ET A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/7-77-105
it I »» Office of Research and Development Laboratory _ . . -10-7-7
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 oGptGITlDGr 1"/ /
EPA ALKALI SCRUBBING
TEST FACILITY:
ADVANCED PROGRAM,
Third Progress Report
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into seven series. These seven broad categories
were established to facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster
technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The seven series
are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the effort
funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and Development
Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public health and welfare
from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy systems. The goal of the
Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an environ-
mentally-compatible manner by providing the necessary environmental data and
control technology. Investigations include analyses of the transport of energy-related
pollutants and their health and ecological effects; assessments of, and development
of, control technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide
range of energy-related environmental issues.
REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
E P A-600/7-77-105
September 1977
EPA ALKALI SCRUBBING TEST FACILITY:
ADVANCED PROGRAM,
Third Progress Report
by
Harlan N. Head
Bechtel Corporation
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, California 94119
Contract No. 68-02-1814
Program Element No. EHE624
EPA Project Officer: John E. Williams
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, O.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the test results from mid-February 1976 through
November 1976 of an Advanced Test Program on a prototype lime/
limestone wet-scrubbing test facility for removing SC>2 and particu-
lates from coal-fired boiler flue gases. The test facility is located
at TVA's Shawnee Power Station, Paducah, Kentucky. Tests were
conducted on two parallel scrubber systems, a venturi/spray tower
(35, 000 acfm @ 330°F) and a Turbulent Contact Absorber or TCA
(30, 000 acfm @ 300°F).
In short-term factorial testing (6 to 8 hours each) on both systems,
SO2 removal was determined as a function of operating parameters.
These tests were conducted with lime, limestone, and limestone with
added magnesium oxide.
In lime testing on both the venturi/spray tower system and the TCA
system, the addition of magnesium oxide increased SO2 removal
efficiency, but in some cases increased the potential for gypsum scal-
ing. In tests with fly-ash-free flue gas, lime utilization was higher
but waste solids did not filter as well as with similar tests with flue
gas containing fly ash.
In limestone testing on the TCA system, a greater concentration of
magnesium ion in the slurry liquor was required to enhance SO 2
removal than in lime testing.
In flue gas characterization testing on the venturi/spray tower system,
particulate mass loading, particulate size distribution, and sulfuric
acid mist (SO 3) concentration were measured as a function of operating
conditions. Outlet mass loadings were all within EPA New Source Per-
formance Standards, entrainment of slurry solids was negligible, and
outlet sulfuric acid mist ranged from 0 to 14 ppm.
Mathematical models were fitted to the Shawnee data and are presented
for predicting SO2 removal as a function of operating parameters for
both lime and limestone scrubbing in the spray tower and in the TCA.
A simplified procedure is presented for calculating gypsum saturation
in the slurry liquor from analytical data.
ii
-------
EPA ALKALI SCRUBBING TEST FACILITY
ADVANCED PROGRAM
Third Progress Report
Section Page
1 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Factorial Test Results 1-3
1.2 Venturi/Spray Tower Lime Test Results 1-4
1. 3 Venturi/Spray Tower Flue Gas
Characterization Test Results 1-6
1.4 TCA Limestone Test Results 1-7
1.5 TCA Lime Test Results 1-7
1.6 Database 1-8
1.7 Simplified Equation for the Calculation of Gypsum
Saturation 1-9
1. 8 Mathematical Models for SO2 Removal 1-10
1. 9 Laboratory Quality Assurance Program 1-12
1.10 Sludge Characterization 1-14
1.11 Operating Experience 1-15
2 INTRODUCTION 2-1
3 TEST FACILITY 3-1
3. 1 Scrubber Selection 3-2
3. 2 System Description 3-3
3. 3 EPA Pilot Plant Support 3-10
iii
-------
Section Page
4 TEST PROGRAM 4-1
4. 1 Test Program Objectives and Schedule 4-1
4. 2 Closed-Liquor-Loop Operation 4-4
4. 3 Analytical Program 4-4
4.4 Data Acquisition and Processing 4-6
5 SUMMARY OF THE CHEMISTRY OF SO2 REMOVAL
BY LIME OR LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBING 5-1
5. 1 Scrubbing with Lime 5-1
5. 2 Scrubbing with Limestone 5-8
5. 3 Effect of Magnesium on Aqueous Alkalinity 5-13
5. 4 Effect of Magnesium on Sulfite Oxidation and
Gypsum Saturation 5-2 5
6 VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER FACTORIAL TEST RESULTS 6-1
6.1 Test Description 6-1
6.2 Data Quality 6-2
6. 3 Limestone Testing 6-4
6.4 Lime Testing 6-13
6. 5 Limestone Testing with Magnesium Oxide Addition 6-25
6. 6 Lime Testing with Magnesium Oxide Addition 6-33
7 VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER LIME TEST RESULTS 7-1
7. 1 Lime/MgO Testing with Flue Gas Containing Fly Ash 7-2
7. 2 Lime and Lime/MgO Testing with Fly Ash-Free
Flue Gas 7-8
7.3 Conclusions 7-23
iv
-------
Section Page
8 FLUE GAS CHARACTERIZATION 8-1
8. 1 Sampling Locations 8-2
8. 2 Test Methods 8-4
8.3 Test Results for Venturi/Spray Tower System 8-8
8.4 Future Plans 8-33
8. 5 Conclusions 8-32
9 TCA FACTORIAL TEST RESULTS 9-1
9. 1 Limestone Testing 9-2
9. 2 Lime Testing 9-6
9. 3 Limestone Testing with Magnesium Oxide Addition 9-17
9. 4 Comparison of Lime and Limestone Addition for All
Three Scrubbers 9-20
10 TCA LIMESTONE TEST RESULTS 10-1
10. 1 Limestone/MgO Testing with Flue Gas Containing
Fly Ash 10-2
10.2 Conclusions 10-12
11 TCA LIME TEST RESULTS 11-1
11.1 Lime/MgO Testing with Flue Gas Containing Fly Ash 11-2
11.2 Lime Testing with Flue Gas Containing Fly Ash 11-14
11.3 Conclusions 11-16
12 DATABASE 12-1
12.1 Contents and Structure of the Database 12-2
12.2 Special Features of the Database 12-3
12.3 Maintenance of the Database 12-6
12.4 Use of the Shawnee Database 12-7
v
-------
Section Page
13 SIMPLIFIED EQUATION FOR THE CALCULATION OF
GYPSUM SATURATION 13-1
14 MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR S02 REMOVAL 14-1
14. 1 Development of the Model 14-2
14. 2 Fitted Equations for SO2 Removal by
Limestone Slurry 14-9
14. 3 Fitted Equations for SO2 Removal by Lime Slurry 14-46
14.4 Nomographs for SO2 Removal by Limestone and
Lime Wet Scrubbing 14-68
15 LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 15-1
15.1 Quality Assurance Methods 15-1
15.2 Stoichiometric Ratio Calculation 15-3
15.3 Evaluation and Modification of Analytical Procedures 15-5
16 SLUDGE CHARACTERIZATION 16-1
16.1 Test Description 16-1
16.2 Test Results 16-3
16.3 Future Plans 16-17
16.4 Conclusions 16-17
17 OPERATING EXPERIENCE DURING LIME/
LIMESTONE TESTING 17-1
17.1 Scrubber Internals 17-1
17.2 Reheaters 17-9
17.3 Fans 17-10
17.4 Pumps 17-10
17.5 Waste Solids Handling 17-11
vi
-------
Section Page
17.6 Alkali Addition Systems 17-14
17.7 Instrument Operating Experience 17-16
17.8 Materials and Equipment Evaluation Program 17-20
18 REFERENCES 18-1
vli
-------
Appendices Page
A Converting Units of Measure A-l
B Scrubber Operating Periods B-l
C Properties of Raw Materials C-l
D Database Tables D-l
E Test Results Summary Tables for
the Venturi/Spray Tower E-l
F Graphical Operating Data from the
Venturi/Spray Tower Tests F-l
G Average Liquor Compositions for the
Venturi/Spray Tower Tests G-l
H Test Results Summary Table for the TCA H-l
I Graphical Operating Data from the
TCA Tests 1-1
J Average Liquor Compositions for the
TCA Tests J-l
K Definition of Statistical Terms K-l
L Fourth TVA Interim Report of Corrosion
Studies L-l
viii
-------
Figure
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
4-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Schematic of Venturi Scrubber and Spray Tower 3-4
Schematic of Three-Bed TCA 3-5
Test Facility Mist Eliminator Configuration 3-6
Typical Process Flow Diagram for Venturi/Spray
Tower System 3-8
Typical Process Flow Diagram for TCA System 3-9
Shawnee Advanced Test Schedule 4-3
Bisulfite-Sulfite Distribution and Bicarbonate
Distribution as a Function of pH 5-20
Total Sulfite Concentration [SO3] -rt in Lime Scrubbing
as a Function of the Ratio of Mg Concentration to Ca
Concentration (Mg/Ca) 5-23
Effect of the Ratio of Total Sulfite Concentration [SOjJrj,
to SO2 Concentration (P ) on SO2 Removal - Spray
2
Tower with Lime for Runs 632-1A and 641-1A 5-24
Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH on SO 2
Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Limestone 6-7
Effect of Slurry and Gas Flow Rates on SO2
Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Limestone 6-8
Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Gas Flow
Rate on SO2 Removal - Venturi Scrubber with
Limestone 6-9
Effect of Venturi Pressure Drop on SO2 Removal -
Venturi Scrubber with Limestone 6-10
Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquid-to-Gas
Ratio on SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 6-12
ix
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
6-6 Effect of Gas Velocity and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
on SC>2 Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 6-14
6-7 Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Spray Nozzle
Pressure Drop on SO2 Removal - Spray Tower
with Limestone 6-15
6-8 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH on SO2
Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Lime 6-18
6-9 Effect of Slurry and Gas Flow Rates on SO2
Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Lime 6-19
6-10 Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Gas Flow Rate
on SO2 Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Lime 6-20
6-11 Effect of Venturi Pressure Drop on SO2 Removal -
Venturi Scrubber with Lime 6-22
6-12 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquid-
to-Gas Ratio on SO2 Removal - Spray Tower
with Lime 6-23
6-13 Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Spray Nozzle
Pressure Drop on SO2 Removal - Spray Tower
with Lime 6-24
6-14 Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate on
SC>2 Removal - Spray Tower with Lime 6-26
6-15 Effect of Liquor Magnesium-Ion Concentration
and Gas Flow Rate on SO2 Removal - Venturi
Scrubber with Limestone 6-29
6-16 Effect of Gas Flow Rate and Liquor Magnesium-
Ion Concentration on SO2 Removal - Venturi
Scrubber with Limestone 6-31
6-17 Effect of Liquor Magnesium-Ion Concentration
and Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH on SO2 Removal -
Spray Tower with Limestone 6-32
x
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
6-18 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquor
Magnesium-Ion Concentration on SO2 Removal -
Spray Tower with Limestone 6-34
6-19 Effect of Effective Magnesium-Ion Concentration
and Slurry Flow Rate on SO2 Removal - Spray
Tower with Limestone 6-35
6-20 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Effective
Liquor Magnesium Concentration on SO2 Removal -
Spray Tower with Lime and Magnesium Addition 6-38
8-1 Brink Impactor 8-6
8-2 MRI Site Set-up 8-7
8-3 Controlled Condensation System Set-up 8-9
8-4 SO3 Inlet Versus Outlet Concentration for All Runs 8-13
8-5 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run YFG-1A 8-16
8-6 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1B (10/22/76 - 10/25/76) 8-17
8-7 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1B (10/26/76 - 10/28/76) 8-18
8-8 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1C 8-19
8-9 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-lD 8-20
8-10 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1E 8-21
8-11 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-lF 8-22
XI
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Pa^e
8-12 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1G 8-23
8-13 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1I 8-24
8-14 Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1P 8-25
8-15 Mean Differential Grain Loading Versus
Particle Size for All Runs with Fly Ash 8-26
8-16 Mean Differential Grain Loading Versus
Particle Size for Run VFG-1B (Low Fly-Ash
Concentration Run) 8-27
8-17 Particle Percent Penetration Versus Particle
Diameter for Venturi/Spray Tower Runs with
Fly Ash 8-29
8-18 Particle Percent Penetration Versus Particle
Diameter for Venturi/Spray Tower Fly Ash-
Free Run VFG-1B 8-30
8-19 Particulate on Third Stage of Outlet Impactor
during Venturi/Spray Tower Run VFG-1A.
Magnification 2000X. 8-31
8-20 Particulate on Sixth Stage of Outlet Impactor
during Venturi/Spray Tower Run VFG-1A.
Magnification 500OX. 8-31
9-1 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquid-
to-Gas Ratio on SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime-
stone 9-4
9-2 Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate on
SO2 Removal - TCA with Limestone 9-5
9-3 Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Gas Velocity
on SO2 Removal - TCA with Limestone 9-7
Xll
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
9-4 Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate
on SO2 Removal - TCA (No Spheres) with
Limestone 9-8
9-5 Effect of Sphere Bed Height and Liquid-to-Gas
Ratio on SO2 Removal - Three-Bed TCA with
Limestone 9-9
9-6 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquid-
to-Gas Ratio on SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime 9-12
9-7 Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate on
SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime 9-13
9-8 Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Gas Velocity
on SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime 9-14
9-9 Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate on
SO 2 Removal - TCA (No Spheres) with Lime 9-15
9-10 Effect of Sphere Bed Height and Liquid-to-Gas
Ratio on SO2 Removal - Three-Bed TCA with
Lime 9-16
9-11 Effect of Effective Magnesium and Slurry Flow
Rate on SO2 Removal - TCA with Limestone 9-19
9-12 Effect of Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet
Liquor pH on SO2 Removal - TCA with Limestone 9-21
9-13 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Effective
Magnesium on SO£ Removal - TCA with Limestone 9-22
9-14 Effect of Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet
Liquor pH on SOg Removal - TCA (No Spheres)
with Limestone 9-23
9-15 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Effective
Magnesium on SO2 Removal - TCA (No Spheres)
with Limestone 9-24
xiii
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
9-16 Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH on SO2
Removal - Lime and Limestone Slurries 9-25
12-1 Hierarchical Structure of the Shawnee Database
Showing the Relationships Between the Different
Segments 12-4
14-1 Effect of Inlet SO2 Concentration on SO2 Removal 14-12
14-2 Predicted Effect of Inlet SO2 Concentration on SC>2
Removal from Equation 14-13 14-14
14-3 Comparison of Experimental Data and Predicted
Values (Equation 14-14) of SO2 Removal - Spray
Tower with Limestone 14-23
14-4 Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate Versus Pre-
dicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 14-24
14-5 Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 14-25
14-6 Scrubber Inlet pH and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 14-26
14-7 Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Effective Magnesium
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured
SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 14-27
14-8 Scrubber Inlet pH and Effective Magnesium Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 14-28
14-9 Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 14-29
xiv
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
14-10 Chloride Concentration and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured
SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone 14-30
14-11 Comparison of Experimental Data and Predicted
Values (Equation 14-15) of SO2 Removal - TCA
with Limestone 14-37
14-12 Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate Versus Pre-
dicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Limestone 14-38
14-13 Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Limestone 14-39
14-14 Scrubber Inlet pH and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Limestone 14-40
14-15 Bed Height of Spheres and Slurry Flow Rate Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Limestone 14-41
14-16 Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Effective Magnesium
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured
SO2 Removal - TCA with Limestone 14-42
14-17 Scrubber Inlet pH and Effective Magnesium Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Limestone 14-43
14-18 Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA (No Spheres) with Limestone 14-44
14-19 Chloride Concentration and Scrubber Inlet pH Ver-
sus Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Limestone 14-45
xv
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
14-20 Comparison of Experimental Data and Pre-
dicted Values (Equation 14-16) of SO2 Removal -
Spray Tower with Lime 14-50
14-21 Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate Versus Pre-
dicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Lime 14-51
14-22 Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Lime 14-52
14-23 Scrubber Inlet pH and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Lime 14-53
14-24 Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured SO2
Removal - Spray Tower with Lime 14-54
14-25 Chloride Concentration and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured
SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Lime 14-55
14-26 Chloride Concentration and Scrubber Inlet pH
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured
SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Lime 14-56
14-27 Comparison of Experimental Data and Predicted
Values (Equation 14-17) of SO2 Removal - TCA
with Lime 14-62
14-28 TCA Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-17) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Lime 14-63
14-29 Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Scrubber Gas Velocity
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-17) and Measured
SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime 14-64
xvx
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
14-30 Scrubber Inlet pH and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Ver-
sus Predicted (Equation 14-17) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Lime 14-65
14-31 Total Height of Spheres and Slurry Flow Rate
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-17) and Measured
SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime 14-66
14-32 Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-17) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Lime 14-67
14-33 Nomograph for Percent SO2 Removal by Lime-
stone Scrubbing in a Spray Tower 14-69
14-34 Nomograph for Percent SO2 Removal by Lime-
stone Scrubbing in a TCA 14-70
14-35 Nomograph for Percent SO2 Removal by Lime
Scrubbing in a Spray Tower 14-71
14-36 Nomograph for Percent SO, Removal by Lime
Scrubbing in a TCA 14-72
15-1 Accuracy Control Chart - Calcium by X-Ray
Fluorescence (without lithium carbonate dilution) 15-10
15-2 Accuracy Control Chart - Calcium by X-Ray
Fluorescence (with lithium carbonate dilution) 15-11
16-1 Filter Cake Percent Solids Versus Funnel Cake
Percent Solids for All Runs Using the Filter 16-9
16-2 Funnel Test Cake Percent Solids Versus Cake
Resistance 16-10
16-3 Final Settled Solids Versus Initial Settling Rate as
a Function of Weight Percent Solids Recirculated
for the Venturi/Spray Tower System 16-12
xvii
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
16-4 Final Settled Solids Versus Initial Settling Rate as
a Function of Weight Percent Solids Recirculated
for the TCA System 16-13
16-5 Final Settled Solids Versus Initial Settling Rate for
the Venturi/Spray Tower System 16-14
16-6 Final Settled Solids Versus Initial Settling Rate
for the TCA System 16-15
17-1 Erosion /Shrinkage Rate of Nitrile Foam Spheres 17-4
xviii
-------
TABLES
T able Page
4-1 Field Methods for Batch Chemical Analysis of
Slurry and Alkali Samples 4-5
5-1 Major Chemical Reactions Involved in Lime
Scrubbing of SO2 5-3
5-2 Major Chemical Reactions Involved in Limestone
Scrubbing of SO2 5-10
5-3 Effect of Magnesium on Aqueous Alkalinity 5-21
Summary of Limestone Factorial Tests on the
Venturi/Spray Tower System 6-5
6-2 Summary of Lime Factorial Tests on the Venturi/
Spray Tower System 6-16
6-3 Summary of Limestone/MgO Factorial Tests on
the Venturi/Spray Tower System 6-27
6-4 Summary of Lime/MgO Factorial Tests on the
Venturi/Spray Tower System 6-36
"7-1 Major Test Conditions and Selected Results of
Venturi/Spray Tower Lime Testing with MgO
Addition 7-3
7-2 Major Test Conditions and Selected Results of
Venturi/Spray Tower Lime Testing with Fly Ash-
Free Flue Gas 7-9
7-3 Major Test Conditions and Selected Results of
Venturi/Spray Tower Lime Testing with Fly Ash-
Free Flue Gas and MgO Addition 7-10
8-1 Mass Loading and SO3 Concentrations during
Venturi/Spray Tower Testing 8-3
8-2 Analyses of Outlet Filters 8-11
xix
-------
TABLES
Figure Page
9-1 Summary of Limestone Factorial Tests on the TCA 9-3
9-2 Summary of Lime Factorial Tests on the TCA 9-10
9-3 Summary of Limestone/MgO Factorial Tests on
the TCA 9-18
9-4 Run Conditions for Factorial Tests Comparing
Lime and Limestone Results 9-26
10-1 Major Test Conditions and Selected Results of
TCA Limestone Testing with MgO Addition 10-3
11-1 Major Test Conditions and Selected Results of
TCA Lime Testing 11-3
12-1 Derived Variables Defined in the Shawnee
Database 12-5
13-1 Data Used to Obtain Bechtel Sulfate Saturation
Correlations (Equations 13-1 and 13-2) 13-4
13-2 Data Used to Check Bechtel Sulfate Saturation
Correlations (Equations 13-1 and 13-2) 13-5
14-1 Run-averaged Spray Tower Results for Lime-
stone Scrubbing to Which Equation 14-14 Was
Fitted 14-20
14-2 Run-averaged TCA Results for Limestone
Scrubbing to Which Equation 14-15 Was Fitted 14-33
14-3 Run-averaged Spray Tower Results for Lime
Scrubbing to Which Equation 14-16 Was Fitted 14-48
14-4 Run-averaged TCA Results for Lime Scrubbing
to Which Equation 14-17 Was Fitted 14-60
16-1 Venturi/Spray Tower Settling Test Results 16-4
16-2 Venturi/Spray Tower Funnel Test Results 16-5
16-3 TCA Settling Test Results 16-6
xx
-------
TABLES
Figure
16-4 TCA Funnel Test Results
17-1 Measurement of Stellite Diffuser Thickness
17-2 Filter Cloth Performance
xxi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The following Bechtel personnel were the principal contributors to
the preparation of this report:
The authors wish to acknowledge the various personnel from the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Tennessee Valley Authority
who also contributed to the preparation of this report.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the contributions of the Bechtel
and TVA onsite personnel at the Shawnee Test Facility.
Dr. H. N. Head, Project Manager
R. T. Keen
C. C. Leivo
A. H. Abdulsattar
N. E. Bell
D. A. Burbank
Dr. J.S. DeGuzman
R. G. Rhudy
R. W. Row
C. H. Rowland
Dr. K. A. Strom
Dr. S. C. Wang
xxii
-------
Section 1
SUMMARY
This is the third progress report on an Advanced Test Program under
the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to test
prototype lime and limestone wet-scrubbing systems for removing sul-
fur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter from coal-fired boiler flue
gases. It covers the period from mid-February 1976 through
November 1976. Results of earlier testing have been reported in
EPA-650/2-75-047, EPA-600/2-75-050, and EPA-600/7-76-008. The
program is being conducted at a test facility operating on flue gas
from Boiler No. 10 at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Shawnee
Power Station, Paducah, Kentucky. Bechtel Corporation of San Fran-
cisco is the major contractor and test director, and TVA is the con-
structor and facility operator.
There are two parallel scrubbing systems being operated during the
Advanced Test Program:
• A venturi followed by a spray tower
• A Turbulent Contact Absorber (TCA)
1-1
-------
Each system is capable of treating approximately 10 MW equivalent
(maximum rates of 35, 000 acfm* @ 330°F for the venturi/spray tower
and 30,000 acfm @ 300°F for the TCA) of flue gas containing 1500
to 4500 ppm of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 4 to 8 grains/scf of particulates.
During this testing period, ductwork was installed for flue gas takeoff
downstream from Boiler No. 10 particulate removal equipment. This
permitted testing with relatively fly-ash-free flue gas containing 0. 04
to 0. 10 grain/dry scf of particulate.
Major areas of testing during this reporting period were:
• Short-term factorial tests on both scrubber systems using
lime, limestone, and limestone with added magnesium oxide
(MgO). These tests were made to determine SO2 removal
as a function of operating parameters
• Lime testing on the venturi/spray tower with and without
added MgO and with and without fly ash in the flue gas
• Flue gas characterization testing on the venturi/spray tower
to determine inlet and outlet particulate mass loading, size
distribution, and SO3 (vapor phase sulfuric acid) concentra-
tion as a function of operating conditions
• Limestone testing on the TCA with added MgO
• Lime testing on the TCA with and without added MgO
* Although it is the policy of the EPA to use the metric system for
quantitative descriptions, the British system is used in this report.
Readers who are more accustomed to metric units are referred to
the conversion table in Appendix A.
1-2
-------
During this reporting period, mathematical models were developed and
are presented here as an aid in predicting the following as a function
of operating parameters:
• SO2 removal for lime scrubbing in both the spray tower
and the TCA
• SO2 removal for limestone scrubbing in both the spray tower
and the TCA
Finally, a simplified procedure is presented for calculating gypsum
saturation from analytical data.
1. 1 FACTORIAL TEST RESULTS
From mid-February through late April 1976, a series of 270 6-to-8
hour factorial tests were conducted on the venturi, the spray tower,
and the TCA to determine the effect of major operating variables on
SO2 removal. Tests were conducted using lime slurry, limestone
slurry, and limestone slurry with added MgO. The effect of each
major variable and the operating ranges are given below:
• Increasing the scrubber inlet pH (from 5 to 6 for limestone
and lime stone/MgO, and 6 to 9 for lime) strongly increased
SO2 removal in all systems
• Increasing the liquor rate (from 300 to 600 gpm in the ven-
turi, 750 to 1500 in the spray tower, and 600 to 1200 in
the TCA) increased SO2 removal in all systems
1-3
-------
• Increasing the gas rate (from 20, 000 to 35, 000 acfm @ 330°F
in the venturi and spray tower and 20, 000 to 30, 000 acfm @
300° F in the TCA) decreased SC>2 removal in the venturi and
spray tower. In the TCA, the effect of the increasing gas
rate ranged from a slight increase in SO2 removal with lime-
stone slurry to a slight decrease with limestone/MgO
• Increasing the effective* magnesium ion concentration in the
scrubber liquor (from 0 to 9000 ppm) when scrubbing with
limestone slurry strongly increased SO2 removal
• Increasing the venturi pressure drop (from 6 to 12 inches
H2O) increased SO2 removal
• Increasing the spray tower nozzle pressure drop (from 8
to 14 psi) increased SO2 removal
• Increasing the TCA bed height (from 0 to 8 inches static
height in each of three beds) increased SO2 removal
1. 2 VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER LIME TEST RESULTS
From late April through early October 1976, 15 runs were made with
lime slurry in the venturi/spray tower system, each lasting about 190
hours. The runs were divided into two test blocks:
• Five runs with fly ash present in the flue gas -- all with
MgO addition to the lime slurry
• Ten runs with fly-ash-free flue gas -- five with and five
without MgO addition to the lime slurry
* Effective magnesium ion concentration is the concentration in excess
of that required to neutralize chloride ion.
1-4
-------
The following conclusions were made as a result of the runs:
• Increasing the magnesium ion concentration in the scrub-
bing liquor increased SO2 removal efficiency. At 2000 ppm
effective magnesium ion concentration, the SO2 removal
increased by 1 5 to 20 percent
• Increasing the magnesium ion concentration did not always
result in gypsum subsaturated operation. At 2000 ppm
effective magnesium ion concentration, average gypsum
saturation ranged from 1 5 to 105 percent
• Low gypsum saturation was consistently accompanied by high
liquor sulfite concentration and high SO2 removal efficiency
• Lower sulfite oxidation generally resulted in lower gypsum
saturation, but this relationship was not always apparent
• With magnesium ion in the liquor, gypsum scaling occurred
at lower gypsum saturation of the scrubber inlet liquor. At
2000 ppm effective magnesium ion concentration, scaling
was observed when the gypsum saturation of the scrubber
inlet liquor was as low as 80 percent, compared with about
120 percent with no effective magnesium ion
• The mist eliminator reliability with lime slurry was unaf-
fected by the presence of magnesium ion in the liquor
• When operating with lime slurry containing 2000 ppm
effective magnesium ion, the optimum scrubber inlet liquor
pH appeared to be in the range of 7 to 8.
• Lime utilization in testing with fly-ash-free flue gas was
better than in testing with flue gas containing fly ash. Lime
utilization in fly-ash-free testing averaged 93 percent com-
pared with 88 percent for runs made with fly ash under
similar test conditions
• Fly-ash-free waste solids did not filter as well as waste
solids containing fly ash. Filter cake solids contents from
the fly-ash-free runs were 5 to 10 percent lower than those
from the corresponding runs with fly ash
• For a given waste solids concentration, the water balance
was tighter and the total dissolved solids concentration in
1-5
-------
the slurry liquor was higher in fly-ash-free operation than
in operation with fly ash because of the additional liquor
associated with the fly ash in the waste solids
1. 3 VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER FLUE GAS CHARACTERIZATION
TEST RESULTS
From mid-October through early December 1976, a series of flue gas
characterization tests were conducted on the venturi/spray tower
system. During this period, particulate mass loading, particulate size
distribution, and sulfuric acid mist (SO3) concentration were measured
as a function of operating conditions. The major conclusions were:
• Outlet mass loadings were all within the EPA new source
performance standards, ranging typically from 0. 02 to 0. 04
grain/dry scf for runs with flue gas containing fly ash and
0. 003 to 0. 009 grain/dry scf for a run with fly-ash-free flue
gas
• Outlet mass loadings and size distribution were relatively
unaffected by the range of operating variables tested, includ-
ing liquor rate, gas rate, slurry composition, and venturi
pressure drop
• Entrainment of slurry solids must be less than the amount
of total particulate emission from the fly-ash-free run
(0.003 to 0. 009 grain/dry scf). According to chemical
analysis slurry solids made up less than 50 percent of the
total particulate emission
• The data indicate that scrubber operation does not contri-
bute to fine particle emission
• Removal of sulfuric acid mist in the scrubber appeared
to be fairly constant at about 58 percent, with outlet values
ranging from 0 to 14 ppm
1-6
-------
A similar series of tests will be conducted on the TCA system in early
1977.
1.4 TCA LIMESTONE TEST RESULTS
From mid-April through the end of June 1976, eight runs were made on
the TCA system with flue gas containing fly ashusing limestone slurry.
All but one run were made with added MgO. Average run duration
was 180 hours. Major conclusions from these runs were as follows:
• A higher effective liquor magnesium ion concentration is
needed in a limestone scrubbing system than in a lime
scrubbing system to obtain a similar degree of improvement
in SOg removal efficiency
• At 0, 5000, and 9000 ppm effective magnesium ion concen-
trations, average SO2 removals were 77, 84, and 94
percent, respectively, under typical operating conditions
• As with lime/MgO scrubbing, gypsum scaling with lime-
stone/MgO occurred at scrubber inlet liquor gypsum satura-
tions as low as 80 percent
• MgO addition at the levels tested did not always result in
gypsum subsaturated operation. Lower saturation levels
usually increased the liquor sulfite concentration and the
SO2 removal efficiency
1.5 TCA LIME TEST RESULTS
From July through November 1976, the TCA system was operated with
lime slurry and flue gas containing fly ash. Of a total of 18 runs aver-
-------
aging 160 hours per run, all but two runs were conducted with added
MgO. Chemically, the results were similar to the lime/MgO runs
on the venturi/spray tower system. Additional conclusions were:
• Gypsum scaling occurred at scrubber inlet liquor satura-
tions as low as 75 percent during runs with MgO addition
• About 80 percent SO2 removal (2800 ppm inlet) was achieved
in the TCA using lime slurry without MgO addition. Minor
gypsum scaling occurred with 8 percent solids in the recir-
culated slurry; no scaling occurred with 15 percent solids
1.6 DATABASE
A computerized database has been developed which contains run de-
scriptions and analytical data for all runs conducted at the Shawnee
Test Facility since April 1974 for the venturi/spray tower system and
August 1974 for the TCA system. Current test results are added to
the database on a daily basis.
Data can be selectively retrieved from the database, reports can be
produced, and graphical correlations among variables or groups of
variables can be plotted directly by anyone with an appropriate time-
sharing terminal. This database is available to the public, and its use
by any interested party can be arranged.
1-8
-------
SIMPLIFIED EQUATION FOR THE CALCULATION OF
GYPSUM SATURATION
In testing at Shawnee, the Bechtel-Modified Radian Equilibrium Com-
puter Program has always been the standard for calculating calcium
sulfate (gypsum) saturation from analytical data in lime and limestone
wet-scrubbing liquors. Simplified equations have been developed by
Bechtel that predict gypsum saturation within 8 percentage points (and
usually better) of the value calculated by the Bechtel-Modified Radian
Program for the range of test conditions encountered at Shawnee. At
50°C the equation is as follows:
Fraction gypsum Saturation at 50°C = (Ca)(SO,4) 1263 + 47
L1 J
where
I = 3 [(Ca) + (Mg)] + (SO4)
= ionic strength of the liquor, assuming the liquor contains
only Ca++, Mg++, and SO4 ions in solution
(Ca)
(Mg) = measured dissolved concentrations of total calcium, mag-
(SO4) nesium, and sulfate species, respectively, g-mole/liter
This simplified equation is being used to generate the gypsum satu-
ration values listed in the Shawnee database.
1-9
-------
1. 8 MATHEMATICAL MODELS FOR SO2 REMOVAL
A semitheoretical model has been developed and fitted to the Shawnee
test data for predicting SO2 removal by lime or limestone wet scrub-
bing from operating variables in a spray tower or a TCA. This model
accounts for all major variables investigated at the Shawnee Test Faci-
lity except for possible effects of liquor sulfate (gypsum) saturation
or sulfite oxidation on SO2 removal with magnesium ion in the scrub-
ber liquor. Such effects are relatively insignificant at low magnesium
ion concentrations. The fitted equations are as follows:
1. 8. 1 Spray Tower Equation for SO? Removal by Limestone Slurry
Fraction SO 2 Removal = 1 - exp
-5 0.92 0.19
- 9. 8 x 10 (L/G) v
exp
-4
PHi + 1. 35 x 10 (Mg)e
-4 -5
-1.7x10 (502^ + 1.45x10 CI
1-10
-------
1,8.2 TCA Equation for SO?, Removal by Limestone Slurry
Fraction SO2 Removal = 1 - exp
-4 0.81 0.36
- 2. 05 x 10 (L/G) v
exp
4. 3 x 1
0 + 0. 81 pHi
-5 -4
+ 7.9x10 (Mg)e - 1.7x10 (SO2).
-5
+ 1.3x10 CI
1*8.3 Spray Tower Equation for SO? Removal by Lime Slurry
Fraction SO2 Removal = 1 - exp
- 0. 0020 (L/G) exp
[0. 29 pH4
-4 -5
+ 2.8x10 (Mg)e +4.7x10 CI
1.8.4 TCA Equation for SO y Removal by Lime Slurry
Fraction SO2 Removal = 1 - exp
exp
1.12 0.65
- 0. 0010 (L/G) v
-4
0. 18 pHi + 1. 5 x 10 (Mg)(
-4
-2.2x10 (S02). + 0. 00392 vl—- + .,G
d<
1-11
-------
where
CI = measured total dissolved chloride ion concentration, ppm
dg = diameter of the TCA sphere (1.5 inches at Shawnee)
^tot = total height of spheres in the TCA, inches (zero for spray-
tower)
L/G = liquid-to-gas ratio in the scrubber (125°F, humidified gas),
gal/Mcf
(Mg)e = effective magnesium ion concentration, ppm
= [ppm Mg - (ppm CI" /2. 92)] for Mg > Cl~ /2. 92
= 0 for Mg++ 4 CI" /2. 92
where 2. 92 = ratio by weight of CI to Mg in MgCl2
Nq = number of grids or screens in the TCA, four at Shawnee
(zero for the spray tower)
pH. = scrubber inlet liquor pH
(S02)j r inlet gas SO2 concentration, ppm
v = gas velocity in scrubber (125°F, humidified gas), ft/sec
These equations have been verified only for the range of conditions
encountered at the Shawnee Test Facility. Extrapolation beyond this
range is not recommended.
1. 9 LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
A continuing laboratory quality assurance program has resulted in
several changes for improving analytical results.
1-12
-------
The stoichiometric ratio of moles of calcium added per mole of SO2
absorbed is now calculated from solids analysis by the equation
Carbonate
SRC03 = 1 + (designated SRC03 in the database)
Total Sulfur
instead of the previously used equation
SR = Calcium/Total Sulfur (designated SR in the database)
Although, in theory, the two relationships should give identical values,
the stoichiometric ratio based on carbonate is more accurate at low
stoichiometrics.
Laboratory measurement of pH in the slurry liquor has been improved
by storing the electrodes in a hot buffered solution saturated with
potassium chloride, switching electrodes at the beginning of each
8-hour shift, using only electrodes with glass-to-glass seals, and
employing a pH meter with a digital readout.
Interference by fly ash has been reduced in the primary procedure
(X-ray fluorescence) for calcium and total sulfur in solids by diluting
the sample with lithium carbonate.
The primary procedure for sulfite analysis in both solids and liquids
has been improved by using a Wallace and Tiernan Amperometric
Titrator.
1-13
-------
A new turbidimetric procedure is being tested for use as the primary-
procedure for total sulfur in liquors and the backup procedure for total
sulfur in solids. If successful, this procedure will replace the pres-
ent titrimetric method.
A new method for carbonate in solids using the laboratory's Oceano-
graphy International Carbon Analyzer is being evaluated as a primary
procedure to replace the present volumetric CO2 evolution procedure.
Atomic absorption spectrometry, the primary procedure for calcium
and magnesium in liquors, is precise and accurate at low magnesium
concentrations. However, precision is reduced by the large dilutions
required at high levels of magnesium. Titration with EDTA (ethylene-
diamine-tetraacetic acid or its salts) is being examined as an alterna-
tive method for high magnesium concentrations.
1.10 SLUDGE CHARACTERIZATION
In addition to the TV A and Aerospace sludge characterization and dis-
posal programs reported elsewhere, a program to routinely monitor
sludge settling and dewatering characteristics has been established.
For each run, at least two scrubber slurry samples are taken for cyl-
inder settling tests and funnel filtration tests. These tests have been
useful in monitoring both clarifier and rotary drum vacuum filter per-
1-14
-------
formance. It has been observed that:
• Initial settling rate increases with decreasing initial percent
solids over all the run conditions investigated
• Filter cake solids concentration is higher for lime tests
with fly ash than without fly ash, Values ranged from 49 to
56 percent for fly ash tests and from 42 to 48 percent for
tests without fly ash
1.11 OPERATING EXPERIENCE
1.11.1 Scrubber Internals
The strong correlation between high alkali utilization and clean mist
eliminator operation has been further confirmed during this testing
period.
TCA grid supports have shown no evidence of significant erosion in
22, 000 hours of slurry service.
Solid nitrile foam spheres used in the TCA have been in service for
approximately 3900 hours with no significant failures. A continual
decrease in diameter, however, has made it necessary to periodically
add more spheres to maintain static bed height.
Bete No. ST48FCN stellite-tipped nozzles logged 17, 500 hours of
slurry service in the spray tower before their replacement in December
1976.
1-15
-------
Although they were still functional at the time of replacement, the
nozzle diffusers had lost 26 percent of their original thickness.
Spraco No. 1969F 316 stainless-steel full-cone nozzles, used for TCA
slurry feed, have logged 15, 000 hours of operation at 5 psi pressure
drop with no significant wear.
Bete No. ST32FCN stellite-tipped nozzles used to spray slurry for
cooling the inlet gas to the TCA showed significant wear after 11,600
hours of continuous service and were replaced.
Venturi internals continued to erode significantly in several locations,
but the venturi operability has not been affected.
1.11.2 Reheaters
The in-line reheaters modified to incorporate fuel-oil-fired external
combustion chambers have operated reliably for over 19,300 hours
in the venturi/spray tower system and 8000 hours in the TCA system,
1.11.3 Fans
As in the past, fan reliability has been good during the current opera-
ting period.
1-16
-------
1. 11.4 Pumps
The major pump problem has been pump-seal failure in the rubber-
lined slurry pumps with air-flushed packings. Air-flushed packings
are used on major pumps at the test facility to avoid the effect of
seal water intrusion on the scrubber water balance.
1 • 11 • 5 Waste Solids Handling
Cloth life in the rotary-drum filter has been extended by welding the
cake deflector blade adjustment to prevent the blade from contacting
the cloth. The present best service life of a filter cloth was about
850 hours. Because of the design of the Shawnee filter, the reported
cloth life may not be representative of the life of a cloth in a well
designed commercial unit.
The centrifuge has operated well for 3350 hours since the wear areas
were resurfaced with colmonoy and stellite No. 1016 in May 1976.
No significant mechanical problems were encountered in the clarifier
during this reporting period.
1-17
-------
1, 11.6 Alkali Addition Systems
The lime addition system has given excellent reliability in over 22, 500
hours of intermittent operation.
The limestone addition system has given satisfactory performance with
low maintenance during the entire alkali wet-scrubber test program.
The most significant maintenance items are the Moyno pumps that feed
60 weight percent limestone slurry. In these pumps, operating life
has been short, typically 2000 hours for a rotor and 1000 hours for a
stator.
1.11.7 Instrument Operating Experience
The main problem associated with the Uniloc Model 321 submersible pH
meters used to measure scrubber liquor pH has been occasional scale
formation on the probes.
Satisfactory accuracy of the Foxboro magnetic flow meters has been
maintained by electrical purging once per shift and flow checks ap-
proximately once every 3 months. No liner failures in the meters,
which had been experienced in the past, were encountered during this
reporting period.
1-18
-------
When operating properly, the Brooks Maglink 5300 series level indi-
cators are capable of measuring slurry level in the effluent hold tanks
to within 6 inches. However, occasionally the float will get stuck or
uncouple from the magnet.
Du Pont Model 400 UV SO2 analyzers have operated trouble-free, with
routine calibration three times a week.
Dynatrol density meters have operated trouble-free.
Modification of spare Du Pont SO2 meters to measure nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) has been unsuccessful. The problem has been referred to Du
Pont.
1. 11.8 Mechanical Components Evaluation
Selected mechanical components are being continually evaluated at the
Shawnee Test Facility. These include plastic pipe, line strainers,
butterfly and knife gate valves, control valves, mechanical seals, a
sonic tank level sensor, a Brook tank level sensor, a Metritape tank
level sensor, and several Ceilcote lining materials.
1-19
-------
Section 2
INTRODUCTION
In June 1968, a program was initiated under the direction of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA)5'.5 to test prototype lime and lime-
stone wet-scrubbing systems for removing SO2 and particulates from
flue gases. A test facility was built which operates with flue gas from
coal-fired Boiler No. 10 at the Tennesee Valley Authority (TVA) Shaw-
nee Power Station, Paducah, Kentucky. Bechtel Corporation of San
Francisco was the major contractor and test director, and TVA was
the constructor and facility operator.
Initially, the test facility consisted of three parallel scrubber systems:
a venturi followed by a spray tower, a Turbulent Contact Absorber
(TCA), and a Marble-Bed Absorber. Testing of the Marble-Bed Ab-
sorber was discontinued in July 1973 because of operational problems.
These systems were chosen for their ability to remove both SO2 and
particulates from the burning of medium- to high-sulfur coal. Each
*
The National Air Pollution Control Administration prior to 1970
2-1
-------
system has a capacity of approximately 10 MW equivalent of flue gas
(35,000 acfm @ 330°F for the venturi/spray tower and 30,000 acfm
@ 300 °F for the TCA). The systems operate with flue gas containing
1500 to 4500 ppm of SO2 obtained either upstream (4 to 8 grains/dry
scf of particulates) or downstream (0. 04 to 0. 10 grain/dry scf of par-
ticulates) from the Boiler No. 10 particulate removal equipment.
The original testing program at the facility lasted from March 1972
to October 1974. Results are presented in Reference 1. During the
original program, emphasis was placed on demonstrating reliable
operation. The most significant reliability problem was associated with
scaling and/or plugging of mist elimination surfaces. The TCA mist
elimination system consisted of a wash tray in series with a chevron
mist eliminator, both with underside washing. Long-term operability
of this system was demonstrated in limestone service in an 1835-hour
test at a scrubber gas velocity of 8.6 ft/sec*. The venturi/spray
tower mist elimination system consisted of a chevron mist eliminator
with underside washing. At the end of the original testing program,
long-term operability of the venturi/spray tower system had not been
demonstrated.
In June 1974, the EPA, through its Office of Research and Development
* In this report, all gas velocities and liquid-to-gas ratios are at
scrubber operating conditions, i. e. , saturated gas at scrubber
temperature. The scrubber temperature is approximately 125°F
under normal operating conditions. The gas velocities are all super-
ficial velocities.
2-2
-------
and Control Systems Laboratory, initiated a 3-year Advanced Test
Program at the Shawnee Facility. Bechtel Corporation continued as
the major contractor and test director, and TVA as the constructor
and facility operator.
The major goals established for the advanced program were:
• To continue long-term testing, with emphasis on demonstrat-
ing reliable operation of the mist elimination system
• To investigate advanced process and equipment design varia-
tions for improving system reliability and process economics
• To perform long-term (2- to 5-month) reliability testing on
promising process and equipment design variations
• To improve waste sludge disposal characteristics
The results of advanced testing from October 1974 through April 1975
at the Shawnee Facility are presented in Reference 2. During this
period, successful operation of a chevron mist eliminator with inter-
mittent top and bottom wash was demonstrated in the venturi/spray
tower system in lime service at a superficial scrubber gas velocity
of 8. 0 ft/sec. In the TCA in limestone service, plugging of the com-
bined wash tray/mist eliminator system was a continual problem at
velocities greater than 8.6 ft/sec. Tests were interrupted in May
197 5 for a 6-week scheduled maintenance outage on Boiler No. 10.
The results of advanced testing at the Shawnee Facility from June 1975
2-3
-------
through mid-February 1976 are presented in Reference 3. During
this period, the wash tray/mist eliminator system on the TCA was
discontinued in favor of a chevron mist eliminator similar to the one
used in the venturi/spray tower. Both systems operated mainly at
their maximum fan capacity (9.6 ft/sec superficial gas velocity in the
spray tower and 12.5 ft/sec in the TCA). Significant results were:
• The development of the relationship between alkali utilization
and other parameters on both scrubber systems in limestone
service
• The discovery that alkali utilization strongly affects mist
eliminator reliability -- the mist eliminator is easier to keep
clean at high utilization
• The demonstration that above 85 percent alkali utilization,
an intermittent bottom wash will keep the mist eliminator
free of soft solids (raw water at 1. 5 gpm/ft^ for 6 minutes
every 4 hours)
• The demonstration that below 8 5 percent alkali utilization,
a continuous bottom wash will limit soft solids accumulation
to less than 10 percent mist eliminator restriction (combined
raw water and clarifier return liquor at 0. 4 gpm/ft^)
• The demonstration that intermittent top wash prevents scale
formation on top mist eliminator blades (raw water for 4
minutes every 8 hours at 0. 5 gpm/ft^)
• The demonstration on the TCA that three hold tanks in series
improves limestone utilization -- at 85 percent SO2 removal,
limestone utilization was improved from about 60 percent
with a single hold tank to about 75 percent with three tanks
in series
• The demonstration in an 1143-hour run that the venturi/spray
tower in lime service can operate smoothly with a gas rate
following a daily boiler cycle from 40 to 100 percent of
full load
2-4
-------
This Advanced Program Third Progress Report presents the results of
testing at the Shawnee Facility from mid-February 1976 through No-
vember 1 976.
During this period, a total of 270 short (6 to 8 hours) factorial tests
were run on both scrubber systems using lime slurry, limestone
slurry, and limestone slurry with added MgO. These tests were
designed to relate SC>2 removal to major process variables.
On the venturi/spray tower system, 16 longer runs of 4 to 8 days each
were made to explore operating variables under several modes of
operation. Lime slurry was tested using fly-ash-free flue gas. Lime
slurry with added magnesium oxide to enhance removal was tested
using both fly-ash-free flue gas and flue gas containing fly ash. One
test was run with limestone slurry using fly-ash-free flue gas.
In addition, a series of nine lime runs of 2 to 6 days each were made
on the venturi/spray tower during which data characterizing flue gas
mass loading, particulate size distribution, and SO3 concentration at
the inlet and outlet of the scrubber were collected.
It should not be assumed that the entire range of operating configura-
tions and conditions tested at the Shawnee facility is free of patent
restrictions. Before making commercial use of the Shawnee test
results, the patent situation should be reviewed.
2-5
-------
On the TCA system, 26 longer runs of 4 to 8 days each were made.
These included runs with lime and limestone slurry, with and with-
out added magnesium oxide, using flue gas with and without fly ash.
In addition to test results, this Third Progress Report presents
mathematical models fitted to the Shawnee test data for predicting
SO2 removal by lime or limestone wet scrubbing in both the spray
tower and the TCA.
Also, a simplified procedure is presented for calculating calcium
sulfate (gypsum) saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor from analy-
tical data.
Other topics presented in this report include an introductory dis-
cussion of lime/limestone wet scrubbing chemistry, a description of
the Shawnee database, a discussion of the laboratory quality assurance
program, results of the sludge characterization program, and a dis-
cussion of operating experience during this reporting period.
2-6
-------
Section 3
TEST FACILITY
Two parallel scrubbing systems are being operated during the Advanced
Test Program. Scrubbers incorporated in these systems are:
• A venturi followed by a spray tower.
• A Turbulent Contact Absorber (TCA)
Each system operates independently and is capable of treating approxi-
mately 30,000 acfm of flue gas from the coal-fired Boiler No. 10 at
TVA's Shawnee Power Station. This gas rate is equivalent to approxi-
mately 10 MW of power plant capacity.
Boiler No. 10 normally burns a medium- to high-sulfur bituminous
coal which produces SO2 concentrations of 1500 to 4500 ppm in the
flue gas. Ductwork to the scrubbers is tied in both upstream and
downstream of the Boiler No. 10 particulate removal equipment allow-
ing scrubber operation on flue gas with high fly ash loadings (4 to 8
grains/dry scf) or low fly ash loadings (0.01 to 0.05 grain/dry scf).
3-1
-------
3. 1 SCRUBBER SELECTION
The major criterion for scrubber selection was the potential for remov-
ing both SO2 and particulates at high efficiencies (defined for Shawnee
Facility as SO2 removal greater than 80 percent and particulate removal
greater than 99 percent). Other criteria considered in the selection of
the scrubbers were:
• The ability to handle slurries without plugging or excessive
scaling
• Reasonable cost and maintenance
• Ease of control
• Reasonable pressure drop
The venturi/spray tower and the TCA were chosen to meet these cri-
teria.
The adjustable-throat venturi scrubber in the venturi/spray tower sys-
tem was manufactured by Chemical Construction Company. The venturi
scrubber removes the bulk of the particulates. But because the resi-
dence time in a venturi scrubber is low, SO2 removal with lime/lime-
stone slurry is inadequate. The spray tower that follows the venturi
scrubber provides additional capacity for the removal of SO2.
3-2
-------
The TCA was manufactured by Universal Oil Products. It operates
with up to three beds of nominally 1-1/2-inch-diameter low-density
spheres that are free to move between retaining grids. As the incoming
flue gas contacts the slurry in these beds, both SO2 and particulates
are removed.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 (drawn with major dimensions to scale) show the
two scrubber systems and the mist elimination system selected for de-
entraining slurry in the exit gas streams. The chevron mist elimina-
tor used on the two scrubber systems during this testing period is de-
picted, to scale, in Figure 3-3. The cross-sectional area of the spray
tower is 50 ft^ in both the scrubbing section and the mist eliminator
7
section. The cross-sectional area of the TCA scrubber is 32 ft in
the scrubbing section and 49 ft^ in the mist eliminator section.
3. 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The Shawnee Test Facility contains five major areas:
• The scrubber area (including tanks and pumps)
• The operations building area (including laboratory area,
electrical gear, centrifuge, and filter)
• The thickener area (including tanks and pumps)
• The utility area (including air compressors, air dryer, lime-
stone storage silos, mix tanks, gravimetric feeder, and
pump s)
• The pond area
3-3
-------
VENTURI SCRUBBER AND SPRAY TOWER
GAS OUT
Figure 3-1. Schematic of Venturi Scrubber and Spray Tower
3-4
-------
TCA SCRUBBER
GAS OUT
Figure 3-2. Schematic of Three-Bed TCA
3-5
-------
SPRAY TOWER AND TCA
THREE - PASS, OPEN - VANE, 316L S.S.
CHEVRON MIST ELIMINATOR
(HORIZONTAL CONFIGURATION)
~
GAS FLOW
6 in.
Figure 3-3. Test Facility Mist Eliminator Configuration
3-6
-------
The test facility has been designed so that a number of different scrub-
ber internals and piping configurations can be used with each scrubber
system. For example, the TCA scrubber can be operated with one,
two, or three beds of spheres or with only the support grids. Waste
solids separation can be achieved with a clarifier alone or with a clari-
fier in combination with a filter or a centrifuge. Either system can be
operated with a single hold tank or with up to three tanks in series.
Typical system configurations depicting lime testing with the venturi/
spray tower and limestone testing with the TCA scrubber are illus-
trated schematically in Figures 3-4 and 3-5, respectively. Such pro-
cess details as flue gas saturation (humidification) sprays are not
shown.
In May-June 1976, the ductwork to the scrubber systems was modified
so that gas can be withdrawn from the boiler either before the steam
plant particulate removal equipment or after it. In the former configu-
ration, all the entrained particulate matter (fly ash) is introduced
into the scrubber; in the latter, the gas to the scrubber contains only
a residual amount of fly ash. The gas flow rate to each scrubber is
measured by venturi flow meters and controlled by dampers on the
induced-draft fans. The concentration of SO2 in the inlet and outlet
gas streams is monitored continuously by Du Pont photometric ana-
lyzers.
3-7
-------
FLUE GAS~^>- O ~<8>n
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
U)
I
00
—o—
SAMPLE POINTS
O Gas Composition
Particulate Composition & Loading
© Slurrv or Solids Composition
Gas Stream
__ Liquor Stream
I. D. FAN
2
MAKEUP
WATER
1
Bleed
u
—-®—~
PROCESS
CLARIFIER
WATER
HOLD
TANK
K-0-
VACUUM
FILTER
STACK
(5>
Discharge
SETTLING POND
Figure 3-4. Typical Process Flow Diagram for Venturi/Spray
Tower System
-------
TCA SYSTEM
O Gas Composition Gas Stream
® Particulate Composition & Loading ___ Liquor Stream
® Slurry or Solids Composition
Figure 3-5. Typical Process Flow Diagram for TCA System
-------
The scrubbing systems are controlled from a central graphic panel-
board, where all significant process variables are on digital display.
Important process control variables are continuously recorded. Trend
recorders are provided for periodic monitoring of selected data sources.
Chemical composition of major streams and scrubber inlet liquor pH are
determined several times a day.
3. 3 EPA PILOT PLANT
There are two smaller scrubbing systems (300 acfm each) at the EPA
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, These small, pilot-scale scrubber systems are
capable of simulating the Shawnee scrubber systems with excellent
agreement in the lime/limestone wet-scrubbing chemistry. Preliminary
data are generated on the pilot-scale system to determine the validity
of new concepts and to guide the selection of those promising concepts
that should logically be investigated on the larger scale Shawnee units.
Examples of studies originating at the EPA pilot plant and then later
investigated at the Shawnee test facility include gypsum unsaturated
operation (Reference 4), increasing limestone utilization (Reference 5),
and forced oxidation (Reference 6).
3-10
-------
Section 4
TEST PROGRAM
This section contains a description of the Shawnee Advanced Test
Program, which began in June 1974 and is scheduled to run through
February 1978.
4. 1 TEST PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND SCHEDULE
The objectives of the Advanced Test Program are:
• To demonstrate process reliability, with an emphasis on
mist elimination systems
• To investigate advanced process and equipment design varia-
tions for improving system reliability and economics
• To evaluate process variations for a substantial increase in
alkali utilization for limestone systems
• To evaluate the effect of increased magnesium ion concen-
tration on improving control, reducing gypsum saturation,
and increasing SO2 removal
• To evaluate the efficiency and reliability of lime and limestone
scrubbers under conditions of widely varying flue gas flow rate
and inlet SO 2 concentration
• To evaluate system performance and reliability without fly ash
in the flue gas
4-1
-------
• To determine the effectiveness of forced oxidation in pro-
ducing an improved throwaway sludge product
• To determine the practical upper limits of SO2 removal
efficiency for both limestone and lime scrubbing systems
• To evaluate the TCA performance with lime and the venturi/
spray tower performance with limestone
• To perform reliability demonstration runs on advanced pro-
cess and equipment design variations
• To characterize stack gas emissions, including inlet and
outlet particulate mass loading and size distribution, slurry
entrainment, and total sulfate emissions
• To evaluate methods of automatic control
• To provide material for the field evaluation of sludge dis-
posal processes. (The field evaluation is being conducted
under a separate EPA program)
• To evaluate corrosion and wear of alternative plant equip-
ment components and materials
• To develop a computer program for the design and cost
comparison of full-scale lime and limestone systems
The test program schedule based on the defined objectives is presented
in Figure 4-1. The period covered by the Third Progress Report
extended from mid-February 1976 through November 1976. In the
venturi/spray tower during this period, both short, factorially designed
tests (~8 hours/test) and longer term tests (~1 week/test) were run.
The longer-term tests, conducted with lime slurry, were run to investi-
gate the effects of MgO addition and the presence, or absence, of fly
ash. In addition, data characterizing mass loading were collected during
some lime runs.
4-2
-------
I
LO
W SIT6 SHUTOOWW CONTRACT COarUTEO
M FNM REPORT DRAFT
Figure 4-1.
Shawnee Advanced Test Schedule
-------
In the TCA, short, factorially designed tests were run. Also run were
long-term tests investigating limestone operation with MgO addition and
lime operation with and without MgO addition.
4, 2 CLOSED-LIQUOR-LOOP OPERATION
A closed liquor loop is achieved when the makeup water input to the
system is equal to the water normally exiting the system in the settled
sludge and in the humidified flue gas. In this report, it was assumed
that a closed liquor loop is achieved when the solids concentration of
the purged sludge is 38 percent by weight or higher and no separate
liquor is purged. Except for a 3-week period in May 1976 when dis-
charge solids dropped as low as 32 percent, the advanced program
tests have been conducted in closed-liquor-loop operation as defined
above.
4. 3 ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
During the testing, samples of slurry, flue gas, limestone, lime, and
coal are taken periodically for chemical analyses, and samples of flue
gas are taken for particulate mass loading determinations. The locations
of slurry and gas sample points are shown on Figures 3-4 and 3-5. A
summary of the analytical methods for determining important species
in the slurry solids and slurry liquor is presented in Table 4-1. A lab-
4-4
-------
Table 4-1
FIELD METHODS FOR BATCH CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF
SLURRY AND ALKALI SAMPLES
SPECIES
FIELD METHODS
SOLIDS
LIQUIDS
Primary Method
Backup Method
Primary Method
Backup Method
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
X-ray fluorescence
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
--
Sulfite
Total sulfur
Ca rbonate
Chloride
Amperometric titration
X-ray fluorescence
CO2 evolution
Titration
Amperometric titration
Titration
Potentiometric titration
Mercuric nitrate titration
-------
oratory procedures manual (Reference 7) was issued in March 1976.
A listing of the compositions of the raw materials used in the testing
program is presented in Appendix C.
Four Du Pont photometric analyzers are used for continuous SO2 ga-s
analyzing one each at the inlet and outlet of each scrubber. Scrubber
inlet liquor pH is continuously monitored with Universal Interloc pH
analyzers. Both scrubber inlet and outlet liquor pH are monitored
periodically by the laboratory. A modified EPA particulate train
(manufactured by Aerotherm/Acurex Corporation) is used to measure
mass loading at scrubber inlets and outlets.
4. 4 DATA ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING
Data recorded by onsite personnel are sent to the Bechtel Corporation
offices in San Francisco for processing. Data from the test facility
are entered into a computerized database in San Francisco. The data
are sorted, further calculations made (e. g. , percent sulfite oxidation,
stoichiometric ratio), and tables prepared that present the data cover-
ing a specified period for a given scrubber. The database tables for
mid-February 1976 through November 1976 are presented in
Appendix D.
4-6
-------
4.4.1 Analytical Data
The analytical data acquisition system, which records the results of
laboratory analyses on printed summary sheets, was designed and (in
part) installed byRadian Corporation. A minicomputer is used to per-
form certain calculations and print the resultant data on a summary
sheet, which is then transferred to San Francisco for inclusion in the
master database.
4-7
-------
Section 5
SUMMARY OF THE CHEMISTRY OF SO2 REMOVAL
BY LIME OR LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBING
In this section, a simplified description of the chemistry of SO2
scrubbing is presented to provide an aid in understanding the Shawnee
test results. The basic lime and limestone scrubbing processes are
described first, followed by a discussion of the effects on SO2 re-
moval of added "effective" magnesium ions, sulfite oxidation, and
gypsum saturation.
The chemistry described was derived from several sources and is not
wholly based on results at the Shawnee Test Facility. Sources were
documented if possible. Details of the chemistry presented are based
on interpretation of observations to date and are subject to modifica-
tion as more information becomes available.
5. 1 SCRUBBING WITH LIME
The overall reaction of lime with SO2 may be represented by:
CaO + S02 -*-CaS03
(5. 1)
-------
One mole of lime reacts with one mole of sulfur dioxide to produce
one mole of calcium sulfite. The product is actually a mixture of
calcium sulfite hemihydrate (CaS03" 1 /2H2O) and the oxidation pro-
duct, calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO^.* ZH2O).
The detailed chemistry of this process is complex, involving mass
transfer between the gas, liquid, and solid phases, with several re-
actants in each phase (Reference 8). For this reason, equations that
describe this chemistry can be written in many ways, depending on
which aspect of the absorption is being emphasized. Moreover, scrub-
ber operating conditions, such as pH, liquid-to-gas ratio, and hold
tank residence time can determine which reactions predominate, and
whether they occur in the scrubber or in the hold tank (Reference 5).
One set of chemical equations that describe wet scrubbing of SO2 by
lime is shown in Table 5-1. These equations are not meant to be
all-inclusive for the reasons given in the preceding paragraph. These
equations can be used to represent the main equilibria in an SO2 wet-
scrubbing system using lime under the following normal operating con-
ditions:
Absorbent slurry liquor pH = between 7 and 9 at the scrub-
ber inlet and between 4. 5 and
5. 5 at the scrubber outlet
Stoichiometric ratio = 1. 0 to 1. 2
(moles of lime added per mole
of SO2 absorbed)
5-2
-------
Table 5-1
MAJOR CHEMICAL REACTIONS INVOLVED IN LIME
SCRUBBING OF SO
Li
Reactions in the Absorber
Absorption
SO2 (gas) 7* SO2 (aqueous)
(1)
CO2 (gas) ?=* COz (aqueous) ^=s H2CO3
(2)
Neutralization
SO3 + H2C03 + HzO s=s HSO3 +HCO3
(3)
SO3 + S02 (aqueous) + H20 ?=t 2HSO3
(4)
CaS03 (solid) + S02 (aqueous) + H20 Ca++ + 2HSOj
(5)
+ +
(6)
CaC0 3 (solid) + 2SO2 (aqueous) + 2H2O Ca + 2HSO3 + H2CO3
Ca(OH)2{solid) + 2S02 (aqueous) 9* Ca++ + 2HSO3
(7)
Oxidation
HSO3 + 1/202 SO4 +H +
(8)
Precipitation
Ca++ + (l-xJSOj + (x)SO^ + 1/2H2-0 Ca(S03)j _X(S04)X-1/2H2O (solid)
(9)
Reactions in the Hold Tank
Dissolution
Ca(OH)2 (solid) + 2HSO§ si Ca++ + 2SO3 + 2HzO
(10)
Ca(OH)2 (solid) •» Ca++ + 20H"
(11)
Oxidation
SO3 + l/202 SO4
(12)
Precipitation
Ca++ + SO4 + 2H20 CaS04. 2H2O (solid)
(13)
Ca++ + (l-x)S03 + (x)SO^ + 1/2H20 5* Ca(S03)1_x (S04)x- 1/2H20 (solid)
(14)
Ca4+ + HCO3 + OH" 5* CaC03 (solid) + H2O
(15)
5-3
-------
5. 1. 1
Reactions in the Absorber
The major chemical reactions that occur in the absorber include:
• Absorption and hydration of SO2 and CO 2
• Neutralization of aqueous alkaline species (such as HCO3
and SO3) by hydrated SO2 (aqueous SO2)* and protons (H )
• Dissolution of solid calcium sulfite (CaSO3), calcium car-
bonate (CaC03), and calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)
• Oxidation of sulfite species to sulfate in the liquid phase
Absorption of SO2 and CO2 in the lime system is governed by gas-
liquid equilibria between the SO2 and CO2 and the recirculated slurry.
If the slurry does not contain alkaline species (defined as any species
that is a base to aqueous S02)> the slurry rapidly becomes saturated
with respect to SO2 and absorption is limited.
The CO2 that is absorbed reacts with alkaline species (such as SO3)
to produce bicarbonate ions (HCO3). The HCO3 ions may also aid
SO2 neutralization, however, this is not shown here in favor of the
net reaction, which is precipitation of CaC03 in the hold tank and
ultimate disposal in the solid waste.
* The use of the chemical formula H2SO3 is avoided here because
there seems to be no strong evidence of its existence (Reference 9).
5-4
-------
Neutralization of the absorbed SO£ by aqueous alkaline species is
essentially instantaneous (Reference 10). Replenishment of the
aqueous alkaline species is necessary to prevent eventual saturation
with S02- This replenishment occurs when solid CaS03, CaC03,
Ca(OH)2, or all three dissolve in the tower (and in the hold tank --
see below). The dissolution rate of these solids is a function of the
solids concentrations, the particle size distribution of the solids, and
scrubber operating conditions, including liquid-to-gas ratio, holdup
time in the scrubber, and slurry liquor pH (References 3 and 5).
SC>2 absorption is accompanied by oxidation of the sulfite species to
sulfate. Although oxidation at Shawnee continues to be the subject
of study, some general statements can be made (Reference 11):
• There is no clear trend as to the effect of pH on sulfite
oxidation in lime or limestone SO2 scrubbing at Shawnee
• Most sulfite oxidation at Shawnee occurs in the absorber
and possibly the downcomer
• Slurry liquor composition can affect oxidation at Shawnee.
An increase in total dissolved solids lowers solubility of
oxygen, which decreases oxidation. However, increased
dissolved solids may increase oxidation by increasing the
sulfite concentration or by decreasing the average droplet
size inside the absorber, or both. (These effects are dis-
cussed in Subsection 5. 3)
• Catalysts may affect sulfite oxidation. Potential oxidation
catalysts are introduced from the flue gas (NO, NO2). fly
ash (metal oxides), lime (metal oxides), makeup water
(metal ions), and from equipment erosion or corrosion
products (Fe, Ct, Mn, and Cu compounds). There are
no independent Shawnee data to support the possibilitly of
oxidation catalysis
5-5
-------
5. 1. 2 Reactions in the Hold Tank
The primary chemical reactions that occur in the hold tank include:
The extent to which these reactions occur in the hold tank depends
on the hold tank residence time, the number of hold tanks, pH, stoi-
chiometry, and liquid-to-gas ratio. Under normal operating condi-
tions, dissolution of lime goes to near 100 percent completion. Dis-
solution of lime raises the liquor pH and the Ca^ concentration,
which results in precipitation of CaSOg solids.
Precipitation of CaSC>3 goes to completion in accordance with the solu-
bility product, Ksp, which is taken here to be equal to (Reference 12):
• Dissolution of lime
Ksp = a(3a++* aSC>3 = ® x (mole/liter) ^ at 50°C
are calcium ion and sulfite ion activities,
respectively
Calcium sulfate (CaSO.4) precipitates as gypsum (Equation 13, Table
5-1) or as a solid solution in CaSC>3 (Equation 14, Table 5-1). Up
-------
to 1 2 to 15 mole percent sulfate can be included in solid solution within
the calcium sulfite. Thus, if sulfite oxidation is limited to less than
or equal to 12 to 15 percent (Reference 13), absorber operation free
of gypsum solids (and hence no gypsum scale) is possible. This mode
of operating is frequently observed at Shawnee and at the EPA labora-
tory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Reference 3 and 14).
If sulfite oxidation is greater than 12 to 15 percent, operation free of
gypsum scaling is still possible even though gypsum solids are pres-
ent. If gypsum saturation* is limited throughout the absorption system
to less than 130 to 140 percent, no new gypsum crystals will form
on scrubber surfaces and hence, there will be no scaling (Refer-
ence 14).
Precipitation of CaC03 in the hold tank is shown by Equation 15 in
Table 5-1. Although CaC03aids in the removal of SO£ in the absorber,
it is the main solid waste product that limits lime utilization in this
system. Lime (or limestone) utilization is defined as:
Percent Utilization = 100 x TS/TCa = 100/stoichiometric ratio
where TS = total sulfur in the product slurry, moles
TCa = total calcium in the product slurry, moles
* Percent gypsum saturation = aCa++'aSO= ^'SP where, for gypsum,
e ? 4
K'sp = 2. 2 x 10 (mole/liter)- at 50° C and a ^, aq0= = ac-
tivities of calcium and sulfate ions. 4
5-7
-------
The concentration of calcium and sulfur in the slurry liquor is nor-
mally negligible, so the calcium and sulfur concentrations in the slurry
solids are used as a measure of percent utilization.
Not only CaC03 but any calcium-containing waste product that does
not also contain sulfur reduces lime utilization. For example, "dead-
burned" lime could be unreactive in the lime system and become part
of the product solids.
The calcium sulfite product is shown in Table 5-1 as a solid solution
(Ca(SC>3)j_x (SC>4)X '1/2H20, where x ranges up to about 0. 12), be-
cause it is assumed that if any sulfate (SO4) is present in the slurry,
some of it will be present in the solid solution with calcium sulfite.
There should not be any pure calcium sulfite produced in these
systems if oxidation is not zero.
5. 2 SCRUBBING WITH LIMESTONE
The overall reaction of limestone with S02 may be represented by:
CaC03 + SOz -*~ CaS03 + C02 (5.2)
One mole of limestone reacts with one mole of S02 to produce one mole
of calcium sulfite and one mole of carbon dioxide, according to this
equation. Actually, like lime scrubbing chemistry of S02, the chemis-
5-8
-------
try of limestone scrubbing of SO2 is complex.
Table 5-2 contains equations that represent the major chemical reac-
tions that occur during wet scrubbing of SO2 with limestone slurries
under normal operating conditions. These conditions are:
Absorbent slurry liquor pH = between 5. 0 and 6. 0 at the
scrubber inlet and between
4. 5 and 5. 5 at the scrubber
outlet
Stoichiometric ratio = 1. 1 to 1. 6
(moles of limestone added per
mole of SO2 absorbed)
These equations are not meant to be all inclusive, for the same rea-
sons discussed in Section 5. 1.
5. 2. 1 Reactions in the Absorber
SO2 reacts with limestone in the absorber to produce Ca++ and HSO3
in the liquor, and to precipitate calcium sulfite. As in lime scrubbing,
most sulfite oxidation probably occurs in the absorber. Unlike lime
scrubbing, in limestone scrubbing there is considerable carbon dioxide
desorption in the absorber (as well as in the hold tank).
5-9
-------
Table 5-2
MAJOR CHEMICAL REACTIONS INVOLVED IN LIMESTONE
SCRUBBING OF SO
Ca
Reactions in the Absorber
Absorption
SO2 (gas) jat SO2 (aqueous)
(1)
CO2 (gas) CO2 (aqueous) ^ H2CO3
Desorption
(2)
HCO3 + SO2 (aqueous) + H2O ;=s H2CO3 + HSO3
(3)
H2C03 s=s C02 (gas) + HzO
(4)
Neutralization
HCO 3 + SO2 (aqueous) + H2O H2CO 3 + HSO 3
( 5)
SO3 + SO2 (aqueous) + H2O 5s 2HSO3
( 6)
CaC03 (solid) + 2S02 (aqueous) + 2H2O Ca++ + 2HSO3 + H2C03
(7)
Oxidation
HSO3 + 1/202 SO4 + H +
(8)
Precipitation
Ca++ + (]-x)S03 + XSO4 +1/2 H2O Ca(S03)1_x(S04)x- 1/2 H2D(solid)
(9)
Reactions in the Hold Tank
Dissolution and Desorption
+4- =
CaC03 (solid) + HSO3 ^ Ca + SO3 + HCO3
( 10)
HCO3 + HSO3 H2C03 + SO3
(11)
H2CO3 CO2 (aqueous) CO 2 (gas)
(12)
Oxidation
- — +
HSO3 + 1 / 202 «=* SO4 + H
(13)
Precipitation
++ =
Ca + SO4 + 2H2.0 ;=s CaS04.2H20 (solid)
f 14>
Ca++ + (l-x)S03 + (x)S04 + 1 /2H20 ^ Ca(S03) 1 -x (S04)x-1 /2H2O (solid)
(15)
5-10
-------
5. 2. 2 Reactions in the Hold Tank
Limestone also dissolves in the hold tank, causing calcium sulfite {as
a solid solution with calcium sulfate) to precipitate. Gypsum also pre-
cipitates in the hold tank if the gypsum saturation is greater than 100
percent (Reference 4).
5. 2. 3 Effect of High Stoichiometry
Stoichiometry is an important controllable variable in limestone scrub-
bing of S02- At high stoichiometry where the moles of CaCO3 add-
ed per mole of SO2 absorbed is greater than about 1. 3, CaCO3 dis-
solution occurs primarily in the absorber (Equation 7, Table 5-2
and Reference 5). For every mole of SO2 absorbed, 1/2 mole of Ca^
is released into the liquor. The Cacan precipitate in the hold tank
or in the scrubber as CaSC>3 (as a solid solution with calcium sulfate)
or CaSO^.
5.2.4 Effect of Low Stoichiometry
At low stoichiometry, (where the moles of CaCOj added per mole of
SC>2 absorbed are less than or equal to 1.1), CaSC^ dissolution in the
scrubber may occur, as in the lime system, and contribute to SOg re-
moval. The equation is (Reference 5):
CaSOs + S02 + HzO ^ Ca++ + 2HSO3
5-11
-------
According to this equation, twice as much Ca is released per mole
of SC>2 absorbed by the reaction of SO2 with CaSO^ than by the reac-
tion of SC>2 with CaCC>3. Therefore, slurry leaving the scrubber will
"b4"
have more dissolved Ca in it at low stoichiometry than at high stoi-
chiometry, as long as Ca^ precipitation in the absorber as gypsum
does not occur fast enough to reduce the Ca concentration to its
equilibrium value.
5. 2. 5 Effect of Forced Oxidation*
Since CaSO^ dissolution can be an important scrubbing mechanism at
low stoichiometry in the limestone system (and at normal stoichio-
metry in the lime system), forced oxidation of CaSOg to CaSO^ (by
sparging the hold tank with air, for example), which eliminates this
scrubbing mechanism, could result in low SO2 removal efficiencies.
Forced oxidation has been investigated at Research Triangle Park.
Preliminary results indicate that CO2 stripping caused by the air
sparging enhances limestone dissolution, and hence nullifies any
possible adverse effects on SO2 removal caused by forced oxidation.
* Forced oxidation represents any means external to the scrubber by
which essentially all of the CaSOg is oxidized to gypsum.
5-12
-------
EFFECT OF MAGNESIUM ON AQUEOUS ALKALINITY
In both lime and limestone scrubbing of SO2, aqueous alkaline species
(those ions that are a base to aqueous SO2), such as HCO3 and SO3
account for the SO2 removal achieved. If Ca^ is the only cation pre-
sent, the HCO^ and SO3 concentrations are fixed by the pH and the
-f-f-
Ca concentration (or more strictly speaking, the Ca activity)
according to the equilibria below, which are written to show the loss
of alkaline species as the forward reaction.
HCO 3 + H+ H2CO3 ( 5. 3)
++ =
Ca +SO3 ^CaS03(s) (5.4)
Ca++ + HCO3 ^ CaCO 3(s) + H+ (5. 5)
To increase the concentration of alkaline species, a cation that forms a
soluble sulfate or sulfite compound must be introduced. In addition,
the cations must be introduced in a soluble compound in combination
with sulfate or sulfite or with anions that are alkaline to SO2. Chloride
is not alkaline to S02- These criteria are summarized below:
• The cations must be introduced into the liquor with sul-
fite or sulfate as the anion, or the anion must be a base
to S02
Acceptable: MgS04, Na2C03, NaOH, MgO, NH3
Unacceptable: MgCl2, NaCl, CaCl2
5-13
-------
The cations and their sulfite and sulfate compounds must
be soluble within the scrubbing system
Good: MgSC>4, Na2S04, (NH4)2S04
Poor: A1203, Fe203
Examples are shown below to illustrate how some substances have
no effect on the concentration of alkaline species and how other sub-
stances increase the concentration of alkaline species.
No Major Effect on Alkaline Species Concentration
MgCl2(s) -»-Mg++ + 2C1~
+
NaCl(s) ->>Na + CI
Increases Alkaline Species Concentration
MgO(s) + H20 ->Mg++ + 20H~
++ — o
Mg + SO3 MgS03
S02 + 20H~ -~SO3 + H20
MgS04(s) ^ Mg++ + S04
SO4 + CaS03(s) CaS04(s) + SO3
Na2C03(s) —^-2Na + CO3
c°; -I- so2 5^ co2 + so;
Na SO (s) -»-2Na + + SO*
2 4 4
SO4 + CaS03(s) isfc CaS04(s) 4- S03
(5. 6)
(5.7)
(5. 8a)
(5. 8b)
(5. 8c)
(5. 9a)
(5. 9b)
(5. 10a)
(5. 10b)
(5. 11a)
(5. lib)
5-14
-------
In Equations 5. 8a through 5. lib, the alkaline species produced by add-
ing magnesium and sodium compounds that meet the above criteria
are OH , MgSOj, SO3, and CO3. Chloride (CI ) is not an alkaline
species; when MgCl2 and NaCl are added there is no major increase
in the concentration of alkaline species.
5. 3. 1 Effect of Chloride on Magnesium Activity
It has become common practice to use the concentration of "effective"
cations as a controllable variable, rather than the concentration of
alkaline anions. "Effective" cation concentration can be defined as:
(2>ifcil) . -(EM®,])
\ i /effective \ { /total > j /total
where brackets signify concentration, in g-moles/ liter, nj and n^ are
the number of equivalents per mole of the cations and the anions, [cj]
are the concentrations of the cations in the liquor, and [aj] are the
concentrations of inactive anions. Inactive anions are those anions other
than SO4, SO3, HCO3, CO3, and OH . In most lime/limestone systems,
chloride ion is the only inactive anion in significant concentrations.
If magnesium is the only added cation (added as MgO or MgS04, for
example) and chloride is the only inactive anion, the equation simpli-
fies to:
2 [Mg++] = 2 [Mg++] - [CI"]
effective total
5-15
-------
when
[Cl~]>2 [Mg++] , then [Mg++] = 0
total effective
If the Mg++ and CI" concentrations are expressed in ppm, the equations
become:
(Mg++)
= (MgH) - (Cl~)/2. 92
effective
total
= 0for(Mg++) <(Cl")/2. 92
total
5. 3. 2 Effect of Chloride on pH and SO? Removal
At a constant stoichiometric ratio (i. e. , constant moles of limestone
or lime added per mole of SC>2 absorbed), increasing the chloride con-
centration can reduce the equilibrium pH, as well as reduce the liquor
alkalinity (the effective magnesium ion concentration). One explanation
for this effect is the following. As the CI concentration increases,
(by absorption of HC1 from the flue gas for example), the Ca con-
centration increases (Reference 5), The Ca^ concentration is related
to the CO3 concentration according to the equation:
(Ca++) (CO3) = K
constant (5.12a)
CaC03
The CO3 concentration is related to the H concentration (at constant
5-16
-------
CC>2 and SC>2 partial pressure) by the equation:
(H+)2(CO^) = K x p = constant (5.12b)
h2co3 co2
++ =
So, as Ca concentration increases, CO3 concentration decreases
(to keep their product constant). The H"*" concentration must then in-
crease (that is, the pH must decrease) in accordance with Equation
5. 12b.
To raise the pH again to where it would be without the chloride, addi-
tional limestone (or lime) is required. At a constant scrubber inlet
liquor pH, S02 removal should therefore increase with increasing
chloride concentration. This increased SO2 removal is not directly
caused by the CI concentration, but is rather a result of the higher
limestone stoichiometry when chloride is present at the same pH.
5. 3. 3 Effect of Added Effective Cations on CaSO-* and CaCO-^
Equilibria
Adding effective cations to the slurry can affect SO2 removal through
liquor equilibria. When the concentration of effective cations in-
creases, the concentration of sulfate ions increases. For given levels
of CaS04, CaSC>3, and CaC03 saturation, SO4 influences soluble
5-17
-------
alkali via the following equilibria (Reference 15):
CaS03(s) + SO4 ^ CaS04(s) + S03 (5.13)
CaC03(s) + C02 + H2.0 + SO4 ^ CaS04(s) + 2HCO3 (5.14)
The concentrations of alkaline species SO3 and HCO3 are thus pro-
portional to the sulfate concentration by the following equations:
[S03]<[SC*](* /Y >
3 4
[HCO3] ^ [so>co2) (,Caco / V )
3 4
where:
^CaSO ' ^CaSO ' "^CaCO = re^a^ve saturation of the species shown
3 4 3
pCC>2 = partial pressure of CO2 over the solution
In summary, effective magnesium (and presumably other cations) can
increase the concentration of sulfate in solution, thereby increasing
the concentration of aqueous alkali, and subsequently increasing SO2
removal at equivalent operating conditions. Alternatively, effective
magnesium can be used to increase alkali utilization at equivalent
SO2 removal (Reference 3).
5.3.4 Effect of pH on Liquor Alkalinity
At the normal operating pH range of 7.0 to 8.0 in lime systems, the
5-18
-------
liquor sulfite species is predominately SO 3., and not HSO3, because
of the high pH. The distribution of SC>2(aclueous), HSO3, and SO3, as
well as the distribution of H2CO3, HCO3, and CO3 in solution as a
function of pH are shown in Figure 5-1.
In the limestone system, the sulfite is in the bisulfite form because
of the low operating pH range of 4. 5 to 6.0 in the scrubber. How-
ever, the total sulfite concentration is about the same as in the
lime system. The following equilibrium illustrates this:
++ =
CaS03(s) Ca + SO 3
Sulfite concentration is dependent on Ca*+ concentration and indepen-
dent of pH according to this equilibrium.
Adding magnesium sulfate increases sulfite concentration (as the ion
pair MgSO°) via a pH independent equilibrium:
Mg++ + SO^ + CaS03(s)^ MgSO° + CaS04(s)
This effect of magnesium is illustrated by using the Bechtel Modified
Radian Equilibrium Computer Program (Reference 12). At a given
++
effective Mg concentration, the aqueous alkalinity due to sulfite
species is calculated to be approximately the same for lime slurry
as limestone slurry, as is shown in Table 5-3. At 6000 ppm effective
5-19
-------
PH
pH
Figure 5-1. Bisulfite-Sulfite Distribution and Bicarbonate
Distribution as a Function of pH
5-20
-------
Table 5-3
EFFECT OF MAGNESIUM ON AQUEOUS ALKALINITY
Alkali
Mg++,
ppm
pH
pco2,
atm
(a)
Aqueous Alkalinity,
mmole/1
Limestone
0
5. 2
0. 12
1. 66
Limestone
0
5. 5
0. 12
1. 68
Limestone
0
5. 8
0. 12
1. 69
Limestone
3000
5. 2
0. 12
5. 89
Limestone
3000
5. 5
0. 12
6. 21
Limestone
3000
5.8
0. 12
6.41
Limestone
6000
5. 2
0. 12
10. 86
Limestone
6000
5. 5
0. 12
11. 27
Limestone
6000
5. 8
0. 12
11. 49
Limestone
9000
5. 2
0. 12
16. 24
Limestone
9000
5. 5
0. 12
16.78
Limestone
9000
5. 8
0. 12
17.04
Lime
6000
6. 9
0.0003
11. 78
Lime
6000
7.4
0.0003
11. 79
Lime
6000
7.9
0.0003
11. 78
Note: The liquor is saturated with CaSOo, and CaS04 (gypsum) but not
with CaC03.
Liquor temperature: 50° C
No chloride ions are present.
(a) Figured as [SO3] + [CaS03] + [MgS03]. The concentration of HCO3 is
negligible under these conditions.
5-21
-------
magnesium, the aqueous alkalinity (or ^aj) defined as the sum
of the concentrations of sulfite, calcium sulfite ion pair, and magne-
sium sulfite ion pair) is 11. 49 mmole/liter at pH 5. 8 in the limestone
system, and 11. 78 at pH 7. 9 in the lime system.
5. 3. 5 Effect of Magnesium Addition at Shawnee - An Illustration
The effect of magnesium on the total sulfite concentration in lime
slurry at Shawnee can be seen in Figure 5-2. [SO3] is plotted
total
against [Mg ]/[Ca ] to illustrate the relationships:
[SO3] = Kj/fCaSOgl/tCa^"1"] = K1'/tCa++]
[MgSO°] = [SOf][Mg++]/K2
= K; [Mg++]/K2[Ca++]
o
where [CaSOg] is assumed to be constant, and Kj and K2 are equili-
brium constants.
The observed effect of the aqueous alkalinity [SO3] on S02
total
removal is shown in Figure 5-3. At 3000 ppm S02 (inlet), the removal
predicted by Figures 5-2 and 5-3 is 68 percent at 240 ppm sulfite
(Mg++effective = 2000 ppm, Mg/Ca = 5) and 91 percent at 1200 ppm
sulfite (Mg++ effective = 2000 ppm, Mg/Ca = 40). The Mg/Ca ratio
(wt. percent Mg++ in the liquor/wt. percent Ca** in the liquor) is
affected primarily by gypsum saturation, which is almost unpre-
5-22
-------
2,000
1,000 --
E
&
. o
400 ¦¦
200 -
100
LEGEND
SYMBOL
RUN NUMBER
~
632-1A
A
641-1A
O
630-1A
~
643-1A
•
642-1A
Mg
SO 3 (ppm) - 80 + 32 • —
° .Jt.
10 20
Mg/Ca (wt % / wt %)
Figure 5-2. Total Sulfite Concentration [SOT] in Lime Scrubbing
as a function of the ratio of Mg concentration to Ca
Concentration (Mg/Ca)
5-23
-------
[SO'gly /pSC>2 ,NLET (moles/1- atm)
Figure 5-3. Effect of the ratio of Total Sulfite Concentration
[S031T to SO^ Concentration (PgQ ) on SO^
Removal - Spray Tower with Lime for Runs 632-1A
and 641-1A
5-24
-------
dictable except that at sulfite oxidations above about 12 to 15 per-
cent the slurry liquor at Shawnee will usually be saturated with
respect to gypsum.
5.4 EFFECT OF MAGNESIUM ON SULFITE OXIDATION
AND GYPSUM SATURATION
As yet, there is no general understanding of the effect of magnesium
on sulfite oxidation and gypsum saturation. One can, however, say
that (Reference 11):
• The increase in total dissolved solids introduced by adding
magnesium increases the potential for oxygen mass trans-
fer (by decreasing the average droplet size inside the
absorber) but decreases oxygen solubility
As a result, oxidation can either increase (owing to the
enhanced oxygen mass transfer) or decrease (owing to the
lower oxygen solubility at the high ionic strength), or stay
the same (if these two effects cancel each other)
• The sulfite concentration increases when the effective mag-
nesium concentration increases. Oxidation should increase
if sulfite ions participate in the rate determining step
• The increase in the concentration of sulfite and sulfate
introduced by adding magnesium depresses the Ca++ con-
centration a.nd can cause unexpected gypsum scaling in the
absorber
If because of the addition of magnesium, enough alkalinity
is present in the liquor to absorb all of the S02-, there
should be no gypsum saturation increase across the scrub-
ber. However, since Ca is suppressed by magnesium
and will be at a low value in the slurry at the scrubber inlet,
if CaS0 3 or CaC0 3 dissolves in the scrubber, there can be
a greatincrease in gypsum saturation across the scrubber.
This can result in unexpected scaling
5-25
-------
Higher effective magnesium increases SO2 removal. Thus,
at a constant oxidation rate, the fraction of SO2 oxidized
should be less when more effective magnesium is present
in the slurry because more S02 is introduced into the
slurry per unit time
5-26
-------
Section 6
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER FACTORIAL TEST RESULTS
From February through April 1976, a series of 133 (6 to 8-hour) lime-
stone, lime, and limestone/MgO factorial tests were conducted on the
venturi/spray tower system. Seven lime/MgO factorial tests had pre-
viously been made on the venturi/spray tower during November 1974.
The venturi scrubber and the spray tower were tested independently to
observe the effect on SO2 removal of operating at different values of
the major operating variables. Correlations of these data are pre-
sented in Section 14. The test results are presented in this section.
6.1 TEST DESCRIPTION
The term factorial tests as used here is defined as a specific set
of runs of short duration, the operating time for each run being the
minimum time to reach and hold steady state for 6 hours with respect
to flow rate, SO2 removal, and liquor (but not solid) composition.
A complete factorial set would include every possible combination of
6-1
-------
independent variables (e.g., gas rate, liquor rate, effective dis-
solved magnesium ion concentration) thought to affect the dependent
variable (e.g., SC>2 removal). For example, a complete factorial
set designed to cover 5 independent variables with 3 operating levels
5
per variable would require 3 or 243 tests. Because of time limi-
tations, complete factorial sets were impossible.
The Shawnee tests were designed as partial factorial sets with test
conditions picked to obtain the maximum amount of information in
the relatively small number of runs possible. Each partial factorial
set had at least three specific values for each independent variable.
Several replicate runs were made in each factorial set to determine
any time trends in the data. However, practical operating considera-
tions require that some tests be grouped (e.g., high magnesium
ion concentration in the slurry liquor). The Shawnee factorial tests
were run in an order that represented a compromise between statis-
tical randomness and operating convenience.
6.2 DATA QUALITY
A number of measures weretakento ensure the bestpossible data from
the Shawnee factorial runs. The major problems resulted from the
difficulty of maintaining steady state conditions in the flue gas, par-
6-2
-------
ticularly the inlet SO2 concentration. This difficulty is inherent in
a test facility attached to an operating power station.
To minimize variation in the inlet flue gas SO2 concentration, coal
from only one source (Old Ben No. 24 Mine) was selected to be burned
in Boiler No. 10 during the 1976 factorial testing. The inlet SO 2
concentration varied from 2500 to 3000 ppm with this coal. However,
during the last half of the limestone/MgO testing the supply of Old
Ben No. 24 coal was exhausted, and the inlet SO2 concentration range
increased to 2500 to 3 500 ppm with the new coal.
For most of the factorial tests, the coal had an unexpectedly high
chloride content; liquor chloride-ion concentrations ranged from 9000
to 15,000 ppm rather than the previously normal range of 2000 to
6000 ppm. These high chloride concentrations may account for the
difference in removal observed between the factorial data and earlier
long-term test data. The effect of chloride on SO2 removal is dis-
cussed in Sections 5 and 14.
Data values discussed in this section have been averaged for the
steady-state operating portion of each test. The steady state period
was taken to be that part of the test during which the controlled
operating variables (e.g., slurry flow rate, scrubber gas velocity,
scrubber inlet liquor pH, dissolved magnesium concentration) and
the SO2 removal were essentially constant.
6-3
-------
Also, a number of runs were repeated. These replicate runs showed
good agreement. SO2 removals were within 6 percentage points of
each other for each replicate pair.
No attempt was made to monitor scale buildup, corrosion or other
essentially long-term phenomena during the factorial runs, as such
data would be of doubtful quality from short tests.
6. 3 LIMESTONE TESTING
Data from the 42 limestone factorial tests on the venturi scrubber
and on the spray tower system are given in Table 6-1.
6. 3. 1 Venturi Scrubber Limestone Results
Fifteen limestone factorial tests were performed on the venturi
scrubber. In these tests no slurry was pumped to the spray tower.
Independent variables tested with the venturi limestone system were:
• Gas flow rate
• Slurry recirculation rate
• Scrubber inlet liquor pH
• Venturi pressure drop
6-4
-------
Table 6-1
SUMMARY OF LIMESTONE FACTORIAL TESTS ON THE
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
a*
¦
U1
Liquor Rate,
ST
L/G,
Press. Drop,
Scrubber
Inlet
Scrubber
Inlet SC>2
Percent
No. of
Spray
Run
Gas
Rate,
gpm
Gas
Vel.,
gal/Mcf
in. h2o
Liquor pH
Outlet
Liquor
Cone., ppm
Removal
Headers
Replicate
Number
tcfm
V
ST
ft f see
V
ST
V
ST
Range
| Avg.
pH
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
-US£d -
Niimhp r
VST101
27500
145
0
7.4
6.6
0
2.2
2.0
5.72-5.85
5.78
2920-2960
2933
6- 8
7
0
A
VSTX02
27500
150
0
7.4
6.8
0
2.4
1.7
5.17-5.29
5.21
2860-2900
2887
0- 3
2
0
VST103
27500
150
0
7.4
6.8
0
2.2
1.8
5.40-5.52
5.48
2840-2900
2868
0- 2
1
0
VSTI04
27500
140
0
7.4
6.3
0
1.8
2.5
5.60-5.77
5.67
4.95
2900-2920
2907
4- 6
5
0
A
VST105
35000
300
0
9.4
10.7
0
8.8
4.3
5.75-5.89
5.81
2900-3000
2950
32-40
35
0
VST106
20000
600
0
5.4
37.4
0
9.1
1.1
5.75-5.83
5.79
2720-2760
2740
43-43
43
0
B
VST107
35000
600
0
9.4
21.4
0
9.1
4.6
5.73-5.83
5.77
2760-2840
2811
40-45
42
0
VST188
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.0
2.6
S.7tf-3.8B
5.82
2560-2800
2654
47-49
48
0
C
VST109
20000
600
0
5.4
37.4
0
9.1
1.3
5.71-5.79
5.76
2520-2760
2651
46-49
47
0
B
VST110
20000
300
0
5.4
18.7
0
8.8
1.0
5.73-5.77
5.75
2760-2800
2794
31-32
32
0
VST111
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
6.0
2.5
5.62-5.70
5.67
2720-2880
2800
36-38
37
0
VST112
27500
608
0
7.4
27.2
0
11.9
2.5
5.49-5.69
5.62
2440-2720
2553
45-47
46
0
VST113
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.0
2.4
5.69-5.78
5.73
2640-2680
2657
41-43
42
0
C
VST114
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.1
2.5
5.33-5.60
5.53
2640-2680
2663
32-41
37
0
VST115
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
8.8
2.5
5.11-5.26
5.20
2740-2840
2780
20-29
25
0
VST116
35000
145
1125
9.4
5.2
40
4.0
4.0
5.81-5.88
5.84
2480-2600
2543
72-73
72
3(1,3,4)
VST117
35000
150
750
9.4
5.3
27
2.7
4.0
5.76-5.82
5.80
4.97
2760-2800
2773
54-60
58
2(3,4)
D
VST118
20000
145
1500
5.4
9.0
94
1.1
2.1
5.67-5.83
5.75
3140-3200
3164
86-89
88
4
E
VST119
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.4
2.9
5.62-5.94
5.83
2500-2660
2569
73-78
76
3(1,3,4)
r
VST12#
20000
150
1125
5.4
9.3
70
2.3
1.5
5.77-5.81
5.79
2600-2660
2626
77-81
79
3(1,3,4)
VST121
35000
145
750
9.4
5.2
27-
3.1
4.1
5.73-5.85
5.81
2520-2720
2629
57-60
59
2(3,4)
p
VST122
27500
140
1500
7.4
6.3
68
1.7
3.2
5.78-5.85
5.81
2840-3000
2928
79-80
80
4
VSTX23
35000
140
1500
9.4
5.8
53
3.5
4.4
5.67-5.90
5.80
3080-3200
3122
70-77
74
4
VST124
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.9
2.9
5.72-5.90
5.83
2520-2600
2554
74-80
78
3(1,3,4)
F
WST125
20000
145
750
5.4
9.0
47
1.0
1.8
5.75-5.80
5.78
2660-2840
2771
68-69
68
2(3,4)
VST126
20000
145
1500
5.4
9.0
94
1.2
1.7
5.77-5.89
5.83
2800-3000
2900
89-91
90
4
E
VST127
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.2
3.4
5.78-5.85
5,82
4.90
2600-2680
2633
63-67
65
2(3,4)
H
VST128
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
1.9
2.4
5.48-5.60
5,54
5.02
2480-2600
2530
66-69
67
3(1,3,4)
VST129
27500
145
1500
7.4
6.6
68
2.2
3.1
5.44-5.61
5.51
2920-3000
2947
72-75
73
4
VST130
27500
145
1500
7.4
6.6
68
2.7
2.5
5.04-5.35
5.16
2740-2900
2823
62-71
66
4
G
VST131
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.8
2.8
5.03-5.40
5.17
2600-2680
2648
54-58
56
3(1,3,4)
VST132
27500
140
1500
7.4
6.3
68
2.2
3.3
5.08-5.30
5.21
5.11
2480-2600
2537
65-70
67
4
G
VST134
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
3.0
2.6
5.74-5.81
5.78
4.98
2680-2760
2717
60-61
60
2(3,4)
H
VST136
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.1
2.5
5.98-6.05
6.02
4.98
3000-3040
3020
67-72
69
2(1,2)
VST137
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.0
2.6
5.78-5.85
5.81
2520-2680
2580
62-65
63
2(1,4)
VST138
27500
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
2.0
2.9
5.60-5.74
5.68
4.93
3040-3080
3065
65-68
66
4
I
VST139
27500
150
1125
7.4
6.8
51
3.2
2.8
5.72-5.82
5.78
2440-2640
2535
72-74
73
3(1,3,4)
F
VST140
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.2
2-7
5.71-6.02
5.75
5.06
2680-2800
2738
66-71
68
4
I
VST141
27500
150
780
7.4
6.8
35
2.0
2.6
5.81-6.63
5.99
2420-2800
2610
70-73
72
2(3,4)
VST142
27 500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.9
2.6
5.14-5.26
5.20
4.57
2660-2740
2683
42-46
43
2(3,4)
VST143
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
1.9
2.6
5.44-5.56
5.50
4.84
2320-2640
2480
50-56
52
2(3,4)
VST144
27500
150
750
7.4
6.8
34
2.0
2.6
5.87-5.91
5.89
2640-2720
2673
69-70
70
2(3,4)
-------
The effect of scrubber inlet liquor pH on percent SO2 removal by
the venturi scrubber operating with a pressure drop of 9 inches of
HjjO and a liquid-to-gas ratio of 27 gal/Mcf is shown in Figure 6-1.
The data show an increase in SO2 removal with increasing pH.
Figure 6-2illustrates the effects of slurry and gas flow rates on per-
cent SO2 removal by the venturi scrubber at 9 inches pressure drop
and constant scrubber inlet liquor pH. The data indicate that percent
removal increases with increasing slurry flow rate but changes only
slightly with a change in gas rate. In Figure 6-3 the data are replot-
ted to show the increase in SO2 removal with increasing liquid-to-gas
ratio.
Figure 6-4 shows the effect of pressure drop on SO2 removal by the
venturi scrubber at a liquid-to-gas ratio of 27 gal/Mcf. The data
show an increase in percent SO2 removal with increasing pressure
drop. This effect is weaker for lime scrubbing in the venturi at a
pH of 8.0 (see Figure 6-11).
6. 3. 2 Spray Tower Limestone Results
Twenty seven limestone factorial tests were performed on the spray
tower. Spray-tower-only runs were made with a minimum pressure
drop in the venturi of about 2 inches of H2O and a minimum slurry
6-6
-------
10 •»
6.0
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,440-2,880 ppm
LIQUID - TO • GAS RATIO - 27 gal/Mcf
VENTURI AP-9 in. H20
GAS FLOW RATE ¦ 27,500 acfm @ 330° F
1
1 1—
5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
6.0
Figure 6-1. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH on SC^
Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Limestone
6-7
-------
70
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION - 2,650 - 2,950 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 5.7-5.8
VENTURI AP = 9 in.
60 + SLURRY FLOW RATE, gal/min. SYMBOL
600
300
O
A
50 •-
<
>
i
Ui
K
cm 40
8
t-
z
u>
c
K
30 -•
20
10
20,000 27,600
GAS FLOW RATE, acfm 9 330 °F
35,000
Figure 6-2. Effect of Slurry and Gas Flow Rates on SO^
Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Limestone
6-8
-------
60
50 ¦¦
1 40
2
ui
cc
CM
8
Ui
o
cc
30 --
20 -•
10 ¦¦
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION - 2,650 - 2,950 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH - 5.7- 5.8
VENTURI AP-9in.H20
+
GAS FLOW RATE,
acfro O 330 °F
38,000
27,500
20,000
(
SYMBOL
O
A
~
10 20 30 40
VENTURI LIQUID-TO-GAS RATIO, gal/Met
50
Figure 6-3. Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Gas Flow
Rate on SO^ Removal -
Limestone
Venturi Scrubber with
6-9
-------
60
t 1 1 1 r
50
O (5.8)
<
>
o
s
UJ
CC
CM
40 ¦¦
(5.6)
(5.7)
Z
UJ
o
CC
UJ
a.
30 -•
20 •
10
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,550-2,800 ppm
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO = 27 gal/Mcf
GAS FLOW RATE » 27,500 acfm @ 330° F
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH IN PARENTHESES
-4-
4-
6 7 8 9 10 11
VENTURI AP, in. H20
12
13
Figure 6-4. Effect of Venturi Pressure Drop on SO Removal
Venturi Scrubber with Limestone
6-10
-------
flow rate of about 150 gpm to the venturi to cool the inlet flue gas.
At these conditions, SO2 removal in the venturi was less than 5 per-
cent (see Runs VST-101 through VST-104, Table 6-1). With such low
venturi removal, the spray tower removal differs from the total sys-
tem removal by about 1 percentage point or less. For this reason,
the effects of the venturi were neglected in evaluating spray-tower-
only runs.
Independent variables tested with the spray tower limestone system
were:
• Gas flow rate
• Slurry recirculation rate
• Scrubber inlet liquor pH
• Number of spray headers
• Spray nozzle pressure drop
Figure 6-5 illustrates the effects of scrubber inlet liquor pH and of
liquid-to-gas ratio on percent SO2 removal in the spray tower at a
superficial gas velocity of 7.4 ft/sec. SO2 removal increases with
increasing pH and with increasing liquid-to-gas ratio.
* Gas velocity is calculated at scrubber temperature (nominally 125°F).
The spray tower cross-sectional area is 50 square feet.
6-11
-------
100 1 1 1
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION « 2,480 - 3,065 ppm
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY - 7.4 ft/sac
90
80 •-
<
>
0c
n 70
s
H
Z
Ui
u
cc
60 --
50
LIQUID-TO-GAS
RATIO, gal/Mcf
68
51
34
OPERATING
SPRAY HEADERS SYMBOL
(1,2,3,4) O
(1.3,4) A
(shown in parentheses) ~
40 ¦¦
30
5.0
+
+
5.2 5.4 5.6
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
5.8
6.0
Figure 6-5. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquid-to-
Gas Ratio on SC^ Removal - Spray Tower with
Limestone
6-12
-------
Figure 6-6 shows the effects on percent SO2 removal when gas rate
and slurry rate are varied independently. SO2 removal is enhanced
by increasing slurry rate or decreasing gas rate, (This compares
with a slight increase in removal with increasing gas rate in the TCA.
See Figure 9-2). It should be noted that liquid-to-gas ratio is changed
when either slurry or gas rate is changed independently. The drop
in SO2 removal as gas is increased reflects the resulting decrease
in liquid-to-gas ratio.
Figure 6-7 shows the increase in percent SO2 removal with liquid-to-
gas ratio at a scrubber inlet liquor pH of 5. 8 and a consant super-
ficial gas velocity of 7.4 ft/sec. Also shown is the effect of nozzle
pressure drop and the number of headers. At a liquid-to-gas ratio
of 50 gal/Mcf, SO2 removal increased by about 8 percentage points
when the nozzle pressure drop was increased from 7.9 to 14.3 psi
by decreasing the number of spray headers from four (1,2,3, and 4
counting from the bottom up) to three (1,3, and 4).
6.4 LIME TESTING
Data from the 42 lime factorial tests on the venturi scrubber and on
the spray tower system are given in Table 6-2.
6-13
-------
t r
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION «
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
2,540 - 3,160 ppm
¦ 5.7-5.8
5.0
6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY, ft/*c
10.0
Figure 6-6. Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate
on SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone
6-14
-------
t r
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,540-2,930 ppm
GAS VELOCITY = 7.4 ft/sec
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 5.8
OPERATING SPRAY HEADERS IN PARENTHESES
APPROX. NOZZLE A P, psi SYMBOL
12.5 - 14.3
7.9
o
~
o'1,3,4)
(1,3,4)
~ (1,2,3,4)
~ (1,2,3,4)
(1,2,3,4)
50 60
LIQUID - TO • GAS RATIO, gal/Mel
Figure 6-7. Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Spray Nozzle
Pressure Drop on SO2 Removal - Spray Tower
with Limestone
6-15
-------
Table 6-2
SUMMARY OF LIME FACTORIAL TESTS ON THE
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
I
Liquor Rate,
ST
L/G
Presi
. Drop,
Scrubbe
r Inlet
Scrubber
Inlet SO,
Percent
No. of
Run
Gas
Rate,
gpm
Gas
VeL,
gal/Mcf
in.
h2o
Liquor pH
Outlet
Liquor
Cone. ,
ppm
Removal
Spray-
Headers
Replicate
Number
acfm
V
ST
ft/sec
V
ST
V
ST
Range
Avg.
pH
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
Used
Number
VST001
27500
135
0
7.4
6.1
0
1.5
1.9
8.64-9.11
8.96
4.87
2560-2880
2720
6-12
9
0
VST002
27500
135
0
7.4
6.1
0
1.3
2.0
7.97-8.31
8.13
5.13
2514-2560
2529
4- 7
5
0
A
VST003
27500
160
0
7.4
7.2
0
2.1
1.1
5.91-5.91
5.91
2760-2760
2760
4- 4
4
0
VST004
27500
135
0
7.4
6.1
0
2.0
1.8
7.96-8.18
8.09
2400-2440
2432
2- 9
5
0
A
VST005
35000
300
0
9.4
10.7
0
9.0
3.7
7.85-8.07
7.97
4.92
2480-2800
2680
21-24
21
0
VST006
20000
600
0
5.4
37,4
0
9.1
1.8
7.93-8.15
8.02
2680-2720
2704
43-45
44
0
B
VST007
35000
600
0
9.4
21.4
0
9.2
4.5
7.98-8.14
8.08
4.95
2600-2800
2714
30-35
32
0
VST008
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.1
2.5
7.96-8.26
8.11
4.70
2520-2600
2580
37-40
39
0
C
VST009
20000
600
0
5.4
37.4
0
8.8
1.0
7.99-8.27
8.08
2400-2600
2474
42-46
45
0
B
VST010
20000
300
0
5.4
16.7
0
8.3
0.6
8.04-8.18
8.10
2480-2600
2520
25-31
28
0
VSTflll
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
5.9
0.9
7.61-8.29
8.02
4.38
2520-2180
2676
28-34
31
0
VST012
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
12.2
2.2
7.93-8.12
8.01
4.45
2600-2800
2703
34-36
35
0
VST013
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.0
2.1
7.93-8.32
8.13
4.78
2720-2840
2773
31-35
34
0
C
VST014
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.1
2.4
6.98-7.15
7.09
2640-2800
2677
31-35
32
0
VST015
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.0
2.0
8.95-9.08
9.03
4.98
2760-2960
2856
45-48
46
0
VST016
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.2
2.1
7.68-8.28
8.05
2600-2920
2760
31-38
36
0
C
VST017
35000
140
1125
9.4
5.0
40
3.4
3.. a
7.72-8.26
8.05
4.67
2800-3000
2949
70-75
73
3(1,3/4)
VST018
35000
145
750
9.4
5.2
27
3.1
3.0
7.80-8.13
7.96
2480-2640
2531
57-59
58
2(3,4)
D
VST019
20000
140
1500
5.4
8.7
94
1.2
1.7
7 .93-8.30
8.10
4.80
2920-3100
2997
95-96
95
4
E
VST020
27500
14 5
1125
7 .4
6.6
51
2.1
2.3
7.90-8.12
8 .02
2760-2840
2800
82-85
84
3(1,3,4*
F
VST021
20000
145
1125
5.4
9.0
70
1.4
1.4
7.97-8.11
8.04
5.03
2600-2800
2727
89-91
90
3(1,3,4)
VST022
35000
140
750
9.4
5.0
27
3.2
3.4
7.95-8.20
8.08
4.64
2480-2560
2514
56-61
59
2(3,4)
D
VST023
27500
140
1500
7.4
6.3
68
1.9
2.4
7.85-8.18
8.01
2827-3041
2907
86-89
87
4
VST024
35000
150
1500
9.4
5.3
53
3.6
4.0
7.89-8.18
8.05
4.76
2867-2997
2917
74-79
77
4
VST025
27500
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
2.2
2.6
7.99-8.19
8.08
2600-2680
2640
81-85
82
3(1,3,4)
F
VST026
20000
140
750
5.4
8.7
47
1.2
1.3
7.81-8.32
8.05
2440-2560
2483
74-78
77
2(3,4)
VST027
20000
140
1500
5.4
8.7
94
1.1
1.7
7.93-8.20
8.04
3056-3180
3132
95-96
95
4
E
VST028
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.1
1.9
8.00-8.07
8.03
2600-2720
2646
63-66
65
2(3,4)
H
VST029
27500
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
2.0
2.8
6.53-6.98
6.78
2560-2680
2632
70-72
71
3(1,3,4)
VST030
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.3
2.5
9.04-9.10
9.08
6.50
2560-2720
2640
94-96
95
3(1,3,4)
K
VST031
27500
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
2.7
2.3
5.99-6.30
6.11
4.72
2600-2640
2623
66-68
67
3(1,3,4)
G
VST032
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.1
2.7
8-06-8.15
8.08
2600-2680
2640
79-82
81
3(1,3,4)
F
VST033
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.3
2.4
5.90-6.10
6.00
2520-2680
2595
63-68
67
3(1,3,4)
G
VST035
27500
140
750
7.4
6.3
34
1.9
2.3
7.91-8.07
8.01'
2560-2640
2593
65-67
65
2(3,4)
H
VST037
27500
140
750
7.4
6.3
34
2.1
2.1
7.82-8.52
8.20
4.80
2800-2860
2816
67-73
69
2(1,2)
VST039
27500
150
750
7.4
6.8
34
2.0
2.2
8.02-8.34
8.24
2600-2680
2630
72-80
75
2(1,4)
VSTB40
27500
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
2.2
2.1
7.84-8.12
8.01
4.91
2820-3020
2947
68-75
73
4
J
VST041
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.1
2.6
7.90-8.20
8.05
4.81
2400-2520
2457
82-86
85
3(1,3,4)
F
VST042
27500
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
2.0
2.6
7.89-8.31
8.06
4.70
2800-2920
2846
69-74
71
4
J
VST044
35000
600
1200
9.4
21.4
43
9.3
4.8
7.79-8.32
8.05
2848-2981
2926
79-82
80
4
VST045
35000
150
0
9 4
5.3
0
3.1
2.8
8.01-8.13
8.04
2640-2840
2749
1- 5
3
0
VST047
27500
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
2.2
2.2
8.90-9.17
9.07
2400-2600
2484
95-98
97
3(1,3,4)
K
-------
6.4. 1 Venturi Scrubber Lime Results
Seventeen lime factorial tests were run on the venturi scrubber (no
slurry flow to the spray tower). Independent variables tested with
the venturi lime system were:
• Gas flow rate
• Slurry recirculation rate
• Scrubber inlet liquor pH
• Venturi pressure drop
Percent SO2 removal by the venturi scrubber increases with increas-
ing scrubber inlet liquor pH. Figure £>-8 shows this effect at 9 inches
of H2O pressure drop across the venturi and at a liquid-to-gas ratio
of 27 gal/Mcf.
Figure 6-9 shows the effects on SO2 removal in the venturi scrubber
when slurry and gas flow rates are varied independently. SO2 re-
moval is enhanced by increasing slurry rate or decreasing gas rate
(either o£ which increases liquid-to-gas ratio). The data are xeplotted
in Figure 6-10 to illustrate the positive effect of liquid-to-gas ratio
on percent SO2 removal. The figure also shows that a change in gas
rate at constant liquid-to-gas ratio appears to have little effect on
SO2 removal.
6-17
-------
60
50 ¦
<
>
O
s
UJ
cc
CM
O
C/J
t-
z
LU
a
cc
40
30
20
10
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,580-2,860 ppm
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO = 27 gal/Mcf
VENTURI AP = 9 in. H20
GAS FLOW RATE = 27,500 acfm @ 330° F
6.0
—h-
7.0
8.0
H—
9.0
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
10.0
Figure 6-8. Effect of Scrubber Inlet i_.iquor pH on SO^
Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Lime
6-18
-------
10 -¦
1 ,
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,580 - 2,860 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET HQUOR pH - 8.0 - 8.1
VENTURI A P = 9in. H20
300
9®//m
in
+-
20,000
+
27,500
GAS FLOW RATE, acfm @ 330° F
+
35,000
Figure 6-9. Effect of Slurry and Gas Flow Rates on SO£ Re-
moval - Venturi Scrubber with Lime
6-19
-------
60
50 --
8
H
Z
UJ
U
DC
1 1 1
SOz INLET CONCENTRATION - 2,580 - 2,860 ppm
SCRUBBER LIQUOR INLET pH = 8.0-8.1
VENTURI A P = 9 in. H20
GAS FLOW RATE,
acfm @ 330 °F
<
> 40
O
s
LU
cc
CM
30 --
20 -¦
SYMBOL
35,000
27,500
20,000
10
10 20 30 40
VENTURI LIQUID-TO-GAS RATIO, gal/Mcf
50
Figure 6-10. Effect of Liquid-to«Gas Ratio and Gas Flow Rate
on SC>2 Removal - Venturi Scrubber with Lime
6-20
-------
Figure 6-11 shows that percent SO2 removal increases only slightly
with increasing pressure drop at a liquid-to-gas ratio of 27 gal/Mcf.
The effect is much stronger with limestone addition at a pH of 5. 7
than with lime at a pH of 8.0 (see Figure 6-4).
6.4.2 Spray Tower Lime Results
Twenty-five spray-tower-only tests were run with a minimum pres-
sure drop across the venturi and a minimum (150 gpm) slurry flow
rate to the venturi, as discussed in Subsection 6,3.2. Independent
variables tested with the spray tower lime system were:
• Gas flow rate
• Slurry recirculation rate
• Scrubber inlet liquor pH
• Number of spray headers
• Spray nozzle pressure drop
Figure 6-12 shows that percent SO2 removal is enhanced with increas-
ing scrubber inlet liquor pH and increasing liquid-to-gas ratio.
Figure 6-13 shows the results of tests in which nozzle pressure drops
and the configuration of the operating spray headers were varied. SO2
removal was enhanced by about 10 percentage points when the nozzle
6-21
-------
60
50 •"
<
> 40
O
CM
O
t—
z
UJ
u
DC
30
20
10 ••
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,580-2,770 ppm
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO = 27 gal/Mcf
GAS FLOW RATE = 27,500 acfm @ 330° F
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 8.0-8.1
-4-
6
8 9 10
VENTURI AP, in. H20
-4-
11
12
13
Figure 6-11. Effect of Venturi Pressure
Venturi Scrubber with Lime
Drop on SO^ Removal
6-22
-------
1 1 1
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION - 2,460 - 2,950 ppm
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY - 7.4 ft/iec
LIQUID-TO-GAS OPERATING
RATIO, gal/Mcf SPRAY HEADERS
68 (1,2,3,4)
51 (1,3,4)
34 (shown in parentheses)
SYMBOL
~ (1.2)
(3,4)Ql(3,4)
60
5.0
+
6.0 7.0 8.0
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
9.0
10.0
Figure 6-12. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquid-
to-Gas Ratio on SC>2 Removal - Spray Tower
with Lime
6-23
-------
t r
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,460 2,950 ppm
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY = 7.4
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 8.0 - 8.1
OPERATING SPRAY HEADERS IN PARENTHESES
APPROX. NOZZLE AP,psi SYMBOL
60 -•
12.5 - 14.3
7.9
o
~
[=j (1-2,3,4)
30
40 50
LIQUID-TO-GAS RATIO. gal/Mcf
60
70
Figure 6-13. Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Spray Nozzle
Pressure Drop on SC>2 Removal - Spray Tower
with Lime
6-24
-------
pressure drop was increased from 7. 9 to 14. 3 psi by decreasing the
number of spray headers from four (1,2,3,4) to three (1,3,4), Use
of the top two headers (No. 3 and No. 4) or the bottom two headers
(No. 1 and No. 2) was less effective for SC>2 removal than use of the
top (No. 4) and bottom (No. 1) headers together.
Figure 6-14 shows the effects on SOj* removal when gas rate and
slurry rate are varied independently. SO2 removal improves with
increasing slurry rate or decreasing gas rate. Either of these changes
results in a higher liquid-to-gas ratio.
6. 5 LIMESTONE TESTING WITH MAGNESIUM OXIDE ADDITION
It has been shown (Reference 4) that addition of MgO to lime/lime-
stone scrubbing systems increases SO3 removal. The chemistry of
*
magnesium oxidation is discussed in Section 5.3. To determine
the quantitative effect of MgO addition on SO2 removal by the venturi/
spray tower system, 49 limestone/MgO factorial tests were made.
Data from these tests are shown in Table 6-3.
* As explained there, only magnesium ions in stoichiometric excess
of the chloride ions present are effective in increasing SO2 removal.
Effective magnesium, (Mg)e, used when discussing magnesium oxide
addition, is thus defined as (Mg - CT/2.92) if Mg++ >Cl"/2.92
or as zero if Mg++ 4 Cl"/2. 92.
6-25
-------
t 1 1 r
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2.460 • 3,130 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 8.0-8.1
100 -¦
90 -¦
80 •-
70
60 --
5.0
6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY, ft/sec
10.0
Figure 6-14. Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate on
SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Lime
6-26
-------
Table 6-3
SUMMARY OF LIMESTONE/MgO FACTORIAL TESTS ON THE
YENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run
Number
G&a
Rate,
«c£m
Liquor Rate,
0P®
ST
Gas
L/G
g»l/Mcf
Prenurt Drop,
in. H?0
Scrubber Inlet
Liquor pH
Scrubber
Outlet
Liquor
pH
Av. Scrubber
Inlet Liquor
Mg++ Cone. .
ppm
Av. Scrubber
Inlet Liquor
Cl" Cone.,
ppm
Effective
Mg++ Cone. .
ppm
Inlet S02
Cone. . ppm
Percent SOj
Removal
No. of
Spr»y
Header*
Used
Replicate
Number
V 1
ST
Vel.,
ft/»ee
V
ST
V
| ST
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
VNG1I2
2751#
145
1500
7.4
6.6
68
2.0
2.8
5.51-5.58
5.56
5.22
5168
13700
496
2360-2440
2387
80-85
84
4
VMG103
27500
140
1500
7.4
6.3
68
2.0
2.3
5.19-5.26
5.22
5460
14732
414
2360-2440
2400
69-72
70
4
VHG104
2750*
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.1
2.9
5.75-5.79
5.77
5. 34
4968
14800
0
2320-2400
2352
79-81
80
3(1,3,4)
A
VNG1S5
27511
150
1125
7.4
6.8
51
2.1
2.9
5.46-5.59
5.53
5360
12000
1250
2320-2480
2373
67-71
69
3(1,3,4)
VNG106
275*0
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.3
2.0
5.20-5.29
5.24
4624
11950
531
2440-2480
2457
58-61
59
3(1,3,4?
VMGle?
275ft
145
112$
7.4
6.6
51
2.5
2.5
5.66-5.84
5.79
5534
12800
1150
2360-2520
2432
79-81
80
3(1.3,4)
A
VMGlte
275**
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.3
2.6
5.46-5.59
5.51
5868
13000
1415
2600-2680
2648
52-54
52
2(3,45
VHG109
27500
145
75#
7.4
6.6
34
2.5
2.7
5.07-5.29
5.20
5432
13500
808
2640-2760
2697
36-46
42
2(3,4)
VMG11#
27500
600
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.0
2,6
5.68-5.83
5.74
56*6
14000
811
2400-2600
2520
36-38
37
0
VWG1U
350*0
6*0
0
9.4
21.4
0
9.3
4,2
5.64-5.72
5.68
5460
11100
1658
2280-2360
2326
32-37
35
0
G
VHG112
20000
6*0
0
5,4
37.4
0
9.0
3.3
5.77-5.95
5.82
5601
13500
977
2160-2400
2337
39-4 2
41
0
VMG113
27500
60*
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.1
3.2
5.71-5.82
5.76
5.09
11541
15060
6383
3080-3480
3306
50-53
51
0
H
VMGU4
350*0
60*
0
9.4
21.4
0
9-3
5.2
5.62-5.68
5.65
10380
14022
5577
3400-3800
2628
39-45
43
0
VMG115
27500
60*
0
7.4
27.2
0
9.3
3.2
5.73-5.81
5.75
5.05
9937
12780
5560
3200-3400
3283
50-54
52
0
H
VMG116
27500
145
0
7.4
6.6
0
2.3
2.6
5.80-5.85
5.82
10485
12801
6101
3040-3200
3120
6-11
9
0
VMG1X7
27500
140
1500
7.4
6-3
68
2.3
3.0
5.46-5.59
5.53
8617
14057
3802
2480-2600
2552
92-96
95
4
B
VHG118
27500
140
1500
7.4
6.3
68
2.2
3.2
5.17-5.23
5.20
8922
12996
4471
2640-2960
2783
84-87
85
4
VMG119
27500
14*
150*
7.4
6.3
68
2.2
3.3
5.46-5.58
5.53
9971
14377
5047
2320-2560
2448
90-95
93
4
B
VMG12*
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.2
3.0
5.40-5.56
5.49
9510
15500
4201
2500-2520
2508
78-88
79
3(1,3,4)
E
VHG121
35000
145
1125
9.4
5.2
40
3.7
4.4
5.50-5.58
5.53
9933
17000
4111
2480-2520
2507
75-77
76
3(1,3,4)
P
VHGX22
20000
145
1125
5.4
9.0
70
1.5
1.6
5.41-5.56
5.51
9413
16685
3698
2328-2500
2417
84-87
86
3(1,3,4)
VHG123
27500
15*
1125
7.4
6.8
51
2.6
2.6
5.09-5.34
5.23
8720
15265
3492
2440-2560
2520
66-70
68
3(1,3,4)
VMG124
27500
135
1125
7.4
6.1
51
1.8
3.0
5.74-5.91
5.79
8955
15087
3788
2420-2500
2460
85-92
87
3(1,3,4)
VMG125
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
3.8
2.7
5.44-5.63
5.51
9613
16330
4020
2520-2640
2593
76-81
78
3(1,3,4)
e
VNS126
35000
145
1125
9.4
5.2
40
4.7
4.2
5.47-5.55
5.51
8610
15880
3171
2320-2400
2368
71-75
73
3(1,3/4)
p
VMG127
2750*
14*
750
7.4
6.3
34
2.3
2.9
5.42-5.60
5.49
5.17
9190
14318
4266
2880-3060
2964
61-70
67
2(3,4?
D
VUG128
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.3
2.8
5.12-5.26
5.19
10425
14067
5607
3160-3400
3300
60-61
60
2(3,4>
VNG129
27500
145
750
7.4
6.«
34
2.5
2.9
5.48-5.58
5.52
9729
14676
4702
2160-2760
2428
70-73
71
2(3,41
P
VNG13*
27500
145
1500
7.4
6.6
68
2.9
3.1
5.54-5.60
5.57
12060
9833
8692
3488-3560
3528
98-98
98
4
VMG131
27500
145
1500
7.4
6.6
68
2.5
3.3
5.20-5.25
5.23
11512
9585
8229
3700-3800
3750
95-96
95
4
VMS132
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
3.1
3.2
5.21-5.29
5.25
4.93
13600
9407
10378
3000-3600
3263
87-94
91
3(1,3,4)
c
VNG133
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.9
2-6
5.72-5.87
5.81
11083
8890
8038
3120-3440
327*
91-99
96
3(1,3,4)
VMG134
27500
145
1125
7.4
6.6
51
2.5
2.7
5.48-5.54
5.5*
4.93
12163
8410
9302
3400-3528
3440
97-98
97
3(1,3,4)
J
VMG135
2750*
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
2.8
2.4
5.15-5.22
5.18
5.02
12183
8727
9194
2260-2480
2370
87-89
88
3(1,3,4)
c
VNG136
275**
165
750
7.4
7.5
34
4.4
3.1
5.12-5.26
5.25
4.74
11488
8342
8631
2400-2640
2535
84-85
85
2(3,4)
VNG137
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.5
2.5
5.51-5.59
5.54
4.74
123*8
6981
9917
2640-2720
2693
90-93
92
2(3,4)
I
VNG130
27500
6*0
0
7.4
27.2
0
8.9
2.8
5.70-5.82
5.76
5.35
13834
10874
9310
3320-3466
3377
83-86
85
0
VHG139
20000
60*
0
5.4
37.4
0
9.1
1.1
5.70-5.80
5.76
131*6
12011
8992
3320-3380
3345
85-86
86
0
VMG14*
350*0
600
0
9.4
21.4
0
9,8
4.8
5.65-5.86
5.74
5.21
11329
11600
7356
3200-3340
3290
80-82
81
0
VNG141
27500
145
0
7.4
6.6
0
2.1
2.2
5.81-6.09
5.96
11242
7723
8597
3*80-3200
3133
1- 6
3
0
VHG143
35000
600
0
9.4
21.4
0
9.0
4.7
5.69-5.83
5.76
5696
14100
867
2080-2200
2145
32-37
35
0
G
VHQ144
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
2.4
3.0
5.49-5.60
5.54
9461
15380
4213
2520-2600
2640
73-75
74
2(3,4)
D
VMG145
35000
145
750
9.4
5.2
27
5.3
4.0
5.41-5.58
5.48
5.08
11350
7839
8665
2640-2800
2713
78-82
81
2(3,4)
VMG146
35000
145
1125
9.4
5.2
40
4.1
4.3
5.43-5.49
5.45
5.10
12850
9407
9628
3600-3720
3663
94-94
94
3(1,3,4)
VNGX47
27500
145
750
7.4
6.6
34
3.1
2.6
5,35-5,48
5,42
5,13
12012
8497
9102
3940-3160
3075
82-84
83
2(3,4)
I
VMG146
27500
140
1125
7.4
6.3
51
3.2
2.6
5.50-5.54
5.53
5.13
11354
9082
8243
2360-2520
2440
95-96
96
3(1,3,4)
J
VMG149
27500
600
0
7.4
27,2
0
9.2
5.7
5.75-5.91
5.85
5.35
6280
4819
4629
3100-3320
3246
35-40
38
0
H
VMG15*
27500
145
350
7.4
6.6
16
4.0
3.9
5.17-5.23
5.20
4.72
13062
8520
10144
3400-3560
3492
41-46
45
1(15
VHG151
27500
140
480
7.4
6.3
22
2.9
2.1
5.27-5.30
5.28
5.18
12125
8461
9227
2840-3240
3027
52-55
53
1(1!
-------
6. 5. 1 Venturi Scrubber Limestone/MgO Results
Eleven limestone/magnesium oxide tests were run on the venturi
scrubber with no slurry flow to the spray tower. Independent
variables tested with this system were:
• Gas flow rate
• Effective magnesium ion concentration in the recirculating
liquor
Two additional runs, at minimum slurry recirculation rate (145 gpm)
and minimum venturi pressure drop (2 in. H2O), were made to demon-
strate that SO2 removal in the venturi could be neglected when running
the spray tower factorial tests. SO2 removal under minimum venturi
conditions was less than 10 percent up to 6000 ppm effective magne-
sium ion concentration.
Figure 6-15 illustrates the effect of effective magnesium concentra-
tion in the recirculating slurry liquor on percent SO2 removal by the
venturi scrubber at a pressure drop of 9 inches of H2O and a slurry
flow rate of 600 gal/min. As the effective magnesium ion concentra-
tion increases from 1000 ppm to 9000 ppm, SO2 removal increases
from 35 percent to 85 percent. The removal increases more rapidly
above about 6000 ppm magnesium.
6-28
-------
i t r
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION - 2,140 - 3,630 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 5.7 - 5.8
VENTUR1 A P - 9 in. H20
SLURRY FLOW RATE = 600 gal/min
GAS FLOW RATE,
ACFM ® 330 °F
20.000
27,500
35,000
SYMBOL
* EFFECTIVE Mg'
-Mg++~C|-/2.92
¦ 0 FOR Mg*4, 1 CI-/2.92
2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION, *ppm
12,000
Figure 6-15. Effect of Liquor Magnesium-Ion Concentration
and Gas Flow Rate on SO2 Removal - Venturi
Scrubber with Limestone
6-29
-------
When the data are replotted in Figure 6-16, it can be seen that per-
cent SO 2 removal by the venturi scrubber decreases only slightly with
increasing gas flow rate (decreasing liquid-to-gas ratio). This result
is similar to the results obtained with limestone and lime slurries
without MgO addition (compare with Figures 6-2 and 6-9).
6. 5. 2 Spray Tower Limestone/MgO Results
Thirty-six spray tower limestone/MgO factorial tests were run. As
in other spray tower factorial tests, these tests were performed with
the venturi at a minimum pressure drop and slurry flow rate (see
Subsection 6. 3. 2). Under these circumstances, the effects of the ven-
turi can be neglected. Independent variables tested with the spray
tower limestone/MgO were:
• Gas flow rate
• Slurry recirculation rate
• Scrubber inlet liquor pH
• Effective magnesium ion concentration in the recirculating
liquor
Figure 6-17 shows the effect of scrubber liquor magnesium ion con-
centration on percent SC>2 removal by the spray tower at different
levels of scrubber inlet liquor pH. Increasing either the magnesium
ion concentration or pH increases the percent SO2 removal. The data
6-30
-------
50 --
40 --
¦0 -CFFECTlV£ CONC.* . 7
O 0 9.300
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,140 3,630 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH - 5.7 ¦ 5.8
VENTURI A P = 9 in. H20
SLURRY FLOW RATE = 600 gal/min.
PPm
.. 'EFFECTIVE Mg++ = Mg++- Cr/2.92
= O FOR Mg++ 5 Cr/2.92
Fl-800-"""-!-!!
+
4-
j—
35,000
20,000 27,500
GAS FLOW RATE, acfm @ 330 °F
Figure 6-16, Effect of Gas Flow Rate and Liquor Magnesium-
Ion Concentration on SO2 Removal - Venturi
Scrubber with Limestone
6-31
-------
50 --
40 --
30
= 0 FOR Mg++ < Ci~/2.92
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,350 - 3,440 ppm
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY = 7.4 ft/sec
SLURRY FLOW RATE = 22.5 gal/min - ft2
LIQUID ¦ TO - GAS RATIO = 51 gal/Mcf
OPERATING SPRAY HEADERS: 1,3 & 4
1
2,000
1—
4,000
—I
6,000
_++
8,000
1
10,000
12,000
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Ma"1""" CONCENTRATION, * ppm
Figure 6-17. Effect of Liquor Magnesium-Ion Concentration
and Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH on SC>2 Removal -
Spray Tower with Limestone
6-32
-------
are replotted in Figure 6-18 to show the effect of scrubber inlet liquor
pH at constant effective magnesium ion concentration.
Figure 6-19 shows howS02 removal is improved with increasing slurry-
flow rate and effective magnesium ion concentration.
6. 6 LIME TESTING WITH MAGNESIUM OXIDE ADDITION
Seven lime factorial tests with MgO addition were conducted in the
venturi/spray tower system during November 1974. The effective mag-
nesium ion concentration during these tests was about 2000 ppm.
Results are presented in Table 6-4.
In two runs with the venturi only (600 gpm, 9 in. H2O) SO2 removal
was about 35 percent over a scrubber inlet liquor pH range of 6.3
to 6.9. In a third run at minimum venturi conditions (150 gpm, 1.4
in. H2O) SO2 removal was negligible.
Figure 6-20 shows the percent SO2 removal achieved in the spray-
tower for a scrubber inlet liquor pH range of 6.0 to 7.0.
6-33
-------
100
90 --
80 --
<
>
o
S
LLJ
GC
CM 70
8
LU
o
oc
UJ
0.
60 --
~EFFECTIVE Mg++ = IVfg++- CI_/2.92
= 0 FOR Mg++ < CI-/2.92
50 --
40 --
30
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,350 - 3,440 ppm
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY = 7.4 ft/sec
SLURRY FLOW RATE =22.5 gal/min - ft2
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO = 51 gal /Mcf
OPERATING SPRAY HEADERS: 1,3 & 4
+
-+-
4-
5.0
5.2 5.4 5.6
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
5.8
6.0
Figure 6-18. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquor
Magnesium-Ion Concentration on SO2 Removal -
Spray Tower with Limestone
6-34
-------
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION,* ppm
Figure 6-19. Effect of Effective Magnesium-Ion Concentration
and Slurry Flow Rate on SO2 Removal - Spray
Tower with Limestone
6-35
-------
Table 6-4
SUMMARY OF LIME/MgO FACTORIAL TESTS ON THE
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run No,
Gas
Rate,
acfm
Liquor Rate,
gpm
ST
Gas
Vel..
ft/sec
L/G,
gal/Mcf
Press. Drop,
in. H20
Scrubber Inlet
Liquor pH
Scrubber Outlet
Liquor pH
V
ST
V
ST
V
ST
Range
Avg
612-1A
25000
600
1200
6. 7
30
60
8. 9
3. 1
5. 9-6. 0
6. 0
4. 9
613-1A
25000
600
0
6.7
30
0
9. 1
2.2
6.2-6.4
6. 3
5. 1
614-IB
25000
150
1200
6. 7
7. 5
60
2. 5
2.8
5. 9-6. 3
6. 1
5. 2
615-1A
25000
150
1200
6. 7
7. 5
60
2. 0
2. 8
6. 9-7. 1
7. 0
5. 5
615- IB
25000
150
1200
6. 7
7. 5
60
2. 7
2.6
6. 9-7. 1
7. 0
5.3
616-1A
25000
600
0
6. 7
30
0
9. 0
2.4
6. 8-7. 0
6. 9
4.9
617-1A
25000
150
0
6. 7
7.5
0
1.7
1.4
6. 15
6. 15
--
Note: Other test conditions, same for all runs, are:
Percent solids recirculated = 8%
E. H. T. residence time = 6-18 min. (constant tank level)
Fresh lime slurry added to scrubber downcomer
-------
Table 6-4 (continued)
SUMMARY OF LIME/MgO FACTORIAL, TESTS ON THE
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
a-
i
w
-a
Run No.
Avg. Liq.
Mg++ Cone.,
ppm
Avg. Liq.
CI" Cone. ,
ppm
Avg. Liq.
Effective
Mg++ Cone. ,
ppm
Inlet SC>2
Cone., ppm
Percent SO^
Removal
No. of
Spray
Hdr. Used
Rep.
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
612-1A
3200
2800
2240
2760-3120
2940
82-95
87
4
613-1A
3200
3200
2100
2900-3100
3000
33-37
35
0
614-1B
3350
4100
1950
2200-2800
2500
81-89
85
4
615-IA
3400
3550
2180
2100-2700
2400
93-95
94
4
A
615-1B
3100
4250
1640
2300-2900
2600
93-95
94
4
A
616-1A
3400
3500
2200
2500-2900
2700
34-38
36
0
617-1A
3200
3200
2100
2500
2500
0
0
0
Note: Other test conditions* same for all runs, are:
Percent solids recirculated = 8%
E. H. T. residence time = 6-18 min. (constant tank level)
Fresh lime slurry added to scrubber downcomer
-------
100
90 -¦
80
<
>
o
s
LU
cc
CM
o
C/0
70 ¦¦
o
cc
LU
OL
60 ¦¦
50 --
40
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,100-3,100 ppm
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY = 6.7 ft/sec
V SLURRY FLOW RATE = 24 gal/min-ft2
LIQUID-TO-GAS RATIO = 60 gal/Mcf
LIQUOR Cl~ CONCENTRATION = 2,800-4,300 ppm
-4-
4-
1-
6 7 8 9
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
10
Figure 6-20. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Effective
Liquor Magnesium Concentration on SO2 Removal -
Spray Tower with Lime and Magnesium Addition
6-38
-------
Section 7
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER LIME TEST RESULTS
From late April through early October 1976, the venturi/spray tower
system was operated with lime slurry. A total of 16 test runs were
made during this period, with an average of about 190 operating hours
per run. These tests were divided into two test blocks:
• Testing with fly ash present in the flue gas with MgO
addition
• Testing with fly-ash-free flue gas with and without MgO
addition
One of the 16 runs was a limestone run which was made because of
a temporary shortage of lime at the test facility.
Performance data and test evaluations for each run are presented in
this section along with tables of major tests conditions and selected
results. A log of the scrubber operating periods is given in Appendix
B. Properties of lime, coal, and MgO used during these tests can
be found in Appendix C. Appendix D gives a computer-tabulated sum-
mary of analytical data. Detailed test conditions and results are sum-
7-1
-------
marized in Appendix E. Selected operating data are graphically pre-
sented in Appendix F. Average scrubber inlet liquor compositions
and the corresponding calculated percent gypsum (CaS04. 2H2O) satu-
rations are given in Appendix G*.
7. 1 LIME/MgO TESTING WITH FLUE GAS CONTAINING FLY
ASH
The venturi/spray tower system was operated from April through
June 1976 with flue gas containing high fly ash loading using lime
slurry with added MgO (Runs 629-1A through 633-1A). Table 7-1
lists major test conditions and selected results for these runs. These
tests were made to investigate the effect of adding magnesium oxide
on the SO2 absorption efficiency, sulfite oxidation, and gypsum satu-
ration. Since the chloride ion concentration in the scrubber liquor
fluctuated and magnesium chloride is not an SO2 absorbing reagent,
an effective magnesium ion concentration (i. e., concentration in
excess of equivalent chloride ion concentration) of 2000 ppm was
maintained in the scrubber liquor during all of these tests. This
concentration corresponded to an MgO addition rate of 2 to 3 lbs
of MgO per 100 lbs of CaO added. An evaluation and a discussion
of each test are presented below.
* The degree of liquor saturation with CaSO^. 2H2>0 at 50°C was cal-
culated with the use of the Bechtel-Modified Radian Equilibrium
Computer Program. See Reference 1 for a listing of this program.
7-2
-------
Table 7-1
MAJOR TEST CONDITIONS AND SELECTED RESULTS OF
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER LIME TESTING WITH MgO ADDITION
-j
I
Major Test Conditions
(i)
629-1A
630-1A
631-1A
632-1A
633-1A
MgO addition
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Y es
Fly ash
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gas rate, acfm
35, 000
35,000
35, 000
35,000
25,000
Spray tower liquor rate, gpm
1400
1400
700
1400
1400
Venturi liquor rate, gpm
600
600
600
~140
-140
Percent solids recirculated
8
8
8
8
8
Effluent residence time, min
3. 0
3. 0
3.0
3. 0
3. 0
Scrubber inlet liquor pH (controlled)
6. 0
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
Effective Mg++ concentration, ppm
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Venturi pressure drop, in. HzO
9
9
9
S
2
Number of spray headers
4
4
2 (top 2)
4
4
Selected Results
(2)
On stream hours
Percent SOj removal
Inlet SOz concentration, ppm
SO2 make-per-pass, m-moles/liter
Scrubber inlet liquor SOj" concentration, ppm
Lime utilisation, lOOx moles SOz absorbed/mole Ca added
Scrubber inlet liquor percent gypsum saturation @ 50°C
Percent sulfite oxidation
Scaling
Mist eliminator restriction, percent
267
75
3100
9. 0
890
100
75
20
No
2
142
92
3150
10, 5
770
99
25
15
No
1
145
75
3000
12. 5
"480
98
50
18
No
1
151
82
2750
11. 0
780
99
20
18
No
<1
212
93
2950
9. 5
1110
99
15
15
No
<1
Notes:
1) Lime was added to the scrubber downcomer and MgO dry fed to the effluent hold tank in all runs.
2) Total sulfite includes SO" and HSO~.
3) The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to each run except Run 629-1A.
-------
7. 1. 1
Venturi/Spray Tower Lime/MgO Run 629-1A
The major test conditions for Run 629-1A are listed in Table 7-1.
Other detailed operating conditions can be found in Appendix E. In
this run, the scrubber inlet liquor pH was controlled at 6.0 _+ 0.2.
The chevron mist eliminator was cleaned before the start of the run.
The run was interrupted for about 2 days by an unscheduled Boiler
No. 10 outage.
The average SO2 removal efficiency was only 75 percent over an inlet
SO2 concentration range of 2300 to 3900 ppm. The sulfite oxidation
averaged about 20 percent. The calculated average gypsum saturation
in the scrubber inlet liquor was 75 percent. The mist eliminator was
2 percent restricted in cross-sectional area at the end of the run, *
7.1.2 Venturi/Spray Tower Lime/MgO Run 630-1A
The test conditions for Run 630-1A were the same as for Run 629-1 A,
except that the scrubber inlet liquor pH was controlled at 7. 0 0. 2.
During the previous run, theSO£ removal averaged only 75 percent at
the controlled scrubber inlet pH of 6.0. It was theorized from the
* As visually estimated by the TVA inspector.
7-4
-------
sulfite-bisulfite and carbonate-bicarbonate equilibria that operation
at a higher scrubber inlet pH of 7. 0 should result in a higher sulfite
and bicarbonate concentration for the neutralization of sulfurous acid
and, hence, improve the SO2 removal efficiency.
Over an inlet SO3 concentration range of 2400 to 3900 ppm, the aver-
age SO2 removal for Run 630-1A was 92 percent, a significant im-
provement from 75 percent for Run 629-1 A. The sulfite oxidation
averaged 15 percent and the calculated gypsum saturation in the
scrubber inlet liquor averaged only 25 percent, compared with 20
and 75 percent, respectively, for Run 629-1 A. The mist eliminator
restriction decreased to 1 percent from 2 percent at the beginning
of the run.
7.1,3 Venturi/Spray Tower Lime/MgO Run 631-1A
The test conditions for Run 631 -1A were the same as for Run 630-1A
(scrubber inlet pH controlled at 7.0 + 0.2), except that the spray
tower slurry flow rate was reduced from 1400 to 700 gpm (the bottom
two of the four spray headers were turned off). This gave a liquid-
to-gas ratio in the spray tower of only 25 gal/Mcf for Run 631-1A,
compared with 50 gal/Mcf for Run 630-1 A.
The purpose of Run 631-1A was to observe the effect of the reduced
spray tower liquid-to-gas ratio on the SOg removal and liquor gypsum
7-5
-------
saturation. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to the run.
The calculated average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor
was 50 percent for Run 631-1A, compared with 25 percent for Run
630-1 A. The average sulfite oxidation was slightly higher at 1 8 per-
cent. The average SO2 removal dropped to 75 percent for this run,
as was expected from the lower spray tower liquid-to-gas ratio. The
mist eliminator condition remained essentially unchanged throughout
the run, with 1 percent restriction at the end of the run.
7» 1 • 4 Venturi/Spray Tower Lime/MgO Run 632-1A
Run 632-lAwas tested under the same conditions as for Run 630-1A,
except that the adjustable venturi plug was positioned so that the
throat was 100 percent open and the venturi slurry flow rate was 140
gpm (5 gal/Mcf venturi liquid.-to-gas ratio), the minimum controll-
able for flue gas cooling.
The objective of Run 632-1A was to observe the effect of spray-tower-
only operation on the SO2 removal, sulfite oxidation, and liquor
gypsum saturation, in comparison with Run 630-1 A. The mist elimi-
nator was not cleaned prior to the run.
The SO2 removal averaged 82 percent at 2200 to 3300 ppm inlet SO2
concentration, compared with 92 percent at 2400 to 3900 ppm for
7-6
-------
Run 630-1 A. The average sulfite oxidation was 18 percent and the
calculated gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 20 per-
cent, similar to the values obtained inRun 630-1 A. The mist eliminator
was less than 1 percent restricted at the end of the run.
7.1.5 Venturi/Spray Tower Lime/MgO Run 633-1A
The test conditions for Run 633-1A were the same as for Run 632-1A
except that the flue gas flow rate was decreased from 35, 000 to 25,000
acfm (spray tower gas velocity reduced from 9.4 to 6.7 ft/sec). This
change resulted in liquid-to-gas ratios of 7.0 and 70 gal/Mcf in the
venturi and spray tower, respectively.
The purpose of Run 633-1A was to observe the effect of the lower gas
rate (higher liquid-to-gas ratio) on the liquor gypsum saturation and
SC>2 removal during spray-tower-only operation. The mist eliminator
was not cleaned before the start of the run.
The SC>2 removal improved, as expected from the higher liquid-to-gas
ratio, to an average 93 percent at 2500 to 3400 ppm inlet SOj* concen-
tration, as compared with 82 percent at 2200 to 3300 ppm for Run
632-1 A. Average sulfite oxidation was 1 5 percent and calculated gypsum
saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was also 15 percent, both values
slightly lower than those obtained in Run 632-1 A. The mist eliminator
7-7
-------
condition was unchanged, with less then 1 percent restriction at the
end of the run. It had not been cleaned since the beginning of Run
629-1 A, for a total of 916 operating hours.
7. 2 LIME AND LIME/MgO TESTING WITH FLY-ASH-FREE
FLUE GAS
The venturi/spray tower system was operated from June through
October 1976 with fly-ash-free flue gas. Hot flue gas was withdrawn
from the Boiler No. 10 gas duct at a point downstream from the elec-
trostatic precipitator. After the precipitator, this flue gas normally
contained 0. 04 to 0. 10 grain/dry scf of particulate matter.
Runs 634-1A through 638-1A were made with lime slurry, Run
718-1A with limestone slurry, and Runs 639-1A through 643-1A with
lime slurry and added MgO (at 2000 ppm effective liquor magnesium
ion concentration). These tests were conducted primarily to discover
any significant differences in the scrubber system performance that
might exist between scrubbing with fly-ash-free slurries and scrub-
bing with fly-ash-containing slurries. Major test conditions and
selected results for lime runs without MgO addition are given in
Table 7-2 and for lime runs with MgO addition in Table 7-3. An
evaluation and discussion of each test is presented below.
7-8
-------
Table 7-2
MAJOR TEST CONDITIONS AND SELECTED RESULTS
OF VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER LIME TESTING WITH
FLY-ASH-FREE FLUE GAS
-j
vO
Major Test Conditions U)
634-1A
635-1A
636-1A
637-1A
638-1A
MgO addition
No
No
No
No
No
Fly ash
No
No
No
No
No
Gas rate, acfm
35,000
35,000
25,000
35,000
35, 000
Spray tower liquor rate, gpm
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
Venturi liquor rate, gpm
600
600
600
600
600
Percent solids recirculated
4
8
8
8
4
Effluent residence time, min
12
12
12
3. 0
3. 0
Scrubber inlet liquor pH (controlled)
8.0
8. 0
8.0
8. 0
8. 0
Effective Mg+* concentration, ppm
0
0
0
0
0
Venturi pressure drop, in. HjO
9
9
9
9
9
Number of spray headers
4
4
4
4
4
Selected Results
On stream hours
319
190
164
137
174
Percent SO2 removal
76
76
85
71
78
Inlet SO2 concentration, ppm
2600
2550
2800
2950
2500
SOg make-per-pass, m-moles/liter
7.5
7. 5
6. 5
8. 0
7. 5
Scrubber inlet liquor SO3- concentration, ppm
70
100
75
92
110
Lime utilization, lOOx moles SOj absorbed/mole Ca added
90
91
92
95
94
Scrubber inlet liquor percent gypsum saturation @ 50°C
100
95
85
80
120
Percent sulfite oxidation
10
20
17
15
17
Scaling
Cycling
V. Slight
No
No
Slight
Mist eliminator restriction, percent
--
2
1
1
1
Notes;
1) Lime was added to the scrubber downcomer in all runs.
2) Total sulfite includes SO^ and HSO^.
3) The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to each run.
-------
Table 7-3
MAJOR TEST CONDITIONS AND SELECTED RESULTS
OF VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER LIME TESTING WITH
FLY-ASH-FREE FLUE GAS AND MgO ADDITION
I
Major Test Conditions^
639-1A
640-1A
641-1A
642-1A
643-1A
MgO addition
Yes
Yes
Y es
Yes
Yes
Fly ash
No
No
No
No
No
Gas rate, acfm
35, 000
35, 000
35,000
35,000
35, 000
Spray tower liquor rate, gpm
1400
1400
1400
1050
1400
Venturi liquor rate, gpm
600
600
~140
~140
600
Percent solids recirculated
4
8
8
8
8
Effluent residence time, min
3. 0
3. 0
3.0
3. 0
3. 0
Scrubber inlet liquor pH (controlled)
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
Effective Mg++ concentration, ppm
2000
2000
2000
200u
2000
Venturi pressure drop, in. H2O
9
9
3. 5
3. 5
9
Number of spray headers
4
4
4
3(2)
4
Selected Results
On stream hours
183
157
120
249
191
Percent SO2 removal
81
80
96
70
98
Inlet SO2 concentration, ppm
2650
2950
2700
2650
2500
SOg make-per-paas, m-moles/liter ^
8. 0
9.0
12. 5
12. 0
9. 0
Scrubber inlet liquor SO^- concentration, ppm
270
180
1650
420
1110
Lime utilization, lOOx moles SOg absorbed/mole Ca added
98
97
98
98
98
Scrubber inlet liquor percent gypsum saturation @ 50°C
105
85
6
45
10
Percent sulfite oxidation
28
24
11
14
18
Scaling
Yes
Cycling
No
No
No
Mist eliminator restriction, percent
10
5
< 1
3
1
Notes;
1) Lime was added to the scrubber downcomer and MgO dry fed to the effluent hold tank in all runs.
2) Run 642- 1A was operated with the second spray header (from bottom) turned off.
3) Totai sulfite includes SO^ and HSO3.
4) The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to each run except Runs 640-1A and 641-1A.
-------
7. 2. 1 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly-Ash-Free Lime Run 634-1A
The clarifier and scrubber had been cleaned before the start of Run
634-1A to purge the system of fly ash and magnesium ion. The major
test conditions for the run are listed in Table 7-2. Other detailed
operating conditions can be found in Appendix E.
Operating conditions for this run were identical to those for Run
626-1A (see Reference 3), except that the solids content in the recir-
culated slurry was 4 percent (no fly ash) for Run 634-1A and 8 per-
cent (with fly ash) for Run 626-1A. Therefore, a direct comparison
between the two runs can be made as to the effect of the fly ash:
Run 626-1A Run 634-1A
Percent solids recirculated 8 (with fly ash) 4 (no fly ash)
Percent S02 removal 78 76
Inlet SO2 concentration, ppm 2500 7n
Inlet liquor SO 3 conc., ppm ^
Lime utilization, percent 85 90
Inlet liquor gypsum saturation, percent 100 0
Percent sulfite oxidation 2,2
The test results for these two runs are essentially the same except
for the lower sulfite oxidation for Run 634-1 A, Although the calculated
average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 100 per-
cent for both runs, saturation ranged widely during both runs from
20 to 170 percent.
7-11
-------
The scrubber was not inspected at the end of Run 634-1 A. But there
was no sign o£an increase in pressuredrop acrossthe mist eliminator
throughout the run to indicate any mist eliminator fouling.
7.2.2 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly-Ash-Free Limestone Run 718-1A
Run 718-1A was not originally scheduled in the venturi/spray tower
fly-ash-free lime test block. Because of a temporary interruption
of lime supply, the run had to be made with limestone slurry. The
test was interrupted for about 2 days by an unscheduled Boiler No.
10 maintenance outage.
The test conditions for Run 718-1A were similar to those for Run
707-1A (see Reference 3) except that the solids content in the recir-
culated slurry was 8 percent (no fly ash) for Run 718-1A and 15
percent (with fly ash) for Run 707-1A (see Appendix E for other test
conditions during 718-1A). A comparison of the test results from
these two runs is given below:
Run 707-1A Run718-1A
Percent solids recirculated
Percent SO2 removal
Inlet SO2 concentration, ppm
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
Inlet liquor SO 3 conc., ppm
Limestone utilization, percent
Inlet liquor gypsum saturation, percent
Percent sulfite oxidation
Percent solids in filter cake
5. 7
140
80
45
14
66
82
3450
1 5 (with fly ash) 8 (no £Ly ash)
5.9
110
78
120
22
56
77
2400
7-12
-------
In general, the scrubber performance during Run 718-1A was com-
parable to that of Run 707-1 A, except that the sulfite oxidation aver-
aged 22 percent and the gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor
averaged 120 percent for Run 718-1A, compared with 14 percent oxi-
dation and 45 percent saturation for Run 707-1 A. In addition, the
average scrubber inlet pH was 5.9 for Run 718-1A (no fly-ash)
and 5. 7 for Run 707-1A (with fly ash) at comparable limestone utili-
zation. A notable difference between the two runs was the average
solids content in the filter cake discharged from the system. The
fly-ash-free filter cake from Run 718-1A averaged 56 percent solids,
whereas the fly-ash-containing filter cake from Run 707-1A averaged
66 percent solids.
The mist eliminator was only 2 percent restricted at the end of Run
718-1 A.
7.2.3 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly-Ash-Free Lime Run 635-1A
The test conditions for Run 635-1A were the same as for Run 634-1A
except that the solids concentration in the recirculated slurry was
increased from 4 to 8 percent to observe its effect on liquor gypsum
saturation. The test was interrupted by a 35-hour Boiler No. 10
maintenance outage. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to
the start of the run.
7-13
-------
Average calculated gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor for
Run 635-1A was 95 percent, as compared with 100 percent for Run
634-1A. Sulfite oxidation averaged 20 percent for Run 635-1A com-
pared with 10 percent for Run 634-1A and 22 percent for Run 626-1A
(with fly ash). The filter cake solids content averaged only 47 percent,
notably lower than the 56 percent obtained during Run 626-1A when fly
ash was present. Other test results during Runs 634-1A and 635-1A
were essentially similar. The mist eliminator condition remained
unchanged during Run 635-1A; at the end of the run, the mist elimi-
nator was still 2 percent restricted.
7.2.4 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly-Ash-Free Lime Run 636-1A
The test conditions for Run 636-1A were the same as for Run 635-1A
except that the flue gas flow rate was reduced from 35,000 to 25, 000
acfm (spray tower gas velocity reduced from 9.4 to 6.7 ft/sec). This
change resulted in liquid-to-gas ratios of 30 and 70 gal/Mcf in the
venturi and spray tower, respectively, for Run 636-lA, compared
with 21 and 50 gal/Mcf for Run 635-1 A.
The purpose of Run 636-lA was to observe the effect of the higher
liquid-to-gas ratios (lower gas flow rate) on the SC>2 removal and
liquor gypsum saturation. The run was interrupted for 45 hours by
a Boiler No. 10 outage. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior
to the run.
7-14
-------
As expected from the higher liquid-to-gas ratios, the SO2 removal
averaged 8 5 percent at 2500 to 3100 ppm inlet SO2 concentration
for Run 636-1A, compared with 76 percent at 1900 to 3200 ppm for
Run 635-1 A. Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor
was 85 percent for Run 636-1A, as opposed to 95 percent for Run
635-1A. Sulfite oxidation, lime utilization, and filter cake solids
content were similar for these two runs. The restriction of the mist
eliminator during Run 636-1A went from 2 percent at the beginning
of the run to 1 percent at the end.
7.2.5 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly-Ash-Free Lime Runs 637-1A
and 638-1A
Runs 637-1A and 638-1A were conducted to investigate the effect of
lower effluent residence time on the liquor gypsum saturation.
The test conditions for Runs 637-1A and 638-1A were the same as
for Runs 635-1A and 634-1A, respectively, except for the effluent
residence times. The differences in the test conditions for these
four runs were:
Run No
Effluent Residence
Time, min
Percent Solids
Recirculated
634-1A
635-1A
637-1A
638-1A
12
12
3
3
4
8
8
4
7-15
-------
Other operating conditions for these runs were identical.
In general, gypsum saturation increased with decreasing residence
time and decreasing percent solids recirculated. Average calculated
gypsum saturations in the scrubber inlet liquor were 80 and 120 per-
cent, respectively, for Run 637-1A and 638-1 A. Some minor scale
was observed in the scrubber internals at the end of Run 638-1 A. This
was consistent with its 120 percent average saturation, the highest
obtained for these runs. This level of saturation occurred under the
most severe scale-forming operating conditions of the four test runs.
The average SO2 removal was about 76 percent for all four runs at
an average inlet SO2 concentration of 2600 ppm. Sulfite oxidation aver-
aged 15 and 17 percent and lime utilization averaged 95 and 94 percent
for Runs 637-1A and 638-1A, respectively. The filter cake solids con-
centrations were again lower than generally obtained with fly-ash-
containing sludge. The average solids contents were 47 and 53 percent
for Runs 637-1A and 638-1A, respectively.
