EPA-600/R-93-188
September 1993 	
<&EPA Research and
Development
EVALUATION CF
SIMULTANEOUS SC2/NOX
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Prepared for
Office of Environmental Engineering
and Technology Demonstration
Prepared by
Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711

-------
I
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.

-------
EPA-600/R-93-188
September 1993
EVALUATION OF SIMULTANEOUS S02/N0X CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
by:
Kevin R. Bruce and Walter F. Hansen
Acurex Environmental Corporation
4915 Prospectus Drive
P.O. Box 33109
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0141
EPA Project Officer: Brian K. Gullett
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Aii and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
Nalco Fuel Tech
P.O. Box 3031
Naperville, IL 60566-7031
(Under Cooperative Research and Development Agreement)
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460

-------
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 have led to accelerated research into novel S02 and
NOx control technologies for coal-fired industrial boilers. One of these technologies is the
combination of sorbent injection and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) for simultaneous
S02/N0„ removal. The work presented herein concentrated on characterizing several process
operational parameters of this technology: injection temperature, sorbent type, and reductant/pollutant
stoichiometric ratio. A slurry composed of a urea-based solution (NOxOUT A or NOxOUT A+)* and
various Ca-based sorbents was injected at a range of temperatures and reaetant/pollutant
stoichiometrics in a natural-gas-fired, pilot-scale reactor with doped pollutants. Up to 80 percent
reduction of S02 and N?Ox at reaetant/pollutant stoichiometric ratios of 2 and 1.5, respectively, was
achieved. S02 emission reductions from slurry injection were enhanced moderately when compared
with dry sorbent injection methods, possibly caused by sorbent fracturing to smaller, more reactive
particles. Emissions from NHh slip (unreacted nitrogen-based reducing agent) and N20 formation
were reduced in comparison with other published results, while similar NOx reductions were obtained.
Increased CO emissions, caused by the decomposition of urea, were moderate. Emissions of CO,
NH3, and N20 for the enhanced urea solution (NOxOUT A+) were substantially less than the levels
observed during urea (NOxOUT A) injection. The injection of the urea-based solution enhanced the
S02 removal, probably because of the formation of (NH4)2Ca(S04)2*H20. The results of this pilot-
scale study have shown liigh reduction of both S02 and NOx.
(*) Where used throughout this report, NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+ are registered trademarks of Nalco
Fuel Tech.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section	Page
Abstract 	 ii
Acknowledgements 	 vi
Executive Summary	vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 	 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES	 3
3.0 EXPERIMENTAL	 4
3.1	Furnace	 4
3.2	Furnace Operation During Natural Gas Firing 	 6
3.3	Emissions Sampling 	 7
3.4	Solid Sampling	 11
3.5	Sorbent Delivery 	 13
3.6	Temperature Profiles	 15
3.7	Waste Solid Resistivity	 16
3.8	Testing and Calculations 	 16
3.9	Slurry Injection Nozzle Characterization	 20
3.10	Sorbent Type	 21
3.11	Ammonia Solution Injection 	 21
4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE	 23
4.1	Quality Assurance Procedures 	 23
4.2	Quality Assurance Audit	 26
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	 27
5.1	General	 27
5.2	Sulfur Dioxide Tests	 27
5.2.1	Comparison 		29
5.2.2	Temperature 		31
5.2.3	Dry Versus Slurry Injection 		31
5.2.4	Effect of NOxOUT A		31
(continued)
iii

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
Section	Page
5.2.5	Ca(OH)2 vs. Slaked CaO 		32
5.2.6	Particle Size Effects		32
5.3	Nitrogen Oxide Tests 		34
5.3. N20		34
5.3.2	NH3		37
5.3.3	Comparison 		38
5.4	Coal Tests		41
5.5	Resistivity Results 	43
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	 45
References 	 47
Appendix A.	Innovative Furnace Data Log Sheets 	A-l
Appendix B.	LIMB Innovative Furnace Performance Evaluation Audit	B-l
Appendix C.	Resistivity Test Results 	C-l
Appendix D.	Graphical Interpolation of Test Results 	D-l
iv

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Tabic	Page
1	Data Quality Objectives for Measured Parameters	24
2	Calibration Procedures for Process Measurement/Feed Devices	25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure	Page
1	Schematic of Innovative Furnace Reactor System	5
2	Flue Gas Components Sampling System	8
3	Schematic of the Two Methods of N20 Sampling 	 10
4	Ammonia Sampling Apparatus 		10
5	Solid Sampling System	12
6	Equipment Schematic for Dry Injection 	14
7	Equipment Schematic for Slurried Injection 	14
8	Temperature Profile of Furnace During Dry and Slurry Injection While Firing Natural Gas . . 17
9	Spray Droplet Size as a Function of Liquid Flow 	22
10	Spray Droplet Size as a Function of Carrier Gas Pressure	22
11	Effect of Injection Temperature on S02 Removal in CaC03 Tests	28
12	Effect of Injection Temperature on S02 Removal in Ca(OH)2 and CaO Tests	30
13	Effect of Sorbent Particle Size on S02 Removal 	33
14	Effect of Injection Temperature on Emissions Using NOxOUT A 	35
15	Effect of Injection Temperature on Emissions Using NOxOUT A+ 	35
16	Effect of N/NOxi on Emissions Using NOxOUT A 	36
17	Effect of N/NOxi on Emissions Using NOxOUT A+ 	36
18	Effect of Injection Temperature on NOx Removal Using NH3 Solution 	39
19	Effect of NO/NOxi on NOx Removal Using NH3 Solution 	39
20	Effect of Injection Temperature on Emissions Using NH3 Water	40
21	Effect of NO/NOxi on emissions using NH3 water	40
22	Effect of Injection Temperature on AN20/ANOx	42
23	Effect of Injection Temperature on NH3 Emissions at N/NOxi =1.5 	42
v

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of EPA Project Officer Brian K. Gullctr in preparing this report is gratefully
acknowledged. His contribution consisted of substantive, preparation of the results, discussion, and
conclusion sections, as well as providing overall guidance for the project. Additionally, the help of
George R. Giilis and Frank E. Briden, of the EPA (AEERL) with equipment construction and solid
material analyses, respectively, is greatly appreciated. The facilities operation, by Charles B. Courtney
of Acurex Environmental Corporation, was also of great value to the success of this work. Special
thanks to the Tenn Luttrell Company for providing the sorbents.
vi

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project, work reported herein was initiated through a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Air
and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) and Nalco Fuel Tech, a commercial licensor
of a urea-based reducing agent injection technology for NOx reduction.
Experimental testing of Nalco Fuel Tech's urea-based NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+ reducing
agents for NOx control, in combination with calcium-based sorbent injection for S02 control, was
conducted from June 1991 to November 1991. Testing was performed at the EPA Environmental
Research Center in Research Triangle Park, NC in a pollutant-doped, natural gas-fired furnace
(14,650 W).
The project scope of work included testing furnace sorbent injection of several calcium-based
sorbents to remove S02 from flue gas. The tested sorbents came from a single source of
commercially prepared Ca(OH)2, CaC03, and CaO. A comparison of S02 removal efficiency was
made between dry and slurry injection. Hie effect of CaC03 sorbent particle size was also studied.
Slurry sorbent injection was found to be superior to dry injection for S02 removal. Dry
injection of Ca(OH)2 achieved a maximum of 60 percent S02 removal (at a Ca/S ratio - 2), while the
Ca(OH)2 slurry removed 72 percent. Removal efficiency with Ca(OH)2 was superior to CaC03 in
both dry (43 percent) and slurry (58 percent) testing. CaO was tested in slurry form by slaking to
form Ca(OH)2 slurry, and compared to the commercially prepared Ca(OH)2. The slaked CaO proved
identical in its S02 removal performance to the commercially prepared Ca(OH)2.
vii

-------
Investigation into the effect of sorbent particle size on removal efficiency showed that the
increasing reactivity of the sorbent with S02 was inversely proportional to the sorbent particle size.
After sieving the CaC03 sorbent, a significant increase in performance was observed with the finer
particle size, with SO-) capture comparable to Ca(OH), of equivalent size for dry injection. Results
from this work indicate Ca(OH)2 to be superior to CaC03 under all conditions of slurry injection.
NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+ reducing agents were tested over a.range of injection
temperatures (821-1,170 °C) to investigate the effect on NOx removal efficiency. Additionally, the
effect of varying the molar ratio of reducing agent to baseline NOx concentration from 0.8 to 3.5 was
studied. Finally, the reducing agent injection for NOx removal was coupled with slurried sorbent
injection for S02 removal.
Both reducing agents achieved maximum NOx removal when injected at a temperature of
about 1,100 °C. Almost no difference in the two reducing agents existed at the optimum temperature;
approximately 80 percent NOx removal was observed for both reducing agents. At temperatures
higher than the optimum, NOx removal efficiency dropped quickly. At about 1,170 CC, the reducing
agents began producing NO„, caused probably by high temperature oxidation of the NH3 produced by
urea decomposition. At temperatures lower than the optimum, NOx removal efficiency gradually
decreased. The NOxOUT A+ yielded a wider injection temperature window; that is, NOx removal
efficiency remained higher than with NOxOUT A as injection temperature decreased.
Varying the molar ratio of reducing agent (urea) to baseline NOx, or N/NOxi, showed that
increasing N/NOxi to a value of near 2 produced significant improvement in NOx removal. Further
N/NOxl increases had little or no effect on removal efficiency. Comparing the two reducing agents
during N/NOxi variation shows no appreciable differences in behavior.
Coupling reducing agent injection with slurried sorbent injection produced some promising
results. The co-injection of NOxOUT A improved all the sorbents' performances. The effect was not
as pronounced with CaCOj as that of Ca(OH)2 and slaked CaO. A maximum S02 removal

-------
enhancement of 2-3 percent absolute was observed with CaC03, while a 10 percent absolute
enhancement was observed for Ca(OH)2 and slaked CaO. CaC03 slurry with the NOxOUT A
reducing agent achieved a maximum of about 60 percent S02 removal of approximately 1,000 °C.
S02 removals of more than 80 percent were observed with Ca(OH)2 at the same temperature. As was
previously stated, the slaked CaO performed identically to the Ca(OH)2.
The work mentioned above also entailed characterizing NH3, N20. and CO emissions
produced by injecting the reducing agent over a range of temperatures and N/NOxi. Each reducing
agent produced maximum NH3 slip (unrcacted nitrogen-based reducing agent) at the lower injection
temperatures; around 821 CC, the amount of slip was about 140 ppm for both NOxOUT A and
NOXOUT A+. As injection temperature increased. NH3 slip for the NOxOUT A decreased quickly,
while slip from NOxOUT A+ dropped off almost completely at around 875 °C. At 900-1,000 °C, slip
generated by NOxOUT A gradually decreased to a level of about 60 ppm. Throughout this
temperature regime. NOxOUT A+ produced negligible NH3 slip (<10 ppm).
CO emissions produced by NOxOUT A rose gradually from about 20 ppm at 800 °C to a
maximum of 25 ppm at 1,100 °C. NOxOUT A+ produced low CO at 800-1,000 °C (<10 ppm), with a
maximum of 50 ppm around 1,100 °C.
N20 production by NOxOUT A was negligible at lower injection temperatures (approximately
25 ppm), but increased with injection temperature to a maximum of 200 ppm at approximately
1,150 °C, about 42 percent of the NOx reduced. NOxOUT A+ produced only moderate levels of N20
(typically <40 ppm, less than 20 percent of the NOx reduced) over the entire temperature range. A
maximum of about 30 ppm was observed at around 1.150 °C.
Aqueous ammonia solution injection was performed to ensure that these results would be
reproducible on other facilities. Available data for NOx removal using aqueous ammonia injection
showed comparable results to others' work. These data validated improvements shown by this work
with both NOxOUT solutions and suggested the applicability of these results to other facilities.
ix

-------
Testing of the solid waste ash/sorbent/urea mixtures indicated that ash resistivities increased to
levels exceeding 1013 ohm-cm. This resistivity level can adversely affect electrostatic precipitator
performance. However, these laboratory values were obtained at low temperatures. Resistivity values
decrease at liigher precipitator temperatures and typically are lower in the field than in laboratory
measurements. Further work in pilot-scale precipitators would help determine whether particle
collection will be adversely affected by sorbent/reducing agent injection.
x

-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) has initiated extensive evaluation
and planning for strategies to meet S02 and N0X emission requirements. Furnace sorbent injection of
calcium-based material for S02 removal is a technology that has been field tested on a number of
units, achieving, for example, 63 percent S02 removal at a Ca/S (molar ratio) = 2 with a calcium
hydroxide [Ca (OH)2] sorbent and 72 percent with a surfactant-modified Ca(OH)2 sorbent on a 105
MW(e) wall-fired unit.1 Typically, lower S02 removals are achieved with calcium carbonate (CaC03)
sorbents.
The anticipated N0X regulations may be met, at least in part, by selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) which has achieved about 60 percent N0X reduction on a 150 MW(e) coal-fired
boiler at a molar ratio of reducing agent nitrogen to initial N0X concentration (N/NOxi) of 2.2 SNCR
has also been the subject of numerous laboratory and pilot-scale studies.3,4 SNCR involves high-
temperature furnace injection (800-1,100 "C) of a nitrogen-based reducing agent such as urea
(NH2C0NH2) or ammonia (NH3), which converts NOx to N2 and H20.
Most concerns with using SNCR center around NH3 emissions, or slip, which results from
incomplete reaction of the injected reducing agent and the production of nitrous oxide (N20) caused
by incomplete reduction of NOx. NH3 slip can cause ammonium bisulfate (NH4HS04) formation
around 300 °C and ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2S04] formation around 150 °C. The former can deposit
upon air preheatcr surfaces reducing heat transfer and increasing pressure drop. It can also cause
1

-------
NH4C1 formation around 100 °C which results in a visible white piume in the stack emissioas. N2()
has been implicated as a contributor to stratospheric ozone depletion and global warming, the latter
because of its ability to absorb infrared radiation 5,6
Research has demonstrated that levels of N20 and NH3 emissions from various SNCR
compounds are extremely sensitive to injection temperature.7'8 Efforts to widen the applicable
temperature injection window and control NH3 slip and N20 production through using additives have
brought about some success, yet concerns remain to be addressed on the SNCR-typc process.9 Similar
research on S02/N0X control processes has shown considerable merit, while significant questions still
remain in the industry concerning NH3 emissions and N20 by-product formation.10
To further investigate simultaneous S02/N0X control by sorbent/reducing agent injection, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement (CRADA) with Nalco Fuel Tech to test NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+, two commercial
reducing agents produced by Nalco Fuel Tech, in conjunction with sorbent injection in AEERL's
14,650 W pilot facility. Variables of operation included injection temperature, stoichiometric ratio,
and sorbent type. Emissions monitoring results for S02, NOx, N20, CO, and NH3 arc reported.
2

-------
SECTION 2
OBJECTIVES
The principal objective of this research was to demonstrate the effectiveness of simultaneous
SO? and NOx removal by concurrent injection of a calcium-based slurry and NOxOUT A (or NOxOUT
A+), a urea-based reducing agent, while minimizing emissions of N20 and NH3. Other secondary
objectives defined in the CRADA between EPA and Nalco Fuel Tech included:
Characterizing the operating conditions for sorbent slurry injection
•	Comparing the removal efficiency of dry vs. slurry injection
Evaluating the benefit of finely ground limestones/hydrated lime
•	Optimizing injecting conditions, with targets of 60 percent S02 removal at Ca/S = 2 and
60-70 percent NOx reduction at an N/NOxj of 2
•	Comparing CO, NH3, and N20 emissions produced by the injection of NOxOUT A and
NOxOUT A+ (an enhanced urea-based reducing agent) over a wide range of injection
temperatures and reducing agent/NOx stoichiometrics
3

-------
SECTION 3
EXPERIMENTAL
3.1 FURNACE
The Innovative Furnace Reactor (IFR) system consists of a furnace, coal or natural gas feeders,
a sorbent feeding system, emissions monitoring systems, and a particulate matter sampling system.
The furnace is a refractory-lined, down-fired cylindrical combustor capable of burning a
variety of fuels including coal, natural gas, and some oils. The furnace is used to simulate the
gaseous combustion environment and quench rate conditions anticipated in utility and industrial
boilers. The internal bore (diameter) of the furnace is 15.2 cm while the length is about 4 m. It is
constructed of several stacked rolled steel rings 76.2 cm in diameter and varying between 30-60 cm
high. The rings are insulated by four courses of refractory, the last of which is a hard-faced, erosion-
resistant type that forms the internal bore. An illustrated cross-section of the IFR is shown in Figure
1. Various view and injection/sample ports are along the length of the reactor while fuel and
combustion air arc fed in at the top of the furnace and burned. Coal feed is controlled by a vibrating-
hopper, screw-type feeder. The coal is loaded into the feeder hopper where it is metered into a
downward facing funnel-shaped receiver. At the receiver, the coal flow is aspirated into and through a
copper line and delivered to the burner. Natural gas is metered into the burner through a rotameter at
a known flow and pressure. Two types of air flow are provided in the burner region; the axial and
tangential air flows at the burner are fully adjustable by flow and pressure. The combustion products
travel down and out of the refractory-lined sections into a water-cooled junction where they turn 90°
into a sampling stack.
4

