(R)
Generation and Control of Air Pollutants from Orimulsion Combustion
C. Andrew Miller
Robert E. Hall
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Abstract
Orimulsion® is an emulsified fuel, composed of approximately 70% Venezuelan bitumen, 30%
water, and trace amounts of surfactant, and is being marketed primarily as a base-load fuel for
utility boilers. Orimulsion® is now being used in power plants in five countries, and was
proposed as a fuel for a plant in the U.S. In 1997, the U.S. Congress requested that the
Environmental Protection Agency conduct a study to provide additional technical information
regarding Orimulsion® and its potential environmental impacts. The study is being conducted by
an EPA team led by the Office of Research and Development's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL), and includes a broad review of previous work reported in the
literature, visits to sites now using Orimulsion®, and a series of combustion tests conducted at
NRMRL's facilities in Research Triangle Park, NC. The combustion tests measured mass
emissions of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, particulate matter, trace metals, and
organic compounds generated by the combustion of two Orimulsion® formulations (one no longer
produced) and a heavy fuel oil. These results were compared to emissions measured at full-scale
plants and to emissions from previous tests conducted on similar equipment and fuels at NRMRL.
Potential air-pollution-related issues associated with Orimulsion® combustion include elevated
levels of sulfur, nickel, and vanadium, and generation of submicron particles and sulfur trioxide.
These issues are similar to those associated with heavy fuel oil combustion, and can be addressed
by use of appropriately designed and operated pollution control equipment.
Background
Orimulsion* is an emulsified fuel produced in Venezuela from approximately 70% bitumen (a
naturally occurring heavy hydrocarbon material), 30% water, and a small amount of surfactant.
Orimulsion tends to be higher in sulfur (S), nickel (Ni), and vanadium (V) content than many
other fossil fuels (see Table 1), which can lead to environmental problems if the pollutants
generated during combustion of the fuel are not adequately controlled. The bitumen is extracted
from an area near the Orinoco River, and is mixed with water to produce a fuel that flows and
burns in a manner similar to a heavy fuel oil. The name "Orimulsion" is derived from a
combination of "Orinoco" and "emulsion." In 1998, the fuel's producer, Bitumenes Orinoco
(Bitor), changed the formulation of Orimulsion to use a different surfactant package and to
remove the magnesium compound originally added for corrosion control. The new formulation,
Orimulsion 400, uses 0.13% tridecylalcohol ethoxylate and 0.03% monoethanolamine as
surfactants. The original formulation was referred to simply as "Orimulsion" prior to the
introduction of Orimulsion 400, but is now referred to as "Orimulsion 100" to distinguish it from
the newer formulation. Bitor no longer produces Orimulsion 100.
In 1997, the U.S. Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
"initiate a research activity to provide better scientific data on the qualities and characteristics of
* Orimulsion is a registered trademark of Bitumenes Orinoco, S.A.

-------
Table 1. Elemental analyses of the three fuels tested in EPA's pilot-scale tests.

