-------
5
100
co
DC
Urn
JS
o
s
w
ro
o
o
J3
£
CO
O
O
O)
o
w
0
%S0, Removed
19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
0:00
1:00
Time
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
Figure 7.29. Continous LIMB system performance during Demonstration Test No. 2
(July 30-31,1993) (continued).
-------
exceptionally well to assure the required steady supply of sorbent to the Station over the
continuous test periods. The railcar unloading procedure was labor-intensive, typically requiring
two operators using air lances to ensure continuous discharge of hydrate from the railcar.
Occasional deliveries by truck from the lime production facility helped to smooth out irregular rail
shipments.
7.4.6 Humidification and ESP Effects
7,4.6.1 Long-Term Humidification and ESP Performance
At the start of the first demonstration test, the humidification system was still providing
uneven distribution of water into the ESP inlet ducts. Downstream deposits on the ESP duct exit
turning vanes, together with concerns of possible duct floor deposits, resulted in a decision to
conduct the majority of the test at a constant minimum sorbent feed of 4 tons/hr. During the test,
various lance/nozzle combinations were tested to identify the preferred humidification scheme. Air
flow was decreased, and nozzles or lances were removed from service. Finally, at the start of the
second demonstration test, new humidification lances, with fewer nozzles per lance and improved
fabrication procedures, were installed in the ducts. Three lances, with two nozzles per lance, were
used for the second and third demonstration tests. While still far from optimal, performance was
dramatically improved, with minimal deposit buildup on the duct floors and greatly reduced buildup
on the ESP duct exit turning vanes. Opacity was maintained within compliance limits throughout
the three demonstration tests.
Both air compressors failed prior to the end of demonstration testing. The first failure
occurred during the second demonstration test. The remaining compressor, with Station air in
reserve, supplied air to both ESP ducts. The second compressor failed during the third
demonstration test. A rental compressor, with Station air in reserve, supplied air to both ESP
ducts. The humidifier performed well throughout these tests.
Early in the second demonstration test, several high hopper level alarms were experienced,
indicating an inability of the pneumatic ash transport system to keep up with the rate of material
collection in the ESP hoppers. The Ca/S molar ratio was reduced from 2.5:1 to 2:1 and the hopper
emptying sequence was revised to dump each problem hopper more frequently. These actions,
118
-------
which were continued through the third demonstration test, significantly improved ESP solids
removal operation.
7.4.6.2 ESP Performance Test Results
ESP performance tests were conducted by the Radian Corporation during the first and second
demonstration tests. Total particulates entering and leaving the ESP, size distribution of the inlet
and outlet particulate streams, resistivity of the inlet particulate stream, and S03 concentrations
were measured during each performance test. The ESP was operated with varying numbers of
fields out of service, simulating a range of SCAs which might be found in commercial operation to
identify the minimum SCA which would be recommended for LIMB operation.
Results from these performance tests were compared to results from similar ESP performance
testing conducted during the baseline test without LIMB. Detailed descriptions of test methods and
results are presented in Appendix A. Briefly, ESP collection efficiency with LIMB plus
humidification was maintained within 0.4 points of that measured without LIMB in operation.
Flyash resistivity was essentially unchanged, demonstrating the effectiveness of minimal
humidification in retaining ESP performance with a high-calcium particulate entering the ESP.
During Demonstration Test No. 2, with full sorbent injection, ESP performance deteriorated
(increased opacity) when SCA was reduced below 480 ft2/1000 acfm, suggesting that this
represents a target minimum SCA for LIMB application.
7.4.6.3 ESP Performance Test Sulfur Balances
Sulfur balances were calculated for 10 ESP tests from Demonstration Test No. 1 { 4 test
points, plus repeats) and 7 ESP tests from Demonstration Test No. 2 (3 test points, plus repeats) to
verify the accuracy of the CEM and particulate measurements. The balances were made for the
system consisting of the pulverized coal feed to the furnace, flue gas samples at the inlet to the
induced draft fans, and ash leaving the ESP.
The procedure for calculating sulfur balances was presented in Section 6.2.6 for the baseline
test ESP performance tests. Sulfur content of furnace bottom ash and pulverizer rejects was not
measured for these tests, since analyses of bottom ash and pulverizer rejects samples during the
Baseline Test showed negligible impact on sulfur balance accuracy.
119
-------
The results are summarized in Tables C.26 for Demonstration Test No. t and C.27 for
Demonstration Test No, 2. The closures of the sulfur balances were within 12% (or 8.7%, if the
outlier is eliminated) for Demonstration Test No. 1, and 10% (or 7.3%, if the outlier is eliminated)
for Demonstration Test No. 2.
7.4.7 Ash Handling Effects
Long-term continuous testing of the LIMB system placed increased strain on the
Yorktown ash handling system. The concentration of LIMB ash in the ash silo increased over that
experienced during optimization testing. This resulted in a greater degree of steaming of the
conditioned LIMB ash in the ash trucks and at the disposal site. The LIMB ash exhibited a much
greater tendency to set up in the truck beds than did non-LIMB ash or a mixture of Unit No. 1 ash
with no LIMB and Unit No. 2 ash with LIMB. Frequent problems of material setting up in the truck
beds were experienced. Decreasing the water to the rotary conditioner {mixer) appeared to reduce
problems of setting up and steaming.
The quantity of material produced during continuous testing taxed the Yorktown ash
handling personnel and equipment. A substantial increase in the amount of time Unit No. 2 was
operated at full load following the steam turbine replacement contributed to this problem.
120
-------
SECTION 8
POST-TEST BOILER INSPECTION
8.1 BACKGROUND
A complete inspection of Unit No, 2, including the furnace, convective surfaces, and air
heaters, was conducted during the 1991 installation of the LIMB and low-NOx firing systems to
document the baseline physical condition of the equipment prior to the start of LIMB testing. The
inspection included a wastage survey of the furnace waterwalls, concentrating on areas around the
windbox and SOFA ports.
A post-test inspection was conducted during a brief two-week Unit No, 2 outage in April-May
1993 to document the condition of the boiler after a significant amount of LIMB and low-NOx firing
system operation. The purpose of the post-test inspection was to identify any adverse impact of
LIMB and Iow-NOx operation on Yorktown Unit No. 2. This inspection was conducted following
most of the optimization testing and Demonstration Test No. 1, but prior to completion of
optimization testing and Demonstration Tests No. 2 and 3, to take advantage of the last Unit No. 2
outage prior to Spring 1994. The inspection included a limited wastage survey of selected areas
around the firing system to document any adverse effects of low-NOx operation on waterwall tube
wall thickness.
8.2 RESULTS OF POST-TEST INSPECTION
8.2.1 Furnace Area
Ultrasonic thickness readings were obtained on all walls (except the center wall) at two
elevations (48' and 71') most likely to be affected by low-NOx firing system operation. The brief
Unit No. 2 outage did not permit the more complete five-elevation baseline survey to be repeated.
The survey, which covered all eight windboxes and SOFA ports, showed little, if any, significant
wastage over the period of operation, relative to baseline conditions.
121
-------
Nine of 32 coal nozzle tips showed significant deterioration. These tips were replaced. The
SOFA nozzles were found to be in excellent condition, with minor sorbent/ash deposits. Several
auxiliary air tips and oil gun diffuser rings had small, soft sorbent/ash deposits on inside surfaces.
The source of this material is not clear, although air heater carryover is a possibility. Many of the
seal boxes which held the sorbent injectors were damaged and surrounding refractory was missing,
although the injectors were in excellent condition. Large, hard clinkers, likely containing both
sorbent and ash, were found to have formed over many of the injectors. These deposits locally
inhibited sorbent feed and distribution. This problem occurred primarily at Levels D and E.
8.2.2 Conveetive Sections and Air Heaters
Only minor fouling was found on the conveetive pass superheat and reheat surfaces. There
were no indications of erosion from either increased sootblowing or increased solids loading from
sorbent injection. Local deposits were brittle and easily removed. In the backpass, the low
temperature superheater was found to have some "platenizing," or material deposits between tubes
in the direction of gas flow. This material was very soft and easily removed. The economizer was
extremely clean, with no indications of erosion or pluggage. The Ljungstrom® rotary air heaters
were found to be in excellent condition, with no pluggage or deposits on the baskets.
122
-------
SECTION 9
LIMB ECONOMICS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAAs) have resulted in U.S. utilities focusing their
compliance efforts on fuel switching, scrubbing, or S02 allowance tracking. While a stand-alone
LIMB system, with its moderate (60%! S02 removal, is at a disadvantage with respect to CAAA
compliance attainment, its low capital cost ($/kW), relative ease of retrofit, and competitive
operating cost ($/ton S02 removed), make it attractive for application on older units, or for use in
conjunction with back-end injection processes for high overall levels (~ 90%) of S02 capture.
The Tangentially Fired LIMB Demonstration Program at Yorktown established both the S02
removal performance and the capital and operating costs of the LIMB system at the 180 MWe
scale. The economic analyses presented in this section are based upon actual capital and operating
costs associated with the 180 MWe Yorktown Unit No. 2 LIMB system. This system, with the
2.5% sulfur Eastern bituminous demonstration coal and the design Ca/S of 2.5:1, represents the
base or reference case in this section.
9.2 LIMB SYSTEM: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
A discussion of the 180 MWe base case LIMB system can be found in Section 5.5. This
system is felt to generally be representative of a commercial installation at this size with the
following comments:
1. Sorbent delivery - The sorbent was unloaded into the long-term storage bin from pneumatic
trucks. Up to four trucks could be unloaded at a time. The trucks were loaded from railroad
cars at a remote site. If a rail spur is available at the utility site, the rail cars could be unloaded
directly into the storage bin through a header system. On-site hydration of quicklime (CaO),
123
-------
delivered to the station in bulk, could offer additional benefits, including reduced operating
cost. Neither an unloading system nor a hydrater were included in the base case.
2. Sorbent transport and injection - The twin day bin system, originally designed to feed both
sides of a divided furnace, offers redundancy when used with a cross-over piping network on a
conventional non-divided boiler, and has been retained in the commercial system.
The Yorktown base case LIMB system includes three levels of sorbent injectors. Two levels of
sorbent injectors would typically be installed on a commercial unit to allow for operation under
various boiler operating conditions.
3. Humidification - Results from ESP performance testing demonstrated that significantly less
humidification than anticipated was required to maintain opacity within compliance limits. This
would result in smaller compressor(s) and pumps and fewer lances/nozzles.
4. Ash Handling - The Yorktown ash silo receives ash from both Units No. 1 and No. 2.
Although the installation of a second ash silo to isolate the LIMB ash was considered, it was
decided that the existing facility could be used to receive LIMB ash with minimal risk to Unit
No. 1 operation due to LIMB-related handling problems. This proved to be a valid assumption
for the Yorktown program. In general, however, it would be prudent to provide separate
storage and handling facilities for a commercial LIMB installation. Therefore, a new ash
storage and handling system, with 3-days storage capacity, has been included as part of the
180 MWe base case system.
Ash was removed from the ash silo and conditioned at Yorktown via a rotary drum conditioner
in which water was added to the fly ash and LIMB ash mixture. The conditioned LIMB material
had a tendency to build up in discharge chutes and to set up in ash haul truck beds.
Alternative methods of ash removal should be considered for commercial LIMB systems. One
strong possibility would be the use of a batch mixing/conditioning system, such as the "Dust
MASTER™" from Mixer Systems, Inc. This approach would minimize steaming and truckbed
material set-up problems.
5. ESP Upgrade - Performance tests conducted on the Unit No. 2 ESP showed that a minimum
SCA of 480 ft2/! 000 acfm was required to maintain opacity within compliance during
124
-------
TABLE 9.1. LIMB.COST ANALYSIS; TECHNICAL PREMISES
Base Unit Size, MWe
1 st Alternate Unit Size, MWe
2nd Alternate Unit Size, MWe
Net Plant Heat Rate, Btu/kWh
Unit Capacity Factor, %
Coal Heating Value, Btu/lb (as received)
Heat Input @ 180 MWe, 10" Btu/hr
Coal Input @180 MWe, Tons/hr
Coal Input @180 MWe, Tons/yr
Coal Ash, wt %
Ash In @ 180 MWe, Tons/yr
Base Coal Sulfur, wt %
1 st Alternate Coal Sulfur, wt %
2nd Alternate Coal Sulfur, wt %
Base S02 Removal, %
Alternate S02 Removal, %
Base S02 Removed, Tons/yr
Base Calcium-to-Sulfur Molar Ratio (Ca/S)
1 st Alternate Calcium-to-Sulfur Molar Ratio ICa/S)
2nd Alternate Calcium-to-Sulfur Molar Ratio (Ca/S)
Base Ash Only, Tons/yr
Base Total Solids (Ash plus LIMB Solids), Tons/yr
180
100
300
9860
78
13,400
1774.8
66.2
452,495
7.8
35,295
2.5
2
3
63
50
14,254
2.5
2
3
35,295
108,650
continuous operation of the LIMB system, with humidification. No ESP upgrades were
included for this economic analysis, but this may be a consideration for some LIMB retrofit
situations.
9.3 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
An economic analysis of the Yorktown 180 MWe base case system was performed to
establish the capital (S/kW) and operating (S/ton S02 removed) costs associated with LIMB on a
tangentially coal-fired utility boiler. The Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) Technical
Assessment Guide (TAGm) procedures were used to establish the base case costs. An EFA-
developed cost model, Integrated Air Pollution Control Systems (IAPCS-4) was used to establish the
effect of unit size and operating variables on LIMB costs. In addition to the base case, the impact
of alternate coal sulfur content, sorbent costs, Ca/S molar ratio, S02 removal, and unit size on LIMB
economics were analyzed.
125
-------
TABLE 9.2, LIMB COST ANALYSIS: ECONOMIC PREMISES
Reference Date of Cost Estimate July 1990
Unit Book Life, yr 15
Tax Life, yr 1 i
Levelizing Factor for O&M* 1.37
Levelizing Factor for 1st Yr Carrying Charges ' 21.20
Levelizing Factor for 15 Yr Carrying Charges** 19.39
Indirect Costs, % of Total Direct Capital
General Facilities 20.0
Engineering 10.0
Project Contingency 17.5
Process Contingency 2.5
Construction Period, Yr 1
Factor for Allowance for Funds used During Construction (AFDC) 1.00
Base Hydrated Calcitic Lime Cost, $/Ton 60
1st Alternate Hydrated Calcitic Lime Cost, $/Ton 70
2nd Alternate Hydrated Calcitic Lime Cost, $/Ton 80
Electricity, Mill/kWh 50
Solids Disposal, $/Ton of Dry Solids 8.6
Water, $/1000 gal 0.65
Labor Rate, $/Hr 20.5
* O&M = Operation and Maintenance
+ Constant Dollar Analysis
+ + Current Dollar Analysis
Technical and economic premises for the LIMB cost analyses are presented in Tables
9.1 and 9.2, respectively. To permit direct comparison with results from other EPA-sponsored
LIMB demonstrations, (Nolan, et a!., 1992), the same cost estimate reference date, indirect cost
factors, levelizing factors, and "other capital costs" unit costs were used in this analysis.
Results of the base case capital cost estimate are presented in Table 9.3. The direct
capital costs represent the actual materials and construction costs for the Yorktown sorbent
injection and humidification system, plus the installed cost of a new ash silo facility. All costs have
been adjusted to the July 1990 reference date. The equivalent unit capital investment of $81/kW
is lower than previously reported costs, (Nolan et al., 1992), suggesting a further maturing of LIMB
technology.
126
-------
TABLE 9,3. LIMB COST ANALYSIS: BASE CASE CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Direct Costs, $
LIMB System including Humidification
System, Engineering, Contingencies, etc. 6,527,649
LIMB Ash Silo 2,520,000
Subtotal Direct Costs, $ 9,047,649
Indirect Costs, $
General facilities @ 20% 1,809,530
Engineering @10% 904,765
Project Contingency @ 17.5% 1,583,339
Process Contingency @ 2.5% 226,191
Subtotal Indirect Costs, $ 4,523,825
Total Plant Costs, $ 13,571,474
Other Capital Costs, $
Royalties 0
Preproduction Costs (5% of TPC*) 678,574
Inventory Costs (2% of TPC*) 271,429
Land 0
Subtotal Other Capital Costs, $ 950,003
Total Capital Requirement, $ 14,521,477
Equivalent Unit Capital Requirement, $/kW 81
~TPC = Total Plant Costs
Table 9.4 presents operation and maintenance costs for the Yorktown base case. The
additional labor requirements reflect actual field experience during long-term testing of the LIMB
system at Yorktown. The LIMB system was controlled from a computer located in the main
Yorktown Unit No. 2 control room. The system was under nominal control of Virginia Power
operators during these tests. Addition of one LIMB system operator per shift is recommended to
handle this increased responsibility. Maintenance requirements were sporadic, consisting of light
preventative work, periodic lance, nozzle and feeder cleaning, and occasional equipment repair. In
addition, the number of trips by ash haul trucks was increased significantly during LIMB operation.
127
-------
TABLE 9.4. LIMB COST ANALYSIS: BASE CASE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COST SUMMARY
Fixed O&M costs for Operating and Supervisory Labor, $/Yr
Operator 179,088
Maintenance
Labor 119,392
Material 179,088
Supervision 89,544
Subtotal Fixed O&M Costs, $/Yr 567,112
Variable Operating Costs for Consumables, $/Yr
Hydrated Calcitic Lime 168,842 ton/yr) 4,130,501
Water (16,398,000 gal/yr) 10,659
Electricity (1800 kW) 614,952
Waste Disposal (108,650 ton/yr) 934,390
Fly Ash Disposal Credit (303.533)
Boiler Efficiency Loss @1% and $25/ton of coal 113,124
Subtotal Variable Operating Costs, $/Yr 5,500,093
First Year Costs, $
Capital Carrying Charges @ 21.2% 3,078,553
Fixed O&M 567,112
Variable O&M 5,500,093
Total First Year Cost, $ 9,145,758
Levelized Cost, $/Yr
Capital Carrying Charges @ 19.39% 2,815,714
(Fixed + Variable O&M Costs) x 1.37 8,312,071
Total 15 Yr Levelized Annual Cost, $/Yr 11,127,785
Levelized Cost, mill/kWh
Capital Carrying Charges @ 19.39% 2.29
(Fixed + Variable O&M Costs) x 1.37 6.76
Total Equivalent Levelized Cost, mill/kWh 9.05
Total Equivalent Levelized Cost, $/ton S02 removed 781
Combining the two requirements, a total of two additional maintenance/ash haul personnel were
included in the analysis. The hydrated lime quantities shown are all predicated on a Ca/S of 2.5:1,
with a purity of 95%, for the particular coal sulfur content under consideration. Electricity costs
are based upon a system requirement equivalent to 1 % of gross capacity. The Yorktown system
included excess capacity for several of the components, relative to final operating requirements.
This was particularly true in the humidification system. This 1 % assumption represents a
conservative estimate of actual steady state requirements. It is expected that much of the 1 % loss
in boiler efficiency during continuous LIMB operation will be recovered by incorporating additional
128
-------
TABLE 9.5. LIMB COST ANALYSIS: CAPITAL SENSITIVITY ($/kW) TO UNIT SIZE,
COAL SULFUR, AND CALCIUM-TO-SULFUR MOLAR RATIO
Coal,
Ca/S
Sulfur,
Molar
Unit Size. MWe
%
Ratio
100
180
300
2
2.5
112
75
57
2.5
2.5
118
81
62
3
2.5
123
86
67
2
2
NA
71
NA
2
2.5
NA
75
NA
2
3
NA
80
NA
NA = Not Analyzed
TABLE 9.6. LIMB COST ANALYSIS: SENSITIVITY OF COST PER TON OF S02 REMOVED TO
UNIT SIZE, COAL SULFUR, SORBENT COST, AND CALCIUM-TO-SULFUR MOLAR
RATIO
Sulfur
Coal
Sorbent
Ca/S
Capture
Sulfur
Cost
Molar
Unit Size. MWe
%
%
S/ton
Ratio
100
180
300
63
2
60
2.5
1013
845
761
63
2.5
60
2.5
915
781
714
63
3
60
2.5
850
738
682
63
2.5
60
2.5
NA
781
NA
63
2.5
70
2.5
NA
847
NA
63
2.5
80
2.5
NA
913
NA
63
2.5
60
2.5
NA
781
NA
50
2.5
60
2.5
NA
980
NA
63
2
60
2
NA
744
NA
63
2
60
2.5
NA
845
NA
63
2
60
3
NA
947
NA
NA = Not Analyzed
sootblowing capacity, although it is unclear whether full boiler efficiency can be restored. Retaining
the full 1 % efficiency loss in the economic analysis again represents a conservative estimate. The
levelized cost of operation for the base case LIMB system was $781/ton of S02 removed.
129
-------
The sensitivity study was performed by using the EPA IAPCS-4 cost model to determine the
capital costs for each alternative case as a function of sorbent feed requirements. The costs were
adjusted to the July 1990 reference date. Table 9,5 and Figures 3.1 and 9.2 present the capital
cost sensitivity ($/kW) to unit size, coal sulfur content, and Ca/S. The economy of scale associated
with retrofitting LIMB to increasing size units can be seen in Figure 9.1. This effect can also be
seen in Table 9.6 and Figure 9.3, which present the sensitivity of S02 removal levelized cost ($/ton
S02) to unit size and coal sulfur. Table 9,6 and Figures 9.4 and 9.5 present the sensitivity of S02
removal levelized cost to Ca/S molar ratio and sorbent cost. The range of sorbent costs considered
covers a range of transportation costs, from near the lime plant l$60/ton) to a substantial distance
from the plant ($80/ton). This substantial increase in delivered sorbent cost increased the levelized
SOj removal cost by only about 17% (2.5% S coal), indicating that viability of a retrofit LIMB
system is not strongly tied to proximity to a lime facility.
The final sensitivity study determined the effect of LIMB S02 removal effectiveness on
levelized cost. The base case, with 63% S02 capture, was compared to a less effective application
with only 50% S02 capture. Levelized cost increased 25% to $980/ton S02 removed, indicating a
moderate to strong sensitivity to S02 capture effectiveness.
9.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
LIMB has been demonstrated as a viable low-cost option for achieving moderate levels of
S02 reduction with capital and operating costs which are substantially below those of conventional
flue gas desulfurization systems. The 1990 CAAAs focus on high S02 removal efficiency
technologies. They also make $02 allowances (credits) available at a fraction of the cost of FGD
systems. Consequently, the domestic market for LIMB, with its moderate S02 removal, is currently
best suited to older, small- to intermediate-size units, which might otherwise be retired, and also to
combinations of LIMB with back-end S02 removal processes. An example would be LIMB combined
with the ADVACATE process to achieve high overall S02 removals. Thus, in the contemporary
domestic utility market, LIMB alone is postured as a "niche" technology for units requiring moderate
levels of S02 control. However, if combined with a complementary back-end system, LIMB can
offer the potential for competitive (i.e., 90 + %) S02 removals at favorable capital and operating
costs.
130
-------
1
' 1
1 '
11111
Ca/S molar ratio; 2.5
] 3 percent sulfur coal
> 2.5 percent sulfur coal
) 2 percent sulfur coal
Unit Size, MWe
350
Figure 9.1. Capital cost sensitivity to unit size and coal sulfur (base case conditions).
-------
70 f i | ¦ i | 111 i | i | i | i | t
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
Ca/S Molar Ratio
Figure 9.2. Capital cost sensitivity to Ca/S molar ratio (base case conditions, except coal sulfur equals 2 percent).
-------
1100-
' '
J L.
Ul
UJ
¦O 1000-
o
<1)
DC
CM
g 900.
c
o
*-•
*»
*¦<"
w
o
Q
"D
N
"5
>
4)
800'
700*
600-
50
i—r
100
Ca/S molar ratio: 2.5
O 2 percent sulfur coal
O 2.5 percent sulfur coal
' ~ 3 percent sulfur coal
i i I i i » i I i i i i I i
150 200 250
i i I i i i i
300 350
Unit Size, MWe
Figure 9.3. Levelized cost sensitivity to unit size and coal sulfur (base case conditions).
-------
2.4
Ca/S Molar Ratio
Figure 9.4. Levelized cost sensitivity to Ca/S molar ratio (base case conditions, except coal sulfur equals 2 percent).
-------
950-
J L.
J I I L.
_i L
' ' ' 1 ' 1
TJ
0)
> 900-
E
d)
C
CM
o
w
o
o 850-
w
o
u
¦o
0)
N
"5 800'
a>
750 i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i
"T"
75
i I1 'i
eo
"j
55
60
65
70
Sorbent Cost, $/ton
85
Figure 9.5. Levelized cost sensitivity to sorbent cost (base case conditions).
-------
SECTION 10
QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
A strong commitment to quality assurance (OA) was made very early in the Yorktown LIMB
Demonstration Program by all parties: EPA, C-E. Radian, and Virginia Power. This commitment
ensured that the testing conducted, and the data obtained, under this program would provide the
highest level of confidence in understanding the potential for application of LIMB on tangentially
coal-fired utility boilers. Radian Corporation, under contract to C-E, was responsible for
characterizing boiler emissions and ESP performance during this LIMB program. Emphasis was
placed on performance data for S02, NOx, coal sulfur content, and particulate emissions.
Internal QA/QC was important to the success of this project and was rigorously implemented.
The internal QA/QC support for the LIMB demonstration project was provided primarily in five
areas:
1. Planning and documentation
2. Boiler measurements
3. Emissions testing
4. Laboratory analysis, and
5. Data collection and analysis
A detailed Project Work Plan, presenting the work to be performed during the project at the
Task and Sub-Task level, together with the project schedule and estimated expenditures and cost
over the projected performance period, was submitted prior to the start of technical activities.
A comprehensive Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was submitted to the EPA just two
months after initiation of the contract. The QAPP was extensively reviewed by EPA mangers, and
recommended revisions were incorporated as required. All changes to the QAPP were documented
and approved by EPA. The QAPP detailed data quality objectives for critical test parameters and
136
-------
procedures to maximize the probability that these objectives would be attained, A focus of the
QA/QC effort was to know the accuracy and precision of the data being collected, and to ensure
that the data were complete, representative, and comparable. The OA requirements assigned to
the emissions portion of the testing placed exceptionally tight specifications on data acquisition and
analysis activities. These requirements were somewhat less severe for non-emissions
measurements, including those made to define boiler performance. Final approval of the QAPP was
given prior to initiation of LIMB testing. The data acquisition and analysis for all test phases was
fully in accordance with the procedures documented in the approved QAPP.
To ensure that overall program objectives were attained in the most cost-effective manner,
detailed Test Plans for baseline testing, low-NOx performance testing. LIMB optimization testing,
and long-term LIMB demonstration testing were submitted to, and approved by, the EPA Project
and OA Officers prior to initiation of any of these test phases.
Radian and C-E assigned Project Directors and OA Officers, with overall OA responsibility, to
the project. The responsibility for day-to-day compliance with established and approved OA
procedures during all phases of field testing was assigned to the C-E Lead Field Service Engineer.
Prior to initiation of field testing, during site-specific testing at C-E's PPL, audits were performed by
the C-E OA Officer to ensure the highest level of data quality in this early phase of the LIMB
program. Corrective actions were taken, as required.
The OA program set in place for emissions testing during both the baseline and demonstration
testing phases conformed to OA requirements for a demonstration program as defined by the EPA.
This included well-defined Data Quality Objectives IDQOs), data chain-of-custody procedures, and
periodic audits, each designed to ensure that data quality was maintained at the highest possible
level.
Field audits were conducted by the AEERL OA Office on three occasions;
1. Baseline and non-LIMB Testing
• Technical Systems Audit (TSA) (February 1991)
• Performance Evaluation Audit (PEA) of CEMs and coal analysis (February 1991J
• Audits of Data Quality (ADQ) and review of test report (March 1992!
137
-------
2, LIMB Optimization Testing (November 1992)
• TSA
- Site
- Test of Yorktown Chemistry Laboratory
- Radian OEM systems
• PEA
- CEMs for total hydrocarbons (THC), S02, NOx. 02
- Sulfur-in-coal samples
3. Initiation of Demonstration Test 2 (July 1993}
• TSA of:
- CEMs and sorbent feed rate indicators
- Results of Radian's relative accuracy testing and frequency of quality control activities
• Sulfur-in-coal samples (March and June 1993)
• Initiate audit of data quality
• Review and discuss results from previous PEAs of sulfur-in-coal analyses
As part of the QAPP for emissions testing, Radian Corporation performed two types of internal
audits on a periodic basis: Performance Audits and Technical System Audits. Performance audits
consisted of relative accuracy testing and calibration gas audits performed during both the baseline
and demonstration tests. The first relative accuracy test performed during the baseline test, was
performed by a third-party contractor to establish an independent evaluation point for subsequent
relative accuracy tests. Two more relative accuracy tests, performed by Radian, were completed
during the demonstration test program. All relative accuracy tests were well within the limits set
by the QAPP.
Additionally, the Radian OA Officer performed field audits during these occasions to verify and
assure CEM data consistency and quality. A summary emissions test report by the Radian
Corporation is included as Appendix A. it provides details on sampling locations, sampling and
analytical procedures for CEMs and manual methods, and test results from the three continuous
monitoring demonstration periods. Appendix B includes results of EPA OA auditing activities
conducted during baseline, optimization, and demonstration/long-term testing phases of this project
138
-------
and an assessment of data quality. Additionally, it provides an overview of the OA activities
implemented during the Yorktown project.
Based on the TSAs performed by the Radian OA officer, daily calibration results, and relative
accuracy tests, all DQOs for emissions testing were met for this program.
Analysis of coal samples was performed at both CT&E and the Yorktown Chemistry
Laboratory. Audits of analysis procedures and consistency were conducted by the AEERL OA
Office three times during the demonstration program using "blind" reference coal samples. Analysis
of audit results led to the identification of a bias pattern and a corrections factor to bring the
analyses by the two laboratories in line. This is treated in some detail in Appendix B. As an
independent check, coal samples taken during baseline testing were also analyzed at C-E's PPL.
Although results varied slightly, it was not felt to be cost-effective to continue the PPL analyses
during the LIMB test program.
In summary, QA/QC activities were made an integral part of this demonstration of LIMB
technology for tangentially coal-fired utility boilers. This ensured that complete and reliable data
was generated. Audits conducted by EPA, and Radian's internal audits, provided constructive
recommendations for further improving QA/QC, and these were implemented in a timely manner.
The audit findings indicated adherence to previously developed test planning and approved
procedures. Analysis results were in the expected range of precision and accuracy.
139
-------
SECTION 11
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The technical and economic viability of LIMB on tangentially fired coal-burning utility boilers
was verified as a result of the Yorktown demonstration program. The program objectives of
moderate levels of S02 removal (50% to 60%) at relatively low levels of capital and operating costs
(81 $/kW, 781 $/ton of S02 removed! were achieved. Long-term continuous operation was
accomplished. Areas requiring further demonstration, such as overall LIMB system control
philosophy and alternative LIMB waste processing procedures, were identified. The attractiveness
of enhancing overall S02 removal by complementing the "front-end" LIMB system with a
"back-end" process, such as ADVACATE, in order to be responsive to 1990 CAAA requirements,
was also identified.
Performance testing at Yorktown demonstrated that reductions in NO* emissions of
approximately 42% at full boiler load and 33% at intermediate boiler load can be expected with an
LNCFS Level II firing system relative to a conventional tangential firing system without separated
overfire air (horizontal burner tilt).
Commercial application of LIMB alone to tangentially coal-fired boilers will most likely occur
on older units which might otherwise be retired. S02 removal requirements for these units are likely
to be moderate. In some cases, CaC03, rather than Ca!OH)2, may be the sorbent of choice to meet
these requirements. Some unit derating may be required to either maximize S02 removal potential
by providing longer sorbent residence time or to free up coal mills which can then be used to
pulverize limestone. This approach could free utilities from significant new capacity investment
while still achieving moderate S02 reductions on older units.
Commercial application of LIMB for achieving CAAA compliance levels of S02 reduction
requires full-scale demonstration of ADVACATE, or other complementary back-end process, plus
integrated operation of the "front-" and "back-end" processes.
140
-------
The following guidelines and recommendations, based upon results of, and experience gained
from, the Yorktown demonstration program, are offered for the commercialization of LIMB on
tangentially fired coal-burning boilers:
1. Tangential injection of sorbent maximizes mixing and S02 removal on tangentially fired
boilers. Two levels of injection offers maximum operational flexibility and redundancy;
2. LIMB has been shown to be cost-effective for units from 100 MWe to at least 300 MWe;
3. Units operating on coals which are nominally in the 2% to 3% sulfur range were shown to
be suitable for LIMB;
4. Utilities should evaluate the cost effectiveness of retaining older units in service, possibly
at reduced load, with the low-cost option of LIMB for S02 emissions management.
Limited testing at Yorktown on pulverized CaC03 produced good (over 60%) SOz removals
at 50% boiler load;
5. Scale-up field test data should be obtained for back-end S02 control technologies, such as
ADVACATE, which are suitable for integration with LIMB to produce a system which is
capable of attaining 1990 CAAA compliance levels of S02 reduction at a cost which is
significantly below that of conventional FGD systems;
6. Optimal control of a LIMB or an integrated LIMB/"back-end" system will require a feedback
control philosophy which is based upon CEM S02 measurement, plus coal analyses and
boiler thermal performance. This would replace the less responsive Ca/S set-point control
philosophy which was used for the Yorktown program;
7. The ability of alternative ash conditioning equipment, other than conventional pug mills
and rotary conditioners, to continuously process LIMB or LIMB/"back-end" solids, with
their high CaO content, with minimal adverse results, should be verified. A dedicated ash
silo and handling system would be strongly recommended for any commercial LIMB
system;
141
-------
8. For LIMB installations based on Ca(0H)2 injection which are located far from commercial
hydration facilities, on-site hydration of quicklime may offer advantages in operating costs
over long distance delivery of Ca(OH)2;
9. For LIMB or LI MB/" back-end" installations based on CaCOs, on-site pulverization of
crushed CaC03 in a dedicated mill will substantially lower overall system operating costs
due to the dramatically lower per ton delivered cost of crushed CaC03.
142
-------
SECTION 12
REFERENCES
Coutant, R. W., McNulty, J. S., Barrett, R. E., Carson, J. J., Fischer, R., and Lougher, E, H.,
"Summary Report on Investigation of the Reactivity of Limestone and Dolomite for Capturing S02
from Flue Gas," National Air Pollution Control Administration Report APTIC 16098 (NTIS PB
179907) (1968).
England, G, C., Moyeda, D. K., Payne, R., Folsom, B. A., Toole-O'Neii, B., Lachapelle, D. G., and
Huffman, I, A., "Prototype Evaluation of Sorbent Injection on a Tangentially Fired Utility Boiler," In
Proceedings: 1990 S02 Control Symposium, Volume 1. EPA-600/9-91-015a (NTIS PB 91-197210)
(19911.
