Plant Robert, W. Scherer Hot Side Electrostatic Precipitator …middletoneng.com/hsespplan.pdf · · 2017-07-20Electrostatic Precipitator Design Basics Coal fired boiler flue gas

Copyright 2008 RIC MIDDLETON, PE

Document Title:

Hotside ESP Planning For ADA 37 Additive

Page No.:

1

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Plant Robert, W. Scherer

Unit 1 & Unit 2

Hot Side Electrostatic Precipitator

Planning For PRB Coal

With ADA 37 Additive

June, 2000

Oglethorpe Power Corporation

Ric Middleton, P.E.

(Modified for Web Presentation)


Document Title:


Page No.:

2

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Table of Contents

Section Page

Cover 1

Table of Contents 2

Introduction 3

Executive Summary 6

Objectives 9

Fuels and Combustion 10

ADA-37 Chemical Injection System 17

Precipitator Models 20

Site Visits and Testimonials 34

Recommendations And Conclusions 42

References 47

Appendix 48

I. ADA System

II. ADA 37 Chemical Effectiveness


Document Title:


Page No.:

3

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Introduction

Electrostatic Precipitators, (ESPs), remove particulate matter from boiler flue gas at a high rate

of efficiency. ESPs operate by charging the particles inductively with an electric field and then

attracting them to collector plates that are charged with opposite polarity. After the particles

accumulate on the collector plates the ESP removes the particles mechanically for disposal.

Electrostatic Precipitator Design Basics

Coal fired boiler flue gas consists primarily of the products of combustion resulting from

chemical reaction of fuel with air in the furnace. The products of combustion include Oxygen,

Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and Water vapor. In addition, flue gas also

includes unburned fuel particles due to process inefficiency, traces of gaseous pollutants

resulting from undesirable fuel and air constituents, and non-combustible matter included with

the fuel which is referred to as “coal ash”, or “ash”. Electrostatic precipitators are applied in

power plants to remove the particulate (solid matter) from flue gas consisting primarily of ash.

In power plant applications, electrostatic precipitators are massive, enclosed duct elements

located in the exhaust ducts of coal-fired boilers, which transfer the products of combustion (flue

gas), to the stack and to the atmosphere. In most power plants, precipitators are downstream of

the air preheaters and are referred to as “cold-side” precipitators. In some cases, precipitators are

located upstream of the air preheaters and are referred to as “hot-side precipitators”. For Plant

Scherer Unit 1 and Unit 2, hot-side ESPs are used.

When Plant Scherer was designed, the choice of hot-side or cold-side ESP locations was based

upon expected ash properties at hot and cold side temperatures. Specifically, high resistivity ash

suffers from power limitations at temperatures below about 600 Deg. F. Sophisticated ESP

controls limit the applied voltage to the precipitator electrodes when an eminent electrical

discharge (spark-over) is detected. Above ~600 Deg. F the ash resistivity drops considerably

allowing for increased applied voltages. This relationship was the design basis for hot-side

installations. Because of this relationship, relatively small sized ESPs were specified for Hot-

Side applications.

The efficiency of an ESP can be calculated based on two quantities. These quantities are the inlet

and outlet particulate concentrations. The ESP efficiency is calculated as:

Eff = 100% x (1-inlet concentration/outlet concentration)

The guaranteed efficiency of the Plant Scherer Unit #1 and #2 ESPs, based on design inlet

concentration of 2.87 grains/cu ft of flue gas and outlet concentration of 0.019 grains/cu ft of flue

gas is:

Eff = 100% x (1- 0.019 / 2.87) = 99.34%


Document Title:


Page No.:

4

Rev. Date:

November 2008

The efficiency of an ESP is also calculated using the Deutch equation as:

Eff = 1-exp (-wA/V)

Where exp = base of natural logarithm = 2.718

w = precipitation constant, ft/s

A = collecting plate area sqft

V = gas volume handled, cu ft/s

The quantity A/V is referred to as the specific collection area (SCA) of the ESP. SCA is used to

make comparisons of various ESP configurations. ESP efficiency increases with increasing SCA

and decreases with decreasing SCA. For a given flue gas flow, ESP efficiency can be increased

by increasing collecting plate area. For a given precipitator, ESP efficiency can be increased by

decreasing the flue gas flow.

ESP efficiency increases with the precipitation constant, w. The value of w is dependent on the

applied ESP voltage and other factors including ash physical properties, ESP electrical

clearances, and ESP internal electrode geometry.

Figure from Std. Handbook of Powerplant Engineering, 2

nd

Edition

Referring to the above figure, as collection proceeds, the collected ash layer obtains a voltage

equal to the ash resistance times the ash layer thickness. This voltage limits the effective voltage

applied across the gas passage over time. The higher the ash resistivity, the higher the voltage

drop across the collected ash, the lower the effective voltage drop across the gas passage. After

mechanical removal of the collected ash, the voltage levels can cycle to increased levels.

Sodium Depletion Theory

This theory states that over time, Sodium ions migrate within ash layers on collecting electrodes

as they are attracted to the negatively charged emitting electrodes. After the outer, Sodium rich,

layer of collected ash is removed by rapping, the permanently attached inner layer of ash is


Document Title:


Page No.:

5

Rev. Date:

November 2008

depleted of Sodium ions which are the principal carriers of electric charge. This inner layer of

ash is not removed by rapping and increases the required applied voltage while reducing the

effective applied voltage across the gas passage. This phenomenon is predominant in ash from

fuels with low Sodium content (PRB Coal). This phenomenon was not understood prior to the

design of Plant Scherer.

Current Investigation

As a part of the Plant Scherer ”NOx Mitigation Strategies for Coal-Fired Boilers”, the use of low

Sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin, (PRB coal) is being considered. The potential change

in ash properties resulting from the proposed fuel switch is expected to have negative effects on

the ESP performance for Unit 1 and Unit 2. The ESPs for Plant Scherer Unit 1 and Unit 2 were

originally designed for PRB coal, but were not capable of successful operation. PRB coal, a low

Sodium fuel, is known to produce an ash of increased resistivity, as in the above two paragraphs,

which limits the ability to apply voltage to the ESP. Referring to the efficiency equation, reduced

applied voltage would result in reduced w and reduced ESP efficiency.

To eliminate the problem of increased fly ash resistivity of PRB ash, ADA Environmental

Solutions, LLC proposes their chemical additive, ADA-37, for injection into the flue gas

upstream of the electrostatic precipitators for Plant Scherer, Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Advantages of the use of ADA-37 are advertised as:

1. Effective at temperatures up to 800 Deg. F, providing hot-side (>500F) and warm-side

(<350F) ESP users with a flue gas conditioning option.

2. Effective on ESP’s suffering from Sodium Depletion.

3. Conditioned ash is suitable for use in concrete and other commercial uses.

4. The conditioning agent can condition most fly ashes allowing users a wider range of

options in purchasing coal.

5. The injection system is simple and low capital cost.

6. The chemical can be used during start-up and shut down to control “off-line emissions”.

7. The chemical is less hazardous and easier to handle than SO3/NH3.

This paper will summarize results of investigation of the use of ADA flue gas additives on Plant

Scherer Unit 1 and Unit 2. Included in the analysis will be ESP computer modeling utilizing

EPRI ESPM Beta software. A system for injecting the ADA chemical additive will be described

in conjunction with ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC. Recommendations on the use of the

ADA chemical additive system will be made.


Document Title:


Page No.:

6

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Executive Summary

A proposed switch to sub-bituminous PRB coal, the design coal for Unit 1 & Unit 2 boilers at

Plant Robert, W. Scherer, is part of present air pollution control (APC) strategy which targets

0.07 to 0.15 Lbs NOx/MBtu heat input as the performance standard for future NOx mitigation.

PRB coal produces an ash that is difficult to collect, due to its relatively high resistivity, which

results in excessive voltages across ash layers on the plates of electrostatic precipitators. This

characterization is based upon the “Sodium Depletion Theory” which states that Sodium ions in

the collected fly ash, which are the principal charge carriers, migrate to the outer ash layers as

the Sodium ions are attracted to oppositely charged emitting electrodes. The Sodium ions are

consequently removed by the rapping step of the electrostatic precipitation process, leaving

behind a layer of ash that sticks to the collecting plates and is depleted of charge carrying

capacity and thus highly resistive to the flow of charging current. This Sodium Depletion

Phenomenon was not understood when Plant Scherer was designed. The design fuel, PRB coal,

is not currently used in boilers for Scherer Unit 1 & Unit 2.

ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC markets a family of chemical additives, which reportedly,

are effective in correcting the problem of high resistivity ash associated with PRB coal

combustion. The reduction in resistivity would allow for acceptable electrostatic precipitator

performance.

ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC and their chemical additive systems were presented to Plant

Scherer Operator personnel by the President of ADA including an update on information

presented at the EPRI-DOE-EPA Mega Symposium in Atlanta dated August, 1999. As a result of

the presentation, Georgia Power Engineering was invited to participate in the evaluation of ADA

and to attend plant tours at ADA installations.

Documentation in the form of charts showing chemical injection rates and ESP outlet opacity

readings or ESP input power levels have indicated that the ADA family of chemical additives is

indeed effective at decreasing the resistivity of collected ash by a factor of approximately 10 to

1, (See Appendix II.). In addition, the data presented is associated with conditions that are fairly

representative of Plant Scherer Unit 1 & Unit 2.

Modeling of the ADA chemical additive injection utilizing EPRI ESPM Version 1.0 Beta

software for Windows was an objective of the research. ADA however, did not guarantee a

change in resistivity, or provide disclosure of the chemical constituents of the ADA - 37 additive.

The results of modeling will therefore be limited to specifying a range of ash resistivity reduction

that would be required to meet projected opacity limits. An additional desired result of the ESPM

Version 1.0 Beta modeling was validation of Beta results by comparison with a previous ESPM

for DOS Version 1.0 software model. The Beta software provided results nearly identical to

ESPM Version 1.0 for DOS based on the exact input from previous modeling at Plant Scherer

which may be considered to be a check on the integrity of the Windows based Beta software.


