se/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 2771
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81-012d Dec. 1981
Project Summary
EPA Utility FGD Survey
April — June 1981
M. Smith, M. Melia, N. Gregory, and R. McKibben
The report, generated by a com-
puterized data base system, presents a
survey of operational and planned
domestic utility flue gas desulfuriza-
tion (FGD) systems, operational
domestic particle scrubbers, and
Japanese coal-fired utility FGO instal-
lations. It summarizes information
contributed by the utility industry,
system and equipment suppliers,
system designers, research organiza-
tions, and regulatory agencies. It
presents data on system design, fuel
characteristics, operating history, and
actual performance. Unit by unit
dependability parameters are included
and 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 88 systems in operation,
40 systems under construction, and
99 planned systems. Projected 1999
FGD controlled capacity in the U.S. is
108,857 MW.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Industrial Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle 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).
This report is prepared quarterlyby
PEDCo Environmental, Inc., under
contract to the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory/Research Triangle
Park of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion 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 U.S. at the end of June
1981. Table 2 lists the units that have
changed status during the second
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 about
831 GW by the end of 1999.'(This value
reflects the annual loss resulting from
the retirement of older units; i.e., about
0.4 percent of the average generating
capacity at the end of each year.2)
Approximately 373 GW (45 percent of
the 1999 total) will come from coal-fired
units. The distribution of power genera-
tion sources, both present (December
1980) and future (December 1999) is
shown in Table 4.'
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 (June 1981) and the future
(December 1999) is shown in Table 5.
In light of the revised New Source
Performance Standards, actual FGD
-------
Table 1 . Number and Total Capacity of FGD Systems
Total Equivalent
No. of controlled scrubbed
Status units capacity, MW* capacity, MW*
Operational 88 33,357 30,158
Under construction 40 16,106 15,887
Planned:
Contract awarded 21 11,815 11,815
Letter of intent 11 8,235 8.235
Requesting /evaluating bids 19 10,456 10,340
Considering only FGD 48 28,888 28.850
systems
Total 227 108,857 105,285
"The summation of the gross unit capacities (MW) brought into compliance with FGD
systems regardless of the percent of the flue gas scrubbed by the FGD system(s).
"The summation of the effective scrubbed flue gas in equivalent MW based on the
percent of flue gas scrubbed by the FGD system(s).
Table 2. Summary of Changes April - June 1981
Under Contract Letter
Operational construction awarded of intent
FGD status report No MW No. MW No MW No. MW
March 31. 1981 87 29,503" 35 14.481 27 13.796 11 8,235
Big Rivers Electric
D.B Wilson 1 tl 44O -1 440
Deseret Gen & Trans.
Moon Late 1 +t 410 -1 410
Gult Power
Seriate 7 -1 2O
Marquette Board of Light & Power
Shiras3 +1 44-1 44
Montana-Dakota Utilities
Coyote 1 +7 440 -1 440
Muscat me Power & Water
Muscat me 9 +1 166 -1 166
Northern Indiana Pub Service
Schahfer 17 +1 421 -1 421
Pacific Power & Light
Jim Bndger 2A +1 100
Sikeston Brd of Municipal Utilities
Sikeston 1 +1 235 -1 235
South Carolina Public Service
Cross 2 + 7 5CC -1 500
Southern Indiana Gas « flee.
A.B. Brown 2
Total 88 30,158 40 1S.887 21 11,815 11 8,235
'Equivalent scrubbed capacity
b7"/7/s value was modified slightly due to a MW correction
Table 3. Performance of Operational Units April - June 1981
FGD
capacity No
FGD on line information Shut down April 19B1
system Flue during for this throughout Dependability %"
capacity, gas * period, period, period.
