United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
*
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-012C Sept. 1981
Project Summary
EPA Utility FGD Survey
January - March 1981
M. Smith, M. Melia, N. Gregory, and K. Scalf
This report, generated by a compu-
terized data base system, presents a
survey of operational and planned
domestic utility flue gas desulf urization
(FQD) systems, operational domestic
particle scrubbers, and Japanese coal-
fired utility boiler FGD installations. It
summarizes information contributed
by the utility industry, system and
equipment suppliers, system design-
ers, research organizations, and regu-
latory agencies. It presents data on
system design, fuel characteristics,
operating history, and actual perfor-
mance. Unit by unit dependability
parameters are included. Problems
and solutions associated with the
boilers, scrubbers, and FGD systems
are discussed.
The domestic FGD systems are
tabulated alphabetically by develop-
ment status (operational, under con-
struction, or in the planning stages),
utility company, system supplier,
process, waste disposal practice, and
regulatory class. FGD system eco-
nomic data, definitions, and a glossary
of terms are appended to the report.
Current data for domestic FGD sys-
tems show 87 systems in operation,
35 systems under construction, and'
104 planned systems. Projected 1990
FGD controlled capacity in the U.S. is
108,612 MW.
This Project Summary was develop-
ed by EPA's Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Research Tri-
angle Park, NC, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
This report is prepared quarterly
(every 3 months) by PEDCo Environ-
mental, Inc., under contract to the
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/Research Triangle Park and
the Stationary Source Enforcement
Division of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. It is generated by a
computerized data base system, the
structure of which is illustrated in
Figure 1 (see pages 6 and 7).
Table 1 summarizes the status of FGD
systems in the United States at the end
of March 1981. Table 2 lists the units
that have changed status during the
first quarter 1981, and Table 3 shows
the performance of operating units
during this period.
Current projections indicate that the
total power generating capacity of the
U.S. electric utility industry will be
approximately 833 GW by the end of
1990.' (This value reflects the annual
loss resulting from the retirement of
older units, which is considered to be
0.4% of the average generating capacity
at the end of each year.2) Approximately
370 GW or 44% of the 1990 total will
come from coal-fired units. The distribu-
tion of power generation sources, both
present (December 1979) and future
(December 1990) is shown in Table 4.1
Based on the known commitments to
FGD by utilities as presented in Table 1,
the percentage of electrical generating
-------
capacity controlled by FGD for both the
present (March 1981) and the future
(December 1990) is shown in Table 5.
In light of the revised New Source
Performance Standards, actual FGD
control is expected to be greater than
what is reflected by the figures above.
For example, about 40 to 50 systems
representing approximately 20,000 to
25,000 MW of generating capacity
presently fall into the uncommitted
category. These are systems that cannot
be included in the committed group at
this time because information regarding
their status is not ready for public
release.
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
No. of
units
87
35
27
11
18
48
Total
controlled
capacity, MW*
32,717
14,835
13,796
8,235
10,191
28,838
Equivalent
scrubbed
capacity, MW']
29,538
14,481
13,796
8,235
10,O75
28,850
Total
226
108,612
104,975
* The summation of the gross unit capacities (MWJ brought into compliance with FGD
systems regardless of the percent of the flue gas scrubbed by the FGD systems.
t The summation of the effective scrubbed flue gas in equivalent MW based on the
percent of flue gas scrubbed by the FGD systems.
Table 2. Summary of Changes—January - March 1981
In an effort to show general F
usage and projected usage trends, Ta
6 gives a current (March 1981) an
projected (December 1990) breakdo
of throwaway product systems ven
salable product systems as a percen
the total known commitments to FGD
of the end of the first quarter 1981.
Highlights:
January - March 1981
The following paragraphs highli
FGD system developments during
first quarter of 1981.
Arizona Public Service announc
that initial FGD operations at CholL
commenced in March 1981. The 3
MW (gross) boiler fires pulverized c
with an average sulfur content of O.E
Flue gas flows through an ESP tc
double-loop, spray-packed tower (f
search-Cottrell design) which uses
limestone slurry and treats 36% of 1
flue gas. The system operated 1 we
and was shut down for a beari
inspection.
Basin Electric Power Coop announc
that a contract was awarded to ~
Under
Operational
FGD status report
Oecember31. 1980
No.
