United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-82-058 June 1983
SEPA
Project Summary
EPA Utility FGS Survey
October-December 1981
This report, generated by a com-
puterized data base system, presents a
survey of operational and planned
domestic utility flue gas desulf urization
(FGD) systems, operational domestic
particle scrubbers, and Japanese
coal-fired utility boiler FGD installa-
tions. 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 94 systems in operation,
40 systems under construction, and
88 planned systems. Projected 1999
FGD controlled capacity in the U.S. is
107,351 MW.
This Project Summary was developed
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
The FGD survey report is prepared
quarterly for EPA's Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC. The information in
this report is generated by a compu-
terized data base system known as the
Flue Gas Desulfurization Information
System (FGDIS). The FGDIS structure
diagram. Figure 1, shows the informa-
tional areas the system addresses and
some representative data items con-
tained in each. The design information
contained in the FGDIS encompasses
the entire emission control system and
the power generating unit to which it is
applied. Performance data for opera-
tional FGD systems include monthly
dependability parameters, service time,
and descriptions of operational problems
and solutions.
Aside from its use in generating the
survey report, the FGDIS is available for
remote terminal access. Because the
survey report is now available only
through purchase from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS),
the data base represents a more
immediate method for users to examine
the data acquired under the survey
program. Access to the FGDIS also
enables users to obtain additional data
that are too specific for inclusion in the
quarterly report. Direct access to the data
base allows statistical analyses of the
data (e.g., averages, maxima, minima,
and standard deviations of various
parameters), the use of simple mathe-
-------
General
Data
10)
Boiler-Stack
(100J
Paniculate
Matter
Control
(300)
Fuel
(200)
Mechanical
Collector
(400)
FGD
General
Data
(800)
ESP
(600)
Fabric
Filter
(500)
FGD
Design
Information
(900)
Paniculate
Matter
Scrubber
(700)
Quenchers/
Presaturators
(1000)
Mist
Eliminators
(1200)
Fans
(1400)
Fteheaters
(1300)
Spare
Component
Index
(3100)
Economics
Data
(3300)
Pilot
Plant
(3200)
Ductwork
(1600)
Dampers
(1500)
Tanks
(1800)
_L
Solids
Concentration/
Dewatering
(2000)
_L
Process
Control and
Instrumentation
(2600)
Reagent
Preparation
Equipment
(1700)
Figure 1. Computerized data base system diagram.
2
-------
Unit
Performance
(3400)
Removal
Performance
(3900)
Literal
Information
(40001
FGD System
Performance
(3440)
Problems
Solutions
Comments
(3460)
1
Problems
Solution
Description
(3470)
Problem
Area
(3480)
matical functions, capability for virtually
unlimited data cross-referencing, and
data tabulation to fit individual informa-
tional needs. Requests for further
information concerning the FGDIS and
periodic FGOIS training seminars
should be directed to Michael Melia or
Noreen Bruck, PEDCo Environmental,
Inc. (513/782-4700), or EPA's Project
Officer, Norman Kaplan, IERL-RTP
(919/541-2556). Information concerning
access to the FGDIS can be obtained
from Walter Finch, NTIS, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703/487-4808). Custom searches of
FGDIS data can also be arranged
through Finch.
Executive Summary
Table 1 summarizesthestatusof FGD
systems in the U.S. at the end of
December 1981. Table 2 lists the units
that changed status during the fourth
quarter 1981, and Table 3 shows the
performance of operating units during
this period. The units included in the
figures presented in Table 1 are
identified in Table 4, and categorical
FGD system cost data are presented in
Table 5.
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, which is
considered to be 0.4% of the average
generating capacity at the end of each
year.1'2) 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
Table 1.
Number and Total Capacity of FGD Systems
Status
No. of
units
Total
controlled
capacity. MW *
Equivalent
scrubbed
capacity, MW*
Operational 94
Under construct/on 4O
Planned-
Contract awarded 17
Letter of intent 10
Requesting/evaluating bids 10
Considering only FGD 51
systems
TOTAL 222
35.931
17,386
1O.035
7,643
5,63O
30,726
107,351
32,683
16.666
9,819
7.585
5,630
3O.398
102,781
* 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 systemfs).
b The summation of the effective scrubbed flue gas in equivalent MW based on the
percent of flue gas scrubbed by the FGD systemfs).
Table 2. Summary of Changes October - December 1981
Operational
FGD status report
September 31, 1981
No.
92
MW
37,892"
Under Contract Letter
construction awarded of intent
No.
42
MW No.
17.457 16
MW No. MW
9.169 11 8,235
Requesting/
eval. bids
No.
10
MW
5,630
Considering
FGD
No.
51
MW
30,398
Total
No.
222
MW
102.781"
East Kentucky Power
U.K. Smith 1
Louisville Gas & Electric
Mill Creek 2
Hoosier Energy
Merom 2
Total
+1 650 -1
650
350 -1 350
+1 441 -1 441
94 32,683 40 16,666 17 9.819 10 7.585 W 5,630 51 3O.398 222 102,781
* Equivalent scrubbed capacity.
b This value was modiffed slightly due to a MW correction.
