U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
PB80-112659
Assessment of Manufacturers' Capabilities to Meet
Requirements for Control of Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide
Particulate Matter, and Nitrogen Oxides from
Industrial Boilers
Industrial Gas Cleaning Inst, Inc, Alexandria, VA
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
Oct 79
-------
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Offrce of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/5-79-011
October 1979
Air
Assessment of
Manufactures'
Capabilities to Meet
Requirements for Centre;
of Emissions of Sulfur
Dioxide, Particulate
Matter, and Nitrogen
Oxides from Industrial
Boilers
BR.
-------
TfiCNNiCAL REPOftf DATA
fltcetc retd luumttiont on the reverse before eontft'.etlng)
. rre?ORT'NG.
l.
,TLANo su*Tm.E
Asse$sjnent of manufacturers'
capabilities to meet requirements for control of
emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
5. REPORT DATE
October 1979
6. PERORMING ORGANIZATION cboe
t»?nn
-------
EPA-450/5-79-011
Assessment of Manufactures' Capabilities to
Meet Requirements for Control of Emissions
of Sulfur Dioxide, Paniculate Matter, and
Nitrogen Oxides from Industrial Boilers
by
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute
Suite 304, 700 N. Fairfax Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Contract No. 68-02-2532
Task No. 8
EPA Project Officer: R.E. Jenkins
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
October 1979
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library S°rv .-. lice (MD-35) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or for a nominal fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield,Virginia 22161.
This report Was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Suite 304, 700 N. Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Va. 22314, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2532. The
contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Industrial
Gas Cleaning Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental •
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be
considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/5-79-011
ii
-------
- ABSTRACT
The report reviews the capabilities of manufacturers of air
pollution control equipment to produce sufficient numbers of
systems to control sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and nitro-
gen oxide emissions from new industrial boilers with heat inputs
greater than 2.9 MW thermal. The report covers the period 1981
to 1995.
The supply of flue gas desulfurization systems will be
inadequate if controls are required on small boilers. The supply
of systems to control particulate matter emissions, however,
should be satisfactory. The industry providing systems to treat
nitrogen oxides in flue gas is poorly developed and apparently
could not supply enough systems for all industrial, boilers. .
Limited data are available about combustion modification for nitro-
gen oxide control, but the combustion modification industry
appears abler than the flue gas treatment industry to meet a
demand for more stringent control of nitrogen oxide emissions.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Abstract iii
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgment x
1. The Project 1
1.1 Object 1
1.2 Execution 1
1.3 Data and Assumptions 2
1.4 Presentation of Results 3
2. Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Manufacturers' Products 7
2.2.1 System Description . . 7
2.2.2 Manpower Requirements 8
2.3 Manufacturers' Guarantees 8
2.4 Capabilities of Manufacturers 9
2.5 Limiting Item Analysis . 10
3. Particulate Control Systems 30
3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Electrostatic PrecipitatOrs .... 31
3.2.1 Manufacturers' Products 31
3.2.1.1 System Description 31
3.2.1.2. Manpower Requirements 31
3.2.2 Manufacturers' Guarantees 31
3.2.3 Capabilities of Manufacturers 32
3.2.4 Limiting Item Analysis 33
3.3 Fabric Fabric Filters 33
3.3.1 Manufacturers' Products 33
3.3.1.1 System Description 33
3.3.1.2 Manpower Requirements 34
3.3.2 Manufacturers' Guarantees . 34
3.3.3 Capabilities of Manufacturers 35
3.3.4 Limiting Item Analysis 35
3.4 Mechanical Collectors 36
3.4.1 Manufacturers' Products 36
3.4.1.1 System Description 36
3.4.1.2 Manpower Requirements 36
iv
-------
3.4.2 Manufacturers' Guarantees . 37
3.4.3 Capabilities of Manufacturers 37
3.4.4 Limiting Item Analysis 37
3.5 Wet Scrubbers 38
3.5.1 Manufacturers' Products . 38
3.5.1.1 System Description . 38
3.5.1.2 Manpower Requirements 38
3.5.2 Manufacturers' Guarantees 38
3.5.3 Capabilities of Manufacturers ..... 38
3.5.4 Limiting Item Analysis 39
4. Treatment of NO in Flue Gas „ 39
J\
4.1 Introduction 84
4.2 Manufacturers' Products 85
4.2.1 System Description 85
4.2.2 Limiting Item Analysis 85
4.3 Other Systems 86
4.4 Simultaneous Removal of S02 and NOx 86
5. Combustion Modifications for NOX Control
5.1 Introduction 88
5.2 Manufacturers' Products 88
5.2.1 System Descriptions 8§
5.2.2 Manpower Requirements 89
5.3 Manufacturers' Guarantees 89
5.4 Capabilities of Manufacturers 89
5.5 Limiting Item Analysis 90
6. Conclusions 100
6.1 Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems 100
6.2 Particulate Control Systems . . 101
6.3 NO Emission Control Systems 101
Jv
References . 107
Appendices
A: Survey form sent to manufacturers of flue gas
desulfurization systems Al
B: Survey form sent to manufacturers of
particulate control systems .... Bl
C: Survey form sent to manufacturers of systems
for NO flue gas treatment Cl
A
D: Survey form sent to manufacturers of combustion
modification systems for NO control Dl
-------
FIGURES
Number
6.1 Reported production capability of PGD system
manufacturers and projected numbers of new coal-
fired boilers ........ 103
6.2 Estimated total production capability of FGD
system manufacturers and projected number of
new coal-fired boilers ...... 104
6.3 Reported production capability of fabric filter and
ESP manufacturers and projected number of new coal-
fired boilers ........ 105
6.4 Estimated production capability of fabric filter
and ESP manufacturers and projected number of new
coal-fired boilers . . . . . . 106
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Conversions Provided with the Survey 4
1-2 Utility Boiler Projections 4
1-3 Coal-fired Industrial Boiler Projections 4
1-4 Distillate-oil-fired Industrial Boiler Projections . 5
1-5 Residual-oil-fired Industrial Boiler Projections . . 5
1-6 Gas-fired Industrial Boiler Projections 5
IT? Distribution of Particulate Control System Sales
in 1974, 1975, and 1976 6
2-1 Manufacturers of FGD Systems 11
2r2 Operator Time Per Year Required for FGD Systems . . 13
2-3 Maintenance Time Per Year Required for FGD Systems . 14
2-4 Supervisor Time Per Year Required for FGD Systems . 15
2-5 FGD Systems Whose Manufacturers are Willing to Con-
tract for Operation, Maintenance, or Supervision
and Effects of Contracts on Guarantees 16
2-6 FGD Systems Guarantees 17
2-7 Production Capability for FGD System Manufacturers . 22
2-8 Time for Design and Installation of FGD Systems . . 23
2-9 Time for Startup of FGD Systems .24
2-10 Labor Distribution in the Manufacture and Construc-
tion of FGD Systems 25
2-11 Additional Annual Labor to Meet Expanded FGD
Production During 1981-1985 26
2-12 Limiting Item Analysis for FGD Systems 27
2-13 Key Factors Delaying FGD Systems and Corrective
Actions Recommended by Manufacturers 28
3-1 Manufacturers of Electrostatic Precipitators .... 40
3-2 Operator Hours Per Year Required for Electrostatic
Precipitators 41
3-3 Maintenance Hours Per Year Required for Electro-
static Precipitators 42
3-4 Supervisor Hours Per Year Required for Electrosta-
tic Precipitators 43
3-5 Manufacturers Willing to Contract for Operation
and/or Maintenance of Electrostatic Precipitators
and Effect of Contracts on Guarantees 44
3-6 Electrostatic Precipitator Guarantees 45
3-7 Production Capability of Electrostatic Precipitator
Manufacturers 47
vii
-------
Number
3-8 Time for Design and Installation of Electrostatic
Precipitators 48
3-9 Time for Startup of Electrostatic Precipitators . . 49
3-10 Labor Distribution in the Manufacture and Construc-
tion of Flectrostatic Precipitators 50
3-lj. Increased Manpower Required to Meet Expanded Electro-
static Precipitator Production 51
3-12 Limiting Item Analysis for Electrostatic Precipita-
tors ................. 52
3-13 Key Factors Delaying Electrostatic Precipitators and
Corrective Actions Recommended by Manufacturers . 53
3-14 Manufacturers of Fabric Filters 55
3-15 Operator Man-hours Per Year Required for Fabric
Filters 56
3-16 Maintenance Man-hours Per Year Required for Fabric
Filters ....... 57
3-17 Supervision Hours Per Year Required for Fabric
Filters 58
3-18 Manufacturers Willing to Contract for Operation
and/or Maintenance of Fabric Filters and the
Effects of Contracts on Guarantees 59
3-19 Fabric Filter Guarantees 60
3-20 Production Capability of Fabric Filter Manufacturers 62
3-21 Time for Design and Installation of Fabric Filters . 63
3-22 Time for Startup of Fabric Filters 64
3-23 Labor Distribution in the Manufacture and Construc-
tion of Fabric Filters 65
3-24 Increased Manpower Required to Meet Expanded Fabric
Filter Production During 1981-1985 ........ 66
3-25 Limiting Item Analysis for Fabric Filters 67
3-26 Key Factors Delaying Fabric Filters and Corrective
Actions Recommended by Manufacturers 68
3-27 Manufacturers of Mechanical Collectors 70
3-28 Mechanical Collector Guarantees 71
3-29 Production Capability of Mechanical Collector Manu-
facturers 72
3-30 Labor Distribution in the Manufacture and Construc-
tion of Mechanical Collectors 73
3-31 Increased Manpower Required to Meet Expanded Mechan-
ical Collector Production 74
3-32 Key Factors Delaying Mechanical Collectors and Cor-
rective Actions Recommended by Manufacturers ... 75
3-33 Man-hours Per Year Required for Operation, Mainten-
ance and Supervision of a Wet Scrubber 76
3-34 Manufacturers Willing to Contract for Operation
and/or Maintenance of Wet Scrubbers and Effects
of Contracts on Guarantees 77
3-35 Wet Scrubber Guarantees 78
3-36 Production Capability of Wet Scrubber Manufacturers 79
viii
-------
Number . page
3-37 Time Required for Design, Installation, and Startup
of Wet Scrubbers . . . . 80
3-38 Labor Distribution in the Manufacture and Construc-
tion of Wet Scrubbers 81
3-39 Increased Manpower Required to Meet Expanded Wet
Scrubber Production 82
3-40 Key Factors Delaying Wet Scrubbers and Corrective
Actions Recommended by Manufacturers 83
4-1 Manufacturers of Systems for the Treatment of NOy
in Flue Gas '. 87
5-1 Manufacturers of Combustion Modification Systems
for NOX Control 91
5-2 Guarantees for Combustion Modification Systems for
NOX Control 92
5r3 Production Capability of Manufacturers of
Modification Systems for NQx Control 93
5-4 Additional Staff Required to Achieve Expanded Pro-
duction . 94
5-5 Time for Design and Installation of Combustion Modi-
fication Systems for NOX Control 95
5-6 Time for Startup of Combustion Modification Systems
for NOX Control . 96
5-7 Labor Distribution in the Manufacture and Construc-
tion of Combustion Modification Systems for NOX
Control 97
5r8 Limiting Item Analysis for Combustion Modification
Systems for NOX Control 98
5-9 Key Factors Delaying Combustion Modification Systems
for NOX Control and Corrective Actions Recommended
by Manufacturers 99
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The cooperation of the many companies that responded to this
survey is gratefully acknowledged.