84
MW
28, 187"
construction
No.
34
MW
14.285
Contract
awarded
No.
30
MW
14,903"
Letter
of intent
No.
10
MW
7,515
Requesting/
Considering
eval. bids
No.
16
MW
8,735
No.
49
FGD
MW
29,640"
Total
No.
223
MW
103,26i
Arizona Public Service
Choi/a 4
Basin Electric Power Coop
Antelope Valley 2
Cincinnati Gas & Electric
East Bend 2
Colorado Ute Electric Assn.
Craig 3
Iowa Electric Light & Power
Guthrie Co.
Jacksonville Electric
Authority
St. Johns River
Power Park 1
St. Johns River
Power Park 2
Kentucky Utilities
Hancock 1
Hancock 2
Tennessee Valley Authority
Widows Creek 7
Utah Power & Light
Hunter 3
Hunter 4
Washington Water Power
Creston Coal 2
Creston Coal 3
Creston Coal 4
West Perm Power
Mitchell 33
126 -1
650 -1
+7
126
+ 1
650
447 -7
440
447
-1 440
+1 720 -1
+1
+7
+ 1
60O
600
650
650
-1
-1
-1
-1
720
600
600
650
650
+1
575 -1
+ 7
+ 7
+ 7
575
400
400
300
-1
-1
-1
400
400
300
+7
+7
+7
570 +7
570 +7
570 +7
57C
57C
57C
Total
87 29,538 35 14.481 27 13.796
11
8.235 18 10,075 48 28,850 226 104.97&
'Equivalent scrubbed capacity.
"This value was modified slightly due to a MW correction.
-------
Table 3. Performance of
Plant
Alabama Electric
Tombigbee 2
Tombigbee 3
Amona Electric
Power
Apache 2
Apache 3
Arizona Public Service
Cholla 1
Cholla 2
Cholla 4
Four Corners 1
Four Corners 2
Four Corners 3
Basin Electric Power
Coop
Laramte River 1
Big Rivers Electric
Green 1
Green 2
Centra/ Illinois Light
Duck Creek 1
Central Illinois
Public Service
Newton 1
Cincinnati Gas 4 Electric
East Bend 2
Colorado Ute Electric
Association
Craig 1
Craig 2
Columbus & Southern
. Ohio Electric
Conesvilte 5
Conesville 6
Commonwealth Edison
Powerton 51
Cooperative Power
Association
Coal Creek 1
Coal Creek 2
Delmarva Power & Light
Delaware City 1
Delaware City 2
Delaware City 3
Duquesne Light
Elrama 1 -4
Phi/lips 1-6
Gulf Power
Scholz 1
Indianapolis Power &
Light
Petersburg 3
Kansas City Power &
Light
Hawthorn 3
Hawthorn 4
La Cygne 1
Kansas Power & Light
Jeffrey 1
Jeffrey 2
Lawrence 4
Lawrence 5
Kentucky Utilities
Green River 1-3
Louisville Gas & Electric
Cane Run 4
Cane Run 5
Cane Run 6
FGD system
caoacttv
MW
179
179
98
98
119
264
126
175
175
229
570
242
242
416
617
650
410
410
411
411
450
327
327
60
60
60
510
408
20
532
90
90
820
540
490
125
420
64
188
200
299
Operational Units — January -
FGD
capacity
on line
Flue gas
% scrubbed
70
70
50
50
100
too
33
too
too
100
too
too
too
100
100
too
90
90
100
100
100
60
60
too
too
too
100
IOO
N/A"
100
100
100
too
75
70
too
too
too
100
too
too
during No information
period for this
MW period. MW
179
179
98
98
119
264
126
175
175
229
570
242
242
416
617
650
410
410
411
411
327
327
60
60
60
510
408
20
532
90
90
820
540
490
125
420
188
200
299
March 1981
Shut down
January 1981
throughout Dependability %
pprinri
MW AVL
100
too
too
93
99
40
79
91
98
450
too
100
90
93
64
too
70
100
100
87
64 IOO
81
100
86
OPR
63
S3
95
92
90
48
78
86
92
44
57
90
93
64
75
69
too
100
too
81
100
83
REL
IOO
too
too
96
IOO
48
78
85
92
90
93
64
77
95
too
too
83
81
IOO
83
February 1981
'•' Dependability %
UTL AVL OPR REL
63 100 11 100
46 100 27 100
92 100 95 100
92 91 92 99
90 100 95 tOO
38 9 8 9
78 66 66 66
77 94 92 92
92 92 85 85
0
44 83 53
57 100 57
90 86 84 84
93 96 96 96
64 88 88 88
75 97 82 82
69 95 69 73
74 85 100 67
67 5 tOO 5
68 99 100 99
• 0 100
81 0 0
89 82 77 77
so too too too
March 1981
" Dependability %'