Document Title:


Page No.:

7

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Problems with the ADA chemical injection system are due to the lack of fully developed

solutions for injection of the chemical into typical utility electrostatic precipitator inlet flow

streams. A great deal of basic engineering is required by ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC,

before their chemical injection system can be applied in utility station service.

The chemical is highly reactive with a pH of ~12 and would tend to be highly corrosive to metal

surfaces. Deposits of chemicals accumulate in the flue gas ducts downstream of the injection

nozzles, and at the injection nozzles themselves, creating mounds of toxic, corrosive chemical,

which must be removed, and require unit shut-down. ADA’s charge that chemical deposits are

due to lack of inspection and maintenance, were not well received by the writer, and leaves the

impression that ADA tends to blame others for the failure of their systems.

The chemical is hazardous and would introduce risks for workers exposed to it during delivery,

transfer, filling, operation, inspection, maintenance, and clean up of spills. The level of “Haz-

Mat” personnel required for chemical handling, and the classification of the chemical must be

verified after full disclosure of the chemical formulation. Chemical handling by maintenance

personnel is not recommended.

The chemical additive may cause problems with plant operation related to the required addition

of a remedial anti-cementing chemical (ADA-110) prior to transfer to Plant Scherer’s wet ash

piping to the ash pond to avoid blockage of the piping. As a priority, permission to pipe the ash

containing ADA-37 and ADA-110 to the ash pond, which is adjacent to Lake Scherer and the

Rum Creek Wilderness Sanctuary, would be required from environmental authorities.

Traces of the chemical would be attached to ash, which is not captured by the ESP, and would be

released to the atmosphere at the stack exhaust. Permission to release the chemical would be

required from environmental authorities.

The ADA – 37 additive system is not recommended for the following reasons:

1. Failure of the injection system to prevent accumulation, deposits, un-even chemical

distribution, and un-even chemical treatment.

2. Frequency of required inspection and maintenance to remove chemical deposits.

3. Lack of disclosure of formulation to allow for complete evaluation.

4. Lack of experience with re-circulation of flue gas and the resultant high temperature

chemical exposure.

5. Poor quality of the inspected system components.

6. ADA’s lack of operating experience.


Document Title:


Page No.:

8

Rev. Date:

November 2008

7. Severely corrosive nature of the chemical.

8. Unknown environmental impact or regulation.

9. Excessive human interface.

10. Inability of system to work without baseline Sodium concentration.

11. Poor controllability characteristics primarily associated with long response time.

12. Unknown long term human exposure risks.

13. Lack of performance guarantees and remedies.

14. Lack of liability guarantees and remedies.


Document Title:


Page No.:

9

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Objectives

During the course of research, the following objectives are to be achieved:

1. Introduce Georgia Power Corporation’s Plant Scherer Staff To ADA Environmental

Solutions, LLC

2. Approximate PRB/Eastern Coal Mixture Analysis

3. Model ESPs With EPRI ESPM Beta Software Based on Eastern Coal

4. Model ESP Performance With PRB and Mixture Coals

5. Estimate System Requirements For ADA Additive Injection In Conjunction With ADA

Environmental Solutions, LLC

6. Interview Users of ADA Family of Flue Gas Additives

7. Make Recommendations On The Use Of ADA Flue Gas Additives


Document Title:


Page No.:

10

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Summary of Fuels and Combustion

For the analysis of fuel combustion, a simplistic approach was deemed to be appropriate. In the

most crucial part of the analysis, the Sodium, Sulfur, and moisture content of the coal being

burned in the boiler would be of interest. The results of reviews of coal and ash samples and

discussions with personnel from multiple plants indicate that sample analyses vary according to

source, time of year, from one day to the next, month to month, and even from one rail car to

another. For these reasons, typical and average coal and ash data was used. Fuel and ash analyses

were provided by Georgia Power Company.

A typical/average Low Sulfur Eastern coal analysis is designated as Fuel 1, a typical/ average

Low Sulfur Western PRB coal analysis is designated as Fuel 2, and mixtures of 10, 20, 30, 40, &

50% based on mass are designated as percent mixtures.

Required fuel flow rates are based upon an assumed flow rate of 640,000 Lbs/ Hr of Fuel 1 with

15.5% excess air to achieve full load for Unit 1 or Unit 2. With this flow rate of Fuel 1, an

equivalent heat input of 8.17*E9 Btu/Hr is assumed for calculation of the required fuel flow

rates for Fuel 2, and the percent mixtures.

“As received” fuel analyses were referenced to the feeder belts. 100% of the fuel is assumed to

enter the furnace including all moisture. Total moisture varied from 7 to 11% of the flue gas for

this analysis.

The gaseous products of combustion are treated as an ideal gas based on standard fuel to air

ratios and combustion product ratios.

In addition, a constant fly-ash ratio of 80% of total ash was assumed along with an ESP inlet

temperature of 800 Deg. F.


Document Title:


Page No.:

11

Rev. Date:

November 2008

COMBUSTION

ANALYSIS

Site Location Plant Robert W. Scherer Std. Amb. Temperature 517.032 Deg R

Fuel Designation 1 1E,2W East Std. Amb.

Pressure

14.4498 Psia

Site Elevation 468 Ft Std. Amb.

Pressure

29.4188 Bar

Ambient Temperature 80 Deg F Atmospheric

Density

0.07223 Lbm/Cu

ft

Ult

Fract

Formula Air/Fuel Air CO2

prod

H2O

prod

N2 prod SO2 Htg

Value

0.7076 C 11.51 8.14448 2.59265 0 6.25943 0 9972.21

0.04524 H2 34.29 1.55115 0 0.40428 1.192114 2763.72

0.07267 O2 -4.3159 -0.3137 0 0 -

0.240978

0

0.01365 N2 0 0 0 0 0.013655 0

0.00671 S 4.32 0.02898 0 0 0.022274 0.0134 26.7022

0.09596 ASH 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.05815 H2O 0 0 0 0.05815 0 0 0

Lbs

Fuel

Air/Fuel Stoich

O2

CO2

Prod

H2O

Prod

N2 Prod SO2

Prod

Total HHV

0.99998 9.41096 2.18052 2.59265 0.46242 7.246495 0.0134 10.315 12762.6

Flue

Gas

Exc

O2%

Act O2 O2 CO2 H2O N2 SO2 Total LHV

Analysis 15.5 2.5185 0.33798 2.59265 0.46242 8.367213 0.0134 11.7737 12272.6

No.

Moles

0.01056 0.05891 0.02567 0.298685 0.00021 0.39404

Mol

Fract

0.02681 0.14950

6

0.06514

2

0.758015

4

0.00053

1

29.8797 Mol Wt.

Fuel

Flow

Prod

Flow

Fly ash

%

With

ash

Ash

Load

Gas

Temp

Heat Rel ACFM Comp

640000 753514

8

80 758428

1

1.45779 800 8.17E+09 393212

4

1


Document Title:


Page No.:

12

Rev. Date:

November 2008

COMBUSTION

ANALYSIS


Fuel Designation 2 1E,2W West Std. Amb.

Pressure

14.4498 Psia


Pressure

29.4188 Bar


Density

0.07223 Lbm/Cu

ft

Ult

Fract


prod

H2O

prod

N2 prod SO2 Htg

Value

0.5646 C 11.51 6.49855 2.06869 0 4.99445 0 7956.91

0.0384 H2 34.29 1.31674 0 0.34318 1.01196 2346.05

0.1064 O2 -4.3159 -0.4592 0 0 -0.3528 0

0.009 N2 0 0 0 0 0.009 0

0.00363 S 4.32 0.01568 0 0 0.01205 0.00725 14.4474

0.0593 ASH 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.2188 H2O 0 0 0 0.2188 0 0 0

Lbs

Fuel

Air/Fuel Stoich

O2

CO2

Prod

H2O

Prod

N2 Prod SO2

Prod

Total HHV

1.00013 7.37175 1.70803 2.06869 0.56198 5.67464 0.00725 8.31257 10317.4

Flue

Gas

Exc

O2%


Analysis 15.5 1.97278 0.26475 2.06869 0.56198 6.55252 0.00725 9.45519 9721.87

No.

Moles

0.00827

4

0.04701 0.03119 0.23391 0.00011 0.32049

3

Mol

Fract

0.02581

5

0.14666

6

0.09733

3

0.72983

2

0.00035

3

29.5020

7

Mol Wt.

Fuel

Flow

Prod

Flow

Fly ash

%

With

ash

Ash

Load

Gas

Temp

Heat

Rel

ACFM Comp

840176 794402

2

80 798388

0

1.10754

6

800 8.17E+0

9

419855

4

1.31277


Document Title:


Page No.:

13

Rev. Date:

November 2008

COMBUSTION

ANALYSIS



Pressure

14.4498 Psia


Pressure

29.4188 Bar


Density

0.07223 Lbm/Cu

ft

%Fuel1 90 %Fuel2 10

Ult

Fract


prod

H2O

prod

N2 prod SO2 Htg

Value

0.6933 C 11.51 7.97988 2.54025 0 6.13293 0 9770.68

0.04455 H2 34.29 1.52771 0 0.39817 1.1741 2721.95

0.07605 O2 -4.3159 -0.3282 0 0 -0.2522 0

0.01319 N2 0 0 0 0 0.01319 0

0.0064 S 4.32 0.02765 0 0 0.02125 0.01279 25.4767

0.0923 ASH 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.07421 H2O 0 0 0 0.07421 0 0 0

Lbs

Fuel

Air/Fuel Stoich

O2

CO2

Prod

H2O

Prod

N2 Prod SO2

Prod

Total HHV

1 9.20704 2.13327 2.54025 0.47238 7.08931 0.01279 10.1147 12518.1

Flue

Gas

Exc

O2%


Analysis 15.5 2.46393 0.33066 2.54025 0.47238 8.18574 0.01279 11.5418 12017.5

No.