Plant MW scrubbed MW* MW MW AVL OPfl FtEL UTL AVL
Alabama Electric
Tombigbee2 179 70 179
TombigbeeS 179 70 179
Arizona Electric Power
Apache 2 98 50 98 100 100 100 1OO 100
Apache 3 98 50 98 100 75 100 36 100
control is expected to be greater t
that reflected by the figures above.
example, about 50 to 60 systems re|
senting approximately 29,000 to 31 ,(
MW of generating capacity prese
fall into the uncommitted categi
These are systems that cannot
included in the committed group at \
time because information regard
their status is not ready for pul
release.
In an effort to show general F
usage and projected usage trends, Ta
6 gives a current (June 1981) am
projected (December 1 999) breakdo
of throwaway product systems ver;
salable product systems as a percent
the total known commitments to FGD
of the end of the second quarter 1 91
Requesting/ Considering
eval bids FGD Total
No MW No. MW No. MW
18 10,075 48 28,860 226 104.94\
-1 21
+1 IOC
+ 7 265 + 7 265
)9 70,340 48 28.850 227 105,285
May 1981 June T$81
Dependability %** Dependability %c*
OPFt FtEL UTL AVL OPR flf/_ UTL
100 too too 100 too too 700
87 100 87 100 87 10O 87
-------
Table 3. (continued)
FGD
system
capacity.
Plant MW
Arizona Public Service
Cholla 1 119
Cholla 2 264
Cholla 4 126
Four Corners 1 175
Four Corners 2 175
Four Corners 3 229
Basin Electric Power
Laramie River 1 570
Big Rivers Electric
Green 1 242
Green 2 242
Central Illinois Light
Duck Creek 1 416
Central Illinois
Public Service
Newton 1 617
Cincinnati Gas & Electric
East Bend 2 650
Colorado Ute Electric
Craig 1 410
Craig 2 410
Columbus & Southern
Ohio Electric
Conesville 5 411
Conesville6 411
Commonwealth Edison
Powerton 51 450
Cooperative Power
Coal Creek 1 327
Coal Creek 2 327
Delmarva Power & Light
Delaware City 1 60
Delaware City 2 60
Delaware City 3 60
Duquesne Light
Elrama 1-4 510
Phillips 1-6 408
Indianapolis Power
& Light
Petersburg 3 532
Kansas City Power
& Light
Hawthorn 3 9O
Hawthorn 4 90
La Cygne 1 820
Kansas Power & Light
Jeffrey 1 540
Jeffrey 2 490
Lawrence 4 125
Lawrence 5 420
Kentucky Utilities
Green River 1 -3 64
Louisville Gas & Electric
Cane Run 4 188
Cane Run 5 200
Cane Run 6 299
Mill Creek 1 358
Mill Creek 3 427
Paddy's Run 6 72
Flue
gas%
scrubbed
too
too
33
too
100
100
too
too
too
too
too
too
90
90
too
too
too
60
60
100
too
too
too
too
too
too
too
too
75
70
too
too
too
too
too
too
too
too
too
FGD
capacity
on line
during
period.
MW*
570
242
242
416
617
650
410
411
411
450
327
327
60
60
60
510
408
532
90
90
tea
200
299
358
427
No
information Shut down
for this throughout
period, period.
