United States Office of Air Quality EPA-340/1-85-014
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards October 1984
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
Stationary Source Compliance Series
Project Summary
Utility FGD Survey
October 1983 -
September 1984
-------
EPA-340/1 -85-014
Project Summary
Utility FGD Survey
October 1983 - September 1984
Prepared by
M. T. Melia, R. S. McKibben,
and B. W. Pelsor
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3963
Work Assignment No. 46
EPA Project Manager: John Busik
EPA Work Assignment Manager: Sonya M. Stelmack
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Washington, D.C. 20460
October 1984
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The EPA-SSCD Project Officer and authors of this report
appreciate the assistance provided by Norman Kaplan, the Project
Officer for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina) for the Flue Gas Desulfurization Information System
(FGDIS), in updating and maintaining the data base and his sug-
gestions on the content and format of the survey report (and
project summary) and on other project activities.
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency by PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, under Con-
tract No. 68-02-3963, Work Assignment No. 46. The contents of
this report are reproduced herein as received from PEI Associates,
Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products
is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use. Copies of this report are available from the National
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The Utility FGD Survey Summary report, which is generated
by a computerized data base system, represents a survey of
operational and planned domestic utility flue gas desulfuri-
zation (FGD) systems. It summarizes information contributed
by the utility industry, system and equipment suppliers,
system designers, research organizations, and regulatory
agencies. The data cover system design, fuel characteristics,
history of utility FGD operating status nationwide, and
capital and annual costs for operating FGD systems. The develop-
ment status (operational, under construction, or in the
planning stages), system supplier, and process, are tabulated
alphabetically by utility company. Also included are highlights
of FGD system developments during the period of October 1983
through September 1984.
Current data for domestic FGD systems show 124 systems
in operation, 25 systems under construction, and 68 systems
planned. The current FGD-controlled capacity in the United
States is 47 ,255 MW.
-------
INTRODUCTION
This FGD survey report was prepared by PEDCo Environmental,
Inc., under the direction of the Stationary Source Control Divi-
sion (SSCD) of EPA, Washington, D.C. Preceding issues of the
summary report through December 1981 are available through the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Succeeding issues
may be purchased from the Research Reports Center of the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI). The information in this report
is generated by a computerized data base system known as the Flue
Gas Desulfurization Information System (FGDIS). The structure
diagram of the FGDIS in Figure 1 shows the informational areas
the system addresses and some representative data items contained
in each. The design information contained in the FGDIS
encompasses the entire emission control system and the power
generating unit to which it is applied. Performance data for
operational FGD systems include monthly dependability parameters,
service time, and descriptions of operational problems and solu-
tions.
Aside from its use in generating the survey report, the
FGDIS is available for remote terminal access. The data base
represents a more immediate method for users to examine the data
acquired under the survey program. Access to the FGDIS also
enables users to obtain additional data that are too specific for
inclusion in the quarterly report. Direct access to the data
base allows analyses of the data (e.g., averages, maxima, minima,
and standard deviations of various parameters), the use of simple
mathematical functions, capability for virtually unlimited data
cross-referencing, and data tabulation to fit the individual
informational needs. An FGDIS User's Manual is available from
NTIS (NTIS No. PB 83146209) . Requests for further information
concerning the FGDIS should be directed to Michael Melia or
Bayard Pelsor, PEDCo Environmental, Inc. (513/782-4700). Infor-
mation concerning access to the FGDIS can be obtained from Walter
Finch, NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703/487-4808).
-------
FLUE GAS DOUIFIMIZATION IMf OflWATION SYSTEM
DATA BAK ITflUCTUM DIAGRAM
Figure 1. Computerized data base structure diagram.
-------
PROJECT SUMMARY
Table 1 summarizes the status of flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) systems in the United States as of the end of September
1984. Table 2 lists the units on which the status has changed
during the October 1983-September 1984 period. The units includ-
ed in the figures presented in Table 1 are identified in Table 3.
TABLE 1. NUMBER AND TOTAL CAPACITY OF FGD SYSTEMS
Status
Operational
Under construction
Planned:
Contract awarded
Letter of intent
Requesting/evaluating bids
Considering only FGD
systems for S02 control
TOTAL
No. of
units
124
25
15
3
4
46
217
Total
controlled
capacity, MW
50,870
14,656
9,248
2,500
1,926
27,512
106,712
Equivalent
scrubbed
capacity, MW
47,255
14,335
9,190
2,500
1,926
26,869
102,075
Summation of the gross unit capacities (MW) brought into compliance by the
use of FGD systems, regardless of the percentage of the flue gas scrubbed
by the FGD system(s).
Summation of the effective scrubbed flue gas capacities in equivalent MW,
based on the percentage of flue gas scrubbed by the FGD system(s).
Figure 2 presents a historic breakdown of utility status
reports for operational, under-construction, and planned FGD
capacity. The operating FGD capacity has grown significantly
each year since 1972. Since 1977 the capacity under construction
has been fairly stable. The planned capacity reported by the
utilities has increased each year in the past until 1980, when it
reached its peak, and has dropped sharply since that time.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF F6D SYSTEM STATUS CHANGES, OCTOBER 1983-SEPTEMBER 1984
FGD status report
September 30, 1983
Arizona Public Service
Choi la 5
Big Rivers Electric
D.B. Wilson 1
Boston Edison
New Boston 1
New Boston 2
Central Illinois Light
Duck Creek 2
Cincinnati Gas a Electric
Zi inner 1
Colorado Ute Electric
Craig 3
Deseret Generating ft Transmission
Bonanza 1
General Public Utilities
Coal 1
Jersey Central Power I Light
N/D 1
Los Angeles Dept. of Water 4 Power
Inter-mountain 2
Lower Colorado River Authority
Fayette Power Project 3
Fayette Power Project 4
Middle South Utilities
Arkansas Lignite 5
Arkansas Lignite 6
Unasslgned 1
Unasslgned 2
Montana Power
Colstrlp 3
Operational
No.
116
+1
+1
+1
+1
MW9.
43,206°
440
447
410
778
Under
construction
No.
26
-1
-1
-1
+1
+1
-1
MW\
14,609°
440
447
410
820
451
778
Contract
awarded
No.
21
-1
-1
MW*
12,635
820
451
Letter
of Intent
No.
7
-1
-1
-1
-1
HW«
6,060
890
890
890
890
Requesting/
eval. bids
No.
3
+1
+1
-1
MWa,
1 ,840°
388
388
690
Considering
FGD
NO.
41
+1
-1
+1
+1
-1
+1
MWa ,
23,549"
126
450
1,386
690
625
451
Total
No.