Moles

0.01033 0.05772 0.02622 0.29221 0.0002 0.38668

1

Mol

Fract

0.02672

3

0.14927

1

0.06781 0.75568 0.00051

6

29.8484

1

Mol Wt.

Fuel

Flow

Prod

Flow

Fly ash

%

With

ash

Ash

Load

Gas

Temp

Heat

Rel

ACFM Comp

679681 784475

4

80 789494

0

1.42876 800 8.17E+0

9

409798

1

1.062


Document Title:


Page No.:

14

Rev. Date:

November 2008

COMBUSTION

ANALYSIS



Pressure

14.4498 Psia


Pressure

29.4188 Bar


Density

0.07223 Lbm/Cu

ft

%Fuel1 80 %Fuel2 20

Ult

Fract


prod

H2O

prod

N2 prod SO2 Htg

Value

0.679 C 11.51 7.81529 2.48786 0 6.00643 0 9569.15

0.04387 H2 34.29 1.50427 0 0.39206 1.15608 2680.18

0.07942 O2 -4.3159 -0.3428 0 0 -0.2633 0

0.01272 N2 0 0 0 0 0.01272 0

0.00609 S 4.32 0.02632 0 0 0.02023 0.01217 24.2512

0.08863 ASH 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.09028 H2O 0 0 0 0.09028 0 0 0

Lbs

Fuel

Air/Fuel Stoich

O2

CO2

Prod

H2O

Prod

N2 Prod SO2

Prod

Total HHV

1.00001 9.00312 2.08602 2.48786 0.48233 6.93212 0.01217 9.91449 12273.6

Flue

Gas

Exc

O2%


Analysis 15.5 2.40936 0.32333 2.48786 0.48233 8.00427 0.01217 11.31 11762.5

No.

Moles

0.0101 0.05653 0.02677 0.28573 0.00019 0.37932

7

Mol

Fract

0.02663

8

0.14902

6

0.07058

2

0.75325

3

0.00050

1

29.8159 Mol Wt.

Fuel

Flow

Prod

Flow

Fly ash

%

With

ash

Ash

Load

Gas

Temp

Heat

Rel

ACFM Comp

694420 785387

0

80 790310

8

1.39861 800 8.17E+0

9

410721

7

1.08503


Document Title:


Page No.:

15

Rev. Date:

November 2008

COMBUSTION

ANALYSIS



Pressure

14.4498 Psia


Pressure

29.4188 Bar


Density

0.07223 Lbm/Cu

ft

%Fuel1 70 %Fuel2 30

Ult

Fract


prod

H2O

prod

N2 prod SO2 Htg

Value

0.6647 C 11.51 7.6507 2.43546 0 5.87994 0 9367.62

0.04319 H2 34.29 1.48083 0 0.38595 1.13807 2638.42

0.08279 O2 -4.3159 -0.3573 0 0 -0.2745 0

0.01226 N2 0 0 0 0 0.01226 0

0.00579 S 4.32 0.02499 0 0 0.01921 0.01156 23.0257

0.08496 ASH 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.10634 H2O 0 0 0 0.10634 0 0 0

Lbs

Fuel

Air/Fuel Stoich

O2

CO2

Prod

H2O

Prod

N2 Prod SO2

Prod

Total HHV

1.00003 8.7992 2.03877 2.43546 0.49229 6.77494 0.01156 9.71425 12029.1

Flue

Gas

Exc

O2%


Analysis 15.5 2.35478 0.31601 2.43546 0.49229 7.82281 0.01156 11.0781 11507.4

No.

Moles

0.00988 0.05534 0.02733 0.27925 0.00018 0.37197

3

Mol

Fract

0.02654

9

0.14877

2

0.07346

3

0.75073

1

0.00048

5

29.7821 Mol Wt.

Fuel

Flow

Prod

Flow

Fly ash

%

With

ash

Ash

Load

Gas

Temp

Heat

Rel

ACFM Comp

709812 786339

1

80 791163

8

1.36726 800 8.17E+0

9

411686

2

1.10908


Document Title:


Page No.:

16

Rev. Date:

November 2008

COMBUSTION

ANALYSIS



Pressure

14.4498 Psia


Pressure

29.4188 Bar


Density

0.07223 Lbm/Cu

ft

%Fuel1 60 %Fuel2 40

Ult

Fract


prod

H2O

prod

N2 prod SO2 Htg

Value

0.6504 C 11.51 7.4861 2.38307 0 5.75344 0 9166.09

0.0425 H2 34.29 1.45739 0 0.37984 1.12005 2596.65

0.08616 O2 -4.3159 -0.3719 0 0 -0.2857 0

0.01179 N2 0 0 0 0 0.01179 0

0.00548 S 4.32 0.02366 0 0 0.01819 0.01094 21.8003

0.0813 ASH 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.12241 H2O 0 0 0 0.12241 0 0 0

Lbs

Fuel

Air/Fuel Stoich

O2

CO2

Prod

H2O

Prod

N2 Prod SO2

Prod

Total HHV

1.00004 8.59528 1.99153 2.38307 0.50225 6.61775 0.01094 9.51401 11784.5

Flue

Gas

Exc

O2%


Analysis 15.5 2.30021 0.30869 2.38307 0.50225 7.64134 0.01094 10.8463 11252.3

No.

Moles

0.00965 0.05415 0.02788 0.27277 0.00017 0.36461

8

Mol

Fract

0.02645

7

0.14850

7

0.07646 0.74810

6

0.00046

9

29.7469

3

Mol Wt.

Fuel

Flow

Prod

Flow

Fly ash

%

With

ash

Ash

Load

Gas

Temp

Heat

Rel

ACFM Comp

725903 787334

3

80 792055

4

1.33465 800 8.17E+0

9

412694

5

1.13422


Document Title:


Page No.:

17

Rev. Date:

November 2008

COMBUSTION

ANALYSIS



Pressure

14.4498 Psia


Pressure

29.4188 Bar


Density

0.07223 Lbm/Cu

ft

%Fuel1 50 %Fuel2 50

Ult

Fract


prod

H2O

prod

N2 prod SO2 Htg

Value

0.6361 C 11.51 7.32151 2.33067 0 5.62694 0 8964.56

0.04182 H2 34.29 1.43395 0 0.37373 1.10203 2554.88

0.08954 O2 -4.3159 -0.3864 0 0 -0.2969 0

0.01133 N2 0 0 0 0 0.01133 0

0.00517 S 4.32 0.02233 0 0 0.01716 0.01033 20.5748

0.07763 ASH 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.13847 H2O 0 0 0 0.13847 0 0 0

Lbs

Fuel

Air/Fuel Stoich

O2

CO2

Prod

H2O

Prod

N2 Prod SO2

Prod

Total HHV

1.00006 8.39136 1.94428 2.33067 0.5122 6.46057 0.01033 9.31377 11540

Flue

Gas

Exc

O2%


Analysis 15.5 2.24564 0.30136 2.33067 0.5122 7.45987 0.01033 10.6144 10997.2

No.

Moles

0.00942 0.05296 0.02843 0.2663 0.00016 0.35726

4

Mol

Fract

0.02636

1

0.14823

2

0.07958

1

0.74537

4

0.00045

1

29.7103

2

Mol Wt.

Fuel

Flow

Prod

Flow

Fly ash

%

With

ash

Ash

Load

Gas

Temp

Heat

Rel

ACFM Comp

742739 788375

7

80 792988

5

1.30069 800 8.17E+0

9

413749

6

1.16053


Document Title:


Page No.:

18

Rev. Date:

November 2008

ADA Chemical Injection System

The ADA chemical injection system injects a dilute, aqueous solution of ADA 37 into the flue

gas ducts just upstream of the electrostatic precipitator. Plant Scherer Unit 1 & Unit 2 have two

economizer outlet ducts each, that feed four electrostatic precipitator inlet ducts per unit. ADA

37 chemical additive would be injected into the two economizer outlet ducts. At full load, the

temperature of the flue gas at the injection location would be approximately 800 F.

The following major equipment would be required:

Chemical Bulk Storage Tank – A Polyethylene storage tank that receives concentrated ADA 37

additive from a contractor’s chemical tank truck and includes thermal insulation and a sight level

glass. Provision for containment of chemical in the case of a spill or tank failure must be

provided.

Additive Feed And Mixing Skid – This flow control skid includes all pumps, filters, valves,

tubing, microprocessor controls, and all associated equipment for transferring concentrated

chemical from the storage tank, mixing of dilution condensate, and delivery of aqueous ADA 37

solution to the chemical additive supply line. With an Allen-Bradley PLC, ADA incorporates on-

line monitoring of storage tank level, flow rates, and other system parameters via phone line

from the ADA headquarters in Colorado.

Atomizing Air Compressor – This may be a stand alone air compressor or compressed air may

be derived from existing station service, if installed capacity is sufficient. The compressed air is

required for atomization at the chemical injection nozzles. ADA estimates that approximately

850 scfm at 80 to 90 psi would be required for a unit at Plant Scherer. (700 scfm for atomization,

150 scfm at mixing skid)

Shield Air Blower – Shielding air is applied at the injection nozzles to prevent deposit formation

and pluggage. The shield air blowers are located outside of the duct at the injection location and

they feed ambient air to the injection lance manifolds.

Injection Grid Assembly – Aqueous ADA 37 chemical additive, Atomizing Air, and Purge Air

flow through the injection lance manifolds where the compressed air mixes with the liquid

chemical just prior to injection. The shield air is routed outside of the nozzle piping but inside of

the lance protective shroud and around the injection nozzles to prevent flue gas contact with the

nozzle tips. Lances and nozzles are constructed of 304 or 316 stainless.