-------
INDUCED DRAFT EXHAUST
BUTTERFLY
VALVES
SORBENT
INJECTION PORTS
(3M NOT SHOWN)
EMISSIONS SAMPLING PORTS
SOLID SAMPLING PORT	¥
WATER
COOLED
JUNCTION

HORIZONTAL SAMPLING STACK
BUTTERFLY
' VALVES
BAGHOUSE
Figure 1. Schematic of Innovative Furnace Reactor system.
5

-------
3.2 FURNACE OPERATION DURING NATURAL GAS FIRING
Typical set-up procedures for natural gas firing included introducing the fuel (nominally CH4,
37.8 kJ/L) Oirough an axial feeder tube at the burner on the top of the combustor. There were four
input gas flows to the furnace: CH4 gas, axial air, tangential air, and sorbent/slurry transport air. All
gas flows were controlled through rotameters. Sorbent delivery air flows were slightly different for
the two types of injection (slurry/dry). The injection lances used required different flows to establish
optimum sorbent atomization/distribution.
During slurry injection, 6.47 standard Us of total pre-coinbustion air was supplied to the
furnace through the three previously stated air flows. Natural gas was supplied at a rate of 0.557
standard Us to yield an air/fuel combustion stoichiometry of approximately 1.20. The distribution of
air flow was 67.4 percent through the tangential air supply, 14.6 percent through the axial air, and 18.0
percent through the sorbent injection lance. The majority of the air was supplied tangentially at the
burner to ensure good mixing of the doping gases.
Dry injection trials required a total air supply of 6.56 standard L/s. The natural gas flow
remained the same, but the combustion stoichiometry was slightly higher. Air flow distribution was
69.7 percent through the tangential air, 14.6 percent through the axial air, and 15.7 percent through the
sorbent probe.
During natural gas burns, simulation of combustion products formed during true coal burning
was performed by doping the feed natural gas with known concentrations of bottled NH3 and S02-
The NH3 was added to the combustion zone by mixing with the natural gas feed stream. The two
gases mixed just before entering the burner. The NH3 was quantitatively oxidized to NOx during
combustion. S02 was introduced into the furnace by being added to the tangential air flow at the
burner. Controlling these dopant gases allowed simulation of a wide range of NOx and S02
emissions.
6

-------
3.3 EMISSIONS SAMPLING
The sampling stack connected to the water-cooled junction is an insulated stainless steel pipe
approximately 18 cm in diameter. Ports are installed along the pipe to enable several samples of stack
gas to be extracted. Just past the water-cooled junction is a particulate matter filter through which the
gas sample for S02 analysis is drawn. A schematic of the emissions monitoring/sampling system is
shown in Figure 2. Particulate matter filters inside the stack are capable of blocking particles greater
than 20 pm in diameter.
In these tests, the S02 sample passed out of the stack through a port and into a Mott sintered
metal filter that removed all particles > 0.5 jim. The resulting "particulate matter-clean" gas was
passed on to an ultraviolet analyzer through a healed sample line maintained at approximately 350 °C.
The S02 sample entered the measurement cell of the analyzer, was drawn through by a pump, and
passed through a rotameter at the outlet.
A gas sample for analysis of NOx, C02, CO, and 02 was drawn through a particulate matter
filter at another port in the stack section. The sample passed through a Hankison drying unit, then
traveled to a junction where it was split into two portions; one was analyzed for NO by the
chemiluminescent method, the other for CO, C02, and 02. Only NO concentration was determined
because it was found during initial testing that N02 concentration contributes less than 5 percent to the
NOx value. The NO sample stream was drawn through a rotameter and directly into a
chemiluminescent analyzer. The sample was then exhausted to a stack.
The second portion of the split sample passed through a canister of anhydrous CaS04 then was
split into three streams. Each stream passed through a rotameter and into the respective analyzer
(C02, CO, 02). CO and C02 were each detected and measured in separate infrared emissions
analyzers, while the 02 level was measured by a paramagnetic oxygen analyzer. These remaining
sample streams were then exhausted to the atmosphere. Outputs from all the analyzers were recorded
on strip chart recorders. The previously mentioned analyzers remained on-line for the duration of all
7

-------
EXHAUST
FROM
CEM
PORT
FROM
S02
PORT
PUMP
HEATED
SAMPLE
LINE
MOTT FILTER FILTER

S02 ANALYZER

ROTAMETERS
3
PUMP
Figure 2. Flue gas components sampling system.
8

-------
trials and were zeroed and spanned with gases of known concentration before and after each daily trial.
The span gases used for all analyzers bracket the expected concentrations of effluent components. All
measured values for NO, C02, CO. 02 were corrected for the removed flue gas water based on
calculation from fuel and injected water.
N20 samples were analyzed by two different methods. Schematics of the N-,0 sampling
systems are shown in Figure 3. A gas chromatography equipped with an electron capture detector, two
columns, and employing a backflush method to prevent interference from higher molecular weight
compounds, was used to take grab samples of stack gas before and during sorbent/reducing agent
injections.11 A second analyzer, a tunable diode laser (TDL), monitored real-time stack N20
emissions. The TDL is an experimental analyzer that uses laser light tuned to the same wavelength as
the infrared absorption line of a known N20 span gas. The stack gas N20 infrared absorption line is
then compared to the known laser output, and through a series of electronic components simulating
second derivative spectroscopy, the stack gas concentration of N20 is output to a strip chart recorder.
This method and apparatus, detailed further in Reference 12. were calibrated for this work at 20-H0
ppm, with an accuracy of ± 0.75 ppm. The two methods' results were comparable. Tests conducted
at six varying conditions showed a linear correlation coefficient exceeding 0.99 between the two
methods (for further comparison of N20 analytical methods see Reference 13).
Ammonia stack gas concentrations were determined by withdrawing a slack gas sample
through high flow, inline 10 (am filters and bubbling it through a solution of 0.02 - N H2S04. An
equipment layout is shown in Figure 4. The gas was drawn through the impingers by a pump and the
amount of stack gas sampled was monitored by a dry gas meter connected in-line. Approximately 20
L of stack gas passed through the impingers for any one test at about 2 L/min. After the sample was
drawn, the impingers were washed with deionized water (DI H20) into a 500 mL volumetric flask.
The total solution volume was then brought to 500 mL with DI H20. The solution was then analyzed
for NH3 with an ion selective electrode (ISE) by the following method. A 100 mL sample of the 500
9

-------
Figure 3. Schematic of the two methods of N-,0 sampling.
VALVE
STACK
CROSS-SECTION
100 mL 0.02 NH.,S04
IMPINGERS
DRY GAS
METER
r
k:





ICE




BATH



:*
\ t.


EXHAUST
PUMP
Figure 4. Ammonia sampling apparatus.
10

-------
mL NH-, solution was transferred to a 125 mL Erlcnmcyer flask. As a pH adjustor, 1 mL of 10 M
NaOH solution was added. A stir bar was placed in the flask, and the solution was alowed to stir for
about 1 min. The ISE was then immersed into the stirred flask solution where it began to equilibrate.
A meter monitored NH3 concentration as well as how quickly the reading changed. An indicator on
the meter indicated when the concentration reading stabilized and the reading was recorded.
The ISE meter was calibrated with known standards before any NH-, determination. The
resulting calibration curve was checked against the known limits of the meter. In all instances during
the program, calibration of the meter fell well within limits designated by the manufacturer. All NH3
measurements were corrected for flue gas water by accounting for water from combustion and
injection.
3.4 SOLID SAMPLING
Solid samples were collected with the apparatus shown in Figure 5. A solid sampling port at
the bottom of the refractory-lined section of the furnace was uncovered and a water-cooled sampling
probe was inserted into the furnace center. The probe opening (about 2.5 cm) faced up toward the
downward flow of reacted solids. The reacted solids were aspirated into the probe isokinetically to not
bias the collected particle size. The solids were drawn out of the probe through a heated sample line
and captured on filter paper in an enclosed filtering unit. The resulting cleaned gas was then passed
through ice-chilled impingers that cooled the gas to condense moisture. The dry gas passed through a
gas meter that was monitored to maintain the correct sampling rate. After sufficient sample had been
collected, the filter paper was removed from the unit and the sample volume carefully scraped from
the paper.
Solid samples collected were tested for resistivity, a measure of the ability of the solid to be
collected by an electrostatic precipitator. Some of these solid samples were analyzed by X-ray
diffraction to identify reaction compounds. Diffraction analyses were run on a Siemens diffractometer
with a copper Ka target source running at 50 kV and 40 mA.
11

-------
SOLIDS FLOW
BOTTOM SECTION OF FURNACE
Figure 5. Solid sampling system.
12

-------
3.5 SORBENT DELIVERY
Sorbcnt was injected into llie furnace by two methods (see Figures 6 and 7). Dry sorbent
(either Ca(OH)2 or CaCO^) was loaded into a hopper mounted on a K-Tron loss-in-weight, twin-screw,
dry materials feeder. The dry sorbent feeder is a totally enclosed and pressurized system. During
runs, sorbent transport air was supplied to the feeder where it traveled into a delivery line to the water-
cooled injection probe. Injection air flowed continuously during trials as part of the furnace air
supply. When injection took place, the feeder screws were started and the sorbent was metered into
the air stream. The feeder was calibrated gravimetrically before and after each run. All sorbent feeder
settings were then determined for trial use.
Slurried sorbent was prepared by adding a predetermined amount of sorbent to DI H20 in a
mixing tank. A mixing motor provided power to an impeller to keep the sorbent in constant
suspension. DI H20 was metered into a spray nozzle by a peristaltic pump where it mixed with air.
The water sprayed into the furnace was used to establish baseline conditions. During sorbent injection,
a valve switched the pumped liquid from water to the slurry mix. After the injection, flow was
switched back to water. NOxOUT solution was metered into the slurry stream at the probe inlet; the
flow was produced by a dual syringe pump. A typical slurry injection run involved establishing a
baseline condition (with water injection), injecting slurry without NOxOUT flow, adding NOxOUT to
the slurry flow, and finally returning to baseline water injection. In instances where NOxOUT was
injected without slurry, it was metered in with the water flow at the nozzle inlet.
Dry and slurry injection required two different types of injectors. The dry injection probe was
constructed of three concentric stainless steel tubes. The interior tube forming the injection orifice is
0.64-cm x 0.089-cm wall thickness tubing and is protected from furnace heat by a water jacket formed
by a 0.95-cm tube placed inside a 1.27-cm tube. This jacket enclosed the 0.64-cm delivery tube. The
three are welded together and a cooling water inlet/outlet is provided. The three tubes are bent
13

-------
-JL.

3
o
<
_)
z
Figure 6. Equipment schematic for dry injection.
PERISTALTIC
METERING
PUMP
-COOLANT IN
-COOLANT OUT
MIXING MOTOR
ATOMIZING
AIR
DI H£>
SLURRY
MIXING
TANK
NOxOUT
Figure 7. Equipment schematic lor slurried injection.
14

-------
together in a smooth radius ar a 9(7 angle so that placing them into the injection ports on the side of
the furnace allows the orifice to point downward.
Slurry was injected into the furnace through an injection probe with a 3-min orifice. The
probe was commercially manufactured by Turbotak and is constructed of stainless steel in much the
same way as the dry probe and is water-cooled. Three inlets at the supply end of the probe allow
water (or slurry), air, and NOxOUT to mix before being sprayed into the furnace. The probe is about
90 cm long and 3 cm in diameter with no bends. The orifice is drilled at 90° to the axis of the
interior supply tube giving a downward spray.
Actual sorbent particle size was determined by using a Micromeritics Sedigraph Model 5 KM).
For slurry injections, a Munhall particle size classifier determined spray droplet size produced by the
spray nozzle. Water and air flows through the nozzle were set to actual run conditions. The spray
produced was passed through a low-intensity laser beam produced by the Munhall device. The
diffraction of the laser light by the spray stream was analyzed by computer software provided with the
Munhall to determine an average spray particle size. In early classification of the nozzles, a wide
range of air and water flows and pressures were examined. The flows that produced the most uniform
tiny spray particles were chosen for actual injections.
3.6 TEMPERATURE PROFILES
Furnace temperature profiles were determined using a suction pyrometer. All injection
conditions (coal or natural gas firing) were profiled. The applicable injection conditions were set up in
the furnace for testing at a particular injection port. The suction pyrometry probe was inserted two or
tliree ports below the injection port and allowed to equilibrate. During these tests, no sorbent was
used, but the applicable injection air and water were fed through the nozzle. After equilibration, the
reading was recorded and the pyrometry probe moved to the next higher port. Again, after
equilibration, the reading was taken. The final reading was taken at the port just below the injection
point. These data points allowed a temperature profile to be drawn for dry and wet injection during
15

-------
coal or natural gas firing at any port. The resulting line allowed extrapolation over the distances
between ports to arrive at the correct port temperature. A typical profile during natural gas burning is
shown in Figure 8.
3.7	WASTE SOLID RESISTIVITY
As described in Section 3.4, collected solid samples were measured for resistivity by a
procedure detailed in Reference 14. Adding calcium-based sorbent to typical coal fly ash changes ihc
overall characteristics of the mixture, making measurement by standard methods impossible, therefore,
a modified method was developed. Ca(OH)2 contained in the sample decomposes at about 300 CC.
accompanied by large changes in panicle surface area. Older methods used for coal ash analysis were
performed at temperatures in excess of 450 °C. The newer method employs temperatures less than
250 °C so as not to initiate a change in the Ca(OH)2 present in the sample. In addition, older methods
measure resistivity as a function of increasing sample temperature. The newer method begins at the
higher temperature and records resistivity as temperature decreases. The resistivity measurements on
solid samples collected during these trials were performed in a 5 percent humidity chamber.
3.8	TESTING AND CALCULATIONS
Data produced during trials were recorded on an "Innovative Furnace Data Log" form. All
data collected during the trial program are included in Appendix A. Furnace set-up conditions and
trial notes were written in the blanks provided at the top of the form. The data logged during the trial,
including 02, C02, CO, NOx, and S02 concentrations, were written in the tabular matrix in the center
of the page. This section also includes sorbent feed information. The bottom of the sheet also
provides furnace set-up information such as air and gas flows. These data were used for material
balance calculations.
The starting point for many of the calculations involved determining the total flue gas flow
(Q). This value was required to calculate Ca/S ratios and was found by determining molar flows of
16

-------
,400
1,300
DRY INJECTION
SLURRY INJECTION
5 ^
as
aj
I 1,100
-v- -
aV
\ A

1,000
900
¦ v-
800
50	100	150	200
INJECTION POSITION DISTANCE BELOW BURNER (cm)
250

DISTANCE BELOW
BURNER (cm)
DRY INJECTION
TEMPERATURE (°C)
SLURRY INJECTION
TEMPERATURE (°C)
PORT 2R
43
1,311
1,170
PORT 3R
74
NM
1,137
PORT 3M
81
1,265
1,087
PORT 4U
104
1,209
997
PORT 4L
145
1,087
887
PORT 5
168
1,020
821
PORT 6
203
950
NM
Figure 8. Temperature profile of furnace during dry and slurry injection while firing
natural gas (including tabulated temperature vs. injection location data).
MM = Not measured.
17

-------
input air and natural gas from the known rotameter settings, then calculating the resultant flows of
combustion products.
For natural gas burns, the combustion reaction can be considered as follows:
CH4 + 202	> 2H20 + C02
The furnace usually runs with roughly 20-25 percent excess air so the above reaction
consumes 100 percent of the natural gas. Combustion air is dried ambient air assumed to be 21
percent 02 and balance N2.
The molar flows (at STP) of the supplied air and natural gas were calculated from pressure
and float heights from rotameters:
Let: Px = pressure at rotameter x in bars
Hx = observed flow on calibrated rotameter in standard L/min at 25 °C (1 bar)
Fx = flow of supply air/gas in standard L/min at pressure Px
Mx = molar flow of gas/min
Then: Fx = IIX * (1 + Px)'/2
Mair=Fair*U mol/24.1 L]
^air total — ^axial air + ^tangential air + ^sorbent air
MK2 = 0.79 * Mair ^
M02 = 0.21 * Mair total
Because methane is less dense than air, a correction factor must be introduced into the
equation to convert methane volumetric flow to molar flow. This correction factor is the square root
of the ratio of the densities (p) of CH4 and air.
mCH4 = fCHa x [(P«Ir/Pc7/4)]1/2 x I1 24-1 l]
One mole of CH4 consumes 2 moles of 02 and forms 3 moles of products.
Then: M()2.excess = ^02 " f2 * MCH4J
MC02 = ^CH4
^H20 — f2 *	+ ^Isiuny water
Q = MN2 + M02 excess + MH20 + MC()2 (in moles per min)
NOTE: molar slurry water flow is determined from flow information on the daily trial data
log form.
18

-------
The molar ratio of injected calcium to sulfur in S02 is calculated as follows:
Let: D = flow of dry sorbent in grams/min
l'S02] = S00 concentration in furnace at baseline in ppm. wet basis
Then:
Ca/S - \D'MW^nu
S02 / 1.000,OCX) X Q
For coal burning conditions:
Let: Fcoal = coal flow in grams/min
WSuifur ~ fraction sulfur in coal (vv/w)
MWS = molecular weight of sulfur
Then: Ca/S =
CcJS =
(.J