The mist eliminator condition remained unchanged at 1 percent re-
striction throughout Runs 637-1A and 638-1 A. The mist eliminator
had not been cleaned since the beginning of Run 629-1 A, for a total
of 2134 hours of reliable operation.
7-16
-------
2. 6 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly-Ash-Free Lime/MgO Run 639-1A
Run 639-1A was the first fly ash-free lime run with MgO addition
(see Table 7-3). MgO was dry fed to the effluent hold tank to maintain
an effective magnesium ion concentration (i. e. , excess over equiva-
lent chloride ion concentration) of 2000 ppm in the scrubber liquor.
The operating conditions chosen for Run 639-1A were the same as
for Run 630-1A (see Section 7.1.2 and Appendix E), except that the
solids concentration in the recirculated slurry was 4 percent (no fly
ash) for Run 639-1A and 8 percent (with fly ash) for Run 630-1 A.
Therefore, a direct comparison in system performance could be made
between the two runs. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior
to Run 639-1 A.
Significant average results from Run 639-1A and 630-1A are tabu-
lated below:
Run 639-1A Run 630-1A
Percent SO2 removal 81 92
Inlet SO2 cone., ppm 2650 3150
Percent sulfite oxidation 28 15
Inlet liquor gyp_sum saturation, percent 105 25
Inlet liquor SO3 conc., ppm 270 770
Percent solids in filter cake 49 53
Again, the fly-ash-free sludge (Run 639-1A) had poorer dewatering
characteristics and gave lower solids content in the filter cake. As
7-17
-------
can be seen, the scrubber performances were quite different between
the two runs. Run 6 30-1A operated at a low 2 5 percent gypsum satura-
tion whereas Run 639-1A was supersaturated. Sulfite oxidation for
Run 630-1A was about one-half that of Run 639-1 A. The scrubber
inlet liquor sulfite concentration (SO3 and HSO3) was significantly-
higher for Run 630-1 A, which probably contributed to the higher SO2
removal for the run.
It was observed from these two runs and other subsequent runs that
low liquor gypsum saturation was invariably accompanied by high
liquor sulfite concentration, and the resultant high SO2 removal,
when MgO was added to the system.
Gypsum scaling occurred during Run 639-1 A, and the mist elimina-
tor was 10 percent restricted at the end of the run, mostly by
gypsum sacle.
7.2.7 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly-Ash-Free Lime/MgO Run 640-1A
Run 640-1A was made under the same operating conditions as for
Run 639-1A except that percent solids recirculated was raised from
4 to 8 percent to see if the gypsum scaling that occurred during Run
639-1A could be eliminated. The mist eliminator was cleaned prior
to Run 640-1A.
7-18
-------
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 85 per-
cent for Run 640-1A, compared with 105 percent for Run 639-1A.
The gypsum scaling potential during Run 640-1A had in fact
decreased, and this decrease was observed by a periodic inspection
of a scale monitoring probe located at the bottom part of the spray
tower. These inspections revealed that the scale deposit on the probe
was cycling between the states of formation and dissolution throughout
the run. Other test results for Runs 639-1A and 640-1A were similar.
The mist eliminator was 5 percent restricted by scale at the end of
Run 640-1A (157 operating hours), as opposed to 10 percent at the
end of Run 639-1A (183 operating hours).
7. 2. 8 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly Ash-Free Lime/MgO Run 641-1A
Run 641-1A was made under the same conditions as existed in Run
640-1 A, except the venturi throat was held wide open and the slurry
flow rate to the venturi was set at 140 gpm (5 gal/Mcf liquid-to-gas
ratio), the minimum controllable rate needed for flue gas cooling.
The purpose of Run 641-1A was to observe the effect of spray-tower-
only operation on SO 2 removal, liquor gypsum saturation, and sulfite
oxidation, in comparison with Run 640-1 A. The mist eliminator was
cleaned prior to the run.
7-19
-------
Sulfite oxidation averaged only 11 percent for Run 641-1 A, compared
with 24 percent for Run 640-1 A. The low oxidation during Run 641-1A
might have contributed to the exceedingly low 6 percent gypsum satu-
ration in the scrubber inlet liquor; gypsum saturation for Run 640-1A
was 85 percent. Sulfite concentration (SO3 and HSO3) in the scrubber
inlet liquor averaged 1650 ppm for Run 641-1A, in contrast with
the low 180 ppm for Run 640-1A, and these two values were com-
mensurate with the average SO2 removals of 96 and 80 percent for
Runs 641-1A and 640-1A, respectively. These results are consistent
with those observed between Runs 639-1A and 630-1A (see Subsection
7. 2. 6).
The average filter cake solids contents and lime utilization were 48
and 98 percent for Run 641-1A and 49 and. 97 percent for Run 640-1 A.
The mist eliminator was essentially clean, with less than 1 percent
restriction at the end of Run 641-1 A. Nearly all of the scale formed
on the scrubber internals during the previous runs had disappeared
by the end of the run.
2* 9 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly Ash-Free Lime/MgO Run 642-1A
The operating conditions for Run 642-1A were the same as for Run
641-1A except that the spray tower slurry flow rate was reduced from
1400 to 1050 gpm (liquid-to-gas ratio reduced from 50 to 37 gal/Mcf)
7-20
-------
by turning off the second spray header from the bottom. The run
was interrupted for about 1 day by a scheduled inspection of mecha-
nical components by TV A.
Since Run 641-1A had achieved a very high SO2 removal (96 percent)
with spray-tower-only operation, Run 642-1A was made to observe
whether a reduced spray tower slurry flow could still give a satis-
factory SO2 removal, and whether the low gypsum saturation could
still be maintained. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to
this run.
The average SO2 removal for Run 642-1A dropped to 70 percent,
compared with 96 percent for Run 641-1A, both at an average inlet
SO2 concentration of about 2700 ppm. Average sulfite oxidation for
Run 642-1A increased slightly to 14 percent from 11 percent for
Run 641-1 A. Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor
also increased during Run 642-1A to 45 percent from 6 percent for
Run 641-1 A. Liquor sulfite concentration in the scrubber inlet slurry
decreased to 420 ppm for 642-1A, compared with 1650 ppm for
Run 641-1 A. There was a brief period of about 1 day (September
19-20) during Run 642-1A when gypsum saturation in the scrubber
inlet liquor dropped to about 8 percent and scrubber inlet liquor sul-
fite concentration increased to about 1600 ppm for no apparent rea-
son. The SO2 removal during this period was about 90 percent at
2800 ppm average inlet SO2 concentration.
7-21
-------
Average lime utilization was 98 percent for both Runs 641-1A and
642-1A. The filter cake solids content was 51 percent for Run 642-1 A,
compared with 48 percent for Run 641-1 A. The mist eliminator was
3 percent restricted by scale at the end of Run 642-1 A.
7. 2. 10 Venturi/Spray Tower Fly-Ash-Free Lime/MgO Run 643-1A
Run 643-lA was made to provide fly-ash-free sludge to Aerospace
Corporation for sludge disposal studies. The operating conditions
chosen for Run 643-1A were identical to those for Run 640-1A except
that the rotary drum vacuum filter was replaced by the centrifuge,
so that the cake discharge belt could be used to load sludge into
concrete mixing trucks. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior
to the run.
The test results from Runs 643-lA and 640-1A were markedly
different under seemingly identical conditions. Average sulfite oxida-
tion was 18percent forRun643-lA versus 24 percent for Run 640-1A.
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was only 10
percent for Run 643-lA, compared with 85 percent for Run 640-1A.
The low gypsum saturation during Run 643-lA was again accompa-
nied by high 98 percent SO2 removal (80 percent for Run 640-1A)
and high 1110 ppm scrubber inlet liquor sulfite concentration (180
ppm for Run 640-1 A), as had been observed in some of the earlier
7-22
-------
runs. The mist eliminator restriction during Run 643-1A decreased
to 1 percent from 3 percent at the start of the run.
7.3 CONCLUSIONS
7. 3. 1 Lime/MgO Testing with Flue Gas Containing Fly Ash
Five test runs (Runs 629-1A through 633-1A) were made on the ven-
turi/spray tower system using lime slurry with added MgO. The
flue gas contained fly ash which comprised about 40 percent of total
dry solids discharged from the system. The following conclusions
were made from the results obtained during these runs:
• Better percent SO2 removal can be obtained by increasing
the magnesium ion concentration in the scrubbing liquor.
At 2000 ppm effective magnesium ion concentration, the SO2
removal improved by 15 to 20 percentage points
• The optimum scrubber inlet pH is in the range of 7 to 8.
Operation below a pH of 7 decreases sulfite and bicarbonate
concentrations available as scrubbing species. (Operation at
a pH higher than 8 should reduce the magnesium solubility
and consequently reduce the magnesium utilization.)
• The mist eliminator reliability with lime slurry (high utili-
zation) operation was not affected by the presence of magne-
sium ions at the gypsum saturation levels encountered dur-
ing these runs (15 to 75 percent)
7-23
-------
7. 3. 2 Lime and Lime/MgO Testing with Fly-Ash-Free Flue Gas
Eleven test runs were made on the venturi/spray tower system during
the fly-ash-free flue gas test block. Run 71 8-1A was the only run made
with limestone slurry. Runs 634-1A through 638-1A were tested with
lime slurry, and Runs 639-1A through 643-1A with lime slurry and
MgO. The following conclusions were made from the results obtained
during these runs:
• At a controlled scrubber inlet pH of 8 and with no added
MgO, lime utilization for the fly-ash-free tests (Runs 634-1A
through 638-1 A) averaged about 93 percent, compared with
about 88 percent for runs made with fly ash (see References
2 and 3) under similar test conditions
• The filter cake solids contents from the fly-ash-free runs
were 5 to 10 weight percent lower than those from the cor-
responding runs with fly ash (see also Section 17. 2. 2)
• The total dissolved solids concentrations, particularly chlo-
ride species, were higher for the fly-ash-free runs than for
the runs with fly ash because of the tighter water balance
resulting from the reduced waste solids discharge
• Adding MgO (at 2000 ppm effective magnesium) does not
always result in gypsum subsaturated operation. Conditions
required to achieve consistent subsaturated operation have
not yet been defined. However, when low gypsum saturation
was obtained, it was consistently accompanied by high liquor
sulfite concentration and high percent SO2 removal
• Lower sulfite oxidation generally resulted in lower gypsum
saturation
• At the 2000 ppm effective magnesium ion concentration level
tested, gypsum scaling occurred at scrubber inlet gypsum
saturation as low as 80 percent, compared with about 120
percent when no MgO was added. The equilibrium calcium
ion concentration is lower when magnesium ion is present.
7-24
-------
With a low calcium ion concentration in the scrubber inlet,
the percentage increase in calcium ion concentration across
the scrubber is greater (because of dissolution of lime,
limestone, calcium sulfite, or all three), causing a greater
percentage increase in gypsum saturation across the scrub-
ber
7-25
-------
Section 8
FLUE GAS CHARACTERIZATION
The Flue Gas Characterization Program was developed to answer a
number of questions concerning the flue gas emissions at Shawnee.
First, new data were needed to confirm or deny the validity of the
existing mass loading data since quality control for these data had been
poor. Second, the question was raised whether scrubbers generate
particulates through reaction product entrainment, especially in the
fine (<2m ) particulate range. And third, owing to concern over the
health hazards of sulfates, it was desired to determine the effect of
scrubbers on. sulfuric acid vapor (SO3) emissions and use these data
to estimate total sulfur emissions (i. e., SO2, SO3, and reaction product
sulfates).
To allow testing for a long period under a variety of operating condi-
tions as opposed to short term measurements by an outside group, it
was decided to train onsite personnel to conduct the tests. Through
a separate contract with the EPA, TRW Corporation was chosen to
determine the best testing methods for size distribution and SO3 mea-
surement, and in conjunction with Bechtel and TVA to write the appro-
priate manuals, make the equipment operational and train personnel.
8-1
-------
Initial intensive test series on both the venturi/spray tower and TCA
systems were designed to determine the effect of major operating
variables on mass removal, particulate size distribution, and SO3
removal.
Variables investigated on the venturi/spray tower system were gas
rate, slurry rate, MgO addition, venturi pressure drop, mist elimi-
nator configuration, and percent solids recirculated. For one run, flue
gas feed to the scrubber was obtained downstream from the electro-
static precipitator (ESP) to check scrubber performance on flue gas
with low fly ash grain loadings. Flue gas feed for all other runs was
obtained upstream of the fly ash collecting equipment. Included in
Table 8-1 are the run conditions for the. venturi/spray tower system
tests. Testing on this unit was completed during the current report-
ing period; results are presented in Subsection 8. 3 of this report.
Variables to be investigated on the TCA system are gas rate, liquor
rate, MgO addition, and mist eliminator wash scheme. A fly-ash-
free run will also be included.
8. 1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Sampling was performed simultaneously at the inlet and outlet duct of
each scrubber system. The ductwork at these locations is 40 inches
8-2
-------
Table 8-1
MASS LOADING AND SO CONCENTRATIONS DURING
VENTURl/SPRAY TOWER TESTING
Controlled Variables
VFG-1A
VFG
-IB
VFG-1C
VFG-1D
VFG-1E
VFG-1F
VFG-1G
VFG-11
VFG-IP
Gas Rate, acfm # 330°F
ST Gas Velocity, ft/see
ST Slurry Rate, gpm
Venturi Slurry Rate.gpm
Venturi aP, in. H-O
Percent Solids Recirculated
Fly Ash Loading
Alkali
Mist Elim. Configuration
Mist Elim. Wash Scheme
MgO Addition
35,000
9.4
1.400
600
9
8
High
Lime
chevron
LI
Yes
35.000
9.4
1.400
600
9
8
Low
Lime
chevron
LI
No
35. 000
9.4
1.400
600
9
8
Low
Lime
chevron
LI
No
35,000
9.4
1, 400
600
9
6
High
Lime
chevron
LI
No
20, 000
5.4
1,400
600
9
8
High
Lime
chevron
LI
No
35,000
9.4
1,400
375
4.5 - 6.0
8
High
Lime
chevron
LJ
No
35.000
9.4
0
600
9
8
High
Lime
chevron
LI
No
35,000
9.4
1,400
600
9
8
High
Lime
chevron + York
LI
No
35.000
9.4
1,400
600
9
15
High
Lime
chevron
LI
No
35.000
9,4
1,400
140
2. 8 - 3. 2
8
High
Lime
chevron
LI
No
Uncontrolled Variables
Gas Vel. at Mist Elim. , ft/sec
System &P Range, in.
Total Dissolved Solids, ppnri
9,4
13.3 - 13.8
13,200 - 1ft. 000
9.4
13. 1 - 13. 8
2,500 5.200
9.4
13.6 - 14.0
7, 000 - 9, 500
9.4
13.7 - 14.3
7, 700 - 9, 600
5.4
10.2 - 10. 8
6. 000 - 8. 800
9.4
9. 5-10.5
5,400 8,000
9,4
12.5 - 13. 2
7.200 10.000
9.4
14. 1 - 15- 5
8, 300 - 9.400
9.4
13. 7 - 14. 3
6.600 - 9.000
9.4
6. 9 - 7. 3
6. 900 - 8. 100
Floe Gas Measurements
Mass Loading Inlet
Average, grains/dry scf
Range, grains/dry scf
Mass Loading Outlet
Average, grains/dry scf
Range, grains/dry scf
Mass Loading Removal
Average. %
Range, %
4.41
3.66 - 5. 50
0. 032
0. 023 - 0, 046
99. 3
99. 0 - 99. 4
0. 070
0.039 - 0.096
0. 005
0.003 - 0,007
92.0
82. 1 - 96.3
0. 367
0. 118 0. 609
0. 005
0. 003 0. 009
98. 3
99. 5 - 99.3
6. 17
4. 82 - 8. 39
0. 019
0. 013 - 0. 023
99.7
99. 5 - 99. 8
4. 53
3. 68 - 5. 78
0. 026
0.018 - 0. 039
99.4
99. 1 - 99. 6
5,11
3.77 7. 90
0. 028
0. 020 0. 037
99.4
99. 1 - 99. 7
5.14
3.72 6.41
0.027
0.022 0.037
99. 5
99.4 - 99.6
6, 05
3. 90 - 8. 76
0. 021
0. 018 - 0. 024
99.6
99.4 - 99- 8
5. 18
3. 70 - 6. 06
0. 026
0. 017 - 0. 037
99.5
99.4 - 99. 7
5. 63
5. 13 - 6. 66
0. 036
0. 031 - 0. 040
99-4
99. 3 - 99.5
SO Inlet
Avenge, ppm
Range, ppm
SO Outlet
Average, ppm
Range, ppm
SO Removal
Average, %
Range, *
10, 9
3.4 - 14.&
2. 9
0.1 - 5. 2
74.9
54.9 - 99,2
2.6
1.7-3.7
0.9
0.5 - 1.5
67.3
47.1 - 81.5
5,4
3.6-7.2
2. 7
1.6 - 4. 1
50. 9
39. 3 - 64. 3
8.9
3,0 - 17.1
3. 6
0. 3 - 8. 3
62. 2
27.2 - 97. 1
9.3
4.5 - 13.5
4. 1
0. 4 - 7.6
53.9
37. 5 - 65.5
15.4
?. 1 - 24. 8
8. 9
3.2 13.9
2. 1
0.4 - 4. 5
0. 3
0.0 - 0. 9
71.0
25.0 - 100.0
8.9
2.5 - 15.8
4.1
2. 8 - 5.3
66.9
66. 7 - 67, 1
10.7
5.8 - 21.2
3.5
0, 5 - 10. 9
72.5
46.8 - 91.4
6. 0
4. 1 - 7.8
1, 7
1. 1 - Z. 3
64.9
43.9 - 85.9
Test Philosophy
MgO add'n.
Low inlet fly ash loading.
Basic operating
conditions.
Low gas rate.
Minimum ven-
ture.
Venturi only.
Basic operating
conditions. York
demister added.
High percent
solids recircu-
lated.
Repeat of Run
VFG-IE at cor-
rect conditions.
Comments
TDS low due to
aon-equiUtora-
tlon of clarifier.
TDS raised by
CaC\? add'n.
Boiler upset
conditions
caused higher
inlet grain load-
Log.
Flowmeter probs
caused high flow
to venturi. De-
sired 140 gpm.
SO^ values not
simultaneous
due to equip
probs, no re-
movals calcu-
lated.
Demister
plugged after
55 hrs. of oper-
ation.
-------
in diameter. For those runs requiring traverses (mass loading and
size distribution), two 8-point traverses at right angles to each other
were performed. The sample ports are located ahead of the saturation
sprays at the inlet (wherethe gas temperature is approximately 300°F-
330° F) and after the reheater at the scrubber outlet (gas temperature
approximately 250° F). The ports are also about two duct diameters
upstream and six duct diameters downstream from the nearest
obstruction.
8. 2 TEST METHODS
8. 2. 1 Mass Loading
The procedure used at Shawnee for particulate mass loading measure-
ment is a modification of EPA Method Five (see Reference 16). The
equipment consists of a Hi-volume sampling train manufactured by
the Aerotherm Division of Acurex Corporation, The major differences
in test conditions between Shawnee and the typical Method Five appli-
cation are: (1) the sampling flow rate at Shawnee was greater (2 cfm
versus 0.75 cfm typical for EPA Method Five), (2) the filter tempera-
tures were in the 350 °F to 400 °F range to prevent acid (SO^) conden-
sation, and (3) the first two impingers were filled with NaCC>3 solution
to remove SO2 and provide corrosion protection for the pump and dry
gas meter. None of these changes should affect the accuracy of the
method.
8-4
-------
8. 2. 2
Size Distribution*
Size distribution measurements were made using out-of-stack heated
inertial impactors. A Brink model BMS-11 impactor was employed
for inlet sampling and a Meteorology Research, Inc. , (MRI) Model
1502 was used for outlet sampling.
Figures 8-1 and 8-2 are drawings of the Brink and MRI sampling set-
ups. The Brink impactor, modified to accept a specially designed
internal cyclone, provides aerodynamic size distribution information
between 0.3 and 10 microns in six distinct cuts. The MRI impactor
measures aerodynamic size distribution between 0.3 and 30 microns,
also in six cuts. Volumetric flow rate was typically 0. 07 to 0. 08 acfm
for the Brink unit and 0. 50 to 0.60 acfm for the MRI. Inlet and outlet
sampling was concurrent, but sampling duration was not the same
because of the large differences in the grain loadings. Plates greased
with Apiezon H (Dow Corning) were used as impaction surfaces in both
impactors.
To obtain representative size distribution measurements, sampling
was performed by making sampling traverses indentical to the mass
loading tests. The flow rate through the impactor was held constant
* Size distribution and SO3 measurement techniques are covered only
briefly here. A more complete discussion can be found in Reference
17.
8-5
-------
Figure 8-1. Brink Impactor
8-6
-------
Figure 8-2. MRI Site Set-up
8-7
-------
to ensure constant impactor stage cut sizes. The sampling nozzle was
chosen to provide average duct velocity at the nozzle inlet. The uni-
formity of the duct velocity profile assured that even when sampling
at the average duct velocity, +_ 10 percent of isokinetic sampling could
be maintained.
8. 2. 3 Sulfuric Acid Vapor {SO g)
The vapor phase concentration of SO3 is measured at Shawnee using
a controlled condensation technique, as shown in Figure 8-3. The
sample is drawn from a single point approximately 1 foot inside the
stack. The sampled gas is cooled by means of a modified Graham
condenser until essentially all the SO3 condenses, but the temperature
of the gas is kept above the water dew point to prevent any interference
from SO2 while a heated quartz filter system removes particulate
matter. The condensed acid is then titrated with NaOH, using brom-
phenol blue as the indicator.
8. 3 TEST RESULTS FOR VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
1 Mass Loading
Table 8-1 gives the run conditions and results of the mass loading
and SO3 tests recently completed on the venturi/ spray tower system.
8-8
-------
STACK
03
vO
RUBBER VACUUM
HOSE
ADAPTER FOR CONNECTING HUM
TC WHl
ASBESTOS CLOTH
INSULATION
GLASS-COL
HEATING
MANTLE
X
DRY TEST
METER
THREE WAV
VALVE
SILICA GEL
CG^
THERMOMETER
STYROFOAM
ICE CHEST
Figure 8-3. Controlled Condensation System Set-up
-------
Four conclusions concerning the mass loading tests are readily
apparent:
• The outlet values are all below the EPA New Source Perfor-
mance Standard of approximately 0.055 grain/dry scf (60 °F)
at 30 percent excess air
• The outlet values appear relatively unaffected by changes in
operating condition
• The range of values for the new data is more consistent than
for the previously reported data*
• During Run VFG-1B, where the flue gas feed was downstream
from the ESP (i. e. , low fly ash content), particulate emission
ranged from 0. 003 to 0.009 grain/dry scf, indicating that
emission of scrubber reaction products for this system could
not exceed this value
To further quantify the amount of entrained reaction products emitted
from the scrubber, the particulate from one outlet mass loading filter
was analyzed for each of Runs VFG-1A, VFG-1B, and VFG-lC.
Table 8-2 presents the results of wet-chemical and semiquantitative
spectrographic analyses of these solids. If it is assumed that all
the calcium and magnesium in the samples were present as hydrated
reaction products (as noted in Table 8-2), an entrained reaction pro-
duct mass loading can be calculated. For the run VFG-lB analysis,
the resultant value was 0.002 grain/dry scf; for the VFG-1A and
* For the previously reported data, see Reference 1, pages 11-1
through 11-14.
8-10
-------
Table 8-2
ANALYSES OF OUTLET FILTERS
Specie
VFG-1A
VFG-1B
VFG-1C
TVA
Lab
Bechtel Lab^'
TVA
Lab
Bechtel Lab^ ^
TVA
Lab
Bechtel Lab^^
1
2
1
2
1
2
Ca, wt. %
7.4
3. 7
5.4
6. 6
10. 0
10.4
3. 7
4. 0
7.4
Mg, wt. %
0.4
1. 3
0.4
0. 3
3. 6
1.0
0.2
1. 4
0. 6
Fe, wt. %
6. 2
5.2
9. 1
7. 1
3. 1
5. 8
4. 6
3. 1
6.0
Al, wt. %
1.9
2. 0
5. 9
1. 1
1. 1
3. 1
2. 9
3.4
9. 1
Total Sulfur,
13. 5
9.8
--
15. 3
11. 7
--
12. 0
10. 3
..
wt. %
Reaction Products
Calculated
32. 5
22. 5
24.4
28. 6
61. 3
48.2
16. 2
24. 4
33. 6
wt. %
Calculated
0. 008
0. 005
0. 006
0. 001
0.003
0. 002
0. 003
0. 005
0. 007
Grain Loading,
gr/Dscf
Notes: (1) Two methods were used: 1 = wet chemical methods and 2 = semi-quantitative spectrographs.
(2) Assumes: CaSCaSO • 1/2H_0 + CaSO ,'2H_0 such that oxidation is 20 percent and all
3 2 4 2
MgO was converted to MgSO^*
-------
VFG-1C analysis, the value was approximately 0.006 grain/dry scf.
However, since the runs were made at the same operating conditions
(see Table 8-1), the entrainment values should be the same. The values
for Runs VFG-1A and VFG-1C appear high, probably because a large
portion of the calcium collected from these runs existed in the fly ash
emitted from the scrubber and should not have been included in the
reaction product emission estimation. Scanning electron microscope
(SEM) photographs were taken of the outlet mass loading filter and
observation of these photographs indicated that the solids were small
spherical fly ash particles. Chemical analysis of the solids by x-ray
will be performed and reported at a later date.
8. 3. Z Sulfuric Acid Vapor (SC^)
SO3 measurements on the venturi/spray tower system (see Table 8-1)
indicate that percent SO3 removal is independent of operating variable
level and inlet SO3 concentration. When SO3 inlet concentration was
plotted against SO3 outlet concentration for all the data from all the
runs (see Figure 8-4), the best curve fit was a straight line with a
slope of 0. 42 (corresponding to a constant removal of 58 percent) and
a standard error of 1.49 ppm of SO3.
Considering the small quantity being measured and the resulting uncer-
tainty of the accuracy, the data appear to be quite consistent.
8-12
-------
25
T
T
T
•
VFG - 1A, 1B.1C, 1G, 11
A
VFG - ID
0
VFG - IF
~
VFG - 1P
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
S03 INLET CONC., ppm
Figure 8-4. SO3 Inlet Versus Outlet Concentration for All Runs
8-13
-------
Emission concentration ranged from zero to 13.8 ppm. The signifi-
cance of these values relative to the SO 3 ultimately existing in the am-
bient environment depends on the percentage of the emitted SO2 that
is oxidized. In any event, the fact that outlet SO3 concentrations were
always below inlet concentrations shows that the scrubbing process
does not contribute to SO3 emissions.
An estimate of the relative contribution of SO3 to the total sulfur dis-
charged into the atmosphere is as follows:
Mole percent
of the total
Component Sulfur Discharged
502 97.7
503 2.2
Scrubber reaction products 0. 1
100.0
Basis:
502 - 600 ppm outlet (equivalent to 80 percent removal at 3000
ppm inlet)
503 - 13.8 ppm outlet (maximum value measured)
Scrubber reaction products - 0. 0045 grain/dry scf (highest value
estimated from Run VFG-1B)
Laboratory tests conducted by TRW have indicated that passage of the
flue gas through the particulate collected on the filter used ahead of
the condensing coil can reduce the measured SO 3 as much as 12 per-
cent for the scrubber inlet SOg measurements. The removal mecha-
8-14
-------
nism is presumed to be due to alkalinity in the fly ash. Because of
the much smaller amount of fly ash in the outlet, it is believed that
the scrubber outlet SO3 would be unaffected. No attempt was made
to correct the inletvalues since the laboratory-determined correction
value is only approximate. The presence of condensed HC1 would
interfere with the measurement since the acid/base titration would
not make a distinction between the two acids. Under our sampling
conditions HC1 should not be removed; however, as a check, the
samples were analyzed for chloride. None was found.
8. 3. 3 Size Distribution
Values of the inlet and outlet grain loadings for each run as a function
of particle size are plotted in Figures 8-5 through 8-14*. Inlet and
outlet grain loadings as afunction of size using geometric mean values
of all the measurements for each run are plotted for runs with fly ash
in Figure 8-15 and for the run with low fly ash in Figure 8-16. The
outlet particulate size distributions, like the mass loading results,
appear to be fairly independent of operating variable level for the
runs with flue gas taken directly from the boiler. The run with low
fly ash (Run VFG-1B) exhibits a similar shape but lower values due
to the reduced grain laoding.
* These values are calculated from the raw impactor data using the
method described in Reference 18.
8-15
-------
VFG 1A
• OUTLET
T; 1.0
«/»
TO
k.
O)
o
m
Q
cn
O
^5. 01
S
o
z
Q
<
O
-J
<
s
<
p
z
UJ
QC
UJ
o.oi --
— o.ooi
0.0001
o.oi
I
0.1
' *1
<
• «•
*•
(
1.0
10
100
DIFFERENTIAL MASS LOADING {dM/d log (D50)), gr/dscf
Figure 8-5. Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1A
8-16
-------
10
T—I [ I I I I | 1 1 1 | I I I I | 1 1 1 | I l I I
13
T3 1.0
O
U)
Q
HUN VFG 1B (10/22-10/25)
~ INLET
• OUTLET
| -
o
z
Q
§
-J
$
S 001
l-
z
LU
0C
Ui
0.001 - -
•JD
%
%
CD
~ ~
~
~a
~
3.
~
a
•'
• • •
b
0.0001
-I I . I I I 1111
J 1 ) I I I 111
1 ' ![¦¦¦¦
J I—I I 11II
0.01
0.1 1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-6. Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1B (10/22/76 - 10/25/76)
8-17
-------
10
RUN VFG • 16(10/26-10/28)
~ INLET
• OUTLET
I '
.0 - -
o>
o
If)
Q
W
O
o.i --
S
2
CJ
2
E
<
o
_i
8
< 0.0,
-J
<
h-
Z
UJ
cc
UJ
Q 0.001 - -
o.oooi
0.01
~ ~
~
0 ~
cP
~
~
~
B
~
~
B
i ) .i i.j i..| 1—i i | 11111 1—i i | 1.111 j 1—i i | .i 111
0.1 1.0 10 100
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
Figure 8-7. Differential Grain. Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-lB (10/26/76 - 10/28/76)
8-18
-------
TO
13
-S 10
>_
a>
o
m
Q
D)
O
2
3
o
z
5
<
O
o.i --
8
< 0.01
2
h-
Z
ui
cc
LU
Q 0.001 - -
RUN VFG ¦ 1C
~ INLET
• OUTLET
••
i B a
~
~
~
~
CD
%
B
J
ft ~
~
~
. • I
\
B
o
~
~
#
0.0001
-I i_
I ""I
-I I ' I ' I ¦ ¦ I
-I I I 1 I.I I,I
_» I I I I I 11
0,01
0.1 1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-8. Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1C
8-19
-------
' ' I 1 "'I
-I 1—I—I I I 11 I 1 1—I I I III I
a
¦p
0
in
Q
1
1.0 --
o.i --
2
3
o
z
5
<
o
3
^ 0.01
H
Z
III
cc
LU
Q o.ooi
RUN VFG 1D
~ INLET
• OUTLET
03
~
~
B
™ ~ D
n
a tB1
~
~ ~
~
• a
a
9
• %
I
*
0.0001
o.oi
-T 1 I | -| I I
~
~
~
B
B
I
-j—i—i i «11 n i__i—i | ii 111 1—i—i | i n j. [ i i i | ¦ 111
0.1 1.0 10 100
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
Figure 8-9. Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-ID
8-20
-------
10
-1 1 I I I I 11 I
T 1—I—| I I I I
' 1 i 1 ' 1 1 I
I I I \ I I II-
1
:p
1.0
0.1
o
l£)
£
o»
2
;u
s
3
C5
z
5
<
O
-J
8
< 0.01
2
_i
<
h
Z
uu
cc
UJ
RUN VFG ¦ 1E
~ INLET
• OUTLET
fib
~
~
§ B
%
~
0
qbo ••
• •
0
~
B
••
B
~
~
I
i
0.001 - -
0.0001
0.01
¦ I " "I
J I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I H|
0.1 1,0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-10. Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1E
8-21
-------
10
H-
2
UJ
cc
111
o
0.001 - -
RUN VFG - 1F
~ INLET
• OUTLET
"S 10
w
O)
O
§
o
S
3
a
z
a
<
o
$
< 0.01
S
0.1 --
~
~ a
~
~
Ja
~
dp ~
B &
J a
~
B
cP
~
i?
~
0.0001
0.01
0.1 1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-11, Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1F
8-22
-------
10
| -i i 11 | 1 i i | i i 111— 1 1—i | i i 11 | r
] i i 11.
RUN VFG - 1G
~ INLET
# OUTLET
~
Q
B
$ ,0
TJ
o>
o
UJ
Q
cn
O
o.i
S
3
a
z
Q
<
O
3-
s
-j
<
P
z
Ul
cc
UJ
LL
U_ _
— 0.001
Q
o
~
B
~
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
0
8
• •
0.0001
0.01
¦ ' ' I ' 1 " I ' I I. 1 I ' 11) —I—1—I \ I 1,111 1—I I j, I 111
0.1 1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-12. Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1G
8-23
-------
-i—i i < i n 1 1—r | i i ii J i 1—l—| i i i i | 1 1—i | I i 11
RUN VFG 11
~ INLET
• OUTLET
¦S
.33 1.0
w
en
O
m
Q
o>
o
0,1
O
z
Q
<
O
8
2 0.Q1
H
Z
111
cc
111
u.
o
~
£
*
i 3
~
« i
~
CD
8
a
EP
V
0.001 - -
0.0001
0.01
0.1 1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-13. Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1I
8-24
-------
10
~i 1—i | i i m | 1 1—i | i 1111 r
RUNVFG IP
~ JNLET
• OUTLET
| rill) 1 1 1 I I I 11.
13
M
k.
1.0 --
~ ~
©
in
Q
D»
O
2
3
CD
Z
5
0
1 o.i
s
J
<
f—
z
IU
EC
LU
U.
u.
~ 0.001
0.1 --
~
~
0.0001
0.01
I I I.,1111 1 I I I I III
0.1 1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
Figure 8-14. Differential Grain Loading Versus Particle
Diameter for Run VFG-1P
8-25
-------
0.1
8 10
,p
k_
O)
o
Ifi
Q
o»
O
S
3
o
z
5
<
o
<
s
0.01
t-
Z
UJ
cc
UJ
LL
U; 0.001
a
V
VFG - 1A
o
VFG - 1C
~
VFG-1D
0
VFG-1E
A
VFG - 1 F
V
VFG-1G
O
VFG 11
<3
VFG - 1P
NOTE: SOLID SYMBOLS ARE
OUTLETS, OTHERS
ARE INLETS
o Av
6
£
4> <*
o
OAV,
o
o A*
o
zi
V
*
%
r
~
~
~
S
0
~
~
¦V
" J
0.0001
J 1 I I I 11
J 1 L
I I I
-I I I \ I. I. IJ I
I „ I L.
1 1,1
0.01
0.1 1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-15. Mean Differential Grain Loading Versus
Particle Size for All Runs with Fly Ash
8-26
-------
10
I ""I
i r
r i i iii
~i i i i f i i i
i 1—i I i i 11 _i
T3
CD
1.0
o
in
Q
o>
o
0.1
0 VFG-IB (10/22-10/25)
A VFG -IB (10/26-10/28)
NOTE: SOLID SYMBOLS ARE OUTLETS
OTHERS ARE INLETS
U
Z
5
<
O
-J
8? 0.01 --
<
s
-j
<
F
z
UJ
cc
111
u.
£ 0.001
Q
Q
A O
P 0
' i A
A
O
A
0.0001
-I I I I 111!
J I I I I I I I
J I I till
I f. I 111.
0.01
0.1 1,0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-16. Mean Differential Grain Loading Versus
Particle Size for Run VFG-IB (Low Fly-Ash
Concentration Run)
8-27
-------
Mass penetration (1 - fraction removal) as a function of particle size
is plotted in Figure 8-17 for all runs with fly ash and in Figure 8-18
for the run with low fly ash. As can be seen in these figures, mass
penetration appears to be fairly independent of run variable levels.
The removals decrease at the smaller particle sizes, even approach-
ing zero for the run with low fly ash (VFG-lB), but there was no indi-
cation of fine-particulate generation by the scrubber (i. e. , outlets
higher than inlets) over the sizes investigated.
It should be noted here that all size distribution measurements were
taken out of stack to facilitate temperature control. A side effect
of using this method is particulate deposition in the probe. The
expected sized of these deposits were estimated using the probe
residence time and the Stokes law particle settling rate as a function
of size. Because of the first three stages of the impactor collect
particles in the same size range as the estimated probe fallout, the
probe wash and the first three stages were combined when computing
grain loading as a function of particle size for the outlet size distri-
butions.
SEM photographs (see Figures 8-19 and 8-20) of the impactor partic-
ulate captured on the third stage (5 to 6 m cut size) and sixth stage
(0.70 to 0.80 m cut size) indicate that crystals of CaS03 1/2H20
(the rosettes) are visible on the third stage and that very little of the
8-28
-------
100
00
1
to
v£J
g
5
DC
h-
ui
Z
ui
Q.
(0
a
10 --
1.0 --
0.01
11 •
B *
~ Q
A
I
i ~
0
o
5
e
o
~
~
~
9
-(—i—i i 11 ui 1—i—i i »111) 1—i—i ? 111 |
XL
o
VFG - 1C
~
VGF-1D
0
VFG-IE
A
VFG - 1E
•
VFG - 1G
¦
VFG-11
~
VFG-1P
0.10 1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
' ' ""I
100
Figure 8-17. Particle Percent Penetration Versus Particle
Diameter for Venturi/Spray Tower Runs with
Fly Ash
-------
100
O VFG 1B (10/22-10/25)
A VFG - 1B (10/26-10/28)
00
1
u>
o
as io -f
2
O
<
DC
UJ
Z
UJ
Q.
CO
(A
< 1.0
S
o
A
O
A
O
A
2
o.oi
-»—i—i i iih
0.10
H 1 1 1 I I I I
H 1 1—I I Ull
H 1—I t t M < I
H 1 1 I I I I I '
1.0 10
AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE DIAMETER, microns
100
Figure 8-18. Particle Percent Penetration Versus Particle
Diameter for Venturi/Spray Tower Fly Ash-
Free Run VFG-IB
-------
Figure 8-19. Particulate on third stage of outlet impactor during
Venturi/Spray Tower run VFG-1A. Magnification 2000X.
Figure 8-20. Particulate on sixth stage of outlet impactor during
Venturi/Spray Tower run VFG-1A. Magnification 5000X.
8-31
-------
emitted scrubber reaction products are visible on the sixth stage
(deposits appear to be all spherical fly ash). These SEM photographs
confirm the presence of scrubber reaction products while indicating
their restriction to the larger sizes.
Future chemical analysis using X-ray techniques in conjunction with
the SEM is expected to provide a better estimate of the amount of
reaction products emitted and their size distribution.
8. 4 FUTURE PLANS
Future flue gas characterization plans include the following:
• Testing on the TCA system is expected to begin in early
February 1977, with gas rate, liquor rate, MgO addition,
and mist eliminator wash scheme being the variables investi-
gated
• Size distribution tests and analysis of particulate from the
mass loading will be continued to obtain a more difinitive
value for the amount of reaction products emitted and their
size distribution
• An opacity meter will be installed to provide opacity data as
a function of mass loading for Shawnee emissions
• After testing on the TCA system is completed, an attempt
will be made to determine the efficiency of the mist elimina-
tor
• To obtain a better determination of the mass distribution pro-
file in the ducts, the gas stream will be sampled with an
IKOR continuous sampler
8-32
-------
CONCLUSIONS
These conclusions are relevant to the venturi/spray tower system only.
8. 5. 1 Mass Loading
The following conclusions regarding mass loading were reached:
• The outlet mass loadings were all within EPA New Source
Performance Standards of 0. 055 grain/dry scf at 30 percent
excess air. They range typically from 0.02 to 0.04 grain/dry
scf for fly ash runs and 0. 003 to 0.009 grain/dry scf for the
run with low fly ash
• Outlet mass loadings compared to the EPA standard were
relatively unaffected by operating variable levels
• The new data were more consistent than the old data. Values
were generally higher at the inlet (5 versus 3 griains/dry
scf) and approximately the same for the outlet if the extreme
points from the old data were neglected. The new data are
believed to be more reliable
• Reaction products emission must be less than the emission
value for the low fly ash run (0.003 to 0.009 grain/dry scf),
and from chemical analysis was estimated to be a maximum
of 50 percent of this value
8. 5. 2 Sulfuric Acid Vapor
The following conclusions regarding sulfuric acid vapor were reached:
• Sulfuric acid mist emission ranged from 0 to 13.8 ppm
8-33
-------
Sulfuric acid mist removal was fairly constant at 58 percent,
with a standard error of 1. 4 ppm of SO3
• For a worst case set of scrubber outlet conditions (600 ppm
SC>2> 13.8 ppm SO3 and 0.0045 grain/dry scf scrubber reac-
tion products), the percent sulfur emitted on a mole basis is
97. 7 percent from SO2, 2. 2 percent from SO3, and 0. 1 per-
cent from the scrubber reaction products
8. 5. 3 Size Distribution
The following conclusions regarding size distribution were reached:
• Grain loading and mass penetration as functions of particle
size appeared to be fairly independent of operating variables
levels over the levels investigated
• The scrubbing process did not contribute to fine particle
emission (i.e. , all outlets were less than or equal to inlets),
however, some reaction products were observedin the greater
than 5 m size range
8-34
-------
Section 9
TCA FACTORIAL TEST RESULTS
From February through April 1976 a series of 137 (6 to 8-hour)
limestone, lime, and limestone/MgO factorial tests were conducted
on the TCA system. The purpose of these tests was to observe the
effect of different levels of the major operating variables on SO2
removal. The test results are presented in this section. Corrections
of the data are presented in Section 14.
The measures taken to ensure data quality for these TCA factorial
tests and the problems encountered were the same as for the venturi/
spray tower factorial tests (see Subsection 6. 1). The coal used during
the limestone/MgO testing had an unexpectedly high chloride content;
the scrubber liquor chloride concentration ranged from 10,000 to
20, 000 ppm, compared to 2000 to 6000 ppm for "normal" Shawnee
coal. As in the venturi/spray tower factorial tests, this high chloride
may account for the disagreement between the factorial data and
earlier long term data. The correlation of chloride ion concentration
wtih SO 2 removal is discussed in Section 14.
9-1
-------
LIMESTONE TESTING
Table 9-1 gives the data from the 49 limestone factorial tests on the
TCA. Independent variables tested with the TCA limestone system
were:
• Gas flow rate
• Slurry recirculation rate
• Scrubber inlet liquor pH
• Sphere bed height
Figure 9-1 illustrates the effect of scrubber inlet pH on SO2 removal
at different liquid-to-gas ratios. For the data given in this figure,
superficial gas velocity* was 10.4 ft/sec, and the TCA operated with
three 5-inch-deep beds of 6. 5-gram nitrile foam spheres, nominally
1-1/2 inches in diameter. The data show that SO2 removal increases
with both increasing pH and increasing liquid-to-gas ratio.
Figure 9-2 shows the effects on SO2 removal of changing slurry
flow rate and gas velocity independently in the TCA with three 5-inch
beds. SO2 removal is a strong positive function of slurry flow rate
and a slight positive function of gas velocity (decreasing L/G). At
* Gas velocity is calculated at scrubber temperature (nominally
125°F). The TCA cross-sectional area is 32 ft in the scrubber
section.
9-2
-------
Table 9-1
SUMMARY OF LIMESTONE FACTORIAL TESTS ON THE TCA
vO
I
w
Run
Number
Gas
Rate,
acfm
Liquor
Rate,
gpm
Ga s
Vel. .
ft/ sec
L/G,
gal/Mcf
T otal
Sphere
Height,
in.
Bed Press.
Drop,
in. HzO
Scrubber Inlet
Liquor pH
Scrubber
Outlet
Liquor
pH
Inlet SO^
Cone. , ppm
Percent
Retrioval
Replicate
Numbe r
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
TCA101
30000
900
12.5
37
15.0
7.2
5.76-5.80
5.78
2520-2800
2686
79-82
80
TCAl02
20000
600
8.4
37
15.0
3.6
5.88-5.95
5.92
5.53
2400-2640
2533
70-72
71
F
TCA103
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.0
5.81-5.95
5.88
2600-2760
2669
86-88
87
TCA104
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
4.9
5.71-5.84
5.76
5.49
2080-2560
2360
75-80
77
E
TCA105
30000
1200
12.5
50
15.0
9.7
5.78-5.86
5.81
2320-2560
2412
91-94
92
A
TCA106
20000
1200
8.4
75
15.0
4.9
5 .74-5.85
5.80
5.20
2560-2600
2589
82-85
84
TCA107
20000
900
8.4
56
15.0
4.2
5.74-5.79
5.77
5.39
2480-2560
2520
72-77
74
TCA108
25000
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.3
5.80-5.92
5.86
2400-2520
2466
67-70
68
TCA109
30000
600
12.5
25
15.0
5.5
5.78-5.88
5.83
5.24
2400-2520
2434
69-71
70
TCA110
30000
1200
12.5
50
15.0
9.2
5.69-5.85
5.77
5.30
2400-2560
2507
89-91
90
A
TCA1X1
25000
600
10.4
30
22.5
6.2
5.40-5.56
5.46
2480-2720
2631
63-67
65
TCA112
25000
1200
10.4
60
22.5
9.1
5.43-5.48
5.46
2640-2700
2684
84-88
85
B
TCAl13
25000
900
10.4
45
22.5
7.1
5.69-5.82
5.76
2800-2840
2810
81-85
82
TCA114
25000
1200
10.4
60
22.5
9.0
5 .60-5.69
5.65
5.32
2800-2840
2820
91-94
92
B
TCA115
30000
900
12.5
37
0.0
1.8
5.81-5.99
5.90
2640-2800
2680
65-67
66
L
TCA116
20000
600
8.4
37
0.0
0.4
6.04-6.24
6.11
5.82
2640-2760
2700
60-61
61
J
TCA117
25000
1200
10.4
60
0.0
1.6
6.02-6.17
6.08
5.77
2720-2760
2750
77-79
78
I
TCA118
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
1.2
6.00-6.02
6.01
5.89
2800-2960
2920
63-65
64
K
TCA1X9
30000
1200
12.5
50
0.0
2.2
5.74-5.94
5.85
5.43
2840-3000
2909
69-71
70
C
7CAI20
20080
1200
8.4
75
0.0
0.9
5.79-5.93
5.84
5.34
2920-2920
2920
70-72
71
TCA121
20000
900
8.4
56
0.0
0.7
5.84-5.97
5.89
2720-2740
27 25
62-66
63
TCAX22
25000
600
10.4
30
0.0
0.7
5.80-5.90
5.86
2700-2760
2743
45-47
46
TCA123
30000
600
12.5
25
0.0
1.3
5.67-5.86
5.75
2600-3000
2755
46-48
47
TCA124
30000
1200
12.5
50
0.0
2.2
5.75-5.86
5.82
2680-2840
2743
66-70
68
C
TCA125
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
5.6
5.48-5.66
5.55
2280-2640
2427
74-81
78
TCA126
25000
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.2
5.41-5.59
5.52
5.12
2600-2800
2672
5 8-62
61
TCA127
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
4.8
5.43-5.67
5.52
2560-2680
2623
7 2-7 8
74
G
TCAl28
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
5.7
5.13-5.40
5.28
5.02
2600-2940
2749
63-80
71
D
TCAl29
25000
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.1
5.11-5.22
5.18
4.97
2440-2560
2520
47-51
49
TCAl30
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.3
5.20-5.42
5.33
2400-2480
2440
63-70
67
H
TCAl31
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
5.9
4.95-5.06
5.01
2480-2520
2513
63-68
66
D
TCAl32
25000
1200
10.4
60
22.5
8.8
5.19-5.29
5. 24
4.94
2640-2800
2720
68-72
70
TCAl 3 3
25000
1200
10.4
60
0.0
1.6
5.11-5.30
5.19
2400-2480
2440
49-53
51
M
TCAl34
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
4.9
5.78-5.87
5.82
5.30
2640-2720
2688
78-80
79
E
TCAl35
30000
1200
12.5
50
15.0
9.7
5.90-5.93
5.92
5.65
2560-2640
2593
95-96
95
A
TCAl36
20000
600
8.4
37
15.0
3.5
5.71-5.87
5.79
5.25
2500-2600
2544
67-70
68
F
TCAl37
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.3
5.41-5.87
5.75
5.32
2440-2720
2543
77-82
79
E
TCAl 38
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.3
4.98-5.08
5.04
5.14
2680-2800
2747
58-62
60
G
TCAl39
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.7
4.78-5.11
4.93
2600-2880
2785
52-60
57
H
TCAl40
25000
1200
10.4
60
0.0
2.1
5.83-5.86
5.84
2480-2680
2606
67-68
67
I
TCAl41
20000
600
8.4
37
0.0
0.8
5.71-5.89
5.84
5.21
2520-2600
2554
50-54
52
J
TCAl42
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
1.7
5 .79-5.82
5.80
5.18
2520-2640
2566
56-59
57
K
TCAl43
30000
900
12.5
37
0.0
2.4
5.74-5.81
5.78
5.08
2640-2760
2685
58-63
59
L
TCAl44
20000
600
8.4
37
15.0
4.5
5.79-5.91
5.85
4.96
2400-2600
2473
68-72
70
F
TCAl45
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.7
5.19-5.36
5.28
4.91
2160-2440
2360
69-74
72
D
TCA146
25000
1200
10.4
60
0.0
2.2
5.47-5.57
5.51
2400-2480
2450
56-59
57
TCAl47
25000
1200
10.4
60
0.0
2.0
5.16-5.28
5.24
2560-2600
2583
46-52
50
M
TCA148
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
1.7
5.22-5.28
5.24
2520-2760
2647
43-47
45
TCA149
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
1.6
5.39-5.57
5.51
4.86
2720-2800
2765
49-53
52
-------
1 1 1
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,360 - 2,720 ppm
GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
SPHERE HEIGHT = 5 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
4.9
+
5.1
+
5.3 5.5 5.7
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
5.9
6.1
Figure 9-1. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquid-
to-Gas Ratio on SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime-
stone
9-4
-------
1 1 —i 1 r
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION « 2,360 • 2.690 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH - 5.8-5.9
SPHERE BED HEIGHT - 5 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
100 ¦¦
S\.URrV
,.TC,38 9a"r
FU0\N BM't '
.w-
^.o
A"
-ft
28 gal/m"^
-A"
19 gal/min - ft2
10 11
TCA GAS VELOCITY, ft/sec
12
13
Figure 9-2.
Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate on
SC>2 Removal - TCA with Limestone
9-5
-------
high slurry rates (38 gal/min-ft^), removal increases with increasing
gas velocity, whereas in the spray tower it decreases with increasing
gas velocity (see Figure 6-7). The TCA data are replotted in Figure
9-3 to show how SC>2 removal increases with increasing liquid-to-gas
ratio, at constant gas velocity.
Figure 9-4 shows the effect of gas velocity and slurry flow rate on
SO2 removal when the TCA is operating with no spheres. It can be
seen that slurry flow rate strongly affects SO2 removal and that SO2
removal decreases slightly with increasing gas velocity (compare
Figure 9-2 for 15 inches of spheres).
Figure 9-5 illustrates the effect of the total height of spheres (for
three beds) in the TCA on SO2 removal at different liquid-to-gas
ratios. SC>2 removal increases strongly with increasing bed height
and increasing slurry flow rate.
9. 2 LIME TESTING
Table 9-2 presents the data from the 37 lime factorial tests'on the
TCA. Independent variables tested with the TCA lime system were:
• Gas flow rate
• Slurry recirculation rate
9-6
-------
100 --
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,360 - 2,690 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 5.8-5.9
SPHERE BED HEIGHT = 5 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
2
O 90
S
LU
-------
T
T
40 --
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,560
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 5.8
NO SPHERES, 4 GRIDS
2,910 ppm
SLURRY FLOW RATE = 38 gal/min - ft
28 nal/min • ft A.
19 gal/min - ftz p"l
+
9 10 11
TCA GAS VELOCITY, ft/sec
12
13
Figure 9-4. Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate
on. SO y Removal - TCA (No Spheres) with
Limestone
9-8
-------
40 --
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,360 - 2,740 ppm
TCA GAS VELOCITY =10.4ft/sec
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 5.8
_| 1 1 1 h
2 4 6 8 10
STATIC SPHERE HEIGHT/BED, inches
Figure 9-5. Effect of Sphere Bed Height and Liquid-to-Gas
Ratio on SO- Removal - Three-Bed TCA with
Limestone
9-9
-------
Gas
Rate,
acftti
30000
20000
25000
25000
30000
20000
20000
25000
30000
30000
25000
25000
25000
25000
30000
20000
25000
25000
30000
20000
20000
25000
30000
30000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
25000
Table 9-2
SUMMARY OF LIME FACTORIAL TESTS ON THE TCA
Liquor
Rate,
gpm
Gas
Vel. ,
ft/sec
L/G,
gal/Mcf
Total
Sphere
Height,
in.
Bed Press
Drop,
in. H20
Scrubber Inlet
Liquor pH
Range
Scrubber
Outlet
Liquor
PH
Inlet SO^
Cone. , ppm
Percent SO^
Removal
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
Replicate
Number
900
12.5
37
15.0
7.6
7.97-8.10
8.04
2440-2560
2497
73-77
74
600
8.4
37
15.0
6.7
7.95-8.40
8.10
4.88
2400-2600
2500
57-61
60
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.2
7.80-8.32
8.02
2360-2480
2431
86-87
86
F
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.5
7.97-8.27
8.13
4.96
2340-2440
2400
72-75
7 3
1200
12.5
50
15.0
11.9
8.09-8.26
8.14
4.73
2480-2560
2512
91-92
92
A
1200
8.4
75
15.0
5.3
7.98-8.43
8.22
2400-2480
2440
85-89
87
900
8.4
56
15.0
4.1
7 .82-8.08
7.95
4.84
2160-2360
2257
72-77
73
600
10.4
30
15.0
3.8
8.07-8.18
8.12
4.72
2460-2500
2480
54-59
57
E
600
12.5
25
15.0
5.6
7.93-8.20
8.03
4.52
2680-2800
2771
52-59
54
1200
12.5
50
15.0
11.0
7 .94-8.11
8.02
4.47
2400-2600
2512
90-91
90
A
600
10.4
30
22.5
5.8-
7.80-8.06
7.91
4.57
2480-2560
2550
58-60
59
1200
10.4
60
22.5
8.8
7.67-8.14
7.93
4.99
2480-2560
2505
88-89
89
B
900
10.4
45
22.5
7.2
8.04-8.22
8.12
2480-2560
2520
73-77
74
1200
10 .4
60
22.5
8.7
8.05-8.26
8.13
2360-2480
2420
89-91
90
B
900
12.5
37
0.0
8.05-8.35
8.20
2480-2600
2543
53-57
54
600
8.4
37
0.0
7.89-8.16
8.06
2480-2560
2532
48-50
49
1200
10.4
60
0.0
7.89-8.17
7.98
2400-2480
2417
68-72
70
900
10.4
45
0.0
1.7
7.79-8.23
8.00
4.68
2400-2520
2451
58-61
59
1200
12.5
50
0.0
3.0
8.01-8.28
8.15
4.27
2320-2460
2420
69-73
71
C
1200
8.4
75
0.0
1.7
7.77-8.12
7.99
2280-2520
2400
72-80
76
900
8.4
56
0.0
1.2
7 .68-8.30
8.01
2480-2520
2503
65-67
66
600
10.4
30
0.0
1.3
7 .95-8.26
8.08
4.64
2540-2560
2552
45-47
46
600
12.5
25
0.0
1.8
7.89-8.07
7.97
2440-2520
2474
41-4?
43
1200
12.5
50
0.0
3.0
7 .80-8.13
7.99
2320-2440
2383
61-69
67
C
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.3
6.67-7.24
6.91
2740-2800
2787
52-54
53
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.2
8.91-9.20
9.07
6.30
2480-2760
2571
94-96
95
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.5
5.93-6.05
5.99
2680-2720
2707
49-49
49
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.6
7.95-8.20
8.06
2400-2560
2477
59-61
60
E
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.2
5.97-6.34
6.11
2360-2440
2423
73-77
74
D
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.5
8.84-9.15
9.01
4.87
2600-2680
2640
69-72
71
1200
10 .4
60
15.0
6.0
6.43-7.36
6.89
2560-2640
2605
77-81
79
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.1
5.95-6.25
6.06
4.62
2600-2680
2632
73-77
74
D
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.5
7.82-8.09
7.98
4.52
2600-2680
2640
57-61
58
E
1200
10.4
60
22.5
8.6
5.85-6.28
6.03
2520-2560
2540
77-79
78
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.5
7.94-8.23
8.09
2200-2440
2345
84-88
85
F
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.2
5.82-6.10
5.97
4.86
2320-2380
2357
72-77
74
D
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.2
5.90-6.22
6.00
4.50
2580-2640
2604
73-75
74
D
-------
• Scrubber inlet liquor pH
• Sphere bed height
Figure 9-6 shows the effect of scrubber inlet liquor pH on SO2 re-
moval at different liquid-to-gas ratios for a superficial gas velocity
of 10.4 ft/sec and three 5-inch beds of spheres. At these conditions,
SO2 removal increases as pH increases and as liquid-to-gas ratio
increases.
Figure 9-7 indicates that SC>2 removal changes only slightly, if at
all, with a change in gas velocity even though liquid-to-gas ratio
changes. Slurry flow rate has a strong positive effect on SC>2 removal.
The data are replotted in Figure 9-8 to show how SO2 removal in-
creases with increasing liquid-to-gas ratio at constant gas velocity.
Figure 9-9 shows the effects of independent changes in gas velocity
and slurry flow rate withno spheres in the TCA (compare with Figure
9-7 with 15 inches of spheres). SO2 removal slightly decreases with
increasing gas velocity and strongly increases with increasing slurry
flow rate.
Figure 9-10 shows the change in SO2 removal with change of sphere
bed height and liquid-to-gas ratio. As expected, SO2 removal in-
creases as bed height and liquid-to-gas ratio increase at constant
gas velocity.
9-11
-------
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,345 - 2,770 ppm
SPHERE HEIGHT = 5 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
TCA GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
100
90 --
<
>
O
2
UJ
cc
cm 80
8
o
cc
70
60
50 ¦¦
40
5.0
+
+
6.0 7.0 8.0
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
9.0
10.0
Figure 9-6, Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Liquid-
to-Gas Ratio on SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime
9-12
-------
1 1 1 r~
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION - 2,260 - 2,640 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH - 8.0-8.1
SPHERE BED HEIGHT - 5 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
8
28 gat/mm-ft2
-A.
~
~
'B'
19 gal/min-ft^
10 11
TCA GAS VELOCITY, ft/»c
12
13
Figure 9-7.
Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate on
SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime
9-13
-------
1 1 1 1—
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,260 - 2,640 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 8.0-8.1
SPHERE BED HEIGHT = 5 INCHES /BED, 3 BEDS
30 40 50
TCA LIQUID-TO-GAS RATIO, gal/Mcf
Figure 9-8. Effect of Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Gas Velocity
on SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime
9-14
-------
i r
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,380 - 2,550 ppm
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 7.9 - 8.1
NO SPHERES, 4 GRIDS
40 --
wjATS.
38 9al/mi.
in. ft2
28
in
ft*
50 -¦
~ — T9o»)/.^f||
9 10 11
TCA GAS VELOCITY, ft/sec
12
13
Figure 9-9. Effect of Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate on
SC>2 Removal - TCA (No Spheres) with Lime
9-15
-------
50 --
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,340 - 2,640 ppm
TCA GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH = 7.9- 8.1
-4-
4 6 8
STATIC SPHERE HEIGHT/BED, inches
10
12
Figure 9-10. Effect of Sphere Bed Height and Liquid-to-Gas
Ratio on SO£ Removal - Three-Bed TCA with
Lime
9-16
-------
LIMESTONE TESTING WITH MAGNESIUM OXIDE ADDITION
Adding MgO to alkali scrubbing systems has been shown to increase
SO2 removal (Reference 4). The chemistry of magnesium addition
is discussed in Subsection 5.3*. To determine the quantitative effect
of MgO addition on S02 removal in the TCA, 51 limestone/MgO fac-
torial tests were made. Test results are presented in Table 9-3.
Independent variables tested with the TCA limestone/MgO system
Were:
• Gas flow rate
• Slurry recirculation rate
• Scrubber inlet liquor pH
• Sphere bed height
• Effective magnesium ion concentration in the recirculating
liquor
Figure 9-11 shows the enhancement in SO2 removal with increased
effective liquor magnesium ion concentration and slurry flow rate
for operation with three 5-inch beds of spheres. These effects are
similar for the spray tower with MgO addition (compare Figure 6-19)«
* As explained there, only magnesium ions in stoichiometric excess
of the chloride ions present are effective in increasing SO2
removal. Effective magnesium, (Mg)e, used when discussing MgO
addition, is thus defined as (Mg++-CI /2. 92) if Mg >C1 /2.92,
or as zero if Mg
-------
Table 9-3
SUMMARY OF LIMESTONE/MgO FACTORIAL, TESTS ON
THE TCA
Total
Scrubbe
r Inlet
Scrubber
Av. Scrubber
Av. Scrubber
Inlet SO,
Percent S02
Gas
Liquor
Gas
Sphere
Bed Press.
Liquor pH
Outlet
Inlet Liquor
Inlet Liquor
Effective
Cone. ,
ppjn
Removal
Rob
Rate,
IUt*,
Vel.,
L/C.
Height,
Drop,
Liquor
M|++ Cone.,
CI' Cone.,
Mg++ Cone. ,
Replicate
Tfuxnber
aefm
gpm
ft/itc
gal/Mcf
in.
in. HzO
Range
Avg.
pH
ppm
ppm
ppm
Range
Avg.
Range
Avg.
Numbe r
TMG101
25000
900
10. 4
45
15.0
5. 6
5.46-5.62
5.55
__
2054.
18470
0
2300-2400
2380
72-75
74
TMG102
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.4
5.41-5.46
5.44
--
1910
21210
0
2480-2560
2530
77-80
79
TMC103
25000
600
10.4
30
15.0
5.0
5,44-5.56
5.49
--
1896
20650
0
2480-2600
2540
62-65
64
TMG104
30000
900
12. 5
37
15.0
7.4
5.49-5.60
5. 55
--
2041
21075
0
2280-2560
244 3
79-82
60
TMG105
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.8
5. 11-5.22
5. 16
--
2071
13520
0
2360-2520
2425
60-66
64
A
TMGI06
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.8
5. 15-5.26
5.20
--
2168
13930
0
2480-2560
2511
72-75
74
TMG107
25OO0
6 00
10.4
30
15.0
5.1
5.20-5.24
5.22
4. 72
2142
13550
0
2360-2440
2409
56-57
56
TMG108
25000
900
10. 4
45
15.0
5.8
5.16-5.23
5. 19
--
2075
14210
0
2400-2440
2429
66-68
67
A
TMG109
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.9
5.73-5.78
5. 76
5.25
2017
14090
0
2400-2600
2517
64-86
85
TMGII9
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.8
5.45-5.56
5.51
--
4822
14075
1
2520-2640
2580
73-77
74
TMO120
30000
900
12.5
37
15.0
7.5
5.46-5.58
5.52
--
4806
13970
21
2560-2600
2577
74-79
77
TMG121
25000
900
10. 4
45
15.0
5. 7
5.17-5.30
5.23
--
4820
13000
367
2520-2720
2614
58-62
60
B
TMG122
25000
900
10. 4
45
15.0
5.5
5.71-5. 89
5. 80
--
4685
13000
232
2420-2560
2467
78-84
80
TMG138
20000
900
8.4
56
15.0
4.5
5.42-5.53,
5.49
5. 09
5227
13850
483
2320-2480
2406
69-72
71
TMG151
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.0
5.47-5> 60
5.52
•
4932
13600
274
2540-2560
2553
75-82
77
TMG152
25000
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.9
5.47-5.60
5.51
--
5092
13600
434
2240-2480
2413
52-57
54
TMG153
25000
900
10.4
45
15. 0
5.7
5. 15-5.34
5.24
..
5233
13500
609
2280-2440
2326
54-62
58
B
TMGI54
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6.6
5. 17-5.32
5.23
--
5387
12900
969
2360-2400
2389
67-72
69
TMG155
25000
600
10.4
30
15.0
4.9
5, 10-5-26
5. 19
--
5238
13400
648
2320-2400
2355
40-51
46
TMG156
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
2. 0
5.20-5. 30
5.25
--
5263
11770
1232
3000-3120
3064
46-51
49
TMG157
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
2.0
5.39-5. 57
5-51
—
5078
10650
1430
3080-3160
3126
53-60
57
TMG158
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
2.0
5. 80-5-87
5.84
--
4158
9638
85?
3040-3280
3168
67-68
67
TMG159
25000
900
10.4
45
0. 0
1.9
5.44-5.59
5.49
--
8970
13064
4496
3000-3280
3176
62-66
65
C
TMGI60
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
2. 0
5. 17-5.30
5.23
—
9114
14334
4205
2000-2480
2167
67-70
69
TMG161
25000
900
10.4
45
0. 0
1.9
5.73-5.83
5.79
—
9805
13242
5270
2600-3040
2808
71-79
75
TMG162
25000
1200
10.4
60
0.0
2. 7
5.50-5.54
5.52
4. 97
9719
12965
5278
3200-3600
3330
79-81
80
TMG163
25000
600
10.4
30
0.0
1.5
5.39-5-59
5.48
--
8954
12376
4715
3040-3640
3383
53-60
57
TMG164
25000
900
10.4
45
0.0
2.0
5.44-5.67
5.56
--
9467
11766
5437
3320-3580
3560
61-67
64
C
TUG 165
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.6
5.50-5.54
5.52
--
9438
13100
4951
2520-2600
2550
80-84
82
D
TMG166
30000
900
12. 5
37
15.0
7.2
5.49-5.59
5.53
--
9161
14100
4332
2600-2640
2632
85-87
86
E
T14G167
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.8
5.20-5. 34
5.26
—
9377
15700
4000
2360-2480
2456
74.79
77
TMG168
20000
900
8.4
56
15.0
4. 5
5. 48-5.55
5. 51
—
8946
15400
3672
2200-2240
2213
84-87
86
TMG169
25000
900
10. 4
45
15.0
5. 7
5. 76-5.81
5.78
--
8821
14800
3752
2240-2280
2246
91-92
91
TMG170
25000
900
10.4
45
15.0
5.8
5. 47-5.60
5.53
--
9446
15000
4309
2100-2240
2180
85-89
87
D
TMG171
30000
900
12. 5
37
15.0
8,5
5, 36-5.62
5.50
4.98
9566
16170
4028
2160-2360
2225
88-92
90
E
TMG172
25000
900
10. 4
45
15.0
5.6
5.68-5.95
5.78
—
13232
14380
8307
2320-2360
2347
97-98
97
F
TMG173
25000
900
10. 4
45
15.0
5.9
5.40-5-59
5.51
--
12821
13500
8197
2100-2400
2313
95-97
96
G
TMG174
25000
1200
10.4
60
15.0
6. 7
5.43-5.60
5.52
--
13005
12434
8746
2280-2400
2345
96-98
97
T MCI 75
25000
600
10. 4
30
5.0
4. 6
5.46-5.48
5-47
--
14113
1295?
9682
2200-2300
2280
74-77
76
TKCG176
30000
900
12.5
37
5.0
6.9
5.40-5.59
5.49
--
14060
--
9614
2320-2360
2336
91-95
94
TMG177
25000
900
10. 4
45
5.0
5.5
5.21-5-27
5. 24
13104
12250
8915
2360-2400
2367
87-89
88
TMG178
25000
1200
10.4
60
5.0
6.5
5. 14-5.29
5.22
4. 99
13065
16819
7313
2360-2400
2380
90-94
92
TMG179
25000
600
10. 4
30
5. 0
4.8
5. 09-5- 34
5.20
--
12695
15175
7505
2320-2400
2376
67-77
72
TMG1 fid
25000
900
10. 4
45
5-0
5. 6
5.74-5. 85
5.81
--
11636
14209
6777
2200-2240
2234
94-95
95
F
TMG161
25000
900
10.4
45
0
1.9
5.73-5. 80
5.76
--
12475
13206
7959
2640-2700
2680
79-82
81
H
TMG182
25000
900
10.4
45
0
2.2
5.48-5.58
5.53
5.22
12925
13246
8395
2120-2480
2260
73-82
78
T MCI 85
25000
900
10. 4
45
0
2. 0
5. 15-5.28
5.22
4,92
13538
14413
6609
2600-2860
2683
71-77
74
TMG184
25000
900
10.4
45
5.0
5. 7
5.40-5.66
5.54
--
12318
14733
7279
2440-2520
2480
89-95
92
G
TMG185
30000
600
12. 5
25
5.0
6. 0
5.42-5.54
5.48
5. 07
14215
15943
8762
2300-2540
2420
85-90
86
TMG186
25000
900
10.4
45
0
2.0
5.70-5.85
5.80
5.40
13679
14057
8872
2640-3000
2847
86-87
87
H
TMG187
25000
900
10. 4
45
0
2.0
5.42-5.52
5.47
9625
13905
4869
2000-2260
2155
70-74
72
C
-------
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,300-2,700 ppm
SPHERE BED HEIGHT = 5 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
TCA GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH - 5.5
•EFFECTIVE Mg++ = Mfl++ - CI- / 2.92
= 0 FOR Mg++ < CI2.92
+
+
2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION,* ppm
12,000
Figure 9-11. Effect of Effective Magnesium and Slurry Flow
Rate on SO2 Removal - TCA with Limestone
9-19
-------
Figure 9-12 shows the enhancement in SO2 removal with increased
scrubber inlet liquor pH and effective magnesium ion concentration
when the TCA is operating with three 5-inch beds of spheres. The
data are replotted in Figure 9-13 to show SO2 removal as a function
of pH at various effective magnesium ion concentrations.
Figure 9-14 is a plot of effective magnesium versus SOj> removal
at different pH values for the TCA without spheres. The data are
replotted in Figure 9-15 to show the effects of pH at different levels
of effective magnesium ion concentration. As was the case for three
5-inch beds of spheres, SO£ removal with no spheres increases with
increasing effective magnesium ion concentration and increasing pH.
The effect of adding magnesium for the TCA (with and without
spheres) is similar to that for the spray tower. However, the percent
SO2 removed in the TCA without spheres was lower than that obtained
by either the TCA with spheres or the spray tower.
9. 4 COMPARISON OF LIME AND LIMESTONE ADDITION
FOR ALL THREE SCRUBBERS
Figure 9-16 shows the increase in percent SO2 removal with increas-
ing pH for the TCA, spray tower, and venturi scrubbers using lime
and limestone under selected run conditions. The run conditions used
are presented in Table 9-4. Because of differing liquid-to-gas ratios,
the results are not directly comparable for the three scrubbber types,
9-20
-------
u
CC
LU
60 -II
50 •-
* EFFECTIVE Mg++ = Mg++ - CI~/2.92
= 0 FOR Mg++ < CI~/2.92
40 -¦
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,180 - 2,610 ppm
SPHERE BED HEIGHT = 5 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
TCA GAS VELOCITY • 10.4 ft/sec
SLURRY FLOW RATE = 28 gal/min • ft2
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO = 45 gal/Mcf
30
1—
4,000
2,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION, * ppm
12,000
Figure 9-12. Effect of Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet
Liquor pH on SC>2 Removal - TCA with Limestone
9-21
-------
50
* EFFECTIVE Mg+
- CI-/2.92
= 0 FOR Mg++ < CI-/2.92
40 -
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION - 2,180 - 2,610 ppm
SPHERE BED HEIGHT ¦ 5 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
TCA GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
SLURRY FLOW RATE = 28 gal/min - ft2
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO = 45 gaJ/Mcf
5.0
5.2
-t
5.4 5.6 5.8
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
6.0
6.2
Figure 9-13. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Effective
Magnesium on S02 Removal - TCA with Limestone
9-22
-------
100
90 --
80 -¦
<
>
o
s
UJ
EC
CM
8
»-
z
ui
o
cc
UJ
a.
70 --
60
50 --
_r r
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,680 - 3,560 ppm
TCA GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
SLURRY FLOW RATE = 28 gal/min - ft2
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO = 45 gal/Mcf
NO SPHERES, 4 GRIDS
40 --
* EFFECTIVE Mg++ = Mg++ - CI~/2.92
- 0 FOR Mg++ ^ CL~/2.92
30
-+-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION,* ppm
10,000
12,000
Figure 9-14, Effect of Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet
Liquor pH on SC>2 Removal - TCA (No Spheres)
with Limestone
9-23
-------
—, , , ,
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,680 ¦ 3,560 ppm
TCA GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
SLURRY FLOW RATE = 28 gal/min - ft2
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO = 45 gal/Mcf
NO SPHERES, 4 GRIDS
^9
* EFFECTIVE Mg++ = Mg++ - CI"72.92
= 0 FOR Mg
,++ <
C1-/2.92
+
5.0
5.2 5.4 5.6
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
5.8
6.0
Figure 9-15. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH and Effective
Magnesium on SO^ Removal - TCA (No Spheres)
with Limestone
9-24
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
i 1 1 1 r
i
5 6 7 8 9 10
SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR pH
re 9-16. Effect of Scrubber Inlet Liquor pH on SO2
Removal - Lime and Limestone Slurries
9-25
-------
Table 9-4
RUN CONDITIONS FOR FACTORIAL TESTS COMPARING
LIME AND LIMESTONE RESULTS
TCA*
Spray Tower**
V enturi
Gas Flow Rate, acfm @ 300°F
25,000
27,500
27, 500
Gas Velocity, ft/sec
10.4
7. 4
--
Slurry Flow Rate, gal/min
1, 200
1, 125
600
Slurry Flow Rate per Unit Cross-
sectional Area, gal/min-ft
38
22. 5
--
Liquid-to-Gas Ratio, gal/Mcf
60
51
27
Scrubber Pressure Drop, in. H^O
6
1
9
Slurry Solids Concentration, wt %
15
15
15
Inlet SO2 Concentration, ppm
2, 300-2, 800 2,500-3, 100
2,400-2,900
^Sphere bed height = 5 inches/bed, three beds
**Three spray banks in operation (1, 3,4)
9-26
-------
but the lime and limestone operating ranges for a given scrubber can
be compared.
For all three scrubbers, SC>2 removal using limestone at pH 5.8 is
greater than SO2 removal using lime at pH 6 to 7. Lime at pH 8
is more effective than limestone at pH 5. 8 for the spray tower, less
effective for the venturi, and about as effective for the TCA.
The main reason for the lower SO 3 removal with lime at pH 6 to 7
is the very low lime stoichiometry (nearly 100 percent utilization).
This low stoichiometry (i. e., low alkali solids concentration in the
recirculated slurry) reduces the alkali dissolution rate in the scrub-
ber, thus inhibiting SO2 removal. On the other hand, SO2 removal
by limestone at pH 5. 8 is relatively high because considerable excess
limestone is required to maintain this pH, and therefore the lime-
stone dissolution rate in the scrubber is high. Since this excess lime-
stone must ultimately be discarded, the improved SO2 removal rela-
tive to lime is achieved at the expense of higher limestone and sludge
disposal costs.
In order for the lime system to have SO2 removals as high as those
for limestone, the lime system pH should be about 7. 5-8. 5, as indi-
cated by the figure. This still gives a reasonably good alkali utilization
of about 85-90 percent. Lime system operation above a pH of 8. 5 is
not recommended because of potential sulfite/carbonate scaling
problems.
9-27
-------
Section 10
TCA LIMESTONE TEST RESULTS
The TCA system was operated from mid-April through the end of
June 1976 with flue gas containing fly ash while using limestone
slurry. A total of eight test runs were made during this period, with
an average of about 180 operating hours per run. With the exception
of one run, these tests were made with MgO addition.
Performance data and test evaluations for each run are presented in
this section, along with a table of major test conditions and selected
results. A log of the scrubber operating periods is given in Appendix
B. Properties of coal, limestone, and MgO used during these tests
can be found in Appendix C. Appendix D presents a computer-
tabulated summary of analytical data. Detailed test conditions and
results are summarized in Appendix H. Selected operating data are
graphically presented in Appendix I. Average scrubber inlet liquor
compositions and the corresponding calculated percent gypsum satu-
rations are given in Appendix J.
10-1
-------
10. 1 LIMESTONE/MgO TESTING WITH FLUE GAS CONTAINING
FLY ASH
TCA Run 583-2B and Runs 584-2A through 589-2A were made using
limestone slurry with added MgO. These tests were preceded by Run
583-2A, which was made without MgO addition to provide a base case
for comparison. During part of Run 584-2A and all of Runs 585-2A
and 586-2A, the centrifuge had to be taken out of service to rebuild
worn outparts and the clarifier by itself was used as a solids dewater-
ing device. Because of poor control of the clarifier underflow during
this period, the system discharge solids contents ranged from 32 to
38 percent resulting in a less tight liquor loop operation than normal.
Table 10-1 lists the major test conditions and selected results for
these runs. The objective of the tests made during this test block
was to investigate the effect of adding MgO on percent SO2 removal,
sulfite oxidation, and liquor gypsum saturation in a limestone scrub-
bing system. An evaluation and a discussion of each test are presented
below.
10.1.1 TCA Limestone Run 583-2A and Lime stone/MgO
Run 583-2B
The major test conditions for Runs 583-2A and 583-2B are given in
Table 10-1. Three beds (four grids) were installed in the TCA, each
10-2
-------
Table 10-1
MAJOR TEST CONDITIONS AND SELECTED RESULTS OF
TCA LIMESTONE TESTING WITH MgO ADDITION
o
u>
Major Teit Conditions
583-2A
(5)
583-2B
(5)
584-2A
585-2A
(5)
586-2A
587-2A
588-2A
589-2A
MgO addition
No
Yes
Yes
Y es
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fly ash
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gas rate, acfm
30,000
30,000
30, 000
30,000
30,000
30,000
20,500
30,000
Liquor rate, gpm
1200
1200
1200
900
1200
1200
1200
1200
Percent solids recirculated
15
15
15
15
8
15
15
Effluent residence time, min
Scrubber inlet liquor pH (controlled)
3.0
3. 0
4. 1
4. 1
4. I
4. 1
4. 1
—
5,4
Stoich. ratio (controlled), moles Ca/mole SO^ absorbed
Effective Mg concentration, ppm
1.2
1. 2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1,2
1.2
0
5000
9000
9000
9000
9000
9000
9000
Sphere height per bed (3 beds), inches
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
5
Selected Results
On stream hours
Percent SOj removal
Inlet SO2 concentration, ppm
SO2 make-per-pass, m-moles/liter
Scrubber inlet liquor SO3" concept ration, ppm '
Limestone utilisation, lOOx moles SO2 absorbed/mole Ca added
Scrubber inlet liquor percent gypsum saturation @ 50°C
Percent sulfite oxidation
Scaling
.
Mist eliminator restriction, percent
(4)
131
230
236
140
110
295
107
200
77
84
94
85
80
93
94
90
3050
2900
2950
2900
2750
3100
2550
3600
12.5
13.5
15.0
17. 5
12.0
15.0
8.5
16. 0
300
2780
8000
4190
7050
6300
3300
3700
80
7?
77
77
83
74
53
80
145
110
50
105
70
125
125
120
34
30
20
28
23
28
31
15
—
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
2
1
4
4
5
2
2
Notes:
1) Effluent residence time was 3. 0 minutes for the first 80 hours of Run 584-ZA.
2) Average scrubber inlet pH ranged from 5. 3 to 5» 5 for all runs.
3) Total sulfite includes SO^ and HSO^.
4) The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to each run except for Run.583-2A.
5) Runs 585-2A, 583-2B, and 585-2A had suspected air lealcage in the scrubber downcomer.
-------
bed containing nitrile foam spheres nominally 1-1/2 inch diameter to
a static depth of 5 inches. Other detailed operating conditions can
be found in Appendix H.
The test conditions for Run 583-2B were the same as for Run 583-2A,
except that MgO was dry-fed to the effluent hold tank to maintain an
effective magnesium ion concentration of 5000 ppm in the scrubbing
liquor. The centrifuge was used as a solids dewatering device during
Run 583-2B (cf. clarifier during Run 583-2A) to maintain a tighter
liquor loop to minimize MgO consumption. MgO addition during Run
583-2B was about 1.6 lb of MgO per 100 lb of CaCO-j.
Runs 583-2A and 583-2B were conducted to compare the percent SO2
removals, sulfite oxidations, and liquor gypsum saturations with and
without MgO addition. A limestone stoichiometry of 1.2 moles of Ca
per mole of SO2 absorbed (about 85 percent utilization) was main-
tained to obtain a reliable mist eliminator operation (see Reference 3).
The scrubber system, including the mist eliminator, was cleaned be-
fore Run 583-2A. No cleaning was done prior to Run 583-2B.
As expected, higher percent SO2 removal was achieved during Run
583-2B when MgO was added. The SO2 removal averaged 84 percent
at an average inlet SO2 concentration of 2900 ppm during Run 583-2B,
compared with 77 percent removal at 3050 ppm for Run 583-2A. Aver-
10-4
-------
ag® gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 145 percent
for Run 583-2A versus 110 percent for Run 583-2B. Average sulfite
oxidation* decreased slightly from 34 to 30 percent when MgO was
added. Sulfite (including bisulfite) concentration in the scrubber inlet
liquor averaged only 300 ppm for Run 583-2A and 2780 ppm for Run
583-2B. The mist eliminator was 2 percent and 1 percent restricted
by soft solids at the end of Runs 583-2A and 583-2B, respectively.
Some scale was observed in the lower part of the scrubber at the end
of Run 583-2B.
10.1.2 TCA Limestone/MgO Run 584-2A
The test conditions for Run 584-2A were similar to those in Run
583-2B, except that the effective magnesium ion concentration in the
scrubbing liquor was raised from 5000*to 9000 ppm to further observe
its effect on SO^ removal, sulfite oxidation, and liquor gypsum satu-
ration.
At 9000 ppm effective magnesium ion concentration and a solids con-
centration range of 35 to 65 percent in the sludge discharged from the
* During the ten-week boiler maintenance outage in April-June 1977,
it was discovered that the scrubber downcomer discharged 14 ft.
from the bottom of the effluent hold tank (D-204). Runs 583-2A,
583-2B, and 585-2A were inadvertently made with hold tank levels
less than 14 ft. Therefore, these runs had suspected air leakage
into the scrubber downcomer and consequently higher sulfite oxida-
tion and gypsum saturation.
10-5
-------
system (during Runs 584-2A through 589-2A), the MgO requirement
was about 2 to 6. 5 lb of MgO per 100 lb of CaC03«
The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to Run 584-2A. After
about 80 hours of operation, the effluent hold tank residence time was
increased from 3 to 4. 1 minutes to minimize the fluctuations in the
scrubber inlet pH and to help reduce caking of MgO solids on the tank
walls and the agitator shaft.
For Run 584-2A, average SO2 removal increased to 94 percent, com-
pared with 84 percent for Run 583-2B, at an average inlet SO2 con-
centration of about 2900 ppm. Sulfite oxidation* decreased from 30 to
20 percent, and scrubber inlet liquor gypsum saturation decreased
from 110 to 50 percent. Sulfite concentration in the scrubber inlet
liquor increased almost threefold from 2780 to 8000 ppm.
The mist eliminator was 4 percent restricted at the end of Run 584-2A.
Scale that had formed during Run 583-2B in the lower part of the
scrubber was diminishing by the end of Run 584-2A. There was a
heavy solids buildup in the flue gas outlet duct.
* See footnote on Page 10-5.
10-6
-------
10.1.3 TCA Limestone/MgO Run 585-2A
The slurry flow rate for Run 585-2A was reduced to 900 gpm (37
gal/Mcf), compared with 1200 gpm (50 gal/Mcf) for Run 584-2A. The
effluent residence time, which had been increased from 3 to 4. 1
minutes during Run 584-2A, remained at 4.1 minutes for Run 585-2A.
Other test conditions for the two runs were the same.
The objectives of Run 585-2A were to determine whether SO2 could
be satisfactorily removed at the lower slurry flow rate and at 9000
ppm effective magnesium ion concentration and to observe the levels
of sulfite oxidation and gypsum saturation. This run provides data for
calculating the tradeoff between the costs of magnesium and the cost
of slurry pumping energy. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior
to Run 585-2A.
Run 585-2A yielded a satisfactory average SO2 removal of 85 percent,
but sulfite oxidation increased to 28 percent, compared with 20 per-
cent for Run 584-2A. Gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor
increased to 105 percent from 50 percent for Run 584-2A. The mist
eliminator was 4percent restricted by solids at the end of Run 585-2A,
a value unchanged from the beginning of the run. There was, however,
a slight gain in scale on the scrubber walls below the bottom grid.
* See footnote on page 10-5.
10-7
-------
10.1.4 TCA Limestone/MgQ Run 586-2A
For Run 586-2A, all nitrile foam spheres in the three TCA beds were
removed, leaving only four bar-grids in the scrubber. Other test
conditions were the same as for Run 584-2A.
The purpose of Run 586-2A was to observe if SC^could be satisfactorily
removed by a "grid" tower at 9000 ppm effective magnesium ion con-
centration. This run provides data for calculating the tradeoff between
the cost of magnesium and the costs of TCA spheres and flue gas fan
energy. The mist eliminator was not cleaned before Run 586-2A.
The SO2 removal averaged 80 percent at an average inlet SO2 concen-
tration of 2750 ppm, compared with 94 percent removal at 2950 ppm
for Run 584-2A. Average sulfite oxidation was 23 percent, and gypsum
saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 70 percent for Run 586-2A,
as opposed to 20 percent oxidation and 50 percent saturation for Run
584-2A. Average scrubber inlet pH was 5. 3 at 83 percent limestone
utilization for Run 586-2A versus 5.4 inlet pH at 77 percent utilization
for Run 584-2A.
The mist eliminator was 5 percent restricted by solids at the end of
Run 586-2A, a slight increase from 4 percent at the start of the run.
Scale deposits in the lower parts of the scrubber remained nearly the
same as at the beginning of the run.
10-8
-------
10.1.5
TCA Limestone/MgO Run 587-2A
Run 587-2A test conditions were similar to those for Run 584-2A,
except that percent solids in the recirculated slurry was reduced from
15 to 8 percent to observe the effect on liquor gypsum saturation.
The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to Run 587-2A. Nitrile
foam spheres removed before Run 586-2A were reinstalled. The test
was interrupted for about 30 hours by a Boiler No. 10 maintenance
outage.
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 125 percent
for Run 587-2A, considerably higher than the 50 percent during Run
584-2A. Sulfite oxidation for Run 587-2A was also higher at 28 percent,
compared with 20 percent for Run 584-2A. Other test results for the
two runs were approximately the same. During Run 587-2A, the mist
eliminator restriction by solids decreased from 5 to 2 percent. Scrub-
ber walls below the bottom grid gained scale during Run 587-2A, as
could be expected from the gypsum-supersaturated operation. The
entrance of the downcomer to D-204 effluent hold tank was 75 percent
plugged by scale and solids.
10.1.6 TCA Lime stone/MgO Run 588-2A
The test conditions for Run 588-2A were similar to those for Run
10-9
-------
584-2A, except that the flue gas flow rate was reduced from 30,000 to
20, 500 acfm (scrubber gas velocity reduced from 12. 5 to 8.6 ft/sec).
The slurry flow rate was unchanged at 1200 gpm, resulting in an in-
creased liquid-to-gas ratio from 50 to 73 gal/Mcf.
The objective of Run 588-2A was to observe the effect of higher liquid-
to-gas ratio on liquor gypsum saturation and to compare the results
with those of Run 584-2A. The mist eliminator was not cleaned at
the start of the run. Before the run, the old nitrile foam spheres
in the top and middle beds were replaced with new ones.
Gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor averaged 125 percent
and sulfite oxidation 31 percent for Run 588-2A, compared with 50
percent saturation and 20 percent oxidation during Run 584-2A. Average
SO2 removal was 94 percent for both runs. However, limestone utili-
zation averaged only 53 percent and inlet SO2 concentration 2550 ppm
for Run 588-2A, compared with 77 percent utilization and 2950 ppm
SOg concentration for Run 584-2A. The scrubber was not inspected
at the end of Run 588-2A.
10.1.7 TCA Lime stone/MgO Run 589-2A
The test conditions for Run 589-2A were identical to those for Run
584-2A, except that the scruber inlet liquor pH during Run 589-2A
10-10
-------
was controlled at 5.4 whereas limestone stoichiometic ratio during
Run 584-2A was controlled at 1. 2 moles of Ca per mole SO2 absorbed.
During Run 584-2A, the scrubber inlet slurry pH fluctuated between 5.1
and 5.7, with an average of 5.4, and the SO2 removal varied from 90
to 98 percent. Therefore, Run 589-2A was intended to observe whether
these wide variations could be minimized by a smoother, controlled
scrubber inlet pH of 5. 4. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior
to Run 589-2A.
Although a smoother scrubber inlet pH was obtained during Run 589-2A
(5.3-5.6 versus 5.1-5.7 for Run 584-2A), the fluctuation in SO2 re-
moval (86 to 94 percent) was not reduced indicating that the pH effect
might have been overshadowed by other factors, such as inlet SO2 con-
centration and liquor sulfite concentration.
The test results from Runs 584-2A and 589-2A were quite different
under seemingly identical operating conditions (see Table 10-1 for
comparison). Average SO2 removal was 90 percent and limestone
utilization was 80 percent at average inlet SO2 concentration of 3600
ppm during Run 589-2A, as compared with 94 percent SO2 removal
and 77 percent limestone utilization at 2950 ppm inlet SO2 concentra-
tion for Run 584-2A. Gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor
was higher for Run 589-2A at 120 percent (50 percent for Run 584-2A),
10-11
-------
with correspondingly lower liquor sulfite concentration (SOg and HSO^)
of 3700 ppm (8000 ppm for Run 584-2A).
The scubber walls below the bottom grid gained scale since the inspec-
tion at the end of Run 587-2A. However, the mist eliminator remained
2 percent restricted by solids. It had operated 1450 hours without
cleaning since the beginning of Run 583-2A.
10.2 CONCLUSIONS
Eight test runs were made on the TCA system with flue gas containing
fly ash and using limestone slurry. Of the eight runs, one was made
without adding MgO, one with 5000 ppm effective liquor magnesium
ion concentration, and the remainder with 9000 ppm effective magne-
sium ion concentration. The following conclusions were made from
the results of these tests:
• Higher effective liquor magnesium ion concentration is needed
in a limestone scrubbing system than in a lime scrubbing sys-
tem to obtain a similar degree of improvement in SO ? removal
efficiency. This is probably due to the lower pH inherent in
the limestone system, where the sulfite-bisulfite equilibrium
favors a shift toward bisulfite, which is not an SO2 scrubbing
species
• At 0, 5000, and 9000 ppm effective magnesium ion concentra-
tions (Rims 583-2A, 583-2B, and 584-2A), average SO2
removals were 77, 84, and 94 percent, respectively, under
typical operating conditions
10-12
-------
As in the case of lime scrubbing with added MgO (see Sec-
tion 7), gypsum scaling occurred at scrubber inlet liquor
gypsum saturations as low as 80 percent
Satisfactory SO2 removal was achieved at 9000 ppm effective
magnesium ion concentration by operating at only 900 gpm
(37 gal/Mcf) slurry flow rate (Run 585-2A) or by operating the
TCA without spheres (Run 586-2A) -- a tradeoff between MgO
cost and the costs of slurry pumping energy, spheres, and
fan power
Adding MgO at the levels tested did not always result in gyp-
sum subsaturated operation. Conditions required to achieve
consistent subsaturated operation have not yet been defined.
However, lower saturation, when obtained, normally brought
about higher liquor sulfite concentration and SO2 removal
efficiency
10-13
-------
Section 11
TCA LIME TEST RESULTS
The TCA system was operated from July through November 1976, with
lime slurry to scrub flue gas containing fly ash. A total of 18 runs
"were made during this period, with an average of about 160 operating
hours per run. Of the 18 runs, 16 were made with MgO addition.
This section presents the performance data and test evaluations for
each run, along with tables of major test conditions and selected
results. A log of the scrubber operating periods is given in Appendix
B. Properties of coal, lime, and MgO used during these tests can
be found in Appendix C. A computer-tabulated summary of analytical
data is given in Appendix D. Detailed operating conditions and test
results are summarized in Appendix H. Selected operating data are
graphically presented in Appendix I. Average scrubber inlet liquor
compositions and the corresponding calculated percent gypsum satu-
rations can be found in Appendix J.
11-1
-------
11.1 LIME/MgO TESTING WITH FLUE GAS CONTAINING
FLY ASH
TCA Runs 601-2A through 615-2A and Run 608-2B were conducted
using lime slurry with added MgO. Table 11-1 lists the major test
conditions and selected results for these runs. These tests were made
to observe the effect of adding magnesium oxide on the SO2 removal,
sulfite oxidation, and liquor gypsum saturation in a TCA lime scrubbing
system.' Average lime utilization for these runs ranged from 96 to
100 percent. At the two effective magnesium ion concentrations of 2000
and 4000 ppm used during these runs, average MgO consumption ranges
were 1.4 to 2.2 and 2. 5 to 3.2 1b of MgO per lOOlbofCaO, respec-
tively. Average solids content in the system discharge sludge ranged
from 54 to 63 percent for these runs. An evaluation and a discussion
of each test are presented below.
H.l.l TCA Lime/MgO Run 601-2A
Run 601-2A began on July 1 and ended on July 12, 1976, after 177
on-stream hours. The test was halted for about 1 day on July 3 by
* It was discovered, during the ten-week boiler maintenance outage in
April-June 1977, that the scrubber downcomer discharged 14 ft.
from the bottom of the effluent hold tank D-204, which was used
during most of these tests. Runs 604-2A, 606-2A through 608-2A,
and 611-2A through 613-2A were inadvertently made with the hold
tank levels less than 14 ft. Therefore, these runs had suspected
air leakage into the scrubber downcomer and consequently higher
sulfilte oxidation and gypsum saturation.
11-2
-------
Table 11-1
MAJOR TEST CONDITIONS AND SELECTED RESULTS
OF TCA LIME TESTING
Major Test Conditions ^
601-2A
602-2A
603-2A
604-2A(5)
605-2A
606-2A*5*
607-2A(5)
608-2A*5*
608-2B
MgO addition
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fly ash
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gas rate, acfm
30, 000
30,000
30,000
30,000
20, 500
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
Liquor rate, gpm
1200
1200
1200
900
1200
900
900
900
900
Percent solids recirculated
8
15
8
8
8
8
8
15
15
Effluent residence time, min
4.1
4,
4.1
4, 1
4. 1
4. 1
4.1
4. 1
5-4
Scrubber inlet liquor pH (controlled)
7.0
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
8. 0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Effective Mg++ concentration, ppm
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
4000
4000
4000
lame addition point ^
DC
DC
EHT
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
Selected Results
On stream hours
177
137
165
158
170
122
212
84
151
Percent SO2 removal
92
88
84
73
80
76
86
83
95
Inlet SO2 concentration, ppm
2900
3150
3350
3200
3500
3300
3200
3550
3100
SO2 make-per-pass, m-moles/liter
13.5
14. 5
14.0
17.5
10.5
17.5
20.0
21.5
22.0
Scrubber inlet liquor SO3- concentration, ppm
525
425
395
280
395
265
695
490
2780
Lime utilisation, lOOx moles SOj absorbed/mole Ca added
96
98
100
100
99
97
99
98
96
Scrubber inlet liquor percent gypsum saturation @ 50°C
50
40
75
90
45
95
75
95
11
Percent sulfite Oxidation
14
14
20
28
20
24
15
20
12
Scaling
No
No
V. Slight
Yes
No
Y es
Yes
Yes
No
Mist eliminator restriction, percent
<1
<1
3-5
40
1
10
8
2
Note: Footnotes for this table are Hated In Table 11-1 (continued).
-------
Table 11-1 (continued)
MAJOR TEST CONDITIONS AND SELECTED RESULTS
OF TCA LIME TESTING
Major Teat Conditions ^
609-2A
610-2A
611-2A(5)
612-2A
613-2A!5>
614-2A
615-2A
616-2A
617-2A
MgO addition
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Fly ash
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gas rate, acfm
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
Liquor rate, gpm
900
900
900
900
1200
900
1200
1200
1200
Percent solids recirculated
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
15
Effluent residence time, in in
5.4
5.4
4. 1
3. 0
3. 0
16
12
12
12
Scrubber inlet liquor pH (controlled)
7. 0
8,0
8.0
8. 0
7. 0
8. 0
7. 0
8. 0
8. 0
Effective Mg++ concentration, ppm
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
0
0
Lime addition point ^ '
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
Selected Results
On stream hours
259
280
111
139
67
139
110
174
159
Percent SO2 removal
75
84
81
81
85
75
88
72
80
Inlet SC>2 concentration, ppm
3050
2950
2900
3050
3050
3650
3100
3300
3100
SO2 make-per-pass, m-moles/liter
16. 0
17.0
17.0
17.5
14,0
15.5
14. 5
12. 0
13. 0
Scrubber Inlet liquor S03= concentration, ppm^
430
670
300
300
280
345
305
140
125
Lime utilisation, lOOx moles SO^ absorbed/mole Ca added
100
98
97
100
100
97
98
91
93
Scrubber inlet liquor percent gypsum saturation @ 50°C
60
40
95
95
95
90
95
115
110
Percent sulfite oxidation
18
7
30
32
35
12
17
20
12
Scaling
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Slight
Slight
V. Slight
Mist eliminator restriction, percent
3
2
6
5
12
4
2
<1
<1
No tea;
1) Three beds (4 grids) with nominal 5 inches spheres/bed for all runs.
2) Lime addition point: DC_~scrubber downcomer, EHT = effluent hold tank.
3) Total sulfite includes S03 and HSO^.
4) The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to each run except Runs 6Q5-2A. 607-2A, 608-2A, 612-2A, and 614-2A through 616-2A.
5) These runs had suspected air leakage in the scrubber downcomer.
-------
a temporary interruption of lime supply, and again for about 2 days
(July 4 to 6) by a Boiler No. 10 maintenance outage.
The major test conditions for the run are listed in Table 11-1. Three
beds (four grids) were installed in the TCA, each bed containing 5
inches static height of nominal 1-1/2 inch diameter nitrile foam
spheres. Fresh lime slurry was introduced into the scrubber down-
comer. Other detailed operating conditions can be found in Appendix H.
The clarifier contents were dumped and the inside walls cleaned before
the start of Run 601-2A. The mist eliminator was not cleaned before
the run.
Average SO2 removal for Run 601-2A was 92 percent at an average in-
let SO2 concentration of 2900 ppm. Sulfite oxidation averaged 14 per-
cent and scrubber inlet liquor gypsum saturation averaged 50 percent.
The SQ2 make-per-pass, i. e., number of moles of sulfur (SOg and SO3)
absorbed by a unit volume of scrubbing slurry as it makes one pass
through the scrubber, averaged about 13. 5 m-moles/liter. The mist
eliminator was less than 1 percent restricted at the end of the run, a
decrease from 2 percent at the start of the run.
11-5
-------
11. 1. 2
TCA Lime/MgO Run 602-2A
The test conditions for Run 602-2A were the same as for Run 601 -2A,
except that the solids contentinthe recirculated slurry was increased
from 8 to 15 percent to observe the effect on liquor gypsum, saturation.
The mist eliminator was not cleaned before the start of the run.
Average scrubber inlet liquor gypsum saturation was 40 percent, as
opposed to 50 percent for Run 601-2A. Sulfite oxidation averaged 14
percent, the same as for Run 601-2A. Average SO2 removal was
88 percent for Run 602-2A, compared with 92 percent for Run 601-2A.
The SO 2 make-per-pass averaged 14.5 m-moles/liter, somewhat
higher than the SO2 make-per-pass of Run 601-2A because of the
higher average inlet SO2 concentration of 3150 ppm. The condition
of the mist eliminator was unchanged and remained less than 1 per-
cent restricted at the end of the run.
11.1.3 TCA Lime/MgO Run 603-2A
Run 603-2A was made under the same conditions as for Run 601-2A,
except the fresh lime addition point was moved from the scrubber
downcomer to the effluent hold tank to observe the effect on liquor
gypsum saturation. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to
the test.
11-6
-------
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor increased to 75
percent, compared with 50 percent for Run 601 -2 A. Sulfite oxidation
averaged 20 percent versus 14 percent during Run 601-1A. Average
SO^ removal was 84 percent and SO2 make-per-pass was 14 m-moles/
liter at 3350 ppm average inlet SO2 concentration for Run 603-2A,
compared with 92 percent SO2 removal and 13.5 m-moles/liter at
2900 ppm for Run 601-2A. The mist eliminator was 3 to 5 percent
restricted at the end of the run.
11.1.4 TCA Lime/MgO Run 604-2A
Test conditions for Run 604-2A were the same as Run 601-2A, except
that the slurry flow rate was reduced from 1200 to 900 gpm (liquid-
to-gas ratio reduced from 50 to 37 gal/Mcf).
The objective of Run 604-2A was to investigate the effect of the lower
liquid-to-gas ratio on the SO2 removal and liquor gypsum saturation.
The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to the run.
At an average inlet SOg concentration of 3200 ppm, the SOg removal
averaged only 73 percent, a substantial decrease from 92 percent
at 2900 ppm during Run 601-2A. The SO2 make-per-pass increased
from 13.5 m-moles/liter for Run 601-2Ato 17. 5 m-moles/liter, and
11-7
-------
the scrubber inlet liquor gypsum saturation increased to 90 percent*
o*
*iv
from 50 percent for Run 601-2A. Sulfite oxidation was 28 percent,
twice the value for Run 601-2A. Gypsum scaling occurred within
the scrubber, and the mist eliminator was 40 percent restricted by
scale and solids.
11.1.5 TCA Lime/MgO Run 605-2A
Test conditions for Run 605-2A were the same as for Run 601-2A,
except that the flue gas flow rate was reduced from 30,000 to 20, 500
acfm (liquid-to-gas ratio increased from 50 to 73 gal/Mcf). The pur-
pose of the run was to observe the effect of the higher liquid-to-gas
ratio (and lower SO2 make-per-pass) on the SO2 removal and liquor
gypsum saturation. The mist eliminator, outlet duct to reheater,
bottom TCA grid, and scrubber walls below the bottom grid were
cleaned prior to the run.
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 45 percent
and the SOg removal was 80 percent at 3500 ppm inlet SO2 concentra-
tion, compared with 50 percent gypsum saturation and 92 percent SO2
removal at 2900 ppm inlet SO2 concentration for Run 601-2A. The SO2
make-per-pass averaged 10.5 m-moles/liter and sulfite oxidation
* See footnote on page 11-2.
11-8
-------
averaged 20 percent, as opposed to 13.5 m-moles/liter and 14 per-
cent oxidation for Run 601 -2A.
The mist eliminator was found to be only 1 percent restricted during
an inspection at 151 operating hours. During this inspection, it was
found that two of the four slurry distribution nozzles had been com-
pletely plugged by leftover scale and solids debris from the cleanup
before the start of the run. After the plugged nozzles were cleaned,
the run was continued under the same operating conditions. The SC>2
removal was found to be essentially unaffected by the plugged nozzles.
11.1.6 TCA Lime/MgO Run 606-2A
Run 606-2A followed Run 605-2A without a system shutdown. The test
conditions for Run 606-2A were the same as for Run 604-2A, except
that the scrubber inlet liquor pH was raised from 7. 0 to 8.0.
The objective of the run was to observe whether the TCA could be
operated free of scaling at 900 gpm slurry flow rate (37 gal/Mcf) at
the higher scrubber inlet pH. Severe scaling was encountered during
Run 604-2A, despite the fact that gypsum saturation in the scrubber
inlet liquor was only 90 percent. It was theorized that higher alka-
* See footnote on page 11-2.
11-9
-------
linity (higher pH) in the scrubber inlet liquor might cause less calcium,
sulfite dissolution within the scrubber, thus less increase in the de-
gree of gypsum saturation across the scrubber.
Average scrubber inlet liquor gypsum saturation was 95 percent, a
slight increase from 90 percent during Run 604-2A. However, rela-
tive to Run 604-2A, there was less scale on both the scrubber walls
and the scrubber outlet duct to the reheater. The mist eliminator was
10 percent restricted by scale and solids. The SO2 removal averaged
76 percentat 3300 ppm average inlet SO^ concentration for Run 606-2A,
compared with 73 percent at 3200 ppm for Run 604-2A.
11*1'7 TCA Lime/MgO Run 607-2A
The test conditions for Run 607-2A were the same as for Run 606-2A
except that the effective magnesium ion concentration in the liquor was
raised from 2000 to 4000 ppm in a continuing effort to operate the TCA
free of scaling at 900 gpm (37 gal/Mcf) slurry flow rate (see Runs
604-2A and 606-2A)^
The mist eliminator and the TCA bottom grid were cleaned prior to
Run 607-2A. The test was interrupted for about 5 days by TVA inspec-
* See footnote on page 11-2.
11-10
-------
tions of corrosion and erosion test specimens and mechanical com-
ponents.
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 75 percent
and sulfite oxidation was 15 percent, as opposed to 95 percent satura-
tion and 24 percent oxidation during Run 606-2A. The mist eliminator
was 5 percent restricted by scale and solids after 136 operating hours
(cf. 10 percent after 122 hours for Run 606-2A) and 8 percent re-
stricted after 212 operating hours at the end of the run. Scaling else-
where was significantly lighter than for both Runs 604-2A and 606-2A.
As expected from the higher magnesium ion concentration, average
SO2 removal improved to 86 percent at 3200 ppm inlet SO2 concentra-
tion compared with 76 percent at 3300 ppm for Run 606-2A. The SO2
make-per-pass increased correspondingly from about 17. 5 m-moles/
liter for Run 606-2A to 20 m-moles/liter for Run 607-2A.
1 i. i. 8 TCA Lime/MgO Runs 608-2A and 608-2B
Run 608-2A was conducted under the same conditions as Run 607-2A,
except that solids content in the recirculated slurry was increased
from 8 to 15 percent in a continuing effort to obtain scale-free oper-
ation at 900 gpm (37 gal/Mcf) slurry flow rate. The mist eliminator
was cleaned before Run 608-2A.
* See footnote on page 11-2.
11-11
-------
The scrubber inlet liquor gypsum saturation averaged 95 percent and
sulfite oxidation averaged 20 percent during Run 608-2A, compared
with 75 percent saturation and 15 percent oxidation during Run 607-2A.
Other test results were similar for these two runs. Since there was
no scrubber shutdown at the end of Run 608-2A, there was no inspec-
tion. However, from the gradual increase of pressure drop across
the mist eliminator during Run 608-2A from about 0.49 to 0.54 inch
of H2O, it was possible to infer a buildup of scale and solids.
For Run 608-2B, the effluent hold tank residence time (hence the tank
level) was increased from4. 1 to 5.4 minutes with other test conditions
unchanged from Run 608-2A. As can be seen in Table 11-1, the test
results for these two runs are significantly different as a result of
a small change in the residence time. This was quite surprising at the
time of these tests, although the reason became quite clear later on?
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor dropped
drastically from 95 to 11 percent. Sulfite oxidation decreased from
20 to 12 percent. Average scrubber inlet liquor sulfite concentration
(SO3 and HSO^) increased from 490 to 2780 ppm, with a corresponding
increase in the SO2 removal from 83 percent at 3550 ppm inlet SO2
concentration to 95 percent at 3100 ppm. The mist eliminator was
* See footnote on page 11-2.
11-12
-------
2 percent restricted by scattered minor scale and solids at the end
of Run 608-2B. The pressure drop across the mist eliminator
decreased steadily during the run from 0.53 to C.48 inch of H2O,
indicating a descaling mode of operation. Most of the scale deposits
formed during the previous runs had disappeared by the end of
Run 608-2B.
11.1.9 TCA Lime/MgO Runs 609-2A through 615-2A
Because of the significant differences in the test results between Run
608-2A (4.1 minutes residence time), and Run 608-2B (5.4 minutes
residence time), implying the strong effect of the effluent residence
time on sulfite oxidation and gypsum saturation, it was decided at that
time to investigate the residence time effect. Runs 609-2A through
615-2A were conducted solely for this purpose.
Unfortunately, it was discovered later that some of the runs made
during this lime/MgO test block had air leakage into the scrubber
downcomer due to low tank levels (see Footnote on Page 11-2), and the
higher sulfite oxidation and gypsum saturation observed for these runs
were not a residence time effect. Therefore, it would be inappro-
priate to discuss the test results of Runs 609-2A through 615-2A since
the test objective for these runs was based on the wrong presumption.
However, it should be pointed out that, among all lime/MgO runs
11-13
-------
without downcomer air leakage (see Table 11-1), lower residence
times resulted in lower average gypsum saturation (11 to 75 percent
average gypsum saturation at 4.1 and 5,4 minutes, compared with
90 to 95 percent at 12 and 16 minutes),
11. 2 LIME TESTING WITH FLUE GAS CONTANING FLY ASH
TCA Runs 616-2A and 617-2A were made with flue gas containing fly
ash and using lime slurry. These two runs were the only longer
term lime tests made on the TA system without the addition of MgO.
11.2.1 TCA Lime Run 616-2A
Typical TCA operating conditions were selected for Run 616-2A (see
Table 11-1). Three beds (four grids) were used in the TCA, each
bed containing about 5 inches static height of 1-1/2 inch nominal
diameter nitrile foam spheres. Fresh lime slurry was added to the
scrubber downcomer. Other details of operating conditions can be
found in Appendix H.
The objective of Run 616-2A was to observe the TCA performance and
reliability with lime scrubbing under typical operating conditions. The
scrubber system, including the mist eliminator, was cleaned and the
clarifier contents were dumped to purge the system of magnesium ion
left over from Run 615-2A,
11-14
-------
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 115 per-
cent and sulfite oxidation was 20 percent. Average SO2 removal was
only 72 percent and lime utilization 91 percent at an average inlet
SO2 concentration of 3300 ppm. Solids content in the system discharge
sludge averaged 57 percent.
During a scrubber inspection after 133 hours of operation, it was
found that the TCA beds had a total static sphere height of only about
11 inches (as a result of shrinkage during previous runs) instead of
the desired 15 inches. Additional nitrile foam spheres were added to
the beds to a total static bed height of 15 inches, and the operation
was continued for another 41 hours. Average SO2 removal increased
to about 82 percent at 3600 ppm inlet SO2 concentration during this
period, with a corresponding increase in the SO2 make-per-pass from
12 to 15. 5 m-moles/liter.
The mist eliminator was essentially clean, with less than 1 percent
restricted by solids at the end of the run. Some minor gypsum scale
formed on the scrubber walls below the bottom grid.
11.2.2 TCA Lime Run 617-2A
BecauseRun 616-2A had operated under scaling or near-scaling mode,
the solids content in the recirculated slurry was raised from 8 to 15
11-15
-------
percent for Run 617-2A to observe if the gypsum scaling potential could
be reduced. The mist eliminator was not cleaned prior to Run 617-2A.
Average gypsum saturation in the scrubber inlet liquor was 110 percent
and sulfite oxidation averaged 12 percent, compared with 115 percent
saturation and 20 percent oxidation for Run 616-2A. Other test results
for Runs 616-2Aand 617-2A were similar. The mist eliminator condi-
tion remained unchanged, with less than 1 percent restricted by solids.
Gypsum scale found at the end of Run 616-2A was diminishing by the
end of Run 617-2A.
11.3 CONCLUSIONS
Eighteen test runs were made on the TCA system with flue gas con-
taining fly ash and using lime slurry. Sixteen runs were made with
MgO addition at 2000 and 4000 ppm effective magnesium ion concen-
tration, and the remaining two runs were made without added MgO.
The following conclusions were made from the results of these tests:
• Gypsum scaling occurred at scrubber inlet liquor gypsum
saturations as low as 75 percent during runs with MgO addi-
tion. Within the range tested, the scrubber inlet liquor pH
and percent solids did not have a significant effect on the
percent gypsum saturation. Adding fresh lime to the effluent
hold tank instead of to the scrubber downcomer (Run 603-2A
versus Run 601-2A) resulted in higher gypsum saturation
11-16
-------
Mist eliminator restriction by gypsum scale could occur when
the scrubber is operated under gypsum scaling mode with MgO
addition, even if the alkali (lime) utilization is high. This
does not contradict the earlier finding (Reference 3) that high
alkali utilization reduces mist eliminator plugging potential.
In the latter case, the restriction of the mist eliminator refers
to soft slurry solids
For runs with MgO addition (and no downcomer air leakage),
lower effluent residence times result in lower gypsum satu-
ration. At 4.1 and 5.4 minutes, average gypsum saturation
ranged from 11 to 75 percent. At 12 and 16 minutes, the
saturation was 90 to 95 percent
Satisfactory SO2 removal (about 80 percent) could be achieved
with TCA using lime slurry without adding MgO (Runs 616-2A
and 617-2A). It appears that 15 percent solids (with fly ash)
in the recirculated slurry was required to avoid any gypsum
scaling
11-17
-------
Section 1 2
DATABASE
Because of the large amount of data being generated at Shawnee, stor-
age on paper files has become increasingly inappropriate for the data
most commonly used in the analysis of the system. In late 1975, con-
version to computerized storage within a database was begun. This
database is now fully operational.
This form of data storage provides:
• Rapid correction and updating
• Ease of mathematical manipulation
• Ease and accuracy of transmission of the data to the other
users
• Permanent, inexpensive, and secure storage
• Ease of presentation of reports and graphs
• Ease of extraction of selected data
The NOMAD database management system operated by National CSS,
Inc., was selected for use during this project.
12-1
-------
12. 1 CONTENTS AND STRUCTURE OF DATABASE
The Shawnee database contains the following information:
• Run data. Included in run data are those items* that have
only one value per run, e.g., run number, beginning and end-
ing times, type of alkali added to the system, mist eliminator
system configuration, and average analytical data for the run.
The run data describe the operating conditions for each indi-
vidual run
• Solid and liquid analytical data. Most of the data stored in
the database consist of results of laboratory analyses per-
formed on solid and liquid samples, usually collected at
8-hour intervals throughout the runs. The stream continually
monitored in all runs is the recirculating slurry at the inlet
to the scrubber (i. e. , the spray tower or the TCA). Analyses
are usually performed on calcium, sulfite, and total sulfur
concentrations in both solid and liquid phases, magnesium
and chloride in the liquid phase, and carbonate in the solid
phase. In addition, weight percent of acid insolubles in the
solid phase and liquor pH are determined. The database can
(1) store these analytical data from any stream and (2) store
replicate analytical data from any stream taken at any time
during a run
• Gas data. The SO2 concentrations at the inlet and outlet of
each scrubber system are usually recorded hourly. Values
at 8-hour intervals are entered into the database
• Flue gas characterization data. These data were collected
during a limited number of runs on the venturi/spray tower
system (see Section 8) and will be collected on a similar set
of TCA runs in early 1977. The data recorded here charac-
terize flue gas mass loading, particulate size distribution,
and SO3 concentration at the inlet and outlet of the scrubber
system
* An item or variable can be either a number or an alphanumeric
string encoding a piece of information.
12-2
-------
Because the database has a hierarchical structure (see Figure 12-1),
it is clear where any piece of information fits into the overall struc-
ture. Thus, a record of one analytical result (e.g. , a magnesium ion
concentration in a liquid phase) is related to its replicate number, the
sample point in the system from which the sample was drawn, the time
of sampling, the run during which it was sampled, and the system on
which the run was performed.
Since the data were not computerised until late 1975, a considerable
backlog of data collected prior to that time has to be entered. So far,
all venturi/spray tower run and analytical data back to Run 604-1A
(starting 04/17/74) and TCA run and analytical data back to Run 533-2A
(starting 08/06/74) have been entered. Before the end of the project,
all the reliable data collected at Shawnee will be stored in the database.
An estimated 200,000 numbers from 2-1/4 years of runs are so far
stored in the database.
12. 2 SPECIAL FEATURES OF THE DATABASE
Only primary variables (raw data) are stored within the database.
Variables derived from these primary variables are not stored in the
database (there are several minor exceptions to this) but are defined
within the NOMAD database management system (see Table 12-1 for
definitions). Such defined variables (e.g., total dissolved solids, SOg
12-3
-------
Figure 12-1. Hierarchical Structure of the Shawnee Database
Showing the Relationships Between the Different
Segments
-------
Table 12-1
DERIVED VARIABLES DEFINED IN THE
SHAWNEE DATABASE
Defined Variable
Defining Expression Used in Database
joofl - ,.11 PP™SO? out )
y pprn S02 in /
too (l - 1.04 PP^ oMet SO, \
y ppm inlet SO^ J
Particulate Removal,
SO_ Make-per-pass
100 (l - 1.04 grain./dry .cA
\ inlet dust, grains/dry scf J
0. 0002
r»-moles /liter
Stoichiometric Ratio
Stoichiometric Ratio
Based on Carbonate
Sulfite Oxidation, %
Sulfate In Solids
:12 (gas rate, acfm) (ppm SO? in - 1,11 ppm SO? out)
total slurry rate to scrubber, gpm
/ 80. 06 \
\ 56, 08 /
/80,06\
\44.01/
F i wt % SO?, in solids /80. 06\ |
I wt % total S as SO^ in sollds^64. 06 M
wt % total S as SO^ in solids - wt % SO^ in solids ^4'
wt % CaO in aolida
wt % total S aa SO^ tn solids
+ wt % CO^ in solids
wt % total S as SO^ in solids
inn I 1 - Wt % SO? in solids
I wt % total S as SO^ in solid'
Insoluble* In Slurry, wt % (
100 - Wt % C.O - wt % C02 - wt % tot*l S >< SOj + 0. 25 wt % SOj) wt % '""p* *'urrY
Total Dissolved
Solids, ppm
Sulfate
Saturation @ 50°C, %
(ppm Ca++ + ppm Mg++ + ppm
Na+ + ppmK+ + ppm total S as SO^ - 0. 020 ppm SO^ + ppm CI*")
Z. 60 • 10-® (ppm Ca++1 j^ppm total S as SO~ - SO^ ^8'5~06^|
263 ^
ppm Ca*+ ppm Mr** ppm total S as SQ4g ppm SO3"
U360 8103 96060 " 80060
+ 47
11360 T 8103
ppm totil S m SO^ - ppm SOj (fof)
Liquid Ionic
Imbalance, %
Solid Ionic
Imbalance,
100
100
1
1 -
ppm total S as
SO4 ppm ci
96060
70910
ppm Ca
, P?*«Mg (
ppm N* ppm K
40080
24310
45980 78200 J
wt % total S as SO^ In
-------
removal, stoichiometric ratio) are calculated each time the database
is asked to list them. As a result, such derived variables will always
be correctly calculated even if primary variables are changed.
Also stored in the database are three flags that are used to indi-
cate doubtful values in the gas, liquid, and solid data. Codes used
for these three items are explained in Appendix D. The flags can be
used to limit data selection from the database.
The database does not store all of the data being gathered at Shawnee.
For example, alkali addition rate, bleed stream rate, and other system
slurry flow rates are not stored there. The readings of most of the
variables (such as inlet and outlet SC>2 concentrations) are taken either
continuously or at 1-hour intervals, but only the 8-hour readings are
stored in the database. This is done to optimize the cost and usefulness
of the system. The database can be enlarged either with more frequent
readings of items already present or new items at a future date.
12.3 MAINTENANCE OF THE SHAWNEE DATABASE
The Shawnee data are now being updated daily on weekdays by person-
nel at the test facility. The data are entered into a computer file on
the National CSS, Inc. computer from a terminal located at Shawnee.
The file is corrected (edited) and then entered into the database. The
12-6
-------
data and notes added by the field operation (e.g., comments on daily
operation such as down time and scaling problems) are formatted
into a daily report. This report is printed out on a San Francisco
terminal connected to the same computer for close monitoring of day-
to-day operation by Bechtel. (It can also be printed out on any other
terminal with access to the computer system. )
1 2. 4 USE OF THE SHAWNEE DATABASE
The simplest use of the database is to produce reports of all or of
any selected parts of the database. The reports presented in Appen-
dix D are examples of this capability. These reports are a complete
listing of data for the period of this report - February 12, 1976 to
December 4, 1976 for the venturi/spray tower system and February
12, 1976 to November 22, 1976 for the TCA system.
The reporting function of the database management system is very
powerful: it can search the database for virtually any stored or defined
variable; it can format a report easily in accordance with a few simple
instructions, and it can define new variables for individual reports.
The NOMAD database management system, however, has been limited
through the period of this report by its inability to compute logs and
powers. This will be rectified by a system modification in late 1977.
12-7
-------
Reports of data canbe stored in computer files as well as being printed
out on paper. Such data can be used for plotting or for mathematical
manipulation, such as doing statistical correlations. Examples of the
use of such files are presented in the discussion of mathematical
modeling in Section 14.
Shawnee data are public information and can be used by any interested
party. Use of the database system can be arranged by contacting
Bechtel. A user ID will be set up with National CSS, Inc. The user
ID provides access to the NCSS timesharing system which includes
storage, statistical packages, and several computer languages as well
as the Shawnee database. The ID is also used for accounting purposes.
User terminals can be located anywhere in the United States; they
are connected to the central NCSS computer by telephone.
12-8
-------
Section 1 3
SIMPLIFIED EQUATIONS FOR THE
CALCULATION OF GYPSUM SATURATION
Monitoring of gypsum saturation is important because Shawnee testing
has demonstrated that scaling usually occurs whenever the saturation
exceeds 130 percent at the scrubber outlet. This section presents
simplified equations for the calculation of calcium sulfate (gypsum)
saturation from the measured concentrations of calcium, magnesium,
and sulfate ions. These equations were fitted to the predictions of
gypsum saturation made by the Bechtel-Modified Radian Equilibrium
Computer Program (Reference 1) for liquors sampled from the Shaw-
nee lime and limestone long-term reliability tests. These equations
are used to calculate the gypsum saturation in the Shawnee database.
Equations 13-1 and 13-2 predict the degree of calcium sulfate
(gypsum) saturation in lime/limestone wet-scrubbing liquors, at 25
and 50°C, respectively. The equations have been fitted to results
from the Bechtel-Modified Radian Equilibrium Computer Program.
13-1
-------
At 25°C:
Fraction CaSO^ Saturation = (Ca) (SO^) + (^-l)
At 50°C:
[¥ * «]
Fraction CaSO^ Saturation = (Ca) (SO^) | —7— + 47 j (13-2)
where
I = 3 [(Ca) + (Mg)] + (S04) (13-3)
= ionic strength of the liquor (g-mole/1), assuming the liquor
contains only Ca Mg++, SO4, and CI" ions in solution?
(Ca)
(Mg) = measured dissolved concentrations of total calcium, magne-
(SO4) sium, and sulfate, respectively, g-mole/liter.
Equations 13-1 and 13-2 can be used for simple, accurate, and con-
venient prediction of sulfate saturation by those not having access to
the modified Radian program.
* From the ionic balance: (CI) = 2 [(Ca) + (Mg)-(S04)]. Therefore,
1 = 1/2 2 Mi Zi2 = 1/2 [4 (Ca) + 4 (Mg) + 4 (SO4) + fCl)] = 3 [(Ca) +
(Mg)] + SO4, where M^ is the molarity of component i and Zj_ is its
unit charge. Note that K and Na concentrations are low at Shawnee
and, therefore, have not been included in Equation 13-3. However,
preliminary evaluation of liquor compositions from other limestone
and lime installations have indicated that the effect of high dis-
solved sodium is accounted for by adding the dissolved Na concen-
tration (g-mole/liter) to the ionic strength, I.
13-2
-------
To obtain Equations 13-1 and 13-2, 25 run-averaged liquor compo-
sitions from the venturi/spray tower and TCA scrubber inlet and
outlet were input to the modified Radian program, which calculated
the sulfate saturations. The data is presented in Table 13-1. These
25 correlated average compositions were from lime and limestone
long-term tests covering the following ranges of variables:
Dissolved calcium concentration (Ca):
Dissolved magnesium concentration (Mg):
Dissolved sulfate concentration (SO4):
Radian predicted sulfate saturation:
8-80 m-mole/liter
2-500 m-mole/liter
13-400 m-mole/liter
60-225 percent at 25°C
50-190 percent at 50°C
Equation 13-1 accounts for 99. 1 percent of the variation in the sulfate
saturations of the correlated test points at 25°C, with a standard
error of estimate of 0.033 fraction saturation. Equation 13-2 accounts
for 99. 5 percent of the variation in the saturations at 50°C, with a
standard error of 0.020 fraction saturation. See Appendix K for a
definition of statistical terms.
Because of concern about the usefulness of Equations 13-1 and 13-2
for liquors containing high concentrations of magnesium ions, chloride
ions, or both, the predictions of both the modified Radian program
and Equations 13-1 and 13-2 have been compared for 14 Shawnee
liquors of this type. These data are presented in Table 13-2.
13-3
-------
Table 13-1
DATA USED TO OBTAIN BECHTEL SULFATE SATURATION
CORRELATIONS (EQUATIONS 13-1 and 13-2)
Run
Number
PH
Measured Total Dissolved Cone., ppm
Calculated Sulfate Saturations
@ 25°C
@ 50°C
Ca
Mg
S°4
CI
by (O
Radian
by
Eqn. 13-1
by (c)
Radian
by (e)
Eqn. 13-2 '
501-2A
5.85
1800
300
1600
2600
127
125
109
108
502-2A
5.95
1600
200
1250
2200
101
103
87
89
509-2A
5. 65
2700
350
1900
4800
162
161
138
138
510-2A
5.45
3000
400
2000
5000
175
170
149
146
514-2A
5.40
3000
.350
2000
5000
178
174
151
149
515-2A
5. 30
3300
310
2500
5800
225
223
193
191
5Z5-2A
5. 80
2100
250
2000
3200
166
165
143
143
526-2A
5.85
2300
340
1900
3700
156
154
133
133
528-2A
5.80
1400
200
1600
1600
121
124
106
107
529-2A
5. 80
1900
330
2000
3300
152
153
130
132
530-2A
5. 80
1730
340
1900
2790
140
140
120
121
531-2A,. .
5. 80
700
5000
15,600
3100
129
124
105
103
531-2A
5.20
800
4800
15,600
3200
150
144
122
120
532-2A
5. 80
750
10,500
38,700
2400
183
186
147
148
533-2A
5.85
715
11,800
37,200
3100
161
162
127
128
535-2A
5. 95
1800
300
1700
3000
131
132
113
114
603-1A
8.00
2880
190
1670
4770
155
156
134
134
605-1A
9. 00
2200
50
1450
3070
138
140
120
121
606-1A
7.90
1350
120
2025
1650
152
161
134
140
608-1A
8. 05
2220
320
1920
3900
155
156
133
134
609-1A
8.00
2680
310
1440
4200
129
126
110
109
610-1A
8. 10
3100
200
1350
5200
130
129
111
111
610-1A( '
4.90
2800
280
2300
4300
204
200
175
172
611-1A
7.00
320
3200
11, 000
2500
58
58
47
49
611-1A
5. 85
600
3200
12,300
2500
116
116
96
98
(a) Compositions in this table are averages for the entire steady-state operating period of each run.
(b) These are scrubber outlet compositions; all others are for Scrubber inlet.
(c) Bechtel-Modified R?dian Equilibrium Computer Program (Reference 1)
(d) Calculated for 25°C
(e) Calculated for 50°C
-------
Table 13-2
DATA USED TO CHECK BECHTEL SULFATE SATURATION
CORRELATIONS (EQUATIONS 13-1 and 13-2)
OJ
i
ui
Run
Number
Date
and , ,
Shift
pH
Measured Total Dissolved Cone. , ppm
Calculated Sulfate Saturation
@ 25° C
@ 50°C
Ca
Mg
S°3
so4
CI
by (b)
Radian
Eqn. yi3-l(c)
ty (b)
Radian '
Eqn. V13-2(d)
VST-20
E/27N
7. 70
4800
490
90
1, 000
9,500
99
97
83
82
TCA-113
2/27A
5.70
3450
410
65
1, 550
5,500
145
138
122
118
VST-33
3/1A
5. 95
5700
580
65
1,400
12, 100
140
136
117
115
TCA-34
2/29M
5.70
3800
535
65
1,430
7, 160
132
127
110
108
TMG-106
3/22M
5.25
4250
2, 300
90
3,070
13,900
194
186
153
157
VMC-105
3/26A
5. 85
885
5, 900
225
11, 700
11, 100
114
103
88
90
TMG-151
3/26M
5.45
2400
4, 000
970
10,500
10,600
305
295
243
246
TMG-170
3/29A
5. 50
960
7, 800
1000
14, 300
15, 100
119
118
89
96
TMG-172
3/30N
7. 30
300
12,750
3070
29, 800
14, 400
52
56
38
44
TMG-173
3/31M
5.50
300
15,200
7900
28, 100
U>
o
o
41
46
29
36
TMG-174
3/31N
5.60
480
14,600
3800
36, 300
12, 800
91
96
69
75
VMG-128
4/8A
5. 20
1000
11, 100
2700
19, 900
14.200
129
133
95
106
TMG-160
4/9A
5.35
960
9.700
1670
22,300
14,400
155
155
118
125
VMG-134
4/15A
5. 50
480
12, 000
7700
31,200
9, 000
85
92
65
73
(a) Shifts: M = morning, A = afternoon, N = night; year = 1976
(b) Bechtel-Modified Radian Equilibrium Computer Program (Reference 1)
(c) Calculated for 2S°C
(d) Calculated for 50°C
Note: All liquor samples were taken at the scrubber inlet.
-------
Equation 13-1 explains 99.2 percent of the variation in the Radian
sulfate saturation predictions at 25°C, with a standard error of esti-
mate of 0. 055 fraction saturation. Equation 13-2 accounts for 98.7
percent of the variation in the 50°C saturations, with a standard error
of 0. 057 fraction saturation. The only noticeable trend of deviation is
that predictions from Equation 13-2 tend to be about 6 to 8 percent
high when both dissolved magnesium and chloride ion concentrations
are between 8000 and 15,000 ppm.
It is apparent from these results that use of Equations 13-1 and 13-2
gives only minor differences from the predictions of the Radian
program. The equations are accurate for total dissolved concentrations
of both magnesium and chloride ions up to 15,000 ppm, at least to
the extent that the Radian program itself is accurate.
13-6
-------
Section 14
MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR S02 REMOVAL
In this section, a semitheoretical model is presented for predicting
SO2 removal by limestone or lime wet-scrubbing as a function of
operating variable in a spray tower or a TCA. The model has been
fitted to Shawnee data to give predictive equations. Parametric plots
and nomographs based on these equations have been developed.
The model is compatible with boundary constraints on SOgremoval and
on the operating variables (e.g., SO2 removal must be between zero
and 100 percent; there is zero removal at zero liquor rate) and should
permit reasonable extrapolations beyond the range of fitted data.
The form of the model as developed in Subsection 14. 1 should be appli-
cable to similar full scale units. However, the fitted coefficients for
Shawnee may differ from those that would best describe another unit
because of differences in gas-liquid contacting efficiency.
The present model does not account for possible effects of liquor cal-
cium sulfate (gypsum) saturation or sulfite oxidation on SO2 removal
14-1
-------
in the presence of effective magnesium ion. Such effects are relatively
insignificant at zero effective magnesium. These effects are discussed
in Subsection 14.2. 2.
Equations and parametric plots derived from the model are presented
in Subsections 14.2 and 14.3 for limestone and lime, respectively.
Nomographs are presented in Subsection 14.4.
Analysis of typical analytical datafor limestone and lime wet scrubbing
liquors, by the Bechtel-Modified Radian Equilibrium Computer Pro-
gram (Reference 1), has shown that the equilibrium back-pressure of
SO2 gas is negligible when compared with the actual SOj pressure in the
bulk gas within the scrubber. For this condition, SC>2 removal is re-
presented by the following equation (see Reference 20):
14. 1
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL
Fraction SO£ Removal = 1 - exp
-kGa (z/G)
(14-1)
1 + k a (m/k a)
G 1j
14-2
-------
where
k_ = gas-side mass transfer coefficient, ft/min
G
a = gas-liquid interfacial area per scrubber volume, ft^/ft^
z = vertical distance in the scrubber, ft
m = Henry's Law constant for SO2, mole fraction in gas/
mole fraction in liquor
= liquid-side mass transfer coefficient, including both
physical and chemical absorption, ft/min
A comparison of Shawnee SO2 removal data for limestone/lime scrub-
bing with Shawnee data for gas-side-controlled soda-ash scrubbing
has shown that liquid-side resistance is predominant (i.e., kL/m«kQ)
for nearly all of the limestone/lime data (see Reference 1). For this
condition, Equation 14. 1 can be simplified to:
The liquid-side coefficient for absorption with chemical reaction can
be divided into two parameters, one for physical absorption and the
other for chemical reaction, by writing (as is done in Reference 20):
G = volumetric gas rate per cross-sectional area, acfm/ft^
-k az
Fraction SO, Removal - 1 - exp ——
£ mG
(14-2)
(14-3)
14-3
-------
where:
k£ = liquid film mass transfer coefficient for physical absorp-
tion, ft/min
0 = average chemical reaction enhancement factor for mass
transfer in the liquid film, dimensionless
Equation 14-2 becomes:
Fraction SO^ Removal = 1 - exp 4>
. o
-k az
L
mG
(14-4)
The parameters in the group (k^az/mG) are functions of liquor rate,
gas rate, and scrubber internals (e.g. , number of grids and total height
of spheres intheTCA). For limestone and lime wet scrubbing at Shaw-
nee, the group (kLaz/mG) has been successfully represented by the
following equation (see Reference 1):
a2 a3
kLaz/mG= a (L/G) v
1 + a.
tot
+ N
(14-5)
where:
L/G
v
htot
= liquid-to-gas ratio in the scrubber, gal/Mcf
= gas velocity in the scrubber, ft/sec
= total height of the spheres in the TCA, inches
(zero for the spray tower)
= diameter of TCA spheres, 1. 5 inches at Shawnee
14-4
-------
Nq = number of grids or screens in the TCA, normally four
at Shawnee (zero for spray tower)
a's = constant coefficients to be fitted to limestone/lime
wet-scrubbing data
The bracketed term in Equation 14-5 is equal to one for spray tower
calculations.
The enhancement factor, $ , is a representation of the chemical reac-
tivity of the scrubber liquor with absorbed SO2 gas. This reactivity
may be expressed in terms of such variables as the scrubber inlet
gas SO2 concentration, scrubber inlet liquor pH, and the total con-
centrations of the dissolved chemical species, e.g., magnesium and
chloride. An empirical relationship for $ that is compatible with
boundary constraints is:
} - exp^pHj + a6 C1" /2. 92
0 for Mg++
-------
Other variables that can affect liquor reactivity, such as sodium ion
concentration, sulfate saturation, and sulfite oxidation, have not been
included in Equation 14-6 because no effect on SO2 removal attribut-
able to these variables was observed within the range of operating
conditions for most of the Shawnee limestone and lime test runs.
The use of effective, rather than total, dissolved magnesium in Equa-
tion 14-5 reflects the fact that chloride neutralizes magnesium to
produce dissolved MgCl2» which is not useful for removing SO2 (see
Section 5. 3).
Combining Equations 14-5 and 14-6 with 14-4 to calculate SO2 removal
yields:
Fraction SO^
Removal
= 1 - exp
I "ai
do ClQ
(L/G) (v) °
1
eXP[a5 pHl + "6 t I (14.7)
]}
Equation 14-7 is a preliminary equation for correlating SO2 removal
by limestone or lime with operating variables. In the actual fitting of
the Shawnee TCA data, the following modification of Equation 14-5,
and hence of Equation 14-7, was found to be more useful for TCA cor-
14-6
-------
relations:
az/mG = (L/G) ^exp
a4V
tot + N
d
G
(14-8)
Equation 14-8 includes the interaction effect of gas velocity v with a
scrubber internals term, which is expressed as (htot/dg + Nq). This
interaction effect was found to be statistically significant in the most
recent (February through April 1976) Shawnee TCA limestone factorial
runs and lime factorial runs. This significance can be explained in
terms of superior sphere agitation and increased liquid-gas contact-
ing at higher gas velocities.
Another correction to Equation 14-7 is required because of the pre-
sence of chloride ion in the scrubbing liquor. When the chloride ion
concentration increases, the pH in the effluent hold tank tends to
decrease (see Section 5. 3. 2) To maintain the pH in the tank, the stoi-
chiometric ratio must be increased. This increased stoichiometric
ratio increases the SC^ removal. Therefore, the effect of scrubber
inlet liquor pH on SC>2 removal, as expressed in Equation 14-7, was
corrected for chloride ion concentration of the scrubber inlet liquor
as follows:
corr " PHl + a8 C1 (14-9>
14-7
-------
where
(pHi)corr = effective value of scrubber inlet liquor pH (when related
to actual limestone stoichiometry), corrected for dis-
solved chloride concentration
Thus the enhancement effect of increased stoichiometry on SO2 removal
is represented in the model by (pHj) corr
The use of Equations 14-8 and 14-9 to modify Equation 14-7 gives the
final form to the semi theoretical equation. This form was fitted
individually to the Shawnee TCA and spray tower limestone and lime
wet-scrubbing data sets:
CI
chloride ion concentration, ppm
Fraction SOj, Removal = 1 - exp - (L/C)
+ a,. pH. + a6 (Mg)e - a?(S02).
+ "8C1
(14-10)
where
CI
d
s
measured total dissolved chloride ion concentration,
ppm
diameter of the TCA sphere (1.5 inches at Shawnee)
14-8
-------
htQt = total height of the spheres in the TCA, inches
L/G = liquid-to-gas ratio in the scrubber (125 °F, humidified
gas), gal/Mcf
(Mg)e = effective magnesium ion concentration, ppm
[ppm Mg - (ppm Cl~/2.92)] for MgV, > Cl"/2. 92
0 for Mg 2)i = inlet gas SO2 concentration, ppm
v = gas velocity in the scrubber (125°F, humidified gas),
ft/sec
al .. . a8 = constant coefficients to be fitted to the data for SO2
removal by limestone/lime wet-scrubbing
and where [h^0^./ds + Nq] equals zero for the spray tower
The correlations obtained using Equation 14-10 are presented in Sub-
sections 14. 2 and 14. 3.
14. 2 FITTED EQUATIONS FOR SO2 REMOVAL BY LIMESTONE
SLURRY
In this subsection, two equations for SO2 removal by limestone slurry
are presented - one for the spray tower and one for the TCA - and
parametric plots based on these equations are shown. These equations,
which have the form of Equation 14-10, were fitted to run-averaged
Shawnee factorial and long-term limestone data.
14-9
-------
Nomographs are presented in Subsection 14,4.
Because of the narrow range of inlet SO2 concentration during the
factorial tests, additional data from other sources were used to esti-
mate the effect of inlet gas SO2 concentration on SO2 removal.
14. 2. 1 Estimation of Effect of Inlet SO? Concentration
The run-averaged measurements of inlet SO2 concentration during
Shawnee limestone factorial testing did not vary enough to determine
a statistically significant effect of inlet SO2 on SO2 removal. There-
fore, this effect was estimated from: individual data recorded at
specific times throughout Shawnee TCA long-term limestone Runs
535-2A and 535-2B, during which inlet SO2 concentration ranged from
1500 to 4900 ppm; data from the 300 cfm TCA pilot scrubber operated
by the EPA at Research Triangle Park, N. C. (Reference 21); and
data from an 8 cfm TVA pilot spray tower (Reference 22).
The EPA pilot scrubber is a 9-inch-diameter, three-stage TCA (cross-
2
sectional area of 0. 44 ft ). Data were taken at a slurry flow rate of 17
gpm, a gas velocity of 7.5 ft/sec (190 ft /min), a liquid-to-gas ratio
of 86 Hh 3 gal/Mcf at 125°F, 16 weight percent solids recirculated, and
7 inches of 3/4-inch-diameter spheres per bed.
14-10
-------
The TVA pilot scrubber is a 4-inch I. D. glass tube spray tower with
two nozzles. Data were taken at a liquid-to-gas ratio of 80 gal/Mcf
at an average inlet gas temperature of 175°F, corresponding to 87 gal/
Mcf at 125°F. The solids concentration in the recirculating slurry-
was 2 weight percent.
The detailed operating conditions for Shawnee TCA limestone Runs
535-2A and 535-2B are given in Appendix F, Reference 2. The gas
velocity was 8 ft/sec and the recirculating slurry flow rate was 1200
gpm (i.e., a liquid-to-gas ratio of 50 gal/Mcf). Three beds of hollow
thermoplastic rubber (TPR) spheres (1-1/2 inch diameter, 5 inches
height per bed) were used; the solids concentration in the recirculating
slurry was 13 weight percent.
The following equation for SO2 removal as a function of inlet gas SO2
concentration has been fitted to the seven data points obtained from the
EPA and TVA pilot scrubbers:
Fraction S02 Removal = 1 - exp j- 2. 8 exp £-1. 73 x 10"4 (SO^j j
(14-11)
Figure 14-1 sompares the seven experimental data points from the
EPA and TVA tests with a curve representing Equation 14-11. The
14-11
-------
100 1 1 1 1
O epapilottca
SPHERE HEIGHT = 7 INCHES/BED, 3 BEDS
LIQUID - TO • GAS RATIO = 85 gal/Mcf
TCA GAS VELOCITY = 7.5 ft/sec
95 --
0 TVA PILOT SPRAY TOWER
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO
85 gal/Mcf
<
>
O
2
Ui
K
CM
8
90 --
o
c
85 --
EQUATION 14-11
80
75 --
70
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION, ppm
5,000
Figure 14-1. Effect of Inlet SO2 Concentration on SO2 Removal
14-12
-------
equation accounts for 91 percent of the variation in the data, with
a standard error of estimate of 2. 7 percent SO2 removal.
Equation 14-12 below has been fitted to 213 individual data points ob-
tained from Shawnee TCA Runs 535-2A and 535-2B:
Equation 14-12 accounts for 69 percent of the variation in the data,
with a standard error of estimate of 2. 2 percent SO2 removal.
A comparison of Equations 14-11 and 14-12 shows that the coefficients
of inlet SO2 concentration are nearly the same at about 1.7 x 10"^.
Although most of the data to which Equations 14-11 and 14-12 were
fitted were from TCA scrubbers, Shawnee results with the TCA and
the spray tower indicate that the effects of operating variables on SO 2
removal by limestone are similar for both scrubber types (see Subsec-
tions 14.2.3 and 14.2.4). Therefore, in Equation 14-10 the coefficient
of the inlet SO 2 term, a 7, has been set at 1.7 x 10 "4.
Figure 14-2 is a plot showing the effect of inlet SO2 concentration on
percent SO2 removal, as determined in this subsection. It was derived
14-13
-------
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,600 3,000 3,500 4.000
SOz INLET CONG., ppm
Figure 14-2 can be used to predict the effect of a change in SO2
inlet concentration on SOg removal. When the SO2 removal, (SO2R) i>
at a particular inlet SO2 concentration, (SC>2i)l» is known, the re-
moval, (S02R)2> at a different inlet SO2 concentration, (S02i)2> *8
obtained by first locating the point [(SC>2i)i» (SOjR),] and then paral-
leling the nearest curve until (SC>2i)2 is reached. The corresponding
value on the y axis is then (SC>2R)2 •
Figure 14-2. Predicted Effect of Inlet SO^ Concentration on
SO Removal from Equation 14-13.
c*
14-14
-------
from a series of equations of the form:
Fraction SO^ Removal = 1 - exp j-C^exp 1. 7 x 10 (14-13)
where
C ^ is a constant set by operating conditions
Figure 14-2 can be used to predict the effect of a change in inlet SC>2
concentration on SOjj removal. When the SO2 removal, (S02R)l, at
a particular inlet SO2 concentration, (SO^i)^ is known, the removal,
(SO^R^* at a different inlet SOg concentration, is obtained
by first locating the point [(SO^i)!, (SO^R) j] in Figure 12-2, and then
paralleling the nearest curve until (S02i)2 is reached. The correspond-
ing value on the vertical axis is then (S02R)2»
The solid lines in Figure 14-2 cover the range of average inlet S02 con-
centrations usually obtained at Shawnee for limestone runs, approxi-
mately 2500 to3500ppm. The dashed lines cover essentially the entire
range of inlet SO2 concentrations that was fitted by Equations 14-11 and
14-12 (400 to 4600 ppm).
14-15
-------
14. 2. 2 Qualitative Effects of Gypsum Saturation and Sulfite
Oxidation in the Presence of Effective Magnesium Ion
For limestone/lime wet-scrubbing, the presence of effective
magnesium ion increases the reactivity of the scrubber liquor with
SC>2, thus increasing SC>2 removal. The magnitude of this effect can
depend on either calcium sulfate (gypsum) saturation or sulfite oxida-
tion. The effects of gypsum saturation and sulfite oxidation on SC>2
removal are not accounted for by Equation 14-10 and are discussed
below.
The increased reactivity of liquor containing effective magnesium ion
occurs because increased magnesium increases the concentration of
dissolved sulfite (not bisulfite) species, e.g., SO3 ion and the magne-
sium sulfite (MgSOg) ion pair. These sulfite species can react with
incoming SC>2, thus enhancing SO2 removal.
These effects of increased magnesium ion on the sulfite species are
predicted by the Bechtel-Modified Radian Equilibrium Computer Pro-
gram and have been verified by liquor analytical data obtained at
Shawnee.
* The increase in sulfite (SO3) concentration is required to satisfy
the ionic balance when Mg++ ion is added to the liquor. The MgSOj
concentration also increases, because of the equilibrium among
Mg++, SO3, and MgS03. Naturally, other negative ions such as
bisulfite (HSO3) and sulfate (SO4) also increase with increasing
Mg , but these other negative ions do not react with SC^.
14-16
-------
At high magnesium ion concentrations, a decrease in gypsum satura-
tion can increase the concentration of the reactive sulfite species, thus
adding to the normal magnesium ion enhancement effect on SO2
removal. The effect of low gypsum saturation on the concentration
of dissolved sulfite species is explained as follows:
• By definition, a decrease in gypsum saturation means
that the product of calcium ion activity and sulfate ion
activity is reduced. When this occurs, the concentra-
tions of calcium ion and/or sulfate ion are reduced
• The reduction in calcium ion allows the concentration of
sulfite ion to increase in accordance with the solubility
product for calcium sulfite. A reduction in sulfate ion also
increases the concentration of sulfite ion in order to pre-
serve the ionic balance
• The increase in sulfite ion also increases the concentra-
tion of the MgSC>3 ion pair in order to maintain chemi-
cal equilibrium of MgSOj with sulfite and magnesium ions
Very high sulfite oxidation (near 100 percent) results in low sulfite
specie concentration, and hence in lower SO2 removal. At such high
oxidation, the beneficial effect of magnesium on SO2 removal should
be reduced below the prediction of Equation 14-10.
These potential effects of sulfate saturation and sulfite oxidation on SO2
removal have not been included in Equation 14-10 because operating
conditions for most of the Shawnee limes tone/lime test runs have
not been in the appropriate range to observe the effects. However,
14-17
-------
a few recent lime/MgO tests at Shawnee, e.g., Runs 643-1A (10%
saturation) and 608-2B (11% saturation), have verified that higher SO2
removals can be obtained for subsaturated operation. Therefore,
caution should be exercised in applying the correlations discussed in
Subsections 14.2 and 14.3 to high-magnesium limestone/lime wet-
scrubbing.
14. 2. 3 Spray Tower Equation for SO? Removal by
Limestone Slurry
The following equation for SO2 removal (having the form of Equation
14-10) has been fitted to the 61 spray tower limestone and limestone/
MgO factorial runs made during 1976 (see Section 6) and to 16 venturi/
spray tower long-term limestone runs (Runs 701-1A through 717-1A)' :
Fraction SOz Removal = 1 - exp j- 9. 8 x 10~5(L/G)°* 92v°' 19
exp
pH. + 1. 35 x 10 4(Mg) - 1. 7 x 10~4(SO )
L ^ i
+ 1.45 * io-5cij| (14_U)
where:
C.l = measured total dissolved chloride concentration, ppm
* Two spray tower factorial runs (Runs VMG-150 and VMG-151) with
only a single operating spray header were excluded from the corre-
lation.
14-18
-------
L/G = liquid-to-gas ratio in the scrubber (125°F, humidified gas),
gal/Mcf
(Mg) = effective magnesium-ion concentration, ppm
= [ppm Mg++ - (ppm CI" /2. 92)] for Mg > CI" /2. 92
= 0 for Mg++ < Cl"/2. 92
where 2. 92 = ratio by weight of CI" to Mg++ in MgCl^
pH^ = scrubber inlet liquor pH
(SC>2)i = inlet gas SO2 concentration, ppm
v = gas velocity in the scrubber (125°F, humidified gas), ft/sec
The run-averaged values of the variables used in Equation (14-14) are
tabulated in Table 14-1.
The fitted ranges of the operating variables in Equation 14-14 are given
below. Equation 14-14 should not be extrapolated beyond these ranges.
L/G 25-95 gal/Mcf
v 5. 3-9. 3 ft/sec
pHj 5. 2-6. 0
(Mg)e 0-10, 000 ppm
(S02)i 1500-4500 ppm
Cl 3000-17, 000 ppm
For the venturi/spray tower long-term runs, the SO2 removal in the
spray tower only was estimated by correcting for the expected SO2
removal in the venturi as predicted from venturi factorial tests. For
the spray tower factorial runs, the venturi with wide-open throat and
minimum slurry flow rate (about 150 gpm) gave very low SOjj removal
(about 5 percent). For such a low venturi removal, the spray tower
14-19
-------
Table 14-1
RUN-AVERAGED SPRAY TOWER RESULTS FOR LIMESTONE
SCRUBBING TO WHICH EQUATION 14-14 WAS FITTED
Inlet
Ga s
L/G,
Effective
Chloride
S02
so2
Run
Velocity,
gal/
Inlet
Magnesium,
Ion Con?. .
Cone. ,
Removal,
Number
fps
Mcf
pH
ppm
ppm
ppm
%
VMG-102
7.3
68.2
5. 56
503
13700
2387
84
VMG-10 3
7.3
68.2
5.22
422
14732
2400
70
VMG-104
7.3
51.1
5.77
0
14800
2352
80
VMG-105
7.3
51.1
5.53
1256
12000
2373
69
VMG-106
7.3
51.1
5.24
537
11950
2457
59
VMG-107
7.3
51.1
5.79
1156
12800
2432
80
VMG-108
7.3
34.1
5.51
1422
13000
2648
52
VMG-I09
7.3
34.1
5.20
815
13500
2697
42
VMG-117
7.3
68.2
5.53
3810
14057
2552
95
VMG-118
7.3
68.2
5. 20
4477
12996
2783
85
VMG-119
7.3
68.2
5.53
5054
14377
2448
93
VMG-120
7.3
51.1
5.49
4209
15500
2508
79
VMG-121
9.3
40.2
5.53
4119
17000
2507
76
VMG-122
5.3
70.3
5.51
3707
16685
2417
86
VMG-123
7.3
51.1
5.23
3499
15265
2520
68
VMG-124
7.3
51.1
5.79
3795
15087
2460
87
VMG-125
7.3
51.1
5.51
4028
16330
2593
78
VMG-126
9.3
40.2
5.51
3179
15880
2368
73
VMG-127
7.3
34.1
5.49
4293
14318
2964
67
VMG-128
7.3
34.1
5.19
5614
14067
3300
60
VMG-129
7.3
34.1
5.52
4710
14676
2428
71
VMG-130
7.3
68.2
5.57
8697
9833
3528
98
VMG-131
7.3
68.2
5.23
8234
9585
3750
95
VMG-X32
7.3
51.1
5.25
10383
9407
3263
91
VMG-133
7.3
51.1
5.81
8043
8890
3270
96
VMG-134
7.3
51.1
5.50
9307
8410
3440
97
VMG-135
7.3
51.1
5.18
9198
8727
2370
88
VMG-136
7.3
34.1
5.25
8635
8342
2535
85
VMG-137
7.3
34.1
5. 54
9920
6981
2693
92
VMG-144
7.3
34.1
5.54
4221
15380
2640
74
VMG-145
9.3
26.8
5.48
8669
7839
2713
81
VMG-146
9.3
40.2
5.45
9633
9407
3663
94
VMG-147
7.3
34.1
5.42
9106
8497
3075
83
VMG-148
7.3
51.1
5.53
8248
9082
2440
96
VST-116
9.3
40.2
5.84
0
15300
2543
72
VST-117
9.3
26.8
5.80
0
12900
2773
58
VST-118
5.3
93.7
5.75
0
13600
3164
88
VST-119
7.3
51.1
5.83
0
15750
2569
76
VST-120
5.3
70.3
5.79
0
143012
2626
79
VST-121
9.3
26.a
5.81
0
12950
2629
59
VST-122
7.3
68.2
5.81
0
13800
2928
80
VST-123
9.3
53.6
5.80
0
13100
3122
74
VST-124
7.3
51.1
5.83
0
14800
2554
78
VST-125
5.3
46.9
5.78
0
12900
2771
68
VST-126
5.3
93.7
5.83
0
14700
2900
90
VST-127
7.3
34.1
5.82
0
12900
2633
65
VST-128
7.3
51.1
5.54
0
12900
2530
67
VST-129
7.3
68.2
5.51
0
15500
2947
73
VST-130
7.3
68.2
5.16
0
16100
2823
66
VST-131
7.3
51.1
5.17
0
16200
2648
56
VST-132
7.3
68.2
5.21
0
15350
2537
67
VST-134
7.3
34.1
5.78
0
12900
2717
60
VST-136
7.3
34.1
6.02
0
14300
3020
69
VST-137
7.3
34.1
5.81
0
13500
2580
63
VST-138
7.3
51.1
5.68
0
14000
3065
66
VST-139
7.3
51.1
5.78
0
13600
2535
73
VST-140
7.3
51.1
5.75
0
14500
2738
68
14- 2 0
-------
Table 14-1 (continued)
RUN-AVERAGED SPRAY TOWER RESULTS FOR LIMESTONE
SCRUBBING TO WHICH EQUATION 14-14 WAS FITTED
Inlet
Gas
L/G,
Effective
Chloride
S02
so2
Run
Velocity,
gal/
Inlet
Magnesium,
Ion Cone.,
Cone. ,
Removal,
Number
fps
Mcf
pH
PPm
ppm
ppm*1'
%">
VST-141
7.3
35.5
5.99
0
13250
2610
72
VST-142
7.3
34.1
5.20
0
13000
2683
43
VST-143
7.3
34.1
5.50
0
13000
2480
52
VST-144
7.3
34.1
5.89
0
13000
2673
70
701-1A
9.3
57.1
5.90
0
4920
1584
79
702-1A
9.3
50.0
5.80
0
4780
1991
71
703-1A
9.3
50.0
5.20
0
6210
2171
43
704-1A
9.3
50.0
5.80
0
6200
1991
76
705-1A
9.3
53.6
5.80
0
4020
1962
73
706-1A
9.3
50.0
5.25
0
3830
2200
41
707-1A
9.3
50.0
5.70
0
4410
2106
71
708-1A
9.3
50,0
5.65
0
4560
2117
58
709-1A
9.3
50.0
5.80
0
3660
2109
66
710-1A
9.3
50.0
6.00
0
3400
1740
78
711-1A
9.3
50.0
5.70
0
' 3740
1984
67
711-lB
9.3
50.0
5.70
0
4930
1831
71
712-1A
9.3
50.0
5.85
0
4940
1892
79
713-1A
9.3
50.0
5.28
0
5570
2071
65
714-1A
9.3
50.0
5,55
3192
5280
1967
86
717-1A
9.3
50.0
5.45
3508
4180
2135
82
(1) For long-term Runs 701-1A to 717-1A, overall inlet SO- concentrations and
SO2 removals were corrected for venturi SC^ removal Fo give the estimated
spray tower inlet SOg concentrations and SC^ removals used in Equation 14-14.
14-21
-------
removal differs from the total system removal by only one percent-
age point or less. Therefore, no correction for venturi removal was
made for these runs.
In Equation 14-14, the coefficient of the inlet gas SO2 concentration
_4
term, -1.7 x 10 , was obtained from individual Shawnee long-term
data points and from EPA and TVA pilot scrubber data (see Subsec-
tion 14. 2. 1),
A decrease of about 5 percent in the SO2 removal was observed for
two runs (Runs VST-138and VST-140) made at a spray nozzle pressure
drop of 8psig, reduced from the normal 1 2 to 13 psig. However, there
were not enough data to permit accurate correlation of the nozzle
pressure drop effect.
