Technical Paper

BR-1878

Electrostatic Precipitator Upgrade

Opportunities Through a Review of Best
Performers in Coal-fired Power Plants

Authors:
K.S. Kumar
J.A. Knapik

Babcock & Wilcox

Power Generation Group, Inc.
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.

D.S. Hartman

FirstEnergy
Akron, Ohio, U.S.A.

Presented to:
Power Plant Air Pollutant
Control MEGA Symposium

Date:
August 20-23, 2012

Location:
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Electrostatic Precipitator Upgrade Opportunities Through a
Review of Best Performers in Coal-fired Power Plants
K.S. Kumar
J.A. Knapik
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.
Barberton, Ohio, USA
Presented at: BR-1878
Power Plant Air Pollutant Control MEGA Symposium
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
August 20-23, 2012
Abstract
This paper discusses the results of stack emissions testing
conducted by several coal-fired power plants during the last
three years to determine if additional steps need to be taken
for meeting the upcoming federal regulations for particulate
matter (PM), the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) surrogate
for metals. The population of these plants is quite diverse.
The coals utilized include both Eastern bituminous (Eastern)
high sulfur and Powder River Basin (PRB) low sulfur coals.
One plant utilizes a blend of PRB and Eastern coals. Two
plants utilized wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems
for sulfur dioxide (SO2) control downstream of the dry
electrostatic precipitators (ESP). The nitrogen oxides (NOx)
control strategies on these plants include overfire air (OFA),
low NOx burners (LNB), selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR), and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems.
Two factors stand out from these test results: 1) the
continuing efforts of plant operators to maintain ESP per-
formance, and 2) the co-benefits of wet FGDs in reducing
stack filterable emissions.
Test results are compared with published reports from
past practice. It is hoped that this paper allows other plant
operators with ESPs to consider similar strategies for filter-
able particulate emission control.
Inroduction
New EPA rules for the control of mercury and air tox-
ics, also known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS), were established in 2012. The air toxics portion
of the rules includes control of hydrochloric acid (HCl) and
several trace metals. After several years of research, propos-
als, industry comments, and stakeholder reviews, EPA has
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group
D.S. Hartman
FirstEnergy
Akron, Ohio, USA
accepted the premise that filterable particulates are surro-
gates for virtually all trace metals. In the final MATS rule,
EPA determined that limiting the stack filterable particulate
emissions below 0.03 lb/MBtu based on EPA Test Method
5 should adequately safeguard public health.
The specification of filterable PM limits, instead of total
particulate matter that included the highly variable con-
densable fractions, has provided additional flexibility for
achieving compliance with existing electrostatic precipita-
tors. Fortunately, during the last fifty years, a considerable
body of literature has been generated describing research and
full-scale operating experience with ESPs. Our approach in
this paper is to draw from this literature and provide the plant
operators empirical means to assess their ESP performance.
We review the important literature on the various parameters
affecting ESP outlet emissions. This literature review aims
to help guide the discussions that follow on the interpreta-
tion of results from recent testing at several coal-fired power
plants. Areas for further research on reducing stack filterable
emissions are also identified.
Fundamentals of ash properties and
ESP corona power a review
Interrelationship between gas and ash properties
Sulfuric acid is an excellent fly ash conditioning agent.1
Adequate amounts of this acid can control the ash resistiv-
ity to manageable levels, in the optimal range of 108 to 1010
ohm cm. It is known that some Eastern high sulfur coals
with high iron content in the ash can generate elevated
levels of sulfur trioxide (SO3) in the flue gas. Depending
1
on the air heater operation, it is quite possible for these
plants to operate the ESPs at a flue gas temperature that
