Salina Calcining Plant Study Engineering Report
,--------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[,
CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS
*****
SALINA CALCINING PLANT STUDY
ENGINEERING REPORT
*****
CITY COMMISSION
Jack P. Weisgerber - Mayor'
Keith G. Duckers
DanS. Geis
Karen M. Graves
William M. Usher
CITY OFFICIALS
William E. Harris - Acting City Manager
Dean L. Boyer - City Engineer
Ron G. Webster - Director of Utilities
FEBRUARY 1979
(78-123)
11L.SON
COMPANY
e.MOIM....RS
, ARCHITECTS t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - GENERAL
Introduction
Scope
Alte.rnatives
Summary of Conclusions
Economic Analysis
Specific Recommendations
Estimate of Cost
General Recommendation
Plate 1-1 - Compliance Schedule
SECTION 2 - EXISTING SYSTEM
General
Conclusions
Detailed Recommendations
Estimated Costs of Lime Used
Table 2-1 - Lime Used 1968 - 1978
Table 2-2 - Comparative Costs of Quicklime
Table 2-3 - Calculated Costs of Alternate Systems
Repair of Existing Equipment
Plate 2-1 - Existing System
SECTION 3 - PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM
General
New Construction Costs - Recommended System .
Plate 3-1 - Proposed System
Plate 3-2 - Floor Plans - New and Existing
Equipment
Plate 3-3 - Elevation and Section - New
Equipment
APPENDIX - LABORATORY REPORT
A
Page No.
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
follows 1-3
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
follows 2-7
3-1
3-2
follows 3-2
follows 3-2
follows 3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 1 - GENERAL
INTRODUCTION
The City of Salina is operating a Flash Calcining System to convert calcium
carbonate (CaC03) to calcium oxide (CaO) for reuse in the water softening
plant.
The system was built by Raymond Division of Cumbustion Engineering and
installed in 1955. Capacity is 24 tons per day and is presently operated
16 hours per day to process 9 to 10 tons each day.
The City of Salina has been cited by the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment for exceeding the State air quality requirements for emissions
and opacity and is operating under a temporary operating permit for a 45
day period to allow time to develop a plan for meeting these requirements.
The emissions which .exceeded the opacity limits have originated from the
Roto-Clone scrubber which had marginal performance since start-up.
This entire system was designed and constructed many years prior to the
formulation of air quality standards and no criteria existed at that time
for prevention of air pollution.
SCOPE
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Wilson &
Company study of the calcining operation. The report objectives include
review of production costs, preparation of a comparison of existing and new
equipment; preparation of repair estimates of existing equipment used;
estimates of installed cost. of proposed new equipment; presentation of
supporting emission test data and a proposed schedule for implementation to
the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. All costs are based on
1979 dollars escalated through 1979.
ALTERNATIVES
Three basic alternative plans have been studied in this report. The first
of these is the purchase of bulk quicklime without recalcining. The second
plan is to effect the lowest-cost repairs to the existing system to restore
it to its original capability and efficiency. The third plan, that which
is recommended, is to take advantage of advances in the technology to
improve the efficiency of the system and result in lower operating and
production costs.
In all three alternatives, economic analyses have been prepared to demon-
strate the three overall costs associated with procurement of lime, its use
and reuse, and disposal costs where these are applicable. Both annual
1-1
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
II
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
total costs and costs per ton are the lowest for the recommended system.
The repaired existing system cost is about 1/3 greater, while the cost of
the purchase of bulk lime is about twice as great as the cost for the
recommended system.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Emission tests and opacity tests clearly show the performance of the exist-
ing calcining system to be out of compliance with State requirements. The
Roto-Clone scrubber is not capable of removing a significant portion of the
particles less than 1 micron in size, which is about 25 percent of the
particles by weight. The air emissions from this scrubber are about 5
times the allowable limit, and amount to 19 pounds per hour.
General overall condition of the existing system is poor, with a resulting
high maintenance factor. We estimate that regular routine maintenance for
this system constitutes about 35 percent of the operating time for this
.system with the -operating crew, which-we consider to be excessive maintenance.
The existing furnace shows evidence of severe deterioration, with struc.
tural sagging and heat erosion both within and without the furnace. Effi_
ciency of the furnace is such that about 15 pounds of lime must be produced
to be equivalent to 11 pounds of new lime because of the failure of the
furnace to produce a 95 percent product equivalent to purchased lime.
Other portions of the system show evidence of 25 years of almost constant
use, and the entire system should be reworked and repaired to maintain
current operating capacity and a higher quality product.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Economic evaluation has been performed on three alternatives and we believe
replacing the furnace with a rotary kiln would be in the best interest of
the City of Salina. Studies have shown that the economics of the recom-
mended system provide the lowest overall cost to the Water Department.
These studies are presented in Section 2 of this report and are summarized
in Table 2-3.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Replacement of the Roto-Clone is necessary since the internals of this unit
will not remove particulate less than 1 micron in size. Such removal is
necessary to achieve compliance with regulations.
The existing furnace is operating inefficiently and is calcining the lime
only to 7S percent. We recommend removing the furnace and installing a 3'
diameter x 20' long rotary kiln. The new kiln would be expected to calcine
the lime to approximately the same quality as purchased lime. The kiln
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
would operate completely automatic with the burner modulating to maintain
kiln temperature. Turndown would be to one quarter of the 1,250 pounds per
hour capacity and the furnace would operate continuously. Continuous
operation would minimize the damage to the brick work that is now being
experienced with the 16 hour per day operation.
We would recommend replacing the pneumatic conveying system that moves the
calcined lime to storage, with a bucket elevator and screw conveyor. The
majority of the solids that enter the Roto-Clone are discharged from the
cyclone on this conveyor. Air contains .3 percent CO2, and introduction of
air at room temperature into the hot lime out of the furnace will partially
reverse the calcining process. The use of the bucket elevator and screw
conveyor would eliminate both of these problems.
During construction the calcining system would be entirely out of service,
providing a good opportunity to inspect other equipment that will be reused.
The Bird centrifuge, the cage mill and the paddle mixer should be inspected
and repaired as required. Electric motors from the exhaust fan, the centri-
fugeand .the paddle..mixer should be inspected and .bearings replaced as
required.
A proposed compliance schedule is presented in Plate 1-1. This schedule
indicates. that all work should be complete and the system operable and in
compliance by 18 February 1980. The City of Salina requests extension of
compliance until that date so that the existing system can be operated on
an intermittent basis.
ESTIMATE OF COST
Estimates of cost for the recommended system indicate that approximately
$600,000 will be required to install the necessary new and replacement
equipment and effect modifications to update the system. Since consid-
erable contingency factors exist at this time due to the limited time
available to us to develop the capital costs, and due also to difficulty in
obtaining firm price quotations without a final design, we suggest that the
City of Salina prepare to issue bonds in the amount of $700,000, if necessary.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the City of Salina authorize submission of this report
and request approval of its recommended plan to the Kansas Department of
Health and Environment. We also recommend that the City prepare to issue
$700,000 in revenue bonds or arrange other suitable financing, and that
final engineering plans, specifications and estimates be authorized as soon
as practicable so that the proposed compliance schedule can be maintained.
1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOCATION
COMPo
I I I I
6W COMPLETE ENGINEERING
12W BOND APPROVAL
IlW ORDER MAJOR E~IPMENT
SW SElECT CONTRACTOR
.
12W EQUIPMENT REMOVAL
19W CONSTRUCTION
START-UP AND TESTING 9W
19 19 16 III II 9 6 3. t 29 26 211 21 18
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NaV DEC JAN FEB
*
FILE
.SALINA CALCINING PLANT STUDY
RLJ
RPS
RPS
11LS 0 N
COM PANY
E.NOINl!.l!.ltS
AR.C""TeCTS t
SALINA
ATLANTA
ALBUQUERQUE
FEB. 1979
PUTE I-I
78-123
DATE
SALINA, KS.
