United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA/600/S8-86/038 Sept. 1987
AEPA Project Summary
Coal-Cleaning and Flue Gas
Desulfurization Computer Model
Users Manual
C. R. Wright and F. A. Sudhoff
This manual describes a combined
coal-cleaning and flue gas desulfuriza-
tion (FGD) computerized design and
cost-estimate model and gives detailed
procedures for using it. All inputs and
outputs are described as well as the
various options available. Design and
economic premises are included. The
model consists of four programs, one
initially developed by Battelle's Colum-
bus Laboratories and obtained from
Versar, Inc.; one developed by TVA; and
two developed by TVA and Bechtel
National, Inc. The model produces
design performance criteria and esti-
mates of capital investments and annual
revenue requirements for a physical
coal-cleaning and a limestone or lime
FGD system, either separately or as a
combined emission control system.
Material balances and breakdowns of
costs by processing area for each sys-
tem as well as an equipment list for the
FGD system are provided. In addition
to this information, the model supplies
an analysis of some economic benefits
and penalties that accrue from the use
of cleaned coal in a power plant. The
primary use of the model is expected to
be for projecting comparative econo-
mics of coal-cleaning and limestone or
lime FGD systems in combination or as
separate systems.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC, to announce key findings of
the research project that Is fully docu-
mented In a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering In-
formation at back).
Introduction
As part of its continued support of
research and development activities in
air pollution control technology, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has sponsored the development of com-
puter models that simulate S02 emission-
reduction processes used in the electric
utility industry. This manual describes
the use of such a computer model,
developed by the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) for EPA, that simulates a
coal-cleaning process used alone or in
conjunction with a limestone or lime flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) process as a
means of reducing S02 emissions from
coal-fired utility power plants.
The first process simulated by the
model, physical coal cleaning (PCC), is
one of the oldest methods of air pollution
control. Although coal cleaning has been
used for many years to remove mineral
matter and trash from coal, in more
recent years it has also been recognized
as an important method of reducing the
S02 emissions produced by coal com-
bustion. The first program included in
this model is the one which simulates
the coal-cleaning process, and is a direct
result of a combination of projects which
have been sponsored by EPA. In one
project, Battelle's Columbus Laboratories
conducted an assessment of existing
coal-cleaning computer programs and
modified the most applicable one to aid in
the evaluation of the coal-cleaning facility
at Homer City, Pennsylvania. The Battelle
program was subsequently modified by
Versar, Inc , and TVA, and is now capable
of projecting comparative capital invest-
ments and annual revenue requirements
-------
for most coal-cleaning process designs,
provided the appropriate input data can
be obtained. Such input data would
include (1) the process equipment per-
formance data and operating criteria, (2)
the specific equipment and flowstream
configuration of the process to be
modeled, (3) the washability data and the
analysis of the raw coal to be processed,
and (4) specific economic data necessary
to determine the process investment and
operating costs.
The second process simulated by the
model is limestone or lime wet-scrubbing
FGD. This S02 pollution control process
is well known and has been in use for a
number of years. From 1968 through
1980, EPA sponsored an FGD test facility
at TVA's Shawnee Steam Plant near
Paducah, Kentucky, which was primarily
being used to test limestone- and lime-
scrubbing processes. The FGD programs
used in the model have been under
development since 1974, and are based
on results obtained from the Shawnee
facility. These programs constitute
another computer model (EPA-600/8-
81-008; NTIS PB 82-178963). The pro-
grams have frequently been revised and
expanded to incorporate new technology,
and they are presently capable of pro-
jecting comparative capital investment
and annual revenue requirements for
several variants of limestone or lime FGD
systems.
The third part of the model is a com-
paratively smaller program that quantifies
certain economic benefits and penalties
incurred by a power plant that burns
cleaned coal instead of raw coal. This is
accomplished by utilizing many different
equations and relationships, which are
discussed in another report that TVA has
prepared for EPA (EPA-600/7-85-039).