?14
+1
+1
+1
-1
+1
-1
+1
-1
-1
-1
-1
101.8996
126
388
388
450
1,386
625
451
890
890
890
890
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
FGD status report
September 30, 1983
New York State Electricity S Gas
Somerset
Orlando Utilities Commission
C. H. Stanton 1
Pacific Power & Light
Jim Brldger 2
Hyodak 1
Platte River Power Authority
Rawhide 1
Public Service Company of Colorado
Pawnee Z
Sin Antonio Public Service
N/D 3
N/D 4
Stwlnole Electric
Semlnole 2
South Carolina Public Service
Cross 2
Southern Indiana Gas » Electric
A.B. Brown 2
Southwestern Electric Power
Oolet Hills 1
Southwestern Public Service
South Plains 1
Mist Texas Utilities
Mlaunlbn 1
Total
Operational
No.
116
+1
+1
+1
+1
124
MWa.
43,206°
625
279
620
450
47,255
Under
construction
No.
26
-1
+1
+1
-1
-1
-1
+1
+1
+1
25
MWa.
14,609°
625
465
550
279
620
450
265
720.
504
14,335
Contract
awarded
No.
21
-1
-1
+1
-1
-1
-1
15
MWa
12,635
465
550
330
265
720
504
9,190
Letter
of Intent
No.
7
3
MWa
6,060
2,500
Requesting/
eval. bids
No.
3
4
MWa h
1,840°
1.926
Considering
FGD
No.
41
-1
+1
+1
+ 1
+1
46
MWa .
23,549°
330
500
500
500
572
26.869
Total
No.
214
+1
+1
+1
+1
217
MW L
101 ,899°
500
500
500
572
102.075
* Equivalent scrubbed capacity.
b TMs value was modified slightly to reflect a * correction.
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL AND PLANNED DOMESTIC FGD SYSTEMS
Coaptny rune/unit n*ne
Alabama Electric
Tomblgbee 2
Tonblgbee 3
Arizona Electric Power
Apache 2
Apache 3
Arizona Public Service
Choi la 1
Choi la 2
Choi la 4
Cho.la 5
Four Corners 1
Four Corners 2
Four Corners 3
Four Corners 4
Four Corners 5
Associated Electric
Thomas Hill 3
Atlantic City Electric
Cumberland 1
Basin Electric Power
Antelope Valley 1
Antelope Valley 2
Antelope Valley 3
Laramie River 1
Laramie River 2
Laramie River 3
B1g Rivers Electric
D. B. Wilson 1
Green 1
Green. 2
Boston Edison
New Boston 1
New Boston 2
Cajun Electric Power
Oxbow 1
Central Illinois Light
Duck Creek 1
City
Leroy
Leroy
Cochlse
Cochlse
Joseph City
Joseph City
Joseph City
Joseph City
Fruitland
Fruitland
Fruitland
Farmington
Fartnington
Moberly
Mlllville
Beulah
Beulah
Beulah
Wheat land
Wheatland
Wheat land
Centertown
Sebree
Sebree
Boston
Boston
OeSoto Parish
Canton
State
Alabama
Alabama
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
Missouri
New Jersey
North Dakota
North Dakota
North Dakota
Wyoming
Wyomi ng
Wyoming
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Louisiana
Illinois
Capacity,
HW (gross)
255
255
195
195
119
285
375
375
195
195
225
745
745
730
330
440
440
560
570
570
570
440
242
242
388
388
540
416
Fuel
% sulfur
1.61
1.61
0.70
0.70
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
4.80
3.25
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.54
0.54
0.54
3.75
3.91
3.91
2.30
2.30
0.60
3.40
FGD process
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Process not selected
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
Lime/spray drying
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
L1me
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
FGD
status
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
2
1
6
1
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
3
1
System supplier
Peabody Process Systems
Peabody Process Systems
Research-Cottrell
Research-Cottrell
Research-Cottrell
Research-Cottrell
Research-Cottrell
Vendor not selected
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Babcock and Hi! cox •
Babcock and Wilcox
M. W. Kellogg
Vendor not selected
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Vendor not selected
Research-Cottrell
Research-Cottrell
Babcock and Wilcox
M. W. Kellogg
American Air Filter
American Air Filter
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Env1roneer1ng, R1l«y Stoker
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Company name/unit name
Central Illinois Public
Service
Newton 1
Central Main Power
Sears Island 1
Central Power ft Light
Coleto Creek 2
Cincinnati Gas ft Electric
East Bend 1
East Bend 2
Zlmmer 1
Colorado Ute Electric
Craig 1
Craig 2
Craig 3
Columbus t Southern Ohio
Electric
ConesviTie 5
Conesvllle 6
Cooperative Power
N/D 1
Cooperative Power
Association
Coal Creek 1
Coal Creek 2
Delmarva Power & Light
Delaware City 1
Delaware City 2
Delaware City 3
Vienna 9
Dcseret Gen. and Trans.
Bonanza 1
Bonanza 2
Duquesne Light
Elrama 1-4
Phillips 1-6
East Kentucky Power
J. K. Smith 1
Spurlock 2
City
Newton
Penobscot Bay
Fannln
Rabbit Hash
Rabbit Hash
Moscow
Craig
Craig
Craig
Conesville
Conesville
Undecided
Underwood
Underwood
Delaware City
Delaware City
Delaware City
Vienna
Vernal
Vernal
Elrama
South Heights
Winchester
Naysvllle
State
Illinois
Maine
Texas
Kentucky
Kentucky
Ohio
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
North Dakota
North Dakota
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware.