UTL AVL OPR REL
11 100 54 100
27 79 24 53
85 100 99 100
9O 87 84 88
95 90 67 100
7 12 12 12
66 52 53 54
86 4-20 26
78 75 97 99
0
43 47 61
56 55 55
76 96 96' 96
96 S3 89 89
88 81 83 83
82
69
30 52 100 100
5 86 IOO 100
66 97 96 97
o too
o too 100 too
59 tOO 46 46
72 IOO 34 34
:,•
UTL
44
24
97
80
62
12
52
1
59
0
29
31
95
58
83
52
62
81
0
39
43
28
-------
Table 3. (continued)
FGD system
t
Plant
Mill Creek 1
Mill Creek 3
Paddy's Run 6
Minnesota Power ft
Light
Clay Boswell 4
Minnkota Power ft Light
Milton ft. Young 2
Monongahela Power
Pleasants 1
Pleasants 2
Montana Power
Co/strip 1
Colstrip 2
Nevada Power
Reid Gardner 1
Reid Gardner 2
Reid Gardner 3
Northern Indiana
Public Service
Dean H. Mitchell 1 1
Northern States Power
Riverside 6,7
Sherburne 1
Sherburne 2
Pacific Power ft Light
Jim Bridget 4
Pennsylvania Power
Bruce Mansfield 1
Bruce Mansfield 2
Bruce Mansfield 3
Public Service Co. of
New Mexico
San Juan 1
San Juan 2
San Juan 3
Salt River Project
Coronado 1
Coronado 2
South Carolina Public
Service Authority
Winyah 2
Winyah 3
South Mississippi Electric
R.D Morrow, Sr. 1
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 2
Southern Illinois
Power Coop
Marion 4
Southern Indiana
Gas ft Electric
A.B Brown 1
Springfield City Utilities
Southwest 1
Springfield Water,
Light, ft Power
Dallman 3
St Joe Zinc
G f. Weaton 1
Tennessee Valley Authority
Shawnee 10A
Shawnee 10B
Widows Creek 7
Widows Creek 8
Texas Power ft Light
Sandow 4
Texas Utilities
Martin Lake 1
Martin Lake 2
capacity.
MW
358
442
72
475
185
618
618
360
360
125
125
125
115
110
740
740
550
917
917
917
361
350
534
280
280
14O
280
124
124
173
265
194
205
60
10
to
575
550
382
595
595
Flue gas
% scrubbed
IOO
100
too
85
42
100
100
100
100
IOO
too
100
99
N/A"
91
91
100
100
100
IOO
IOO
IOO
roo
80
80
50
too
62
62
100
IOO
IOO
100
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
roo
IOO
70
75
75
FGD
capacity
online Shutdown January 1981 February 1981 March 1981
during No information throughout Dependability %"* Dependability %°* Dependability %"•'
nttnpff fnr f/lic nnrifirf
MW' period, MW MW AVL OPR REL UTL AVL OPR REL UTL AVL OPR REL U
358 51 46 46 42 52 52 52 52 39 36 36
442 00 000 0111
72 IOO 0 100 0 100
475 100 95 100 95 100 82 100 81 100 92 100
185 84 94 100 84 95 100 100 95 88 95 100
618
618
360 96 97
360 98 97
125 85 85 85 85 43 54 54 43 76 73 73
,25 97 96 97 84 93 90 89 75 100 98 98
,25 99 99 99 99 100 IOO 100 100 89 67 67
115 IOO 0 0 100 0 0 100 0
110
740 too loo roo roo too 100. too 95 100 too 100 i
740 100 roo 100 roo too too 100 99 too wo too i
550
917
917
917
3S1 100 99 rOO 97 98 92 96 84 1OO 66 82
350 97 76 98 76 96 31 99 25 94 82 94
534 100 90 98 55 81 80 80 75 98 97 98
280
280
,4O 99 99 99 99 97 97 97 97 IOO WO IOO 1
280 66 8O 80 66 86 88 88 82 85 WO 100
,24 IOO 0 IOO 92 IOO 12 86 SO 80
,24 89 98 98 87 IOO IOO 100 86 86 87 87
,73 59 50 53 49 67 67 67 67 65 72 75
265 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 94 86 88
194 58 54 71 54 46 43 46 43
206 100 58 58 SB 50 48 95 40 50 46 46
60 00 000 000
10
10
575
550
382
595
595
-------
tie 3. Concluded
FGD system
Plant
'arlm Lake 3
'onticello 3
i/i Power & Light
(inter 1
jnter 2
•jntington 1
"otal
-
MW
595
800
360
360
366
29.538
% scrubbed
75
too
90
90
86
FGD
capacity
on line
during No information
MW* period, MW
595
800
360
360
366
25,825 2.402
Shut down January 1981
