United States EPA-600/7-81-083
Environmental Protection
Agency April 1981
Research and
Development
EPA Industrial Boiler
FGD Survey--1979
Prepared for
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Regional Offices 1 - 10
Prepared by
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic/
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide'range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-81-083
April 1981
DCN 81-203-001-13-16
SPECIAL REPORT
EPA INDUSTRIAL BOILER FGD SURVEY - 1979
by
Jay R. Hoover
RADIAN CORPORATION
8501 Mo-Pac Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78759
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3171, Task 13
Project Officer: J. David Mobley
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
t!.f!. Emr-iroriental Protection Agency
"v-xn 5, Lil-ary (5PL-16)
>^JG ;*, Seaborn Scvoet, Loom 1670
Cliicaao, IL SC6C4
-------
ABSTRACT
This Special Report presents the results of a project sponsored by
EPA's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory to survey vendors and
operators of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems applied to industrial
boilers for the 1979 calendar year. It was found that 123 FGD units were
operated throughout 1979. Sodium systems (once through) accounted for 102
of these units and 74 of these sodium systems were applied to small oil-
fired steam generators in the California oil fields. The second most
prevalent FGD process was the dual alkali system typically used on large
coal-fired boilers located primarily in Illinois and Ohio. In addition,
there were 98 planned industrial boiler FGD units, most of which are once
through sodium systems applied to oil field steam generators. The perfor-
mance data (SOz removal) for once through sodium units is high, with all
reporting systems achieving greater than 95 percent removal. The lime/
limestone units achieved 85 to 92 percent S02 removal, with the dual alkali
units averaging greater than 90 percent 862 removal. Reported reliability
for FGD units at seven sites averaged about 95 percent with sodium systems
generally achieving greater than and lime/limestone systems less than
95 percent.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ii
1. Introduction 1
2. Results 3
2.1 Applications ' 3
2.2 Performance and Reliability 11
Appendix A Detailed Data Summaries 16
Appendix B Process Descriptions and Flow Diagrams 24
iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Growth in number and installed capacity of
industrial boiler FGD units, 1972-1979 4
B-l Sodium scrubbing FGD system 26
B-2 Dual alkali FGD system 28
B-3 Lime or limestone FGD system 31
B-4 Spray drying FGD system 33
TABLES
Number Page
1 FGD System Applications to Industrial Boiler 5
2 FGD System Applications by Industry and State 7
3 Fuel/Capacity Breakdown for Existing FGD Units 9
4 Summary of Waste Disposal Practices by System Type 10
5 FGD System Vendors 12
6 Reported Performance Data for Existing FGD Units 13
7 Reported Reliability Data for Existing FGD Units 14
A-l Units Operating Throughout 1979 17
A-2 Units Planned, Under Construction, or Started Up
in 1979 20
A-3 Units that Terminated Operation or Changed Status
in 1979 23
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of this project, sponsored by EPA's Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
are to: 1) survey vendors and operators of industrial boiler flue gas de-
sulfurization (FGD) systems concerning performance and design data, and
2) evaluate and report the collected data for both operating and planned
units. The information presented for each plant site includes 1) company
name and location, 2) number of boilers and FGD units, 3) boiler fuel type
and sulfur content, 4) FGD unit type, capacity and startup date, 5) FGD
unit waste disposal practices, and 6) performance characteristics such as
S02 removal capability and reliability. This report summarizes the results
of the survey for the 1979 calendar year. The status of FGD units in
operation throughout 1979 is reported and the FGD units that were purchased,
under construction, started up, or terminated during the year are described.
A series of quarterly reports on industrial boiler FGD systems was
previously compiled for EPA by PEDCo Environmental, Inc. The last report
published in that series was EPA-600/7-79-067b, April 1979. That series of
reports has been replaced by a series of Special Reports which will present
recent information in abbreviated form. These reports, prepared by Radian
Corporation, will be updated annually. It should be noted that information
regarding utility boiler FGD systems is presented in a separate report series
(Reference EPA-600/7-80-029).
To obtain the information contained in this report, vendors and
operators of FGD systems were contacted. Vendors were asked to provide
lists of new units which were started up or under construction in 1979.
Operators of new facilities as well as operators of previously identified
-------
units (whose names were provided by EPA) were also contacted. Information
requested for both operating and planned units included: 1) location and
status; 2) actual or projected startup date; 3) number of boilers and FGD
units; 4) FGD system type and capacity; 5) type of boiler fuel and sulfur
content; and 6) design SOa removal capability. In addition, actual
performance data for SC-2 removal efficiency and system reliability were
requested for the operating units.
Thirty-eight out of fifty-nine companies (64 percent) contacted
responded to the survey. For those companies not responding to the current
survey, information presented in earlier surveys or in the open literature
is reported where appropriate.
EPA actively solicits updated information on the implementation and
performance of industrial boiler FGD systems. Information for inclusion
in future reports should be sent to Jay R. Hoover, Radian Corporation,
Post Office Box 9948, Austin, Texas 78766, or J. David Mobley, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, MD-61, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
-------
SECTION 2
RESULTS
This section presents the results of the industrial boiler FGD survey.
The trends in application of FGD technology to industrial boilers are dis-
cussed in Section 2.1 while performance data (SC>2 removal efficiency and
reliability) for operating units are presented in Section 2.2. All of the
information collected during the survey is tabulated in Appendix A. The
data for existing industrial boiler FGD units operating throughout 1979
are summarized in Table A-l. Table A-2 presents information on units
planned, under construction, or started up in 1979, while Table A-3 sum-
marizes information for units that terminated operation or changed status
in 1979*. Appendix B provides brief process descriptions and flow diagrams
for the more prevalent FGD processes, i.e., sodium scrubbing (once through),
dual alkali, lime/limestone, and spray drying.