This manual is intended to provide a
user of the model with enough informa-
tion to: (1) prepare the input data, (2)
execute the model, and (3) interpret the
output for a representative coal-cleaning
and FGD process. The concepts and
background information used in the
development of this model are not dis-
cussed in detail. Other publications
associated with the model or the com-
ponent programs provide a more detailed
explanation of these concepts.
The model is expected to be helpful in
projecting the preliminary costs for a
variety of combined coal-cleaning and
FGD processes. As an additional attribute
of the model, the component programs
have been written to allow each one to
be executed independently. This should
increase its usefulness by allowing
comparisons to be made between the
different processes when used separately
as well as combined. An example of this
could be the comparison between an
FGD process and a combined coal-clean-
ing/FGD process. The model also allows
the economics to be estimated for vari-
ations in the design and operation of the
processes, such as absorber design types,
operating specific gravities of coal-clean-
ing equipment, absorber liquid-to-gas
(L/G) ratio, and coal topsize. It is im-
portant to realize that, although the
original coal-cleaning program was devel-
oped to aid in the analysis of an actual
coal-cleaning plant, this combined model
has been designed to be general in nature.
As such a tool, it should be useful during
the preliminary design phase of a coal-
cleaning or FGD construction project.
Specific examples of the use of this model
can be found in the companion report to
this document, EPA-600/7-85-039.
General Information
The combined model is capable of
simulating either a coal-cleaning process,
an FGD process, or a combined coal-
cleaning/FGD process. The printout in-
cludes data for the performance and
economics of each component process.
The output for the FGD simulation also
includes an area-by-area list of the pro-
cess equipment. The coal-cleaning pro-
cess is modeled by general process areas,
and the model does not list individual
equipment. The economic benefits and
penalties program included in the model
determines certain cost reductions and
increases that can be attributed to the
use of cleaned coal in a power plant.
These benefits and penalties are differ-
ence in power plant costs (not absolute
values) incurred when burning raw coal
and costs incurred when burning the
same coal after it is cleaned.
Current Scope
The process designs simulated by the
model are all user defined, but subject to
some restrictions. For the coal-cleaning
design, most processes which employ
gravity separation or froth flotation can
be modeled as long as the process con-
figuration can be defined by no more
than 60 equipment units or 100 flow-
streams. Also, each equipment unit
included in the process configuration
must perform one of the unit operations
allowed by the model, and all required
performance and economic data must be
included in the model input. At present,
input data have been developed for only
one coal-cleaning process. This proci
utilizes dense-medium vessels, den
medium cyclones, and forth flotation ci
as the cleaning equipment (Figure 1).
At present, the FGD programs have
process options, five waste dispo
options, and several miscellaneous
tions that can be used to simulate eitl
a limestone or lime FGD process. Due
the use of extensive equipment siz
and costing algorithms in the FGD p
grams, the economic results for the F
simulation are presented in much gree
detail than those for the coal-clean
process. The economic data producec
the FGD programs are also more relia
where operating conditions are wit
the bounds of the background data u:
to develop the sizing and cost
algorithms. The suggested limits of so
of the more important operating cor
tions are:
• Power unit size 100-1,300 l^
• Coal sulfur content 0.7-5% (by wei(
• Absorber gas velocity 8-12.5 ft/s
[turbulent contact absorber
(TCA)]
• Liquor 25-100 gal./IOOC
recirculation rate
• Slurry residence time 2-25 mini
in hold tank
• Number of scrubbing 1
trains
The results produced when executing
model outside these ranges are no)
well supported, but the results from
simulation of a medium-sized plant o|
ating slightly beyond these limits she
still be valid.
In most cases, a variety of runs rr
be made to completely analyze the ef
of variations in the individual opera
conditions on the overall process de:
and economics. This is particularly 1
in cases when the FGD operating co
tions are outside the above limits.
most straightforward method of analy,
these effects is by changing one valu
a time while holding the others const
but many other techniques can and h
been used.