-------
Table3. Performance of Operational Units October-December 1981
FGD capacity
on line Shut down
FGD system during No information throughout
capacity. Flue gas period for this period.
Plant MW* % scrubbed MW** period, MW* MW*
October 1981 November 1981 December 1981
Dependability %c'e Dependability %c'e Dependability %c'e
A VL OPR REL UTLAVL OPR REL UTL AVL OPR REL UTL
Alabama Electric
Tombigbee 2
Tombigbee 3
Arizona Electric
Power
Apache 2
Apache 3
179
179
98
98
70
70
50
50
179
179
98
98
17
97
100
96
52
58
100
98
52
58
100
96
9 41
57 99
42 65
96 100
79
76
64
100
79
76
65
89
36 100
59 96
64
89
54 54 54
52 52 52
Arizona Public
Service
Cholla 1 119 1OO
Cholla 2 264 100
Cholla 4 126 33
Four Corners 1 175 1OO
Four Corners 2 175 1OO
Four Comers 3 229 1OO
Basin Electric Power
Laramie River 1 570 1OO 570
Laramie River 2 570 1OO 570
Big Rivers Electric
Green 1 242 1OO 242
Green 2 242 1OO 242
Central Illinois Light
Duck Creek 1 416 100 416
Central Illinois Public
Service
Newton 1 617 10O 617
Cincinnati Gas &
Electric
East Bend 2 650 1OO 650
Colorado Ute Electric
Craig 1 410 9O 410
Craig 2 410 90 410
Columbus & Southern
Ohio Electric
ConesvilleS 411 1OO 411
Conesville6 411 10O 411
Commonwealth Edison
Powerton5J 450 1OO 450
Cooperative Power
Association
Coal Creek 1 327 6O 327
Coal Creek 2 327 6O 327
Delmarva Power &
Light
Delaware City 1 60 100 60
Delaware City 2 60 100 60
Delaware City 3 60 700 60
Duquesne Light
Elrama 1-4 510 1OO 510
Phillips 1-6 408 100 408
Hoosier Energy
Merom2 441 90 441
119
264
126
175
175
229
1OO 0 100 63 700 59 100 78 700 78
100 96 100 95 100 98 100 98 100 93 100 75
75 98 98 75 96 95 95 95 99 98 97 98
76 96 96 73 63 87 87 45 100 98 98 87
0 31 79 91 26 80 82 83 69
100 0 0 0 98 69 85 69 100 85 100 82
14 14 14 14 80 80 80 80 84 84 84 84
100 99 99 99 21 47 52 21 69 69 70 68
100
100
0
0
0
0
0 27
0 27
0
0
0
0
0 84 82 86 77
0 88 83 93 66
32
54
76
15
76
57
67
47
67
60
67
45
67
30 57 71 23 70 70 70 70 73 68 68 59
10O 100 100 100 89 89 89 89 99 99 99 99
78 86 86 78 42 89 89 42 95 95 95 95
95 77 94 77 100 77 100 77 100 60 700 60
85 59 83 59 74 41 72 41 73 49 73 49
(continued)
4
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
Plant
FGD capacity
online Shutdown _ . „„„ ., . __. _ . .„„„
FGD system during No information throughout n°eto^rJ98Lf P"9"*?.,. 19?L ,!***"??., /5£'.
capacity. Flue gas period for this period. Dependably %«* Dependably %°* Dependability %**
MW* % scrubbed MW" period, MW MW AVLOPR REL UTLAVLOPR REL UTLAVLOPR REL UTL
Indianapolis Power
& Light
Petersburg 3 532 100 532
Kansas City Power
& Light
Hawthorns 90 100 90
Hawthorn 4 90 100 90
La Cygne 1 874 100 874
Kansas Power & Light
Jeffrey 1 540 75 540
Jeffrey 2 490 70 490
Lawrence 4 125 1OO 125
Lawrence 5 420 100 420
Kentucky Utilities
Green River 1-3 64 1OO
Louisville Gas &
Electric
Cane Run 4 188 100 188
Cane Run 5 200 1OO 200
Cane Run 6 299 100
Mill Creek 1 358 100 358
Mill Creek 2 350 1OO 35O
Mill Creek 3 427 1OO 427
Paddy's Run 6 72 10O
Minnesota Power &
Light
ClayBoswell4 475 85 475
Minnkota Power
Milton R. Young 2 185 42 185
Monongahela Power
Pleasants 1 668 1OO 668
Pleasants2 668 1OO 668
Montana Power
Colstrip 1 360 1OO 360
Co/strip 2 360 1OO 360
Montana-Dakota
Utilities
Coyote 1 440 10O 440
51 98 98 35 94 1OO 92 72
64
299
72
100
0 10O
0 1OO
65 93 93 65 99 100 1OO 99 65 1OO 100 65
93 1OO 100 58 89 1OO 1OO 57 99 99 99 99
1OO 0 1OO 0 100 0
40 41 41 40 37 40 40 37 26 29 29 26
1OO 75 75 1OO
41 9O 90 41 32 37 37 32 41 43 43 41
100
0 100
0 100
10O 95 100 95 94 96 1OO 73 1OO 90 1OO 90
100 100 1OO 66 100 98 99 89 100 100 100 100
98
98
93
93
97
96
Nevada Power