2.1 APPLICATIONS
This survey identified that there were 123 industrial boiler FGD units
that operated throughout 1979. In addition, 98 were either planned, under
construction, or started up in 1979. Figure 1 illustrates the growth in the
number and installed capacity of industrial boiler FGD units for the period
1972 through 1979. This figure shows that the average installed capacity
per unit has increased significantly over this period. Several very large
units (>100,000 scfm) installed on coal-fired boilers during 1977-1978
contributed to this trend. The breakdown between the different types of
FGD processes applied to industrial boilers is presented in Table 1. This
table shows that most of the existing and planned FGD applications to
industrial boilers are once through sodium systems. The second most
-'Compared to the listing in EPA-600/7-79-067b. This publication reported
FCD unit status in the first quarter of 1979.
3
-------
-X
H
H
O
H
CO
W
>
H
O
6000
I
w 5000
o
o
o
4000
p 3000
2000
1000
I
1
J_
200*
H
Pi
w
w
100
72 73 74
75 76 77
YEAR
78 79
Figure 1. Growth in number and installed capacity of
Industrial Boiler FGD Units, 1972-1979.
^Includes only those units that were operating throughout
1979. Does not include units that were shut down prior
to 1979.
-------
TABLE 1. FGD SYSTEM APPLICATIONS TO INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
System Type
Sodium Scrubbing
(once through)
Dual Alkali
Lime /Limes tone
Spray Drying
Ammonia
Sulf-X
Undecided
Existing* Units
102
17
2
-
2
-
-
TOTALS 123
«
Planned**Units
81
10
1
2
1
1
2
98
* Operating throughout 1979.
**Planned, under construction, or started up in 1979.
-------
prevalent type of FGD system used on industrial boilers is the dual alkali
process.
The use of FGD systems in industrial applications is not as widespread
as Table 1 implies. Table 2 shows that most of the industrial boiler FGD
applications are concentrated in a few industrial groups. For example, of
the 123 existing FGD units identified, 74 are installed on steam generators
used in California for thermally-enhanced oil recovery operations.* Sixty-
seven of these are located at three oil field sites. Over 95 percent of
these oil field applications are once through sodium units. The liquid waste
from these sodium scrubbers is generally disposed of in evaporation ponds or
by well injection. For many applications outside of the oil fields, the
liquid waste will require more extensive treatment prior to disposal. There-
fore, process complexity and cost may increase significantly and it is
expected that once through sodium systems will not find the same widespread
use in other applications.
For non-oil field applications, General Motors and Caterpillar Tractor
are leaders in demonstrating FGD technology for coal-fired industrial boilers,
while the pulp and paper industry has experimented with using waste alkaline
streams to achieve SOa removal in scrubbers designed primarily for particu-
late removal. Experience with industrial boiler FGD technology is lacking in
most other industrial sectors as there are only 17 operational FGD units out-
side of the industry groups discussed above. Table 2 also shows the states
that contain most of the industrial boiler FGD systems. Seven states have
over 90 percent of the existing units. California has the largest number due
to stringent environmental standards and the thermally-enhanced oil recovery
operations. Illinois has the second largest number of units and Ohio ranks
third. This is due in part to the high sulfur coal reserves in these states
and the efforts of General Motors and Caterpillar Tractor to utilize this
coal in an environmentally acceptable manner. Other states have less than
five units each and many have no systems at all.
*Steam is injected into producing zones to facilitate heavy oil production.
Lease crude is fired in small steam generators and scrubbers are required
for SOa control from new facilities.
-------
TABLE 2. FGD SYSTEM APPLICATIONS BY INDUSTRY AND STATE
Number of Units
Industrial Groups
Oil Companies
TEOR Applications***
General Motors
Caterpillar Tractor
Pulp/Paper
Chemical Companies
Other
Existing*
74
14
12
6
7
10
123
Planned**
80
-
5
4
4
5
98
Applications
by State
California
Illinois
Ohio
New York
Wyoming
Arkansas
Georgia
Other
Number of Units
Existing*
79
13
7
4
4
3
3
10
123
Planned**
79
5
—
1
1
-
-
^ 12
98
* Operating throughout 1979.
**Planned, under construction, or started up•in 1979.
***Thermally-enhanced oil recovery.
-------
Table 3 presents an analysis of existing industrial boiler FGD units
by fuel type and capacity. This table illustrates several significant trends.
The once through sodium system, which is the most prevalent, finds primary
application to small oil-fired steam generators. Sodium hydroxide is used
as the scrubbing medium for these units, while sodium carbonate is used for
most of the larger sodium units. These units are less complex and therefore
require lower capital investment than other FGD processes. However, chemical
costs for sodium carbonate or sodium hydroxide are high. Therefore, for
small capacity applications to boilers firing low-to-medlum sulfur fuels*,
sodium systems will generally be preferred unless waste disposal costs are
prohibitively expensive.
-T
Once through sodium systems, primarily sodium hydroxide, are also the
most prevalent FGD processes applied to small coal-fired boilers. For large
coal-fired boilers, dual alkali units are the most prevalent. The equipment
required to regenerate the expensive sodium alkali in the dual alkali process
can be economically justified for large-scale facilities (see Appendix B for
descriptions of sodium scrubbing and dual alkali processes).
Several once through sodium units on large coal-fired installations
use a plant waste stream containing sodium to achieve SOa reduction. These
units are typically particulate scrubbers with a waste alkaline liquor added
for SOa removal. An example of this waste stream is the caustic stream from
the pulp bleaching stage in pulp/paper mills. Most of these applications are
in the pulp/paper industry. These installations typically recycle the waste
stream to other plant processes or treat it prior to discharge.
All of the existing or planned FGD systems produce a liquid or solid
waste stream requiring disposal. Table 4 summarizes the waste disposal
practices for the existing industrial boiler FGD units. The most prevalent
disposal techniques for once through sodium units are evaporation in holding
*The oil burned in steam generators typically contains 1-2 wt.% sulfur.