Illustration of Model Use
Figure 2 is a diagram of the m<
showing the flow of data through
principal model components. The ir
data required for operation of the m<
include: (1) primary processing and F
operating criteria, (2) coal-cleaning eq
ment performance parameters, (3) c
Readers more familiar with metric units may
the conversion factors at the end of this Sumn
-------
Coal Receiving
and Storage
Railroad
Car
I ') Dump
Raw Coal
Sizing
3/8 in. x 28 M
Coarse Coal
Cleaning
Intermediate
Coal
Cleaning
Fine Coal
Cleaning
Refuse
Disposal
Clean Coal
Storage
3/8 in. x 28 M Dense
Medium
Cyclone
DM Cyclone
Feed Sump
Magnetic
Separator
agnetite)
Flotation
Feed
Sump t ~\jhickener
Filter ' ^- ^
\
Clarified Water
for Reuse
t
DM Sump
Dense Medium
Recirculation
System
Water Surge Pond
Refuse Disposal Site
Clean Coal
Stockpile
Legend:
Coa/
Refuse
Dense Medium
Dilute Medium Water
Clean Coal
Shipment
Figure 1. Flow diagram for the coal-cleaning process
-------
All Input Data
Coal Cleaning
Process Printout
Coal Cleaning
Program
1
»/
r
FGD Input Data
Benefits/
Penalties
Input Data
FGD Programs
Benefits/
Penalties Program
Benefits/Penalties
Program Printout
Figure 2. Flow of data through model components
FGD Process
Printout
cleaning process configuration informa-
tion, (4) coal washability tables, and (5)
process economic information. Using
these inputs, the model calculates the
clean coal properties and cleaning plant
performance parameters (Table 1), coal-
cleaning plant capital investment (Table
2), coal-cleaning plant annual revenue
requirements (Table 3), FGD capital in-
vestment (Table 4), and FGD annual
revenue requirements (Table 5). To obtain
coal-cleaning benefits, it is necessary to
run the FGD portion of the model to
obtain costs of controlling emissions from
the combustion of raw coal. This in-
formation is then compared with the costs
of the combined coal-cleaning and FGD
case to estimate the cost benefits of coal
cleaning (Table 6). Finally, the coal-clean-
ing costs and the cost benefits are
combined to provide an estimate of the
net capital investment and annual
revenue requirements for using cleaned
versus raw coal (Table 7).
Future Development
As more process information becomi
available, appropriate modifications in tt
component program and input data of tl
model can be made. Some of those beir
considered are: (1) developing addition
input data to allow more coal-cleanii
processes to be simulated; (2) alterii
the program inputs to enable more th<
one simulation to be made per comput
run; (3) forming a combined model wi
the coal-cleaning program and a spn
dryer FGD program now being develope
(4) using the coal-cleaning program
the analyses of coal refuse burning, i
agglomeration of refuse, and magnei
separation of run-of-mine (ROM) cc
constituents; and (5) using the co<
cleaning program in actual coal-cleanii
plants as a process control aid.
Availability
The model is expected to be availab
to interested organizations and individuz
from TVA and/or the National Technic
Information Service. Requestors will I
provided with the FORTRAN program li;
ings, which are suitable for loading in
an IBM 370-compatible computer systei
For the purpose of illustrating the moc
and allowing a potential user to analy
its capabilities with a minimal amount
time and expense, selected runs to I
made by TVA-based or user-supplied da
may be available to requestors with
time and funding constraints.
It is hoped that the component pr
grams of the model will be modifi
occasionally to include new options ai
input variables. For this reason, son
conflicts may exist between the use
manual and the latest version of tl
model, which is usually the one suppli
to requestors, and which is generally t
basis for example runs made by TV
Requests for copies of the model, examf
runs to be made by TVA, or additior
information may be made to Suppi
Engineering and Operations, Tenness
Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabar
35660, telephone (205) 386-2814.