Measured percent SO2 removals and those predicted from Equation
14-14 are shown in Figure 14-3. Equation 14-14 accounts for 92
percent of the variation in the combined data (94 percent for the fac-
torial data and 80 percent for the long-term data) with a standard
error of estimate of 3.9 percent SO2 removal (3.3 percent for the
factorial data and 5.7 percent for the long-term data).
Figures 14-4 through 14-10 are parametric plots derived from Equation
14-14, showing predicted SO2 removals and the corresponding Shawnee
spray tower limestone data. Equation 14-14 was fitted to all available
14-22
-------
90 •-
O FACTORIAL TESTS
O LONG - TERM TESTS
o °oQ
o° p' 08
"71
40
°o$
0°0°0
0 ^
50 60 70 80
MEASURED PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
90
100
Figure 14-3. Comparison, of Experimental Data and Predicted
Values (Equation 14-14) of SO2 Removal - Spray
Tower with Limestone
14-23
-------
SLURRY FLOW RATE,
O 30 gal/min-ft2 FACTORIAL TESTS
¦ 22.5 gal/min-ft2 LONG - TERM TESTS
~ 22.5 gal/min-ft2 FACTORIAL TESTS
A 15 gal/min-ft2 FACTORIAL TESTS
9a//.
4
50
SCRUBBER INLET pH = 5.7-5.9
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION = 0 ppm
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION = 2,000-3,000 ppm
LIQUOR CP CONCENTRATION = 3,500-16,000 ppm
+
-+¦
+
-+-
7 8 9
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY, ft/sec
10
11
Figure 14-4. Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate Versus Pre-
dicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2 Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Limestone
14-24
-------
90 ¦¦
SCRUBBER INLET pH -
FACTORIAL TESTS
O pH = 5.7-5.9
~ pH = 5.4-5.6
A pH = 5.1-5.3
40 ¦¦
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY = 7.3 ft/sec
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION - 0 ppm
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION - 2,500-3.000 ppm
LIQUOR Cl~ CONCENTRATION = 12,000 -16,000 ppm
-+-
-4-
1
40 50 60
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO, gal/Mcf
20
30
70
80
Figure 14-5. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2 Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Limestone
14-25
-------
LIQUID - TO • GAS RATIO
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 68 gal /Mcf
~ 51 gal/Mcf
A 34 gal/Mcf
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY = 7.3 ft/sec
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION = 0 ppm
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION = 2,500-3,000 ppm
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION = 12.000-16,000 ppm
1—
5.4 5.6 5.8
SCRUBBER INLET pH
—h-
6.0
5.0
5.2
6.2
Figure 14-6. Scrubber Inlet pH and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2 Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Limestone
14-26
-------
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg4
- FACTORIAL TESTS
O 8,000-10,000 ppm
~ 3,000-5,000 ppm
0 500-1,500 ppm
A 0 ppm
CONCENTRATION
50 ¦¦
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY - 7.3 ft/wc
SCRUBBER INLET pH - 5.4-5.6
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION - 2,500-3,000 ppm
LIQUOR Cl~ CONCENTRATION - 8,000-16,000 ppm
4-
1—
40 50 60
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO, gal/Mcf
H-
70
20
30
80
Figure 14-7. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Effective Magnesium
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured
SOgRemoval - Spray Tower with Limestone
14-27
-------
T
100 ¦¦
90 ¦¦
80
<
>
O
5
LLI
CC
tM
8
>-
z
LU
U
CC
UJ
Q.
70 ¦¦
60 -
50
40
5.0
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 8,000-10,000 ppm
~ 3,000-5,000 ppm
0 500-1,500 ppm
CONCENTRATION
||r-.M.9.000 *2.
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY = 7.3 ft/sec
LIQUID - TO - RATIO = 51 gal/Mcf
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION = 2,500-3,000 ppm
LIQUOR CI" CONCENTRATION = 8,000-16,000 ppm
1
—I 1 1
5.2 5.4 5.6
SCRUBBER INLET pH
—«—
5.8
6.0
Figure 14-8. Scrubber Inlet pH and Effective Magnesium Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO 2 Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Limestone
14-28
-------
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR MAGNESIUM CONCENTRATION, ppm
Figure 14-9. Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured SO2 Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Limestone
14-29
-------
100
90
LIQUID-TO-GAS RATIO
0 54 gal/Mcf FACTORIAL TEST
+ 50-54 gal/Mcf LONG - TERM TESTS
~ 40 gal/Mcf FACTORIAL TESTS
A 27 gal/Mcf FACTORIAL TESTS
80 •>
<
I 70
1X1
cc
CM
8
o
CC
60 ..
V
50 --
40 ¦¦
30
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY = 9.3 ft/sec
SCRUBBER INLET pH = 5.7-5.9
EFFCTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION - 0 ppm
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,000-3,000 ppm
-f-
4-
4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000
LIQUOR CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION, ppm
20,000
Figure 14-10. Chloride Concentration and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-14) and Measured
SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Limestone
14-30
-------
spray tower limestone data (with exceptions previously noted)-not just
to the data points shown on a particular plot. Therefore, the predicted
line for a small number of data points will not correspond to the best
line through this subset of points.
A nomograph for the prediction of SOg removal is discussed in Sub-
section 14.4 and presented in Figure 14-33. This nomograph is based
upon Equation 14-14.
14.2.4 TCA Equation for SO? Removal by Limestone Slurry
The following equation for SC>2 removal (having the form of Equation
14-10) has been fitted to all 100 TCA limestone and limestone/MgO
factorial runs made during 1976 (see Section 9) and to 65 TCA
long-term limestone runs made since October 1973 (Runs 525-2A
through 589-2A):
Fraction S02 Removal = 1 - exp [ - 2. 05 x 10"4 (L/G)
0.81 0.36
v
+ 7. 9 x 10"5 (Mg) - 1. 7 x 10"4(SOJ.
e £ i
(14-15)
14-31
-------
where
CI = measured total dissolved chloride concentration, pptn
dg = diameter of the TCA spheres (1.5 inches at Shawnee)
hj.0). = total height of spheres in the TCA, inches
L/G = liquid-to-gas ratio in scrubber (125°F, humidified gas),
gas /Mcf
(Mg)e = effective magnesium ion concentration, ppm
= [ppm Mg - (ppm CI" 12. 92)] for Mg+f > CI" /2. 92
= 0 for Mg++ < Cl~/2. 92
where 2. 92 = ratio by weight of Cl" to Mg in MgClg
Nq = number of grids or screens in the TCA (four at Shawnee)
pH[ = scrubber inlet liquor pH
(S02)| = inlet gas SOg concentration, ppm
v = gas velocity in the scrubber (125°F, humidified gas),
ft/sec
The run averages of the variables used in Equation 14-15 are tabu-
lated in Table 14-2.
The fitted ranges of the operating variables in Equation 14-15 are given
below:
L/G
25-75 gal/Mcf
V
8. 3-12. 5 ft/sec
pHi
5.1-6. 1
(Mg)e
0-11, 000 ppm
-------
Table 14-2
RUN-AVERAGED TCA RESULTS FOR LIMESTONE SCRUBBING
TO WHICH EQUATION 14-15 WAS FITTED
Total
Inlet
Gas
L/G,
Height of
Effective
Chloride
S02
so2
Run
Velocity,
gal /
Spheres,
Inlet
Magnesium,
Ion Cone. ,
Cone. ,
Removal,
Number
fps
M c f
in.
PH
ppm
ppm
ppm
%
TCA—101
12.5
37.5
15.0
5.78
0
5700
2686
80
TCA-102
8.3
37.5
15.0
5.92
0
5700
2533
71
TCA-103
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.88
0
5700
2669
87
TCA-104
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.76
0
6000
2360
77
TCA-105
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.81
0
6300
2412
92
TCA-106
8.3
75.0
15.0
5.80
0
6300
2589
84
TCA-107
8.3
56.2
15.0
5.77
0
6300
2520
74
TCA-108
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.86
0
6300
2466
68
TCA-109
12.5
25.0
15.0
5.83
0
6300
2434
70
TCA-110
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.77
0
6650
2507
90
TCA-111
10.4
30.0
22.5
5.46
0
6000
2631
65
TCA-112
10.4
60.0
22.5
5.46
0
6500
2684
85
TCA-113
10.4
45.0
22.5
5.76
0
5500
2810
82
TCA-114
10.4
60.0
22.5
5.65
0
6100
2820
92
TCA-115
12.5
37.5
0.0
5.90
0
4900
2680
66
TCA-116
8.3
37.5
0.0
6.11
0
4600
2700
61
TCA-117
10.4
60.0
0.0
6.08
0
5000
2750
78
TCA-118
10.4
45.0
0.0
6.01
0
5400
2920
64
TCA-119
12.5
50.0
0.0
5.85
0
s&ae
1%
TCA-120
8.3
75.0
0.0
5.84
0
5750
2920
71
TCA-121
8.3
56.2
0.0
5.89
0
5850
2725
63
TCA-122
10.4
30.0
0.0
5.86
0
6000
2743
46
TCA-123
12.5
25.0
0.0
5.75
0
6200
2755
47
TCA-124
12.5
50.0
0.0
5.82
0
5700
2743
68
TCA-125
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.55
0
7000
2427
78
TCA-126
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.52
0
6500
2672
61
TCA-127
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.52
0
6500
2623
74
TCA-128
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.28
0
7000
2749
71
TCA-129
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.18
0
7100
2520
49
TCA-130
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.33
0
6900
2440
67
TCA-131
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.01
0
7000
2513
66
TCA-132
10.4
22.5
5.24
a
6700
2720
70
TCA-133
10.4
60.0
0.0
5.19
0
6400
2440
51
TCA-134
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.82
0
7300
2688
79
TCA-135
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.92
0
6000
2593
95
TCA-136
8.3
37.5
15.0
5.79
0
5300
2544
68
TCA-137
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.75
0
5900
2543
79
TCA-138
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.04
0
6500
2747
60
TCA-139
10.4
45.0
15.0
4.93
0
6500
2785
57
TCA-140
10.4
60.0
0.0
5.84
0
8450
2606
67
TCA-141
8.3
37.5
0.0
5.84
0
8100
2554
52
TCA-142
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.80
0
7750
2566
57
TCA-143
12.5
37.5
0.0
5.78
0
8800
2685
59
TCA-144
8.3
37.5
15.0
5.85
0
7500
2473
70
TCA-145
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.28
0
8150
2360
72
TCA-146
10.4
60.0
0.0
5.51
0
7400
2450
57
TCA-147
10.4
60.0
0.0
5.24
0
8800
2583
50
TCA-148
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.24
0
8500
2647
45
TCA-149
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.51
0
8500
2765
52
TMG-101
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.55
0
18470
2380
74
TMG-102
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.44
0
21210
2530
79
14-33
-------
Table 14-2 (continued)
RUN-AVERAGED TCA RESULTS FOR LIMESTONE SCRUBBING
TO WHICH EQUATION 14-15 WAS FITTED
T otal
Inlet
Gas
L/G,
Height of
Effective
Chloride
so2
so2
Run
Velocity,
gal /
Spheres,
Inlet
Magnesium,
Ion Cone. ,
Cone,,
Removal,
Number
(pa
Mcf
in.
pH
ppm
ppm
ppm
%
TMG-103
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.49
0
20650
2540
64
TMG-104
12.5
37.5
15.0
5.55
0
21075
2443
80
TMG-105
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.16
0
13520
2425
64
TMG-106
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.20
0
13930
2511
74
TMG-107
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.22
0
13550
2409
56
TMG-108
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.19
0
14210
2429
67
TMG-109
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.76
0
14090
2517
85
TMG-119
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.51
8
14075
2580
74
TMG-120
12.5
37.5
15.0
5.52
28
13970
2577
77
TMG-121
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.23
374
13000
2614
60
TMG-122
10.4
45.0
15 .0
5.80
239
13000
2467
80
TMG-138
8.3
56.2
15.0
5.49
490
13850
2406
71
TMG-151
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.52
281
13600
2553
77
TMG-152
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.51
441
13600
2413
54
TMG-153
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.24
616
13500
2326
58
TMG-154
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.23
975
12900
2389
69
TMG-155
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.19
655
13400
2355
46
TMG-156
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.2 5
1238
11770
3064
49
TMG-157
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.51
1436
10650
3126
57
TMG-158
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.84
862
9638
3168
67
TMG-159
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.49
4502
13064
3176
65
TMG-160
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.23
4212
14334
2167
69
TMG-161
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.79
5276
13242
2808
75
TMG-162
10.4
60.0
0.0
5.52
5285
12965
3330
80
TMG-163
10.4
30.0
0.0
5.48
4721
12376
3383
57
TMG-164
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.56
5443
11766
3560
64
TMG-165
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.52
4958
13100
2550
82
TMG-166
12.5
37.5
15.0
5.53
4339
14100
2632
86
TMG-167
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.26
4008
15700
2456
77
TMG-168
8.3
56.2
15.0
5.51
3679
15400
2213
86
TMG-169
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.78
3759
14800
2246
91
TMG-170
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.53
4316
15000
2180
87
TMG-171
12.5
37.5
15.0
5.50
4036
16170
2225
90
TMG-172
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.78
8314
14380
2347
97
TMG-173
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.51
8204
13500
2313
96
TMG-174
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.52
8753
12434
2345
97
TMG-175
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.47
9682
12957
2280
76
TMG-176
12.5
37.5
15.0
5.49
9614
13000
2336
94
TMG-17 7
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.24
8915
12250
2367
88
TMG—17 8
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.22
7313
16819
2380
92
TMG-179
10.4
30.0
15.0
5.20
7505
15175
2376
72
TMG-180
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.81
6777
14209
2234
95
TMG-181
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.76
7959
13206
2680
81
TMG-182
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.53
8395
13246
2260
78
TMG-183
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.22
8609
14413
2683
74
TMG-184
10.4
45.0
15.0
5.54
7279
14733
2480
92
TMG-185
12.5
25.0
15.0
5.48
8762
15943
2420
86
TMG-186
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.80
8872
14057
2847
87
TMG-187
10.4
45.0
0.0
5.47
4869
13905
2155
72
14-34
-------
Table 14-2 (continued)
RUN-AVERAGED TCA RESULTS FOR LIMESTONE SCRUBBING
TO WHICH EQUATION 14-15 WAS FITTED
Total
Inlet
Ga s
L/G,
Height of
Effective
Chloride
so2
S02
Run
Velocity,
gal/
Spheres,
Inlet
Magnesium,
Ion Cone. ,
Cone. ,
Removal,
Number
fps
Mcf
in.
pH
ppm
ppm
ppm
%
525-2A
10.4
60.0
15.0
5.80
0
3200
2900
81
526-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.78
0
3700
2950
81
527-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.83
0
3001
3200
80
528-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.83
0
1600
3000
85
529-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.80
0
3300
3100
84
530-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.85
0
2790
3200
84
531-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.7 5
0
3100
2750
84
532-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.80
9678
2400
2950
98
533-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.85
10738
3100
2875
97
534-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.75
0
3001
3150
83
535-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.90
0
3000
3000
82
535-2B
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.95
0
1510
3200
80
5 36-2A
10.0
62.5
15.0
5.90
0
1500
2750
80
537-2A
10.0
72.9
15.0
5.90
0
2001
2750
87
538-2A
10.0
72.9
15.0
5.90
0
2010
3100
89
539-2A
12.0
43.4
15.0
6.00
0
1940
2950
87
540-2A
12.0
43.4
15.0
6.00
0
2001
3100
89
541-2A
12.0
43.4
15.0
5.85
0
2001
3350
84
542-2A
12.0
43.4
15.0
5.88
0
2001
3550
80
543-2A
12.0
43.4
15.0
5.85
0
2001
3050
80
544-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.95
0
2010
3190
84
545-2A
12.0
43.4
15.0
5.90
0
2001
3100
83
546-2A
12.5
41.7
15.0
5.85
0
2220
3050
84
547-2A
12.5
41.7
15.0
5.95
0
2001
3000
82
548-2A
12.5
41.7
15.0
6.00
0
2001
2500
83
549-2A
12.5
41.7
15.0
5.90
0
2001
2650
77
550-2A
12.5
41.7
15.0
5.80
0
2001
2700
76
551-2A
12.5
41.7
15.0
5.90
0
2001
2900
78
552-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.99
0
2001
3150
82
553-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.80
0
2001
2400
82
554-2A
9.4
66.7
15.0
6.02
0
2001
2650
80
555-2A
9.4
66.7
15.0
5.95
0
2001
2200
80
556-2A
9.4
66.7
15.0
6.00
0
2001
2100
81
557-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.90
0
1690
2250
85
558-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.83
0
1660
2700
76
559-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.90
0
1770
3050
77
560-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.75
0
1970
3300
76
561-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.95
0
2600
3000
77
562-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.90
a
2700
3000
80
562-2B
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.70
0
2980
3250
80
563-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.90
0
2070
3300
86
564-2A
12.5
5«.0
15.0
5.20
0
1960
3250
56
565-2A
12.5
15.0
5.20
0
1800
3550
57
566-2A
12.5
15.0
5.85
0
2490
3250
82
567-2A
12.5
15.0
6.00
0
2020
2700
85
568-2A
12.5
*t X » '
15.0
5.50
0
1790
3200
63
569-2A
12.5
4 X • /
15.0
5.50
0
2060
3100
67
569-2B
12.5
15.0
5.50
0
1880
3100
64
570-2A
12.5
41 • 7
15.0
5.75
e
2310
3000
70
571-2A
12.5
15.0
5.85
0
2900
2900
74
572-2A
12.5
15.0
5.23
0
3050
3150
55
5 7 3-2A
12.5
15.0
5.50
0
3890
2750
63
575-2A
12.5
15.0
5.45
0
3590
3000
70
576-2A
12.5
15.0
5.65
0
3910
3250
72
577-2A
12.5
15.0
5.78
0
3490
3300
82
579-2A
12.5
15.0
5.20
0
3260
3200
61
581-2A
12.5
50.0
24.0
5.45
0
3430
2750
85
583-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.45
0
8031
3050
77
583-2B
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.30
5166
3847
2900
84
584-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.40
9184
5010
2950
94
585-2A
12.5
37.5
15.0
5.40
9141
4230
2900
85
586-2A
12.5
50.0
0.0
5.30
8570
4380
2750
80
587-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.30
9032
2010
3100
93
588-2A
8.5
73.2
15.0
5.35
9108
6400
2550
94
589-2A
12.5
50.0
15.0
5.45
9167
3600
3600
90
14-35
-------
Extrapolations with TCA Equation 14-15 are not recommended, unless
the possibility of flooding (high-pressure drop) or other unstable oper-
ating conditions is first discounted.
For constant stoichiometry and effluent residence time, an increase
in the number of effluent hold tanks (so that slurry flow through the
tanks approaches plug flow) has been observed to increase both SO2
removal and pHj. The pH^ term in Equation 14-15 accounts for such
an increase in SO2 removal, and no additional term is required for
the number of tanks.
In Equation 14-15, the coefficient of the inlet gas SO2 concentration
-4
term, -1,7 x 10 , was obtained from individual Shawnee long-term
data points and from EPA and TVA pilot scrubber data (see Subsection
14. 2. 1).
Measured SO2 removals and those predicted from Equation 14-15 are
shown in Figure 14-11. Equation 14-15 accounts for 89 percent of the
variation in the combined data (93 percent for the factorial data and
74 percent for the long-term data), with a standard error of estimate
of 4.1 percent SO2 removal (3.7 percent for the factorial data and
5. 0 percent for the long-term data).
Figures 14-12 through 14-19 are parametric plots derived from Equa-
14-36
-------
40
O FACTORIAL TESTS
O LONG - TERM TESTS
°o°8
°8 8 tP0#0
0 o J? -
50 60 70 80
MEASURED PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
90
100
Figure 14-11. Comparison of Experimental Data and Predicted
Values (Equation 14-15) of S02 Removal - TCA
with Limestone
14-37
-------
100
SLURRY FLOW RATE
# 38 gal/min-ft^
O 38 gal/m'm-ft ^
Q 28 gal/min-ft^
A 19 gal/mi n-ft^
LONG - TERM TESTS
FACTORIAL TESTS
FACTORIAL TESTS
FACTORIAL TESTS
90
80 ¦¦
<
>
0
s
UJ
oc
01 70
w
o
cc
60 -¦
50
40
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES = 15.0 in.
SCRUBBER INLET pH = 5.7-5.9
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION = 0 ppm
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION - 2,000-3,000 ppm
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION = 2,000-6,000 ppm
+
+
+
12
10 11
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY, ft/sec
13
Figure 14-12. Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate Versus Pre-
dicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO£ Re-
moval - TCA with Limestone
14-38
-------
SCRUBBER INLET pH
• pH = 5.8 LONG - TERM TEST
O pH = 5.7-5.9 FACTORIAL TESTS
~ pH= 5.4-5.6 FACTORIAL TESTS
A pH = 5.1-5.3 FACTORIAL TESTS
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY
10.4 ft/sec
15.0 in.
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES ¦
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION = 0 ppm
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION - 2,400-2,900 ppm
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION » 3,000-7,000 ppm
1 1 1
40 50 60
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO, gal /Mcf
-4-
70
20
30
80
Figure 14-13. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO 2 Re-
moval - TCA with Limestone
14-39
-------
100
90 ••
LIQUID-TO-GAS RATIO
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 60 gal/Mcf
~ 45 gal /Mcf
A 30 gal/Mcf
80
<
>
O
s
LU
QC
CM
8
a
oc
UJ
a.
70 ¦¦
60 ¦¦
50 -
40 ¦¦
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY « 10.4 ft/sec
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES - 15.0 in.
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION - 0 ppm
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION = 2,300-2,700 ppm
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION = 5,000-7,000 ppm
30
+
-f-
-+-
4.9
5.1
5.3 5.5 5.7
SCRUBBER INLET pH
—I—
5.9
6.1
Figure 14-14. Scrubber Inlet pH and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2 Re-
moval - TCA with Limestone
14-40
-------
T
T
100
90
80 -•
<
>
O
s
uu
oc
tM
8
H
Z
UJ
O
GC
Ul
a.
70 -
60
50
40
SLURRY FLOW RATE -
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 38 gal/min-ft2
~ 28 gal/min-ft2
A 19 gal/min-ft2
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
SCRUBBER INLET pH * 5.8
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION = 0 ppm
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION - 2,300-2,700 ppm
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION = 4,000-9,000 ppm
12 18 24
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES, inches
30
Figure 14-15.
Total Height of Spheres and Slurry Flow Rate Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO? Removal
TCA with Limestone
14-41
-------
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 7,000-10,000 ppm
~ 3,500-5,500 ppm
A 0-500 ppm
.++
CONCENTRATION
° -oOOSS.
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sec
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES = 15.0 in.
SCRUBBER INLET pH = 5.4- 5.6
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION = 2,200-2,800 ppm
LIQUOR Cl~ CONCENTRATION = 6,000-16,000 ppm
-+-
4-
-+-
—I—
70
20
30
40 50 60
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO, gal /Mcf
80
Figure 14-16. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Effective Magnesium
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured
SO 2 Removal - TCA with Limestone
14-42
-------
T
T
100
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION
- FACTORIAL TESTS
O 7,000 -10,000 ppm
~ 3,500-5,500 ppm
A 0-600 ppm
90 ••
80 ••
2
O
2
hi
CE
M
5
Z
LU
o
oc
UJ
Q.
70 ¦¦
60 • ¦
50 ¦-
40
5.0
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY - 10.4 ft/wc
LIQUID • TO • GAS RATIO - 45 gal/Mcf
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES -15.0 in.
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION - 2,300-2,700 ppm
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION - 12,000-16,000 ppm
—I 1 1 )—
5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8
SCRUBBER INLET pH
6.0
Figure 14-17. Scrubber Inlet pH and Effective Magnesium Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2 Re-
moval - TCA with Limestone
14-43
-------
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR MAGNESIUM CONCENTRATION, ppm
Figure 14-18. Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2 Re-
moval - TCA (No Spheres) with Limestone
14-44
-------
X
100
SCRUBBER INLET pH-
FACTORIAL TESTS
O pH = 5.7-5.9
~ pH = 5.4-5.6
A pH = 5.1-5.3
90 ¦¦
80
<
>
O
2
UJ
cc
CN
8
h-
z
UJ
o
cc
UJ
a.
70 ••
60 ¦¦
50 ••
40
SCRUBBER GAS VELOCITY - 10.4 ft/sec
LIQUID - TO -GAS RATIO - 45 gal/Mcf
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES - 15.0 in.
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION - 0 ppm
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION - 2,300-2,700 ppm
-H
+¦
I 1 —
4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000
LIQUOR CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION, ppm
20,000
Figure 14-19. Chloride Concentration and Scrubber Inlet pH Ver^
sus Predicted (Equation 14-15) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Limestone
14-45
-------
tion 14-15 showing predicted S02 removals and the corresponding
Shawnee TCA limestone data.
A nomograph for the prediction of SO2 removal is discussed in Sub-
section 14.4 and shown in Figure 14-34. This nomograph is based
upon Equation 14-15.
14. 3 FITTED EQUATIONS FOR SOz REMOVAL BY LIME
SLURRY
In this subsection two equations for SO2 removal by lime slurry are
presented -- one for the spray tower and one for the TCA -- and
parametric plots based on these equations are shown. These equa-
tions have the form of Equation 14-10 and were fitted to run-averaged
Shawnee factorial and long-term test data. Nomographs are presented
in Subsection 14.4.
For these lime tests, the effects of dissolved magnesium, dissolved
chloride, and inlet gas SO2 concentration on SO2 removal are some-
what uncertain because of limited operating ranges and a tendency for
these effects to be statistically confused with, or masked by each
other. Therefore, the equations presented in this subsection should
not be extrapolated beyond the Shawnee operating ranges.
14-46
-------
14.3.1 Spray Tower Equation for SO? Removal by Lime Slurry
The following equation for SO2 removal in the spray tower has been
fitted to the 25 spray tower lime factorial runs made during 1976
(see Section 6) and to 34 long-term lime runs, 7 with the spray tower
only (venturi at minimum pressure drop) and 27 with both the venturi
and spray tower (Runs 601-1A through VFG-lD):
Fraction SO^ Removal = 1 - exp < - 0. 0020 (L/G) exp 0. 29 pH^
L/G = liquid-to-gas ratio in the scrubber (125°F, humidified gas)
gal/Mcf
(^g)e = effective magnesium ion concentration, ppm
= [ppm Mg - (ppm Cl~/2, 92)] for Mg** > Cl"/2. 92
= 0 for Mg++< Cl"/2. 92
where 2. 92= ratio by weight of CI" to Mg in MgCl2
pH- = scrubber inlet liquor pH
The run averages of the variables used in Equation 14-16 are tabu-
lated in Table 14-3.
(14-16)
where
CI
measured total dissolved chloride concentration, ppm
14-47
-------
Table 14-3
RUN-AVERAGED SPRAY TOWER RESULTS FOR LIME
SCRUBBING TO WHICH EQUATION 14-16 WAS FITTED
Run
Number
Slurry
Flow
Rate,
gpm
Ga?
Velocity,
fp 8
L/G,
gal/
Mcf
Inlet
pH
Effective
Magnesium,
ppm
Chloride
Ion Cone,
ppm
so2
RemovM,
VST-017
1125
9.4
40
8.05
VST-018
750
9.4
27
7.96
VST—019
1500
5.4
94
8.10
VST—020
1125
7.4
51
8.02
VST-021
1125
5.4
70
8.04
VST-022
750
9.4
27
8.08
VST-023
1500
7.4
68
8.01
VST—024
1500
9.4
54
8.05
VST-025
1125
7.4
51
8.08
VST-026
750
5.4
47
8.05
VST-027
1500
5.4
94
8.04
VST-028
750
7.4
34
8.03
VST-029
1125
7.4
51
6.78
VST—030
1125
7.4
51
9.08
VST-031
1125
7.4
51
6.11
VST-032
1125
7.4
51
8.08
VST-033
1125
7.4
51
6.00
VST-035
750
7.4
34
8.01
VST-037
750
7.4
34
8.20
VST—039
750
7.4
34
8.00
VST-040
1125
7.4
51
8.01
VST—041
1125
7.4
51
8.05
VST-042
1125
7.4
51
8.06
VST-044(1)
1200
9.4
43
8.05
VST—047
1125
7.4
51
9.07
601-1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
8.00
602—1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
7.95
603—1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
8.00
604-1A
1200
6.7
60
8.05
605-1A
1200
6.7
60
9.00
606—1A
1200
6.7
60
8.00
608—1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
8.00
609-1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
8.10
610-1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
8.10
618—1A
1200
6.7
60
7.65
619-1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
7.80
621-1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
8.05
622-1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
7.70
623-1A
(1)
1200
6.7
60
8.00
624-1A
(1)
1200
8.0
50
8.05
625-1A
(1)
1200
8.0
50
8.10
626-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
8.00
627-1A
ill
1400
9.4
50
8.10
629-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
6.00
630-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
7.05
631-1A
(1)
700
9.4
25
7.00
6 32-1A
1408
9.4
50
7.00
633-1A
1400
6.7
70
7.05
634-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
8.00
635-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
8.05
636-1A
(1)
1400
6.7
70
8.00
637-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
7.90
638-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
8.00
639-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
6.99
640-1A
(1)
1400
9.4
50
7.05
642-1A
1050
9.4
37
6.97
VFG-1B
(1)
1400
9.4
50
8.00
VFG-1C
(1)
1400
9.4
50
8.00
VPG-1D
(1)
1400
5.4
87
7.97
2441
2012
2015
2168
2288
2120
1880
2020
0
9000
12600
4900
9500
8500
12500
13100
6700
9500
12750
6500
12200
10550
10600
10500
11350
12100
13000
11400
11650
5000
12150
6400
6600
11900
3300
4600
4770
5700
3070
3500
3900
4200
5200
1130
2920
3400
3850
3460
4010
5020
4790
4390
3880
5570
7430
7100
5000
3630
4600
4300
3330
3690
3240
3650
5740
3800
4300
3800
73
58
95
84
90
59
87
77
82
77
95
65
71
95
67
81
67
65
69
75
73
85
71
71
97
75
87
88
81
77
73
78
82
89
68
77
83
73
72
69
78
70
74
73
90
66
82
93
68
67
78
62
71
78
75
68
61
59
88
(1) For theae runs total Inlet SO concentration, and SO, removal!
were corrected for venturl SO removal to give the estimated
ssrr«r.!r s°z concent"ti°n' *nd s°2 —<» *
14-48
-------
The ranges of the operating variables are given below. Equation 14-16
should not be extrapolated beyond these ranges.
L/G
pHi
(Mg)e
CI
25-95 gal/Mcf
6.0-9.0
0-2500 ppm
1000-13,000 ppm
v
(S02)i
5. 4-9. 4 ft/sec
2000-4000 ppm
Four long-term runs (Runs 611-1A, 641-1A, 643-1A, and VFG-1A) at
2000 ppm effective dissolved magnesium ion concentration and low
scrubber inlet liquor sulfate saturation (6 to 45 percent) were excluded
from the correlation. The measured SO2 removals were higher than
those predicted by Equation 14-15 for saturated operation. SO2 removal
for low gypsum saturation operation with magnesium cannot be pre-
dicted at this time (see Subsection 14. 2. 2 for discussion).
Measured percent SO2 removals and those predicted from Equation
14-16 are shown in Figure 14-20. Equation 14-16 accounts for 78 per-
cent of the variation in the combined data (89 percent for the factorial
data and 63 percent for the long-term data) with a standard error of
estimate of 4.8 percent SOg removal (3.9 percent for the factorial
data and 5.4 percent for the long-term data).
Figures 14-21 through 14-26 show parametric plots derived from
Equation 14-16 and the corresponding Shawnee spray tower lime
14-49
-------
100
90 ¦¦
<
>
o
s
UJ
oc
CN 80
8
a
oc
Ul
a.
a
UJ
CJ
5
UJ
a:
a.
70
60
50
O FACTORIAL TESTS
0 LONG - TERM TESTS
60 70 80 90
MEASURED PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
100
Figure 14-20, Comparison of Experimental Data and Pre-
dicted Values (Equation 14-16) of SO2 Removal -
Spray Tower with Lime
14-50
-------
I 1 —
SLURRY FLOW RATE FOR
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 30 gal/min - ft*
A 22.5 gal/min - ft2
~ 15 gal/min - ft2
50 -•
SCRUBBER INLET pH - 7.9 - 8.1
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION - 2,500 - 3,500 ppm
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION - 0 ppm
LIQUOR Cl~ CONCENTRATION - 8,000 -13,000 ppm
4-
+
+
10
7 8 9
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY, ft/sM
11
Figure 14-21. Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate Versus Pre-
dicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured SO2 Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Lime
14-51
-------
T
~r
50
SCRUBBER INLETpH FOR
FACTORIAL TESTS
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY = 7.5 ft/sec
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,500 - 3,500 ppm
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION = 0 ppm
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION = 8,000 • 13,000 ppm
20
30
+
4-
+
40 50 60
LIQUID - TO GAS RATIO, gal/Mcf
70
80
Figure 14-22. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured SC>2 Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Lime
14-52
-------
100
90
LIQUID-TO - GAS RATIO
FOR FACTORIAL TESTS
O 68 gal/Mcf
A 51 gal/Mcf
~ 34 gal/Mcf
80 ¦¦
<
>
O
S
LLI
cc
8
z
UJ
o
cc
70
60
50 -
SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY = 7.5 gal/Mcf
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,500 - 3,000 ppm
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg
= 0 ppm
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION
13,000 ppm
¦4
CONCENTRATION
8,000
4-
7 8
SCRUBBER INLET pH
9
10
Figure 14-23. Scrubber Inlet pH and Liquid-to-Gas Ratio Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured SOg Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Lime
14-53
-------
500 1,000
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mfl*
1,500 2,000
CONCENTRATION, ppm
2,500
Figure 14-24.
Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured S02 Re-
moval - Spray Tower with Lime
14-54
-------
100 --
1
1
LIQUID
-TO
- GAS RATIO, gal/Mcf
~
68
LONG - TERM TESTS
•
51
LONG - TERM TESTS
O
51
FACTORIAL TESTS
V
34
FACTORIAL TESTS
90
80 ••
<
>
o
5
ID
8~™
I-
Z
Ul
u
-------
100
SCRUBBER INLET pH
A
9.0-9.1
FACTORIAL TESTS
•
7.9-8.1
LONG-TERM TESTS
O
7.9-8.1
FACTORIAL TESTS
V
6.8
FACTORIAL TEST
~
6.0-6.1
FACTORIAL TESTS
90
80
<
>
o
s
UJ
cc
CM
8
H
2
ui
O
«
UJ
a.
70 ¦¦
60 -
SO
40 +¦ SPRAY TOWER GAS VELOCITY = 7.3-9.3 ft/sec
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO - 50 gal/Mcf
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,500 - 3,500 ppm
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg^ CONCENTRATION - 0 ppm
30 J 1 1 1 1
3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000
LIQUOR CI- CONCENTRATION, ppm
15,000
Figure 14-26. Chloride Concentration and Scrubber Inlet pH
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-16) and Measured
SO2 Removal - Spray Tower with Lime
14-56
-------
factorial run-averaged data.
A nomograph for prediction of SO2 removal is discussed in Subsection
14. 4 and presented as Figure 14-35. This nomograph is based upon
Equation 14-16.
Correction of total system SO2 removals to obtain spray tower remov-
als (by elimination ofventuri effects) is discussed in Subsection 14. 2. 3.
Insufficient data limited the fit of Equation 14-16 in several ways.
The fitted runs had only two levels of effective magnesium ion concen-
tration: zero and 2000 ppm. Additional data that include higher levels
of magnesium would give a more accurate estimate of the effect of
magnesium on SO2 removal.
For lime scrubbing, there appears to be no theoretical basis for a
variation in SO2 removal with chloride ion concentration. However,
the data show a strong correlation between these two variables. In
the absence of a theoretically based variable with a more statistically
significant effect on SO2 removal, chloride ion concentration was used
in Equation 14-16.
An additional drawback to Equation 14-16 is that no consistent effect
of inlet SO2 concentration on SO2 removal could be obtained statisti-
14-57
-------
cally, although such an effect is expected theoretically. Correlation
of individual point values (rather than run-averaged values) of inlet
SO2 concentration with SO2 removal indicated a very strong effect
(about twice as strong as for limestone) for venturi/spray tower
long-term runs, but no effect at all for spray tower long-term runs
(minimum pressure drop across the venturi). Run-averaged values
of inlet SO2 concentration did not correlate with run-averaged values
of SO2 removal, but this might be attributed to the relatively narrow
range of average inlet SO2 concentrations (2500 to 3500 ppm at the
venturi inlet and about 1800 to 3500 ppm at the spray tower inlet).
Since attempts to include even a moderate effect of inlet SO2 concen-
tration in Equation 14-16 were statistically detrimental to the accuracy
of prediction of SO2 removal for the fitted runs, no effect of inlet
SO2 concentration was included in the equation.
14.3.2 TCA Equation for SO? Removal by Lime Slurry
The following equation for SO2 removal has been fitted to the 37 TCA
lime factorial runs made during 1976 (see Section 9) and to 16 TCA
long-term runs (Runs 601-2A through 616-2A):
Fraction SOg Removal = 1 - exp - 0. 0010 (L/G)
1.12 0.65
v
exp 0. 18 pHj + 1. 5 x 10"4 (Mg)e- 2. 2 x 10~4(SO2). + 0. 0039v + m
(14-17)
14-58
-------
where
d_ = diameter of the TCA sphere (1.5 inches at Shawnee)
k'tot = total height of spheres in TCA, inches
L/G = liquid-to-gas ratio in scrubber (125°F, humidified gas),
gal/Mcf
(Mg) = effective magnesium ion concentration, ppm
= [ppm Mg*"1" - (ppm C1T /2.92)] for Mg > Cl"/2. 92
= 0 for Mg++ < C1-/2. 92
where 2. 92 = ratio by weight of CI" to Mg++ in MgCl
Nq = number of grids or screens in the TCA (four at Shawnee)
pHj = scrubber inlet liquor pH
-------
Table 14-4
RUN-AVERAGED TCA RESULTS FOR LIME SCRUBBING
TO WHICH EQUATION 14-17 WAS FITTED
Inlet
Total
L/G,
Gas
Effective
so2
Height of
so2
Run
gal /
V elocity,
Inlet
Magnesium,
Cone. ,
Spheres,
Removal,
Number
Mcf
fpa
pH
ppm
ppm
in.
%
TCA-001
37
12.5
8.04
0
2497
15.0
74
TCA-00 2
37
8.3
8.10
0
2500
15.0
60
TCA-003
60
10.4
8.02
0
2431
15.0
86
TCA-004
45
10.4
8.13
0
2400
15.0
73
TCA-005
50
12.5
8.14
0
2512
15.0
92
TCA-006
75
8.3
8.22
0
2440
15.0
87
TCA-007
56
8.3
7.95
0
2257
15 .0
73
TCA-008
30
10.4
8.12
0
2480
15.0
57
TCA-009
25
12.5
8.03
0
2771
15.0
54
TCA-010
50
12.5
8.02
0
2512
15.0
90
TCA-011
30
10.4
7.91
0
2550
22.5
59
TCA-012
60
10.4
7.93
0
2505
22.5
89
TCA-013
4 5
10.4
8.12
0
2520
22 . 5
74
TCA-014
60
10.4
8.13
0
2420
22.5
90
TCA- 015
37
12.5
8.20
0
2543
0.0
54
TCA-016
37
8.3
8 . 06
0
25 32
0.0
49
TCA-017
60
10.4
7.98
0
2417
0.0
70
TCA-018
45
10.4
8.00
0
2451
0.0
59
TCA-019
50
12.5
8.15
0
2420
0.0
71
TCA-0 20
75
8.3
7.99
0
2400
0.0
76
TCA—0 21
56
8.3
8.01
0
2503
0 . 0
66
TCA-022
30
10.4
8 . 08
0
2552
0.0
46
TCA-023
25
12.5
7.97
0
2474
0 . 0
43
TCA—0 24
*0
12.5
7.99
0
2383
0 . 0
67
TCA-025
30
10 .4
6.91
0
2787
15 . 0
53
TCA—0 26
60
10.4
9.07
0
2571
15.0
95
TCA-0 27
30
10.4
5.99
0
2707
15.0
49
TCA-0 28
30
10 .4
8.06
0
2477
15.0
60
TCA-029
60
10.4
6.11
0
2423
15.0
74
TCA-030
30
10.4
9.01
0
2640
15.0
71
TCA—0 31
60
10.4
6.89
0
2605
15.0
79
TCA-0 32
60
10.4
6.06
0
2632
15.0
74
TCA-0 33
30
10.4
7.98
0
2640
15.0
58
TCA-0 34
60
10.4
6.0 3
0
2540
22. 5
78
TCA-035
60
10.4
8.09
0
2145
15.0
85
TCA-0 36
60
10.4
5.97
0
2357
15.0
74
TCA-0 37
60
10.4
6.00
0
2604
15.0
74
601-2A
50
12.5
7 .20
2222
2900
14.5
92
602-2A
50
12.5
7 .00
2010
3150
14.5
88
6 0 3-2 A
50
12.5
6.95
2138
3350
14 . 5
84
604-2A
37
12.5
6.90
2092
3200
14.0
73
605—2A
7 3
8.5
7.00
2137
3 50H
14.0
80
606-2A
37
12.5
8.00
2060
3 30 0
14.0
76
607-2A
37
12.5
7.95
407 3
3200
13.5
86
608-2A
37
12.5
7.93
4026
3550
13.5
82
6 09-2A
37
12.5
6.97
20 35
3050
13.5
74
610-2A
37
12.5
7.96
2175
2925
13.0
84
611-2A
37
12.5
"7.96
2094
2900
12.5
81
612-2A
37
12.5
7.96
2137
305f(
12.5
81
613-2A
50
12.5
6.88
2198
3050
12.0
84
614-2A
37
12.5
8.06
2023
3650
12.0
7 5
615-2A
50
12.5
">.10
2225
3200
11.5
87
616-2A
50
12.5
8.05
0
3300
11. 0
72
14-60
-------
Equation 14-17 should not be used outside these ranges.
Long-term Run 608-2B, made at 4000 ppm effective magnesium ion
concentration and low scrubber inlet liquor gypsum saturation (11
percent), was excluded from the correlation because the measured
SC>2 removal was high relative to removals obtained during saturated
operation. SOg removal by liquor containing magnesium and at low
gypsum saturation cannot be predicted at this time (see Subsection
14. 2. 2).
Meaured SO2 removals are plotted against those predicted from
Equation 14-17 in Figure 14-27. Equation 14-17 accounts for 94
percent of the variation in the combined data (94 percent for the
factorial data and 81 percent for the long-term data), with a standard
error of estimate of 3.3 percent SO2 removal (3.6 percent for the
factorial data and 2. 7 percent for the long-term data).
Figures 14-28 through 14-32 are parametric plots derived from
Equation 14-17. These figures show corresponding Shawnee TCA
lime run-averaged data.
A nomograph for prediction of SO2 removalis discussed in Subsection
14. 4 and presented as Figure 14-36. The nomograph is based on
Equation 14-17.
14-61
-------
MEASURED PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
Figure 14-27. Comparison of Experimental Data and Predicted
Values (Equation 14-17) of SO2 Removal - TCA
with Lime
14-62
-------
100
90 -¦
X
T
SLURRY FLOW RATE FOR
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 37.5 gal/min - ft2
A 28.1 gal/min - ft2
~ 18.8 gal/min - ft2
® si URRY FLOW RATE ^ = 37jjal/min
8-
ft*
O
O
80 -•
<
§ 70
S
Ui
0C
CM
8
z
Ui
o
oc
UI
a.
60 ~
50 ••
28.1 gal/min - ft2
¦#
18.8 gal/min-ft2
P
40 ••
SCRUBBER INLET pH * 7.9 - 8.1
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES - 15.0 in.
S02 INLET CONCENTRATION = 2,200 - 2,000 ppm
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION - 0 ppm
30
+
+
12
10 11
TCA GAS VELOCITY, ft/sec
13
Figure 14-28. TCA Gas Velocity and Slurry Flow Rate Versus
Predicted (Equation 14-17) and Measured SO2
Removal - TCA with Lime
14-63
-------
100
90
80 -
<
>
o
5
CM
8
£
UJ
o
cc
70
60 -
TCA GAS VELOCITY FOR
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 12.5 ft/sec
A 10.4 ft/sec
50 ¦¦
SCRUBBER INLET pH = 7.9 - 8.1
S02 IN LET CONCENTRATION = 2,200 - 2,800 ppm
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES ¦ 15.0 in.
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Ma"1"1" CONCENTRATION - 0 ppm
40
—h-
70.
20
30
40 50 60
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO, gal/Mcf
80
Figure 14-29. Liquid-to-Gas Ratio and Scrubber Gas Velocity
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-17) and Measured
SO 2 Removal - TCA with Lime
14-64
-------
100
90 -»
LIQUID - TO - GAS RATIO FOR
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 60gal/M
-------
100
<
>
o
s
Ul
cc
CM
z
LU
o
cc
40
SLURRY FLOW RATE FOR
FACTORIAL TESTS
O 37.5 gal/mi n-ft2
A 28.1 gal/min-ft2
TCA GAS VELOCITY = 10.4 ft/sac
SCRUBBER INLET pH - 7.9 - 8.1
INLET S02 CONCENTRATION =" 2,200
- 2,800 ppm
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++
CONCENTRATION = 0 ppm
1
1
10 15
TOTAL HEIGHT OF SPHERES, in.
-+-
20
25
Figure 14-31. Total Height of Spheres and Slurry Flow Rate
Versus Predicted (Equation 14-17) and Measured
SO2 Removal - TCA with Lime
14-66
-------
0 1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 5,000
EFFECTIVE LIQUOR Mg++ CONCENTRATION, ppm
Figure 14-32. Effective Magnesium and Scrubber Inlet pH Versus
Predicted {Equation 14-17) and Measured S02-Re-
moval - TCA with Lime
14-67
-------
Magnesium ion concentration, inlet SO2 concentration, and chlor-
ide ion concentration are roughly at one level for the factorial runs
and another level for the long-term runs. Differences in the two
sets of runs can be caused by any or all of the three variables. Thus,
the individual effects of each variable on SO2 removal are hard to
distinguish. Equation 14-17 was the best fit and is statistically
valid for the data used. New runs might show some chloride effect,
and the effects of inlet SO2 concentration and magnesium might be
different from those indicated in the equation. Therefore, Equation
14-17 should be used with caution.
14.4 NOMOGRAPHS FOR S02 REMOVAL BY LIMESTONE
AND LIME WET SCRUBBING
Figures 14-33 through 14-36 are nomographs for the prediction, from
operating variables, of SO2 removal by limestone or lime wet-scrub-
bing with a spray tower or a TCA. Nomographs for limestone scrub-
bing with a spray tower and a TCA are shown in Figures 14-33
and 14-34, respectively, and are derived from Equations 14-14 and
14-15. Figures 14-35 and 14-36 for lime scrubbing with a spray
tower and a TCA are derived from Equations 14-16 and 14-17. The
nomographs cover the same ranges of operation as the corresponding
equations.
In practice, a prediction of SO2 removal made by use of the nomo-
14-68
-------
PREDICTED PERCENT SOj REMOVAL
20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
PREDICTED PERCENT SO? REMOVAL
Fraction Removal - 1 - exp
0 <32 0 1<3 T -4
-9. 8x10 3(L/C) ' v 7 exp pH. + 1. 35 x 10 (Mg)^
- 1. 7 x 10"4(SO2l. + 1. 45 x 10"5C1
Figure 14-3 3. Nomograph for Percent SO Removal by Limestone
Scrubbing in a Spray Tower
14-69
-------
PREDICTED PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
40 50 60 70
100
50 60 70 80
PREDICTED PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
100
Fraction SO^ Removal = 1 - expf -2. 05 x 10~4 (L/G)^' ^' v"* exp
4. 3 x 10"3v| + lyj
+ 0. 81 pH. + 7. 9 x 10"5 (Mg) - 1. 7 x 10 (SO,). + 1. 3 x 10"5C1
i e 2 i
Figure 14-34. Nomograph for Percent Removal by Limestone
Scrubbing in a TCA
14-70
-------
PREDICTED PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
50 60 70 80
100
50 60 70 80
PREDICTED PERCENT S02 REMOVAL
100
Fraction S02 Removal = 1 - exp j-0. 0020 (L/G) exp [ 0. 29 pH.
+ 2. 8 x 10"4 (Mg)e + 4. 7 x lO-5 CI] J
PREDICTED PERCENT SO, REMOVAL
Figure 14-35. Nomograph for
Percent S02 Removal by Lime
Scrubbing in a Spray Tower
PREDICTED PERCENT SO- REMOVAL
14-71
-------
100
100
PREDICTED PERCENT SO, REMOVAL
Fraction SO^ Removal = 1 - exp
-0.0010 (L/G)1" 12v°" 65 exp |0. 18 pH. + 1. 5 x 10"4(Mg)j>
-2.2x10 (SO,). + 0.0039vl —+ N
2 i V d G
Figure 14»36. Nomograph for Percent SO Removal by Lime
Scrubbing in a TCA
14-72
-------
graphs is typically within about 1/2 percent of the corresponding
equation prediction. The speed of calculation using the nomographs
is about the same as for solving the corresponding equation by
electronic calculator.
The inset in Figure 14-3 5 illustrates how these nomographs are used.
First, the liquid-to-gas ratio is located on the bottommost curve.
Then a vertical line is drawn to intersect with the next lowest hori-
zontal line, which represents the lowest level of the next variable,
scrubber inlet liquor pH. A line is then drawn upward from the
horizontal line and parallel to the nearest pH curve, until the y-axis
level corresponding to the specified pH, 8.0, is reached. Again,
a vertical line is drawn to the horizontal line for the next operating
variable, chloride ion concentration. This procedure is continued until
the top of the nomograph is reached. The predicted SO2 removal is
then the x-axis value at this point. In the example case, the SOg
removal predicted by the nomograph in Figure 12-3 5 is 85 percent;
Equation 14-16 predicts 86 percent.
If SO2 removal is specified in a design and prediction of another oper-
ating variable is required (e. g., scrubber inlet liquor pH), this pre-
diction can be made from the nomograph by working upwards from
the bottom of the nomograph and downwards from the top. The two
resultant intersecting lines, one parallel to the nomograph pH curves
from the bottom up and the other vertical from the top of the pH
scale, meet at the y-axis value of the operating pH.
14-73
-------
Section 1 5
LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
Laboratory quality assurance efforts at the Shawnee Test Facility
continued with emphasis on evaluating and improving the analytical
methods.
15. 1 QUALITY ASSURANCE METHODS
The primary method for maintaining reliability of analytical data is
a daily evaluation of analytical results by onsite and San Francisco
personnel. Ionic imbalance and the general reasonableness of results
are used as the measure of acceptability. Solids analyses with an
ionic imbalance greater than +8.5 percent and liquor analyses with
an ionic imbalance greater than 4^ 15 percent (+ 20 percent prior to
August 18, 1976) are rejected. The solids ionic imbalance limit of
+ 8. 5 percent was based on the results of about 300 solids analyses
performed prior to December 12, 1975. In these analyses, the
average ionic imbalance was +_ 3. 5 percent, with a standard deviation
of 2. 5 percent. Thus, _+ 8. 5 percent ionic imbalance includes approxi-
mately 95 percent of the solids analysis results. The corresponding
15-1
-------
liquor ionic imbalance values for 60 analyses performed in July 1976
had an average of +_ 6.4 percent and a standard deviation of 4.4
percent. Thus, +15 percent ionic imbalance includes 95 percent
of the liquor analysis results.
The results of the analysis of liquor and solids standards are used
to monitor both the accuracy (closeness between the true and the
experimental determined values) and the precision (reproducibility)
of analytical results. In addition, a TVA program for interlaboratory
comparison of analytical results was initiated during this reporting
period. Selected quality assurance samples are now routinely sent
to the TVA General Analytical Laboratory in Muscle Shoals after
analysis at the Shawnee Test Facility laboratory.
Primary analytical data are tabulated in the Shawnee Test Program
database. A system has been established for entering flags to mark
questionable analytical results in the database. Flagged data then
can be easily excluded from calculations. Flags are also used to
mark valid analytical results from samples obtained during line-out
and non-representative operational periods. See Appendix D for
details of the flagging system.
15-2
-------
15. 2
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO CALCULATION
The stoichiometric ratio of moles of calcium added per mole of SO2
absorbed has been calculated in the past as the mole ratio of total
calcium to the total sulfur in the slurry solids. Total calcium (as
weight percent of CaO) and total sulfur (as weight percent of SO3) were
routinely measured in the solids using a Siemens X-ray fluorescence
spectrometer (Methods 15, 16, and 17, Reference 7). The stoichio-
metric ratio, designated as SR, was then calculated from the following
equation:
percent CaO 80.06
SR = x
percent SO^ 56. 08
This equation for calculating stoichiometric ratio has been replaced
by a more accurate expression, designated as SRCO3, and calculated
from the following equation:
percent CO2 80. 06
SRCO3 = 1 + x
percent SO3 44. 00
where percent COg is the carbonate (as weight percent of CO^) in the
slurry solids, measured by the CO2 evolution method (Method 5, Re-
ference 7); and percent SO3 is the total sulfur (as weight percent of
SO3) in the solids, measured by X-ray fluorescence.
15-3
-------
SRCO3 is considered to be a more accurate indicator of stoichiometric
ratio than SR for the following reasons:
• Simple error analysis shows that SRCO3 is less subject to
the effects of random error than SR, especially at low
stoichiometric ratios
• SRCO3 is less subject to consistent bias than SR because
the results from two entirely different analytical methods
are used to calculate the SRCO3 values. The X-ray fluo-
rescence methods used to obtain SR values are subject to
the possibility of consistent error (bias) in the analytical
results
Both SR and SRCO3 are calculated from data obtained from analysis
of the scrubber slurry solids. The slurry liquor sulfur content is
negligible for runs without MgO addition and therefore does not affect
the stoichiometric ratio. However, when MgO is added to the scrub-
ber slurry, some sulfur compounds are dissolved in the liquor and
a portion of this sulfur leaves the system in the liquor associated
with the solids that are removed. The stoichiometric ratio error can
be as high as 20 percent if sulfur in the liquor is ignored for runs
where MgO is used.
Stoichiometric ratios given in this report and in the database have
not been corrected for this factor yet, but a rough correction has
been applied to the stoichiometric ratios reported in summary tables
and data plots. The feasibility of correcting stoichiometric ratios
recorded in the database is currently being investigated.
15-4
-------
15. 3
EVALUATION AND MODIFICATION OF ANALYTICAL
PROCEDURES
Analytical methodology has been subject to continual review through
evaluation of precision and accuracy data, reasonableness of results,
and reliability records. On the basis of such reviews, the following
analytical procedures were judged to require improvements:
• Measurement of pH in slurries
• Determination of calcium and total sulfur in solids by X-ray
fluorescence
• Determination of sulfite in solids and liquors by titration
• Determination of total sulfur in solids and liquors by titra-
tion
• Measurement of carbonate in solids by CO2 evolution
• Measurement of calcium and magnesium ions in liquors by
atomic absorption when these ions are present in high con-
centration
These procedures are described in the Shawnee Chemical Procedures
Laboratory Manual (Reference 7).
The modifications and alternatives investigated for these analytical
procedures are summarized below.
15.3.1 pH in Slurries
Measurement of pH in slurry liquor at the Shawnee Test Facility has
been subject to frequent unexplained pH excursions, and there has
15-5
-------
been a high rate of pH electrode failure. This situation was tolerable
during runs lasting many days but became unacceptable when the
short-term factorial tests were begun in February 1976. These tests
required changing the run conditions every 6 to 8 hours and control-
ling slurry liquor pH 4^ 0. 1 pH unit.
A study of the pHmeasurementprocedure was initiated at the Shawnee
test site in November 1975 and concluded in March 1976.
It was found that variability of laboratory pH data in the past was due
primarily to thermal cycling (cold buffer to hot slurry) of the elec-
trodes and to fouling of the reference electrode junction by slurry
solids. An analysis of the problem produced a number of recommen-
dations for improved quality control, all of which have been imple-
mented.
Laboratory-prepared buffers are no longer used at the facility; certi-
fied buffers with known temperature dependence are used for buffer-
ing of all glass electrodes. More importantly, off-line electrodes are
being storedatpH 4in hot solutions saturated with potassium chloride
(KC1). This method of storing electrodes between service periods
has three important functions:
• The hot (50°C) solution minimizes thermal stress by hold-
ing the electrodes at a constant temperature while on-line
15-6
-------
or off-line. Repeated cycles of heating and cooling have
been eliminated
• The saturated solution of KC1 should increase life expec-
tancy of the electrodes by preventing reference cell dilution
• The low pH (pH 4) of the solution reduces reference
junction fouling by preventing buildup of acid-soluble solids
on the cell surfaces during storage. It also keeps the glass
membrane sensitized
The slurry liquor pH reading procedure has been improved by using
two electrodes (one for each scrubber system), switching the elec-
trodes at the beginning of each 8-hour shift, allowing a constant 4
minutes per reading whether in the slurry or in the buffer, and renew-
ing the buffer solution at the beginning of each day shift.
In addition, a fully enclosed, heated and air conditioned field labora-
tory was constructed to facilitate sampling. A new pH meter (Fisher
Model 520) with digital readout (to 0. 001 pH unit) has been used in
the field laboratory since March 1, 1976.
Electrodes with rubber-stopper connnections are no longer in use at
Shawnee. Uniloc and Broadley-James combination electrodes, both
with glass-to-glass seals, have been in use since March 1976 and
are performing well. Quality control criteria call for an electrode
to be discarded either if it cannot be zeroed at the correct buffer
pH with the pH meter controls, or if it does not agree (within 0.2
pH unit in a slurry sample) with two "lab-standard" (i.e., new)
15-7
-------
electrodes used for reference purposes. In addition, onsite personnel
are instructed to investigate the discrepancy if the laboratory and
on-line pH values disagree by more than 0. 2 pH unit for more than
2 hours.
An inventory control log documenting the work record of each
electrode is being kept. In addition, the pH meters are checked every
2 months with a pH simulator.
The improved procedures outlined above have been in practice at
Shawnee since March 1976 with very good results. Electrode life is
now measured in months instead of weeks, and virtually no problems
or inexplicable pH variations have been encountered since that time.
A detailed report covering the tests, recommendations, and subse-
quent results of the use of the improved procedures was issued in
September 1976 (pH Study at Shawnee Test Facility -Phase II).
15.3.2 Calcium and Total Sulfur Analyses in Solids
X-ray fluorescence spectrometry is the primary technique for per-
forming calcium and total sulfur analyses in solids at the Shawnee
* This report can be obtained from Bechtel Corporation.
15-8
-------
Test Facility. It was found, however, that the original method
(Method 16, Reference 7), as determined by quality control analyses
of spiked slurry samples was subject to interference from the fly
ash in the slurry solids.
The analytical procedure in the original method is summarized as
follows:
• Dry the solids sample
• Form a pellet with the dried sample
• Subject the pellet to X-rays
• Take three successive counts of the characteristic X-rays
emitted by calcium and sulfur
• Calculate the concentration by comparing sample X-ray in-
tensities with the corresponding slurry solids standard
X-ray intensities
Inaccuracies of this analysis were suspected tobethe result of matrix
interferences and particle size effects. Matrix interference is caused
by absorption or emission of characteristic X-rays by the other ele-
ments. Particle size effects occur because characteristic X-ray
emission depends to a varying extent on sample particle size.
Both of these effects can often be attenuated by diluting the sample
with a substance that does not significantly absorb or emit X-rays
during the analysis. Therefore, a new procedure (Method 17, Refer-
ence 7) was initiated in February 1976 which calls for the dilution
15-9
-------
20
15
18.5 ^ 4
X 19.4 19.0 25.9 20.6
10
UPPER CONTROL LIMIT > + 6.9%
ce
o
ce
ee
U1
-J
<
O
UPPER WARNING CONTROL UWL « + 4,6%
Ax ^
x X
X X
K
LOWER WARNING LIMIT LIMIT ~ - 4.6%
LOWER CONTROL LIMIT - - 6.9%
-10
-15
J L
_L
-I L
_L
J L
X
J L
C-1 C-3 C-5 C-7 C-9 C-11 C-13 C-15 C-17 C-19 C-21 C-23 C-25 C-27 C-29 C-31
SLURRY SOLIDS STANDARD NUMBER
Figure 15-1. Accuracy Control Chart - Calcium by X-Ray
Fluorescence (without lithium carbonate dilution)
-------
X X
15
X X X x
UPPER CONTROL LIMIT - + 11.3%
10
-
<
X
UPPER WARNING LIMIT > + 7.5%
?
X
X
K
o 5
AC
oc
III
X
X
X
X X
X A
1-
>
X
< 0
z
<
X
X
X
-5
-
LOWER WARNING LIMIT = - 7.5%
-10
-
X
LOWER CONTROL LIMIT - _ 11.3%
-16
__L 1 1 1 1 1 1
_J L 1 1 1 I -
J
. . 1
C-16 C-18 C-20 C-22 C-24 C-26 C-28 C-30 C-32 C-34 C-36 C-38 C40 C42 C44 C-46 C-48
SLURRY SOLID STANDARD NUMBER
Figure 15-2. Accuracy Control Chart - Calcium by X-Ray
Fluorescence (with lithium carbonate dilution)
-------
of a measured amount of the dried solids sample with a measured
amount of lithium carbonate (L^COj) before formation of the pellet.
The two X-ray fluorescence methods -- one with lA^CO^ and one
without L^CO^ -- were compared by analyzing a series of slurry
%
solids standards. The accuracy control chart for calcium analyses
without L^COg dilution, presented in Figure 15-1, shows that for
the first 15 standards analytical errors tended to be relatively small
(<4 percent) and to be both positive and negative, but that starting
with standard C-16, errors tended to be much larger and positive.
This change could be due to a change in analytical technique, a
problem with the X-ray fluorescence instrument, or some other
factor.
The use of the Li2CC>3 dilution technique was started after
standard C-15 in an attempt to lessen the effects of matrix inter-
ference and particle size. In the analyses of standards with LA2CO3
dilution, calcium errors averaged closer to zero than the errors
in the analyses of the same standards without Li2CC>3 dilution,
(Figure 15-2 versus Figure 15-1) and total sulfur errors remained
about the same.
After standard C-15, the average calcium error without L^COj
dilution was + 13.9 percent while the average calcium error with
* See Reference 3, Appendix K, for procedures used in developing
these accuracy control charts.
15-12
-------
L12CO3 dilution was + 5. 5 percent . Since the LigCOj dilution is a
technique for reducing matrix and particle size effects on X-ray fluo-
rescence analyses, it was assumed that a large part of the problem
with the original method of calcium analysis was due to these effects.
Although at first U.2CO3 dilution also appeared to improve the accu-
racy of the X-ray fluorescence analyses of total sulfur in solids,
a recent reevaluation based on new analyses of the unspiked solids
standard shows that L^COg dilution slightly increased the error of
the total sulfur analysis. The average total sulfur error of all stan-
dards analyzed by X-ray fluorescence without U.2CO3 was + 2.4 per-
cent; with U.2CO3 dilution the average error was +3.9 percent, an
insignificant increase relative to the improvement achieved in the
calcium analysis.
Li2C03 dilution reduces the precision of both calcium and total sulfur
analyses. This is indicated by the greater scatter of points on the
accuracy control charts and by the larger control and warning limits,
which are calculated from the average range of results of replicate
sample analyses. The decrease of precision is probably caused by
the increased number of steps in the analysis and by incomplete mix-
ing of the sample with U.2CO3 in the mill currently used for this
purpose. The use of a more efficient mixer to improve precision is
being evaluated.
15-13
-------
In June 1976, during a fly-ash-free testing period, the one part sample
plus nine parts L^CC^ (1:10) dilution was found to be inadequate to
compensate for the matrix change when fly ash was not present.
At that time, the dilution was changed from 1:10 to 1:100, and this
is the dilution currently being used. Analyses of the last set of four
standards (which are not fly ash free) on 11/01/76 using the 1:100
dilution had an average calcium analytical error of +2,6 percent
and an average total sulfur error of 0.4 percent. These standards
were analyzed in duplicate and the average precision was 1.9 per-
cent for the calcium analyses and 3. 1 percent for the total sulfur
analyses. These encouraging results from the first four standards
will be verified by more analyses of standards containing fly ash.
A fly-ash-free X-ray standard is now used for calibration on the
X-ray fluorescence spectrometer for analysis of fly-ash-free
samples. Preliminary results from the use of this standard have
been favorable.
* Analytical Error (X) = Vf - Va x 100%
Ya
where Vf is the concentration value found in a standard and Va is
the actual standard concentration.
** Precision (R) = /VI - V2/ x 100%
(VI + Vl)/2
where VI and V2 are the concentration values obtained from ana-
lyses of a pair of samples.
15-14
-------
15. 3. 3
Sulfite Analysis in Solids and Liquors
A new sulfite analysis procedure using a Wallace and Tiernan Am-
perometric Titrator (Method 8, Reference 7) has replaced the am-
perometric dead-stop procedure (Method 7, Reference 7).
The new procedure (Method 8) is used as the primary method of
sulfite analysis in both solids and liquor samples. The average pre-
cision of the solids sulfite analysis was not greatly changed when
Method 8 replaced Method 7, but the average precision of the liquor
sulfite analysis improved from 27. 2 percent to 4. 8 percent.
A solid sulfite standard was analyzed in duplicate using Method 8
by each of six analysts in the Shawnee laboratory. The average ana-
lytical error was +0. 4 percent. The maximum error was 0.8 percent.
15.3.4 Total Sulfur Analysis in Solids and Liquors
A new procedure has been investigated for replacing the present
"wet" procedure (Method 9# Reference 7) for the analysis of total
sulfur. The present procedure (a Ba(C 104)2 titration), is used as the
primary method for total sulfur in liquors and as a backup procedure
for total sulfur in solids. In the new procedure, sulfites are first
15-15
-------
oxidized to sulfates with hydrogen peroxide and the total sulfate is
determined turbidimetrically.
To compare the methods, two slurry liquor standards were analyzed
in duplicate by each laboratory analyst. The standard analyzed by
the Ba(C10^)2 titration method (Method 9) had a large average error
of +35 percent. The analyses using the turbidimetric method had an
average error of -2 percent; they also had a precision that was
much better than that of Method 9» indicating the presence of fewer
random errors.
The titrimetric method is still being used while further comparisions
of the two methods are being carried out on routine samples where
interferences are likely.
Evaluation of the titrimetric analysis indicated that the precision of
the method is poor when the liquor magnesium concentration exceeds
3000 ppm (see Method 9, Reference 7).
15.3.5 Carbonate Analysis in Solids
A volumetric CC>2 evolution procedure has been used as the primary
method of carbonate analysis in solids (Method 5, Reference 7). The
average precision of 60 pairs of analyses of carbonate in solids by
15-16
-------
CC>2 evolution run in October 1975 was 7.3 percent. This average
precision gives a precision upper control limit (UCL) of 24 percent,
which is excessively large.
A new method using the laboratory's Oceanography International
carbon analyzer to measure CO2 by infrared absorption has been
devised (Method 6, Reference 7). The results of analyses of carbon-
ate standards with CO2 concentrations at low levels were good, but
technical problems were encountered at higher CO2 concentration
levels. As a result, the method is still being checked.
15.3.6 Calcium and Magnesium Analysis in Liquors
Atomic absorption spectrometry is currently the primary methodused
for analysis of calcium and magnesium in liquor and the backup method
for analysis of calcium in solids (Method 13, Reference 7).
Although the basic method is usually quite precise and accurate, pre-
cision is reduced when large dilutions must be made. Analysis of
magnesium in scrubbing liquor during magnesium factorial runs can
require dilutions as great as 1:10,000.
To bypass the requirement for such dilutions, an alternative method,
titration with EDTA (ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid or its salts),
is being examined for use when high concentrations are analyzed.
15-17
-------
Section 16
SLUDGE CHARACTERIZATION
This section (1) discusses the usefulness of the settling and dewatering
tests performed at Shawnee to monitor the dewatering equipment and
(2) analyzes the test results with respect to operating variable levels.
16. 1 TEST DESCRIPTION
Two types of tests have been used at Shawnee: the cylinder settling test
and the funnel test. The settling test (see Method 20, Reference 7)
measures the initial settling rate and ultimate settled solids concen-
tration; the funnel test (see Reference 23) measures the weight percent
solids of a filter cake and a specific cake resistance.
Slurry for both tests are obtained and allowed to stand overnight. The
tests are then performed within 2 weeks. Comparison tests have shown
that settling/dewatering results have not been appreciably affected by
the differences in temperature and time between immediate (55 °C,
minimum time) and delayed (21°C, 1 day to 2 weeks later) testing
of the sample.
16-1
-------
In the settling test, the slurry is mixed well in a 1000-ml graduated
cylinder and allowed to settle. A slow speed rake is inserted at the
bottom of the graduated cylinder to more closely model clarifier
thickening. Solids interface position is recorded as a function of time
until no further settling occurs. These data are plotted and the initial
settling rate graphically measured. The ultimate settled solids con-
centration is calculated from the final solids interface level, assuming
a specific gravity for the solids of 2. 5. Results from this method
have compared well with measurements taken by decanting the clear
liquor and physically measuring the solids concentration.
The funnel test is performed by vacuum filtration of a known amount
of slurry through a Buchner funnel. A piece of filter paper (of negli-
gible resistance relative to the cake resistance) is placed in the funnel
prior to filtration to help the initial cake formation. Filtration resist-
ance is provided essentially only by the cake resistance. Filtrate
volume is measured as a function of time, and cake resistance is
obtained by use of the following formulas:
0
V
2FA2g
V +
PAg
(16-1)
where 0
cycle time, sec
filtrate volume, cm
filtrate viscosity, g/(sec.cm), poise
specific cake resistance, cm/g
V
M
r
16-2
-------
2
P = vacuum, g/cm
A = filter area, cm
g = gravity acceleration, 981 cm/sec
Rm = cloth resistance, cm " *
C = wt. of solids/unit vol. of filtrate, g/cm^
ph2o
[ci/(100 - ci)] - [cf/(100 - cf)]
where ci = initial slurry percent moisture
cf = cake percent moisture
= filtrate density, gm/cm^
The slope, b, estimated from a 0/V versus V plot is used in the follow-
ing equation to calculate resistance:
2b PA g
r = (16-2)
MC
16.2 TEST RESULTS
16. 2. 1 Operational Evaluation
Tables 16-1 through 16-4 present the results of settling and funnel
tests performed on the feed stream to the dewatering equipment at
the Shawnee Test Facility. Tables 16-1 and 16-2 show the results of
the venturi/spray tower settling and funnel tests, respectively; Tables
16-3 and 16-4 show the results of the TCA settling and funnel tests,
respectively.
16-3
-------
Table 16-1
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SETTLING TEST RESULTS
0
1
4^
Run
No.
Date
Initial Settling
Rate, cm/min.
Final Settled
Solids, wt. %
Initial Solids,
wt. %
Alkali
Fly Ash
Effective Mg++
Cone., pprrs
Gas Rate
acfm @ 330°F
L/G,
gal/Mcf
EHT Res.
Time, min.
Inlet
pH. avg.
V
ST
628-1A
8/18/75
0.09
41.4
11. 6
L
Yes
..
17.000 35,000
25 - 59
50-117
12
7
628-1A
9/ 2/75
0. 61
46. 1
8. 7
L
Yes
--
17,000 35,000
25 - 59
50 - 117
12
7
628-1A
9/16/75
0.73
41. 1
7. 7
L
Yes
--
17,000 35,000
25 - 59
50 - 117
12
7
628-1B
9/30/75
0. 30
42. 7
8. 7
L
Yes
--
19,000 35,000
29 - 53
57 - 105
12
7
702-1A
10/15/75
0. 07
50. 1
15.4
LS
Yes
35,000
21
50
20
5. 8
704-1A
11/ 4/75
0.20
59. 3
15. 5
LS
Yes
--
35,000
21
50
20
5. 8
706-1A
11/13/75
0. 14
52. 6
14. 7
-LS
Yes
--
35,000
21
50
12
5. 3
706-1A
11/19/75
0.19
53. 8
14.9
LS
Yes
..
35,000
21
50
12
5. 3
709-1A
12/ 8/75
0. 09
50. 1
15. 3
LS
Yes
--
35. 000
21
50
12
5. 8
710-1A
12/17/75
0. 07
44. 7
16. 1
LS
Yes
--
35,000
21
50
12
6. 0
711.1A
12/30/75
0. 08
43. 1
14. 5
LS
Yes
35,000
21
50
6
5. 7
716-1A
1/28/76
0. 28
62.8
16.4
LS
Y es
3650
35,000
21
0
20
4. 8
717-1A
2/ 3/76
0. 04
45. 7
14. 9
LS
Yes
3500
35,000
21
50
6
5. 5
718-lA
7/ 7/76
0.06
31.1
8.0
LS
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
5. 9
718-1A
7/13/76
0. 08
34. 2
8. 0
LS
No
35,000
21
50
12
5. 9
718-lA
7/14/76
0.07
32. 3
8. 0
LS
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
5. 9
718-lA
7/15/76
0. 07
30. 3
7. 1
LS
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
5. 9
718-lA
7/15/76
0. 12
28.0
5. 7
LS
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
5. 9
718-lA
7/15/76
9. 17 {floe)
27.4
5. 7
LS
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
5. 9
630-1A
5/13/76
0.22
38. 1
8. 0
L
Yes
2000
35,000
21
50
3
7. 0
630-1A
5/17/76
0. 41
39. 9
8. 0
L
Yes
2000
35,000
21
50
7. 0
633-1A
6/ 7/76
0. 56
41. 5
9. 0
L
Yes
2000
25,000
7
70
3
8. 0
634-1A
6/21/76
82
46. 8
4. 0
L
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
634-1A
6/30/76
1. 83
33.4
4. 0
L
No
35.000
21
50
12
8. 0
635-1A
7/17/76
0. 13
31. 1
8. 0
L
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
635-1A
7/20/76
0. 09
30. 9
8. 1
L
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
635-1A
7/25/76
0. 29
39. 6
8. 2
L
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
636-1A
7/30/76
0. 80
58. 0
8. 1
L
No
--
25,000
30
70
12
8. 0
636-1A
8/ 3/76
0.26
50. 7
8. 3
L
No
25, 000
30
70
12
8. 0
637-1A
8/ 7/76
0. 87
55. 3
8. 3
L
No
35,000
21
50
8. 0
618-1A
8/17/76
1. 83
44. 8
3. 9
L
No
-
35.000
21
50
8. 0
638-1A
8/21/76
1. 83
38.5
4. 2
L
No
35,000
21
50
8. 0
639-1A
9/ 1/76
1. 08
36. 1
4. 1
L
No
2000
35,000
21
50
3
7. 0
640-1A
9/ 3/76
0. 61
52. 3
8. 7
L
No
2000
35,000
21
50
7. 0
641-1A
9/14/76
0. 76
38. 9
e. i
L
No
2000
35,000
5
50
7. 0
642-IA
9/21/76
0. 37
44. 3
8. I
L
No
2000
35,000
5
37
7. 0
642-1A
9/23/76
0. 76
45. 0
7.6
L
No
2000
35,000
5
37
7. 0
642-1A
9/26/76
0. 50
45.5
8.4
L
No
2000
35,000
5
37
3
7. 0
643-1A
10/ 5/76
0. 14
37.2
8.4
L
No
2000
35,000
21
50
7. 0
VFG-1A
10/11/76
1. 08
49. 3
8. 6
L
Yes
2000
35.000
21
50
3
7. 0
VFG-1A
10/17/76
0. 71
43. 6
8. 3
L
Yes
2000
35, 000
21
50
3
7. 0
VFG-1B
10/26/76
0. 68
40.4
8. 5
L
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
VFG-1C
11/ 1/76
1. 02
52. 9
8. 5
L
Yes
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
VFG-1F
11/17/76
1. 08
56.5
7. 9
L
Yes
--
35, 000
21
0
12
8. 0
VFG-1G
11/21/76
0. 87
53.2
8. 9
L
Yes
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
VFG-1I
11/27/76
0. 73
86.0
14. 6
L
Yes
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
VFG-1P
12/ 4/76
1. 67
64. 3
8. 0
L
Yes
35,000
5
50
12
8. 0
-------
Table 16-2
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER FUNNEL TEST RESULTS
0
1
Ul
Run
No.
Date
Cake Resistance,
cm/g x 10"'
Cake Solids,
wt.%
Rotary filter
ek. soL, wt. %
Initial Solids,
wt. %
Alkali
Fly Ash
Effective Mg++
Cone., ppm
Gas Rate
acfm @ 300°F
L/G,
gal/Mxf
EHT Res.
Time, min.
Inlet
pH, avg.
V
| ST
635-1A
7/21/76
11.8
48
42
8. 1
L
No
35,000
21
50
12
8.0
635-IA
7/23/76
6.8
43
43
8.2
L
No
__
35, 000
21
50
12
8.0
655-1A
7/23/76*1
4.4
42
43
8.2
L
No
..
35,000
21
50
12
8.0
636-LA
7/30/74
12.7
43
44
8. 1
L
No
--
25, 000
30
70
12
8. 0
636-1A
8/ 3/76
11. 0
40
42
8.3
L
No.
25. 000
30
70
12
8.0
637-LA
»/ 7/74
7.5
46
46
8.3
L
No
35, 000
2J
50
3
8. 0
638-LA
8/17/76
9.4
49
48
3.9
L
No
35,000
21
50
3
8.0
638-LA
8/21/76
6.8
54
58
4.2
L
No
..
35,000
21
50
3
8.0
639-IA
8/27/76
5. 3
45
46
4. 1
L
No
2000
35,000
21
50
3
7. 0
639-LA
8/27/76
5.8
48
46
4. 1
L
No
2000
35, 000
21
50
3
7.0
639-LA
8/27/76
5. 7
46
46
4. 1
L
No
2000
35,000
21
50
3
7.0
639-lA
8/27/76
5.6
47
46
4. 1
L
No
2000
35,000
21
50
3
7.0
639-1A
9/ 1/76
8.8
47
51
4. 1
L
No
2000
35. 000
21
50
3
7.0
640-IA
9/ 3/76
4.6
47
47
8.7
L
No
2000
35,000
21
50
3
7.0
641-lA
9/14/76
4.7
43
45
8.1
L
No
2000
35,000
5
50
3
7.0
641-1A
9/14/76
4.5
43
45
8.1
L
No
2000
35,000
5
50
3
7. 0
642-XA
9/21/76
5.8
48
47
8.1
L
No
2000
35, 000
5
37
3
7.0
642-LA
9/23/76
5.2
47
48
7.6
L
No
2000
35,000
5
37
3
7.0
642-IA
9/26/76
4.0
48
50
8.4
L
No
2000
35, 000
5
37
3
7,0
643-IA
10/ 5/7<
5.9
42
41
8.4
L
No
2000
35, 000
21
50
3
7. 0
VFG-IA
10/11/76
3.7
55
52
8.6
L
Yes
2000
35, 000
21
50
3
7.0
VFG-IA
10/17/76
3.9
53
54
8. 3
L
Yes
2000
35,000
21
50
3
7. 0
VFG-1B
10/26/76
5.7
42
44
8.5
L
No
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
VFG-IC
11/ 1/76
3.8
51
57
8.5
L
Yes
35, 000
21
50
12
8.0
VFG-ir
11/17/76
3.2
60
60
7.9
L
Yes
35,000
21
0
12
8.0
VFG-1G
11/21/76
4.3
52
53
8.9
L
Yes
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
VFG-1I
11/27/76
4.8
53
54
14. 6
L
Yes
--
35,000
21
50
12
8. 0
VFC-1P
12/ 4/76
5.2
57
—
8.0
L
Yes
--
35,000
5
50
12
8. 0
Nate:
(1) Ttken at AP-I818. *u others AP-1816.
-------
Table 16-3
TCA SETTLING TEST RESULTS
0
1
o
Run
No.
Date
Initial Settling
Rate, cm/min
Final Settled
Solids, wt. %
Initial Solids,
wt. %
Alkali
Fly Ash
Effective Mg++
Cone,, ppm
Gas Rate,
acfm @ 330°F
L/G,
gal/Mcf
EHT Res.
Time, min
Inlet
pH, avg.
558-2A
8/26/75
0.09
42,8
14. 3
LS
Yes
30,000
50
15
5.8
559-2A
9/ 8/75
0. 09
49, 8
15. 8
LS
Yes
30,000
50
15
5. 9
560-2A
9/24/75
0. 08
50.4
16.4
LS
Yes
30,000
50
15
5. 8
562-2A
10/ 8/75
0. 12
47.5
14. 3
LS
Y es
30,000
50
12
5.9
562-2A
10/21/75
0. 08
45.3
15. 5
LS
Yes
30,000
50
12
5. 9
562-2A
10/29/75
0. 13
53.4
16. 0
LS
Y es
30,000
50
12
5.9
566-2A
11/26/75
0. 16
51. 9
13. 8
LS
Y es
--
30,000
50
12 (3 tanks)
5. 9
567-2A
12/ 3/75
0. 12
48. 8
15. 6
LS
Yes
30, 000
50
12 (3 tanks)
6. 0
572-2A
1/ 7/76
0. 11
50. 1
14. 4
LS
Yes
30,000
50
9(3 tanks)
5.2
5 76-2A
1/19/76
0. 09
45.5
14. 6
LS
Yes
30,000
50
12 (3 tanks)
5. 7
583-2B
4/27/76
0. 05
39. 9
15. 2
LS
Yes
5000
30,000
50
3
5. 3
584-2A
5/10/76
0. 04
35. 9
15. 0
LS
Y es
9000
30,000
50
4. 1
5.4
584-2A
5/12/76
0. 04
47. 0
18. 0
LS
Yes
9000
30, 000
50
4. 1
5.4
584-2A
5/13/76
0. 06
41. 1
14. 0
LS
Yes
9000
30, 000
50
4. 1
5.4
586-2A
5/24/76
0. 08
44. 7
15. 0
LS
Yes
9000
30,000
50
4. 1
5. 3
587-2A
6/ 2/76
0.06
39.8
11. 0
LS
Yes
9000
30, 000
50
4. 1
5. 3
602-2A
7/14/76
0. 19
47. 9
15. 0
L
Yes
2000
30,000
50
4. 1
7. 0
602-2A
7/15/76
0. 23
50. 1
15. 0
L
Yes
2000
30,000
50
4. 1
7, 0
602-2A
7/18/76
0. 24
49. 6
14. 5
L
Yes
2000
30,000
50
4. 1
7. 0
603-2A
7/20/76
0. 83
43. 3
7. 7
L
Yes
2000
30,000
50
4. I
7. 0
603-2A
7/26/76
0. 63
40.2
7. 6
L
Yes
2000
30, 000
50
4. 1
7. 0
604-2A
7/29/76
0. 63
42.2
8- 1
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
4. 1
7. 0
604-2A
8/ 3/76
1. 08
67. 9
7. 5
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
4. 1
7. 0
605-2A
8/11/76
0.41
42. 4
8. 1
L
Y es
2000
20, 500
73
4. 1
7.0
606-2A
8/17/76
1. 08
40.2
7. 5
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
4. 1
8. 0
606-2A
8/18/76
0. 87
41. 6
7. 7
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
4. 1
8. 0
607-2A
8/24/76
1,05
59.9
7. 6
L
Yes
4000
30,000
37
4. 1
8. 0
607-2A
9/ 1/76
0. 61
49. 1
8. 6
L
Yes
4000
30, 000
37
4. 1
8. 0
607-2A
9/ 2/76
0. 63
47. 0
8, 2
L
Yes
4000
30,000
37
4. 1
8. 0
608-2A
9/ 4/76
0. 49
65. 6
15.8
L
Yes
4000
30, 000
37
4. 1
8. 0
608-2B
9/13/76
0. 20
50.4
15, 1
L
Yes
4000
30,000
37
5. 4
8. 0
609-2A
9/16/76
0. 63
51.2
8. 1
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
5. 4
7. 0
609-2A
9/23/76
0, 63
43. 1
8.8
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
5. 4
7. 0
610-2A
10/ 3/76
1. 31
43. 7
7. 6
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
5.4
8. 0
610-2A
10/ 7/76
1. 31
51. 6
8. 7
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
5. 4
8. 0
611-2A
10/11/76
1. 31
46. 2
7. 9
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
4. 1
8. 0
612-2A
10/18/76
0. 92
49.4
8. 0
L
Yes
2000
30, 000
37
3. 0
8. 0
613-2A
10/21/76
0. 71
54.7
8. 4
L
Yes
2000
30, 000
50
3. 0
7.0
614-2A
10/27/76
0. 68
44.0
8.4
L
Yes
2000
30r 000
37
16
8. 0
615-2A
11/ 3/76
0. 61
51. 6
8. 7
L
Yes
2000
30,000
50
12
7. 0
617-2A
11/21/76
0.23
53.2
14. 8
L
Yes
--
30,000
50
12
8. 0
-------
Table 16-4
TGA FUNNEL, TEST RESULTS
cr*
i
-j
Run
Dste
Cmke Resistance*
Cake Solids,
Rotary Fitter
Initial Solids,
Alkali
Fly Ash
Effective Mg+*
Gas Rate,
VG,
£HT Res
Inlet
No.
cm/g x 10*^
wt.%
ck. sol. , wt. %
wt.%
Cone. r ppm
ac£m 6 330°F
gal/Mcf .
Time, min.
pH, Avg.
603-2A
7/23/76
4.6
62
..
7.6
L.
Yes
2000
30. 000
50
4. 1
7. 0
604-2A
8/ 3/76
4.1
52
--
7.5
L
Yes
2000
30,000
3?
4. 1
7.0
605-2A
8/11/76
4.4
54
53
8.1
L
Yes
2000
20,500
73
4.1
7.0
406-2A
0/17/76
3*9
52
7.5
L
Yes
2000
30, 000
37
4.1
8.0
606*24
0/18/76
2.9
56
--
7.7
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
4. 1
8.0
607-2A
0/24/76
3.7
50
52
7.6
L.
Yes
4000
30,000
37
4, 1
8.0
607-2A
9/ 1/76
4.4
55
--
8.6
L
Yes
4000
30, 000
37
4.3
8.0
607-2A
9/ 2/76
3.8
50
--
8.2
L
Yes
4000
30,000
37
4. 1
8. 0
60S-2A
9/ 4/76
1.7
53
—
15.8
L
Yes
4000
30,000
37
4. 1
8.0
608-2B
9/13/76
1.4
52
—
1S.1
L
Yes
4000
30, 000
37
5.4
8.0
609-2A
9/16/76
3.7
49
8.1
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
5.4
7.0
609-2A
9/23/76
S.2
55
—
8.8
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
5.4
7.0
610-2A
10/ 3/76
a.9
59
--
7.6
L
Yes
2000
30, 000
37
5.4
8.0
610-2A
10/ 7/76
4.4
53
--
8.7
L
Yes
2000
30,000
37
5.4
8.0
6U-2A
10/11/76
3.7
54
—
7.9
h
Yes
2000
30,000
37
4.1
8.0
612-2A
10/10/76
2,9
54
8.0
Lr
Yes
2000
30, 000
37
3.0
8.0
613-2A
10/21/76
3.4
55
—
8.4
L
Yes
2000
30,000
50
3.0
7.0
614-2A
10/27/76
3.2
52
—
8.4
L
Yes
2000
30, 000
37
16.0
8.0
615-2A
12/ 3/76
2.4
54
—
8.7
L
Yes
2000
30, 000
50
12
7.0
617-2A
11/21/76
3.4
53
--
14.8
L
Yes
2000
30, 000
50
12
8.0
-------
As a rule, settling and dewatering tests have been successfully used
to monitor the clarifier and filter operation to determine if upset condi-
tions are being caused by changes in the settling or dewatering charac-
teristics of the discharge slurry. For example, settling test results
indicated that solids in the clarifier overflow during Run 718-1A
resulted from the unusually low solids settling rate of the discharge
slurry. A flocculation agent was required to continue operation, and
the settling test was employed to determine addition requirements.
The settling test can also be used to find out if the clarifier area is
adequate. The few checks that have been run have indicated adequate
clarifier area. Not enough clarifier upsets have occurred, however,
to ascertain the accuracy of this method in determining impending
clarifier upset.
The funnel test provides a good check of filter operation since the cake
solids concentration measured by the funnel test agrees well with the
cake solids obtained by the filter as shown in Figure 16-1. Cake
resistance, on the other hand, shows only a very weak correlation
with cake solids concentration, shown in Figure 16-2.
16.2.2 Correlation with Operating Variables
Settling Tests. Analysis of the settling test results has revealed little
clear-cut relationship between settling characteristics and operating
16-8
-------
FUNNEL TEST CAKE SOLIDS, wt. %
Figure 16-1. Filter Cake Percent Solids Versus Funnel Cake
Percent Solids for All Runs Using the Filter
16-9
-------
65 ¦ ¦
A V/ST (NO FLY ASH)
A V/ST (FLY ASH)
• TCA (FLY ASH)
• •
•A • •
•••
m a • A
A
45 ¦¦
A a
A A A
A A
A
M A
A AA
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CAKE RESISTANCE, cm/g x 10-9
11
12
13 14
Figure 16-2. Funnel Test Cake Percent Solids Versus
Cake Resistance
16-10
-------
variables. Plots of initial settling rate versus final amount of settled
solids for different initial percent solids (Figure 16-3 for the venturi/
spray tower system runs and Figure 16-4 for the TCA system runs)
indicate initial settling is faster at lower initial solids concentration
over the conditions investigated.
Figures 16-5 and 16-6 are plots of the within-run replications for
runs where more than one settling test was performed. The variation
in ultimate settled solids within a run ranges from 1 weight percent to
as much as 26 weight percent, while initial settling rate varies from
zero to eight times. With such a large variation in replicate values,
very little can be concluded from comparison plots of these runs since
the between-run differences are the same magnitude as the replicate
value ranges. To obtain valid comparisons, it will be necessary to
generate better averages by obtaining a larger number of data points
at each set of operating conditions.
Another question to be resolved is whether the large within-run vari-
ation in test results is real and caused by small changes in operat-
ing conditions or false and due to poor technique either in sampling or
test performance. It is most likely that the variation is real since
very little can go wrong with a settling test either in sampling or per-
formance. More data at a given set of test conditions should resolve
this question. A broad spread of the data would support real variations
while a narrow grouping with a few "flyers" would support a conclu-
16-11
-------
70
65
60
55
SO
45
40
36
30
25
A 600 SERIES <15% SOLIDS, FLY ASH)
A 700 SERIES (8% SOLIDS, NO FLY ASH)
¦ 600 SERIES (SXSOLIDS.NO FLY ASH)
~ 600 SERIES (4%SOLIDS, NO FLYASH)
A
A
A
A
A
IP
—»—
0.5
+¦
T.O 1.5 2.0
INITIAL SETTLING RATE, cm/min.
2.5
3.
igure 16-3. Final Settled Solids Versus Initial Settling
a Function of Weight Percent Solids Recir
for the Venturi/Spray Tower System
16-12
-------
70
65
60
55
50
46
40
36
30
6-
» » r
A
• A
t
*
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
• 600 SERIES (16% SOLIDS, LIMESTONE)
~ 600 SERIES (16% SOLIDS, LIME)
A 600SERIES (8% SOLIDS, LIME)
¦+-
+
0.6 1.0 1.6
INITIAL SETTLING RATE, em/mta.
2.0
Final Settled Solids Versus Initial Settling Rate as
a Function of Weight Percent Solids Recirculated
for the TCA System
16-13
-------
70
66
60
56
50
45
40
35
30
25
•
718-1A
A
634-1A
B
VFG-1A
o
706-1A
¦
635-1A
~
638-1A
~
630-1A
~
636-1A
0
642-1A
0.5
0
a
1.0
-f-
1.5
2.0
2.5
INITIAL SETTLING RATE, cm/min.
16-5. Final Settled Solids Versus Initial Settling Rate
the Venturi/Spray Tower System
16-14
-------
70
—r
65
60
*. 55
%
vi
a
3
8
2 50
-I
i
M
_»
<
z
uu 45
40 <•
A
~
~
A ~
~ o
~
O
O
35 ••
A
607-2A
• 562-2A
~ 603-2A
A
809-2A
O 584-2A
4 604-2A
B
010-2A
¦ 802-2A
Q 606-2A
0.5 1.0 1.5
INITIAL SETTLING RATE, cm/min.
2.0
Figure 16-6. Final Settled Solids Versus Initial Settling Rate
for the TCA System
16-15
-------
sion that the "flyers" were not valid test results.
Funnel tests. Cake resistance shows little correlation with cake
percent solids (see Figure 16-2), and comparison plots of resistance
as a function of operating variable were not constructed.
Filtered cake solids, however, correlates strongly with fly ash content
(see Table 16-2 and 16-4). On the TCA system, all the runs where
funnel tests were performed were lime addition tests with fly ash in
the flue gas (the 600 series tests). On the venturi/spray tower system,
the 600 series tests were with lime addition without fly ash, and the
VFG series were with lime addition with fly ash, except for VFG-1B,
which was fly ash free. On all tests where fly ash was present, cake
solids ranged from 49 to 56 percent, while all tests without fly ash
had cake solids in the 42 to 48 percent range. This is strong evidence
that the presence of fly ash aids in the filtration of the discharged
slurry.
Most run variables seemed to have little effect on the cake solids con-
centration, except in Run 638-1A where, with no fly ash at low percent
solids recirculated (4 percent), the filtered cake averaged 51. 5 percent
solids. (This was the only fly-ash-free run with a cake solids above 50
percent. ) When MgO was added at these conditions (Run 639-1A), the
average cake solids fell to a more typical 46 percent. This is the only
16-16
-------
run where MgO addition resulted in a significant change in filter cake
percent solids.
16.3 FUTURE PLANS
Data collection will continue, and an attempt will be made to perform
a larger number of tests for some runs. Analysis of the settling data
with a view to specifying clarifier size for the TVA economic study
program will be attempted.
As part of an ongoing analysis of filter performance, filter leaf tests
will be performed on a large range of cloths to determine if the opti-
mum cloth type is being used at Shawnee,
16.4 CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be made:
• Settling test results, consisting of initial settling rate and
final settled solids concentration data, are useful aids in
monitoring clarifier performance
• Cake resistance measurements show little correlation with
cake solids concentration. However, the cake solids concen-
tration, through its good agreement with filter cake solids
concentration, provides a goodcheckof the filter performance
• Initial settling rate increases with decreasing initial percent
solids over all of the run conditions investigated
• Owing to the large variation in replicate values, no significant
correlation between operating variables and initial settling
16-17
-------
rate or ultimate settled solids was found. It remains to be
proved or disproved whether the large variations between rep-
licates are real process variations or the result of poor
technique, either in sampling or test performance
• Funnel test results indicate that cake solids concentration
is higher for lime tests with fly ash than without fly ash.
Values ranged from 49 to 56 percent for tests with fly ash
to 42 to 48 percent for tests without fly ash
16-18
-------
Section 17
OPERATING EXPERIENCE DURING LIME/LIMESTONE TESTING
This section summarizes the operating experience during lime/lime-
stone testing, with and without fly ash in the flue gas and with and
without magnesium addition, at the Shawnee Test Facility from
mid-February 1976 through November 1976. Summaries of prior
operating experience are presented in References 1, 2 and 3.
17. 1 SCRUBBER INTERNALS
17.1.1 Mist Eliminators
Throughout this testing period, three-pass, open-vane, stainless-
steel chevron-type mist eliminators were used in both the venturi/
spray tower and the TCA systems. Monitoring of mist eliminator
performance during this period further confirmed the relationship
between mist eliminator reliability and alkali utilization. During the
3930-hour (1449 with limestone and 2481 with lime) magnesium addi-
tion test block, the restriction of the mist eliminator remained under
5 percent except for three lime tests - Runs 604-2A, 606-2A and
17-1
-------
613-2A - during which abnormally high solids oxidation was experi-
enced due to air leakage through the downcomer. Details of mist
eliminator performance during utilization testing at Shawnee are
reported in Reference 3.
17.1.2 TCA Grid Supports
The 3/8-inch diameter, 316 stainless steel bar-grids, installed on
1-1/4 centers on October 1973, have been in slurry service for
approximately 22,000 hours with no evidence of significant erosion.
17.1.3 TCA Spheres
During this test period, all three TCA beds were stocked with new
6.3-gram solid nitrile foam spheres obtained from Universal Oil
Products' Air Correction Division. The foam spheres have been
in continuous service for almost 1/2 year (3888 hours) without signi-
ficant failure. With the previously tested hollow thermoplastic
rubber (TPR) spheres, over 11 percent of the spheres had failed
at this service life (Reference 3, Figure 10-1).
In the first 1773 hours of operation with the foam spheres, the losses
in diameter and weight were 12 percent and 4 percent, respectively.
Continued exposure of the spheres for an additional 2115 hours
17-2
-------
resulted in a 23 percent diameter loss and 21 percent weight loss.
Figure 17-1 illustrates the spheres diameter loss during the moni-
toring program. Comparison of the performance of these 6. 3-gram
nitrile foam spheres with 6.5-gram nitrile foam spheres tested
during the earlier reporting period indicate a significant improvement
in quality. The latter spheres had suffered a 9 percent diameter
loss and a 1 percent weight loss in merely 240 hours of operation.
Visual examination of the present foam spheres before and after
exposure yielded the same results as noted in Reference 3.
17.1.4 Spray Tower Nozzles
Two types of nozzles have been tested in the venturi/spray tower,
Bete No. TF48FCN 316 stainless steelnozzles and Bete No. ST48FCN
316 stainless steel nozzles with stellite diffusers. The TF nozzles
were made out of one piece of 316 stainless steel whereas the ST
nozzles consisted of three pieces - base and collar nut made of 316
stainless steel and diffuser made of stellite.
Eight Bete stainless steel nozzles (No. TF48FCN) were tested for
156 5 hours on lime/fly ash-free slurry. During the testing period,
the average flow rate per nozzle was 50 gpm at a 10 psi pressure
drop. Most of the operation, approximately 1200 hours, was with
8 percent solids slurry. The remainder was with 4 percent solids
17-3
-------
1.8
-o
¦
>*>•
1.6 --
S
ll.4 +
cc
Ul
H
Ui
S
<
Q
ui
CC
UJ
X
«5
2
3
o
A O
1.2 -¦
1.0 ¦¦
GRID OPENING
0.8
O POPULATION II
(INITIAL MIN. DIAMETER = 1.61 inches)
A POPULATION III
(INITIAL MIN. DIAMETER = 1.53 inches)
0.6
-+-
+
-4-
+
500
1000
1500 2000 2500
HOURS IN SERVICE
3000
3500
4000
Figure 17-1. Eros ion/Shrinkage Rate of Nitrile Foam Spheres
-------
slurry. During the testing, individual nozzles lost from 0.93 to
2. 43 percent of their initial weight because of erosion.
Earlier testing of these nozzles before the Advanced Test Program
with lime and limestone slurries containing fly ash had resulted in
an average weight loss of approximately 28 percent in 4320 hours,
a considerably higher erosion rate than observed in operation with
fly-ash-free slurry. During this earlier testing period, conditions
for the stainless steel nozzles were as follows:
• 923 hours with 15 percent solids, limestone/fly ash slurry,
43 gpm per nozzle at 10 psi, only two of the four slurry
spray headers in service
• 1135 hours with 8 to 10 percent solids, limestone/fly ash
slurry, 43 gpm per nozzle at 10 psi, all four spray headers
in service
• 2262 hours with 7 to 9 percent solids, lime/fly ash slurry,
43 gpm per nozzle at 10 psi, all four spray headers in ser-
vice
Most nozzle testing in the venturi/spray tower system during the
Advanced Test Program has been with Bete No. ST48FCN nozzles
withstellite diffusers. These nozzles were installed in March 1974.
They provided almost uninterrupted service till their removal on
December 6, 1976. During the 17, 500-hour test period, 27 nozzles
were used. Only two nozzles had tobe replaced during the test period.
17-5
-------
During the final removal of the stellite diffusers, the impact of the
pipe wrench on the collar nut connecting the stellite diffuser to the
base fractured ten of the diffusers near their tips. Inspection of these
nozzles revealed that the major portion of the nozzle wear was con-
fined to the diffusers. In the 17, 500-hour test period, the average
thickness of the diffuser dropped to 0.193 inches from an initial
value of 0.260 inches. This amounts to a reduction of 26 percent.
Thickness measurements made to estimate the relative wear of the
diffusers are included in Table 17-1. The maximum erosion of the
base, measured by a diameter increase, was 20 percent after 10,685
hours in service.
1.7. 1. 5 TCA Nozzles
The four TCA slurry feed nozzles were installed in September 1974.
These were Spraco No. 1969F full-cone, open-type nozzles, made of
316 stainless steel. Except for slight pitting of the diffuser vanes, no
significant wear had been observed after 15, 000 hours of operation
at a 5 psi pressure drop with slurry containing 8 to 15 percent sus-
pended solids. This lack of wear rate is probably due to the low
pressure drop across the nozzles.
The three inlet gas duct cooling spray nozzles are Bete No. ST32FCN
nozzles with stellite diffusers. These nozzles were installed on
17-6
-------
Table 17-1
MEASUREMENTS OF STELLITE DIFFUSER THICKNESS, INCHES
Stellite DiffuserB Thickness, in.
Diffusers with
Diffusers without
Broken Tips
Broken Tips
0. 153
0. 176
0. 189
0.243
0. 154
0. 174
0. 181
0.168
0. 194
0.208
0. 191
0. 211
0. 172
0. 224
0. 178
0. 141 (thinnest)
0. 208
0. 188
0. 191
0.187
0. 221
0. 209
0. 195
0.234
0.245
Average 0. 181
0. 202
Note:
1. Average of the 25 readings was 0.193 inches and they ranged from
0. 141 to 0. 245 inches. A new diffuser measures approximately 0. 260in.
this point.
17-7
-------
March 7, 1975. After 11, 566 hours of operation, the diffusers of
two nozzles were so eroded that only one complete turn of the spiral
tip remained. The three nozzles were replaced with identical units.
Their performance will be monitored closely.
17.1.6 Venturi Internals
The venturi at Shawnee is a variable-throat, 316L stainless steel type
manufactured by Chemical Construction Corporation (Chemico).
During the current operating period, both erosion and minor corrosion
have continued. The problems encountered and their remedies are
discussed below.
A small circumferential leak between the venturi top and the inlet gas
duct was repaired by bending a piece of 3/8-inch stainless steel rod
to fit the crevice and then seal welding along its top and bottom.
The original sliding guide vanes had badly eroded, some to the point
where adjusting bolts required replacement. Rather than fabricate new
guide vanes, it was decided to spot weld the present guide vanes to
prevent them from falling out of position. In addition, two quarter-
circle pieces were fabricated and welded over the two areas of greatest
erosion at the fixed support for the guide vanes.
17-8
-------
The flanges on the shroud at its top and bottom had eroded badly and the
rubber gaskets were nolonger sealing. New flanges and gaskets of the
same design were fabricated on site and installed. A discussion of the
materials used through April 197 5 can be found in TVA's Third Interim
Report on Corrosion Studies (Reference 3). Materials tested after
April 1975 are reported in TVA's Fourth Interim Report on Corrosion
Studies. Appendix L of this report.
Blisters were observed in the rubber lining of the 4-inch piping to
the tangential nozzles and the bull nozzle. One such blister was slit
for attempted repair with epoxy, but it was not successfully reglued.
The rubber was cut out and the spot coated with epoxy.
17.2 REHEATERS
Flue gas from the scrubber is reheated to prevent condensation and
corrosion in the exhaust system, to facilitate isokinetic and analytical
sampling, to protect the induced-draft fans from solid deposits and
droplet erosion, and to increase plume buoyancy.
The original in-line, fuel-oil-fired units (supplied by Hauck Mfg. Co.)
were modified in March 1974 (venturi/spray tower) and May 1975
(TCA) to incorporate a fuel-oil-fired external combustion chamber
(manufactured by Bloom Engineering Co.). Reasons for the changes
17-9
-------
are discussed in Reference 1. Both of the units have operated reliably
since the modifications with minimum flameout and equipment
problems for over 19,300 hours on the venturi/spray tower system
and 8, 000 hours on the TCA system.
17. 3 FANS
The 316L stainless steel fans at the Shawnee Test Facility are
induced-draft, centrifugal fans manufactured by Zurn Industries.
Reliability has been good during the current operating period, with
no system downtime due to fan problems.
Cleaning the fans, fan dampers, and ductwork between the dampers
and reheaters has been greatly facilitated by the use of a portable
steam generator. The steam generator has also been useful in thaw-
ing frozen lines during winter.
17.4 PUMPS
The major pump problem during the current operating period (see
Reference 3 for a report on prior operation) has been pump seal
failure. The seals on the rubber-lined centrifugal pumps (manu-
factured by Allen-Sherman-Hoff) are air-flushed packings. The
frequency of repacking of the 20- to 100-gpm pumps has been halved
17-10
-------
from once every 70 to 110 hours to one every 120 to 220 hours by
maintaining the clearance between the shaft and the pump casing at
10 to 15 mils.
In another attempt to solve the seal problem at Shawnee, mechanical
seals have been tested on various centrifugal pumps. These tests
are part of the equipment components testing program, and the
results are covered in Subsection 17.8. 2.
17. 5 WASTE SOLIDS HANDLING
17. 5. 1 Filter
Because of frequent cloth failure and cake discharge difficulties, the
Maxi-belt rotary-drum filter was converted from a roll-discharge
type to a snap-blowback discharge type in February 1975, The cloth
life was extended by this change. Further improvement in average
cloth life has been experienced by reducing the adjustment range of
the cake deflector blade during this reporting period. Prior to this
modification, the filter cloth would occasionally get caught in the
blade and tear when the blade was moved too near the cloth. Table
17-2 summarizes details of the cloths tested, their service life and
their failure mode.
17-11
-------
Table 17-2
FILTER CLOTH PERFORMANCE
Filter Cloth Type
Before
Modification of
Scraper Assembly
After
Modification of
Scraper Assembly-
Service Life,
Hours
Failure Modes
Service Life,
Hours
Failure Modes
Lamports
Polyester
S-4048-SHS
56-203
• Deterioration of
Transverse Seam
• Holes in Cloth
• Tearing by Scraper
Not Tested
— — -
Lamports
Polypropylene
7512-SHS
42-560
• Holes in Cloth
• Tearing by Scraper
• Blinding
349-866
• Deterioration of
Transverse Seam
• Holes in Cloth
• Blinding
Technical Fabricators
Polypropylene
TFI-9162
Not Tested
866
• Blinding
Ametek
Polyolefin
ST-EF9D8-HJO
165-603
• Holes in Cloth
• Tearing by Scraper
Not Tested
- — -
-------
17.5.2 Centrifuge
The centrifuge being used at Shawnee is a Bird 18 x 28 inch
continuous Solid Bowl centrifuge fitted with two alternative gear units
(80:1 and 40:1) and a 5-inch (distance between flights) single lead
conveyor with a Type B tip. The bowl is a cylinder 10° configuration,
and the motor is equipped with a drive sheave to produce a speed of
2100 rpm. At the rated speed of 2100 rpm, the centrifuge develops
a centrifugal force of 1, 050 g.
Owing to the abrasiveness of the fly ash in the feed slurry, the hard
facing on the centrifuge, consisting of Stellite 1016 on the blade tips
of the conveyor and Colmony #6 on the pushing faces of the conveyor,
wore off the conveyor blades after 1400 hours of operation. The rotat-
ing assembly of the unit was sent to the factory where the same hard
facing materials were reapplied. Following repair, the centrifuge
operated reliably for another 4750 hours, at which time the centrate
quality deteriorated. Inspection by the vendor revealed the following -
cake plows were worn 60% in the outboard area, the bowl head plows
were in excellent condition, and the solids weir on the bowl head was
worn in the outboard area of the spokes. The conveyor was worn pro-
gressively worse from the effluent end to the cake discharge end,
from 3/8-inch down to 5/8-inch maximum wear. The forward feed
compartment discharge parts were worn on the trailing edges and
17-13
-------
needed replacing. The feed trunnion and spline trunnion journal area
showed some signs of wear and grooving in seal areas.
The rotating assembly of the unit was sent to the factory, in May
1976, for rebuilding. Since this last repair, the unit has operated
satisfactorily for 3350 hours.
17.5.3 Clarifiers
The 6-foot feedwell extension on the TCA clarifier (to give a total of
8 feet), installed during the May 1975 boiler outage, has success-
fully reduced clarifier upsets and subsequent high solids content in
the clarifier overflow. The only maintenance performed on the
clarifier during this reporting period was the overhaul of the TCA
clarifier rake timer.
17. 6 ALKALI ADDITION SYSTEMS
17. 6.1 Lime
The lime addition system consists of a storage silo, a screw feeder,
a lime slaker (manufactured by Portec-Cahaba), a slaked-lime hold-
ing tank, and associated feed pumps. An analysis of the lime used
can be found in Appendix C. Fresh water slakes the lime to approxi-
17-14
-------
mately 20 to 25 weight percent solids. The system has given excellent
reliability in over 22, 500 hours of intermittent operation. Plugging
of the lime addition lines by gradual buildup of grit that gets through
the slaker screen has been reduced by placing a screen over the en-
trance to the slaked lime slurry hold tank.
17.6.2 Limestone
The limestone addition system consists of a drying-grinding system,
a dry storage tank, a weigh belt feeder, a slurry tank, and an as-
sociated feed pump.
The drying-grinding system was installed during an earlier EPA-
sponsored dry-limestone injection program at the Shawnee Power
Station. In general, it has given satisfactory performance with low
maintenance since the beginning of the alkali wet-scrubber test pro-
gram more than 4 years ago.
The slurry addition system was modified to provide 60 weight per-
cent limestone slurry in November 1972 and was further modified
to incorporate clarified process liquor for slurrying the limestone
in March 1974. Since March 1974, the system has continued to oper-
ate satisfactorily for an additional 17,000 hours of intermittent oper-
ation with little maintenance.
17-15
-------
The alkali addition system pumps are positive displacement pumps
manufactured by Moyno Pump Division of Robbins & Myer Co. They
were installed in November 1972 when the limestone system was
converted to provide a 60 weight percent limestone slurry. The pumps
are oversized by a factor of 2. They are allowed to wear until the
required flow can no longer be maintained. Operating life has been
short, 2000 hours for a rotor and 1000 hours for a stator.
A composition and size distribution analysis of the ground limestone
can be found in Appendix C.
17.7 INSTRUMENT OPERATING EXPERIENCE
17.7.1 pH Meters
The main problem associated with the Uniloc Model 321 submersible
pH meters (Universal Interloc, Inc., Santa Ana, Calif.) used to mea-
sure scrubber liquor pH has been occasional scale formation on the
probes. This scale causes measurement error and is removed by
rinsing with hydrochloric acid whenever electrode response becomes
sluggish. All probes are routinely rinsed with water and calibrated
at least twice a week.
17-16
-------
A new type of micro-junction reference was installed in the TCA sub-
mersible pH electrode. The reference cell was filled with potassium
nitrate instead of potassium chloride. A 5 percent silver chloride
solution was also added. No significant difference was noted between
the performance of this electrode and the electrode used previously.
17.7.2 Flow Meters
In Reference 1, it was reported that the Adiprene-L liner in the
1-1/2-inch Foxboro magnetic flow meters deteriorated. Subsequently,
it was noted that these lines were tapered in thickness near the meter
exit while all the other meter sizes had a uniform lining thickness.
As a result, the meters were relined with Adiprene-L of uniform
thickness, and since that time no liner failures have been exper-
ienced.
Recently, Foxboro discontinued the 1800 series meters that are used
at Shawnee. Instead the company now offers the more compact 2800
series only. The new, 1-1/2 inch or smaller, magnetic flow meters
are teflon-lined rather than Adiprene-L-lined. Adeprene-L-lined
meters are available in the 2- to 36-inch-size range. Satisfactory
meter accuracy has been maintained by electrical purging once per
shift and flow checks approximately once every 3 months.
17-17
-------
17.7.3 Level Measurement
Three Brooks Maglink 5300 Series level indicators were installed in
scrubber effluent hold tanks D-101, D-201, and D-208 for evaluation
at the Shawnee Test Facility. The Brooks indicator consists of a ver-
tically mounted standpipe or stilling chamber fastened externally or
internally to the side of a tank, with a bottom liquor inlet to the cham-
ber. Slurry level is detected by a donut-shaped float surrounding a
small center pipe running the length of the stilling chamber. A magnet
inside the sealed center pipe moves with the float and provides a level
signal from its position.
The initial problem was solids buildup on, and eventual immobilization
of, the float. A liquor flush stream was installed to eliminate the
problem, but the following difficulties are occasionally encountered.
• Floating material still occasionally immobilizes the float
• The flush system liquor stream impinges on the float, caus-
ing float depression and reading error. The magnitude of
the error is variable and dependent on the distance the purge
stream free falls before impinging on the float
• Dislodging an immobilized float can uncouple the magnet.
Reactivating the system can take several manhours
• Modifying the measurement range requires the installation
of a new gear drive
17-18
-------
However, when properly maintained and calibrated and when a constant
flush of about 2 gpm of slurry or clarified liquor is used, the Brooks
indicator measures the slurry level in the effluent hold tank to within
6 inches. A dipstick level measurement is taken every hour to verify
the Brooks indicator reading.
17.7.4 SO? Meters
Operation with the Du Pont Model 400 UV SO2 analyzers has been es-
sentially trouble-free during the current operating period. The units
are calibrated on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of each week using
a set of calibrated filters.
17.7.5 Density Meter
The performance of the Dynatrol density meter has been excellent
for monitoring the density of the makeup alkali (both lime and lime-
stone).
For monitoring the density of the scrubber system slurry streams,
the performance of the Dynatrol meter has been unsatisfactory. It
is believed that scaling inside the U-tube may be contributing to the
meters' unreliability.
17-19
-------
17.7.6 NQ2 Meters
Following equipment changes specified by Du Pont, several unsuc-
cessful attempts have been made to convert the idle Marble-Bed
SO^ analyzers to NC^ measuring service. The problem has been
referred to Du Pont's Applications Engineering Department.
17.8 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT EVALUATION PROGRAM
17.8.1 Materials
Lining or coating materials for equipment at the Shawnee Facility gen-
erally consist of neoprene rubber (pipes, pumps, scrubber internal
walls, and small tanks) or Flakeline 103 (effluent hold tanks and clar-
ifiers). Flakeline 103 is a bisphenol-A polyester resin filled 25 to
35 percent with glass flake. It is manufactured by Ceilcote Company.
Both rubber and Flakeline coatings have shown very little erosion or
other deterioration. Recently testing of three test panels provided by
Ceilcote Company was completed. Approximately one-third of the ex-
posed surface of each panel was covered with one of three Ceilcote
formulations: Flakeline 103, Caroline 505AR, and Flakeline 151. Only
the Flakeline 103 test panel mounted inside one of the TCA beds ex-
hibited significant wear after being exposed for 6634 hours. The panels
were returned to Ceilcote Company in August 1976 for evaluation.
17-20
-------
For operational expendiency, successful repairs have been made
using Epoxylite-203 (Epoxylite Corp,, Anaheim, California), an epoxy
resin formulated with selected fillers, making a paste material. The
resin is cured with Epoxylite's No. 301 amine hardener. A patch
on the venturi/spray tower effluent hold tank agitator blade has shown
little wear after more than 19> 000 hours.
In a recent test, a few selected areas of neoprene lining, glass sur-
faces and stainless steel surfaces (mist eliminator vanes) were
cleaned and McLube No. 1700 coating was applied. This material
is designed for keeping ship hulls free of barnacles. Results appear
negative for this first trial on these surfaces. In fact, the tops
of coated mist eliminator vanes held more solids than did some
noncoated vanes in the immediate vicinity. It is probable that the
coating did not cure or dry exactly as desired and thus did not develop
its full potential. Other applications will be made in the selected
areas and greater attention will be paid to the curing requirements.
The Fourth Interim Report on Corrosion Studies at the test facility,
written by TVA, is presented in Appendix L. The report covers the
operating periods from July 1975 through August 1976 and discusses
corrosion and erosion of the test facility equipment and the results
of the materials of construction evaluation carried out simultane-
ously. Results of the later phases of the current operating period
will be presented in the Fifth Interim Report.
17-21
-------
17.8.2 Equipment
A program to evaluate selected mechanical components has been ini-
tiated at the Shawnee Test Facility. A York Demister, plastic pipe,
Hayward line-strainers, knife gate and butterfly valves, mechanical
seals, and a sonic level tank sensor are currently being evaluated.
Results are summarized below.
York Demister. The York Demister was installed at a location down-
stream from the three-vane chevron mist eliminator. No provisions
for washing the York Demister were made. The Demister was 3. 5
inches thick and had two adjacent sections that overlapped because
the Demister's diameter exceeded the scrubber's inside diameter.
Because of rapid solids deposit on the inlet face, operation was not
successful. The pressure drop across the York Demister increased
by 1.00 inch of water pressure after 3 days' service. Approximately
30 percent of the inlet face was plugged, but penetration into meshes
was only 5 percent.
Plastic Pipe. A section of Bondstrand Series 4000 fiberglass - rein-
forced plastic pipe was installed on the suction side of the TCA
recirculating pump during this period and is currently being tested.
Details on a high-impact polyvinyl chloride pipe tested earlier in
the same spot are reported in Reference 3.
17-22
-------
Line Strainer. Dual-basket, in-line Elliott strainers were originally
installed at the discharge of pumps G-201 and G-204 to alleviate
the problem of nozzle plugging with debris and other foreign material.
During the 1975 boiler outage each Elliott strainer was replaced by-
two single-basket, in-line Hay ward Strainers which were mounted in
parallel at the discharge of each pump. The replacement of the Elliott
strainers became necessary because of the serious erosion that
developed in the outlet necks. For the Elliott strainer on G-201
discharge, erosion was also observed on edges where the slide gate
sealed each basket chamber.
Results of inspections of the 6-inch single-basket Hayward strainers
on G-204 discharge, after approximately 8000 hours of service was
as follows:
• Erosion at several locations on the basket support ledge.
At two of the locations, where severe erosion had occurred,
about 80 percent of the ledge had disappeared
• Severe gouging, as much as 1/4 inch deep, of the discharge
throat was observed at two locations
• Minor erosion along the inlet flange face, lower half portion
of the south unit
• A triangular-shaped erosion spot 6 mm deep in the dis-
charge throat of the south unit
• Grooves up to 13 mm deep in the north strainer outlet throat
• Two erosion areas in the basket support flange
• Baskets of both units in good condition
17-23
-------
For the 8-inch strainers on G-201 discharge, the condition after
approximately 10, 600 hours of service revealed:
• A small erosion spot about 20 mm long at the bottom of
the discharge throat of the south strainer
• Some erosion of the basket support ledge of both strainers.
This erosion was not very extensive
• Baskets of both units in good condition
Knife Gate Valves. The knife gate valves being tested at Shawnee
are type 316 stainless steel Fabri-Valves.
There are a total of eight such valves in service - four on the Hay-
ward strainers on G-201 discharge and four on the Hayward strainers
on G-204 discharge. The O-rings from each of the valves have been
removed during recent outages.
Inspection during this reporting period has been confined mainly to
the four 6-inch Fabri-Valves onG-204 outlet. Pertinent observations
are summarized below.
All O-ring grooves were filled with solids. All four valves could
be operated by the hand wheel, after application of grease on the
stems and in the knife gate slots. Observations specific to each
valve are:
17-24
-------
The valve on the downstream side of the north Hayward
strainer had very slight rounding of the knife gate at the
6 o'clock position, slight erosion of the valve body on the
downstream edge at the 11 o'clock position, and small
amounts of scale on the downstream face of the knife gate
The valve on the upstream side of the north Hayward strainer
had no bodily erosion and only slight rounding of the knife
gate at the 6 o'clock position. Thin, smooth scale was found
on the suction side. This valve has a guide piece instead
of a backup half-ring provided in the other valves
The valve on the downstream side of the south Hayward
strainer had no bodily erosion and only slight rounding of the
sharp edge of the gate. The backup ring had a couple of
weld spots that had smoothed off
The valve on the upstream side of the south Hayward strainer had
no noticeable erosion. White, hard, 10 mil-thick was scale on the
upstream face. This scale was not removed. The exterior bodies
of all four valves appeared in good condition. Operation of these
valves without O-rings has sometimes resulted in slight leakage past
the gate when the basket was being emptied, but this is not a very
serious problem. The actual thickness of the gate was not remeasured
this time because no loss had been detected previously. The deposi-
tion of hard scale on the gate is perhaps the major factor that would
make the valve hard to operate and was the major contributor to
the failure of the O-rings when they were in service.
Butterfly Valves. A 6-inch Durco manual block valve (throat and disc
coated with abrasion-resistant polyethylene) and a Valtek 6-inch
butterfly control valve are being evaluated.
17-25
-------
The Durco valve is located in the pump G-204 discharge line (G-204
feeds two of the spray tower headers). A total of 3700 hours of ser-
vice in 8 percent slurry at approximately 9 ft/sec slurry velocity
through the valve (in full-open position) resulted in a 4. 5 mil loss
of the disc coating thickness. This represents about 10 percent of
the total coating thickness. The throat was in good condition and
there was no leakage through the valve when it was leak-tested at
55 psig. A late inspection after approximately 8000 hours in slurry
service showed no erosion of either the polyethylene-coated disc or
the valve body liner. All wetted surfaces held a thin scale coating
which was left intact. To date this valve has provided excellent
service.
The Valtek valve was last inspected April 16, 1976. At that time,
the body of the valve showed some small fissures in the body bore
that were up to 3/4 inch long, and a great amount of erosion had
taken place in the lower half of the valve body. The two deepest
grooves were 0. 180 and 0. 162 inch. In contrast to the body failure,
the stellite-coated disc showed some slight waviness of the disc edge
thickness.
This valve had 1551 hours wide-open and 3302 hours throttling
service at the time of the April 1976 inspection. Performance of
this value for slurry service has been judged unsatisfactory.
17-26
-------
Fisher 2-Inch Control Valve. This butterfly valve was originally in-
stalled on the discharge of pump G-204 at start of Run 640-1A.
Minor pitting was seen on the leading (upstream) edge along the rear
face. Pitting was found to a greater extent on the back face than
on the front face where a few pits were seen. A magnifier is needed
to see these shiny pits, which were estimated to be 2 to 3 mils deep
and 10 mils in diameter. The rear half of the disc (trailing edge)
where the fish tail is located appeared to be in good condition, as
did the valve body.
Mechanical Seals. Durametallic-type "CRO" mechanical seals were
installed on pumps G-105 (venturi/spray tower system bleed) and
G-205 (TCA system bleed). The seal on G-105 failed after approxi-
mately 1500 hours of service; however, one of its carbon inserts was
broken when it was installed. The seal on G-205 failed after 6300
hours of service. Current experience indicates that proper installa-
tion and maintenance of the mechanical seal is critical for satis-
factory performance. More experience with these seals will be
required to determine if proper installation and maintenance can be
achieved on a routine basis.
Sonic Tank Level Sensor. An Echo-Sonic level indicator (manufac-
tured by Endress and Hansen, Inc.) is presently being evaluated.
17-27
-------
Future Evaluations. Scheduled for future testing and evaluation are
a Metritape level sensor, a cone-diaphragm check valve in clarified
liquor service, and both polybutylene and PVC pipe for slurry circu-
lation.
17-28
-------
Section 18
REFERENCES
Bechtel Corporation, EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility:
Summary of Testing through October 1974, EPA Report
650/2-75-047, June 1975.
Bechtel Corporation, EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility: Ad-
vanced Program First Progress Report, EPA Report 600/2-
75-050, September 1975.
Bechtel Corporation, EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility;
Advanced Program Second Progress Report, EPA Report
600/7-76-008, September 1976.
R. H. Borgwardt, "EPA/RTP Pilot Studies Related to Unsatu-
rated Operation of Lime and Limestone Scrubbers," Proceed-
ings: Symposium on Flue Gas De sulfur ization - Altanta, No-
November 74. Volume 1, EPA Report 650/2-74-126-a, Decem-
ber 1974.
R. H. Borgwardt, "Increasing Limestone Utilization in FGD
Scrubbers, " presented at the 68th A. I. Ch. E. Annual Meeting,
Los Angeles, November 16-10, 1975.
18-1
-------
6. R. H. Borgwardt, "IERL-RTP Scrubber Studies Related to
Forced Oxidation, "Proceedings: Symposium on Flue Gas
Characterization, New Orleans, March 1976, Volume 1, EPA
Report 600-2-76-136a, pp 117-144, May 1976.
7. Bechtel Corporation, Shawnee Chemical Procedures Labora-
tory Manual, March 1976.
8. A. V. Slack, G. A. Hollinden, Sulfur Dioxide Removal
from Waste Gases, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New
Jersey (1975), p. 52.
9. W. L. Jolly, The Chemistry of the Non-Metals, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1966), p. 67.
10. P. V. Danckwerts, Gas-Liquid Reactions, McGraw-Hill,
San Francisco, California (1970), p. 260.
11. Bechtel Corporation, EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility:
Monthly Progress Report for Period May 1 to May 31, 1977,
June 14, 1977, Section 4.
12. Bechtel Corporation, EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility:
Monthly Progress Report for Period June 1 to July 1, 1973,
July 30, 1973 p. 28.
13. Radian Corporation, Experimental and Theoretical Studies of
Solid Solution Formation in Lime and Limestone SO? Scrubbers -
Volume 1. Final Report, EPA Report No. EPA-600/ 2-76-273a,
October, 1976.
18-2
-------
14. D. OttmersJr., J. Phillips, C. Burklin, W. Corbett, N. Phillips,
and C. Shelton, A Theoretical and Experimental Study of
Lime/Limestone Wet Scrubbing Process EPA Report No.
EPA-650/2-75-006, December, 1974.
15. G. T. Rochelle, Process Synthesis and Innovation in Flue Gas
Desulfurization, PhD Thesis, University of California,
Berkeley, (1976), p. 529.
16. Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 247, 12/23/71, p. 24888.
17. TRW Corporation, Procedures for Aerosol Sizing and SOg
Vapor Measurement at TVA Shawnee Test Facility, Document
No. 24916-60390-RU-01, 1977.
18. D. B. Harris, "Tentative Procedures for Particulate Sizing in
Process Streams - Cascade Impactors," (1ERL, EPA,
Research. Triangle Park, N.C.), pp 30-32, February, 1976.
19. W. L. Marshall & Ruth Slusher, "Aqueous Systems at High
Temperature", J. Chem. Eng. Data 13 (1), January, 1968.
20. R. E. Treybal, Mass Transfer Operations, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1955.
21. R. H. Borgwardt, Limestone Scrubbing at EPA Pilot Plant,
Progress Report No. 6, EPA Report, January 1973.
22. J. M. Potts, et al., Removal of Sulfur Dioxide from Stack
Gases by Scrubbing with Limestone Slurry: Small-Scale Studies
at TVA. presented at the Second International Lime/Limestone
Wet Scrubbing Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, November
8-12, 1971.
18-3
-------
23. W. Wesley Elkenfelder, Jr., Industrial Water Pollution Con-
trol, McGraw-Hill, New York, pps 236-242.
24. E. L. Crow, et al. , Statistics Manual, Chapter 6, Dover,
New York, I960.
18-4
-------
APPENDIX A
CONVERTING UNITS OF MEASURE
A-1
-------
Appendix A
CONVERTING UNITS OF MEASURE
Environmental Protection Agency policy is to express all measure-
ments in Agency documents in metric units. In this report, however,
to avoid undue costs or lack of clarity, English units are used
throughout. Conversion factors from English to metric units are given
below.
To Convert From To Multiply By
scfm (60° F)
cfm
° F
ft
ft/hr
ft/sec
ft 2
nm /hr (0° C)
m /hr
° C
m
m/hr
m/sec
m2
m? /metric tons
0. 305
0. 305
0. 305
0.0929
0. 102
(°F-32)/l. 8
1.61
1. 70
ft^/tons per day
per day
gal/mcf
gPm ,
gpm/ft^
gr/scf
in.
in. H20
lb
lb-moles
lb-moles/hr .
lb-moles/hr ft
lb-moles/min
psia
454
454
0. 134
3.79
40.8
2.29
2. 54
1.87
7. 56
81.4
7. 56
6.895
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
B-1
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
12/12 12/13 I 2/1
2/lfc i 2/n 12/18 12/1^ 12/20
I9U
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
WIJIT.
&
w
£
-2
a E-1
t <
M &
w &
> 05
. I ¦•
zn:
WSfi
it(j
•i.
"pIIe'
i'i |:e.
: f i
TT'
--f
_ !. I ... ! . , ,
tMP UMp I BE&U I Ll^esi awe;
WCjaRt^L JtACJ >RlAi, .-[fesjnsj
i
i
T
m
-_i
¦+fi
<
H
BHP U»lEST<)rt«:
FACTO tlALTtsi!
TSW\
ij:
iH
44
;rrr -p !
i I i
Hi!
. ) ' ;
i1
.i.
:n*
¦ : r
:t;
iWi
¦ r
:i-
E;.
ee
INS t
ill
:.E
i 1 i
".IT
E
i
E--
iij.i
ill
iJ .J
1i; '
T"
i ij :j
i
H"
iiilli
m
I'A
•"::
T* *
rii
Hi
:e:|
Hi
E
e
e
!!i!
jfi
1,
in:
-H
rirr
iTt;
EE
; • i:
i#
EtA
; '>
ii.
! si;
•'• I ;. 111' W1 •; I ¦ i j 11 ; . I ; ¦ m1 {;;. j
2b | 2-/27 } 2/28 | 2/2-1 1 3//
ill'
i!;
m
' Ei
rii!
. ;' •
¥:
i!i,
p
ifH
rrn
!}
¦rrti
JJJ.
; j '
r-
n*n
T
E!
Hn
i
in
e
:e;
U:
...ti
*,r.
4
.......
* '
w
H;!
; :e
v *
' T'J
1.-:.
rr-~
• • • ¦
Ti-V.
n
3t
111
in
r
. \
mi
3/z\3/3\3/4\ 3/S | 3/6
ffil
3/7 I W I 3/V I 3/to I 3/11
Hi !o
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
^rij
pi
w
£
9i
liMse
griui
fx « r'
« ki—
> w
—H-
! 1
illliiji'
<
o
H
i
j_
* ¦:
msm
i_ _
-r-t
1
-- - -J -
I
- i - •
ON ;
REfiW ___
»cr«8lHLT^S7?
i ¦
-r-- -
I
i i i
I I !
iXJlUij
J4: -
END
UM55TWE
pHgb(?|fl,.TE5S
i..^-
)
1 i:
F^cto^iAu gjr I
tw
~ ---4:
I ^gfajjEttS
n -T'
:l?'
; I
JhlSF
f
|F^X<'R/A)i-Ti^T5
Limro>j£/fyo
T"
"T"~
*r~
¦ i
=F
' I t
i : !
;;i:
; -: i
i;r
... ;4
'in
i TIT
TH
¦;:1
mi
Hi
? I !
Ui
in
ilLi
! i i !
mi
; | j j
:; j!
1111
i ! ; j
rrn
mi
.!I
T17"j
I i f!
n
ill;
i,;
11 i
' i1
HT
, | !
i M !
Ui;
¦ • i !
mi
m
i1 <;
DI
3/17 [ 3//8 | 3/1^ |3/20 13/2.1
1^7^
3/2X I 3/23 I 3/24 I 3/z£T I 3/2^
3/j2 |3/\3 |3/m. I 3//r I 3/lfe
-------
&
D
Z
w
>
W
i
VJI
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
4-/ll Il4-/izlu/l3 14//4 U/l*
[4/n I 4/l8l4/|
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
til2b i 4/27 |4/2fl|4/2
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
5/n | 5-/12. | S-/I3 | 5-/I4 15V15-
s-/ifo | f/n IS-/181 s"M I f/zo
/?7k
SjiA | r/2i|5-/2.3 1I shC
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
sM I s/30
/? 76
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
fc/io I 6/l| I 6/iz I 6/13 16/l4
6/20 | 6/21 I 6/22-1 6/23 I 6/if
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
4/25 i 6/261 fc/2-71 b/28 i b/Zl
bho\H\ | 7/2 | 7/3 I 7/4
7/5" l 7/6 I 7/7 I 7/8 I 7/
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
7/1017/1111/12- b/13 i 7/ m
1/15 [7/lt I7//7 17//8 I 7/(9
I1U
7/m 11/2.1 17/2217/23
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
W
i
00
7/2?
7/26 17/27 1 7/28 I7/2-? i 7/30 i 7/3; I 8// I 8/2 I 8/3
f?76
Q/4 \Q/S I 8/6 18/7 18/8
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
M
I
X>me Mf rim£
j_.
SAMEM .
657 -W .
Except ;
4% saupr
60%
-)
: I i«Spv
_ . j 0tf.cn>M6eiP
1 OCfUillH&.
.
6o(r2A
AEClMfflER
Sormoufae
BE&uJ
fefcq-**
¦i -
t -
SAME AS fcoM-2A
cepC ZHLETipH
L5c % J cbwrRoako^a,<»
121^2.
EjCEPT /NLE.T
I.. :
.1.
I
-T
I
1. . - L.
i ' ;
}* - -~l
t.-
j
-J
i
-4 — •
8/9 i 8//o 18/11 10/i2.1 0/13 j 8/14 i &lis \ ®/\b 13/n I g//019/(9 I 8/2018/2118/22I $/23
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
13/2? 18/261 0/2.-71 g/28 8/z^ 18/3018/3114/1
I'M*
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
CUT
Ei
LHSf.tae.
aiAN»il6
H <;
W (V
> to
8E&W
l
T " '
| BHD
\VH-IA
JftSB.
i— ¦ ¦!
6&&m 1
4^2-lfl
II
M.e. ittsp.
J.
SAMEA^^'-M
, iexcePT ffctpm
nsi fa. to /ewrui?J wjTii
j ;ptufri4V%L
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
9/23|9/2l|. l9/lS|
10/3 110/4 llo/5 110/fc | |o/7
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
-4 !--L: ! ¦¦¦
:..i..: 1 : I
;
. ......j— r
BE&lMi
: { .
. . .. | ... | .
VJFG-liA .
1 i *'
1 EMD
|
i
! ¦ :
i. . .i \/F6-l
A|
: ! : 1
1 : 1
11 of \ O l/O/ll \ 10/12
10/fi 110/io- l\o/\s \\o/\b Iio/n
IO//B liO/lS tlO/2a|lO/ZMIO/2Z
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
/0/23|lO/24llO/25|lo/26ho/27|lO/Z8||O/2
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
INSPf6t£&OY£P
tORK PE^SIE*
»/7 In/8 ln/
-------
SCRUBBER OPERATING PERIODS
11/22. 1 ) il/ifelll/27 lll/28 lll/2«t ln/30 I12/I 12-/2. 112./3 112/4 |l2/5 |l2/6
C77fe
-------
APPENDIX C
PROPERTIES OF RAW MATERIALS
C-l
-------
The following is a summary of the properties of the raw materials used
from mid-February 1976 through November 1976.
C. 1
COAL
Supplier:
Type:
Analysis:
Several
Eastern (Southern Illinois) high sulfur.
9.4
to
12.4
wt
%
2. 3
to
5. 5
wt
%
0. 03
to
0. 27
wt
%
13. 0
to
16. 3
wt
%
Approximate Ash Analysis:
54 wt % Si02
23 wt % AI2O3
12 wt % Fe^03
3 wt % CaO
1 wt % MgO
1 wt % SO3
3 wt % KjjO
1 wt % Na20
3 wt % Ignition loss
C-2
-------
C. 2
C. 3
C. 4
LIMESTONE
Supplier:
Type:
LIME
Supplier:
Type:
Analysis:
Fredonia Quarries, Fredonia, Kentucky
Fredonia Valley White
Analysis:
95
wt % CaCOg
1
wt % MgCOs
4
wt % Inerts
Grind:
91
wt % less than 325 mesh
87
wt % less than 30 microns
86
wt % less than 27 microns
53
wt % less than 6 microns
Linwood Stone Co., Davenport, Iowa (through 9/75)
Mississippi Lime Co., Alton, Illinois (after 9/75)
Pebble lime, unslaked
97. 0 wt % CaO total
95. 5 wt % CaO available
0.28 wt % MgO
0.47 wt % Inerts
MAGNESIUM
Supplier:
Type:
Analysis:
OXIDE
Basic Chemicals, Ft. St. Joe, Florida
MAGOX PG (pollution grade)
97. 6 wt % MgO
1.5 wt % CaO
0.5 wt % Si02
0.4 wt % R2O3
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
DATABASE TABLES
D-1
-------
The NOMAD database system can be used to print reports of selected
data. All the data for the period of this report (February 12, 1976,
to December 4, 1976, for the venturi/spray tower system and
February 12, 1976, to December 1976, for the TCA system) are
given below.
The following codes and abbreviations are used in the database tables:
Operating Conditions and Systems Configuration
(Pages D-5andD-6for the venturi/spray tower system and pages
D-87 and D-88 for the TCA system)
Alkali Type
L = lime addition
LS = limestone addition
Fly Ash and MgO Addition
Y = yes
N = no
Spray Tower Header Configuration
1 = spray nozzle bank 1 (the lowest) on
2 = spray nozzle bank 2 (second lowest) on
3 = spray nozzle bank 3 (second from top) on
4 = spray nozzle bank 4 (top header) on
Mist Eliminator System Configuration
1-3P/OV = one three-pass, open-vane mist eliminator installed
CHE+YRK = one three-pass, open vane chevron plus one York
mist eliminator installed (see Section 8)
Mifit Eliminator Wash, Bottom/Top
I = intermittent wash (see appropriate Summary Table for details)
C = continuous wash
D-2
-------
Dewatering System
CL = clarifier used for thickening solids for disposal
CE = centrifuge used
F = vacuum drum filter used
i. e. CL/CE = clarifier and centrifuge used in series
Alkali Addition Point
DNC = alkali added to scrubber downcomer (scrubber outlet) be-
fore slurry enters the effluent hold tank
EHT = alkali added to effluent hold tank
TCA Total Bed Height = height in inches for 3 beds
TCA Sphere Type
FOAM = solid nitrile foam spheres used in TCA beds
Analytical Data
(Summary begins on page D-7 and listing begins on page D-21 for the
venturi/spray tower; summary begins on page D-89 and listing begins
on pageD-103 for the TCA. Analytical data are presented in the order
of gas, liquid and solids for both the summary and listings. )
Analytical Point
1815 = inlet to venturi (not measured during this reporting period)
1816 = inlet to spray tower
1825 = outlet from spray tower
1851 = outlet from venturi (not measured)
2816 = inlet to TCA scrubber
2825 = outlet from TCA scrubber
2831 = inlet to Penberthy air eductor (not measured)
Flags for Analytical Data
Three flag fields (one each for gas, liquid, and solids data) have been
put in the database to allow questionable or non-representative data to
be marked. Non-representative data includes data taken at start-up or
during upset operating conditions.
D-3
-------
Gas Flag
X = all gas data taken at this time is questionable
N = all gas data is non-representative
I = SC>2 inlet concentration questionable
O = SO2 outlet concentration questionable
A = C>2 inlet concentration questionable
The gas flag field contains a maximum of two characters.
Liquid Flag
X = all liquid data taken at this time is questionable
N = all liquor data is non-representative
PH = pH value questionable
CA = liquor Ca concentration questionable
MG = liquor concentration questionable
NA = liquor Na+ concentration questionable
K = liquor K+concentration questionable
SO3 = liquor SO 3 concentration questionable
TS = liquor total S (as SO4) concentration questionable
CL = liquor CI" concentration questionable
The liquid and solids fields have a maximum of seven characters.
When more than three suspect values occur, X is placed in the flag
field.
Solid Flag
X = all solid data taken at this time is questionable
N = all solid data is non-representative
CA = solid CaO concentration questionable
S02 = solid SO3 (as SO2) concentration questionable
TS = solid total S (as SO3) concentration questionable
C02 = solid CO3 (as CO2) concentration questionable
SS = solids concentration in slurry questionable
AI = acid insoluble solids concentration questionable
Flue Gas Characterization
Data collected for Runs VFG-1A through VFG-1P begins on page D-75.
For discussion see Section 8.
D-4
-------
VST OPERATING CONDITIONS
VEN
S.T.
VEN
PB
GAS
GAS
LIQ
LIQ
L/G
RON
ALU
PL*
CONTR
RATE
VEL
RATE
RATE
GAL/
NO.
TYPE
ASH
HGO
POINT
ACFM
FPS
GPtt
GPM
MACF
629-1A
L
y
y
6.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
630-1A
h
*
y
7.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
631—1A
It
Y
y
7.00
35000
9.4
600
700
21.4
632-lA
L
Y
y
7.00
35000
9.4
140
1400
5.0
633-lA
I
Y
y
7.00
25000
6.7
140
1400
7.0
634-1A
L
N
N
8.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
635-1A
L
N
N
8.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
636-1A
h
N
N
8.00
25000
6.7
600
1400
29.9
637-1A
L
N
N
8.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
638-lA
L
N
N
8.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
639-1A
L
N
y
7.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
640-1A
L
N
y
7.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
641-1A
L
N
y
7.00
35000
9.4
140
1400
5.0
642—1A
L
H
y
7.00
35000
9.4
140
1050
5.0
643-1A
L
N
r
7.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
VFG-1A
L
*
y
7.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
VFG-lB
L
N
N
8.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
VFG-1C
Ii
*
K
8.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
VFG-lD
L
y
N
8.00
20000
5.4
600
1400
37.4
WPG—IB
V
*
N
8.00
35000
9.4
375
1400
13.4
VFG-lF
L
y
N
8.00
35000
9.4
600
0
21.4
VFG-lG
h
y
N
8.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
VFG-1I
L
y
N
8.00
35000
9.4
600
1400
21.4
VFG-lP
L
y
H
8.00
35S00
9.4
140
1400
5.0
S.T.
EFFLU
SOLIDS
VEN
S.T.
L/G
RES
SOLID
DISCH
D.P.
D.P.
M.E.SYSTEM
GAL/
TIME
RECIRC
RANGE
IN.
IN.
D.P.RANGE
RON
MACF
MIN
NOM %
%
H20
H20
IN.H20
NO.
49.8
3.0
8.0
52-60
9.0
4.6
0.40-0.55
t>29-l A
49.8
3.0
8.0
50-56
9.0
4.4
0.40-0.50
630—1A
24.9
3.0
8.0
53-59
9.0
4.5
0.40-0.48
631-1A
49.8
3.0
8.0
52-56
2.8
4.3
0.40-0.45
632-1A
69.8
3.0
8.0
49-53
1.8
2.1
0.21-0.24
633-1A
49.8
12.0
4.0
51-65
9.0
4.0
0.46-0.51
634-1A
49.8
12.0
8.5
42-52
9.0
4.3
0.46-0.51
635-1A
69.8
12.0
8.0
42-46
9.0
2.0
0.23-0.26
636-1A
49.8
3.0
8.0
44-50
9.0
4.0
0.45-0.48
637-1A
49.8
3.0
4.0
47-59
9.0
3.7
0.45-0.48
638-lA
49.8
3.0
4.0
44-54
9.0
4.2
0.47-0.59
639-1A
49.8
3.0
8.0
48-51
9.0
4.5
0.45-0.52
640-1A
49.8
3.0
8.0
45-50
3.6
3.2
0.48-0.51
641-1A
37.4
3.0
8.0
45-57
3.5
3.5
0.48-0.51
642-1A
49.8
3.0
8.0
41-46
9.0
4.0
0.41-0.48
643-1A
49.8
3.0
8.0
48-57
9.0
4.0
0.44-0.49
VFG-1A
49.8
12.0
8.0
42-62
9.0
4.3
0.45-0.50
VFG-lB
49.8
12.0
8.0
53-60
9.0
4.5
0.45-0.50
VFG-1C
87.2
12.0
8.0
51-57
9.0
1.4
0.11-0.15
VFG-1D
49.8
12.0
8.0
45-63
5.3
4.2
0.43-0.50
VFG-lB
0.0
20.0
8.0
59-64
9.0
3.5
0.37-0.45
VFG-1F
49.8
12.0
8.0
51-54
9.0
4.6
0.79-1.75
VFG-lG
49.8
12.0
15.0
52-55
9.0
4.5
0.38-0.44
VFG-1I
49.8
12.0
8.0
55-60
3.6
3.9
0.35-0.42
VFG-lP
-------
VST RUN DEFINITION AND SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
HOURS S.T,
RUN
START
START
ENO
ENO
ON
HEADER
NO.
DATE
TIME
OATE
TIME
STRM
CONFI6
629-1A
04/28/76
1800
05/12/76
0800
266
1234
630-1A
05/12/76
1000
05/18/76
0800
142
1234
631-1A
05/18/76
1145
05/24/76
1345
145
34
632-1A
05/28/76
1815
06/04/76
0245
151
1234
633-1A
06/05/76
1000
06/14/76
0530
212
1234
6*4-1 A
06/19/76
1700
07/02/76
2345
319
1234
635-1A
07/16/76
1710
07/26/76
0813
190
1234
636-1A
07/28/76
1830
08/04/76
1256
164
1234
637-1A
08/06/76
1315
08/12/76
0735
137
1234
63R-1A
08/17/76
1726
08/24/76
0547
174
1234
639-lA
08/24/76
1455
09/01/76
0550
183
1234
640-1A
09/02/76
1555
09/09/76
0515
157
1234
641-lA
09/09/76
1430
09/14/76
1656
120
1234
642-1A
09/15/76
1430
09/27/76
0525
249
1 34
643-lA
09/27/76
1250
10/05/76
1203
191
1234
VF6-1A
10/10/76
1550
10/18/76
0530
182
1234
VFG-1B
10/20/76
1734
10/29/76
0830
207
1234
VFG-1C
10/29/76
1330
11/02/76
2215
87
1234
VFG-10
11/02/76
2215
11/06/76
2215
96
1234
VFG-1E
11/06/76
2215
11/10/76
22 00
96
1234
VFG-1F
11/10/76
2200
11/18/76
0815
124
NONE
VFG-1G
11/18/76
1600
11/21/76
1518
71
1234
VFG-1I
11/22/76
1530
11/27/76
1300
117
1234
VFG-1P
11/27/76
1305
12/04/76
0715
157
1234
OF M.E. N.E. Of- AlK
SYSTEM WASH WATER ADDN RUN
TANKS CONFIG B/T SYSTEM PT. NO,
1-3P/0V
I/I
cl/f
DNC
629-1A
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
630-1A
1-3P/CV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
631-1A
1-3P/CV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
632-1A
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
633-1A
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
634-1A
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
635-1A
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
D!»C
636-1A
1-3P/0V
I/I
cl/f
DJJC
637-1A
1-3P/0V
I/I
cl/f
DMC
638-1A
1-3P/OV
I/I
cl/f
DNC
639-1A
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
640-1A
1-3P/0V
I/I
CL/F
DNC
641-1A
1-3P/0V
I/I
CL/F
ONC
642-1A
1-3P/0V
1/1
CL/CE
DNC
643-lA
1-3P/0V
I/I
CL/F
DNC
VFG-1A
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
VFG-1B
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
VFG-1C
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
VFG-10
1-3P/0V
I/I
CL/F
DNC
VFG-1E
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/F
DNC
VFG-1F
CHE-* YRK
I/I
cl/f
DNC
VFG-15
1-3P/0V
1/1
CL/F
DNC
VFG-1I
1-3P/QV
I/I
cl/f
DNC
VFG-IP
-------
VST
ANALYTICAL RUN
SUMMARY
' (GASES)
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
RUN
IN
IN
IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
NO.
PPM
PPH
PPM
PPM
PPM
PPM
629-1*
3244
2320
4280
625
180
1050
630-1*
3101
2120
3880
219
50
440
631-1A
2920
2240
3920
753
200
1600
632-1*
2766
2040
3360
4B1
140
1020
633-1A
2993
2200
3600
219
60
560
634-1*
2517
1480
3760
558
22C
1020
635-1*
2602
1700
3690
512
130
1300
636-1*
2955
2320
3560
412
220
740
637-1*
2998
2680
3520
792
540
1040
638-1*
2604
2000
3100
523
220
760
639-1*
2688
2080
3200
346
0
800
640-1*
2972
2560
3600
560
320
830
641-1*
2647
2200
3000
293
80
800
642-1*
2597
2200
3240
706
120
1020
643-1*
2556
2000
2920
64
20
320
VF6-1*
3044
2560
356 0
204
40
900
VF6-1B
2951
2520
3520
709
540
1000
VF6-1C
2916
2520
3360
738
520
1000
VFG-1D
3206
2800
3680
324
120
940
VF6-1E
3168
2760
3600
784
440
1140
VF6-1F
3329
2400
3840
2233
1520
2760
VF6-16
3042
2080
3400
475
100
620
VF6-II
3112
2600
3720
600
380
900
VF6-1P
3184
2400
3880
1019
680
1540
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
MAKE
HAKE
MAKE
S02
S02
S02
PER
PER
PER
REM
REM
REM
PASS
PASS
PASS
RUN
X
X
X
MMOL/L
MMOL/L
MMOL/L
NO.
78
69
95
*.5
7.0
13.2
629-1A
91
85
99
10.6
7.1
14.1
630-1A
71
55
93
11.9
9.7
17.4
631-1 A
80
64
93
10.8
8,7
13.0
632-1A
91
82
98
9.5
6.9
11.0
633-1 A
76
68
85
7.0
4«6
9.7
634-1A
79
60
92
7.5
5.8
8.9
635-1A
84
77
89
6.6
5.5
7.8
636-1A
70
66
78
7.9
7.3
8.8
637-1A
78
73
88
7.5
6.3
8.4
638-1A
86
72
100
8.5
6.9
10.3
639-1A
79
74
86
8.7
7.9
11.0
640-1A
87
69
97
11.2
8.1
13.7
641-1A
70
61
94
11.3
9.4
16.3
642-1A
97
88
99
9.2
7.2
10.6
643-1A
92
67
99
10.5
7.4
13.0
VFG-1A
73
68
76
8.0
7.1
9.2
VFG-1B
71
67
78
7.8
7.0
8.8
VFG-1C
88
66
95
6.0
4.3
7.2
VFG-1D
72
65
85
9.6
8.1
11.2
VFG-1E
25
20
48
10.3
8.1
21.7
VFG-1F
83
79
95
9.3
7.3
1C.1
VFG-1G
78
70
85
9.1
7.9
10.5
VFG-1I
64
56
70
9.9
7.9
11.1
VFG-1P
-------
VST ANALYTICAL RUN SUMMARY
(GASES)
- CONTINUED
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
BOIL
BOIL
BOIL
02
02
02
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
RUN
IN
IN
IN
MEGA
MEGA
MEGA
RUN
NO.
X
X
X
UATT
MATT
UATT
NO.
------
. . _—
-------
----
———————
------
------
629-1*
629-1A
630-1A
630-1A
631-1A
631-1A
632-1A
632-1A
633-1A
633-1A
63**1 A
634-1A
635-1A
635-1A
636-1A
e.7
7.8
9.5
139
113
149
636-1A
637-1A
7.5
6.0
9.0
144
128
148
637-1A
638-1A
8.0
6.3
10.5
140
100
150
638-1A
639-1A
8.3
6.4
9.2
139
103
148
639-1A
640-1A
7.9
6.5
10.2
134
105
148
64Q-1A
641-1A
9.5
6.0
10.2
136
130
163
641-1A
642-1A
8.1
4.2
12.5
142
115
149
642-1A
643-1A
8.6
6.2
10.0
139
110
148
643-1A
VF6-1A
5.6
3.6
8.5
139
100
150
vfg-iA
VF6-1B
8.9
7.0
12.8
142
114
150
VFG-10
VFG-1C
6.0
4.4
11.5
149
138
156
VFG-lC
VFG-10
5.6
4.0
6.7
138
94
156
VFG-lD
VFG-1E
6.3
4.3
10.2
141
80
156
VFG-lE
VFG-1F
5.8
4.7
8.1
152
142
155
VFG-lF
VFG-1G
5.1
4.2
5.6
140
101
153
VFG-lG
VFG-1I
5.1
3.4
7.0
143
101
152
VFG-1I
VFG-1P
5.8
3.8
7.5
141
90
150
VFG-1P
-------
BUN SUMMARY
LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA
CONCENTRATIONS IN LIQUIOi PPH
ANALY PH CA** MG** S03= S04= CL-
RUK TICAL
NO. POINT AV6 HIH MAX AV6 MlN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN HAX
629-1* 1815
1816 5.98 5.64 6.15 644 225 924 3771 2809 5349 849
1825
1851
630-1A 1815
1816 6.94 6.17 7.12 268 106 600 3923 3179 4949 633
1825
1851
631-1A 1815
1816 6.98 6.79 7.12 585 106 1182 4560 3539 5889 482
1825
1851
632-1A 1815
1816 6.98 6.45 7.36 229 141 461 4589 4009 5459 783
1825
1851
633-1A 1815
1816 7.03 6.86 7.28 177 83 569 4067 3579 4649 1124
1825
1851
634-1A 1815
1816 8.01 7.66 8.16 1950 1356 2530 332 28 587 66
1825
1851
635-1A 1815
1816 8.02 6.32 8.65 2260 1890 2679 639 515 753 97
1825
1851
636-1A 1815
1816 8.01 7.79 8.24 2140 1490 2690 650 597 689 75
1825
1851
637-1* 1815
1816 7.92 6.57 8.79 1612 1200 1975 604 539 700 92
1825
1851
638-1A 1815
1816 7.95 7.69 8.20 2008 1400 2380 609 491 751 119
1825
1851
90 2216 9763 6803 13619 3887 3?13 5140
180 1492 7610 5910 10220 5636 4609 6381
113 1221 8102 5806 9446 7428 5672 9218
316 1402 7252 5543 8193 7119 6381 850?