In any instances where furnace concentrations of flue gas components are reported or used for
calculations, they have been corrected to 0 percent excess 02 to account for furnace inleakage and
excess combustion air. This calculation is as follows:
Let: [X] = the actual furnace concentration of component X in ppm
[02] = the concentration of 02 in the furnace in percent
Then: IX]0%02 = (XI * {21/(21 - [0,1)}
Removal percentage of S02 or NOx during injections is calculated:
Let: [C]BL = concentration of NOx or S02 at baseline in ppm, wet basis
[C]test = concentration of NOx or S02 during injection in ppm, wet basis
Then: Removal percent = {1 - ([C]tesl/[C]BL)} * 100
[C]B1 is the average of the component concentration before and after the injection, while
[C]test is the concentration during the injection.
N/NOxi was calculated from NOxOUT flow, composition, and baseline NOx concentration:
Let: [NOx]bl = baseline NOx concentration in ppm, wet basis
p = the NOxOUT solution density
L = flow of NOxOUT in mL/min
Wurea = fraction urea in solution (w/w)
MWurea = molecular weight of urea
19

-------
Then:
(L x p x Wurca)/MWurJ x (2n:olsN/molurea)
N/NOxi -
N0X
BJI 1,000,000) x Q
3.9 SLURRY INJECTION NOZZLE CHARACTERIZATION
Two slurry injection nozzles were acquired for use in the testing. One nozzle was purchased
from Turbotak, Inc. (of Canada), and the other was acquired from Caldyn (of Germany). Before the
nozzles were used in actual testing, a set of tests were devised to investigate the spray characteristics
of each to determine the conditions that would produce the minimal spray droplet size.
Spray droplet size was determined with a particle size analyzer purchased from the Munhall
Co. The analyzer (Model No. PSA-32) is of the forward diffraction, Fraunhofer-type. It measures the
diffraction of laser light on a focusing lens which passes the diffracted light to a multi-ring photodiode
detector. The detector then outputs the generated signals to a processor which provides a visual
display of results.
Each nozzle was characterized with the air and liquid flows to be used during in-furaace
operation. The spray droplet size and distribution was then measured in an out-of-furnace test.
Because each nozzle was similar in design and construction, one nozzle was used to 'zero-in' on the
specific optimal air and liquid flow settings. Once this step was completed, the other nozzle was set
up identically and compared.
Variation of liquid flow rate was only slightly effective in reducing droplet size, while carrier
air pressure (at constant mass flow) had a significant effect on droplet size. Optimal pressure was
found to be about 4.8 bar at a volumetric air flow of about 1.18 standard L/s. Liquid flow rate was
set at about 50 mL/min. The Turbotak, Inc. nozzle resulted in a droplet D50 of about 13 pm (D90 =
88 nm), while the Caldyn nozzle achieved a D50 of 10 jim (D90 = 60 (um). Although the Caldyn
nozzle did provide superior atomization, it was not engineered with the correct cooling jacket,
20

-------
therefore, the Turbotak. Inc. nozzle was chosen for the trial work. Data from characterizing the
Turbotak nozzle are shown in Figures 9 and 10.
3.10	SORBENTTYPE
The sorbents used in the testing were from a single source; they were commercially prepared
Ca(OII)2. CaCOv and CaO from the Tenn Luttreil Company. The sorbents were provided in 20-L
steel buckets. All sorbent containers were kept tightly sealed when not in use to prevent any moisture
or C02 in the room air from contaminating the supplies. Particle size analyses were performed on the
received sorbents; diameters (D50) determined by sedimentation were 2.55 ^im, 5.80 fim, and 12.5 }im
for the CafOH),, CaO, and CaC03, respectively.
3.11	AMMONIA SOLUTION INJECTION
To collect data for comparison with results from other researchers. NH3 solution was injected
at varying temperature and reduclant/pollutant stoichiomctry. This solution was prepared by diluting a
given quantity of NH4OH solution with DI H20. The resultant preparation was then injected into the
furnace in a manner identical to the NOxOUT injection.
21

-------
20
I	I	I
30	40	50
WATER FLOW RATE (mL/min)
60
Figure 9. Spray droplet size as a function of liquid flow.
AIR PRESSURE (bars)
Figure 10. Spray droplet size as a function of carrier gas pressure.
22

-------
SECTION 4
QUALITY ASSURANCE
4.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
Data collected during all projects conducted on the IFR are subject to scrutiny under guidelines
provided by a predetermined Quality Assurance (QA) Project Plan. The plan regulates furnace
operation, data collection devices, and procedures. Hie major parameters measured in the furnace are
coal feed rate, natural gas flow rate, combustion air flows, dry sorbent feed rate, slurry sorbent feed
rate, urea feed rate, slurry composition, furnace temperature profile, and flue gas composition, namely,
S02. NO/NOx, CO, C09, and 02. The data quality objectives for each of these parameters are shown
in Table 1. If during any time, the data quality objectives of any measured parameter are not met, the
Project Engineer and Acurex Environmental QA Officer confer to decide on a course of remedy.
Combustion conditions are verified by comparing 02 and C02 levels against theoretical values
obtained from certified analysis of burned coal. Natural gas combustion conditions are verified by
comparing calculations of theoretical 02 and C02 present in the effluent based on the natural gas feed
rate and combustion air flow.
As stated in Section 3.2, continuous emission monitors are zeroed (with zero-grade N2) and
spanned before and after each daily trial with gases of known concentration. Table 2 lists the
calibration information applicable to the gas analyzers. The two analyzer response values are used to
calculate a percent difference value. If this value exceeds 10 percent (the precision value given in
Table 1) during any time, the device is checked for proper operation, and repaired if necessary.
23

-------
TABLE 1. DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR MEASURED PARAMETERS

MEASUREMENT
METHOD
COMPLETENESS
(%)
ACCURACY
(%)
PRECISION
(%)
GAS FEED RATE
ROTAMETER
90
±10
±10
COAL FEED RATE
GRAVIMETRICALLY
90
±10
±10
COMBUSTION AIR FLOWS
ROTAMETERS
90
±10
±10
SORBENT FEED RATE
GRAVIMETRICALLY
90
±10
±10
UREA FEED RATE
SYRINGE PUMP
90
±10
±10
SLURRY FEED RATE
VOLUMETRICALLY
90
±10
±10
SLURRY COMPOSITION
GRAVIMETRICALLY
90
±10
±10
TEMPERATURES
THERMOCOUPLES
90
±10
±10
SO 2 CONCENTRATION
ULTRAVIOLET
90
±10
±10
NO/NOx CONCENTRATION
CHEMILUMINESCENT
90
±10
±10
CO CONCENTRATION
INFRARED
90
±10
±10
CO2 CONCENTRATION
INFRARED
90
±10
±10
0 2 CONCENTRATION
PARAMAGNETIC
90
±10
±10
PARTICULATE SAMPLING
PNEUMATIC EXTRACTIVE
90
NONE
NONE
(temperature units are °C)

-------
TABLE 2. CALIBRATION PROCEDURES FOR PROCESS MEASUREMENT/FEED DEVICES

PROCEDURE
MULTI-POINT
CALIBRATION RANGES
REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
AND REAGENTS
CALIBRATION
FREQUENCY
so 2analyzer
(5000 ppm RANGE)
1.	ZERO WITH N2
2.	MUI.TK3) POINT
WITH S02
70-90% URL
40-60% URL
5-20% URL
CERTIFIED SQ
CYLINDER AND GAS
DILUTION CHAMBER
SEMIANNUAL MULTI-
POINT CALIBRATION.
DAILY HIGH SPAN AND
ZERO CHECK.
NO/NO .ANALYZER
(1000 ppm RANGE)
1.	ZERO WITH N2
2.	MULTK3) POINT
WITH NO
70-90% URL
40-60% URL
5-20% URL
CERTIFIED NO
CYLINDER AND GAS
DILUTION CHAMBER
SEMIANNUAL MULTI-
POINT CALIBRATION.
DAILY HIGH SPAN AND
ZERO CHECK.
CO ANALYZER
1.	ZERO WITH N2
2.	MULTK3) POINT
WITH CO
70-90% URL
40-60% URL
5-20% URL
CERTIFIED CO
CYLINDER AND GAS
DILUTION CHAMBER
SEMIANNUAL MULTI-
POINT CALIBRATION.
DAILY HIGH SPAN AND
ZERO CHECK
CO, ANALYZER
1.	ZERO WITH N2
2.	MIJLTK3) POINT
WITH CQ
70-90% URL
40-60% URL
5-20% URL
CERTIFIED CQ
CYLINDER AND GAS
DILUTION CHAMBER
SEMIANNUAL MULTI-
POINT CALIBRATION.
DAILY HIGH SPAN AND
ZERO CHECK.
02ANALYZER
1.	ZERO WITH N2
2.	MULTK3) POINT
WITH Q
70-90% URL
40-60% URL
CERTIFIED Q
CYLINDER AND GAS
DILUTION CHAMBER
SEMIANNUAL MULTI-
POINT CALIBRATION
DAILY HIGH SPAN AND
ZERO CHECK.
ROTAMETERS
PERFORM MULTIPOINT
CALIBRATION WITH
DRY GAS METER
80-100% FULL SCALE
50-70% FULL SCALE
10-30% FUI.L SCALE
DRY GAS METER, STOP
WATCH. VACUUM PUMP
INITIALLY AND UPON
REPAIR/REPLACEMENT
STRIP CHART RECORDER
CHECK STRIP CHART
READING AGAINST
INPUT VOLTAGES
80-100% FULL SCALE
50-70% FULL SCALE
CONSTANT VOLTAGE
SOURCE AND DIGITAL
VOLTMETER
ANNUALLY
COAL/SORBENT FEEDER
PERFORM MULTIPOINT
CALIBRATIONS
NORMAL OPERATING
RANGES DURING
TESTING
STOP WATCH,TARED
BEAKER.SCALE
CHECK BEFORE AND
AFTER RUNS
SLURRY/UREA FEEDER
SPECIFIC SETTINGS
ARE CALIBRATED
BEFORE EACH RUN

STOPWATCH. GRADUATED
CYLINDER
DAILY, DURING RUNS
URL-upper range limit

-------
4.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT
A QA audit was initiated on December 4: 1991. Two gas cylinders were delivered to the
testing area for analysis. The component concentration in the cylinders was unknown to operation
personnel. Operation personnel were asked to analyze the contents of each cylinder and report the
results. These results revealed that the analyzers audited fell well within the data quality objectives
established. A memorandum describing the results of this audit, from the Project QA Officer, is
provided in Appendix B.
26

-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1	GENERAL
All results from sorbent injection tests were developed into percent S09 removal vs. Ca/S ratio
graphic relationships. Data collected during the trials were entered into a spreadsheet. The equations
previously expressed in Section 3.8 of this report were used. Through a series of calculations, percent
S02 removal, corresponding Ca/S ratio, percent NOx removal, and N/NOxi were produced. A typical
trial, encompassing a full work day, entailed injecting a sorbent (either dry or slurried) at constant
temperature while varying Ca/S ratio. Duplicate data at each Ca/S ratio were collected. The resulting
removal and stoichiometry values were then plotted. Percent removal was plotted on die y-axis, while
Ca/S (or N/NOxi) was plotted along the x-axis. A third-order polynomial expression was curve fit
through the plotted points. Lotus Freelance (the graphics software package used) yielded the equation
of the curve which allowed determining removal at Ca/S of exactly 2. All subsequent expressions of
S02 removals in this report are at a Ca/S value of 2. Data collected throughout the trial work are
presented graphically in Appendix D.
5.2	SULFUR DIOXIDE TESTS
Initial tests compared the S02 removal of slurry against dry injection modes for Ca(OH)2 and
CaC03. Figure 11 shows the effect of varying injection temperature on the S02 removal by CaC03 at
a Ca/S ratio of 2. The S02 removal during dry CaC03 injection was fairly independent of injection
temperature, given the relative error in the plotted values (± 5 percent based on previously run
replicate tests) and showed a maximum of about 42 percent. Slurry injection appeared to have relative

-------
DRY INJECTION SLURRY INJECTION SLURRY W/NOxOUT A I
¦	>1 • ¦
_L
800
900
1000	1100
TEMPERATURE(°C)
1200
1300
Figure 11. Effect of injection temperature on S02 removal in CaC03 tests
(Ca/S = 2, S02i = 2,500 ppm).
28

-------
maxima in S02 removal, about 57 percent around 1.000 "C. Adding NOxOUT A solution to the
slurry water (replacing an equal volume of water) may have caused a slight increase in S02 capture,
but insufficient runs were completed for statistical certainty. The same tests for dry injection of
Ca(OII)2 (Figure 12) indicate that S02 removal, with an apparent optimum injection temperature above
1,000 CC, was relatively independent of injection temperature. The slurry injection curve is similar to
the dry sorbent injection curve except for a significant increase in S02 removal by slurry injection
around 1,0(X) °C, where S02 capture increases to about 72 percent. Tests with urea (NOxOUT A)
added to the slurry water followed the temperature response of the sorbent-alonc slurry, but indicated
significantly higher S02 removal (about 10 percent, absolute), up to a maximum around 82 percent
capture.
Limited tests were also done with commercially available Tenn Luttrell CaO (lime). In these
tests, Ca(OH)2 was tested against a CaO slaked with the slurry injection water before injection. The
results (also shown on Figure 11 for a single injection temperature) indicate that injecting a CaO
slaked under non-optimized hydration conditions yields equal S02 capture to the Ca(OII)2. Similarly,
injecting the slaked CaO slurry with NOxOUT A solution resulted in equivalent capture to the
Ca(OH)2 with NOxOUT A, about 82 percent at Ca/S = 2.
5.2.1 Comparison
The S02 removals reported in Figure 11 for dry CaC03 particles are equivalent to previous
results (about 40 percent) for testing in this furnace and others15,16. The S02 removal results for dry
Ca(OH)2 sorbent injection, about 60 percent, are also similar to earlier testing in this reactor and
numerous tests by others15,17,18. While comparing results between dissimilar furnaces, fuels, initial
S02 concentrations (S02i), and sorbents is difficult, the results for CaC03 slurry injection (about 42
percent at Ca/S = 2) are consistent with results from Reference 19 of 40-55 percent at Ca/S = 2 and
four different coal/sorbent combinations. Later work indicates S02 removals with a Ca(OH)2 slurry
(Ca/S = 2) of 78 percent, comparable to our peak value of = 72 percent10.

-------
90
DRY INJECTION
INJECT
SLAKgD
CaO
SLURRY INJECTION
SLAKED CaO W/NOxOUT A
	~	
SLURRY W/NOxOUT A
i i ¦ a a
o
<
>
O
s
-U
o
80
70
60
50
40
800
900
1000	1100
TEMPERATURE(°Q
1200
1300
Figure 12. Effect of injection temperature on SO, removal in Ca(OH)2 and CaO tests
(Ca/S = 2, SO^ = 2,500 ppm).
30

-------
5.2.2	Temperature
The results for both dry and slurry Ca(OH)2 injection (Figure 12) are similar to those found
for dry and slurry CaC03 injection in that, with some exceptions, they are relatively insensitive to
temperature. While greater sensitivity to injection temperature for dry sorbent injection may be
observed in other facilities, this phenomenon is a strong function of reactor quench rate.16"18 The
temperature response profile of S02 capture becomes flatter for lower quench rates. The 1FR has a
fairly moderate quench rate of about 250 ' C/s. Results from a pilot facility operating at a quench rate
of 500 cC/s did show greater temperature sensitivity of S02 capture with slurry injection16. As
expected with this higher quench rate, the optimum slurry injection temperature (about 1.200 °C) was
determined to be about 200 °C higher than in our work (about 1.000 °C).
5.2.3	Dry Versus Slurry Injection
The equal or greater capture by CaC03 slurry versus dry injection has been attributed to
particle fragmentation or delayed sintering .
The levels of S02 removal, approximately 60 percent (excluding the urea addition results), are
typical for dry Ca(OH>2 sorbents, while the range of data on our tests is insufficient to be conclusive.
Significantly greater S02 removals (about 10 percent, absolute) with slurry versus dry injection result
at one temperature (1,000 °C). Unfortunately, further definition of this temperature peak was
impossible because of injection port limitations. The mechanism for this enhanced removal during
slurry (vs. dry) injection remains speculative.
5.2.4	Effect of NCXOIJT A
Tests with NOxOUT A added to the Ca(OH)2 slurry showed significant improvement over the
slurry alone or dry tests. Improvements in S02 capture of about 10 percent absolute occur at 880-
1.170 °C. This phenomenon was also observed when testing a hydrated iime/urea mixture and
comparing it with the hydrated lime alone3. The researchers speculated that the enhancement was
either caused by increases in sorbent surface area and porosity from urea decomposition in the sorbent
31