throughout Dependability %
MW AVL OPR REL
100
100
100
1.311
February 1981
'* Dependability %
UTL AVL OPR REL
93 100
89 100
96 100
March 1981
" Dependability %"
UTL AVL OPR REL UTL
95 100 31
96 1OO 99
1OO 100 94
uvatent scrubbed capacity
s category includes the flue gas capacity being handled by the FGD system at least pan of the time during the report period
' percent figures listed are average values for all system scrubbing trains during the period.
B gas % scrubbed for prototype and demonstration units is not applicable unless the system is designed to bring a unit into compliance with SOi emission standard.
viability, operabilny. reliability, and utilization as defined in Appendix C of the full report
nufacturing/Niro Atomizer for a
e/spray drying FGD system to be
tailed at Antelope Valley 2. The 440
V (gross) unit will fire lignite with an
!rage sulfur content of 0.68%. Opera-
is are scheduled to commence in
ober 1985.
'he limestone FGD system operated
Laramie River 1 of Basin Electric
rver achieved 100% availability for
first quarter of 1981. The system
srated for the 3 month period with no
jor problems reported.
'he dual-alkali scrubbing system
tailed at Newton 1 of Central Illinois
ilic Service achieved availabilities of
%, 100%, and 90% during January,
jruary, and March, respectively. No
ijor FGD-related problems were
iorted during the three months.
nitial operation of the FGD system at
st Bend 2 of Cincinnati Gas and
ictric commenced in March 1981.
e unit fires pulverized coal with an
srage sulfur content of 3.0%. A hot-
e ESP is followed by three lime FGD
>dules, supplied by Babcock and
Icox. The stabilized sludge from this
>sed water loop system is disposed of
an on-site landfill. The system
erated in a shakedown/debugging
ase during March.
Colorado Ute Electric announced that
nstruction of the Craig 3 FGD system
gan during the first quarter of 1981.
le lime/spray-drying system is being
pplied by Babcock and Wilcox. The
I5-MW (gross) unit will fire pulverized
ibbituminous coal with an average
ilfur content of 0.45%. A fabric filter
ill be used to collect the flyash and the
y calcium sulfite/sulfate paniculate
alter (as well as any unused reagent).
Table 4. Power Generation Sources; Present and Future
Coal Nuclear Oil Hydro Gas Other
GW (total)
December
December
1979
1990
39%
44%
9%
14%
25%
20%
13%
11%
13%
10%
1%
1%
603
833
Startup of the FGD system is expected in
April 1983.
Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric
reported that the Conesville 5 FGD
system achieved availabilities of 91%
and 94% for January and February,
respectively. The Conesville 6 FGD
system achieved availabilities of 98%
and 92% for the same period, respec-
tively. No major FGD-related problems
were reported for either system during
the 2 months. March performance data
were not provided.
The 20-MW prototype dual-alkali/
limestone test program being conducted
by Thyssen/CEA and Arthur D. Little at
the Scholz station of Gulf Power was
completed on March 28. The program
was conducted to determine the feasi-
bility of using limestone rather than
lime as the source of calcium for
regeneration reactions. The system
reportedly achieved SOz removal ef-
ficiencies of 96% and 97% during
February and March, respectively.
There are no current plans to continue
operation of the prototype.