Lance Overhead Support – An overhead beam is provided to mount a winch (rail mounted air

motor) used for pulling injection lances out of the duct for inspection and maintenance.


Document Title:


Page No.:

19

Rev. Date:

November 2008

The Owner must provide the following items:

Foundations and containment for the Chemical Bulk Storage Tank.

Chemical Bulk Storage Tank. ADA recommends 8000 gal minimum size.

Compressed Air Supply to Atomizing Air Control Panel and to the Additive Feed And

Mixing Skid. (ADA estimates that 850 scfm at 80-90 psi is required.)

Dual 480v, 30A supply to Additive Feed and Mixing Skid.

Condensate supply estimated at ~12 gpm by ADA.

Analog signal for stack opacity and unit Mega-Watt output.

All permitting requirements.

Lance Overhead Support.

Crane and operator for placement of heavy equipment.

Telephone line to skid.

Labor support for periodic maintenance.

Additional items may be recommended.

** Please refer to Appendix II for ADA’s system description.


Document Title:


Page No.:

20

Rev. Date:

November 2008

-------- ESPM Version 1.0 --------

Efficiency = 98.03 %

Penetration = 1.97 %

Emissions = 0.02870 gr/acf

= 0.130 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.02412 gr/acf

Opacity = 17.3 % @ 12. ft

Rappers OFF




= 0.091 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.01695 gr/acf

Opacity = 15.4 % @ 12. ft

Rapping Contribution = 30.1 % of total

Field SCA Area Volt Cur jcalc W-W W-pl W dia Leng Corona Pk/Avg

# ft² kV mA nA/cm² in in in ft Factor Ratio

1 79.1 311040 31.0 3368 11.65 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

2 79.1 311040 24.5 1235 4.27 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

3 79.1 311040 21.5 726 2.51 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.04

4 79.1 311040 20.0 1407 4.87 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

5 79.1 311040 17.8 507 1.75 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

6 79.1 311040 16.5 62 0.21 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.18

----- ------- ------

474.6 1866240 36.00

Height Volume Velocity Temp Press Resistivity Viscosity

ft acfm ft/s °F atm ohm-cm poise

36.0 3932124 3.34 800 1.00 5.68 E10 3.58E-04

Nonideal Factors Fitting Factors

Velocity Sections Out Misalign Sneak ____Rapping____ Steady Turb Core

sigma 1 2 (in) Frac Frac MMD Sg Frac Number

0.200~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.075 7.0 1.50 0.00 1.00

Program Information

Master File : Fuel1

Coal File : Fuel1

Design File : Fuel1

Flue Gas File : Fuel1

SRT File : Fuel1

Ash/Res File : Fuel1

Boiler File : Fuel1

Particle File : Fuel1

Base Model

Maximum Load


Document Title:


Page No.:

21

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Particle Properties

The 20 size band end points and fractions are:

d fr d fr d fr d fr

0.08 0.0000 0.59 0.0035 3.67 0.1146 16.73 0.5146

0.12 0.0000 0.84 0.0079 5.20 0.1790 24.49 0.6361

0.18 0.0001 1.22 0.0179 6.93 0.2470 36.74 0.7515

0.27 0.0004 1.73 0.0346 9.38 0.3313 51.96 0.8321

0.41 0.0013 2.45 0.0626 12.41 0.4178 69.28 0.8845

General Factors

Inlet Mass Density MMD Sigma (Specified)

gr/ft³ g/cm³ µm

1.46 2.5 20. 2.7

Particle size results

RAPPERS OFF RAPPERS ON

Diam effic% pen% emv(cm/s) effic% pen% emv(cm/s) rel op%

0.10 97.73 2.27 4.1 97.73 2.27 4.1 .0

0.15 94.31 5.69 3.1 94.31 5.69 3.1 .0

0.22 89.88 10.12 2.5 89.88 10.12 2.5 .3

0.33 85.86 14.14 2.1 85.86 14.14 2.1 2.2

0.50 83.20 16.80 1.9 83.20 16.80 1.9 8.9

0.70 82.89 17.11 1.9 82.89 17.11 1.9 17.2

1.00 84.33 15.67 2.0 84.33 15.67 2.0 19.0

1.50 87.81 12.19 2.3 87.77 12.23 2.2 12.5

2.00 90.91 9.09 2.6 90.58 9.42 2.5 15.4

3.00 95.09 4.91 3.2 93.65 6.35 2.9 12.3

4.50 98.00 2.00 4.2 95.42 4.58 3.3 6.6

6.00 99.14 .86 5.1 96.60 3.40 3.6 3.9

8.00 99.70 .30 6.2 98.26 1.74 4.3 1.4

11.00 99.94 .06 8.0 99.46 .54 5.6 .3

14.00 99.99 .01 9.5 99.86 .14 7.1 .1

20.00 100.00 .00 12.0 99.98 .02 9.3 .0

30.00 100.00 .00 14.7 100.00 .00 12.3 .0

45.00 100.00 .00 16.8 100.00 .00 15.7 .0

60.00 100.00 .00 17.8 100.00 .00 17.7 .0

Detailed Electrical Conditions

Field Onset Volt Min Volt Peak Volt Fraction

# kV kV kV in BC

1 18.5 22.1 31.0 0.00

2 18.5 20.7 24.5 0.00

3 18.5 20.1 22.4 0.00

4 18.5 19.6 23.9 0.00

5 18.5 19.4 21.1 0.00

6 18.5 19.2 19.5 0.00


Document Title:


Page No.:

22

Rev. Date:

November 2008

-------- ESPM Version 1.0 --------




= 0.118 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.02127 gr/acf

Opacity = 15.1 % @ 12. ft

Rappers OFF




= 0.083 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.01507 gr/acf

Opacity = 13.5 % @ 12. ft




1 74.1 311040 31.0 4279 14.81 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

2 74.1 311040 24.5 1581 5.47 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

3 74.1 311040 21.5 932 3.23 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.04

4 74.1 311040 20.0 1671 5.78 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

5 74.1 311040 17.8 624 2.16 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

6 74.1 311040 16.5 105 0.36 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.18

----- ------- ------

444.5 1866240 36.00



36.0 4198554 3.57 800 1.00 3.42 E09 3.52E-04




0.200~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.075 7.0 1.50 0.00 1.00

Program Information

Master File : Fuel2

Coal File : Fuel2

Design File : Fuel2

Flue Gas File : Fuel2

SRT File : Fuel2

Ash/Res File : Fuel2

Boiler File : Fuel2

Particle File : Fuel2

Base Model

Maximum Load


Document Title:


Page No.:

23

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Particle Properties


d fr d fr d fr d fr

0.08 0.0000 0.59 0.0035 3.67 0.1146 16.73 0.5146

0.12 0.0000 0.84 0.0079 5.20 0.1790 24.49 0.6361

0.18 0.0001 1.22 0.0179 6.93 0.2470 36.74 0.7515

0.27 0.0004 1.73 0.0346 9.38 0.3313 51.96 0.8321

0.41 0.0013 2.45 0.0626 12.41 0.4178 69.28 0.8845

General Factors


gr/ft³ g/cm³ µm

1.11 2.5 20. 2.7




0.10 97.28 2.72 4.1 97.28 2.72 4.1 .0

0.15 93.46 6.54 3.1 93.46 6.54 3.1 .0

0.22 88.65 11.35 2.5 88.65 11.35 2.5 .3

0.33 84.36 15.64 2.1 84.36 15.64 2.1 2.1

0.50 81.51 18.49 1.9 81.51 18.49 1.9 8.6

0.70 81.13 18.87 1.9 81.13 18.87 1.9 16.7

1.00 82.58 17.42 2.0 82.58 17.42 2.0 18.6

1.50 86.19 13.81 2.3 86.15 13.85 2.3 12.4

2.00 89.50 10.50 2.6 89.15 10.85 2.5 15.6

3.00 94.11 5.89 3.2 92.51 7.49 3.0 12.8

4.50 97.49 2.51 4.2 94.58 5.42 3.3 6.8

6.00 98.87 1.13 5.1 96.00 4.00 3.7 4.1

8.00 99.58 .42 6.3 97.89 2.11 4.4 1.5

11.00 99.91 .09 8.0 99.33 .67 5.7 .4

14.00 99.98 .02 9.6 99.83 .17 7.3 .1

20.00 100.00 .00 12.3 99.98 .02 9.7 .0

30.00 100.00 .00 15.3 100.00 .00 13.0 .0

45.00 100.00 .00 17.8 100.00 .00 16.6 .0

60.00 100.00 .00 19.0 100.00 .00 18.8 .0



# kV kV kV in BC

1 18.5 21.4 31.0 0.00

2 18.5 20.3 24.5 0.00

3 18.5 19.8 22.4 0.00

4 18.5 19.5 23.9 0.00

5 18.5 19.2 21.1 0.00

6 18.5 19.1 19.5 0.00


Document Title:


Page No.:

24

Rev. Date:

November 2008

-------- ESPM Version 1.0 --------




= 0.135 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.02509 gr/acf

Opacity = 17.8 % @ 12. ft

Rappers OFF




= 0.095 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.01770 gr/acf

Opacity = 15.9 % @ 12. ft




1 75.9 311040 31.0 3420 11.84 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

2 75.9 311040 24.5 1244 4.31 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

3 75.9 311040 21.5 727 2.51 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.04

4 75.9 311040 20.0 1413 4.89 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

5 75.9 311040 17.8 505 1.75 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

6 75.9 311040 16.5 56 0.19 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.18

----- ------- ------

455.4 1866240 36.00



36.0 4097981 3.48 800 1.00 4.65 E10 3.52E-04




0.200~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.075 7.0 1.50 0.00 1.00

Program Information

Master File : 10%PRB

Coal File : 10%PRB

Design File : 10%PRB

Flue Gas File : 10%PRB

SRT File : 10%PRB

Ash/Res File : 10%PRB

Boiler File : 10%PRB

Particle File : 10%PRB

Base Model

Maximum Load

Particle Properties


Document Title:


Page No.:

25

Rev. Date:

November 2008


d fr d fr d fr d fr

0.08 0.0000 0.59 0.0035 3.67 0.1146 16.73 0.5146

0.12 0.0000 0.84 0.0079 5.20 0.1790 24.49 0.6361

0.18 0.0001 1.22 0.0179 6.93 0.2470 36.74 0.7515

0.27 0.0004 1.73 0.0346 9.38 0.3313 51.96 0.8321

0.41 0.0013 2.45 0.0626 12.41 0.4178 69.28 0.8845

General Factors


gr/ft³ g/cm³ µm

1.43 2.5 20. 2.7




0.10 97.49 2.51 4.1 97.49 2.51 4.1 .0

0.15 93.86 6.14 3.1 93.86 6.14 3.1 .0

0.22 89.23 10.77 2.5 89.23 10.77 2.5 .3

0.33 85.10 14.90 2.1 85.10 14.90 2.1 2.2

0.50 82.38 17.62 1.9 82.38 17.62 1.9 8.8

0.70 82.07 17.93 1.9 82.07 17.93 1.9 17.0

1.00 83.57 16.43 2.0 83.56 16.44 2.0 18.8

1.50 87.14 12.86 2.3 87.10 12.90 2.3 12.5

2.00 90.36 9.64 2.6 90.02 9.98 2.6 15.4

3.00 94.73 5.27 3.3 93.23 6.77 3.0 12.4

4.50 97.82 2.18 4.3 95.12 4.88 3.4 6.6

6.00 99.05 .95 5.2 96.39 3.61 3.7 4.0

8.00 99.66 .34 6.4 98.13 1.87 4.4 1.4

11.00 99.93 .07 8.1 99.42 .58 5.7 .3

14.00 99.98 .02 9.7 99.85 .15 7.3 .1

20.00 100.00 .00 12.4 99.98 .02 9.6 .0

30.00 100.00 .00 15.2 100.00 .00 12.8 .0

45.00 100.00 .00 17.4 100.00 .00 16.3 .0

60.00 100.00 .00 18.5 100.00 .00 18.3 .0



# kV kV kV in BC

1 18.5 22.1 31.0 0.00

2 18.5 20.7 24.5 0.00

3 18.5 20.1 22.4 0.00

4 18.5 19.6 23.9 0.00

5 18.5 19.4 21.1 0.00

6 18.5 19.2 19.5 0.00


Document Title:


Page No.:

26

Rev. Date:

November 2008

-------- ESPM Version 1.0 --------




= 0.139 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.02565 gr/acf

Opacity = 18.1 % @ 12. ft

Rappers OFF




= 0.098 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.01814 gr/acf

Opacity = 16.2 % @ 12. ft




1 75.7 311040 31.0 3475 12.03 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

2 75.7 311040 24.5 1258 4.35 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

3 75.7 311040 21.5 732 2.53 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.04

4 75.7 311040 20.0 1423 4.93 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

5 75.7 311040 17.8 506 1.75 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

6 75.7 311040 16.5 53 0.18 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.18

----- ------- ------

454.4 1866240 36.00



36.0 4107217 3.48 800 1.00 4.98 E10 3.58E-04




0.200~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.075 7.0 1.50 0.00 1.00

Program Information


Coal File : 20%PRB



SRT File : 20%PRB




Base Model

Maximum Load


Document Title:


Page No.:

27

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Particle Properties


d fr d fr d fr d fr

0.08 0.0000 0.59 0.0035 3.67 0.1146 16.73 0.5146

0.12 0.0000 0.84 0.0079 5.20 0.1790 24.49 0.6361

0.18 0.0001 1.22 0.0179 6.93 0.2470 36.74 0.7515

0.27 0.0004 1.73 0.0346 9.38 0.3313 51.96 0.8321

0.41 0.0013 2.45 0.0626 12.41 0.4178 69.28 0.8845

General Factors


gr/ft³ g/cm³ µm

1.4 2.5 20. 2.7




0.10 97.33 2.67 4.0 97.33 2.67 4.0 .0

0.15 93.56 6.44 3.1 93.56 6.44 3.1 .0

0.22 88.81 11.19 2.4 88.81 11.19 2.4 .3

0.33 84.59 15.41 2.1 84.59 15.41 2.1 2.2

0.50 81.83 18.17 1.9 81.83 18.17 1.9 8.8

0.70 81.51 18.49 1.9 81.51 18.49 1.9 16.9

1.00 83.03 16.97 2.0 83.03 16.97 2.0 18.7

1.50 86.66 13.34 2.3 86.62 13.38 2.2 12.5

2.00 89.95 10.05 2.6 89.60 10.40 2.5 15.5

3.00 94.45 5.55 3.2 92.90 7.10 3.0 12.6

4.50 97.68 2.32 4.2 94.88 5.12 3.3 6.7

6.00 98.97 1.03 5.1 96.21 3.79 3.7 4.0

8.00 99.63 .37 6.3 98.03 1.97 4.4 1.5

11.00 99.92 .08 8.0 99.38 .62 5.7 .3

14.00 99.98 .02 9.6 99.84 .16 7.2 .1

20.00 100.00 .00 12.2 99.98 .02 9.6 .0

30.00 100.00 .00 15.1 100.00 .00 12.7 .0

45.00 100.00 .00 17.4 100.00 .00 16.3 .0

60.00 100.00 .00 18.4 100.00 .00 18.3 .0



# kV kV kV in BC

1 18.5 22.1 31.0 0.00

2 18.5 20.7 24.5 0.00

3 18.5 20.1 22.4 0.00

4 18.5 19.7 23.9 0.00

5 18.5 19.4 21.1 0.00

6 18.5 19.2 19.5 0.00


Document Title:


Page No.:

28

Rev. Date:

November 2008

-------- ESPM Version 1.0 --------




= 0.136 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.02505 gr/acf

Opacity = 17.7 % @ 12. ft

Rappers OFF




= 0.096 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.01771 gr/acf

Opacity = 15.8 % @ 12. ft




1 75.7 311040 31.0 3549 12.28 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

2 75.7 311040 24.5 1289 4.46 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

3 75.7 311040 21.5 752 2.60 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.04

4 75.7 311040 20.0 1446 5.01 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

5 75.7 311040 17.8 518 1.79 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

6 75.7 311040 16.5 59 0.20 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.18

----- ------- ------

454.4 1866240 36.00



36.0 4116862 3.48 800 1.00 2.55 E10 3.57E-04




0.200~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.075 7.0 1.50 0.00 1.00

Program Information


Coal File : 30%PRB



SRT File : 30%PRB




Base Model

Maximum Load


Document Title:


Page No.:

29

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Particle Properties


d fr d fr d fr d fr

0.08 0.0000 0.59 0.0035 3.67 0.1146 16.73 0.5146

0.12 0.0000 0.84 0.0079 5.20 0.1790 24.49 0.6361

0.18 0.0001 1.22 0.0179 6.93 0.2470 36.74 0.7515

0.27 0.0004 1.73 0.0346 9.38 0.3313 51.96 0.8321

0.41 0.0013 2.45 0.0626 12.41 0.4178 69.28 0.8845

General Factors


gr/ft³ g/cm³ µm

1.37 2.5 20. 2.7




0.10 97.35 2.65 4.1 97.35 2.65 4.1 .0

0.15 93.59 6.41 3.1 93.59 6.41 3.1 .0

0.22 88.86 11.14 2.5 88.86 11.14 2.5 .3

0.33 84.64 15.36 2.1 84.64 15.36 2.1 2.2

0.50 81.88 18.12 1.9 81.88 18.12 1.9 8.8

0.70 81.55 18.45 1.9 81.55 18.45 1.9 16.9

1.00 83.06 16.94 2.0 83.06 16.94 2.0 18.7

1.50 86.68 13.32 2.3 86.64 13.36 2.2 12.5

2.00 89.96 10.04 2.6 89.61 10.39 2.5 15.5

3.00 94.45 5.55 3.2 92.90 7.10 3.0 12.6

4.50 97.68 2.32 4.2 94.88 5.12 3.3 6.7

6.00 98.97 1.03 5.1 96.21 3.79 3.7 4.0

8.00 99.63 .37 6.3 98.03 1.97 4.4 1.5

11.00 99.92 .08 8.0 99.38 .62 5.7 .3

14.00 99.98 .02 9.6 99.84 .16 7.2 .1

20.00 100.00 .00 12.2 99.98 .02 9.6 .0

30.00 100.00 .00 15.1 100.00 .00 12.7 .0

45.00 100.00 .00 17.4 100.00 .00 16.3 .0

60.00 100.00 .00 18.5 100.00 .00 18.3 .0



# kV kV kV in BC

1 18.5 22.0 31.0 0.00

2 18.5 20.7 24.5 0.00

3 18.5 20.1 22.4 0.00

4 18.5 19.6 23.9 0.00

5 18.5 19.4 21.1 0.00

6 18.5 19.2 19.5 0.00


Document Title:


Page No.:

30

Rev. Date:

November 2008

-------- ESPM Version 1.0 --------




= 0.135 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.02480 gr/acf

Opacity = 17.5 % @ 12. ft

Rappers OFF




= 0.095 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.01755 gr/acf

Opacity = 15.7 % @ 12. ft




1 75.4 311040 31.0 3625 12.54 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

2 75.4 311040 24.5 1317 4.56 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

3 75.4 311040 21.5 768 2.66 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.04

4 75.4 311040 20.0 1467 5.08 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

5 75.4 311040 17.8 527 1.82 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

6 75.4 311040 16.5 62 0.22 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.18

----- ------- ------

452.2 1866240 36.00



36.0 4126945 3.51 800 1.00 1.40 E08 3.57E-04




0.200~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.075 7.0 1.50 0.00 1.00