Uncontrolled S02 emissions are about 1-2 Ib S02/106Btu.
-------
TABLE 3. FUEL/CAPACITY BREAKDOWN FOR EXISTING* FGD UNITS
Capacity
Fuel Type
Sodium Scrubbing
(once through)
Waste Stream
NaOH
Na2C03
Dual Alkali
Lime /Limes tone
Other
< 32,000 scfm**
Coal Oil
1
9 60
-
4
-
-
> 32,000 scfm**
Coal Oil
5
4 3
. 4 16
13
2
2
* Operating throughout 1979.
**32,000 scfm is the estimated volume of flue gas produced by firing approximately lOOxlO6 Btu/hr
of coal or 145xl06 Btu/hr of oil.
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES BY SYSTEM TYPE*
System Type/Disposal Practice Number of Existing**Units
ONCE THROUGH SODIUM
Holding pond for evaporation 45
Deep-well injection 29
Wastewater treatment and discharge to
sewer, river or tailings pond 21
Alkaline scrubbing liquor recycled to
other processes 3
Unknown 4
DUAL ALKALI
Dewatered slurry to landfill 17
LIME/LIMESTONE
Non-fixated slurry to lined pond 1
Dewatered slurry to landfill 1
AMMONIA
Wastewater treatment 2
*Based on EPA-600/7-79-0676
**0perating throughout 1979.
10
-------
ponds, well injection, and wastewater treatment. All of the dual alkali
systems use landfill for the dewatered slurry or sludge. This technique is
also used for one of the lime/limestone units, while the other lime/limestone
facility discharges the waste solids from the thickener to a lined disposal
pond. The two ammonia scrubbing processes use wastewater treatment consist-
ing of anaerobic digestion, followed by an open pond, followed by aerobic
digestion.
There are many vendors that license industrial boiler FGD systems.
Table 5 lists the vendors which supplied/will supply the systems for the
operating/planned indust-rial boiler FGD applications.
2.2 PERFOBMANCE AND RELIABILITY
Few data concerning actual performance and reliability were obtained
from operators during this survey. Table 6 presents the reported performance
data while Table 7 summarizes the available reliability data. Reliability
is defined as the hours the FGD unit was operated, divided by the hours it
was called upon to operate.
Actual performance data were reported or obtained for only 24 of the
123 existing units*. The data presented in Table 6 show that the SOa removal
capability of the once through sodium units is high, with all reporting
systems achieving greater than 95 percent removal. The two lime/limestone
units achieved removals of 85 and 91.5 percent. The two dual alkali units
achieved greater than 90 percent SO2 removal based on continuous monitoring
tests.
Reliability data were reported for only 20 of the 123 existing units.
Based on these limited data, the following observations can be made:
1) the reliability reported for the 16 once through sodium units was high,
*The reported performance data presented were obtained from either continuous
on-line monitoring or wet chemical analysis (EPA Method 6). The continuous
monitoring data were obtained by EPA in 1979-1980 to provide technical back-
ground for the ongoing Industrial Boiler NSPS activities.
11
-------
TABLE 5. FGD SYSTEM VENDORS
Vendor*
A. D. Little
Andersen
CE Nat co
Ceilcote
Combustion Equipment Assoc.
Ducon Company
Entoleter, Inc.
Flakt, Inc.
FMC Environmental Equipment
Heater Technology
Koch Engineering
Mikropul Corp .
Neptune Airpol, Inc.
Pittsburgh Environment &
Energy Systems, Inc.
Research-Cot trell/Bahco
Wheelabrator-Frye/Rockwell Int.
SWEMCO, Inc.
Thermotics, Inc.
W. W. Sly Manufacturing Co.
Zurn Industries
Carborundum Abrasives***
General Motors***
Getty Oil Co.***
Mobil Oil Co.***
Pfizer, Inc.***
Type of System**
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS,DA
SS
SS,AM
SD
SS,DA,AM
SX
LS
SD
SS
SS
SS
DA
L
SS
SS
SS
L
Number
Planned
4
2
—
-
6 .
• -
1
8
52
6
1
7
1
-
1
-.
5
1
•
1
—
2
-
-
98
of Units****
Operating
2
_
1
29
2
-
2
—
17.
1
7
.—
8
-
1
' -
2
1
-
4
—
6
11
28
1
123
* For units planned or operating throughout 1979
** SS = Sodium Scrubbing (once
DA = Dual Alkali
SD = Spray Drying
L = Lime
LS = Limestone
AM = Ammonia
SX = Sulf-X
thraugh)
***These companies have developed capabilities within their own organizations
for FGD system desien.
****0perating means operating throughout 1979. Planned means planned, under
construction, or started up in 1979.
12
-------
TABLE 6. REPORTED PERFORMANCE DATA FOR EXISTING* FGD UNITS
Texas Gulf Chemicals
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
Getty Oil Co. Cat Caayon Field
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
Pfizer, Inc.
Getty Oil Kern River Field
General Motors-St. Louis
General Motors-Parma
Mead Paperboard
Number Total
of FGD Capacity
Units scfm
1 55,000
2 140.000
1 50,000
1 5,000
2 164,000
1 245,000
1 245,000
1 100,000
10 891.000
1 £4.000
1 38,000
1 16,000
1 100.000
Process
Type**
Limestone
Waste soda
ash
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Ammonia
Sodium
carbonate
Sodium
carbonate
Lime
Soda ash
Sodium
hydroxide
Dual
alkali
Dual
alkali
Sodium
carbonate
Ib SO»/10'Btu
Boiler at
Fuel scrubber exit
Coal 0 44
3.6% S
Coal 0.01
0.75% S
Diesel Oil 0.013
0.07% S
Oil 0.07
4.0% S
Lignite DNR
1.0% S
Coke, coal, DNR
oil:
0.5-5.0% S
Coke, coal, DNR
oil:
0.5-5.0% S
Coal . 0.83
3.5% S
Oil 0.04
1.0% S
Coal 0.2
3.2% S
Coal 0.33
2.5% S
Coal 0.24
2.5% S
Oil DNR
1.5-3.0% S
Percent
S02
Removal***
01 ^a
yi .D
99. 8b
9«.0b
98. Ob
95. Ob
99. lb
98. lb
85. Ob
97 .Ob
96. 0»
91. 3«
93. 8«
96. 0"
* Units that operated throughout 1979.
