus particulate diameter, in metric and English units,
respectively. Since the percent loading on the stages represents mass, the
average stage loadings of the nine runs are plotted in Figures H5-f and H5-g
in metric English units, respectively.
Andersen Impactor (ESP Outlets)
There were two symmetrical electrostatic precipitator outlets (Figure H5-a).
Figure H5-h is a schematic illustration of the outlet sampling points.
Five particle-sizing tests were conducted on each of the ESP outlets using
the Andersen (Mark III) Impactor. Two sampling points were used, in each
outlet, to collect the Andersen samples (Figure H5-h). Table H5-h presents
a summary of the sampling parameters and grain loadings. Summaries of the
results for each of the 10 runs are presented in the computer printouts,
labeled as Tables H5-il through H5-ilO. The particle cutoff diameters (in
microns) are based on the previously measured particle density (1 cc = 2.6 g).
Figure H5-i illustrates graphically the particulate diameter versus the per-
cent weight less than stated size for these runs. The differential mass
loading is presented in Tables H5-jl and H5-i2, in metric and English units,
respectively.
Figures H5-j and H5-k illustrate graphically the stage loadings versus geo-
metrical mean of the particulate diameter. The average of these loadings is
plotted in Figures H5-1 and H5-ra, in metric and English units, respectively.
358
-------
10.0
c
o
o
if
U
OZ
i.o
0.1
I I I
Run 2-| Run 1-1 Run 9-1
Run 3-1 \ Run 8-1 / | Run 4-1
X./.L
• • • "Run 7-1
Run 5-1 Run 6-1
I
0.01 0.050.1 0.5 1
10 50 90
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure H5-c. Particle diameter versus weight percent less than
stated size for Brink tests (ESP inlet).
359
-------
Table H5-d. BRINK PARTICULATE LOADING (ESP INLET)
Run
no.
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
9-1
Date
11-17-75
11-17-75
11-18-75
11-18-75
11-18-75
11-19-75
11-19-75
11-20-75
11-20-75
Location
Port 9
Port 6
Port 9
Port 3
Port 9
Port 9
Port 3
Port 9
Port 3
Total
partlculate
collected
(gm)
0.01260
0.03177
0.02443
0.00369
0.03197
0.02209
0.00860
0.03480
0.00539
Flow
rate
(m3/min)a/
0.0023
0.0023
0.0027
0.0023
0.0027
0.0027
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
Sample
time
(in in)
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Volume
acfi'
0.41
0.41
0.47
0.49
0.56
0.56
0.49
0.56
0.49
of gas sampled
dscfS/
0.171
0.171
0.181
0.232
0.216
0.229
0.238
0.215
0.232
dscm3/
0.00484
0.00484
0.00512
0.00657
0,00612
0.00648
0.00674
0.00609
0.00657
Particulate loading
gr/dscf-/
1.14
2.87
2.08
0.24
2.28
1.49
0.56
2.50
0.36
mg/dscmS.' x 10J
2.60
6.56
4.77
0.56
5.22
3.41
1.28
5.71
0.82
a/ro3/min = cubic meters per minute
acf = Actual cubic feet
dscf - Dry standard cubic feet (at 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg).
dscm = Dry standard cubic meter (at 20°C, 760 mm Hg) .
gr/dscf « Grains per dry standard cubic foot,
tng/dscm = Milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
-------
Table H5-e. SUMMARY OF BRINK RESULTS (ESP INLET)
Collection
stage
Cyc lone
1
2
3
4
5
£ Filter
Dp
(microns)
Af
4.20
2.26
1.33
0.91
0.55
0.30
Hi/
4.20
2.11
1.23
0.84
0.44
0.27
Run 1-1
77.14
9.44
7.14
2.38
1.51
0.72
1.67
Run 2-1
91.50
3.18
2.77
0.94
0.97
0.13
0.51
Run 3-1
86.86
8.68
2.91
0.61
0.24
0.24
0.46
Percent by weight
Run 4-1
43.63
21.41
15.99
6.23
6.23
1.35
5.16
Run 5-1
83.20
9.85
3.66
1.34
0.91
0.22
0.82
Run 6-1
83.25
6.93
4.21
1.72
1.40
0.54
1.95
Run 7-1
54.65
18.49
13.95
3.72
5.23
1.16
2.70
Run 8-1
84.57
6.87
3,85
1.87
1.41
0.23
1.20
Run 9-1
57.88
9.65
11,13
7.42
7.05
1.67
5.20
Average
AS/
64.96
12.43
10.20
4.14
4.20
1.01
3.06
vS-i
84.47
8.08
3.66
1.38
0.99
0.31
1.11
Cumulative 7,
less than
Dp-average
A!/
35.04
22.61
12.41
8.27
4.07
3.06
-
B£/
15.53
7.45
3.79
2.41
1.42
1.11
-
Results omitting cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
2.26
1.33
0.91
0.55
0.30
2.11
1.23
0.84
0.44
0.27
41.32
31.25
10.42
6.60
3.12
7.29
37.41
32.59
11.11
11.48
1.48
5.93
66.04
22.12
4.67
1.87
1.87
3.43
37.98
28.36
11.06
11.06
2.40
9.14
58.66
21.79
8.01
5.40
1.30
4.84
41.35
25.13
10.27
8.38
3.24
11.63
40.77
30.77
8.20
11.54
2.56
6.16
44.51
24.95
12.10
9.12
1.49
7.83
22.91
26.43
17.62
16.74
3.96
12.34
36.08
29.88
11.68
11.48
2.70
8.18
52.64
23.50
8.76
6.19
1.97
6.94
63.92
34.04
22.36
10.88
8.18
-
47.36
23.86
15.10
8.91
6.94
-
a/ A = for Runs 1-1, 2-1, 4-1, 7-1 and 9-1.
B = for Runs 3-1, 5-1, 6-1 and 8-1.
-------
Table H5-f. DIFFERENTIAL STAGES LOADING IN METRIC UNITS (BRINK) (ESP INLET)
Stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Stage
Cyc lone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Dp
(microns)
A£' B*/
4,20 4.20
2.26 2.11
1.33 1.23
0.91 0.84
0.55 0.44
0.30 0.27
-
DP
(microns)
AS/ Bf-/
4.20 4.20
2.26 2.11
1.33 1.23
0.91 0.84
0.55 0.44
0.30 0.27
*• «•
Dp (Geotn.
mean)
(microns)
A* Bi/
3.08 2.98
1.73 1.61
1.10 1.02
0.71 0.61
0.41 0.34
- -
Dp (Geom.
mean)
(microns)
t&< B2/
3.08 2.98
1.73 1.61
1.10 1.02
0.71 0.61
0.41 0.34
"
Loading {ug/m3 x 106)
Run 1-1
2.00
0.24
0.18
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.05
Run 1-1
.
0.89
0.78
0.36
0.18
0.11
"
Run 2-1
6.00
0.21
0.18
0.06
0.06
0.02
0.03
Run 2-1
tm
0.78
0.78
0.36
0.27
0.08
Run 3-1
4.14
0.41
0.14
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
Run 3-1
_
1.37
0.60
0.18
0.03
0.05
Run 4-1
0.24
0.12
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.03
Run 5-1
4.34
0.51
0.19
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.04
dM/d log Dp
Run 4-1 Run 5-1
_
0.45
0.39
0.18
0.14
0.08
—
1.70
0.81
0.42
0.18
0.09
Run 6-1
2.84
0.24
0.14
0.06
0.05
0.02
0.06
(lig/m3 x
Run 6-1
.