is below the sulfuric acid dew point. The flyash can then
become too conductive for proper control in the ESP, with
these particles being subjected to the pith ball effect, an
electrostatic phenomenon through which the particles lose
their charge at collector plates and are repulsed back into
the gas stream. The resultant electrical re-entrainment can
greatly diminish the ESP collection efficiency even if there
are no limitations to the introduction of proper corona cur-
rent density in the ESP.
On the other hand, it is also possible for the flyash in
flue gas to get insufficiently conductive.2 This has been
known to lead to premature flue gas breakdown inside the
ESP due to the incipient back corona effect. Back corona
severely limits the amount of corona current density that can
be received by a given electrically energized section of the
ESP. Low ash conductivity (or high ash resistivity) has been
found to be caused by a combination of reasons:
Inadequate amounts of free SO3 in flue gas due to the
highly alkaline nature of the flyash
Combination of insufficient amounts of SO3 in flue
gas and alternate conductive species, such as sodium
sulfate, in the flyash
Combination of high acidity in the flyash, high flue gas
temperature, and low flue gas moisture. That can result
in much of any SO3 present in the flyash to be ineffective
in its tendency to adsorb on to flyash particles, render-
ing it ineffective for providing the needed conductivity
Corona current and specific corona power
Corona current density is defined as the maximum corona
current that can be introduced by a power supply per square
foot of collecting surface of a given ESP electrical section.
The inlet fields of the ESP experience the maximum dust
concentrations, and are subjected to flue gas breakdown at
lower current density levels as compared to cleaner outlet
fields. Even in the absence of ash resistivity-induced limi-
tations, it is not unusual for the inlet field corona current
density levels to be lower by a factor of four as compared
to the outlet fields.
The relationship among corona current density (mA/1000
ft2), specific corona power (watts/acfm), and collection ef-
ficiency across an ESP has been well researched.3,4 It has
been found that when operating an ESP at ash resistivity
levels higher than 5 x 1010 to 5 x 1011 ohm cm, high ash
resistivity-related premature gas breakdown impacts begin
to be noticed. ESP corona current density starts dropping
rapidly and, depending on the size of the ESP, filterable
emissions may start to increase.
In most cold-side ESP applications, corona current den-
sity levels could vary from values as low as 5 mA/1000 ft2
for highly resistive ashes, to levels as high as 75 mA/1000
ft2 for highly conductive ashes. Operating voltages will
vary, depending on plate spacing and discharge electrode
geometry, between 40 to 75 kV, on average.
2 Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group
As an example, for an ESP operating at 40 kV average,
and at a corona current density level of 50 mA/1000 ft2, the
average corona power density would be 2.0 watts/ft2. If this
level of energization was powered in an ESP with a specific
collecting area (SCA) of 200 ft2/1000 acfm, then the specific
corona power would be 400 watts/1000 acfm. If the SCA was
twice as large, at 400 ft2/1000 acfm, then a corona current
density of 25 mA/1000 ft2 would produce the same specific
corona power of 400 watts/1000 acfm.
For a given power plant operating at a given load, and
a given ESP configuration reduced corona current density,
changes in coal chemistry, for example, can lead to much
reduced specific corona power. This lowering of corona cur-
rent density has the potential to cause an increase in stack
emissions. A given ESP operating with proper mechanical
integrity can shift from days and months of very well ener-
gized operation to sudden episodes of ESP electrical sections
operating with low corona current. While the worsening of
ESP collection can generally be seen as increased opacity, as
monitored through a continuous opacity monitor at the ESP
outlet, caution needs to be exercised. Stack opacity is not
always a good indication for increasing PM rates since it is
greatly dependent on particle size. Smaller PM tends to have
less impact on PM rate while it has a large impact on refract-