MW MW AVL
119
264
126
175
175
229
too
too
too
38
100
21
410 0
97
51
100
too
74
64
93
too
73
too
81
820
540
490
125
420
64 100
too
too
95
40
33
72 tOO
April 1981
Dependability %"
OPR
97
28
95
35
0
82
98
71
83
84
93
93
70
too
100
100
98
25
33
REL
100
29
too
27
0
87
too
too
83
84
93
100
73
too
72
too
98
25
33
UTL AVL
97 tOO
61 85
100 93
24 70
95 1OO
21 0
0 0
63 1OO
33 1OO
0
71 100
o too
74 98
64 98
93 76
93 97
70 71
69 tOO
49 96
0 100
0 100
51 100
82 98
8 47
33 34
o too
May
1981
June 1981
Dependability %"•'
OPR
96
68
88
0
0
too
too
50
98
98
76
79
66
too
too
too
97
61
38
REL
too
71
98
0
0
too
too
too
98
98
76
95
71
too
96
too
97
61
38
UTL AVL
86
79 95
92 96
67 71
81 100
0 0
0 0
95 99
83 99
0
50 1OO
0 100
98 100
98 76
76 tOO
79
66
31 tOO
86 100
0 100
0 84
96 100
96 89
22 66
34 35
o too
Dependability %"•'
OPR
63
92
0
0
too
too
39
28
too
76
too
too
too
80
0
too
40
35
PEL
70
too
0
0
1OO
100
too
700
100
76
too
100
too
80
0
too
40
35
UTL
95
96
54
91
0
0
97
90
0
36
11
too
76
100
55
95
0
80
0
26
27
35
0
Minnesota Power & Light
Clay Boswell 4 475
Mmnkota Power « Light
Milton Ft. Young 2
Monogahela Power
Pleasants 1
Pleasants 2
185
618
618
85
42
too
too
475
185
tOO 81 tOO 76 96 64 100 58 100 86 100 86
3 5 6 3 65 73 75 65 72 66 68 53
618
618
-------
Table 3. (continued)
Plant
TOO
system
capacity,
MW
Flue
gas%
scrubbed
TOO
capacity
on tine
during
period,
AW"
No
information Shut down
for this throughout
period, period,
MW MW
April 1981
Dependability %Cfl
May 1981
Dependability %"•
June 1981
Dependability %c
OPR PEL UTL AVL OPR REL
UTL
OPR REL
UTL
Montana Power
Colstnp 1 360 tOO 360
Colstnp2 360 100 360
Montana-Dakota Utilities
Coyote 1 440 1OO 440
Nevada Power
Reid Gardner 1 125 100 125
Reid Gardner 2 125 1OO 125
Reid Gardner 3 125 100 125
Northern Indiana
Public Service
Dean H. Mitchell II 115 99
Northern States Power
Riverside 6-7 110 N/A' 11O
Sherburne 1 740 91 740
Sherburne2 740 91 740
Pacific Power & Light
JimBndger4 550 100 550
Pennsylvania Power
Bruce Mansfield 1 917 1OO 917
Bruce Mansfield 2 917 100 917
Bruce Mansfield 3 917 100 917
Public Service Co.
of New Mexico
San Juan 1 361 100 361
San Juan 2 350 100 35O
San Juan 3 534 100 534
Salt River Project
Coronado 1 280 80 280
Coronado2 280 80 280
Sikeston Brd. of
Municipal Utilities
Sikeston 1 235/00 235
115
96 99
100 95
too too
100
99
95
100
96
7
94
88
96
98
100
67
96
98
67
96
98
27
94
96
94
91
100
100
90
89
too
93
89
too
81
76
too
100 99 100
78 62 66
20 74 100
89
47
20
too
98
8
too
84
37
too
96
37
1OO
64
6
10O
100
98
65
63
71
45
42
56
51
47
56
39
42
28
South Carolina
Public Service
Winyah 2 140
Winyah 3 280
South Mississippi Electric
R O Morrow, Sr 1 124
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 2 124
Southern Illinois Power
Mar ion 4 173
Southern Indiana Gas &
Electric
A B. Brown 1 265
Springfield City Utilities
Southwest 1 194
Springfield Water,
Light & Power
Dallman 3 185
St Joe Zinc
G F Weaton 1 60
Tennesse Valley
Authority
Shawnee 10A 10
Shawnee tOB 10
Widows Creek 7 575
Widows Creek 8 550
Texas Power & Light
Sandow 4 382
Texas Utilities
Martin Lake 1 595
Martin Lake 2 595
Martin Lake 3 595
Monticello 3 800
50
too
62
62
100
100
too
14O
28O
124
124
173
265
194
SO 94 34 26 0 0 91 91 91 91
1OO 98 >00 87 100 99 1OO 93 98 97 97 97
81 71 83 62
84 84
96 84 68 68 72 68
90 185
N/A" 60
N/A' 10
N/A" 1O
100 575
too
382
75 595
75 595
75 595
tOO 800
100 0 0 88 81 82 51 100 99 99 97
61 SO 81 59 44 74 91 31 78 75 84 61
00 0 40 19 19 15
11 11 11 11 0 0 000 0
550
-------
Table 3. (continued)
Plant
Utah Power & Light
Hunter 1
Hunter 2
Huntington 1
Total
FGD
system
capacity.