** For once through sodium systems, the makeup sodium alkali is specified (where known) i.e., sodium hydroxide, sodiu
carbonate, soda aah, etc.
*** Method of determining performance:
a « On-line continuous monitoring instrumentation. Data taken in 1979-1980.
b - EPA Method 6
**** Continuous monitoring data was taken with lime being used as the sorbent.
DNR - Data not reported.
-------
TABLE 7. REPORTED RELIABILITY DATA FOR EXISTING* FGD UNITS
Number Total
of FGD Capacity Process
Installation Name
Rickenbacker Air
National Guard
Texas Gulf
Chemicals Co.
Minn-Dak Farmers
Coop.
Nekoosa Papers
Kerr-McGee
Chemical Corp.
Pfizer, Inc.
Getty Oil Co.
Kern River Field
*Units that operated
Units scfm
1 55,000
2 140,000
2 164,000
2 211,000
2 490,000
1 100,000
10 891,000
throughout 1979.
**For once through sodium systems, the
hydroxide, sodium
"''"Reliability data,
carbonate, soda ash
Type**
Lime/
Limestone
Waste
Soda Ash
Ammonia
Caustic
Waste
Sodium
Carbonate
Lime
Soda Ash
makeup sodium
, etc.
Boiler Reliability*** percent
Fuel 1234
Coal
3.6% S 98 94 96 25
Coal
0.75% S 100 100 100 100
Lignite
1.0% S 97.8 100 94.4 98.
Coal
1.0-1.5% S 100 100 98 100
Coke, coal, oil
0.5-5.0% S 100 100 100 100
Coal
3.5% S 94.0 95.0 90.0 89.
Oil
1.0% S 100 DNR DNR 98.
alkali is specified (where known), i.e.,
Yr
78.3
100
5 97.7
99.5
100
0 92.0
9 98.9
sodium
given for each quarter and the year, is defined as:
the
hours the FGD
unit operated x 100%
the hours the FGD unit was called upon to operate
DNR - Data not reported.
-------
generally greater than 98 percent; 2) the lime/limestone units reported 6 of
8 quarterly reliabilities of 90 percent or higher; 3) the two ammonia
systems reported greater than 97 percent reliability for the year. No
reliability data were reported for dual, alkali systems.
15
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILED DATA. SUMMARIES
16
-------
TABLE A-l. UNITS OPERATING THROUGHOUT 1979
Company Name and Location
(Vendor)
General Motors Corporation
St. l.ouis, MO
(A. II. Little)
•Tezaco, Inc.
San Ardo, CA
(Ceilcote)
•Mobil Oil Company
San Ardo, CA
(In~llouse Design)
General Motors Corporation
Parma. OH
(GM Environmental)
•Canton Textiles
Canton, GA
(FMC Environmental Equipment)
Caterpillar Tractor Company
Joliet. IL
(Zurn Industries)
General Motors Corporation
Dayton, Oil
(Entoleter, Inc.)
•Firestone Tire and Rubber Company
Potlstovm, PA
(FMC Environmental Equipment)
•Great Southern Paper Company
Cedar Spring, GA
(Neptune Airpol, Inc.)
•ITT Rayonier, Inc.
Fernandes Beach, CA
(Neptune Airpol, Inc.)
Mead Paperboard Company
Stevenson, AL
(Neptune Airpol, Inc.)
• Based on EPA 600/7-79-067b
** For once through sodium systems.
Number Number
Start-Up of of FGD Capacity
Date Boilers Units (scfm)
0/72 2 2 64,000
total
11/73 29 29 347,000
total
0/74 28 28 175,000
total
3/74 4 4 128.000
total
6/74 1 1 25,000
9/74 2 2 67,000
total
9/74 2 2 55,400
total
1/75 1 1 8,070
0/75 2 2 420,000
total
0/75 4 2 176,000
total
0/75 2 1 100,000
the makeup sodium alkali is specified (where
Process
Type"
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Dual
alkali
(dilute)
Caustic
waste
Dual
alkali
(dilute)
Sodium
hydroxide
Dual
alkali
Caustic
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
carbonate
known) , i.e..
Boiler
Fuel
Coal
3.2% S
Oil
1.7% S
Oil
2.0-2.25%
Coal
2.5% S
Coal
0.8% S
Coal
3.2% S
Coal
0.7-1.3% S
Coal
2.5-3.0% S
Bark, oil.
Bark, oil
2.0-2.5% S
Oil
1.5-3.0% S
•odium hydroxide.
Design
SOa Removal
Efficiency, %
90
73
$0
S
90
70
90
85
90.5
coal 85-99
85
95
(Continued)
sodium
DNR - Data not reported
-------
TABLE A-l. UNITS OPERATING THROUGHOUT 1979 (Continued)
oo
Number
Company Name and Location Start-Up of
(Vendor) D«te Boilers
General Motors Corporation 6/73 4
Tonowanda , NY
(FHC Environmental Equipment)
•Georgia Pacific 6/75 1
Crossett. AR
(Neptune Airpol, Inc.)
Caterpillar Tractor Company 10/75 4
Mossville, IL
(FHC Environmental Equipment)
Nekoosa Papers, Inc. 2/76 1
Ashdown. AS
(Neptune Airpol, Inc.)
