EPA-650/2-74-073
August 1974
Environmental Protection Technology Series
I
55
V
$322
\
UJ
O
jijiij^^iitliiiiijiiii^
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
January 1975
We are pleased to enclose the St. Louis/Union Electric Refuse Firing
Demonstration Air Pollution Test Report, which presents the results of air
emission tests performed during October through December 1973 independently
by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and by the Union Electric Company (UE).
The MRI tests are part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
comprehensive evaluation of the program conducted jointly by the City of
St. Louis, UE, and EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management Programs and
Office of Research and Development to demonstrate the use of prepared
solid waste as a supplementary fuel in a coal-burning electric utility
boiler. MRI used the EPA-approved testing method to measure particulate
and gaseous emissions. UE employed the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers testing method to measure particulates only, using a separate
sampling program. The report provides data on both sets of tests.
Based on the MRI tests, it appears that gaseous emissions (sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, and mercury vapor) are not
significantly affected by combined firing of waste and coal.
Both MRI and UE tests found that particulate levels per cubic foot
of exhaust gas at the inlet to the air pollution control device (the
electrostatic precipitators) were not affected by combined firing; however,
total inlet particulate levels did increase because of increases in the
stack gas flowrate.
The MRI tests did not find an increase in particulate emissions when
solid waste was combined with coal. However, the UE tests did find an
increase in such emissions. We want to call to your attention, therefore,
the fact that this report is not conclusive on this subject. There is
evidence, furthermore, to indicate that neither set of tests provide an
optimum representation of combined firing of solid waste and coal. It
appears that the electrostatic precipitator was not properly conditioned
prior to the tests and could have been tuned for better particulate
collection performance.
The report recommends that further tests be conducted to complete
the characterization of particulate emissions and to support the develop-
ment of Federal and State air emission control standards. In response to
this recommendation, a second series of tests, conducted independently
by EPA and UE, were initiated in late 1974 and are expected to be completed
by mid-1975.
—ARSEN J. DARNAY
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management Programs
-------
EPA-650/2-74-073
ST. LOUIS/UNION ELECTRIC
REFUSE FIRING DEMONSTRATION
AIR POLLUTION TEST REPORT
by
L. J. Shannon, M. P. Schrag,
F.I. Honea, andD. Bendersky
Contract No. 68-02-1324
Task No. 11
ROAP No. 21AQQ010
Program Element No. LAB013
Task Officer: James D . Kilgroe
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
August 1974
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency.
nor does Mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
The report gives results of tests performed to determine the effects of
mixed-fuel firing on boiler emissions and electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
performance, using shredded municipal wastes as a supplementary fuel in
a 140 megawatt coal-fired utility boiler. Tests were performed at boiler
loads of 75 to 140 megawatts when firing coal-only and when firing fuel
mixtures which provided solid waste heat inputs to the boiler of 9 to 27%.
Test measurements included: total particulate, particulate size distri-
bution, 02, C02, CO, NO, S02, S03, Cl~, Hgv, in situ fly ash resistivity,
and ESP operating conditions. Firing mixed fuels caused no statistically
significant changes in gaseous pollutant emissions. Particulate stack
emissions increased, as a result of an ESP performance loss related to
changes in ESP electrical operating conditions and gas flow volumes. How-
ever, excessive sparking rates on some mixed-fuel tests indicated that
the ESP could have been tuned for better collection. ESP performance was
significantly affected by the fuel mix (coal and waste). Additional tests
will be required to establish the magnitude of performance losses which
may result from mixed-fuel firings.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract iii
List of Figures vii
List of Tables ix
Acknowledgements xi
Summary 1
Description of Tests 1
Test Results 2
Conclusions and Recommendations 4
Introduction 6
Description of St. Louis-Union Electric Demonstration System. . 7
Test Plans and Procedures 14
General EPA/MRI Test Plan 14
Actual EPA/MRI Test Sequences and Procedures 17
EPA/MRI Measurement, Sampling and Analysis Methods 18
Union Electric Test Plans 26
Data Reduction Procedures 29
MRI Data Reduction Procedures 29
Particulate Data 29
Andersen Particle Size Data . 30
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Brink Particle Size Data 31
803 Data 31
Union Electric Procedures 31
Analyses and Discussion of Tests 33
Coal Analyses 33
Refuse Analyses 36
Combustion Efficiency of Refuse 36
Stack Gas Composition 4°
Particulate Emissions 46
EPA/MRI Particulate Loading Data 46
Union Electric Particulate Loading Data 46
Interpretation of Emission Data 52
Electrical Measurements 55
Performance of Electrostatic Precipitator 63
Particulate Resistivity 63
Efficiency of Electrostatic Precipitator 63
Conclusions 73
Test Procedures 73
Emission Levels and Precipitator Performance 73
Refuse Combustion Efficiency 74
Recommendations 75
References 76
Appendix A - Data Forms, Sample Calculations, and Summary of
Results 77
Appendix B - Coal Analyses and Refuse Analyses. 96
Appendix C - Electrical Measurements Made on ESP During EPA/
MRI and Union Electric Emission Tests 105
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Pag
1 Flow diagram of processing plant 8
2 Schematic diagram of Union Electric facilities to
receive, s tore and burn refuse 10
3 View of boiler at Union Electric's Meramec Plant 11
4 Test matrix for EPA/MRI plan 16
5 EPA/MRI sampling location at input to the ESP 22
6 MRI/EPA sampling location at outlets to the ESP 23
7 Union Electric sample traverse points on ESP inlet and
outlet 27
8 Apparent combustion efficiency of refuse 41
9 Sulfur oxide emissions as a function of percent refuse
energy 44
10 NOX emissions as a function of percent refuse energy. ... 45
11 Comparison of inlet and outlet grain loadings for coal
only and coal plus refuse firing-EPA/MRI mean value
data 50
10 "-- 1 _I ^^id. and outlet grain loading for coal
only and coal plus refuse firing-Union Electric mean
value data 51
13 Mean particulate emission data 53
14 Uncontrolled particulate emission rate as a function of
percent refuse energy 54
15 Particle size distribution at ESP inlet, power output =
80 megawatts 56
16 Particle size distribution at ESP inlet, power output =
100 megawatts 57
17 Particle size distribution at ESP inlet, power output =
120 megawatts 58
18 Secondary voltage versus current curves with 9% refuse
firing and coal only at a generation rate of 100 mega-
watts 59
19 Resistivity versus temperature with and without refuse
firing at the Meramec Power Station, December 1973 .... 64
Vll
-------
LIST OF FIGUBES (Concluded)
No. Page
20 Variation of ESP efficiency with changes in fuel and
boiler load 65
21 Comparison of theoretical and measured gas flowrates ... 70
22 Efficiency versus volume flowrate for the Meramec Power
Station with varying feed rates for refuse 71
A-l Source testing program format 79
A-2 Brinks/Andersen coding form 80
A-3 Gas program format (S02, S03, NOX, CO gases) 81
A-4 Efficiency curve for Meramec boiler , 82
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No.
1 Characteristics of electrostatic precipitator 13
2 Test plan for MRI/EPA emission tests 15
3 EPA/MRI emission test procedure 19
4 Methods of sampling and analysis used by MRI 21
5 Modifications to test or sampling procedures resulting
from operating problems 25
6 Fuel composition and heat values 34
7 Summary of coal proximate analyses 35
8 Summary of refuse proximate analyses, milled and air
classified 37
9 Summary of ultimate analyses of selected refuse samples. . 38
10 Summary of stack gas composition data 42
11 Stack gas composition corrected to 50% excess air 43
12 Summary of particulate grain loadings--EPA/MRI tests ... 47
13 Summary of particulate grain loadings--Union Electric
tests 48
14 Particulate emission data, mean and mean deviation .... 49
15 Average precipitator electrical performance measurements
(EPA/MRI tests) 60
16 Average precipitator electrical performance measurements
(Union Electric tests) 61
17 Comparison of coal and coal plus refuse ESP electrical
£O
measurements °^
18 Theoretical gas flowrate at 310°F and 1 atm 69
A-l Contents of Appendix A 78
A-2 Example of particulate calculations 83
A-3 Sunmary of results of particulate calculations 87
A-4 Brink particle size data (with cyclone and filter) .... 94
A-5 Example of S03 calculations 95
B-l Coal analyses 97
B-2 Coal analyses (Union Electric) 98
B-3 Ultimate coal analyses (MRI tests) 99
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
No.
B-4 Proximate analysis and heating values of milled refuse
(MRI test period) 100
B-5 Analysis of milled refuse ash (MRI test period) 101
B-6 Proximate analysis and heating values of milled refuse
(Union Electric test period) 102
B-7 Analysis of milled refuse ash (Union Electric test
period) 103
B-8 Ultimate analysis of refuse samples taken during Union
Electric tests in November 1973 104
C-l ESP test measurements (EPA/MRI) . 106
C-2 ESP test measurements (Union Electric) 107
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for EPA/CSL under Contract No. 68-02-1324. The
test programs discussed in this report was performed by Midwest Research
Institute, Southern Research Institute, EPA and Union Electric personnel.
Dr. Larry J. Shannon, Head, Environmental Systems Section (MRI), Dr. F. I.
Honea and Mr. M. P. Schrag were the principal MRI authors of this report.
Other MRI personnel who contributed were Mr. Dave Bendersky, Mr. Emile
Baladi and Ms. Christine Guenther.
Mr. James D. Kilgroe, Project Officer (EPA/CSL) planned and directed the
tests and was a principal author of the report.
Dr. Grady B. Nichols, Head, Particulate Control Section, Southern Research
Institute, coordinated SRI activity and authored a report which was in-
corporated into this document.
The cooperation and aid of Union Electric personnel is also acknowledged.
Mr. Dave Klumb, Mr. K. R. Bledsoe, Mr. Jim Honeywell, Mr. Jake Wagner,
and Mr. Harvey Morris were especially helpful. The cooperation of Union
Electric's Betterment Engineering Office who provided information on
Union Electric's test results reported herein is also gratefully acknowledged,
Approved for:
H. M. Hubbard, Director
Physical Sciences Divis
on
31 August 1974
xi
-------
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an initial series of air pollution
tests conducted as part of the technical activities on the St. Louis
Demonstration Program. These tests were designed to determine: (1) the
effects of the combined firing of shredded refuse and coal on pollutants
emitted from the boiler, (2) the operating characteristics and collection
efficiency of the electrostatic precipitator (ESP), and (3) the efficiency
of combustion of the solid waste fuel. Tests were conducted independently
by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) and it subcontractor, Southern Re-
search Institute (SRI), under EPA funding and direction, and by Union
Electric Company.
The tests conducted by EPA/MRI and the tests conducted by Union Electric
involved generally different test methods, data acquisition, data reduc-
tion, and analyses procedures. In some instances, the differences in
these procedures have contributed to apparently conflicting interpreta-
tions of the results. Comparisons and contrasts of the separate sets of
data and results, where made in this report, are done to provide substan-
tiation of indicated trends and to illuminate possible problem areas in
the future use of solid waste as fuel.
DESCRIPTION OF TESTS
Tests conducted by EPA/MRI included measurements of gaseous and par-
ticulate emissions and an evaluation of the performance of the electro-
static precipitator. The Union Electric tests were similar but did not
include measurement of gaseous pollutant emissions. The EPA/MRI tests
were conducted using EPA methods as guidelines. Modifications were made
to the methods where operating problems necessitated some changes in
sampling procedures. All tests performed by Union Electric were con-
ducted in accordance with ASME Power Test Code 27.
The primary test variables in the EPA/MRI emission tests included the
boiler load (120, 100, and 80 megawatts) and the percentage of solid waste
heat input provided to the boiler (9, 18, 27%)- All tests were run
using low sulfur coal from Orient 6 mine in Illinois. The test sequences
-------
employed by EPA/MRI were to a great extent dictated by "normal" solid
waste processing plant operations and Union Electric operating procedures
and by operating problems which arose during the 2-week test period.
Union Electric, also using Orient 6 coal, conducted two series of per-
formance tests on the ESP over a 2-month period. One series, conducted
in October 1973, evaluated ESP performance while coal only was fired in
the boiler. The second series, conducted in November 1973, with the ex-
ception of one test involved evaluation of ESP performance under condi-
tions of combined-firing of coal and refuse. Boiler loads of 75, 100 and
140 megawatts were employed by Union Electric. Prior to Union Electric's
coal-only tests, the ESP was washed and adjusted and the unit was operated
in a normal manner, firing only coal for 2 weeks. During the 2 weeks
prior to the Union Electric combined-fir ing tests, 81 tons of refuse were
fired.
As noted previously, EPA/MRI coal only and coal plus refuse tests were
performed during a single 2-week test period. As a result some com-
promises were required--the most significant being the use of a short
stabilization or conditioning time for the ESP between major changes in
fuel mixtures. The difference in pre-test history of refuse firing prior
to coal firing tests (hours compared to days) was a significant varia-
tion in the EPA/MRI and Union Electric procedures.
TEST RESULTS
The percentage of refuse burned (i.e., refuse burn-out) appears to be
strongly dependent upon the percent of refuse fired at each boiler out-
put level (see Figure 8, p. . While several factors may contribute
to this behavior, the variations in fuel-mixing patterns in the furnace
probably can account for most of the effects. Surprisingly, no correla-
tion could be found between refuse moisture content and degree of burn-
out.
Measurements of stack gas composition indicated that no significant
changes in gaseous pollutant levels occur when refuse is substituted for
coal under the conditions tested by EPA/MRI.
Comparison of the particulate emission data from each of the tests con-
ducted by EPA/MRI and Union Electric indicates close agreement of inlet
grain loadings, but significant differences in the outlet grain loadings.
Inlet grain loadings for both EPA/MRI and Uni9n Electric tests generally
fell within the normal data scatter at each of their respective boiler
load conditions. There did not appear to be any significant trends in
-------
inlet grain loading resulting from either load changes or the substitu-
tion of refuse for coal as fuel. The mean inlet grain loading was ap-
proximately 1.95 grains/dscf over the boiler load range of 75 to 140
megawatts and refuse energy levels from 0 to 277».
The outlet grain loading increased with increasing boiler load. The
data scatter also increased with increasing boiler load. For given boiler
load conditions on the EPA/MRI tests, the outlet particulate emissions
,did not appear to vary-significantly with changes in fuel mixture. The
mean outlet particulate loadings for the EPA/MRI tests were moderately
higher than the Union Electric coal-only outlet loadings at comparable
boiler loads. However, the mean Union Electric outlet grain loading
for coal plus refuse was almost double the mean values of the Union Electric
coal-only tests at comparable boiler loads. Union Electric outlet grain
loadings for coal plus refuse were also significantly higher than the out-
let grain loading for the EPA/MRI coal plus refuse firing tests.
No significant differences in ESP efficiency were noted in the EPA/MRI
tests as a function of fuel mixture, but ESP efficiency declined with in-
creased boiler load.* Contrary to the EPA/MRI data, efficiencies calculated
from the Union Electric data showed a marked dependence on fuel mixture--
a significantly lower efficiency resulting from combined firing. In addi-
tion, the trend to decreasing efficiency with increasing boiler load is
more prevalent in the Union Electric data for the combined-firing case.
A comparison of efficiencies is given below.
Mean ESP Efficiencies
Fuel Boiler Load (megawatts) EPA/MRI Union Electric
Coal 75 98.8
Coal 80 97.2
100 97.2 98.3
120 96.5
140 96.9
Coal and Refuse 75 97.7
80 98.1
100 96.7 96.5
120 96.5
140 93.8
_,..;. . Inlet Grain Loading - Outlet Grain Loading
Efficiency = a a
Inlet Grain Loading
-------
The differences in ESP efficiency between the MRI and Union Electric
coal-only tests are probably the result of significant variations in the
pre-test history of boiler fuels fired and their effect upon ESP per-
formance.* With the exception of one coal-only test in November, all the
Union Electric coal-only tests involved no changes in boiler fuels between
tests. EPA/MRI test procedures were such that the coal-only tests were
conducted between coal plus refuse firing tests and, furthermore, prior
to all EPA/MRI tests the boiler had been operating in a combined-fir ing
mode for several weeks. Thus, a very short stabilization time in the
order of 12 to 16 hr was allowed in the EPA/MRI coal-only tests and the
data obtained by EPA/MRI for the coal-only tests probably reflect pre-
cipitator performance on combined fuel rather than coal only.
The reason for the significant differences in participate emission levels
between EPA/MRI and the Union Electric mixed fuel tests are not entirely
known. It is probable that these changes are due to differences in the
ESP electrical control settings or the particulate sampling test methods
used. ESP sparking rates for the Union Electric coal plus refuse tests
were significantly higher than for the comparable EPA/MRI tests and it
is postulated that the ESP electrical control setting used for the Union
Electric tests provided a lower collection efficiency than those used for
the EPA/MRI tests.
An analysis of the performance of the ESP with changes in pertinent ef-
fluent stream variables and ESP electrical parameters was conducted.
This analysis indicated that, while part of the decrease in precipitator
efficiency noted in the Union Electric coal plus refuse tests may be due
to nonoptimum adjustment of the ESP for operation on coal plus refuse,
the efficiency of the ESP does decrease when coal and refuse are fired
in the boiler. Additional theoretical analysis using SRI models for
ESP performance suggested that a major variable influencing precipitator
performance is the gas flowrate. In that regard, gas flowrates at a
given gross generation level appear to increase when refuse is sub-
stituted for coal as fuel to the boiler.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary conclusions from the air pollution tests are (a) the EPA/
MRI and Union Electric test results are broadly comparable considering
the differences in test procedures, (b) the efficiency of the ESP de-
creases when coal and refuse are fired in the boiler, and (c) the
degradation in ESP performance probably results from a combination of
Minimum recommended stabilization time for an ESP is on the order
of 3 to 5 days.
-------
factors including increased gas flowrates resulting from changes in fuel
composition and moisture content and changes in the electrical performance
characteristics of the ESP.
Additional air pollution testing is recommended in order to complete the
characterization of particulate emissions resulting from refuse firing.
Since the previous tests conducted using modified EPA methods were probably
only representative of combined-firing conditions, future tests should in-
clude determination of emission levels for coal-only firing conditions.
A stabilization time for the ESP of 2 to 5 days should be allowed between
coal and coal plus refuse firing tests.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The use of shredded solid waste as a supplementary fuel in a pulverized
coal-fired utility boiler is currently being demonstrated in a program
funded by the City of St. Louis, the Union Electric Utility Company and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). European utility boilers
have used solid waste as a supplementary fuel since about 1965. Heat
recovery from the incineration of solid wastes has been widely practiced
for a number of years. Both of these practices involve the combustion
of the solid waste fuels upon grates. The fuel mix and the firing tech-
niques (grate or suspension) and the subsequent combustion mechanisms
and furnace-flow pattern influence the boiler emissions and operation of
the emission control devices. Thus, the emissions from large boilers
which suspension-fire shredded solid wastes and pulverized coal as fuels
may be significantly different from grate fired boilers. The performance
of control devices operating on the boilers may also vary significantly.
Prior to the tests reported herein, no experimental emission data were
available on mixed suspension-fired fuels.
The primary objectives of the tests discussed in this document were to
characterize the emissions which result from the suspension firing of
solid waste as a supplementary fuel in a pulverized coal utility boiler
and to evaluate techniques for limiting or controlling these emissions.
Two series of tests were conducted: (1) a sequence of tests conducted
by Midwest Research Institute and its subcontractor, Southern Research
Institute, under EPA funding and direction, and (2) a sequence of tests
conducted by Union Electric. The tests conducted by EPA/MRI included
measurements of gaseous and particulate emissions and an evaluation of
the performance of the electrostatic precipitator used for particulate
emission control. The Union Electric tests were similar, but did not
include measurement of gaseous pollutant emissions.
The following sections of this report present a brief description of the
St. Louis demonstration system, test plans and procedures, data reduc-
tion, analyses and interpretation of tests, and recommendations.
-------
DESCRIPTION OF ST. LOUIS-UNION ELECTRIC DEMONSTRATION SYSTEM
The St. Louis-Union Electric System is the first demonstration plant
in the U.S. to process raw municipal waste for use as a supplementary
fuel in power plant boilers. In addition to producing a fuel, ferrous
metals are recovered from the waste for use as a scrap charge in steel
production.