0.80
0.60
0.36
0.18
0.09
Run 7-1
0.70
0.24
0.18
0.05
0.07
0.01
0.03
106)
Run 7-1
M
0.89
0.78
0.30
0.32
0.04
Run 8-1
4.83
0.39
0.22
0.11
0.08
0.01
0.07
Run 8-1
.
1.30
0.94
0.66
0.28
0.05
Run 9-1
0.47
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.05
Run 9-1
_
0.30
0.39
0.36
0.27
0.04
Average
A£' B£'
_ _
0.66 1.29
0.62 0.74
0.31 0.40
0.24 0.17
0.07 0.07
a/ A - for Runs 1-1, 2-1, 4-1, 7-1, and 9-1.
B - for Runs 3-1, 5-1, 6-1, and 8-1.
-------
Table H5-g. DIFFERENTIAL STAGES LOADING IN ENGLISH UNITS (BRINK) (ESP INLET)
10
Stage
Cyc lone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Stage
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Dp
(mic tons )
A§/ B§/
4.20 4.20
2.26 2.11
1.33 1.23
0.91 0.84
0.55 0.44
0.30 0.27
-
Dp
(mic rons )
AS/ B=
4.20 4.20
2.26 2.11
1.33 1.23
0.91 0.84
0.55 0.44
0.30 0.27
Dp (Geotn.
mean)
(microns)
A—/ B2/
.
3.08 2.98
1.73 1.61
1.10 1.02
0.71 0.61
0.41 0.34
-
Dp (Geom.
mean)
(microns)
AS/ BS7
3.08 2.98
1.73 1.61
1.10 1.02
0.71 0.61
0.41 0.34
Loading (grains/standard ft^)
Run 1-1
0.87
0.10
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
Run 1-1
0.39
0.34
0.16
0.08
0.05
Run 2-1
2.62
0,09
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
Run 2-1
0.34
0.34
0.16
0.12
0.03
Run 3-1
1.81
0.18
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Run 3-1
0.60
0.26
0.08
0.01
0.02
Run 4-1
0.10
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
dM/d
Run 4-1
.
0.20
0.17
0.08
0.06
0.03
Run 5-1 Run 6-1 Run 7-1
1.90
0.22
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
Ion Dp
1.24
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.03
(grains /standard
0.31
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.01
ft3)
Run 5-1 Run 6-1 Run 7-1
^
0.74
0.35
0.18
0.09
0.04
—
0.35
0.26
0.16
0.08
0.04
_
0.39
0.34
0.13
0.14
0.02
Run 8-1
2.11
0.17
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.03
Run 8-1
_
0.57
0.41
0.29
0.12
0.02
Run 9-1
0.21
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
Run 9-1
_
0.13
0.17
0.16
0.12
0.02
Average
A*' B2/
_
0.29 0.57
0.27 0.32
0 . 14 0.18
0.10 0.07
0.03 0.03
a/ A = for Runs 1-1, 2-1, 4-1, 7-1, and 9-1.
B = for Runs 3-1, 5-1, 6-1, and 8-1.
-------
106
E
o
CD
O
o
O
Z
O
3
105
Run 1-1
Runs 5-1,6-1
Run 2-1
Run 4-1
Run 8-1
Run 3-1
i «j—i ».
Run7-lx/'\vv
Run 9-1 X'
Run 5-1
Run 3-1
Run 8-1
Runs 1-1,7-1
Run 6-1
Run 2-1
,-Run 4-1
-Run 9-1
0.1
Figure H5-d.
J—i
J I I L_l_
1.0 10.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER (Geometric Mean), (/ym)
Particle size distribution in metric units (ESP inlet).
364
-------
1.0
c
'5
O
O
-a
O
z
a
CO
to
0.1
.01
i 1 1—i—\—r
o.i
Run 3-1
Run 7-1
Run 9-1
1.0
Run 5-1
Run 3-1
Run 8-1
Runs 1-1,7-1
Run 6-1
Run 2-1
.— Run 4-1
•—Run 9-1
10.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER (Geometric Mean), (jum)
Figure H5-e. Particle size distribution in English units (ESP inlet).
365
-------
E
y
CD
Q
o
o
-o
o
z
Q
to
CO
105
1—I—I—I I I
0.1
-O Average of Runs: 1-1, 2-1, 4-1, 7-1 and 9-1
-• Average of Runs: 3-1, 5-1, 6-1, and 8-1
I
I I
1.0
I I
10.0
PARTICULATE DIAMETER (Geometric Mean), (//m)
Figure H5-f. Average particle size distribution in metric units (ESP inlet)
366
-------
1.0
O
O
-o
O
Z
Q
O
0.1
.01
~i 1—i—i—r~r
0.1
o o Average of Runs: 1-1, 2-1, 4-1, 7-1 and 9-1
• • Average of Runs: 3-1, 5-1, 6-1 and 8-1
1.0
10.0
PARTICIPATE DIAMETER (Geometric Mean), (//m)
Figure H5-g» Average particle size distribution in English units (ESP inlet),
367
-------
1 23+4+5
1.74m *
Outlet A ( East )
54+3+2 1
0.9m
T
0.9
m
2.24m
,
1.67m*-
Outlet B ( West )
+ Andersen Sampling Ports
* Duct Dimensions are Average Internal Measurements
7 Side Ports were used for Particulate Sampling (EPA Methods)
Figure H5-h. Schematic illustration of outlet sampling locations,
368
-------
Table IH-h. SUMMARY OF ANDI5RSEN SAMPLING PARAMETERS (ESP OUTLET)
Ui
Molecular
Duration Sampling
Run
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Date
11-17-75
11-17-75
11-18-75
11-18-75
11-18-75
11-18-75
11-19-75
11-19-75
11-20-75
11-20-75
(min)
20
20
25
35
35
35
30
35
30
35
location
A (East)
B (West)
A (East)
B (West)
A (East)
B (West)
A (East)
B (West)
A (East)
B (West)
Port
No.
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
Stack gas
C02
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.8
13.6
13.6
13.5
13.5
13.3
12.4
°2
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.7
6.0
composition (7,)
CO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N2
81.2
81.2
81.1
81.2
81.1
81.1
81.2
81.2
81.1
81,6
1120
7.9
6.9
10.0
9.8
10.0
9.8
10.6
11 .6
9.4
9.4
weight
Dry
30.38
30.38
30.39
30.41
30.39
30.39
30.37
30.37
30.38
30.22
Wet
29.40
29.52
29.15
29.19
29.15
29.17
29.06
29.93
29.22
29.07
Stack
temp.