Rickenbacker Air National Guard 3/76 7
Columbus, OB
(Research Cottrell-Bahco)
General Notora Corporation 4/76 2
Pontiac, HI
(GH Environmental)
FMC 5/76 2
Green River, WY
(FHC Environmental Equipment)
Tezasgulf Chemicals Company 9/76 2
Granger, WY
(SWEHCO)
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company 6/77 3
Valdez, AK
(FHC Environmental Equipment)
Getty Oil Company 6/77 1
Cat Canyon Field #8 Generator
Santa Haria, CA
(In- House Design)
Number
of FGD Capacity
Units (scfm)
4 132,700
total
1 220,000
4 140,000
total
2 211.000
total
1 55.000
2 107.300
total
2 446.000
total
2 140.000
total
1 50.000
1 5.000
Process
Type"
Sodiun
hydroxide
Caustic
waste stream
DtTal
alkali
Caustic
waste stream
Limestone
or Lime
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
carbonate
Waste soda
ash
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Design
Boiler SO* Removal
Fuel Efficiency. %
Coal 90
1.2% S
Bark, coal, oil 80
1.5-2.0% S
Coal 90
3.2% S
Coal 90+
1.0-1.5% S
Coal 90
3.6% S
Refuse. Coal 90
0.84% S
Coal 80
1.0% S
Coal 90
0.75% S
Diesel oil 96+
0.07% S
Oil 94
4.0% S
• Based on EPA 600/7-79-067b
** For once through sodium systems,
carbonate, soda ash, etc.
DNR - Data not reported
(Continued)
the makeup sodium alkali is specified (where known), i.e., sodium hydroxide, sodium
-------
TABLE A-l. UNITS OPERATING THROUGHOUT 1979 (Continued)
Company Name and Location
(Vendor)
Wahpeton, Nl)
(Koch Engineering)
Caterpillar Tractor Company
Morton, IL
(/urn Industries)
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation
Argus Facility
Trona, CA
(Combustion Equipment Association)
Caterpillar Tractor Company
East Peoria, IL
(FMC Environmental Equipment)
•Kernridge Oil Company
McKittrick. CA
(Heater Technology)
(Thermotics)
(C-E Natco)
"Chevron, USA, Inc.
Bukerfield, CA
(Koch Engineering)
Pfizer, Inc.
East St. Louis, IL
(In-House Resign)
Getty Oil Company
Kern River Field
Bakersfield, CA
(In-House Design)
• Based on EPA 600/7-79-067b
** For once through sodium systems.
Number Number
Start-Up of of FGD Capacity
Date Boilers Units (scfm)
6/77 2 2 164,000
total
1/78 2 2 38,000
total
4/78 1 1 245,000
6/78 1 1 245,000
4/78 4 4 210.000
total
6/78 1 1 12.000
7/78 1 1 12,000
1/79 1 1 12,000
7/78 18 ' 3 248,000
total
7/79 12 2 146,000
total
9/78 3 1 100.000
12/78 87 10 891,000
total
the makeup sodium alkali is specified (where
Process
Type"
Ammonia
Dual
alkali
(dilute)
Sodium
carbonate
Sodium
carbonate
Dual
alkali
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
carbonate
Sodium
carbonate
Lime
Soda ash
known), i.e..
Design
Boiler SO* Removal
Fuel Efficiency, %
Lignite
1.0% S
Coal
3.2% S
Coke, coal.
oil
0.5-5.0% S
Coke, oil
0.5-5.0% S
Coal
3.2% S
Oil
1.1% S
Oil
1.1% S
Oil
1.1% S
Oil
1.1% S
Oil
1.1% S
Coal
3.5% S
Oil
1.05% S
sodium hydroxide, sodium
DNR
90
98
98
90
DNR
DNR
DNR
90
90
95
96
DNR - Data not reported
-------
TABLE A-2. UNITS PLANNED, UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR STARTED UP IN 1979
Number Number
Company Name and Location Start— Up of of FGD
(Vendor) Date Boilers Units
Caterpillar Tractor Company 3/79 3 3
Mapleton, IL
(FMC Environmental Equipment)
San Ardo. CA
(Ducon Co.)
•Mobil Oil Company 4/79 7 7
Buttonwillow, CA
(Heater Technology)
•Inland Container Corporation 5/79 1 1
New Johnsonville, TN
(Neptune Airpol. Inc.)
Sun Production Company 9/79 1 1
Newhall. CA
(C-E Natco)
9/79 1 1
Stratbmore Paper Company 8/79 1 1
Woronoco, MA
(Mikropul Corporation)
Mobil Oil Company Delivered 8/79 DNR 20
McKittrick. CA
(Heater Technology)
Atlantic Richfield 10/79 DNR DNR
Ferndale, WA
(FMC Environmental Equipment)
Celanese Corporation 12/79 1 1
Cumberland, MD
(Rockwell-Wheelabrator Frye)
Boise Southern 12/79 2 2
DeRidder, LA
(Neptune Airpol, Inc.)
Getty Oil Company 12/79 2 2
McKittrick. CA
(In-House Design)
• Based on EPA-600/7-79-0«7b
** For once through sodium systems, the makeup sodium alkali ia specified (
Process
Type"
Dual
alkali
(concentrated)
Sodium
carbonate
Sodium
carbonate
Ammonia
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Sprayer dryer-
Lime
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
(once through)
Spray dryer-
Lime
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
inhere known), i.e..
Boiler
Fuel
Coal
3.2% S
f\l -m
VI 1
1.7% S
Oil
1.1% S
Wood and
spent liquor
<3.0% S
Oil
1.2% S
Oil
1.4% S
Coal, oil >
0.75-3.0% S
DNR
DNR
Coal
3.2% S
Primary fuel: wood
waste
Secondary Fuels:
natural gas and
# 2 fuel oil
Oil
1.0-1.1% S
sodium hydroxide, so
Design
SOi Removal
Efficiency, %
90
95
. 85
90
85
85
75
DNR
DNR
85
85% for
#2 Fuel Oil
90-95
(Continued)
dium
carbonate, soda ash, etc.
