>EPA
C f
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-81 -012e August 1982
Project Summary
EPA Utility FGD Survey
July—September 1981
M. P. Smith, M. Melia, and N. Gregory
The report, generated by a computer-
ized data base system, presents a survey
of operational and planned domestic util-
ity flue gas desurfurization (FGD) systems.
It summarizes information contributed
by the utility industry, system and equip-
ment suppliers, system designers, re-
search organizations, and regulatory
agencies. It presents data on system de-
sign, fuel characteristics, operating his-
tory, and actual performance. Unit by
unit dependability parameters are includ-
ed and problems and solutions associ-
ated with the boilers, scrubbers, and
FGD systems are discussed.
The FGD systems are tabulated alpha-
betically by development status (opera-
tional, under construction, or in the plan-
ning stages), utility company, system
supplier, process, waste disposal prac-
tice, and regulatory class. FGD system
economic data, definitions, and a glos-
sary of terms are appended to the report.
Current data for domestic FGD systems
show 92 systems in operation, 42 sys-
tems under construction, and 88 planned
systems. Projected 1999 FGD controlled
capacity in the U.S. is 107,197 MW.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Industrial Environmental Re-
search 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 infor-
mation at back).
Introduction
The quarterly FGD survey report is
generated by a computerized data sys-
tem known as the Flue Gas Desulfuriza-
tion Information System (FGDIS). A
structure diagram of the FGDIS is illus-
trated in Figure 1, which presents the in-
formational areas addressed in the system
and some representative data items con-
tained in each. The design data contained
in the system encompass the entire
emission control system and the power
generating unit to which it is applied.
Performance data for the operational
FGD systems include monthly dependa-
bility parameters, along with service
time and problem/solution descriptions.
In addition to generating the survey
report, the FGDIS is available for remote
terminal access. Because the report is
available only through purchase from
NTIS, the data base is the most immedi-
ate method for examining the data ac-
quired under the survey program. Access
to the FGDIS also enables users to obtain
data that are too specific for inclusion in
the quarterly report. Information con-
cerning access to the FGDIS can be ob-
tained from Walter Finch, NTIS, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161;
(703) 487-4808. Custom searches of
the FGDIS data can also be arranged.
Executive Summary
Table 1 summarizes the status of FGD
systems in the U.S. at the end of Sep-
tember 1981. Table 2 lists the units that
have changed status during the third
quarter 1981, and Table 3 shows the
performance of operating units during
this period. The units included in the fig-
ures presented in Table 1 are identified in
Table 4, and categorical FGD system
cost data are presented in Table 5.
-------
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
TOTAL
No. of
units
92
42
16
11
10
51
222
Total
controlled
capacity, MW*
34,937
18,226
9,385
8,293
5,630
30,726
107,197
Equivalent
scrubbed
capacity, M Wt
31,738
17,457
9,169
8,235
5,630
30,398
102,627
* 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).
t The summation of the effective scrubbed flue gas in equivalent MW based on the per-
cent of the flue gas scrubbed by the FGD systemfs).
Table 2. Summary of Changes July-September 1981
Under Contract Letter
Operational construction awarded of intent
FGD status report
July 31, 1981
Requesting/ Considering
eval. bids FGD Total
No. MW No. MW* No. MW* No. MW*
88 30,158 40 15,887 21 11,599t>11 8,235
No. MW* No. MW* No. MW*
19 10,340 48 25,6/8*227 104,83
Arizona Public Service
Four Corners 4
Four Corners 5
Basin Electric Power
Antelope Valley 2
Laramie River 2
Central Illinois Light
Duck Creek 2
East Kentucky Power
J.K. Smith 2
Kentucky Utilities
Hancock 1
Hancock 2
Nevada Power
Warner Valley 1
Warner Valley 2
Northern States Power
Wisconsin Coal 1
Pacific Power & Light
Jim Bridget 1
Jim Bridget 2
Jim Bridget 3
Plains Electric G &T
Plains Escalante 1
San Miguel Electric
San Miguel 1
Seminole Electric
Seminole 1
South Carolina Public
Service
Winyah 4
+ 1
+ 1
+ 1
+ 1
570 -1
755 -1
755 -1
440 -1
570
755
755
440
+ / 233 - 1 233
+ 1 400 -1 400
+ 1 62O - 1 620
+ 1 280 - 1 280
-1
-1 650
+ 1 650
45O +1
450
-1
65(
1 65O
1 650 +1 650
295
295
-1
550 +1
550 +1
550 +1
-1
-1
670 -1
550
550
550
29i
29i
671
-------
ble 2. (continued)
D status report
July 31, 1981
Under Contract Letter
Operational construction awarded of intent
Requesting/ Considering
eval. bids FGD
Total
No. MWa No. MW<> No. MW<> No. MW No. MW> No. MW* No. MW*
88 30,158 40 15,887 21 11,599° 11 8,235 19 10,340 48 28,61'8t>227 104,837''
uthern Illinois Power
Aarion 5
nflower Electric
Holcomb 1
ah Power & Light
Naughton 3
*st Texas Utilities
Oklaunion 1
-1
300 -1
300
+ 1 347 - 1 347
+ 1 330 - 1 330
+ 1 720
-1
720
Total
9231,738 42 17,457 16 9,169 11 8,235 10 5,630 51 30,398 222 102,627
Equivalent scrubbed capacity.