-------
crystal structure or by reactions between S02 and urea decomposition products in the sampling system.
Work by others has shown that S02 capture is possible with Nil, alone21. It is possible that the NH3
slip created by urea decomposition may be directly removing S02 as well. Our results suggest that the
mechanism for enhancing the sorbent's ability to capture S00 is probably the reaction of the sorbent
and urea-based compound with S02. X-ray diffraction results from IFR solid sampling during
NOxOUT A injection indicate, along with the expected CaS04, the significant presence of
(NH4)2Ca(S04)2-H20 (koktaite). Clearly, at these high temperatures. CaO, S02, and the urea
breakdown product (NH3) may react together to increase S02 removals beyond that expected simply
from the presence of CaO [from Ca(OH)2 or CaC03l alone.
5.2.5	CaCOH^ vs. Slaked CaO
Hie inability to distinguish between the S02 reactivity of the slurries from commercially
available Ca(OII)2 vs. laboratory-slaked CaO suggests the simplicity of the hydration process towards
producing reactive sorbents. Purchase costs of hydration and transportation of the added weight of
H20 in Ca(OH)2 to the site can be avoided if CaO is mixed at the boiler site. While improved
methods of CaO slaking are likely to increase the sorbent reactivity, our rudimentary methods of
sorbent slaking were sufficient to match the results of manufacturer-supplied Ca(OH)2.
5.2.6	Particle Size Effects
Tests varying the particle size of CaC03 sorbent were conducted for dry, slurry, and slurry
with NOxOUT A injection conditions. Results at the optimum injection temperature for S02 removal
at a Ca/S ratio of 2/1 are compared against the Ca(OH)2 results (Figure 13). Smaller particles
generally remove more S02, whether they are CaC03 or Ca(OH)2. The enhancement of dry sorbent
S02 capture by either slurry injection or NOxOUT A addition is probably maintained independent of
particle size. Equivalently sized CaC03 was indistinguishable in removal efficiency to Ca(OH)2. For
slurry injection, however, Ca(OH)2 is clearly superior in removal efficiency.
32

-------
100
90
80
70

~
CaCC>3 (dry)
CaCC^ (slurry)
¦
CaC03 (slurry with NOxOUT)
A
Ca(OH)2(dry)
O
Ca(OH)2 (slurry)
~
Ca(OH)2 (slurry with NOxOUT)
A
60
50
40
30
0
	x
10	15
PARTICLE SIZE (pun)
20
25
Figure 13. Effect of sorbent particle size on S02 removal.
33

-------
5.3 NITROGEN OXIDE TESTS
Tests were conducted over a range of temperatures to measure the temperature sensitivity of
both NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+ reducing agents. Tests varied from about 821 to 1.170 °C with a
N/NOxi of about 1.5 (note that urea breaks down into 2 moles of reducing agent nitrogen per mole of
urea). The results of testing with NOxOUT A, encompassing NOx, NH?, N20, and CO emissions, are
shown in Figure 14.
For reference. S02 removal results from slurry injection are superimposed on this figure,
although these results were not obtained simultaneously. (Other results showed that the effect of
concurrent sorbent injection upon NOx removal is unnoticeable; tests with and without sorbent in the
slurry did not prove to affect NOx removals.) For NOxOUT A, a peak NOx reduction of 82 percent
was achieved at the optimum temperature of about 1,100 °C, while NOx reductions greater than 60
percent were obtained at injection temperatures of 950 to 1,140 °C.
In comparison to these results, Figure 15 shows the results of NOxOUT A+. The maximum
NOx reduction was 80 percent at the optimum injection temperature of around 1,100 °C and an
N/NOxi of about 1.5. NOx removals of greater than 60 percent were achieved at injection
temperatures ranging from 887 to 1,137 °C.
The effect of N/NOxi upon NOx removal for NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+ is shown in
Figures 16 and 17, respectively. NOx removal increases with N/NOxi until around an N/NOxi of 2.0,
where the NOx removal starts to level off. Figures 16 and 17 show inflections in the curves at around
an N/NOxl = 1.5, caused by including data from Figures 14 and 15. The data used to produce Figures
14 and 15 were collected during a different trial run day than those for Figures 16 and 17. Furnace
temperatures vary slightly from day to day causing slight differences in the removal results.
5.3.1 N^O
N20 emission levels (Figure 14) for NOxOUT A generally appear to follow NOx removal
levels; peak N20 emission (200 ppm) occurs at a slightly higher temperature (1,137"C) than peak NOx
34

-------
100
900	1000	1,100
INJECTION TEMPERATURE (°C)
1,200
J
<
>
O
s
U3
X
o
o
z
Figure 14. Effect of injection temperature on emissions using NOxOUT A
(N/NOxi = 1.5. NOxi = 600 ppm).
S
Cu
250
CO NHi NjO NO, REMOVAL SO,P£^OVAL
100
J
<
>
o
S
o
CO
O
2
800	900	1000	1,100
INJECTION TEMPERATURE (°C)
Figure 15. Effect of injection temperature on emissions using NOxOUT A+
(N/NOxl = 1.5. NOxi = 600 ppm).
35

-------
EMISSION LEVEL DURING INJECTION (ppm)
m
3
no
a
	
o &
<2 —*
o>*
r> •
a-
o
hj
^ o'
a> n
"Q O
3 Z
§ 5
o
—	o
o 3
OO O)
•~j	g
° on
O <£.
2	3
O •"
x	C
—	C/5
ii	5'
~	"a
On
Q	2
«	°
T3	x
"O	o
3	C
V	_)
>
% NO* REMOVAL
EMISSION LEVEL DURING INJECTION (ppm)
% NO, REMOVAL

-------
removal (1,100 °C). Peak N20 emissions using NOxOUT A+ (Figure 15) appear to occur about 50 °C
higher than the optimum injection temperature for NOx removal. For both urea solutions. N20
emissions follow a similar temperature response, although levels for the latter (peak value of 36 ppm)
are consistently about one-fourth of the former.
For tests conducted near the optimum injection temperature for NOx removal (1.087 °C),
increasing N/NOxi values results in greater N20 emissions for both urea solutions (Figures 16 and 17.
respectively). N20 concentration ranges from 70-220 ppm for an N/NOxi of 0.8-3.5. respectively, for
NOxOUT A. NOxOl'T A+ appears to be less sensitive to N/N0X1 increases, ranging from 25 to 115
ppm for N/NOxi values of 0.8-3.5. For both urea-based chemicals, N20 emissions are only slightly
affected by changing N/NOxi values between 1.5 and 3.5.
Injection of NOxOUT A at near optimum temperature (1.087 °C) with Ca(OH)2 slurry at
varying Ca/S ratio resulted in N20 production of 66 ppm, 51 ppm, and 64 ppm at Ca/S about 3, 2,
and 1. respectively. N/NOxl was held constant at about 1.5 for this testing. Correspondingly, injection
of NOxOUT A+ yielded N20 emissions of 35 ppm, 27 ppm, and 33 ppm at Ca/S about 3, 2. and 1.
These results (not shown in a figure), when compared with Figures 16 and 17, suggest that the
presence of sorbent addition may aid reduction in N20 levels. This possibility has not been verified.
5.3.2 NH3
NH3 concentrations for NOxOUT A injection (Figure 14) reach a maximum of 140 ppm at
821 °C. Increases in injection temperature show declining concentrations of NH3 slip. Peak NH3
levels of 135 ppm for NOxOUT A+ (Figure 15) at 821 °C are reduced below 5 ppm at injection
temperatures of 887 °C and higher.
Changes in N/NOxi values affect NH3 emissions, as seen in Figures 16 and 17. Increases in
N/NOxi for both urea-based solutions result in higher levels of NH3. Unlike N20, NH3 levels with
NOxOUT A and A+ are a stronger function of N/NrOxi changes from 1.5 to 3.5.
37

-------
Coupling the reducing agent injection (at N/NOxi about 1.5) with Ca(OH)2 slurry near
optimum injection temperature (1,087 nC) produces NH3 slip of less than 35 ppm at Ca/S between 0.8
and 2.0 for NOxOUT A (results not shown). Slip was somewhat less for NOxOUT A+. A maximum
of 12 ppm was observed at Ca/S between 0.8 and 2.0. The reduction in NH3 slip during sorbent/urea
co-injection could be attributed to NH3 combining with Ca and S02 to form (NH4)2Ca(S04)2#H20 as
previously mentioned.
5.3.3 Comparison
IFR test results (Figure 16) show N()x removals with NOxOlJT A at 1,087 °C and varying
N/NOxi that are similar to those demonstrated in Reference 10. While less similar results have been
reported by References 8 and 9 with urea injection, direct comparison is made tenuous by
experimental differences in reducing agent phase (solid urea) and NOxi value (250 ppm), respectively.
Tests with NH3 solution injection were conducted to obtain data to compare others' results to
assess any reactor-specific trends and validate the findings of this work, particularly in reference to
N20 and NH3 emissions.
The NOx removal results of NH3 solution injection at N/NOxi of 1.3 are shown in Figure 18,
indicating that NOx removal exceeds 50 percent over a fairly broad temperature range, 887-1,140 °C.
These findings are fairly consistent with NOx removal results of Reference 8 at an N/NOxi of 2, given
the differences in operating conditions. The NOx removal response to varying the N/NOxi of the NH3
solution is shown in Figure 19, compared with References 4 and 8.
The NH3 slip and N20 emissions during injection of NH3 water at N/NOxi of 1.3 is shown in
Figure 20. The decline of NH3 slip at 827 °C is unexpected, yet was confirmed by repeated testing.
Figure 21 shows the effect of N/NOxi on NII3 slip and N20 emissions.
CO emissions reported in Figures 14-17 are included to show the effect of injection
temperature and N7NOxi. These emission levels, generally 40 ppm or less, are similar to those of
38

-------
800
900	1000	1,100
INJECTION TEMPERATURE (°C)
1,200
Figure 18. Effect of injection temperature on NOx removal using NH-, solution
(N/NOx, = 1.3) compared with Reference 8 (N/NOxi = 2).
100	~ ¦¦ I ¦" ¦" ¦ ' ¦ - ¦¦ '¦ 	 100
J
<
>
O
§
o
£
0	0.5	1	1.5	2	2.5
N/NOxiSTOICHIOMETRIC RATIO
Figure 19. Effect of NO/NOxi on NOx removal using NH3 solution
(NOxl = 600 ppm) compared with Reference 8 (NOxi = 700 ppm) and Reference 4 (NOxi - 619
ppm).
39

-------
900	1000	1,100
INJECTION TEMPERATURE (°C)
1.200
Figure 20. Effect of injection temperature on emissions using NH3 water
(N/NOxj = 1.3, NOxj = 600 ppm).
50
£
a.
.c.
2	40
H
u
03
0	30
2
3
D
2 20
pa
>
w
1	10
So
t/3
i
tU n
NH, EMISSION NX) EMISSION NO, REMOVAL
J	" I |§ • I
0.5
1.5
N/NOxiRATIO
2.5
100
80
60
J
>
40 6
20
0
Figure 21. Effect of N/NOxj on emissions using NH3 water
(injection temperature 997 °C, NOxi = 600 ppm).
40

-------
Reference 9. A significant increase in CO emissions at lower injection temperatures is not observed,
perhaps because our injection range did not extend sufficiently low9.
Hie trends seen in the NII3 solution injection results indicate that reactor-specific differences
in removing NOx under similar testing conditions between these three laboratories are not substantial
and that results obtained in our research may apply equally well to others' reactors.
Values of N20 production as a function of NOx reduction (plotted as aN.,0/aN0x in Figure
22) for NOxOUT A+ were almost exclusively less than those of References 8 and 22 with pure urea.
Work reported in Reference 8 was done on a pilot-scale, natural gas-fired combustor (described in
Reference 9), doped with KH3 to produce NOx, and Reference 22 used a pilot-scale 2 MW (t) coal-
fired circulating fluidized bed. This suggests that technical improvements to the pure urea solution,
represented NOxOUT A+ formulations, can affect N20 emissions in SNCR processes.
Levels of NH3 emissions for both urea-based solutions show trends of reduction with increases
in temperature, consistent with results of others9. Figure 23 compares the NH3 slip emissions during
injection of both urea solutions with those from Reference 9. NH3 slip values in our work are
significantly less throughout the full temperature range. This may be caused by subtle differences in
the experimental combustors combined with the increased reactivity of the enhanced urea formulation
at lower temperatures. Use of NOxOUT A+ vs. NOxOUT A solution in this work improved the NOx
removal values at lower temperatures. This result raises the possibility of staged injection of these
chemicals at low and high temperatures, respectively. This result also has the additional benefit of
reducing the local "load" of the nitrogen-reducing agent injected into the flue gases, and thereby
possibly minimizing potential NH3 slip problems.
5.4 COAL TESTS
Very limited testing was completed under actual coal-burning conditions. Pittsburgh #8 coal
(2.6 weight percent sulfur) was burned in the IFR, and the resulting combustion products treated with
Ca(OH)2 slurry, NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+. Injections were made at 1,151 °C and 1,041 °C.
41