!!£!_
149
149
160
138
160
138
143
154
157
168
Baro.
pressure
(mm H_0)
762
762
765
764.5
764.5
764.5
761
761
746
746
Sample
vo lume
(m3)^
0.318
0.317
0.330
0.301
0.274
0.279
0.269
0.296
0.268
0.295
Sample
rate
fanVmln^
0.0241
0.0240
0.0214
0.0131
0.0124
0.0119
0.0142
0.0136
0.0148
0.0143
Sample
volume
(dncro)
0.311
0.312
0.331
0.301
0.269
0.273
0.272
0.294
0.272
0.300
Nozzle
diameter
(mm)
4.76
4.76
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
3.18
Particulate
loading
gr/scf
0.082
0.259
0.243
0.272
0.268
0.130
0.123
0.208
0.105
0.154
rog/scm
186.71
593.78
557.63
621.61
614.64
297.61
282.07
477.34
241.55
353.20
-------
Table H5-11. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 1-OE)
RUN NlM^-Eft 1-OE PENSITYs
D4TE 111775 IMP.EFF.C=
y STAGE/
0 PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLE
PLATE
+ PAN
.65412
.83335
.83048
.83387
.83327
.83951
.83630
.85075
.84275
PAN
FOR
SAMPLf
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARf.
PLATE
* PAN
.63055
.82726
.P2499
.82928
.82952
.83490
.83213
.84892
.84214
2.^on j
.140
PAN
FOP,
TftRF
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
AMPLINu ^tLT£P "T= .0033? GM
RaTE » .»5030 CF<* TOTAU WT* .05*0,1 GM
-WITHOUT FILTER- --WITH FILTER —
TAH6
OF
P).*TE
.63055
.62726
.82499
.82928
.82952
.83490
.83213
.84B92
.64214
SftMP.^
(VEIGHT
>9M)
.02357
.00609
.00549
.00459
.0037?
.00411
.00417
.00163
.00061
WEIGHT
PERCENT
43. OP
11.13
10.03
8.39
6.85
8.43
7.62
3.34
1.11
--UM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
43.01
54.21
64. ?5
72. 64
79.49
87.92
95.54
98.89
100.00
XFIGHT
PERCENT
4". 62
r .40
9,46
7.91
6.46
7.94
7.19
3.15
1.05
CUM.
rtEISHT
PERCENT
40.62
51.11
60.57
68.46
74.94
82.89
90.07
93.23
94.28
JET
VEL.
(CM/S)
6.5.47
122.09
203.70
336.72
598.62
1448.51
2639.91
5279.83
P»RTIC.
D I ••"-;.
(fir*)
6.50
4.04
2.73
1.85
1.17
.57
.34
.22
-------
Table H5-12. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY'(RUN 1-OW)
RUN NUMjjEH
DATE 11
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/fl
SAMPLF
PLATE
» PAN
.59024
.88858
.88113
.88773
.84943
.86104
.8447?
.86412
.8376.3
1-OW
1775 I
PAM
FOR
SAHPLF
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
£ENcITY= 2.600 SAILING
I^P.EFF.C = .1^[> ^ATF = .847V' CFM
TARE1
PLATF
+ PAN
.58006
.84627
.83845
.84203
.82626
.85176
.83868
.86132
.83706
"AN
FOR
TAPE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
OF
PLATE
.58006
.84627
.83845
.84203
.82626
.85176
.83868
.86132
.33706
S4MPL.6-
HEIGHT
IGM)
.01018
.04231
.04268
.04570
.02322
.00928
.00*04
.0026(1
.00057
FTLTtft vtt« . OO-'"'" HM
TOT/H «T= .1355*1 6M
-WITHOUT FILT-P- — "ITH fl-,V--M—
WEIGHT
PEPCENT
5.57
23.15
23.35
25.00
12.7"
5.08
3.33
1.53
.31
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
5.57
28.72
52.07
77.07
89.77
94.85
98.16
99. *9
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
5.49
22. RO
23.00
24.63
12.51
5.00
3.26
1.51
.31
CU*.
rt£I''HT
PEPCENT
5.49
28.29
51.29
75.92
8B. 43
93.43
96.69
9£t« 19
90.50
JFT
VEL.
(CM/S>
65.25
121.67
203.00
335.58
596.58
1443. 57
2630.91
5Hfl.6?
"-iPTTC.
Pit!'.
(*ICR>
6.51
4.05
2.73
1.85
1.18
.57
.14
.22
-------
Table H5-13. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 2-OE)
to
HUN NUH8EK ?-Or DEN?ITY=
DATE Ille7«> IMP.EFF.C=
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLE
PLATE
* PAN
.67982
.87833
.85711
.87292
.8589?
.8349?
.78691
.85740
.83173
»AN
FOR
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAR*
PLATE
+ PAN
.65064
.84594
.8257'!
.85264
.84575
.82372
.77752
.85324
.83086
?.'00 SAMPLING
.140 MTE = .75620 CF»
?AN
F05J
TAWE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
OF
PI ATE
.65064
.84594
.8257^
.85264
.84575
.82372
.77753
.85324
.830R6
SAMPLE
WEIGHT
.P2918
.03239
.03132
.02028
.01318
.01120
.00939
.00416
.0009?
^ILTt?, ,*7 = . 9323H 3M
TOT/lL pfT* .164(54 GM
-WITHOUT FILT?w- — HlTH FILTcP--
WEIGHT
PERCENT
19.19
21.31
20.60
13.34
8.67
7.37
6.18
2.74
.61
:UM.
HEIGHT
PERCENT
19.19
40.50
61.10
74.44
83.11
90.48
96.66
99.39
100.00
W&I3HT
PERCENT
15.79
17.52
16.^4
1C. 97
7.13
6.06
5.08
3.25
.50
'MM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
15.79
33.31
50.25
61.23
68.36
74.42
79. 5t>
t»1.75
2.24
JFT
VCL.
(CM/S)
58.22
108.58
181.15
P99.46
532.37
1288.21
2347.76
4605.52
PAHTTC.
(HICR)
6.90
4.29
2.90
1.96
1.25
.61
.36
-------
Table H5-14. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 2-OW)
kUN NUMpEK
DATE
?-Ow
111*7
DENSITY:
If"lP.EFF.C =
2.6ft1
• 140
SAMPLING
RATE = .46200 CFM
FILTER iVT= .0
T0TAL i/T= .1
3722 GM
-WITHOUT
». •w^ifN FILTFR—
CO
CO
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
CAMPLE
PLATE
+ PAN
.65078
.91530
.87762
.89183
.84587
.85529
.85458
. 8S91'
.834. 7
PAN
FOR
5AMPLF
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
PLATE
+ PAN
.63868
.85243
.84623
.85636
.83558
.84899
.84473
.85002
.83088
BAN
FOR
TARE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAR?
OF
PLATE
.63868
.85243
.84623
.85636
.83558
,84899
.84473
.85002
.83088
CAMPLE
WEIGHT
(5M>
.01210
.06287
.03139
.03547
.01029
.00630
.00985
.00914
.00379
WEIGHT
PERCENT
6.68
34.70
17.32
19.58
5.68
3.48
5.44
5.04
?.09
':UM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
6.68
41.37
58.71
78. ?7
83.95
87.43
92. R6
97.91
100.00
WFIGHT
PERCENT
0.46
33.58
16.77
18.95
5.50
3.37
5«>6
4. 88
?.Q2
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
6.*6
4olo4
56.81
75.76
81.25
84.62
89.88
94.7.,
9". 78
JET
WEL.
(CM/S)
35.57
66.34
110.68
182.95
325.25
T87.n3
1434.36
28fi8.73
8.85
5.51
3.73
2.53
1.62
Ue
.3?