ing and attenuating the light, which is then seen as higher
opacity. Conversely, larger PM (such as re-entrainment from
hopper leakage) may not impact the opacity monitor, but it
can have a significant impact on the PM rate.
There is a wide variability in plate-to-plate spacing in
the collector electrode designs. Historically, ESP size was
reported in terms of SCA, and typically reported in the units
of square feet per 1000 acfm. It is customary in todays ESP
evaluation practice to report the ESP size in terms of total
residence time. This will avoid the misinterpretation of a
lower SCA precipitator at higher plate spacing as a smaller
size unit, even though the treatment times for both may be
identical. Engineering evaluations and research on the ap-
plication of wider plate spacing technology have revealed
that collection efficiencies of ESPs with two different plate
spacings and SCAs can be the same, as long as other param-
eters such as specific corona power are equivalent.5
Performance variability at a given specific
corona power
ESP filterable emissions can vary considerably for a given
specific corona power. This is a result of several factors:
Ash cohesivity can vary depending on the nature of
flue gas and ash constituents. It is well known that am-
monia conditioning has reduced filterable emissions
considerably, due to control of sulfuric acid concentra-
tions, and the introduction of a cohesive agent which
is a byproduct of the ammonia-sulfur compounds. Cot-
tingham specifically refers to injection of ammonia for
control of particulate re-entrainment from carbonaceous
particulates.6 Reese and Greco report on the ESP per-
formance enhancement through ammonia injection on
 high SO3-laden flue gas on Eastern coals.7 Operation
above the sulfuric acid dew point has been maintained
through sufficient mitigation of SO3 by ammonia injec-
tion. Figure 1, from Reese and Greco, illustrates the
described effects. Considerable research with novel
additives, showing similar results, has also been con-
ducted for the purposes of reducing ash resistivity and
increasing ash cohesivity.8
Fine particulate matter may vary from plant to plant
depending on fireside conditions. A significant number
of coal-fired power plants have introduced some form
of fireside management to reduce flame temperature,
and thus reduce NOx emissions. It is relevant to de-
scribe the correlation between fireside NOx emissions
and submicron particulate content as researched by
McElroy through a program funded by the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI).9 Figure 2 shows
the relationship between nitrogen oxide (NO) content
and submicron particulate concentration for coal-fired
boilers of different designs and differing flame tempera-
tures. As illustrated in Figure 2, submicron particulate
matter decreases by more than a factor of three, in di-
rect proportion to the decrease in NO emissions. Both
Hall and White3,4 have shown that, for a given specific
corona power in the ESP, filterable outlet emissions
will decrease if the inlet ESP fine particulate content
is decreased considerably.
Ash re-entrainment from ESPs can vary and affect the
filterable emissions considerably. Re-entrainment can
occur due to several factors:10
a. Poor gas flow quality in the ESP, resulting in high
local peak gas velocities. These high local velocities
in the ESP can scour the particulate from collector
plates and increase stack emissions.
b. In another example of poorly distributed gas flow,
even a small component of flue gas flow and entrained
ash directed to the hopper area can find its way to the
stack practically untreated by the ESP.
c. Excessive sparking in the outlet fields of an ESP,
mostly due to outdated power supply controls, can
Fig. 1 Control of ash re-entrainment through ammonia
injection.
Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group
cause re-entrainment of ash collected on the plates.
These controllers typically allow the precipitator
power to dwell for excessive periods in the de-ener-
gized state, before automatically ramping the power
back to the sparking voltage level. While the average
ESP power in these electrical sections would appear
normal, the ESP particulate collection can suffer from
re-entrainment due to improper automatic control of
ESP energization.
d. Excessive collector plate rapping in the outlet fields
will release the collected ash back into the flue gas