Program Information


Coal File : 40%PRB



SRT File : 40%PRB




Base Model

Maximum Load


Document Title:


Page No.:

31

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Particle Properties


d fr d fr d fr d fr

0.08 0.0000 0.59 0.0035 3.67 0.1146 16.73 0.5146

0.12 0.0000 0.84 0.0079 5.20 0.1790 24.49 0.6361

0.18 0.0001 1.22 0.0179 6.93 0.2470 36.74 0.7515

0.27 0.0004 1.73 0.0346 9.38 0.3313 51.96 0.8321

0.41 0.0013 2.45 0.0626 12.41 0.4178 69.28 0.8845

General Factors


gr/ft³ g/cm³ µm

1.33 2.5 20. 2.7




0.10 97.30 2.70 4.1 97.30 2.70 4.1 .0

0.15 93.50 6.50 3.1 93.50 6.50 3.1 .0

0.22 88.73 11.27 2.5 88.73 11.27 2.5 .3

0.33 84.49 15.51 2.1 84.49 15.51 2.1 2.2

0.50 81.71 18.29 1.9 81.71 18.29 1.9 8.7

0.70 81.38 18.62 1.9 81.38 18.62 1.9 16.8

1.00 82.89 17.11 2.0 82.88 17.12 2.0 18.7

1.50 86.52 13.48 2.3 86.48 13.52 2.2 12.5

2.00 89.82 10.18 2.6 89.47 10.53 2.5 15.5

3.00 94.35 5.65 3.2 92.79 7.21 3.0 12.6

4.50 97.63 2.37 4.2 94.80 5.20 3.3 6.7

6.00 98.95 1.05 5.1 96.15 3.85 3.7 4.0

8.00 99.62 .38 6.3 97.99 2.01 4.4 1.5

11.00 99.92 .08 8.0 99.37 .63 5.7 .3

14.00 99.98 .02 9.6 99.84 .16 7.2 .1

20.00 100.00 .00 12.2 99.98 .02 9.6 .0

30.00 100.00 .00 15.1 100.00 .00 12.8 .0

45.00 100.00 .00 17.5 100.00 .00 16.4 .0

60.00 100.00 .00 18.5 100.00 .00 18.4 .0



# kV kV kV in BC

1 18.5 21.9 31.0 0.00

2 18.5 20.7 24.5 0.00

3 18.5 20.1 22.4 0.00

4 18.5 19.6 23.9 0.00

5 18.5 19.4 21.1 0.00

6 18.5 19.2 19.5 0.00


Document Title:


Page No.:

32

Rev. Date:

November 2008

-------- ESPM Version 1.0 --------




= 0.142 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.02585 gr/acf

Opacity = 18.2 % @ 12. ft

Rappers OFF




= 0.100 lb/MBtu

PM10 = 0.01828 gr/acf

Opacity = 16.3 % @ 12. ft




1 75.2 311040 31.0 3590 12.42 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

2 75.2 311040 24.5 1298 4.49 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.00

3 75.2 311040 21.5 755 2.61 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.04

4 75.2 311040 20.0 1471 5.09 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

5 75.2 311040 17.8 522 1.81 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.19

6 75.2 311040 16.5 53 0.18 9.0 4.5 0.101 6.00 1.00 1.18

----- ------- ------

451.1 1866240 36.00



36.0 4137496 3.52 800 1.00 1.41 E10 3.57E-04




0.200~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.075 7.0 1.50 0.00 1.00

Program Information


Coal File : 50%PRB



SRT File : 50%PRB




Base Model

Maximum Load


Document Title:


Page No.:

33

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Particle Properties


d fr d fr d fr d fr

0.08 0.0000 0.59 0.0035 3.67 0.1146 16.73 0.5146

0.12 0.0000 0.84 0.0079 5.20 0.1790 24.49 0.6361

0.18 0.0001 1.22 0.0179 6.93 0.2470 36.74 0.7515

0.27 0.0004 1.73 0.0346 9.38 0.3313 51.96 0.8321

0.41 0.0013 2.45 0.0626 12.41 0.4178 69.28 0.8845

General Factors


gr/ft³ g/cm³ µm

1.4 2.5 20. 2.7




0.10 97.31 2.69 4.1 97.31 2.69 4.1 .0

0.15 93.53 6.47 3.1 93.53 6.47 3.1 .0

0.22 88.77 11.23 2.5 88.77 11.23 2.5 .3

0.33 84.54 15.46 2.1 84.54 15.46 2.1 2.2

0.50 81.77 18.23 1.9 81.77 18.23 1.9 8.8

0.70 81.45 18.55 1.9 81.45 18.55 1.9 16.9

1.00 82.94 17.06 2.0 82.94 17.06 2.0 18.7

1.50 86.58 13.42 2.3 86.54 13.46 2.3 12.5

2.00 89.88 10.12 2.6 89.52 10.48 2.5 15.5

3.00 94.39 5.61 3.2 92.84 7.16 3.0 12.6

4.50 97.65 2.35 4.2 94.83 5.17 3.3 6.7

6.00 98.96 1.04 5.1 96.17 3.83 3.7 4.0

8.00 99.62 .38 6.3 98.00 2.00 4.4 1.5

11.00 99.92 .08 8.0 99.38 .62 5.7 .3

14.00 99.98 .02 9.6 99.84 .16 7.3 .1

20.00 100.00 .00 12.3 99.98 .02 9.6 .0

30.00 100.00 .00 15.2 100.00 .00 12.8 .0

45.00 100.00 .00 17.5 100.00 .00 16.4 .0

60.00 100.00 .00 18.6 100.00 .00 18.4 .0



# kV kV kV in BC

1 18.5 22.1 31.0 0.00

2 18.5 20.7 24.5 0.00

3 18.5 20.1 22.4 0.00

4 18.5 19.7 23.9 0.00

5 18.5 19.4 21.1 0.00

6 18.5 19.2 19.5 0.00


Document Title:


Page No.:

34

Rev. Date:

November 2008

CLECO Plant Rodemacher Visit / Questions to ADA Users

The following questions were developed by Oglethorpe Power Corporation and Georgia Power

Corporation. Responses to questions were given by ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC and

Central Louisiana Electric Company.

1. What are the effects on downstream equipment - ESPs, APHs, Ducts, Fans, Stack? –

CLECO has not noted any damage to downstream equipment related to the use of ADA 34 or

37 with the exception of deposits which require immediate cleaning due to the corrosive

nature of the chemical and blockage of the injection nozzles.

2. How many boiler, precipitator, and stack inspections have been made since ADA use

was initiated? In one instance, precipitator performance was unacceptable due to “hard

deposits” internal to the precipitator. CLECO believes that the cause of the hard deposits on

the precipitator was a boiler tube leak which occurred just prior to the time when deposits

were noted.

3. If degradation is found, does it keep getting worse or does it level out? Degradation was

not noted.

4. What change in opacity was experienced vs targeted? From the original 40-45% opacity,

the opacity target was 20%. 10-12% opacity is maintainable. 2-5% was observed by OPC

and GPC after a unit outage, which included ESP cleaning to remove “hard deposits” caused

by a boiler tube leak.

5. What is the plant’s target stack opacity? The opacity target was <20%. CLECO notes that

the normal range of opacity with the ADA 37 additive is in the range of 10-12%.

6. Does the plant use opacity optimization or energy optimization for precipitator control?

Per CLECO, all T/R’ s are set at ~40 kV and opacity is controlled by varying current

between 300-1000 mA.

7. What are the voltage settings for the precipitators? May we have a map of “normal”

voltage distribution in the ESPs? Per CLECO, all T/R’ s are set at ~40kV. A voltage

mapping was requested.

8. Did spark-over increase after ADA use was started? No increase was noted by CLECO.

9. What were the conditions of downstream equipment prior to treatment? Downstream

equipment was and still remains in good condition.


Document Title:


Page No.:

35

Rev. Date:

November 2008

10. How many generations of ADA additives have been applied at plant? ADA 34 did not

work with “tough coals”, which were defined as “low Sodium” coals. ADA 37 worked

better with low Sodium coals if a baseline concentration of 2.8% Sodium in the ash was

established with Sodium conditioning (Na2CO3 added to coal).

11. What fuel is being burned in the boiler? Can we have the mine name and chemical

analysis?

PRB from Jacob’s Ranch is currently being burned in the boiler. A coal analysis for Jacob’s

Ranch was made available by ADA.

12. Was a fuel switch associated with the use of ADA chemical additive? What fuel was

burned prior to ADA use? No. PRB was always used at plant.

13. What is the ESP configuration? Hotside, no gas recirculation, 750F @ full load, 2 x

parallel flow.

14. How do voltage levels compare from top to bottom of multi level ESPs? N/A,

Rodemacher does not have a multi-level ESP. In addition, all T/R sets were reported as

operating at the same voltage.

15. How uniform is the ESP inlet velocity distribution? Per CLECO, the ESP inlet velocity

distribution is believed to be uniform because power levels are consistent across the ESP

inlet.

16. Have differential pressure increments been noted for APH & ESP? Per CLECO,

downstream equipment has not been affected by ADA chemical injection.

17. What is the optimum injection rate of ADA 37 additive? 12 gph with baseline

concentration of Sodium in the ash of 2.8%.

18. Are acid dewpoint concerns related to cold side conversion? N/A

19. Was fly ash sold prior to ADA treatment? Yes, fly ash was sold to Gifford Hill.

20. Was fly ash sold after ADA treatment? Yes, currently fly ash is sold to Hansen-Gifford

Hill.

21. Was additional chemical remediation required with ADA additive? Sodium injection is

required to establish a baseline Sodium concentration in the fly ash. In addition, ADA

recommends ADA-110 anti-cementing additive for wet fly ash removal systems.

22. What was the impact on unit operation? The desired opacity is achievable. Regular

inspection and maintenance is required to prevent excessive build-up of deposits.


