EPA-452/F-03-027
                                 Air Pollution  Control Technology
                                                  Fact Sheet
Name of Technology:   Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)- Wire-Pipe Type

Type of Technology:    Control Device - Capture/Disposal

Applicable Pollutants:

Particulate Matter (PM), including participate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (|jm) in aerod ynam ic
diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 |_im  in aerodynamic diameter (PM25), and
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are in particulate form, such as most metals (mercury  is the notable
exception, as a significant portion of emissions are in the form of elemental vapor).

Achievable Emission Limits/Reductions:

Typical new equipment design efficiencies are between 99 and 99.9%. Older existing equipment have a range
of actual operating efficiencies of 90 to 99.9% . While several factors determine ESP collection efficiency, ESP
size is most important.  Size determines treatment time; the longer a particle spends in the ESP, the greater
its chance  of being collected.  Maximizing electric field strength will maximize ESP collection efficiency
(STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996).  Collection efficiency is also affected by dust resistivity, gas temperature, chemical
composition (of the  dust and the gas),  and particle size distribution.

Applicable Source Type:  Point

Typical Industrial Applications:

Many older ESPs are of the wire-pipe design, consisting of a single tube placed on top of a smokestack (EPA,
1998).   Dry pipe-type ESPs are occasionally used by the textile  industry, pulp and  paper facilities, the
metallurgical industry, including coke ovens, hazardous waste incinerators, and sulfuric acid  manufacturing
plants, among others, though other ESP types are employed  as well. Wet wire-pipe ESPs are used much
more frequently than dry wire-pipe ESPs, which are used only  in cases in which wet cleaning is undesirable,
such as high temperature streams or wastewater restrictions (EPA,  1998; Flynn, 1999).

Emission Stream Characteristics:

    a.   Air Flow:  Typical gas flow rates for dry wire-pipe ESPs are 0.5 to 50 standard cubic meters per
        second  (sm3/sec) (1,000 to 100,000 standard  cubic feet per m inute (scfm)) (Flynn, 19 99).

    b.   Temperature:  Dry wire-pipe  ESPs can operate atvery high temperatures, up to 700°C (1300°F)
        (AWMA, 1992). Operating gas temperature and chemical composition of the dust are key factors
        influencing  dust resistivity and  must be carefully considered in the design of an ESP.

    c.   Pollutant Loading: Typical in let concentrations to a wire-pipe ESP are 1 to 10 g/m3 (0.5 to 5 gr/scf).
        It is common to pretreat a waste stream, usually with a wet spray or scrubber, to  bring the stream
        temperature and  pollutant loading into a manageable range. Highly toxic flows with concentrations
        well below 1 g/m3 (0.5 gr/scf) are also sometimes controlled with  ESPs (Flynn,  1999).
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet
Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
                 Wire-Pipe Type

-------
    d.  Other Considerations: In general, dry ESPs operate most efficiently with dustresistivities between
       5 x  103 and 2 x  1010 ohm-cm.   In general,  the most difficult particles to collect  are those with
       aerodynamic diameters between 0.1 and 1.0|_im. Particles between 0.2 and 0.4 |_im usually show the
       most penetration.  This is most likely a result of the transition region between field and diffusion
       charging (EPA, 1998).

Emission Stream Pretreatment Requirements:

When much of the pollutant loading consists of relatively large particles, mechanical collectors, such as
cyclones or spray coolers may be used to reduce the load on the ESP, especially at high inlet concentrations.
Gas conditioning equipment to improve ESP performance by changing dust resistivity is occasionally used
as part of the original design, but more frequently it is used to upgrade existing ESPs. The equipment injects
an agent into the gas stream ahead  of the ESP. Usually, the agent mixes with the particles  and alters their
resistivity to promote higher migration velocity, and thus higher collection efficiency. Conditioning agents that
are used include SO3, H2SO4, sodium compounds, ammonia, and water; the conditioning agent most used
is SO3(AWMA, 1992).

