Braak:Other:

Test ReportTrial Burn of Contaminated Soilsat George Neal Generating Station

Unit No. 1

Prepared for

Iowa Public Service Company

Prepared by

Kilkelly Environmental AssociatesP.O. Box 31265

Raleigh, NC 27622(919)781-3150

Report No. 1345-154-06/28/90-0IF

AB305553

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Iowa Public Service Company (IPS) retained Kilkelly Environmental Associates (KEA) to

conduct a series of tests to evaluate the disposal of materials containing by-productsfrom the gasification of coal and other hydrocarbons through incineration in an electricsteam generating unit. This report presents the results of the tests conducted by KEAfor IPS.

IPS has submitted a proposal to EPA to dispose of polyaromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soil through incineration of the soil in Unit No. 1 at the IPS George Nealpower station. Hydrocarbon impregnated soil and other materials will be blended with

coal and burned during normal operation of Unit No. 1 for electrical power generation.

In its proposal to EPA, IPS agreed to conduct a trial burn of the coal-waste materialmixture in accordance with a "Trial Burn Test Protocol for Incineration ofContaminated Soils at George Neal Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2."[Reference 1.] The purpose of the trial burn is to demonstrate greater than 99.99%destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of chemical constituents of the waste

material.

IPS proposed to demonstrate greater than 99.99% DRE by injecting a surrogatecompound — sulfur hexafluoride (SF&) — into the combustion zone of the furnace anddetermining the remaining concentration of SFfc in the combustion effluents. SF6 waschosen as the surrogate compound for several reasons:

1. SF6 is difficult to incinerate and thus should provide a conservativeindication of the boiler's DRE for other less thermally stable compounds.

2. SF& is less expensive than many other possible surrogates.

3. SFfc is non-toxic.

4. SF& is a gas at ambient temperature and pressure, and thus poses fewermaterials handling problems than solid or liquid surrogates.

5. SFfc can be detected in combustion effluents at concentrations as low as1 part per trillion by volume, thus permitting DREs to be estimatedaccurately using small amounts of the surrogate material and eliminating theneed to burn large amounts of other (expensive) surrogates.

A series of seven trial burn tests were conducted. Test No. 1 was a baseline testconducted to evaluate the testing protocol and to establish baseline conditions with theunit operating at full load while burning only coal. Test Nos. 2 through 4 were conductedwith the unit operating at full load while burning a coal-waste material mixture. TestsNos. 5 through 7 were conducted with the unit operating at reduced load while burning acoal-waste material mixture. DRE testing was performed during all seven trial burntests. Fuel and ash samples were collected, and participate, carbon monoxide, benzene,phenol, and pyrene emission measurements were also made during each test. Results ofthe baseline test, the three full load tests, and the three reduced load tests aresummarized in the following table.

SUMMARY OF TRIAL BURN TEST RESULTS

Baseline Full Load ReducedTest Test Load Tests

UNIT OPERATING DATAFuel Coal Coal-Waste Coal-WasteGross Load MWe 140 138 87Fuel flow 103 Ib/hr 141.4 140.3 90.4Excess oxygen % 3.1 3.3 3.4Furnace pressure in H2O 24.9 24.0 10.6

DESTRUCTION ANDREMOVAL EFFICIENCY % >99.99942 99.99963 99.99953EMISSIONS

Particulate Ib/hr 334 275 61.4Carbon monoxide ppm 86.3 57.4 94.2Benzene Ib/hr 0.0011 0.0036 0.0007Phenol Ib/hr <0.29 <0.57 <0.33Pyrene Ib/hr <0.149 <0.139 <0.077

METALS IN LEACHATEFlyash ND ND NDEconomizer ash ND ND NDBottom ash ND ND NDBottom ash water ND ND ND

ORGANICS IN ASH ND ND ND

ND - not detected

RR305555

The principal findings of the trial burn test program are summarized as follows:

1. DRE was greater than 99.999% for all tests. Thus, the principal objective of theproject, i.e., to demonstrate DREs in excess of 99.99% was achieved.

2. The average DRE for the reduced load tests (99.99953%) was virtually the same as

the average DRE for the full load tests (99.99963%). Thus, the objective of theproject to demonstrate acceptable DREs (>99.99%) over the range of unit operatingloads was accomplished.

3. The carbon monoxide and benzene emission monitoring data collected during thetests are indicative of complete combustion. Thus, these data support the observedhigh DREs.

4. Indicated emissions of phenol and pyrene during the full load tests when the unitwas burning a coal-waste mixture are similar to the indicated emissions of phenoland pyrene during the full load test when the unit was burning only coal. (Indicatedemissions of phenol during two out of three full load tests when the unit wasburning a coal-waste mixture are slightly higher than phenol emissions during thefull load test when the unit was burning only coal. Pyrene emissions during two outof three of the full load tests when the unit was burning a coal-waste mixture are

slightly lower than pyrene emissions during the full load baseline test when the unitwas burning only coal.)

