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 ------- |