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
PROJECT
CHK.
APP.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 2 - EXISTING SYSTEM
GENERAL
The existing calcining system was installed during the period 1954-1955 and
has operated since that time to produce recalcined lime. The system had an
original cost.of $264,000 and since 1967 has produced 22,187 tons (95
percent equivalent) of quicklime at an average cost of about $21.14 per
ton. The total savinga through 1978 (11 years) are calculated to be
$474,700. This does not consider the disposal cost that would be necessary
if the sludge is not calcined.
This system, although successful from all economic considerations, has not
been without difficulties. The operation has required considerable mainte-
nance expenditures, while the furnace in particular has not been without
considerable expense because of basic inefficiency in the burning process.
The system design 'criterion is co-current flow with ~he moist lime being
introduced at the point of highest furnace temperature. Drying must be
completed before calcining can take place, and as a result, calcining is
accomplished at lower temperature and is not complete.
CONCLUSIONS
The emission tests show 25 percent of the solid particles escaping into the
atmosphere are less than one micron in size. The American Air Filter
Roto-Clone scrubber is not capable of removing particles of this size. An
average of 19 pound per hour, of particulate is being discharged to the
atmosphere. Kansas Department of Health and Environment limit is 4.1
pounds per hour. The existing pneumatic conveying system that moves the
calcined lime from the furnace to storage is generating the majority of the
fines that diSCharged into the Roto-C10ne.
The calcining furnace is designed for co-current flow of lime and hot flue
gases. This furnace is not as efficient as a counter flow furnace. Repair
estimate of cost for returning the existing furnace to reliable condition
is $56,700. This includes, in addition to major brick work, the replacing
of the surge bin and gang feeders on top of furnace. Rebuilding of screw
conveyors in the floor of furnace, and replacing the screw cooling water
collection system are also included in thia estimate.
The Bird centrifuge is performing well in water removal and was last
inspected 15 years ago. Maximum cost of rebuilding to new condition would
be $30,000 and a new unit would cost $150,000. We have no indication that
thia unit is defective in any way.
The existing slurry storage tank is corroded and will require major repairs.
Estimated cost of sandblasting and lining the entire tank with fiberglass
would be $12,000.
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The double paddle mixer and the cage mill are both heavy duty pieces of
equipment and would require only routine maintenance. The motors should be
cleaned, dipped, and the bearings inspected.
The electric switch gear is being operated with the breaker doors open to
provide cooling and prevent breakers from tripping due to their environ-
ment. Maintenance cost is high on this switch gear and parts are becoming
difficult to purchase due to obsolescence. Replacement of this motor
control center with pressure-ventilated electrical enclosures and new
control equipment .is the alternative to rebuilding and replacement of
individual parts of this motor control center.
DETAILED RECOllMENDATIONS
The Roto-Clone is badly corroded and will not remove the extra fine par-
ticles. We recommend that it be replaced. This recommendation applies
whether the calcining system is repaired or replaced.
The pneumatic conveyor for moving the lime from the outlet of the furnace
to storage is a source of heavy loading on the outlet scrubber and should
be replaced with a system of bucket elevator and screw conveyor. As air
contains .3 percent CO2, the pneumatic conveyor also results in some
reversing of the calcining process. The bucket elevator and screw conveyor
would minimize this loss of reusable lime. This recommendation applies for
both repair of the system or replacement.
The high cost of renovating the existing furnace and the more efficient
operation of the rotary kiln both favor furnace replacement with the rotary
kiln. We recommend a smaller unit that could be operated continuously thus
minimizing damage to the brick work due to alternate cooling and heating
which subjects the furnace brick work to thermal stresses. Based upon 2400
tons/year of product, it is estimated that an annual savings of $29.,136
will be realized including debt service if the furnace is replaced rather
than repaired.
We.recommend the Bird centrifuge be dismantled and inspected. The maximum
cost that could be encountered would be $30,000 if all internals required
replacement.
The slurry storage tank has corroded at the water line and requires exten-
sive repairs. The tank should be sandblasted and lined with fiberglass.
The blasting and lining would cost $12,000. This item is included in both
the repair and the recommended alternative plans.
The dry conveying cyclone could be abandoned in place as this equipment
would not be needed with the bucket elevator and the screw conveyor. We
recommend that it be removed for an estimated cost of $500.
The paddle mixer shows considerable wear to the chain and sprockets. These
should be replaced and bearings and gears inspected.
2-2
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The motors on the exhaust fan, the paddle mixer, and the centrifuge have
never been inspected so they should be removed and inspected at this time.
Switch gesr has become a high maintenance item in this plant and replace-
ment would increase system reliability. Parts replacement has become a
problem due to availability. We recommend replacement with new modern
switch gear that is pressurized with filtered air to eliminate lime dust
from coating the. control and wiring.
ESTIMATED COSTS OF LIME USED
It is useful to calculate the costs of alternative lime supply systems.
The water plant consumes a fairly constant lime supply on an annual basis.
The purchase of additional lime is msde when recalcined lime is not availa-
ble because of downtime of the system. Actual usage statistics for the
water plant are presented in Table 2-1, Lime Used 1968 - 1978. In this
table all lime quantities have been reduced to a 95 percent CaO basis so
that quantities used are directly comparable. Table 2-1 shows, for example,
that in 1975 a total of 2037 tons of lime (95 percent) wss used from the
recalciner, while an additional 560 tons of 95 percent lime was purchased,
for a total consumption for the yesr of 2597 tons, all as 95 percent CaO.
In this particular year 22 percent of the lime used was purchased from
outside suppliers. The 2037 tons recalcined actually amounted to 2765 tons
of actual product at 75 percent CaO. In these studies the actual consump-
tion is estimated to be 2400 tons/year as 95 percent CaO, from whatever
source. This is equivalent to 4286 tons/year of dry softening plant sludge
before calcination.
Table 2-2 shows 11 years operating experience with the calcining plant and
compares this with costs if the lime had been purchased and the sludge land
filled.
Table 2-3 compares operating costs of the three alternative systems using
1978 prices and includes debt service.
2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1
LIME USED 1968 - 1978
Calcined Lime (95% CaO Equiv.) Commercial Lime (95% CaO)
Year Tons Lime Total Cost Cost/Ton Tons Lime Total Cost Cost/Ton
1968 1,887 $ 19,649 10.40 378 $ 8,460 22.38
1969 1,218 12,686 10.41 638 14,737 23.10
1970 1,816 28,389 15.63 618 16,454 26.38
1971 2,402 31,451 13.09 96 2,544 26.48
1972 2,332 32,164 13.79
1973 2,012 31,260 15.53 166 4,896 29.90
1974 2,510 38,319 15.27 685 23,345 34.41
1975 2,037 46,090 22.63 560 22,463 40.84
1976 2,078 67,630 32.55
1977 1,981 73,135 36.92
1978 1,912 88,189 46.12 379 20,282 53.21
2-4
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-2
COMPARATIVE COSTS OF QUICKLlME1,3
Cost if Purchased Cost of Recalcined3
Year Tons/Year Cost/Ton 2 Cost/Ton Total Cost
Total Cost
1968 2,265 $27.46 $ 62,191 $12.41 $ 28,109
1969 1,856 29.43 54,624 14.78 27,432
1970 2,434 31.34 76,287 18.42 44,843
1971 2,498 31.41 78,459 13.61 33,995
1972 2,332 33.59 78,339 13.79 32,164
1973 2,178 35.86 78,106 16.60 36,156
1974 3,195 38.58 123,248 19.30 61,664
1975 2,597 48.84 126,847 26.40 68,553
1976 2,078 55.37 115 ,065 32.55 67,630
1977 1,981 60.19 119,242 36.92 73,135
1978 2,291 63.05 144,458 47.35 108,471
25,705 $41. 12 $1,056,866 22.65 $582,152
1Costs do not include debt service for either system, and are based on
95 percent lime.