stream. Typically, these situations are created by rap-
ping an abnormally high number of collector plates
with a single rapper. When rapper intensity levels are
set too high, the ESP corona power may continue to
show good levels, while the stack filterable emissions
could still suffer due to ash re-entrainment.
Wet FGD co-benefits
The particulate control co-benefits of operating a wet
FGD system after a dry ESP has been documented by Bhat,
Johnson and Cushing through pilot-scale experiments.11
Table 1 illustrates the relatively stable total PM outlet load-
ings for a highly varying set of inlet filterable particulate
loadings. A further analysis of this pilot-scale data indicates
filterable particulate collection can reach 90% at wet FGD
ash inlet loadings in the 0.10 lb/MBtu range. Additional
Fig. 2 Flyash fine particulate content versus NO emis-
sions at several coal-fired power plants.
3
 Table 1 to be conducted at 250F on an unscrubbed unit, assuming that
Relationship Between Wet FGD Inlet and 10 ppm SO3 is present at the ESP outlet, Figure 3 indicates
Outlet Particulate Emissions at a Pilot Plant that about 8.5 ppm SO3 would have condensed as sulfuric
Total
acid aerosol. The extent of positive bias from condensed SO3
Total Inlet
Outlet
Scrubber SO3 Inlet/Oulet will depend on how much of this aerosol gets retained on the
Date Loading
Loading
Flux Tray* Concentration front half of the EPA Method 5 sampling train.
lb/MBtu
lb/MBtu
gpm/ft2 ppm** Research has shown that the extent of positive bias from
SO3 can vary, depending on the ash loading and alkalin-
2/28/92 0.0073 0.023 85 B -- ity of particulate being caught in the probe. Testing that
2/29/92 0.037 0.017 85 B -- was done to measure the accuracy of SO3 measurements
3/2/92 0.042 0.037 35 B -- revealed that as much as 40% of the sulfuric acid can be
3/3/92 0.42 0.041 35 B -- captured on the filter probe.14 This amount of positive bias
3/4/92 0.22 0.026 35 B -- can have considerable impact on the reported test results. A
3/6/92 0.15 0.03 35 B -- 40% capture rate across the filter probe would amount to 4
3/8/92 0.012 0.027 35 B -- ppm SO3. If 4 ppm SO3 is captured on the probe, positive
4/3/92 0.021 0.022 60 B -- bias on filterable particulate as a result of condensation of
4/4/92 0.13 0.022 85 B --
SO3 on the filter catch can be as high as 0.015 lb/MBtu. For
4/5/92
ashes that are more alkaline, such as that derived from PRB
0.15 0.014 60 C 9/6-7
coals or produced as a result of alkaline sorbents added for
4/6/92 0.061 0.045 60 C 24-26/18-19
SO3 mitigation on Eastern coal applications, the capture ef-
4/7/92 0.046 0.044 60 No Tray 16/11
ficiency of the condensed acid aerosol on filter probes could
4/7/92 0.046 0.049 85 No Tray 16/11
be higher than 40%.
* Tray B has 30% more open area than Tray C
It is not uncommon for ESPs operating with SO3 condi-
** SO3 injection during 4/6 to 4/7/1993 tioning to experience the effects of over-conditioning from
time to time. Process control of SO3 injection can be difficult
reference to the filterable particulate collection in the 90%
if sulfur and alkaline levels in the coal change considerably.
range across wet FGD are made by Kumar and Feldman.12
Therefore, it is possible for flue gas at the ESP outlet to be
However, it is important to understand that one should
saddled with a substantial level of free SO3 in the vapor
not expect filterable particulate collection efficiency of 90%
phase. EPA certified PM continuous emission monitors
across the wet FGD under all conditions. The mechanisms
(CEMs) operate at a filter probe temperature specified by
of particulate collection through impaction and impinge-
Method 5B (320F, plus/minus 25F). At this temperature,
ment in a wet FGD are largely influenced by particulate size
for the stated example, condensed sulfuric acid aerosol is
distribution entering the absorber. The finer the particulate
unlikely to be present at the filter probe temperature. Op-
size of flyash entering the absorber, the lower the expected
eration of the filter probe at this temperature has the most
collection efficiency. Also, stack filterable emissions after the
probability of avoiding SO3-related positive bias on the
wet FGD will be influenced by the degree of re-entrainment
filterable test results.
of scrubber-generated gypsum particulate from the mist
eliminators located at the wet FGD outlet.