Two separate facilities comprise the system—a processing plant operated
by the City of St. Louis and two identical boilers (tangentially fired),
which were modified to fire shredded refuse, at the Union Electric
Company's Meramec Plant near St. Louis, Figure 1 presents a flow dia-
gram of the processing plant. Raw solid waste is discharged from
packer-type collection trucks onto the floor of the receiving building
(Figure 1) . Front-end loaders are used to push the solid waste to a
receiving belt conveyor. This method of handling the waste was selected
over the pit and crane method because it is more economical and enables
the operator to remove unwanted materials. This method also permits
SLCOUCI. ctuu mute UUJ.J.OEH1 production rates. From the receiving con-
veyor, the raw solid waste is transferred to the hammennill.
The St. Louis processing plant utilizes single-stage shredding (milling)
of the solid waste. In the shredder, 30 large metal hammers swing
around a horizontal shaft, grinding the solid waste against an iron
grate until the material is shredded into particles small enough to
drop through the grate openings (2 in. by 3 in.). The design called
for a nominal particle size of 1-1/2 in. Preliminary data show that
over 90% by weight of the incoming waste is reduced to particles not
greater than 1 in. in any dimension.
From the hammermill, the shredded waste is conveyed to the air classi-
fier. The air classifier separates the heavier, mostly noncombustible
particles from the lighter ones. The shredded waste is dropped into a
vertical chute. A column of air blowing upward from the bottom of the
chute catches the lighter materials, causing them to rise to the top.
-------
AIR CLASSIFIER
Cyclone Separator
HAMMERMILL
Storage Bin
oo
STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION
Packer Truck
Stationary Packer
RAW REFUSE DELIVERY
.
Light Material
Separation Chute
Heavy Material
NuggetiZer(__LOk Magnetic Belt
Magnetic! I
^=i
Trailer Truck
OCT
(P)
Ferrous Metals Hauled to Steel Mill
Nonmagnetic Metals, Glais, and Waste
to Further Separation or to Landfill
To
Power
Plant
Figure 1. Flow diagram of processing plant.—
-------
The heavier materials drop to the bottom. By varying the air velocity
and the cross-sectional area of the chute, the percentage split between
heavy and light fractions can be controlled. The light materials are
carried pneumatically from the separation chute to the cyclone separator,
where they are removed from the air stream and allowed to fall onto the
conveyor leading to the storage bin.
The heavy material, which drops out of the bottom of the air classifier,
is passed through a magnetic device which removes the ferrous metals.
The ferrous metal is then sent through a "nuggetizer" which densities
the metal. The densified metal is passed through a second magnetic
device as a final cleanup prior to shipment to the steel mill.
The refuse fuel is removed from the storage bin by an auger feed system
and conveyed by belts into a stationary packer where the material is
compressed and loaded into a transport truck for delivery to the power
plant, located approximately 18 miles from the processing plant.
A schematic diagram of the facilities at Union Electric's Meramec Plant
to receive, store, and burn the refuse fuel is shown in Figure 2. The
refuse fuel is unloaded from the transport truck into a receiving bin
from which it is conveyed through a pneumatic feeder to the surge bin.
The surge bin is equipped with four drag-chain unloading conveyors,
each of which feeds a pneumatic feeder. The pneumatic feeders convey
the refuse fuel through four separate pipelines directly into four
firing ports in the boiler. Sufficient velocity is imparted to the
particles to carry them into the furnace high-temperature zones where
the particle ignite and burn rapidly. To accommodate the refuse
nozzles, one elevation of gas nozzles was removed and additional modi-
fications were made to each firing corner to permit combined refuse
and pulverized-coal firing. The refuse firing system is completely
independent of the main combustion control system. The boiler opera-
tor can only initiate or stop refuse firing; he does not have control
of the refuse firing rate. The firing rate can only be adjusted by
manually changing the feeder valve and drag-chain speeds at the refuse
surge bins control center.
Two identical boilers at Union Electric Company's Meramec Plant have
been modified to burn the shredded refuse (Figure 3). Each unit has
a nominal rating of 925,000 Ib of steam per hour burning Illinois coal
at the rate of 56 tons/hr. The firing of 56 tons of coal per hour is
equivalent to about 1,200 million Btu/hr. Each unit supplies a turbine-
generator with a nominal rating of 125 megawatts. Each unit is tan-
gentially fired with 16 pulverized coal nozzles (four per corner), with
provision for full load on natural gas. The furnace is 28 ft deep,
38 ft wide, and approximately 100 ft high.
-------
UNLOADING OPERATION
_ Receiving Bin
Trailer Truck
FIRING SYSTEM
Tangential I y-fi red Boiler
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of Union Electric facilities
to receive, store and burn refuse.—'
10
-------
INITIAL
SUPERHEATER
ECONOMIZER
l-Tr-TT T— 1; Llrrl
T ' TUv"^ P*1
FINISHING l!i
SUPERHEATER
COAL BUNKERS
It: * mill ill !itllfqMp | -
!3Jl .'1COAL AND GAS
'BURNERS*
PULVERIZERS
ASH ;' '
HOPPERf
R&FTJSE
JJRNERS
COAL FEEDERS
Figure 3. View of boiler at Union Electric's Meramec Plant.
11
-------
Particulate matter formed during the combustion process is carried
out of the boiler by hot gases. Before leaving the 250-ft boiler
stack, the gases pass through an electrostatic precipitator which
is designed to collect approximately 97% of the total particulate
matter (i.e., coal-fly ash). The electrostatic precipitator is
actually two units in parallel with a common inlet duct and separate
outlet ducts. The flow from the individual outlet ducts is directed
to a single exhaust stack. The pertinent specifications for the
electrostatic precipitator are given in Table 1.
No modifications were made to the bottom-ash-handling systems. Bottom
ash is hydraulically transferred (i.e., sluiced) from the ash hopper
to an ash holding pond.
12
-------
Table 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
Plate Area—55,700 ft2
Plate to Plate Spacing
(a) Inlet--8-3/4 in.
(b) Outlet—10 in.
Corona Wire Diameter—0.109 in.
Specific Collection Area--135 ft2/!,000 cfm
Migration Velocity—15 cm/sec
r\
Current Density--18 n-amps/cm
Electrical Sets--four in all; two side by side and two in direction
of flow.
Design Efficiency—97.570, burning coal at approximately 125 megawatts
and 411,500 acfm into the precipitator.
13
-------
TEST PLANS AND PROCEDURES
The tests conducted by MRI for EPA and those conducted by Union Electric
were based on testing plans and procedures developed by each organiza-
tion. Details of the individual test plans are presented next.
GENERAL EPA/MRI TEST PLAN
Table 2 presents a summary of nominal test conditions planned for the
EPA/MRI emission tests. The primary test variables included the boiler
load (120, 100, and 80 megawatts) and the percentage of solid waste
energy provided to the boiler (0, 9, 18, and 27%). All tests were
run using low sulfur coal from Orient 6 mine in Illinois. The maximum
boiler load was determined by the maximum sustainable rate of refuse
firing (20 tons/hr) and an expected nominal solid waste higher heating
value of 5,500 Btu/lb. Operations at the city solid waste processing
plant were conducted as needed to provide the refuse quantities required
to satisfy the test plan.
Figure 4 presents a schematic representation of the "boiler load" versus
"percentage of refuse heat input" test matrix. The majority of tests
were conducted at 80 megawatts and 100 megawatts for which a wide range
of refuse heat inputs to the boiler were attainable—the maximum sus-
tainable heat input from refuse at 120 megawatts is less than 15%.
There were only two transport trucks available to haul in solid waste
from the city processing plant and the solid waste could be supplied
only at a rate less than the maximum firing rate which is about 20 ton/
hr. Hence, the maximum firing rates were established by the initial
solid waste supply at the firing site (a full surge silo, receiving
building and a full truck standing by), the maximum delivery rate and
the time needed to complete an emission test (4 to 5 hr) before the
solid waste supply at the firing site was depleted.
A second rationale for testing predominately at reduced loads was the
fact that the lower'gas flowrates would provide experimental data which
could be used to define the precipitator design and operating param-
eters needed to achieve high collection efficiencies.
14
-------
Table 2. TEST PLAN FOR MRI/EPA EMISSION TESTS
Test No
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
Date Boiler Load
. 1973 (megawatts)
12/4
12/5
12/5
12/6
12/9
12/9
12/10
12/10
12/11
12/12
12/12
12/13
12/13
12/14
120
100
100
100
80
80
80
80
120
120
120
100
100
80
Refuse Heat
Input (%)
9
9
9
0
18
18
0
27
9
0
18
9
18
9
Nominal
Refuse Rate
(tons/hr)
9.0
8.0
8.0
0.0
12.8
12.8
0.0
19.0
9.3
0.0
18.8
8.0
15.8
6.5
Refuse Load
(megawatts)
10.8
9.0
9.0
0.0
14.4
14.4
0.0
21.6
10.8
0.0
21.6
9.0
18.0
7.2
15
-------
V_J-Nominal Condition
Test Number
60
80 100 120
Boiler Load, Megawatts
--27%
--18%
--9%
140
Figure 4. Test matrix for EPA/MRI plan.
-------
Actual EPA/MRI Test Sequences and Procedures
The test sequences and test procedures were to a great extent dictated
by "normal" solid waste processing plant and utility operating pro-
cedures and by operating problems which arose during the 2-week test
period. It was realized that the electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
performance is to a degree determined by the fly-ash coatings on the
discharge and collection electrodes and that it may require a number
of days of operation on a given fuel to stabilize or condition the
ESP at a nominal collection level. However, the normal operating mode
at St. Louis-Union Electric is to fire solid waste only during one or
two shifts per day, 5 days/week--solid waste is neither collected
nor processed during the weekend and there is not sufficient storage
capacity to allow continuous weekend firing, even considering that
enough solid waste could potentially be processed. Thus, the tests
as conducted would give stack emissions which were representative of
the cyclic mode of operation at St. Louis, but which would not perhaps
be representative of emissions under conditions of continuous refuse
firing at constant loads. Because of the importance of previous fuel-
firing history on ESP operation, Tests 1 and 2 were conducted during
the same day at the same boiler load and refuse firing conditions to
obtain data at duplicate test conditions and to evaluate the short-
term effects of conditioning on ESP collection efficiency. In the
morning tests, refuse firing was initiated approximately 1 hr before
the start of the emission tests. Emission testing on Test 2 was
started in the afternoon after refuse had been continuously fired for
approximately 5 hr. This procedure was repeated for Tests 4 and 5 at
different load and refuse firing conditions.
Coal base line tests (no refuse firing) were conducted in the mornings
after firing coal all night. The first base line test (Test 3) was being
conducted expeditously when the refuse processing plant had to shut down
operations because of the breakdown of a receiving conveyor system. A
second base line test was scheduled for Monday morning (12/10) of the
second week of tests when the ESP would have been subjected to coal firing
only for the entire weekend. However, the boiler blew a steam tube and
in order to regain lost test time refuse was processed and stored on
Friday (12/7) and fired on Sunday (12/9). The second base line test was
conducted as planned on Monday (12/10) and the last on Wednesday (12/12)
during the middle of the test week. In both of these cases refuse had
been fired the previous day.
17
-------
The general procedure following receipt and firing of the solid vaste
at the power plant is given in Table 3. This procedure was followed
to enable determination of the percentage of refuse heat input to
the boiler. All refuse received for a given test was fired (the
weight of refuse in each truck was recorded) and the incremental
boiler electrical loads generated by refuse firing were determined.
EPA/MRI Measurement, Sampling and Analysis Methods
The operating procedures, measurements performed, and samples col-
lected during the test period were designed to characterize the
boiler fuel input (coal and refuse), the boiler performance, the
electrostatic precipitator performance, and the furnace and stack
emissions.
Coal and refuse samples were collected and analyzed to characterize
the properties of the fuel consumed during each test (Tables 6 through
9 suranarize the data on fuel properties). The refuse sampling and
analysis procedures were those established and used throughout the
first year of the St. Louis-Union Electric Demonstration Program.
Refuse samples from the EPA/MRI emission tests were subjected to
proximate, ultimate and ash analyses. Coal samples were obtained
from each of the coal hoppers just upstream of the four pulverizers.
These samples were taken every 2 hr during each test. Composites of
samples from each test were subjected to proximate, ash and ultimate
analyses.
Primary voltages, primary currents and spark rates were recorded from
meters on each of the four ESP electrical sets. Secondary voltages
were measured on three of the sets by use of voltage dividers in-
stalled between the precipitator leads and ground, which measures the
electric potential between the corona wires and plates. Secondary
currents were read on the rectifier set secondary ammeters. Secondary
voltages and currents on the fourth electrical set were not measured
because only three suitable voltage dividers were available. In-situ
fly ash resistivity was measured using a point-to-plane instrument.
No attempt was made to optimize the electrical performance of the ESP
sections for each test condition except for the adjustment of the
voltage levels to prohibit excessive sparking.
The methods used for emission measurement sampling and analysis are
presented in Table 4. Figures 5 and 6 show the actual sampling ports
and traverse points. Problems which required some change in sampling
procedures were encountered in some of the test runs.
18
-------
Table 3. EPA/MRI EMISSION TEST PROCEDURE
Approx. Step
Time No. Activity
6:00 AM 1 Start transferring refuse stored from previous day from
city receiving building to surge silo.
6:30 AM 2 Set boiler to appropriate test load.
7:00 AM 3 First refuse truck arrives and unloads. Immediately
transfer refuse to surge silo.
7:30 AM 4 Second truck arrives and unloads. Do not start transfer
of refuse to surge silo until after refuse firing has started.
7:45 AM 5 After second truck has unloaded start refuse firing using
following steps.
(a) Set coal mill feed controls on manual at test load (TL).
(b) Start firing refuse, adjusting refuse feed rate to
pick-up desired boiler load from refuse heat input
(TL + AL). Modulate load manually to keep turbine
throttle pressure constant.
(c) After desired level of boiler heat input has been
achieved by adjustment of the refuse firing rate, go
back to original boiler test load (TL) and return
boiler to automatic control.
8:15 AM 6 EPA control room data recorder records start-up events and
starts tabulating boiler operating conditions.
8:30 AM 7 Start emission test measurements.
12:30 PM 8 Complete emission measurements.
1:00 PM 9 Perform following test, recording boiler load, turbine
throttle pressure and other pertinent data.
(a) Go to manual control.
(b) Stop refuse firing and record drop in load (adjust
load as necessary to maintain turbine throttle pressure).
19
-------
Table 3. (Concluded)
Approx.
Time No. Activity
1:00 PM 9 (c) Record boiler operating conditions after
(cont'd) throttle pressure has stabilized at the
equilibrium value recorded just prior to the
cessation of refuse firing.
(d) With the boiler control on manual restart
refuse firing.
(e) Adjust the refuse firing rate to achieve the
required refuse heat input to boiler.
(f) After the desired refuse heat rate has been
achieved return boiler to automatic and allow
boiler to stabilize.
2:00 PM 10 Start emission measurements for afternoon test run.
6:00 PM 11 Complete tests. Continue to fire refuse until all but
refuse from last trailer truck load of day has been depleted.
Refuse from this last trailer load is to be stored in the
receiving building overnight and transferred to the surge
bin at 6:00 AM the next day. (Step 1).
20
-------
Table 4. METHODS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS USED BY MRI
Sample Type
Mass particulate
Particulate size
distribution
Particulate size
distribution
02 , NO , CO , CO2 ,
and S02
Hgv
Cl"
so3
Coal
Fly -Ash
Velocity
Temperature
Sampling Method
Adapted Method
Andersen
(outlet)
Brink
(Inlet)
Instrumental
Modified Method 5^'
EFA^
Modified Method 5_
Controlled^''
condensation
Composite
Grab
With Method 5
With Method 5
thermocouple
Sample
(or data)
Collected bya/
5l/ MRI
MRI
MRI
EPA
MRI
MRI
MRI
MRI
MRI
MRI
MRI
MRI
Analysis Method
Method Bya/
Gravimetric MRI
Gravimetric MRI
Oravimefric MRI
Infrared, MR!
paramagnetic-
coulometr ic
chemi luminescence
Atomic MRI
absorption
Atomic MRI
absorp t ion
Coulometric-' MRI
Barium MRI
perchlorate
Proximate and MRI
ultimate
...
Data MRI
handling
Data MRI
handling
Purpose of Test
Concentration of particular^
Physical characterization--
particle size distribution
Physical characterization--
particle size distribution
Amount of gases in the flow
Amount of Hgv in the flow
Amount of Hg in the flow
Amount of Cl" in the flow
Amount of S03 in the flow
Fly-Ash element analysis
Profile and flow rate of
stack gas
Temperature profile of
stack gas
Fly-Ash
In situ resistivity
probe
Calculation
EPA
Fly-Ash resistivity
a/ EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
~ MRI » Midwest Research Institute
SRI - Southern Research Institute
b/ First implnger water was replaced with 0.5 N nitric acid and second impinger water replaced with 0.5 N KOH.
One-third of each lupinger liquid used for mass determination, one-third analyzed for Hg by AA and one-
third analyzed for Cl" by coulometric tltration.
c/ EPA method for the collection and analysis of Hg supplied by Robert Statnich, Control Systems Laboratory.
d/ Drigcoll J N and A. W. Berger, "Improved Chemical Methods for Sampling and Analyses of Gaseous Pollutants
from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels," Final Report for Contract CPA 22-69-95, Walden Research Corporation.
e/ EPA Method 8.
f/ EPA Method 5 was used as the basis for testing. Adaptations and modifications were
necessary because of field conditions.
21
-------
LEGEND:
-TL" Sampling Ports
I - Mali Particulate,
T Temperature Profile Sampling Ports
Velocity-profile Sampling Ports
+ - Moss Participate and Sampling Ports
- Particle Sizing and Fly-ash Resistivity
Sampling Ports
0-
Sampling Port
» »
,
4- 4i 4- 4- *• * 4- *• *
4 4-4 4- •*• 4- 4-4- *
4. 4-4- 4- •*• 4 44- 4 • "
**1 fcjj «.j **^ w^ — ^ M^ «g "y >*JQ p w^ Wj3 **|4 **]5 15 17 |g
A-
i|
,._i.
*
•»
1
Dor
£83^838
O- fs. m « r^ O «">
— r4 rt -^r K ui
Figure 5. EPA/MRI sampling location at input to the ESP.
-------
N 5' 11 " *
4- 4-4-
4- 4-4-
4- 4- 4-
* +
4- 4-4-
4- 4-4-
i
7'
9"
^ A >TV ^
A
4- 4-
4-
4-
4-
4-
A
^ ^ A /N
Ports Used to Collect Particulate & Cl~ Samples
A Ports Used to Collect SOg & Andersen Samples
Figure 6. MRI/EPA sampling location at outlets to the ESP
23
-------
Specific problems and modifications to procedures in each test are
enumerated in Table 5. Total particulate measurements were made at
the ESP inlet and outlet using the EPA mass train. The two outlet
ducts were sampled sequentially during the time period when samples
were being collected on the inlet duct. Particle size distributions
were measured using a Brink cascade impactor on the inlet and an
Andersen cascade impactor on the outlet.
Gaseous emission measurements for Oo, CO, CC^, NO and S02 were made
using continuous monitoring instruments mounted in an EPA instrumenta-
tion van. Gas samples for the instruments were drawn through a sta-
tionary sampling line mounted in the flow duct downstream of the in-
duction fan on the west ducting to the stack. Prior to start of the
test program, sample probe traverses were made to insure that there
was no gas composition stratification within the duct. A calibration
of each of the instruments was made before and after each test run
using bottled calibration gases.
Mercury was sampled employing two methods. The first method used a
sampling train containing five midget impingers. The first impinger
contained sodium bicarbonate solution to remove interferences. The
second and third impingers contained acidic potassium permanganate
to collect mercury vapor. The fourth impinger was dry and the fifth
impinger contained silica gel. Sampling was conducted following
standard gas sampling procedures.