2 Cost = Purchase Cost + Lagoon Cost + Labor Cost
Total
3
These costs relate to use of existing system alloWing purchase of some
new lime. The cost of purchased lime exceeds the cost of recalcined
lime by $15.70 per ton (in 1978) using the old system with its high
maintenance and operating costs.
2-5
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-3
CALCULATED COSTS OF ALTERNATE SYSTEMS
Item1
RecolIDDended Repaired New Lime
System Existing System No Ca1cininR
$ 27,000 $ 48,000
5,025 20,100 10,000
6,525 13,000 1,500
11,000 13,900 5,0003
52,310 35,000 59,955
127,704
101,860 131,000 204,159
42.44 54.58 85.07
Cost of Fuel
Cost of Labor
Cost of Maintenance
Power Cost 2
Debt Service
New Lime
Total Annual Cost
Total Cost/Ton
1Costs based on 2,400 tons/year 95 percent lime, $1.44/MCF.
2Six percent on 20-year bonds $600,000 on recolIDDended system; $350,000 on
repaired existing system.
3Six percent on 7.4 years capital recovery of $350,000. Lagoon life reduced
to 7.4 years from 10 years by adding lime sludge.
Cost of operation and maintenance for the recolIDDended system using con-
sumption of 2,400 tons per year is $46.07 per ton using 1978 dollars and
including debt service. The savings due to greater efficiency and lower
fuel cost increase the savings to $42.63 per ton, or a total yearly savings
of $102,312. This annual savings will service a bonded indebtedness of
$1,173,500 or $573,500 greater than the estimated total capital cost of the
recolIDDended system.
It is clear that restoration of the calcining system is economically justi-
fied by the savings to be realized from continued operation as compared to
the purchase of cOlIDDercial lime. Table 2-3 also shows that installation of
the rotary kiln and other features of the recolIDDended system justify the
greater capital cost.
Both recolIDDended and repaired systems have an additional advantage economi-
cally that does not apply to the purchase of new lime. Recovery of carbon
dioxide gas was installed in the stack in 1968 which saves the purchase of
natural gas amounting to about $900 per month.
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPAIR COST OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT
a. Furnace $ 56,700
b. Roto-Clone 58,000 (new)
c. Slurry Tank 12,000
d. Centrifuge 30,000
e. Double paddle mixer 8,000
f. Cage mill 6,000
g. Electrical switch gear 18,300
h. Conveying system 27,000 (new)
i. Exhaust fan 4,000
j. Other misc. maintenance 30,000
TOTAL $350,000
Plate 2-1 is a diagram of the existing system.
2-7
'"
'"
'"
1&1
Z
0 >- ,
.... N
..J ::E
V ..,
:1 f-
III 0 .!! ...
a: ir: . ...J
a: f- 0 "-
1&1
1&1 m 0 UJ
..J
:x m a: <!l
lL <l ..J Z ..-:
III ::> ~ z ..
tl: Z V o c::::
0 v '" Go.......
::E III 1&1 UJ ::E ~ %
f- a. >- CJ ... 0 ~ ~
<( <>: .... -Uw<c
>- <>: <>: ""
f- => C> z: :.... .
0 -'I--....
f- en en I--
~I&I
<(Z
f-O
1Il..J
f-V
UJ>-
:.U
Z
<l
a:
o
--
>-
C>
=>
I--
en
I--
z:
.....
-'
"-
CJ
z:
z:
II:
III
lL
::E
<l
o
f-
Z Z
III <(
> u..
~
V
o
..J
a:
<l
<.>
-'
....
<.>
....
z:
-'
....
en
en '"
"" '"
'-'
....
z:
-'
....
en
en
"-
z <>:
0
f-
... 0:
'-'
0 :0:
-' 0
'-'
UIUI
..J..Ja:
mOUJ
::)0 X
o <l -
OQ.~
tl:
UJ
0
> :Ii .
- 0
0 ~..J 1&1
a:
>- ~~ 1.1
II: ~a: III
0 alO
..JI&I UI~ <!l
~O Z
<l 1.1 a: III
00 <l . ~
~..J ZILII&I V
a: :Ii a: 1&1
::)-U ..J
.....J1Il ..J
0
U
UI
<!lZ
<l0
~..J
IIlU
>->-
a:U
o
- .. - - - - ... --.
..
...
2
al
III III
> UI a:
..J <!l UI .
<l a: 0
> ::) UI lL2
III UI
... ::)0
~-
Z V~
III -U
<l <!l <l lLl&I
... UJ <!l Z
<!l Z <!l I&IZ
C{ <l a: III 21&1 '::EO
II: <!l ..J
0 <l a: -U -V
0 f- a: 1&1 ~<l ..J
f- <l ::)2 vZ
III ~
- f-'a: ..Ja:
<!l <l::) <l::)
<l zm V...
a::
-
<l
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 3 - PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM
GENERAL
The proposed system would consist of a new rotary kiln set up for counter
flow operation. The low temperature wet material would enter the end of
the kiln that the hot gases are leaving, and exit the opposite end where
the high temperature gases will more effectively burn the lime as there is
no moisture to evaporate.
The burned lime would be conveyed mechanically to storage, without exces-
sive exposure to air, using a new bucket elevator and screw conveyor system.
The existing slurry tank would be lined with fiberglass and the slurry
stored as at present. The slurry would flow to the existing Bird centri-
fuge with the lime going directly to the existing double paddle mixer and
the centrate flowing to the lagoon system.
Some dry unburned lime is mixed with the wet material, so drying will be
more effective in the cage mill and the line to the existing wet stage
cyclone..
The partially dried lime in the wet stage storage will then be fed into the
rotary kiln to complete drying and for burning.
The proposed system would have a maximum capacity of 1,250 pounds per hour
and would operate continuously.
Operation would be completely automatic with proper annunciation and safety
controls. Rate of processing would be approximately 800 pounds per hour
and would be capable of operation between 312 and 1,250 pounds per hour.
Fuel flow would be automatically controlled by kiln temperature and would
modulate with lime flow rate.
Normal maintenance of existing equipment should be accomplished while
calcining equipment is out of service. This would include inspection of
the centrifuge, paddle mixer, cage mill, and exhaust fan on the roof. The
motors associated with this equipment should be inspected as maintenance
records indicate the need.
Plate 3-1 is a diagram of the recommended system. Plate 3-2 shows plan
views and Plate 3-3 shows elevations of the recommended equipment installed
in the existing structure.
I
I
3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
NEW CONSTRUCTION COSTS - RECOMMENDED SYSTEM
New Rotary Kiln
Control Panel
Removal of Existing Furnace
Installation of New Kiln
New Switch Gear Installed
New Bag House
Remove Roto-Clone
Install Bag House & Duct Work
Rework Slurry Tank
Bird Centrifuge Maintenance
Other Maintenance
Exhaust fan, move & repair
Mixer
Cage mill
Misc. motor work, etc.
New Conveyor System
Conveyor
Removal of existing conveyor
Installation
Miscellaneous & Contingencies
Engineering
$140,000
50,000
30,000
40,000
$260,000
$260,000
28,000
25,000
8,000
25,000
58,000
58,000
12,000
30,000
6,000
8,000-
6,000
35,000
15,000
4,000
8,000
27,000
27,000
80,000/'
50,000
$600,000
3-2
I I
.
I '"
0 CO) ~
..... ~ <'oj
<< ."
..... ." ~ ""
- z:
." Z ,... ,
<< ..... CD '"
'" ..... ..... j:!
." w
w ... ....
>< << ..J .. ""
..... ..... ..... u -'
t:i '" ... 0 ...