271 2103 8205 6055 9496 5051 4431 5850
13 226 1370 261 2994 3408 195C 4343
36 226 1494 339 2442 4627 4077 5300
22 226 1422 499 2072 4282 3545 4963
22 316 1469 1125 1740 3368 2747 3722
22 226 1995 1386 2391 3616 2925 4077
-------
RUN SUMMARY - LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA (CONTINUED)
PERCENT PERCENT
SULFATE IONIC
ANALT TOTAL IONS* PPM SATURATION IMBALANCE
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AVS HIN MAX AVG KIN MAX AYG HIN MAX
629-1A 1815
1816 19046 15517 24621 76 28 114 3.3 -3.5 12.2
1825
1651
630-14 1815
1616 18238 15864 20750 27 11 77 1.7 -15.3 19.7
1825
1851
631-1A 1815
1816 21287 16491 25544 53 9 110 4.4 -8.6 11.4
1825
1851
632-1A 1815
1816 20115 18721 22450 19 9 41 5.4 -3.0 15.6
1825
1851
633-1A 1815
1816 18763 16992 20703 18 7 60 1.6 -14.4 11.4
1825
1851
634-1A 1815
1816 7157 4301 9836 93 18 184 -1.1 -18.9 17.3
1825
1851
635-1A 1815
1816 9162 7567 10476 91 21 148 1.6 -9.2 11.9
1825
1851
636-1A 1815
1816 8613 6689 10045 86 27 132 5.7 -1.0 16.9
1825
1851
637-1A 1815
1816 718
-------
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY RUN REPORT
WEDNESDAY THE 21ST OF SEPTEMBER 1977
RUN SUMMARY - LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA
CONCENTRATIONS IN LIGUIO* PPM
ANALY PH CA+* MS** $03= S04= CL-
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AVG MIN MAX AV6 MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AV6 MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX
6^9-1A 1815
1816 6.99 6.91 7.19 602 37 1233 3301 2759 4139 671 81 3121 8251 4591 10214 3365 2304 4431
1825
1851
64Q-1A 1815
1816 7.06 6.87 7.96 714 459 986 3126 2809 3639 181 45 407 7903 6996 9049 3699 3013 4520
1825
1851
6*1-1A 1815
1816 7.00 6.75 7.15 171 61 840 3702 3319 4069 1372 316 1922 6827 6250 7987 4788 3994 6381
1825
1851
642-1A 1815
1816 6.98 6.55 7.23 444 79 1178 4001 3490 4459 553 135 1786 8164 5965 10549 5798 4526 7622
1825 4.80 4.80 4.80 2090 2090 2090 163 163 163 760 760 760 880 880 880 2942 2942 2942
1851
643-1A 1815
1816 6.96 6.59 7.15 122 76 282 3700 3159 4389 1064 474 1470 6765 4779 9115 4669 3545 6027
1825
1851
-------
RUN SUMWARY - LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA tCONTINUED)
PERCENT PERCENT
SULFATE IONIC
ANALY TOTAL IONS, PPM SATURATION IMBALANCE
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AV6 HIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG NIN MAX
639-1A 1815
1816 16214
1825
1851
640-1A 1815
1816 1S651
1825
1851
641-1A 1815
1816 16885
1825
1851
642-1A 1815
1816 18990
1825 7044
1851
643-1A 1815
1816 16351
1825
1851
12251 17921 71 3
14210 17882 80 46
15484 18173 15 5
16124 22217 46 6
7044 7044 70 70
14220 19367 11 5
136 6.2 -2.1 14.3
110 6.8 -4.3 14.9
73 0.6 -6.3 6.4
135 1.3 -10.1 9.0
70 2.9 2.9 2.9
30 3.8 -8.2 12.6
-------
ANALYTICAL DATA SUHMAKr RUN REPORT
WEDNESDAY THE 21ST OF SEPTEMBER 19 77
RUN SUMMARY
LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA
CONCENTRATIONS IN LIQUID, PPM
ANALY
P.UN 7ICAL
PH
Ck+*
MG + «
SQ3=
POINT AVG MIN MAX AVG KIN MAX AVG WIN MAX AVG MIN MAX
AVG
S04 = CL-
WIN HAX AVG KIM KAX
VFS-1A 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFG-1B 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFG-1C 1815
1816
1825
la^l
VFG-1C 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFG-1E 1815
1816
1825
1851
¦IF 1815
1816
1625
1951
¦1G 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFG-1I 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFG-1P 1815
1816
1825
1851
6.96 6.45 7.07 207 67 764 3333 333 4089 994 22 1945 6524 1363 7S99 398? 531 *963
7.99 7.79 8.21 1265 606 2570 352 163 585
VFG-
VFG"
8.00 7.86 8.17 2217 2020 2475 565
4.76 4.62 4.95 2797 2510 32E0 641
7.96 7.87 8.08 1678 1225 2340 572
5.24 4.87 5.58 1690 1260 2230 575
8.02 7.83 S.16 1637 1270 2060 531
4.85 4.29 5.20 1777 1330 2230 561
7.93 7.82 8.00 2188 1850 2800 538
4.59 4.35 4.79 25C6 2090 3540 573
7.97 7.73 8.29 2278 2050 2650 638
5.03 4.81 5.45 2412 2050 2669 653
7.99 7.86 8.25 1708 1260 2110 705
4.84 4.53 5.12 1791 1415 2120 718
7.94 7.49 8.14 1560 1350 1840 695
4.72 4.50 4.91 1803 1570 2145 704
62
463 600 59
466 614 248
427 634 74
487 691 11D6
203 1724 1166 2228 IBIS 265 4526
493 697 104 45 361
578 687 807 542 972
13 180
45 723
400 665 80 22 135
467 695 695 294 1289
0 226
0 1447
549 737 130 45 203
569 780 602 180 1040
1413
1674
720
762
729
911
1140
135 C
624
878
635 779 52 22 113 719
625 777 530 226 814 1051
529 1065 68 22 135 11C8
527 1C47 943 316 1379 1518
882 1803 4326 3811 5229
1295 2111 4475 *254 4 697
238 1460 3923 35*5 4431
164 1743 39?1 3634 4343
352 1326 3537 3122 4343
359 15C7 3552 2?36 *343
649 2150 «285 3722 5672
566 1899 4253 3722 54C6
201 1010 4805 434'. 557?
263 1335 4776 4254 522?
475 1204 424o 3811 *7?&
614 1£27 ^137 3634 4375
723 1622 373C 3013 4077
728 2017 3743 319C 4343
-------
RUN SUMMARY - LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA CCONTINUED)
ANALY TOTAL IONS, PPM
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AVG KIN
PERCENT
SULFATE
SATURATION
MAX AVG WIN *AX
PERCENT
IONIC
IMBALANCE
AVG
MIN
MAX
VFG-
VFG-
VFG-1A 181«>
1816
1825
1851
¦IB 1S15
1816
IP. 25
1851
•!C 1815
IP 16
1825
1351
VFG-1D 1815
1815
1925
1851
VFG-1E 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFG-1F 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFG-1G 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFS-1I 1815
1816
1825
1851
VFG-1P 18.15
1816
1825
1851
15119
5268
8731
10514
7086
7366
6653
7635
8401
9971
8655
9504
7609
8406
7311
8862
2512 18076 21 7 67 4.2 -10.1 13.6
25C1 9580 94 51 128 4.9 -10.2 14.6
7656 9666 89 56 115
9709 11244 110 85 134
6007 8777 42 13 94
619C 9530 45 10 109
5367 7585 42 21 74
6250 9121 54 21 88
3.6 -7.2 14.3
7.1 0.3 14.6
5.7 -9.7 12.9
1.9 -10.1 12.5
9.7 0.8
1.8 -7.7
7348 10223 73 45 126 7.9 -1.5
8637 12775 88 40 131 0.9 -6.9
8268 9532 39 13 65 11.6 3.6
8809 10425 55 18 89 6.4 -2.7
6588 8955 39 25 71 8.6 2.2
7671 9668 57 34 93 1.2 -13.6
6011 8094 57 37 87 6.8 -16.9
7517 9547 81 43 109 -5.6 -17.8
15.0
11 .6
14.6
14.9
15.0
13.9
14.7
10.5
14.2
11.9
-------
d
I
-------
RUN SUKKARY - SOLIOS ANALYTICAL DATA
PERCENT PERCENT
SULCITE STOICHIOMETRIC IOVIC
ANALY OXIDATION RATIO IMBALANCE
RUN TICiL
NO. POINT AVG MN MAX AVG MIN MAX AV(? WIN MAX
629-1A 1815
1816 21.A 10.3 31.3 1.02 1.00 1.07 -2.3 -7.8 6.3
630-1A 1815
1816 15.6 9.0 21.9 1.04 1.02 1.07 -1.4 -8.4 3.9
631-1A 1815
1816 19.0 7.5 33.3 1.04 1.01 1.08 0.7 -4.1 7.3
S32-1A 1815
1816 16.2 8.2 27.2 1.03 1.02 1.05 -0.9 -6.4 4.4
633-1A 1815
1816 13.9 7.9 19.6 1.05 1.03 1.06 -1.5 -6.3 4.2
634-1A 1815
181? 8.5 1.0 20.7 1.15 1.09 1.26 -2.2 -8.3 7.6
635-1 A 1815
1816 18.5 4.5 35.3 1.10 1.05 1.21 -0.1 -7.5 7.6
636-1 A 1815
1816 17.6 6.7 31.2 1.10 1.06 1.12 2.6 -6.3 7.7
637-1 A 1815
1816 16.0 5.1 24.4 1.05 1.04 1.08 2.1 -6.0 8.0
638-1A 1815
1816 16.9 3.1 26.7 1.06 1.02 1.09 -0.7 -8.3 7.9
-------
a
RUN SUMMARY - SOLIDS ANALYTICAL DATA
CONCENTRATIONS IN SOLIDS, UT *
SOLIDS
ANALY C02 S02 S03 CAO ACIO INSOLU^LES IX SLURRY. VT
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AVG HIM MAX AVG WIN WAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN *AX AVG MIN XAX AVG MIM "5X
639-18 1815
1816 1.30 0.28 2.10 35.87 26.62 42.29 14.82 5.25 25.92 41.54 33.23 46.88 C.OS 0.01 C.30 3.9 0.0 ^.5
640-1A 1815
1816 1.33 0.94 1.80 37.22 32.75 38.91 14.93 7.46 23.43 43.54 40.25 46.03 0.33 0.02 1.34 8.3 7.7 =?.4
641-1A 1815
1816 1.26 0.62 1.74 40.87 35.65 43.11 7.68 1.42 15.27 42.13 39.55 45.37 0.09 0.03 0.16 8.1 .7.5 8.5
642-1A 1815
1816 0.81 0.32 1.28 38.71 35.47 41.98 8.24 0.48 13.78 40.15 36.14 43.53 0.20 0.03 0.85 8.1 6.3 9.0
^ 643-1A 1815
1816 1.15 0.67 1.91 40.64 38.18 42.34 10.70 2.81 13.61 43.79 39.80 45.81 0.14 0.05 0.44 8.1 7.2 8.8
-------
RUN SU*!"IART
SOLIDS ANALYTICAL DATA (CONTINUED)
PERCENT PERCENT
SULrITE STOICHIOMETRIC IONIC
ANALY OXIDATION RATIO IMBALANCE
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AVG WIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG WIN MAX
639-1A 1*15
181S 24.6 9.8 43.8 1.04 1.01 1.06 -4.6 -8.2 1.7
640-1 A 1815
1816 24.1 13.4 36.4 1.04 1.03 1.05 -2.8 -8.3 2.9
641-1 A 1815
1816 13.0 2.6 25.5 1.04 1.02 1.05 -1.5 -4.3 3.2
642-1A 1815
, 1816 14.3 1.0 23.7 1.03 1.01 1.04 -1.4 -5.7 5.4
643-1A 1815
1816 17.3 5.1 21.3 1.03 1.02 1.06 -1.7 -6.1 2.0
0
1
i—>
00
-------
vO
RUM SUMMARY - SOLIDS ANALYTICAL DATA
concentrations in sclids, w»t X
SOLIDS
AHALY C02 S02 S03 CAO ACID INSCIUSLES IM SLURRY, UT X
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AVG WIN MAX AVG MlN MAX AVG KIN MAX AVG Ml N MAX AVS «IN "AY AVG MIN '¦¦,A X
VPG-1A lftl*
1916 0.49 0.19 0.77 25.72 12.84 29.68 2.97 0.02 5.93 26.40 13.03 30.50 2.52 2.23 2.35 8.6 7.6 13.3
VfG-lB 1815
1816 2.43 1.49 4.12 36.67 33.48 38.65 2.93 0.16 7.61 39.27 35.69 42.62 0.15 0.04 C.28 8.4 7.5 9-1
VFG-1C 1815
1816 1*50 0.54 2.47 22.36 18.82 32.55 2.47 0.55 4.01 24.40 20.36 34.83 2.97 2.58 3.36 8.7 8.1 9.8
VFS-1C 1815
1816 2.85 1.37 4.95 22.62 17.73 25.69 1.81 0.03 7.33 26.22 21.75 30.13 2.40 2.24 2.55 8.0 7.3 8.5
VFG-1E 1815
1816 2.20 0.88 4.73 23.01 18.82 26.42 3.52 0.33 9.23 26.03 21.35 29.37 2.86 2.50 3.24 8.4 *.C 8.9
VFG-1F 1815
1816 1.16 0.33 2.25 16.30 12.66 23.91 2.18 0.12 6.52 18.18 15.21 27.51 4.42 3.72 5.97 8.9 7.3 15.0
VFG-1G 1815
1816 3.11 2.03 3.90 21.26 14.04 25.69 1.83 0.26 3.89 24.57 18.13 28.24 3.48 3.20 3.77 8.3 7.2 8.5
VFS-1I 1815
1816 2.10 1.52 2.80 22.97 19.72 26.79 4.42 1.00 8.07 27.24 25.61 28.66 4.77 3.83 5.72 14.6 8.3 15.9
VF6-1° 1815
1816 1.76 1.33 2.58 20.73 18.09 25.44 2.61 0.06 6.05 23.27 19.76 26.97 2.93 2.40 3.30 8.6 7.5 13.4
-------
RUN SUKHARY - SOLIDS ANALYTICAL DATA tCONTINUED)
PERCENT PERCENT
SUL-ITE STOICHIOMETRIC IONIC
ANALY OXIDATION RATIO IMBALANCE
RUN TICAL
NC. POINT AVG WIN MAX AVS WIN MAX AVG MIN MAX
VFG-1A 1815
1816 8.3 0.1 17.4 1.03 1.01 1.09 4.5 -3.5 7.9
VFG-1P IS 15
1816 5.8 0.4 14.5 1.09 1.05 1.16 5.0 -2.6 8.4
VFG-1C 1815
1815 7.9 2.3 12.1 1.09 1.03 1.15 4.9 -2.6 7.7
VFG-10 1815
1816 5.9 0.1 25.8 1.17 1.09 1.28 5.8 1.1 8.4
VFG-1E 1815
1316 10.3 1.3 24.3 1.12 1.05 1.30 2.5 -6.1 7.6
VFG-1F 1815
1216 9.3 0.6 20.5 1.10 1.02 1.2C 4.9 -0.4 8.3
VFG-1G 1815
1816 6.3 0.8 13.1 1.21 1.12 1.35 3.0 -2.6 7.4
VFG-1I 1S15
1816 13.4 2.9 24.5 1.12 1.08 1.16 5.0 1.4 8.2
VFG-1P 1815
1816 9.1 0.2 21.0 1.11 1.07 1.17 4.4 -3.3 8.1
-------
GAS ANALYSES
RUN
. SAMPLE NAME
629-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
EOIL
CAKE
GAS/
L CAD
5 32
S02
S02
02
P rR
TIKE
NEGA
IN
OUT
REK
I*J
"ttSS
TIKE
FLAG
WATT
PP.M
PP»1
*
*
1MOL/L
_---
—
-—
------
2330
2320
380
82
7.0
C730
2*00
42C
31
7.2
1510
3763
180
55
13.2
2330
3860
300
91
13.2
0730
4000
400
89
13.2
1530
3500
340
89
11.6
2330
2800
380
8S
8.B
C 730
3640
620
81
11.0
2330
2360
760
71
7.9
0730
244Q
2
-------
GAS ANA LYSES
SCR S*S' R'JN
'{0. TEM NO.
SAMPLE NAME
1 VST £29-lt SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
0
1
ro
ts»
CLARIFIES UNDERFLOU-VAST
FILTER CAKE
630-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
CLARIFIER UNOERFLOW-V/ST
Fl' TER CAKE
date
Ttf»E
05/05/76
2330
05/06/76
0730
05/05/76
1530
05/06/76
2330
35/07/76
0730
05/07/76
1530
05/08/76
0730
05/0S/76
1530
05/08/76
233G
05/05/76
0730
05/09/76
1550
05/09/76
23 30
05/1C/76
0730
05/10/76
1530
05/10/76
2330
15/11/76
0730
05/11/76
1530
05/31/76
£330
05/12/76
0730
05/07/76
0730
05/10/T&
0730
04/3P/76
1530
05/C7/76
1530
06/10/76
1530
0o/12/76
15 30
05/12/76
2130
05/13/76
0730
05/13/76
1530
Ob/1 3/76
2330
05/14/76
0733
05/14/76
1530
05/14/76
2 3 30
05/15/76
0730
05/15/76
1530
05/15/76
2320
05/16/76
0 730
05/16/76
1530
05/16/76
2330
05/17/76
0730
05/17/76
1530
05/17/76
2330
05/16/76
0730
00/14/76
0730
05/17/76
0730
05/14/76
1530
P02 L
6AS/ LCAO SO 2
TltfE *fGA IN
FLA& WATT P*-*
3120
3369
2840
324 0
34 3 0
3683
330 0
3040
3160
25&0
32 0 0
344 0
2B0 0
3240
3600
3400
332 3
42? C>
34? C>
344 J
35? 0
2S3 0
3 82 0
383 2
2440
2129
2B8 0
2963
28 0 0
28«0
32C0
38 0 0
2722
3 00 0
2920
302 0
335?
3240
232 0
34fC
29 6 0
3360
2t>30
>" AKE
S02
02
=-:r
RE*
IN
PASS
%
M«0L/L
77
S.9
74
9-2
77
S.l
73
C.7
7«>
10.2
79
10.9
77
9.4
74
8.4
72
5.4
77
?."<
76
9. 1
76
9.7
75
7.3
73
8.7
69
9.2
71
S.9
69
8.3
73
11 .6
79
10.2
76
9.7
67
11.6
75
7.3
99
14.0
98
l^.l
86
7.8
91
7.1
92
9.8
87
9.6
94
9.7
96
10.2
88
10.4
87
12.3
8"?
9.0
85
9.5
92
10.0
91
10.4
93
11.&
97
11.6
97
11.9
93
11.s
87
9.6
93
11.6
94
9.7
S02
OUT
PP"*
<60
fiOO
600
*00
660
68 0
700
700
600
540
680
7*0
640
800
1000
900
920
10 50
6b 0
740
340
540
50
30
300
IflO
220
34 0
160
110
360
440
260
400
200
260
200
100
90
200
340
200
160
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR SYS-
NO. TEM
1 VST
RUN
VO.
630-1&
631-1A
SAKPLE NAME
= ILTEP. CfcKC
SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
o»
MLTER CAKE
632-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
CLARIFIER UNOERFLOU-V/ST
FILTER CAKE
date
TIME
05/17/76
1530
05/18/76
1530
C5/18/76
2330
05/19/76
0730
05/19/76
1530
05/19/76
2330
05/20/76
07 JD
05/20/76
16C0
05/20/76
2320
05/21/76
0730
05/21/76
1530
05/21/76
2333
05/22/76
0733
05/22/76
1530
05/22/76
2330
05/23/76
0730
05/23/76
1530
05/23/76
2333
05/24/76
0730
05/21/76
1530
05/24/76
0730
05/28/76
2330
05/29/76
0730
05/29/76
1530
05/29/76
2330
05/30/76
0730
05/30/76
1530
05/30/76
2330
05/31/76
C730
05/31/76
1530
05/31/76
2330
06/01/76
0730
06/01/76
1530
06/01/76
2333
06/C2/76
0730
06/02/76
1530
06/32/76
233C
06/03/76
0730
06/03/76
2300
&*S/2Ba6
2330
05/29/76
2330
05/30/76
2330
05/29/76
0730
05/30/76
07 30
05/31/76
07 30
BOIL
GAS/ LOfiD SD2
TIME MFGA IN
FLAG WATT PPtt
3240
2960
3030
3363
2GC3
264 C
3»5 n e
3920
3520
3LI30
2643
252 J
252D
2400
2500
2630
3260
26d2
224 D
2£«5
224C
28?. 3
3360
3080
3120
3P03
2603
2200
2040
26 0 0
25*3
2750
3160
2600
2760
2963
2po a
2920
2320
28C0
3120
22 0 3
33S0
3000
2040
MAKE
S02
02
PrR
RE^
IN
?ASS
X
%
"KOL/L
97
11.6
62
10.4
63
1C.S
66
12.6
71
11.*
65
9.7
56
12.2
55
12.2
87
17.4
93
15.9
7«
11. «
«1
11.7
7C
1C.1
71
1C.1
66
9.!}
67
10.2
82
15.4
82
12.?
79
10.1
78
11.3
79
10.1
70
9.4
78
12.6
83
12.4
8t>
13.0
89
12.9
e.&
10. 8
8 5
9.4
88
8.7
81
10.2
74
3.5
69
9.2
64
S.8
84
11.4
79
10.5
85
12.1
72
9.7
87
12.3
93
10.4
70
9.4
So
13.0
89
9.4
7S
12.6
89
12.9
8*1
8.7
S02
CUT
PPM
100
1020
1000
1043
720
P>4 0
1500
1600
420
200
520
020
680
64 0
3 3 0
COO
520
420
420
520
420
760
630
460
380
3U0
520
220
220
440
600
760
1020
400
520
400
700
340
140
760
380
220
690
300
220
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR
MO.
SYS-
TEM
R'J>3
SAMPLE NAME
1 VST <,33-1A SLWY TO TOWER
l
ts)
CLARIFIED UNOERFLOW-V/ST
FILTER CAKE
634-1A SL'JRSY TO SPRAY TOWEft
OAT£
TI«r
06/^*5/76
1530
06/05/76
2 330
06/06/76
0730
C6/06/76
1530
06/C6/76
2330
06/07/76
0 7 30
06/07/76
1533
C'6/07/76
2330
C&/C8/76
0730
C6/0S/76
1530
06/0 6/76
2330
C6/C9/76
0730
06/09/76
1530
06/09/76
2330
06/10/76
0730
06/10/76
1530
06/1C/76
2330
C6/11/76
C730
06/11/76
1530
06/11/76
2330
06/12/76
0730
06/12/76
1530
06/12/76
2330
06/1 5/76
0730
06/13/76
1530
06/13/76
2330
06/14/76
0530
06/07/76
0730
C6/07/76
1530
C'6/11/76
1530
06/20/76
0730
0&/2 0/76
1530
1533
C6/2C/76
2530
23 30
06/21/76
0750
06/21/76
1530
06/21/7-1
2330
06/22/76
0730
06/22/76
1530
15 30
06/22/76
2330
2330
06/23/76
D730
06/23/76
1530
SAS/
LOAD
SOS
S02
S02
02
PER
TIKE
KESA
IM
'J'JT
REyi
If.
-ASS
"LAG
WATT
PPM
PPM
*
r.
VVrvL/l_
2920
460
83
R.3
264-3
120
95
8.6
3 D3
16C
94
10.0
2840
7 0
97
9.c
2800
60
9R
9.4
3160
140
95
10.3
2960
ao
97
9.9
3160
2 50
91
9.9
3600
420
*7
1C.1?
2340
240
91
6.V
310 0
240
91
9.8
3000
2'»C
91
9.4
2960
240
91
9.3
3040
360
67
9.1
34 OC
560
82
9.6
2dt0
3 00
96
9.3
2200
130
91
6.9
24 SO
380
S3
7.1
3 36 2
44 0
85
9.9
34 0 0
25 0
91
10.6
30P.O
100
96
10.2
5040
60
97
10.2
260 0
140
94
8.*
2720
14 C
94
£.6
3000
100
96
9.9
332 0
120
96
11.0
332 0
220
93
10.6
3360
140
9'J
1G.3
2960
80
97
9.9
3360
440
85
9.9
1800
340
79
5.3
2060
470
75
5.7
2060
17 0
75
5.7
1480
220
83
4.6
1480
220
83
4.6
1560
260
81
4.7
1S0C
36C
78
5.2
2120
540
72
5.6
1980
3? 0
80
5.9
1840
260
84
5.8
lftftO
260
84
5.P.
Its SO
2K0
63
P j»
- * 'j
183 0
28 0
93
5.?
I960
26C
P5
6.2
2640
660
72
7 . V
-------
GAS ANALYSES
MO. SAMPLE NW,£
634-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
CLARIFIES UNDERFLOtf-V/ST
FILTRATE
FILTER CAKE
6S5-IA SLURRY TO SPRAY TOVJCR
DATE
TIKE
06/23/76
1530
C6/23/76
2330
2330
06/24/76
0730
0730
06/24/76
1530
1530
06/24/76
2330
2330
06/25/76
0730
0730
06/25/76
1530
06/25/76
2330
06/26/76
373C
06/26/76
1530
06/26/76
2330
06/27/76
0730
06/27/76
1530
06/27/76
2330
06/28/76
0730
06/28/76
1530
OC/26/76
235C
06/29/76
0730
06/29/76
1530
06/29/76
2330
06/30/76
0730
06/30/76
1530
06/30/76
2330
37/01/76
0730
C730
07/C1/76
1530
07/01/76
2330
07/02/76
0730
0730
07/02/76
1530
25/76/06
0730
06/22/76
2330
06/25/76
0730
06/28/76
0730
07/02/76
0730
04/23/75
0700
06/23/76
0730
Q6/2!'/?6
ISiO
0 7/{??/76
1530
'J7/1C//6
~\'.50
COIL MAKE
GAS/ LOAD SO? S02 S02 02 PEP.
TIME" *EG4 IN OUT R E** IM PASS
FLAG «ATT PP1 PPM X % ^'lOL/U
2640 6 60 72 7.1
2630 700 7C 6.8
26CD 70 0 7C <.8
2760 7H0 67 7.0
2760 780 69 7.C
352 0 1C:.0 68 8.9
3520 1000 68 8.?
3340 aSO 69 7.7
3040 %60 69 7.7
2080 320 S3 6.4
2080 320 83 5.4
22SG 420 SO 6.7
204 0 30 0 84 6.3
3200 3^0 72 8.5
3003 300 70 ?.8
2600 640 73 7.0
3240 920 6» 8.2
25?C 54 0 76 7.1
2720 620 75 7.5
2S6G 760 71 7.9
3270 *00 72 8..-
2760 580 77 7.?
3120 700 75 8.7
26»5 640 75 8.0
3080 700 75 S.5
3760 1020 70 9.7
348 5 960 69 9.C
2520 440 79 6.S
2120 320 83 6.5
2120 320 83 6.5
2200 4 C 0 80 6.5
2360 f40 79 6.9
230 0 640 75 7.8
2303 540 75 7.6
2400 480 78 6.9
2080 320 83 6.4
1880 2P0 83 5.8
208-0 320 83 6.4
2960 760 71 7.9
2300 640 75 7.8
196 0 260 85 6.2
3250 HOC 72 jj.6
£4"0 480 73 6.9
27 TO *.4 0 Of. «.7
-------
GAS ANALYSFS
RUN
"•iO. sample nane
*,35-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
FILTER CAKE
636-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOVER
DATE
TI*E
37/17 '76
0730
07/17/76
1530
07/17/76
2330
07/1B/7S
0730
07/20/76
073C
07/20/76
1530
07/20/76
2330
07/21/76
C73C
07/21/76
1530
07/21/7^
2330
07/22/76
0730
07/22/76
1530
07/22/76
2330
07/?3/76
0730
07/23/76
1530
"7/2 3/76
2330
07/24/76
0730
37/24/76
1530
07/24/76
2330
07/25/76
0730
07/25/76
1530
07/25/f6
2330
2330
07/26/76
0730
C7/17/76
1530
07/20/76
1530
C7/21/76
1530
07/22/76
1530
C7/23/75
1530
07/24/75
1530
07/25/76
1530
07/26/75
1530
07/28/76
2330
C7/29/75
0730
0 7/29/75
1930
07/29/76
2330
07/50/76
0730
T7/3P/76
1530
57/3 0/76
2330
07/31/76
C730
07/31/76
1530
1530
27/31/75
23 ' C
C^m/76
07SO
08/C1/76
1530
BOIL KAKE
GAS/ LOAD S?2 SQ2 S02 02
TIME HEGA IfJ OUT REM IN °ASS
FLAG V ATT PPM PPM X % wrti/t.
2020 4fi0 fi? 9
3C? 0 720 75 8.5
2963 640 7S 8.3
2520 400 BP 7.7
2080 200 S? 6.9
1560 200 89 A.4
2003 260 86 6.3
1700 130 «»2 5.S
2160 320 8« 6.7
36 ? C 13C0 60 B ȣ'
2920 720 73 7.9
3520 1260 60 7.9
3200 960 67 7.9
2720 *50 7S 7.8
2560 *00 83 7.9
2760 600 76 7.8
2520 600 77 8.a
2120 32 0 BJ 6.5
22R0 340 83 7.1
2280 300 85 7.2
2030 300 84 6.5
2tD0 400 83 a.I
2600 ACQ S3 3.0
28 CO 5 3 0 77 8.0
30R0 700 75 8.5
I960 200 89 6.4
2160 320 34 6.7
3523 1250 7.3
2560 450 83 7.?
2120 320 83 6.5
2080 300 34 6.5
34?C 420 86 7.3
330 0 580 SO 7.0
3560 740 77 7.3
3000 430 82 6.5
2900 3S0 S3 6.5
SU'iC 420 80 6.9
2920 420 04 6.5
3000 420 84 6.7
3POO 360 87 6.9
148 3040 420 85 6.8
148 3040 420 85 1.3
2S62 40 0 84 f .4
2fi<0 32C 63 6.7
2920 3fc0 St 6.7
-------
C4S AUtltSCS
SCR
SYS- RUN
NO.
TCP ScO.
SA«PLE
NAME
DATE
TIKE
----
1
VST 63&-1A
SLURRY
TO SPRAY
TOWER 03/31/76
2330
2330
08/02/76
C730
08/02/76
1530
1530
08/02/76
233C
08/33/76
0730
C8/C3/76
1530
08/03/76
2330
08/04/76
0730
08/04/76
1130
FILTE*
CAKE
C7/26/T6
1530
07/29/76
1950
07/30/76
1530
07/31/76
1530
es/01/76
1530
03/02/76
1530
08/33/76
1530
08/04/76
1130
637-1A
SL'iP.Rt
TO SPRAY
TOWER 08/06/76
1930
08/D6/76
233D
C8/07/76
G73e
08/07/76
1530
C8/C7/76
2330
08/CC/76
0730
08/08/76
1530
CR/Ofc/76
2330
08/09/76
0730
Of./07/76
1530
rs/r?/76
2330
08/10/76
0730
0739
08/10/76
1530
DR/10/76
2330
38/11/76
0730
£8/11/76
1530
08/11/76
2330
08/12/76
0730
FILTER
CAKE
08/06/76
1930
C3/07/76
153P
08/08/76
1530
C8/C9/76
1530
08/10/76
1530
08/11/76
1530
SLURRY
to SPRAY
TOwtft 08/16/76
l^r.O
BOIL
VAXE
LCAO
S02
SO 2
S02
02
'>49
830
71
7.5
8.0
143
3000
820
70
7.4
7.3
128
3080
860
69
7.9
7.9
140
2900
660
75
7.3
8.0
2760
660
73
r. 5
7.5
145
2683
5*0
78
7.9
7.7
143
2C80
620
74
6.5
7.4
145
3000
780
71
6.6
7.9
144
2920
7C0
73
6.8
8.0
143
3120
saa
69
6.0
8.0
144
328 2
icaa
66
6.5
e.i
145
3520
IC40
67
8.2
8.8
145
3520
1040
67
8.2
8.8
14 4
2SC0
740
71
8.C
7.3
148
2800
700
72
8.5
7.5
148
2920
700
73
9.0
8.0
148
3043
900
67
3.2
7.6
144
3120
920
67
8.0
7.8
148
3320
943
69
8.4
143
3043
800
71
7.5
8.0
140
2900
660
75
7.3
8.0
148
2680
620
74
6.5
7.4
145
3120
880
69
6.0
8.0
144
2833
740
71
8.Q
7»3
148
3040
9G0
67
8.2
7.6
146
26P.0
f- OD
7 '
7.3
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR
sys-
RUN
NO.
tem
NO.
SAMPLE
MAKE
---
----
1
1
I
1
1
»
1
<
1
1
(
1
«
t
i
i
i
I
1
VST
638-14
SLURRY
TO SPRAY TOWER
d
i
N
00
FILTER CAKE
639-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
date
TIME
08/16/76
2330
08/17/76
0730
08/17/76
1530
08/17/76
2330
OS/18/76
0730
0730
08/18/76
1530
08/13/76
2330
2330
08/19/76
0530
08/19/76
1600
08/19/76
2330
Oe/25/TG
C7 30
03/20/76
1530
CS/20/76
2330
08/21/76
0730
08/21/76
1530
08/21/76
2330
08/22/76
0730
C8/22/76
1530
08/22/76
2330
08/23/76
0730
OS/23/76
1530
08/2 3/76
2330
2330
C8/24/76
0530
08/16/76
1930
C8/17/75
1530
08/18/76
1530
08/19/76
16G0
1600
1600
08/20/75
1530
08/21/76
15?0
08/22/76
1530
I'3/2 3/76
1530
08/24/76
1530
08/24/76
2330
08/25/76
C730
08/25/76
1530
1530
08/26/76
0730
C8/26/76
1530
1530
BOIL
GAS/
LCAO
S02
TIME
KEG A
IV
FLAG
WATT
PPfl
X
141
276C
X
143
263C
150
2000
110
2520
142
2800
142
2800
143
2120
146
2242
146
2240
141
224 v
148
2430
136
27 u 3
138
3130
143
284 0
148
2800
145
2960
146
2720
145
2640
135
2763
147
2723
14 6
2680
148
2440
145
2120
142
2300
142
260 0
100
2720
X
146
268C
150
2?3 0
143
2120
148
24 0 0
148
24 C 0
143
2400
14 3
2840
146
2720
147
2720
145
2120
X
145
2560
X
103
2560
X
1C5
2640
X
145
2800
X
145
2800
X
145
2640
X
144
26C0
X
144
2600
y
144
2taa
S02
02
PER
REM
IN
!>ASS
X
%
NfOL-'L
73
8.5
7.5
78
7.3
7.8
84
7.4
6.3
79
a. o
7. 4
76
10.5
7.9
76
10.5
7.9
81
8.6
6.4
84
9.0
7.G
84
9.0
7.0
84
7.0
79
9.1
7.0
75
3.5
7.7
73
3.8
8.4
74
7.9
7.8
74
7.2
7.7
76
8.5
8.3
73
8.0
7.4
75
7.2
7.3
76
7.8
7.8
75
7.7
78
7.7
85
7.7
83
6.3
7.0
79
6.7
8.2
79
6.7
3.2
SO
6.5
8.0
73
7.3
84
7.4
6.3
31
3.6
6.4
79
9.1
7.0
79
9.1
7.0
79
9.1
7. 0
74
7.9
7.8
73
8.0
7.4
76
7.7
38
6.3
7.0
77
6.8
7.3
100
6.4
9.5
99
6.5
9.7
99
3.0
10.3
99
3.0
10.3
99
7.8
9.7
9?
3.5
9.4
a .5
9.4
3.5
9.4
SOS
OUT
660
520
230
480
£.10
610
360
520
320
320
*60
620
760
660
660
fi50
660
600
600
530
54 0
340
220
520
520
500
640
283
360
460
460
460
660
660
550
220
540
0
30
20
20
30
55
55
55
-------
GAS ANALYSES
RUN
MO. SAMPLE NAME
639-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
FILTER CAKE
640-1* SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
DATE
TIME
OR/26/76
2330
08/27/76
0730
OR/27/76
1530
08/27/76
2330
2330
08/28/76
0730
OR/28/76
1530
08/28/76
2332
08/29/76
0730
08/29/76
1530
08/29/76
2330
08/30/76
0730
08/30/76
1530
08^30/76
2330
Ofi/31/76
1530
08/31/76
2330
09/01/76
0530
08/24/76
1530
08/25/76
1530
1530
1533
08/26/76
1530
1530
1530
08/27/76
1530
08/2R/76
1530
08/29/76
1530
08/30/76
1530
38/31/76
1530
09/02/76
1830
09/02/76
2330
09/03/76
0730
09/03/76
1530
09/03/76
2330
C9/C4/76
0730
09/04/76
1533
09/04/76
2330
09/05/76
9730
0730
09/05/76
1530
09/05/76
2330
09/06/76
P730
09/06/76
1530
39/06/76
2330
0f/07/7 6
0 730
BOIL
6 AS/
LOAD
S02
TIKE
KESA
IV
FLAG
VATT
PPM
X
142
2880
140
3000
145
2960
144
3160
144
3160
140
2600
145
26?,C
145
3040
145
2160
144
2030
142
2280
117
260C
146
20*. 0
135
2280
144
2920
148
3200
141
3120
X
145
2560
y
145
2800
X
145
2&QG
X
145
2800
*
144
2600
X
144
2600
X
144
2600
145
2960
145
268C
144
2080
146
2080
144
2920
145
26S0
111
2560
115
2560
144
3160
142
3360
144
3120
144
29!} 0
141
3280
145
3240
145
3240
144
2960
143
3000
119
260 0
143
2640
145
2920
14 4
3? no
MAKE
502
02
PER
lEM
IN
°ASS
X
7.
"**OL/L
93
8.3
9.9
SI
8.2
9.1
79
S.7
8.7
76
8.5
8.9
76
8.5
C.9
84
3.4
8.1
81
8.5
8.0
83
8.8
9.0
90
8.5
7.2
89
9.2
6.9
85
9.2
7.2
86
9.1
8.3
89
6.5
6.9
85
8.4
7.?
75
9.2
8.1
72
8.3
e. 6
74
9.0
E • 5
77
6.8
7.5
99
3.0
10.3
99
8.0
10.3
99
s.o
10.3
98
3.5
9.4
98
8.5
9.4
98
8.5
9.4
79
8.7
8.7
31
8.5
8.0
89
9.2
6.9
39
8.5
6.9
75
9.2
8.1
81
9.3
6.0
84
8.6
8.0
84
10.2
7.9
77
10.0
9.0
74
9.6
9.2
74
7.5
3.6
76
7.0
8.4
75
7.2
9.1
79
7.8
9.5
79
7.8
9.5
77
7.2
8.5
80
7.4
8.9
86
7.5
8.3
S3
7.3
8.1
81
7.6
f.fi
P.?.
) 1 .0
S02
OUT
PPM
183
300
550
680
680
380
460
560
200
230
300
320
203
30 0
660
S00
74 0
5*0
20
20
20
55
55
55
560
460
200
200
660
460
360
380
663
*00
720
650
740
620
629
600
540
320
400
bOO
Sf">
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR
SYS"
RUN
NO.
TEW
NO.
SAMPLE
NAME
...
1
VST
640-1A
SLURRY
TO SPRAY TOWER
FILTER CAKE
641-1» SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
O
t
UJ
o
FILTER CAKE
642-U SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
DATE
TI«E
09/07/76
1530
09/07/76
2330
09/08/76
0750
09/08/76
1530
09/03/76
2330
09/09/76
04?0
09/23/76
153C
U9/M/76
1530
09/05/76
1?30
09/06/75
1530
09/08/76
1530
D9/C9/76
IS DO
09/09/76
2330
09/10/76
P730
09/10/76
1530
09/10/76
2330
09/11/76
0730
?9/l1/76
1 = 30
09/11/76
2330
09/12/76
0730
09/12/76
1530
09/12/76
2330
09/13/76
0730
G9/13/76,
1530
09/13/76
2330
09/14/76
0730
09/14/76
1530
09/09/76
I 6C0
09/10/76
1530
09/11/76
1530
09/12/76
1530
09/13/76
1530
09/14/76
1530
09/15/76
16 00
09/15/76
2330
09/16/76
0730
09/16/75
1530
09/16/76
2330
09/17/76
0730
09/17/7?,
1530
C9/17/76
2330
09/16/76
0730
09/18/76
1530
09/18/T6
2330
0-?/l<3/ f6
0730
SOIL
3AS/
LOAD
TI v£
XEGA
flag
V67T
14fi
137
148
113
105
109
144
144
144
143
113
x
103
y
100
X
100
X
150
X
137
X
146
148
117
140
148
141
14&
16 3
146
146
142
X
ica
X
150
148
145
163
142
143
143
144
145
143
147
147
14 r
144
145
X
147
K
14 7
S02
S02
IN
OUT
PP *!
t>pj*
3120
620
324 0
680
2960
5 s0
2840
550
2763
480
2840
540
3160
660
2980
650
2960
6 30
2640
400
2840
550
2840
BOO
2200
460
2230
460
2440
660
2560
540
2760
460
2720
2&0
2600
110
3300
160
2630
140
252 3
80
276 3
80
2630
100
2720
100
2963
110
2800
200
264 3
800
2440
660
2720
240
26 80
140
2600
100
2*00
200
2520
520
2520
860
2310
S>30
2400
620
2600
700
2840
850
2640
730
2600
680
2760
560
2320
520
24Q0
680
28(»3
220
$02
02
REM
IN
5
X
7H
7.2
77
7.5
78
7.0
78
7.0
81
6.5
79
77
10.0
76
7.0
77
7.2
S3
7.5
78
7.0
69
6.0
77
77
9.0
70
77
81
90
10.2
9S
10.0
94
10.3
94
9.9
96
9.B
97
10.2
96
9.9
96
9.5
96
9.5
92
9.7
69
6.0
70
90
10.2
94
9.9
96
9.9
92
9.7
77
9.5
62
68
9.5
71
9.3
70
12.5
67
71
7.5
71
8.5
77
7.8
7$
8.0
69
7.5
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR SYS- HUN
NC. TEK NO.
sample NAME
DATE
TIME
X VST 642-1A SLURRY TO SPRAT TOWER
0
1
(ri
FILTER CAKE
643-1A
SLURRY FROM SPRAY TOWER
SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
09/19/76
09/19/76
09/20/76
39/25/76
09/20/76
09/21/76
09/22/76
09/32/76
09/23/76
09/25/76
09/23/76
C9/24/76
09/24/76
09/24/76
C9/25/7S
09/25/75
09/25/76
C9/T6/76
09/26/7&
39/26/76
09/27/76
09/15/76
09/16/76
09/17/76
09/18/76
09/19/76
09/20/76
09/22/76
09/23/76
09/24/76
09/25/76
09/26/76
04/01/75
09/27/76
09/2 7/76
09/28/76
39/28/76
09/2S/7&
09/29/76
09/29/76
09/29/76
09/3C/76
09/33/76
10/01/76
10/01/76
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
C5C0
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
C730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0500
1600
1530
1530
1530
1530
1530
1530
1530
1530
1530
1530
0700
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0 73C
2330
£730
1530
EOIL
vakc
GAS/
LOAD
S02
SC2
S02
02
OrS
TIME
KEG A
IN
OUT
REM
IN
PASS
FLAG
WATT
PPM
PPM
X
X
MKOL/L
X
143
2ROO
400
84
s.o
14.7
X
145
224C
120
94
7.2
13.1
X
2200
120
94
7.2
12.9
X
146
220S
620
69
5.0
9.4
X
115
2440
780
65
4.2
9.8
X
343
2720
785
63
5.5
11.5
147
2640
BG0
66
6.8
10.9
131
2680
870
64
8.8
1C.7
149
2440
78C
65
R.3
9*S
149
2560
fi2C
64
8.3
1C.3
124
3240
1020
65
9.5
13.1
127
296 0
9P0
63
11.7
144
2920
960
64
8.5
11.6
143
2640
"fcO
63
9.0
IP.4
143
2560
780
66
S.5
10.6
143
2440
60 C
73
9.2
11.1
139
2560
780
66
fi.5
10.6
137
2800
940
63
a.o
11.0
146
2560
840
64
8.2
10.1
14 5
2720
960
61
7.8
10.3
137
2560
900
61
9.7
14 3
2520
520
77
9.5
12.1
145
2430
620
71
9.5
10.7
147
2640
7C0
71
7.5
11.6
145
2320
523
75
8.0
10.9
X
148
2800
400
84
a.o
14.7
X
146
2200
620
69
5.0
9.4
147
2640
300
66
5 .3
10.9
149
2560
*20
64
8.3
10.3
144
2920
960
64
8 .5
11.6
14 S
244 D
600
73
9.2
11.1
146
2560
840
64
8.2
10.1
X
143
28S0
320
88
6.5
9.4
X
145
2720
230
91
6.2
9.1
110
2630
30
95
9.9
9.8
148
2640
60
97
9.5
134
2680
60
93
9.5
9.7
146
23C0
40
9f
8.0
10.2
145
2529
40
93
8.2
9.2
136
2440
40
9*
a.o
8.9
145
2520
40
9?
3.6
9.2
135
244 e
40
9S
S.9
145
26HC
43
93
9.0
9.8
147
266 0
40
9<*
10.0
9.7
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SYS"
IE*',
VST
«W.
\o.
64*
SAMPLE MftfSE
-1ft SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
FILTER CftKE
DATr
TIME
10/01/76
2330
ic/02 nr.
0730
10/02/76
1530
io/02/7f,
2330
10/0 3/"**
0730
1C/03/7S
1530
10/03/7S
2330
10/04/7*
0730
10/04/76
1530
10/04/75
233C
10/35/76
0730
10/01/7*
1530
10/C2/7*
1530
10/03/7*
1530
10/04/76
1530
rO IL
?' AKE
GAS/
LOAD
S02
S02
S02
02
PTR
TIME
MEGA
IN
O'JT
RE"!
IS
? ASS
flag
V«TT
PPM
PPM
X
%
?"AOL /L
»---
—
— —-
J 4 1
2520
40
9R
9.9
9.2
146
2720
43
9B
9 .5
9.9
115
2520
20
99
3-0
9.3
140
2440
50
93
8.8
141
5520
100
9«.
H.3
3.9
140
20 0 C
50
9?
8.3
7.3
110
2000
f-0
97
8 .2
7.2
142
2720
30
9?
8.5
10.0
144
2150
30
9«
8.9
7.7
14 4
2630
60
9?
9.6
9.7
144
2?20
50
93
9-5
10.6
147
26&C
40
93
10-0
9.7
145
2520
20
99
3.0
9.3
140
2000
3C
9?
a.3
7.3
144
2130
30
93
3.9
7.7
-------
GAS ANALYSTS
RUN
NO. SAMPLE NAME
VFG-1A SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
FILTER CAKE
VFS-1B SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
date
tike
10/10/76
1730
10/10/76
2330
10/11/76
0730
10/11/76
1530
10/11/76
2359
10/12/76
0730
10/12/76
1530
13/12/76
2530
10/13/76
0730
10/13/76
1530
10/13/76
2330
10/14/76
0730
lC/14/7b
15.30
10/14/76
2330
10/15/76
C730
10/15/76
1530
10/15/76
2330
10/16/76
0730
10/16/76
1530
10/16/76
2330
10/17/76
0730
10/17/76
1530
10'17/76
2330
10/11/76
1530
10/12/76
1530
10/13/76
1530
10/14/76
1S30
10/15/76
1530
1530
10/16/76
1530
10/17/76
1530
10/21/76
0730
10/21/76
1530
10/21/76
2330
13/22/76
0730
10/22/76
1530
10/22/76
2330
10/23/76
0730
9730
10/23/76
1530
10/23/76
2330
10/24/76
0730
10/24/76
1530
10/24/76
23 50
10/25/76
0 730
BOIL
MAKE
SAS/
LCAO
SC2
S02
SC2
02
prR
TIME
KEG A
IM
OUT
REM
IN
PASS
flag
WATT
PPy
PPM
S
X
M^OL/L
2
1*2
3000
900
67
7.4
115
2760
80
97
8.5
9.9
100
3000
3H0
#6
5.4
9.6
107
2560
440
81
4.5
7.7
107
2760
160
81
3.9
8.3
142
3140
280
90
6.5
10.5
146
2720
400
34
5.3
8 * A
14 3
3000
203
93
6.5
10.3
145
2P4C
60
93
3.6
1C. 3
146
30D0
40
99
6.?
11. C
146
30CC
60
9'J
5.2
10.9
148
3120
40
99
5.2
11.4
116
3oao
40
9?
5.6
11.3
143
2960
go
97
5.1
10.7
146
3100
240
91
* .B
10.5
150
264 0
280
S9
5.5
9.4
147
2960
320
38
5.0
9.7
145
3260
120
9£
5.1
11 .6
149
3240
70
98
5.1
11.7
141
3360
60
9ft
6.0
12.2
l
-------
G»S ANALYSES
SCR SYS- RUN
NO. TES NO. SAPPLE NA*E
1 VST VFG-m SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
filter cake
VFG-1C SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
w
tfc.
SLURRY FROM SPRAY TOUER
VFG-1D SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
SU1W» M
DATE
10/25/7*
10/25/??,
10/26/76
10/25/76
1C/26/76
10/27/76
10/2 7/76
10/27/76
10/2S/76
1C/2B/T6
10/2«/7£
10/29/76
10/22/75
10/23/76
10/24/ T6
10/25/76
10/29/76
10/29/76
10/30/76
lt>3C/76
1C/3D/76
10/31/76
11/01/76
ll/Dl/76
11/sins
11/02/76
11/02 /7ft
ii /ci nc
11/01/74.
11/02/7?.
11/02/76
11/02/76
ll/O 3/76
11/03/76
11/0 3/76
11/04/76
11/04/76
11/0 4/76
11/05/76
11/Q5/76
11/C5/76
11/06/76
11/06^76
W IWIU
SOIL
CAS/
LOAD
S02
TItfE
KEG A
IN
TINE
FLAG
VATT
PPM
1530
Z
145
2sno
2330
Z
149
2300
0730
Z
14 8
332 0
1530
z
3120
1530
7
3120
2330
3040
0730
149
320 0
1530
148
2920
2330
125
34 B 2
0 7 3D
121
3520
1530
138
332 0
2330
150
2960
0730
2fi/?0
1530
f
i.
14S
2920
1530
1
144
2800
1530
7
149
252 j
1530
c.
145
23C0
1530
150
3160
2330
150
2920
0 730
150
292 0
1530
133
2fc4 0
2330
150
2630
23 3D
265 0
0730
153
3360
1530
149
252 0
2330
150
3G4G
C750
156
3 2 0
153C
149
?9£ 0
1530
143
2523
2330
150
3 04 3
C73Q
156
52*9
1530
149
296 0
2330
132
3430
0730
*4
3080
1530
137
28HD
233C
126
3040
0730
142
308 3
153C
141
3600
2330
143
34't 0
0730
ISO
368.0
1530
14 3
2920
2330
156
3120
C 7 33
149
3360
1530
142
2B0U
YVl
Vl-Al
HAKE
S02
02
PIR
RE*
IN
PASS
2
X
M"0l/L
74
^ . 5
7.7
74
7.S
7.7
71
7.3
c * 7
72
9.4
8.3
72
9.4
8.3
75
7.ft
S.2
73
S • 4
8.7
75
7.4
8.C
6;i
9.0
3.8
70
10.2
9.2
7J
%.S
S.fc
74
n.s
£.2
76
7.9
P.l
75
10.2
8.1
74
9.5
7.7
76
7.5
7.1
74
8.5
7.7
75
4.5
s.a
70
5.3
7.6
70
4.3
7.6
70
5.0
7.1
7"
ft . 4
7.5
75
5.4
7.5
67
tj • 0
P. .3
75
11.5
7.0
7:
*.2
7.3
72
5.2
e.?.
69
5.5
7.6
75
11.5
7.0
70
b.Z
T.9
72
5.2
6V>
5.5
7.6
35
5.5
6.3
66
5.6
4.3
90
5.7
5.5
89
6.2
5.7
S3
6.5
5.S
86
5.5
6.7
90
5.0
6.6
92
5.2
7.2
94
6.7
5.8
04
4.0
6.2
93
5.8
6.6
95
5.4
5.7
=>.=>
S02
OU7
PPtf
660
650
873
790
790
740
7K0
7C0
1000
940
9 3 0
6S2
620
66 0
660
540
660
700
780
7ao
760
520
600
1CC0
560
S20
ta 0
S20
560
P20
7ao
820
460
940
270
300
300
«00
300
2f>0
160
160
220
123
-------
GAS ANALYSES
cr sys- P-UN
0. TEK MO. SAMPLE N'AHE
1 VST VFG-10 SLURRY FROM SPRAY TOWER
VFG-1E SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
G
t
w
un
SLURRY FROK SPRAY TOWER
VFG-1F SLURRY 70 SPRAY TOWER
OATE
11/03/76
11/03/76
11/03/76
11/C4/76
11/04/76
11/C4/76
11/C5/76
11/05/76
11/05/76
11/06/76
11/D6/76
11/? 6/7",
11/07/76
11/07/76
11/07/76
11/08/76
11/08/76
11/03/76
11/09/76
11/09/76
11/09/76
11/10/76
11/10/75
11/06/76
11/07/76
11/07/76
11/0 7/76
11/08/76
ll/CS/76
11/08/76
11/09/76
11/09/76
11/09/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/12/76
11/12/76
ll/l?/76
11/I2/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
boil
MAKE
GAS/
LOAD
S02
SQ2
S02
0?
PrR
TIME
MEGA
IN
OUT
REM
IN
PASS
TI«E
flag
WATT
P^M
PPM
X
V
*
MMCL/L
0730
94
3000
940
ts S
5.6
4.3
1530
1?7
28a0
270
90
5.7
5.5
2330
J26
304 0
3C0
£9
6 .
5.7
5730
142
3oao
300
*9
6.5
5.8
3530
141
36C0
400
SS
5.5
6.7
2330
14 8
3440
300
90
5.0
6.6
0730
150
3630
260
92
5.2
7.2
1530
143
2920
16Q
94
6.7
5.S
2330
156
3120
160
94
4.0
6.2
0730
3 49
3360
223
93
5.S
6.6
1530
142
2800
120
95
5.4
5.7
233C
z
140
3160
440
85
5.5
11.2
0730
80
3240
9?0
66
10.2
¦3.0
1530
113
3600
1140
65
7.6
9.ft
2330
153
2%80
760
71
6.9
3.5
0730
149
3120
760
73
6.5
9.5
1530
151
3240
6ft0
77
7.5
10.4
2330
155
3400
730
75
5.0
10.6
0730
146
3600
900
72
6.2
10.9
1530
15 3
3040
720
74
4.3
9.4
2330
156
292?
660
75
5.7
9.1
073D
152
2760
740
70
5.C
o • 1
1530
155
3G6P
650
69
4.7
s.a
233C
2
140
3160
440
«5
5.5
11.2
0730
80
324 0
930
6b
10.2
9.0
1530
113
3600
1143
65
7.6
9.8
2330
153
28S0
760
71
6.3
8.5
0730
149
3120
760
73
6.5
9.5
1530
151
3240
630
77
7.5
10.4
2330
155
3400
780
75
5.0
10.6
0730
146
360 0
503
72
6.2
10.9
1530
153
3040
720
74
4.3
9.4
2330
156
2920
660
75
5.7
9.1
0730
152
2760
740
70
5.C
8.1
1530
155
3060
350
69
4.7
8.8
2330
2
154
3640
1700
43
4.S
21.7
0730
149
360 0
5.5
153C
152
352 0
2520
21
5.3
8.9
2330
142
3520
2520
21
6.0
8.5
0730
152
3720
264 n
21
6.5
9.8
1530
155
3160
2120
26
5.5
10.0
2330
152
34*0
2440
22
7.1
9.5
3730
152
3840
2760
20
6.5
9.5
1530
154
364 0
2460
26
4.7
11 .7
2330
153
3160
2160
24
&.1
9.4
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR SYS- RUN
NO. TEW WO. SAMPLE NAME
1 VST VFG-1F SLU'R? TO SPRAY TOWER
slurry from spray tower
0
1
Oi
o
VFG-JG SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
SLURRY FROM SPRAY TOWER
VFG-1X SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
DATE
11/15/74
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/17/75
11/17/76
ximjit.
11/IP/76
11/10/76
11/11/75
11.'11/76
11/11/76
11/J ?/76
11/12/76
11/12/76
11/13/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/15/75
11/16/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/75
11/18/76
11/1R/76
11/18/76
11/19/76
11 '19/76
11/19/76
U/20/T6
11/20/76
11/20/76
11/21/76
11/18/76
11/19/76
11/19/76
11/19/76
11/19/76
11/20/76
11/20/76
11/20/76
11/21/76
11/22/76
BOIL
^ AKE
CAS/
LOAD
S02
S02
S02
02
TIME
Kl&A
IN
CUT
RE*
IN
p ASS
TIPE
FLAG
WATT
PPf!
PPM
S
X
mmol'l
.....
....
- — -
—--
-—
-—-
2330
153
3160
2163
24
8.1
9.4
0730
155
332 0
232C
22
5.7
9.2
1530
1L3
32" C
2240
2?
5.5
9.3
2330
155
3260
22(10
23
6.0
9.3
1730
154
3200
2160
25
5.3
9.9
1530
155
3160
2120
25
5.2
10.0
2330
155
2630
1730
26
5.5
ft. 7
0730
155
2400
1520
30
5.5
g.S
2330
Z
154
364 0
1700
48
4.H
21.7
0735
1 49
3600
5.5
153Q
152
3520
2520
21
5.3
8.9
2330
142
3520
2520
21
6.0
8.9
G730
152
3720
2640
21
6.5
9.8
1530
155
3160
2120
26
5.5
10.0
2330
152
3480
2440
22
7.1
9.5
C730
152
3S4C
2760
20
6.5
9.6
1530
154
36*0
2460
26
4.7
11.7
2330
153
3160
2160
24
8.1
9."
2330
153
3163
2160
24
8.1
S.4
0730
155
3320
2320
22
5.7
6.2
1530
153
3240
2240
23
5.5
9.3
23 3C
155
32R0
2280
23
6.3
9.3
3 733
154
32 0 0
23 60
2?
5.3
9.9
1530
155
3160
2120
26
5.2
10. 0
2330
155
2680
17f»0
26
S.5
8.7
0730
155
2 4 0 C
1520
30
5.5
s.s
1730
Z
152
2080
100
95
7.3
2330
7.
149
2860
320
88
4.2
9.3
ceoo
15 3
3200
500
83
9.3
1530
124
3040
540
80
5.1
9.1
2330
1C1
3240
540
&1
5.5
9.6
0 730
141
3400
620
80
5.3
10.1
1530
146
30 ?0
540
81
5.6
9.2
2530
152
3200
600
79
5.2
9.4
0730
Z
148
3250
520
82
4.8
10.0
1730
z
152
20S3
100
95
7.3
2330
z
149
2860
320
88
4,2
9.3
0SD0
153
3200
500
S3
9.8
1530
124
3040
540
RC
5.1
9.1
2330
1C 1
3240
540
ei
5.5
9.8
07 JO
m
3400
620
B0
5.3
10.1
1530
143
3080
540
81
5.6
9.2
23 30
152
3200
600
79
5.2
9.4
Q 7 SO
t-
l'<8
328 0
520
B2
4.8
1C.0
nco
Y5Q
SOfcO
4b(S
S3
5.7
9.2
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR SYS-
NO. TEH
1 VST
RUN
NO. SAPPLE NAME
VFG-1I SLUP.°,Y TO SPRAY TOWER
DATE
TIKE
SLURRY FROM SPRAY TOWER
u
I
(ji
VFG-1P SLURRY TO SPRAY TOWER
11/22/76
2330
11/23/76
0730
11/23/76
1530
11/2 3/76
2330
11/24/76
0730
11/24/76
1530
ll/2"/76
2330
11/25/76
073C
11/25/76
1530
11/25/76
2330
11/26/76
0730
11/26/76
1530
11/26/76
2330
11/27/76
0730
11/22/76
1700
11/22/76
2330
11/23/76
0730
11/23/76
1530
11/23/76
2330
11/24/76
0730
11/24/76
1530
11/24/76
2330
11/25/76
0750
11/25/76
1533
11/23/76
2330
11/26/76
C83D
11/26/76
1530
11/26/76
2330
11/27/76
0730
11/27/76
1530
11/27/76
2330
11/2 8/76
0730
11/28/76
1530
11/28/76
2330
11/29/76
0730
11/29/76
1530
11/29/76
2330
11/30/76
C730
0730
11/30/76
1530
11/30/76
2330
12/01/76
0730
12/01/75
1530
12/01/76
2370
12/0 2/76
0730
BOIL
GAS/
LOAO
TIME
MEGA
flag
VATT
152
152
152
140
101
144
150
151
142
130
146
144
142
148
150
152
152
152
140
in
144
150
151
142
130
145
144
J42
148
2
90
7
150
z
150
150
1*8
149
1*0
146
146
146
149
150
142
100
146
14<»
SQ2 S02
IN OUT
PPM po^
34!>D 520
3400 SSC
3030 SCO
280* 460
2800 33 0
26C0 423
3240 720
3200 620
2920 580
28 00 580
3120 720
32 3 0 69 0
3320 900
3720 880
3Cn0 460
3400 520
34Qi 580
3080 500
2860 460
28 0 C 350
25.00 420
22*0 720
3200 620
2920 58 0
2830 580
3200 690
3320 900
3720 peo
290 0 '34 C
3160 900
3880 1180
3120 1050
2 RIO 780
2600 760
2960 880
24 0 0 68O
2920 940
2920 940
2820 P00
3000 1003
336t5 1200
3040 860
3440 1140
34 4 C nao
S02 02
REM IN
X %
83 5.5
ei 4.8
82 4.6
62 4.7
85 6.4
82 5.8
75 5.7
78 4.5
78 7.0
77 6.2
74 4.3
7*» 4.0
70 3.4
74 3.8
83 5.7
83 5.5
31 4.fct
82 «.6
82 4.7
35 5.4
82 5. a
75 1.7
73 4.5
75 7.0
77 6.2
76 4.0
70 3.4
74 3 .8
63 '.0
68 3.8
55 4 .3
63 5.8
70 5.2
&P 6.3
67 6.0
69 6.6
64 7.3
64 7.3
69 7.0
63 5.3
6C 5.1
69 7.0
63 6.0
6? 7.5
YAKE
°~R
? ASS
MrCL/L
in. 5
10.2
9.4
8,8
8.8
7.9
9.1
9.3
£.4
8.0
8.6
9.0
8.6
10.2
9.2
10.5
10.2
5.4
8.8
8 . o
7.9
9.1
9.3
8.4
6.0
9.0
3.6
10.2
9.5
10.4
10.3
9.4
O S
8.5
9.6
7.9
9.0
9.0
9.3
9.1
9.8
10.0
10.
10.3
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR SYS- RUN
NO. TEK NO.
SAMPLE NAME
X VST VFG-1P SLUSIT TO SPRAT TOWER
SLURRY FROK SPRAY TOUER
0
1
w
00
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
DATE
TIME
12/02/76
1530
12/C2/7&
2330
12/03/75
0 730
12/0 3/76
15 30
12/03/76
2 330
11/27/76
1530
11/27/76
2330
11/28/76
CS30
11/28/76
1530
11 /2?./76
2 3 30
11/23/76
I 730
11/29/76
1530
11 t^/lb
2330
11/3C/76
0730
"730
11/3C/76
1530
11/3 0/76
2330
12/01/76
073C
12/01/76
1530
12/01/76
2330
12/02/76
0730
12/02/76
1530
12/02/76
2330
12/03/76
07 30
12/03/76
1530
12/03/76
233 0
11/29/7'
C 700
0700
11/30/76
0700
0700
U70C
EOIL
t*AK£
GAS/
LCAO
S32
S02
S02
02
P.
TIKf.
KEG A
IN
O'JT
R-K.
IH
°£SS
FLAG
v:att
PPM
PPM
X
X
«MOL/L
.....
»---
...
—--
------
147
32 C 0
9 00
6"
10.6
1*» 0
3480
1 C 60
66
11.1
14 2
3720
1300
61
11. G
144
352 0
1100
65
11.1
14 7
3P60
1540
56
10.5
2
90
2?0C
2-4 0
6?
4.0
9.5
Z
110
3160
qao
63
3.8
10.4
z
150
150
3120
1050
63
5.3
9.4
148
2640
730
70
5.2
9.5
16-9
260 a
76C
&?¦
6.0
a.5
140
2'?60
630
67
6 ¦ 0
9.6
14 &
24 0 0
&°.o
69
6.6
7.9
146
2920
940
64
7.3
9.0
146
2920
94 0
64
7.3
9.0
149
282 0
SCO
6^
7.0
9.3
150
300 0
100 0
63
5.3
?.l
142
3360
1200
60
5.1
9.8
100
3040
86 9
69
7.0
10.0
146
344 0
1140
63
6.0
10.5
144
3440
11S0
62
7.5
10.3
147
3200
900
6?
10.6
140
3480
1060
66
11.1
142
3720
150 0
61
11.0
144
3520
1100
65
11.1
1*7
3>*80
1540
56
10.£
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
ANALY
'UN TICAL LIG'JID CA+* MG++ N A*
•»C. POINT DATE TIME FLA3 PH PPS PPK PPI
04/28/76
2330
5.CO
848
3099
33
C4/29/76
0733
X
6.28
792
1744
43
04/29/76
1530
6.C8
223
5219
42
P4/29/76
2330
TS
5.98
236
5074
46
04/30/76
0730
5.04
261
5319
42
04/30/76
1530
6.03
764
4579
50
04/30/76
2330
6.07
683
45^9
50
05/31/76
0730
6.64
350
4559
40
05/03/76
2330
5.6 6
57«
4 399
36
05/04/76
0730
6.15
685
4059
44
05/04/76
1530
6.00
678
4409
50
tsn-fib
2330
6.C?
500
4459
42
05/05/76
C730
5.83
413
4109
40
fS/O'i/76
1*5 50
f. .02
H86
313?
3"*
0
1
U1
\0
TOTAL
sul-
LIT
TOTAL
C3ISSOL
fate:
LIS
IONI(
K+
SC3=
S04 =
SC4 =
CL-
soms
SAT
TEKP
IM 3 AI
PPN
PPM
PP*i
=*PM
po M
*
C
7.
SO
339
e.2ii
8618
3545
16155
98
51
7.1
85
180
5986
6202
2127
10947
101
51
-1.4
87
2216
12997
15^56
3368
24152
28
50
5.^
64
1718
16202
1 P. 2 6 4
3920
27240
37
52
-13.3
64
2171
12834
15439
3^00
24621
32
50
5.5
81
1945
12424
14758
3722
23565
9fl
51
1.6
70
8B2
13619
14677
3722
23625
95
52
1.4
70
1334
11784
13385
3385
21530
46
54
*.&
64
361
12721
13154
3013
21168
78
52
8.9
69
678
11G47
11<561
31^0
19772
ft 7
5?
9.4
56
6 35
12952
13712
336S
22146
93
51
4.7
£ 4
S49
114S4
12f.23
336fl
20BQ2
f. 3
52
9.7
P 7
949
1U069
ll^O*
3C13
1« ^ ^ 0
49
5?
12.2
85
361
9469
9902
17554
11*
50
0.1
-------
LIOUTD ANALYSES
RUN
\C.
629-ia
AMALV
tical
1P16
0
1
*>•
o
63D-1A
1818
1821
1816
1818
1821
LIQUID
CA* +
KG**
DATE
TISE
FLAG
PH
PPM
PPM
05/05/76
?330
5.91
752
2979
05/06/76
0730
5.99
750
2809
n5/06/76
1530
5.99
884
2929
05/06/76
2330
6.0 0
641
32 99
05/07/76
0730
6.03
496
3139
n5/:7/7S
1530
TS
6.32
720
3069
05/C;'/7&
C 73 0
6.0*
394
3309
n5/08/76
153 0
TS
6.06
474
3199
05/08/76
233 0
5.99
772
3529
05/09/76
0730
5.7'
924
309?
r5/Q9/76
1530
6.14
916
3 819
--5/09/76
233 0
6.07
508
38C9
05/10/75
0 73 0
5.93
476
3499
0V1P/75
1530
5.64
P54
3359
*5/10/76
2330
6.10
882
3239
r5/ll/76
0730
5.87
640
3589
05/11/76
1530
NG
6.00
561
2899
05'll/76
2333
6.12
640
34 59
05/12/76
073-3
y
5.90
401
4239
05/07/76
073?
6.79
os/io/76
073 0
6.21
C4/3C/76
1530
"5/07/76
153 0
r5/lC/76
1330
05/12/76
1530
X
7.C6
69
3699
"5/12/76
233"
X
6.94
73
4009
05/13/76
0730
6.92
525
3659
rS/13/76
1530
7.12
600
3659
n5/13/76
233 0
6.75
323
"319
"5/14/76
07 3D
7.02
346
4139
05/14/76
1530
NA
7.03
258
4039
05/14/76
2330
6.91
229
41*9
"5/15/76
073 0
6.17
262
4079
05/15/76
1530
7.04
152
4049
05/15/76
2330
7.07
208
4949
C5/K/76
0730
6.95
316
3839
75/16/76
1530
7.03
226
39 79
05/16/76
2330
6.99
207
3829
05/17/76
C73 0
7.03
167
4069
"5/17/76
1530
7.04
106
3419
05/17/76
2330
7.08
200
3179
C5/13/76
0730
7.04
159
35G9
05/14/76
C3"
7.75
05/17/76
073?
7.36
05/14/76
1530
TOTAL
SUL-
LI3
TOTAL
9ISS0L
FATE
LTO
IC\'IC
NA*
Kf
SCJ =
SOftr
304 —
CL-
SOLIDS
SAT
TEV=
PP«
PP*
PP1
?o:j|
PpM
?P",
%
£
V
43
71
90
8815
3923
3368
16118
96
5 3
1.9
40
88
678
8000
8814
7 340
15733
92
50
-2.2
50
106
452
7723
8270
3 36 8
15 517
1 00
50
7. 9
46
86
588
8544
Q 2 5 3
3 368
165"?2
7 6
51
6.5
58
89
723
8134
9 C 2 2
3545
162 C4
59
5 r.
n
» -
43
82
723
4156
5024
3013
118 06
47
52
35.2
46
86
1017
82 69
9 48 5
3-45
16 S 6 6
*6
50
-C.K
40
97
P 82
10757
11815
3190
1&63<>
71
52
-1~.4
42
101
723
9361
1C229
4 25*
18 782
92
5 ?
0.1
41
99
859
864 4
9675
4 6 0 9
13275
111
50
-8.5
46
103
633
8502
92 6 2
4 163
18952
9*
5 0
8.7
43
1 C 4
81*
8599
9576
4 ?6 3
18840
55
5 0
1.1
4=5
97
791
8C09
8556
4 7? 6
177^3
52
^ n
-1.7
46
86
859
7993
9 C 2 4
4S3a
178 0 6
91
52
l.C
55
O T
>
542
8916
9 ~:-6 6
4756
18513
106
50
• ' f-
52
96
768
7674
8596
51*0
17959
6 5
2.4
52
94
768
7883
3d 05
47^6
17043
68
52
-17.4
35
81
588
6803
7509
5140
167*6
6 0
50
5.9
9&
122
1334
7975
9576
5140
193 0 9
38
51
8.5
123
103
1899
8755
11034
4609
19257
8
52
-13.9
37
86
1899
79 S3
10262
54?5
19582
8
50
-9.3
106
104
361
8925
9358
5761
19441
61
51
-6.8
62
91
183
10220
10435
5 9 38
2C750
77
52
-1* .5
101
100
407
8100
8588
585?
1 9200
31
50
9.1
86
211
723
8338
92 0 6
5672
19515
35
51
4.2
87
520
7429
8053
5672
18005
24
53
5.7
58
P,9
678
7817
86 31
6027
19077
22
tt; a
•«» L
2.9
91
118
497
7S92
8488
5495
184 34
26
51
6.7
50
88
859
6695
7726
5318
17211
13
51
9."
63
87
316
7274
765 5
6381
19278
17
50
19.7
51
93
316
7782
83 61
5850
18247
32
51
0.*
47
92
689
6354
7181
5b72
1 7059
19
53
9.8
57
88
452
7068
761 C
5850
17551
2Q
50
2.0
36
119
768
7130
8 *)52
5140
174 79
15
51
10.6
36
73
995
7039
8263
4609
16327
11
52
-4.3
44
76
1492
5910
77 CD
4Q63
15864
19
5C
-9.0
40
89
768
7557
8479
6027
181*9
17
52
-15. 3
-------
liquid analyses
\c.
ANALY
TIC4L
LIQUID
CA+*
DATE
TI*E
FLAG
PH
PPM
PP*
05/17/76
1530
05/18/76
1530
7.C2
800
3539
?5/l»./7S
233?
6.95
762
4159
CS/19/76
C73C
7.04
552
4139
"5/19/76
153 C
7.03
675
4269
•>5/19/76
2330
7.CO
1182
4259
C5/2C/76
0730
6.94
622
4049
C5/2P/76
1600
6.9?
535
3569
"5/20/76
2330
6.98
1C9
4649
05/21/76
0730
6.95
106
44^9
05/21/75
1530
6.79
317
4 749
05/21/76
2330
7.04
290
5279
"5/22/76
0730
6.95
908
4559
05/22/76
1530
7.CO
756
4909
?5'22/76
2330
7.12
674
4649
^5/25/76
0730
6.96
900
5309
05/23/76
153'
6.99
147
4919
05/23/76
2330
6.94
321
5369
"5/24/76
0730
6.99
674
4739
65/21/76
1530
05/24/76
0735
05/23/76
2330
6.73
424
4009
05'29/7S
0730
6.99
170
5459
*5/29/76
1530
6.86
193
5179
05/29/76
2339
7.02
153
4509
05/30/76
0730
7.06
142
4319
05/30/76
1530
7.04
182
4«09
05/30/76
23*0
7.14
210
4219
<55/31/76
073!*
7.04
216
4649
05/31/76
1530
7.00
247
4599
05/31/76
2330
7.00
4 33
4539
C6/Q1/76
0730
7.36
461
4489
06/01/76
1530
6.95
214
4039
56/01/76
2330
7.03
145
4219
06/02/76
0733
7.00
212
*759
06/02/76
1530
7.04
215
45D9
f6/02/76
2330
6.91
209
4389
06/03/76
0730
6.90
141
4579
06/03/76
2300
6.45
153
4709
05/28/76
2330
"5/29/76
2330
7.3?
05/30/76
2330
7.23
55/29/76
0730
05/30/7*
0730
•*5/31/76
0730
fJP-lA
631-ia
1*21
1616
0
1
1821
632-1A 1916
1818
1821
TOTAL S'JL- Lin
TOTAL 0I3S0L FJTC LI? IO'-.'ir:
NA* «~ S03= S04 = $04 = CL- SCLI?S SAT TEMP IMPAL
PPM PP» PPM PP« PPM PPM PPM ~ C X
35
75
203
8037
"231
5672
133^1
84
50
C.6
37
87
135
8545
{'717
7090
£0615
75
51
G.7
40
87
271
3373
e. ^ 9 T
£736
2 019?
c c
5 0
0.3
50
86
407
8380
8 H f S
655?
204 ?6
f.c
50
5.0
48
85
113
£464
8600
72SfS
2 la 19
lie
51
7.2
57
7?
294
7fi 72
74 25
6 3*1
54
50
9.2
45
ec
429
S806
6321
6027
16491
43
50
7. 0
49
81
180
9446
9662
6 736
21250
12
52
0.2
44
89
1221
7M6
8 911
5743
19 0 9$
9
C f>
7.5
42
84
814
7975
s.95 2
7?66
21249
28
50
4.7
45
94
589
ecoo
87C7
73? C
22097
24
51
11.4
45
79
316
8319
8693
7600
21826
81
50
6.3
42
81
452
768 9
8231
F363
22799
61
50
5.4
48
86
271
8276
86?i
"5:-9
22713
77
51
2.6
57
£0
180
9118
9334
8?6 3
2450 7
79
50
8-6
45
85
1133
6628
7964
3331
2128"5
11
50
3.6
50
ei
1221
8341
104 C 6
9041
25544
27
51
6.6
80
64
452
9323
9S65
921R
24550
66
50
-e.s
58
77
407
6301
6789
7445
18731
34
50
1.2
56
84
949
6080
7219
85? 9
213C7
11
51
15.6
57
84
859
7569
96C0
65C9
224 50
15
51
4.9.
59
90
1311
7178
8751
7445
217*0
13
r n
-2."
54
96
1221
554 3
7?C8
726«
19143
a
54
1«,I
50
89
814
7336
3813
7C9C
2 C 970
16
50
8.1
53
88
814
7190
8167
7090
19664
19
50
-2.?
51
84
314
6986
7963
7 C 3 0
19890
17
50
8» C
53
92
#59
7S8B
*919
7C90
22
"1
2.4
55
104
497
7677
3273
63?1
19686
38
50
12.0
51
98
407
7752
8243
7268
2C526
41
50
5.2
55
fi2
31b
SGC9
8313
6559
1°294
22
51
-3.0
57
75
316
7682
9061
63S1
138 79
14
50
3.1
52
81
791
7215
8154
7 C 90
20190
17
50
9.0
53
7fi
904
7196
8281
6559
19514
IS
51
7.4
55
84
678
7043
7857
6736
19194
18
50
6.0
50
K9
746
7209
81 C 4
6"?13
19727
12
50
6.3
42
108
1402
8193
9875
6736
21343
14
51
1.0
-------
liquid analyses
RUN
NC.
ANALy
TICAL
633-1A 1816
0
1
•*-
PO
634-1A
1818
1821
1816
LIQU10
CA**
HG**
DATE
TIME
FLAG
PH
PPM
PPM
----
- - - -
-----
06/05/76
1530
X
6.99
203
3459
T6/05/76
2330
7.13
117
4489
06/06/76
0730
7.04
110
4369
06/06/76
1530
7.02
88
3789
06/06/76
2333
7.02
83
3809
06/07/76
0730
7.06
131
4289
"6/07/76
1530
7.12
118
46*9
06/07/76
2330
7.14
125
4519
06/08/76
0730
7.08
115
4039
06/33/76
1530
7.2C
224
3799
06/06/76
2330
7.03
135
3929
06/09/76
0730
7.03
135
4359
nfi/09/76
1530
6.95
161
3809
*6/09/76
2330
7.02
181
3329
C6/1C/76
C730
6.87
210
3579
06/10/76
1530
6.87
163
3899
06/10/76
2330
7.28
543
3819
06/11/76
0730
7.14
569
3919
56/11/76
1530
6.86
206
4279
Sfc/11/76
2330
WG
7.70
159
3329
06/12/76
0730
6.98
109
4219
06/12/76
1530
6.E7
104
4259
06/12/76
2330
7.00
169
3969
06/13/76
0 73 0
n&
7.12
146
3499
^6/13/7«>
1530
SG
6.<31
1C2
4329
06/13/76
2330
KG
7.07
82
4379
06/11/76
0530
6.96
117
3869
06/07/76
0730
7.62
C6/07/T6
1530
06/11/76
1530
06/20/76
0730
a.12
1638
28
C6/20/76
1530
8.14
8.14
1356
152
06/20/76
2330
7.91
7.91
1420
133
06/21/75
0730
8.04
1536
103
06/21/76
1530
7.99
1663
153
f%mm
2330
8.04
1736
139
C6/22/76
0730
8. 03
1823
155
06/22/76
1530
CA
8.03
8.03
1632
171
06/22/76
P.SS0
8.10
8.10
2108
167
06/23/76
0735
8.D6
2404
197
06/37/76
1530
8.0 8
1K12
163
TOT&L
SUL-
Lia
TOTAL
0ISS0L
FATE
LIT
IOMIC
\A*
K*
S03 =
S0« =
S04 =
CL-
S3L10S
SAT
TEKP
I'-IBAL
PPM
PPH
PPM
PPV
PPM
ppM
PP",
X
C
---
———— —
———— —
-—— —
— — ¦—
38
89
678
7353
8167
5318
17138
22
5^
-7 . "
38
101
1311
7240
8813
5 85 0
19146
10
52
8.1
37
97
1492
755 3
9343
5 318
18976
10
50
6.6
3b
104
1945
8073
10407
5318
19355
10
50
-14.4
36
101
1945
6055
6 3 8 9
4 96 3
16992
7
50
2.1
39
96
1713
8502
10564
4963
19740
13
50
1.0
38
118
2103
8891
11415
4 786
20703
12
5 0
5.2
43
100
1017
7859
9 07 9
5 31R
18931
12
50
11.4
50
81
1130
756 3
3319
4609
17587
11
50
7.3
37
93
927
9496
10608
4 «31
1900,7
27
50
-5.5
35
54
768
7881
88 0 2
SMC
17982
14
50
1.7
38
90
9C4
9001
10 C 3 6
5 05 2
19579
14
50
4.6
41
98
995
8672
9i:e>6
4963
187 39
13
50
-6.0
40
101
763
7457
8379
4786
171,62
13
50
5.8
38
94
633
8477
9237
4520
17551
24
51
-3.5
41
90
97?
6487
96b 3
4 7P.6
18438
18
r 2
-0.9
48
94
271
8161
8466
5 050
18786
56
5 0
1.2
39
90
429
8616
9131
5^"6
190 68
6H
51
3.4
41
93
723
9013
-------
LISUID ANALYSES
SUN
SC.
ANALY
T2CAL
POINT
LlflUID
CA~~
KG-**
OAT E
TIME
FLAG
PH
PP?1
PPM
06/23/76
8.OR
06/23/76
2330
8. CO
228"
205
8.CO
06/24/76
0730
7.66
2464
256
7.66
"6/24/76
1530
CA
7.96
3230
358
7.96
06/24/T6
2330
ft.36
2320
247
8.06
06/25/76
0730
7.91
a c r.
2216
273
r6/2c/76
1530
•5 • . 'J
8.32
1800
262
C6/25/76
2330
8.36
1760
263
06/26/76
0730
7.95
1992
391
T6/26/76
1530
7.95
2024
373
!?6/26/76
2330
7.93
2176
395
36/27/76
C730
7.9»
2530
5B7
"6/27/76
153C
7.89
2210
384
06/27/76
2330
8.04
2450
396
06/28/76
0730
7.96
2380
480
T6/2ii/76
1530
8.02
2460
585
06/2c/76
2330
8.38
2140
451
06/29/7$
0730
8.11
2040
458
06/29/76
1530
8.C8
2060
419
06/29/76
2330
7.82
1695
451
0 6/3C/76
C730
8.16
1630
425
06/3S/76
1530
8.0G
2030
470
£>6/30/76
2330
7.86
1510
518
07/01/76
0730
8.03
1530
*51
8.03
57/01/76
1530
7.85
1690
439
07/01/76
2330
8.10
1735
488
C7/02/76
0730
8*07
1565
4 34
S02
8.07
1565
434
07/02/76
1530
8.07
2070
463
25/76/36
8.56
06/22/76
2330
06/25/76
0730
8.56
C6/2S/76
0730
8.53
C7/02/76
0730
8.2C
04/23/75
C7DC
7.22
2790
303
06/23/76
0730
T6/2S/76
153?
07/02/76
153C
07/lf/76
?33C
8.19
?35C
680
634-1A
iai6
0
1
i*
1818
182C
1821
635-lA 1«16
TOTAL S'JL- LIS
TOTAL 0ISS3L FtTE LI9 IONIC
M* K* S03= S04 = S04 = CL- SOLID"? SAT TEMP I»8AL
PPM PPS PPM PPM PP1 PPM P°M X C X
17
41
36
1428
1471
3722
7729
110
5C
-2.4
16
10
45
1964
2018
3 SI 1
8566
146
54
-3.1
16
10
67
1759
1H3?
3722
9162
13S
51
25.2
11
10
27
1818
1850
3722
8155
134
50
-a.9
14
11
22
1246
1272
3722
7504
92
54
1.3
15
10
"0
532
640
3"?0
66 0 ?
39
53
-9.8
16
48
45
261
315
5 36.?
57&1
19
5?
8.8
15
12
67
1358
1438
3£.34
7469
91
54
0.1
17
12
23
2220
2248
319?
7859
145
50
-3.0
18
13
36
1954
1997
3722
3314
131
5?
-3.1
16
12
67
1853
19 33
3 722
87F7
120
53
17.3
17
11
45
2174
2223
3456
*297
*45
53
-0.7
14
13
45
1817
1R71
3«tC3
81TS
127
53
13.4
14
14
31
1833
1370
3545
3297
122
55
12.7
18
12
45
2994
3C4fc
3 722
9P36
lf*4
53
2.1
13
13
94
2232
2395
3545
8538
145
50
-3.5
15
14
180
2765
2931
33f>3
8840
I *>9
50
-11.8
14
13
180
2235
2531
3545
8516
1«6
53
-10.3
17
13
13
17C6
1722
3190
7CS5
102
54
-2.5
19
13
90
1571
16 79
313C
28
95
50
-6.4
22
14
135
1513
1975
3013
74<=7
114
52
ID.7
20
13
54
1132
1197
3 ?79
6526
64
54
1.5
21
13
226
338
609
4 077
6656
21
50
-11.3
22
12
90
8 37
945
4 34 3
7433
53
52
-16.8
21
13
54
460
545
4165
6956
30
53
-0.7
20
12
113
283
419
4165
6592
18
50
-9.8
2C
12
226
128
399
4165
655 0
8
50
-9.4
23
10
99
1025
1144
3722
741?
68
50
9.7
46
61
117
48
1524
1582
5105
9948
116
40
-4.2
20
19
135
1671
1833
4786
9661
102
52
0.8
-------
LIOUIO ANALYSES
flMALY
*\)K TICAL
NO. PC INT DATE
635-1A 1816 07/17/76
07/17/76
-7/17/76
"7/18/76
"7/20/76
C7/20/76
07/20/76
07/21/76
07/21/76
f:7/21/76
07/22/76
07/22/76
(*7/22/76
07/23/76
07/2-/76
''•7/25/76
O C7/24/76
L C7/21/76
rfi. 07/24/76
r7/25/76
07/25/76
07/25/76
0 7/26/76
1321 07/17/76
07/20/76
'•7/21/76
"7/22/76
07/23/76
07/24/76
07/2*/76
636-1A 1816 17/26/76
^7/26/76
07 '29/76
07/29/76
07/29/76
07/30/76
97/50/76
C7/30/76
C7/31/76
C7/31/76
"7/31/76
Oe/Ol/76
03/01/76
LIQUID CA** KG**
FLAG PH PPM PPM
8.15
2330
7S3
8. OS
2370
712
8.07
2520
731
8.16
2 00 C
641
8.65
2130
515
8.11
2120
642
8.12
2470
563
3.20
1955
6C2
8.07
2 04 D
591
3.17
2 C 70
539
8.04
1985
667
7.95
189D
601
8.08
2020
643
8.08
2460
663
6.32
2330
699
8.11
2899
615
8.16
2365
643
7.83
2210
579
8.04
2500
573
8.02
2679
6*5
7.98
2510
634
8.00
2640
641
8. 00
2640
1153
7.95
2040
657
8.07
2596
629
8.24
2415
651
8.0 8
2410
637
8.10
2619
677
8.10
242C
647
7.89
2569
620
8.03
2690
597
7.93
238 0
667
7.99
2360
647
8.13
2530
645
8.10
2530
645
7.39
2260
683
7.87
2240
667
7.79
2100
655
TIME
1730
1530
2330
0730
0730
1530
2J30
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
153 3
2330
C730
1530
2330
0730
153C
1530
1530
1530
1530
1530
1533
1530
2330
5730
l"3t>
2330
0730
1530
2330
073C
1530
2330
0730
1530
total
SUL-
LIS
TOTAL
D1SSCL
FATE
LIS
IONIC
NA*
K +
S03 =
S04 =
S04 =
CL-
SOLIDS
SAT
TEMP
IMSAL
PPM
PPM
PPH
PP*1
PPM
PPM
PPH
*
r-
X
24
1R
67
1746
1S26
4963
9901
102
5n
1.0
23
18
67
2003
2083
5052
10245
119
50
-4.2
24
17
45
2369
2423
4609
10 315
142
32
3.7
20
19
90
2202
2310
4254
9026
125
50
-9.2
25
23
36
673
716
4165
7567
4
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
RUN
HC.
6'6-lA
ASIALY
TICAL
1821
637-1A 1816
63«-l*
1821
1B16
LIQUID
CA**
DATE
TIKE
FLAG
PH
PP*
PPM
Cft/01/76
2330
7.95
2150
689
7.95
2153
689
08/32/76
0?30
8.03
1880
646
"8/02/7S
1530
8.36
1635
605
CA
8.C'6
2480
605
08/02/76
2330
7.93
1635
667
38/33/76
0730
7.99
1640
660
08/03/76
1530
8.07
1528
643
04/93/76
2*30
7.93
1493
638
08/04/76
0733
8.08
1525
665
05/04/76
1130
8.03
1613
653
07/26/76
153C
07/29/76
1939
¦>7/33/76
1533
07/31/76
1530
5P/01/76
1530
08/02/76
1530
08/03/76
1530
*» 15/34/76
1133
CP/06/76
1930
8.04
1545
635
C/Cf/76
2330
6.57
1300
539
08/37/76
0730
7.99
1203
564
08/07/76
1530
8.07
1385
669
"8/97/76
2333
8.04
1690
625
08/08/76
C730
8.79
1510
574
P8/38/76
1530
7.85
1890
613
08/08/76
2*30
7.79
1800
583
08/09/76
0730
7.94
1610
588
*>8/09/76
1530
8.02
1560
5S1
08/35/76
2330
7.61
1505
580
0«/l0/76
0730
CL
7.94
1395
693
CL
7.94
1425
597
ea/io/76
1530
7.96
1975
6*1
08/10/76
2330
7.81
1870
638
08/11/76
0730
7.96
1375
563
08/11/76
1530
8.03
1640
623
53/11/76
2330
7.95
1483
584
03/12/76
0730
8.00
1580
700
08/36/76
1930
08/07/76
1530
fR/08/76
1530
08/09/76
1530
08/10/76
1530
18/11/76
1533
0fl/16/7ft
f.30
7.87
1400
491
TOTAL
sul-
LIQ
TOTAL
PISSOL
fate:
LIS
IONIC
NA*
K*
S03=
S04s
SC4 =
CL-
SOLIOS
SAT
temp
IM2AL
PP1
PPK
PPM
PPM
PPVi
PCf*
po>(
X
r
V
18
21
67
1541
1621
4165
8<>5l
90
53
a.*
18
21
67
1627
17C7
4165
P.7 37
e«
53
7.4
21
20
226
C 97
9€S
4 254
7744
41
50
5.6
23
23
65
744
322
4 C77
7172
6 2
5?
0.6
23
23
45
1484
1538
4 C 77
8737
96
5?
16.0
22
23
22
8 38
864
3°?0
71C 7
46
50
7.3
20
22
67
889
969
4.-77
7375
48
52
1.7
21
21
113
622
758
39CC
6 P. 4 8
34
r r*
3.7
20
14
40
4 99
547
3nP8
6689
27
5C
3.3
24
16
45
936
990
3900
714 1
49
52
1.8
24
23
135
11C1
1263
3545
7091
59
5C
6.9
15
20
45
1535
1559
3279
7044
79
53
4 . •>
15
20
45
1125
1179
2Q25
5969
59
5C
3.0
22
24
90
1241
1349
2747
5 08 3
61
52
2.1
9
13
67
1G90
1770
3456
729°
*1
55
-7.6
14
18
67
1590
1770
3? 68
7472
?2
55
3.6
13
19
90
1262
1370
3279
6747
68
53
2.1
14
17
93
1725
183 3
3368
7717
99
55
8.7
15
17
67
1552
1632
3368
74C2
89
55
7.1
19
16
316
1412
1791
3013
6974
78
52
5.^
17
17
22
1491
1517
3545
7?33
81
54
-3.7
21
16
45
1156
121 0
3456
6779
' 3
55
1.2
13
16
90
1239
1547
2659
6C15
64
50
14.3
12
17
65
1164
1242
2676
5S56
61
50
16.4
12
17
113
1740
1276
3722
81^0
102
55
3.8
22
15
158
15*10
1770
3634
7917
90
51
5.3
15
16
93
1671
1779
3P51
.'8 SI
98
50
0.7
12
17
22
15/6
1632
3545
74 35
8C
54
0.5
18
19
158
1180
1373
3368
5S07
63
52
-0.3
12
17
90
1387
1495
3545
7331
71
50
4.6
18
14
135
1386
1548
3 C1 3
6457
76
51
-5.?
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
*»0.
A'»'ALr
TICAL
POINT
LIQUID
C A»*
KG»+
DATE
time
FLAS
PH
P°N
PPM
08/16/76
2330
7.77
1595
550
'8/17/76
0730
7.91
1790
553
Op/17/76
1530
7.69
2230
564
03/17/76
23? 0
7.87
2 370
310
08/18/76
0730
7.78
2 0 C 0
579
TS
7.78
2000
579
08/13/76
1530
8.04
2140
546
',6/16/7f.
2330
8.07
2380
571
*!G
8.C
2380
705
08/19/76
0530
7.37
2230
583
"8/19/76
1600
8.16
2 0 4 C
597
08/19/76
2330
8.11
2270
637
CB/20/76
C730
7.*5
2015
751
08/20/76
1530
8.00
1715
643
f?/20/76
2330
7.58
3 610
673
08/21/76
C730
8.35
2065
651
^8/21/76
1530
7.83
1780
629
"8/21/76
233.0
CA
8.00
2 4 8 0
662
OS/22/76
0730
7.87,
2295
609
03/22/76
1530
CA
8.16
1472
689
*8/22/76
2330
CA
8.12
2220
624
C8/27/76
0730
8.20
2090
604
C8/23/76
1530
7.96
2095
668
p8/23/7C
2330
7.96
2090
696
*8/24/76
0530
7.95
3970
602
08/16/76
1930
08/17/76
1530
"8/18/76
1530
"8/19/76
1600
08/20/76
1530
08/21/76
1530
"8/22/76
1530
08/?3/76
153?
C8/24/76
1533
X
7.0 *
1C20
1599
08/24/76
2330
7.19
37
3109
C8/25/76
0730
6.99
67
2759
08/25/76
1530
6.92
63
3459
6.98
60
4139
*8/26/76
0730
6.95
74
3709
OB/26/76
153S
6.?*
120
3439
fijfi-l A 1816
iN
o
1821
S39-1A 1816
TOTAL
SUL-
LIS
TOTAL
0ISS0L
FATE
L10
IONIC
MA*
«~
S03=
S04 =
S04 =
CL-
SOL 10 5
SaT
TrM=>
I - 8 A L
PPM
PPK
PPM
PPM
pOM
PPM
pDM
r.
C
21
21
226
1746
2-17
3279
7" 38
g e
52
-6.5
13
17
113
209*
2230
2925
7505
119
5?
5.1
16
18
90
2034
2142
3 90 0
8052
12f
54
2.7
12
13
63
2215
22jl
3=. <»5
S 8 0 B
13"
50
11
17
14
226
1746
2317
390 0
84 32
105
52
-2.3
17
14
226
2704
2975
3900
<;a& C
155
52
-15.8
19
15
180
2 M1
2 22 7
3 634
85^5
124
54
2.7
14
16
81
196 3
2 0 6 0
3o45
8570
124
50
14.3
14
16
76
19 69
2060
3545
8705
118
c r
19.6
12
17
203
1964
2238
4Q77
9 C 91
121
52
-0. ?
16
14
180
1 J14
193 0
3900
3 a 61
102
54
1.2
10
16
153
1783
1973
4 :?7
8951
109
e r
v .
6.3
17
16
67
2D86
2166
3722
8674
113
5 2
8.2
16
14
67
2 0 65
21*5
3 545
8065
110
52
-3.7
6
16
36
2216
2259
3*56
8011
11?
5 ^
-6.0
9
17
22
214G
21 6t>
3 "11
S 715
12T
54
3.1
15
15
67
2065
2145
3T68
7939
113
54
1.4
9
12
45
2237
2291
3722
9167
137
50
14.7
9
17
90
2141
2249
39" 0
9061
131
5 4
5.5
12
15
271
1777
2102
3?11
3047
87
52
-15.4
10
81
135
2076
2238
3 36 S
8514
125
54
14.0
8
78
158
1889
2?79
3634
8" 61
113
5 4
6.7
13
81
113
2391
3722
90*0
13C
54
2.7
9
12
54
2205
2270
3545
8C11
124
50
9.2
9
12
180
2C43
2259
3456
8272
13S
54
2.7
9
14
45
30C4
3058
3634
93">5
72
51
9.3
7
15
1886
*703
6966
31C2
12859
3
52
10.C
8
15
1266
4591
6110
3545
12251
6
54
1.7
9
13
2080
6<»77
9473
3456
16C62
-r
54
-2.1
9
14
3121
7299
11044
3279
17921
6
52
6-3
8
13
1334
8253
9854
3279
16670
p.
54
3.8
6
15
836
3431
9434
2 036
15GS3
15
51
4.5
-------
LI9UI0 ANALYSES
*UK
\0.
AXALY
TICAL
LIQUID
CA*.
PG**
DATE
TIKE
FLAG
PH
PPM
ppr;
P«/?fi/76
2330
6.94
232
3599
08/27/76
0730
6.91
638
3309
08/27/76
1530
7.03
613
3399
08/27/76
2330
6.9*
754
3299
',.94
CS/2S/76
0730
6.94
732
3269
08/28/76
1530
7 .04
639
3 309
08/23/76
233"
7.12
774
3369
08/29/76
0730
6.95
836
3589
98/29/76
1530
6.96
998
2 "69
OP/29/76
2330
6.91
98 2
3279
TR/30/76
0730
5.91
929
3129
"3/13/76
1530
7.00
1003
I f! 19
04/33/76
23 30
7.11
850
3269
?8/31/7 6
153C
6.96
876
3019
78/31/76
2330
7.DO
736
3049
C9/01/76
053?
7.20
1233
3209
C8/24/76
1530
08/25/76
1530
*8/26/76
1530
?8/27/76
98/28/76
1530
C8/2®/76
1530
38/S3/76
1530
"8/51/76
1530
C9/P2/76
1330
7.14
846
3189
59/02/76
2330
7.00
782
3639
09/93/76
0730
6.87
832
3189
09/03/76
1530
7.00
740
3109
*9/03/7*
2330
6.96
486
3009
99/34/76
C73C
6.93
986
28C9
99/94/76
1530
6.95
832
3299
C9/04/76
2330
CL
6.96
888
3069
C9/C5/76
0730
6.87
575
2 969
H9/05/76
1530
6.95
508
3379
09/05/76
2330
7.C2
722
31*9
99/P6/76
0730
CA
6.92
922
3229
29/0^/76
1530
6.37
730
2939
•*9/06/76
2332
7.1b
746
30 79
na/07/7'.
073e
7.03
486
2929
6^9-JA
1*16
a
*
•4
1821
640-1*
TOTAL
SUL-
LIS
total
DISSOL
FJTF
LIS
IO»JIC
\A»
K*
S03=
S04=
S04 =
CL-
SOLI OS
SAT
TEMP
I^BmL
PP1
PP*:
PPM
PPM
PPM
DD H
S
C
*
6
16
226
8734
9005
319 0
16003
28
54
>-*
o
•
¦-3
7
16
316
10 3 70
10419
31C2
17458
86
52
-0.1
10
16
81
10214
10311
3013
17343
82
P *
J V
3.6
8
17
407
9791
13279
2°25
17201
n8
5?
4.3
52
8
17
384
9592
1 CO 53
2^36
16*58
94
52
6.0
9
12
452
=?89T
1C433
23C4
16632
65
52
9
13
339
9638
10045
1 1155
17C&7
9*
54
7.9
7
16
588
9fc75
10181
2747
17 258
99
u i
14.3
8
17
203
77».6
8230
3722
15823
116
50
4.1
10
16
158
8411
8601
3=300
16756
11C
53
9.6
9
17
248
8068
8366
3 90 0
16299
104
52
6.7
12
18
140
3073
82 41
3900
16162
114
50
5.9
10
17
271
7615
73 <*0
4*31
16463
ft"
52
7.0
9
16
212
7656
7910
3722
15510
97
5 0
7.9
10
17
93
7639
7747
3722
15263
82
54
7.7
11
17
135
8413
3580
4165
17168
136
5?
9.3
12
16
90
8536
8644
4C77
167 £6
99
50
3.5
23
24
135
8759
&921
4520
17882
87
54
7.9
11
14
45
3206
8260
3634
15931
95
51
9.9
9
17
226
8586
8357
3900
16597
90
53
-0.3
9
15
135
74 36
7598
3634
14724
55
55
4.4
10
16
185
7446
7662
3634
15031
110
54
6.8
13
16
203
C-.1E7
£4 01
19*0
16417
92
50
9."
10
16
180
7937
8153
3C13
15113
100
55
14.4
11
16
122
7217
7363
3368
1*278
64
54
9.3
10
16
407
7878
8366
3279
15477
56
54
12.3
9
15
135
8269
8431
3722
16061
84
54
6.2
10
15
90
8344
8452
3?79
104
54
14.1
11
15
135
R375
8537
3279
154F4
90
5*
3.2
10
16
135
62C4
8 366
3 568
155c8
8.°
54
7.6
1*
15
171
9049
<*254
3 013
15677
6 6
50
-4.3
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
TOTAL
SUL-
LI'S
anal y
TOTAL
DIS50L
FATE
Llti
IONIC
»UN
TICAL
LIQUIC
CA-»*
*G-»*
NA+
tu
S03=
SCc/"8/76
1530
641-1A
1816
09/03/76
16-00
X
6.61
940
3239
12
12
180
7766
7932
4 52C
16677
100
52
6.7
0^/09/76
23? 0
X
7.02
942
3289
11
12
248
7001
7299
4520
16C23
90
52
12.2
09/10/76
0 730
X
6.95
1060
3979
12
17
45
6087
6141
6C 27
17227
73
c r
21.?
09/10/76
1530
7.06
84 0
3519
11
12
407
6555
7043
67^1
17725
73
54
1.7
0 9/10/76
2330
7.04
382
3969
12
12
316
7987
8366
K «a 5
1K17 7
3 P
5^
5.0
09/11/76
0730
7.04
216
3537
7
11
642
6714
74 P 4
4796
15915
21
50
3.9
c?/ii/76
1533
7.00
110
3319
8
11
1266
6250
7 769
4520
154S4
11
54
-3.6
09/11/76
2370
6.75
70
3789
10
12
1560
64Q9
8281
4520
16370
6
52
5.1
^9/12/76
D730
7.11
76
4069
10
IS
1899
6250
8529
496 3
17283
c,
5"
6.4
09/12/76
1530
6.37
79
3579
10
14
1764
6»42
3559
4 875
16763
7
54
-5.5
09/12/76
2330
7.15
71
3829
9
15
1560
69.21
879 3
4A?7
171 02
54
1.2
"9/l*/76
0730
7.07
76
4020
9
16
1831
78 54
10031
7 99 4
17 7 8 0
8
4.1
P9/13/76
1530
£.99
73
3730
8
15
1922
697S
9284
4381
17607
7
-6.7
09/17/76
233C
6.99
68
371C
8
17
1673
7 C 2 0
9*23
4615
17111
7
-2.8
09/14/76
0730
6.92
61
37*0
7
16
1786
6258
8401
443S
16306
5
3.6
09/14/76
1530
6.98
104
3320
8
15
1221
7136
36 01
4C 33
15887
11
-5.4
1821
09/29/76
1600
X
09/10/76
1530
"9/11/76
1530
r-9/12/76
1530
09/13//6
1530
09/14/76
1530
£~2-14
1916
C9/15/7S
1600
6.80
165
3640
7
16
859
7933
3964
4526
17146
18
-1.9
09/15/76
2330
7.13
593
3690
1C
15
226
6914
7185
6 £ 35
17483
5^
4.2
09/16/76
0730
6.55
640
3610
12
18
384
7151
7612
5 a14
17229
61
5.7
09/15/76
1530
6 .*)&
191
3830
12
18
361
7998
8431
5t80
18090
20
-3.1
09/16/76
2330
6.98
325
3490
10
13
443
6931
7463
5503
1671 5
32
-2.1
09/17/76
0730
7.03
630
3719
11
14
294
3112
8465
5424
18204
65
50
2.7
09/17/76
1530
6.98
279
4229
11
15
520
8020
864 4
5761
18875
27
54
5.6
09/17/76
2330
7.05
192
35 39
6
16
429
6969
7*8*
5140
16291
19
50
0.2
09/18/76
0730
6.87
149
39 69
7
16
927
6438
7550
5 £50
17756
13
53
3.7
09/18/76
1530
7.00
179
3519
8
19
723
6004
68 7 2
5672
161P4
16
52
-1.3
09/10/76
2330
7.9*
253
4079
12
If
633
643-2
7'4 2
6204
17679
21
50
6.7
09/19/76
0730
6.79
79
4 459
11
It
1786
5965
510 8
6027
IK 34 7
6
53
3.B
-------
L10U10 ANALYSES
ANALY
f»Ufc TJCAL
NC. POINT DATE
642-1A 1816 09/19/76
<*9/19/76
"9/20/76
09/20/76
09/20/76
09/21/76
09/22/76
09/22/76
09/23/76
"9/23/76
09/23/76
09/24/76
"9/24/76
09/24/76
79/2*5/76
f9/25/76
09/25/76
09/26/76
09/26/76
79/26/76
09/27/76
1821 09/15/76
09/16 '76
09/17/76
"9/18/76
09/19/76
09/20/76
09/22/76
09/2.3/76
09/24/76
09/25/76
09/26/76
1825 04/01/75
643-1A IRIS 09/27/76
09/27/76
"9/28/76
09/28/76
09/28/76
C°/29/7S
09/29/76
09/29/76
"9/30/76
"9/30/76
10/01/76
10/01/7A
CA**
f G**
PH
PPM
PPM
6.95
102
4069
7.04
80
3669
7.10
96
4129
7.C4
1178
*C59
6.90
1000
4 069
7.03
630
«269
7.15
383
4199
6.86
459
4119
6.94
762
4359
7.06
842
4269
7.08
331
4169
6.62
956
4369
7.23
278
4379
6.95
539
42C9
6.32
546
4309
6.97
309
4089
7.00
444
3719
7.04
681
4339
7.17
633
3869
7.07
622
39*9
6.33
646
3979
4.80
2090
163
7.34
661
3689
6.S5
282
3379
7.12
122
4389
6.59
160
3759
6.99
101
3S09
6.75
113
4C99
7.C6
128
3879
7.11
125
3289
7.00
103
3579
7.35
•n
3519
7.15
83
35^9
c.no
R'.".
34f,9
TI*F
1530
233?
0730
1530
233C
050 0
1530
2333
073C
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
C738
1530
2330
0500
1630
1530
1530
1530
153C
1530
153"
1530
1530
1530
1530
0700
1530
23 3 0
0730
1530
2330
C730
1530
2330
C730
233*
0730
JUP
TOTAL
SUL-
113
TCTJt
DISSOL
FATE
Ul-5
1 ON" ~
N A*
K*
S03=
S04 =
S0* =
CL-
souns
SAT
TLMP
i*aAu
PPX
P P*
PPW
PPM
!>p»
PPK
pou
*
r
*
12
17
1402
7026
.9 7 * 8
6T93
In'1?!
a
52
-5.3
12
15
1651
6505
4?r.3
1 6895
7
5?
-3.2
11
18
1537
P.623
10 * 6 7
5 761
20175
10
54
-ir.i
11
If
135
10 3*8
1L b 1 C
54<>6
21155
1 ;«¦
54
f .7
12
13
171
8366
*571
7?nn
20721
5 A
c. ^
1.3
12
16
316
9016
959 5
7 ZLH
21527
6C
50
-ft.ft
12
17
429
7635
MSl
6204
18879
3^
54
e-.7
11
16
294
6527
u *
5C72
19C98
4?
5 3
a .9
10
15
271
100 78
l'xtOJ
632 1
21P 7 S
?<•
52
0.2
13
19
248
92C4
95C2
7622
22217
87
52
-4.7
12
15!
361
S618
. -J *,
5850
19359
3&
ej
£.0
10
15
160
1C916
11132
6331
22627
111
52
-C.9
13
ie
497
8575
9171
5495
* ^
28
c n
j j
7.8
9
15
407
8692
9IH 0
5? 72
JOC4T
55
53
V . 1
12
17
361
10549
10-382
6293
22087
65
54
-6.1
13
17
588
3401
93 0 7
5C72
1 903°
32
50
0.9
11
17
497
8305
8901
5*» ?6
1 0 3 ? 9
4 8
54
-2.7
11
16
226
10196
1046 7
57S1
212 3 0
77
54
2.9
13
18
226
9221
9492
5 31
1 ojtq
71
50
C.o
13
15
271
8576
8?f 1
5 052
18538
65
53
5.0
14
18
248
9830
1C1P.8
5140
IT 935
7S
53
1.0
50
159
760
880
1792
2 = 42
7044
70
53
2.9
13
16
90
8784
8892
5140
18393
74
50
2.2
13
17
474
7238
7 ?-0 7
»431
15834
30
54
1.9
11
12
1198
9115
10553
4520
19367
13
53
5.6
8
15
949
7325
P4&4
47*6
17C52
K
50
2.1
13
18
949
6797
7936
4963
16650
9
54
4.5
12
10
1176
716Q
8571
4875
17442
1C
53
8.0
13
18
882
7334
8442
4*63
17267
13
50
3.3
12
18
995
6635
7329
4875
1591?
13
54
-8.2
12
19
1062
6319
759 3
47H6
15880
9
52
2.5
1?
17
1266
625*8
7-07
4 520
15713
54
1.7
14
20
1357
6501
8129
4 254
15773
s
52
o 7
1?
1*
12 6«i
1.1 <• 1
7 7 n 0
* 3
t ^ 7^
R
ri4
2.7
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
PUN
NO.
6,45-lA
ANALY
TICAL
POINT
m
1816
1821
Lifium
CA»»
MS.+
UA*
DATf
TIME FLAG
PH
PPM
PPM
PPM
10/01/76
2530
*.93
79
3309
12
10/JC2/76
0730
6.79
76
3709
12
IP/02/76
1530
7.05
79
3229
12
10/02/76
2330
7.00
113
3159
11
15/C3/7S
0730
6.97
148
3729
12
10/03/7$
1530
6.94
133
4019
13
10/03/76
2330
6.91
232
3959
10
10/04/76
0730
6.96
90
4329
16
10/30/76
1530
7.04
165
3879
21
10/04/76
3330
7.04
99
3569
14
10/05/76
0730
7.04
BO
3B09
14
10/01/76
1530
10/02/76
1530
10/03/76
1530
10/04/76
1530
a
i
Ul
o
TOTAL
SUL-
LI0
TOTAL
DISSOL
FATE
LI9
ionic
K-»
S03 =
S04 =
SO 4 =
CL-
SOLI OS
sat
temp
I*3AL
PPP
PPM
PPM
f»P*
PPM
PP?«
X
c
X
IB
1311
6041
76
3900
14670
7
54
3.1
13
1289
7097
8644
3722
15913
8
52
8.0
13
1470
5872
7636
3545
14220
7
53
4.2
18
882
6256
7311
3S11
14250
11
54
2.5
15
814
6423
74 C 0
4 697
15638
13
54
9.1
15
791
7437
8536
5495
17903
13
54
2.6
17
588
7466
8172
6027
18299
22
54
-0.6
ie
1334
7290
8691
4£75
17952
8
53
10.8
19
836
7105
6108
5318
17343
16
52
3.0
19
1176
6139
7950
4875
15891
9
54
1.7
18
1357
4779
640?
5140
15197
5
50
12.6
-------
LIQUJO ANALYSES
4NALY
TICAL
NO. POINT DATE
VFS-SA 1816 10/10/76
10/17/76
1C/11/76
10/11/76
1"'11/76
13/12'76
10/12/76
10/12/76
10/13/76
1C/13/76
!«?/13/76
10/14/76
15'14/7&
1C/14/76
It'15/76
10/15'r&
10'15/7&
lfi/1^/76
1P/16/76
10/16/76
10/17/76
1C/17/76
10/17/76
1821 1*5/11/76
13/12/76
it'15/76
l?'14/76
10/15/76
10/16/76
10/17/76
VF6-1B 1816 10/21/76
15/21/76
lC/21'76
15/22/76
1C/22/76
1G/22/76
19/25/76
1C/25/76
10/25'76
10/24/76
l*"/24/76
10/24/76
ie/2=/76
LIQUID CA** MG**
CLAG PH PPM PPM
6.?6
240
333
6.45
117
3479
6.94
280
2759
6.96
611
2369
6.99
764
3069
7.04
229
36 C 9
6. VI
514
3289
7.07
14 8
3419
7.C4
76
2689
6.S7
68
3349
6.9ft
108
3689
7.04
67
3859
6.85
79
4C<«9
6.93
112
32 79
7.07
238
3559
6.92
278
3599
6. 55
302
3519
f .95
106
3429
7.04
109
3909
7.23
78
3549
7.02
81
3489
6.93
88
39 79
7.04
S2
3739
7.79
606
170
7.79
608
163
7.96
714
216
7.94
882
210
8.00
730
224
8.17
788
221
8.04
736
250
8.0*
796
273
8.03
830
3C>2
8.21
1138
296
8.16
1293
308
8.04
1396
332
7.9-5
948
350
TIME
1730
233?
0730
1530
23*-?
0730
1530
2330
?73*
1530
2330
0730
153C
2330
3730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2333
0730
1532
2330
1530
153?
1530
1530
1530
1533
1530
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
07SC
1533
233C
0730
1530
23*3
0730
TOTAL
SUL-
LI?
TOTAL
DISSOL
c A T~
LI9
lO'.'XC
hb*
r*
S03 =
S0* =
SOU-
CL-
SCLIOS
SAT
Tt"P
H'?1L
PPM
PPH
PPM
PPM
*pyt
PPM
PPM
*
c
*
7
11
22
1363
13V4
531
2512
31
53
-10.1
21
27
1515
con
7329
4 C 77
15 ? 4 7
1 £
52
E ?
V • .
23
12
316
6163
65<» 2
3722
13305
3?
54
1.4
22
13
407
648 3
69 71
4 377
14602
f 1
54
6.3
40
35
113
7899
fiC 35
4532
16<»P2
P 7
5v
-0.3
34
42
565
7273
7957
4165
1592 3
23
52
8.9
32
36
384
7346
75 07
47£3
16264
52
54
f .?
36
41
768
7164
3036
4431
160 0 7
16
53
-0.7
35
40
1221
60 74
7539
3102
132*7
8
34
-7.4
34
39
1854
6227
»452
33f£
14939
7
54
3.7
34
31
1370
5739
?3H 5
4C77
15348
-»
52
13.6
37
49
1583
7869
976 5
4254
17718
7
52
C.l
35
22
194 5
7562
9«97
4 :',13
18G7o
ft
54
4.1
36
52
904
6977
3062
3722
15C82
12
52
1.9
46
55
497
6922
7516
4 24 3
15660
23
53
9.4
'6
54
*97
6964
7560
4254
15692
27
:r t
11.5
25
55
474
6599
7*68
3?v3
15174
29
53
13.5
29
52
972
5779
69«5
4431
14795
o
52
» «/
51
65
1221
7149
>-;fcl4
4 60 0
17154
*
5"
5.9
56
57
1537
63 a6
819 3
4254
15877
*7
=¦ n
3.1
55
58
1447
6462
313 8
4254
15 850
8
50
1.5
57
59
1854
7120
9345
4254
17411
¦3
53
6.3
42
27
1402
6550
£232
39P 0
15712
Q
sr.
9.7
8
12
45
1347
1401
354
25*2
70
54
12.8
9
11
203
1242
14S6
265
2501
67
52
13.5
14
8
22
1609
1535
443
3 026
82
52
14.2
13
10
90
2228
2336
496
3929
119
54
-0.8
12
28
45
2195
2249
531
3765
136
52
-10.2
14
30
90
1930
2038
620
3693
100
52
-1.8
15
30
90
1«67
1975
531
3519
91
54
4.5
12
9
22
1989
2015
836
3937
97
53
-6.4
14
29
45
1581
1635
886
3637
79
52
12.7
14
31
36
2187
2233
886
4588
121
54
13.5
13
10
135
2065
2227
1418
5247
120
5?
5.0
12
12
90
1867
1975
1506
5185
114
52
12.3
13
32
45
1687
1^4 1
1453
4521
85
54
0.3
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
RUN
NO.
AMALV
TICAL
LIQUID
C A**
«G*+
DATE
TItfE
FLAG
PH
PPM
PPM
lC/2«>/7£
1530
8.14
796
377
1C/25/T6
2330
7.99
748
419
1C/2S/76
0730
7.79
742
388
10/26/76
1530
7.96
810
410
7.96
725
376
10/26/76
2330
7.82
2150
531
10/27/76
0730
7.98
1365
426
10/27/76
1530
8.16
2570
417
1C/27/76
2330
7.96
2035
402
10/28/76
073!!
7.85
2255
462
10/23/76
153 0
8.03
2250
585
1C/2B/76
2330
7.35
2180
503
10/29/76
0T30
8.02
2310
569
10/22/76
1530
10/23/76
1530
l<»/24/76
153 C
1C/25/76
153C
10/29/76
1530
8.17
2115
493
1Q/29/76
233C
7.93
2135
508
10/32/76
0733
7.99
2 OSS
529
10/3;;/76
1530
8.00
2020
556
10/30/76
2330
8.03
2475
600
10/31/76
2330
7.90
2290
535
11/31/76
0730
a.oa
2030
553
11/01/76
15*0
8.OA
2380
610
11/01/76
2330
7.95
2260
558
11/02/76
0730
8.11
2290
581
11/0 2/76
1530
7.-36
2270
697
11/01/76
1530
*.95
3280
619
11/01/76
2330
4.75
2 78 0
683
31/02/76
0730
4.73
2510
578
11/32/76
1530
*.62
2619
6S7
11/02/76
2330
7.90
2130
574
11/05/76
073"
7.91
2340
569
11/03/76
1530
7.94
1755
463
1l/QJ/76
233C
8.08
1640
600
11/04/76
073C
7.95
1660
596
ll/0»/76
1530
7.87
1355
572
11/04/76
2330
7.91
164&
577
11/05/76
0730
7.93
1475
594
11/05/f6
1510
8.04
1510
5?7
11/05/76
2330
8.02
1450
586
11/06/76
0730
8.08
1225
571
11/06/76
1530
7.e9
1480
578
11/Q2/T6
2330
4.^9
581
VFG-1B 181$
u
>
ui
N
1821
VFG-1C 1816
1825
VF6-10 1816
1*25
TOTAL
SUL-
Lia
TOTAL
OlSSOL
FATE
LTS
icwrc
NA+
K*
S03=
S04 =
S04 =
CL-
SOLIDS
SAT
TE*>P
TIB AL
PPM
PPM
PPM
PP*
PPM
Dpy
Op*!
X
r
r
13
11
0
1654
165-4
124 0
4091
75
50
3.0
14
11
90
1166
1274
1329
3777
51
52
11.9
14
15
113
1236
!<*22
1329
3867
57
52
4.1
13
14
38
1394
1440
1 4? 0
4099
63
6.7
13
14
38
1540
158ft
1420
4126
67
-7.4
14
16
43
1727
173 5
3«16
8302
103
4.7
14
92
11
1473
14a6
3106
59P7
94
9.6
13
83
48
1671
172 9
3728
8530
118
14.6
6
48
24
1653
1682
3817
790.5
1 "9
-4 . 0
15
75
88
1748
1854
7639
8282
135
50
7. 8
15
72
48
2084
2142
4526
908 0
123
50
-5.7
14
68
45
1723
1777
3816
8354
110
54
5.4
6
82
67
1914
1994
3 ft 2 9
8777
120
50
9.1
12
e?
90
1676
1734
3900
8371
107
51
1.1
13
58
361
1266
1699
4431
8772
82
54
-6.6
13
75
90
1527
1635
3811
8125
96
51
5.5
13
77
45
1390
1444
41S5
8266
85
51
1.0
14
75
90
ISO 3
1911
4f>09
9666
nr>
54
3.2
12
73
45
1730
1784
4t:9
5 2 9 4
111
54
-4.0
32
96
113
P. 82
3 018
3900
7656
55
5 0
14.3
35
ns
90
IS 76.
1734
4254
9140
106
51
9.1
36
96
45
1241
1295
5229
9465
SL>
50
-7.2
28
60
90
1207
1315
1077
8333
77
5 ^
13.6
30
59
90
12C8
1316
4609
89 6 3
73
52
9.2
32
10 2
768
1923
~?45
4^20
11244
134
51
14.6
34
97
949
1367
25:6
4431
10341
3?
45
10.9
27
73
972
1295
2461
4254
97*ig
85
51
2.6
23
77
542
2111
27*1
4^97
10762
132
53
0.3
30
56
180
1037
1253
3986
79^5
65
52
11.3
36
96
22
1460
14 86
4254
8777
94
52
10.0
34
100
22
1163
1194
4165
7707
72
52
-9.7
40
103
45
927
981
4431
7786
5 £
50
-7.2
34
06
135
6C 7
769
3722
6S40
35
50
10.7
32
84
22
743
76^
4' 77
7385
45
51
e.5
33
60
90
741
849
3"3S
7154
43
50
2.2
37
96
13
54 0
55 &
38 ' 1
6566
30
48
5.9
36
99
45
2E5
339
3722
6284
16
50
12.3
148
94
45
370
424
3651
632"
20
50
12.9
31
83
22
530
556
3545
6007
27
53
0.0
34
92
67
238
313
3722
6211
13
5"
10.9
32
7 f.
723
1213
2031
390 0
3755
77
52
5.6
-------
LIBUJO MALYSES
*U* TICAL
KO. »«)INT DATE
VF6-10 i»2H li'osm
11/C3/T6
11/53/76
11/04/7%
11/04/76
ll/0«/76
11/05/76
11/C5/76
11/3V76
11'06/76
11/36/76
VF6-1E 1816 11/06/76
11/57/75
11/07/76
11/07/76
11/38/76
11/08/76
11/08/76
11/09/76
11/09/76
11/09/76
11/13/76
11/10/76
1825 11/05/76
11/07/76
11/07/76
11/07/76
11/68/76
ll/0«/76
11/08/76
11/09/75
11/09/75
11/04/76
11/10/76
11/1C/76
Vft-IF 1816 11/10/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/12/76
11/12/76
11/12/76
11/13/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
LIQUID CA** KG**
FLAG PH PPH PPM
4.91
2200
549
5.11
1325
466
4.87
1570
602
5.31
1590
588
5.C6
1925
614
5.20
1655
579
5.43
150G
603
5.54
1655
602
5.50
1370
587
5.43
1260
568
5.58
1510
572
7.33
1423
564
7.33
1760
647
7.B3
1630
592
7.95
1610
597
8.15
1510
665
8.10
1570
525
8.15
1270
400
8.07
15" 5
468
8.16
1705
540
8.06
1675
444
8.02
2060
493
8.07
1930
442
5.20
1530
573
4.31
2 G20
651
4.29
2070
617
4.91
1675
593
4.83
1790
695
5.16
1610
618
5.08
1330
486
5.20
1540
549
4.69
169C
5C-8
4.75
1753
472
4.93
2230
510
4.36
2C90
467
7.96
2210
461
7.87
2223
540
8.00
1955
525
7.99
2020
5C5
7.96
2210
527
7.95
2130
531
7.a3
22G0
530
7.83
2180
562
7.*2
2140
634
7.91
2549
591
TIHE
0730
1539
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2530
3730
153C
2333
0730
1530
233C
G730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0*33
1530
233e
C730
1530
2330
"730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
5730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
TOTAL
SUL-
L13
TOTAL
DISSOL
P A 7C
LI3
IONIC
NA*
K»
St>3=
S04 =
SOa =
CL-
SOLIDS
SAT
TlW
I*3AL
PPM
PPM
PPM
PP*!
pp«
t>PH
PPM
X
r»
r
36
94
565
1743
2421
4343
95*0
1C9
52
-«.8
32
98
271
1320
1645
39°-3
800 0
£ 2
52
-10.1
37
96
180
S44
10*0
4C77
74 C 6
47
50
-3."
33
84
153
817
1007
3°P0
7170
4 f.
5?
0*3
35
85
316
815
1194
4165
79 v 5
4?
51
5 • 3
34
88
226
658
929
39S3
72 ?8
38
50
1.6
35
91
45
»23
477
3900
65?7
23
48
6.5
35
93
226
164
435
3903
6675
ID
4 e
12.5
166
99
45
392
4*5
3722
63*1
21
il
9.6
34
102
90
502
610
3£ 34
6190
26
53
-1.3
33
98
135
26?
424
3"C0
6^10
15
4?
6.0
36
87
113
394
53 0
336°
599?
22
51
12.4
35
82
22
1326
1352
3545
7417
74
52
11.4
28
1C1
67
1258
1338
3722
7398
73
48
3.8
37
1C3
45
1114
1166
3545
70 51
62
5?
7.?
36
100
90
805
913
336^
6574
42
50
15.?
34
99
113
713
3279
6333
42
48
12.^
34
96
113
352
468
3102
5367
21
51
2.6
39
115
45
475
532
3190
5838
29
C. t
A
14.6
40
96
90
826
934
336"
6665
49
49
14.4
45
108
22
637
663
3545
6476
40
52
8.8
44
106
113
426
562
4 34 3
7585
28
51
9.^
40
1C7
135
422
£84
4 277
7153
28
= r
7. T
36
67
294
369
722
3456
6^*5
21
52
11 .6
34
79
1108
1507
?S37
3722
9121
88
52
-3."
30
106
1289
1468
3^15
3456
9036
PS
52
-3 .4
36
99
927
1203
2315
2836
7369
6
6 0
5?
9. 7
35
101
565
660
1338
3545
7134
37
50
5.5
35
97
407
616
1104
3279
6250
35
52
-4.6
40
119
583
547
1253
3279
6652
32
51
^ • 5
39
*8
613
?60
1592
3*56
7261
52
50
-0.?
43
108
407
1235
1723
3722
7737
76
52
-7. 7
43
104
610
744
1*76
434 3
3584
50
51
2.9
39
111
814
629
1606
4165
8315
42
50
-2.5
45
130
113
649
785
4254
7832
4-3
52
10.7
44
102
22
975
1C01
4343
8246
64
51
13.3
44
12C
45
822
876
4343
7854
52
50
3.4
57
15
45
1145
1199
4077
74 59
73
52
3.5
56
113
45
1697
1751
4077
8725
108
52
4.7
57
115
45
1135
11S9
3900
7513
73
5 0
13.3
65
108
45
1155
1209
4254
8357
75
52
8.7
67
1C7
45
1020
1?74
4165
3166
65
5?
13.9
62
138
67
2150
2230
3903
9091
126
50
5.3
62
138
3
1188
1188
5672
1C250
r 9
51
-1.5
-------
UIOUIO iNM-YSCS
«*1ALY
RUN TICAL
fv'O. POINT DATE
VFC--1F 1816 11/15/76
11/16/74
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/18/76
1825 U/10'76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/11/76
11/12/76
11/12/76
11 '12/76
11/13/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
ll/lf/^6
11/16/76
11 '16/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/18/76
VFG-1S 1816 11/18/76
11/18/76
11/19/76
11/19/76
11 '19/76
11/20/76
11/20/76
11/20/76
11/21/76
1825 11/13/76
11/12/76
11/19/76
11/19/76
11/19/76
11/20/76
11/20/76
11/20/76
11/21/76
NFG-11 1816 11/22/76
LIQUID CA«-*
FLAG DH PPM PPM
7.91
2549
591
7.93
2440
427
8.00
1895
545
7.37
2040
572
7 . MS
185 0
511
7.99
2270
560
7.9?
2090
554
7.99
2800
563
4.43
2370
457
1.68
2370
5^6
4.66
2 370
571
A. 79
2450
532
4.41
2450
511
4.62
2500
557
4.35
2669
557
4.40
2950
683
4.53
255?
691
4.49
2619
553
4.49
2619
563
4.61
2190
568
4.62
2090
550
4.57
2420
530
4.34
2370
581
4.69
2460
561
».77
2240
536
4.75
3540
631
7.99
2520
549
7.96
2650
627
7.77
2080
573
7.S3
2240
578
6.29
2530
672
7.95
2180
654
8.29
2140
659
7.90
2050
695
7.73
2120
737
5.45
2569
569
5.28
2530
617
5.C8
2240
608
4.92
2410
611
4.57
2669
682
4.90
2490
679
4.99
2053
621
5.00
2280
717
4.!Jl
2470
730
7.93
2110
635
time:
0730
1530
233C
C73C
153C
2330
0 730
233?
C730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
173C
2330
CROC
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0731
1730
2330
0800
1530
2330
0730
153P
2330
0730
17C0
TOTAL S'JL- LIC
TOTAL 0I3S0L F ATT LIS I^IC
N A* K* S0I= S94 = S04 = CL- SOLIDS SAT TEM' IWBAL
ppm ppf- ppf« ppm P=>M = PM PPM X C *
62
138
0
1188
1163
3816
<5 344
7°
51
27.3
69
121
45
1532
1586
4 254
S?R8
106
50
6.1
70
121
135
860
i r 2 2
3 722
7348
k 3
52
13.2
69
120
45
1218
127 2
4 077
8141
75
49
e. 7
78
127
135
881
1C 4 3
4 165
7747
55
5 0
1.?
63
128
113
885
1021
4254
3273
" S
5!
14.6
64
122
90
789
SO 7
4 "54
7963
50
d 1
11 .0
68
132
226
1294
1565
5140
10223
89
50
7.7
47
105
1299
956
25 0 3
4077
9331
52
-2.5
44
100
1221
12 89
2754
3-500
94 60
34
1 *7
-J •
43
119
1221
1267
2 73 2
4431
10022
8 2
4°
-6.9
59
119
£14
536
1563
4 077
8637
40
52
14.0
61
113
1379
1493
31*8
*077
1008?
100
52
-6.2
62
117
1130
1607
2963
*254
10227
106
; *
. X
-3.1
53
97
1334
1333
2959
«431
10484
91
52
-1.2
56
94
904
IS 99
2984
4077
10663
125
14.9
76
135
1447
1673
34 09
3722
1C 3 0 3
105
U ft
8. C
75
136
0
1501
1501
5 31 9
10212
100
51
1.4
75
136
0
1501
1501
4082
3976
100
51
20.3
72
125
1176
1301
2712
4 077
9r 09
"2
50
-5.6
73
125
1193
1191
2629
3 811
90 38
75
5 3
-4. 0
70
121
1017
1492
2712
* 165
9 8 65
96
4=5
0.4
75
132
1221
1266
2733
4254
9901
a 2
40
-2.4
67
128
1311
1116
26 8 9
*148
9791
Til
SO
1.2
66
125
1062
1105
2379
4077
9211
72
49
-1.6
65
123
1085
1870
3172
54C6
12775
131
49
8.5
62
127
2 C 3
611
855
4697
3769
42
51
15.0
63
126
113
281
417
5672
9532
19
53
11.1
68
114
180
201
'17
5 052
8' 68
1 z
5 3
3.6
60
1C9
90
475
bh 3
4 7 £-6
s T 7 3
31
52
10.7
57
113
45
1113
106 4
4°63
9390
65
50
11.3
70
122
180
660
?76
4520
8386
41
50
13-6
57
113
45
675
729
4609
8298
42
54
12.7
59
110
135
777
939
4609
8*35
AS
52
9.3
63
113
180
931
1147
4 34 3
84 r 7
54
C r,
- u
14.9
65
122
248
766
1 06 4
5143
9479
52
51
7.6
64
124
180
263
4/9
5 229
9007
1 O,
50
13.9
70
121
271
44?
772
5052
3P09
29
49
5.6
68
119
497
321
1417
4609
9155
54
52
9.6
57
123
723
1385
2253
4 7n6
10425
39
50
6.7
74
116
859
1201
2232
4 52 0
9941
76
47
6.7
53
109
701
826
1667
452C
88H5
51
54
-2.2
61
111
1040
94 3
2191
* 375
10027
57
53
-2.7
60
110
904
1252
2 33 7
4 ?54
9 {;T 6
7f
12.7
60
124
45
794
818
4431
81 "9
4^
50
12.7
-------
LIQUID »NALYSF.$
RUN
NC.
SNAL*
TICAL
VFG-tl lRlft
1825
VF6-1F 1B16
LIQUID
CA* +
K 6+4
I»TE
TIME
FLA6
PH
PPM
PPM
1/22/76
2*. .19
8.17
1860
728
1/23/76
0730
7.86
1790
707
1/23/76
1533
7.91
1850
747
1/23/76
2330
7.96
1980
663
1/24/76
0730
7.99
2070
683
1/20/76
1533
8.25
1945
637
1/24/75
233C
7.91
1685
653
1/2"/76
073"
8.C6
1720
717
1/25/76
1530
8.00
1670
683
1/25/76
2330
8.04
1535
717
1/26/76
0730
7.90
1480
745
1/26/76
153C
7.94
1380
779
l/2*/76
2330
7.99
1 285
7C3
1/27/76
0730
7.9C
1260
739
1/22/76
1700
5.12
2030
625
1/22/76
2330
4.94
1080
756
1/23/76
3730
4.77
1890
777
1/2J/76
1530
5.03
1925
775
1/23/76
2330
4.51
2085
677
1/24/76
0730
4.79
2120
701
1/24/76
1530
4.9ft
2005
707
1/2^/76
2335
4.79
1775
671
1/25/76
0730
4.95
1725
701
1/25/76
1530
4.86
1980
741
1/25/76
23*0
4.70
172G
727
1/26/76
CR30
4.77
1485
747
1/26/76
1530
4.70
1480
735
1/26/76
2330
4.53
1*60
725
1/27/76
0733
4. S3
1 415
717
1/27/76
1530
7.91
1485
731
1/27/76
233C
7.81
1430
573
1/28/70
0730
7.95
1350
529
1/23/76
1530
8.14
1 £40
647
1/28/75
2330
7.82
1825
657
1/29/76
0730
7.91
1515
695
1/29/76
1530
8. CO
1620
673
1/29/76
2330
£.00
1610
619
1/30/76
0730
e.oo
1440
1065
8.00
1440
S'3
1'30/76
1530
7.85
1530
725
1/3C/76
2330
8.04
1575
695
2/01/76
0730
8.04
1450
623
2/01/76
1530
7.49
1625
715
2/01/76
2330
8.11
1515
741
2/02/76
0733
7.98
1460
723
N'A*
K*
S03=
S04 =
PP*
PP»
PPM
PP*
45
125
90
476
42
120
90
475
66
129
45
759
69
133
90
914
65
125
22
1204
49
116
45
983
46
126
45
780
43
123
113
719
59
111
45
733
67
112
45
634
71
113
22
661
70
102
22
•558
74
9fi
22
516
66
96
45
571
60
125
226
789
47
128
497
614
39
123
678
595
64
126
429
881
68
130
226
1607
65
125
294
1585
43
113
497
1134
48
129
768
1939
45
123
610
833
61
115
542
1090
71
116
678
89/
71
114
316
1330
7C
IC 3
814
734
68
102
723
1051
67
100
655
1298
66
96
135
902
63
97
45
780
57
92
45
925
56
°C
67
1224
58
93
90
1248
55
88
90
1018
55
93
67
1C67
40
58
22
1246
52
103
90
1622
52
103
93
1622
5C
94
67
723
52
1C6
22
933
50
103
22
1120
48
1C5
1x3
1272
50
104
135
912
46
93
93
892
total
sot=
opil
CL-
PPK
TOTAL
DlSSOL
SOL 10 5
P°M
SUL-
r biz
sat
LIC
TTMD
LIS
IONIC
IMBAL
—— — —
—
— — — —
584
4 ^43
7667
27
14.7
5P.3
4343
7567
27
5C
11.6
01 3
4 756
8302
4 2
53
5.3
in22
47S6
86"":5
5ft
50
2.2
123C
4736
8C55
71
5 C
3.0
1042
4609
3439
57
53
4.4
834
4,->5 4
75C9
4 3
50
4.0
855
393P
7423
39
52
l^.o
792
4377
73 83
40
53
9.3
683
3S11
6921
33
50
13.8
697
3900
6992
33
5"
11.9
5S4
390 C
6C11
27
50
11.9
5«2
3?0 0
65^^
2^
49
5.0
525
3811
6538
27
50
6.c
1060
4290
8145
48
50
9.7
1210
4431
8353
34
49
6.9
1709
4431
8633
49
49
1.5
1396
4431
8631
69
53
7.1
1*78
4fc75
9668
93
ag
-6.4
1938
4520
9410
92
50
1.0
1730
3900
8*04
65
5 3
10 . "¦
1961
3? CO
833C
56
48
-1.1
1565
36 34
7671
46
53
9.3
1730
4254
8673
59
53
2.7
1 711
4C77
82B6
48
49
0-7
170 9
379 3
78 56
6*
50
-0.7
1711
3811
7747
37
c.
-2.?
1919
3»11
79 4 c
52
46
-6.8
2084
3"H0
8152
63
52
-13.6
1(154
3722
72 37
45
51
8.9
834
3368
6356
42
49
9.2
979
3013
6011
50
50
6.9
1304
3900
7824
70
46
3.4
1356
3988
79 59
70
50
6.'
1126
31" 0 0
7361
52
50
2.5
1147
4077
7652
57
51
1.5
1272
4077
7712
68
50
-4 .4
1?3C
3722
8094
65
53
14.2
1730
3722
7562
87
53
-16.9
803
3722
6911
37
47
13."
959
3£.51
7034
49
50
12.6
1146
35*5
691*
58
53
3.6
1408
3545
7623
66
51
10.6
1074
3545
70 C2
46
52
13.5
1CCC
3545
6849
44
53
11.6
-------
LISUIO ANALYSES
ANAL*
«*UN T1CAL
?JC. POINT DATE
VFG-1P 1816 12'0?/76
12 *02/76
12/03/76
12/03/76
12/03/76
1825 11/27/76
11/27/76
11/28/76
Il/2a/7S
ll/Z^m
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/3P/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
12/01/76
12/01/76
12/01/76
12/02/76
12/32/76
12/02/76
12/03/76
12/03/76
12 '35/76
2825 11/29/76
11/30/76
LIQUID CA+* MG++
FLA3 PH PP* PPM
7.94
1635
749
7.87
1723
735
7.98
159C
715
7.83
1540
715
6.11
1565
753
4.73
1800
>69
ft.7%
15 *5
595
4.5a
16 85
545
4.65
2145
651
4.91
2005
663
4.66
1573
665
4. "5
1 915
699
4.a3
1915
631
4.62
lfSRD
104 7
4.62
1580
5?7
4.87
l^CO
723
4.79
1745
702
4. Si
17G5
604
4.68
1880
749
4.78
1 775
747
4.66
1685
759
4.77
1855
743
4.58
2035
731
4.66
1830
727
4.62
1930
723
4.70
1850
787
TIME
1530
2330
C730
1530
233 C
153C
233C
0 83 0
1530
2330
G 730
1533
233°
0 733
1533
2330
0710
1530
2330
0 730
1535
2330
0733
1530
233C
0700
0700
total
SUL-
LIT
TOTAL
BISSOL
FATE
LIS
10-uc
NA*
K*
SC3=
S04 =
SC4 =
CL-
2CLI0S
SAT
TEI-"a
1M,3 »L
sj>M
PP*
PPM
P?f.
ep "i
say,
C9(t
*v
C
7.
49
95
113
1272
14 o e
3»11
7721
6^
C,
7.4
51
96
22
1268
129 4
3 793
76S5
6 7
50
11. *
43
91
22
1162
1168
3722
7350
60
53
9.0
a3
88
45
1177
1231
35»S
76 01
A 0
50
1.4
49
90
45
885
933
3958
73 75
45
52
8.6
64
1C2
1130
1461
2 " 17
3 ?t 1
9117
77
51
-4 . ?
58
95
949
113b
227*
3456
7 y ?• 3
63
'~a
-8,5
6C
o £
1130
723
228*
3~79
7517
4 3
« t
*" A. » w
59
88
632
1675
2733
3722
9222
59
43
2.3
61
51
904
1648
27 33
4077
9449
<;*
47
-7.7
58
95
814
1422
2399
3722
6346
74
50
-12.3
60
98
859
1494
2525
4 343
9466
83
51
-10.7
42
ICO
765
1665
?of.7
4165
9236
ac,
47
-12.?.
51
9*-
855
1325
2*56
3 190
3646
~s
53
11.9
51
94
859
1825
2l+o
109
5 5
2.9
48
89
768
2317
2939
3900
9 379
126
53
-10.1
53
89
1085
1431
2733
4277
93 85
79
45
-7.3
54
90
995
1581
2775
4077
94 34
P3
54
. g
-------
SOL 10 ANALtStS
RliK
NO.
625-1*
AXALY
TICAL
eOI*«T
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
date
tike
FLAG
WT 2
WT X
WT 3£
e«/2»/76
2330
X
22.10
17.90
8.23
C4/29/7S
0730
26.40
22.30
8.73
f4/2
•*
30.60
O.Ti
10.2
5.OP,
5.21
26.9
1.03
1 .0«
-1.1
36.60
0.25
10.4
4.27
4.4"
23.9
1.C3
1.01
1.7
38.50
0.30
9.4
3.73
3.79
20.1
1.00
1.01
-1.3
45.10
0.44
13.3
3.69
4.08
31.3
0.95
1.32
-7.2
40.70
0.55
C. 3
3.11
3.16
20.5
0.95
1.02
-7.8
43.90
0.64
8.1
2.56
2.65
23.4
o.?s
1.0 3
• r • .
41. 50
0.44
8.4
2.97
3.06
23.8
0.9A
1.02
-6.?
42.20
0.19
9.3
3.2f>
3.35
22.7
0.95
1.01
-6.1
42.70
0.22
9.5
3..? 6
3.31
20.4
0.97
1.01
-a.l
37.40
0.27
9.7
3.91
3.99
22.1
1.03
1.01
1.7
41.10
0.37
8.5
3.10
3.11
17.3
1.00
1.02
-1.6
41.7e
0.71
8.5
2.31
3.00
2H.7
0.97
1.03
-6.4
42.70
0.11
10.1
3.46
3.51
20.1
0.9ft
1.00
-2.6
3C.5G
0.33
9.9
4.?3
4.40
26-S
0.98
1.04
• S • 2
-------
SOCIO ANALYSES
RU\
'JO.
629-1A
«VALV
TICAL
1816
0
1
w
00
1818
1321
S70-1A 1816
1818
1R21
SOL 10
CAO
S02
$03
DATE
TIME
FLAG
WT X
WT X
WT X
05/05/76
2330
26.50
23.50
9.23
f>5/06/76
0730
23.70
20.70
5.43
05/06/76
153?
23.30
23.60
3.40
C5/0*/76
2230
23.50
21.80
5.65
05/07/76
!> 73 0
24 .20
20.50
9.58
05/07/76
1530
23.60
23.30
3.53
05/08/76
0730
28.30
26.70
7.43
05/08/76
1530
26.10
26. 70
8.43
05/Co/76
2330
24 .90
23.S3
6.4G
05/09/76
0730
23-40
19.CO
7.15
"5/09/76
1550
24.42
21.40
7.05
05/09/76
2330
24.60
23.50
5.43
C5/10/76
0730
24.40
21.40
7.45
05 '10/76
1530
X
23. CC
24.30
0.33
r5/10/76
233 0
27.50
24.10
8.73
r5/ll/76
0730
24.30
21.70
3.68
05/11/76
1530
23.70
20.00
8.20
05/11/76
2330
24.SO
IP.CO
10.00
T5/12/76
0730
23.00
21.40
5.75
05/07/76
0730
25.0 0
22.40
3.10
"5/10/76
0730
25.40
23.20
7.60
04/30/76
1530
26.40
24. £0
7.50
05/07/76
1530
25.40
21.50
9.03
C5/10/76
1530
23.10
22. ia
4.68
05/12/76
1530
25.90
27.83
3.76
05/12/76
2330
26.60
25.90
5.63
05/13/76
0730
25.00
23.20
6.CC
05/13/76
1530
22.50
20.4 0
3.70
05/13/76
233 3
25.90
22. *0
6.10
^5/16/76
0730
26.20
23.50
5.63
P5/14/76
1530
25.30
23.70
4. 73
05/14/76
2330
26.10
24.40
5.30
''5/15/76
0730
24.30
22.50
6.18
05/15/76
1530
24.50
24.90
3.18
r5/15/76
2330
25.90
22.*0
6.65
05/16/76
0730
27.5 0
25.50
7.83
OS/16/76
1530
25.00
23.40
4.75
05/16/76
2330
22.90
19.40
6.45
05/17/76
0730
27.90
26.20
9.16
55/17/76
1530
25.70
25.40
& . 0 6
05/17/76
2330
27.10
25.20
5.71
"5/1P/76
0730
25.30
31.10
3.83
05/14/76
C 73 0
S02
26.32
14.00
IV. 70
(>5/17/76
0730
27.CO
26.40
7.61
0S/1W76
1530
24 ."JO
22.30
5.58
0X1
SOLID
TOTAL
SLUR Y
ACIO
C4LC
OAT
STOIC
STOIC
IO.f-;IC
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
I\SOL
ION
S ATIO
S ATTO
IfOSL
UT X
UT X
UT X
UT X
WT X
V
f
(C«>
. ?
34.20
0.38
49.7
22 .9 8
16.3
1.34
1.02
1.8
-------
SOLID MNALYSrS
"*IIN
»1C«
630-lfi
631-1A
a
I
W
612-iA
ANALY
TICAL
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
P01»JT
D»TE
tiie
FUS
VT *
VT *
VT X
1»?1
05/17/76
153 D
26.60
24.70
9.23
1*16
C5/1E/76
1530
24.SO
22.CO
6.50
05/18/76
2330
23.80
20.40
7.20
05/19/76
0731
21.80
18.90
6.es
05/15/7*
1530
20. RO
19.20
4.00
05/19/76
2330
22.10
17.90
7.63
*5/20/76
0730
24.70
22.90
5.58
rS'20/76
1609
20.CO
20.50
2.03
^5/20/76
23?D
26.60
26.30
7.53
05/21/76
C730
27.60
26.90
6.58
05/21/76
1530
21.30
18.20
5.65
05/21/76
2350
26.20
23.40
5.15
"5/22/76
0730
23.13
20.90
5.58
05/22/76
1530
26.60
23.60
5.00
05/22/7*
2330
23.90
20.70
6.63
r5/23/76
0 750
23.CO
15. 90
9.93
05/23/76
1530
26. HO
24.40
7.0C-
05/23/76
233S
29.50
25.60
8.91
05/24/76
0736
22.60
21.30
3.23
1821
05/21/76
1535
23.50
21.30
5.98
05/24/76
073C
23.90
21.10
6.13
1816
05/28/76
2330
X
22.80
22.10
4.88
*5/29/76
0 730
*
23.10
21.00
9.95
05/29/76
1530
27.30
24.70
11.93
"5/29/76
2330
24.60
23.90
10.03
"5/30/76
0730
24.00
23.90
7.33
C5/30/76
1535
21.90
22.10
3.38
"5/30/76
2350
23.40
22.60
3.85
25/31/76
0730
23.50
22.50
3.28
5*5/31/76
1530
26.70
23.80
9.95
*5/31/76
2330
22. 40
21.10
5.93
06/01/76
0730
21.70
20.50
3.58
•56/91/76
1530
23.30
21.60
5.9C
06/31/76
2330
24.00
20.40
9.50
06/32'76
0730
23.00
20.90
4.28
06/02/76
1530
22.90
20.40
5.60
D6/02/76
2330
22.90
19.60
6.30
06/53/76
0730
25.90
24.40
5.70
'•6/C3/76
2300
27.20
29.10
3.23
1818
05/28/76
2330
22.30
19.30
8.38
"5/29/76
2330
TS
23.40
24.30
8.43
f»5/30/7S
2330
2C.90
20.50
6.48
1821
05/29/76
0730
21.40
19.50
8.53
25/30/76
0730
22.BO
22.30
6.13
05/31/76
0 730
21.20
20.70
2.13
TOTAL
SLU3Y
ACID
CftLC
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
r-jsoL
WT X
UT X
VT *
WT *
WT X
39.10
0.77
34.00
3.88
5.6
2.56
2.57
32.70
0.68
9.7
4.60
4 .65
30.50
0.38
7.3
3.75
3.8 0
28.SO
1.21
8.1
4.47
4 .44
30.CO
0.53
7.1
3.61
3.63
34.2C
0 . ? 7
9.6
4.51
4.47
27.70
0.71
8.6
5.01
58
40.40
3.56
9.7
3.79
3.73
43.20
0.4*
9.0
3.51
3.46
28.4C
0.4*
9.7
5.23
5.27
37.40
0.38
8.7
3.58
3.64
31.70
0.60
8.4
4.17
4.19
34.50
3.3?
3.6
3.39
3. 32
32.50
2.53
8.2
3.83
3 .? £
29. EC
0.71
8.5
4.35
4.2?
37.50
0.49
5.3
3.84
3.? 4
40.90
1.11
7.8
2.65
2.72
29.90
0.99
7.8
4.17
4.04
32.60
3.42
55.2
26.94
32.50
0.66
32.5C
0.49
10.0
5.00
4.97
36.20
3.60
10.3
4.47
4 .67
42. 80
3.35
8.6
2.S3
3.07
39.90
0.55
8.3
3.26
3.42
37.20
0.54
9.0
3.96
3.98
31.00
0.37
8.3
4.47
4.34
32.10
0.49
8.0
4.04
3.97
31.40
0.49
8.0
4.12
4. C2
39.70
C.43
7.5
2.R0
2.93
32.30
0.44
7.8
3.92
3.91
29. 2G
0.82
9.0
4.90
4.31
32.90
0.68
8.7
4.25
4.22
35.00
0.55
8.3
3.65
3.78
30.40
0.55
8.3
4.33
4.26
31.10
0.41
7.7
3.93
3.90
30.80
0.71
8.0
4.01
4.04
36.20
0.70
9.3
4.07
4.03
39.60
0.86
7.7
3.20
3.05
32.50
0.66
20.8
9.89
10.16
38. £0
0.55
32.5
13.80
14.09
32.10
0.55
30.8
15.80
15.39
32.90
0.59
54.0
26.99
34.60
0.49
55.3
26.44
28.00
0.60
52.4
29.0?
OXI
SOLID
OAT
STOIC
STCIC
IONIC
ION
(C03)
21.0
0.9?
1.04
. 7
19.1
1.04
I .05
-0.6
22.3
1.04
1.04
0.1
22.6
1.02
1.02
-0.2
14.3
1.C6
1.0S
-1.7
25.4
1.05
1.C3
1.9
16.3
1.03
1.01
: .6
7.5
1.C3
1 .05
-1 .5
18.6
0.94
1.03
-9.1
16.4
0.9P
1 .02
-4.1
19.9
1.07
1.03
"'.7
21.8
1 .00
1.02
-1 .8
17.6
1.04
1.03
0.6
14.5
1. 10
1.0 2
7.3
2? .4
1.05
1.0?
i. • ~
33.3
1.10
1.04
5.3
IS.7
1.02
1.02
-0.3
21. 8
1.03
1.05
-1.9
11.0
1.0 9
1.06
1.7
18.3
1.03
1.02
0.6
18.9
1.05
1.04
1.2
15 .J
1.00
1.03
-2.6
27.5
0.91
1.0 3
-1' .1
27.3
0.91
1.01
-11.5
25.1
0 . S3
1.03
-1' .5
19.7
0.92
1.03
-11.4
10.9
1.01
1.02
-1.3
12.0
1.04
1.03
1.2
10.4
1.07
1.03
3.7
25.1
0.96
1. 02
-6.4
18.4
0.99
1.02
-".5
12.3
1.06
1.05
0.9
17.9
1.01
1.04
— 2 . 6
27.2
0.93
1.0 3
-5.1
14.1
1.03
1.0 3
4.4
13.0
1.05
3.C2
2.6
20.5
1.06
1.04
1.8
15.8
1.32
1.34
-1.3
8.2
0.98
1.04
-6.0
25.8
1.00
1. 04
-3.5
21.7
0.86
1.03
-19.1
20.2
0.93
1.03
-1C.9
25.5
0.93
1.03
-11 .?
17.6
0.94
1.03
-9.C
7.6
1.03
1.04
3.9
-------
SOCIO ANALYSES
«!Ufc
NC.
S33-1A
ANALY
TICAl!
POINT DATE
SOLID
TIME FLAG
1816
i
ON
o
IBIS
1821
634-1A 1S16
06/05/76
06/05/76
06/06/76
06/06/76
06/06/75
06/07/76
06/07/76
<56/07/76
"6/08/76
0 6/03/76
*6/08/76
06/09/76
06/09/76
06/09/75
06/13/76
06/10/76
"6/30/76
06/11/76
06/11/7&
-16/11/76
06/12/76
06/12/76
06/12/76
06/13/76
06/13/76
*6/13/76
-6/14/76
P6/07/76
06/07/76
"6/11/76
06/20/76
06/20/76
06/21/76
06/21/76
06/21/76
06/22/76
06/22/76
153 r
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
3730
1530
233D
0730
1530
2330
0 73 C
1530
2350
0 73 0
1530
233 a
0730
1530
2330
0730
1530
233?
0530
*730
1530
1530
0730
1530
56/20/76 233C
0730
153?
233?
C73C
1530
C02
S02 TS
CA
CA
06/22/76 2330
06'23/76 073n
CAO
\IT X
26. *0
25.50
27.70
24 .60
25.30
26.50
27.30
28.00
26.90
23.10
27.00
26.*0
25.70
29.30
26.2C
26.10
26.90
21.10
23.40
26.20
26.30
27.70
27.20
27.00
28.90
29.10
27.50
26. 8C
25.50
22.40
34.2C
35.80
32*82
35.10
32.53
3i.lC
36.50
37.00
37.60
38.20
35.77
37.70
37.51
33.30
Tln.^0
SO?
WT X
24.10
23.90
26.70
23.60
24.BO
24. 20
27.60
25.70
25.50
15.70
25.90
24.00
25.60
27.20
23.70
13.70
25.10
21.30
21. 00
26.30
26.30
29.90
25.50
26.50
27.30
26.80
26. *o
25. SC
26.20
19.90
25.90
35.10
34.25
34.50
35.00
35.fi3
32.20
36.10
35.20
36.91
36.91
34.33
35.47
33.00
55.^0
S03
UT *
4.6P
4.43
5.03
3.90
3.10
4.75
4.51
5.98
6.93
10.98
4.73
5.90
4.71
6.61
6.63
24.28
4.53
6.48
5.85
4.31
3.31
3.03
5.43
4.68
6.63
8.01
4.01
3.78
5.56
4.43
6.38
0.53
-0.58
1.18
-0.96
2.81
6.26
4.68
4.81
*.28
-5.40
2.03
0.74
1.56
S.\K
0X1
SOt.IO
TOTAL
SLURY
ACID
calc
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
IONIC
S03
C02
SOLIO
INSOL
IUSOL
10:4
H AT 10
RATIO
I"3AL
WT X
UT X
UT X
IIT 5!
UT *
X
tC03>
>
.....
.......
.....
.....
34.80
1.01
8.7
3.P7
3.73
13.a
1 .10
1.05
4 .?
3*. 3D
1.16
8.5
3.93
3.33
12.9
1. 06
1.36
0 .0
38.40
2.76
8.4
3.27
3.1?
13.1
1.C3
1.13
-0.8
33.40
1.02
8.0
3.03
5. 75
11.7
1.05
1.06
-0.4
34.10
1.05
3.5
4.06
3.99
9.1
1.06
1.06
0.3
35.00
1.C2
3.3
3.67
3.61
13.6
1.08
1.05
2.6
39.00
1.33
9.3
3.76
3.65
11.6
l.CC
1.06
-6.'
3S.10
1.08
8.*
3.32
3.3:
15.7
1.05
1.05
-0.2
3fi . 60
0.99
8.9
3.58
3.53
17.9
0.99
1.05
-5.7
30.50
1.00
6.6
3.06
3,2 6
35.7
1.08
1.06
2.0
37.10
0.85
7.9
3.35
3.23
12.7
1.04
1 .04
-0.3
35.90
1.06
8.5
3.66
3.62
16.4
1.05
1.05
-0.4
36.70
1.06
7.7
3.39
3.31
12.8
1.00
1 .05
-5.?
40.60
1 .06
R.C
2.^1
2.87
16.3
1.03
1.05
-1.7
36.3C
0.93
8.4
3.53
3.57
18.4
1.03
1.05
-1 .6
41.40
1.59
7.5
l.?6
2.43
53.6
0.97
1.07
-10.4
35.90
1.21
7.6
3.29
3.21
12.6
1.07
1.06
0.8
33.10
1.09
10.2
4 .80
4 .3 3
19.6
1.04
1.0 6
-2.0
32.10
0.76
7.6
3.74
3.72
18.2
1.04
1.04
— C . 2
37.80
0.68
7.8
3.3*
3.28
i 1 .4
0.99
1.03
-4.4
36.eo
0.67
8.3
3.70
3.56
9.0
1.02
1.03
-1.3
39.20
1.19
7.1
2.93
2.78
7.9
1.01
1.06
— 4.6
37.30
1.28
7.5
3.11
3.34
14.6
1.04
1.0c
-2.1
37.60
1.22
8.2
3.44
3.33
12.4
1.02
1.06
-5..^
40.80
1.07
8.2
z.m
2.96
16 .»
1.01
1 .05
-3.6
41.50
0.88
e.i
2.33
2.85
19.3
1.00
1.04
-3.7
37.00
0.58
9.5
4.10
3.94
10.8
1.06
1.03
3.1
35.40
1.07
20.3
9.02
8.74
10.7
1.0^
l.o5
2.4
38 .30
1.40
52.8
21 .83
14.5
0.95
1.07
-12.2
29.30
0.92
53.0
27.75
15.1
1.09
1.06
3.1
42.5C
5.33
5.6
1.45
1.41
15.0
1.15
1.23
-6.9
44.40
3.86
4.9
1.41
1.21
1.2
1.15
1.16
-0.6
42.23
4.78
-1.4
1.11
1.21
-8.7
44. it
5.26
4.4
1.21
1.05
2.7
1.13
1.22
-7.5
42.78
4.94
-2.3
1.09
1.21
-11.5
*7.30
4. «• 4
4.1
0 « "9
0.36
5.9
1.09
1.1"*
-7 .5
46.50
4.89
4.0
0.85
1.91
13.5
1.12
1 .19
-6.3
49.8t
4.64
4.1
0.81
0.72
9.4
1.06
1.17
-10.3
45 .80
4.53
4.3
0 .86
0.77
9.9
1.10
1.17
-6.3
49.41
4. 84
4.1
1.41
0.69
6.6
1.10
1.18
— 6.7
40.73
4.84
4.1
1.41
1.14
-13.3
1.2*
1. ?2
3.0
44.90
6.43
3.9
0.^
0 .T<*
4.5
1.20
\.~>6
-5.2
45.07
6.16
6.1
1.47
1.23
1.6
1.19
1 .05
-5.1
42.bC
4.96
4.3
1.32
1.17
3.6
1.11
1.21
-9.0
4.51
<1.7
0.f'7
0.71
1 O.S
1.11
1.1T
-5.2
-------
SOL 10 ANALYSES
»U*
\0.