Maryland
Utah
Utah
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
Kentucky
Capacity,
MW (gross)
617
600
720
650
650
1386
455
455
447
405
405
750
550
550
60
60
60
550
410
410
510
408
650
500
Fuel
* sulfur
3.00
2.23
0.39
4.00
2.60
3.50
0.45
0.45
0.45
4.50
4.50
0.63
0.63
7.00
7.00
7.00
2.50
0.50
0.50
2.05
2.05
1.50
3.50
FGD process
Dual alkali
Process not selected
Lime/spray drying
Process not selected
Lime
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Wellman Lord
Hellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
FGD
status*
1
6
3
6
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
6
1
1
3
1
System supplier
GE Environmental Services
Vendor not selected
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Vendor not selected
Babcock and Wilcox
Vendor not selected
Peabody Process Systens
Peabody Process Systems
Babcock and Wilcox
A1r Correction Division, UOP
A1r Correction Division, UOP
Vendor not selected
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Vendor not selected
Combustion Engineering
Vendor not selected
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Babcock and Wilcox
Thyssen/CEA
00
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Company now/unit name
Florida Power & Light
Martin 3
Martin 4
General Public Utilities
Coal 1
Coal 2
Brand Haven Board of
Light & Power
J. B. Sims 3
Grand River Oam Authority
GRDA 2
Hoosler Energy
Nerom 1
Merom 2
Houston Lighting ( Power
Limestone 1
Limestone 2
Malakoff 1
Malakoff 2
H. A. Parish 8
Indianapolis Power t
Light
Patriot 1
Partlot 2
Patriot 3
Petersburg 3
Petersburg 4
low* Electric Light S
Power
Guthrle Co. 1
Jacksonville Electric
Authority
St. Oohns River Power 1
St. Johns River Power 2
Kansas City Power t Light
La Cygne 1
City
lartln County
Martin County
Forked River
Undecided
Grand Haven
Pryor
Merom
Merom
Jewltt
Jewitt
Malakoff
Malakoff
Thompsons
Patriot
Patriot
Patriot
Petersburg
Petersburg
Panora
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
LaCygne
State
Florida
Florida
New Jersey
Undecided
Michigan
Oklahoma
Indiana
Indiana
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Iowa
Florida
Florida
Kansas
Capacity.
MW (gross)
800
800
690
690
65
575
490
490
750
750
690
690
600
650
650
650
532
530
720
612
612
874
Fuel
I sulfur
2.00
3.50
2.75
0.95
3.50
3.50
1.08
1.08
1.10
1.10
0.41
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.25
3.50
0.40
2.50
2.50
5.39
FGD process
Voces s not selected
'rocess not selected
.Imestone
Limestone
Line
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
FGD
status*
6
6
6
6
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
6
6
6
1
2
4
2
2
1
System supplier
endor not selected
Vendor not selected
'endor not selected
Vendor not selected
Bibcock and W 11 cox
Flakt
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
'GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
A1r Correction Division, UOP
Research-Cottrell
Combustion Engineering
Research-Cottrel 1
Research-Cottrel 1
Babcock and Mllcox
vo
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
CoMjMny name/unit name
Kansas Power t Light
Jeffrey 1
Jeffrey 2
Jeffrey 3
Lawrence 4
Lawrence 5
Kentucky Utilities
Green River 1-3
Hancock 1
Hancock Z
Lakeland Utilities
Mclntosh 3
Los Angeles Dept. of
Hater and Power
Intel-mountain 1
Intel-mountain 2
Louisville Gas & Electric
Cane Run 4
Cane Run 5
Cane Run 6
Mill Creek 1
H111 Creek 2
Mill Creek 3
Mill Creek 4
Paddy's Run 6
Trimble County 1
Trimble County 2
Lower Colorado River
Authority
Fayette Power Project 3
Fayette Power Project 4
Harquette Board of Light
I Power
Shlras 3
Michigan So. Central
Power Agency
Project 1
Middle South Utilities
Hilton 1
Hilton 2
City
Hamego
Wamego
Hamego
Lawrence
Lawrence
Central CHy
Hawesvllle
Hawesvllle
Lakeland
Delta
Delta
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisville
Louisvflle
Louisville
Bedford
Bedford
La Grange
La Grange
Marquette
LUchfleld
Convent
Convent
State
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Florida
Utah
Utah
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Texas
Texas
Michigan
Michigan
Louisiana
Louisiana
Capacity,
MW (gross)
720
720
730
125
420
65
708
708
364
820
820
188
200
299
358
350
427
495
72
575
575
451
451
44
55
890
890
Fuel
J sulfur
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.55
0.55
2.23
3.50
3.50
2.56
0.79
0.79
3.87
3.80
4.80
3.75
3.75
3.87
3.75
3.70
4.00
4.00
1.70
1.70
0.30
2.25
0.50
0.50
FGD process
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
L1me
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Dual Alkali
Line
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Process not selected
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
FGO
status*
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
2
6
1
1
4
4
System supplier
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
American Air Filter
Babcock and Hi 1 cox
Vendor not selected
Babcock and HI 1 cox
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
American Air Filter
Combustion Engineering
Thyssen/CEA
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
American Air Filter
American Air Filter
Combustion Engineering
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Combustion Engineering
Vendor not selected
GE Environmental Services
Babcock t Hi 1 cox
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Cowpany name/unit nwe
Minnesota Power & Light
Clay Boswell 4
Mlnnkota Power
Hilton R. Young 2
Honongahela Power
Pleasants 1
Pleasants 2
Montana Power
Colstrip 1
ColstHp 2
Colstrip 3
Colstrip 4
Montana-Dakota Utilities
Coyote 1
Muscaxine Power S Water
Muscatine 9
Nebraska Public Power
District
Fossil III 1
Nevada Power
Harry Allen 1
Harry Allen 2
Harry Allen 3
Harry Allen 4
Reid Gardner 1
Reid Gardner 2
Reid Gardner 3
Reid Gardner 4
New York State Electric
& Gas
Somerset 1
Niagara Mohawk Power
Charles R. Huntley 66
Northern Indiana Public
Strvlce
Schifer 17
Schafer 18
City
Cohasset
Center
Willow Island
Willow Island
Colstrip
Colstrip
Colstrip
Colstrip
Beulah
Muscatine
Sargent
Las Vegas
Las Vegas
Las Vegas
Las Vegas
Moapa
Moapa
Moapa
Moapa
Somerset
Buffalo
Hheatfleld
Wheatfleld
State
Minnesota
North Dakota
West Virginia
West Virginia
Montana
Montana
Montana
Montana
North Dakota
Iowa
Nebraska
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
New York
New York
Indiana
Indiana
Capacity,
MW (gross)
554
440
626
626
360
360
778
778
440
166
650
500
500
500
500
125
125
125
295
625
100
391
391
Fuel
I sulfur
0.94
0.60
3.00
3.00
0.78
0.78
0.70
0.70
0.87
3.21
0.36
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
2.70
1.80
3.20
3.20
FGD process
Lime/alkal-'r.i flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime
Lime
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Sodium carbonate/spray
drying
Limestone
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Limestone
Aqueous carbonate/spray
drying
Dual Alkali
Dual Alkali
FGD
Utus*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
System supplier
Peabody Process Systems
Thyssen/CEA
Jabcock and Ullcox
Babcock and Wilcox
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Bechtel/Montana Power
Bechtel /Montana Power
Wheelabrator-Frye/R. I .
