DuPont Washington Works Boil

Top Performer for CO

30‐day CEMS Test Data for ICR

Other Operational Operational and Coal Data

John C. deRuyter‐ DuPont

July 18, 2012
30 Day CEMS Test Period CO vs O2 at Baghouse 

WWks Boiler 5 CO vs O2

y g

708090

WWks Boiler 5 CO vs O2

y = ‐3.9492x + 52.282

R2 0 0739

30405060

CO, ppm

R2 = 0.0739

0

1020

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

O2,%

Proposed limits‐ 220 ppm 3‐hr average

34 ppm 10‐ day average

Note: O2 average for the 30‐day period at the CEMS

location was 8.52% compared to O2 in the boiler

used for O2 control average of 6.84%
30 Day CEMS Test Period CO vs Boiler Heat 

(B d St O t t)

WWks Boiler 5 COvs Heat Input (Ht In Calc from SteamOutput)

(Based on Steam Output)

60708090

y = 0.257x ‐ 21.236

R2 = 0.1756

304050

60

CO, ppm

0

1020

0 50 100 150 200 25

Heat Input, MMBtu/hr

Boiler design heat input = 181 MMBtu/hr
30 Day CEMS Test Period O2 vs Heat Inp

(B d St O t t)

WWks Boiler 5 O2 vs Heat Input (Ht In Calc fromSteamOutput)

(Based on Steam Output)

8

1012

y = ‐0.0297x + 13

R2 = 0.4944

46

8

O2,%

02

0 50 100 150 200 2

Heat Input, MMBtu/hr
30 Day CEMS Test Period THC vs CO

WWks Boiler 5 THC vs CO

y

3.54.04.51.52.02.53.0

THC, ppm

y = 0.0013x + 0.1864

R2 = 0.0035

0.00.51.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CO, ppm
30 Day CEMS Test Period CH4 vs CO

WWks Boiler 5 CH4 vs CO

y

0.50.6

WWks Boiler 5 CH4 vs CO

0.20.30.4

CH4, ppm

y = 0.0002x + 0.0237

R2 = 0.0004

0.00.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CO, ppm
30 Day CEMS Test Period Non‐CH4 HC Residue 

WWks Boiler 5 Non‐CH4 HC Residue vs CO

y

0 40.50.6

ppm

0.20.30.4

n‐CH4 HC Residue,p

y = 0.0002x + 0.0237

R2 = 0.0004

0.00.1

Non

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

CO, ppm
30 Day CEMS Test Period Formaldehyde vs 

WWks Boiler 5 HCOH vs CO

y y

1.01.21.4

WWks Boiler 5 HCOH vs CO

y = 0.0008x + 0.5007

R2 = 0.0009

0 40.60.8

HCOH, ppm

0.00.20.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

CO, ppm
DuPont Washington Works Coal Qu

and Operating Operating Data for 2009 vs CE

Test Period
2009 Daily Coal Quality Quality Summary Summary Da

Daily Coal Quality Data for Full Calendar Year 2009

Moisture, % Ash, % Volatiles, % Fixed Carbon, % HHV, Btu/lb 

Average 5.08 7.74 36.45 50.73 12,997 

Max 21 63 . 11 50 . 40 73 . 55 11 . 13 943 , 

Min 2.50 4.87 30.16 42.15 10,759 

Median 4.87 7.65 36.36 50.87 13,058 

Std Dev 1.67 1.12 1.15 1.65 384 

Daily Coal Quality Data for Boiler 5 CEMS Test Period 9/22/09 10/21/09 Daily Coal Quality Data for Boiler 5 CEMS Test Period- 9/22/09-10/21/09

Moisture, % Ash, % Volatiles, % Fixed Carbon, % HHV, Btu/lb 

Average 5.10 8.80 36.65 49.42 12,706 

Max 7.02 11.41 38.67 51.58 13,163 

Min 3.77 7.08 35.26 47.07 12,153 

M di e an 4 89 . 8 78 . 36 48 . 49 42 . 12 746 , 

Std Dev 0.85 0.97 0.90 1.13 272 
2009 Daily Coal Moisture, %

25 30‐day CEMS test1520

Moisture, 10%

5

10

0

1‐Jan 15‐Feb 1‐Apr 16‐May 30‐Jun 14‐Aug 28‐Sep 12‐N
2009 Daily Coal HHV Btu/lb

14,50015,000

2009 Daily Coal HHV, Btu/lb

30‐day CEMS tes

13,50014,00012 00012,50013,000

HHV, Btu/lb

11,000

11,500

H12,000

10,00010,500

,

1 J 15 F b 1 A 16 M 30 J 14 A 28 S 12 1‐Jan 15‐Feb 1‐Apr 16‐May 30‐Jun 14‐Aug 28‐Sep 12‐
WWk B il 5 D il A CO D il

y = 2.2

R2 

40

WWks Boiler 5 Daily Average CO vs Daily

Average Coal Moisture

30352025

CO, ppm

1015

C

05

01234567

C l M it %Coal Moisture, %
y = ‐230.1

R2 = 0

Daily Average Coal HHV vs Daily Average Coa

Moisture

R 0

13 00013,20013,40013,60012 40012,60012,80013,000

HHV, Btu/lb

11 80012,00012,20012,400

Coal

11,60011,800

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Coal Moisture, %
y = ‐0.0108