This value was modified slightly due to a MW correction.
tbte 3. Performance of Operational Units July-September 1981
FGD
capacity
online
FGD system during No information
capacity, Flue gas period for this
Plant MW % scrubbed MW-b period, MW
labama Electric
Tombigbee 2
Tombigbee 3
rizona Electric Power
Apache 2
Apache 3
\rizona Public Service
Cho/la 1
Cholla 2
Cho/la 4
Four Corners 1
Four Corners 2
Four Corners 3
tsin Electric Power Coop
Laramie River 1
Laramie River 2
Big Rivers Electric
Green 1
Green 2
Central Illinois Light \
Duck Creek 1
Central Illinois Public Service
Newton 1
Cincinnati Gas & Electric
East Bend 2
Colorado Ute Electric
Association
Craig 1
Craig 2
Columbus & Southern Ohio
Electric
Conesville 5
Conesville 6
Commonwealth Edison
Powerton 5 1
179
179
98
98
119
264
126
175
175
229
570
57O
242
242
416
617
650
410
410
411
411
450
70 179
70 179
50 98
50 98
100 119
100 264
33 126
100 175
100 175
100 229
100 570
WO 57O
100 242
100 242
100 416
1OO 617
100 650
90
90 410
100 411
1OO 411
100
Shutdown July 1981 August 1981 September 1 98 1
throughout Dependability %<>•• Dependability %c-e Dependability%c-e
MW AVL OPR REL UTL AVL OPR REL UTL AVL
100 91 100 91 100 40 100 36 100
100 69 100 69 100 100 100 100 62
1OO 95 100 95 97 96 100 92 100
96 69 1OO 68 1OO
98 96 96 96 95 93 93 85 85
94 89 89 77 97 94 94 86 100
72 63 75 54 75 74 76 74
89 70 99 68 100 82 WO 82 100
410 0000 0 0 O 0 0
0 0 0 0 33 34 34 33 51
100 10O 100 55 99 53 92 41 94
99 100 100 74 99 90 93 74 95
450 0 0
OPR REL UTL
99 100 99
63 62 62
94 100 25
82 WO 67
96 96 80
99 99 98
81 100 69
000
52 53 50
54 91 6
86 96 36
0
-------
Table 3. (continued)
Plant
Cooperative Power
Association
Coal Creek 1
Coal Creek 2
De/marva Power & Light
Delaware City 1
Delaware City 2
Delaware City 3
Duquesne Light
Elrama 1-4
Phillips 1-6
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
Mill Creek 1
Mill Creek 3
Paddy's Run 6
Minnesota Power & Light
Clay Boswell 4
Minnkota Power & Light
Milton R. Young 2
Monongahela Power
Pleasants 1
Pleasants 2
Montana Power
Co/strip 1
Co/strip 2
Montana-Dakota Utilities
Coyote 1
Nevada Power
Reid Gardner 1
Reid Gardner 2
Reid Gardner 3
Northern Indiana Public
Service
Dean H. Mitchell 1 1
FGD system
CQOQCltV
MW '
327
327
60
60
60
510
408
532
90
90
820
540
490
125
420
64
188
200
299
358
427
72
475
185
618
618
360
360
440
125
125
125
115
FluG QQS
% scrubbed
60
60
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
75
70
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
85
42
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
FGD
capacity
on line
during No information
MW-b period, MW
327
327
60
60
60
510
408
532
90
90
820
540
490
125
420
188
200
299
358
427
475
185
618
618
360
360
440
125
125
125
Shutdown My 1981
throughout Dependability %c.e
MW AVL
37
42
99
77
99
99
74
100
96
97
64 100
73
46
57
76
63
72 100
100
29
100
99
97
115 100
OPR REL
37
37
99 99
77 77
99 99
95 99
72 73
100
100
80 95
100 100
100 100
100 100
75 75
74 74
86 100
32 33
99 100
97 99
96 97
0
UTL
99
77
99
95
72
52
49
54
0
73
46
57
72
63
0
75
29
95
78
93
0
August 1981 September 1 98 1
Dependability %c-» Dependability%c-e
AVL
77
99
100
98
75
100
100
100
40
50
68
99
89
100
100
58
99
98
98
100
OPR
45
44
77
98
100
81
64
100
100
66
100
73
99
92
80
49
99
98
98
0
REL
77
98
100
98
70
66
100
73
99
92
100
50
99
98
98
UTL AVL
36
34
47 95
98 99
100 90
81
58
10 100
18 100
0 100
40 61
50 75
68 29
99 86
88 81
0 100
73 100
44 100
93 96
96 100
98 100
0 100
OPR REL UT
<
60 60
95 95 95
96 96 8.