Research-Cottrell
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Peabody Process Systens
Rockwell International
FMC
FMC
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Company name/unit name
Northern States Power
Riverside 6-7
Sherburne 1
Sherburne 2
Sherburne 3
Orlando Utilities Com-
mission
C. H. Stanton 1
Pacific Power S Light
Jim Brldger 1
Jim Bridger 2
Jim Bridger 3
J1m Bridger 4
Wyodak 1
Pennsylvania Power
Bruce Mansfield 1
Bruce Mansfield 2
Bruce Mansfield 3
Philadelphia Electric
Cromby 1
Eddystone 1
Eddystone 2
Plains Electric G 4 T
Plains Escalante 1
Platte River Power
Authority
Rawhide 1
Public Service Indiana
Gibson 5
Public Service of New
Mexico
New Mexico 1
San Juan 1
San Juan 2
San Juan 3
San Juan 4
Public Service of
Colorado
Pawnee 2
City
Minneapolis
Becker
Becker
Becker
Orlando
Rock Springs
Rock Springs
Rock Springs
Rock Springs
Jollet
Shlppingport
Shipping port
Shlppingport
Phoenlxvllle
Eddystone
Eddystone
Prewitt
Wellington
Princeton
Blstl
Waterflow
Uaterflow
Waterflow
Waterflow
Rush
State
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Florida
Wyoming
Wyoming
Wyoming
Wyoming
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
Colorado
Indiana
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
Colorado
Capacity,
MW (gross)
no
750
750
860
465
550
550
550
550
330
917
917
917
160
240
334
233
279
670
500
361
350
534
534
500
Fuel
X sulfur
1.20
0.80
0.80
1.00
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
3.50
3.50
4.30
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.80
0.34
3.30
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.35
FGD process
Lime/spray drying
Limestone/alkaline flyash
Limestone/alkaline flyash
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Lime/spray drying
Lime
Lime
Lime
Magnesium oxide
Magnesium oxide
Magnesium oxide
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Process not selected
Hell man Lord
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Irons/dry Injection
FGO
tatus
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
6
System supplier
Joy Mfg/N1ro Atomizer
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Combustion Engineering
Babcock & Wilcox
Babcock S Wilcox
Babcock & Wilcox
Air Correction Division, UOP
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
M. W. Kellogg
United Engineers
United Engineers
United Engineers
Combustion Engineering
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
M. W. Kellogg
Vendor not selected
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Vendor not selected
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Company name/unit name
Salt River Project
Coronado 1
Coronado 2
Coronado 3
San Antonio Public
Service
N/D 1
N/D 2
N/D 3
N/D 4
San Miguel Electric
San Miguel 1
SeMlnole Electric
Semlnole 1
Semlnole 2
Taylor 1
Taylor 2
Sierra Pacific Power
Thousand Springs 1
Thousand Springs 2
Thousand Springs 3
Valmy 2
Slkestone Board of
Municipal Utilities
Slkestone 1
South Carolina Public
Service
Cross 1
Cross 2
Hlnyah 2
Hlnyah 3
Hlnyah 4
South Mississippi
Electric Power
R. D. Morrow, Sr. , 1
R. D. Morrow, Sr. , 2
Southern Illinois Power
Marlon 4
Southern Indiana Gas
and Electric
A. B. Brown 1
A. B. Brown 2
City
St. Johns
St. Johns
St. Johns
Undecided
Undecided
Undecided
Undecided
San Miguel
Palatka
Palatka
Perry
Perry
Wells
Wells
Wells
Valmy
Slkestone
Cross
Cross
Georgetown
Georgetown
Georgetown
Purvis
Purvis
Marlon
West Franklin
West Franklin
State
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
Texas
Texas.
Texas
Texas
Texas
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Missouri
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina
Mississippi
Mississippi
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Capacity,
NW (gross)
400
400
400
500
500
500
500
400
620
620
620
620
500
500
500
276
235
450
450
280
280
280
200
200
184
265
265
Fuel
I sulfur
0.55
0.55
0.60
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
2.39
2.75
2.75
0.50
2.80
1.80
1.80
1.00
1.00
1.70
1.64
1.64
3.75
3.35
3.35
FGD process
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Dual alkali
Dual alkali
FGD .
status*
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
System supplier
M. W. Kellogg
M. W. Kellogg
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Babcock S Wllcox
Peabody Process Systems
Peabody Process Systems
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Rockwell International
Babcock and Wllcox
Peabody Process Systems
Peabody Process Systems
Babcock & Wllcox
Babcock & Wllcox
American A1r Filter
Env1roneer1ng, Rlley Stoktr
EnvlroneeHng, RHey Stoker
Babcock and Wllcox
FMC
FMC
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Cceipany nme/unlt mine
Southwestern Electric
Power
Dolet Hills 1
Henry M. Plrkey 1
Walker Co. 1
Walker Co. 2
Southwestern Public
Service
South Plains
Springfield City Utili-
ties
Southwest 1
Springfield Water, Light
and Power
Dallman 3
Sunflower Electric
Hoi comb 1
Tampa Electric
Big Bend 4
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Paradise 1
Paradise 2
Widows Creek -7
Widows Creek 8
Texas Municipal Power
Agency
Gibbons Creek 1
Texas Power and Light
Sandow 4
Twin Oaks 1
Twin Oaks 2
Texas Utilities
Forest Grove 1
Martin Lake 1
Martin Lake 2
Martin Lake 3
Martin Lake 4
Montlcello 3
CHy
Mansfield
Hallsvllle
Huntsvllle
Huntsvllle
Idalo
Springfield
Springfield
Hoi comb
Tampa
Paradise
Paradise
Bridgeport
Stevenson
Carlos
Rockdale
Bremond
Bremond
Athens
Tat urn
Tat urn
Tat urn
Tatum
Nt. Pleasant
State
Louisiana
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Missouri
Illinois
Kansas
Florida
Kentucky
Kentucky
Alabama
Alabama
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Capacity,
MW (gross)
720
720
720
720
572
194
205
3<7
456
704
704
575
550
443
545
750
750
750
793
793
793
750
800
Fuel
% sulfur
0.70
0.80
1.49
1.49
3.50
3.05
0.34
3.50
3.20
3.20
3.70
3.30
1.06
1.60
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.50
FGD process
Limestone
Limestone
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
FGO
status*
2
2
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
System supplier
Air Correction Division, UOP
Air Correction Division, UOP
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
A1r Correction Division, UOP
Research-Cottrel 1
Joy Mfg/N1ro Atomizer
Research-Cottrel 1
GE Environmental Services
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Tennessee Valley Authcrlty
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Wheelabrator Air Pollution
Research-Cottrel 1
Research-Cottrell
'Research-Cottrel 1
Research-Cottrel 1
GE Environmental Services
-------
TABLE 3. (continued)
Coopany nmt/unlt MM
Tucson Electric Power
Sprlngervllle 1
Spr1ngerv1lle 2
Sprlngervllle 3
United Power Association
Stanton 1A
Utah Power and Light
Hunter 1
Hunter 2
Hunter 3
Hunting ton 1
Naughton 3
Washington Water Power
C res ton Coal 1
C res ton Coal 2
Creston Coal 3
Creston Coal 4
West Penn Power
Nltchell 33
West Texas Utilities
Oklaunlon 1
Oklaunlon 2
White Pine County
White Pine Power
Project 1
White P1ne Power
Project 2
CUy
Sprlngervllle
Sprlngervllle
Sprlngervllle
Stanton
Castle Dale
Castle Dale
Castle Dale
Huntlngton
Kemmerer
Creston
Creston
Creston
Creston
Courtney
Oklaunlon
Oklaunlon
Ely
Ely
State
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
North Dakota
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Wyoming
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Pennsylvania
Texas
Texas
Nevada
Nevada
Capacity.