-------
Table 1. Plant Feed Properties, Product Properties, and Performance Pan
PCC 1 (Pittsburgh Seam. Jef\
1.60 SPG Page
Ultimate Analyses of Raw Coal, Clean Coal.
and Refuse
Raw Coal Clean Coal
Component Weight % Weight %
Carbon
Hydrogem
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Water (Internal)
Subtotal Pure Coal Components
Ash
Sulfur (Organic]
Sulfur (Pyritic)
Subtotal Ash Plus Sulfur
Chlorine
Water (Surface)
Subtotal Chlorine Plus Surface Moisture
Total (Weight Percent)
BTU/LB, Moist Basis
BTU/LB. Dry Basis
LB SO2/M BTU
Weight Recovery, Moist Basis (%)
Weight Recovery, Dry Basis (%)
BTU Recovery (%)
Table 2. Coal-Cleaning Plant Capital
65.35
4.42
7.87
1.35
2.57
91 57
13.81
1 52
2.15
1748
0.10
085
0.95
10000
12121
12812
6.05
Investment
PCC 1 (Pittsburgh Seam, Jefferson
Total Capital Investment
Direct Investment
Raw Coal Storage
Raw Coal Sizing
Coarse Coal Cleaning
Intermediate Coal Cleaning
Fine Coal Cleaning
Refuse Disposal
Clean Coal Storage
Total Process Capital
Services, Utilities, and Miscellaneous
Total Direct Investment
67.99
460
8.19
1.41
2.67
84.85
7.24
1.21
1.63
10.08
0.10
4.97
5.07
WOOD
12970
14042
4.37
9040
8646
94.76
Co., Ohio)
rtmeters f
ferson Co., Ohio)
40 s
f,
c
Refuse
Weight %
22.69
1.53
2.73
0.47
0.89
28.32
55.72
0.65
6.81
63.18
0.10
8.48
8.58
100.00
4513
4975
33.83
1 .60 SPG Page 41
Metric Equivalents
Readers more familiar with the metric
iystem may use the following conversion
actors for nonmetric units used in this
Jummarv.
Nonmetric Times Yields Metric
ft 30.48 cm
ft3 28.32 L
0.028 m3
gal. 3.79 L
0.0038 m3
in. 2.54 cm
Investment, 1982 K%
3,447
1,067
1,505
1,338
2.024
1,832
3,282
14.495
870
15,365
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Total Capital Investment
Indirect Investment
Engineering Design and Supervision
Architect and Engineering Contractor
Construction Expense
Contractor Fees
Total Indirect Investment
Contingency
Total Fixed Investment
Other Capital Investment
Allowance for Startup and Modifications
Interest During Construction
Land
Working Capital
Total Capital Investment
768
307
2,458
768
4,301
1.967
21.633
1.731
3,375
583
1,074
28,396
Table 3. Coal-Cleaning Plant Annual Revenue Requirements
Annual Revenue Requirement
PCC 1 (Pittsburgh Seam, Jefferson Co., Ohio) 1.60 SPG Page
Annual
Quantity
Unit
Cost, $
Total Annual
Cost, 1984 K$
Direct Costs
Conversion Costs
Operating Labor and Supervision
Utilities
Process Water
Electricity
Diesel Fuel
Process Material
Magnetite
Maintenance
Labor and Material
Analysis
Total Conversion Costs
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
Overheads
Plant and Administrative
Total First-Year Operating and Maintenance Costs
Levelized Capital Charges
(14.7% of Total Capital Investment!