5. Phenol, pyrene, and benzene were not detected in any ash or bottom ash sluicewater samples collected during the tests. This is consistent with the high DREs,low gaseous hydrocarbon emission measurements, and absence of evidence ofincomplete combustion observed during the trial burn tests.

6. Unit operating conditions, such as furnace pressure, furnace excess oxygen, and airheater temperatures during the full load tests when the unit was burning a coal-waste mixture were representative of typical operating conditions of the unit, asindicated by their similarity to operating conditions during the full load baselinetest. It is KEA's opinion that the DREs and emissions observed during the trialburn tests are representative of DREs and emissions which would be expectedduring future incineration of the waste material under similar unit operatingconditions.

&R305556

2.0 TRIAL BURN TEST METHODOLOGY

The trial burn tests were performed in substantive accordance with the "Trial Burn TestProtocol for Incineration of Contaminated Soils at George Neal Generating Station UnitNos. 1 and 2," [ref.l] as described in the following sections of this report.

Overview

A total of seven trial burn tests were performed during the period April 23 through April26, 1990. Each trial burn test consisted of a series of measurements and tests performedin accordance with the methodologies described in the following paragraphs.

The first of the seven trial burn tests was a baseline test conducted to evaluate thetesting protocol and to establish baseline conditions with the unit at full load burningonly coal. A coal-waste material mixture was burned in the unit during the last six tests.The unit was operated at approximately full load during tests 2, 3, and 4, and at reducedload during tests 5, 6, and 7.

Samples were collected, measurements were made, or data were collected for thefollowing parameters during each of the seven trial burn tests.

Unit operating parameters - data collectedCoal and coal-waste material - samples and data (e.g., feed rates) collectedAsh and bottom ash water - samples collectedEmissions - samples collected and/or measurements made

ParticulateHydrocarbons (phenol, pyrene, benzene)Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and oxygen

Destruction and removal efficiency - measurements made

Test program supervision and the collection of certain data and samples were performedby personnel of KEA. Mr. Walter Gray of KEA served as manager of the trial burn testprogram. KEA personnel recorded unit operating parameter data and monitored carbondioxide (CO2)> carbon monoxide (CO), and oxygen (Oz) emissions. Coal and coal-wastematerial samples, and ash and bottom ash water samples were collected by IPSpersonnel, who also provided data on the amount of coal (Test No. 1) and coal-wastemixture (Test Nos. 2 through 7) hoisted to the unit bunkers prior to the tests.Particulate and hydrocarbon emission samples and associated test measurements were

RR3055S7

collected by personnel of Clean Air Engineering (CAE) under subcontract to KEA.Personnel of Tracer Technologies (Tracer), also under subcontract to KEA, performedthe DRE tests.

Dates, approximate start and stop times, and approximate durations of the seven testsare shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Testing ScheduleTest Approx. Time Approx.Number Description Date(s) Start-Stop / Duration

1 Baseline - full load 4-23-90 18:03-20:20 2 hr2 Coal-waste mix - full load 4-24-90 12:11-14:37 2 hr3 Coal-waste mix - full load 4-24-90 16:41-19:08 2 hr4 Coal-waste mix - full load 4-25-90 08:55-11:08 2 hr5 Coal-waste mix - 50% load 4-25/26-90 21:40-00:03 2 hr6 Coal-waste mix - 50% load 4-26-90 01:30-04:05 2 hr7 Coal-waste mix - 50% load 4-27-90 20:37-23:05 2 hr

a/Start and stop times are for emission testing performed by CAE. DRE testing wasgenerally begun approximately 10 min after the start of the CAE emissions testing andwas ended approximately 10 min before the end of the CAE testing, for a total durationof approximately 2 hr corresponding to the duration of actual emission samplingperformed by CAE. CO/CO2/O2 emission monitoring was generally begun coincidentwith or a few minutes before the start of the CAE emissions testing and was endedcoincident with or a few minutes after the end of the CAE testing.

Descriptions of the test methodologies are presented in the following paragraphs.

Unit Operating Parameters

Unit No. 1 at the George Neal Station is equipped with three Babcock and Wilcox (B&W)cyclone furnaces, collectively rated at a steam generating capacity of 1.05 x 10& Ib/hr at1005 deg. F and 2075 psig. Each cyclone is served by a separate fuel feeder equippedwith a fuel flow rate sensor. Fuel, crushed to approximately 4 mesh, is introduced to theburner along with primary combustion air to produce a swirling, cyclonic flame.Secondary combustion air is introduced above the burner to enhance cyclonic motion inthe furnace where the flame temperature is approximately 3000 deg. F. Figure 1 is aschematic diagram of the unit. Additional description of Unit 1 is contained in ref. 1.

RR3Q5S58

A.R305559

Data on the following operating parameters of the unit were collected during each trial

burn test.