Gartrell, F. E., "Full-Scale Desulfurization of Stack Gas by Dry Limestone Injection, Volumes I, II,
and III," EPA-650/2-73-019a, b, c (NTIS PB 228447, 230384, 230385) (1973).
Gogineni, M. R., Clark, J. P., Marion, J. L., Koucky, R. W., Anderson, D, K., Kwasnik, A. F.,
Gootzait, E., Lachapelle, D. G., and Rakes, S. L., "Development and Demonstration of Sorbent
Injection for S02 Control on Tangentially Coal-Fired Boilers," In Proceedings: First Combined FGD
and Dry S02 Control Symposium, Volume 1, EPA-600/9-89-036a (NTIS PB 89-172159) (1989).
Goots, T. R., DePero, M. J., Purdon, T. J,, Nolan, P. S., Hoffmann, J, L., and Arrigoni, T. W,,
"Results from LIMB Extension Testing at the Ohio Edison Edgewater Station," In Proceedings:
1991 S02 Control Symposium, Volume 1, EPA-600/R-93-064a (NTIS PB 93-196095) (1993),
Kirchgessner, D. A., and Lorrain, J. M., "Lignosulfonate-Modified Calcium Hydroxide for Sulfur
Dioxide Control," f&EC Research, 26: 2397 (1987).
143
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
Koucky, R. W., Marion, J, L.. and Anderson, D. K., "Development of Sorbent Injection Criteria for
Sulfur Oxides Control from Tangentially Fired Coa! Boilers," EPA-600/7-88-013 (NTIS PB 88-238-
357) CI 988).
Nolan, P. S., Becker, T. W., Rodemeyer, P.O., and Prodesky, E. J., "Demonstration of Sorbent
Injection Technology on a Wall-Fired Utility Boiler (Edgewater LIMB Demonstration), Final Report,
EPA-600/R-92-115 (NTIS PB 92-201136) (1992).
Nolan, P. S., Purdon, T. J., Peruski, M. E., Santucci, M. T., DePero, M. J., Hendriks, R. V., and
Lachapelle, D. G., "Results of the EPA LIMB Demonstration at Edgewater," In Proceedings: 1990
SO, Control Symposium Volume 1, EPA-600/9-91-015a (NTIS PB 91-197210) (1991).
Plumley, A. L., Whiddon, 0. D., Shutko, F. W., and Jonakin, J., "Removal of S02 and Dust from
Stack Gases," In Proceedings for the American Power Conference, Chicago (1967).
Singer, J, G., (Editor), Combustion Fossil Power. Fourth Edition, Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
Windsor, CT (1991).
Technical Assessment Guide (TAG™), EPRI Report TR 100281, Volume 3, Revision 6, Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, December 1991.
Towie, D. P., Marion, J. L., Anderson, D. K., and Clark, J. P., "Testing and Optimization of Furnace
Sorbent Injection for S02 Control on a Tangentially Coal-Fired Utility Boiler," In Proceedings: 1990
S02 Control Symposium, Volume 1, EPA-600/9-91-015a (NTIS PB 91-197210) (1991).
Wagner, J. K„ Walters, R. A., Maiocco, L. J., and Neal, D. R., "Development of the 1980 NAPAP
Emissions Inventory," EPA-600/7-86-057a (NTIS PB 88-132121) (1986).
Voon, H,, Stouffer, M, R., Rosenhoover, W. A., and Statnick, R. M., "Laboratory and Field
Development of Coolside S02 Abatement Technology," presented at the Second Annual Pittsburgh
Coal Conference, Pttsburgh, PA, September 16-20, 1985.
144
-------
APPENDIX A
RADIAN CORPORATION
EMISSIONS TEST REPORT
Prepared for
Combustion Engineering Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500
Prepared by
Radian Corporation
3200 E. Chapel Hill Road/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
December 1993
145
-------
RADIAN REPORT CERTIFICATION
This report has been reviewed by the following Radian personnel and is a true representation of
the results obtained from the sampling program conducted at the Virginia Power Company's
Yorktown Power Station in Yorktown, Virginia for Combustion Engineering. The testing was
conducted during the baseline test period of February 19 through March 21, 1991, and the
demonstration test periods of January 25 through February 23, 1993, July 23 through
August 16, 1993, and August 26 through September 20, 1993. The sampling and analytical
methods were performed in accordance with the EPA reference procedures.
APPROVALS:
Date
Date
Gerald S. Workman, Reporting Task Lead
Date
146
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 150
1.1 Background and Objectives 110
1.2 Summary of Results 151
1.3 Report Organization 152
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 152
2.1 Boiler 152
2.2 Coal Sample Collection 157
2.3 Electrostatic Precipitator Test Locations 157
2.4 CEM Test Locations 160
3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 160
3.1 CEM Equipment and Testing Methodology 160
3.1.1 Overview 160
3.1.2 Sample and Data Acquisition . 160
3.1.3 CEM Analyzers 162
3.2 Manual Flue Gas Sampling and Analysis 164
3.2.1 Flue Gas Particulate Sampling 164
3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution 164
3.2.3 Fly Ash Resistivity . 165
3.2.4 Volumetric Gas Flow Rate Determination 165
3.2.5 Flue Gas Moisture Determination 166
3.2.6 Flue Gas S03/H2S04 Determination 166
4.0 TEST RESULTS 166
4.1 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Results 167
4.2 Total Particulate Tests 167
4.3 Particle Size Distribution Tests 173
4.4 Fly Ash Resistivity 173
4.5 Sulfur Trioxide Tests 175
147
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
A.I Side Elevation of Virginia Power's Yorktown Unit No. 2 153
A.2 Process Schematic of LIMB System at Yorktown Unit No. 2 156
A.3 Coal Sampling Locations ............................... 158
A.4 ESP Inlet and Outlet Sampling Locations 159
A.5 Schematic of CEM System 161
A.6 Instrument/Data Signal Schematic 163
148
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
A.1 Manual Sampling Results Summary 151
A.2 Description of Host Boiler: Yorktown Unit No. 2 154
A.3 Description of Electrostatic Precipitator at
Yorktown Unit No. 2 155
A.4 Average Daily NOx and CO Emission Rates
During First Demonstration Test 168
A.5 Average Daily NOx and CO Emission Rates
During Second Demonstration Test . 169
A.6 Average Daily NOx and CO Emission Rates
During Third Demonstration Test 170
A.7 Average Daily NOx and CO Emission Rates
During Baseline Test 171
A.8 Comparison of ESP Performance Tests 172
A.9 Fly Ash Resistivity Summary 175
149
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Objectives
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored a research and development
project to demonstrate the feasibility of dry sorbent injection technology for sulfur dioxide (S02)
and low-NOx firing systems for nitrogen oxides (N0X) emissions control on tangentially coal-fired
boilers. In this program, a full-scale demonstration of the sorbent injection technology was
conducted at a coal-fired utility boiler typical of those found in the United States. Specific goals of
the program were demonstration of a 50% reduction in S02 at a calcium-to-sulfur molar ratio (Ca/S)
of 2.5:1, based on feed coal containing a nominal 2.0% to 2.5% sulfur, and a reduction in NOx
emissions to below 0.4 lb/10s Btu, Project goals also included demonstration that boiler reliability,
operability, and steam production could be maintained at levels comparable to pre-retrofit
conditions.
The demonstration was conducted on Unit No. 2 of Virginia Power's Yorktown Power
Station, Unit No. 2, rated at 180 MWe, is a tangentially fired, Controlled Circulation® reheat boiler,
manufactured by Combustion Engineering, which entered commercial service in 1959.
Combustion Engineering Inc. (CE), the principal contractor and primary sorbent injection
designers for the demonstration project, was responsible for evaluating boiler operations and
performance. Radian provided Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) and performance
test support. The CEMS monitored CO, S02, NOx, C02, 02, and total hydrocarbons (THC.J
The performance testing program included electrostatic precipitator (ESP) particulate matter
removal efficiency testing, particle size analysis of the ESP inlet and outlet streams, measurement
of fly ash resistivity at the ESP inlet, and determination of sulfuric acid mist (S03/H2S04)
concentrations in the flue gas at the ESP inlet.
Performance testing using manual sampling methods was conducted during the first and
second demonstration test periods only.
Operating characteristics of the boiler prior to the retrofit were established during baseline
tests conducted during February and March 1991 to permit subsequent assessment of the
150
-------
effectiveness of the sorbent injection system and low-NOx firing system. The first demonstration
test was conducted in January/February 1993, the second was conducted in July/August 1993,
and the third was conducted in August/September 1993, ESF performance tests were conducted
during the baseline test and the first and second demonstrations tests.
1.2 Summary of Results
Table A.1 shows average manual testing results from the first two demonstration tests, and
results from the baseline test period, including particulate matter concentrations, calculated ESP
collection efficiencies, fly ash resistivities, and S03 concentrations. The particulate matter emission
rate was not calculated as part of the baseline test program.
Table A.I Manual Sampling Results Summary
ESP
PM
PM Concentration
Collection
Emission
Fly Ash
SOg
Inlet
Outlet
Efficiency
Rate
Resistivity
Concentration
Test
(gr/dscf)
(gr/dscf)
(%)
llb/hr!
(ohm-cm)
(ppm>
Baseline
1.81
0.011
99.42
NT
3.7x10'°
1.5
Demo 1
5.30
0.031
99.38
104
1,4x10n
0.19
Demo 2
7.40
0.055
99.04
227
1.4x10'°
0.42
NT = Not tested
There were several differences between the first demonstration test conducted in February
1993, and the second demonstration test conducted in July 1993. The sorbent feed rate was
restricted during most of the first demonstration test due to concerns about deposits in the ESP
inlet ducts. Higher sorbent feed rates were used during the second test period. The humidification
system was also improved for the second test to inject a more even distribution of water into the
ducts. Finally, the warmer weather in July resulted in duct temperatures approximately 60°F
higher than those measured in February.
Particulate matter concentrations at both the ESP inlet and outlet were several times higher
during both of the demonstration tests than during the baseline tests, due to the sorbent injection.
ESP collection efficiency during the demonstration tests was close to the average baseline value.
Fly ash resistivity was an order of magnitude lower during the second demonstration test than
during the first demonstration test. This is probably a result of the improvements made to the duct
151
-------
humidification system and the higher duct temperatures. Limited testing with no humidification
during the second demonstration test showed an order of magnitude higher resistivity than that
measured with humidification. Concentrations of S0s/H2S04 in the second demonstration test
samples were similar to those in the first demonstration test samples, both of which were lower
than the baseline values, due to the preferential reaction of S03 with the unreacted CaO from the
LIMB process.
1-3 Report Organization
This report describes the results of the sampling and performance testing program
performed by Radian Corporation in support of the Tangentially-fired Limestone Injection Multistage
Burner (T-LIMB) project. Section 2.0 of this report describes the boiler and test locations. Section
3.0 describes the test methodology used by Radian for emissions data collection, and Section 4.0
presents the test results.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Boiler
The host facility for the T-LIMB demonstration project was Virginia Power Company's
Yorktown Power Station. The Yorktown facility has three generating units, two coal-fired and one
oil-fired, for a total station capacity of approximately 1100 MWe. The demonstration project was
conducted on Unit No. 2, a tangentially-fired Controlled Circulation® reheat boiler used to power a
steam turbine and electric generator normally rated at 150 MWe (180 MWe maximum capacity).
The unit began commercial operation in 1959. A side elevation drawing of the unit is shown in
Figure A.1. Pertinent data describing Yorktown Unit No. 2 are presented in Table A.2. The unit
features a divided furnace with a water-cooled center wall. There are four corners of tilting
tangential burners on each side of the dividing wall.
Yorktown Unit No. 2 is equipped with two Ljungstrom® regenerative air heaters. Flue gas
from these heaters enters the electrostatic precipitator via separate inlet ducts. The electrostatic
precipitator was installed on Unit No. 2 in 1985. A description of the precipitator is given in
Table A.3.
A schematic of the sorbent feed system for Yorktown Unit No. 2 is given in Figure A.2.
152
-------
Figure A.1. Side elevation of Virginia Power's Yorktown Unit No. 2.
153
-------
Table A.2. Description of Host Boiler: Yorktown Unit No. 2*
Utility
Unit identification
Boiler Type
Manufacturer
Date In Service
Rating
Main Steam Flow
Reheat Steam Flow
Net Heat Rate
Fuel Elevations
Number of Mills
Mill Type
Heat Input per Burner
Heat Release
Furnace Volume
Average Furnace Outlet
Temperature
Gas Temperature Leaving
Economizer
Gas Temperature Leaving Air
Heaters
Wall Blowers
Retractable Sootblowers
Ash Removal
Air Heater
Economizer
Unit Condition
Unit Availability
Virginia Power
Yorktown Unit No. 2
Pulverized Coal, Tangentially Fired, Controlled
Circulation®, Reheat
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
January 1959
180 MWe Maximum Capacity {Turbine Generator)
1,200,000 Ib/hr
1,080,000 Ib/hr
9,860 Btu/NKWH {1993)
4
4
C-E RB633; Rates {Design Coal) 41,400 Ib/hr; Actual
36,500 Ib/hr
67.6 X 10* Btu/hr {Design Coal}
17,250 Btu/cu. ft./hr
91,000 cu. ft
2350°F to 2450°F {estimated)
676°F
286°F
12 IR Blowers; Service Air
Service Air
Pneumatic Transport From Air Heater and ESP
Hoppers
Ljungstrom® Regenerative (two)
Continuous Finned Tube
Very Good
YTD 10/93 EA 92.74
154
-------
Table A.2. (Continued)
Normal Unit Capacity Factor YTD 10/93 78.25
Unit Design Efficiency Boiler Design 89.5
Actual Efficiency 89.3
ID & FD Fan Condition FD Fans: No Reserve Capacity, Good Condition
ID Fans: Reserve Capacity, New Condition
Yorktown Unit No. 2 is continuously operated at the 180 MWe rating. The design data presented
in Table A.2 are at the original 150 MWe rating.
Table A.3. Description of Electrostatic Precipitator at Yorktown Unit No. 2
Manufacturer Environmental Elements Corp.
Installation Date June 1985
Collection Surface, ft2 470,547
Specific Collection Area, frVl 000 acfm 720
Design Gas Temperature, °F 285
Velocity through Precipitator, ft/sec <4.5
Inlet Fly Ash Burden, gr/ft3 2.12
Efficiency, percent 99.7
Method of Ash Removal Dry Pneumatic
Ash Collection and Storage System Pneumatic Transport to Silo Storage
155
-------
tn
CLEANED
GASES
STACK
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
(COAL ASH AND
LIMB WASTE
PARTICULATE
COLLECTION)
i,a FANS
FLY ASH
TRANSPORT
SYSTEM
WATER
Figure A.2. Process schematic of LIMB system at Yorktown Unit No. 2.
-------
2.2 Coal Sample Collection
Coal samples were collected during the test program to determine fuel characteristics which
affect unit operation and to establish the effectiveness of the sorbent injection system in reducing
S02 emissions. During the demonstration test period, pulverized coal samples were collected from
access ports located on the pulverizer outlets. The two sample ports are located perpendicular to
each other permitting a traverse of the outlet pipe. Figure A.3 illustrates the general layout of the
sample collection points with respect to the fuel handling system. Sample collection was
performed by Virginia Power personnel and a sample was provided to Radian for subsequent
analysis by Commercial Testing and Engineering, Inc.
2.3 Electrostatic Precipitator Test Locations
Particulate testing during ESP performance tests was performed simultaneously on the inlet
and outlet of the ESP. Test port locations relative to the ESP are illustrated in Figure A.4, The ESP
was served by two inlet ducts requiring sampling at two locations. The ducts were 9% feet high
and 10 feet wide (ID). These ducts were constructed at an angle of about 37 degrees from
horizontal. The eight sampling ports in each duct were located approximately 10 and 4 equivalent
stack diameters downstream and upstream, respectively, from the nearest flow disturbances. The
sampling ports were situated in a plane running perpendicular to the gas flow in the duct.
Ports for the ESP outlet particulate tests were located upstream of the induced draft fans
(see Figure A,4). The ESP outlet sampling locations were on each of two ducts exiting the ESP.
Each of the locations was approximately 9 feet by 11 feet (ID). Each duct had seven vertical
4-inch ports spaced approximately 15 inches apart. These ports were located in a vertical plane
about 3 feet upstream of the opacity monitors.
Test ports for the in-situ ash resistivity measurements were located just upstream of the
ESP in a horizontal section of the ducting. A single vertical port in each duct was used for the
resistivity tests.
157
-------
Access Door/Sample Collection
Bowl Mill
Figure A.3. Coal sampling locations.
Coal Bunker
Feeder
Coal Distribution Lines
Mill Outlet Sample Point
-------
ESP Intel Duel Detail
(Rear view showing
sampling location)
Ash Reactivity Sampling Location
en
i£>
I D. Fan
CEM Sampling
Location
7 Ports at ESP Outlet
Sampling Locations
(width = 131
Figure A.4. ESP inlet and outlet sampling locations.
-------
2.4 CEM Test Locations
Test ports for the CEM sampling probes were located in the two ESP outlet ducts upstream
of the induced draft fans. This site was selected because it is downstream of both the ESP and the
humidification system, located in the ESP inlet ducts. A single location in the stack was not
possible because both Units No. 1 and 2 share a common flue. Each of two CEM probes was
located in a 9 feet by 11 feet ESP outlet duct approximately three equivalent diameters upstream of
the ID fan and three diameters downstream of a 90° bend. No significant S02/02 or N0x/02
stratification was measured at this location during the baseline tests. Cyclonic flow checks
performed during the test period indicated an absence of cyclonic flow.
3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
3.1 CEM Equipment and Testing Methodology
3.1.1 Overview
Radian's primary responsibility for the T-LIM8 Project was to characterize boiler emissions
from Unit No. 2 using a variety of CEM analyzers. Concentrations of S02, NOx, CO, THC, C02 and
02 were monitored continuously at the ESP outlet sampling location. In conjunction with the CEM
data collection program, a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program was implemented to
insure data accuracy and completeness. A written QA/QC plan was prepared for this project and
implemented from the initiation of data collection. This QA/QC plan included daily instrument
calibrations, drift checks, relative accuracy audits, and calibration error audits. The CEM equipment
was operated 24 hours/day and was calibrated at least once each day according to the procedures
outlined in this section.
3.1.2 Sample and Data Acquisition
Sample acquisition was performed as illustrated in Figure A-5 using a dual probe/heated
simple line system. Flow from the two sample probes was metered using precision rotometers and
control valves. The two samples were mixed prior to entering the sample pump and the gas
conditioner. Sample gas from the conditioning system was then pumped into a sample manifold
which was used to provide slipstream sample flows to each monitor.
160
-------
Pha*e Di»crimmalion
CEM Probe
From Second Duct
ZitczFihen
no*sg,,co,.
thc,4,co
CaVQC
Q«l««
Outlet Minifold
"5 S"
—i—
a
CP
so,
~
ooo
r——i
OOO
ooo
3
OOO
NO*
3 ooo
ooo
ooo
111
zi C
3 ooo
Coufitioaer
A/D CoBVenioii
usd CmnpHtffr
Dtta AoquaitioD
COa
CO
TKC
3d
Strip
Chart
Recorder
Hc*t Trace
Unbelted Gaa Line*
Sgul W5«
Figure A.5. Schematic of CEM system.
161
-------
During the demonstration test period, data from the CEM instruments was collected and
recorded using a microprocessor-based data acquisition system (DAS). The data acquisition
software package took instrument readings 10 times per second and averaged the readings at
one-minute internals. The one-minute averages were recorded in computer files, to be used in
spreadsheet based data reduction programs. Figure A-6 illustrates the general layout of the CEM
system components.
3.1.3 CEM Analyzers
Carbon Monoxide Analysis
A TECO Model 48 analyzer was used to measure effluent CO concentrations. This
instrument determines CO levels utilizing the infrared adsorption properties of CO. This analyzer
also utilizes a gas filter correlation technique to eliminate interferences from other gas species
present in the effluent. The operating range of this instrument was 0-500 ppm CO.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Analysis
A Teco Model 10AR analyzer was used for N0X measurement. This instrument determines
N0X concentrations by converting all nitrogen oxides present in the sample to nitric oxide and then
reacting the nitric oxide with ozone. The reaction produces a chemiluminescence proportional to
the N0X concentration in the sample. The chemiluminescence is measured using a high-sensitivity
photomultiplier. The range selected for this analyzer was 0-1000 ppm NQX.
Sulfur Dioxide Analysis
A Western Model 721A analyzer was used to measure S02 concentrations on a dry basis.
The Western analyzer determines S02 concentration of the sample based on the adsorption of UV
light in the 280 to 313 nanometer (nm) range. The S02 instrument range used during the
demonstration test was 0-5000 ppmV,
162
-------
Computer
Data Acquisition
Figure A.6. Instrument/data signal schematic.
-------
Carbon Dioxide/Oxygen Analysis
A Servomex Model 1400/2 was used to determine COa and 02 concentrations, The C02
portion is an NDIR analyzer. The typical instrument range used was 0 to 20% (%V) for C02, The
02 portion of the analyzer utilizes a paramagnetic cell to produce a linearized voltage signal that is
proportional to the ratio of oxygen concentrations of a reference gas {usually ambient airj and the
oxygen concentration of the sample. The range used was 0 to 25%V.
Total Hydrocarbon Analysis
Total hydrocarbon analysis was performed using a Rafflsch Model RS55. This instrument
uses a flame ionization:detector (FID) to make nonspecific measurements of hydrocarbon
compounds in the gas sample stream. The range used was 0 to 100 ppmV total hydrocarbons.
3.2 Manual Rue Gas Sampling and Analysis
Manual flue gas sampling methods were used to characterize particulate emissions from the
unit during the baseline test period and two of the three demonstration test periods. Manual
methods were used to determine particulate emissions, particle size distribution, in-situ fly ash
electrical resistivity, flue gas moisture, flue gas molecular weight, and volumetric flow rates.
Manual methods were also used to determine S03/H2S04 emissions at the ESP inlet.
3.2.1 Flue Gas Particulate Sampling
The particulate loading in the flue gas was measured at the ESP inlet and ESP outlet using
EPA Method 17. In this method, particulate-laden flue gas is withdrawn isokinetically through a
heated probe and collected on a glass fiber filter maintained at actual stack temperatures.
3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution
In-stack cascade impactors were used to determine particle size distributions (PSD) at the
ESP inlet and outlet. A cascade impactor separates particles by their aerodynamic diameter. The
particulate matter sample is divided into nine size ranges by the in-stack impactor, and collected on
individual filters for gravimetric analysis.
164
-------
3.2.3 Fly Ash Resistivity
Fly ash resistivity was measured with a Southern Research Institute resistivity probe, which
uses a point-to-plane in-situ measurement technique. A layer of particulate matter is collected
electrostatically onto a plate in the probe. Conductivity of the particulate matter is then measured
by passing a current from a needle micrometer to the plate through the particulate matter layer.
The ash resistivity is inversely proportional to the measured conductivity. The measurements were
performed at ports installed immediately upstream of the ESP inlet to most accurately approximate
actual ESP operating temperatures and conditions.
3.2.4 Volumetric Gas Flow Rate Determination
The volumetric gas flow rate was measured during this program using procedures described
in EPA Method 2.
The number of sampling points required to measure the average gas velocity were
determined using the procedures outlined in Method 1.
During the demonstration tests, agglomerated sorbent, fly ash, and water collected in the
ESP inlet ducts. Sampling was therefore performed using only the top six ports during the first
demonstration test period and the top seven ports during the second demonstration period, in order
to prevent the sampling nozzle from contacting the dust layer on the bottom of the duct.
The ESP outlet ducts were slightly larger than the inlet ducts. Each outlet duct had seven
sampling ports in the vertical side. Six sampling points were used at each of the seven ports. The
outlet ducts had only a minor deposit of ash on the bottom of the duct below the lowest sampling
port.
Temperature and AP profile data were measured at each of the sampling points using an
S-type pitot tube and K-type thermocouple. An oil manometer was used to measure the pressure
drop across the S-type pitot tube. A calibrated aneroid barometer was used to obtain barometric
pressure readings at least once a day. The static gas pressure at the ESP inlet and outlet was
determined by disconnecting one side of the S-type pitot tube and then rotating it; so that it was
perpendicular to the gas flow.
165
-------
3.2.5 Flue Gas Moisture Determination
The moisture content of the flue gas was determined using EFA Method 4.
3.2.6 Rue Gas S03/H2S04 Determination
A controlled condensation sampling technique was used for the separation and quantitative
collection of S03/H2S04 present in the flue gas at the ESP inlet.
A special high temperature {900°F maximum) probe was fabricated for use with this
technique. Attached directly to the back of the probe was a specially fabricated cylindrical oven,
designed to securely house a Pyrex thimble holder. Flue gas exiting the probe's quartz liner
immediately entered the thimble holder, where entrained particles were removed from the gas
stream. The probe and filter holder oven were maintained between 550°F and 600°F to keep the
flue gas well above the dew point of S03/H2S04 (450°F). S02 and SOs/H2S04 exiting the thimble
holder entered a modified Graham condenser that was housed in an insulated cylindrical enclosure.
S03/H2S04 was removed from the gas stream by condensation at a temperature between 140°F
and 160°F. S02 and moisture present in the gas exiting the condenser were collected in a series of
impingers.
Condenser rinses were stored in glass bottles until the simple was analyzed for S04" by ion
chromatography.
4.0 TEST RESULTS
This section summarizes the emissions test results of the three demonstration periods.
Gaseous emissions data from the CEMS were available for all three periods. Manual sampling for
particulate matter characteristics and for S03 emissions was conducted during the first two
demonstration periods only. Results from the baseline test period are included here for comparison
with the demonstration test results.
166
-------
4.1
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Results
Concentrations of six gases were measured with continuous monitors during the
demonstration tests: S02; NOx; CO; THC; C02; and 02,
The CEM system was operated 24 hours a day during the entire test period. All
measurements were made on a dry basis, with S02 and NOx emission rates calculated from 02 data
and daily coal analysis results in accordance with 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, Reference Method 19.
Daily zero and span calibrations were performed to insure proper operation of the instruments. A
daily check using quality control calibration gas standards was made to verify analyzer accuracy.
Data were recorded as one-minute averages during each 24-hour test day, except that no stack
data were acquired during calibration and QC routines. For each test day, hourly averages were
calculated for each hour containing at least 45 minutes of valid data. Hours for which less than 45
minutes of valid data was available were discarded. The hourly averages were then used to
calculate daily averages, provided that at least 18 hourly averages were obtained for each test day.
At least 18 hours of valid test data were available for all days in the three demonstration test
periods.
Tables A.4 through A.6 list the daily average emission rates for NOx and CO (corrected to
3% 02! for the three demonstration test periods. Table A.7 lists the same data for the baseline
test.
Daily average emission rates for S02 are not reported in this Radian report. CE analyzed
this data as a series of short-term test periods rather than as daily average S02 emissions. The
results of these analyses are presented in the CE Project Final Report (Section 7 and Appendix C|.
4.2 Total Particulate Tests
Particulate matter (PM) emission test runs were performed during the baseline and the first
two demonstration test periods, using EPA Method 17. Table A.8 presents the average daily PM
test results for the ESP inlet and outlet, along with the calculated collection efficiencies, emission
rates, and fly ash resisrivities, for the first two demonstration tests and the baseline test.
167
-------
Table A.4, Average Daily N0X and CO Emission
Rates During First Demonstration Test
NOx
CO @ 3%
Date
(lb/10* Btu)
(ppm)
1 /28/93
0.500
45.5
1/29/93
0.401
43.6
1/30/93
0.342
37.6
1/31/93
0.534
43.5
2/01/93
0.379
39.3
2/02/93
0.343
34.5
2/03/93
0.368
35.9
2/04/93
0.390
41.5
2/05/93
0.378
33.3
2/06/93
0.356
35.5
2/07/93
0.385
29.6
2/08/93
0.371
16.4
2/09/93
0.376
20.0
2/10/94
0.371
18.7
2/11/93
0.373
14.6
2/12/93
0.425
26.4
2/13/93
0.428
36.0
2/14/93
0.438
35.0
2/15/93
0.428
36.6
2/16/93
0.390
26.3
2/17/93
0.438
24.6
2/18/93
0.416
•16.0
2/19/93
0.396
•11.4
2/20/93
0.446
•10.7
2/21/93
0.480
*11.1
2/22/93
0.450
•9.8
Average
0.408
33.2
•Data collected outside the test period for this parameter (not used in calculation of average).
168
-------
Table A.5. Average Daily N0X and CO Emission
Rates During Second Demonstration Test
N0X
Date
lib/108 Btu)
7/23/93
0.456
7/24/93
0.441
7/25/93
0.446
7/26/93
0.452
7/27/93
0.435
7/28/93
0.470
7/29/93
0.442
7/30/93
0.448
7/31/93
0.447
8/01/93
0.451
8/02/83
0.424
8/03/93
0.484
8/04/93
0.442
8/05/93
0.476
8/06/93
0.451
8/07/93
0.528
8/08/93
0.498
8/09/93
0.472
8/10/93
0.476
8/11/93
0.472
8/12/93
0.504
8/13/93
0.450
8/14/93
0.473
8/15/93
0.446
8/16/93
0.396
Average
0.459
CO @ 3% 02
ippm}
68.0
64.4
55.8
49.5
57.9
52.0
61.3
69.6
70.9
71.1
61.3
56.4
65.1
48.7
57.6
61.2
57.2
50.9
56.3
60.2
62.5
60.4
66.4
64.2
42.6
59.7
169
-------
Table A.6. Average Daily N0X and CO Emission
Rates During Third Demonstration Test
N0X
CO @ 3% 0;
Date
(lb/108 Btu)
(pprn)
8/26/93
0.399
45.7
8/27/93
0.405
45.2
8/28/93
0.398
44.0
8/29/93
0.403
45.6
8/30/93
0.383
44.1
8/31/93
0.436
35.2
9/01/93
0.384
38.4
9/02/93
0.389
37.0
9/03/93
0.409
37.7
9/04/93
0.443
55.4
9/05/93
0.459
48.2
9/06/93
0.495
46.7
9/07/93
0.483
51.9
9/08/93
0.487
44.9
9/09/93
0.434
45.8
9/10/93
0.463
57.4
9/11/93
0.562
68.9
9/12/93
0.562
60.7
9/13/93
0.488
46.1
9/14/93
0.467
39.9
9/15/93
0.421
40.8
9/16/93
0.436
53.3
9/17/93
0.454
49.9
9/18/93
0.514
46.3
9/19/93
0.534
41.9
9/20/93
0.502
•36.2
Average
0.454
46.8
•Data collected outside the test period for this parameter (not used in calculation of average).
170
-------
Table A.7. Average DaBy N0X and CO Emission
Rates During Baseline Test
NQX
CO @ 3% 0
Date
(lb/10s Btu)
(ppm)
2/19/91
0.488
11.9
2/20/91
0.474
10.7
2/21/91
0.503
9.5
2/22/91
0.530
8.1
2/23/91
0.544
7.9
2/24/92
0.505
9.4
2/25/91
0.485
11.7
2/26/91
0.471
9.2
2/27/91
0.469
6.5
2/28/91*
(0.504)
7.9
3/01/91
0.503
8.0
3/02/91*
(0.477!
11.3
3/03/91
0.464
8.1
3/04/91
0.519
8.9
3/05/91
0.488
8.1
3/06/91
0.472
6.6
3/07/91
0.495
9.4
3/08/91
0.498
6.6
3/09/91
0.477
8.1
3/10/91*
(0.491}
7.0
3/11/91
0.516
12.3
3/12/91
0.501
10.6
3/13/91
0.493
6.6
3/14/91
0.481
6.5
3/15/91
0.491
6.4
3/16/91
0.476
9.2
3/17/91
0.486
11.2
3/18/91
0.455
13.2
3/19/91
0.484
10.1
3/20/91
0.493
9.7
3/21/91
0.433
14.8
Average
0.472
9.2
* Day does not contain 18 hours of N0X CEM Data. Not used in calculations.
171
-------
Table A.8. Comparison of ESP Performance Tests
Average
Average
Particulate
Average
Average
ESP Fields
Sorbent Feed
Concentration
Removal
Emission
Fly Ash
Out of
Rate
Inlet
Outlet
Efficiency
Rate
Resistivity
Test
Test Date
Service
(tons/hr)
(gr/dscf)
(gr/dscf)
(%)
(Ib/hr)
(ohm cm)
Baseline
2/25/91
0
0
1.93
0.0021
99.88
NM
NM
2/26/91
4
0
1.55
0.0041
99.69
NM
NM
2/27/91
4"
0
1.94
0.0072
99.59
NM
2.3x10'°
2/28/91
6
0
1.65
0.0107
99.36
NM
4.6x10'°
3/10/91
0"
0
2.04
0.0382
98.10
NM
3.7x1010
Demo 1
2/01/93
0
2.56
4.15
0.0195
99.55
69.7
2.2x1011
2/02/93
4
3.99
5.09
0.0398
99.20
135.9
1.8x10"
2/03/93
4
3.91
5.19
0.0606
98.73
204.2
1.2x10"
2/04/93
0
4.20
5.46
0.0152
99.73
50.6
1.0x10"
2/05/93
0
6.96
6.58
0.0218
99.67
75.8
1.4x10"
Demo 2
7/27/93
1
6.82
7.57
0.044
99.33
175
1,2x1010
7/28/93
4
6.77
6.41
0.077
98.58
350
1.8x1010
7/29/93
2
6.76
6.80
0.034
99.43
155
1.2x10'°
7/30/93
1
6.77
NM
NM
NM
NM
1.5x10'°
7/30/93*
1
6.77
NM
NM
NM
NM
1.5X10"
* ESP Power reduced to 50%.
b ESP Power reduced to minimum required to maintain 20% opacity.
c Resistivity tests conducted with no humidification.
NM = Not measured.
-------
Removal efficiency during the second demonstration test period was comparable to values
observed during the first test period. Removal efficiency values from both demonstration tests
were slightly below baseline values.
Particulate matter concentrations at both the ESP inlet and outlet were generally 3 to S
times higher during the demonstration test periods than they were during the baseline test period.
This was expected because of the sorbent injection. The sorbent injection rate was higher during
the second demonstration period than during the first period. PM concentrations were consequently
higher during the second demonstration test period.
4.3 Particle Size Distribution Tests
An important factor affecting ESP performance is particle size. In order to characterize
potential impacts of sorbent injection using models of the ESP, tests to determine the particle size
distribution (PSD) of the fly ash were performed during the first two demonstration test periods and
the baseline test period.