Total First-Year Annual Revenue Requirements
Levelized First-Year Operating and Maintenance Costs
<1.886 First-Year 0 and M)
Levelized Capita/ Charges
(14,7% of Total Capital Investment)
Levelized Annual Revenue Requirements
112,770 MAN-HR
25.000 KGAL
6,877,000 KWH
75.900 GAL
1,256 TON
3.697 MAN-HR
15.00/MAN-HR
0.14/KGAL
0.037/KWH
1.60/GAL
107.35/TON
21 OO/MAN-HR
1.692
3
254
121
135
922
78
3,205
3,205
1,696
4,901
4,174
9.075
9.243
4.174
13.417
-------
Table 4. FGD Plant Capital Investment
Projected Capital Investment — PCC 1 (Pittsburgh Seam. Jefferson Co., Ohio) 1.60 SPG
Limestone Slurry Process — Basis: 883 MW Scrubbing Unit — 1000 MW Generating Unit, 1984 Startup
Investment, Thousands of 1982 Dollars
Case 001
Distribution
Equipment
Material
Labor
Piping
Material
Labor
Ductwork
Material
Labor
Foundations
Material
Labor
Structural
Material
Labor
Electrical
Material
Labor
Instrumentation
Material
Labor
Buildings
Material
Labor
Sales Tax (4.0 %) and Freight (3.5 %)
Total Process Capital
Services and Miscellaneous (6.0 %)
Total Direct Process Investment
Pond Construction Material
Pond Construction Labor
Pond Sales Tax (4.0 %) and Freight (3.5 %)
Total Direct Pond Investment
Total Direct Investment
Engineering Design and Supervision (6.0 %)
Architect and Engineering Contractor (1.0 %)
Construction Expenses (14.0 %)
Contractor Fees (4.0 %)
Contingency (10.0 %)
Pond Indirects (2.0, 1.0,8.0.5.0, 10.0%)
Subtotal Fined Investment
Startup & Modification Allowance (8.0, 0.0 %)
Interest During Construction (15.6 %}
Royalties (0.0 %)
Land
Working Capital
Total Capital Investment
Raw Material
Preparation
3440.
343.
566.
252.
0.
0.
403.
1063.
231.
150.
286.
892.
198.
30.
191.
211.
399.
8654.
519.
9173.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9173.
550.
92.
1284.
367.
1147.
0.
12613.
1009.
1968.
0.
11.
465.
16067.
Scrubbing
24242.
3067.
9571.
2004.
5251.
4675.
308.
671.
687.
1198.
1490.
2640.
1533.
254.
0.
0.
3231.
60924.
3549.
64474.
0.
0.
0.
0.
54474.
3868.
645.
9026.
2579.
8059.
0.
88651.
7092.
13830.
0.
7.
3275.
1 12855.
Waste
Disposal
93.
32.
1282.
406.
0.
0.
20.
42.
2.
4.
149.
323.
13.
9.
0.
0.
117.
2494.
150.
2643.
376.
22722.
28.
23126.
25769.
159.
26.
370.
106.
330.
6383.
33143.
291.
5170.
0.
2965.
1309.
42879.
Total
27775.
3442.
11419.
2662.
5251.
4675.
731.
1776.
921.
1352.
1925.
3855.
1744.
294.
191.
211.
3747.
71972.
4318.
76290.
376.
22722.
28.
23126.
99416.
4577.
763.
10681.
3052.
9536.
6383.
134408.
8392.
20968.
0.
2983.
5051.
171801.