DNR - Data not reported
-------
TABLE A-2. UNITS PLANNED, UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR STARTED UP IN 1979 (Continued)
Company Name aud Location
(Vendor)
Sante Fe Energy
Taft, CA
(Heater Technology)
•Carborundum Abrasives
Buffalo, NY
(Carborundum Environmental
Systems. Ltd.)
Caterpillar Tractor Company
Hapleton, IL
(FMC Environmental Equipment)
Union Oil Company
McKittricfc. Ca
(Heater Technology)
Shell Oil Company
Coalinga, CA
(Ducon Company)
Chevron, USA, Inc.
Maricopa, CA
(Heater Technology)
Mobil Oil Company
Taft, CA
(Heater Technology)
Arco/Polymers Beaver Valley
Plant, Honaca, PA
(FHC Environmental Equipment)
Union Oil Company
McKittrick. CA
(Anderson 2000)
Texaco, Incorporated
Santa Haria. CA
(Thermotics, Inc.)
Start-Up
Date
12/79
3/81
7/81
0/80
1/80
1/80
3/80
6/80
7/80
11/80
3/80
7/80
6/81
Delivered 3/80
Delivered 7/80
8/80
8/80
7/81
10/81
8/80
Number
of
Boilers
8
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
12
DNR
DNR
3
1
2
1
1
Number
of FGD
Units
1
3
1
1
2
8
3
1
2
3
4
1
Process
Type**
Dual
alkali
Sodium
(once through)
Sod inn
(once through)
Lime
Dual
alkali
(concentrated)
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Dual
alkali
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Design
Boiler SO, Removal
Fuel Efficiency, %
Oil
-1.1* S
Oil
-1.1* S
Oil
-1.1% S
Coal
2.2% S
Coal
3.2% S
Oil
0.7-1.2% S
Oil
0.6* S
DNR
DNR
Coal
3.0% S
Oil
0.7-1.2% S
Oil
3.5% S
96
96
96
95
90
95
90
DNR
DNR
90
95
98
(Continued)
* Based on EPA-«00/7-79-0«7b
** For once through sodium systems, the makeup sodio
carbonate, soda ash, etc.
DNR - Data not reported
alkali is specified (where known), i.e., sodium hydroxide, sodium
-------
TABLE A-2. UNITS PLANNED, UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR STARTED UP IN 1979 (Continued)
to
10
Company Name and Location
(Vendor)
Mobil Oil Company
Bakertfield. CA
(Heater Technology)
Union Oil Company
McKittrick, CA
(Koch Engineering)
Shell Oil Company
Taft. CA
(Neptune Airpol. Inc.)
Chevron. USA. Inc.
Bakersfleld. CA
(Koch Engineering)
Grisaon Air Force Base
Bunker Hill. IN
(Neptune Airpol, Inc.)
Union Oil Company
Ouadalupe. CA
(Heater Technology)
Shell Oil Company
Bakertfield, Ca
(Neptune Airpol. Inc.)
Cranaton Print Works
Fletcher, NC
(W.W. Sly Manufacturing Co.)
Grace Petroleum Corporation
Pismo Beach, CA
(Thermotics. Inc.)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisbnrg. PA (Pittsburgh
Environment and Energy Sytema)
St. Regis Paper Company
Sartell. MN
(Neptune Airpol, Inc.)
Tenneco Oil
Green River. WY
(Flakt, Inc.)
Start-Up
Date
Delivered 10/80
11/80
7/81
0/82
12/80
0/81
1/81
2/81
3/81
5/81
5/81
6/81
5/82
4/82
Number Number
of of FGD
Boilers Units
DNR 8
1
1 4
2
3 1
DNS 2
3 1
1 1
8 1
1 1
4 4
1 1
1 1
J 1
Process
Typ.«»
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
DNR
Dual
alkali
(concentrated)
Sodium
hydroxide
Sodium
hydroxide
Waste
alkali
Sodium
hydroxide
Sulf-X (iron
sulfide slurry)
Lime/
Soda ash
Soda ash
Design
Boiler SO, Removal
Fuel Efficiency, %
DNR DNR
Oil 95
0.7-1.2% S
Oil 95
1.3* S
DNR DNR
Coal DNR
3.0% S
Oil 95
2.2% S
Oil 95
1.1% S
Coal DNR
1.0-3.0% S
Oil 98
1.18% S
Coal 90
1.82% S
Coal. bark. 90
sludge
0.45% S
Coil 93
0.8% S
* Based on EPA «00/7-79-Oo7b
** For once through sodium systems, the makeup sodium alkali is specified (where known), i.e.. sodium hydroxide, sodium
carbonate. aod« ash, etc.
DNR - Data not reported
-------
TABLE A-3. UNITS THAT TERMINATED OPERATION OR CHANGED STATUS IN 1979*
Company Name and Address
C.A.M
Houston, TX
Double Barrell Oil Company
Bakersficld, CA
E. I. DuPont de Nemours
& Company
Athens, GA
Northern Ohio Sugar Company
Freemont, OH
NJ
OJ
Phillip Morris, Inc.
Chesterfield, VA
Reichold Chemicals
Pensacola, FL
Western Correctional
Institute
Pittsburgh, PA
Vendor
Never Selected
C-E Natco
Never Selected
Great Western
Sugar Company
Flakt, Inc.
Neptune Airpol
Pittsburgh
Environmental &
Energy Systems
Process
Typa
Never Selected
Caustic
Never Selected
Water (alkali addition
capability)
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
FeS; Sulf-X
Status
April 1979** End of 1979
Planned Cancelled
Operating Shut down
Planned Cancelled
Operating See Comments
Under Construction Cancelled
Operating Shut down
Planned Cancelled
Comments
Decision was made to not build
cogencra tion facility.
Went out of business.
Boiler fires low sulfur fuels or
natural gas.