Results of PSD tests were similar for all test conditions. The particle size distribution at the
ESP inlet was shifted toward larger particles relative to the baseline tests. During the baseline
tests, approximately 60% of the particles at the inlet were smaller than 6 microns. During the first
demonstration test period, about 40% were smaller than 6 microns. In all but two of the PSD
samples taken during the second demonstration test period, less than 25% of the particles were
less than 6 microns in diameter. The particle size distribution at the outlet was similar to the
distribution seen during the baseline tests. Approximately 50% of the particles at the outlet were
smaller than 3 microns in diameter during the baseline tests. Approximately 60% were smaller
than 3 microns during the first demonstration test. For most test runs performed during the second
demonstration test, between 45% and 50% of the particles at the outlet were smaller than 3
microns.
4.4 Rv Ash Resistivity
Volume conduction in fly ash is controlled by the chemical make-up of the ash sample,
especially the amount of alkali metal ions present. The magnitude of conduction is also influenced
by temperature. Higher temperatures allow migration of the ions in the presence of an electrical
173
-------
field towards the surface of the particle, thereby increasing the number of charge carriers in the
particle layer.
Surface conduction occurs along the surface of the ash particle due to a layer adsorbed
onto the particle, or a flue gas reaction with the ash particle. The composition of the gas stream is
very important in determining the magnitude of surface conduction. Condensable materials such as
water and sulfuric acid, at temperatures less than 350°F, are considered significant contributors to
surface conduction. Finally, the porosity of the dust can effect both conduction methods, A very
porous dust would inhibit volume conduction due to its lower mass, but at the same time increase
the surface area available for acid/moisture adsorption which may increase surface conduction. The
overall affect of ash porosity during this test is unknown.
Fly ash resistivity was measured using a Southern Research Institute resistivity probe. The
measurements were performed at ports installed immediately upstream of the ESP inlet to most
accurately approximate actual ESP operating temperatures and conditions. Measurements were
obtained at both inlet ducts to ensure a representative sample.
Average results of the resistivity measurements made during the baseline and
demonstration test period are shown in Table A.9. Resistivity values measured during most of the
second demonstration test period were an order of magnitude lower than those measured during
the first demonstration test period and slightly lower than those measured during the baseline tests.
Improvements were made in the humidification system between the first and second
demonstration tests, which were intended to make the system more effective in dispersing water
into the flue gas. The lower fly ash resistivity measured during the second demonstration test is
probably the result of higher duct temperature and higher moisture content in the fly ash.
174
-------
Table A.9. Fly Ash Resistivity Summary
Test
Voltage
Drop
(V)
Ash Layer
(cm!
Duct
Temperature
°F
Fly Ash
Resistivity
{ohm-cm}
Baseline
Demo 1
Demo 2
Demo 2"
660
1560
1370
1500
NM
0.064
0.061
0.010
289
287
335
349
3.5x1010
1.4x1 011
1.5x1010
1,5x10"
* Average of three runs conducted with no humidification.
NM = not measured
An attempt to determine the effect of humidification on fly ash resistivity was made on July
30, 1993. Three resistivity measurements made with the humidification system in operation
produced an average resistivity of 1.5 x 1010 ohm-cm. The humidification system was turned off
and three additional resistivity measurements were made. The average resistivity for these test
was 1.5 x 1011 ohm-cm. It is possible that the one magnitude increase in resistivity would have
been greater had the LIMB system been allowed to operate for a longer period without
humidification.
4.5 Sulfur Trioxide Tests
Tests to measure sulfur trioxide (S03) in the flue gas, which affects ash resistivity, were
made at the ESP inlet. Analysis of test samples was completed in the Radian RTF laboratory using
ion chromatography to determine the S03 concentration. S03 concentrations were very low during
all test periods, averaging 1.5 ppm during baseline testing, 0.2 ppm during the first demonstration
test, and 0.5 ppm during the second demonstration test.
175
-------
APPENDIX B
ASSESSMENT OF DATA QUALITY AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
LIMB DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
YORKTOWN, VA
by
Judith S. Ford
Quality Assurance Office
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
and
Richard C. Shores
Shrikant V. Kulkarni
Center for Environmental Measurements and Quality Assurance
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Under EPA Contract No. 68D30045
176
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report documents an assessment of data quality and the quality assurance
activities implemented during the Limestone Injection of Multistage Burner Demonstration
Project conducted at the Virginia Power Company's Yorktown Station. ABB/Combustion
Engineering (ABB/CE) was the contractor responsible for on-site operations, including data
collection. Radian Corporation was responsible for emission measurements and particulate
sampling as well as delivering the coal samples to Commercial Testing and Engineering
Company's (CTECo's) Laboratory in Lombard, Illinois.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of AEERL Senior Engineer David
Lachapelle and Nancy Adams, who assumed the duties of AEERL Quality Assurance Officer
in October 1993. The active cooperation of Jim Clark, Dave Bergeron, and Robert Koucky
of ABB/CE; Walter Gray, Jamie Clark, and Linda Brown of Radian; and Conrad Francis,
Jim Thorton, Rick Dye, Kevin Horsley, and Ed Gootzait of Virginia Power was essential in
carrying out the data assessment and implementing the quality assurance program for the
demonstration project.
177
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Acknowledgements 177
1.0 INTRODUCTION 180
2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE SUPPORT .187
2.1 PLANNING DOCUMENTS; PREPARATION AND REVIEW 187
2.1.1 Preparation of Data Quality Objectives Agreement 187
2.1.2 Review of the QA Project Plans and Test Plans 188
2.2 AUDITING ACTIVITIES 188
2.2.1 Baseline Testing 188
2.2.2 Optimization Testing 192
2.2.3 Demonstration and Long-Term Testing 194
3.0 CONCLUSIONS 200
AEERL DQO Agreement 201
178
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
B. 1 Graphical Representation of the Percent Removals and 90 Percent
Confidence Intervals 198
TABLES
Table Page
B.l Summary of the Quality Assurance Management Support Activities for LIMB
Demonstration Project 182
B.2 Participating Organizations and Individuals 185
B.3 Percent Removal Estimates Reported by ABB/CE and Calculated by Auditors . . 196
B.4 NOx Emission Data Calculated by Auditors 199
179
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Quality Assurance (QA) Program in EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory (AEERL) is responsible for assuring the quality of data produced by the
Laboratory. As such, AEERL's QA Program has been an integral component of the
Laboratory's project, "Demonstration of Sorbent Injection Technology on a Tangentially Coal-
Fired Boiler." This demonstration evaluated LIMB (Limestone Injection Multistage Burner)
technology at the Virginia Power Company's Yorktown Station, Unit No. 2. Specifically, it
demonstrated the simultaneous removal of sulfur oxides (S02) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by
retrofitting a dry sorbent and low-NOx firing system onto a 180 MW(e) tangentially fired,
coal-burning utility boiler.
Two tables summarize AEERL QA Program activities and participants. Table B.l
identifies QA support activities conducted from December 1988 to December 1993 during the
four phases of the demonstration; planning, baseline testing, optimization testing, and
demonstration and long-term testing. Table B.2 identifies the participating organizations and
individuals and the organizational responsibilities, particularly in relation to QA.
All QA support activities were conducted in collaboration with the AEERL Senior
Engineer for this demonstration, David Lachapelle. Throughout the project, Mr. Lachapelle
worked closely with the AEERL QA Manager and audit teams in planning for and assessing
data quality. He attended audits and data assessments, ensured that preliminary QA findings
and recommendations were given immediate attention by the appropriate demonstration
personnel, resolved audit report issues, and investigated other data quality concerns affecting
the demonstration as they were identified by QA and project personnel.
AEERL QA reviews and audits identified that demonstration planning and
implementation of the QA project plans and test plans were satisfactory. Data resulting from
critical measurements were challenged using performance evaluation (PE) samples. In
general, results of PE sample analyses were in the expected range of precision. Sulfur-in-coal
PE samples were submitted to CTECo and Virginia Power (VP) laboratories (in three rounds)
from November 1992 through June 1993. Statistically significant bias in the measurement of
180
-------
sulfur in coal was detected in the laboratories for the first round of audit samples. No
significant bias was detected in subsequent rounds for CTECo's laboratory, but the VP
laboratory continued to show a small, but consistent, positive bias. Only CTECo coal
analysis results were used for estimating the percent removal of S02 and NOx.
181
-------
TABLE B.l. SUMMARY OF THE QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
FOR THE LIMB DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
No.
Project
QA Support Activities
Activity
QA Output
Comments
Activity
Period
1
Planning
1. Participation in planning meetings
1988-1990
---
2. Data Quality Agreement between
DQO Agreement
Finalized 12/88.
AEERL and OAQPS1
3. Review of QA Project Plans
Approved QAPP
Finalized 12/88.
(QAPPs) and Test Plans
II
Baseline
1. Technical Systems Audit (TSA)
2/91
Draft report dated
Acceptable with
Testing
9/4/91
recommendations.
2, Performance Evaluation Audit
2/91
PEA indicates
(PEA) of continuous emissions
sulfur-tn-eoal
monitors and coal analysis
analysis has
systematic bias.
3. Audits of Data Quality (ADQs) and
3/92
Draft reports
Collected arid
review of test report
dated 2/12/92 and
identified data for
3/23/92
review:
(continued)
-------
TABLE B.l. (continued)
No.
Project
QA Support Activities
Activity
QA Output
Comments
Activity
Period
Ill
Retrofit and
1. Technical Systems Audits
11/92
Draft report dated
TSA of the
Optimization
a. Site
1/12/93
laboratory and other
Testing
b. Test at Virginia Power coal
measurement system
analysis facility
indicates acceptable
c. Radian continuous emissions
results. Relative
monitoring (CEM) systems
accuracy testing not
performed according
to QAPP.
2. Performance Evaluations
Letter report dated
CEM PEA indicated
a. CEMs for total hydrocarbons
3/26/93
acceptable results.
(THC), S02, NOx, 02
PEA samples sent to
b. Sulfur-in-coal samples
wrong CTECG
laboratory for coal
analysis. VP sulfur-
in-coal analysis
indicated bias.
3, Preliminary review of data
Sulfur removal
calculations
reviewed and were,
on average, within
acceptable limits.
(continued)
-------
TABLE B.l. (continued)
No.
Project
QA Support Activities
Activity
QA Output
Comments
Activity
Period
jy
Demonstration
1. Technical Systems Audits
12/92 -
Preliminary report
No problems
and Long-term
a. Relative accuracy testing
12/93
8/4/93
identified during
Testing
b. Calibration drift data
TSAs.
c. Gravimetric sorbent feeder
2. Audits of Data Quality
Draft report 12/93
ADQs: Collection of
data for review and
calculation of
removal efficiency.
Data contained
spreadsheet
miscalculations.
1 EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
-------
TABLE B.2. PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
ORGANIZATION
PARTICIPANTS
ORGANIZATION'S
RESPONSIBILITIES
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
AEERL
D. G. Lachapelle
J. S. Ford
R. D. Stern
J, H. Abbott
N. H. Adams
Project and QA Management;
DQO Agreement (Drafting and
Concurrence); QA Plan Reviews
and Approvals; and Audits
OAQPS
AEERL QA Contractor
• Research Triangle
Institute
Fi pt
. L. Porter
R. D. Bauman
W. H, Maxwell
K. W, Grimley
K. A. Daum
S. K. Gangwal
S. V. Kulkami
M. J. Messner
L, L. Pearce
R. C. Shores
S. J. Wasson
W. M. Yeager
DQO Agreement
QA Plan Reviews,
TSAs. PEAs, and
ADQs
AEERL Statistical Support
M. R, Leadbetter
Statistical Reviews
(continued)
185
-------
TABLE B.2, (Continued)
ORGANIZATION
PARTICIPANTS
ORGANIZATION'S
RESPQNSTBTT .ITKF.S
AEERL Demonstration
Contractors
ABB/CE
E. E. Anlico
D, R. Bergeron
J. P. Clark
M. J. Dooley
M. R, Gogineni
R. W. Koucky
A. F. Kwasnik
C. Miller
D. H. Nelson
R, Robinson
On-site and Off-site
Technology Retrofit,
QA Project Plans and
Test Plans, Data Acquisition
and Reporting
Kresinger Development
Laboratory
G. L. Hale
W. R. Hocking
J. M. Holmes
J. L. Marion
D. P. Towle
Off-site Analysis,
QA Project Plans
Radian Corporation
L. C. Brown
J, Clark
W. C. Gray
D. J. Holder
K. L. Johnson
G. D. Jones
D. R. Kniskev
On-site Emission
Measurements,
Particulate Sampling
QA/QC
CIECo Laboratory
Analysis of Coal Samples
Host Site: Virginia Power
Company, Yorktown Station
C. Francis
J. Thorton
R. Dye
K. Horsley
E, Gootzait
Coordination of the
Demonstration Program, and
Collection, Distribution, and
Analysis of Coal Samples
186
-------
2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE SUPPORT
Quality Assurance (QA) support was provided at each stage of this major study and
served to characterize data quality and improve the resultant data from the study.
2.1 PLANNING DOCUMENTS; PREPARATION AND REVIEW
Taiigentially feed boilers account for half of the existing U.S. coal-fired steam electric
capacity. Following the successful demonstration of LIMB technology to wall-fired boilers in
the mid-1980's, AEERL began the LIMB Demonstration project, taking into account the
differences in the combustion and mixing characteristics of the two types of boilers. Because
of the major impact of this project on pollution control in the power plant generation industry,
QA review and support were provided in planning the study.
2.1.1 Preparation of Data Quality Objectives Agreement
The AEERL QA Manager, Ms. Judith Ford, and the AEERL Senior Engineer and
Project Officer, Mr. David Lachapelle, organized negotiation meetings between the senior
management of AEERL and the managers from OAQPS. Although OAQPS did not actively
participate in this technology demonstration project, they were the potential users of project
results and a party to the review and concurrence of the data quality objectives (DQO)
agreement. This DQO agreement is included at the end of this Appendix. Its three
negotiated objectives for this project were to:
* evaluate S02 and NOx removal efficiency under a variety of operating
conditions,
* assess changes to system performance during sorbent injection, and
* determine the capital and operating costs of LIMB retrofit.
The intended use of the data, as outlined in the DQO agreement, was to provide a
basis for OAQPS to respond to new acid rain control legislation. In the near term, the
resulting data could support S02 attainment in several EPA regions.
According to the DQO agreement, the goal for LIMB was established at 50 percent
187
-------
reduction for both S02 and NOr These reductions were to be known with ±5 percent
uncertainty. The DQO agreement was approved by the AEERL Director, Mr. Frank
Princiotta, and the OAQPS Director, Mr. Gerald Emison.
2,1.2 Review of the OA Project Plans and Test Plans
The AEERL QA Manager, senior technical personnel from the Research Triangle
Institute (RTI), and a statistician reviewed QA project plans (QAPPs) and test plans. These
reviews were an interactive process. All suggestions proposed were either responded to or
addressed in subsequent revisions.
The QAPPs contained input from the demonstration contractor, ABB/CE; the emission
measurement and particulate sampling contractor, Radian Corporation; and the off-site
analytical contractor, C.E. Kresinger Development Laboratory. The EPA-approved QAPPs
formed the basis for various audits. Data quality goals for critical measurements, primarily
the boiler performance data and continuous emissions monitoring data, were incorporated into
the QAPPs for baseline studies, optimization studies, and long-term test studies. No separate
plan for long-term testing was necessary since it was anticipated that long-term tests would be
planned based on the conditions determined by analysis of the optimization test results.
2.2 AUDITING ACTIVITIES
2.2.1 Baseline Testing
To characterize boiler performance, the baseline tests were conducted prior to the
retrofit of the LIMB equipment. These tests provided an ideal opportunity to test the data
collection scheme at this boiler without having to be concerned with sorbent injection issues.
188
-------
From February 14 through 22, 1991, the auditors conducted
* a technical systems audit (TSA)1,
* performance evaluation audits (PEAs)2, and
* an audit of data quality (ADQ)3.
The baseline PEAs involved NIST-traceable standards and mass balance calculations using the
latest available data. Data were obtained from ABB/CE; the auditors were able to access and
review these data as soon as they became available, sometimes on the same day. This type of
auditing was intended to quickly identify potential problems and allow for their timely
correction, minimizing the loss of acceptable data.
The primary purpose of these activities was to evaluate the quality of the baseline data
being generated and to assess the project team's capability to generate data of known and
acceptable quality. The audits were conducted during the first two weeks of the four-week
baseline testing period at the Yorktown facility.
The specific audit activities for baseline tests were as follows:
* TSA of the continuous emission monitors (CEMs) operated by Radian and
ABB/CE
* TSA of Virginia Power's (VP's) coal sampling and analysis technique
* TSA of boiler data collection and recording procedures
* PEA of the CEMs operated by Radian [total hydrocarbons (THC). SO-,, NOx,
eo2, o2]
A technical systems audit (TSA) is a qualitative on-site evaluation of a measurement system. The objective of a
TSA is to assess all facilities, operating procedures, equipment maintenance, recordkeeping, data validation,
experimental procedures, calibration procedures, reporting requirements, and quality control procedures for
adherence to the QAPP and for adequacy to meet project objectives. Any undocumented deviations from the
QAPP and/or observed inadequacies would be noted during the audit and included in the TSA report.
A performance evaluation audit (PEA) is a quantitative evaluation of a measurement system. Although it is
possible for each measurement system of a test program to be subjected to a PEA, it is more common to evaluate
only the critical or more important measurements, as designated in the approved QAPP. A PEA evaluates the
performance of a measurement system by challenging it with a reference material, having a certified, or at least
verified, value or composition.
An audit of data quality (ADQ) involves assessment of the methods used to collect, interpret, and report the
information required to characterize data quality. Assessment of these data quality indicators requires a detailed
review of (1) the recording and transfer of raw data; (2) data calculations; (3) the documentation of procedures;
and (4) the selection and discussion of appropriate data quality indicators.
189
-------
~ PEA of VP and CTECo coal analysis (sulfur in coal, Btu content, moisture)
* Calculation of mass balance (ADQ),
TSA findings were;
~ Radian's CEM output interface to the ABB/CE computer required equipment
replacement and testing. VP electronic technicians assisted in resolving
Radian's computer problems.
• Documentation of the CEM operation (quality control) was not in accordance
with the QAPP until several days after sampling began.
~ There was confusion among the project team regarding who was responsible
for coal sampling, sample handling, sample tracking, and shipment. The QAPP
was consulted and the miscommunication resolved. Radian then shipped the
samples to CTECo.
TSA suggestions were:
• The on-site engineer should be present during all EPA auditing activities.
* The CEM sampling system should sample proportional amounts from both
ducts. Additional quality control tests should be incorporated to ensure that the
CEM sampling system is collecting representative samples from both ducts.
These tests should be designed to indicate potential differences between the
two ducts and what impact these differences could have on the gas
concentration.
The PEA indicated that the CEMs were performing satisfactorily. Biases, however,
were identified in the VP coal analysis. VP laboratories reported sulfur-in-coal concentrations
higher than standard values by 5 to 10 relative percent, or 0.1 to 0.2 absolute percent sulfur.
Further audits were planned to identify the root cause of this discrepancy.
The auditors initiated the ADQ by reviewing mass balance calculations and comparing
results for the same coal sample analyses across different laboratories. The calculation of
mass balance provided a check on both the input values (laboratory analysis) and
measurements from continuous emission monitors. These calculations would indicate if errors
190
-------
existed within either system, thus providing the auditors and project management with an
indication of data quality. Audit findings were:
• The CTECo laboratory reported a sulfur-in-coal content for test Bi that was
obviously in error.
• By excluding test Bl and combining both CTECo and VP analyses, the average
sulfur mass balance was -2.8% with a standard deviation of 3.2% (% removal
= [(sulfur in - sulfur out)/ sulfur out] x 100). After adjusting both the CTECo
and the VP sulfur-in-coal content by the biases indicated during the PEA, the
overall sulfur mass balance was 1.2% with a standard deviation of 3.9%.
• The VP analyses are an average of 2.8% less than the sulfur mass balance
indicated by CTECo. After adjusting both the VP and CTECO sulfur-in-coal
content by the error indicated during the PEA, the VP analyses showed an
average sulfur balance of 5.1% greater than the mass balance indicated by
CTECo.
• The relationship between the sulfur-in-coal concentrations being reported by
CTECo and VP remained relatively constant, as indicated by the mass balance
calculations. For tests B6 and B7, however, this relationship changed.
Unfortunately, this change cannot be solely explained by a change in sulfur-in-
coal concentrations reported by either CTECo or VP, but must also include a
shift in CEM response. It is unclear which laboratory's analysis resulted in the
shift in mass balance; however, the audit did show that the flow rate within the
CEM probe had increased. This may explain the change in values being
reported by the CEMs.
• Sulfur mass balance data were within ±5%, which was an acceptable target for
this study.
ADQ suggestions for the baseline test data were as follows:
* A calibration standard with a sulfur-in-coal concentration within ± 5 percent of
the anticipated measurements should be obtained. Presently, the sulfur-in-coal
measurements being made are at a greater concentration than the LECo
calibration standard.
* Testing should not begin until all data acquisition systems are functioning and
quality control information is being recorded.
* Oxygen data (% 02) should be reported to two decimal places.
A draft audit report was submitted in September 1991, followed by a letter report on
191
-------
the preliminary findings of the ADQs in February 1992.
2.2.2 Optimization Testing
During the summer/fall of 1992, the LIMB start-up/shakedown testing was performed
prior to the official start of optimization testing in September. TSAs and PEAs were
conducted during the final stages of optimization testing in November 1992, as follows:
• PEAs of the coal analysis for sulfur-in-coal values of VP's laboratory and
CTECo
• PEAs of CEMs being operated on-site by Radian personnel (THC, SO*>, NOx,
o2) eo2)
• TSAs of VP's coal analysis procedure
• TSA of Radian's on-site CEM activity (relative accuracy testing, calibration
drift data)
* Preliminary review of data (ADQ),
A principal objective of these audits was to evaluate an apparent systematic bias in the
sulfur-in-coal values reported by the VP laboratory and CTECo. Therefore, prior to the on-
site audits, standard reference coal samples were sent to both laboratories for analysis, so that
the results would be available to the auditors while they were on-site.
Due to mechanical problems during the on-site audits, the LIMB system was not
operational and the auditors could not review the boiler performance data collection activities.
During these audits, the auditors observed the following:
* CEMs' response (±5 percent) was well-within QAPP criteria for THC, NOx,
S02, and 02, and there were no problems with CEM calibrations.
~ The results for the coal samples revealed that both of the analytical laboratories
exhibited a bias when compared to the standard reference samples. VP
reported higher (-3.5%, relative) sulfur-in-coal concentrations than the standard
values. CTECo reported lower (-3.4%, relative) sulfur-in-coal concentrations
than the standard reference samples. The results indicated that the true sulfur-
in-coal concentration is an approximate average of the VP and CTECo
indicated values.
* Review of the coal analysis QA/QC procedures revealed that VP's sulfur-in-
coal instrument (LECo) calibration procedure was based on a one-point
192
-------
calibration near 1.7% sulfur. The coal normally burned at Yorktown is 1.7%.
The LIMB coal is near 2.3%, where the audit results indicate a relative bias of
5 to 10%. The potential bias being indicated by the audit results between VP
and the PEA samples was discussed during the audit. In an effort to resolve
these differences, VP personnel conducted tests to calibrate the LECo
instrument with a standard near 2.5% sulfur and discussed plans to use 1.7%
sulfur as a linearity check.
• Only one problem was identified in the TSA of emission measurements. The
relative accuracy tests were not being conducted as scheduled in the approved
QAPP. The QAPP specifies that relative accuracy tests should be conducted
on a quarterly basis. The last relative accuracy test was conducted during the
spring of 1991. Since the spring of 1991, there had not been a need for
measurement data and therefore, minimal justification for conducting the
relative accuracy testing, despite the schedule specified in the QAPP.
Based on the findings of the on-site audits, the following options were presented by
the AEERL QA Manager as ways to improve the quality of data:
• Make the LIMB test plan available to the OEM operators so that they are
aware of power plant activities.
* Analyze PEA samples and perform relative accuracy audits, as specified in the
QAPP. After audits have been conducted, provide relative accuracy testing
results of the CEMs to EPA.
• Estimate the true sulfur-in-coal concentration from both the CTECo and VP
results when evaluating data collected before November 15, 1992.
~ Conduct follow-up evaluation of the coal analysis results being reported by
CTECo and the VP laboratory.
After a follow-up visit and several conversations with project personnel, the auditors
observed that the following actions were taken:
• The test plan was made available to the CEM operators.
~ The PEA samples were analyzed and the relative accuracy audits were
conducted as specified in the QAPP.
* The estimated true sulfur-in-coal concentration was determined from CTECo
results only.
~ Follow-up evaluation of the coal analysis indicated that the adjustments made
to the CTECo-reported sulfur-in-coal concentrations may not have been
necessary. An additional round of coal sample PEAs may have provided final
193
-------
resolution to this issue, but this was not done.
A preliminary ADQ for the LIMB optimization tests was conducted of data provided
by the EPA Project Officer. These data included a series of optimization tests with various
combinations of operating parameters such as furnace load, injector level, injector tilt, airflow,
and ratio of calcium to sulfur (Ca:S). Results were, on average, within acceptable limits.
2.2.3 Demonstration and Long-term Testing
A TSA was conducted on-site to gather all the information necessary to complete the
ADQ initiated during optimization and to discuss the results of previously submitted PEA
samples and other data needs with EPA, ABB/CE, and Radian Corporation project teams. As
a result of the site visit and ensuing discussions, the auditors requested two of the latest
relative accuracy test reports containing the raw data, and CEM calibration drift data sheets
covering the relative accuracy tests conducted in December 1992 and June 1993. These data
sheets were expected to document S02, NGX, CO, and 02 CEMs and cover 15 days before
and after relative accuracy testing. The documentation on the sorbent feeder calibration
procedure was requested for review. Additionally, CEM and operation data sufficient to
calculate percent removal of sulfur were requested.
A data analysis by the EPA Project Officer indicated that the removal efficiency was
less in the long-term demonstration tests than the optimization tests. The difference in the
removal efficiencies of these tests was speculated to be caused by a reduction in the Ca:S
ratio combined with a malfunction of the in-duct humidifier. Data were obtained and
reviewed in March 1993. These data included the available coal and lime analyses and CEM
data with no sorbent being injected.
Evaluation of these data was intended to satisfy three objectives:
(1) to compare the analysis of the same coal samples by both VP and CTECo to
see if the accuracy of either laboratory had changed since the previous PEA;
(2) to determine the sulfur mass balance of the system with no sorbent being
injected; and
(3) to search for any other clues that might explain the difference in the
calculations of sulfur removal efficiency during the optimization tests and the
demonstration tests.
194
-------
These objectives were satisfied by:
Subsequent analysis of sulfur in coal. Results indicated that CTECo had a
negative bias during the optimization testing, but had no significant bias during
long-term testing. VP's laboratory showed a consistent positive bias throughout
the testing.
Evaluation of sulfur mass balance of the system. Results were acceptable,
indicating an average within the goal of ± 5 percent.
Investigation of potential differences in calculating sulfur removal efficiencies.
During the ADQ, it was determined that there was subjectivity as to the
method used to calculate the final S02 concentrations. This was because some
of the optimization tests did not last long enough for the CEM to stabilize.
Differences in removal efficiencies between optimization and demonstration tests were
attributed to the need for near-continuous sootblowing during demonstration tests.
Sootblowing removes chemically active deposited material, thus reducing secondary SO,
capture. Sootblowers had not been operated during the optimization tests.
ADQ activities included the following:
Five tests were chosen from optimization data and seven tests were chosen
from demonstration data. The auditors reproduced calculations to determine
the percent removal from these data.
Inputs to these percent removal calculations were referenced to the raw data to
ensure that the correct data were being used for the calculation.
* The auditors also evaluated the precision and accuracy of the data being used
for the percent removal calculations to determine a confidence interval for the
percent removal estimates. Table B.3 contains the percent removal estimates
reported by ABB/CE and the removal estimates calculated by the auditors. The
table also contains some of the critical data used for calculating percent
removal estimates.
195
-------
TABLE B.3. PERCENT REMOVAL ESTIMATES REPORTED BY ABB/CE AND CALCULATED BY AUDITORS
Test
No.
Ultimate Analysis8
HHV
Btu/lb
so/
ppm,
dry
°4
F e
rd
Auditors
ABB/CE
%S02
removal
Relative
%
C
wt%
H
wl%
N
Wl%
S"
Wl®
Ash
Wl%
Qe
Wl%
SO, in
lb/MBtuf
SO, out
Ib/MBtu*
%so,h
removal
Difference'
c
c
D5
77.55
5.31
1.47
2.16
6.86
6.65
14130
340.0
9.15
9650.2
3.054
0.967
68.34
71.50
-4.6
£
*c
D6
78.11
5.17
1.39
2.13
6.75
6.45
14157
305.2
9.28
9660.9
3.006
0.879
70.76
71.15
-0.5
L
c
C
. E12
77.08
5.22
1.36
2.48
7.34
6.52
14088
376.4
9.77
9620.8
3.517
1.126
67.98
69.27
-1.9
E-1L
77.25
5.23
1.59
2.05
7.70
6.18
14087
308,3
9.12
9638.5
2.907
0.874
69.93
70.22
-0.4
E-2L
76.66
5.21
1.49
2.28
7.95
6.41
14005
331.2
9.46
9626.1
3.252
0.965
70.33
71.06
-1.0
c
C
«
t
D202
77.75
5.10
1.41
2.40
8.32
5.02
14015
746.0
7.66
9759.4
3.421
1.905
44.31
44.38
-0.2
D203
77,60
5.10
1.33
2.40
8.37
5.20
13905
525.3
8.67
9813.3
3.448
1.460
57.66
57.72
-0.1
c
c
£
D220
77.50
5,24
1.45
2.23
8.31
5.27
13921
656.3
7.96
9819.6
3.200
1.725
46.09
46.08
0.0
77,75
5.26
1.51
2.37
8.45
4.66
13857
608,4
8.05
9924.4
1.417
1.628
52.35
52.26
0.2
D231
77.66
5.16
1.44
2.34
8.26
5.14
13931
617,7
8.03
9817.9
3.356
1.632
51.37
51.25
0.2
D233
77.02
5.16
1.22
2.38
8,29
5.93
13940
484.7
8.99
9714,7
3.411
1.369
59.86
59.86
0.0
All data are reported on "dry basis".
True sulfur content calculated using:
CTE Result = -0.18 + 1.04 * (True Value)
Calculated using difference technique.
CEM average concentration calculated by auditors using data collected
by ABB/CE,
p - 106(3.64%H * 1.53%C * Q.57%S » 0,14%N 0.46%Q)
SO in (Ib/MBtu) = 106 x
ocv
(%S in fuel)/l(X) x MWso
GCV x mw"
SO, out (Ib/MBtu) = 1.66 x 10"' x SOl (ppm, dry) X l;u x
SO, in SO, out
%S()2 Removal = - '---—J x 100
20.95
20.95 - %Q,
SO, in
Aud - ABB
Aud
x 100
-------
• Initially, problems were identified with the spreadsheet calculations used by ABB/CE
to generate summary tables. ABB/CE was notified by EPA and the problems were
corrected. Only the demonstration data were affected.
ADQ observations included the following:
« Percent removal calculations of the demonstration data agreed with the removals
reported by EPA (ABB/CE). Calculations agreed only after initial spreadsheet
problems were identified and corrected. Upon receipt of the corrected data, there were
essentially no differences between percent removal estimates calculated by the auditors
and ABB for the demonstration data. The average relative percent difference was 0.03
with a standard deviation of 0.15. This relative percent difference is within the
acceptable range of ±5 percent.
• Percent removal calculations of the optimization data agreed with the removals
reported by EPA (ABB/CE). Before the method used to calculate the SO, average
concentration was known, some of the percent removal estimates were greater by 10
relative percent. Absolutely accurate determination of the final average SO,
concentration is not possible for some of the optimization tests because the tests
terminated before the S02 continuous emission monitor (CEM) stabilized. ABB
estimated the final S02 concentration by extrapolation of the plot of S02 concentration
versus time using a french curve. The auditors used a quadratic equation to estimate
the point where the S02 CEM would stabilize by calculating the concentration where
the slope equalled zero. Either technique determined an acceptable S02 concentration
and resulted in percent removal estimates with an acceptable range of ±5 percent. The
average relative percent difference was -1.68 with a standard deviation of 1.7. This
relative percent difference is within the acceptable range of ±5 percent.
• Confidence intervals for S02 percent removals calculated by the auditors were
estimated to be ± 2.5 percent. Figure B. 1 presents a graphical representation of the
auditor-calculated percent removals with confidence intervals.
• Reports prepared by ABB/CE document results from continuous emissions monitoring
(CEM) tests conducted from February 19, 1991 through March 21, 1991, prior to
installation of the low-NOx firing system. These baseline tests averaged 0.472
lb/MBtu. Table B.4 contains NOx emission data for the 12 tests reviewed during the
ADQ. These tests represent a mix of short-term and demonstration test periods under
different boiler loads, and substantially different (from baseline) low-NOx firing
system operating conditions and thus cannot be directly compared to the earlier
baseline results without appropriate corrections. The agreement between the auditor-
and ABB/CE-calculated NOx was quite good with the averages for these 12 tests of
0.476 and 0.465 respectively and is within the acceptable range of data quality. Data
supporting the NOx reductions achieved during long-term testing is described in
Section 7 of the Project Final Report.
197
-------
Confidence Umlft tot % Removal
5thp®rcenfS»
WthpetcenMto
Medlar*
Tad
Figure B.l. Graphical representation of the percent removals and 90 percent confidence intervals.
-------
TABLE B.4, N0X EMISSION DATA CALCULATED BY AUDITORS
Test
Fd
NOx Average3
(ppm)
02 Average8
(ppm)
NOx Emittedb
lb/MBtu
D5
9650.2
234.32
9.15
0.477
D6
9660.9
247.84
9.28
0.512
EI2
9620.8
273.29
9.77
0.587
E-1L
9638.5
228.61
9.12
0.464
E-2L
9626.1
200.95
9.46
0.419
D202
9759.4
204.81
7.66
0.375
D203
9813.3
285.96
8.67
0.570
D220
9819.6
228.37
7.96
0.431
D221
9833.7
216.95
8.05
0.413
D230
9924.4
231.81
8.01
0.444
D231
9817.9
235.18
8.99
0.482
D233
9714.7
288.87
8.03
0.542
Average 0.476
a The NOx and 02 ppm values are measured at the induced draft fan inlet.
b NOx Emission lb/MBtu = 1.19 x 10"7 x NOx ppm x Fd x [20.95/20.95 - %02]
199
-------
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Quality Assurance support played an integral part in each stage of the LIMB project.