No. 6 Fuel Oil
Orimulsion 100
Orimulsion 400
Carbon, %
86.45
64.20
58.12
Hydrogen, %
10.23
8.13
7.14
Nitrogen, %
0.26
0.25
0.17
Sulfur, %
2.07
3.05
2.23
Water, %
0.7
23.32
28.92
Ash, %
0.08
0.17
0.07
Oxygen, % (by difference)
0.90
0.88
3.35
Antimony, [ig/g
0.78
0.57
0.35
Arsenic, jj.g/g
2.6
2.9
2.2
Beryllium, |ig/g
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Cadmium, (ig/g
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Chromium, jj.g/g
0.58
0.235
0.20
Copper, ng/g
0.76
<0.005
<0.005
Iron, ng/g
51
12
22
Lead, |ig/g
1.8
1.9
1.4
Magnesium, \ig!g
7.6
342
1
Mercury, |ig/g
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Nickel, |ig/g
47
69
59
Selenium, |ig/g
0.13
2.9
0.04
Vanadium, ng/g
221
324
262
Zinc, (ig/g
8.9
0.90
0.37
Energy content, Btu/lb (MJ/kg)
18,121 (42.1)
13,919(32.4)
12,596 (29.3)
this product and the potential environmental impact of its introduction."1 In response to this
directive, EPA's Office of Research and Development conducted an investigation into the
environmental impacts associated with the use of Orimulsion. NRMRL, in collaboration with
other offices within EPA, developed an Orimulsion Technology Assessment Plan (OTAP) to
guide the Agency's Orimulsion research.2 The OTAP was developed as a three-phase program,
beginning with a literature review and a series of pilot-scale tests in Phase I and continuing to a
series of full-scale tests in Phases II and III, if Phase I results indicated a need for further work.
Environmental assessments and toxicological tests were planned for all three phases. This paper
presents results and conclusions derived from Phase I.
Literature Review
Available technical literature was reviewed to identify problems and issues believed to be most
important with respect to air pollutant emissions and control, and to evaluate the levels of
emissions experienced by full-scale systems using Orimulsion.3 The review examined 24
references describing air pollutant emissions at 9 full-scale sites and 3 pilot-scale facilities.
Orimulsion is currently being used as the primary fuel at nine power plants in Canada, Denmark,
Italy, Japan, and Lithuania, representing 3,866 MW of electric power generating capacity and
approximately 7.5 million tons (6.8 million tonnes) of fuel consumption per year. To date, no
plant in the U.S. has used the fuel for other than short-term tests.
The reports in the literature indicated that increasing combustion air levels were able to
control carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. In general, the conventional techniques used to reduce
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from oil combustion (staged combustion, reburning, selective
catalytic reduction) were reported to be applicable to Orimulsion. CO and NOx were found to be
dependent upon boiler oxygen (O2) levels and the combustion system design, similar to other
fossil fuels. CO was reported to be slightly less when burning Orimulsion than when burning
2

-------
600
500
400
B 300
o
E 200
100
¦ HFO
• Orimulsion 100
A Orimulsion 400
—~— Coal