Document Title:


Page No.:

36

Rev. Date:

November 2008

23. How well did automatic injection equipment work? This appears to be a major problem.

Chemical deposits attach to the injection nozzles and form mounds at the injection lance

locations. A new shield air chamber is installed around the injection nozzles and provides

ambient air to cool the gas at the nozzle location to prevent rapid evaporation and blow the

chemical away from the nozzle. The shield air is obtained from a local blower. Inspection of

nozzle lances following 2 days of operation with shield air indicated that shield air is not

sufficient to prevent deposit formation on the nozzles and lances. Frequent nozzle and lance

inspection is required (100% in 1 to 2 weeks) to prevent blockage of injection nozzles and

duct deposits. Chemical deposits are cleaned from injection lances with a wire brush.

24. What additional maintenance costs are associated with ADA additive and injection

equipment? Deposits in the duct require removal because the deposit’s corrosive effects

(pH~12) are not known. Nozzle/lance inspection is performed on-line on the top of ducts

operating at approximately 750 F. The nozzle/lance inspection is facilitated with an

overhead crane (air motor and rail) but requires flange bolt removal. ADA has attributed

deposit formation to a lack of inspection and maintenance. CLECO does not use the flange

bolts due to manifold cracks attributed to lance vibration, which is not acceptable. The writer

feels that ADA should provide an improvement to the injection system. In an isolated

incident, hard deposits were found in the precipitator, which were attributed by ADA to a

tube leak. Traces of chemical were found at many locations on the flow control skid.

Human contact with the chemical would result in severe irritation and damage to tissue if not

immediately washed away. The integrity of the skid piping system is sub-standard and should

be improved to avoid spills, leakage, and failure.

25. Were any EFOR changes related to the precipitator noted after ADA chemical use was

initiated? The removal of deposits (mounds) in the ductwork required plant down time.

Inability to respond to load swings and fuel Sodium level excursions resulted in poor

performance and opacity problems, which required a minimum injection rate to correct.

26. What is the temperature at the ESP inlet at full load? 750F.

27. What is the temperature at the APH inlet and outlet at full load? Approximately 640F

and 322F respectively.

28. Were any chemical additives in use prior to injection of ADA additive? Sodium

conditioning (Na2CO3 added on conveyor belt) was used prior to ADA use. Prior to the

current coal side Sodium injection, dry pneumatic injection was used and abandoned due to

poor performance of conveying equipment.


Document Title:


Page No.:

37

Rev. Date:

November 2008

29. Is a blend of Sodium product used with ADA? What % of each if so? ADA disclosed

that the chemical is essentially Sodium. In addition, the chemical formula is typically given

to a local chemical processing company that blends the required chemicals in solution and

transports the chemical to the plant. Apparently special processes are not required to make

the solution and chemical constituents are common.

30. Are Gas Recirculation Fans Utilized? No.

31. What is the capacity of the unit(s)? 550 MW

32. Was a change in LOI noted? N/A.

33. How long did it take for the ADA additive to be effective? Approximately 12 hours is

required. This means that a minimum flow rate must be established and that load response is

limited. The required amount of chemical must be on the collected ash prior to ash loading

increases to avoid opacity excursions. This is complicated by precipitator plate rapping.

34. Were any deposits traced to the ADA additive? Yes, mounds of a chemical and flue gas

mixture were found in front of the injection lances. At times the height of the mounds

exceeded the nozzle height and prohibited re-insertion of the lances into the dugout formed

by continuous chemical injection after inspection. ADA advised that the unit be shut down

to remove deposits because in their words, “We didn’t want to come in and find the bottom

of the duct lying at grade with our chemical on top of it”.

35. Does the plant have a cost contract (# of Years)? No.

36. Can you cycle the usage to save on additive? No, as stated previously, the required amount

of chemical must be on the collected ash prior to ash loading increases. During lower loads,

more chemical than required is continuously injected at an established minimum flow rate.

37. What is the SCA of ESP and Size of Boiler in MW? The reported SCA is 340 and the unit

output is 550 MW.

38. Does ADA stand by their product? CLECO reports that ADA is very responsive and eager

to make sure that the system works properly. One negative comment from CLECO was that,

“At the beginning it seemed as if their only response to poor performance was to add more

chemical”. CLECO was sensitive to the cost of the chemical purchases. CLECO indicated

that “they thought that they were paying for ADA’s lack of R&D and experience”.

39. Did ADA guarantee that no adverse effects would result from use of the additive? ADA

can not make such a guarantee.


Document Title:


Page No.:

38

Rev. Date:

November 2008

40. Did ADA provide a performance guarantee? ADA’s response to this issue is that the best

remedy available to the purchaser is, “ If you do not like the system or are not satisfied for

any reason, then stop buying the chemical and discontinue usage”.

41. Was EPRI a sponsor of the project? No, plant does not fund EPRI.

42. Did EPRI provide a report of project success? N/A.

43. Was chemical composition disclosed during permitting? Yes, this is possible with a non-

disclosure statement. MSDS data sheets also describe chemical properties and

characteristics.

44. Will ADA accept liability for damage to plant and equipment associated with ADA

chemical addition? ADA does not have the ability to accept liability for damage to plant

equipment, business interruption, design flaws, …, etc.


Document Title:


Page No.:

39

Rev. Date:

November 2008

SCS Plant Daniel Representatives’ Discussion at Plant Scherer in reference to ADA

Environmental Solutions, LLC

Unit 1 - ADA 23

The following points were represented by SCS personnel.

45. ADA chemical additive ADA 23 was not satisfactory for SCS Plant Daniel. ADA 23

contained Phosphoric Acid, which drastically reduced concrete set time and eliminated the

possibility of PRB ash sales.

46. An injection rate of 20 gal/min of dilute ADA 23 was required to reduce opacity readings.

47. Non-uniform flow of ADA chemical was traced to poor system design.

48. Chemical injection system was not effective in treating coarse material on lower precipitators

for piggyback arrangement similar to Plant Scherer Units 1 & 2 ESPs.

49. Corrosion of ESP surfaces and ductwork was noted with ADA 23 and was attributed to

Phosphoric Acid in deposits that were found in the ESP, ductwork, and air preheater.

50. An increase in air preheater differential pressure was attributed to carry over of deposits.

Unit 2 - ADA 34

The following points were represented by SCS personnel.

51. A high rate of injection of ADA 34 was required to reduce opacity readings within 1 hr.

ADA recommended a lower injection rate.

52. The high rate of injection resulted in carry over of chemical to equipment downstream of the

precipitator including ductwork and air preheaters.

53. Problems with concrete set time were eliminated with ADA 34.

54. Compressive strength of concrete was not adversely effected.

55. A lawsuit resulted from ADA’s failure to do adequate engineering design. In SCS words,

“they did not do their homework”. SCS charged that salesmen ran ADA.


Document Title:


Page No.:

40

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Pictures courtesy of SCS/GPC Mr. Damon Woodson, P.E.

CLECO - External Injection Lance Manifolds on top of Hotside ESP Duct

CLECO - Flow Control Skid


Document Title:


Page No.:

41

Rev. Date:

November 2008

CLECO - Chemical Bulk Storage Tank


Document Title:


Page No.:

42

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Recommendations and Conclusions

1. ADA to take primary responsibility for system design.

ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC must be held accountable for the failure of their systems to

perform in an acceptable manner when applied to utility station service. In too many instances,

representatives of ADA claimed that failure was due to negligence on the part of power plant

operators. To remedy this situation a well-written system specification is required to measure the

proposed system definition from ADA.

For instance, with the knowledge that the freezing point of ADA 37 solution is approximately 45

Deg. F, ADA should not furnish any system without heat tracing. The impression left is that

ADA would leave details like this to be discovered by the owner after the system is installed, or

even worse, undiscovered!

Another example of this type of problem, is the question of whether or not contact with the

chemical should be restricted. A light dusting of the dry chemical on a dry fingertip will result in

a severe burning sensation in approximately 10 seconds. Despite this reality, during inspection of

the system, dry chemical was found everywhere. The flow control skid had multiple instances of

chemical leaking from valves and fittings and from all components of the obviously sub-standard

piping system. Dry chemical was found on the dirt directly under the Polyethylene storage tank

(which was furnished without containment), on the hoses and copper tubing connected to the

flow control skid, and on the floor in the control house. In addition, chemical deposits inside the

duct and on the nozzle lances must be removed. The disposal of the duct deposits may present

additional problems for the Owner. Workers who would be required to interface with the control

skid, inspect the nozzle lances (daily), clean nozzle lances, and remove duct deposits would

clearly require specialized training in the handling of the chemical and would require special

protective wear to avoid contact with human tissue. The mandatory use of respirators should not

be ruled out.

2. ADA must re-design injection system to eliminate deposits.

Deposition of the chemical inside of the flue gas ductwork is a major issue. ADA must do

additional engineering related to the injection of the chemical into a duct, which operates at 800

Deg. F for hotside applications. Rapid evaporation of moisture from the aqueous solution at the

nozzle tips and in front of the nozzle lances appears to be the problem. It is not acceptable to

claim that the problem is due to lack of inspection and maintenance. If this problem is solved, the

prospects for utilization improve greatly. Without a workable solution to duct deposits, ADA can

not be recommended. ADA’s current solution consisting of providing “shield air” at the nozzle

location may prove to correct the problem in the future, however, inspection of lances that were

in use for less than 72 hours indicated deposit formation had occurred with shield air in service.