Over the course of the project, QA observations Led to the following conclusions:
1. Quality Assurance planning activities for the various phases of the project and the
project's compliance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan were satisfactory.
2. Analysis results for the PEA samples, in general, were in the expected range of precision
and accuracy.
3. The data quality objective for S02 reduction has been demonstrated and the percent
removal was known to within ±5 percent.
4. Long-term NOx reductions of about 35 percent were achieved. These reductions
expressed, on a percentage basis, were calculated after correcting to 0° burner tilt and
were known to within ±5 percent.
5. Relative accuracy testing indicated insignificant differences between the two ducts being
sampled.
200
-------
I
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQO) AGREEMENT
FOR T-FIRED LIMB DEMONSTRATION
by
A1r and Energy Engineering
Office of A!r Quality Planning
and Standards
Fred L. Porter \ —.
Emission Standards Division
Robert D. Bauma
Sulfur Diox1de/Part1culate Matter
Programs Branch
D
Technology Applications Branch
William H. Maxwell
Emission Standards Division
K. William Sr1 mley
Technical Support Division
o
INTRODUCTION
DQO agreements summarize the results of negotiations between AEERL and
Its clients concerning the intended use of project results and the required
data quality. Both AEERL and the client are considered authors of the
agreement, and officials from both must approve and aid 1n its
Implementation. The negotiation meeting for this project was held on
September 29, 1988, by the authors listed above. This agreement should be
revised to reflect any project changes. All revisions to the agreement
must be approved by the same officials that approve the original agreement.
BACKGROUND
Tangentially fired (T-fired) boilers account for about half of the
existing U.S. coal-fired steam electric capacity. This type of boiler is a
significant contributor to S02 and N0X, which are of concern both as acid
rain precursors and as criteria pollutants. EPA has investigated the lime-
stone injection multistage burner (LIMB) for N0X and S02 reduction in wall-
fired boilers, but the results of this work cannot be applied directly to
T-fired boilers because of differences in combustion and mixing character-
istics.
201
-------
This project will evaluate the reduction in both SO2 and N0X that can
be achieved by retrofitting LIMB technology on a T-flred utility boiler.
S02 reductions of 50 to 60 percent may be achieved. Long-term evaluation
of pollutant reductions and boiler performance will be conducted.
Performance enhancements of flue gas humldlflcation will be studied, and
the cost-effectiveness of this approach will also be evaluated. This
project may accelerate the commercial application of LIMB.
In addition to EPA's AEERL, sponsors of this project include Combus-
tion Engineering, Virginia Electric Power Company, Radian Corporation, and
the Department of Energy.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site chosen for this demonstration Is the 180 MWe coal-fired York-
town unit 2 of Virginia Electric Power Company located in Yorktown,
Virginia. The project started In June 1987 and 1s expected to last five
years. The major tasks on this project include:
1. Program management
2. Developing a preliminary T-f1red LIMB concept
3. Determining baseline conditions
4. Conducting the demonstration program
5. Preparing recommendations and guidelines for T-f1red LIMB
commercialization
6. Site restoration.
The three objectives of this project and the approach for each are as
fol1ows:
Objective 1
Evaluate S02 and N0X removal efficiency under a variety of
operating conditions.
Approach
A detailed test plan covering all activities of the demonstration
period will be prepared by the contractor and reviewed by EPA staff for
technical, QA/QC, and statistical aspects. An optimization period of about
one month will enable major system variables to be screened to establish
the operating procedure for sorbent injection variables such as locations,
202
-------
velocities, angles, transport air, Ca/S ratios, etc. This will establish a
performance envelope for the sorbent feed system that will be followed
during the boiler's normal duty cycle. Concurrent with the establishment
of operating procedures for the sorbent Injection system, an assessment
will be made of the operating envelope for the 1ow-N0x burners and for the
flue gas humldlflcation system and ESP. It will be necessary to use flue
gas humldlflcatlon to control particulate resistivity and maintain compli-
ance emissions from the ESP. A full range of boiler, 1ow-N0x burner,
sorbent injection system, humidifier, and ESP operating data will be
acquired during this optimization period based on the unit's data acquisi-
tion system and augmented by the contractor's boiler performance monitoring
equipment and instrumentation supporting the IIMB anclllarles.
Following the optimization period, an 8-month demonstration of LIMB
and flue gas humldlflcation will be conducted. During this period, four
30-day CEM tests will be run. Data to be collected Include S02, NO, N02,
CO, C02» and THC. Measurement of particulate mass, composition, and size
dlstribut 1 on/spedat1 on before and after the ESP will be conducted four (4)
times during each 30-day test. Fuel samples will be taken at sufficient
frequency to permit correlation of fuel sulfur with emissions. Continuous
monitoring/recording will be made of boiler and LIMB operating conditions
that affect emissions. Normal boiler duty cycle will be followed during
the demonstration period. An assessment will be made during this period of
waste disposal for this LIMB system. Particular attention will be given
to containment and monitoring of runoff streams.
It 1s currently planned to employ ground water monitoring as an
adjunct to ensure the environmental soundness of the waste disposal opera-
tion. The host site has an exceptional waste disposal operation. It is
currently planned to devote a separate bentonite-llned cell for LIMB waste.
Ash is hauled about 2 miles to the site via a plant-owned road. The ash is
wetted and compacted as soon as 1t 1s unloaded in the cell.
203
-------
Objective 2
Assess changes to system performance during sorbent Injection,
Approach
Accurate definition of boiler and ancillary system(s) performance
without sorbent Injection 1s critical 1n determining the effectiveness of
this process In controlling S02. as well as 1n establishing the noma!
operating characteristics of the host site, Including fouling, ash handling
and disposal requirements, and ESP performance. A task 1s Included 1n the
contract to develop data to characterize unit performance, with the
existing tangential firing system, prior to Installation of the LIMB
system. These data will establish a baseline level of boiler and system
performance, including N0X emissions and ESP performance, against which
subsequent sorbent injection and low-NOx burner operation can be compared.
A comprehensive test plan for the baseline testing will be prepared
and submitted to the EPA for review and approval. This plan will describe
existing boiler records and historical data which can be used for estab-
lishing the current performance, operabillty, and reliability of the host
unit. This will Include review of at least one year of boiler maintenance
records.
A comprehensive boiler Inspection will be made just prior to initi-
ating the baseline tests. This will Include Inspection of boiler walls,
convectlve surfaces, economizers, air preheaters, exhaust ducts, firing
equipment, etc. This equipment will be extensively photographed to further
document the condition of the unit. Ouring this period, additional test
equipment will be installed to aid in monitoring unit performance before
and after sorbent injection. Included are thermocouples, pressure taps,
erosion coupons, and data logging equipment to supplement existing unit
Instrumentation for determining boiler thermal performance.
A 30-day CEM test will be conducted over the normal duty cycle to
define the baseline emissions and boiler performance. The scope of this
test will be consistent with that described in Objective 1. Measurement of
particulate mass, composition, and size distrlbution/speciation both before
and after the ESP will be conducted four (4) times during the 30-day test.
As an enhancement to the determination of the thermal performance of the
204
-------
boiler, a fouling evaluation will be conducted to establish radiant heat
flux, measure furnace outlet temperature, measure economizer Inlet and
outlet temperatures, determine convectlve section deposit bonding strength
to determine deposit cleanablHty, obtain samples of deposits for chemical
analysis, document deposit coverage with photographs, and document soot-
blower effectiveness.
Operation of the ESP and ash handling equipment, Including pneumatic
ash transport system, ash silo, loading equipment, and transport/unloading
equipment, will be evaluated along with other waste disposal considerations
to establish normal operating conditions and power requirements.
This detailed assessment of baseline boiler and ESP performance will
provide the benchmark against which similar analysis during the LIMB
demonstration will be judged.
Objective 3
Determine the capital and operating costs of T-fired LIMB.
Approach
Capital and operating costs associated with the LIMB retrofit will be
completely documented. This will Include definition of all capital costs
associated with the system and auxiliary equipment (balance of plant).
Similarly, a complete accounting of all operating costs will be documented
including labor costs, consumables, etc. Any costs associated with LIMB-
related outages will be documented. Any adverse impact on plant heat rate
or reduction in steam-generating capacity will be defined.
These site-specific costs will later be used by EPA to calibrate an
existing computerized program that estimates the capital and operating
costs of LIMB systems based on generic units.
INTENDEO USE OF PROJECT RESULTS
This project is expected to define the performance capability, applic-
ability, and cost of LIMB for S02 and N0X reduction from tangentlally coal-
fired utility boilers. A separate task In the contract provides for
developing recommendations and guidelines for commercialization. Addition-
ally, the information derived from Objective 3 will provide the basis for
205
-------
developing defensible cost-to-benefit data. The results of this project
will be especially valuable to EPA 1f OAQPS Is required to respond to new
acid rain control legislation. In the near term, the technology results
could also support S02 attainment 1n selected EPA regions.
DATA QUALITY NEEDS
The goal for LIMB 1s 50 percent reduction for both S02 and N0X. These
should be known to within * 5 percent reduction. Data quality objectives
for other critical measurements, primarily boiler performance data, are
included In the approved QA Project Plan. The accuracy limits for these
measurements range from * 1 to 10 percent.
APPROVED BY:
. f -
—1- ^
Frank T. Pr1nc1otta
^ Director, AEERL
Bite
Gerald A. Emli
-Director, OAQPS
206
-------
APPENDIX C
TEST DATA TABULATIONS
207
-------
TABLE C.1. TEST DATA SUMMARY FOR LOW-NO* PERFORMANCE TESTING
DAMPER OPENINGS % OPEN
SOFA FUEL AIR
TEST GROSS TOP BOT AUX,
NO. DATE TIME MW MILLS TOP MID LO A B C D AIR
LOW SULFUR COAL
1A
03/02/92
07:30-10:30
180
ALL 4
0
0
0
65
65
65
65
25
8A
03/09/92
07:10-10:10
147-165
ALL 4
0
0
0
57-65
6.5-17
98
03/12/92
10:40-13:40
183
ALL 4
100
100
100
68
68
BO
4S
11
9C
03/12/92
13:45-17:45
183
ALL 4
100
100
100
70
69
50
45
14
HIGH SULFUR COAL
12A
03/17/92
07:30-10:30
179
ALL 4
100
100
100
65
65
50
50
12
12B
03/17/92
10:45 13:45
179
ALL 4
100
100
100
66
66
50
50
11
12C
03/17/92
14:00-17:00
180
ALL 4
100
100
100
66
66
60
50
10
14A
03/19/92
07:30-09:30
183
ALL 4
0
0
0
65
65
65
65
36
14B1
03/19/92
10:40-11:40
182
ALL 4
100
100
100
69
69
60
60
15.7
14B4
03/19/92
13:40-14:40
182
ALL 4
100
100
100
68
68
60
60
12
14B7
03/19/92
16:40 17:40
182
ALL 4
100
100
100
68
68
60
60
14
15B
03/19/92
11:15-14:1
176
ALL 4
100
100
100
65
65
65
65
8
18A
03/25/92
11:30-14:00
121
ACD
0
0
0
66
20
57
57
0.9
18B
03/25/92
14:45-16:45
122
AGO
0
75
0
66
20
58
58
0.5
-------
TEST
NO. DATE
LOW SULFUR COAL
1A 03/02/92
6 A 03/09/92
9B 03/12/92
9C 03/12/92
HIGH SULFUR COAL
12A
03/17/92
12B
03/17/92
12C
03/17/92
14A
03/19/92
14B1
03/19/92
14B4
03/19/92
14B7
03/19/92
15B
03/19/92
18A
03/25/92
18B
03/25/92
TABLE C.I, {Continued)
AVG SOFA WINDBOX
BURN SOFA FLOW 02 TO FURN
TILT" TILT" % % A P IN H20
+ 20 0 8.1 3.6 4.0
+ 23 0 8.1 3.5 4.0
+ 16 +10 27.1 3.5 3.5
+ 4 +20 TO-20 27.4 3.6 3.5
+ 10
-10
26.4
3.5
3.5
+ 8
0
26.6
3.5
3.6
+ 6
+ 10
27.1
3.5
3.5
1
0
7.8
3.5
4.0
+ 14
-30
25.7
3.5
3.5
+ 12
0
26.5
3.5
3.5
+ 7
+ 30
25.9
3.6
3.6
+ 14
0
28.1
4.2
3.5
+ 19
+ 10
12.5
3.5
4.0
+ 16
+ 10
20.7
4.0
4.0
-------
TABLE C.2. HIGH SULFUR COAL ANALYSES FOR LOW NOx PERFORMANCE TESTING
TEST NO.
11A
11B
11C
12A
12B
12C
13A
13B
14A
DATE
03/16/92
03/16/92
03/16/92
03/17/92
03/17/92
03/17/92
03/18/92
03/18/92
03/19/9.
TIME START
6:60
10:45
14:30
7:30
10:45
14:00
7:35
13:00
7:30
TIME END
10:45
14:15
17:30
10:30
13:45
17:00
12:35
16:00
9:30
COAL FEEDERS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, AS RECIEVED (WT%>
MOISTURE
5,80
5.80
5.80
5.20
8.20
5.20
5.37
5.37
6.41
ASH
7.66
7.73
7.71
7.75
7.73
7 77
7.63
7.63
7.63
VOLATILE MATTER
32.97
32.97
32.97
33.18
33.18
33.18
33.12
33.12
33.11
FIXED CARBON
53.57
53.50
53.52
53.87
53.89
53.85
53.88
53.88
53.85
SULFUR
2.25
2.03
2.07
2.30
2.27
2.28
2.30
2.21
2.20
HHV (BTU/LB)
13212
13154
13180
13282
13319
13259
13254
13219
13283
PULVERIZER OUT
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, DRY BASIS
-------
TEST NO. 14B
DATE 03/19/92
TIME START 10:40
TIME END 17:40
COAL FEEDERS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, AS RECIEVED (WT%)
MOISTURE 6.41
ASH 7.63
VOLATILE MATTER 33.11
FIXED CARBON 53.86
SULFUR 2.20
HHV (BTU/LBJ 13287
PULVERIZER OUT
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, DRY BASIS [WT%>
CARBON 76.85
kj HYDROGEN 5.18
H NITROGEN 1.53
SULFUR 2.19
ASH 7.9B
OXYGEN 6.26
HHV [BTU/LB) 13940
PULVERIZER OUT
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, AS FIRED (WT%)
MOISTURE 6.41
CARBON 72,79
HYDROGEN 4.90
NITROGEN 1.45
SULFUR 2.07
ASH 7.SB
OXYGEN S.92
HHV (BTU/LB) 13186
PULVERIZER OUT
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, DRY BASIS (WT%)
ASH 7.98
VOLATILE MATTER 37.84
FIXED CARBON 54.18
TABLE C.2. {Continued)
14C
15A
15B
16C
16A
16B
16C
17A
33/19/92
03/20/92
03/20/92
03/20/92
03123/92
03/23132
03/23/92
03/24/9
18:00
7:45
11:16
16:00
9:15
12:30
15:45
10:30
20:00
10:45
14:16
18:00
12:15
15:30
18:45
12:30
6.41
4.64
4.64
4,64
4.21
4.21
4.21
4.76
7.66
7.60
7.51
7.62
7.88
7.83
7.87
7.79
33.11
33.38
33.38
33.38
33.53
33.53
33.53
33.34
63.82
54.38
64.47
54.36
54.38
54.44
54.39
54.12
2.22
2.33
2.36
2.31
2.31
2.27
2.32
2.29
13297
13429
13458
13439
13515
13462
13462
13408
76.94
76,86
77.11
76.84
76.74
77.05
76.64
76.65
5.13
5.09
5.26
5,13
5.11
5.23
5.16
5,24
1.55
1.56
1.51
1.56
1.56
1.55
1.53
1.57
2.13
2,49
2,51
2.51
2.38
2.32
2.45
2,42
8.08
7,84
7.78
7.93
8.10
3,10
8,14
8.06
6.17
6,16
5,83
6,03
6.11
5.75
6,08
6,06
13990
13878
14105
13983
13897
14069
13943
13973
5.41
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.21
4.21
4,21
4.75
72.78
73.29
73.53
73.27
73.51
73.81
73.41
73.01
4.86
4,85
5.02
4.89
4.89
6.01
4.94
4,99
1.47
1.49
1.44
1.49
1.49
1.48
1.47
1.6Q
2.01
2.37
2.39
2.39
2.28
2.22
2.35
2.31
7.64
7.48
7.42
7.56
7.76
7.76
7.80
7.68
5.84
5.87
5.56
6.7S
5.86
5.51
5.82
5.77
13233
13234
13451
13334
13321
13477
133B6
13309
8.08
7.84
7.78
7.93
8.10
8.10
8.14
8.06
37.32
38,16
38.49
38.25
37.70
38.12
37.90
37.64
54.60
54,00
53.73
53.82
54.20
53.78
53,96
54,30
(Continued)
-------
TEST NO. 17B
DATE 03/24/92
TIME START 12:45
TIME END 14:45
COAL FEEDERS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, AS RECIEVED
MOISTURE 4.75
ASH 7.81
VOLATILE MATTER 33.34
FIXED CARBON 64.10
SULFUR 2.31
HHV (BTIJ/LB) 13403
PULVERIZER OUT
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, DRY BASIS
ASH 8.07
VOLATILE MATTER 38.00
FIXED CARBON 53.93
TABLE C.2, (Continued!
17C
18A
1 SB
19A
19B
20A
20 B
33/24/92
03/25/92
03/25/92
03/26/92
03/26192
03/27/92
03/27/9;
15:10
11:00
14:45
9:00
13:45
7:30
13:15
17:10
14:00
16:45
13:00
16:45
12:30
16:15
4.75
4,81
4.81
4.64
4.64
4.34
4.34
7.89
7.78
7.76
7.74
7.82
7.79
7.81
33.34
33.32
33.32
33.38
33.38
33.48
33.48
54.03
54.10
54.12
64.24
54.16
54.39
54,37
2.33
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.33
2.38
2.41
13414
13397
13380
13441
13384
13453
13465
76.66
76.98
77.00
76.32
76.34
77.04
76.92
5.16
5.15
5.24
5.28
5.23
5.23
5.15
1.53
1.56
1.55
1.50
1.56
1.55
1,54
2.46
2.32
2.35
2.44
2.38
2.36
2.34
8.12
8.12
7.96
8,08
8.16
7.99
7.86
6.07
5.87
5.90
6.38
6.33
5.83
6.19
13830
13979
14058
13993
13953
14010
13954
4.75
4.81
4.81
4.64
4.64
4.34
4.34
73.02
73.28
73.30
72.78
72.80
73.70
73.58
4.91
0.4
4.99
5.04
4.99
5.00
4.93
1.46
1.48
1.48
1.43
1.49
1.48
1.47
2.34
2.21
2.24
2.33
2,27
2.26
2.24
7.73
7.73
7.58
7.71
7.78
7.64
7.52
5.78
5.59
5.62
6.08
6.04
5.58
5.92
13173
13307
13382
13344
13306
13402
13348
8.12
8.12
7.96
8.08
8.16
7.99
7.86
36.84
37.89
37.79
37.78
37.94
37.82
37.90
55.04
53.99
54.25
54.14
53.90
54.19
54.24
-------
TABLE C.3. LOW SULFUR COAL ANALYSES FOR LOW-NO* PERFORMANCE TESTING
TEST NO. 6A 98
OATE 03/09/92 03/12/92
TIME START 7:30 11:46
TIME END 9:30 13:00
COAL FEEDERS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, AS RECIEVED (WT%)
MOISTURE 3.93 4,66
ASH 8.44 8.99
VOLATILE MATTER 34.13 34.01
FIXED CARBON G3.GO 52.34
SULFUR 1.29 1.28
HHV (BTU/LB) 13289 13211
PULVERIZER OUT
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, DRY BASIS (WT%)
CARBON 76.92 76.71
n, HYDROGEN 5.06 5.17
CS NITROGEN 1.47 1.35
SULFUR 1.34 1.34
ASH 8.79 9.34
OXYGEN 6.42 6.00
HHV (BTU/LB) 13833 13857
PULVERIZER OUT
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, AS FIRED (WT%)
MOISTURE 3.93 4.66
CARBON 73.90 73.14
HYDROGEN 4.86 4.93
NITROGEN 1.41 1.29
SULFUR 1.29 1.28
ASH 8.44 8.99
OXYGEN 6.17 5.71
HHV (BTU/LB) 13289 13211
PULVERIZER OUT
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS, DRY BASIS IWT%)
ASH 8.79 9.43
VOLATILE MATTER 35.53 36.67
FIXED CARBON 55.68 64.90
-------
TABLE C.4. BOILER OPERATING PARAMETERS AND EMISSIONS FOR LOW NOx PERFORMANCE TESTING
AVG
TEST GROSS EXCESS BURNER HTSHO
NO.
DATE MW
AIR, %
BURNERS
TILT®
°F
LOW SULFUR COAL
1A
3/2/92
180
28
ALL
20
999
6A
3/9/92
158
28
ALL
23
999
9B
3/12/92
183
28
ALL
16
998
9C
3/12/92
183
28
ALL
4
998
HIGH SULFUR COAL
12A
3/17/92
179
28
ALL
10
999
12B
3/17/92
179
28
ALL
8
999
12C
3/17/92
179
28
ALL
6
998
14A
3/19/92
184
28
ALL
-1
999
14B1
3/19/92
184
28
ALL
14
997
14B4
3/19/92
183
28
ALL
12
995
14B7
3/19/92
182
28
ALL
7
994
15B
3/20/92
177
36
ALL
14
1000
ISA
3/25/92
121
28
ACD
19
991
18B
3/25/92
122
33
ACD
16
972
NOTES;
HTSHO = Superheater Outlet Temparaturs
HTRHO = Raheatar Out(#t Temparatura
MSFLOW = Main Stoam (Superheater) Flow
RHFLOW = Raheatar Flow
ADJUSTED
MS FLOW RH FLOW S02 NOX NOX % CARBON
103LB/HR 103LS/HR LB/10®BTU LB/108BTU LB/10«BTU INFLYASH
1181.1
1034.4
2.095
0.576
0.486
14.2
1023.3
896.7
1.989
0.620
0.506
6.9
1211.4
1059.0
2.134
0.298
0.285
11.6
1211.4
1059.0
2.116
0.298
0.287
11.3
1178.4
1032.1
3.359
0.323
0.285
12.1
1177.6
1030.0
3.308
0.292
0.249
12.7
1176.6
1030.3
3.280
0.267
0.246
13.1
1209.4
1053.E
3.424
0.644
0.537
6.3
1208.6
1051,9
3.303
0.380
0.324
11.1
1211.0
1053.7
3.368
0.331
0.298
12.5
1218.0
1061.E
3.425
0.317
0.282
12.5
1168.2
1020.3 ,
3.699
0.359
0.309
8.9
759.3
667.9
3.627
0.49B
0.397
5.2
784.5
690.4
3.603
0.391
0.312
5,7
HTRHO
°F
999
999
995
995
1000
1001
1002
1001
999
992
994
999
962
936
-------
TABLE C.G.
BOILER PERFORMANCE FOR LOW-NOx PERFORMANCE TESTING
TEST NO.
1A
6A
SB
9C
12A
12B
12C
DATE
3/2/92
3/9/92
3/12/92
3(12/92
3/17/92
3/17/92
3/17/32
TIME START
07:30
07:10
10:40
13:45
07:30
10:45
14:00
TIME END
10:30
10:10
13:40
17:45
09:30
13:45
17:00
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR EIMT AH
75.1
64.8
68.8
68,8
75.3
78.1
79.8
AIR LVG AH
550.9
557.8
562.3
562.3
559.7
560.5
561.1
GAS ENT AH
661.9
654.8
676.0
676.7
674.2
671.9
672.0
GAS LVG AH
264.6
262.2
266.2
268.1
267.1
271.0
272.3
02 ENT AH, %
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
02 LVG AH, %
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
EFFICIENCY, %
DRV GAS LOSS
5.11
5.34
5.30
5.35
5.17
5.20
5.20
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS
4.27
4.11
4.24
4,25
4.27
4.18
4.23
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS
0.12
0.13
0.13
0,13
0.12
0.12
0.12
RADIATION LOSS
0.21
0.24
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
CARBON LOSS
1.29
0.92
1.23
1.19
0.96
0.99
1.05
ASH PIT LOSS
0.17
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
TOTAL LOSSES
11.19
10.92
11.30
11.32
10.91
10.88
10.99
BOILER EFFICIENCY
88.81
89.08
88.70
88.68
89.09
89.12
89.01
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 10® BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER
84.21
71.89
85.54
85.52
87.30
84.89
85.18
SLOWDOWN
1.97
2.00
1,92
1.96
1.94
1.94
1.93
WATERWALLS
721.14
643.05
750.24
748.65
726.87
727.61
727.24
LTSH
288.89
248.58
290.00
290.55
286.97
284.23
283.14
HIGH TEMP SH
131.79
112.29
127.18
127.59
121.22
123.18
123,71
RH PANEL
55.23
50.96
62.05
62.10
61.14
60.93
59.26
RH PLATEN
40.01
38.74
37.64
37.73
42.62
41.23
42.42
HTRH
96.03
84.21
91.29
91.50
86.69
88,78
89.71
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT
1419.27
1249.72
1 445.86
1445.59
1414.75
1412,80
1412.59
BTU FIRED
1693.20
1484.10
1730.10
1730.10
1682.90
1681.30
1681.90
COAL FIRED, LB/HR
130046
111679
130959
131043
126401
126271
127070
(Continued!
-------
TABLE C.5. (Continued)
TEST NO.
14A
14B1
14B4
14B7
15B
18A
18B
DATE
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/19/92
3/20/92
3/25/92
3/25/92
TIME START
07:30
10:40
13:40
16:40
11:15
11:00
14:45
TIME END
09:30
11:40
14:40
17:40
14:45
14:00
16:45
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH
76.2
77.7
74.3
75.7
75.9
98.6
96.9
AIR LVG AH
571.6
569.6
567.3
565.5
570.4
528.0
530.7
GAS ENT AH
683.4
685.0
683.5
679.0
686.0
604.5
610.8
GAS LVG AH
272.6
272.0
269.7
271.1
272.5
262.9
263.3
02 ENT AH, %
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.6
4.7
5.3
02 LVG AH, %
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.7
7.2
7.8
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS
5.34
5.27
5.27
5.27
5.63
4.57
4.79
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS
4.27
4.27
4.22
4.22
4.22
4.09
4.14
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.11
RADIATION LOSS
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.31
0.31
CARBON LOSS
0.47
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.64
0.39
0.53
ASH PIT LOSS
0,16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
TOTAL LOSSES
10.60
10.91
10.86
10.86
11.01
9.65
10.06
BOILER EFFICIENCY
89.40
89.09
89.14
89.14
88.99
90.35
89.94
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 10® BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER
82.37
82.25
81.75
83.20
84.42
58.47
60.49
BLOWDOWN
1.94
1.94
1.91
1.94
1.85
1.97
1.98
WATERWALLS
737.91
739.62
743.54
750.50
706.26
502.17
518.48
LTSH
292.53
292.92
289.79
286.72
292.25
174.58
175.22
HIGH TEMP SH
134.56
129.22
129.21
132,85
128.29
78.31
76.73
RH PANEL
57.46
59.68
56.29
56.78
52.31
40.98
39.08
RH PLATEN
42.75
43.60
44.01
44.12
43.34
27.58
29.45
HTRH
94.14
88.49
90.24
94.06
32.02
60.13
60,08
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT
1443.66
1437.71
1436,74
1449.97
1400.7 4
944.19
961.60
BTU FIRED
1717.40
1717.90
1716,40
1730,00
1665.30
1099.80
1125.20
COAL FIRED, LB/HR
129469
130282
129706
130734
123805
82648
84083
-------
too
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
TABLE C.6. CONFIGURATIONS A & AS TEST CONDITIONS
INJECTOR
LEVEL
INJECTOR
TILT. DEGREES
CA/S MOLE
RATIO
INJECTOR TIP
AIR VELOCITY
FT/SEC
SORBENT
SYSTEM AIR-
FLOW, LB/SEC
A
0
2.6
460
29.60
A
0
2.6
300
19.73
A
0
2,0
460
29.60
A
0
1.6
460
29.60
A
0
1.0
460
29.60
A
0
0.6
460
29.60
A/E
0
2.6
460
29.60
A/E
0
2.6
300
19.73
A/E
0
2.6
200
13.16
A/E
-46
2.6
460
29.60
A/E
-46
2.6
300
19.73
A/E
0
1.6
460
29.60
A/E
0
1,0
460
29.60
VARIABLES EVALUATED
DESIGN POINT
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
CA/S RATIO
CA/S RATIO
CA/S RATIO
CA/S RATIO
DESIGN POINT
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
INJECTOR TILT
TILT, AIR VELOCITY. AND FLOW
CA/S RATIO
CA/S RATIO
-------
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
TABLE C.7.
CONFIGURATION D TEST CONDITIONS
INJECTOR TIP
SORBENT
INJECTOR
INJECTOR
CA/S MOLE
AIR VELOCITY
SYSTEM AIR-
LEVEL
TILT, DEGREES
RATIO
FT/SEC
FLOW, LB/SEC
VARIABLES EVALUATED
D
+46
2.6
460
29.60
DESIGN POINT
D
+45
2.6
300
19.73
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
D
+46
2.6
200
13.16
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
D
0
2.6
m
8.76
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
D
0
2.6
460
29.60
INJECTOR TILT
D
0
2.6
300
19.73
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
D
0
2.6
200
13.16
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
D
—45
2.6
133
6376
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
D
-46
2.6
450
29.60
INJECTOR TILT
D
-46
2.6
300
19.73
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
D
-46
2.6
200
13.16
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
D
-46
2.6
133
8.76
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
D
+46
2.0
450
29.60
CA/S RATIO
D
+46
1.6
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
D
+46
1.0
450
29.60
CA/S RATIO
D
+46
0,6
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
D
+46
2.6
300
19.73
LOAD AND AIR VB.OCITY
D
+46
2.0
300
19.73
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY, AND CA/S
D
+46
1.6
300
19.73
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY, AND CA/S
D
+46
2.6
460
29.60
LOAD
D
+46
2.0
460
29.60
LOAD AND CA/S RATIO
D
+46
1.6
460
29,60
LOAD AND CA/S RATIO
D
+46
2.6
200
13.16
LOAD, AIR VELOCfTY, AND CA/S
D
0
2.6
300
19.73
TILT, LOAD, AIR VELOCITY
D
0
2.0
300
19.73
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY, AND CA/S
D
0
1.6
300
19.73
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY, AND CA/S
D
0
2.6
450
29.60
TILT, LOAD
D
0
2.0
460
29.60
TILT, LOAD, CA/S RATIO
D
0
1.6
460
29.60
TILT, LOAD, CA/S RATIO
D
0
2.6
200
13.16
TILT, LOAD. AIR VELOCITY
D
+46
2.0
200
13.16
LOAD, AIR VELOCfTY. CA/S RATIO
D
+46
1.6
200
13.16
LOAD, /MR VELOCITY, CA/S RATIO
-------
too
100
100
100
100
100
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
70
70
100
100
TABLE C.B.
CONFIGURATION E TEST CONDITIONS
INJECTOR TIP
SORBENT
:CTOR
INJECTOR
CA/SMOLE
AIR VELOCITY
SYSTEM AIR-
EVEL
TILT, DEGREES
RATIO
FT/SEC
FLOW, LB/SEC
VARIABLES EVALUATED
E
0
2.6
460
29.60
DESIGN POINT
E
0
2.6
300
19.73
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
0
2.6
200
13.16
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
-46
2.6
460
29.60
INJECTOR TILT
E
-46
2.6
300
19.73
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
E
-46
2.6
200
13.16
TILT, AIR VELOCITY. AND FLOW
E
0
2.6
460
29.60
LOAD
E
0
2.6
300
19.73
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
E
0
2.6
200
13.16
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
E
0
2.6
133
8.76
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
E
-46
2.6
460
29.60
LOAD AND TILT
E
-46
2.6
300
19.73
LOAD, TLT, /MR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
-46
2.6
200
13.16
LOAD, TLT, AIR VELOCITY AM) FLOW
E
-46
2.6
133
8.76
LOAD. TLT, /MR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
0
2.0
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
0
1,6
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
0
1.0
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
0
0.6
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
0
3.0
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
-46
2.0
300
19.73
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, CA/S RATIO
E
-46
1.6
300
19.73
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, CA/S RATIO
E
-46
2,0
300
19.73
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, CA/S RATIO
E
—46
1.6
300
19.73
TILT, AIR VELOCITY, CA/S RATIO
E
-46
2.0
460
29.60
TILT, CA/S RATIO
E
-46
1.6
460
29.60
TILT, CM RATIO
-------
100
100
100
too
100
100
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
100
100
100
100
70
TABLE C.9.