-------
0.5
0.4
o 0.3
o
r-J
z;
-------
Injection of the slurry and NOxOUT A al 1,151 °C gave 69 percent S02 removal, and 36
percent NOx removal at stoichiometrics of 4.5 and 2.6, respectively. At the lower injection
temperature, the NOxOUT A slurry improved to 86 percent S02 capture at Ca/S = 3.3. NOx removal
declined, however, to 19 percent at N/NOxi = 2.4.
The NOxOUT A+ slurry achieved 70 percent and 60 percent S02 and NOx removal,
respectively, at Ca/S = 4.5 and N/NOxi = 1.6 at 1,151 °C. Injection at 1,041 °C resulted in S02
removal identical to the NOxOUT A slurry at this temperature. NOx removal was 21 percent at a
lower N/NOxl of 1.5.
NH3 slip was about 19 and 10 ppm for NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+, respectively, at the
higher injection temperature (1,151 °C). Slip sharply increased to well above 110 ppm for both
reducing agents at 1,041 °C.
N20 production by each reducing agent was greater at 1,151 °C; NOxOUT A generated 65
ppm N20 while NOxOUT A+ yielded 58 ppm. At 1,041 °C, NOxOUT A and NOxOUT A+ generated
43 and 18 ppm N20, respectively.
CO emissions during this limited testing were very high (300 ppm). The change in CO
emissions during urea injection was indistinguishable because of these unusually high baseline levels.
These high levels of CO are not generally experienced during coal burns on this reactor. It is believed
that the burn conditions set up produced a nonreprescntative combustion effluent. This effluent could
have adversely affected the obtained results; the results are certainly not consistent with those obtained
during natural gas testing. Additional testing with coal could provide more information on this
anomaly.
5.5 RESISTIVITY RESULTS
Four solid samples were collected for resistivity measurement. These samples were collected
during injection when burning Pittsburgh #8 coal. Samples during dry injection of Ca(OH)2, slurry
injection of Ca(OH)2, slurry/NOxOUT A injection, and coal alone were obtained. Resistivity for the
43
-------
coal alone sample could not be measured by the method employed.14 Facilities were not available to
determine resistivity of coal-only fly ash by common methods. The resistivity for the sample collected
during dry sorbent injection was about 7.5 X 1()13 ohm-cm. During slurry injection the resistivity
increased to about 9.1 X 1()13 ohm-cm. A further increase to 2.0 X 1014 ohm-cm was realized during
slurry/NOxOUT A injection. The resultant curves generated during resistivity determinations are given
in Appendix C.
Electrostatic precipitator (ESP) performance can be profoundly affected by changes in fly ash
resistivity. Preferential ESP operating conditions require coal fly ash resistivity to be no more than
about 101() ohm-cm. Adding reacted sorbent material to the fly ash mixture causes changes in the
chemical properties of the ash; the resulting resistivity is usually somewhat greater than 1()10 ohm-cm.
The results obtained from this work indicate that adding sorbent and urea to the coal fly ash causes
significant increase in ash resistivity. These increases substantially exceed a level giving acceptable
ESP performance.23 High values of ash resistivity are known to cause a decrease in the current
density of the particulate matter charging field which results in the degradation of ESP performance.
This reduction in current deasity will cause sparking, or the formation of a stable back-corona.
Laboratory measurements of resistivity typically range as much as 2-3 orders of magnitude
higher than field values obtained for the same material. Furthermore, the modifications made to the
measurement method, because of the presence of calcium sorbents also probably resulted in liigher
values for resistivity. Whether or not sorbent/reducing agent injection will adversely impact particle
collection has not been effectively evaluated. Flue gas conditioning methods such as the addition of
humidity or sulfur trioxide may also be used to lower ash resistivity.
44
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This work has demonstrated successful pilot-scale coupling of calcium-based sorbent injection
with SNCR technologies in a slurry injection process. S02 and NOx removals of about 60-80 percent
at Ca/S = 2 and an N/NOxi = 1.5, respectively, have been consistently observed.
S02 emission control is enhanced by combining the technologies. Identification of
NH4/Ca/S04 compounds suggests that the urea-based solutions react with Ca and S02 to effect
additional S02 removal. Some evidence exists for the enhancement of S02 capture during slurry vs.
dry injection of sorbents, albeit over a narrow temperature range.
N0X removals of 60-80 percent at N/NOxj = 1.5 were typically observed. N0X removals
greater than 60 percent were observed over a broad temperature range: 950-1,150 °C for NOxOUT A,
and 850-1,150 °C for NOxOUT A+.
Comparative levels of NH3 and N20 are significantly reduced below levels previously reported
for urea injection by using modified urea-based solutions. Near the peak NOx removal levels (80
percent) for NOxOUT A+ solution (NOxinit = 600 ppm, N/NOxi - 1.5), emission levels of NH3 and
N20 were below 18 and 30 ppm, respectively.
The synergistic effect urea has shown on sorbent S02 capture ability has not been fully
explained. This work identified the presence of (NH4)2Ca(S04)2 • H20 in reacted solids. However,
the formation mechanism of this compound is unknown, as is its effect upon properties of the
ash/sorbent waste.
45
-------
Adding lime and urea causes chemical changes to the tly ash/sorbent mixture producing ash
resistivities in excess 1013 ohm-cm. While resistivity values exceeding 1010 have been known to
cause degradation in ESP performance, derivation of accurate values from laboratory-scale equipment
at ambient temperature (especially in the presence of calcium sorbents) is considerably suspect.
No effort was made to further characterize urea/slurry injection in coal-fired systems; only
limited information was obtained in this effort. The results were not comparable to those obtained
during natural gas firing.
The process may also be broadened in its applicability to a wider market by considering
options for dealing with additional pollutants (e.g., HC1 and mercury) and improving emission removal
performance. The latter suggestion may be accomplished by process alternatives such as staged
reducing agent injection, sorbent enhancement, or a combination of technologies (e.g., SCR, sorbent
recycle, multiple sorbent injections).
46
-------
REFERENCES
1.	Nolan, P, S„ T. J. Purdon, ME. Peruski. M. T. Santucci, M. J. DePero, R. V. Hendriks, and
D. G. Lachapelle, "Results of the EPA LIMB Demonstration at Edgewater." In: Proceedings:
1990 SO-, Control Symposium. Vol. 1, U.S. EPA, EPA-600/9-91-015a (NTIS PB91-197210),
3A-83 to -102, May 1991.
2.	Hofmann, J. E„ J. von Bergmann, D. Bokenbrink, and K. Hein. "NOx Control in a Brown
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler." In Proceedings: 1989 Joint Symposium on Stationary Combustion
NO„ Control. Vol. 2, U.S. EPA. EPA-600/9-89-Q62b (NTIS PB89-220537), 7A-53 to -66. June
1989.
3.	Muzio, L. J., R. M. Himes, and R. E. Thompson. Simultaneous NO,./SQi Removal bv the Dry
Injection of Lime-Urca/Hvdrate. U.S. Department of Energy DOE/PC/88860-T1
(DE90009566), March 1990.
4.	Mangal, R., M. Mozes, R. Gaikwad, R. Thampi, and D. MacDonald. "Additive Injection for
NOx Control." In proceedings: 1989 Intern. Symp. on Combustion in Industrial Furnaces
and Boilers, sponsored by the American Flame Research Committee, Short Hills, NJ,
September 1989.
5.	Crutzen, P. J. and C. J. Howard, "The Effect of the H02 + NO Reaction Rate Constant on the
One Dimensional Model Calculations of Stratospheric Ozone Perturbations," Pure and Applied
Geophysics, 116, 497-510 (1978).
6.	Kramlich, J. C., R. K. Lyon, and W. S. Lanier, EPA/NQAA/NASA/USDA N2Q Workshop-
Volume I: Measurement Studies and Combustion Sources. U.S. EPA, EPA-600/8-88-079
(NTIS PB88-214911), May 1988.
7.	Epperly, W. R. and J. E. Hofmann, "Control of Ammonia and Carbon Monoxide Emissions in
SNCR Technologies," In Proceedings: AIChE Summer National Meeting, AIChE, Philadelphia,
PA, August 1989.
8.	Muzio, L. J., T. A. Montgomery, G. C. Quartucy, J. A. Cole, and J. C. Kramlich. "N20
Formation in Selective Non-catalytic NOx Reduction Processes." Presented at: 1991 Joint
EPA/EPRI Symposium on Stationary Combustion NOx Control, Washington, DC, March 25-
28, 1991.
47
-------
9.	Teixeira, D. P.. L. J. Muzio, T. A. Montgomery, C. C. Quartucy, and T. D. Martz.
' Widening the Urea Temperature Window.'' Presented at: 1991 Joint EPA/EPRI Symposium
on Stationary Combustion NOx Control, Washington. DC, March 25-28. 1991.
10.	Mangal, R., M. S. Mozes, P. L. Feldman, and K. S. Kumar. "Ontario Hydro's Sonox Process
for Controlling Acid Gas Emissions." Presented at: 1991 Joint EPA/EPRI Symposium on
Stationary Combustion NOx Control, Washington, DC, March 25-28. 1991.
11.	Ford, J. S. Recommended Operating Procedure No. 45: Analysis of Nitrous Oxide from
Combustion Sources. U.S. EPA, EPA-600/8-90-053 (NTIS PB90-238502), June 1990.
12.	Briden, F. E., D. F. Natschke. and R. B. Snoddy. "The Practical Application of Tunable Diode
Laser Infrared Spectroscopy to the Monitoring of Nitrous Oxide and Other Combustion
Process Stream Gases." Presented at: 1991 Joint EPA/EPRI Symposium on Stationary
Combustion NOx Control, Washington, DC, March 25-28, 1991.
13.	Montgomery, R. A., G. S. Samuelsen, and L. J. Muzio. "Continuous Infrared Analysis of N20
in Combustion Products." JAPCA. 39, 721-726 (1989).
14.	Young, R. P. Measurement and Prediction of the Resistivity of Ash/Sorbent Mixtures
Produced by Sulfur Oxide Control Processes. U.S. EPA, EPA-600/7-91-009 (NTIS PB92-
126812), December 1991.
15.	Snow, G. C. and J. M. Lorrain. Evaluation of Innovative Combustion Technology for
Simultaneous Control of SO. and NO.. U.S. EPA, EPA-600/2-87-032 (NTIS PB87-188926),
April 1987.
16.	Newton, G. H., D. K. Moyeda, G. Kindt, J. M. McCarthy, S. L. Chen, J. A. Cole, and J. C.
Kramlich. Fundamental Studies of Dry Injection of Calcium-Based Sorbents for SOo Control
in Utility Boilers. U.S. EPA, EPA-600/2-88-069 (NTIS PB89-134142), December 1988.
17.	Gullctt, B. K. and F. E. Briden. Furnace Sorbent Reactivity Testing for Control of SO^
Emissions from Illinois Coals. U.S. EPA, EPA-600/2-89-065 (NTIS PB90-150830), December
1989.
18.	Overmoe, B. J„ J. M. McCarthy, S. L. Chen, W. R. Seeker, and D. W. Pershing. Reactivity
Study of SO-i Control with Atmospheric and Pressure Hydrated Sorbents. U.S. EPA, EPA-
600/7-86-040 (NTIS PB87-129250), November 1986.
19.	Mangal. R., M. Mozes, R. Thampi, and D. MacDonald. "In-Fumace Sorbent Slurry Injection
for S02 Control." In Proceedings: Sixth Annual Int. Pittsburgh Coal Conference. Univ. of
Pittsburgh, School of Engineering, Pittsburgh, PA, September 25-29, 1989.
20.	Torbov, T. L„ G. R. Offen, and S. K. Demike. Method for Reduction of Sulfur Products in
the Exhaust Gases of a Combustion Chamber. U.S. Patent Number 4.555,996, issued Dec. 3,
1985.
48
-------
Pakrasii. A., W.T. Davis. G.D. Reed, and T.C. Keener. "A Combined Ca(OH)2/NH3 Flue Gas
Desulfurizalion Process for High Sulfur Coal: Results of a Pilot Plant Study." JAWMA. 40,
987-992 (1990)
Iluigaard, T. Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Danish Power Plants. CIIEC Report No. 9002,
Department of Chemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby,
Denmark, February 1990.
McDonald, J.R. and A.H. Dean 1982. Electrostatic Precipitator Manual, pp. 215-219. Noyes
Data Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ.
49
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
INNOVATIVE FURNACE DATA LOG SHEETS
A-l
-------
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Date: /2P /f£
Initials
$y-
Test: # ¥1
Nh^ Rotameter	
Setting (BB height): >Q
Fuel: fr*
Slurry:
% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port: 2.—
SC^ Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Draft (inches of Water): o. 3*	
Starting Temperature:	°F
(thermocouple across from injection point)
Ending Temperature:

Stage Air
(float height)
o2|co2
(%)! (%)
7 Y?^
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
NO^OUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ql— !i.o3^7o^r

IV
W/a,
C - ~ ~ ~
77. 2 i

.oj(o> ~7o


[£-

*> I . 7 X
77.7 i
\ \.oieic>
7,Lf
7-y
ir
3f?

to : i
rvSAL (,o3(9 7o
7,1,03070
iM
mi
/r-
tea
'		
^7'Z
1
!
*&>(
t,oipi& |7;r
7Lf- |*
397

m
i
SL~
~?c> i'^r
?f? | iS
39* ¦—- ! Hi. x
n?f7*r.
\

k*-
! ;
i 1,0 }> ! 7.?r
	7-%;	

a,?*? I " 1 vr."7 1 /r.7 i
Start
Tangential Air
Ll.rr! ffrfa i P
Axial Air j Primary Gas Coal Transport Air
¦ sl <£ "L A//A
Finish
Lf,<7^- ^ fr: l.oPfr
O.fe 
-------
Date:/i ! L'!
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Initials v C&C—
Test: *-v"2-
NH3Rotameter 1 <7 <-
Setting (BB height): J 0 • ^
Fuel:
Slurry:		
% Excess Air fmeasured): S3 S
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
0
Draft (inches of water):

Injection Port:


Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
i
1 i
O2 CO2 CO
(%) , (%) ; (ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/mi;,,
\\L !/.m@70
?,wl?,3? ! 'V
j?0 ! 0
0
77, i

nsai ;i.0]@7o 1-01 l.% iu
11^ c
I -W & 1772. i
at i l.o} @7o ;7.11 "?.r 10
3Y£ 0
0 i H7,l 1
N6«l 103 ® 70 \7.tt : ?•# ' I Li
1/.S-I 0
i«3y \Li~7.1 :
BL- l.01@70 ' 7.tr\ IS ' l
7,l?s\ 7,£ I (0
^7S£2- |!. o ) @ 7 o
ij
-------
Date:U / 7lf0
Initials
Te?t: A>3	
NH 3 Rotameter	^
ggttinq (BB height):
Fuel: rr&fc^cJ 	
Slurry:	i^o	
% Excess Air (measured):
innovative Furnace Data Log
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):

Draft (inches of wateh:
Injection Port:


Stage Air
(float height)
@PS!
i
i
i
O2 j CO2
(%) 1 (%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Be.
1,0 3 @7<5


7
5£J
O
		
17.1

m m
/.^ @ 7o
7.62T
7M
/
17#-
1,1 ! ^
38-/
O
—- 1 ?7/ i
ruSfil
/.o3 @ 7^ j7 ?
U

12- 37$
O

%.i


f.Dj @ lO
Iff
7.^
n?&i 13
0

%3

Ixt3 @ 7£
7J 1 7>K
3~ I 311
0
! %>l 1 ^7
1 Ml
@
|
I
& j

Uo J @ 7 ^ 13^! 0
	
?5* 7 i

1*1 @ 7^
7. If 75"
7,5"?
'T i 3% ; 
^<02. !  10
7.?r 7.^
V 373 ! €>
— i 9f.7 !
^5*3
i>&3@ 7^
7,ri 7,fc 1^1 1 98 ! 0
h.oT- ! Vr7 i
4 
T?r, 7WI5" 15fc>! 0
— : *r.7 !^1

@
! !

i
Temperature at-e«t( F)
itart
Tangential Air
Axial Air ' Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2 3 Uuppe
I.St @ (($"
l.o @ vr ¦ 6.t%@ o-

7\G? | ^l1t ! 1^0
Finish
|le @k
-------
T7^6—
Pat ^ if(
Initials
Test: '"A/y
NH3 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
0^
^ ll|
Fuel:	G-t@ 7c?
?.lX
7fdG?
<£
7£/) \ & '	! 37. 2.

A/ff! 1 1.0-5 @ 70
F.cti
Ul,
13
/P(f | O
l?Y \ 27 7 \
liL 11.03 @ 70
fy?r
7Jf
(2?
3£.?l 0 j —
P7,2-

Mftt ut>1 @ 10

? ! y?r\ 0



wn.
V.03 <5> IP l£7f\ 7.99
27 «! | $.(&- 1 :
&L-
tfi @ M>\7.?\12
1^3 @ 10 \7,$y
1.1 \3i.s ! 3r ! 0
H$7 I
¦61
1,63 @ jo ' 7,7
?,ir (0 ! ^
-—
vr.a

Md"? 1^3 @ 70
.7^ 3s- ! M ^



liL lJ>) @~70 ¦ ?.V
7aT /o 1373 1 ^
.—
yr. ?• iviv
1 @
1



Temperature at Port (°F)
Start
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas 1 Coal Transport Air
2 3 4 uppe
4.SF @ H f
U @ C
-------
Date-!^ /C /
Initial?
Test: *vT
Innovative Furnace Data Log
NHgRotameter
Setting (BB height):	!i<
Fuel:	O-aS
Slurry:	tki2	
% Excess Air (measured): -
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
K/*t
Draft finches of water): Q< 3
Injection Port:	u,


*<&>*
161-
Stage Air
(float height)
<§> PSI
02
(%)
CO;
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOU7
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min
@ 7°

7c&
3
lit
o

1,03 @ yo
r,o
7, ft
21
-7
!<
6^-
i.O @
r.t
2i1
F-
37c
o

/t0; @ ~7o
fiojr
1JT

O
/•Tf


.0? @ 70
?,/
7dk
r

1
Jl
@
/.o3 @ 7fc>
7-/
7
?7£
<0

Ml 3
M3 @

2o
/7n o : a.o( ¦

~Bu
@ ?D
?.us ! -}• /
1 j-?jT ^
AO @ ife? •?.//1 ^ ! y&r



*?.c
l.o) @ ?0


375-i ^

o
HfA
@

M @ 70
tiS
l.o 8
3751 ^
1(1,»
/v|£j_
\.6l  7£>
^-/zs'
fA

1
I'VT I fl.V

I.c5 @ 7^
M
7-/
X


/>*
47,fl

1.0} @ 7d

TlA


o 1 f.^r ! n.p
6u
1«*3> @ ~7d

z7
iZ
V>>
V7A-,
@
Temperature at Port ("f
I Tangential Air Axial Air Primary Gas 1 Coal Transport Air I 2 I 3 4 upc
3tart 1^,^(5) 4T ij.o@ 1 — @ — \£i*q |^
Finish	^5 'Lo	'O't^ @ ~~X	1 ~ @ * 1 QX^G 1<5^^ ( I VP
yidf^ ^
A-6
-------
Patll
Initials
Test: ^^G
Innovative Furnace Data Log
NH3 Rotameter 
1*13 \ V 70


2 p. ! f^C> "2—

Hl.o

-ty-
\.o?@ 7<^

7, $(&
(f 3fc? \ 3



Be-
0.77® SO
(^.?2r
7.\Q
tl 3?o 3
- . i 97.0

MUX
0,f 7@ ^ 0


*17 /** 1 3
/' | Ho

8 c
0,?7@ ?t)
62r
7

feL C,TJ@
&fr\7'Si
u

- \ no

a/5R^-
o,n@?o
L.itf1
ckC)
//2-1 O
'¦?? 1 no :
_ QC- \e. ! 77r
D

m !
8L-
(c?>@ 10
6.KlZ^! 7
J7T
r 0
——
!

(.03 @ -70
^•5te4 ^"7
/ZD
<^>
i.jt
n° :
6l
uo3@ 7O
c.?rr 7. f S ?
37?
c>
- i t7,c ]
8l-
id? @ 70
i.nr
7,% ¦
A,.- - 7
, J7S"
a
—-
?7,o
l(7.f
^fU
1*5 @ 76>
£.sr
7.He

r^y 1
HL7

$>L
1@ 7^
Mf!7.n
f J7? 1 O
—
H(o. l

N$Q I
|.o3 @ -7$
C,%7J17.««
£0 ;p3f! p
i-Y
U'1


iv<5^ ^ 7<^
I.p 1 74
1 370. 1 c 1 - ' 1 
Temperature at Port ( F)
Start
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
1
Coal Transport Air | 2
3
4 upper

liO @
O.i^a) X- - 	

ScST
i?)8
Finish
Hr
0
— @ ' ^
361! Sai^-
!7o3
A-7
-------
PateJp~ llP- !?#
Initials
Test: ^fQ7
NH3 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Afr. I
&r
Fuel:

S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
fi/M-
Slurry: n^>	
% Excess Air (measured):
Draft (inches of wateh: G>~*>
I nio^fmn Drirt-
Injection Port:
Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
Ifeo
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(mt/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)


Wr

370
o

I
(0^%7° \fy
7.W


)o ?
O : /• ^
u.s-
6L

O
fc.f

N~*@10
ttr
7*r \ <*t

O
t>n
9
Q>l~

t.TT 7 ftp
30
~3&S~ cz>

Jc
1,0J @ 76
7.tr\ 7.%
L
3o3>
O
#

Mill
f, (>3 @ 7>p
7,?
2/
m~I °

ku
6^
/.<$ @ 7o
V7f\ 7ft
to
?eX &


l-° @ 7o
Wr 7,r~
% I
in i ^
t*9f
%, $¦

j(03 @70
?.D I 7-ft?
r
2© j 0
11* i f?.a
@
@

@
@
@
@
@
Leu*-!
Temperature at"£etf (°F)
Start
¦1 :
Tangential Air I Axial Air | Primary Gas
Coai Transport Air
2
3 l4uppei

— @
;/3o
^ ; \®V
Finish
1.7?@ "if
\j> mC 0,
-------
Date^ i[7~! t°
Initials
Test: ^7
Innovative Furnace Data Log
AA I /h^
NHgRotameter r 1 A?S= j 17./
a>L
l.°3 @ 70 : £/&
'7.t
? 'tftf o j — I ?7./

i.e>3 @
£af

i 2= i /¦ "?£ \ 17J

|toJ> @ -JO
«/

&*-\381'o \ ¦—
97./ !
Bt-
^L°3 @Vo

7^y
;?• 7r7 : <3
	
V7./ !