Positive bias from contribution of SO3 to filter-

able portion of the probe catch
ESP filterable outlet emissions data can vary widely, even
for a seemingly consistent level of electrical energization.
However, the contribution of artifacts from measurement
emissions test methods can introduce considerable positive
bias to a true filterable emission value. Figure 3, showing
sulfuric acid dew point curves, highlights this phenom-
enon.13 EPA Test Methods 5 and 17 (other than Method 5B),
generally stipulated for unscrubbed units, require the filter
probe temperature to be at 250F, or at the stack temperature
respectively. For units operating with a wet FGD system
ahead of the stack, EPA Method 5B is typically specified.
For an ESP operating at an outlet temperature of 325F,
and with a typical concentration of 10 ppm SO3 at a flue gas
moisture level of 10 %, the sulfuric acid dew point can be
estimated from Figure 3 to be 277F. In this example, the ESP
is operating well above the acid dew point. If stack testing is Fig. 3 SO3 dewpoint curve.

4 Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group

ESP performance estimation for various coals
Kumar & Feldman estimated ESP performance curves
15
showing SCA (normalized at 9 in. plate-to-plate spacing)
versus collection efficiency. Figure 4 demonstrates the
expected performance of ESPs when faced with a variety
of different fuels. The prediction curves closely correspond
with performance estimates reported in a study by Dahlin
for EPRI.16 This early work projected that, for comparable
filterable outlet emissions, ESPs treating flue gas from the
combustion of low sodium, low sulfur western PRB fuels
would need to be more than twice as large as ESPs on plants
firing higher sulfur coals. For reasons explained earlier, the
higher resistivity of ash resulting from the firing of PRB
coals limits the corona current density in each electrical
section to a much lower level. This would result in lower
specific corona power for an ESP of similar size designed
for Eastern coals. The ESP size, therefore, would need to
be larger to achieve the necessary particulate collection, as
dictated by the specific corona power considerations.
The following sections report on the configuration of
six coal-fired power plants, as well as the associated ESP
configuration and operating data. Stack filterable emissions
from these plants are reviewed. The above discussion will
guide the review of reported information from these plants.
Power plant configurations and opera-
tion of the tested units
Table 2 shows the configuration of power plant boilers
utilized in the stack emissions review. Table 3 lists the prop-
erties of coals being utilized at these plants.
Plant 1 is an unscrubbed unit that fires a blend of PRB
coal and Eastern high sulfur Pittsburgh #8 coal. For NOx
control, this plant employs LNBs and OFA. The plant also
utilizes an SNCR as an additional NOx control. There is no
dedicated fly ash conditioning system in use at this plant.
Plants 2 and 3 fire Eastern high sulfur coal. They both
utilize open tower wet FGD for SO2 control and LNB and
SCRs for NOx control. Both plants also utilize SO3 mitiga-
tion techniques to control the increase in SO3 produced after
SCRs were installed. Plant 2 utilizes sodium-based injection
ahead of the ESPs. Plant 3 utilizes ammonia injection ahead
of the ESPs. Both these plants are equipped with PM CEMS
to monitor stack filterable emissions.
Plant 4 is an unscrubbed unit firing 100% PRB coal. SO3
injection is normally used. Considerable additional testing
was also conducted with injection of activated carbon for
mercury control, and sodium bicarbonate for HCl control
ahead of their ESPs. To prevent the adverse impact of SO3 on
activated carbon injection (ACI) effectiveness, a proprietary,
non-SO3 based alternative fly ash conditioning technique
was also evaluated.
Plant 5 utilizes 100% PRB coal, but with slightly lower
sodium content in ash as compared to Plant 4. This plant
utilizes both OFA and LNB for NOx control. Plant 5 is also
unscrubbed and does not use flyash conditioning.
Plant 6 utilizes Eastern high sulfur coals. It also employs
OFA. This plant utilizes ammonia injection to control the
increase in SO3 produced after SCRs were installed.
Table 4 shows the relevant details of each ESP. Plants 1,
3, 4 and 6 utilize the North American style ESP design,
which consists of single-piece electrodes, weighted wire
and rigid discharge electrode geometries. These designs
utilize top-mounted rappers, located outside of the flue gas
stream, to dislodge ash collected on both collecting and
discharge electrodes. Plants 2 and 5 utilize the European
style ESP design, with multiple-piece discharge electrodes
hung between electrode supports in a bed-spring manner .
Table 4 reflects the actual ESP operating information during
the testing period.
The most important parameters affecting ESP perfor-
mance are presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4. These include:

Table 2
Coal-fired Power Plant Configurations of Tested Units

Plant # 1 2 3 4 5 6

LNB, OFA, LNB, OFA,

NOx Control SCR OFA, SNCR LNB, SOFA OFA, SCR
SNCR SCR
SOx Control None Wet FGD Wet FGD None None None
Dry sorbent injection of
HCl Control None Wet FGD Wet FGD No None
SBC has been tested
Mercury Activated carbon injec-
None Wet FGD Wet FGD No None
Control tion
Opposed Wall- Opposed
Boiler Type Cyclone-fired Tangential-fired None
Fired Wall-fired
Yes, > 20 ppm injection
SO3 rate for ash conditioning.
No No No No None
Conditioning Non-SO3 conditioning
also tested.
Ammonia Yes, for SO3
Conditioning/ Yes, for SO3 mitigation Yes, for SO3 mitigation
No No No
Other SO3 mitigation following SCR following SCR addition
mitigation addition

Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group 5

 Plants 2 and 5 show operating corona current densities
of 15 to 18 mA/1000 ft2. This is at least a factor of two less
than the values reported for Plants 1, 3, 4 and 6, indicative
of process differences that could result in less conductive
ash limiting the corona current input to the ESPs. The ESP
behavior of Plant 5 can be generally explained as due to a
combination of variations in sodium content of coal, and a
relatively high operating inlet temperature. However, the
reasons for Plant 2 performing at a relatively low operating
corona current density level on Eastern high sulfur coal ap-
plication has not yet been fully researched.