CONFIGURATION H TEST CONDITIONS
INJECTOR TIP
SORBENT
•CTOR
INJECTOR
CA/S MOLE
AIR VELOCITY
SYSTEM AIR-
:VEL
TILT. DEGREES
RATIO
FT/SEC
FLOW, LB/SEC
VARIABLES EVALUATE)
E
0
2.6
460
29.60
DESIGN POINT
E
0
2.6
300
19.73
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
0
2.6
200
13.16
AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
-48
2.6
460
29.60
INJECTOR TILT
E
-46
2.6
300
19.73
TILT. AIR VELOCITY, AW FLOW
E
-46
2.6
200
13.16
TILT. AIR VELOCITY, AM) FLOW
E
0
2.6
460
29.60
LOAD
E
0
2.6
300
19.73
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
E
0
2.5
200
13.16
LOAD. AIR VELOCITY, AND FLOW
E
0
2.6
133
0.76
LOAD, AIR VELOCITY. AND FLOW
E
-46
2.6
460
29.60
LOAD AND TILT
E
-46
2.6
300
19.73
LOAD. TLT, AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
-46
2.6
200
13.16
LOAD, TLT, AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
-46
2.6
133
0.76
LOAD. TLT, AIR VELOCITY AND FLOW
E
0
2.0
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
0
1.6
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
0
1.0
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
0
0.6
460
29.60
CA/S RATIO
E
-46
4.0
300
19.73
CA/S RATIO
-------
TABLE C.10. LIMB OPTIMIZATION TEST SUMMARY
M
M
TEST
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
TEST
COND
El 8
E17
A12
A11
A10
A1
A2
A13
AS12
D4
D6
D5
D16
D15
D14
D1
D2
D3
E3
E2
AS11
E3A
D7
AS1
AS2
E17A
El 6
E1S
E1
E8
E7
E19
E2A
E3B
E4
AS3
AS4
ASS
E12
Ell
E5
DATE
09/09/92
09/09/92
09/10/92
09/10/92
09/11/92
09/14/92
09/14/92
09/15/92
09/15/92
09/16/92
09/17/92
09/17/92
09/21/92
09/21/92
09/21/92
09/22/92
09/22/92
09/24/92
09/24/92
09/24/92
09/30/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
10/02/92
10/02/92
10/05/92
10/05/92
10/05/92
10/14/92
10/15/92
10/15/92
10/16/92
10/16/92
10/17/92
10/19/92
10/19/92
10/20/92
10/20/92
10/20/92
10/21/92
10/21/92
START
TIME
09:15
12:15
13:30
16:15
16:10
11:45
15:30
10:15
15:30
11:10
08:25
11:00
08:30
11:40
14:36
09:10
15:15
07:00
13:16
17:15
1 5:30
08:30
16:66
09:30
13:20
12:00
14:10
08:38
17:45
08:10
15:16
11:26
15:32
08:00
10:00
13:55
07:15
11:10
14:50
07:45
17:30
END
TIME
11:00
13:45
15:45
17:56
17:20
13:24
17:30
12:15
17:55
12:00
10:15
12:18
10:21
13:24
16:20
11:20
16:38
08:20
14:20
18:16
17:18
09:30
17:20
10:50
14:25
13:16
15:10
09:32
18:50
09:22
16:08
12:66
16:40
09:20
11:18
14:54
08
12
16
09
18
46
28
08
32
36
GROSS
MW
167
169
169
169
165
166
166
164
167
126
128
125
124
124
124
126
124
128
169
169
169
169
128
167
168
169
169
168
164
126
128
168
168
170
172
172
166
170
129
129
160
COAL
FEED
LB/HR
106849
119264
132300
127989
117608
118264
130204
114368
228671
94447
91236
92302
102032
104511
96075
104822
106182
90270
116999
117440
115821
114014
87901
116081
113980
120316
121406
120292
119326
84081
88048
118529
117254
125691
120922
120311
127560
123699
87396
88352
110371
SORBENT SYSTEM
FEED
LB/HR
3100
6800
7129
10833
14260
17424
17791
3486
6970
12200
12664
11654
3860
6221
7532
12264
12416
12200
17650
16898
11027
18202
12628
17881
16758
6844
10648
13825
18980
12040
12400
21600
16600
17260
17640
17560
19160
17860
11860
12740
13120
AIR
LB/HR
86833
83493
105970
106433
106930
105834
72728
31500
106664
37143
73559
102022
106581
106000
104944
100861
70920
47340
47340
68989
73614
68182
47061
105898
73172
99789
98230
97365
88049
74173
87321
86895
71087
44576
92856
48907
105190
75798
72410
89720
54712
Ca/S
MOLE
RATIO
0,529
1.057
1.016
1.530
2.290
2.619
2.578
0.576
0.575
2.513
2.676
2.421
0.746
0.985
1.460
2.311
2.268
2.488
2.900
2.766
1.676
3.009
2.605
2.887
2.708
1.102
1.715
2.171
2.913
2.845
2.630
3.320
2.517
2.502
2.692
2.763
2.798
2.701
2.332
2.678
2.207
S02 In S02 Out
LB PER LB PER
10® BTU 10® BTU
3.257
3.210
3.123
3.259
3.116
3.320
3.106
3.105
3.105
3.012
3.012
3.059
3.043
3.040
3.234
3.016
3.067
3.223
3.077
3.077
3.329
3.117
3.243
3.147
3.212
3.143
3.145
3.208
3.238
3.000
3.175
3.283
3.357
3.288
3.246
3.166
3.247
3.215
3.518
3.169
3.169
2.461
2.098
1.843
1.816
1.514
1.245
1.305
2.567
2.094
1.101
0.869
0.872
2.236
2.027
1.601
0.994
0.960
1.162
1.145
1.179
1.991
1.285
1.165
1.508
1.664
2.333
1.844
1.583
1.053
1.189
1.030
1.056
1.233
1.211
1.127
1.743
1.171
1.375
1.081
1.041
1.359
S02
REMOVED
%
24.45
34.62
41.01
44.29
61.43
62.50
57.36
17.33
32.57
63.46
71.15
71.50
26.51
33.33
50.51
67.02
68.70
63.94
62.80
61.70
40.19
58.76
64.09
52.08
48.19
25.77
41.39
50.66
67.60
60.38
67.86
67.83
63.27
63.19
65.29
44.93
63.94
67.24
69.27
67.14
57.13
NOx Out
LB PER
10"BTU
0.3930
0.3889
0.3777
0.3949
0.4545
0.4463
0.4827
0.4455
0.3673
0.5336
0.5169
0.4791
0.5084
0.5208
0.5234
0.4729
0.4472
0.4742
0.4495
0.4437
0.4036
0.4588
0.4877
0.4357
0.4447
0.4690
0.4746
0.4846
0.4411
0.4667
0.5199
0.4528
0.4377
0.4678
0.5050
0.4211
0.3998
0.4435
0.5927
0.5203
0.5301
(ContinundJ
SORBINT
TYPE
•NOTE
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-------
COAL
TEST
TEST
START
END
GROSS
FEED
NO.
CONO
DATE
TIME
TIME
MW
LB/HR
42
E4TT
12/04/92
07:44
09:10
170
121279
43
E5TT
12/04/92
12:36
14:04
170
119036
44
E12TT
12/05/92
07:45
09:10
130
91865
45
E11TT
12/05/92
11:25
12:55
130
92069
46
E8L
12/05/92
14:30
16:10
130
92303
47
E1L
12/07/92
08:44
10:24
171
116923
48
E2L
12/08/92
07:34
08:54
170
120439
49
E7L
12/08/92
11:20
12:48
130
93883
50
H1
12/09/92
07:34
08:42
172
120015
51
H2
12/09/92
10:46
11:52
172
121483
52
H7
12/09/92
15:08
16:41
130
91499
53
N3
12/10/92
07:12
08:22
168
116224
54
H15
12/10/92
10:58
12:14
168
116638
65
H8
12/10/92
14:06
15:26
131
91195
56
H1B
12/11/92
06:40
07:44
167
117102
57
H17
12/11/92
10:00
11:28
170
117605
58
H18
12/11/92
14:02
16:24
171
118162
59
H20
12/12/92
06:16
07:36
130
92177
60
H12
12/12/92
08:34
10:00
131
92016
61
H11
12/12/92
11:52
13:10
131
92945
62
H4
12/12/92
15:06
16:28
171
120491
63
H5
12/12/92
17:18
18:10
170
126263
64
H4R
01/14/93
07:14
08:30
172
123356
65
H5R
01/14/93
11:20
12:22
172
121169
66
H12R
01/14/93
14:40
15:59
130
89560
67
HI 1R
01/15/93
11:56
13:18
126
87489
68
HSR
01/15/93
15:40
16:50
127
88585
69
H2R
01/18/93
07:10
08:24
172
123247
70
H1R
01/18/93
11:00
12:04
171
123837
71
H7R
01/18/93
14:40
15:54
129
93288
72
D18
04/08/93
11:00
12:18
170
120341
73
D19
04/08/93
14:16
15:50
171
120193
74
D22
04/09/93
08:00
09:22
173
122915
75
D21
04/09/93
12:24
14:00
169
120874
76
E21
04/09/93
15:40
17:00
170
119359
77
E23
04/10/93
08:20
09:50
130
89190
78
E22
04/10/93
10:40
12:12
130
92375
79
El 2
04/10/93
13:30
14:54
130
92810
80
E20
04/13/93
09:00
10:00
170
118282
81
D20
04/15/93
14:10
15:30
170
118370
82
D17
04/15/93
16:58
18:30
168
116035
TABLE C.10. (Continued)
jORBENT
SYSTEM
Ca/S
S02 in
S02 Out
S02
NOx Out
S0RBEN1
FEED
AIR
MOLE
LB PER
LB PER
REMOVED
LB PER
TYPE
LB/HR
LB/HR
RATIO
10 8 BTU
10 6 BTU
%
108 BTU
* NOTE
18300
104983
3.134
3.000
1.049
65.03
0.4481
B
18400
69517
3.195
3.007
1.078
64.15
0.4563
B
12550
70808
2.669
3,160
1.329
57.94
0.4720
B
12370
106599
2.845
2.918
1.493
48.83
0.5318
B
13550
70542
2.997
3.022
1.246
58.77
0.4913
B
18100
104479
3.282
2.904
0.865
70.22
0.4671
B
18000
73317
2.868
3.251
0.941
71.06
0.4113
B
12430
106955
2.775
2.978
1.048
64.81
0.5540
B
16660
99054
2.947
2.914
1.086
62.72
0.4623
B
16700
69631
3,035
2.804
1.129
59.73
0.4511
B
120Q0
107931
2.760
2.937
0.966
67.12
0.5187
B
15550
46753
2.705
3,054
1.115
63,49
0.4101
B
13300
96677
2.413
2.915
1.182
59.44
0.4508
B
11650
71426
2.678
2,938
1.094
62.75
0,5000
B
10000
104053
1.681
3.160
1.627
48.49
0,3882
B
6200
100016
1.075
3.063
1.986
35.16
0.4560
B
4750
107748
0.846
2.956
2.365
19.98
0.4889
B
15950
70135
3.995
2.689
0.841
68.73
0,4455
B
11600
70922
2.881
2.708
1.073
60.38
0.4811
B
11900
101581
2.840
2.815
1.129
59.88
0.4477
B
15800
99045
2.997
2.731
0.983
64.02
0.4173
B
16150
71041
2.866
2,780
1.021
63.28
0.4376
B
16500
103500
3.234
2.599
0.981
62.26
0.4805
B
16000
70000
2.987
2.774
1.066
61.57
0.4632
B
11860
71500
3.087
2.683
1.093
59.25
0.4578
B
11900
101500
3.109
2.688
0.846
68.52
0.5174
B
11450
72000
3.447
2.286
0.719
68.57
0.6255
B
16300
72000
3.098
2.687
0.922
65.68
0.4757
B
15800
102000
2.929
2.748
0.977
64.45
0.4579
B
11000
103000
2.763
2.661
1.250
53.04
0.6142
8
T3597
70577
2.207
3.179
1.254
60.57
0.5226
B
10576
71665
1.823
2.995
1.616
46.05
0.4782
B
9337
103397
1.578
2.978
1.592
46.54
0.4837
B
13368
104406
2.257
3.048
1.318
56.77
0,4805
B
10600
72041
1.719
3.203
1.461
54.40
0.5155
B
6982
70590
1,664
3.033
1.280
57.81
0.5005
B
9390
70452
2.161
2.937
1.110
62.19
0.4960
i
11760
69457
2.682
2.963
0.853
71.21
0.5202
B
12179
74126
1.936
3.243
1.459
55.02
0.5174
B
17233
93786
2.672
3.336
1.334
60.00
0.4148
B
18167
69735
2.922
3.251
1.104
66.03
0,4205
B
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C.1Q. (Continued)
COAL
TEST
TEST
START
END
GROSS
FEED
NO.
COND
DATE
TIME
TIME
MW
LB/HR
83
D23
04/16/93
07:30
09:00
168
117837
84
E6
04/16/93
11:40
13:40
168
11924B
85
E5
04/16/93
14:50
16:18
168
118414
86
E4
04/17/93
07:16
08:46
170
121208
87
D30
04/17/93
10:28
11:56
170
120712
88
D24
04/17/93
13:20
14:50
169
121349
89
D25
04/19/93
08:10
09:44
171
118912
90
D26
04/19/93
11:46
13:20
168
116897
91
D27
04/19/93
14:50
16:14
167
117054
92
D28
04/20/93
07:24
08:62
170
116613
93
D29
04/20/93
10:30
11:56
170
117833
94
E5
06/03/93
11:26
12:40
170
119509
95
E4
06/03/93
14:26
15:44
170
119012
96
E6
06/03/S3
17:18
18:34
170
119859
97
E20
06/04/93
07:00
08:12
170
119266
98
E21
06/04/93
10:08
11:24
170
118557
99
E24
06/04/93
13:12
14:24
170
118886
100
E25
06/04/93
16:02
17:20
169
119023
101
E12
06/05/93
09:04
10:16
127
89761
102
D2
06/05/93
11:48
13:04
127
91502
103
D3
06/05/93
14:46
15:50
127
90541
104
D1
06/05/93
17:06
18:24
127
91752
105
D13
06/06/93
05:58
06:58
127
92035
106
D14
06/06/93
08:00
09:24
127
91710
107
E22
06/06/93
10:30
11:54
127
90858
108
E23
06/07/93
06:10
07:20
128
90035
109
D17
06/07/93
10:26
11:40
170
119923
110
D13
06/07/93
14:08
15:24
170
120348
111
D19
06/08/93
08:06
09:20
170
119690
112
D32
06/16/93
09:44
10:42
188
120507
113
D14R
06/27/93
09:42
10:44
128
90328
114
E23R
06/29/93
06:00
07:16
127
89906
115
E22R
06/29/93
08:42
09:62
126
89545
116
D31
06/29/93
11:54
13:04
165
115759
117
D23
06/29/93
14:38
15:18
168
119919
118
E21
07/01/93
07:38
08:10
168
120538
119
019
07/01/93
11:32
12:28
168
120618
120
D22
07/01/93
14:52
15:62
168
121265
121
D14
07/02/93
06:38
07:34
128
93280
122
D2
07/03/93
07:12
08:16
128
92036
123
D3
07/03/93
12:32
13:20
128
92175
SYSTEM
Ca/S
S02 In
S02 Out
S02
NOx Out
SORBENT
AIR
MOLE
LB PER
LB PER
REMOVED
LB PER
TYPE
LB/HR
RATIO
10" BTU
10® BTU
%
10s BTU
* NOTE
46711
2.607
3.566
1.048
70.62
0.4388
B
47267
2.296
3.301
1.147
65.26
0,4527
B
72853
2.822
3.277
1.114
66.02
0.4905
B
106415
3.521
2.615
0.661
74.72
0.5342
B
48623
3.318
2.783
0.705
74.66
0.5617
B
71885
3.413
2.689
0.843
68.66
0.5448
B
70294
2.288
3.201
1.450
54.69
0.5059
B
70756
1.801
3.012
1.701
43.52
0.4887
B
87349
2.934
3.103
1.340
56.80
0.4725
B
87736
2.372
3.130
1.383
55.81
0.4832
B
87478
2.023
2.930
1.733
40.84
0.4593
B
70810
2.997
3.051
0.896
70.62
0.5223
C
97757
2.978
3.043
0.925
69.60
0.4824
C
47606
2.925
3.041
0.966
68.22
0.6240
C
69387
2.358
3.224
1.370
57.60
0,4947
C
69155
1.896
3.239
1.627
49.77
0,6015
C
92343
2.389
3.007
1.429
52.48
0.4B13
C
93458
1.586
3.533
1.646
53.42
0.4425
C
70469
2.794
3.116
1.126
63.85
0.5021
C
69290
2.466
3.447
1.103
68.02
0.5112
C
45977
2.842
3.336
0.973
70.82
0.5532
C
99457
2.420
3.231
1.114
65.51
0.4962
€
92821
1.986
3.252
1.307
59,82
0.5074
C
91238
1.544
3.252
1.644
49.46
0.5011
C
71989
2.020
3.271
1.495
54.29
0.5194
€
70793
1.619
0.000
1.662
46.28
NA
C
70365
2.943
3.028
1.103
63.57
NA
C
69627
2.316
3.090
1.377
55.44
0.4592
C
66025
1,793
3.145
1.568
50.15
0.5224
C
47813
1.796
3.127
1.419
54.62
0.5119
C
105774
1.492
3.325
1.747
47.46
0.0539
C
71596
1.507
3.303
2.086
36.86
0.5438
C
71120
2.061
3.245
1.677
48.30
0.4881
C
40148
1.513
3.346
1.934
42.20
0.5219
C
49366
2.858
3.285
1.390
57.69
0.5491
C
67995
1,667
3.233
1.868
42.21
0.4825
D
71618
1.679
3.233
1.968
39.14
0.4559
D
93435
1.701
3.230
1.899
41.20
0.4463
D
75133
1.505
3.211
2.109
34.33
0.5372
D
67038
3.402
3.231
0.900
72.14
0.5119
D
47134
2.682
3.289
1.301
60.43
0.4949
D
(Continued)
SORBENT
FEED
LB/HR
17744
14362
174G4
17827
17792
17759
14223
10346
17487
14460
11441
17552
17521
17179
14592
11810
13855
10756
12023
12509
13861
11569
9604
7440
9686
7272
17214
13902
10848
10847
7406
7293
9726
9509
18215
10087
10163
10311
6937
15937
12693
-------
TABLE C.10. (Continued!
COAL
SORBENT
SYSTEM
Cn/S
S02 In
S02 Out
S02
NOx Out
SORBENT
TEST
TEST
START
END
GROSS
FEED
FEED
AIR
MOLE
LB PER
LB PER
REMOVED
LB PER
TYPE
NO.
COND
DATE
TIME
TIME
MW
LB/HR
LB/HR
LB/HR
RATIO
10" BTU
10" BTU
%
10® BTU
* NOTE
124
D18
07/03/93
14:52
15:58
168
117564
13498
55687
2.190
3.269
1.589
51.40
0.4703
0
125
D32
07/03/93
17:40
18:46
168
121613
10528
45207
1.611
3.439
1.885
45.18
0.4843
D
126
E12
07/04/93
07:34
08:40
126
93593
12007
71501
2.508
3.356
0.998
70.26
0.4509
D
127
E5
07/04/93
11:22
12:42
167
121208
16203
65426
2.646
3.292
1.237
62.43
0.4968
D
128
D17
07/04/93
14:20
14:54
165
123863
17174
53071
2.634
3.484
1.269
63.58
0.4705
D
129
E22
07/05/93
05:40
06:52
126
92014
9480
69621
1.919
3.478
1.536
55.83
0.4659
D
130
E23
07/05/93
08:26
09:28
127
93109
7423
69196
1.527
3.425
1.911
44.20
0.4696
D
131
E20
07/17/93
09:54
10:58
168
114507
13925
69240
2.397
3.316
1.801
45.68
0.5581
D
132
E4
07/17/93
13:06
14:10
167
114558
17564
74386
3.087
3.234
1.529
52.71
0.5337
D
133
E6
07/17/93
16:00
17:00
167
114362
17532
50048
3.087
3.235
1.497
53.71
0.5266
D
134
L5
09/25/93
08:00
09:00
127
91647
12863
49252
1.833
3.342
2.099
37.21
0.6799
E
135
L4
09/25/93
11:30
12:30
128
92390
16000
49500
2.357
3.235
1.966
39.23
0.6663
E
136
L2
09/26/93
17:00
17:40
170
122301
19220
$9949
1.934
3.550
2.739
22.83
0.6103
E
137
L1
09/26/93
19:40
20:40
170
122494
22400
71117
2.251
3.550
2.145
39.56
0.6424
E
138
L7
09/27/93
05:44
07:14
128
92689
16300
50897
2.104
3.669
2.017
45.01
0.7326
E
139
L2R
09/28/93
16:30
17:20
169
120187
18000
70368
1.845
3.504
2.579
26.39
0.5639
E
140
L6
09/29/93
15:56
16:56
130
93346
19000
52867
2.482
3.579
1.459
59.24
0.6573
E
141
L5R
09/29/93
17:36
18:36
129
92850
12656
64442
1.571
3.764
1.952
48.13
0.6558
E
142
L9
09/30/93
00:20
01:20
90
67417
11745
37830
2.212
3.484
1.592
54.31
0.6110
E
143
L10
09/30/93
02:24
03:24
90
68276
12126
36796
2.119
3.692
1.251
66.13
0.6606
E
144
LI
09/30/93
04:50
05:32
91
68768
15002
37604
2.793
3.456
1.125
67.45
0.7137
E
145
L8
09/30/93
06:30
07:30
129
96335
16000
45746
2.067
3.521
1.347
61.73
0.8268
E
146
L4R
09/30/93
09:00
10:00
128
94053
16000
50823
2.113
3.523
1.606
54.42
0.6970
E
147
L1R
09/30/93
11:36
13:06
168
122677
22600
66330
2.431
3.333
1.489
55.33
0.6558
E
NOTES 11! Test conditions ending in TT = Total (maximum) down tilt,
(2! Teet conditions articling In R, A, B indicate repeat teste.
* Sorbant Typos: A - Commercial hydratad lime, Suppliers No. 1
B = Calcium lignosulfonate - treated hydrate, Supplier No. 1
C = Calcium lignosulfonate - treated hydrate, Supplier No. 2
D = Commercial hydrated lime. Supplier No. 1
E = Pulverized limestone. Supplier No. 1
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
TABLE C.11. COAL ANALYSES FOR LIMB OPTIMIZATION TESTS
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS* ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
TEST
START
END
MOISTURE
ASH
VOL.
F.C.
CARBON
HYDROGEN
NITROGEN
SULFUR
OXYGEN
HHV
COND
DATE
TIME
TIME
WT%
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
BTU/LB
E18
09/09/92
09:15
11:00
4.82
6.75
36.99
51.44
74.35
4.95
1.57
2.20
5.37
13471
E17
09/09/92
12:15
13:45
4.76
6.84
36.90
51.51
74.40
4.91
1.50
2.16
5.43
13452
A12
09/10/92
13:30
15:45
3.35
6.83
37.33
51.89
7B.11
4.95
1.51
2.12
5.53
13586
A11
08/10/92
16:16
17:56
3.95
6.81
37.30
51.94
74.83
5.03
1.50
2.22
5.66
13586
A10
09/11/92
16:10
17:20
3.69
6.85
39.73
49.73
75.17
5.01
1.53
2.12
5.63
13595
A1
09/14/92
11:45
13:24
3.57
6.87
37.52
52.04
74.41
5.04
1.51
2.25
6.35
13556
A2
09/14/92
15:30
17:30
3.57
6.96
34.93
54.54
75.19
5.00
1.60
2.12
6.56
13659
A13
09/15/92
10:15
12:16
3.56
6.96
34.93
54.55
75.19
5.00
1.60
2.12
5.56
13661
AS12
09/15/92
15:30
17:5B
3.56
6.96
34.93
54.55
75.19
5.00
1.60
2.12
6.66
13661
D4
09/16/92
11:10
12:00
3.56
6.51
37.53
52.40
75.33
4.99
1.34
2.06
6.22
13663
D6
09/17/92
08:25
10:15
3.43
6.52
37.59
52.47
75.43
4.99
1.34
2.06
6.22
13671
D5
09/17/92
11:00
12:18
3.43
6.62
37.82
52.13
74.89
5.13
1.42
2.03
6.42
13646
D16
03/21/92
08:30
10:21
5.23
7.05
36.61
51,11
73.42
4.93
1.27
2.03
6.07
13343
DIB
09/21/92
11:40
13:24
5.23
7.03
36.34
51.39
73.40
4.90
1.36
2.03
6.04
13363
D14
03/21/92
14:36
16:20
5.23
7.07
36.55
51.15
73.00
B.02
1.32
2.15
6.21
13283
D1
09/22/92
09:10
11:20
4.13
7.51
36.39
51.97
74.06
4.98
1.43
2.03
5.87
13438
D2
09/22/92
15:15
16:38
4.13
7.46
36.98
51.43
74.62
4.96
1.47
2.07
5.40
13512
D3
09/24/92
07:00
08:20
4.12
6.87
35.09
53.91
74.47
4.98
1.51
2.18
5.87
13487
E3
09/24/92
13:16
14:20
4.12
6.98
35.24
53.66
74.35
4.99
1.54
2.08
5.93
13527
E2
09/24/92
17:15
18:15
4.12
6.98
36.24
63.66
74.35
4.99
1.54
2.08
5.93
13527
AS11
09/30/92
15:30
17:18
3.02
7.25
37.55
52.18
75.21
5.07
1.47
2.28
5.70
13655
E3A
10/01/92
08:30
09:30
3.48
7.20
37.46
51.86
74.47
5.09
1.46
2.13
6.18
13621
07
10/01/92
15:55
17:20
3.48
7.19
37.50
61.83
74.36
6.07
1.48
2.21
6.22
13606
AS1
10/02/92
09:30
10:50
3.76
7.35
37.52
51.36
74.20
4.99
1.44
2.14
6.11
13570
AS2
10/02/92
13:20
14:25
3.76
7.29
37.37
51.58
74.38
5.01
1.41
2.17
5.97
13527
E17A
10/05/92
12:00
13:16
6.54
7.10
36.46
49.90
72.39
4.94
1.33
2.07
5.62
13138
E16
10/05/92
14:10
16:10
6.54
6.96
36.43
50.07
72.21
4.88
1.34
2.05
6.03
13013
E15
10/06/92
08:38
09:32
6.56
7.05
36.39
50.00
72.46
4.93
1.35
2.12
5.53
13203
E1
10/14/92
17:46
18:60
4.42
6.70
37.60
51.28
74.17
5.15
1.35
2.19
6.02
13494
E8
10/15/92
08:10
09:22
4.24
7.25
36.82
51.69
74.16
5.09
1.43
2.02
5.82
13427
E7
10/15/92
15:16
16:08
4.24
7.25
36.86
51.65
73.72
5.11
1.40
2.15
6.14
13497
E19
10/16/92
11:26
12:66
5.12
6.92
36.78
51,18
73.66
5.05
1.33
2.20
5.73
13381
E2A
10/16/92
15:32
16:40
5.12
6.80
37.02
51.05
73.25
5.08
1.34
2.25
6.16
13408
E3B
10/17/92
08:00
09:20
6.13
6.99
36.78
51.10
72.86
5.09
1.36
2.20
6.38
13357
E4
10/19/92
10:00
11:18
5.14
6.83
36.93
51.10
73.08
5.06
1.28
2.17
6.44
13359
AS3
10/19/92
13:55
14:64
5.14
6.80
36.71
51,35
73.11
4.99
1.33
2.12
6.52
13353
AS4
10/20/92
07:16
08:46
6.02
6.81
36.53
50.64
72.89
4.97
1.26
2.15
5.89
13234
ASS
10/20/92
11:10
12:28
6.02
6.74
36.61
50,64
72.50
5.05
1.33
2.14
6.23
13307
E12
10/20/92
14:60
16:08
6.02
6.90
36.41
50.67
72.44
4.91
1.28
2.33
6.13
13240
E11
10/21/92
07:46
09:32
3.71
7.09
37.50
51,71
74.35
5.01
1.40
2.16
6.30
13598
EE
10/21/92
17:30
18:36
3.71
7.09
37.50
51.71
74,35
5.01
1.40
2.16
6.30
13598
(Continued)
-------
TEST
NO.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
68
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
TABLE C.tt. (Continued)
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS*
TEST
START
END
MOISTURE
ASH
VOL.
F.C.
CARBON
COND
DATE
TIME
TIME
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
E4TT
12/04/92
07:44
09:10
6.85
7.22
35.15
51.78
72.34
E5TT
12/04/92
12:36
14:04
5,85
7.28
34.93
51.94
72.71
E12TT
12/05/92
07:45
09:10
5.52
7.01
35.82
51.65
72.91
E11TT
12/05/92
11:25
12:55
5.52
7.11
36.03
51.33
72.80
E8L
12/05/92
14:30
16:10
5.52
7.08
35.38
52.02
72.89
E1L
12/07/92
08:44
10:24
5.19
7.30
35.17
52.34
73,24
E2L
12/08/92
07:34
08:54
5.85
7.48
35.18
51.48
72.18
E7L
12/08/92
11:20
12:48
5.85
7.69
34.82
51.74
72.20
H1
12/09/92
07:34
08:42
5.38
7,44
35.17
52.01
72.60
H2
12/09/92
10:46
11:52
5.38
7.42
35.33
51.87
73.33
H7
12/09/92
15:08
16:41
5.38
7.21
35.55
51.86
72.75
H3
12/10/92
07:12
08:22
5.01
7.42
35.46
52.11
72.63
H15
12/10/92
10:58
12:14
5.01
7.46
35.45
52.08
73.28
H8
12/10/92
14:06
15:20
5.01
7.44
35,37
52.18
72.71
H16
12/11/92
06:40
07:44
5.85
7.10
35,28
51.77
72.23
H17
12/11/92
10:00
11:28
5.85
7.26
35.09
51.80
71.93
H18
12/11/92
14:02
15:24
5.85
7.34
35.27
51.54
72.47
H20
12/12/92
06:16
07:36
5.85
6.99
35.10
52.06
72.64
H12
12/12/92
08:34
10:00
5.85
7.18
34.99
51.98
72.66
H11
12/12/92
11:52
13:10
5.85
7.18
34.84
52.12
72.26
H4
12/12/92
15:06
16:28
5.85
7.42
34.36
52.38
72.27
H5
12/12/92
17:18
18:10
5.85
7.37
34.75
52.03
72.50
H4R
01/14/93
07:14
08:30
6.29
7.40
33,62
52.68
72.25
H5R
01/14/93
11:20
12:22
8.29
6.79
34.01
52.91
71.37
H12R
01/14/93
14:40
15:59
6.29
6.72
33.71
53.28
72.01
H11R
01/15/93
11:56
13:18
4,42
7.45
34.56
53.57
73.52
H8R
01/15/93
15:40
16:50
4.42
7.23
32.56
55.79
74.50
H2R
01/18/93
07:10
08:24
5.79
8.01
33.68
52.52
71.90
H1R
01/18/93
11.00
12:04
5.79
8.09
33.88
52.24
71.78
H7R
01/18/93
14:40
15:54
5.79
7.97
34.14
52.10
72.64
D18
04/08/93
11:00
12:18
E.60
7.16
35.77
51.48
73.25
D19
04/08/93
14:16
15:50
5.67
7,22
36.03
51.08
73.19
D22
04/09/93
08:00
09:22
5.53
7.21
3B.86
51.40
73.14
D21
04/09/93
12:24
14:00
6.96
7.31
35.83
50.90
72.82
E21
04/09/93
15:40
17:00
6.96
7.20
35.77
51.06
73.06
E23
04/10/93
08:20
09:50
3.93
7.27
36.50
52.30
74.26
E22
04/10/93
10:40
12:12
6.38
7.21
35.50
50.91
72.65
E12
04/10/93
13:30
14:54
6.38
7,13
35.99
50.50
71.89
E20
04/13/93
09:00
10:00
3.54
7.34
37.01
52.11
74.59
D20
04/15/93
14:10
15:30
4.09
7.26
37.02
51.63
74.10
D17
04/15/93
16:58
18:30
4.10
7.11
37.02
51.78
74.31
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
HYDROGEN NITROGEN SULFUR OXYGEN HHV
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
BTU/LB
4.91
1.77
1.98
5.93
13204
4.99
1.41
1.99
5.77
13230
4.97
1.44
2.11
6.05
13325
4.94
1.41
1.94
6.28
13310
4.96
1.36
2.02
6.17
13334
4.96
1.51
1.94
5.86
13356
4.91
1.40
2.15
6.04
13186
4.99
1.53
1.96
5.88
13180
4.90
1.34
1.94
6,40
13287
4.96
1.39
1.87
5.66
13290
4.92
1.36
1.96
6,42
13306
5.02
1.43
2.04
6,46
13322
4.91
1.42
1.95
5.99
13332
4.96
1.54
1.96
6,39
13361
4.90
1.33
2.09
6.60
13222
4.91
1.31
2.02
6.72
13166
4.94
1.31
1.96
6.13
13216
4.90
1.36
1.78
6.49
13252
4.93
1.40
1.80
6.17
13289
4.85
1.33
1.86
6.67
13171
4.88
1.34
1.80
6,45
13180
4.90
1.42
1.84
6.12
13206
4.85
1.44
1.70
6.06
13088
4.98
1.43
1.82
7,32
13106
4.89
1.48
1.77
6.85
13151
4.96
1.52
1.80
6.33
13387
4.95
1.46
1.54
5.90
13490
4.97
1.53
1.76
6.04
13068
4.84
1.49
1.79
6.21
13038
4.94
1.53
1.76
5.38
13193
4.83
1.41
2.10
5.65
13174
4.89
1.45
1.98
6.61
13190
4.90
1.40
1.97
5.86
13221
4.83
1.43
2.01
5.64
13156
4.86
1.37
2.12
5.43
13197
4,98
1.43
2.05
6.08
13506
4.87
1.39
1.93
S.67
13103
4.85
1.41
1.94
6.40
13049
4.97
1.48
2.18
5.90
13425
5.00
1.48
2.23
5.84
13366
5.02
1.47
2.19
5,80
13484
(Continued]
I
-------
TEST
NO.
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
30
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
10S
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
TABLE C.11. (Continued)
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS* ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
TEST
START
END
MOISTURE
ASH
VOL.
F.C.