:::>
.....:z: 0
z: .... :z: Z >- ~
..... '" '" z ~ "
>0 ." z: 0 .. . v
",j! -0: <<- ""
CD ..... ." 0- " "
z: Ul :l: z -
<< << _ z
..... ~ .....- ...J 0 '" v
~o ." ..... _ z.
u..... z: << '" ~~~:
"'-
0><
..... .....
"'~
>-
Q
:::>
.....
'"
.....
z:
:5
....
."
z:
CD ..... z:
." -
." :::> U
z: .... ~
..... '" <<
'" ..... U
z: <<
>< ..... z:
.....U
J ~
<<
<h
."
z:
..... '"
'" .....
- ><
>< -
.....Z
.....
." ."
z: << .....
-.....z:
....."'0
<h ~
.....U
>< ..... >-
.....~U
."
z:
-'"
..........
<hQ
-.....
>< .....
..... ....
z:
~
'"
>-
'"
<C(
.....
e>
'"
~
z:
."
z:
>-
.....
>
z:
8ffi
.....
:;E'"
..... >-
z: '"
.....
~
'"
o
.....
'"
>-
'"
Q
_..-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
z
.....
.....
'"
>-
'"
Q
...
'"
o
....
o
'"
....
l-
e.>
...
.....
C>
a:
...
t
<(
.
<h >i
'"
:z:
. e.>
-0:
z:
- (J
~
<C(
'" .,
~
z '"
C>
i= .,;
<(
e.> :&
C> C>
-' e.>
-
-
:?! N
,
~ ~ '"
~ ':I
I .; UJ
o ~ .... ,
~ .:; ~ . ~ ... .:..
I ili :;; " ...J ,l'-
~ ;;: ...
~
, ~ ~ >-- .
T -t Q Q Z
, ... ;! ~ <II .
I ~ ~ Z <II ... .
~ z 0 <( a! U ~
C ~ z to uJ uJ .
z C ~ a.
- ~ uJ ...
~z ~ " III
C C ~ ~ Z >C
~ c ~ Q :J: I ,
~ - ;!; z .J 0 Ou !
QC Z C
Z Z '" .
~ - ~ ~ -U .
~ ~ LLl<( ~
- C C Z ~W z ,
u ~ u "
C . " ,
Z z ~ . ~
... ~ z .
C
...J 0 C ~ "
, ~ ~
CL = . =1 oJ.,
Q 'Q
... l!: ~ .-
0
0
. '" ;~I
~ ~a::
0
.
~
.
~ .
--$ ~
, 0
I I
... I
'T ~
. .
, I
I
~
i
~
o
.
"
o
~
..
!l~
+-
~ =
~~L
lj=&:
z
~ ~
CL
a:
UJ .
CL
lL
:>
-
z
...
...J
lL
'"
g ~
...J
...
C) 1!:
z
....
...
'"
"'
lL
o
im 0 0
z
. ...
0 ~~ 0 ..J
0 0 lL
~
.~
"~ '" 0
.~ 0 ,
~. 0
.= ..J
~ ... .
....
0 Z
UJ
::Ii
0 '"
e <II
0 0 ~~ ...
~" .,
~~
o
------------------
-
-
~ CO) ,.,
~ I ~
~ N CO)
!:l . ~ .~ l!!
~ ..
ffi " -'
~ . ...
~ ~
Q ~ Z >-- . t
" .
~ Z II' ~ . ~
~ i:: 0 Z
4 ~ Z z 4" \) . ~
Z 4 ~ Q. Ul Ul .
- ~
~:i ~ ~ III Ul >-
~~ ~ :E z J: 1
~ . z ~
Q 4 ~ ::: ..J 0 <> U
~'" :J z "
~ ~ U 11J4 .
_ 4 ~ Q ~ Z
u ~ u Z
" 4 I>d J
" ~ Z . .
" " Q
" ~ .
~ ~
!~ ~ ~ 4
. t.. ::
f::~ . u: hi
, ~
~~ 0 0 -Q
. 0 ;~ ".
" ;;:. . ~ "
" -0 4
0 .S . ~;;l
0 ~I
0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ;
0 OU
4
0
~
~ .
!
;;
, <t
I
<t
Z ~
~ .. 0 "
o. ~
"~ I- ~
0 ;0"
" .. U
4 ..::
. ...
.
~ ~g '"
.
~ o.
.
~
8
i
~
':f
t;=
-0
(ft;
"
..
1
.
~
"
.
.
.
,
"
-
~
~
.
. <t
~l:i1
is
o~
.u
;~
~~i
" .
~~:
~~!
L
0_
~~
.~
.
:~
tic;;
~~
\.
~
=!:
8~
~~
~
~
~
. ,
:;!
~:;1~
~~8
~~~
~
~
o
.
o
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
~
d
"
.
.
o
~
.
o
"
"
.~
-.
~~
5
~
~~=
",-
;;:a
.""
.
~
~
~
.
..
Ii
i~
"
""
~"
~g
w~
"
". :: "
~~~ d ~
"
". ~ .
~-.
0" =<
. ~
. i
~
~
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
J
z
o
!;(
>
...
...J
...
o
,
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX
LABORATORY REPORT
The Laboratory Report is presented in the following sections:
Section 1 - Calcining Plant Kiln Stack Emissions Testing
A. Particulate Emissions Testing
B. Particulate Sizing
Section 2 - Chemical Analyses: Calcining Plant
Softening Sludge, Centrate and Final Product Lime
Section 3 - Static Pressure Measurements of Calcining Plant
Rotoclone and Exhauster Fan
1'::\0 WILSON LABORATORIES
~ ANALYT1CAL & FIESEAACH CHeMISTS & BIOlOCLSTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WILSON LABORATORIES
ANALYTICAL & RESEARCH CHEMISTS & BIOLOGISTS
A DIVISION OF WILSON & COMPANY. ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
528 NORTH NINTH
SALINA. KANSAS 67401
LAB: (913) 825-7186
OFFICE: (913) 827-0433
1. Calcining Plant Kiln Stack Emissions Testing:
A. Particulate Emissions Testing:
Wilson Laboratories has performed isokinetic stack sampling and particle
sizing of the emissions from the calcining kiln at the city water plant to
determine the amount and size distribution of the particulate matter.
The particulate sampling was performed on January 8-9, 1979. Testing
procedures were observed by L.C. Hinther and Peter A. Denning of the
Division of Air Engineering and Enforcement, Kansas Department of Health
and Environment.
Results of the testing indicate that the unit emits particulate matter in
amounts which are in excess of the maximum allowable emission rate of 4.1
pounds per hour. This limit is calculated from Table P-1, Regulation
28-19-20, of the Kansas Air Pollution Emission Control Regulations, and is
based on a rated process weight of 1.0 ton per hour. The average of the
measured particulate emissions for the two tests was found to be 19.1
pounds per hour.
The calculations have been performed by computer, utilizing the PDP 11/40
system of Wilson & Company. References for the equations used are the
Federal Register, Part 60, Volume 36, No. 247, Thursday, December 23, 1971,
and as amended through August 18, 1977. A summary of the test results is
shown in Table A-I. The computer calculated results follow Table A-I.
I
I
PROCESSING OPERATION EMISSIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
28-19-20 PARTICULATE EMISSION LIMITATIONS
Subject to the provisions of Regulations 28-19-9 and 28-19-11:
A. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the emission of particulate
from any processing machine, equipment, device or other articles, or
combination thereof, excluding indirect heating equipment and incinerators,
in excess of the amounts allowed in Table P-1 during anyone hour.
Table P-1
Process Weight Table
Maximum Allowable Emission Rate
Process Wei:!ht Tlate . Rate of Emission Process Weight Rate Rate of Emission
Ib Ihr tons Ihr . 1b/hr. Ib Ihr tons 1hZ" Ib/hr
0.05 , 0.551 16.000 8.00 16.5
100 ..