Used for particulate removal only;
boiler currently burning low
sulfur coal .
Boiler fires low sulfur fuels or
natural gas.
Part of plant that uses FGD
system shut down.
Did not install FGD unit; decided
to fire natural gas. Sulf-X system
will be installed at a different
site.
» Compared to the status reported in EPA-600/7-79-067b
"Reported in EPA-600/7-79-067b
-------
APPENDIX B
PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS
AND
FLOW DIAGRAMS
24
-------
APPENDIX B
Brief process descriptions and flow diagrams for the most prevalent
types of FGD processes identified in this survey are presented below.
Sodium Scrubbing (once through)
Sodium scrubbing processes are capable of achieving high SG2 removal
efficiencies over a wide range of inlet SQz concentrations. However, these
processes consume a premium chemical and produce an aqueous waste for
disposal. A simplified process flow diagram is presented in Figure B-l.
Sodium scrubbing processes currently being used in industrial boiler
FGD applications employ a wet scrubbing solution of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) ,
sodium carbonate (NazCOs) or an alkaline waste stream to absorb SOa from
the flue gas. The operation of the scrubber is characterized by a low
liquid-to-gas ratio and a sodium alkali sorbent which has a high reactivity
relative to lime or limestone sorbents. Additionally, the scrubbing liquid
is a solution rather than a slurry because of the high solubility of sodium
salts. The S02 absorption reactions which take place in the scrubber are:
2 NaOH + S02 — *Na2S03 + H20
Na2C03 + S02— *Na2S03 + C02
Na2S03 + S02 + H20—*2 NaHSOs
Simultaneously, some sodium sulfite reacts with the oxygen in the flue gas
to produce sodium sulfate:
Na2S03
The scrubber effluent, therefore, contains a mixture' of sodium'' salts.
25
-------
REHEATER
(OPTIONAL)
STACK
SCRUBBER
FLUE GAS
LIQUID WASTE
TO TREATMENT
OR DISPOSAL
70.1995-1
Figure B-l. Sodium scrubbing FGD system.
26
-------
Chemical storage and handling equipment are auxiliaries associated
with sodium scrubbing systems. Sodium carbonate reagent handling require-
ments include dry storage, usually in silos. A conveyor system is generally
used to transport the reactant from the silo to a mixing tank, where the
sodium alkali is dissolved to produce the scrubbing solution. The solution
from the mix tank is pumped to a larger hold tank where it combines with
the scrubber effluent. The majority of the hold tank liquor is recycled to
the scrubber with a slipstream going to waste treatment and disposal. For
small sodium hydroxide systems, especially in thfe California oil fields,
sodium hydroxide solution is often trucked in and stored in tanks at the
scrubbing site. Therefore, no solids handling equipment is required for
these installations.
Dual Alkali Process
The dual alkali process, developed and utilized by industry in this
country, uses a clear sodium alkali solution for SC-2 removal and produces a
calcium sulfite and sulfate sludge for disposal. Although dual alkali pro-
cesses produce a throwaway by-product, a regeneration step is employed to
regenerate the active sodium alkali for S02 sorption. A simplified process
flow diagram is presented in Figure B-2.
The process can be divided into three principal areas: absorption,
regeneration, and solids separation. The principal chemical reactions for
a sodium/lime dual alkali system are illustrated by the following equations:
Absorption
2 NaOH + S02 -^. Na2S03 + H20
Na2C03 + S02 —•* Na2S03 + C02
Na2S03 + S02 + H20 -^ 2 NaHS03
Na2S03 + 1/2 02 —*• Na2SOi»
27
-------
N3
00
SCRUBBER
FLUE GAS
WASTE
CALCIUM
SALTS TO
DISPOSAL
70-1996 1
Figure B-2. Dual alkali FGD system.
-------
Regeneration
Ca(OH)2 + 2NaHS03 -^Na2S03 + CaS03-l/2H20 + 3/2 H20
Ca(OH)2 + Na2S03 + 1/2H20 — *• 2NaOH + CaS03-l/2 H20
Ca(OH)2 + Na2S(H + 2H20 — *• 2NaOH + CaS04'2H20
In the scrubber, S02 is removed from the flue gas due to reaction
with NaOH and Na2C03. Because oxygen is present in the flue gas, sulfite
oxidation also occurs. Most of the scrubber effluent is recycled back to
the scrubber; however, a slipstream is withdrawn and reacted with slaked
lime in the regeneration reactor. The presence of sulfate in the system is
undesirable in that it converts active sodium to an inactive form, thus
lowering S02 removal or increasing sodium consumption for a fixed S02
removal .
The regeneration reactor effluent, which contains calcium sulfite
and sulfate is sent to a thickener where the solids are concentrated. The
thickener overflow is returned to the system, and the underflow containing
the calcium solids is further concentrated in a vacuum filter (or other
device) to about 50 percent solids or more. The solids are washed, to
reduce the soluble sodium salts in the adherent liquor prior to disposal,
and the wash water is returned to the system.
Chemical storage and handling equipment are the principal auxiliaries
associated with dual alkali systems. Receiving, storage, handling, and
preparation facilities are required for both lime and the sodium alkali
(either sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate) . The types of facilities
needed for the sodium alkali are described in the once through sodium
process description. Lime facilities include silos for dry storage and
a slaker.
29
-------
Lime and Limestone Processes
The lime and limestone FGD processes use a slurry of calcium
oxide or calcium carbonate to absorb S02 in a wet scrubber. A by-product
calcium sulfite/sulfate sludge is produced for disposal. A simplified
process flow diagram is presented in Figure B-3.