The Elrama FGD system of Duquesne
Light achieved availabilities of 100% for
January and 97% for February. With the
exception of some absorber module
lining repairs during February, no major
operational problems were encountered
during the 2 months. Information for
March was not provided.
Iowa Electric Light and Power an-
nounced that a letter of intent was
signed with Combustion Engineering
for the installation of a wet limestone
scrubbing system on Guthrie County 1.
The unit is rated at 720 MW (gross) and
will fire pulverized subbituminous coal
with an average sulfur content of 0.4%.
An ESP will provide primary particulate
matter control. Operations are scheduled
to commence in October 1984.
Jacksonville Electric Authority an-
nounced that bids are being requested
for wet limestone FGD systems to be
installed at Units 1 and 2 at the St.
Table 5. FGD Controlled Generating Capacity; Present and Future
Coal-fired generating
capacity controlled
by FGD. %
Total generating
capacity controlled
by FGD, %
March 1981*
December 1990
13.9
29.6
5.4
13.0
*The number of committed FGD systems is as of March 1981; however, the figure
used for the total generating capacity and coal-fired generating capacity is based on
the available December 1979 figures.
-------
Boiler Stack
Boiler Supp.
Boiler Type
Gas Flow Rate
Stack Height
Stack Liner
Fuel
Type
Grade
Heat Content
Sulfur -%
Particulate
Matter
Control
1
Mechanical
Collector
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Design AP
Quenchers/
Presaturators
Type
Supplier
Design AP
L/C Ratio
ESP
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Design AP
Fabric Filter
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Gas/Cloth Rat
1
Mist
Eliminators
Type Supplier
Horn/Vert
Stages
Passes/Stage
Absorbers
Type
Supplier
Gas Flow Rate
L/G Ratio
Removal Eff
\
FGD General
Data
Process Type
Supplier
New/Retrofit
Start Date Status
FOG
Design
information
P 'articulate
Matter Scrubber
Type Supplier
Gas Flow Rate
L/G Ratio
Removal Eff
Fans
Design
Supplier
Application
Gas Flow Rate
Reheaters
Type
Location
Heading Med
Flue Gas A T
I
Spare
Component
Index
Absorber
Fan
Pump
Spare
Capacity
Index
Absorber
Fan
Pump
Ductwork
Location
Configuration
Dimensions
Dampers
Function
Type
Manufacturer
Pilot
Partict
ProL
Testr
1
Tanks
Type
Location
Configuration
Capacity
Reagent
Preparation
Equipment
Device Type
Function
Feed Capacity
Pun
Tyt
Manufi
Cape
Ser
I
Recovt
Prod
Typ
Quan
Dispos
r
Figure 1. Computerized data base structure diagram.
6
Treatn
Meth
Device
Inlet Cr
Outlet C
-------
_L
Process
Control and
instrumentation
Proc Stream
Parameters
-Chemical
-Physical
I
Unit
Performance
Date
Boiler Hours
Boiler A vail
Capacity Factor
Removal
Performance
SOsREM -%
Part REM -%
I
Literal
Information
Comments/
Abstract
'Ct
'6
ity
ition
-------
Johns River Power Park. Each 500-MW
(gross) unit will fire pulverized coal with
an average sulfur content of 2.5%.
Initial operations are scheduled for
1985 and 1987, respectively.
Kentucky Utilities announced that
bids are being requested for limestone
FGD systems at Hancock 1 and 2. The
708-MW (gross) units will be located in
Hawesville, Kentucky, and will fire
Western Kentucky coal with an average
sulfur content of 3.5%. ESP's will be
used to control paniculate matter
emissions. Operations are scheduled.to
commence in 1988 and 1994, respec-
tively.
The FGD system at Clay Boswell 4 of
Minnesota Power and Light achieved
100% availabilities during January,
February, and March. No major problems
were reported for the lime/alkaline
flyash FGD system during the 3 months.
Montana Power reported that the
Colstrip 1 FGD system achieved avail-
abilities of 96% and 97% for January
and February, respectively. The Colstrip
2 FGD system achieved availabilities of
98 and 97% for the same 2 months,
respectively. No major FGD related
problems were reported for either
system. March performance data were
not provided.