MW
360
360
366
30.158
Flue
gas%
scrubbed
90
90
as
FGD
capacity No
on line information
during for this
period, period,
MW" MW
360
360
366
20,560 8.387
Shut down April 1981 May 1981 June 1981
throughout Dependability %'" Dependability %'•' Dependability %"
period.
MW AVL OPR REL
100
too
too
1,211
UTL AVL
66
100
35
OPR REL
too
too
too
UTL AVL
90
63
4
OPR REL
too
too
too
UTL
89
91
78
'Equivalent scrubbed capacity.
"This category includes the flue gas capacity being handled by the FGD systems at least part of the time during the report period
eThe percent figures listed are average values for all system scrubbing trains during the period
'Flue 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
'Availability, operability, reliability, and utilization as defined in Appendix C of the full report
Table 4. Power Generation Sources: Present and Future
Coal Nuclear Oil Hydro Gas
Other GW (total)
December
December
1980
1999
41%
45%
10%
15%
24%
19%
12%
11%
12%
9%
1%
1%
616
831
Table 5. FGD Controlled Generating Capacity: Present and Future
Coal-fired generating
capacity controlled
by FGD, %
Total generating
capacity controlled
by FGD. %
June 1981*
December 1999
11.9
28.2
5.4
13.1
*The number of committed FGD systems is as of June 1981; however, the figures
used for total generating capacity and coal-fired generating capacity are based on
available December 1980 figures.
Highlights: April - June 1981
The following paragraphs highlight
FGD system developments during the
second quarter 1981.
The limestone FGD systems on
Apache 2 and 3 of Arizona Electric
Power achieved 100 percent availabili-
ties during the second quarter 1981.
Both systems operated during the 3-
month period with no major problems
reported.
The Laramie River limestone FGD
system of Basin Electric Power achieved
100 percent availability for April and
May. No major operational problems
were encountered during this period.
Information for June was not made
available.
Big Rivers Electric announced that,
during the second quarter 1981, con-
struction started on D.B. Wilson 1 in
Centertown, KY. The 440-MW (gross)
unit will consist of a wet limestone FGD
system, supplied by Pullman Kellogg,
for 862 control. The unit is scheduled to
commence operations in 1984.
Central Illinois Public Service reported
that the dual alkali FGD system installed
on Newton 1 achieved 100 percent
availability during the second quarter
1981. The utility reported no major
problems during this period.
Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric
reported that the lime FGD system
installed on Conesville 5 achieved
monthly availabilities of 97,100, and 99
percent during the second quarter
1981. No major operational problems
were reported during the period.
Cooperative Power reported that the
Coal Creek 1 and 2 lime/alkaline flyash
FGD systems achieved 100 percent
availabilities during the second quarter
1981. The utility reported no major
problems during the period.
Construction of the Moon Lake 1 wet
limestone FGD system of Deseret Gen-
eration and Transmission started during
the period. The 410-MW (gross) unit will
fire a bituminous coal with an average
sulfur content of 0.5 percent. The FGD
system is supplied by Combustion
Engineering and will feature a bag-
house, supplied by Ecolaire, to remove
particulate matter. Moon Lake 1 is
scheduled for service in September
1984.