-------
Table H5-15. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 3-OE)
RUN NU^f
DATE
1ER 3-OF
111875
DENSITY=
TCtP.EFF.C*
2.600
.140
S AMPL I NO
RATf a ,4->910 CFM
FILTER VT*
TOTH WT«
.001'? <3M
.16546 SM
-K'lTHpUT FILTER- —WITH FILTEP—
U)
JN
STAGE/
PLATF
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
f AMPLE
PLATE
+ PAN
.68403
.92152
,fl9002
.88133
.66653
.8808?
.85644
.8121*
.85566
PAN
F0|^
SAMPLF
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARf
PLATE
» PAN
.66581
.86967
.86160
.86388
.85369
.86960
.84406
.80440
.85224
PAN
FOR
TARE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
OF
PLATE
.66581
.86967
.86160
.86388
.85369
.86960
.84406
.80440
.85224
SAMPLE
WEIGHT
(GM)
.01S22
.05185
.02842
.017*5
.01284
.01122
.01238
.00774
.00342
WEIGHT
PERCENT
11.14
31.70
17.38
10.67
7.85
6.86
7.57
4.73
2.09
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
11.14
42.85
60.22
70.89
78.75
85.61
93.18
97.91
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
11.01
31.34
17.18
10.55
7.76
6.78
7.48
4.68
2.07
njM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
11.01
42.35
59.52
70.07
77.83
84.61
92.09
96.77
Sift. "54
JET
VEl .
tCM/S
33.81
63.05
105.19
173.89
3*9.13
748.02
1363. ?7
2726.53
P*RT1C.
DMM.
(MCR>
9.08
5.66
3.83
2.60
1.66
.82
!l3
-------
Table H5-16. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 3-OW)
HUN NUHF
DATE
iEP 3-0"
111675
&ENSIT>( =
IKP.EFF.C=
2.600
SAMPLING
ptrF = .42220 rF«
TOTA*- WT* .0*139 GM
-WITHOUT FILTrft- —WITH FIl.TFR—
LO
^J
Ln
STAGE/
PLATE
XO
0/1
1/2
3/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLE
PLATE
+ PArt
.69701
.R9919
.87062
.87122
.85318
.86613
.86428
.88530
.86953
PAN
FOR.
iAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAR?
PLATE
+ FAN
,6fl-.30
,8f>911
.86251
.86653
.85147
.86344
.85716
.87795
.86562
DAN
FtiR
TARE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.ooooo
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TA«F
OF
Pi ATE
.68530
.86911
.86251
.86653
.85147
.86344
.85716
.87795
.86562
", A Mfr I L'
WEIGHT
(PM)
.01173
.03008
.00811
.00469
.00171
.00269
.00712
.00735
.00391
WEIGHT
PERCENT
15.16
38.87
10.48
6.06
2.21
3.48
9.2,1
9.50
5.05
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
15.16
54.03
64.50
70.56
72.77
76.25
85.45
94.95
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
1^.41
3fc.96
9.97
D.76
2.10
3.31
8.75
3.03
4. .0
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
14.41
51.3R
SI. 34
67.10
69.21
72.51
81.26
90.29
95.10
JET
VEI-.
tCM/S)
32.51
60.62
101.14
167.19
297.23
719.23
1310. ?0
2621.60
(MCH)
9.26
5.77
1.91
2.66
1.7(1
.84
.M
.34
-------
Table H5-17. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 4-OE)
RUN NUMBER ^-OE
DATE moTS
DENSITY* 2.600
SAMPLING
PtTK a .50300 CFM
FII.TE.R VJT* .00044 RM
TpTAL WT= ,076fil GM
-*(ITHOLiT FILTrN- —WITH FILTF1--
U3
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SA^PLF
PLATE
* PAN
.59918
.87081
.85477
.85906
.65141
.85985
.83359
.86246
.81424
PAN
FOR
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
PLATE
+ PAN
.59287
.85824
.84080
.84872
.84171
.85246
.82532
.85786
.81177
PAN
FOH
TAPE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TASF
OF
PLATE
.59287
.85824
.84020
.84872
.84171
.85246
.82522
.85786
.81177
^Af*PLF
\EIGHT
(PMl
.00631
.t'1257
.0145-
.01034
.00970
.00739
.00837
.00460
.00?47
WEIGHT
PERCENT
8.27
16.47
19.09
13.55
12.71
9.68
10.97
6.0?
3.24
CO",
WEIGHT
PERCENT
8.27
24.74
43.83
57.3';
70.09
79.77
90.74
96.76
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
8.22
lfc.37
1H.97
13.46
12.63
9.62
in. 90
5.99
3.22
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
8.22
24.58
43.55
57.01
69.64
79.26
90.16
96.15
>9.3fc
JF.T
VEL.
(CM/S)
38.73
72. 2E
1?0.50
199.19
354.12
8S6.88
1561.66
3123.31
I'&RTIC.
8.47
5.28
3.57
2.43
1.55
.76
.46
.31
-------
Table H5-18. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 4-OW)
u>
PUN NUMBER 4-Of< &£NSITY =
0*TE 111975 THP.EFF.C=
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLE
PLATE
* PAN
.67599
.87558
.86099
.86637
.85153
.R4169
.81747
.82745
.78988
DAN
FOR
SA(.jPLF
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TART
PL^TF
* PAN
.66449
.83863
.83035
.84449
.838^.0
.83389
.80819
.82131
.78^81
3-bOC' SAMPLING
.14T P1TF = .47000 C.FI*
PAN
FOft
TAPE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
O.OOOOP
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
OF
PLATE
.66449
.83863
.83035
.84449
,838';0
.83389
.80819
.82131
.78-81
SAMPLE
WEIGHT
(.UK,)
.01150
.03695
.03064
.02188
.01293
. 0078^
.00923
.00614
.00307
FILTER
-------
Table H5-19. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 5-OE)
RUN NUM'
DflTE
i£R S-OE
112075
OF.NSITYs 2.*)00 SHpl-ING
Tlv .EFF.C= .14C1 Part = .5!
FtlTta WT =
»310 CFH TOTAL WT=
•SUB! S3
-WITHOUT FILTF*- —WITH FILTM—
OJ
00
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLI
PLATE
+ PAN
.64540
.87023
.83443
.85294
.84478
.81452
.62459
.63749
.8519:?
PAN
FO*
SAMPLE.
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0. 00000
0. 00000
0.00000
TARE
PLATE
* PAN
.63770
.85712
.82578
.84615
.81979
.80899
.81718
.83175
.84935
PAN
FO«
TARE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TAHF
OF
PI ATE
.63770
.85712
.82578
.84615
.83979
.80899
.81718
.83175
.84935
SAMWUF
WEIGHT
(GM)
.00770
.01311
.00865
.00679
.00499
.00553
.00741
.00574
.00?5"
WEIGHT
PERCENT
1P.32
20.9*
13.84
10.8f>
7.98
8.85
11.86
9. la
4.13
C.UM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
12.12
33.30
47.14
58.00
(S5.98
74.83
86.69
9b.87
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
11.72
19. 95
13.16
10.33
7.59
«.42
11.28
8.74
3.93
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
11.72
31.67
44. *3
55.17
6,?. 76
71.18
8?. 4ft
91.19
95.11
JET
VEL.
(CM/S)
40.33
75.21
l?5.4f>
207.43
368.76
B92.31
1626.23
3252.47
P/RTIC
OIA".
(MICH)
8.30
5.17
3.50
2.3P
1.52
.75
.45
.30
-------
Table H5-110. ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (RUN 5-OW)
DATE 112"Y5 MP.EFF.C-
t.ftOC SAMPLING
.146 PftTt = ,50570 CFf-l
FIl.Tl H
nmu
i-.T= .00322 C'M
KT= .105-18 f-,M,
-KlTHfiUT FILTF1?-
OJ STAGE/
^ PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
6/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLE
PLATE
+ PAN
.68300
.89116
.86380
.87865
.87423
.87788
.80205
.8-413
.8704?
PAM
FOR
SAMPLE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
o.oooou
TARE
PLATF
+ PAN
.6664H
.86040
.8S302
.87112
.86715
.87056
.79109
.88625
.86699
PAN
FOR
TARE
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0. 00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
TARE
OF
PLATE
.66648
.86040
.85302
.87112
.8671S
.87056
.79109
.88625
.86699
UAMPLF
WEIRHT
(5M)
.01652
.03076
.01078
.00753
.00708
.0073?
.01096
.00788
.00343
WEIGHT
PERCENT
16.15
30.0ft
10.54
7.36
6.92
7.16
10.72
7.71
3.35
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
16.15
46.24
56.78
64.14
71.06
73.22
88.94
"6.65
100.00
— mn FUTirfi,—
WF IGHT
PERCENT
15.66
29.16
U.22
7.14
6.71
6.94
1. .39
7.47
3.25
CUM,
WEIGHT
PERCENT
15.66
44.8?
55.04
62.18
68.89
75.83
86.22
•3.7n
96.95
JET
VEL.
(CM/S)
38.94
72.61
121.14
200.26
356.32
861.48
1570.04
3140. OP
P4RTTC.
OIAH.
(MICR)
8.45
5.27
3.56
2.42
1 . ^4
.7*
.46
.31
-------
10.0
OJ
00
o
0.01 0.1 0.5 1
Figure H5-i.
90 95
99
5 10 50
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Particle diameter versus weight percent less than stated
size for Andersen tests (ESP outlets).
99.9 99.99
-------
Table H5-JL. DIFFERENTIAL STAGES LOADING IN METRIC UNITS (ANDERSEN) (ESP OUTLETS)
Dp (Geom. mean) In micrometers for runa
Stage/
plate
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
Filter
Dp In micrometers for runs
1-OE
.
6.50
4.05
2.73
1.85
1.17
0.57
0.34
0.22
-
1-OW
6.51
4.05
2.73
1.85
1.18
0.57
0.34
0.22
-
2-OE
6.90
4.29
2.90
1.96
1.25
0.61
0.36
0.24
-
2-CW
8.85
5.51
3.73
2.53
1.62
0.80
0.48
0.32
-
3-OE
9.08
5.66
3.83
2.60
1.66
0.82
0.50
0.33
-
3-OW
9.26
5.77
3.91
2.66
1.70
0.84
0.51
0.34
-
4-OE
8.47
5.28
3.57
2.45
1.55
0.76
0.46
0.31
-
4-OW
8.77
5.47
3.70
2.51
1.60
0.79
0.48
0.32
-
5-OE
8.30
5.17
3.50
2.38
1.52
0.75
0.45
0.30
-
5-OW
.
8.45
5.27
3.56
2.42
1.54
0.76
0.46
0.31
-
1-OE
.
.
5.13
3.32
2.25
1.47
0.82
0.44
0.27
-
1-OW
.
-
5.13
3.32
2.25
1.48
0.82
0.44
0.27
-
2-OE
.
5.44
3.53
2.38
1.56
0.87
0.47
0.29
-
2-OW
.
6.98
4.53
3.07
2.02
1.14
0.62
0.39
-
3-OE
.
7.17
4.65
3.15
2.08
1.17
0.64
0.41
-
dM/d log Dp
Stage/
plate
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
Filter
Particulate
1-OE
7.58
1.96
1.77
1.48
1.21
1.48
1.34
0.59
0.20
1.07
1-OW
3.26
13.54
13.66
14.62
7.43
2.97
1.93
0.90
0.18
0.89
2-OE
8.80
9.77
9.45
6.12
3.97
3.38
2.83
1.25
0,28
9.90
2-OW
4.02
20.87
10.42
11.78
3.42
2.09
3.27
3.03
1.26
2.00
3-OW 4-OE 4-OW
-
7.31 6.69 6.93
4.75 4.34 4.50
3.22 2.96 3.05
2.13 1.95 2.00
1.19 1.08 1.12
0.65 0.59 0.61
0.42 0.38 0.39
- - -
(pg/scm x 10 ) for
5-OE
.
6.55
4.25
2.89
1.90
1.07
0.58
0.37
-
runs
5-OW
-
6.67
4.33
2.93
1.93
1.08
0.59
0.38
-
loading (pg/scm x 10^)
3-OE
6.77
19.26
10.55
6.48
4.77
4.17
4.60
2.88
1.27
0.71
3-OW
4.29
11.00
2.97
1.71
0.62
0.98
2.60
2.69
1.43
1.46
4-OE
2.32
4.62
5.35
3.80
3.56
2.71
3.07
1.69
0.91
0.18
4-OW
3.91
12.56
10.41
7.44
4.40
2.65
3.15
2.08
1.04
0.07
5-OE
2.83
4.82
3.18
2.49
1.83
2.03
2.72
2.11
0.95
1.18
5-OW
5.53
10.30
3.61
2.52
2.37
2.45
3.67
2.64
1.15
1.08
1-OE
-
8.61
8.64
7.16
7.44
4.29
2.63
1.06
-
1-OW
.
66.48
85.35
43.97
14.92
6.18
4.01
0.95
.
2-OE
.
45.79
35.99
23.33
17.30
9.08
5.46
1.59
.
2-OW
.
50.63
69.52
20.29
10.79
10.67
13.66
7.15
-
3-OE
.
51.39
38.20
28.35
21.40
15.02
13.40
7.04
-
3-OW 4-OE 4-OW
.
14.46 26.06 50.78
10.12 22.36 43.82
3.71 21.77 26.11
5.04 13.63 13.55
8.49 9.92 10.28
12.41 7.75 9.61
8.12 5.31 5.91
-
5-OE
_
15.47
14.70
10.92
10.42
8.87
9.51
5.39
.
5-OW
_
17.60
14.79
14.14
12.48
11.96
12.11
6.71
-
Average
OB aa
_
6.20 6.57
4.02 4.29
2.73 2.90
1.79 1.91
1.00 1.07
0.54 0.59
0.34 0.58
-
Average
OE OM
_
29.46 39.99
23.98 44.72
18.31 21.64
14.04 11.36
9.44 9.52
7.75 10.36
4.08 5.77
.
-------
Table H5-J2. DIFFERENTIAL STAGES LOADING IN ENGLISH UNITS (ANDERSEN) (ESP OUTLETS)
Stage/
plate
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
Filter
Stage/
plate
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
Filter
Dp In micrometers for runs
1-OE
.
6.50
4.05
2.73
1.85
1.17
0.57
0.34
0,22
~
1-OH
.
6.51
4.05
2.73
1.85
1.18
0.57
0.34
0.22
"
2-OE
.
6.90
4.29
2.90
1.96
1.25
0.61
0.36
0.24
"
2-OW
.
8.85
5.51
3.73
2.53
1.62
0.80
0.48
0.32
"
3-OE
.
9.08
5.66
3.83
2.60
1.66
0.82
0.50
0.33
"
Participate loading
1-OE
3.31
0.86
0.77
0.65
0.53
0.65
0.58
0.26
0.09
0.47
1-OW
1.42
5.92
5.97
6.39
3.25
1.30
0.84
0.39
0.08
0.39
2-OE
3.84
4.27
4.13
2.67
1.73
1.48
1.24
0.55
0.12
4.33
2-OW
1.76
9.12
4.55
5.15
1.49
0.91
1.43
1.32
0.55
0.87
3-OE
2.96
8.42
4.61
2.83
2.08
1.62
2.01
1.26
0.55
0.31
3-OW
.
9.26
5.77
3.91
2.66
1.70
0.84
0.51
0.34
"
4-OE
_
8.47
5.28
3.57
2.45
1.55
0.76
0.46
0.31
"
(gralns/dscf x
3-OW
1.87
4.81
1.30
0,75
0.27
0.43
1.14
1.17
0.62
0.64
4-OE
1.01
2.02
2.34
1.66
1.55
1.18
1.34
0.74
0.40
0.08
4-OW
_
8.77
5.47
3.70
2.51
1.60
0.79
0.48
0.32
"
10'2)
4-OW
1.71
5.49
4.55
3.25
1.92
1.16
1.38
0.91
0.45
0.03
5-OE
„
8.30
5.17
3.50
2.38
1.52
0.75
0.45
0.30
"
5-OE
1.24
2.11
1.39
1.09
0.80
0.89
1.19
0.92
0.41
0.51
5-OW
_
8.45
5.27
3.56
2.42
1.54
0.76
0.46
0.31
"*
5-OW
2.42
4.50
1.58
1.10
1.03
1.07
1.60
1.15
0.50
0.47
Dp (Geom. mean) In micrometers for runs
A-UA i-Ao0
1-OE
^
.
5.13
3.32
2.25
1.47
0.82
0.44
0.27
~
1-OE
_
.
3.75
3.79
3.14
3.27
1.86
1.16
0.48
-
1-OW
^
_
5.13
3.32
2.25
1.48
0.82
0.44
0.27
~
1-OW
_
.
29.06
37.30
19.23
6.53
3.69
1.74
0.42
-
2-OE
—
.
5.44
3.53
2.38
1.56
0.87
0.47
0.29
~
2-OE
—
.
20,01
15.70
10.17
7.58
3.98
2.40
0.68
.
2-OW 3-OE 3-OW 4-OE 4-OW
-
-
6.98 7.17 7.31 6.69 6.93
4.53 4.65 4.75 4.34 4.50
3.07 3.15 3.22 2.96 3.05
2.02 2.08 2.13 1.95 2.00
1.14 1.17 1.19 1.08 1.12
0.62 0.64 0.65 0.59 0.61
0.39 0.41 0.42 0.38 0.39
.....
dM/d log Dp (gralns/dscf x 10"2)
2-OW 3-OE 3-OW 4-OE 4-OW
-
....
22.11 22.46 6.33 11.40 22.19
30.39 16.68 4.44 9.77 19.14
8.84 12.36 1.61 9.48 11.39
4.70 9.34 2.21 5.93 5.93
4.67 6.56 3.72 4.33 4.50
5.95 5.86 5.40 3.39 4.20
3.12 3.05 3.52 2.33 2.55
-
5-OE
_
6.55
4.25
2.89
1.90
1.07
0.58
0.37
-
for runs
5-OW
6.67
4.33
2.93
1.93
1.08
0.59
0.38
-
OE OW
6.20
4.02
2.73
1.79
1.00
0.54
0.34
-
6.57
4.29
2.90
1.91
U07
0.58
0.37
-
Averaee
5-OE
_
6.76
6.43
4.78
4.57
3.88
4.15
2.33
.
5-OW
_
7.70
6.46
6.14
5.45
5.22
5.27
2.92
_
OE
.
12.88
10.47
7.99
6.17
4.12
3.39
1.77
_
CM
17.48
19.55
9.44
4.96
4.36
4.51
2.51
_
-------
E
u
<
O)
o>
o
-o
O
Z
Q
<
O
105
10*
i I TT
I I
0.1
1-OW
I I I I I I I
1.0
PARTICULATE DIAMETER (Geometric Mean),
10.0
Figure H5-j. Particulate size distribution in metric units (ESP outlets),
383
-------
0.1
u
1r
'2
O)
Q
O
O
TO
O
z
O
<
O
0.01
T 1 \ 1111
0.1
_L_L
_L
1.0
_L
10.0
PARTICULATE DIAMETER (Geometric Mean), (pm)
Figure H5-k. Particulate size distribution in English units (ESP outlets)
384
-------
106
E
o
Q
I lo5
o
z
Q
o
1/1
CO
104
0.1
1 1—i—in
• • OE
o o QW
l i i I i i i I
1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER (GEOMETRIC MEAN), (,u.m)
10.0
Figure H5-1. Average particulate size distribution in metric units
(ESP outlets).
385
-------
1.0
c
'a
ro
CD
o
to.
O
z
a
0.01
0.1
I I
I I I
I 1 I I I I 1
• —• CE
o o OW
J I I I I I I I
J I I I I I I I
1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER (GEOMETRIC MEAN),
10.0
Figure H5-m. Average particulate size distribution in English units
(ESP outlets).
386
-------
Table H6-a. PRECIPITATOR READINGS: TEST NO. 1
DATE: 11/17/75
TEST: NO. 1
Generator load, Mw
Oxygen, %
Exit gas temp . , C
Outlet gas draft, mm 1^0
Barometric pressure, mm Hg
Rapper setting
Primary voltage/current
A
B
C
D
Precipitator voltage, KV
A
B
C
D
Precipitator current/ spark rate
A
B
C
D
Time
11:40 A.M.
134
4.0
160
276.9
761.2
NA
Volts/amps
220/45
260/45
240/45
270/46
East/west
28/28
28/28
27/26
24/27
ma spark/min
270/0
285/0
300/0
285/0
4:05 P.M.
132
4.1
160
302.3
759.2
NA
Volts/amps
230/45
275/44
250/44
275/45
East/west
29/30
29/28
29/27
25/27
ma spark/min
265/0
280/0
295/20
280/0
387
-------
Table H6-b. PRECIPITATOR READINGS:
DATE: 11/18/75
TEST: No. 2
TEST NO. 2
Generator load, Mw
Oxygen, %
Exit gas temp., °C
Outlet gas draft, mm 1^0
Barometric pressure, mm Hg
Rapper setting
Primary voltage/current
A
B
C
D
Precipitator voltage, KV
A
B
C
D
Precipitator current/spark rate
A
B
C
D
Time
10:15 A.M.
135
3.4
162.8
276.9
759.2
NA
Volts/amps
220/50
255/47
240/44
260/48
East/west
27/29
26/26
27/26
25/23
ma spark/min
295/0
300/0
295/0
300/0
2:05 P.M.
135
2.8
162.8
279.4
760
NA
Volts/amps
230/49
260/46
240/43
260/49
East/west
27/29
26/27
27/26
25/23
ma spark/min
285/0
290/0
290/0
290/0
388
-------
Table H6-c.
PRECIPITATOR READINGS:
DATE: 11/19/75
TEST: NO. 3
TEST NO. 3
Generator load, Mw
Oxygen, %
Exit gas temp . , ° C
Outlet gas draft, mm HoO
Barometric pressure, j^ Hg
Rapper setting
Primary voltage/current
A
B
C
D
Precipitator voltage, KV
A
B
C
D
Precipitator current/spark rate
A
B
C
D
Time
9:35 A.M.
132
3.0
160
279.4
757.2
NA
Volts /amps
235/46
270/46
250/45
260/45
East/west
29/30
27/27
29/27
26/24
ma spark /mi n
280/0
290/0
300/10
285/0
1:30 P.M.
133
3.5
162.8
304.8
754.9
NA
Volts/amps
250/45
280/45
290/44
270/45
East/west
31/34
29/29
27/28
28/27
ma spark/min
270/0
290/0
290/0
280/0
389
-------
Table H6-d. PRECIPITATOR READINGS: TEST NO. 4
DATE: 11/20/75
TEST: NO. 4
Generator load, Mw
Oxygen, %
Exit gas temp . , ° c
Outlet gas draft, mm 1^0
Barometric pressure, mm Hg
Rapper setting
Primary voltage/current
A
B
C
D
Precipitator voltage, KV
A
B
C
D
Precipitator current/spark rate
A
B
C
D
Time
9:25 A.M.
136
3.1
154.4
279.4
741.7
NA
Volts/amps
240/46
290/45
280/45
260/45
East/west
30/32
30/31
29/27
29/28
ma spark/min
275/0
300/35
285/0
300/65
1:50 P.M.
135
3.1
160
292.1
743.0
NA
Volts/amps
252/45
300/45
270/45
280/45
East/west
32/32
30/32
31/29
30/26
ma spark/min
280/0
290/40
300/152
290/0
390
-------
APPENDIX I
ANALYTICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE
The results of the precision and accuracy determinations which were made dur-
ing the chemical analyses of Union Electric samples are presented in Table 1-1.
The methods by which these numbers were calculated are presented below.
Precision
Duplicate analyses were performed on coal, sluice solids, river water, sluice
water, ESP inlet fly ash, ESP outlet fly ash and the particulate catch from
inlet mass sampling trains. These duplicate analyses were made on samples
for all three runs during the coal-only and coal+refuse hazardous tests. The
duplicate samples were taken through the entire digestion and analysis proce-
dures. The precision number obtained represents the total uncertainty result-
ing from sample inhomogenity, variability of digestion method and variability
of analysis method.
Precision values are reported in Table 1-1 as pooled relative standard devia-
tion (PRSD) for each element. PRSD is used because of the small number of
analyses (2) for any given sample and the relatively large number of duplicate
analyses performed for any given element.
The standard deviation for the duplicate samples was first calculated by:
\
x (xt - X)2
0.889
The factor 0.889 is a statistically more valid number to use in the calcula-
tion of 6 than the normal factor n-1 when there are only two numbers.
The relative standard deviation (RSD) is then calculated by:
RSD = ^ x 100
X
Finally, the PRSD was calculated by the following equation:
\
N
Z RSD2
PRSD
391
-------
N is the number of duplicate analyses performed for a given element for the
various types of samples and the three runs for both coal-only and coal +
refuse hazardous tests. The size of N varied from a maximum of 42 (7 sam-
ples x 3 runs/test x 2 tests) to a minimum of 24. This variation results
because less-than numbers were not used «nd in some cases an insufficient
sample was collected (i.e., particulate from mass train inlet) for duplicate
analyses of all the elements of interest.
Accuracy
Coal and fly ash Standard Reference Materials 1632 and 1633 were obtained
from National Bureau of Standards. These SRM's were digested and analyzed
with the samples. Table 1-1 presents the results for these two materials.
The values listed are the means from at least five analyses of these samples.
The standard deviations are also listed for MRI's analyses. The reported val-
ues and standard deviations are also listed for these two materials. An eval-
uation of the accuracy of MRI's analyses is made by comparison with reported
values. The standard deviation of the reported values must also be considered.
In most cases MRI's analyses are close to the reported values. Our standard
deviations are generally larger than reported values. This results from the
relatively small number of analyses performed by MRI on these reference mate-
rials and from the fact that a single digestion method was used by MRI for
all of the trace element cations.
392
-------
Table 1-1. QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA
co
vo
OJ
Trace elements
(cations)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Trace elements
(anions)
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Precision results
Pooled relative
standard
deviation (7.)
10
13
9
4
10
4
4
10
14
12
15
6
7
5
4
4
6
al Interference problems prevent
b/ Value not certified by NBS but
c/ Value not
certified by NBS but
d/ No value has been established.
Analyses of
MRI (ppm)
a/
J/
350 + 70
1.6 + 0.2
0.24 + 0.06
23 + 6
19 + 2
26 + 9
0.2 + 0.1
3.4 + 0.5
0.15 + 0.05
840 + 100
40.3 + 0.6
35 + 8
e/
.£/
*l
reliable analyses
reported by NBS.
NBS1632 coal
Certified value
(ppm)
3.9 + 1.3
5.9 + 0.6
350 + 30£/
i.sJ^
0.19 + 0.03
20.2 + 0.5
18 + 2
30 + 9
0.12 + 0.02
2.9 + 0.3
0.06 + 0.03JE/
80C& /
35 + 3£/
37 + 4
c/
c/
-
•
reported by J. M. Ondov et al.,
•
Analyses of
MRI (oom)
a/
J/
3,600 + 700
9.5 + 1
1.2 + 0.2
132 + 8
122 + 7
81 + 30
0.16 + 0.08
12 + 3
0.24 + 0.08
7,900 + 600
240 + 10
210 + 20
e/
3/
*<
Anal, diem., 47:
SRM1633 fly ash
Certified value
(ppm)
6.9 + 0.6
61 + 6 ,
~~ C.I
2,700 + 200s'
12^'
1.45 + 0.06
131 + 2
128 + 5
70 + 4
0.14 + 0.01
9.4 + 0.5
d/
7,400 + 300
214 + as/
210 + 20
c/
c/
d/
1102 (1975).
_e/ Not analyzed by MRI.
-------
APPENDIX J
OUTLET PARTICLE SIZE REPRESENTATIONS
Outlet particle size distribution data are presented in Figures J-l through
J-ll with the particle size (D) plotted versus dM/d log D
where dM = Mass concentration in
d log D = Differential of the log of particle size (D)
Plotting of data in this matter tends to show the relationship between the
mass concentration of particles (M) and their size (Dae). That is, for any
size range of interest (ADae) the figure indicates the mass concentration
of particles (M) within the size range. Comparison of Figures J-l through
J-ll shows J-ll shows that the mass concentrations of particles are shifted
toward the larger particle sizes with increased boiler load. Also, for the
same boiler load, the shift is more pronounced when burning coal + RDF com-
pared to coal-only conditions. The coal + RDF curves for a given boiler load
do not show any clear relationship between particle mass distribution and
percent RDF, probably because the variations in percent RDF covered a rather
narrow range.