MW (gross)
370
370
370
60
420
420
400
432
330
570
570
570
570
300
720
720
820
820
Fuel
I sulfur
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.77
0.52
0.52
0.55
0.43
0.55
2.80
0.34
0.34
0.60
0.60
FGD process
Lime/spray drying
Lime/spray drying
Process not selected
Lime/spray drying
Lime
L1me
Limestone
L1me
Sodium carbonate
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
FGD
status*
2
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
1
2
6
6
6
System supplier
Joy Mfg/NIro Atomizer
Joy Mfg/NIro Atomizer
Vendor not selected
Research-Cottrel 1
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
A1r Correction Division, UOP
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Ul
1 FGD status codes are defined as:
1. Operational units
2. Units under construction
3. Planned - contract awarded
4. Planned - letter of Intent signed
5. Planned - requesting/evaluating bids
6. Planned - considering only FGD systems for SO, compliance
-------
110
100
90
80
o
X
70
o 50
o
o
£40
O
30
20
10
PLANNED
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
OPERATIONAL
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
YEAR
Figure 2. History of utility FGD status reports for
operational, under construction, and planned FGD
capacity - December 1970 through September 1984.
16
-------
Figure 3 presents a comparison of actual coal-fired generat-
ing capacity and FGD capacity from 1975 through 1984 and projec-
tions thereafter through 1992. Although the retirement of older
units is taken into account in these plots, such retirements
affect only the overall coal-fired capacity rate because FGD-
controlled capacity represents primarily new power generating
capacity. This accounts for the slightly greater slope of the
lower line, which depicts FGD-controlled capacity.
Current projections estimate the total power-generating ca-
pacity of the U.S. electric utility industry will be 791 GW by
the end of 1992.6 (This value reflects the loss resulting from
the retirement of older units, which is considered to be
approximately 3.24 GW by the end of 1992.7) Approximately 345
GW, or 44 percent of the 1992 total, is estimated to be produced
by coal-fired units. Table 4 presents a distribution of present
(December 1983) and future (December 1992) power generation
sources.
TABLE 4. POWER GENERATION SOURCES: PRESENT AND FUTURE
.6.7
December 1983
December 1992
Coal
43%
44%
Nuclear
11%
16%
Oil
20%
17%
Hydro
12%
11%
Gas
13%
11%
Other
1%
1%
Total generating
capacity, GW
671
791
It is interesting to note that the breakdown for the actual
power produced by these sources during the past year (Table 5)
differs appreciably, especially for coal- and oil-fired sources,
from the power generating capacity shown in Table 4. This is due
to the effect of the changing economy on the operation of various
types of powerplants;
TABLE 5. POWER PRODUCTION BY SOURCE
8
January-December 1983
Coal
55%
Nuclear
13%
Oil
6%
Hydro
14%
Gas
12%
Other
0
Total energy
generated, GWh
2,308,746
Based on known commitments of utilities to FGD (as presented
in Table 1) and other coal-fired generating capacity expected to
be required to incorporate FGD (Figure 3), current and projected
percentages of electrical generating capacity controlled by FGD
are shown in Table 6.
Table 7 shows both the current (September 1984) and project-
ed (December 1999) breakdown of throwaway-product FGD systems
17
-------
450
400 -
350 -
300 -
250 -
200
150
100
50
I I I 1 1 1 1
COAL-FIRED CAPACITY
FGD-CONTROLLED CAPACITY
ACTUAL CAPACITY
PROJECTED CAPACITY
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
YEAR*
* YEAR-END TOTALS
Figure 3. Actual and projected coal-fired generating
capacity and FGD capacity, 1984.?~7
18
-------
TABLE 6. FGD-CONTROLLED GENERATING CAPACITY: PRESENT AND FUTURE
1.6
September 1984a
December 1992
Coal -fired generating capac-
ity controlled by FGD, %
17.2
31.0
Total generating capacity
controlled by FGD, %
7.4
13.6
The September 1984 FGD capacity figures are based on reports by utilities.
The figures used for the total generating capacity and the December 1992
coal-fired generating capacity are based on December 1982 DOE projected
figures.
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF FGD SYSTEMS BY PROCESS
(percentage of total MW)
Process
Throwaway-product process
Wet systems
Lime
Limestone
Lime/alkaline flyash
Limestone/alkaline flyash
Dual alkali
Sodium carbonate
NAD
Dry systems
Lime
Sodium carbonate
NAD
Dry injection
Trona/dry injection
Saleable-product process
Aqueous carbonate/
spray drying
Limestone
Magnesium oxide
Well man Lord
Process undecided
TOTAL
Byproduct
Elemental sulfur
Gypsum
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
September
1984
23.9
46.7
7.7
3.2
3.3
3.2
-
4.8
0.9
-
-
0.2
0.4
1.5
4.2
_
100.0
December
1999
13.2
43.1
4.3
1.5
2.2
3.1
1.8
6.2
0.4
2.2
0.5
0.1
1.4
0.7
1.9
17.4
100.0
December
1999
(Normalized)3
16.0
52.2
5.2
1.8
2.7
3.7
2.1
7.5
0.5
2.7
0.6
0.1
1.7
0.9
2.3
_
100.0
The effect of those systems listed as "Process undecided" is removed.
5NA - Not available (These systems are committed to a throwaway-product
process; however, the actual process is unknown at this time.)