ESP specific corona power versus stack filter-

Fig. 4 ESP collection efficiency versus SCA for various coals.
1) the average operating corona current density, 2) the ESP
inlet temperature, 3) the ESP residence time, 4) whether
ash conditioning or SO3 mitigation techniques have been
employed, 5) the fireside NOx control techniques, and 6)
the specific ESP corona power.
Review and analysis of ESP perfor-
mance and filterable stack testing data
ESP corona current density performance
Plants 1, 3, 4 and 6 show operating corona current den-
sities between 32 and 54 mA/1000 ft2. This is indicative
of a well energized precipitator collecting ash that is well
conditioned and properly conductive.
able emissions
Based on operating voltage and current density data on
ESPs from these six plants, and their respective SCA, ESP
specific corona power values were developed for each of
these plants, utilizing the approach discussed earlier in the
literature review section.
Figure 5 plots the stack filterable emissions data from
these plants. Figure 6 shows the long-term stack filterable
emissions performance in 2011 on Plant 2 utilizing EPA
Method 5 based certified continuous particulate monitors.
To better understand the relationship between ESP spe-
cific corona power and filterable emissions, three separate
curves are plotted and shown in Figure 5: 1) a predicted
curve based on SCA versus collection efficiency relationship
developed from research by Dahlin and Kumar and Feldman,
2) a trend line based on data from Plants 1, 4, 5 and 6 all
of which are all unscrubbed units, and 3) a trend line based
on data from Plants 2 and 3, both of which have a wet FGD
system following a dry ESP.
Observations of ESP Performance on Unscrubbed Units
Though the predicted values of filterable emissions
would be higher than 0.03 lb/MBtu in most cases based
on the Kumar-Feldman curve, for ESPs operating spe-

Table 3
Coal-fired Power Plant Operational Information on Tested Units

Plant # 1 2 3 4 5 6

PRB/Eastern Eastern Eastern

Coal Type PRB PRB Eastern Bituminous
Coal Blend Bituminous Bituminous
Coal data, as
recd, avg. Similar to Plant
10,225 12,070 8,800 8,800 Similar to Plant # 2
values, #2
Btu/lb
Ash, % 6.6 10.70 - 5.4 5.3 -
Moisture,
20 8 - 27 27 -
%
Sulfur, % 0.9 3.3 - 0.3 0.3 -
5.3
9 to 10 Lower sodium
9 to10 after installation
Ash, LOI, % 2 NA NA Moderate sodium in ash in ash (1.30%
of OFA
(1.3 to 1.7% as Na2O) as Na2O) than
plant # 4

6 Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group

 Table 4
ESP Operational Data on Tested Units
Plant 1 -- Plant 3 -- Plant 5 --
Plant 2 -- Plant 4 -- Plant 6 --
Weighted Weighted wire and Bed frame
ESP Design Rigid mast bed Weighted wire Weighted wire and
wire discharge rigid discharge discharge elec-
Arrangement frame with twisted electrodes, top discharge electrodes, rigid discharge elec-
electrodes, top trodes, bottom
wires, top rapped rapped top rapped trodes, top rapped
rapped rapped
ESP Inlet
297 319 315 315 358 295
Temp., F
Gas Velocity,
6.1 4.3 NA 6.6 5.3 NA
ft/sec
Aspect Ratio 0.83 0.6 NA 0.8 1.72 0.9
Treatment Time,
4.9 5.5 NA 3.6 14 NA
seconds
Average Corona
Current Density, 54 15.8 32 52 17.5 33
mA/1000 ft2
Stack Filterable
Emissions, 0.019 0.015 0.003 0.028 0.014 0.015
lb/MBtu
Filterable Method 5 w/certified Method 5 w/certified
Emissions Test 5 PM CEMS PM CEMS 5 5 5
Method (after wet FGD) (after wet FGD )

cific corona power densities of 350 to 400 watts/1000
acfm, all of the dry ESPs were able to operate below the
MATS filterable emissions standard of 0.03 lb/MBtu.
Among the unscrubbed units, Plant 4 shows significant
additional filterable reductions of 0.015 lb/MBtu when
the ESP was operating with an alternative, non-SO3
flyash conditioning system.
Plant 4 was able to retain the same low emission levels
with non-SO3 ash conditioning system even when acti-
vated carbon injection and sodium bicarbonate injection
testing were conducted at this plant, and without loss
of the high ESP specific corona power.
Stack filterable emissions of Plant 2 at the wet FGD
outlet following a small, two-field dry ESP operating
at specific corona power in the 150 watts/1000 acfm
range consistently showed filterable emissions below
0.02 lb/MBtu. For an ESP-only configuration, the
Kumar-Feldman curve predicts filterable emissions
in excess of 0.05 lb/MBtu for the operating specific
corona power level.
At Plant 3, the dry ESP was operating at a specific
corona power level of 320 watts/1000 acfm. The stack
filterable emissions after the wet FGD showed values
of 0.003 lb/MBtu from PM CEMS data (utilizing a
certified method based on EPA Method 5B). Based on
the Kumar-Feldman prediction, a standalone dry ESP
would perform at levels much higher than 0.03 lb/MBtu.
Interpretation of the observations on stack
filterable emissions
1. Based on the Kumar-Feldman predictions of stand-
alone dry ESP performance, stack filterable emissions
data after wet FGD systems on Plants 2 and 3 cannot
be explained without significant additional collection
occurring across the wet FGD. Though this co-benefit
phenomenon is not altogether surprising given the
cited literature, currently there is a dearth of publicly

Fig. 5 Filterable emissions versus ESP specific corona

power. Fig. 6 Stack filterable emissions in 2011 on Plant 2.

Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group 7

 available literature validating the particulate collection Summary
mechanisms that are possible across a relatively low
Test data on stack filterable emissions have shown that
pressure drop device such as an open tower wet FGD.
well operating ESPs can handle both Eastern high sulfur
2. The trend line of ESP performance on unscrubbed units
coals and PRB coals. Proper flyash conditioning seems es-
in Figure 5 indicates a consistent under-prediction by
sential for achieving this result. Additional testing will be
a value between 0.010 to 0.015 lb/MBtu as compared
necessary to determine if fireside modifications to reduce
to the Kumar-Feldman line. While this represents no
NOx could also result in reductions of fine particulate matter
more than a 15% difference for older units operating
in fly ash. Most promisingly, the stack filterable emission
at filterable emissions of 0.10 lb/MBtu, it could have
testing on stations where ESPs are followed by wet FGDs
much greater significance for plants operating near the
indicate that considerable additional particulate collection
0.03 lb/MBtu level.
can be realized. Additional research seems necessary to
3. Since most of the plants under consideration utilize
determine the mechanisms controlling this important par-
some form of fireside modification technique to reduce
ticulate control co-benefit. We urge a proper consideration of
flame temperature, would these plants also be reducing
the potentially damaging issues of particulate bias on probe
the fine particulate concentrations in flyash during the
filters resulting from condensed sulfuric acid. Proper confor-
practice of NOx reduction techniques?
mances to appropriate test methods and/or implementation
4. It seems important to consider any possible clues from
that overcome the effects of SO3 are recommended. In this
data from Plant 4 indicating a factor of two difference
regard, all SO3 mitigation techniques will tend to avoid the
in filterable emission results between ESP operation
bias that acid mist aerosols can introduce into test results.
with SO3 and non-SO3 conditioning agents.
5. To further explain the optimistic ESP performance
based on stack testing and evaluation at the six power
plants, what does the literature search teach us? Could
the positive bias from condensed SO3 be a factor in the
over-prediction by the Kumar-Feldman curve? Could
the past curves of over-prediction be directly a result of
sub-optimum control of ash re-entrainment from ESPs?
6. Could the emphasis on the ESP specific corona power
approach in this paper lead us towards further research
and innovation in the quality of applied power to ESPs
to improve filterable emissions? Opportunities for novel
application exist through techniques of pulsed energiza-
tion, high frequency power supplies, and three-phase
power supplies.