634-1*
ANAL*
TICAL
a
I
o
1818
1820
1821
133*1* 1816
SOLID
CAO
S02
DATr
ti*e
FLAG
WT X
«T X
06/23/76
36.72
35.10
06/23/76
2330
37.00
35.60
39.91
35.47
06/24/76
0730
38.12
35.91
38.41
35.91
06/24/76
1530
35.84
34.38
TS
37.69
34.38
06/24/76
2330
39.13
35.10
36.46
35.10
P6/25/76
0730
TS
•0.89
34.22
TS
39.79
34.22
C6/25/76
1530
36. 90
36.10
56/25/76
2330
39.P0
37.40
?6/26/76
0730
41.10
39.20
P6/26/76
1530
37.30
36.30
C6/26/76
2330
4C.40
34.20
06/27/7S
0730
41.00
34. »o
"6/27/76
1530
37.20
34.S3
76/27/76
2330
39.50
33.50
C6/2S/76
0730
39.90
35.90
56/28/76
1530
37.20
34.50
£6/28/76
2330
36.40
33.80
"6/29/76
0730
36.00
33.20
56/29/76
1535
36.00
31.00
?6/29/76
2333
37.60
37.30
06/30/76
0730
38.20
36.40
06/30/76
1530
37.60
36.30
?6/30/76
2330
38.80
37.00
97/01/76
0730
43.00
37.10
TS
44.42
37.67
C7/01/76
1530
43.40
37.90
57/31/76
2333
38*20
39.13
07/02/76
0730
37.50
40.40
07/02/76
1530
*1.70
38.70
25/76/06
39.50
35.30
06/22/76
2330
37.50
35.70
96/25/76
0730
TS
40.13
34.86
C6/2E/76
0730
38.90
35.70
S7/92/76
C730
40.30
41.33
04/23/75
0700
06/23/76
0730
31.90
30.50
"6/23/76
1530
35.90
34.40
?7/B2/76
1539
41.50
38.30
07/16/76
2530
40.30
31.70
SO 3
WT X
2.28
7.31
2.02
4.88
8.61
7.34
12.05
5.48
5.£7
13.67
15.31
3.68
0.96
2.01
3.93
11.16
10.21
2.31
9.43
6.93
6.98
3.36
5.21
7.16
4.73
2.81
4.33
1.96
3.53
-0.29
5.13
1.13
0.51
7.93
14.58
0.7ft
7.30
3.68
2.68
0.18
5.31
4.91
5.28
OXI
SOLID
TOTAL
SLUR Y
ACID
CALC
OAT
STOIC
STOIC
IOMC
S03
C02
SOLID
INS0L
INSOL
I OK'
RATIO
ratio
I ""if L
VIT X
WT X
WT X
WT X
WT X
*
f C A )
«r
46.15
4.51
4.7
1.15
1.01
4.9
1.14
1.1ft
-3.7
51.80
4.34
4.5
0.75
0.71
14.1
1.02
1 .15
-13.0
46.35
4.34
4.5
0.97
3.32
4.4
1.23
1.17
49.76
3.55
A • 6
0.64
0.81
9.3
1.C9
1.13
-3.3
53.49
3.55
16.1
1.C3
1.1?
-'J.Z
50.31
3.19
4.7
0.94
0 .90
14.6
1.C2
1.12
-9.7
55.02
3.19
21.9
0.93
1.11
-13.0
49.35
2.91
4.1
0 .86
0.71
11.1
1.13
1.11
2.2
49.54
2.91
11.4
1.35
1.11
-5.3
56.44
3.24
3.9
0.18
0.31
24.2
1.03
1.10
-f.. S
56.08
3.24
26
o.=
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
NC.
635-1A
iNALY
TICAL
1 SI 6
a
i
cr>
N)
1821
536-1A 1816
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
OAT£
TIJ-E
FLAG
WT X
WT X
WT X
07/17/76
073"
40.90
34.60
4.66
07/17/76
1530
42.20
36.10
5.48
07/17/76
2330
42 .30
35.90
7.43
07/18/76
0735
43.20
35.30
7.S3
07/20/76
073 0
39.50
34.B0
4.71
07/20/76
153C
M .20
37.3G
4.48
P7/20/76
2330
41. CO
37.20
2.21
07/21/76
0730
40.60
37.70
7.58
*7/21/76
1530
44.40
33.20
13.16
"7/21/76
2330
4f.2?
39.20
11.31
P 7/22/76
C730
43.60
33.43
&. 61
"7/22/76
1530
43.42
4 0.10
8.38
*7/22/76
2330
42.30
3<5.r,0
7.26
^7/23/76
C730
44.10
37.70
15.ie
07/23/76
1530
44. 00
37.40
15.46
07/23/76
2330
45.30
35.CO
18.46
07/24/76
C73f!
44.70
34.00
16.61
07/24/76
153C
39.70
32.90
16.71
07/2.4/76
2330
41.40
33.10
14 . 7/28/76
2330
42.70
34.10
1U.3B
07/29/76
0730
43.70
35.50
12.33
07/29/76
193 0
41.BO
34.HO
10.31
07/29/76
2330
43.70
35.40
12.46
"7/30/76
0730
43.10
33.50
13.03
"7/30/76
1530
42.90
35.70
11.58
P7/30/76
23-'. C
40.00
34.70
7.13
07/31/76
073C
41.70
3" .20
10.46
"7/11/76
153C
4r,.
V
47.90
4.45
S . 5
1.4)
1.31
9.7
1 .22
1.1 7
4.1
50.60
2.80
8.7
1 .37
1.17
10.8
1.19
1.10
7.6
52.3C
3.23
8.5
1.23
1.1?
14.2
1.10
1.11
-1.1
52.70
2. SO
8.1
0.92
0 . S 5
14 .•?
1.17
:.; c
' "7
\J • J
4 £ .20
3.82
8.1
1.56
1.3S
9.8
1.17
1.14
2.?
51 .10
3.28
8.4
1.33
1.15
8.3
1.15
1.12
T 1
' • V
43.70
3.41
9.3
1.7 8
1.45
4.5
1.22
1 • ! 3
7.6
54.70
3.59
8.3
0.98
3 .87
13.9
1.06
1.12
-5.6
60.SO
2.97
8.0
0.32
0.10
21.6
1 . 04
1 . P ?
—11 u it
60.30
1.98
8.3
0.22
0.1a
13.8
1 .07
l.^
1.0
56.6C
2.79
8.4
0.63
0 • 56
- r .
1.10
l."9
«* a
o • ~
58.50
2.42
S.O
0.63
0 .5C
14.3
1.06
1.0*
-1.5
57. CC
1.92
6.3
0 .90
0 .72
12.7
1.06
1.06
-0.2
52.30
2.60
8.2
0.03
24.4
: .01
1.08
.5
62.20
1.70
8.5
3.12
24.9
l.C-l
1.05
• * a
62.20
3.02
S.5
-C .15
29.7
1.04
1 .09
-4 .7
59.10
2.90
8.5
0.15
28.1
1.08
1.09
-0
56.7 0
2.33
6.1
0.47
0.75
29.5
1 . CC
1.0 7
-7.5
5E.e 0
2.99
7.8
0.46
0.S3
25.9
1.06
1 .10
-5.6
57.40
2.95
8.1
0.14
0.37
27.9
1. 08
1.09
-1.3
47.20
3.19
8.0
1.75
1.7?
17.:
1.C3
1.12
-4.0
59.2C
2.97
8.6
0.14
0-41
28.6
i.ro
1.09
-•-'.0
54.50
2.94
S.5
0.15
0.61
35.3
l.n
1.1?
3 .1
50.40
3.85
44.0
5.41
15.2
1.19
1.14
4.3
5C.8C
2.82
4*. 0
6.39
13.9
1.16
1.10
5.1
57.60
2.SO
43.0
2.62
19.?
1.06
1.09
-~ .6
56.4C
2.25
44.0
4 .75
13.6
1 .02
1.07
-5.1
56.50
2.01
47.0
4 .66
25.5
1.01
1.06
-5.3
55.30
2.61
47.0
5.35
24.1
1.01
1.09
-7.6
54.20
2.60
52.0
6.3 &
34.7
1.00
1.39
-8.6
54.70
2.89
B .6
0.77
0.95
25.5
1.03
1.10
-6. J
53.OC
2.69
G.2
0.81
0.83
19,6
1 .15
1.09
5.0
57.20
2.58
8.9
0.40
0 .49
21 .6
1.09
1.08
0.8
53.S-0
2.81
9.1
0.90
3 .94
19.2
1.11
1.10
1.3
56.70
2.67
8.3
0.38
0.46
22.0
r .in
1.09
C . 7
54.90
2.36
7.7
0.49
0 .62
23.7
1.12
1 .PA
3.8
56.20
2.64
S.l
0.54
0.58
20.6
1.09
1.09
0.4
50.50
3.22
8.1
1.2?
1 .21
14.1
1.13
1.12
1 .3
53.20
1.76
8.1
0.93
0.96
19.7
1.12
1 .06
5.3
60. 16
3.6S
8.0
-0.2 0
31.2
1.11
1.31
0.3
5 9. 98
3.68
3 0 . Lf
1.12
1 .1 1
0.5
56.RC
3.70
P,.C
0.26
0.38
23.4
1.10
1.11
-0.4
53.50
2.30
8.2
0.86
0.81
16 .6
1.14
1.10
3.9
53.70
3.19
P..?
0.80
0.78
17.6
1.13
1.11
1.9
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
"UN
*0.
ANALT
TIC4L
1821
0
1
l/76
2330
44.20
35.80
10.16
PR/02/76
0730
43.38
36.69
7.72
C9/S2/76
1530
43.53
36.91
8.32
0?/02/76
2335
43.43
37.72
4.76
08/C3/76
0730
43.37
38.41
4.52
"8'C3/76
1*530
43.38
37.82
4.58
"8/03/76
2330
43.70
39.45
4.59
?8/04/ 74
0730
42.R5
39.32
3.55
"8/04/76
1130
44.10
39.31
5.36
07/26/76
1530
39.20
31.50
11.53
"7/29/76
1930
41.40
34.30
12.21
?7/30/76
1530
42.00
33. 50
12.13
07/31/76
1530
42.50
34.30
12.83
98/01/76
1530
41.40
34.30
8.93
Of/C2/76
1530
42.98
36.70
8.02
C8/93/76
1530
42.15
37.46
5.32
08/04/76
1130
44.73
40.17
4.69
08/06/76
1930
43.96
37. &4
5.34
08/06/76
2330
TS
44.23
39.09
15. 06
f¦Z97/76
0730
42.60
37.75
9.55
08/57/76
1530
42.13
38.19
7.04
PS/07/76
2330
40.81
37.85
2.54
n8/58/76
0730
40.94
38.56
3.04
08/03/76
1530
43.41
37.46
1C.34
9P/C8/75
2330
43.16
36.91
11.09
58/09/76
0730
42.29
38.43
13.06
06/09/76
1530
43.72
36.30
13.11
08/09/76
2339
*2.62
33.36
10.97
08/10/76
0730
42.26
39.09
6.22
0*/lt>/76
1530
43.86
38.24
15.43
08/10/76
2330
41.14
37.35
6.12
08/11/76
0730
41.80
37.39
8.21
08/11/76
1530
43.18
37.65
9.50
08/11/76
2330
43.28
38.37
9.02
08/12/76
0730
44.64
38.54
9.95
08/06/76
1931
43.72
37.77
10.04
08/37/76
1530
43.48
38.13
7.01
08/08/76
1530
42.71
37.08
11.17
PS/59/76
1530
41. *4
37.21
11.17
0?/10/76
1530
42.97
39.44
14.24
CS/11/76
1530
42.45
36.93
12.02
08/16/76
1930
43.76
37.64
13.23
OX I
SOLID
70TAL
SLURY
acio
CALC
OAT
STOIC
STOIC
1OVIC
SO?
CO 2
SOLID
INSOL
1NSOL
IDV
^ ATIO
RATIO
I"?*L
WT *
UT X
WT X
UT X
V X
*
tCA)
tC03)
V
54.90
3.50
3.3
0.50
0.53
18.5
1.15
l.l?
2.9
53.58
3.20
8.5
0.01
0.77
14.4
1.16
1.11
4.1
54.45
3.68
8.7
0.72
0.6?
15.3
1.14
1.12
1.6
51.90
3.48
8.3
c.se
9.2
1.19
1.12
6.1
52.55
3.49
3.3
0.07
0.90
8.6
1.19
1.12
6.2
51.85
2.91
3.4
0.95
8.8
1.19
1.10
7.7
53.89
3.19
9. 1
0.03
8.5
1.16
1.11
4.3
52.69
3.47
B.l
0.17
0.3B
6.7
1 .1A
1.12
^.5
54.11
3.41
7.9
0.64
9.9
1.16
1.11
4.2
51.3C
2.22
46.0
6.97
23.3
1.09
1.08
1 .1
54.70
2.37
42.0
4.00
22.3
1.08
1.10
-1.4
54.00
2.83
44.0
4.21
22.5
1.11
1.09
1.4
55.7C
3.13
46.0
3.33
23.0
1.09
1.10
-1.?
51.80
3.21
46. 0
5.60
17.2
1.14
1.11
2.5
53.89
3.85
44.0
3.72
14.9
1.14
1.13
0.8
52.14
3.35
4i . 0
4.81
1 ?.2
1.15
1.12
3.2
54.e9
4.62
40.C
2.32
£.5
1.16
1.15
0.9
56.63
1.92
9.2
0 .64
16.5
1.11
1.06
4. 2
63.91
1.37
8.7
-0.0?
23.6
0 .99
1«. 05
—6.6
56.73
1.59
9.C
0.07
0.77
16.8
1.07
1.05
2.0
54.77
1.37
B .5
0.95
12.9
1.10
1.05
4.8
49.84
2.03
3.3
1.39
5.1
1.17
1.08
8.0
51.23
2.30
8.8
0.16
1.33
5.9
1.14
1 .08
5.2
57.16
2.00
7.7
0.52
15.1
1.C8
1.06
1 .9
57.22
1.65
7.8
0.56
19.4
1.08
1.D5
P.?
61 .09
1.59
7.8
0.09
0.36
21.4
0.99
1.05
-r .0
58.48
1.85
8.3
0.4?
22.4
1.07
1.06
0.9
56.91
1.59
8.1
0.52
18.6
1.03
1.C5
-1.6
55.07
1.18
8.7
0.35
0.98
11.3
1.10
1.04
5.2
63.22
1.38
8.3
0.09
24.4
0.99
1.04
_=: r
54.60
1.54
5.3
0 .98
14.8
1.07
1.05
1.9
54.94
1.87
8.2
0.15
C.88
14.9
1.09
1.C6
2.2
56.55
1.42
8.0
0.66
1*.8
1.09
1.05
4.1
56.97
1.62
8.5
0.66
15.8
1.C8
1.05
3.0
58.12
1.51
8.1
0.07
0.48
17.1
1.08
1.05
3.2
57.24
2.42
45.0
2.73
17.5
1.09
1.C8
1.2
54.66
1.28
45.0
4.55
12.3
1.14
1.04
3.2
57.51
2.06
46.0
3.22
19.4
1 .06
1.C7
-0.5
57.65
1.72
51.0
4 .Of
19.4
1.04
1.05
-1 .6
63.53
1. 36
5C.0
1 .DC
22.4
C.97
l.C 4
-7.6
58.18
1.57
48.0
3.3f.
20.7
1.04
1.05
-0.7
60 .27
2.03
6.1
0.2?
21.9
1.04
1.06
-2.4
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
NO.
63ft-lA
SMALY
TICAL
POINT
l*il£
4^
1821
63«5-l»
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
DATE
TI«£
FLAG
VT *
WT 3
WT X
0 ft/16/76
2330
42.70
36 .71
10.43
0«/l?/76
0730
40 . 36
36.54
ID.91
08/17/76
1530
38.14
33.29
13. 17
0?/17/76
2330
40.03
35.13
13. 82
OS/1 8/76
0730
39.52
36.33
7.41
*3/18/76
1533
38.38
36.19
5.88
"8/18/76
2333
37.65
33.35
9.99
08/19/76
0530
40.63
3*.63
13.90
?g/i9/7&
1400
35.20
35.10
14.56
"8/19/76
2330
44.23
37.20
10.57
"1/20/76
0730
37.32
36.55
5.04
08/50 /76
1530
37.70
37.41
1.49
r«/2cm
2330
33.02
36.44
3.63
08/21/76
0730
38.49
36.29
3.99
n°./21/76
153^
43. 49
36.*7
14.87
08/21/76
2330
43.65
35.03
12.25
08/22/75
073C
3P.91
35.54
5.00
08/22/76
1530
36.33
36.19
3. b9
"S/22/7 r,
237.0
37.91
34.31
4 . 26
08/23/76
0730
40 .66
35.8 3
8.17
08/23/76
1530
3?.69
33.93
13.57
<53/23/76
2330
TS
39.58
35.61
12.91
C A
28.75
35.61
-.**<**
DP/24/7S
0530
42 • r> 3
36.55
16.67
08/15/76
1 *J3 0
4 3.84
38.00
15.48
"8/17/76
153 0
3S.Q5
33.29
6.06
"8/18/76
1530
33.05
36.19
3.83
C8/19/76
1600
38.52
32.21
20.79
38.32
32.21
21. C4
40.05
32.21
14.96
C8/2C/76
1530
34.26
31.64
3.11
08/21/76
1530
34. 78
32.09
6.84
08/22/76
1530
36.00
36.61
1 .30
*8/23/76
1530
33.49
29.39
16.04
08/24/76
1530
39.51
36.87
10.75
C8/2*/76
2330
41 .53
41.96
8.50
08/25/76
0730
41.02
»1.98
7.06
08/25/76
1530
41 .39
42.29
5.76
CA
40 .se
40.65
12.06
-9>2«./76
0730
46.&8
39 .99
IS.20
*8/26/76
1530
42.42
37. 05
14.63
40.70
27.05
16.32
42.42
37.05
14.63
0X1
SOLID
TOTAL
SL'JRY
ACID
CALC
CAT
STOIC
STOIC
IONIC
S03
C02
SOLID
1\S?L
INSOL
10fi
? 4TIO
I"P1L
•JT %
WT X
HT %
UT X
WT *
*
f CA >
f C03)
V
56.31
1.89
4.1
0.34
1 8.5
1.08
1 .06
? .0
56.58
2.44
4.8
0.02
0.47
19.3
1 .02
t . 0 s
-r-.9
54.78
2.09
3.9
0 .53
24.0
C.99
1.07
-7.6
57.69
1.31
4.8
D .«
2 4.0
0.9°
1.06
~f,. 7
52.39
1.75
4 .5
0.01
0.6?
14.0
3 .07
1.06
0.6
51.11
0.44
3.6
0.69
11.5
1.07
1.02
5.3
52.42
2.47
4.5
0.72
19.1
1.03
t • C 9
-5.8
57.18
2.27
3.9
0.03
0.33
24 .3
1.01
1.07
-5.7
58.4 3
1.21
8.1
0.80
24.9
C.96
1 .04
-B.3
57.06
1.60
5.4
0.35
18.c
1.3 1
1.05
5.0
Zf £/. 7 <.
1. 37
4.5
0.10
0.S7
5 .9
1.05
1.07
-I .6
48.25
0.72
«.6
1.04
3-1
1.12
1.03
7.9
49.17
1.9ft
4.2
0.8 4
7.4
1.10
1.0 7
?.&
49.35
1.90
4.2
0.01
0.31
R.l
1.11
1.07
3.9
6C.95
1.62
4.2
3.1 3
24.4
1.0 2
1.05
-0.9
55.03
1.7S
4.3
0.31
21.9
1.11
1.06
4.9
49.42
1.32
4.6
9.01
n .86
1G.1
1.12
1 .07
5.1
49.12
1.36
4.5
0 .4«
7.9
1.06
1 .0?
-1.2
47.14
1.98
4.4
0 .95
9.0
1.15
1.0 8
6.2
52.55
2.10
4.3
0.S2
0.57
15.4
1.10
1.07
2.2
56.04
2.03
4.3
0.46
24.2
1.01
1.07
-5.4
57.42
2.97
4.0
2.20
0.36
22.5
0.93
1.09
-11 .2
32.15
2.97
-38.4
1 .28
1.17
a.5
62.35
1.07
4.8
0.02
3.11
26.7
0,97
1.05
-5.3
62.97
2.20
45.0
0.15
0.22
24. C
0 . c9
1.06
-7,0
49.67
2.36
4S.1
9.6D
3.77
16.2
1.C9
1.09
0.7
49.11
0.33
52.2
11.25
7.9
lwll
1.01
8.5
61 .05
1.81
49.4
3.30
34.1
0 .90
1.05
-17.0
61.30
1.76
49.4
3.30
34.3
0.89
1.05
-17.9
55.22
1.81
27.1
1.04
1.06
-o.^
42.65
1.16
64. Q
19.10
7.3
1.15
1.05
'i • 5
46.95
1.30
5S.0
14 .50
14.6
1.06
1.05
0.7
47.06
1.67
55.0
13.43
2.8
1.C9
1.06
0.5
52.77
1.65
63.0
9.10
30.4
1.04
1.06
-3.5
56.S3
1.74
4.1
0.46
IB.9
0.39
1.06
-6.4
60.94
1.50
5.3
0 ."* 5
13.9
0.97
1 .04
-7.4
59.53
2.10
5.2
0.03
0.41
11.9
C.9S
1 .0 6
-8.2
58.61
1.97
4.2
0.36
9.6
1.01
1.06
-5.3
62.t6
1.98
5.2
0.24
19.2
0.93
1.06
-14.1
60.18
1.69
5.5
0.01
-0.37
26.7
0.98
1.05
—6.5
60 .94
1.93
3.9
0. 15
24.C
0.9°
1.^6
-6.4
62 .33
1.93
25.7
0.93
1.06
-13.3
60.94
1.93
3.9
0.15
24.0
C .99
1.06
-6.4
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
*1*
\0.
6S9-1A
SNALY
TIC»L
D
i
o
U»
1821
640-1A
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
DATE
time
FLAG
yi x
VT 2
VT X
o«/2ft/7r,
2330
43.1*
37.*6
16.09
08/27/76
0730
33.84
35.29
11.09
08/27/76
1530
33.23
34.45
5.25
08/27/76
2333
41.61
31.39
22.44
*1.61
32.42
21.15
08/28/76
0730
42."8
35.4 7
15.36
08/26/76
1530
43.51
33.84
18.15
re/23/7*.
233 0
42.60
33.73
16.99
0»/29/76
0 739
43.04
33.83
17.94
08/29/76
1530
41.29
31.38
21.31
*8/29/76
2330
42.53
26.62
25.92
os/30/76
0730
41.22
33.32
15.03
OP/30/76
1530
41.80
37.13
15.05
OP./30/76
2330
42.39
36.4 3
13.96
08/31/76
1530
38.52
37.71
9.57
"8/31/76
2330
40.64
36.91
14.15
09/01/76
0530
42.71
36.19
16.62
PS/24/76
1530
40.17
35.86
13.20
^8/25/76
153C
41.92
42.39
1.27
TS
40.13
41.75
11.85
TS
42.69
42.39
16.92
C?/26/76
1530
43.18
37.30
15.03
CA
39.85
37.30
12.60
C A
40.04
37.30
14.19
On/27/76
42.61
34.71
18.23
08/28/76
1530
40.26
32.66
14.54
C8/29/75
1530
39.21
27.68
22.26
08/30/76
1530
39.06
32.97
15.94
Cft/31/76
1530
39.11
37.35
11.1?
09/02/76
183?
41.98
36.55
12.C5
09/02/76
2330
44.23
35.10
17. CI
C9/03/76
0730
44.65
35.52
17.87
09/03/76
1530
41.63
37.82
13.49
09/03/76
2330
44.87
38.00
14.35
09/04/76
0730
41.82
38.07
13.29
09/94/76
1530
43.09
37. D8
14.P4
09/C4/76
2330
45.32
32.75
23.43
09/35/76
0730
41.69
38.62
7.46
41.69
37.71
10.15
09/05/76
1530
43.20
38.44
1C.10
09/05/76
2330
44.06
36.91
15.16
f9/os/76
0733
44.17
38.36
15.12
09/06/76
1530
41.72
36.37
15.93
09/06/76
2330
44.95
37.28
15.56
09/07/76
0730
40.25
38.3D
9.86
OX I
SOL in
TOTAL
SLUR Y
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
I CM 1C
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
JNSCL
ION
RATIO
S4TIO
W.[_
UT X
VT X
W T X
WT *
WT X
X
< C1)
{ C 0 5 )
•»
62.91
1.26
4.0
0 « S P
2 5.6
P .9 A
l."i
-*.f>
55.20
1.37
4.0
0.C1
0.54
2C.1
1.00
1.05
-4 .C
43.31
1.12
0.0
0.00
10.9
C.98
1.04
-6.1
61.67
0.68
3.9
3.15
36.4
0.96
1.02
-5.9
61.67
0.68
3.9
0.16
34.3
D.96
1.02
-5.9
59.69
0.91
3.8
0.C5
0.23
25.7
1.0 3
1.0 3
-0 .2
60.44
1.21
4.2
0.14
30.r
1.03
1.04
-0.0
59.15
0.98
3.7
0.21
28.7
1.03
1.03
-0.2
60.2 2
1.32
3.6
0.3C
0.14
29.?.
1.02
1 .04
-1 .9
60.53
1.22
3.a
0 .16
35.2
C .37
1.04
-f .5
59.19
0.28
3.3
0.18
43.8
1.03
1.C1
1.7
56.67
1.37
3.5
0.01
0.32
26.5
1.04
1.04
-0.5
61.46
1.39
3.7
0.1">
24.5
C • n7
1.04
-7.2
59.49
1.C8
4.0
0.25
23.5
1 .C2
1.03
-1 .6
56.70
1.4 8
ft.3
0.55
If,.?
5.97
- n c
i* . j
— 8 . 0
60.28
0.99
4.4
0.31
23.5
0.97
1.03
-6.5
61.85
0.96
4.3
0.02
0.14
26.9
P.99
1.03
-4.3
58.02
1.87
52.3
4.63
2 2. f.
0.^9
1 .06
-7.1
54 . 25
2.18
46.0
5.63
2.7
1.10
1.07
2.7
64.03
2.18
46.0
1 .88
18.5
G.H9
1.06
-lc' • 7
69.90
2.13
24.2
0.P7
1.06
-21.2
61.65
1.90
46. 0
1.1"
2*.t
1.00
1.06
-5.f
59.22
1.90
21.3
0.96
1 • 0 6
-10.2
60.81
1.99
46.5
0.45
3.06
23.3
C .94
1.06
-12.4
61.61
1.10
¦50.2
0.07
1.6?
29.6
0.99
1.03
-4.6
56.01
1.32
45.8
0.35
4.H7
26.7
1.03
1.04
-1 .6
56.85
1.28
50.8
0.39
4.37
39.1
0.98
1.04
-5.7
57.15
1.51
51.0
5.37
27.9
0.93
1.C5
-7.4
57.83
1.42
49.9
0.59
5.48
19.3
0.97
1.04
-e.?.
57.73
1.15
8.1
0 .67
2C.9
1 .0"
1.04
0.2
60.88
1.13
9.4
(/• 2^
27.9
1.C4
1.03
0.3
62.26
1.22
8.5
0.12
0.06
28.7
1.02
1.C4
-1.2
60.76
1.49
8.5
0.47
22.2
C.98
1 .04
-6.8
61.84
1.05
8.1
0.14
23.2
1.04
1 .03
0.5
60.8 7
1.27
8.3
0.02
0.49
21.8
0.98
1.04
-5.3
61.18
1.15
8.1
0.23
?4.3
1.01
1.0 3
-1.9
64.36
3.94
8.2
-0.20
36.4
I.CI
1.03
-2.1
55.73
1.14
8.4
0.09
0.9"<
13.4
1.07
1.04
2.9
57.28
1.14
17.7
1.04
1.04
0.3
58.14
1.19
7.7
0.55
17.4
1.C6
1.04
2.2
61 .29
1.11
8.4
0.?3
24.7
1.03
1.03
-C.7
63.06
1.61
8.4
0.03
C.06
2a.0
1.00
1. C 5
-a.6
61.39
1.70
7.H
C .33
?6. D
C . 97
1.05
7
• O 0
62.3 5
1.30
B.5
0.0 4
2^.0
1 . 0 3
1.05
-0 . 0
57.35
1.41
8*8
0.19
0.9?
17.2
l.fcO
1.04
-4.3
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
RUV
NO*
AN ALT
TIC4L
POINT
sfto-n 1 hi &
1821
S41-1A
1S16
S42-1A
1R21
1816
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
DATE
time
CL4G
if T X
WT X
«T *
09/37/76
1530
44.44
3ft.13
15.99
09/37/76
2330
46.03
33 .64
17.15
59/CB/76
0730
44.80
33.91
16.45
59A02/7&
1530
44.06
36.63
IS.55
r?/o?./76
2330
42.54
37.13
15.55
09/35/76
0-430
45.44
36.91
19.01
09/03/76
1530
39.16
36.44
1G .66
09/04/76
1530
43.27
36.4 3
14.60
09/oc./76
1530
44 .09
33.37
11.79
P9/06/76
1530
41.40
36.91
12.52
09/9«/76
1530
44.41
37.61
14.92
0«>/D9/76
1600
X
43.13
34.91
17.6^
09/09/76
2330
X
43.55
35.J". 0
15.26
09/12/75
"73 0
42.S7
35.65
15.27
09/10/76
1530
45.10
37.»2
13.58
09/10/76
2330
45.37
39.42
12.48
3<>/ll/7&
0730
4D.73
40.97
6.11
09/11/76
1530
40.62
41.44
5.05
09/11/76
2330
42.08
42.38
6.30
09/12/76
0730
41.41
42.71
5.42
C9/12/76
1530
42.54
42.34
6.P. 1
09/12/76
2330
42.17
41.30
G. 33
"9/13/76
0730
40.14
39.92
7.07
C9/13/76
1530
42.65
41.98
7.01
09/13/76
2330
44.02
41.86
6.62
09/14/76
0730
39.55
43.11
1.4?
09/14/76
1530
40.55
41.26
&. 06
09/09/76
1600
X
43.33
35.70
17.63
o<>/iq/76
1530
42.24
36.19
13.01
29/11/76
1530
41 .36
37.46
11.15
09/12/76
1530
42.03
41.06
7.72
09/13/76
1530
42.76
41.62
9.68
09/14/76
1530
38.61
41.26
3.65
09/15/76
1600
41 .01
41 .08
5.00
09/15/76
233 0
38.40
*1.20
2.06
09/16/76
0730
36.14
36.73
5.40
09/16/76
1530
39.10
39.45
7.13
09/16/76
2330
38.54
39.63
7.10
09/17/76
0730
37.03
35.83
3.42
C9/17/7&
1530
36.79
39.23
D • 48
09/17/76
2330
40.06
40.30
7.51
'•9/1*1/75
073 C
39.30
40.35
5.£9
09/1P/76
153"
3'#.65
40.6P
5.14
59/18/76
233C
37.32
39.99
4.29
«,9/19/75
1.73
8.2
61.75
1.52
8.2
57.31
1.49
3.2
56.84
1.47
7.9
59.27
1.48
fi.2
58.60
1.52
8.5
59.73
1.24
7.9
60.00
1.5a
?.l
56.96
0.63
8.1
59.4P
0.71
8.3
5S.94
1.03
8.5
55.30
0.95
S.2
57.63
0.62
8.1
62.25
1.35
50.0
551.24
1.67
50.3
57.97
1 .58
14 .9
59.06
1.51
46.0
61.70
0.74
46.0
55.22
0.57
45.0
56.34
0.S5
6.3
53.55
0.56
7.3
51.31
0.32
7.S
56.43
1.39
8.1
56.63
0.73
8.4
48.20
0.99
8.0
49.51
0.65
8.0
5? .63
0.99
ft. 3
56.12
1.28
S.2
55.9*
1.02
*i.7
54.27
0.43
7.0
54 .84
0.65
8.7
3X1
ACID
CALC
OAT
I«nL
I\S0L
10":
wt y.
JT %
X
C.01
25.1
-0 .26
26.2
1.34
-0.14
25.3
-0 .11
2o.8
0.24
25.1
0.49
-C .2?
2 9.2
5.63
19.0
24.3
2.19
19.7
3.76
21.3
0.3?
24.1
0.?5
28.3
0.23
26.7
0.09
0.5*
25.5
0.14
22.3
a .10
22.2
0.16
0.3s
10.7
0.10
6.9
0.64
ID.6
0.14
0.76
9.2
0.56
11.4
0 .54
14.0
0.04
0 .99
12.4
0.64
11.3
3 • 55
11.2
O.CI
1 .24
2.6
0.91
10.5
0.75
28.3
3.4 5
22.3
44.00
1.26
19.2
3.53
13. 1
2 .39
15.7
7.16
6.6
0 .76
R.9
1.30
3.S
0.C9
1.67
IP -5
1.07
12.6
l.lfl
12.5
0.45
1.62
7.1
1 .S3
1.0
C . 3*
12.3
0.04
1 .1 j
10.1
1.13
9.2
1 . 2 :
7.9
0.03
1.2 6
5.3
SOLID
STflC STOIC 10 JC
9ATI1 f\ AT 10 IM?t.L
(CA) (C03>
1 .00
1.04
-4.?
1.00
1 • r 3
-3.0
0.5°
1 .04
-5.3
1.00
1.C4
-« .5
0.98
1.05
-7.0
1.0 0
1 .04
-2. .5
C.99
1.04
-a .5
1.03
1.04
-1.0
1.05
1.C4
1.1
1 .01
1.05
-1 .9
1.02
1 ."4
-1.6
1.05
1.04
-3.6
1 .02
1 .04
-1.9
1.02
1 . 1 D
1.0*
1.05
3.6
1.C5
1.04
0 .4
1.01
1.05
-3.2
1 .02
1 .05
-2 .6
1.01
1.05
-3.1
1.01
1.05
-4.1
1.02
I.24
-2.1
t . 0 ¦?
t .05
-4.3
1.01
1.0 2
-1.4
1.02
1 .02
0.2
1.07
1 • ? 3
3.2
1.02
1.03
-0.7
1.00
1 .02
-1.5
:.oi
1.04
-3.4
1.04
1.05
-1.6
1.02
1.05
-3.0
1.02
1 .05
-3.0
0.99
1.02
-3.3
1.00
1.02
-2.1
1 .04
1.03
1.1
1.02
l.C?
C . 5
l.Cl
1.01
-C .6
0.99
1 .04
-4.6
0.97
1 .02
-5.3
1.10
1.04
5.4
1.06
1.02
3.5
0.98
1.03
-5.7
1.00
1.04
-a.2
1.01
1.03
-2.2
o.g*
1.0 2
_ ¦* r
. % ,
1.05
1.02
2.°
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
*UX
*C»
642-1A
ANALY
TICAL
a
i
Qn,
643-1A
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
date
time
FLAG
VT X
UT *
VT X
09/19/76
1530
39.2?
41.R1
4.78
09/19/76
2330
38.78
39.83
6.66
09/20/76
0733
39.50
41.98
4.79
09/20/76
1530
39.69
33.36
9.26
^9/20/76
2330
39.93
36.19
S. 23
r9/21/76
0500
*1.38
37.64
10.12
09/22/76
1530
39.94
37.39
9.SI
09/2 2/75
2330
40.73
37.12
11.18
C9/25/76
0730
41.40
37. 82
9.37
*9/23/76
1530
42.63
36.68
13.03
"9/23/76
233D
40.70
37.93
12.18
09/2«/76
0 73?-
41.24
35.47
13.78
P9/2fe/76
1530
39.24
37.64
8.70
*9/24/76
233 0
41.37
38.42
12.44
09/25/76
C730
42.05
39.09
9.96
09/25/76
1530
43.53
33.63
12.88
*>9/25/76
2330
42.00
39.16
9.73
09/26/76
0730
42.62
36.73
12.82
09/26/76
1533
41. 87
36.91
12.66
0*»/26/76
2330
43.35
38.08
12.72
09/27/76
C509
39.96
36.91
10.67
09/15/76
1600
40.13
41.81
2.52
09/16/76
1530
38.29
38.91
6.26
09/17/76
1530
43.45
38.03
18.14
^9/18/76
1530
39.67
38.75
8.80
«<»/19/76
1530
39.10
39.29
5.24
09/20/76
1530
29.65
33.09
0.07
09/22/76
1530
38.03
36.55
7.51
<*9/23/76
1530
38.68
34.89
10.46
09/24/76
1530
37.73
36.55
4.48
09/25/76
1530
42.35
39.63
12.55
*9/26/76
1530
38.4 3
36.73
11.14
04/01/75
0700
09/27/76
1530
X
42.37
38.00
13.15
69/27/76
2330
44 .60
38.18
12.47
"9/28/76
0730
43.71
39.09
13.20
*9/2S/76
1533
42.02
39.45
3.31
59/26/76
2330
45.46
40.17
11.41
"9/29/76
0730
40.35
39.00
9.05
09/29/76
1530
45.54
40.17
13.61
09/29/76
2330
45.54
41.26
11.59
09/30/76
0733
45.30
40.75
13.34
09/30/76
2330
44.22
40.35
12.CI
10/01/76
G730
43.78
40.21
9.6>J
10/01/76
153C
43.79
41. 0 3
8.50
OXI
SOLID
total
SLUSY
ACID
C A LC
DAT
ST'MC
STOTC
IO*JIC
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
I'.'SOL
ITJ
1 AT 19
RAT? 0
IM •"? A L
WT %
WT *
VT X
UT X
WT X
X
fCA>
IC03>
y
57.03
0.77
8.8
1.1*
8.1
0.98
1.32
-4.4
56.50
C.74
7.6
1.06
11.8
0.98
1.02
-a.5
57.26
1.20
7.5
0.03
0.94
fi.4
5 .98
1 .04
-5.4
57.20
1.28
8.3
0.91
2 6.?
C .99
1 .
-5.1
53.46
0.97
7.7
1.13
1%«
1.C7
1.03
3.1
57.16
0.69
a.i
0.09
G.H2
17.7
1.05
1.32
1.1
56.54
0.71
9.0
1.0?
17.4
1.01
1.02
-1.4
57.57
1.08
7.7
0.76
19. *
1.01
i."3
-0.4
56.64
0.64
7.7
0.85
Q . i< 3
1^.5
1 .04
1.0?
2.2
58.92
0.91
7.9
0.53
22.2
1.C5
1.03
0.5
59.65
0.94
8.9
0.73
20.4
P.97
1.03
-5.6
58.11
C.44
7.9
C. 36
0.7?
23.7
1.01
1.01
-0.1
55.74
0.80
8.2
1.12
15.6
l.oi
1.03
-2.1
6C.46
C.78
7.7
u.5«
20.6
0.98
l.C-2
-4.9
58.81
0.79
8.2
0.C6
-'.6 6
16.9
1.02
1.02
-1.3
62.41
0.59
8.2
0.28
20.6
1.C0
1.02
-2.2
58.67
0.87
8.2
0.6c
16.6
1.02
1.0 3
-0.5
58.73
0.70
8.5
0.08
0.61
21.8
1.04
1.02
1.4
56.79
0.74
8.7
0.63
21.5
1.02
1.02
-0.6
60.31
0.85
8.3
0.42
21.1
1.03
1 .0?
C.O
56.80
0.48
8.4
0.07
1.01
16.8
1.00
1.02
-1.1
54.77
0.80
48.0
7.08
4.6
1.05
1.0 3
1 .9
54.8?
1.10
46.0
7.11
11.4
1.00
1.04
-4.1
65.67
0.84
49.0
-0.22
27.6
0.94
1.02
-«.3
57.23
0.92
47.0
5.58
15.4
0.99
1.03
-4.0
54.34
0.98
48.0
7.39
9.6
1.03
1.03
-0.5
41.43
l.?9
58.0
20.82
C.2
1.02
1.06
-' .4
53.19
0.72
56.8
0.24
9.77
14.1
1.02
1.02
-0.4
54.07
0.94
53.0
7.97
19.4
1.C2
1.03
-1.0
50.16
0.84
53.8
1.84
10.37
8.9
1.07
1.03
4.G
62.08
0.74
47.4
0.81
2.25
20.2
0.97
1.02
-4.9
57.05
0.74
49.8
1.22
6.«6
19.5
0.96
1.02
-6.4
60.64
0.99
7.3
0.40
21.7
I.00
1.03
-3.2
60.19
1.20
8.8
0.31
20.7
1.06
1 .04
2.0
62.05
1.33
7.2
0.19
0.19
21.3
1.01
1.04
-7.3
57.61
1.21
7.6
0.6 9
14.4
1.04
1.C4
C.T
61 .61
1.20
8.5
0.15
18.5
1.C5
1.04
1.7
57.79
0.79
8.6
0.44
0.93
15.7
1.00
1.02
-2.8
63.81
1.04
8.1
-0.03
21.3
1.02
1.03
-1.1
63.16
0.96
8.2
0.35
18.4
1.03
1.03
0.2
64.27
1.35
8.2
0.C5
-0.06
20.8
1.01
1.04
-3.2
62.44
0.67
7.6
0.21
19.2
1.01
1.02
-0.8
59.93
1.71
8.1
0.19
0.3*
If .1
1 .04
1.05
-0.9
59.84
1.67
C.O
0.40
14.2
1.C4
1.05
-0.6
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
ANALY
hO •
642-1*
TIC'L
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
POINT
date
TIME
FLAG
UT X
VT 2
WT *
1816
ic/ci/76
233*
43.33
40.53
11.09
IC/02/76
3730
43.52
39. 99
10.26
10 '02/76
1530
44.79
41.52
9.25
10/02/76
2330
43.88
41.72
12.57
10 '0"*/76
0730
41. t?5
42.34
fl.ll
10/03/76
153C
42.55
42.03
9.9&
1C/D3/76
2330
45.51
41.26
12.59
10/04/76
0730
42.74
40.05
11.31
in/01/76
1530
45.2?
41.59
11.45
1C04/76
2330
45.£1
40.90
12.81
1C/05/76
0730
3*. 80
42.12
2.°1
1821
10/01/76
1539
44.10
40.17
12.35
13/02/76
1530
44.21
40.89
9.64
1r/£>3/76
1530
41.49
39.96
10.70
10/04/76
1530
45.46
40.77
12.70
O
0*1
sol ic-
TOTAL
SlUHY
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
io'ac
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
IMSCL
ION
RATIO
RATIO
IV31L
WT X
WT X
JT %
WT 2
WT X
•V
V
61.73
1.91
8.0
0.25
17.9
1 .00
1 .06
-5.4
60.24
1.56
a.o
0.03
0.37
17.C
1.03
1.05
-1.5
61 .64
1.46
7.a
0.20
15.0
1 .04
1.04
— 3.6
64.71
0.94
5.1
C .0 7
19.4
0.97
3 .0 3
-?>.o
61.03
0.72
7.6
0.38
0.5 3
13.3
P .9ft
1.02
-4.3
62.51
1.36
7.8
C .34
16. P
0.97
1 .03
-C..1
64.16
0.68
8.1
C.OC
19.6
1.01
1.02
-0.7
61 .36
0.95
8.6
8.03
0.41
IS.4
0.99
1 .0 3
-' .4
63.43
1.06
8.7
0.05
13.1
1.02
1.03
-1 .3
63.93
0.36
7.7
-2.03
2t.tf
1.02
1 .02
-C.l
55.45
0.92
8.0
0.06
1 .15
5.1
1.C2
1.03
-0.5
62.55
1.76
44 .0
0.72
19.7
1.01
1 .05
-4.4
60.74
1.56
44.0
1 « 6 z.
15.9
1.04
1.05
-0.7
60.64
0.09
46.0
3.30
17.6
r.se
1.0 2
-4.5
63.65
0.99
42.3
0.04
19.9
1.02
1.0 3
-0.9
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
RUN
KC.
ANALY
TICAL
POINT
VFG-1A 1816
0
1
o
\D
1921
VF«-13
SOLID
CA0
S02
S03
DATE
TI*£
FLAG
WT X
WT *
WT X
1C/10/76
1730
13.93
12.84
0.02
10/10/76
2330
27.09
26.96
2.21
19/11/76
0730
26.67
25.69
3.81
1C/11/76
1530
22.40
20.18
4.53
19/11/76
2330
2®. 11
21.68
5.72
1C/12/76
0730
26.03
23.34
5.01
1C/12/76
1530
25.18
22.98
4.01
19/12/76
233C
2H.53
27.26
4.99
1C/17/76
0739
23.31
27.33
2.82
ir/13/76
1530
27. 94
24.57
5.93
10/13/76
2339
27 .80
27.53
2.50
19/14/76
0739
28.92
27.28
2.15
1*/1*£?6
1539
27.7 ft
27.07
0.89
10/l*/76
2330
23.23
29.68
3.37
19/15/76
0730
25.33
25.55
1.61
10/15/76
1530
28.33
27.32
2.61
19/15/76
2339
26.78
25.j8
2.54
19/16/76
0730
23.37
2K.4C
1.37
l«V16/76
1530
39.50
*9.65
4.30
10/15/76
2330
26.75
27. 91
1.98
19'17/76
0730
26.70
26.60
1.90
10/17/76.
153?
27.57
29.CO
1.28
19/17/76
2330
2ft.27
26.96
2.69
10/11/76
1539
25.73
26.23
2.73
10/12/76
1533
25-77
21.89
6.07
10/13/76
1539
25.9B
26.06
1.73
10/14/76
1530
28.09
28.95
1.29
10/15/76
1530
22-12
14.61
10.70
22.12
15.39
9.90
10/16/76
1530
27.19
29.06
1.45
12/17/76
1535
24.46
25.49
0.86
10/21/76
0730
37.41
35.65
1.28
10/21/76
1533
36.12
34.74
0.68
10/21/76
2330
35.6?
36.26
1.03
10/22/76
0730
36.38
35.47
0.69
1C/22/76
1530
35.60
33.48
2.00
19/22/76
2339
36.44
35. E3
0.44
10/23/76
0730
37.12
36.73
-1.32
37.15
3 8 . o £¦
-2.82
10/23/76
1530
37.64
36.91
1.68
19/23/76
2330
38.CO
36.49
0.16
19/24/76
0730
39.42
37.28
Q.40
10/24/76
1539
40.48
36.91
2.74
tfW/K
2339
42.38
37.35
4.08
15/25/76
3730
41.04
3a.36
2.92
OX I
SOLID
TOTAL
SLURY
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
IONIC
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
IM S 0 L
ION
S AT XO
RATIO
IV?«L
WT X
WT X
»'T X
WT X
WT X
X
(C A }
(C03)
V
16.C7
0.77
13.3
9.75
0.1
1.16
1 .*9
A.l
35.9C
C.44
9.1
3 .9«
6.1
1 . C 8
! .02
T.l
35.92
C.19
9.1
2.85
3.97
10. r»
1.C6
1.01
4.8
29.75
0.22
8.6
4 .53
15.2
1.07
1.91
5.7
32.82
0.37
8.6
4.14
17.4
1.05
1.02
2.7
34.1f
0.33
7.9
2.61
3.5 3
14.7
1 .09
l.*2
6.6
32.73
C .22
7.8
3.71
12.3
1.1 C
1 .91
7.8
35.06
0.33
8.2
3.19
12.6
1.04
1.02
0.4
37.73
3.3c
5.3
2.54
3.3 0
7.5
1. 0^
1. C 2
3 .9
37.14
0.33
B.2
3.35
16. C
1.C7
1.92
r .<•
37.03
C .66
8.1
3.35
6.7
1 .97
1.03
3.7
36.24
0.66
8.1
2.23
3.30
5.9
1.10
1.03
6.4
35.72
0.66
8.1
3.47
2.5
1.11
1.03
%.9
40.46
0.66
8.0
3.0S
a.3
1.90
1.9 3
-3.5
33.54
0.64
8.8
2.49
4.1?
4.8
1.08
1 • . v>
t.C
36.75
0.27
8.1
3.56
7.1
1.19
* HI
7.9
34.51
0.66
8.6
3.32
7.4
1.11
1.03
6.6
3b .66
0.S1
8.6
2.25
3.57
3.7
1.P9
1.93
5.2
41.36
0.71
7.6
2.65
1C.A
1.05
1.53
2.0
35.74
0.72
9.0
3.92
5.5
1.9 7
1.04
T.9
35.14
0.40
8.3
2.59
3.69
5.4
1.05
1.02
5.9
37.52
0.44
8.6
3.5^
3.4
1 .05
1 • 0 '
2.6
35.26
0.«9
fc.5
3 . ?o
7.6
1.06
1.03
3.S
35.51
0.26
52.0
23.4 3
7.7
1.03
1.01
2.0
33.43
0.33
53.0
2-5.97
18.2
1.10
* r> o
7.5
34.3G
9.«9
49.0
22 .42
5. Ci
1.08
1.03
5.1
37.47
0.82
50.0
20 .43
3.4
1.07
1.04
3.8
28.96
0.27
50.0
26.15
36.9
1.09
1.02
6.7
29.02
0.27
34.1
1.09
1.02
3 .5
36.52
0.49
52.0
22.26
4.0
1.06
1.02
** • 6
32.72
0.49
59.3
28.73
2.6
i.r-7
1.03
3.7
45.84
4.12
8.8
0.18
1.90
2.8
1.17
1.16
f .1
*4.10
3.52
7.8
1.95
1.5
1.17
1.15
?.l
46.25
3.25
8.9
2.12
2.2
1.19
1.13
-3.6
45.02
2.93
8.3
0.15
2.14
1.5
1.14
1 .98
5.4
43.84
2.91
8.4
2.17
4.6
1.17
1.12
3.9
45.22
2.01
8.2
2.07
1.9
1.15
1.08
6.9
44.59
1.37
8.5
0.98
2.2?
-2.9
1.19
1.06
11.2
44.67
l.M
-6.3
1.19
1.06
10.7
47.81
2.36
9.1
1.95
3.5
1.12
1.09
*5.77
2.50
8.6
1.97
0.4
1.19
1.10
7.?
46.99
2.31
8.5
0.04
1 .79
0.8
1.20
1.11
7.1
48.E7
2.4"?
8.5
1.48
5.6
1.18
1.09
7.3
50.76
2.70
8.6
1.16
8.0
1.19
1.19
8.9
50.66
2.36
8.3
0.19
1.31
5.7
1.17
1.P8
7.0
-------
SCUD ANALYSES
RUN
*e.
VFG-18
AN ALY
TIC«L
0
1
—J
o
1821
VFG-1C 1816
VFG-10
1825
1816
1B?5
SOLID
CAO
S02
SO 3
date
TIKE
FLAG
UT X
WT *
WT *
10/25/76
1530
41.87
37.82
4.11
10/25/76
233?
41. 82
38.61
3.43
10 '26/76
0730
42.62
38.65
2.83
1C26/76
1530
42.22
37.25
5.18
1C/26/76
233 0
40.49
37.97
1.20
10/27/76
0730
41.96
36.80
5.70
1 »*/27/76
153 0
40 .26
34.00
6.93
10/27/76
23"*' 0
41.12
36.33
4.79
10'23/76
0730
40.42
37.06
3 . b4
12'26/76
1530
33.77
20.53
7.61
1C/23/76
2330
37.31
37.79
3.07
10'29/76
073 0
3? .ft 7
36.00
5.49
10/22/76
153 D
37.79
35.12
3.69
10/23/76
1530
37.21
36.15
1.34
10 '24/76
1530
43.09
37. 2 8
1.11
10/25/76
1530
42.23
3 7. i- 4
5.69
10/29/76
1530
30.33
32.55
2.46
10/29/76
233 0
28.54
25.69
4.01
10'30/76
C730
25.96
24.25
3.89
10'30/76
1530
22.29
21.27
0.79
10 '30/76
2330
22.47
19.18
3.22
10/31/76
2330
22.53
20 . t6
2.26
11/01/76
073 0
23. ?4
21 .20
3.65
11/01/76
1530
20.36
IS. 32
0.55
11/01/76
2330
20.75
19.54
1.29
11/02/76
0730
22.57
21.35
1.69
11'02/76
1530
22.45
20.86
2.54
11/C1/76
1530
11'01/76
233 0
11 '0~/76
0730
11/02/76
1530
11/02/76
2330
21.75
20.63
0.33
11/03/76
0730
24.35
22.12
1.50
11/03/76
1530
23.39
21.53
1.04
11/03/76
2330
25.77
22.49
C.95
11/Q4/76
C73?
25.11
22.30
1.29
11/04/76
1530
23.15
22.16
0.03
ll'C4/76
233 C
3C .0 3
25.69
3.56
U'05/76
0730
28.19
25.15
1.36
ll'C5/76
1530
27.70
24.<>5
0.29
11/05/76
2330
30.13
22.42
3.88
11/06/76
0730
27.67
24. 07
0.16
11/56/76
153C
27.40
17.73
7.38
11/92/76
?3^r
ox:
SOLI"!
TOTAL
SLURT
ACID
CALC
OAT
STOIC
STOIC
I0MC
S03
C02
SOLID
insol
iNSOL
ION
RATIO
PATIO
IMG.-.L
WT X
UT X
WT X
WT X
!VT X
f CC3)
51.38
1.98
8.4
1.19
8.0
1.1*
l.n7
*•0
51 .73
2.CO
8.6
1.21
6.7
1.15
1.07
r» -7
* -•
51.13
3.04
8.5
0.10
1.0-1
5.5
1.39
1.31
51.74
2.20
8.1
1,07
10.0
1.16
1.08
V.'j
48.65
2.20
7.8
1.42
2.5
1.19
1 .0?
8.=>
51.69
1.83
3.3
1 .1 4
11.0
1 .16
1 .06
8.2
49.42
1.71
7.9
1.3 b
14.0
1.16
1.C6
8-4
50.20
1. ?5
8.0
1.27
9.6
1.1*
i.r-7
& .«¦
49.86
2.26
8.£
0.1S
1.3 a
7.1
1 .16
1.0°.
6.5
52.35
1.49
8.2
1 .34
14.5
1.06
1.05
•> ^ rN
50.30
1.65
8.2
1.6 5
6.1
1.06
1 .06
-0. 1
50.48
2.00
8.6
0.28
1.5?
10.9
3.10
1.07
2.5
47.58
2.53
64. 0
13.36
7.7
1.13
1.10
3.3
47.07
2.47
52.0
11.5?
3.9
1 .13
1.10
2.9
47.70
2.97
48.0
8.7?
2.3
1.21
I .11
52 .73
1.9 8
42.C
5.24
10.8
1.14
1.07
6.6
43.14
2.01
9.3
2.6?
5.7
1.15
1.08
5.9
36.12
0.88
9.8
4.01
11.1
1.13
1.04
7.4
34.20
2.11
9.0
2.58
3.94
11.4
1. OS
1.11
-2.6
27.37
1.12
3.6
4.63
2.9
1.1'
1.07
7 .6
27.19
1.54
8.3
4.4 5
u.e
1.18
1 .It
S.5
27.58
1.70
3.1
4 .31
8.2
1.17
1.11
4.6
30.15
1.09
9.3
3.36
4.62
12.1
1.13
1.10
2.9
24.07
2.47
8.3
t.SC
2.3
1.21
J .19
1 .7
25.71
1.C4
8.5
4.3?!
5.0
1.15
1 . D 7
6.8
28.37
0.60
3.3
3.17
4.47
5.9
1.14
1.04
S.&
23.61
0.54
8.1
4.34
8.9
1.12
1.0 3
7.7
26.11
1.37
7.8
4.36
1.?
1.19
1.10
7.9
29.15
1.51
7.3
2.55
3.69
5.2
1.19
1.09
8.2
27.95
1.65
7.6
3.98
3.7
1.19
1.11
7.3
29.06
3.13
8.2
3.91
3.3
1.27
1.20
5.5
29.16
2.02
8.2
2.55
4.04
4.4
1.23
1.13
5.4
27.73
2.73
8.4
4.36
C.l
1.1?
1.18
1.1
35.67
2.58
8.3
3.17
10.0
1.20
1.13
5.:>
32.79
2.75
8.5
2.24
3.62
4.1
1.23
1.15
6.1
30.60
3.46
7.3
3.46
1.0
1.29
1.21
6.7
31.90
4.95
7.8
3.01
12.2
1.35
1 .28
4 .9
31.37
4.04
7.8
2.24
3.37
0.5
1.2S
1 .23
2.0
29.54
3.96
8.2
3.57
25.0
1.32
1.24
6.1
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
•Cfc
SO.
AMM.Y
TICAL
VFG-1D 1825
VF6-1E 1816
O
t.-
1825
VFG-IF 1816
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
DATE
time
FLAG
UT *
at x
WT X
11/03/76
0730
11'03/76
1530
11/03/76
2330
!1/04/76
0739
11/04/76
1530
ll/S»/76
2330
11/05/76
0730
11/05/76
1530
11'05/76
2330
ll/Ct/76
0733
11/06/7*
1535
11/06/76
2330
26.32
18.62
4.92
11/07/76
0730
25.15
23.70
0.53
11/07/76
1S3C
21.35
19.36
1.77
11/07/76
2330
25.41
23.96
1.51
ll'C5/76
5730
22.30
20 .68
0.33
11/OS/76
1530
24.14
22.80
i.99
11/38/76
2330
28.C3
26.42
C .48
11/09/76
0730
28.49
25.25
4.98
11/09/76
1533
28.18
23. £8
6.57
11/09/76
233S
29.37
22.98
9.23
11/10/76
0730
27.55
24.00
6.49
11/18/76
1530
25.63
24.25
3.45
11/04/76
2330
11/07/76
0730
11/07/76
1530
11/07/76
233C
11/08/76
073 C
11/08/76
1530
11/08/76
2330
11/39/76
0730
11 '63/76
2539
11/09/76
2330
11/10/76
0730
11/10/76
1530
11/10/76
2330
27.51
23.91
6.52
11/11/76
0730
18.73
17.22
1.83
11/11/76
153C
16.77
16.64
0.64
11/11/?&
2330
17.24
15.02
3.49
11/12/76
0730
19. 86
16.29
4.39
11/12/76
1530
16.79
12.66
4.07
11/12/76
2330
15.85
13.81
2.48
11/13/76
0730
16.62
13.64
2.80
11/15/76
1530
15.21
14.94
0.31
11/15/76
2330
16.66
16.10
0.12
0X1 solid
TOTAL
SLU*Y
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
IOMIC
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
IttSOL
10 N
R AT 10
RATIO
IM j AL
WT X
WT X
WT X
WT *
t/T X
Z
«CA)
25
8.8
4.69
5.75
14.1
1.20
1.11
c-.f
18.98
0.72
P.9
6 • 1 J
1.6
1.14
1.07
r. .6
20.24
0.68
8.1
5.37
0.6
1.1?
1.08
h . ?
-------
SOLID iNUrSES
RUN
NO.
VFC-1F
ANAL*
TICAL
1P16
1825
D
i
IV
VF6-I»5
1816
1825
UPS-It XM.&
SOLID
CAO
302
S03
DATE
Ti«e
FLAG
VT X
VT X
VT X
ll/15/7«i
31/15/76
0730
16. 9C
16.23
0.93
1 l/l':/76
1532
19.11
13.16
0.94
11/15/76
2330
19.18
16.56
3.31
11/17/75
073 0
17.39
15.92
C .4 2
11/17/76
1530
19.14
17.9*
1.38
ll'17/76
2330
13.83
IP.66
0.64
ll/Z?>/76
37??.
16.31
13.39
2.78
11/10/7T,
23 3D
11/11/76
0730
11/11/76
153C
11/11/76
2330
11/1^/76
0733
11/12/76
1530
11/12/75
2330
U/15/76
073 0
11/15/7";
1530
11/1S/76
2330
11/15/76
0730
11/16/76
1530
11/15/76
2330
11 /*7 / ?6
5730
11/17/76
1530
11/17/76
233?
11/19/76
0730
11/18/76
1730
18.13
14.84
0.47
ll/lft/76
2330
19.05
14.04
1.34
11/19/76
OCOD
23. 2*
23.38
1.25
11/19/76
3530
27.63
24. 97
0 . 26
11/19/76
2330
24 .88
21.71
3.89
11/20/76
0735
23.63
19.90
3.75
11/2C/T6
1530
26 .58
23.16
2.50
11/20/76
2330
27.91
25.69
2.57
11/21/76
0733
25.0*
23.16
0.43
11/1S/76
1730
11/13/76
2333
11/19/76
<•800
11/19/76
1530
11/19/76
2330
11/20/76
073r
11/20/76
1530
11/20/76
2330
11/21/76
0739
tl/22/76
1700
SB.£>6
22.S0
5.55
OXX SOLID
total
SLURY
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
IONIC
503
C02
SOLID
INS
INSOL
IOM
RATIO
fl AT TO
I«?AL
WT X
«'T X
WT *
WT X
WT "5
•*
(C A)
-------
SOLZO ANALYSES
ftUK
KO.
VFS-lt
ANAL*
TICAL
PCINT
1*16
1825
0
1
-a
w
SOLID
CAO
S02
SO 3
DATE
THE
FLAG
VT X
WT X
WT X
11/22/76
2333
27.94
22.70
3.87
11/23/76
0730
28.55
23.52
4.69
11/23/76
1530
28.4 4
24.61
3.44
11/23/76
2330
27.03
22.44
3.34
11/24/7*
0730
27.20
19.72
7.99
11/24/76
1530
26.25
23. 06
1.89
11/24/7*
2330
27.69
23.52
4.03
11/25/76
0730
25.61
21.17
5.38
11/25/76
1530
25.76
22.44
4.70
11/25/76
2330
26.78
20.26
8.07
ll/2*/76
0730
26.67
23.72
4.51
11/26/76
1535
27.11
26.79
1.00
11/26/76
2330
23.46
25.69
3.35
11/27/76
0733
26.50
22.07
4.46
11/22/76
1700
11'22/76
2331
11/23/76
0730
11/23/76
1530
11/23/76
2330
11/24/76
073 S
11/84/74
1530
11/24/76
2330
11/25/76
C730
11/25/76
1530
11/25/76
2330
11/26/76
0830
11/26/76
1530
11/26/76
2330
11/27/76
0733
11/27/76
1530
26.97
25.44
1.56
11/27/76
2339
24.71
23.16
1.90
11/28/76
0730
26.11
23.47
2.83
11/22/76
1535
26.07
21.62
5.36
11/28/76
2330
22.33
21.35
0.06
11/29/76
0730
23.02
22.07
1.46
11/29/76
1530
21.61
20.42
1.95
11/29/76
2370
19.76
18.09
2.05
11/50/76
073C
23.66
18.25
6.05
2 3.66
18.25
6.C5
11/30/76
1530
22.72
20.5R
2.62
11/30/76
2330
25.27
22.38
1.05
12/01/76
C730
23.74
19.90
2.77
12/01/76
1533
21.83
20.34
0.55
12/01/76
2333
21.75
19.13
3.17
12/02/76
8730
22. ac
21.38
1.74
OX I
SOLTC
total
sum
ACID
CALC
OAT
STOIC
STOIC
IOMC
$03
C02
SOLID
1NS0L
INSCL
ION
* ATIO
3ATIC
iv~- *L
WT X
UT X
WT X
WT %
WT X
ICi>
.4
34.05
2.75
14,S
3.93
6.03
13.8
1.20
1.15
" .1
34. 2C
2.36
14.0
6. J9
115.1
1.19
1.13
5.2
31.39
2.25
15.4
6.92
1 (' • 7
1.23
1.13
T.C
32.64
2.80
15.2
5.72
6.4 3
24.5
1.19
1.16
2.8
3C.71
2.49
15.0
6.95
6.2
1.22
1.15
6.0
33.43
2.42
15.5
6.5?
12.1
1.18
1.13
* .3
31 .84
1.70
14.9
4.99
•j .S3
1? .9
1.1*
1.1C
*.5
32. 75
1.92
14.6
6.60
14.4
1.12
l.'.l
1.4
33.39
1.70
15.3
6.61
24.2
1.14
1.09
4 .6
34.16
1.52
15.9
5.27
6.93
13.2
1.11
1.08
X.C
34.4?
1.67
14.9
6.47
2.9
1.12
l.?9
'..1
35.46
1.59
15.1
6.18
9.5
1 .15
1.0S
-.6
32.C4
1.65
14.6
4.C4
6.62
13.5
1.18
1.09
7.4
33.35
1.85
13.4
5.92
4.7
1.15
1.10
4.6
30.85
1.70
10.0
4.85
6.2
1.14
1 .1 c
7.8
32.16
1.70
8.5
2.40
3.90
8.8
1.16
1 .10
5.4
32.38
1.33
8.0
3.65
16.6
1.15
1.07
6.5
26.74
1.54
S.2
4.49
0.2
1.19
1.1?
7.3
29.C4
1.87
8.5
2.93
4.38
5.0
1.13
1.12
i.r-
27.47
2.41
9.5
5.09
7.1
1.12
1.16
-3.3
24.66
1.59
7.5
4.39
8.3
1.14
1.12
2.3
28.£6
1.87
8.2
3.30
4.11
21.0
1 .17
1.12
23.86
1.37
•3.2
3.30
4.11
21.?
1.17
1.12
4.5
28.24
2.58
8.1
4.17
9.2
1.14
1.17
-l.R
29.77
1.90
8.2
4.00
3.5
1.21
1 .12
7.9
27.64
1.92
8.1
2.91
4.19
10.0
1.23
1.13
8.1
25.97
1,77
8.0
4.44
2.1
1.20
1.12
6.3
27.14
1.70
7.9
4.28
11.7
1.14
1.11
2.6
2».09
1.45
7.7
2.58
4.3?
f..2
1.16
1 .C9
5.6
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
AVALY
RUN TICSL
SOLID
CAO
S02
NO. POI'JT
DATE
tike
FLAG
WT X
VT X
VFG-l" lftlft
12/07/76
153 C
22.79
21.11
12/02/76
2330
23.72
19.30
12/CJ/7&
0730
22.58
19.54
12/03/76
153?
22.20
19.5«
12/C3/7&
2330
21.38
19.72
1825
11/27/76
153D
11/27/76
233?
il/2£/76
083 0
11/25/76
1530
11/2R/76,
23 50
11/29/75
G735
11/29/74
1530
11/29/76
2330
11/30/76
0730
ll/3P/7f
1530
11/3D/7&
2330
12/01/75
073 C
12/01/7&
1530
12/01/76
233C
12/02/76
0730
12/02/76
153?
12/02/76
2330
12/03/76
0730
12/05/76
1530
12/03/76
233C
21? 25
11/29/76
970C
11/30/76
07D?
tOt AL
S03
$03
WT sr
VT 2
1.71
2*. 09
5.15
29.27
2.73
27.15
3.15
27.57
G.9C
25.55
SLURY
C02
SOLID
Wt X
WT %
1.78
9.1
l.*6
8.0
1.37
6.4
1.65
e.*
1.59
8.5
ACID CALC
INS?L I'iSOL
X i.-T J
o.7^
*.0"^
3.09 <».S2
«t.49
ft.79
0X1
DAT
STOIC
I Off
9. ^TI'"1
X
S.l
l.lr.
17.6
1.1*.
10.1
1.19
11. «t
1.15
3.5
1.19
SDL 10
STOIC
iimc
RAT??
r<3>\L
-------
**fl -
INLET
OUTLET
VASS
ness
rf4SS
LOADING
r.vLcr
OUTLET
S05
LOGINS
LOA^IVG
REMOVAL
S03
SC3
KLKCV4L
p. jTr
TI*"
35/SCf
C3/SCF
X
»Pf»
X
_______
______
lii/12/76
15 I' y
4.3°':<3
O.C4*tO
"9 .96
10/13/76
07PG
3.74=8
0.0223
99.39
11.29
4.fi9
54.95
1=500
5.1<549
0.0 359
99.28
13.66
4 . iC
5S.05
10/14/76
C 70 0
3.9157
C.3 0 90
91 .82
13.06
0.80
93.93
1500
5.5001
0.0309
99.42
13.31
1 .94
£9.21
1C '15/76
C7CC
4.2G
0.67
S3.41
15 30
4.542b
0.5283
99.35
3.39
0.4 3
86.81
1C/16/76
C7CC
3.6563
Q.G252
99.25?
13 . C 9
i.&7
78.79
1 5C-C
13.07
2.77
77.96
1C/17/7C
0 "»(*£•
12.13
0.13
9 S . ft 9
1500
14.77
4 .99
6 4 a 3 b
10/22/76
1500
0.0070
1.94
0.67
64. CS
1CZ23/76
0 7 0
0.9^23
c.a 2 <5
3S.34
2.73
0.4 6
P. 1.71
150 0
C.049C
0.0050
<5q . 39
2.3 0
C .53
76.0 3
10/2*/?6
0700
C-.0779
0.-05«5
92.26
1.96
0 .87
45.49
1500
0.03a3
D.C067
S2.27
1.18
10/25/7£
07:0
0.05*6
0.C04C
95.66
3.34
0.69
78.51
1530
0.G73G
C.0032
90.44
3.65
1 .42
59.54
1P/26/76
Q7C 0
0.2539
0.00® 2
96.64
4.S2
2.2C
52.53
1500
0.CG30
3.63
1.55
55.59
10/27/76
0700
0.1132
0.0933
97.10
5.60
1.91
64.53
is: r,
0.3730
0.0039
9fe.9D
".91
3.2S
37.19
10/2B/76
CtC
S.4172
O.OC41
93.93
•'.701
C.9091
C.CG73
98.75
15CP
G.43<(7
0.0029
99.31
7.24
3.97
42.97
10/30/76
C7C0
5.2Q57
0.0 221
99.56
5.0 3
C .29
94.00
1500
4.5243
0.0218
99 .S3
3.02
1.73
40.42
11/01/76
r?ca
3.3°32
0.0179
99.78
5.46
3.SO
27.62
150C
« .4 3 9 *•
0 ."193
99 .64
10.42
G . 2 6
97.40
11/02/76
C7CC
7. on *.8
«j . _ 12 3
99.62
12.04
£ • 69
42.21
150 C
&.l°2e
C.0143
99.76
17. Ct>
3.02
51.11
11/03/76
C71-0
5# 7762
13.19
7.09
44.10
1ST 0
5.2912
C.1273
99.46
13.47
5.2 =
59.23
11/04/76
c':c-
4.3255
0.3379
99.C-9
7.97
4.»2
37.10
15 &0
4.77*7
0.016P
99.63
11.32
3.73
65.73
11/05/76
r,7co
3.^07
0.02S9
c, c, ^ -a n
5.21
1.72
65.67
1 5 C '
4.3250
0.026ti
99.37
11/06/76
D7uO
3. 6-1 OS
S.C-lPl
99.<,9
0.36
f ^ ¦*
4.ce:i
9 5.39
4 .51
11/07/76
070C
7***>5C
C.02i4
99.67
13.24
15'0
5.6477
0 .0229
99 . 5H
24.80
ll/C-6/76
Q7DC
4.0392
0.022 6
99.42
9.26
15<*C
4.95P3
G.Q194
99.50
17. ?2
11/09/76
07PC
4.3455
0.C275
99.34
11.64
2.15
81.11
15 DC
3.7745
3.0309
99.15
6.91
U/10/76
07QC
4.C7=8
0.0360
99.0:?
15 CO
6.1421
0.5265
99 .55
11/11/76
070C
4.1624
0.0293
99.27
10.71
3.44
66.60
1500
6.42 00
0.C173
99.72
15.54
7.70
48.47
11/12/76
15C0
4.8369
0.0420
99.10
9.30
2.47
72.38
11/15/75
15CC
6.4137
0.0352
99.43
4.54
««.84
80.76
-------
P 'J V
\0. 0 \Tr
INLTT OUTLET
"eSS *AS5
LOADING L040TNS
TIM' G^/SC^ GS/SCF
"ASS
lOATX'iC. TNLCT
REMOVAL SO?
% PPS
VFG-
11/16/76
07U0
4.9601
0.0244
93.49
4.00
1500
3.7140
<3 . 0 21 9
3 9.39
0.04
11/17/76
0700
5.46r>5
0.0214
55.59
1.33
1500
Q.35
11/19/76
0 7 0 0
0.0211
2.50
1500
3. ??>21
0.3173
99 .79
S. 52
11/20/76
C7C 0
5.5?35
D . 010 3
9 9.65
1500
3.3'<46
0.0229
99.39
15.85
11/23/76
C7C0
6.05 85
0.0358
9 9.39
C7C1
5.64 33
0.0 ? 72
99 .50
6.61
11/24/76
C73S
5.2133
0.0188
99.62
13.90
"¦7D1
21.21
11/25/76
07 r 0
5.1047
C.H2 78
99.43
5.7b
?701
b.30 04
0.0276
99 .46
10.31)
11'26/76
f 7C 0
3.7C3Q
0.0211
99.41
10.53
11/27/76
f» 7 A A
5.24 55
0.0168
99.67
'ill/
11/23/76
07 ?C
7.ne
<"'7?1
1.4&
11/29/76
G 7 C 0
3.39
11/30/76
C 7CO
4.25 23
0.C274
99.33
5. J6
?7 31
6.1349
0.0318
??. 46
12/01/76
07^0
5.6143
0.023s
SS.56
13.91
G 701
b.3456
0.0229
99. ob
12/02/76
07 CO
4.9*73
0.r;223
99.53
3.25
"701
5.5S81
G.0383
99.20
0702
5.1382
0.0342
99.31
l?/C3/76
0700
6.6560
0.0 330
99 .>53
4.12
n?ci
5.133S
0.0349
99.29
7.75
UTLcT SO?
SO 3 &t*OV'AL
oum 2
0.00 100.00
0.02 4*.00
0.CP 100.CO
O.ZS 13.53
2.72 66.80
5.1? £6.41
1.5b 7 "5 .61
5 • f- o 4 6.76
1C.4? 4 8.56
C <4 92.01
1.53 84.63
2.71 74.21
1 • £ 6 65.36
0.7? 9 0.50
O.Ou luO.CO
c.co 1:0.00
<,.23 13. C6
J.37
5.02 62.47
7.15 3.S7
2.18
1.05
44.97
85.91
-------
Kt'A
NS. C2TE TJvt-
"tlUK B HINK 8SIW
CUT 1 CUT ? CUT 5
MI C? ON "ICON MICROS!
I
•J
10/21/76
0700
2.5103
1.*900
1.2100
1500
2.5500
1.5100
1.G30G
10/22/76
150C
5.3400
3.2 "0 0
2.22C3
19/23/76
150C
4.4203
2.6500
1.83C0
10/24/76
0700
4.33"0
?. = :»C0
1.79C0
15CQ
4.45 00
2.S&0C
1.S40C
1C/25/7S
0700
4.2530
2.5400
1.7600
15C0
4.5'-00
2.7400
1.9003
10/26/75
3700
2.5200
1.5 00 0
1.0230
1G/27/75
0700
4.3HC0
2.6200
i.o2:c
15S0
4.51?G
2.7C00
1.8 700
10/28/7S
1590
4.3200
2.5930
1.7900
10/30/76
f-730
4.3800
2.4400
1.6900
1500
4.21 CO
2.5200
1.7433
11/01/76
0750
2.37S0
1.4<-00
0.9500
1530-
2.41 CO
1.4 30 0
0.9703
11/02/76
0700
2.3302
1.3800
G.9300
150?
2.35CO
1.4100
C.9600
11/23/76
0700
5.6030
3.3 50 0
2.3300
15G0
3.C7C3
1.C 300
1.2600
11/04/76
070C
2.9300
1.7400
1.2C0O
1500
3.9CC0
1.7900
1.2333
11/05/76
0730
3.3900
1.8403
1.2730
1500
3.1100
l.asco
1.2505
11/06/76
0 7-30
3.0400
1.81 DO
1.2500
1500
3.nsoo
1.843G
1.260C
11/07/76
1500
2.3300
1 • 3 0 0 0
0.5333
11/OS/76
1500
2.3100
1.57G0
G.^OO
11/C9/76
S73C
2.3500
1.3930
3.t?4C0
15 OP
2.460C
1.4500
0.9933
11/10/76
0750
2.320"
1.3733
C.9 300
11/11/76
15SC
4.25 00
2.5400
1.7600
11'12/76
1500
4.1703
2.4--30
1.7300
11 '15/76
1500
2.70 ro
1.61 no
1.1030
11/16/76
•c7-:c
2.6500
1.5=00
1.0800
150C
2.52GG
1.490 0
1.0200
11/17/76
G7"<3
4.3*00
2.&200
1.8200
1533
4.19G0
2.51C O
1.73QC
11/19/76
0700
4.350"
2.6300
1.8G00
1500
2.69 CO
1.6030
1.0 900
11/20/76
C7t'ii
4.3100
2.3«S0
i.7nr
150"
4.32-0
2.b90G
1.7900
11/23/76
0700
4.1600
2.49G0
1.7200
11/24/76
0?00
4.3333
2.5900
1.7=05
0 701
4.4500
2.66CC
1.H4C3
11/25/76
C 7 ii 0
4.1900
2 . 5 0 0 G
1.7330
11/26/76
3700
4.2500
2.5403
1.7600
07C1
4.3100
2.5-'00
1.7=00
ll/?7/76
07GO
4.1400
2.4K00
1.7200
ll/2fe/7fe
C7C3
3.99CO
2.3903
1.65GO
11/30/76
D700
4.4583
2.6630
1 .<>400
12/01/76
0700
4.1600
2.4900
1.7200
3? I UK
CUT 4
«ICR ON
fSIA'tf BRINK 9RIMK BRINK 8RI,\K BRINK
CUT 5 CUT 1 CUT 2 CUT < CUT 4 CUT 5
MICSQh «57,«G klSTi" 3 UG TV<- WGTV'G W-"T.'
6.48
1 .9 P.
9.56
2.19
10.19
3.79
7.27
1.94
6 .»2
1.83
7.62
1.89
0.34
0 .8
0 .74
0 .2H
0 .45
0.04
0.53
0.27
0 .55
0.0 0
3 .66
0.0 7
0.00
0.00
0 .4g
o.rc
1.40
0.' 2
0.70
1.C8
2.52
0.59
3 .51
0.09
3.32
0.51
1.67
D . 69
C.71
0.69
1.51
1.10
1.15
0 . l_ 6
3 .69
0.66
1 .49
G. ^5
1 .42
1.02
0 .23
0.16
2.40
1.^8
1.3?
1.39
1 .09
0.83
3 .94
0.'3
0 .3.3
G.97
1 .64
1.49
2 .43
2.16
2.17
0.39
1 .95
0.32
1 .03
0."7
3.33
2.17
3 .46
1.21
2.">2
0.^0
1 .4 0
0 .' 7
0 .96
0.54
1 .28
0.63
1 .19
1.13
1 .45
0 .<-4
2 .'6
1.04
1 .3 7
0.8 6
1 .13
G . 6 3
1 .54
0.41
0 .77
0.'?9
1.49
0 . 7
1.6 2
0. 74
1 .16
1.15
1 .^2
1.05
1 .64
G .75
1 .37
G . 79
1 .17
0.78
1 .48
2.G2
-------
3PINK BRINK 1)8 INK BRINK BRINK BRINK BRINK BRINK 3RI\K BRINK
R'.'N CUT 1 CUT 2 CUT 3 CUT 4 CUT 5 CUT 1 CUT 2 CUT J CUT 4 CUT =
NC. CATf TIMF MICRO* KICRON MICRON MICRON KIC»0N WS7f«G WSTtifS «3T»>» UVT»XG WOT«*J
VFG-1n 12/03/76 07C0 4.1900 2.5100 1.7400 0.9503 0.S2OO 22.55 10.54 1.44 1.^2 1.49
a
1
00
-------
P.-Jf*
*0. DiTr TIvf
PHI.VK BfilXK BZINK
CYCLON FILTER PPQ°r
CATCH CATCH WASH
WGTt^G it 5T,v5 «5Tt«G
VFG-! *5 1C/21/76
10'2?/76
l?/23/76
10/24/76
10/25/76
10/26/76
10/27/76
10/28/76
1C/30/76
11/01/76
11/02/76
11/03/76
11/04/76
11/05/76
11 '06/76
11/07/76
1l/CK/76
11/"5/76
11/10/76
11/11/76
11/12/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/20/76
11/23/76
11/24/76
11/2^/76
11/26/7 f.
11/27/76
11/2B/76
11/30/76
VF6-1C
Vr G-lC
t?
l
-a
VFG-1E
VFS-1F
vr6-i;
VF6-1I
VF€-1«=
C'7 0 0
1500
i st: o
15 r *
0700
151?
P70C
15f 0
c7-r
07C-C
i=,rc
1500
P7DC
1S0C
"700
15n0
070C
15CC
07or
is:?
07CQ
1*00
C7CI
1590
070-3
1500
1500
150G
07C0
15CC
0700
1503
15PS
15CS
0700
150S
07C0
1500
070 0
15CC
D700
15C0
C7C0
07? 0
0701
0703
P7C0
-701
G?0t)
0703
07TQ
4.13
6.12
0.7f:
1.^3
0.99
G.09
3.??
2.56
1.25
1.17
1.?6
1.06
27.C4
32.52
35.93
F.34
65.47
12.tc
44.67
4F..97
31.73
16.93
IS.5^
47.77
33.32
20.13
122.37
6*.65
44.97
62.»6
26.16
43.40
50.11
44.2
47.23
54.99
68..-.5
65.72
54.46
1*6.60
63.15
93.69
64.54
72.06
72.41
75.5a
108.57
135.17
45.61
56.13
5C.97
156.37
36.47
SZIfJK
BUNK
TSOfIS
GRAIN
ETIC
L CAO
f
»
GR/OSCF
0.0624
0.379^
0 .0810
0.3H71
C.T724
0.15C1
0.3633
0.0598
-4.26
C • 1 ? 4 7
0.3415
0.00
2.J?55
0.00
2.7050
0.00
0 .5'<09
o.r-o
1.2493
2.C215
1.154H
0.16
5.63 03
-6.67
3.3C86
19.74
3.5127
5.06
5.1456
-3.54
2.65 85
1.07
4.7C23
-7.41
2.*470
-7.71
2.9278
-3.19
4.1359
7.48
2.6281
4.74
i .?j:-97
-5.67
4.2694
5.?o
1 .0461
— 4 . 36
4.1166
0.31
2.4 763
-2.51
3.1038
-0.86
2.5759
-5.70
2.7761
G.04
2.7490
3.«0
5.7t:56
3.12
2.9905
-1.39
4.7716
-a.cs
2.366";
-1.47
3.4707
-13.76
4.1635
-5.89
3.2362
-7.35
2 • 9fc 08
7.46
4.795C
-0.08
2.6030
-15.96
3.7927
11.55
3.7'. 26
-1.C6
3.2566
-7.14
2.3116
S*INt< BHINK
ihpact IMPACT
TEfiP PRC SS.
CEG. R I*». Ho
719.00 29.88
737.30 29.78
770.03 29.83
7 4 i . 3 0 29.~9
767.00 29.o3
748.03 29.65
7f 8. 00 29.50
763.30 29.30
74S.30 29.64
742.30 30.14
734.00 30.11
7C.-6.-5 3 70.12
BO 1.00 2S-22
757.00 28.12
791.0U 29.30
6S0.0 0 28.4 6
757.00 28.74
69C.C0 29.14
781.00 29.02
774.50 29.12
795.50 29.i>9
726.00 29.41
765.00 29.27
755.50 29.22
767.50 29.29
724.50 29.25
7*1.00 29.20
770.50 23.71
762.00 28.65
695.30 ? K . 5 6
763.53 27.S7
721.50 2.V..97
748.00 29.28
731.00 28.97
601.03 2?.73
72'i.OO 29.22
719.50 29.02
741.00 2r.a2
740.50 28.74
7^2.00 2?.72
779.00 2 H.7 6
6fs4.00 26.50
7£1•0 0 29.1 7
731.50 29.20
670.GO 29.23
735.50 28.fe0
739.50 2fJ .40
7 2 u . 0 0 28 .*t u
727.00 2B.66
697.50 29.00
719.00 29.20
BRINK PRIMK
SAMPLE l*r>zcT
TIME D.3.
MINUTC IV. HG
16
1.630
42
1.480
3 2
1.350
8 0
1.650
60
1.710
SO
1. 6 G 3
83
1.HS0
80
1.370
80
l.c-0 0
60
1. 760
80
1.560
82
1.340
16
2.130
16
1.960
12
1. S 3 4
12
1.^60
a
2.060
8
2.037
12
0 .535
16
0.590
16
0.73a
16
a. 6 a o
16
0.'67
16
0.575
16
0.630
16
0.633
16
2.123
16
2.100
16
1.970
16
1.753
16
2.100
16
>.:i3
16
2 .13 Q
16
1.126
16
1.-72
16
1.553
16
1.750
16
2.070
16
1.740
16
1. i 30
16
1.720
16
1.930
16
2.110
16
1 .a 3 0
16
1. 780
16
2.090
16
1.925
16
1.342
16
2.206
16
2.760
16
1.640
-------
a-'.'A
M n
? ST
Tlwr
r-:R T'.'K
CYCLO-v'
Cif CH
'JGT ,MC>
??# JN<
r U.TFR
CATCH
SOi?"
h'ASH
'»< jT «^ £
BRIiK
ISOKIN
ETIC
GȣIN
LO&r
G^/'03C=
B T: I K
IMPACT
T£»'?
DEC-.. R
R RI .'\i K
I ^ y A C T
P^ESS.
r;. HS
bRl
sample:
the:
MINUTE
ERINK
I""ACT
D.1- .
IN. HS
VFG-1P 12/rl/76 T700 96.?1 2.32 96.J" 0.15 3.K,02 73UCC 2V.27 16 2.206
12/03/76 07CO 90.50 1.53 43.S7 -5.43 3.2321 730.00 28.93 15 2.100
0
1
00
o
-------
«r "T f? r / *v? t
HUh CUT J CUT 2 CUT .? CUT 4
arc. o*rr tip®* kic»c-n rticoN mcRO'i micros?
VFG-1*
VFG-I5
VFG-1C
VFE-JC
VFG-lt
VfG-lF
VF6-1S
VFS-1I
10/12/76
f!7CC
29.0000
14.3 COO
5.2000
15 C C
*£¦.¦5*03
15.CC00
5.5C0C
io/ir/76
0 72 0
^9.5000
14 .4 C 0 0
5.2500
1c f fl
31. n t r o
15.2000
5.5D0C
10/14/76
1C?C
3i.ce*:
15.3?3Q
f-.Oi.OC
10/15/76
r 7 *j c
32.0000
15.5C00
*> . 7 U 0
1CC0
?9.C*C3
14.2 0 03
5.:5.-!3
10/16/76
C7C0
29.5000
14.4030
5.30 00
15Jr'
28.50C0
14.COOO
5.1500
10/17/76
fi 7 0 C
*6.5*~D
17. .->000
6.5500
* cs* c
27,4000
13.4000
4 . i' 5 0 0
10/21/76
C7f 3
35.0CC0
17.0000
6.25--0
15C0
36.cn33
17.5000
6.4000
l*/22/7S
150"
il.-K'JO
15.5:00
5.7000
1C/23/76
0703
32.3OC0
15.7000
5.77C0
15?C ¦
24.3COO
12.2000
4 . 4 5 0 0
1"/24/76
07GC
?5.eo.:o
J 2.5000
4.5500
ic;(!
25.93CC
12.6000
4.£303
10/25/76
C70C
26.7CCG
13.2000
4.S0C0
15 35
25.0C30
12.2000-
4.4500
10/26/76
C7C *
? 5 . r 0 0 3
12.4000
4,-jOOO
15 oo
26.S00C
13.0000
4.7300
1P/3P/76
07C0
27.4 C C 0
13.45^
4.9100
1500
31.5000
15.5000
5.6500
11/31/76
T730
28.3C 00
13.9000
5.1000
i5ro
^.scro
14.6'00
5.35 0C
J1/C2/76
C7GC
23.5003
11. t c c a
4.2100
^ r -
3e.ec-23
•, a r r, r. *»
x ¦* • tw si
5 . 3 0 0
11/03/76
ft? 00
??.oc;c
13.2 00 0
4.S200
1SC0
27.C--.u0
13.4 000
4.COCO
11/04/76
1500
27.2000
13.6000
4.9500
11/05/76
0700
43.5900
21 .'t 000
7.&C00
1500
26.0003
12.7000
4.7000
11/H6/76
P7C0
A 7 ** ¦** ^
- - J . f ^ c w
12.7000
4.6300
I5?r
29.00:0
13.7300
4.-150 0
11/07/76
1= " c
2 8.5200
14.0030
5.f.300
ll/?*/76
n-jc £
15.50^0
5.^000
. C r,
^ ' * fc"
28.5020
14.0000
5.1500
11/09/76
07C6
2ft.5000
14.0033
5.1500
1500
29. 'C00
14.4 TOO
5.2000
11/10/76
croc
32."C00
15.5000
fi.3003
11/1^/76
15 3 0
32.3000
15.8003
5.S0O0
11/16/76
17€00
2 . 3 5 0 0
2.3000
2 . 4 C r' 0
2.£bOO
2•6C C 3
^ » o 5 u J
^ « 6 v- 0 0
2.4600
2.*GCC
2.4703
2.4400
2.4*00
3.G5CC
2.550"
2.4830
MX I
CUT 5
KICROH
«f*Z
CUT S
MIC90V
M=1
CUT 7
"JCRD.V
• 35CG
0.*200
C.«000
.4300
0.5500
0.4203
.3G00
0.6100
0.4000
.4200
0.^403
0.4100
. t 3 C 0
0.^500
0.42 00
• 40 0
0 . 6 S 0 0
0.44 00
. 34 G C
0.5100
0.5900
.37C0
0.6300
0.4000
.3200
0.5900
0 • 3 ? G 0
• 7? C C
0.7900
0.5300
.2500
0.-600
0 . 310 u
.£>300
0.7400
0.4900
. S 3 0 L-
0.7700
0 . 2 0 0
.tftCO
0 . o r. 0 0
0.4400
.5000
\j . 6 o 0 0
0.44 00
.1400
0.5100
0.3300
.1700
0.5300
0.3400
.IS CO
0.5300
0.^400
.2300
f r \ •»
0 .3500
.1400
0.4S0C'
0.3300
.15 00
0.5100
0.3300
.22 0 0
0.5600
0.3600
.2700
0 .5S00
0.3700
.4700
3.6300
0.4<.G0
.3100
0.58C0
C.3£C0
.3oD0
0.6300
C . 4 i 0 0
. I •-* 0 0
3.4200
0.3000
.4000
O.'^QO
0.4200
. 2 > I. O
U » 5 ts 0 0
J. 3600
.16 0 0
0.57GC
0.3700
.2700
0.5700
0.3700
.1010
0.^«00
3.6700
.2000
3 .-i4 00
0.3500
.1900
0.5300
0.34 00
.270 0
0.5700
0.3700
.3300
0.5 '03
0.390?
.530 0
0.6900
0.4400
.4300
0.55t0
0.3900
.3300
0.5»'JO
0.3P-00
.*900
3.6100
0.3900
.4900
0.6*CG
0 .45 00
.5500
0.6f;00
0.45 00
.4500
0.66 00
0.4300
.4500
0.C5 0 0
0.4200
.5000
0 .6900
0.4500
.3500
0.6100
D.390C
.4 0 0 0
0.6530
3.4200
^oa
0.6302
0.3700
.4200
3.6400
0.4200
.5dOG
0.7300
0 .4ii00
.4400
0.6500
0.4600
.4200
0.6400
0.4400
-------
mi
MP1
KRI
tfP.I
RUN
cur i
CUT 2
CUT 3
CUT 4
NO.
OftTr
TI«F
f;IC»9N
rtJCON
?"!CRQri
MICRON
VFG-1I
11/24/75
0701
31.0HU3
lS.nQOO
5 . 5 COO
2.50QU
11/25/76
0 7c 0
?°.30I0
14.4!?r,0
5.2*03
2 . 4 3 3 (2
11/26/76
C7CG
31.70 00
15.5 00 0
5.7C0C
2.7400
.'701
21.0*^00
14.3nOD
5.2000
2 .3300
11/27/76
P7C0
30.5COC
15.2000
5.5500
?.5330
VF6-1P
11/28/76
07Q0
31 .<*000
15.5(100
5.7000
2.S2C0
11/30/76
0700
29.8000
14.600C
5.3500
2.4500
12'Cl/76
S7Z0
35.00 DO
17.2003
6.2 00?
2.90 00
12/0T/76
0700
28.COOO
14 . 0 CO 0
5.1000
2.38C0
o
00
CUT 5
mcscN
1.430U
1.3200
1.4oOC
1.3500
1.4400
l .4acc
1.3*500
1 .fcbOG
1.35GO
1RI
c'JT e
niCROM
o .fWOO
0.62C&
D.68C3
o.bl00
0.6700
0.68 00
0.6300
0.7303
0.6100
MS 1
CUT 7
mcRo-i
0.42C3
0.4100
C.44DC
0.3900
o.t40o
0.4900
0.41:00
0.5100
0.3930
-------
ftp I VP 7 fEl f'RI VP I MP I
*Uk rur 1 CUT ? CUT 3 CUT 4 CUT 5 CUT f> CUT 7
m* c&Tt rr«r vgTiVs jgt^s usT,m ust + xs vst*?* v6r,*e vgt «*s
0
1
00
u
VF5-1A !«/!?//&
10/13/76
10/14/76
1C/15/76
10/16/76
1C/17/76
VFC-1S 1C/21/76
1 8 '22 / ff>
12/23/76
10/24/76
19/25/76
1C/2C/76
VFG-IC 10/39/76
ll/tl/76
11/C2/76
VFE-1C 11/03/76
3I/C4/76
11/C5/76
11/06/76
V~G-Ji 11/37/76
t:/C»/76
11/09/76
nm/7s
VFE-1F 11/15/76
11/16/76
11/17/76
tfr 6-16 11/1*5/76
11/20/76
¦JFS-11 11/23/76
11/24/74
C7?0
1503
3700
150C
1 ?0£i
C 7 0 C
150 0
? 7 C 0
150?
S7C0
I'-Cf
57'; 0
isr->
15" C
07.10
15 :c
07C0
1500
07o
I53C
?7"! 0
1500
C700
i c i r1
0 700
15? D
C 70 C
1500
C' 700
I5'":c
i~> l- r
1-7 cc
150 G
0 700
1500
15" C
£7C o
1503
C7*T.
1500
0730
15CC
07.-, 3
15CC
C70C
isrr
C 700
15?3
0700
1503
07 3 0
0700
0.35
54.0 7
0.55
?."5
3.01
1.55
0.6«
4. 7C
4.6£
1.43
1.'l
l.'A
1 .27
1.27
14. 4f.
3.21
15.70
C .63
3.44
0.37
3.9R
1.?7
2.S3
0.77
1.12
4.34
1.60
0.74
1.21
1.51
b.C2
0.06
1.3?
J.15
1.2ft
1.27
0.59
1.01
C.S1
5.73
C.<>4
f.,13
3 .97
C .20
C.*.l
4.56
1.79
0.57
2.37
0.56
0.42
4.62
D .01
0.C4
0.21
0 .90
2.28
2.Hh
1.7C
1.13
0. SO
0.8 3
1 .63
2.39
0.26
C.ul
0.0 9
C . 52
0 . o2
0 . 9 o
0.0 5
0.42
a.27
1.2C
2.11
l.fi6
0.46
0.30
0.31
1 .53
2.54
1 .*3
C.3?
0.56
C.f-6
3.22
4.73
7.34
0.35
0.67
0.^4
3 .13
9.80
10.68
1.19
1.3*
1.53
2.33
19.27
11.34
1.04
1.13
1.C5
3.^7
o • P8
12.34
0.12
0.79
0 .4*
11.11
3.9°
4.78
C.5?
0.77
1.29
6 . l •>
5.06
13.31
0.36
C.O?
e.'ic
0.20
0.71
0.13
0.70
1.0*
o.r;4
0.51
0.75
1.13
0.71
C.*3
O.hS
0.39
1.1ft
n • 3 T
2.79
2.S6
1. r 7
0 .96
1.C5
1.55
1.72
1.41
C.f.l
1.61
1.07
1.91
4.51
1.4ft
2.22
1.46
1.28
2.26
0.91
1.13
0.48
1.13
2.54
2.44
1.37
0.86
1.33
1.19
2.24
1.51
C.&C
0.75
1.12
0.7»
1.93
1.60
2.T1
1 .74
1 ."4
2.4 2
2 . tj?.
1.0?
1.3"5
1 . 4 o
i.:r
1.31
2.31
2 . 0 6
2.27
1.60
1.6 2
3.72
5.fc5
7.CI
C
G .4 i
G.31
1 »S6
3.bl
3 . c'< 9
0.9C
0.48
I.dS
5.07
7.84
8.57
3.96
0.93
1.02
3.00
4.49
2.15
0.09
0.63
C.R9
3.20
3.27
5.57
0.23
0.27
1 . 3 C
3.70
5.23
3.S7
J . 6 3
1.27
4.27
9 . 3i
0.33
18.79
C.f 6
2.76
3.i 3
9.23
7 .56
8.25
<*. cx
G . c 0
1.-2
5.4^
i.i.S
S.'jl)
0.02
0.33
0.32
1.67
3.27
1.44
S .62
0.H2
2.54
7.1C
7.51
0.37
1.02
2.-j 3
5.72
7.23
6.21
0.77
0.92
2.71
6.09
4.9°.
6.S2
1.70
1.13
3.90
7.93
3.19
4.15
0.13
0.03
0.9 8
3.77
2.r'4
1.9*
1.15
0.99
l.°7
= .30
6.82
5.77
0.17
1.51
2.c.9
7.43
4.P.8
9.07
0.96
1.16
2.22
6.4*
6.CS
7.24
O.1"}
1.33
2.16
7.1*
6.37
6.OB
o.sn
1.05
1.33
3.17
5.S?
5.4S
C.7P,
1.32
2.04
3.'?9
4.70
0.20
1.13
2.r,8
4.56
7.90
5.73
0 .60
1. 3
2.97
4.?4
7. 35
fi .56
1.1ft
2.23
3.0 5
6.f>2
7.42
11.54
C .S3
0.S4
0.63
2.45
7.95
10.3.5
0.71
0.65
0.33
2.72
4.£9
4.34
1.53
1.15
1.28
2.44
4.45
5.76
e.oi
0.46
0.29
0.39
2.S5
4.40
C .30
i.ia
1.43
4.54
7.39
12.23
2.10
2.14
1.50
3.32
4.07
4.47
-------
*S6
jgt^s
*' E T » M G
VF6-1 I
11/24/76
0701
0.73
0.31
1.9;,
0 .55
11'20/76
5730
o.eo
D .77
?.D1
1.06
11/26/76
C700
1 .64
1*69
2.10
1.34
5. ">4
1.4P
1 . 8 ?
1.20
11/27/76
C7C?
0.74
C.87
1.71
1.13
VFG-1°
11/23/76
C- 7f: a
1.93
0.57
1 .19
*.fi2
11/10/76
0 70 0
C.3S
0.10
1.4C
3.09
15/31/76
070 3
C.13
0.44
0.4b
1.5&
12/C3/76
T *"¦ **;
V * V v.*
3.72
0.72
C .88
5.57
0
1
CD
4k
MR I J'RI
:JT 5 CUT h
,'GT 4 "-'G yCT,«G
3.5=5
3.34
l.^n
2.05
2.24
Id . his
6.9?
7.16
6.64
b.B5
3.CS
4.6,9
3.v6
4.53
13.29
4.14
4.54
7.29
KSI
CUT 7
W o T * M o
7.37
8.56
5.53
4.48
4.54
13.79
3.7^
4.05
5.30
-------
*»*
xo.
1ST
mMl
ftHI
Wtl
"II. TEP.
pROpr
1SBXIN
69 lit HI
CATCH
iMSW
STIC
LOAD
otrt
ri#e
U6T,/t6
USTtXB
X
aR/DSCF
l n/l?./7&
or da
13.7 5
C.00
P.3184
15C3
lJ.lt
c-.sr
5.11
0 • i;0 9
JC13/7S
073C
5.S2
o.sc
It.70
0.^ C94
15T0
22.15
0.00
-21.41
i.ri96
1C/14/76
1500
?1.99
0.00
-10. OP.
0.-134
10/15/76
*700
3o.
o.cc
-11.10
C.022S
15C 2
3°.26
St.CO
-20.59
0.0178
1C/16/76
070 3
40.79
-2>>.55
0.1232
37. 69
Q.C3
-26.03
o.r-iaj
10/17/76
0700
26.45
O.OC
-30.97
C.0211
15CC
34.13
C.00
4.3S
c.ta&i
10/21/76
0703
2.«1
O.CG
-44.59
0. :Tlh
1500
2.38
1.25
0.3036
12/22/76
i5ta
2.Rf>
5.15
-22.00
0.C039
15/23/^6
0700
2 .96
7.95
-2".70
0.0113
150C
5.20
4.2*
-9.23
C . T' u 4 0
13/24/76
3H0
6.62
7 . fi 1
-1c.27
o.i-ces
1500
4.?7
1.65
-1".09
D.5030
10/25/76
0730
2.54
10.03
-21.71
¦3.0C57
1503
2.7.®
5.3 2
39
8.0329
10/26/76
•57C 3
1.9H
4.27
-16.54
0.3044
150-3
2.56
9.98
-26.01
0.C.C51
10/30/76
c?ca
19.63
26.31
-27.82
0.0 351
15CS
16.9?
1.10
-25.b 7
0.?193
11/31/76
0700
?4.i>5
8.7"?
-IS.54
O.r-ZBb
15*0
9.5 9
36.55
-26.24
0.0254
11/02/76
C7-0
22.57
51.If
42.61
O.J 221
15C C>
15.15
6 • el
0.32
0.C159
11/05/76
C7C3
21 .58
6.71
-2.40
0.0192
:500
22.71
169.19
-10.15
0.0 697
11 '04/76
1500
^0.93
66.84
-21.92
0.G4O9
11/05/76
0700-
20 .°»
5.C4
-3C.C-6
0.0192
150 5
29.
1P.47
-?.<*!
0.0216
11/66/76
mc
25.rl
4 . 3 j
-9.45
0.^150
15 CO
26.74
2.3"
-r..ss
0.0174
11/07/76
15C3
22.66
6.B3
-7.02
0.0171
11'08/76
3703
20.10
4.99
-23. n
0.C156
1500
25.91
6.09
7.F6
0 .020 G
11/09/76
0 7t'0
40.6 /
7.14
-4.33
0.0246
3 500
39.75
5.56.
-9.36
0.0270
11/15/76
P^DO
ad.33
6.0?
-2H.il
3.0320
11/16/76
1500
26.36
1.65
-25.33
0.0 20 3
11/16/76
0700
33.07
4.65
-13.6?
0.0210
I?G0
32.05
3.IS
-21.>9
0.0232
11/17/76
C7C0
24.51
2.35
-51.23
0.233?
1530
23.13
5.69
-S.91
n i *> a n
v • v' *. *7 k.
11/19/76
0 700
20.49
0.53
-*..52
0.0216
1500
1J.62
13.55
-14.94
0.0176
11/2C/76
C7 30
26.39
6.2S
-12.01
0.0203
1503
24.60
211.F-S
-25.61
0.1255
11/23/76
0700
41.02
25.25
-6.46
0.C379
CO
ui
»11
METER
TCP
0F.6. S
KRI
«t tch
p.p.
IS. H3
Wil
H'TC*
cu.ft.
542.00
30.05
17.35
550.CO
29. 9(i
14.56
52 3.00
29.96
14.42
534.30
29.90
24.59
533.CO
29.74
37. 01
539.00
2S.74
36.54
526.uO
29.75
56.93
522.00
50.16
53.86
51?.S3
30.13
56.30
521 .i<0
30.2 r
34 . 76
5P1.C0
3C.23
58.25
?23.0D
?C. 17
40.95
527.GC
30.36
40.13
530.03
3C.20
50. 4f
52 3.00
3C.0S
4 ?.?6
525.CC
2V.90
60.04
533.00
?' .dl
76.63
D 2 7 • G 0
29. 31
75.52
521.00
?¥.01
6B.02
523.SC
2 9 . >i 0
7?. 74
521.00
30.07
7?.74
517.DO
30.10
&f .-?8
520.05
2^.54
31.61
514.iO
29.59
23.11
525.00
30.27
42.76
526.33
30.23
37.47
531.50
30.12
61 .."5
530.50
3 0.10
41.06
522.30
3.'. 02
51.42
02a.70
29.94
4K.t>«.
506.00
30.12
*~4 .75
517.CO
30.30
25.76
51?.00
ZC.1S
5 3. 02
52-?. 33
3C . 17
54 .2<»
523.70
3C.02
47.95
516.00
30.32
45.57
520.50
30.37
31.83
522.00
30.24
4^.24
53.3.50
29.90
46.33
530.50
29.74
4 3.31
526.50
29.9 3
33.94
516.00
3C.00
33.37
530.00
30.27
39.47
525.00
30.22
37.75
52 7.00
30.13
35.12
52k.CC
29.92
41.SI
5.-6.C0
29. S4
39.60
530.50
29. 52
4 0.73
524.00
2S.B6
38. SO
522.00
29.73
29.96
512.OC
30.26
36.66
-------
NPI
FILTER
??»CBE
FtUN
C*TCH
j.'i'SH
NC.
tfATr
TTWC
* ST » v'; C-
VCT,"G
VFG-1I
11/20/76
07C-0
16.19
11 .2?
n 701
30. 37
11.16
11/2S/76
0700
23.0?
31 '26/76
fl Tt; ?>
IP.<3
6.r-4
07 01
12.33
2fi .45
51/27/76
07 CO
13.75
2.52
VFG-1^
11/25/76
073 0
50.31"
»3.4<5
11/30/76
C7CC
22.93
5.62
32/02/76
0700
22. 91
3.38
1 ?/03/76
3 7 o n
?5.54
7.4 2
0
1
00
ON
MHI
j
i
ISO*IN
G^il.N
y r f r u
flTLH
y-w l
TTIC
LC AO
Tr •?
c %?* •
•»
SP.OSCF
oi:z. •<
IN,. H 3
CU.F1.
-i.o g
O.OlVij
5 I 3 . 0 C
11. 0 9
St- .^1
-4.26
0 . C'24 4
5?';.30
J C . v- 0
3s.ro
-7.30
C » 3 26 2
536.00
20.'51
42. 13
-14.64
0.il96
526.30
2 ?.yfi
34 .HI
-2.67
0.:351
530.00
? - 5 a
27.58
-9.57
0.0133
515.00
2-,'.rf4
36.54
6.1 fi
T.C3S4
497.00
3 l . 14
33.95
-0.76
0 « C13 1
52S.C0
30. 36
4P .31
-23.19
D.0 22S
43 0.00
3C.1S
30.31
7.94
0.C22&
538.00
30.23
43.10
-------
TCA OPCMTIHC CONDITIONS
TCA
TCA
PN
GAS
GAS
UQ
L/G
RUN
*LK
FLY
CONTR
SATE
VEL
RATE
SAL/
HO.
TYPE
ASH
H60
POINT
ACFN
FPS
SPM
HACF
5IH»
LS
Y
N
30000
12.5
1200
49.8
5®3-2f
IS
r
Y
30000
12.5
1200
49.8
584-2A
is
*
Y
30000
12.5
1200
49.8
585-2*
IS
y
Y
3G000
12.5
9C0
37.4
586-2»
LS
Y
Y
33000
12.5
1200
49.A
587-2*
LS
Y
Y
30000
12.5
1200
49.8
588-?*
LS
Y
29500
8.6
1200
72.9
589-2*
ts
*
Y
5.40
30000
12.5
1293
49.8
fcOl-2*
L
*
Y
7.00
39000
12.5
1200
49.8
602-24
L
Y
V
7.90
30008
12.5
1200
49.8
603-2A
L
Y
V
7.88
30000
12.5
1200
49.8
fie*-?*
f
Y
7.05
30000
12.5
900
37.4
685-2*
L
Y
Y
7.08
20*500
8.6
1203
72.9
686-2*
L
Y
Y
8*88
38000
12.5
900
37.4
607-2*
L
t
Y
8.90
30000
12.5
900
37.4
608-34
I
Y
Y
8.00
30600
12.5
900
37.4
688-2?
Y
Y
8.88
30808
12.5
900
37.4
MV2»
L
Y
Y
7.88
39000
12.5
900
37.4
618-2*
L
Y
8.08
30000
12.5
900
37.4
611-2*
L
Y
Y
8.80
30000
12.5
900
37.4
612-2*
L
Y
Y
8.00
30000
12.5
900
37.4
613-2*
L
Y
Y
7.SO
38Q00
12.5
1200
49.8
614-2*
L
Y
Y
8.80
30080
12.5
900
37.4
615-2*
L
Y
Y
7.88
38800
12.5
1208
49.8
616-2*
I,
Y
N
8.98
30800
12.5
1200
49.8
617-2*
L
Y
11
8*88
30808
12.5
1280
49.8
EFFLU
TCA
SOLIDS
TCA
RES
NO.OF
TOT
SOLID
OISCH
D.P.
M.E.SYSTr**
TIKE
HOLD
BED
RECIRC
RA.N5E
IN.
D.P.PAN'?^:
«?UN
MIN
TANKS
H3T
NOM X
X
H20
¦JO.
3.0
1
15.0
15.0
33-41
9.5
0.45-0.53
583-2*
3.0
1
14.5
15.0
55-64
1C.0
0.^5-0.53
583-28
4.1
1
14.0
15.0
32-61
9.9
0.*5-0.55
584-?ft
4.1
1
13.5
15.0
33-36
7.8
0.53-0.5O
5 85-2 4
4.1
1
0.0
15.0
36-37
3.5
0.52-0.60
556-2A
4.1
1
13.0
6.0
30-55
ID.3
0.45-0.52
5 37-2 A
4.1
1
15.0
15.0
60-6«
5.4
0.18-0.25
56S-2A
4.1
1
15.0
15.0
52-6.1
8.8
0.15-0.5?
58^-2 A
4.1
1
14.5
3.C
54-60
8.7
0.47-0.52
631-24
4.1
1
14.5
15.0
57-60
9.3
0.49-3.51
&02-2 A
4.1
1
14.5
8.0
58-63
ft . 3
0.19-0.53
603-2 A
4.1
1
14.0
8.0
58-62
7.3
0.c.2-0.<3»i
6C4-2S
4.1
1
1«.0
S.O
51-=,9
4.S
0.25-3.3?
605-2A
4.1
1
14.0
8.0
57-62
6.7
0.51-0.5*
606-?A
4.1
1
13.5
S.O
53-59
6.4
0.45-C.47
6 0 7 - 2 A
4.1
1
13.5
15.0
55-60
7.2
0.49-0.54
60a-?A
5.4
1
13.5
15.0
52-56
6.3
0.4S-0.53
608-2B
5.4
1
13.5
8.0
55-63
6.0
0.4C-0.53
60°-2 A
5.4
1
13.0
8.0
53-67
5.8
0.47-0.53
610-2A
4 • J
1
12.5
8.0
55-65
6.6
0.48-0.53
611-2A
3.0
1
12.5
8.0
57-61
7.2
0.53-0.57
512-2 A
3.0
1
12.0
8.0
58-61
7.7
0.57-0.61
613-2 A
16.0
1
12.0
8.0
55-61
6.0
0.45-0.6C
614-2A
12.0
1
11.5
8.0
59-67
7.8
0.46-0 .56
615-2A
12.0
1
11.0
8.0
50-63
7.4
0.42-0.51
616-2A
12.0
1
15.0
15.0
54-60
8.6
0.42-0.49
617-2A
-------
TCA RUN DEFINITION ANO SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
HOURS
RUN
ST AST
START
END
END
ON
NO.
DATE
TIME
DATE
TIME
STRS
583-2»
00/15/76
1745
04/21/76
0500
131
53 3-28
04/21/76
1545
05/01/76
1100
230
5P4-2A
05/C3/76
2145
05/14/76
0800
236
5»5-;>a
05/14/76
1145
05/20/76
0745
140
5R6-? A
D*/20/76
1300
C5/25/76
0500
110
*37-2 A
55/31/76
1445
06/14/76
C 530
295
5«8-?A
0^/16/76
0945
C6/21/76
Q115
10 7
5R9-2A
Of, /21 /76
1515
07/01/76
0515
200
6CI-2A
07/C1/76
2C45
07/12/76
0545
177
6C2-2A
07/1?/76
1630
07/1R/76
1210
137
603-2A
07/19/76
2330
07/26/76
2035
165
6C4-2A
07/28/76
16D0
Ofi/34/76
053s*
158
6C5-2A
08/05/76
2115
08/13/76
1235
170
6C6-2A
Oft/l3/76
1245
OR/13/76
1416
122
607-2 A
0°/19/76
1427
Q°/P2/7S
1645
212
6CB-2A
09/03/76
1235
09/06/76
2250
84
608-23
G 9/06/76
2250
09/13/76
0715
151
6C9-2A
09/13/76
1D45
0"?/24/76
C330
259
610-2A
09/21/76
1100
10/07/76
135D
28C
611-2 A
10/07/76
16G3
10/12/76
050C
111
612-2 A
1C/12/76
1433
10/18/76
C9C5
138
613-2A
10/1B/76
1604
10/21/76
1110
67
614-2A
10/22/76
1356
10/28/76
0845
139
615-2A
10/28/76
1300
11/03/76
1213
110
616-2*
11/05/76
0800
11/13/76
1000
174
617-2A
11/15/76
1705
11/22/76
0825
158
TC A
TOT
TCA
NO.OF
M.t.
M.E.
OE-
J.LK
^EQ
SPHERE
HOLO
SYSTEM
WASH
W'ATFR
ADDN
RUN
HOT
TYPE
TANKS
CO'iiF I 3
8/T
SYSTEM
PT.
~iO.
15. 0
fCA"
1
l-3£>/0V
I/I
CL
EHT
58 3-2 A
14.5
FC AM
1
1-Jp/OV
I/I
CL
EHT
5S3-2G
14.0
FC AM
1
1-3d/OV
I/I
CL/CE
DVC
5S4-?A
13.5
FOAM
1
1-3P/0V
I/I
CL
PNC
^<*5-2 A
0.0
1
1-3P/0V
I/I
CL
D'vC
c5<6-2&
13.0
FOAM
1
1-3P/OV
I/I
CL/CE
D\C
c87-"4
1*.0
FOAM
1
1-3°/OV
1/1
CE
ONC
C«8-2A
15.0
FCAtf
1
l-3°/CV
I/I
C^
DNC
r o o ~r> £
14.5
FOA«
I
1-3°/OV
I/I
CL/CE
DH'C
4C3-2A
14.5
c0 AM
1
l-3^/0V
I/I
CL/CE
D-'K
6C2-2A
14.5
F0A1
1
1-3P/0V
I/I
CL/CE
E^T
f.ii*-2A
14.0
PCAM
1
1-3P/0V
1/1
CL/CE
D"'C
s:4-?a
14.0
FOAM,
1
1-3P/0V
1/1
CL/CE
O'JC
605-2 A
14.e
FOAM
1
1-3P/0V
1/1
CL/CE
ONC
606-2A
13.5
FCA1
1
1-3P/OV
l/l
CL/CE
ONC
637-2A
13.5
FOAM
1
1-3P/0V
l/l
CL/CE
ONC
6C8-2A
13.5
^OAI
1
1-3P/0V
1/1
CL/CE
ONC
6C8-2P
13.5
FOAM
1
1-3P/0V
1/1
CL/CE
D\'C
6P9-2A
13.0
FOAM
1
1-3P/0V
1/1
CL/F
DNC
610-2 A
12.5
PCAN
1
1-3P/0V
l/l
CL/F
O'.'C
611-2 A
12.5
FOAM
1
1-3D/0V
l/l
CL/CE
ONC
612-2 A
12.0
FOAM
1
1-3P/0V
l/l
CL/CE
ONC
613-2 A
12.C
FCA1
1
1-3P/OV
1/1
CL/CE
D\;C
614-2A
11.5
FOAM
1
l-3°/0V
1/1
CL/CE
ONC
615-2A
11.0
FOAM
1
1-3P/0V
l/l
CL/CE
DNC
616-2A
15.0
FOAM
1
1-3P/0V
I/I
CL/CE
ONC
f.17-2 A
TCA
NO.
BEOS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-------
TCA
ANALYTICAL RUN SUMMARY
CGASES)
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
$02
S 02
S02
SO?
S02
S02
RUM
IN
IN
IN
OUT
OUT
OUT
NO i
PPM
PPH
PPM
PPM
PPM
PPM
583-2*
30*0
2200
3800
602
3*0
1000
583-2l«
295*
2100
3600
373
50
900
58*-?*
3016
2080
*000
171
*0
*00
565-2*
29*8
2*P0
3880
399
180
700
586-2A
2877
2120
3960
538
28C
1020
3059
2*00
3800
19*
50
540
588-2*
2476
1780
332e
159
60
260
539-2*
331*
2200
*360
301
110
6*0
601-2*
?f»52
2525
3200
23*
*0
*60
602-2*
313*
2800
3850
3*1
120
**0
603-2*
317"
2060
*800
*52
1*0
1200
60*-2*
3*32
2800
**20
873
5*0
1*00
605-?*
3*75
3300
*000
683
**0
1000
606-2*
3350
2*80
*000
781
360
11*0
6C7-2A
3295
2*00
3880
4*0
110
760
608-2*
37*2
3*30
*?*0
632
3*0
860
608-2C
3225
22*0
3920
133
30
320
699-2A
3130
2*80
3860
619
120
920
610-2*
2957
22*0
3720
*26
180
660
611-2*
2912
2*03
3520
510
3*0
7*0
612-2*
3092
2800
3760
539
**0
700
61X-Z*
3280
2080
3920
511
180
76 J
61*-2*
3556
3C00
*2*0
758
2*0
1080
615-?*
31*1
2500
3960
375
220
690
616-2*
33*1
2680
*000
785
**0
1260
617-2*
3107
2200
3600
586
260
780
AV5
MIVINUM
rnxivu"!
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
*UKE
M AK£
MA KK
S02
S02
S02
PCR
<>£*
P£R
REM
REM
REM
°A SS
»ASS
°ASS
BUM
X
X
X
MMOL/L
HMOL/L
v^0U/L
N3.
78
66
85
12.6
9.3
15.0
5*3-2A
86
68
97
11.5
9.8
l*.l
saw B
93
84
98
15.0
10.2
l*.l
5 8 4 - T- A
C.5
79
93
17.7
14.9
21.9
5»5-2J
79
71
87
12.1
8.4
If .o
586-24
93
82
98
15.1
12.1
18.6
587-2 A
92
87
96
8.3
6.0
11.1
588-2 A
90
83
95
15.8
10.7
20.b
*>8?-? a
90
6*
98
13.7
11.9
15.9
6C1-2
-------
TCA ANALYTICAL RUN SUMMARY (GASES>
AVG
MINIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
BOIL
BOIL
02
02
02
LOAD
L0A3
RUN
IN
IN
IN
KEGA
MEGA
NO*
X
X
X
WATT
WATT
583-2A
583-2B
584-2A
«585-?a
59f-?a
587-2 A
588-2 A
* P9-2 A
601-2.1
602-2A
603-2 A
604-*A
6.4
6.0
7.0
134
113
605-2 A
? .0
5.2
6.8
143
128
606-2 A
f.R
4.4
8.5
142
110
<6 07-? «
6.1
4.5
9.8
142
103
608-2A
5.9
5.0
7.6
131
54
608-2B
6.6
4.7
9.0
131
100
609-2A
7.0
5.0
11.2
141
112
610-? A
7.2
4.9
9.5
140
115
611-2 A
6.3
5.2
8.0
133
100
612-2A
6.3
5.0
8.1
146
141
613-2A
8.2
6.1
10.3
143
136
614-2 A
6.7
5.2
9.0
141
114
615-2A
7.4
5.7
12.5
142
94
616-2 A
6.4
S.O
10.5
146
80
617-2A
6.6
4.5
9.1
146
101
CONTINUED
MAXIMUM
BOIL
LC AO
MEGA RUN
WATT VO.
583-2A
5R3-2B
584-2 A
5R5-2A
5R6-2A
597-2A
588-2 A
589-2A
601-2A
602-2A
633-2A
144 60
-------
fttf* SUHMART - LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA
CONCENTRATIONS IN LIQUID• PPM
ANALY PH CA++ HS** S03= S0* = CL-
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT *V6 MIM MAX AVG HIM MAX AVG HIM MAX AVG HIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX
583-2* 2R16 5.5* 5.37 5.75 1833 1228 2260 2637 2079 3309 415 180 904 5382 3815 7542 709C 5318 8863
2825
2831
583-28 2816 5.32 4.98 5.70 765 644 1132 6829 5239 11359 2838 1040 7237 19588 14202 27958 4115 2304 6381
2825
2531
584-2A 2816 5.50 5.16 5.98 362 142 730 10600 5799 13878 7476 452 20807 27308 12692 32767 S012 2659 8154
2925
2321
585-2ft 2*16 5.36 5.21 5.54 644 435 752 10569 8599 13373 3996 1990 5428 31523 27077 32767 4175 3190 6^13
2825
25 31
586-2A 2816 5.34 5.16 5.54 497 222 798 9991 8199 11639 6907 2442 18545 25923 12212 32767 4368 3C13 6027
2825
2831
587-2A 2916 5.35 4.98 5.90 662 218 900 9885 8279 11839 5848 2623 11534 30885 23183 32767 2027 1240 31*0
2S25
2531
588-2A 2816 5.41 5.12 5.78 775 624 916 11418 10139 13658 3179 904 5428 31722 26604 327S7 6337 4077 9«84
2825
2931
589-2A 2816 5.41 5.25 5.70 676 584 874 10534 8739 13358 3658 226 608
-------
RUN SUMMARY - LIQUID ANALYTICAL OATA tCONTINUEDJ
PERCENT PERCENT
SULFATE IONIC
ANALY TOTAL IONS. PPM SATURATION IMBALANCE
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AV6 M1N MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX
58S-2A ?P16 17592 14786 21225 139 111 187 -2.4 -6.9 2.4
2825
583-2B 2ei6 32767 26482 32767 111 95 175 1.6 -14.0 12.0
2825
584-2A 2816 32767 31944 32767 56 13 118 -0.3 -10.6 10.8
2825
585-2A 2816 32767 32767 32767 107 72 124 3.1 -10.2 12.3
2825
586-2A 2816 32767 32767 32767 73 26 129 2.0 -9.6 18.4
2825
rt 587-2A 281S 32767 32767 32767 113 30 149 0.1 -13.8 14.0
» 2825
vO
N 588-2A 2816 32767 32767 32767 122 104 159 6.9 -5.2 13.5
2825
589-2A 2816 32767 32767 32767 117 101 153 2.3 -11.2 12.1
2825
-------
*u# StfWM*y
LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA
CONCENTSATIONS IN LIQUID* PPH
ASALY
CA*+
S03=
RUN
TICAL
NO.
POINT AV6
MI N
MAX
AVG
KIN
MAX
AVG
M1N
MAX
AVG
min
MAX
6C1-2A
2*16
7.09
6.04
7.71
420
13P
688
2537
1011
3489
4T8
90
1040
2825
2831
602-2A
2»16
6.92
6.58
7.39
351
140
788
2898
2529
3339
425
171
814
2825
2631
S03-2*
2816
6.92
6.04
7.66
623
307
840
3198
2534
3759
395
203
723
2825
2«»31
604-2*
2816
96 *>C
6.89
6.61
7.11
723
624
850
3103
2874
3504
279
180
452
2«M
605-2A
2ei6
6.95
6.79
7.10
371
207
592
3063
2429
3454
394
135
678
2825
2851
606-2*
2816
7.95
7.83
S.21
716
628
836
2887
2519
3159
278
45
407
2»2a'
2P31
607-2*
2F16
7.94
7.67
3.20
492
75
760
4859
3629
5979
771
271
2058
2825
5.15
5.06
5.24
926
850
1034
5032
4909
5179
2701
2668
2723
2831
608-2*
2316
7.94
7.75
8.20
593
80
«?4 4
4818
4389
5219
632
280
?.2«j4
2825
5.03
5.02
5.06
805
652
1994
4961
4649
5559
2536
1399
3075
608-22
< vl
2516
7.*»6
7.83
8.10
121
5
406
4928
4059
5899
2779
384
6C83
2625
5 .84
5.48
6.19
183
55
353
4833
4509
5129
4712
2917
6468
2? 31
609-2*
2816
7.01
6.82
8.11
417
64
782
3536
2809
4630
700
226
2691
2825
4.96
4.83
5.08
785
169
1212
3668
2929
4369
2588
1809
4161
2S31
610-2*
2815
7.96
7.73
8.17
339
106
878
3379
2869
4069
668
271
1176
2f 25
5.44
5.06
7.97
659
282
1082
3385
3019
3859
2105
1311
2849
2*31
611-2*
2n16
7.96
7.78
8.11
859
255
1254
3873
3333
4319
3C0
113
520
2A25
5.07
4.87
5.17
1155
1048
1384
3769
3539
4329
1628
1334
1967
2931
612-2*
2f>l6
7.«6
7.81
8.15
869
760
998
4056
3419
46 29
302
90
542
2825
4.91
4.58
5.24
1124
1054
1166
4290
3379
4709
2117
1809
2736
2*31
61S-2*
2816
6.3ft
6.74
7.10
834
628
930
4101
3499
4539
278
226
361
2325
4.87
4.68
5.02
1048
966
1156
3969
3549
45 99
1898
1221
2193
?S31
S04=
CL-
AVG
X IN
MAX
AVG
MI\'
his.
7967
3506
9515
1506
709
25^3
7731
6549
9272
2587
23C4
31C2
8663
7599
10752
3106
2659
3-7P8
8308
7263
9257
3101
2304
3545
8126
6828
9362
2694
2393
3013
8721
7C46
9525
2499
1861
28 36
15002
16316
9953
15026
1759m
17543
2531
2540
2304
24P.1
3 313
2659
14725
16362
10905
1336S
1&43*
21964
2312
2175
1950
1861
2 (.59
2659
11530
11488
94 58
3160
13°
13352
2974
3332
1379
3C13
<•4:1
4 C 77
9482
10067
7290
7677
11796
11966
351 :•
3496
284 0
2481
«6C9
4375
8276
8625
7141
6815
"?684
1C269
3515
3567
2659
2747
5
4*43
9445
9667
8127
9037
10360
10797
5186
5282
4609
5052
f=2t4
5 = 34
9638
1023:.
6964
9919
10913
10742
5593
59C8
4786
5672
6C27
6204
9812
9955
9286
944C
1
1 0307
5554
5140
4SC9
4857
6?°3
5672
-------
RUN SUMMARY - LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA CCONTINUEC)
PERCENT PERCENT
SULFATE IONIC
AN ALY TOTAL IONS, PPM SATURATION IMBALANCE
RUN TICAL
NO. FOIST £VG *IN -AX AVG KIN MAX AV5 KIN MAX
621-2A 2916 12937 6075 15512 58 17 97 5.0 -10.6 15.8
2825
602-2A 2816 1A061 12096 15562 43 19 93 A.9 -12.9 13.7
2825
603-2A 2816 160SA 14151 1AT01 76 38 109 6.1 -10.2 15.1
28 25
6C4-2A 2816 15633 14302 17408 66 75 103 9.3 3.3 15.7
2825
605*2A 2*16 14754 13271 16274 46 24 79 6.7 -3.4 12.3
2825
0
1
O
^ 2325
^ 606-2A 2616 15192 13506 16247 93 82 112 6.1 -2.4 9.8
607-2A
2S16
23799
1 749 7
27537
73
11
111
5.0 -11.6
15.6
2625
27606
26067
2<»046
138
127
160
—3.4 —5.8
0.4
636-2A
2«15
23170
20830
24731
87
9
135
9.3 -2.0
17.4
2825
26934
24075
32767
125
89
194
-2.6 -14.7
4.1
608-28
?ei&
22421
1*206
26570
15
1
51
5.0 —6.3
14.9
2025
24632
23061
26409
21
7
3b
-10.1 -14.5
-6.8
609-2A
2816
17744
14«09
21745
52
8
96
0.2 -11.7
12.9
2825
20701
17934
23155
96
22
157
-8.4 -14.8
0.2
610-2A
2"16
16235
14290
19501
40
12
105
3.1 -13.5
11.7
2825
18447
16072
21309
77
29
134
-5.9 -12.2
-1.3
6U-2A
2816
nsc2
18179
2C9C7
96
30
138
4.0 -11.5
10.7
2825
21630
2C334
23237
130
120
155
-5.3 -11.7
-0.5
612-2»
2516
2C62Q
17653
22636
96
76
109
4.1 -1.1
13.3
2825
23836
22790
24688
123
114
139
-4.7 -9.9
3.1
613-2A 2816 20719 18779 22187 93 77 ICS 3.8 -4.0 10.2
2A25 2ft W3 1VJ \Vt \ZZ -W.& 3.6
-------
Ht'W SUGARY
LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA
COfJCENTR AT IONS IN LICUIO, PPM
AN'ALY
PH
CA**
RUN
TICAL
NO.
POINT AVG
SIN
WAX
AVG
KIN
HAX
614-2A
2(>16 9.12
?P?5
?f 31
90
or
•
f-
8.56
749
107
926
615-2A
2S16 7.07
6.86
7.50
7H3
600
966
2P25 4.^5
4.77
5.C7
113?
1025
1430
?«31
616-2A
2816 7.92
5.74
8.32
2701
170C
3255
2S25 4.33
4.12
4.73
3108
2775
3520
2531
617-2A
2*16 7.99
7.70
8.14
2735
2010
3860
2825 4.67
4.32
7.95
3046
2600
4370
2P31
•1C-** S03 = SC4 = CL-
AVS "IN MAX AVG «IN MAX AV6 KIV MAX AVG MI'J MIX
3470 2719 39DC 352 248 1357 8&91 S047 9791 4236 2127 5229
3734 3149
3690 3129
219 80
229 91
521 353
521 355
4109 335
4059 1679
342 136
375 1278
643 124
678 994
113 497
1176 23=53
45 339
361 1854
0 226
9u 14 j2
9718 8 C17
9933 8242
1498 580
1989 1147
1560 821
2170 631
11173 4482
11053 4595
2200 4 C 56
3252 410 6
1923 4588
3279 465 3
39G C 5140
4148 5495
2481 5140
2 6 r. 9 5229
3651 '115
3634 6115
-------
RUN SU*"*A1Y - LIQUID ANALYTICAL DATA CC0NT1NUE0>
RUN
NO.
A*ALY
TICAL
POINT
TOTAL IONS« PPM
AVG
KIM
PERCENT
SULFATE
SATURATION
MAX AVG *IN KAX
PERCENT
IONIC
IMBALANCE
AVG
M IN
MAX
614-2A
2816
17849
14411
19482
86
15
104
3.2 -13.2
10.9
2S25
615-2*
2*16
19162
17489
20428
92
77
100
3.9 -7.3
10.6
2*25
2U6t>
19571
22 707
133
112
154
-4.0 -14.1
5.2
616-2A
2S16
8763
6041
192C8
117
50
171
5.1 -5.4
14.0
2825
10867
8963
12165
157
94
2=-9
-5.9 -17.0
9.5
617-2A
2616
9690
7637
12317
107
52
123
10.2 -0.9
15.1
2825
11566
8389
14478
150
48
233
-0.6 -14.6
16.7
o
¦
vO
-------
KVM SUMMARY - SOLIDS ANALYTICAL DATA
CONCENTRATIONS IN SOLIDS, UT X
SOLTDS
AI*ALr C02 S02 SOS CAO ACID INSOLUBLES IN SLURSYt WT
*UH TICAL
NO• POINT AVG HIN MAX AV6 MIN MAX AVG HIN WAX AVG WIN MAX AVG MI?J H4X AVG UN MAX
583-2A 2«16 3.93 1.18 6.32 18.21 13.80 22.60 9.98 6.95 14.80 28.48 25.55 30.80 5.46 3.89 6.34 14.7 13.2 16.6
2831
583-2B 2616 5.33 2.67 10.17 16.82 10.90 22.80 10.23 6.95 15.33 28.78 25.10 34.20 5.37 2.73 7.57 14.8 7.7 17.7
2831
584-2A 2516 7.46 2.39 13.44 20.60 14.50 27.40 5.51 0.83 9.88 31.86 28.00 34.70 5.38 4.30 7.68 15.4 13.0 17.9
2831
585-2A 2816 7.27 4.41 9.54 17.71 13.80 21.30 7.53 3.18 11.43 30.47 27.90 33.40 5.23 4.13 6.52 14.6 13.1 16.3
2831
586*2A 2816 6.39 5.17 9.79 18.58 14.50 21.30 7.42 0.98 11.90 29.61 24.50 31.70 5.38 3.83 7.15 14.5 12.8 1"5.8
2831
S87-2A 2816 8.20 5.12 12.29 16.44 12.10 21.10 7.19 3.08 12.68 30.29 25.60 33.80 3.40 2.29 5.13 9.2 6.9 12.7
2831
5ee-2A 281611.75 8.83 15.40 11.50 7.20 15.30 6.47 4.10 9.55 30.99 29.00 34.80 5.28 4.64 5.78 14.2 12.9 15.1
2831
S89-2A 2316 6.19 2.33 14.59 19.03 12.30 24.50 5.54 1.38 8.50 29.10 25.80 37.20 5.93 4.22 7.67 14.9 13.4 16.6
2831
-------
RUN SUMMARY - SOLIDS ANALYTICAL OATA CCONTINUEO
PERCENT PERCENT
SULFITE STOICHIOMETRIC IOMIC
ANALY OXIDATION RATIO IMBALANCE
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AVG «IN MAX AVS MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX
583-2A 2816 30.6 20.9 41.2 1.22 1.06 1.39 2.0 -3.9 7.2
2831
583-28 2816 32.8 26.0 43.5 1.32 1.14 1.70 0.4 -8.3 8.5
2831
584-2A 2816 17.4 3.2 28.7 1.46 1.13 2.09 1.5 -7.4 7.4
2831
585-2A 2816 25.4 13.1 35.4 1.45 1.24 1.60 1.5 -3.5 7.1
2831
586-2A 2816 23.0 5.1 35.1 1.40 1.29 1.93 0.1 -4.3 7.7
2831
O 587-2A 2816 25.5 14.7 45.6 1.56 1.30 1.99 1.3 -7.0 8.5
• 2831
00 588-2A 2816 31.2 22.7 47.4 2.07 1.68 2.53 4.5 -1.4 8.5
2831
589-2A 2816 18.8 5.3 34.9 1.42 1.12 2.12 2.2 -3.0 7.9
2831
-------
KU* SUKKARV - SOLIDS ANALYTICAL OATA
CONCENTRATIONS IN SCLIOS. VT X
SOLIDS
*«4ALt C02 S02 S03 CAO ACID 1NSCLUBIES IN SLURRY* .T
RUN TICAL
«*0. »»MNT AVG WIN WAX AVG HIN max AVG M1N f.AX AVG SIN MAX AVG "IN HAX AVG NIN "AX
601-2A 2816 0*76 0.16 1.98 22.87 20.00 26.80 5.70 2.38 9.78 25.65 20.70 30.80 3.75 2.72 4.71 8.3 7.3 9.0
2631
602-2* 2816 0.73 0.29 1.4* 24.45 21.30 27.20 4.78 0.02 9.65 25.91 23.30 28,30 6.67 3.24 8.18 14.7 3.7 16.3
2831
603-2A 2816 0.55 0.05 3.82 21.44 17.90 24.40 6.24 2.68 10.95 23.64 18.60 26.90 3.88 3.17 5.13 8.1 7.2 9.3
2C31
604-2* 2616 0.30 0.05 1.10 18.59 15.20 21.30 10.00 6.98 13.63 24.22 21.50 26.71 3.43 2.58 4.15 7.7 7.1 8.3
2831
605-24 2816 0.56 0.19 0.93 24.49 19.72 28.23 7.36 4.64 11.62 27.61 23.26 30.80 2.15 1.37 2.89 7.8 7.0 £.8
2931
S06-2A 2816 0.91 0.33 2.27 20.47 16.75 25.33 7.78 3.20 17.35 24.11 20.33 31.57 2.66 2.23 '..42 8.0 7.4 9.3
2831
607-24 2*1€ 0*87 0.13 1.58 22.85 18.08 26.24 5.23 0.04 13.84 25.48 21.95 29.73 2.70 2.06 3.8* 7.8 6.9 &-€>
2331
608-2* 2816 1.17 0.82 1.55 24.61 20.81 28.84 7.33 5.23 10.01 27.8C 25.24-29.86 4.36 3.99 1.59 14.7 13.4 11.7
2831
608*26 2816 1.44 1.02 1.84 26.01 21.17 28.67 4.70 2.22 9.39 27.79 25.73 3C.14 4.51 4.05 5.C8 14.8 1*.C 1*.S
2831
6C9-2A ?816 0.46 8*13 0*94 23.17 18.27 28.76 4.83 0.37 9.06 24.51 19.49 30.63 2.95 2.24 3.83 8.0 7.1 8.7
2831
610-2A 2816 0.7* 0.35 1.08 22.79 17.96 28.95 2.64 0.25 5.51 23.63 19.19 2B.S5 2.58 1.84 2.95 7.9 7.2 8.7
2831
611-2A 2916 0.69 0*16 1.54 17.32 13.46 21.89 9.68 0.64 20.73 23.57 20.44 27.70 2.63 2.33 3.03 8.0 6.9 8.5
2831
612-2A 2816 0.33 0.11 0.66 18.04 15.53 20.26 9.99 7.08 12.33 24.54 21.00 27.10 2.75 2.32 2.31 8.0 7.0 9.2
£831
613-2A 2816 0.*7 0.16 0.78 17.94 14.31 25.35 10.12 1.71 17.23 24.22 19.72 28.36 2.43 1.87 3.20 8.1 6.9 8.7
2831
-------
RUN SUMMARY
SOLIOS ANALYTICAL DATA (CONTINUED)
°ERCfNT PERCENT
SULFITE STOICHIOMETRIC IONIC
#\'ALY OXIDATION RATIO IMBALANCE
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT AVG MIN MAX AVG KIN MAX AVG WIN MAX
601-2A 2°X6 16.3 7.8 25.1 1.04 1.01 1.10 2.5 -7.9 7.2
2? 31
602-2A 2916 13.1 0.1 24.8 1.0* 1.01 1.09 1.0 -6.3 8.2
2*31
603-24 2316 18.6 9.5 31.0 1.03 1.00 1.25 -0.9 -3.3 8.3
2B31
604-2* 2«16 30.P 20.3 37.3 1.02 1.00 1.06 2.3 -7.3 8.1
2e31
605-2A 2*16 19.3 13.2 27.7 1.03 1.01 1.D4 1.0 -7.7 7.2
TP 31
606-2* 2816 23.0 9.2 40.8 1.05 1.02 1.12 -1.8 -8.4 7.2
2831
607-26 2°16 15.1 0.1 31.8 1.05 1.01 1.09 2.8 -6.7 8.5
2*31
608-2A 2?16 19.3 12.7 26.2 1.06 1.04 1.07 -1.3 -5.6 1.6
2S31
608-2? 2816 12.6 6.5 23.1 1.07 1.05 1.09 -0.4 -4.3 4.1
2P31
609-2A 2816 14.1 1.1 26.0 1.03 1.01 1.05 1.0 -6.2 8.0
2831
610-2A 2S1& 8.5 0.9 19.6 1.05 1.02 1.07 3.8 -3.9 8.2
2P31
611-2A 2?16 29.8 2.5 54.1 1.04 1.01 1.10 3.4 -4.6 8.5
2831
612-2A 2816 30.6 25.0 37.9 1.02 1.01 1.04 5.4 2.5 8.4
2831
6V3-2* 2S16 30.5 6.5 43.7 1.03 1.01 1.05 3.5 -0.6 B.O
1*31
-------
nun surmur
S0L10S ANALYTICAL OATA
ANSLY C02
RUN TICAL
NC. POINT AVG *IN
614-2* 2816 0.83 0.22
2831
615-2A 2«» 11 0.55 0.15
2531
616-2* 2816 1.24 0.33
2S31
617-2* 2*16 1.16 0.71
2831
S02
MAX AVG MIN MAX
2.00 22.06 19.00 25.41
1.65 19.49 15.56 24.22
2.97 20.91 15.45 24.56
1.70 22.59 19.18 25.46
CONCENTRATIONS IN SOLIDS* WT X
S03 CAD
AVG MIN VAX AVG KIN MAX
3.56 0.80 5.98 24.37 21.98 27.62
5.22 1.57 8.78 21.97 18.54 25.29
6.52 0.90 13.91 24.54 17.61 30.74
3.50 1.68 6.78 24.95 22.62 27.79
ACID INSOLUBLES
AVG MlfJ MAX
2.76 2.42 3.55
3.03 2.43 J.,42
2.99 2.46 3.36
5.10 3.11 6.CI
SOLIDS
IN SLURRY* 'JT X
AVG MIN "AX
7.9 4.C 9.1
8.1 7.5 e.s
7.9 4.9 8.8
14.3 8.1 1=.5
-------
RUN SU»"*?Y
SQUIDS ANALYTICAL DATA (CONTINUEO)
a
i
M
o
PN>
PERCENT PERCENT
SULFITE STOICHIOMETRIC IONIC
ANALT OXIDATION RATIO IMBALANCE
RUN T1CAL
SC. °CINT AVG *IN MAX AVG "IIN MAX AVC MIN MAX
614-2A 2816 11.4 2.6 18.2 1.05 1.01 1.10 6.2 Q.O 8.5
2831
615-2• 2516 17.7 5.3 27.6 1.03 1.01 1.09 2.6 -7.6 6.5
2S31
616-2A 2516 IS.6 4.3 33.8 1.07 1.01 1.17 0.4 -7.3 8.1
2831
617-2A 2816 11.0 5.6 22.0 1.07 1.04 1.11 5.C 0.0 8.4
2831
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR
SYS"
RUN
\'0.
T LK
tiO.
SA*PLF NAME
date
TIME
3
TC*
583-2A
SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
C4/15/76
2330
C4/16/76
0330
04/16/76
0730
04/15/76
1130
04/16/76
1530
04/16/76
2330
04/17/76
0330
04/17/76
C730
04/17/76
1130
04/17/76
1530
1530
04/17/76
1930
C4/17/76
2330
D4/18/76
3730
G4/1P/76
1130
04/18/76
1530
04/13/76
2330
04/19/76
C73C
04/19/76
2330
04/20/76
2330
CLARIFIER UNOERFLOU-TCA
04/15/76
2330
54/I6/76
2330
04/13/76
23 3 C
585-23
SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
C4/22/7S
0730
04/22/76
1130
04/22/76
1530
04/22/76
1930
C4/22/76
2330
"4/23/76
G320
f *.'23/76
0730
04/23/76
11 30
04/23/76
1530
C4/23/76
1930
04/25/76
2330
04/24/76
C330
04/24/76
0730
04/24/76
1130
24/24/76
1530
04/24/76
1930
04/24/76
2330
04/25/76
0 330
04/2^/76
0 7 30
S4/r?5/71
1150
04/25/76
1530
C4/r>:/7f.
l"7'.0
POIL
S4S/ LOAD S02
TIKE KfGA IN
FLAG WITT PP*
35.60
3440
344?
32 a a
256 J
25u0
24 ? 3
22 CO
2930
293 0
2720
2720
3sec
3300
2400
3120
312C
3560
3560
364?
2560
3120
2920
2760
264 0
3030
32 0 0
3160
3040
3120
3160
275 C
24P0
24 30
2520
2s::
284 5
3C0D
31:80
2960
236 ¦!
2760
*AKE
S02
02
ore
REM
IN
«~
X
"tfflL/L
82
15.9
SO
14.6
84
15.3
82
13. 9
83
11.2
85
11.6
81
10.2
80
9.3
71
11.2
71
11.2
76
10.9
70
10.1
74
15.0
66
11.6
78
9.9
77
12.7
79
13.1
77
14.5
81
15.3
8?
lE-.9
85
11.6
77
12.7
R9
13.8
8?
13.0
96
13.4
90
14.7
72
12.3
9 0
15.1
32
14.2
84
13.9
87
1".5
88
12.7
77
10.1
75
«.8
85
11.4
75
11.2
73
11.1
82
13.1
78
12.8
88
13.S
90
14.2
87
12.7
S02
OUT
PP'i
530
C.23
500
520
4QQ
340
429
400
7S0
780
600
740
380
1000
480
60O
SSO
740
60C
580
340
66C
280
280
100
280
800
2 90
320
440
380
3C0
520
560
340
620
63 0
480
600
320
263
320
-------
GAS ANALYSES
sea srs- run
NO. TEM NO. SAMPLE NAM?
? TCA 533-2P. SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
O
i—«
o
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
584-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
DATE
TIME
04/?_5/76
23^3
04/26/76
C730
04/26/76
11"50
04/26/76
16 JO
04/26/70
1930
04/26/75
2330
04/27/76
S 7 50
C4/27/76
0800
04/27/76
117-0
04/?7/76
15 30
04/27/76
2333
C'4/23/76
0330
04/28/76
0730
G4/23/7b
1030
04/28/76
1530
04/2H/7.6
233C
04/29/76
0730
04/29/76
1530
04/29/76
2330
CA/30/76
0730
04/30/76
1530
04/30/76
05/01/76
0730
04/22/76
0730
04/2 V76
0730
04/24/76
0730
04/25/76
0 7 30
04/27/76
C 7 JO
C 4/28/7 b
0730
C4/30/76
15 30
05/04/76
C 730
C5/C4/76
1530
05/04/76
2330
05/05/76
0730
05/05/76
1530
05/05/76
2350
05/06/76
0730
05/07/76
073C
05/07/76
1530
05/07/76
23 TO
05/08/76
G73C
05/OP/76
1530
05/0S/76
2330
n5/09/7fc
0730
CS/S'i/Kv
P0IL
~"IKE
GAS/
LOAD
S02
S02
S02
O?
TIME
KEG A
IN
OUT
REV.
I\<
r A S S
FLAG
VATT
PP v
paw
X
X
M-OL/L
2960
400
*5
13.3
3160
2 30
9 0
15.1
3000
340
37
1 3 .9
32 0 0
34C
88
15.n
324 ?
36 0
8?
14.9
32 p.:
360
3 a
15.3
32°.::
3C 3
90
15.6
320 0
300
90
1^ .2
344 0
520
88
16.r
21*0
160
94
14.1
3 CO C
300
<59
14.1
2^60
2 R C
R9
1* .0
2 BP 0
400
84
12.*
2400
6 0
97
12.4
22 0 3
160
92
10.7
210 0
1*0
93
10.3
3400
420
36
15.5
34 8,0
ft40
86
15.9
36"0
500
85
16.1
3200
320
SO
15.1
2520
240
89
11.9
3160
900
68
11.5
292 0
2«0
89
13 . 8
3040
320
p. a
14 .2
25 2 0
340
«5
11.4
2963
260
90
14.2
3280
30 0
90
15.6
2960
283
89
14.0
32 0 0
320
89
15.1
2360
320
65
1 w . 6
2600
400
34
12.5
34 03
230
91
16.4
3720
100
97
19.1
2360
40
98
12.3
2760
60
9-°
14.3
3000
90
97
l^.f
3160
60
9«
16.4
3120
240
91
15.1
310 0
90
97
1".9
352 0
120
96
1?.C
316 0
SO
97
16.3
2S60
ISO
93
14 .2
2960
300
ST
13.9
2^-5.0
110
95
12.7
-------
G4S awfltrsrs
SCR
SYS- RU*
NO.
TE* «)0.
SA"?LE MSMg:
date
time
?
7CA 5S4-2A
slurry to tca tcwer
05/09/76
2330
05/10/76
0730
05/10/76
1300
05/10/76
1530
05/11/76
0730
05/11/76
1530
05/11/76
233"
05/12/76
0730
35/12/76
0845
05/12/76
1530
05/12/76
2330
05/13/76
C730
05/13/76
1300
Q5/15/76
1530
05/13/76
2330
95/14/76
0730
CLARIFIES UNDERFLOW-TCA
05/07/76
2330
585-2A
SLURRT TO TCA TOWER
05/14/76
1530
05/14/76
2330
05/15/76
D730
05/15/76
1530
05/15/76
2330
05/16/76
G 730
05/16/76
1530
0v/16/76
2330
05/17/76
0730
05/17/76
1530
05/17/76
2330
05/18/76
0730
05/18/76
1530
U5/1R/76
2330
05/19/76
0730
05/19/76
1530
05/19/76
2330
£5/20/76
0730
CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW-TCA
05/14/76
2330
05/17/76
2335
586-2ft
SLURRY TO TC* TO'JER
05/20/76
1600
£5/2 0/76
23^0
C5/21/76
0730
05/21/76
1530
05/21/76
2330
05/22/76
0733
05/22/76
1530
05/22/76
2330
ECIL &AKK
5 AS / LCAO SC2 S02 SQ2 02
TI«r KtOA I'* OUT at?', I\ =iS5
FL4G W£TT PPH PPM X r. *r.aL»'L
3 04 D 140 95 15.3
324? 120 95 16.5
2680 80 97 13.7
32>0 200 93 if.O
32'ji ISO 94 16.3
3?4C 160 "5" 15.2
4 COO 40 0 89 19. ft
3600 280 91 17.4
363 0 200 94 18.3
22 00 100 95 11.1
2080 l%3 9?, 10.2
2720 2CO 92 13.2
284 C 140 95 14.2
3100 90 97 15.9
2S0O 440 S3 16.T
2960 550 79 If,.6
3280 560 81 1*.«
38SC 7C0 80 21.9
26t 0 260 89
2«ftC 400 84 16.9
2/60 160 9T- 18.1
2BC 0 420 63 16.5
3160 360 87 19.5
296 3 200 92 19."*
3C40 230 90 19.3
3080 £ 00 82 17.8
26 DO 44 0 81 14.9
2720 400 84 16.1
304 0 380 86 IK.1!
2560 340 35 15.4
2400 180 92 15.5
3600 600 81 20.7
2960 550 79 16.6
3040 280 ?C 19.3
3960 1020 71 15.0
3700 «60 86 16.9
2840 660 74 11.2
2603 380 a* 11.5
2
-------
6AS ANALYSE
SCS
MQ.
SYS-
T
-------
ejjr amlyses
sen
srs- «ttr»
f3C.
T E" NC.
SAMPLE NAKE
date
TIME
3
TCA C87-?A
SLU1?* TO TCA TOWE*
06/13/76
1530
*6/13/76
2330
36/14/76
0530
CLA*IFI£» UNOER FLOW "TCA
05/31 /Jf,
2350
06/07/76
2330
06/11/76
2350
crr:T»iFOSE CAKf
"fc/r7/70
1533
36/U/76
1530
5P8-26
SLU^Y TO TCA TOWER
06/17/7*
C730
06/17/76
1530
06/17/76
2330
06/18/76
0730
C6/13/76
1530
06/1^/76
2330
06/l?/?6
C733
36/19/76
1530
?6/l'5/7&
2330
36/20/76
0730
0730
06/20/76
1530
Q6/2C/76
2330
CCKTPlFUSt CME
06/1S/76
C730
0 730
SLVr"*Y TO TCA TOME*
06/21/76
3530
06/21/76
2330
06/22/76
0 7J0
06/23/76
1530
C6/23/76
2330
C6/J4/76
C73C
06/24/76
1530
06/21/76
2330
06/25/76
2330
06/26/76
0730
06/26/76
1530
C6/26/76
23 30
06/27/76
C730
36/27/76
1530
06/27/74
2330
06/28/76
0 730
06/28/76
1530
06/28/76
2330
06/29/76
0730
06/29/76
15 JC
C6/23/76
2330
06/30/76
0 730
ecu
GAS/ LOAD
TIKE PES A
^LAC ViTT
PAKE
S02
S02
S02
02
pr
IN
OUT
REK
1*4
= «.SS
ODN)
»p*f
X
W3L/L
336 0
200
9 3
16.6
38? 3
260
92
1 a • 6
352 0
360
8?
16.5
24 °0
6 C
97
12.r
?5?0
320
90
16.7
36C0
280
91
17.4
2960
It 0
93
14.6
364 0
4C0
8G
16.9
2433
100
9b
".3
23SC
2CC
91
7.ft
3080
120
96
10.7
31^0
150
95
10.6
3320
2*0
92
11.1
24P0
220
90
T.h
23 33
1 SO
"?3
9.4
1900
80
95
£ .6
le^a
170
6.0
22 DC
260
87
6.9
2200
263
P. 7
6.9
252?
130
94
8.6
1780
60
96
6.?
3100
150
9b
10.6
2*0?
183
93
9.4
22 CO
160
92
1C.7
26r,C
143
94
13.C
2440
110
95
12.3
3320
200
93
16.4
344 3
220
93
16.9
3530
240
92
17.1
436 0
430
90
2C.8
3630
220
93
17.8
22P.CS
le.c
91
11.0
360 Q
380
38
16.8
36H0
440
S7
16.9
32 0 0
323
8?
1*5.1
4000
440
83
1 R • 6
3240
320
8°
15.3
3360
320
55
15.9
34?. 3
320
90
16.6
372 0
320
90
17.8
3120
200
93
15.4
352 0
250
92
17.?
3440
300
93
16.5
3g:o
3H3
P
1«..B
4000
600
83
17.7
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR SYS- RUN
NO. TE» NO. SAMPLE NAHE
2 TCA 589-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
601-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOUER
0
1
M
o
00
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
602-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
OATE
TIME
06/30/76
1530
06/30/76
2330
07/01/76
0500
06/23/76
1530
07/02/76
0730
07/02/76
1530
07/04/76
0730
07/r6/76
1 530
0 7/C6/76
2330
C 7/0 7/76
0730
07/^7/76
1530
07/07/76
2330
07/08/76
0 730
07/0 8/76
1530
07/08/76
2330
07/09/76
P730
17/09/76
1030
C7/09/76
2330
07/1C/76
0730
r7/l0/76
1530
07/10/76
2330
07/11/76
0730
C' 7/11/76
1530
07/11/76
2330
07/12/76
C530
0 7/0 2/76
1530
07/06/76
1530
07/07/76
15 30
07/08/76
1530
07/09/76
153C
07/10/76
1530
0 7/11/76
153C
07/12/76
2330
07/13/76
0730
07/13/76
1530
07/13/76
2330
07/14/76
0 7 30
07/14//6
1330
07/14/76
15 30
0 7/14/76
2330
Q7/lb/76
0730
C.7/l'j/76
CPCO
07/11»/ 76
1530
07/15/76
2330
013u
HOIL
SAS/ LOAO S02
Tirr wtGA in
rL AG WATT P" <
4240
2520
2400
3720
32?0
2 8 0
26 CD
3D40
2560
2560
3120
2640
28£0
3160
2640
258 0
3120
256 0
2520
3060
3 0 0 3
3000
28 3 0
2^0
3000
2360
304 0
3120
315 0
3120
3000
2880
2H40
3080
234 0
3 0-. 0
?
syr.o
3?~0
>* AKE
SO? 02 PTR
REM IN P4SS
X X I^L/L
8 3 18.7
90 12.1
90 11.6.
9C 17.8
84 14.3
88 13.4
91 12.6
93 14.9
97 13.1
91 12.4
91 15.0
9? 12.9
94 14.3
9li 15. )
98 13.*.
93 13.3
91 15.1
9? 12.5
8° 11.3
93 15.0
?9 14.1
37 13.9
86 13.1
89 13.2
86 13.7
83 13.1
93 14.9
91 15.0
95 1^.9
91 15.1
93 15.0
86 13.:
P.7 13.2
PM 14.6
89 13.4
96 15.a
37 13.3
57 14.6
85 13.1
9 7 13.3
84 13.5
86 12.7
RC 14.6
S02
OUT
PPM
640
220
220
320
460
320
2 0 0
200
80
200
260
180
160
140
40
160
240
180
240
200
300
340
3 60
280
3 SO
320
200
260
140
240
200
360
320
300
28 0
120
340
373
400
34 0
44 0
560
430
-------
6AS »I»MLYS£S
KUH
NO. SA*PLE NAME
ftO?-2A SLU»«>Y TO TCA TOUER
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
603-21 SLURRY TO TCA T0litR
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
6C4-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOMER
OATE
TIME
C7/16/76
1530
07/16/76
2330
07/17/76
0730
C7/17/76
1530
07/17/76
2330
07/18/76
0730
07/13/76
1530
07/14/76
1530
07/ism
1530
07/16/76
1530
07/17/76
1530
07/20/76
0730
07/20/76
1533
07/2C/76
2330
2330
07/21/76
0730
07/21/76
1530
C7/21/76
2330
07/22/76
C 730
07/22/76
1530
1530
1530
07/22/76
2330
07/23/76
0730
07/23/76
1530
07/23/76
2330
07/24/76
0730
07/24/76
1530
07/24/76
2330
07/25/76
0730
07/25/76
1530
07/25/76
2330
07/26/76
0730
C' 7/26/76
1530
07/20/76
1530
07/21/76
1530
07/22/76
15 50
07/23/76
1530
07/24/76
1530
07/25/76
153D
C7/?6/7f
1530
07/28/76
2330
07/29/76
0730
07/29/76
1530
0 7/29/76
233P
eciL
CAS/ LCAO S02
TIMC A I*
FLAG WATT PPK
33?"