200 0.10 0.877 18,000 .9,00 17.9
400 0,20 1,40 20.000 10. .. 19.2
600 0.30 1.83 30.000 15. 25.2.
800 0..40 2.22 40.000 20. 30.5
1,000 0.50 .2.58 50.000 25. .35.4
1.500. 0;75 3.38 60.000 30. 41>.0
2,000 1.00 4.10 70.000 35. 41.3
2,500 1.25 4.76 80,00.0 40, 42.5
3,000 1.50 5.38 90.000 45. 43.6
3,500 1.75 5.96 100,000 50. 44.6
-
4,000 2.00 6.52 120,000 60. 46.3
5,000 2.50 7.58. .. 140.000 70. 47.8
6,000 3.00.. 8.56 160, 000 80, 49.0
7,000 3.50 9,49 200,000 100. 51.2
8,000 4.00 10.4 1,000,000 500. 69.0
9,000 4.50 11.2 2. ODD, 000 1.000. 77.6
10.000 5.00 12;0 6,000,000 3.000. 92.7
12,000 6.00 13.6
Interpolation of the data in Table P-1 for other process weights shall be accomplished
by use of the following equations: ~
Process weights ==:; 30 Ton/hr - E : (4.1) (t.67)
Process weights ::::> 30 Ton/hr - E : (55) (P .11) - 40
Where: E = rate of emissions in Ib/hr
P = process weight in Tonlhr
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE A-I
SALINA WATER TREATMENT PLANT CALCINING KILN. JANUARY 8+9. 1979
. . .
.. . I
SUMMARY OFRESULTS/'';';: Epj(:CMETHOD t-5{: PAR'rtCULATE EMISSION ANALYSIS PROGRAM.
------...---------------..-------- ....---------.---~~-----._-------~~~-- -,
q
,
__........VMST.D ._.................B.WO..........__
vm.lI"'''' MnT!,;TIIRE
'SAMPLED PROPORTION
lSCFl'
.C.P ..__...._......_.____.M.D..__...._.._........._.......Y. S..___...._........
Mm.F.C'uT.AR GAS
WffIGfiT'. ..... VEhOCITY
, .' -:.' ,'- ",;;,"',. - ,. '<:. l:1)1~::l'J~,.:::,:;:i:.:\:,;J FPSJ.:\ :.:
RUN..... NO L ..1. .........4.4 ..0bO.. .........O.L.15..0.._......_...........0.~8..4.Q.........__...__...H.J.L..______...2.6....92....._.
.n;: ... ...: _.<.......Ek_.._...
i PERCENT
I .::,"'"
!:; . .. _.- -, --:::,<~.-
..TSAR...
S.TAc.K
TEMP..:;
. .Cftli.
...... ...1.. .....C5.4. CS2..
P E;.RCKr!I_J:JJ1!CE~..IRA:rl.Q!!I.-CQNCF.N'l'RATT01L--
'. T~OKLNETIC GR",SCF" LB/Hlt
RUN .NO. .1.....__._6.6~...._..__63.2._._....___.1.Q.<\...2... . ._..........0...618... ......1.8..53............
_-AWL NO. ,
381 _
634.
llQ.l
0....6.9 5
1 q 6L....
.:" ::-.:',,:::f
~~,,-:,<,,',:,f~-:::/ '
-,,- "'"t"t..,::
\..,;,....,:., ....
-'F'::' .
I
I
I
_I
I
1.-----
1------
-1----
-1- ____d
-,------
I
I
I
1________
I - - . ---------
I
I -------
I
I
SALINA WATER TREATM~NT PLANT CAtCINING KILN. JANUARY R+9. 1979
RUN NUMBER
1
---------------~-----
IiPRES
STATP
___ _.__ __ _ n
VIC
Viol
______A!;;
- 29.02 I~. HG
=-0.0070 IN.HG
=__H 0 M.H1~
= 166.8 ML.
_ 43.844CU.FT.
= 3--1-4L-SIhF'I'.
....... = 1.13 IN.H20 ..__...c02.__.:;.... 1.7. PC"f.
TM = 504.0 (R) 01._=.17~0 .PCT.
InA~'- =____0...30_9_IN .___CO_.~_.1.7._0_ PCT..
loiN =1789.3& MG. N2 = 8t.3 PCT.
MNI = 0.00 MG. CP = 0.840
._ .___1:RAVERSE-PQ~NT
VELOCl T.L..TRAVERSE_.DATA_____________..
VELOC1TL..H&/tD s.a--.B!lO~S_TAC1LTEMP.-<-EJ______u_u___
1 B . . O. 100 0.31 & 1 80.0.
'-R'O' '::""O_~"t2a,.: . 0"..3_4-&..:' ~.1.15.~O~~~__..__
.__3IL.._____._____0..160_______ .0.400__ ____ _ _.175.0_.__________..
46_..___.. .._.....____ __._0.15.0._..... ....._0.387__.._ .....175.0___
.5R 0...t90 0.416 1J5...lL.
&B . 0.180.0.424 175.0
71i 0.155 ';;/.0.394 175.0
8R O_.l..&.o' ")';.\.:--O~400:.. .0 '115~0
96 0 ..2.50 __.__.__..._._____._0 .50..0..___._ ____160 .0__:_.
lOB ..0.225_ __________ 0._474._______165..0
J IR 0..2.45 0..4.9"1.&5.0
128. 0.225 0.474 . 170.0
136 0.240' 0.49~ 175.~
1.4R 0.250 ....O~00180.0
15B .__________. 0.260._.....____......_..0.51.0. __ ____._ 175.0.. _ _ _____
.166...________________0.250____.____ .0.500...... ..._._ __.__ _175.0
IA 0.il0 __0.374 17_0.0
~~..;C;::. g:~~g; g:~~g gg:~
. . 4 A 0:.2.6.0' 0...51 0 '..1.7.0_~0
. .h_.n SA...__ _______._0 . 23.0._._..._.___ ._____ 0 . 480.__..__..__._ 1 7. 0 .0.___
6A ..________0.230___.._.__.._.______.0..4.8.0.______.170.0__. ____.__
JA 0.2.20 0~4.69. 170..0
8A '.0.200 0.447 175.0
9A 0~200 0.447 175.0
AVERAGE.
0.4S0
&32.1 (R)
- ._ 'U _ __ I
I
I
I
1-.
I
.J
I
I
I.
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SALTNA WATER TREATM~:NT PI,ANT CAI.CINJN(; KILN. JANUARY 8+9. 1979
._..._-_._.._._--------~.- .---' ..--., _.."~. .,--.--- ,-- _. ....-.---..
RUN NUMAER 1
-------------.-------
..RESUL1'S. OF_CAl.CULATlONS. ..... ..._____._.___.._
VMSTD_= . 44. 660--!:U .FT 0-- _ VW~=_7..85 L OI...l':T. _. ___6WO.._=__0.1 50
F:A = 65.6 peT. MD = 33.71 MS = 31.36
--- ._._-----------
VS_._. = 26. 92_... ~:T/SEC. _._OS.=.209.719. ... DSCF/HR.
I = 104.2 PERCENT
.
__.____________EMISSION.BATES_._ ____.__.________ _____.____ .._ _. _
-.-........--.----.-.-.--.-.--.-..-..-...-. . "-"- . ,..-
EROHT_HAL.E._C_UCH-_____ __________ ___.__ .____
CSl = 8.835E-05 LB/SCF
-.. ---'-.'-' ---
CS2 = 18.528____.IJ~/HIL_______._ ___________
_ . _.._____.__._.__.... ___~.__.~_u_ _".__.._..._._~____._
CS~__=___ .J>". 6.18 G.!USCF
--" ..,- .---
.
-----. --_..- _.__._._-~_.._.----
1
. -~..,
-.--.---
. .