The second mercury sampling method consisted of the impingers attached
to the RAG particulate sampling train. The first impinger was filled
with 0.5 N HNO-j instead of water to collect the mercury and the second
impinger was filled with 0.5 N KOH instead of water to collect chloride
ions.
One-third aliquots of the first and second impingers were analyzed for
mercury following standard atomic absorption spectroscopy procedures.
Chloride analysis was conducted on one-third aliquots of the contents of
the first and second impingers from the RAC train described above. The
analytical procedures followed the procedure described by J. J. Lingane.!/
The chloride ion concentration was determined by adding the required re-
agents and analyzing using a Buchler-Coltove Chloridometer. The technique
consists of the coulometric generation of silver reagent and the amperometric
detection of the end point.
Sulfur trioxide was collected using the controlled condensation method
described in an EPA report prepared by Walden Research Corporation.^/ The
gas stream is cooled to the condensation temperature of sulfuric acid and
the resulting acid"mist is collected on a glass frit. The collected
sample is recovered in distilled water and analyzed for sulfate ion fol-
lowing the analytical procedure described in EPA Method 8.
24
-------
Table 5. MOPIFICATIONS TO TEST OR SAMPLING PROCEDURES
RESULTING FROM OPERATING PROBLEMS
Test No. 0; The sampling probe used on the inlet was stainless
steel for this test only. Sampling for Hgv by the EPA provided method,
was not accomplished because of impinger boiling over. The boiling
over occurred because of the relatively high flow recommended in the
method (2,000 cc/min for 30 min).
Test No. 1: All the sampling probes used in this test and there-
after were glass. The flowrate through the impingers in the Hg
apparatus was dropped to about 500 cc/min for 60 min to stop the
impingers from boiling over.
Tests Nos. 2 and 3: Two complete tests were accomplished without
any problem. However, after Test No. 3 was accomplished, a rupture in
the boiler forced the plant to shut the boiler down for repair. Test
No. 4 was delayed 2 days by the repair activity.
Tests Nos. 4 and 5: A slowdown in refuse delivery af^er Test No. 4
delayed the start of Test No. 5 about 1 hr.
Tests Nos. 6, 7, and 8: No major difficulties encountered in Tests
Nos. 6 and 7. However, some problems in firing of the refuse caused
Test No. 8 to start 2 hr late.
Tests Nos. 9 and 10: A 3-hr delay of the start of Test No, 10 was
caused by problems with refuse delivery. The fly-ash probe built by
MITRE could not be used because of obstruction encountered above the
first four hoppers.
Tests Nos. 11, 12, and 13: No major problems were encountered in
these tests.
25
-------
Plans had been initially made to collect boiler residue samples to
evaluate the percentage of refuse burn-out (energy recovery) and the
amount of residue generated under the various test conditions. The
test procedure was to have involved: bulldozing a depression in the
ash sluicing area, filling the depression with the sluiced boiler
residue and taking appropriate core samples. However, the high water
level of the adjacent Meramec River at the time of the tests prevented
adequate runoff of the sluicing water causing the area where the sam-
pling was to have been conducted to become partially submerged. As
a result, residue sampling was not conducted.
UNION ELECTRIC TEST PLANS
Union Electric conducted two series of performance tests to determine
the effect of refuse firing on the performance of the electrostatic
precipitator and on particulate emissions.2iZ' All tests were con-
ducted in accordance with ASME Power Test Code 27. Figure 7 illus-
trates the sample point locations available at the inlet and outlet
of the precipitators.
The first series of tests were performed on 16-19 October 1973. These
tests were run at steady load conditions at three different load points
firing only low sulfur Orient 6 coal. Tests 6 and 7, Tests 1, 2, and
3, and Tests 4 and 5 were run at 140, 100 and 75 megawatts, respectively.
Prior to testing, the precipitator was inspected. Any grounded sec-
tions were cleared for full operation of the precipitator. The unit
was operated in a normal manner, and was conditioned by firing only
low sulfur coal for 2 weeks prior to testing. Prior to that time the
precipitator was washed to remove any residual fly ash which was not
from combustion of Orient 6 coal. On 15 October 1973, each rectifier
set was checked and adjusted for optimum control settings. These con-
trol settings were used for all of the coal-only firing tests.
The unit was brought to test load an hour before testing each day to
allow conditions to stabilize. Prior to particulate sampling, pre-
cipitator inlet and outlet velocity traverses and an outlet oxygen
traverse were made. Four inlet and four outlet particulate sampling
meter stations were used. The dust samples were collected in 5 micron
alundum thimbles on the outlet. Difficulty in obtaining 5 micron
thimbles necessitated the use of 20 micron alundum thimbles on the
inlet. Sampling time for the precipitator tests was 1-1/2 hr. The
inlet and both outlets were sampled concurrently.
26
-------
1 2 3
*•»••«•
*•«••»•
-D
-C
-B
h-A
East Outlet
Top
Bottom
1 2 3
i i i
D-
c-
B-
A-
* + *
West Outlet
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
T T i i . . i i ' ' ' i—i—i—'—'—J-
+.*•*•*
Horizontal View of Inlet Duct
Figure 7. Union Electric sample traverse points on
ESP inlet and outlet.
27
-------
A second series of tests was conducted on 26-30 November 1973. Tests
were run at steady load conditions at three different load points
firing low sulfur Orient 6 coal and refuse. Tests 1-T, 2-T, 3-T, and
9-T, Tests 4-T and 5-T, and Tests 6-T and 7-T were run at 140, 100,
and 75 megawatts, respectively, with refuse firing; Test 8 was run at
140 megawatts with coal-firing only. Tests 8 and 9-T were run on the
same day so that coal firing and refuse firing test results could be
compared.
The precipitator was not inspected prior to the Union Electric refuse
firing tests since it had been inspected around the end of September
prior to the coal firing precipitator tests. However, on 26 November
1973, the precipitor rectifier sets were checked with voltage dividers
and adjusted for refuse firing conditions. These settings were used
for all refuse firing tests. During the 2 weeks prior to testing with
refuse, 81 tons of refuse were fired. Before starting the emission
tests, the unit was brought to test load and refuse was burned for
an hour each day to allow ESP and boiler conditions to stabilize.
Prior to particulate sampling, precipitator inlet and outlet velocity
traverses and an outlet oxygen traverse were made. As with the coal-
firing tests, four inlet and four outlet particulate sampling meter
stations were used. Dust samples were collected in 20-micron and 5-
micron alundum thimbles on the inlet and outlet, respectively. Sampling
times for the precipitator tests we're 1-1/2 hr. Sampling at the inlet
and both outlets were conducted concurrently.
28
-------
DATA REDUCTION PROCEDURES
Data reduction procedures utilized by MRI and Union Electric were generally
different. Details of procedures used by MRI are presented followed by
the Union Electric procedures.
MRI DATA REDUCTION PROCEDURES
The data collected in the field were returned to MRI and transferred to
the appropriate coding form (see Figures A-l to A-3, Appendix A). Labo^a-
tory analysis data were recorded in bound notebooks and copies of these
data were made available for further data reduction.
Separate computer programs were use,d in the reduction of the following
data:
1. Particulate loading
2. Andersen particle size
3. Brink particle size
4. SOX
These programs are written in FORTRAN IV language.
All coded data were keypunched and verified in MRI's computer center. The
computer programs were checked for special run requirements and the pro-
grams and data were run on MRI's remote-branch processing DATA 100 terminal
on-line to United Computing Systems, Inc., hardware.
The following sections describe the data reduction programs in more detail.
Particulate Data
The particulate or "STACK" data reduction program reads the keypunched
particulate data and outputs the following tables:
29
-------
1. Particulate data, and calculated values: raw data Including a temperature
profile and calculated results for a velocity profile.
2. Example particulate calculations: a summary of the equations used in
the program, as determined from Method 5 of the Federal Register, and con-
version equations to metric units.
3. Particulate emission data (also in metric units): a table of average
values and calculated values used in and calculated from the basic equations
given in the example calculations.
4. Summary of results (also in metric units): a sunmary of the major cal-
culated results: volume of dry gas sampled, percent moisture, average stack
temperature, flowrates, percent isokinetic, percent excess air, and the
particulate data (partial and total catch) for weight, loading and emission
rate.
Example calculations for the inlet data on Test 0 (Run 0-1) are shown in
Table A-2, Appendix A. Table A-3, Appendix A, presents a summary of re-
sults for all tests conducted by MRI. Particulate loadings have not been
corrected for deviation from isokinetic sampling. The range of values for
percent isokinetic is within ± 5%, except for the outlet on Test 1 and
correction is not necessary. The particulate loadings given in Table A-3
have not been adjusted to 50?0 excess air. , Calculated values should not
be interpreted as having more than three-digit accuracy.
Andersen Particle Size Data
The Andersen program inputs the following data for each run:
1. Date of run
2. Particle density (assumed unit density)
3. Sampling rate (cubic feet per minute)
4. Net and tare weights for each stage
The program calculates cumulative weight percentages for each stage from
the data in (4) above. The program also uses an MRI derived computerized
form of the Ranz and WongI/ impactor equation to determine jet velocity
(centimeters per second) and particle cutoff diamter (microns) for each
stage.
30
-------
The above results are plotted on log-probability graph paper to determine
cumulative weight percentages less (or greater) than any given si?e.
Assuming a log-normal distribution, the most probable particle diamter
will equal the particle size on the graph at 507=, cumulative weight.
Brink Particle Size Data
The Brink data reduction is handled similar to the Andersen data.
Cumulative weight percentages are determined for each stage from the Brink
analytical data, including the cyclone catch. (These results are given in
Table A-4, Appendix A.)
The data were plotted against the standard particle cutoff diameters of
7.5 urn for the cyclone and 2.5, 1.5, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.25 um, respectively,
for each stage, based on a particle density of 2.27 g/cc.
303 Data
The 803 program reduces the sampling and analysis data for each run.
The tables output from this program are:
S03 Raw Data - A listing of input data not printed on the summary tables.
These data include: initial and final dry test meter readings, barometric
pressure and meter vacuum.
Example 803 Calculations - A summary of the basic equations (from Method 8
of the Federal Register) including calculations for the volume of dry gas
sampled (in cubic feet) and concentration (in pounds per dry standard
cubic feet and parts per million).
803 Data - A summary of sampling and analysis data and calculated results
using the equations listed in the example calculations.
Example calculations for the inlet on Test 0 (Run 0-1) are given in Table
A-5, Appendix A. Values are given in pounds per dry standard cubic feet
and parts per million as 803-
UNION ELECTRIC PROCEDURES
Although specific details of the data reduction procedures utilized by
Union Electric were not obtained, notebooks containing summary sheets of
combustion calculations, coal analysis, refuse analysis, refuse feed rate
calculations, thimble weight sheets, efficiency calculations, and test
31
-------
data were provided by Union Electric. Information contained in the note-
books was reviewed and a series of tables were prepared to summarize the
principal results of the Union Electric test program.
Union Electric calculated gas flowrates using a computer combustion pro-
gram. Inputs to the program included boiler performance conditions, ex-
cess oxygen, fuel composition and a fuel Btu value. However, because
refuse ultimate analyses were not available when the Union Electric re-
port was prepared they used the same fuel composition for all runs—coal
and coal plus refuse. The fuel Btu value was adjusted according to the
percentage of refuse heat input and the refuse and coal heating values.
Gas flowrates calculated by the above procedure are at best estimates.
A more extensive discussion of Union Electric test results and procedures
is presented in a later section.
32
-------
ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION OF TESTS
An analysis and discussion of the test data obtained by EPA/MRI and Union
Electric is presented in this section. In addition to the tests to deter-
mine the influence of refuse firing on emissions from the boiler, samples
of the coal and refuse were collected by both organizations for subsequent
analyses. The results of the analyses of coal and refuse samples are
presented first, followed by a discussion of the emission tests. A summary
of fuel composition and heat values for the EPA/MRI tests are given in
Table 6.
COAL ANALYSES
Coal samples corresponding to the coal fired in individual emission tests
were obtained by MRI and Union Electric. Samples collected by MRI were
returned to Kansas City and then sent to Industrial Testing Laboratory
(Kansas City, Missouri) for analyses. Union Electric performed their own
analyses using ASTM test procedures.
Table 7 presents a summary of the coal analyses. Complete data are presented
in Tables B-l and B-2 in Appendix B. Significant differences exist in the
moisture content and heating values of the as received coal. Samples ob-
tained by EPA/MRI show substantially lower moisture content and higher
heating values. Since the EPA/MRI coal samples were not transported or
stored under controlled conditions and some time elapsed before they were
sent out for analyses, it is likely that the EPA/MRI data do not represent
the actual as received coal samples.
One potentially important factor is noted about the Union Electric coal
data. During the October tests when coal-only was fired, the average as
received coal heat content was 11,975 Btu/lb. During November when all
but one test was conducted with refuse firing, the average coal heating
value was 11,510 Btu/lb. This represents an average loss in coal heating
value of approximately 4% because of higher coal moisture content.
33
-------
Table 6. FUEL COMPOSITION AND HEAT VALUES
Fuel Composition (7.)
Aa Received
Coal Refuse-'
Nominal
Load
(megawatts)
80
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120
Average
Maximum
Minimum
7. Refuse
Fired
0
9
18
18
27
0
9
9
9
18
0
9
9
18
Refute
Firing
Rate
Avg
(Ib/hr)
0
18,860
37,300
37,300
43,000
0
22,240
31,650
31,650
31,400
0
32,210
36,875
30 , 800
{Moisture
u 1
u. 1
6.02
6.51
6.48
6.27
6.49
6.17
6.37
5.96
6.28
6.60
6.62
6.38
6.28
6.34
6.62
5.96
n
6.70
7.56
6.55
7.87
6.76
6.54
7.57
7.06
6.86
8.33
7.13
6.26
6.50
6.78
7.03
8.33
6.26
71.19
70.62
70.84
69.88
70.36
71.16
70,51'
70.81
71.19
68.70
70.54
71,85
70.99
71.53
70.73
71.85
68.70
t*
JL
1.35
1.59
1.56
1.61
1.47
1.33
1.73
1.50
1.46
2.80
1.25
1.36
1.38
1.52
1.56
2.80
1.25
« = i>
U (A3
3 b U,
S £ -5 e
0 -S "DO"
-JL. _i_ -M_ £ —
1.35
23.2 18.5 0.17 1.45
39.0 12.1 0.12 1.28
49.0 12.9 0.09 1.32
37.8 13.3 0.10 1.08
1.33
22.3 15.7 0.12 1.57
34.5 14.9 0.14 1.37
34.4 13.7 0.09 1.32
23.6 17.9 0.11 2.32
1.25
22.2 17.5 0.16 1-23
20.0 17.1 0.11 1.25
30.6 15.4 0.12
66.3 19.7 0.26
14.3 7.6 0.08
Heating Valves
(Btu/lb)
Coal Refuae
Wet£'
12,628
12,526
12,594
12,384
12,594
12,639
12,513
12 , 589
12,617
12,392
12,526
12,676
12,603
12,641
12,566
12,676
12,384
Dry
13,484
13,328
13,471
13,242
13,436
13,416
13,336
13,445
13,417
13,222
13,411
13,575
13,462
13,488
13,410
13,575
13,222
Wet Dry
5,247 6,827
4.5P3 7,400
3,591 7,009
4 , 542 7 , 048
5,531 7,117
4,838 7,387
4,815 7,322
5,315 6,952
5,557 7,142
5,809 7,262
*,975 7,147
6,466 8,013
2,293 6,603
a/ Data suapact because of Improper sample storage technique.
b/ Mean value from samples taken during EPA/MR1 emission testa. Indicated maxima and minima for refuse are
extreme, values from raw data (Table B-M .
-------
Table 7. SUMMARY OF COAL PROXIMATE ANALYSES
As Received Dry Basis
7« 7»
Moisture % Ash % F.C. Volatile Btu/lb % S °L Ash % F.C.
7
10
Volatile Btu/lb
%c
o
Union Electric October Tests
Average
Maximum
Minimum
<-n Union Electric
Average
Maximum
Minimum
EPA/MRI Tests
Average
Maximum
Minimum
10.8 7.0 48.6 33.6 11,989 1.36 7.9 54.5
12.0 7.6 50.5 38.9 12,078 1.49 8.4 56.2
9.9 6.1 43.8 31.9 11,772 1.22 6.9 49.3
November Tests
13.9 6.3 48.1 31.7 11,510 1.28 7.4 55.8
14.6 7.5 49.1 34.6 11,811 1.36 8.8 56.7
12.4 5.7 46.9 30.1 11,289 1.22 6.8 53.5
£/
6.34 7.03 52.28 34.34 12,565 1.57 7.51 55.83
6.62 8.33 53.48 36.92 12,676 2.80 8.89 57.13
5.96 6.26 48.47 33.01 12,384 1.25 6.70 51.72
37.7 13,435
43.8 13,539
36.1 13,350
36.8 13,363
39.5 13,516
35.2 13,199
36.67 13,417
39.39 13,575
35.34 13,222
1.53
1.68
1.37
1.48
1.56
1.41
1.67
2.99
1.34
a/ As received EPA/MRI moisture data suspect because improper sample storage technique.
-------
REFUSE ANALYSES
The proximate analysis and heating values for the refuse utilized in the
EPA/MRI and Union Electric tests are summarized in Table 8. Tabular data
of refuse and ash analyses from samples taken during the Union Electric
and EPA/MRI test periods are presented in Tables B-4 to B-7 in Appendix B.
The moisture content and the heating value of the refuse varied over a
wide range during the first few days of the EPA/MRI test period, but were
more uniform during the latter part of the test period. Moisture and Btu
contents during the Union Electric tests did not exhibit such extreme varia-
tions .
Table 9 summarizes the results of ultimate analyses of selected refuse sam-
ples. These samples were collected during the Union Electric tests in
November. It should be noted that these analyses are for the light frac-
tion of the milled and air classified refuse.
COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY OF REFUSE
A precise determination of the combustion efficiency of refuse is not pos-
sible due to the indirect methods used in measuring the refuse flowrates
and the energy input from refuse. In addition as previously noted there
was no information obtained regarding the quantity and heating value of the
bottom ash generated from refuse firing. '
The above data gaps preclude calculation of a proper energy balance. How-
ever, utilization of nominal or average values for refuse flowrate, refuse
energy input and heating value for the respective test periods does allow
calculation of an apparent refuse combustion efficiency.
The apparent combustion efficiency of the refuse (i.e., refuse burn-out)
was estimated from the equation
_ (Generator Output) (Unit Heat Rate) /% Refuse Energy \
' 100 ) ' (1)
36
-------
Table 8. SUMMARY OF REFUSE PROXIMATE ANALYSES, MILLED AND AIR CLASSIFIED
Moisture
Total
_m_
Union Electric Tests
Average
Maximum
Minimum
EPA/MRI
Average
Maximum
Minimum
35.3
43.2
16.7
Tests
29.9
66.3
14.3
Samp le
0.89
1 .47
0.41
1.46
2.62
0.46
S
0.19
0.23
0.13
0.16
0.33
0.12
Dry
Cl
m.
0.52
0.76
0.35
0.57
1.1.4
0.33
Weight
Ash
24.3
33.1
19.4
21.3
27.3
15.0
Basis
As Dry
(Btu/lb)
7,394.4
13,002.0
6,817.0
7,261.5
8,013.0
6,603.0
Received Moisture Basis
NaC 1 S
(7) (7)
\°J
0.42 0.12
0.49 0.16
0.33 0.07
0.39 0.12
0.46 0.26
0.33 0.08
Cl
0.33
0.58
0.22
0.41
0.95
0.15
Ash
15.7
20.2
12.3
14.9
19.7
7.6
As Received
(Btu/lb)
4,768.5
7,593.0
4,040.0
4,975.0
6,466.0
2,293.0
NaCl
0.27
0.39
0.21
0.27
0.35
0.11
-------
00
Table 9. SUMMARY OF ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF SELECTED REFUSE SAMPLES^
(Weight Percent)
a/
C H^^
Average 39.2 5.9
Maximum 41.0 6.2
Minimum 37.2 5,5
As Received
0
N S Ash (by difference)^
0.72 0.24 22.3 31.7
0.82 0.29 28.9 35.4
0.63 0.21 18.8 26.0
Dry Basis
b/ °
C H- N S Ash (by difference) £'
40.5 5.7 0.75 0.25 23.1 29.7
42.3 6.1 0.84 0.30 29,8 33.4
38.4 5.3 0.65 0.22 19.5 24.0
a/ Samples taken during U.E. refuse firing tests in November. Complete data is given in Appendix B.
b/ Includes hydrogen and oxygen contained in moisture of "As Received" refuse.