328 0
3*82
3U8C
364 0
3303
2340
3160
3340
J323
38ft C
2440
24 00
24C3
24 JO
2C63
2720
4760
360 a
4P0C
48? 3
48C 0
42C0
3233
3 C- ° 0
3320
3400
2600
26.°3
2640
2560
30.80
3360
420 0
24 DC
2720
48C0
30*50
2600
2560
42C 0
4100
4423
3»00
*U«E
$02 02
R£i1 IN ^ ASS
X * riOL/l
87 15.4
88 15.4
90 1C.6
H3 IB.2
8? 17.2
87 13.?
8? 13.4
87 14.6
84 13.5
87 15.4
87 13.?
85 11.5
84 10.7
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR
NO.
SYS«
TE«
TCfl
RUN
NO. SAMPLE NAME
6Q4-2A SLUPP.Y TO TCA TOWEP.
0
1
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
605-24 SLUPRY TO TCA TOWER
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
DATE
T I WE
07/30/76
0730
37/33/76
1530
07/33/76
2333
37/31/76
0730
37/31/76
1533
0 7/31/76
?. 3 3 C
P«/01/76
0733
0 8/01/76
1530
38/01/76
2 3 33
0.°,/-02 /7S
C 7 3 0
08/02/76
1530
08/02/76
2330
C9/C T./76
077.0
08/03/76
15 30
08/03/76
2330
08/04/76
C530
37/29/76
1537
07/30/76
1530
08/02/76
1530
CB/0 3/76
15 33
03/06/76
0330
08/3 6/76
0 7 J C
08/36/76
1530
03/06/76
2330
0 8 / P 7 / 7 6
C 7 30
0"/0 7/76
1530
08/C/76
2330
08/3 ft/76
C 7 i 0
38/08/76
1530
38/0S/76
2"*30
08/09/76
0 7 3 C
?s/09/?g
1530'
03/09/76
23 3 C
36/1 0/76
C 730
08/10/76
1530
0&/10/76
2330
ca/ll/?6
0730
08/11/76
1530
oe/ii/7a
2330
lf,/12/7f.
0730
Oft/12/76
11 50
0H/1 0/76
2310
Ofi/13/76
0730
08/06/76
1530
0B/07/76
lr'3C
BOIL
HAKE
GAS/
LOAO
S02
S02
SO 2
02
3 r 0
TI*!t
MEGA
IN
CUT
P.EM
1^
° ASS
FLAG
WAIT
PPM
PP-1
%
X
1MOL/L
36 no
980
73
17.8
352 0
963
70
17.3
354 0
950
7n
1 7 . G
34 r c
90 3
71
17.3
344
°03
71
17.2
324:
¦8 0 0
73
16.6
32:0
(• 3
72
16.3
3240
340
73
16.^
3123
760
73
16.1
123
304 0
72 3
74
15.8
123
32.1 P
740
74
6.2
16.8
113
3360
750
7'3
6.5
1 7 . •
144
3240
70 0
76
7.0
17.4
113
280 0
54 3
79
6 . 0
15.6
143
3680
yco
73
6.4
1 ft . 9
144
368 0
900
73
1 °,.9
123
3200
740
74
6.2
16.8
14 3
280 j
540
79
6.3
1c.. 6
345
3*03
600
80
9.3
136
3320
600
3 0
6.0
9.6
139
3 30 0
750
79
6.2
11.1
140
3640
720
78
6.0
l?.'
128
3520
7 0 0
78
6.3
9.9
140
3340
620
7a
5.3
9.6
137
3230
4*0
83
5.6
9.7
lu6
3000
44 0
84
6.5
9.1
143
3120
510
62
5.2
9.2
145
34 CO
GOO
3 3
5.8
9.9
1 a i>
32: C
5 3 0
a.3
6 .3
9 . f
143
3 72 3
7 S3
77
6 . b
1C.3
1"4
3=520
30 0
77
£ • 4
11.0
145
4CCJ
S 8 0
76
6.2
10.9
144
3400
6«3
7H
6.5
9.6
148
3 3b 0
GOO
P.0
6.5
9.8
14 H
3 * t'i 3
64 0
79
5.?
•) . 6
1<»S
3 p. S 0
860
75
6.2
10 .6
144
3883
80 3
77
6 • A
10.8
143
3963
3 fa 0
76
10.9
146
3920
10GD
72
5.?
10.2
145
396 0
74 0
79
5.5
11.4
14?
384 0
68 0
80
G . 7
11.2
139
393 3
750
79
2
11.1
140
334'0
620
79
C T
«» • —
9.6
-------
was *#ALrsrs
SCR
SYS-
3 UN
10.
*
1
1
• 1
O i
Sr 1
SAP°L£ NAJ«E
date
TIK.r
9
TCA
6fl5-?A
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
08/08/76
1530
08/09/76
1530
C8/10/76
1530
08/11/76
1530
60S-2*
SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
08/13/76
1530
06/13/76
2333
08/14/76
C73C
08/14/76
1530
08/1*/;s
2533
08/15/76
C730
08/15/76
1S30
08/15/76
2330
08/16/76
0730
06/16/76
1530
08/16/76
2330
08/17/76
0750
06/17/76
1530
38/17/7*
2330
3R/IP./76
C73C
08/16/76
1545
CENTRIFUGE CAKE
CR/13/76
153E
03/1A/76
1530
08/15/76
1530
Oa/16/76
1530
08/17/76
1530
C?j/18/76
1345
607-2*
SLURRY TO TCA TOUER
08/19/76
1600
08/19/76
2330
ug/2t/76
0730
05/20/76
1530
03/20/76
2330
08/21/76
0730
08/21/76
1530
08/21/76
2330
08/22/76
0730
C730
08/22/76
1530
15^0
08/22/76
233C
08/2 3/76
0730
08/23/76
1530
08/23/76
2330
2330
08/24/76
0730
1730
FOIL
*iAKE
GAS/
LOAD
SO?.
S02
S02
02
OCR
TIKE
HEG A
IN
OUT
RE.'1!
1M
PASS
FLAG
A T T
PPA
PPM
X
*
•W0L/L
145
3120
510
82
5.2
9.2
143
372 0
78C
77
6.5
10.3
144
3400
680
78
6.5
9.6
143
38U0
860
75
6.2
10.6
144
32* 0
fi20
72
6.2
16.7
148
3240
SCO
73
3.0
16.6
144
3440
960
69
7.7
16.S
143
3440
920
70
7.5
17.1
145
34 C £
38 0
71
8.0
17.1
143
3400
800
74
7.2
17.8
146
364 3
1Q80
69
6.8
18.7
142
4000
1140
68
7.5
19.3
145
3720
940
72
6.5
IS.9
146
3640
720
76
4.4
?0.1
141
3360
660
78
5.0
IS.6
143
3203
680
76
6.3
17.3
150
2480
360
34
5.S
14.7
110
3000
620
77
6.2
16.3
14 2
3280
680
77
8.5
17.3
288 3
450
83
16.5
148
32*>0
820
72
6.2
16.7
143
3443
920
70
7.5
17.1
146
3840
1J80
69
6.8
18.7
146
364 0
720
78
4.4
20.1
150
2430
360
e4
5.8
14.7
288 0
4«i0
83
16.2
X
143
3000
460
83
6.8
17.6
X
136
3443
140
95
6.2
23.2
X
133
3700
200
9-
9.8
24.6
14 5
3400
260
92
6.2
22.0
148
3320
120
96
5.5
22.3
145
3360
2 80
91
6.5
21.5
146
3280
110
96
7.2
22.3
145
3122
220
92
6.0
20.3
135
3160
550
81
6.0
18.0
135
31'0
550
81
6.8
18.0
146
3320
320
89
21. 0
146
3320
320
8*3
21.0
1*6
3120
4.9 C
83
13.3
148
2720
400
84
16.1
145
24*0
320
85
6.0
14.4
142
3280
660
78
4.5
18.0
142
328 0
660
7S
4.5
18.0
144
3320
5*0
82
5.2
19.2
144
332 0
54 0
82
5.2
19.2
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR SY$- RUM
NC. TEM NO.
TC*
SA"PLE NAf.E
6C7-2A SL'JRR Y TO TCA TOJCR
0
1
»—•
pj
centrifuge cake
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
608-?* SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
SWM TO TCA TOJ^R
DATE
TIME
Gfi/24/76
1530
03/24/76
2530
09/25/76
0530
08/30/76
1530
0S/3n/76
2530
08/31/7?,
0730
0739
08/31/76
1330
1530
03/31/76
2330
09/01/76
0730
09/01/76
152C
09/01/76
233 C
09/32/76
0730
0730
05/02/73
1530
1533
08/19/76
lbOO
1600
1600
08/2 0/76
1530
08/21/7?.
15 33
08 nznh
1530
OB/23/76
15 30
OP/24/76
1530
3S/30/76
1530
03/31/76
1530
n°/01/76
1530
09/02/76
15 30
09/03/76
15 70
09/0 3/76
2330
09/04/76
0733
09/34/76
1530
09/04/76
2330
09/0.5/76
0730
,''9/05/76
15 30
0O/C5/76
2330
39/06/76
0 730
09/0b/7 r.
1530
39/C
X 143
1° 3
146
14fc
145
144
146
144
14;
145
144
142
144
144
141
145
54
14?.
11*
143
144
144
54
143
145
S02 S02
IN OUT
PPM PPM
3040
420
2960
330
3360
530
3200
520
3200
4 c 0
3360
5 HO
336 0
5H0
36 0 0
580
360 0
560
3«^ 0
760
3,-,: 0
7 60
3600
64 0
320 0
4 S 0
38 0 C
760
33:0
76 0
332 0
360
332 0
36 0
300 ?
460
3000
460
30 0 0
460
34 P 0
260
32? 0
110
3320
320
2400
320
304 3
a 20
3200
520
3600
5?.0
36 0 0
640
3320
360
3K4 0
72 0
*043
«60
372?
70 3
3660
340
388 9
780
30.4 0
70 0
356 0
500
34 f»0
520
334C
7 C 0
3560
50 0
3»4
-------
S as tftiLYSES
srs- Wi
TtV NO. SAMPLE N»ME
TCA €C?,-2? SLUS'Y TO TCA TOWCR
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
6C9-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
POTL
VK ~
GAS/
LOAD
SC 2
S 02
ro2
02
r ^
iitf r
ftGA
n
O'JT
REM
I «
PASS
date
TIKE
CL4C-
V AT T
pr--;
cp v
X
V
"VOL /'.
0 9/C7/76
0730
144
3S40
300
91
-?3.a
C9/D7/76
1130
09/07/76
1530
148
364 s
180
95
5.5
24.3
19/07/76
133:
09/07/76
2330
137
3920
100
97
6.0
26.9
09/OF/76
1530
113
3320
220
93
5.5
21.7
09/GS/76
2330
105
3C*C
70
97
5.3
20.9
09/09/76
0733
107
3160
80
97
4.7
21.7
C°/C9/76
1600
103
314D
10 0
96
5.2
21.4
09/09/7G
2330
iro
2400
160
°3
15.7
09/10/76
0733
ID?
22?o
220
8?
7.2
14.4
0«/10/76
If. 50
150
30 JO
260
90
19 .?
09/10/76
2330
139
3040
60
9*
21.0
09/11/76
C73C
life
S^O
80
97
22.0
09/11/76
1530
118
3360
ftO
97
c . 6
23.1
"9/ll/7'i
2330
117
30H0
30
9?
9.0
21 .5
09/12/76
0 730
145
3560
60
9
8.0
2 4.5
0 9/12/76
1530
148
3323
80
97
3.2
22. R
09/12/76
23 30
141
3340
60
9 f
2.5
21.0
09/13/76
0600
14 2
3230
60
9f?
22.7
03/08/76
1530
113
332 0
220
or
5.5
21.7
09/09/76
16 00
108
3140
100
96
5.2
21.4
C9/10//S
1530
150
30CD
260
90
19.2
C?/!1/76
1530
148
336?
RC
97
• 6
2 3.1
C 9/1 2/76
1530
148
3320
«0
97
8.2
2 ? » a
C9/13/75
1530
X
163
332?
160
95
7.2
22.2
09/13/76
2330
X
14&
3320
120
96
7.5
22.5
09/14/76
0730
X
146
3520
150
95
7.0
23.7
19/14/76
15 30
X
142
3200
280
90
7.4
20.4
1530
x
142
3200
290
90
7.4
20.4
09/14/76
? 330
X
112
3CP.0
220
92
10.0
20.0
09/15/76
0730
X
146
3240
650
78
3 .5
17.5
09/15/76
12 $5
X
09/15/76
1600
V
143
31*0
560
80
'.J
1 7.9
09/15/7?,
2330
X
143
3000
740
73
15.4
09/16/76
0730
y
144
2780
520
79
5.5
15.6
09/16/76
1550
X
145
2»b0
500
SI
6 . S
16.4
C 9/16/76
2330
X
143
3080
700
75
11.2
16.3
2 330
X
143
30^0
700
75
11.2
16.3
09/17/76
C730
X
147
3320
690
77
1^.0
P9/17/7T,
1530
"/
147
c* 2 0<,*
6?D
76
5.P
17.3
Q9/17/T6
2330
K
147
3163
720
75
7.2
16.7
C9/Ui/76
C 7 ? G
144
5240
73t
75
5.3
17.?
t-9/1 fi/76
1530
lt-3
2:-?:-
72 0
73
£ . 5
15.r
09/1»/7s
2 31 n
147
2960
hOU
7
5.2
14.6
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR
NO.
SYS-
TEM
Tea
o i J f.1
MO. SA'-'PLE NA^F
609-2A SLimY TO TCA TOUES
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
0
1
t—
i—¦
»!*¦
fel 0-2 A SLiWY TO TCA TOWER
DATE
TIME
09/19/76
G730
09/19/76
1530
39/19/76
23 30
09/25/76
0750
C-9/20/76
157C
09/20/76
2330
C ° / 2 3 / 7 6
C 7 30
09/21/76
1530
09/21/76
2330
09/22/76
0730
09/22/76
1530
;ia/«/7£
2 3 30
09/r>3/76
0730
09/23/76
1530
09/23/76
2330
09/21/76
0500
09/13/76
1579
09/11/76
1533
09/15/76
1600
09/1 6/76
1530
C9/J 7/76
1530
(•9/1.S/76
1530
09/1 9/76
1530
09/20/76
1530
09/21/76
1530
£¦9/22/ 76
1530
09/23/76
1530
P9/21/7&
1530
09/21/76
2 37 0
0 9/25/76
0730
09/25/76
1530
09/25/76
2530
09/26/76
0 730
09/26/76
1530
09/2 6/76
2330
09/27/76
0 73 0
0 9/2 7/76
1530
09/23/76
2330
09/29/76
0 7 30
'9/2 J/76
15 30
00/29/76
2330
09/3 0/76
0730
09/30/76
1630
09/3.C/76
2330
10/51/76
C750
TOIL
PAKE
GAS/
LCAO
SO 2
SO?
SC2
02
ors
T I*';
C1GA
1\
OUT
R EK>
I?J
p «3S
r LAG
WATT
T5? w
%
%
¦'•'OL/l.
H7
3113
920
7 0
*.5
l-'.i
113
3560
92 0
71
6.0
17.9
111
2 8 3 D
520
7T
w • k
15.7
119
2600
&00
S3
5.3
15.2
116
2130
500
78
7.0
13.6
315
2630
710
6^
7.2
13.1
119
3120
SCO
72
i r»
< • 0
:c. i
119
292 0
710
72
6.5
z 1.R
116
2 96 0
750
12
6.5
15.0
118
3310
30 0
73
6.5
1 7.3
H7
3320
660
7'i
£.5
1 ? . 3
131
32.': 0
72 0
76
7.3
17.5
119
2960
600
77
7.-
16.2
119
3 0 0 0
660
76
6.7
16.0
121
3 y 6 0
eeo
75
7.0
2 0.1
120
36 0 0
70 3
72
If .1
V
163
3320
160
9 5
7.2
22.2
X
112
3200
2 SO
90
7.1
2 0.1
y
113
3160
560
80
9.2
17.9
V
115
2 £ 8 0
5 C 0
°1
6 • 8
16 1
y
117
3200
6 30
76
5.3
17.7
115
2920
720
73
t .5
15.C
113
356 0
920
71
6.0
17.9
116
218 0
500
7 5
7.0
13.6
119
292 3
713
12
•n • D
11 .?.
117
3323
66 0
T>
6 • 5
ir;. 3
J1a
30 2 0
66 0
76
< .7
16.0
111
372 0
66 0
a ?
7.0
21 .1
113
3300
150
85
7.5
19. 3
113
316 0
ICO
S 6
7.1
19.2
113
3160
16 0
ei
6.5
16.7
139
3210
c 0 0
93
7.3
1 9 • C
137
310 0
100
9"?
7.2
20.9
116
3 3 21
120
8 6
6.5
CO .2
115
332C
i?a
66
6.5
2 0.2
13*
3110
620
SO
5.7
19.1
111
3320
320
89
1 .9
21.0
131
3010
360
B7
6.5
18.7
116
320 0
¦* 0 ^
sj il
S°
6.3
2 0.1
lib
2760
300
g
G.O
17.2
136
2 76 C
300
8 3
6.0
17.2
115
2 ?i 1 0
-> S
99
6.6
3 7."
11 3
3160
MO
B*
6.5
1 r.: . 7
135
2b 0 c
IPO
cx
lfi.1
115
3010
313
Bb
7.3
1H .i*
-------
C^jr A\ALYS€S
SC9 SYS- *M*i
•:c. Tr** no.
TCfl
SA»PLE SA».E
S10-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
tf
i
»—¦
M
m
CENTRIFU3E CAKE
SLURRY ST TCA OUTLET
611-2* SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
date
T I>*E
lo/oim.
1530
10/M/76
2330
10/?2/76
0730
1u/02/76
1530
10/02/76
2320
1 CO 3/76
0730
10/03/??!
1~30
10/03/76
2350
13/04/76
05C0
10/34/76
15*0
1 0/04/76
2 3 3C
10/05/76
0730
1C/05/76
1530
ir./C'5/76
23-3C
10/06/76
0730
10/06/76
153C
1C/0 6/76
2330
10/07/76
0730
09/27/76
1530
CS/29/76
15 5 0
09/24/76
1530
f-9/25/76
1530
09/26/76
2330
"9/27/7*
15 3 0
09/29/76
1530
C9/30/76
1530
10/01/76
1530
1C/C2/76
1530
10/0 3/76
15 30
10/04/76
1530
10/05/76
KM
10/0 6/76
1530
10/07/76
1530
10/0 7/76
233C
ie/on/76
0 730
10/03/76
153 0
10/~S/76
233C
10/09/76
C-730
10/09/76
153 G
1C/99/76
2330
1C/10/76
0730
10/10/76
l^SO
10/10/76
i!53G
10/11/76
C73C
10/11/76
15 JC
"OIL
*s«r
GAS/
tOAO
SO?
S02
S02
02
PE R
t i«r
rcc-A
IN
OUT
RE"!
IN
° A S3
FLA5
» ATT
pd y
PP*
X
V
*
/L
1H7
30 0 3
4 60
«3
9.0
17.6
14 1
2 ft S3
360
fi6
9.2
17.15
116
300 0
460
93
9.0
1 7.6
115
29 20
460
S3
7.0
17."
i 4 n
2«0)
56 3
7«
15.4
111
2%g:
560
7»
6.5
15.4
140
23DC
380
8>
6.3
13.3
:2&
22 * J
360
52
6.4
13.0
115
2°2C-
54 0
73
16.4
344
2520
38 3
83
6.4
14
144
3290
540
82
6.5
iS.9
143
3 36 0
620
80
8.2
18.9
145
2720
420
S3
9.0
15.9
141
252 -
400
82
6.6
14.7
144
3 04 0
540
n 0
9.0
17.2
1*7
2940
500
81
9. 0
16.9
124
2 72 -
36 0
35
9.5
i 6 .4
148
2600
3-0
94
? .5
15.4
1 44
3320
320
39
4.9
21.0
145
2 76 3
300
SB
6.0
17.2
144
3720
660
8?
7.0
21.1
14S
31SC
460
84
6.5
18. >
145
33J 3
420
S6
6.5
00.2
144
3320
320
59
4 .9
21.0
145
2760
3C0
3*!
6.0
17.2
145
316';
7 A O
w *• V
88
6.5
19.7
147
3030
4 60
?3
9.0
17.6
145
292 0
46 3
83
7.0
17."
1»C-
23 3 0
3-0
82
6.3
13.3
144
252C
3B0
33
6.4
14 . 6
147
2140
500
81
9.0
16.9
14P
240 0
340
84
P .C
14.3
145
2 960
5GQ
SI
5.5
17.C
144
30" 0
6 0 0
7h
6.5
17.1
1*6
230?
46 0
11
6.6
16.0
144
2960
520
10
6.2
16.S
145
2920
500
31
5 .6
16.7
124
3230
700
76
5.7
17.7
115
2760
48 3
81
6.2
15.7
145
3120
620
7".
6.5
17.2
145
3520
7 40
77
5.2
19.1
141
¦264;
363
*5
7.0
15. a
1 v 0
29c 0
4 60
P 3
7.7
17.0
1C 7
25?0
400
S2
6.7
14.7
-------
GAS ANALYSTS
SCR SYS- PUN
NC. TE^H NO.
SAMPLE NAME
2 TCA 611-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOUER
SLURRY AT TCA O'JTLtT
612-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
613-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
SUW»f TO TCA. TOUCP.
eoiL
GAS/
LOAD
S02
S02
S02
02
P"R
TIKE
KEG A
IN
OUT
REX
IN
? A SS
date
TIKE
FLAG
WATT
POM
PPM
%
V
"MCL/L
10/11/7&
2330
107
264 0
420
82
5.2
15.4
2330
107
264 C
4 2 0
-------
GAS awtrsrs
RUN
MO. SAMPLE fJAW.
614-24 SLURRY TO TCA TOWER
615-2* SLUHPY TO TCA TOWER
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
date
TJf'E
10/22/76
2330
10/23/7&
0730
0730
10/23/76
1530
13/n3/76
2530
10/24/76
0730
1C/24/76
1530
10 '2<*/76
2330
10/25/76
0*3 30
10/25/76
153?
10/2j/76
2330
10/26/76
0730
10/26/76
153G
1530
10/2 6/76
2330
10/27/76
0730
13/27/76
If 30
10/2 7/76
2330
10/28/76
0730
10/28/76
1530
10/28/76
2330
1C/23/76
0730
1P /2"r/76
1530
i:'/29/7f.
2330
:0/30/76
0730
10/30/76
1530
1 0/7 0/76
2330
11/01/76
1530
ll/tl/76
2330
11/0 2/76
073C
ll/?2/76
1530
11/02/76
2330
11/0 3/76
C-73C
1Q/23/76
1730
10/28/76
2330
10/29/76
0730
10 '29/76
1530
10/29/7*
2330
10/3 0/76
0730
10/30/76
1530
10/30/76
2330
11/01/76
1530
11/31/76
23 30
11/02/76
0730
11/02/76
1570
:oil
6 AS/ LOAD S02
TIKE KFISA IN
FLAG WATT PS>S
2 146 356,
2 311 30C0
2 114 310 0
144 3 J? 0
149 316D
14 a 32 v 0
14 9 3Ct'D
149 334-0
149 3SC0
14 5 3360
149 34PD
148 *04C
38" 3
38 0 0
3 cp?
149 383 0
148 3530
125 424 0
120 4160
138 396 0
15i> 356 C
147 34i?
ir.o 32 r o
150 3000
153 292D
13ft 2Eti
ISO 26?.:
149 25GO
150 3040
156 3C-0
7GD
1080
960
680
5 0 0
4?.C
360
340
.320
260
2 2 0
240
320
3 0 0
360
5 0 0
449
5L0
400
38 0
340
320
260
220
240
320
3'jO
360
-------
GAS ANALYSTS
SYS- R'JN
TEtt NO. SAMPLE NAME
TCA 615-2A SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
616-2A SLURRY TO TCA TOUER
SL'JRRY AT TCA OUTLET
BCIL
V.AKE
GAS/
LOAD
SO?.
S02
SO?
0?
P5R
Tiyir
WE G A
IN
OUT
REM
1M
D«SS
DATE
TIME
FLAS
* ATT
PP ¦*
PP*1
*
V
y"0L/L
11/02/76
2370
132
356 0
50 0
84
7.2
15.5
11/0 3/76
0 730
9 4
32-3
440
85
7.1
14.4
11/05/7fe
2330
7
156
3 C 4 0
720
74
5.4
11.9
11/C 6/76
0 7 30
7
149
32c C
36 0
71
5.'J
12."*
11/06/76
1530
If 2
260'.,
600
7ft
5.5
11.3
1530
142
2500
6 C 0
76
5.5
il.3
11/0 6/76
2330
14 0
32: ;
7 4 0
7"
7.2
12.6
11/07/76
0 73 0
5 0
336 f:
«8 0
71
12.6
11/07/?':.
1530
11 0
3 n o j
1100
6"
10.5
13.7
ii/r 7/76
2 330
153
26V0
Ofi
7f>
11.1
11/0 ?/76
0730
145
30 & 0
703
75
6.5
12.2
11/1 £ /7c.
15 3 C
151
24 4 0
"2 0
7 r
•
!?.<;
ll/On/76
2330
155
3ft::
9 0 0
ii
6.2
13. b
n/;5/;?
0 730
146
34 rc
P. 4 0
73
5.0
^ 7 1
.L ^ • A
11 '0 5/76
1530
153
290C
720
12
5.4
11.1
11/09/76
2330
156
276 3
760
69
5.7
10.2
11/10/76
Q730
152
2'i?0
720
73
5.6.
11 .?
11/1C/76
1030
155
27«,:
-04 0
66
f . &
5.7
31/10/76
2330
154
3&-C
12 6 0
63
12.7
11 '11/76
0730
149
36 SI
12C.C
64
6.0
12.4
11/11/76
1730
7.
155
3*4 0
660
*"< J.
16.5
11/11/76
23 3 0
2
142
3 72 0
620
81
5.3
16.1
11/12/7*)
0730
-»
/.
152
36!! 0
720
7?.
5.0
15.3
11/12/75
1530
7
155
34 0 0
44 0
eft
6.0
lc .«
ll>12/76
2330
¦y
i
152
372 0
600
K:
R .4
16.2
11/13/76
0730
7
152
4 0 0 C
7*0
79
6.5
16.3
ll/0c/76
?33C
z
15ft
3 04 0
72 0
74
5.4
11.°
11/36/76
C730
7
14?
3 2 S 0
K ft 0
71
5.0
12.3
ll/;ft/7S
1530
142
2P.0C,
6 G 0
7<-
5.5
11.3
11 /06/76
2330
1*0
3200
74 0
74
7.2
12.6
11/0 7/76
C730
60
336 0
SoC
71
12.6
11/C 7/Tft
1530
110
38 rc
1100
68
10.5
13. T
11/C7/76
2330
153
26S0
52 0
7?
fc.6
11.1
11/OS/76
C73 0
169
3 Co 0
710
75
6.5
12.2
ll/?R//ft
1130
151
3440
920
7t
7.2
1 ? . a
ll'PS/76
2330
155
3600
500
7'
6.2
13.(3
11/G9/7ft
0 7 30
146
34 00
r-4 3
73
5 . C
13.1
11/09/76
1530
153
2'' & 'J
720
72
5.4
11.1
11/09/76
2330
156
2760
760
6*3
5.7
10.2
11/10/7ft
0730
152
2920
720
73
5.8
11.2
11/10/76
1530
155
276 0
840
6ft
5.6
9.7
11/1C/76
23 3 0
154
38 0ft
12&0
53
12.7
11/11/76
0 730
143
36c. 0
1200
64
6.0
12.4
11/II/7ft
17 iO
155
3B4 3
660
•3 i
16.5
11 /I 1/76
2330
7
14 2
3720
620
81
5.3
16.1
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR SYS- BUN
«»0. TEH HO. SAMPLE NAK£
2 TCA 61S-2A SLURRY ST TCA OUTLET
617-2A SLURSY TO TCA TOUER
0
1
sO
SLURRY AT TCA OUTLET
date
TIME
11/12/76
0730
11/12/76
153G
11/12/76
2350
11/13/76
0730
11/15/76
1930
11/15/76
2330
11/16/76
0730
11/16/76
1530
11/16/76
2330
11/17/76
0730
11/17/76
1530
11/17/76
2330
11/18/76
0730
11/13/76
1730
11/18/76
2330
11/19/76
r,930
11/19/76
3530
11/19/76
233G
11/20/76
P 7 30
11/20/76
1530
11/2C/76
2330
11/21/76
0730
11/21/76
1530
11/21/76
2333
11/22/76
0730
11/15/76
1SJ3
11/15/76
2330
233C
2330
11/16/76
0730
11/16/76
1530
11/16/76
2330
11/17/76
0730
11/17/76
1530
11/17/76
2330
11/18/76
0730
11/ia/7&
173C
11/1S/7&
2330
11/19/76
0930
11/19/76
1530
11/19/76
2330
11/20/76
9730
11/2&/7&
1530
11/2 0/76
2350
11/21/76
0730
BOIL
GAS/ LORD S02
TIMF MEGA IN
FLAG WATT PPH
If 2
3580
155
3"PC
152
372 0
152
4 00 C
157
3600
153
3320
155
3 ?o0
153
3320
155
3280
154
3120
154
3c
155
2680
24 r c
22 D 0
2963
148
328 0
124
320 &
101
320 0
141
34 S 0
148
3160
152
316C
148
326 C
148
3440
151
3JC0
146
28" 0
157
3600
153
3320
If. 3
3320
153
3320
155
3260
153
332 D
155
326.0
154
3120
154
3080
155
26RG
24 PO
22U
2V6G
148
3230
124
320 0
101
3200
141
348C
143
3160
152
3160
148
326 0
make
S02
02
pr«t
REM
IM
° ASS
X
*
m
«"40!_/L
78
¦5.9
15.3
86
6.0
15.4
P. 2
a.4
16.2
79
6.5
16.8
7fi
5.5
15.0
HI
9.1
14.2
76
7.2
13.1
80
7.0
14.1
79
6.5
13.7
81
7.1
13.5
81
7.0
13.1
S3
7.3
11.7
86
7.2
11.0
87
4 .5
1C.1
62
5.2
12.9
78
13.6
73
6.4
13.4
75
7.0
12.7
76
6.8
14.1
78
5.8
13.0
7fi
6.5
13.C
76
6.1
13.2
75
6.4
13.6
79
6.5
12.5
79
6.2
11.9
78
5.5
15.0
ei
9.1
14.2
81
9.1
14.2
El
9.1
14.2
76
7.2
13.1
80
7.0
14.1
73
6.5
13.7
81
7.1
13.5
81
7.0
13.1
83
7.3
11.7
86
7.2
11.0
87
4.5
10.1
82
5.2
12.9
78
13.6
79
6.4
13.4
75
7.0
12.7
76
6.8
14.1
79
5.9
13.0
78
6.5
13."
76
6.1
13.2
S02
C'JT
f>PM
720
440
600
740
7DC
5
-------
GAS ANALYSES
SCR
MO.
SYS-
TEM
TCA
RUN
MO. S4MPLE NAME
617-2A SUtWRY AT TCA OUTLET
QATE
11/21/76
11/21/76
11/22/76
TIME
1530
2330
0 730
E01L
GAS/ LOAD
TIW? ?EG A
FLAG WATT
118
151
14 6
S02
S02
IN
OUT
P?K
PPM
3
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
\0.
aSALv
TICAL
POI'jT
LI3UID
CA + *
f G*+
DATE
TIHr
FLAG
PH
PPfi
DO«
OA/15/7*
23 50
X
5.87
1380
875
"4/16/76
0533
5.AD
"4/16/76
C730
5.^7
2 092
3309
"A/l«/76
1130
5.5?
T 4/16 '76
1530
5.£>2
"A/16/76
2333
5.52
2260
2739
*A/17/76
033?
5.5?
*4/17/70
C730
5.5a
'A/17/76
1130
5.2 7
^A/17/76
153?
5.5 7
5.57
190?.
2619
CA/17/76
1930
5.37
"4/17/7*.
235 0
5.33
"A/1H/76
073?
«G
5.3 2
2012
2249
?A/lH/76
1130
5.27
n»/ir./7^
1530
5 .? 7
OA/Ip/76
2530
CL
5.<>1
16*0
2019
Oa/19/76
r 7 7 r
5 . A 8
1680
2079
r^/19/7fc
23 33
KG
5.54
1570
17 CA
f4/2r,/76
2330
5.75
1228
2379
04/i5/7r,
2330
6.7-3
?A /I- '7%
2330
6.AO
?4/l?4/24/76
0730
TS
5.10
718
6299
TA/2A/76
1130
A.91
5^/24/76
1530
5.35
740
6859
04/24/76
1930
5.07
*? 4/2 4/76
2530
5.03
772
8539
fA/2e:/7'V
P350
5.20
-A/25/76
0730
5.31
752
7459
C4/25/76
1130
5.36
OA/25/76
1530
5.25
679
6079
C4/25/76
1930
5.17
583-2t
2816
¦583-2 =
2318
2516
TOTAL
S'JL-
LI'"#
T?T i L
3ISS0L
^ AT"
LI Q
2 0-:it
fvA*
K+
S03=
304 =
SO* =
CL-
stuns
SAT
T^vo
Ir-'B'.L
PPM
PPr
PPM
PP"
pp M
r-pM
p ~ *1
r
V
74
203
45
500 5
3057
2 5n4
7 A ft 4
1 22
5C
15.8
84
21?
130
7542
775-?
7?. CO
21225
1»7
51
1.1
83
227
583
3315
4521
S*63
1 655
117
2.4
90
70
504
4335
592 0
7f22
1504S
1 3^
52
c;
-6.9
83
112
226
5979
£250
730C
1 8461
182
5?*
-19.9
90
11*
271
4519
<1 3 4 &
6913
15590
131
50
-15.6
103
9".
180
5279
54 95
5°50
15266
15 0
5C
-6.7
97
9?
9 0
6262
437i
5=7 2
134«7
131
50
-11.5
91
1C 4
22G
544?
5711
5 51 ?
147°6
111
51
-2.0
86
4*9
2125
25291
25041
4 78 6
383 06
123
52
-9.6
91
81
A 134
27953
32=)7?
€115
504if.
Q E,
53
ll.o
94
151
7237
2214Q
3 C12 4
6 5=1
45662
114
51
-6.0
71
83
2759
25436
2374?
4431
40943
110
52
-10.3
68
79
2985
21397
24 5 79
A ?5 A
3~819
113
5C
-14.C
102
85
3731
17078
21555
5318
35243
107
50
-8.5
84
95
3121
22634
26379
5495
33446
124
50
-25.7
78
90
4568
18420
23902
5672
36427
102
5?
-e.4
82
86
5518
19244
25*66
540$
35647
9?
-
7.5
77
102
1945
2033a
23172
4563
36136
10 9
50
5.5
73
83
2103
1S275
20300
4 7P.6
32 0 79
10:
5 r*
-5.5
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
4/2t/76
1130
5.20
04/26/76
1630
5.23
647
6999
04/26/76
1930
5.27
ruf?e,/-rc,
2530
5.2?
760
7459
04/27/76
0 73 0
TS
5.4 3
652
61 39
^4/27/76
0 on n
0*/2 7/76
1130
5.35
04/27/76
i o 3 0
5.41
775
5939
n4 /?7 /76
23 3 0
5.45
7 62
52 39
"A/2&/7&
C330
5.2 5
0*/2!;>76
r ^ ^
5.41
790
5719
04/23/76
1030
5.56
04/2H/76
1530
5.70
794
7 019
r4/2'-/Ze-nc,
0 73 0
5.a?
23?
9059
05/07/76
0730
5.71
250
10 6 79
rb/r//K.
1 'J 3 0
5.°a
730
5 799
05/07/76
237 0
5.66
203
9019
OS /0°/76
Ml"
5.49
191
9479
-lc/0f'/76
153"
5.70
142
l'3?9
"5/0 "/?£»
233 0
5.*.&
204
1313 3
n5/0?/76
0 7 3 C
TS
5.14,
25 3
13S1B
lT>3?
"5 .^3
335
11339
<585-25 2H16
ro
tN>
2821
5E4-2A 2616
TOTAL
SL'L-
• r
U A J
TOTAL
D I " ^ 0 L
riTc:
L * 9
I 7 I "
i A*
K +
S03 =
S04 =
S04 =
CL-
SOL I OS
S iT
¦y r vr>
T ** ri .* !
>PM
FPf
ppv|
PPt1
=>p-«
r. 3 ni
3 P ^
Y
r~
80
frO
3143
22902
2f.6 7 4
4 ?5 4
.374 ns
117
c; r.
59
1 C 4
2329
18112
2 0 0 7
4 '43
32172
96
5"
3.**
56
97
3352
20 0 4 7
2411 7
390 0
3 5 4 8
4 -
^ r
90
213
2849
20075
23^94
3 90 0
35346
107
51
9. ^
63
197
1243
1 6 <528
i K 3 2 0
3D1 3
28155
9 0
50
1 ^
88
134
20 35
17153
1 5
24-1
2 5 6 0 5
110
50
10^
56
lCf
2397
l?3fa3
21044
2-59
2 ?5P7
124
50
_ 0 *
53
10 8
1243
17937
19479
2 »36
23741
11?
50
5.-'
61
112
11 3D
2 3 5 A 4
22940
2-81
331 81
123
50
I 2 • D
76
110
1515
14 2 0 2
1602 0
4 25 4
264??
97
51
9.f-
ei
106
3166
17217
21016
4? £.2
3 3 4 7°
110
^ 1
3.-
76
10 4
2261
16379
210 9 2
1*n "
3 2^13
no
5 n
?. P
.52
P7
1 04C
19301
2 " 5 S 9
7 £C.
7 0 7 " 4
129
CT «*>
-? r
55
e 4
2142
1 7 4
— 1 * ?
94
110
1492
18234
2 0 0 2 4
2 So9
2?47?
115
3 1
1 - • 2
53
8fc
2374
2 C 5 2 5
23374
? 4 -j 1
329"2
175
c. p
53
90
4151
170 0 3
21 ¦ i S 4
2 30 4
3 0 744
9C
2
S. ?
86
449
2125
2 52 0 0
25 0 4 0
4 73 6
38 5 05
12 3
63
84
5970
23714
30S73
3 013
43*90
0 7
5 C
1^.1
91
106
5156
34517
4 0 7 0 4
319 0
55519
11 H
5 2
-7 *
> • -
66
124
3619
30919
352 61
3 013
490-5
10.?
cj2
« A r.
1 i. ~
68
1C 4
& n ^ 1
22445
3210 5
2659
414 68
/ r»
^ n
72
104
117 6 3
255 0 4
39016
6 027
5532 1
23
c. ^
85
6P
701
30612
3145 3
5 ' 1P
47':62
4 fc
^ • *
90
100
5247
20259
2 •> 5 r 5
54f'5
4 0 4 H 8
7 ~
??•
7.7
79
103
66 94
25237
332 70
"431
4 7473
3 =
z, fy
fc.O
71
(V r.
«59
19 3;; 2
20113
5 < 1 «
3 1 ? » 4
115
r% 0
-9.'~
69
l<2
9439
25170
.656 9
4^51
4 9 ~ 0 7
30
c.'l
-7. H
63
82
12 c. 91
1934b
3 5 u 1 5
'»054
4 6 " 6
22
rr,
- ?¦ - 0
59
7 0
12*91
1 2 6 ^ 2
2 1 6 1
3
3 7*01
1 3
rJ?
3. 0
r 5
f 6
2 0 " C 7
1 9 - ' 0
4 't ;; 6
5? 2
5 0:; f
0 0
r r
i •
66
70
2397 5
2""A0
5i: 20 S
514 0
7 2 7 ?• C
34
w
-17.6
69
73
h52
55 5'AO
35° 2 2
5 67 0
5 33 3 P.
59
cc
4."
-------
L13VT0 ANALYSES
"{jX
\Z.
mur
TICAL
LIQUID
CJ ~~
MG* +
DfiTE
TIRE
F5.4G
PH
paw
°PM
P5/C9/76
2330
5-36
352
9799
T5/10/76
0730
5.39
329
9739
05/10/76
13"9
"5/10/76
1530
5.48
270
10099
n5/n /76
C3 0
5.3?
31?
13* 78
'5.'i:/7r>
1530
TS
5.41
34 3
11199
*¦5/11/7?.
2*30
5.37
337
11559
05/12/76
0730
5.16
33 7
12273
"5/12/76
or<>5
"5/12/76
1530
*5
5.41
335
*<(19
*5/12/76
273 0
TS
5.37
3C4
11539
m/i^/76
0730
5.35
493
11359
05/13/76
1 3C 0
*5/13/76
1520
5.25
630
11719
05/13/76
2330
KG
5.1?
675
16798
05/14/75
0730
5.28
613
12623
r*i/P f /76
2330
6.54
05/14/76
1530
5.21
672
13373
05/14/ ,*6
2330
5.25
687
1 02b9
<"5/15/76
C730
5.44
435
37*9
0 5/15/76
1530
5.36
487
^859
05/15/76
2333
WS
5.62
655
11919
r5/l6/76
5.37
675
9 739
r5/16/7£
1530
5.54
668
10679
p5/l6/76
2330
5.43
657
1CP99
5 5/17/76
0730
5.41
639
9159
-5/17/76
1530
5.54
567
12338
95/17/76
•i ITC
£ -*•/*-
5.44
6'6C
11359
0 5/1E/76
0730
5.28
651
8599
05/13/75
1530
5.33
6 5 P.
9999
05/1 8/76
2330
5.2o
74 2
1 09 59
05/19/76
3730
5.23
6«3
12019
05/19/7 6
153C
TS
5.20
772
10959
*3/19/76
2330
5.35
752
11°99
0S/2C/76
C730
5.29
655
9919
05/14/76
233C
6.29
£•5/17/76
2330
6.44
95/22/76
1600
5.24
695
10419
1*5/20/76
233S
5.33
406
1C559
"5/21/75
0730
5.40
540
6479
'¦5/21/76
1530
5.54
356
5359
'>5/21/76
2330
5.50
462
8679
-5/22/76
fS 7Tf»
t ( O v
5.16
482
3199
C5/22/Y6
1530
5.41
222
114JC
05/22/76
2333
5.50
370
9679
594-24
2816
0
1
ts»
OJ
365-26
?R18
2816
586-2A
2flB
2816
TOTAL
S'JL-
Lie
TOT tL
DI5S0L
^ ATE
110
10 \' I c
N A*
K*
S03=
S 04 =
S?4 =
CL-
SOL I 0$
SST
TE'!=
I*3*L
PPM
ppy
P?1
pp«
f>pv
optf
0=.(!
C
V
65
70
6332
21895
294^3
5495
4 4 " 0 P
4 =
5 *>
7 . '
58
95
8368
23337
3 53 79
514 0
4 70:06
45
-2.1
72
82
6332
30021
s-'Mg
4963
51 0 3 39S
6*. Hi
56652
81
50
-3.5
93
97
4071
36322
41 ? r t
7: Q r1
5 0 0 22
112
5 2
110
84
5426
39696
46207
8154
7094 3
105
5 r
16.-
76
fil
7689
36809
4603?.
p 154
66050
106
51
-10.£
86
95
2714
35378
3M-35
6913
59231
108
52
12.3
88
58
5428
25909
3S423
514 3
516 09
111
50
-2.1
86
51
2623
27107
3.V5S
3545
42606
72
51
2.3
52
61
4824
27077
32866
3545
fl590 5
75
53
6."
91
99
?714
25317
325 7 4
4 SI 9
4 94 0 4
95
5C
2 0. f
49
71
361 £
30266
346CS
4 J 5 4
48672
113
c ¦»
-0.?
53
65
3675
29873
3 ¦_ - 5
48558
106
53
11.1
50
f.C>
4523
31430
36H55
3'iuO
V.,74 9
117
c 5
-1.0
91
101
1990
320 0 3
54391
3 3 6"
473M
118
51
-2.4
47
61
4704
35451
41096
3!*> 0
5635a
96
-
5.7
37
63
5428
35 f09
4 2 2 2 3
3190
56446
117
C r*
0 ^ ?
52
57
2714
31317
34-37 4
3-,45
4 6935
122
52
-10.2
47
64
5247
27598
34194
4?54
48167
102
5 "**
3.2
47
67
4885
31624
"574«6
47-4 6
53110
121
51
2.9
28
54
4523
37961
433°,9
4431
59699
124
50
_ n ¦*
61
72
7237
36934
45618
5140
61175
143
50
-15.9
65
76
3663
32770
37166
5672
54997
120
51
9. T
52
60
3392
286 04
32674
3545
46227
104
5 p.
8.5
46
52
6785
22857
30999
3013
43868
88
50
18.4
60
87
2442
32856
35786
4077
50487
71
51
3.8
44
52
2714
23038
31255
3 013
426SC
94
50
-1.2
46
55
2442
29107
320 37
3545
44910
60
59
3.1
48
54
3528
2 4 C13
2";24 7
3900
4 0£{;4
70
h j
5.7
50
57
4432
22476
27754
3 9 0 0
395 9 7
71
C O
l.r'
52
60
18545
22071
44 J2 5
4431
56'"0
26
DC
-9.6
42
61
56 08
25445
32175
4 9 63
461£8
55
c *
w' X
1.1
-------
LIOUIO ANALYSE''
SUN
NC.
ANALY
TICAL
POINT
LIQUID
CA* +
MS*»
DATE
TIME
FLAG
PH
PPM
PPfi
0*5/23/76
0730
5.2"
360
9779
"5/2.3/76
1530
5.25
270
11559
""5 '2 3/76
25?"
5.25
5°6
10 519
05/24/76
0 73"
5.2.4
7 9 R
9579
r5/2«/76
1600
5.37
638
10119
0 5'24/76
233?
5 . 3 >
714
11639
" b / 2 r / 7 6
0*45
TS
5.16
641
11 1 99
o= /2i /7'j
233?
6.33
"5/24/76
2' 3 o
6. *5
*5/31 /76
1 53 0
5.'5
660
997?
"5/31/76
2 33 0
5.62
21 ri
5619
06/01/76
0730
CL
5.9a
123
74 59
06/01/76
1530
5. tG
541
B793
" 6 / C1 / 7 6
23 3 P
5.67
234
10579
06/02/76
0730
5.90
256
94 59
06/0 2/76
n i
"6/02''7ft
153 0
" 0
5.6 4
262
11619
^6/02/76
23 3 0
5.45
24 7
1 0759
"6/0 5/76
0730
5.54
544
1 0739
06/ci/76
153 2
5.31
64 5
10779
"6/0 3/76
2300
5.45
691
10699
r 6 / C r / 7 6
155C
1G
5.61
641
6*39
06/05/76
«? "» J A
5.41
5 7 2
11559
06/06/76
0730
5.16
&20
11639
"~6'06/76
153 0
5.58
706
9299
06/0?/76
2330
5.25
708
10 0 79
06/07/76
0730
TS
5.02
824
10959
06/07/76
153 0
5.3?
804
£7 39
"6/07/76
2 33 0
5.49
664
9 0.53
"6/CS/76
0 73C
5.55
743
10239
^6/CS/76
1530
5.29
79 3
6719
r /is
2330
5.32
716
9379
"6/09/76
0 732
5.12
77S
9999
06/09/76
1530
5.31
6C6
8 £ 19
"6/P9/76
?330
5.27
744
9619
06/10/76
0733
4.7 3
S53
101^9
C6/1C/76
1530
5.27
697
8379
<¦6 no/76
233:
5.56
782
11719
oe/n /76
C 72 0
5.12
900
9239
*6/n/7&
153 0
5.12
693
"959
"6/11/76
2330
5.15
700
96 09
06/12/76
0730
5.11
772
10159
rc,/:2/7f.
. c: * n
t
5.20
6B8
9339
r 6 /1 o / 7 <¦•
? 330
5.^4
71t<*
ft 7 39
tf>/13/76
0 7 50
5.52
714
R359
5ee-?A
R67-?A
231R
2*16
0
1
PO
•»»
TOTAL
SUL-
LIQ
T9T«L
DIOSOL
FATE
LIT
IONIC
.'A*
K*
S03 =
SC4 =
50* =
CL-
SOLIDS
SAT
TCM?
I M P 1 1_
•PK
PP«
PP*
OD;a
PC.-M.
ppjj
PP v
C
f
45
30
4 0 71
2 4 ? p 9
2c;l74
4°fJ
43537
51
50
9.4
41
<> 1
144 74
2 62 76
4 3 « 4 5
4 17 7
56 7 7 s
37
<50
-5.7
43
F 5
162 84
1 2212
31753
4 6 " 9
4 4 22"
4 ?
51
11 . 0
68
43
4071
2SJ639
33524
6027
49225
129
50
-4.3
75
79
4975
28500
34470
5140
49576
1 0 P
50
1.1
81
P.l
6332
36153
43751
5495
604^5
126
51
-6.7
62
70
9C46
20272
31127
4 6 0 9
70
5r>
l'i.8
38
83
'¦3 92
27044
33114
3 i 9 0
417 «- 6
100
c t
-J A
14.0
43
25
11534
2 319 3
3 7 " 2 4
1 2 4 0
4 5f>6?
3 0
5 0
-0.1
44
3 0
12665
i/irt 06
34004
35 4
394?.J
17
50
-15.3
40
99
2H04
2 .J 3 4 1
32706
l'>5"
4^574
95
c 0
2.5
38
10 3
2623
33437
4 158 5
1 772
'•'7-6
47
r ^
- 3 .
39
IGi
6100
26633
3595 3
1772
4 4 7 60
4 0
50
4,>.
4. j
102
6785
29-36
3 75 78
1772
5 0117
4 0
51
14, "*
42
97
6332
29 250
36.!54 'i
1950
48677
39
it n
H • c<
43
100
4975
3 3 is 3
39358
1 Q5 0
51 7 3 =
95
^ r
4.4
49
hi
34E3
34 155
3b "535
1950
51143
113
50
7.6
37
45
45 2 3
35031
a 0 4b V
2127
53153
125
51
1.6
33
61
39 35
26362
¦tip, 0 j.
^ a c -v ^
141P
3920?
120
— r*
-15.0
35
r 5
6332
33604
4 1 2 C 2
1=5 0
5 4 102
96
51
7.1
40
C 7
p s 91
3 6 >* 3 6
4 7 14 9
177 2
5 ?- 4
1"5
¦
-1.3
41
5 8
4071
i5a68
4 0 55 3
1"*7?
5 1 4 1 5
14 0
50
— 10- ^
42
6 0
74 6 3
2967S
3c!65"
1772
P - ¦; 0
11.0
5'
S. 1
47
64
13117
J-54P.5
45225
1 n5 0
6 0 ^ 4 o
141
50
-14.1
71
57
4 b 2 3
3 14 9 0
35 31 3
141«
471 02
149
50
-6.9
39
5 P
474°
31112
36".l 1
1043
4 n 3,0 4
114
3.4
45
87
4 8 2 '1
3413a
39927
1772
r ^ 0 ^ t
1 3"-
c; 5
" ¦*
43
60
6106
3C*40
377 67
1*1 5
i75r 4
1 44
J 0
- « . 6
41
62
5SB0
31 348
3 P 4 0 1
2 " 2 7
5 " 0 5 3
123
50
- 0 .
40
63
3495
31822
43221
2 127
5 4 3 ~ r<
175
5 "
-11. 0
61
61
4523
2 7 352
3 2 780
1 772
4 J, C 5 0
111
5 0
1
56
65
6332
31442
39C4&
1950
5C20S
130
5 "
-4.0
4 7
70
7915
3159A
41096
1 9b G
5'63 7
uc
51
• ^
51
64
33 4 4
31561
3617a
2127
4 C 7 0 3
137
^0
-11.7
39
64
4975
37207
43177
?~?0
5 7 7 56
1 41
c **
7.5
50
69
10516
27522
4 0 3 41
3 C13
51 3 C 9
? 44
51
— 13. c
49
71
7689
27149
3637 6
2256
4r>.tu6
1 r "¦
54
2.4
51
69
7915
2 9 012
3D. 51 0
1 879
491 25
116
5 0
-4 . ?
50
97
72 37
2*431
37115
2 3 0 4
43050
120
5 1
4 . 7
41
54
54 23
2 6-14
3 3 32 '<
2127
44<(''l
108
5 "
6.4
39
5 6
2714
30«53
33/1=;
2215
1 i17
c r.
-0.7
a 2
97
4«>97
515 36
3 'j 6 9 j
2 0 3 ?'
4 7 r: 3
136
^ 1
-12. 9
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
*U*'
*C.
AWALT
TICAL
POINT
587-2A 2816
2818
2821
538-2# 2816
0
1
N
V*
589-2*
2621
2816
LIQUID
CA**
ee*»
D2T£
TI*E
FLAG
PH
PPK
PpM
06/13/76
1530
5.27
752
1095S
*6/13/76
2330
5.21
732
10659
06/14/76
C530
5.14
746
8279
05/31/7f
2330
7.19
06/07/7(5
2330
7.10
"6/11/76
2330
6.35
*6/07/76
153"?
16/11/76
1533
06/17/76
0730
5.53
726
11399
06/17/76
1530
5.15
772
10679
"6/17/76
2330
TS
5.45
758
10899
"6/18/76
0730
5.45
£24
11019
06/18/76
1539
5.25
7*36
11219
"6/18/76
2330
5.12
803
10719
06/19/76
0730
5.43
710
10139
"6/19/75
1530
5.78
606
11619
<*6/19/76
2330
5.17
916
11119
06/20/76
0730
TS
5.10
802
10499
TS
5.10
802
10499
06/25/76
1530
5.52
748
12613
06/2C/76
2330
5.65
844
1365«
36/13/76
0733
"6/19/76
073C
06/21/76
1530
5.43
764
13358
"6/21/76
2330
5.56
700
10399
T6/22/76
073?
5.45
723
11879
C6/23'76
1530
5.48
704
11259
06/23/76
2330
5.40
644
11119
^6/24/76
073?
5.31
683
9839
C6/24/76
153?
MG
5.52
628
12159
C6/24/76
235C
5.70
648
0739
06/25/76
2330
5.4e
590
10479
*6/26/76
0730
5.27
672
1185?
06/26/76
1530
5.35
710
9579
*6/26/76
2330
5. 25
654
9719
16/27/76
C73C
5.33
678
11039
06/27/76
1530
5.31
644
10259
06/27/76
2330
5.35
680
9419
06/23/76
C730
5.32
636
11079
06/2«/76
1530
16
5.39
640
8559
C6/28'76
2310
5.50
584
1 CI 79
"6/29/76
0730
5.52
644
11439
06/29/76
1530
5.44
74«
9199
06/2?.'76
2330
5.'3
641
9 7 39
C6/33/76
0730
5.41
612
1S&99
TOTAL
SUL-
LIS
total
OlSSCL
F ATt
LIO
I0"1C
*A*
K*
S03=
S04 =
S04 =
CL-
SOL I OS
SAT
TEVP
IT'BAL
sow
PP*
PPM
PPV!
PPR
P?X
•v
r
X
43
55
4297
31431
36537
2393
49930
122
53
12.0
42
61
6332
31998
39596
2304
5212S
123
50
3.0
45
53
7011
24179
32592
1595
41 =K' 3
115
50
-0.3
57
53
2849
33446
36865
4 G 77
52607
121
55
9.7
68
47
4636
28185
33743
4963
4935C
116
54
S.c'
50
39
1413
29633
31329
55^4
4&376
117
c-0
13.6
91
55
IP 09
32«89
34 66J
4 / 3b
53873
104
50
9. 2
aa
57
4749
29835
355K4
5229
52 0 2'
122
= r
P. ?
68
76
54 2"*
2660 4
3 3118
62^3
499° 6
115
50
r ~
fs • 7:
47
69
1809
29757
3192S
5 1 4 Q
47671
115
59
7.3
109
64
904
31095
321.'>0
70C2
51599
125
50
13.5
49
87
4862
27283
33117
7 !J 0 0
52116
12 0
52
5.7
135
65
61 06
33110
4 T4 37
7339
5*0 56
139
52
-15.3
135
65
6106
33110
4 D 4 3 7
7 3 39
58056
139
52
-15.T
128
57
2261
34993
37706
8 597
594 02
122
50
5.1
138
75
2487
43485
46469
"4C-4
70171
159
52
_P, •»
129
78
226
37372
37643
8775
60702
128
50
9.9
115
64
1583
32373
34273
8 331
53565
120
52
-5.7
119
6*
2714
29755
3301?
9*>61
549 2 0
107
54
5.9
112
130
3392
32522
3->592
9395
57514
116
50
-5.9
80
53
3731
31128
3560 5
£3
-------
LICUID ANALYSES
P,UN
no.
AN ALY
TICSL
POINT
LI3UTD
r7/ll/7fc
1535
7.41
593
3054
07/31/76
2330
7.0*
538
2669
C7/12/71
053C
l.iil
552
2719
07/02/71
1530
07/01/76
15'0
"7/07/71
1530
07/0S/76
1530
r 7/09/76
1530
<•7/10/71
1530
07/11/71
1530
07/1?./7ft
2330.
6.5B
293
2994
07/13/71
C 73 0
7.28
275
2694
37/13/76
153 0
6.83
208
2529
07/13/76
2330
7.39
331
3339
07/11/76
0730
6.75
579
2704
07/14/76
133 0
07/14/71
1530
7.03
352
3019
"7/ia/7f,
2330
6.79
445
2689
0 7/15/71
0730
7.IP
383
2724
07/15/76
030C
07/15/76
1530
1.70
538
3144
07 /I'. /71
2332
7.20
788
3159
C7^
2169
= 89-
1C1-2A
'81ft
2021
2?16
2321
60?-2» 2816
TOTAL
SUL-
LIr>
TOTAL
2 10 S 0 L
FATE
LT':
I O*,11 0
:a*
K +
S03=
S04 =
SC4 =
CL-
SOL!OS
sat
Tc ^
I« 3 A L
:D^
PPF
PPK
d p y
p O V.
PP V;
PP".
X
r~
*/
4 5
8 7
4523
30343
3127 1
1113
4 7"! t
141
5?
fl.o
44
KB
3113
2aC,M
3 3^32
2107
"5-18
•
55
11.3
46
qa
3'3 44
32562
3 71 7
6J54
c ? £ 07
1 1 "
5 0
v- • 7.
3?
97
316
¦*-.06
jHo5
7o?
10 75
"2
tr r.
7.3
35
95
1 89
4270
4497
Oil
r, n » r
TT,
50
— 1.1
48
5 3
90
5038
514 1
1 CI 3
t " ¦"* 3
8 0
50
12.7
22
35
723
f:4G3
9271
°^6
] 2 f 9
2 3
50
-10.1
23
36
723
70 03
7376
1 ?a 0
11 ° 3 3
17
50
15. >
23
34
T 1 £,
8136
^ 1 5
1152
121 "
Q ^
r I
6.T
20
34
407
97 0 9
10197
1 C 0 3
13 7-3
4 2
= o
-20 . T
20
35
407
84 91
89 79
1 24 0
1T 1 " 4
4 4
- -
4.1
21
30
51>5
9414
100^2
124 0
14 518
35
52
7.5
15
29
1167
PS 9 2
10292
12 71
1 3 ? B2
13
50
-17.S
21
36
1040
£>202
1045 0
1595
1 5 c 1 ?
17
5 0
11.1
15
15
497
8197
J
2570
1c C 2 £
97
52
-h.l
22
*>2
178
£0 79
P S 9 3
141?.
1 T'97
22
c
-J
1 a.s
22
43
311
8778
9157
11H4
1 3920
57
C <1
1.7
1?
1"
407
5499
i c -;c
a
94
5 2
0 . r.
2C
3 9
579
9261
.3951
• 772
¦* * r. r* *"»
32
54
f . .3
22
39
361
9102
95 35
1184
1*630
12
50
S • 3
25
37
311
8 3 55
q, 7 3,3
2 03J'
14 147
84
52
5.c
23
36
271
9515
9940
1772
1-2 = 4
31
53
9.°
20
41
271
9074
93 9 9
1772
1<• i 8 5
78
^ ry
1.1
28
48
226
t<56G
8831
2 30 4
1 a 4 h 7
"*&
54
3.5
22
42
741
7454
534 9
2570
14121
35
50
6.3
19
39
171
9246
9451
2 431
1*915
42
50
-12.9
21
40
180
6637
18 5 3
2 491
120 °6
2C
54
3.5
23
4 0
614
8337
9314
2*81
15315
39
52
10.0
21
34
180
SB 0 3
9 019
2659
1*979
80
50
-3.9
22
33
384
7570
8031
2570
13Q53
41
54
10.5
22
38
2 94
7321
7174
2393
1^202
54
52
7.4
41
36
226
7235
750 6
2659
133 04
41
50
6.0
36
64
316
8157
1531
2659
14914
14
53
12.5
35
67
271
8495
8620
2 747
15512
93
52
13.7
SC
56
24P,
7136
7434
2 831
13481
4 S
50
6.4
-------
LIQUID atlALYSCS
A* ALT
TIC*L
LIQUID
CA**
MG+*
fiO.
POINT
date
TIME
FLAG
PH
PP!*
PP*
602-2*
?Bl6
07/16/76
1530
7.00
262
3209
*7/16/71
233C
6.70
??C
2849
"7/n/7f>
0730
6.
165
2fi 04
"7/17/76
1530
6 . 6 G
140
2759
07/17/76
233?
7.00
184
3014
P7/18'76
0730
6.99
406
2899
2ft21
07/13/76
1530
"7/14/76
153C
$7/15/76
1530
?7/i<;/76
153?
C7/17/76
1530
6G3-2A
2816
37/20/76
0730
6.99
696
3C84
"7/2G/76
1530
7.D2
732
2919
?7/?C/76
2330
6.91
683
2534
6.91
•; 7/21 /76
C 730
6.64
656
3034
*57/21 /76
153?
6.78
672
3364
"7/21/76
2330
6.66
307
2889
"7/22/75
2730
6.94
512
3209
07/22/76
1530
6.82
323
2979
6.8?
6.82
C7/22/76
2335
6. 32
337
30Q4
C7/2 ?/76
0730
6.04
C6P.
3214
C7/23/76
153S
6.70
7*2
3484
C7/23/76
233?
7.11
£36
2769
<>7/2*/76
0730
6.91
641
3439
07/24/76
1530
6.85
758
3109
*'7/24/76
233?
7.66
640
2874
C« 7/25/76
0730
7.07
663
3759
?7/2c/7£
1530
7.58
HOC
3519
"7/25/76
2330
7.15
840
34 79
"7/26/76
0730
6.94
522
3659
n/zznt,
153?
6.73
463
3599
2821
07/20/76
153?
07/21/76
153?
?7/22/7r,
15??
07/23/76
1530
97/24/76
1530
"7/25/76
1530
?7/26/7R
153?
604-2A
2816
f7/23/76
2330
6.91
664
3469
?7/29/7S
?733
6.8?
691
*3P,9
C7/29/76
1530
07/29/76
2330
7.11
746
3044
TCTAL
SUL-
LI9
TOTAL
CISSOL
FATE
LTD
IONIC
.'A*
K*
S03 =
S04 =
SC4 =
CL-
SCLIDS
SAT
TC«P
I«5SL
'P*
PPf
PPS
PP*!
PPM
UPH
PPM
V
C
27
54
407
7250
7738
3in?
14 311
29
50
11.1
19
24
497
6549
7145
2836
12994
2»
52
7.3
19
25
610
6353
7bf:2
2334
12777
19
5C
7.3
20
25
814
7732
7 5 9
2605
14145
19
5*.
-8.6
19
25
74 6
7345
3241
2.^04
1 J = 38
22
5?
? . 5
29
65
325
9272
9662
2 OA
15 2 9 0
c p
5C
-2.0
38
65
233
7933
8177
2836
14855
80
54
14.2
41
66
316
7991
837 0
3368
15433
87
50
3.9
37
58
334
8221
86 82
3190
15107
92
50
-10.2
33
55
264
8784
9125
2925
15771
84
53
4.5
40
63
316
8886
9265
3368
167C9
80
5?
8.2
26
65
429
7599
8114
2636
14151
38
51
2.7
36
66
398
8501
8979
28 36
15558
62
55
8.8
37
64
4 97
7332
852 S
2659
14491
4C
50
4.5
32
52
678
8175
65 8.9
2659
14937
43
50
1.7
38
65
339
933 3
9 73 7
2747
16401
8 6
53
6.9
41
70
497
9226
932 2
2925
16 Q 8 5
39
5?
12 . ^
37
52
226
3971
92 "2
2659
15520
109
50
1.3
36
63
384
9319
9779
3 213
169 4 4
73
54
10.4
32
67
497
5151
9747
3456
16 C 7 0
C;B
52
5.8
24
34
452
7742
82fi4
3545
19*3 1
76
5C
-0.8
44
73
334
9213
967«
3279
17415
76
54
15.1
47
71
271
3823
9148
3988
17519
91
50
9.1
35
38
248
9279
9577
3368
17287
100
5?
11.0
4„
62
384
10752
11213
3279
137M
71
53
1.4
32
63
723
$445
9313
3190
16515
52
52
11.9
37
70
3 ? 6
8452
8831
3102
16110
75
53
15.7
34
66
294
9070
9423
345f
17QC0
84
50
7.2
41
65
271
7263
7588
3456
14rf"0
80
54
12.3
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
t\ALY
P.U\
TICf.L
LI3UI0
CA»*
KE + *
vc.
»CIMT
DATF
tiv£
rtar,
?H
PPM
PpX
6C4-?a
2*16
07/30/76
073r
6.66
761
3504
0 7/3C/76
15C0
7.C6
766
2874
r7/31/76
233 0
6.61
722
3 059
*7/31/76
0730
6.32
709
3299
57/31/70
1530
7.02
£86
3CT.4
"7/31/76
233 0
6.9?
754
3054
rv/n /76
0 73 0
6.95
749
2919
"P'01/76
1530
6.75
697
2 959
"f'/C 1/76
233°
6.P9
728
2929
o*-/o2/76
C 73 0
6.94
740
3174
'8/02/76
1530
6.99
6 24
2 914
i.i
MG
6 .*>1
736
3 334
<" °/f 3/76
r73"
6.94
738
3 G 39
•.
t-SSO
TCTAL
SUL-
LI 3
T0T4L
mssoi
c ATE
jnMT r
!> A*
K*
S03 =
SC4 =
SO" =
Ct-
S0LI2S
SAT
~ run
I'-'BAL
ppr
PP*
?p y.
PPM
DD V
pof.-
V
%
r
V
43
72
226
9257
95 26
3545
: 7 4 ? ti
91
5r
9.6
34
53
271
8325
bf 5 4
2 8T6
15163
9 5
c, n
6.2
42
71
224
82 15
f 5 56
3 1 C 2
ll4--5
PC
54
8.6
42
73
226
B626
°-c9 7
3279
16 25 4
P4
50
10.6
51
86
1 60
8520
67 36
3 I ? 0
i 5 7 9 7
? 4
5 0
7.0
46
8 2
24P.
7 c. 5 3
fil~6
'• 1D2
15144
86
54
12.2
4°
7 £
27!
3 303
9 6 ; 3
t 17 0
15651
92
3.-"
51
70
248
7352
7650
2 ri c,
143:2
77
51
14.3
47
66
2 94
7635
76 68
3f 13
1" 71 2
84
53
10.6
4?
72
452
79C 2
><444
319 j
ICC^Q
P. 3
50
12.0
42
83
244
8139
P4 32
3f 13
15 0 c 9
77
c n
5.2
43
79
24°
86 62
8 ~ 0
2"!?5
16047
S6
5°
14 . &
45
fc 9
294
8? 8 5
9338
3 013
3 6 1 r 3
9^
51
3.8
14
67
316
8390
« 7 6 ¦?
2iru
14930
103
5 0
14.6
4 V
100
316
r 9 3 9
9 3 1 6
2 9 25
16 2?'
87
c 0
5.4
36
82
180
94 3 8
9t 5^
3; 13
17 0 4 8
P. 4
51
14.6
36
79
135
7682
73 4 4
2747
137C0
79
50
_ T A
• W» • **
39
75
226
5362
9633
2836
16274
5C
5 0
"> • 3
29
6 7
488
8415
5 0 01
2 659
15 23=.
52
5.0
34
70
158
9 2 7 9
9469
2921
16P66
45
50
8.
29
t2
24ft
£9 35
9 2 3 3
2659
15517
61
52
5.0
2 C
47
3 52
7356
7 77p
257C
13676
40
55
11.5
30
69
452
7 55 3
° 4 95
15 3 34
C1
"5
9.?
29
69
407
£639
9127
2747
155*3
C D
51
7.5
3 0
71
371
7H19
3 2 6 3
2 659
1
54
11.8
34
72
339
8227
8 6 3 4
27"7
1^911
50
5 5
7.3
34
8 7
361
8652
9065
3 013
15847
49
52
7.1
36
92
497
7 R 78
3474
2 b 59
14577
44
54
7.9
35
96
316
8044
8423
2 3 9 3
13967
-33
55
2.6
31
70
452
8513
9-55
2 4? 1
15147
33
50
11.0
28
70
393
8 4 23
PU35
2«7,t
1 = CB2
52
54
-0.4
72
5 2 3
74'j 7
t r 31
2 6 36
145 Ja
36
= 1
15.3
29
7 C
407
Si 99
8 P 0 7
x -1 •>
i^': -
cc
5 C
r ?
27
66
465
7621
817 9
2393
13-551
34
55
12.3
35
PI
613
7341
6073
2570
137f-6
36
52
4.3
25
66
52 0
8241
3865
? « 36
1^314
35
50
9.2
23
62
130
7^2 b
7b41
2393
13271
54
54
1.9
32
56
633
6r.2S
7r:PH
257C
i 534 1
3l>
52
5.6
2 3
5f
6 7 P.
7 5 "6
3 3 6 0
2659
14 ?¦ » C
24
ce
*.7
-------
LIQUID ANALYSTS
AN ALT
RUN TICAL
SC. POINT OATC
605-?A 28?1 08/08/76
OS/93/76
0S/10/76
08/11/76
SC6-2A 2816 04/13/76
08/13/76
"?n4/76
r R/l»/76
"P/14/76
08/15/7 «.
08/15/76
!>8/i':/76
08/16/76
npf ir./76
C/16/76
08/17/76
«8'17/76
OR/17/76
*8/18/76
*f;/l»S/76
2821 C3/13/76
••P/14/76
"«/lt:/76
08/16/76
08/17/76
0S/1R/76
607-2A 2816 0?/l'?/76
DS/1^/76
OP/20/76
08/23/76
"a/20/76
PS/21/76
08/21/76
08/21/76
08/22/76
08/22/76
C8/22/76
?°/23'7&
08/23/76
t'2/23/76
08/24/76
LIQUID CA** fG**
FLAG ?M PP« °P!«
7.75
636
3469
8.CO
758
3109
7.fc3
695
3054
7.93
66 7
23-9
7.54
675
27*9
7.95
836
2944
7.95
659
2854
7.98
70?
3074
7.19
79*
2 934
3.21
632
2789
7.91
62ft
2574
7.91
76?
2644
7.SO
78 8
2519
8.03
697
2914
7.93
706
3159
7.?3
752
3079
8.19
466
3629
8.16
114
4369
8.C6
226
4769
7.67
150
5979
7.33
14?
5779
7.93
213
5639
7.87
75
5399
8.20
321
5259
8.00
604
4C19
646
4619
7.95
622
4859
7.95
295
5579
7.95
678
4S59
7.90
655
5149
7. 94
760
4699
7.83
535
4439
7.91
607
4549
TI?"E
1530
153?
1530
1530
1530
2330
C73D
1530
2330
0730
1530
2331
0730
153?
2330
0730
153"
2330
0730
1345
1530
1530
153C
1530
1530
1345
160 0
2330
0730
1530
2330
0733
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
o^c
1530
2330
0730
TOTAL SUL- UO
TOTAL DISSOL FA?E LtT IONIC
KA* K* S03= S04 = S04 = CL- SOLIDS S»T TE«o I »B ^ t.
PPM ppv DPH ppui cpv; OS V ppu, ^ r *
24
61
67
10125
10205
265"
170*1
04
55
10.1
26
67
339
9044
9" 51
2747
16090
9 r,
53
7.5
24
63
262
ftp, 25
•*1 59
2 4 31
15404
»e
5?
O. ft
27
67
226
8953
9229
2 3 >3
15147
91
55
2.9
22
83
271
8911
Q23
2127
1 4 ".36
13673
92
54
5.4
20
46
303
&3H6
925?
2653
15525
92
5"
3.2
22
49
407
8729
9217
2747
1551?
87
5?
9.4
23
5C
316
885 D
1229
2747
15S17
9a
54
8.0
19
48
723
9953
U.821
2659
17497
60
54
7.3
22
60
2058
10833
13303
3313
2'"4f.P
14
5 0
1.5
19
56
1718
13442
15 5 C 4
2481
2271 1
32
5?
3.2
20
60
1713
15311
17375
2659
25897
20
52
13.0
17
68
2 0 08
14 988
17393
2659
?S6C8
20
50
9.9
23
65
1198
14554
15 392
2«H1
24173
28
54
15.6
21
47
1062
14633
15907
0393
233^0
11
55
6.T
20
47
9 72
14386
1:3552
2707
23912
44
50
10.0
21
63
497
16834
17430
23 6
254 74
100
54
-7.3
21
63
497
16u34
17430
2?36
25516
107
-6.fi
23
74
701
15984
15'» 25
2570
24? 33
96
54
2.5
23
74
1085
15221
1652 3
2570
24*47
41
54
12.6
25
66
701
159.>4
16° Zd
2659
24972
104
54
2.5
24
67
655
15371
16157
2570
244 ^>1
94
54
10.9
23
71
452
14739
15281
257 0
23315
111
54
8.6
16
46
353
13446
13 V18
2 304
211 <9
76
50
9.?
17
48
600
16394
16314
2659
24974
93
54
3.3
-------
LIQUID ANALYSIS
ANAL v
PUN
NO.
607-24
o
J
I-*
ui
o
606-2A
TICUL
LI QUI 0
CA*»
MG* +
POINT
OATr
TIME
FLAG
?H
PPM
PPM
2P16
OP/24/76
3 53 G
7.34
644
4?59
0«/24/76
2330
7.95
530
5? 09
08/25/76
0530
7.91
625
4659
n£/30/76
1530
7.CI
600
4 689
0P/3C/76
233?
8.0 4
606
5589
03/31/76
0730
7.91
642
5129
7.91
642
5129
PP/31/76
1530
8.07
425
4 £3 9
^P/31/76
2330
6.03
605
5C69
P?/*l/76
073?
7.8?
658
4739
09/01/76
1530
7.70
592
5059
09/01/76
2330
7.90
624
4359
0°/02/76
0 730
7.87
603
4539
f>-9/02/76
1530
7.86
383
3309
7.PS
380
4t>50
2821
OS/19/76
1600
OF/20/76
153D
CP/21/76
1530
"8/22/76
1530
"P/23/76
1530
/24/7S
3 530
03/30/76
1530
2B25
Do/31/76
1570
5.06
1034
= 179
0«/01/76
1530
5.24
850
5009
"9/02/76
1530
5.16
696
4509
2816
C 9/C 3/76
1530
9.20
625*
5219
r*VC3/76
2330
7.91
58 0
4339
r9/n«/76
0730
7.P5
796
4959
09/C>4/76
1530
8.08
258
4649
09/04/76
2330
7.87
644
5179
r?/C5/76
0 73 r
7.96
73?
4959
0?/r>S/76
15* C
7.S7
710
4659
05/05/76
2330
7.91
586
49P9
C9/0*./76
C 730
7.75
944
4769
C9/06/76
1530
7.31
561
*399
" 9 / C1 / 7 '¦
on*
P.04
8 0
4 !¦ 2 •?
?S?5
09/03/76
is'-r
5.12
1094
L559
f <5/ni»/7J,
1530
5.C'2
65 2
4? 49
ro/c-./7e
153 C
66 0
4'J'.-9
"om/7C
'.530
5.:«
f 14
4 7 39
2M«>
<53"3t>
1 ."J6
CiU
44
KA +
PPM
K*
PPM
SC3 =
PPM
S04 =
pp>:
TOTAL
S04 =
trs\!
CL-
1 o jh
TOTAL
rsisscL
t;oiioe;
3UL-
c AT^
SAT
li;
LIT
T r •> v
r
3AL
1?
5 0
542
13 367
14i ?
2 *¦ - 4
21 K.4
9 3
51
7.-
24
65
416
16343
1 S ¦' 4 ?
2: ?3
p i: o ... r>
5 3
5 2
8 . 6
22
68
542
17087
17737
2 5 7C
25573
i r 4
54
_ er
30
64
624
15 88 3
16632
24R 1
2 4 5 71
9 n
50
4.3
26
72
723
17594
1^46?
2^25
275*7
r> o
54
5.*
26
£P
452
15658
1620?
2 4 f 1
24'.7 6
94
11.4
26
6?,
452
15658
1 S 2 0 C
2 4 P, 1
24 456
94
c *
10.D
27
6S
633
15169
1594
2 659
2 3 fi i 7
6a
t7
3 • 0
25
64
407
17270
17 751
2659
2 6 ? 3 9
97
54
1.2
30
72
542
15507
16 3 5 7
2 57 0
2 411 S
100
51
4.0
26
67
538
16262
16968
2747
25341
90
53
4.0
24
61
271
14 h 72
15197
2 3 0 4
22515
97
54
2.9
27
76
452
143i9
14 941
2 3 0 4
2 2 -4 C &
90
54
7.6
12
45
6 24
13786
14 535
2 4 5il
21137
62
50
-11.6
12
45
624
13786
14 535
2--SI
219 78
5<>
50
7.6
23
63
2723
17543
20811
2401
29046
16C
50
-4.P
26
6E
2714
16379
19636
2659
27705
129
53
-5.8
22
65
2668
15026
18223
2"M
26067
127
5 0
0.4
23
66
361
156S1
16114
257 0
24548
91
53
12.0
22
64
316
14668
15047
2 4 " 1
22520
OQ
56
2.<»
24
6C
361
147C0
1513 3
2 40 1
2 3 3 31
111
54
14.5
26
66
P. 73
13451
14499
2 3"4
21627
37
5^
7.9
25
65
452
150.93
16435
2127
2 4 3 £ 5
55
12. ?
24
63
28 0
14050
14336
2*81
22595
10 0
54
17.4
25
fcP
B14
15244
16221
1950
23470
107
54
6.6
25
71
4 07
16438
16926
2215
2 4 731
91
54
6 - *
2 3
75
452
14911
15453
2127
23301
135
54
13.7
24
65
361
16044
16477
2 !-3?
2 34 92
93
54
-2 . 0
20
53
22P4
10 9 05
13 6 a 6
2 659
20.5*0
0
r n
11.0
24
70
2*29
219 64
2 4 7 5 9
2l5'J
3 3 6 9 9
! Q4
5 5
-14.7
27
71
30 75
liV.l)
1 76 ' •
3 3
2407 =
r
--
0.0
23
6 6
2 " 4 9
14075
1 7 r 4
1 r '• 1
i''r 1
9?
4 . 1
24
63
1S 99
1 5' 4 2
1-12 1
1 c -¦ I
23*:i
t 1 -
55
0 . 2
22
fcl
359
12; 29
I'.f 0
i:-. 79
7 1'.,°
20
55
11.9
-------
Ll^UTD «V4trsr?
«?C\:
v0.
ece-?R
i\AL r
TICiL
rrl t; *
2<>16
609-23
2825
2816
LIQUID
CI**
r>iTt
TI^E
PLSO
PH
FPf.
opw
T9/C7/76
07J0
CL
7.91
125
4CG9
^9/37/76
1130
7.?1
406
4 0 09
n«5'L7/76
153?
8.0 2
78
4279
r«?/r7/76
1R3C
7.74
70
4379
r-/c7/?i
T* ¦» ft
7.99
77
5509
1530
S . 0 '
101
4479
"9/0-/7'*
23 5 0
7.96
110
5 2 fa 9
0730
7.9%
74
5 2h9
:<>/c-3/76
1600
7.91
PI
4r. 4 9
*9/33/76
2 3 5 0
7.91
249
5 * 59
"c/10/76
3730
7. 9 >3
396
49 39
'•9/ir/76
153C
7 . t>7
14 3
4 769
'' = /10 >76
2330
&.0C
£6
5C59
09/ll/7i
0730
6.05
71
b049
09/11/76
IS iC
7.98
5
4?. 2 9
"1/11/76
2330
7.«3
43
= ('99
09/12/76
C73G
a.ID
55
4903
' 9/1 .'/7b
153H
7.94
47
4559
""VI 2/76
233 D
7.S3
SI
4799
"9/23/76
esoo
7.97
61
55RG
0"/0?/7&
153"
5.57
2&0
4 509
''9/09/76
1650
5.83
179
4i~9
"9/1P/76
1530
5.48
353
4339
r9/ll/?6
1550
6.19
72
5129
"V12/76
1 C 1 f\
6.11
55
4319
C/13/76
1530
5 • "8
81
3b2C
r-9/1 J/76
2335
6.96
63
4630
r<9 /i */7r.
0 7 JC
6.92
64
4440
09/14/76
1533
T
96
4260
C9/14/76
233C
6.94
108
4 33P
*9/15/76
P730
6.99
255
335C
"9/15/76
1345
8.11
!5«/16/76
1530
6.92
433
3400
P9/16/76
2330
6.93
465
3870
6.93
*9/17/76
0739
6.90
428
4339
f1',/17/7&
153C
7.15
432
3 5 53
-*/i7'76
233?
7.01
375
3379
i^nr./ic,
0 73S
6.*i7
33?
3359
""/! "*/7f.
353C
7.19
5i<4
3229
C°/13/76
2330
7.01
742
3429
TC74L
SUL-
LI.;
TOTAL
OISSOL
FATE
LI?
10 v 7 r
KA*
K*
SC3 =
S04 =
S04-
CL-
SOLI'S
SAT
TE^f
I M !? i '
cpw
op V
?PJ»
JSW
a p :-j
t>p*H
f-py
r
V
36
54
1120
10 0 51
11407
1 iQ5
17000
1 '
X ~
5n
19.7
35
50
12 3 0
10426
11 V*2
1?53
1-12 0 6
~i0
e r»
14.6
17
58
1696
11625
1 566 0
1 a5 0
19 7 0 3
1 1
55
5.2
17
55
2487
10332
15 31 6
1" 5 j
1 ; h 9 0
9
54
r; _¦
13
57
3709
11279
1 b 7 s v
2 V,4
2 2 9 7 7
1}
51
14 .i
?3
52
14 47
11177
12->i 3
2''25
202*4
15
54
6.5
24
54
3000
12586
23 6
2*6/9
13
54
6.5
24
62
3C0S
12254
15^64
2;36
23547
9
50
7.1
2G
65
2216
12623
1:2 S 2
3.13
223 75
11
54
0.7
24
75
882
13S43
14H36
3363
2*777
33
5->
10.3
41
72
384
12652
1311 5
4 431
22915
51
5 0
7.4
k4
56
2985
4*9
1302C
3'5SD
21*15
15
54
5.2
25
57
2594
12172
15-45
319 0
2*463
54
1.5
20
53
2994
11247
14 44 0
3 363
223 32
8
6 0
4.1
19
tc
4297
10 6 38
15794
31'?
22945
1
54
-4.1
IP
71
6083
11354
lr654
3102
26570
e.
52
2.7
29
71
4025
1 'J 1 3 8
14963
3 013
2 2 2 3 S
6
.7 J
3.2
29
66
4116
9fSl
146JC
3545
22 0 4 3
54
28
73
3460
11578
15 730
3279
2 5498
10
54
-0.4
29
84
3777
12543
171.75
3 550
256
2.1
22
55
2962
12240
lb7 9 4
3 13
2' Of 1
35
56
-7.1
24
61
2917
13852
17 352
3C13
24915
25
55
-8. 3
24
5fr
646 y
3160
15922
4077
23979
31
55
-6.S
22
60
5135
1210 1
1510 3
3190
2*409
9
55
-13.9
26
59
53S2
11 387
l'^5
3 3SP
247nfe
7
*J J
-14.5
25
69
2 a 27
1C £ 6 ^
1566u
2 329
20019
11
-14.T
27
69
2623
11045
141 93
*?S3
21745
— 0 • C
a
75
2691
10524
1375 3
2 4 0
- 20652
V
1.3
19
75
2171
10943
13553
2S53
20232
12
6
0.2
15
62
1839
11325
15604
3573
21112
14
-4.0
32
76
1040
10341
11539
3639
192*3
33
-3.3
32
76
971
10033
1119 8
3 37 3
1S663
2'
53
7
« *!
21
73
1062
11361
12635
3 55 C
20245
-£.9
33
66
r 65
1124?
11 "27
41'?
20615
70
0.5
32
76
565
11796
12474
3'.'50
20372
70
-4.2
33
74
588
11075
11732
3 373
189 77
64
-11.7
24
56
518
10423
11045
3550
18906
59
4.1
26
6C
692
10012
13842
3 ?C 0
19457
49
50
11.3
27
57
437
1 C 7 8 0
11576
3 54 5
1 : *77
54
— 6.1:
16
69
4 74
1C412
10331
*36r<
1*093
53
5C
-¦a.2
17
66
5fo
*:s7
' .I h') 5
31 02
16 6 0 'j
40
53
u . 6
16
67
4 C 7
9245
9733
3i6«
16916
75
52
-0.1
34
62
384
3581
904 2
3722
16954
Kft
50
9.0
-------
Liourn /iMALrsrs
*>u\
NO.
6C9-2A
a\'4Lv
TICAL
P 01T
2816
2825
610-2A
2816
LIQUID
Ci* ~
M"3 + *
DATE
TIME
FLAG
PH
PPJi
ppr'.
09/19'76
0730
6.PS
463
32S9
: ?ri?/76
1550
6.91
313
2909
~°/19/7(,
2330
6 • 51
2? 3
2 333
• q / 5 J / 7 f
0730
7.07
376
3359
"?/2C/76
1530
6.90
667
2099
"'•/2C /76
2 330
5.85
782
3fi ay
n~-f2\nt
0730
6. St
601
3369
"a/21/7 6
1530
6 . 8 $
732
2 Q : 'J
'"/21/76
23 7 0
6.3?
712
3 399
0 9/22/76
0730
6.04
455
3349
'9/22/76
15 3 0
6. = 5
249
2969
n~
0 3 T- 0
7.04
45^
29 99
• c/2 3 /7 6
0730
7.15
466
3 2 09
"9/22 '76
1530
7.00
579
3685
"9/23/76
2330
7.20
214
310n
ftZhtli.
0500
7.20
254
35CT
09/13/76
1530
169
4 2 69
09/14/76
1530
305
4279
"5/15/76
1600
£2?
4 G 79
05/16/76
1530
£23
4099
09/17/76
15 3 0
4.90
2S6
4 0 89
*°/18/76
153"
5.OA
1116
3249
09/19/76
1530
5.04
10 72
3189
"9/20/76
153?
5.08
1212
3139
0C/21 '76
1530
5.00
1156
2 929
'9/22/76
1530
4. S3
702
3349
09/22/76
3 530
4.S3
1128
3579
09/24/76
1530
7.59
165
3189
09/24/76
2330
7.94
193
*619
09/25/76
0730
7.87
212
3*89
09/2:/76
1530
e.02
17b
3069
09/25/76
233 0
7.99
1B7
2969
09/26/76
0730
7.87
129
3519
'9/26/76
1533
7.94
156
3 4 £9
09/26/76
2330
7.97
181
3199
','5/27/76
0730
7.9*
173
3219
09/27/76
1530
7.89
215
2909
•>9/2«/76
2330
7.73
107
3129
09/29/76
0730
7.76
106
3349
09/29/76
1530
8.00
138
3259
Co/25/76
233C
e.04
234
3419
09/30/76
07 30
3 . «* 2
182
34^5
09/30/76
1530
7.05
145
i 259
09/30/76
2330
8.1?
133
36«9
1C/0W7*
0730
8.12
17b
"3629
TOTAL
S'JL-
LI-
TOTAL
OI$SCL
r AT"
LTO
ic\'ir
r\A+
K*
S03-
S04 =
$04 =
CL-
SOLIDS
SAT
Tr'-'D
IV ? A t_
npf*
PP"
°py,
PP"
3P V
P-H
?P "
r
r
V
33
£ 5
420
*161
866 5
3 2 7?
15715
54
53
e .1
33
71
5 20
S i 91
8015
3190
15 20 7
41
52
-r
34
61
520
75 CO
HI 24
3 013
14 75&
7t
^ r
12.9
3C
60
452
9 b46
101*3
310 2
17033
54
-L .5
34
64
361
TR4 1
10 274
31 "2
l~"i?»
?c
5 4
-2.9
26
85
2 94
;; j 17
f-.oo
T f: ~
38 3
91
^ r
2.8
27
f 3
226
9 2 31
9 5 0 2
3 /+ r ^
16973
~r -
^ r
4.7
28
75
294
7S62
8210
3 72 2
15 = 22
" u
5 2
-1 . 9
28
77
2 48
vj-»7
9 3 9=.
4C 77
17 b 3 f
8 6
5?
2.4
27
75
497
9 6 7 0
92 6b
3 36 8
16 4 ^ 3
r c
5 3
4.4
24
77
610
7290
°"?2
3 Ic 0
144Q9
29
5 4
1 . 0
26
75
3 8 4
7325
77 n &
32?9
1 4 5 * 7
5 2
5 4
6.6
2'4
74
316
8951
9 3 * C
4 077
17167
E C
52
_r ^ 1
23
74
457
8563
9159
4 c-0 9
180 3°
64
C O
J c
4 . 4
27
60
655
&15S
89^4
3634
15865
27
53
-7.2
2ft
72
588
954 7
10253
2722
17720
33
52
-4.6
23
64
4161
13356
16349
3CI 3
23105
22
-14.8
17
73
3960
11915
16691
2 4c 1
23 05 0
41
-12.9
23
77
2759
11544
14*55
3900
23011
— 1 3.3
32
75
1945
11966
143 C C
3368
22313
110
-2.8
26
62
2420
9 347
12251
3456
19 686
33
54
0.2
15
6*
1990
98 42
12230
3456
15732
141
52
-8.2
17
72
2555
8795
11B 61
3545
19245
126
52
-9.0
31
67
1945
9999
3 233 3
31^0
195,"3
157
54
-7.0
30
6e
1309
8511
1 r A a 2
3811
18354
141
52
— 8.6
27
75
2736
7677
10 96 0
3368
17924
74
54
-3.0
25
77
2171
9793
12 398
4 975
216 4?
134
52
-11.8
29
71
655
7 699
p £( 0 =
3T-13
1482!
19
E «
4.4
30
53
859
7913
8944
3279
15 9 8 6
21
52
10.4
27
68
762
9309
10231
3722
17=95
27
54
-5.8
30
70
610
74 75
R207
3031
14460
21
50
3.0
28
70
814
7 60 2
8579
3279
1494S
"> 1
6
160"*
27
54
2.3
26
76
775 e
°360
3190
3 5 £ 6 9
23
5 2
7.0
26
8C
1108
7292
*622
327c
151
16
52
2.3
26
72
1130
7717
9 0 7 3
310 2
15 0 69
1 4
54
11.7
26
*•4
S&2
6465
95 2 3
3013
1627ft
20
52
8 • 8
-------
LXQUIO tNALrstS
ANAL Y
»UN
\C.
610-2A
0
1
w
OJ
611-2A
TICAL
LIQUID
CA ~~
PS**
"OltiT
OATS
TIME
FLAG
PH
»f>f»
PPH
?816
10/01/76
1530
7.89
153
3*69
iO'01/76
2330
7.98
181
3389
10/02/76
0730
7.75
232
3549
10/02/76
1530
8.34
262
2959
l<5/0?/76
2330
R.00
488
2869
10/0 3/76
0730
a.12
528
3359
J C /C3/76
1530
7.93
824
3509
I 0/03/76
2330
7.90
378
3339
10/P*/76
05C0
7.96
425
34 79
10/G«/76
1530
8.0^
724
3599
1C/C4/76
233D
8.14
301
33C9
10/05/76
P 730
8. G*
297
3549
10/05/76
153?
7.33
561
3509
10/C5/76
23.3?
7.9*
?48
3329
lD'06/76
C730
7.95
532
347?
l*»/3':/?6
155?
7.95
53?
3149
lG/0^/75
2330
8.17
6«4
3959
15/07/76
0730
7.34
£14
4U&?
2«*21
C9/27/76
1530
09/29/76
1530
2825
C9/24/76
1530
5.C7
652
3339
09/25/76
1530
5.22
540
3289
09/26/76
2330
7.97
466
3359
59/27/76
1531-
5.06
62°,
31C9
T9/29/76
1530
5.31
232
3299
*9/30/76
153 0
5.21
376
3399
1P/C1/76
1530
5.23
376
3263
10/02/76
1530
5.25
563
3019
15/05/7?.
1530
5.23
1082
3599
i0/04/76
153C
5.14
1050
3559
10/05/76
1014
970
3519
10/06/76
1530
5.11
926
3859
2816
1C/C7/7S
153?
7.87
1254
3869
10/07/76
2330
8.02
255
4139
10/09/76
0730
7.83
788
4175
10/03/76
1530
8.CO
91®
33 79
10/03/76
2330
7.«7
946
4179
10/09/76
C730
8.GO
864
3719
10/09/76
1530
8.00
858
3859
1C/C9/76
2333
8.36
866
3639
10/10/76
0730
A.03
904
4319
10/10/76
153 0
7.93
792
3519
:o/i:/76
233 C
S.ll
772
»029
10/11/76
C73C
8.10
874
3979
10/11/76
1530
7.78
914
3529
TOT 4L
SUL-
LI 3
TOTAL
DISSOL
FATE
LIP
IO*J IT
\ A*
K*
$03=
SC4 =
SC4 =
CL-
SOLIOS
SAT
T5!*p
ItfSAL
»py,
pp*
povi
PPCI
po*
»PH
ppM
*
r
y
31
72
904
8224
?3C9
3 ¦: 13
1"«
IP
54
5.9
34
73
814
7939
8966
31"; 2
155c2
21
54
5.8
31
80
655
73 0
9066
?i?5
16252
28
52
e.2
2 3
79
746
7556
84 51
2i,Zt
1425.2
3 2
54
3.4
27
73
407
7?b4
8472
3279
15127
61
54
-2.1
30
83
= 42
8337
S 9 3 7
3;j34
165t3
61
54
5.4
3C
14
316
?273
965 2
4254
1 8 ? 9 0
98
54
3.7
9
74
316
8844
S223
4i_09
150 69
54
-0.4
31
74
384
91 VI
® o 5 i
3456
1 7 0 C 0
53
54
2 • "»
30
74
565
Hfc5S
956i
3 -< 11
1 7 ' "J '
p 2
52
8.6
32
73
429
85 i 5
^0 3 J
3545
16204
37
54
0.9
28
7 £
731
7901
R742
35^5
1 6 n "> 7
32
5"
9.0
27
78
361
3? 31
924 4
4165
1 7 ~ 12
/¦ £.
54
3-1
40
ei>
271
9441,
=1771
4 254
1C 2 7 3
10 5
- 0
-1.0
3"
78
421
87G0
= 123
4v 77
17337
6 2
2.'<
32
8b
316
-.4 02
9751
*431
17 J53
72
-3 2
-13.5
35
77
384
9684
12145
4 254
190C7
7-
- 3
7.7
46
£6
333
9U95
5 05 2
19501
36
51
10.7
30
72
2795
74 32
10336
3190
17560
68
50
-1.7
32
75
2261
8365
11073
3368
17-?3C
63
50
-¦•3.2
2 S
76
2080
3316
10 512
336°
175-'3
5"
"V
-5.7
28
74
2533
8C38
11073
33SS
17778
73
5"
-12.2
28
£8
2035
6815
9257
334 5
16072
29
50
-1.5
27
72
2349
7756
11175
3368
17847
41
52
-8.7
25
71
2035
9183
11625
3 013
17??6
49
55
-11.8
30
80
2264
7855
10 59 6
2707
16575
66
54
-6.6
29
89
1311
10 2*5
11815
4 34 3
2 2 693
134
54
-4.2
28
73
1651
9687
11668
3 0 ? 0
19948
12^
0 2
T
^ • -
2a
75
1628
95 CO
11454
4" j4
19564
115
54
29
74
1809
10269
12*40
4*43
21*CI?
111
52
-4.0
46
85
271
9692
1CC17
5318
205*5
138
5?
6.9
57
1C3
226
9307
10176
5211
19393
30
50
" v • *
45
84
334
10092
1C553
47B5
20358
90
53
8.4
46
66
294
ice n
1 C 4 2 4
5 318
20606
108
54
0.5
47
82
452
"796
1C33S
4f;75
2 2*77
103
52
1C.7
38
55
217
9254
9514
5140
19287
98
52
2.6
43
72
226
9166
9437
4963
19137
94
54
7.6
53
86
113
9249
9385
5318
19324
1C0
50
0.5
50
8 9
361
9617
1CC5S
5495
20835
95
49
10.0
54
60
2 26
ssr.6
9137
5f52
10 5 p 9
91
54
0.2
50
87
429
982 3
10-53 8
4 6" 9
197""?
88
5 3
7.y
52
74
339
19360
12 7A7
522^
20 = 07
12.4
54
n.13
51
76
520
8127
8^51
4 c63
lg.179
9r>
5 4
5.5
-------
LIQUID ANALYSCS
"UN'
MO.
611-2A
612-2*
fl\ ALY
TICAL
P 0 INT
2825
2816
0
1
»—»
OJ
613-2;
2B25
2816
61*-2*
J8?«5
2P.16
Liaum
CA**
KG**
DATE
TIME FLAG
PH
°PN
pnv|
10/11/76
23 JO
7.86
1004
3333
10/12/76
C53 0
7.91
890
3939
10/17/76
153 3
4.37
1384
3799
lO'DB/76
1530
5.11
1 066
4329
10/09/76
1530
5.16
: 156
3609
10/10/76
1530
5.17
1048
3539
10/11/76
153 0
5.0?
1122
3569
10/12/76
153 0
7.90
896
3775
1C/12/76
2 330
s.ct
84 2
3909
10/13/76
0730
8.On
840
3419
l^'13/76
1530
7.95
856
3969
10/13/76
2330
7.95
872
3769
l0/14/76
o no
8.04
844
3999
1C '14/76
1530
7.95
826
3959
10/14/76
2 5 30
7.91
760
3f;29
10/15/76
0730
7.87
912
3579
If /IS/76
1533
7.87
946
4479
1^/lc/76
2330
7.93
970
4 0 39
10'16/?6
0730
7.91
993
4139
ln/16/76
1530
8.15
836
4449
in/if/?6
2330
7.81
833
4099
10/17/7^
0730
8.04
842
40^9
1C/l7/76
1530
7.83
888
4 6 29
1O'l7/76
2330
8.10
880
4309
10/18/76
0730
7.99
p 15
4149
10/12/76
1530
5.24
1152
38 79
10/13/76
1530
5.00
1102
4119
10/14/76
3 5 30
4.94
1166
4009
10/15/76
1530
4.33
1 150
4709
1G/16/76
1530
4.85
1054
4419
10'17/76
1530
4.58
1124
4609
10/1 p. / 76
1930
6.95
628
3 779
1 0 '18/76
2330
6 . ° 5
796
3 9 89
10 '19/76
0 730
6.87
766
4319
10 '19/76
1530
6.79
°06
4=39
10/15/76
'330
7.1C
9C4
4339
1 '=>
rnoiL
?PM
PPM
CP M
PP V
?PM
ppy
V
-•»
63
1C 9
294
6913
-266
6204
1 9 9 ? 5
117
51
-11.5
65
103
158
8 754
K94 4
5318
19227
9 2
52
10.1
47
85
1470
9861
11'2 5
54^5
22141
10 5
5 3
-2. ?
43
8 2
13 34
10797
12 39 3
5 5 ',4
272'7
123
54
-0.5
41
79
1945
9377
11711
5 05 2
212 r-0
131
5 c.
* 1 •
59
76
1967
9265
11625
5 2 '9
211 63
120
55
-11.9
52
78
1424
90 7 7
10 746
5; 52
2 C 3 ' 4
124
56
-3.5
55
10 0
384
9448
9 9 C 9
558 4
2 C 2 4 6
102
54
-0.9
56
90
516
9723
1 01 0 2
5 71 D
2 C 2 5 4
97
53
2.2
53
93
226
9 16 'j
94 3 7
4 7-'1 £
185'-3
100
54
-1.1
50
90
452
9*43
10 385
57.1 R
2 05° 8
9 8
5 4
2-4
57
93
226
6'" u 2
9 3
- 0
11.0
60
97
203
10 6 0 3
^ r c k ^
5 67 2
215^9
97
5 2
0.2
5?
97
2012
991 9
12 3 3 3
5 6 72
2 2 7 9 C
131
56
-9.2
56
95
20 30
101*1
12637
6204
2 ¦» 7
123
56
-9.9
63
94
1209
10742
12cl 3
5 67 2
23 555
139
55
-9.1
64
94
2171
1 0 1 6 0
1273 5
6027
24 395
IIP.
cr 7
3.1
73
110
1899
1 H213
12492
6 027
2 3 7 c 5
114
50
-1.9
71
55
2 7 36
10203
13486
5-50
2 4 6 S 8
117
5 3
-1.1
40
96
2 2 6
jf 9 2
10163
4 0 6 3
19624
77
50
-1.5
34
85
361
9 "->15
1024 3
5 :1 c
2 0 T 0 8
91
51
2.2
36
84
226
10668
i; 539
5672
21473
94
54
-4.0
44
96
361
1 3 0 3 7
10470
6 2 04
22187
Sc-
5 2
7. 1
43
105
24
98 75
10173
5 p 5 0
2 1 3 M
97
5 2
7.3
46
1C1
226
5663
9~ 3 >
5F 50
210 8 8
89
5 4
8.2
57
88
316
9296
97 o
4609
18779
108
c. ^
2. 0
55
87
226
9286
° 5 5 7
5229
19002
99
5 2
10.?
r c
91
316
9 7 7 7
1C15 2
J 2° 3
21£ 77
8?
5 4
3.1
41
94
21 97
10119
1275 1
4 0 2
2 ? j 6 4
II'.
5 0
-11-6
a 5
1 02
2a 12
10307
12 721
be 72
2 3 8^3
122
5 2
7 . 6
56
P(.
1221
944 0
1 0 9 f! 5
4."57
2 C 2 3 3
121
5 0
-4.7
2 r
2n
1357
8047
9 675
2 12 7
144 11
15
5 2
-13.2
-------
LIQUID AHALrSES
4?iai_v
RU* TICAL
nc. point oatr
614-24 2816 10/22/76
10/23/76
10/23/76
1C/23/7S
l?>/24/76
10/24/76
lfl/24/76
10/2^/76
1 0 Z25/76
l?/2c/76
10/26/76
l"/26/70
1C/26/76
1C/2 7/76
18/27/76
l«/27/7£,
1P/28/76
615-2A 2816 10/28/76
lf"28/76
t?/29/76
10/2°/76
l?/29/76
1C .'30/76
10/30/76
10/30/76
11/01/76
11/01/76
11/02/76
11/02/76
11/02/76
11/33/75
2825 10/23/76
10/2S/76
10/25/76
10/29/76
l?/29/76
lC/30/7f.
10/53/76
10/30/76
11/01/76
11/01/76
11/02/76
11/02/76
C
PH
PP*!
PPM
9.56
641
3229
8.36
84 4
3409
8.36
8.16
7&n
3769
S.CC
854
3639
7.98
892
3*5"*
7.87
906
3469
8.0 2
8ft?
3449
8.12
812
3529
8.43
926
3569
9.1-0
764
3799
7.S3
75P
3739
8.G2
860
3450
8.02
794
3135
8.3=?
812
36 40
8.0ft
730
3460
8.04
702
3120
8.05
542
3010
7 »h7
652
390C
6.93
600
37C0
7.G2
708
4t'40
6.96
766
4C29
6.86
762
3919
7.07
766
3149
7.03
762
3 629
7.11
800
3849
7.04
896
4109
7.10
966
3479
6.99
796
3529
7.G4
76",
3609
7.00
822
3699
7.33
776
3 949
7.50
784
3599
4.98
1080
3510
4. 86
1 164
3670
4.7"?
114R
4049
4.96
1160
36 79
4.'»3
111S
3129
4.**4
1110
3649
4.95
1092
3979
5.02
1144
3579
5.07
1430
3449
5.34
1!)52
4 059
5.02
102b
33H4
4.77
1195
3799
rmc.
233C
C730
1530
2 33?
0730
153 0
2330
0930
103 0
233?
0730
1530
2330
0 73C
1530
2333
C 73 3
1530
2333
C730
1530
233C
0730
1530
2330
1530
233?
0730
1530
2330
0730
1733
2330
0730
1530
2330
C73f
153C
2333
1530
2330
C 730
153C
TOTAL SUL- LIS
TOTAL OISSCL c AT^ LT3 IONIC
NA+ K+ S93= S04 = S94 = CL- SOLIDS SftT TEy? I" r3 A L
PPM pp«l PPK PPM OPH PP»» pom X C X
30
26
24 P.
8643
o 941
3 634
16&53
77
52
3.7
33
30
316
8753
9132
4 C77
174t 2
Q-»
54
h &
6.1
49
62
294
&961
9314
4 7U £,
18701
84
J *t
53
6.6
35
31
271
ft 5','5
4C-.75
1 *5 C 0
92
r
6.1
35
29
407
8708
9196
5229
1 9159
93
54
6.9
48
84
316
8532
C 911
4fr39
17964
100
r r\
5.8
49
89
407
9C90
9575
4 7? 6
1375*
104
52
-0.6
39
29
407
9791
10 2 79
4 875
19*82
101
54
-5.5
5C
85
260
8*>33
925C
4 52 0
1 c 3 4 3
104
rr 1
7.0
4£.
82
361
Sf 05
92 38
4697
lhr.56
a?
52
8.5
49
91
452
9631
1017 5
3545
18265
9 0
5 2
10.?
49
90
326
9151
9542
4154
18119
101
5.6
48
90
320
9045
9436
4083
17521
1C3
-3.2
52
76
320
8889
9273
4526
18315
91
6.8
39
96
271
P«3
It
4431
1 95 /a
119
-Jl
-6. 0
37
74
1176
1C 716
12127
4963
21960
146
53
-4.5
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
ANALY
"»CiN
TICAL
LIQUID
C A**
NO.
POINT
0 ATE
TIME
FLAG
PH
PPM
PPM
615-2A
2825
11/C2/76
233C
5.00
1070
4039
11/03/76
P730
4.86
1075
36 '.'9
616-2 A
2816
11/05/7*
2330
8.OA
2619
8 0
11/06/76
0730
8.32
170G
196
11 /OS/76
1530
7.37
7 7
o 4 £
12S
11/06/76
2330
(•Of
8.10
2899
134
11/07/76
P7JC
7.91
2889
242
11/07/76
1530
8.02
2665
l2 ** f*
7.93
2685
254
11/11/76
0730
5.74
312 0
324
11/11/76
1733
7.99
2564
261
11/11/76
233U
8.23
2 54V
2 73
11/12/76
0730
8.0 8
2579
300
11/12/76
1530
7.79
2614
313
1 1/12/76
2 33 0
7.98
2805
3C3
11/13/76
0730
7.89
2630
342
2825
11/05/76
2330
4.29
2975
91
11/06/76
0730
4.61
2830
205
11/06/76
1530
4.45
3115
135
11 /On/76
?3* 0
4.31
3204
153
11/07/76
0730
4.16
3245
161
11/07/76
1530
4.73
3489
164
1 1/07/76
2330
4.60
2930
156
11 'OP/76
0730
4.41
3 075
169
11 /C'5/76
1 ;33 0
4.33
3115
IP. 5
11/06/76
2330
4.31
2 84 G
1F.8
11/09/76
0730
4.33
2775
21.3
11/05/76
1530
4.37
2815
205
11/05/76
2330
4.39
3049
212
11/10/76
0730
4.50
34 79
268
11/1C/76
153 0
4.33
3520
243
11/1C/76
2330
4.1 <5
3044
259
11/11/76
0730
4.20
3179
340
11/11/76
1730
4.27
3 r. 59
2 75
11/11/76
2330
4.61
3C75
298
TOTAL
SUL-
LI'v
TOTAL
Q1SSCL
FATE
LTO
IOWI c
NA +
K*
S03 =
S04 =
S0* =
CL-
SOLI??
SAT
T T MP
IMBAL
PPM
PPK
PPM
PPM
PPM
ppv
v
/"•
C
T
44
80
2035
994 0
12382
4 254
21 46?
120
52
3.0
48
99
1176
1C843
12254
4-109
21549
137
52
-6.2
128
110
90
19 0 9
2017
3 261
«1 = 7
15"
50
3.0
22
71
339
1232
1639
2481
60 n
90
53
-0 .»
24
71
IhC
580
795
4 5." 0
64 4 3
5 0
5 0
n
10.0
34
126
22 6
1374
164 5
4077
88 7 0
315
D U
c- 1
6.9
34
106
90
1562
167 0
3'T0
88 ?3
123
5?
14.0
24
66
67
1449
15 2 9
4 077
84^1
118
50
0."
34
131
45
1751
18 0 5
3QI": C
8831
142
5 0
6.6
33
126
113
12 » 4
138 0
3.11
8266
102
50
12.6
37
121
226
121b
1466
3722
8213
99
50
12.2
32
126
90
1187
1295
3 c 11
7S T 3
96
50
3.2
32
119
180
1100
1316
3722
77 76
87
51
6.6
37
117
183
1610
It 26
3 722
84 21
126
50
3.7
37
11 8
45
220 3
2254
4 25 4
9608
171
52
-5.4
39
13 6
135
1 356
1C18
514 0
1 02 C 8
109
51
3.8
10
120
226
1*40
1711
4 6 r 9
9 9 38
117
50
11.7
41
116
135
1408
1570
4431
9070
109
52
1.2
37
113
ISO
1683
1* 99
4*;97
10154
130
51
7.9
36
122
9L
1361
1669
4343
8977
3 19
50
-2.0
33
116
113
2000
2136
4165
92S.2
1*8
52
— 4.6
39
121
113
1740
187 6
4 25 4
9146
12°
52
-0.6
41
117
9G
1707
1815
4 077
8959
127
n fv
5.1
45
1 02
113
1552
1688
4254
9174
118
52
8.5
47
101
67
1610
1690
4 077
88 74
lie
50
a."
12S
109
361
3252
368 5
3 36 8
10264
259
50
-4.5
25
71
1103
2 0 70
3394
2b59
S963
162
53
9.5
^5
72
1040
2277
3525
4431
llO^
186
50
-17.0
35
128
1221
1S5 3
33 3 6
4343
10937
153
53
-6.1
33
109
927
2495
3607
4 431
11401
202
52
-11.5
26
68
1515
2004
1*2?
4165
11431
167
50
-3.5
35
12 9
673
2223
3037
3793
9944
178
5C
-3.9
32
125
1062
1571
21'4 5
3722
9776
128
50
5.4
35
122
1311
1697
32 7 0
3722
1018 7
3 39
50
1.3
32
127
1402
1567
324 9
4077
102 3 3
126
52
-12.9
33
121
1357
1663
3291
3 811
99 7 3
131
51
-9.6
38
119
1176
2093
35C4
3722
10168
163
48
-9.8
37
121
723
1147
2015
4343
9632
94
52
5.6
41
122
995
190t>
31 CO
5229
12 G 4 C
1R3
51
-5.7
38
124
1311
2099
3672
4n2 0
1185 =
169
48
-1.7
44
119
1741
2050
4179
4-77
11374
i«2
52
-13.4
37
119
1713
2341
44 0 3
4431
12165
176
51
-13 . ^
38
12C
1V. 0 9
1*77
4.' 4 i>
4 254
11432
146
51
-13.5
41
11?
1130
1252
2 6 0 8
4 3'4 3
1 J 258
99
c a
- C
3 . T
-------
LIOUID ANALYSES
total S'jl- lis
ANAL* TOTAL DISSOL F ATE LI 3 IO'.'IC
nvn tical liquid ca*«. na* k* so3= so»= so4= cl- solids sat te^° imbal
K O. POINT DATE TINE FLAG PH PPM PPM PPf! PPK PPH PP*» PPM t>p« Pov * C ^
616-2A
2825
11/12/76
0730
*.29
2995
3C8
40
120
1854
1506
3731
4431
11254
117
52
-12.8
11/12/76
1*530
*.32
3070
329
42
119
1718
2132
4194
4077
11 4 ft 7
161
51
-9.3
11/12/76
2330
4.45
3 334
325
51
112
1696
196P
4C23
4431
11941
154
52
-5.1
11/13/76
0730
4.12
3285
375
53
IIP
1560
2666
4538
4 077
12126
198
50
-4.8
617-2A
2816
11/15/76
1930
8.06
242?
353
37
122
45
1326
1 38 0
3722
8 0 2 5
96
CP
13.5
31/15/76
233C
7.55
2650
375
39
125
0
1417
1417
47
4132
4 34 3
11952
176
50
-3.1
-------
LIQUID ANALYSES
ANAL*
RUM TICAL LIQUID Ck+*
NO.
POINT
DATE
time
FLAG PH
PPM
PPM
617-?A
2fi25
11/21/76
1530
4.58
3080
676
11/21/76
233 C
4.66
2600
641
11/22/76
C730
4.57
2S39
678
TOTAL
NA*
K*
S03=
S04 =
S04 =
PPM
PPK
PPM
PPM
PPM
40
112
1153
2431
3 & 15
40
111
995
2374
3568
40
123
1334
2217
3P18
TOTAL
SUL-
LIQ
D1SS0L
FATE
L10
IONIC
CL-
SOLIDS
SAT
TEMP
IKBAL
PPM
PPM
X
C
*
4ti09
121 f 1
16C
54
2.1
40^7
naie
153
51
3.9
4431
11662
143
48
-1.1
-------
SfltiO AMIYSSS
\z.
5S*-2A
tvAtr
TICfiL
POINT
2S16
0
1
«_•
u*
vO
583-23 2816
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
CaTE
TIME
FLAG
WT *
VT *
vt ;
C4/i=/76
2330
32. '.e
20.20
5.15
04/16/76
033 P
29.f?3
22.60
7.45
*u/i' n$
C730
30 .*?C
17.60
°.D0
?*'!*> nh
1130
30.70
20.60
6.95
r4/lt/7^
1530
30.20
20.10
6.28
"*/lf/76
233"
2*. 70
14.20
1C.65
C4/17/76
C330
30.00
17.20
14. f 0
r4/i7/76
0*30
2P.I0
1*.4C
12. 60
04/17/7*
113C
25.55
17.95
9.02
04/17/76
1530
26.94
19.36
10.61
26.90
19.50
1C . 6 3
04/17/74
1-330
2R.30
IP. 10
9.6H
'•4/17/76
2330
26.S3
1 3 . C
io.as
"4/13/76
C730
27. 20
20.90
9.48
ri/ifr/76
1130
25.CO
13.20
9. 05
04/13/76
153"
26.20
16.?0
11 .0 3
"4/1S/76
2330
S02
27.60
13.10
15.13
04/19/75
0730
27.60
10.30
9.23
04/19/75
2333
30.20
19.30
11.43
04/22/76
2330
29.40
18.40
S.fcO
04/15/76
2330
22.Ti0
11.50
6.43
(!4/tf,/75
233?
27.90
17.10
6.63
?*/I8/76
233C
S02
28.30
13.50
13.53
04/22/76
0 730
27. 91
15.56
1C.51
04/22/76
1130
2? .4 0
15.40
10.15
04/22/76
1530
30.SO
15.30
7.6e
"4/22/7^
193C
31.70
14.30
e.43
n*/2?/7S
233C
28.52
14.70
ir.53
04/23/76
0330
29.50
17.90
G.93
^4/23/76
C730
26.30
14.20
P.65
?*/23/76
113C
29.50
16.20
11.65
OA/23/76
1530
30.RO
19.50
10.63
04/23/76
1*333
28.20
18.70
9.13
04/23/76
25T0
26.30
16.30
«.90
•>4/24/76
0333
25.30
14.20
9.75
t4/24/76
0730
25.10
1C .50
7.93
"4/24/76
1130
26.00
13.90
8.23
04/24/76
1533
27.30
15.eo
6.95
04/24/76
1*»30
26.70
15.30
5.69
C4/24/76
233C
TS
26.40
17.40
0.25
04/25/75
033?
TS
2S.4 0
14.50
2.3H
"4/25/76
073C
27.60
14.00
't .93
04/25/76
1130
X
14.76
13.75
-3.48
f,4/2tV/7f,
1530
P4/2'-.//<.
t'ljn
*
1 7. 76
1 n . X 6
—5.4 I
OXI
total
SLURY
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
S03
CCS
SOLI?
IN SOL
ION
3 ATIO
VT Z
WT X
WT %
*:
VT X
r
(C ft)
30.40
5.64
16.4
6.02
5.-37
17.0
1.5 3
35.70
3.34
13.7
4 .Q5
5.0^
20.9
1.19
31.00
5.68
13.3
4.fc~
4 .Tl
29.0
1.4 2
32.70
5.40
15.7
5.6 3
C 1 1
J • ' Jl
21.5
1.34
33.40
5.22
15.1
5.27
5.4 7
2"-0
1.29
?J;.4C
6.16
13.3
5.02
5.«3
i T ST
w 1 • .
1 . « 2
36.30
4.51
13.5
3 . ')
4.52
4c.e
1. 3 f
3 0.60
4.99
15.4
5.52
6.1?
4 1.2
1.32
31.45
1.96
14.2
6.21
6.46
2P .7
1.16
34.81
3.6 3
15.4
5.40
5.77
30.5
1.19
35.00
3.63
15.4
5.4C
5.75
30.4
1 .1°
I2.3C
3.57
16.6
6.3«
6.70
3C.C
1 . 2r;
2S.10
4.34
14.7
6.C-6
6.5 0
?.".i
1 • 3 ^
35.60
1.18
15.3
6 .0 6
6.51
26.6
1.0?
31.S0
1.96
14 .2
6.21
',.42
?a.5
1.15
31. 4C
1.61
13.2
5.51
5.90
35.1
1.19
31 .50
3.41
14.4
5.12
5.37
4 ?• . 0
1.2"
33.40
3.07
13.7
5.34
5 . 5 8
27.a
1.3S
35.60
3.90
15.5
5.02
5.44
32.2
1.21
31.60
6.32
16.2
5.76
6.31
27.7
1.32
20. £G
3.95
40.5
22.09
22.73
30.9
1.51
2S.00
5»f 8
30.5
12.71
12.96
23.7
l.*2
30.40
4.29
41.3
14. 9H
16.68
44.5
1. 33
29.96
5.50
14.1
5.33
5.71
35.1
1.23
29.4c
5.11
12..?
4.91
5.24
34.5
1.35
26.80
S.49
14.4
5.20
5.43
28.6
1 .64
26.30
10.17
15.8
5.2P
5.59
32.a
1 -"'2
2*5.90
8.31
14.3
5.20
5.S?
36.4
1.41
31 .30
5.77
16.0
5.74
6 . C 2
23.5
1.35
26.40
5.44
15.0
6.4 =
6.81
32.8
1.42
31."30
5.90
16.8
5.62
6.17
36.5
1 .32
35.20
5.09
17.7
5.55
5.98
30. a
1.25
32.50
4.60
15.9
6.02
6.26
29.1
1.24
23 .90
3.63
15.7
6.74
7.35
30.8
1.30
27.50
5.00
15.0
6.39
6.79
3= .5
1.34
21.60
7.15
16.2
7.57
7.92
T 6.9
1.66
25.60
4.16
14.0
6.PI
7.U6
32.1
1.45
26.70
5.12
16.9
7.36
7.58
26.C
1.46
24.SO
4.63
17.4
3.22
8 .30
22.9
1.54
22.00
3.23
15.3
8.19
7.91
1.2
1.71
20.50
5.06
14.3
7.21
7.10
11.6
1.9°
2S.10
4.89
15.0
6.02
o.4G
35.5
1.40
13.70
7.26
13.8
9 . r: .•>
9.55
-25-4
1 .54
I 7. ?7
3.96
!<».«
10.30
9 .70
-51
1 .«7
ST0TC
SAT 10
i.'O
1 .11
1.10
1 .2D
1.17
1 .30
1.56
1 . ".5
1 .38
1 .26
1.53
1.32
1 .=3?
1.73
1.52
1.34
1.37
1 .34
1.25
1 .26
1.24
1.33
1.60
1.50
1.35
1.34
1 .27
1.^5
1.32
1 . ">6
1.4?
SOLIE
IO'.'H
I" U
1 -
3 . '
r.o
v
• ¦-
v* • t)
1 • A
— T C
- •
1 .£
4 .0
3.?
7.2
4.3
1.1
i.O
-3.2
lo.
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
PAjK
\C-
58?"
A RIALY
llril
POINT
2*16
0
1
o
2S21
5fi»-2A 2816
SOLI0
CAO
SO 2
S03
D£TE
7l«r
FLAP
WT *
WT S
U'T X
--------
-___
— ___
—
-----
04/25/76
233 0
X
17.62
19.71
-ft.38
04/26/76
0730
TS
26.70
16.20
0 .45
*nrze>nt
1130
27.10
15.50
9.33
04/26/76
1630
TS
30.70
19.20
2.60
04/26/76
3 93?
26.. 20
i6.;;c
10.70
*4/?6/76
23 30
27.30
15.4 0
14.05
*4/27/76
0730
TS
33.00
18.30
1.93
*4/27/76
0«0 0
04/27/76
1130
30.40
13.08
10.70
T4/27/76
153 0
31.10
20.40
11.20
04/27/76
23 3 0
28.60
16 .20
10.45
"1/28/76
0330
29. 20
16.40
11.30
04/2H/76
0730
23.50
19.90
5. S3
0*/28/70
103 0
31.10
15.90
15.33
"4/23/76
1530
34.20
17.40
8.95
"4/?e/75
233 0
S 02
30. 9C
13.40
15.45
r4/29/76
0730
S02
27.30
11.50
11.93
04/29/76
1530
25.40
20.60
1C. 15
04/29/76
2330
23.tO
19.70
10.58
"•»/3 0/7 6
0 73 0
25.20
20.0 0
9.40
04/3?/76
1530
31.10
22.0 0
10.10
04/30/76
2330
30.60
l ~ o
13.95
->= >01 /7f.
0730
25.50
12.K0
12.00
04/22/76
C 73 0
26.30
14.50
P. IS
"!4 /23 '76
0730
22.70
14.50
5.38
"4/24/76
073 0
23.40
9.8 0
8.C5
04/2*/76
0 73 0
X
13.64
13.03
-1.99
04/27/76
0730
Cft
45.70
17.KB
C .45
04/28/76
073 0
27.50
16.30
8.93
"4/3C//76
1530
28.30
19.00
9.35
05/04/76
073?
X
37.60
7.6C
3.2U
05/04/76
1530
34 .20
17.00
n.55
05/04/76
2330
C02
34.40
20.50
3.9S
*5/05/76
0730
33.00
22.80
6.1C
05/05/76
1530
33.00
15.50
3 . 0 2
05/05/76
2330
2V. 0 0
14.50
2.78
05/06/76
0730
30.40
17.10
3.53
05/07>76
0730
31 .30
16.20
5.85
05/07/76
153 0
31.60
21.30
9.78
"•5/07/76
2330
33.60
20.40
5.10
05/03/76
0730
33.50
21.40
4.75
05/0H/76
1530
3 3.30
18.40
7.9 3
"5.'0°/76
23 30
32.30
21 .50
".93
05/0.»/76
0750
34 .70
24.50
4.7!}
Pc,/P" /76
153C
3 3 .'.0
07 .40
5.9f>
CXI
solio.
TOTAL
SL'JRY
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
I ON I C
SC3
C02
SOL 10
JNSOL
ION
S=T10
RATIO
i«oal
WT X
WT 2
WT X
WT "<
y t x
V
tCA)
(COM
V
— — -
- — --
-----
-----
-—--
-----
-----
—
16.25
3.15
14.4
10.£6
9.73
-51.6
1 . 51"'
1 .35
1 ? . 6
20.70
3.52
14.6
8. j2
7.7 6
2.2
1 .P4
1.31
2 .0
28 .70
3.69
32.5
1.35
1.23
8.5
26.60
4.01
14.0
6.26
6.09
9.8
1.65
1 .?7
22.7
31.70
3.63
15.0
6.02
6 * 4 C
33.a
t .13
1.2!
-2.4
3 3 • J 0
4.52
16.5
5.70
6.39
42.2
1.17
1 .75
- 6 . 5
2". SO
5 .34
15.4
6.59
6 .38
7.3
1.90
1.39
26.7
34 .20
5.42
14.7
4.74
5.10
31.3
1.27
1 .29
-1.5
36.70
4.95
15.0
4.5n
4 .8 5
3P.5
1.21
1 .25
-2.5
30.70
6. 0 5
15.4
5.56
5.96
3 4.0
1 .33
1.36
-2.1
31 .SO
5.06
15.8
5.53
6.01
35.5
1.21
1 .?r>
1.6
33.70
4. fi7
15.2
5.4 1
5.61
26. 2
1.25
1.26
-1 .1
35. 2 C
¦4.28
12.4
3.55
4.14
4 3.5
! .26
1.22
3.2
30 .70
9.09
14.5
4.15
a.4':
2 »» 2
1.59
1 .54
T ~T
. ~ *
36.20
4.71
16,3
4.0?
c'. 14
5 3.7
1 .22
1.24
-1.5
26.30
5.75
13.3
5.2ft
5. 79
45.4
1.48
1.40
5.7
35.90
2.67
14 .4
5. :• ?
5.35
2 ».. 3
1.17
1.14
~ c
35.20
3.46
7.7
2.73
2.9 0
30.1
1.16
1 . f*
-1 .6
34 .40
5.06
1*.2
5.0"^
— • - -
2 7.3
1.17
1.27
-3.3
38.6 0
z>. 1 5
13.6
3.9 6
4.20
26.2
1.15
1.04
- ^ . C
33. 70
3.0 S
14.6
4.21
4.7 L
36.1
1.13
1.14
-1.4
28 .00
3.96
13.i
5.54
6.04
42.5
1 .30
1.26
*.2
26.30
5.66
56 .1
24. 45
^ j
31.1
1 .43
1 . Tc»
2.5
24 .0 C
5.3q
56.4
2H .32
2? .56
22.4
1.41
1 .41
0.1
21.10
6.76
67.7
52. 77
34 . 6 ti
42.0
1.5 =
1 .58
^ r
14.29
6.21
-14.0
1.3-
1 .79
_ 7 1 £
* ' A •
22 .70
5.94
54.6
14.80
2.0
3 . C 6
: .48
**; i . i'
29.30
6.33
61 .2
25.06
3 0.5
1 .34
1 .39
-4.C
33.10
3.97
54 .6
21.50
28.3
1 .22
1.22
0.2
lfc.70
13.70
16.4
3.S9
4.41
49.2
2.B7
2 . S 2
1.8
29.80
9.18
1 tj. 6
4.62
4.35
2 3.7
1 .< 4
1 .56
4 .fc
29.60
4.60
15.5
5.76
5.66
13.4
1.66
1 . ?f
22.7
34.60
6.51
17.7
5. 5?
5.59
1 7.6
1 .36
1 • T 4
1.4
22.4 0
13.44
15.7
5.5?
5.50
13.5
2.10
2.09
r*. r
. i-
20.90
9.79
15.6
6.93
6.65
13.3
1.98
1 ."5
6.5
24.9 0
3.6 9
15.7
6.42
6.32
14.2
1.74
1.63
6.?
26.10
10.02
15.a
5.71
5.79
22.4
1 .71
1 .70
o . 5
36.4 0
4.62
16.5
5.10
5.4 0
2 6
1.24
1 .23
0.7
311 • 6 0
9.71
15.2
4.30
4.74
16.7
1 .57
1 .58
-0.6
31.5C
8.75
15.7
5.05
4.96
15.1
1.52
1 .51
0
30.90
S .25
14 .5
4.4?
4 .66
25.6
1.54
1.49
3.4
31 .1-0
8.41
14 .9
4.17
4 .9 0
15.17
1 .45
1 .48
— • 1
35.4 0
6.81
16.H
5.07
4.91
1 -j . u
1.40
l.'>5
T IT
• ¦
40 .20
5.2&
17.2
4.--0
4.79
1.19
1 .24
-------
SOLID ANALYSTS
RUN
NO.
4-2 &
ANALY
TICAL
POINT
2 ?16
585-2A
2818
2816
2818
586-2A 2816
SOLID
CAO
SO 2
S03
DAT
FLA3
WT X
WT %
VT X
0=5/09/7?.
233 P
32.AO
23.90
6. 23
3 5/10/76
0 73 0
32.50
21.30
9.88
35/10/76
1300
"5/10/7*
153 0
30.53
18.80
D . 0 0
05/11/76
0730
32.10
23.30
1.78
05/11/76
1530
31.30
20.10
5.70
r5/ll/76
2333
31.10
21.20
7.70
35/12/76
073?
28.30
21. 83
3.50
35/12/76
pp" C
28.70
16.20
1.75
05/20/76
2330
31.30
20. ao
7.1C
05/21/7S
0730
30.70
IP.60
11.25
35/21/76
153 0
28.90
18.30
5.63
C5/21/76
2330
31.70
20.20
9.55
C5/22/76
0730
21.50
17.10
2.35
35'22/?6
15 30
28.00
11.50
0.98
35/22/76
2330
30 .00
20.60
6.65
DX 1
SOL IC
TOTAL
SLUP.Y
ACID
C4LC
DAT
STCIC
STC7C
I Ov I c
$03
C02
SOLID
IN'S^L
IMSOL
IOM
3 AT 10
RATIO
Iw:?'L
VT X
UT X
WT "k
WT X
VT X
V
CC*. >
V
- -
-----
-----
-----
-----
——
--
36.10
5.05
11.1
1.53
4.57
1 7. 3
1.28
1 • ?5
?.l
36.50
5.01
11.5
1.30
4 .54
27.1
I .2"?
1 .25
1.3
28.50
5.77
15.1
6 .
6.15
17.6
1.53
1.37
10.4
33.90
',.51
11.2
1,-36
1.73
11.1
1.35
1.35
3.1
31.20
7.09
13.7
4,31
1.86
13.3
1.43
1.11
1.3
31.2C
7.11
13.8
1.40
1.53
22.5
1. 50
1,3"
-7.4
31.50
2.39
17.9
7.63
7.*-
1 C . 2
5.16
1.13
2 . 8
32 .60
1.78
17.2
7.02
4 . 7?
fi .1
1.29
1.2 7
1 .?
31.10
6.951
11.1
4 •.&£
« . 4 &
£0.1
l.i?
1.37
1 .?
31 .70
6.77
13.0
5.15
1.79
16.1
1 .3=
1.3?
-2 . 3
28.50
5.51
11.1
5 . 3ii
5.94
21.0
1 .46
1.36
c. .8
26. 7C
7.18
17.1
6.32
t.90
18.&
1.63
1.51
7.4
25.70
12.CI
11.3
5.1 A
1. ? 6
3.2
1.95
1.50
C-. 0
26.10
10.51
32 .0
11 . 9 5
11 -92
18.6
1. t- -6
1 .73
-1 •?
26.DC
8.61
11.1
5.55
".5 3
25.0
1 . f 7
1.63
1.0
26.70
6.32
11.6
5.68
6.0?
35.1
1.5".
1.13
7. 1
33.30
1.11
16.3
6.11
6.21
21.6
1.26
1.24
1.5
33.00
5.33
11.3
5.1'i
5.1 =
19.3
1.33
1.29
2.6
30.10
5.50
12.0
1 .27
1.11
25.2
1.50
1,33
13.3
38.60
7.21
11.1
2.51
3.37
47.5
1.27
1.31
-5.7
21.3C
7.55
13.1
6 . 'j 7
5 .9o
13.1
1.61
1.57
4 • 5
32.*0
6.27
13.1
1. t 3
4.51
34.8
1.31
1.35
-3.5
33.CC
6.31
15.2
5.51
5,67
23.1
1. 23
^ TC
-4 • - -J
-3 . 9
32 .00
9.51
15.3
1.42
a . 5 f
2 4 .2
1.49
1.5*
-3.5
31.6C
3.25
11.8
i.V
*.7Z
20.9
1.50
1.17
1 . 7
31 .10
6.8 2
11.7
5 • 5H
5.41
16.8
1.37
1.13
-1.9
26.50
7.93
15.3
5 .76
6 .cr,
30.7
1.63
1.51
7 C
w- • ->
26.20
3.18
11.1
1 .95
5.22
30.9
1.53
1.55
-I .2
3? .10
7.53
11.5
1 .38
4.72
31.0
1.41
1.42
28 .60
9.02
11.0
1.4 3
4.79
31.9
1.59
1.57
1.2
25.30
10.83
15.2
4.fl
5.14
11.2
1.^6
1. 7"
4 .5
28.50
5.72
15.1
6.52
6.4?
11.9
1.11
1.37
3 . C
30.70
6.76
32.8
12.41
12.2 7
15.7
1.41
1.10
C • 6
29.00
6.76
35.6
14.01
14.17
21.1
1.13
1 .42
3.2
25.CO
7.70
15.2
6.19
6.4 8
1 9.0
1 . 64
1. 56
1.8
33.10
8.18
15.9
5.05
5.14
21.5
1.35
1.17
—8 • £>
34.50
6.16
11.0
1.30
4 .66
32.6
\.2~>
1.32
-4.3
28.50
6.11
11.6
5.si
5. 95
19.7
1.15
1.11
2.5
31 .80
6.60
12.8
3 . 8 3
1.39
27.5
1 .33
1.35
-^.1
21 .10
6.16
11.1
7.15
6.99
9.=?
1.15
1.16
-3.9
19.10
9.79
13.6
6.53
6 . '-6
5.1
2.09
1.^3
7.7
32.1C
5.59
15.1
5.54
5.61
20.5
1.32
1.31
2 .6
-------
SDL ID ANALYSES
RUN
NO.
586-2A
ANALY
TIC4L
2«16
587-2A
2sia
2S1S
0
1
»-•
w
SOLID
CAO
S02
SO 3
date:
TI*E
flag
VT X
VT 2
'J T X
05/23/7*
0730
29.90
17.10
11.23
05/23/76
1530
30.50
20.00
5.90
05/23/76
2330
31.30
17.60
11.90
C5/2ft/76
0730
2S.60
21.00
6.45
"5/2ft/76
160 0
28.SO
18.30
6.33
05/24/76
2330
31.10
lfi. 70
11.63
'5/23/76
0445
31.CO
21.30
S.1S
C5/21/76
2330
29.03
17.70
7.6P,
05/24/76
233 0
CA
26. 20
18. 4 0
7.40
05/11/76
153?
31.30
21.1 0
P.P3
05/31/76
2330
25.60
13.40
3.6b
*6/01/76
0730
V
26.60
8.70
C.C3
0 6/01/76
1530
29.00
18.5 0
7.1H
P&/P1/76
233?
31 .30
17."0
3.75
06/32/76
0730
2B.10
13.60
3.10
"6/02/76
C9C0
06/05/76
1530
23.10
14.10
3.08
06/02/76
2339
28.30
12.70
4.43
06/03/76
0730
31.10
18.20
4.15
06/13 5/76
153?
32.30
19.60
7.70
H&/03/76
2300
32.50
IS.fiO
7.40
06/05/76
1530
TS
31.80
14.20
ft. 1 5
06/05/76
2330
TS
29.4 0
13.40
4.55
06/06/76
0730
3 0.63
12.70
9.63
06/06/76
1530
31.70
17.00
5.*5
06/06/76
2330
23.40
15.60
P.30
56/07/76
0730
TS
29.60
7.40
13."5
06/07/76
1530
32.-50
21.20
11. »?
"6/0 7/76
2330
31.00
16.70
10.33
06/0P/76
0 73 C
32.40
l&.SC
10 • o 0
06/02/76
1 530
23.00
16.50
4.°£
06/08/76
2330
30.60
16.60
10.25
06/09/76
0730
TS
33.50
6.30
11.33
06/09/76
153C
31.10
17.70
sues
76/09/76
2330
2T.20
12.10
12.6ft
06/13/76
0730
26.PO
1C.50
10.7S
06/10/76
1530
31.90
1ft.30
5.D3
06/10/76
2330
TS
32.BO
9.30
7.15
06/11/76
0730
X
38.70
3.70
10.93
06/11/76
1530
29.60
16.30
7.03
06/11/76
2330
29.30
1R.SO
7.SO
06/12/76
0730
2?. 50
18.90
6. ft?
«6/l?/7f>
1530
31 .70
16.20
5.65
36/12/76
2330
33.10
It.70
9 . H1
06/13/76
0730
3 3 . B 0
15."50
9.2i
OXl
SOL J r
TOTAL
SLURY
ACIO
CALC
OAT
Sf^IC
STOIC
ICMXC
$03
CC2
SOLID
INSOL
I.-J SOL
ION
RATIO
ratio
I"5A L
WT X
WT *
WT X
VT t
WT *
?
fCA)
(CC3)
w
32.60
5.72
15.8
5.22
5.70
34.4
1 .31
i .32
-n,T
30.90
5.77
15.2
5.72
5.75
19.1
1.4 1
1.34
a *r
33.50
5.96
14.3
4 .92
35.1
1.32
1.32
• j • 2
32.70
5.17
14.2
5.a9
5.51
19.7
1 .25
1.29
* w » X
29.20
4.51
13.7
5.70
5.76
21.7
1.41
1 .?P
° • c
35.00
5.S6
14.8
4."4
4 * ft 4
33.2
1.27
1.30
— *>
• i
3«..SO
6.07
14.8
ft.«l
4.95
23.K
1.27
l."2
-s. f.
29.60
6.54
3f .7
13 . 5 =5
1ft .34
2 5. fc
1.39
l.«0
-0.7
30.40
6.18
36.1
14. 7[
15.ir
24.4
1.23
1. 17
-11.3
35.20
6.02
12.7
4 . C t
4.16
25.1
1.27
1.31
-3.3
20.40
7.97
9.2
4.54
4 .54
17.9
1.79
1 .'1
ft.5
1G .90
12.04
9.1
4.90
ft .79
0.2
3.4P.
3.01
13.«.
3D.3C
6.79
11. C
4.C5
" .1 4
23.7
1.41
1.41
rj 1
25.50
9.40
9.7
3.77
3.7."
14.7
1.-5
1 • 6 7
ft.7
20.10
10.89
11.0
4.90
ft .87
15.4
2.0?
1 .99
0 .1-
20.70
10.62
11.5
5.13
5.0 7
14.9
1.94
1. ° 3
0.2
20.30
10.*9
9.5
4.15
*.If
21 .8
1.97
l.-3?
-0.3
26.90
a.60
9.9
3.7R
3.7 6
15.4
1.65
1 .5f
4.2
32.20
6.35
ID.5
3.49
3 . 5o
23.9
1.43
1 .36
5.3
3 0.90
7.23
H . 6
2.£6
2.9?
2ft . C
1.50
1 .ft3
25.90
6.71
9.9
3 3
3.6?
31.5
1.75
1 . <*7
1 6. '
21.30
fc.LB
6.9
3.0 2
3.04
2 1 .ft
1 .»?
1.73
12.1
25.50
11.07
6.9
2.29
2.ft®
37. C
1.71
1 . 79
-ft.5
27.10
7.72
8.7
3.23
3.23
21.6
1 • 6^
1.52
9.1
27. 60
5.17
&.0
3.28
3.4 r
*•* **' • 9
1 .46
1 . 34
'">» ?
22.70
6.94
S .4
3.1&
3.5?
59.3
1» H 6
1.56
15 . ft
37. 9C
7.27
9.3
2.30
2.5T
30.1
1.24
1.35
— . .1 * V'
31.20
5.12
fi.7
2.99
3.21
33.1
1 ."2
i. jr
34.30
6.26
ft. 3
2.ftl
2.6'
31.5
1.35
1 .33
1.2
25.60
6.4S
7.3
3.43
3.44
19.ft
1.5 6
1.06
6.5
31.00
6.92
n • 4
2.77
2.9b
33.1
1.42
1.41
0.9
19.20
7.20
9.1
3.3ft
3.7°
59.0
2.49
1 .68
32.5
30.20
7.96
V .£>
2.90
3.C2
26. P.
1.47
1 .*?
-0.6
27. PO
7.26
6.5
2 .95
3.3 0
45.6
1.5C
1 .ftP
-i « 3
23.90
5.99
5?. 7
3 . f. 3
4. 01
45.1
1.60
1.46
9.1
27.90
7.70
fc.4
3.10
3.11
lfl.C
1.<.3
1.50
8.0
19.40
10.14
7.1
2.69
2.S5
36.9
2.41
l.^S
19.2
15.60
20.85
9.1
1.94
2.35
70.4
3.54
3.43
3.1
27.40
9.70
10.5
3.«r:
3.97
25.7
l.c4
1 .62
-ft.5
50.30
7.73
S.2
2.94
3.05
25.P.
1 .38
1 .4ft
-6.1
30.10
fi.C5
9.1
3.3"
3.39
21.5
1.39
1.6"
-7.r
25.90
12.29
E. 3
2.78
2. ft 4
21.8
1.75
I.f-.f-
-f.t
30.7C
11.35
'i.ft
2 .41
2.7 r
32.0
1 . jft
l.tv"1-
" i*> • V
23.lt
5.53
9.3
2.\<2
3.0i
31.7
1.S6
1.53
7.5
-------
SOLIO ANALYSES
AVALY
®.UN
TlCAL
SOLIO
CAO
S02
SC3
NO.
POINT
OATC
time
FLAG
WT X
WT X
VT %
587-2A
2«16
06/13/76
1530
31. 9C
13.30
10.28
ns/13/76
25? 0
33.90
16.20
11.35
"6/14/76
0530
S02
32.OQ
9.60
13.90
2818
05/31/74
2330
27.20
16.30
6.23
?
26.90
1C.31
7.3
2.4 3
2.6 7
38.2
1.69
1.70
— C'- «
31 .60
12.66
9.8
2.24
2.5"
35.9
1.53
1.73
-12.9
25 • 90
11.45
7.9
2.13
2.54
S3.7
1.81
1 .UC
C .5
26.60
6.93
24 .0
10.25
10.40
2 3.4
1.4ft
1 .47
-1 .0
25.40
6.97
27.2
10.^5
11.21
23.2
1.70
1 .50
12.0
?4 .40
10.06
52.3
12.4 7
13.29
36.b
1.61
1.75
-a. e
32.30
8.65
51 .3
17.31
36.5
1.30
1.49
-14.4
21.50
4.92
54.1
2 6 . C 6
37.?
1.66
1.5*
4.5
27.3C
10.25
15.1
4.()?
5.15
3^.0
i.f 7
1.68
17.40
12.11
14.4
5.7"
6. Of
42.5
2.49
2.27
,:.l
22.42
13.69
16.3
4.34
4.31
41.4
2.53
2.11
5.2
24.97
9.4 3
1^.1
4.81
5.42
23.4
1.77
1 .63
4.9
20.70
11.16
53.9
5.41
5.57
2 7.=.
2.14
1.98
7.7
22.30
3.83
14.2
5 • 7 ^
6.07
33.9
1. 8 r-
1.72
7.7
13.20
12.55
13.7
5.67
5 . 8 •'
31.3
2 . 2 7
t. • t. 3
r
20.60
12.27
15.1
5.40
5.6°
32.7
2.23
2.09
£ .6
17.10
12.65
14.6
5.65
6.04
47.4
2. r 6
2.35
8.5
? . 44
23.45
13.7
2.9*
4.73
65.0
5.4".
4.94
9.9
9 . C 3
32.12
13.7
2.98
3.29
62.5
5.61
7.47
-33.1
18.30
15.40
13.9
4.64
4.7 5
26.9
2.71
2.53
6.8
1S.1C
13.20
12.9
5.40
5.47
22.?
2.30
2.33
-1 .4
24 .10
9.13
5*.7
22.73
47.1
l.si
1 .69
-.5
19.10
11.27
66.5
28.42
45.0
2. 17
? .07
4 .3
17.61
10.97
14.6
5.74
6.66
37.4
2.27
2.13
6.1
23.60
14.59
16.6
4.22
4.6C
34 .9
2.25
2.12
r-. 6
23.40
11.23
15.1
5.5 7
5 .5^-
17.2
1.98
l. -;7
5.2
22.20
12.87
14.9
5.1?.
5.36
2S.5
2.06
2.05
0.5
31.40
6.98
14.2
4.72
4.91
26.0
1.44
1 .'0
2.6
23.00
9.48
15.3
6.36
6.42
19.6
1.90
1.75
7.9
34.70
5.95
15.4
4.99
5.13
22.2
1.29
1.31
-1.7
31 .20
5.66
15.9
5.92
6.04
23.9
1.37
1.33
2.3
33.00
3.63
14.0
5.38
5.58
25.=
1.23
1.20
2.3
29.50
4.32
13.7
6.22
6.20
17.4
1.25
1 .27
-1 .4
35.90
2.53
14.5
5.73
5.64
15.8
1.15
1.12
2.7
32.60
3.30
15.4
6.4 0
6.53
23.3
1.17
1.12
-1.3
36.10
3.09
14.3
5.33
5.36
20.0
1.15
1.16
-0 .4
29.20
3.38
14.4
6.83
6.7^
12.7
1.27
1 .21
4.8
32.10
4.07
14.3
5.69
5.?4
23.7
1.24
l.?3
0 . S
29.40
5.67
14.4
5.97
6.11
23.1
1.31
1 .35
-? .0
32.1C
4.= 1
13.9
i.53
5 .64
21.4
1.24
1.26
-1.2
27.0 0
6.19
14.0
6.17
6.14
17.6
1.45
1.42
2.2
24.40
6.7.2
14.5
6.90
6.69
5.8
1.56
1.50
3.9
24 • 5C
6. 92
1 5.4
6.44
6.24
C.Cz
3 .c6
1 .=,1
2.3
34.70
4.4 7
15.4
5.43
5.3"-
17.5
1 .30
1 .^3
5.1
20. OC
6.70
16.8
7.67
7.41
c. ^
•» •
1.54
1 .47
4.8
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
RUN
NO.
i\'ALV
TICSL
Cf)T\"r
589-2A 2816
S01-2 A
2821
2816
2P21
602-2A 2B16
SOLID
C AO
SO?
S03
D»Tt;
time
flag
VT X
UT *
UT X
—
—~
• « — ••
-----
06/30/76
1 - • T
. 2 r,
24.50
4.08
C6/30/76
2330
29.40
21.30
5.75
"7/01/76
-5ro
26.3 0
15.00
2.55
0£/'3/76
1530
23.50
16.20
5.35
07/02/76
0730
2ft.1 0
23.70
5.If!
"•7/02/76
1533
28.33
23.10
8.53
D 7/04/76
07 J"
26.90
23.10
5. 73
07/^6/76
15 30
27.80
22.60
6.45
07/06/76
?3? 3
T r
26.80
24.50
1.8 3
3 7/07/76
0730
27.43
23.3 0
7.85
"7/07/76
1531
2 3 .!; 3
23.9 0
7. 1 3
**7/37/76
23';"
2J.4 0
25.50
4.03
37/OK/76
0730
26.40
23.60
5 . 4 j
f7/PB/76
1530
30.80
23.30
9.78
r'7/0°/76
23 31
28 .64
26.06
4.22
07/05/76
0 730
25.40
23.20
5.2 3
07/09/76
1530
27.30
26.SO
4.71
O7/09/76
2^30
23.70
2 2.50
2.38
"7/10/76
0730
20.73
20.00
4.00
07/10/76
1530
2 6.50
25.0 0
6.96
07/1C/76
2330
23.60
21. 8C
2.85
"7/11/76
0730
23.50
21.40
5.25
"7/11/76
1530
22.20
2 0 . C 0
4.93
"7/11/76
2330
23.10
21 .50
3.43
n 7/12/76
0530
25.20
23.20
4.go
3 7/02/76
1533
27.10
21.30
9.8G
T 7/Q4./76
153 0
23.OS
20.5C
4.73
"7/07/76
1530
26.60
21.40
6.55
r7/0°/76
< CJ o
25.70
24.10
4.18
07/03/76
153 0
24.30
23.30
3.88
n7/ia/7e.
153"
23.60
23.23
3.70
"7/11/76
1530
23.10
20.40
7.80
07/12/76
2330
24.70
23.90
2.73
0 7/13/76
0730
27.00
25.60
4.71
07/13/76
1530
28.10
26.20
7.76
07/13/76
2530
27.&0
23.40
9.65
"7/14/76
073 0
27.00
23.90
9.43
C7/1A/76
133 0
•>7/14/76
1530
26.00
24.40
7.80
"•7/14/76
2330
24.40
23.50
6.13
07/15/76
0730
24.60
24.00
3.40
07/15/76
o«cc
07/15/76
1530
26.70
2'j.BO
3.06
Q7/15/76
2330
23.BO
21 .30
5.48
07/If/7 6
07^0
27.30
? 2 . h 0
7.90
OXI SOLID
total
SL'JtY
ACID
CALC
CAT
STCIC
STOIC
IONIC
503
C02
30L10
Ir-iSCL
IN'SOL
IOM
".AT 10
0 atto
I"V &L
WT X
VT X
WT %
WT ^
UT X
V
r c a >
V
34.70
3.51
15.5
6.19
6.03
11.8
1.2 0
1.18
1 .4
32. CO
4.40
15.3
6.05
6.34
19.3
1.31
1 . "5
4 . r
21. 30
. 64
15.4
7.43
7.3?
12.0
l."6
1.74
1 .4
25.60
5.25
59.0
29.5 2
20.9
1.31
1 .37
-4.?
34.60
0.24
8.9
4.21
4.16
14.'J
C.°9
1 .31
-3.4
37.40
0.16
P.2
3.1-?
3.27
22.8
1.C9
1.01
c . 7
34.60
0.57
8.3
3 • 55 4
3 . S 5
16.6
l.U
1.33
7.2
36.7C
1.15
H.9
3.4;4
27.1
1 .06
1 . £
4.1
3C .40
0.71
56.0
2b .57
15.7
1 .08
1.34
"*• .5
33.30
0.71
15.7
1.14
1.04
3 . 9
34.30
0.8?
54.0
24.41
12."
1.07
1 .04
2.4
33.00
0.65
57.0
27.9.9
11.=,
1.35
1.04
1.5
32.70
e.fio
53.0
28.75
11.3
1.03
1.P4
-1 .4
33.30
0.25
60.0
29.37
23.4
0.5°
1.31
-.3 . 4
32. 6C
0.33
16.3
8.1?
7 • 8 S
£.4
1 .OS
1.3 2
' . 8
36.70
0.79
14.6
6.39
6.2 0
12.8
1.0 5
1.3 4
1.1
40.50
0.64
15.5
5.79
5.7S
19.1
0.99
1.03
-3.9
38.90
0.29
14.6
5.6°,
5.37
24.8
0 . 99
1.0 1
-2.3
39.30
0.93
8.7
3.24
3.37
24.C
0 .98
1.34
-6.3
38.30
0.59
14.7
6.04
6.0 6
20.4
0.97
1.33
-6.1
35.50
0.65
15.3
S..94
S.93
17.^
0 .98
1.33
33.40
1.18
15.3
7.2ft
7.09
10.2
1.06
1.08
-1.9
34.30
0.39
15.3
7.12
6.^6
8.9
l.U
1.02
H .?
32 .10
0.43
14.4
7.10
7.33
17.1
1.06
1 .r3
2.9
36.AO
3.60
15.0
6.13
6.21
21.7
1.07
1.3 3
'..t
-------
SOL 10 ANALYSES
•L'X
\C.
«02-2A
603-2A
ANALY
TICAL
POINT
2P16
2821
2316
2B21
604-2A 28X6
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
DATE
TIME
FLAG
WT X
VT X
WT X
07/16/76
153 0
2= .60
24.10
1 .98
07/16/76
2330
23.3 0
24.1C
0.98
"7/17/76
0730
25.60
26.30
3.93
07/17/76
153C
25. «3
26.78
C.C2
07/17/76
2330
2P .30
27.20
6.03
07/1,3/76
0730
25.CO
23.10
3.33
07/17//6
153?
25.00
23.90
3.83
07/14/76
153?
25.30
23.50
2.83
07/15/76
1533
24.30
22.20
5.65
"7/16/76
1530
23.70
22.50
0-.5«
•5 7/17/76
1530
23.30
23.60
0.50
C7/20/76
C 73?
22.ao
2C.50
2.6ft
07/20/76
1530
29.°0
17.90
3.53
07/20/7*
2330
23.10
19.00
10.65
21.68
18.64
3.0C
07/21/76
D730
IP.f.O
17.90
3.63
07/21/76
1530
21.60
10.2C
6.95
07/21/76
2330
22.40
22.60
A.35
07/22/76
Q73 "¦
23.30
22.50
4.78
0 i/2zne
1530
23.70
23.19
3.63
27.59
23.16
*.72
23.59
23.16
«.41
07/22/75
2330
26.50
24.0 0
t.70
07/23/76
P 730
25.20
22.10
9.oa
07/23/76
1530
26.90
24.40
5.70
"7/23/76
2353
25.7C
21.60
10.95
07/24/76
0730
24.20
21. GG
6.35
07/24/76
1530
23.50
22.20
6.15
T7/24/76
233"
25.CO
21 .AO
6.45
07/25/76
C 730
20.1 0
21.20
7.60
0 7/25/76
1530
23.60
20.^0
9.68
07/25/76
2330
2*5.60
23.50
6.43
07/26/76
0730
24. DO
21.60
5.90
t>7/2&/76
1530
22.00
22.60
5.55
07/25/76
1530
20.30
16.80
6.30
07/21/76
1530
20.50
17.10
7.33
S7/22/76
1530
22.4 0
22.20
2.15
1)7/25/76
1533
23.10
23.60
5.60
07/24/76
1530
21.70
21.50
5.43
07/25/76
1530
22.20
19.aO
7.95
07/26/76
1530
22.00
22.60
3.45
07/2R/76
2330
23.30
21.30
6.93
07/2^/76
"730
23.10
18.70
7.13
"7/29/76
1530
07/29/76
233C
22.60
15. 2C
10.60
OXI
SOLID
TOTAL
SLUPY
ACID
CALC
OAT
STOIC
STOIC
IOMC
S03
CO 2
SOLID
IN SOL
INSCL
ION
RATIO
RATIO
WT X
WT X
V/T X
WT X
WT %
V
f cu
< C03)
32.10
1.26
15.1
7.45
7.11
6.?
1 .14
1 .157
K . . 2 5
B . 8
1.12
1 . C 3
~ . 0
33.40
0.32
60.0
2*. 52
16.9
1.04
1.0 2
2.0
28.70
1.4 P.
5S.0
30.0?
2 . j
i.lF
1.09
7.2
?o.ca
1.10
59.C
33.3 =
1.7
1.11
1.07
7. .8
28.30
3.S2
8.6
4.4 5
1.32
9.*
1.15
1 .25
—o . 3
25. 9C
o.ec
3.2
4.71
4.6 6
13.6
1.15
1.06
6.7
34.40
0.16
7.7
3.«5
3.6 3
31.0
r.°6
l.rl
-5.2
26.30
0.66
11.4
1.18
1 .05
11 .1
26.CO
0 .09
8.6
5.13
5.11
1ft.0
1.02
1.03
-1.3
29.70
C.49
P. 7
4.53
* .59
23.4
1.04
1.03
0.6
32.60
0.36
6 . 3
4.4 9
4.42
13.4
C.9S
1.02
-4.1
32.90
0.40
3.0
3.97
3.92
14.5
1.01
1.02
-1.1
32.50
0.32
9.3
4.6 8
4.5°
11.2
1.C4
1.0?