f

¦








•

¦




~

¦
•

•

1
¦
•
A


•
¦


Full Scale



Pilot Scak



1 1
i 1


-------
EPA Pilot-Scale Test Program
The OTAP included a series of pilot-scale tests to provide the opportunity to directly compare
pollutant concentrations generated by the combustion of Orimulsion 100, Orimulsion 400, and a
HFO in a single closely controlled combustor. This approach would remove as many
uncertainties as possible associated with changes in boiler design and operation. A series of tests
were conducted at NRMRL's combustion research facilities in Research Triangle Park, NC, using
a pilot-scale combustor designed to simulate the behavior of a large water-wall boiler.
NRMRL's Package Boiler Simulator (PBS) is a research combustor rated at 3x106 Btu/hr
(879 kW), and is designed to burn either liquid or gaseous fuels. The PBS burner has an air-
atomizing nozzle and was operated at heat input rates below full load to accommodate the higher
volume of Orimulsion required to maintain a consistent heat input rate for all fuels. The PBS has
a 10 in. (25 cm) inside diameter (ID) refractory-lined burner section connected to a water-cooled
transition section of the same ID. The transition section provides for staged air or fuel injection
through several ports, and connects to a Dowtherm-cooled boiler section, which has a 24 in. (61
cm) ID and is 110 in. (279 cm) long. The combustion gases pass out of the boiler section to the
vertical stack, where ports are located for taking extractive samples.
Flue gases from the PBS are ducted to the facility's air pollution control system (APCS),
which consists of a secondary combustion chamber, a fabric filter, and a wet acid gas scrubber.
The APCS allows the PBS to operate under poor combustion conditions that intentionally
generate higher-than-normal pollutant emissions during research studies without emitting
excessive pollutants to the environment.
The fuel supply system can influence the stability of emulsified fuels such as Orimulsion.
The system should minimize shear rates through pumps, piping, and fittings as much as possible,
and should be able to maintain the appropriate temperature range during operation. The original
fuel supply system used by the PBS was designed for HFO and was used during operation with
the No. 6 fuel oil. For operation with Orimulsion 100 and Orimulsion 400, the fuel supply
system was modified to use a Moyno® pump that generated substantially less shear compared to
the original gear pump, and to eliminate the pressure relief valves and the continuous circulation
loop used in the original supply system.
Magnesium hydroxide [Mg(OH)2] was injected into the boiler during testing of
Orimulsion 400. This was done to simulate operations at full-scale units that also injected
Mg(OH)2 as a means to minimize deposits on boiler tubes. The additive was injected into the
flame at a rate of between 0.35 and 0.54 g/min during operation at lxlO6 Btu/hr (293 kW) to
achieve a molar ratio of between 2.1 and 3.8 mol Mg to 1 mol V in the fuel.
The PBS uses continuous emission monitors (CEMs) for measurement of combustion gas
composition. Concentrations of CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), NOx, O2, S02, and total hydrocarbons
(THCs) are measured by CEMs and continuously recorded using a computerized data acquisition
system.
A Thermo Systems, Inc., scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) was used to measure
particle size distributions for particles with diameters in the range of 0.01 to 1.0 urn. SMPS
samples were extracted from the PBS stack isokinetically and diluted with filtered nitrogen (N2)
to a ratio of approximately 5 parts N2 to 1 part stack gas. Additional details of the system design
and operation are described elsewhere.4'5
Particle size distributions were also measured using an in-stack cascade impactor. An
Andersen® impactor was used in a modified California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method
501.6 These tests modified the CARB method slightly to allow for use in the research combustor.
The CARB method places the impactor precutter in the stack, whereas the impactor was placed
outside the stack for the PBS tests. Only three runs were used during research testing rather than
the seven runs specified by the CARB method. The use of both the SMPS and the impactor
allowed the particle size distribution to be determined over a larger range of sizes than would be
4
-------