-------
Equation (1) was derived as follows
HT =
(2)
HT
(3)
HT
% Refuse Energy
100
(4)
Equation (4) can be written in the form of Eq. (1) by use of generator
output and unit heat rate, i.e.,
_ (Generator Output) (Unit Heat Rate) 1"% Refuse Energy!
^ Hrmr L 100 J'
In the preceding equations
H_ = total heat release, Btu per hour
H = average heating value of refuse, Btu per pound
H = average heating value of coal, Btu per pound
•n = apparent combustion efficiency of coal
T| = apparent combustion efficiency of refuse
m,. = mass of refuse to boiler, pound per hour
me = mass of coal to boiler, pound per hour
The unit heat rates as a function of gross generation are given in Figure
A-4, Appendix A and the generator output is assumed to be the measured
value.
39
-------
Figure 8 presents the results of the estimates, indicating variations in
refuse combustion efficiency from 60 to 95%. For comparison, Union Electric
reported that combustion efficiency of refuse, during their tests, varied
from 56 to 79%. I/
As shown in Figure 8, the percentage of refuse burned appears to be strongly
dependent upon the percent of refuse fired at each power output level.
While several factors may contribute to the behavior noted in Figure 8,
the variations in fuel-mixing patterns in the furnace probably can account
for most of the effects. Surprisingly, no correlation could be found
between refuse moisture content and degree of burn-out.
STACK GAS COMPOSITION
Reduced test data on stack gas composition are presented in Tables 10 and
11. Table 10 presents the data in terms of actual system flowrates, while
Table 11 presents the data corrected to 50% excess air. There is con-
siderable scatter in the data and no meaningful trends are evident. It
was concluded that no significant changes in gaseous pollution levels occur
when refuse and coal are fired together in the boiler.
Figure 9 presents the SOX emission rate as a function of percent refuse
energy. The average values for coal-only firing and coal-refuse firing
are also illustrated. No meaningful trends are evident, although the
coal plus refuse tests appear to exhibit slightly higher (10%) average SOjj
emissions. This apparent increase is probably not an effect of refuse
firing since the refuse analyses indicate a uniformly low sulfur content
(average 0.12%). It should be noted that the average sulfur content of
the coal fired during the coal plus refuse tests was significantly higher
than the average sulfur content of the coal fired during the coal-only
tests, 1.63% versus 1.31%, respectively.
The EPA New Source Performance Standard for sulfur oxide from coal-fired
boilers, 1.2 Ib/million Btu, is also shown on Figure 9 for comparison.
While this standard is not directly applicable to this plant, and may not
be applicable to a new facility utilizing refuse as fuel, compliance with
this requirement could involve the need for stack gas control equipment,
if similar sulfur-content coal were co-fired with refuse.
Figure 10 presents the NOx emission rate as a function of percent refuse
energy. The average values for coal-only firing and coal plus refuse firing
as indicated are not significantly different, nor are any trends apparent.
The EPA New Spurce Performance Standard is indicated for reference and
comparison. Although the standard is not directly applicable the NOX
emissions are generally less than those required by the NOx standard.
40
-------
100
z 90
z 80
O
i./i
CO
'•J
LLJ
ID
§ 60
50
-27% Refuse
(39.0)O
(23.2)
70
80
(23.6)'
(34.5)
(34.4)
(22.3)
J_
J8% Refuse
(20.0)
A (22.2)
9^a Refuse
*-( ) Indicates Average
as Received Moisture
Content of Refuse
Samples.
I I
90 100 110
POWER OUTPUT-MW
120
130
140
150
8. Apparent combustion eilicicric-
' ' reiuse ,
-------
Table 10. SUMMARY OF STACK GAS COMPOSITION DATA
Gas Composition —
Nominal
Teat Load
No. (megawatts')
6
13
4
5
7
3
• 1
•P-
NJ
2
11
12
9
0
8
10
Average
Maximum
Minimum
80
80
80
80
80 '
100
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120
Percent
Refuse
(heat input)
0
9
18
18
27
0
9
9
9
18
0
9
9
18
Drv Gaa (volume)
Percent Excess Total Gas
Air (acfm)
47
40
51
40
36
46
40
35
40
39
37
45
37
34
391,340
401,084
390,287
442,128
398,035
490,604
526,735
487,482
488,205
483,260
563,698
622,148
674,652
573,193
Flov-ate
(dsc :m)
253, »52
250, .96
233, 58
265, 02
243, 71
309, 98
317, 34
291,028
293,517
285,348
347,: 16
358,1 1
413,1 8
346,5 4
CO
(ppm)
62
80
85
65
62
75
75
75
63
68
42
62
62
60
67
85
42
C02
IS!
13.6
15.0
14.5
14.5
14.7
13.6
14.5
14.5
15.2
13.3
14.6
14.5
13.5
15.6
14.4
15.6
13.3
02
JS1
6.7
6.0
7.0
6.0
5.6
6.6
6.0
5.5
5.9
6.0
5.7
6.5
5.8
5.3
6.0
7.0
5.5
N2
131
79.7
79.0
78.5
79.5
79.7
79.8
79.5
80.0
78.9
80.7
79.7
79.0
80.7
79.1
79.6
80.7
78.5
S02
(ppm)
900
1,070
900
I/
887
800
1,060
1,000
1,230
1,590
1,130
900
1,000
1,030
1,040
1,590
800
S03
(ppm)
4.1
4.8
22.2
0.0
34.5
0.0
23.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.16
34.5
0.0
NO
(ppm)
255
263
400
340
295
360
250
240
267
234
278
220
347
275
289
400
220
Cl
(mg/m3)
290
293
416
401
470
377
413
467
355
322
339
408
458
421
388
470
290
H8 ,
(ug/m3)
0.017
0.008
0.019
0.014
0.011
0.007
0.018
0.021
0.029
0.013
0.014
0.012
0.007
0.019
0.019
0.029
0.007
(% moisture
volume)
6.2
7.8
8.8
9.4
8.2
7.3
9.3
10.0
8.0
8.5
6.9
8.5
8.0
8.4
8.2
10.0
6.2
a/ Data not available because of instrument malfunction.
-------
Table 11. STACK GAS COMPOSITION CORRECTED TO 50% EXCESS AIR
Co
Gas Composition
Nomina 1
Test Load
No. (megawatts)
6
13
4
5
7
3
1
2
11
12
9
0
8
10
Average
Maximum
Minimum
80
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120
% Refuse N2
(heat input) (%)
0 79.7
9
18
18
27
0
9
9
9
18
0
9
9
18
79.0
78.5
79.5
79.6
79.8
79.5
79.9
78.9
80.6
79.6
79.0
80.5
79.1
79.5
80.6
78.5
°2
CA1
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
. 7.1
6.9
Dry
C02
HI
13.3
14.0
14.6
13.5
13.4
13.2
13.5
13.0
14.2
12.3
13.4
14.0
12.4
13.9
13.5
14.6
12 .3
Gas (volume)
CO
(ppm)
61
75
86
61
56
73
70
67
59
63
38
60
57
54
63
86
38
S02
(ppm)
882
999
906
sJ
804
779
989
899
1,149
1,471
1,031
870
912
920
970
1,471
779
NO
(ppm)
250
246
403
317
267
350
233
216
249
217
254
213
316
246
270
403
213
S03
(ppm)
4.0
4.5
22.3
0.0
31.3
0.0
21.9
0.0
0.0
0.9
22.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.6
31.3
0.0
Cl
(mg/m3)
284
274
419
374
426
367
385
420
332
298
309
394
418
376
363
426
274
Hg
(ug/m3)
0.017
0.007
0.019
0.013
O.O10
0.007
0.017
0.019
0.027
0.012
0.013
0.012
0.006
0.017
0.014
0.027
0.006
H20
(7. moisture
volume)
6.1
7.3
8.9
8.8
7.5
7.1
8.7
9.1
7.5
7.9
6.3
8.2
7.3
7.6
7.7
9.1
6.1
a7 Data not available because of instrument malfunction.
-------
Nominol Boiler Load
O 80 Megawatts
A 100 Megawatts
D 120 Megawatts
C
O
3C
O
-A-
-a-
D
Average Value
Coal + Refuse
Average Value
Coal-Only
O
—— EPA New Source
Performance
Standard, Coal
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
R, PERCENT REFUSE ENERGY, (% of Total)
Figure 9. Sulfur oxide emissions as a function of
percent refuse energy.
44
-------
1.0 r
03
c
C
O
z
O
, o-
}
-]
A
A
A
. ... y__,
D
A
J_
Nominal Boiler Load
O 80 Megawatts
A 100 Megawatts
n 120 Megawatts
EPA New
Source Performance
Standard, Coal
Average Value Ccal-Only
Average Value Coal & Refuse
0 10 20 30
R, PERCENT REFUSE ENERGY, (% of Total)
Figure 10. NOX emissions as a function of percent refuse energy.
-------
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Tables 12 and 13 present the particulate emission data from each of the
tests conducted by EPA/MRI and Union Electric. Table 14 presents a sum-
mary of the mean and mean deviation of these data as differentiated by
boiler load, coal, or coal plus refuse test conditions. Graphical com-
parisons of the mean values for inlet and outlet grain loadings for the
EPA/MRI tests and the Union Electric tests are shown in Figures 11 and 12,
respectively. Figure 13 is a presentation of mean particulate emission
data for both test series, EPA/MRI and Union Electric.
EPA/MRI Particulate Loading Data
Inspection of Table 12, Figure 11 and the corresponding values in Table
14 indicates that the inlet loadings generally fall within the normal
data scatter at each of their respective load conditions. The data
scatter (mean deviation) increases with increasing load. There does not
appear to be any significant effect due to refuse being fired.
Although the EPA/MRI coal-only tests appear to exhibit an increasing in-
let particulate loading with increasing power level, this apparent trend
is suspect. There was only one test conducted at each load on the EPA/
MRI coal-only tests. The inlet loading for the test at 80 megawatts was
abnormally low and the increased inlet loadings at 100 megawatts and 120 mega-
watts are both within the normal data scatter. Because of the abnormally
low point at 80 megawatts the EPA/MRI inlet data may only fortuitously •
show this increasing trend. Figure 13, the plot of all mean inlet grain
loading data, shows no trend and supports the conclusion that the EPA/MRI
data point at 80 megawatts is probably not representative.
The outlet grain loading data show a trend of increased grain loading
(Figures 11 and 13) with increased load. The data scatter also increases
with increased boiler load. For given boiler load conditions on the EPA/
MRI tests, the outlet particulate emissions did not appear to vary sig-
nificantly whether coal or coal plus refuse was fired.
Union Electric Particulate Loading Data
Inlet grain loadings for the Union Electric tests (Table 13, Figure 12)
also generally fall within the normal data scatter at each of their
respective conditions. The data scatter increases with increasing power
level. No significant trends for inlet grain loading are observed with
either increasing power level or fuel combinations.
46
-------
Table 12. .SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE GRAIN LOADINGS--EPA/MRI TESTS
Grain Loading (grain/scfd)5/
Boiler Load
(megawatts)
80
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120
Refuse Heat
Input
Percent
0
9
18
18
27
0
9
9
9
18
0
9
9
18
Inlet to
Date Percent Excess
(1973) Air Actual
12/10
12/14
12/9
12/9
12/10
12/6
12/5
12/5
12/13
12/13
12/12
12/4
12/11
12/12
47
40
51
40
36
46
40
35
40
39
37
45
37
34
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
i
.56
.86
.97
.90
.08
.80
.95
.84
.82
.05
.92
.09
.80
.01
Precipitator
Corrected to
50% Excess Air
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.53
.75
.98
.78
.91
.75
.83
.67
.70
.91
.77
.96
.66
.45
Outlet of Precipitator
Ac t ua 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.043
.041
.024
.03
.03
.05
.056
.074
.05
.064
.07
.09
.044
.06
Corrected to
50% Excess Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.042
.038
.024
.028
.029
.049
.053
.068
.046
.059
.062
.085
.04
.056
a/ 70°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
-------
Table 13. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE GRAIN LOADINGS--UNION ELECTRIC TESTS"
a/
Grain Loading (grain/scfd)
Boiler Load
(megawatts)
75
75
75
75
101
100
100
100
100
139
140
140
140
140
140
140
Percent
Refuse
0
0
13.2
14.7
0
0
0
14.8
15
0
0
0
10
10
10
11.4
Test
No.
4
5
6T
7T
1
2
3
5T
4T
6
7
8
IT
2T
3T
9T
Date
(1973)
10/18
10/18
11/29
11/29
10/16
10/17
10/17
11/28
11/28
10/19
10/19
11/30
11/26
11/27
11/27
11/30
Inlet to
Precipitator
1
1
2
1
2
I
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
.91
.96
.08
.89
.35
.93
.04
.13
.07
.81
.07
.96
.67
.77
.11
.09
Outlet of
Precipitator
0.025
0.02
0.045
0.045
0.036
0.029
0.04
0.076
0.07
0.047
0.05
0.084
0.07
0.12
0.14
0.12
Union Electric data were reported according to ASME standard conditions
(32°F and 29.92 in. Hg) . Values in this table have been converted
to 70°F, 29.92 in. Hg for purposes of more direct comparison with
EPA/MRI values.
48
-------
Table 14. PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA, MEAN AND MEAN DEVIATION
Inlet
Mean
EPA/MRI Tests, Coal
80 megawatts
100 megawatts
120 megawatts
EPA/MRI Tests, Coal plus Refuse
80 megawatts
100 megawatts
120 megawatts
Union Electric Tests, Coal
75 megawatts
100 megawatts
140 megawatts
Union Electric Tests, Coal
plus Refuse
75 megawatts
100 megawatts
140 megawatts
1.56
1.80
1.92
1.95
1.91
1 . 83k/
1.94£/
1.94
2.11
1.99
1.95
1.99
2.10
1.91
(grain/dscf)
Deviation
a/
a/
I/
0.072
0.085
0.172k/
0.146£/
0.025
0.163
0.055
0.068
0.095
0.003
0.190
Outlet
Mean
0.043
0.050
0.067
0.037
0.062
0.065
0.023
0.035
0.060
0.045
0.073
0.113
0.127
(grain/dscf)
Deviation
a/
a/
a/
0.0074
0.0098
0.0163
0.0025
0.004
0.0157
0
0.003
0.0151
0.009
a/ Only one test.
b/ Value for all data points.
c/ Value without extreme data point.
49
-------
2.5r
2.0
Inlet
A Coal
A Coal + Refuse
Outlet
D Coal
• Coal + Refuse
O)
~ 1..5
O
Z
O
§
Z
2
o
0.1
0.05
0.0
j_
_L
_L
60
70
80
90 100 110 120
GROSS GENERATION, Megawatts
130
140
150
Figure 11. Comparison of inlet and outlet grain loadings for coal only
and coal plus refuse firing-EPA/MRI mean value data.
-------
o
4/»
^
O)
o
_J
z
oi
O
2.5r
2.0
•^ 1.5
O
Z
Q
O"
O
0.1
0.05
0.0
—O
Inlet
O Coal
• Coal + Refuse
Outlet
OCoal
• Coal 4- Refuse
60
70
80
90 100 110 120
GROSS GENERATION, Megawatts
130
140
150
Figure 12. Comparison of inlet and outlet grain loading for coal only
and coal plus refuse firing-Union Electric mean value data-
-------
The outlet grain loading data (Figure 12) show a definite trend of in-
creased grain loading with increased power level. More significantly,
perhaps, is the indicated difference between coal-only and coal plus
refuse outlet loadings. Outlet grain loading for mixed fuel tests were
approximately double those for coal-only tests at the same loads. This
fact will be discussed in more detail later.
Interpretation of Emission Data
Figure 13 presents both EPA/MRI and Union Electric electrostatic pre-
cipitator inlet and outlet loadings for the various combinations of boiler
loads and fuel firings. Inlet grain loadings are essentially constant for
all conditions in both test series.
The mean EPA/MRI outlet particulate loadings were only moderately higher
than the Union Electric coal-only outlet loadings at comparable boiler
loads. However, the mean Union Electric outlet loading for coal plus
refuse is almost double the mean values of the coal-only tests at com-
parable boiler loads. Examination of the Union Electric data at 140 mega-
watts suggests a possible explanation for the apparent difference in data.
As shown in Table 13, one of the Union Electric coal-only tests at 140
megawatts was conducted about 1 month after the original Union Electric
coal-only tests. Outlet grain loading for that test is more nearly
equivalent to that for the combined coal plus refuse tests than to the
previous coal-only tests. The Union Electric test procedures for their
last coal-only test were quite similar to the EPA/MRI procedures whereas
the Union Electric original coal tests involved a 2-week stabilization
period. During the 2-week stabilization period, only coal was fired in
the boiler. In this regard, it is very interesting to note that the
Union Electric coal-only test of 11/30 at 140 megawatts correlates very
closely with the EPA/MRI coal-only data at lower gross generation rates.
Thus, the differences between the coal-only outlet grain loadings reported
by EPA/MRI and Union Electric may be due principally to differences in the
pre-test history of fuel firing used to establish the base-line particulate
emissions. This point will be discussed in more detail in the next sec-
tion on electrostatic precipitator performance.
Figure 14 presents a correlation of uncontrolled particulate emissions
(pounds per 106/Btu) as a function of percent refuse energy. The apparent
trend of a slight increase in uncontrolled particulate emissions with in-
creasing percent of refuse energy is probably mainly a result of data
scatter.* Additional testing will be required to clarify this point.
* As shown in Figure 14, with the exception of one test at 100 megawatts
and 18% refuse energy, all data points are within a i" 10% variation
of the mean curve.
52
-------
o
M
-o
<
o
_J
z
o
2.5
2.0
o
5 ^
0.1
0.05
0.0
60
Refuse Coal Load
o
A
A
a
ESP INLET
75 UE
80 MRI
100 UE
100 MRI
120 MRI
140 UE
ESP OUTLET
MRI Coal Only
& Coal + Refuse
UE Coal Only
Base Line
80
100
120
140
BOILER LOAD, Megawatts
Figure 13 . Mean particulate emission data.
-------
CO
o
= -6.0
il
y-t
z
o
LU
<
_l
u
Q
LU
O
+10%
Boiler Load
O - 80 Megawatts
D -100 Megawatts
A -120 Megawatts
Least Mean Squares Curve:
U.P.E. = 4.92 + 0.0182R
-10%
4.0
z
o
^>
z 1
D
n I I 1 _. J
0 10 20 30
R, REFUSE ENERGY (% of Total)
Figure 14. Uncontrolled particulate emission rate as a function of percent refuse energy.
-------
Particle size distributions of the participates at the inlet to the pre-
cipitator (EPA/MRI) tests are given in Figures 15, 16, and 17. Data
were not available for the test condition of 9% refuse energy and 80 mega-
watts. Because of the significant amount of data scatter at the duplicate
test conditions, there does not appear to be any valid discernible trends.
Electrical Measurements
During the EPA/MRI and Union Electric tests, primary voltages, primary
currents and sparking rates were recorded for each of the four ESP elec-
trical sets. In addition secondary voltages and currents were recorded
during each of the EPA/MRI emission tests and special ESP voltage versus
current tests were run after the completion of some of the EPA/MRI emis-
sion tests. Figure 18 presents typical data for secondary voltage.
Electrical measurements made during the EPA/MRI and Union Electric tests
are presented in detail in Tables C-l and C-2 in Appendix C. Summaries
of this data are presented in Tables 15, 16, and 17. These measurements
indicate that firing of refuse results in increased sparking rates and
reduced ESP voltage and current (power) levels. During the EPA/MRI test
series, the firing of refuse resulted in average losses in ESP power
ranging from 13.2 to 18.4%. Corresponding changes in average sparking
rates varied from 2 sparks/min to 68 sparks/min. There was no apparent
trend in sparking rate change or power loss with boiler load or the per-
cent of refuse fired. The Union Electric data indicated average ESP power
losses which ranged from 4.1 to 16.17= when firing refuse. Average spark-
ing rate increases ranged from 201 sparks/min to 339 sparks/min. While
the Union Electric sparking rate data did not show any trends with load,
the average power loss increased montonically with load.