The limestone/alkaline flyash FGD
systems installed at Sherburne 1 and 2
of Northern States Power achieved
100% availabilities for the first quarter
of 1981. No major operational problems
were reported for the 3 months.
San Juan 1 of the Public Service of
New Mexico achieved availabilities of
100%, 98%, and 100% during January,
February, and March, respectively. San
Juan 2 achieved availabilities of 97%,
and 94% during the same period,
respectively. No major FGD-related
problems were reported during the
three months.
The limestone FGD system installed
at Winyah 2 of South Carolina Public
Service achieved availabilities of 99%,
97%, and 100% during the months of
January, February, and March, respec-
tively. An expansion joint problem in the
quencher discharge pump was the only
major problem reported during the 3
months.
The FGD system installed at A.B.
Brown 1 of Southern Indiana Gas and
Electric achieved availabilities of 99%,
99%, and 94% during January, February,
and March, respectively. Some minor
pump and vacuum filter problems were
reported during the 3 months; however.
Table 6. Summary of FGD Systems by Process
Percent of total MW
March
1981
December
1990
Throwaway product process
Wet systems
Lime
Limestone
Dual alkali
Sodium carbonate
NA*
°Dry systems
Lime
Sodium carbonate
Salable product process
Process
39.6
47.4
4.1
3.1
0.4
20.2
36.2
1.9
3.0
6.3
2.9
0.4
Byproduct
Aqueous carbonate/
spray drying
Citrate
Lime
Limestone
Lime/ limestone
Magnesium oxide
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Process undecided
Elemental sulfur
Elemental sulfur
Gypsum
Gypsum
Gypsum
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Elemental sulfur
Total
—
0.2
—
—
—
—
2.4
2.8
—
100.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.2-
0.7
25.5
100.0
Not available (these systems are committed to a throwaway product process;
however, the actual process is unknown at this time).
overall system unavailable time was
minimal.
Tennessee Valley Authority announced
that initial FGD operations at Widows
Creek 7 commenced in March 1981.
The 575-MW (gross) unit fires pul-
verized coal with an average sulfur
content of 3.7%. The limestone spray
tower absorber FGD system is preceded
by an ESP and four variable-throat
venturies for primary paniculate matter
control. The system operated in a shake-
down/debugging mode throughout
March.
Utah Power and Light announced that
construction of the FGD systems at
Hunter 3 and 4 began in March 1981.
The 400-MW (gross) units are being
constructed in Castledale, Utah, and
will fire pulverized bituminous coal with
an average sulfur content of 0.55%. GE
Environmental Services, Inc. (formerly
Chemico) is supplying the limestone
FGD systems which are expected to
begin initial operations in 1983 and
1985, respectively.
Washington Water Power announced
plans to construct Creston Coal 2,3, and
4 in Creston, Washington. Each 570-
MW (gross) unit will use a limestone
FGD system for S02 control. Construc-
tion at this site is scheduled to com-
mence in 1983, with initial operation of
the units currently scheduled for 1987.
West Pennsylvania Power announced
that construction of the Mitchell 33 FGD
system began in March 1981. This 300-
MW (gross) unit is being constructed in
Courtney, Pennsylvania, and will fire
coal with an average sulfur content of
2.8%. The lime scrubbing process is
being supplied by GE Environmental
Services, Inc., and is designed for a 95%
SOz removal efficiency. The system is
expected to commence operation in
August 1982.
References
1. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy
Information Administration. Office
of Coal and Electric Power Statistics.
Electric Power Statistics Division.
8
-------
Inventory of Power Plants in the
United States, December 1979.
Report No. DOE/EIA-0095 (79).
Rittenhouse, R.C. New Generating
Capacity: When, Where, and by
Whom. Power Engineering 82(4):57.
April 1978.
M. Smith. M. Melia, N. Gregory, and K. Scalf are with PEDCo Environmental,
Inc., Cincinnati, OH 45246.
Norman Kaplan is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "EPA Utility FGD Survey, January-March 1981,"
(Order No. PB 81 -225 773; Cost: $23.00, subject to change) will be available
only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, '981 -757-012/7338
-------
11
Is
00
8
** i. t O
- o
f CD
M O
Z TO
C 3T
o o
2" C
3!
m r
ar •
r
T> r"
:«3 m
O •«
-<
fTi
O
o
r
m
Un
w<
01
------- |