Reid Gardner 1
Reid Gardner 2
Reid Gardner 3
125 100 125
125 100 125
125 100 125
0 0 95 78 61 9 100 96 96 100
1OO 99 99 86 100 100 100 47 95 74 69 56
1OO 99 99 94 98 98 98 98 99 98 97 49
Northern Indiana
Public Service
Dean H. Mitchell 11 115 99
Northern States Power
Riverside 6-7 110 1OO
Sherburne 1 740 1OO 740
Sherburne2 740 1OO 740
Pacific Power & Light
Jim Bridger 4 550 1OO
115 10O 0
0 100 0
0 100 0
110
550
1OO 10O 100 92 100 100 100 95 1OO 100 1OO 100
100 10O 100 100 10O 100 100 1OO 1OO 1OO 1OO 100
(continued)
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
Plant
FGD capacity
on line Shut down
FGD system during No information throughout
capacity. Flue gas period for this period,
MW" % scrubbed MW* period, MW" MW"
October 1981 November 1981 December 1981
Dependability %c" Dependability %c'e Dependability %"•*
AVLOFF; REL UTLAVLOPR REL UTLAVLOPR REL UTL
Pennsylvania Power
Bruce Mansfield 1 917 100 917
Bruce Mansfield 2 917 1OO 917
Bruce Mansfield 3 917 1OO 917
Public Service of
New Mexico
San Juan 1 361 100 361
San Juan 2 350 1OO 350
San Juan 3 534 1OO 534
Salt River Project
Coronado 1 280 80 280
Coronado 2 280 80 280
San Miguel Electric
San Miguel 1 400 1OO 400
100
98
99
98
94
100
99
95
100
100 96 100 96 100 95 100 81 99 78 100 25
65 62 67 45 93 71 90 59 95 89 95 89
98 84 97 62 94 90 93 89 100 92 98 89
Sikeston Board of
Municipal Utilities
Sikeston 1 235 1OO 235
South Carolina Public
Service
Winyah2 140 50 140
Winyah3 280 100 280
Winyah4 280 100 280
South Mississippi
Electric Power
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 1 124 62 124
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 2 124 62 124
Southern Illinois Power
Mar ion 4 173 100 173
Southern Indiana Gas
& Electric
A.B. Brown 1 265 100 265
Springfield City
Utilities
Southwest 1 194 100 194
Springfield Water,
Light & Power
Dallman 3 185 90 185
St. Joe Zinc
G.F. Weaton 1 60 100 60
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Shawnee 10A 10 N/A" 10
Shawnee 10B 10 N/A" 10
Widows Creek 7 575 100 575
Widows Creek 8 550 100 550
Texas Power & Light
Sandow4 382 70 382
32 71 72 30 82 88 88 82 81 82 81 65
96 96 97 96 96 94 95 84 97 97 97 97
52 53 54 52
75 99 99 72 100 99 99 98 100 10O 100 100
1OO 100 100 100 32 99 99 32 100 99 99 94
98 94 94 84 93 91 91 91 98 63 63 38
0 78 82 96 66
47 87 98 45 0
94 68 84 53
12 12 12 12 55 55 55 55 1 1 1 1
(continued)
-------
Table 3. (Continued}
Plant
Texas Utilities
Martin Lake 1
Martin Lake 2
Martin Lake 3
Monticello 3
FGD system
capacity,
MW*
595
595
595
800
FGD capacity
on line
during No information i
Flue gas period for this
% scrubbed /WW* period, MW*
75
75
75
100
595
595
595
800
thrnuahnut October 1981 November 1981 December 1981
°",i"ri Dependability %c* Dependability %c* Dependability %c'e
MW A VL OPR REL UTL AVL OPR REL UTL A VL OPR REL UTL
Utah Power & Light
Hunter 1 360 90
Hunter 2 360 90
Huntingdon 1 366 85
Naughton 3 330 100
TOTAL 32.683
23.321
360
360
366
330
8.812
550
"Equivalent scrubbed capacity.
* 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 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 SOz
emission standard.
"Availability, 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
Capacity
MW (gross)
Fuel
% sulfur
FGD process
FGD
status
System supplier
Alabama Electric
Jombigbee 2 255
Tombigbee 3 255
Arizona Electric Power
Apache 2 195
Apache 3 195
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
'FGD Status:
'Operational units.
2 Units under construction.
3Planned • contract awarded.
4Planned - letter of intent signed.
5Planned - requesting/evaluating bids.
ePlanned - considering only FGD systems.