2.2
3 7.67
0 • **9
23.2
0.0 9
1.02
-14.5
37.36
0.49
22.=
C.SC
1 . r ?
-17 .6
34.70
Q.05
7.2
3.2fi
3.22
13.6
1.C9
1.0 0
j r
- •. v
36.70
0.36
7.6
3.22
3.29
24.7
n.no
1.02
_ "7 r
• m C
36.20
0.43
7."
3.17
3.15
15.8
1.06
1.0?
3.7
38.20
0.60
8.2
3.13
3.36
2 9 . 7
0.96
1.03
-7.1
32.60
Q.19
8.1
3.90
3.91
19.5
1.06
1.01
6
33.90
0.31
7.4
3.56
3.54
IB.2
0.99
1.32
-2.7
33.70
0.49
8.5
3.89
3.9 3
19.2
1.06
1.0 3
7.1
34.10
0.31
7.7
3.52
3.60
22.3
1.01
l.C-2
-r. .p
35.ec
C .37
7.6
3.32
3.45
27.0
0.94
1.02
-K.7
35.80
0.66
7.7
3.39
3.37
1S.0
1.02
1.0 3
-1.2
32.90
0.21
7.6
3.65
3.67
17.9
1.04
1 .01
2.9
33 .EO
0.12
8.1
4.04
4 . 0 T-
16.4
0.93
1.01
-8.7
27. 30
0.73
62.0
3 4.64
23.1
1.06
1.05
1.2
2P.70
0.55
61 .0
33.26
25.5
1.02
1.03
— 5 r:
• — • —
29.50
0.42
63.0
33.29
7.2
1.07
1.03
'->.1
35.10
0.14
53.0
27.53
16."j
0.94
1.01
-7.2
32.30
0.17
59.0
30.21
16.6
0.96
1.01
-5 . 3
32.70
0.58
58.0
2« .69
24.3
0.97
1.03
-6.5
31.70
0.11
62.0
32.14
1G.9
C . 99
1.01
-1.6
33.6C
0.23
7.1
3.35
3.39
20.8
1.01
1.01
-0.1
30.50
0.P5
7.9
3.98
4.0 3
23.4
1.03
1.00
7.2
29.60
0.15
7.1
3.45
i.S'i
35.8
1.09
1.01
7.4
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
PUN
NC.
A1ALY
TlC4L
6C4-2A 2816
0
1
b-t
o
2821
605-2A 28X6
2P?1
SOLID
CAO
SO?
S03
DfTE
time
FLAG
WT X
WT *
WT X
07/30/76
0730
23.AO
20.30
7.03
07/30/76
15C0
25.00
20 .30
9.63
07/30/76
2330
21.50
17.10
7.63
*7/31/7*
0730
22.50
16.00
10.00
T 7/31/76
1530
23.50
17.70
13.18
07/31/76
2330
21.20
ift.no
Q.10
08/01/76
0730
23.20
17.50
5.33
08/01/76
1530
27.20
21.35
6.43
"8/01/76
2330
26.10
20.nc
9.80
08/02/76
0730
25.91
18.33
10.72
re/02/76
1530
25.91
18.74
12.07
P 8/02/76
23 30
25.85
19.08
11.60
O*/03/76
0730
25.15
18. 88
13.63
05/03/76
1530
26.71
£0.92
9.10
r F / o 3 / 7 6
2330
23.50
16.83
11 .30
"8/04/76
053 0
24.OP
IB.06
11.11
G 7 / 2 9 / 7 6
1537
21.50
14.80
14.20
07/33/76
1530
23.40
19.70
8.78
08/02/76
15 JO
23.77
17.37
10.30
"8/03/76
153 0
2->.03
18.*2
9.93
08/0S/76
033 0
27.42
23.16
6.69
08/06/76
0 73 0
3 0.50
25.73
n.fc8
0.9/Of/76
153 0
25.55
23.67
5.30
r-o/CK/76
2330
23.26
19.7?
9.43
08/07/76
C730
26.48
23.53
N.
cr
•
•if
08/07/76
1530
25.00
21.75
5.11
08/07/76
233 0
26.74
23.86
6.17
c8/oh/76
C 730
27.07
23.71
6.64
nr>/"8/76
153 0
2"..63
24.R4
9.13
i.o./ bo/76
233 0
29.67
23.34
9.^8
ra/Cs/?',
0730
26.70
24.14
9.76
08/09/76
1530
2a.23
25.22
8. 96
08/09/76
233 0
29.9?
26.42
7.90
38/10/76
0730
2o . 0 2
24.25
6.66
08/10/76
1530
24.02
21.40
9.54
05/10/76
2330
26.42
24.40
4.64
08/11/76
0730
27.69
24.61
7.49
08/11/76
1530
27.25
25. 19
6.66
r.i/li/7&
2330
2 ? . * ft
2 7.03
5.5 0
08/12/76
0730
2°.75
28.23
6.65
re/12/76
1 33 0
29.43
25 .4 J>
11.62
P8./12/76
2330
29.40
26.97
5.14
08/13/76
0730
2E.1 2
26.71
5.78
p P / 0 f> / 7
15 30
?*>.15
2 3.75
4 .PR
CS/07/76
1530
24.fe5
21.64
4.30
0X1
SOLID
total
sum
ACID
CALC
OAT
STOIC
S^OIC
I0MIC
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
INSSOL
ION
R ST 10
RATIO
I«3»L
wt r
WT X
UT S
WT X
WT *
V
fCft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---- -
32.40
1.10
7.5
3.55
3.61
21.7
1.C3
1 .Of,
-*»»3
35.00
0.08
7.8
J . 3 6
3.51
27.5
1.02
1.00
3 .5
29.CO
0.15
7.9
4.15
4.24
26.3
1.0 6
1.01
4.6
30.00
0.33
7.4
3.63
3.7=t
33.3
1.07
1.02
4.7
35.30
0.38
8.3
3.4 5
5.76
r. n c
Kj • > -
1.02
-7.3
32.60
0.18
7.2
3.30
3.44
27.9
1 .06
1.01
i.7
31 .20
0.27
7.5
3.55
3 .73
29.9
1 • C 6
1.0 2
1.3
33.11
0.11
77.0
3.2 3
31 .59
19.4
1.17
1 .01
11.'
35.80
0.28
8.1
3.34
3.4.?
27.4
1.04
1.01
tL . KJ
33.63
0.19
7.9
2.58
3.54
31.9
1.10
1.01
8.1
35.49
0.44
7.8
3.35
34 .0
1.04
1.02
1 .5
35.4 5
0.31
7.9
3.41
32.7
1 .04
1.02
2.4
37.23
0.27
7.5
2.87
5 . 1C
3^.6
0.96
1.01
-5.1
35.25
0.11
7.8
7.37
2C .8
1 .08
• 1.01
7 ^
. • .i
32. 33
0.49
8.1
5.88
36.9
1 . 0 4
1.03
1.0
33.66
0.37
7.3
3.39
33.0
1.02
1 .02
0.1
32.70
C.36
63. 0
3C .90
43.4
0 .94
1.02
-a.7
33.40
0.27
6 0.0
2J.71
26.3
1.00
1.01
-1 .5
32.01
0.66
58.0
27.7"
32.2
1.06
1.04
2.1
33.45
0.19
60.0
28.22
29.7
1.03
1.01
1.5
35.64
0.77
7.1
2 .9o
18.8
1.10
1.0 4
5.4
41.84
0.69
7.0
1.86
"¦> ^
L • JC
23.1
1.05
1.0 3
0 . "
34.88
0.53
8.2
Tj • £j *-
15.2
1.05
1.03
1 .5
34.08
0.66
7.9
3.71
27.7
^ .97
1.04
-6.2
34.28
0.68
7.9
2.61
3.51
14.2
1 .10
1.04
5.0
32.29
0.15
a.4
4.01
15.8
1.11
1.03
7.2
35.99
C.71
8.1
3.44
17.1
1 . 06
1.04
•"» T
•— * s.
36.27
0.53
8.1
2.89
3 . 4 0
18.3
1.07
1.0 3
3.1
4 3.18
0.63
¦!. 1
2.93
22.7
3 .02
1.03
— 1 1
• «
39.15
0.93
B.i
'.0 3
25.5
1.08
1.0 4
T * b
39.93
0.58
7.7
2.73
2.99
24 .4
0.95
1.0 3
-7.5
40.48
0.26
7.5
2 . 8
22.1
1.00
1.01
-1.6
*0.92
0.44
7.5
2.65
19.3
1 .04
1.02
2.3
36.97
0.77
7.7
2.08
3.1C
18.3
1 .08
1. 04
4.1
36.29
0.36
8.0
3.57
26.3
0.9 4
1.02
-7.7
35.14
0.31
7.8
3 .45
13.2
1.07
1 . " 2
K 7
- *
38.25
0.55
S.8
1.37
3 .49
19.',
1 . C 3
1.0 3
0.7
3 V. 14
0.47
7.9
3.19
17.5
1 .02
1.02
-0.2
39.28
0.27
7.6
2.37
14.0
1,07
1.01
- .2
41 .93
0 ."6
7.3
1.J2
2.55
15
1.01
1.02
-0.7
43.44
0.19
7.2
2.10
26.7
0.97
1.03
-1.2
38.85
0.62
7.7
2.92
13.2
1.08
1.03
1.8
39.lt
C. 8 2
7.4
1.83
2 .P5
14.8
1 .03
l.Oi
-1.3
34 .56
0.69
49.0
21.^2
14.1
1.08
1.01
i.l
31. 35
0 .18
57.0
2 V .8.9
13.7
1.12
1.03
!J. . 4
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
"-C.
605-2A
606-24
«MALY
TICAL
2821
2816
2821
607-2A
2816
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
DATE
TIRE
FLAG
'JT X
WT *
UT %
0S/C8/76
1533
24.67
21.97
5.09
OS/09/7 6
153".
26.23
23.38
7.54
"8/1C/76
1530
23.4 9
21.72
7.32
r8/ll/76
153C
25.31
23.75
4.60
n?>/13/76
1530
25.64
24.25
3.73
"8/13/76
233 0
31.57
20.14
17.35
<••8/14/76
0730
24. H7
20.99
9.22
A8/14/7&
1530
23.47
1 9.90
8.18
08/1^/76
2330
23."0
19.DO
9.15
'3/15/76
0730
21.R6
16.75
10.«6
-S/15/7&
153 0
20.^3
17.55
8.f,6
cn/ic/76
233 C'
24 .55
21-81
6.4Q
or/i',/76
n730
27.52
23.30
12.60
08/16/76
1530
25.93
25.33
3.20
08/16/76
233"
24.90
24.34
3.67
"fc/17/76
073 3
22.38
20.30
6.33
08/17/76
1530
21 .70
lr-45
6.90
*6/17/76
233?
23.11
17.51
6.92
03/13/76
0730
2C.3 3
18.36
3.94
0 8/18/76
1345
23.15
22 .44
6.50
"8/13/76
1530
24.90
26.42
0.44
*,8/14/76
1530
22.51
19.54
6.26
0 5/15/76
1533
21.51
15.56
11.15
0P./16/76
I53C
24.26
22.44
2.88
03/17/76
1530
21. T6
19.IS
6.66
"8/16/76
1345
20.72
19.54
6.17
™/19/76
1600
21.75
20.63
6.32
r.8/19/76
2330
25.39
24.33
2.05
08/20/76
073P
22.26
23.14
0.3*
08/20/76
1530
24.58
25.52
0.04
0P./2 "3/76,
2330
25.44
26.06
2.46
08/21/76
0730
25.63
25.03
2.04
"8/21/76
153"
25.47
25.40
1.53
08/21/76
2332
23.16
24.32
7.78
So/22/76
0730
25.39
23.32
3.53
08/22/76
1530
25.59
25.97
1.39
R8/22/76
2330
25.34
21.89
4.21
03/23/75
3730
23. 60
18.0 9
7.4 3
18'23/76
1530
27.99
21 .19
8.24
°8/23/76
2330
23.21
19.61
6.17
23.25
19.SI
11.07
08/24/76
073D
26.15
21.71
C.34
26.79
21.71
6.34
OX I
SOLID
total
slusy
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
10 ,IC
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
1NS0L
IO'i
R AT 10
RATIO
IMSAL
WT X
WT X
WT X
ifT X
WT X
%
i.
-5 .<=
34.28
0.21
52. C
27.9 9
13.4
1 .05
1.01
4.1
34.04
0.88
3.1
3.69
11 .0
:. c 8
1.'5
2.6
42.52
1.21
8.0
2.78
4 0.8
1.06
1.05
0 . 8
35.45
0.44
7.6
2.32
3.3*
26.0
1.C0
1.02
-^.1
33.05
0.49
8.0
3.54
24.7
:.: i
1.03
-1.3
3? .97
0.43
8.0
3.8 4
27.7
i.ri
t • 0 ?
** ¦*.
; » ¦-
31.79
0.82
7.7
3.42
3.83
34.1
0.98
1.0 5
» C
m -¦
30. 89
0.33
P.2
¦a
29.0
o. = &
1.^2
^ o
3 3.66
2.27
8.1
3.6 4
19.0
1.04
1.12
-7,
37.97
0.71
7.4
2.23
2.88
33.2
1.03
1.03
0.1
34.86
1.40
".3
4.J 1
9.2
1.06
1.07
-1.1
34.09
1.04
7.8
3 . t"?
10.6
1.04
1.06
-1.2
32.20
1.02
7.6
3.72
21.2
1.01
1. 0.6
-'4.3
2'?.96
1.32
8.2
4.23
f 7 >¦»
£ .J • w
1.03
1.0°-
.5
2&.H0
0.99
7.4
3 . 01
24.0
1.15
1.0 6
7.2
26.B9
C .4 3
3.0
4.56
14.7
I .08
1.03
4.7
34.55
0.71
8.6
4.06
18.8
0.96
1.0 4
-8.4
33.46
0 .66
53.9
25.65
1.3
1.C6
1.04
3C.68
0.55
59.2
35.23
20.4
1.05
1.03
1 .4
30.60
0.82
59.9
3 0 . 8
36.4
*. = 8
1.05
-7.0
30.93
1.15
58.7
3.02
28.92
9.3
1.12
1.07
4.7
30.63
1.15
59.5
3.05
30.50
21.7
1.01
1.07
-0.3
30.59
0.82
60.0
31.65
20.2
0.97
1.0 5
-S..5
32.10
0.66
6.9
3.43
19.7
0 .9B
1.04
-6.7
33.08
0.38
R.5
4.3 3
6.2
1.10
l.n2
6.9
29.27
0.31
7.9
3.07
4.26
1.2
1.09
1.C2
S.l
31.93
0.13
7.5
3.73
0.1
1.10
1.01
8.3
35.03
0.32
8.0
3.62
7.0
1.04
1 • "4
-0.6
33.32
0.56
7.4
2.30
3.46
6.1
1.13
1.03
6.2
33.27
0.76
8.3
3.75
4.6
1.09
1.0 4
4.7
33.18
0.63
=w2
3.15
20.4
1.08
1.03
4.3
32.6?
0.72
7.7
2.35
3.58
10.?
1.13
1.04
a.c
33.85
0.63
7.3
3.80
3.62
4.1
1.08
1.03
4 .2
51.57
0.88
7.6
3.6?
13.3
1.15
1.05
8.3
30.03
0.65
7.5
2.89
3.7/
24.8
1.12
1.04
7.4
34.72
0.96
7.7
3.21
23.7
1.15
1.05
8.4
30.68
0.6 0
7.7
3.33
'in t
t. \/ • 1
1.08
1.04
4.1
35.58
0.60
31.1
0.93
1.03
-10.5
33.47
0.38
7 . G
2.14
3.18
18.9
1.12
1 .*2
8.5
33.47
C .38
18.9
1.14
1 .02
10.7
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
SUM
*0.
£07-24
AN'ALY
TICAL
POINT
2 sis
SOLIO
CAO
S02
d
I
t—>
00
508-24
2R25
2R16
2S25
SC8-2S 2J*16
OftTr
time plu g
lit X
UT X
08/24/76
1530
25
.28
23.71
08/24/76
2330
25
.IB
21.06
08/25/76
0530
22
.48
19.1ft
08/30/76
153 0
24
.26
20.74
0S/30/76
2330
25
.19
24.23
08/31/76
0730
24
.26
20. 34
24
.26
20.<*4
OP/31/76
1530
28
.47
25.16
24
.63
24.28
08/31/76
?33 0
25
.91
22.44
09/01/76
073P
29
.73
23.79
09/01/76
1530
26
.38
20.99
*9/01/76
2330
26
.82
2 3 .3
09/02/76
0730
25
.52
21.25
35
.73
21.25
09/02/76
157 0
23
.76
2b.24
C8/19/76
1600
25
.26
20.63
21
2C.63
23
.26
2C.63
fP/20/7&
1530
22
.40
22. 82
0P./21/76
1530
25
.30
24.53
0 8'22 '76
1530
22
.96
24.04
Oft/23/76
1530
25
.90
21.29
ro/24/76
1530
25
.30
23.80
o°./3o/76
1530
23
.71
19.21
08/31/76
1530
09/01/76
1530
09/02/76
3 53 0
09/33/76
1530
2/
.61
26.53
09/0 3/76
2330
29
.38
25.51
09/04/76
0730
2*
.97
24.SI
09/04/76
153?
28
.69
24.81
n9/04/7?.
2330
27
.21
22.07
09/35/76
0732
27
.00
24.8*.
09/05/76
1530
28
.54
26.15
f9/0^/76
2330
27
.95
23.34
C9/06/76
0 73 0
27
.35
23.16
09/06/76
1530
25
.24
20 .81
"9/03/76
C73 C
29
.36
28.64
09/03/76
1530
•J 9/04 /76
1530
09/9^/76
1530
09/06/76
1530
<59/07 '76
C330
29
.64
24.97
SO?
WT X
3.12
6.82
6.43
.33
2.51
6.60
6.60
7.71
0.61
3.S3
13.34
10.72
6.26
9.13
14.33
6.44
7.12
7.99
7.12
C . d 1
1.88
2.77
7.38
2. 95
8. 45
5.64
8.05
6.53
10.01
9.79
5.P2
6.45
8.19
7.55
7.34
9.39
CXI SOLID
TOTAL
sLimr
ACID
CALC
OAT
STOIC
?TCIC
10 'i I c
S03
C02
SOLIO
IMS?>L
INSOL
IO.V
&ATIO
RATIO
jvipAL
UT X
WT X
WT *
WT X
UT 5!
*
(CA)
C C ^ 3 >
*
-———_
—— —
—-
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
32.75
1.01
7.6
3.56
9.5
1 .10
1.06
4.2
33.14
0.75
7.1
3.28
20.6
1 .OR
1.04
a.O
30.40
1.16
7.1
2.55
3.60
21.1
1.06
1.07
-1.3
32.25
1.24
7.6
3.61
19.6
1.07
1.07
C.4
32.ee
0.b4
7.5
3.54
7.7
1.09
1.35
4 .4
32.6 5
l.CO
8.2
3.R4
20.2
1.06
1.06
0.5
32.65
1.0 6
8.2
2.57
3.37
20.2
1.06
1.06
0 .2
39.15
1.4 6
7.5
3.8 3
2.79
19.7
1 .04
1.07
-2.9
3 0.9ft
1.4 6
2.0
3.14
1 . 0?
4.4
32. CC
1.13
7.9
3.66
12.4
1.1?
1 .Of
7.9
43.57
0.94
8.6
2.09
2.73
31.8
0.97
1.04
-6.7
36.95
1.27
8.2
3.33
29.0
1.C2
1.06
-4.2
36.11
1.04
8.6
5.61
17.3
1.06
1.05
0 .7
35.69
1.13
8.2
2.06
3.52
25.6
1.02
1.06
-3.6
40.54
1.13
~t ~ . a
1.25
1.C5
15.7
3 9.23
1.58
8.5
3.14
IS.4
1.05
1 .n7
-2.5
32. 90
0. 66
58.0
33.35
23.04
21.6
1.01
1.04
-2.7
33.77
0.60
58.0
33.35
2 8.30
23.7
0.93
1.03
-11. C
32. SC
0.66
21.6
1.01
1.04
-2.7
25.C3
0.20
62. 0
33.53
1.3
1.10
1.01
r . 1
32.54
0.92
57.0
27.00
5.8
1.11
1 .05
K .3
30.82
0.76
54.0
27.78
2.5
1.06
1.04
1 .8
33.99
0.86
52.0
2 5.23
21.7
1.03
1.25
3.5
32. 7 C
1.18
55.0
25.72
9.0
1.10
1.07
3.5
32.46
1.25
54 .0
25.59
26.0
1.04
1.07
-r> .6
3 y • 80
1.55
14.8
5.72
14.5
1.02
1.0 7
—5 . 6
39.93
0.82
14.5
5.26
20.2
1.05
1.04
1 .2
37.29
1.15
14.5
4.33
5.91
17.5
1.0 3
1 .06
-2.3
41.02
1.01
15.7
5.57
24.4
1.00
1.04
-4.6
37.37
0.94
14 .
5.30
26.2
1.0*
1.05
-0.6
3f .89
1.43
15.4
4.53
6.30
15.8
1.04
1.07
-?.5
39.13
0.94
14.9
5.65
16.5
1.04
1 .04
-0.2
37.36
1.04
13.4
5.2°
21.9
1.07
1.05
1 .6
36.50
1.12
15.0
4.59
6.12
20.7
1.07
1 .06
1.3
33.35
1.36
14.1
6.3 8
22.0
1 . Cf>
1 .07
U . 6
41.27
1.50
15.2
3.99
5.2 6
12.7
1.0 3
1.0 7
-3.2
40 .60
1.27
15.5
5.38
23.1
1.04
1.06
-1.4
-------
SOLIO ANALYSES
"UN
NO.
ANALY
7ICAI
POINT
fcO?-2B 2816
CJ
I
sO
2825
609-26 2816
SOLIf*
CAO
S02
S03
DftTE
TIME
FLAG
MT X
WT X
WT X
"9/07/76
0730
26.09
25.69
2.22
09/07/76
1130
^9/07/76
1530
28.70
27.93
3.27
09/07/76
1839
"9/0 7/76
2330
30.14
28.67
5.65
09/08/76
1550
28.27
25.31
5.27
f")/CS/76
2333
25.54
27 .3*3
4.55
09/09/76
073?
27.42
25.£-9
5.33
"9/C9/76
1600
27.75
24.51
7.01
0«/C5/76
?330
25.3 3
24.2C
2.41
*9/10/75
C'730
25.73
21.17
7.S3
r9/10/76
1530
27.82
24 .61
4.43
"9/1G/76
2330
23.0 3
25. £8
4.31
09/11/76
Q73Q
26.10
26.31
2.65
*9/11/76
1530
27.75
26.7$
5.27
05/11/76
2330
27.42
27.15
2.61
0773
27.94
29.41
?.51
09/12/76
1533
29.20
23.=.9
4.SO
09/12/76
2333
X
38.58
29.37
11.39
*9/13/76
06C0
27.5P.
27.87
-0.04
C9/C8/76
153D
*9/0^/76
1603
^9/10/76
1530
09/11/76
1530
09/12/76
153 3
59/15/76
153"
26.20
26.42
1.59
09/1J/76
2330
30.63
28.06
8.33
09/14/76
0730
29.C9
28.76
1.31
09/14/76
1530
25.92
26.78
0.37
26.60
C . 17
09/14/76
2330
26.20
26,60
3.53
09/15/75
0730
24.09
22.57
2.08
09/15/76
1345
C9/15/76
1600
24.10
22.09
2.<55
09/15/76
2330
21.90
19.90
3.70
09/lf/?6
0730
20.66
20.45
1.36
09/l*/76
155*
23.33
23.54
0.83.79
7.15
ro/lf/76
155'j
2fc.l 4
23. n
5.47
D?/l*/76
2332
24.33
23.3*
4.05
OX I SOLIO
TOTAL
SLURY
ACI9
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
I0\IC
S03
CO 2
SOLID
IK-SOL
I-iSOL
IOM
RATIO
RATIO
IN3 5.L
'JT X
«!T X
UT n
KT 2
'.'7 X
r
t C" >
(CC3J
*r
34.33
1.40
15.3
4.43
6.92
6.5
1 . C 8
1 • 7
1.0
38.1£
1.07
15.3
5.97
8.6
1.07
1.05
2.1
41. 48
1.12
15.6
5.37
13.6
1.^4
1 .05
-1.1
36.90
1-02
15.1
6 • 0
14.3
1 .09
1.05
* .0
38.41
1.5R
14.7
5.62
11.9
i.e.
1 .07
-1.5
37.50
1.43
14.0
4.55
5.SI
2.4.a
1 . 0^
1.07
-
37.64
1 o 1
L • C. £
15.1
5.37
18.«¦
1.05
i .r-F.
— - . >
32.66
i .54
14.S
£.71
7.4
1.17
1.39
'¦ *\
34.35
1.76
14.3
5.08
6.21
23.1
1.0 7
1.09
35.19
1.59
15.1
6.2 7
12.6
1.13
1.35
4.1
36.15
1.66
14.2
5.74
13.3
1.11
1.08
• JL
35.53
1.84
14.5
4. SI
6.25
7.5
1.05
1 .09
. i
33.74
1 .<(2
14.5
5.7b
13.6
1 .C2
1.07
-a.-,
36.54
1.52
14.8
6.11
7.1
1.07
1 .38
"
38.C2
1.63
14.3
4.19
5.25
f .6
1.C5
1.08
•N i*
L. • J
40.23
1.42
14.4
5.23
11.2
1.04
1.36
¦ 2.7
48.22
1.67
15.4
2.89
24.7
1.14
1 .06
6 .9
34.79
0.65
4.19
-0.1
1.13
1 .03
d.6
34.61
0.25
7.3
3.3?
4.6
1.08
1.01
6.3
43. 1C
0.48
S.S
2.72
1&.6
1.C1
1.32
-0.6
37,25
0.31
8.7
2.24
3.61
3.5
1. 08
1 .02
5.7
33.84
0.20
7.8
3.65
1.1
1.09
1 .01
7.6
33.41
0.5
36.77
C . 94
8.0
3.4?
9.6
1.02
1.05
-2.?
30.29
0.75
a.2
3.14
4.14
6.9
1.14
1.C5
c . 0
3C.46
0.66
7.7
3.37
9.4
1.13
1.04
6 . 0
28.57
0.25
8.0
4.34
1 ?.9
1.09
1.32
7.?
26.32
0.17
e.i
2.92
4.65
5.1
1.10
1.31
7.7
30.05
0.63
7.7
3.99
2.9
1.11
1.04
6.5
34. 87
0.29
8.0
3.74
13.7
3.97
1.02
-4.4
29.60
0.29
8.0
3.74
6.8-
1.39
1 .02
26.8
35.54
£ .50
7.4
2.40
3.2r,
12.8
1.05
1.33
35. fit
0.38
7.8
3 . 4
10.7
1.06
1.02
I
37.66
0.50
7.1
2.3 7
17.7
C .93
1.02
-3.""
36. 88
0.56
8.5
2.3".
3.6'
1^.4
n.97
1.03
-'.7
35.1SJ
i, . 5 b
8.2
3.61
15.6
1.C6
1 .->3
'.a
33.22
0.13
7.6
3 . 6 f
12.2
1.05
1.01
5.7
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
PUN
NO.
ANALY
TIC6L
609-2A 2816
2825
61C-2A
SOLID
CAO
S02
SO 3
OATr
time
FLAG
WT X
vt x
WT X
0*3/19/76
0730
24.77
22.84
4.35
09/19/76
1530
24.17
22.62
4.39
09/19/76
2330
26.31
26.53
3.11
09/20/76
0730
22.71
21.35
3.85
05/20/76
1530
22.07
19.62
5.84
09/20/76
2330
20.74
1ft.27
6.99
09/21/76
0730
25.69
22.07
6.78
09/21/76
1530
23.40
20.43
3.99
09/21/76
2330
23.51
19.8 4
8.52
C^/22/76
0730
2fs .79
24.81
6. fcQ
0 9/22/76
1530
24.35
25.87
3.81
05/22/76
2330
22.46
22.02
5.34
r9/23/76
0 733
25.05
22.07
9.06
19/23/76
1530
25.73
2?.62
7.01
09/23/76
23 3 C
22 .20
20.74
6.14
09/24/76
0500
19.^9
19.18
3.23
09/13/76
1530
09/14/76
1530
09/15/76
1600
09/16/76
1530
09/17/76
1530
09/l*i/76
1530
09/19/76
1530
09/20/76
1530
¦39/21/76
1530
09/22/76
1530
C9/23/76
1530
09/24/76
1530
20.42
19.54
3.14
09/24/76
2330
24.23
24.79
0.85
09/25/76
0730
24.60
24.61
4.10
C9/25/76
1530
25.38
24.£1
4.52
09/25/76
2330
23.77
24.57
0.98
09/26/76
0730
23.73
22.62
2.GO
09/26/76
1530
24.57
25.1 5
1.16
09/2*/76
2330
28.55
28.95
3.00
0n/27/76
C730
23.33,
24.?5
0.67
09/27/76
1530
23.17
24. C 7
3.57
09/2$/76
?33C
25.74
24.97
2.63
0°/2-/76
0730
26.79
27.03
1.45
09/25/76
1530
24.60
25.33
0.81
09/29/76
2330
24.27
24.61
1 .20
*9/30/76
0730
24.53
23.51
2.49
"9/30/76
1530
24.63
22.44
4.IS
C9/3G/76
2330
25.43
24. J7
3.2C
mmm
0730
25.60
25.CI
4.7r>
OX I
SOLID
total
SLURY
ACID
CALC
nAT
STDIC
STOIC
IONIC
S03
C02
SOLID
insol
INSOL
ION
RATIO
RATIO
IM°»L
WT X
WT X
UT X
UT X
UT *
X
(C03>
X
.
-—--
- - - —
——---
-----
-
-----
32.90
0.41
8.5
2 . Q1
4.05
1 J.2
l.C-7
1.02
4.9
33.16
0.60
8.1
3.8?
14.7
1.0"
1 .03
0.7
36.27
C .50
7.9
3.44
3.6
1.04
1 .03
1.0
30.53
0.67
8.1
3.23
4.17
12.6
l.ce
1 .04
2.1
30.36
0.61
7.6
3.94
19.2
1.C4
1.04
0.1
29.82
0.44
8.6
4 .61
23.4
0.99
1.03
-T.4
34.36
0.32
7.5
2.67
3.37
19.7
1.07
1 .03
3.7
34.52
0.52
e.i
3.7°
26.0
0.97
1.03
-6.2
33.32
0.55
7.9
3.76
25.6
1.01
1.03
-2.3
37.81
0.41
8.0
3.C2
3.30
1&.0
1.01
1.02
-0.8
36.14
u.35
8.6
3.92
1C.5
0.96
1.02
-«S.8
32.86
0.42
8.3
4.13
15.2
0.98
1.02
-4.9
36.64
0.40
7.6
3.21
3.30
24.7
0.96
1.C2
-4.5
36. 08
Q .62
8.4
3.63
21.6
1.C2
1.03
-1.3
32.06
0.37
8.7
4.40
19.1
n.oT
1*02
-3.3
27.25
0.26
8.5
3.63
4.91
12.0
1.02
1.02
0.4
27.56
0.43
8.4
4.74
11.4
1.06
1.03
2.8
31.83
0.70
8.0
3.96
2.7
1.09
1.04
4.3
34.66
0.62
8.1
2.52
3.73
11.8
1.01
1.0 3
-2.5
35.28
0.50
8.4
I .78
12.8
1.C3
1.03
0.1
31.69
0.66
7.7
3.85
3.1
1.07
1.04
3.1
30.27
0.46
7.9
2.91
4.04
6.6
1.12
1.03
8.2
32.59
0.49
8.1
3.94
3.6
1.08
1.03
4.5
39.18
0 . b7
7.6
2.96
7.7
1 • C 4
1.03
1.3
30.96
0.T5
8.0
2.67
4.13
2.'
1.06
1
4.0
33.65
0 • ij 4
7.9
3 .6°
10.6
1.0 7
1.03
3.6
34.C4
0.59
8.3
3. SI
8.3
1.08
1.0 3
^.4
35.27
0.76
7.6
2.12
3.43
4.2
1.03
1.04
4.2
32.47
0.93
7.8
3.77
2.5
1.08
1.06
2.4
31.96
0.66
8.0
3 .94
3.8
1.08
1.04
4.3
31.67
C .9 8
7.6
2.52
3.6°
T.P
i.ic
1.06
3.9
22.23
0.S0
8.2
3.9 3
13.0
1 .09
1 .r5
4 . ?.
34.41
0.67
7.8
3.5 7
9.3
1.06
1.C4
1.9
36.0b
1.0 6
fc. 3
2.85
3.61
13.3
1.01
1.C5
-1.9
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
!VC.
610-2A
ANALY
TICAL
POINT DATE
2616
G
I
»-*
U|
2821
2825
611-2A
2816
10/01/76
1C/01/76
10/02/76
10/02/76
10/02/76
13/03/76
1C/OS/76
10/03/76
1n/04/76
1C/C4/76
10/04/76
1C/C5/76
10/Ce/76
10/CV76
10/06/76
1C/Ce/76
10/06/76
13/C7/76
09/27/76
?e/29/76
C9/?*/76
"9/25/76
C9/26/76
09/27/76
09/2?>76
C 5/30/76
10/01/76
J 0'02/76
10/33/76
10/C4/76
10/05/76
10/06/76
1C/0 7/76
18/07/76
10/08/76
10/08/76
1C/09/76
10/09/76
10/09/76
10/09/76
13/10/76
10/10/76
10'10/76
1C/11/76
lf/11/76
SOLID
Tift FLAG
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
C73C
1530
233 r
05C0
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
C73G
1530
2330
0730
1530
153 0
1530
153 C
2330
1530
1530
1530
1530
153"
1535
1530
1014
1530
1530
2330
C730
1530
2330
0730
1530
2330
0730
153C
2330
0750
1530
OXI
SOLI?
TOTAL
SL'JRY
ACID
CALC
OAT
ST1IC
^ T 0 T C
TCMC
CAO
S02
S03
S03
C02
SOLID
INSOL
INSOL
IC'i
=>ATIC
'.AT 10
I^-AL
y t *
WT X
WT 2
VT *
WT X
JT %
UT %
vT X
X
(CO?*
_____
.....
¦
-
_—...
— -
—
—
2?.13
24.61
3.78
34.54
1.03
7.8
3.55
11.0
1.04
1-05
-1.5
23.34
21.35
3.03
29.76
0.90
8.7
ft.*7
10.3
1.12
1.5 6
5.8
25.00
22.62
3.6P
31.95
1.04
8.3
2.95
3.96
11.5
3 .12
1.C6,
5.2
23.42
22.30
2.23
3C.20
1.08
P..C
4.07
7.7
* * «
A • X a
l.C-7
? .P.
22.42
21.57
1.5S
28.54
0.79
8.1
4.35
5.5
1.12
l."5
f .3
21.97
19.54
4.C3
28.45
0.71
7.6
2.92
4.0?
14.2
1.10
l.?5
5.2
19. 99
17.96
2.97
25.42
0.S5
7.4
4.31
11.7
1.12
1.06
5.5
22.26
IB. 09
5.51
2P.12
0.93
7.7
4.1u
19.6
1.13
1.36
6.2
24.42
22.15
3.84
31 .52
0.74
7.9
2.91
3.86
12.2
1.11
1 .04
¦=..7
24.31
22.05
3.08
30.64
C.91
7.2
3.57
10.1
1.13
1.05
S.9
22.97
22.07
3.77
31.35
3.66
7.9
3.99
12.0
1.05
1.04
3.7
22.El
20.75
3.84
29.77
0.51
7.4
2.39
3.8 c,
12.9
1 .08
1.0 3
19.19
IS.81
2.49
26.00
0.76
7.6
4.47
9.6
1.05
1.05
. £
20.56
19.78
1.66
26.38
0.89
7.6
".34
6.3
1.11
1.06
4 .6
22.48
22.44
0.87
2f>.92
0.47
7.6
1.84
4.0 8
3 . 0
1.11
1.03
7.2
22.93
21.11
2.51
28.89
0.91
f.l
4.26
8.7
1.13
1.C6
.',.7
21.12
21.35
0.25
26.93
0.68
7.3
4.1?
0.9
1.12
1.05
6.6
21.50
20.SI
0.63
26.84
1.02
6.0
2.36
4.47
3.1
1.14
1 .07
o . 5
25.51
24.54
2.R9
33.56
0.50
52.2
1.0 3
24.31
8.6
1.09
1 .C-3
5.4
26.29
26.49
2.68
35.79
0.99
53.1
9.4*
23.13
7.5
1 .05
1.0 5
-0.2
20.44
2C.18
3.64
25.86
0.98
7.3
22.75
18.32
6.31
29.21
0.80
7.3
21.64
17.91
6.CI
2S.39
0.55
8.7
20.56
14.29
7.60
25.46
0 .77
8.0
21.75
16.67
7.47
26.30
0.99
6.9
24.33
16.64
10.93
31.73
0.71
8.3
27.70
19.18
13.27
37.24
0.60
6.3
23.04
18.09
6.63
29.24
1.54
6.3
24.95
16.64
12.20
33. CO
0.60
8.1
22.21
16.10
8.79
26.91
0.66
8.4
24.75
21.89
5.17
3?. 53
o.sa
7.8
25.46
17.55
12.68
34.61
3.16
7.5
21.95
17.41
7.68
29.44
0.61
8.4
2.36
2.93
2.33
2.51
4.22
2.5
1.13
1.07
5.3
3.72
21.6
1.11
1.05
5.6
4.69
21.2
1 .09
1.0 4
4.9
4.54
29.9
1.15
1.06
5.5
3.67
26.4
1.10
1.06
3.1
3.93
34.5
1.09
1.04
4.9
3.26
35.6
1.06
1.C3
3.1
4.21
22.7
1.12
1.10
2.6
3.69
37.0
1.C3
1.03
4.3
4.39
30.4
1.10
1.04
5.3
3.6°
15.9
1.09
1-05
' .4
3.3 0
37.C
1.04
1.01
3.4
4.40
26.1
2.06
1.0 4
2.5
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
ANAL Y
"UN
NO.
511-2 A
612-2A
0
1
UT
613-2A
TICAL
SOLID
CAO
SQ2
S03
POINT
date
tike
FLAG
WT X
WT X
WT %
2916
10/11/76
2330
25.36
14.07
20.73
25. 86
13.46
19.81
10/12/76
C530
23.93
18.64
ft.73
2825
10/07/76
153C
10/08/76
1530
10 /C9/76
1530
1C/1C/76
1530
10/11/76
1530
2816
10/12/76
1539
24.83
16.83
11.74
10/12/76
232 0
24.50
18.64
9.59
1P '13 '76
073 D
23.63
17.21
9.25
10/13/76
1530
25. *5
19.00
9.8 3
10/13/76
237.0
25.42
16.59
11.85
1 cm/76
0730
24.37
15.53
13.63
10/14'76
1530
24.76
19.18
8.11
10/14/75
233 0
26.23
20.26
9.72
10/15/76
C73C
24.59
16.95
11. 80
10/15/76
1530
26.15
18.09
12.33
10/15/76
2330
21.00
17.CI
7.03
10/16/76
0730
27.10
19.79
11.22
10/16/76
153 0
25.39
19.48
10.65
i0/ir./76
2530
23.97
18.33
9.06
1C/l7/76
0 73?
23.92
18.62
8.83
10/17/76
153 0
21.76
17.05
8.34
10/17/76
233 2
24.00
17.73
9.64
10/1K/76
073 0
23.72
18.09
8.96
2825
10/12/76
1530
10/13/76
1530
10/14/76
1530
10/15/76
3 53 0
10/16/76
1530
10/17/76
1530
2816
10/18/76
1933
27.91
25.35
5.40
1C /18/76
2330
19.72
19.54
1.71
10/19/76
0730
2S.22
20.63
13.45
10/19/76
1530
28.36
17.73
17.23
10/19/76
2330
22.42
14.31
12.91
1C/20/76
0730
23.13
15.56
11.24
10/20/76
1530
21.48
15.99
7.59
10/23/76
2330
22.95
15.36
10.02
10'21/76
0730
23.81
17.01
11.57
2825
10/18/76
193 0
10/19/76
1530
10/20/76
153P
10/52/76
1550
21.9*
20.99
0.84
OXI
SOLID
TOTAL
SLUR Y
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
IOMIC
S03
C02
SOLID
IHSOL
I iV SOL
IOM
AT 10
r< A T T 0
I^"«L
UT X
yT x
WT X
UT
WT X
X
1 CA>
X
36.31
0.16
7.5
2.94
54.1
0.95
1.01
-1.6
36.63
0.16
54.1
1.01
1.01
0.0
32.03
0.77
8.9
3.33
4.27
27.3
1.07
1.04
2.1
32.77
0.11
8.2
3.81
35.8
1.08
1.01
7.0
32.89
0.11
7.4
3.49
29.2
1.06
1.01
c .4
30.76
0.27
9.2
3.31
4.57
30.1
1.10
1.02
7.4
33.58
0.33
8.1
3 .64
29.3
1.10
1.02
7.4
33.08
0.16
8.6
3.92
35.8
1.10
1.01
p.. 0
31.14
0.35
8.0
2.71
3.S3
37.9
1.11
1.02
P.4
32.08
0.66
7.0
3.31
25.3
1.10
1.0 4
•3.8
35.C4
0.33
8.0
3 .48
27.7
1.07
1.02
".8
32.58
Q .53
8.1
2.70
3.74
35.8
1.06
1.03
3.3
34.94
C.16
7.1
3.07
35.3
1.C7
1.31
5.6
2£ . 34
0.49
8.4
4.57
2^.3
1.C6
1.03
2.5
35.95
0.23
7.9
2.32
3.29
31.2
1.08
1.01
6.0
35.CO
0.32
7.4
3.23
30. *
1.06
1.0 2
^.7
31.97
0.49
8.5
4.09
28.3
1.07
1.03
4.0
32.10
0.34
8.2
2.91
3.96
27.5
1.06
1.0 2
4.2
29.65
0.16
7.6
4.00
2 8.1
l.r.5
1.01
7 r
1 *
31. BC
0.44
7.6
3.66
30.3
1.08
1.0 3
4.9
31.57
0.42
8.C
2.54
3.91
28.4
1.07
1.02
a.5
37.08
0.44
8.4
3.44
14.6
1.07
1.02
4.9
26.13
0.27
7.9
4 .64
6.5
1.08
1.02
5.4
39.23
0.71
7.6
•
CM
2.81
34.3
1.C3
1.C3
-0.6
39.39
0.16
8.4
3.07
43.7
1.03
1.C1
2.0
30.79
0.46
8.3
4.14
41.9
1.04
1 .03
1.2
30.69
0.77
8.7
1.87
4.29
36.6
1.08
1.05
2.8
27.57
0.35
6.9
3.77
27.5
1.11
1.02
8.0
29.22
0.78
8.1
4.12
34.3
1.12
1.05
6.5
32.83
0.33
8.4
3.20
3.97
35.2
1.04
1.02
1.7
27.07
1.15
4.0
2.20
3.1
1.16
1.03
7.1
-------
solid analyses
"UN
SG.
614-2A
JNALY
T1CSL
POINT
2316
0
1
i—
un
W
615-2*
2816
2825
SOLID
CAO
S02
SO 3
CAT
tihe
FLAG
W'T «
WT X
WT 3
10/22/76
233 C
26.40
24,54
2.95
10/23/76
073 0
22.62
20 .63
2.47
22.60
20.63
1.87
10/23/76
1530
2".63
21.53
5.?w
10/23/76
233 0
23.73
20.6 4
4.45
10/2 4/76
0 73 0
23.40
19.36
5.10
10/24/7 6
1539
22.41
la.00
5. 23
l"s/2"/76
2330
23.93
21.43
3.49
10/25/76
5930
22.55
1 9 .54
3.>55
10/25/76
1530
23.67
21.35
3.2-3
ltt/25/76
2330
23.73
23.77
C.c0
10/26/76
C73C
24.51
22.73
2.33
10/26/76
1530
25.97
21.7?
5.93
lC/2«./76
2330
26.9V
25.31
3.28
10/27/76
0 730
27.62
25.41
2.39
10/27/76
1530
25. 72
24.23
5.49
10/27/76
?33S
23.43
22.78
1.01
IP '2?./76
0730
22.55
20.79
3.56
10/26/76
1530
20.B2
22.42
1.57
10/26/76
2330
23.82
24.22
3.31
10/29/76
0730
24.2?
21.42
6.59
10/29/76
1530
25. 29
22.35
5.12
10/25/76
2330
23.34
18.45
7.36
ir/3^/76
0 730
20.11
16.2a
6.32
10/30/76
1530
20.36
17.65
4.47
10/?,(;/76
2330
IV. "JO
16.64
6.26
11/B1/76
1530
m.54
15.56
11/G1/76
?330
19.81
18.45
2.16
11/02/76
0 730
£2.47
13.IF
5.74
11/02/76
153C
22.57
21. Si4
4.02
11/02/75
2730
22.71
18. «5
P..7S
11/OS/76
C730
23.«2
20.48
6..1
4.11
3.6
1,12
1 .05
6.1
28 • 2*
0-33
6.1
3.C5
4.37
*: .7
1.14
I .02
1C . 7
27.65
0.4 9
6.?
1.17
1.0 3
11.5
32.0.9
0.60
? • 6
3 .9ft
la.2
1.11
1.03
7.1
30.25
0.73
a. 2
4.14
14.7
1.12
1.04
6.6
29.30
1.15
n.e
2.44
4 . 0
17.4
1 .14
1.37
6.0
2A.98
G.B2
7.6
4.10
1S »1
1.10
1 .05
4 .?
30.24
0.75
8.1
4.08
11.6
1.13
1.05
7.5
2ii. 3 7
3.63
7.8
2.42
4 .1 6
3 3.9
1.13
1.34
6.5
29.57
0.66
3.0
4 • 0 o
11.0
1. 13
1 . 0&
T.Ji
3C.51
3.S3
3 . C
4 .07
2.6
1.11
1 .05
~ . 6
30.71
0.77
7. S
2.64
3.82
7.5
1.14
1 .05
S.2
33.10
0.99
7.'?
3.56
18.1
1.12
1.0 5
*
34.91
2.00
S.3
3.5 2
*) »4
1 .10
1.1 C
f r.
t .'J
34.65
O.ft 3
7.8
3. 37
S.3
1 .14
".0 4
0 "*
t ' • -
35.77
0.22
S.O
3.55
15.3
1.03
1.01
1 .5
25.48
0.63
8.5
4.43
3.4
1.13
1.G4
P .4
29.54
0.35
5.1
3.55
4.80
12.0
1 .09
1.02
6.0
29.59
3.55
?,.&
4.R1
5.3
1. CO
1 . 03
-2.9
33.58
1.65
7.7
~. 62
9.9
1.31
1.0?
-7.6
33.36
0.41
7.5
2 .4P
3.55
19.8
1.0a
1.02
1 .6
33.30
0.02
5.4
3.91
15.4
1 . 0c'
1.0 3
r . ^
33.42
3.71
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
AN ALT
RUK
T1CAL
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
KC.
POINT
date
time
flag
WT X
WT X
WT X
-------
-----
-----
S15-2A
2825
11/02/76
2530
11/03/76
0730
616-2A
2816
11/0*5/76
2330
17.61
15.45
0.90
11/06/76
0730
22.32
20.45
1.50
11/06/76
1530
23.15
19.54
2.26
23.16
19.54
2.79
11/06/76
2330
25.77
20.26
7.12
11/07/76
0730
22.12
18.27
5.57
11/07/76
1530
24.22
21.39
3.94
11/07/76
2330
26.74
23.36
3.83
n/oe/76
C73C
23.46
19.33
4.37
11/08/76
1530
24.64
22.44
2.28
11/06/76
2330
24.70
23.16
2.93
11'09/76
0730
25.41
21.99
7.30
11/09/76
1530
19.50
20.26
1.14
11/09/76
2330
28.46
23.70
1C.49
0
11/10/76
0730
24.93
19.15
10.74
1
11/10/76
1530
21.29
19.54
4.96
M
Ul
11/10/76
2330
26.60
19.32
12.32
*-
11'11/76
0730
23.20
19.45
7.60
11/11/76
1730
19.01
19.90
1.11
11/11/76
2333
27.03
23.52
8.85
11/12/76
0730
30.74
24.56
11.91
11/12/76
1530
30.38
22.07
13.91
11/12/76
2330
25.24
20.45
10.76
11/13/76
0730
26.56
21.46
9.84
2825
11/05/76
2330
11/06/76
0730
11/06/76
1530
11/06/76
2330
11/07/76
0730
11/07/76
1530
11/07/76
2330
11/08/76
073P
11/08/76
1530
11/0P/76
2330
11/09/76
0730
11/09/76
1530
ll/0<*/76
2330
11/10/76
0730
11/10/76
1530
11/10/76
2330
11/11/76
0730
11/11/76
1730
11/11/76
2330
0X1
SOLID
total
SLURY
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
IONIC
S03
C02
SOLID
insol
JMSCL
ION
RATIO
RATIO
1MB AL
WT X
WT X
WT X
WT X
X
¥
(CA>
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
RUN
NO.
SMALV
TICAL
616-2A 2825
617-2A 2816
a
¦«'
Ol
o»
2»25
SOLID
CAO
S02
S03
OATE
TIME
FLAG
UT X
•JT X
WT X
11/12/76
0730
11 '12/76
1530
11/12/76
2330
11/13/76
0730
11/15/76
1930
25.88
25.01
2.97
11/15/76
2323
25.46
22.80
4.02
11/16/76
0730
24.11
22.44
2.03
11/lf/76
153 0
26.37
25.15
2.06
11/1^/76
?33C
26.50
25.46
2.70
11/17/76
073?!
25.27
22.44
5.21
11/17/76
1530
27.77
25.41
2.98
11/17/76
2333
26.24
23.34
2.83
11/18/76
P 730
23.73
20.26
5.21
ll/lfi/76
1733
24.63
19.18
6.78
11 'IS/76
2 530
24 .72
23.42
1.85
11/19/76
2930
25.87
19.90
4.24
11/19/76
1530
22.68
20. P.l
2.13
11/19/76
2330
23.68
22.SO
1.68
11/20/76
C73r;
22.62
20.63
3.5C
11/20/76
1530
24.16
21.89
4.45
11/2S/76
233 0
25.69
22.80
5.09
11/21/76
0730
23.37
21 .35
2.66
11/21/76
1530
25.39
23.16
3.75
11/21/76
2330
27.79
23.89
5.26
11/22/76
P73G
23.39
22.26
2.13
11/15/76
J93T
11/11/76
2330
11/16/76
0730
11/16/76
153P
11/16/76
2330
11/17/76
0730
11/I7/76
1530
11/17/76
2330
11 /18/7S
0730
11/19/76
1730
11/18/76
233 0
11/19/76
0930
11/19/76
1530
11/19/76
2330
11/20/76
073D
11/20/76
1530
11/20/76
2330
11/21/76
0730
0X1
SOLID
total
SLUSY
ACID
CALC
DAT
STOIC
STOIC
IOMC
S03
C02
SOL 10
1NS3L
lN'SOL
ION
SSTIO
RATIO
IWE4L
UT X
UT 5!
WT X
UT X
WT X
X
< CA )
V
34 .23
1.15
10.3
4 .8 S
8.7
1.03
1.06
1.7
32.52
0.99
15.5
7.24
12.4
1.12
1.06
5.6
30 .OF
0.93
ft.l
3.11
4.09
6.8
1.14
1.06
7.7
33.49
0.71
14.3
6.54
6.1
1.12
1.04
7.6
34.52
1.07
14.4
6.38
7.3
1.10
1.06
3.6
33.26
1.26
14.a
4.92
6 «7p.
15.7
1.08
1.^7
1 .5
34 .74
1.14
15.2
6.49
8.6
1.14
1 .0 6
7.1
32.00
1.32
14.0
6.48
a.8
1.17
1.0 8
8.2
3C.53
1.04
15.3
5.43
7.61
17.1
1.11
1.06
4.3
3D.75
1.26
15.1
7.27
22.0
1.14
1 .07
6.0
31 .12
1.17
15.5
7.t.7
5.9
1.13
1.07
5.8
29.11
1.15
14.0
5.52
7.12
14. 6
1.17
1.07
5.4
28.19
i.10
14.6
7.74
7.7
1.16
1.C7
/.6
30. IB
1.04
15.1
7.67
5.6
1.12
1.C6
5.1
29 «2fi
1.10
14.9
5.7?
7.77
11.9
1.10
1.07
3.1
31 .81
0.93
15.2
7 . 3 ^
14.&
1. 08
1.05
2.9
33.59
1.70
14.8
6.62
15.?
1.09
1.09
0.0
29.34
1.70
14.7
6.01
7.49
9.1
1.14
1.11
2.6
32.70
0.93
14.7
6.80
11.5
1.13
1.05
7.0
35.12
1.09
14.5
6.09
15.0
1.13
1.C6
6.5
29.95
1.54
14.7
4.96
7.45
7.1
1.11
1.09
1.9
-------
SOLID ANALYSES
ANALV
RUN TICAL
NO. POINT DATE
SOL 10
TlHE FLAG
CAO
UT X
S02
WT X
SOS
UT
617-2A 2825 11/21/76 1530
11/21/76 2330
11/22/76 0730
TOTAL SLURY
S03 C02 SOLID
WT X WT X UT *
OXI
ACID
CALC
DAT
INSOl
INSOL
ION
WT X
UT X
X
SOLID
STOIC STOIC IONIC
R ATI?- RATIO IHBAL
«CA> (C03> X
-------
APPENDIX E
TEST RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES FOR
THE VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER
-------
Table E-l
SUMMARY OF LIME/MGO TESTS ON THE
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run No.
629-1A
630.1A
631-1A
632-1A
Start-of-Run Data
4/28/76
5/12/76
5/18/76
5/28/76
End-of-Run Date
5/12/16
5/16/76
5/24/76
6/4/76
On Stream Hours
267
142
145
151
Ga* Rat*. acfm @ 330°F
35, 000
35,000
35,000
35,000
Spray TowerGas Vel. ft,e®125°F
9,4
9.4
9.4
9. 4
V«nturi/Spr»y Towsr
Liquor Rates, gpm
600/1400
600/1400
600/700
min. (-v HOWUOQ
Spray Tower L/C. aal/mcf
SO
50
25
50
P*rcent Solid# Recirculated
7-10
6-9
7-10
8-9
Effluent Residence Time. min.
3
3
3
3
Solide Disposal System
Clarifler fc Filter
Clarlfier fc Filter
Clarlfier k Filter
Clarifler It Filter
Stoichiometric Retlo, moles Ca
added/mole SO2 absorbed
0.95-1. 05
0.98-1. 03 {b)
I. 0-1. 05^
1.0-1.03
99(d)
Inlet SO2 Concentration, ppm
2300-3900
2400-3900
2300-3700
2200-3300
Percent S07 Removal
66-65
86-98
58-90
72-92
Serubber Inlet pH Range
5.8-6. 2
6.9-7.2
6.9-7. 1
6.8-7.2
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
5.0-5. 3
5.2-5.6
5. 1-5.4
5. 1-5. 3
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
10-30
10-20
10-25
10-25
Loop Closure, % Solid* pischg.
52-60
50-56
53-59
52-56
Calculated Avg. % Sulfate Saturation
in Scrubber Inlet Liquor 6 S0°C
75
25
50
20
Total DUsolved Solids, ppm
15.000-23.000
17.000-20.000
18,000-25, 000
19,000-22,000
Total AP Range, Excluding Mist
Elimination System.in. H20
13.2-13.9
12.9-13.9
13.0-13.9
6.6-7.6
Venturi A P. In. H2O
9
9
9
2.5-3.0 (Plug 100% open)
Mist Elimination System AP
Range, ivt. l^O
0. 40-0.55
0.40-0.50
0.40.0. 48
0.40-0.45
Mist Elimination
System Configuration
3-pa*s, open-vane, 316 SS,
chevron mist eliminator.
3-pasa, open-vane, 316 SS
ehevron mist eliminator.
3-pass, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron mist eliminator.
3-psss, open-vans, 316 SS,
chevron mist eliminator
Absorbent
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
scrubber downcomer. MgO
dry fed to EHT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
scrubber downcomer. MgO
dry fed to EHT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt %witb
makeup water and added to
scrubber downcomer. MgO
dry fed to EHT.
Lime slurried to 2& wt % with
makeup water and added to
scrubber downcomer. MgO
dry fed to EHT.
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle{6
total) on 4 min {at 0. 5 gpm/ft2)
with 76 min. off between nos-
sles. Bottom washed with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/ft*
for 6 mla/4 hrs.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Eachnossls (6
total) on 4 min (at 0. 5 gpm/ft*)
with 76 min. off between nos-
sles. Bottom washed with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/ft*
for 6 min /4 hrs.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle (6
total) on 4 min (at 0. 5 gpm/ft*)
with 76 min. off between nos-
sles. Bottom washed with
mnkeup water at 1. 5 gpm/ft^
for 6 min /4 hrs.
Top weehed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle
(6 total) on 4 min (at 0. 5
gpm/ft^) with 76 min off
between nossles. Bottom
washed with makeup water
at 1. S gpm/ft* for 6 min.
every 4 hours.
Scrubber Internals
All nossles on 4 hastRwi
sprayed downward/7 npsal^s/
header on top 3 heanFr*. H> )
nossles on bottom header#-"*"^
Ml nosstes on 4 headers
sprayed downward^M^osaJes/
deader on top 3 hea!Jer*,£j»\
nossle* on bottom headsr.
All nossles on top 2,jieaders
•prayed downward^ f^osslss/
tender. Bottom 2Jks*d»es
tUSMd^aff.
All nossles on 4 header*
sprayed downwards. 7 nos-
sies/header on top 3 headers.,
6 nossle* on bottom headsr.
System Changes Before
Start of Run
System cleaned. No change*.
1o changes. No cleaning.
No changes. No cleaning.
No change*. No cleaning.
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet pH crstrolled
at 6.0+0,2. Mg ion opcen-
trstion In liquor controlled at
(200° tteaS-i) ppm.
Scrubber Inlet pH controlled
at 7. 0+0. 2. Mg ion concen-
tration In liquor controlled at
12000 * 1 I PPm
Scrubber inlet pH controlled
st 7. 0+0. 2. Mg ion concen-
tration in liquor controlled at
(8000 + 1 , ppm
Scrubber inlet pH controlled
at 7,0+0,2. Mg ion concen-
tration In liquor controlled at
(2000 + (pom Cl"))W>m
2.92
Run Philosophy
First longer term lime/MgO
run. Selscted for good 902
refnoval, reliable mist elim.
performance and sulfate un-
saturated operation.
Determine effect of Inereaeed
pH on SO^ removal and sulfate
saturation.
Determine effect of reduced
•pray tower L/C on SO,
r«movtl and nliste israntion
To observe the effect of operst-
Ing with the sprey tower only
on percent SO 2 remove! nnd
sulfate saturation. Compere
with Run 6S0-1A.
Result*
8O2 removal averaged only
75% at 100% lijne utilisation.
Sulfate saturation averaged
75%. The mist elimins-tor
was 2% restricted at the end
of ran.
10, removal Improved from
*5* to 92* average (and lima
utilisation dropped from 100 to
99 percent) by increasing the
pH to 7,0 lor this m from
6.0 during Run 629-1A. Sulfate
saturation was 25*. Mist
aUsntnntor restriction reduced
*y 1*.
90, removal avsraged 74%
(vs. 92% for Run 630-IA).
Average percent sulfate
saturation increassd from
25% to 90%. Mist eliminator
remained 1% restricted.
3K>2 removelaveraged82%(va.
92% for Run 630-1A). Average
percent aulfate saturation
deereaesd slightly from 25%
to 20%. Mist eliminator re-
striction at end of run wee
<1%.
'Total stolch. ratio for Ca
lc Mg is 1. 04-1, OS (avg.
alkali utU. » 98%)
^Total stolch, ratio for Ca
k Mg Is 1,03-1.09 (avg.
alkali uttl. • 94%)
^Total stolch. ratio for Ca fc
Mg Is t. 04-1.07 (avg,
alkali utlL ¦ 95%).
*b,Totel stolch. ratio for Ca
1. Mg Is 1-01-1.06 (avg.
alkali uttl. -97*1
E-2
-------
Table E-l (continued)
SUMMARY OF LIME/MGO TESTS ON THE
VENTURl/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run No.
633-1A
Start-of-Jlun Data
6/5/76
End-of-Run Date
6/14/76
Do Stream Hours
212
Gas Rate, acfm Q 330°F
25,000
S»»Y Towar Oas Vel.fpa@12SQF
6.7
Venturi Liauor Rate. iPm
mln. {-140}
V«flturl L/G. sal/mcf
~7.0
Spray Tower Liquor Rate, gpm
1400
Sftray Toyft L/G. aal/mef
70
Percent Solids Recirculated
0-9
Effluent Residence Time, min.
3
Solid# Disposal System
Clarlfler L Filter
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ca
addsd/mole SO|? absorbed
0. 97-1.05(%)
Avg. % Lima Utilisation, 100 x
mole* SQ? *be, /mole Ca added
99(4)
Inlet SO2 Concentration, ppm
2500-3400
Percent SO2 Removal
U'98
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
6.9-7.2
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
S.S-4.8
Percent Sulfur Oxidli.d
9-20
Loop Closure, % Sollda Dischg.
49-53
Calculated Avg % Sulfate Saturation
In Scrubber Inlet Liquor 9 50°C
15
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
17. 000-20, 000
Total A P Range, Excluding Miat
1.4-4.4
Venturl AP, in. H»0
1.6-2,0 (Plug 100% open)
Mist Elimination System
Ap Range, lit. H2O
0.21-0. 24
Mist Elimination
System Configuration
3.pass, open-vans, 316 SS,
chevron mist eliminator
Absorbent
Lime slurried to 20 wt * with
makeup water and added to
¦ crabber dowitcomef. Mg©
dry fed to EHT.
Miat Eliminator
Washing Scheme
lop washed seqventlaUy with
makeup water- Each nosale
(6 total) on 4 mln (at 0. 9
gpm/ft*) with 76 mln off
between aoaslee, Bottom
waahed with makeup water at
1. 5 gpra/ft1 for 0 mla. every
4 hours.
Scrubber Internals
Al! nosslea on 4 headers
sprayed downwarda. 7no*sles/
header on top 3 headers. 6
noasles on bottom header.
System Changes Before
Start of Run
No changes. No cleaning.
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet pH controlled
at 7.0±0.2. Mg ion concentra-
tion (n liquor controlled at
M00 + 1 ppm.
Ron Philosophy
To observe tb« effect on
percent SCj removal aod
sulfate saturation of \ow«r
gas rate (kiglisr L/Q) daring
spray tower ope rat toe only
Icf. 632-LA).
Results
90* rsmoval averaged 9St
teK 82% in 6«-M>
saturation was 15% icf. 2Wt. in
632-lA).
'"Total I«M» tot C«
1. M( la 1.00-1,09
.jiwueiu^m—
E-3
-------
Table E-2
SUMMARY OF FLY ASH-FREE LIMESTONE RUN 718-1A
Run No,
718- 1A
Start-of-Run Date
7/3/76
End-of-Run Date
7/15/76
On Stream Houri
235
Gas Rate, acfm @ 330°F
35, 000
Spray Tower Gat Vel, fps @ 125°F
9. 4
Vfinturi Liauor Rate, som
600
Venturl L/G. gal/mcf
21
Sorav Tower Liauor Rate, mm
1400
Spray Tower L/G, gal/mcf
50
Percent Solids Recirculated
7-9
Effluent Residence Time. min.
12
Solids Disposal System
Clarifler & Filter
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ga
added/mole SO2 absorbed
1. 20-1. 35
Avg. % Limestone Utilisation, lOOx
moles SO2 abs. /mole Ca added
78
Inlet SO-> Concentration, ppm
2200-2600
Percent S02 Removal
72-82
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
5.8-6.0
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
5, 2-5. 5
percent Sulfur Oxidised
15-30
Loop Closure, % Solids Dischg.
50-61
Calculated Avg. % Sulfate Saturation
in Scrubber Inlet Liquor® 50°C
120
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
8,800-10,000
Total Ap Range, Excluding Mist
Elimination System, In. HjO
12. 6-13. 4
Venturi Ap, in, H2O
9
Mist Elimination System
Ap Range, in. H20
0.47-0. 52
Mist Elimination
System Configuration
3-pass, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron mist eliminator
Absorbent
Limestone slurried to60wt.<%
with makeup water and added
to the scrubber downcomer.
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nozzle
(6 total) on 3 minutes (at 0, 5
gpm/sq ft) with 7 minutes off
between nozzles. Bottom
washed with makeup water
at I. 5 gpm/sq ft for 4 minutes
every hour.
Scrubber Internals
All nozzles on headers
sprayed downwards. 7 nozzles/
header on top 3 headers, 6
nozzles on bottom header.
System Changes Before
Start of Run
No changes. No cleaning.
Method of Control
Limestone stoichiometric
ratio controlled at 1. 2 moles
Ca/mole S02 absorbed.
Run Philosophy
To observe the effect of fly
ish-free operation on sulfate
•aturatlon and system relia-
bility (cf. Run 707-1A made
with 15% solids with fly aeh).
Results
Sulfate saturation was 120%
(cf. 45% for Run 707- 1A).
Mist eliminator 2% restricted
st end of run.
E-4
-------
Table E-3
SUMMARY OF FLY ASH-FREE LIME TESTS (WITH AND
WITHOUT MAGNESIUM) ON THE VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run No.
6 34-1A
635-1A
6 36-1A
637-IA
Start-of-Run Date
6/19/76
7/16/76
7/26/76
8/6/76
End-of-Run Date
7/2/76
7/26/76
8/4/76
8/12/76
On Stream Houra
319
190
164
137
Gaa Rate, acfm & 330°F
IS,000
35,000
25. 000
35,000
spray Tower Gas Vel, fp» @ 125°F
<3.4
9.4
fc. 7
9. 4
Venturl Llauor Rate. BOm
600
600
600
600
Venturl L/G, gal/mcf
21
21 n
30
21
Spray Tower Liquor Rate, ^pm
1400
1400
1400
1400
Spray Tower L/G( oal/mcf
50
50
70
50
Percent Solida Recirculated
4- 5
8-9
8-9
8-9
Effluent Residence Time, min.
12
12
12
3
Solida Disposal Syatem
Clarifler 4r Filter
Clarifler fc Filter
Clarifler & Filter
Clarifler «, Filter
Stoichiometric Ratio, molea Ca
added/mole SO2 absorbed
1. 05-1. 17
1.05-1.15
1.05-1. 13
1.02-1.08
Avg. % Lime Utilization, 100 x
molea SO2 aba. /mole Ca added
90
91
92
95
Inlet SO2 Concentration, pprn
1800-3400
1900-3200
2500-3100
2600-3300
Percent SO2 Removal
68-84
62-90
80-90
67-75
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
7.8-8,2
7. 9-8, 2
7. 8-8. 2
7. 6-8.2
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
4,7-5, 2
4.6-5.2
4.9-5. 1
4.75-5.0
Inlet O2 Concentration, vol. %
6. 5-9. 5
6. 8-9, 3
6. 5-9. 5
6-9
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
3-18
10-30
8-25
8-22
Loop Closure, % Solida Dischg.
51-65
42-52
42-46
44-50
Calculated Avg. % Sulfate Saturation
in Scrubber Inlet Liquor Q 50°C
100
95
85
80
Total Dissolved Solida. ppm
5800-9000
7800-10,400
6800-9800
6000-8000
Total AP Range, Excluding Mist
Elimination Syatem, in. H?0
12.6-13.3
12. 9-13. 7
10. 7-11.2
12. 1-13.9
Venturl L P, In, H?0
9
9
9
9
Mlat Elimination Syatem
A P Range, in. H70
0. 46-0. 51
0. 46-0, 51
0.23-0. 26
0. 45-0,48
Mist Elimination
Syatem Configuration
3"pa«a, open-vane, 3I6LSS,
chevron miat eliminator
3-pass, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator
3-pass, open-vans, 316LSS,
chevron miat eliminator
3-pass, open-vane, 316LS5.
chevron mist eliminator
Abeorbent
Lime slurried to 20 w* %
with makeup water and added
to scrubber downcomer.
Lime slurried to 20 wt %
with makeup water and added
to scrubber downcomer.
Lime slurried to 20 wt %
with makeup water and added
to scrubber downcomer.
Lime slurried to 20 wt %
with makeup water and added
to acrubber downcomer.
Mlat Eliminator
Waahlng Scheme
Top waahed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noaate
{6 total) on 4 min. (at 0. 5
gpm/ft^) with 76 min. off
between noaslss. Bottom
washed with makeup water
at I. 5 gpm/ft2 for 6 min.
every 4 houra.
Top waahed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noaale
(6 total) on 4 min (at 0. 5 gpm/
ft?) with 76 min.off between
noaale s. Bottom wsshed with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/ft2
for 6 min. every 4 hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noaale
(6 total) on 4 min (at 0, 5 gpm/
ft') with 76 min, off between
noaales. Bottom wa shed with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/ft2
for 6 min. every 4 hours.
Top washed eequentially with
makeup water. Each noaale
(6 total) on 4 min (at 0. 5 gpm/
ft^) with 76 min. off between
noaales. Bottom washed with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/ft2
for 6 min. every 4 houre.
Scrobber Internal*
All noaalea on 4 headera
sprayed downwards. 7 noasles/
header on top 3 headers, 6
noaalea on bottom header.
All noaales on 4 headere
sprayed downwards. 7noaales/
header on top 3 headers. 6
noaales on bottom header.
Alt noaales on 4 headers
sprayed downwards, f noaales^
header o« top 3 headers. 6
noasles on bottom hsader.
All noaalae on 4 headere
sprayed downwarda. 7noaales/
header on top 3 headera. fa
noaales on bottom header.
Syatem Changes Before
Start of Run
No changes. Clarifler and
scrubber cleaned before run.
No changes. No cleaning.
No ehangee. No cleaning.
No ehangee. No cleaning.
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled »t 8. 0+0. 2.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled at 8, 0_+O. 2.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled at 8. Q+0,2.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled at 8.0+0.1.
Run Philosophy
First run of a teat series
with fly ash-free flue gaa to
obaerve the effect of fly ash-
free slurry (4% solidet on
sulfate saturation and syatem
reliability. Same run condi-
tion! at for Run 626-1A except
for absence of fly ash during
thie run.
To observe the effect of
Increased percent solids
recirculated (8% cf. 4% during
634- IA) on sulfate saturation.
To obaerve the affaet of
lower gas rata,i.e., higher
L/G'a (25,000 acfm cC35,000
acfm during 635-IA) on SO>
removal and sulfate saturation.
To observe the effoet of low
residence time (3 min. com-
pared with |2 min. during
Run 635-lA) on sulfate
aaturation.
Results
No significant differences
between the Average results
of Runs 634'IA and 616-IA.
Range of percent sulfate
saturation was wider for
Run 634-1A than for Run
626- 1A.
Average sulfate saturation
*•» 99% this run, compared
With 100% during 634-IA,
Mlat eliminator about i%
restricted at and of run.
SOj removal averaged 85%
(cf.76% for 6)S»1A), Average
sulfate saturation was 85%
Uf. 95% for 635-1 A). Miat
eliminator was 1% restricted
at end of run (1823 hours of
operation sine* last mist
eliminator cleaning).
SO2 removal averaged 71% (cf.
76% for 635-IA) and lime util-
isation averaged 95% thia run
and 91% during 639-IA. Aver-
age eulfate aaturation was 80%
(cf. 95% for Run 63S-1A). Miat
eliminator was 1% restricted
at end of run, no increase in
restriction for the run-
E-5
-------
Table E-3 (continued)
SUMMARY OF FLY ASH-FREE LIME TESTS (WITH AND
WITHOUT MAGNESIUM) ON THE VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run Number
638-1A
639-1A
640-1A
64!-1A
Start-of-Run Date
8/16/76
8/24/76
9/2/76
9/9/76
End-of-Run Date
8/24/76
9/1/76
9/9/76
9/14/76
On Stream Hours
174
183
157
120
Gat Rate, acfm@ 330°F
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
Sorav Tower Gas Vel. fps@ 125°F
9,4
9,4
9.4
9. 4
Venturi Liquor Rate, gpm
600
600
600
min. < - 140)
Venturi L/C, gel/mcf
21
21
21
- 5. 0
Spray Tower Liquor Rate, gpm
1400
1400
1400
1400
Spray Tower L/G, gal/mcf
50
50
50
50
Percent Solid* Recirculated
4-5
4-5
7. 7-8. 8
7.9-8.5
Effluent Residence Time, min.
3
3
3
3
Solide Disposal System
Clarifler it Filter
Clarifier fc Filter
Clarifier & Filter
Clarifier k Filter
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ca
added/mole SOg absorbed
1.02-1.10
0
0
0
1.02-1.05^'
1.00-1.05(c)
Avg % Lime Utilization, lOOx
moles SO2 abs. /mole Ca added
94
98(a>
97 IPI'2m9;'"1 > PP"1
<1000 » 'pp""'1
Run Philosophy
To observe the effect of low
percent solids recirculated
(4%cf. 6% during Run637-1AI
Other run conditions the same
aa Run 637-lA.
The flrat fly ash-fret lime test
with MgO addition. To compare
with Run 630-IA at earn* con-
ditions but with fly ash and
6% solids in recirculating
slurry.
To obaerve the effect of a
higher percent aolids recir-
culated (8% cf. 4% for Run
639-1A) on sulfate saturation.
Other run conditions the tame
as for Run 639- 1A.
To obaerve the effect of spray
tower-only operation on SO,
removal and aulfate saturation,
in comparison wlthRun 640-1A.
Results
SO2 ramoval averaged 7?% (cf
71% for 637-1A) and lime utll-
iaatlon averaged 94% (cf. 99%
for 637- 1A) at an average S02
Inlet concentration of 2500ppn-
(cf, 3000 ppm for 637-lA). Ths
miat eliminator was 1% re-
stricted at t)ie end of the run,
2134 hours since last miat
eliminator cleaning.
SO> removal averaged 81% (cf.
92% for 630- 1A). Sulfate satu-
ration waa 105% (cf. 25% for
630~lA).Mlet eliminator was
10% restricted at and of run,
whereas restriction during
1%.
Sulfate saturation averaged
85% (cf. 105% for 639-1A).
The miat eliminator was 5%
restricted at the end of the
run.
SO2 removal averaged 96%
(cf. 80% for Ron 640-1A).
Sulfate saturation averaged 6%
(cf. 85% for Run 640-1 A). The
miat eliminator waa< 1%
restricted at the end of the
run.
'**Total stolch. ratio for Ca l<
Mg la 1. 02-1.06 (avg,alkali
mil. * 96 *1.
^Total stolch. ratio for Ca It
Mg la 1,04-1,07 (avg,alkali
utiL.s mi., ,
^Total atolch. ratio for Ca 1*
Mg la 1. 02-1.07 (avg.alkali
«til. • 96%).
E-6
-------
Table E-3 (continued)
SUMMARY OF FLY ASH-FREE LIME TESTS (WITH AND
WITHOUT MAGNESIUM) ON THE VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run Number
U 2-M
b4l-)A
Start-of-Run Date
9/15/76
9/27/76
End-o/-Run Date
9/27/76
10/5/76
On Siream Hour*
249
191
Gas Rate, acfm @ 330°F
35,000
35,000
Spray Tower Ga* VeJ, fps $ 125°F
9.4
9.4
Venturi Liquor Rate, jjpm
mln. (- ]401
600
Venturi L/C. ^al/mcf
- 5. 0
21
Spray Towsr Liquor Rate, gpm
IQSO
1400
Spray Tower L/G. gal/mcf
37
50
Percent Solid* Recirculated
7. 3-8.7
7. 6-8. 6
Effluent Residence Time, min.
3
3
Solids Dlepoaal System
CUrifier (I Filter
Clarifier & Centrifuge
Stoichiometric Ratio, mol*i c»
added/mole SO7 absorbed
1.00-1.04'*'
1.00-1. 0*{b)
Avg. % Lime UtlUaatlon, IQQx
moles SOp abs. /mole C* Added
98<»>
98{M
Inlet SO^ Concentration, ppm
2300-1000
2200-2800
Percent S02 Removal
62-78
97-99
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
6,8.7,2
6.8-7.2
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
4, 9-*>. 3
5, 9-h, 0
Inlet O2 Concentration, vot.%
7. 5-10. 0
8-10
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
"5-23
14-21
Loop Cloeure, % Solids Dischg.
45-S7
41-46
Calculated Avg,% Sulfate Saturation
in Scrubber Inlet Liquor & 50°C
45
10
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
16,400-22,000
14,400-17,800
Total Ap Range, Excluding Mist
Elimination System, in. H?0
6. 5-7. *
12.7-1 J.3
Venturi^F, in. H2O
3.0-4. 1 (Plug 100% open)
9
Mist Elimination System
^P Range, in. H2O
0.48-0.$1
0.41-0.48
Mist Elimination
System Configuration
3-pass, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator.
3-pass, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator.
bbtorbenl
Lime slui-rled to 20 wt *h with
makeup water and added to
scrubber downcomer. MgO
dry fed to EHT.
Lima slurried to io wt% with
makeup water and added to
scrubber downcomer. MgO
dry fed to EHT.
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noaale
(6 total) on 4 mln. {at 0. $ gpm/
ft^l with 76 min. off between
nosales. Bottom washed with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/ft^
for 6 min. evary 4 hours.
Top washad sequentially with
makeup water. Each noaile
(6 total) on 4 mln. (at 0, * gpm/
ft*) with 76 min. 0if between
noaslea, Bottom washed with
makeup water at I. 5 gpm/ft^
for 6 min. every 4 houra.
Scrubber Internals
Second header from bottom
turned off. All noasles on
remaining 3 header* sprayed
downwards, 7 noaales/header
on top 2 headers, 6 noaalea on
bottom haader. il
1 > A ^
Ml noasle* on 4 headers
sprayed downwards. 7noa*les/
header on top 3 headers, 6
noaslss on bottom header.
System Changes Before
Start of Run
No cleantng. No changes.
No cleaning. No change*.
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at ?. 0+0, 2. Mg Ion
eoncentrotlon in liquor con-
trolled at
(2000 ppm.
Scrubber inlet Uquor pH con-
trolled at 7. ft£0. 2. Mg Ion
concantratlon in Uquor con*
: rolled at
[2000 + ¦' I PPm-
Run Philosophy
To observe the effect oflowar
spray tower slurry rat* (1050
gpm cf. 1400 gpm for Run
641-1A} during spray tower*
only operation %
(cf, 6% for Run MI-1A1, The
mist eliminator w»» 3%
restricted at the end of the
run.
SO2 removal averaged 98%
(cf. 50% for Ruft 640'IA). and
sulfate saturation wan 10%
(cf. 85% for Run 640-lAl.The
miat eliminator restriction
reduced from 3% to 1%
during run.
Total stolch, ratio for Ca)
Mg I* 1-02'2. 06 (**g.
alkali Vitll. * Wt,
*k*Totat etoleh, ratio for Ca 1
Mg It 1,03-1. Ot (tvg.
alkali iitJV. »
E-7
-------
Table E-4
SUMMARY OF FLUE GAS CHARACTERIZATION TESTS
ON THE VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run Number
VFG-1A
VFG-lB{b}
VFG-lC
VFG-ID
Start-of-Run Date
10/10/76
10/20/76
10/29/76
11/2/76
End-of-Run Date
10/18/76
10/29/76
11/2/76
11/6/76
On Stream Hours
182
207
87
96
Gaa Rate, acfm @ 330°F
35,000
35,000
35.000
20.000
Spray Tower Gaa Vel. , tp«@ 125°F
9.4
9.4
9 4
5,4
Venturi Liquor Rate, aom
600
600
600
60fl
Venturi L/G, gal/mcf
21
21
21
37
Spray Tower Liquor Rate, gpm
1400
1400
1400
1400
Spray Tower L/G. gal/mcf
50
50
50
87
Percent Solids Recirculated
7. 8-9. J
7.8-8.6
8. 1-9. 3
7.6-R.4
Effluent Residence Time. min.
3
12
12
12
Solida Disposal System
Clarlfler L Filter
Clarlfier fc Filter
Clarifier k Filter
Clarifier fc Filter
Stoichiometric Ratio, moleaCa
addedfmole SO2 absorbed
1.00-1.04***
1.06-1. 09
1. 05-1.20
1. 10-1.25
Avg. % Lime Utilisation, lOOx
molti SO2 aba. /mole Ca added
MC)
93
89
65
Inlet SO2 Concentration, ppm
2700-3400
2900-3500
2400-3400
2800-3700
Percent SO2 Removal
85-99
68-75
88-96
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
6, 8-7. 1
7.8-8.2
7.9-8. 1
7. 85-8. 1
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
5. 2-5. 9
4.5-4.8
4. 6-4. 9
4.9-5.6
Inlet Qf Concentration, vol. %
4. 5-7. 5
7-10
4. 5-9
4-6.5
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
3-15
6-12
2-22
1-12
Loop Cloture, % Solid* Diachg.
48-57
42-62
53-60
51-57
Calculated Avg.% Sulfate Saturation
In Scrubber Inlet Liquor @ 50°C
20
115
90
40
Total Disaolved Solid a, ppm
n,<,oo-n,6oo
7800-9000
7700-9600
6000-8200
Total Ap Range, Excluding Miet
Elimination Syatem, in. HjO
12.7-13.3
12.5-13.8
13. 0-13. 9
10. 1-10. 7
Venturi AP. in. H2Q
9
9
9
Miat Elimination Syatem
Ap Range, in. HgO
0.44-0.49
0. 45-0. 50
0. 45-0.50
0. 11-0. 15
Miat Elimination
5y»tern Configuration
3-paaa, open-vane, 316L SS,
chevron miat eliminator.
3-pass, open-vane, 316L SS,
ehevron miat eliminator.
3-pass, open-vane. 316L SS,
ehevron mist eliminator.
3-paas, open-vane, 316L SS,
chevron mist eliminator.
Absorbent
Lime slurried to 20 wt. %with
makeup water and added to
scrubber downcomer. MgO
dry fed to EHT.
Lime slurried to 2 0 wt. % with
makeup water and added to
acrubber downcomer.
Lime slurried to 20 wt.lfe
makeup water and added to
scrubber downcomer.
Lime slurried to 20 wt.%
with makeup water and added
to acrubber downcomer.
Miat Eliminator
Waahing Scheme
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noxsle
(6 total) on 4 min. (at 0. 5
gpm/ft') with 76 min. off
between nozzlea. Bottom
waahed with makeup water at
1. 5 gpm/ft for 6 min. every
4 hours.
Top waahed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle
(6 total) on 4 min. (at 0. 5
gpm/ft') with 76 min. off
between nossles. Bottom
waahed with makeup water at
1.5 gpm/ft^ for 6 min. every
4 hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle
[6 total) on 4 min, (at 0, 5
fpni/ft*> with 76 min. off
between nossles. Bottom
washed with makeup water at
1. 5 gpm/ft2 for 6 min, every
1 hours.
Top waahed aequentlally with
makeup water. Each noaale
(6 total) on 4 min. (at 0,5
gpm/ft^) with 76 min. off
between noaslea. Bottom
washed with makeup water at
1. 5 gpm/ft^ for 6 min. every
4 houra.
Scrubber Internals
All nozzles on 4 headers
¦prayed downwards. 7nosalee/
header on top 3 headers. 6
noaales on bottom header.
All nozzles on 4 headers
aprayeddownwards, 7nos»les/
header on top 3 headers. 6
nozsles on bottom header.
All nozzles on 4 headers
sprayed downwards. 7
nesslee/header on top 3
headers. 6 noaales on
bottom header.
All nosxles on 4 headers
sprayed downwards- 7
noaales/header on top 3
headers. 6 nossle* on
bottom header.
Syatem Change• Before
Start of Run
No changes. No cleaning.
Clarifier and hold tank(I>-208>
dumped and cleaned. No other
changes or cleaning.
"Jo changes. No cleaning-
No changea. No cleaning'
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 7,0 + 0.2. Mg ion
concentration in liquor con-
trolled at
2000 * ppm
Scrubber-inlet Itquor pH con*
trolled at 8. 0^0. 2.
Scrubber Inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 8. 0+ 0. 2.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 8. 0+ 0. 2.
Run Philosophy
First run of a planned flue
g*e characterisation test
series. Conditions are same
a* Run 630-IA and were
•fleeted as typical run con-
ditions with MgO addition and
Av a eh present.
Conditions are the same as
Run 635-iA and were selected
as typical fly ash-free run
conditions with no MgO addi-
tion.
To observe the flue gas char-
acteristics at the inlet and
outlet of the acrubber under
typical operating conditions
with lime elurry (cf. Run
626-1A).
To observe the effect of low
gas rata on flue gaa char-
acteristics at the inlet and
outlet of the scrubber
(cf. Run VFG-1C).
Reaulta
SO, removal averaged 92%
ana miat eliminator remained
«£l% restricted. Some solid*
on I. D. fan damper at end of
run. Sulfate saturation was
20%.
***Total stoich. ratio for Ca fc
Mg i* 1. 03-1. 07 {avg.
alkali util. = 95%).
SO, removal averaged 72%
ana miat eliminator remained
< 1% restricted. Sulfate
saturation was 119%.
^his is the only fly ash-free
run of this series.
SO2 removal averaged 71%.
lime utlllaatlon 89%, at an
average Inlet SOj concentra-
tion 0/ 2900 ppm
-------
Table E-4 (continued)
SUMMARY OF FLUE GAS CHARACTERIZATION TESTS
ON THE VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
Run Number
VFG-1E
VFG-1F
VFG-1G
VFG-II
S*art-of-Run Pete
11/6/76
11/10/76
11/18/76
11/22/76
End-of-Run Date
11/10/76
11/18/76
11/21/76
11/27/76
On Stream Hours
96
1Z4
71
117
Gas Rate, •cirri @ 330®F
35,000
35. 000
35,000
35,000
Spray Tower Gas Vel, fp« @ 125°F
9. 4
9.4
9.4
9.4
Venturi Liquor Rata, gpm
375
600
600
600
Venturi L/G. gal/mef
13
21
21
21
Spray Tower Liquor Rate, gpm
1400
0
1400
1400
Spray Tower L/G, gal/mcf
50
0
50
SO
Percent Solids Recirculated
8. 0-8. 9
7. fc-9. 0
7.2-8.8
14.6-15.9
Effluent Residence Time, min.
12
20
12
12
Solids Disposal System
ClarJfler S< Filter
Clarifler (. Filter
Clarifler fc Filter
Clarifler U Filter
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ca
added/mole SOj absorbed
1.06-1. 16
1.07-1.15
1. 12-1. 22
1.08-1. 15
Kvg % Lima Utilisation, 100*
molti SO2 aba. /molp C» add*d
90
90
85
90
Inlet SO2 Concentration. opm
2750-3600
3100-3800
3000-3400
2600-3500
Percent SO2 Removal
64-76
16-28
79-86
70-86
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
7. 7-8. 25
7.8-8. I
7.8-8.3
7.8-6. Z
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
4, 5-5. 1
4.4-4.6
4,9-5.2
4. 6-5. 0
Inlet O2 Concentration, vol %
4.5-8
5-7
5-6
3.5-6. 5
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
2-19
2-19
1-13
6.24
Loop Cloture, % Solids Dlschg.
45-63
59-64
51-54
52-55
Calculated Avg, % Sulfcte Sanitation
in Scrubber Inlet Li
Lime aVurried to 20 wt.%
with makeup water and added
to acrubber downcomer.
Lime slurried to 20 wt. %
with makeup water and added
to acrubber downcomer-
Lime slurried to 20 wt. %
with makeup water and added
to acrubber downcomer.
Washing Scheme
Top waahed tequentially with
makeup water. Each noscla
(6 total) on 4 min. (at 0, 5
gpm/ft* ) with 76 min. off
between nozslaa. Bottom
washed with makeup water at
I. 5 gpm/ft2 for 6 min. every
4 hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noaale
{6 total) on 4 min. (at 0. 5
gpm/ft*) with 76 min. off
between noialai. Bo+tom
washed with makeup water at
!. 5 gpm/ft* for 6 min. every
4 hours.
Mist eliminator! Top washed
Top washed eequentlally with
makeup water. Each nosale
(6 total) on 4 min. (at 0. 5
gpm/ftM with 76 min. oft
between nocilea. Bottom
waehed with makeup water at
L 5 gpm/ft* for 6 min. every
4 houra.
sequentially with makeup
water. Each noaale (6 total)
on 4 min. {at 0. 5 gpm/ft*)
with 76 min, off between
nosslea. Bottom washed with
makeup water at l, 5 gpm/ft2
for 6 min. every 4 hours.
York demiatar: No waahlng.
Scrubber Internals
All noaales on 4 headers
sprayed downwards. ? nosales/
header on top headers. 6
noszles on bottom header.
All nosales on 4 apray
headers turned off.
All nossles on 4 headers
sprayed downward a. 7
noaalee/haader on top 3 head-
ers. 6 noeslea on bottom
header
All noaalee on 4 headere
sprayed downwards. 7
noaalea/headar on top 3
headers. 6 nossles on bottom
header.
System Changes Before
Jlart of Run
No changes. No cleaning.
No changes. No cleaning.
No cleaning. Installed a York
demleter downstream of the
chevron miet eliminator.
The York demiater was re-
moved before run. No
leaning.
Method of Control
Scrubber Inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 8. 0+ 0.2,
Scrubber Inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at f. 0 + 0. 2.
Scrubber inlet Uquor pH con-
trolled at 8. 0 + 0. 2.
Scrubber Inlet liquor pH con-
rolled at fi. 0 + 0. 2,
lun Philosophy
To obaerve tha affect of low
• lurry flow to the venturi
(plug 100% open) on flu* gaa
characterletlcaet tha inlet
and outlet of the acrubber
(cf. RwVTQ-lC),
To obaarve tha effact of
venturi-only operation on
five gaa eharactarlatlca at
tha inlet and outlet of tha
»erubber (ef. Run VFC-IC).
To obaerve the offset 0/ the
addition of a York demtitar to
tha eirieting chevron mlat
eliminator on flue |ta rharac-
teriatiea at the outlet of the
acrubber (ef. Run VFCJ-1C).
a-
To obaerva the effect of high
sercent tolida recirculated
>n flue gaa characterlatlca
it the Inlet and outlet of the
lervhber (o*. Run VfO-lC).
Resuti*
SOj> removal averaged
lima utilleation 90%, at an
average Inlet SOj eoncantra-
tion of 3200 ppm. Sulfate
saturation averaged 45%.
Vanturi alone removed 22%
sf SOj.
The mlat eliminator w*a
intirely clean at the and of
!he run after a total of 13S2
lOura of operation without
cleaning.
BOj removal averaged 12%,
lime utlllaation 85%. at tit
average inlet SO2 coneentratfcr
Of 3200 ppm let. 71%. 09%,
and 2900 ppm for Run
vtg-ici.
The York demiater waa 30%
reatrleted. The ml«t elimina-
tor waa <1% reatrleted at end
of run.
rhe sulfate aaturatlon
ivaragad 40% (cf. 90% for
ftun VFG-1C).
E-9
-------
Table E-4 (continued)
SUMMARY OF FLUE GAS CHARACTERIZATION TESTS
ON THE VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER SYSTEM
VFG-1P
Start-of-Run Date
11/27/76
End-of-Run Date
12/4/76
On Stream Hour#
157
Gae Rate, acfm @ 330°F
35. 000
Spray Tower Gas Vel.. fps @125°F
9.4
Venturi Liquor Rate, flpm
mln. (M4Q)
Venturi l/G . gel/mcf
5
Spray Tower Liquor Rate, gpm
1400
Spray Tower L/G, gal/mcf
50
Percent Sollde Recirculated
7.5-9. 1
Effluent Residence Time, mln.
12
Solids Disposal System
Clarlfler fa Filter
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ca
added/mole SO2 absorbed
1. 10-1. 16
Avg % Lime Utilization, lOOx
moles SO2 aba./mole Ca added
8B
Inlet SO2 Concentration, ppm
2600-3800
Percent SO^ Removal
58-72
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
7. 85-8. 15
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
4. 5-4. 85
Inlet O2 Concentration, vol %
5-7.5
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
2*18
Loop Cloture, % Solids Dischg.
55-60
Calculated Avg % Sulfate Satur*ion
in Scrubber Inlet Liquor @ 50°C
55
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
6900-8000
Total Ap Range, Excluding Mist
Elimination System, in- HjO
5. 7-9. 3
Venturi AP, in.
1.4-5. 7 (Plug 100? open)
Mist Elimination System
AP Range, in. H20
0,35-0.42
Mist Elimination
Syetem Configuration
3-pass, open-vane, 3I6LSS
chevron mist eliminator.
Abaorbent
Lime slurried to 20 w*.%
with makeup water and
added to scrubber downcomer.
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Tap washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nosale
(6 totaU on 4 mln. (at 0. 5
gpm/ft )with 76 mln. off be-
tween nosales. Bottom
washed with makeup water at
1> 5 gpm/ft2 for 6 mln. every
4 hours.
Scrubber Internal*
AH noaeles on 4 headers
sprayed downwards. ? no»alee<
header on top 3 headers. 6
nosales on bottom header.
Syetem Changes Before
Start of Run
No changes. No cleaning.
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled at 8,0 + 0. 2.
Run Philosophy
To observe the effect of spray
tower-only operation (min.
venturi slurry flow rate with
?Jug 100% open ) on flue gas
characteristics at the inlet
tnd outlet of the scrubber
(cf. Run VFG-1C),
Results
I62 removal averaged 45%,
lime utilisation 88%, and In-
let SOj concentration 3200
*pm. Sulfate saturation av«r-
iged 55%, Mist eliminator
was entirely ctean at the
tnd of the run after a total
1697 hours of operation with-
out cleaning,
E-10
-------
APPENDIX F
GRAPHICAL OPERATING DATA FROM THE
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER TESTS
F-l
-------
* s
SS
J BEGIN RUN 639-IA
6N0 RUNa20-1A
—BOILER OUTAGE
X
90
76
70
i
0.6
th
0.4
e§«
0.2
J £
o.o
6.5
a
10
h*
81
6.6
6.0
4.SOO
4.000
al
3.600
K '
2 §
3,000
2,000
4,800
4,000
3. BOO
3,000
2.800
2,000
I 4/29 | 4/30 I 6/1 I 5/2 I 9/3 I 6/4 I 5/5 I
TEST TIME. Heurt
I 6/7 I ua I 6A I sno I 6m i vu I vm I am I wis I «n» I em I
CALENDAR OAV (1070)
<2 i 1
ill
5 3 S
III
5*
ill
D 5 >
40 <-
30 •
8 « (
III
S K
« flu
20 ~
10
Is
0 L
200 r
lij
160 -
sj|
100 -
* O j
a\
0 *-
30.000
30.000
m Z 20,000
S5
5 i 10000
• 0
~ c
a a22saa
uii i00,
I. •••••••••. •
•• ••
2°aoaooa oQDDD°DaoaDOnQ
SfifiSSfiSft***
¦ ¦ ,00Q60 fl l00 i^Ot
%
TOTAl D1MDLVID SOLIDS
u.000
0
CALCIUM
-------
} MOW HUH WU
tNDBUN 4301*'
-* 5,0
"1 4.000
3.000
2,900
2.000
IN
MO
DO MO no u
TMT TIMI. Hour*
I «n» I vm I i/if 1 6/i« I 1/17 1 via I tfw I wo I wi I vn I tm I vh I %/» I I m/ I wa I vao I mo I my
CAUNOAflOAVIirW)
S 2 a*
II1
it
in
it
il
fi
••• •
O DaO°aDD°nCiaD °
JoooOooooo ooooJSo
• TOTAL DiatOLVlO WHIM
0 CALCIUM (C**4)
O SUL'ATI (S04"l
4 CNtMioiieri
O MAONt»UMiM|^y
_L_
-X-
U-.
J.
N0TI; IMClCI WHOM
COHCIMTKATtOM Ml
Li* THAN 000** ARC
NOT PLOTTIO
_JL.
J.
ISO 110 100 AN MB M 9M 400 M0 *
TfSTTWC Mom
I «« I «u I mt I mi I m> I ira I vd I in I m I «>' I mi I u< I mi I w I u> I » I u I m I «t I
CMMBMMVItm
S« Rm ¦ 35,000 tcfffl • JJ0 °F
Spny Tnm Oh Vitality ¦ (.4 Km
Liquor Rm m Vmuri ¦ WO »pm
Un«w t« tony I*"" * 'W #m
Vintuft L/S ¦ 21 ffi/mof
Sw»y Towr I/O - 50 mUmd
*0. ef Spny Hm4*i " 4
tMT AnMmt Tlim » 3 mln
Pram MM RielnulMid 'Ham
Vwrturl Prawn Drop • f In. HjO
Total ftwun Dray, Exclu«tjn« Mln Slim,
• 1J.H3.S In. H,0
OtelWH IChrfflw 1 PMir) toll*
Connwrton ¦ S0-H wt %
Um# AddMon n Oonwnonwf and M|0
Addition lo EHT
FlguraF-2. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTUR l/SPRAY TOWER RUN 430-IA
F-3
-------
JBEOtW Htmwi-M
ENDRUNM1M
u
4.000
>.w
9.000
ISM
2.000
1.M0
I 8/10
THTTIMC.Hwn
5/20 I ft/21 I 6/22 I 8/23 t B/M I ft/ZB I i/» I ME7 I «/!• | tin I ft/10 t Wt I «/1 { W I M
CAIKNDAR OAV (1070)
IM I VI I M
su-
Hf:
Sfi
2 |
| &
* X
o a
~51 100
9 8 s
5S3 50
fcg .
2,000
i
I 1I.OOO
• •
;S2°2b °oB-8^b^b
^ooootoOo0°0o0o°0
>6o0»*a , 0000. o
• totm. ottaovvtD wom
0 CALCIUM
o wATI (00/)
A chumioc icri
O MAQNCOIUM WN**I
not*. mcmmoM
CONCf NTNATtONO AM
LlM THAN MM mm AH I
MOT PLOTTED.
TUT TIM. Hawt
S/tt I 8/20 I 6/31 I B/tt I B/J3 I #/44 i 4/34 I l/tt 1 0/1? ( t/St I Mi I t/36 I W1 I 0/1 I 0/3 I A/3 I 9/4 I t/t I I
CAUNDAft OAV < 11701
Gm Rid ¦ 36,000 Mfffl • 330 °F
Spray Towtf Got Vrtoefty - 9.4 ft/wc
Liquor Am to Vinturi • NO 9pm
Uquot R«t« to tytvi Toww ¦ 700 gpm
Vinturi L/0 ¦ 21 flti/mef
Spray Towtr L/8 * 2S pl/mcf
No. of Spray Hudtrt - 2
EHT RotMtnci Tlmo - 3 min
Parcont Solid* BocircuJotod « MO wt %
Vomuri Pnwn Orop • • to. HgO
Totol Prtmire Orop, Excluding Mtot Eilm.
• 13*110 in. KjO
QNClwp (Ctorlftor ft filtr) Solid!
Concintrotiofl ¦ 53-80 wt %
Lima Addition to Oowncomtr «nd M|0
Addition to EHT
Flgum F-3. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER RUN 631-IA
F-4
-------
£1 ""
5*
TEST TIM!. Houn
I 6/26 I 6/90 I 6/91 | 6/1 I 6/2 I 6/3 I 6/4 I 6/6 I 6/6 I 6/7 I 6/S | M | 6/10 I 6/11 I 6/12 I 0/13 I 6/14 I 6/1S I 6/16 I
CALENDAR OA.Y
J 6.0
-1 4.000
• l,Ht
- 3,000
• 2.500
- 2.000
—' 1.M
460
111
SI-
cc ^
«IS
£
*13
o =
|8|
*3§
5 »,ooo
ll 11.000
If
* 5 10.000
» t I - '
• •• ••«••••
"o 0o8°o00000o00o000
• TOTAl DIUOLVCO aOLIM
Q SULFATE tS04")
A CHLORIDE (CI-J
O MftQNMtUM m§**)
Hon.tnctumtau
CONCINTRATK3N6 ARE LCM
THAN 600 ppm ARC NOT
FtOTTIO-
_L_
^L.
-L.
I */» I 6/J0 I 6/01 I 6/1 ! H I W I
100 M0 nO S3® M0 400 440
THT TIMC. Hawi
ft I 0/6 I 6/7 I 6/6 I «/• I 0/10 I 0/11 I 4/tt I 4/1J I 0/14 I 6/16 I 6/tO I
CAISHDA* DAY 11070)
G« R«m - 38,000 Kfm • 330 °F
Spny Towtf 6« ViioeHy ¦ 8.4 ft/no
Liquor Roto to Vonturi " 140 gpm
Listuor Rtt* to Sprty Towtf• 1400 «pm
Vonturi U6 ¦ • pl/mcf
Sprty Towtr L/6 • SO floJ/nwf
No. of Spray Hoidore - 4
IHT RtaMoneo Tim* ¦ 3 mln
Ptrcom Strildt Rocireuitttd ¦ 8-8 wt *
Vonturi Proaun Orop ¦ 2.&-3.0 in. HjO
Totol Pnnuro Drop, Exotinflog Milt Eltoi.
- 6 J* 7.1 in. H20
DiiehMft (ClirtNor & FHtar> 8o)kt*
CoiwtfltJWtofl • BMf wt %
Lima AMlttai to Oowncomor
and MgO Addition to EKT
Figure F-4. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER RUN 632-1A
F-5
-------
• 6EQIN RUN 833-1A
END RUN #331*
s*
100f-
*5
90 -
ao j
70 L
*
0.«p
0.4
0.3
t
0.0
7.«
70
(t
«.(
IS*
s=
ao
5.6
so
4.000 f-
3,800 •
ai
3.000
58
2,600 '
2,000
1,600 *-
,'^vn
3, BOO
3.000
I «/« I tf7 | eft | b/« I
TEST TIME. Houri
6/io I tm I #/i2 I #/i3 I am I am { e/te I aw I «/ia I s/ia I a/20 I mi t a/a I am I
CALENOAH DAV <19761
0/24 I
• •• '
• •
• • <
• •
QDO
q° °a oo0aa a° a
°o 0 ~ d a
• totai oteaoLVCo souos
~ SULFATE (904*1
A CHLOWOt (Cl~t
O MAONEUUM
NOTE: SPECIES WHOSE
aM£e*rAAT70tf« a*e i,ess
THAN BOO ppm ARE NOT
FLOTTEO
30.000
17,600
16,000
•2.600
to,000
7.BOO
8.000
2,800
TMT TIMI, Hwn
I 6/8 i S/' I 6/B f S/S I 6/10 I »/11 | 6/12 I 6/tJ I 6/M f 6/IB I 9/10 | 6/17 I 6/1« I S/19 I 6/30 | a/21 | 1/22 | #/» | 1/24 |
CALENDAR DAY <1176)
Got Rata * 25,000 sefm • 330 °F
Spray Towar Qm VaJoclty * 6.7 ft/sae
Liquor Rata to Vtnturi ¦ 140 gpm
liquor Rata to Spray Towar » MOO gptn
Vwiwrt U6 * 7 gal/met
Spray Towsr L/6 • 70 gal facf
No. of Spray Haadart ¦ 4
EHT Rasidanca Tima * 3 min
Piftfflt Sotidi Racirculatad • 8-8 wt *
Vtnturi Pramira Drop - 1.8-2.0 In. HjO
Tort Prwwfa Drop, Excluding MM Ellm.
* 3.4-4.4 in. H20
OiKhars* (Clartfiar ft Filter) Soil*
Cottantrrion - 49-S3 wt %
Urn* Addition to Oowneomtr
wd MgO Addition to EHT
Figure F-5. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTURI/5PRAY TOWER RUN 633-1A
F-6
-------
TI»T TIME. Hour*
I i/20 I m\ 1 a/?2 I era I «/w I mb I tn 1 mr { ttn 1 *m i •/» I m {
CAUWA* DAY {1971}
V2 t 7/3 I ?/4 I 7/§ | 7M I 7/7 I 7/i |
• . •
• TOTAL DIMOLVED WLIOI
0 CALCIUM (C^M
O sulfate na,m)
A CMLONIDi (Cn
NOT*: IffCIM WHOM
CONCITftftATtONt AM Lttt .
THAN UO em AM NOT
fLOTTCO
~ jao
t la I
f» I m I va I IM
Tinni«,«o»i iii
I un 1 $m I tm I vat J *m I »no I vt I w I w I w I « ' » I w I v* I
CAHNMR DAV (WW
On Rl» • 36,000 Kfm • 330 °F
Spny Tww 3w VilocHy • M ft/lac
Uquot H« to Vinturt ¦ tOO »m
liquor Rm to tuny Towtr • 1400 «m
Vwtoif 1/8 • 21
Spnv Tww U8 ¦ M taVrnt
No. of Spray Hrnlin ¦ 4
EHT ftridmu Tim. - 11 mki
Ptrcwt MMi R«lmilMnl ¦ 4-i wt K
Vmtwt Pmwn Oriif • I In. HjO
Total Frann Drop, txilinHnu MM EHm.
• 12.0-Y3.3 In. HjO
MM eiiiri. Prtma Dm • 0.*M.St to, NjO
Dkctaw Khritor * fUtor) BON*
ClHKMtHtlO'l * I1-H Wt V
MM AHWm to Dowwomor
Bgur* f-6. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER RUN 634-1A
F-7
-------
I1
2 B
s*
sg* »
[BEGIN RUN 718-1A
- ¦011IR OUT API
END*UN?»HA |
tIMISTOWt EBEP PROBLEMS
IU
5 =
£i
5 j
V-
».o
4.000
1,500
9,000
7.800
7.000
fti
TlfT TIME. Houn
7/4 I 71* I 7» I 7/7 I 7/4 I 7/4 I 7/10 I 7/11 I 7/12 t 7/11 1 7/14 I 7/1B i 7/14 I 7/17 I 7/tl I 7/19 I 7/30 | 7/21 I 7/22 I
CALENDAR DAY (1974)
111
Hf
|ii
p*
B 5 UJ
SI
SI
h
A,
^ /u«44«'i"4 44'4'"41"
Oioe . ooooooqooooqooo qooooqoooo?
• TOTAI. DIWOLVEO 40UD4
0 CALCIUM |6*"J
~ IULPATE4M4")
A CHLONIM (CI")
o MAONRWUM
NOTE: ONCIISWHOU AVKRAOI
OOMCINTRATIONSAMI LfM
THAN MO wm AM NOT
PLOTTID-
12,000
10,008
1 ?/* I i<» I i* I m I 7/» I I 7m \ my I wiT*7m*l I ww I 7/14 1 7/1T I 7/10 I ?/it I 7m 1 rm I ?« I
CALINOAA DAY <1#7«
Gn flata *36,000 «cfm#330°F
Spny Towtr 6m Vtlocity « 9.4 Him
Liquor Rm to Vorrturi - 600 tpro
liquor Rati to Spny Towor ¦ 1400 9pm
VMturi 176 » 21 *i/mcf
Spray Towtr US * 60 goi/mef
No. of Spny H40d#r»-4
EHT RnidoneoTimo-12nrin
Ptfcmt Solids Ruircultttd ¦ 7-8 wt H
Vonturi Prraura Drop ¦ 9 in. H*0
Tottl Prwurt Drop, Excluding ttiit Ellm.
-12.8*13.4 in. H*0
Mto Elim. Pmwrt Drop ¦ 0.47-0.52 in. HjO
Oltcharp (Ciorifitr ft Flittr) Soil*
Conctntrttion • 6041 wt H
limntoM Addition to Oonmcomor
Fljur# F-7. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTORI/8PRAY TOWER RUN 718-1A
F-8
-------
h
to
f|- *
\ mow woman*
-aOILIWQUtAgr"
IHO RUN t9ft-1A i
S C 7.0 "
i 7
si
M
W •
A
i.800
3.000
2. BOO
TUT TIKI, Ham
I 7/17 | 7/10 I 7/1# I 7/10 I 7/21 I 7/M I 7ft$ I 7«4 I 1M I 7/» I 7/17 I 7/» I 7t& I 7/30 ! 7/51 I 1/1 I M I «/J
CALEMOAR DAY (1070)
ni"
lif::
IS "
I | 10.000
If lM0
if -
fl "
i MM
>•••
OOOQO
• • •••
«• a • •• *
444A4AAA4A44AA*44 A
o«°0ooo<>g68^g«ggga
. OftBgoSBoeoooooooooo,
• TOTAL OIMOWID OOLIOS
0 CALCIUM (C**4)
~ tWJATI
-------
•5
00
S&88£fl86g4goooooo(g
-------
s1
> BtoiN run «a?-u
iNDRUNMM.
t
3.800
3,060
itoa
TUT TIMCi Hotut
I t/7 I a/a 1 a/» I t/to I s/it I a/ia I a/ia I t/14 I am I a/ia I a/17 I a/ia I a/i» I w» I aw I vn I a/a I a/M I a/a I
CAUNDAR OAV HIM)
••
•A* A
Cbo^Oo OOOOO 00 O0OO0
• TOTAL DIMLOVlD 90LIDI
0 CALCIUM (C***!
~ IUIFATI
4 CMUMUOC (0"|
O MAQNMUJM
noti: ancias mtmom avmaoi
CQHCIKTHATtOK* Ml VCtt
THAN BOO w« AM NOT
noma
T«nTW»,»to«
I vi I «i I m I via I Ml I 1/12 I via | ww I 1/11 I am I an? I •/« I ana f I a/»i I a/a | *« | *» I a/» I
CAlfNOAA OA* (WW
Sh Dm ¦ 31,000 Kfm • 330° F
Spray Tomr Gu Vilodty - 9.4 ft/w
Liquor Rm to VnMurt « NO 9pm
Lifluor Ran n Spray Tow* ¦ 1,400 gpm
Vmturl US » 21 |*li md
Ipny Tomt L/0 • W dl/mef
*». 0fSpnvNnAn«4
EHT RttMm Tim * 3 ntUi
Rwcwrt Sam Rmlttultfi •Mwt*
Vmturi Pnwn Org* • 0 bi. HjO
Total ^rrauit Drop, EwMni Milt film.
«12.1-13.# ta. HjO
Mtat ittm. PrMun 0»»" 0.4M.W ta. H,0
0 taM»* (Ctertte ft M IsMi
Coneontrptton ¦ 44-50 wt *
U>m AHWn n Omrnnmo
Ftgun M0. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTUR l/SPRAY TOWER RUN 637 - 1A
F -11
-------
' BtQIN FUHS3&U
END RUN 638-1A >
-WATER SUPPLY OUTAGE
s*
100 •
J
80 -
a"s -
70 -
60 -
8.6 r
1.0 ¦
Hi
7.8 -
/
5J
W ¦
5 0 .
3.«0 p
3,000 -
8 1
>.»[
i§
2.000 -
1.800 -
10 r
Oy|.
6
o L
t
3.000
2,COO
TOT TtME, Howl
i 0/17 I 8/19 I 8/19 ! 8/20 f 8/21 I 8/22 I 8/23 I V3* I fit I WM J V21 I *OI I 8/28 I 8/» I 8/31 ( ft/1 ( U2 I VI I 9/4 I
CALENDAR DAY 11*78)
» • A
>£S6V&g^g8Vfi809
J300000°0 OOOqOOOOoOOoOOo
• -TOTAL OlMOLVtD *OUOS
0 CALCIUM IC«")
~ SULMTC tao4">
4 CHLORlOl (C)~>
O MAQNCttUM W)
NOTt: 8HCIC8 WHOSC AVEHAQE
CONClNTNATKMC AMI LltS
THAN 800ppm AM NOT
hotted.
8.000
8,000
7,000
8,000
1,000
4.000
TISTriMC,H«un
I 8/17 I a/18 I 8/18 I 8/20 I t/21 t 8/22 I 8/21 I tCM | 8/28 I V» I V21 I 0/28 I 8/38 i 1/90 I IMI I B/1 I 8/3 I 8/j 1
CALENDAR OAV (1878)
SH Dm - 35,000 Kim • 330° F
Spray Town 6m VHoclty • 1.4 Witt
Liquor Riti to Vtrtturi ¦ 800 gpm
liquor ftrtttoSpftyTmmr" 1,400 ppm
Vimuri 1/0 - 21 git/mef
Spr»y TovMr UQ • SO fit/mcf
No. ol Spray HMdart* 4
EHT flttidtnciTimt« 3 min
Ptrctnt Solids Rocircuiatid ¦ 4-5 m H
Vcniuri Prmura Drop " 8 in. HjO
Total Prtour* Drop, Excluding Milt Elim.
•114-llQln. HjO
Mitt Elim. PrMura Or op - 0.45-Q.4fl in. HjQ
Oliehargo (Clorfflor A Film) Solid*
Conecmration • 47-56 wt %
limo Addition to Downcomtr
Figure Ml. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER RUN 638 • 1A
F-12
-------
Jbioin
IWO HUN WIA ;
1BOO
3,000
>.800
2,000
T#fT TIMi, H*wi
I VH F I MT I V» I Mf I MO ! m ! W1 I M I M I V4 1 M I M I V7 1 M I M i Vto I Vtf I OMJ I
caunom oav now
Hi :p
ii I
ti
5
lis -
U\ -
V < 2
ft -
It .000
»*ooe
««.0OO
14.000
u,m
»o. ooo
«.ooo
4.000
im
DDoDaOD
~dd
°ODOoaaoD
'•£**82*SS8S°82o°"°£ooo
• TOTAL OtMOi. VCD IOUOS
0 CALCIUM «•**!
a HJLMTI {Mt't
A chlohioc ten
O HMMmmtm**)
WOTt: araciMWMM avimmic
COHCtNTMa ««• AHt LlM
THAN BOO MI NOT
PLOTTtO.
TltT TMl, Mourt
Un 1 v» 1I v» I «i) | vk I w 1 I vi I •» \ «M 1
CALlMOAfl OA* (1#70)
n I m I « I n I « I m I wi I hi I
On Dm - 3S.OOO «cfm •330° F
Spny TotHf Gh Vtloclty ¦ 1.4 Him
liquor dm to Viniuri - SOC £>m
Uquor Hm to Ipnr Tomr»I, WO tpm
VmitwiU8"I1|M
Spray Tow* I/O • 60
Ho. of 8pny Hiadm * 4
EHT RaaMoflco Timi 3 min
Pwt«m.8oSidt (t*lrcultrt*l ¦ 4-S *t %
Vooturi Pnmm 0n« «1 In. H20
Total PiMwo Bran, txriuitnj MM Hi*.
¦ UHMIftHjO
Mitt Ellm. Prtwm Drop • 0.47-O.M In HjO
OMw|o (CloHMrt F»ttrl MMl
CoMtntrotion ¦ 44-W m %
UiM Mttttim to OawnoMW
•ml M|0 Addition to IHT
Flguro F-12. OPERATING DATA TOR VINTURI/iPHAV TOWER RUN 638 • 1A
F -13
-------
¦aeoiN flUNMO IA
enorunmo ia;
a.soQ
3.000
2,000
T,SOQ
TEST TIME. Houn
I 9/3 I 9/4 I 9/6 I 0/9 I 9/7 1 9/9 I 0/9 I 9/10 I 9/11 I 0/12 I ft/13 1 «/M I 9/lS I ft/IB I 9/17 I 9/18 I 9/10 I 9/20 I 9/21
CALENDAR DAY (19791
I 9/22
!i
lis
I «
ii "
°S »
Sis
fh
11.000 .0
10.000
14,000
i
10,000
*••••
I 1
* "
S t.ooo
~ w'l
^ °n o
St
!5 -
~~~qDo
~ oDrfl
«OOOO»O^<>^O0O<>6O^O<».
TOTAL OIISOLVED SOtIM
8UUATE i$04")
CHLoniDi ten
MAGNE9IUM (M|**J
CALCIUM (Ci**!
NOTE WHOM AVERAGE
CONCCKTflATIONt AM LIU
THAN 900 ppffl ARC NOT
PLOTTED.
21
19.000
19,000
14,000
1
10.000
4.000
2.000
TEST TIME, Hour*
I 9/3 I t/4 I 9/6 I 9/9 I 9/7 I 8/1 I 8/9 I 1/10 I 1/11 I 1/12 I 9/13 I f/14 I 9/1» I 9/18 I 9/17 I 9/19 i 9/19 I 9/20 I 9/21 I
CALCNOAN DAV 11979)
Got Roto • 36,000 aefm • 330° F
Spray Tow* Bat Velocity ¦ 8.4 ft/we
Liquor Rata to Vanturi • 600 gpm
Liquor Rita to Spray Towar» 1,400 gpm
Vanturi L/G » 21 gal/mct
Spray Towar L/G * 50 gal/mcf
No. of Spray Kitdort * 4
EHT Raiidsnca Tima • 3 mln
Panant Selidt Rwlrcutatad » 7.7-8.8 wt %
Vanturi Pratnira Drop ¦ 8 h. H^O
Total Pranura Drop. Excluding Mtet Elim.
•13.2-13.6 in.H,0
Mitt EHm. Pmwrt Drop * Mfr-O.SZ in. HjO
Oitcharga (Ciarifiar& FUtar} Solidi
Concantration ¦ 48-91 wt %
Lima Addition to Oowncomar
and MfiO Addition to EHT
Figure M3. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER RUN 040 • 1A
F -14
-------
if
]BEOIN RUW*41 1A
16NP RUN >41 - 1A
Aiiil
.BAN SPRAY N0Z2LI1
sl
H 3 W0
*8 ,m
s.aoo
3.000
2.100
if;
TB,T T,MI*Hmm
I 1/10 I Ml I V\t I MS I M4 I MS I MO t |/1» | 0/tO | •/» I MO I Ml I Mt | M3 I KM I MS I Ml I M7 I Ml |
CALKNOAH OAV <1»»>
1.0
OJ
- w
J 0
• TOTAL OtMQLVtO MUM
~ auurATi
O MAQflUIUW Ma*^)
¦ MJLPITI AO) ¦ I
won? iftciii whooc aviraoc
OONCINTKATIONI AM IMS
THAN WO ppm AM NOT
(•tOTTID.
• ^4JBM
106 ISO Tt|TTJg m m m m m
I MO I W11 I Mt | Ml I VM I Ml I tfW I vn I Mil Ml Two I Ml I Ml I 0/19 I M4 I Ml I Ml { M7 I MS I
CAifNDAR OAV IWNI
On Rati * 364)00 Kfm 9 330s F
Spray Ttawr 8h VitoeHy ¦ 9.4 ft/ne
Uqn©f H«tl to Vrnturi • 146 nun
Liquor Ran to tpray Tow* ¦ 1,490 flpm
VmtUffW0"8vri/«ef
Spray Taawr L/O-W |rf/mcf
tto. of Spray Harfui ¦ 4
EH? RmMmco Tbno ¦ 3nUn
HrewrtSolids INeifwimd" 7J4J«t%
Vanterffmsm Bwp* 14-17 to. M*0
Tom Prawn Drop, nun Em*.
-1.4-7.2 In. tt-Q
Mid dm, Pnnn Orap *flbflMif In, HjO
Oteti«*» tttariftor * Fifwrt SoKDo
CoMMttMian • 4S*M m *
Urn AABtio* te Oewmeemer
wd*«Q AMftaattlHT
Flgun M4. OPERATING DATA FOB VENTUW/WRAY TOWIR RUN 841 • 1A
F-15
-------
ENO RUN 642 1A
3,900
J,000
I ft/22
TUT THAI. Moun
0/23 I M* I «/» I MM I V21 I »«• I •/» I •/» I 10/1 I Wt 110/1 I
CALENDAR OAY (10701
10/4 )
5ooOoo0o0o0°0o0000
*¦1
• •• •
Oa U O Q
O M O
~ aO Q0 o
Q A
A A aA A
» *
o O ° ° o O 0 O o o Q o o oo
• tOTAL DtttOlVKD ODUOft
~ SULMTI (J04"|
4 CHLOMN (CI'}
O MAOMMIUM (*t~|
¦ OUlPITI (SO,")
NOTt:*ttCtl«WHOM AVIIIAOt
CONCINTJIATIONfl AM LBM
THAN >00 AM WDt
PLOTTBD.
um
22,000
M,0M
71
*¦¦¦<¦ 000i*0
M Mt HO
TIIT TIKI, Hown
4,000
urn
o
I oat I »w I I I »/» I wi I o/» I om I o/» I o/» I mo I om I o/w I o/io I o/» 1 10/t I i«/a I w» 1 W4 I
CALlMOAH DAY (19701
Gm Ran - 35,000 ocfm • 330° F
Spray Tomr Om Vtiocity • 9.4 ftlm
Liquor Rtt« to Vonturi ¦ 140 |pm
Liquor Roto to Sproy To«w • 1,050 gpm
Vonturi L/0 • 6 tol/mcf
Sprty Towtr U6 • 31 gol/mtf
Mo. of Spray Hudma3
EHT R Hi do net Tfmo • 3 mJn
ftiwnt StMidt Hooifctfttod-7.3-1.7 wt%
Vwturi Pnwn Orep ¦ 3.04.1 in. H«0
Tont Prtawo Drop, Eichidlna Mkt Slim.
- 8.6-7,1 in. H|0
Mitt Eiim. Nwn Drop » 0.4*0.51 in. HjO
Dteharp tCMftar t FN SoDdi
Concontntta " 4fr57 «t %
llmo Addition to Oowmcowor
and MfO AdtfWon to EHT
Figure F-1B. OPERATING! DATA FOR VENTURl/WRAY TOWER RUN 6*2 • 1A
F -16
-------
II
££ ioo
j 90
$!* «
| BtQlH BUN 6*3 1A
EMO RUN M3 1A !
f s
5 j
3.600
3.000
3.800
2.000
1,600
h
1,0
1 1.800
¦ 3,000
¦ 2.600
¦ 2.000
ft?
40 K> 120 100 200 240 210
TEtT TIME, Hour*
I iiU | «/29 I 9/30 I 10/1 I 10/2 I 10/2 I 10/4 I 10/S i 10/t I 10/7 I tQ« \ \M
CALENDAR DAY (W«<
1 to/io 1 iom i 10/12 I wis 1wh I wis | wn {
ill
i'i
52?
1*1
;i|
Si'
|S£
||
s||
'l!
h\
11.000
1S.OOO
9
• •
• ••
ll "*"}
XI1 io.o»n-
••• *
• •
Si
si
P
81
•.000
(.000
4,000
2.000
a a_oO
~ Q
DDD°o
aQao
a q
(So °°°0„qo„***4.AoO0°6oo
0ooooo;«j»c
• TOTAL DIMOLVIOIOUOO
~ tULPATI (SO/)
A CMUMfOf (CD
O MAOMIDUM IMg^)
¦ WJLFlTI no,")
NOT* SPfCICt WHOM AVfRAO!
COWCINTRATlOftf AR1 LIU
THAN >00 Mm AM MOT
PtOTTIO.
-
4.000
1000
TUT TIM Hwn
I tm I tin I i/jo I wt I ion I ua I w» I w» I iM I \tn Hon I iai I w» I wn I ttin I wti I m I wit I m I
CAIENOAII0AVIW7W
On Km-3(400 K(m« 338" f
Spray Towtr Gu Voloclty " 0,4 tt/nt
Liquor Hit! to Vonturt • (M «
-------
;acQw nuavra-1*. eno mm vfo ¦ u*
3.B00
3.000
2,800
7.000
TtST TVMi.hwm
I 10/11 I 10/13 I 10/11 I 10/14 I 10/16 I 10/W I 10/17 I 10/18 | 10/10 I 10/10 I 10/31 I 10/23 I 10/31 I 10/2* I 10/3# I 10/J0 I 10/27 | 10/21 I JO/29 I t
CALENDAR DAY (1076)
H'
ill
§ji
3 ȣ
II!
* 8 §
s«
IS
|i!
a
11,000
i«,ooo
h * t
S. ._A
•• •_
61
s::
•0°
DaQ
~°n
~ ~~o o
~a °p
fitXo
¦ L_
¦ ¦¦¦¦ ¦
• TOTAL OlttOLVID tOLIDS
D SULMTf ao4m>
A CMtoniot icr>
O MAONCIHMIM,**)
m 8UIHTI («Oj"|
NOT! •flCIUWHOai AVIHAOI
CONCINTHATIONt ADC Ll«
THAM too nm ARC NOT
fVOTTtO,
2
i i TMT r,M1, h#MW
I 10/11 I 10/13 I 10/13 I 10/14 I 10/11 i 10/1# I 10/17 I 10/11 I 10/10 110/30 ) 10/31 I 10/31
CALINOAA t>AY (ttw
10/33 I 10/34 I 10/39 I 10/31 I 10/37 I 10/30 I WZi I 10/30
Gm flat* - 35,000 acfm O 330° F
8pr»y Towtr Gat Valocity * 9.4 ft/nc
Liquor Rata to Vanturl * 600 gpm
Liquor Rata to Spray Towar • 1400 gpm
Vanturi l/G - 21 ffal/mcf
Spray Towor L/G - 60 gal/mcf
No. of Spray H«*d*rt-4
EHT Raaidanca Tima • 3 min
Parcant Solids Raclrculatad * 7.9-9.1 wt%
Vanturi Prataura Drop » 9 in. H«0
Total Praawra Drop, Excluding Mta Elim.
- 117-13.31*. H20
Mlit Elim. Prataura Drop ¦ 0.44-0.49 In. M»0
Oiacharga (Clariflar A FiNar) SoIWi
Concantrvtton • 49-57 wt %
Lima Addition to Oowncom*
and MgO Addition to EHT
Figure F17. OPERATING DATA FOR VENTURI/8PRAY TOWER RUN VFO • 1A
F-18
-------
• it a IN BUN Vffl • IB
END RUN VfO ¦ IB j
1
:E
O
f
It'*
TltT TIMI. twm
1 10/21 I 10/22 } 10/23 I 10/24 } 10/28 | 10/2* I 10/27 | 10/20 ) 10/2* I W» I 10/91 I 11/1 t 11/2 I It/) i 11/4 I IV* ) "/• I 1V7
CAlfNDA* DAV (WW
I t1/| | 1
fl!
iSf '•
Hi
* 40
1 »
>
if »
b:
¦r
1.0 L
10.000
MM
|i
it
CaClj ADDITION
i
• k
'•••» ti4 it
t.
o DDoaoDA2ao iojo8o0o^
00009000°?ooQ°?°
TOTAL MOOlVtO aOLIM
•ULfATf (C04*)
eMtofHMteo
MAONMtUM M|M|
GMjCHM IC«"l
HOTIi «MCIU WHOM AVlftJUM
CONCIVTHATIONI Ml' IN
mm W Ma MI DOT
nonap.
1
-------
«. »
kJ1
a
-r
» -VWj VyVW\jV
r
1,800
9.000
MOO
a.0M
i
!!!
IK
lis
184
TttT twrt, houn I I I I I I I
I iw* | wji I 11/1 1 it/2 I n/i I »/« I ti/B I ii/i I ii/7 I n/i I Mm I u/io I 11/11 111/ia 111/11 111/14 I n/i» 111/w I 11/1? I
CALCNOAR DAY (M7«|
W
K • •
ii -
i! -
Si
'V-*
• •
^ a
0°O
a d
„ una
OOOOO OOOOqO
• TOTAL CHMOLVtO lOLIOt
~ SULFAT1 t004")
4 CHIOAWCICP)
0 MAONUIUMIMf^l
0 CALCIUM K***\
NOTt: mflU WHOM AVIHAflf
CONCENTRATIONS ARC LIM
THAN Mftw» ARC NOT
RLOTTCO.
lb.006
>,000
•«t
1.000
2,000
Til? THIHt, l*oun
110/30 I TO/31 I 11/1 I 11/7 I 11/1 I 11/4 I 11/1 ( 11/C I 11 n I 11/0 I 11/C I 11m I 11/11 I 11/11 I 1V1I I 11/14 Ill/It I 11/W I 11/17 i
CALCNOAR DAY (1C7M
6m Riti - 36,000 tcfm • 330° F
8pr»y Tower 6m Velocity * 9.4 ft/itc
Liquor Rett to Vtnturi » 600
Liquor R«t« to Sprey Tower ¦ 1400 gpm
Vonturl L/6 * 2t stl/mcf
Spnv Tower L/G • 50 gal/rod
No. of Spray Headerc- 4
EHT Reridence Tim* ¦ 12 mm
Percent Solid! ftMlrcutetwl * 8.1-9.3 wt *
Vsnturi PrtMurt Drop * 8 in. HjO
Total ftnwr* Drop, Excluding Wit EHm.
¦ 13.0-13 J in. H«0
Milt Elim. fr«Mur« Drop • 0.464.80 In. H^O
Diachon* (ClarHiw ft Fiittr) Solid*
Conemtrition • 63*60 wt %
l\m Addition to Downcomar
Figure F-19.
OPERATING DATA FOR VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER RUN VFG • 1C
F-20
-------
| j —WW WW VPO-W i«WPHUM VWHB
II
+
i »*HT
7
-------
| IIQtWWUW VFQ-11 ; tNORWVfO U
5 5
s* ™
-
1M
ft
n
if
t
tiot tnm. nam
11/7 | ivt I 11/* I 11/10 I 1V11 I 11/12 1 11/13 I 1V14 I 11/M i 1VM I 1V17 I 11/11 I )1Mt I 11/20 I H/*1 I H/M I 1VO I N/H I WW I
CALCNOAft OAV I1070>
yi
ii{ -
*« 40
1! "
in "
21? »
lis -
iff ¦
\ I 3
ji -
81 MM
if
gooo
• TOTAL OtMOLVfOtOLfO*
O OUtPATI (004*)
A CMUM1DI (C1~l
O MMNUNM«M|^|
0 CALCIUM «•**>
NOTf: MttHNNSN AVMAM
OONCtNTMATlOMt AM IBM
THAN 0M Mm AM NOT
tLorrio.
TUT TNM, *mm
I ii/7 I ii/i I ii/» I ii/w 111/111 ivi* I ii/u I ii/M I ii/M I ivw I ii/!71 tvit I ii/it I ivia I ii/ii I it/a i ivn I h/m I ivs I
CAUMOAN DAY IttMl
Got Ran - 38,000 wfm • 330° f
Spny Tow* Su Votocity • 9.* fttm
Liquor flat* to Vonturi • 379 flpm
Uquor R«t to Spray Town «1400 tpm
Vonturt UQ * 13 9il/mcf
Spray Towor L/6 * 50 gai/mef
No. of Spray Hoodofi • 4
tHT RhMomi Timo • 12 mto
Porcom SoJWi Rtttaulototf ¦ t.MJwt%
Vtntwri Naire Drop ¦ 4.14.5 in. H-0
Totol Praaura Drop, Exclude Slim.
• 13-10.8 h>. HjO
Witt Elim. ftwura Drop » 0.434. SO in. H«0
Otohorio (Ctertflor ft Ftfttr) SoJMi
Concontration « 4M wt %
Dim AMitlon to DowncofMr
Piguro F-21. OPERATING DATA POft VENTURl/SPRAY TOWER RUN VPQ - 1£
F-22
-------
if
}-
II
00 '
i
•I-
¦
-1
M .
""f
«
7J •
j]1
2
M -
4J L
*» ¦
n
5 J
9^00 -
11
-
h
MA
10 -
il
o L
0
¦MM RUN VMM P
PWUWVE0-1F 1
—>*Mluwtwo>TKm
>
uvKsH
w
z
Moo
2,000
I 11/11 I 11/12 | I1/1J I 11/W 111/11 I 11/11 I M/17 i 111* I 11'tt I 11/»Tnoil 11/13 t 11/29 I 11/M I 11/* I 11/* I It/77 I It/as 111/21 I H/ta |
CALINOAH DAY (IfTOI
ill M
1J
II? «
ill -
ill
mw»
•,ooo
I •
I 7,M0
si ""
§1 -
il ,o"
!j
k
o
Q O QQq
9odoooo°
^Vs/
k4*A
9
Op 0
o 08oooBo
'
i
• TOTAL DIHOLVSO KLtDS
O RJLMTI na4i
A CHUMUM ion
e tummw m**!
0 CAt»UMW«**l
HOTII WHm WHOM AVMA0I
OONCMfflATIQNt AM in
THAN HO Mm Aflf MOT
M.OTTID
I itml ivntivut itmhim livwl in» I «n» I tv»TIt*^ rtliitttni \ nmlnm (\>m 1 nnotivn huat 1 ]D mto
Nnam soldi HiclrttllrtKl" J.M.0wt*
Vwturt Prwmn 0ra( ¦ 9 In, HjQ
Tout Prawn One, CnMni MM Bin.
¦1t.H3.lln.HjO
Mm Elim. Prmurt Qrw * 0.37-0.4S In. H}0
OMwp (CMflvt FINwl toll*
CwmmmMm • IM* M *
lira Addition t« Dowmomr
Ftjuw F-22. OPERATING DATA FOR V8NTUB l/SPRAY TOWER RUN VFQ • 1 F
F-23
-------
«
i
TStT TIMC, town
1 11/10 I 11/30 I 11/21 I 11 m | 11/23 I IVM I 11/2# J 11/2* I 11/27 | 11/3* I 11/29 I 11/JO I 1
CALENDAR DAY 110701
I 11/2 I 12/* I 13/4 I 12* I M/t I 12ft I
4a4
0 o
0* $000
ooQ8flfi08
°P i
TOTAL OMOLVIO HUM
•ULl*Tttao4a)
cnloaidc icn
MAQNISIUM (Ml*4*
CALCtUM
MOTH, victu whom avihaqi
QONCUtYftAYtOM Aft* LIM
THAN 000 Mm AM NOT
PL0TTID.
W W »«V IW M CMV aw w MV w w
I 11/19 I 11/20 I 11/11 I 11/22 | 11/B I 11/24 I 11/S I 11/20 I WW 11NM fTv«0 I 11/» I 12/1 I 12/2 I 12/2 I 12/4 I 12/0 I 12/0 I 12/7 I
CALINOAR OAVIttTD
Qk Ritt • 36,000 tslm • 330° F
Spray Towtr flat Vtf oelty ¦ 9.4 Him
Liquor R»tt to Vamuri - 600 gpm
Uquor FUtt to Sprty Towtr • 1400 gpm
Vonturi L/6 " 21 pl/mcf
8pr»y Towtr 1/0 " SO tal/rocf
Mo. of Spny Hwdort-4
6HT fWdoneo Tim* * 12 mta
Promt S
-------
*1
J
*1'
BIOIN MmVM-ll
J END RUN VFO-11
rw
-h
Ha
41
\
a
n
4.000
3.000
1,000
2*00 I-
ijm L
h
n
t
I 11/23
THT TIMi. down
I 11/34 i 11/30 I 11/30 I 11/17 I 11/30 I 11/30 I 11/30 I 13/1 I 12/3 I 13/2 I 12/4 I 12/0 I 1M I 13/7 I 1M I W| | Ifftt I 11/11 I
CALMOAH DAY (WW
hi :\
lif ..f
1
ill •
m •
M
19
si #
]i
h ""i-
if ,mo
U M.
| W
2900
'• S.
>4 A
0«o
_1_
• TOTAL OMOMVKO ODtlM
~ OULMTi (ao4*)
4 otKomoa «n
O MAAMSttUMH*")
$ CALCIUM »*~)
aMMNTnATtem am uw
THAN WO hmh AM NOT
MTTW,
_U
x
-j—
-x»
------ T»Ata "
I ivn 1imh I vualuminal I noil linthiml «n Inn I m I n» I iw 1u» I i»» I i» I n» 1 w»l imi I
UUNBMMVIWW
Gn Rtt< > 31,000 Kim • 330° F
*w»y Tew* 0 b Vitatity » 9.4 tym
Liquor Rift to Vinturi ¦ 800 pm
Uquer Am to Sony Tw* * 1400 gpm
Vmtutl UQ ¦ 21 gti/mcf
Spny Towr 1/8-50 nl/mtf
No. of&prey Hawim-4
EHT R«iid#nc» Timl - !2 mill.
AimMSofMilMclKiiMMt* (4,6-16,1 wtK
Vmtwt tnmm Bra* -1 tn. HjO
ToM fawn Drop, E>eMlnt Mitt dim.
•aMJ.lln.Hj0
Mr illm. fnmn Drop • 0.174.44 In. H,0
DWutp ICWfltr k FHw) $aJM>
CMMntntton- IMIwtX
Mm AMMsn to DwmtMur
Plgur* F-24. OPERATING DATA FOB VBNTUfll/SPRAY TOWER RUN VF<3 - It
F-25
-------
fi
atom won vfo-»
twowuw v>y
0 MAONtSIUM Ml"?
0 CALCIUM
MOTE. IMCICI WHOM AVEftAOE
CONCENTRATION!AR E LIN
THAN MO ppn AM NOT
TIST TIME. towi
I 11» I 11fl» 111/30 1 1«/1 I 12/7 I 12/3 i 12/4 I 12/» I 1M I 12/7 | 1|/» I 12/» I11/10 I 12/11 I 12/11 I 12/13 1 11/14 I 11ft* I 11/111
CALENDAR OAV
-------
APPENDIX G
AVERAGE LIQUOR COMPOSITIONS FOR THE
VENTURI/SPRAY TOWER TESTS
G-J
-------
Table G-l
AVERAGE SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR COMPOSITIONS
FOR LIME/MgO TESTS AND A FLY ASH-FREE LIMESTONE TEST (718-1A)
Run No.
Percent
Solids
Discharged
Percent
Sulfur
Oxidized
PH
Liquor Species Concentrations, mg/1 (ppm)
Calculated Percent
Sulfate Saturation
at 50°C
Ca++
Mg++
Na+
K +
so3
S°4
cr
Total
629-1A
56
20
6. 00
610
3770
50
100
890
9890
3880
19200
75
630-1A
53
15
7. 10
245
3920
65
100
770
7680
5570
18400
25
631-1A
56
17
7. 00
585
4560
50
80
480
8100
7430
21300
50
632-1A
54
18
7.00
230
4600
55
90
780
7250
7100
20200
20
633-1A
51
15
7. 05
170
4000
40
95
1110
8100
5000
18600
15
634-1A
58
11
8.00
2050
370
15
15
70
1440
36 30
7600
100
635-1A
47
20
8. 00
2300
640
20
20
100
1530
4600
9250
95
636-1A
44
16
8.00
2200
650
20
20
75
1430
4300
8750
85
637-1A
47
15
7. 90
1600
600
15
17
92
1455
3330
7120
80
638-1A
53
17
8.00
2100
625
11
24
110
2050
3690
8620
120
639-1A
49
28
7. 00
840
3230
8
15
270
8840
3420
16620
105
640-IA
50
24
7. 05
730
3130
11
15
180
7900
3650
15600
85
641-1A
48
11
7. 00
80
3710
9
15
1650
6750
4560
16800
6
642-1A
51
14
6. 95
460
3990
11
16
420
8320
5740
18950
45
643-1A
43
18
6. 95
115
3710
12
16
1110
6720
4690
16370
9
718-IA
55
22
5. 90
2350
600
20
17
110
1880
4500
9550
120
Note; The values in this table are averages for the steady-state operating periods.
(a) (activity Ca ) x (activity SO J / (solubility product at 50°CV. Estimated solubility product for CaSO . 2H O at
50°C is 2. 2 x 10"^ (ref. Radian Corporation nA Theoretical Description of the Limestone-Injection Wet
Scrubbing Process", NAPCA Report, June 9, 1970).
-------
Table G-2
AVERAGE SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR COMPOSITIONS
FOR FLUE GAS CHARACTERIZATION TESTS
Bun No.
Percent
Solids
Discharged
Percent
Solids
Oxidised
pH
Liquor Species Concentrations, mg/1 (ppm)
Calculated Percent
Sulfate Saturation
@ 50°C (a>
Ca++
Mg++
Na+
K+
SCT
3
scf
Cl"
Total
VFG-1A
52
9
6. 95
205
3470
37
41
1040
6750
4140
15700
20
VFG-1B
52
9
7. 95
2200
490
12
67
47
1750
3790
8350
115
VFG-1C
57
?
8.00
2220
565
21
77
105
1420
4330
8730
90
VFG-1D
54
6
7. 95
1680
570
43
89
59
720
3920
7090
40
VFG-1B
54
11
8. 05
1660
530
37
100
77
760
3550
6710
45
VFG-1F
62
II
7.95
2190
540
59
115
72
1170
4290
8440
75
VFG-1G
53
7
8.00
2200
640
62
114
113
630
4760
8520
40
VFG-1I
54
15
8. 00
1710
700
59
116
52
720
4250
7610
40
VFG-1P
58
10
7. 95
1590
720
50
95
65
1120
3790
7440
55
Note: The values in this table are averages for the steady-state operating periods.
4-4- «
(al (activity Ca ) x (activity SO^)/(solubility product at 50°C). Estimated solubility product for CaSO . 2H,0
at 50°C Is 2. 2 x 10-® (ref. Radian Corporation, "A Theoretical Description of the Limeatone-Injecnon Wet
Scrubbing Process", NAPCA Report, June 9, 1970).
-------
APPENDIX H
TEST RESULTS SUMMARY TABLES FOR THE TCA
H-l
-------
Table H-1
SUMMARY OF LIMESTONE/MGO TESTS ON
THE TCA SYSTEM
Run Number
583-2A
581-2B
S84-2A
585-2A
4/15/76
4/21/76
5/3/76
5/14/76
4/21/76
5/1/76
5/14/76
5/20/76
131
230
236
140
30.000
30,000
30, 000
30,000
nti v.inHhr ai2s°r
12. 5
12. 5
12. 5
12. 5
Llouor Rate. ecm
1200
1200
1200
900
L/G. Btl/mcf
<0
50
50
37
Percent Solid* Recirculated
13.2-16.4
13.0-17.6
U.lft
13-16
3. 0
3. 0
3.0 (5/3-5/6)/4.1(5/7-5/14)
4.1
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ca
added/mole SO?, absorbed
1.1-1.4
Avg. % Limestone Utilisation,
100* moles SO. abe. /mole Ca
80
77<»J
77,b>
Inlet SO? Concentration, ppm
2300-3800
2300-3500
2200-3700
2200-3600
Percent SO, Removal
67-86
72-96
90*98
77-93
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
5.2-5. 7
5. 0-5. 6
5.1-5. 7
5. 2-5. 6
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
5. 0-5.2
4.9-5.2
4. 9-5. 5
4.9-5.2
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
20.48
15-45
10-30
15-40
Solids Disposal System
Clarifler
Centrifuge
Cla rifle r/Centrlfuge
Clarifler
Loop Closure, % Solids Dischg.
33-41
55-64
32-38 (Clar. J/53-61 (Cent.)
33-36
Calculated Avg % Sulfate Satura-
tion in Scrubber Inlet Liquor @
50°C
145
110
50
105
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
14.000-19,000
28,000-40,000
38.000-66.000
44,000-60,000
Total A P Range Excluding Mist
Elimination System, in. HzO
7. 5-11. 2
8. 7-14.9
7.5-10. 5
7.0-8.6
Mist Elimination System Ap
Range, tn. H20
0. 45-0.53
0. 45-0.53
0. 45-0. 55
0. 53-0. 58
Mist Elimination
System Configuration
3-pass, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron mist eliminator.
3-pass, open-v*ne, 316 SS
chevron mist eliminator ,
3-pass, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron miet eliminator.
3-pass, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron mist eliminator.
Absorbent
Limestone slurried to60wt%
with makeup wate r and added
added to EHT.
Limestone slurried to 60 wt %
with mafeeup water and added
to EHT plus MgO dry fed to
EHT.
Limestone slurried to 60 wt
% with makeup water and
added to downcomer. MgO
drv fed to EHT.
Limestone slurried to to wt
% with makeup water and
added to downcomer. MgO
drv fed to EHT.
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially
with makeup water. Each
nostxle (6 total) on 3 minutes
(at 0. 55 gpm/ft2), with 7
minutes off between noz&les.
Bottom washed intermittent-
ly with makeup water at 1. 5
gpm/ft , for 4 minutes/
hour.
Top washed sequentially
with makeup water. Each
nozsle (6 total) on 3 minutes
(at 0. 55 gpm/ft ), with 7
minutes off between nozzles.
Bottom washed Intermittent-
ly with makeup water at 1. 5
gpm/ft , for 4 minutes/
hour.
Top washed-sequentially wit)
makeup water. Each nocale
(6 total) on 3 minutes (at
0. 55 gpm/ft*) with 7 mlnutei
off between nozzles. Botton
washed intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/ft^
for 4 minutes/hour.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nozsle
(6 total) on 3 minutes (at
0. 55 gpm/ft*) with 7 minutes
off between nozzles. Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at I. 5 gpm/ft2
for 4 minutes/hour.
Scrubber Internals
3 beds (4 grids) with 5
inches spheres/stage. All
beds worn nitrile foam
spheres from previous run.
3 beds (4 grids) with 5
inches epheres/stage. All
beds worn nltrile foam
spheres from previous run.
1 beds (4 grids) with 5
inches spheres/stage. All
beds worn nltrile foam
apherea from previous run.
I beds (4 grid*} with 5
inches spheres/stage. All
beds worn nltrile foam
spheres from previous run.
System Changes Before
Start of Run
System cleaned.
No cleaning. No changes.
No changes. No cleaning.
No changes. No cleaning.
Method of Control
Stoichiometric ratio con-
trolled at 1. 2 moles Ca/
mole S02 absorbed.
Stoichiometric ratio con-
trolled at t. 2 moles Ca/mole
SO2 absorbed, plus Mg ion
conc. in liquoT controlled at
(ppm CI**)
(5000 + ,rf 2,92 * ppm'
Stoichiometric ratio control
led »t 1. 2 moles Ca/mole
SO? absorbed. Mg Ion conc
in liquor controlled at
(9000 + * )ppm.
Stoichiometric ratio control-
led at 1. 2 moles Ca/mole
SO* absorbed. Mg ion conc.
in liquor controlled at
(HIOO ~
-------
Table H-l (continued)
SUMMARY OF LIMESTONE/MGO TESTS ON
THE TCA SYSTEM
Run No.
586-2A
587-2A
588-2A
589-2A
Start-of-Run Dat*
5/20/76
5/31/76
6/16/76
6/21/76
End-of-Run
<^25/76
fe/H/7fc
fe/21/7b
7/1/76
On Strum Hour.
no
215
107
200
Gas Rate. acfn->. & 300°F
30.000
30.000
20.500
30.000
Gas Velocity, fps @ 125°F
12. 5
12. 5
8.6
12.5
... Liouor Rate, urn
1200
1200
1200
1200
L/G,
50
50
73
50
14-16
a-n
13-15
14-16
Effluent Residence Time, min
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
Stolchlom etrie Ratio, moles Ca
added/mil* SO? absorbed
1.1.1.1"'
1.18-1.55""
l.fi-2.2(0)
1.05-L45rfll"
Avg, % Limestone Utilisation,
lOOx moles SO. abs. /mole Ca
adHfiH 2
83<*>
74im
53tC)
Inlet SO^ Concentration, ppm
2200-3300
2600-3600
1800-3300
3000-4200
Percent SO2 Removal
72-ea
88-98
90-97
86-94
Scrubber Inlet oH Ranee
S.1-5.5
5.1-5. 5
5.1-5.6
5.3-5.6
Scrubber Outlet pH Rang*
4. 95-5.15
4.8-5.1
4.9.5.4
4.9-5.2
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
10-35
15-40
22-40
8-22
Solids Disposal System
Clarlfler
Clarlf. b Cent, in Parallel
Centrifuge
Centrifuge
Loop Closure, % Solids Dischg,
36-37
30-55
60-68
52-61
Calculated Avg % Sulfate Satura-
tion in Scrubber Inlet Liquor @
50°C
70
125
125
120
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
40.000-58,000
44,000-56, 000
47,000-60,000
44,000-56,000
Total AP Range Excluding Mitt
Elimination System, in. H?0
3. 3-3.?
8,1-12.5
5. 0-5. 7
7.7-9.9
Miat Elimination System AP
Range, In. H?0
0, 52-0.60
0.45-0.52
0,18-0.25
0.45-0. 52
Mist Elimination
System Configuration
3-pa*s, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron mist eliminator.
3-pass, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron mlet eliminator.
3-pasa, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron mist eliminator.
3-pass, open-vane, 316 SS
chevron mist eliminator.
Absorbent
Limestone alurr led to 40
% with makeup water and ad-
ded to downcomer, MgQ dry
(«H tn EHT.
Limestone slurried to 60 wt
% with makeup water and ad-
ded to downcomer. MgO dry
fed to EHT.
Limestone slurried to 60 wt
% with makeup water and ad-
ded to downcomer. MgO dr>
fed to BHT.
Limestone slurried to 60 wt
% with makeup water and ad-
ded to downcomer. MgO dry
fed to EHT.
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially
with makeup water. Each
noaale (fc total) pn S minutes
(at 0, 55 gpm/ft ) with 7 min-
ute# off between noaeles.
Bottom washed intermittent-
ly with makeup water at 1. 5
gpm/ft /or 4 minutes/hour.
Top washed sequentially
with maksup water. Each
nossle (fc total) on 3 minutei
(at 0. 55 gpm/ft^) with 7 mln>
utes off between noaalea.
Bottom washed intermittent-
ly withjnakeup watar at I. S
gpm/ft for 4 minutes/hour.
Top washed sequentially
with makeup water. Each
noaale (£> total) an 3 minutes
(at 0, 55 gpm/ft ) with t min
lite a off between no*sl»a.
Bottom washed intermittent-
ly with jnakeup water at I, 5
gpm/ft for 4 minutes/hour.
Top washed sequentially
with makeup water. Each
noxale lb total) on 3 minutes
(at 0. 55 gpm/ft ) with ? min-
utes off between noaalea.
Bottom washed intermittent-
ly with jnakeup water at 1. 5
gpm/ft for 4 minutes /hour.
Scrubber Internal*
Pour support grids, no
epheres.
Three beds (4 grids) with 5
Inches apheres/bed. All
worn nitrlle foam spherei
from Run 585-2A.
Three beds (4 gride) with 5
inches spheres/bed. Botton
bed with worn nitrlle fosm
spheres from Run 587-2A.
Top It middle bed* with new
nitrile foam spheres.
Three bede (4 grids) with 5
inches spheres/bed, AH
worn nitrite foam spheres
from Run 588 -2A.
System Changes Before
Start of Run
All spheres removed. No
cleaning.
No cleaning. Reinstalled
three 5-inch beds of spherei
ue«d In Run 385-2A.
Replaced top *nd middle bed
spheres with new ones. No
cleaning.
No changes. No cleaning.
Method of Control
Stoichiometric ratio control-
led at 1. 2 moles Ca/mole
SO. absorbed. Mg ion conc.
in liquor controlled at
(9000 * 1
Stoichiometric ratio control
led at \, Z molts Ca/mole
SO_ absorbed. Mg Ion cone
in liquor controlled at
{9000 ~ 1 1 **"
Stoichiometric ratio, control
led at 1.2 moUe Ca/mole
SO, absorbed. Mg ion conc
in liquor controlled at
(WOO.iHfg^ppn,
Scrubber Inlet liquor pW
controlled at 5.4 + ,1 .
Override! Stoieh.""JUtlo
1.8. Mg ion cone, in
liquor controlled at
(9000 * > | ppm
Run Philosophy
To observe effect 0/ re-
moving the spheres on SO,
removal and sulfate satura-
tion. (Direct comparison
with Run $84-2A).
To obierve the effect of
tower percent solids in the
recirculating slurry on
sulfate saturation ,
Range of SO2 removala was
86 to 94 percent (tf 90 to 98
percent in &M-ZA) while inlet
pH ranged over 0. 3 unite (5. 3
to 5,6)vcompared wtth 0.6
unite (S. 1 to 9. 71 in 5M-2A.
Scale buildup on walls below
bottom grid continued.
'*'Tetal stolch. ratio for Ca
V Mg is 1. 3-1.% (avg.
alkali utU. * mi
'k*Total stolch, ratio for Ca
fc Mg la 1.26-1.10 i»vg.
alkali tttil. •68%},..
'eVot*l stolch, ratio for Ca
V Mi U l.68-2,JQ«M| H 1.12-1,54 (»vg.
alkali uHl, « 75%).
B-3
-------
Table H-2
SUMMARY OF LIME TESTS ON THE TCA SYSTEM
Run Number
60I-2A
602-2A
603-2A
604-2A
Stert-of-Run Date
7/1/76
7/12/76
7/19/76
7/28/76
End-of-Run Date
7/12/76
7/18/76
7/26/76
8/4/76
On Stream Hour*
177
137
165
158
Gas Rat*, aefm @ 300°F
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
Caa Velocitv. foa@ 12%°F
n. 5
12. 5
12.5
12. 5
Llauor Rate, gotti
1200
1200
1200
900
50
50
50
37
8-9
14-16
7-9
7-8
Effluent Residence Tim*, min
4. 1
4. 1
4. 1
4. 1
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ca
added/mole SOj absorbed
1. 00-1.08(,)
1. 00-1.05(b)
0. 98-1. 02
Inlet SO2 Concentration, ppm
2600-3200
2600-3700
2200-4500
2600-3600
Percent SO? Removal
88-96
85*91
75-92
68-78
Scrubber Inlet dH Ranse
6. 8-7,6
6.6-7.4
6.7-7,2
6,7-7. I
Scrubber Outlet dH Ranee
5. 0-5.4
4. 9-5. 3
4. 9-5. 3
4,8-5. 0
Inlet O2 Concentration, vol, %
5.0-7.0
4. 5-7.0
5. 0-7, 5
5.0-7, 0
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
10-16
5-23.
15-25
22-35
Solid* Disposal System
Clarifi«r It Centrifuge
Clarlfier L Centrifuge
Clarlfier It Centrifuge
Clarlfier k Centrifuge
Loop Closure, % SolJd* Di*chg.
54-60
57-60
58-61
58-62
Calculated Avg % Sulfate Saturation
in Scrubber Inlet Liquor® 50°C
50
40
75
90
12.400-15.600
12.800-15.400
14.400.17. 600
14.400-17.200
Total A P Range Excluding Mist
Elimination System, In. H2O
7.9-9. 5
7.9-8.7
7. 5-9. I
6,6-7.9
Mist Elimination System
A P Ranee. in. H?0
0. 47-0. 52
0, 49-0. 51
0, 49-0.53
0. 52-0, 88
Mist Elimination
System Configuration
3-pass, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator
3-p*se, open-vane, 316L SS,
chevron mist eliminator
3-pass, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator
3-pass, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator
Absorbent
Lime slurried to20 <*t. %wlth
makeup water and added to
downcomet, MgO dry fed to
EHT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt.%with
makeup water and added to
downcomer. MgO dry fed to
EHT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt. % with
makeup water and added to
EHT, MgO dryfedto EHT,
Lime slurried to 20 wt. %with
makeup water and added to
downcomer. MgO dry fed to
EHT.
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nozzl* (6
total) on 4 minute* (at 0, 55
gpm/*q. ft. ) with 76 min. off
between nossles. Bottom
washed Intermittently with
makeup water at 1, 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noitle (6
total) on 4 minutes (at 0,5 5
gpm/sq. ft. ) with 76 min. off
between nossles. Bottom
waahed intermittently with
makeup water at 1.5 gpm/sq.
ft. for 6 minute* every 4
hours.
Top waahed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noxsle (6
total) on 4 minute* (at 0, 55
gpm/sq, ft, ) with 76 min. off
between nosale*, Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/sq.
ft, for 6 minutes every 4
hour*.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noaale (6
total) on 4 minutes (at 0, 55
gpm/sq. ft.) with 76 min. off
between nosales. Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/aq.
hours.
Scrubber Internal*
3 beds (4 grids) with nom-
inally 5 inches vpheres/bed.
AM bed* worn nitrite foam
sohere* from Run 589-2A.
Estimated total actual bed
height was 14. 5 In.
3 beds (4 grids) with nom-
inaliy 5 inches spheres /bed.
All beds worn nftrfU foam
spheres from previous run.
Estimated total aetual bed
height was 14. 5 in.
3 beds (4 grids) with nom-
inally 5 Inches spheres/bed.
All beds worn nitrile foam
spheres from previous run.
Estimated total actual bed
height was 14, 5 ir.
3 beds (4 grids) *lth nom-
inally 5 inches spheres/bed.
AH bed* worn nltrile foam
apH*T*s from prevlou* run.
Estimated total actual bed
height was 14. 0 In,
System Changes Before
Start of Run
No change*. Clarlfier dumped
and cleaned.