19
-------
versus salable-product FGD systems as a percentage of the total
known commitments to FGD.
Table 8 presents categorical FGD system cost data in common
1981 dollars.
20
-------
TABLE 8. CATEGORICAL RESULTS OF THE REPORTED AND
ADJUSTED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS FOR OPERATIONAL FGD SYSTEMS
All
MM
Retrofit
Saleable
TtiroMMMy
Alkaline
flyash/llme
Alkaline flyash/
1 taestone
Dual alkali
L1«e
LlMttone
Sodliw carbonate
MellMn Lord
Reported
Capital
Range. $/kM
23.7-213.6
23.7-213.6
29.4-157.4
132.8-185.0
23.7-213.6
43.4-173.8
49.3- 49.3
47.2-174.8
29.4-213.6
23.7-170.4
42.9-100.8
132.8-185.0
Average,
$/kW
80.2
80.4
79.7
153.1
75.8
93.9
49.3
97.8
81.8
67.9
69.2
1S3.1
o
44.3
46.1
39.4
20.6
41.5
44.0
0.0
55.3
43.7
37.2
26.6
20.6
Annual
Range,
•Ills/Mm
0.1-13.0
0.1- 5.5
0.5-13.0
13.0-13.0
0.1-11.3
0.4- 5.4
0.8- 0.8
1.3- 1.3
0.3-11.3
0.1- 7.8
0.2- 0.5
13.0-13.0
Average,
Kllls/kMh
2.3
1.7
4.5
13.0
2.1
2.1
0.8
1.3
3.2
1.6
0.4
13.0
0
2.8
1.8
4.4
0.0
2.4
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.2
0.1
0.0
Adjusted
Capital
Range, $/kW
38.3-282.2
38.3-263.9
60.4-282.2
254.6-282.2
38.3-263.9
52.5-184.4
102.6-102.6
87.8-263.9
60.4-210.0
38.3-194.3
87.1-150.9
254.6-282.2
Average,
$/kU
118.8
110.8
139.3
271.6
110.9
122.8
102.6
146.7
116.5
98.9
110.9
271.6
o
58.1
48.4
73.8
12.1
47.6
51.4
0.0
44.2
44.0
26.4
12.1
Annual
Range,
•Ills/kUh
1.6-20.8
1.6-14.6
4.3-20.8
16.7-20.8
1.6-17.6
3.0-14.1
5.4- 5.4
4.0-17.6
1.6-14.6
5.8- 7.4
16.7-20.8
Average,
•llls/kMh
7.6
6.8
9.7
18.1
7.0
7.2
5.4
8.1
6.1
6.4
18.1
a
4.1
3.2
5.3
1.*
3.4
3.8
0.0
3.6
3.1
0.7
1.9
-------
HIGHLIGHTS: OCTOBER 1983-SEPTEMBER 1984
The following paragraphs highlight FGD system developments
during the period of October 1983 through September 1984.
Arizona Electric Power reported that the Apache 2 and 3
limestone FGD systems demonstrated high dependabilities
during the months of October 1983 through July 1984. No
major FGD-related problems were encountered.
Arizona Public Service announced plans to construct a new
unit, Cholla 5, in Joseph City, Arizona. The -375-MW (gross)
pulverized-coal-fired boiler (supplied by Combustion Engineer-
ing) will have an FGD system for the control of S0a emissions.
The unit is scheduled to start up in 1997.
Atlantic City Electric announced that they have postponed
indefinitely their plans to install Cumberland 1 in Milville,
New Jersey, because power demand has not met projections.
Basin Electric Power reported that the limestone FGD systems
on Laramie River 1 and 2 achieved high dependabilities
during most of the period. Minor FGD-related problems
encountered included maintenance on welds in the quencher
section on Unit 2 and repairs to the absorber recycle and
feed tank mixers on both units.
Big Rivers Electric reported that initial operation of the
FGD system on D. B. Wilson 1 in Centertown, Kentucky, began
in September 1984. This 440-MW (gross) unit fires coal with
an average sulfur content of 3.75 percent. The emission
control system consists of an ESP followed by an M. W.
Kellogg wet-lime FGD system.
New Boston 1 and 2 of Boston Edison in Boston, Massachusetts,
are being converted from oil- to coal-fired units. The
388-MW (gross) Babcock and Wilcox units will fire subbitumin-
ous coal with an average sulfur content of 2.3 percent and
heat content of 12,600 Btu/lb. Bids are currently being
requested/evaluated for a wet-Limestone FGD system with
salable gypsum byproduct recovery. Particulate control will
be provided by ESP's, and the flue gas will exit via a
359-ft acid-brick-lined stack. Forced oxidation will be
22
-------
utilized for sludge treatment. New Boston I and 2 are
scheduled to start up in October 1987 and June 1988 respec-
tively.
Cajun Electric Power announced that their plans to install
Oxbox 1 in De Soto Parish, Louisiana, have been postponed
indefinitely because power demand has not met projections.
Central Illinois Light reported that the Duck Creek 1 lime-
stone FGD system demonstrated high dependabilities during
the period of October 1983 through July 1984, except during
May, when the FGD system was down for general inspection and
maintenance. The utility also announced that they had
cancelled plans for the construction of a second unit at the
Duck Creek Station in Canton, Illinois, because of a reduction
in projected power demand.
Central Illinois Public Service reported that the Newton 1
dual-alkali FGD system demonstrated high dependabilities
during the period of October 1983 through August 1984,
except for June, when the FGD system was down because of
repairs to the absorber tower lining.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric announced plans to convert the
Zimmer 1 nuclear facility in Moscow, Ohio, to coal. The
retrofit 1386-MW (gross) coal-fired boiler will have an FGD
system for control of S0a emissions. The unit is scheduled
to start up in 1991.
Colorado Ute Electric indicated that initial operation of
the FGD system on Craig 3 in Craig, Colorado, commenced in
June 1984. This 447-MW (gross) unit fires coal with an
average sulfur content of 0.45 percent. Babcock and Wilcox
supplied this lime/spray drying process. A fabric filter is
used for particulate removal.
Cooperative Power, not Buckeye Power as previously reported,
plans to construct a 750-MW (gross) unit in Ohio. The
facility has not yet been named, nor has a site been finalized.
This unit is expected to fire Ohio coal. A wet-limestone
FGD system will control SO. emissions, and ESP's will control
particulate emissions. Initial startup is tentatively
scheduled for 1994.