-------
SECTION 1
THE PROJECT
1.1 OBJECT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently
Developing technical and economic data to support New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for industrial boilers in accordance
with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Selection of the best
systems of emission reduction requires consideration of the
availability of control equipment. The purpose of this project
is to assess the capabilities of manufacturers to produce suffi-
cient equipment to meet requirements for control of sulfur
dioxide (SO,), particulate matter, and nitrogen oxide (NO )
ft X
emissions from industrial boilers.
1.2 EXECUTION
The Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute (IGCI), under contract
to the EPA, conducted a survey of manufacturers of air pollution
control equipment to determine their ability to supply: flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) equipment, particulate control equipment,
flue gas treatment equipment for NO control, and combustion
X
modification equipment for NO control. Survey forms were sent
Jt
to members of IGCI and to independent manufacturers of equipment
to control air pollution. The survey encompassed nearly all
suppliers of each of the considered types of air pollution control,
Four survey forms were devised and issued. Each form was
designed to cover the following:
-------
0 Type and applicability of system.
0 Pollutant removed, removal efficiency, and guarantees
offered.
0 Projected capability of manufacturer to produce the
equipment during the periods 1981-1985, 1986-1990, and
19S--1995.
0 Material requirements for construction and operation.
0 Manpower requirements for construction and operation.
0 Limiting item analysis.
Examples of the survey forms are presented in Appendices A
through D. Unless otherwise specified, questions were asked
about pollution control systems according to the heat inputs of
the boilers to which they are applied. Table 1-1 lists approxi-
mate conversions which were provided as a guideline.
1.3 DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS
For aid in completing the survey, manufacturers received
data on the current and projected industrial and utility boiler
markets. Data on the utility market were supplied by the EPA.
Data on the industrial market were extracted from a report by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.; .projected industrial boiler capaci-
ties by fuel type .Reference 2: Table 4-5) were combined with
current boiler size distribution data (Reference 2: Table 3-2)
'to yield the boiler population for each size range. The utility
and industrial data are presented in tables 1-2 through 1-6.
Industrial boilers accounted for 11 percent of the industrial
particulate control market on average from 1974 through 1976, as
shown in Table 1-7. It should not necessarily be assumed, how-
ever, that the other industries compete for the particulate con-
trol supplies reported in this survey. Many manufacturers of
particulate control systems produce controls for specific indus-
tries that have not been included in the reported supply data
because the controls are not suitable for use with industrial
boilers.
2
-------
1.4 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
Because participation in the survey was based on the
of anonymity, the different companies are identified only by an
alphabetic identifier. These identifiers are not necessarily
constant throughout the report, but are consistent among related
tables. For example, Table 3-21 refers to design and installation
times for fabric filters, and Table 3-22 shows startup times for
fabric filters. The same letters designate the same companies in
both tables. Thus, one is able to state that, for a unit larger
than 73.3 MW, Company F requires 8 to 14 months to design and
install a fabric filter and 0.5 to 2 months to start it up.
Many different types of FGD systems are available, and some
companies manufacture more than one type. These systems are
given numerical identifiers to protect the anonymity of the
manufacturers. The numerical system identifiers are handled in
the same way as the alphabetic company identifiers.
Comments from manufacturers are presented as received with
only minor additions for clarity.
-------
TABLE 1-1. CONVERSIONS
PROVIDED WITH THE SURVEY
Heat input,
MW thermal
2.9
7.3
14.7
29.3
73.3
Heat output,
MW electrical
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
25.0
Steam output,
Ib/hr
20,000
50S000
100,000
200,000
600,000
Exhaust flow
rate, acfm
4,400
10,700
21,500
35,000
80,000
Exhaust
temperature, °F
500
400
400
350
330
TABLE 1-2. UTILITY BOILER POPULATION
(No. of boilers)
1
Year
1985
1990
1995
Coal -fired
.. boilers
620
820
1040 .
Oil- or
gas -fired boilers
220
132
. . 74 ..
TABLE 1-3. COAL-FIRED INDUSTRIAL BOILER POPULATION'
(No. of boilers)
Heat input,
MW thermal
2.9 to 7.3
7.3 to 14.7
14.7 to 29.3
29.3 to 73.3
>73.3
1980
6,300
3,950
2,700
1,530
. 870
1985
7,300
4,600
2,800
1,750
1,000
2000
13,000
8,000
5,500
3,100
1,770
-------
TABLE 1-4. DISTILLATE-OIL-FIRED INDUSTRIAL BOILER POPULATION*
(No. of boilers)
Heat input,
MW thermal
2.9 to 7.3
7.3 to 14.7
14.7 to 29.3
29.3 to 73.3
>73.3
1980
7,850
5,740
1,680
840
300
1985
9,400
6,800
2,100
1,050
360
2000
16 ,900
12,300
3,700
1,850
650
TABLE 1-5. RESIDUAL-OIL-FIRED INDUSTRIAL BOILER POPULATION
(No. of boilers)
.,2
Heat input,
MW thermal
2.9 to 7.3
7.3 to 14.7
14.7 to 29.3
2.9.3 to 73.3
>73.3
1980
10,850
7,890
2,300
1,160
400
1985
13,000
9,400
2,900
1,450
500
2000
23,400
17,000
5,100
2,550
900
TABLE 1-6. GAS-FIRED INDUSTRIAL BOILER POPULATION"
(No. of boilers)
Heat input,
MW thermal
2.9 to 7.3
7.3 to 14.7
14.7 to 29.3
29.3 to 73.3
>73.3
1980
14,300
9,500
4,000
1,800
1,200
1985
17,300
11,400
4,900
2,200
1,500
2000
29,500
19,400
8,400
3,700
2,500
-------
TABLE 1-7, DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPATE CONTROL SYSTEM
SALES IN I:/H, 1975, AND 1976 (percentage of annual sales)
Industry
Industrial boilers
Paper and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum refining and related
industry
Stone, clay, glass
Primary metals
Utility, federal and municipal
electric power production
Unclassified
1974
15.9
3.6
4.0
2.5
3.9
16.0
42.2
11.9
1975
4.4
3.5
3.0
6.6
3.3
12.1
55.9
11.2
1976
12.6
2.8
3.8
1.6
4.4
15.8
41.9
17.1
-------
SECTION 2
FLUE GAS DESUI^URXZATION SYSTEMS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The continuing rapid development of FGD technology may
affect the data in this report, especially the data for 1991-
1995. Many manufacturers have indicated that market forces will
be the most significant factor in the future production and
development of FGD systems. If the demand exists, production
will be expanded, and improved technology will be developed.
The results of the survey are tabulated below. Survey forms
were issued to 20 manufacturers, 15 of whom responded- Nonre-
sponse was due to work pressure or to recent entry, into the field
and consequent lack of experience to supply reliable data.
2.2 MANUFACTURERS' PRODUCTS
2.2.1 System Description
Table 2-1 lists the systems supplied by the manufacturers
that responded to the survey. The sizes of most available FGD
systems range from 0.3 to 1500 MW thermal, with many manufac-
turers having no maximum size and one manufacturer having no
minimum size. In addition, the following information was pro-
vided:
0 All systems are suitable for new plant and retrofit
situations and for use with coal-fired boilers.
0 One system is not suitable for service with oil-fired
boilers.
0 Very few systems are not suitable for service with gas-
fired boilers.
-------
0 Nearly all systems are available only as custom-designed
units, though some manufacturers indicated that the
emphasis could shift to off-the-shelf units. One
system is available only as an off-the-shelf unit.
0 Nearly all manufacturers produce systems for which they
own the license.
0 i....arly all manufacturers report a satisfactory avail-
ability of raw materials for FGD system operation. One
manufacturer, however, predicted a shortage of lime
during the early 1980's.
0 Nearly all nonregenerable systems produce byproducts
that are chemically inert; however, data indicate there
are noncriteria pollutants in scrubber sludge. For the
systems producing a dry product, the amount of product
produced is in the range of 1.5 to 4.0 Ib per Ib of S02
removed. The systems producing a liquid suspension pro-
duce approximately 8 Ib of suspension (30 percent
solids) per Ib of S02 removed; most companies offer
further treatment, such as dewatering, fixation, and
evaporation. The great majority of the nonregenerable
systems can be operated in the Closed-loop mode for
water.
0 For all the regemerable processes, the regeneration
facilities are supplied as part of the basic plant.
For those processes that produce a byproduct, manufac-
turers have a positive attitude towards obtaining
marketing contracts to dispose of the product.
2.2.2 Manpower Requirements
Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 list the manpower requirements for
operation of each FGD system. Table 2-5 indicates hc-w many man-
.ufacturers are willing to contract for operation and/or mainte-
nance of their FGD systems and what effects such contracts, which
reduce the users' manpower requirements, have upon the guarantees
offered by the manufacturers.
2.3 MANUFACTURERS' GUARANTEES
Table 2-6 presents the guarantee data reported by the manu-
facturers of FGD systems. These data indicate the following:
0 All manufacturers guarantee either S02 removal effi-
ciency or S©2 outlet emissions.
8
-------
9 Many manufacturers guarantee a predetermined installar
tion cost and system availability.
0 Some manufacturers guarantee particulate reimoval,
utility consumption, and sludge quality.
0 Most guarantees are qualified by design specifications,
limited liability, etc.
2.4 CAPABILITIES OF MANUFACTURERS
The manufacturing capabilities of the responding companies
are presented in Table 2-7. The survey form stated: "Indicate
the number and total equivalent MW* of new systems, operating at
the maximum efficiency previously stated, that you can design and
install in the periods indicated with current and planned staff
additions. Also indicate your capacity using an expanded staff
or more extensive use of subcontractors. Design or installation
work that has already been started is excluded from these figures,"
An attempt was made in the survey to determine if lower
efficiency requirements would increase manufacturing capability.
None of the respondents indicated an increase in capability if
the required removal efficiency was reduced. Most of the systems
can be designed to remove between 95 and 100 percent SO.. Some
provide a slightly lower rempval efficiency, and a few can only
remove between 85 and 90 percent SOj.
Some respondents indicated that the significant factor in
their production capability is the number of systems, not the
size of the systems. A few manufacturers indicated they could
not supply accurate data for the question.
Table 2-8 shows that the time required for design and instal-
lation of various FGD systems varies considerably with the type
of system and tends to increase with system size. Table 2-9
shows less variation in startup times than in construction
schedules, indicating that most systems require similar shakedown
periods.
Table 2-10 shows data on the distribution of personnel in
the manufacture and construction of FGD systems. Although
*
Questionnaire data based on thermal MW.
-------
nearly all companies make exclusive use of in-house personnel for
process design, most depend heavily on external labor for the
fabrication and construction of FGD systems. Thus, the expanded
production of FGD equipment may be limited by overdemand on the
fabrication and construction industries. Manufacturers indicate
tnat proper- aate personnel increases are required to achieve
the expanded production figures reported in Table 2-7. Approxi-
mately the same percentage increase in personnel is required as
the percentage increase in production. The increased manpower
figures reported by manufacturers are presented in Table 2-ll»
2,5 LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS
Table 2-12 is a limiting item analysis of basic critical
path elements associated with the development and construction of
FGD systems. The lead times in Table 2-12 cover wide ranges, and
the mean values listed should be treated with some skepticism„
The longer lead times indicated by some manufacturers may be
realistic, although they may also be indicative of labor problems
or poor choices of subcontractors. Because only one manufacturer
listed the name of a subcontractor, it is not possible to analyze
the demands upon specific subcontractors. For example, if all
the FGD manufacturers are relying on a single pump" manufacturer,
the supply of FGD systems is totally dependent upon the capabili-
ties of that pump supplier.
Table 2-13 presents key factors indicated by the manufac-
turers as delaying the design, construction, and startup of FGD
systems. It also lists some manufacturers' suggestions to over-
come delays.
10
-------
TABLE 2-1. MANUFACTURERS OF FGD SYSTEMS
Company
Apitron
Babcock and Wilcox
Chiyoda Inter-
national Corp.
Combustion Equip-
ment Associates,
Inc.
Davy Powergas
Environeering,
Inc.
Envi rotech/Chemi co
Air Pollution
Control Corp.
FMC' Corporation,
Environmental
Equipment Divi -
si on
Flakt, Inc.
Joy Industrial
Equipment Co.,
Western Pre-
cipitation
Division
Type of system
Electrostatically augmented fabric filter with '
injection of dry pulverized quicklime
Limestone
Lime
Dry sulfur removal (various reactants available)*
Jet bubbling limestone/gypsum process
Lime °
Lime/alkaline fly ash
Sodium
Dpuble alkali
Limestone
Wellman Lord-
Modified lime solution with integrated oxidation step
to produce stable gypsum
Lime
Limestone
Sodium
Lime/limestone
Double alkali
Magnesia recycle process
Phosphate
Double alkali
Sodi urn
Sodium
Sodium citrate
Dry scrubbing system3
(continued)
11
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
Company
Mikropul Corp.
He,jzune Airpo1 . "nc.
Peabody Process
Systems, Inc.
Research Cottrell
Universal Oil Pro-
ducts (UOP), Air
Correction Div.
Type of system
Lime spraydryer with fabric filter or electro-
static precipator
Sodium
Lime/limestone
Double alkali
Ammonia
Lime/l.imestone
Lime/limestone
Multistage alkali
Lime
Sodi urn
Dry systems.
Degenerative systems.
12
-------
TABLE 2-2. OPERATOR TIME PER YEAR REQUIRED FOR FGO SYSTEMS
(hours)
System*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
. 17
18
19 '
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
2.9 to 7.3
6,000
300
8.000
8,000
8,000
8,760
7,000
^2,200
4,380
8,760
2,000
2,190
2.190
2,190
2,190
2,200
8,760
8,760
7,000
7,000
7,000
•^,200
4,380
6,000
•y.J tOb!4.7
6,000
330
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,760
7,000
•v-2 ,200
4,380
8,760
2,000
4,380
4,380
4,380
4,380
2,200
8,760
8,760
7,000
7,000
7,000
•^2,200
4,380
6,000
'14.7 to 29.3
6,000
330
16.000
8.000
16 ,000
8,760 .
7,000
-*4,400
4,380
8,760
4,000
8,760
8,760
8,760
8,760
2,200
8,760
8,760
7,000
7,000
7,000
M.400
4,380
6,000
i9.3' t'o:73.3
e'.oQO '
330
16.000
8,000
16,000
8,760
7,000
•v* ,400
8,760
8,760
6,000
17,520
17,520
17,520
17,520
2,200
8,760
8,760
7,000
7,000
7,000
•\4,400
8,760
6,000
>73.'3
MW»
6,000
360
8,760°
16.000
2S,OOOd
25.000d
25,000d
25,000d
25,000d
8,000
16,000
8,760
14 ,000
-V8.760
8,760
8,760
6,000
26,280
26,280
26.280
26.280
32.000C
17 ,52$
2.200
8,760*
8,760*
8,760
8,760
14,000
14,000
14,000
\8,760
8,760
6,000
9 System descriptions and manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
b Thermal MW.
c No other date supplied, although the system is available 1n other
size ranges.
System normally supplied only in this size range.
13
-------
TABLE 2-3. MAINTENANCE TIME PER YEAR REQUIRED FOR FGD SYSTEMS
(hours)
System*
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
2.9 to 7.3
MW6
2,000
300
c
7,200
4,000
10.000
0
1,750
~*A ,400
8,760
8,760
2,000
876
876
876
876
1,500
C
c
0
0
1,750
1,750
1,750
•v4,400
8,760
2,000
7.3 to!4.7
MW6
2,000
300
c
7,200
14.7 to 29.3
2,000
330
c
7,200
4,000 i 4,000
10,000
20,000
4,380 j 8,760
1,750
-V4.400
8,760
8,760
2,000
1,051
1,051
1,051
1,051
1,500
c
c
4,380
4,380
1,750
1,750
1,750
M.400
8,760
2,000
1,750
^,760
8,760
8,760
4,000
2,190
2,190
2,190
2,190
1,500
c
c
8,760
8,760
1,750
1,750
1,750
•v«,760
8,760
2,000
29.3 to 73.3
W>
2.000
330
c
7,200
4,000
20,000
8,760
1,750
•v6,760
17,520
17,520
6,000
4,380
4.380
4,380
4,380
1,500
c
c
8,760
8,760
1,750
1,750
1,750
•v8,760
17,520
2,000
MVP
2,000
360
c
12,000
12 ,480*
12,480*
12,480*
12 ,480d
12,480*
4,000
20,000
8,760
3,500
•v8,760
17,520
17,520
12 ,000
8,760
8,760
•8,760
8,760
16 ,000e
15,000*
1,500
c
c
8,760
8,760
3.500
3,500
3,500
i8,760
17,520
2,000
System descriptions and manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
b Thermal MU.
c No data received.
System normally supplied only in this size range.
e No other data supplied, although the system is available In other
size ranges.
14
-------
TABLE 2-4. SUPERVISOR TIME PER YEAR REQUIRED FOR FGD SYSTEM
(hours)
System*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
2.9 to.7.3
*wb
2,000
40
2,000
2,000
2,000
0
1,750
0
2,920
8,760
0
219
219
219
219
0
0
0
1,750
1,750
1,750
0
2,920
2.000
7.3 to 14.7
MWb
2.000
40
2,000
'•
2,000
2.000
0
1,750
0
2,920
8,760
0
438
438
438
438
0
0
0
1,750
1,750
1,750
0
2,920
2.000
14.7 to. 29.3
MWb
2.000
40
2,000
2,000
4.000
0
1.750
0
2,920
8,760
0
1,051
1.051
1,051
1,051
0
0
0
1,750
1,750
1,750
0
2,920
2,000
29.3 to 73.3
MWb
2,000
40
2,000
2,000
4,000
0
1,750
0
2,920
8,760
0
2,190
2.190
2,190
2,190
0
0
0
1,750
1,750
1,750
0
2.920
2,000
MW&
2.000
40
8,760C
2.000
2,0804
2,080d
2 ,080d
2 ,080d
2,080d
2,000
4,000
8,760
3,500
0
2,920
8,760
0
4,380
4,380
4,380
4,380
11,000C
2,190=
0
8,760C
8.760C
8,760
8,760
3,500
3,500
3.500
0
2,920
2,000
System descriptions and manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
Thermal MW.
No other data supplied, although the system 1s available In other
size ranges.
System normally supplied only In this size range.
15
-------
TABLE 2-5. FGD SYSTEMS WHOSE MANUFACTURERS ARE WILLING TO
CONTRACT FOR OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, OR SUPERVISION
AND EFFECTS OF CONTRACTS ON GUARANTEES
System13
Effect on guarantees
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
17
23
24
29
30
31
32
33
Manufacturer willing only to recommend an experienced operation and
maintenance company
More stringent availability guarantees
More stringent availability guarantees
More stringent availability guarantees
More stringent availability guarantees
More stringent availability guarantees
Generally improved long-term guarantees
Generally improved long-term guarantees
Generally improved guarantees concerning chemical and utility consump-
tion and availability
No comment about effect on guarantees
Improved performance guarantees
Higher availability guarantees
Guaranteed maximum operational and/or maintenance cost if advisor is
at plant
Guaranteed maximum operational and/or maintenance cost if advisor is
at plant
Generally improved guarantees Concerning chemical and utility consump-
tion and availability
Generally improved guarantees concerning chemical and utility consump-
tion and availability
Generally improved guarantees concerning*chemical and utility consump-
tion and availability
No comment about effect on guarantees
Improved performance guarantees
aSystem descriptions and manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
16
-------
TABLE 2-6. FGO SYSTEM GUARANTEES
System
removal efficiency
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
1
Yes—for specified inlet
concentration and re-
actant quality
Yes—negotiated
Yes--to meet emission
requirements
Yes--90 to 95 percent
; removal
Yes--if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes--for specified
time period with
escalation in-
cluded
Yes--same guaran-
tees offered as
those from sub-
contractors
No
Yes—lump sum
price
Yes--if assembled
and operated in
accordance with
specifications
Yes--if assembled
and operated in
accordance with
specifications
Yes--if maintained and
operated per instruc-
tions
Yes—negotiated
No
Yes™90 percent
Yes--if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes--if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes--no increase in par-
ticulate emissions
Yes—particulate removal
negotiated
Yes—outlet particulate
concentration not to ex-
ceed inlet concentration;
draft loss: oower consump-
tion; sludge production
Yes--particulate removal
from 75 to 95 percent;
power consumption; lime-
stone consumption; gypsum
quality
Yes--particulate removal,
if assembled and operated
in accordance with speci-
fications; will modify
system to meet guarantees,
but costs not to exceed
total profit
Yes—particulate removal,
if assembled and operated
in accordance with speci-
fications; will modify
system to meet guarantees,
but costs not to exceed
total profit
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-6 (continued)
System0
SCL removal efficiency
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
8
en
10
11
12
Yes--if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—negotiated
Yes—negotiated
Yes
Yes--if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes--if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—negotiated
Yes--negotiated
Yes
Yes—if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—if assembled and
: operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—if assembled and
operated in accord-
ance with specifica-
tions
Yes—negotiated
Yes—negotiated
Yes--but not to ex-
ceed 95 percent
Yes—particulate removal,
if assei'-'iled and operat-
ed in a • ordance with
specifications; will mod-
ify system to meet guar-
antees, but costs not to
exceed total profit
Yes—particulate removal,
if assembled and operat-
ed in accordance with
specifications; will mod-
ify system to meet guar-
antees, but costs not to
exceed total profit
Yes—particulate removal,
if assembled and operat-
ed in accordance with
specifications; will mod-
ify system to meet guar-
antees, but costs not to
exceed total profit
Yes—raw material and
utility consumption ne-
gotiated
Yes—particulate removal
negotiated, raw material
and utility consumption
negotiated
Yes—particulate removal
(continued}
-------
TABLE 2-6 (continued)
System
removal efficiency
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
- Other
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Yes--unlimited
liability
Yes—Equipment revamp-
ed or replaced with-
out limitation
Yes
Yes--limited liability
Yes--to meet codes
Yes—minimum inlet SOp
concentration, if op-
erated and maintain-
ed per instructions
Yes—minimum inlet SO-
concentration, if op-
erated and maintain-
ed per instructions
Yes—96 percent; op-
eration per instruc-
tions
Yes--lump sum plus
escalation; cost
plus fixed fee
Yes—escalation ac-
according to Bu-
reau of Labor Sta-
tistics ^BLS)
indices
Yes
Yes—with escalation
and limited liabil-
ity
Yes--progress pay-
ments
Ho
Yes—firm.price
Yes
Yes—as part of
performance tests
Yes
Yes—I imited lia-
bility
Yes—over 90 per-
cent
Yes—negotiated
Yes--negotiated
Yes--particulate removal,
unlimited liability; utili-
ties, sludge disposal prop-
erties, rax material con-
sumption; liquidated damages
basis
Yes—parti cul ate removal
equipment revamped w re-
placed without limitation;
chemicals and power {excess
consumption paid for 2 yr)
Yes—particulate removal
Yes--particulate removal;
pressure drop; reagent an*
.power consumption; limited
liability
Yes--particulate removal to
meet cedes
Yes--particulate removal for
minimum in-let concentration,
if operated and maintained
per instructions
Yes--particulate removal for
minimum inlet concentration,
if operated and maintained
per instructions
Yes--particulate removal up
to 98 percent, if opera-ted
per instructions
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-6 (continued)
System
S07 removal efficiency
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
to
o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Yes--minimum inlet con-
centration; operate
and maintain per in-
structions
Yes—operation and
maintenance per in-
structions atrd with-
in design specifica-
tions
Yes—guaranteed emis-
sions
Yes—guaranteed emis-^
sions
Yes—to meet emission
requirements
Yes—to meet emission
requi rements
Yes
Yes
No
Yes—subject to es-
calation
Yes—negotiated
No
Yes—guaranteed
price
Yes—guaranteed
price
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes—if operations
advisor at site
Yes—if operations
advisor at site
No
No
Yes--but not to ex-
ceed 95 percent
Yes—but not to ex-
ceed 95 percent
Yes--parti' jlate removal For
minimum inlet concentra-
tions, if operated and main-
tained per instructions
Yes—power, stoichiometry
sludge produced, reactant
consumption, if operation
and maintenance per instruc-
tions and within design
specifications
Yes—particulate removal;
other items guaranteed to
meet customer's requirements
Yes—particulate removal;
other items guaranteed to
meet customer's requirements
Yes—particulate not to ex-
ceed inlet; draft loss; pow-
er consumption; sludge pro-
duction
Yes—particulate not to ex-
ceed inlet; draft loss; pow-
er consumption; sludge pro-
duction
Yes—particulate removal
Yes—particulate removal
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-6 (continued)
System
SCL removal efficiency
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
29
30
31
32
33
34
Yes—unlimited liabil-
ity
Yes—unlimited liabil
ity
Yes—unlimited liabil
ity
Yes--equipment revamp-
ed or replaced with-
out limitation
Yes
Yes—inlet concentra-
tion specified; re-
actant quality
Yes—lump sum plus
escalation; cost
pi us fi xed fee
Yes—lump sum plus
escalation; cost
plus fixed fee
Yes—lump sum plus
escalation; cost
plus fixed fee
Yes—escalation
according to BLS
indices
Yes
Yes—specified
time period; es-
calation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes—as part of
performance tests
Yes
Yes—maintenance
and operation per
instructions
Yes—particulate removal, un-
limited liability; utilities,
sludge disposal properties,
raw material consumption;
liquidated damages basis
Yes--partiCtrl ate removal, un-
limited liability; utilities,
sludge disposal properties,
raw material consumption;
liquidated damages basis
Yes--particulate removal, un-
limited liability; utilities,
sludge disposal properties,
raw material consumption;
liquidated damages basis
Yes—particulate, revamp or
replace equipment without
limitation; chemicals and
power, will pay for 2 years'
excess consumption
Yes--particulate removal
Yes—no increase in particu-
lates
System descriptions and manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
-------
TABLE 2-7. PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF FGD SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS
K>
to
Design capability
Number
Capacity, MM equivalent3
Installation capability
Number
Capacity. MH equivalent9
1981-1985
Present
staff
413
50,050
274
43,135
Expanded
staff
854
90,350
453
70,340
1986-1990
Present
staff
678
66,500
357
4?, 965
Expanded
staff
1,244
119,225
564
87,800
1991-1995
Present
staff
883
80,700
413
55,375
Expanded
staff
1,549
152,850
679
106,575
Thermal MW.
-------
TABLE 2-8. TIME FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF FGO SYSTEMS
(months)
K)
to
Company3
A
Bd
Bd
C
0
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
2.9 to 7.3 MWb
Average
NRC
18
24
10
12
18
6
12
9-12
10
NR
NR
12
5
NR
15
Range
NR
16-20
22-26
8-12
9-15
16-20
4-7
10-14
9-12
8-12
NR
NR
10-16
4-6
NR
12-20
7.3 to 14.7 MWb
Average
NR
Id
24
12
12
18
8
12
9-12
12
NR
NR
12
5
WR ,
15
flange
NR
16-20
22-26
10-14
9-15
16-20.;
6-10
10-14
9-12
10-:12
NR
Nfl
10-18
4-6
NR
12-20
14.7 to 29.3 MW*
Average
NR
13
24
12
.18
20
10
13
9-12
14
NR
NR
14
6
NR ..
18 v
Range
NR
16-20
22-26
10-14
15-21
18-22
3-14
H-t5
9-12
12-18
NR
m
12-20.
5-8
-NR .;
15-24
'29.3 to 73. 3 WWt
Average
m
18
24
12
18
20
12
14
12-15
18
NR
m
16
6
-WR
•18
flange
WR
16-20
22-26
.10-14
15-21
18-22
8-16
12-t6
12-15
16-20
NR
NR
12-22
5-8
Nfl
15-24
>73.3 MW&
Average
m
18
24
20
24
24
12
14
12-15
20
24
m
w
8
33 .
24
flange
24-30
16-20
22-26
16-24
18-30
20-28
8-*6
»2->6
12-H
18-24
22-26
NR
18-24
7-10
26-42
20-32
Company names deliberately withheld.
^Thermal MW.
CNR = No response.
This company supplies two .products with different leadtimes.
-------
TABLE 2-9. TIME FOR STARTUP OF FGD SYSTEMS
(months)
Company8
A
B*
Bd
C
0
E
F
6
H
I
J
K
L
ft
N
a
2.9 to 7.3 MWb
Average
NKC
2
2
3
1
2
1
>
2
0.5
NR
MR
0.5
2
NR
}
Range
NR
. 1-3
2-3
2-4
0.5-3
1-3
1-2
1-2
1-3
0.3-0.7
NR
NR
0.5-1
1-3
NR
0.5-T.5
7,3 to 14.7 MWb
'Average
;' NR
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
0.75
NR
NR
0.5
2
NR
1
Range
NR
v 1-3
2-3
3-5
0.5-3
1-3
1-2
1-2
1-3
0.5-1
NR
NR
0.5-1
1-3
NR
0.5-1.5
14.7 to 29.3 MWb
Average
NR
2
2
4
1
2
2
1
2
1
NR
NR
0.5
2
NR
1
Range
NR
1-3
2-3
3-5
.0.5-3
1-3
1-2
1-2
1-3
0.5-1.5
NR
NR
0.5-1
1-3
NR
0.5-1.5
29.3 to 73.3 MWb
Average
NR
2
2
4
1
2
2
1
2
1.5
NR
NR
0.5
2
NR
1
Range
NR
1-3
2-3
3-5
0.5-3
1-3
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-2
NR
NR
0.5-2
1-3
NR
0.5-1.5
>73.3 MWb
Average
NR
2
2
6
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
NR
0.5
2
3
2
Ranoe
3-6
1-3
2-3
5-7
0.5-3
1-3
1-2
1-2
1-3
1.5-2.5
1-3
NR
0.5-2
1-3
2-5
1-3
to
it*
Company names deliberately withheld.
Hhermal SIW.
CNR = no response.
this company supplies two products with different startup
-------
TABLE 2-10. LABOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE MANUFACTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF FGD SYSTEMS'
(percentages)
Ul
Company
A
A
C
0
£
f
G
H
I
J
*
L '
M
U
0
Process
design
lnc
100
100
20
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
5
100
100
Outd
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
Detailed
design
Inc
60-90
too
30
100
80
80
80
15
100
100
100.
100
25
100
60
Outd
10-20
0
0
0
20
20
20
85
0
0
0
V
5
0
40
equipment fabrication
Scrubber vessel/tanks
lnc
0
0
0
50
0
50
100
0
Outd
100
100
100
50
100
50
0
100
Fans/pumps
lnc
0
0
o
0
0
10
0
0
Outd
100
100
100
100
100
90 .
100 .
100
Sludge disposal system
lnc
0
NAe
0
NA
0
-20
0
0
Outd
100
MA
100
NA
too
80
100
too
Unspecified
lnc
0
10
0
10
0
0
65
Outd
100
90
100
90
100
100
20
System installation
Supervision
!nc
100
too
20
25
109
75
100
NDf
0
0
10
90
100
20
Out^
0
0
o
75
0
25 '-.
0
no
too
100
90
10
10
4
80
Craft
IBC
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
MO
0
0
0
0
*
NO
0 .
Outd
too
100
0
100
too
100
100
W)
100
100
100
100
60
NO
too
aValues listed as given by manufacturers; some values may not add up to 100%.
Company names deliberately withheld.
Work done in-house.
Work contracted out.
eNot applicable.
Required data not received.
-------
TABLE 2-11. ADDITIONAL ANNUAL LABOR TO MEET
EXPANDED FGD PRODUCTION DURING 1981-1985
(man-years)
Company3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
0
K
L
M
N
0
Design
35
12
NRC
40
3
72
3
96
30
3
NR
40
10
50
2
Engineering
20
10
NR
40
3
48
3
36
50
2
NR
20
4
25
2
Craftb
0
120
NR
100
0
0
6
0
0
0
NR
10
0
0
0.5
Administration
10
38
NR
20
4
120
3
18
10
1
NR
20
1
10
0.5
Manufacturers1 names deliberately withheld.
Because most craft labor is supplied by external contractors,
the total increase in craft labor demand will be far greater
than indicated in this table.
CNR = No response.
26
-------
TABLE 2-12. UNITING ITEM ANALYSIS FOR FGO SYSTEMS
Process design
Detailed engi-
neering design
Equipment
fabrication
Structural
steel
Scrubber vessel
tanks
Fans
Pumps
Instrumentation
Motors
Piping
Equipment
installation
Reactant pro-
curement {e.g. ,
limestone)
Leadtime,
months
Range
1-12
1-14
2-17
3-14
4-18
2-18
2-20
2-18
2-20
2-30
0.5-4
Mean
3.4
6.9
6
7.3
9.8
7.6
8 .
8.8
6.8
11.5
1.8
Critical path
item, %
Yes
53
60
33
47
53
7
33
20
33
60
0
No
7
7
27
13
13
47
27
47
27
13
60
Delay frequency, %a
High
7
7
0
7
33
7
13
13
13
40
7
Average
7
33
27
40
27
33
33
33
27
27
27
Low
47
27
27
7
7
13
7
20 .
13
0
20
Supplier, %
External
0
0
20
33
47
40
27
47
33
20
27
In-nouse
40
33
13
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
0
Both
$
7
€
7
«
0
0
Q
0
20
0
K)
'Values indicate the percentage of the manufacturers listed in Table 2-1 that respowded to each question.
-------
TABLE 2-13. KEY FACTORS DELAYING FGO SYSTEMS AND
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY MANUFACTURERS
Company
Delay cause
Corrective action
CO
A
B
D
E
F
Design changes and lack of communication,
s>owness in obtaining a decision
Design: insufficient in-house personnel
Construction: inability to hire required
craft labor
.Startup: inavailability of qualified
personnel
Client's approval of drawings, modifica-
tions and changes, errors in engineering
and/or fabrication
No special equipment required; all major
components are standard proven products
No comment
Specification and design changes; lack of
coordination with A/E when systems are
not turnkey
General equipment arrangement and
disposal scheme
Slow client approval of P&ID and general
arrangement drawings; late delivery of
ecftiipment
Shortage of local skilled labor, adverse
weather conditions, uncertainty in
regulation requirements
Reduce items listed as much as \j< ^sible
Industry: order systems promptly, approve
drawings and specifications promptly; pre-
commit long-delivery items when necessary
Government: expedite approvals from regulatory
agencies
Approve drawings quickly; eliminate delay in
issuing building permits
None required
No comment
NRb
Educate regulatory agencies and end-users, and
reduce uncertainty about what is and is not
possible or required
Follow critical path schedule
Promulgate revised NSPS as soon as possible;
allow reasonable time for design, installation,
and startup
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-13 (continued)
Company1
Delay cause
Corrective action
K
L
M
N
0
Design: poor scope of definition, owner
changes
Construction: poor productivitiy, labor
unrest
Startup: operating problems with source
of flue gas, equipment failure or failure
to meet specifications
Equipment delivery, construction delay
(inclement weather, strikes, etc.)
Slow delivery of rotating equipment, field
fabrication of scrubber
Delay in vendor and raw material shipment
None
Manpower shortage, poor coordination of
labor
Develop need and/or interest
A period of 24 to 30 months to complete a
project appears reasonable
NR
NR
None required
NR
Company names deliberately withheld.
NR = No response.
-------
SECTION 3
PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The technology of particulate control is well established,
although improvements are still being made. Essentially, four
types of equipment are used for controlling particulate emissions
from industrial boilers: electrostatic precipitators (ESP's),
fabric filters, wet scrubbers, and mechanical collectors. The
ESP's and fabric filters have the greatest potential for emission
reduction. Although wet scrubbers can achieve low emission
rates, high operating costs (due mainly to the large energy
requirement of the fans) make such scrubbers unattractive eco-
nomically. Mechanical collectors are only applicable if regula-
tions allow high particulate emissions, because the maximum
collection efficiency is about 95 percent.
A survey form concerning particulate control systems (see
Appendix B) was developed and issued to 36 manufacturers. Of
these, 17 manufactured ESP's, 19 made fabric filters, 15 supplied
wet scrubbers, and 11 produced mechanical collectors. Six other
ESP manufacturers, 13 other fabric filter manufacturers, 8 other
wet scrubber manufacturers, and 10 other mechanical collector
manufacturers were asked to participate in the survey, but all
declined by telephone before the survey forms were issued. Of
these, about 50 percent were members of the IGCI. Those who
declined to participate in the survey (before and after the
survey form was issued) did so either because of work pressure or
because their products were not directed towards the industrial
boiler market. The responses of those manufacturers who did
complete the survey form are discussed in the following subsec-
tions.
30
-------
3.2 ELECTROSTATIC PRBCIPITATQRS
3.2.1 Manufacturers' Products
3.2.1.1 System Description—
Table 3-1 lists the manufacturers that produce ESP's for the
industrial boiler market and responded to the survey. They
supplied the following information:
0 All systems are suitable for use with coal-fired
boilers. Most systems are suitable for use with
oil-fired boilers.
0 All systems are suitable for both new and retrofit
situations.
0 All systems are custom-'designed for the specific
installation.
0 Nearly all manufacturers produce systems based on their
own designs.
0 The ESP's are available to handle flue gas from boilers
with heat inputs of 3 MW thermal and more. Some
manufacturers specify no top size.
3.2.1.2 Manpower Requirements^--
Tables 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 list the manpower requirements for
operation, maintenance, and supervision of each ESP. Table 3-5
indicates how many manufacturers are willing to contract for
operation and/or maintenance of their ESP's and what effects such
contracts, which reduce the users' manpower requirements, will
have upon the guarantees offered by the manufacturers. As can be
seen from Table 3-5, five of the eight manufacturers surveyed
will contract for operation and/or maintenance, but only one,will
improve the guarantees offered.
3.2.2 Manufacturers' Guarantees
Table 3-6 lists the data about guarantees reported by the
manufacturers. The major points are:
° All manufacturers guarantee either total outlet parti-
culate loading or par-fciculate removal efficiency, if
operating design conditions are met.
31
-------
0 All manufacturers guarantee a predetermined instal-
^ation cost for specified conditions.
0 Only 50 percent of the manufacturers guarantee avail-
ability.
0 Opac__y, maxiumum pressure drop, and maximum power
consumption may also be guaranteed.
3.2.3 Capabilities of Manufacturers
Table 3-7 presents the reported production capability for
ESP's. Two interesting comments were also received:
0 One manufacturer believed that production would fall in
the period 1991-1995, because of market saturation.
0 Two manufacturers indicated that their production capa-
city would increase if the percentage particulate'
removal required were lowered. One manufacturer re-
ported that his production would increase by 20 percent
with a 5 percent decrease in removal efficiency and by
50 percent with a 10 percent decrease in removal effi-
ciency. The other manufacturer indicated that his
production capacity would increase by about 15 percent
with a 5 to 10 percent decrease in removal efficiency.
Thus, for a 5 percent reduction in removal efficiency,
the total capability of design systems reported in
Table 3-7 would increase by 9.1 percent during the
period 1981-1985; for a 10 percent decrease in removal
efficiency, the capability would increase by 14.4 per-
cent. The production capability increases because an
ESP providing a 16wer particulate removal efficiency
requires less plate area and is smaller.
Table 3-8 shows the data reported about the time required
for design and installation of ESP's. The time varies slightly
among manufacturers, but generally tends to increase as the size
of the system increases.
Table 3-9 shows the data reported about the time required
for startup of ESP's. All of the startup periods are short, and
nearly all are less than two months.
Table 3-10 shows the labor distribution in the manufacture
and construction of electrostatic precipitators. The data reported
indicate, as expected, a very heavy dependence upon contractors
32
-------
for the craftwork in the construction of ESP's. Table 3-11
presents the data reported about the additional manpower required
for the expanded production shown in Table 3-7.
3.2.4 Limiting Item Analysis
Table 3-12 is a limiting item analysis for ESP systems.
Except for equipment installation, the estimated leadtiraes are
not greater than 8 months and vary by no'more than 4 months for
each item. One manufacturer reported that because of the present
limited number of manufacturers of ESP plates and discharge
electrodes, supplies could fall short of demand.
Some of the data in Tables 3"10 and 3-12 may be wrong.
Companies B and D supplied information used in developing Table
3-10 that contradicts the information from them used in develop-
ing Table 3-^12. Thus some of the data reported in this section
are uncertain.
Table 3-13 lists key factors indicated by the manufacturers
as delaying the design, construction, and startup of ESP's. The
manufacturers' suggestions to overcome delays are also presented.
3.3 FABRIC FILTERS
3.3.1 Manufacturers' Products
3.3.1.1 System Description--
Table 3-14 lists the manufacturers that produce fabric
filters for the industrial boiler market and responded to the
survey. They supplied the following information:
0 All systems are suitable for use with coal-fired
boilers, but only about half of the systems are suit-
able for use with oil-fired boilers.* One system
requires an "additive system" with oil-fired boilers.
0 All systems are suitable for use with both new and
existing industrial boilers.
*
Fabric filters have seldom been used with oil-fired boilers.
Blinding of filter media can easily occur.
33
-------
0 All systems are available as custom-designed units, and
many are also available as off-the-shelf units.
0 All manufacturers produce equipment for which they own
the license.
0 Fabric filters are available for use on boilers with
heat inputs from 1 to 2500 MW thermal.
3.3.1.2 Manpower Requirements—
Tables 3-15, 3-16, and 3-17 list the manpower requirements
for operation, maintenance, and supervision of fabric filters.
Because the data reported span three orders of magnitude for
virtually identical systems, some manufacturers were asked to
verify their original answers, but none modified the data sup-
plied. Bag replacement, which must be carried out every 2 or
3 years, may account for some of the discrepancies among data.
If the replacement of one bag takes roughly 30 minutes, the
replacement of 10,000 bags in a system could take as long as
5,000 hours. Some manufacturers have included bag replacement
time in their manpower data, whereas others have not. this
difference, however, does not seem to explain completely the wide
discrepancies.
Table 3-18 lists how many manufacturers are willing to
contract for operation and/or maintenance of fabric filters. The
table also indicates what effects such contracts, which reduce
the users' manpower requirements, will have upon guarantees.
3.3.2 Manufacturers' Guarantees
Table 3-19 lists the guarantee data reported by the manufac-
turers. The major points are:
0 All manufacturers guarantee either a removal
efficiency or a maximum mass outlet loading,
which is usually conditional on operation
and maintenance per instructions.
0 Nearly all manufacturers offer a predetermined
installation price.
0 Seventy percent of manufacturers guarantee
availability.
34
-------
0 Pressure drop, power consumption, opacity/ and bag life
may also be guaranteed.
3.3.3 Capabilities of Manufacturerg
Table 3-20 presents the reported production capability for
fabric filters that operate at the maximum achievable removal
efficiency (99.9+ percent). Manufacturers were also asked whether
lowering the removal efficiency would affect their capability.
The responses indicated that production would not increase.
One manufacturer reported that lowering removal efficiency would
reduce production because wet scrubbers would become competitive
and the demand for fabric filters would decline <, For 10 percent
reduction in efficiency the manufacturer estimated a 50 percent
reduction in production, which would reduce the combined capa7
bility of all the manufacturers by 3 percent.
Table 3-21 shows the data reported about the time required
for design and installation of fabric filters. Table 3-22 lists
the data reported about the time required for startup of fabric
filters.
Table 3-23 gives the labor distribution in the manufacture
and construction of fabric filters. As with the other systems,
manufacturers depend very heavily upon contract labor for field
fabrication and construction. Table 3-24 presents the data
reported about the additional labor required to achieve the
expanded production shown in Table 3-20.
3.3.4 Limiting Item Analysis
Table 3-25 presents a limiting item analysis for fabric
filters. With the exception of equipment installation, the
estimated leadtimes are not greater than 8 months and vary by no
more than 6.5 months for each item.
As with the data reported about ESP's, some data reported
about fabric filters appear uncertain. Company I supplied infor-
mation used in developing Table 3-23 that contradicts the infor-
mation from it used in developing Table 3-25.
35
-------
Table 3-26 lists key factors indicated by the manufacturers
as delaying the design, construction, and startup of fabric
filters. The table also includes manufacturers' suggestions to
overcome the delays.
3 . t MECHANT _.•.... COLLECTORS
Because very few manufacturers supplied data about mechanical
collectors, the following discussion may only represent the
responding manufacturers, not the whole mechanical collector
industry.
3.4.1 Manufacturers' Products
3.4.1.1 System Description—
Table 3-27 lists the three manufacturers that produce mechan-
ical collectors for the industrial boiler market and who respond-
ed to the survey. They supplied the following information:
0 All systems are suitable for use with both coal- and
oil-fired boilers.
0 All systems are suitable for both new and retrofit
situations.
0 All systems are available as both custom-designed and
off-the-shelf units.
0 All manufacturers produce systems for which they own
the license. '••
0 Mechanical collectors are available for boilers with
heat inputs from less than 1 MW thermal to 1200 MW
thermal. One manufacturer did not respond to the
question about boiler size.
° the maximum removal efficiency reported was 97.5
percent and depended upon System design and inlet
particulate qualities.
3.4.1.2 Manpower Requirements—
The manufacturers reported that no operators or supervisors
are necessary for operation of a mechanical collector. One
manufacturer estimated that 208 man-hours per year are necessary
for maintenance of any Size of mechanical collector. Another
manufacturer reported "Annual inspection only—replacement of
36
-------
worn parts," for maintenance requirements and did not estimate
the man-hours. The third manufacturer did not answer the ques-"
tion about manpower requirements.
Two manufacturers were willing to provide periodic mainten-
ance inspection during outages. The other manufacturer was
willing to provide a field service engineer to assist the custom-
ers with problems. None of these services were reported as
having any effect upon the guarantees offered.
3.4.2 Manufacturers' Guarantees
The guarantees offered by the three manufacturers are listed
in Table 3-28. They do not appear to be as extensive as the
guarantees offered by ESP and fabric filter manufacturers.
3.4.3 Capabilities of Manufacturers
Table 3-29 lists the reported production capabilities for
mechanical collectors. The manufacturers indicated that produc-
tion would not increase if the removal efficiency were lowered.