possible when using only one of the two instruments individually. The use of the impactor also
provided captive size-segregated samples for later analysis.
Particle concentrations were determined using EPA Method 5,7 and EPA Method 29 was
used to determine metal concentrations in the flue gases.8 The particle concentration option was
used during the Method 29 operation, but the mercury option was not used, meaning that the
Method 5 procedure used the same train as Method 29, allowing a single sampling train to be
used to determine both PM mass and metal concentrations. The Method 29 samples were
analyzed for arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe),
manganese (Mn), Mg, Ni, antimony (Sb), V, and zinc (Zn).
EPA Method 0030 was used to sample the concentration of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in the flue gases of all three fuels.9 EPA Method 0010 (sometimes referred to as a
Modified Method 5) was used to sample semivolatile organic compounds for all three test
conditions.10 Triplicate samples were taken of the semivolatile organic compounds and VOCs.
Results
Three fuels, Orimulsion 100, Orimulsion 400, and a No. 6 fuel oil, were tested at a constant heat
input rate of lxl 06 Btu/hr (293 kW). The O2 levels for the tests were designed to be at a level
that resulted in 100 ppm of CO or less. However, fluctuations in the exhaust draft resulted in
significant fluctuations in CO levels, and the measured average O2 levels during the tests were
slightly higher than desired, ranging between 2.9 and 3.5%. Four test runs were made for each
fuel, with fuel flow rates remaining relatively constant across the runs. Average concentrations of
CO, NO, SO2, and PM are presented in Figure 2 for each of the three fuels tested.
Average CO emissions were between approximately 15 and 40 ppm (corrected to 3% O2)
for all runs. The average CO emissions for No. 6 fuel oil were slightly lower than for either
Orimulsion, but CO emissions were measured at below 20 ppm for at least one test run for both
Orimulsion formulations. As noted above, CO emissions are strongly dependent upon O2 level,
and much of the variation in CO may be due to changes in O? levels during the test runs.
Average O2 levels for the three conditions were 2.8% for Orimulsion 100, 3.5% for Orimulsion
400, and 3.4% for No. 6 fuel oil. The Orimulsion tests also showed higher variability than did the
No. 6 fuel oil tests. Much of this variation was believed to be due to more and larger changes in
O2 level during the Orimulsion test runs than were seen during the No. 6 fuel oil runs. CO
increased significantly for all three fuels as 02 levels dropped below a certain level.
Nitrogen oxide (NO) emissions averaged near 500 ppm (corrected to 3% 02) for each of
the three fuels. Here, the NO values were much steadier across test runs for Orimulsion 100 and
Orimulsion 400 than for No. 6 fuel oil. Given the range of uncertainty in the average values, no
significant difference in NO emission levels was found between the three fuels. There was a
slight drop in NO with decreasing stack 02, similar to other hydrocarbon fuels.
Average SO2 emissions as measured using CEMs were found to be essentially the same
for each of the three fuels, at 1000 ppm (corrected to 3% O2). Although the average SO2
measurement for the No. 6 fuel oil was slightly lower than either of the Orimulsion formulations,
the measured variability in the average value for the fuel oil makes it impossible to state that there
is any significant difference between SO2 emissions from the No. 6 fuel oil used in these tests and
either of the two Orimulsion formulations.
Using the mini acid condensation system (MACS) sampling train," SO2 concentrations
were measured at 1220 ppm for the No. 6 fuel oil, 1640 ppm for Orimulsion 100, and 2010 ppm
for Orimulsion 400. Based on the analyses of the fuels' sulfur contents, if 100% of the sulfur
were to be emitted as SO2, one would expect SO2 concentrations to be roughly 1000 ppm for the
No. 6 fuel oil, 2400 ppm for Orimulsion 100, and 1800 ppm for Orimulsion 400.
PM emissions do show some differences between the three fuels. The Orimulsion 400
and No. 6 fuel oil had PM concentrations that were approximately 25% lower (at 150 mg/Nm3)
than those from Orimulsion 100 at approximately 200 mg/Nm3. The analysis of Orimulsion 100
5
-------
Orimulsion 100
Orimulsion 400
~
No. 6 Fuel Oil
5? 500
cvj120C
* 200
£> 150
2? 600
-- 400
; 200
•:	