It is generally accepted that optimum or maximum precipitator collection
efficiencies are obtained at peak time average voltage (power) levels.-
While peak average voltages may occur in the neighborhood of 100 sparks/
min, sparking rates in the range of 200 to 300 sparks/min generally
correspond to less than maximum power input and would be indicative of
less than nonoptimum performance. The rather high sparking rates recorded
during the Union Electric combined firing tests suggest that the precipi-
tator was not operating at optimum conditions during those tests.
55
-------
99.99 99.9
100.Op 1—
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
9998 95 90 80 60 40 20 10 5 21
i i—i—r i i i i i
Brinks Analysis
(with cyclone
and filter)
0.1 0.01
OCD
//
T—rrn 1—
Refuse - % Energy
O 0%
9%
a is
7o
°-0] ° * 12 510 20 ' 40 ' 60 ' 80 90 95 98 99 99.9 99^99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 15. Particle size distribution at ESP inlet,
power output = 80 megawatts.
56
-------
99.99 99.9
100.0
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
9998 95 90 80 60 40 20 10 5 21
0.1 0.01
OO
o
a:
U
Qi
LU
t—
LU
_l
U
10.0
.0
0.1
I I I I—I 1 1 TTT
I
III II I I I I I I
Refuse - % Energy _
O 0%
A 9%
D 18%
Brinks Analysis
(with cyclone
and filter)
I I
I I
I
0.01 0.1 1 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 90 95 9899 99.9 99.99
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 16. Particle size distribution at ESP inlet,
power output = 100 megawatts.
57
-------
99.99 99.9
100.0
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
9998 95 90 80 60 40 20 10 5 21
0.1 0.01
UJ
o
on
UJ
UJ
<
Q
UJ
_l
U
10.0
1.0
0.1
_L
1 I
T I
I TIT T 1 I
-------
300 •—
200
t—
Z
Z)
U
100
0
O OUTLET \ ,o , 70 M „ r /!
a INLET )12-°-73 No Refuse /'
x o a
/r
/ / /
x 09 a
« , \S LJ
////
X* O Q
////
//
x « a
10 20 30 40 50 60
VOLTAGE, kV
Figure 18. Secondary voltage versus current curves with 9% refuse firing
and coal only at a generation rate of 100 megawatts.
59
-------
Table 15. AVERAGE PRECIPITATOR ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS!/
(EPA/MRI Tests)
Gross
Generation
(megawatts)
80
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
Refuse
Heat Input Test
(percent)
0
9
18
18
27
0
9
9
9
18
0
9
18
No.
6
13
4
5
7
3
1
2
11
12
9
8
10
Voltage
(volts)
295
266
266
268
265
295
261
263
263
255
290
271
258
Prtmarv
Current
(amps)
42
41
41
39
40
43
39
39
41
42
42
40
39
Power
Ikw)
12.3
10.9
10.9
10.4
10.6
12.8
10.2
10.2
10.7
10.7
12.2
10.9
10.0
Voltage
(kv)
36
25
32
33
31
37
32
33
27
25
33
30
27
Secondary
Current
(m-amps)
265k/
263
259k/
248k/
256
280k/
253
248
254
265k/
268k/
251
246
Power
(kw)
9.5k/
6.6
8.2k/
8.2k/
7.9
10.4k/
8.0
8.1
6.8
6.6^/
8.7k/
7.6
6.6
Sparking Rate
(sparks/min)
Average
88
84
61
122
90
14
115
114
70
32
13
109
108
Minimum
50
10
0
30
10
0
70
50
5
0
0
5
25
Maximum
120
150
180
420
170
5
185
200
190
145
30
300
340
&_l Average value for all four ESP electrical sets computed from data in Table C-l, Appendix C.
b/ One or more readings above 300 m-amp meter limit - averages based on low side by undetermined value.
-------
Table 16. AVERAGE PRECIPITATOR ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS!/
(Union Electric Tests)
Gross Generation
(megawatts)
75
75
75
75
101
100
100
100
100
139
140
140
140
140
140
140
Refuse Heat
Input
a)
0
0
13.2
14.7
0
0
0
14.8
15
0
0
0
10
10
10
11.4
Test
No.
4
5
6T
7T
1
2
3
5T
4T
6
7
8
IT
2T
3T
9T
Voltage
(volts)
304
306
288
293
315
312
313
287
275
318
312
299
273
269
273
272
Primary
Current
(amps)
45
45
45
46
46
46
45
47
45
45
45
45
45
44
44
39
Sparking Rate
Power
(kw)
13.7
13.9
12.9
13.5
14.3
14.2
14.2
13.4
12.5
14.4
14
13.4
12.2
11.9
12.1
10.6
Average
19
9
163
268
23
1.1
15
304
405
12
26
147
255
286
333
309
(s parks /min)
Minimum
3
0
77
105
0
0
0
110
270
1
11
40
35
100
138
220
Maximum
33
23
257
330
59
30
30
450
460
21
38
300
363
450
500
450
a/ Average value for all ESP electrical sets computed from data in Table C-2, Appendix C.
voltage and current not reported.
Secondary
-------
Table 17. COMPARISON OF COAL AND COAL PLUS REFUSE ESP ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS
Gross Generation
(megawatts)
MRI/EPA Tests
80
100
120
Union Electric Tes
75
100
140
Fuel
Coal only
a /
Coal plus refuse-
Coal only
a /
Coal plus refuse-
Coal only
3 /
Coal plus refuse—
ts
Coal only
Coal plus refuse
Coal only
Coal plus refuse
Coal only
Coal plus refuse
Average
Voltage
(volts)
295
266
295
261
290
264
305
290
313
281
310
272
Primary Measurements
Current
(ampsj
42
40
43
40
42
39
45
45
46
46
45
43
Power
(kw)
12.3
10.7
12.8
10.5
12.2
10.4
13.8
13.2
14.3
12.9
13.9
11.7
Average Change
in Power
(%)
0
-13.2
0
-18.4
0
-14.9
0
-4.1
0
-9.8
0
-16.1
Sparking
Average
(s parks /min)
88
90
14
74
13
81
14
215
16
355
62
296
a/ Average for all coal and refuse tests.
-------
PERFORMANCE OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
Determination of the performance of the electrostatic precipitator under
conditions of combined firing with coal and refuse was a key goal of the
test program.
Southern Research Institute (SRI) personnel assisted in the test program
with EPA/MRI to evaluate the collection efficiency of the electrostatic
precipitator while burning refuse in conjunction with fossil fuels in the
boiler. SRI provided measurements of the particulate resistivity and the
electrical conditions in the precipitator during portions of this test
program. In addition, SRI provided analytical assistance, utilizing its
computer models, in evaluating the precipitator performance.
The following subsections present the results of the measurements of the
particulate resistivity and precipitator electrical conditions and a dis-
cussion of the performance of the electrostatic precipitator.
Particulate Resistivity
Measurements of particulate resistivity were made by SRI using a point-
to-plane instrument. No significant variation in resistivity was detected
with changing fuels as shown in Figure 19.
Efficiency of Electrostatic Precipitator
The efficiency of the electrostatic precipitator was calculated from the
following equation:
„,-,.. . o. Inlet Grain Loading - Outlet Grain Loading
Efficiency /» = B B x 100
Inlet Grain Loading
Figure 20 presents a comparison of electrostatic precipitator efficiencies
obtained using the mean values of inlet and outlet grain loading given in
Table 14 and Union Electric's coal-only test in November. No significant
differences in ESP efficiency were noted in the EPA/MRI tests as a func-
tion of fuel mixtures, but ESP efficiency declined with increasing boiler
load.
63
-------
10
13
10
12
10
10
O With Refuse
A Without Refuse
E
u
~o
I 1011
1/1
(SI
LU
OC
°0
8
270
290
Figure 19.
310 330
TEMPERATURE. °F
350
370
390
Resistivity versus temperature with and without
refuse firing at the Meramec Power Station,
December 1973.
64
-------
100 i-
U
z
LU
y 95
ct:
O
^—
<
oH
LU
Q_
90
O
EPA/MRI
A Coal
A Coal + Refuse
U.E.
OCoal
+Refuse
70
80
U.E. Coal Only (Oct. 1973)
EPA/MRI Tests
U.E. Coal + Refuse
(Nov. 1973)
90 100 110 120
GROSS GENERATION, Megawatts
130
140
U.E Coal
Only Test
Nov. 1973
150
_!_/ Calculation using mean values for inlet and outlet grain loading, Table XIV.
Figure 20. Variation of ESP efficiency with changes
in fuel and boiler load.
-------
Efficiencies calculated from the Union Electric data show a marked de-
pendence on fuel mixture—a significantly lower efficiency resulting from
combined firing. In addition, the trend to decreasing efficiency with
increasing boiler load is more prevalent for the combined-firing case.
The differences in efficiency between the EPA/MRI and Union Electric coal-
only tests may be primarily the result of the pre-test history of refuse
firing. With the exception of one test in November 1973, all of the
Union Electric data for coal-only firing were obtained in October 1973.
The Union Electric November test, conducted at a power level of 140 mega-
watts, indicates a precipitator efficiency substantially lower than the
earlier Union Electric coal-only test at 140 megawatts. Possible ex-
planations for this difference are that: a coal-only base-line shift
unrelated to the firing of refuse occurred between the time of the October
tests and the test in November; the collection efficiency of the precipitator
was shifted because of refuse particles in the residual dust layer on the
ESP electrodes; or the November test result was in error. Analysis of
the available information and data does not yield conclusive proof as to
which of these alternatives are correct, but further analysis permits the
postulation of a logical answer.
As noted 'in the section describing test procedures, prior to the Union
Electric tests in October 1973, the precipitator was checked and adjusted
and the unit was operated in a normal manner firing only low sulfur coal
for 2 weeks. Sufficient time for stabilization of the precipitator was
allowed by this procedure, and the data obtained should represent actual
conditions resulting from coal-only firing. EPA/MRI test procedures
were such that the coal-only tests were conducted between coal plus refuse
firing tests, and, furthermore, prior to all EPA/MRI tests the boiler had
been operating in a combined-firing mode for several weeks. Thus, a
very short stabilization time was allowed in the EPA/MRI coal-only tests
and there was s significant pre-test history of previous refuse firing.
The data obtained by EPA/MRI for the coal-only tests probably reflect
precipitator performance on combined fuel rather than coal only. The
Union Electric coal-only test conducted in November 1973, was conducted
on the same day as a coal plus refuse test, and in addition, during
the 2 weeks prior to testing, 81 tons of refuse were fired in the
boiler. That test procedure parallels the test procedure used by EPA/
MRI, and as shown in Figure 20, the data point at 140 megawatts forms a
logical extension to the EPA/MRI data. Therefore, it seems likely that
the difference in the EPA/MRI and Union Electric data for coal-only
firing can be largely attributed to the differences in precipitator con-
ditioning procedures.
66
-------
Part of the decrease in precipitator efficiency noted in the Union
Electric coal plus refuse tests may in part be due to nonoptimum adjust-
ment of the ESP for operation on coal plus refuse. However, it is un-
likely that the decrease can be entirely associated with improper adjust-
ment of the precipitator and one must conclude that the Union Electric
data do indicate that the efficiency of the precipitator decreases when
coal and refuse are fired in the boiler. Possible explanations for the
observed decrease in precipitator efficiency with refuse firing are dis-
cussed next.
The performance of an electrostatic precipitator depends upon a variety
of particulate and carrier gas properties such as inlet grain loading,
particle size distribution, particulate resistivity, gas flowrate, gas
temperature, and moisture content of gas stream. Since no significant
changes were noted in inlet grain loading, particulate resistivity or
gas temperature, changes in precipitator performance cannot be attributed
to variations in those parameters. Inlet size distribution data do not
show any consistent trends with the type of fuels fired and one cannot
conclude that changes in the particle size distribution are a primary
cause of the ESP performance loss when firing refuse.
The addition of fuel with an elevated moisture content (i.e., refuse)
results in a change in the gas composition at the precipitator inlet.
The average moisture in the gas stream during the EPA/MRI coal-only
tests was 6.8% by volume, while the average during refuse firing was in
excess of 8%. Additional moisture in the gas stream can produce changes
in the electrical conditions of the precipitator resulting in changes in
efficiency.
Specific changes which occurred in the electrical conditions of the pre-
cipitator are evidenced by shifts in the voltage versus current data and
the spark rate (see Tables 15, 16, and 17). Secondary voltage decreased
and sparking rates increased with refuse firing. Both of these changes
generally result in lower ion densities and decreased particle charging
which in turn causes a decrease in precipitator collection efficiency.
One of the apparent changes that occurred with refuse firing in the
Union Electric tests was an increase in gas flowrate through the precipi-
tator. Union Electric estimations based on changes in fuel heating
values (fuel composition was assumed to remain constant), indicated a
10 to 17% increase in gas flow in the November 1973 tests (coal plus re-
fuse) in comparison to the October tests (coal-only). Their November
velocity traverses showed a 1 to 7% increase over the October tests while
67
-------
a 5% increase was noted when comparing the one coal-only test in November
to a coal plus refuse test conducted the same day. Nonideal flow measuring
conditions, inaccuracies inherent in field measurement techniques and the
effect of excess air on gas volumes preclude firm judgments regarding
magnitude of gas flowrate increases during the Union Electric refuse firing
tests.
The EPA/MRI data which were calculated from velocity profiles show only
a slight increase in gas flowrate at a given power output when refuse is
substituted for coal fed to the boiler. However, most of the EPA/MRI
test data indicate flowrates into the precipitator considerably in excess
of the design flowrate* and an increase in flowrate with increase in gross
generation.
Theoretical gas flowrates were calculated by assuming complete combus-
tion of coal and refuse to C02, H^O, SC>2, etc., with 50% excess air.
Table 18 and Figure 21 summarize the results of the calculations. At a
given power output, theoretical flowrates increase with increasing per-
cent refuse fired and increasing moisture content in the refuse. Theo-
retical flowrates are in excess of design flowrates for the ESP when coal
or coal and refuse are fired at power outputs exceeding 120 megawatts.*
Calculated gas flowrates are considerable lower than those measured in
the EPA/MRI test program (Figure 21). Errors in the field measurements,
air leakage into the system, incorrect heating values for coal and refuse,
incorrect boiler efficiency data, inefficient combustion, or errors in
estimated coal and refuse firing rates may contribute to the discrepancy.
The electrical conditions and particle size distributions that were
determined from the EPA/MRI field tests, together with the electrostatic
precipitator design data, were utilized as an input to the Southern
Research Institute precipitator systems model. The model was used to
predict the collection efficiency as a function of volume flowrate for
the Meramec Station. These results are plotted together with the measured
performance data in Figure 22. The gross generation rates corresponding
to the inlet volume flowrates are also shown in Figure 22. The computer
predicted performance parallels both the EPA/MRI and Union Electric
measured performance for the conditions representative of coal plus refuse
firing (see Figure 20).
According to Union Electric, the electrostatic precipitator was
originally designed for 97.5% efficiency burning coal at approxi-
mately 125 megawatts and 411,500 acfm into the precipitator.
.68
-------
Table 18. THEORETICAL GAS FLOWRATE AT 310°F and 1 ATM
Power
Output
(megawatts)
60
80
100
120
140
Fuel
Moisture
(% wt. wet)
Coal
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Refuse
10
30
50
10
30
50
10
30
50
10
30
50
10
30
50
Exhaust Volume
Coal
206,978
206,978
206,978
272,067
272,067
272,067
337,136
337,136
337,136
405,016
405,016
405,016
476,519
476,519
476,519
107, R
211,707
213,379
2 15, 12 A
278,295
280,493
282,787
344,848
347,572
350,414
414,285
417,557
420,972
--
491,281
--
Flowrates (cfm)
207, R
..
219,191
--
284,731
288,130
293,690
352,828
357,039
363,929
423,866
428,925
437,203
--
504,652
--
30, R
__
225,248
291,014
296,093
304,483
360,613
366, 90b
377,303
433,222
440,782
453,273
509,704
518,600
533,295
Basis for calculation:
(a) Ideal combustion to C02, 1^0, S02.
(b) 507= Excess air.
(c) Average properties for coal and refuse were used in the
combustion calculations.
69
-------
700
u_
< 600
u_
o
A
A
Solid Lines Represent Theoretical
Gas Flowrate for 10% Moisture
Coal and 30% Moisture Refuse
Assuming 50% Excess Air
Measured Gas Flowrates at
Precipitator Inlet
140 Megawatts
O 80 Megawatts
D 100 Megawatts
A 120 Megawatts
PERCENT REFUSE ENERGY
Figure 21. Comparison of theoretical and measured gas flowrates.
-------
99.9.—
99
u
z
LU
Ci
90
0
O 0% Refuse
O 9%
D 18%
A 27%
80 MW ' TOO MW
COMPUTER
PREDICTED
PERFORMANCE
120 MW
O!
J.
100
200 300 400 500 600
INLET VOLUME FLOW RATE, THOUSANDS OF ACFM
700
* >IW = megawatts .
Figure 22. Efficiency versus volume flowrate for the Meramec Power
Station with varying feed rates for refuse.
71
-------
From the preceding discussion, it appears that the major variable in-
fluencing precipitator performance is the electrical operating condi-
tions (peak power and sparking rate) and gas flowrates. Gas flowrates,
at a given gross generation level, appear to increase when refuse is sub-
stituted for coal as fuel to the boiler. The exact mechanisms which
caused the change in electrical operating conditions are currently un-
known.
In order to achieve emission levels with combined firing comparable to
those for the coal-only tests reported by Union Electric, the following
steps should be considered:
1. Fine tune the electrostatic precipitator to operate at optimum level
with combined firing; or
2. Reduce the boiler load when firing coal and refuse; or
3. Reduce the moisture content of the refuse by drying it prior to
combus tion; or
4. A combination of the above.
72
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions derived from the air pollution test program are grouped
into three distinct categories: (1) conclusions on test procedures;
(2) conclusions on emission levels and precipitator performance; and
(3) conclusions on refuse combustion efficiency. Each category is dis-
cussed separately.
TEST PROCEDURES
The primary observation for the EPA/MRI test program is that insufficient
stabilization time for the ESP was allowed for the coal-only tests. The
minimum stabilization time required for a modification to a precipitator
has been estimated to be on the order of 3 to 5 days. Because of the
insufficient stabilization time, all the test data obtained in the EPA/
MRI coal-only tests are probably representative of coal plus refuse
firing conditions.
The test procedure for the original series of coal-only tests conducted
by Union Electric allowed sufficient stabilization time and the results
are considered to be indicative of coal-only firing conditions. How-
ever, it is possible that there was a shift in ESP collection efficiency,
after the October coal-only tests, which was not related to the firing
of refuse.
Continuous firing of refuse (24 hr/day) may result in ESP performance
losses greater than indicated by the EPA/MRI or Union Electric tests.
While it is believed that further performance degradation with con-
tinuous firing will not be significant, the influence of continuous
firing can only be determined by further tests.
EMISSION LEVELS AND PRECIPITATOR PERFORMANCE
1. No significant changes in gaseous pollution levels occur when refuse
and coal are fired together under the conditions tested.
73
-------
2. Mass concentrations (i.e., grain loading) of participates at the
inlet to the electrostatic precipitator were in the same range for all
tests conducted by EPA/MRI and Union Electric.
3. The inlet grain loading is not dependent upon fuel composition or
gross power generation over the ranges involved in the test program.
4. The increase in outlet grain loading is more significant as the gross
generation rate increases.
5. There is an apparent decrease in ESP efficiency when coal and refuse
are fired in the boiler. The performance change probably results from
a combination of factors which include:
a. Increased gas flowrates resulting from fuel compositional
changes and moisture content.
b. Changes in ESP electrical performance characteristics.