-----------..-----.--------. ._--~--_..._--_._--
~PRES = 28.97 IN. HG . H: 1.14 1~.H20
STATP =-0.0070 IN. HG TM = 505.0 (R)
_ O.H~_.. 24L3_.MIN.______....DlAN.. ~._.O. 30.L.HI.~__.
VIe = 91.2 ML. MN = 657.41 MG.
VM : 14.390 CU.YT. MNI: 0.00 MG.
_ . _AS..__;:;~ 3 ..L4 LSQ J:'l'-
I
I
I
I
I
I _..H._
II .00- -..
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SA1,INA wATJ,;Il T1U:ATMJ,;NT PI.ANT CAI,CINING K1LN. JANUARY 11+9. 1979
..- --'----------- .-----.-- ----,---*._- --'.- ----'-.-------.. ---_.
RUN NUMBER
2
---------.-----------
C02: 1.7 PCT.;
02 : 17.0 PCT.
CU_._: ...O.OPCT.
N2 : 8t.3 PCT.
CP : 0.840
.IRA VERSE ..20LN'I'
... VI'.:LOC 1 TY.TRAVERS~: DATAHH..
V.f:LUC" T'rv IiEAD-_SQ __ROOl'_.S1'.ACK.... TEMP.~lF.L_:'" .
tA
?A
3A.
4A
5.A
6A
7A
__..___8A-
9A
lOA
. _. _... llA.
12A
....:..,.....0..1'00 0.3t& 160..0
o~ I~O 0.36L~..:.....-__._1.60.JL_..._ .._. __
...............0.170 .HO.412 160.0..
.0.200 HO.447 180.0
.OL22.0 0.46.9... _~1I0..JL.____.._.___
0.~20 0.469 180.0
0.~10 0.458. t80.0
. .O.2.1Jl 0:0A.5.8: .1.80 ..D.
....0.200....____0..447_._.. ... .180..0
o . 190 ... ____. ._... O. 43 (L........ .... ...... 1 8 0 . 0.. ....H.
0.2.0.0 O..HJ _.L75.0-___.__..
0.200 0.447 180.0
A.VERAGF.
.,
.0..43L
__ 6J4..3_Utl.
.'-.'... ,.-.,.
.." .--."'
.1
II
II
I -
1-
-1---
-I --
-I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SALINA WATER TR~ATM~NT PLANT CALCINING KILN. JANUARY 8+9. 1979
RUN NUMtlER 2
---------------------
___ RlSULTS_ OF" _.CALCULATIONS .
VMSTD _=___ 14.604 -ClJ_F"T.-----vwC- =-- 4. 29LCU .FT_
. HWU_ _= _ 0.22.7__
F:A
380.9 PCT.
MD = 28.95
!-IS = 2&.46
=
VS
=. 28..14....... f.T/SEC....
US._=_1_98184._DSCF/HR~_____._ _. ___
I = 110.1 PERCENT
. .
_ ..___..__._.__~MlSS.l0N _RA'l"ES.._
_ __ __ ___EBONL_HAL_F _CAT-ell
CSl _= 9.926E-05
LBISCF
CS2 =
19.67.1..
LB/HR
.',.. .. ...~.. ............ ..._.... .....__.. ......_.._......,. ..._.n ....__.._._..._..... __ __.'" '...._._, ~ _..._._ ._.
.CS4_ :;._Q.~-'i5__GJ!LSC_L______________ ________ ___0
._------~_.- --_. -- '~.--'--'
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. Particulate Sizing:
Particulate sizing is performed utilizing an Andersen sampler which is
placed in the gas stream inside the stack. The sampler contains nine jet
plates each having a pattern of preCision-drilled orifices. The nine
plates, separated by 2.5 millimeter stainless steel spacers, divide the
sample into eight fractions or particle size ranges. The jets on each
plate are arranged in concentric circles which are offset on each suc-
ceeding plate. The size of the orifices is the same on a given plate, but
is smaller for each succeeding downstream plate. Therefore, as the sample
is drawn through the sampler at a constant flow rate, the jets of air
flowing through any particular plate-direct the particulates toward the
collection area on the downstream plate directly below the circles of jets
on the plate above. Since the jet diameters decrease. from plate to plate,
the velocities increase such that whenever the velocity imparted to a
particle is sufficiently great, its inertia will overcome the aerodynamic
drag of the turning airstream and the particle will be impacted on the
collection surface. Otherwise, the particle remains in the airstream and
proceeds to the next plate. Because the particle deposit areas are
directly below the jets, seven of the plates act as both a jet stage and a
collection plate. Thus, No. 0 plate is only a jet stage and No. 8 is only
a collection plate.
To determine the concentration of particulates for any specific size or
size range the percentage of total particles for each stage are calculated
first. Then the cumulative percentage is determined beginning with Col-
lector Plate No.1.
The cumulative percentage determined is plotted against the corrected
aerodynamic diameter of the particles corresponding to the same stage.
From the graph the particle concentration for any size range can be deter-
mined. Following in Tables B-1 and B-2, and Figures B-1 and B-2, data from
the two runs are shown. Approximately 10 percent of the particles are
below 0.24 microns; 98 percent of the particles are below 6.33 microns.
1'::\0 WILSON LABORA:. TORIES
~ ANALYTICAL & RESEARCH oe.asrs & BO.OOSTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE B-1
CALCINER PARTICULATE EMISSIONS SIZING, RUN I
Particulate
Cumulative % of Effective
Plate Particulate % Total Particles Smaller than Cutoff
No. Collected, mg Particulate Corresponding ECD Diameter, 1.1
1 1.51 2.02 97.98 6.33
2 1".45 1.94 96.04 3.95
3 5.93 7.95 88.09 2.67
4 10.85 14.55 73.54 1.97
5 16.23 21. 78 51. 76 1.16
6 19.40 26.02 25.74 0.59
7 9.22 12.36 13.38 0.36
8 1.95 2.62 10.76 0.24
Back Up
Filter 2.28 3.06}-
Impinger 5.74 7.70 <0.24
TOTAL 74.56 100.00
TABLE B-2
CALCINER PARTICULATE EMISSIONS SIZING, RUN II
Particulate
Cumulative % of Effective
Plate Particulate % Total Particles Smaller than Cutoff
No. Collected, mg Particulate Corresponding ECD Diameter, 1.1
-
1 2.47 3.18 96.82 6.33
2 2.52 3.25 93.57 3.95
3 4.86 6.26 87.31 2.67
4 10.28 13.25 74.06 1.97
5 19.65 25.32 48.74 1.16
6 19.62 25.28 23.46 0.59
7 7.98 10.28 13.18 0.36
8 2.41 3.11 10.07 0.24
Back Up
Filter 5.08 6.55}
Impinger 2.74 3.52 <0.24
TOTAL 77 .61 100.00
Flow rate: 0.78 cfm
Stack temperature: 1450 F
Calcium Oxide (Lime) density:
3
3.32 g/cm
~o WILSON LABORATORIES
~ ANAI..'fIlCAL & RESEARCH CHEMISTS & 8lOl.OCISTS
----- --- ---
I
il FIGURE B-1
$! a> \Xl ..... <D '" ., '" .N ~
I I , ~ \Xl ~ <D ., "'. N -
i g:
_::r- ~
l-
I -t'.-
a>
ai
a>
'"
I ~
I ~- . g:
~ fll
I z
.,..
..,
g '" ~
co
I \Q
..
I,
I I -, -
I ...
...
I .... 0
f .....
~
<n 16
I .... III
$:
~
I : :tt
~
~ .
w.
"~
I u, !<l
> '.
.) ~. >
8 ;
-'0 :j-
,.0 .J-
I <" => 0
"
>. => -
~. . ~ 1--
." , , u
:t~ ' .I
=-
.. ....
=.