Table 2. Unit Operating Data Collected

Operating Parameter UnitsLoad

Gross MWeNet MWe

Fuel feed rateFeeder A 103 Ib/hrFeeder B . 103 Ib/hrFeeder C 103 Ib/hrTotal 103 ib/hrPercent %

TemperaturesAir heater - air in deg. FAir heater - air out deg. FAir heater - gas in deg. FAir heater - gas out deg. F

Excess oxygenRight side %Left side %

Air flow %

Furnace pressure in H O

Opacity %

Three or four readings of each of these parameters were made from the boiler controlpanel displays during each test. The readings were recorded in the program manager'sfield log for the project. A copy of this log is included as Appendix A to this report.

AR305560

Coal and Coal-Waste Material Feed Data

The blending of coal and waste material was conducted in accordance with the proceduredescribed in ref. 1. A coal-waste material mixture consisting of 1 part waste to 20 partscoal was loaded into the "A" and "C" bunkers and burned in cyclones "A" and "C" duringTest Nos. 2 through 7. Only coal was burned in the unit during baseline Test No. 1. IPSpersonnel kept records of the bunkering schedule and the amount of coal-waste mixturehoisted to the unit's bunkers during the test program.

Coal and Coal-Waste Material Sampling and Analysis

Coal samples (collected during Test No. 1) and coal-waste material samples (collectedduring Test Nos. 2 through 7) were collected from an access port located in the pipebetween the "A" and "C" bunkers and the "A" and "C" coal feeders. See Figure 2. [The"B" bunker contained only coal during the tests. The "B" cyclone was not in operationduring the reduced load tests.] Additional description of fuel sampling facilities iscontained in ref. 1.

From two to four, approximately 5-lb samples were collected from each feeder atroughly equal intervals during each test. All samples were placed in moisture-imperviousbags and labeled as to feeder and test number. All fuel sampling and sample bagging wasperformed by IPS personnel.

KEA personnel took possession of the fuel samples, along with sample-identifying chain-of-custody documentation, at the conclusion of the testing. The chain of custody sheetsare included as Appendix B to this report. Sample compositing, other samplepreparation, and sample analyses were performed by Commercial Testing andEngineering (CT&E) under contract to KEA. The four to eight field samples for eachtest were composited into a single analysis sample for that test. Each field samplecollected during a given test was represented equally by weight in the analysis samplefor that test. Instructions provided to CT&E regarding sample compositing and analysis,along with sample chain-of-custody sheets, are contained in Appendix C to this report.

All sample preparation and analysis was performed in accordance with standard methodsof the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The analyses shown inTable 3 were performed.

AB30556I

ftB305562

Table 3. Analyses Performed on Coal and Coal-Waste Samples

Short Proximate Analysis (As Received and Dry Bases)Moisture SulfurAsh Moisture and Ash-free BTUBTU

Ultimate Analysis (As Received and Dry Bases)Moisture SulfurCarbon AshHydrogen Oxygen (by diff.)Nitrogen Total

Standard MetalsSilicon dioxide Potassium oxideAluminum oxide Sodium oxideTitanium oxide Sulfur trioxideIron oxide Phosphorus pentoxideCalcium oxide Strontium oxideMagnesium oxide Barium oxideManganese oxide Undetermined (by diff.)Calculated T250

Ash Fusion TemperatureInitial deformation SofteningHemispherical Fluid

Ash and Bottom Ash Water Sampling and Analysis

Fly ash, economizer ash, bottom ash, and bottom ash sluice water samples werecollected during each test. Fly ash samples were collected through inspection/cleaningports located in the ash removal lines below the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) hoppers.Similarly, economizer ash samples were collected through inspection/cleaning portslocated in the ash removal lines below the economizer ash hoppers. See Figure 2. ESPand economizer ash hoppers were completely emptied prior to the start of each test.

During each test, four, approximately 1-lb fly ash samples were collected from each offour ESP hoppers at roughly 20-min intervals during each test, resulting in sixteen fly ashsamples per test. [Note: Because of the small amount of ash collected by the ESP

10

A8305563

ing the reduced load tests, only 8 fly ash samples were collected during Test No. 5and only 14 fly ash samples were collected during Test No. 6.]

Eight, approximately 1-lb economizer ash samples were collected during each test —four from the North-side economizer ash hopper and four from the South-sideeconomizer ash hopper.

Bottom ash is collected as slag in a water-filled tank located beneath the furnace of theunit. The slag in this tank is periodically crushed and removed pneumatically. Bottomash and bottom ash water samples were collected through an access door to the crusherchamber. See Figure 2. Additional description of ash and bottom ash water handlingsystems and sampling facilities is contained in ref.l. One bottom ash sample and onebottom ash sluice water sample\l were collected during each test.

All ash and bottom ash water samples were sealed in glass sample bottles and labeled asto sample location and test number. All sampling and sample labeling were performed byIPS personnel.

KEA personnel took possession of the ash and bottom ash water samples, along with1 sample-identifying chain-of-custody documentation, at the conclusion of the testing.The chain-of-custody sheets are included as Appendix D to this report.