Deseret Generating and Transmission reported that initial
operation of the FGD system on Bonanza 1 in Vernal, Utah,
began in September 1984. This 410-MW (gross) unit fires
coal with an average sulfur content of 0.5 percent. Combus-
tion Engineering supplied the wet-limestone FGD system. A
fabric filter supplied by Ecolaire is used to control particu-
late emissions. The unit operates in a closed-water-loop
mode and the sludge is disposed of in an onsite landfill.
23
-------
General Public Utilities, not Jersey Central Power & Light
as previously reported, will be the operating utility of the
690-MW (gross) Cone 1 unit (reported earlier as 625 MW).
The unit and FGD system are still in the planning stage.
The coal-fired (3.5 percent sulfur) unit is scheduled to
start up sometime in 1993.
Iowa Electric Light and Power announced that they are post-
poning indefinitely their plans to install Guthrie County 1
in Panora, Iowa, because power demand has not met
projections.
Kentucky Utilities announced that they have postponed indefin-
itely their plans to install a second unit at the Hancock
station in Hawesville, Kentucky, because of a reduction in
projected power demand.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power reported that
the FGD system on Intermountain 2 in Delta, Utah, is now
under construction. Fabric filters will contrbl particulate
emissions from this 820-MW (gross) unit. The wet limestone
FGD system will control S02 in the flue gas downstream from
the particulate collection equipment. Flue gas reheat will
be provided by in-line heat exchangers prior to the 710-foot
stack. The fly ash-stabilized sludge will be disposed of on
site at this closed-loop facility. The unit is expected to
begin operations in July 1987.
The Lower Colorado River Authority reported that the Fayette
Power Project 3 in La Grange, Texas, is now under construction.
This lignite-fired 451-MW (gross) unit will be equipped with
a wet-limestone FGD system designed to remove 90 percent of
the S02. An ESP supplied by Flakt will control particulate
emissions, and the cleaned flue gas will exit through a
5'35-ft acid-brick-lined stack. Sludge will be disposed of
in an onsite landfill. The unit is expected to begin opera-
tions in November 1987. The utility also announced plans to
construct a fourth unit at the Fayette Power Project Station
in La Grange, Texas. This lignite-fired (1.7 percent sulfur,
4300 Btu/lb) boiler will also use a wet-limestone FGD system
for SO2 control and ESP's for particulate removal. Initial
startup is scheduled for June 1990.
Middle South Utilities announced the cancellation of their
plans to install Arkansas Lignite 5 and 6 and two other
plants (name undecided), which were to be located in Louisiana.
The utility has also announced that they have postponed
indefinitely their plans to install Wilton 1 and 2 in Convent,
Louisiana, because of a reduction in projected power demand.
Minnesota Power and Light reported that the Clay Boswell 4
lime/alkaline fly ash FGD system demonstrated high dependa-
bilities during the months of October 1983 through June
1984. No major FGD-related problems were encountered.
24
-------
Minnkota 'Power reported that the Milton R. Young 2 lime/al-
kaline fly ash FGD system demonstrated high dependability
during the period of October 1983 through June 1984, except
during December and January, when the system was shut down
for repairs on the" absorber spray recycle system.
Montana Power reported that initial operation of the FGD
system on Colstrip 3 in Colstrip, Montana, began in October
1983. This 778-MW (gross) unit fires low-sulfur coal (0.7
percent sulfur, 8500 Btu/lb). The lime/alkaline fly ash FGD
system was supplied by Bechtel/Montana Power. Particle
scrubbers are used to control particulate emissions, and the
system operates in a closed-water-loop mode. Flue gas exits
via a 692-ft stack.
New York State Electric and Gas indicated that initial oper-
ation of the FGD system on Somerset 1 in Somerset, New York,
began in September 1984. This 625-MW (gross) unit fires
coal with an average sulfur content of 2.2 percent. A
cold-side ESP with a design efficiency of 99.7 percent is
used for particulate control. The wet-limestone FGD system
was supplied by Peabody Process Systems. The system operates
in a closed-water-loop mode, and the flue gas exits via a
450-ft stack. The sludge is dewatered and stabilized before
being landfilled.
Nevada Power reported that the Reid Gardner 1, 2, 3, and 4
sodium carbonate FGD systems demonstrated high dependabili-
ties during the months of October 1983 through August 1984.
Only minor FGD-related problems were encountered.
Northern Indiana Public Service reported that the Schahfer
17 dual-alkali FGD system demonstrated high dependabilities
during the months of October 1983 through July 1984. No
major FGD-related problems were encountered.
Orlando Utilities Commission announced that the Combustion
Engineering wet-limestone FGD system on C. H. Stanton 1 in
Orlando, Florida, is now under construction. The utility
will control particulate emissions with an ESP. Initial
startup is scheduled for 1987.
Pacific Power and Light announced that construction of the
retrofit wet sodium carbonate FGD system on Jim Bridger 2
began during the first quarter of 1984. The retrofit system
will treat 2,700,000 acfm of flue gas from a 550-MW (gross)
bituminous coal-fired boiler located in Rock Springs, Wyoming.
A cold-side ESP is currently in operation for primary particu-
late control. The FGD system will operate in a closed-water-
loop mode and flue gas will exit via a 500-ft stack. The
FGD system is scheduled to start up in 1986. The utility
also announced that a contract has been awarded to Joy
25
-------
Manufacturing/Niro Atomizer for a retrofit lime/spray-drying
system to control particulate matter and SO. emissions from
Wyodak 1. This 330-MW (gross) mine mouth plant is located
in Joliet, Wyoming, and has been operational since 1978.
The FGD system is scheduled to start up in 1986.
The Platte River Power Authority reported that initial
operation of the FGD system on Rawhide 1 in Wellington,
Colorado, began in December 1983. The 279-MW (gross) unit
supplied by Combustion Engineering fires low-sulfur coal
(0.34 percent sulfur, 8500 Btu/lb). Joy Manufacturing/Niro
Atomizer supplied the dry-lime FGD system for S0a control
and the fabric filters for particulate removal. The system
operates in a closed-water-loop mode, and sludge is disposed
of in a landfill. Flue gas exits via a 505-ft stack.
Public Service Company of Colorado has plans for a new unit,
Pawnee 2, to be located near Rush, Colorado. The 500-MW
(gross) Babcock & Wilcox boiler will fire subbituminous coal
(0.35 percent sulfur, 8290 Btu/lb). Fabric filters will be
utilized for particulate removal and SO2 emissions will be
controlled through injection of dry trona. The trona will
be pulverized and blown into the ductwork upstream of the
fabric filter system for contact with flue gas on the duct
and fabric filter surfaces. Flue gas will exit via a 500-ft
stack. Initial startup of the unit is scheduled for 1990.