6. The increase in emissions may be significantly moderated by optimizing
the ESP electrical operation and rapping cycles for combined firing and
by control of the refuse moisture content. This postulation will require
verification by further testing.
REFUSE COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY
The following are tentative conclusions and should be verified by sam-
pling and analysis of the boiler residue:
1. Refuse combustion efficiencies range from approximately 60 to 95%.
2. Increased refuse firing rates show increased combustion efficiencies.
74
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional air pollution testing is recommended in order to complete
the characterization of particulate emissions resulting from refuse
firing. Since the previous tests conducted using modified EPA methods
were probably only representative of combined firing conditions, future
tests should include determination of emission levels for coal-only
firing conditions. We recommend that much greater stabilization times
for the ESP be allowed between major changes in firing conditions in any
future test program. We also recommend a more complete study of emis-
sions at gross generation rates exceeding 120 megawatts.
To facilitate the determination of combustion efficiencies and other
system parameters, we also recommend that any future test program give
attention to precise measurement of data needed to provide boiler mass
and energy balances.
75
-------
REFERENCES
1. Ranz, W. E., and J. B. Wong, "Jet Impactors for Determining the
Particle Size Distribution of Aerosols," Arch. Ind. Hyg. Occup.
Med., Vol. 5, pp. 464-477 (1952).
2. Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water Quality Control Data for the
Year 1969, Union Electric Report to Federal Power Commission.
3. Lingane, J. J., Anal. Chem.. 26, 622 (1954).
4. Driscoll, J. N., and A. W. Berger, "Improved Chemical Methods for
Sampling and Analysis of Gaseous Pollutants from the Combustion
of Fossil Fuels," Final Report, Contract No. CPA 22-69-95, Walden
Research Corporation.
5. Lowe, R. A., "Energy Recovery from Waste," EPA Publication SW-36 d ii
(1973).
6. Morris, H. E., "Performance Report, Unit No. 1 Precipitator Tests
Meramec Plant," Union Electric Report, 28 December 1973.
7. Morris, H. E., "Performance Report, Precipitator Tests with Refuse
Firing Unit No. 1, Meramec Plant," Union Electric Report,
24 January 1974.
8. White, H. J., Industrial Electrostatic Precipitation. Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Mass, Palo Alto, London
pp. 212 (1963).
9. Private communication, Mr. D. Klumb, Union Electric (August 1974).
76
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA FORMS, SAMPLE CALCULATIONS, AND
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
77
-------
This appendix contains examples of data forms, sample calcula-
tions and summaries of results of calculations. Specific items presented
in this appendix are delineated in the following table.
Table A-l. CONTENTS OF APPENDIX A
Figure No.
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
Description
Source Testing Program Format
(Sampling Data Reduction)
Brink/Andersen Particle Size
Coding Form
Gas Program Format (SO , NO ,
CO Gases)
Power Curve for Meramec Plant
Table No.
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
Description
Example of Particulate Calculations
Summary of Results of Particulate
Calculations
Brink Particle Size Data (with
Cyclone and Filter)
Example of SO Calculations
-78
-------
MR]
FIGURE A-l
SOURCE TESTING PROGRAM FORMAT
(SAMPLING DATA REDUCTION)
B,
Dote
Page of
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
1313|415|6171B[9IO|'I2j3j4l5|6j7|8l9ld
16 7
|2l3]4
HE
3l4|5l6|7|8[9lO
7181910 H2I3I4 5161718 9(0
Run No.
Ooi*
IT*O% Temp
(•F)
AtmoirPreii
itacL Vocuu
(in.M20)
Ptorlic.1
Port.al
Po.lic.Wf ighl
lolnl (mg)
fa (It2)
Iniliol Div I«ll
':, Op
(D,y)
CGj
..*..„! -V *
°-n CO
-4—J—A—H.
-4-^
co
(pprn)
Pilot Tub*
otfCcitnt
..>..>..-. .t.,.t, ,1 , >,
.«. y..i., >. .i,..4...)...i ,<.,..!...4...!...«-,.>..,>...>..4'
?0't 'oinl
bnmplf Tin
)ry Un Mrlr>
•Ml Rroding (
P. '01 K
'"•
O.ifkf P.MIUK-
(in.HjO)
j;";H?c
Mr'c' Temp - I
(Left ) ( ° F
lot li Tcrrp
>omple Gas Temp
"F )(- if lilica gfl)
_!_!_
_ju_L
* * I ' t i
. 1 . . . .•
»
10
II
12
13
14
15
i I l . i
i i . l-i
i- I i-
-i—t—t * * *
1 ,'. * I
Figure A-l. Source testing program format
(sampling data reduction).
-------
FIGURE A-2
J0e
BY
NOTES
00
o 0
l-10
Ml 51
RUM
PATC.
3«mpc«.
'•-2J L
A*rc ViU»
(.All
"^ "
4 - 5.)
Figure A-2. Brinks/Andersen coding form.
-------
MRI
Protect No
• ecortfrd B,
Dc'f
FIGURE A-3
GAS PROGRAM FORMAT
(S02, S03, N0x, CO GASES)
Poge
-pq
i£
' C
4
*
I
[T"
2
, .
T
L., J
-1C i H-20
i - . i .
I' - -
L. 1 . . . | . , ,
1
1
.... 1
...A....J
1 .,
„,-*..,. J
__j
L—
L
1
1
1 1
1
.... 1
j
• . t It ...
* . .
"
-
-
-
. _*. .4 ,-*_. i_ i t
. • 1
1 . . .
j
». . i i ...
.1 .
i
* __
i
. 1 . , .
1.1 . . .
, i 1 . .
1
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
...'I,
.,,'.,
. . .'. 1
.
. . .'.1
1 1 1*1 1
1
lalafo
2> -30
.*,...!,
D
i
»
L
L
-. , .
L . . .'. 1 .
. (
. . .'. 1
.
...'.I.
. . ', 1 ,
. . .', 1 ,
• 1
1
1 1 1
m
f
,
i 3'-46
.-1..J
-
. 1 . . '. .
1 1 1 l'l ,
. 1 . ,'. .
. 1 , ,',
. 1 . .',
.l.l', ^
.111'.
1, i ^ 1 ^ . -i.-l . ..i, i.
L_ .. ^ .1 v . ,
, -V >
.
i
..'..I
. i-. . 1
. r. . i
. ,-. , i
4.-5C
:'
^. .
. . . .' 1 :
.
• , 1 .'I .
. . , .'1 .
.M ,
.J, ,., l..l.'l.l..
C
^
.
^
B
.
|.|
B
i , •. x
1
i . \ .'. .
Ail - 1 _
l i. .1 i 1 » l i .
,*,
.
,
"
t
5 -~ SC
f'-T 7>-8C
l l2l3l|l.5l6l"'iE 9iO i_ . : \- c"t>i "io|^<. . co— ^30 ic;~ -
. , . ; , . . ' : . . . i . ..>...-, j ..
i
J . . . *| .
j
l ... *
l . . . . *
• 1
1..4 . , .'
i , ..."
1 . . . .'
t . . . .
K - Vol of
B
..!,,*
, t . "
t
.
-i
.
. . 1 . .', .
. . 1 . . '. ,
..l,.*,.
. , . . I i , i .
Number
itront tor Somplf (ml)
L - Vol of lilron! fo. Blank (ml)
M - Norwolit, of Titront (g- eq 1 )
N - loto] Solution 'volume (ml)
V. - Vol c
1 ....
i . . . .
_i . 1 i .
j t A i nno' 1 ilra'rd ( "
... I 1 ....
A K r f TI-
Q f , i (1
: - ft) • Numtif
; - re,,,' Nu^nr.
t - Inil. Dry lesl Meter Keodirxi (ll?)
f - Fir.oi Dry leil Milei Reodrnq (ft-',.
^- - Avg L*'* CjO! Metei lemp ( **^ )
, L . 1 . 1 . . I A 1 1 . 1 , . . .
ii.i.... jii, .!»..,
. j 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1111 ....
.... 1 .... 1 1 ... 1 . 1 .. i . . , 1 . . . ,
.^.......i.J .,.,..,....!., , i , i . . . , .1 , , . . i . , 9J»
Figure A-3. Gas program format (S02 , SOo, NOX, CO gases).
-------
9800 .
oo
ro
1
2
Z
D
ui
1/1
o
Q£
o
Meramec Plant
Unit Nos. 1&2
Heat Rate vs. Generation
Based upon "Meramec Units 1&2
Gross Heat Rate" Curves
Dated 12/30/63 and Assuming
a 4% Increase in Unit Heat Rate
Since that Time 2 X
9700
9600
i
r
_L
60
70
80
90 100 110
GROSS GENERATION, MW
120
130
140
2 /
Figure A-4. Efficiency curve for Meramec boiler.—
-------
Table A-2. EXAMPLE OF PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
1. VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLED AT "STANDARD CONDITIONS
17.71*VM*(Pir + PM/13.6)
VMSTD =
17.71* 5a.60-M29.12* 1.076/13.6)
_______________ = - --------- - --------------------- = 37.1'* OSCF
70. 0+460.
.- ..... - -VMSTM-.= VMSTOWO. 028317= 57 . 19*0 . 028317= 1.62 DNM3
_2 — -VOLUME. OF-. WATER- VAPOrt AT STANDARD CONDITIONS- ________________
_____________ VWV-- = 0.0474*VW = 0.0474» 130.0 = 6.16 SCF
VWM = VwV*0. 023317 = 6. 162*0.. 02&317 = .1745 NM3
3. PERCENT MOISTUPE IN STACK <3AS
100.*VWV 100.* 6.16
.PMOS =_.„«-.— -.—-r- = ...—rrrr-r—-~ = 9.7 PERCENT
VM5TC + VWV 57.19* 6.16
4. MOLE FRACTION OF DRY STACK GAS
100.-PMOS 100.- 9.7
HO = = = .903
100. _ 100.. .._. _..... ..
5. AVERAGE.-HOLECULAH v.EIGHT OF DRY STACK GAS
MWD = (PC02
-------
Table A-2. (Continued)
7. STACK GAS VELOCITY AT STACK CONDITIONS
VS = 4360*4Vf- SGPT(Dr~S*(TS*460) )*
= 4360* 17.761
*SM*T(1/(2M.38» 29. 3bM
VSM = VS«0.3048 =
2683*0.3048
26*. 3
818 METERS/MIN
8. STACK GAS VOLU.1ET*IC FLOw AT STANDARD CONDITIONS! DRY BASIS
0.123»VS»AS*MD*PS
QS =
TS*460
0.123* 2*-:i3* 33399* .903*28.38
32S.6 *460
= 356111 USCFM
QSM = 65*0.023317 = 353111*0.028317 = 10141 NM3/MIN
9. STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOw AT STACK CONDITIONS
•JS *
-------
Table A-2. (Continued)
11. PARTICIPATE LOADING — PPOHE, CYCLONE, AND FILTER
(AT STANDArD CONDITIONS)
CAN = 0.0154 * (MF/VMSTD)
= ~0.0154*(7757.95/ 57.19) = 2.08914 GK/DSCF
.CANM .. = CAN*2286.34 = 2.08914*2288.34 = 4730.67 MG/NM3
12. PARTICULATF LOADING — TOTAL
(AT STAi^DAt-D CONDITIONS)
CAO = 0.015^ * (MT/VMSTO)
________________ =_ 0. 0154*17757. 95/ 57.19)
CAOM = C^0*228b.34 = 2. 08914*2288 . 34
2.08914 GR/OSCF
4730.67 MG/NM3
13. PARTICIPATE LOADING -- PROBE, CYCLONE, AND FILTER
(AT STACK CONDITIONS)
__CAT- s- _=.T_T_« -.- .--.-.
TS+460
17.71* 2.0891*28.38* .903
328.6*460
C'ATM = cuT*22Ba.34 = 1.20252*2288.34
14. PARTICULATE LOAOIfJb — TOT/^L
(AT STaCK CONDITIONS)
= 1.2C252 GR/ACF
= 27S1.79 MG/M3
CAU
CAUM =
TS*460
17.71* 2
3?8. 6+460
.903
1.202-32 GR/ACF
2751.76 MG/M3
-------
Table A-2. (Concluded)
is. PARTICULATE EMISSION HATE
— PP.OdEt CYCLONE* AND FILTER
CAW = 0.008S7*CAi>»*QS
= 0.00857* 2.0891* 358111
CAWM- = CA*'«0. 45359 = 6411 .61*0. 45359
6411.61 L^/hH
2908.24 KG/HR
16. PARTICULATE EMISSION
— TOTAL
CAX = 0.008<>7»CAO*QS
=. 0.00857* 2.0891* 358111
CAXM = CAX»0.45359 = 6411.61*0.45359
17. PERCENT EXCESS AIR AT SAMPLING POINT
£A _=_
100. » (PO^-O.S^PCO)
0.264*PK2-P02*0.5*PCO
100. *( 6.5-0.5* 0.0)-
0.264*7S.O- 6.5*0.5* 0.0
6411.61 La/HR
290^.24 KG/HR
45.3 PERCENT
86
-------
Table A-3. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
CD
-J
NAKF. DESCRIPTION
DUE CF >U '•'
VMSTD VOL OHY GAS-STD CCMD
PMOS PERCENT MOJSTUHF Y VOL
TS AVG STACX TEN'-ER A TURE
OS STK FLO-R^TE, LMYtSTD Cf,
GA ACTUAL ^TAC:< FL'.K'VATE
PERI PERCENT I SO.^ Ir-ET 1C
PA^TICULATES — PAKTIAl. CATCH
MF. PART1CULATL *T-r- ART 1 AL
CAN PA-^T. LOAU-PTL,bTn C>J
CAT PA^T. L
-------
Table A-3. (Continued)
bUMMAHY OF HF.5ULTS
CO
co
NAME DESCRIPTION
DATE OF HUN
VKSTD VOL OKY GAS-STl) COND
PMO^ PERCENT MOISTURE :-Y VOL
TS AVO STACr. TL^^'E^ATUKt
OS STK FLCKfVTE. DKY,STD CN
QA ACTUAL STAC* FLO*HATE
PFRI PERCENT ISO* I-'^TIC
PARTICULATES — PARTIAL CATCh
MF PARTICULAR .-T-KAHTIAL
CAM PART. LOAD-PTLiSTD CN
CAT PART. LOAD-PTL»STK CN
CAW PARTIC EMIS-PARTIAL
PARTICULATES -- TOTAL CATCh
MT PARTICULAR -T-TOTAL
CAO PART. LOAl)-TTL,STD CiJ
CAU PART. LO/'U-TTL,ST.< CN
CAX PARTIC cMlS-TOTAL
1C PERC L'PIfvoEH CATCH
UNITS
USCF
OtG.F
DSCFM
ACFM
MG
GM/DSCF
GH/ACF
LS/nH
MG
GR/DSCF
GP/ACF
LB/HK
2-1
12-05-73
70.38
10.6
313.9
291028
487482
101.3
8401.59
1.63826
1 .09744
4584.82
8401.59
1.83826
1.0*744
4564.82
0.0
2-0
12-05-73
10.0
314.1
2=>4086
416519
104.0
433.67
.07441
.04539
162.04
433.67
.07441
.04539
162.04
0.0
3-1
12-06-73
72.29
7.6
30fi.5
309898
490604
97.7
8429.84
1.79571
1.13429
4769.09
8429.84
1.79571
1.13429
4769,09
0.0
3-0
12-06-73
91.31
7.3
314.2
265332
415847
101.3
299.31
.05048
.03221
.114.79
299.31
.05048
.03221
114.79
0.0
-------
Table A-3. (Continued)
oo
VD
SUMM/.RY OF RESULTS
NAME
VMSTO
PMOS
TS
US
OA
PERI
PARTI
MF .
CAN
CAT
CAW
PARTI
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
DESCRIPTION Ui-jITS
DATE OF HU",'
VOL DhY G^S-STD CQ.xJD OSCF
PERCENT rICHSTURt >Y VOL
AVG STAC^ TE^ER^TURE OEG.F
STK FLO.PHTE, DF!Y»bTU CN OSCFM
ACTUAL STACf FL'i-MTE ACFtf
PERCENT ISO I^'tTIC
CULATES — PAKTIAL CATCn
PARTICULATE uT-FARTlAL KG
PART. LOAO-PTL.STO C'i GR/OSCF
PART. LOAD-RTL.STK CM GR/ACF
PARTIC EMIS-PARTIAL LB/hR
CULATES — T.'TAL CATCH
PARTICULATE vT-TOTAL MG
PA^T. LOALi-TTL,STiJ CN GR/DSCF
PART. LOAD-TTL,ST'\ CK1 GR/ACF
PARTIC KMIS-TOT^L LLVH«
PERC T'F'I-j'-ER CwTCH
4-1
12-04-73
b5.87
10.9
317.4
233758
39;;287
100.1
7153.18
1.97162
1.18088
3949.75
7153.18
1.97162
1.18088
3949.75
0.0
4-0
12-09-73
75.56
d.8
318.5
220v07
355823
100.9
115.72
.02353
.01461
44.55
115.72
.02358
.01461
44.55
0.0
5-1 5-0
1^-09-73 12-09-7
61.72 7^j.>
319.7 } i <_ .
265602 Zl'i-.t
442 12n T->f.^-.
97.3 IV..
7609.56 15*.^-
1.898bO .0301
1.14068 .Olc5
4322.07 56.7.
7609.58 154. *t
1.89880 .0301:
I.lt068 . 01851
4322.07 56.7:
o.o o.:
-------
Table A-3. (Continued)
SUMKAKY OF KKSULTS
NAME
vO
O
DESCRIPTION
DATE OF
UNITS
VMSTD VOL Dr9.55
1.55794
1.00900
33*3.96
0.0
6-0
12-10-73
81.06
6.2
301.5
233036
356779
102.4
225. 06
.04276
.02793
65.39
225.06
.04276
.02793
B5.39
0.0
7-1
12-10-73
61.23
10.8
306.4
243571
398035
105,3
8271.39
2.08025
1.27298
4342.32
8271.39
2.08025
1.27298
4342.32
0.0
7-0
12-10-73
79.73
8.2
304.7
22171&
348072
105.b
166.40
.03214
.02047
61.07
166.40
.03214
.02047
61.07
0.0
-------
Table A-3. (Continued)
NA'-E
VVSTO
PMOS
TS
L,'S
>7A
PEHI
PftHTI
MF
CAN
CAT
CA*
PARTI
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
bUMM,»Rr OF PrSULTS
DESCRIPTION UuITS ' -I
D<»TE OF ^U
VOL DriY Gr.s-STD CO :L> USCK
PERCENT vc^Tus"-: -y VOL
AVG STAC« TE'^EPATUKE r>EG.r
STK FLO -K.,TE» Dr)Y,STD Cn D5CF '
ACTUAL STACK FL^viRATE ACFM
PERCEI-IT I SO- I ^.HT 1C
CULATFS -- •-'APTIAL CATCH
PARTICULATc. 'vT-f-'APTI AL M.7
PART. LOAO-PTL»STO CN '^VDSCF
PAMT. LOAO-PTL»ST.'; C^ GK/AC^
PA^TIC EMIS-PA«TIAL Lti/rP
CULATES -- T.'-TAL CATCH
PARTICULAT-- /T-TOTAL Mf-
PART. LOAD-TTL -STO CN G^/DSCF
PART. LOAO-TTL.bT.-'. CN GR/ACF
PA^TIC LMIG-TOT^L LB/Hh
PERC !••'. PINKER CATCH
12-11-73
v^.44
9.0
310.6
413128
674652
95.5
ICTbS.lO
1.79731
1 .10059
6363.38
107^3.10
1 .79731
1 .10059
63b3, 3d
0.0
h-0
12-10-73
103. lb
h.o
312.4
3C6&80
486713
99.0
292.50
.04367
.02751
114.76
292.50
.043^7
.02751
114. 7b
0.0
9-1
12-12-73
80.30
7.7
307.7
347396
563698
96. °.
10016.03
1.9213d
1.18411
5720.29
lOOla.03
1.92138
1.18411
5720.29
0.0
9-0
12-11-73
97.10
5.9
304.1
300854
471351
95.0
421.55
.06686
.04267
172.38
421.55
.00636
.04267 ._
172.38
0.0
-------
Table A-3. (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
VO
NAME DESCRIPTION!