1.15 Limestone
1.15 Limestone
0.50 Limestone
0.50 Limestone
0.50 Limestone
0.50 Limestone
0.50 Limestone
0.75 Lime/alkaline fly ash
0.75 Lime/alkaline fly ash
0.75 Lime/alkaline fly ash
0.75 Lime
0.75 Lime
4.80 Limestone
3.25 Process not selected
1 Peabody Process Systems
1 Peabody Process Systems
1 Research -Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
1 Research-Cottrell
1 GE Environmental Services
1 GE Environmental Services
1 GE Environmental Services
2 Babcock & Wilcox
2 Babcock & Wilcox
Pullman Kellogg
Vendor not selected
(continued)
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Company name/
unit name
Basin Electric Power
Antelope Valley 1
Antelope Valley 2
Laramie River 1
Laramie River 2
Laramie River 3
Big Rivers Electric
D.B. Wilson 1
D.B. Wilson 2
Green 1
Green 2
Cajun Electric Power
Chicot 1
Chicot 2
Chicot 3
Chicot 4
Oxbow 1
Oxbow 2
Central Illinois Light
Duck Creek 1
Duck Creek 2
Capacity
MW (gross)
440
440
570
570
570
440
440
242
242
562
562
562
562
540
540
416
450
Fuel
% sulfur
0.68
0.68
0.81
0.81
0.54
3.75
3.75
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.7O
0.60
0.6O
3.66
3.30
FGD process
Lime/spray drying
Lime/ spray drying
Limestone
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
FGD
status'
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
6
6
6
6
5
6
1
6
System supplier
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Research-Cottrell
Research -Cottrell
Babcock & Wilcox
Pullman Kellogg
Pullman Kellogg
American Air Filter
American Air Filter
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Environeering, Riley Stoker
Vendor not selected
Central Illinois Public Service
Newton 1
617
2.25
Dual alkali
GE Environmental Services
Central Maine Power
Sears Island 1 600
Central Power & Light
Coleto Creek 2 720
Cincinnati Gas & Electric
East Bend 1 650
East Bend 2 650
Colorado Ute Electric
Craig 1 455
Craig 2 455
Craig 3 447
Columbus & Southern
Ohio Electric
Conesville 5 411
Conesville 6 411
Poston 5 425
Poston 6 425
Commonwealth Edison
Powerton 51 450
2.23 Process not selected
0.39 Process not selected
4.0O Process not selected 6
3.00 Lime 1
0.45 Limestone 1
0.45 Limestone 1
0.45 Lime/spray drying 2
4.67 Lime 1
4.67 Lime 1
Process not selected 6
2.50 Process not selected 6
3.53 Limestone 1
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Babcock & Wilcox
Peabody Process Systems
Peabody Process Systems
Babcock & Wilcox
Air Correction Division, UOP
Air Correction Division, UOP
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Air Correction Division, UOP
"FGD Status:
10perational units.
2Units under construction.
3Planned - contract awarded.
4Planned - letter of intent signed.
^Planned - requesting/evaluating bids.
ePlanned - considering only FGD systems.
(continued)
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Company name/
unit name
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
Coall
Coal 2
Coal 3
Coal 4
Seward 7
Capacity
MW (gross)
545
545
60
60
60
550
410
410
510
408
650
500
800
800
625
625
625
625
690
Fuel
% sulfur
0.63
0.63
7.00
7.00
7.00
2.50
0.50
0.50
2.20
1.92
1.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
FGD process
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
Process not selected
FGD
status"
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
5
1
1
4
2
6
6
5
6
6
6
5
System supplier
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Davy McKee
Vendor not selected
Combustion Engineering
Vendor not selected
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Babcock & Wilcox
Thyssen/CEA
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Grand Haven Board of
Light & Power
J.B. Sims 3 65
Hoosier Energy
Merom 1 490
Merom 2 490
Houston Lighting & Power
Limestone 1 750
Limestone 2 750
W.A. Parish 8 600
Indianapolis Power & Light
Patriot 1 650
Patriot 2 650
Patriot 3 650
'FGD Status:
'Operational units.
2 Units under construction.
3Planned - contract awarded.
4Planned - letter of intent signed.
sPlanned - requesting/evaluating bids.
ePlanned - considering only FGD systems.
2.75
3.50
3.50
1.08
1.08
0.60
3.50
3.50
3.50
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Babcock & Wilcox
2 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
1 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
3 Combustion Engineering
3 Combustion Engineering
2 GE Environmental Services
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
(continued)
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Company name/
unit name
Capacity
MW (gross)
Fuel
'o sulfur
FGD process
FGD
status'
System supplier
Petersburg 3 532
Petersburg 4 530
Iowa Electric Light & Power
Guthrie Co. 1 720
Jacksonville Electric Authority
St. Johns River Power 1 600
St. Johns River Power 2 600
Kansas City Power & Light
Hawthorn 3 90
Hawthorn 4 90
La Cygne 1 874
Kansas Power & Light
Jeffrey 1 720
Jeffrey 2 700
Lawrence 4 125
Lawrence 5 420
Kentucky Utilities
Green River 1 -3 64
Hancock 1 708
Hancock 2 708
Lakeland Utilities
Mclntosh 3 364
Lansing Board of Water
and Light
Erickson 2 160
Los Angeles Department
of Water & Power
Intermountain 1 820
Intermountain 2 820
Intermountain 3 820
Intermountain 4 820
Louisville Gas &
Electric
Cane Run 4 188
Cane Run 5 200
Cane Run 6 299
Mill Creek 1 358
Mill Creek 2 350
Mill Creek 3 427
Mill Creek 4 495
Paddy's Run 6 72
Trimble County 1 575
Trimble County 2 575
Lower Colorado River
Authority
Fayette Power Project 3 435
"FGD Status:
'Operational units.
2 Units under construction.
3Planned - contract awarded.