90 90 91
100 58
100 3
0
100 100 61
100 100 75
100 100 29
96 96 80
81 81 81
0
89 100 84
97 100 86
91 95 77
99 100 99
98 100 75
0 0
Northern States Power
Riverside 6, 7
Sherburne 1
Sherburne 2
Pacific Power & Light
Jim Bridget 4
Pennsylvania Power
Bruce Mansfield 1
Bruce Mansfield 2
Bruce Mansfield 3
110 N/A"
740 91
740 91
550
917
917
917
100
100
100
100
740
740
917
917
917
110
550
97
97
99
-------
Table 3. (continued)
FGD system
capacity. Flue gas
Plant
Public Service Co. of
New Mexico
San Juan 1
San Juan 2
San Juan 3
Salt River Project
Coronado 1
Coronado 2
San Miguel Electric
San Miguel 1
Sikeston Board of
Municipal Utilities
Sikeston 1
South Carolina Public
Service Authority
Winyah 2
Winyah 3
Winyah 4
South Mississippi Electric
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 1
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 2
Southern Illinois Power Coop
Marion 4
Southern Indiana
Gas and Electric
A.B. Brown 1
Springfield City Utilities
Southwest 1
Springfield Water, Light &
Power
Dal/man 3
St. Joe Zinc
G.F. Weaton 1
Tennessee Valley Authority
Shawnee 10A
Shawnee JOB
Widows Creek 7
Widows Creek 8
Texas Power & Light
Sandow 4
Texas Utilities
Martin Lake 1
Martin Lake 2
Martin Lake 3
Monticello 3
Utah Power & Light
Hunter 1
Hunter 2
Huntington 1
Naughton 3
Total
MW
361
350
534
280
280
400
235
140
280
280
124
124
173
265
194
185
60
10
10
575
550
382
595
595
595
800
360
360
366
330
31,738
% scrubbed
100
100
100
80
80
100
100
50
100
100
62
62
100
100
100
90
N/Ad
N/Ad
N/Ad
100
WO
70
75
75
75
100
90
90
85
1OO
FGD
capacity
on line
during No information
period for this
MW' b period, MW
361
350
534
280
280
400
140
280
280
124
124
173
265
194
185
60
10
10
575
382
595
595
595
800
360
360
366
330
25.228 4,614
Shut down July , 98 1 August 1 98 1 September 1 98 1
throughout Dependability %c. a Dependability %c- » Dependability1*"- •
MW AVL OPR PEL UTL AVL OPK REL UTL AVL OPR REL UTL
100 97 100 96 100 100 100 100 100 75 90 32
93 80 86 80 100 54 100 43 69 19 19 19
98 96 97 96 86 86 86 86 97 32 32 31
235 000
89 93 96 44 98 98 98 98 96 98 96 88
88 83 84 82 82 84 82 70 98 96 98 86
100 99 99 94 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98
100 97 100 93 100 100 100 96 98 98 98 98
74 74 94 74 52 47 60 47
91 84 87 84 92 89 89 89 98 97 90 90
97 93 96 93 98 87 90 87 89 78 85 76
54 44 44 42 0000
0000 00005555
55O O a O
1,896
' Equivalent scrubbed capacity.
b This category includes the flue gas capacity being handled by the FGD system at least part of the time during the report period.
0 The percent figures listed are a verage values for all system scrubbing trains during the period.
d Flue gas % scrubbed for prototype and demonstration units is not applicable unless the system is designed to bring a unit into compliance with SO2 emission standard.
e A vailability, operability, reliability, and utilization as defined in Appendix C of this report.
-------
Table 4. Summary of Operational and Planned Domestic FGD Systems
Company name/
unit name
Alabama Electric
Tombigbee 2
Tombigbee 3
Arizona Electric
Power
Apache 2
Apache 3
Capacity
MW (gross)
255
255
195
195
Fuel
% sulfur
1.15
1.15
0.50
0.50
FGD process
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
FGD
status
1
1
1
1
System supplier
Peabody Process System
Peabody Process System
Research-Cottrell
Research-Cottrell
Arizona Public
Service
Cholla 1 119
Cholla 2 264
Cholla 4 375
Four Corners 1 175
Four Corners 2 175
Four Corners 3 229
Four Corners 4 755
Four Corners 5 755
Associated Electric
Thomas Hill 3 730
Atlantic City Electric
Cumberland 1 330
Basin Electric Power
Antelope Valley 1 440
Antelope Valley 2 440
Laramie River 1 570
Laramie River 2 570
Laramie River 3 570
Big Rivers Electric
D.B. Wilson 1 440
D.B. Wilson 2 440
Green 1 242
Green 2 242
Cajun Electric Power
Chicot 1 562
Chicot 2 562
Chicot 3 562
Chicot 4 562
Oxbow 1 54O
Oxbow 2 540
Central Illinois Light
Duck Creek 1 416
Duck Creek 2 450
Central Illinois Public
Service
Newton 1 617
Central Maine Power
Sears Island 1 600
Central Power &
Light
Coleto Creek 2 720
0.50 Limestone
0.50 Limestone
0.50 Limestone
0.75 Lime/alkaline flyash
0.75 Lime/alkaline flyash
0.75 Lime/alkaline flyash
0.75 Lime
0.75 Lime
4.80 Limestone
3.25 Process not selected
0.68 Lime/spray drying
0.68 Lime/spray drying
0.81 Limestone
0.81 Limestone
0.54 Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Limestone
3.75 Lime
3.75 Lime
1.70 Process not selected
1.70 Process not selected
1.70 Process not selected
1.70 Process not selected
0.60 Process not selected
0.60 Process not selected
3.66 Limestone
3.30 Limestone
2.25 Dual alkali
2.23 Process not selected
0.39 Process not selected
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
1 GE Environmental Servic
1 GE Environmental Servic
1 GE Environmental Servic
2 United Engineers
2 United Engineers
2 Pullman Kellogg
6 Vendor not selected
2 Joy Mfg/Niro A tomizer
2 Joy Mfg/Niro A tomizer
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
2 Babcock & Wilcox
2 Pullman Kellogg
3 Pullman Kellogg
1 American Air Filter
1 American Air Filter
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor no t selec ted
5 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selec ted
1 Environeering, Riley Stoker
6 Vendor not selected
1 GE Environmental Services
6 Vendor not selec ted
6 Vendor not selected
(continued)
-------
Table 4.
(continued)
Company name/
unit name
Capacity
MW (gross)
Fuel
% sulfur
FGD process
FGD
status
System supplier
Cincinnati Gas &
Electric
East Bend 1
East Bend 2
Colorado Ute Electric
Craig 1
Craig 2
Craig 3
Columbus & Southern
Ohio Electric
Conesville 5
Conesville 6
Poston 5
Poston 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
Vienna 9
Deseret Generation
& Transmission
Bonanza 1
Bonanza 2
Duquesne Light
Elrama 1-4
Phillips 1-6
East Kentucky Power
J.K. Smith 1
Spurlock 2
Florida Power & Light
Martin 3
Martin 4
General Public
Utilities
Coal 1
Coal 2
Coal 3
Coal 4
Seward 7
Grand Haven Board
of Light & Power
J.B. Sims 3
650 4.00 Process not selected
650 3.00 Lime
455 0.45 Limestone
455 0.45 Limestone
447 0.45 Lime/spray drying
411 4.67 Lime
411 4.67 Lime
425 Process not selected
425 2.50 Process not selected
450 3.53 Limestone
545 0.63 Lime/alkaline flyash
545 0.63 Lime/alkaline flyash
60 7.00 WellmanLord
60 7.00 WellmanLord
60 7.00 WellmanLord
550 2.50 Process not selected
410 0.50 Limestone
410 0.50 Limestone
510 2.20 Lime
408 1.92 Lime
650 1.50 Lime
500 3.50 Lime
800 Process not selected
800 Process not selected
625 3.50 Process not selected
625 3.50 Process not selected
625 3.50 Process not selected
625 3.50 Process not selected
690 Process not selected
65 2.75 Lime
6 Vendor not selected
1 Babcock & Wilcox
1 Peabody Process Systems
1 Peabody Process Systems
2 Babcock & Wilcox
1 Air Correction Division, UOP
1 Air Correction Division, UOP
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
Air Correction Division, UOP
1 Combustion Engineering
1 Combustion Engineering
1 Davy McKee
1 Davy McKee
1 Davy McKee
6 Vendor not selected
2 Combustion Engineering
5 Vendor not selected
1 GE En vironmental Services
1 GE En vironmental Services
4 Babcock & Wilcox
2 Thyssen/CEA
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
5 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
5 Vendor not selected
Babcock & Wilcox
(continued)
-------
Table 4. (continued)
Company name/
unit name
Hoosier Energy
Merom 1
Merom 2
Houston Lighting
& Power
Limestone 1
Limestone 2
W.A. Parish 8
Indianapolis Power
& Light
Patriot 1
Patriot 2
Patriot 3
Petersburg 3
Petersburg 4
Iowa Electric Light
& Power
Guthrie Co. 1
Capacity
MW (gross)
490
490
750
750
600
650
650
650
532
530
720
Fuel
% sulfur
3.50
3.50
1.08
1.08
0.6
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.25
3.50
0.40
FGD process
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
FGD
status
2
2
3
3
2
6
6
6
1
2
4
System supplier
Mitsubishi Heavy Industrie
Mitsubishi Heavy Industrie
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
GE Environmental Service
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Air Correction Division, UO
Research Cottrell
Combustion Engineering
Jacksonville Electric
Authority
St. Johns River
Power 1
St. Johns River
Power 2
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
Hancock 1
Hancock 2
Lakeland Utilities
Mc/ntosh 3
Lansing Board of
Water and Light
Erickson 2
Los Angeles
Department of
Water & Power
Intermountain 1
Intermountain 2
Intermountain 3
Intermountain 4
600
6OO
90
90
820
720
700
125
420
64
708
708
364
160
820
820
820
82O
2.50
2.50
0.60
0.6O
5.39
0.32
0.30
0.55
0.55
4.00
3.50
3.50
2.56
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Limestone
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Process not selected
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
5 Vendor not selected
5 Vendor not selected
1 Combustion Engineering
1 Combustion Engineering
1 Babcock & Wilcox
1 Combustion Engineerin
1 Combustion Engineerin
1 Combustion Engineerin
1 Combustion Engineerin
1 American Air Filter
4 Babcock & Wilcox
6 Vendor not selected
2 Babcock & Wilcox
Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
(continued)
-------
able 4.
(continued)
Company name/
unit name
ouisville Gas &
Electric
Cane Run 4
Cane Run 5
Cane Run 6
Mill Creek 1
Mill Creek 2
Mill Creek 3
Mill Creek 4
Paddy's Run 6
Trimble County 1
Trimble County 2
Capacity
MW (gross)
188
200
299
358
350
427
495
72
575
575
Fuel
% sulfur
3.75
3.75
4.80
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
2.50
4.00
4.00
FGD process
Lime
Lime
Dual alkali
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Process not selected
Process not selected
FGD
status
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
5
5
System supplier
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
ower Colorado River
Authority
Fayette Power
Project 3 435
/larquette Board of
Light and Power
Shiras 3 44
Michigan South
Central Power
Agency
Project 1 55
fiddle South Utilities
Arkansas Lignite 5 890
Arkansas Lignite 6 890
Unassigned 1 890
Unassigned 2 890
Wilton 1 890
Wilton 2 890
Minnesota Power &
Light
Clay Boswell 4 554
Minnkota Power
Milton R. Young 2 440
Monongahela Power
Pleasants 1 618
Pleasants 2 618
Montana Power
Co/strip 1 360
Co/strip 2 360
Co/strip 3 700
Colstrip 4 700
Montana-Dakota
Utilities
Coyote 1 440
Muscatine Power &
Water
Muscatine 9 166
1.70 Limestone
Lime/spray drying
2.25 Limestone 2
0.50 Limestone 4
0.50 Limestone 4
0.50 Limestone 4
0.50 Limestone 4
0.50 Limestone 4
0.50 Limestone 4
0.94 Lime/alkaline flyash 1
0.70 Lime/alkaline flyash 1
3.00 Lime 1
3.00 Lime 1
0.77 Lime/alkaline flyash 1
0.77 Lime/alkaline flyash 1
0.77 Lime/alkaline flyash 2
0.77 Lime/alkaline flyash 2
0.87 Sodium carbonate/spray drying
3.21 Limestone
Vendor not selected
GE Environmental Services
Babcock & Wilcox
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Peabody Process Systems
Thyssen/CEA
Babcock & Wilcox
Babcock & Wilcox
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Wheelabrator-Fry/R. I.