8 Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group

References 9. McElroy, M.W., Carr, R.C., Markowski, G.R., Size
Distribution of Fine Particles from Coal Combustion,
1. Krigmont, H.V., Coe, E.L., Experience with Flue Gas
Science, Vol. 215, January 1982.
Conditioning of Electrostatic Precipitators, 8th Sympo-
10. Poulsen, K.S., Lund, C.R., Reduction of Fine Particulate
sium on Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control
Emission from ESPs, 10th International Conference on
Technology, March 1990, San Diego, California.
Electrostatic Precipitation, November 2007, Sydney,
2. McCain, J.D., Effect of Temperature on ESP Perfor-
Australia.
mance, World Pollution Control Association, November
11. Bhat, P.A., Johnson, D.W., Results of Particulate and
2007, Akron, Ohio.
Gaseous Sampling from a Wet Scrubber Pilot Plant,
3. Hall, H. J., Critical Electrostatic Precipitator Technol-
10th Particulate Control Symposium, April 1993,
ogy Factors for Very Fine Particle Collection, 3rd
Washington DC.
International Conference on Electrostatic Precipitation,
12. Kumar, K.S., Feldman, P.L., Understanding the Rela-
October 1987, Padova, Italy.
tionship Between Trace Element Removal and Overall
4. White, H.J., Review of the State of Technology, In-
Particulate Control, November 1994, ICAC Forum,
ternational Conference on Electrostatic Precipitation,
Washington DC.
October 1981, Monterey, California.
13. Hardman, R.R., Stacy, E., Dismukes, K., Harrison, W.,
5. Feldman, P.L., Kumar, K.S., Engineering Study of Wide
Monroe, L., Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions
Plate Spacing, Annual Meeting of AWMA, Pittsburgh,
from Coal-Fired Power Plants, U.S. DOE Conference
June 1990.
Fate and Formation of Sulfur Trioxide in Utility Flue
6. Cottingham, C., An Analysis of the Effect of Carbon
Gas Streams, September 1998, Pittsburgh.
Levels in Ash on EP Performance, 7th Internal Confer-
14. Blythe, G., Improvements to the Controlled Conden-
ence on Electrostatic Precipitation, September 1998,
sation Method for Sulfuric Acid, EPRI-DOE-EPA
Kyongju, Korea.
Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium,
7. Reese, J.T., Greco, J., Experience with Fly-Ash Col-
Atlanta, August 1999.
lection Equipment Serving Steam-Electric Generating
15. Kumar, K.S., Feldman, P.L., Beyond NSPS: Elec-
Plants, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
trostatic Precipitator and Fabric Filter Technologies
August 1968, Volume 18, No. 8.
to Meet Future Emission Control Requirements, 9th
8. Durham, M., Bustard, J., Schlager, R., Baldrey, K., Flue
Symposium on Transfer & Utilization of Particulate
Gas Conditioning for Enhancing the Performance of
Control Technology, Williamsburg, Va., October 1991.
Older ESPs to Provide Fuel Flexibility, 8th International
16. Dahlin, R.S., DuBard, J.L., A Performance Estimation
Conference on Electrostatic Precipitation, May 2001,
Procedure for Utility Flyash Precipitators, Draft EPRI
Birmingham, Alabama.
Final Report, October 1986.

Copyright 2012 by Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.

a Babcock & Wilcox company
All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be published, translated or reproduced in any form or by any means, or incorporated
into any information retrieval system, without the written permission of the copyright holder. Permission re-
quests should be addressed to: Marketing Communications, Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.,
P.O. Box 351, Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. 44203-0351. Or, contact us from our website at www.babcock.com.

Disclaimer
Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published with the
understanding that Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc. (B&W PGG) and the authors are supplying
general information and are not attempting to render or provide engineering or professional services. Neither
B&W PGG nor any of its employees make any warranty, guarantee, or representation, whether expressed or
implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, product, process or ap-
paratus discussed in this work; and neither B&W PGG nor any of its employees shall be liable for any losses or
damages with respect to or resulting from the use of, or the inability to use, any information, product, process
or apparatus discussed in this work.

Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group 9