'Planned - letter of intent signed.
^Planned - requesting/evaluating bids.
ePlanned - considering only FGD systems.
3.25
3.50
2.50
2.50
0.60
0.60
5.39
0.32
0.30
0.55
0.55
4.00
3.50
3.50
Limestone
Limestone
0.40 Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
2.56 Limestone
Process not selected
0.79 Lime
0.79 Lime
0.79 Lime
0.79 Lime
1.70 Limestone
1 Air Correction Division, UOP
2 Research Cottrell
4 Combustion Engineering
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
6
6
6
6
6
3.75
3.75
4.80
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
2.50
4.00
4.00
Lime
Lime
Dual alkali
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Process not selected
Process not selected
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
5
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Babcock & Wilcox
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
American Air Filter
Babcock & Wilcox
Vendor not selected
Babcock & Wilcox
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
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
Vendor not selected
(continued)
10
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Company name/
unit name
Capacity
MW (gross)
Fuel
'o sulfur
FGD process
FGD
status* System supplier
Marquette Board of
Light and Power
Shiras 3 44
Michigan South Central
Power Agency
Project 1 55
Middle 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
ClayBoswell4 554
Minnkota Power
Milton R. Young 2 440
Monongahela Power
Pleasants 1 618
Pleasants 2 618
Montana Power
Co/strip 1 360
Colstrip 2 360
Co/strip 3 700
Colstrip 4 700
Montana-Dakota
Utilities
Coyote 1 440
Muscatine Power & Water
Muscatine 9 166
Nebraska Public Power District
Fossil III 1 650
Nevada Power
Harry Allen 1 500
Harry Allen 2 500
Harry Allen 3 500
Harry Allen 4 500
Reid Gardner 1 125
Reid Gardner 2 125
Reid Gardner 3 125
Reid Gardner 4 250
*FGD Status:
'Operational units.
2Units under construction.
3Planned - contract awarded.
4Planned - letter of intent signed.
5Planned - requesting/evaluating bids.
6Planned - considering only FGD systems.
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
3.00
3.00
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.87
3.21
0.36
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
Lime/spray drying
2.25 Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
0.94 Lime/alkaline flyash
0.70 Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime
Lime
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Lime/alkaline flyash
Sodium carbonate/
spray drying
Limestone
Process not selected
Process
Process
Process
Process
Sodium
Sodium
Sodium
Sodium
not selected
not selected
not selected
not selected
carbonate
carbonate
carbonate
carbonate
GE Environmental Services
2 Babcock & Wilcox
4 Combustion Engineering
4 Combustion Engineering
4 Combustion Engineering
4 Combustion Engineering
4 Combustion Engineering
4 Combustion Engineering
1 Peabody Process Systems
1 Thyssen/CEA
1 Babcock & Wilcox
1 Babcock & Wilcox
1 Thyssen/CEA
1 Thyssen/CEA
2 Thyssen/CEA
2 Thyssen/CEA
Wheefabrator-Fry/R. I.
Research - Cottrell
Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
6 Vendor not selected
1 Thyssen/CEA
1 Thyssen/CEA
1 Thyssen/CEA
4 Thyssen/CEA
(continued)
11
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Company name/ Capacity
unit name MW f gross)
New York State Electric & Gas
Somerset 1
Niagara Mohawk Power
Charles R. Huntley 66
Northern Indiana Public Service
Dean H. Mitchell 1 1
Schahfer 17
Schahfer 18
Northern States Power
Metro Coal 1
Riverside 6-7
Sherburne 1
Sherburne 2
Sherburne 3
Pacific Gas & Electric
Montezuma 1
Montezuma 2
Pacific Power & Light
Jim Bridger 1
Jim Bridger 2
Jim Bridger 2 A
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
625
100
116
421
421
200
110
740
740
860
800
800
550
550
550
550
550
917
917
917
150
240
334
Fuel
% sulfur
2.20
1.80
3.50
3.20
3.20
1.00
1.20
0.80
0.80
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.60
2.50
FGD process
Limestone
Aqueous carbonate/
spray drying
Well man Lord
Dual alkali
Dual alkali
Lime
Lime/ spray drying
Limestone/ alkaline
flyash
Limestone/ alkaline
flyash
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Lime/sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Lime
Lime
Lime
Magnesium oxide
Magnesium oxide
Magnesium oxide
FGD
status" System supplier
4
2
1
2
3
6
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Peabody Process Systems
Rockwell International
Davy McKee
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. UOP
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Pullman Kellogg
United Engineers
United Engineers
United Engineers
Plains Electric G & T
Plains Escalante 1
Platte River Power Authority
Rawhide 1
Public Service Indiana
Gibson 5
Public Service of New Mexico
San Juan 1
San Juan 2
233
279
650
361
350
0.80 Limestone
0.25 Lime/spray drying
3.30 Limestone
0.80 Wellman Lord
0.80 Wellman Lord
2 Combustion Engineering
3 Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
2 Pullman Kellogg
1 Davy McKee
1 Davy McKee
'FGD Status:
'Operational units.
2Units under construction.
3Planned - contract awarded.
'Planned - letter of intent signed.
sPlanned • requesting/evaluating bids.
ePlanned - considering only FGD systems.