Research-Cottrell
(continued)
-------
I
Paniculate
Matter
Control
i :
FGD General
Data
Process Type
Supplier
New/Retrofit
Start Date Status
Fuel
Type
Grade
Heat Content
Sulfur -%
X
Mechanical
Collector
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Design AP
ESP
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Design AP
1
Quenchers/
Presaturators
Type
Supplier
Design AP
L/G Ratio
1
Mist
Eliminators
Type Supplier
Horiz/Vert
Stages
Passes/Stage
Fabric Filter
Type
Supplier
Removal Eff
Gas/Cloth Rat
Recoverab
Product
Type
Quantity
Disposition
figure 1. Computerized data base structure diagram.
10
Treatmen\
Method
Device Typ
Inlet Chara
Outlet Char,
-------
Process
Control and
\strumentation
Proc Stream
Parameters
-Chemical
-Physical
1
Chemicals
Function
Name
Consumption
Removal
Performance
SOZ FtEM -%
Part REM -%
FGD System
Performance
Service Hrs
Avail -%
Oper -%
Pel -%
Util -%
Problems
Solutions
Comments
9
ty
tion
11
-------
Table 4. (continued)
Company name/
unit name
Nebraska Public
Power District
Fossil III 1
Capacity
MW (gross)
650
Fuel
% sulfur
0.36
FGD process
Process not selected
FGD
status
6
System supplier
Vendor not selected
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 Service
Dean H. Mitchell 11
Schahfer 17
Schahfer 18
Northern States
Power
Metro Coal 1
Riverside 6-7
Sherburne 1
Sherburne 2
Sherburne 3
Pacific Gas & Bectric
Montezuma 1
Montezuma 2
Pacific Power & Light
Jim Bridget 1
Jim Bridger 2
Jim Bridger 2A
Jim Bridger 3
Jim Bridger 4
Pennsylvania Power
Bruce Mansfield 1
Bruce Mansfield 2
Bruce Mansfield 3
Philadelphia Electric
Cromby 1
Eddystone 1
Eddystone 2
Plains Electric G&T
Plains Escalante 1
Plane River Power
Authority
Rawhide 1
(continued)
500
500
500
500
125
125
125
250
625
100
116
421
421
200
110
740
740
860
mm
8OO
550
550
550
55O
55O
917
917
917
150
24O
334
233
279
Process not selected 6
Process not selected 6
Process not selected 6
Process not selected 6
0.50 Sodium carbonate 1
0.50 Sodium carbonate 1
0.50 Sodium carbonate 1
0.75 Sodium carbonate 4
2.20 Limestone
1.80 Aqueous carbonate/spray drying
3.50 WellmanLord 1
3.20 Dual alkali 2
3.20 Dual alkali 3
1.00 Lime 6
1.20 Lime/spray drying 1
0.80 Limestone/alkaline flyash 1
0.80 Limestone/alkaline flyash 1
1.0Q Lime 6
O.9Q Limestone 6
O.8O Limestone 6
0.56 Sodium carbonate 6
0.56 Sodium carbonate 6
0.56 Lime/sodium carbonate 2
0.56 Sodium carbonate 6
0.56 Sodium carbonate T
3.OO Lime 1
3.0O Lime 1
3.00 Lime 1
3.00 Magnesium oxide 2
2.60 Magnesium oxide 2
2.50 Magnesium oxide 2
0.80 Limestone 2
0.25 Lime/spray drying
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Thyssen/CEA
Peabody Process System
Rockwell International
Davy McK.ee
FMC
FMC
Vendor not selected
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Flakt
Vendor not selected
Air Correction Division, UO
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Pullman Kellogg
United Engineers
United Engineers
United Engineers
Combustion Engineering
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
12
-------
Table 4.
{continued)
Company name/
unit name
Capacity
MW (gross)
Fuel
% sulfur
FGD process
FGD
status
System supplier
Public Service Indiana
Gibson 5 650
Public Service of
New Mexico
San Juan 1 361
San Juan 2 350
San Juan 3 534
San Juan 4 534
Power Authority of
State of New York'
Fossil 700
Salt River Project
Coronado 1 350
Coronado 2 350
Coronado 3 400
San Miguel Electric
San Miguel 1 400
Seminole Electric
Seminole 1 620
Seminole 2 620
Sikeston Board of
Municipal Utilities
Sikeston 1 235
South Carolina Public
Service
Cross 1 500
Cross 2 500
Winyah 2 280
Winyah 3 280
Winyah 4 280
South Mississippi
Electric Power
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 1 200
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 2 200
Southern Illinois
Power
Marion 4 173
Southern Indiana Gas
& Electric
A.B. Brown 1 265
A.B, Brown 2 265
Southwestern Electric
Power
Dolet Hills 1 720
Dolet Hills 2 720
Henry W. Pirkey 1 720
Soyland Power
Soyland 1 500
Springfield City
Utilities
Southwest 1 194
3.30 Limestone
0.80 WellmanLord 1
0.80 WellmanLord 1
0.80 WellmanLord 1
0.80 WellmanLord 2
3.00 Process not selected 6
0.50 Limestone 1
0.50 Limestone 1
0.60 Limestone 6
1.70 Limestone 1
2.75 Limestone 2
2.75 Limestone 3
2.80 Limestone
1.80 Limestone 3
1.80 Limestone 2
1.10 Limestone 1
1.10 Limestone 1
1.70 Limestone 1
1.30 Limestone 1
1.30 Limestone 1
3.75 Limestone
3.35 Dual alkali 1
3.35 Process not selected 5
0.70 Limestone 3
0.70 Limestone 6
0.80 Limestone 3
3.00 Process not selected 6
3.50 Limestone
Pullman Kellogg
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Vendor not selected
Pullman Kellogg
Pullman Kellogg
Vendor not selected
Babcock & Wilcox
Peabody Process Systems
Peabody Process Systems
Babcock & Wilcox
Peabody Process Systems
Peabody Process Systems
Babcock & Wilcox
Babcock & Wilcox
American Air Filter
Environeering, Riley Stoker
Environeering, Riley Stoker
Babcock & Wilcox
FMC
Vendor not selected
Air Correction Division, UOP
Vendor not selected
Air Correction Division, UOP
Vendor not selected
Air Correction Division, UOP
(continued)
13
-------
Table 4.