One manufacturer reported that the average time from order
to shipment is 24 to 26 weeks/ with startup time no longer than
2 to 3 days. Another manufacturer reported that design takes 1
to 4 weeks/ and fabrication and shipment takes 6 to 20 weeks
depending on size. The third manufacturer did not respond to
this question.
The labor distribution for the manufacture of mechanical
collectors is shown in Table 3-30.
Table 3-31 presents data on the additional labor required to
achieve the expanded production shown in Table 3-29.
3.4.4 Limiting Item Analysis
No manufacturer of mechanical collectors responded to Ques-
tion 22 of the particulate control survey.
Table 3-32 lists the key factors indicated by the manufac-
turers as delaying the design, construction and startup of mech-
anical collectors. No corrective actions were suggested.
37
-------
3.5 WET SCRUBBERS
Because very few manufacturers supplied data on wet scrub-
bers, the following discussion may only represent the respond_ng
manufacturers, not the whole wet scrubber industry.
3.5.1 Manufc^sturers' Products
3.5.1.1 System Description—
Envirotech/Chemico Air Pollution Control Corp. and Research
Cottrell make venturi scrubber systems suitable for use with
industrial boilers.
0 Both systems are suitable for use with coal- and oil-
fired boilers.
0 Both systems are suitable for use in retrofit and new
situations.
0 One manufacturer produces only custom-designed systems;
the other manufacturer produces both custom-designed
and off-the-shelf systems.
0 Both manufacturers produce systems for which they own
the license.
0 Maximum particulate removal efficiency is 99.9+ percent,
0 There is no size limitation.
3.5.1.2 Manpower Requirements—
Table 3-33 presents data oh the total annual man-hours
required for operation, maintenance, and supervision of a wet
scrubber. The responses of the two companies differ significantly,
Table 3-34 lists the manufacturers willing'to contract for
operation and/or maintenance of wet scrubbers. The table also
indicates what effects such contracts, which reduce the users'
manpower requirements, will have upon the guarantees.
3.5.2 Manufacturers' Guarantees
Table 3-35 lists the guarantee data reported by the manufac-
turers. The guarantees seem fairly comprehensive.
3.5.3 capabilities of Manufacturers
Table 3-36 presents the reported production capability for
wet scrubbers that operate at the maximum possible removal
38
-------
efficiency. Manufacturers indicated that their capability would
not be increased if the required removal efficiency were lowered.
Table 3-37 indicates the time re.guir.3d for design, installa-
tion, and startup of the systems.
Table 3-38 presents the distribution of labor in the manufac-
ture and construction of wet scrubbers. As with other systems,
the manufacturers depend heavily upon external labor for equip-*-
raent fabrication and installation.
Table 3-39 lists the data reported about the additional man-
power required to achieve the expanded production shown in
Table 3-36.
3.5.4 Limiting Item Analysis
Neither manufacturer answered Question 22 of the particulate
control survey.
Table 3-40 lists the key factors indicated by the manufac-
turers as delaying the design, construction, and startup of wet
scrubbers. The manufacturers' suggestions to overcome delays are
also reported.
39
-------
TABLE 3-1. MANUFACTURERS OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
Company
C-E Walther
Environmental Elements Corp.
Envirotech Corporation,
Buell Emission Control Division
Joy Industrial Equipment
Company, Western Precipitator
Division
Peabody Process Systems, Inc.
Research Cottrell, Inc.
United McGill Corporation
Universal Oil Products,
Air Correction Division
40
-------
TABLE 3^2. OPERATOR HOURS PER YEAR REQUIRED
FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
Company3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2.9 to. 7. 3
MWb
NAC
1825
1750
• NA
0
NR
NA
NR
7.3 t0.i4.?
MWb
NA
1825
1750
NA
0
NR
NA
NR
14.7 'to 29.3
MWb
166
1825
1750
NRd
0
NR
330
NR
29\3 to 73.3
MWD
166
1825
1750
0
0
NR
365
NR
>73,3°
m°
166
1825
1750
0
0
NR
400
NR
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
b
Thermal MH.
°NA = Not applicable. Manufacturer does not produce systems in this
size range.
NR = No response.
41
-------
TABLE 3-3. MAINTENANCE HOURS PER YEAR REQUIRED
FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
Company
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2.9 to 7.3
MWb
NAC
300
1750
NA
8760
NR
NA
NR
7.3 to 14.7
MWb
NA
400
1750
NA
8760
NR
NA
NR
14.7 to 29.3
MWt>
320
600
1750
NRd
8760
NR
250
NR
29.3 to 73.3
MWb
320
900
1750
4000
8760
NR
275
NR
>73,3
MWb
320
1200
1750
8000
8760
NR
300
NR
Manufacturers1 names deliberately withheld.
bThermal MW. ••
CNA - Not applicable.
size range.
NR «= No response.
Manufacturer does not produce systems in this
42
-------
TABLE 3-4. SUPERVISOR HOURS PER YEAR REQUIRED FOR
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
Company3
A
8
C
D
E
F
G
H
2.9 to.7.3'
MWb
NAC
0
438
NA
0
NR
NA
NR
7.3 to. 14. 7-
MWb
NA
0
438
NA
0
NR
NA
NR
14.7 tOk29o3
MWb
26
0
438
NRd
0
NR
40
NR
2>.3 tow73.3
MWb
26
0
438
0
0
NR
50
NR
>7l.3
MWb
26
0
438
0
0
NR
60
NR
Manufacturers' names-deliberately withheld.
thermal MW.
CNA = Not applicable. Manufacturer does not produce systems in this
size range.
NR = No response.
43
-------
TABLE 3-5. MANUFACTURERS WILLING TO CONTRACT FOR OPERATION AND/OR
MAINTENANCE OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS AND
EFFECT OF CONTRACTS ON GUARANTEES
Company3
A
B
C
E
H
Effect on guarantees
None
None
None
Generally no effect
Guaranteed availability
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld .
44
-------
TABLE 3-6. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR GUARANTEES
Company'
Particulate removal
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
C
D
Ul
Yes--specified fuel
Yes--efficiency, based
on minimum inlet
particulate concen-
tration and maximum
volume flow
Yes
Yes—efficiency, based
on fuel analysis and
ash composition, cor-
rect operation, etc.
Yes—efficiency, with
option for minimum
outlet grain loading
Yes—efficiency as
required based on
specified inlet
grain loading to
precipitator and
coal and/or ash
analysis
Yes—escalation clause
Yes—but preliminary
engineering funds
required for provid-
ing firm price of
turnkey installation
Yes
Yes—clearly defined
scope and timing
Yes—subject to esca-
lation according to
government materi al
index and field
labor wage rates
Yes—subject to
adjustment on labor
rate changes
Yes--12 months at
design conditions
No—because cannot
control preventive
maintenance
No
Yes—based upon
proper maintenance
and periodic ser-
vice inspection
Yes—continuous
operation in
most cases
No
Yes--opacity with speci-
fied stack diameter and
fuel for particulate
only
Yes—opacity 20 percent,
pressure drop
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-6 (continued)
Company
Participate removal
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
Yes--based on opera-
tion design condi-
tions
Yes—based on coal
ash composition and
flue gas conditions
Yes--limited to spe-
! cific installation
contacts
Yes--with escalation
No—normally dependent
on maintenance by
others
Yes--based on contract
for maintenance
supervisor
Yes--maximum pressure
drop md maximum power
consul"! Mon, both sub-
ject t.•.. operation at
design conditions
Yes—pressure loss, opa-
city, electrical power
consumption
Maunfacturers' names deliberately withheld.
-------
TABLE 3-7. PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR MANUFACTURERS6
Design capability
Number
Capacity, MW equivalent
Installation capability
Number
Capacity, MW equivalent
1981-1985
Present
staff
270
20,560
238
13,745
Expanded
staff
416
31,520
378
20,780
1986-1990
Present
staff
308
26,951
270
17,561
Expanded
staff
520
41,320 "
473
26,980
1991-1995
Present
staff
321
27,620
290
18,465
Expanded
staff
614
43,920
578
29,930
Represents the responses of seven manufacturers.
^Thermal MW.
-------
it*
CO
TABLE 3-8. TIME FOR DESIGN AND
INSTALLATION OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
(months)
Company3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2.9 to 7.3 MWb
Average
NAC
9
T2
NA
9
NA
NA
9
Range
NA
' 8-12
10-14
NA
7-T4
NA
NA
8-12
7.3 to 14.7 MWb
Average
NA
10
13
NA
9
NA
NA
9
Range
NA
9-12
.10-15
NA
7-14
NA
NA
8-12
14.7 to 29.3 MWfc
Average
16
11
14
NRd
9
NR
18
12
Range
12-20
10-13
12-15
NR
7-14
NR
16-20
10-14
29.3 to 73.3 MWt
Average
18
12
15
20
16
NR
9
18
Range
14-22
11-14
T3-16
16-24
10-22
NR
16-22
14-20
>73.3 MWb
Average
20
13
16
24
22
12
24
24
Range
16-24
12-15
14-18
20-28
16-28
11-14
22-26
20-26
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
bTnermal MM.
CNA = Not applicable. Manufacturer does not produce systems in this size range.
NR = No response.
-------
TABLE 3-9. TIME FOR STARTUP
OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATQRS
(months)
Company
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2.9 to 7.3 MWb
Average
NA°
0.5
0.2
NA
1
NA
NA
0.2
Range
NA
0-1
0.2-0.5
NA
1-2
NA
NA
0.2-0.5
7.3 to 14.7 MW*>
Average
NA
1
0.4
NA
1
NA
NA
0.2
Range
NA
0.5-1.5
0.2-0.6
NA
1-2
NA
NA
0.2-0.5
14.7 to 29.3 MWb
Average
0.4
1
0.4
RjnM
nf\
i
NR
1
0.2
Range
0.2-0.6
0.5-1.5
0.4-0.8
NR
1-2
NR
0-2
0.2-0.5
29.3 to 73.3 MW*>
Average
0.5
1
0.7
1
1
NR
1
0.5
Range
0.3-0.7
0.5-1.5
0.6-1.0
0.5-3
1-2
NR
0-2
0.5-0.8
>73.3 MW&
Average
0.7
1
1
2
1
1
2
0.6
Range
0.4-1.0
0.5-1.5
0.7-1.5
1-4
1-2
0.5-2
1-3
0.5-0.8
vo
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
thermal MM.
'NA = Not applicable. Manufacturer does not produce systems in this size range.
NR = No response.
-------
TABLE 3-10. LABOR DISTRIBUTION lit THE MANUFACTURE
AND CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
(percentages)
Company3
A
Be
C
De
E
F
6
H
Proeess design
Ir»b
100
100
100
100
100
100
:100
100
Outc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Detailed design
In
100
95
100
75
70
100
90
100
Outc
0
5
0
25
30
0
10
0
Equipment fabrication
In"
15
70
60
0
95
100
60
85
OutC
85
30
40
100
5
0
40
15
System installation
Supervision
lnb
100
100
100
75
100
100
50
100
. OutC
0
0
0
25
0
0
50
0
' Craft
I i *
NRd
10
0
0
10
0
0
10
OutC
NR
90
100
100
90
100
100
90
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld,
Work done in-house.
Sfork contracted out.
= No response.
eSee Section 3.2.4.
-------
£ 3-11. INCREASED MAMPOMER REQUIRED TU MEET
EXPANDED ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR PRODUCTION
(man-years/year).
Company3
A
B
C
D
£
F
G
H
Design
15
2
NRC
10
2
24
100
NR
Engineering
5
4
NR
7
25
10
55
NR
Craftb
50
8
NR
0
8
0
400
NR
Administration
0
2
NR-
3
8
37
65
NR
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
bBecause most craft labor is supplied by external contractors,
the total increase in craft labor demand will be greater than
indicated in this table.