[fi3 @ lo

' 7.^
2? ' o !
Hi!


@ 7°
Co
Zf

3*3
o 1 		
n /
dtt

@ 10
f-WTi
i~3.
13
O i \il^
Hi./
¦U^rlT
u
"}m@7o iH/ir!"?,?«-
W *3.^ £> : —
m
HIS

@
|






1 @
|






@

;






@
i j
i






@
j







@
i







@
i >






@
: i





Temperature at Port (°F)
Start
Tangential Air 1 Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2 3 l4uppe
c!/.t> @h (
A-9
-------
Initials
Test: ^^1
NHgRotameter
Innovative Furnace Data Log
72^

7 fl
Setting fBB height): Q> 7 (
Fuel: Mtfiuvt! 	
Slurry:
% Excess Air (measured):
S02 Rotameter	/
Setting (BB height):	
Draft finches of watef):
Injection Port: I**-

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
O2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO ; NO
(ppm) (ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)

* @70 tK
m
iff ' V7 ' °
¦—•
t<7,c> !
KSf! 7>
^ @70

hHff
Hif; 3 ^
p.*? 1 !
&L
^ @70
?,?7f
1M
(7
ire.
O

kl.o :
^se3
@70

7
t.ff
7,3&
1-1

0
	 C/7,6

&L
/,£? @ ^
?,D7f
'lib
a
2-1T 1 D
—-
no !

j/?3 @ lo
?,Z>

it
77 \ G
7^00
HIP \
0L
t.»3 @ 7^
wr

17-
oif$ 1 G

17,0 I
rvsi?^
/,oj @ 7?
m
w
V
jtr\ 0

n.o

/.*3 @
$,07
MTt'e '
Temperature aLFtrot ( F)
Start
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas i Coal Transport Air
2
3 i4uope
9s~~
1-0 @Vr
J'£^(S> a1- ' @
Slip. ! i 16 Sj
Finish
ky

54^@ —•; ^ @ |9|(/
^ \m
A-10
-------
,00
Initials
Test:
Innovative Furnace Data Log
NHoRotameter	< A SO? Rotameter	A /
Setting (BB height): IM™*) Setting (BB height):
_		 , 	height):
Fuel:	6-&S	Draft (inches of water): 0, %
Slurry:

% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port:	^ >d PSI
o2
(%)
co2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min
Al-
Lot @ TO
i?
752-
V X3
O

V6'7


I.ol @ 70 1%
7,fc
19 i
o


RL
\& @ yo
wr
7fo
^ '763
o
— te. 9

Wits
l.oJ @ 70 \2tfr
7.3$
St ' 3r~

S *a cp | f

if-
l.oj @ -?{) ; 7,^

& i37r

		
K. 7
m

@ !

1
1




&L.
(toi@ I7.£>
7•G7~~
10
177

~-
m


W @ *7^
7,W
7.1X

o
'•y
*f7j

r3L
1,03 @ -p
1,57?
l.ft
1
27 70
7jf
?,#! P3
3&X-- O
"" \ ti.Sr \
r^/Z!
/r03 @ 10

7, IX} HO
/63 ! °



L*Z @ id

l,ipL>
<9-0
3^(9: ^ 1
sfl ! \-°3@ io
127$-

\
(6o
o \ M2 : fa.? ;
i%i~
It »l@70

in
90
ZlG
I : %.r vfe.3

@





Temoerature at Port (°F
3tart
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 UDD
«yr®vr-
1,0
^•^(a) t?~ (a)

PI20

Finish
HS"
u@4r

A-l 1
-------
/M ft0
Initials
Test:	60^
NH3 Rotameter
Setting fBB hei
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Fuel:	O +5
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
ST
Draft finches of water):
Slurry:
Ji^o_
% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port:
7sc(
<2, f/ -G,

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
o2
(%)
1
1
co2 : co
(%) ; (ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)

|to3@ 7d

-w \ /£>
379
/^r~
		
T?.l

AS
t*°l> @ 7o
i-tr.Ut! fe>
27
lC$~o
l'
1S7C
7-tf
-~>@ 10 \~1M1S
7.7
•if
*
	



1.03 @ 70
Wf
7.V
s~r
l%
IIOCD
9 .00
<47,

*<-
|ko3 @ 7°
71
7.?


\1H0
—
k 7. o-

a/s^ 3
U03  707

' 7.?
QO
u
I7?r\


£c ! 1^3 @ 70
1,7-
7. ^
1P~
Z7i
mr\
H% 0
H7.1
j @








L03 @ 70
7,
10
37r
im \ —
%.°3 @ 7°
7,1


\HV M7jr
i. 70
7.25
7b 1 5^
I7.r j-J-r


\.®3 @ 10
7#f
"i,n \ ri
IV? ! 17/0


&L
\xo}> @ 70
zar
' 7.?»
3Z.
jTr" iT

%.3

@



1
I
1

Temperature at Port (°F
itart
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3 i 4 UPDf
Hff> @ Vr"
1.0 @1/ s"~
'W2@ 9-
@ —


17 9-
-------

Date / / / /'? /
Initials
Test: ""V?
Innovative Furnace Data Log
/IA . A>_
NH3 Rotameter ^ :
Setting CBB height): /
Fuel:
Slurry:		
% Excess Air (measured):

S02 Rotameter
Setting CBB height):

Draft finches of wate;-): £)» 3
Injection Port: i'a r*->ddJ-e.

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PS1
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
GI~
^ /.o "5 @ 7r

5"~
-57/
&
	
in


2 for

7
7^ j ^
LH ! 97./

Q>1~ fxi.<>3@
wr
7. P1
| o
	
?7. /

f* /,oJ@ 7C
il2?r! 7 ??

£/ 1 o
/. 3/
m

6^ 1* A*3 @ 3?
7.^

3t6 1 O
.	
nt


@





-^L I


AtfJ @
7^2 r
7#
G=>
3?o
O
¦— i nt !

/^3 @ ?0
7^r
7,;
a

O
/. 31 i if7,/ 1
6L
l'°J @ ?£

7<%
3 I 71?
O
—_
*7./ I
A/Sto
/43 @ ^
7./

li
^3
i hit
4 7^


/,<§3 @ 17/


h?
& j 	
*?/


@



i
j



@ !



i



@ ;







@ i







@ -



1



@








@


1 I ; ! !
L e-* /
Temperature at-Porr(°F)

Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas | Coal Transport Air 2
3 Uuppe
Jtart

/.*> @ Hr
0-?P-@ P~- *— ~ 5
/%?/
Finish
tr
\.o @ 4^"
0,S7@ a- •— @ —- |55L/^
ai7j i '7°?
A-13
-------
DateD- / It /?t?
Initials
TestCo^f~
nnovative Furnace Data Log

/r<>
*)
NH3 Rotameter
Setting fBB height): ^
Fuel:
Slurry: Hd-O
% Excess Air (measured):
S02 Rotameter Ay
Setting fBB height)
Draft finches of wate
r):
Injection Port: 3 .


Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
°2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
6c-
m @



~7- 7>,0{
i^X£23bbel ' <
v V	-<
.—-


l.o3 @ 76
7tftr
7,7jr
/sr
^5-
o
2.W
)
96-5

6L
f.o3 @ 7 o
7r(f
l.h

3o
3,0^
?£.?

&L
1 rc??@ 7d

' 7.f?
£
y/o
O

n. 1


@





"2&st/
jSE^-


Sl
r*/,o-$@ 7^5
fsr
?.sr
&

o
.—
fo.?


^ /.o?@ ?0
#3
7>7Z
i/

' o
0.o
—



^ /^ @ ^
y,yf\ 7>7X

?(
O j z.09


ac
° /.o3 @7^
Mir, 7<&
	3
38-f
<£? I ~~

%S

@
\







<§>









@


; |




@









@





i


@









@





i
j

L. ev< /
Temperature atPort^F;

Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 uDpe
/tart
^r~


<—

<2/ ST

Finish
fr
(.0(5)^
OX? @ X
@ ^
S>/«7
9(o%
/7fjT
A-14
-------
Date:/if / 90
Initials tBf	
Test: co^T~
NH3 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Fuel:	o
S02 Rotameter
Setting fBB height):
/t^9-
?iurry:	r&£.
Draft finches of water):
0^9
% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port:
2
$ <—


Stage Air
(float height)
@PSI
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
|
j
CO I NO
(PPm) J (ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/miri)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Be
7* iwr
711
X 3%
£> j ^ HQ-J


^ 1.03 @ 70

7.i(,
7 1 i±71 O ; U | %..T

t>L
70
If
7.07.
?- ' 3751 0




^ uj@ 7L-
^ i.«3@ lo
HSS
'l.7f
7,«

(V*
0
I'Y


Au
l.oJ @ 7°
f.7r
7i51>
f
3<&
0

W.?

N&\
|.og @ lo
7.7
1 7.6 ! w
it/
0
_ I't .
U-T

SL
l.c>3 @ 7d
7.7?r

1
3 0%
0
- j HG.9


@

IS1
i

1
i


@



!




@


| i




@


! |




@


1 s




@


1 |




@


! i



Temperature at-Psff (°f;

Tangential Air j Axial Air
Primary Gas Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 UDP€
Start
-------
Date: 117-1?/
Initials £qi?
Tea: *K/0	
NH3 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):	Z^_
Innovative Furnace Data Log
9 7
Fuel: a	Crri-1
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
As/#-
Draft finches of wa
Slurry:
JdfO_
% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port:
Wz


Stage Air
(float height)
<§> PS1
o2
(%)
co2
(%) 1
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2 !
(ppm) :
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
66-
ft 3 @ 70
y.frf
J <£6

77r~
\
	
*2r«P

ns£~>-
/.*?<§> 7 o


ur\ \
'¦i
M-f-

9>L
@ 70

7.M
K
i
Vj I




uoy @ lo
7,r


Uy \
ht
 —


A-16
-------
Date:
Initials
/ i°j ?/
Innovative Furnace Data Log
JiS
Test:*Mf C,o^t
NH3 Rotameter
Setting (BB heights
n
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height1):

Fuel:	q*-f	tlr Draft (inches of water): 0.7—
Slurry: ^"e^- L^jfrdf CkCo^ £$0%r)i&0/t) Injection Port: 1
% Excess Air (measured):

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PS!
1
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
&L
if) 7 @

7, 9-
6 i368





CHrls
/^?@ 7^
for
2 2-
¦P !>2?
3jr~


S3 (SUr)

6U
t>oi @ ?d

2Sf

?7g
it*r


h$h4J> @ 7^
&(
7.»

,???


I \Tl.r(su.
)
&L
/,*3@ ^
%/7T
7.W i 7

/¦
Lo*@ 7^
?S?ST 7 ?
3?
?3
/
*U)3.Z
HrstitJh

6*kB<-
/.
Wr
7-/
9 \1&>
7fW
—-
trtrip)

teffit#
JO
?J2S
U?
0 \3~te

_
5b Aov)i


1.0} @ 7^
p7f
~7,y
i \ 7r
5» Q.
ty)( fluffy)

Rl
l^5@ no
Z.7*
1.%,
o \ %c \ur —
MhS)


@

\ | 1
! 1 i


f ofoOi
@ 1


| |


u«h. y
hth
@


! '
'
i 1 :



@ 1

i ; i
i j



@ !

1





@ ! !
I I




@
1
i
1





Temperature at Port ( F;
Start
Tangential Air
Axial Air ! Primary Gas ! Coal Transport Air | 2
3
4 uDpe
%sx @ kr
2- : — @ -
/ft
-------
Pate; ^ ! if I fy
Initials CJt
Test:
NH3 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
22-
Fuel:
urrv: 6/Pflk
% Excess Air (measured):
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):	
Draft (inches of water):
Injection Port:	V*
0.

u
yv

ft.
C«j5_
Stage Air
(float height)
 PS!
02
(%)
CO-
CO
(PPm)
NO I S02
(ppm) ! (ppm)
Mr \9°zf
C (Wt <*>0
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
IQ2 @ 70

9.1
M HZ
1,63 @ jo
1-K
IlI
3
vr7 i Itf
fa) ffr
&

l.o3 @ /P

?.fl
U
£4.9 I /-V} i(iu»)W
ft.
J.<>3 @ yd

3
1M.
ir.C
caJ$
I,*3 @ 7^



loco

C*f5-r%
70
ML
£.7
7S>
7f' ^0

f,^ iM y?
&

6 L
1*3 @
7^
£1


O/L
ho3 @ 10
Wfty.g£>

SSL
¦iuc

tSh(*k
\io3 @ 7o
M

7C?

£9


($u&
S7
1
Ik
).o3 @ 7a

0
'fig \(W
2*4

¥

76

ML
To
Yfz j Boc>

Ol/s f-^SK
|.S>
ISP
II.
h±l
ii iC
17 te>

Temperature at Port (°F)
jtart
Tangential Air ! Axial Air
Primary Gas | Coal Transport Air
2 3 |4uppe

@ fr
$'83- @ 2
	@ —
i?~x> tit? [IUel
Finish
T.stf @ vr"
l,o ©Is"
Qi?3-@ ^
—
%o
-------
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Date: J- HHfJl
Initials
Test: /3
NH3Rotameter	s	S02 Rotameter
Setting fBB height): *r	Setting (BB height): J—
Fuel:	Grfr?	Draft finches of water)' "3 ~~ Q*y
Sotb-<^- :	CoXoft)^ Injection Port: 3
Excess Air (measured): —

(float height)
@ PSI
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(i#/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
d&l/min)
f>L
ur @ ^

8.3C-
r
IIP I l7so\



r«u
|.AT@ 36
4,3?f
?,]y

"/
UST |

mi 1 3*12,7.2
/
uyr® ^0
l&.foc
£36

HI
I7to I



3o
£.3r

5>
HI
ii^/o


Wil 3«£i! 2.7 J-
8l.
i^f@

S-.3S"

in
i?7.n

!
c^/s

6,?

5~0
hz-
l"ri/nS

10,CY7 j CfU
r 9}
6c
},7f@ 3o
(d 135T ^
J3
i'l
PSD

i 		
I "

-------
Date:? /T7?/
Initials z5$e	
Test: */im	
NH3Rotameter
Setting (BB heiql
Innovative Furnace Data Log
SO2 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):

% Excess Air (measured):
Draft (inches of water): ^ 3
Injection Port: 3r Aj//


y

Stage Air
(float height)
<§> PSI
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
j
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm) j
1
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
0c (.03 @ 7o
£.0

//
Ya ! /?*? 1 —
^ >/g-

s
@ |
SitTS-

//
Vff


Hs~/
0 C7,


@

£>r

/2
/'r/
If
- Gl

@

SfTki.tf ! H
U(sJ
!7?Cl
—
¥> if

c4s

@

ax~
f-r

ur
2*°
— d
b>) r/
1® I?.'


@




G?
tcr

M r/
'i 1,
8^

@

Ozf

t
%(c
/7/r

ft" v?



@

f.7f
'f-r
5
m
&f~\
iu>) fy
V
CdWP-

@

Q)< m 1 f
\ Sbs
/. ?3"
H57
H


@

r,?

\ MC
—
$4 if#

Us

@

•f.7.r
•!r "?1
17 r; tra
—

f IL
Cdws a

@

| |



i,
1
fee

@



!

^ Vf

c*(%

@

| |
! j ^


\
' @ j
r

1

i r»

Gl

I & 1
> 1 1

j — m 1
2'
*>
\
Temperature at Port ( F)

Tangential Air ! Axial Air
Primary Gas j Coal Transport Air
2 1 3
4 uppe
..tart
fs" l-o@ Vr
zl. [ -— @ —
j»?r
/7oo
Finish

0
Ik?' s<5(/
irFf
A-20
-------
Date: I /l(,/9/
Initials fu/r h. ccfc
Test: MIST
NHgRotameter
Setting (BB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
2S"
Fuel:	I	Oy /
Slurry: C^ lc. u^
% Excess Air (measured):	
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
f]
Draft (inches of water):
Inin^+i^n Drtr+. 7^* S.
0.2-0. -J
Injection Port: ?

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%>
i
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/miri)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
tL
@7 o
sit?"
y.vT
17
710



(

U> @ 1o
r,3
f»fy
n
i°r
ifro
1-9


V
&c_
l.Q @7* \£M

\%

)?f<5
¦—




|to3 @ 7° ! 5~-^

v
ur*

 i
yp3
Hoes'




c MS
M3 ® 7o

%ft\ 1%
7)6
£~1S~
		



[,o3 @ 76

f,x\ 2*
/?jT
?0r
(.f fa ^

<3L
li
£2-
«r
i7r©
—
feO W


U3 @ 70
HHir
t.w
$>
to

—
K sr~

Cafs-w;^
Lo} @
p
w
(7jS>l 	
fyo) ft


@

i
l














@


i




@





I


@
1
i |
i •
1 :

@
1
l
i

i
i


@
!
i
'


i
Temperature at Port ( F)
Jtart
Tangential Air
Axial Air j Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3 14 upper
1.S7 @ 4Sj^
\ @imo.<6L@ifsx

"Loo")
toti | 177°
Finish
H.H @ T
(.(> @ j —
—@	
\ I.&9J
A-21
-------
Date: I /ft/?/
Initial?; P&C
Test: ^A//6
Innovative Furnace Data Log
P-7
NH3Rotameter
Setting fBB heinht):
Fuel: aG-it-*?	
Slurry: C^foVt)^	L~1freH\
% Excess Air7measured): —-
S02 Rotameter
getting (BB height):	££	
Draft finches of water!: D, 9
Injection Port:

Stage Air
(float height)
@PSI
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
ft-
f.d%@ 73

-£v? :

/7#jp
—
fM fr

/
/.o) @ 76
5".«n


1?
1 ho
I.V


6^-
j,o3 @ 70
f.i(i

'?
fpy
/ w




}.0j@
£«r

.27
%
iVf
/.v
k} K

AL-
f.o) @ 70
rr?