Cost Information:

The following are cost ranges (expressed in 2002 dollars) for dry wire-pipe ESPs of conventional design under
typical operating conditions, developed using EPA cost-estimating spreadsheets (EPA, 1996). Costs can be
substantially higher than in the ranges shown for pollutants which require an unusually high level of control,
or which require the ESP to be constructed of special materials such as stainless steel or titanium. In general,
smaller units controlling a low concentratbn waste stream will not be as cost effective as a large unit cleaning
a high pollutant bad flow.

    a.   Capital Cost:  $42,000 to $260,000 per sm3/sec ($20 to $125 per scfm)

    b.   O & M  Cost:  $8,500 to $19,000 per sm3/sec ($4 to $9 per scfm), annually

    c.   Annualized Cost:  $19,000 to $55,000 per sm3/sec ($9 to $26 per scfm), annually

    d.   Cost Effectiveness:  $47 to $710 per metric ton ($43 to $640 pershort ton)

Theory of Operation:

An ESP is a particulate control device that uses electrical forces to move particles entrained within an exhaust
stream onto collectbn surfaces. The entrained  particles are given an electrical charge when they pass
through a corona, a region where gaseous ions flow. Electrodes in the centerof the flow lane are maintained
at high voltage and generate the electrical field that forces the particles to the collector walls.  In dry ESPs,
the col lectors are knocked, or "rapped", by various mechanical means to dislodge the partbu late, which slides
downward  into  a hopper where they are  collected.  Recently,  dry  wire-pipe  ESPs are  being cleaned
acoustically with  sonic horns (Flynn, 1999). The horns, typically cast metal horn  bells, are usually powered
by compressed air, and acoustic vibratbn is introduced by a vibrating metal plate that periodically  interrupts
the airflow  (AWMA, 1992).  As with  a rapping system, the collected particulate slides downward into the
hopper.  The hopper is evacuated periodically, as itbecomes full.  Dust is removed through a valve into a dust-
handling system, such as a pneumatic conveyor, and  is then disposed of in an appropriate manner.

In a wire-pipe ESP, also called a tubular ESP, the exhaust  gas flows vertically  through conductive tubes,
generally with many tubes operating  in parallel.  The tubes may be formed as a circular, square,or hexagonal
honeycomb.  Square and hexagonal pipes can be packed closer together than  cylindrical pipes, reducing
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet                                            Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
                                               2                                  Wire-Pipe Type

-------
wasted space. Pipes are generally 7 to 30 cm (3 to 12 inches (in.)) in diameter and 1 to 4 meters (3 to 12 feet)
in length.  The high voltage electrodes are long wires or rigid "masts" suspended from a frame in the upper
part of the ESP that run through the axis of each tube.  Rigid electrodes are generally supported by both an
upper and lower frame. In modern designs, sharp points are added to the electrodes, either at the entrance
to a tube or along the entire length in the form of stars, to provide additional ionization sites (EPA, 1998; Flynn,
1999).

The power supplies for the ESP convert the industrial AC voltage (220 to 480 volts) to pulsating  DC voltage
in the range  of 20,000 to 100,000 volts as needed.  The voltage applied to the  electrodes causes the gas
between the electrodes to break down electrically, an action known as a "corona."  The electrodes are usually
given a negative  polarity because a negative corona supports a higher voltage than does a positive corona
before sparking occurs.  The ions generated in the corona follow electric field lines from the electrode to the
collection surfaces.  Therefore, each electrode-pipe combination establishes a charging zone through which
the particles must pass. As larger particles (>10 |jm diameter) absorb many times more ions than small
particles (>1 |_im diameter), the electrical forces are  much stronger on the  large particles (EPA, 1996).

Due to necessaryclearances needed for nonelectrified internal componentsatthe  top of wire-plate ESPs, part
of the gas is  able to flow around the charging zones. This is called "sneakage" and places an upper limit on
the collection efficiency.  Wire-pipe ESPs provide no sneakage paths around the collecting region, but field
non uniformities may allow some particles to avoid charging fora considerable fraction  of the tube length. Dry
wire-pipe ESPs are, however, subject to reentrainment of the collected material after cleaning the collectors
with  a  rapping or  acoustic mechanism, though the closed nature of the pipes increases chances for
recollection (AW MA, 1992).

Another major factor in the performance is the resistivity of the collected material.  Because the particles form
a continuous layer on the ESP pipes, all the ion current must pass through the layer to reach the ground. This
current creates an  electric field in the layer,  and  it can  become large  enough to cause local  electrical
breakdown.  When  this occurs, new ions of the  wrong polarity are injected  into  the wire-pipe gap where they
reduce the charge on the particles and may  cause sparking. This breakdown condition is called  "back
corona."  Back corona is prevalent when  the resistivity of the layer is high, usually above 2 x 1011 ohm-cm.
Above this level, the collection ability of the unit is reduced considerably because the  sever back corona
causes difficulties in charging the particles.  Low resistivities will also cause problems. At resistivities below
108 ohm-cm, the  particles are held on the collecting surface so loosely that general reentrainment, as well as
that associated with collector cleaning, become much more severe.  Hence, care must be taken in measuring
or  estimating resistivity because it is strongly affected by such variables as temperature,  moisture, gas
composition, particle composition, and surface  characteristics (AWMA, 1992).