DATE OF RU'I
VMSTO VOL DRY GAS-STD CONU
PMOS PERCENT MOISTUAC, :>Y VOL
TS AVG STACr; TE-'-'F ERATUKE
QS . STK FLO.-.P--TE* DRY,STD CN
OA ACTUAL «>TACK FLu^ATE
PERI PERCENT ISOKP.-ETIC
PARTICULATES — ^Af-'TIAL CATCH
MF . PARTICULAR l-'T-PAPTIAL
CAN PART. LOAO-PTL.STD CN
CAT PART. LOAO-PTLtSTK CM
CAW PARTIC EMIS-PARTIAL
PARTICULATES — TOTAL CATCh
MT PA^TICULATr- --T-TOTAL
CAO PART. LOAD-TTL.STO CN
CAU PART. LOAD-TTL.STK CN
CAX PARTIC rIMIS-TOTAL
1C PERC If!PI\'--fR CATCH
DSCF
OF.G.F
DbCFM
ACFM
MG
GH/OSCF
GR/ACF
LB/hK
MG
GR/D5CF
GR/ACF
Lb/hk
UMITS
DSCF
OF.G.F
DbCFM
ACFM
10-1
12-12-73
80.62.
9.3
302.3
346574
573193 ,
97.4
10-0
12-12-73
97.19
b.4
306.1
290553
467969
98.4
11-1
12-13-73
69.13
e.9
312.4
293517
488205
98, ft
11-0
12-13-73
90.78
8.0
317.7
269623
440078
99.1
MG
GH/OSCF
GR/ACF
LB/hK
8405.07
1.60549
.97074
4766.53
391.29
.06200
.03650
154.39
8164.17
1.81865
1.09340
4574.70
286.96
.04868
.02982
112.48
8405.07
1.60549
.97074
476B.53
0.0
391.?9
.06200
.03/350
154.39
0.0
8164.17
1.81865
1.09340
4574.70
0.0
286.96
.04868
,02982_.
112,48
0.0
-------
Table A-3. (Concluded)
OF F>iSUi_TS
u>
VwSTD
Pr'OS
TS
OS
OA
PERI
DESCRIPTION
DATE OF RU .
VOL. DRY GA5-STU COM)
PEHCENT MOJSTU-c -Y VOL
AVG STACK IF'-'-^E^ATURt
STK FLO/.'-UTE* D?Yt5TD CN
ACTUAL fTACr. FLO-^ATE
PERCENT IbO-*lNETIC
PARTICIPATES — DAhTlAL CATCr.
MF PA.RTICULATE v.-T-PA^.TlAL
CAN PART. LOAO-PTL.STD C.NJ
CAT PAST. LOAD-PTL.ST^ CM
CAW PARTIC EMIS-PArTIAL
PARTICULATF3 — TOTAL
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
PARTICUL^TP --.-T-TOTAL
PART. LOAD-TTL«STD C:N
PART. LOAO-TTLiSTi< CN
PAWTIC cf'IS-TOTAL
U 'ITS
OSCr
OEG.h
QSCFn
ACF>4
12-1
1P-13-73
6H.29
10.0
317.7
2b534d
48J260
100.2
12-0
12-13-73
66.52
cJ.^3
317.8
254223
417248
100.2
13-1
12-14-73
59.37
7.V
306. 6
250196
401084
99.4
13-0
12-14-73
77.5?
7.6
30b.6
226506
358696
100.7
M3
Gk/ACF
9092.44
2.C5042
1.21070
5014.16
357.83
.06369
.03881
138.76
7173.39
1.66056
1.16062
3989.37
204.87
.04070
.02570
79.00
MG
GK'/DSCF
GR/ACF
Lb/h^
9092.44
2.05042
1.21070
5014.18
0.0
357.R3
.06369
.03881
138.76
0.0
7173.39
1.86056
1.16062
3989.37
0.0
204.87
.04070
.02570
79.00
0.0
-------
Table A-4. BRINK PARTICLE SIZE DATA (WITH CYCLONE AND FILTER)
Run 0
Staee
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Staee
Cyclone
1
2
3
4
5
Filter
Wt.
7.
49.4
18.6
15.5
7.5
4.6
1.3
3.1
Run
9.9
10.0
6.4
1.8
1.2
0.3
70.4*
Cum.
Wt. 7.
49.4
68.0
83.5
91.0
95.6
96.9
100.0
7
9.9
19.9
26.3
28.1
29.3
29.6
100.0
Run 1
Wt.
%
78.6
15.1
4.6
1.3
0.1
0.0
0.3
Run
80.5
8.9
5.9
2.4
1.3
0.2
0.8
Cum.
Wt. 7.
78.6
93.7
98.3
99.6
99.7
99.7
100.0
8
80.5
89.4
95.4
97.7
99.0
99.2
100.0
Run 2
Wt.
7.
30.5
32.4
24.2
3.2
6.1
0.6
3.0
Run
74.1
15.5
6.8
1.8
1.0
0.0
0.8
Cum.
Wt. 7.
30.5
62.9
87.1
90.3
96.4
97.0
100.0
9
74.1
89.6
96.4
98.2
99.2
99.2
100.0
Wt.
7.
65.4
20.8
9.0
2.8
0.0
0.7
1.3
Run 3
Cum.
Wt. 7.
65.4
86.2
95.2
98.0
98.0
98.7
100. 0
Run 10
78.5
10.2
6.7
2.2
0.8
0.0
1.6
78.5
88.7
95.4
97.6
98.4
98.4
100.0
Run 4
Wt.
7.
74.7
14.4
6.8
2.1
1.2
0.3
0.5
Run
67.9
14.7
10.1
3.3
1.5
0.1
2.4
Cum.
Wt. %
74.7
89.1
95.9
98.0
99.2
99.5
100.0
11
67.9
82.6
92.7
96.0
97.5
97.6
100.0
Wt.
7.
63.0
17.8
12.1
3.6
. 1.8
0.7
1.0
Run 5
Cum.
Wt. 7.
63.0
80.8
92.9
96.5
98.3
99.0
100.0
Run 12
53.8
19.4
13.3
4.5
2.4
0.7
5.9
53.8
73.2
86.5
91.0
93.4
94.1
100.0
Run 6
Wt. Cum.
7. Wt. 7.
57.8 57.8
20.9 78.7
13.1 91.8
4.2 96.0
2.6 98.6
0.6 99.2
0.8 100.0
Run 13
b/
£/ Filter not dry.
b/ No data available.
-------
Table A-5. EXAMPLE OF S03 CALCULATIONS
1. VOLUME OF DRY GAS SAMPLE THROUGH THE DRY GAS METER
C.ONP.ITZON5I
530 PM
VMSTD • VM * •
TM 29.92
VM • PM
• 17,71 •
TM
* «—.._.._- • .1531 CU.FT.
519.00
CONCeWTWj&N Of SULFUfTTRJOXIDE *T SfANOARD CONDITIONS:
(VT-VTB)*N»(VSOLN/VA)
CS03 « 0.0000883 •
VMSTD
( 1.00- .51)* .00190
•( 170.0/ 10.0)
0.0000882 »
.1531
.00000912 L8/DSCF
387.«(CS03 * 1 00 0 OOP . QJ^ 387* 9.12
ao.o ao.o
44,1
95
-------
APPENDIX B
COAL ANALYSES AND REFUSE ANALYSES
96
-------
Table B-l. COAL ANALYSES
vO
As Received
7.
Tent Moisture
0
1
2
3 (co)-7
4
5
G(cd)
7
8
9(co)
10
11
12
13
6.38
6.37
"5.96
6.49
6.51
6.48
6.35
6.27
6.62
6.60
6.28
6.17
6.28
6.02
7. S
1.38
1.50
1.46
1.33
1.56
1.61
1.35
1.47
1.36
1.25
1.52
1.73
2.80
1.59
% Ash
6.50
7.06
6.86
6.54
6.55
7.87
6.70
6.76
6.26
7.13
6.78
7.57
8.33
7.56
7, F.C.
53.48
52.05
53.45
52.29
52.57
51.85
52.96
52.76
52.91
53.26
52.23
51.55
48.47
52 .l/i
7.
Volatile
33.64
34.52
33.73
34.68
34.37
33.80
33.99
34.21
34.21
33.01
34.71
34.71
36.92
34.28
Btu/lb
12,603
12,589
12,617
12,639
12,594
12,384
12,628
12,594
12,676
12,526
12,641
12,513
12,392
12,526
% S
1.47
1.60
1.55
1.42
1.67
1.72
1.44
1.57
1.46
1.34
1.62
1.84
2.99
1.69
7, Ash
6.94
7.54
7.29
6.99
7.01
8.42
7.15
7.21
6.70
7.63
7.23
8.07
8.89
8.04
Dry Basis
% F.C.
57.13
55.59
56.84
55.92
56.23
55.44
56.56
56.29
56.66
57.03
55.73.
54.94
51.72
55.48
7o
Volatile
35.93
36.87
35.87
37.09
36.76
36.14
36.29
36.50
36.6/1
35.34
37.04
36.99
39.39
36.48
Btu/lb
13,462
13.445
13,417
13,516
13,471
13,242
13,484
13,436
13,575
13,411
13,488
13,336
13,222
13,328
Power
MW
120
100
100
100
80
80
80
80
120
120
120
100
100
80
aj (co) = Coal only.
-------
VO
00
Table B-2. COAL ANALYSES
(UNION ELECTRIC)
As Received
Test
IT
2T
9T
8
6
7
4T
5T
1
2
3
6T
7T
4
5
7.
Moisture
14.5
13.9
12.4
12.7
11.1
10.8
13.6
14.6
12.0
9.9
10.7
14.4
14.5
10.0
10.8
JLL
1.25
1.22
1.36
1.26
1.36
1.25
1.25
1.24
1.48
1.49
1.36
1.25
1.33
1.39
1.22
7. Ash
6.93
5.94
6.1
6.7
6.1
7.1
6.1
5.7
7.0
7.0
6.7
7.5
6.2
7.6
7.5
% F.C.
48.5
48.6
46.9
49.1
43.8
49.3
48.1
48.2
49.0
50.5
50.2
47.3
48.2
48.1
49.5
7.
Volatile
30.1
31.6
34.6
31.5
38.9
32.7
32.1
31.5
31.9
32.5
32.4
30.7
31.1
34.5
32.2
Btu/lb
11,289
11,602
11,811
11,617
11,960
11,967
11,479
11,543
11,772
12,057
12,078
11,298
11,440
12,015
12,076
7. S
1.46
1.41
1.56
1.44
1.53
1.40
1.45
1.45
1.68
1.65
1.52
1.46
1.55
1.54
1.37
7. Ash
8.1
6.9
7.0
7.7
6.9
8.0
7.1
6.7
8.0
7.8
7.5
8.8
7.2
8.4
8.4
Drv Basis
7, F.C.
56.7
56.4
53.5
56.2
49.3
55.3
55.7
56.4
55.7
56.1
56.2
55.3
56.4
53.4
55.5
7.
Volatile
35.2
36.7
39.5
36.1
43.8
36.7
37.2
36.9
36.3
36.1
36.3
35.9
36.4
38.3
36.1
Btu/lb
13,203
13,475
13,483
13,307
13,454
13.417
13,286
13,516
13,377
13,381
13,526
13,199
13,380
13,350
13,539
Power
MW
140
140
140
140
140
140
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
75
3T
14.2
1.34
5.83
47.97
32.0
11,514 1.56 6.8
55.9
37.3
13,420 140
-------
i,ibl< H-3. n.TIMATK COAL ANALYSES CMR1 ThST. i
VD
• • • - — _ .
Sa^ip 1 !• MD. Carbon
!i 70.<»l
1 70.81
2 71.1V
3 71.16
4 70. H4
5 69.88
6 71.14
7 70.36
H 71.85
9 70 . 54
10 71 .53
11 70.51
12 68.70
13 70 . 62
•> .84
5.65
5.53
5.53
5.65
5.46
5 . 62
5.51
5.73
5.61
5 .71
5.51
5.19
5.53
As Krn-iv
Ml tro>;i'ii
1 .40
1 .33
1 .38
1 .26
1 .41
1 .56
1 .33
1 .32
1.33
1 .43
1 .27
1 .34
1 .09
1.23
..,!
Sul 1 1 1 r
1 . 18
1 .50
I .46
1 .33
1 . 56
1 .61
1 .35
1 .47
1 . 36
1 .25
1.52
1.7)
2 .80
1 .59
Ash
b
7
(-,
6
6
7
6
6
6
7
6
7 .
8.
7.
.50
. <><>
.86
.54
.55
.87
.70
.76
.26
.13
.78
57
33
56
D_xf
13
13
13
14
13
13
13
14
13
14
13
13
13
13
i£in
.89
.65
.58
.18
.99
.62
.81
.58
.47
.04
.19
.29
.89
.47
( , .ir bun H vdroy ( n
75
75
75
76
75
74
76
75
76
7')
76
75
73.
75.
.83 5.48
.63 5.2*
.70 5.18
.10 5.14
.77 5.27
.72 3.07
.02 5.25
.07 5.13
.94 5.35
.52 5.2.
.32 5.35
.15 5.14
.30 4.79
.14 5.17
J)ry Basi
1 .50
1 .42
1 .47
1.35
1.51
1 .67
1 .42
1 .41
1 .42
1 .53
1 .36
1 .48
I .16
1 .31
Sul fur
1 .47
1 .60
1.55
1 .42
1.67
1 .72
1 .44
1.57
1 .46
1 .34
1 .62
1.S4
2.99
1 .69
A !
6
7
7
6
7
8.
7.
7.
6.
7 .
7 .
8.
8.
8.
f> il
.94
.54
.29
.99
.01
.42
.15
.21
.70
63
23
07
89
04
Ox
6
u
9
8
8
8
9
8
8.
8.
8 .
6 .
8.
ygi n
.78
.53
.fel
.00
.77
.40
.72
.61
.13
.76
.12
3j
87
.65
-------
TABLE B-4. PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AND HEATING VALUES OF MILLED REFUSE
(MRI TEST PERIOD)
Moid Lure
Sample
Month
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
_ 12
0 12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Day
5
q
9
y'
9
9
7 '
7
10
10
10
10
11
a
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
Hr
9
15
16
13
11
7
8
9
13
8
14
9
11
9
12
13
13
15
9
12
12
9
11
7
8
10
Weight
(Ih)
45.1
29.8
20.7
32.4
18.0
26.4
22.4
29.0
32.1
14.1
9.3
12.0
29.5
23.6
24.2
17.8
18.8
12.8
18.9
24.5
17.6
17. 1
21.5
20.9
22.5
18.0
Total
U)
34.5
66.3
39.5
41.3
49.1
28.8
39.0
28.7
25.2
52.0
44.0
29.9
21.3
22.0
23.2
22.2
19.1
14.3
21.0
25.6
22.0
20.8
22.8
23.5
21.9
20.1
Sample
0.46
0.62
0.98
1.25
0.63
0.62
0.60
1.21
0.72
0.93
1.58
1.78
1.65
2.62
1.37
1.84
2.32
2.13
1.56
1.77
1.56
2.11
1.78
1.69
2.21
1.86
S
(%)
0.21
0.23
0.15
0.19
0.17
0.19
0.15
0.13
0.16
0.19
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.33
0.13
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.15
0. 14
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.12
Dry Weight
Cl
(7.)
i li. J-
0.50
0.43
0.52
0.47
0.41
0.53
0.33
0.35
0.77
0.37
0.81
0.44
0.53
0.48
0.47
0.72
0.66
1.10
0.47
0.53
0.73
0.68
1.14
0.53
0.48
0.39
Ash
m_
v *
22.8
27.3
26.0
23.6
15.0
23.3
19.4
22.1
26.1
22.7
19.2
17.3
25.0
22.3
22.3
20.5
21.3
21.5
18.9
23.8
21.3
24.3
16.3
19.0
17.9
16.2
Basis
As Dry
(Btu/lb)
7387.0
6804.0
7253.0
6969.0
7548,0
7251.0
7141.0
7503.0
6722.0
7320.0
7638.0
7631.0
6952.0
6603.0
7547.0
7466.0
6982.0
7545.0
6974.0
7546.0
7177.0
7C18.0
7491.0
6780.0
8013.0
7539.0
Received Moisture Basis
Nad
(7.)
0.46
0.34
0.39
0.34
0.33
0.39
0.37
0.40
0.38
0.35
0.44
0.40
0.38
0.41
0.40
0.41
0.43
0.38
0.40
0.40
0.37
0.42
0.36
0.37
0.37
0.37
S
(7.)
0.14
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.14
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.26
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
0. 11
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
Cl
(7.)
0.33
0.15
0.31
0.27
0.21
0.38.
0.20
0.25
0.57
0.18
0.46
0.31
0.42
0.38
0.36
0.56
0.53
0.95
0.37
0.39
0.57
0.54
0.88
0.40
0.38
0.31
Ash
(7.)
14.9
9.2
15.7
13.9
7.6
16.6
11.8
15.5
19.5
10.9
10.8
12.1
19.7
17.4
17.1
15.9
17.2
18.4
15.0
17.7
16.6
19.2
12.6
14.5
14.0
13.0
As Received
(Btu/lb)
4838.0
2293.0
4388.0
4091.0
3842.0
5163.0
4356.0
5274.0
5028.0
3514.0
4277.0
5349.0
5471.0
5150.0
5796.0
5809.0
5648.0
6466.0
5509.0
5614.0
5598.0
5558.0
5783.0
5186.0
6258.0
6024.0
Nad
('/.)
0.30
0.11
0.24
0.20
0.17
0.28
0.22
0.28
0.28
0.17
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.32
0.35
. 0.33
0.31
0.30
0.29
0.33
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.30
-------
TABLE B-5. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE ASH
(MRI TEST PERIOD)
Sample
Month
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Qgy
5
9
9
9
9
9
7
7
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
Hr
9
15
16
13
11
7
8
9
13
8
14
9
11
9
12
13
13
15
9
12
12
9
11
7
8
10
Ash
Weight
(gm)
4.13
5.72
2.73
3 .49
1.78
4.13
3.20
5.76
7.01
4.76
2.92
2.58
4.90
5.58
4.46
2.86
3.62
3.28
4.99
4.46
4.93
3.25
4.33
4.28
2.03
3.87
Analyses 1
P2°5
JJil
1.68
1.46
1.23
1.57
1.41
1.90
1.67
1.69
1.22
1.48
1.48
1.96
1.20
1.30
1.51
1.27
1.32
1.20
1.35
1.34
1.31
1.34
1.30
1 .38
1.48
1 .48
Si02
("/„)
49.9
51 .3
50.7
48.8
53.9
48.3
49.3
49.3
52.0
50.0
52.7
49.4
51.9
41.1
46.7
47.6
54.4
48.7
50.8
46.2
51.4
48.7
47.5
48.7
39.9
49.7
Al 0
^ J
__(%)..
10.40
6. 10
18.30
10.30
11.00
17 .60
13. 10
15.30
8. 10
14.90
12.30
13.90
15.40
13 .10
14.60
16.80
10.30
16.60
11.20
13.20
14.90
16.10
19 . 90
14.70
26.90
15.60
TiO
(%)
0.97
0.72
1.14
0.97
1.24
0.95
1.06
0.78
0.70
1.42
1.17
1.16
0.82
1.13
1.04
1 .07
0.86
1 .04
1 .09
0.81
1. 19
1.06
1 .29
0.92
1.36
0.86
Fe
5
8
12
5
5
6
4
5
13
6
5
4
3
15
8
9
9
6
6
9
4
6
5
15
6
12
,0
L!
.45
. 15
.04
.42
.72
.90
.54
.39
.34
.91
.04
.25
.11
.87
.58
.21
.38
.50
.11
. 70
.22
.25
.13
.88
.20
.09
CaO
(%)
14.83
13.80
12.41
14.65
14.09
13.64
15.81
14.46
12.45
1.3.55
12.91
14.52
13.57
11.32
13.75
12.53
12.45
12.83
13.43
12.38
13.43
11.97
15.29
10.91
12.81
12.63
MgO
1.65
1.63
1.56
1.11
1.26
1.71
2.06
1.61
1.56
1.61
1.05
1.41
0.65
1.53
1.16
1.30
1.02
1.20
1.65
1.26
1.79
1.59
1.74
2.30
1.35
1.56
SO-
(7.)