Sample compositing, other sample preparation, and sample analysis were performed byTechnical Testing Laboratories — a Division of Commercial Testing and Engineering —under contract to KEA. The various numbers of fly ash and economizer ash field samplescollected during a given test were composited into one fly ash analysis sample and oneeconomizer ash analysis sample for each test. Each field sample of a particular type ofash collected during a given test was represented equally by weight in the analysissample of that type of ash for that test. Instructions provided to Technical Testingregarding sample compositing and analysis, along with sample chain-of-custody sheets,are contained in Appendix E of this report.

The ash and bottom ash water samples were analyzed for chemical constituentsaccording to the analytical methods shown in Table 4.

\J Two bottom ash water samples were collected during Test No. 2.

11

AR30556I4

Table 4. Methods Used for Analysis of Ash and Bottom Ash Water Samples

Parameter Method^Organicsb

Benzene SW8240Phenol SW8270Pyrene SW8270

Metals in EPTOX LeachateArsenic SW7060Barium SW7080Cadmium SW7130Chromium SW7190Lead SW7420Selenium SW7740Silver SW7760Mercury SW7470

a Reference: US EPA. "Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste." SW-846 (2ndEd.).

b Extraction by Method 3550 - Sonication.

Emission Sampling and Analysis

All emission sampling and DRE testing was conducted on a testing platform located atthe 235 ft elevation on the Unit 1 stack. Stack diameter at the test platform elevationis 9.5 ft. Four test ports situated at 90° to each other are located at the testingelevation. Two ports (Ports 1 and 2) were used for particulate, metals, phenol, andpyrene sampling. A third port was used for benzene sampling. The fourth port was usedfor extraction of samples for CO/CO /Oz monitoring and DRE testing. Figure 3 is adiagram of a cross section of the stack at the sampling location showing sampling pointlocations.

Particulate, metals, phenol, pyrene, and benzene sampling were performed in accordancewith the EPA methods listed in Table 5.

12 AR305565

DIAAETER • 114 IN

VOST S \s^ PORTPORT ' i::5s PORT

GAS FLOWOUT OF PAGE

CEA N'\ /^ PORT 2PORT

TRAVERSE POINT PORT TO POINT DISTANCE

1 1 11.62 105.4

3 103.54 93.85 B5.56 73.4

7 40.68 28.59 20.210 13.51 1 7.612 2.4

Figure 3. Stack Cross Section Diagram.

13 A8305566

Table 5. Emission Sampling Methods

Method 1 "Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources"Method 2 "Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate

(Type S Pitot Tube)"Method 3 "Gas Analysis for Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air and Dry

Molecular Weight"Method 4 "Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases"Method 5 "Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources"Method 12 "Determination of Inorganic Lead Emissions from Stationary Sources(Modified) (Modified for the determination of multi-metals)"Method 101A "Determination of Particulate and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from

Sewage Sludge Incinerators"SW-846 0010 "Determination of Destruction and Removal Efficiency of Semi-volatile

Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHC) from IncinerationSystems"

SW-846 0030 "Volatile Organics Sampling Train (VOST)"

The particulate and metals sampling apparatus was assembled as shown in Figure 4.Twelve points per port were sampled during particulate and metals testing. Thesampling time per point was 5 min for a total sampling time of approximately 120 minper test.

The phenol and pyrene sampling apparatus was assembled as shown in Figure 5. Twelvepoints were sampled twice in each port during phenol and pyrene sampling in Test No. 1.The sampling time was 4 min per point for a total sampling time of approximately 192min during Test 1. For Test Nos. 2 through 7, 12 points were sampled per port. Thesampling time was 7.5 min per point for a total sampling time of approximately 120 minfor Test Nos. 2 through 7.

The Volatile Organics Sampling Train (VOST) used for benzene sampling was assembledas shown in Figure 6. A single point 3 ft into the stack was sampled for 20 min duringeach test.

All aspects of field sampling; sample recovery, preservation, and labeling (includingchain-of-custody documentation); and instrument cleaning and calibration forparticulate, metals, pyrene, phenol, and benzene sampling were performed by CAEpersonnel in substantive accordance with EPA guidelines in "Quality Assurance Manualsfor Air Pollution Measurement Systems," Vol. 3, "Stationary Source Specific Methods"

14

AK305567

NOZZLE FILTER TEnPERATLFETACK \ /ALL iJe-»TEO AREAv_____

1APINGERS/5

P1TOT AANOW-TER 'S.N BY-PASS M|N . ^T *P VALVE \/AI VF x->.VALVE

1MP1NGER CONTENTS:

2. H2O2/HN033. KMnO4/H2SO44. KMnO4/H2SO45. SILICA GEL

Figure 4. EPA Method 5/12/101A Sampling Apparatus.

AE305568

fZZLE FILTER TEAP£RATl*E i ^ OF

^ ^ATEOAR£A / F.LTER K3LDER ^^T

\f(pR03£ V*6, ^ lAPlNGERS^

U \ /oaQ. fat

1 2 3 4

TEAPERATLREPiTOT /WCAETER (N BY-PASS .A1N

VALVE

Figure 5. EPA Method SW-846 Method 0010 Sampling Apparatus.

SQRSENT CARTRIOCE

EXHAUST

SILICA GEL

Figure 6. Volatile Organics Sampling Train (VOST).

ftR305S69

1]

(EPA-600/4-77-027b). All analysis of field samples was performed by or under

subcontract to CAE in accordance with the analytical methods listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Methods Used for Analysis of Emission Samples

Parameter MethodOrganics SW504QaMetals Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy

a Reference: US EPA. "Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste." SW-846(2nd Ed.).

Carbon monoxide concentrations were determined in accordance with the requirementsof EPA Method 10 - "Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from StationarySources." Carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations were determined in accordancewith the requirements of EPA Method 3A - "Determination of Oxygen and CarbonDioxide Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary sources (Instrumental AnalyzerProcedure)."

The CO/CO2/O2 sampling and monitoring system consisted of a probe, calibration valve,heated sample line, sample conditioning system (particulate filter and moisturecondenser), sample pump, Anarad Model AR50 CO analyzer, Anarad Model AR1200 Ozanalyzer, Horiba Model PIR-200 CO^ analyzer, and digital data recorder, assembled asshown in Figure 7. Data were recorded as integrated 1-min concentrations of CO (ppm@ 3% O2), and CO2 and O2, in %, over of the duration of each test.

Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) Testing

The DRE testing involved injecting a surrogate material — sulfur hexafluoride (SFfc) —into the combustion zone of the furnace and measuring the remaining SF& concentrationat the stack. Gaseous SF6 was injected at a controlled rate of 4 Ib/hr into the primarycombustion air to the "C" cyclone. See Figure 2, p. 9. The injection flow rate wascontrolled by a Porter mass flow controller. A strip chart recorder was used to recordthe controller output to provide a continuous record of the SF& injection rates.

A gas chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector was utilized formeasuring the SF& concentration at the stack. Gas samples were obtained from a ventline from the CO2/CO/O2 monitoring system. See Figure 7. A three-point calibration of

W305S70

on

CO

inM.SuO4-*

O2

OuOu•sEbed

<oEvutor-vUop£

18

AR30557I

the chromatograph system was performed at the beginning of each test day using known-concentration SF6 calibration gases, and a one-point calibration check was performedonce every two hours during testing.

The SFfc stack gas concentrations were recorded as continuous chromatograms over theduration of sampling for each test. These data were reduced to average SF6concentrations for each test. These averages were used to calculate an average DRE foreach test.

ftE305572

3.0 RESULTS

Unit Operating Data

Unit operating data collected during the baseline test are shown in Table No. 6A. Unitoperating data collected during the full load trial burn tests (Test Nos. 2 through 4), andunit operating data collected during the reduced load trial burn tests (Test Nos. 5through 7), are shown in Tables 6B and 6C, respectively. Copies of the original fieldobservations are contained in the field log for the project, which is included asAppendix A to this report.

Table 6 A. Unit Operating Data - Baseline Test

ClientStationUnit Number'at Designation

DateTeat Number

Time

Iowa Public Service CompanyGeorge NealUnitlTrial Burn - Baseline Teat

UNIT OPERATING DATA

LoadCroatNet

Fuel feed rateFeeder -AFeeder -BFeeder -CTotalPercent

Temperature*Air beater - air inAir beater - air outAir beater - gat inAir beater - gaa outAmbient

Exce*a oxygenRight tideLeft tideAverage

Air How

Furnace pressure

Barometric pressure

Opacity

MWeMWe

10*3 Ib/hr10A3 Ib/hr10*3 Ib/hr10*3 Ib/hr%

degFde(FdegFdegFdegF

*%%

%

inH2O

inHg

%

4-23-90Teat No. 1

1S:4S

140132

50.341

50.4141.773

42164733272

3.32.73

66

24.828.49

11.1

19:31

140132

50.240.950

141.173

9641964933472

3.32.83.1

66

24.828.74

11.6

20:35

139132

50.341.249.9141.473

9442565133571

3.32.93.1

66

2528.75

17

Avenge

139.7132.0

50.341.050.1141.473.0

95.0421.7649.0333.771.7

3.32.83.1

66.024.928.713.2

20 &H305573

f Ha i

U w 3

a,*

T z2221

S

1p%

8

!

S

,, ,-. p ^ « P -O 9 ®. «-- ® <=>. 9 .n «SS Sis*** 8 = S§3 •""* » * ** 2

55 sg§gs 5SS

as iSils £335* SS5*S15RS asss s§sas ass * a § 5—• ~* > co •* «o

i saaia 23iia a « 8 a a aii

s«*^«!e ct^^sp: SS^ s 5 "

i « •n s 2 fsP» P» « JfJ 00 -

gs 51555^ *98S- a a a ^ s i "„, ^^,-MPi oo in oo 2

SS 5?K?P S?3§

_ pi <4 pi

?* ' ----- SfigS S^S

«s -: « ^ S *>

»« s^ss^ sssa* ^ - - " s g s- _. -.-.-.-. r~ oo 54I «nl P>P* /» <i » « ' —

S - - - «* a- - •* * •* * "OOQ ««« - p ssesgs S^^^SS2 - 5R?S ^Sr> ^8

•g.2 ^2§^ U. U. U, H. U, 8#II m m « * SSSSS *** * as a< 22 bobi -8 •«•«•«•«. a 3----.

a ao a 1 -s I §a -a * a, & I I«§ 2 < c a u S h L h L I •> I *f i "s" " i Miiii U^M lilt s It -a I < ± 8 8 8 « 8 ff^i^^^l 5 1^1 I « 1z §oz ^i2£i2H<2 g^^^^^ g(Z,2< H §s j uu H w <_«•_

AB 3 05571*

o

eg

!H s88

*

*3S

?s*

S ' *

cat-; CTV o (?> oo r-; pi t-. f» PI p» c M ^ P i e i m o o r i_3gi ^^^S? SSSSS « n p i p i 3 ' o j 5 < j

CO *»O f<

*»O *«O CD ( ijlj J "* ^ CO CO 5 • VQ

*j _J * <s f* c*i *o c* _s o 2l 9J * ' ' 5t * * ^____* ____* ^ ( ij Jj*5 ' '' ' <o • NO•* -*• 00 - £

mo mot-;i-;3 S^S90*"^ **! **! "*. S ***. *" ^8O*° * 5°* SK?5 p i p i p i ^ o ' * > b^00 - g

o^p* -«oiot-;o> or-jpir^t-; r - ; ^ r > o o < o o > >5 S '5e;'?8'S SSSS3S p i p i p i . j d o c j

—^ o in >o m oowjt'jfes oo •* >o m >o P> t-;in >n o Jn *?S c*$ *n P> p1* o * *n"* a

5 a5000 »n wio"* 8OcoI.o.5M9 c o c o c o ^ o

•/• *o o to *»o ?s * *** ** o • vi* * * - aOPI — or^ooo m o r~ o o K i e S ' T P i o o o j OQO C*4 >»O CD *O G3 t»O K gO CO *9 t* VO CO > **Q CD VQ f**

r^cs r4OOv«--*»o ^^^SS ' O c o c o v i ' o c h ^ o" * 9 $5;* "R«a* « " " s ^ - ^*°*e in wi — * "InSa p i p i p i ^ o *

___ « "! ~~ ^ ^ 5 " iniXa'' p > m mo p o m — <n oe^vsoo^ in^in *$ — g oo

am CiS' *sSSa* P i p i p i * i ; ^esot^ov^t CJSBs — « •*.«>« en 5t ox m r-« ^8

& S S S_ _, s s 5 * S S B. B. U, U. H, g& & — « — — — — .~ - „ _ - _ - _ - ...» ._ ..3 Z s • ! ? & £ £ £ £

o b b * -9 -9 -9 -9 J

o a 1 a I

« M < « 0 g h h h f c ITil E I I I M B O U O . . 7:

' S l o S - g f i i S i S S f i3 J l£ H Ui < fc

AR305575

Coal and Coal-Waste Feed Data

Table 7 shows the number of tons of coal-waste mixture which were hoisted to the UnitNo. 1 bunkers prior to Test Nos. 2 through 7. The approximate amount of coal-wastemixture burned during each test is also shown in Table 7, based on the total fuel feedrates for all feeders, shown in Tables 6B and 6C, and 2-hr test durations. Coal-wastematerial bunkering logs are included as Appendix F to this report.

Table 7. Tons of Coal-Waste Mixture Bunkered and BurnedDuring Trial Burn Tests

TimeFuel Hoisted Test Fuel

Date Start Stop to Bunkers (T) No. Burned (T)

4-23-90 21:30 23:55 6024-24-90 08:45 11:00 677

4.24-90 12:11 14;37 Z °4-24-90 16:41 19:08 3 142

4-24-90 20:50 23:55 6254_25_90 08:55 11:08 4 139

4-25-90 11:10 15:5° 8514-25-90 18:55 20:50 465

4-25/26-90 21:40 00:03 5 91

4-26-90 01:30 04:05 & 914-26-90 08:40 13:30 1071

4-26-90 17:30 19:14 442i QQ4_26-90 20:37 23:05 7

23

&R305576

Coal and Coal-Waste Analysis Data

Results of proximate, ultimate, and ash fusion temperature analyses of coal and coal-waste mixture samples are shown in Table 8. Metals analyses of ashed coal and coal-waste samples are shown in Table 9. CT&E laboratory reports for analyses of all coaland coal-waste mixture samples are included as Appendix G to this report

24 &R305577

I£I

51(X

C<01 f I4,2

?zi*

4}

4-24-9

Tea N

D H

beSta Unit Num

i /)<Q^$*n»*>$o cT ^ *o "*> fir - « S * » * « o -g T X & °r_ n d e a W r j - 3 S 8 S S