Duquesne Light reported that the lime
FGD system operating at Elrama achieved
availabilities of 100 and 97 percent for
April and May, respectively. Except for
some recycle pump replacements, no
major operational problems were re-
ported during the period. Information for
June was not made available.
The lime FGD system installed on
Hawthorn 3 of Kansas City Power and
Light achieved 100 percent availability
for April through June.
Marquette Board of Light and Power
announced that construction of the
lime/spray drying FGD system at the
Shiras Station has started. This 44-MW
(gross) unit is in Marquette, Ml. The
system is supplied by General Electric
Environmental Services, Inc. and will
feature a fabric filter for primary
particulate matter control. Operation of
Shiras 3 is scheduled for October 1982.
Montana-Dakota Utilities announced
that Coyote 1 commenced operation in
April 1981. This unit, rated at 440 MW
(gross), fires lignite with an average
sulfur content of 0.9 percent. The
sodium carbonate/spray drying FGD
system, supplied by Wheelabrator-
Frye/Rockwell International, is designed
to remove 70 percent of the S02. A
fabric filter is used for particulate matter
collection.
Muscatine Power and Water an-
nounced that construction of Muscatine
9 has started. This 166-MW (gross) unit
is in Muscatine, IA, and will fire
bituminous coal with an average sulfur
content of 3.0 percent. The wet lime-
stone FGD system, supplied by Re-
search-Cottrell, is expected to begin
operation in September 1982.
Nevada Power reported that the Reid
Gardner 2 FGD system achieved availa-
bilities of 100, 96, and 91 percent for
April, May, and June, respectively. The
Reid Gardner 3 FGD system achieved
-------
Stack
Supp.
- Type
)w Rate
Height
Liner
tel
pe
ide
ontent
ir-%
Paniculate
Matter
Control
r~
Mechanical
Collector
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Design AP
r
chers/
urators
>pe
plier
in AP
Ratio
ESP
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Design AP
Fabric Filter
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Gas/Cloth Rat
i
Mist
Eliminators
Type Supplier
Horiz/Vert
Stages
Passes/Stage
Absorbers
Type
Supplier
Gas Flow Rate
L/C Ratio
Removal Ell
1
FGD General
Data
Process Type
Supplier
New/Retrofit
Start Date Status
FGD
Design
Information
Paniculate
Matter Scrubber
Type Supplier
Gas Flow Rate
L/G Ratio
Removal Eff
Fans
Design
Supplier
Application
Gas Flow Rate
Reheaters
Type
Location
Heating Med
Flue Gas AT
\
Spare
Componen
Index
Absorber
Fan
Pump
Spare
Capacity
Index
Absorber
Fan
Pump
Ductwork
Location
Configuration
Dimensions
Dampers
Function
Type
Manufacturer
1
\
Tanks
Type
Location
Configuratii
Capacity
Reagent
Preparation
Equipment
Device Type
Function
Feed Capacity
fr
t
Pilot PI
°articipe
Procei
Test Pei
in
Pump
Type
'anufact
Capaci
Servic
Recovers
Produc
Type
Quant it
Dispositi
Figure 1. Computerized data base structure diagram.
6
Treatme
Methoi
Device T\
Inlet Chat
Outlet Cha
-------
1
Process
Control and
nstrumentation
Proc Stream
Parameters
-Chemical
-Physical
ct
Chemicals
Function
Name
Consumption
I
Unit
Performance
Date
Boiler Hours
Boiler Avail
Capacity Factor
Literal
Information
Comments/
Abstract
FGD System
Performance
Service Hrs
Avail -%
Oper -%
Rel -%
Util -%
1
Problems
Solutions
Comments
e
ty
tion
sal
Final
on
-------
Table 6. Summary of FGD Systems by Process
Percent of total MW
June
1981
December
1999
Throwaway product process
°Wet systems
Lime
Limestone
Dual alkali
Sodium carbonate
NA'
°Dry systems
Lime
Lime/sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Salable product process
"Process
38.5
47.6
3.9
3.0
0.4
1.4
21.3
36.1
1.9
3.0
5.2
3.3
0.1
0.4
"By-product
Aqueous carbonate/
spray drying
Citrate
Lime
Limestone
Lime/ limestone
Magnesium oxide
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Process undecided
Total
Elemental sulfur
Elemental sulfur
Gypsum
Gypsum
Gypsum
Sulfuric acid
Su/furic acid
Elemental sulfur
—
0.2
—
—
—
—
2.3
2.7
—
100.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.2
0.8
25.0
100.0
"NA - Not available (these systems are committed to a throwaway product process:
however, the actual process is unknown at this time).