R2 = 0

40

WWks Boiler 5 Daily Average CO vs Daily

Average Coal HHV

3035402025

CO, ppm

5

1015

0

11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000 

Coal HHV, Btu/lb
Boiler 5 Daily Average Steam Generat

E l di xc u ng Data < 1⁄2 D i es gn C i apac ty

Daily Average Boiler 5 Steam Generation for

Average 126

Max 148

Daily Average Boiler 5 Steam Generation for

Full Calendar Year 2009 when Operating >1/2 

Capacity, Kpph

Max 148

Min 102

Median 110

Std Dev 63

Number of days operating Number of days operating >1/2 load 1/2 load 190 52%

Average 120

Daily Average Boiler 5 Steam Generation for 

CEMS Test Period- 9/22/09-10/21/09, Kpph

e age

Max 143

Min 111

Median 123

Std Dev 24
Conclusions‐ 1 of 4

• Slide 2‐ CO variation vs O2 at the measurement locat

appears reasonable for the operating load during the 

– Difference in O2 between boiler/furnace control point and 

location (baghouse outlet) is reasonable at 1.68% and is ind

limited casing inleakage

• Slide 3‐ CO vs heat input variation appears reasonab

test period

– Higher CO at higher heat inputs

– But no operation < ~110MMBtu/hr heat input occurred du

period, so no indication of low load CO

• Slide 4‐ O2 vs heat input is a normal trend for a spre

stoker coal fired boiler in that load range, indicating excess air with lower loads
Conclusions‐ 2 of 4

• Slides 5, 6, 7, 8‐ CEMS data for THC, CH4, Non

Conclusions 2 of 4

, , , , ,

Residue, and Formaldehyde vs CO over the 3

test period all show NO correlation of those

emissions vs CO

– No data was available with CO emission rates > 90

during that time period

• It is likely there would be some level of correlation at h

emission rates

• No other CO vs other emissions data is available for tha

– Data does not support setting a CO limit a

than 100 ppm
Conclusions‐ 3 of 4

• Slides 10, 11, 12‐ Coal quality during the 30 day test perio

l i ti i i t d HHV th h th 

Conclusions 3 of 4

lower variation in moisture and HHV than shown over the 

year for that facility

• Slide 13‐ Coal quality impacts CO emissions

– Higher moisture moisture coal correlates correlates with higher CO emissions emissions due t

for coal drying and delayed combustion

• Based on daily average data during the 30 day CEMS test period

• Slide 14‐ Higher moisture correlates with lower HHV• Slide 15‐ Lower HHV requires higher fuel input for equal st

output than with dryer, higher HHV coal

– Significant correlation of lower HHV with increased CO emissio

• Based on daily average average data during the 30 day CEMS test period

• The limited test period did not encompass the fuel variabi

facility for a one year comparison

– Longer term comparisons likely would show even more variatio– Other facilities likely exhibit even wider variability
Conclusions‐ 4 of 4

• Slide 16‐ Boiler 5 daily average steam generation rates du

30 day test period were within a very limited range

Conclusions 4 of 4

30 day test period were within a very limited range

– Analysis limited to loads over 1⁄2 load

• Days with < 1⁄2 load average were when boiler was shut down or in startup

during the day

– Boiler 5 operated 52% of 2009 days

– In addition, site steam demands at this facility do not cycle sev

as would occur on sites with mostly batch operations

• Rapid steam demand cycles would cause less optimum control a

combustion, resulting in higher CO emission rates

• Facility steam demand is not a controllable condition relative to 

• Overall‐ additional latitude/variability must be incorp

into the stoker coal fired boiler MACT CO Floor settinin order to allow for fuel and operational operational variations variations t

not occur during the very limited 30 day test period
Additional Supplemental Charts for 30‐D

CEMS Test Data

July 18, 2012
y = 0.003x 

R2 = 0.

1.4

WashWorks Boiler 5 HCOH vs Heat Input

(Heat Input Calc from SteamOut)

1.01.2

wet

0.60.8

aldehyde, ppmw

0.2

Form 0.4a

0.0

0 50 100 150 200 

Heat Input, MMBtu/hr
y = 0.000

R2 = 

4.5

WashWorks Boiler 5 THC vs Heat Input

(Heat Input Calc from Steam Out)

3.54.04.52.02.53.0

THC, ppm

0.51.01.50.0

0 50 100 150 200 

Heat Input, MMBtu/hr
y = ‐0.000

R2 = 

0 6

WashWorks Boiler 5 CH4 vs Heat Input

(Heat Input Calc from SteamOut)

0.50.60.30.4

CH4, ppm

0.10.20.0

0 50 100 150 200 

Heat Input, MMBtu/hr
y = 0.01

R2 

1.4

WashWorks Boiler 5 HCOH vs O2

1.01.2

m wet

0.60.8

maldehyde, ppm

0.20.4

Form

0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 

O2,%
y = 0.01

R2 

4 04.5

WashWorks Boiler 5 THC vs O2

3.03.54.02.02.5

THC, ppm

0.51.01.50.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 

O2,%
y = 0.0

R2 

0.6

WashWorks Boiler 5 CH4 vs O2

0.40.50 20.3

CH4, ppm

0.10.20.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 

O2,%
Conclusions from Additional Additional Cha

• No apparent apparent correlation correlation of organic organic emissions emissions 

heat input

• No apparent correlation of organic emissions 

flue gas O2/excess air conditions

• This is a very limited 30‐day data set

• Organic emission rates are very low

– Predominance of data for each pollutant < 1 ppm