Public Service of New Mexico reported that the San Juan 1,
2, and 3 Wellman Lord FGD systems achieved high dependabili-
ties for most of the period. Minor FGD-related problems
encountered included replacing the absorber lining, repairing
absorber trays, and replacing broken mist eliminator pads.
San Antonio Public Service reported plans to construct four
new units (name and location undecided) instead of two, as
previously reported. The lignite-fired (1 to 2 percent
sulfur, 5600 Btu/lb) units will have a gross megawatt rating
of 500 each and each will have a wet-limestone FGD system.
The four units are scheduled to commence operations in 1993,
1995, 1999, and 2001, respectively.
Seminole Electric reported that initial operation of the FGD
system on Seminole 2 in Palatka, Florida, began in September
1984. This 620-MW (gross) unit fires coal with an average
sulfur content of 2.75 percent. The Peabody Process Systems
wet-limestone FGD system is downstream of an ESP used for
particulate control. The cleaned flue gas exits via a
675-ft stack. The utility also announced they have indefin-
itely postponed their plans to install Taylor 1 and 2 in
Perry, Florida, because power demand has not met projections.
26
-------
South Carolina Public Service reported that initial opera-
tion of the FGD system on Cross 2 in Cross, South Carolina,
began in October 1983. This 450-MW (gross) unit fires coal
with an average sulfur content of 1.8 percent. The wet-lime-
stone scrubbing system, supplied by Peabody Process Systems,
controls S02 emissions, and a cold-side ESP controls
particulate emissions. The system operates in a closed-water-
loop mode, and the cleaned flue gas exits via a 600-ft
stack. The utility also announced that the Winyah 2 limestone
FGD system achieved high dependabilities during the months
of October 1983 through March 1984. Minor FGD-related
problems encountered included cleaning the mist eliminators
and repairing frozen slurry and water pipe lines.
South Mississippi Electric Power reported that the R. D.
Morrow, Sr. 1 and 2 limestone FGD systems demonstrated high
dependabilities during the period of October 1983 through
July 1984 except for October. The R. D. Morrow, Sr. 1 FGD
system was off line most of October for absorber ductwork
repairs and the other FGD system was also unavailable that
month because of scheduled maintenance.
Southern Indiana Gas and Electric announced that the FMC
dual-alkali FGD system on A. B. Brown 2 in West Franklin,
Indiana, is now under construction. The 265-MW (gross) unit
will fire bituminous coal (3.35 percent sulfur, 11,100
Btu/lb). A cold-side ESP will provide primary particulate
matter control. The cleaned flue gas will exit via a 498-ft
stack. The system will operate in a closed-water-loop mode,
and the sludge will be disposed of in an onsite landfill.
Operation of the FGD is scheduled to start up in January
1985.
Southwestern Public Service reported that the wet-limestone
FGD system on Dolet Hills 1 in Mansfield, Louisiana, is now
under construction. Flue gas from this 720-MW (gross)
lignite-fired unit will exit via a 525-ft stack, and the
system will operate in a closed-water-loop mode. Initial
startup is scheduled for December 1985.
Southwestern Public Service announced plans to construct a
new unit, South Plains 1, to be located near Idalou, Texas.
The 572-MW (gross) unit will burn low-sulfur Western coal
and will be equipped with an FGD system to control SO2
emissions. Initial startup is scheduled for 1990.
United Power Association reported that the Stanton 1A lime/
spray drying FGD system demonstrated high dependabilities
during the months of October 1983 through June 1984. No
major FGD-related problems were encountered.
27
-------
West Texas Utilities reported that the GEESI wet-limestone
FGD system on Oklaunion 1 in Oklaunion, Texas, is now under
construction. The 720-MW (gross) coal-fired unit will also
be equipped with a Lodge-Cottrell rigid-frame, cold-side ESP
for particulate control. The system will operate in a
closed-loop mode, and the cleaned flue gas will exit via a
453-ft acid-brick-lined stack. Initial operations are
scheduled for September 1986.
28
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Flue Gas Desulfuri-
zation Information System (FGDIS). Computerized Data Base.
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. (Access to FGDIS can be obtained through
Walter Finch, NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161).
2. U.S. Department of Energy. Inventory of Power Plants in the
United States, DOE/RA-0001, December 1977. Office of Utility
Project Operations.
3. U.S. Department of Energy. Inventory of Power Plants in the
United States - December 1979. Energy Information Administra-
tion. DOE/EIA-0095(79), June 1980.
4. U.S. Department of Energy. Inventory of Power Plants in the
United States - 1980 Annual. Energy Information Administra-
tion. DOE/EIA-0095(80), June 1981.
5. U.S. Department of Energy. Inventory of Power Plants in the
United States - 1981 Annual. Energy Information Administra-
tion Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels.
DOE/EIA-0095(81), September 1982.
6. U.S. Department of Energy. Inventory of Power Plants in the
United States - 1982 Annual. Energy Information Administra-
tion Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels.
DOE/EIA-0095(82), September 1983.
7. Personal communication from Mr. Skeer, Office of Policy
Planning and Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy, August
1983.
8. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administra-
tion. Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate
Fuels. Electric Power Monthly, DOE/EIA-0226(83/12), Decem-
ber 1983.
29
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REP
W340/1-85-014
2.
I. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE ANp SUBTITLE
Project Summary
Utility FGD Survey
October 1983 - September 1984
5. REPORT DATE
October 1984
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
M. T. Melia, R. S. McKibben, B. W. Pelsor
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246-0100
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3963, Task No. 46
12. SP
QNSQRING AGENCY NAME.AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stationary Source Compliance Division (EN-341)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, Oct. 1983-Sept. 1984
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Sunmary of EPA 340/1-85-014 a, b and c - Utility FGD Survey.
EPA Task Manager - Sonya Stelmack (202) 382-2851
16. ABSTRACT
This report, which is generated by a computerized data base system, represents
a survey of operational and planned domestic utility flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) systems. It summarizes information contributed by the utility industry,
system and equipment suppliers, system designers, research organizations, and
regulatory agencies. The data cover system design, fuel characteristics , history
of utility FGD operating status nationwide, and capital and annual costs for
operating FGD systems. The development status (operational, under construction,
or in the planning stages), system supplier, and process are tabulated
alphabetically by utility company. Also included are highlights of FGD
system developments during the period of October 1983 through September 1984.
Current data for domestic FGD systems shew 124 systems in operation, 25
systems under construction, and 68 systems planned. The current FGD-controlled
capacity in the United States is 47,255 MW.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATl Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
29
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |