&EPA

         United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
         Industrial Environmental Research
         Laboratory
         Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/7-79-050d
February 1979
Proceedings of the Third
Stationary Source
Combustion Symposium;
Volume IV.
Fundamental Combustion
Research and
Environmental Assessment

Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report

-------
                  RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


Research reports of the Office of Research arfd Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional  grouping  was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

    1. Environmental Health Effects Research

    2. Environmental Protection Technology

    3. Ecological Research

    4. Environmental Monitoring

    5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

    6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports  (STAR)

    7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

    8. "Special" Reports

    9. Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND  DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded  under the 17-agency  Federal  Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from  adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects;  assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide-range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
                        EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                              EPA-600/7-79-050d

                                   February 1979
       Proceedings of the Third
   Stationary Source Combustion
               Symposium;
Volume IV. Fundamental Combustion
     Research and Environmental
               Assessment
              Joshua S. Bowen, Symposium Chairman,
                      and
              Robert E. Hall, Symposium Vice-chairman

                Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Research and Development
              Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
              Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                Program Element No. EHE624
                    Prepared for

             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Research and Development
                  Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                 PREFACE
       These proceedings document more than 50 presentations and discussions
presented at the Third Symposium on Stationary Source Combustion held March
5-8, 1979 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco, California.  Sponsored
by the Combustion Research Branch of the EPA's Industrial  Environmental
Research Laboratory - Research Triangle Park, the symposium papers emphasized
recent results in the area of combustion modification for NOX control.  In
addition, selected papers were also solicited on alternative methods for
NOX control, on environmental assessment, and on the impact of NOX control
on other pollutants.

       Dr. Joshua S. Bowen, Chief, Combustion Research Branch, was Symposium
Chairman; Robert E. Hall, Combustion Research Branch, was  Symposium Vice-
Chairman and Project Officer.  The welcoming address was delivered by Clyde
B. Eller, Director, Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX and the opening
Address was delivered by Dr. Norbert A. Jaworski, Deputy Director of IERL-RTP.

       The symposium consisted of seven sessions:
       Session I:


       Session II:


       Session III:


       Session IV:


       Session V:



       Session VI:


       Session VII:
Small Industrial, Commercial and Residential Systems
Robert E. Hall, Session Chairman

Utilities and Large Industrial Boilers
David G. Lachapelle, Session Chairman

Advanced Processes
6. Blair Martin, Session Chairman

Special Topics
Joshua S. Bowen, Session Chairman

Stationary Engines and Industrial Process Combustion
Systems
John H. Wasser, Session Chairman

Fundamental Combustion Research
W. Steven Lanier, Session Chairman

Environmental Assessment
Wade H. Ponder, Session Chairman
                                    ii

-------
                                 VOLUME IV

                             Table of Contents

                Session VI:  Fundamental Combustion Research

                                                                      Page

"NOX Abatement in Fossil Fuel Combustion — Chemical
Kinetic Considerations," J. M.  Levy, J. P. Longwell,
A. F. Sarofim ............................     3

"Heterogeneous Processes Involved in the Control of
Nitrogen Oxide Formation in Fossil Fuel Flames,"
M. P. Heap and T.  J.  Tyson .....................    45

"Transport Processes  and Numerical Model Development —
FCR Program Elements,"  T.  J. Tyson, M. P. Heap, C. J Kau
and T. L.  Corley  ..........................    67

                   Session VII:  Environmental Assessment

"Survey of Projects Concerning  Conventional Combustion
Environmental Assessments," W.  E. Thompson  ..... ........    85

"Emissions Assessment of Conventional Combustion Systems,"
D. G. Ackerman, Jr. ,  J.  W. Hamersma and B. J. Matthews  .......   103

"Environmental Assessment of Coal and Oil Firing in a
Controlled Industrial Boiler,"  K. W. Ar ledge and
C. A. Leavitt ............................   137
"Environmental Assessment of  Stationary  Source
Control Technologies," H. B.  Mason,  E. B. Higginbotham,
R. M. Evans, K. G. Salvesen and L. R. Waterland  ..... ......  163
"An Overview of the Conventional Combustion Environmental
Assessment Program , " Deepak Kenkeremath   ...........    207
                                     iii

-------
          SESSION VI

FUNDAMENTAL COMBUSTION RESEARCH
       W. STEVEN LANIER
       SESSION CHAIRMAN

-------
        NO  ABATEMENT IN FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION.
          x

             Chemical Kinetic Considerations
        J.M. Levy, J.P. Longwell, A.F. Sarofim
M.I.T. Energy Laboratory and Dept. of Chemical Engineering
             Cambridge, Massachusetts  02139

                           and

            T.L. Corley, M. Heap, and  T. I. Tyson
    Energy and  Environmental Engineering Corporation
                Irvine, California  92664

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     Homogeneous, gas-phase chemical reactions are of major significance in
determining NO  emission levels from the combustion of condensed phase fossil
              X
fuels.  The approach under the E.P.A. Fundamental Combustion Research Program
to development of an NO  abatement strategy through optimization of the
gas-phase reaction chemistry of nitrogenous species is summarized, and
selected applications are presented.

-------
                                 SECTION 1
                                INTRODUCTION

     The Fundamental Combustion Research  (FCR) Program of the Environmental
Protection Agency is aimed at the establishment of strategies for reducing
NOY production through combustion process modification.  Complete character-
  A
ization of the factors affecting NO  production must, by nature of the
combustion process itself, include consideration of such diverse processes
as homogeneous gas phase reactions, heterogeneous gas-solid reactions, heat
transfer, and aerodynamics.  We report here on current progress under the
FCR program in the elucidation of the homogeneous gas-phase chemical kinetic
mechanism of NO  formation in fossil-fuel combustion.
               A
     The strategy adopted in the FCR program is discussed in this manuscript.
Illustrations of selected results will be presented and updated at the
"Third  Symposium on Stationary Source Combustion".
     With the depletion of natural gas and petroleum reserves  (which are
lacking or low in nitrogen content - and, hence, relatively low in the
emission of NO  formed from the nitrogen  bound in the  fuel), and the
              X
increasing substitution of coal, coal-derived liquids, residual fuel-oils,
and shale oils (which are high in nitrogen content), NOX emissions, which are
already unacceptably high in several urban areas, are bound to increase
unless  an abatement strategy is developed and implemented.  Insofar as the
mechanism by which fuel-bound nitrogen is converted to NO   is complex, and
                         12
insofar as early attempts '  to reduce NO emissions by empirical adjustment
                                          X
of combustion parameters  (e.g., temperature, fuel/air  ratio, degree of
mixedness, etc.) utilizing conventional combustors have achieved only a
fraction of their full potential, a more  fundamental elucidation of the N0x
formation mechanism has become essential  in order to achieve the desired
engineering goal of modifying the combustion process in such a way as to
favor  the conversion of fuel-bound nitrogen to the desired  (combustion) end

-------
product,  N™,  rather  than to  the  undesired product, NO.
     As  such,  the  organization of  the FCR program has defined  the  following
approach to achieving this end:
     a)  Identification of chemical reaction sets with an emphasis
     on  fuel nitrogen conversion,
     b)  Validation of these  reaction sets by modeling a wide range
     of  pertinent  experimental results, and concommitant computational
     screening to  identify the minimum reaction subsets adequate for
     prediction of NO  emission  levels,
                      X
     c)  Through these processes, identification of critical gaps in
     the existing  data base  necessary for prediction of NO  levels,
                                                          X
and  d)  Application of the fuel-N  reaction set to the computation
     of  NO  emission  levels  from systems of practical interest, and
          X.
     utilization of predictive capabilities for development of NO
                                                                 X
     abatement strategies.
     In  order  to clarify the results, initial chemical kinetic studies have
concentrated  on aerodynamically  clean systems in which interpretation of
results  are not complicated  by mixing effects.  A parallel effort  under the
FCR program is  the characterization of the aerodynamics and development of
methodologies  for  coupling the kinetics with the flow field in real,
aerodynamically complex combustors.

                                 SECTION 2
                    THE IMPORTANCE OF GAS-PHASE KINETICS
     Essential  to  the  development  of a combustion modification strategy which
minimizes N0x emissions  is a thorough understanding of the gas phase chemistry
by which fuel-bound nitrogen is  converted to NOV.  This is easily  understood
                                               X
by reference  to Figure  1 which schematically denotes several of the chemical
processes involved in the combustion of coal or residual fuel oil.  Indeed,
it is well  understood that for any condensed phase fuel, combustion may
proceed  through parallel homogeneous and heterogeneous processes wherein the
fuel is  initially  heated and undergoes devolatilization followed by rapid
homogeneous gas  phase  oxidation  of the volatile species and, if a  devolatil-
ized residue remains,  slower heterogeneous burnout of the char.  This is
apparently  the  case for  the  combustion of pulverized coal and residual fuel

-------
oils.  Distillate oils, however, may well burn entirely in the gas phase as
a diffusion flame surrounding a shrinking, evaporating droplet.  Certain
fuels, of course, are gaseous from the outset.
     Of primary interest here, however, is the chemistry of volatile fuel-
nitrogen conversion.  Traditional gaseous fuels (natural gas) contain little
or no bound nitrogen - although it is projected that the products of coal
gasification which undergo a high temperature desulfurization may well contain
significant quantities of ammonia.   In addition, light distillate oils which
for coal and shale-derived fuels may have nitrogen contents in excess of 1%
by weight burn entirely in the volatile phase.
     For fuels which leave a devolatilized residue, the relative significance
of gas phase (versus heterogeneous)processes  on NOX formation is less obvious.
The distribution of nitrogeneous species between volatiles and char has
recently been studied  '.'  for pulverized coal combustion for  temperatures
ranging from 1250 to 1750°K.  The results (for a Montana Lignite) shown in
Figure 2 clearly demonstrate that at higher temperatures under fuel lean
conditions, as much as 80% of the NO formed may originate in the volatile
                                     X
phase.  This reflects  the fact  that  at high enough temperatures, nearly all
                                                        3
of the nitrogen  in coal can be  driven into the gas phase  .  One  may, however,
make  an observation, based upon Figure  2  which renders an understanding of
the  gas phase chemistry all  the more vital -  namely,  that even under
conditions  (1750°K) where  70% or  more  of  the  fuel  nitrogen  is volatilized
during  the  course  of  the experiment  ,  for equivalence ratios  above  about  1.5,
over 50%  of the  NO originates  from  the char!   These  results  reflect  the  long
                   x                                           8
established facts  that increases  in  fuel  nitrogen  concentration   and
                  Q Q  1 Q
equivalence ratio  *'   in  the  gas phase  all  tend  to  lower^  the  conversion
efficiency  to NO .  The strategy  for controlling N0x  emission  is to drive as
much fuel nitrogen as  possible  into  the gas phase  in  a primary fuel rich  zone
where the reaction kinetics  can be  "engineered"  to minimize  conversion to NOX,
as opposed  to the  alternative of  allowing the nitrogen to remain in the  char
where subsequently it  will be partially converted  to  N0x in the  fuel  lean
 secondary combustion  zone   .  Clearly,  optimizing  this reaction  engineering
 (minimizing NOX  emissions)  is best achieved  through a true understanding  of
 the gas phase reaction mechanism.

-------
     Unfortunately, similar, detailed data pertinent to residual fuel oils
(petroleum, shale, or coal derived) are currently lacking.  Current EPA
sponsored  studies should shortly yield phenomenological data on the influence
of combustion conditions on the pathways (including volatile/char fraction-
ation) followed by fuel-bound nitrogen for these systems of interest.  One
might speculate, however, at this time that these fuels may well behave
similarly  to pulverized coal, and that, in any event, an NO  abatement
                                                           X
strategy is likely to rest heavily, if not entirely, upon control of the
reactive chemistry of the volatile, nitrogeneous species.
                                 SECTION III
             ESTABLISHMENT OF A KINETIC MECHANISM FOR NOx FORMATION
                  AND DESTRUCTION FROM FUEL-BOUND NITROGEN.

     As indicated above, development of an NOX control strategy rests heavily
upon optimizing the conversion of volatile fuel-nitrogen species to N2>
Insofar as the residence times in typical combustors are far too short to
achieve chemical equilibrium in the burnt gases, it is necessary to consider
the time dependent flow of nitrogenous species through the many sequential
and competing reaction pathways leading to NO  and No formation,  in  order
                                             X      ^
to develop a methodology for maximizing or minimizing certain product yields
- i.e., both the elementary reaction pathways and reaction rates must be
considered.
     Although at this time, many details of the NO  formation and destruction
                                                  X          8 12
mechanism are not fully understood, a considerable literature *   has
appeared in recent years, in which the predominant nitrogenous species
appearing as intermediates or products of fuel-nitrogen conversion have been
identified, and from which a rough reaction mechanism  '  '   may be deduced.
     Having identified an adequate species set, a "complete" reaction
mechanism has been constructed   by permitting all species to inter-react
via elementary reactions.  Rate constants were selected from a search of the
experimental literature, where available, or from tabulated estimates (made,
generally, by the method of Johnston  ).  The fuel-nitrogen reaction set is
shown in Table 1.   Conspicuously absent are several reactions, for example,
NH(NH2) + NO -»• N2 + OH(H20), often invoked in NO mechanisms.  Although of
                                      8

-------
questionable "elementary" nature, for completeness, they have been included
in modelling efforts.
     Current efforts under the FCR program are directed to extending the
kinetic mechanisms to higher hydrocarbons.  Unfortunately, there is a dearth
of elementary mechanistic and rate data for hydrocarbons representative of
                                                          27
petroleum, coal, or shale derived fuels.  Global modelling   of hydrocarbon
combustion (by either finite or infinite rate formation of CO and 1^), has
proven to be useful for purposes of estimation of heat release rates, but
                                                          28
may seriously mis-predict intermediate free radical levels   which are
crucial to the proper computation of NO  emissions, particularly under fuel
                                       X          29
rich conditions.  Current semi-global developments   are more promising in
that they include some higher intermediates between the initial hydrocarbon
and CO.  The approach under development is the extension of the semi-global
                                 30
method based upon the observation   that several relatively small hydrocarbon
species appear as (pyrolysis) intermediates in the combustion of higher
hydrocarbons.  The initial species set under consideration includes C^^
( a major intermediate of aromatic systems), C»H,, CH,, and CO/H«.  The
                                                                 31
combustion mechanisms of C2H~ and C-H, have been recently studied   and are
under  continuing investigation.

                                   SECTION  4
                   VERIFICATION OF THE  REACTION MECHANISM
 SELECTION OF FUEL SYSTEMS
      It is intuitively clear that  the  chemistry of NOX formation  is  intimately
 coupled to the chemistry  of  the  combustion of  the  parent  fuel.  This is
 readily understood through the simple  observation  that N0x levels are strongly
 influenced by the concentration/time history of active free radicals (H,0,OH)
 which are, themselves,  strongly  determined by  the  combustion details of  the
 fuel.   Clearly,  establishment of an adequate fuel-nitrogen reaction  mechanism
 requires modelling of  experiments  utilizing the simplest  fuels  whose combus-
 tion mechanisms  are already  well understood.
      In this regard, the  two best  characterized fuel systems are  ^^2 and
       O.  However, insofar  as  additional mechanistic complexities pertinent

-------
to NO  formation levels arise in the presence of hydrocarbon fuels (namely,
     X
reactions between nitrogenous species and hydrocarbon fragments), it has been
necessary, also, to consider the simplest hydrocarbon, methane, as a model
fuel, with the H« and CO reaction mechanisms logically appearing as subsets
of the methane reactions set.  Insofar as, at the time of initiation of these
studies, no adequately validated methane reaction set was available, it has
proven necessary, in parallel with considerations of fuel-nitrogen reactions,
to develop and verify a methane mechanism.
     The methane/fuel-nitrogen reaction set used in these studies has been
developed at Energy and Environmental Research (EER) as a continuation of
Engleman's   recent EPA compilation of CH, reaction data.  The method employed
by Engleman and continued under the FCR program has been to assemble a species
set, consider all possible reactions among species of the set, and, having
made a best judged assignment of rate coefficients, to computationally screen
out all reactions and species whose influence on computed results is
                                                                    18
insignificant.  By this method the screened set appearing in Table 2   was
constructed.  This is the set successfully used by EER in their NOx modelling
results summarized below, and, contained in this set are reaction subsets
which, used with unaltered rates constants, have proven successful
in modelling NO  levels in H9 and in CO/H» systems.
               X            £*            £*
     It is recognized, in the light of recent experimental and computational
       19 20 21
results  '  '   that methane combustion produces C- and higher hydrocarbon
species not included in this set.  The successes achieved with the EER set
in modelling NO  levels, temperatures, and residual oxygen levels suggest
               X
that exclusion of higher hydrocarbons from the methane set is  justifiable
for the systems modelled.  The conditions under which the higher hydrocarbons
need to be included are being investigated.
     In any case, the success achieved in modelling stirred reactor
experiments for three reasonably if not perfectly characterized fuels lends
credance to the adequacy of the fuel-nitrogen reaction set included in Table 2,
and suggests its applicability for modelling NO  formation levels when
included in a reaction scheme for higher hydrocarbon fuels.  A continuing
activity under the FCR program is to compare the screened set of reactions
for the methane/fuel nitrogen mixtures shown in Table 2 with more complete
sets that become available.  For example, the inclusion of the additional
                                      10

-------
reactions in Table 1 into the EER set is found to yield only negligibly small
differences in computed NOX levels.
     The testing of the reaction set has been constrained by the availability
of data on fuel nitrogen conversion taken under sufficiently well defined
conditions to provide a critical assessment of the proposed mechanism and
rate constants.  Part of the FCR program is aimed at providing data on well-
stirred and plug flow reactors which can be used for model validation.
MODELLING RESULTS OF THE FCR PROGRAM
     The reaction set of Table 2 has been used at EER  to model a variety of
experimental results on CH,, CO, and H2 systems.  These include stirred
reactor experiments, flat flame experiments, and shock tube experiments.
Selected examples of modelling results are presented here, a comprehensive
                                O O
review being available elsewhere   .  It is to be stressed that all modelling
results utilize the identical reaction set (or subset) with no adjustment of
rate parameters.  Numerical integration of the coupled rate equations is
achieved utilizing a computer code developed at EER according to the method
        23
of Tyson   .
     Initial validation of  the reaction set was accomplished through modelling
of the  experiments of  Bartok   and Engleman    for NO formation in  a Longwell
jet-stirred  reactor.   These data  included  CH^/air mixtures with  and without
the  addition of fuel-nitrogen in the form  of  NO or  NH3 to the  inlet  stream,
and  CO/H2/air and H2/air mixtures without  added fuel nitrogen.   Nitric  oxide
emission levels and  reactor temperature were  the primary variables used to
verify the kinetic model.   Residual  oxygen levels were also  used as  a check
 when the data were available.  Results of  similar  calculations using  a
                                                        9fi
 preliminary reaction set have been presented  previously  .   Modelling results
 using the reaction set of Table  2 are shown  in Figure  3 for  the  production
 of thermal NO and in Figure 4 for conversion  of fuel-nitrogen (1300 ppm NH3
 in the inlet mixture)  to NO in an atmospheric pressure stirred reactor
 experiment with a 2  msec mean residence time,  a specified heat loss of
 36.1 cal/gm, and an inlet temperature of  464°K.  Additional calculations have
 established the relative contributions of  each reaction pathway to production
 or destruction of species in the reaction set.  The sensitivity of computed
 results to changes in the values of individual rate constants have also
 been established computationally.

                                      11

-------
     A generalized computer  code for the calculation of diffusion flame
behavior has been developed  at EER.  One natural limit-case of  this code is
the flat flame.  This option has been utilized at EER to model  several flat
flame experiments as shown in Table 3. Modelling of a methane/air flat flame
is shown in Figures 5-7.         SECTIONS

             APPLICATIONS TO MODELLING REAL COMBUSTION SYSTEMS

     Parametric or phenomenological studies of fuel-nitrogen conversion  (See
Figure 2,  for example) have  suggested staged combustion  as a method of
reducing N0x emissions from  volatilized fuel nitrogen species.  For coal, the
rational is to operate the first stage at high temperatures  (where fuel-
iiitrogen volatilization  is maximized), fuel-rich  (where volatile fuel-nitrogen
conversion to NO  is minimized) and to operate the second stage at low
                X
temperature (where the fixation of atmospheric N« via the Zeldovich mechanism
to form "thermal" NO  is minimized), fuel-lean (to complete fuel burnout).
As a result of the lean  second stage conditions, however, any form of bound
nitrogen (other than N~) such as cyanides or amines which exit  the first stage
will be partially converted  to NO.  Thus, minimization of NO  emissions
                                                            X
actually entails minimization of total bound nitrogen emission  from the first
stage.  (In the absence  of staging, this would, in any case, be desirable as
HCN and NH- would be considered undesirable emission products).  The degrees
of freedom available to  the  combustion engineer are many, including the
temperature, air/fuel ratio, and residence time in the fuel-rich stages and
the rates of air addition to and heat removal from the partially burned
primary combustion products.
     The utility of a validated mechanism such as that of Table 2 is to
provide a method for systematically evaluating the effect of different
process variables.  An example is given in Figure 8 in which the decay of
total bound nitrogen in  a plug flow section is shown for ammonia-doped
methane/air combustion as a  function of flame temperature.  Such quantitative
data are of great pertinence to design considerations - such as first-stage
residence time or size - if  NO  emissions are to be kept below  appropriate
                              X
emission standards.
     The results of Figure 8 are also valuable as a baseline case about which
an optimization strategy for minimizing NO  emissions is being  developed.
                                          X
                                      12

-------
Existing modelling capabilities are being applied to determine an optimum
mode for coupling the rich primary zone with the lean secondary zone.  As
                 26
indicated earlier  , several methods of adding secondary dilution air may be
considered, varying from "instantaneous" mixing of all the secondary air with
the primary products at the entrance to the secondary region, to gradual
mixing of the secondary air over the full residence time in the secondary
stage, or even, conversely, gradual mixing of the primary products into the
secondary dilution air.  Chemical kinetic computations predict widely
differing NO  emission levels for different staging configurations and
            X
suggest that the decay of bound-nitrogen species can be accelerated by the
addition of secondary air in a series of stages.  The model can be used to
determine the maximum NOX control achievable by aerodynamic staging.
     Kinetic calculations utilizing the simplified methane reaction set
(Table 2) have also shown the important role played by hydrocarbon fragments
in determining NOX emissions from a fuel-rich primary zone.  It is
demonstrable in methane/air systems under conditions of staged combustion
hydrocarbon persistence enhances NOX emissions, largely through HCN forming
reactions between hydrocarbon fragments and nitrogen-bearing molecules, as
well as  through hydrocarbon competition for the active free radicals which
destroy HCN.   The implication is,  therefore, that NOX minimization is aided
through  first  stage design which maximized hydrocarbon depletion.  In this
regard,  it  is  of great importance  to  extend quantitative kinetic modelling
capabilities to higher hydrocarbon systems.

                                 SECTION VI
                                 CONCLUSIONS

      Gas-phase chemical kinetic modelling under  the EPA FCR  program has
achieved several milestones necessary  for the development  of a practical
strategy for minimization of NO  emissions from  fossil-fuel  combustion.
Program  goals  and their current status may be summarized as  follows:
      1.   Development  of pertinent  reaction sets  for  fuel-nitrogen
      reactions and  for methane combustion.  The  fuel-nitrogen  set  is
      reasonably complete, although the influence of  C^  and higher
                                      13

-------
hydrocarbon-species on bound-nitrogen levels in methane combustion
remains to be assessed.
2.  Validation of these reaction sets through modelling of stirred
reactor experiments.  In this regard, the reaction set of Table 2
adequately predicts existing stirred reactor data with some fall-off
in accuracy under fuel-lean and fuel-rich extremes.  Extension of
these experiments under the FCR program is expected to provide more
extensive data, including HCN and NH_ concentrations, allowing for
more stringent reaction set validation.
3.  Extension of modelling capabilities to more complex experimental
configurations, including several flame types.  The computer code
has been developed and is available  for critical  testing of reaction
models against well-characterized data.
4.  Application of  the methane reaction set  (Table 2) to identification
of the chemical processes of primary importance for NOX formation and
destruction in a  stirred reactor.  Assessment of  the roll of higher
hydrocarbons remains under consideration.
5.  Extension of  computational capabilities  to include fuel-nitrogen
conversion in hydrocarbon fuels more representative of fuels of practical
interest.  A potential semi-global method has been identified, the
applicability of which is under current examination.
6.  Development of staging methodologies for minimization of NO
                                                               X
emissions.  Consideration of bound-nitrogen decay rates computed in
plug-flow utilizing the simplified methane reaction set of Table 2
suggest several concepts pertinent to optimum staging.  For example,
hydrocarbon persistence is shown to  retard HCN decay.  Extension of
modelling capabilities to more complex fuels is necessary in order
to generalize kinetic considerations pertinent to optimization of a
staging configuration.
                                 14

-------
                                  REFERENCES

la.  Turner, D.W., and C.W. Siegmund, "Staged Combustion and Flue Gas Recycle:
    Potential for Minimizing NOX from Fuel Oil Combustion", American Flames
    Research Committee Flame Days, Chicago, September, 1972.
 b.  Turner, D.W., R.L. Andrews, and C.W. Siegmund, "Influence of Combustion
    Modifications and Fuel Nitrogen Content on Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from
    Fuel Oil Combustion", AIChE Symposium Series 68, 55 (1972).

 c.  Siegmund, C.W. and D.W. Turner, "NOX Emissions from Industrial Boilers:
    Potential Control Methods". J. Eng. Power, p.1-6, January, 1974.
2a.  Bartok, W., A.R. Crawford, and G.J. Piegari, "Systematic Field Study of
    NOX Emission Control Methods for Utility Boilers", Esso Research and
    Engineering Co., Report No. GRU. 4GNOS.71 to the Office of Air Programs,
    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, December 1971.

 b.  Martin, G.B. and E.E. Berkau, "An Investigation of the Conversion of
    Various Fuel-Nitrogen Compounds to Nitrogen Oxides in Oil Combustion",
    AIChE Symp. Ser. 68, 126, 45  (1972).
 c.  Heap, M.P., T.M. Lowes, R. Walmsley, and H. Bartelds, Burner Design
    Principles  for Minimum NOX Emissions, Proceedings Coal Combustion Seminar,
    Research  Triangle Park, N.C., EPA Report No. EPA 650/2-73-021, Sept. 1973.

3.  Pohl, J.H.,  "Fate of Fuel Nitrogen", Sc.D.  Thesis, M.I.T.  (1976).
4.  Pohl, J.H.  and A.F.  Sarofim,  "Devolatilization and Oxidation of  Coal
    Nitrogen",  Sixteenth  Symposium  (International) on Combustion,  The
    Combustion  Institute, p. 491,  Pittsburgh  (1977).
5.  Song, Y.H.,  "Fate of Fuel Nitrogen During Pulverized Coal Combustion",
    Sc.D. Thesis, M.I.T.  (1978).
6.  Song,Y.H.,  Beer, J.M., and Sarofim, A.F., "Fate of Fuel Nitrogen During
    Pyrolysis and Oxidation", Second Annual Symposium on Stationary  Source
    Combustion, New Orleans, LA   (1977).
7.  Levy, J.M., J.H. Pohl, A.F. Sarofim, and Y.H. Song, "The Fate  of Fuel-
    Nitrogen  Under Conditions of  Pulverized Coal Combustion", Final  Report  to
    EPA, Grant  Number R803242  (1978).
8.  Fenimore, C.P., "Formation of Nitric Oxide  from Fuel Nitrogen  in Ethylene
    Flames",  Comb, and Flame, 19^ 289  (1972).
9a. DeSoete,  G.G., "Le Mecanisme  de Formation D'Oxyde Azotique  a Partir
    D'Ammoniac  et D'Amines Dans Les Flammes D'Hydrocarbures", Revue  de
    L1Institute Francais  Du  Petrole 28,  95 (1973).
                                     15

-------
9b. DeSoete, G.G. and A. Queraud, "Formation D'Oxyde DfAzote Dans Les Flammes:
    Formation D'Oxyde D'Azote A Partir De L'Azote Du Combustible. C-Addition
    de NO Dans Les Melanges Inflammables. Report No. I.F.P. n° 21.681,
    Institute Francais Du Petrole, Rueil Malmaison. France  (1973).

10. Sarofim, A.F., G.C. Williams, M. Modell, and S.M. Slater, "Conversion of
    Fuel Nitrogen to Nitric Oxide in Premixed and Diffusion Flames". AIChE
    Symposium Series 148, Volume 71 51 (1975).
11. See, also, Pershing, D.W. and J.O.L. Wendt, "Pulverized Coal Combustion:
    The Influence of Flame Temperature and Coal Composition on Thermal and
    Fuel NOx", Sixteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, The
    Combustion Institute, p. 389, Pittsburgh (1977).

12. Recent Examples Include;
    a. Fenimore, C.P., "Reactions of Fuel-Nitrogen in Rich  Flame Gases",
    Comb.and Flame, 26_, 249 (1976).
    b. Morley, C., "The Formation and Destruction of Hydrogen Cyanide from
    Atmospheric and Fuel-Nitrogen in Rich Atmospheric-Pressure Flames",
    Comb, and Flame, 27_, 189  (1976).
    c. Haynes, B.S., "Reactions of Ammonia and Nitric Oxide in the  Burnt Gases
    of Fuel-Rich Hydrocarbon-Air Flames", Comb, and Flame  28, 81  (1977).

    d. Haynes, B.S., "The Oxidation of Hydrogen Cyanide  in  Fuel-Rich Flames",
    Comb, and Flame, 28^ 113  (1977).
13. Sarofim, A.F., J.H. Pohl, and B.R. Taylor,  "Strategies  for Controlling
    Nitrogen Oxide Emissions  During Combustion  of Nitrogen Bearing  Fuels",
    AIChE 69th Annual Meeting,  Chicago,  (1976).
14. Haynes, B.S.. "Kinetics of  Nitrogen  Oxide Formation  in Combustion",  in
    Progress in Astronautics  and Aeronautics, Volume 62  (C.T. Bowman and
    J. Birkeland, eds.),  Alternative Hydrocarbon Fuels: Combustion and
    Chemical Kinetics  , American  Institute of Aeronautics  and Astronautics
    (1978).
15. Levy, J.M., J.P. Longwell,  and A.F.  Sarofim, "Conversion  of  Fuel-Nitrogen
    to Nitrogen Oxides in Fossil Fuel Combustion: Mechanistic  Considerations,"
    report  to Energy and Environmental Research Corp. by the M.I.T. Energy
    Laboratory, EPA FCR program (1978).
16a.Mayer,  S.W., L. Schieler, and H.S. Johnston,  "Computation  of High-
    Temperature Rate Constants  for Bimolecular  Reactions of Combustion
    Products", Eleventh Symposium  (International) on Combustion,  The
    Combustion Institute, p.  837, Pittsburgh  (1966).
   blunder, R.,  S. Mayer, E.  Cook, and L. Schieler, Aerospace  Corportation
    Report  TR-1001  (9210-02)-!  (1967).
17. Engleman, V.S.,  "Survey and Evaluation  of Kinetic  Data on Reactions  in
    Methane/Air  Combustion",  U.S.  E.P.A. Report,  EPA-600/2-76-003 (1976).

18. Corley, T.,  Energy  and  Environmental Research Corp., Santa Ana, CA.
    unpublished  data  (1977).
19a.Dryer,  F.L.  and !„ Classman,  "High  Temperature  Oxidation  of  CO and  CH^",
    Fourteenth Symposium  (International) on Combustion,  The Combustion
    Institute, p.987, Pittsburgh  (1972).
                                      16

-------
  b.  Westbrook, C.K., J. Creighton, C. Lund, and F.L, Dryer, "A Numerical
     Model of Chemical Kinetics of Combustion in a Turbulent Flow Reactor",
     J. Phys. Chem. 81, 2542 (1977).

20a.  Gardiner, Jr., W.C., et al., "Rate and Mechanism of Methane Pyrolysis
     from 2000° to 2700°K", Fifteenth Symposium (International) on
     Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh (1974).

  b.  Olson, D.B. and W.C. Gardiner, Jr., "Combustion of Methane in Fuel-Rich
     Mixtures", Comb, and Flame 32., 151 (1978).

21.  Harvey, R. and A. MacColl, "The Formation of C2 Hydrocarbons within
     Methane Oxygen Flames", Seventeenth Symposium (International) on
     Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Leeds, England (1978).

22.  EER Report to EPA, W.S. Lariier, EPA Project Officer (1978).

23.  Tyson, T.J., "An Implicit Integration Method for Chemical Kinetics",
     TRW Report No. 9840-6002 RUOO, September (1964).

24.  Bartok, W., V.S. Engleman, and E.G. Del Valle, "Laboratory Studies and
     Mathematical Modelling of NO  Formation in Combustion Processes",
     Exxon Research and Engineering Company Report No. GRU-3GNOS-71, EPA No..
     APTD 1168, NTIS No. PB 211-480 (1972).

25a.  Engleman, V.S.. W. Bartok, J.P. Longwell, R.B. Edelman, "Fourteenth
     Symposium (International) on Combustion", The Combustion Institute,
     p. 755 (1973).

  b.  Engleman, V.S./'Mechanism and Kinetics of the Formation of NOX and Other
     Combustion Pollutants: Phase I, Unmodified Combustion", EPA-600/7-76-009a
     (1976).

26.  Heap, M., T.J. Tyson, J.E. Cichanowicz, R. Gershman, R., C.J. Kau,
     G.B. Martin, and W.S. Lanier, "Environmental Aspects of Low BTU Gas
     Combustion", Sixteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, The
     Combustion Institute, p. 535  (1977).

27a.  Edelman, R.B. and O.F. Fortune, "A Quasi-Global Chemical Kinetic Model
     for the Finite Rate Combustion of Hydrocarbon Fuels With Application
     to Turbulent Burning and Mixing in Hypersonic Engines and Nozzle",
     AIAA Paper No. 69-86 (1969).

  b.  Mellor, A.M., "Current Kinetic Modelling Techniques for Continuous
     Flow Combustors", in Emissions from Continuous Combus_tion Systems,
     (Cornelius, W. and Agnew W.G., Eds.) Plenum Press (1972).

28.  Bowman, C.T. and A.S. Kesten, "Kinetic Modelling of Nitric Oxide
     Formation in Combustion Processes", Fall Meeting, Western States Section,
     The Combustion Institute, Paper No. 71-28, Irvine, CA (October 1971).

29.  Dryer, F.L. and I. Classman, "Combustion Chemistry of Chain Hydrocarbons"
     in Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Volume 62  (Bowman, C.T.
     and J. Birkeland, eds.), Alternative Hydrocarbon Fuels: Combustion and
     Chemical Kinetics, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
     (1978).

30.  See, For Example,
  a.  Orr, C.R., "Combustion of Hydrocarbons Behind a Shock Wave", Ninth
                                     17

-------
   Symposium (International) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh
   (1963).
 b.Fujii, N. and T. Asaba, "Shock Tube Study of the Reaction of Rich Mixtures
   of Benzene and Oxygen", Fourteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion,
   The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh (1972).

 c.Bittner, J.D. and J.B. Howard, "Role of Aromatics in Soot Formation", in
   Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Volume 62 (Bowman, C.T. and
   J. Birkeland, Eds.) Alternative Hydrocarbon Puelg: Combustion and Chemical
   Kinetics.  American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (1978);
   and references therein,,
31.Jachimowski, C.J., "An Experimental and Analytical Study of Acetylene and
   Ethylene Oxidation Behind Shock Waves", Comb, and Flame 29. 55 (1977).
                                      18

-------
         Product
Secondary
Pyrolysis
         Process
                   Primary
                   Pyrolysis
                                                                Gas Phase
                                                                Oxidation
                                                             Heterogeneous
                                                             Oxidation
Figure 1.   Schematic of Processes Occuring During the Formation of Nitric Oxide From Coal  Nitrogen.
           An Oxidative Pyrolysis Route is not Shown.

-------
                        •o
                        V
                        £  fli
                        O  w
                        O JJ^
                          -| i
                        o ,*
                        T3
                        (V
                        t
                        O)
                        O)
                           O
                          -M
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
                                               xx
                                              	L
                                                 1               2
                                         Fuel/Oxygen Equivalence Ratio
Figure 2.  Fate of Volatile Nigrogen During Oxidation:  Total Nitric  Oxide Contributed
           by Volatiles (Top); Conversion Efficiency of Volatiles  to  Nitric Oxide (Bottom).
                                       20

-------
     110
      90
      70
  Q.
  Q.
 o   50
      30 -
      10 -
A Engleman et al  (1973)
O Engleman (19765)
• Prediction

                O
                                            O  -
                        I
                       I
I
             60
           80         100        120

               % Theoretical  Air
          140
Figure 3.   NO Formation for CH.-air in a Well-stirred Reactor:  Predicted
           and Measured.

-------
,90
o
o
Conversion NhU
• •
«! ^
0 O
1—
(O
o
'5 «30
to
u.
olO

1 1 1 1
A Bartok et al (1972)
~ • Prediction

• T
• T J_
A
^ T J-
^T A
•*^

T
A
J_
1 1 1 l
60 80 100 120
                      % Theoretical Air
Figure 4.   WU  Conversion for DL-air in a Well-stirred  Reactor:
           Predicted and Measured.
                        22

-------
    0.1
   10
     -1
c
o
O
IO
0)
"o
   io"2
    10  J
                                                                  CO,
                                                CH4/02 Flat Flame
                                                (0.095/0.905)
                                                p = 0053 atm
                                                Flame Velocity = 67  cm/sec
                                                	Predicted
        0.1
0,3
0.5
007
                                      X cm
                                   Figure 5.
                                      23

-------
            1.0
CO
           10'
             ,-3
           10'
             ,-4
                                                      Peeters  &  Hahnen
                                                      CH4/02 (0.095/0.905)
                                                      p  »  0.053  atw
                                                      Predicted  Vf • 76.2 cm/sec
                                                      	 Predicted
                              JL
_L
                                                                                          2000
                                                                                          1500
                                                                                          1000
                                                                                           500
               0.1
0.3
                                                      0.5
                                                                         0.7
                                                                                                                                                •>     __—»•—at
                                                                                                                                                -*t-*
                                                                                                                                                       Predicted
                                                                                                 Experimental Data
                                                                                                 CH4/0?  (0.095/0.905)
                                                                                                 P = 0.053 atm
                                                                                                 Predicted Vf = 76.2 cm/sec
                                               (cm)
                             0.1      0.2      0.3      0.4      0.5     0.6      0.7    0.8
                                                   X  (cm)
                                        Figure 6.
                                                                                                                       Figure 7.

-------
I    I   I   I   I   I   I   I    I
                                 I    I   I    I   I    I   I   I   I   I


                                                   CH4 + Air/1% NH3

                                                   1 msec WSR * PFR

                                                   * = 1.33
16     32     45     64     80     96     112    128

                         Plug Flow Time  (msec)
                                                           144
                                                                  1600°K
                                                                 ^«»V 2200°K
                                                                      v*«*  ""
                                                                          **
                                                                        \    —
I    I   I    1   I    I   I    I   I   I   I   I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I	I
160
                                Figure 8.

-------
Table 1.     Fuel-Nitrogen Mechanism
Reaction
1.
2.
3-
H.
5.
6.

7.
8.

9-

10.

11.

12.
13.
1«.
15-
16.
17.
NO + OH = N + H02
N+N+M=N2+M
NH + NH = N + NH2
N + NH3 = NH + NH2
N + N02 = NO + NO
N + N20 = N2 + NO

N+H + M=NH + M
NH + H = N + H2

NH + 0 = NO + H

NH + 0 = N + OH

NH + OH = N + H20

N + H02 = NH + 02
NH + N ~ N2 + H
NH + N02 = HNO + NO
NH + 0 + M = HNO + M
NH2 + H = NH + H2
NH? + 0 = NH + OH
}
A(
2.
3-
3.
2.
3.
5.

2.
6.
1.
6.
5.
3.
1.
5.
1.
1 1.
6.
2.
1.
1.
9.
cm
AT
Nexp
^\
mole sec'
1
x
02
6
1
6
0

5
3
0
3
0
16
0
0
6
0
3
0
0
*
2
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
1011
X 1
10
10
10
r\
11
11
12
108

10
10
10
10
10
17
J- r
11
12
11
11
x 1011
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1012
10
10
10
10
10
11
12
11
11
11
{-E/RT}
N
0.

0.
0.
0
0

-0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
5
0
55
5



.5
5
68
5
5
5
5
5
56

5
5
1016 -0.5
1011
10
11
0.
0.
67
5
E(cal/mole) References
76,800
-990
1900
23,160
0
10,000

0
8000
1800
0
5000
8000
100
2000
1500
0
0
5000
0
4300
0
1, *
2
l 1} ^ * -
J-,^ » j t , '
1,*
3
3,6,*

3
3,7, *,D
1 4 8 9 * D
3,7,-P
1,9,*,D
3,7,*,D
1,8,*,D
3,10,*,D
1,4,8,*,D
3,11
3,7,*
3,10,*
3,10,*
1,9,12,*
1,9,12,*
                    26

-------
Table 1.  Fuel-Nitrogen Mechanism  (con't)
Reaction
18.
NH2 + 0 = HNO + H
A(
2.
. cm'
3
•\
• mole see'
1 x
io12
>5 x 1012
19-
20.

21.
22.
23.
21.

25.
26.
27.
28.


29-
30.

31-
32.

33-

3l»
35.

36.
37.
38.
39.
NH2 + OH =
NH + NH =
^ *-
NH, + O, =
NH3 + H = 1
NH3 + 0 =
NH, + OH =
3
NH3 + 02 =
N 4- NO = N
N20 + M =
N00 + OH =
2

N20 + NO =
NO + M = N

NO + H = N
NO + 0 = N

N02 + H =

N02 + 0 =
NO + H02 =

NO + H02 =
HNO + NH =
NH3 + NO =
NO + H + M
NH + H20
= NH + NH~
j
NH + H02
»H2 + H,
NH2 + OH
NH0 + H-0
2 2
NH2 + H02
2 + 0
N2 + 0 + M
N- + HO.,
2 2

N2 + N02
+ 0 + M

+ OH
+ o2

NO + OH

NO + 02
HNO + 02

N02 + OH
NO + NH2
HNO + NH2
I = HNO + M
3.
1.

1.
1.
1.
1.

5.
3-
1.
3


2
1

2
1

3

1
7

1
2
5
5
0 x
7 x

0 x
9 x
5 x
0 x

0 x
,1 x
io10
io11

IO13
io11
io12
io10

io11
IO13
.12 x 1014
.16


.0 x
.11

.22
.72

.16

.0 x
.2 x

.0 x
.0 x
x IO13

1 U
io14
x IO21
1 U
x lO1^
xlO9
i ii
x lO1^
1 3
IO13
IO10
1 7
IO13
io11
.0 x 101"
.37
xlO15
N
0
0
0.68
0.63

0
0.67
0
0.68

0.5
0
0
0


0
-1.5

0
1

0

0
0.5

0
0.5
0
0
E(cal/mole) References
0
0
1300
3600

50,500
3400
6000
1100

56,000
331
51,280
15,000


50,000
153,000

50,500
38,610

1500

1000
10,800

3000
2000
50,000
-600
13
11
1,9,12,*
1,12,*

15,*
1,9,12,*
2,1
1,9,12,*

15,*
2
16
3,*


3
2

17
18

3,2

3,2
1,*

3
1,9,*
17,*
2
                    27

-------
Table 1.    Fuel Nitrogen Mechanism (cpn't)
Reaction
10.
11.
12.
13-
11.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
50.
51.
52.
53.
51.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.