(continued)
Company name/
unit name
Capacity
MW(gross)
Fuel
% sulfur
FGD process
FGD
status
System supplier
Springfield Water,
Light & Power
Dallman 3
St. Joe Zinc
G.F. Weaton 1
Sunflower Electric
Holcomb 1
Tampa Electric
Big Bend 4
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Paradise 1
Paradise 2
Shawnee 10A
Shawnee Wb
Widows Creek 7
Widows Creek 8
Texas Municipal
Power Agency
Gibbons Creek 1
Texas Power & Light
Sandow 4
Twin Oaks 1
Twin Oaks 2
Texas Utilities
Forst Grove 1
Martin Lake 1
Martin Lake 2
Martin Lake 3
Martin Lake 4
Mill Creek 1
Mill Creek 2
Monticello 3
Tucson Electric
Power
Springerville 1
Springerville 2
United Power
Association
Stanton 1A
Utah Power & Light
Hunter 1
Hunter 2
Hunter 3
Hunter 4
Huntington 1
Naughton 3
Washington Water
Power
Creston Coal 1
Creston Coal 2
Creston Coal 3
Creston Coal 4
(continued)
205
60
347
475
704
704
10
10
575
550
443
545
750
750
750
793
793
793
793
750
750
800
370
370
60
400
400
400
400
430
330
570
570
570
570
3.30 Limestone
2.00 Citrate
0.47 Lime/spray drying
2.35 Lime/limestone
4.20 Limestone
4.20 Limestone
2.90 Lime/limestone
2.90 Lime/limestone
3.70 Limestone
3.70 Limestone
1.06 Limestone
1.60 Limestone
0.70 Limestone
0.70 Limestone
0.80 Process not selected
0.90 Limestone
0.90 Limestone
0.90 Limestone
0.90 Limestone
Process not selected
Process not selected
1.50 Limestone
0.61 Lime/spray drying
0.61 Lime/spray drying
0.77 Lime/spray drying
0.55 Lime
0.55 Lime
0.55 Limestone
0.55 Limestone
0.55 Lime
0.55 Sodium carbonate
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Morrison & Knudsen/U.S.B.
2 Joy Mfg/Niro A tomizer
3 Research-Cottrell
2 GE Environmental Services
2 GE Environmental Services
1 Air Correction Division, UOi
1 GE Environmental Services
1 Combustion Engineering
1 Tennessee Valley Authority
2 Combustion Engineering
1 Combustion Engineering
3 GE Environments/Service
3 GE Environmental Services
5 Vendor not selected
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
3 Research-Cottrell
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
1 GE Environmental Services
3 Joy Mfg/Niro A tomizer
3 Joy Mfg/Niro A tomizer
2 Research-Cottrell
1 GE Environmental Services
1 GE Environmental Services
2 GE Environmental Services
2 GE Environmental Services
1 GE Environmental Services
1 Air Correction Division, I/O
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
14
-------
Table 4. (continued)
Company name/
unit name
West Penn Power
Mitchell 33
West Texas Utilities
Oklaunion 1
Oklaunion 2
Capacity
MW (gross)
300
720
720
Fuel
% sulfur
2.80
0.34
0.34
FGD process
Lime
Process not selected
Process not selected
FGD
status
2
3
6
System supplier
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Vendor not selected
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.
Table 5. Categorical Results of the Reported and Adjusted Capital and Annual Costs for Operational FGD Systems
Reported Adjusted
Capital
AH
New
Retrofit
Saleable
Thro wa way
Alkaline
flyash/lime
Alkaline flyash/
limestone
Dual alkali
Lime
Limestone
Sodium carbonate
Wellman Lord
Range, $/kW
23.7-243.0
23.7-243.0
29.4-157.4
132.8-185.0
23.7-243.0
100.3-101.4
49.3-49.3
47.2-174.8
29.4-243.0
23.7-168.0
42.9-100.8
132.8-185.0
Average,
$/kW
79.1
77.5
83.2
153.0
73.7
101.0
49.3
97.8
80.1
65.0
69.2
153.1
o
45.4
47.2
41.4
23.8
41.8
0.6
0.0
67.7
50.6
34.9
30.7
23.8
Annual
Capital
Range, Average,
mills/kWh mills/kWh a Range, $/kW
0.05-13.02
0.05-5.52
0.46-13.02
13.02-13.02
0.05-11.32
0.53-2.97
0. 75-0. 75
1.30-1.30
0.92-11.32
0.05-7.76
0.23-0.46
13.02-13.02
2.64
1.84
4.54
13.02
2.35
2.16
0.75
1.30
3.65
1.78
0.38
13.02
3. 14 35. 1-258.9
1.84 35.1-242.1
4.64 57.5-258.9
0.0 233.6-258-9
2.65 35.1-242.1
1.41 133.8-142.9
0.0 94.4-94.4
0.0 80.6-242.1
3.02 57.5-192.7
2.54 35.1-148.7
0.13 79.9-138.5
0.0 233.6-258.9
Average,
$/kW
113.5
103.8
132.3
249.1
104.2
136.8
94.4
134.6
105.1
93.4
101.7
249.1
o
54.6
43.3
69.4
13.6
42.5
5.2
0.0
93.1
39.1
42.5
28.0
13.6
Annual
Range, Average,
mills/kWh mills/kWh o
1.69-18.67
1.69-12.83
4.23-18.67
15.23-18.67
1.69-16.27
5.75-7.62
4.99-4.99
4.59-12.83
3.70-16.27
1.69-10.44
5.29-6.78
15.23-18.67
7.27
6.31
9.12
16.44
6.64
6.99
4.99
7.79
7.79
5.61
5.88
16.44
3.82
2.68
4.99
1.94
3.03
1.08
0.0
4.41
3.63
2.65
0.73
1.94
Current projections indicate that the
total power generating capacity of the
U.S. electric utility industry will be approx-
imately 831 GW by the end of 1999.1
(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 373
GW or 45% of the 1999 total will come
from coal-fired units. The distribution of
power generation sources, both present
(December 1980) and future (December
1999) is shown in Table 6.1
In light of the revised New Source Per-
formance Standards, actual FGD control
is expected to be greater than that re-
flected by the figures above. For exam-
ple, about 50 to 60 systems representing
approximately 29,000 to 31,000 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 in-
formation regarding their status is not
ready for public release.