12
(continued)
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Company name/
unit name
San Juan 3
San Juan 4
Power Authority of
State of New York
Fossil
Salt River Project
Coronado 1
Coronado 2
Coronado 3
San Miguel Electric
San Miguel 1
Seminole Electric
Seminole 1
Seminole 2
Sikeston Board of
Municipal Utilities
Sikeston 1
South Carolina Public Service
Cross 1
Cross 2
Winyah 2
Winyah 3
Winyah 4
South Mississippi
Electric Power
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 1
R.D. Morrow, Sr. 2
Southern Illinois Power
Marion 4
Southern Indiana Gas & Electric
A.B. Brown 1
A.B. Brown 2
Southwestern Electric Power
Dolet Hills 1
Dolet Hills 2
Henry W. Pirkey 1
Capacity
MW (gross)
534
534
700
350
350
400
*
400
620
620
235
500
500
2SO
2SO
2SO
200
200
173
265
265
720
720
720
Fuel
% sulfur
: 0.80
-'•,' o.so
3.00
0.50
0.50
0.60
1.70
2.75
2.75
2.80
1.80
1.80
1.10
1.10
1.70
1.30
1.30
3.75
3.35
3.35
0.70
0.70
0.80
FGD process
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Dual alkali
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
FGD
status'
1
2
6
1
1
6
1
2
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
6
3
System supplier
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
Soyland Power
Soy/and 1 500
Springfield City Utilities
Southwest 1 194
Springfield Water,
Light & Power
Dallman 3 205
'FGD Status:
' Operational units.
1 Units under construction.
3Planned - contract awarded.
4Planned - letter of intent signed.
^Planned - requesting/evaluating bids.
''Planned - considering only FGD systems.
3.00 Process not selected
3.50 Limestone
3.30
Limestone
Vendor not selected
1 Air Correction Division, UOP
Research-Cottrell
(continuedl
13
-------
Table 4. (Continued)
Company name/
unit name
St. Joe Zinc
G.F. Weaton 1
Sunflower Electric
Ho/comb 1
Tampa Electric
Big Bend 4
Tennessee Valley Authority
Paradise 1
Paradise 2
Shaw nee 10A
Shawnee 10B
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
West Penn Power
Mitchell 33
West Texas Utilities
Oklaunion 1
Oklaunion 2
Capacity
MW (gross)
60
347
475
704
704
10
10
575
550
443
545
750
750
750
793
793
793
750
750
750
800
370
370
60
400
400
400
400
430
330
570
570
570
570
300
720
720
Fuel
% sulfur
2.00
0.47
2.35
4.20
4.20
2.90
2.90
3.70
3.70
1.06
1.60
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.50
0.61
0.61
O.77
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
2.80
0.34
0.34
FGD process
Citrate
Lime/spray drying
Lime/ limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Lime/ limestone
Lime/ limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Process not selected
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Process not selected
Process not selected
Limestone
Lime/spray drying
Lime/spray drying
Lime/spray drying
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Sodium carbonate
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Process not selected
Process not selected
FGD
status"
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
5
1
1
1
3
6
6
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
6
6
6
2
3
6
System supplier
Morrison & Knudsen/U.S.B.M.
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Research-Cottrell
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Air Correction Division, UOP
GE Environmental Services
Combustion Engineering
Tennessee Valley Authority
Combustion Engineering
Combustion Engineering
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Vendor not selected
Research -Cottrell
Research -Cottrell
Research-Cottrell
Research -Cottrell
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
GE Environmental Services
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Joy Mfg/Niro Atomizer
Research -Cottrell
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Air Correction Division, UOP
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
Vendor not selected
GE Environmental Services
GE Environmental Services
Vendor not selected
'FGD Status:
'Operational units.
2Units under construction.
3Planned - contract awarded.
4Planned - letter of intent signed.
sPlanned - requesting/evaluating bids.
BPlanned - considering only FGD systems.
14
-------
Tables.
Categorical Results of the Reported and Adjusted Capital and Annual Costs for Operational FGD Systems
Reported Adjusted"
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
AH
New
Retrofit
Salable
Throwaway
Alkaline
flyash/lime
Alkaline flyash/
limestone
Dual alkali
Lime
Limestone
Sodium carbonate
Wellman Lord
Range, $/kW
23.7-2 1 3.6
23.7-213.6
29.4-157.4
132.8-185.0
23.7-213.6
43.4-173.8
49.3- 49.3
47.2-174.8
29.4-213.6
23.7-170.4
42.9-100.8
132.8-185.0
Average.
$/kW a
80.2
80.4
79.7
153.1
75.8
93.9
49.3
97.8
81.8
67.9
69.2
153.1
44.3
46.1
39.4
20. 6
41.5
44.0
0.0
55.3
43.7
37.2
26.6
20.6
Range,
mills/kWh
0.1-13.0
0.1- 5.5
0.5-13.0
13.0-13.0
0.1-11.3
0.4- 5.4
0.8- 0.8
1.3- 1.3
0.3-11.3
0.1- 7.8
0.2- 0.5
13.0-13.0
Average.
mills/kWh a
2.3
1.7
4.5
13.0
2.1
2.1
0.8
1.3
3.2
1.6
0.4
13.0
2.8
1.8
4.4
0.0
2.4
1.9
0.0
0.0
2.7
2.2
0.1
0.0
Range. $/kW
38.3-282.2
38.3-263.9
60.4-282.2
254.6-282.2
38.3-263.9
52.5-184.4
102.6-102.6
87.8-263.9
60.4-210.0
38.3-194.3
87.1-150.9
254.6-282.2
Average.
