Spray DryedBaghouse System Testing CRADA , Final Report. April 28,1992. Henry W. Pennline. U.S.Department of Energy

Transcription

1 DOE/FETC97/05 Spray DryedBaghouse System Testing CRADA 900, Final Report April,99 Henry W. Pennline c z U.S.Department of Energy Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center 66 Cochrans Mills Road Pittsburgh, PA 56 and Products and Chemicals, nc. EnvironmentaVEnergy Systems 70 Hamilton Boulevard Allentown, PA 9550 MASTER

2 DSCLAMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Available to the public from the National Technical nformation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 55 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 6; phone orders accepted at (70) This report has been reproduced directly from the best available COPY.

3 DSCLAMER Portions of this document may be illegible electronic image products. mages are produced from the best available original document.

4 DOE/FETC97/05. Spray DryedBaghouse System Testing CRADA 900, Final Report April,99 Henry W. Pennline U. S. Department of Energy Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center 66 Cochrans Mills Road Pittsburgh, PA 56 and Products and Chemicals, nc. EnvironmentaVEnergy Systems 70 Hamilton Boulevard Allentown, PA 9550 D

5 A series of seven tests were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of scrubbing both and SO, in a spray dryer/baghouse system. The operating coonditions specified were a high spray dryer inletternper?ture(500 F), and a high spray dryer outlet temperature(50 to 00 F). The data required to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of this technology is enclosed. Discussion of some of the variables as well as an itemized list of the testing information follows,.) FUELEnclosed is an analysis of the fuel oil # employed during testing..) APPROACH TO SATURATON Two wet bulb/dry bulb measurements were taken during the week of testing. Location Wet Bulb/Drv Bulb (OF) A.) Before Spray Dryer 4/46 B.) After Baghouse 6/0 Also, during recent PECT testing (week of 4/) two additional wet bulb/dry bulb measurements were made. Location Wet Bulb/Drv Bulb OF C.) Before Spray Dryer 7/5 D.) Before Spray Dryer 6/6.) ANALYZER CONVERTER EFFCENCY The /NO analyzer uses a converter(heat) to reduce to NO for the determination. The converter efficiencies determined after testing are shown below. Annubar analyzer 99.6 Spray Dryer analyzer 99.4 Baghouse analyzer 95./96. 4.)TEST DATA A package of data for each day of testing includes: A.)Daily plots of important flue gas components( SO,, NOx, and 0), temperatures, slurry flow, and baghouse AP. B.) Copies of hand data sheets, operators log entries, and calibration sheets. C.) Average values for all recorded variables for various times during each test. D.) The average values(from C) are compiled into data tables to facilitate the removal calculations as well as present a picture of the testing(steady state). The data tables consist of three

6 analyzer streams() of O,, SO,, and NO/. The SO, and NO/ measurements are corrected to the inlet 0, concentration( 0, #). There is also a column in many of the tables for either NO//, designated by Cor., which are corrected values to the average 0, for the steady state SO, removal(normaizes conditions for table ) 5.)TABLE The resulting steady state values are summarized in Table. P &

7 i MA i L STOP : 44 0!lOTES : P

8 QrJxTEs S T A T E S EUARTMENT O F ENERGY P TTTSBQRGH ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CENTER DATE L A B SEQUENCE N O. * ;059 EL O L # SCFM DATE RECEVED. ACCOUNT N O. : SUEMfTfER~ U.O DOWD/ERNCE E 69 R REPORT TG: U. O DOWD M A i L S T O P : 40 CAS RECO SULFUR... HEATNG VALUE CBTU/LBJ APPROVED BY: SHREMSHOCK..... RESULT CMOST FREE:! ! 4 a CMdA FREE.4 :

9 i s! X 7

10 J 'i! F f Y t LF 0 r g F? & c. 'r E

11 E C B E '..,

12 TABLE STEADY STATE RESULTS DATE TSDi OF TSDo OF TBO OF #lo, #SO, #l #lnox S. Flow lb/min SO, Rem. S.D. S0,Rem. System N0,Rem. System 0 / / / /. 4. NsE~.. Rem. S.D. 9 TsDi = nlet Temperature Spray Dryer TsDo= Outlet Temperature Spray Dryer TBo= Outlet Temperature Baghouse () 4. Note () Slurry Concentration for Tests #6 & #7 left blank Not known how much Sodium Thiosulfite was added to the slurry. () Seems to be a function of being reduced to not scrubbing.