In an effort to show general FGD usage
trends. Table 8 gives current (Septem-
ber 1981) and projected (December
1999) breakdowns of throwaway pro-
duct systems versus saleable product
systems as a percent of the total known
commitments to FGD as of the end of the
third quarter 1981.
Highlights: July-September
1981
The following paragraphs highlight
FGD system developments during the
third quarter 1981.
Arizona Electric Power reported that
the Apache 2 FGD system achieved
100% availability for July, August, and
September. The Apache 3 FGD system
achieved 100% availability during July
and August but dropped to 62% availa-
bility during September as a result of
damper problems.
Arizona Public Service announced that
construction began during the period on
the lime FGD systems that are being
retrofitted to control SO2 emissions
from Four Corners 4 and 5. Both units
are rated at 755 MW (gross) and burn
coal with an average sulfur content of
0.75%. The FGD systems are being
supplied by United engineers and are
slated for initial start-up in December
1984.
Basin Electric Power announced that
construction of the lime/spray drying
FGD system being installed on Antelope
Valley 2 began during the third quarter.
75
-------
Table 6. 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
Based on the known commitments to FGD by utilities as presented in Table 1, the per-
centage of electrical generating capacity controlled by FGD for both the present (Sep-
tember 1981) and the future (December 1999) is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. FGD Controlled Generating Capacity: Present and Future
Coal-fired generating
capacity controlled
by FGD, %
Total generating
capacity controlled
by FGD, %
September 1981*
December 1999
13.8
28.7
5.7
12.9
* The number of committed FGD systems is as of September 1981; however, the figure
used for the total generating capacity and coal-fired generating capacity is based on
the available December 1980 figures.
Table 8. Summary of FGD Systems by Process
Percent of total MW
September December
1981 1999
Throwaway product process
• Wet systems
Lime
Limestone
Dual alkali
Sodium carbonate
NA*
•Dry systems
Lime
Lime/sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Saleable product process
36.8
48.7
3.7
4.0
0.3
1.4
20.6
36.9
2.0
3.1
5.2
3.4
O.I
0.4
•Process
Aqueous carbonate/
spray drying
Citrate
Lime
Limestone
Lime/limestone
Magnesium oxide
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Process undecided
•Byproduct
Elemental sulfur
Elemental sulfur
Gypsum
Gypsum
Gypsum
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Elemental sulfur
—
0.2
—
—
—
—
2.3
2.6
—
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
O.7
1.2
0.8
24.6
Total
100.0
100.0
* NA - Not available (these systems are committed to a throwaway product process;
however, the actual process is unknown at this time).
This new unit will be rated at 440 M
(gross) and will fire coal with an avera
sulfur content of 0.68%. The FGD s
tern is being supplied by Joy Manuf
turing/Niro Atomizer and is schedul
for initial operation in October 1985.
The Laramie River 1 FGD syst
achieved availabilities of 100%, 97
and 100% during July, August, a
September, respectively. Corrosion c
countered in the modular quencher s
tions necessitated repairs during t
period; however, overall system avail
bility remained high as a result of spa
module capacity.
Initial operations of the Laramie Riv
2 FGD system of Basin Electric Row
began during July. Laramie River 2
rated at 570 MW (gross) and fires c
with an average sulfur content of 0.81
The limestone FGD system, which w
supplied by Research-Cottrell, consis
of five absorber modules and is preced
by an ESP for primary paniculate matt
removal. Availability of the FGD syste
during August and September exceed
95%.
Big Rivers Electric reported that t
Green 1 FGD system achieved avail
bilities of 98%, 95%, and 85% duri
July, August, and September, respe
tively. The availability dropped slightly i
September due to the replacement of th
chevron mist eliminators in both module;
The Green 2 FGD system achieved avai
abilities of 96%, 97%, and 100% ft
the same 3 months with only mine
problems being encountered.
Plans for the installation of Unit 2 e
the Duck Creek Generating Station hav
been delayed as a result of current loa
projections and economic conditions. A
a result, the utility has temporarily sus
pended requesting/evaluating bids fc
an FGD system.
Columbus and Southern Ohio Electri
reported availabilities of 100%, 99%
and 94% for the Cone^ville 5 FGD sys
tern during July, August, and Septembei
respectively. Conesville 6 achieved avai
abilities of 99%, 99%, and 95% durin
the same 3 months. Both units were re
moved from service on September 19 a
a result of low power demand.
Deseret Generation and Transmissio
announced during the third quarter tha
Moon Lake 1 and 2 have been renamec
The units are now Bonanza 1 and 2.
East Kentucky Power announced tha
plans for the installation of J.K. Smith :
have been postponed indefinitely as a re
suit of power demand not meeting utilit
projections. In addition, initial start-up c
16
-------
.K. Smith 1 has been pushed back to
ugust 1987.