2.06
1.19
1.37
1.77
2.48
1.49
1.19
1.08
0.78
1.21
1.43
1.91
1.20
1.42
2.00
1.63
1.35
1.56
1.43
1.14
1.27
1.28
1.98
1.52
1.37
1.43
v()
(|)
1.81
1.43
1.77
1.83
1.75
1.28
1.60
1.92
1.48
1.64
1.67
2.01
1.39
1.50
1.66
1.57
1.69
1.74
1.87
1.68
1.46
1.56
1.65
1.48
1.72
1.77
Na 0
(%J
8.67
9.03
9.64
10.45
8.52
7.93
7.84
12.24
13.98
5.32
14.18
9.07
15.51
7.05
9.08
6.90
10.18
17.92
6.95
9.58
7.04
6.90
15.35
13.38
11.67
10.08
SnO,
2
0.040
0.070
0.040
0.050
0.050
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.050
0.050
0.050
0.060
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.090
0.050
0.040
CuO
0.16
0.20
0.23
0.09
0.44
0.81
0.10
0.14
0.24
0.29
0.38
0.17
0.23
0.63
0.09
0.61
0.13
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.16
0.31
0.12
0.10
1.23
0.12
ZnO
0.25
0.32
0.52
0.29
0.40
0.50
0.32
0.30
0.33
0.62
0.50
0.33
0.32
1.24
0.37
0.36
0.29
0.51
0.46
0.29
0.30
0.31
0.41
0.30
0.61
1.11
PbO
(%)
\ .4
0.12
0.18
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.26
0.19
0.14
0.25
0.16
0.20
0.25
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.16
0.16
0. 19
0.17
0.16
0.20
0.26
0.26
0.32
0.26
0.15
-------
TABLE B-6. PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AND HEATING VALUES OF MILLED REFUSE
(UNION ELECTRIC TEST PERIOD)
Analyses 1
Moisture
Sample
Month
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Day
23
27
26
27
26
26
26
27
27
26
27
26
30
30
30
29
27
28
28
28
28
27
29
29
29
29
29
29
Hr
9
9
10
13
11
8
16
14
15
13
11
6
15
14
8
15
11
11
13
8
14
15
12
13
8
11
15
9
Weight
(lb)
27.2
19.7
38.9
38.4
44.2
29.3
34.9
29.2
32.6
33.1
36. 5
38.5
35.0
37.9
32.6
32.3
30.5
38.9
34.9
43.6
33.6
64.4
38.5
31.5
43.8
29.4
34.9
53.3
Total
(%)
28.3
43.2
16.7
41.3
28.9
41.6
27.8
26.9
24.1
29.2
39.3
36.0
34.1
31.8
30.7
40.1
41.4
41.4
39.1
37.0
39.7
41.9
39.0
36.7
40.5
32.9
39.5
40.2
Sample
(7.)
1.31
0.77
1.24
1.07
1.27
0.60
0.85
0.93
0.43
1.06
0.44
0.60
1.02
0.69
1.41
0.94
0.41
0.70
0.83
0.49
0.70
1.02
0.68
1.37
1.08
0.75
0.67
1.47
S
(%)
0.20
0.13
0.19
0.16
0.13
0.19
0.18
0.16
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.19
0.15
0.23
0.18
0.16
0. 18
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.22
0.20
0.20
Dry Weight
Cl
(7.)
0.46
0.50
0.47
0.70
0.49
0.60
0.48
0.42
0.76
0.54
0.37
0.62
0.55
0.67
0.48
0.43
0.70
0.48
0.46
0.35
0.64
0.47
0.40
0.43
0.62
0.43
0.51
0.44
Ash
(7.)
25.2
26.4
22.9
22.6
24.7
33.1
24.5
19.9
20.4
28.5
26.1
24.0
27.3
27.2
20.5
24.6
22.5
26.3
24.3
25.6
21.9
26.8
21.3
19.4
24.2
21.3
22.5
25.4
Basis
Received Moisture Basis
As Dry
NaCl
S
Cl
Ash
(Btu/lb) (%) (%) (%) (%)
7012
7136
7.174
7687
7188
13002
7082
7261
7433
6824
6826
7157
7169
7171
7425
7134
7669
6957
7344
6817
7145
6953
7269
7535
7209
7254
7139
7071
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
i r
0.43
0.46
0.46
0.40
0.44
0.49
0.41
0.39
0.40
0.46
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.39
0.40
0.36
0.40
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.37
0.48
0.34
0.33
0.45
0.38
0.41
0.41
i.iii «
0.15
0.07
0.16
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.16
0.13
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.33
0.26
0.39
0.41
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.31
0.58 '
0.38
0.23
0.40
0.36
0.46
0.33
0.26
0.41
0.28
0.28
0.22
0.39
0.28
0.25
0.27
0.37
0.29
0.31
0.26
18.1
15.0
19.1
13.3
17.6
19.3
17.7
14.5
15.5
20.2
15.9
15.4
18.0
18.5
14.2
14.8
13.2
15.4
14.8
16.1
13.2
15.6
13.0
12.3
14.4
14.3
13.6
15.2
As Received
(Btu/lb)
5028.0
4053.0
5976.0
4512.0
5111.0
7593.0
5113.0
5307.0
5642.0
4832.0
4143.0
4580.0
4724.0
4891.0
5145.0
4273.0
4494.0
4077.0
4472.0
4295.0
4308.0
4040.0
4434 . 0
4770.0
4289.0
4868.0
4319.0
4228.0
NaCl
(*)
0.31
0.26
0.39
0.23
0.31
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.30
0.33
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.22
0.23
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.22
0.28
0.21
0.21
0.27
0.26
0.25
0.25
-------
Table B-7. ANALYSIS OF MILLED REFUSE ASH
(UNION ELECTRIC TEST PERIOD)
Sample
Month
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Day
23
27
26
27
26
26
26
27
27
26
27
26
30
30
30
29
27
28
28
28
28
27
29
29
29
29
29
29
Hr
9
9
10
13
11
8
16
14
15
13
11
6
15
14
8
15
11
11
13
8
14
15
12
13
8
11
15
9
Ash
Weight
(gm)
4.14
5.88
3.66
4.51
5.17
8.80
4.57
3.34
3.20
5.85
5.55
5.54
4.85
4.30
3.68
4.56
3.30
4.76
3.89
4.30
2.98
5.46
3.58
2.93
4.00
3.19
3.08
4.32
Analyses 1
P20
£. J
a)
1.34
1.84
1.66
1.94
1.57
1.40
1.82
1.81
1.65
1.65
1.96
1.64
1.47
1.60
1.96
1.57
1.63
1.45
1.56
1.52
1.94
1.66
1.69
1.75
1.84
1.75
1.72
1.82
Si02
(%)
53.4
48.5
49.2
50.1
44.1
49.0
50.6
48.6
49.0
48.6
53.1
48.6
46.7
51.5
52.3
49.1
49.5
51.4
49.5
50.9
50.8
48.7
51.6
47.4
50.8
48.7
51.6
48.3
A1203
(7.)
6.70
8.20
7.70
11.20
9.30
7.70
9.20
8.30
10.90
9.00
9.80
8.20
6.80
9.60
10.10
9.50
10.80
10.80
8.30
9.40
9.30
9.00
10.10
12.30
9.80
8.30
10.60
9.30
TIO,
(yj
0.84
0.66
0.56
0.99
0.79
0.68
0.81
0.71
0.21
0.68
0.69
0.74
0.73
0.85
1.04
0.79
0.82
0.70
0.98
0.69
0.84
0.63
0.81
0.89
0.81
0.99
0.88
0.64
Fe2°3
(%)
9.92
9.45
6.42
7.11
11.58
13.89
6.47
8.18
8.22
8.62
6.14
11.13
7.55
15.32
5.04
5.04
9.14
10.45
12.77
7.47
7.53
7.83
12.89
7.98
5.55
3.76
12.35
4.95
CaO
111
12.65
11.24
12.41
13.11
12.78
11.24
13.20
14.14
12.98
12.65
14.98
13.98
13.82
13.24
15.40
14.48
11.79
13.31
14.01
13.98
15.02
13.89
13.36
14.15
14.18
15.43
13.68
15.29
MgO
(%)
1.75
1.71
1.60
1.73
1.95
1.52
1.85
1.83
1.81
1.70
1.83
1.76
1.07
1.56
1.61
1.71
1.74
1.39
1.77
1.77
1.82
0.74
1.84
1.90
1.73
1.66
1.77
1.83
SO,
(%j
1.72
1.60
1.47
1.35
1.48
1.87
1.47
1.67
2.11
1.61
1.15
1.38
1.37
1.78
1.66
1.58
1.42
1.24
1.49
1.29
1.32
1.39
1.32
1.10
1.25
1.81
1.72
1.73
K.O
111
2.30
2.06
1.95
2.11
2.17
1.52
2.14
2.52
2.66
1.79
2.02
1.87
1.77
1.52
2.15
1.98
1.98
1.92
1.91
1.76
1.96
1.97
1.98
2.17
1.92
2.07
1.89
2.00
Na,0
(%)
6.23
16.30
6.39
4.91
4.34
5.22
5.00
16.50
5.87
5.32
8.70
8.21
10.17
7.33
9.69
8.36
4.34
10.60
6.18
8.45
8.03
10.77
9.92
7.61
8.64
8.26
7.29
8.55
SnO.
f.
0.020
0.050
0.050
0.060
0.050
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.060
0.060
0.070
0.050
0.050
0.040
0.080
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.050
CuO
(%)
0.14
0.19
0.23
0.79
0.42
0.57
0.19
0.23
0.28
0.37
0.16
0.22
0.23
0.29
0.23
0.17
0.66
0.21
0.56
0.30
0.19
0.15
0.31
0.29
0.22
0.25
0.27
0.33
ZnO
HI
0.33
0.38
0.28
0.35
0.81
0.39
0.23
0.29
0.42
0.36
0.35
0.45
0.39
0.59
0.42
0.94
0.51
0.31
0.49
0.31
0.36
0.35
0.40
0.44
0.35
0.36
0.40
0.59
PbO
HI
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.23
0.22
0.18
0.18
0.20
0.16
0.22
0.24
0.14
0.29
0.28
0.26
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.29
0.28
0.19
0.13
0.25
0.18
0.21
0.62
0.23
0.21
-------
Table B-S. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF REFUSE SAMPLES TAKEN DURING
UNION ELECTRIC TESTS IN NOVEMBER 1973
A» Received
(wt 7.)
Sample No. Carbon
1 40 . 36
2 38.66
3 • 40.74
4 37.21
5 39.02
6 40.96
7 37.17
8 38.42
9 40.02
10 39.16
11 39.76
12 37.45
13 38.38
14 40.15
15 40.78
16 39.96
17 39.29
18 38.92
19 39.01
20 38.29
Hydrogen
6.0
5.76
6.11
5.54
5.80
5.99
5.57
5.82
5.96
5.83
5.97
5.55
5.73
6.00
6.23
6.03
5.86
5.96
5.79
5.64
Nitrogen
0.72
0.70
0.76
0.68
0.74
0.77
0.70
0.72
0.82
0.63
0.69
0.70
0.78
0.74
0.72
0.76
0.70
0.71
0.75
0.70
Sulfur
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.29
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.21
0.27
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.26
0.27
A»h
19.81
20.19
19.25
24.25
21.86
21.39
26.53
22.15
22.98
19.12
20.12
21.76
28.90
22.21
20.65
22.74
24.18
24.60
18.77
24.69
Oxygen
32.83
34.42
32.89
32.03
32.37
30.66
29.80
32.65
29.99
35.05
33.19
34.31
25.97
30.67
31.39
30.27
29.73
29.60
35.42
30.41
Carbon
42.0
40.33
42.27
38.61
40.31
42.31
38.35
39.74
41.21
40.43
41.19
38.78
39.58
41.35
42.21
41.27
40.63
40.19
40.52
39.49
Hydrogen
5.79
5.53
5.93
5.33
5.62
5.82
5.39
5.64
5.81
5.66
5.79
5.35
5.56
5.85
6.06
5.86
5.68
5.79
5.58
5.47
Cry Baiit
(Wt 7.)
Nitrogen
0.75
0.73
0.79
0.71
0.76
0.80
0.72
0.74
0.84
0.65
0.71
0.72
0.80
0.76
0.75
0.78
0.72
0.73
0.78
0.72
Sulfur
0.29
0.26
0.26
0.30
0.22
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.24
0.22
0.28
0.24
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.25
0.72
0.27
0.28
Aah
20.61
21.06
19.97
25.16
22.58
22.09
27.37
22.91
23.66
19.74
20.84
22.53
29.81
22.88
21.37
23.49
25.01
25.40
19.50
25.47
Oxvtan
30.56
32.07
30.78
29.89
30.51
28.74
27.93
30.72
28.24
33.30
31.19
32.38
24.00
28.92
29.37
28.35
27.71
27.67
33.35
28.57
-------
APPENDIX C
ELECTRICAL MEASUPJSMENTS MADE ON ESP DURING EPA/MRI AND
UNION ELECTRIC EMISSION TESTS'
ins
-------
Table C-l. ESP TEST MEASUREMENTS (EPA/MRI)-
Load Percent Test
(megawatts) Refuse No.
80
80
80
BO
80
100
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
0
9
18
• 18
27
0
9
9
9
18
0
9
18
6
13
4
5
7
3
1
2
11
12
9
8
10
Primary Voltage (volts)
Set
Date
12/10
12/14
12/9
12/9
12/10
12/10
12/5
12/5
12/13
12/13
12/12
12/11
12/12
1A
290
267
261
261
266
304
258
260
265
258
303
274
260
ii
303
280
284
284
291
288
278
278
277
268
280
288
275
1C
287
245
233
250
230
299
253
256
240
229
287
255
238
in
302
272
288
278
272
290
253
259
270
268
288
266
259
Primary Current (amps)
Set
1A
39
41
40
35
39
44
41
41
43
43
43
43
40
IB
45
44
42
41
41
45
40
38
43
44
44
42
40
1C
67
37
37
37
38
41
39
40
37
37
36
38
36
ID
46
43
45
42
41
45
38
36
39
44
46
38
39
Secondary Votage
Set
1A
39
34
33
34
34
40
32
33
32
30
40
34
32
IB 1C
38 (2)
35
36
36
35
36
33
34
34
32
34
37 —
34 --
(kv)
ID
32
10
26
29
24
37
30
32
14
13
24
21
15
Secondary
Set
1A
227
245
235
216
244
265
247
241
257
258
265
258
244
IB
283
270
262
255
253
275
253
231
265
268
270
256
252
Current (ma)
1C
248
243
241
240
245
279
249
267
240
240
240
243
235
ID
>300£'
292
294£/
283£/
281
^OOi7
265
251
255 .
295c/
300£7
249
253
Spark Rate (ipirka/Min)
Set
1A
103
60
65
96
88
9
80
75
20
1
17
28
51
IB
53
17
66
94
95
0
103
111
45
8
0
79
95
1C
107
117
10
150
18
34
92
81
53
9
17
155
131
ID
90
143
103
151
161
13
183
188
160
109
17
174
150
a/ Average values per test for measurements recorded three to four times during the 4-hr test period—data probably not time average for entire tests.
b/ Measurement not recorded.
c/ One or more of recorded values above 300 ma meter limit, data biased on lov side.
-------
a/
Table C-2. ESP TEST MEASUREMENTS (UNION ELECTRIC)"
Primary Voltage (volts)
Load
(megawatts)
75
75
75
75
0 101
100
100
100
100
139
140
140
140
140
liO
140
Percent
Refuse
0
0
1.3. 2
14.7
0
0
0
14.8
15
0
0
0
10
10
10
11.4
Test
No.
it
5
6T
7T
1
2
3
5T
4T
6
7
8
IT
2T
3T
9T
Primary Current (amps)
Set
Date
10/18
10/18
11/29
11/29
10/16
10/17
10/17
ll/2o
11/23
10/19
10/19
1 1 / 30
11/2-5
11/27
11/27
11/30
1A
310
312.5
290
300
330
315
320
290
276.7
327.5
320
320
280
280
286.7
275
IB
302.5
300
300
309
310
3 IP
293.3
238.3
317.5
311
300
283.3
276.7
271.7
275
1C.
305
310
280
280
315
320
317.5
27M.3
270
317.5
312.5
300
266.7
263.3
283.3
270
ID
300
300
280
300
304
305
305
285
266.7
310
305
277.5
260
256.7
250
270
1A
47
48.75
47
46
48.5
48
48
47.3
''-"-7
48
47.5
42
47
47
48
22.7
Spark Rate
Set
IB
46.5
46.5
47.3
46
47
47
47.5
45
48
46.5
46
48
44
45.3
44.3
46
1C
42.5
43.25
42.5
43
43.5
43
43
46
44.7
43.25
43
b/
45
43
44.7
44
ID
43.75
43.25
42
49
43.5
44
43
48
41.7
43.5
43
44
42.7
42
40.3
43
1A
27.5
15
256.7
330
32.5
30
30
260
431.7
21
37.5
40
170
227.5
243.3
220
(sparks/tnin)
Set
IB
2.5
0
76.7
186
0
0
0
396.7
460
1
11
100
363.3
366.7
500
330
_1C
32.5
22.5
90
105
59
15
30
110
270
17.5
32.5
b/
35
100
138.3
235
ID
15
0
226.7
450
0
0
0
450
460
7.5
23.5
300
450
450
450
450
Voltage
304.4
305.6
287.5
293.3
314.5
311.9
313.1
286.6
275.4
318.1
312.1
299.4
272.5
269.2
272.9
272.5
Averages
Current
44.9
45.4
44.7
46
45.6
45.5
45.4
46.6
45.4
45.3
44.9
44.7
44.7
44.3
44.3
38.9
Spark Rate
19.4
9.4
162.5
267.8
22.9
11.2
15
304.2
405.4
11.8
26.1
146.7
254.6
286.0
332.9
308.8
Power x 103
13.67
13.87
12.85
13.49
14.34
14.19
14.21
13.36
12.50
14.41
14.01
13.38
12.18
11.92
12.09
10.60
a/ Average for values recorded at beginning, middle and end of test.
b/ Data not legible because of poor copy machine reproduction.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please remd l*stntctio*t on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-650/2-74-073
a.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
St. Louis/Union Electric Refuse Firing Demonstration
Air Pollution Test Report
S. REPORT DATE
August 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
L.J. Shannon, M. P. Schrag, F.I. Honea,
and D. Bendersky
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21AQQ-010
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1324 (Task 11)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
NERC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
1C. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of tests performed to determine the effects of mixed-
fuel firing on boiler emissions and electrostatic precipitator (ESP) performance, using
shredded municipal wastes as a supplementary fuel in a 140 megawatt coal-fired utility
boiler. Tests were performed at boiler loads of 75 to 140 megawatts when firing coal-
only and when firing fuel mixtures which provided solid waste heat inputs to the boiler
of 9 to 27%. Test measurements included: total particulate, particulate size distribution,
°2> CO2- CO- NO- S°2- SO3- Cl~- H9v in situ f'y ash resistivity, and ESP operating
conditions. Firing mixed fuels caused no statistically significant changes in gaseous pol-
lutant emissions. Particulate stack emissions increased, as a result of an ESP performance
loss related to changes in ESP electrical operating conditions and gas flow volumes. How-
ever, excessive sparking rates on some mixed-fuel tests indicated that the ESP could have
been tuned for better collection. ESP performance was significantly affected by the fuel
mix (coal and waste). Additional tests will be required to establish the magnitude of
performance losses which may result from mixed-fuel firings.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Combustion
Refuse
Wastes
Coal
Electric Utilities
Electrostatic
Precipitators
Boilers
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Municipal Waste
Supplementary Fuel
Mixed Fuel
Particulates
13B
21B
13A
21D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
116
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 222O-1 (9-73)
108
------- |