I O'
.a
" z:
W =-
""
i: '"
I - -
,.
'"
I d
N
d
I d
"'
0
l- ei
, -
I -j 3131'l (5
0
a> <Xl ..... <D "' .. '" '" ~
$! ,-" ," ..... .0 "' .. '0 N - c:i 00 c:i c:i 0 c:i c:i c:i
I
- . - -
/1 FIGURE B-2
0 '" ., .... "' "' .. '" N ~
~ '" co .... <0 on ., '" N
1;\ '"
~ I '"
I 0 11 g:
0 r
J: :.. '"
I - :: ",:--F:" "-, '"
'"
-, r .,
L.. s:
I . t-t-. .-.L
.. . _ - -4-. - s:
~
I -'CII:"
"'31
N ...
::E
<CC
I '" Cll!!
~ ...
IX) .....
<D ~
I 'OJ' ""~
, ,.. <CC
'""
Z'
_. <CCi
I . !. """
...
"'0
=-....
.....
I .~ ~
- , en
"'5l
I u
. i
...
<CC
"" ~
I Cl
~:
-'. l'l
~. - " >
I "J
8 to-
'..Jd :j. .
NU 0
x. ~
I ;e :::>
u
=.
i~ "'
~a ....
I u ..
20
~ N
:It:
~
I '"
.;
I ..
d
~
.,;
"'
I 0
0
,
StiO~:>IN 0
,; . 0
I "I ' ' "' .. M N
I I ! ; '0'\ CO .... "'
'" .,; ~ 000 .
0 ., .... "' .. '" N Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~..
The size cuts for each stage of the Andersen Stack Sampler have been
carefully calibrated. The calibrations are referenced to unit density (1
g/cc), spherical particles so that the aerodynamically equivalent sized
particles collected on each stage are always identical for any given flow
rate. For this reason, a stack sample containing a mixture of shapes and
densities is fractionated and collected according to its aerodynamic
characteristics and is aerodynamically equivalent in size to the unit
density spheres collected on each specific stage during calibration.
Figure B-3 is a plot of D' versus flow rate through the Stack Sampler at
700 F. D' is the effecti~e aerodynamic diameter of a spherical unit
density pRrticle. The efficiency of collection for polydisperse material
as encountered under actual stack sampling conditions for any given effec-
tive cutoff diameter (ECD) is 95 plus percent.
Figure B-4 shows the correction factor for determining the physical dia-
meter of spherical particles having other than unit density.
Figure B-5 is a correction curve for stack ,temperature.
The density correction is valid only if the assumption is made that the
particles are spherical in shape. This assumption was made in calculating
the particulate sizes collected by the Andersen collector. This will give
somewhat conservative numbers for design of the collection equipment. The
effective aerodynamic diameter as determined from Figure B-3 is multiplied
by the correction factor from Figure B-4 to determine the physical diameter
for that density.
Figure B-5 shows the correction factor for determining the effective aero-
dynamic particle diameter for elevated temperatures. The effective aero-
dymanic diameter as determined from Figure B-3 is also multiplied by the
correction factor from Figure B-5 to determine the diameter for that
temperature.
.f::\o WILSON LABORATORIES I
~ ANALYTICAl. & RESEARCH oe.<<sTS & BIOl.OGISTS
/1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
l!l " '"
~ or -
o
o .. : ~ ",-' ~~ ".- --. t::-.; P;.1::;: -::i~
: ..:: :;;- ..:- ~:: i:-:~ -" .:~ ? :: ':-- '1':.. .-' .~;~~ ~.:; - - -. _:~~. -'. ':... ~:;:: ':'-:-:- ~ ~::= IQ
0.. _" - .. ':' ,':.'1'::" !+c.'. ,c,::; :T.+C~;-': :: ~ ;,-t::., h -, 0
.. " .~.::: ~ ... p _ ,_, .. .'..__ :_:~. w~. .:. ;;-..~. -. :.: n
o
- ,,,' .:':.:- ," ... '.' ..,_ ',tif"~ -..,,:-,-"-~. _, ," :: . -I"
... ". ~: .:. . .. .. ,-. ~. .....:-- "=--....-- - ~:.: .;:::~ --:.. '~..:'.
FIGURE B-3
~~o CD ,... 0
gl ,..t, t. j
001 CD ... 0
~ 00 ci ci
'"
o
'"
..
..
N
;-i: ".
1:-':.
:.:- ;.":'.~t._...z.." '
~,
~ ~
Ii
Ii h_ '::' ; '" '"
o
~
; '" .'
5l
E- ..' __.5~
o
'"
l'l
~
j
.._ ~u l -: .._.:..:.. ~i- .._ ...:!.-
_.. ..__ ~ t--. ~'.. _..
, .....; ~....: _.:~. ~~: .!~ .....:. _:
...
:i
rii
c
~
.
"2
<(
-i
:l
o
~
.s:
-
S
.
II:
J
o
Ii:
-
:l
.
is
>
~
s
.
e
..
is
.!!
~
...
"8
~..
~~.
.I~
o
,.;
~;
;,,:',: ',I
'. -.
,',
o
,,;
n._,_,
:~:1 ~rt
..4_. ._.
o
'"'
~:;:
.:~ ,:':t~~ " 3'
~~:-.:c 0;" " : ..
o
..;
: ---.
o
N .. ".
,.
,
::!
: .,.
.,":.?':~~-... ..
,.;::~, -
;';'..1.' .... :r:,--
.. ..
o
h :.:~ .. ..
j -+"
"t" ..
"'1..=- _._ :-:
::. .. ::. '- ::.-:
N
o
-- - ;,: :.
~:."!..... .
:~-_. ......
; .. .-
i--.; ..
,c
..~
I'" " ....-
i ~_. ..'.l ~ _., ....
-. ';"'; '''.'~ ,I
!..;.~.,. ~ '
-: "":"-: .- -.-
.. 1--' _,d '.-
f.:-~ .-'- ',-
.....;_.....
'I, ,--
_ il
Os: GI co ,...
o GI co ,... 10
.; Q"O d d
'"
o
'"
..
..
N
..
- wp '811\:1 MOI:l
.
o
..
o
N
o
~-
_.=-"
.- - "1-~~
,ci
Q
':ic'.,~_,
,:, "'"" ~~~ ~,.: ~
.- .,. :':::".' ='--... ...~~ M
.. -= ; ==--,. ::''':=,:-::: 0
-~ .'
.~: .;.~ :: ~=..;- .=~ ~: ~ N
_ _: ..,:' __ ':,.; .:',~,_-::- 0
..~ - -- ~.. 7"'--'.
_I.. __"_!""
- ':: . =~:..,:,~-=:.:..::
.. ..':' ~';.,~ ';7:=
~ . ~
.
o
_0
o
"
o
..
ci
/1.
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
t.
I
I
u.
.~ 1,0
i 0.9
a 0.9
0.7
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
'I
I
I
FIGURE B-4
. Oe,nsity Correction F actor for Physical Size of
Particles Captured in Andenen Stack Sampler
10
9
8
7
"- . '"' :.::.' F;: , .~ : q..'i-.~i , : iE::~ ;~: c -.F! ,. , c . "': .
: .. .. -. ... , .. . . ..
.. .. ~...- =~ ._~. .. ;'j ~;.;~ .. , .. " ... : : : -,
.. :1". , .. : : : .
; - .. 0- ." .... ..- ..
--...-.-,- .. .:~" .. , :~~ ... : .....-. :::::. ;;E.::::
/1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.2
i _
c ..
>'l1
"gE
: ell
l;'i
:..
oc
u
':1
'; c
ll.-
t:'"
8~
..s.
a.:!
:!ll
!.'ll
E'"
~l
-
o
..
N
ill
II
I I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"':1:..::' _
'",;1~7- :."'-.r:.