CARBON
HYDROGEN
NITROGEN
SULFUR
OXYGEN
HHV
GOND
DATE
TIME
TIME
WT%
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
BTU/LB
023
04/16/93
07:30
09:00
4,65
7.07
36.55
51.73
72.40
5.00
1.46
2.37
7.06
13251
E6
04/16/93
11:40
13:40
7.67
6.87
35.82
49.64
70.85
4.83
1.36
2.15
6.27
13002
E5
04/1 6/93
14:50
16:18
7.67
6.95
35.46
49.91
71.17
4.88
1.25
2.14
5.95
13043
E4
04/17/93
07:16
08:46
5.85
8.27
34.43
51.45
72.32
4.90
1.23
1.71
5.73
13074
D30
04/17/93
10:28
11:56
5.85
7.90
34.52
51.73
71.56
4.92
1.31
1.82
6.64
13064
024
04/17/93
13:20
14:50
5.85
8.22
33.82
52.11
72.50
4.81
1.24
1.76
5.62
13048
D25
04/19/93
08:10
09:44
4.02
7.28
36.43
52.27
73.90
5.07
1.31
2.14
6.29
13364
026
04/19/93
11:46
13:20
4.02
7.38
36.41
52.18
73.42
5.02
1.40
2.03
6.72
13468
D27
04/19/93
14:50
16:14
4.02
7.56
36.35
52.07
73.93
5.10
1.43
2.09
5.87
13430
028
04/20/93
07:24
08:52
4.02
7.15
36.49
52.34
74.23
5.13
1.40
2.14
6.93
13664
D29
04/20/93
10:30
11:56
4.02
7.16
36.87
51.95
73.85
5.11
1.49
1.97
6.41
13405
E5
06/03/93
11:2®
12:40
5,00
7.70
36.18
51.13
73.20
4.96
1.39
2.02
5.74
13219
E4
06/03/93
14:26
15:44
5.00
7.68
36.30
51.02
74.12
4.86
1.42
2.04
4.90
13374
E6
06/03/93
17:18
18:34
5.00
7.51
36.59
50.90
73.17
4.97
1.38
2.02
5.96
13263
E20
06/04/93
07:00
08:12
5.00
7.34
36.56
51.10
73.15
4.98
1.43
2.14
5.97
13246
E21
06/04/93
10:08
11:24
5.00
7.42
36,74
50.84
73.49
5.05
1.43
2.16
5,44
13353
E24
06/04/93
13:12
14:24
5.00
7.32
36.40
51.27
73.71
5.02
1.44
2.01
5.50
13349
E25
06/04/93
16:02
17:20
5.00
7.28
36.44
51.28
73.33
4.97
1.50
2.35
5.58
13276
E12
06/05/93
09:04
10:16
5.00
7.30
36.70
51.01
73.51
4.98
1.52
2,07
5.62
13293
D2
06/05/93
11:48
13:04
6.00
7.30
36.45
51.25
73.08
4.97
1.49
2.28
5.88
13235
03
06/05/93
14:46
15:60
5.00
7.29
36.63
51.08
73,35
4.97
1.51
2.22
5.67
13293
D1
06/05/93
17:06
18:24
5.00
7.26
36.37
51.38
73.39
4.96
1,48
2.15
5.77
13272
013
06/06/93
05:B8
06:58
5.00
7.21
36.61
51.18
73.47
4.97
1.48
2.16
5.70
13298
D14
06/06/93
08:00
09:24
5.00
7.21
38.61
51.18
73,47
4.97
1.48
2.16
5.70
13298
E22
06/06/93
10:30
11:54
5.00
7.25
36.61
51.14
73.53
4.96
1.51
2.17
5.58
13278
E23
06/07/93
06:10
07:20
5.00
7.25
36,67
51.09
73.53
4.97
1.49
2.06
5.71
13272
D17
06/07/93
10:26
11 ",40
5.00
7.32
36.27
51.41
73.21
4.99
1.40
2,01
6.08
13258
018
06/07/93
14:08
15:24
5.00
7.25
36,12
51.63
73.25
4.98
1.42
2.06
6.06
13288
D19
06/08/93
08:06
09:20
5.00
7.51
36.18
51.32
73.25
4.95
1.41
2.08
5.81
13228
D32
06/16/93
09:44
10:42
5.00
7.70
35.94
51.37
73.06
4.83
1.45
2.06
5.90
13189
014R
06/27/93
09:42
10:44
3.30
7,55
37.01
52.14
74.84
5.07
1,37
2.25
5.62
13519
E23R
06/29/93
06:00
07:16
4.10
8.44
36.77
50.69
73.37
5.07
1.32
2.20
5.49
13328
E22R
06/29/93
08:42
09:52
4.10
8.39
36.53
60.98
73.43
5.01
1.36
2.16
5,55
13285
D31
06/29/93
11:54
13:04
4.10
8.40
36.64
50.86
73.19
4.99
1.35
2.22
5.75
13270
023
06/29/93
14:38
15:18
4.10
8.41
36.66
50.83
73.28
4.98
1.36
2.18
6.70
13233
E21
07/01 /93
07:38
08:10
5.00
8.76
36.14
50.10
72.04
4.89
1.38
2.12
5.81
13095
019
07/01/93
11:32
12:28
5.00
8.76
36.14
50.10
72.04
4.89
1.38
2.12
5.81
13095
D22
07/01/93
14:52
15:52
5.00
8.82
35.94
50.25
71.96
4.87
1.51
2.11
5.73
13052
D14
07/02/93
06:38
07:34
5.26
9,07
35.51
50.16
71.69
4.91
1.47
2,09
5.52
12978
02
07/03/93
07:12
08:16
4.49
8.61
35.87
51.03
72.79
4.99
1.49
2.15
5.49
13286
D3
07/03/93
12:32
13:20
4.49
8.68
36.69
50.13
72.54
4.96
1.41
2.17
5.76
13165
(Continued)
-------
TEST
TEST
START
END
MOISTUI
NO,
COND
DATE
TIME
TIME
WT %
124
D1S
07/03/93
14:52
15:58
4.49
125
D32
07/03/93
17:40
18:46
4,49
126
E12
07/04/93
07:34
08:40
7.19
127
E5
07/04/93
11:22
12:42
7.19
128
D17
07/04/93
14:20
14:54
7.19
129
E22
07/05/93
05:40
06:52
6.80
130
E23
07/05/93
08:26
09:28
6.80
131
E20
07/17/93
09:54
10:58
6.80
132
E4
07/17/93
13:06
14:10
6.80
133
E6
07/17/93
16:00
17:00
6.80
134
L5
09/25/93
08:00
09:00
5.86
135
L4
09/25/93
11:30
12:30
6.59
136
L2
09/26/93
17:00
17:40
5.95
137
LI
09/26/93
19:40
20:40
5.95
138
L7
09/27/93
05:44
07:14
6.17
139
L.2R
09/28/93
16:30
17:20
4.94
140
L6
09/29/93
16:56
16:56
5.80
141
L6R
09/29/93
17:36
18:36
5.81
142
L9
09/30/93
00:20
01:20
6.67
143
L10
09/30/93
02:24
03:24
6.23
144
L11
09/30/93
04:50
05:32
6.67
145
L8
09/30/93
06:30
07:30
6.23
146
L4R
09/30/93
09:00
10:00
5.69
147
Lm
09/30/93
11:36
13:06
5.68
NOTE; * VOL, = Volitile Matter
F. C. = Fixed Carbon
ALL DATA ARE REPORTED "AS RECEIVED"
TABLE C.11. I Continued)
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS*
ASH
VOL.
F.C,
WT %
WT %
WT %
8.42
36.39
50.70
8.36
36,43
50.73
8.26
35.47
49.08
8.26
35.05
49.50
8.26
35.20
49.35
8.57
35.42
49.21
8,4a
35.86
48.93
8.15
35.67
49.49
7.95
35.81
49.44
8.02
36.02
49.16
7.60
35.53
61,01
7.53
35.37
50.51
7.58
36.21
50.26
7.58
36.21
50.26
7.66
35.85
50.32
7.84
36.60
50.62
7.79
36.38
50.03
7.86
36.29
50.03
7.67
36.04
49.61
7.70
36.06
50.01
7.70
35.33
49.70
7.78
36.08
49.90
7.81
36.44
50.06
8.33
35,42
50.57
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
CARBON
HYDROGEN
NITROGEN
SULFUR OXYGEN
HHV
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
BTU/LB
73.07
5.07
1.39
2.21
5.33
13524
72.77
4.94
1.42
2.27
5.7G
13178
70,55
4.84
1.38
2.16
5.61
12855
70.66
4.82
1.35
2.13
5.60
12942
70.41
4.81
1.35
2.22
5.77
12743
70.62
4.81
1.35
2.27
5.58
13023
70.81
4,83
1.45
2.20
5.48
12857
72.09
4.71
1.36
2.14
4.76
12905
72.26
4.72
1.38
2.10
4.80
12955
72.07
4.79
1.30
2.10
4.93
12950
72.48
5.13
1.35
2.19
5.40
13094
72.27
5.03
1.41
2.10
5.06
12979
72.07
5.04
1.35
2.32
5.68
13080
72.07
5.04
1,35
2.32
5.68
13080
71.99
5.09
1.33
2.39
5.38
13019
72.58
4.97
1.35
2.32
6.00
13238
72.66
4.95
1.40
2.35
5.06
13094
72.49
4.98
1.38
2.48
4.99
13172
72.50
4.95
1.43
2.26
4.52
12966
72.35
4,95
1.38
2.41
4.98
13027
71.94
4.91
1.45
2.24
5.09
12970
72.21
4.94
1.34
2.31
5.18
13097
72.58
5.01
1.37
2,31
5.23
13113
71.99
4.90
1.37
2.18
5.56
13048
-------
TABLE C.12. 6 OR BENT CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR OPTIMIZATION TESTS
SORBENT
PERCENT BY WEIGHT A
Moisture 1,2
Ca(OH) 2 85.6
CbC03 3,2
CaO 4.8
MgO 2.4
Insrtfi 2,7
Total 100.0
MMD (microns) 4.07
BIT (m'/fll 13.20
True Density (gfcm'J 2,20
SORBENT SORBENT SORBENT
BCD
1.1 1.8 0.7
82.3 84.7 8S.8
7.0 8.7 7.6
S.4 2.6 4.3
1.9 0,6 0.2
2.3 1.8 1.4
100.0 100.0 100.0
5.00 13.50 17.90
9.50 4.70 4.80
2.17 2.05 2.25
NOTES:
MMD - Man maan diameter for particle eize
BET — Brunauer, Emmatt, and Taller approach for defining particle surface area
SORBENT
E
NA
NA
50.2
3.5
43.1
3.2
100.0
1.67
2.67
5.44
-------
TABLE C.13. LIMB DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 1 DATA SUMMARY
COAL
SORBENT
SYSTEM
CafS
S02 In
S02 Out
S02
NOx Out
TEST
START
END
GROSS
FEED
FEED
AIR
MOLE
LB PER
Li PER
REMOVED
LB PER
NO.
DATE
TIME
TIME
MW
LB/HR
LB/HR
LB/HR
RATIO
10* BTU
10® BTU
%
10* BTU
D101
01/25/93
10:46
12:44
174
121799
15263
93121
2.744
2.815
1.271
54.85
0.6128
D102
01/25/93
23:30
03:14
151
107123
11994
74251
2.577
2.684
1.086
59.55
0.6135
D103
01/26/93
07:02
08:20
172
120376
13399
82811
2.971
2.308
1.183
48.74
0.6365
D104
01/26/93
19:20
20:00
175
122784
13539
84282
2.732
2.491
1.262
49.31
0.6011
D105
01/27/93
06:16
07:44
170
121949
13493
83362
2.707
2.546
1.143
55.11
0.5670
D107
01/28/93
06:24
07:36
172
124182
12871
80413
2.358
2.749
1.519
44.75
0.3924
D108
01/28/93
18:00
20:00
164
118107
12478
77598
2.368
2.777
1.393
49.81
0.3953
0110
01/29/93
18:00
20:00
175
124450
15437
86894
2.754
2.782
1.450
47.87
0.3665
D111
01/30/93
07:10
08:00
115
123833
7745
88929
1.265
3.043
2,057
32.41
0.2418
D112
01/31/93
01:30
04:30
101
71542
8373
56061
2.345
3.058
1.072
64.93
0.5099
D115
02© 1/93
08:30
13.00
170
116957
7919
75895
1.576
2.607
1.577
39.49
0.3618
0117
02/02/93
12:00
15:00
168
119699
8116
72290
1.158
3.612
2.394
33.72
0.3464
D118
02/02/93
19:40
20:40
176
124698
7543
71569
1.045
3.568
2.558
28.32
0.3699
D119
02/03/93
08:20
13:00
168
118451
8087
68807
1,178
3.573
2,540
28.91
0.3606
D120
02/03/93
19:40
21:44
173
120136
8122
69128
1.148
3.622
2.694
25.62
0.3672
D121
02/04/93
08:00
10:30
170
118666
8455
69672
1.090
4.013
2.893
27.91
0.4222
0124
02/05/93
19:00
01:00
176
122836
7703
66317
1.015
3.827
2.616
31.65
0.3684
0125
02/00/93
07:00
09:00
175
122651
7839
67279
1.122
3.529
2.163
38.71
0.3857
D128
02/07/93
03:00
07:00
177
123841
8090
67634
1.125
3.589
2.493
30.53
0.3890
0127
02/07/93
07:00
10:20
176
122817
7634
68027
1.050
3.652
2.552
30.12
0.3322
D128
02/08/93
02:30
06:30
176
123123
3682
67748
0.492
3.762
3.101
17.57
0.3916
0129
02/08/93
11:30
13:30
179
123652
4314
66070
0.566
3.823
3.046
20.32
0.3390
0130
02/08/93
16:00
22:00
179
124906
3560
66454
0.476
3.729
3.038
18.52
0.3666
0131
02/09/93
05:00
09:00
179
124646
4114
66375
0.537
3.826
3.103
18.90
0.3950
0132
02/09/93
16:30
21:30
177
122136
2848
66912
0.4O5
3.S47
3.095
12.73
0.3544
D133
02/10/93
07:30
08:30
181
125173
2975
66595
0.459
3.194
2.872
1O.08
0.3516
0134
02/10/93
19:14
20:14
180
124760
3315
63319
0.494
3.321
2.837
14.57
0.3646
0136
02/11/93
19:46
20:46
180
123530
2857
62055
0.417
3.409
2.946
13.58
0.3545
0138
02/12/93
19:30
20:30
173
122718
6640
63031
1.083
3.108
2.467
20.61
0.4244
D141
02/14/93
19:46
21:00
175
122270
4960
60206
0.891
2.798
1.637
41.50
0.3818
D142
02/15/93
07:30
08:30
180
127968
7437
60291
1.289
2.817
1.963
30.31
0.3845
0145
02/16/93
17:50
20:10
180
125094
3394
57373
0.601
2.793
2.262
19.00
0.3668
0148
02/17/93
03:30
06:58
161
113830
3839
61696
0.719
2.937
2.256
23.20
0.4505
-------
TABLE C.14. LIMB DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 2 DATA SUMMARY
COAL
TEST
START
END
GROSS
FEED
NO.
DATE
TIME
TIME
MW
LB/HR
~202
07/23/93
07:14
08:50
165
115388
0203
07/23/93
20:50
22:20
125
89086
D205
07/24/93
19:00
20:20
171
120514
0206
07/25/93
08:40
10:30
166
117425
D207
07/25/93
19:00
20:50
165
116513
0210
07/27/93
08:00
10:00
169
118637
~212
07/28/93
12:30
14:00
168
118246
0213
07/28/93
20:00
21:40
170
119246
D214
07/29/93
07:30
09:30
168
119859
0215
07/29/93
19:00
21:00
165
116742
0216
07/30/93
08:30
10:00
167
119023
D217
07/30/93
19:00
20:44
157
111753
D218
07/31/93
07:30
09:30
157
112220
D219
07/31/93
19:30
21:00
164
116549
0220
08/01/93
09:30
11:00
161
113837
D221
08/01/93
19:00
20:30
155
109341
0222
08/02/93
08:30
10:30
160
112883
D223
08/02/93
19:00
21:00
169
117455
D224
08/03/93
08:00
09:30
114
81631
0225
08/03/93
19:00
21:00
163
117088
D226
08/04/93
08:00
10:00
165
117291
D227
08/04/93
19:00
21:00
151
108096
D228
08/05/93
07:00
08:30
122
88265
D229
08/05/93
19:40
21:30
170
121016
0230
08/06/93
08:00
10:00
162
118540
0231
08/06/93
17:00
18:58
166
120549
0232
08/07/93
09:50
11:00
108
81403
D233
08/07/93
22:00
01:00
105
78904
0234
08/08/93
07:00
09:10
117
84899
0235
08/08/93
18-.00
20:00
154
110534
0236
08/09/93
09:14
10:14
144
102038
0239
08/10/93
19:00
21:00
161
114922
0241
08/11/93
19:30
20:40
167
119298
D242
08/12/93
09:00
10:30
157
113096
D243
08/12/93
19:00
21:30
162
116954
D244
08/13/93
19:00
21:00
166
120478
D246
08/14/93
19:30
21:30
161
116792
D247
08/15/93
08:00
10:00
161
118649
D248
08/15/93
19:30
21:30
170
123388
SYSTEM
Ca/S
S02 In
S02 Out
S02
NOx Out
AIR
MOLE
LB PER
LB PER
REMOVED
Li PER
LB/HR
RATIO
108 BTU
108 BTU
%
10® BTU
69792
2.111
3.427
1.906
44.38
0.3767
67839
2.091
3.454
1.4S0
57.72
0.5720
73093
2.080
3.475
1.828
47.39
0.3729
66489
1.360
3.442
2.280
33.75
0,4633
63308
1.347
3.437
2.144
37.62
0.4154
66317
2.153
3.384
1.901
43.80
0.3800
61556
2.066
3.528
2.048
41.95
0.4565
59836
2.008
3.491
1.976
43.40
0.3950
70420
2.060
3.407
1.814
46.74
0.3B81
69465
2.069
3.446
1.772
48.59
0.4005
58858
2.124
3.336
1.771
46.92
0.4798
69798
2.014
3.535
1.809
48.82
0.4102
67415
2.128
3.336
1.915
42.61
0.4118
68570
2.130
3,335
1.652
50.48
0.4040
63749
2.236
3.201
1.726
46.08
0.4323
59487
2.168
3.264
1.671
51.87
0.4132
59141
2.325
3.056
1.598
47.70
0.4187
56968
1.194
3.245
2.370
26.98
0.4167
53774
1.097
3.221
2.663
20.43
0.6328
71564
2.076
3.274
1.787
45.43
0.4306
61969
2.103
3.231
1.818
43.74
0.4594
71090
2.206
3.079
1.754
43.05
0,4298
51007
2.119
3.208
1.609
49.84
0.5853
S9211
2.116
3.168
1.750
44.75
0.4302
71226
1.994
3.410
1,628
52.26
0,4465
71298
2.024
3.351
1.634
51.25
0.4474
51383
2.250
3.413
1.707
49.99
0.5280
52993
2.096
3.417
1.372
59.86
0.5855
52216
2.122
3.331
1.666
49.98
0,5304
67531
2.074
3.235
1.632
49.55
0.4542
71392
1.267
3.279
2.174
33.70
0.5238
65111
1.996
3.062
1.707
44.26
0.4539
67407
2.205
2.875
1.577
45.17
0.3999
68061
2.072
3.048
1.631
46.49
0.4709
65372
2.078
3.046
1.637
46.25
0.4556
69079
1.782
3.544
2.121
40.15
0,3641
67749
1.796
3.534
1.855
47.51
0.4389
68718
1.999
3.161
1.729
45.29
0.4915
52436
1.930
3.326
1.898
42.93
0.4066
SORBENT
FEED
LB/HR
13624
10418
14214
8880
8762
13943
13842
13514
13494
13470
13627
12884
12871
13436
13230
12536
13133
7458
4610
12726
12821
11763
9686
13008
12623
12876
9622
8830
9511
11754
6839
11370
12156
11417
11787
12104
11854
11850
12520
-------
TABLE C.I6. LIMB DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 3 DATA SUMMARY
COAL
TEST
START
END
GROSS
FEED
NO.
DATE
TIME
TIME
MW
LB/HR
D302
08/26/93
08:38
10:48
170
120961
0303
08/26/93
19:24
21:54
170
120064
D304
08/27/93
07:30
10:30
167
120954
D305
08/27/93
19:00
22:30
169
118916
D306
08/28/93
08:00
11:00
170
121093
D307
08/28/93
19:00
20:30
168
123311
0309
08/29/93
20:00
22:30
170
121294
D310
08/30/93
07:00
09:00
171
123286
D311
08/30/93
19:00
21:40
171
123076
D313
03/01/93
07:30
09:00
163
120202
D314
09/01/93
23:00
01:60
158
116252
D315
09/02/93
08:30
10:40
170
122702
D316
09/02/93
19.00
21:00
174
125641
D317
09/03/93
08:00
09:30
166
120499
D318
09/03/93
19:00
20:30
167
121670
D319
09/04/93
08:50
10:00
166
121358
D321
09/05/93
19:00
20:40
153
112356
D322
09/06/93
07:30
09:30
120
90205
D331
09/10/93
19:00
20:00
151
111238
D332
09/11/93
07:30
09:00
108
81549
D333
09/11/93
19:00
20:30
164
120294
D334
09/12/93
08:00
10:00
107
80029
D337
09/13/93
19:00
21:00
166
120732
D339
09/14/93
19:00
21:00
173
124646
D341
09/16/93
08:00
10:00
114
85584
D345
09/18/93
19:00
20:20
165
122494
D346
09/19/93
09:00
11:00
149
110788
D347
09/19/93
19:00
21:00
112
84071
SYSTEM
CafS
S02 In
S02 Out
S02
NOx Out
AIR
MOLE
LB PER
LB PER
REMOVED
Li PER
LB/HR
RATIO
10® BTU
108 BTU
%
10° BTU
70163
2.032
3.274
2.006
38.76
0.3986
69334
2.219
3.036
1.733
42.92
0.4013
68845
2.148
3.145
1.849
41.21
0.3982
67490
1.970
3.448
2.047
40.63
0,3793
71570
1.830
3.694
2.429
34.23
0.3857
67941
1.849
3.638
2.108
42.05
0.4088
67896
1.782
3.739
2.377
36.41
0.3884
69671
1.874
3.661
2.402
32.54
0.3917
70314
1.193
3.643
2.666
27.11
0,3671
72486
1.348
3.676
2.314
37.03
0.3607
69468
1.445
3.458
2.399
30.63
0.4179
69822
1.306
3.427
2.532
26.12
0.3825
67357
1.339
3.407
2,436
28.51
0.3795
69170
1.410
3.453
2.386
30.89
0.3917
69366
1.377
3.418
2.262
33.82
0.4316
53783
1.466
3.269
2.211
32.36
0.4249
67798
1.769
3.778
2.060
45.48
0.4016
56226
1.829
3.634
2.042
43.80
0.5692
54814
1.881
3.547
1.853
47.77
0.4983
53101
2.105
3.517
1.245
64.61
0.7072
49457
1.921
3.439
1.911
44.43
0.4630
48805
2.114
3.438
1.201
65.06
0.6746
70815
1.966
3.505
1.890
46.08
0.4216
70009
1.076
3.506
2.542
27.49
0.3762
52992
2.087
3.338
1.627
64.26
0.4866
67663
2.063
3.345
1.635
61.11
0.4620
67171
2.083
3.321
1.414
57.42
0.5266
65665
1.940
3.565
1.389
61.03
0.6879
SORBENT
FEED
LB/HR
12930
13072
12902
13124
13064
12986
12964
13076
8537
9439
9216
9719
9079
9243
9095
9211
11842
9373
11761
9607
12620
9319
13314
7S37
9467
13360
12097
9195
-------
TABLE C.16. COAL ANALYSES FOR LIMB DEMONSTRATION TEST NO.1
ALL DATA ARE REPORTED "AS RECEIVED"
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS*
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
TEST
START
END
MOISTURE
ASH
VOL.
F.C.
CARBON
HYDROGEN NITROGEN
SULFUR
OXYGEN
HHV
NO,
DATE
TIME
TIME
WT%
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
BTU/LB
D101
01/25/93
10:46
12:44
5,49
7.39
35.38
51.74
72.70
5.05
1.56
1.86
5.95
13223
D102
01/25/93
23:30
03:14
5.49
7.17
35.72
51.62
72.35
4.93
1.56
1.77
6.72
13192
D103
01/26/93
07:02
08:20
5.40
6.97
35.31
52.31
73.11
4.93
1.58
1.53
6.48
13229
D104
01/26/93
19:20
20:00
5.40
6.95
35.38
52.27
72.79
4.95
1.47
1.65
6.79
13205
D105
01/27/93
06:16
07:44
6.27
7.02
35.10
51.61
71.80
4.89
1.44
1.67
6.91
13081
D1Q7
01/28/93
06:24
07:36
6.77
7.04
35.17
51.02
71.64
4.89
1.43
1.79
6.45
13027
D109
01/28/93
18:00
20:00
6.77
7.08
35.25
50.90
71.73
4.93
1,46
1.82
6.21
13093
DUO
01/29/93
18:00
20:00
5.42
7.29
35.65
51.63
72.39
4.96
1.40
1.84
6.70
13192
0111
01/30/93
07:10
08:00
5.07
7.58
35.94
51.43
72.52
4.97
1.40
2.02
6.46
13242
D112
01/31/93
01:30
04:30
5.07
7.09
36.39
51.45
72.78
5.00
1.41
2.04
6.60
13299
D115
02/01/93
08:30
13:00
4.69
6.97
35.95
52.39
73.02
5.04
1.48
1.75
6.46
13410
0117
02/02/93
12:00
15:00
4.57
8.25
36.62
50.58
72.40
4.92
1.40
2.39
6.06
13194
Dt 18
02/02/93
19:40
20:40
4.57
8.33
36.52
50.58
72.29
5.01
1.47
2.36
5.97
13203
D119
02/03/93
08:20
13:00
4.78
8.24
36.52
50.47
72.07
4.98
1.46
2.36
6.11
13208
D120
02/03/93
19:40
21:44
4.78
8.01
36.98
50.23
72.21
5.07
1.48
2.40
6.06
13230
D121
02/04/93
08:00
10:30
4.78
8.06
36.68
50.49
72.65
5.15
1.41
2.66
5.29
13265
0124
02/05/93
19:00
01:00
4.78
8.32
36.34
50.56
71.71
4,97
1.39
2.52
6.31
13143
D! 25
02/06/93
07:00
09:00
4.99
8.55
35.56
50.90
71.95
5.06
1.36
2.32
5.76
13135
D126
02/07/93
03:00
07:00
4.99
8.31
35.91
50.78
72.31
4.93
1.34
2.37
5.75
13171
0127
02/07/93
07:00
10:20
4.64
8.41
36.18
50.77
72.06
4.91
1.37
2.41
6.19
13191
0128
02/08/93
02:30
06:30
4.64
8.39
36.49
50.47
72.10
5.02
1.31
2.48
6.06
13197
Dt 29
02/08/93
11:30
13:30
4.64
8.32
36.62
50.42
72.06
5.01
1.39
2.52
6.05
13175
0130
02/08/93
16:00
22:00
4.02
8.47
36.19
50.72
71.76
4.94
1.32
2.45
6.44
13120
0131
02/09/93
05:00
09:00
4.62
8.43
36,38
50.57
71.64
4.98
1.27
2.51
6.55
13121
D132
02/09/93
10:30
21:30
4.62
8.11
37.38
49.89
72.36
4.98
1,29
2.36
6.28
13276
0133
02/10/93
07:30
08:30
4.58
7.90
36.28
51.24
72.30
4.96
1.24
2.12
6.90
13258
0134
02/10/93
19:14
20:14
4.58
7.91
36.58
50.93
72.44
5.00
1.30
2.20
6.57
1324S
0136
02/11/93
19:46
20:46
4.53
7.76
36.66
51.05
72.43
5.03
1.28
2.27
6.70
13288
D138
02/12/93
19:30
20:30
5.49
7.71
36.16
50.64
72.11
4.96
1.38
2.04
6.30
13144
0141
02/14/93
19:46
21:00
5.04
7.22
35.76
51.98
72.80
5.06
1.35
1.86
6.67
13299
0142
02/15/93
07:30
08:30
5.04
7.29
35.70
51.96
72.93
4.96
1.35
1.84
6.59
13082
0145
02/16/93
17:50
20:10
5.83
7.20
35.56
SI.41
72.19
4.93
1.37
1.85
6.63
13214
0146
02/17/93
03:30
06:58
6.30
7.19
35.47
51.05
72.27
4.92
1.36
1.92
6.05
13053
NOTE: * VOL. » Volatile Matter
F.C, - Fixed Carbon
-------
TABLE C.I7. COAL ANALYSES FOR LIMB DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 2
ALL DATA ARE REPORTED "AS RECEIVED"
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS' ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
TEST
START
ENO
MOISTURE
ASH
VOL.
F.C,
CARBON
HYDROGEN NITROGEN
SULFUR
OXYGEN
HHV
NO.
DATE
TIME
TIME
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
BTU/LB
D202
07/23/93
07:14
08:50
4.14
7.98
37.10
50,79
74.53
4.89
1.35
2.30
4.81
13435
D203
07/23/93
20:50
22:20
4.14
8.02
37.29
50,55
74.39
4.89
1.27
2.30
4.98
13329
D205
07/24/93
19:00
20:20
4.35
7.84
37.03
50.98
74.84
4.87
1.33
2.34
4.84
13431
D208
07/25/93
08:40
10:30
4.35
8.23
36.77
50.66
73,90
4.90
1.31
2.29
5.03
13293
D207
07/25/93
19:00
20:50
4.35
7.77
37.00
50.89
74.07
4.88
1.26
2.30
5.37
13365
D210
07/27/93
08:00
10:00
4.55
7.77
36.54
51.14
74.14
4.95
1.38
2.26
4.95
13331
D212
07/28/93
12:30
14:00
4.43
7.99
36.85
50.73
75.08
4.97
1.49
2.34
3.70
13268
D213
07/28/93
20:00
21:40
4.43
7.82
38.74
51.02
74.85
5.12
1.37
2.33
4.08
13357
D214
07/29/93
07:30
09:30
4.06
8.09
36.94
50.92
74.19
5.00
1.33
2.26
5.07
13254
021S
07/29/93
19.00
21:00
4.06
8.00
36.83
51.11
74,63
5.00
1.33
2.31
4.67
13370
D216
07/30/93
08:30
10:00
3.80
8.08
36.89
51.23
74.23
5.10
1.30
2.23
5.26
13350
0217
07/30/83
19:00
20:44
3.80
8.01
36.73
51.46
74.30
4.99
1.30
2.37
5.23
13383
0218
07/31/93
07:30
09:30
3.80
8.04
37.08
51.08
74.80
5.05
1.35
2.23
4.74
13349
0219
07/31/93
19:30
21:00
3.80
7.77
37.34
51.08
74.91
5.02
1.37
2.24
4.89
13407
0220
08/01/93
09:30
11:00
3.62
8.01
37.27
51.10
74.69
5.05
1.40
2.15
5.08
13417
D221
08/01/93
19:00
20:30
3.82
8.07
36.70
51.61
74.82
4.94
1.41
2.19
4.95
13386
0222
08/02/93
08:30
10:30
3.44
8.14
36.61
51.81
74.55
4.96
1.47
2.08
6.37
13480
0223
06/02/93
19:00
21:00
3.44
7.89
36.71
51.96
75,19
5.02
1.50
2.19
4.77
13488
0224
08/03193
08:00
09:30
5.75
7.68
35.79
50.78
73.44
5.03
1.38
2.12
4.80
13152
0225
08/03/93
19:00
21:00
5.75
7.73
36.08
50.44
73.49
5.06
1.34
2.16
4.48
13159
0228
08/04/93
08:00
10:00
5.22
7.72
36.29
50.76
73,72
5.06
1.35
2.14
4.79
13244
0227
08/04/93
19:00
21:00
5.22
7.80
36.29
50.69
73.87
4.91
1.33
2.03
4.84
13187
0228
08/05/93
07:00
08:30
5.38
7.94
36.17
50.51
72.42
4.82
1.38
2.11
5.97
13145
D229
08/05/93
19:40
21:30
5.38
7.78
35.94
50.91
74.01
4.96
1.63
2.09
4.25
13198
D230
08/06/93
08:00
10:00
6.98
7,86
35.33
49.83
72.32
4.89
1.40
2.20
4.34
12890
0231
08/06/93
17:00
18:58
8.98
7.88
35.35
49.99
72.24
4.80
1.34
2.17
4.78
12959
D232
08/07/93
09:50
11:00
7.75
7.67
35.48
49.10
71.63
4.71
1.30
2.16
4.77
12670
0233
08/07/33
22:00
01:00
7.75
7.65
35.61
48.99
71.05
4.76
1.13
2.20
5.47
12860
0234
08/08/93
07:00
09:10
6,52
7.54
36.11
49.82
71.94
4.82
1.14
2.18
5.85
13047
0235
08/08/93
18:00
20:00
6.51
7.62
35.93
49.94
73.40
4.88
1.38
2.11
4.10
13047
0236
08/09/93
09:14
10:14
5.28
7.9S
36.13
50.65
73.55
5.04
1.42
2.17
4.60
13208
0239
08/10/93
19:00
21:00
4.8 6
7.76
38.28
51.10
74,09
4.90
1.39
2.03
4.97
13252
0241
08/11/93
19:30
20:40
4.88
8.32
35.33
51.47
73.65
4.90
1.38
1.89
4.99
13154
0242
08/12/93
09:00
10:30
6.06
7.65
35.56
50.74
73.49
4.89
1.38
2.00
4.53
13084
0243
OS/12/93
19:00
21:30
6.06
7.89
35.55
50.50
73.59
4.89
1.37
1.99
4.20
13034
0244
08/13/93
19:00
21:00
5.78
8,58
36.23
49.41
72.38
4.83
1.30
2.31
4.81
13021
0246
08/14/93
19:30
21:30
5.57
8.39
36.96
49.08
73.19
4.87
1.33
2.32
4.33
13088
D247
08/15/93
08:00
10:00
6,65
8.11
38.15
49.09
73.08
4.84
1.36
2.05
3.91
12936
D248
08/15/93
19:30
21:30
6.65
8.02
36.57
48.76
72.32
4.86
1.35
2.15
4.64
12941
NOTES;*
VOL. - Volt tit* Matter
F.C. - fixed C»ben
-------
TABLE C.18. COAL ANALYSIS FOR LIMB DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 3
ALL DATA ARE REPORTED "AS RECEIVED"
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS"
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
TEST
START
END
MOISTURE
ASH
VOL.
F.C.
CARBON
HYDROGEN NITROGEN
SULFUR
OXYGEN
HHV
NO.