A letter of intent was signed during the
eriod by Kentucky Utilities with Bab-
ock and Wilcox for the installation of a
nestone FGD system to control S02
missions from the planned Hancock 1.
lis new unit is to be rated at 708 MW
ross) and will fire coal with an average
jlfur content of 3.50%. The FGD sys-
tm is scheduled to begin initial opera-
ons in April 1989.
Plans for the installation of Unit 2 at
le Hancock Generating Station have
sen delayed and Kentucky Utilities has
imporarily suspended requested/evalu-
ing bids for the installation of an FGD
rstem for S02 control. The unit, which
to be rated at 708 MW (gross), is cur-
intly scheduled for operation in 1994.
Nevada Power announced during the
sciod that plans for Warner Valley 1 and
have been postponed indefinitely. Due
> projected S02 emissions and the
anned station location with respect to
Class I area in Utah, the utility has been
nable to obtain a permit from the EPA.
he units were to be rated at 295 MW
jross) and were slated for operation in
une 1985 and June 1986, respectively.
Plans for the installation of Wisconsin
:oal 1 by Northern States Power have
een postponed indefinitely. The unit
i/as to be rated at 670 MW (gross) and
i/as slated for initial operations in 1981.
Pacific Power and Light hastemporari-
i suspended requesting/evaluating bids
or the installation of FGD systems at the
ilanned Jim Bridger Units 1, 2, and 3 as
i result of obtaining a modification in the
:ompliance deadline for Unit 3. The
jnits are to be rated at 550 MW (gross)
tach and are scheduled for operation in
. 988, 1990, and 1986, respectively.
Construction began during the third
quarter 1981 on the limestone FGD sys-
em being installed on Plains Escalante 1
of Plains Electric Generation and Trans-
mission. This new unit will be rated at
233 MW (gross) and will fire coal with
an average sulfur content of 0.80%.
The FGD system, which is being sup-
plied by Combustion Engineering, is
slated for initial operation in December
1983.
Initial operations of the limestone FGD
system installed on San Miguel 1 of San
Miguel Electric began in August 1981
when one of the four absorber modules
was placed in service. San Miguel 1 is
rated at 400 MW (gross) and fires coal
with an average sulfur content of 1.70%.
The FGD system, which was supplied by
Babcock and Wilcox, is preceded by a
cold-side ESP for primary particulate
matter control. Initial reports indicate
that boiler problems have limited opera-
tion of the FGD system.
Construction of the Seminole 1 lime-
stone FGD system of Seminole Electric
began during the period. The 620 MW
(gross) new unit will fire coal with an
average sulfur content of 2.75%. The
FGD system is being supplied by Pea-
body Process Systems and will be pre-
ceded by ESPs for primary particulate
matter removal. Initial operation is
scheduled for March 1983.
Initial operations of the American Air
Filter limestone FGD system installed on
Winyah 4 began in July when one module
was placed in service. Winyah 4 is rated
at 280 MW (gross) and fires coal with an
average sulfur content of 1.70%. A fire
in the-second module 2 months prior to
projected start-up has kept that module
off line. Integrated operation of both
modules is expected to begin in January
or February 1982.
South Mississippi Electric Power re-
ported availabilities of 100%, 100%,
and 99% for the R.D. Morrow 1 FGD
system during July, August, and Sep-
tember, respectively. The R.D. Morrow
2 FGD system achieved availabilities of
100%, 100%, and 98% during the
same 3 months. No major FGD related
problems were encountered during the
third quarter.
Southern Illinois Power has announced
that plans for the installation of Marion 5
have been postponed indefinitely as a
result of current load projections, eco-
nomic conditions, and environmental
concerns. The unit was to have been
rated at 300 MW (gross) and was slated
for operation in 1988.
The A. B. Brown 1 FGD system of South-
ern Indiana Gas and Electric achieved
availabilities of 91%, 92%, and 98%
during July, August, and September,
respectively. Some pump liner problems
were noted during the 3 months.
Construction of the lime/spray drying
FGD system being installed on Holcomb
1 of Sunflower Electric began during the
third quarter. Holcomb 1 is to be rated at
347 MW (gross) and will fire coal with
an average sulfur content of 0.47%.
The FGD system, which is being sup-
plied by Joy Manufacturing/Niro Atom-
izer, is scheduled to begin initial opera-
tions in September 1983.
Initial operations of the sodium car-
bonate FGD system retrofitted on
Naughton 3 of Utah Power and Light
began in early September. Naughton 3 is
rated at 330 MW (gross) and fires coal
with an average sulfur content of
0.55%. The FGD system was supplied
by the Air Correction Division, UOP and
is preceded by an ESP for primary partic-
ulate matter control. The FGD system is
currently in the start-up phase of opera-
tions and is not required to be in full ser-
vice until the end of the year.
West Texas Utilities announced that a
contract has been awarded to General
Electric Environmental Services for the
installation of a limestone FGD system
to control S02 emissions from Okla-
union 1. This new unit will be rated at
720 MW (gross) and will fire coal with
an average sulfur content of 0.34%.
FGD system start-up is scheduled for
December 1986.
References
1. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy
Information Administration. Office of
Coal and Electric Power Statistics.
Electric Power Statistics Division. In-
ventory of Power Plants in the United
States, 1980 Annual. Publ. No. DOE/
EIA-0095 (80).
2. Berman, Ira M. New Generating Ca-
pacity: When, Where, and by Whom.
Power Engineering 85(4)72. April
1981.
17
-------
M. P. Smith, M. Melia, and N. Gregory 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, July-September 1981,"
(Order No. PB 82-231 150; Cost: $27.00, 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, NC27711
18
•&U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I982/559-09^0487
-------
a
w
*
«v
CO
8
m > TJ n
?!M
i j CD ^
w o o c
W< S. 2
cn o s
3 5
S
------- |