<• M O* *M iX <X M p - ^ O * ^ * n O ^ Q O *|| n

1 = S|5 3 SXS59SX8 | §^•3 2*S;6S .j*'icici»S!'" I «

IS «• » 6 5 v i i o d 6 < * r 4

<» 2|2S5§ 2;5;-16S-3- i 11§

I. PS8

&| * = •=>.. s - ° * a I

: « »» • s 6»^^ W* •** CJ *C W M W1*1r-t io o * o g o S

06

0

I 3I

g B. B. B. B.P « t « t « K « t « k M « t « t

11I I d P S 4o 2 < 5 5 2 320xz^<6i2 ^

AR305578

1

CO0013

1C/3

Ov>•a

o\

I2 6

a 'aOT 3 r-

ient

tion

oCJ Z

f

I1

*ct^O t^-jcn o d oo o o o O -J

—• «£ oo r* —o o» eg _dt ~* °9 o o\ oh *o t"* "• h 90 ^ oo c 4 *•> to 5r^f>fn d d t^ odd d oi £iP; £

o\><pm m ~ o o c<i>e>'* t~r<m —<n>2oo •» oo — O N O O — oocntn —r^r»d t^d«n dot* 'odd d

tst~ r~-fNf tie>i m t n o o ®*o~oo <> c-4 «o 06 c5 — e?>«n«n OQs*o "^ en 0*^00 o o o o o

c oo ^ C4 *o c ^ 2 en cj? cs in O ^r** en CA ^ m m K Cw oo c en en ••• tp*. j^ o f^ «^f«) O^^in OOO OCNen ^ C1!

**O en^oq ^fooeM v6*«c4 A*n CA cf* CA CN CA CA v oo en m or-!o >oden d d < o odd d

OCM cnmo\ oot^m O^en csoo&\ in'inm oo<^o ^cnen ^int~d « « e n d d *o do'd doi £N

U

i•a H

I

£ O 3 H

ii iii Hla * ! 1 a g iis -3 a ; .3 a a-

oxi

ci

I I3f IIIill 111 II i

Und

T(25

26

AH305579

Ash and Bottom Ash Water Analysis Data

Results of the analysis of fly ash samples (Table 10), economizer ash samples (Table 11),bottom ash samples (Table 12), and bottom ash water samples (Table 13) for organics andmetals in EPTOX leachate are shown in Tables 10 through 13. Technical TestingLaboratories' laboratory analysis reports are included as Appendix H to this report.

RR305580

<U

tcd00

•gE<4_OCA

o»—1(UI

z

I ni ja^I 8 -I 31 o I £

I1 1 -1 B pU M 3 £

I *H

|I

£I

o o* Zi«

,1

w w* T -^ •_,M s z

W S|

i

WX

a a a p p p p p p a pz z z z z zp p p£ZS

g g g£ s a a s_

| g 2 @ e e e« z z z z zg g

o2 S

g g

3 M• I ' 3 -*I

I g g g g g g g g g

P P P P M P Q P P P P_| Z Z Z _ . _ ! - - _ - _

fr 5 a K e 3

i g g g g g g g g g g g3 . J» 4« 4f 2 e 5 c J e = e = c : c : ' a .j » V ^ S s f ^ t f f f j f S j» » £ f f f f f f _

2 S £ S 5 l o - : ' « « r i -• • • S o « o o o o o

lillilhl'llnllil

Iis

I

is5

.

i

28

AB30558I

"S.CQ00

CO

conomizer

£°

1

§

|

IfJ111,

8 1 1 J

S z

I«

o d¥ z* e"

^

?

? 1

4-24-90

Teat No. 2

? oZ

Dale

Ten Numbei

E* <** « 1 06o , 2 " * Z

*i g g g g g g g g g g g« i * ~ " **l g § g §§§ §§§ §§1 9 « <flii g g g g g g g g g g g| & S! 5 !_

1 g g g g g g g g g g g

£ I » 8 "* i

1 " ^ g g g g g g g g g

* a a 5 g* i1

1 g g g g g g g g g g g

5 s s a £w I

i g g g g g g g g g g gt i l l ° f ^ ? I l l ! j

M

hiiijijlllhiilihi

*

l!I h1 ^1?