Document Title:


Page No.:

43

Rev. Date:

November 2008

3. ADA to integrate conventional Sodium conditioning, if required.

ADA has indicated that coal properties that vary continuously, like the Sodium concentration,

have a pronounced effect on the performance and response of the ADA chemical injection

system, and hence, the performance of the ESP. This is tantamount to saying that the response of

the ADA chemical injection system is inadequate to handle variance in coal properties that may

occur from hour to hour, day to day, month to month, season to season, one coal mine to another,

or even from one rail car to the next. During unit load swings, the effectiveness of the ADA

chemical additive system depends upon the quantity of chemical, which is deposited, on the

collected ash. This is also a function of the rapping operation, which removes much of the

treated and collected ash from the plates of the ESP. If pre-conditioning with Sodium injection is

required to establish a baseline ash resistivity, then ADA should incorporate pre-conditioning

into their system scope. In discussions with Plant Scherer personnel and in their literature and

system proposals, Sodium pre-conditioning is not mentioned as a requirement. The cost of

Sodium conditioning must be added to the ADA 37 system cost for Plant Scherer. Even with

Sodium pre-conditioning, opacity can not be completely controlled without establishing a

minimum flow rate of ADA 37 chemical. This practice wastes a great deal of chemical, but is the

only way to check opacity excursions.

4. ADA to improve supports for injection lances.

During inspection of the chemical injection lance installation at the Rodemacher plant, it was

noticed that the plant personnel had adopted the practice of inspecting the lances on-line and not

"flange bolting" back in place after re-insertion. The lances where held in place by gravity alone

and tight shut off of air in-leakage was obviously sacrificed. At first it was thought that the

reason for this practice was the frequency of the required inspections. In discussions with plant

personnel, it was discovered that cracking of the nozzle lance manifolds was occurring due to

flow induced vibration of the lances when rigidly attached to the duct flanges.

The lances are fixed support, cantilevers extending down into the flue gas flow path. With this

arrangement, one duct penetration is required and the lances can be worked on from one side of

the duct. A solution relating to the drag forces exerted by the gas flow and the ability of the

flanges and manifolds to absorb cyclic stresses is required from ADA Environmental Solutions,

LLC.

5. Owner to have experts review ADA 37 MSDS to determine acceptability and

classification

ADA 37 is a highly reactive chemical that is harmful when in contact with human tissue. The

notion that Plant Scherer Unit 1 or Unit 2 could start using the ADA 37 chemical injection

system without going through a lengthy permitting process should not be considered.

Engineering specifications should reduce the possibility of chemical leakage from substandard

piping systems. However, our normal disposition of fly-ash may be problematic. Collected ash,


Document Title:


Page No.:

44

Rev. Date:

November 2008

if not sold to others, is currently sent to our ash settlement area (ponds). As we all know, this

settlement area is adjacent to Lake Juliette, a wildlife conservation area. Traces of chemical

would also be exhausted to the atmosphere through the flue gas stacks. We may have to apply for

a permit and we should consider if this would expose us to environmental auditing that would

effect other plant systems.

Contingencies for leakage, deposits, and spills must also be considered including containment

bases for tanks and flow skids, eyewashes, burn response contingencies, respirators, neutralizers,

and transport vessels for disposal of chemical deposits after removal from ducts. Concerns about

the propriety of this newly patented chemical and the degree of disclosure of the exact chemical

constituents can not be overstated.

6. Owners must obtain performance guarantees from ADA.

The first criteria used to evaluate ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC was to inquire about

performance guarantees. The desired effect of applying the ADA chemical additives is to reduce

the fly-ash resistivity to a level that would permit efficient ESP operation with PRB coal. It

would be desirable to obtain a guaranteed reduction of ash resistivity from ADA. ADA explained

early in the evaluation process that this type of guarantee could not be made. In addition, ADA

representatives explained that, “the best guarantee available is the ability to discontinue chemical

addition if desired performance is not obtainable”. From the point of view of an applications

engineer, the ADA response is entirely unacceptable and totally irresponsible. The ADA position

was re-enforced by senior ADA personnel.

7. Owners must obtain product liability guarantees from ADA.

The second criteria used to evaluate ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC was to inquire about

liability guarantees. If ADA is not willing to disclose the chemical formulation, then the effects

of chemical injection can not be evaluated by plant engineers and experts. ADA indicated that

product liability guarantees could not be made. This means that any potential for damage to

plant equipment that is exposed to the chemical additive is a potential damage risk. The

chemical formula must therefore be disclosed and evaluated, and in addition, a product liability

guarantee must be incorporated into all contracts with ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC. If a

liability guarantee is not obtained, then a mechanism must be found for recovering the cost of

equipment, installation, and any resultant consequential damage in the event that the system must

be removed from service.

8. Owners to exercise caution in dealing with ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC.

One ADA user representative has charged that, “ADA are salesmen and not engineers, and they

do not do their homework”. In two instances, while interviewing a senior member of ADA’s

team, it was revealed that ADA does not share Oglethorpe’s view that a switch to PRB coal

could result in reduction of NOx to the 0.15Lbs/Mbtu level. Despite this admission, ADA

included reduction of NOx through the use of PRB coal as a benefit of ADA chemical addition.


Document Title:


Page No.:

45

Rev. Date:

November 2008

When questioned about the inconsistency of these statements, the ADA representative indicated

that it was included because OPC believes it. This issue may have resulted from ADA’s lack of

knowledge of the possibility of NOx reduction and it may have been an error in judgement

resulting from the desire to make a sale, but it could also represent unethical conduct on ADA’s

behalf.

9. Owners must consider if Scherer Unit 1 & Unit 2 are suitable for a R&D project.

ADA has a chemical additive that is effective in reducing the resistivity of PRB ash to levels that

allow for efficient operation of hot-side ESPs. ADA has not performed sufficient R&D to

guarantee the performance of their system or to provide for the reliability and system integrity

required for utility station service. The owners of Scherer Unit 1 & Unit 2 must determine if it is

in their interest to invest in the development of a solution which involves injection of ADA

chemical additives into the plant systems. The costs for preparation for burning PRB coal are

known to an accuracy that is sufficient to determine that these costs should not be incurred if the

ADA systems do not work. The knowledge that the current ADA chemical additive systems have

unacceptable performance would tend to dictate that development of the basic engineering of a

working system must first be established. It would be prudent to allow time for ADA to develop

expertise in areas where they are deficient.

10. Owners to consider new alternatives for removal of PRB coal ash.

The available options for removing particulate from the flue gas stream should be evaluated.

Technologies would include conversion of the hot-side precipitator to cold-side operation,

installing a baghouse, or the combination of the two alternatives.

11. Owners to review overall APC strategy to consider new and alternative technologies.

The proposed switch to PRB coal from the current Eastern coal is a part of one solution to an

overall air pollution control (APC) strategy which depends upon Ultra Low NOx combustion

technology utilizing PRB coal as the fuel. It may be desirable to once again look at many

technologies to determine which mix of technology will result in the most reliable, low cost,

flexible, and effective APC strategy. This could possibly involve the continued use of Eastern

coal and the current hot-side ESPs, which have acceptable performance, and avoids problems

associated with PRB use.

12. Owners to investigate reduced cost options for SCR.

The combined cost of low NOx combustion technology and minimum reduction SCR

requirements (~80%) may be less expensive than Ultra Low NOx combustion technology

combined with conversion to PRB coal combustion including the required conversion to coldside

precipitators. In addition, the combination of SCR with low NOx combustion technology takes

advantage of excellent work already performed on Plant Scherer Unit 1 & Unit 2 which has

resulted in NOx levels in the 0.35 Lb/MBtu range, and maintains fuel flexibility since the


Document Title:


Page No.:

46

Rev. Date:

November 2008

combination is not dependent upon PRB coal combustion. The SCR is a NOx solution that may

work for more than one coal even though this probably excludes PRB for the present time. On

the other hand, if PRB conversion takes place along with cold-side ESP conversion and

implementation of Ultra Low NOx combustion technology, mandated use of SCR technology,

which is a possibility, could mean that PRB coal could no longer be used because it may not be

compatible with the SCR. In addition, PRB and/or cold-side precipitators would drive up the cost

of the mandatory SCR, which would have to handle particulate laden gas. Implementation of

technologies with short-term obsolescence should be avoided.


Document Title:


Page No.:

47

Rev. Date:

November 2008

References

Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering, 2

nd

edition, Article 9.2.1 –

Electrostatic Precipitators, D.P. Tonn, 1997.

Electrostatic Precipitator Guidelines, Volume 1, Design Specifications, EPRI CS-5198, Ebasco

Services, Incorporated, June 1987.

Electrostatic Precipitator Performance Investigation, Units One and Two, W. Scott Ramsey,

Jason Dorsey, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, October 19, 1998.

NOx Mitigation Strategies for Coal-Fired Boilers, W. Scott Ramsey, Kerry Faulkner, Oglethorpe

Power Corporation, May 13, 1999.

Western Sub-bituminous Coals and Lignites, EPRI CS-1768, Bechtel National, Inc., April 1981.

Full-Scale Experience With ADA-34 2

nd

Generation Flue Gas Conditioning For Hot-Side and

Cold Side ESPs, ADA Environmental Solutions, LLC, EPRI-DOE-EPA Atlanta Mega

Symposium, -August 16, 1999.

Nearman Creek Electrostatic Precipitator Conversion, A.W. Ferguson, D.S Lindberg – Black &

Veatch Engineers-Architects; J.R. Meinders – Board of Public Utilities, Kansas City, KS,

October 27, 1988.

Special Report: Environmental technologies help meet strict regulations, CarolAnn Giovando,

Associate Editor, Power Magazine, May/June 2000.


Document Title:


Page No.:

48

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Appendix

I. ADA System

II. ADA 37 Chemical Effectiveness

III. MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet (Not available from ADA Environmental)


Document Title:


Page No.:

49

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Appendix I. ADA System


Document Title:


Page No.:

50

Rev. Date:

November 2008

Appendix II. ADA 37 Chemical Effectiveness

Documents

Plant Robert, W. Scherer Hot Side Electrostatic Precipitator …middletoneng.com/hsespplan.pdf · · 2017-07-20Electrostatic Precipitator Design Basics Coal fired boiler flue gas