DATE
TIME
TIME
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
WT %
BTU/LB
D302
08/26/93
08:38
10:48
4.24
8.32
36.23
51.21
73.93
4.95
1.34
2.17
5.05
13259
D303
08/26/93
19:24
21:54
4.18
8.26
35.84
51.72
73.87
4.96
1.32
2.03
5.38
13337
D304
08/27/93
07:30
10:30
6.04
8,13
35.36
50.48
72.57
4.90
1.29
2.05
5.02
13026
D305
08/27/93
19:00
22:30
3.74
8.51
36.52
51.23
74.08
4,96
1.31
2.31
5.09
13406
D306
08/28/93
08:00
11:00
4.44
8.67
36.84
50.05
73.28
4.93
1.29
2.43
4.96
13170
D307
08/28/93
19:00
20:30
6.25
8.40
35.93
49.43
71.78
4.84
1.28
2.35
5.09
12919
D309
08/29/93
20:00
22:30
4.41
8.67
37.07
49.85
73.30
4.97
1.35
2.46
4.84
13163
D310
08/30/93
07:00
09:00
5.18
8.68
36,51
49.64
72.46
4.85
1,34
2.32
5.18
13042
D311
08/30/93
19:00
21:40
5.18
8.38
36.68
49.76
72.80
4.90
1.27
2.39
5.07
13100
0313
09/01/93
07:30
09:00
5.34
8.48
36.57
49.61
72.69
4.92
1.36
2.39
4.81
13012
D314
09/01/93
23:00
01:50
5.49
8.51
35,67
60.34
72.34
4.87
1.34
2.25
5.20
13021
D316
09/02/93
08:30
10:40
5.49
8.46
35.62
50.43
72.62
4.86
1.28
2.24
5.06
13032
D316
09/02/93
19:00
21:00
5.88
S.IO
35.62
60.39
72.10
4.85
1,36
2.22
5.49
13001
D317
09/03/93
08:00
09:30
6.26
7.99
35.46
50.29
72.42
4.88
1.32
2.24
4.89
12933
D318
09/03/93
19:00
20:30
6.34
8.48
35.90
50.28
72.76
4.89
1.33
2.23
4.96
13032
D319
09/04/93
08:50
10:00
5.49
8.72
36.52
50.27
72.69
4.89
1.38
2.13
4.71
12994
D321
09/05/93
19:00
20:40
6.41
8.63
35.70
49.27
71.64
4.84
1.30
2.43
4.75
12849
D322
09/06/93
07:30
09:30
7.33
8.69
36.08
47.90
70.86
4.79
1.31
2.32
4.71
12737
D331
09/10/93
19:00
20:00
6.49
8.16
35.75
49.60
72.21
4.91
1.29
2.29
4.65
12912
0332
09/11/93
07:30
09:00
6.S3
7.98
35,56
49,93
72.02
4.88
1,35
2.28
4.96
12967
D333
09/11/93
19:00
20:30
6.58
7.80
35.64
49.98
71.49
4.87
1.28
2.23
6.75
12940
D334
09/12/93
08:00
10:00
6.53
7.66
36.45
50.35
72.64
4.97
1.26
2,24
4.70
13004
0337
03/13/93
19:00
21:00
5.96
8.49
35.92
49.62
71.69
4.86
1.26
2.28
5.46
12987
0339
09/14/93
19:00
21:00
6.79
8.56
34.27
49,22
72.15
4.91
1.27
2.28
5.05
13009
D341
09/16/93
08:00
10:00
6.31
8.50
35.74
49.45
72.43
4.89
1.26
2.15
4.45
12885
0345
09/18/93
19:00
20:20
6.95
8.52
34.93
49,60
71.25
4.74
1,23
2.15
5.17
12823
D346
09/19/93
09:00
11:00
6.95
8.53
34,78
49.74
71.71
4.80
1.26
2.13
4.62
12811
0347
09/19/93
19:00
21:00
6.95
8.16
35.11
49.78
71.34
4.89
1.31
2.29
5.05
12836
NOTES: * VOL. = Volatile Matter
F.C, = Fixad Carbon
-------
TABLE C.I9. SORBENT CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR DEMONSTRATION TESTS
SORBENT SORBENT SORBENT
BAA
DEMO TEST DEMO TEST DEMO TEST
PERCENT BY WEIGHT NO. 1 NO. 2 NO. 3
Total Ca ae CaO NR 72.0 72.0
Moisture 1.1 1.2 0.8
Ca(OH) 2 82.7 87.9 88.3
CaC03 6.3 3.1 3.5
CaO 5.4 3.7 2.2
MgO 2.2 3.0 2.5
ln#rt# 2.3 1.1 2.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
NOTE:
NR - Not Rsportad
-------
TABLE C.20. DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. t OPERATINQ PARAMETERS AND NOx EMISSIONS
AVG
TEST
GROSS
EXCESS
BURN!
NO.
DATE
MW
AIR, %
BURNERS
TILT
D101
1/25/93
174
30
ALL
22
D102
1/25/93
153
32
ALL
19
D103
1/28/93
172
30
ALL
20
D104
1/28/93
175
27
ALL
19
D105
1/27/93
170
27
ALL
14
D107
1/28/93
172
29
ALL
21
D108
1/28/93
164
30
ALL
13
D110
1/29/93
175
27
ALL
22
D111
1/30/93
173
28
ALL
18
D112
1/31/93
101
38
UPPER 3
21
D115
2/01/93
170
30
ALL
19
D117
2/02/93
168
28
ALL
16
D118
2/02/93
173
28
ALL
15
D119
2/03/93
168
29
ALL
21
D120
2/03/93
173
29
ALL
18
D121
2/04/93
170
28
ALL
21
D124
2/05/93
178
27
ALL
17
0125
2/06/93
175
28
ALL
22
D126
2/07/93
177
28
ALL
22
D127
2/07/93
175
27
ALL
19
D128
2/08/93
178
29
ALL
19
D1 29
2/08/93
179
27
ALL
11
~ 130
2/08/93
179
28
ALL
10
D131
2/09/93
179
27
ALL
20
D132
2/09/93
177
27
ALL
12
0133
2/10/93
180
28
ALL
3
D134
2/10/93
178
27
ALL
8
~ 136
2/11/93
179
27
ALL
4
~138
2/12/93
173
29
ALL
24
D141
2/14/93
175
30
ALL
18
D142
2/15/93
180
28
ALL
9
D145
2/16/93
180
29
ALL
¦2
D14S
2/17/93
181
29
ALL
28
ADJUSTED
HTRHO MS FLOW RH FLOW NOx NO*
°F 10s LB/HR 10'LB/HR t-B/1Oa0TU LB/10* BTU
987
1144.2
1003.2
0.8128
0.4781
979
984.6
871.5
0.6135
0.4866
997
1130.4
998.S
0.6365
0.4972
992
1143.3
1008.1
0.8011
0.5091
987
1124.2
989.8
0.567O
O.S068
984
1134.4
1000.0
0.3924
0.3359
955
1101.6
#70.6
0.3953
0,3524
976
1163.8
1025.2
0.3665
0.3163
972
1170.7
1030.6
0.2419
0.2187
960
626.0
559.1
0.5099
0.4389
979
1110.S
978.1
0.3618
O.3036
981
1114.1
981.1
0.3464
0.3150
981
1145.4
1007.9
0.3699
0.3241
971
1111.2
978.2
0.3608
0.3016
997
1128.1
993.9
0,3672
0.3118
989
1114.3
981.7
0.4222
0.3694
999
1153.5
1016.9
0.3884
0.3340
986
1151.5
1014.9
0.3857
0.3457
998
1157.5
1020.4
0.3890
0.3529
996
1148.6
1012.2
0.3322
0,2994
1000
1150.9
1O15.0
0.3916
0,3724
1001
1167.9
1028.2
0.3390
0,3248
1000
1165.2
1025.7
0.3666
0.3735
1002
1165.2
1025.2
0.3950
0.3820
1001
1160.8
1021.1
0.3544
0.3813
1000
1176.6
1036.3
0.3516
0.4032
1001
1162.4
1023.4
0.3646
0.3833
1001
1167.8
1028.S
0.3545
0.3915
991
1141.5
1010.S
0.4244
0.3687
990
1151.2
1019.8
0.3818
0.3537
1002
1176.4
1039.7
0.3845
0.3914
1001
1184.8
1048.1
0.3668
0.4020
973
1056.0
938.3
0.4505
0.3922
HTSHO
tp
1002
1002
1005
1000
1001
1001
888
1004
998
994
1000
1000
1003
996
1001
1004
1001
1001
1002
1002
1002
1003
1002
1002
1001
1001
1001
1002
1001
1000
1000
1002
988
-------
TABLE C.21. DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 2 OPERATING PARAMETERS AND NOx OMISSIONS
AVG
ADJUSTEI
TEST
GROSS
EXCESS
BURNER
HTSMO
HTRHO
MS FLOW
RH FLOW
NOX
NOx
NO.
DATE
MW
AIR, %
BURNERS
TILT*
"F
•F
103LB/HR
103LB/HR
LB/10aBTU
LB/10*BT
0202
07/23/93
165
28
ALL
30
988
978
1120.1
982.4
0.3767
0.3208
D203
07/23/93
125
33
UPPER 3
29
1008
979
814.9
723.0
0.5720
0.5229
0205
07/24/93
171
29
ALL
14
998
980
1181.7
1020.9
0.3729
0.3880
D206
07/25/93
185
30
ALL
26
1003
997
1097.1
967.0
0.4633
0.4208
D207
07/25/93
185
30
ALL
18
1007
998
1109.3
977.2
0.4154
0.4157
D210
07/27/93
169
29
ALL
24
999
985
1138.8
999.4
0.3800
0.332S
D212
07/28/93
168
28
ALL
29
1001
997
1129.0
993.5
0.4585
0.3840
0213
07/28/93
170
28
ALL
19
1001
983
1147.8
1011.3
0.3950
0.3699
D214
07/29/93
168
29
ALL
28
1002
987
1131.5
995.6
0.3881
0.3439
D215
07/29/93
165
30
ALL
23
1001
988
1119.0
987.0
0.4005
0.3885
D218
07/30/93
167
28
ALL
30
1002
982
1131.7
998.7
0.4798
0.4278
D217
07/30/93
157
29
ALL
25
998
970
1071.1
944.5
0.4102
0.3788
D218
07/31/93
157
29
ALL
29
999
988
1087.2
937.9
0.4118
0.3594
D219
07/31/93
164
29
ALL
23
997
987
1120.8
984.7
0.404O
0.3630
D220
08/01/93
161
29
ALL
28
1000
978
1082.8
950.0
0.4323
0.3894
D221
08/01/93
155
29
ALL
25
999
971
1034.8
911.7
0.4132
0.3539
D222
08/02/93
160
30
ALL
24
1001
981
1074.4
948.7
0.4187
0.3428
D223
08/02/93
169
29
ALL
18
1003
989
1138.3
1000.7
0.4167
0.3813
D224
08/03/93
114
35
UPPER 3
25
1002
982
732.4
851.5
0.6328
0.5569
D225
08/03/93
163
30
ALL
30
998
979
1094.3
983.0
0.4306
0.3753
D228
08/04/93
165
29
ALL
30
998
989
1099.5
988.4
0.4594
0.3982
D227
08/04/93
151
30
ALL
30
993
968
1008.2
889.0
0.4298
0.3763
D228
08/05/93
122
34
UPPER 3
27
1002
971
788.5
899.8
0.5853
0.5008
D229
08/05/93
170
30
ALL
30
1003
992
1135.5
998.9
0.4302
0.3277
D230
08/08/93
182
30
ALL
24
1001
985
1094.0
980.4
0.4485
0.3897
0231
08/06/93
168
30
ALL
24
1002
982
1113.0
977.0
0.4474
0.4051
0232
08/07/93
108
35
UPPER 3
28
992
959
703.8
822.8
0.6280
0.4907
0233
08/07/93
105
as
UPPER 3
30
1002
980
881.0
604.4
0.6855
0.5957
D234
08/08/93
117
34
UPPER 3
23
1001
978
743.1
858.8
0.5304
0.5808
D235
08/08/93
154
31
ALL
24
1001
963
1021.1
896.3
0.4542
0.4028
D236
08/09/93
144
32
ALL
28
1000
984
948.0
834.0
0.5238
0.4418
0239
08/10/93
161
30
ALL
25
1000
983
1084.0
952.3
0.4539
0.3938
D241
08/11/93
167
30
ALL
24
1004
980
1132.7
995.8
0.3999
0.3578
0242
08/1 2/93
167
31
ALL
28
1001
978
1051.4
925.1
0.4709
0.4104
D243
08/1 2/93
162
31
ALL
23
1002
972
1092.0
982.6
0.4558
0.4120
D244
08/13/93
168
29
ALL
28
1002
988
1112.7
980.9
0.3841
0.3285
D248
08/14/93
161
30
ALL
25
1000
977
1090.5
980.2
0.4389
0.3989
0247
08/15/93
161
30
ALL
30
999
987
1079.7
960.8
0.4915
0.4238
0248
08/15/93
170
30
ALL
23
1000
984
1148.1
1009.3
0.4085
0.3889
-------
TABLE C.22. DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 3 OPERATING PARAMETERS AND NO* EMISSIONS
AVG
TEST GROSS EXCESS BURNER
NO. DATE MW AIR, % BURNERS TILT"
0302
08/26/93
170
29
ALL
27
0303
08/26/93
169
30
ALL
25
D304
08/27/93
167
29
ALL
30
D305
08/27/93
169
29
ALL
30
D30S
08/28/93
170
28
ALL
28
0307
08/28/93
168
29
ALL
17
D309
08/29/93
170
26
ALL
26
D310
08/30/93
165
27
ALL
24
0311
08/30/93
171
27
ALL
13
D313
09/01/93
163
29
ALL
27
D314
09/01/93
158
29
ALL
29
D315
09/02/93
170
29
ALL
22
D316
09/02/93
174
28
ALL
20
0317
09/03/93
166
29
ALL
24
0318
09/03/93
167
30
ALL
25
0319
09/04/93
166
30
ALL
23
D321
09/05/93
153
29
ALL
19
D322
09/06/93
120
27
UPPER 3
24
D331
09/10/93
151
31
ALL
30
0332
09/11/93
108
35
UPPER 3
31
D333
09/11/93
164
30
ALL
25
D334
09/12/93
107
35
UPPER 3
30
0337
09/13/93
166
30
ALL
20
0339
09/14/93
173
29
ALL
14
D341
09/16/93
114
34
BOTTOM 3
26
D345
09/18/93
165
30
ALL
27
0346
09/19/93
149
31
ALL
30
D347
09/19/93
112
37
UPPER 3
26
ADJUSTED
HTRHO
MS FLOW
RH FLOW
NOX
NOX
'F
10aLBS/HR
10SLB/HR
LB/10' BTU
LB/10*B1
995
1146.3
1011.2
0.3986
0.3523
997
1138.6
1004.7
0.4013
0.3624
992
1126,6
992.6
0.3982
0.3581
996
1136,7
1003.3
0.3793
0.3320
998
1137.6
1002.3
0.3857
0.3515
975
1149.7
1014.8
0.4088
0.4083
995
1143.3
1008.0
0.3884
0.3450
964
1142,8
1006.4
0.3917
0.3542
975
1170,3
1029.8
0,3671
0.3839
991
1117.8
983.7
0,3607
0.3152
992
1071.3
945.1
0.4179
0.362O
1000
1142.8
1007.2
0.3825
0.3695
1000
1173.6
1035.8
0.3795
0.3464
1001
1111.3
980.6
0.3917
0.3618
1001
1125.0
997.0
0.4315
0.3901
995
1119.4
989.7
0,4249
0.3785
956
962,1
928,6
0,4016
0.3916
967
782.5
695,4
0.5692
0.5289
978
1003.8
888.9
0.4983
0.4501
956
697,9
621.4
0.7072
0.6026
992
1093.2
963.3
0.4630
0.4314
930
708.6
629,5
0.5748
0.5344
978
1118.0
9B6.8
0.4216
0.4154
1000
1159.9
1023.4
0,3762
0.3892
889
777.0
691,7
0.4855
0,4635
978
1113.0
981.7
0.4620
0.4433
963
993.7
878.8
0.5256
0.4868
964
717.4
638.4
0.5879
0.5353
HTSHO
"F
1003
1002
899
1002
1003
995
1002
956
989
999
1004
1000
1002
1002
1003
996
999
997
1008
995
1005
987
999
1003
952
1000
992
995
-------
TABLE C.23.
DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 1 BOILER PERFORMANCE
TEST NO.
D101
D102
D103
D104
D105
D107
D108
DATE
01/26/93
01/25/93
01/26/93
01/26/93
01/27/93
01/28/93
01/28/93
TIME START
10:4fi
23:30
07:02
17:46
06:16
06:24
18:00
TIME END
12:44
03:14
08:20
20:14
07:44
07:36
20:00
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH
54.3
50,9
50.6
49.9
44.2
46.6
64.9
AIR LVG AH
633.9
625.7
634.8
623,6
626
616.2
633.6
GAS ENT AH
744.6
731.4
747,9
738.4
745.5
735.9
743.9
GAS LVG AH
330.5
326.4
332,4
324.1
325.5
315.3
327
02 ENT AH, %
6.0
5.3
5.1
4,7
4.7
5.0
5.1
02 LVG AH, %
7.0
7.3
7.0
6.7
6.7
6,9
7.1
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS
7.17
7.29
7.32
6.93
7.07
6.88
6.97
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS
3.96
3.96
3.97
3.96
3.96
3.95
3.95
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS
0.17
0.17
0.17
0,17
0.17
0,16
0.17
RADIATION LOSS
0.22
0.25
0.22
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
CARBON LOSS
0.74
0.72
0.69
0.69
0.71
0.71
0.71
ASH PIT LOSS
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS
0.03
0.03
0.03
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
TOTAL LOSSES
12.61
12.73
12.72
12.3
12.48
12.26
12.36
BOILER EFFICIENCY
87.39
87.27
87.28
87.7
87.52
87.74
87.64
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 1(f BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER
91.77
81.10
91.69
92.41
91.53
92.64
88.82
SLOWDOWN
1.52
1.55
-0.71
1.65
1.76
1.69
1.73
WATERWALLS
695.13
604,77
677.40
682.60
691.10
687.71
687.53
LTSH
287.19
261.21
296.44
308.26
289.49
300.34
275.30
HIGH TEMP SH
117.75
98.57
120.44
119.21
111.59
114.29
101.62
RH PANEL
55.65
47.32
62.49
63,45
51.96
52.78
48.3S
RH PLATEN
44,87
42.05
43.24
43.23
38.44
41.00
39.86
HTRH
73.91
66.36
82.83
81.31
72.78
78.57
73.74
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT
1367.80
1202.94
1363.83
1382.11
1348.66
1369.02
1316.84
BTU FIRED
1682.80
1392.60
1579.10
1592.60
1559.20
1579.90
1517.20
COAL FIRED, LB/HR
119701
10S564
119367
120606
119196
121279
115879
{Continued}
-------
TEST NO.
D110
DATE 01/29/93
TIME START 18:00
TIME END 20:00
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH 52.3
AIR LVG AH 628
GAS ENT AH 745.5
GAS LVG AH 317.6
02 ENT AH, % 4.7
02 LVG AH, % 6.7
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 6.75
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 3.94
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.16
RADIATION LOSS 0.21
CARBON LOSS 0.73
ASH PIT LOSS 0.32
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.03
TOTAL LOSSES 12.14
BOILER EFFICIENCY 87.36
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 10? BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 96.86
BLOWDOWN 1.69
WATERWALLS 710.33
LTSH 303.12
HIGH TEMP SH 111.60
RH PANEL 49.83
RH PLATEN 42.90
HTRH 76.69
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1393.03
BTU FIRED 1601.20
COAL FIRED. LB/HR 121377
TABLE C. 23. (Continued}
D111
01/30/93
05:56
08:04
44.3
603.6
706.6
293
4.8
6.8
6.38
3.92
0.15
0.21
0.75
0.32
0.02
11.77
88.23
88.81
1.84
727.21
296.81
114.65
58.67
40.88
72.19
1400.96
1604.70
121183
D112
01/31/93
01:30
04:30
56.2
569.8
629.6
306
5.8
8.1
6.94
3.92
0.17
0.36
0.7
0.32
0.02
12.43
87.57
58.43
2,28
418.16
150.50,
67.26
34.46
29,35
42.67
803.02
926.40
69653
D115
02/01/93
08:30
13:00
63
602
704.3
304
5.0
7.0
6.33
3.91
0.15
0.22
0.68
0.32
0.02
11.64
88.36
84.99
2.12
691.11
278.24
113.41
51.65
42.62
73.69
1337.82
1525.50
113708
D117
02/02/93
12:00
15:00
68
610.4
706.5
308.2
4.8
6.9
6.29
3.91
0.15
0.22
0.82
0,33
0.02
11.75
88.25
88.95
2.06
677.08
294.71
113.24
56,70
41,05
73.33
1347.12
1636.50
116454
D118
02/02/93
18:10
19:50
68.6
618.4
720.9
311.9
4.9
6.9
6.38
3.92
0.15
0.22
0.83
0.33
0.02
11.8E
83.15
91.15
2,07
696.05
310.51
107.71
56.98
43.67
70.51
1378.64
1575.40
119321
D119
02/03/93
08:20
13:00
57.3
605.7
705.5
301.5
5.0
7.0
6.34
3.91
0.15
0.22
0.82
0.33
0.02
11.8
88.2
86.75
2.04
686.22
286.70
104.28
54.20
44.04
67.60
1331.84
1523.00
115309
(Continued)
D120
02/03/93
19:40
21:44
65.5
605.9
707.5
307.4
4.9
6.9
6.32
3.92
0.1S
0.22
0.8
0.32
0.02
11.75
88.25
85.61
2.06
691.84
286.05
117.81
56.48
43.09
79.28
1361.22
1555.50
117574
-------
TEST NO.
D121
DATE 02/04/93
TIME START 08:00
TIME END 10:30
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH 60.3
AIR LVG AH 606.8
GAS ENT AH 706.9
GAS LVG AH 303.S
02 ENT AH, % 4.9
02 LVG AH, % 8.9
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 6.29
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 3.91
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.16
RADIATION LOSS 0.22
CARBON LOSS 0.8
ASH PIT LOSS 0.32
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.02
TOTAL LOSSES 11.73
BOILER EFFICIENCY 88.27
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 1tf BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 84.30
BLOWDOWN 2.13
WATERWALLS 689.32
LTSH 279.38
HIGH TEMP SH 116.58
RH PANEL 54.04
RH PLATEN 44.28
HTRH 72.15
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1342.19
BTU FIRED 1536.30
COAL FIRED, LB/HR 116816
TABLE C.23. (Continued)
D124
02/05/93
19:00
01:00
73.5
598,6
697.3
306.3
4.7
6.7
6.06
3,91
0.14
0.21
0.83
0.33
0.02
11.5
88.5
88.70
2.04
701.84
291.83
123.42
65.80
46.85
79.34
1389.83
1680.60
120262
D125
02/06/93
07:00
09:00
60.3
602.2
706.7
299.5
4.8
6.8
6.17
3.91
0.15
0.22
0.86
0.33
0.02
11.65
83.35
90.43
2.07
708.19
292.91
111.89
56.30
48.66
71.29
1380.74
1578.10
120145
D126
02/07/33
03.00
07:00
63.2
B13.7
714.8
306.3
4.6
6.6
6.19
3.92
0.15
0.21
0.83
0.33
0.02
11.65
88,35
90.25
2.04
702.99
295.70
121.28
57.44
48.62
76.09
1394.42
1590.90
120788
D127
02/07/93
07:00
10:20
68.6
616.3
715.4
307.8
4.7
6.7
6.35
3.92
0.15
0.21
0.84
0.33
0.02
11.83
88.17
87.27
2.09
706.24
286.64
121.87
54.40
48.98
77.06
1383.55
1581.10
119862
D128
02/08/93
02:30
06:30
67
606.6
704
302.2
4.9
6.9
6.15
3.91
0.15
0.21
0.84
0.33
0.02
11.6
88.4
89.04
2.04
698.03
295.02
121.94
66.64
49.04
76.76
1388.51
1582.70
119929
D129
02/08/93
11:30
13:30
80.1
578.2
670.6
296.7
4.7
6.7
5.7
3.38
0,14
0.21
0.83
0.33
0.02
11.11
88.89
84.49
2.15
718.41
283.40
132.74
50.95
50.57
83.31
1406.03
1591.00
120759
(Continuorf)
D130
02/08/93
16:00
22:00
73.3
691.9
688.6
297.5
4.8
6.7
5.85
3.89
0.14
0.21
0.85
0.33
0.02
11.3
88,7
86.05
2.94
713.28
288.27
128.69
54.27
44.64
86.64
1404.79
1693.40
121448
-------
TEST NO.
D131
DATE 02/09/93
TIME START 05:00
TIME END 09:00
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH 75,3
AIR LVQ AH 586.7
GAS ENT AH 679.8
GAS LVG AH 296.3
02 ENT AH, % 4.7
02 LVG AH, % 6.7
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 5.75
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 3.89
£ MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.14
w RADIATION LOSS 0,21
CARBON LOSS 0.85
ASH PIT LOSS 0.33
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.02
TOTAL LOSSES 11.19
BOILER EFFICIENCY 88.81
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 1(f BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 84.45
SLOWDOWN 2,80
WATERWALLS 718.91
LTSH 282.63
HIGH TEMP SH 130.04
RH PANEL 55.14
RH PLATEN 51.98
HTRH 78.01
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1403.97
BTU FIRED 1590.60
COAL FIRED, LB/HR 121226
TABLE C.23.
(Continued)
D132
02/09/93
16:30
21:30
71.6
579.2
673.4
291.1
4.7
6.7
5.69
3.88
0.14
0.21
0.81
0.32
0.02
11.OB
88.92
83.76
2.32
722.64
270,26
133.18
54.80
49.51
79.98
1396.45
1579,70
118983
D133
02/10/93
05:20
08:40
65.3
600.8
702.9
296.6
4.8
6.8
5.99
3.9
0.14
0.21
0.79
0.32
0.02
11.37
88.63
89.79
2.27
714.85
295.72
126.99
55.94
42.27
88.37
1416.18
1608.10
121293
D134
02/10/93
17:00
21:00
72
596.2
693.7
297.1
4.7
6.7
6.86
3.89
0.14
0.21
0.79
0.32
0.02
11.24
88.76
86.80
2.25
714.98
276.09
134.71
55.96
44.65
85.05
1400.49
1587,60
119864
D136
02/11/93
13:46
22:44
77.9
583.7
677.6
291.6
4.7
6.6
5.58
3.88
0.13
0.21
0.77
0.32
0.02
10.32
89.08
87.04
2.35
718.70
278.75
134.33
54.28
45.40
85.86
1406.71
1587.50
119469
D138
02/12/93
19:16
22:44
59.1
616.1
723.8
301.4
4.9
6.9
6.28
3.91
0.16
0.22
0.77
0.32
0.02
11.67
88.33
91.10
1.59
701.46
277.94
127.65
50.11
47.25
81.28
1378.39
1574.90
11S819
D141
02/14/93
19:46
21:00
62
623
735.2
306.9
5.0
7.0
6.42
3.92
0.15
0.21
0.72
0.32
0.02
11.77
88.23
97.99
1.96
688.71
300.16
121.33
49.72
47.42
82.47
1389.77
1588.50
119445
(Continued)
D142
02/15/93
07:30
08:30
76.4
596.8
699.2
300.1
4.8
6.8
5.89
3.89
0.14
0.21
0.73
0.32
0.02
11.21
88.79
91.02
3.96
722.86
279.69
136.78
54.76
53.16
81.00
1423.24
1614.90
123444
-------
TABLE C.23. (Continued)
TEST NO.
D14S
D146
DATE
02/16/93
02/17/93
TIME START
17:50
03:00
TIME END
20:10
06:58
AIR AND OAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH
91.6
71.3
AIR LVG AH
586.3
573.7
GAS ENT AH
683
662.7
GAS LVG AH
297.6
288
02 ENT AH, %
4.9
6.0
02 LVG AH, %
6.8
7.0
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS
6.67
5.67
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS
3.87
3.88
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS
0.13
0.14
RADIATION LOSS
0.21
0.23
CARBON LOSS
0.72
0.73
ASH PIT LOSS
0.32
0.32
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS
0.02
0.02
TOTAL LOSSES
10.84
10.98
BOILER EFFICIENCY
89.16
89.02
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 10® BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER
90.92
78.60
BLOWDOWN
1.92
1.30
WATERWALLS
723.39
669.95
LTSH
289.64
239.09
HIGH TEMP SH
136.12
121.22
RH PANEL
56.17
54.41
RH PLATEN
46.15
45.42
HTRH
87.23
67.14
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT
1431.53
1277.72
BTU FIRED
1612.20
1448.00
COAL FIRED, LB/HR
122007
110932
-------
TABLf C.24.
DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 2 BOILER PERFORMANCE
TEST NO.
D202
D203
D205
D206
D207
D210
D212
DATE
07/23/93
07/23/93
07/24/93
07/25/93
07/25/93
07/27/93
07/28/93
TIME START
07:14
20:50
19:00
08:40
19:00
08:00
12:30
TIME END
08:50
22:20
20:20
10:30
20:50
10:00
14:00
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH
81.1
88.7
91
90,3
88.8
88.4
98.1
AIR LVG AH
661.5
658.2
657
631.1
636.3
650.4
656.8
GAS ENT AH
753.2
747.2
774.4
731.2
743.7
760.3
762.1
GAS LVG AH
345.9
351.3
352.7
330.2
334.4
346.1
354.5
02 ENT AH, %
4.8
5.5
5
5.1
5.1
5
4.8
02 LVG AH, %
6.8
7.7
6.9
7.1
7.1
7
6.8
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS
7.09
7.54
7.17
6.61
6.77
7.04
7.05
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS
3.96
3.96
3.96
3.93
3.94
3.95
3.96
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS
0,17
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.17
RADIATION LOSS
0.22
0.29
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
CARBON LOSS
0.78
0.79
0.75
0.82
0.77
0.77
0.79
ASH PIT LOSS
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
HEAT IN FLY ASH LOSS
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
TOTAL LOSSES
12.68
13.12
12.62
12.08
12.2
12.49
12.54
BOILER EFFICIENCY
87.42
86.88
87.38
87.92
87.8
87.51
87.46
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 10 BTIJ/HR
ECONOMIZER
91,45
71.81
97.84
87.21
33.26
91.89
80.44
BLOWDOWN
1.70
0.76
2.07
1.91
1.48
1.79
1.56
WATERWALLS
691.68
503.09
710.99
663.97
679.17
696.59
689.67
LTSH
262.64
220.26
276.67
280.35
273.56
286.09
282.34
HIGH TEMP SH
114.86
86.18
123.S2
120.40
119.59
111.30
117.28
RH PANEL
64.42
41.74
52.19
53.69
B3.26
53.43
57.39
RH PLATEN
40.52
33.49
42.11
47.82
41.62
42.62
43.66
HTRH
78.07
59.88
79.93
71.31
79.06
76.38
73.87
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT
1335.33
1017.23
1385.32
1326.65
1340.99
1359.98
1356.21
BTU FIRED
1633.70
1175.40
1589.70
1514.50
1532.10
1661.40
1658.80
COAL FIRED, LB/HR
114157
88184
118361
113932
114636
117125
117486
{Continued)
-------
TEST NO.
D213
DATE 07/28/93
TIME START 20:00
TIME END 21:40
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH S6.5
AIR LVG AH 655.3
GAS ENT AH 763.2
GAS LVG AH 351.6
02 ENT AH, % 4.8
02 LVG AH, % 6.8
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 6.98
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 3.95
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.17
RADIATION LOSS 0.22
CARBON LOSS 0.77
ASH PIT LOSS 0.32
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.03
TOTAL LOSSES 12.43
BOILER EFFICIENCY 87.67
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 1(? BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 89.86
BLOWDOWN 2.12
WATERWALLS 696.78
LTSH 303.01
HIGH TEMP SH 110.42
RH PANEL 49.91
RH PLATEN 41.96
HTRH 80.14
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1374.19
BTU FIRED 1578.60
COAL FIRED, LB/HR 118185
TABLE C.24 (Continued)
D214
07/29/93
07:30
09:30
89.2
672.5
783.3
355.6
4.9
6.9
7.26
3.97
0.17
0.22
0.8
0.32
0.03
12.78
87.22
94.60
2.14
690.57
285.94
112.41
50.29
40.68
80.66
1357.28
1564.60
118047
D21E
07/29/93
19:00
21:00
100.2
661.8
773.1
365
5
7
7.4
3.97
0.18
0.22
0.79
0.32
0.03
12.91
87.09
94.62
1.7S
682.59
280.85
114.69
52.51
41.61
77.85
1346.47
1551.00
116006
D216
07/30/93
08:30
10:00
88
680.2
798
362.2
4.8
6.9
7.45
3.98
0.18
0.22
0.8
0.32
0.03
12.98
87.02
94.75
1.78
687.31
300.30
102.32
55.51
36.84
76.09
1354.91
1565.40
117258
D2!7
07/30/93
19:00
20:44
94.1
666.8
772.9
361.6
4,9
7
7.4
3.97
0.18
0.23
0.79
0.32
0.03
12.92
87.08
80.60
1.42
667.84
266.65
108.94
48.97
37.04
78.18
1287.65
1483.30
110835
D218
07/31/93
07:30
09:30
81.7
675
779.3
362.8
4.9
7
7.63
3.99
0.18
0.23
0.79
0.32
0.03
13.18
86.82
82.45
1.90
664.67
264.47
107.96
51.30
39.68
66.92
1279.35
1483.60
111132
D219
07/31/93
19:30
21:00
86.9
664.4
781.8
356.6
4.9
6.9
7.36
3.97
0.18
0.22
0.76
0.32
0.03
12.84
87.16
88.26
1.86
693.60
283.68
107.52
52.23
36.16
75.19
1335.49
1539.80
114850
(Continued)
D220
08/01/93
09:30
11:00
86
849
768.4
346.7
5
7
7.15
3,96
0.17
0.23
0.79
0.32
0.03
12.64
87.36
82.11
3.09
668.42
273.31
110.38
49.62
38.31
76.28
1301.51
1497.30
111597
-------
TEST NO.
D221
DATE 08/01/93
TIME START 19:00
TIME END 20:30
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AM 92.8
AIR LVG AH 652
GAS ENT AH 767.2
GAS LVG AH 349.8
02 ENT AH, % 5
02 LVG AH, % 7.1
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 7.12
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 3.96
inj MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.17
$ RADIATION LOSS 0.24
CARBON LOSS 0.79
ASH PIT LOSS 0.32
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.03
TOTAL LOSSES 12.63
BOILER EFFICIENCY 87.37
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 10 BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 73.53
SLOWDOWN 2.91
WATERWALLS 640.08
LTSH 263.40
HIGH TEMP SH 108.23
RH PANEL 48.91
RH PLATEN 37.61
HTRH 72.58
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1253.24
BTU FIRED 1438.70
COAL FIRED, LB/HR 107478
TABLE C.24 (Continued)
D222
D223
D224
D225
D226
D227
D228
08/02/93
08/02/93
08/03/93
08/03/93
08/04/93
08/04/93
08/05/93
08:30
19:00
08:00
19:00
08:00
19:00
07:00
10:30
21:00
09:30
21:00
10:00
21:00
08:30
88
98.8
30.8
86.8
81
92.5
80.5
648.6
629.3
585
662.4
669.5
652.4
631.5
759.5
732.7
650.6
767
780.1
747.8
708.7
348.6
338.5
313.1
348
360.8
353
350.8
5.1
5
5.7
i.1
4.9
5
6.6
7.2
7
7.9
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.7
7.22
6.64
6.47
7.22
7.29
7.24
7.69
3.96
3.93
3.9
3,96
3.97
3.96
3.97
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.18
0.23
0.22
0.32
0.23
0.22
0.24
0.3
0.8
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.8
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.03
0.03
0.02
0,03
0.03
0.03
0.03
12.73
12.07
11.96
12.7
12.77
12.75
13.29
87.27
87.93
88.04
87.3
87.23
87.25
86.71
89.37
87.42
65.18
89.69
86.90
81.50
69.66
2.65
2.47
1.99
2.82
2.60
2.55
2.64
651.89
692.92
471.44
673.82
680.92
629.79
495.42
275.14
295.13
173.38
270.96
265.05
247.31
201.60
114.06
114.72
88,17
110.87
116.30
102.41
87.66
46.59
51.75
42.38
54.17
52.04
48.97
42.95
40.48
41.60
33.25
41.57
47.38
38.09
33.59
73.21
81.55
51.98
69.06
71.23
68.30
54.02
1299.39
1367.56
927.77
1312.96
1322.42
1218.91
987.53
1492.30
1558.80
1061.80
1516.90
1528.50
1404.60
1145.00
110705
115569
80733
115275
115411
106514
87105
(Continued)
-------
TEST NO.