Figure 2. CO, NO, SO2, and PM concentrations measured during EPA's pilot-scale tests.
showed both higher ash levels and higher amounts of Mg than were present for either of the other
two fuels. These differences are likely to have accounted for the difference in PM concentrations
between the three fuels. Loss on ignition (LOI) values were determined for PM samples from
each of the fuels. The samples were collected on the large dilution sampler filter12 downstream of
a cyclone designed to remove particles larger than 2.5 ^m in diameter. Of the three fuels, only
the No. 6 fuel oil had any measurable amount of mass in the cyclone catch. The cyclone catch
and samples of the large filters for each fuel were subject to LOI analyses. The filters all
indicated no measurable LOI (above that measured for a blank filter), and the No. 6 fuel oil
cyclone catch had an LOI value of 59%. The high LOI measurement is not unexpected, as the
larger particles in the No. 6 fuel oil sample are likely to be largely unburned carbon.
Particle size distributions show a notable difference between Orimulsion and the No. 6
fuel oil. Approximately 80% of the total particle mass captured was smaller than 1 |im in
diameter for both Orimulsion 100 and Orimulsion 400, compared to 50% of the particle mass for
the No. 6 fuel oil. Approximately 90% of the particle mass was smaller than 2.5 |im in diameter
for both Orimulsion formulations, compared with approximately 75% for the No. 6 fuel oil. All
three fuels have a bimodal particle size distribution to at least a slight degree, with Orimulsion
400 and the No. 6 fuel oil showing a larger coarse (particles > 6 fim in diameter) mode than the
Orimulsion 100. The coarse mode is likely to be due to incomplete combustion of the bitumen
droplets in the case of Orimulsion and of the fuel spray droplets in the case of the No. 6 fuel oil.
Results from the SMPS (see Figure 3) provide more detail regarding the particle size
distributions for particles smaller than 1 (am in diameter. Even in this size range, there are
differences in the size distributions. The Orimulsion 400 and No. 6 fuel oil are quite similar, with
modes between 0.06 and 0.08 |am, while the Orimulsion 100 has a smaller mode at just larger
than 0.1 (im. The SMPS measurements for the No. 6 fuel oil show a slight indication of the mode
near 1 |im, as dV/d(log Dp) begins to curve upward for particles larger than about 0.3 (am.
Metals concentrations differed slightly across the three fuels, largely in relation to the
amount of metal present in the fuels. The No. 6 fuel oil had significantly higher concentrations of
Cu, Fe, Sb, and Zn than either of the two Orimulsion formulations. The two Orimulsion
formulations had higher concentrations of Mg due to the addition of Mg-based additives to the
fuel (for Orimulsion 100) and to the flame (for Orimulsion 400), compared to the Mg
concentration of the No. 6 fuel oil flue gases. Ni and V concentrations were of the same order of
6
-------
1E+5
1E+4
1E+3
*~Q.
Q
O) 1E+2
o
>
XJ
1E+1-
1E+0-
1E-1-
0.01	0-1	1
D0. Mm
Figure 3. Particle size distributions for the three fuels tested in EPA's pilot-scale test program, as
measured by SMPS.
magnitude for all three fuels.
There were no significant differences in VOC emissions between the three fuels, even if
variability in measurements is not considered. The largest difference in concentrations of a
particular compound between the three fuels was for benzene, with roughly 2.4 (ig/dscm
difference between Orimulsion 400 (at 3 (ig/dscm) and No. 6 fuel oil (at 0.6 (ig/dscm). This
difference may be high on a percentage basis, but in absolute terms is very small.
The concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds in the flue gases of the three fuels were
relatively low. The compound with the minimum concentration detected in all three fuels was
naphthalene, at a level of just over 2 jig/dscm in Orimulsion 400 flue gases. The highest
concentration of the semivolatile organic compounds was the 9.3 (ig/dscm of di-n-butyl phthalate
measured in No. 6 fuel oil flue gases. Differences in semivolatile organic compound emissions
between the three fuels are slight.
CO2 emissions are of interest due to the role CO2 is suspected to play in global climate
change. Coal will release between 60 and 75 lb carbon per 106 Btu (26-32 g/MJ), while fuel oil's
carbon release rates are near 47 lb carbon per 106 Btu (20 g/MJ).13 Orimulsion's carbon release
rate is nearly the same as that for fuel oil. Thus, Orimulsion will generate less CO2 per unit
energy input (and per unit production) than will coal. This difference is being exploited in
Denmark, where the conversion from coal to Orimulsion at the Asnaes Power Station is credited
with reducing CO2 emissions by 16%, which is one quarter of Denmark's total national target
reduction of 20%.
Conclusions
Emissions of air pollutants from Orimulsion are not significantly different from those from other
fossil fuels. From the perspective of air pollutant emissions, Orimulsion fundamentally behaves
like a HFO, and the air pollution control technologies applicable to HFO are applicable to
Orimulsion. The most significant difference in emissions characteristics is that PM emissions
appear to be in a slightly smaller size range than those from HFO, but are significantly smaller
than those produced by pulverized coal combustion. Emissions of SO3 from Orimulsion also
appear to be somewhat higher than for other fossil fuels, largely due to the high levels of S and V.
Emissions of metals such as Ni and V may also be higher than for other fossil fuels due to the
higher level of these elements in the fuel. These results are consistent with the physical
characteristics of the fuel.
J.+++-H-+