Sikeston 1 started at the end of the
quarter. The 235-MW (gross) unit fires
bituminous coal with an average sulfur
content of 2.8 percent. Flue gas passes
through two parallel ESPs and three
parallel 50 percent capacity FGD
modules (venturi scrubbers) before
exiting through a 450-ft (137 m) stack.
Flue gas was first passed through the
system on June 30, 1981.
South Carolina Public Service an-
nounced that construction of Cross 2
started during the quarter. The 500-MW
(gross) unit will fire bituminous coal
with an average sulfur content of 1.8
percent. The wet limestone FGD system,
supplied by Peabody Process Systems,
is scheduled to start operation in
January^ 984.
The limestone FGD system on South
Mississippi Electric Power's R.D. Morrow
2 achieved monthly availabilities of 100,
100, and 98 percent during the second
quarter 1981. The utility reported no
problems during the period.
Southern Indiana Gas and Electric
announced plans to construct a new
availabilities of 100, 98, and 100
percent for the same period.
Northern Indiana Public Service
announced that construction of
Schahfer 17 has started. The 421-MW
(gross) unit will fire bituminous coal
with an average sulfur content of 3.2
percent. The dual alkali FGD system is
supplied by FMC. Primary paniculate
matter control will be provided by an
ESP. Start-up of the unit is scheduled
for June 1983.
Pacific Power and Light announced
that a demonstration spray drying FGD
system is under construction at Jim
Bridger 2. The unit fires subbituminous
coal with an average sulfur content of
0.5 percent. The dry scrubbing system,
supplied by Flakt, will be followed by an
ESP for particulate matter collection.
The process will be tested using lime
and sodium carbonate as separate
scrubbing reagents. Operation of the
demonstration system is scheduled to
start in January 1982.
The Sikeston Board of Municipal
Utilities announced that operation of
unit, A.B. Brown 2, with unit 1 in W
Franklin, IN. The 265-MW (gross) u
will fire bituminous coal with
average sulfur content of 3.4 perce
The utility is now requesting/evaluat
bids for an FGD system. The unit
scheduled to commence operation
January 1985.
References
1. U.S. Department of Energy. Enei
Information Administration. Off
of Coal and Electric Power Statist!
Electric Power Statistics Divisii
Inventory of Power Plants in t
United States, 1980 Annual. Pu
No. DOE/EIA-0095 (80).
2. Berman, Ira M. New Generati
Capacity: When, Where, and
Whom. Power Engineering 85(4)"
April 1981.
8
-------
M. Smith, M. Meha, N. Gregory, and R. McKibben are with PEDCo Environ-
mental, Inc., 11499 Chester Road, Cincinnati, OH 45246.
Norman Kaplan is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "EPA Utility FGD Survey, April-June 1981, "(Order
No. PB 82-115 858; Cost: $25.50, 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
9
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1982--559-092/3366
-------
11'
ss
m>o
r> K* m
>c/>jotor>
tnoo -4
ocarxo
V/i
l-t Z>
>r~o
X) C
050
3003!
r»m
o
o r-m
o oz
*« or>
m > TJ
WOO
W< =».
VI O
------- |