CNR = No response.
51
-------
TABLE 3-12. LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
Process design
Detailed engineering
design
Equipment fabrication
Unspecified
Shell or casing
Collecting
electrodes
Discharge
electrodes
Transformer/
rectifier sets
Control panel
Rappers
Ductwork
Equipment installation
Leadtime, months
Range
1-3
2-5
4-6
2-6
4
4
6-8
2-3
4
3
4-12
Average
1.8
3
5.25
4
4
4
6.8
2.5
4
3
7.6
Critical path item, %a
Yes
43
71
28
28
14
14
28
14
14
57
No
43
14
14
0
0
0
28
14
0
0
28
Delay frequency, %
High
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
57
71
43
14
14
78
Low
43
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
7
Supplier. Xa
External
0
0
14
28
14
0
28
14
14
28
Internal
86
71
14
0
0
14
14
0
0
14
Both
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"values Indicate the percentage of the manufacturers listed in Table 3-1 that responded to each question.
-------
TABLE 3-13. KEY FACTORS DELAYING ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY MANUFACTURERS
Company
Delay cause
Corrective action
Ul
Ul
Specification addendums, late A/E approval
of drawings, late A/E fabrication inspec-
tion, late erection, late commissioning,
erratic scheduling of materials
Design: additional equipment other than
ESP, such as supporting structure, out-
lets and inlets; consultants acting
between customers and ESP manufacturer
and delaying drawing approval; work load
of ESP manufacturers; personnel; mistakes
of all parties involved; interferences of
ESP layout with other equipment requiring
costly and time-consuming delays; lead-
time on electrical equipment
Construction: strikes, labor productivity,
unqualified erectors, shipping delays and
damages, poor storage facilities, poor
site access, fabrication errors, construc-
tion interferences, weather
Startup: equipment failures other than ESP
No comment
Government should not delay issuance of building
and operating permits
No comment
No comment
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-13 (continued)
Compa-ny
Delay cause
Corrective action
H
Design: changes in- scope of work, drawing
approvals and other approvals extended,
specific problems requiring technical
solutions
Construction: material and equipment del-
livered late, field parts misfitted, lack
of sufficient craft labor, lack of suf-
ficient erection equipment
Startup: construction incomplete or unac-
ceptable, other systems components not
ready
Lack of comprehensive environmental protec-
tion legislation, inability of industry to
analyze and plan for future pollution con-
trol requirements, regarding statute en-
forcements, conflict of government agencies
leading to end-user foot dragging
Buyer indecision and delay in release of
capital funds; buyer withholds funds until
last minute, then attempts to impose un-
reasonable time schedule on vendor
Resolution of customer design-requirements;
scheduling engineering, drafting, fabri-
cation and installation (seasonal and man-
power considerations); coordination of
startup with entire installation
Late return of approval drawings, changes in
scope of work to be done, changes by custo-
mer in time scheduling when design and
fabrication are started
.A consistent project coordination effort will
overcome many delays; more rpalistic project
planning and scheduling are b.'-ically required
.All delays are caused by the government; no one is
going to exercise initiative until the U.S. Gov-
ernment gets its act under control
None
Firmly establish requirements as early as possi-
ble; maintain close liaison for realistic sched-
uling
Project management and quality assurance programs
decrease delaying time
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
-------
TABLE 3-14. MANUFACTURERS OF FABRIC FILTERS
Company
Apitron
C-E Air Preheater
Environeering, Inc.
Environmental
Elements Corp.
Envirotech Corp.,
Buell Emission
Control Division
Fuller Company
Griffin Environ-
mental Co. , Inc.
Industrial Clean
Air, Inc.
Joy Industrial
Equipment Co. ,
Western Precipi-
tation Division
Research-Cottrell ,
Inc.
Description
Electrostatically augmented
Reverse air
Reverse air
Pulse jet
Reverse air/shaker option
Reverse air
Pulse jet
Fiberglass bags with reverse air
Fiberglass bags with pulse jet
Continuous-duty, high-temperature design; reverse air
with optional shaker assist
Reverse air/shaker
Pulse jet
55
-------
3-15. OPERATOR MAN-HOURS PER YEAR
REQUIRED FOR FABRIC FILTERS
Company3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2.9 to 7.3
MWb
no
546
12
NRC
200
5760
8760
0
NR
NR
7.3 to 14.7
MWb
120
546
12
NR
400
5760
8760
0
NR
.. NR
14.7 to 29.3
MWb
130
1092
12
NR
600
5760
8760
0
NR
NR
29.3 to 73.3
MWb
140
2730
20
NR
800
NAd
8760
0
NR
NR
>73.3
MWb
160
5460
>40
NR
1600
NA
8760
0
NR
NR
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
bThermal MW.
CNR - No response.
NA = Not applicable.
size range.
Manufacturer does not produce systems in this
56
-------
TABLE 3-16. MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS PER YEAR
REQUIRED FOR FABRIC FILTERS
Company3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2. 9 to 7.3
MWb
no
273
10
NRC
100
1,920
8,760
8,760
NR
NR
7.3 to 14.7
MWb
120
273
10
NR
200
3,840
8,760
8,760
NR
. NR
14.7 to 29.3
MWb
130
546
10
NR
400
3,840
8,760
8,760
NR
NR
29.3 to 73.3
MWb
140
1,638
20
NR
800
NAd
17,520
8,760
NR
NR
>73.3
MWb
160 '
2,730
>40
NR
1.60Q
NA
17,520
8,760
NR
NR
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
thermal MW.
"MR = flo response.
NA = Not applicable. Manufacturer does not produce systems in this
size range.
57
-------
LE 3-1?. SUPERVISOR HOURS PER YEAR
REQUIRED FOR FABRIC FILTERS
Company
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2.9 to 7.3
MVJb
0
0
0
NRC
20
1,920
0
0
NR
NR
7.3 to 14.7
MWb
0
0
0
NR
20
1,920
0
0
NR
NR
14.7 to 29.3
MWb
0
0
0
NR
40
1,920
8,760
0
NR
NR
29.3 to 73.3
MW&
0
0
0
NR
40
NAd
8,760
0
NR
NR
>73.3
MWb
0
546
0
NR
80
NA
8,760
0
NR
NR
aManufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
thermal MW.
CNR = No response.
NA = Not applicable. Manufacturer does not produce systems in this
size range.
58
-------
TABLE 3-18. MANUFACTURERS WILLING TO CONTRACT FOR
OPERATION AND/OR MAINTENANCE OF FABRIC FILTERS
AND THE EFFECTS OF CONTRACTS ON GUARANTEES
Company
Effect on guarantees
G
J
More comprehensive guarantee (considered only in
isolated cases)
No comment about effect on guarantees
Guaranteed availability
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
59
-------
TABLE 3-19. FABRIC FILTER GUARANTEES
Company
Participate removal
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
A
B
D
E
H
Yes—efficienty
Yes--guarantee to meet
code when operated
ISAW instructions
Yes
Yes--outlet residual or
percentage
Yes--to meet emission
code requirements for
mass emissions and op-
acity, if operated per
instructions
Yes
Yes—compliance with
applicable codes, when
operated per instruc-
tions
Yes—maximum outlet mass
1oadi mj
Yes
Yes—fixed price plus
escalation
Yes
Yes— escalation con-
sidered
Yes—fixed price for
contracts less than
1 year; escalation
clauses for longer
contracts
Yes
Yes—turnkey price
Yes—subject to BLS
escalation
Yes
No
Yes—not to exceed
95 percent
No
Yes—100 percent,
if operated per
instructions
Yes
Yes—service and
operational con-
tracts are avail-
able
Yes—normally con-
tinuous operation
Yes—1
ity
>r merchantabil-
Yes—power consumptions
bag life
Yes—pressure drop, opac-
ity
Yes—pressure loss; bag
life for 1 year, negoti-
able; operation per in-
structions
Yes—mechanical parts war-
ranty for 1 year from
date of shipment
Yes—bag life, when oper-
ated per instructions
Qualifications—bag life,
dew point excursions,
startup, and maintenance
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-19. (continued)
Company
Particulate removal
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
I
Yes--if operated and
maintained per instruc-
tions
Yes—mass emission and
opacity
No
Yes--price plus escala-
tion
No
Yes—with main-
tenance super-
vision contract
Yes—bag life in excess
of 1 year
Yes—power consumption,
pressure loss, 2-year
bag life
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
-------
TABLE 3-20. PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF FABRIC FILTER MANUFACTURERS1
Design capability
Number
Capacity, MW equivalent
Installation capability
Number
Capacity, MM equivalent
1981-1985
Present
staff
451
20,130
275
12,530
Expanded
staff
915
42,200
453
21,330
1986-1990
Present
staff
758
36,140
398
20,010
Expanded
staff
1,345
64,410
708
33,090
1991-1995
Present
staff
982
47.330
514
26,070
Expande-l
staff
1,892
79,870
1,068
47,880
Represents the responses of 9 manufacturers.
'Thermal MW.
-------
TABLE 3-.21. TIKE FOR DESIGN
AND INSTALLATION OF FABRIC FILTERS
(months)
Company3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2.9 to 7.3 MWb
Average
4
9
10
4.5
6
5
1
9
3
8
Range
3-5
7-14
8-12
4-6
5-8
4-8
0.75-1.25
8-10
2-4
-8-12
7.3 to 14.7 MWb
Average
4
9
12
6.5
6
5
1.5
9 ,
3 :
9
Range
3-5
7-14
10-14
6-8
5-8
4-8
1-2
8-10
2-4
8-12
14.7 to 29.3 MW*
Average
4
9
14
9
6
6
2
12
4
12
Range
4-6
7-14
12-16
8-12
5-9
5-9
1.5-2.5
10-14
3-6
10-14
29.3 to 73.3 MWb
Average
5
16
16
NAC
8
8
2
13
4
18
Range
5-7
10-22
14-18
NA
6-11
5-10
1.5-2.5
11-15
3-6
14-20
>73.3 m*>
Average
6
22
20
MA
12
10
3
13
6
24
Range
6-8
16-28
18-22
NA
11-16
8-14
2-4
H-15
4-8
20-26
a\
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
thermal MM.
CNA = Not applicable. Manufacturer does not produce systems in this size range.
-------
TABLE 3-22. TIME FOR STARTUP OF FABRIC FILTERS
(months)
Company8
A
B
C
D
E
F
6
H
1
J
2.9 to 7.3 MWb
Average
0.4
V
0.5
0.75
0.25
0.5
1
<1
1
0.4
Range
0.25-1
1-2
0.25-1
0.5-1
0.2-0.5
. NRd
0.75-1.25
• NR
0.5-1.5
0.3-0.8
7.3 to 14.7 MWb
Average
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.25
0.5
1
<1
1
0.8
Range
0.25-1
1-2 -
0.25-1
1-1.5
0.2-0.5
NR
0.75-1.25
NR
0.5-1.5
0.7-1.0
14.7 to 29.3 MW*>
Average
0.5
1
0.5
1.25
0.5
}
1
1
1
0.8
Range
0.25-1
1-2
0.25-1
1-2
0.3-1
0.5-2
0.75-1.25
NR
•0.5-1.5
0.7-1.0
29.3 to 73.3 MWb
Average
0.75
1
0.75
NAC
1
1
T
1
1
0.9
Range
0.5-1.25
1-2
0.5-1
NA
0.5-2
0.5-2
0.75-1.25
NR
0.5-1.5
0.7-1.2
>73.3 MW
Average
0.75
1
1
NA
2
1
1
1
1
1
Range
0.5-1.25
12
0.55-1.5
NA
1-3
0.5-2
0.75-1.25
NR
0.5-1.5
0.7-1.4
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
bTherma> HW.