'O'.1=:'
..~_"1.:":''':":
,....... u
."
:
FIGURE 8-5
'-;;!"'r:.:.: '..;..-rL~ ..__ _.:'.;.::-t %::.~"':: .__.=:.~:~. ~'''';''L;~_ _.
::i~t~t-:;~ ..-r.: .. ??'-7.i '.~,~::_~ ~~ _~~ _ __4 : -. .
~.~~::~ :.;.:;-~... ....-~:-- _.;=:~--:..: ~:-.-t"~',: .;" -;.-1: ==:--:- :': ..
r'
. ,
:c'
. l._:
.,
;
.
:".:r"
~ ~-:-= --
_". _ 4 .. ...
-.. L;:. ~
;-:!--
- I ~_.;..
,
_ _.n~.' ,_
.
'. ~ -I __."
'.
- - .".
." ..
.
..
----I'--- .-
.. .........
.
.. .-
.
.
i..
.~m
,; I......
,
I .:--
..:i?':'i.;
_ u _~ 1 '':.
! - - -i
, .
.-
.~
',' ,::
.
.~_. -
- ~:: ~ .~~ ~
-. ,--
:
. . ~
...-0. .~
.
"-
.........
I--..
:
.........
'-.:,..
......,;..::
~..
.
"
.
.
:
n _. ~
,
. -
~ ... .--..
.....--
-- _.---_.
--
- ::;:::
=--.....:- =::':-',
_.- .
....- - _... ~ ~ --.....-
::. ' ... '-=:t:"~ _ ..: ~-_'r-. - 00..
1-.- ..
. ..
u:
....
--1--. . ~ ._-
,
-- -~ -.--.-,-
o
.
...-
li!
.
~
- J01:)I:I ua!~a:l
.
:'
-. ~
.....;..-_.
.," .C
"-
'"
.
- .
-..-
." ..
-.
o I'
""H
..
.
..
'.
I.
..
:.
-- ...
-- \---.-
. \'
'\
"
':':::..=
" :, .,
:
--
\
\
!
-.
.
..
~
..
~
~
~
t
~
~ Jt
.;
~ a
..
i
E
t!
...
II
en
~
~
~
g
g
o
,..
i
Ii:
~
~
o
..
o
0-;:'-
~~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
2. Chemical Analysis of Calciner Raw Material, Cent rate and Finished
Product:
The calcining process is a three-step procedure which is outlined below:
CARSOR -DIOXIDE GAS
(C02) TO ATMOSPHERE
4
smLlRO GAS'R CEMTR I FUOE I88O"F
SETTlED SOFTERIMD SEPARATIOR OF CALC '"ER
SLUDGE, CaCDS LIOUID AKG SOLIDS KILR
BY CERTRlFUGATlOR
SmLED SDLIO
SLURRY, CAKE.
S~ CaCDS CaCOS
SOLI OS
WATER DYERFLOW
(RECOVEREO)
CERTRATE (LIOUID)
REJECTED TO LAOOOll
FIRISHED PRODUCT
LIME (CaO)
The chemical thermodynamic properties of this process are presented on
Figure B-6.
Samples of water softening sludge, centrifuge discharge liquid (centrate)
and the finished calcined product were collected at the Salina Water Plant
during the time period that the calcining kiln was being tested for particu-
late emissions.
Chemical analysis of these samples shows the distribution of the trace
metals and the calcium compounds across the system.
The trace metals, iron, magnesium, silicon and aluminum, in the raw material
are concentrated in the centrate by a factor of four. This material is
rejected to the sludge lagoons. The solid calcium carbonate cake remaining
after centrifuging is thus purified to a considerable extent by the centri-
fuging process. Some calcium is lost in the centrate, but the major por-
tion of it remains as solid calcium carbonate which is the material that is
calcined (heated) to regenerate the lime.
1'::\0 WILSON LABORATORIES
~ ANALYTlCAL & RESEARCH CHEMISTS & SIOl..OOlSTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
17QO
1800
.. 1500
..
.;
~
;: 1110O
oC
~
~
~
!
~ 13llO
..
;:
~
'"
..
1 ZOO
1100
1000
~~I
~ ..t
~
..
=
..
! .1
~
..
~
g a
~
...
..
"
.; -I
~
I CALCINAT!a. CURVE I
........- -
c:r LI BERATED EaUILIB ~
TH S AREA LIHE
,,/ ..-
/'
/ ~ AISORBEIl
I TlIIS AREA
I
c.co,=c.o . Cll1
!
0.
a.lIO
0..60
I.Zll
0..80.
1.00
o..Zll
PARTIAL PRESSURE aF ca2' ATM.
.z
..
I'l.OT o.F EOUILJ8RIUII CaHSTAHT
VI.
ApsaLUTE TEl4l'ERA RE
L.08.XII ~ ...1.0
c.co3=c.a . co./
KP. Pc.o'~
I PC.COs
x
0-
I. X
-a
800 1000 1200 IlIOO 1 SOO 1800 ZOOO
AlSaLUTE TEMPERATURE "m.VIH
220.0.
THERMODYNAMIC PROPERTIES FOR CALCINATION
SALINA CALCINING
PROJECT STUDY
WILSON
t CO,""PAHY
I !NO'NaUlS I
. t, AllC14I1'a<;TS
LOCATION . SAL I NA, KS.
eM. R PS
CHI.
APP.
FlU
78-123
OAT!
FEB. 1979
FIGURE B-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water Softening Sludge Centrate
Lab No. 7901-52 7901-53
Parameter
pH 10.8 at 210 C 10.65 at 25 oC
Total Suspended Solids 36.8'%, 1.6'%,
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l 667 554
!lli!& Percent mg/KR Percent
Iron 520 0.052 2,200 0.22
Magnesium 22,400 2.24 76,000 7.6
Silicon 8,500 0.85 35,000 3.5
Aluminum 2,700 0.27 11,500 1.1
Calcium 456,000 45.6 234,000 23.4
The above metal concentrations have units of mg/Kg of total suspended
solids in the sample.
One gram of the finished product was heated in a muffle furnace at 9000 C
for two hours to determine the percentages of calcium and trace metal
oxides and calcium carbonate. At high temperatures the carbonate compound
decomposes to the oxide according to the following equation:
CaC03 ! CaO + CO2
The results are as follows:
Parameter
CaO + trace metal oxides
CaC03
Percent by WeiRht
70
30
The composition of the finished product can now be calculated.
Concentrations of trace metals are based on one kilogram of lime produced.
Parameter
Finished Product
Lime
1;30
19,200
7,030
2,130
Iron, mg/Kg of lime
Magnesium, mg/Kg of lime
Silicon, mg/Kg of lime
Aluminum, mg/Kg of lime
Finished Product Lime Composition.
Parameter
Percent by WeiRht
Calcium Oxide (Lime) CaO
Calcium Carbonate CaC03
Iron Oxide, Fe20
Magnesium OXide,~gO
Silicon Dioxide, Si02
Aluminum Oxide, Al203
64.9
30
<0.1
3.2
1.5
0.4
1'::\0 WILSON LABORATORIES
~ ANALYTICAL, FESEARCH 0€MlST'S & BlOt.OCilSTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.
Static Pressure Measurements:
Static Pressure,
inches of water
Air Temperature,
OF
Date/Time
Rotoclone Unit
Inlet 6.2 to 9.0 195
Outlet 0.45 to 0.47 155 15 Jan 79/10:30 a.m.
Exhauster Fan
Inlet -2.5 to -4.4 No Measurement
Outlet 7.1 to 9.7 No Measurement 19 Jan 79/3:00 p.m.
Exhauster Fan Motor Speed: 1,780 rpm
Exhauster Fan Drive Shaft: 1,375 rpm
~o WILSON LABORATORIES
~ ANALYTICAl. & RESfAACH CHEMISTS & BIOlOGISTS