D229
DATE 08/05/93
TIME START 19:40
TIME END 21:30
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AiRENTAH 86.4
AIR I-VG AH 671.8
GAS ENT AH 786.7
GAS LVG AH 350.6
02 ENT AH, % 5
02 LVG AH, % 7
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 7.23
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 3.96
i-o MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.17
00 RADIATION LOSS 0.22
CARBON LOSS 0.78
ASH PIT LOSS 0.32
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.03
TOTAL LOSSES 12,71
BOILER EFFICIENCY 87.29
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 1C? BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 102.01
SLOWDOWN 2,29
WATERWALLS 673.45
LTSH 304.11
HIGH TEMP SH 108.78
RH PANEL 55.46
RH PLATEN 45.85
HTRH 71.54
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1363.51
BTU FIRED 1573.40
COAL FIRED, LB/HR 119233
TABLE C.24 (Continued)
D230
OB/06/93
08:00
10:00
83.4
652.6
759.9
343.5
5.1
7.1
7.13
3.95
0.17
0.23
0.8
0.32
0.03
12.64
87.36
81.44
2.40
676.74
291.97
96.16
54.18
38.69
64.68
1306.15
1510.30
117168
D231
08/06/93
17:00
18:58
83.8
668.2
777.6
354.1
5.1
7.1
7.41
3.97
0.18
0.22
0.78
0.32
0.03
12.92
87.08
94.26
2.00
672.40
294.21
103.71
52.97
39.05
73.59
1332.18
1542.20
119006
D232
08/07/93
09:50
11:00
79.7
608.1
673.2
334,9
5.7
7.9
7.33
3.94
0.18
0,33
0.8
0.32
0.03
12.93
87.07
61.79
1.25
463.85
157.63
78.56
37.91
30.87
49.85
881.71
1024.30
80845
D233
08/07/93
22:00
01:00
82.1
667.3
743,9
355.5
5.7
8
7.96
3.97
0.13
0.34
0.78
0.32
0.03
13.6
86.4
66.59
1.01
438.34
174.84
66.08
37.14
26.40
48.18
857.58
1001.10
77846
D234
08/08/93
07:00
09:10
79,2
628.2
704.1
331.3
5.6
7.8
7.19
3.94
0.17
0.31
0.76
0.32
0.03
12.72
87.28
68.83
2.96
480.75
167.69
87.91
38.78
34.49
54.58
936.00
1080.20
82793
D235
08/08/93
18:00
20:00
84.9
652,3
753.3
341.8
5.2
7.3
7.13
3.95
0.17
0.24
0.77
0.32
0.03
12.61
87.39
78.16
2.82
637.73
264.97
94.19
49.05
36.43
64.64
1227.98
1417.50
108646
(Continuad)
D236
08/09/93
09:14
10:14
84.7
611.6
699.7
323,5
5.3
7.4
6,68
3.92
0.16
0.26
0.79
0.32
0.02
12.16
87.84
77.64
1.89
601.74
215.10
109.44
46.78
38.39
67.32
1158.30
1328.80
100606
-------
TEST NO.
D23S
DATE 08 HO/93
TIME START 19,00
TIME END 21:00
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH 84.5
AIR LVG AH 657.2
GAS ENT AH 767.5
GAS LVG AH 347.6
02 ENT AH, % 5.1
02 LVG AH, % 7.1
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 7.23
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 3.96
nj MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.17
§ RADIATION LOSS 0.23
CARBON LOSS 0.77
ASH PIT LOSS 0.32
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.03
TOTAL LOSSES 12.72
BOILER EFFICIENCY 87,28
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, irf BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 93.67
SLOWDOWN 1.61
WATERWALLS 660.61
LTSH 266.91
HIGH TEMP SH 113.72
RH PANEL 48.13
RH PLATEN 47.10
HTRH 70.39
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1302.14
BTU FIRED 1500.30
COAL FIRED, LB/HR 113213
TABLE C.24 (Continued)
D241
D242
D243
D244
D246
D247
D248
08/11/93
08/12/93
08/12/93
08/13/93
08/14/93
08/15/93
08/15/93
19:30
09:00
19:00
19:00
19:30
08:00
19:30
20:40
10:30
21:30
21:00
21:30
10:00
21:30
84.8
83.2
88.8
82.1
88.8
84.3
91
653.2
654.2
675.6
657
662.2
665.8
652.7
763.5
757.6
784.8
772
774
777
766.4
342.4
344.4
353.1
342.1
353
350.2
344.4
5
5.2
5.1
4.9
5.1
5.1
5
7
7.2
7.2
6.9
7,1
7.1
7
7.03
7.22
7.33
7.03
7.31
7.31
6.97
3.9S
3.96
3.96
3.95
3.96
3.96
3.95
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.83
0.77
0.8
0.87
0.85
0.83
0.82
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
12.56
12.7
12.84
12.59
12.88
12.86
12.47
87.44
87.3
87.16
87.41
87.12
87.14
87.53
88.92
88.71
92.33
90.15
94.72
90.27
96.81
1.41
1.08
0.91
1.64
1.41
2.20
2.42
691.50
641.73
667.44
677.47
668.46
653.92
689.64
298.31
270.87
288.00
283.63
269.73
274.22
238.99
107.20
104.57
99.22
116.21
111.38
114.81
113.13
55.13
47.46
54.89
61.80
49.02
50.80
50.54
39.62
43.73
43.58
44.47
40.16
40.96
44.64
71.35
68.45
61.52
74.23
75.77
77.63
76.05
1353.43
1266.61
1307.90
1339.61
1310.65
1304.82
1372.23
1557.20
1462.90
1512.80
1543.10
1512.90
1511.60
1579.50
118382
111808
116066
118509
115594
116862
122054
-------
TABLE C.25.
DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 3 BOILER PERFORMANCE
TEST NO.
D302
D303
D304
D305
D306
D307
D309
DATE
08/26/93
08/26/33
08/27/93
08/27/93
08/28/93
08/28/93
08/29/93
TIME START
08:38
19:24
07:30
19:00
08:00
19:00
20:00
TIME END
10:48
21:64
10:30
22:30
11:00
20:30
22:30
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH
86.7
93.4
85.7
91.1
87.5
99.5
89.1
AIR LVG AH
648.9
667
650.6
657.3
660.6
655.1
649.3
GASENTAH
756.8
776.8
756.1
767.3
709.9
762
772.6
GAS LVG AH
348.1
358.7
347
352.3
353.6
354.7
358.5
02 ENT AH, %
4.9
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.8
5.0
4.6
02 LVG AH, %
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
7.0
6.7
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS
7.22
7.32
7.25
7.14
7.29
7.06
7.33
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS
4.28
4.25
4.48
4.19
4.32
4.45
4.35
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
RADIATION LOSS
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
CARBON LOSS
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.84
0.87
0.86
0.87
ASH PIT LOSS
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
TOTAL LOSSES
13.06
13.13
13.29
12.91
13.22
13.1
13.3
BOILER EFFICIENCY
86.94
86.87
86.71
87.09
86.78
36.9
86.7
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 18 BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER
97.34
94.69
96.83
92.13
100.28
96.94
90.09
BLOWDOWN
1.54
1.65
1.63
1.58
1.70
1.74
1.77
WATERWAILS
682.62
679.02
685.32
679.10
684.53
694.24
687.01
LTSH.
301.10 ,
304.01
282.48
302.21
288.33
300.17
304.87
HIGH TEMP SH
120.00
115.29
113.47
118.22
117.87
108.85
115.54
RH PANEL
56.26
58.31
54.05
56.15
57.14
56.35
56.22
RH PLATEN
45.43
41,45
44.95
43.80
45.85
39.83
43,30
HTRH
74.44
77.44
74.67
75.80
72.81
74.48
76.48
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT
1378.74
1371.75
1353.39
1368.98
1368.50
1372.60
1375.28
BTU FIRED
1585.90
1579.10
1560.90
1571.90
1576.90
1579.60
1586.20
COAL FIRED, LB/HR
119609
118400
119830
117253
119734
122270
120504
(Continued)
-------
TEST NO.
D310
DATE 08/30/93
TIME START 07:00
TIME END 09:00
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH 83.8
AIR LVQ AH 623.7
GAS ENT AH 753.9
GAS LVG AH 343
02 ENT AH, % 4.7
02 LVG AH, % 6.8
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 7.08
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 4.36
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.17
RADIATION LOSS 0.22
CARBON LOSS 0.88
ASH PIT LOSS 0.33
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.03
TOTAL LOSSES 13.02
BOILER EFFICIENCY 86.98
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 15 BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 83.09
BLOWDOWN 1.92
WATERWALLS 711.80
LTSH 281.78
HIGH TEMP SH 115.60
RH PANEL 53.45
RH PLATEN 41.62
HTRH 80.77
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1370.02
BTU FIRED 1575.20
COAL FIRED, LB/HR 120779
TABLE C.26. (Continued)
D311
08/30/93
19:00
21:40
88.3
642.1
743.8
342
4.7
6.7
6.91
4.36
0,16
0.21
0.84
0.33
0.03
12.84
87.16
96.08
1.85
713.71
291.30
113.30
67.66
41.28
77.21
1391.38
1696,40
121863
D313
09/01/93
07:30
09:00
83.1
636.8
736
338.2
4.9
6.9
7.09
4.43
0.17
0.22
0.86
0.33
0.03
13.12
86.88
83.80
1.95
687.67
278.30
121.67
52.81
47.90
74.33
1348.43
1652.10
119282
D314
09/01/93
23:00
01:50
82.8
621.8
718,4
328.6
5.0
7.1
6.82
4.39
0.16
0.23
0.86
0.33
0.03
12.81
87.19
87.34
1.80
654.74
276.63
112.81
52.89
43.81
72.39
1302.40
1493.80
114722
D315
09/02/93
08:30
10:40
86.1
634.7
735.6
338.5
4.9
6,9
6.94
4.38
0.17
0.22
0.88
0.33
0.03
12.91
87.09
95.66
1.77
680,30
293.40
126.06
49.78
51,63
78.75
1377.34
1581.60
121363
D316
09/02/93
19:00
21:00
97.8
637.2
739.1
344.1
4.9
6.9
6.73
4.38
0.16
0.21
0.82
0.33
0.02
12.65
87.35
96.87
1.76
697.99
303.57
129.11
50.97
51.88
81.95
1414.09
1618.90
124621
D317
09/03/93
08:00
09:30
88.8
629.5
731.2
334.4
5.0
7.0
6.84
4.48
0.16
0.22
0.81
0.33
0,02
12.87
87.13
93.23
1.66
668.76
278.64
126.05
45.74
52.86
77.90
1344.85
1543.50
119346
(Continued)
D318
09/03/93
19:00
20:30
98.9
666
779.5
354.3
5.1
7.1
7.14
4.37
0.17
0.22
0.86
0.33
0.03
13.11
86.89
101.81
1.59
670.86
287.38
124.48
47.66
61.28
79.65
1364.61
1570.50
120611
-------
TEST NO.
D319
DATE
TIME START
TIME END
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH
AIR LVG AH
GAS ENT AH
GAS LVG AH
02 ENT AH, %
02 LVG AH, %
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS
RADIATION LOSS
CARBON LOSS
ASH PIT LOSS
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS
TOTAL LOSSES
BOILER EFFICIENCY
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, l8
ECONOMIZER
BLOWDOWN
WATERWALLS
LTSH
HIGH TEMP SH
RH PANEL
RH PLATEN
HTRH
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT
BTU FIRED
COAL FIRED, LB/HR
09/04/93
08:50
10:00
89.3
865.2
774
347.5
B.1
7.1
7.24
4.42
0.17
0.22
0.88
0.33
0.03
13,29
86.71
BTU/HR
96.18
1.80
686.77
267,27
122.43
52.62
42,73
82.70
1352.50
1559.80
120040
TABLE €.26.
{Continued)
D321
09/06/93
19:00
20:40
86.7
619.3
715.5
329.6
4,9
7.0
6.77
4.49
0.16
0.24
0,89
0,33
0,03
12.9
87.1
99,62
2.72
654.59
245.64
92.38
42.09
40.10
65.24
1242.38
1426,40
111013
D322
09/06/93
07:30
09:30
84.1
652.1
727.7
347.1
4.7
7.0
7.32
4.61
0.17
0.3
0,9
0,33
0,03
13.67
86.33
72.79
2.17
505.98
183.53
84.82
39.57
35,99
54,39
979.24
1134.30
89056
D331
09/10/93
19:00
20:00
88.1
632.3
741
336.2
5.2
7.3
7.07
4.54
0.17
0.24
0.83
0.33
0.03
13.21
86.79
85.83
2.35
623.35
256.09
103.48
43.99
43.42
67.91
1226.43
1413.00
109433
D332
09/11/93
07:30
09:00
73
696.6
784.7
365,9
5,7
8.0
8.69
4.61
0.21
0.33
0,81
0.33
0.03
15,01
84.99
69.44
2.11
454.08
165.07
73.54
35.33
32.00
48.82
880,38
1035.80
79880
D333
09/11/93
19:00
20:30
78.3
648
772.2
336.9
5.1
7.1
7.15
4.64
0.17
0.22
0.79
0.32
0.02
13.24
86.76
90.74
2.28
654,70
286.79
119.10
42.73
43.74
83.01
1323.07
1524.90
117844
D334
09/12/93
08:00
10:00
76.9
642.8
746.4
336.4
5.6
7.9
7.7
4.6
0.18
0.33
0.78
0.32
0.02
13.94
86.06
64.64
1.10
467.39
166.01
69.90
36.05
25.03
51.15
881.26
1024.00
78745
(Continued)
D337
09/13/93
19:00
21:00
84
663.1
767
336.9
5.1
7.1
6.98
4.44
0.17
0.22
0.86
0.33
0.03
13.02
86.98
99.90
1.74
684,30
275.46
112.01
54.77
42.04
70.34
1340.56
1541.20
118673
-------
TEST NO.
D339
DATE 09/14/93
TIME START 19:00
TIME END 21:00
AIR AND GAS TEMPERATURES, °F
AIR ENT AH 87.7
AIR LVG AH 627.1
GAS ENT AH 738.6
GAS LVG AH 324.5
02 ENT AH, % 4.9
02 LVG AH, % , 6.9
EFFICIENCY, %
DRY GAS LOSS 6.51
MOISTURE IN FUEL LOSS 4.42
MOISTURE IN AIR LOSS 0.16
RADIATION LOSS 0.21
CARBON LOSS 0.87
ASH PIT LOSS 0.33
HEAT IN FLYASH LOSS 0.02
TOTAL LOSSES 12.62
BOILER EFFICIENCY 87.48
SUMMARY OF HEAT ABSORPTIONS, 10 BTU/HR
ECONOMIZER 97.82
SLOWDOWN 2.02
WATERWALLS 711.84
LTSH 279.61
HIGH TEMP SH 124.07
RH PANEL 52.49
RH PLATEN 48.05
HTRH 80.84
TOTAL THERMAL OUTPUT 1396.74
BTU FIRED 1596.60
COAL FIRED, LB/HR 122730
TABLE C.26. (Continued!
D341
09/16/93
08:00
10:00
83.8
587.4
671.6
307
5.6
7.8
6.61
4.48
0.16
0.31
0.87
0.33
0.02
12.78
87.22
69.77
2.52
513.09
170.88
69.36
41.26
29.68
46.62
943.18
1081.40
83927
D345
09/18/93
19:00
20:20
80.2
655.8
778.3
338.9
5.1
7.1
7.17
4.51
0.17
0.22
0.88
0.33
0.03
13.3
88.7
97.24
2.19
681.99
283.04
104.97
51.48
40.25
74.04
1335.20
1540.10
120104
D346
09/19/93
09:00
11:00
76.2
639.8
750.1
331.9
5.2
7.3
7,23
4.57
0.17
0.25
0.88
0.33
0.03
13.49
86.51
84.46
2.12
625.33
242.61
96.84
48.21
35.66
68.11
1203.34
1391.00
108579
D347
09/19/93
19:00
21:0O
81.3
633
711.3
334.8
5.9
8.1
7.6
4.61
0.18
0.32
0.84
0.33
0.03
13.91
86.09
70.44
2.53
467.90
168.34
76.65
37.79
34.95
48.19
906.80
1053.80
82097
-------
TABLE C.26, SULFUR BALANCES FOR DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 1 ESP TESTS
TEST NO.
DATE
UNITS
D115A 011SB D117A D117B D119A D119B D119C D121A D121B D121C
02/01/93 02/01/93 02/02/93 02/02/93 02/03/93 02/03/93 02/03/93 02/04/93 02/04/83 02/04/93
TIME START
TIME END
HR
HR
10:16
13;04
14:27
16:33
10:24
12:24
15:36
17:32
8:30
10:27
11:35
13:27
14:50
16:58
8:45
10:40
14:15
16:12
17:29
19:20
SULFUR IN (AS S02)
LB/10® BTU
2.607
2.607
3.612
3.612
3.573
3.573
3.573
4.013
4.013
4.013
S02 IN FLUE GAS FROM ESP
LB/106 BTU
1.577
1.577
2.394
2.394
2540
2,540
2.540
2.893
2.693
2.893
SULFUR IN SOLIDS FROM
ESP (AS S02)
LB/108 BTU
1 160
0.958
0.899
1.179
1.274
0.925
1.457
1.094
0.976
1.396
SULFUR IN BOTTOM ASH
(AS S02)
LB/106 BTU
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
SULFUR IN AIR HEATER
ASH AS (S02)
LB/10® BTU
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SULFUR OUT (AS S02)
LB/10® BTU
2.741
2.539
3.2397
3.577
3.619
3.469
4.001
3.591
3,674
4.293
SULFUR ACCOUNTED FOR ¦
(SULFUR OUT/SULFUR IN) X 100
%
105.31
97.38
81.26
99.03
106.88
97.09
111.97
09,46
96,53
106,98
SULFUR BALANCE -
%
5.31
-2.62
-8.72
-0.97
688
-2.91
11,97
-0.54
-3,47
6.98
SULFUR ACCOUNTED FOR -100
-------
TABLE C.27. SULFUR BALANCES FOR DEMONSTRATION TEST NO. 2 ESP TESTS
NJ
1X1
U1
TEST NO.
DATE
TIME START
TIME END
SULFUR IN (AS S02|
S02 IN FLUE OAS FROM ESP
SULFUR IN SOLIDS FROM
ESP (AS S02)
SULFUR IN BOTTOM ASH
(AS S02)
SULFUR IN AIR HEATER
ASH AS (S02)
SULFUR OUT (AS S02)
SULFUR ACCOUNTED FOR -
(SULFUR OUT/SULFUR IN) x 100
SULFUR BALANCE =
SULFUR ACCOUNTED FOR - 100
UNITS
HR
HR
LB/106 BTU
LB/108 BTU
LB/108 BTU
LB/108 BTU
LB/108 BTU
LB/108 BTy
%
%
D210A
07/27/93
9:00
11:02
3,384
1.901
1.727
N/A
7.33
D210B
07/27/93
12:30
14:32
3.384
1.301
1.812
N/A
D210C
07/27/93
16:00
20:03
3.384
1.901
1.S11
D212A
07/28/93
13:00
14:48
3.528
2.048
1,353
D212B
07/28/93
16:00
17:50
3.S28
2.048
1.614
N/A
N/A
N/A
D214A
07/29/93
9:20
11:10
3.407
1.814
1.737
0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
N/A
D214B
07/29/93
12:16
14:10
3.407
1.814
1.361
0.004
N/A
3.632 3,717 3.416 3.405 3.666 3.555 3.179
107.33 109.83 100,95 96,51 103.91 104.36 93.31
9.83
0.95
-3.49
3.91
4.35
-6.69
-------
APPENDIX D
ABB ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
ESP TEST REPORT
by
Harry L. Wheeler
ABB Environmental Systems
Knoxville, TN 37932
256
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
1 Introduction 259
2 ESP Design 260
3 ESP Performance Testing 262
4 Test Results 264
5 Conclusions 268
257
-------
FIGURES
Figure Face
D.I Diagram of Yorktown Unit No. 2 ESP showing division of
field and bus sections 261
D.2 Modified migration velocity vs. power for ESP
performance tests . 267
TABLES
Table Paoe
D.1 ESP performance test matrix . 263
D.2 Results of ESP performance testing 265
D.3 Comparison of ESP performance tests 264
258
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
LIMB operation imposes severe demands on an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) due to the
dramatic increase in inlet particulate loading (3 to 5 times the loading with flyash alone) and the
high free lime (CaOl and calcium sulfate (CaS04) content of the inlet stream. An objective of the
LIMB Demonstration Project on Yorktown Unit No. 2 was to evaluate the effects of LIMB operation
on the Unit No. 2 ESP and the effectiveness of the humidification system in maintaining ESP
performance. To accomplish this objective, ESP performance tests were conducted during the pre-
modification baseline test, with no LIMB, and the first and second demonstration tests during
continuous LIMB operation. Radian Corporation performed particulate, particle size, and resistivity
testing during these tests (A description of test procedures used and summary test results can be
found in Appendix A). Representatives of ABB Environmental Systems were present during the
tests to assist in setting specific ESP operating conditions, obtain ESP performance data, and
assess the impact of LIMB on ESP operation at Yorktown.
259
-------
SECTION 2
ESP DESIGN
The Yorktown Unit No, 2 ESP was installed in 1984 as part of a project to convert Unit No,
2 to coal operation and was placed in commercial operation in 1985. The ESP was manufactured
by Environmental Elements Corporation.
The ESP was designed to remove 99.7% of the fly ash emanating from the combustion of
either a low sulfur eastern bituminous coal or a combination of coal and coke. A conservative
sizing philosophy was adopted to accommodate a wide range of fuels. The precipitator total
collecting surface area is 470,547 ft2 which translates into a specific collection area (SCA) of 720
ft2/1000 acfm at the design gas flow. The gas passages formed by the collecting electrodes are 12
inches wide.
The single-chamber ESP is composed of six (6) independent electrical fields, labeled A
through E, in the direction of gas flow. Each field is subdivided into two (2) bus sections
perpendicular to gas flow as shown in Figure D.1. There is one NWL® transformer-rectifier (T-R)
per bus section which corresponds to a total of twelve 1121 T-R sets for the unit. All the T-Rs have
a nominal secondary voltage rating of 55kV.
The discharge electrodes (D.E.) in this ESP are rigid tube electrodes. Each electrode is made
up of a 2 inch diameter tube with emitter pins attached at the 0° and 180° positions and spaced
about 4 inches apart along the length. The pins are aligned with the flow of gas. There are eight
(8) D.E.s per gas passage per field. The 51 foot tall electrodes are attached to a top frame by a
single bolted connection and loosely connected at the bottom to a spacer frame.
The D.E. assembly in each bus section is supported by four !4) alumina insulators
mounted in the penthouse. The insulators electrically isolate the D.E. system from the grounded
precipitator casing. Each insulator is equipped with a band heater to keep the insulators
temperature above the flue gas acid dew point. A penthouse pressurization fan provides a source
of clean air to prevent dust accumulation on the insulator's interior surface.
260
-------
BUS 2 BUS 1
FIELD 6 (F)
F-2
F-1
FIELD 5 (E)
E-2
E-1
FIELD 4 (D)
D-2
D-1
FIELD 3 (C)
C-2
C-l
FIELD 2 (B)
B-2
B-1
FIELD 1 (A)
A-2
A-1
t
FLOW
Figure D.1. Diagram of Yorktown Unit No. 2 ESP showing division of field and bus sections.
261
-------
SECTION 3
ESP PERFORMANCE TESTING
A matrix {Table D.I) was developed to characterize the performance of the Unit No. 2 ESP,
under both normal {non-LIMB or baseline) and LIMB operation, over a range of effective SCAs and
power levels. By removing fields from service (de-energizing), an SCA range representative of
actual operating ESPs could be simulated. Also, it would be possible to identify the minimum SCA
required to maintain ESP performance during LIMB operation, for a specific set of ESP and LIMB
system operating conditions. A second test objective was to determine the required ESP power
input to achieve, or maintain, a specified removal efficiency. Particulate, particle size, and
resistivity tests were scheduled as shown in Table D.1. All testing was conducted at full boiler
load.
Baseline ESP testing was conducted in February/March 1991. Field B-1 was not operating
during the "as found" or maximum SCA test.
Testing during continuous LIMB operation was conducted in February 1993 during
Demonstration Test 1 and July 1993 during Demonstration Test 2. There were several differences
between these tests. During the February testing, sorbent injection and humidification rates were
lower due to concerns about duct and ESP turning vane deposits. During the July testing, nominal
design sorbent injection and humidification rates were utilized.
The substantial increase in inlet particulate loading during LIMB operation precluded the
ability to conduct all matrix test points, particularly those with several field removed from service,
due to opacity limitations. This was particularly true during the July testing.
Inlet particle sizing during LIMB testing was roughly comparable to that seen during baseline
testing. The particular combination of sorbent injection range and humidification level during the
February 1993 testing produced a particle resistivity which was about an order of magnitude higher
than measured during baseline and the July 1993 testing.
262
-------
TABLE D.1. ESP PERFORMANCE TEST MATRIX
TEST
DAY
ESP
CONFIG.
POWER
LEVEL
PARTICULATE
TESTING
RESISTIVITY
TESTING
PARTICLE
SIZE
TESTING
1
As Found
As Found
X
X
2
B Field Off
Maximum
X
3
B, F Fields
Off
Maximum
X
X
4
B, E, F
Fields Off
Maximum
X
X
X
5
As Found
As Required For
20% Opacity
X
X
Occasional opacity problems resulting from the higher resistivity limited the ability to
significantly vary power levels during the February testing. Full power tests were not conducted
during the July testing due to time constraints and problems with the ESP control system,
Nevertheless, the July testing produced data which was most directly comparable to the baseline
data to identify the effects of LIMB on ESP operation.
263
-------
SECTION 4
TEST RESULTS
Table D.2 presents ESP performance data for the three ESP performance test periods. A
comparison of data from the three tests under equivalent operating conditions is presented in Table
D.3, below:
Table D.3. COMPARISON OF ESP PERFORMANCE TESTS
Test
Baseline
Demo 1
Demo 2
N.M. =
SCA
(ft2/1Q3 acfm)
569.6
748.9
565.6
Not measured
Measured
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
99.88
99.55
99.33
Fly Ash
Resistivity
(ohm - cml
3.5 x 1010
1.3 x 1011
1.4 x 1010
Wk
(cm/sec)
40.35
19.05
22.51
Power
(watts/
10a acfm)
146.6
NM
41.96
During baseline testing, an essentially constant migration velocity was demonstrated under
normal ESP operating conditions (see Table D.2). This indicates that the test method employed to
vary ESP SCA by removing selected bus sections from service did not significantly influence
behavior of the ESP. ESP performance can be predicted through the use of the modified Deutch
Anderson equation shown below, using the exponent (k) of 0.5 normally used for fly ash:
. ~~ . -(SCA x Wt x Q.001968)*
1 - efficiency = e *
where: SCA = Specific collection area, ft2/1000 acfm
Wk = Modified Duetch migration velocity, cm/sec
k = Constant (0.5 for normal fly ash)
The effective migration velocity observed during the representative Demo 1 and Demo 2
tests were approximately one-half the migration velocity observed during the baseline test (Table
264
-------
TABLE D.2. RESULTS OF ESP PERFORMANCE TESTING
SCA
FLY ASH
MEASURED
REMOVAL
POWER MEAN
CALCULATED
REMOVAL
TEST
GAS VOLUME.
(FT'/IO3
RESISTIVITY
EFFICIENCY
Wk
W
{WATTS/
Wk
EFFICIENC
test
DATE
(ACFM5
ACFM)
I0HM-CMI
l%)
ICM/SECI
(CM/SEC)
10* ACFM)
(CM/SEC)
1%}
BASELINE
02/25/91
757,296
569.6
NM
99.88
40.35
6.00
146.6
39.83
99.87
02/26/91
721,416
434.8
NM
99.69
38.99
6.75
280.0
39.83
99.71
01/27/91
779,400
402.5
2.3 X 10' °
99.59
38.15
6.94
206.6
39.83
99.64
02/28/91
759,216
309.9
4.6 X 10,D
99.36
41.84
8.28
148.8
39.83
99.28
03/01/91
744,120
579.7
3.7 X 10'°
98.10
13.77
3.47
6.8
•
m m
DEMO 1
02/01/93
575,960
748.9
2.2 X 10"
99.55
19.05
3.59
171.2
20.72
99.60
02/02/93
602,032
521.1
1.8 X 10"
99.20
22.73
4.71
116.5
20.72
99.00
02/03/93
575,650
544.9
1.2 X 10"
98.73
17.78
4.07
103,2
20.72
99.10
02/04/93
593,530
792.8
1.0 X 10"
99.73
22.42
3.78
NA
20.72
99.66
02/05/93
612,583
768.1
1.4 X 10"
99.67
21.6
3.76
NA
20.72
99.63
DEMO 2
07/27/93
762,568
565.6
1.2 X 10'°
99.33
22.61
4.50
43.2
23.00
99.36
07/28/93
820,488
435.4
1.8 X 10"»
98.58
21.12
4.97
30.9
23,00
98.82
07/29/93
732,937
535.0
1.2 X 10,D
99.43
25.36
4,91
38.4
23.00
99.22
NM Not measured.
* Measured Wk not included in average.
Not calculated.
NA Not analyzed.
-------
D.3.). These results can be explained by the higher fly ash resistivity for Demo 1 and by the lower
power levels that were imposed due to problems with the ESP control system for Demo 2.
The Demo 2 migration velocity data are compared to the noivLIMB baseline migration
velocity data in Figure D.2. At the lower power levels of Demo 2, the migration velocities were
essentially the same as those seen during non-LIMB operation. When the baseline data slope is
applied, a migration velocity of at least 42 cm/sec would be expected at normal power levels,
provided the humidification system was operated in a manner to maintain the same moisture level
(approximately 8%) measured during Demo 2 testing. This would be expected to maintain
resistivity in the acceptable 1 x 1010 to 3 x 1Q10 ohm-cm range.
Table D.2 also shows calculated removal efficiencies for the three tests. These efficiencies
are based on assuming a mean migration velocity in the Deutch Anderson equation. These
calculated values vary only slightly from the measured removal efficiencies.
An objective of the ESP performance testing was to identify target SCA requirements for
retrofit applications of LIMB. The Yorktown testing was, of necessity, limited and did not cover as
wide a range of operating conditions, both ESP and LIMB system, as would have been desired to
completely define the effect of LIMB on ESP operation. But the Demo 2 data shows that a properly
operated humidification system can maintain ESP performance to near non-LIMB conditions. Thus,
it is possible to conclude that, under the Yorktown LIMB conditions, an SCA of 356 ft2/1000 acfm
would be required to maintain a removal efficiency of 99.5%; an SCA of 490 ft2/1000 acfm would
be required to maintain a removal efficiency of 99.8%; and an SCA of 606 frVlOOO acfm would be
required to maintain a removal efficiency of 99.9%.
266
-------
45-
NJ
tn
*>i
O
m
m
40-
35-
o
o
® 30«
>
C
o
<5
D) 25-
X3
©
*g 20-
15-
Ba saline
Demonstration Test No. 2
10-
X
20
40
60
T
80
100
120
140
160
Power, watts per 1000 acfm
Figure D.2. Modified migration velocity vs. specific power for ESP performance tests.
-------
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS
1. Baseline testing of the Yorktown Unit No. 2 ESP produced controlled results over a sufficient
operating range to permit an accurate assessment of the impact of LIMB on ESP performance.
2. The importance of a properly designed and operated humidification system to maintain the
resistivity of LIMB ash at non-LIMB fly ash resistivity levels was demonstrated.
3. The migration velocity of LIMB ash was shown to be very similar to that of a high sulfur coal
without LIMB, under similar ESP operating conditions, with proper humidification. The removal
efficiency of an existing ESP would not be expected to change, although outlet particulate emission
rates would be expected to increase during LIMB operation, commensurate with increased inlet
particulate loading.
4. For the LIMB and ESP operating conditions demonstrated at Yorktown, an SCA of 356 ft2/l000
acfm would be required to maintain a removal efficiency of 99.5%. This suggests that LIMB could
be a candidate retrofit S02 control technology to the portion of the coal-fired utility boiler
population with ESPs with SCAs at or above that level with no area upgrade requirements.
268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA „ ,
(I'kasv read Instructions on the reverse before conipkti I III 1 IB I
II 111 IIII
1 REPORT NO. 2
EPA-600/R-94-184
3. ! 1 11 !¦¦ ¦
PB95
11 1 IIII II11
-105581
4 TITLE AND SUBT TLE
Demonstration of Sorbent Injection Technology on a
Tangential.lv Coal-fired Utility Boiler (Yorklown LIMB
Demonstration)
5. REPORT DATE
October 1994
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORisij^ p< Clarkj R. W. Koucky, M.R.Gogineni,
and A. F, Kwasnik
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Q, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, Connecticut 06095
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT,-GRANT NO,
68-02-4275
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 6/87 - 10/93
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15.supplementary notes ^eeRL project officer is David G. Lachapelle, Mail Drop 4, 919/
541-3444.
i6. abstract rep0r(; summarizes activities conducted and results achieved in an-'
EPA-sponsored program to demonstrate Limestone Injection Multistage Burner
(LIMB) technology, on a tangentially fired coal-burning utility boiler, Virginia Pow-
er's 180- MWe York town Unit No, 2. This successfully demonstrated technology com-
bines furnace injection of a calcium-based sorbent for moderate reductions of sulfur
dioxide (SG2) with a low-nitrogen-oxide (NGx) firing system for NGx emissions reduc-
tion. '"The process is attractive for retrofit of existing coal-burning utility boilers,
since the capital equipment requirements and overall sulfur reduction costs per ton
of sulfur removed are less than for most other options, such as wet flue gas desul-
furization. ,-Testing was conducted on an eastern bituminous coal with a typical sul-
fur content of 2. 3%.' Five sorbents were tested] commercial hydrated lime, with and
without calcium lignosulfonate treatment, each from two suppliers, and finely pulver-
ized limestone., Results of both extensive parametric testing and continuous long-
term operation of the LIMB system are presented. Results of performance testing of
the Low-NGx Concentric Firing System (LNCFS) Level II firing system are also
presented. The effects of LIMB operation on boiler, electrostatic precipitator (ESP),
and ash handling system performance are also discussed.
17. KEY WORDS AMD DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Utilities
Emission Boilers
Sulfur Dioxide Limestone
Nitrogen Oxides Calcium Oxides
Coal
Combustion
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Limestone Injection Mul-
tistage Burners (LIMB)
Lime
Calcium Lignosulfonate
13 B 13 A
14G
07B 08G
21D
2 IB
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Reportf
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
279
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22, PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73!
I
-------