Advantages:

Dry wire-pipe ESPs and other ESPs in general, because they act only on the particulate to be removed, and
only minimally hinderflue gas flow, have very low pressure drops (typically less  than 13 millimeters (mm) (0.5
in.) water column).  As a result, energy requirements and operating costs  tend to be low. They are capable
of  very high efficiencies,  even for very small  particles.  They can be designed for a  wide range of gas
temperatures, and can handle high temperatures, up to 700°C  (1300°F).  Dry collection and disposal allows
foreasier handling.  Operating costs are relatively low.  ESPs are capable of operating under high pressure
(to 1,030  kPa (1 50 psi)) orvacuum conditions. Relatively large gas flow rates can be effectively handled,
though are uncommon in wire-pipe ESPs  (AWMA, 1992).
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet                                            Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
                                                3                                  Wire-Pipe Type

-------
Disadvantages:

ESPs generally have high capital costs.  Wire discharge electrodes (approximately 2.5 mm (0.01 in.) in
diameter) are high-maintenance items. Corrosion can occur nearthe top of the wires because of airleakage
and acid condensation.  Also, long weighted wires tend to oscillate - the middle of the wire can approach the
pipe, causing increased sparking and wear.  Newer ESP designs are tending  toward rigid electrodes, or
"masts" which largely eliminate the drawbacks of using wire electrodes (Cooper and Alley, 1994; Flynn, 1999).

ESPs in general are not suited for use in processes which are highly variable because they are very sensitive
to fluctuations in gas stream conditions  (flow  rates, temperatures, particulate  and gas composition, and
particulate loadings). ESPs are also difficult to  install in sites which have limited space since ESPs must be
relatively large to obtain the low gas vebcities necessary for efficient PM collection (Cooper and Alley, 1994).
Certain particulates are difficult to collect due to extremely high or low resistivity characteristics.  There can
bean explosion hazard when treating combustible gases and/or collecting combustible particulates. Relatively
sophisticated maintenance personnelare required, as wellas  special precautions to safeguard personnelfrom
the high voltage. Dry ESPs are not recommended for removing sticky or moist particles. Ozone is produced
by the negative ly charged electrod e during gas ion ization (AWM A, 1992).

Other Considerations:

Dusts with very high resistivities (greaterthan 1010 ohm-cm) are also not well-suited for collection in dry ESPs.
These  particles are not  easily charged, and thus are not easily collected. High-resistivity particles also form
ash layers with very high voltage gradients on the collecting  electrodes. Electrical breakdowns in these ash
layers  lead to injection of positively  charged  ions into the space  between  the discharge and collecting
electrodes (back corona), thus reducing the charge on particles in this space and lowering collection efficiency.
Fly ash from the combustion of low-sulfur coal typically has a high resistivity, and thus is difficult to collect
(ICAC, 1999).

References:

AWMA, 1992. Air & Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.

Cooper & Alley, 1994.  C. D. Cooper and F. C.  Alley, Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach, Second
Edition, Waveland Press, Inc.  IL.

EPA, 1996.  U.S. EPA,  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "OAQPS Control Cost Manual," Fifth
Edition, EPA 453/B-96-001, Research Triangle Park, NC. February.

EPA, 1997.  U.S. EPA,  Office of AirQuality Planning and Standards, "Compilation of AirPollutant
Emission Factors, Volume I, Fifth Edition, Research Triangle Park, NC., October.

EPA, 1998.  U.S. EPA,  Office of AirQuality Planning and Standards, "Stationary Source Control
Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter," EPA-452/R-97-001, Research Triangle Park, NC.,
October.
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet                                             Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
                                                4                                  Wire-Pipe Type

-------
Flynn, 1999. Brian Flynn, Beltran Associates, Inc., (718) 338-3311, personal communication with Eric
Albright, Februarys, 1999.

ICAC, 1999. Institute of Clean Air Companies internet web page www.icac.com, Control Technology
Informatbn - Electrostatic Precipitator, page last updated January 11,1999.

STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and Associatbn of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials,  "Controlling Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of
Options," July.
EPA-CICA Fact Sheet                                            Dry Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
                                               5                                  Wire-Pipe Type

-------