$/kW
118.8
110.8
139.3
271.6
110.9
122.8
102.6
146.7
116.5
98.9
110.9
271.6
a
58. 1
48.4
73.8
12.1
47.6
51.4
0.0
82.9
44.2
44.0
26.4
12.1
Range, A verage,
mills/kWh mills/kWh a
1.6-2O.8
1.6-14.6
4.3-20.8
16.7-20.8
1.6-17.6
3.0-14.1
5.4- 5.4
5.0-13.9
4.0-17.6
1.6-14.6
5.8- 7.4
16.7-20.8
7.6
6.8
9.7
18.1
7.0
7.2
5.4
8.7
8.1
6.1
6.4
18.1
4.1
3.2
5.3
1.9
3.4
3.8
0.0
3.8
3.6
3.1
0.7
1.9
" The adjusted costs were developed in an attempt to establish a common cost basis for FGD systems so that cost comparisons can be made. Reported
costs are adjusted by deducting all costs associated with paniculate matter control, adjusting sludge disposal site for ne w and retrofit systems to a
common 30-year and 20-year life, and adjusting annual costs to a common 65 percent capacity factor. Both capital and annual costs are escalated to
common 1981 dollars. Other cost adjustments are made as well.
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 (December 1981) and the future
(December 1999) is shown in Table 7.
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 50-60 systems
representing approximately 29,000 -
31,000 MW of generating capacity now
fall into the uncommitted category.
These are systems that cannot be
included in the committed group now
because information regarding their
status is not ready for public release.
To show general FGD usage and
projected usage trends. Table 6 gives
current (December 1981) a nd projected
(December 1999) breakdowns of throw-
away product systems versus salable
product systems as a percent of the total
known commitments to FGD as of the
end of the fourth quarter 1981.
The following paragraphs highlight
FGD system developments during the
fourth quarter 1981.
Alabama Electric announced that the
Tombigbee 3 FGD system achieved
availabilities of 97%, 99%, and 96% for
October, November, and December,
respectively. No major FGD related
problems were noted during the 3
months.
Arizona Electric Power reported that
the Apache 3 FGD system achieved 96%
and 100% availabilities for October and
November, respectively. Information for
December was not available for this
report.
Basin Electric Power reported avail-
abilities of 100% for the Laramie River 1
and 2 FGD systems during October,
November, and December. No major
FGD-related problems were encountered
during this quarter.
Big Rivers Electric reported that the
Green 1 FGD system achieved 96% and
99% availabilities for November and
December, respectively. Operations at
the beginning of the fourth quarter were
restricted due to piping and damper
problems.
The Newton 1 FGD system of Central
Illinois Public Service achieved avail-
abilities of 100%, 98%, and 100% for
October, November, and December. No
major FGD-related problems were
encountered during this quarter.
Delmarva Power & Light announced
that the FGD system installed on
Delaware 2 achieved availabilities of
100%, 89%, and 99% during the
quarter. Some ESP and presaturator
problems were noted during the 3
months.
Duquesne Light reported that the
FGD system installed at Elrama achieved
95%, 100%, and 100% availabilities for
October, November, and December,
respectively. During the period the
recycle pumps of one of the five
modules were replaced. Due to the
spare capacity, system operation was
not hindered.
East Kentucky Power announced that
a contract has been awarded to Babcock
& Wilcox for the installation of a lime
FGD system to control SOz emissions
from J.K. Smith 1. This new unit will be
rated at 650 MW (gross) and will fire
coal with an average sulfur content of
1.5%. FGD systems start-up is scheduled
for August 1987.
The Merom 2 FGD system of Hoosier
Energy began initial operations on
December 30. Merom 2 is rated at 490
MW (gross) and fires coal with an
average sulfur content of 3.50%. The
limestone FGD system, supplied by
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, consists of
a cold-side ESP upstream of a grid tower
absorber. The scrubbed gas is heated by
a flue gas bypass before exiting a 700-ft
(213.4m) stack.
Louisville Gas & Electric reported
availabilities of 93%, 89%, and 99% for
the Cane Run 5 FGD system during
October, November, and December,
respectively. No major FGD-related
problems were encountered during the
3 months.
Initial operations of the Mill Creek 2
FGD system of Louisville Gas & Electric
began during December. Mill Creek 2 is
rated at 350 MW (gross) and fires coal
with an average sulfur content of
3.75%. The lime FGD system, supplied
by Combustion Engineering, consists of
two absorber modules. Two hot-side
ESPs are included for primary particle
removal. Availability of the FGD system
during December was 100%.
Minnesota Power & Light reported
availabilities of 100%, 94%, and 100%
for the Clay Boswell 4 FGD system
during October, November, and Decem-
-------
ber, respectively. No major FGO-related
problems were encountered during the
period.