The absorption of S02 from flue gases by a lime or limestone slurry
involves both gas-liquid, and liquid-solid mass transfer. The chemistry is
complex, involving many side reactions. The overall reactions are those of
S02 with lime (CaO) or limestone (CaC03) to form calcium sulfite
(CaSOa'1/2 H20) with some oxidation of the sulfite to form calcium sulfate
(CaSOif*2H20). These reactions can be represented as follows:
Lime
S02 + CaO + 1/2 H20 — » CaS03'l/2 H20
S02 + 1/2 02 + CaO + 2H20 —
Limestone
S02 + CaC03 + 1/2 H20 ^ CaS03'l/2 H20 + C02
S02 + 1/2 O2 + CaC03 + 2 H2O — »• CaSO!t'2H20 + C02
The calcium sulfite and sulfate crystals precipitate in a reaction vessel
or hold tank which is designed to provide adequate residence time for solids
precipitation as well as for dissolution of the alkaline additive. The
hold tank effluent is recycled to the scrubber to absorb additional S02.
A slipstream from the hold tank is sent to a solid-liquid separator to re-
move the precipitated solids from the system. The waste solids, which may
vary from 35-60 weight percent solids, are generally disposed of by ponding
or landfill.
30
-------
LIME 3 •
WATER
SOLID-LIQUID
SEPARATOR
LIMESTONE
70-1997 1
SOLID WASTE TO
POND OR FILTER
Figure B-3. Lime or limestone FGD system.
-------
Auxiliary equipment associated with this process includes a reagent
preparation system. Reagent preparation may consist of limestone grinding
and slurrying or lime slaking. However, for most industrial boilers, due
to their small size, preground lime and limestone may be purchased. There-
fore, the feed preparation system will generally consist of storage silos
and either lime slaking or limestone slurrying equipment.
Spray Drying Process
In a spray drying process, flue gas is contacted with a solution
or slurry of alkaline material in a vessel (spray dryer) of relatively long
residence time (5 to 10 seconds). The flue gas SOa reacts with the alkali
solution or slurry to form liquid phase salts which are dried in the spray
dryer to about one percent free moisture. The alkali is typically lime or
sodium carbonate. The spent solids therefore contain either very soluble
sodium compounds or relatively insoluble calcium compounds.
Generally, the particulate matter is not removed upstream of the
spray dryer. Therefore, the particulate collection device (ESP or baghouse)
downstream of the dryer will remove both fly ash and the dry sodium or
calcium compounds (unreacted sorbent plus sulf ite/sulfate compounds) formed
in the dryer. For large capacity units and/or units treating flue gas with
high S02 concentrations, recycle of the collected solids may be: economically
feasible to increase sorbent utilization. A generalized flow diagram for
a typical spray drying process is shown in Figure B-4.
Reaction between the alkaline material and flue gas SOz proceeds
both during and following the drying prolcess. The -mechanisms of the S02
removal reactions are not well understood. It has not been determined
whether S02 removal occurs predominantly in the liquid phase, by absorption
into the finely atomized droplets being dried, or by reaction between gas
32
-------
OR
SODIUM
LIME CARBONATE
WATER
WATER
SOLID WASTE
TO DISPOSAL
70-1998-1
Figure B-4. Spray drying FGD system.
33
-------
phase S02 and the slightly moist spray-dried solids. The overall chemical
reactions for this process are shown below.
S02 + Na2C03 —* Na2S03 + C02
or
S02 + CaO + 1/2 H20 —* CaS03*l/2 H20
t
In addition to these primary reactions, sulfate salts will be produced by
the following reactions:
Na2S03 + 1/2 02 —*• Na2S(K
and
S03 + Na2C03 —*• Na2S04 + C02
or
S02 T- CaO + 1/2 02 + 2H20 —*• CaSO^*2H20
The combined particulate matter and sulfite/sulfate salts from the particu-
late collection device are typically disposed of in a landfill. Highly-
soluble sodium salts will, of course, require more sophisticated disposal
techniques than calcium salts.
Chemical receiving, storage, handling, and preparation equipment are the
principal auxiliaries associated with spray dryer systems. These include
facilities for dry chemical storage (silos) and sorbent preparation (slakers
for lime and mix tanks for sodium carbonate).
34
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-81-083
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EPA Industrial Boiler FGD Survey--1979
5. REPORT DATE
April 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jay R. Hoover
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Radian Corporation
8501 Mo-Pac Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78759
C9BN1B
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3171, Task 13
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Annual; 3/80-3/81
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESIERL_RTP project officer is J. David Mobley, Mail Drop 61, 919/
541-2915.EPA-600/7-78-052a, -b, and -c, and EPA-600/7-79-067a and -b are
related reports.
16. ABSTRACT
repOrt. giyes results of a survey of vendors and operators of flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) systems applied to industrial boilers for the 1979 calendar
year. A total of 123 FGD units were operated throughout 1979. Once-through sodium
systems accounted for 102 of these units, of which 74 were applied to small oil-fired
steam generators in the California oil fields. The second most prevalent FGD pro-
cess was the dual alkali system typically used on large coal-fired boilers , primarily
in Illinois and Ohio. In addition, there were 98 planned industrial boiler FGD units,
most of which are once-through sodium systems applied to oil-field steam genera-
tors. The performance data (SO2 removal) for once -through sodium units is high,
with all reporting systems achieving greater than 95% removal. The lime/limestone
units achieved 85 to 92% SO2 removal. The dual alkali units averaged greater than
90% SO2 removal. Reported reliability for FGD units at seven sites averaged about
95% with sodium systems generally achieving greater than and lime /limes tone sys-
tems less than 95%.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Boilers
Flue Gases
Desulfurization
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Industrial Boilers
13 B
13A
21B
07A,07D
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
39
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
35
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. S3OO
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA-335
1ER004IOQ3JC 000045126001 001
USEPA REG V ENV ENG
EDITHA M ARDIENTE
230 S DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO IL 6Q604
If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label
tear off; and return to the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving these technical
reports. CHECK A/ffffO, tear off label, and return it to the
above address.
Publication No. EPA- GOO/T-SI-OSS
------- |