Dollars
PerKW
27.78
3.44
11.42
2.66
5.25
4.68
0.73
1.78
0.92
1.35
1.92
3.86
1.74
0.29
0.19
0.21
3.75
71.97
4.32
76.29
0.38
22.72
0.03
23.13
99.42
4.58
0.76
10.68
3.05
9.54
6.38
134.41
8.39
20.97
0.0
2.98
5.05
171.80
-------
Table 5. FGD Plant Annual Revenue Requirements
Projected Annual Revenue Requirements — PCC 1 (Pittsburgh Seam. Jefferson Co., Ohio) 1.60 SPG Case 001
Limestone Slurry Process — Basis. 683 KW Scrubbing Unit — 1OOO MW Generating Unit, 1984 Startup
Display Sheet for Year = 7
Annual Operation - 5500 Hours
56.46 Tons Per Hour Dry Sludge
Total Capital Investment - 171801 (1982 M$) Total
Annual
Annual Quantity Unit Cost, $ Cost, 1984 KS
Direct Costs
Raw Material
Limestone 239.4 K Tons
Subtotal Raw Material
Conversion Costs
8.SO/Ton
Operating Labor and Supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process Water
Electricity
39550.0 MAN-HR 15.00/MAN-HR
602430.0 K LB
421770.0 K GAL
75526100.0 KWH
Maintenance
Labor and Material
Analysis 6590.0 HR
Subtotal Conversion Costs
Subtotal Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
Overhead
Plant and Administrative (60.0% of Conversion Costs Less Utilities)
First Year Operating and Maintenance Costs
Levelized Capital Charges (14.70% of Total Capital Investment)
First Year Annual Revenue Requirements
Equivalent First Year Unit Revenue Requirements. Mills/KWH (MW Scrubbed)
Equivalent First Year Unit Revenue Requirements, Mills/KWH (Total MW)
2.50/KLB
0.14/KGAL
0.037/KWH
21.00/HR
2035
2035
595
1506
59
2795
138
11127
13162
4061
17222
25255
42477
8.75
7.72
Levelized Operating and Maintenance (1.886 Times First Year Oper. & Main.)
Levelized Capital Charges (14.70% of Total Capital Investment)
Levelized Annual Revenue Requirements
Equivalent Levelized Unit Revenue Requirements, Mills/KWH (MW Scrubbed)
Equivalent Levelized Unit Revenue Requirements, Mills/KWH (Total MW)
32500
25255
57755
11.89
10.50
Heat Rate 9200. BTU/KWH
Heat Value of Coal
12121 BTU/LB
Coal Rate
2087300 TONS/TR
-------
Table 6. Cost Benefits of Coal Cleaning
PCC 1 (Pittsburgh Seam, Jefferson Co., Ohio) 1.60 SPG
Area
Total Capital Investment Annual Revenue Requirement
Benefit. 1982 Dollars Benefit, 1984 Dollars/VM
Coal Loss
FGD Process
Transportation
UMV Trust Fund
Coal Tax
Electrostatic Precipitator
ASH Hand/ing and Disposal
Grinding
Maintenance
Availability
Total
0.
24011000.
0.
0.
0.
-1457OOO.
8091000.
1482000.
0.
0.
32127000.
-2366100.
6773000.
1438700.
296300.
7/300.
-224/00.
2333200.
3/9400.
/ 903300.
2506500.
/3050900.
Table 7.
Net Capital Investment and Annual Revenue Requirements
PCC 1 (Pittsburgh Seam, Jefferson Co., Ohio) 1.60 SPG
Combined Total Capital Investment and Annual Revenue Requirements
Cost
Element
Physical
Coal Cleaning
PCC Cost
Benefits
Net
Cost
Total Capital Investment
(1982 K$j
First Year Annual
Revenue Requirement (1984 KS/YR)
L evelized A nnual
Revenue Requirement /KS/YR)
28396.
9075.
13417.
32127.
13051.
24614.
-3731.
-3976.
-11197.
C. R. Wright and F. A. Sudhoff are with TVA, Office of Power, Muscle Shoals,
AL 35661.
James D. Kilgore is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report consists of paper copy and magnetic tape, entitled "Coal-
Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfurization Computer Model Users Manual,"
Paper copy (Order No. PB 87-227 484/AS; Cost: $24.95)
Magnetic tape (Order No. PB 87-227 476/AS; Cost: $1,900.00; cost includes
paper copy)
The above items will be available only from: (cost subject to change)
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Officer can be contacted at:
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
N
cn
<.
.
oo 7 3
si!
08 8
w
8
ffi
oo
O
o
O
O
(M
IM
Omso
MX! W
fit! O
m ae
-4
C* IB.
o
* m
O Z
*« o
?
------- |