13 i MARCH, 99 TEST This preliminary test was conducted to establish baseline operating conditions and also to determine removals without the presence of. The NO spiking gas flow rate was established at 70 sccm. STEADY STATE Times 0:56 :4 Annubar flow=40. scfm 0, solid sample was collected from the spray dryer solid sample system between the times of 0:0 :9. The average values for this sample period is given below: A i,a, Annubar Flow = 9. scfm Corrected Gas Concentrations ;, leakage.5. SO,

14 APRL, 99 TEST The test conditions established were approximately 00 (60 sccm NO and 0. slpm of O,),, a spray dryer exit temperature of 00 0 F, and a Ca stoichiometric ratio of.5. The slurry conc. was established at.5 for both tests # and #. STEADY STATX There was an upset with the slurry flow during test #, resulting in two steady state periods being analyzed. T!he reported removals for SO are from :0 :6. Annubar flow= 40.0 scfm Corrected conc An SO leak Cor S0 (NO / N O l N 0 leak Cor. Cor. An 4.64 ;Oz, leakage SO, Cor.

15 Time : An :5 leakage TEST so PPm 9 4 NO 97 9 Cor APRL. 99 The same conditions for Test except the spray dryer outlet temperature was lowered to 75 OF. Steady State Time :5 5:OO Annubar Flow = 9. Leakage so l Breakdown of time for NO and NO deermination. Time 4:Ol 4:5 so leakage l Cor Time 4: Time 4: : NO NO 9 a Cor. Cor :59 leakage cor Note: The divergence of 0, concentration and flow rate(annubar) is a result of water in the transmitter line. The line was cleaned before startup on 4//9.

16 TEST APRL, 99 4 The test conditions established were approximately 00 (70 sccm NO and 0. slpm 0 ), and a 00 OF temperature leaving the spray dryer. The C a stoichiometric ratio was to be increased to This test had an upset 5 (therefore a 5.O w t. slurry was used) in the slurry feed resulting in two distinct sets of operating conditions(t~=00 OF and T,= OF)... 0, Time : Time 4:05 0, T,=00 OF Time :40 0, $ Leakage Leakage 4:Ol SO, SO PPm :4 Leakage so PPm :59 SO, l Baghouse and spray dryer solid sample were taken over the period of time :7 4:5(this time period is enclosed). D

17 APRL. 99 TEST 5 The same conditions a s Test4 except temperature was lowered to 50 OF. the Steadv S t a t e T i m e 4:47 5:46 Annubar Flow = 40 s c f m , Time 4: T i m e 5:4 0, Time 5: : so PPm 5:9 Leakage :47 Leakage ; PPm C o r. SO NO lnox PPm PPm PPm spray dryer e x i t

18 APRL, 99 TEST 6 T e s t # 6 was a test employing NO a t 70 sccm(without 0, spiking gas), and a s l u r r y additive. The s l u r r y mixture prepared was a.5 w t. hydrated lime. :4 Steadv S t a t e T i m e :09 Annubar Flowr4O.O s c f m. Zag, PP= PPm f PPm PPm TEST 7 T h i s t e s t was the same as T e s t #6 above except (70 sccm NO and 0. slpm of 0, ) was injected. At the end of T e s t #7 streams # and # were switched r e s u l t i n g i n two additional data sets being compiled. Steadv S t a t e Time :05 Annubar FlowrlO. 0, Leakage :54 so :

19 NO/ Analvsis Time :05 : so PPm , Leakage so 7 0 NO PPm NO Cor NO Cor , PPm 74 cor Switched streams # and # at the vacuum pumps. O Leakage SO ,50