I

• z

M1305582

c/>(U"B,ooW]

2•*-*oCQ'oM

£>C4

Iowa

Public Service Company

George Neal

Unit 1

->n

Trial Bum Tests

O J! D £

1

*l

<o

8 1is8 d

ft

li? iM O

es

? 1is

4-23-90

r Tect No. 1

^\ g

I

b s s

«t 11

i g g g g g g g g g g g* ii g g g g g g g g g g g£ s s a s* i "i § g g g g g g g g g g1 * 9 S S

1 P P P P P P P Q P P P£ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

£• S! S S a«t £

2,

2 g g g ggg ggg gg« I s ' p3*1 P P P Q P P P P p p P_l z z z z z z z z z z z

£ 5 X 3 3VI i ""1

2 g g g ggg ggg gg& i i i i tmm}2 S « S 8^2-. « * > « r :< o^o o o o oca

X

lilliliillihillsh

1

' "

30 HR305583

g g g g g g g g 2

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Qzzz zzz zz

a Q a Q Q 90zz zzz zz

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Qz z-z zzz z z

Q Q a gOQzzz zzz

III ggg gg

ggg gig gg

III ggg gg-. *-• »n <n r* .a d 600 o

HR30558U

Results of Emissions and DRE Testing

Results of CO/CO2/O2 monitoring, particulate testing, hydrocarbon (benzene, phenol,and pyrene) testing, and DRE testing are summarized in Table 14. Printouts ofCO/COz/Oz monitoring data are included as Appendix I to this report. A selfstanding,two-volume report prepared by CAE on the particulate and hydrocarbon testing isincluded as Appendix J to this report, and a selfstanding report prepared by TracerTechnologies on the DRE testing is included as Appendix K to this report.

3Z

AR305585

<3•M i%Q00e••=>CAD^Q•s-•8MCO I

sw•*" 1JJ•sr^

1 5-1 116 'UI «5i *3 z 1£ &-•«s ni1,2 0 3 H

1 -

Client

Station

Unit Number

Test De

signation

L_ ——— -

~~ig -•i 57-* H,:i 0ct Z**[\ft 6 1S zr< K 1

?*'

?^4 %J

?"

?*^ «H

ff*^ o1 7 z4 «i !

i1 S *"*alr S1"'

J_ ————— —

.. ——— —— ———————a -• *• § 2 8 a -<* £ «n * * 2 s 8 00

55 *"* 9 osi ?ngj

* --o S - 8S8S S2« «= | -|S\ en °

si

a 3S5 «a||as «*» °$

« C* 00 S^S*?

3 §2^ w = i =i * °o\3

w^co s s § Kp «2* ^2l2a *o>s

v O O v t l n § ^ £if, «•* « * > S s 8 * *a •* — P S8 *i 5c1 *.sc

coco-* S'OSSe*3 *-j Ss | s«s s <=>St **•$A

—— ——— • ——— ' — " ' i1 S..IVB W> *X "3 T3 "§* g.** «* | |S5}U s1 <S vi J4 Z« 1 119 t? -8 «> 25>. Sl| § , g _.|1 |U. §(• 1 1hiplHji| 5 Q o ———— - '

o g88d o

ss8 od d

en g

88d o

11d o^ CO

88d d

<*> aro en88.d o

« **88d o

i1 S1a

YDROCARBONS

Benzene

_a

> en_ '3 < *d d*v v

S8§o d*v v

8 m28d d: vV

§£d —»• uV V

>oS so r4o dv v

en

1.8o d* ..V V

«en a0 P«d 0* vV v

• —

si^b*

i— .

*88.8.0 O;£ s8 3d d*v

116 o* 1V

11d oI vV Vl

*ao. -:0 0• vy tV V

m S»• » 1gSd o• .. 1v v

« 100 0

320 0It v

—slIb fir

133

&R305586

Principal Findings

The principal findings of the trial burn test program are summarized as follows:

1. DRE was greater than 99.999% for all tests. Thus, the principal objective of theproject, i.e., to demonstrate DREs in excess of 99.99% was achieved.

Z. The average DRE for the reduced load tests (99.99953%) was virtually the same asthe average DRE for the full load tests (99.99963%). Thus, the objective of theproject to demonstrate acceptable DREs (>99.99%) over the range of unit operatingloads was accomplished.

3. The carbon monoxide and benzene emission monitoring data collected during thetests are indicative of complete combustion. Thus, these data support the observedhigh DREs.

4. Indicated emissions of phenol and pyrene during the full load tests when the unitwas burning a coal-waste mixture are similar to the indicated emissions of phenoland pyrene during the full load test when the unit was burning only coal. (Indicatedemissions of phenol during two out of three full load tests when the unit wasburning a coal-waste mixture are slightly higher than phenol emissions during thefull load test when the unit was burning only coal. Pyrene emissions during two outof three of the full load tests when the unit was burning a coal-waste mixture areslightly lower than pyrene emissions during the full load baseline test when the unitwas burning only coal.)

5. Phenol, pyrene, and benzene were not detected in any ash or bottom ash sluicewater samples collected during the tests. This is consistent with the high DREs,low gaseous hydrocarbon emission measurements, and absence of evidence ofincomplete combustion observed during the trial burn tests.

6. Unit operating conditions, such as furnace pressure, furnace excess oxygen, and airheater temperatures during the full load tests when the unit was burning a coal-waste mixture were representative of typical operating conditions of the unit, asindicated by their similarity to operating conditions during the full load baselinetest. It is KEA's opinion that the DREs and emissions observed during the trialburn tests are representative of DREs and emissions which would be expectedduring future incineration of the waste material under similar unit operatingconditions.

34

AR305587