0 Orimulsion 100
¦ Orimulsion 400
+ No. 6 Fuel Oil

+
30^MO®°0.0
¦" + ^
+
°o mm
+ ~u
¦ +
¦ + o°
¦ - c°
°°o
+
0
0
0

o°°°

7
-------
Results from both full- and pilot-scale tests indicate that emissions from the combustion
of Orimulsion can be adequately controlled using commercially available air pollution control
technologies. As with any application, proper design, operation, and maintenance are necessary
to ensure adequate performance, but there is no indication that special modifications or new
control technologies are required to adequately control emissions.
References
1.	U.S. House of Representatives, Conference Report on H.R. 2158, Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1998, October 6, 1997.
2.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Orimulsion Technology Assessment Plan, Office of
Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC, January 1999.
3.	Miller, C.A., and Srivastava, R.K., "The combustion of Orimulsion and its generation of air
pollutants," Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, Vol. 26, pp. 131-160, 2000.
4.	Linak, W.P., Srivastava, R.K., and Wendt, J.O.L., "Metal aerosol formation in a laboratory
swirl flame incinerator," Combustion Science and Technology, 101, pp. 7-27, 1994.
5.	Scotto, M.A., Peterson, T.W., and Wendt, J.O.L., "Hazardous waste incineration: the in-situ
capture of lead by sorbents in a laboratory down-flow combustor," 24th Symposium
(International) on Combustion, pp. 1109-1118, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (1992).
6.	CARB, "CARB Method 501- Determination of size distribution of particulate matter emissions
from stationary sources," in State of California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Test
Methods: Volume 1 - Methods for Determining Compliance with District Nonvehicular
("Stationary Source") Emission Standards, adopted March 23, 1988; amended September 12, 1990.
7.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Test Method 5 - Determination of Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources," in 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A, Government Institutes Inc.,
Rockville, MD, July 1994.
8.	Garg, S., "EPA Method 0060 - Methodology for the determination of metals emissions in
exhaust gases from hazardous waste incineration and similar combustion processes," in Methods
Manual for Compliance with the BIF Regulations: Burning Hazardous Waste in Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces. EPA/530-SW-91-010 (NTIS PB91-120006), pp. 3-1 through 3-48, Office of
Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., December 1990.
9.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Test Method 0030 "Volatile Organic Sampling Train"
in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Volume II. SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223).
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
D.C., September 1986.
10.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Test Method 0010 "Modified Method 5 Sampling
Train" in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Volume II. SW-846 (NTIS PB88-239223).
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
D.C., September 1986.
11.	DeVito, M.S., and Smith, D.L., "Controlled condensation method: New option for SO3
sampling," Power Magazine, pp. 41-43, February 1991.
12.	Miller, C.A., Linak, W.P., King, C., and Wendt, J.O.L. "Fine particle emissions from heavy
fuel oil combustion in a firetube package boiler," Combustion Science and Technology, 134, pp.
477-502, 1998.
13.	Mechanical Engineers' Handbook. M. Kutz, ed., Wiley, New York, NY, 1998.
8
-------
MDMDT _ -dtd-td-R/M TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
IN XtiVi Jtvi-j rvl r- r D'i'i (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/A-00/105
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Generation and Control of Air Pollutants from
Crimulsion(R) Combustion
5. REPORT OATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
C. Andrew Miller and Robert E. Hall
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
See Elock 12
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
NA (Inhouse)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published paper; 10/98-12/99
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. supplementary notes ^ppcd project officer is C. Andrew Miller, Mail Drop 65, 919/
541-2920. For presentation at Fall 2000 Meeting, American Flame Research Com-
mittee , Irvine, CA, 9/18-21/00.
i6. abstract The paper discusses a study requested in 1997 by the U. S. Congress to pro-
vide technical information regarding Orimulsion (R) and its environmental impacts.
(NOTE: Orimulsion is an emulsified fuel, composed of approximately 70% Venezue-
lan bitumen, 30% water, and trace amounts of surfactant, being marketed primarily
as a base-load fuel for utility boilers. It is being used in power plants in five coun-
tries, and was proposed as a fuel for a plant in the U.S.) It is being conducted by an
EPA team led by The Office or Research and Development's National Risk Manage-
ment Research Laboratory (NRMRL), and includes a broad review of previous work
reported in the literature, visits to sites now using Orimulsion, and a series of com-
bustion tests conducted at NRMRL1 s facilities in Research Triangle Park, NC. The
combustion tests measured mass emissions of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen
and sulfur, particulate matter, trace metals, and organic compounds generated by
the combustion of two Orimulsion formulations (one no longer produced) and a heavy
fuel oil. These results were compared to emissions measured at full-scale plants
and to those from previous tests conducted on similar equipment and fuels at
NRMRL.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIF1ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Fuel Oil
Emulsions
Bitumens
Surfactants
Combustion
Emission
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
O rimulsion(R)
13B 11H, 21D
07D
11G
11R
2 IB
14 G
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. N<^ OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------