Minnkota Power announced that the
FGD system on Milton R. Young 2
achieved 100% availability for October,
November and December. No FGD-
related problems were reported for the 3
months.
Nevada Power reported that the Reid
Gardner 1 FGD system achieved 95% and
100% availabilities for November and
December, respectively. The system
was not available during October due to
scheduled scrubber/boiler overhaul.
The Reid Gardner 2 FGD system
achieved 100%, 100%, and 95% avail-
abilities for the same 3 months. The
Reid Gardner 3 FGD system achieved
availabilities of 100%, 98%, and 99%
during the 3 months with only minor
problems.
The Sherburne 1 and 2 FGD systems
of Northern States Power achieved
100% availability during October,
November, and December. No FGD-
related problems were encountered
during the 3 months.
Pennsylvania Power reported avail-
abilities of 100%, 98%, and 99% for the
Bruce Mansfield 1 FGD system during
October, November, and December,
respectively. Bruce Mansfield 2 achieved
availabilities of 98%, 94%, and 95%
during the same 3 months. Bruce
Mansfield 3 achieved availabilities of
99%, 100%, and 100% during the same
period. Some minor ID fan problems and
general maintenance were encountered.
Public Service Company of New
Mexico reported that the San Juan 1
FGD system achieved availabilities of
100%, 100%, and 97% during October,
November, and December, respectively.
San Juan 2 achieved 93% and 95%
availabilities for November and Decem-
ber, respectively. Low availability in
October resulted from necessary mist
eliminator maintenance. San Juan 3
achieved availabilities of 98%, 94%, and
100% during the same 3 months.
Operation of an additional module on San
Juan 3 commenced during the period.
South Carolina Public Service reported
that the Winyah 3 FGD system achieved
availabilites of 96%, 96%, and 97% for
October, November, and December,
respectively. Some absorber pump
problems were reported during the
period.
Southern Indiana Gas & Electric
reported availabilities of 98%, 93%, and
98% for the A.B. Brown 1 FGD system
during October, November, and Decem-
Table 6. Power Generation Sources: Present and Future
Coal Nuclear Oil Hydro Gas
Other GW (total)
December 1980
December 1999
41%
45%
10%
15%
24%
19%
12%
11%
12%
9%
1%
1%
616
831
Table 7. FGD Controlled Generating Capacity: Present and Future
Coal-fired generating
capacity controlled
by FGD, %
Total generating
capacity controlled
by FGD. %
December 1981*
December 1999
14.2
28.7
5.8
12.9
8 The number of committed FGD systems is as of December 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
December
1981
December
1999
(Projected)*
December
1999
(Normalized?
Throwaway product process
°Wet systems
Lime
Limestone
Dual alkali
Sodium carbonate
NA'
°Dry systems
Lime
Lime/sodium carbonate
Sodium carbonate
Salable product process
38.1
47.8
3.6
3.8
0.3
1.3
13.0
31.5
1.2
2.7
7.6
4.8
0.1
23.1
56.0
2.1
4.8
8.5
0.2
"Process
Aqueous carbonate/
spray drying
Citrate
Lime
Limestone
Lime/ limestone
Magnesium oxide
Wellman Lord
Wellman Lord
Process undecided
Total
"Byproduct
6/emental sulfur
Elemental sulfur
Gypsum
Gypsum
Gypsum
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Elemental sulfur
.
0.2
-
-
-
-
2.3
2.6
-
100.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.2
36.2
100.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.2
1.8
0.9
0.4
-
1OO.O
"NA - Not available (these systems are committed to a throwaway product process; however, the
actual process is unknown at this time).
"These values are based solely on information actually reported by utilities. This breakdown could
change significantly as specific processes are chosen for plants now in the very early planning
stages of development.
cThe effect of those systems listed as "NA " and "process undecided" is removed.
16
-------
ber, respectively. Some damper pro-
blems were noted throughout the
period.
South Mississippi Electric Power
reported availabilities of 100% for the
R.D. Morrow 1 FGD system during
November and December. Low avail-
ability for October was due to a scrubber
duct inspection.
References
1. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy
Information Administration. Office
of Coal and Electric Power Statistics.
Electric Power Statistics Division.
Inventory of Power Plants in the
United States, 1980 Annual. Publ.
No. DOE/EIA-0095 (80).
2. Berman, Ira M. New Generating
Capacity: When, Where, and by
Whom. Power Engineering 85 (4)
72. April 1981.
M. T. Melia and N. G. Bruck are with PEDCo Environmental. Inc., Cincinnati, OH
45246.
Norman Kaplan is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report consists of two volumes, entitled "EPA Utility FGD Survey,
October-December 1981:"
"Volume I. Categorical Summaries of FGD Systems," (Order No. PB 83-168
054; Cost: $29.50. subject to change)
"Volume II. Design and Performance Data for Operational FGD Systems,"
(Order No. PB 83-168 062; Cost: $59.50. subject to change)
The above documents are 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
17
-------
oivxc~c
3(
t-i
o
s»c
00
m > T) m "
T3(Q 2 3 <
>® 2 < <
• 3 tD =! «
00 O O O -
00 •< S. 3 I
o, ogj
3
5J
------- |