'Y
tip)
19%

W HZ

r £*,($
hoJ@ yd
r,7tf

'1
mo

—
M
t fl
- =•: C-cJs+frSH
l.o} @ 7^
fTS2Tf 1Tck
7/
K
ir

tfQ>

14 CaIs
l.oJ@ 70
err
% iGb
/£>

.—- |$»s) ifg


1,0} @ ID
r.r
%>1Q>

fn
/<*>0
	 p*j> ^
t>

l.tf @ 7o

«?.?¥
Vj
70

i-v r2

fct
l.o3 @ ?0
s;»r 1^,7(5
/r
V38-
\rto\ — P
i
Cctf
/•^J @ 76

i
! .—


u? @ 7&
|
1 |
!



l.o3 @ ?£>
i



	



@
|






Temperature at Port (°F)
jtart
Tangential Air ! Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 uppei
1s*@ 
	
7


A-22
-------
Date: I /J( / 9/
Initials	QS'C
Test:
NH3 Rotameter
vSettino (BB heights
Innovative Furnace Data Log
7^
Fuel:
S02 Rotameter
Setting fBB height):
G 2
Slurry:
-e~Qfh
Draft finches of water):
o- X
L~T
% Excess Air (measured!:
Injection Port: ^
c/V

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PS!
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(PPm)
|
NO
(ppm)
so2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min
OL
/(o) @ 74
sir ?,%
//"

jL65?>
s—
99.X


/,e>5 @ ?H57c?r?, 0
^3
? @ 1^77/
f.f.2.

«??
?l*S~
—
|

11 Mf?
f,o!>@ ~)o
572
2o ! M
7?
»&r
t.Cf


bL
Ut, @ 7£
57/r
%.n
?3
yj-r
2!C0
	
i-


l,o3 @ 70
5:;7r
?-?6
2? 1 ft j
?fo
		

i)
6 •-
/.o$ @
f.o
Zd?

i/o
&<7D
' .t


&L
/'°3 @ 7^
Sjaf
$.%
^r"

iwr



? Co-Is
@ -)d

lo
"^r
¦ 7<2
H.I?
?¦!
3r
!To
loo
l-V


&(_
W @ 10
StOl?
9,6 i
r it
loJ x


1 ,o3 @ 7
P-
|.(>3 @ "70
f.ir

<«
\oz>
/*? \ 1-9
^

«L
1,03 @ 70

1.0
30
u35
|?I3
—
(iw ^

4 o4 s
Uo3 @ ~?0
Sbf
¦sM 3 J

n <,
—
^ %
fc)
9tL c*-(5-ww,
V«3 @
Hxk
lor ' f/
/<$
//W
/' ? ^ *0


t.<>3 @ 10

V3C
! «"0o
— ^ ^


@
1



!

Temperature at-ftet (°F

Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 upp
.tart
1-9S- @
f.O@ tr
P-
— @
zm

11(6
Finish
1-L @
° @ Vr"
,9\.@ ^
	@ -
x.^1
llof
'•K<
A-23
-------
Date:/ l^lf/
Initials OSc.
Test: 	
NH3Rotameter
Setting fBB height1):
Innovative Furnace Data Log

EM.
rsj	0-r^S
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
CO
Draft (inches of water): n > 3-
Slurry:	7^-^~lniection Port:
% Excess Air (measured):	»

Stage Air
(fioat height)
@ PSI
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)

Starting
Feed
Rat e[?/^)
&&&m)
Ending
Feed
Rate / H
(mfegsf))
t>u
3^
c,77r
zn
iS~ \ V#
l?7f
	—


frpT® 30 373f
?.?r
/r1 £7

0.O7H

i.rr
6t
Ir2?@ y>
&7r

/c-
8& ; /w
„—.	


c»h
l>7f@ &
r.7A*J6
ir
87 \ ll?0
O.oM
3
2.VZ
&L
ly-tf® ?0
£2
•5-T8
/s~
¦ f?
}7Jd
_.

	
C&[c
fc?o
5/
7.0?
/r
SI

0,0 ff
£
£. 9 T
6l
l.4f@ &
^(r
%()C>
/f
8Z
{?t)6 !
—	_

1.2
1


(t ¥) @ ^0
i.zr
1./9
'S~\ $1
390
OrOlf
f
$,79
Atr
/.;r@
fjf
'W
tf \ -%J
i?/r
¦
i


@




j


@


\
|

I


@


1

1


@


|

\
1


@



\

Temperature at (°F
Jtart
Tangential Air
Axiai Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 upps
£r@ H^ lo'W® 3-
-
%lk1
9167
tgz<>
A-24
-------
, c Innovative Furnace Data Log
Date:' U-Jfl if
Initials 66C-
Test:
NH3 Rotameter	/	S02 Rotameter ,,,
Setting fBB heights r in	Setting (BB heiahti: /<	
Fuel: k/fifacfr)	Draft (inches of waters O. D —Q<"?
Skirn^	/?«~frr//c«/WXlniection Port:	t-ouje*L.
% Ex
cess Air fmea:
WW fi{±.
(float height)
@ PSI
02
(%)
CO 2
(%) '
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
£c

flftr
<*J2
I?
7fr
!
1	
uk

@
I £?r


£>£
3 7S~! O.o7o
9 \ 7.?fr
&L
P @ i

rrc
—
¦
/^?/
Finish
"K @ vr
I .o @vr
^ 2	-! @ | / ^ /
C&C^O
\G?o
A-25
-------
,	Innovative Furnace Data Log
Date: 1/33?/
Initials
Test:
NHgRotameter	,	S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):	Setting fBB height): 5//5
Fuel: /vAf~sM G-/t$	Draft (inches of water):	X
W v +  PSI
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
-t-cedervw*
Fflp^ate
" (wJ&Jfri)
Starting
Feed
R^te
(fpl/min)
Ending
Feed
F^te
(5n/min)
p><-
OS @ &
s:sr

 ! i @


/7
<£$—i / \ P J

!?6f-


—_—
<^ls
@

£?%*

3y

/JS¥) 1 0'6p3
3
j.or
6l
@

£.7?f
r>ti
fj

i7?o
-—


£4/5
@


^/oA

(oft

o,oL
@

r/

?s~

17/0
——



@

£r*
-w
jrT
>/
^?r
O,o ?o
1
f-PB-

1 @



$9 \ se



	
oJs
@

57^

rf
<£
/7/f
Finish
f.e-@ tr
l
-------
Date: / /«& tV
Initials
Test: 	
NH3 Rotameter
Setting IBB height):	
Fuel:		
Slurry: l~ftel! Gx/cfl)-? Wi 2*-?
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Hfi-
S02 Rotameter 5—
Setting (BB height):	
Draft finches of water):
Ini^Wi^r, D^rt-Q,M
Injection Port
% Ex
cess Air (mea;
_Sta§e Air
(float height)
@ PSI
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(PPm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)

Starting
Feed
Rate
f^l/min)
Ending
Feed
5?te
(p!/min)

3o

7,32 1 9^
<57
PCoO


¦ "—V
C&

S=f

O toy f
k £

s
M

<§>
&4*
f ^(Ve hm
>•*1/ #*
+ t' Cm
**

	


@


Jv* «
J-
o.ctf 7 j



@


zr
i?


f'Of
"•?r
?3
?f
Gtr
0 'C?f%
*d


6L
|
/ @ £
Y
f.l
f-ir
IT
9-j
17SO



P)L

@

pf
%%
If
Ft
l7£f
—	—




@

?.K
'
31
s-r
i?r
drOlG
7



@

1,'

\K
F3
UelO



c4 5

@

?.K
f.r

sy
1ST)
0rO?O J

hi-
\y @ \
Y
?,<*?
'W
If
5"3
i/ftr


Temperature at Port ( F)
otart
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas | Coal Transport Air
2
3 4 uppe
jr.? @ 
-------
Date: / / V/f/
initials C&T
Test: <7-
Innovative Furnace Data Log
NH3Rotameter5y
Setting fOTheiaht):
Fuel:	9T-1?
T-i
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB heiahtV.
^7
Slurry: C«/cH).
Draft finches of w
1

% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port: 9™

3

Stage Air
(float height)
<§> PS1
02
(%)
CO 2
{%)
CO
(PPm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
£l
/, di@YO
?g

if
Y7S
2/0O

H


i @ i
Xfer
?




1 @
?.tr
M?x 77
3J2 \j>//S~~
' hi
ie


i @


i 

a/jo



<=*/>
1 @

?.9f
?,9r 1
tor
6>7>0
—
(Hi ft*

Oth+WL

@

2.1
%rt\ i(pX ! 7/

Pro
1
kt



@

1 I






\ @







i •
I

1 @
i



\
\



1 @! '

|




1/ @ \ !

i





V @1 i

i
i





<2> j / j








@ V









@ !







@ i







W/y	^^5-^*)(4c£-|zNi(•/ ) ~
Temperature atjllS (°F)
Start
Tangential Air I Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 uppe
far @^r to @tr
@ p-
@
£o 
-------
Pat^ t
Initials ^ gjflg
Test;
NH3 Rotameter
Setting f-afeji eight):
Innovative Furnace Data Log

Fuel:	
Slurry: &/gflV	l~T
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
fTS'
Draft finches of watery. O.x
% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port: f#>
e*2

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
o2
(%)
C02 ! CO
(%) j (ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NO^UT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
BL
l.o3 @ 70

Tr7f 

?r



@ 1
3.t>7S\
?.g&
(>x
?i°
1.9



%L

@



i
,—-



A/S£

@

%?x
&r
3X>

f.y



0^

@

2/T
m

$00
Pfsy
— ! \l
/

G/c,

@ 1

1A
lie
Y~y 1 ft?
G$o
"" 5~J.I



@

«2&~
?.ss
13?o

/• y \5/*Jfy)

fiL.

@
2 J

n
r?T
\tiT
.—
9?

Ca/






/•V
rj.i



@


\



%



@











@











@







'



@ /










@ / i

i






@ 1

i





\
U r i

i




&-11 14- CUin)^ Sl~"7
Temperature at Port ( F)
Jart
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas j Coal Transport Air j 2
3
4 uppei
tr
f,0 @Hf
i —@ - | Ooft


Finish
*vs£ @ nr
i.o @h r
2 @ -
				-	< .

-
A-29
-------
Date/?- / 7/*?/
Initials
Test:
NH3 Rotameter
Setting fBB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Eusii
Slurry: C&wi
:2I
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height)

6
iT/

^ &r
IJto
		



j @
i sio
£0
/A
TjTP
mr
/¦y
ft

6u
@

Qii'
I 10 K
8p«Z-
&*Oc#
%5T»
r —


r^sp.
1 @

W
f./ = \Z
MS

/.y
H*


 |
a
t CX 1
m

..—
Hf-

Ca,I$
@

ty
<%o
9*?r
—
4tf

&u/s
@

ST(5T
t,yg

%
G>60
—
r~~
(!)
C~ISt*Sz
@

Or


&o
H^r




@


m
(/
/

.—.
ft

c*/s
@


¦&71 ir

??r
JHJ1 j
5*#,)
^ *7.3"

@


- rh knt
O/urc


^ /Tr-

$L
@




f ''




cJs
@ j
|




^//y)


@ 1








&—-
, @ !









\y @ v








~7i	<
5/tX	jZlCoff/s) -	£& ^^^ggperamre at


^et^hr—
(°F)

Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
! 3
4 upper
.art
f.s? @ f r
l.o @ yr

¦— @ "
HID

/fJ7
Finish
t.st @
/.0 @

@
|S7 7

Itll
A-30
-------
^ p. Q Innovative Furnace Data Log
Date:^ / o ?/
Initials
Test^/W
NH3 Rotameter
Setting fBB height): J-
Fuel:
Slurry: Ca/oHk Tr l^L.
% Excess Air (measured):	

Stage Air
(float height)
 PSI
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(PPm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
0 L
|to3 @ 70

t.o
13
Wo
/or
—
H

^ j
@

^7/
f-%
32
pf l \1P
\>H


At,
@

£77r
n
2o t

J3bJjT
—



f^SlX
• @


%3

3%
Mora
t-Y



1U
@

rj
1)1

.vrt


'
t

Qj<>
@



(1
!
SiG
\io1 ! Wi woo ! l-ll
fcuj f?


r @ v
Qr
t-% \ i~7

!&V 	
"7


@



}





@









@ !



'




@









@









@









@








v-3r%-	remps^eT^Cr:
;art
Tanaential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas i Coal Transport Air
2 3
4 uppe
W @ V
w @ tr
o«# <§> ?- ;

{W=i
Finish
i.rf® ir
IjD@ -2— ~~ ! t*i[
vn
S02 Rotameter
Setting fBB height):
Draft (inches of water):	3 -0
-------
Pate:^- l^RJ (
Initials
l£5lL
u
-^rfJpG
Innovative Furnace Data Log
NHS Rotameter
Co O
Setting (BB height):	
Fuel:	Cr1>
Slurry: Ca(o4)p-
% Excess Air (measured):
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):

Draft (inches of water):
Injection Port:
p5p
OA


Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
02
(%)
j
C02 I CO
(%) j (ppm)
NO
(ppm) |
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
$>L
),o3 @ 10
JT/r
1 if
'fij1 if/r
—.
ff /



@
1
•£>*"
?>?&
7»
xr
//ib
i.y



BL

@

#T

O
<{$>
/«r




A5/a

@

£¦#-
*-tr
Xf
fi.oS~
/f70
w



GL

@

s-.?A
*1
<

Sir
?.ss
'7
w

—

(b -n


@

¦fnr

$?-
360
7?r
1.*
^ ft. r
0
it

@

jrar
v.f
ȣ>
Hlo
mr
—
?r



@

Qr

\t
vr
m
—
rf/<^
0
°*mn

@


lit

3(0


CSM)r> w.r
Cl)
t>L

@


' 1fi6
17
HfO
i??r
—
9r

atff

@

57/
?,£>
IT
yw
?7f
	

0 | >
gJ$+w

@

r.w
?./ ! IC,
juf
fs?>
I.H
GHlkl
2)
%L

@

w
id
ir
VfT
2o$D

9(

o/s

@

EV»r
vx,

HS*
(ood
--


oJsMfi-

@


%l

J&5Z?\ \.v
c*v)	*** *	^Temperature at
£Vc^ @Hf 10® @ X .—@ —
\V8 j ilU-
l7&
A-32
-------
Pate>2- /^/?/
Initials ^
Tg?t- 4^/li7
NH3 Rotameter
Setting fBB height):
c
Innovative hurnace Data Log

S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):

Fuel:
Slurry;
ASi
~w
Crt&$
% Excess Air
1 r^jT"
ir (measu

Draft (inches of w
Injection Port:	2

SUrgcj):

SffiRJQ Air
(float height)
@ PSI
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
| i
CO ! NO
(ppm) ! (ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
(¦s^ayajL
Starting
Feed
Rate
(Sri/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(&/min)
— I
\?T^> 30

W
i/ \y*
/#r



a!$
@


n
i
\ V

ir?r
£toa3
3

$L
@

5Trr
?,ck
1°
77
Mo




@

s,ix
M
,1
*7*
lip-f

"3
i

@

wc
tcS
a

dm
_


o-A
@

9,o
hx
w
7^
17lf
"7
£>


@

rt\
%o-
M
it
S-ISO


	
G/<
1 @

f,w
llf
1 o
77
1 ?SD
d,0H~7
6

J*
&L
1 @ \


f°
77
?l?D
—		

—	
oJ<,
@

wr
9'X-
/
7?
~77$-
d,6?0
?

ftL
@

i.ir
f.}?-
/e>
7*
%?D
-—		


At
@

H&s
Pf
Q ¦?
0
77
i —
9CO
J,(5


10 L-
@
@


t'?-
(V \ / /
\
&I2G
1
i




@ f
/



i




' @ ^









/ @





|



@




i
i
I
—
Temperature at-Bsff (°F)

Tangential Air
Axial Air | Primary Gas
Coal TransDort Air
2
3
4 upper
art
hx mt
\p 0-O@
_	@ —

3&?