No changes. No cleaning.
No changes. No cleaning.
No changes. No cleaning.
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 7. 0±0. 2. Mg ion
concentration In liquor con-
trolled at
WOO thy"') 1 ppm.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 7. 0+0. 2. Mg ion
concentration tn liquor con*
trolled at
IZ000 ) ppm.
Scrubber Inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 7, 0+0,2, Mg ion
concentration in liquor con-
trolled at
110O0 + iEE££j£J_l Jpptn,
5crubb*r inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 7, 0+0,2, Mg ion
concentration in liquor con-
trolled at
UOOO + '"V,,""1 Ippm.
Run Philosophy
First run (base case) of *
aerie* of lime test* with and
without MgO addition. Run
conditions selected to obtain
good SO2 removal and sulfate
(gypsum) unsaturated oper-
ation.
To obeerve the effect ofhigher
percent solids recirculated
(maintained at approsc, 1$%
cf. 8% during Run 601-2A).
Other operating condition*
same as for Run 601-2A.
To obeerve the effect of lime
addition to EHT (cf. lime
addition to downcomer during
601-2A) on sulfate saturation.
All other operating eonditlona
•am* as for Run 60I-2A,
To observe eh* effect of lower
ilurry rate (900 gpm cf. 1200
|pm for Run 601-2A) on SO2
removal and sulfats saturation.
All other conditions earns a*
for Run 60I-2A*
Result*
SO2 removal averaged 92%
and lime utlliaation 96%,
Average sulfate saturation was
50%. Mist eliminator
-------
Table H-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF LIME TESTS ON THE TCA SYSTEM
Run Number
60S-2A
606-2A
607-2A
608-2A
Start-of-Run Date
8/5/76
8/13/76
8/19/76
9/3/76
End-of-ftun Date
8/13/76
8/18/76
9/2/76
9/6/76
On Stream Hours
170
122
212
84
Cub Rate, aefm@ 300°F
20.500
30,000
30,000
30,000
Gas Velocity, fpa @ 1250F
8.6
12.5
12.5
12. S
Liquor Rate, gpm
1200
900
900
900
L/C. gal/mcf
73
J?
37
37
Percent Solid* Recirculated
7-8
7.5-8.5
7-8
14, 1-15.4
Effluent Residence Time, min
4. I
4.!
4.1
4,1
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ca
added/mole SO7 absorbed
1. 00-1. Ojl*1
1.00-1.06
1,00-1. 04<
Avg. % Lima Utilisation, 100k
moiec SOj aba. /mole Ca added
99**1
97(b)
99(c)
93(d)
Inlet SOj Concentration, ppm
3100-3900
2600-4000
2800-3600
3000-4100
Percent SO2 Removal
76-84
69-82
78-94
76-89
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
6.85-7.1
7. 8S<-8. I
7.8-8.1
7. 8-8. 1
Scrubber Outlet pH Rant*
5.1-5.4
4.9-5.3
5.1-5.4
4.9-5.2
Inlet 02 Concentration, vol. %
5.5-6.5
5-8
4.5-7.5
5-7
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
14-25
15-32
5-25
15-25
Solids Disposal System
Clarifler 4t Centrifuge
Clarifier k Centrifuge
Clarifler It Centrifuge
Clarifier fc Centrifuge
Loop Closure, % Solids Diichg.
51-59
$7.62
53-59
55-60
Calculated Avg % Sulfate Saturation
In Scrubber Inlet Liquor @ 50°C
45
95
75
95
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
n,600-16.200
14,000-16,400
22,000-26,400
22,200-26,000
Total Ap Range Excluding Mist
Elimination System, in. HjO
4. 5-5. 0
6.4-7. 0
5.7-7.1
6. 8-7.6
Mist Elimination System
Ap Range, In. H2O
0. 25-0.32
0.51-0.56
0.45-0.57
0.49-0.54
Mist Elimination
System Configuration
3-paas, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator
3-pass, open-vane. 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator
l-pass.vppsn-vane. 316LSS.
chevron mist eliminator
3-pass, open-vane, 316LSS.
chevron mist eliminator.
Absorbent
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
downcomer. MgO dry fed to
EHT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
downcomer. MgO dry fed to
®HT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
lowncomer. MgO dry fed to
RHT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
downcomer. MgO dry fed to
ttKT.
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle (6
total) on 4 minutes (at 0.55
gptn/sq- ft. ) with 76 min. off
between noagiet. Bottom
washed Intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle (6
total) on 4 minutes (at 0. 55
gpm/sq. ft. ) with 76 min. oif
between nosales. Bottom
washed Intermittently with
makeup water at I. 5 gpm/eq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle (6
total) on 4 minutes (at 0, 55
gpm/sq. ft.) with 76 min. off
between nosales. Bottom
erashed intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Eachnossle(6
tatal) on 4 minutes (at 0. 55
gpm/sq. ft. ) with 76 min. off
between nossles. Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at I, 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Scrubber Internals
3 beds (4 gride) with nom-
inally 5 inches spheres/bed.
All beds worn nitrite foam
ssheret from previous run.
Estimated total actual bed
height was 14. 0 in.
3 beds ( 4 gride) with nom-
inally 5 inches spheres/bed.
All beds worn nitrite foam
spheres from previous run.
Estimated total actual bed
height wa* 14. 0 in.
3 beds (4 grids) with nom-
inally 5 Inches spheres/bed.
All beds worn nitrile foam
spheres from previous run.
Estimated total actual bed
height wae 14. 0 In,
3 beds <4 grids) with nom-
inally 5 inches spheres/bed,
Alt beds worn nitrile foam
spheres from previous run,
Estimated total actual bed
height was 13. S In.
System Changes Before
Sta rt of Run
Mist eliminator, bottom grid,
walls below bottom grid, and
outlet duct to reheater cleaned
prior to run, No otherchanges
No changes. No cleaning.
Mist eliminator and bottom
grid cleaned prior to run.
No other changes.
Mist eliminator cleaned. No
other changes.
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled at 7. 0_+0. 2. Mg ion
concentration in liquor con-
trolled at
(2000 ~ ) ppm.
Scrubber tnlet liquor pH
controlled at 8.0^0.2. Mg ion
concentration In liquor con-
trolled at
fZOOOt 1
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled at 8.0+0.2. Mg ion
concentration In Uquor con-
trolled at
0000 + 'PP2_ n * > ppm.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled at 8,0+0.2. Mg ion
concentration In liquor con-
trolled at
(~000 ~ IPP>m,;'"1 1 ppm.
Run Philosophy
To observe the effect of tow
gas rate (high L/C}, 20, 500
acfm cf. SO, 000 acfm for
6Q1-2A, on SO7 removal and
sulfate saturation, AU other
operating conditions same ••
for Ruin 601-2A.
To observe if a scrubber inlet -
pH of 8.0 prevents the scaling
which occurred at pH of ?. 0
during Run 604-$A, Other teat
conditions tame as Rwv604-4Ai
To see whether the TCA can
be ope rated free of scale at
900 gpm liquor rate (cf. Rune
604-2A and 606-2A) by in-
creasing Mf ion concentration
To observe the effect of high
percent solids recirculated
(15% cf. 8% for 607.2A) on
sulfate saturation, Other teat
conditions same aaRun 607-ZA.
Results
SOj removal averaged 80%
and sulfate saturation 45* (ef.
92% and 90% far 601-2A).
Inspection at 151 operating
hours showed that mist elim-
inator was 1% restricted, Also,
two of four slurry spray neaalei
were completely plugged and
sc rubber effluant horlsoatal
discharge line to EHT badly
plugged by scale and solids,
resulted probably from clean-
up debris prior to run,
The mist eliminator was 10%
restricted at end of run (cf.
40% at end of 604-2A). Heavy
scaling on bottom grid, hut
lighter scaling tm scrubber
wall* and outlet duct to re-
heater than Airing Rub 604-2A
Mist eliminator 5% restricted
after 114 hours (cf, 10%after
122 hours of Run itli-tA) and
1% restricted at end of run.
Scaling lighter elsewhere than
at end of Runs 6Q6-2A or
604-2A. Sulfate saturation
averaged 75% fcf. 95% for
606-1A and 90ft for 604-2A).
Sulfate saturation averaged
9»% (cf. 75% for Run 607-2A).
No inspection was made at
the end of the run.
'* 'Total etoleh. ratio {or Ca it
Mg is 1,02-1.05 (avg.
alkali uttla - 97 %).
^To**l stoieh. ratio fer Ca 4
Mg U 1.02 - 1.08 (avg.
alkali u«U. - 9S%).
'c,Total stoteh, ratio for Ca <1
Mg is 1.01 - 1.09 {avg.
alkali utll. * 9s%).
(d) " "
Total stoich. ratio for Cs l<
Mg is 1,04-1, 09 (avg.
alkali utll. a 94%).
H-5
-------
Table H-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF LIME TESTS ON THE TCA SYSTEM
Run Number
608-2B
609-2A
610-2A
611-2A
Start-of-Run Date
9/6/76
9/13/76
9/24/76
10/7/76
End-of-Run Date
9/13/76
9/24/76
10/7/76
10/12/76
Dn Stream Hour*
151
259
260
in
Gas Rate, acfm @ 300°F
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
Gas Velocity, fps @ 12-»°F
12. 5
12. 5
12. 5
12, 5
Liquor Rat*, gpm
900
900
900
900
L/Ci, B»\/mcf
3?
37
37
37
Percent Solid# Recirculated
14,2-15.5
7,6-8,6
7.4-0.4
7.3-8.7
Effluent Residence Time, min
5.4
5.4
5. 4
4.
Stoichiometric Ratio, mole* Ca
idded/mols SO2 absorbed
1. 01-1, 07
0. 96-1.04(bl
1.00-1. 05(cl
1. 00-1. 06^'
4vg. %Lime Utilisation, JOOx
-note a SO? aba. /mole Ca added
96(*f
100(b|
98{e>
97""
Inlet SOj Concentration, j>pTr\
2.600-3600
2500.3600
2400-3450
2500-3300
Percent SOz Removal
90-99
70-80
77-91
77-85
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
7. 8-8. 1
6, 8-7. 15
7.8-8. 15
7.85-8. 1
>crubber Outlet pH Range
5. 4-6. Z
4.8-5. 1
5. 1-5. 35
4.9-5.5
Inlet 02 Concentration, vol. %
5-9
5-7. 5
6-9
5-7
Percent Sulfur Owldlxed
8-18
10-26
2-12
20-40
Solids Dlapoasl System
Clarifier & Centrifuge
Clarifier & Centrifuge
Clarifier St Filter
Clarifier It Filter
Loop Closure, % Solids Diechg.
52-56
55-63
53-67
55-65
Calculated Avg. % Sulfate Saturation
In Scrubber Inlet Lipase, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator.
3-pass. open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator.
3-pass. open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron miat eliminator.
3>paas, open-vsne, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator.
Absorbent
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makevp water and added to
downcomer. MgO dry- fed to
EHT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
downcomer. MgQ dry fed to
FHT.
Lime slurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
downcomer. MgO dry fed to
EHT.
Lime elurried to 20 wt % with
makeup water and added to
downcomer, MgO dry fed to
Mist Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle (6
total) on 4 minutes (at 0, 55
gpm/sq. ft. ) with 7b min. off
between nosxles. Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for b minutes every 4
hours.
Top washed •equentially with
makeup water. Each nossle (6
total} o-n 4 minutes (at 0. 55
gpm/ sq. ft. ) with 76 min. off
between nosxles. Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Top washed Sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle (6
total) on 4 minutes {at 0. 55
gpm/sq. ft,) with 76 min. off
between nossles. Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at I. 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for b minutes every 4
hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noaile (6
total) on 4 minutes (at 0. 55
gpm/aq.ft. ) with 76 min. off
between nosslee. Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/sq.
it, for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Scrubber Internals
3 "beds (4 grids) with nam -
(nelly 5 inches spheres/bed.
All b« ) pprr,.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH
controlled at 8. 0+0. 2, Mg inn
concentration in liquor eon-
trolled at
iZOOO ~ ) ppm.
Run Philosophy
rhis run is a continuation a*
Run 608-2A except that a step
change in EHT residence tirne
from 4.1 to S. 4 min. was
mad* to obterve the effect on
iulf»te saturation.
To observe If the higher 5,4
win. residence time results
in sulfate unsaturated opera-
tion with 900 gpm slurry rat*
and 2000 ppm effective Mg
cone. (cf. Run 604-2A with a
4.1 min, residence time).
To obeerve if a residence time
of 5.4 min. prevents the sul-
fite saturated mode of opera-
tion which occurred with a
4,1 min. reeidsnce time
during Run 606-2A. Otherte«t
conditions sams asRun6Q6-2A.
To confirm the sulfate scaling
mode of operation during Run
b0fc-?A at 4,1 min, residence
time. Run condition* Identical
with those of Run 606-2A.
Result*
Sulfate saturation dropped to
an Average 11% fcf. 95% for
608-2A). SO2 removal aver-
aged 9** {cf. 83% for Rub
608-2A). The mist eliminator
was 2% restricted at the end
of thie run.
Sulfate saturation was 60% (cf,
>0% for Run 604-ZA). Mist
iliminator was 3% restricted
kt and of rem after 259 Hours,
down from an initial 2% {cf.
40% for 604-2A).
Sulfate eaturation was 40% (cf.
95% for Run 606-2AU und sul-
fur oxidation averaged 7% (cf.
24% for Run 606-2A). The mist
eliminator was 2% restricted
after 207 hours, from an
Initial 3%.
Mist eliminator 6% restricted
at end of run. Some scale in
reheater and en leading edge
of ID. fan damper. Sulfate
saturation waa 95% (ef. 95%
for Run 606.2A).
Total ateieh. ratio for Ca fc
Mg i* 1.05-1. 1| (avg.
alkali util. > 93*).
'^Total stolch. ratio for Ca It
Mg is 6.98 -1.06 (avg,
alkali util. > 98%).
'C*Total stolch, ratio for Ca fc
Mg is 1. 02.1. 07 (avg.
alkali utU. - 95%).
^Total stolch. ratio for Ca <•
Mg Is 1.03-1,09 (avg.
alkali util. * 95%).
H-6
-------
Table H-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF LIME TESTS ON THE TCA SYSTEM
Run Number
612-2A
613-2A
614-2A
61S-2A
Start-of-Run Date
10/12/76
10/18/76
10/22/76
10/28/76
End-of-Run Date
10/18/76
10/21/76
10/28/76
11/3/76
On Stream Hours
139
67
139
no
Gas Rate, acfm @ 300°F
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
Gas Velocity, fps @ 125°F
12. 5
12.5
12.5
12. 5
Liquor Rate, gpm
900
1200
900
1200
L/G, gal/mcf
37
50
37
50
Percent Solids Recirculated
7.4-8.5
7.6-8. 7
7. 8-8. 6
7. 7-8, 6
Effluent Residence Time, min
3
16
12
Stoichiometric Ratio, mole* Ca
added/mole SO2 absorbed
0.98-1.02(#l
0. 98- 1.03m/sq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
bours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each noiale
(6 total) on 4 minutes (at 0. 55
gpm/sq ft.) wl h 76 min. off
between nosslec. Bottom
washed intermittently with
makeup water at 1. 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Scrubber Internals
3 beds (4 grids) with nominal-
ly 5 inches spheres/bed. All
beds worn nitrite foam
spheres from previous run,
Estimated total actual bad
height was 12. 5 in.
3 beds (4 grids) with nominal-
ly 5 inches spheres/bed, AU
bed# worn nitrite foam
spheres from previous run.
Estimated total actual bed
height was 12. 0 in.
3 beds {4 grids) with nominal-
ly S inches sph«res/bed. All
beds worn nitrile foam
spheral from previous run.
Estimated total actual bed
height was 12.0 In,
3 beds (4 grids) with nominal-
ly S inches spheres/bed. All
beds worn nitrile foam
spheres from previous run.
Estimated total actual bed
height was 11. 5 in.
System Changes Before
Sta rt of Run
Mist eliminator cleaned. No
other changes.
The bottom grid of the TCA
was cleaned. No other
changes*
Mist eliminator cleaned. No
Other changes,
Solfds that had fallen on top
of the mist eliminator during
Run 614-2A from outlet duet
were removed, reducing elim-
inator restriction from 4%
to 1%. Otherwise mist elim-
inator not eleaned. No other
changes.
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 8. 0_+0. 2, Mg ion
concentration in liquor con-
trolled at
(2000 »kEEL£lU,ppm,
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 7, 0+0-2. Mg ion
concentration In Uquor eon*
trolled at
(2000 » 1 PPm.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con*
trolled at 8.0+0.2. Mg las
concentration in liquor con-
trolled at
Scruboer inlet liquor pH con*
trolled at 7. 0+ 0.2. Mg ion
cORcentratioa~ia liquor con-
trolled at
MOOO + (ppm C1-),
«. yii
Run Philosophy
To observe the effect of
residence time (3 min.) on
sulfate saturation. Compare
with Rune 61I-2A fc 606-ZA
(4.1 min*) and Run 610-2A
(5.4 min) all at otherwise
same conditions.
To observe the effect of lower-
ing the residence tims from
4.1 min. (Run 661 -2A) to 3
min* 1 with all other con-
ditions the mrm a* for Rob
601-2A.
To observe the effect of high
residence time (16 miA.) com-
pared with low residence time
(4. 1 min. during Run 606-2A)
on sulfate saturation, All
other conditions the tame as
tor Run 606-2A.
To Observe As effect of a
12 min. residence time on
sulfate saturation in com-
parison with Runs 601-2A
. All other condi-
tions earns as for Run 601-IA.
Results
Sulfate saturation for this run
was the same as for Run*
611-2A fc 606-2A »t 95%, cf,
with 40% during Run 610-2A,
The mist climiastor was 9%
restricted at the end of the
ran.
Sulfate saturation wee {ef,
80% for Sun 661-2A). Mis*
eliminator restrict tea
J»2A}.
Mae there was scaling at
tower walla of TCA.
Sulfate eaturation averaged
93% (cf. 50% for Rub 601-2A
and 95% for Run 613-2A),
The mist eliminator was 2%
restricted at end of run.
Heavy scale in reheat*?.
^Total atoieh. ratio for Ca tr
Mg is 1. 01-1. 05 {avg.
alkali util. * 97%),
'^Tstsl rteidi. ratio tor Ca it
Mg is L 01-1.04 (avg.
flUfttfftl
^Total stoich. ratio for Ca k
Mg U i.OJ-1.09 (avg.
Uttl. *94*^
W Total etoich. rBtio for Ca 4
Mg It 1.00*1,0« (avg.
.....
H-7
-------
Table H-2 (continued)
SUMMARY OF LIME TESTS ON THE TCA SYSTEM
M6-2A
617-2A
Start-of-Run Date
11/5/76
11/15/76
End-of-Run Date
11/13/76
11/22/76
On Stream Hour*
174
159
Gas Rate, acfm @ 300°F
30,000
30.000
Gaa Velocity, fns 0 125°F
12. S
12.5
Liquor Rata, gpm
1200
l?nn
L/C. gal/mcf
50
50
Percent Solid* Recirculated
7. 7-8. 1
14.0-15. 5
Effluent Residence Time, mln
12
12
Stoichiometric Ratio, moles Ca
added/mole SOg absorbed
1.05-1. 15
1. 04-1. 1 1
Avg. % Lime Utilisation, lOOx
moles SO2 /mole Ca added
91
93
Inlet SO* Concentration, oom
2800-3800
2700-3500
Percent SO2 Removal
66-78
74-85
Scrubber Inlet pH Range
7. 8-8. 3
7.9-8.2
Scrubber Outlet pH Range
4.2-4. 6
4.3-4.7
Inlet O2 Concentration, vol. %
5-8. 5
4. 5-9
Percent Sulfur Oxidised
7-32
5-18
Solids Disposal System
Clarifier & Centrifuge
Clarifier t Centrifuge
Loop Cloiure, % Solids Dlsehg.
50-63
54-f.O
Calculated Avg % Sulfate Saturation
in Scrubber Inlet Liquor @ 50°C
115
110
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
7800-10,000
8000-11,000
Total AH Range Excluding Mist
Elimination System, in "HjO
6. 8-8. 0
8.0-9, I
Mist Elimination System
&P Range, in. HzO
0. 42-0. 51
0,42-0.49
Mlat Elimination
System Configuration
3-pass, open-vane, 316 LSS,
chevron mist eliminator.
3 pass, open-vane, 316LSS,
chevron mist eliminator .
Absorbent
Lime slurried to 20 wt.%
with makeup water and added
to downcomer.
Lime slurried to 20 wt,%
with makeup water and added
to downcomer.
Mlat Eliminator
Washing Scheme
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nossle
(6 total) on 4 minutes (at 0, 55
gpm/sq. ft. ) with 76 min. off
between nossles. Bottom
wished intermittently with
makeup water aM, 5 gpm/sq.
ft. (or 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Top washed sequentially with
makeup water. Each nosale
(6 total) on 4 minutes (at 0, 55
gpm/sq. ft. 1 with 76 mln. off
between nosales. Bottom
waahed Intermittently with
makeup water at 1, 5 gpm/sq.
ft. for 6 minutes every 4
hours.
Scrubber Internals
3 beds (4 grids) with nominal-
ly 5 inches spherta/bed. All
beds worn nitrlle foam
spheres from previous run.
The total actual bed height
measured during shutdown at
] 33 oper. hours was 11.0 in.
3 beds (4 grids) with 5
Inches spheres/bed. All
beds worn nltrile foam
spheres from previous run.
Syatem Changes Before
Start of Run
Clarifier dumped and scrub-
ber system cleaned to purge
system of magnesium ion.
Mist eliminator cleaned.
Used spheres added towards
end of Run 616-2A to increase
total bed height to IS inches.
No cleaning-
Method of Control
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 8. 0 + 0. 2.
Scrubber inlet liquor pH con-
trolled at 8. 0 J; 0, 2.
Run Philosophy
To obsarve TCA performance
with lime ecrubblng (no MgO
addition) under typical op-
erating conditions.
To observe if 15% solids
recirculated (cf. 8% In Run
616-2A) decreases scaling
potential shown during
Run 616-2A. All other
conditions same for both runa.
Results
902 removal averaged 72%,
and lima utilisation 9!%, at
an avertga Inlet SOj concen-
tration of 3300 ppm. The
mlat eliminator was 2% re-
stricted after 133 hrs of op-
eration due primarily to fall-
out solids. These ware re-
moved and end of run U
was < 1% restricted, Some
gypsum seal* formed on wall
below bottom grid.
Sulfate saturation averaged
110% (cf. 115% during Run
M6-2A). SOg removal aver-
aged 60%, lime utilisation
93%, Inlet SOZ cone. 3100
ppm (cf. 72%, 91%, and 3300
ppm for Run 616-2A).
The mist eliminator was
< 1% restricted at end of run.
Gypsum scale found at end
of Run M6>2A was diminish-
ing.
H-8
-------
APPENDIX I
GRAPHICAL OPERATING DATA FROM THE
TCA TESTS
1-1
-------
4.1
*, »09
4.000
3 .>00
3.000
H*T tlMC. Hem
/ 4/t0 t 4St7 I 4tit ! 4/tt I 4/20 I 4/21 | 4f72 I I 4/Z4 J 4/X I 4/U I 4rt* ( 4m I VH I 4/30 I «/» I W I W 1 •« I
CALiNOAA PAY I1CWI
s!>
Iff
Ai
11
M
Hi
*•>000
r 1too°
IJ U.OOt
h UM0
3 S M.4W
if •«.
•.AOS -
2.000
¦•A
•t
p89
• TOTAL DlttOLVf 0 SOUM
0 CALCIUM iCn^l
~ aULPATE <«04a)
A CHLOMDf (CT|
o
NOTI: tHCill WHOM
CONCSMYRATIOMt AMI Li
THAN MO AM NOT
norrio.
*a*
itaao
tt.Ott
TttTTMCiHum
I 4/n Ui? I vm I I v« I tnil tm 1 vo I ra I tdf I vm I up I ««1 vii I vn I vi I n I h I ^ I
CALINDAfl MY (WW
Gat flat* » 30,000 acfm • 300 °F
Gat Vflocity » 12.5 him
L^uor Rata ¦ 1200 «kh
L/5 * 50 iUfmi
EHT RaaWtnea Tima « 3
-------
TUT TMtC. Noun
440 4*0
I Wtt i 4/» I 4M I «/» I V* I 4fl? I 4/H I *i» I 4/» t 1/1 I « I W I SM I M I M I V7 I M I M I V10 I 411
CAltNDAJt DA* IWH
!!
30000
11000
• •
• • • ••
• • •
~
a ~
_Q nfl u D O
o° o ° aao ~" aa ~
l"li« 8-42 lilt0.• °Ss222?r
ltoo
OftftflftO ft 100 ft
Am.
• TOTAL omOLVCD aOUH
0 CALCIUM (Ca**l
O «uLW«noA"t
A CHUMIH ICI'I
o MMNBnuM II*!**!
NOTC: INCtll MMMC
aMCWTMTKmiMI L(«B
THM»IOOl«nARf NOT
norm
m m m m m m », m mr
IwlwlwluilwlinliiiiliatwlMtnlHlMlHlMliiTlHliiil am I irn
wmnitwiiini
8« *«• ¦ MMM ac«m • SM "F
Sn Valoeity ¦ tiSWue
Liqiw flail •MSOgjwt
L/8 ¦ fiO sat/mcf
EHT RuMmmTAm « J mlo
Thna tt«N> > W. «*wAtai>
Now Onty nHft Ml (Ulim xtm
ionic IrotafrncM Iwlwwi ± 4.SK
MntMSaMillKlniiltM • 13.0-17.tM %
t«m rmm Ont, t«MiM mw fiMk
• U>lU*.$0
tHutmy (OmrWmil »oMi
CwmmtMi* H«M«
Ummoiw mi MgO AdiUtkm n EHT
Figur* W. OPERATING DATA FOR TCA RUN 58S-2B
1-3
-------
; BEGIN RUN 684 2A
ENOrlUN W'tf
TEST TIME, Houn
1 I »» 1 s» 1 *n | I a« I «m I «m t uu I wt> I km I sm ( vm I sm I wit I vi« I s/» ( sm
CALENDAR DAY (t»7C)
vulvnl
s
1 T-
•0.000
•
1 ^
10,008
h
40.000
•
*5
o
us
M,000
p
Is
30.000
~
1
10.000
30°
El*
a a
o a 1"
bo« §~o9 p •¦S00ogi2o£8aSofl?;I;
M
"
40
-
SO
«Q
.
0
-
ISO
-
100
¦
Ml
0
0 TOTAL OlSfOLVEO SOLIDS
-|
70.000
¦ SULFITE (103-)
•0.000
Q SULFATE (BO/)
± CHLOftlOE (Cl-l
_
80.000
O MAONf MUM
NOTE: WtCICf WHOM
•
40.000
OONCtNTKATKMtt ARE
LESS THAN HO WD ARC
30,000
NOT HOTTCO.
"
20.000
10.000
TUT TIMI. Houn
I 6/4 I M I M I in | B/l i 6/1 I V1Q I «m I 9/12 I 8/1J I VM I t/1> I Vie I Vtl I l/lt I WW I VM I W1 I Vli
CAlINOAfl DAY (TfTt)
i 9/23 I
Gm flm - 30.QQQ tcfm • 300 °f
Qas Voloerty- 12.5 ft/wc
Liquor Rat* * 12008""
UG » 50 pl/rocf
EHT Assidoncs Tim# - 3.0/4.1 min
ThrM StsfW. 6 in. |»d hcigtit/stfP
flwctnt Solid* Rtc
-------
I BEGIN RUN M6 2A
[ END WON MS • 2A
0.0
TUT TlKlt, Nwn
I 1/1# I Vie I B/17 I 8/1« I 8/19 I MO I Ml I VU I l/» I */M I V3B I I W $ W» \ W» I MO I W» 1 «/1 I 8/2 I
CALCNOA* MVIttW
m::
2
8if »
Sil
i!'
is w
5*
8*5
a
jl """
{} WW
§§' »u»
is
!= ««
•• • •• •
I 00 °D
o DhOO ~ a °_
oa a °
S.oo0 ooo0°o 0oOoo0
¦*t» A»»tUt»«»it>
• TOTAkWMM.VCOtM.ea
¦ CUlMTCffO)")
O suiMrrnoft
A CHiOfiiofier}
O MMNtSHJM
X
wrtmctMWHOM
eeMeBMm«ymwA)ii
KM THAN 106 MM AM
NOT HOTTIO.
-J-
« m m m m m m m
Un I in I un I vii I mi 11« I m I uk I m I m I la I n I uf I m I hi I » I m I vi I u !
UUNMNMVIWW
6n Ritt - 30,000 *cfm • JW °f
Ob Vtioclty » 148 Wm
liwior Rata * 800 jpm
1/8-V allmt!
£HT RofduMTIm • *.1 mh
Thm Sum, t In. M M|WW|i
Pwwt loll* lltslfwtattd • tHlwt *
T«H tan Dnw, EuMin| MM EBm.
-JMJIfcHjO
Pimm ICinttW) toMi Omw—lw»
•3M8«%
tlwiimm MMHM m hmmsmt mm
«WI AMWmmIHT
Flgw* M. OPERATING DATA KM TCA RUN 583-2A
1-5
-------
F"
i
11
t*
ftO
so
sTl-
?0
B
to
60
*
OS
ih
0*
bli
*
0.0
"
6.0'
M
fi.O
4.6
4,000
3.600
si
3,000
to
18
2.SO0
2,000
1.600
} BEGIN ftUN 668 ZA
} END RUN 880 - 2A
- electrical PROBLEMS
It
I , INLET
O o 0M
- OUTLET
!\
TEST TIME. Hmki
I 6/21 I 8/22 { 6/23 I ft/24 I 6/26 I 6/26 I B/27 f 6/26 I V29 I B/X I 6/31 I S/T I 8/2 I B/3 I S/4 I 6/6
CALMttA* DAY IWti
M I » ! M I
• •
• ••
> •%. • • •
D • °
of „ n on
°°8 ° . o
»0o0oq°00'®903
-X-
U-
total dissolved solids
CAL-CHUMC**)
•ULPITf (to,*)
HJLPATE UQC*|
CHLORIDE (CI")
MAONISIUM
JL.
NOTB: SMCItSWHOtt
CONCENTRATIONS AM
CMS THAN MO** AM
NOT PLOTTED.
_L-
nb m
TEST TIME Hwi
I V21 ! 6/22 I B/23 | 6/24 } 6/2» i 6/26 I 6/tt I 6/JS | I/2S i 6/SO I 6/31 I 6/1 I 6/2 I «/) i «/4 I M I VI I 6/7 I «/S
CALINDANOAV (1I'«)
Gm Rati - 30,000 acfm • 300 °F
Got VslocKy * 12.6 ft/iK
Liquor fists - 1200 fpm
UO » M *Wmtf
EHT fl#«d*ncs Tims -* 4.1 mirt
No bad* of iphsrst in plies (4 grids only)
ftfcsflt SoJIdt BteircuJWsd • 14-16 wt %
TquI Ptttsurt Drop, Exckidi
-------
I BEGIN RUN W7-2A
8 J'
END HUN W7-3A I
*1'
iU
j i M
).u
sTI >.«.
iil >¦•»
WZ
K:'
^—OUT
k/oo*o °ooV .
w O o °
•* 4.1
1 4.000
TUT TMWL New*
I «/2 I «ft f 1/4 I |A I W* I V7 I tf* I M I WW 1 W1 I im I W13 I «/W I
111
lit
;¦!;
ii1
¦h
!¦*
i
ts
10
0L,
>P • •
• „ ~
_0dq Da° a„„a
D aa00 0a*oaaa
»®So°fl£2000 „2IogBoooflo|gaio®l8fi82oo0a|
# TOTAL DHMOLVIB I
$ CALCIUM ICt")
O SUCMrC (tQj")
4 CHIOMDI «f>
o mmmm mf*i
notks mem mm
memento.
I m I « I M ! « I m I w I tn I » I w I w»'l «m I m I m> • «* t«" t«« I «n» I «m I -
wmtt uv (ttw
9m Rui « 30,000 trim • MO °F
SaVrinlty- 12.1 ft/M
U«kk Rm - 1300 Ktm
L/a-Mtttfmt
MT DmMmm Tlmi - 4.1 mill
S M, t Hi. utamAM
fcmM Mkk taMHM • I-H wt *
Total town Dm*, (MM** Mkt ma.
'LMJ.th.HtQ
BUMW (C«t. * Ctiit HmMIU*
CantMiMtMi» SMI <«*
LtMMtlM AMWm ta 0mmuim>
•tfMlO AMMmmIHT
FI«um 1-6. OPERATING DATA FOR TCA RUN 587-2A
1*7
-------
! BEGIN A UN t»2A
END BUM WM*
2,900
J,«0Q
TKSTTMC.HMn
fl/16 \ WW I 1/11 | C/1« I «/20 I a/21 I 0/22 I t/23 I 9/M I «/M I t/M I *iV I •/>• I t/» I
-------
ii
{ BEGIN RUN tm-iA
ViO HUH ||»U ;
| J ioo
- PUM» MOQltMt
«1-
g
8 * a 0.4
si* "
£ on
o.« r
P"V *
j-^v-Av
04
0.4
M
| i &s
4.000
3.100
£* ( 9.800
s.
3.000
n -
l^Vl
3.000
2.100
2,000
rar tims. hw«
I *22 I t/23 | t/34 I 6/28 ! tin I 0/27 I Ml I 0/30 | MO J W I »« I W» I W» I W I ?/* 1 W» I W I »/¦ \ W* 1
CALENOAR DAY |1«J0}
2.0
ill::
its u
K
* «
lis
I »-t-
J ::
V
S*5 bo
«S .
P
if
$£ *.000
vv
JQO
o°
^/vvVvAA-
•• • _ i
• •••• • • •
• • • •*
°QQ 0 °0ODD° _ D
o q ° °a
8®9°o «0oooooOe»0(iqOoo»
• TOTAL MWOI.VtOIOt.IOl
^ CALCIUM
0 OUtMTt «04*»
¦ fUtPlTI MOg")
A eHLomot tcr>
O MAOMMUM fMt**}
THAN IQt *pw AMI NOT
noma
rur rum. mm . t , . , ,
I «ra I was J to* I vn 1 i/n I «n I m» t too I «M I wi i w* J >» 1 t ** 1 *¦ * w ' f* * m ' tm '
oaumbmioav twm
8* Katt • 30,000 tcfti # 100 * F
G» VilKit* - tl.8 fl/wt
liquor Rm • TOO apm
UB • M (K/mef
EHt HhU«k« TIih • 4,1 itHn
3 B«d, fi In. iphcm/lMd
nnwtMM MwM • M-M tt X
T«U tawn fin*, fMMfet MM eiw.
. I.MJ Id. HjO
0teh«|i ICtrittKu«tl MM
CwmmmI* • Wt W*
UiMKOM Atttttgn
-------
BEQIW RUN <01?*
SNO RUN 001-24 ;
- BOILER OUTAQE
0 o O 0o o
o_ o°o A°OO°°O°0g
• TOT At OI0OOLVED0OUD0
~ fUL'ATf (lOj*)
A CHlOMDt (Cl~)
O MMNIWM
NOTI: MCICI WHOOE AVfRAOl
OmCCNTRATlOM AM Ltd
THAN «m pm M*t HOT
W.OTTIO,
10.000
H0Q0
13.000
10.000
0.000
um
*.000
2,000
TIST TIMI. HMM
7« I in I 714 I lit I 7/0 I to I 7» I 7/0 I 7/tf | 7/1* | 1/M 1 7/19 i 7/14 I 7/11 I T/1« ) 7/17 I 7/10 I 7/10 I 7/10 I 7/91
6*ltNbAn UV 11074)
Gm Rttc - Vim • 300 F
Got Velocity *mfl/9K
liquor ft*t» * 1200 gpm
UB • SO gal/mcf
EHT Ruidane* Tim# ¦ 4.1 min
3 Bod«, 5 in. iptortfAttd
Ptnjont SoHdt Rocircuiatod ¦ M wt *
Total Prmira Drop, Excluding Mfit Elim.
- 7.M.S in. HnO
Mitt 611m. Prawn Orop ¦ 0.47462 in. HjO
Ottdwsa {Ciartfi* ft Cwtr«u|t> Solid*
ConetntftftoA ¦ M %
Ufflt Addition to Oowncam«r
and MgO Addition to EHT
Flgurt I OPERATING DATA FOR TCA RUN 601 • 2A
1-10
-------
{BEGIN RUNWa-ZA EWO BUM 0023A I
5 s
s*
'i-
-fTlfcHffcAl FKbkiEltt
. ° 0° O 00000°0
8 I 1000
I M0
2,000 k
3.100
3.080
TItt TtH«. HMM
I 7/13 | 7/14 j 7/16 I 7/16 I 7/17 I »» I 7/18 | 7/» I 7/21 I 7/» I 7/» I 7/24 J 7/* I 7/M I 7/77 I */M I 7/» | 7/30 I 7/J1 I
CALINPADPAV
m :\
\ j 8 i .o •
[If
« o.s L
M
sSs
S«1
61 110
M.OQO
HMO
12.000
!<
• • •
• • .• •-
• # •
••
o ~
a
°a ~~
St«2»SgBfi8a8ags22
• TQTAt OtOOLVSD IOUM
a mmtkm*")
4 CHUMIOC «J-|
MABMESUM
on; mem nnoii avchaoc
COMCSMTRATtOM AM (.KM
THAN lOQfpHAMf NOT
~LOTTB).
iw imitnw» iit<
I »/« I 1M I 7/11 1 WW I WW I J/M I 7/« I I/» I Mt I OT» t »¦ 1 w» I »» t IM I WII 1 »«« I J» I 7M 1 WD I
«ui»m»v ram
OwlH1f30,««Ktm»»0'F
SaVUnltv 111 ft/at
Uquw Rati • ino torn
US-OtplM
EHT Rrtd«f>e« Timt • 4.1 min
3 Btdl, 5 In. ifrfumW
PmmWMiMMMaflvnwi.H
T»M tanm WW.
-------
BtGtN RUN Mtt-IA
EHDRUNM3-U >
£«M
t.000
TUT TIMf, Hourt
I f/20 I V2\ I 7/22 I 7/23 J VI* I 7/2* I 7m I 7)71 i 7/7* I 719 1 7/30 I 7/31 I l/l I I/] I 1/3 I M I
CAL1NDABDAY (1076)
I M I in I M
IK
Il|
$ x
I >•
!
I
•n
l si
: l>
It
If
11000
19,000
14.000
12,000
10,000
im
2.000
V
DO
~qdd ona
's Aq**6888 84g84*80®8fi
OOO«<}6Of,ft«OO<'OO
• TOTAL. OWOLVIP MOOS
0 CALCIUM IC»^I
~ tULFATI (t04"l
A CHtQfitOi (C<~t
O MAONIHUM IM^I
NOT!: VfCIUlVHOtt AVfRAOi
COMCIMTnATtOMt AMI U«
THAN 100 AMI NOT
HOTTtD.
fCOOO
<«.ooo
14.000
11.000
10,000
IM
1,090
TUT Tftit, Hourt
I ino I vt> I im I 7/» 1ma I im I im I mi I im \ im \ im t mi I 1/1 I u In I v« I h I m I v li
CAlJMMftOAy |IWV
GuHiU- 30,000 Kfm*i 300° f
Gm Velocity * 12.5 him
Liquor R#t» » 1206 gpm
U0 * 50 gsJ/mcf
EHT RmMmc* Tim* » 4.1 mfo
3 Bad*, 6 in. iphirn/btd
Poreint Solid* Rfcireulitad * 7-9 wt %
Total Prttwn Drop, €xclud»n| Mfet Efim.
¦ 7.W.I in. IM
Mitt Elim, Prtnurt Drop ¦ 0.48-0.53in.
Piichar^o (WtffWw A Cwrtrttiija) SeJids
Conctntf»ti#n • M-63 wt %
Umt and MgO Addition to EHT
Figur# I -11. OPERATING DATA FOR TCA RUN 603 2A
1-12
-------
| BIOIN BUW«0»2A
«NP HUWXM-a*!
s1!"
Hi
. A
£
4.B
-1 4.800
- 4,000
¦ 3. MO
• XOOO
¦ 2,800
I ?/» I 7/30 | ;/)t I *1 I 1/2 I 1/3 I V4 I
i „T
lif --
f **
§ 110
I I g
I|i 100
I & i »
a #
ir~
»«,ooo
S 14000
II 1W0°
!l
r -t
,D D
Q°
DO
jgff
OOOOgOOOOgOOOO^QOOOQ
• total oiaaokvioaouoa
0 CAICHM
-------
BtQlWRUM 606-2*
-^WPI>R06ltM*
- WKTIK W*HY WTAOl
Z
B.0
-» 4.1
4.000
sue
1000
>.*00
1000
i tuo ! a/7 I
Ttrt TIMC, H«un
I m I wig I a/ti I a/i2 S vi* I «m \ us I a/i« I fu I w»a I a/i» I v» I mi I vn I »m ! «/m I i
CALENDAR OAV HON)
P "
iif ••
Si* 40
I! -
Hi -
|ls "
8* .
100
h%
Isf
1*5 •
5
«,Q0C
|l «¦
jt M;
If.
1 • •
°Q0Do°aaDD_D„_o,
^«2888!i»S8S°lS*X8«
• TOTAL DWOIVIQ ttllW
~ SULFATE IH4*)
A CMUMiOf iei'1
O MAOMMIUM !M«")
HOT«;»*CVf»WHOW AVlftMt
CONC«NTRATK»N»AAf LU8
THAN fOOflMnAAE NOT
PLOTTID.
<•.000
H.M
MJN
12.606
TUTTWC.Hwicc
I n I a/7 I «• I n f vto I im f iru ( tfu I in* t «1» I vto I anr I *» I sot i iw / «>i i «a I f f
CALENQAJt OAV
-------
II
s*
ag* »
'BEGIN Bufr OQO-2A ENO ftUN 80»-2»!
,— INUT
"MwWv4
h 7
».0-N
sl
r
4.000
a. wo
?,«00
2.000
|I?
Tirr rime, mow* ...,,,111
I a/14 I o/« I sm I ¦/« I mrt ( on® I va J ore* I ww I «a 1 *** I o/a» I orao I 11,27 I 8/21 J *"» I ' w' ' ^ '
CAKNPAR DA*IW*I
JS !
sjf
ill w
3>f "
a 11 »
sit «•
OS 0
iio »
If! -
if! m
a 0
10.000
16.000
S 14,000
13 >2.000
i!
g _• 10.000
S.0OQ
8§
u •«»
¦ «
••i
oddD° °aa a ~~~
o
~
f22»28£8S8j««88S
|ooooo,o»oo»,»»oo»j>
• TOTAL DIMOlVEOaOLtDI
0 CALCIUM ICk^l
~ SUIFATS m>4")
A CHiORIOi (CD
O MAQNtSlUM I*•»**)
NOtl: WC lU WHOM AVC RAQC
COWWTfUTKJHO AM UN
THAN tOO ppm ARC NOT
noma
1&000
10.000
•.000
4Mb
TUT TttM, Motv*
I «f« J tflft I 1/10 I 1/17 | 1/tt I W1» I WM I *11 I w» I ma I «4 I ;
CAHWOA* MY (10701
ImlimlnilnilnolMil tn I
30,000 Kfm»M0°F
On Vttwfty - 12.! ft/at
Uwur Dm - 900 gpm
L/B" 3?jd/mcf
EHT fitwteflM Tin* - 4.1 mta
3 Bub, 5 In. whwu/M
Hiem SolMi Htrircultnd ¦ 7.M.I wt K
Ton! hum DnPi E«W»t MM EHm,
-«,«-7.0ta.HjO
MM EHm. Prawn (trap ¦ 0.51-O.M in. KjO
0*1*9. (QhW« & Cwttftwl «oftH
CoacnBHMn • 17-tZ M K
Llm» Addition to Oowiwonw
•nd M|0 Addition to EHT
Plflu« I -14. OPERATING OATA FOR TCA RUN 000 - 2A
I-15
-------
• BEGIN RUN 8072A
fWO RUN 907 2A .
8|*
TV* INACTION#
-vA^ysyV/,A^^ —
3 a '# -
1' i
\ZXs4f\j^A
/
si '¦»
£ u
Sg
58*
•Ml
S|8~
s'i
i: «
si „
p- "
!lt 30
| S d
Sst w
2?S „
5 I u
Si*
si*
1*1
S
TtST TlMl. Moun
I 8/20 I 8/21 I 8/22 I 8/23 I 8/W I 8/J6 I 8/J8 | 8/27 I ¦/» I 8/28 I 8/30 I 8/31 I B/1 I »/? I W I M I « I M I «7 I
&ALCWAR X*AV 1197*)
-F
9 8 •-
26,000
tt.tm
22.000
11 1I.HU
,1 «"
II
§ g um
••• * *
• •
O mQ
~ o a
D n ~ 0 0
°ao0 u a
8.000
2.000
0°„
v .
¦ • ®
• ».
a ~
a a
o °0°o°
• TOTAL OIMOLVIO K>UDS
0 maonisium imn**!
A CHLOHIDI icri
D 8UL.FATC <004*)
¦ MitriTE isoj-t
wori: tncittWHote av§* ack
CONCINTKaTIONS ARB LIS*
THAN HQ ftpm A*t NOT
PLOTTID,
oo
0
AA*
20.000
H.M
*2.000
>0,000
'•.ooo
18,000
14.000
12.000
,10,000
0,000
a.ooo
J, 000
rmriiic.HMa*
iralittilaralamlvMiamivatvniMtitfaitfaoiaflit wi I to I wi I vt Im I a* f tr> I
CALlNOAft OAV (181*1
Su Rill - 30,000 Kim • 300° F
Su Vtlocity " I2.S ft/toc
Uquor Rett * 90Q tpm
UQ - 37 pl/mcf
6HT R«*id«ne8 Tlmt - 4.1 roift
3 8wh,Sifl. tph*m/taJ
Psretnt 8o)Wi Rwirtulittd ¦ 7-8 we H
Tattl Prtnuri Drop, Excluding Mitt Elim.
-5.7-7.1 in. H,0
Milt Elim. Prmun Drop * (MS-0,67 in. HjO
Mm!tcrp
-------
-* ¦ 1 L I —I 1 1 . ' 1 l- 1— '
40 00 iao 100 200 340 200 330 000 400 440
I »'< I >/B 1 «/« I »/7 I «/. I 1A1 I 0/10 I 0/11 1 0/13 I 0/13 I 0/14 I VII I 0/10 | 0/17 ' 0/11 I 0/10 I 0/20 I 0/31 I 0/33 I
CAttNOM OAV llOTO)
I 0/4 I OA 1 M I 1/7 | tft I M I W1D I W11 { 0/13 I WW HHIl* i WW I W10 I WIT I WT* 1 W» I *» t W» I 0/» I
CMiNMDOAV IT070I
G« Roto • 30,000 icfm • 300° f
SuVolnclty-W.tWnc
Liiwof Don ¦ see wm
US • 37 gal/mef
EHT RmMmki Tlnw . «.t mln.
M mtn. «08-2B)
3 Bidi S in. iphmi/M
Poreout Iteiivtrioeotf * U*Mi4wttt
IHUWi H.2-1I.S wt N ttWZH
ToM Pnohim Drop, lnkA) MM film.
¦ B.ft-7.8 In. M,0 (ea»-2A).
mm Hj# «om«
Mlit Ellm, PrOKuri Prw - O.M-O.S4 In. HjtHWa-JA),
NjO MMM
Blmhuti ICItritltra Cwm»u»OI MUt
ConcHitrotiw " SMtw * IWJ-3A),
MM wt%(6»SB>
Uim Addition to Oaoncomor
omSIWOMMSmwEHT
FtBMrt |.1t. Off BATtNQ DATA FOB TCA RUNS «M ¦ 2A & 6M - 2B
I-17
-------
TEST TJMC. How*
t I 9/14 1 9/16 I 9/19 I 9/1? I 9/19 t 9/19 I */» I 9/»1 I 9/22 I 9/23 I 9/24 i 9/28 I 9/29 I 9/77 I 9/29 I 9/29 1 9/30 ( 10/1 t 10/2 {
CALENDAR DAY (1970)
I
Hf
'ii
a| s
H
9{
t\
fl
8!
24,000
21,000
19.000
10.000
13.000
9.000
9,000
3.000
o°a°aQS° a°oa°
Q°aQOaQDD°0V00Q°°
1 "HHUBlMBBIBBImHllW
• TOTAL OI9«OLVCD 90LI09
o MAONCStUMWi**)
A CHlORIDf (CP)
~ 9U1PATB no4s>
¦ SULFITE (903"l
MOTI: 9NCICIWHOM AVIRAGf
CONGiNTHA TfOHt Ml MM
THAN BOO wmAAK NOT
PLOTTED.
J 0
24400
21,090
19.000
1I.M0
12.000
9.900
TCfTTlMC.Hwn
vn I «m ) «/»# I 9/19 I 9/1? I */« I 9m ! v» I wi ! %tn I I vm 1 *m I I *m 1 vn 1 *m I »/* I 10/1 I 10/2 I
CALENOAR DAY 1»H)
G« Bit«-30.000 Kfm# 300° F
Gat Vdocity • 12.8 ft/nc
Uquor Acta " 908 gpm
L/C ¦ 37 pi/mef
EHT fl9*dtnc» Tims * 5.4 mm
3 Bodt, S in. totem/bod
Poretnt (bUdt Rocifeulftfd 9 7.S-8.S wt *
Tottf Ftawr* Oroj>, EKdutftof Miff Eiim.
- 5.94.5 in, H2Q
Wtt Eiim. Prifwr* Drop • 0.48-0.S3 In. HjO
Otahora* (Cltrtflw & Contrifugol SolUt
Cowwrtffthm" WMMwt*
Ums Addition to Downeomor
tint M#0 Addftfon ta EHT
Figur* I -17, OPERATING DATA FOR TCA RUN 609 - 2A
I-18
-------
h
ss
s*
too .
*
B0
S
•0 .
70 I.
M p
10 -
H*
7.1 -
7.0 ¦
s*
5.6 -
B.0 *
44 L
4,000 p
ffl
J, SCO -
a
3,000
3,000 L
1*
io f
» -
[I
10 -
o L
10 r
* I.
sis
• •
0 *—
BfOtN AUNIH ¦ 2A
- muoqip oowwcotwiW"
:/v\j
y— WUT
pV/yw"V\
r
'^VvVV^
Ayytv*v\/
•/m I •/» F •/» I am I */» I i/a* I too I ran Imlwl wmTTm I tw ( iflfl I wt I 1« I wrt I 1,om *W1>'
CAllWPAfl OAV <1»7»
HI u
lif ••
12:
1! .
v\w
I
r,
»Mlt
•• ft •
t • • I
..•••••••• .* ••
t TOTAL DtMOLVtO KHUN
D tULMri (90/1
4 CHMMtMien
0 MASWNtUM Ml**)
¦ WLFfTI »j")
hoo aoD°0aD QoOa°0o0o° o0
a nacPoo o°o°
ttWCfNTRATOMAItllia
tmanmwmahinot
T
Q«i
«8®«64#68j «««6«*8888gift6°°* *4*o$$0^°
mlmlmlinlnlnlwlm l«l tw" ("StTwi I m I wi I m I tw I w»l »mlwnlnnil
UUMMWimi
Qm Rim - JO,000 Kfm ~ S00° f
Gh Vilootty «U.|ft/«c
Uqu«*it».M0ipn>
U&'VHUml
EHT ftuMntt Tim > M mh
3 Stdt, 5 In. wtiirn/bwj
("•mmWIiimetfoitaWd'7.4*4 wt%
Tftal ftMtm tint, Mist dim.
•Ml fcM
MM Ellm Pitnun OMI • a«7-#.M lit. HjO
OWwitteMNir* f»Wl HM
GmmMmIm* BO MtK
UiM AMMw W OtMMffltr
m4M|0 AMMtnMSKT
Plflun I -18. OPERATING DATA FOR TCARUN 610-ZA
M9
-------
i>8om bun wt I wio \ iom I torn I w« I wh I ww I *vh I ww I wn I «wn I wn I »v*i I 'oraa I 'o/m I wm | io/*« I ion* I
CJklfMDAA OAV (1#T®1
».••• * .* . ••
t """
SDDOQoap"poD Ooo°a° DOQ0°oa qDD°D
D
So5OOoOo°o00O0060oO0OOoO oo°oo °o
• TOTAL CMMCM. VIP MLtM
~ SULFATI |«04")
k CMLONtOI (CI-)
0 MAQNCSUM
-------
J 4.0
1 4.000
f Wtt I W20 I to/21 I 10/22 I 10/23 I 10/3* I 1
ft I wm I i«w I «w#I «wi1 w t ti/a 1 »»/» I tt/i I ivs I »« h
CALKNOAft DAY (1»W
<*1
• TtrfAL *Uf*
O WlMTI
4 «NUXUQHC11
O
0 MteMfiCi*^
won: WC'M WHOW AWM«
cowcgffmriom M« tw
THAN WnMAAf NOT
MATTtB.
I
11 mm t iwtFiwoY*m I w* I
eutMKMMrnno
0« ««»¦ M,000 Kim* 300° f
Bh Vtlaclty - 12.6 ft/ne
U, HMwmfM
Nmxt SaMi RHkniliM ' 7.M.7 M X
Tout Pmun row, imfciAli Kit eum.
KW atm. Mown Own « AIMMt lit H,0
DWmji itiwifUr ft CMBtfviri SoHl
Uim AttMOfl to OawOMMO
llgO AddWon to EH7
Figurt 1-20. OPERATING DATA FOR TCA RUN «13 -2A
1-21
-------
is t
| 2 100
nS 90
Hi"
BEGIN HUM >14 - 2*
jENP RUN 814 2A
7
r:
n
' 4.600
- 4.000
' 3,100
' 3,000
¦ i.too
J 2,000
ft
TEST TIMC, heuri
I 10/99 I 10/34 I 10/28 I 10/28 I 10/27 I 10/20 I 10/29 1 10/30 I 10/31 I 11/1 I It/2 I 11/3 I 11/4 i 11/8 I 1t/0 I lift I 11/0 I 11/9 t 11/10 ]
CALENDAR DAY M»76>
ill „
'
iff "
Si* 40
5$J
a?S
to
!¦"
if
11.000
1t.000
14.000
i! ».«
CALCIUM iC»)
NOTI: VCCtlf WHOM AVI RAM
CONCtNTftATIOM AM LtM
THAM MO P«m AM MOT
FLOTTfD.
r
40 M 130 ISO 100 MO MS MB SID 460 441
TUT TlSi, lyiin
I 10/23 t WM I 10/28 | 10/tt I 10/27 I 10/29 I 10/28 I 10/M I 10/31 | 11/l'Tll/I I 11/9 I 11/4 I 11/8 I 11/8 I 11 it I 11/0 I 11/8 I 11/10 t
CALSNOAR DAV 11978)
6h Ritt « 30,000 Kfm 9 300° P
Qh Velocity t2.S ft/nc
Liquor Roto- 800 gpm
l/Q • 37 gat/mcf
EHT RtiMoncf Timo ¦ 16 min
3 B«dt, 6 in. iphorti/lMd
Poitint Solidt Rtcirculotod • 7.1-8.6 Mrt %
Total Prwurt Orop, Exctodinc Mist Elim.
• 5.8-8,4 in. H20
MM Etlm. Prmur* Orop • 0.4&-Q.S0 in. HjO
OUchtrft ContriN»)8otltf»
ConeoAUttfon * 5W1 wt %
Umt Addition to Oowncomtr
ml MgO Addition to EHT
Figur* I -21. OPERATING DATA FOB TCA RUN #14 • 2A
1-22
-------
iff »l
3 *
II!
*5|
i*
lit
Oil
K-
&
32,000
20.060
H.D00
14.000
(••• •
• •
i 2
13,000
4.000
2.000
po
r o
~ QaO
I Wll I 11/1 1 n/2 ! 11/1 I 11/4 I Il/I I llflTf f"?W» I 111 liv» I 11/11 I 1V» I 11/U I «™ I 1«« I IK* I
eAkVPflMM nay twn)
• TOTAL OIWOUVEO 90L1DC
3 tULFATE tS04*)
4 CHLOftfOC Kl-l
0 MAQNIHUM (Ml^)
> CALUUM (Oa44)
NOTE: VtCiES WHOSE AVERAOf
OONCCNTMTIOMIARi L««
THANWOppnAMENOf
PLOTTIO.
20,000
11.000
t
• woo
WB I W» I WJ1
SuRilf 30,000 Kfm» 300° f
6m Vtieeity «12.5ft/i»e
Liquor Rttf 120G gPfi*
L/6 * Bftflri/ncf
BHT ttnUm+Wm* * I* mte
3 BkI 1, la In lahwiWIwO
PwnMMMl HttireiltMd" 1,7-MMK
Tutl Pranun 0mp, Exglan a untKtam
«i* M> Addition to EHT
Flaw* MB- 0PERATIN80ATA RWTCAHMN #1fi - 2A
-------
is
h
4
: na»Nwuw«i»M
ittD MUN 010-2A ;
r JPMME AOOITKM*
. ArvW^
H*
X
rv
\ 'A
I
Si
n
4.000
3,900
3,000
2,BOO
u
£f
V
V
a 4.B0O
' 4,000
- 3,800
' 3.000
' 2.000
TEST TIME, hour*
I 11/0 I 11/7 ) 11/0 i 11/8 ) 11/10 I 11/1! I 11/12 I 11/11 I 11/14 I 11/16 I 1V1« I 11/17 I 11/11 I 11/10 I 11/30 I T1/21 I 11/23 I 11/23 I 11/24 I
CALENDAR DAY 097«|
2 8 j
* tA
0 0 <,000 <,«
1 a
. r,„a
«© «
0
• TOTAL DIOCOLVEO SOUOS
~ SULFATE <0O4*|
4 chloride icri
0 CALCIUM
NOTE; SPECKS MTHOtC AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION! ARE LEN
THAN 500 pfnt AD I NOT
PLOTTED.
jOq" a nnnD a Dana
J. Q ° ODDq DQD
10.000
S.000
•M0
7,000
0,000
1,000
4.000
3.000
2.000
TEST TIME, hourt
I 11/» I 11/7 I 11/0 I 11/0 111/101 11/11 I 11/12 i 11/13 I 11/14 In/IB I 11/1« J 11/17 I 11/1* f 11/10 t 11/30 I 11/31 I 11/22 I 11/33 I 11/34 I
CALENDAR OAV (11701
Got Roto * 30,000 acfm • 300° F
Gu Voloeity* 12.Sft/soe
Liquor Roto * 1200 gpm
L/G ¦ 50 pl/mcf
EHT Roiidtncs Timi - 1>min
3 Bods, 3.7 in. tphoros/bod
Ptreont Solidt RocireuliUd • 7,7-8.1 wt %
Tot*f Prtssurs Drop, Excluding Mitt Eiim.
-6.8-8.0 in. HjO
Mist Eiim. Prraurt Drop * 0.42-0.51 in.
Diichtrffo {Clwlfior ft Contrifugo) Solids
Conc«ntr*tion ¦ 50-83 wt %
Limo Addition to Downcomor
Figure 1-23. OPERATING DATA FOR TCA RUN 616 - 2A
I-24
-------
! BEGIN RUN 617-2A
EMORUN 617-2A I
si
U
4,000
3,600
3,000
2,500
r
TEST TIME, hour)
i 11/W I 11/17 I 11/18 I 11/10 I 11/30 I 11/21 I 11/22 I 11/23 I 11/24 I 11/25 I 11/20 I It/27 I 11/20 I 11WO I 11/90 t 12/1 I 12/2 I 12/) I 12/4 I
CALENOAH DAY (18741
= 11 .
Si
1
s»
§ 4 1M
MS
sil
V
¦ t
Ss
11.000
10.000
•.000
MOO
7,000
0.000
8,000
4,000
3.000
2,000
1,000
0« .
OOq ~
qQd
5 ^OOOOOO o oooooooooo
0 q0*40
n dociddd q aaaQap0D°D
• TOTAL DIMOLVID MllM
~ IUIFATE (104")
A CHLOftibi ter>
O MAQNIIIUM
-------
APPENDIX J
AVERAGE LIQUOR COMPOSITIONS FOR THE
TCA TESTS
J-l
-------
Table J- 1
AVERAGE SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR COMPOSITIONS
FOR LIMESTONE/MgO TESTS
Run No.
Percent
Solids
Discharged
Percent
Sulfur
Oxidized
pH
Liquor Species Concentrations, mg/l (ppm)
Calculated Percent
Sulfate Saturation
@ 50°C
-------
Table J-2
AVERAGE SCRUBBER INLET LIQUOR COMPOSITIONS
FOR LIME TESTS
t
10
Ron No.
Percent
Solids
Discharged
Percent
Solids
Oxidised
pH
Liquor Species Concentrations
, mg/1 (ppm)
Calculated Percent
Sulfate Saturation
at 50°C
Ca++
Mg++
N+
K+
so;
so;
Cl"
Total
601-2A
57
14
7.15
390
2770
20
35
525
8650
1600
14000
50
602-ZA
58
14
6.90
350
2900
25
40
425
7750
2600
14150
40
603-2A
61
20
6.90
625
3200
35
60
395
8660
3100
16150
75
604-2A
60
28
6. 85
725
3150
40
70
280
8450
3090
15850
90
605-th
55
20
6. 95
370
3060
30
73
395
8130
2695
14750
45
606-2A
60
24
7.95
710
2920
23
64
265
8810
2510
15300
95
607-EA
56
15
7.90
520
4950
22
62
695
15430
2560
24250
75
608-ZA
48
20
7.95
630
4800
24
67
490
15230
2260
23500
95
608-2B
54
12
7.95
120
4930
25
62
2780
11530
2980
22430
11
609-2A
59
18
6.95
490
3240
27
69
430
8580
3520
16350
60
610-2A
59
7
7. 95
340
3380
29
75
670
8275
3520
16300
40
611-ZA
60
30
7.95
860
3870
50
84
300
9445
5185
19800
95
612-2A
59
32
7. 95
870
4055
60
95
300
9640
5600
20600
95
613-8A
60
35
6. 90
835
4100
46
92
280
9810
5555
20700
95
614-2A
58
12
8.05
790
3535
43
74
345
8970
4415
18150
90
615-2A
63
17
7.05
780
3730
51
85
305
9720
4480
19160
95
616-2A
57
20
8.00
2800
200
34
115
140
1410
4160
8860
115
617-2A
57
12
8.00
2680
520
42
120
123
1560
4510
9560
110
Note: The values in this table arc averages for the steady-state operating periods.
(») (activity Ca * (activity- SO.) / (solubility product at 50°C), Estimated solubility product for CaSO , 2H-0 at
at 50°C is 2.2 * 10~5 (ref. Radian Corporation "A Theoretical Description of the Limestone-Injection Wet
Scrubbing Process", NAPCA Report. June 9, 1970).
-------
Appendix K
DEFINITION OF STATISTICAL TERMS
The fraction of variation that is explained by a correlation is equal
z
to R , where R is the correlation coefficient. Thus (Ref.24, p 175):
2
Fraction of Variation
Explained = R = 1 " — —~ (K-l)
E(y-y)2
where:
y = value of the independent variable for a particular data
point
y' = predicted (correlation) value of the independent variable
for the same data point
y = arithmetic average of all values of the independent variable
in the correlated set of data
The standard error of estimate is determined from the following equa
tion (Ref. 24, p 174):
Standard Error Zir-r r
of Estimate = */
f n - k - 1
where:
n = number of data points in the correlated set of data
k = number of dependent variables fitted with coefficients
ft-1
-------
Appendix L
FOURTH TVA INTERIM REPORT OF CORROSION STUDIES:
EPA ALKALI SCRUBBING TEST FACILITY
by
G. L. Crow
H. R. Horsman
April 1977
L-l
-------
EPA ALKALI-SCRUBBING TEST FACILITY—SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
FOURTH INTERIM REPORT OF CORROSION STUDIES
G. L. Crow and H. R. Horsman
Tennessee Valley Authority
Division of Chemical Development
Muscle Shoals, Alabama
Summary
The experimental program for removing sulfur dioxide and particu-
lates from stack gas by lime/limestone wet-scrubbing at the coal-fired
Shawnee Steam Plant is a cooperative effort of the Bechtel Corporation,
EPA, and TVA. The EPA alkali-scrubbing test facility consists of three
parallel scrubber systems: a venturi followed by a spray tower, a Marble
Bed, and a Turbulent Contact Absorber (TCA). Each of these systems was
designed to treat 30,000 acfto of gas.
The fourth series of corrosion tests conducted at the EPA alkali-
scrubbing test facility located at Shawnee Steam Plant covers the period
from July 19, 1975, to August 2k, 1976. The first, second, and third
interim reports on these corrosion studies were released in October 1973>
May 197^, and March 1976, respectively. The Marble-Bed scrubber system
has been idle since July 11, 1973, so this report only covers tests con-
ducted in the TCA and venturi/spray tower scrubber systems.
Twenty alloys and five fiberglass-reinforced plastics (FRP's)
were tested at various locations in the scrubber systems. Most alloys
that were attacked severely in earlier tests were not tested at the
same test locations or were not tested at all. Five alloys (Hastelloy G,
Multimet, Nitronic 50M, Climax 18-2, and Zirconium 702) that had not been
tested previously at Shawnee were included in this fourth series of tests.
Because the severity of exposure conditions varies greatly
throughout the scrubber systems, the best comparative evaluation of
corrosion of exposed materials is possible only if specimens of all
materials are exposed simultaneously at all test locations. This
practice was not continued after the first series of tests at Shawnee.
Negligible corrosion thus indicates either a superior corrosion-
resistant material or a very mild test environment. Negligible
L-2
-------
corrosion for the "best specimens in these tests is less than 0.05 mil
per year based on -weight loss. Fifteen of the alloys tested had.
negligible corrosion at some test locations. The following table lists
these 15 alloys and lists the number of specimens of the total tested,
with negligible corrosion.
Alloys
Zirconium 702
Multimet
Inconel 625
Haynes 6B
Hastelloy C-276
AL 6X
Hastelloy G
AL 29-4
Jessop 700
Nitronic 50M
Nitronic 50
Climax 18-2
Type 316L (2.856 Mo)
Type 316L (2.3$ Mo)
Type 317L
Specimens with
negligiblea corrosion
Number
Percent
12 of 15
80
8 of 10
80
9 of 12
75
7 of 14
50
6 of 12
50
6 of 13
46
6 of 14
43
5 of 12
42
3 of 12
25
4 of 18
22
2 of 9
22
2 of 12
17
2 of 14
14
2 of 18
11
1 of 9
11
a Less than 0.05 mil per year on basis of weight
loss.
Each alloy tested was corroded to some degree at one or more
test locations. Five alloys had maximum corrosion rates of 1 mil per
year or less based on weight loss. Only two of these, Hastelloy C-276
&nd Inconel 625, were without localized attack. Crevice corrosion was
noted on one specimen of Hastelloy G. Pitting occurred on one specimen
of alloy Haynes 6B and crevice corrosion on two specimens. One specimen
of Multimet had a pit 9 mils deep.
Another group of 10 alloys had maximum corrosion rates of 3 and
4 mils per year. Pitting and/or crevice corrosion occurred on some speci-
mens of each alloy except for those of Zirconium 702 which showed no
evidence of localized attack. The other alloys in this group are
Nitronic 50, AL 29-4, Jessop 700, Type 3I7L, Nitronic 50M, Climax 18-2,
Type 316L (2.3# Mo), AL 6X, and Type 31&L (2.8# Mo).
L-3
-------
A few tests were made of three other stainless steel alloys,
Type 216, Carpenter 7-Mo, and Type 201. More tests are needed for a
fair comparison of corrosion resistance with the other alloys. Cor-Ten A
and mild steel, A-283, were corroded at rates that ranged from 1 to
170 mils per year.
Results of previous tests conducted in the scrubber systems
show severe pitting of several stainless steels. An investigation is
underway by steel producers to show the effect of molybdenum content on
the resistance of alloys to localized corrosion. Data from the fourth
series of tests conducted at Shawnee indicate that molybdenum content
in the amount of 2.8$ and 3.2$ in Types 316L and stainless steel,
respectively, does not prevent pitting and crevice corrosion in the
alkaline scrubber systems. Stock of these alloys with higher molybdenum
content was not available for use in the tests. Certain combinations
of other alloying elements such as chromium, nickel, and manganese
produce steels that effectively inhibit localized and general corrosion.
The highly alloyed material, Hastelloy C-276 and Inconel 625, were com-
pletely resistant to pitting and crevice corrosion.
Twelve specimens were tested of each of five FEP's. All
specimens of Bondstrand 4000, epoxy, and those of Derakane 510> vinyl
ester, were in good condition after the tests. QuaCorr, furan, had 11
good and 1 fair; Atlac 711, polyester, had 8 good and 4 fair; and
Hetron 92, chlorinated polyester, had 2 fair and 10 poor.
Much of the information in this report concerning the condi-
tion of equipment in the TCA system and practically all similar informa-
tion for the venturi/spray tower system was taken from reports issued by
the facility inspection engineer.
The mild steel inlet flue gas duct was in good condition. The
Type 316L stainless steel section of the inlet flue gas duct had deterio-
rated further by pitting in the zone where the incoming gas is first
wetted.
The neoprene linings in tanks and in the TCA tower were in good
condition; however, the lining in the flooded elbow is failing and that
in the spray tower is showing signs of deterioration. A few blisters
have formed in the tower lining. About 1 year ago, blisters were noted
in a 4-inch neoprene-lined process slurry pipe, but they have not changed
in size. Small blisters were discovered recently in another area of the
neoprene-lined pipe. The condition of the neoprene lining in four pumps
for the TCA system ranged from poor to excellent. The length of service
could not be established for these pumps. Damage to the liners and
impeller covers was attributed to circulating debris.
L-4
-------
Exhaust stacks of Type 316L stainless steel exposed to scrubbed
gases reheated to 2350 to 265°F were attacked by general corrosion and
pitting. Cracking continues to be a problem, in the Type J16L expansion
Joints downstream from the induced-draft (I.D.) fan. Hie life of these
units could be increased by solution annealing the unit after fabrication
and changing the design from rectangular to cylindrical with a longer
bellows, and/or use of Inconel 625 as the material of construction.
The four Type J>1£l stainless steel guide vanes below the
adjustable plug in the venturi scrubber were worn severely. Haynes 6b
is the most resistant alloy and neoprene is the most resistant nonmetal
tested on the guide vanes. Pure gum rubber tubing has been used success-
fully to protect stay bars on spools of test specimens exposed below the
venturi throat.
Plastic chevron-type mist eliminators did not prove successful
because of plugging and mechanical damage. Their use was discontinued
after a few hundred hours of operation. Recent improvements in maintain-
ing cleanliness of the Type 316L stainless steel mist eliminators greatly
increased the life and performance of these units.
Movement of mobile packing had eroded two flat surfaces on the
5/8-inch-diameter grid rods in the TCA scrubber tower. Thermal plastic
rubber spheres and foam rubber spheres used as mobile packing have not
proved entirely satisfactory. Some of the spheres penetrate between the
grid rods to lower elevations.
A crack about h inches long occurred in the shroud of the I.D.
fan in the venturi/spray tower system. It originated on the periphery of
the shroud in the heat-affected zone of a weld at the same location that
cracked previously. The first crack was repaired by grinding and then
welding with Type jjVf electrode. The second crack was repaired similarly,
"but the weld was made with Type 3I6L electrode which deposits filler
metal that is more ductile.
Flakeline 103 coating was generally in good condition except
in areas ¦where it was damaged while modifications were being made in
the effluent hold tanks (EHT). The epoxy-base paint applied on the bare
steel shell in the damaged areas failed.
The cast steel bodies of the Hayward strainers are showing
wear. The basket support ledges are deteriorating, possibly due, in part,
to contact of dissimilar metals. A neoprene gasket between the stainless
steel basket and the cast steel (carbon steel) body would be beneficial.
The baskets are in good condition except for mechanical damage possibly
inflicted during cleaning.
L-5
-------
Two problems have been encountered with the Fabri knife-gate
valves used to isolate the Hayward strainers. Solids collect in the
seat and prevent complete closing of the gate. Also, the "0" ring that
seals the gate was torn or cut frequently by opening and closing the
gate. Becently the valves have been used without the 0 rings even
though some leakage occurs.
Corrosion tests were made while additional magnesium oxide
was used to show its effect on corrosion by the slurry. Special corro-
sion test specimens were installed in the scrubber slurry while 2000 to
10.000 ppra Mg++ was maintained in the scrubbing slurry. Normally, the
Mg"^ concentration in the scrubbing slurry is $00 to 900 ppm. These
tests were of comparatively short duration. Corrosion of stainless
steels was not changed appreciably by the additional MgO; however, a
2- to 5-fold increase of attack was experienced by Cor-Ten and mild
steel.
The section of Type 3l6L stainless steel duct that extends
into the chamber above the venturi failed. Metallurgical inspection
revealed that failure was due to chloride stress-corrosion cracking.
Also, pitting to depths of jh mils occurred under tightly adhering
scale. Laboratory tests of stressed specimens in boiling magnesium
chloride solution showed Inconel alloys 600 and 625 to be the most
resistant to chloride stress-corrosion cracking of several alloys
tested.
L-6
-------
EPA ALKALI-SCRUBBING TEST FACILITY—SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
FOURTH INTERIM REPORT OF CORROSION STUDIES
Introduction
The fourth series of corrosion tests conducted at the EPA
alkali-scrubbing test facility located at Shawnee Steam Plant covers
the period from July 19, 1975, to August 2k, 1976. The first, second,
and third interim reports on these corrosion studies were released_in
October 1973, May 197^, and March 1976, respectively. The Maxble-Bea
scrubber system has been idle since July 11, 1973, so j
covers tests conducted in the Turbulent Contabt Absorber { ) an
venturi/spray tower scrubber systems.
Program
The experimental program for removing suifur dioxide and
particulates from stack gas by lime/limestone ^t-scru ing r^htel
coal-fired Shawnee Steam Plant is a cooperative effort of th el
Corporation, EPA, and TVA. The program is ^ded by EPA. Th ^
Corporation is responsible for data evaluation and * ?ion of
OTA Is responsible for the operation, maintenance, plMnlng.
the facility. All three organizations participate in progr P ted
Identification and solution of corrosion and erosion P^obl ^
with construction materials are important goals in_ P f!Ltems, At
design and evaluation of lime/limestone - wet-scru S _
the request of EPA in 1972, the Process Engineering B
started corrosion tests in the scrubber systems.
Test Facility
The EPA alkali-scrubbing test facility consists of ^eJ01H>th
parallel scrubber systems, but only two systems were used in Each
series of tests: a venturi followed by a spray tower T>urin« the
of these systems was designed to treat 30,000 acfm of ga# Lfto,
fourth series of tests, the gas contained 1$00 to *500 j£ of
dioxide and 2 to 7 grains of particulates per standard cubi •
Figures 1 and 2 are schematic diagrams of the venturi and.
scrubbing systems.
L-7
-------
The scrubber systems have several features in common. An
insulated ^O-inch-diameter duct conveys the power plant flue gas at
320°F from the No. 10 boiler to each scrubber system. The first
section of duct is made of 10-gage carbon steel, ASTM A-283; this
joins a section of Type 316L stainless steel duct that contains
humidification sprays and a soot blower. The shell of each scrubber
tower is constructed of l/^-inch-thick carbon steel and is lined
with l/4-inch-thick neoprene. Downstream from each scrubber, there
is a stainless steel duct, a refractory-lined reheater fired with
fuel oil, an induced-draft (I.D.) fan made of Type 3I6L stainless
steel, and a stack of Type 316 stainless steel. For liquor handling
there is a slurry recirculation tank, a scrubber effluent hold tank
(EHT), and a liquor clarification and waste disposal system. The
EHT and the clarifier tank are made of carbon steel A-283 coated
inside with Flakeline 103 which is a Bisphenol polyester resin-
flake glass coating manufactured by the Ceilcote Company. The recir-
culation tank, clarified water storage tank, and reslurry tank are
made of carbon steel lined with neoprene.
There are also distinguishing features for each of the
scrubber systems. In the venturi scrubber system shown in Figure 1,
the gas is scrubbed in a venturi unit made of Type 316L stainless
steel and then passed through a spray tower (afterscrubber) with a
chevron-type separator in the top for removal of mist. In the TCA
scrubber system, shown in Figure 2, gas is scrubbed in mobile beds
of wetted spheres and mist is removed by a separator in the top of
the tower. During previous corrosion tests, a wash tray located
between the mobile beds and the mist separator in the TCA scrubber
tower was used to remove some of the remaining particulate. The wash
tray was removed from the system at the end of the third series of
tests.
Corrosion Tests
During the fourth series of tests, specimens of 20 alloys
and 5 fiberglass-reinforced plastics (FRP's) were exposed at various
test locations in the scrubber systems. Periodic inspections were
made of the scrubber systems and the test specimens. Personnel from
the Corrosion Laboratory made a limited inspection of the TCA scrubber
on March 26 and 27, 1976. The test facility engineer made reports on
his inspections throughout the test period, and all the information on
the venturi/spray tower system was taken from his reports.
L-8
-------
Test Facility Operation
During much of the test period from July 19 > 1975> "t° August 24,
1976, both scrubber systems were operated simultaneously. Operational
data for the scrubber systems during the fourth series of tests are given
in the following tabulation along with the accumulative operational data
since each system was placed in operation.
Fourth series Venturi/spray tower
TCA
Test period
Run No,
Operating hours
Idle hours
Accumulative
Period
Hours
Days
7/23/75 - 6/14/76
626-lA - 633-lA
5999
1849
9/5/72 - 6/14/76
20,282
845
7/19/75 - 8/24/76
553-2A - 607-2A
8076
1572
8/17/72 - 8/24/76
23,060
961
Test Specimens
Test specimens of 20 alloys and 5 FRF's (Tables I through III)
were tested in the venturi/spray tower and TCA scrubber systems at the
test locations shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. All 20 alloys
were not exposed at all test locations, and FRP specimens were only
included on spool assemblies (see Fig. 3) that were exposed at test
locations where temperature extremes and/or abrasive conditions were
not expected to significantly affect the plastic-base materials.
Specimens tested on the spool and probe assemblies shown in Figure 3
were prepared as 2-inch-diameter disks. One rack of U-shaped stressed
specimens of six alloys (see Fig. 3) was exposed in the inlet cavity
of the I.D. fan of each scrubber system. Wear-bar specimens of one
alloy (Haynes 6B) and two types of neoprene shields we*e tested on
"the guide vanes below the adjustable plug at the venturi in the
venturi/spray tower scrubber system. The composition of each of
these alloys is given in Table IV.
Lr-t
-------
Exposure Periods
In the venturi/spray tower system, disk-type specimens were
exposed in the flue gas duct above and below the venturi. Specimens
tested above the venturi and at most other test locations were exposed
for k666 operating hours from July 23, 1975, to March 2k, 19J6. Test
data for these specimens are given in Table I. Disk-type specimens
tested below the venturi (test location 1011, Fig. l) were removed
after 2370 operating hours because of the severe erosion and corrosion
of the specimens. A new spool of test specimens was later installed
at this test location and was exposed for 1580 operating hours, until
the end of the test period. Test data for the disk-type specimens
exposed below the venturi are given in Table II. The U-shaped stressed
specimens exposed in the inlet cavity of the I.D. fan showed no signs
of cracking during this fourth test period so this test is being con-
tinued. The wear-bar specimens showed that Haynes 6B is the most
resistant alloy tested thus far. Test data for the wear-bar specimens
are given in the results section along with results of similar tests
conducted previously at this location.
In the TCA system, most disk-type specimens were exposed for
4990 operating hours from July 19, 1975, to March 17, 1976. One spool
of specimens, which was mounted in the scrubber tower at test location
2005 (see Fig. 2), was exposed for only 2680 hours while MgO was being
added to the scrubber slurry. Table III lists the test data for all
disk-type specimens tested in the TCA system.
Exposure Conditions
The coal used at Shawnee Steam Plant contained 2.9 to 3.7$>
sulfur, 0.1 to O.b'fo chlorides, and 13 to l&f, ash. The compositions
of inlet and outlet gas at the scrubber systems were as follows:
Stack Scrubbed
Component gasa gas
S02,
-------
The temperature of the inlet stack gas was in the range of 260° to
350°F and that of the exhaust gas after being reheated was 235° to
265°F.
Properties of liquor in the effluent and clarifier tanks
of the two scrubber systems axe given in Tables I and III.
Table V shows analyses of deposits removed f^om the venturi
and the TCA scrubber systems.
Preparation and Mounting of Specimens
Preparation
Disk-type specimens of alloys and FRP's were 2 inches in
diameter and had a 23/64-inch hole drilled through the center for
assembly on a spool-type or probe-type mount (see Fig. 3) • Teflon
insulators were used to prevent contact of dissimilar metals. Disk-
type specimens of the five FRP's were made from sheets about l/8-inch
thick, and the machined edges of the disks were sealed with resin as
recommended by the manufacturers. Disk-type specimens of the 20 alloys
tested were made from metal stock about 1/8 inch thick that had been
welded according to the recommendations of the manufacturer of the
respective alloy. After these welds were made, the alloys were allowed
to cool slowly in air to simulate cooling of large equipment after it
has been welded during construction or repair. After the alloys were
welded and cooled, the 2-inch-diameter disks were prepared so that the
weld was across the diameter of the disk. The disks were smoothed
either by machining or, in cases where the disk was less than l/8-inch
thick, by grinding.
Stressed specimens were made by forming a strip of alloy
(about 1/8 by 1 by 5-1/2 inch) into a U shape and drilling a l/2-inch
hole in each end of the strip to accommodate a 1/4-inch bolt (Type
316 stainless steel). This bolt, which was fitted with a Teflon
insulator, was used to apply static stress to the specimen in a rack
as shown in Figure 3.
Wear-bar specimens consisted of a rod (1/4 by 1/4 inch with
all surfaces ground smooth) supplied by the manufacturer and tyro types
of neoprene shield (a 1—inch-diameter pnetaaatlc hose and a 1/4—inch-
thick raultilayered sheet).
L-JJ
-------
Mounting
Disk-type specimens were mounted in the scrubber systems
by one of four methods. At some test locations, spool assemblies
•were bolted to permanent brackets that had been welded in place.
In other test locations, spool assemblies were bolted to an existing
pipe by means of a band-type clamp (see Fig. 3)• In tanks, spools
were suspended by a l/8-inch strip or a 3-inch-diameter pipe bolted
to the top of the tank. Sleeves of soft butyl rubber (3/8 inch thick
and 6 inches long) were used on these support pipes to prevent
abrasive damage to the Flakeline coating or neoprene lining of the
tank walls. In vessels or ducts, probe-type assemblies were installed
through the wall by means of a 2-inch pipe coupling and companion
plug that supported the assembly.
Stressed specimens were installed by bolting the rack (see
Fig. 3) to a bracket that had been welded at the desired location.
The wear-bar specimen of alloy Haynes 6b was installed by clamping
both ends directly to a specimen holder placed on one of each of four
sliding guides downstream from the venturi throat. The specimen was
not insulated from the Type 316 stainless steel specimen holder.
Specimens of neoprene, which were placed over sections of stainless
steel pipe adapted to sit on the sliding guides, were fastened by
means of hose clamps or stainless steel bolts.
Results of Plant Inspections and Corrosion Tests
During the fourth series of tests, periodic inspections were
made of the scrubber systems and the test specimens were observed. All
corrosion rates were calculated on the basis of weight loss (if any) of
specimens assuming that the loss occurred during the period of opera-
tion of the scrubber system rather than during the overall exposure
period. In the first and second interim reports, a corrosion rate was
determined on the basis of weight loss (negligible if very little or
no weight loss was found), regardless of whether localized corrosion
occurred. However, in the third and current interim reports, low
corrosion rates determined by weight loss are omitted for test speci-
mens that had significant penetration by crevice corrosion and/or
pitting.
Durometer A hardness values of rubber lining on equipment were
measured with a Shore instrument, Type A2, ASTM 22it-0. Unfortunately,
hardness of lined plant equipment was not determined at Shawnee before
the plants were operated, so data ftom the rubber vendors were used as
reference values.
L-12
-------
Inlet Ducts for Flue Gas
The flue gas contains flyash, carbon dioxide, oxygen, moisture,
nitrogen, hydrogen chloride, and sulfur dioxide at temperatures of 260°
to 330°F.
Carbon Steel Ducts: The carbon steel inlet gas ducts are in
good condition. A thin rust-colored scale was observed in some areas.
A sample of similar scale taken from inside one of the ducts near a
joint during an earlier test was analyzed and its chemical composition
is given in the following tabulation.
Composition,
Mg S03 S0a C0a CI Acid
as MgO as CaSCU as CaSO^ as CaC0a as CaClg insoluble
0-31 33-19 1.18 1.72 0.24 58.59
Also, small quantities of flyaah were deposited in the ducts where the
gas flow changes directions, but this caused no apparent problem.
Stainless Steel Ducts: A Type 316L stainless steel section
of inlet gas duct is located between the carbon steel section of duct
and the scrubber unit of each system. In the TCA system, humidifica-
tion sprays are located in the stainless steel section of the duct.
These sprays were used continuously during original operation of the
unit. Wow they axe used for emergency cooling with slurry to prevent
overheating of the neoprene lining in the tower in the event that flow
is lost in the slurry cooling sprays downstream. The emergency sprays
axe activated from the control room. Spray nozzles in the emergency
unit become plugged and require cleaning occasionally. Pits that
formed in this area of the duct under deposits of solids during
earlier tests, when the humidification sprays were used continuously,
increased little (if any) in dimensions while the sprays were idle.
The soot blower for the TCA system was in good condition and
was performing satisfactorily on an operating schedule of blowing once
per day to clean the duct. The stainless steel duet in the immediate
area of the soot blower showed little erosion or corrosion. However,
the walls of the duct near the entrance to the scrubber tower (slightly
downstream from the slurry cooling sprays) were pitted to depths of
75 mils This is the area where the first wetting of the Hue gas
occurs/ The cooling sprays consisted of three Type 3l6lstainL3Ss
steel nozzles. These were 90-degree, full-cone, spiral-type Bete
fog nozzles (ST 2^FCN)•
L- 13
-------
The life expectancy of a Type Jl6 stainless steel diffuser
is about 3000 hours. Nozzles of Stellite are superior in wear resis-
tance to those of Type 316 stainless steel for this service. A
Stellite diffuser was in excellent condition after it had been used
to spray limestone slurry for 2500 hours. The stainless steel support
rod for the coiled temperature sensor probe (TE-2007) located down-
stream from the sprays was pitted moderately. This new support rod
was installed after the third series of corrosion tests was completed.
Specimens Tested in Inlet Gas Ducts: The hot inlet flue gas
to the scrubber systems is not severely corrosive. However, when its
temperature is reduced, the moisture present condenses and becomes
corrosive to some alloys. Since the use of humidification sprays in
the inlet flue gas ducts has been eliminated except for emergency
cooling, less corrosion of specimens has occurred at test locations
1002 and 2002. These sprays were used in the first series of corro-
sion tests, and the rates for Cor-Ten and mild steel at test location
1002 in the venturi system (see Fig. l) were greater than 290 and 330
mils per year, respectively. In the fourth series of tests, the
corrosion rates for similar alloys at location 1002 were b2 and 28
mils per year, respectively (refer to Table i). The rates were 3 mils
per year for the same alloys at test location 2002 in the TCA system
(see Fig. 2 and Table III). The maximum corrosion rate was 5 mils
per year for the other alloys tested at location 1002 during the
fourth series of tests and less than 1 for alloys tested at location
2002.
Venturi Unit
Shell and Bull Nozzle: The Type 316L shell of the venturi
section required occasional repairs. Joints were rewelded and larger
holes were patched with stainless steel sheet. The second 5-inch-
diameter bull nozzle failed, and the original nozzle that already had
been used 265 operating days was repaired and reinstalled for a second
period of service. Four inches was cut from the discharge end of the
nozzle to permit full travel of the venturi plug.
Chloride Stress-Corrosion Cracking: A section of Type 316L
stainless steel inlet flue gas duct extends about 7 inches inside the
chamber immediately above the venturi. The duct is ^0 inches in
diameter and is constructed of 3/16-inch-thick plate. Failure occurred
to the section that extended through the wall into the chamber.
L- 14
-------
Figure k shows a section of the duct that failed and dropped to a
position under the adjustable plug which regulates the velocity of
the gas-slurry mixture through the venturi. This section was J inches
wide and 26 inches long.
Failure of the Type 316L stainless steel duct was due to
embrittlement caused by stress-corrosion cracking. Examination of
the metal using a microscope revealed many cracks. These cracks
originated on the outside surface of the duct and some of them pene-
trated the wall. The stresses were mainly residual produced by cold
forming and welding; however, cyclic stresses produced by vibrating
equipment could have added to the severity.
The outside surface of the section that failed contained a
tightly adhering scale approximately 50 mils thick that was difficult
to remove. Also, pitting to depths of 3k mils occurred under the
scale (see Fig. 4). The scale contained 0.85$ by weight of CI as
calcium chloride. A complete analysis of the scale is given in
Table V (1/9/76, VD-l).
The temperature of the inlet gas ranges from 2600 to 330°F.
Splashing of the process lime/limestone slurry occurs as it is dis-
charged from the bull nozzle onto the adjustable plug causing deposi-
tion of wet solids on the external surface of the duct section that
extends inside the cavity. The process lime slurry contains U00 to
8^00 ppm of chloride ions. The high temperature of the duct wall
evaporates moisture from the deposited solids and thus concentrates
chlorides on the Type 316L duct.
Figure 5 is a photomicrograph that shows chloride stress
cracks in the duct wall (magnification 50X). This shows that the
cracks originated on the outside surface which was in tension. These
cracks are both intergranular and transgr&nular. In Figure 6, boundary
lines of crystals can be seen vaguely at 500X. Sensitization was not
observed in any specimen examined and did not contribute to embrittle-
ment of the metal. If the metal were sensitized, the grain boundaries
would be prominent.
Laboratory Tests; Laboratory tests were made to identify
alloys that are more resistant to chloride stress cracking than Type
3I6L stainless steel. Type 316L stainless steel was included in the
tests to verify the type of failure that occurred in the flue gas duct
and to establish its endurance for comparison with other alloys under
laboratory test conditions. The test procedure was in fair agreement
L-15
-------
with ASTM Designation G 36 - 73 which is a standard, practice for
performing stress-corrosion cracking tests in boiling (295°F) mag-
nesium chloride solution (it-2^ by weight). Strips 1 inch vide were
cut from l/8-inch-thick sheets and formed to make U-bend stress
specimens for use in the tests. The tabulation below shows the
alloys tested and the exposure period that elapsed before the first
crack was noted.
Days to
Alloy failure
Type 3I6L 1.4
Incoloy 800 1.6
Nitronic 50 3
Carpenter 20Cb-3 3
AL 6X 8
Incoloy 825 9
Jessop 700 12
Inconel 600 55a
Inconel 625 55a
Inconel 625, welded 55a
a No failure.
Inconel alloys 600 and 625 were by far the most resistant alloys
evaluated in the laboratory tests. Specimens of these alloys showed
no cracks after 55 days of exposure.
Figure 7 is a photomicrograph (50X) of a section from the
U-bend Type 316l stressed specimen that cracked in boiling magnesium
chloride solution in 34 hours. The cracks in the failed duct, shown
in Figure 5, are the same type as those in the broken U-bend specimen.
It appears that this problem could be solved by removing the
section of Type 316L duct that extends inside the cavity. However, if
this section is essential to performance of the unit, the Type J16l
duct should be replaced with a section of either Inconel 600 or 625
duct.
Guide Vanes: The severe erosion-corrosion of the guide vanes
located immediately below the venturi, -which is caused by high velocity
of the gas-slurry mixture leaving the venturi, continued during the
fourth series of tests. Occasionally the guide vanes have required
minor repair such as replacing worn bolts. Extensive wear, pitting,
and general corrosion will necessitate frequent patching or replacing
of vital parts. Some protection for these units has been provided
by installing test specimens on top of the vanes. The specimens were
in the form of wear bars, sections of stainless steel pipe, and neoprene
shields.
L-16
-------
Table VII lists all the materials that have been tested to
date on the guide vanes and gives their exposure location, duration
of the tests, and gives the results. Erosion-corrosion is more severe
on the north and east vanes than on the south and west vanes. The
difference in severity has been attributed to channeling of the flue
gas - lime/limestone slurry mixture. Alloy Haynes 6b was the most
resistant of the metals tested. A l/8-inch-thick wear bar of alloy
Haynes 6B had a rate of 162 mils per year with pitting on the sheared
edges. A l/4-inch-thick specimen with all surfaces ground smooth had
a rate of 370 mils per year, but no pitting occurred. Pitting of the
l/8-inch-thick specimen was attributed to severe cold working of the
edges by shearing. The other alloys tested were Type J>l£ stainless
steel, Nitronic 50, Inconel 625, and Type 201 stainless steel. The
erosion-corrosion rates for these alloys ranged from 0.5 to about
5 inches per year. Neoprene was tested in two forms as shields for
the guides. One form was a 1-inch-diameter pneumatic hose with a
2-braid, l/k-inch-thick wall, and the other was a l/4-inch-thick
multilayered sheet. The neoprene sheet remained in service longer
than the hose, but the specimens of sheet were exposed to the least
severe conditions (on the south and west guide vanes).
Specimens Tested Below the Venturis The specimens were
installed directly below the venturi at test location 1011 shown in
Figure 1. The test conditions and the results are given in Table II.
Exposure conditions were more severe at test location 1011 than at
any other location where disk-type specimens were tested in the two
scrubber systems. Because of the high erosion-corrosion rate, some
specimens on the spool had failed after 2370 operating hours. The
first spool was replaced by another spool of identical makeup. The
second spool remained in the system for 1580 operating hours before
the fourth series of tests was concluded.
Because the two spools of specimens were identical and were
mounted on the same bracket during exposure, it is obvious from the
tabulated data that the second spool was mounted 180 degrees from the
way the first spool was mounted. Channeling of the gas-slurry mixture
caused greater erosion-corrosion on one end of the spools than on the
other. The most promising alloys in the order of decreasing resistance
were Haynes 6B, Type 31TL, A1 29-4, AL 6X, and Zirconium 702. Pitting
and/or crevice corrosion occurred on specimens of a few alloys. The
specimens of Cor-Ten A and mild steel A-285, which were completely
destroyed, had corrosion rates greater than 1855 mils per year. These
materials also failed in previous tests at this location.
L-17
-------
The specimens exposed at location 1011 remained, clean throughout
the tests. The four spacer rods on each spool used in previous series
and in the first test of this series were eroded severely and had to be
replaced. Rubber tubing (pure gum) was used to cover the spacer rods
on the second spool used in the current series. After the 1580-hour
exposure period, the rubber shield was in good condition and it had
protected the spacer rods. In the future, spools to be mounted at
test location 1011 will have the spacer rods protected with rubber
tubing.
Flooded Elbow: Adhesion losses caused sagging of the neoprene
lining from the carbon steel shell in the flooded elbow. Repairs were
made by replacing small sections of the lining or by splitting the
sagging section, cleaning the metal surface, and applying new adhesive.
Epoxylite, an epoxy-base material, was used also to cover small areas
of bare metal shell. The formation of blisters in the flooded elbow
occurred more frequently during the fourth series of tests than during
previous tests. This probably resulted from overheating during momentary
loss of spray to the venturi before the humidification sprays upstream
were activated to cool the inlet flue gas.
Scrubber Towers
Neoprene Lining: The neoprene lining on the walls of the TCA
scrubber tower appeared to be in good condition. No change of importance
had occurred since the last inspection prior to the third interim report.
Impingement of slurry from sprays and from TCA spheres have caused minute
erosion of the lining in a few areas. Slight mechanical damage, possibly
due to impact by equipment and/or tools when changing the internal com-
ponents, has occurred in a few areas mainly in or near doorways. Table VI
gives the test location, original and current Durometer A2 hardness values,
and temperature at the time tests were made. Durometer A hardness values
of rubber lining on equipment were measured with a Shore instrument,
Type A2, ASTM 22^0. Unfortunately, hardness of lined plant equipment
was not determined at Shawnee before the plants were operated, so data
from the rubber vendors were used as reference values. The original
Durometer A hardness (taken from the vendor's data) of the neoprene
liners was 60 to 65 at 73°F (ASTM Standard D22b0-68). The current range
of hardness values of the lining in the TCA tower was 39 to b9. All
measurements were not taken at the same temperature (range was 74°-90°F)
because of the changes in the weather. As the temperature increases,
the hardness values decrease.
L-18
-------
The venturi/spray tower developed a few blisters in the
neoprene lining above the mist eliminator. These were first noted
January 26, 1976. The system had been in service about 3-1/2 years
(7^1 operating days). Figure 8 shows an undisturbed blister and
another from which the fluid had been drained. These were less
than an inch in diameter. The l/ij—inch-thick neoprene sheet con-
sists of several layers. Fluid collected between the first and
second layers to form the blister and did not penetrate to the
carbon steel shell (see Fig. 8). Straw-colored liquid withdrawn
from the blister had a pH of 2.$. The analysis of the liquid in ppm
follows: calcium, 200; magnesium, 585O; sodium, 300j potassium, 200;
sulfite, 6550; sulfate, 51,050, and chloride, 5900* The low pH and
high sulfate content indicate the liquid contains sulfuric acid.
Only slight wear in small areas by impingement of slurry from sprays
is noticeable on the neoprene lining.
Grids; Four grids are used in the TCA scrubber tower.
Three of these support spheres in most runs; the fourth (top) grid
prevents the spheres from being drawn up the duct by the I.D. fan.
The grids in current use are made of 3/8-inch-diameter rods of Type
316 stainless steel. They were installed in October 1973 and had
been in service about 17,000 operating hours as of August 1976.
Pitting occurred on the Type 316 stainless steel grid supports and
on the grid rods. Crevice corrosion was prominent where the rubber
grommets contacted the rods on the ends. Movement of the TCA spheres
caused wear of the rods that supported them. The wear occurred in
two planes on the top half of the grid rods. The diameter of the rods,
as measured on the flat surfaces, had decreased 12 to 27 mils since
installation.
Spheres; Thermal plastic rubber (TPR) spheres were used in
the TCA absorber during the first part of the fourth test period. After
i960 hours of service, the spheres had lost 5 "to 9$ in weight and after
3270 hours, the loss was as much as 12$ for some spheres. After con-
siderable wear of the surface, many of them either split in half at the
mold sesun or dimpled, -which permitted them to squeeze through the space
between the grid bars. This caused blockage of strainers in the slurry
lines. The TPR spheres were removed from the system after 38OO hours
of service.
Acrylonitrile foam spheres (trade name, Paracryl; Uniroyal
Company), manufactured by the Pawling Rubber Company, were installed
in the TCA scrubber tower December 19, 1975* As of August 1976, the
Paracryl spheres had given fairly good service except that some of
the spheres lodge in an escape through the space between the grid rods.
L-19
-------
Apparently, the impact of moving spheres forces some of them through
the grid opening. When the spheres were new, their diameter was
1.625 inches (nominal). After 1440 hours of service, the diameter
was 1.J7 inches or about 85$ of the original. Measurements made after
1820 hours of operation showed no further shrinkage, and loss in weight
was k to 5«6$. The spheres had been in service 3060 hours as of
August 12, 1976 (run 605-2A).
Wash Tray: The Koch (wash) tray was removed from the TCA
tower during the outage in May 1975 before the fourth series of
corrosion tests was started.
Mist Eliminators: A two-stage FRP mist eliminator was
installed in the TCA tower before run 5^6-2A which started June 8,
1975* Each stage was a three-pass, closed-vane, chevron-type unit.
The lower stage was provided with undersprays and oversprays. The
FRP unit was removed from service after 750 operating hours at the
end of run 552-2A (July Ik, 1975)• The lower stage was plugged and
the upper stage had been damaged by falling solids that had accumu-
lated on the walls of the duct above.
A chevron-type, open-vane, three-pass mist eliminator of
Type 316L stainless steel was installed in the TCA tower at the
beginning of run 553-2A (July 19, 1975)« As of August 1976, the
unit had been used 7330 operating hours and appeared to be in good
condition. Previous reports have stated that pitting and crevice
corrosion of stainless steels in the scrubber systems occur most
frequently under deposits of scale and mud. The installation of
automatic spray systems for improving cleanliness of the Type 3I6L
mist eliminators has increased the life and performance of the
units.
The mist eliminator in the afterscrubber of the venturi
system is also a chevron-type, open-vane, three-pass unit of Type 316L
stainless steel. It was installed before run 622-1A (January 30, 1975)
at an elevation 1 foot above that of the previous unit. The unit could
not be inspected August 26, 1976, because run 639-1A was in progress.
The mist eliminator had been in service about 10,000 operating hours.
Spray Nozzles: The process slurry is fed to the TCA tower
through four 196 9F Spraco nozzles (full-cone, free-flowing) of Type
316 stainless steel which are located in quadrants above the fourth
(top) grid. New nozzles were installed September 19, 197^+, and. they
had been in service approximately 12,000 operating hours as of
L-20
-------
August 26, 1976. One nozzle was plugged with solids and the swirl
vanes in each nozzle were grooved. The diameter of the discharge
throat increased 31 to 46 mils during this period of service. In
general, these Spraco nozzles have given good service.
The spray tower of the venturi scrubber system has four
levels of slurry sprays. Also, the mist eliminator has an under-
spray and an overspray consisting of several nozzles that spray
makeup water and/or clarified water.\piete nozzles with Stellite ^
diffusers give better service than those with Type 316 diffusers
when the slurry contains flyash. The diffusers are now "being tested
while scrubbing flue gas that is essentially flyash free.
Specimens Tested in Towers: The locations of test specimens
in the venturi spray tower are shown in Figure 1 and those for the
TCA scrubber tower are shown in Figure 2. The test conditions and
corrosion rates are given in Tables I and III, respectively. Results
for the short-term corrosion tests conducted while magnesium oxide
was being added to the slurry are included in the same tables. Foot-
notes in the tables identify tests made while magnesium oxide was
being used. The exposure media, test locations, and the amount of
solids on the spools when the tests were completed were as follows:
Scrubber
system
Venturi
TCA
Test
location No.
1006
1005
1004
2006
2005
2004
Test medium
Gas and liquor
Gas and liquor
Gas and droplets
Gas and liquor
Gas and droplets
Gas and mist
Amount of solids
on spool
95$ covered
80$ covered
lOOfo covered
None (clean)
90$ covered
covered
Corrosion was negligible to 1 mil per year in the tower of
both scrubber systems for the following alloys: Hastellqy alloys
C-276 and G, Haynes 6B, Inconel 625, Jessop TOO, Multimet, and
Zirconium 702. The following alloys lost little weight but experi-
enced localized attack in one or both towers; AL 6X, A1 2$-k,
Climax 18-2, Mtronic 50, ITitronic 50M, and stainless steel
Types 316L and 317L. Cor-Ten A had the greatest corrosion rates
of all materials tested (mild steel was not tested). At test loca-
tions ftam the bottom upward, the respective corrosion rates were
L-21
-------
greater than 108, 21, and 9 mils per year in the spray tower and
were 42, 26, and 19 mils per year in the TCA tower. Contrary to
the results for the second series of tests, data for the fourth
series of tests show that conditions were least severe in the top
of the tower. Perhaps the oversprays and undersprays currently
used on the mist eliminators decreased the severity of corrosion
of test specimens at the upper test locations.
Five plastic-base materials were tested at three locations
in each scrubber tower. Bondstrand 4000, an epoxy, and Derakane 510>
a vinyl ester, showed good resistance to attack in the six tests.
QuaCorr, a furan resin, was good in five tests and fair in one test.
The condition of Atlac 711, a polyester, was good in two tests and
fair in four tests. Hetron 92, a chlorinated polyester, showed
poor resistance to attack in the six tests.
Effect of Magnesium Oxide on Corrosion by Slurry: A spool
of specimens was installed at each of four test locations in the
scrubber systems for exposure only while additional magnesium oxide
was used to show its effect on corrosion by the slurry. Normally,
the Mg++ concentration in the slurry is in the range of 500 to 900 ppm.
Three of the spools were exposed in the venturi/spray tower system, one
each at test locations 1004, 1005, and 1008. The fourth spool was
exposed in the TCA system at test location 2005. The exposure period
for the four spools varied from 220 to 2680 hours and the MgO additions
were from 2000 to 14,200 ppm. Lime slurry was used during some runs
and limestone slurry in others. The following tabulation lists corro-
sion rates for tests conducted with and without the addition of
magnesium oxide.
Test location 1005 1004 1008 2005
Test series 4th Ea 4th IF 4th IF 4th E®"
Exposure time, hr. 1490 - 220 - 220 - 2680
MgO added, ppm 3000 - 5000 - 5000 - 2000 -
to to
14,200 13,000
Corrosion rate,
mils/yr
Cor-Ten A or B 170 33b 43 56 26 7 40 22b
Mild steel A-283
or A-285 171 37 26 60k 35 l4b 48 21°
® Earlier tests.
Average corrosion rate of earlier tests without the addition of MgO.
L-22
-------
Results of tests at locations 1005, 1008, and 2005 show-
that the addition of magnesium oxide increased the corrosion rate of
Cor-Ten and mild steel from 2 to 5 times the average rate for these
alloys tested earlier at the same test location without additions
of magnesium oxide. The tests at location 1004 -with added magnesium
oxide resulted in lower rates for Cor-Ten and mild steel than were
experienced without additional magnesium oxide in earlier tests.
It is believed that the current use of undersprays and oversprays
for cleaning the mist eliminator also kept the specimens at test
locations 1004 clean and thereby lowered the corrosion rates below
the average rates for the previous tests.
Exhaust System
Equipment for Reheating Scrubbed Gases: After the flue gases
are scrubbed, they are reheated to between 235 and 265 °F by oil-fired
reheaters. The original equipment used was Hauck inline reheaters.
Currently, external reheaters manufactured by Bloom Engineering Company
axe in use. Reheating is accomplished by direct mixing of scrubbed
gas and reheater exhaust. The performance of the Bloom reheaters has
been much better than that of the inline reheaters. The frequency of
flameouts has been greatly reduced. In general, the condition of the
Bloom reheaters is good.
Stainless Steel Duct; The 316L stainless steel duct that
extends from the reheater to the I.D. fan in the TCA system contained
pits IT mils deep. The pits formed under a thick coating of hard
solids. The heaviest deposits, about 2 inches thick, were on the
divider for the transition sections of the duct (cylindrical to
rectangular) that connects the inlet of the I.D. fan to the stack.
I.D. Fans; The third interim report described a crack that
occurred in one shroud of the I.D. fan for the venturi/spray tower
system and the repairs made to the unit. The unit had been operated
205 days -when another crack was noted at the same location. The crack
originated on the periphery of the shroud in the heat-affected zone of
the weld that joins a blade to the shroud. The first crack extended
4 inches (see Fig. 9), and the second crack was about the same length.
Repairs were made by grinding a "V" notch on each side of the shroud
in the crack and welding from both sides. The filler metal used for
the weld was Type 316L stainless steel (Type 3^7 filler metal was
used to repair the first crack). Welds of Type 316L filler metal
have better ductility than those of Type 3bj. An inspection of the
L-23
-------
fan was made after almost 7 months of additional service, and no
cracks were noted in the repaired area. No other changes of
importance were observed on the I.D. fan for either scrubber
system since the third series of corrosion tests was completed.
Expansion Joints: Repairs have been required frequently
on the corroded expansion joints above the I.D. fan in both the
venturi and TCA scrubber systems. Cold-working of the Type Jl6L
stainless steel during fabrication and fatigue caused by vibration
from operating equipment increased the susceptibility of the metal
to attack. Measures that would improve corrosion resistance of the
expansion joints are as follows: solution anneal the unit after
fabrication, change from rectangular to cylindrical design with a
longer bellows section of thicker gage, and use Inconel 625 instead
of Type 516L stainless steel for this service.
Specimens Tested in Exhaust Stacks: Exposure of test speci-
mens at test locations 1007 and 2007 the vacuum breakers in the
stacks was discontinued when the third series of tests was completed.
New test locations 1014 and 2014 were established below the I.D. fans
and test locations 1015 and 2015 were established above the fans in
the venturi and the TCA scrubber systems, respectively. Probe-type
assemblies were used to install disk-type specimens at these test
locations (see Fig. 3). The temperatures of gases at these test
points are usually in the range of 2350 to 265°F.
Tables I and III give pertinent information on exposure
conditions and results of the tests. All the specimens were heavily
coated with solids.
Corrosion rates for specimens in the stack for the venturi/
spray tower system were 1 to 3 mils per year above the I.D. fan (at
location 1015) and 3 to 4 mils below the fan (at location 1014) with-
out evidence of localized attack at either test location. For similar
tests in the TCA stack, the rates for all alloys, on the basis of
weight loss, were negligible to 1 mil per year except for Cor-Ten A
and mild steel which had rates of k and 19 mils per year. The greatest
attack occurred below the fan (at location 2014). Pitting and/or
crevice corrosion occurred on most specimens in the TCA stack. The
reason for localized attack of specimens in the TCA stack and not in
the spray tower stack is not evident. Perhaps the stack temperature
for the TCA system was lower, allowing more condensate to be present
than in the stack for the venturi/spray tower system. The highly
alloyed materials, Hastelloy alloys C-276 and G, Haynes 6b, Inconel
625, and Jessop f00, were not included in these tests because of low
rates experienced in earlier tests at locations 1007 and 2007.
L- 24
-------
U-shaped stress specimens (see Fig. 3) of six alloys were
installed (July 1975) in the inlet gas cavity of each I.D. fan in an
effort to identify the cause of cracking of the I.D. fan and expan-
sion joints above the fans. If static stresses in the fan and expan-
sion joints caused cracking in these units, the stressed specimens
should crack also. None of the specimens had failed as of August 1976.
Perhaps a longer exposure for the stressed specimens is needed because
the fan had been in service approximately 2-1/2 calendar years when
the first crack occurred. The tests of stressed specimens are being
continued.
Tanks
Effluent Hold Tanks: An effluent hold tank (EHT) 20 feet in
diameter and 21 feet tall is located directly under each scrubber:
item D-101 (Fig. l) for the venturi and item D-201 (Fig. 2) for the
TCA. The shells are made of A-283 carbon steel coated inside (80 mils
minimum thickness) with Flakeline 103 manufactured by the Ceilcote
Company. This coating is a Bisphenol-A type polyester resin filled
(25-35$) with flake glass. D-101 tank was not inspected August 26,
1976, because the venturi/spray tower system was in operation.
The D-201 tank had not been used for about 5 months because
of changes in slurry-handling facilities in the TCA system. The
Flakeline 103 coating on the baffles and tank walls appeared to be
in good condition except in an area where the coating had been removed
to accommodate installation of a slurry-level sensing element in May
1975. The bare steel in the area affected was coated with a blue
epoxy-base paint. After a little over a year's service, the epoxy-
base coating had failed and undercutting of the Flakeline 103 coating
adjacent to "Hie bare steel had occurred. In order to obtain a
reasonable service life from a protective coating, such as this one
of epoxy, it is essential that the manufacturer's instructions be
followed regarding cleaning of the metal and the application of coats
in the order specified with proper drying time between coats and
before the equipment is put in service. An application of new
Flakeline 103 in damaged areas would demonstrate the repairability
of the old coating, but this has not been done at Shawnee.
The bottom of the EHT was not inspected because about 6 inches
of liquid and solids remained in the tank. The 8-inch-diameter pipe
of Bondstrand (FRP, resin not identified) has been removed from the
tank. The Type 3I6L stainless steel downcomer below the TCA tower
was pitted under the tightly adhering scale. An unlined 4-inch carbon
steel pipe inside the west wall of the tank has corroded severelv aftpv
about 2-1/2 years of exposure.
L-25
-------
The neoprene-covered agitator blades in D-201 tank are in
good condition; they show moderate wear on the leading edges and
some damage due to impact with hard objects. During the fourth
corrosion test period, the agitator blades were lowered to within
8 inches of the tank bottoms for more thorough mixing when the
liquid level was lowered to shorten the slurry residence time. The
hardness of the neoprene coverings on the agitator blades is given
in Table VI; these values have not changed appreciably from the
original hardness values.
The venturi/spray tower system was idle October 18, 1976,
and the onsite inspection engineer provided a report on the conditions
of much of the equipment. The flakeline coating in EHT D-101 was
generally in good condition. Hairline cracks were noted on some baffles
and along the junction of the baffles with the tank wall. An area of
the tank bottom that had been repaired previously with Goodyear's
Pliobond cement was in good condition. The edge of the Flakeline 103
coating around the entrance pipe for the Brooks level gage had lost
adhesion with the carbon steel shell. The area was scraped clean and
Pliobond was applied around the pipe inlet area. Undercutting of the
Flakeline 103 coating will continue to progress unless a seal prevents
fluids from entering between the coating and the steel shell.
The neoprene-covered agitator blades have shown little
change due to abrasion. The Durometer A2 hardness of the coating
was 62 to 65 at 70°F. The covering on the shaft was in good condi-
tion, and the stabilizer blades that had been repaired previously
were still intact.
Specimens Tested in Effluent Hold Tanks: Specimens were
not exposed in the EHT's except for a short-term test (220 hr.,
see Table I, location 1008) in the venturi system which was discussed
previously.
Tank D-2Q1+: During the original operation of the TCA
scrubber system, tank D-204 was used for a few months as a recircula-
tion tank. It is 5 feet in diameter, 21 feet tall, and lined with
neoprene. During the latter part of the current corrosion test
period, the tank was used as an EHT to reduce residence time for
slurry. In order to use the tank, an 18-inch mild steel crossover
and a downcomer were installed in March 1976. The addition of the
downcomer and the accumulation of solids on the agitator blades
increased resistance to agitation. This overloaded the electric
drive motor. Figure 10 shows numerous holes that corroded in the
downcomer. Failure occurred in the area where magnesium oxide was
fed into the tank.
L-26
-------
Clarifier Tank D-102: The Flakeline 103 coating in the
clarifier tank D-102 for the venturi/spray tower system was in good
condition. Rust was showing at a small spot on the cone-shaped
bottom; this minor damage to the coating was not repaired. The
mechanical equipment of Type 316L stainless steel appeared to be
in good condition.
Specimens Tested in Clarifier Tanks: A spool of corrosion
test specimens was suspended in the slurry 5 feet below the launder
in each clarifier tank, D-102 for the venturi system and D-202 for
the TCA system. These tanks are not shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Tables I and III (test locations 1013 and 2013) give the results of
the tests. Corrosion rates were negligible for all alloys tested in
the clarifier tanks except for Cor-Ten A and mild steel A-285 which
had maximum rates of 2 and 3 mils per year, respectively. Pitting
and/or crevice corrosion occurred on specimens of seven alloys in
the TCA clarifier tank. Only mild steel showed localized attack in
the venturi system clarifier tank.
Clarified Process Water Storage Tanks: The storage tajiks
for clarified process water are lined with neoprene. Tank D-I03 is
for the venturi/spray tower system. Its lining was in good condi-
tion. The neoprene-covered agitator showed only slight wear on the
edge of the blades. Some of the carbon steel nuts on the structural
support for the mixers were corroded severely.
Tank D-203 is used to store clarified process water for
the TCA system. This tank was practically filled with water. The
lining above the w&terline was in good condition. Hardness values
of the lining were normal and are given in Table VI.
Hold Tank D-208: Tank D-208 was put in service after the
third series of corrosion tests was completed in April 1975* During
the current tests, it was used as an EHT for the venturi/spray tower
system. This is the first inspection made of the tank. The vail
below the water level was covered with a very thin loose scale. No
deterioration of the tank was apparent.
Pumps, Neoprene-Lined Centrifugal
Liners and Covered Impellers: Neoprene-lined Centriseal
pumps with neoprene-covered impellers were used in both scrubber
systems for pumping slurry during the current test period. Four of
these pumps (G-201, G-202, G-203, and G-205) were inspected in
L-27
-------
August 1976« The hardness of the neoprene had not changed appreciably
from the original hardness values (see Table Vl). The condition of the
liners and impeller covers ranged from good in pump G-20j5 to severely
grooved and/or gouged areas in pump G-205. Most of the damage was caused
by hard objects in the slurry. The greatest penetration noted was of
gouges approximately 190 mils deep. Some pumps have been moved from one
location to another, and in some cases, pumps have been used in both
scrubber systems. Therefore, a comparative service life of the liners
cannot be made based on their condition on August 26, 1976* The installa-
tion of strainers (to be discussed later) in the slurry pipelines has
helped to reduce damage to pump liners.
Packing, Sleeves, and Shafts: The most frequent maintenance
required for the Centriseal pumps is repacking the seal. G-205 was
repacked seven times in July and eight times in August 1976. Wear of
shaft sleeves has decreased since hardened sleeves have been installed,
but new sleeves are required occasionally. The life of packing and
sleeves depends greatly on the condition of the shaft. Worn shafts
are replaced with new ones when the service life of sleeves and packing
are extremely short.
Piping
When the scrubber systems were put in operation in 1972, most
of the piping was either neoprene-lined carbon steel or stainless steel.
Since that time, many modifications have been made to the systems in
order to evaluate suggested procedures for improving the processes. On
occasions when neither neoprene-lined pipe nor stainless steel pipe was
immediately available, unlined carbon steel pipe was used.
Neoprene-Lined Pipe: Information was given in the third interim
report (March 1976) concerning blisters that formed in a neoprene-lined,
4-inch pipe that had been in service for about 14,000 hours. One blister
was dissected, and it was obvious that it had formed by collection of
fluid between the carbon steel shell and the lining. This blister was
located in an ell upstream from control valve 1047 in the slurry line to
the tangential nozzles. Blisters in this area of the pipe lining have
not changed in number or size; however, several smaller blisters have
been noted in the 4-inch pipe to the bull nozzle. These have not changed
in size since they were first noted by the onsite inspection engineer
several months ago. The venturi/spray tower system had been operated
845 days as of June 14, 197^.
L-28
-------
Blistering of neoprene lining in a tower was discussed in the
section "Scrubber Towers." In that case, the lining consists of several
layers, and the blister that was dissected had formed by collection of
fluid between the first and second layers.
Stainless Steel, Types 304 and 316L: Type 316L stainless steel
piping was installed at several locations in the scrubber systems. However
when Type 316L pipe was not available, a few sections of Type 304 stainless
steel pipe were installed. For pipe carrying lime/limestone slurry, with
its external surfaces exposed to atmospheric conditions only, attack would
be due mainly to erosion inside the pipe, and pitting inside would not be
a problem while the slurry was moving. The erosion rate would be about
equal for Types 304 and 316 L stainless steel. However, during idle
periods if slurry were left in the lines, Type 304 stainless steel pipe
would pit more inside than would Type 316L pipe.
Inside the afterscrubber tower where Types 304 and 316L stainless
steel pipes are used for spray headers, external surfaces of the pipe are
exposed to the corrosive environment; the surface of Type JOk stainless
steel pipe pitted much more than that of Type 316L pipe.
Carbon Steel, Unlined: The life of unlined carbon steel pipe
used to transfer lime/limestone slurry is short compared with that of
300 series stainless steel pipe. The limited corrosion resistance of
carbon steel and the abrasiveness of flowing slurry result in severe
erosion-corrosion, especially where the flow changes direction and tur-
bulence is encountered. Also, localized corrosion progresses rapidly
under deposits of solids if conditions are such that abrasion is not a
factor. Figure 10 shows an example of this type of failure in a TCA
downcomer. Test specimens of carbon steel (mild steel) have been
exposed in all test locations of each scrubber system. Corrosion rates
have ranged from 1 to 250 mils per year. Magnesium oxide was added to
the slurry during part of the fourth series of tests. Specimens of mild
steel A-283, which were exposed only while magnesium oxide was being used,
were corroded at rates 2 to 5 times greater than specimens tested before
the additions were made.
Strainers
Two single-element Hayward strainers used in parallel were
installed in the discharge lines from pumps G-201 and G-204 in May 1975 •
These are vertical-type basket strainers. Six-inch units were installed
near pump G-204 in the venturi spray tower system and 8-inch units near
pump G-201 in the TCA system. The materials of construction of the
Hayward strainers were as follows: body, cast steel; trim, malleable
L-29
-------
iron; basket, Type 316 stainless steel plate 20 mils thick and perforated
with 3/8-inch-diameter holes; and cover gasket, neoprene. After approxi-
mately 15 months of operation, the general condition of the strainers is
about the same for both scrubber systems. The 6-inch strainer units had
erosion of the basket support ledge, minor erosion of the lower half of
the inlet flange face in the south unit, and a 1/4-inch-deep eroded area
in the discharge throat. The north strainer had grooves l/2 inch deep
in the outlet throat, two eroded areas on the basket support flange, and
erosion of the lower half of the inlet flange. The Type 316 stainless
steel baskets in both units of the two scrubber systems were in good
condition except for mechanical damage, which could have been done
during cleaning. Deterioration of the basket support ledge could be
due, in part, to galvanic action from contact of dissimilar metals. The
use of a thick (1/8-1/4 inch) neoprene gasket designed to prevent contact
at both the flange and side walls of the Type 316 strainer with the cast
steel body could be beneficial.
Valves
Fabri knife-gate valves were installed in May 1975 in "the
slurry line upstream and downstream from each Hay-ward strainer. Each
of the two strainers requires two valves in order to isolate it for
cleaning. The valves perform better if installed so that the pressure
is against the inlet side of the knife gate when the valves are closed.
The wetted part of the valves is Type 316 stainless steel; all other
parts are cast or fabricated carbon steel. Two problems have been
encountered with the Fabri knife-gate valves. Solids collect in the
seat and prevent complete closing of the gate. Also, the 0 ring that
makes a seal with the gate gets torn or cut frequently when the gate
is being opened or closed. The damage is done by hard scale that builds
on the gate. The valves can be operated without the 0 rings, so the
rings have been removed from the units. However, slight leakage may
occur when a basket is being emptied, but this is not a serious problem.
Effect of Molybdenum Content in Alloys
Previous corrosion tests conducted in the lime/limestone test
facilities for removing sulfur dioxide from stack gases showed severe
pitting and crevice corrosion of ordinary stainless steels. For many
years molybdenum has been considered a valuable alloying element to
inhibit pitting attack of stainless steels. The American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISl) appointed a committee of stainless steel pro-
ducers to investigate further the role of molybdenum in providing
L- 30
-------
resistance of stainless steel to pitting. In May 1975 the committee
invited, us to participate in the study. Alloying elements other than
molybdenum also affect greatly the resistance of metals to pitting
and crevice corrosion.
Efforts were made to obtain sheet stock containing the minimum
and maximum molybdenum contents specified for each of several alloys.
Stock containing near the specified minimum, content of molybdenum was
available, but stock with maximum molybdenum content was not. The only
AISI alloy obtained with as much as 0.5$ difference in molybdenum content
was Type 316L stainless steel (2.3 and 2.8$ Mo). Stock was preferred
that contained 2 and 3$ Mo. In general, the molybdenum-containing AISI
alloys are produced with molybdenum content near the minimum specified
quantities.
The curve in Figure 11 shows the results of exposure of
molybdenum-containing alloys in the current series of tests. The
abscissa gives the molybdenum content of the alloy, and the ordinate
shows the percentage of the specimens tested that were not affected
by localized corrosion. The number of specimens tested ranged from
seven of Type 216 stainless steel to eighteen of Type 316L (2.3$ Mo
content). The following stainless steels showed low resistance to
pitting and crevice corrosion: Climax 18-2 and AISI Types 216, 316L,
and 317L. Only 28 to 4-3$ of the specimens tested of these alloys were
without localized attack. The molybdenum content of these alloys ranged
from 2 to 3-2$* The alloy Type 316L containing 2.8$ Mo showed some
improvement over that of Type 316L containing 2.3$ Mo, but Type 317L
stainless steel containing 3.2$ Mo was less resistant in these tests, than
the Type 316L containing 2.8$ Mo. Climax 18-2 (18$ Cr, 2$ Mo) appeared
to be as resistant as Type 3^7L stainless steel. The reason for these
inconsistencies is not evident. However, it is evident that 3.2$ Mo is
not enough to prevent localized attack of the low alloy stainless steel
in the lime/limestone scrubber systems for cleaning stack gases.
The effect of other alloying elements, such as chromium, nickel,
and manganese, is also shown in Figure 11. Type 216 stainless steel was
developed as a substitute for Type 316 by replacing part of the nickel
in Type 316 with manganese. The stock of Type 216 stainless steel used
in these tests contained 19*5$ Cr, 6.8$ Ni, 8.2$ Ma, and 2.3$ Mo. This
alloy showed some improvement (43$ of specimens without pitting or
crevices) over the other alloys discussed thus far.
Nitronic 50, AL 6X, and AL 29-4 showed 67, 77, and 79$ resis-
tance to localized attack, respectively. Their molybdenum contents
ranged from 2.25 to 6.4$. The AL 29-4- (29$ Cr, 4$ Mo) was the most
resistant of the three alloys. The cost of materials above alloy AL 29-4
on the curve increases rapidly; these are highly alloyed materials. See
Table IV for analyses of all alloys tested.
L-31
-------
The alloy Hastelloy G contained 6 .J
-------
Acknowledgments
The onsite employees who contributed much to the program
during the fourth series of corrosion tests were J. K. Metcalfe,
Test Facility Supervisor; R. C. Tulis, Inspection Engineer; and
J. B. Barkley, Chemist. J. J. Schultz, Project Leader, and S. B.
Jackson, Chemical Engineer, of the Office of Agricultural and
Chemical Development, also coordinated corrosion tests with
scheduled scrubber operation.
The following firms supplied materials for preparing
corrosion test specimens:
Alloys (sheet and filler metal)
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation
Armco Steel Corporation
Carpenter Technology Corporation
Climax Molybdenum Company
Colt Industries
G. 0. Carlson, Incorporated
Huntington Alloys
Jessop Steel Corporation
Metal Goods, Incorporated
Cabot Corporation, Stellite Division
Teledyne "Wah Chang Albany
United States Steel Corporation
Plastics (fiberglass-reinforced)
Ameron, Corrosion Control Division
Dow Chemical Company
Hooker Chemical Corporation, Durez Division
ICI United States, Incorporated
Quaker Oats Company
L-33
-------
Table I
Corrosion Tests3 Conducted in the Venturi/spray Tower System of the Alkaline - Wet-Scrubbing Process for
Sulfur Dioxide Removal from Stack Gas at Shawnee Steain Plant
./Test period--7/23/75 3/2^/76 So2o-1A through factorial tests); operating time—U666 hours or
19^-k days; and idle time--121^ hours or 50.6 days/
Corrosion specimens
Exposed in
Locations See Fig. 1 ), Ref. Wo. .
Gas and
Inlet gas liouor
ioce
1006
Gas and
liquor
1005
Gas and
liquor
ioc5b
Gas and
droplets
10CA
Gas and
droplets
100ku
Exhaust gas
,heated)
101^
Exhaust gas
(heated)
1015
Effluent
liquor
lco6C
Liquor in
clarifier
1013
Gas
Temperature, °F 275-330
£-• Velocity, ft/sec 32-67
I Flow rate, 1000's acfa at 330°F • . . 17-35
OJ Composition, .! by volume
^ SO2 0.2-0.U
CCfe 10-18
Cfe 5-15
IfeO 8-15
HC1 0.01
Tfe • • • 71*-
Flyash, gr/std. ftfl 2-7
I25-13C
1*. 5-9.it
15-50
125-150
a.5-9-1*
15-50
12 5-15C
3.6-6.3
20-30
125-150
1l.5-9.1i
15-50
125-130
9-h
50
235-265
52-6J
17-35
0.02-0.10
11-13
6-l6
9-16
69±
0.01 -0.0k
235-265
32-63
17-55
C.02-0.10
11-19
6-16
9-16
69f
0.01-0.0U
Liquor
Temperature, °F
Solids, undissolved, „• by vrt.
Solids, dissolved, . by wt.
PH
Ionic_composition, ppoj
S&T
C03"
SO.,1
ca::
M&
Na
K+
Cl"
90-150
S-19
0.5-3.^
U. 3 -6.5
to-3 900
5-150
itoo-iuco
5U0-300C
100-5500
60-110
90-150
5500-5700
70-10C
0-35
0-3.it
5.0-9.5
1*0-5900
5-150
itoo-iU oc
51*0-3000
100-5500
60-110
90-150
3300-5700
-------
Table I
(Continued)
r
U)
108
21
170
9, Pll
43
4
3
26, F5
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
Keg.
Neg.
-
-
-
< 1
< 1
Neg.
< 1
Neg.
<1
-
-
Neg.
1
< 1
Neg.
P9
Neg.
Neg.
-
-
Neg.
< 1
< le
Neg.
< 1
Neg.
Neg.
-
-
-
-
< 1, -
< 1
F7
Neg.
-
5
-
-
28
-
171
-
26
4
2
35, P10
-
-
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
-
-
-
Neg.
_
-e, Rn
-
-
-
< 1
3
2
Neg.
1, Rn
-e, F2
< 1, P4
_e
Neg.
le
3
2
Neg.
5, FT
-
-
-
-
-
3
2
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
3
2
Neg.
1, Bn
le, an
-e, Ita
je
-e, E2
I6, Ple
3
2
Neg.
-
le, Rn
< 1
-
_e
< 1®
4
2
Neg.
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
2
Neg.
—
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
k
2
Neg.
Pair
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
.
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
-
-
Good
-
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
-
-
Good
_
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
-
-
Fair
-
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
-
-
Good
Liquor in
clarifier
1013
2
Keg.
Keg.
Beg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Keg.
Keg.
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Good
The tests conducted at location 1011 were affected greatly by erosion in addition to corrosion. Results of these tests are given in Table H.
Specimens exposed 1490 hours (3/24-6/14/76) with magnesium oxide added to the slurry.
® Specimens exposed 220 hours (1/26-2/5/76) with, a nominal 5000 ppn magnesium oxide added to limestone slurry.
Negligible (Neg.) indicates corrosion rates of less than 0.05 mil per year, and < 1 indicates corrosion rates from 0.05 to 0.49 mil per year; "P" preceding a
number indicates pitting during the exposure period to the depth in mils shown by the number; and "Fta" indicates minute pits. Where localized attack is more
severe than the rate determined by weight loss, no rate is given for general corrosion.
e Crevice corrosion at Teflon insulator.
f Contains 2.3> by weight molybdenum.
6 Contains 2.Sri by weight molybdenum.
h Contains 3.2* by weight molybdenum.
1 Evaluation: Good, little or no change in condition of specimen; fair, definite change, probably could be used; poor, failed or severely dairaged.
-------
Table II
a ^
Erosion-Corrosion of Specimens Tested Below the Venturi
Test specimens
Exposed in Gas and spray
Location (See Fig. 1 ), Ref. No 1011 1011
Exposure period 7/23 to ll/17/75 12/24/75 to 3/24/76
Operating time, hr 2370 1580
Idle time, hr 440 600
Gas and spray
Temperature, °F 80—170 80—170
Velocity, ft/sec 40—100 40—100
Flow rate, 1000 acftri at 330°F 15—30 15—30
Corrosion rate^, mils/yr
AL 6X, weld AL 6X 20 5
AL 29—4, weld AL 29—4 14 4
Climax l8—2, weld Climax l8—2 32 7C, p6
Cor-Ten A, weld ES018-C3 > 2120 > 2060
Hastelloy C-276, weld Hastelloy C-276 44 10
Haynes 6b, weld Haynes No. 25 9 3
Inconel 625, weld Inconel 625 29 12
Jessop 700, weld Camete S2 31 17
Mild steel A-285, weld E6012 > 1855 > 2780
Multimet, weld Maltimet 26 19
Nitronic 50M, weld Nitronic 50 l6c 21
Type 216, weld Type 216 12 19, P2
Type 3l6L^ weld Type 3l6L 12° 25 ^ pj
Type 316L7 weld Type 3l6L 10c l8c, P23
Type 317L,f weld Type 317L 9° 9C> Pm
Zirconium 702, weld Zirconium 702 6 20
The results of tests conducted at other locations in the venturi/spray tower system at which the
attack of alloys was mainly corrosion (negligible erosion) are given in Table I
"P" preceeding a number indicates pitting during the exposure period to the depth in mils Shown
by the number; "Em" indicates minute pits. The sign ">" indicates that the specimen failed and
the penetration rate in mils per year was greater than the number given.
Crevice corrosion at Teflon insulator.
Contains 2.3$ by weight molybdenum.
Contains 2.8$ by weight molybdenum.
Contains 3•2$ by weight molybdenum.
L- 36
-------
Table III
Corrogion Teats Conducted In the TCA System of the Alkaline - Wet-Scrubbing Process for
Sulfur Dlood.de Removal from Stack Gag at Shawnee Steam Plant
./Test period—7/19/75 to 3/17/76 (553-2A through factorial tegts); operating time—4990 hours or
2CTT.9 days; and idle time—821 hours or 34.2 day_s7
Corrogj""
Gas and Gas and Gas and Gas and Exhaust gas Exhaust gas
Exposed in' Inlet gas liquor droplets droplets mist (heated) (heated)
Locations (See Fig. 2), Ref. no. 20O2 2006 2005 2005a 2004 2014 2015
Gas
Temperature, °F 260-310 70-130
t-1 Velocity, ft/sec 30-45 8.4-12.5
1 Flow rate, 1000*s acfta at 300*F 20-30 15-20
Composition, % by volme
SQe 0.2-0.4
CCfe 10-lS
Qz 5-15
ifeo 8-15
HC1 0.01
74t
Tlyaah, gr/std. ft3 2-7
70-125 70-225 70-125 235-265 235-265
8.4-12.5 8.4-12.5 8.4-32.5 30-45 30-45
15-20 15-20 15-20 20-30 20-30
o.ce-o.io 0.02-0.10
11-19 11-19
- 6-l6 6-l6
9-16 9-16
I 69* 69-
0.01-0.04 0.01-0.04
Liquor
Temperature, *F
Solids, undissolved, jt by wt . .
Solids, dissolved, jh by wt . . .
PH
Ionic composition, ppm
-------
Table HI
(Continued)
Corrosion specimens
Exposed in Inlet gas
Locations (See Pig. 2 ), Ref. No. . . 2002
Gas and
liquor
2006
Gas and
droplets
2005
Gas and
droplets
2005s
Gas and
mist
200k
Exhaust gas
(heated)
2014
Exhaust gas
(heated)
2015
Liquor in
clarifier
2013
Corrosion rate of metals, mils/yr
r
1
u>
00
AL 6X, weld AL 6x
Neg.
Neg.
52
-C, R11
Neg.
AL 29-4, weld AL 29-4
< 1
r% "
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
-c, F2
Neg.
Climax 18-2, weld Climax l8-2 ....
_
- , PI
-c, Rn
< 1, EL4
c
1, Rn
< 1, Rn
Cor-Ten A, weld E80l8-C3
3, Rn
42
26
40
19
4
1
Hastelloy C-276, weld Hastelloy C-276
< 1
< 1
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
-
-
Hastelloy G, weld Hastelloy G
< 1
< 1
Neg.
Neg.
_c
-
-
Haynes 6b, weld Haynes No. 25 ....
< 1
< 1
Neg.
c
-
-
Inconel 625, weld Inconel 625 ....
-
< 1
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
-
-
Jessop 700, weld Comete S2
< 1
< 1
Neg.
Neg.
-c,Rn
1
PI
Mild steel A-28 5, weld B5012
3,Pm
-
-
48
-
4
1
Multimet, weld Multimet
-
< 1
-
Neg.
Neg.
1,P4
Neg.
Nitronic 50, weld Nitronic 50 ....
< 1
-
_c
-
-
-
-
Nitronic 50M, weld Nitronic 50 • . . .
< 1
lc
_c
< 1, P2
_c
l,Em
< 1, Pm
Type 201, weld Type Jl6
-
-
-
-
-
1 , Pm
V'
Type 2l6, weld Type 216
< 1, Rn
-
-
-
-
2, P4
-c, Rn
Type 3l6Ld, weld Type 316L
< 1, Rn
-c, F8
_c
< lc
-c, Rn
2, Pm
< 1
Type 3l6Le, weld lype 316L
-
lc
_c
-
-c, Pm
2, Rn
< 1, Rn
GVpe 317L^, weld Type 309Cb
-
lc
< 1
-
-c, Rn
1, Rn
Rn
Zirconium 702, weld Zirconium 702 . .
-
1
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
Evaluation of plastics®
Atlac 711, polyester
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
-
-
Bondstrand 4000, epoxy
-
Good
Good
Good
Good
-
-
Derakane 510 j vinyl ester
-
Good
Good
Good
Good
-
-
Hetron 92, chlorinated polyester . . .
-
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
-
-
QuaCorr, furan resin
-
Good
Good
Good
Good
~
-
- X — - \ / ' / — / ' ~ ' — 7 7 X-JT --*3- V
DNegligible (Neg.) indicates corrosion rates of less than 0.05 mil per year, and < 1 indicates corrosion rates frcm 0.05 to
0.49 mil per year; "P" preceding a number indicates pitting during the exposure period to the depth in mils shown by the
number; "Rn" indicates minute pits. Where localized attack is more severe than the rate determined by weight loss, no
rate is given for general corrosion.
® Crevice corrosion at Teflon insulator
Contains 2 .3# by weight molybdenum.
e Contains 2.8$ by weight molybdenum.
f Contains 3.2> by weight molybdenum.
6 Evaluation: Good, little or no change in condition of specimen; fair, definite change, probably could be used; poor, failed
or severely damaged.
Neg.
Neg.
Neg.
2C, FT
Neg.
Neg.
2C,P9
Neg.
_c
Neg.
Em
Rn
Pm
Rn
Neg.
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Good
-------
Table IV
Composition of Alloys Tested in the Alkaline — Wet-Scrubbing Systems for Sulfur Dioxide Removal from Stack Gas at Shawnee Steam Plant
r
i
oo
xO
Alloys
C
Cr
Ni
Fe
Cu
Mo
Mn
Si
p
s
A1
Ti
Others
AL 6Xa
o.ce7
20.32
24.17
Bel.
6.42
1.1+6
O.56
0.C23
0.004
N, 0.03
AL 29J»a a
0.004
29.3
0.12
Bal.
-
3.95
0.10
0.05
0.013
0.013
_
_
N, 0.010
Carpenter 7-Mo
0.05
27.err
4.25
Bal.
0.14
1.44
0.50
0.33
o.ce2
0.013
_
_
_
Climax l8-2a
0.O16
18.W
0.39
Bal.
0.21
2.08
0.4
0.39
_
_
_
0.33
N, 0.013
Cor-Ten Aa
0.11
0.66
0.35
Bal.
0.36
-
0.39
0 .44
0.093
o.ce6
-
Hastelloy C-276a
0.002
15.87
Bal.
5.96
_
16.32
0.49
< 0.01
0.012
0.010
_
.
Co, 1.34; W, 3.51; V, 0.25
Hastelloy Ga
o.ce
21.72
Bal.
18.6B
1.77
6.69
1.30
0.3I1
o.cei
0.011
_
_
Co, 1.57; Cb+Ta, 2.13; W, 0.54
Haynes 6Ba
0.96
29-75
2.15
2.36
-
1.08
1.40.
0.36
-v,
_
_
Co, Bal.; w, 4.30
Inccnel 625
0.1
20-23
Bal.
5.00
-
9-10
0.?
0.5
0.015
o.oi5b
0.4b
0.4b
Co, 1.0b; Cb+Ta, 3.15-4.15
Jessop 700
0.0}
21.00
25.00
Bal.
-
4.5
1.70
0.50
-
-
-
-
Cb, 0.50
Mild steel A-285
°-}5b
_
_
Bal.
0.55^
_
0.30b
.
0.05b
0.05b
Multimet
0.2*
18-22.5
18-22
Bal.
-
2.75-3.75
-
-fc>
-
_
-
Cb, 0.75-1.5; Co, 18-22; N, 0.1-0.2; W, 2-5
Nitronic 50
0.06°
20.5-23.5
11.5-13.5
Bal.
1.5-3.0
4.0-6.0
1.0
0.04^
o.°3b
_
N, 0.2-0.4; Cb, 0.1-0.3; V, 0.1-0.3
Nitronic 50M
o.°6°
21
14
Bal.
-
1.5-3.0
6
l.Ocf
G'°hh
o.°3b
-
-
N, 0.2-0.4; Cb, 0.1-0.3; V, 0.1-0.3
Type 201
0.156
16-18
3.5-5-5
Bal.
-
-
5.5-7.5
1.00°
0.06
0.03
-
-
N, 0.25
type 2l6a
0.069
19-54
6.77
Bal.
_
2.31
3.21
0.23
o.oe3
0.005
_
tl, 0.353
lype 31^L
o.ceo
17.1
13.8
Bal.
0.07
2-3
l.JO
0.49
0.016
0.016
_
_
Type 31£>l
0.025
18.0
13.9
Bal.
0.05
2.77
I.3S
0.54
0.011
0.012
_
_
_
Type 317La
o.oe2
l8.6lc
13.62
Bal.
0.45
3.16
1.62
0.60
o.cei
0.009
0.012
o.oo4
B,Oj0008;Cb, O.Oe; Co, 0.17; N, O.O65
Zirconium 702
0.015
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N, 0.05; Kf, < 0.10; Zr+Hf, > 99.2
a Analysis was supplied with the material,
b Maximum.
c Cr+Fe, 0.10£ by weight.
-------
Table V
Analyses3, of Deposits in Lime/Lime at one - Wet-Scrubbing Systems for Sulfur Dioxide Removal from Stack Gas at Shawnee Rt.pnm Plant
Date
Number
Identification of sample
Location'
3C^ as
L-S
SO3 3 S
C3.SO4,
Composition, j> by weight
CO2 as
CaCCh
CI as
CaCl?
Mg as
MgO
Venturi System
TCA System
9/2/75
9/3/75
9/15/75
9/23/75
9/29/75
10/14/75
10/30/75
11/14/75
11/19/75
11/19/75
1/12/76
1/22/76
1/29/76
Acid
insoluble
9/3/75
VD-1
Dry solids from gas duct at reheater outlet
4.08
70.36
Trace
Trace
1.42
24.15
9/3/75
VD-2
Black, hard scale from suction side of the ID fan casing
1.05
0.57
17.61
36.70
6.4 5
22.75
9/18/75
VD-1
Scale from wall above ME; top layers
1.52
67-44.
Trace
Trace
0.03
31.00
10/7/75
VD-2
Soft outer fins on spray piping above ME
24.39
33.06
3-11
Trace
0.07
33-75
10/8/75
10/14/75
VD-1
Dust from back of ID fan blades
2.82
65.ll
O.76
Trace
1.70
29.30
VD-1
Mud from outlet vanes of ME
56.72
5.94
9.85
1.79
0.23
25.47
10/17/75
VD-1
Scale from top of outlet ME vane
66.52
12.26
4.61
Trace
0.15
16.05
10/22/75
VD-1
Crystalline scale from tower outlet duct
0.40
59.60
1.19
0.92
0.14
37.76
11/13/75
VD-1
Top of middle vane of ME
43.4i
12.33
5.9^
0.33
0.24
32.55
12/2/75
VD-1
Dry solid from duct at reheater outlet
6.57
60.25
0.53
Trace
1.17
31.43
12/2/75
VD-2
Fins from reheater wall above Bloom; northwest quadrant
22.64
50.3o
0.24
1.4l
0.46
24.45
12/2/75
VD-3
Fins from reheater floor, extension of inlet duct
25.92
34.53
0.49
2.70
2.90
27.30
12/2/75
VD-4
Solids from back of H) fan blades
2 .02
68.34
Trace
Trace
0.74
28.90
12/3/75
VD-1
Solids from tops of middle vanes of ME
35-75
21.06
2.23
0.50
0.20
40.20
1/9/76
VD-1
Deposit on failed duct in venturi chamber
7.38
73.39
Trace
0.35
0.33
17.50
1/26/76
VD-1
Solids from underside of ME
67.96
0.94
2.09
0.62
0.37
23.65
2/11/76
VD-1
Soft scale from 4-inch elbow upstream G-104 pump
56.74
22.24
18.39
Trace
0.32
1.75
TCAD-1
Chunk solids taken from top vanes of ME
1.4o
42.97
Trace
Trace
0.4l
53-55
TCAD-1
Dry solids from duct at reheater outlet
1.63
0.92
21.68
1.37
7.49
59.70
TCAD-1
Mud from tops of middle vanes of ME
45.94
17.26
3.25
Trace
0.15
33-40
TCAD-1
Solids, 2-inch thick from roof of Hauck reheater shell
0.4S
53-36
0.65
Trace
0.06
42 .45
TCAD-1
Solid from underside of outlet vane, southwest corner
62.60
6.54
1.11
Trace
0.10
29.45
TCAD-1
Composite from outlet vanes of ME
38.66
27.39
2.64
0.84
0.14
25.32
TCAD-1
Multilayered scale from Ho. 1 grid bars
96.53
0.43
2.70
Trace
0.05
0.25
TCAD-1
Multilayered scale fran TCA scale deposit probe
31.03
0.70
O.85
0.03
0.13
17.25
TCAD-1
Solids fran tops of ME vanes
42.90
20.30
5-11
Trace
0.20
27.45
TCAD-2
Chunks from reheater fallen to top of ME
2.60
53.01
1.33
Trace
1.13
34.25
TCAD-1
Deposit from side rail of ME, inlet side
35.67
21.01
0.35
0.20
0.17
42 .60
TCAD-1
Solids fran tops of ME vanes
57.03
8.64
0.70
0.72
0.09
33.55
TCAD-1
Solids from plugged channel on top of ME
57.43
0.02
6.75
0.37
0.21
35.60
Information taken from reports by J. B. Barkley to J. K. Metcalfe during the period 9/2/75 to 2/11/76. These analyses are given as
examples and are expected to vary as the mode of operation is changed.
ID, induced draft; ME, mist eliminator.
-------
Table VI
Hardness of Heoprene Linings of Equipment in the TCA Alkaflne - Wet-Scrubbing System for
Sulfur Dioxide Removal from Stack Gas at Shawnee Steam Plant
(Exposure period—8/12/72 to 8/24/76, 23,060 accumulated operating hours)
Location of hardness test
Scrubber Tower
Durameter "A" hardness
Original8 Current6 At ~T
Four inches above inlet gas duct (approx. elevation, 376 ft) 60-65 42-46 Jk
Six inches above bottom grid (approx. elevation, 380 ft) 60-65 45—4S 90
Three feet above second grid, near test 2006 (approx. elevation, 386 ft) 60-65 45-48 90
Two feet below mist eliminator (approx. elevation, 4-03 ft) 60-65 42—45 84
One foot above mist eliminator (approx. elevation, 4o6 feet) 6O-65 39—45 90
Clarified Process Water Storage Tank, D—203
Above liquid level 55-60 63-64 95
Agitator in Effluent Hold Tank, D-gQl
Impeller blade — 53-59 88
Impeller stabilizer — 48-60 88
Heoprene Lining in Centrifugal Pumps
G—201
Suction side of casing 54—56 56-60 T9
Seal side of casing 54—56 64—68 79
Impeller — 62-67 79
G—202
Suction side of casing 54—56 62—67 79
Seal side of casing 54—56 61-62 79
Impeller — 61-66 79
G-203
Suction side of casing 54—56 6U-69 78
Seal side of casing 5*H56 66—70 78
Impeller — 63-66 78
G-205
Suction side of casing 54—56 61-67 90
Seal side of casing 54—56 65-^6 90
Impeller - 58-63 90
Values not determined by TVA but were taken, from Information supplied to contractors for bidding on
construction. The ASM standard D2240-68 specifies that tests for hardness of rubber be made at 75 .
^ The instrument used to determine the durometer hardness of the neoprene lining during inspection of
the equipment (Aug. 25-27, 1976) was Shore "A2" D2240. Note that the measurements were made over a
wide range of temperaturesj therefore, an exact comparison of hardness values is not possible. Usually
three or more tests were made in each area.
L-41
-------
Table VII
Summary of Materials Tested to Date on Guide Vanes Below Adjustable Plug at Venturi
Specimens tested
Guidea
Penetration
Alloys
Form
Days
rate, in/yrb
Condition0
Haynes 6b
l/8— by l/4—inch strip, sheared
North
16
0.2
Pits 27 mils deep on edge
Haynes 6b
l/^4— by l/4—inch rod, ground
East
l64
0.4
No pits
Nitronic 50
l/2— by l/4—inch strip, machined
North
112
> 1.7
Failed
Type 201
l/8— by 1/4—inch strip, sheared
East
90
5
Failed
Inconel 625
l/8— by 1/4—inch strip, sheared
North
90
CM. 2
Failed
Type 316
l/4— by l/4-inch strip, sheared
East
16
3-3
Pits 30 mils deep
Type 316
1—inch pipe, Schedule 80
North
26
2.6
1— by 3—inch hole
Type 316
1—inch pipe, Schedule 80
East
26
2.6
3 small holes
Type 316
1—inch pipe, Schedule 80
South
45
1.5
2 small holes
Type 316
1—inch pipe, Schedule 80
West
39
1.7
1 small hole
d
Nonmetal
Neoprene
l/4—inch sheet
South
305
< 0.3
Not perforated
Neoprene
l/k—inch sheet
West
195
0.5
Perforated
Neoprene
1—inch hose, pneumatic
North
88
1.0
Perforated
Neoprene
1—inch hose, pneumatic
North
87
1.0
Perforated
Neoprene
1—inch hose, pneumatic
East
90
1.0
Perforated
Neoprene
1—inch hose, pneumatic
West
66
< 1.4
Slight wear
a The exposure conditions were more severe on the north and east guide vanes.
k indicates penetration rate is an estimate, since specimen evidently failed several hundred hours
before test ended.
c AH failures vere at or near the midpoint.
^ The l/4—inch sheet consisted of several plies. The 1—inch hose has two plies of cord sand-witched
between a red outer layer and a black inner layer of rubber.
-------
Table VIII
Compilation of Corrosion Data for Tests Conducted in the Test Facilities for Removing
Sulfur Dioxide from Stack Gases at Shawnee Steam Plant
(Test period; 7/19/75 to 8/2^/76)
Corrosion81
On basis ofSpecimens pittedb Ho. of specimens with
Alloys
No. of
tests
weight loss,
mils/year
No.
Depth
Min-
in mils
Max.
Crevice corrosion
Pitting and/or
crevice corrosion
Hastelloy CSjS
12
Neg.
to < 1
0
0
O
Inconel 625
12
Neg.
to < 1
0
—
_
0
0
Hastelloy G
12
Neg.
to < 1
0
—
_
1
1
Haynes 6b
lk
Neg.
to < 1
1
9
2
3
Multimet
10
Neg.
to 1
1
-
k
0
l
Hitronie 50
9
Neg.
to 3
1
__
M
3
4
AL 29-4
lk
Neg.
to 3
3
M
2
2
5
Jessop 700
12
Neg.
to 3
3
M
7
2
5
Type 317L
9
Neg.
to 3
k
_
M
2
6
Nitronic 50M
IS
Neg.
to 3
6
M
k
5
11
Climax lB-2
12
Neg.
to 3
8
M
lk
5
13
Type 316L (2.3$
Mo)
IB
Neg.
to 3
10
M
8
8
IS
Zirconium 702
15
Neg.
to 4
0
0
0
AL 6X
13
Neg.
to 4
3
M
17
3
6
Type 316L (2.8$
Mo)
14
Neg.
to k
9
M
2
8
17
Cor-Ten A
IB
1 to 170
k
M
11
1
5
Mild steel, A—285
12
1 to 171
3
M
10
2
5
More tests are needed of the alloys belov:
Type 216 7 Neg. to 3 ^ M k 1 5
Carpenter 7-Mo 2<1 2—5 1 3
Type 201 5 < 1 to 5 2 M 7 2 l+
Plastics
Atlac 711, polyester
Bondstrand 4000, epoxy
Derakane 510, vinyl ester
Hetron 92, chlorinated polyester
QuaCorr, furan resin
Evaluation, No. of specimens
Good
Fair
Poor
8
It
0
12
0
0
12
0
0
O
2
10
11
1
0
b Data compiled from Tables I and III tut does not Include erosion-corrosion data in Table II.
M, minute pit; the numerical values show the actual depth of penetration in mils during the test period.
c Evaluation: good, little or no change in condition of specimen; fair, definite change—probably could
be used; poor, failed or severely damaged.
L-43
-------
TOP OF STACK
LOCATION OF TEST
—¦SPECIMENS
(SPOOL)
a CARBON STEEL ASTM A- 283
b- TEST 1013 WAS CONDUCTED IN
CLARIF1ER TANK D-102 NOT SHOWN
CHAMBER FOR MIXING
HOT GAS WITH SCRUBBER
GAS, 73 1 "O.D. ,67^"|.Q.
CATWALK.
-------
TOP OF STACK
9ROUND LEVEL
EL. 345-0
FIGURE 2
TURBULENT CONTACT ABSORBE R SYSTEM, TCA-(C-20I)
(MOBILE BED)
L-45
-------
Spool (Disk)
Stressed (U-Bend)
Probe (Disk)
FIGURE 3
Epical Assemblies of Corrosion Test Specimens
-------
FIGURE 4
Type 3I6L Inlet Gas Duct That Failed Inside the Chamber
Above the Venturi After 678 Days of Operation
-------
Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracks in the Section of Type 316L
Stainless Steel Duct Identified in Figure 4
-------
FIGURE 7 50X
Type 516L U-Stressed Specimen Cracked
in Boiling Magnesium Chloride
Solution in 34 Hours
FIGURE 8
Blisters in the Neoprene Lining Above Mist
Eliminator in Venturi Spray Tower
-------
FIGURE 9
Crack in Shroud of Induced-Draft Fan
In the Venturi System
FIGURE 10
Corrosion of Carbon Steel Downcomer
to Tank D-204
L-50
-------
-» 1 1 f-
-i 1 i r
11
1. Type 5l6L(2.8^Mo)
2. Climax 18-2
3 • Type 317L(3.2* Mo)
k. Type 316L {2.%lto)
5. Type 216
6. Nitronic 50
7- AL 6x
8. AL 29-4
9- Hastelloy G
10. Inconel 625
11. Hastelloy C-276
k 6 d 10 12
Molybdenum content, $
lb 26
FIGURE II
MOLYBDENUM CONTENT VERSUS PITTING AND CREVICE CORROSION OF ALLOYS
(See Table IV for analyses of the alloys,)
L-51
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Mease read Inwuctivns on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-77-10 5
2.
4. title AND subtitle EpA ALKALI SCRUBBING TEST
FACILITY: ADVANCED PROGRAM, Third Progress
Report
5. REPORT DATE
September 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANISATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Harlan N. Head, Project Manager
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANISATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Bechtel Corporation
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, California 94119
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE624
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1814
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Progress; 2-11/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. supplementary notes JERL-RTP project officer for this report is John E. Williams,
Mail Drop 61. 919/541-2483. Previous reports in this series are EPA-600/2-75-050
and EPA-600/7-76-008 •
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of advanced testing from February through Novem-
ber 1976 of 30,000 acfm (10 MW equivalent) lime/limestone wet scrubbers for S02 and
particulate removal at TVA's Shawnee Power Station. Short-term factorial tests (6-8
hours each) with lime, limestone, and limestone/MgO were conducted on both systems
to determine S02 removal as a function of operating parameters. Longer tests (aver-
aging 190 hours each) were conducted on the venturi/spray tower with lime and lime/
MgO, both with and without fly ash in the flue gas. On the TCA, longer tests (aver-
aging 180 hours each) were conducted with limestone/MgO, lime, and lime/MgO on
flue gas containing fly ash. Adding MgO improved S02 removal but, in some cases,
created a scaling problem. On the venturi/spray tower, particulate mass loading,
size distribution, and sulfuric acid mist were measured as a function of operating
conditions. Mathematical models fitted to the Shawnee data are presented for predic-
ting S02 removal as a function of operating parameters. A simplified procedure is
presented for calculating gypsum saturation from analytical data.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDE NT IF IE RS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl l-'icld/CJroup
Air Pollution
Sulfur Dioxide
Air Pollution Control
13B
Alkalies
Fly Ash
Stationary Sources
07D
21B
Scrubbers
Dust
Alkali Scrubbing
07A
11G
Calcium Oxides
Mathematical
Particulate
07B
Limestone
Models
Venturi/Spray Tower
07G
12A
Magnesium Oxides
Gypsum
Mist Eliminators
08G
13. DISTRIBUTION ST AT CMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
Unlimited
Unclassified
708
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
L-52
------- |