HNO
N02
N20
N20
N20
2
N20
HNO
HNO
HNO
HNO
HNO
HNO
HNO
+ 0 =
+ N =
+ H =
+ H =
+ 0 =
•f 0 =
+ NH '
+ H =
+ H =
+ 0 =
+ 0 =
+ OH
+ N =
+ N =
NO,
N.O
NH +
N, +
NO +
N2 +
= HNO
H2 +
NH +
NH +
+ H
+ 0
NO
OH
NO
°2
+ N2
NO
OH
°2
NO + OH
= NO
NH +
NpO
+ H20
NO
+ H
NH + H + M = NH2 + M
NH3
N02
HCN
CN
CN
+ M =
+ M =
+ OH
NH2
NO +
= CN
+ H2 = HCN
+ OH =
CN + 02 =
HCN
+ 0 =
CN + 0 =
NCO

+ H =

•• NCO
NCO
NCO
CO +
NH +

+ H + M
0 + M
+ H20
+ H
+ H
+ 0
+ H
N
CO

A(
5.
5.
1.
7.
6.
6.
1.
1.
2.
1.
5.
7.
1.
5.
2.
5.
1.
2.
6.
5.
3.
5.
6.
5.
2.
cm
mole
0 x
0 x
0 x
91 x
23 x
23 x
0 x
0 x
0 x
0 x
0 x
08 x
0 x
0 x
0 x
)
sec'
IO10
IO12
IO11
ID13
IO13
IO13
IO11
IO13
io11
IO11
IO11
IO13
io11
io10
IO16
75 x IO15
1 x
0 x
0 x
6 x
2 x
2 x
3 x
0 x
0 x
io16
IO11
IO12
io13
IO13
io12
io13
io11
io13
N
0.5
0
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0.5
-0.5
0
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
E(cal/mole) References
3000
0
30,000
15,000
25,100
25,100
3000
2500
23000
-7000
0
2630
2000
3000
0
77,000
65,571
5000
5300
0
1000
8100
2100
6875
0
3,10
3,19
3,10
3,2
16
16
3,10
3,20
3,10
3,10
3,10
18.2
3,10
3,10
1,9,
17
17,2
3,10
21
22
21
23
21
15,*
25,*
*

*



,*

>
*
*

*
*
*


*





,n
,D
                  28

-------
Table 1.    Fuel Nitrogen Mechanism (con't)
Reaction
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75-
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85-
86.
87.
NCO + 0 =
CN +
CN +
CN +
CN +
CN +
CN +
CN +
CO +
CO +
co2
CO +
co2
CO +
CO +
CO +
H, +
H20
co2
OH =
HNO
H +
NH =
NH2
NH,
OH =
°2 =
+ M =
HNO
+ N =
N02
N20
H02
OH =
+ 0 =
H2 + 0 =
°2 4
H +
• H =
NO + CO
= NCO + CO
HCN + 0
= HCN + NO
M = HCN + M
HCN + N
= HCN + NH
= HCN + NH2
C02 + H
co2 + o
•• CO + 0 + M
= C02 + NH
= CO + NO
= C02 + NO
= C02 + N2
= C02 + OH
= H20 + H
= OH + OH
H + OH
0 + OH
0 + M = OH + M
02 + M =
H2-
H00
• M =
+ M =
0 + 0 + M
H + H + M
= H + OH + M
A(
5.
2.
3-
3.
4.
3.
1.
5.
7.
1.
3.
1.
1.
2,
2
1
1
2
6
1
2
8
3
2
1
• cm
\
•mole/secy
0 x
0 x
7 x
1011
1013
lO12
16 x 1012
0 x
1011
16 x 1016
0 x
0 x
0 x
1011
io10
1010
51 x 107
16 x 1012
,0 x
.0 x
.0 x
.0 x
.0 x
.0 x
.19
.76
.82
.19
.00
.55
.45
.29
io15
1011
1011
io12
io11
io11
x IO13
xlO13
x IO10
xlO12*
xlO15
xlO18
xlO111
x IO15
N
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
-0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.3
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-1
0
0
E(cal/mole) References
6875
0
0
3000
0
0
2000
2000
2000
-765
50,000
100,000
7000
30,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
5150
18,350
8900
16,800
0
118,000
96,000
105,000
25,*,D
26
3,7,*
3,10,*
3,10,*
3,10,*
10,*
10,*
3.27
3.28
3.29
3,10,*
3,10,*
3,30
3,31
3,32
18,2
18,2
18.2
18.2
20
33
18.2
18.2
             29

-------
            Table 1-   Fuel Nitrogen Mechanism (con't)
Reaction
A(
                           mole sec
                                                     E(cal/mole)   Reference
88. H + 02 + M = H02 + M  1.59 x 10
                                   15
                            -1000
 89. H02 + OH = H20 + 02   5.0 x 1013        0
                                                     1000
                                          3,32
90. OH + 0 + M =  H02  + M  5-O.x 10
                                  16
91. H02 + 0 =  02  +  OH     5.0 x 10
                                  13
                            1000
                                                                   3,32
92.
 2.5 x 10
                                  13
                                                     700
3,32
93. H02 + H = OH +  OH     2.5 x 10'
                                                     900
                                         3,32
94. H02 + H »  H20 +0     1.0 x 1013        0
                                                     1000
                                         3,32
                              30

-------
REFERENCES, TABLE 1

1.  Bahn, G.S., Pyrodynamics 5_, 375  (1967); references therein.
2.  Baulch, D.L., D.D. Drysdale, D. Home, and A.C. Lloyd, Evaluated Kinetic
    Data for High Temperature Reactions, Vol. 1  (1972) and Vol.2  (1972),
    Butterworths.
3.  Engleman, V.S., "Survey and Evaluation of Kinetic Data on Reactions  in
    Methane/Air Combustion", EPA-6000/2-76-003,  NTIS No. PB  248-139/AS,
    January 1976; and extensive compilations and references  therein.
4.  Mayer, S.W. and L. Schieler, Aerospace Corp. Rept. TDR-669  (9210-02)-!
    January 1966).
    Schieler, L. and S.W. Mayer, Chemical Propulsion  Information  Agency  Publ.
    108  (June 1966).
5.  Mayer, S.W., L. Schieler. and H.S.  Johnston, Eleventh  Symposium (Inter-
    national) on Combustion, The Combustion  Institute  (1966).
6.  Bortner, M.H., General Electric Missile  and  Space  Division  Report
    #R63SD63 (August, 1963).
7.  Benson, S.W., D.W. Golden, R.W. Lawrence, and  R.  Shaw,  Quarterly Progress
    Report No.2, EPA Grant #R-800798  (Feb.,  1973).
8.  Mayer, S.W. and L. Schieler, J. Chem. Phys.  45^, 385  (1966).
9.  Thermochemistry Research Dept. Aerospace Corp. Rept. TR-100 (9210-02)-!
    (Nov.1966).
10. Tunder, R.,  S. Mayer, E. Cook, and  L. Schieler, Aerospace Corp. Rept.
    TR-1001  (9210-02)-!  (1967).
11. Kretschmer,  C.B. and H.L. Petersen, J. Chem. Phys.  39_,  1772 (1963).
12. Mayer, S.W.  and L.  Schieler, Aerospace Corp. Rept.  TR-669  (8210-02)-3
     (June  1966).
13. Gehring, M. ,  et a!., Fourteenth Symposium (International)  on Combustion,
    The  Combustion Institute (1973).
14. Alhens,  E.A.  et al., Twelfth Symposium (International)  on Combustion,
    The  Combustion Institute (1969).
15. Private  Communication,  T.  Corley, E.E.R. (1978).
16. Monat, J.P., R.K.  Hinson,  and C.H. Kruger,  Comb.  Sci.  Tech. l£, 21  (1977)
 17.  Roose, T.R., R.K.  Hinson,  and C.H. Kruger,  Eleventh International Shock
     Tube Symposium,  Seattle (July 1977).
 18.  McCullough, R.W.,  C.H.  Kruger, and R.K.  Hanson, Comb.  Sci.  Tech. 15, 213
     (1977).
 19.  Phillips,  L.F. and H.I. Schiff, J. Chem. Phys. 42, 3171 (1965).
 200  Schofield, K., Planetary Space Sci. 15_,  643 (1967).
 21.  Albess,  E.A. et al., Fifteenth Symposium (International) on  Combustion,
     The Combustion Institute (1975) .
 22.  B.S. Haynes, Comb,  and Flame 28  ,  113 (1977).
                                      31

-------
23. Davies, P.B.  and B.A.  Thrush,  Trans. Faraday  Soc. 64_, 1836  (1968);  low
    temperature.
24. Boden,  J.C.  and B.A.  Thrush, Proc. Roy. Soc.  London A305, 107  (1968); low
    temperature.
25. Mulvihill, J.N. and L.F. Phillips, Fifteenth  Symposium  (International on
    Combustion,  The Combustion  Institute (1975);  unjustified estimate.

26. Haynes, B.S., D. Iverach, and  N.Y. Kirov, Fifteenth Symposium  (Inter-
    national) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute (1975); rate determined
    by  questionable interpretation of  data.

27. Baulch, D.L.  and D.D. Drysdale, Comb,  and Flame  23, 215  (1974).
28. Dean, A.M. and G.B. Kistiakowsky , J.  Chem. Phys. 53, 830  (1970); 54^
    11718 (1971); Sulzmann, K.G.P., J. Chem. Phys. 42_,  3969  (1965).

29. Clark, T.C., A.M. Dean, and G.B. Kistiakowsky, J. Chem.  Phys.  54^ 1726
    (1971); Olschewski, H.A., et al.,  Eleventh  Symposium  (International)
    on Combustion, The Combustion  Institute (1967).
30. Kondratiev, V.N., Rate Constants of Gas Phase Reactions, English
    translation, R.M. Fristrom, Ed., NTIS, Com-72-10014,  (1972).
31. Lin, M.C. and S.H. Bauer, J. Chem. Phys. _50_,  3377 (1969); Micks, D.
    and R.A. Matula, Fourteenth Symposium  (International) on Combustion,
    The Combustion Institute (1973).

32. Lloyd, A.C.,  Int. J.  Chem.  Kinetics £, 169  (1974).
33. Camae, M. and A. Vaughan, J. Chem. Phys. 34^  460 (1960).
34. Peterson, H.L., and C.B. Kretschmer, Aerojet-General  Comp.  Dept. TN-38
    (November I960).
*  Calculated or  estimated rate.  Non-experimental

+  No data.  The  calculated value for NH + NH ->- NZ + H

Q Currently, neither value is  preferred.
                                      32

-------
     Table  2a.
               EER Reaction Set
• ATN expf-E/RT)    (c.-n3;  mole; sec
oo
REACTION
CH4"
CH30 *
tfCH-O -
CHO '»
co2 •*
H + NO
f H * 0
H T 02
CH + 0
* H2 ? H
H20 -
NO + 0
IN2 • N
«2°"
fc'O + 0
' CH4 +
CH4 *
CH4 +'
ru a. u
l«n« • n
CH20 •*• H
CKO + H
CO * H
CO + 0
* HNO
» OH
• H02
« H02
+ H
OH + H
• N02
+ N
N2 + 0
B°2
fit _ ru < f-\i
(*t\n a Cn^ * Un^
233
CN = HCN + CH3
H = CH3 + H2
	 r "
A
1.0 x 1017
4 x 1040
3.15 x 1017
2.50 X 1020
1.0 x 1015
2.0 x 1016
1.0 X 1018
"3.0.x 1015
1.6 x 1020
2.03 x 1015
2.30 x 1024
1.38 x 1021
4.0 x 1021
4 x 1014
1 x 1018
1.26 x 1012
3.16 x 1011
5.0 x 1010
N E(kcal/mo1e)
0 83.4
-7.5 22.6
0 87.
-1,5 16.8
0 100.
0 0
-1. 0
0 -1.0
-1.5 0
.07 103.83
-2.- 122.6
-1.82 0
-1.6 225.
0 51.4
-1.0 0
.70 20.
.70 5.
1. 10.
CCW.EMS*
Oppenhein et al (1975); (.71)
Benson (1975); estimate
Englema.n (1976); evaluation
Benson (1975); estimate
Engleman (1976)
Clyne and Thrush (1952); exp't.
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Baulch et al (1369); (2.); evaluation
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Mallard and Owen (1974)
Benson et al (1975); (3.); estimate
Michael et al (1976); exp't.
Baulc'n et al (1S73); evaluation
Axworthy (1977)
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Engleman (1976)
Engleman (1976)
Walker (1968); exp't.

-------
co
Table 2b .
REACTION
CH4 + OH » CH3 + H20
CH4 + 0 - CH3 + OH
f CH, + CN = HCN + CH,
'•5 ' C
*CH- + CH,6 « CH. + CHO
o 2 4
CH3 + OH - CH2 + H20
CH3 + OH « CH30 + H
CH3 + KKO ~ CH4 + NO
ICK3 + H02 = CH4 + 02
CH, + 0 » CH90 + H
J C
SCH3 + 02 - CH2 + H02
#CI!3 f 02 = CH20 + OH
CH3 + 02 - CH30 H- 0
/CH2 + CN " CH + HCN
|CH? + CHpO = CH, + CHO
CH2 + H = CH + H2
CH2 + OH » CH + H20
CH2 + OH • CH3 + 0
CH, + OH • CH,0 -1- H
jc,. - AT" m
A
3.0 x 1013
1.9 x 1014
1.0 x 1011
2. x 1011
2.0 x.1011
6.31 x 1011
5.0 x 1011
1.0 x 1011
2.6 X 1014
3.16 x 1012
9. x 1011
3,5 x 1013
3.16 x 1012
2.0 x 1011
3.16 x 1011
5.0 x 1011
5 x 1011
1.x 1013
f-P/RT)
N
0
0
.70
0
.70
0
.50
.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
.70
.50
.50
0
3
(era : mole: sec
E(kcal/ir.ole)
5.0
11.7
3.
6.5
2.
0
0
6.0
2.0
69.5
12.
28.8
5.
6.5
5.
6.
6.
5.
units}
COME NTS*
Wilson (1972); evaluation
Brabbs and Brokaw (1975); exp't
Engleman (1975)
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Engleman (1976); (3.); estimate
Englercan (1976)
Englerran (1976); estimate
Engleman (1976); estimate
Peeters and Vinckier (1975); exp't
Engleman (1976)
Tsuboi and Wagner (1974); exp't
Brabbs and Brokaw (1975); exp't
Engleman (1976)
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Engleman (1976)
Engletnan (1976); estimate
Engleman (1975)
Englemen (1976)

-------
         Table 2c.
K, " ATN expf-E/aT)     fern3; mole; s»c ur.UsI
GO
REACTION
CH
CH2

Ch'2
CH2
Ch'2
ICH +
CH +
CH +
fCH +
CH +
CH +
KH30
*CH30
i?CH30
eCH30
ICH.O
J
*CH30
CH20
+ H
+ N2

+ NO.
+ 0 =
+ C2
CH4
co2
OH =
H02
0 •
°2*
+ H
+ OH
+ N <
+ NO
+ 0 <
*P2
+ H '
= CH3 + H
= HCN + NH

= CH,0 + N
CHO + H
- CH20 + 0
= CH9 + CH,
c. o
» CHO + CO
CHO + H
- CH2 + 02
CO + H
CHO + 0
= CH20 + H2
- CH20 +' H20
= CH20 + NH.
• H.NO +• CH20
• CH20 + OH
• CH20 + H02
• CHO + H-
3.
,0
1.0

1.
5
5
1.
1.
5
1.
5
5.
1
3.
1.
5.
1.
1.
1.

6
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
X
A
xlO12
xlO14
1 9
x 10U
io"
1011
x IO12
IO10
IO11
IO10
IO11
10U
IO14
xlO13
10 14
0 x 1011
X
X
26
IO14
IO12
xlO10
N
0.
0

0
.50
.50
0
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
0
0
0
.50
0
0
i:'
E(kc«l/nole)
7.0
60.

7,
4.
7.
17.1
6.
10.
15.
0
6.
0
0
0
4.23
0
6.
3.2

CO.XME.N7S*
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Benson et

Engleman
Engleman
Engleman
Estimate;
Engleman
Englexan
Engleman
Engleman .
Engleman
Engleman
Engleman
Engleman
Estimate;
Engleman
Englsrr.an
Engleman
al (1975); (CA « 70 ±20);
estimat.
(1976)
(1976); estimate
(197Sh estimate-
"under et al (1967-) msthocl
(1975)
(1976)
(1976)
(1975)
(1976)
(1976)
(1976)
(1976)
Tunder et al (1567) method
(1976)
(1976)
(1976)

-------
        Table  2d.
CO
REACTION
CH20 + OH
CH20 + 0 »
fCHO +
ICHO +
fCHO +
if CHO +
5 CHO +

SCKO +
CHO +
CHO +
CHO +
KHO +
*CHO +
CHO +
ICHO +
HCfJ +
HCK +
HCN +
CHO
CH2
CH3
H «
HNO

CH =
H02
N »
N =
N «
NO »
0 *
0 «
« CHO
CHO
°CH2
«CH3
-CH4
CO +
- CH,
c.
CO +
• CH2
CH +
KCN +
CO +
CO +
CO +
co2 +
+ H20
+ OH
0 + CO
+ CO
+ CO
H2
0 + NO

H20
o + o2
NO
0
NH
HNO
OH
H
OH - CN + H20
N »
0 «
CH +
CH +
N2
NO
3.
2.
1.
3,
3.
3.
3.

3.
r.
1.
1.
2.
2.
6.
3.
2.
2.
1.
16
0
6
16
16
0
16

0
X
0
0
0
0
31
16
0
5
0
A
X IO10
xlO11
xlO11
x IO10
x 1011'
xlO10
x IO11

xlO10
IO14
x IO14
x IO14
x IO11
X IO11
x IO11
x IO11
x IO11
x IO11
xlO14
N E(kcaVmole)
1. 0
1. 4.4
.50 0
.70 1.
.70 0
1. 0
.50 0

1. 0
0 3.
0 48.6.
0 0
.50 2.
.50 2.
1.0 0.5
0 0
.60 5.
0 16.
0 72.

Englenan
Englenan
Engleman
Englerr.an
Englsman
CCJWtNTS*
(1976)
(1976)
(1975)
(1976)
(1976)
Engleman (1975),
Er.glecan

Englen-.ao
Engleman
Engleman
Englemsn
Engleman
Engleman
Engleman
Engleman
Englerr.an
Benson et
Benson et
(1575)

(1976)
(1976)
(1975); estimate
(1976)
(1976)
(1976); estimate
(1976); (2.)
(1976)
(1976)
al (1975); (2.5); estiir-ate
al (1975); estimate

-------
CO
Table 2e .
REACTION

CN +
jfCN +


CN +
CN +
#CN +
£
CN +
co2
OH «
OH =
H2 =
f.'H «
NO «
CN + 0 »
|



s
CN +
NCO
CO +
CO +
CO +
°2a
+ H =
KM
OH -
•HO
w
f?CO + 0, «
s

a
3

L* Vjrt
H +
H +
H +
+ N -
H?;O »
HN'O =
OH =
» NCO
HCN +
NCO +
HCN +
CH +
CO +
CO + N
CO +
NH +
= co2
co2 +
- CHO
co2 +
CO +
H2*
Nil +
+ CO
0
H
H
N2
N2

NO
CO
+ NH
H
+ 02
• 0
NO .
NO
OH
H0 -H 0
3
3
6
6
1
3
6
3
5
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
.72
.16
.2
.2
.0
.0
.31
x
'. X
. X
.51
.0
JC - ATN exof-E/RT) (cm2: nvj'l»: s»c uMtO
A
xlO12
xlO12
xlO13
x 10
xlO14
XlO11
xlO11
1011
1011
10U
"x 107
xlO12
.16 x 1012
.0
.0
.0
.71
x 1011 .
XlO13
xlO11
x 10 17
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
.50
0
.50
.50
1.3
0
0
.50
0
.50
-.94
E(kcal/mole)
0
3.
0
5.3
40.
0
0
0
5.87
7.
-.765
37.1
50.
25.
2.5
23.
14.69

COM'-IE.'iTS*
KorUy (1976); estimate
Engleaan
(1S76)
Korlsy (1S76); estimate
MorTey (1976); estimate
Benson et
Er.glerr.an
Senson et
EngleTian
Estir-ata;
Estimates
al (1975); estimate
(1976)
al (1975); estimate
(1976)
Tundsr et al (1957) ratr.GS
; Tur.der et al (1967) -ethod
Baulch and Orysdale (1974)
Benson et
Englenan
Engleman
Engle^an
Engleman
al (1975); estimate
(1976)
(1976)
(1976)
(1976)
Schott et al (1972); exp't

-------
CO
oo
Table 2f.
REACTION
H + H02 « OH * OH
H + N20 - OH + N2
H •*• N20 « NH + NO
H + N02 » OH + NO
I UNO + HNO » N£0 + H20
KNO + OH * H20 + NO
§H:;O + NO - OH + N£O
KNO + 0 » OH + HO
H.\o + o <* 'NH + o2
OH + H2 • H + H20
CH + OH • H20 + 0
OH -f N20 * H02 + N2
CH + 0 • H + Og
H02 + H = 02 -t- H2
H02 + OH » H£0 + 02
H02 + 0 « OH + Og
fj + OH « NO + H
N + NO = N0 + 0
Kf - A7N e
A
2.50 x 1014
8.0 x 1013
1.0 x 1011
3.16 x 1014
1.0 x.1010
1.0 X 1012
2 x 1012
5.0 x 1011
1.0 x 1011
2.5 x 1013
6.0 x 1012
3.16 x 1013
6.31 x 1011
2.5 X 1013
5.0 x 1013
5.0 x 1013
6.31 X 1011
3.10 X 1013
Xof-E/RT^
N
0
0
.50
0
.50
0
0
.50
.50
0
0
.0
.50
0
0
0
.50
0
Vcm3: lioist sec
E(kcal/inole)
1.9
15.
30.
1.5
41.55
.1.0
25.
0
7.
5.?
1.
15.
0
.70
1.
1.
o
.334
units!
COME.NTS*
Englcrnan (1975); evaluation
Englercan (1975)
Englenan (1976); estimate
Engleiran (197G),
Estimeta; Tuncer et al (1557) m«thc-d
Engleman (1976)
Englenan (1976); evaluation
Englenan (1975); estimate
Englerr.an (1976)
Baulch et al (1972); evaluation
Baulch et al (1972); evaluation
Engleman (1976)
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Engleman (1976)
Engletnan (1976)'
Er.gierr.an (1976)
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Englenan (1976)

-------
co
Table 2g.
REACTION
f N + N02 - M2 + 02
#N + N02 « NO + NO
H + 02 « NO + 0
NH •*• H » N + H2
NH + OH - H20 + N
NH + OH - NO + H2

JNH + 0 • N + OH



NH + 0 = NO •+ H
?NH + N « H 4- N2
S NH + NH. = N2 + H2
fNH + NO • N2 * CH
NH2 + H H NH * H2
«H2 + CH = NH + H2Q
NH2 + 0 " NH + CH
Kf - ATN exof-E/RT) • fcm3: mole: sec
A
1.0 x 1012
4.0 X IO12
6.0 X IO9
6.31 x IO11
5.0 x.1011
5.0 x IO11
1.6 x 1012
1.7 xlO10
8'.4 x IO12 •
3.16 x IO11
1.0 x IO12
6.31 x IO11
6.0 x IO11
3.6 x IO11
2.4 x IO12
1.4 x IO11
3.0 x IO10
9.2 x IO11
N
0
0
1.
.50
.50
.50
.55
.70
.70
.50
.50
.50
.50
.55
0
.67
.63
.50
E(kcal/rr.ole)
0
0
6.3
8.0
2.
2.
1.5
.10
.10
8.
.10
0
0
1.9
0
4.3
1.3
0
units')
COMMENTS*
Englemarr(1976)
Engleman (1S76)
Engleman (1976); evaluation
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Er.glemen (1976); estimate
Presently used
Sarofim et al (1973)
Presently used
Sarofim et al (1973); .estimate
Engle^an (1976); esti/r.ate
Bahn (1968); estimate
Benson et al (1975); estimate
Englemen (1976); estimate
Sarofim et al (1973)
Sarofim et al (1973)
Sarofim et al (1973)
Sarofim et al (1973)
Presently used

-------
•£»
O
Table 2h. A?N ^
REACTION A
NH2 + 02 » NH + H02 1.0 X 1013
NK2 + NK2 - NK3 + NH 1.7 X 1011
NH- + NO » N2 + H20 5.0 X 10 12
NH3 + OH - NH2 + H20 1.26 X 1010
NH3 + H * NH2 + H2 1.9 X 1011
WH3 + 0 « NH2 + OH 1.5 X 1012
NH, + 0- « NH, + HO, 5.0 x 1011
J b Lt **
*,N20 + 0 • N2 + 02 -1.0 X 1014
*N?0 + 0 « NO + NO . 1.0 X 1014
(?HO * OH • HOg •»• N 5.0 X 1010
NO + HO, « NO, + OH 5.0 x 1011

-------
Table2i.
REACTION
INO + NO "NO + 0.
JN02 + 0 * NO + 02
iCtt + CH3 » CH2 + CH2
Kf - ATN CXD(-E/RT)
A .N
1.0 x 1012 0
1.0 x 1013 0
3.2 x 1012 0
(en : mole: sec uMts^
E(kca1/rro1e}
60. Engl^fnsn
1. Englercan
8. EngTeman

CO.'
(1975)
(1975)
(1976);

«Eh7S*


estlrate
*  Number in parenthesis indicates factor by which original rate was multiplied.

-------
REFERENCES, TABLE 2
1.  Axworthy, A., Private Communication (1977).
2.  Bartok, W., V.S. Engleman, and E.G. del Valle, "Laboratory Studies and
    Mathematical Modelling of NOX Formation in Combustion Processes", Exxon
    Research and Engineering Company Report No. GRU-3GNOS-71, EPA No. APTD1168
    NTIS No. PB 211-480, 1972.
3.  Baulch, D.L., D.D. Drysdale, D.G. Horne, and A.C. Lloyd, "Evaluated
    Kinetic Data for High Temperature Reactions. Vol. 1. Homogeneous Gas Phase
    Reactions of the H2-02 System", CRC Press  (1972).
4.  Baulch, D.L., D.D. Drysdale, D.G. Horne, and A.C. Lloyd, "Evaluated
    Kinetic Data for High Temperature Reactions.  Vol.  2. Homogeneous Gas
    Phase Reactions of the H2-02 System", CRC  Press  (1972).
5.  Baulch, D.L., D.D. Drysdale, "An Evaluation of the  Rate  Data for the
    Reaction CO + OH -> C02 + H", Comb. JFlame, _23  (1974).
6.  Benson, S.W., D.M. Golden, R.W. Lawrence,  R.  Shaw,  and R.W. Woolfolk,
    "Estimating  the Kinetics of Combustion: Including Reactions Involving
    Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur".  Environmental Protection Agency, Office
    of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., Pub. No.  EPA-600/2-75-019
    (1975).
7.  Bowman, C.T., "An Experimental and Analytical Investigation of  the High-
    Temperature Oxidation Mechanisms of Hydrocarbon  Fuels",  Comb. Sci. Tech.,
    2  (1970).
8.  Clyne, M.A.A. and B.A. Thrush, Disc. Faraday  Soc. 33, 139  (1962).

9.  Dove,  J.E.  and W.S. Nip,  "Shock Tube Studies  of  the Reactions of Hydrogen
    Atoms.  I.   The Reaction H + NH-j -»• H2 + NH2 , Can. J. Chem., 52^

10. Duxbury, J., and N.H. Pratt,   "A  Shock Tube Study of NO  Kinetics in  the
    Presence of  H2 and Fuel-N", Fifteenth Symposium  ^International) on
    Combustion,  The Combustion  Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  (1975).

11. Engleman, V.S., W. Bartok, J.P. Longwell,  and R.B.  Edelman, "Experimental
    and Theoretical Studies of NOX Formation in a Jet-Stirred  Combustor",
    Fourteenth  Symposium  (International) on  Combustion, The  Combustion
    Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  (1973).

12. Engleman, V.S., "Survey and Evaluation of  Kinetic Data on Reactions  in
    Methane/Air  Combustion", U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of
    Research  and Development, Washington, D.C., Environmental Protection
    Technology  Series, Pub. No. EPA-600/1-76-003  (1976).
]3. Engleman, V.S.,  "Mechanism and Kinetics  of the Formation of NO  and  Other
    Combustion  Pollutants: Phase  I, Unmodified Combustion",  EPA-600/7-76-009a
    (1976).
14. Fenimore, C.Po,  Thirteenth  Symposium (International) on  Combustion,  p.373,
    The Combustion  Institute  (1971).

15. Fenimore, C.P.,  "Reactions  of  Fuel-Nitrogen in Rich Flame  Gases", Comb.
    Flame,  26  (1976).
                                      42

-------
16.  Kaskan, W.E. and D.E. Hughes, "Mechanism of Decay of Ammonia  in Flame
     Gases from an NH3/02 Flame", Comb. Flame. 20  (1973).

17.  Lesclaux, R, P.V. Khe, P. Dezauzier, and J.C. Soulignac,  "Flash
     Photolysis Studies of the Reaction of NH2 Radicals with NO",  Chejn. Phys.
     Letters. 35, No., 4(1975).

18.  Mallard, W.G. and J.H. Owen. Intern. J. Chem. Kinetics^, 6_ (1974).

19.  Michael, J.V., Payne, W.A., and Whytok, D.A. , "Absolute Rate  Constants
     for 0 + NO + M (=He, Ne, Ar, Kr) ->• N02 + M from 217-500"K," J. Chera. Phy.s.
     65,  No. 11 (1976).

20.  Morley,  C. ,  "The Formation and Destruction of Hydrogen Cyanide from
     Atmospheric  and Fuel Nitrogen in Rich Atmospheric -Pressure Flames",
     Comb.  Flame, 27 (1976).

21.  Oppenheim, A.K. , L.M. Cohen, J.M. Short, R.K. Cheng, and  K. Horn,
     "Modern Developments in Shock Tube Research",  10th International Shock
     Tube Research ,  (G.  Kamoto, Ed.) Kyoto (1975).


22.  Peeters, J.  and C.  Vinckier, "Production of Chemi-Ions and Formation of
     CH and CH2 Radicals in Methane-Oxygen and Ethylene-Oxygen Flames",
     Fifteenth Symposium (International^ on Combu.s^ion^, The Combustion
     Institute, Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania (1975).
23.  Sarofim, A.F., G.C.  Williams, M. Modell, and  S.M. Slater, "Conversion of
     Fuel Nitrogen to Nitric Oxide in Premixed and Diffusion Flames", Paper
     Presented at AIChE 66th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pa.  (1973).

24.  Schott,  G.L.,  R.W.  Getziner, and W.A.  Seitz,  164 Amer. Chem.  Soc. Meeting
     New York (1972).
25.  Tsubi, T., and H.Gg.  Wagner, "Homogeneous Thermal Oxidation of Methane
     in Reflected Shock Waves", Fifteen thjSymposium ( Inter national) on
     Combustion,  The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  (1975).

26.  Tunder, R. ,  S. Mayer, E. Cook, and L. Schieler, Aerospace Corp. Report
     No.  TR-001 (9210-02), (1967).
27.  Walker, R.W. , J. Chem. Soc. (A) 1968, 2391  (1968).

28.  Wilson, W.E., J. Phys^ Chem. Ref. Data, 1 (1972).
29.  Zellaer, R. , and I.W.M. Smith,  "Rate  Constants  for the Reactions  of
     OH with NH3 and HN03", Chem . _Phys_.  Letters ,  26_,  No.  1 (1974).
                                      43

-------
REFERENCES, TABLE 3

  Biordi, J.C., C.P. Lazzara, and J.F. Papp, Fifteenth Symposium
  (International) on Combustion, p. 917, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,
  Pa.  (1975).
  Dixon-Lewis, G., M.M. Sutton, and A. Williams, "Tenth Symposium
  (International) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, p. 495, Pittsburgh,
  Pa.  (1965).
  Merryman, E.L. and A. Levy, "NOX Formation in CO Flames", Report to EPA,
  Contract #68-02-0262  (January 1977).
  Peeters, J. and G. Mahnen. Fourteenth  Symposium  (International) on
  Combustion, The Combustion Institute,  p.  133, Pittsburgh. Pa.  (1973).
                                     44

-------
     HETEROGENEOUS PROCESSES INVOLVED IN
   THE CONTROL OF NITROGEN OXIDE FORMATION
            IN FOSSIL FUEL FLAMES
                    By:

         M. P. Heap and T.  J.  Tyson
Energy and Environmental Research Corporation

           Professor A. F.  Sarofim
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

          Professor J. 0. L. Wendt
            University of Arizona

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     Both of us  (M.P.H./T.J.T.) take pleasure in acknowledging the
contribution made to the FCR program by many individuals on the staff at
EER or at the various subcontractors, as well as several university con-
sultants, all of whom make working on this program a pleasure.  This paper
has drawn on information generated by several subcontractors at various
organizations.   Axworthy at Ricketdyne; Solomon at UTRC; Trolinger at SDL;
De Soete at IFF; Tong at Acurex; and Overley at Battelle.  We would also
like to acknowledge the contribution made by Professor Samuelsen of the
University of California, Irvine,  who provided constructive criticism and
helpful advice concerning the various programs, together with concepts and
ideas for new work.  We would also like to express our appreciation to
Mr. W. S. Lanier, the EPA Project Officer for the FCR program, and to his
colleagues at the CRB for their continued interest.
                                     46

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                                 INTRODUCTION

     The general  philosophy and overall objectives of the FCR* program have
been described  elsewhere (1).   This  program involves the planning and
direction of  several projects  whose  overall goal is to provide the EPA/CRB
with the necessary understanding of  the fundamental behavior of combustion
systems to develop control technology which will minimize the emission of
both NOX and  associated pollutants from stationary sources.   The program is
focused on well-defined priority target areas,  and the research effort is
directed towards  providing engineering .solutions to specific problems within
a time frame  consistent with the technology development programs.  Neither
the time nor  resources are limitless, and the program has been planned to
provide products  which can be  realized in both the near and  far-term.
Information is  being generated now which can either be directly transferred
to "technology  development" programs, or used in the development of empirical
engineering models to aid the  designer of low NOX combustion systems.  Pro-
jects with a  long-term payoff, which are in the minority, are associated with
the development of numerical models  capable of describing pollutant forma-
tion in complex combustors.
     The FCR  program is primarily concerned with the basic mechanisms asso-
ciated with the formation and destruction of nitrogen oxides in fossil fuel
flames.  However, some effort has been initiated relating to the formation
of soot and fine particulate matter, as well as the mechanisms of sorbent
extraction of S02 in flames.  Reviewing the sources of anthropogenic NOX
emissions, it can be seen  that approximately 50 percent can be attributed to
stationary combustion; and of this,  50 percent greater than 55 percent is
associated with the combustion of nitrogen-containing fuels which are mainly
 Fundamental Combustion Research Applied to Pollution Control
                                     47

-------
coal or oil.  Thus, the primary initial objective was to focus upon pollutant
production in one-atmosphere turbulent diffusion flames burning pulverized
coal or residual oil and radiating to cold walls.  Since the increased use
of coal is one of the nation's methods of achieving energy independence,
this initial objective has considerable relevance because any increase in the
use of coal or coal—derived fuels without the application of necessary control
technology will probably result in an increase in NO  emissions.
                                                    X
     A key element of the FCR program is the establishment of the lower bounds
set on NOX emissions under various limiting situations and constraints.  It is
important when assessing control strategies to know that for a particular set
of process requirements that there exists a limit on the level of control
achievable by combustion modifications and set by these requirements.   Thus,
the value of studies leading to the establishment of lower bounds is not only
that they provide a yardstick by which to measure the effectiveness of other
control schemes, but they also provide strong guidance in the development of
advanced control techniques.
     The generation of nitrogen oxides during the combustion of pulverized
coal and residual oil in turbulent diffusion flames involves the complex
interaction of several physical and chemical phenomena.  Transport processes
involving heat or mass, gas phase kinetics, and heterogeneous processes are
all involved in the formation and destruction of NO in these flames.  This
paper describes projects included in the FCR program, both ongoing and planned
for the future, which can be classified as heterogeneous processes.  Projects
associated with mass transfer phenomena and homogeneous gas phase kinetics
are discussed in two other papers.
                                     48

-------
                                  SECTION 2
                               FCR APPLICATIONS

     The purpose of the FCR program is to provide development engineers
with information and tools which will aid in the application of NOX control
technology to stationary combustion sources.  More specifically, the primary
objective involves  large water-wall combustors burning pulverized coal or
residual fuel oil.   The ultimate goal is to  combine information generated
from the three major program elements in order to describe pollutant forma-
tion in large industrial flames.  However,  in this the second year of the
program, the potential applications are much more restricted, and are more
concerned with the  direct transfer of information to aid in the interpreta-
tion of development results.
     The program element concerned with heterogeneous processes can be placed
in context by considering the experimental results presented in Figures 1 and
2.  These data were generated in programs designed to generalize low NOX
burner technology for solid and liquid fuels, and to determine the role of
fuel composition on NOX emissions.  Figure 1 presents a composite plot show-
ing the conversion  of fuel nitrogen to NOX as a function of weight percent
nitrogen in the fuel on a dry, ash-free basis.  The results were generated
in two different furnaces with different but similar burner systems.  Mini-
mum NOV emissions obtained with the same fuels for a simple staging system
      A
are shown in Figure 2.  The results are somewhat unexpected, but because
they are of great practical importance, they clearly demonstrate the need
for further interpretation through this FCR program element.  Only then can
their general impact be recognized and translated to practice in the field.
     The observables presented  in Figures 1  and  2 can be  summarized by:
     —    In overall lean conditions  fuel nitrogen  conversion to NOX for
          liquid fuels  appears  to depend very  strongly  on the weight per-
          cent nitrogen in  the  fuel.   This  is  not unexpected.   However,
                                      49

-------
          for solid fuels there is apparently some other parameter
          controlling fuel nitrogen oxidation, and NO  does not appear
          to depend primarily on coal N content.  FCR will help identify
          this other parameter.
     —    There are secondary parameters involved in fuel nitrogen forma-
          tion in liquid fuels which are probably associated with the
          volatility of the fuel nitrogen compounds (2).
     —    Fuel nitrogen conversions in alternate liquid fuels are higher
          than those for solid fuels with similar nitrogen contents.
     —    Under staged conditions minimum NOX emissions appear to be less
          dependent upon fuel nitrogen content, although both coal and
          oil properties appear to influence minimum NOX levels.
     —    There is a strong effect of the particle/droplet size.   Minimum
          NOX emissions under staged combustion conditions for the same
          coal vary by over 30 percent when coal is burned with a particle
          size of 165 ]aa. or size less than 39 ym.  Smaller particles give
          lower emissions staged, but higher emissions unstaged.   Similarly,
          with liquid fuels minimum NOV emissions increase from 110 to
                                      A
          130 ppm as the mean droplet size varies from 20 to 180 um.
     These experimental results were obtained from specific simple com-
bustors, described elsewhere (2).  It is the function of this FCR program
element to determine if, why, and when they hold in general, especially
under advanced combustor design conditions.  Interpretation of these results
is complicated because of both fuel effects and fuel/air contacting effects.
One goal of the heterogeneous program element is to ascertain under which
conditions these two factors play a dominant role.
     The combustion of liquid or solid fuels involves several processes.
Before heat release can occur the fuel must undergo some physical trans-
formation, i.e., pulverization or atomization, to provide for efficient
fuel/air mixing and minimize combustion time.  The coal particles or droplets
are heated either by convection from the surrounding gases, or by radiation
from the chamber walls or adjacent flames.  During heating the fuel decom-
poses producing light gases, tars, and leaving a solid char.  The tars may
                                     50

-------
themselves  pyrolyze  and  the gases produced either  directly  or from  this
secondary pyrolysis  process are burned in premixed or diffusion controlled
heat release zones.   The char remaining after devolatilization and  any solid
produced by pyrolysis reactions in the gas phase are then oxidized.   Several
questions can be  raised  concerning the fate of fuel nitrogen during these
processes which,  if  answers were available, might  well  help to explain
some of the results  presented in Figures 1 and 2.   These questions  are:
     •   Do fuel properties affect the distribution of nitrogen  between
         the light  gases,  tars and char formed during  thermal decomposition?
     •   Do fuel properties affect the rate of nitrogen loss as  a  function
         of temperature, gaseous environment, and particle droplet size?
     •   Is the  speciation of nitrogen evolved during  thermal decomposi-
         tion fuel-dependent?
     •   What is the fate of nitrogen remaining in the char?
     •   Under what condition do NO,  NH  and HCN  react with solids?
     •   How does particle size control particle  temperature and its
         subsequent devolatilization?
     One of the goals of the FCR program is to define lower bounds  on N0x
emissions,  and in concluding this section on potential  applications it is
worthwhile  considering a control scheme whose limits are set by  the kinetics
of heterogeneous  processes.  Assuming that char nitrogen converion to N0x
is finite,  then one low M)  concept could involve  the design of a combustor
                          X
with the following features:
     —   A rich, high temperature zone  to extract nitrogen from the solid
          phase.
     —   A hold up  zone to maximize  N2  production by homogeneous or
          heterogeneous  reactions.
     —   Burnout in a diffusion flame with  the required composition to
          maximize HCN,  NH3,  NO conversion to N2-
The information  required to design such  a combustor is  an  example of what will
be  generated  in  the  heterogeneous  process program element.
                                      51

-------
                                  SECTION 3
               HETEROGENEOUS PROCESSES — AN FCR PROGRAM ELEMENT

     Figure 3 presents a schematic showing the relationship between  the
heterogeneous processes program element and the other FCR program elements:
     •    Homogeneous Kinetics
     •    Transport Processes
     •    Measurement System Assessment/Development
     •    Numerical Model Development
The variqus projects under this program element can be classified under  three
major headings which are:
     —    Thermal Decomposition
     —    Gas Solid Reactions
     —    Reactor  Studies
Figure 3 shows the Principle  Investigators associated with the projects
in each of the areas.
THERMAL DECOMPOSITION  STUDIES
     During the initial  stages of a  flame liquid fuel droplets and pulverized
coal particles are heated rapidly, causing both physical and chemical changes
to occur which affect  pollutant formation.  Two projects have been initiated
which are concerned with the  fate of fuel nitrogen during the thermal decompo-
sition process.  Axworthy is  conducting an investigation of the volatility of
nitrogen compounds present  in fossil fuels, and Solomon has just begun a pro-
ject to characterize  four coals during thermal decomposition.
     A quartz two-stage  pyrolysis reactor was  developed by Rocketdyne under
EPA Contract 68-02-1886  (3).   Liquid or  solid  fuels  are pyrolyzed rapidly
under inert conditions in the small  volume first stage reactor.  The volatile
                                      52

-------
pyrolysis  products  are  swept by helium carrier gas  into a second  stage
stirred flow reactor  where they can be (1)  pyrolyzed further  in helium  at
a different temperature;  (2) mixed with oxygen and  undergo oxidative  pyrol-
ysis and oxidation; or  (3) condensed and collected  for chemical analysis.
This reactor was  used to  establish that (1) most of the HCN forms from  the
secondary  pyrolysis of  volatile primary pyrolysis products; (2) the fuel
nitrogen in coal  liquids  and shale oils are apparently more volatile  than
nitrogen in conventional  fuels; and (3) the volatility of fuel nitrogen in
coals varies considerably from coal-to-coal.  The objective of the program
being carried out by  Axworthy is to measure and compare the volatility
characteristics of  reactive fuel nitrogen in liquid and solid fuels.   This
information is needed to  both qualitatively explain observations  described
in Section 2, as  well as  provide information on the rate of evolution of
volatile nitrogen from  various fuels in order to develop a semi-empirical
model of the conversion of fuel nitrogen to NO and N2 in flames.   The fuels
to be studied in  this program are those that have been used in other CRB
development programs.
     Figure 4 presents  an example of some of the initial data comparing the
volatility of convertible fuel nitrogen for a variety of fuels as a function
of first stage pyrolysis  temperature.  It can be seen that the shale and
shale-derived diesel  fuel have large fractions of volatile fuel nitrogen com-
pounds which are  evolved at low temperatures.  Greater than 60 percent of
the initial fuel  nitrogen can be converted to HCN at pyrolysis temperatures
greater than 300°C.  This can be compared with  the  results presented for
snythol, a coal-derived liquid which shows  a  similar behavior  but  only 40 per-
cent of the fuel nitrogen is converted to HCN.   The data for the three
petroleum-derived residual  fuels  shows a more gradual  evolution of nitrogen
from the oil, but also that different  oils  have different characteristics.
Although the  final conversions  for the Gulf Coast  and  Alaskan  oils are similar,
the effect  of temperature on volatile  nitrogen evolution is  very different.
The Gulf Coast oil appears  to  have a large component  of refractory nitrogen.
     Axworthy's  experiments were designed  to provide  a rapid screening tool
 to  identify large  differences  in the volatility of fuel nitrogen compounds
 for  a  wide range of  fuels in  order to select those more suitable for more
                                      53

-------
detailed study.  A different project has been initiated at the United
Technologies Research Center under the direction of Solomon which will
involve the use of vacuum distillation equipment (4) and a high temperature
furnace to characterize the thermal decomposition of four coals using infrared
analysis.  The characterization includes the definition of the coal structure
including sulfur and nitrogen groups, and the determination of the rates and
products of thermal decomposition.  The investigation will also include a mea-
surement of nitrogen group decomposition in tars.  This rate will be measured
by thermally decomposing tar in a high temperature furnace with in situ
infrared analysis of products which will be capable of detecting HCN and Nt^.
The information on the rates of these thermal decomposition processes will
be incorporated in the coal combustion model.  Given the time/temperature
history of a coal particle, prediction of the volatile yield and volatile
composition (including sulfur and nitrogen distribution) will be possible.
This information can then feed directly into a combustion model for pul-
verized coal which include gas phase combustion kinetics, char kinetics, heat
and transport processes.
     Coal particles undergo both chemical and physical changes during thermal
decomposition.  Physical effects such as swelling,  shattering, and method of
off-gasing, etc., will have a significant influence upon the formulation of
any model which attempts to describe pollutant formation during the combus-
tion of pulverized coal particles.  A proof-of-principle experiment was car-
ried out with Trolinger of Spectron Development Laboratories to determine
whether holography could be used  to observe coal particles during thermal
decomposition in flames.  Success of the technique would depend upon its
ability to distinguish particles whose size is the same as those used in
practice, and in a thermal environment similar to a turbulent diffusion flame.
The physical behavior of coal particles during heat up has been observed
photographically in the past.  However, these experiments involved larger
coal particles heated either upon grids or platinum ribbons.  Holography
provides the opportunity of producing high resolution images of individual
particles in a dynamic particle field array, i.e., under typical combustion
conditions.
                                     54

-------
     Holography has  been  applied to the study of several combustion  phenomena
(5)  with  varying  degrees  of success.   One of the principle problems  is  associ-
ated with loss of resolution caused by the imaging through a turbid  medium
associated with combustion, and it was found that the application of certain
optical and mechanical techniques allowed the observation of burning coal
particles in  free flight  with nearly diffraction-limited capability. Although
holographic interferometry has been used extensively to study flow fields and
density gradients in gases, the primary problem in this application of  inter-
ferometry is  the  high sensitivity required because the distances involved are
so small.  The holo  camera developed by Trolinger used in this investigation
is shown  in Figure 5.  The-required high resolution was achieved by (1) magni-
fying with high quality lenses before recording;  (2) using near image plan
holography to further relax hologram requirements; and  (3) precisely aligning
the hologram  during  reconstruction.  Coal particles of approximately 15 ym
mean size were  injected into the combustion products of a methane/air flat
flame through a rectangular slit.  Holograms were produced under a wide
variety of conditions and at various locations  above the injection point.
Holographic interf erometry was used to  examine  phase characteristics of the
region around coal particles in the flame.  This  included double pulse,
double exposure,  double plate, and sheared wave front hologram interferometry
(5).  Double-pulsed hologram interferometry proved especially useful for
examining dynamics,  while  double  exposure proved useful for high  sensitivity
flow visualization.   In other  of  these cases  the gross  phase shift  created
by  the methane/air flat flame  was  removed from  the  final interferogram,  a
desired  feature of hologram interferometry.
     As  stated earlier, the main  objective  of the study was to  determine  the
utility  of holography  for  viewing burning particles,  and from this  viewpoint
the experiment was an  unqualified success.   Phenomena observed  included:
     —    Single  particles down to A  ym
     -    Evolution  of high molecular-weight  gases  from single  coal
           particles
                                      55

-------
     —    Formation of a sphere of small particles (soot)  around single
          particles and separation of the coal particle from the sphere
          probably due to relative motion of the gas and coal particle
     —    Coal particle swelling
     —    Coal particle disintegration
     —    Production of particles with a high length-to-diameter ratio
          which are probably soot caused by pyrolysis of the gaseous
          devolatilization products.
A program has been planned to continue with the use of this technique to
investigate both chemical and physical effects during the thermal decompo-
sition of both liquid and solid fuels.
GAS SOLID REACTIONS
     At this time the FCR program is primarily interested in two heterogeneous
processes concerning gas solid reactions which affect NO production.  These
are the fate of char-bound nitrogen and the reduction of NOX on particulate
matter yielding N£.  Some activity at MIT touches on the former subject, and
it is planned to expand the study of char nitrogen oxidation in the near
future.
     De Soete at the Institut Francais du Petrole is currently investigating
the reduction of nitrogen oxides by particulate matter in the presence of
combustion products.  Beer et al.  (6) have demonstrated that NO can be reduced
by char in fixed bed experiments.  This phenomenon may prove to be of practi-
cal importance as an NOX control technique.  Preliminary work by De Soete (7)
indicated that the reduction mechanism was enhanced by the presence of hydro-
gen and CO and inhibited by the presence fo small quantities of oxygen.
De Soete also measured the decay of NO when NO/Ar mixtures were injected
downstream of the flame front of a sooting flame.  Typical results are pre-
sented in Figure 6 showing that the NO reduction mechanism can be significant.
Currently, De Soete is working on a project which involves investigation of
adsorption and desorption rates of nitric oxide on solid particles as well
as determining the kinetic rates for decomposition by several different parti-
cles, e.g., flame-generated soot,  fly ash, etc.  One of the initial findings
                                     56

-------
was that the presence of carbon was not mandatory,  and NO could be  reduced
by the high temperature refractory walls of the experimental reactor.   These
results have already been transferred to the developmental programs,  and
have been used  both to design the proper experimentation for the programs and
to interpret ensuing data.
REACTOR STUDIES
     The principle goal of the reactor studies is to provide information  on
the fate of fuel  nitrogen during the combustion of solid and liquid fuels in
well-defined fluid dynamic conditions.  The information generated in the
thermal decomposition and gas solid reaction investigations will provide
rate data to allow interpretation of the results generated by the reactor
studies provided  the fluid mechanical conditions are well-stirred or plug
flow (or combinations of the two).  Thus, the reactor studies will not only
provide experimental information but a proof of simple engineering models
which can later be applied to more complex combustion systems.  A project is
underway at Acurex under the direction Tong to determine the fate of coal
nitrogen as a function of particle size, air/fuel ratio, temperature and
residence time  in a well-stirred reactor.  The study of Overley at Battelle
involves a similar goal with liquid fuels.  It should be recognized that
these experiments involve complex design problems in order to ensure that
the gas phase is  well-mixed, and that the residence time of the solid or
liquid phase is known.  These problems are complicated because residence
times of interest are of the order of 20 to 100 msec rather than 1 or 2 msec.
     To date, both projects have progressed to the point which allows com-
bustion studies to begin with well-characterized reactors.  Tracer studies
have been employed by both investigators to measure the residence time dis-
tribution of both phases.
                                     57

-------
                                   SECTION 4
                                    SUMMARY

     This paper has discussed the heterogeneous processes program element
of the FCR program.  Several projects  have been initiated to determine the
fate of fuel nitrogen during the combustion of both solid and liquid fuels.
Three programs are concerned with the  chemical and physical effects occurring
during thermal decomposition.   One  program is underway to investigate NO
reduction by solids in  the  presence of combustion products, and two reactor
studies have been  initiated to  investigate fuel nitrogen conversion under
well-backmixed conditions.   Two additional programs are planned.  One con-
cerned with the oxidation of char nitrogen,  and the other a series of
reactor studies to provide  time-resolved  nitrogenous species under controlled
mixing history conditions with  both solid and liquid fuels.  The information
generated by these programs is  currently  being applied to interpret data
generated by several development programs as well as aiding in the develop-
ment of empirical  engineering tools.
     To date, the  FCR program has concentrated upon nitrogen oxide formation.
Future effort in the heterogeneous  processes program element will include
investigations directed toward  the  formation of fine particulate matter
from inorganic material in  coal, the formation of soot, and the absorption
of sulfur specie by calcium and sodium-containing sorbents.
                                     58

-------
                                  REFERENCES
1.    Tyson, T. J.  and  M.  P.  Heap,  "Fundamental Combustion Research Applied
     to  Pollution  Control",  EPA Second Stationary Source Combustion
     Symposium, New  Orleans, September 1977.

2.    Heap, et al., "The Influence of Fuel Characteristics on Nitrogen Oxide
     Formation — Bench-Scale Studies".  Paper to be presented to EPA Third
     Stationary Source Symposium,  San Francisco, March 1979.

3.    Axworthy, A.  E. and V.  H.  Dayan, "Chemical Reactions in the Conversion
     of  Fuel Nitrogen  to NOX:  Fuel Pyrolysis Studies", presented at the
     Second EPA Stationary Source Combustion Symposium, New Orleans,
     September 1977.

4.    Solomon, P. R., "The Evolution of Pollutants During Rapid Devolatiliza-
     tion  of Coal",  Report NSF/RA-770422, NTIS No. PB 278496/AS.'

5.    Trolinger, J. D., "Laser Instrumentation for Flow Field Diagnostics",
     Agardograph No.  186, NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research
     (AGARD)  (1974).

6.    Beer, J. M.,  A. F. Sarofim, L. K. Chan, -A. M. Sprouse, "NO Reduction by
     Char  in Fluidized Combustion".  Presented at the Fifth International
     Fluidized Bed Combustion Conference, Washington, D.C.  (December 1977).

7.    De  Soete, G.  G. and J.  Fayard, "Reduction of Nitric Oxide by Soot in
     Combustion Products".  Proceedings of Fifth Members Conference, IFRF,
     May 1978.
                                     59

-------
90


   O
80-D
          70
       ox
       S 60
       UJ
       o
       u
        O
        oe
        £ 50
          30
          20 —
                  I     T
                              1      I     I      I
                                              <> CH/j + NHj
                                              O DISTILLATE OILS
                                              b> RESIDUAL OILS
                                              D ALTERNATE LIQUID  FUELS-
                                              0 COALS
                 ,2    .11    .6    .8    1.0   1.2    1.1   1,6   1.8
                           WEIGHT Z NITROGEN IN FUEL (OAF)
Figure 1.   Conversion of  Fuel Nitrogen to  NOX  for Various  Fuels
                                  60

-------
 300
5200
  100
                                                      ^ CH4 + NH3
                                                      O Distillate 011s
                                                      hi Residual 011s
                                                      Q Alternate Liquid Fuels
                                                      • Coals
                                                      __J	I	L
          .2
.6      .8      1.0    1.2     1.4
            Wt. I Nitrogen daf
                                                         1.6
                                                                1.8
                                                                       Z.O
 Figure 2.   Minimum NO  Emissions Obtained  Under  Staged  Combustion
             Conditions  for Various  Fuels in a Bench-Scale Reactor
                                        61

-------
  MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
ASSESSMENT/DEVELOPMENT
L
   NUMERICAL  MODEL
    DEVELOPMENT
                  ]
            THERMAL
         DECOMPOSITION
       CHEMICAL
       EFFECTS
:     AXWORTHY
     SOLOMAN
                                        HETEROGENEOUS
                                          PROCESSES
                                         GAS SOLID
                                         REACTIONS
                                      L DE SOETE
                             PHYSICAL
                             EFFECTS
WELL MIXED
                             TROL1NGER
                                                 T.TONG
                                                  L OVERLEY
                                                                             HOMOGENEOUS
                                                                              KINETICS
                          TRANSPORT
                          PROCESSES
                     REACTOR
                     STUDIES
  TIME RESOLVED
CONTROLLED HISTORY
        Figure  3.   Heterogeneous  Processes — Project  Organization
                                            62

-------
  100
   30
 £ 60
 £
 O
   20
     ino
200
    -'400              600
1ST STAGE TEMPERATURE- °C
                                                                    SHALE

                                                                    DFM  -
                                                                  EAST COASfT
                                                                  'SYNTHOIL_
                                                                  'GULF COA"E(T
                                                                  ALASKAN
                                                               SOO
Figure  4.   Composite Plot Showing the Volatility  of Convertible Fuel
            Nitrogen for  Several Fuels as Measured by Axworthy
                                     63

-------
           HeNe ALIGNMENT  LASER
 HOLOGRAM
RUBY LASER
FLAT FLAME
BURNER
RELAY LENS
SYSTEM
         Figure  5.  Holographic System Layout Used by Trolinger

-------
  0.6
z
o
o
o
o
  0.4
-f
z
o

p
u

-------
TRANSPORT PROCESSES AND NUMERICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT
              - FCR PROGRAM ELEMENTS
                        By:

 T.  J.  Tyson,  M.  P.  Heap,  C. J. Kau and T. L.  Corley
    Energy and Environmental Research Corporation
                 Irvine, California
                          67

-------
                                 SECTION 1
                                INTRODUCTION

     The FCR program has two  major  objectives.   These are:
     •    To provide guidance to development programs concerned with
          the application of  low NOX combustion systems to  stationary
          sources.
     •    To gain insight into the fundamental phenomena controlling
          the production of NOX in these devices in order to define
          potential advanced control techniques.
One major aspect of the program involves the presentation of basic informa-
tion in such a way as to be of the most benefit to the development engineer.
This information may be transferred directly or in the form of a model which
can be used as a design tool, thereby cutting the cost and  delay time  asso-
ciated with empirical development programs.
     Two fuels, coal and residual oils, when burned in large turbulent dif-
fusion flames confined by relatively cold walls produce the major fraction
of NO,, emissions from stationary combustion sources.  Two previous papers have
     X
discussed the dominant homogeneous and heterogeneous kinetic processes asso-
ciated with the production of nitric oxide  in these combustion systems.  How-
ever, these papers did not consider the detailed physics involved in the
turbulent mixing process associated with fuel/air contacting in real com-
bustors.  This paper discusses two other elements of the FCR program;  those
concerned with numerical model development, and transport processes  which
serve the key function of synthesizing information generated in the  other
program elements in order to provide an understanding of the basic mechanisms
limiting NOX formation in practical combustion devices.
     In the FCR program elements concerned with homogeneous kinetics and
heterogeneous processes the dominant physical and chemical mechanisms  perti-
nent to NOX production during the combustion of clouds of oil droplets or

                                     68

-------
coal particles will be  defined.   Several experiments  have been planned which,
in conjunction with the development of numerical models,  will provide a pre-
dictive  capability capable of  describing NOX production in simple  reactor
systems.  Two of these  programs  are concerned with solid and  liquid  fuels,
and were described in an earlier paper.  Two other experimental  programs,
one being carried out by Myerson at Exxon and the other by Clark at  EER,
are directed towards the generation of data which will allow the verification
of an adequate kinetic  mechanism capable of describing NOX production  from
simple fuel nitrogen compounds during the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.
This predictive capability will be refined and verified by comparison with
measurements made in these simple combustion reactors.  Once confidence has
been established in the predictive capability, it can be used to analyze the
behavior of staged combustion  reactors in a rational and comprehensive search
for those reactor combinations which yield the lower limit of NOX emission
set by the basic physics and chemistry of fossil fuel combustion.
     Simple zero- and one-dimensional reactors do not completely reflect  the
detailed physics and chemistry associated with turbulent diffusion flames
burning  in real furnaces.   Consequently, an additional effort has been planned
which will parallel the reactor studies and thoroughly characterize turbulent
diffusion flame phenomena pertinent to NOX formation and destruction.   Two
general  classes of turbulent diffusion flames can be recognized; those which
involve  rapid fuel/air  mixing and are dominated by near-field behavior.  The
second group of turbulent diffusion flames are far-field dominated and can be
described as long coaxial jet  flames.  Several tasks have been  initiated in the
FCR program which are  directed towards understanding  the basic  turbulent
diffusion  layer structure in these general flame  types.  These  investigations
are concerned with  particle transport, both ballistic  and turbulent, macro-
scale turbulent transport of energy and matter,  the persistence of coherent
structures  in  large-scale flames, and  the detailed processes occurring within
these coherent  structures.
     Once  the  capability has been developed  to model  the microscale behavior
of oil droplets  and coal particles, and  after verifying  the model by compari-
son of prediction and observations, it  is appropriate  to use this model in a
                                     69

-------
search for lower bounds on NOX emissions dictated by the basic physics of
turbulent transport.  The model will aid the understanding of NOX production
and destruction in basic flame elements such as turbulent shear layers, well-
backmixed zones, and plug flow zones.  This understanding can then be trans-
ferred to a modular model capable of describing all the complexities of the
fuel/air contacting processes in turbulent diffusion flames  The generation
of experimental data to allow this modular model to be developed represents
a major subtask of the transport processes program element, and focuses on
the macroscale flame behavior in an attempt to establish how burner combustion
chamber designs and operating parameters affect the manner in which diffusion
zones and well-mixed zones are established and interact.  Once the gross
features of the flow field have been defined the production and destruction
of pollutants on a microscale can be analyzed in an overlay fashion.  Having
synthesized the physical and chemical processes associated with NOX production
and destruction with the capability to describe the mass transfer in combus-
tion  systems, this model can be used to establish the scaling characteristics
of low NOX devices.  The definition of scaling criteria represents one of the
most  important goals of the FCR program, and provides the major driving force
towards the description of NOX production in two-phase turbulent diffusion
flames by a hierarchy of models.  It should be recognized that in the near-
term  these models will contain many empirical subelements.  However, their
modular nature will allow for a more complete mathematical description as the
relevant physical and chemical phenomena are defined and quantified.
      It is readily apparent that both the development of an understanding of
transport processes and the development of numerical models play an important
role  in the achievement of the FCR program goals.  Not only do they provide
a predictive capability, they also establish a rationale whereby the effective-
ness  of NOX control techniques can be compared against that expected from the
lower bounds set by the various physical and chemical constraints.  In addi-
tion, the development of numerical models provides a tool with which to extract
the maximum amount of information from the various experimental programs asso-
ciated with homogeneous kinetics and heterogeneous processes program elements
of the FCR program.
                                       70

-------
                                 SECTION 2
                     MODELING OF SIMPLE REACTOR SYSTEMS

     Idealized  reactor  systems offer the opportunity to examine the physics
and chemistry of  pollutant formation from fossil fuels under two extreme
conditions.   A  well-stirred reactor is the extreme of the backmixed system;
one reactant  composition and temperature characterizing the total system.
In the well-stirred  reactor there is a distribution of reactant lifetimes
whereas in the  other idealized reactor system a plug flow reactor all
reactants  have  identical residence times.   Three investigations have been
planned to study  both gaseous and heterogeneous systems under well-stirred
conditions.   The  existence of a numerical model offers the maximum oppor-
tunity to  extract information from these experimental investigations.
GAS PHASE  REACTORS
     Current  activities in this area include:
     —    analysis of experimental data,
     —    development of a screening methodology and reaction mechanism
          analysis,
     —    exploratory numerical studies for planning purposes.
     One basic  goal  of  the homogeneous kinetic program element is the
validation of a kinetic mechanism capable of describing the conversion of
fuel nitrogen compounds to either XN specie  (NO, NH3, HCN) or N2 during the
combustion of hydrocarbon fuels.  The development of such a mechanism requires
both a numerical  modeling capability and experimental data with which to
verify the kinetic mechanism.  In the homogeneous kinetic program element  two
investigations  are being carried out which will provide the necessary data.
The current reaction set for methane/air combustion was developed without  a
knowledge  of  the  total  XN concentration in rich combustion systems.  Myerson
                                      71

-------
is currently providing data on the generation of nitrogenous species from
ammonia in a well-stirred reactor fired by methane,  propane and ethylene
for various initial ammonia concentrations and reactor temperatures.  A high
temperature plug flow reactor is being used to generate time-resolved pro-
files under isothermal conditions to examine the decay of XN species in fuel-
rich mixtures under controlled isothermal conditions.  The EER kinetics
analysis code is being used to determine the key reaction path associated
with fuel nitrogen conversion in these simple reactors.  The code has a
sensitivity analysis capability which allows the influence of variations in
reaction rate upon specie production or energy release to be assessed.  The
code has also been used to evaluate the current methane/air mechanism by
comparing ignition times against those measured in shock tube studies.
     Although the methane/air reaction set has not been completely validated,
it has been used in a series of numerical investigations as an aid in the
planning of future work.  These exploratory studies  include the following.
     —    An examination of the influence of quench  rate and reactant
          stoichiometry on XN decay during staged combustion.
     —    An evaluation of the use of artificial oxidants for determination
          of fuel nitrogen conversion.   Experiments have been carried out
          using argon, oxygen, carbon dioxide mixtures in an attempt to
          eliminate thermal NO production, and thereby determine fuel
          nitrogen conversion directly.  Numerical studies suggest that
          the use of these oxidants affects fuel nitrogen conversion,
          particularly under fuel-rich conditions.
     —    An examination of the effect of initial fuel nitrogen compound
          on the formation of XN specie.
     —    The interaction of SX and NX specie during fuel-rich combustion.
     —    A preliminary analysis of the influence of higher hydrocarbons
          on fuel nitrogen conversion.
     —    The development of a preliminary reaction  set for acetylene as
          the hydrocarbon gas.
                                     72

-------
    —   Analysis of microscale  unmixedness  in stirred reactors.  One
         potential problem associated  with the use of well-stirred reactors
         is  the degree  of  mixedness  and a series of numerical investiga-
         tions have been carried out to assess the effect of this unmixed-
         ness on the performance of  a stirred reactor.
HETEROGENEOUS REACTORS
    The previous paper  described the projects being carried out  in the
heterogeneous process element of  the FCR program.   Two of these projects
involved experimental investigations of the  fate  of fuel  nitrogen in  both
solid  and liquid fuels burning in well-backmixed  conditions.  A general
heterogeneous well-stirred  plug flow model is currently being developed  to
aid in the  interpretation of these results.   The  model uses  the  gas phase
model  with  a  series of subelements which describe the evolution  of hydro-
carbon gases  and fuel nitrogen specie from the coal particles or  liquid
droplets, as  well as a heterogeneous heat release model.   Naturally,  in
its current stage the model includes considerable empiricism.  However,
information being generated on the thermal decomposition of both coal and
liquid fuels, char nitrogen oxidation, and the reduction of NO by solids
will be fed into the model  as it becomes available.
     The modeling of  the fate of fuel nitrogen in heterogeneous  reactors
requires information  on  the following:
    —    the dependence of devolatilization characteristics on the
          particle  temperature and gaseous environment.
    —    the molecular  consistency of  the devolatilization products  and
          both  the  rate  and order in which they are evolved.
    —    particle  droplet heat up transients and temperature overshoots
          as  dictated by heterogeneous  reactions and energy release in
          the diffusion layer surrounding the particle/droplet.
     -    the division of  fuel nitrogen between heavy molecular weight
          gaseous  components and  the char, and the kinetics of char
          nitrogen conversion.
                                      73

-------
     —    particle/droplet relative Reynolds number effects on all  transport
          processes.
Once the model is available it can be used to examine the influence of  those
processes listed above on the fate of fuel nitrogen, as well as providing  a
basis to define under which conditions fuel nitrogen conversion to  NO is
minimized.
                                     74

-------
                                 SECTION 3
              FLUID MECHANICS AND MODELING OF DIFFUSION FLAMES

     Pulverized  coal and residual fuel oil are burned in turbulent  diffusion
flames (i.e.,  the  fuel and oxidant are injected into the combustion chamber
separately)  and  the rate of heat release is normally controlled by  the rate
of fuel oxidant  mixing.   Combustion and pollutant formation is  complicated
by the turbulent mixing process, and currently there does not exist an ade-
quate model  for  gaseous systems let alone one involving solid or liquid fuels.
One aspect of  the  approach being taken in the FCR program is to examine the
influence of various types of molecular diffusion controlled reaction zones
on pollutant formation since these could represent the full range of reaction
zones likely to  be embedded within real turbulent diffusion flames.  In addi-
tion, the understanding gained from studying simple flame systems provides
validation of  the  kinetic mechanism under conditions that are very  different
from those used  in its development.
MOLECULAR DIFFUSION FLAMES
     A generalized diffusion kinetics analysis code has been developed which
allows several flame systems to be modeled which involved molecular diffusion.
The utility  of such models is associated with the computational time required
to carry out meaningful calculations.  The current code utilizes operator
splitting techniques for those situations which are path dependent, and fully
implicit techniques involving the inversion of block tridiagonal matrices for
conditions which have an asymptotic solution.  The generalized code includes
the following  options:
     —    strained flames
     —    steady state particle/droplet flames
     -    transient confined particle/droplet diffusion flames
     —    transient spherical gas pockets
     —    free shear layer flames

                                      75

-------
     —    coaxial jet flames
     —    flat premixed flames
     The code has been used to date to examine flat premixed flames,  coaxial
jet flames, and strained opposed jet diffusion flames.  The strained flame
provides one link between the modeling being carried out on molecular dif-
fusion flames and turbulent diffusion flames, since the coherent flame
structure model assumes that reaction takes place in diffusion layers
separating the fuel and the oxidant.  Computations have been carried out on
the effect of strain rate on flame thickness, flame temperature, thermal
NO production and fuel NO production from ammonia.  These computations are
currently being used by Broadwell and Marble in a model of NO production in
a simple turbulent diffusion flame.
DIFFUSION EFFECTS IN PARTICLE/DROPLET COMBUSTION
     The conversion of fuel nitrogen to NO in coal and oil flames may depend
upon diffusion controlled processes which occur during thermal decomposition,
and are associated with the physical effects of particle droplet heating.
Experimental data on fuel nitrogen conversion in premixed fuel-lean coal
flames suggests that approximately 30 percent of the total fuel nitrogen is
converted to NO.  Taking account of the division of fuel nitrogen between
gas and char components, conversion on the order of 60 percent of the
volatile component can be expected.  These are similar to conversions mea-
sured with liquid fuels of  similar nitrogen  contents.  However, in a fuel-
lean premixed gaseous system, fuel nitrogen  conversions on the order of
90 percent would be expected.  Therefore, any model which assumes that
nitrogenous species released from  the particle/droplet are immediately com-
pletely mixed with the surrounding bulk gases will provide conversion rates
which are higher than those encountered in practice.  Thus, reaction in a
diffusion-controlled layer might well be a necessary  submodel for hetero-
geneous systems.
     Nitrogen species may be driven from a coal  particle as a jet, or feed
some zone around the particle which then reacts  in a  layer surrounding the
particle rather than in the bulk gas phase.  Numerical experiments are
planned to compare fuel nitrogen conversion  in diffusion layers of these
types  (i.e., mantle, wake or envelope) to that which would occur in the bulk
                                      76

-------
gas phase.   Reaction in the diffusion layer will also  control particle
temperatures which may yield particle temperatures well in excess of  the
mean bulk flow and thus have a strong influence on devolatilization rates.
FLUID MECHANICS AND MODELING OF TURBULENT DIFFUSION FLAMES
     Broadwell and Marble are developing a coherent flame structure model
for gaseous turbulent diffusion flames.  In addition there are  several
experimental studies either planned or in progress.  They will  provide
information which will later be fed into a model of turbulent diffusion
flames.   The tasks currently underway are:
     •    Wendt and Hahn at the University of Arizona are measuring the
          conversion of ammonia to NO in a methane/air opposed jet dif-
          fusion flame representative of strained flamelets which may
          dominate the internal behavior of turbulent flames.
     •    Vranos at UTRC is currently investigating the combustion of
          heavy oil droplets in a free shear layer separating oxidant
          from high temperature combustion products.
     •    A study will be initiated shortly with  IBM  to use high-speed
          cinematography to ascertain whether  coherent structures play
          a significant role in large-scale turbulent diffusion flames.
A subcontract effort is planned to characterize in detail long turbulent dif-
fusion flames of both pulverized coal and heavy fuel  oil  at various  scales.
                                       77

-------
                                 SECTION 4
                 FLUID MECHANICS AND MODELING OF FLOW FIELD
                AND FUEL/AIR CONTACTING IN LARGE COMBUSTORS
                           - MACROSCOPIC BEHAVIOR
     Low NO  combustion systems for pulverized coal and heavy oil flames
           X
can be classified into two major groups:
     •    Low NO  burner designs.  The objective of the development of
                X
          low NO  burners is to provide a burner system which will be
                2t
          accommodated by existing combustion chamber designs.  Thus, its
          implementation will require the minimum degree of combustion
          chamber modification.
     •    Divided chamber systems.  The advanced NO  control techniques
           (i.e., those capable of achieving emission levels on the order
          of  20  ppm) will involve a completely zoned combustion chamber
          which  will allow  the control of temperature and optimize XN
          decay  in a rich section, as well as minimizing NO formation
          during the second stage combustion process.
The FCR program  is currently planning investigations which will aid in the
development of these systems.  The program involves a parallel experi-
mental and modeling task whose goal is  to provide a model which links
burner combustion chamber design and operational parameters with flow
field characteristics such  as the size and strength of recirculation
zones, the rate of fuel/air mixing, the influence of energy release on
flow patterns, etc.   This model can then be used in conjunction with the
other flame element models  to provide a tool which will be used to suggest
control strategies.
     Four basic  flow field  types have been identified.  These include:
     •    Intensely swirl-stabilized:  recirculation zone closed on the
          centerline, near-field dominated, energy release primarily in
                                     78

-------
         the free shear layer enclosing the recirculation zone.   Initial
         fuel deposition can be distributed between the recirculation zone
         and the outer shear layer.
    •    Weakly swirl-stabilized:  recirculation zone toroidal and open
         on the centerline with high momentum fuel passing downstream
         through the recirculation zone.  Flow is dominated by the far-
         field behavior with energy release distributed well-downstream.
         Some fuel is initially deposited or swept into the recirculation
         zone to provide stability.
    •    Nonswirling long flames:  stability provided by  furnace-scale
         recirculation and the impingement of neighboring flames on  the
         flame root.
    •    Divided chamber physically staged burner:  particular attention
         here is given to modeling the interstage  or  secondary stage
         mixing behavior  (the desire here is to  minimize  thermal NO  forma-
         tion and NO formed by oxidation of nitrogen  intermediates).
    The  initial experimental task will concentrate upon the near-field  of
an intensely swirl-stabilized flame and the  influence  of the following
independent parameters on  the flow field will- be  ascertained:
    -   radial distribution of  swirl  and  axial  velocities at the  burner
         throat;
    —   the  length-to-diameter  ratio  and  the  area ratio of  the  burner
         divergent  section;
    —   the  degree of burner  confinement  or proximity to neighboring
         burners; and
    -   the  fuel dispersion  and resulting energy release distribution
          (this  involves  the deposition of fuel in particular  parts of
          the  flow  field  and will be accomplished by the use of multiple
          fuel injection ports  or fuel dispersion rakes).
In addition to conventional flame diagnostics,  use will be made of stimulus
response tracer techniques to assist in mapping the flow  field and deter-
mining turbulent transport intensity.
                                     79

-------
     The parallel model development effort will concentrate on intensely
swirl-stabilized systems.  Weakly stabilized systems will be modeled  by a
modified version of a coaxial long turbulent diffusion flame code.  Cur-
rently a program is underway at TRW where Fendell is evaluating available
elliptic codes for use in flow field prediction.
                                     80

-------
                                 SECTION  5
                                  SUMMARY

     This  paper has  reviewed the effort which is currently underway or
planned  in the FCR program elements concerned with numerical model develop-
ment and transport processes.   One key feature of the overall approach is
the use  of limit-case models to evaluate  the lower bounds on NO  production
                                                               X
which are  set by  practical constraints.   Examples of such limit-case studies
are provided by the  use of simple gas phase reactors with a suitable reaction
set in order to evaluate the optimum time/temperature stoichiometry history
of staged  combustion systems.   Figure 1 provides an example of one such
study.  The decay of XN specie in a fuel-rich combustor is kinetically-limited
and the  optimum combustor will be a compromise between volume and pollutant
emissions.  Thus  it  is necessary to maximize the rate of XN decay in a fuel-
rich zone.  The example shown in Figure 1 illustrates how distributed air
addition to a fuel-rich region can maximize this decay rate.  Further calcu-
lations  of this type are planned involving heterogeneous as well as gaseous
systems.
                                     81

-------
                                     ADDITION
                                     PRIMARY:
                                    SECONDARY:
                                    TERTIARY:
                                          (CtVNH3) + AIR - 1Z NH3 IN FUEL
                        30     10     50     60     70
                          PLUG FLOW RESIDENCE TIME, MS
Figure  1.   Decay  Rate of Total XN Species  in Isothermal Plug  Flow
            Reactor as a Function of Stoichiometry and Temperature
            Showing that Distributed Addition Maximizes Decay  Rate
                                   82

-------
       SESSION VII

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
     WADE H. PONDER
    SESSION CHAIRMAN
             83

-------
SURVEY OF PROJECTS CONCERNING CONVENTIONAL
   COMBUSTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
                      by

                  W. E. Thompson
                  November 1978
                      85

-------
                               ABSTRACT

     The work reported on is part of the overall Conventional Combustion
Environmental Assessment (CCEA) program being conducted by EPA.  A nationwide
survey has been made to identify projects that are relative to one or more of
the environmental assessment elements of the methodology recently developed.
The information necessary to compare CCEA-related projects has been defined.
Comprehensive forms have been devised to elicit the information.  Literature
searches were carried out for the years 1970 to 1976. Institutions doing
relevant work were identified.  Research identified centered on kinds of
pollutants emitted and their control and impact.  The record of projects
sponsored by EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory/Research
Triangle Park (IERL/RTP) was examined.   Extensive research is being conducted
by IERL/RTP on emissions characterization,  control processes (SO , NO ,
particulates), and economics.

     Major sources surveyed for governmental research were:  the Interagency
Energy-Environment Research and Development Program Report, in which the
computer search turned up 1,000 projects of which 246 were deemed relevant,
and the Inventory of Federal Energy-Related Environment and Safety Research,
from which 150 projects were selected from the 2,500 citations.

     Further information on what is being done and by whom was obtained  by
attending national technical meetings and by visiting organizations for  techni-
cal discussions.  Present work centers on the development of a computerized
system for the storage of the information so that it may be retrieved in a
form that will facilitate management decisions.
                                     86

-------
     This  is part  of  the  overall CCEA program being  conducted by EPA's Indus-
trial Environmental Research Laboratory/Research Triangle  Park  (IERL/RTP).
The program is  limited  to studies relating to stationary conventional
combustion processes.
     From  the beginning of the program,  one of the major questions was:
What constitutes an "environmental assessment"?  This question  has been
answered by the methodologies developed by the Energy Assessment and
Control  Division of IERL/RTP and more particularly for the CCEA program by
the Mitre  Corporation.  The Mitre methodology, shown in figure  1,  contains
approximately 70 elements used as the basis for classifying project  activity.
     In  order to carry  out an environmental assessment analysis on CCEA-
related  projects,  information on the following subjects is necessary:
     1.    Fuel  characterization,
     2.    Combustion  process,
     3.    Effluent characterization,
     4.    Control  techniques evaluation,
     5.    Health and  ecological evaluation,
     6.    Quantification  of pollution impacts, and
     7.    Environmental goals and objectives comparisons.
     Very early in the  course of work on this assignment,  discussions were
held with personnel of  the Process Measurements Branch  of the Industrial
Processes Division of IER1/RTP.  Their position was  that projects requiring
environmental  assessment data could be compared for  overlap or gaps only by
a detailed analysis which included information on:
      1.    The  specific source types being  considered,
      2.    The  points in the process at which  samples were being taken,
      3.    The  sampling procedures used, and
      4.    The  analytical procedures used.
      In order to elicit the  information needed, a comprehensive set of
forms have been developed by RTI.  The  forms  cover  the  following details:
      1.    Project administrative  data,
      2.    CCEA element checklist,
                                      87

-------
     3.   CCEA burner/fuel category identification,
     4.   Identification of sampling and analysis techniques,
     5.   Pollutant control methods checklist,
     6.   Health effects methods checklist, and
     7.   Ecological effects checklist.
     A major portion of the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) work assignment
was to obtain information with as much detail as possible on activities
sponsored by government, industry, universities, and other organizations
related to the environmental assessment of conventional combustion processes.
This information was to be analyzed to determine its significance relative
to the CCEA program.  The effort was structured to obtain information on a
broad nationwide basis on the scope of CCEA-related projects.  It should be
emphasized here that the effort was aimed  at  gathering information on the
type of projects and the organization  carrying them out.  No numerical data
or research results were gathered  or evaluated.  In other words, the effort
was aimed at  descriptions  of  "who  is doing what?"
     The  information was collected by  various methods, e.g., telephone
contacts, a computer data  base  literature  search,  published project inventory
data, contractor reports,  information  from technical symposia, and discussions
with researchers at their  respective institutions.
     Initially a number of  telephone calls were made to organizations that,
based on RTI's past experience,  were known to be performing CCEA task-
related work.  However, telephone  calls  were  found to be a poor method of
eliciting any details.
     Literature searches were carried  out  for RTI  by the North Carolina
Science and Technology Research  Center (a  NASA Industrial Applications
Center). The  information produced  was  then evaluated by RTI technical
personnel for relevance.  The data files searched  for published CCEA
research projects are shown in table I.  The  search was keyed on air
pollution associated with fuel combustion, and sought articles and reports
published from 1970 to  1976.
     From these citations several  items  of interest were distilled.  The
first was a long list of domestic  organizations involved in such research.
The next item of interest was the  subjects addressed in the research.  These
were categorized by major assessment elements as shown in table II.

-------
It should  be pointed out that the sum of the right-hand column of table  II
exceeds  477 because many of the articles and reports dealt with several
assessment element topics.   Discussions on pollution control received the
largest  attention, with the identification of pollutants and determination
of pollutant loadings coming next.  Fuel and source characterization were
next.
     The third  item of interest was the comparison of activity in the
sectors  addressed over the  period of the survey.  This was obtained by a
census of  articles by sectors/media: utility/air, industrial/air, and
residential/air.  The commercial institutional sector did not appear to be
covered  at all.  A very large amount of activity was in the relationship of
pollutants and  control methods for the emissions associated with various
fuel types.  The results of this crude census are shown in figure 2.  In
this figure  it  may be seen that fuel-related CCEA research has been consis-
tently strong.   Research reported on air emissions and controls for utilities
peaked in  1973  and 1974. Research on air emissions and controls for indus-
trial sources has overtaken and passed that for utilities.  Compared to the
other categories, research on residential source emissions and controls has
been low key.
     We  may  conclude from this study that from  1970 to  1976 a large number
of domestic  organizations were involved in research on what kinds of pollu-
tants are  emitted, how they can be controlled,  and what their impacts might
be.  Further,  it seems that the tempo of the research has  increased as
public and institutional awareness has increased and as Federal  and State
pollution regulations have been promulgated.
     A well-defined data base for CCEA activity is provided by the  records
of projects  sponsored by EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory.
Up until mid-1975, IERL program activities were primarily directed  to
process  characterization and pollution control  development directed to  air
pollution from stationary  sources.  Following the  reorganization of EPA's
Office of Research and Development  (ORD) on  June 10,  1975,  lERL's pollution
control activities began to  span  a  wider range.  A multimedia  approach  was
taken, which was  concerned with pollution  in air,  water,  solid waste,
thermal discharge, and  energy  conservation.  In addition,  cooperative
                                       89

-------
 efforts with other EPA laboratories  and other Federal  agencies  have been
 undertaken to build programs that consider and include all  aspects of
 environmental assessment in order to make explicit the alternative approaches
 in balancing the demands of minimal  environmental  quality degradation,
 economic constraints, and energy constraints.  This growth  into a broader
 outlook can be followed by tracing the topics dealt with by IERL project
 reports.  The projects are organized in the following  categories:
      1.    Reports  on emissions  characterization, methodology and measure-
           ments  (75  projects),
      2.    Reports  on S02  control  processes  for conventional combustion
           sources  (110 projects),
      3.    Reports  on NO  control  processes  for conventional combustion
           sources  (35 projects),
      4.    Reports  on particulate  matter  controls for conventional com-
           bustion  sources  (60 projects),  and
      5.    Reports  on economic,  energy, and  resource  recovery or conser-
           vation factors  (35 projects).
      Another  important source of  information  is the  Interagency Energy-
Environment Research and  Development Program  Report, published  under the
guidance of   ORD/EPA.  For FY1975 and FY1976, these  program abstracts were
published in  bound volumes.  These reports  were categorized into pollutant
characterization,  measurement and monitoring, environmental transport and
fate, health  effects,  ecological  effects, integrated assessment, and nine
classes  of control technology.  This arrangement facilitated  analysis.
However,  for  FY1977  the information  was  entered on a computer but not
published.  Computer searching  of the system  was complicated  by the fact
that  the ORD  Information  System report listed approximately 6,000 key
words.   In order to  make  a search, we limited the  number  of key words used
to 25.   Approximately 1,000 projects were received on  the computer printouts.
Upon analysis, 246 were deemed  to  be relevant to the CCEA program.   The
breakdown is shown in  table III.
     The system contains project-level descriptions of nearly all of the
$100 million in research and development  funded by the EPA-coordinated
Interagency and Energy-Environment R&D program.
                                     90

-------
     An advantage of the published abstracts was that they were grouped by
agencies.   Project descriptions are coded from Notice of Research Projects
forms prepared  by the appropriate laboratories and agencies using the
Smithsonian Science Information Exchange format.  This data base is limited
to five agencies:   EPA,  the Energy Research and Development Administration
(ERDA), the Department of the Interior, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and
the Department  of Agriculture.
     Perhaps the  most important single source of information is the Inventory
of Federal  Energy-Related Environment and Safety Research, the so-called
ERDA-DOE Inventory.   The purpose of the inventory is to provide a data base
for overviews of  federally funded, energy-related environment and safety
research projects.   The  inventory is designed to be used to assist planning
for future  research by aiding in the determination of the adequacy of
current environmental, health, and safety research programs to meet the
needs of developing energy technology.  The Energy Reorganization Act of
1974, PL93-438, authorizes the ERDA administrator to establish programs to
minimize the adverse environmental effects of energy development and use.
It further  directs that  these programs will use research and developmental
efforts supported by other Federal agencies in a cooperative manner to
avoid unnecessary duplication.  A comprehensive plan was required to be
submitted to Congress by the Federal Non-Nuclear Energy Research and Develop-
ment Act of 1974,  PL93-577, Section 6. The inventory complies with these
requirements.  Fourteen Federal agencies provided information for the
inventory in response to form 294, which was approved by the Office of
Management  and  Budget.  Table IV gives the name of each agency, the number
of projects for each agency, and the FY1976 funding level for research in
biomedical  and  environmental research, environmental control technology,
and operational safety for this particular fiscal year.  About 84 percent
of the total Federal funding is represented by the sum of the budgets of
ERDA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EPA, and the Department of Commerce.
The field of biomedical and environmental research is divided into five
categories.  These are:
     1.  Characterization, measurement, and monitoring;
     2.  Environmental transport, physical and chemical processes, and
         effects;
     3.  Health  effects;
                                     91

-------
     4.   Ecological processes  and effects;  and
     5.   Integrated assessment.
     Table V shows a technology funding distribution for each of these
categories.  Table VI shows the breakdown of funding by technology areas  for
projects on environmental control technology.  Note that EPA dominates  the
fossil fuel area and ERDA the nuclear area.  The inventory summarizes
approximately 2,500 projects, of which approximately 150 were identified  as
relevant in our survey of the 1976 inventory.  The FY1977 inventory is  now
being surveyed.
     A visit was made to the Electric Power  Research Institute (EPRI) where
discussions were held with a number of technical personnel.  These discussions
provided an overview of  the  extensive  research programs being carried out
under EPRI funding.  Some  idea of the  magnitude of this effort can be
obtained by considering  the  proposed  1977-1981 EPRI budget,  shown in table
VII.  For  example,  the proposed  combined expenditures  in  fossil fuel controls
and  environmental assessment over the  5-year period amount to about $143
million  for  13 percent  of the entire  EPRI budget  for the  period.  Since our
visit, EPRI  has provided us with numerous projects  abstracts and planning
documents.  An analysis  was made of the  entire EPRI research program in
terms  of projects relevant to the CCEA program.
     We  have  found attendance at symposia and meetings to be an excellent
low-cost method of adding to our program information data bank.   Some of
the  most valuable appeared to be:
      1.    EPA Stationary Source Combustion Symposia;
      2.    EPA Symposia  on Flue Gas Desulfurization;
      3.    EPRI Symposia; and
      4.    Air Pollution  Control Association meetings,  both national  and
           regional.
      The most detailed  information was gathered by visits to various
organizations involved  in combustion research for direct discussions
with the researchers.   This yields very satisfactory information. Unfortun-
ately, this  is the most  expensive method.   In most cases, however, the
 results  obtained were satisfactory.  For example, detailed information was
 gathered on the entire  program at Pennsylvania State University,  the
                                       92

-------
Princeton University combustion research operation, combustion research at
the University  of  California at Berkeley, and the well-known analytical
work being  conducted at the University of California, Livermore.
     All of the mass of data collected has been reduced to tables giving
project title,  organization, funding organization, budget, and other
administrative  information.  In addition, a great number of abstracts of
projects have been presented in special reports.  However, it is doubtful
that so much information can be readily prepared for analysis of such
things as overlaps and gaps in programs.  Therefore, we are at present
engaged in  a study of the feasibility of using a computer storage and
retrieval and display system. This is being designed to give the greatest
possible flexibility for management information needs that we can design.
The problem of  using all of the information on projects scattered through-
out a great number of organizations in order to yield a true environmental
assessment  of conventional combustion processes is yet to be solved.
                                      93

-------
                       COMBUSTION PROCESS TECHNOLOGY
                               CHARACTERISTICS
                             •  Process itm-of-the-in
                             •  Process Kommin
                             •  Energy efficiency
         FUELS CHARACTERIZATION
              Type tftd tourct
              Physicel cnirecterittici
              Chimicil chorKteristics
              Energy content
              Full hindlint
              AviillbHity ol hull
                                                                     DOSE RESPONSE DATA
                                                                   Threshold limit vriwi (TIVI
                                                                   Lilt shortening chronic tipoiufi
                                                                   Cinctt irxl leukemii
                                                                   Respiratory Hum
INPUT OUTPUT CHARACTERIZATION
    •  MMeriil bllenu
    •  Stoedy-ttm. ttinmnt, iml
        milhinction penguin
        li
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
Ecology rallied impocts
All, mter. md lind quelit,
Ouontlfied radio dognditior
                          ICOMIUSTION PROCESSES AND I
                         EFFLUENT CHAHACTERIZATION I
TRANSPORT. TRANSFORMATION.
         FATE MODELS
•  Meteonlogicol >nd Nydtol«|k din
•  Model development
•  E iposura Iml ahuliMin
•  Transloimetion chemistry
    STATUTORY CONSTRAINTS
•  Ftdml/iuti uindirdi md ngglniont
•  Retouch dm b>» lot mndirdi
    DEVELOPMENT OF SAMPLING AND
         ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
          •  Sampling tichniqutt
          •  Anilyiii tKhnirtmi
          •  Bloiuiy tichniquai
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
        RECOMMENDATIONS
   •  Control ttchnology modificitiont
   •  Dointififd R&O nmfs
   •  Critirii lor priorities
   •  Time fnmi
FIELD TESTS AND SURVEYS
•  Control lyitimi tntimj
•  Combintion proens testing
•  Comprehensive west! streim
    chiricteriietion
    - Level 1
    - Lent 2
    - Level 3
1                                                                   HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL
                                                                    IMPACTS IDENTIFICATION
 EMISSION OF AMBIENT
     LEVEL COALS
Permissible medii concentration
Critirii for estlblishing priorities
Control technology limits
MATE
EPIDEMIOLOGICALDATA
• IndlHUy tilitid h«lth dm
• Inctmtd mofbidity ind mom
itv
                                    IIOASSAV DATA
                                 Stindard bionuy ttchniqutf
                                 lioimy crittrii
                                 Control proem ttrMfli brooHiy
                                                                                                       RONMENTALGOALSANDl
                                                                                                    OBJECTIVES DEVELOPMENT I
                                                   AMBIENT POLLUTANT LEVELS
                                                   •  Dm Colliction ind inJuitioit
                                          SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL/
                                        INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
                                          •  NonpollutintimpMtgoali
                                              (imrgy. uciil, oconomic, itc.)
                                          •  Quintiftnl nonpollunnt impKts
                                          •  Siting crittrii
                                          •  Criticil mtteriili impKts
                                                                                                                                                                                             MAYBE
                                                                                                         CONTROL STRATEGY ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                                                                                      IMPACTS
                                                                                                            • Wimdkpoul option
                                                                                                            • Sicondiry tnvironffllrrlil impKb
                                                                                                            • Cron-modio impictt
                                                                                                                               CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
                                                                                                                               •  Add-on dnicn
                                                                                                                               •  Comhiition modificltiofl
                                                                                                                               •  Foil milch/mining
                                                                                                                                         COMBUSTION PROCESS
                                                                                                                                           USE PROJECTIONS
                                                                                                                                        Curnnt mirklt lill
                                                                                                                                        Futuri mirklt proitcrjom

ESS
S
om
ojictiont
1
t

NO

TOTAL
LOADC
• Proce
• Othl
• Nltu
1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Environmintil Aitmmtnt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Procidun Complitid for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            this Combvition Proem
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Otlw lources (aiding
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Nitunl background
                                                                    ALTERNATIVE CONTROL
                                                                    STRATEGY EVALUATION
                                                      Figure   1
                                                               CONTROL STRATEGY EVALUATION
                                                                    RAD Kill lysttm
                                                                    Otmomtration Kilt lyttim
                                                                    Economki
                                                                    Enirgy nquinmintt'
                                                                    Pollutint nmovtl ifficiMcy
                                                                    Opmtionl milibiMy
                                                                    Sourct iralym modoh ISAM'i)
                                                                                                          MAGNITUDE OF
                                                                                                       POLLUTION IMPACTS
                                                                                                                                                                                     POLLUTANT PRIORITY
                                                                                                                                                                                          RANKING
                                                                                                                                                                                   Totilpollutintloid
                                                                                                                                                                                   Olgrn of huird (smrhy indwell)
                                                             STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
                                                                RECOMMENDATIONS
                                                               •  Stindirdt modlficitiom
                                                               •  Stindirdi dnttopmitn
                                                               •  Critirii for prtorittti
                                                               •  Tiim frarnt
                                                                                                                                                                                REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
                                                                                                                                                                                        DATA
                                                                                                                                                                            Dimognphic & lind uie pittirm & tnnds
                                                                                                                                                                            Hydrology ind mittorology
                                                                                                                                                                                               SYNERGISTIC > MULTIMEDIA IMPACTS
                                                                                                                                                                                              •  Multimidii pollunnt diitribution loidt
                                                                                                                                                                                              •  Adttitivt, traniformMion, Ind enhincemint
                                                                                                                                                                                                   ifflCU

-------
                                        73
74
75
76
Figure 2.  Results of citation census for CPA research in categories of utility/air (U/A),
          industry/air (I/A), residential/air, (R/A), and pollutants and controls related
          to various fuel types (F).
                                   95

-------
          TABLE I.  DATA FILES SEARCHED FOR PAST CPA RESEARCH ACTIVITY
Data Base Name
Subject and Source
Coverage   Number  of
From       Citations
Engineering Index
(compendex)

Energy Data Base


Pollution


Smithsonian Science
Information Exchange
Worldwide engineering
literature
(3,500 publications)
Complete energy
information (ERDA)

Pollution and environment
(pollution abstracts)
Research projects in
progress; emphasizes
federally funded projects
and includes many
privately funded projects
  1970      500,000
  1974
  1970
100,000
 37,700
  1966      200,000
                                     96

-------
TABLE II.   DISTRIBUTION OF ARTICLES AND REPORTS  BY ASSESSMENT ELEMENT CATEGORY

                                                         Number of Articles
             Assessment Element                               and Reports

   Source  characterization                                         70
   Determination of material inputs                                60
   Identification of pollutants                                    93
   Identification of media for each pollutant                      11
   Determination of pollutant loadings                             83
   Fugitive emission analysis                                        4
   Operating parameter sensitivity analysis                        71
   Controls                                                        342
   Combined effects assessment                                       3
   Cross-media effects assessment                                    1
   Environmental conversion assessment                               5
   (secondary pollutants)
   Health effects                                                    1
   Ecological effects                                              15
   Energy analysis                                                 28
   Economic analysis                                               28
                                    97

-------
                TABLE III.   RELEVANT CCEA PROGRAM PROJECTS
       Category                                       No. of Projects

 Fuels                                                        9
 Sampling  and Analysis                                       62
 Emissions—Effluents                                        26
 Controls—General                                            3
 Controls—Particulates                                      20
Controls—NO                                                12
            x
Controls—S02                                               12
Transport and Fate                                          23
Health                                                      49
Ecology                                                     26
Integrated Assessment                                        4
                                98

-------
                       TABLE IV.  FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSES
                                   No. of Projects     Funding by Agency
          Agency                      Reported           ($ in millions)
Department of Agriculture               7                        7.6
Department of Commerce                 93                       41.0
Department of Defense                   3                        1.4
Department of Health, Education,
 and Welfare                          263                       22.6
Department of Housing and
 Urban Development                      1                       <0.05
Department of the Interior             80                       25.9
Department of Transportation            9                          .4
Environmental Protection Agency       305                       63.0
Energy Research and Development
 Administration                      1,467                       197.5
Federal Energy Administration          20                        1.7
National Science Foundation            18                        1.2
National Aeronautics and Space
 Administration                         5                        1.3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission         200    .                   77.5
Tennessee Valley Authority             65                       11-8

     Total                           2,536                       452.9
                                       99

-------
     TABLE V.  BIOMEDICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH SUBCATEGORY FUNDING BY FEDERAL AGENCY, FY  1976  ($  in millions)
o
o
Energy Technology
DOA
DOC:
OEA
NBS
NOAA
DOD
HEW:
NIOSH
NIEHS
NCI
HUD
DOI:
FWS
BLM
USGS
RECLAM
BPA
DOT
EPA
ERDA
FEA
NSF/RANN
NASA
NRC
TVA

Characterization,
measurement ,
and monitoring
0.3
1.9
4.3
-
0.9
<0.05
-
0.2
7.4
0.1
<0.05
0.1
5.6
20.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.6
1.2

Environmental
transport
0.8
<0.05
8.5
-
<0.05
-
4.2
<0.05
-
1.9
21.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
3.5
1.3
BER Subcategory
Health effects
-
0.1
0.2
-
1.0
13.2
6.7
-
-
<0.05
4.6
78.4
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.6
<0.05

Ecological
effects
1.8
<0.05
19.0
-
0.5
-
2.3
2.5
0.1
<0.05
-
3.9
19.6
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.7
1.9

Integrated
assessment
0.9
0.2
6.3
-
0.1
<0.05
<0.05
3.6
0.3
-
3.1
13.7
1.1
0.2
0.1
1.0
1.5
Total
3.8
0.2
2.0
38.2
-
1.9
13.8
6.7
<0.05
2.5
17.8
0.2
0.4
0.1
19.1
153.8
1.6
1.1
0.6
7.4
5.9
                Total
45
42.1
104.8
52.9
                                                                                                    32.1
                                                                           277.1

-------
TABLE VI.  ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FUNDING (ENERGY TECHNOLOGY BY FEDERAL AGENCY),  FY 1976 ($  in millions)

Oil
Fossil and Oil Bio-
Agency general Coal gas shale mass
I)OA 2.9 0.5 - 0.2
DOC:
OF.A -
NBS -
NOAA - - 0.1
DOD 0.1 - - -
HEW:
NIOSH - -
N1EHS - ....
NCI - ....
HUD - -
D01 :
FWS -...--
BLM .....
USGS - 2.8 0.3 0.3
RECLAM - -
BPA - <0.05 <0.05
DOT .....
fiPA 3.5 27.7 3.3 0.8 0.9
KRDA 0.1 2. it 1.1 0.1
FEA - ....
NSF/RANN - -
NASA - 0.2 - <0.05
NRC - ....
TVA 0.8 4.0
Total 7.4 37.6 4.8 1.4 0.9
Technology
Nuclear Geo- Hydro- Conser- Multi- General
general Fission Fusion thermal Solar electric vation tech science Other Total
0.1 ----- - - - - 3.7

-- -- - -- - . .
----- -- ...
<0,05 <0.05 <0.05 - - - 0.2
1.3 - - 1.4

----- -- .-.
----- -. ...
----- -- - . -
-

----- -- -.-
----- -- -..
----- 0.2 - 0.4 0.1 4.1
----- -- ..-
0.1 - - - - 0.1
0.1 - - 0.1
<0.05 - - 0.4 0.4 - 2.6 3.1 0.4 0.7 43.9
30.5 0.7 0.2 0.7 <0.05 - 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 36.9
.
<0.05 <0.05
<0.05- - - 0.4 - - 0.7
1.3 <0.05 ... - - - - 1.3
0.1 0.5 - 0.3 <0.05 5.7
31.9 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.2 4.9 4.1 1.3 1.0 98.1

-------
                      TABLE VII.  EPRI SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROGRAM PLAN ($ in millions)-
Program
FOSSIL FUEL AND ADVANCED SYSTEMS
Fluidized combustion and coal cleaning
Air quality control
Water quality control and heat rejection
Fossil plant performance and reliability
TOTAL — Fossil fuel power plants
Clean gaseous fuels
Clean liquid and solid fuels
Power generation
Power plant requirements and analysis
TOTAL- -Advanced fossil power systems
Fusion
Solar
Geothermal
TOTAL--New energy resources
Energy storage
Fuel cells and chemical energy conversion
Energy utilization and conservation
technology
TOTAL — Energy management and
utilization technology
TOTAL--FOSSIL FUEL AND ADVANCED SYSTEMS
NUCLEAR POWER
Water reactor system technology
Reliability, availability, and economics
Fuels, waste, and environment
Developing application and technology
TOTAL- -NUCLEAR POWER
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
AC transmission
Underground transmission
DC transmission
Distribution
Systems planning, security, and control
Rotating electrical machinery
TOTAL— ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
ENERGY ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENT
Environmental assessment
Demand and conservation
Supply
Systems
Electric utility rate design study
TOTAL—ENERGY ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENT
TOTAL FUNDS ALLOCATED
Nonprogrammed expenditure
TOTAL INSTITUTE
1977

4.8
14.3
1.9
2.4
23.4
11.1
14.9
5.8
0.7
32.5
4.7
4.4
2.2
11.3
5.2
9.0

1.0

15.2
82.4

14.8
14.1
8.0
9.1
46.0

7.0
7.5
10.9
5.2
1.9
0.5
33.0

10.4
2.1
3.1
1.5
.8
17.9
179.3
_
179.3
1978

8.1
10.2
2.4
2.8
23.5
9.5
14.8
7.0
1.0
32.3
3.4
3.4
2.0
8.8
7.1
8.5

1.4

17.0
81.6

18.8
16.4
9.0
7.0
51.2

7.5
7.5
4.4
6.4
2.7
2.8
31.3

12.5
2.7
3.8
1.6
.3
20.9
185.0
5.0
190.0
1979

8.8
10.2
2.6
3.0
24.6
10.0
14.5
7.5
1.0
33.0
3.8
3.7
2.0
9.5
9.0
6.7

2.3

18.0
85.1

17.9
16.9
9.7
9.0
53.5

7.9
8.0
3.9
6.7
2.9
3.2
32.6

14.8
2.6
3.7
1.7
—
22.8
194.0
9.0
203.0
1980

9.4
10.4
2.6
4.1
26.5
10.0
14.5
9.5
1.0
35.0
4.3
4.0
2.2
10.5
8.9
6.6

2.5

18.0
90.0

18.0
16.0
10.7
11.8
56.5

8.3
8.4
4.0
7.3
3.1
3.4
34.5

17.0
2.6
3.7
1.7
-
25.0
206.0
28.0
234.0
1981

10.0
10.8
2.7
4.4
27.9
10.0
14.5
10.5
1.0
36.0
4.4
4.3
2.3
11.0
8.2
7.8

3.0

19.0
93.9

17.9
13.9
12.2
15.0
59.0

8.7
8.8
4.2
7.6
3.2
3.5
36.0

20.1
2.6
3.7
1.7
~
28.1
217.0
61.0
278.0
Total

41.1
55.9
12.2
16.8
126.0
50.5
73.3
40.3
4.7
168.8
20.6
19.8
10.7
51.1
38.3
38.7

10. 1

87. 1
433.0

87.4
77.3
49.6
51.9
266.2

39.4
40.2
27.4
33.2
13.8
13.4
167.4

74.8
12.2
18.0
8.2
-3
113.5
981.3
103.0
1084.3
---Funding entries represent  planned contractor expenditures stated in current dollars  including an
adjustment for inflation.
                                                  102

-------
               EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT OF
          CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
                        By

D. G. Ackerman Jr., J. W. Hamersma, B. J. Matthews
                     TRW Inc.
                  One Space Park
         Redondo Beach, California  90278
                           103

-------
                                   ABSTRACT
     The  Emissions Assessment of Conventional Combustion Systems (EACCS) is a
sampling  and  analysis program for comprehensive emissions characterization
and environmental assessment of stationary conventional combustion processes
in the following  principal categories:   electricity generation-external
combustion, electrical generation and Indus trial-internal combustion,
industrial-external combustion, commercial/institutional, and residential.
     The  EACCS  program uses the EPA-IERL Level I/Level 2 phased approach
which is  designed to provide comprehensive emissions information on all
process waste streams in a cost effective manner.  Level 1 uses semiquant-
itative techniques of sampling and analysis to provide preliminary infor-
mation on emission to identify potential problems.  Level 2 sampling and
analysis  techniques are specific and quantitative for problem emissions
identified by Level 1.
     All   sources in the residential, electricity generation and industrial-
internal  combustion, and gas-and-lignite-fired categories have been com-
pleted and draft  reports written.
                                      104

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                                INTRODUCTION
     The Emissions  Assessment of Conventional Combustion Systems  (EACCS)
Program is  a  sampling and analysis program for comprehensive emissions char-
acterization  and  environmental assessment of stationary conventional combustion
processes (SCCP).   It is currently the largest EPA-funded program of its  type.

     SCCP under consideration are grouped into five principal categories:

         Electricity generation - external combustion
         Industrial - external combustion
         Electricity generation and industrial - internal combustion
         Commercial/institutional - space heating
         Residential - space heating

     Within these five principal categories, 50 source categories were defined
based on combustion method (external, internal), firebox design (e.g., pulver-
ized dry bottom,  cyclone), and fuel type (e.g., gas, residual oil, anthracite).

     The objective  of the EACCS Program is to produce environmental assessments
of pollutant  emissions by source category.  The scope of the EACCS Program
includes the  following major activities:

     •   Review  and evaluate existing emissions data covering each of the
         50 source  categories in the five principal categories

     •   Acquire  new emissions data by using Level 1 sampling and analysis
         methodology from 170 test site covering the 50 source categories

     •   Conduct  21 Level 2 test activities, as required, by application
         of the  EPA/IERL philosophy of phased sampling and analysis

     •   Develop estimates of total multimedia pollutant emissions by
         source  category in order to perform the required environmental
         assessments.

     Because  the EACCS program is based on the EPA/IERL phased approach to
environmental assessment  (Reference 1), the sampling and analysis methodology
comprises a set  of  detailed procedures  (Reference 2) designed to provide
internally consistent and comparable data.
                                       105

-------
     The phased  approach to environmental assessments is designed to provide
comprehensive  emissions information on all process waste streams in a cost
effective manner.   To achieve this  goal,  two  distinct sampling and analysis
levels are being employed in this program. Level 1 utilizes semiquantitative
(± a factor  of 3)  techniques of  sample collection and laboratory and field
analyses to:   provide preliminary emissions data for waste streams and pollu-
tants not adequately characterized; identify  potential problem areas; and
prioritize waste streams and pollutants in those streams for further, more
quantitative testing.  Using the information  from Level 1, available resources
can be directed toward Level 2 testing which  involves specific, quantitative
analysis of  components of those  streams which do contain significant pollutant
loadings.  The data developed at Level 2 is used to identify control tech-
nology needs and to further define  the environmental hazard associated with each
process stream.  A third phase,  Level 3,  which is outside the scope of this
program, employs continuous or periodic monitoring of specific pollutants
identified at  Level 2 so that the emission rates of these critical component??
can be determined  exactly as a function of time and operating conditions.

     Level 1 results are compared with a variety of evaluation criteria, e.g.,
Source Severity Factors (Reference  3) and MEG/MATE values (Reference 4).
Emissions with a Source Severity Factor of 0.05 or greater or which exceed
MEG/MATE values are flagged as potential problems or recommended for Level 2
analysis for further definition.

     The first program activity was reviewing and evaluating existing emissions
data for each of the categories covered by the program.   Preliminary results
from this evaluation were reviewed  by EPA, and recommendations were made for
selecting the Level 1 test sites.   (As Level  1 data are reviewed, the same
process is used  to select Level 2 test activities).

     All sources in the residential principal category have been tested, and a
draft final  report is in review (Reference 5).  A draft report on the internal
combustion category (Reference 6) is in review.  Data on lignite- and gas-fired
utilities sites  have been reviewed.  This paper will discuss results from these
sources.
                                       106

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                                 CONCLUSIONS
GAS- AND OIL-FIRED RESIDENTIAL SOURCES

     The following conclusions were drawn from the emissions  assessment of
gas- and oil-fired residental sources tested (Reference 5) .

     •    Gas-fired and oil-fired residential heating source categories
         do  not  constitute a major environmental hazard.  Source severity
         factors for all pollutants calculated from emissions data are
         well below 0.1.  Source severity factors lower than  0.1 are
         considered to be indicative that pollutant emissions are not
         hazardous.

     •    Criteria pollutant emissions are variable and often  not in
         agreement with either EPA emission factors or existing data.
         The variability in the data is probably because of natural
         variations in residential combustion units, the semiquantitative
         nature  of Level 1 measurements, and, in the case of  hydrocarbons,
         differences in pollutant definition relating to measurement
         technique.  Severity factors for criteria pollutants are higher
         for oil-fired systems than for gas-fired systems.

     •    SO  emission levels per unit of fuel sulfur, based on a limited
         number  of analyses, are slightly in excess of those  normally
         found in utility systems.  This finding, for which  there is
         some precedent, may be a real effect or the result  of experimental
         error at low total sulfur concentrations.                  i

     •    Trace element emissions are extremely low for gas-fired systems.
         Trace elements from oil-fired systems are emitted to a greater
         extent  than from gas combustion but are largely comprised of
         transition elements.  Severity factors for all elements are well
         below 0.1.

     •    POM emissions are essentially nonexistent from gas-fired resi-
         dential sources.  Some POMs are emitted from oil-fired com-
         bustion.  However, the most hazardous POM constituents; i.e.,
         benzo(a)pyrene, were not detected and degree of hazard factors,
         defined as the ratio of stack concentrations to MATE values,
         for those POM compounds detected were well below 0.1.
                                        107

-------
     •   On the basis of the above conclusions, no further sampling and
         analysis is required for these sources.  No Level 2 investi-
         gation of any pollutant is required.

     •   Hydrocarbon and POM emissions were not significantly affected
         by the change in burner cycle mode from 50 minutes on/10 minutes
         off to 10 minutes on/20 minutes off.  The effect of cycle on
         emissions noted by other investigators is undoubtedly a real
         effect but the change  in emissions was not detectable in this
         Level 1 sampling and analysis program.

INDUSTRIAL AND UTILITY INTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES

     The following conclusions  were drawn from the emissions assessment of
industrial and utility internal combustion sources (Reference 6).

     •   NO  emissions from internal combustion sources are a potential
         environmental problem.  These emissions account for approximately
         20 percent of the total NO  emissions from stationary sources.  Of
         the NO  emissions from internal combustion sources, more than 80
         percent are contributed by the industrial reciprocating gas engine
         category.. Source severity factors for NO  emissions from gas
         turbines and reciprocating engines range from 0.17 to 7.1.

     •   Emissions of hydrocarbons from internal combustion sources con-
         tribute significantly  to the national emissions burden.   These
         emissions account for  approximately 9 percent of the total hydro-
         carbon emissions from  stationary sources.  More than 80 percent
         of the hydrocarbon emissions from internal combustion sources are
         contributed by the- industrial reciprocating gas engine category.
         Source severity factors for hydrocarbon emissions range from 0.01
         for industrial gas-fueled gas turbines to 1.7 for industrial
         reciprocating gas engines.

     •   CO emissions from internal combustion sources are not an environ-
         mental concern -.  Source severity factors for CO emissions from
         internal combustion sources are all well below 0.05.  Total CO
         emissions from these sources account for approximately 1 percent
         of CO emissions from all stationary sources.  More than 80 percent
         of the CO emissions from internal combustion sources are contributed
         by the industrial reciprocating gas engine category.

     •    Emissions of S02 and particulates from Internal combustion sources
         contribute only an insignificant fraction of the emissions of
         these  pollutants from stationary sources.  Source severity factors
         for SO, and participate emissions are well below 0.05, with the
         exception of S02 emissions from diesel engines.  Source severity
         factors for S02  emissions from industrial and electricity
         generation diesel engines are 0.08 and 0.10, respectively.
                                       108

-------
Combination of emissions data from this measurement program and
the existing data base provides adequate characterization of
emissions of criteria pollutants from internal combustion sources.

SO, emissions from oil-fueled internal combustion sources are a
potential environmental problem.  Source severity factors for S03
emissions range from 0.05 to 0.23.  For distillate oil-fueled gas
turbines» an average of 3.8 percent of the sulfur present in the
fuel is converted to S0«.  For diesel engines, an average of 1.4
percent of the fuel sulfur is converted to SO-.  The percent of
fuel sulfur converted to SO  is lower for diesel engines because
of the lower oxygen level in reciprocating engines.

For distillate oil-fueled gas turbines, the data base for SO.,
emissions is adequate.  For distillate oil reciprocating engines,
the data base for SO., emissions could be improved by additional
field tests.

Emissions of trace elements from  gas-fueled internal combustion
sources are negligible when compared with emissions of  trace
elements from oil-fueled sources.   For  oil-fueled  internal
combustion sources, emissions of  copper, nickel, and phosphorus
have source severity  factors  greater  than 0.05.

The data base for trace element emissions from diesel engines  is
adequate.  For distillate oil-fueled  gas turbines,  trace  elements
for which the emissions data  base is  inadequate include nickel,
phosphorus, and  silicon.  The emissions data  base  for these trace
elements may be  improved by  analysis  of additional fuel samples.

Emissions of individual organic  species from internal combustion
sources are environmentally  insignificant.  Analyses of organic
samples have indicated  that  organic emissions from oil-fueled
internal combustion sources  consist mainly  of saturated and
unsaturated aliphatic and  aromatic hydrocarbons.  The most pre-
valent organic  species  present are saturated straight  chain and
branched hydrocarbons.   Substituted benzenes are the second most
abundant organic species  emitted.  Source severity factors for
these  organic  emissions are well below 0.05.

POM emissions  from internal combustion sources are not  at levels
of environmental concern.   POM emissions from gas- and oil-fueled
 gas turbines  were at levels too low to be differentiated from
blank values.   For diesel engines, the POMs emitted were mostly
naphthalenes  and substituted naphthalenes, with source severity
 factors  well below 0.05.   POM compounds known to be carcinogenic,
 such as  benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h) anthracene, were not found
 above the detection limit of 0.05 yg/mj.   Benzo(a)pyrene, the only
 POM compound with MATE value below the detection limit, is unlikely
 to be present, as no other POM compounds of molecular weight greater
 than 202 were found.
                               109

-------
GAS-FIRED UTILITY  SOURCES

     From the gas-fired utility  source  tests, the following conclusions have
been drawn.

     •   Inorganic emissions  are not  a  problem

     •   Particulate emissions are well below NSPS requirements

     •   Emissions of polycyclic organic materials (POMs) are not a
         problem,  as no POMs  were found.

     •   CO data were scattered, and  additional data may be necessary

     •   Hydrocarbon emissions for two  non-tangential sites were scattered.
         Acquisition of additional data is not recommended at this time.

LIGNITE-FIRED UTILITY SOURCES

     The following conclusions were drawn from the emission assessment of
     lignite-fired utility sources.

     •   Particulate emissions vary widely depending on control technology
         used.

     •   ESPs effectively  control particulate emissions.

     •   Present NO  and SO  data are suspect because of problems with
         Level  1 methodology; sufficient data may be available from
         AP-42.

     •   Ba, Ni, Cu,  Ca, Be,  and F exceed source severity standards in
         the controlled sites.

     •   Organic emissions are generally high and vary widely but lower
         than AP-42  data.   Additional Level 2 testing is recommended.

     •   Significant amounts  of  organic material were found in all fly
         ash, bottom ash,  and water samples.

     •   Organic .material  was primarily aliphatic and aromatic hydro-
         carbons;  sufficient esters and oxygenated compounds were not
         present to  distinguish  them  from the blanks.

     •    SO^ and particulate sulfate  data is needed.

     •   Additional lignite data are necessary on all levels.   Large
        units  in Texas should be considered.
                                       no

-------
                                  SECTION 3

                                   TESTING
SOURCES TESTED

Gas- and Oil-Fired Residential Sources

     Residential space heating systems consist of combustion units burning
natural gas, liquid petroleum gas  (LPG), distillate oil, coal, and wood and
electric heating systems.  The EACCS program focussed on gas (natural and
LPG) and oil, as they are the most important residential space heating fuels
representing, respectively, 60 percent and 38 percent of 1975 consumption.

     Residential oil- (distillate) and gas-fired space heating equipment is
subject to a number of design variations relating to burners, combustion
chambers, excess air, heating medium, etc.  Gas-fired systems are inherently
less complex and easier to maintain than oil-fired systems because the fuel
is cleaner and atomization is not  required.  Residential systems operate
only in an on/off mode.  There are no other variations in fuel input rate
in contrast to load modulation encountered with larger commercial, industrial,
and utility sources.

     Air emissions from the blue gas stack are the only significant emissions
from oil- and gas-fired residential heating units.  Because these fuels are
relatively clean, the concentrations of air pollutants emitted from these
sources are low in contrast with those emitted from other combustion sources
to be evaluated during this program.  However, because these sources are
numerous and have a high source-receptor relationship, they may be of envi-
ronmental importance.

     Evaluation of existing emissions data on these sources indicated a strong
need for additional data, particularly an emissions of organic compounds.
Therefore, five representative gas- and oil-fired residential space heating
units each were tested.

Internal Combustion Sources

     Stationary internal combustion sources for electricity generation and
industrial applications are grouped into two categories:  gas turbines and
reciprocating engines.  Gas turbines are classed into three general types of
cycles:  simple open cycle, regenerative open cycle, and combined cycle.
Regenerative open cycle turbines constitute only a very small fraction of the
total gas turbine population.  Emissions from identical gas turbines used in
                                        111

-------
 the  combined and simple cycle modes are the same.  Thus, only emissions from
 simple open cycle gas turbines were evaluated.

      Reciprocating internal combustion engines  are classified according to  the
 method of ignition:  spark and compression (diesel).  Both spark and compression
 ignition engines are further classified into two groups:  four-cycle and two-
 cycle.  Most of the large bore, high power engines for utility and industrial
 applications are four-cycle compression ignition engines designed to operate
 as diesel fuel and two-cycle or four-cycle spark ignited gas engines.

      The principal application areas for gas turbines and reciprocating
 engines are:  electricity generation, oil and gas transmission, natural gas
 processing, and oil and gas production and exploration.  In 1976 the installed
 capacity of gas turbines was 46,570 MW in electrical utilities and 8,800 MW
 for  industrial applications.  In 1976, the installed capacity of reciprocating
 engines was 5,300 MW in electric utilities and  18,870 MW for industrial
 applications.

      Air pollution control equipment is generally not installed on gas turbines
 or reciprocating engines.  However, there is evidence that water and steam
 injection are valid techniques for controlling NOx emissions from gas turbines.

      Evaluation of existing emissions data on gas turbines indicated that the
 data base on distillate oil fired turbines was inadequate for trace elements,
 particulate sulfate, and organics.   For distillate oil reciprocating engines,
 the  data base for SO-,  particulate- sulfate,  and organic emissions was found to
 be inadequate.   Emissions data for gas fired turbines and reciprocating engines
 were adequate.   To fill the deficiencies in the data base,  one gas turbine,
 five distillate oil turbine, and five distillate oil reciprocating engine
 sources were tested.

 Gas-  and Lignite-Fired  Utility Sources

      Gas-fired  utility  sources were classified by combustion source type:
 non-tangential  and tangential firing.   Evaluation of existing emissions data
 indicated a need  for additional data.   Therefore, four non-tangential and
 3  tangential fired heaters were tested using Level 1 methods.

      Lignite-fired utility sources  were also classified by combustion source
 type:

      •    pulverized dry bottom (front  fired)
      •    cyclone
      •    spreader  stoker

     Evaluation of  existing emissions  data indicated a need for further testing
of lignite-fired heaters.   Consequently,  three pulverized dry bottom, one
cyclone, and two spreader  stoker  sources were tested.
                                        112

-------
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

Field Testing

     Field testing procedures were on Level 1 environmental assessment methods
(Reference 1).   The Source Assessment Sampling System (SASS) was used to
collect particulate, organic, and trace metal samples.  The SASS train is a
high volume, 0.14 m^/min (5 scfm), system designed to extract particulates
and gases from the stack, separate particulates into four size fractions,
trap organics in an absorbent, and collect volatile trace metals in liquid
solutions.  A high volume system is required to collect adequate quantities
of trace materials for subsequent laboratory analyses.  The SASS train is
operated for a time sufficient to collect 30 m^ of stack gases.

     Stack gas is drawn into the SASS train through a stainless steel probe.
Particulates are collected by a series of three cyclones  (>10y, 3-lOp, >3y)
and a filter >0.1y.  The cyclone and filter are in a heated oven maintained
at 150°C (300°F).  From the cyclone oven, stack gas passes through the organic
vapor sorbent trap which cools the gas to 20°C and quantitatively traps
organic compounds boiling above 100°C.  The trapping medium is XAD-2 resin, a
styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer.  The sample stream is then drawn through
a series of four impingers.  The first impinger contains hydrogen peroxide,
H202, which stabilizes stack gas components by oxidation. The second impinger
contains a solution of ammonium peroxydisulfate (Nlty)2&2®8» anc^ silver nitrate,
AoN03, to trap volatile trace metals and organometallic compounds.  The third
impinger is a backup to the second and contains a solution of ammonium peroxy-
disulfate.  The fourth impinger contains silica gel to remove moisture.

     Compounds with boiling points  (<100°C) too low to be retained by the
sorbent trap are analyzed in the field by gas chromatography.  Gas samples
were collected in Tedlar bags using a reciprocating pump and stainless steel
probe.  A cooling chamber was used between the stack and the Tedlar bag. Bag
samples were analyzed for GI to C6 alkanes by gas chromatography with flame
ionization detection.  Inorganic gases CC>2, 02, N2 and CO were also separated
by gas chromatography but a thermal conductivity detector was used.  Standard
gas mixtures were used to quantify the measurements.

     Analyses of flue gases for NOX were conducted at gas-fired sites electro-
chemically.  At oil-fired sites NOX emissions were sampled  and analyzed  using
U.S. EPA Method 7.  Grab samples for NOX were collected  in evacuated flasks
containing a dilute sulfuric acid-hydrogen peroxide absorbing solution.
Samples were analyzed in the laboratory colorimetrically using the phenoldi-
sulfonic acid procedure.

     A Bacharach smoke spot tester was also used  in the  field.

     Testing, reagents, and sample handling were  in accord with Level 1
procedures.  The recovery of samples and washing  of the  SASS  train and  sample
containers were all performed in  the laboratory.  All working  surfaces were
washed with  isopropyl alcohol prior to any contact.   All  containers  and
                                        113

-------
 handling equipment were cleaned according to Level  1 specifications.   Filters
 were  desiccated 24 hours in clean desiccators prior to  any weighings.

 Residential Sources—
       Field tests were conducted at five  gas- and  five oil-fired residential
 sites, using a stove pipe extension to provide a  sampling  port  for the SASS
 train.  In all tests a 3-foot probe with a 5/8-inch nozzle was  used.
 Sampling was conducted at one point approximately in the center of the 8-inch
 stack.  The residential furnaces were operated on a cycle  of  50 minutes on
 and 10 minutes off.   Sampling was  conducted  simultaneously with the furnace
 operating period.  At gas-fired sites, sampling time was about  3 hours
 (30 m3 of gas  were sampled) while  at oil-fired sites the sampling duration
 was about 10 hours (90 m3 of gas were sampled).   The SASS  train cyclones
 were not  used  because the level of  particulate emissions was  very low.  The
 filter was, however,  used.

 Internal  Combustion,  Gas and Lignite Utility Sites—
     Tests  at  the internal combustion and gas-fired  utility sites were
 conducted without the SASS train cyclones because of the low  concentrations
 of particulates and their characteristic small particle diameters.  The SASS
 train  filter  (spectrogradeR glass fiber)  was used.   Cyclones  were used at
 the lignite-fired utility sites.


     Field tests were conducted at 11 internal combustion units.   Seven of
 the units had sampling ports located in the stack.  The other four units
were tested by use of a 3-foot  SASS probe fitted  with a vertical nozzle
adaptor.  The SASS probe was positioned approximately six inches above the
stack at a point where the vertical adaptor sampled  down into the  stack at
a traverse point of average stack velocity.   Multiple-point traverses were
used to obtain blue gas samples  at the seven gas  and six lignite utility
sites.

     Smoke spot numbers were determined using a Bachrach Smoke Spot Tester.
Visible emissions  (percent opacity) were  determined  by a trained operator.

     Water,  solid waste and fuel samples  were collected according to Level 1
SASS procedures. Limited water  analyses  were carried out in the field as
specified in the procedures  manual.

Laboratory Analyses

Inorganic Analyses—
     The Level 1 analysis (References 1 and 2) scheme was used for all
inorganic analyses.   This scheme was designed to  identify all elemental
species in the SASS train fractions and to provide semiquantitative data on
the elemental distributions and  total emission factors.   The primary tool  for
 the Level 1 analysis  scheme is  the Spark  Source Mass Spectrograph  (SSMS).  The
                                       114

-------
SSMS was chosen for Level 1 for its capability of detecting 70 elements
simultaneously with sub-ppm sensitivity.  The SSMS data are supplemented
with atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) data for Hg, As, and Sb and with
standard method determinations for chlorides.

     The following SASS train sample types were analyzed for their elemental
composition:  (1) the particulate filter  (PF) , (2) the XAD-2 resin (XR) , and
(3) a composite sample containing portions of the condensate, the HN03 module
rinse, and the first impinger (CI) .  In addition, for the oil-fired sources,
the fuel was also analyzed.  Most of these sample types require some prepara-
tion prior to analysis.  The XAD-2 resin  and the fuel oil samples were prepared
for analysis by a Parr oxygen bomb combustion of the materials according to the
Level 1 procedures manual.  The particulate filter samples were prepared by an
aqua regia extraction of the inorganic materials using a soxhlet apparatus
according to the EACCS procedures manual.  The composite samples require no
special preparation prior to analysis.

Organic Analyses—
     Level 1 organic analysis is a technique designed to identify organic
compounds beyond a total hydrocarbon equivalent analysis.  It provides quali-
tative and quantitative data on volatile  and nonvolatile organic compounds
(note that gaseous organics are measured  in the field) collected in the SASS
train.  Organics are recovered from all SASS train components.  Stainless
steel components including the tubing are carefully cleaned with methylene
chloride or methylene chloride/methanol solvent to recover organics. Organics
in the condensate trap and XAD-2 resin are recovered by methylene chloride
extraction.

     Because all samples are too dilute to detect organic compounds by the
majority of instrumental techniques employed, the first step is to concentrate
the samples from as much as 1000 ml to  10 ml in a Kuderna-Danish apparatus.
Methylene chloride is evaporated while  the organics of interest are retained.
Kuderna-Danish concentrates are then evaluated by gas chromatography  (GC),
infrared spectrometry  (IR), liquid chromatography  (LC), gravimetric analysis,
and sequential gas chromatography/mass  spectrometry  (GC/MS).

     All samples are analyzed by GC/MS  for specific polycyclic organic materials
(POM); i.e., compounds containing two or  more ring structures.  The mass peak
output data from the MS are evaluated by  computer for all polycyclic organic
materials for which identification data are available.  The detection limit is
about 0.9 yg/m£ of solution injected; in  the specific residential tests about
0.3 ug/m3.  Accuracy is within a factor of ±2.

     GC analyses conducted in the field for gaseous compounds with boiling
points in the Ci~C6 range  ( <100°C) are supplemented by laboratory analyses
for volatile organics  (Cg-C17, 90 to 290°C) and nonvolatile^organics^ >C17,
 >290°C).  Separate analyses are also conducted  for Cg  (110°C to  140°C), Cg
(140°C to 160°C), CIQ  (160 to 180°C), GH (180 to 200°C)  and Ci2  (200 to 200°C)
organics.  Except for  the nonvolatiles which are measured gravimetrically
after evaporation all  analyses are performed with GC using  flame  ionization
detection.


                                       115

-------
     The results of the above analyses are used to determine the next step in
 the analysis.  If the total organics (volatile and nonvolatile)  indicate a stack
 gas concentration below 500 pg/m3 then the procedure ends.   If the organics are
 above 500 yg/m3 then a class separation by liquid  chromatography is conducted.
 Liquid chromatography is carried out in water-jacketed columns in order to main-
 tain homogeneity in column packing and assure  reproducibility.  A class separa-
 tion of the sample placed on the column is accomplished with 6.5 gm of silica
 gel packing.  A gradient elution of various compounds is accomplished by sequen-
 tial addition of solvents as indicated in  Table 16.

     After separation into eight fractions by  liquid chromatography, volatiles
are measured by gas  chromatography if  the  earlier  determination indicated a
total concentration  above 50 ug/m3.  The nonvolatile portion of each fraction
is determined gravimetrically after evaporation.

     Infrared spectrometry is used to  analyze  each LC fraction for functional
group in order to further specify the  types of compounds in each fraction.
Samples are evaporated to dryness on KBr plates and analyzed with a grating
 spectrophotometer.  The use of KBr plates  eliminates potential organic inter-
 ferences.  Each spectrograph is standardized against polystyrene film.

     The overall accuracy and precision of these analyses are well within a
factor of ±2; i.e., if a number is reported as 50  yg, one can be 95 percent
confident that the true value is between 25 and 100 yg.   Most of these analyses
are more accurate than ±  factor of 2 with  the  exception of GC/MS.
                                       116

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                                   RESULTS
RESIDENTIAL SITES

Gas-Fired Residential Sites

     Basic flue gas composition data are shown in Table I for the gas-fired
residential sites.   Measured particulate loadings were over 10 times lower
than the EPA emission factor (Reference 7) and comparable to those reported
by TRC (Reference 8).  NO  emissions were lower by a factor of 3 than exist-
ing EPA data (Reference 7).  This has been timed to the sampling method.
Although not reported on Table I, opacity  measurements and the smoke spot
index were zero for all five units.

     Results of SSMS analysis for trace elements in filters and other SASS
train components were very low, reflecting the low contaminant levels in
natural gas.  Trace element results from better catches were at the lower
detection limit of the SSMS and were equivalent to those observed in the
blanks for most elements.

     Analyses for As, Hg, and Sb were performed by AAS.  Mercury was found
only in the XAD-2 resin at concentrations ranging from 0.03 ug/m3 to 4 mg/m3.
Antimony was found at about 4 yg/m3 at only one site in the composite of the
condensate, module wash, and 1^02 impinger.  Arsenic was found at the detec-
tion limit in all five sites and ranged from<0.16 to <0.56 yg/m3.

     Emission concentrations of gaseous, volatile, and nonvolatile organic
compounds were determined, and the results are presented in Table II.  The
C8~C12 factions varied from site-to-site and were generally present in
larger amounts than in the oil-fired residential sites.  Virtually all vola-
tile organic compounds were found in the XAD-2 resin.  Nonvolatile compounds
were found primarily in the walls of the sorbent trap module rather than in
the resin.

     No POM compounds were found in the gas-fired residential site samples
other than naphthalene, dihydronaphthalene, and methyltetrahydronaphthalene,
which are so closely related to the resin itself  (copolymer of styrene and
divinylbenzene)  that these may have been artifacts of  the  sampling rather than
emitted compounds.
                                        117

-------
 Oil-Fired Residential Sites

      Basic flue gas composition data are shown in Table III for the oil-fired
 residential test sites.  Measured particulate loadings were similar to  those
 found in the gas-fired residential sites and are roughly half those reported
 by Battelle and recently adopted by EPA.  NOX emission results were question-
 able because of analysis difficulties.  SOX data were not necessary.

      Results of SSMS analyses for trace elements in filters and other SASS
 train components were  very low.  Measured emissions of trace elements were
 lower in almost  all cases than those calculated from fuel analyses.  Source
 severity factors for trace elements were well below levels of concern.

     Emission concentrations of gaseous, volatile, and nonvolatile organic
 compounds were determined.   Results are given in Table IV.  Compounds in  the
 C1-C3 range  (measured in the field) predominated, generally representing  more
 than 60% of the totals.  Volatile compounds (Cg-C^) were considerably  lower
 than gaseous and nonvolatile compounds.

     Results of GC/MS analyses for POM compounds are presented in Table V,
 which shows only compounds found above the detection limit of 0.3 pg/m^.  If
 no value is given, the compound was not detected.

 INDUSTRIAL AND UTILITY INTERNAL COMBUSTION  SITES

     Table VI presents source characteristics (source type, operating load,
 and fuel used) and ©£, particulate,  SO , and smoke number results.  NOX and
 CO emissions were not measured because the data base for these species  was
 adequate.  SOX emissions data in Table VI were calculated from fuel sulfur
 content and not measured in  the field.

     Particulate emissions determined  from filter weights correlate well  with
the Bachrach smoke readings,  i.e.,  higher particulate emissions normally
correspond to higher smoke numbers.  Particulate emissions from distillate
 oil engines were much higher  than  from distillate oil turbines.  SOx emissions
 were low because of the low sulfur content of the fuels and the large amounts
 of excess air generally present in the combustion gases from turbines and
 reciprocating engines.

     Table VII presents a summary  of results of inorganic analyses.  Mercury,
 arsenic, and antimony emissions were all quite low.   These three elements
were found primarily in the XAD-2  resin.  SSMS analysis found the major
 elements (0.3 mg/DSCM)  present in  all  sites to be:   Al, B, Ba, Ca, Cu,  Fe,
R, Mg, Na, Ni, P, Pb,  S,  Si,  and Zn..  Additionally,  Mn was found at signifi-
 cant levels in those sites  (111,  306,  and 307) using fuel containing an
 organomanganese additive.

     Table VIII presents a  suramay of analysis results for gaseous (C1-C6),
 volatile  (C7-C16), and nonvolatile (>C17) organic compounds.  There was
 large variation in concentrations  of C1-C6 compounds among the oil-fired
 turbines.  The total concentration of  compounds in the C7-C16 range varied
 from 200 to  3000 yg/m3 among the samples from the gas and oil fired turbines.


                                       118

-------
The C7-C16 hydrocarbon content of samples from the diesel oil fired engines
ranged from about 10 to 20 yg/m3.  On average, the diesel burning engines
emitted approximately 15 times more C7-C16 compounds than the gas or oil
fired turbines.

     The nonvolatile organic content of samples from the diesel oil fired
sources were about 25 times greater than those from the gas or oil fired
turbines.  The average total organic content of samples from gas or oil fired
turbines was 6 mg/m3, and the average total organic content of samples from
the diesel fired engines was 88 mg/m3.

     No POM compounds were found in samples from the oil and gas fired tur-
bine sites; the detection limit for these samples was 0.08 yg/m3.  Samples
from the diesel oil fired sites contained substantial amounts of hydrocarbon
oils which made POM quantitation difficult; however, the results presented in
Table IX are considered adequate because the  levels of POMs found were
several orders of magnitude below levels of concern.

GAS AND LIGNITE - FIRED UTILITY SOURCES

Gas-Fired Utility Sites

     Basic flue gas composition data  are shown  in Table X  for the  gas-fired
utility sites.  Measured SOX and particulate  emissions both were well below
NSPS requirements.  Carbon monoxide results were scattered, and more data may
be required.

     Because natural gas has minimal  inorganic  content,  inorganic  analyses of
samples from the gas-fired utility  sites were not necessary.

     Table XI  presents emission  concentration of  gaseous,  volatile and  non-
volatile organic compounds from  the gas-fired utility  sources tested.
Measured hydrocarbon emissions were highly variable from all three groups of
compounds, and additional data should be acquired.   No POM compounds were
found at a detection limit of 0.3 yg/m3.

Lignite-Fired  Utility  Sites

     Basic flue  gas  composition  data are shown in Table XII for the lignite-
fired utility  boilers.   Sites  314,  315, and 316 had multiclone control  units
with design efficiencies of  84%,  84%, and 89.5%,  respectively,  for particu-
lates.   Sites  318,  316,  and  319  had electrostatic precipitator units with
design  efficiencies  of 98.5%,  99.05%, and 99.82%,  respectively, for particu-
lates.   Results  in Table XII show that particulate emissions varied widely
with the control  device  used and that ESP units controlled particulate
emissions effectively.  NOX and  SOX data were acquired but were insufficiently
accurate to draw useful conclusions.   Adequate data are, however, available.

      Inorganic analyses of samples from these sites showed problem emissions
 for many elements from those units with multiclone central devices.
Table XIII shows,  by element, numbers of sites with source severity factors


                                        119

-------
 in  several ranges.  A source severity factor in excess of 0.1 indicates a
 problem emission.  Results in Table XIII show that ESP units are considerably
 more  effective at reducing emissions than are multiclone central devices.

      Table XIV presents results of organic analyses of samples from the
 lignite-fired sites.  Emissions of gaseous, volatile,  and nonvolatile com-
 pounds  are generally high in comparison to other sites tested but are lower
 than  AP-42 data on lignite-fired sites.   Organic material was primarily
 aliphatic and aromatic.   Esters and other oxygenated compounds were not
 found.  Additionally,  significant amounts of organic material were found in
 all fly ash,  bottom ash,  and water samples from these  sites.   POM emissions
were below levels  of interest.
                                       120

-------
                                 REFERENCES
1.   Hamersma,  J.  W.,  et al., IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:   Level  1  Environ-
    mental Assessment.  EPA-600/2-76-160a.   June 1976.

2.   Hamersma,  J.  W.,  et al., Emissions Assessment of  Conventional  Combustion
    Systems Methods and Procedures Manual for Sampling  and Analysis.  Pre-
    pared for  Industrial and Environmental Research Laboratory.  Office  of
    Research and Development.  Chemical Processes Branch.   U.  S. Environ-
    mental Protection Agency.  December 1977.  Contract No. 68-02-2197.

3.   Eimutis, E.  C., et al.,  Air, Water, and Solid Residue  Prioritization
    Models for Conventional Combustion Sources.  EPA-600/2-76-176.
    July 1976.  54 pp.

4.   Cleland, J.  G., and G. L. Kingsbury.  Multimedia  Environmental Goals for
    Environmental Assessment.  Volume I.  EPA-600/7-77-136a.  November  1977.

5.   Draft Revised Final Report.  Emissions Assessment of  Conventional Combus-
    tion Systems.  Volume I :  Gas-Fired and Oil-Fired Residential  Heating
    System Source Categories.  Contract No. 68-02-2197.  October 1978.

6.   Draft Final Report.  Emissions Assessment of Conventional Combustion
    Systems.  Volume II.  Electricity Generation and Industrial Internal
    Combustion Source Categories.  Contract No. 68-02-2197.  November 1978.

7.   Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U. S. Environmental
    Protection Agency Report No. AP-42.  February 1976.

8.   Brooknan,  G. T., and P. W. Kalina.  TRC Measuring the Environmental
    Impact of  Domestic Gas-Fired Heating Systems.  Paper presented at 67th
    Annual Meeting Air Pollution Control Association.  June 1974.
                                       121

-------
Site
No.
                  TABLE I.   FLUE,GAS COMPOSITION DATA FROM
                            GAS-FIRED RESIDENTIAL  SITES
,2   .
CO
 Off-
 CO
PPM
                              Partlculate Emmissions
                          lb/10 Btu
                                                Loading
                                               Ug/nT
lb/10  Btu
 100    16.7    6.4    <500     0.46        0.00097       25.3       0.054

 101    12.9    1.4    <500     0.40        0.00048        9.4       0.011

 102    19.5    3.0    <500     0.49        0.00069       18.8       0.027

 103    19.1    1.7    <500     0.64        t).0013        12.5       0.026

 104    16.8    1.1    <500     0.62        0.00075        9.3       0.011
                                      122

-------
                      TABLE II.  GASEOUS,  VOLATILE AND NONVOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS  FROM GAS-FIRED
                                 RESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS,  pg/m3
to
Site
S
100 0*
101 0
102 0^
103 39.400
104 0
Average
Gaseous*
C2
0
0
0
37.800
0

C3
0
0
0
55.500
0

C4
0
0
0
0
0

C5
0
0
0
0
0



C6 C8
0 < 10
0 < 10
0 -
0 <10
0 <10
<10
Volatile
Total
C9 C10 Cll C12 C8"C12 C8"C17
<10 1.490 560 60 2,110
<10 <10 <10 <10 <10 -
_ -
<10 770 680 <10 1,450
<10 1,960 2.680 370 5,010
<10 l',060 980 110 2,150
Nonvolatile
>C17
400
1,240
780
480
920
760
Total organics^
crciv
-2,500
-1,240
>780
-1,900
-5,900
-2,500
*Less than 1000 )ig/»3,

fNot including (^-C,.
                                      gases.

-------
TABLE III.   FLUE GAS  COMPOSITION DATA FROM
            OIL-FIRED RESIDENTIAL  SITES
Particulates
Site
No.
300
301
302
303
304
%2
17.2
17.4
19.6
17.3
17.5
CO
%
3.8
3.7
1.2
2.9
2.6
CO
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2~
<0.2
/ 3
mg/m
2.3
1.2
2.2
2.5
1.9
lb/106 Btu
0.0082
0.0038
0.013
0.011
0.013
Smoke
Spot
Index
2
1
0.5
3
1.5
                      124

-------
ro
en
               TABLE IV.  GASEOUS, VOLATILE AND NONVOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM OIL-FIRED

                          RESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS, ug/m3
Site
300
301
302
303
304
Average
Gaseous
Cl
9,600
2,700
2,000
1,800
2,800
3,800
C2
1,700
1,900
400
<100
140
850
C3
<200
4,400
<200
<200
<200
< 1,000
C4
<300
<300
<300
<300
<300
<300
C5
<300
<300
<300
<300
<300
<300
C6
<400
<400
<400
<400
<400
<400
C8
6.3
1.2
7.5
1.2
5.2
4.3
C9
4.9
3.0
9.0
15
7.3
7.8
C10
46
14
26
43
43
34
Volatile
Cll
25
6.6
44
47
49
34
C12
1.3
33
45
65
81
45
Total
VC12
84
58
131
171
186
126
Nonvolatile
VC!7 >C17
170
180
560
560
320
360
650
1,800
290 to 560
1,200 to 1,400
6,000
2,000 to 2,400
Total orRanics
Cl"C6' C8~C17' >C17
12,000
11,000
3,000
3,600
9,300
7,800
to 13,000
to 12,000
to 4,700
to 5,100
to 10,500
to 9,100

-------
               TABLE V.  POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER RESULTS, OIL-FIRED RESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS, yg/m3*
ro
cr>
Site 301
Compound XAD-2
module rinse
Acenaphthene
Acetonaphthone
Anthracene
Azulene or naphthalene
Benzo(c)cinnoline
Biphenyl
Bu ty 1-phenan thr ene
Dimethyl naphthalene
Dimethyl phenanthrene
Ethyl naphthalene
Fluorenone 4 • 2
Methyl anthracene
Methyl-dibenzo thiophene
Methyl naphthalene
Methyl phenanthrene
Octyl phenanthrene
Phenanthrene 0.46
Phenanthrene quinone 4.2^

XAD-2
resin
9.3
2.3

20
1.2
23



23
4.7
2.4




4.7
1.2
Site 302 Site 303 Site 304
XAD-2 XAD-2 XAD-2 xAD-2
module rinse resin resin Condensate res±n

0.47
1.5


1.0
20
6.0 2.5
0.4
6.5
0.67

0.10
7.6 15.4
0.2
3.7
0.08 3.0 1.67
0.13
       *0ther  compounds were below the detection limit of about 0.3 yg/m .


        Fluorenone or phenanthrene quinone.

-------
ro
                                 TABLE VI.  PARTICULATE AND SOX EMISSIONS FROM
                                            INTERNAL COMBUSTION SOURCES TESTED
Combustion
Source Type
Gas Turbine
Distillate Oil
Turbine



Distillate Oil
Reciprocating
Engine


Site
No.
#110
#111
#112
#306
#307
#308
#309
#310
#311
#312
#313
Operating
Load
19.5 MW
18.0 MW
22.5 MW
14.5 MW
14.5 MW
20.2 MW
2.5 MW
2.5 MW
2.5 MW
2.5 MW
2.5 MW
S2
18.50
19.40
17.50
14.97
13.45
16.48
11.11
13.70
15.82
11.30
12.88
Particulate
*\
mg/nr
ND
6.71
2.91
2.46
3.85
4.37
21.02
29.41
33.15
12.44
15.71
Emissions
kg/GJ
ND
0.0214
0.0042
0.0021
0.0026
0.0049
0.0110
0.0208
0.0330
0.0066
0.0100
SOV Emissions
^y
ppm
ND
3.4
7.9
<1.9
<2.3
<1.4
60
81
58
43
44
kg/GJ
ND
0.0285
0.0306
<0.0042
<0.0042
< 0.0042
0.0831
0.1531
0.1531
0.0612
0.0743
Bachrach
Smoke No.
0
3.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.0
6.5
ND
6.0

-------
         TABLE VII.  SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM SPECIFIC INORGANIC ANALYSES
Combustion
Source Type
Gas Turbine
Distillate Oil
Turbine



Distillate Oil
Reciprocating
Engine



Site
No.
110
111
112
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
Mass Emissions (mg/DSCM)

Hg
0.0091
0.00018
0.0014
< 0.00074
0.0016
< 0.00033
0.00016
0.00077
< 0.00091
< 0.00003
<0.0011

As
<0.0014
< 0.0056
< 0.0033
< 0.00009
<0. 00011
<0. 00019
<0. 00012
<0. 00017
< 0.00020
<0. 00011
<0. 00011

Sb
< 0.0016
< 0.0046
0.013
0.0017
0.0019
<0. 00016
< 0.00020
<0.0019
< 0.00024
< 0.00030
<0. 00019
j.
S°4
-
_
0.23
0.035
0.018
0.068
0.74
0.74
0.98
0.50
0.74

Cl F N03
0.89
4.9 0.010 0.029
2.5 0.049 0.018
- - -
_
_
_ _ _
- - -
_
-
_
*Values are from particulate samples  only.
                                      128

-------
          TABLE  VIH.   VOLATILE AND NONVOLATILE ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM  INTERNAL COMBUSTION  SYSTEMS
ro
10
Combination Source Type
Gas
Turblna
Site
Volatile Organic Gases
Ana?.yzed in Field, iig/m3
Cl
c2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Volatile Organic Materials
Analyzed in Laboratory by
GC-TCO Procedure: Uft/m^
C? (B.P. 90-110°C)
Cg (B.P. 110-140°C)
C9 (B.P. 140-160'C)
C,0 (B.P. 160-180-C)
Cu (B.P. 180-200°C)
C12 (B.P. 200-220°C)
C13 (C.P. 220-240"C)
C[4 (B.P. 240-260°C)
C[5 (B.P. 260-280°C)
C,, (. . 280-300°C)
16
Nonvolatile Organic
Matter >C16 From
Laboratory Gravimetric
Analysis, pg/m-*:
Total Organics, mg/m3
110
BL*
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
483
1202
444
727
23
BL
29
BL
BL
BL
310
3.22
111
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
32
100
137
927
BL
84
BL
BL
BL
BL
6800
8.08
Distillate Oil
112
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
29
147
200
613
21
152
56
BL
46
457
3710
5.43
306
BL
67620
Bl
BL
BL
BL
100
52
7
17
89
6
28
210
484
783
440
69.8
Turbine
307
BL
15130
BL
BL
BL
BL
82
27
5
14
12
15
BL
BL
1
8
1400
16.7
308
BL
2275
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
99
BL
25
12
11
38
71
1270
3.80
Distillate Oil
309
1000
7765
3535
BL
BL
BL
24
251
685
1488
1945
2916
4919
3632
3103
2606
56180
89.0
309-2
500
700
700
BL
BL
BL
10
370
850
2410
2890
3230
3000
3580
2760
2290
55330
76. C
310
1570
10380
3065
BL
BL
BL
214
328
633
1516
2292
2512
3827
3810
4192
3746
53880
92.0
311
2570
5970
1140
BL
BL
BL
98
497
683
1228
1265
1438
2899
1933
1810
1941
43040
66.5
Reciprocating Engines
312
3285
17540
705
BL
BL
BL
585
251
565
1704
2159
2663
3970
2413
2389
2149
63590
104
312-2
800
1900
BL
BL
BL
BL
90
400
1100
1800
2120
2450
2330
2200
2250
16GO
55040
71.5
313
4000
26015
745
BL
BL
BL
87
154
301
1034
682
1267
1742
1509
1771
937
46680
S6.9
313-2
1100
1700
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
560
1290
2120
2580
3120
2810
3100
3010
2350
66340
87.3
              BL  Concentration of the species is below the

                 0.001 ppm (=0.5 vg/m3) per C,-C  .
                                      /  16
limit of detection of th-j instrument;  1 ppm ( = 1000 ug/m3) per C.-C, and

-------
                      TABLE  IX.  POM EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL  ENGINE  SITES,  vg/nf

Naphthalene
Methyl Naphthalenes
Dimethyl Naphthalenes
Biphenyl
C, Substituted Naphthalene
Dibenzothiophene
Methyl Dibenzothiophene
Phenanthrene
Methyl Phenanthrenes
Dimethyl Phenanthrenes
Trimethyl Phenanthrenes
Detection Limit of 0.2 ug
309
Possible
Rattget
32-15
-
60-28
5-2
16-7
10-5
-
16-7
40-19
8-4
-
0.2-0.07

Best
Est.
16
-
30
2
8
5
-
8
20
4
-
0.08
310
Possible
Ranget
22-16
26-20
14-11
7-6
5-4
2-1
1-0.7
3-2
10-7
1-0.7
3-2
0.1-0.07
311
Best Possible Best
Est. Ranget Est.
18 61-33 36
22 -
12 110-58 64
6 17-9 10
4 -
2 - -
0.8
3 - -
8 102-55 60
Q.a 41-22 24
2 -
0.08 0.1-0.07 0.08
312 3,
Possible Best Possible
Ranget Eat- Ranget
5-1
-
-
26-7
-
-
- -
_
120-70 77 270-70
72-42 46 110-28
ia-n 12 27-7
0.1-0.07 0.08 0.3-0.07
[3 	
Best
Est.
3
-
-
15
-
-
-
-
150
58
15
0.1
*POM's were only found  in the XAD-2/XAD-2 module rinse sample,
     range is given because of analysis problems (see text).

-------
TABLE X,  FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA FROM GAS-FIRED UTILITY SITES
Combustion Site
Source Type No.
Non-Tangential 106
108
116
117
Tangential 113
114
115
02
5,85
9.08
7.88
6.47
4.81
4.62
8.64
SC>2 Emissions CO Emissions
ppm ppm
<1 <500
<1 <500
<1 42
<1 31
<10
<1 311
<1 481
Particulate Emissions
pg/m3
4,420
<32
531
<3.9
306
168
41

-------
                    TABLE XI.   EMISSIONS OF GASEOUS, VOLATILE, AND NONVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

                                          FROM GAS-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS
CO
ro
Combustion
Source Type
Non-Tangential



Tangential


Site
No.
106
108
116
117
113
114
115
Organic
Cl " C6
34,360-
45,200
No Data
21,500-
30,680
<9,460
<6,380
<12,760
<12,760
Emissions
C7 - C16
33,100
8,600
2,034
409
42
38
474
3
>C16
No
Data
7,400
679
383
1,846
902
2,246
Total Organic Emissions
yg/m3
>67,460
No Data
24,200-
33,390
790-
10,260
1,888-
8,266
940-
13,700
2,720-
15,480

-------
                     TABLE XII.  FLUE GAS COMPOSITION DATA FROM LIGNITE-FIRED UTILITY SOURCES
CO
CO
Source Type
Pulverized
Dry Bottom
(Front Fired)


Cyclone
Spreader
Stoker
Site 2 CO
No. % Emissions, %
314 4.94 <500

315 4.70 <500
318 11.9 <500
316 7.0 <500
317 10.9 <500
319 * *
Particulate Emissions
Tota* Control Device,
m < 1 vi m 1 - 3pm >10pm mg/m Efficiency, %
2.1% 6.6% 56.5% 8480 Multiclone, 84%

1.1% 8.6% 50.9% 4625 Multiclone, 84%
- 2.83 ESP, 98.5
1.14 ESP, 99.53 (Tested)
22.3% 4.9% 59.2% 1630 Multiclone, 89.5%
- - 1.2 ESP, 99.82%
        No data were acquired

-------
   TABLE XIII.   SOURCE SEVERITY FACTORS FOR INORGANIC ELEMENT EMISSIONS
                       FROM LIGNITE FIRED SOURCES*
Source Severity Factor Range
Element > 2 . 0
Al
As
B
Ba 2 (2)
Be
Ca 2 (2)
Cd
Cl
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Fe 2 (2)
Hg
K
Li
Mg 2 (2)
Mn
Na 2 (1)
Ni 1 (1)
P 2 (2)
Pb
Si
Sr
Ti
V
Zn
2.0
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
- 0.5
(2)
(2)
(1)
<2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
0.5
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
- 0.05
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
Total
3
2
2
5
5
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
3
1
2
2
3
2
4
5
5
2
3
3
2
2
1
Sites
(3)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(1)
*(  ) indicates  number of sites with mul tic lone  emission control devices
                                      134

-------
                   TABLE XIV.  EMISSIONS OF GASEOUS, VOLATILE, AND NONVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

                                             FROM LIGNITE-FIRED SITES
CO
in
Combustion Site
Source Type No.
Pulverized 314
Dry Bottom
(Front Fired)
315
318
Cyclone 316
Spreader 317
Stoker
319
Organic Emissions
Cl ~ C6 . C7 ~ °16
39,020- 434
44,520
5,340- 936
17,430
4,000- 558
13,000
10,680- 382
22,770
1,780- 643
13,870
No Data 26.9

C16
yg/m^
9,800
6,930
64
2,410
1,745
332
Total
o
yg/m
49,300-
54,800
13,200-
25,300
4,600-
13,600
13,500-
25,600
4,200-
16,300
No Date.

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF COAL
       AND OIL FIRING IN A
   CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL BOILER
               By:

          K. W. Arledge
          C. A. Leavitt

            TRW Inc.
         One Space  Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
                137

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                                 INTRODUCTION

     The industrial nations of the world are being forced to simultaneously
deal with two very difficult and contradictory problems.   The relatively cheap
and convenient sources of energy are rapidly being depleted while the need for
increasingly stringent control of pollution is making the environmentally
acceptable use of the energy sources that are  available more difficult.  One
response to these dual needs has been to use the more abundant high polluting
fuels in combustion systems that have sophisticated pollution controls.  The
technologies that are used to control pollution are new relative to combustion
technology.  Therefore, the subtle short- and  long-term effects of these new
technologies are not yet completely known.
     The objective of this program is to conduct a comparative, multimedia
environmental assessment of oil versus coal firing in controlled industrial
and utility boilers and to draw conclusions about the comparative environ-
mental,  energy,  and societal impacts of firing oil versus firing coal.
     This report presents the comparative assessment of controlled industrial
boilers.  The major technical input for this assessment was feed stream and
emissions characterization data collected as part of the  Conventional Combus-
tion Emission Assessment Program.  These data  were derived from rigorous
sampling and analysis and specify the types and quantities of solid, liquid,
and gaseous pollutants  in each of the inlet and outlet streams of a controlled
oil- and coal-fired industrial boiler.  A comprehensive assessment of each
fuel type in the controlled  industrial boiler  was accomplished to determine:
     •  The types and amounts of pollutants that are released during
        poal and oil combustion in an uncontrolled boiler;
     •  The types and amounts of pollutants that are teleased during
        the combustion  of each fuel in a controlled boiler;
                                     138

-------
     •  The effectiveness of the controls with respect to each
        controlled pollutant;
     •  If the control devices modify pollutants that pass through
        the controls;
     •  If the controls themselves create pollutants.
     The comprehensive assessment results for the oil- and coal-fired indus-
trial boiler were then used in a comparative assessment to determine the
differences in the types and quantities of pollutants released.
     The results of the industrial comparative emission assessments were then
evaluated to determine what conclusions could be drawn about the oil versus
coal firing.  The comparative impacts identified were summarized by environ-
mental, energy, economic, and societal categories.
     It should be kept in mind that the conclusions presented are based on
tests conducted on only one industrial boiler, one type of coal, and one type
of oil.  It should not be assumed that these conclusions apply to all
industrial boilers under all circumstances.  The results of this program
should, perhaps, best be thought of as a good indication of the impact
differences between coal and oil firing and as a set of guidelines on which
future work can be based.
                                     139

-------
                                  SECTION 2
                                 CONCLUSIONS

     Uncontrolled emissions of criteria pollutants produced by this boiler
during coal firing correspond well with emission factors from AP-42.  This
observation does not generally hold true for oil-fired emissions.  Full load
NOx emissions from oil firing were 19%  lower than the AP-42 emission factor,
although they appear to be within the normal range for similar industrial
units.  CO emissions from oil firing were nearly 63% lower than the AP-42
emission factor.  Oil-fired S02 and total hydrocarbons correspond well with
their respective AP-42 emission factors.   Particulate emissions from oil
firing, in the absence of coal ash contamination,  are approximately twice the
value tabulated in AP-42.
         emissions increased with increasing load for both coal and oil
firing, as expected.  Available data indicate that for boiler loads between
90 and 100%, NOX emissions from coal firing are approximately three times
greater than from oil firing.
     Uncontrolled S02 emission rates during coal and oil firing were 1112 ng/J
(2.59 Ib/MM Btu) and 993 ng/J (2.31 Ib/MM Btu) , respectively.  Removal data
indicate an average scrubber removal efficiency of 97% during both coal and
oil firing.  Controlled S02 emissions for coal and oil firing were 36.3 ng/J
(0.08 Ib/MM Btu) and 26.8 ng/J (0.06 Ib/MM Btu), respectively, which are lower
than either existing or proposed NSPS limitations.
     Particulate loadings prior to scrubbing were 2951 ng/J (6.86 Ib/MM Btu)
during coal firing and 59.0 ng/J (0.14 Ib/MM Btu) during oil firing, in the
absence of coal ash contamination.   Scrubbing removed 99% of the coal-fired
particulars and 75% of the oil-fired particulates.   The lower removal
efficiency obtained during oil firing is attributed to the increased fraction
of particles smaller than 3 ym;  at  least 21% of the uncontrolled oil-fired
                                    140

-------
particulates are less than 3 ym in diameter while substantially less than 1%
of uncontrolled coal-fired particulates are under 3 ym.
     There appeared to be a net increase in emission rates across the scrubber
for coal fired particulates less than 3 ym in size.  This net increase can be
attributed to the poor removal efficiency of the scrubber for fine particu-
lates, and to the sodium bisulfate (NaHSO^) and calcium sulfite hemihydrate
(CaS03 • 1/2 H20) particulates generated by the scrubber.  Both NaHSC>4 and
CaSO-j •  1/2 H20 have been identified at the scrubber outlet but not at the
inlet.  Although a very slight increase in oil-fired particulates in the
1-3 ym range was observed, a net decrease in particulates less than 3 ym was
observed during oil firing.  Based on the results of coal firing tests, it
appears reasonable that scrubber generated particulates were present in the
scrubber outlet stream during oil firing but that the high fine particulate
loading associated with oil firing masked detection of these materials.
     Of the 22 major trace elements analyzed in the flue gas stream during
coal firing, 18 exceed their MATE values at the scrubber inlet and four at the
scrubber outlet.  Similarly, for oil firing, 11 exceeded their MATE values at
the scrubber inlet while five exceeded their MATE values at the scrubber out-
let.  Elements exceeding their MATE values at the scrubber outlet and which
are common to both fuels are arsenic, chromium and nickel.  Additionally, iron
exceeded its MATE value at the scrubber outlet during coal firing as did
cadmium and vanadium during oil firing.  The overall removal of trace elements
across the scrubber is 99% for coal firing and 87% for oil firing.
     The fraction of fuel sulfur converted to S0-j during oil firing was 50 to
75% higher than during coal firing.  In contrast, the fraction of fuel sulfur
converted to sulfates during coal firing was twice that during oil firing.
     Sulfates are more efficiently removed than SO^ (60% removal for oil
firing and 88% for coal firing) .  This indicates that SO^" is probably asso-
ciated with the larger particulates, which are more efficiently removed than
smaller particulates.  The higher sulfate removal from the coal flue gases is
explained by the higher particulate loading during coal firing.
     Polycyclic organic material (POM) was not found in the scrubber inlet
or outlet at detection limits of 0.3 ug/m^ for either coal or oil firing.

                                      141

-------
 MATE values for most POM's are  greater than this detection  limit.   However,
 since the MATE values for at  least two POM compounds - benzo(a)pyrene  and
 dibenz(a,h)anthracene -  are less than 0.3 yg/rn-^, additional GC/MS  analyses
 at higher sensitivity would be  required to conclusively preclude the presence
 of all POM's at MATE levels.
      Organic emissions for  coal and oil firing were very similar.   Total
 organic emissions were less than 9 ng/J (0.02 Ib/MM Btu) for both  tests, and
 these emissions appear to be primarily Cj to C^ hydrocarbons and organics
 heavier  than Cjg.  While uncontrolled emission rates for both coal  and oil
 firing are low, emissions of these organics were further reduced by about 75
 to 85% in the scrubber unit.
      The combined waste water stream from the boiler operation may  not pose  an
 environmental hazard in terms of organic  materials since the discharge concen-
 trations of organics are well below their MATE values for both coal and oil
 firing.  The same conclusion may be drawn for inorganic compounds with the
 exception of cobalt, nickel, copper and cadmium for coal firing and nickel
 and copper for oil firing since  these metals  may exceed their MATE values.
      The scrubber cake produced  when  either  fuel is burned contains concentra-
tions of trace elements high enough to exceed  most  MATE values.   Because of
these high concentrations the  scrubber cake must be disposed of in specially
designed landfills.
     The difference in environmental  insult  expected to result between coal
and oil  combustion emissions from a single controlled 10 MW industrial boiler
 is insignificant.  This is because: 1) there are only slight differences in
 the emissions levels of the pollutants, or 2)  the absolute impact of either
fuel  use is insignificant.  The environmental impacts of emissions  from a
cluster  of controlled 10 MW industrial boilers are  potentially significant.
The impacts include health  effects, material damages,  and ecological effects
from high levels of S02, NOX and suspended particulate matter; health effects
and ecological damage due to trace metal  accumulation in soils and  plants;
and aesthetic degradation from visibility reduction and waste disposal sites.
     The environmental acceptability of a cluster of controlled  industrial
boilers  is more dependent on site specific factors (e.g.,  background pollution

                                     142

-------
levels, location and number of other sources) than type of fuel utilized,
Careful control of the site specific factors can avert potential environmental
damages and generally compensate for any differential effects arising Between
the use of coal or oil.
     Coal firing appears to produce a greater enrichment of trace elements in
the flue gas desulfurization cake than oil firing produces,  However, the
scrubber cake resulting from either coal or oil firing contains sufficient
amounts of heavy metals and toxic substances that it must be disposed of in
specially designed landfills.
     Based on the Lundy/Grahn Model for health effects associated with sus-
pended sulfate levels, regional emissions levels from controlled oil or coal-
fired industrial boilers would not be expected to cause a significant impact
on regional health.  Emissions from uncontrolled boilers would result in
substantially greater levels of regional suspended sulfate levels, and the
associated health effects would be an order of magnitude greater.
     The health impact of solid waste generation on health is essentially  the
same for controlled coal firing and oil firing, provided suitable land
disposal techniques are employed to assure minimal leaching rates and migra-
tion of trace elements to groundwater and the terrestrial environment.
     The potential for crop damage from either controlled coal firing or oil
firing depends greatly on ambient levels of NOX, S02, or trace element soil
concentrations.  If such levels are presently high, localized plant damage
would be expected to occur within a 1 to 2 km range from a controlled boiler
cluster.  Leaf destruction from S02 exposure would be expected to be slightly
more severe in the vicinity of a cluster of  controlled boilers which are coal
fired as opposed to oil fired.  For boilers  uncontrolled for NOX emissions,
plant damage would be expected to be significantly greater in the vicinity of
the coal-fired cluster, owing to higher levels of ambient NOX produced.  The
likelihood of damage occurring in plants due to emissions of trace elements
from either controlled oil or coal firing is remote, with the possible
exception of injury due to elevated levels of molybdenum and cadmium in plant
tissue resulting from coal firing and oil firing, respectively.

-------
      The impact of boiler emissions on corrosion in the local area near a
 cluster of controlled  industrial boilers would be significant.  The corrosion
 rate would be slightly greater when the boilers are coal-fired.  However, the
 extent of this overall impact (oil or coal) is minor compared to that which
 occurs when industrial boilers are uncontrolled.
      The differential direct economic impact between emissions from coal fir--
 ing and oil firing is generally insignfiicant with the possible exception of
 some differences occurring in a limited localized area near clusters of
 boilers.  The extent of the incremental direct economic impacts is propor~
 tional to the extent of the incremental environmental damages.
      Differential second order economic impacts, such as changes in hospital
 employment, alteration of taxes,  or changes in income, are expected to be
 insignificant between emissions from controlled oil and coal~fired industrial
 boilers .
     At the present time, the comparative  assessment of the effects of
sions from controlled oil and coal-fired industrial boilers tends to support
the national energy plan for intensified utilization of coal.  The fuel choice
of oil or coal is a relatively minor  issue concerning the environmental accept-
ability of controlled industrial boilers;  other site specific and plant design
factors exert a greater effect on  environmental damages.   While it was shown
that fuel choice caused significant differences in impacts to occur when the
boiler is uncontrolled for NOX emissions,  these differences may be mitigated
by the addition of N0_ control technologies with minimal overall cost impact.
                     X
                                     144

-------
                                  SECTION 3
                              TEST AND ANALYSIS

     The test unit used for this assessment is a dual fuel industrial process
steam boiler operated by the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company in Pottstown,
Pennsylvania.  The 10 megawatt equivalent boiler is equipped with a pilot FMC,
Inc. flue gas desulfurization (FGD) unit that is designed to treat approxi-
mately one-third of the flue gas produced by the boiler when it is operating
at full load (3 megawatt equivalent).  The boiler was originally designed to
burn coal but was later modified to burn either high volatile eastern bitu-
minous coal or Number 6 fuel oil.  Table 1 presents a list of the major boiler
parameters.  The boiler has no NOX controls.
     The boiler and associated equipment produce four liquid waste streams:
boiler feed water pretreatment waste, steam drum blowdown, mud drum blowdown
and cooling water.  All liquid waste streams except the cooling water are
mixed with process waste water from elsewhere in the plant.  This combined
stream is then pumped directly into the municipal sewerage system.  The boiler
cooling water is pumped directly into the municipal sewerage system without
mixing with other plant waste streams.
     The pilot FGD unit is a double alkali scrubber that produces only a solid
cake as a waste product.  The scrubber does not produce a liquid waste stream.
It is designed as a sulfur dioxide (SC^) and particulate control device, and
will operate on either fuel without modification.
     Sampling and analysis of gaseous, liquid, and solid pollutants were con-
ducted according to the EPA Level I/Level 2 criteria, except that both Level  1
and Level 2 sampling were conducted simultaneously because of program time
constraints.  Level I/Level 2 analysis procedures were followed except Level  2
analysis was conducted prior to receiving the results of Level 1 analysis in
those cases where sample degradation was anticipated.  Figure 1 shows the
sampling locations.
                                     145

-------
                                  SECTION 4
                          COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENTS

     Table 2 summarizes the annual emissions resulting from coal and oil
firing.  The table presents estimates  of air emissions both before and after
the scrubber.  Liquid effluent and solid waste rates are presented for both
the controlled and uncontrolled cases.
     Outlet emissions were determined  on the basis  of 100 percent of the flue
gas being treated by the scrubber.   It was assumed  that additional scrubber
modules, identical to the existing one,  could be added such that all of the
flue gas was processed in exactly the  same manner as the fraction that
actually passed through the scrubber.   In this way,  emissions from the pilot
scrubber were scaled up to represent the total flue gas flow.  All emissions
data and conclusions are based on this assumption.
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF COAL FIRING
Criteria Pollutants
     Uncontrolled emissions of criteria pollutants  generally corresponded well
with values reported in AP-42.  Although NOX emissions were slightly higher
than the average AP-42 value,  they appear to be within the normal range for
similar industrial units.
     NOX reductions varying from approximately 0 to 24 percent were measured
across the scrubber.  However, the magnitude of NOX reductions could not be
correlated to changes in variables monitored during the test period (i.e.,
temperature, gas flow rate, liquid/gas ratio, boiler load, etc.).  For this
reason, it is believed that observed N0% reductions are a sampling phenomenon,
perhaps related to leaks in the sample train.
     Sulfur dioxide removal data indicated an average scrubber efficiency
of 97  percent.  Controlled S02 emissions were 36.3 ng/J (0.08 pounds/MM Btu)

                                    146

-------
which is less than either existing or proposed NSPS limitations for utility
boilers.
     Mass balance data indicate that the multiclone unit upstream of the
scrubber was removing little or no fly ash during the test period.  The
scrubber was found to remove 99.4 percent of the inlet particulate.
Inorganics
     Although the removal efficiency for total particulates is high, there
appears to be a net increase in emission rates across the scrubber for
particulates less than 3 ym in size.  This net increase can be attributed to
the poor removal efficiency of the scrubber for fine particulates, and to the
sodium bisulfate (NaHSC^) and calcium sulfite hemihydrate (CaS03  • 1/2 H20)
particulates generated by the scrubber.  Both NaHSC^ and CaSC>3 • 1/2 H2Q have
been identified at the scrubber outlet but not at the inlet.
     The relatively poor removal efficiency (approximately 30%) for 803 across
the scrubber is an indication that 863 is either present at very fine aerosols
in the scrubber inlet, or is converted to very fine aerosols as the flue gas
stream is rapidly cooled inside the  scrubber.
     Analysis has shown that while there may be higher surface concentrations
of sulfur-containing compounds in the particulates emitted from the scrubber,
most of the sulfur-containing compounds are probably present as solid sulfates
and sulfites.  Thus, it is conceivable that sulfuric acid vapor is  condensed
and deposited on the particulates emitted, whereas sodium bisulfate and cal-
cium sulfite hemihydrate are emitted as fine,  solid particulates.
     The overall sulfur balance indicates  that over 92 percent of  the fuel
sulfur is emitted as S02, less than  1 percent  of the fuel sulfur  is emitted
as 803, and approximately 3 percent  of the fuel sulfur is emitted as SO,  .
     The overall removal efficiency  for trace  elements across the scrubber
is 99.5 percent.  Of the 22 major trace elements, 18 exceed their MATE
values at the scrubber inlet and four at the scrubber outlet.  The four trace
elements in the scrubber flue gas that pose a  potential hazard are arsenic,
chromium, iron, and nickel.  In addition, the  emission concentration of beryl-
lium at the scrubber outlet is equal to its MATE value.  The relative removal
                                      147

-------
 efficiency for trace elements  across  the scrubber can be explained  by
 enrichment theory.   In general, trace elements that occur as element vapors
 or form volatile compounds  at  furnace temperatures are more concentrated  in
 the smaller particulates, as a result of subsequent condensation  and surface
 adsorption.  These  are the  same trace elements that are removed less
 efficiently by the  scrubber.
      Mass balance closure for most of the trace elements have been  found  to be
 in the  75  to 107 percent range.  This closure instills confidence on the
 validity of the sampling and analysis data for trace elements.
 Organics
     Total organic emissions were generally less  than 9 ng/J (0.02  pound/MM
 Btu) and  these emissions appear to be primarily C^ to Cr hydrocarbons and
 hydrocarbons heavier than C-^.   While uncontrolled emission rates for C-j  to
 Gig and higher hydrocarbons are low,  emissions of these organics were further
 reduced by  21 to 35 percent in the scrubber unit.
     Polycyclic organic material (POM) was  not found in the scrubber inlet  or
 outlet  at detection limits of 0.3 yg/m3.  MATE values for most POM's are
 greater than this detection limit.  However,  since the MATE values  for at
 least two POM compounds - benzo(a)pyrene  and dibenz(a,h)anthracene  - are  less
 than 0.3 yg/m3,  additional GC/MS  analyses at higher  sensitivity would be
 required to conclusively preclude  the  presence of all POM's at MATE levels.
 Liquid  Effluents
     The combined wastewater stream generated from the boiler operation may
 not pose an environmental hazard,  since the discharge concentrations of most
 inorganics and organics are all well  below  their  MATE values.   However, based
 on the  uncertainty in SSMS analyses,  cobalt,  cadmium,  nickel and copper may
exceed  their MATE values based  on ecological considerations.
Solid Waste
     The scrubber cake produced contains.a  significant  amount of coal fly ash.
 With the exception of boron, trace  element  concentrations in the scrubber cake
 far exceeded their MATE values.  Because  the trace elements may leach from  the
 disposed scrubber cake, these solid wastes  must be disposed of in specially

                                     148

-------
designed landfills.
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF OIL FIRING
Criteria Pollutants
     Uncontrolled emissions of criteria pollutants do not generally correspond
with emission factors from AP-42.  NOX emissions were nearly 23 percent lower
than the AP-42 emission factor, although they appear to be within the normal
range for similar industrial units.  CO emissions were nearly 63 percent lower
than the AP-42 emission factor.  SC>2 and total hydrocarbons corresponded well
with their respective AP-42 emission factors.  Particulate emissions, in the
absence of coal ash contamination, are approximately twice the value
tabulated in AP-42.
     Sulfur dioxide removal data indicated an average scrubber efficiency of
97 percent.  Controlled S02 emissions were 26.8 ng/J (0,06 Ib/MM Btu) which is
less than either existing or proposed NSPS limitations for utility boilers.
Inorganics
     Particulate removal data indicate that, on the average, scrubber effi"-
ciency was 84 percent during the test period.  However, based on particulate
catches essentially free of coal ash contamination, the scrubber efficiency
was approximately 75 percent for oil firing  particulates.
     When emissions are uncontrolled, over 90 percent of the sulfur in the
fuel feed is emitted as SC^, less  than 1 percent as 803, and 1,5 percent as
so4=.
     S02 is efficiently removed by the scrubber (97 to 98 percent efficiency) .
The SO, removal efficiency  (28 to  29 percent) suggests that S03 is associated
with fine particulates or aerosols.  S0,= is about 60 percent removed by the
scrubber, and so is probably associated with the larger particulates.
     Of the 22 major trace  elements analyzed in the flue gas stream, 11
exceeded their MATE values  at the  scrubber inlet while only 5 exceeded MATE
values at the scrubber outlet.  These 5 elements are arsenic, cadmium, chro-
mium, nickel and vanadium.  With the exception of chromium, elements exceeding
their MATE values at the scrubber  outlet were removed from the flue gas stream
with efficiencies lower than the overall average removal efficiency of
                                     149

-------
 87 percent.
      Beryllium emissions were 0.001 mg/m3 after scrubbing;  this  corresponds to
 ahlf the MATE value for this element.  At this emission concentration,  the
 National Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants limitation of  10  grams beryl**
 lium per day would only be exceeded by boilers of 100 MW capacity  or greater.
      Mass balance closure for 10 of the 20 trace elements analyzed is between
 50 and 136 percent.  Poorer mass balance closure was obtained for  the remain-
 der of the trace elements due to the extremely low concentrations  and/or
 contamination of the scrubber recycle solution by coal  firing components,
 Organics
      Organic emissions determined by FID analysis were  generally less than
 5 ng/J (0.01 Ib/MM Btu) and appear to be composed primarily of C,  to Cg
 hydrocarbons and organics heavier than C^,  However, gas chromatograph and
 gravimetric data indicate that FID values may  be  low by a factor of 2 to 3.
 Approximately 88 and 83 percent of the Cy to C-^  and higher than C16 organics,
 respectively, were removed by the scrubber
      The organic compounds identified in the gas  samples were generally not
 representative of combustion-generated organic materials, but were compounds
 associated with materials used in the sampling equipment and in various analy-
 tical  procedures.   This again confirms the low level of organic emissions.
     Polycyclic organic material (POM)  was not found in the scrubber inlet  or
 outlet streams at  detection limits of 0.3 jig/m3.  MATE values for most POM's
 are greater than this  detection limit.   However,  since the MATE values for  at
 least  two POM compounds - benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene - are less
 than 0.3  yg/m3,  additional GC/MS analysis at higher sensitivity would be
 required  to  conclusively preclude the presence of all POM's at MATE levels,
Liquid Effluents
     The combined wastewater stream from the boiler operation may not pose an
environmental hazard in terms of organic materials since the discharge concen-
trations of organics are all well below their MATE values.   A similar conclu-
sion may be drawn with respect to inorganic materials since inorganics,  with
the exception of nickel and copper, did not exceed their MATE values for liquid

                                     150

-------
streams.   Owing to uncertainty associated with SSMS analysis, nickel and
copper may exceed their MATE values although this is not necessarily the
case.
Solid Waste
     With the exceptions of antimony, boron, molybdenum and zinc, trace
element concentrations in the scrubber cake exceed their MATE values.
Because the trace elements may leach from the disposed scrubber cake, these
solid wastes must be disposed of in specially designed landfills.
                                     151

-------
                                   SECTION 5
                            COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENTS

     The comprehensive assessments were used to develop a comparative
emissions and environmental assessment,
COMPARATIVE EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT
Criteria Pollutants
     Uncontrolled  emissions of criteria pollutants produced during coal
firing  correspond  well with emission factors from APr42,   This observation
does not generally hold  true for oil fired emissions.   Full load NO^ emissions
from oil firing were 19  percent lower than the AP-42  emission factor, although
they appear to be  within the normal fange for similar industrial units.  CO
emissions from oil firing were nearly 63 percent lower than the AP-42 emission
factor.  Oil-fired S02 and total hydrocarbons correspond well with their res-
pective AP-42 emission factors.  Particulate emissions from oil firing, in the
absence of coal ash contamination, are approximately  twice the value tabulated
in AP-42.
     NOX emissions increased with increasing load for both coal and oil
firing, as expected.  Available data indicate that for boiler loadings
between 90 and 100 percent, NOX emissions from coal firing are approximately
three times greater than from oil firing.
     Observed reductions  of NOX emissions for coal firing and early oil firing
tests appear to be due, at least in part, to air leakage into the scrubber
outlet sampling line.   Data from later oil firing tests, not known to be sub-'
ject to leakage problems, indicate that NOX removal across the scrubber is on
            f
the order of 2 percent.
     Uncontrolled CO emissions  from coal firing were 15.9 ng/J (0.04 Ib/MM Btu)
while those from oil firing were 5.47 ng/J (0.01 Ib/MM Btu),  This factor of

                                     152

-------
three difference is at variance with AP-42 data indicating that CO emissions
from oil firing are 23 percent lower than those from coal firing.   Apparent
reductions in CO emissions across the scrubber are not considered  significant
due to air leakage in the sampling train and the low sensitivity of analysis
at the measured CO concentrations.
     Uncontrolled S02 emission rates during coal and oil firing were 1112 ng/J
(2.59 Ib/MM Btu) and 993 ng/J (2.31 Ib/MM Btu), respectively.   Removal data
indicate an average scrubber removal efficiency of 97 percent  during both coal
and oil firing.  Controlled S02 emissions for coal and oil firing  were 36.3
ng/J (0.08 Ib/MM Btu) and 26.8 ng/J (0.06 Ib/MM Btu), respectively, which are
lower than either existing or proposed NSPS limitations.
     Particulate loadings prior to scrubbing were 2951 ng/J (6.86  Ib/MM Btu)
during coal firing and 59.0 ng/J  (0.14 Ib/MM Btu) during oil firing, in the
absence of coal ash contamination.  Scrubbing removed 99 percent of the coal-
fired particulates and 75 percent of the  oil-fired particulates.  The lower
removal efficiency obtained during oil firing is attributed to the increased
fraction of particles smaller than 3 ym;  at least 21 percent of the uncon-
trolled oil-fired particulates  are less  than  3 ym in diameter while
substantially less than 1 percent of uncontrolled coal-fired particulates are
under 3 ym.
     There appeared to be a net increase in emission  rates across  the scrubber
for  coal-fired  particulates less  than  3  ym in size.   This net  increase can be
attributed to the poor removal  efficiency of  the scrubber for  fine particula-
tes, and  to the sodium bisulfate (NaHSO^ and calcium sulfite  hemihydrate
(CaSO   •  1/2 H20) particulates  generated by the scrubber.  Both NaHSO^ and
CaS03  • 1/2 H20 have  been identified at  the scrubber  outlet but not  at the
inlet.  Although  a very  slight  increase in oil-fired  particulates  in the
1-3  ]im range was  observed,  a  net decrease in particulates less than 3 ym was
observed  during oil  firing.   Based on the results of  coal firing  tests,  it
appears reasonable that  scrubber generated particulates were present in  the
scrubber  outlet stream during oil firing but  that the high  fine particulate
loading associated with oil firing masked detection of these materials.
                                       153

-------
Inorganics
      Of  the 22  major  trace elements analyzed in the flue gas stream during
coal firing,  18 exceed their MATE values at the scrubber inlet and four at
the scrubber  outlet.  Similarly, for oil firing, 11 exceeded their MATE values
at  the scrubber inlet while five exceeded their MATE values at the scrubber
outlet.   Elements exceeding their MATE values at the scrubber outlet and which
are common  to both fuels are arsenic,  chromium and nickel.  Additionally, iron
exceeded  its MATE value at the scrubber outlet during coal firing as did
cadmium and vanadium during oil firing.  The overall removal of trace elements
across the scrubber is 99 percent for  coal firing and 87 percent for oil
firing.
      Beryllium  emissions after scrubbing were less than or equal to the
beryllium MATE  value during coal and oil firing.  At the measured emission
concentrations,  the National Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants limitation
of  10 grams beryllium per day would only be exceeded by boilers of 50 MW
capacity for  coal  firing and 100 MW capacity for oil firing.
      The fraction  of  fuel sulfur converted to 863 during oil firing was 50 to
75  percent  higher  than during  coal firing.  In contrast, the fraction of fuel
sulfur converted to sulfates during coal firing was twice that during oil
firing.
      Sulfates are more efficiently removed than SO- (60 percent removal for
oil firing  and  88 percent for  coal firing).  This indicates that S0,= is
probably associated with the larger particulates, which are more efficiently
removed  than  smaller  particulates.  The higher sulfate removal from the coal
flue gases  is explained  by the higher  particulate loading during coal firing.
      Uncontrolled  chloride and fluoride loadings were higher during coal
firing (5 and 0.2 ng/J,  respectively)  than during oil firing (0.2 and 0.02
ng/J, respectively.   This was  attributed, in the case of chlorides, to a
higher fuel chlorine  content for coal  than for oil.  Chlorides were removed
with better than 99 percent efficiency from coal flue gases and with about
51 percent efficiency from oil flue gases.  This difference was attributed
to  the higher particulate removal efficiency for coal particulates.  Fluorides
were removed with greater than 86 percent and about 87 percent efficiency for

                                      154

-------
coal and oil firing, respectively.  Uncontrolled nitrate emissions were 0.08
ng/J during oil firing, and nitrates were removed from oil flue gases with
57 percent efficiency.
Organics
     Polycyclic organic material (POM) was not found in the scrubber inlet
or outlet at detection limits of 0.3 yg/m3 for either coal or oil firing.
MATE values for most POM's are greater than this detection limit.  However,
since the MATE values for at least two POM compounds - benzo(a)pyrene and
dibenz(a,h)anthracene - are less than 0.3 ug/m^, additional GC/MS analyses at
higher sensitivity would be required to conclusively preclude the presence of
all POM's at MATE levels.
     Organic emissions for coal and oil firing were very similar.  Total
organic emissions were less than 9 ng/J (0.02 Ib/MM Btu) for both tests, and
these emissions appear to be primarily Ci to C, hydrocarbons and organics
heavier than Cig.  While uncontrolled emission rates for both coal and oil
firing are low, emissions of these organics were further reduced by about
75 ta 85 percent in the scrubber unit.
     The organic compounds identified in the gas samples from both coal and
oil firing were generally not representative of combustion-generated organic
materials, but were compounds associated with materials used in the sampling
equipment and in various analytical procedures.  This again confirms the low
level of organic emissions.
Liquid Waste
     The combined waste water stream from the boiler operation may not pose an
environmental hazard in terms of organic materials since the discharge concen-
trations of organics are well below their MATE values for both coal and oil
firing.  The same conclusion may be drawn for inorganic compounds with the
exception of cobalt, nickel, copper and cadmium for coar firing and nickel and
copper for oil firing since these metals may exceed their MATE values.
Solid Waste
     The scrubber cake produced when either fuel is burned contains concen-
trations of trace elements high enough to exceed most MATE values.  Because of

                                      155

-------
these high  concentrations the scrubber cake must be disposed of in specially
designed  landfills.
COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
     The  difference in environmental insult expected to result between coal
and oil combustion emissions from a single  controlled 10 MW industrial boiler
is insignificant.  This is because:  1)  there are only slight differences in
the emissions levels of the pollutants,  or  2)  the absolute impact of either
fuel use is insignificant.  The environmental impacts of emissions from a
cluster of controlled 10 MW industrial boilers are potentially significant.
The impacts include health effects, material damages, and ecological effects
from high levels of S02, NOX and suspended  particulate matter; health effects
and ecological damage due to trace metal accumulation in soils and plants;
and aesthetic degradation from visibility reduction and waste disposal sites.
     The  risk of environmental damage from  emissions of controlled industrial
boilers,  whether oil or coal-fired, is considerably less than the risk posed
by emissions from uncontrolled industrial boilers.  It should be noted that
this finding is based  on  an exceptional facility.  The reference facility is
very well run and maintained, and emissions are low.
     The  environmental acceptability of a cluster of controlled industrial
boilers is  more dependent on site specific  factors (e.g., background pollution
levels, location and number of other sources) than type of fuel utilized.
Careful control of  the site specific factors can avert potential environmental
damages and generally  compensate for any differential effects arising between
the use of  coal or  oil.
     With the possible exception of ambient levels of NOx, the risk of
violating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to the
operation of clusters  of  controlled industrial boilers is essentially the same
whether the fuel combusted is coal or oil.   Based on tests of the reference
10 MW boiler (which was not controlled for NOX emissions) , localized NOX con-
centrations produced by coal firing are estimated to be twice the level of
that resulting from oil firing, and greater than the levels permitted by the
NAAQS for 24-hour and one-year averaging periods.
                                      156

-------
     Short term (3-hour and 24-hour averaging times)  maximum ambient  concen^
trations present the most significant air pollution problem resulting from
operation of controlled industrial boilers.   Restrictions imposed by  the NAAQS
for short term ambient levels would be most  constraining to boiler operation
in areas where air quality is already only marginally acceptable.  Expected
long term concentrations arising from boiler emissions would not appear to
pose a risk for violation of the NAAQS.
     Coal firing appears to produce a greater enrichment of trace elements
in the flue gas desulfurization cake than oil firing produces.   However, the
scrubber cake resulting from either coal or  oil firing contains sufficient
amounts of heavy metals and toxic substances to pose difficult waste disposal
problems.
     The impact categories considered include public health, ecology, societal,
economic, and energy.  The specific findings with respect to the various
impact categories are summarized briefly below.
Health Effects
     Based on the Lundy/Grahn Model for health effects associated with
suspended sulfate levels, regional emissions levels from controlled oil or
coal-fired industrial boilers would not be expected to cause a significant
impact on regional health.  Emissions from uncontrolled boilers would result
in substantially greater levels of regional suspended sulfate levels, and the
associated health effects would be an order of magnitude greater.
     Emissions from  clusters of controlled industrial boilers are  expected
to cause significant adverse health  effects  in a localized  area  near the plant
cluster.  Oil firing would be  expected  to result in  localized health effects
about one third less severe  than  those  resulting from coal  firing.  The
increase in mortality  attributable to  either controlled  coal or  oil firing is
appreciably less  than  that associated with  uncontrolled  industrial boilers
emitting higher levels of particulates  and  SOX.
     The impact of  solid waste generation on health  is  essentially the  same
for  controlled  coal firing and oil firing,  provided  suitable land  disposal
techniques  are  employed to assure minimal leaching rates  and migration  of
trace  elements  to groundwater  and the  terrestrial  environment.
                                       157

-------
     Addition  of  cadmium to a localized environment in the quantities
produced by  clustered controlled industrial boilers may result in cadmium
concentrations in living plants approaching levels injurious to man.  Because
cigarettes contain significant cadmium levels, smokers are more apt to achieve
thresholds of  observable symptoms for cadmium exposure when consuming
additional cadmium via the food chain.
     The concentration of metals in runoff waters due to controlled oil
firing is predicted to be slightly less than that occurring from controlled
coal firing; in either case, hazard to human health by drinking water is
remote.
     Trace element emissions from clusters of controlled industrial boilers
may significantly increase local background levels in drinking water, plant
tissue, soil,  and the atmosphere;  however, the expected increases in the
levels of such elements are generally several orders of magnitude less than
allowable exposure levels.   Oil firing is  estimated to cause cadmium burdens
in plants approaching levels injurious to  man,  and coal firing may produce
plant concentrations of molybdenum which are injurious to cattle.
Ecology
     The potential for crop  damage from either controlled coal firing or oil
firing depends  greatly on ambient levels of NOX,  SC>2,  or trace element soil
concentrations.  If such levels are presently high, localized plant damage
would be expected to  occur within a 1  to 2 km range from a controlled boiler
cluster.  Leaf destruction from S02 exposure would be expected to be slightly
more severe in the vicinity  of  a cluster of controlled boilers which are coal-
fired as opposed  to oil-fired.  For boilers uncontrolled for NOX emissions,
plant damage would be expected to be  significantly greater in the vicinity of
the coal-fired cluster, owing to higher levels of ambient NOX produced.  The
likelihood of  damage occurring in  plants due to emissions of trace elements
from either controlled oil or coal firing  is remote, with the possible excep-
tion of injury due to elevated levels of molybdenum and cadmium in plant
            (
tissue resulting  from coal firing and oil  firing, respectively.
     The effect of emissions from industrial boilers on trace element burdens
in plants would be greater via soil uptake than by foliar interception.  This

                                     158

-------
is because soil concentrations are the result of accumulative  long  term
exposure to boiler emissions whereas foliar exposure is  determined  by  the
immediate deposition rate of emissions on the plant surface and the lifetime
of the leaf.
     The impact of fossil fuel combustion in controlled  oil or coal-fired
boilers on plant damage via acid precipitation would be  insignificant.   The
levels of supended sulfate (the origin of acid rain) would be  essentially  the
same whether the controlled boilers are coal or oil fired.
     Measurement and analyses of leaching rates at experimental waste disposal
sites indicate that landfills of untreated flue gas desulfurization system
scrubber cake can be constructed such that significant adverse impacts will
not occur.
Societal
     The impact of boiler emissions on corrosion in the local area near a
cluster of controlled industrial boilers would be significant.  The corrosion
rate would be slightly greater when the boilers are coal-fired.  However, the
extent of this overall impact (oil or coal)  is minor compared to that which
occurs when industrial boilers are uncontrolled.
     The increase in annual TSP and soiling  damages in the vicinity of a
cluster of  controlled industrial boilers would  result in  additional cleaning
and maintenance costs about  10 to 15  percent greater than that already
experienced in a  typical  urban area.  The  cleaning costs  may  be  slightly
greater when  the boilers  are coal-fired.
     Emissions of particulate matter  from controlled industrial  boilers would
result  in visibility reduction.   This aesthetic degradation would  occur in a
localized  area near the boiler  cluster,  and would occur to essentially the
same  extent whether the boilers  are oil  or coal-fired.
      Total  land disposal  requirements for scrubber cake waste generated by
controlled coal  firing are three times greater than those for controlled  oil
firing.   Waste disposal  of the scrubber wastes may result in  significant
depreciation of property value and aesthetic degradation in the area  of  the
 disposal site.   These  impacts would be more severe if boilers use  coal rather
 than oil.
                                      159

-------
Economic
     The differential direct economic impact between emissions from coal
firing and  oil  firing is generally insignificant with the possible exception
of some differences  occurring in a limited localized area near clusters of
boilers.  The extent of  the incremental direct economic impacts is
proportional to the  extent of the incremental environmental damages.
     Differential second order  economic impacts, such as changes in hospital
employment,  alteration of  taxes, or  changes in income, are expected to be
insignificant between emissions from controlled oil and coal-fired industrial
boilers,
Energy
     At  the present  time,  the comparative assessment of the effects of emis-
sions  from controlled oil  and coal-fired industrial boilers tends to support
the  national energy  plan for  intensified utilization of coal.  The fuel choice
of oil or coal  is a  relatively  minor issue concerning the environmental
acceptability  of controlled industrial boilers; other site specific and plant
design factors  exert a  greater effect on environmental damages.  While it was
shown that  fuel choice  caused significant differences in impacts to occur when
the  boiler  is uncontrolled for NOX emissions, these differences may be
mitigated by the addition  of  NOX control technologies with minimal overall
cost impact.
     As  concern for  environmental protection  increases, the issue may not be
whether  coal or oil  use  is more environmentally acceptable, but whether the
increasing use  of fossil fuels can be  continued at the present levels of con-
trol technology without  potential long term damages.   If it is found that long
term effects of pollution (e.g.,  trace metals accumulation, lake acidity from
acid rains)  from fossil  fuel combustion and other sources are environmentally
unacceptable, it is  clear  that  energy  use may be affected.  Energy  cost will
increase with increasing control  requirements, possibly to the level where
other cleaner forms  of energy become more competitive.
                                       160

-------
               TABLE 1.   SUMMARY OF BOILER PARAMETERS
Boiler  type:
Manufacturer:
Type of burner:
Number of burners:
Burner arrangement;
Air preheater:
Fuel:


Design steam rate:
Use:
             Oil/pulverized coal;
             face  fired;
             integral furnace;
             dry bottom
             Babcock and Wilcox, Type P-22 EL
             Circular conical
             3
             Triangular, one face
             Yes
             Number  of 6 fuel oil;
             High  volatile bituminous coal,
               Class II, Group  2, of ASTM D388
             45,000  kg/hr (100,000  Ib/hr);
             Process steam
            FEEDWATER
PRETREATMENT
   UNIT
                                                     EXHAUST
                                                     GAS TO STACK
                         EXHAUST GAS
                         TO STACK
                                     TO MUNICIPAL
                                     SEWAGE
                                     TREATMENT
                                                      LEGEND

                                                      1 - FUEL
                                                      2 - SLOWDOWN
                                                      3- FLYASI
                                                      4 - EXHAUST GAS
                                                        FGD INLET
                                                      5 - EXHAUST GAS
                                                        FGD OUTLET
                                                      6- SCRUBBER CAKE
                                                      7 - MAKE UP WATER
                                                      8 - SCRUBBER FEED SOI IDS
       Figure 1.   Diagram of boiler and  flue gas desulfurization
                   system showing sampling locations.
                                    161

-------
                                                     TABLE 2.   ANNUAL EMISSIONS
ro
Pollutant

Gaseous NOx (as N02)
S02
S03
S04*
CO
Organic: (as CH4)
C] - Cfi1'
C7 - Cl6
Cie-f
Total Participates
10,

Coal Firing
500,810
1,127,300
6,184
67,214
16,119
5,870
-=5,606
345
2,311
2,991,700
--
— •
—
--

Oil Firing
164,230
906,202
7,249
20,894
4,991
2,272
<;4,164
155
2,381
53.832
—
—
--
—
kg/year
Coal/011
3.05
1.24
0.85
3.22
3.23
2.58
.-
2.22
0.97
55.6
--
--
—
—

Coal Firing
442,520
36,800
4,157
8,110
14,497
6,377
<5,606
274
335
18.856
11,691
5,667
1,320
188

scrubber Outlet
Oil Firing
157,390
24,453
5,183
8,303
4,845
2,500
<4,164
18
392
13,686
11,359
1,642
634
0*

Coal /Oil
2.81
1.51
0.80
0.98
2.99
2.55
-*-
15.2
0.85
1.38
1.03
3.45
1.93
—
m3/year
Liquid Blowdown/Waste Water
Cooling Water
Solid Bottom Ash
Fly Ash
Scrubber Cake
•v-76,000
•^6,000
-v 778,600
•v-J ,800,000
0
-v 76,000
% 86,000
•v 7,600
*> 15,000
0
•v 1
•v 1
•\. 103
-v 120
—
-v 76,000
86,000
«. 778,600
tl, 800, 000
8,054,100
t.76,000
0*6,000
•». 7,600
t.15,000
3,011,000
'. 1
*
•v.103
•>.120
Z.67
          Assuming 100X load, 45 weeks per year (7,560 hrs/year}.
         t
          These  values represent the detection limit of the instrument used.

          These  values represent oil firing participate with a minim* of coal ash contanination.

-------
         ENVIRONMENTAL  ASSESSMENT OF
  STATIONARY SOURCE NOV CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
                     /x
                     By:

H. B. Mason, E. B. Higginbotham, R. M.  Evans,
      K.  G.  Salvesen  and  L.  R. Water!and
             Acurex Corporation
           Mountain View, CA 94042
                     163

-------
                                 ABSTRACT

     The "Environmental  Assessment of NOV Control  Technologies"  (NO  EA)
                                        A                          A
was initiated  in  1976 with  the primary objectives  to:   a)  identify potential
multimedia environmental  hazards from stationary combustion sources under
both uncontrolled and controlled (for NOX) operation;  b)  develop control
application  guidelines on the economic, energy, and operational  impacts of
meeting prescribed emission  levels, and c) identify the most cost effective
and environmentally acceptable NO  control techniques  to achieve and maintain
air quality  standards.   To  address these goals efforts have been focused
toward ranking stationary combustion sources according to potentially
hazardous pollutant emissions, field testing to fill emissions data gaps,
impact analysis to estimate  both the incremental impact of NOX control
application  and the overall  environmental hazard presented by stationary
combustion sources,  and  air  quality analysis to provide a quantitative
basis for identifying future NO  control needs.
                               A
     This paper discusses results obtained to date in each of these areas.
The results  of a  multimedia  emissions inventory for stationary sources is
presented and  emissions  projections to the year 2000 for various energy use
scenarios are  discussed.  Multimedia emissions data from a field test of a
180 MW tangential  coal fired utility boiler are discussed.  Analysis of
these data using  a  source analysis model suggest that the use of staged
combustion to  reduce NO  emissions results in an overall  decrease in poten-
                       J\
tialfsource hazard.  Estimated source population impact rankings for
stationary combustion sources are presented and discussed.  Finally, results
of air quality analysis studies are presented in light of preferred controls
to meet current and projected N02 ambient air quality standards.
                                  164

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

     The work presented in this paper was performed under Contract 68-02-2160
to the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Combustion Research Branch.   The support and assistance
of Dr. J. S. Bowen and Messrs. R. E. Hall and R.  P. Hangebranck is most
gratefully acknowledged.
     The author would also like to thank the following individuals for
their gracious help and collaboration in efforts  reported herein:  H.  Melosh
of Foster Wheeler Corp.; G. Bouton and S. Potterton of Babcock and Wilcox
Co.; G. Devine, C. Richards and J. Drenning of Combustion Engineering Co.;
F. Walsh and R. Sadowski of Riley Stoker Corp.; S. Barush of the Edison
Electric Institute; D. OelTAgnese of the Cleaver Brooks Division,
Aqua-Chem Corp.; W. Day of General Electric Co.;  S. Mosier of Pratt and
Whitney Corp., J. Crooks and G. Hollinden of the Tennessee Valley Authority
and J. Thoraasian of EEA, Inc.
                                   165

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                                 INTRODUCTION

     In 1975, the  Environmental  Protection Agency increased its emphasis on
identifying and controlling potentially hazardous waste-stream discharges
from energy systems  and  industrial processes.  This increased emphasis
resulted from recognition that a large number of multimedia (air, land,
and water) pollutants may be causing unacceptable environmental impacts.
Also, the energy supply  shortage reenforced the need for coordinated energy
system development and environmental control development.  In response, the
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratories of EPA started a major
Environmental Assessment (EA) program to guide environmental  control develop-
ment and support standards setting and regulatory policy.
     The "Environmental  Assessment of Stationary Source NO  Control  Tech-
                                                          A
nologies" (NOV EA) was started in 1976 as one of over 20 EA's sponsored by
             X
the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratories.   The need for an EA of
NOX control technology was based on the increasing use of controls for which
the side effects are uncertain,  and on the recognition that new advanced
controls will be needed  to meet  future emission standards and air quality
standards.  The three primary objectives of the NO  EA are to:
                                                  J\
     •  Identify potential multimedia environmental  hazards from stationary
        combusion  sources
        - under baseline operation without NO  controls
                                             J\
     f   - under low NO  operation
                      X
     0   Develop control  application guidelines on the economic, energy
        and operational  impacts  of meeting prescribed emission levels
     t   Identify the most cost effective and environmentally acceptable
        NOX control techniques to achieve and maintain air quality considering
                                    166

-------
        - current and anticipated air quality standards
        - alternate equipment use and fuel use scenarios to the year 2000.
     The principal products of the NO  EA are:  rankings of potentially
                                     A
hazardous pollutants for various source/control combinations; estimates of
costs and process impacts for existing and emerging control techniques for
each major stationary source; and rankings of NOV control techniques according
                                                X
to their importance in air quality maintenance now and in the future.  The
pollutant rankings are intended for use by EPA to identify control development
needs and as a data base for standards setting groups.  The source/control
cost and process data are intended for control users and regulatory  groups con-
cerned with selecting the best control for a specific application.   The NOX
control rankings are used by EPA to set control development priorities so
that controls will be available when needed in the regulatory program.
     Figure 1 shows the major NOV EA components (indicated by boxes) and
                                X
major products (indicated by ovals).  The figure also notes the sections of
the paper where results are discussed.  Results of the process engineering
effort are presented in another paper in this symposium proceedings
(Reference 1).
     The program approach shown in Figure 1 is iterative.  Initially, the
major program components were activated to help set program priorities and
to evaluate the need to develop assessment methodology.  Subsequently, more
detailed effort has focused on generating  new  results  and  evaluating results
of other assessment activities.  The chronological sequence of the program
is shown on Figure 2.  Results from the early studies on source/control
priorities, emission characterization and  impact models are documented in
References 2 through 5.  These results are currently being refined and up-
dated.  Interim results on process studies and the test program are documented
in Reference 6.  The major reports for each source type on control applica-
tion guidelines and pollutant rankings from the test program are in the
draft stage.  The first, for utility boilers will be published in Spring
1979 (Reference 7).
                                    167

-------
                                  SECTION 2
                          EMISSION CHARACTERIZATION

     Emission characterization serves to rank emission  sources and provide key
data base for impact analysis and air quality analysis.   An  emission inventory
was generated with the following features (Reference  3):
     •  gaseous, liquid and solid effluents
     §  42 equipment classes
     •  17 fuel types
     •  NO , SOX, CO, particulate, trace metals,  and  polycyclic organics
          rt
     •  nationwide and regional
     •  controlled and uncontrolled  for  NO ,  S0£,  and particulate
     •  1974, 1985, 2000
The approach is summarized below,  and  is  shown as  Figure  3.

NOV EMISSION INVENTORY
  A
     The emission factors, fuel  consumption,  and  nationwide emissions for
the year 1974 are  listed  in Table I for the 120 equipment/fuel combinations
having significant NOX emissions.  The emission factors were  taken  from field
test data and are  revised as recent results become available.   The fuel
consumption data are from Federal regulatory agencies and manufacturer  trade
groups.  These data are currently being updated to 1978.
     NO  emission rates summed by major equipment type  and fuel type are
listed on Table II.  The  total annual nationwide emissions  from  all  sta-
tionary sources sums to 12.0 Tg.  This comprises 52  percent of total  NOX
emissions, with mobile sources accounting  for 9.6 Tg/yr.  In  Table  II,  the
"utility boilers"  class includes all  field erected watertube  boilers with  a

                                     168

-------
heat input greater than 75 MW (250 MBtu/hr), while package boilers include
all industrial, commercial and residential boilers and hot water systems with
heat input below 75 MW (250 MBtu/hr).  Conventional fossil fuel combustion
accounts for 94 percent of stationary emissions and utility boilers account
for 48.3 percent.  In 1974, controls implemented for utility boilers gave
only a 3 percent NOX reduction nationwide relative to the uncontrolled util-
ity boiler estimate.  The effect of controls is increasing, however, as
sources equipped to meet the 1971 New Source Performance Standard, 301 ng/J
(0.7 Ib N02/106 Btu), are brought on line.  Although some controls were in-
stalled for gas turbines and nitric acid plants, the effect on nationwide
emissions was negligible.
     A ranking of discrete equipment type/fuel  type combinations by nation-
wide emission loadings is shown in Table III  for the 15 highest emitters.
Here, the relative ranking is due both to the emission rates  per source
and to the total installed capacity.   Tangential coal  fired utility boilers
rank first due to their high installed capacity - 11.3 percent of stationary
conventional  fossil fuel  consumption.   Large  spark ignition 1C engines rank
high due to their high emission rate:   10.5  percent of total  emission  vs
1.8 percent of fuel consumption.   Similarly,  coal  fired cyclone utility
boilers rank fourth with 7 percent of stationary emissions while accounting
for only 3.5 percent of stationary fuel  consumption.
     The nationwide emission rates and source rankings for pollutants  other
than NO  are documented in Reference 3.
       A

EMISSION PROJECTIONS
     Emission projections to the year 2000 are highly uncertain due to the
uncertainty in fuels allocation by source and national energy policy.   To
get upper and lower bounds on future NOX emissions, a high energy growth
scenario—based on continuation of future trends—and a low growth scenario
--based on the National Energy Plan—were used.  The emission projections
for the two scenarios are shown on Figures 4 and 5.  Two emission standards
scenarios are shown.  The first assumes that no additional new source  per-
formance standards would be set.   The second, moderate scenario assumes
                                     169

-------
standards will be set based on  projections  of emission  levels achievable with
technology currently under development.
     Under the high growth scenario with  no additional  standards total
emissions more than double by 2000 and stationary  emissions more than triple.
The moderate NSPS scenario partially offsets the growth but stationary emis-
sions are projected to  approximately double by 2000.  Projected mobile source
emissions actually decline in the mid-1980's as current standards affect a
larger proportion of the  auto population.   Continued  growth counterbalances
this in the  1990's however.
     Under the low growth scenario with no  additional controls projected,
total  NOX emissions increase  by 50 percent  in the  year  2000, with stationary
source emissions increasing by 70 percent.   Stationary  emissions growth is
suppressed to about 40  percent with moderate standards  based on a contin-
uation of current R&D.
                                   170

-------
                                  SECTION 3
                                TEST PROGRAM

     During compilation of the baseline emissions inventory discussed in
Section 2 and in a preliminary impact analysis of the incremental effects
of NO  controls on pollutant emissions other than NO  (Reference 2),
     f\                                              A
numerous data gaps became apparent.  Data on the effects of NO  combustion
                                                              A
controls on emission levels of noncriteria flue gas pollutants and liquid
and solid effluents were virtually nonexistent.  To address these data
needs a field test sampling and analysis program was conducted.
     Based on the results of the preliminary source impact ranking performed
in the first year of the NO  EA (Reference 2) a series of 19 candidate field
                           A
tests were identified.  From the 19 potential tests, seven were selected
and tested.  A summary of these seven tests is given in Table IV.  Where
possible, the NO  EA tests were done as an augmentation to planned or on-
                /\
going tests.
     For each test the following environmental assessment sampling protocol
was followed:
     •  Continuous monitoring of flue gas NOX, SOg, CO, C02, and 02
     0  Flue gas Source Assessment Sampling System  (SASS), EPA Method 5
        particulate load, and EPA Method 8  (or equivalent) sulfur species
        sampling; both upstream and downstream of the particulate collector,
        if applicable
     •  Flue gas grab sampling and onsite gas chromatographic analysis
        for C-J-C5 hydrocarbons; both upstream and downstream of the
        particulate collector, if applicable
     •  Bottom ash slurry sampling
     •  Particulate collector hopper ash (slurry) sampling
                                     171

-------
     t  Fuel and fuel additive,  if applicable,  sample  collection
     §  Operating data collection
 As noted  in Table IV, the test program was conducted,  as a minimum,
 for at least two conditions  of source  operation:   baseline  (uncontrolled)
 and low NO  operation.  In several  instances, operation  at  intermediate
          J\
 levels of NOX  control  was tested.   In  addition, replicate testing was per-
 formed in selected cases.
     A key part of the test  program involved close monitoring of source
operating data.  This  was done not  only to ensure  that test conditions
remained constant and  representative of acceptable source operation over
the duration of sample collection,  but also to provide the  necessary input
to further process analysis  efforts.
     Subsequent laboratory chemical  analyses of samples  collected generally
 followed IERL-RTP Level  1 environmental assessment procedures (Reference 8).
Atomic absorption spectroscopy was employed to determine the concentration
of the 23 commonly occurring elements  listed in Table  V. The organic anal-
yses were extended,  when feasible, to  the  determination  of  the 11 polycyclic
organic compounds (POM)   listed in Table VI.
     Following the EA analysis procedures, the following data could be
obtained for each test point:
     t  Continuous  flue gas  NOX, S02,  CO,  C02> and 0£
     •  Flue gas SOg, S03,  and speciated C,-Cg hydrocarbon
     t  Flue gas particulate load and  size distribution
     t  Flue gas vapor phase trace element composition for  the 23 elements
        listed in Table  V
     •   Flue gas >C; organic composition in terms  of seven  compound polarity
        fractions and  flue gas POM composition for the 11 POM species listed
        in  Table VI
    •   Particulate  composition  for the 23 elements listed  in Table V and
     r  the  six ionic  species listed in Table VII, as  a  function of partic-
        ulate size
     •   Particulate  organic  composition for seven polarity  fractions, and for
        the  11  POM species listed  in Table VI, as a function  of particulate
        size
     t   Liquid/solid stream  (bottom, hopper ash) composition  for the 23 elements
        listed  in Table  V and the  six  ionic species listed  in Table VII
                                    172

-------
     •  Liquid/solid stream (bottom, hopper ash)  organic  composition  for
        seven polarity fractions and for the 11  POM species  listed  in
        Table VI
     •  Parti oil ate and ash C and H content
     t  Fuel proximate and ultimate analysis (heating value, and  water,
        C, H, 0, N, and S content)
     •  Fuel trace element content for the 23 elements listed in  Table V
     In addition to the chemical analysis program, bioassay testing in
accordance with IERL-RTP Level 1 guidelines (Reference 9) were performed on
samples collected during the gas turbine, oil-fired utility boiler, second
coal-fired utility boiler, and second coal-fired industrial stoker tests.
The general bioassay protocol followed is indicated in Table VIII.
     The field test program was completed in September 1978, and chemical
and biological analyses are nearing completion.   As the analyses are
completed, they are combined with the process engineering results to give
the composite environmental, energy, efficiency, and operational  impacts
of NO  combustion modification controls.
     X
     The analysis results for the flue gas stream of a 180 MW tangentially
fired utility boiler are summarized on Table IX.  Two levels of NOX reduction
were tested.  Retrofit bias firing gave a 32 percent NO  reduction, and
                                                       A
operation with the upper row of nozzles on air only gave a  38 percent NOX
reduction.  The furnace efficiency either remained constant or increased
slightly  (due to  lower excess air) under low NOX operation.  There was no
appreciable  increase  in carbon-in-flyash with NOX  controls.  It  should be
mentioned  that  these  tests  were for  short periods, so the long term  oper-
ability under these low NO   conditions  was  not  necessarily  validated.
                          J\
      For  the majority of  elements listed  in Table  IX, the changes  in emission
rates  between baseline operation and low  NOX firing  were within  the  accuracy
of  the analysis and are not judged to be  significant.  Notable exceptions
are the Teachable nitrates  and  ammonium compounds.   Here, it is  possible
that local  fuel  rich  conditions under low NOX  operation  suppresses reduced
nitrogen  compound oxidation normal to baseline  operation.
      The  organics analyses  yielded only general  conclusions.  Following
the prescribed  environmental  assessment sampling  and analysis protocol,

                                     173

-------
there was not a sufficient amount of organic  material  in any of the samples
to warrant fractionation by liquid chromatography.   The mass spectral
analyses of the fractions resulting from  the  liquid  chromatography were,
thus, not performed.
     The general results of the organic analyses  show  that  organic emissions
were slightly higher in the low NOV,  burners  out  of  service, test.  The
                                  A
organic material concentrations in the bottom ash, mechanical  collector ash,
electrostatic precipitator ash, and the flue  gas  outlet (vapor phase)  were
higher for low NOV  firing.   The flue  gas outlet particulate organic content
                 /\
was slightly  higher in  the normal  firing test.  Although organic emissions
were low in these tests, there is  a need to conduct  more quantitative  organic
analyses due to the relative hazards  posed by certain  organic  compounds.
                                   174

-------
                                 SECTION 4
                              IMPACT ANALYSIS

     Two pollutant impact models have been developed and applied.  The first
is a single source analysis model (Reference 5) used to screen emissions
data and highlight those pollutant species emitted in sufficient quantity to
be potentially hazardous.  The second model is a population exposure model
which approximates the hazard from all sources of a given type nationwide.
This model is used to rank sources on the basis of potential environmental
impact.

SINGLE SOURCE SCREENING MODEL
     For purposes of screening pollutant emissions data to identify species
requiring further study, a Potential Degree of Hazard (PDOH) is defined as
follows:
          pnnu  - concentration of pollutant i- in effluent stream
            u l          "allowable   effluent  concentration
The "allowable" effluent concentration is, in general, the defined Threshold
Limit Value for the pollutant, which is the maximum pollutant concentration
considered safe for occupational exposure.  When PDOH exceeds unity, more
refined chemical analysis may be required to quantify specific compounds
present.
     To compare waste stream potential hazards, a Potential Toxic Unit
Discharge Rate is defined as follows:
                   PTUDR =(£) PDOH^) x Mass Flow rate,
                            •i
where the potential degree of hazard is summed over all species analyzed.
The PTUDR is an indicator of throughput of hazardous pollutants and can be
used to rank the needs for controls for waste streams.

                                  175

-------
     This model was applied to  the  analysis  results  for the 180 MW tangential
coal fired utility boiler discussed in  Section  3.  Table X lists the PDOH
values for those inorganic species  or compounds where PDOH > 1  for one of
the three tests.  It is evident that the  gaseous pollutants, particularly
S02 and NOX dominate the potential  toxicity  of  the flue gas stream.  Of
the trace metals, arsenic shows the highest  PDOH, but none of the metals
showed any Targe change under low NOX conditions.  As may be expected, $03
decreased under low NOX operation and reduced N compounds increased.
     The  potential  toxic unit discharge rate for the inorganic component
of four waste  streams  of the boiler are compared in  Table XI.  It is evident
that the  flue  gas stream dominates  the  PTUDR.   Here, the PTUDR reduction
with biased firing and BOOS is  primarily  due to the  decrease in NOX concen-
tration in the flue gas.  The PTUDR's for the other  waste streams either
decreased, or were constant when going  to low NOX firing.  As mentioned in
Section 3, more data are needed for waste stream organic composition before
the degree of hazard,  relative  to inorganics, can be estimated.

POPULATION IMPACT MODEL
     To estimate population exposed to  potentially hazardous pollutant levels
from stationary combustion sources, a population impact model was developed.
The impact model includes the following factors:
     •  Multipollutant emission estimates for each source type (NOX, SOX,
        CO, HC, particulates, trace metals,  polycyclic organics).
     •  Emission dispersion accounting  for stack height and multiple area
        sources.
     t  Population density in the  source  proximity.
     •  Estimates of permissible ambient  concentrations.
     •  Ambient background concentrations.
An impact factor was defined as:
where*, P = population density,
       x = ground level pollutant concentration,
                                  176

-------
     x.  = ambient background pollutant concentration  from  other sources,
     x  = maximum permissible concentration,  and
      m
      A = affected area as defined by the dispersion  approximation.
Equation (1)  was computed for a single source of each equipment/fuel  type
and for each  pollutant species.  The impact factor was then summed over all
sources of a  given type nationwide, and over all pollutant species from
each source.
     Emission dispersion was approximated by a Gaussian plume model  for
large point sources (Reference 10), and by a multi-source mixing  model  for
area sources  (Reference 11).  The spatial variations  in population  density
and ambient background were approximated by defining  urban and rural  regions
based on data from the US Bureau of Census and the National Emissions Data
System (NEDS).  Equation (1) was calculated separately for each equipment/
fuel type in a rural area and in an urban area.  The  nationwide impact
factor was computed from estimates of the total capacity of each  equipment
type which were in predominantly urban areas and in predominantly rural
areas.
     The nationwide NO  impact rankings, normalized to the highest ranking
source, are listed in Table XII for the top 17 sources.  By comparison to
the emissions ranking in Table III, it is evident that several sources,
notably  1C engines, rank lower in impact than  in emission  loadings.  This
is largely because these sources are located in rural areas where both
population density and ambient background concentrations  are  low.  By con-
trast, in an urban area where  the background concentration  is a significant
percentage of the permissible  limit, the presence of  a large  point source
can cause the limit to be exceeded  over  an extensive  area.
     The multispecies  impact ranking,  which  includes  species  in addition
to NO  and is shown in Table XIII,  shows utility boilers  with a much lower
overall  ranking  compared  to the  NOX impacts  (Table XII).   This is primarily
because  the  total multispecies  impact  is dominated by trace metals in the
particulate, and  utility  boilers are efficiently controlled for particu-
late emissions.   Package  boilers,  however, are less  efficiently controlled
and  thus  rank higher  in estimated  impact.  As  expected, coal  and heavy oil
are  responsible  for the highest  multispecies  impacts.
                                  177

-------
                                 SECTION  5
                            AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

     The purpose of the air quality analysis  is to provide  a quantitative
basis for identifying the future needs (when, where,  how much,  and what
kind) for NO  controls to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
This information can then be used to recommend R&D directions and schedules
for developing necessary controls.  In the air quality analysis, uncontrolled
emissions projections, controls cost and effectiveness data, fuel costs,
and ambient air quality goals are combined to evaluate the  control needs for
a particular Air Quality Control  Region (AQCR).
                                                                  3
     Currently the only NOV related ambient goals are the 100 yg/m  annual
                              3
average for ML and a 160 yg/m  1-hour standard for oxidant.  In addition,
the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 require  EPA  to determine the need for
a short term NO^ standard.   To date, no short term standard has been pro-
posed;  although, EPA is known to be considering a 1-hour standard for NO,
                         o                                               <-
between 200 and 1000 vg/m .   Although we have considered both the oxidant
and potential N02 short term standards in  our analysis, the primary focus
for the present discussion is the N02 annual average  standard (Reference 6).
     To allow us to examine a large number of growth/control scenarios for
a variety of AQCR's. we selected a modified form of rollback for an air quality
model.  (The applicability of rollback for this type  of analysis was somewhat
justified by two different analyses using  the photochemical models LIRAQ and
DIFKIN (Reference 6)).  This reduced the amount of emission data needed,
minimized computational costs, and  provided maximum flexibility in the analy-
sis.  Furthermore, only the N0x/N02 relationship  was  considered; thus, HC
emissions data collection was not required.   The  primary sources of emissions
                                     178

-------
and fuel use data were the National Emissions Data System and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Federal Power Commission) annual  reports.
     In the rollback formulation employed it was possible to specify the
relative importance of each source type by using a source weighting factor.
Each choice of weighting factors is equivalent to choosing a different air
quality model for the AQCR.  The utility of the model was further increased
by testing the sensitivity of the results to the input values.   Control
strategies were developed for numerous combinations of stationary and mobile
source growth, base year calibration, and source weighting factors for each
AQCR.  (These are briefly described on Tables XIV and XV.)  This ensured
that the predicted control requirements would be responsive to the majority
of NO  critical situations that might develop.
     ^
     Over 20 different emissions growth/source weighting combinations for
eight AQCRs, listed in Table XVI, were considered.  The eight AQCRs were
selected to represent a variety of source category, fuel use, and mobile/
stationary source mixes.
     The variety of emissions source growth scenarios, mobile control
schedules, and AQCRs, resulted in predicted uncontrolled (no stationary
source controls beyond current NSPS) NO  emissions changes relative to 1973
                                       A
emissions of -6 percent to +3 percent in 1985 and of +5 percent to +50 per-
cent in 2000.  The relatively small spread in 1985 emissions reflects the
relatively small impact of different mobile source control possibilities
between now and 1985.  The very large spread  in 2000 reflects the different
projected impacts from low stationary source  growth with very strict mobile
control and high stationary source growth  (~3 percent  per year) with nominal
mobile growth and control compounded over  28  years.
     Changes in ambient concentration corresponding  to  the above emissions
changes, ranged between -12 and +3 percent for  1985 and zero to +43 percent
in the year 2000.   (The zero percent lower limit applies only to heavily
mobile dominated AQCRs with an extremely effective mobile control program.)
Since these results are from a variety of  AQCRs, they are representative of
the  range of expected change in ambient  concentration for all AQCRs.  These
calculated changes  in ambient concentration  do  not exactly follow the
                                   179

-------
 percent  changes  in emissions since the use of the source weighting factors
 in the air quality model can reduce or increase the impact of emissions
 growth of selected sources.
      The level of NO   control required to offset the increase in ambient
                    /\
 concentration depends  on the initial value (1973) of the annual  average NCL
 concentration, the relative impact assigned to each source, and  the mobile/
 stationary mix.   Based on  results for all the AQCRs considered,  a conservative
 estimate is that at least  four AQCRs will need significant application of
 combustion modification NO controls to attain the annual  average N02 stan-
 dard  by  1985.  By the  year 2000 this number will conservatively  increase to
 15, of which one-half  would also need implementation of advanced controls
 such  as  ammonia  injection  and possibly flue gas treatment.   A 25 percent
 increase in annual average fKL level by the year 2000 is most representative
 of expected changes; therefore, any AQCR with a 1973 annual average greater
 than  80  yg/m3 would exceed 100 yg/m3 by 2000.
      Specific results  from the matrix of control needs calculations for two
 AQCRs are shown  in Tables  XIV and XV.  The growth scenarios, source weight-
 ing factors, and base  year calibration for each case are shown in the
                                              o
 Tables.   Control  requirements to meet 100 yg/m  or ambient levels, if less
              3
 than  100  yg/m ,  are shown  for 1985 and 2000 for each case.   The  required NO
                                                                           J\
 control  levels,  indicated  by 0, 1, 2, 3 and V, are described in  Table XVII.
 Controls  are applied in the most cost-effective manner,  and new  controls are
 introduced,  if required, at the time (year) they are assumed to  be developed.
      The San Francisco  AQCR is representative of those AQCRs which are not
 currently nonattainment areas for NO- but which could become so  in the
 future.   Emissions of  NO   in the region are heavily dominated by mobile
                        J\
 sources  (-70 percent).  The results shown in Table XIV are  representative
 of mobile  source  dominated AQCRs with 1973 concentrations  in the range of
              2
 75  to 100 yg/m .  The  dominance of mobile sources is clearly indicated by
 the significant reduction  in 1985 concentrations in all  cases and by the
 results for the low mobile cases in both 1985 and 2000.   The results for the
 high 6ase year concentration (BYR = 101  yg/m3) show that a  mobile dominated
AQCR that is near nonattainment now will  need the maximum amount of com-
bustion modification NO., control  by the  year 2000.   Furthermore, if
                                  180

-------
powerplants are not a significant contributor to the annual  average (power-
plant weighting factor of 0.2), then even more NO  control  will  be required.
                                                 /\
     St. Louis is representative of an industrialized region dominated  by
stationary sources (75 percent) with coal firing as a significant source of
NO  (72 percent of stationary source NO  is from coal-fired sources).
  A                                    A
Results for St. Louis are shown in Table XV.  The relatively minor impact
of different mobile source growth and control scenarios is illustrated  by
comparing the nominal growth and low mobile cases.  Similarly, high station-
ary growth begins to have significant impact by the year 2000, even for the
low base year concentration (76 vg/m ).  The difference in control require-
ments between mobile and stationary source dominated AQCRs is further
illustrated by comparison of the low base year cases for St. Louis and  San
Francisco.  The base year concentration is the same, but the ambient levels
or control requirements in the year 2000 are much different.
     A significant feature of these results, which are typical of stationary
source dominated AQCRs, is that although no NO  controls are needed in  1985,
                                              J\
considerable NO  control is required by the year 2000, even though the
               X
present ambient level is well below the annual average standard.
     It should be emphasized that these conservative estimates are used to
compensate for the extreme uncertainty in the monitoring data and the
inherent errors in the assumptions of the model.  It should also be noted
that conservative growth rates and a successful mobile control program are
"built-in" to the estimates.  All of this is to say that the above should
be considered an optimistic view of future NOV control needs to meet the
                                             A
present annual average standard.
     In addition to our  investigation of NOV  control  requirements to meet
                                            A
the annual average standard, we have also considered  the impact of a one-
hour N02  standard  (Reference 6).  Recent studies  performed by EPA have
shown  that high short  term N02 concentrations  come about through any one of
several paths:
     t   Area source  emissions  (both mobile  and  dispersed stationary
          sources)
                                   181

-------
      t    Isolated point sources with multiple combustors  impacting on a
           single site
      t    Multiple point sources impacting  on  the  same  receptor
      •    Both area and point sources with  all  sources  contributing to high
           concentrations
      •    Terrain impaction by a plume from a  large point  source
 The relative importance of these paths is highly dependent on  both  the
 level which is established as the short term standard and  the  relative con-
 tribution of each source type to the short  term NOp levels.  Moreover, the
 NO
   x
control requirements may be significantly different for each path.
      Point source impacts were analyzed by modeling a series of prototypic
 combustion plants ranging in size  and operating parameters corresponding  to
 various source categories (e.g., utility boilers, industrial boilers, and
 furnaces).  The plants were analyzed individually, using a simple Gaussian
 dispersion model and meteorological conditions associated with ground level
 maximum N02, to assess the air quality impacts of all respective NO
 sources in the NEDS file.  Conversion of NO to N02 was approximated from
 consideration of the time to maximum ground level impact and the background
 N02 level, which was determined from N02 monitoring information within
 individual AQCRs.
     Area  sources were analyzed by considering the available monitoring
 data (Reference  12).   All  those AQCRs estimated to have current one-hour
 N02 levels above 200  ug/m  were included in the analysis.
     Based on  these two analyses, conservative estimates of the number of
 AQCRs that would currently  be  in violation of various levels of a one-hour
 N02 standard are:   1000 yg/m3  - 6, 500 pg/m3 - 30, and 250 ug/m3 - 120.   By
 1982 the estimated  number of violators could slightly decrease, depending on
source growth and control.  Beyond 1982 estimates are heavily dependent on
growth and control assumptions.  Control  requirements for attainment in
case of the above standards range from combustion modifications to FGT and
are yery site specific.
                                  182

-------
     Another aspect of the air quality analysis has considered the inter-


action of NO  and HC controls on both NCL and ozone.  Photochemical  model-


ing results indicate that control of NO  only does not provide as  much
                                       A

reduction in the NOp peak as simultaneous control of NO  and HC.   Further-


more, control of NO  only aggravates the ozone problem for conditions like
                   A

those in many nonattainment areas for ozone.  Any control strategy for  NO
                                                                        J\

must also consider HC control and the resultant impact on both short and


long term N02 levels, as well as the ozone levels.
                                    183

-------
                                 SECTION 6

                                  SUMMARY


     The preceding sections  have discussed  results obtained to date in

several related tasks of the N02 Control Technology Environmental Assessment
Program.  In summary it can  be concluded that:

     t  Based on a 1974 emissions inventory, stationary sources accounted
        for 52 percent of nationwide NOX emissions.  Utility boilers
        contributed 48.3 percent of the stationary source emissions and
        represented seven of the ten most significant emitter categories.
     t  Projections to the year 2000 indicate that, under a high energy
        growth scenario with no emissions standards beyond the 1971 NSPS,
        nationwide NOX emissions more than double and stationary source
        emissions more than  triple.  Under a low energy growth scenario
        with moderate promulgation of new standards stationary emission
        growth is held to about 40 percent.

     •  Multimedia field test data on a 180 MM tangential coal fired
        utility boiler indicate that applying staged combustion through
        removing burners from service has neglibible effects on emission of
        most pollutant species  other than NOX.  However, S03/S04= emissions
        decreased and reduced nitrogen compound (Nfy*) emission increased
        with low NOX  operation.

     •  Application of a source analysis model to the utility boiler field
        test data indicate that total potential source environmental impact
        decreases under low  NOX operation.   Though not discussed above,
        analysis  data  obtained  in tests of an industrial stoker fired boiler
        substantiate  this conclusion.

    t  Results of an  impact ranking taking  into account installed capacity,
       pollutant dispersion, and population density indicate that specific
       utility boiler equipment categories  represent the nine most potentially
       hazardous stationary  sources  with respect to NOX emissions alone.
       When trace metals, particulate,  SOX, CO, HC,  and polycyclic organic
      r species are incorporated into the analysis stoker fired packaged
       boilers displace utility boilers  as  three of the top ten most
       potentially hazardous source categories.
                                 184

-------
Air quality analyses suggest that the number of N02 nonattainment
regions will steadily increase, even with a highly successful
mobile control program.  By 2000 at least 15 AQCR's will  require
extensive application of combustion modification NOX controls  and
several will require ammonia injection or FGT.  Furthermore, a short
term N02 standard much less than 1000 yg/m3 would significantly
increase the requirements for NOX control.

The air quality analysis results also indicate that the impact of
any NOX control strategy on both N02 and ozone levels must be
carefully considered for each specific application.
                          185

-------
                                 REFERENCES


  1.  Water-land, L. R., K. J. Lim and R. J. Schreiber, "Status of NOX  Control
     Implementation for Utility Boilers," paper presented at this Symposium.

  2.  Mason, H. B., e_t aK, "Preliminary Environmental Assessment of Combustion
     Modification Techniques:  Volume II, Technical Results," EPA-600/7-77-
     119b, NTIS PB-276 681/AS, October 1977.

  3.  Salvesen, K. G., et al., "Emissions Characterization of Stationary NO
     Sources,"  EPA-600/7-78-120a, June 1978.                              x

  4.  Waterland, L. R., et aj_., "Environmental  Assessment of Stationary Source
     NOX Control Technologies — First Annual  Report," EPA-600/7-78-046,
     NTIS  PB-279 083/AS, March 1978.

  5.  Schalit, L. M. and Wolfe, K. J., "SAM/IA:  A  Rapid  Screening Method for
     Environmental Assessment of Fossil Energy Process Effluents,"  EPA-600/7-
     78-015, February 1978.

  6.  Waterland, L. R., e_t a]_., "Environmental  Assessment of Stationary Source
     NOX Control Technologies -- Second Annual Report."   In press.

 7.  Lim, K. J., et al_., "Environmental Assessment of Utility Boiler Com-
     bustion Modification NO  Controls,"  In press.
                            A
 8.  Hamersma, J. W., e_t al_., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:   Level  1  Environ-
     mental Assessment," EPA-600/2-76-160a, NTIS PB-257  850/AS,  June 1976.

 9.  Duke, K. M., ejt al_., "IERL-RTP Procedures Manual:   Level  1  Environmental
     Assessment Biological Tests for Pilot Studies,"  EPA-600/7-77-043,
     NTIS PB-268 484/3BE, April 1977.

10.  Turner, D. B,, "Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion  Estimates,"  National
     Air Pollution Control Association, 1969.

11.  Holzworth,  G.   "Missing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air
     Pollution throughout the Contiguous United States." Office of Air
     Programs,  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  January 1972.

12.  Thuilliers, R.  W. and W. Viezee, "Air Quality Analysis in Support of
     a Short-Term Nitrogen Dioxide Standard,"  Draft Report, SRI International,
     December 1977.
                                     186

-------
                                                          EmlMlon
                                                          CtwrKtorluUon
                                                          (Section 2)
00
Compw EmMMont
•nd Proem Dita
                                          lor PrtocHy

(8MMon4>
HMtlhM*
Ecatogte*
Ootft



                                                                                                        Moil effective
                                                                                                       Control Option*
                                                                                                     for Air Ouillty Godt
                                                             Figure  1.   NOX  EA program elements.

-------
   1976
                       1977
1978
1979
                  1980
Goals:
Develop
Priorities,
Methodologies


Implement
Methodologies


Support
User
Needs
                                             Implement
                                               CCEA
                                               Goals
 Activities:
Emission
Characterization;
Impact Models


Tests,
Process
Studies


Impact
Assessments


Air Quality
Analysis
                                                                                           \
                                                 Updates &
                                                  Advanced
                                                 Technology
                                                                                               \
       Results:
Source/
Control
Rankings,
Priorities


EA
Data
Base


Standards
Needs;
Application
Guidelines


R&D
Priorities
                                                                                                  \
                                                      Updated
                                                     Standards &
                                                       Control
                                                       Needs
                         Figure 2.   N0» EA chronological  sequence.

-------
                Develop emission
              factors (uncontrolled,
                   controlled)
                  Define fuel
                  consumption
              (nationwide,  reoional)
                 Determine  urban/
                 rural  equipment
                   distribution
Controlled emission
  inventory (1974)
 National/reoional
baseline  emissions
 inventory  (19/4)
                           Oetennine urban/
                           rural population
                                density
00
CO
                 Develop control
                   application
                    scenarios
                           Project emission
                                factors
Input data
   for
  Impact
 analysis
Develop fuel
use scenarios


Project equipment
use distribution


Project fuel
consumption
                                                                                                       Con trol1ed emt ss1on
                                                                                                            inventory
                                                                                                           (1985. 2000)
                                          Figure  3.   Emission characterization.

-------
                                     Additional
                                  Standards
                                    derate  NSPS
   1974   1980  1985  1990 1995  2000
Figure 4.   NO  emission projections -
            • A
           high  growth scenario.
   40
   30
20
   10
               Total
              Mobile
          j	i     i     i
                               No Additional
                               Standards
                               Moderate NSPS
   0
  1974  1980  1985  1990  1995  2000


Figure 5.   NOX emission projections  -
           low growth scenario.
                  190

-------
TABLE I.   STATIONARY  SOURCE FUEL CONSUMPTION AND  NOX EMISSIONS -  1974



Equipment Type
Utility loiltrs












































Packaged Bo 11 er»











Firing Type
Tangential Boilers








Hill Fired Boilers, Dry








Mill Fired Boilers, Met



Opposed Wall Boilers. Dry








Opposed Hill Boilers. Wet



Cyclone Boilers






Vertical I Stoker Boilers


U«ll Fired H-Tube >29.3 «*



Stoker U-Tube >W.3 »*
Single turner W-T <29.3 NX*






Fuel Type
Eastern Btlualn.
Central B1ti»1n.
Western BltuBtn.
Lignite
High S Res. 011
Ned S Res. 011
Low S Res. Oil
outturn on
Natural Gas
Cistern BHunin.
Central BUiOTln.
Western BUuBtn.
Lignite
High S Res. Oil
Ned S Res. Oil
Lou S Res. Oil
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Eastern BttiMin.
Central BUiwtn.
Western Bltu»1n.
Lignite
Eastern BltuMln.
Central Bitumln.
Western B1tu»ln.
Lignite
High S Res. 011
Ned S Res. 011
Low S Res. Oil
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Eastern BHunm.
Central BituBln.
Western BHj»1n.
Lignite
Eastern Sttunln.
Central Bttuain.
Lignite
High S Res. Oil
Ned S Res. Oil
Low S Res. Oil
Natural Gas
Anthracite
Eastern B1tua1n.
Central B1tu»1n.
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Process Gas
Slt/Llg Coal
Residual OD
B1t/L1g Coal
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Process Gas
Blt/Ltg Coal
Residual 011


Fuel Usage
(N)
2624.0
1&84.0
869.0
53.0
196.0
492.0
636.0
36.0
1134.0
1051.0
63S.O
348.0
S.O
196.0
493.0
637.0
169.0
2453.0
461.0
• 279.0
153.0
6.0
293.0
176.0
97.0
9.0
79.0
199.0
2S8.0
15.0
1258.0
130.0
78.0
43.0
12.0
156.0
1292.0
137.0
12.0
28.0
37.0
61.0
109.0
110.0
110.0
85.0
928.0
130.0
510.0
637.0
466.0
103.0
1690.0
130.0
317.0
595.0
Baseline
C*iss
-------
                                  TABLE I.    Continued
Equipment Type
Package* tollers
(Continued)



H«r*i Air
Furnaces
Gas Turbines
Reciprocating 1C
Engine
r
Firing Type
Scotch Firetube <29.3 W*
Flrebo* Firetube <29.3 ttf
Stoker Fired M-T <29.3 HI*
Cast Iron
Stoker F-T <29.3 »•
«T <29.3 *•
Res /Cow Stew I Hot Htter
War* Air Central Furnace
War* Air Space Heater
Miscellaneous Combustion
.Staple Cycle >15Wb
Sl«ple Cycle 4.0 to 15 *b
Staple Cycle <4.0Wb
C.I. >75k«/cylb
S.I. > 75 kM/cyl b
C.I. 75 kM to 75 k«/cylb
S.I. 75 KM to 75 k*/c/lb
S.I. <75 k«b
Fuel Type
Distillate 011
Natural Gas
Process Gas
Residual Oil
Distillate 041
Natural Gas
Process Cas
Residua! Oil
Anthracite
>1t/Llg Coal
DUt 11 lite Oil
Natural Cas
Residual Oil
Anthracite
Bit/llg Coal
Distillate 041
Natural Gas
Residual Oil
Anthracite
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
IH/Llg Coal
Residual 011
Natural Gas
Oil
Natural Gas
Oil
Natural Gas
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Distillate 011
Natural Gas
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Distillate Oil
Dual (oil I gas)
Natural Gas
Distillate 011
Natural Gas
Gasoline
Gasoline
Fuel Usaoe
(N)
446.0
972.0
19.0
94S.O
403.0
899.0
19.0
609.0
31.0
1S33.0
181. 0
264.0
195.0
42.0
SS6.0
263.0
S3S.O
370.0
14.0
880.0
737.0
11.0
69.0
3091.0
1405.0
1451.0
727.0
1000.0
264.0
212.0
S79.0
468.0
1.0
1.0
54.0
70.0
813.0
129.0
43.0
84.0
49.0
last line
Emission
Factors
(nj *yj)
67.5
98.9
98.0
184.0
67.5
98.9
98.9
184.0
179.0
179.0
67.5
51.6
184.0
179.0
179.0
67.5
98.9
184.5
179.3
55.0
34.4
179.3
162.0
34.4
61.0
34.4
61.0
34.4
365.0
195.0
365.0
194.0
365.0
194.0
1741.0
1023.0
1552.0
1741.0
1552.0
119S.O
774.0
Total NOi
Emissions
(69 N0?)
30.1
96.1
1.9
173.9
27.2
88.9
1.9
112.1
3.8
274.4
12.2
13.6
35.9
7.5
99.5
17. B
52.9
66.3
2.5
48.4
25.4
2.0
11.2
106.3
85.7
49.9
44.3
34.4
96.4
41.3
211.3
90.8
.4
.2
94.0
71.6
1261.8
224.6
66.7
100.4
37.9
*Heat Input
bShaft output
CCI • compression  Ignition; SI • spark Ignition
                                               T957
192

-------
                                 TABLE  I.    (Concluded)



Equipment Tj»p«
Ind. Process
CoBfeustlon















Firing Type
Ceaent Kilns
Gltss Melting Furnaces
Class Annealing lehrs
Coke Oven Under f1 re
Steel Sintering Machines
Open Hearth furnace (oil)
Irlck 1 Ceraatc Kilns
Cat Cracking (FCCU)
Refinery Fives
Iron I Steel Flares
Kef. HTB. Hat. Draft.
Hef. HTR. Mat. Draft.
«ef. HTR. For. Draft.
«ef. HTB. For. Draft.



Fuel Type
Processed Mat*
Processed Nat'
Processed Nat'
Processed Nat'
Processed Hat'
Processed Nat'
Processed Nat'
Processed Nat'
Processed Nat'l
Processed Nat'l
«4S
Oil
fas
Oil


Production
(Tg)
76.96
15.42
15.42
57.01
48.51
32.27
31.58
2294. Oa
7.8'
.3'
1119.0.
256.5*
128.2*
W.6*
Baseline
Emi ssi on
Factors
g/kg product
1.3
3.68
0.69
0.07
0.52
0.62
0.25
.2b
l.Od
1.0d
70. lf
154. 8f
no.5f
184. 5f
Total NOV
X
Emissions
(Gg M02)
xoo.o
56.7
10.6
4.0
25.2
20.0
7.9
45.9
7.8
0.3
78.4
W.7
14.2
14.9
*108t feed
bg/l  fe«d
 production Is  not quantifiable, estimate of K)]|  Is aa4«  In fuel  consumption  coluan
*PJ
fng/J
T-9S7
                                             193

-------
TABLE II.   SUMMARY  OF 1974 STATIONARY SOURCE N0xa  EMISSIONS BY  FUEL  TYPE
Sector
Utility Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Harm Air Furnaces
Gas Turbines
Reciprocating 1C
Engines
Industrial Process
Heating
None ombust ion
Incineration
Fugitive
Total
NO Production Gg/yr
(X of total)
Coal
3810
(31.7)
781
(6.5)
—
~
—
—
~
—
—
4591
(38.2)
Oil
848
(7.0)
886
(7.4)
130
(1.1)
308
(2.6)
456C
(3.8)
--
—
—
—
2628
(21.8)
Gas
1156
(9.6)
779
(6.5)
190
(1.6)
132
(1.1)
1400d
(11.6)
—
—
—
—
3653
(30.4)
Total by
Sector
(X of total)
5810
(48.3)
?446
(20.3)
320
(2.7)
440
(3.7)
1856
(15.4)
426
(3.5)
193
(1.6)
40
(0.3)
498
(4.2)
12,029
(100.0)
Cumulative
(X)
48.3
68.6
71.3
75.0
90.4
93.9
95.5
95.8
100.0

         *HO? basis
         t  £
         Includes steam and hot water conmercial and residential heating
         units
         cIncludes gasoline
         Includes dual fuels (oil and gas)
                                      194

-------
                      TABLE III.   NOX   MASS  EMISSION  RANKING OF STATIONARY COMBUSTION  EQUIPMENT
                                    FOR  1974
en
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Sector
Utility Boilers
Reciprocating 1C
Engines
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Reciprocating 1C
Engines
Utility Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Utility Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Equipment Type
Tangential
>75 kM/cy1c
Hall Firing
Cyclone Furnace
Hall Firing
Hall Firing
Horizontally Opposed
75 kU to 75 kU/cylc
Horizontally Opposed
Uatertube >29 MUb
Uatertube Stoker <29 MM*
Uatertube >29 HUb
Tangential
Firetube Scotch
Uatertube <29 MWb
Fuel
Coal
Gas
Coal
Coal
Gas
Oil
Gas
01 ld
Coal
Gas
Coal
Oil
Oil
Oil
Gas
Annual
HOX (Mg)
1.410.000
1,262,000
1.137.000
848.300
646.800
458.300
352,200
325,000
324.500
318,500.
278,170
232.480
205.100
203.900
180.000
Cumulative
(Hg)
1.410.000
2.672.000
3.809,000
4,657.300
5.304.100
5.762.400
6.114,600
6.439.600
6,764,100
7,082.600
7,360,770
7,593,250
7.798.350
8,002.250
8.182,250
Cumulative'
(percent)
11.7
22.2
31.7
38.7
44.1
47.9
50.8
53.5
56.2
58.9
61.2
63.1
64.8
66.5
68.0
                   aN02  basis
                   bHeat input
                   cPower output
                   d Includes both distillate oil and gasoline
                   'Based on percent of total stationary source NOX emissions
T-958

-------
TABLE IV.   NOv EA FIELD TEST PROGRAM
Source Category
Description
Coal-fired : 180 MH tangential; twin
Utility Boiler












furnace, 12 burners/
furnace, three eleva-
tions; cyclone, two
ESP's for participate
control








i

Coal -fired
Utility Boiler








500 MW opposed wall
fired; 24 burners,
three elevations;
ESP for particulate
control




|







Oil-fired
Utility Boiler














740 MW opposed wall
fired; 43 burners,
six elevations






Test Points
(Unit Operation)
Baseline
Biased Firing (2)
300S (2)













Baseline
BOOS (2)




.










Baseline
FGR
FGR + OFA






Sampling Protocol
Continuous NOX, S02, CO,
C02, Q2
Inlet to first ESP:
- SASS
— Method 5
— Method 8
Test
Collaborator
TVA





— Gas grab (C]-Cg HC) |
Outlet of first ESP:
- SASS
— Method 5
— Method 3
Bottom ash
Hopper ash (first ESP,
cyclone)
Fuel
Operating data
Continuous NOX, SOj,
CO, C02, 02
ESP inlet
— SASS'
— ftethod 5
— Method 8
-- Gas grab (Ci-Cg HC)
ESP outlet
-- SASS
— Method 5
— Method 8
— Gas grab (Ci-Cg HC)
Bottom ash
ESP hopper ash
Fuel
Operating data
Bioassay
Continuous NOX, SO?, CO,
C02, 02
SASS
Method 5
Method 8
Gas grab (Cl-Cfi HC)
Fuel
Operating data
Bioassay









Exxon
















New test
start







              196

-------
TABLE IV.  Concluded
Source Category
Coal -fired
Industrial
Boiler













Coal -fired
Industrial
Boiler















Oil-fired
Gas Turbine







Oil-fired
Residential
Heating Unit


Description
Traveling grate
spreader stoker, 44
kg/s (350,000 Ib/hr);
ESP for particulate
control ; wet scrubber
for SOX control










Traveling grate
spreader stoker,
32 kg/s (250,000 Ib/hr)
ESP for particulate
control













60 MW GE MS 7001 C
machine







Blue Ray low NOX
furnace, Medford,
New York


Test Points
(Unit Operation)
Baseline
LEA + high OFA














Baseline
LEA + High OFA
















Baseline
Maximum water
injection






Continuous
Cycling



Sampling Protocol
Continuous NOX, SOj, CO,
C02, 02
Boiler exit:
— SASS
— Method 5
— Shell -Emeryville
Test
Collaborator
KVB





— Gas grab (Ci-Ce HC) !
ESP outlet
— SASS
— Method 5
-- Shell -Emeryville
— Gas grab (Cl-Ce HC)
Bottom ash
Cyclone hopper ash
Fuel
Operating data
Continuous NO*, S02, CO,
C02, 02
Boiler exit:
— SASS
— Method 5
— Shell -Emeryville
— Gas grab (Ci-Ce HC)
ESP Outlet
~ SASS
— Method 5
— Shell -Emeryville
— Gas grab (Ci-Ce HC)
Bottom ash
ESP hopper ash
Fuel
Operating data
Bioassay

Continuous NOX, S02, CO,
C02, 02
SASS
Method 5
Method 8
Fuel
Water
Operating data
Bioassay
Continuous NOX, S02, CO,
C02, 02
SASS
Method 5
Method 8
Fuel









KVB

















General
Electric







New test
start with
IERL/RTP


       197

-------
TABLE V.  ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS:   SPECIES DETERMINED
        Antimony  (Sb)
        Arsenic  (As)
        Barium (Ba)
        Beryllium (Be)
        Bismuth (Bi)
        Boron  (B)
        Cadmium (Cd)
        Chromium  (Cr)
        Cobalt (Co)
        Copper (Cu)
        Iron (Fe)
        Lead (Pb)
Manganese  (Mn)
Mercury  (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (N1)
Selenium (Se)
Tellurium  (Te)
Thallium (Ti)
Tin (Sn)
Titanium (Ti)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
  TABLE VI.  POM ANALYSIS:   SPECIES DETERMINED
       Anthracene
       Anthanthrene
       Benz(a)anthracene
       Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
       Benzo(ajpyrene
       Benzo(e)pyrene
      Coronene
      Fluoranthene
      Phenanthrene
      Perylene
      Pyrene
TABLE VII.  ANION ANALYSIS:   SPECIES DETERMINED
                Chloride  (CT)
                Fluoride  (F~)
                Nitrate (N03-)
                Cyanide (CIT)
                Sulfate (S0i2-)
                Ammonium  (NH4+)
                    198

-------
                                  TABLE VIII.  BIOASSAY ANALYSIS PROTOCOL
           Sample Type
                                 Bioassay Test Protocol
                                            Sample Size
                                           Requirements
           SASS cyclones,
                 3u
co
CO
           SASS cyclones,
           ly + filter
XAD-2 extract
           Bottom ash
           ESP Hopper ash
                                 Microbial  Mutagenesis
                                 Cytotoxicity,  WI-38
                                 Microbial  Mutagenesis
                                 Cytotoxicity,  WI-38
Microbial Mutagenesis
Cytotoxicity, RAM
                                 Microbial  Mutagenesis
                                 Cytotoxicity,  WI-38
                                 Rodent Acute Toxicity
                                 Freshwater Algal  Bioassay
                                 Freshwater Static Bioassay
                                 Microbial  Mutagenesis
                                 Cytotoxicity,  WI-38
                                 Rodent Acute Toxicity
                                 Freshwater Algal  Bioassay
                                 Freshwater Static Bioassay
                                               l.Og
                                               0.5g
                                               l.Og
                                               0.5g
50
50
                                               l.Og
                                               0.5g
                                               lOOg
                                               50 kg
                                             (200 I if
                                              sluiced)

                                               l.Og
                                               0.5g
                                               lOOg
                                               50 kg

-------
TABLE IX.  ANALYSIS  RESULTS FOR A TANGENTIALLY COAL-FIRED  UTILITY
           BOILER:   FLUE GAS, INORGANICS
Test
Heat Input (% of baseline)
Emissions y£
m3 dry
N0x(ppm £ 3% 02 dry)
S02(ppm @ 3% 02 dry)
S03(ppm @ 3% 02 dry)
CO ftpm 0 3% 02 dry)
co2(%)
o2 (%}
Particulate
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Tellurium
BASELINE
100


1.16xl06(490)
4. 1 8x1 06 (1668)
1.45x10^(3)
3. 07x10^(28. 6)
2.72xl08(13.9)
(5.2)
6.3xl05
3.9
95
2.25xl03
9.0
<44
-
<1.8
1.69xl03
66
2.8xl02
4.5x10"
74
2.4xl02
1.8 <3.1
1.5x102
S.OxlO2
9.9
< 4.1
BIAS (test 1)
100.9


7.35xl05 (336)
3.5xl06 (1354)
1.32xlO*(3)
4. 58x1 OM 35.0)
2.82xl08(14.4)
(4.7)
6.7xl05
<2.6
77
1.7xl03
11
<55
-
<2.4
4.7xl02
75
3.3xl02
3.3x10"
86
1.3xl02
<0.06
< 55
2.6xl02
3.0
< 4.0
BOOS (test 2)
92.4


6.54xl05(304)
4.21xl06(1591)
9580 (3)
3.19x10^(21.7)
2.86xl08(14.6)
(4.4)
4.3xl05
<2.6
81
1.5xl03
7.2
2.3xl02
8.7xl02
<2.1
2.4xl03
89
3.2xl02
3.3x10"
61
1.9xl02
3.5< 5.5
8.7xl02
1.5xl03
< 2.1
< 3.7
                             200

-------
TABLE IX.  Concluded

Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Chloride
Fluoride
Cyanide
Nitrate
Sulfate
Arrmonium
Coal Analysis
C%
H%
0%
N%
S%
H20%
Ash%
HHV Btu/lb
BASELINE
< 2.6
< 6.4
6.1xl03
< 3.9
2.6xl02
4.2xl02
2.7xl02
2.7xl02
84
< 1.3
< 3.9
6.5xl03
< 5.3

63.13
4.27
7.34
1.38
2.19
2.04
19.60
11302
BIAS (test 1)
< 2.7
< 6.7
5.7xl03
7.5
2.3xl02
4.3xl02
2.6xl02
4.1xl02
3.5xl02
< 0.3
< 26
3.9xl03
7.2

63.46
4.24
7.97
1.13
1.75
2.34
19.09
11334
BOOS (test 2)
< 3.2
< 5.1
3.6xl03
< 2.1
1.6xl02
2.0xl02
6.8xl02
8.5xl02
1.2xl02
< 1.3
7.7xl02
2.1xl03
1.4xl02

64.00
4.23
7.11
1.38
2.13
2.58
18.49
11402
        201

-------
TABLE X.  FLUE GAS POTENTIAL DEGREE OF HAZARD -  INORGANICS;
          180 MW TANGENTIAL  COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILER

NO
X
so2
so3
CO
co2
Be
Ba
As
Ti
M (Mainly NH4)
so4
Chlorides
BASELINE
129

322
15
0.77
30
4.5
4.5
48
1
0.07
6.5
0.68
BIAS
84

269
13
1.1
31
5.5
3.4
39
0.95
0.22
3.9
1
BOOS
73

324
9.6
0.80
32
3.6
3.0
41
0.60
6.1
2.1
2.1
TABLE XI.   POTENTIAL TOXIC UNIT DISCHARGE RATES (g/s) - 180 MW
           TANGENTIAL COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS -  INORGANICS

Flue Gas
Cyclone Ash
ESP Ash
Bottom Ash Slurry
BASELINE
4.3xl07
1.9x10"
e.ixio3
5.7x10"
BIAS
3.5xl07
1.6X101*
6.1xl03
5.3x10*
BOSS
3.7xl07
1.6x10"
5.1xl03
4.2x10"
                            202

-------
         TABLE XII.   NOY IMPACT RANKING FOR  STATIONARY SOURCES
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Sector
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Reciprocating
1C Engines
Utility Boilers
Package Boilers
Package Boilers
Gas Turbines
Package Boilers
Gas Turbines
Reciprocating
1C Engines
Equipment Type
r«clone
Tangential
Horizontally Opposed
Horizontally Opposed
Wall Firing
Wall Firing
Horizontally opposed
Hall Firing
Tangential
SI»>75 kW/Cylb
Tangential
Wall Firing WT<* >29 MWC
Wall Firing WT<*>29 M«c
Simple Cycle >15 MHb
Wall Firing WT<* >29 MWC
Simple Cycle >15 MW&
Cie >75 kW/cylb
Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal
Gas
Coal
Gas
Oil
Oil
Oil
Gas
Gas
Gas
Oil
Oil
Coal
Gas
OiJ and
Dual Fuel
Normalized NOX
Impact Factor
1.0
0.895
0.51
0.39
0.37
0.31
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.10
0.077
0.059
0.057
0.049
0.046
0.048
0.016
aSpark ignition
"Energy output
cHeat input
dWatertube
      j:- ?on  ignition
                                                                         T-1523
                                  203

-------
                                TABLE  XIII

    TABLE XIII.  MULTISPECIES IMPACT  RANKING  FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Sector
Packaged Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Utility Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Utility Boilers
Packaged Boilers
Equipment Type
Stoker Firing MTC<29 MWa
Stoker Firing FT<*<29 MWa
Tangential
Hall Firing
Wall Firing WTC>2g MWa
Stoker Firing WTC>29 MH*
Vertical and Stoker
"Cyclone
Horizontally Opposed
Tangential
Hall Firing
Horizontally Opposed
Hall Firing WTC>29 MWa
Scotch FTd<29 MW«
Firebox FT«J<29 W«
Tangential
Scotch FTd
Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Gas
Gas
Normalized
Impact Factor
1.00
0.83
0.21
0.16
0.12
0.11
0.085
0.061
0.031
0.0039
0.0033
0.0017
0.0010
0.0008
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
»Heat input
bHeat output
c«atertube
dFiretube
                                                                   T-1524
                                   204

-------
         TABLE XIV.   SUMMARY OF  CONTROL  LEVELS REQUIRED TO  MEET  THE ANNUAL
                       AVERAGE N02 STANDARD IN  SAN FRANCISCO,  AQCR (030)
      Case
  Nominal Growth*
  Low Mobilef
  High Stationary?
                           BYR*  = 76 ug/m3
Ppb = 1.0   PP = 0.5    PP  = 0.2

MSC =1.0   MS = 1.2    MS  = 1.0
0(67)5
0(60),
                       '0(66)
0(75)

    K85)
0(69)

  ''Of 81)
0(68).
                                              3(82)
                                          BYR = 101 ug/m3
                      PP = 1.0    PP =  0.5   PP » 0.2

                      MS =• 1.0    MS =  1.2   MS * 1.0
                       0(79L
                                    '0(88)
0(100)
                      0(74)
0(91)
                      0(75),
                                              '0(84}
0(90)
                                                                               T-1293
          TABLE  XV.   SUMMARY OF CONTROL  LEVELS REQUIRED TO MEET THE  ANNUAL
                        AVERAGE N02 STANDARD IN ST.  LOUIS, AQCR  (070)
      Case
  Nominal Growthe
  Low Mobilef
  High Stationary9
                                   76 ug/m3
ppb , LO   PP = 0.5    PP -  0.2

MSC =1.0   MS =• 1.2    MS =  1.0
0(80)
0(79)
                       0(76)
                       0(70),

                          3(84)
0(80)
                                           BYR = 85 ug/m3
                       PP  =  1.0    PP » 0.5   PP = 0.2

                       MS  =  1.0    MS = 1.2   MS = 1.0
                       0{B2j,

                         ^0(95)
0(90)
                                  0(84
                       0(79),
0(88)
                                 0(85)
                                                                              ^0(94)
0(92)
                                                                                T-1292
     — Base year ambient concentration for calibration
bpp — Powerplant weighting factor
CMS — Mobile source weighting factor
^Numbers  in parentheses  indicate annual average concentration  in yg/m3.   If no number
 given, annual average equals or exceeds 100 yg/n>3.
eStationary source growth less than historical, mobile sources grow at 3.5%/yr, 0.62 g/km in  1981
^Stationary source growth less than historical, mobile sources grow at l.OX/yr, 0.25 g/km in  1985
9Stationary source growth at approximately historical rates, mobile sources grow at 3.5J£/yr,  0.62
 g/kro in  1981

                                             205

-------
   TABLE  XVI.   AQCR'S INVESTIGATED  FOR  NOX  CONTROL REQUIREMENTS

Los Angeles (024)
Chicago (067)
Philadelphia (045)
New York City (043)
Denver (036)
San Francisco (030)
Pittsburgh (197)
St. Louis (070)
Low -- Recorded
Annual Average NO,
Ug/m3) *
1972 - 1975
132
96
83
99
88
76
62
76
High — Rolling
Quarter Average NO,
(ug/m3j <•
1972 - 1975
182
121
121
113
110
101
98
85
TABLE XVII.   DEFINITION  OF STATIONARY  SOURCE  NOX CONTROL  LEVELS
     Level'
                        •  No controls (assumes 1971 NSPS for large boilers
                          is met)
                       •  40-80 percent control of new residential  and
                          commercial furnaces
                       •  6-16 percent control by low excess air  for
                          industrial and utility boilers
                       •  Staged combustion,  flue gas recirculation,
                          low-NOx burners and other advanced designs  for
                          boilers

                       •  Operating adjustments and new design for  1C
                          engines

                       •  Water injection for gas turbines (30% reduction)
                       •  Ammonia injection  for boilers (50% reduction
                          beyond level 2 controls)
                       •  Combustion control  limits exceeded,  flue gas
                          treatment required
    "Control levels are ordered by increasing cost of the controls.  Within
     each level  controls are applied in order of  increasing cost.
                                       206

-------
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION
      ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
                   By:

            Deepak Kenkeremath
              METREK Division
             MITRE Corporation
         McLean, Virginia   22102
                     207

-------
                                 ABSTRACT

     The conventional combustion  of  fossil fuels  for  heat  and electricity
production has been the foundation of  today's  industrialized society.  In
fact, over 90 percent of the total U.S. energy needs  are still met by fossil
fuels.  The associated environmental effects of conventional combustion
processes,  however,  are significant  and span across the air, water, and land
media.  These multimedia effects  are not separate and distinct, but rather are
all interrelated,  defining  a systemic  problem.  The scientific and managerial
approach to solving such problems has  to be by necessity comprehensive and
holistic in nature.

     The Conventional Combustion  Environmental Assessment  (CCEA) program,
sponsored by the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park (IERL-RTP), North Carolina, is designed to comprehensively
identify and assess the total environmental effects of combusting fossil fuels
in all conventional processes. The  program integrates ongoing and planned
R&D activities into a coherent and unified environmental assessment structure.
The overall goals of this program are  aimed at providing a base of sound
information for use by energy/environmental decision-makers for:

     •  Standards Development
     •  Control Technology  Development
     •  Energy/Environmental Policy  Formulation
     •  Allocation of Resources

     The program currently  consists  of a defined  set  of program goals and
objectives, an explicit methodology  for conducting a  comprehensive environ-
mental assessment,  an analytical  procedure to  identify, evaluate, and integrate
the programmatic contents of Individual projects, and a management structure
to administer the program.   The CCEA program currently consists of six
projects.  The paper will describe the above items and will discuss support
given to EPA standard-setting program  offices  by  the  CCEA outputs.
                                    208

-------
                                 SECTION 1
                        INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

     It is not a mere cliche to say that the world of today is quite
different from that of yesterday.  Whereas most of human history has focused
on technological solutions to the problems of the world as we found it, the
critical issues of today and tomorrow involve the problems of the world as
our technology has made it.  In fact, it is the very success of yesterday's
technological solutions that has led to the critical problems of today and
tomorrow.
     A classic example of such a problem is the degradation of the environ-
ment resulting from the use of fossil fueled combustion technologies.  The
development of reliable fossil-fueled combustion technologies has been the
foundation of today's industrialized society.  In fact, approximately 95
percent (about 70 x 10 ^ Btu) of the total U.S. energy needs are still met
by fossil-fueled combustion.  Conventional methods of converting fossil fuels
to usable energy forms, however, have been a significant source of deleterious
environmental impacts.  The release of sulfur dioxide from conventional com-
bustion of coal and oil, for example, is a direct cause of increased acidity
in rainfall.  Carbon dioxide, another major byproduct of conventional com-
bustion, has the potential to seriously affect the world climate by contri-
buting to the so-called "greenhouse" effect.  In addition, the introduction
of toxic heavy metals such as cadmium and arsenic, and potentially carcino-
genic organic compounds such as polycyclic organic matter (POM) into the
ground and surface waters as an indirect result of conventional combustion
technologies pose serious threats to human health.  Control of the environ-
mental impacts from conventional fossil-fueled combustion is one of the
major problems facing us today.
                                    209

-------
     The scientific, engineering, and managerial approach to this environ-
mental problem has to be, by necessity,  quite different from the traditionally
reactive, single objective, viewpoint of past research.  The conventional
combustion of fossil fuels has multimedia impacts which affect the air, land,
and water.  Furthermore, these impacts are not separate and distinct; rather,
they are all interrelated and involve delicate balances and tradeoffs.
     From the scientific point of view,  it is essential to identify and
understand the environmental relationships that exist between the many orders
of indirect impacts.   For example, the disposal of fly ash from coal-fired
power plants has a direct impact on the  land  quality of the disposal sites.
Leaching of chemical compounds and heavy metals from the disposal sites has
an indirect (second-order)  impact on the quality of the ground and/or surface
water.  This in turn may have third-order impacts on the ecology of the area.
It is important to identify all direct and indirect impacts.  Another major
scientific aspect is the multi-pollutant synergistic impacts on human health
and the environment of the various pollutants emitted by conventional combus-
tion systems.  For example, although polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
are generally toxic, their potency as carcinogens is enhanced by their
preferential adsorption on small particles of certain materials such as iron
oxide.  A similar synergistic intensification may exist between fine particles
and sulfur dioxide.
     From the engineering point of view, an important concept in dealing with
technologically induced environmental problems is the concept of cross-
impacts.   Since the environment is esentially a closed system, technology to
control one pollutant or media has some  relative cross-impact on another
pollutant or media.   For example, flue gas scrubbing to remove SO^ and
particulates significantly increases the amount of solid wastes to be
disposed of in an environmentally acceptable  manner.  The secondary environ-
mental impacts caused by pollutant control technologies themselves are an
important engineering problem.
     The management of environmental R&D efforts to identify and assess the
full health and ecological implications  of conventional fossil-fueled
combustion must also be approached in a  comprehensive and unified manner.
                                   210

-------
In addition to evaluating the full range of relationships that exist among
environmental impacts, communication with environmental control technology
development and emission standard setting activities must be closely main-
tained.  The programmatic efforts of these three general areas must be
properly coordinated to ensure effective and efficient solutions to the
environmental problems.
     The Environmental Protection Agency, the lead Federal organization
responsible for the identification and control of adverse environmental
impacts of pollutant emissions,is aware of the importance of conducting such
environmental studies in a holistic, coordinated manner.  This awareness
has led to the development of major comprehensive assessment programs in
such emerging energy technology areas as coal liquefaction, low/medium btu
gasification, high btu gasification, and fluidized-bed combustion.  Since
these technologies are still in the development or demonstration stage, EPA
is investigating all potential environmental problems now to ensure that
they will have minimal health and ecological impacts when they are fully
commercialized.
     In the area of conventional, fossil-fueled combustion process, however,
existing wide-spread use of the technology precludes a completely proactive
environmental assessment prior to commercialization.  The majority of the R&D
efforts to date have been narrowly defined and reactive in nature, involving
such issues as identification of emissions from particular processes,
evaluation of the effects of specific compounds, or development of technology
to control single pollutants.  While data generated by these various efforts
provide an important base of information, a full assessment of the environ-
mental effects of conventional fossil-fueled combustion processes is still
necessary.
                                    211

-------
                                 SECTION 2
                      OVERALL CCEA PROGRAM STRUCTURE

      In response to this need, the Environmental Protection Agency's
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park
 (EPA/IERL-RTP), North Carolina,  established the Conventional Combustion
 Environmental Assessment (CCEA)  program.   Initiated in early 1977, the CCEA
 is  chartered to assess comprehensively the environmental, economic, and
 social  impacts of multimedia emissions of pollutants from conventional
 combustion processes, and to recommend measures for controlling adverse
 effects within acceptable limits.   The program utilizes information generated
 by  past studies and integrates relevant ongoing and planned R&D efforts into
 an  overall environmental assessment structure, coordinates their activities,
 and serves as a centralized base of information.  The CCEA is designed to be
 both reactive in addressing immediate problems and proactive in undertaking
 research to identify and recommend  solutions  to other major environmental
problems that may be anticipated in the future.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
     The principal  objectives of the CCEA program are to identify and  assess
 information from all relevant sources in  order to:
     (1)  determine the  extent to which available information can be
          utilized  to assess the total environmental,  economic, energy
          impacts of stationary  conventional  combustion processes.
     (2)  identify  and acquire additional information needed for such
          assessment.
     (3)  define the requirements for modifications or additional
          development of control technology.
     (4)  define the requirements for modified or new standards to
          regulate  pollutant emissions.
 The results of the CCEA program  are aimed at  providing a base of sound
 information for use by energy/environmental decision-makers for:

                                    212

-------
     •   Standards Setting
     •   Control Technology Development
     •   Policy Formulation
     •   Resource Allocation
     Although the program is comprehensive in its approach and subject matter,
there are some major boundaries that shape and focus the efforts of the
program.  The scope of the CCEA program can be briefly delineated as follows:
     •   The program is concerned with stationary conventional combustion
         processes and is focused principally on equipment and combustion
         processes used in the utility, industrial, commercial/institutional,
         and residential sectors.
     •   The program addresses environmental effects that result directly
         from the operations of the combustion process itself, as well as
         those that result from the operation of equipment to control the
         release of pollutants from the combustion process, such as leachate
         from fly ash impoundment basins.
     •   The program addresses non-environmental criteria such as social,
         economic, and political/institutional effects.
     •   The program also addresses environmental effects from the
         conventional processing and storage of fuels at the combustion
         site, such as the crushing of coal at a power plant.
     •   The program does not address the effects of fuel processing and
         storage prior to delivery to the combustion site, or during
         transportation of the fuel.
     •   The program addresses environmental effects of utilizing synthetic
         fuels in conventional combustion equipment.
     •   The program does not address the environmental effects of converting
         fossil fuels to synthetic fuels, whether performed at the combustion
         site or elsewhere; thus, it does not include consideration of the
         impacts of low-btu gasification of coal when the gasification
         equipment is within the battery limits of the power plant where the
         gas is burned.
     •   The program is not directly involved in design or development of
         combustion processes or pollution control technologies.
     •   The program is not directly involved in the setting or enforcement
         of emission standards.
COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM
     The overall CCEA program structure currently consists of four major
interrelated components:
                                    213

-------
      (1)   A defined set of long term CCEA program goals and intermediate
           term objectives.
      (2)   An explicit methodology to conduct a comprehensive environmental
           assessment of conventional combustion processes.
      (3)   An active set of seven major ongoing projects.
      (4)   A defined management structure to implement the program.
 Each  of these  four CCEA program components are discussed briefly below.
 Goals and  Objectives
     As discussed earlier, the overall aim of the CCEA program is:   (1) to
 assess comprehensively the effects upon human health, the ecology, and the
 general environment of utilizing fossil fuels in stationary conventional
 combustion processes,  and (2) to recommend measures for controlling  adverse
 effects within acceptable limits.
     Consistent with EPA mission,  the principal use of environmental
 assessment information produced by the CCEA program will be to aid managerial
 decision making relative to environmental standards and pollution control
 technology development.   In terms  of this principal use, the program's long-
 term goals are more explicitly stated as follows:
     •  To assess the  adequacy of  existing technology to control the
        release of pollutants from stationary conventional combustion
        processes.
     •  To assess the  need for modifications to existing control technology
        or for the development of  new control technology and, if such needs
        exist, providing guidance  and recommending priorities for the tech-
        nology development effort.
     •  To assess the  adequacy of  existing emission or effluent standards
        designed to limit the release of pollutants to the environment.
     •  To assess the  need for additional standards or modification of
        existing standards and, if such needs exist, providing guidance
        and recommending priorities for EPA's standard setting activities.
     Supporting each of  these goals are several intermediate objectives,
most of which correspond to the outputs of various tasks or subtasks of
 the CCEA program and thus constitute useful products that will be developed
 during the coarse of the program.
                                   214

-------
The key technical and administrative objectives have been identified and

categorized as follows:

     Combustion Process/Pollutant Characterization Objectives
     •  Develop a unified, comprehensive base of existing data on
        combustion pollutants.
     •  Obtain essential new data from field tests.
     •  Characterize emissions/effluents from each major type of stationary
        conventional combustion process.
     Health/Ecology/Environmental Impact Assessment Objectives

     •  Estimate quantities of pollutants released from stationary
        conventional combustion processes.
     •  Identify available models and other effects-estimating techniques.

     •  Develop quantitative estimates of health, ecological, and environ-
        mental effects (including associated economic costs) of pollutant
        emissions.

     •  Define priority areas for health/ecological/environmental impact
        studies.

     Technology and Information Transfer Objectives

     •  Determine information needs of current/potential users of environ-
        mental assessment information.
     •  Transfer technical information to appropriate user organizations in
        a timely manner.

     Control Technology Development Objectives
     •  Develop a comprehensive data base on the capabilities of existing
        technology to control the release of combustion pollutants to the
        environment and on the costs of applying such technology.
     •  Identify specific combustion processes and specific combustion
        pollutants for which additional control technology capability is
        needed to meet current standards.

     Standards Development Objective
     •  Identify specific combustion processes and specific combustion
        pollutants for which modified or new standards are needed to limit
        pollutant emission/effluents to acceptable levels.

These goals and objectives are discussed in more complete detail in

References 1 and 2.
                                    215

-------
Environmental Assessment Methodology
     An  environmental assessment (EA) is a special category of holistic
investigative study that resulted from the growing awareness of the direct
and  indirect consequences of modern technology.   In particular, an environ-
mental assessment is defined here as an iterative procedure to develop a
basis for  ranking environmental problems and control needs.  The iterative
procedure  involves:
     •  Determination of comprehensive environmental effects and control
        costs associated with various control options for specific sources,
        processes,  or industries;  and
     •  Comparison of the effects with existing  standards, estimated
        environmental goals,  and anticipated health impacts.
Within the context of the CCEA program,  this definition includes socio-
economic and institutional effects,  and cross-media impacts and tradeoffs,
in addition to the environmental loading data, control costs, disposal
options, bioassay specifications,  and other factors included in the above
definition.  It must be emphasized,  however, that environmental
assessment activities of the CCEA" program do not involve either the develop-
ment or promotion of the combustion  process or the development or promotion
of technology to control emissions from the combustion process.
     The overall procedure involves  the following steps to be performed for
each type of combustion  process.  The interrelations among these steps are
shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.   (This procedure, presented here in
highly condensed form, is expected to be further refined and applied to
major stationary conventional combustion processes over a period of about
five years.)
Step 1.   Characterization of  Combustion Process  (and Related Pollution
         Control Equipment)  and Its  Emission/Effluents.
         For each principal type of  combustion process the characteristics
         of fuels,  control technology, and measurement/analytical techniques
         are identified.   In particular, it identifies the quantities and
         characteristics of emissions and effluents.
Step 2.   Identification  of Health,  Ecological, and Environmental Effects of
         Emissions/Effluents from the Combustion Process.
         This step includes the identification of transport and transfor-
         mation of the specific pollutants in the ambient environment, and

                                   216

-------
         anticipated response of the ecology and the exposed population in
         terms of morbidity/mortality rates, media degradation factors and
         other appropriate measures.  Such factors must take into account
         background levels of pollutants from noncombustion sources.

Step 3.  Development of Environmental Goals and Objectives

         In the initial stages of this program, goals will be defined
         principally in terms of established standards or unofficial
         permissible media concentrations.  In later stages, the set of
         goals may be expanded to include such factors as the promotion
         of a specific energy policy or direction of economic development.

Step 4.  Comparison of Health/Ecological/Environmental Impacts of
         Stationary Conventional Combustion Processes Against Environ-
         mental Goals and Objectives

         This comparison indicates whether established standards are ueing
         met, and other defined goals and objectives are being achieved.

     This comparison may have three outcomes.   (1) If it indicates that

standards are, in fact, met and other goals and objectives have been met

or can reasonably be expected to be achieved by ongoing R&D activities
relating to the combustion process under study, then the EA procedure is

completed for this process.  (Repetition of the procedure is required for

other processes.)  (2) If there is some question of whether goals and

objectives are being achieved, it may then be necessary to repeat the above
three steps, possibly using better data or more precise analyses (see

Figure 1).  (3) If the comparison indicates that goals and objectives are

not being achieved, then the EA procedure is continued as follows:

     •  Determine the Magnitude of Pollution Impacts from the Combustion
        Process

        Quantities of pollutants released from continued use of stationary
        conventional combustion processes at projected levels, ambient levels
        of such pollutants at appropriate geographic scales, and the degree
        of hazard (severity indices) associated with continued use of the
        combustion process are estimated.

     •  Evaluation of Alternative Control Strategies for Achieving Goals
        and Objectives

        Strategies that will contribute toward achievement of goals and
        objectives may include development of more effective pollution
        control technology or the use of other alternatives such as fuel
        switching and modification of combustion techniques; alternatively,
        the strategy may be to modify the existing standards or other goals/
        objectives.


                                    217

-------
      This  last  step would indicate alternative approaches for meeting defined
 goals and  objectives  (e.g., suggested new technological or non-technological
 approaches for  controlling pollutants from the combustion process under
 study);  hence,  it provides new input for iterating the entire EA procedure.
 Iterations may  be required for each viable alternatives identified.
      The comprehensive EA methodology is a complex and lengthy procedure
 which is described above only in general outline.  Additional detail for
 the major  steps in the procedure are indicated in Figure 2 and a more
 detailed description of the entire procedure is presented in Reference 3.
      It should be noted that the comprehensive EA methodology described
here  is based in substantial measure on an EA methodology developed by the
 Energy Assessment and Control Division (EACD) of IERL-RTP.  The EACD
methodology has undergone extensive development and has gained widespread
 acceptance  in the technical community.  The relationship between the CCEA
 comprehensive EA methodology and prototype procedure developed at IERL-RTP
 is discussed in Reference 3.
Current Projects Within Program
      The CCEA program currently includes seven major technical projects.
Three of these projects were already ongoing when the CCEA program was
established.  Appropriate parts of these projects have been properly inte-
grated into the  program.   The other four  were initiated later to assist in
planning, coordinating,  and  implementing the CCEA program.  Each of these
projects is briefly  described below.   A more detailed discussion, including
project results  will be given by the other speakers at this session.
•  SURVEY OF PROJECTS CONCERNING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
   CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION PROCESSES
      EPA Project Officer:  Wade Ponder
     Contractor:  Research Triangle Institute
      Term:  March 1977 - May  1978  (initial phase only)
     This project was initiated at approximately the same time as the
initiation of the CCEA program planning effort.  The project was undertaken
 in an effort t(ji identify and evaluate major relevant R&D studies ongoing at
 that  time within EPA, within other Federal organizations, and within non-
 government  organizations.  The major objectives of this project are to:
                                   218

-------
     •  Summarize information related to the CCEA program on a national
        basis.
     •  Determine the significance and utility of the information in meeting
        CCEA program objectives.
     •  Organize the survey information in a convenient format for sub-
        sequent use in the CCEA program.
The preliminary results of this survey were instrumental in the development
of the CCEA program plan.4
•  DEVELOPMENT OF A PROGRAM FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
   CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION PROCESSES
        EPA Project Officer:  Wade Ponder
        Contractor:  Metrek Division/The MITRE Corporation
        Term:  February 1977 - June 1980
     This is a major management and program planning project that was
initiated to assist in formulation of the overall CCEA program structure.
The major objectives of this project are to:
     •  Develop a coherent, unified methodology for assessing the environ-
        mental, economic, and energy impacts of continued and expanded use
        of stationary conventional combustion processes
     •  Define long-term goals and short-term objectives for the CCEA
        Program
     •  Develop analytical procedures to identify, evaluate and integrate
        CCEA related activities
     •  Provide assistance in procuring a CCEA systems contractor
•  SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CCEA PROGRAM
        EPA Project Officer:  Wade Ponder
        Contractor:  Not  identified at  time of printing
        Term:  February  1979 - February 1981
     The systems contractor will be the focal point in implementing the
technical aspects of the  CCEA program.  This project will coordinate with
the others to work within the previously established CCEA program plan to
achieve stated goals and  objectives.  The major objectives of this project
are to:
     •  Assess the  effects  of combustion pollutants on human health,
        ecology, and the  general environment
     •  Evaluate the adequacy of existing technology to  control  the release
        of pollutants  from  Stationary Conventional Combustion Processes

                                   219

-------
     •  Assess the need for modification of additional control technology
     •  Assess the need for the development of additional control technology
     •  Evaluate the adequacy of existing emission or effluent standards
     •  Assess the need for the modification of existing standards
     •  Assess the need for the development of new standards
•   ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF STATIONARY SOURCE NO  CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
    (NO  EA)                                        X
      A
        EPA Project Officers:   Joshua S.  Bowen, Robert E. Hall
        Contractor:  Acurex Corporation
        Term:   June 1976  -  September  1979
     The NO  EA project was undertaken in response to the critical need to
           X
evaluate the environmental,  economic,  energy,  and engineering implications
of combustion modification  technologies  to control NO  emissions.  The over-
all goals of this project are:   (1) to identify the multimedia environmental
impacts of stationary combustion sources  and NO  combustion modification
controls, and (2) to identify  the most cost-effective, environmentally-
sound combustion modification  NOX control systems for attaining and maintain-
ing current and projected NO  air quality standards to the year 2000.
•  EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION  OF CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
        EPA Project Officers:   Warren Peters, Wade Ponder
        Contractor:  TRW
        Term:   October 1976 -  June 1980
     This  is a major CCEA project designed to address the "Combustion Process
and Effluent Characterization" step of the environmental assessment methodology.
The primary goal  of this  project is to develop extensive baseline data by
identifying and characterizing the gaseous, liquid, and solid pollutants
generated by fifty-one specific categories of uncontrolled stationary con-
ventional combustion processes.  These categories include the combinations
of eight different combustion  processes  utilizing ten different fuel types
in the four major use sectors  of utility, industrial, residential, and
commercial/institutional.  Emissions  data are being obtained through the
use of the EPA Level 1 and  Level 2 comprehensive sampling and analysis
protocol.  The final output of this project will include estimates of
total pollutant emissions by each category of uncontrolled combustion
process.
                                   220

-------
•  COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF OIL VS. COAL FIRING IN CONTROLLED INDUSTRIAL
   AND UTILITY BOILERS
        EPA Project Officer:  Wade H. Ponder
        Contractor:  TRW
        Term:  March 1977 - December 1978
     One of the most important types of information needed for technological
and policy decision making is the relative environmental impacts of firing
coal vs. oil in well-controlled industrial and utility boilers.  (Here,
"well-controlled" implies the use of appropriate methods of reducing emissions
of S0? and particulate matter to meet applicable emission standards for these
pollutants.)  Such information would facilitate the formulation of policy
pertaining to fuel use and fuel switching, and would provide technologists
with useful data  on control technology performance.
     This project is an important effort in developing a data base on well-
controlled combustion processes.  The project was initiated at approximately
the same time period as the CCEA program planning effort.
     The overall objectives of the project are to:
     •  conduct a comprehensive multimedia emissions assessment of oil vs.
        coal firing in both industrial and utility boilers
     •  evaluate efficiencies and effects of control devices for the
        boilers tested, and
     •  assess the environmental, energy, and social impacts on firing
        coal vs. oil.
     These objectives are being met  through field tests of selected industrial
and utility boilers.  The sampling and analysis includes both combined
Level 1 and Level 2 sampling and analysis protocol.
•  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDUAL OIL UTILIZATION
        EPA Project Officer:  Sam Rakes
        Contractor:  Catalytic, Inc.
        Term:  May 1976 - May 1979
     Residual oil from refinery reject streams offers a potentially signifi-
cant source of fuel for electric utility and industrial applications.  This
project is a three-year effort to identify and assess the environmental con-
sequences of the production and utilization of residual oil in combustion
processes.  Control options such as  fuel desulfurization and FGD are also

                                   221

-------
 included in this study.   Although the majority  of  the  funds  are currently
 being spent in the areas of fuel  treatment and  chemically  active fluid bed
 technology, a significant portion of the technical effort  involves  gas
 turbine technology and FGD technology.
      The major objectives of  the project are to:
      •  review and analyze the existing environmental,  engineering,
         and cost data;
      •  identify important  pollutants and their projected  attainable
         emission levels;
      •  identify missing  information and design a  program(s)  to develop
         such information;  and
      •  design and conduct  source sampling, fugitive emission and ambient
         monitoring programs.
 Program  Management Structure
      The overall CCEA program is currently managed by  the  Process Technology
 Branch (PTB) within lERL-RTP's Utility and Industrial  Power Division (UIPD).
 Although some of  the projects are sponsored by other divisions  within IERL-
 RTP,  the technical and budgetary portions of the environmental  assessment
 activities  are managed by UIPD.
      The major functional groups in the CCEA management structure are shown
 in Figure 3.  The day-to-day management of the overall program  is the
 responsibility of the CCEA program manager and his  staff.  The  program
manager  coordinates the activities among the various projects and acts as
 the key  link between the technical and management  aspects  of  the program.
      The Steering Committee (SC) will serve as an  advisory group to  the IERL
 Director on the overall direction and conduct of the CCEA  program.   In
 addition, it will provide oversight guidance to the  Technical Working Group
 (TWG) in the coordination of CCEA  activities.   Further examples of duties include
such things  as  recommending allocation  of  resources (CCEA versus other programs)
and recommending  redirection of program/project emphasis as needed.
      Cooperative program solving across organization lines will be the goal
 of the TWG  and £he SC.  The SC will attempt to resolve, by consensus,
 problems/issues which result from impasses in the  Technical Working  Group.
                                  222

-------
  The  resolution  of  such problems/issues will be passed  to  the TWG for
implementation in the program.  Problems which the SC cannot resolve in this
manner will be elevated to the IERL Director for final resolution.   These
major responsibilities are outlined on Table 1.
     The Technical Working Group will  review,  coordinate and serve  as
the forum for the working level activities of the CCEA program and its
component projects requiring group coordination.  Since the CCEA program
components cut across current organizational lines, it is important to
establish an accepted functional framework within which the TWG can perform
its duties.
     The TWG is made up of IERL Branch Chiefs and Project Officers who are
directly involved with component projects in the CCEA program.   The TWG,
chaired by the Chief of the Process Technology Branch, will conduct CCEA
activities requiring coordination of program components at the TWG level.
It is anticipated that the majority of CCEA issues will be resolved at the
TWG level, but it is important to note that TWG members can individually or
collectively take unresolved problems directly to the UIPD Director.  Further,
if his decision  is not acceptable to the parties involved, they can seek
elevation of the problem to the Steering Committee through their respective
Division Directors who are members of the Steering Committee.  Major
responsibilities of the TWG are outlined in  Table I.
     The TWG functional framework described above permits  continuation of
the CCEA program within the existing IERL organizational structure.  CCEA
projects remain  in  their respective Divisions  and, existing organizational
lines of communication remain intact and unchanged.   In addition, the UIPD
Director has the responsibility to attempt resolution of TWG problems
before elevation to the full  Steering Committee.  The Steering Committee
has the responsibility to attempt resolution prior to elevation to  the
IERL Director.
                                   223

-------
                                 SECTION III

                    CCEA SUPPORT TO EPA PROGRAM OFFICES

     Consistent with the Environmental Protection Agency's primary role as
a regulatory organization,  one of the principal purposes of the CCEA is to
provide technical support for developing emissions and effluents standards.
Specific types of informational support regarding such subject areas as
combustion process descriptions,  emissions/effluents characterization,
transport/transformation/fate of  pollutants,  health/ecological effects,
national and regional effects,  control technology performance, and
economics are essential in  setting priorities and formulating standards
and regulations.
     Research to develop this information is  specifically designed into
the EA methodology of the CCEA program.   Also designed into the CCEA
management structure are channels for communications and information
exchange with potential users.  An important  effort currently (at the time
of publication of this  paper) being undertaken is the identification of
specific data needs of  EPA  Program Offices  and a comparison of projected
CCEA outputs with these needs.  This comparison will provide useful guidance
in focusing, developing,  and  implementing future activities within CCEA.
     A preliminary effort under this "applicability analysis" activity is
the comparison of projected CCEA  outputs with data requirements to fullfil
legislative mandates.   Although the effort  is not completed (at the time
of publication) an example  of a partially completed comparison matrix is
shown in Tables II and  III.  Table II is a  partial draft showing projected
CCEA program support for the  development of seven New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS).  Similarly, Table III shows a partially completed draft
of CCEA program support for developing National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).  It is emphasized that these tables are preliminary and
                                   224

-------
partial and are included here only to exemplify the matrix after it has

been completed.

     These applicability matrices, along with similar matrices covering

other legislative mandates are currently being reviewed with the Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Office of Water and Waste

Management (OWWM), and the Office of Solid Wastes (OSW) to ensure complete-

ness and accuracy.  Future activities under this effort will include the

identification and comparison of general data needs of EPA Program Offices,

EPA Enforcement Offices, and technology development divisions within the

Department of Energy.
                                 REFERENCES


1.  Kenkeremath, D. C., C. J. Miller, and J. B. Truett, A Program for the
    Environmental Assessment of Conventional Combustion Processes, EPA-
    600/7-78-140, July 1978.

2.  Kenkeremath, D. C., C. G. Miller, and J. B. Truett, A Program for the
    Environmental Assessment of Conventional Combustion Processes, M78-63,
    Mitre Corporation, July 1978.

3.  Ponder, W. H. and D. C. Kenkeremath, Conventional Combustion
    Environmental Assessment Program, M78-44 Rev. 1, Mitre Corporation,
    September 1978.

4.  Thompson, W. E. and J. W. Harrison, Survey of Projects Concerning
    Conventional Combustion Environmental Assessments, EPA-600/7-78-139,
    July 1978.
                                    225

-------
              	STEP1	
              CHARACTERIZE COMBUSTION
              PROCESSES AND EFFLUENTS
     ITERATE
     FOR EACH
   ALTERNATIVE
    STRATEGY
to
CO
o>
                   	STEP 2	

                   IDENTIFY HEALTH, ECOLOGICAL
                   AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
i	1
   REFINE
 DATA BASE
AND ANALYSIS
                       STEP 4
                                           STEP 3
                                   DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTAL
                                    GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
                                        MAYBE
                          STEP 6
ASSESSMENT
 COMPLETED
                                 STEP 5
                    EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE
                    CONTROL STRATEGIES
                     ASSESS MAGNITUDE OF
                      POLLUTION IMPACTS
              RECOMMENDATIONS FOR:
                - NEW/REVISED STANDARDS
                - CONTROLTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
                         Figure 1 - Comprehensive Environmental
                                Assessment Methodology
                                Principal Steps

-------
to
CO
-a
CUMtUSTION PROCESS TECHNOLOGY DOM-RESPONSE DATA
CHARACTERISTICS , Thr.M»oNJ iml. ntoMlTLVl
* Preceai economle
• Energy ellklency

Type and *ourc«
Physical eharaclerlaik*
Chemlcel charwterletM:*
Energy content
Fuel handling
AvalUbWty ot luel*
_„„ L. „:
STEP 1 I?,0"","'?!.'
"1
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
• Sampune lechnlojuea
• Analytic letthnlqua*

• Cancei anal Mmfcemle


INPUT-OUTPUT CHACTER1ZATION ECOLOQICAL IMPACTS
• Miierlal balance • Ecology related Impact*

1

FATI MODELS
• Meteorological and hydrologlcel
date
• Model devetopflient
* Sipoaure level eakulatton*
• Tremloonallofl chemtetry
*
•OH BK» AMD 1 ( ||11|M1. 	 _^l HEALTH AND BCOLQQICAL | STEP 2

* ' 1 *
FIELD TESTS AND SURVEYS 1 EP10EM 10 LOGICAL DATA
• Centre! tyttemt iMltouj . indtntry related hearth datl

• Level i
• Level)

f
SIOASSAY DATA
• Conlrol pfeceaa itream Meaaaey

-_ I J" REPINE DATA IASE


CONTROL STRATEGY ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
• Weeia dlapoui option*
VoooiMani a ,'*'|™ impac a
Croit media w»ptr*a

CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
• Add-«n devteoa
• Coetbtnllen medllkallon


1 ALTtMNATrVCCOHTHOL |»£ltH °

DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
• Conitol lechnotogy modttleationa
• Quantified R»D r*aed«
• Criteria tor prtorllte*




STATUTORY CONSTRAINT*
• Fetfera'/tiare ilantfartf* antf
regWatl»ni
• RoMircfi data baea lot
•landird*
I
1 ENVIRONMENT
OBJECTIVES
f
AMBIENT POLLUTANT LEVELS
• Dili «J)«tNw »nd evaluation



' COMBUSTION MOCKS
USE PROJECTION*
• Currant market ette
* Future nwrtet pmMKittoni
^
EMISSION OR AMBIENT
LEVEL GOALS
• Permlielble media concentration
• Criteria lot e«tabtt*hlng
pfUKllUt
• Control lechnoMgy ItrnH*
• MATE
t 	
AL GOALS AND 1 CTca -
KVELOPMENT | altr^ J
f
SOCIAL/ECONOMIC /POLITICAL/
INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NonpoHutant Impact goal*
(energy, aoclel. economic, etc.)
• OuenlMIwi nonpollutani impact*
• SWng crHvrle
* Crrthtal malarial* Impecta
STEP 4
T^^ lM*comb«*1MriiproceM
NO
TOTAL POLLUTANT
LOAD CALCULATIONS
• Proceea loading.
• Other Murce* loedhg
• Natural bechground
1
1 MAGNITUDE OF 1 CTCD ,
r~
POLLUTANT PRIORITY
MMKINO
• Total polrutint loed
• Degree ot hai ard
(•evenly Indicet)


REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
DATA
• Demographic S land uaa
pattern* A trend*
• Hydrologrand

R.D M» .y...m RECOMMENDATION, IMPACTS
Damonalratlon teal* lyalam • Standard* medHteetlofll • Multimedia pollutant
Economkt * Sl*n4erdi dev*4epmen< Ottrtbutlan foatfi
Energy requirement* • Criteria 1* prk««t** • Additive. lran*lorma«o«,
PoMulent removal elllciency • Tlmelreme and enhancement effect*

•ouice analyw* m
odel* 
-------
                    IERL DIRECTOR

UIPD
DIRECTOR
l
I
to
CO
CD
CCEA STEERING COMMITTEE
 'CHAIRMAN, UIPD DIRECTOR
            EACD DIRECTOR
            IPD DIRECTOR
            IERL DIRECTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE
            CCEA COORDINATOR
       CCEA TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
         CHAIRMAN, PrTB CHIEF
                   EA BRANCH CHIEFS
                   EA PROJECT OFFICERS
                   CCEA COORDINATOR
                   SUPPORT CONTRACTOR (MITRE AT
                                       PRESENT)
                                   Figure 3 - CCEA Functional Management
                                             Structure

-------
                                                      TABLE I

                                          CCEA MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
to
(S3
TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

     •  Develops and recommends CCEA Program
        scope, funding and schedules for approval
        of Steering Committee

     •  Prepares draft accomplishment plans

     •  Prepares and presents program review
        materials

     •  Recommends correction of program/project
        emphasis as needed to the Steering
        Committee

     •  Resolves routine problems/issues

     •  Elevates other problems/issues to UIPD
        Director Steering Committee resolution

     •  Meets quarterly to discharge its
        responsibilities although special meetings
        will be called on an ad hoc basis as
        necessary
STEERING COMMITTEE

     •  Advises IERL Director concerning CCEA
        Program

     •  Reviews annual CCEA Program plans

     •  Recommends allocation of resources—
        CCEA versus other programs

     •  CCEA program reviews

     •  Reviews and evaluates CCEA Program
        outputs

     •  Corrects program/project emphases as
        needed

     •  Recommends resolution of problems
        raised by working group

     •  Meets at the request of the members—
        approximately twice per year

-------
Partial Draft Showing CCEA Program Support  for NSPS Development
-^ STANDARDS UNDER CONSIDERATION
~\ BY OAQPS
CCEA "-- 	
TECHNICAL FROJECT&--^__^^

STATIONARY SOURCE NO,
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
(ACUREX CORPORATION)

DIISSIOSS CHARACTERIZATldil
OF CONVENTIONAL
COMBUSTION SYSTHB
(TRW)
10
O9
o


SYSTEMS ESCIk'EERING
SiRVlCES FOR.CCEA
(CONTRACT BEING
XECOTIATED)



Internal Combustion
Engine Control
Technology
(CAA-1U)
P-2/79.-P-2/80
Task 5.4 - Control
Engineering &
Environmental
Impact Assessment
of 1C Engines
Task 2 - Multimedia
Pollutant! assess-
ment of 1C Sources
for Electric Power
Generation * Steam

Task 1.1- Pollu-
tant characterisa-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
. control levels
terisUcs of Pollu-
tant Emlsslona fron
Specific Sources
Task 2.2 - Idcn-
tificcx ton of
types of stationary
conventional com-
bustlon processes'
not adequately
characterized
Task 3.2 - Total
National Erolaeion*
of Combustion
Pollutants by
Source
Task 4.2 - Capa-
bility and coata
of Control Tech-
nologies to
meet existing
& Proposed
Federal
Standards
Tall Stacks
Regulations
(CAA-112)
P-9/78;F-2/»


Task 1 - Multi-
media pollutant*
assessment of
stationary con-
ventional com-
bustion processes

Task 1 1 - Pollu-
tant characteriza-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
control level!
nioues for
Quantifying
Health/Environ-
mental Effects
of Combustion
Pollutants
Task 4.2 - CapablHt
technologies to neat
existing and propose
Federal standard*


Gas Turbines
(NOX Emission!)
;F-2/79
Task 5.5 - Control
Engineering &
Environmental
Impact Assesament
of Gas Turbine*
Task 2 - Multimedia
Pollutants assess-
ment of Internal
Combuatlon Source*
for Electric Power
Generation and
Steam

Task 1.1 - Pollu-
tant chnracterlze-
tion' (primary &
secondary) and
control levels
Task 3.2 - Total
National Emiealon*
of Combustion
Pollutants by
Source
) Task 4,3 -
Prioritized listing
for Modifying
c Existing Control
Technologies or
for New Technology
Development


Incinerator*


Task 3 - Multi-
media Pollutants
assessment of other
sources for Electric
Power Generation
and Steam

Task 1.1 - Pollu-
tant characteriza-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
control levels
Task 2.0 - Charac-
teristics of Pollu-
tant Emissions from
Specific Sources
Task 4.2 - Capability
and costs of control
technologies to meet
existing and proposed
Federal atanderd*


Utility Boiler*
(Revised)
;F-3/79
Task 5.1 - Control
Engineering &
Environmental
Impact Assessment
of Utility Boilers
Task 3 - Multimedia
Pollutants assess-
ment of other sources
for Electric Power
Generation I Steaa


tant characteriza-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
control levels
Task 3.2 - Total
National Emissions
of Combustion
Pollutants by
Source
Task 4.3 -
Prioritized listing
for Modifying
Existing Control
Technologies or
for New Technology
Development


Industrial
Boilers
(Revised)
P"10/SO;F-8/81


Task 3 - Multimedia
Pollutants assess-
ment of other
sources for Electric
Power Generation *
Steam
Task 5 - Mul ti-
med 1 /i Pollutants
assessment of
Industrial
Combustion Source*

tant characteriza-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
control levels
Task 4.3 -
Priori tlzed
Us ting for
Modifying Existing
Control Technologies
or for New Tech-
nology Development



Waste Fuel
Boilers






tant characteriza-
tion (primary t
secondary) and
control levels
T.iKk ;.3 - Plan fnr
acquiring missing
Data en _char.irte-ris-
tics of Pollutant
frnisfilons
TpsV 3.2 - Total
N.iLion.-il r.nl'.alons
cf Cor.nnstlon
Pollutants by
Source
Task 4.3 -
Prioritized listing
for Modifying
Existing Control
Technologies or
for New Technology
Development


-------
                TABLE II

   Partial Draft Showing CCEA Program
Support for NSPS Development (Continued)
~^STANDARDS UNT5ER CONSIDERATION
' — — -^^^ BY OAQPS
CCEA ' 	 — ^^^
IF.CHN1CAL PROJECTS -^____^^


COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF
COAL VS. OIL FIRING
IN WELL-CONTROLLED
INDUSTRIAL 6
UTILITY BOILL'RS
(TRW)

CO
00
1— '
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF
RESIDUAL OIL UTILIZATION
(CATALYTIC CORPORATION)


Internal Combustion
Engine Control
Technology
(CAA-111)
P-2/79;F-2/80









Tall Stack*
Regulation*
(CAA-1121
P-9/78;F"2/79






Tesk 4 - Assess-
ment of control
technology for
Residual Oil
Processes
Task 5 - Environ-
mental Alternatives
assessment (con-
vs. Pollutant
Priorltlzatlon)
Cas TurbinM
(NOX Emissions)
JF-2/79









Incinerators




'




Utility Boilers
{Revised)
;F-3/79
Task 1.2 - Multi-
media emissions
utility boilers
Task 2,2 - Environ-
of coal & oil
firing in Utility
Boilers
Task 3.2 - Com-
parative emissions
assessment
Task <>. 2 - Compara-
tive Energy & Social
Impacts of Coal
vs. Oil for
Utility Boilers
Task 1 - Multi-
media Environ-
mental Goals,
including TLV's,
existing S pro-
posed standards
& NSPS
Task ft - Future
Research needs
(including
for pilot or
demonstration
plane scale)
1 Industrial
Boilers
(Revised)
P-10/80;F-8/81
T^isk 1.1 - Multi-
media emissions
trial boilers
Task 2.1 - Envlron-
of coal & oil
firing in Indus-
trial Boilers
Task 3.1 - Com-
parative emissions
assessment of coal
vs. oil for
Industrial Boilers
Task 4.1 - Compara-
tive Energy & Social
Impacts of Coal
vs. Oil for
Industrial Boilers
T.isk 2 - Multi-
media Environ-
mental Goals,
including TLV's,
existing & pro-
posed standards
t SSPS
Tnsk 6 - Future
Research needs
(including
for pilot or
demonstration
plant scale)
Wast* Fuel
Boilers
i
i


i
1
I
i




-------
                            TABLE III
Partial Draft Showing CCEA Program Support for NAAQS  Development
STANDARDS UNDER CONSIDIMTICH
BY OAQPS
CCEA TECHNICAL PROJECTS

ENV1ROIMEXTAL ASSESSMENT
OF STATIONARY SOURCE HO,
CONTROL TKC«::OLOGIES
(ACL REX CORPORATION)
CO
CO
to


EMISSIONS CHARACTERIZATION
OF CONVENTIONAL
'COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
(TRW)



Review of Long Tarm
NAAQS for NO,
(CAA-108)
P-l/79;F-6/79
Tank fi -
Identification of
cost Affective
and environmen-
tally sound NOX
Control System.


Task 1 - Multimedia
ment of Residential
Sources
Task 2 - Multi-
media Pollutants
assessment!! of 1C
Sources for
Electricity Power
Generation & Steaa
Task 3 - Multimedia
fflent of other com-
bustion sources for
Electricity Power
Generation & Steam
Task 4 - Multimedia
ment of Commercial/
Institutional
Sources
Task 5 - Multimedia
Pollutants assess-
ment of Industrial
Combustion Sources
Development of
short t«rm NAAQS
for N02 (CAA-109)
F-12/78;F-6/79
Task 2 - Multi-
media NOX
Emission Impact!
A Adequacy of
Data
Task 4 -
Evaluation of
NOX Sampling
Techniques
Task 6 -
Identification of
cost effective
and environmen-
tally sound NOX
Control System.
Task 1 - Multimedia
aent of Residential
Sources
Task 2 - Multi-
media Pollutants
assessments of 1C
Sources for
Electricity Power
Generation & Steam
Task 3 - Multimedia
ment of other com-
bustion sources for
Electricity Power
Generation & Steam
Task 4 - Multimedia
ment of Commercial/
Institutional
Sources
Task 5 - Multimedia
Pollutants assess-
ment of Industrial
Combustion Sources
Review of MAAQS for
photochemical
oxidanta
F- 12/78
Task 2 - Multi-
media M0x
Emission Impacts
& Adequacy of
Data
Task 4 -
Evaluation of
N0x Sampling
Techniques







Review of NAAQS for
CO
P-4/79;F-7/79




Taak 1 - Multimedia
Pollutants assess-
ment of Residential
Sources
Task 2 - Multi-
media Pollutants
assessments of 1C
Sources for
Electricity Power
Generation & Steam
Task 3 - Multimedia
ment of other com-
bustion sources for
Electricity Power
Generation & Steam
Task 4 - Multimedia
ment of Commercial/
Institutional
Sources
Task 5 - Multimedia
Pollutants assess-
ment of Industrial
Combustion Sources
Review of NAAQS tor
S0x
P"5/80;F-12/80




Taak 1 - Multimedia
ment of Residential
Sources
Task 2 - Multl
media Pollutants
assessments of 1C
Sources for
Electricity Power
Generation 4 Steam
Task 3 - Multimedia
ment of other com-
bustion sources for
Electricity Power
Generation & Steam
Task 4 - Multimedia
ment of Commercial/
Institutional
Sources
Task 5 - Multimedia
Pollutants assess-
ment of Industrial
Combustion Sources
Review of NAAQS for
parttculates
P-5/80-.F-I2/80




Task 1 - Multimedia
ment of Residential
Sources
Taak 2 - Multi-
media Pollutants
assessment* of 1C
Sources for
Electricity Power
Generation S Steaa
Task 3 - Multimedia
ment of other com-
bustion sources for
Electricity Power
Cener.itlon A Steam
Task 4 - Multimedia
ment of Commercial/
Institutional
Sources
Task 5 - Multimedia
ment of Industrial
Combustion Sources
Listing of
radioactive
pollutants
(how classified)
F-8/80











-------
                TABLE III
   Partial Draft Showing CCEA.
Support for NAAQS Development (Continued)
-—^STANDARDS I'.'IDER CONSIDERATION
"- — --^RY OAQPS
CCE/\ rECHXICAL ^~^>N_^
PROJECTS ^"""—.^^^

SYSIiMS" EN'CI V^ERI'fG
•SERVICES IDS
CC^A
(CONTRACT BEING
NECOTlAlED)
to
CO
CO


COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF
COAL VS. Oil. FIRING IN
«EU. COOTRGU.ED
la US TRIAL 1. UTILITY
B01I.US
i (TRW)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF RKIDUAL OIL
UTILIZATION
!
Review of Long Ten
HAAQS for NO,
(CAA-108)
P-t/79;F-6/79
Task 1.1 - Pollu-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
Task 3.1 -
Techniques for
quantifying
Health/Environ-
ment Effect of
Combustion
Pollutants
Task .1.2 - Total
National Emissions
of Combustion
Pollutants by
Source
Task 3.3 -
Qualitative &
Quantitative
Effects of
Criteria & Other
selected Pollutant*
Task 4.1 - Evalua-
tion at Existing,
Developmental &.
Proposed Control
Technology for
Combustion Pollu-
tants on MEG list
Task 2.1 - F.nvlron-
of Coal & Oil
Firing In
Industrial Boilers
Task 2.2 - Envlron-
of coal vs. oil
Firing tn
Utility Boilers


Development of
short tarn NAAQS
for N02 (CAA-109)
P-12/78;F-6/79
Task 1.1 - Pollu-
tion (primary i
secondary) and
Task 3.1 -
Techniques for
quantifying
Health/Environ-
ment Effect of
Combustion
Pollutants
Task 3.2 - Total
National Emissions
of Combustion
Pollutants by
Source
Task 3.3 -
Qualitative &
Quantitative
Effects of
Criteria & Other
selected Pollutant*
Task 4.1 - Evalua-
tion of Existing,
Developmental &
Proposed Control
Technology for
Combustion Pollu-
tants on MEG List
Task 2.1 - Environ-
mental assessment
of Coal i, Oil
Firing in
Industrial Boilers
Task 2.2 - Environ-
mental assessment
coal vs. oil
Firing In
Utility Boilers


Review of HAAQS for
photochemical
oxldants
F-12/78
Task 1.1 - Pollu-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
Task 3.1 -
Techniques for
quantifying
Health/Environ-
ment Etfect of
Combustion
Pollutants
Task 3.2 - Total
National Emissions
of Combustion
Pollutants by
Source
Task 3.3 -
Qualitative &
Quantitative
Effects of
Criteria & Other
selected Pollutants
Task 4.1 - Evalua-
tion of Existing,
Developmental &
Proposed Control
Technology for
Combustion Pollu-
tants on MEG lint
Task 2.1 - Envlron-
aencal assessment
of Coal & Oil
Firing in
Industrial Boilers
Task 2.2 - Envlron-
coal vs. oil
Firing in
Utility Boilers


Review of NAAQS for
CO
P-«/79i?-7/79
Task 1.1 - Pollu-
tant characteriza-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
Task 3.1 -
Techniques for
quantifying
Health/Environ-
ment Effect of
Combustion
Pollutants
Task 3.2 - Total
National Emissions
of Combustion
Pollutants by
Source
Task 3.3 -
Qualitative &
Quantitative
Effects of
Criteria & Other
selected Pollutants
Task 4.1- Evalua-
tion of Existing,
Developmental &
Proposed Control
Technology for
Combustion Pollu-
tants on MEG Mat
Task 2.1 - Environ-
mental assessment
of Coal & Oil
Firing in
Industrial Boilers
Task 2.2 - Envlron-
coal vs. oil
Firing in
Utility Boilers
Task 2 - Multimedia
Environmental Goals,
Including Existing
4 Proposed Standards,
NSPi & TLV's.
Review of NAAQS for
S0x
P-5/80-.F-12/80
Task 1.1 - Pollu-
tant characteriza-
tion (primary &
secondary) and
control levels
Task 3.1 -
Techniques for
quantifying
Health/Environ-
ment Effect of
Combustion
Pollutants
Task 3.2 - Total
National Emissions
of Combustion
Pollutants by
Source
Task 3.3 -
Qualitative &
Quantitative
Effects of
Criteria & Other
selected Pollutants
Taak 4.1 - Evalua-
tion of Existing,
Developmental &
Proposed Control
Technology for
Combustion Pollu-
tants an MEG list
Task 2.1- Environ-
mental assessment
of Coal i Oil
Firing in
Industrial Boilers
Tjaak J2.2 - Environ-
mental ausessment
coal vs. oil
Firing in
Utility Boilers
Tas,k 2 - Multimedia
Environmental Goals,
including Existing
S Proposed Standards,
NSPS & TLV's.
	 i.
Review of NAAQS tor
participates
P-5/80-.F- 12/80






'
Task 2.1 - Environ-
mental assessment
of Coal & Oil
Firing in
Industrial Boilers
Task 2.2 - Environ-
mental assessment
coal vs. oil
Firing in
Utility Boilers


Listing of
radioactive
pollutants
(how classified)
V-8/80
Task 2,i - Wan
for acquiring
missing data











-------
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Please read Imitntctions on tfie reverse before completing}
 1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/7-79-050d
                          12.
                                                    3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE proceedings Of the Third Stationary
 Source Combustion Symposium; Volume IV. Funda-
 mental Combustion Research and Environmental
 Assessment	   •	
                                                    S. REPORT DATE
                                                     February 1979
                                                    6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
          Joshua S.  Bowen, Symposium Chairman, and
 Robert E. Hall, Symposium Vice-chairman
                                                     8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 See Block 12.
                                                    10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                    EHE624
                                                     11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                                     NA (Inhouse)
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 277U
                                                    13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PI
                                                    Proceedings; 3/79
                                                                    PERIOD COVERED
                                                    14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                     EPA/600/13
 is.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TERL_RTppro|ectofficer jg Robert E. Hall. MD-65, 919/541-
 2477. EPA-600/7-77-073a thriS -(T73e and EPA-600/2-76-152a thru -152c are pro-
 ceedings of earlier symposiums on the same theme.
 IB. ABSTRACT The pjQcgedjngg document the approximately 50 presentations made during
 the symposium, March 5-8, 1979, in San Francisco. Sponsored by the Combustion
 Research Branch of EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-RTF,
 the symposium dealt with subjects relating both to developing improved combustion
 technology for the reduction of air pollutant emissions from stationary sources,
 and to improving equipment efficiency. The symposium was in seven parts, and
 the proceedings are in five volumes: I. Utility,  Industrial,  Commercial,  and Resi-
 dential Systems; n. Advanced Processes and Special Topics;  m. Stationary Engine
 and Industrial Process Combustion Systems; IV. Fundamental Combustion Research
 and Environmental Assessment; and V. Addendum. The symposium provided contra-
 ctor, industrial, and government representatives with the latest information on EPA
 inhouse and contract combustion research projects relating to pollution control,
 with emphasis on  reducing NOx while controlling other emissions and improving
 efficiency.
 7.
                            KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                         b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                c. COSATI Field/Group
 Air Pollution
 Combustion
 Field Tests
 Assessments
 Combustion Control
 Fossil  Fuels
 Boilers        	
                     Gas Turbines
                     Nitrogen Oxides
                     Efficiency
                     Utilities
                     Industrial Pro-
                      cesses
                     Hydrocarbons
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Environmental Assess-
  ment
Combustion Modification
Trace Species
Fuel Nitrogen
T3B"
21B
14B
21D
13A
T3TT
 07B
 13H
 07C
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Unlimited
                                         1». SECURITY CLASS (This Report}
                                         Unclassified
                                                                 21. NO. OF PAGES
                                         20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage!
                                         Unclassified
                                                                 22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (••73)
                                      234

-------