Finish
W @ Vf
-— — ¦ ¦ —	
@ —

ao'1/
isr?
A-33
-------
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Date:.?
Initials SAC	
Test:
NH3 Rotameter	r	S02 Rotameter	<«-j
Setting (BB height): ^(n		Setting (BB height):	/	
Fuel:	f		Draft (inches of water):	0-3-Q&
Slurry: fry	(T&—-l~2l\	Injection Port: Mxa	
% Excess Air (measured): ——

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
02
(%}
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
1
I
NO 1 SO2
(ppm) ! (ppm)

Starting
Feed
Ftete
Wmin)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(jtfmin)
At- lur@ 30
iTi/1
£/£=¦

sv i

——— i

i @

£?r
%o






-
@

satr
9, ox
a

tur
3
3
'

@ I

%of
(3

9o?o


	

@ 1
>47/#
?,<&
1^
<5*
S=OD
c-df "7 i C
&.0!
&c
@


-f,o?
(3
n
£oGC)



c*iy
<§>


1($
@


' vs
1*
5*3

OrO 7o


IlL-
@

S7<>
l.it
/*

9 too

j
c*f<;
\ @ \



1/
$3
—	p—-
375
dto7d
f-

Al
1 @ \
W
%1-
1/






@










@










@
/









J/ @
/


i






17 @







Temperature atHgPtf-(°F)

Tangential Air
Axial Air Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 upper
Start
(9)
**
(j> @k
-------
Date:^ / ^/?!
Initials t
Test:
NHgRotameter
Setting fBB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
CL
Fuel
Slurry:
A'lVfwVtt/ Cr
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Hl
CrfrXj
h
u^t-
Draft (inches of water):
% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port:


0,2
52E"

Stage Air
(float height)
<§> PSI
o2
(%}
co2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm) j
SO 2
(ppm)
NO OUT j
* i
Feed Rate !
(ml/min) |
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)

,o3@ lo

s.%
(f
^ri ntr
- 1ft
\isy<°
a-5A
1 @

or

(
£»t


/?

/

/r
?&>
?to
r-y




@ 1

I o

i^r
—.
%



@


j
i
i
1



@

i




i
i



@
1

i



.¦ t
i


@







i
i


/ @










V @
/










/
i
i
i i i
! 1 !


SLliy S'
&U (1?.S-^Yl£>?-U)C&~i3)= WSJZ- C*M)? yur?	^1;, ^
Temperature at Pv* (°F)
Jtart
Tangential Air
Axial Air ! Primary Gas Coal Transport Air j 2 i 3 |4uopei
W9 *r
l«6 @ @ | 17<^ j

Finish
-------
Pate;1)
Initials
Test:
NH3Rotameter
Innovative Furnace Data Log
2
Fuel: (Oithjft
L (rfi*
Slurrv:
ia~- Tw L~sh
% Excess Air (measured):
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):	ih.	 	
Draft (inches of watery ^<3
Injection Port:

1
Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
i
02
(%)
1
I
CO 2 j
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
i
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)

1.0*


9 !

/27r

Hi

Cole,
f @

W.[s
?.39
a
170
Hfo
—

¦
<5d'ix*4lL
1 @

iSf
frf
fj
£?0

t,cf
(&My)
-
• ,! "> V
(S L

@
ij>r
T,f
/&
H16
i?X
—
ff



@

f.Vf
#52
u
u7d f7f
—




@

£?¦
%sg
IX
G60
vr
M 1


fcu

1/ @ ^
£Pjh
?,r
12
er
*r
u @ *r
o*?-@ 2-
— @ —
P=\ | 11*3 1 15-27
nnish
^s"s-@vr |/.o@Vr
P- @
15"ii; isst ' n n
A-36
-------

Initials 	
Test: h!
NHgRotameter
Setting (-g8 neinhf): *6
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Fuel:
	 tv+buAl
Slurry: c*/dtU (T-c^~ £*#-)
% Excess Air (measured): 		
S02 Rotameter	*
Setting (BB height):		
Draft (inches of waterVft^-	0^-6
Injection Port:	^
> Cy$

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PS!
o2
(%)
CO 2
{%)
i
CO j NO
(ppm) 1 (ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Bt-
|,oi @ 70 \ftz>

is- 1 fz?
2/00
.—

w-


@
! Z?f

ib
480
WO
—




<§>
L2/2r

pf
3Ho
i?r
l>9


u

@



\S
kll
9oty
1
fZ*

0/5

@

?.?;r
?,i i /7

&r
.	




@

X7
! 9?

its
/•y
«">) $d

&L

@


?.o \ 17

906

tzs-

r»$k

@

Ivf
¦%ix \ &
HX)
£°?c>
(•V
9 2S-

tl

@

wr
?.of
i?

2\o

k?.S"


@ 1








@




! !


@








@



i
1 !
1 i
| 1




@


| !
1 i




@


i
i





@
!







$ktiy Se
(°F
t
eg
Tangential Air ! Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coai Transport Air
2
3
4 UDDf
if.« @ 'tr \[.o@H
A-37
-------
Date: 2!?£]?/
Initials Cl&L
Test: */0 3a
Innovative Furnace Data Log
28-
NH3Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Fuel:	g-**5 	
Slurry: Ca/,0^ ($.ec.•)
% Excess Air (measured):	
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
j±
Draft (inches of water): 0. X
Injection Port:		

Stage Air
(float height)
<§> PSI
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
:
so2
(ppm)
i Starting
NOxOUT | Feed
Feed Rate j Rate
(ml/min) j (ml/min)
Ending ;
Feed ;
Rate j
(ml/min) ]
61-
|,o 3 @70
i.sr
?.S?
ePo
Hi
H7r! ~ 1K-


— W 9?



@

<•(
lOtOb
3.1
loo
"in1
1 ,f 'Mtf
)
RL

@

H.3.
W,0 3-J
i3r
mr
		
9t
i
c*J<,

@

%ix
(0,6
ft
HlC
H?r
—
(SUy) lf

¦=#=%r.
(tMy) hO



/ @ i
y
3. ft

71
u
It 7o
l-f —


0>L~
I
@ ^
K

Uf
)?
1?r
Ifsy
	
V£-


@







!

@









@




1 !


@









@



—	-




@



i

j

@



i
i




@









@




j !
| !


@
**£=.	:
CM


! ;
J i

L
C-iW)

Temperature at-Pwt (°F)
".tart
Tangential Air, | Axial Air
	 	 i
Primary Gas ! Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 uooer
tgS@ H(> |u <&H33
Wf
Finish
%?x @ kr \/,c @ fr

— @
l«l o
17 3(
A-38
-------
Initials C&~—
Test:
Innovative Furnace Data Log
NH3Rotameter
Setting (BB height): 1-> PSI
i
I
o2 ! co2
(%) 1 (%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending '
Feed I
Rate
(ml/min)
&L
|,c>3@ 7^>
a;rl w
n
iso
/err
¦—
is-
i
0+1$

@


t$ \f&
7JO
—
($) &>
6>
owW^io-

@

57£r
f,Q \ £S-\fitO
9oo
l>9
fy 5T>
4)
feL

@
!s:37r
7,f?
\s

/»r

I*
i
oh

@


1.S}
i /
m
100O
—
© &
4) j
olstMfr

@

£»/
%
li)


@

r?r

ZL

@



17
t% 1 in*

n

O/S

@




1
1
(


gJ&mq.

@


i I

t-r
p)


1
/ @ \
K



1
1
!

i?


@
1




i
)


@ !




i


@ !




I


@ 1 -








1





i
5
Sl^	C	33 = 6 ?/ ^ ^^Temperature atf*eft-(°F)
¦tart
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 upper
@ vr
1,0 @ T
0,Q@ 0-
	@
vni
&/>?-
I7if
Finish
@ ^ r
i,o @nr

-—^ / 7^
1/6?/
A-39
-------
Date;3- jJfr ft/
lnitialsB#(f
Test:
Innovative Furnace Data Log
NH3 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
; /UflU}/
u~P	S02 Rotameter
lA		Setting (BB height): 6<:?
		Draft (inches of water):	7
C«.C&-1 /AS Ac)	Injection Port:
Fue

Slurry:
% Excess Air (measured):


Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate '
(ml/min)
bc-
t.03®f%)
£/V"
Its
/r
?/7
Iter
		
ft





7,fz
to \M

————
$ V?



@
1
l.i?
27
27/"
/90O
/.9




@

i-7
%i? i /r
97S~
zrso





@

%{d
u i /r
ftQ
m
	
{S)

c*/si*S£

@

t.pr
17

IK
^7ti
o If
0 Hi

6l
\
/ @ y
/
14#
7-2?
15"
wr


fP

q!$

@

1$7f
\?n
l2

i7?S~

(s) W



@

tor
w
P7,
P9?
1 fro
!¦>
11

$L
\
/ @ \
V
%
f,r
is>

?z?r

9?


@








@









@
j
\





@
I
\
1



@
j
\
i
I



@
i
i
i
I



@
i
j

i
1





@
I





SUi StMi (ft "S&Y/.m %e)[.t>&)) = fc. Cd03 ^rr/
Jl 7	Temperature at Send, F)
.tart
Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air j 2
3
4 upper
?sf@ fa"
I. o @ir

	@ —
\7&
&>(%
)7?l
Finish
H>s« @ Vr
\.a @ Ht

		
I7*f
^5"
1731-
A-40
-------
q .	Innovative Furnace Data Log
Pate; ? / Ui(
Initials SAC	
Test: -j-
NH3Rotameter	/	S02 Rotameter 'D-C>'
Setting fBB height): /WfJ 	 Setting fBB height): 	
Fuel; i/thud 	Draft (inches of water):	
\\iy.ju*r&Smv: £*- CC-j {as /2e&h*.ej) /bk-^. Injection Port:	c-^^e/
% Excess Air (measured): —

Sorter
-8fige Air
(float height)
@ PS!
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
fetjez Scffiy
NOyUT
Starting
Feed
F^ate
(g]/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(frt/min)
6^
3a

23
(s(o
(foo


—>¦
Cufc
! @

Ctf]
f.yr p/

Ifto
o ¦ 611 9, of-
i,o!
! r
@

£-,o?r
n?; ^
6g
/&>
		1	

C+-1
i
@

s:o! to
P-0
G 7! !S?f
O'ou far
to l
tiu

@ |
5Tcxr1 fJtx
n
6$ : \&r





@

wri
20
& 1 i U&S^
0»
?,//
7.8^
fru
I <0>

«",6> !
11
6 7 • }?(pC~



o1> \l??0


_. ——
c*($

<§>


fhdZ

G>(p \€l0 ! OcdM
I2.l£
m
l}L

j @

ipr
?sx
do
C3
mf



a/5

@


ibifo \ £h
67
17 f
0.O&
IZ-IG
(i.k
BL
i
V @
f
^,fr
U !

IS Jo
-----—



@





• -


@

!






@

1 !

i
|


@

; •

i


@

! i
! 1
i
1

Temperature at Pflfo (°F)
"tart
Tangential Air
Axial Air j Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3 I4uppei
h.% @ rr
;2~
@
mi
Wl \
Finish
@ ^
Vo@Hs" 10^3® ^
(5>

s% \ \i{]
A-41
-------
Date: 3
Initials fyjf
Test:
NH3Rotameter
Setting fBB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
30
Slurry; Ca/otfk
Fuel;

S02 Rotameter
Setting fBB height):
ft
T*—
Draft finches of watery

% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port:


Stage Air
(float height)
<3>PSI
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
&-
j.oj @ yo
l.(fi
"7/
/r

J6JT
		
9r

c*b

@ 1

11
2°
472
n o





@ 1
Jjfrt
-1$
1c)
%
If
(ffO
}{f/0
—
Y

a/s

@


7ff
20
910


(V *3



@

W
7,28

(ra
27iy
@









@









@









@



!





@









@









@









@








5UN Ufh C 1> -d )C/•' ? ^V-/«3) - ?. 9 7 'A
MJ j ^	Temperature at 15STT ( F)

Tangential Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 upper
tart

|.a
o.s># >

uJ

TO"7
Finish

/, o r
Oio-@
	@ —
o^r

lyis"
A-42
-------
Pate; ^ P7 / 9/
Initials
Test: +NS1
NHgRotameter
Setting (BB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
V6
Fuel:	fr*S
Slurry: CaXoH)^ Tw~
% Excess Air (measured):	
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Y6
Draft (inches of water):
Injection Port: Lo^-
O.t - /, o

Stage Air
(float height)
 PSI
02
(%)
co2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)

l.»3 @ 10
£pr


3L3
/pr
•	
fS
I
1 Krft

@

?.w

?r

If06
¦ V

;
\ i ' I
fr.

@
.

f.r
7,0?
p-r
?

?/?r
7.ZX.
/o£>
^0

I'V
&fr

&kra£#L



11 ¦¦
,
A-* h M21
rJs-eo^
i
@ 1

7,7%
¦7-fJt
rr
WO
700
—
@V?
6a«.*
fcL

@ -
*
Wf
7,Lie
v^r
IS90
.	
IfS


@






I

@







Temperature at-^Q ( F)
¦» ^
Tanaential Air ! Axiai Air I Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 upper

O-Q® 2
	—

Ml
III 90
Finish
y.si@ ii.b @
-------
Pate

Initials iA
t
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Test;
NH3 Rotameter	-
Setting (Bgheicihti:	%0
Fuel:	/vVvW>4i fM
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Slurry: Ca(fltft.
Draft (inches of water):
3—

% Excess Air (measured):-
injection Port:
w

~T~z

Stage Air
(float height)
<5>PSI
02
(%i
i
i
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(m!/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
6l
,$ @ 70
1.ftu.#
y
?n
Mo
		
It 2
(rr.fr"
Coo^
! @
?,<#r
(p< 5*T V
#7
i7
-------
Pat?;3 ip11
Initials 	
Test: ^Z°i
i
NH3Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
Fuel:	
Slurry: C**(0
Innovative Furnace Data Log
M.
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):
IS
G-rtS
Tc
% Excess Air (measured):
Draft (inches of water):
Injection Port:
o'9 - A a

Stage Air
(float height)
<§> PSI
o2
(%>
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending I
Feed !
Rate
(ml/min)
{6L-
Loj @ lo
*7*



\nr
		

L,
Gih

@1

klO
if
ite I wr


'
c<

1) 00
	
w

Cc/i

@

m

9
M
6oo
		
& t?



@

ioM

tl
l?0
510
/.?




@

jh

if
Hh

„—
9?

AJ$fi

@

jWfl

?/

i&r
ut


QL




u
\
 ^
Wr
[f.7f

?!2

	_
w


@


/






@









@









@








@



1




@









@








My**-; M t£)0-t>7 C*(oHh SLrp ..
Temperature at Port ( F)

Tangential Air
Axial Air | Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 upper
tart
Hst@
f.o@ frjw-@ %
@ —
Ovta,/


Finish
H«$6@ H5T
\>b @h%
IQJJ
A-45
-------
. Innovative Furnace Data Log
Date:1? / I /V
Initials	P/ftg,
Test:
NHS Rotameter	j s\ j	S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB heightt:	'Z_[	 getting (BB height);	
Fuel: NW>sH (y**	 . Draft finches of water):	AO
Slurry: Pi/ofy Sl^My hc^ikU\ injection Port:	
% Excess Air fmeasuredV: ——	'

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
o2
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)

(4>3@ 7?
%i
M


/W
	
W
n Af

! @


7.(2
r
Iff
*/7f~
.	
fe) JC
•


@


7,fc
at
170
77C

5)

Sl

@

2/2 7, a

?

tb^r
•—
&



@


1,1o

I7n
$00
f.Y
&) ^

tfc

' @ \
JL^sr

/ ^
lor
/s?r
—
is*


@









@









@









@









@









@



]





@





1


@









@









@









@




|

'	Temperature at l^rt-( F)
tart
Tanaentia! Air
Axial Air
Primary Gas
Coal Transport Air
2
3
4 upper
1$ @
10@1C
05} @ 'Y
@ -


\m
Finish
tr
i,o @tr
P" I 	@ -—

-------
Date:1/ itylV
Initials ^.u£-
Test: 	
NH3Rotameter
Sgtt'nq (BB height):
Fuel: A
Innovative Furnace Data Log
lo?-
Slurry:
- ,
C a,f& —
S02 Rotameter	C/a
Rftttlnn (BB height): '^
Draft finches
% Excess Air (measured):
Injection Port: f
of water);
JjO_


Stage Air
(float height)
@ PS!
02
(%)
CO 2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
SO 2
(ppm)
noxout
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
6L
1.
53 @ 10
^r
^7•10

"3oo


®kt


1 @


(,.?*

/So
775-
/'V
(SJ ^


ty <§>

¦6.7?
.70

ifso
	
6?


@









@









@









@





j


@









@









@









@









@




j
1



@


1






<§>


i
j
I




@
su-j ^<1 (
7-^.kL MoK)j v.
impera
tart
Tangential Air
Axial Air
¦i"
Primaty Gas I Coal Transport Air
2 I 3
4 uppe
f .s? @ h r
lo @*tf
@ ^
— @ __
BjmI
W7
TO
Finish

i. & @
-------
Pais;
Initials £&\
Test:
NHgRotameter
Setting (BB height):
Innovative Furnace Data Log
Ho
Fue
g-/k
S02 Rotameter
Setting (BB height):

Slurry:
Draft finches of water'
i£L
% Excess Air (measured): —
Injection Port:
teQ;
EiZ
lo
t
ZtL.

Stage Air
(float height)
@ PSI
I
i
02
(%) !
co2
(%)
CO
(ppm)
NO
(ppm)
so 2
(ppm)
NOxOUT
Feed Rate
(ml/min)
Starting
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
Ending j
Feed
Rate
(ml/min)
hi-
Uo3@ ?d>
Zif\.-7,/6
10 \
371

—
n


@
SZT1
/!#
/r
37J

-—
& f ?
& S),1' ;

<§> |
?,7r
?./£ i
&
v 0
isfo
trt«L

!

@

Ho
/s~~

77S~
'		
fsj fa
a>
Co/s+a/SA
@
£*T
7W

JO
5J0
!>

@

7,tr
If
3>S-




ca-/5
@
rort
Iao
lo
m
Zfo
—
(<£> 4?
(£>

@
£&r|
710

V
7f&

(53 £/€-
&

@

2/0
7
370
ir7r