394
-------
107
106
E
Z
105
Dec. 1973
30 Mw
Coal-Onl
Coal *SD
18%
18%
t I I I I I I
t I t i
0.1
1.0
10
Figure J-l« Differential outlet particle size distributions-
December 1973 tests at 80 Mw.
395
-------
ID?
T 1 1 1 1 I I I
-I 1 1 1 1 I I |
1 T
10*
Dec. 1973
100 Mw
Coal-Only
Coal -RDF
105 -
a
il
103
i i i
0.1
1.0
10
O.fjjn
Figure J-2» Differential outlet particle size distributions—
December 1973 tests at 100 Mw.
396
-------
107
106
Dee. 1973
120 Mw
Coal-Only
Coal -RDF
E
105
103
-J 1 1—I I 1 I
J I
0.1
1.0
10
D, am
Figure J-3. Differential outlet particle size distributions
December L973 tests at 120 Mw.
397
-------
lO?
E
•o
105
103
: ' ' '1
_
-
-
r /A
- /If 'V\V'''
/ ft / ^ \^ y
////// \ /
- MI -
* / / / /
/' i
r /' /
: ' /
/
/
/
_ o
/
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 _
Nov 74 Tesf*
Coal-Only
77 Mw
A
/ \
/ \
/°\/ox \
/--°~^-o / V°\ \
S s~-p\ A\\ "=
'"•^>
V^°N "*-°y / \W /°\ \ \\ \
' / N / v\ '/ \ VN
/ Nv / ^V \ ^\X
N/ V \ <&
\°N -
\
\
o
\ -
—
^
-
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 II
0.1
1.0
10
D,
Figure J-4» Differential outlet particle size distributions—
November 1973 tests (77 Mw, coal-only).
398
-------
I07
"1—I—I I I I I
10*
Nov 74 Tests
Coal-Only
100 Mw
(Port 1)
i-2
-D
/
.s9k
A.
\
/;'
.// X
/x
/?//
v°.
\
/?
/
/
\
/
//
f
o
103
I I I
J L
0.1
1.0
10.0
D,
Figure J-5a. Differential outlet particle size distributions—
November 1974 tests (100 Mw, coal-only) - Part 1.
399
-------
1
I I II
106
1
Nov 74 Tests
Cool-Only
100 Mw
(Part 2)
///
v>°
\°
I03
I I I I I | 1
I I
0.1
1.0
D, /Am
10.0
Figure J-5b» Differential outlet particle size distributions —
November 1974 tests (100 Mw, coal-only) - Part 2.
400
-------
107
10*
1
I
105-
104-
: i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 — i — i i i i 1 1
Nov 74 Tests
Coal-Only
140 Mw
(Part 1)
-
^-°~7
<^•'' \" ^A~0o^
O^""^ r' ^'O'o ,X\ /
/ O™«* >*ff ^ ^* \. J /
I (^^^'° ^
1 /\IP
1 / f I
-
// /I
// -//
// //
// / /
- °~~~t-/J
l\/
S
^ n
~ ° n
/i
i
: /
/ /
/ /
/ /
° /
/
/
/
/
/
o
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 --
-
—
/'°X
t _V 0
/' \
*f "s\ ° ~
r-^ ^\
/ * ^Xfc \
\ "^v. \
\ ^^0°
\ ~
\
\
o -
-
_
-
^
~
_
1 1 !
O.I
1.0
D,
10.0
Figure J-6a. Differential outlet particle size distributions--
November 1974 tests (140 Mw, coal-only) - Part 1.
401
-------
107
10*
!,,
Q
II
i I I
Nov 74 Testi
Cool-Only
140 Mw
(Port 2)
I I
0.1
1.0
0,
10.0
Figure J-6b« Differential outlet particle size distributions—
November 1974 tests (140 Mw, coal-only) - Part 2.
402
-------
107
106-
1
105
March 75 Tests
Coal-Only
110 Mw
1C4
103
I I I I
0,1
1.0
10
D, fj.m
Figure J-7. Differential outlet particle size distributions—
March 1975 tests (110 Mw, coal-only).
403
-------
I*7
106
March 75 Tests
Cod-Only
140 Mw
o>
.2
Si
I/
r
\
\ 9
Y
r
10*-
10?
' ' i i i i i i
0 1
1.0
D. p.n\
10
Figure J-8»
Differential outlet particle size distributions-
March 1975 tests (140 Mw, coal-only).
A04
-------
107
1—I I I I 11
n—r
10*
May 75 Tests
Coal + RDF
100 Mw
Z
105
104
/^g2
i&*s&rf\
^^ / ^
Xol0%
103
I I I I I I
I I I
0.1
1.0
10.0
D.
Figure J-9, Differential outlet particle size distributions —
May 1975 tests (100 Mw, coal + RDF).
405
-------
107
I I I I I I I I I
I I I
May 75 TeiH
Coal + RDF
140 Mw
10°
E
•o
_e
a
103
J I 1
I I J
I I I
0.1
1.0
10
D,
Figure J-10. Differential outlet particle size distributions—
May 1975 tests (140 Mw, coal + RDF).
406
-------
107
106 —
E
TJ
1 105
c
103
Nov 75 Tests
Cool + RDF
133-135 Mw
V / /
V /
I I I I I _
A
/ i
/ \
i \
i i
IR 1
/
/
/ /
/ A
0.1
1.0
10
D, fiat
Figure J-ll. Differential outlet particle size distributions-
November 1975 tests (133 to 135 Mw, coal + SDF).
407
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-1555
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION«NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
St. Louis Demonstration Final Report: Power Plant
Equipment, Facilities and Environmental Evaluations
December 1977 (Issui ng Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
P. G. Gorman
L. J. Shannon
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
M. P. Schrag
D. E. Fiscus
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DC-618
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1324
68-02-1871
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Final '(10/74-11/75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officers:
Carlton C. Wiles (513/684-7881)
James D. Kilgroe
J. Rnbert Hnllnwav
See also EPA-600/2-77-155a
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes the results of the evaluation of the equipment and
facilities for the firing of refuse-derived fuel and the assessment of the gaseous
aqueous, and solid waste discharges associated with firing refuse-derived fuel during
the St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Fuel Project. Data Collection and testing at the
Union Electric Company's Meramec power plant commenced in October, 1974 and continued
through November, 1975. A corner fired pulverized coal boiler with a nominal 125 MU
generating rate was used for the test program. A major portion of the effort was
directed to the assessment of the emissions and potential environmental impacts
associated with the burning of coal plus refuse derived fuel in the boiler, including
an assessment of the efficiency of the electrostatic precipitator used as a pollution
control device. This included evaluation of both conventional pollutants such as tota
particulates but also potentially hazardous pollutants. The test program included
sampling and analysis of all input/output streams including coal, refuse-derived fuel,
ash, and water used for bottom ash removal. It also included monitoring the boiler
performance, the electrostatic precipitator performance, the firing system performance
and documentation and analysis of the costs associated with firing refuse-derived
fuel.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Refuse
Evaluation
Combustion
Air Pollution
Maintenance
Municipal Waste
Particulates
Stationary Sources
Waste-as-fuels
Resource Recovery
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
430
20. SECUR1TV CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
408
A U.S. 60VBWMENT PRIKIW6 OfFICt 197S— 7 57 -140 76669
------- |