CNA = Wot applicable. Manufacturer does not produce systems In this size range.
NR * Not reported. Manufacturer did not supply required information.
-------
en
TABLE 3-23. LABOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF FABRIC FILTERS*3
(percentages)
Company
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
H
I6
J
Process design
Inc
5
100
35
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Outd
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Detailed design
lnc
25
100
35
80
100 '
100
95
100
66
100
Outd
5
0
0
20
0
0
5
0
33
0
Equipment fabrication
Inc
65
17
0
20
75
95
0
30
1
60
Outd
25
83
100
80
25
5
100
70
99
40
System installation
Supervision
lnc
0
50
15
20
100
£0
100
100
83
100
Outd
10
50
0
80
0
40
0
0
17
0
Craft
lac
5
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Outd
60
100
0
100
100
WO
100
100
wo
90
aValues listed as given by manufacturers; some values may not add up to 100%.
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
cWork done in-house.
Work contracted out-
eSee Section 3.3.4.
-------
TABLE 3-24. INCREASED MANPOWER REQUIRED TO MEET EXPANDED
FABRIC FILTER PRODUCTION DURING 1981-1985
(man-years/year)
Company3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
• o.
Design
10
4
10
3
6
0.266
300
NRd
2
NR
Engineering
8
2
10
2
3
0.2
120
NR
5
• .NR
Craft b
100
c
30
0
0
1.33
0
NR
5
. ...NR
Administration
30
1
10
1
1
0.2
200
NR
2
NR
^Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
^Because craft-labor is supplied by external contractors, the total
increase in craft labor demand will be far greater than indicated
in this table.
cManufacturer indicated a question nark.
j
NR = No response.
66
-------
TABLE 3-25. LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS FOR FABRIC FILTERS
Process design
Detailed engineering
design
Equipment fabrication
Unspecified
Structural
Housing
Bags
Fans/cnotors
Electrical/controls
Equipment installation
leadtime, months
Average
1.1
2.4
5.25
3.33
3.6
2.8
3.25
3.3
3.8
Range
0.25-3
0.75-6
3-6
3-4
1.5-8
1-6
2.5-4
I. 75-8
0.25-12
Critical path item. Xa
Yes
67
78
11
11
44
0
22
33
67
Mo
11
11
0
22
33
33
0
33
11
Delay frequency. Xs
High
55
11
0
11
33
Q
22
11
22
Average
22
55
11
22
44
11
«
44
67
Low
11
11
0
0
22
0
11
0
Supplier, z
Internal
67
67
0
0
22
11
0
11
22
External
0
0
0
22
33
22
22
44 •
44
Both
0
0
11
0
€
0
0
«
4
Values indicate the percentage of the manufacturers listed in Table 3-14 that responded to each question.
-------
TABLE 3-26. KEY FACTORS DELAYING FABRIC FILTERS AND
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY MANUFACTURERS
Company0
Delay cause
Corrective action
A
B
C
D
Ch
00
Design: customer design changes
Construction and startup: availability of
fabrication space; geographic location and
climatic conditions
No comment
Owner/A&E delay in "turnaround" of drawings
for approval, restrictions to construction
site access, delays in general construc-
tion, startup of ancillary or concurrently
furnished equipment
Delays in vendor selection, evaluation of
bids, terms and preliminary engineering by
purchaser; system engineering and final
purchaser approval for fabrication; fabri-
cation and design of custom-made components
Design and fabrication: specification
changes after .iob is started
Construction: weather and labor disputes
Slow governmental approval
Define equipment specifications clearly; use
standard, not custom-designM units; offer
bonus clause for early fini:
No comment
Purchase "turnkey" systems with maximum scope
to single supplier
Advancement of the "state of the art" and
environmental regulations to allow purchaser
to develop firm specifications and design
requirements at the time a bid is requested;
on retrofit projects, obtain the assistance
of a qualified impartial engineering concern
for preliminary system design, evaluation of
bids, and performance of field engineering
tasks prior to euqipment purchase
Reduce approval time
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-26 (continued)
Company
Delay cause
Corrective action
F
G
H
I
J
Approval delays, errors in design, excessive
workload of engineers, equipment changes
Delays from external suppliers
Intermediaries between supplier and ulti-
mate owner
None
Engineering change orders, delays by fan
suppliers and external vendors
NR
External suppliers should increase their manu-
facturing capacity
NR
None required
Project management expediting purchase orders
CT*
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
3NR = No response.
-------
TABLE 3-27. MANUFACTURERS OF MECHANICAL COLLECTORS
Company
American Standard
Inc., Industrial
Products Division
Envirotech Corp. ,
Buell Emission
Control Division
Universal Oil
Products, Inc.,
Air Correction
Division
Description
Cyclone
Multibar
Cyclones
(dry and wet)
Multibar
Cyclone
70
-------
TABLE 3-28. MECHANICAL COLLECTOR GUARANTEES
Company
Partleulate removal
Predetermined
installation cost
Availability
Other
Yes—conditions of appli-
cable performance curve
must be met; limited li-
ability
Yes—as measured by ASME
field testing and qual-
ified by particulate
sizing and system con-
ditions
Yes—based on fractional
efficiency curve and
inlet gas conditions
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes—delivery and pressure
drop, limited liaiility
for both
None
Yes—fractional efficiency,
pressure drop
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
-------
TABLE 3-29. PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF MECHANICAL COLLECTOR MANUFACTURERS
Design capability3
Number
Capacity ,MW equivalent^
Installation capability0
Number
Capacity, MW equivalent
1981-1985
. Present
staff
50
1000
-.
0
; 0
Expanded
staff
70
1400
0
0
1986-1990
Present
staff
60
1400
0
0
Expanded
staff
80
1600
0
0
1991-1995
Present
staff
70
1400
0
0
Expande^
staff
90
1800
0
0
-J
to
'Represents the responses of one manufacturer only.
^Thermal MW.
cProducts are furnished on a flange-to-flamte basis only.
systems. Supervision of installation may be offered.
Neither manufacturer installs
-------
TABLE 3-30. LABOR DISTRIBUTION 'IN THE WNUFACTURE
AMD CONSTRUCTION OF MECHANICAL COLLECTORS
(percentages)
Company
A
B
C
Process design
T b
In
None
100
100
Outc
None
0
0
Detailed
design
lnb
50
100
100
Outc
50
0
0
Equipment fabrication
in83
0
100
0
OutC
100
0
90
System installation
Supervision
lnb
None
100
0
Outc
None
0
100
Craft
In0
Wone
0
0
OUST
$one
100
100
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
Work done in-house.
Stork contracted out»
-------
TABLE 3-31. INCREASED MANPOWER REQUIRED TO MEET
EXPANDED MECHANICAL COLLECTOR PRODUCTION
(man-years/year)
Company
A
B
C
Design
NRb
5
NR
Engineering
NR
3
NR
Craft
NR
20
NR
Administration
NR
2
NR
Company names deliberately withheld.
3NR = No response.
74
-------
TABLE 3-32. KEY FACTORS DELAYING MECHANICAL COLLECTORS
AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY MANUFACTURERS
Company
A
B
C
Delay cause
Subcontractor delays
Understaffed engineering group, delays in
drawing approval, lack of availability of
materials of construction, poor plant op-
erational procedures
Usually none
Corrective action
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
en
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
Data reported as given by manufacturer.
-------
TABLE .-22. MAN-HOURS PER YEAR REQUIRED FOR OPERATION,
MAINTENANCE, AND SUPERVISION OF A WET SCRUBBER
Company9
Operation
Ac
B
Maintenance
A
B
Supervision
A
B
2.9 to 7.3
MWb
3500
d
.1750
d
1750
d
7.3 to 14.7
MWb
3500
d
1750
d
1750
d
14.7 to 29.3
MWb
3500
d
1750
d
1750
d
29.3 to 73o3
MWb
3500
d
1750
d
1750
d
>73.3 MWb
7000
d
3500
d
3500
d
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
^Thermal MW.
"This manufacturer's responses were based on an operating factor of 7000
hours per year.
Combined requirements for operation, maintenance, and supervision are
2,200 man-hours per year.
76
-------
TABLE 3-34. MANUFACTURERS WILLING TO CONTRACT FOR
OPERATION AND/OR MAINTENANCE OF WET SCRUBBERS AND
EFFECTS OF CONTRACTS ON GUARANTEES
Company2
A
B
Effect on guarantees
More stringent guarantees
Generally improved guarantees concerning util-
ity consumption and availability
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
77
-------
TABLE 3-35. WET SCRUBBER GUARANTEES
Company
A
B
Particulate removal
Yes
Yes-- unlimited liabil-
. ity
Predetermined
installation cost
Yes
Yes — lump sum plus
escalation; cost
plus fixed fee
Availability
Yes
Yes
Other
NRb
Yes— utilities, pressure
drop, liquidated damages
basis
OB
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheldi
NR » ND response.
-------
TABLE 3-36, PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF WET SCRUBBER MANUFACTURERS
Design capability
Number
Capacity, MW equivalent3
Installation capability
Number
Capacity,, MW equivalent3
1981-1985
Present
staff
55
1350
28
685
Expanded
staff
110
2700 .
57
1390
1986-1990
Present
staff
60
1450
32
765
Expanded
staff
140
3425
70
1700
1991-1995
Present
staff
65
1550
35
825
Expanded
staff
175
4250
90
1175
'Thermal MW.
-------
TABLE 3-37. TIME REQUIRED FOR DESIGN, .
INSTALLATION, AND STARTUP OF WET SCRUBBERS'
(months)
Size, MW
2.9 to 7.3
7.3 to 14.7
14.7 to 29.3
29.3 to 73.3
>73.3 •
Design and installation
Average
10
10
14
14
24
Range
8-12
8-12
12-16
12-16
18-30
Startup
Average
1
1
1 .
1
1 . .
Range
0.5-3
0.5-3
0.5-3
0.5-3
0.5-3
Represents the responses of only one manufacturer
whose name is deliberately withheld.
80
-------
TABLE 3-38. LABOR DISTRIBUTION IM THE MANUFACTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF WET SCRUBBERS
(percentages)
Company
A
B
Process design
lnb
100
100
OutC
0
0
Detailed design
lnb
100
100
Outc
0
0
Equipment fabrication
" .nb
0
0
Outc
100
100
System installation
Supervision
I-
25
10
Out0
75
90
Craft
in"
0
0
Oute
100
100
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
Work done in-house.
°Work contracted out.
-------
TABLE 3-39. INCREASED MANPOWER REQUIRED TO MEET
EXPANDED WET SCRUBBER PRODUCTION
(man-years/year)
Company3
A
B
Design
96 °
2
Engineering
36
2
Craftb
0
0.5
Administration
18
b'.s
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld. c
Because most craft labor is supplied by external con-
tractors, the total increase in craft labor demand
will be greater°than indicated in this table.
82
-------
TABLE 3-40. KEY FACTORS DELAYING WET SCRUBBERS AND
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS RECOMMENCED BY MANUFACTURERS
Company
A
B
Delay action
Client approval of P&ID and general
arrangement drawings, late delivery of
equipment** ~
Design changes, lack of communication,
and decision making
Corrective action
Follow critical path schedule
ft - . « m\
Eliminate factors listed as much
as possible
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
00
ui
-------
SECTION 4
TREATMENT OF NO IN FLUE GAS
J\ ' •
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Treatment of NOX in flue gas is the least developed of the
control technologies discussed in this report. > Flue gas treat-
ment (FGT) systems have been used commercially at several plants
' 4'
in Japan and at one plant in the United States. " As expected,
• fi
lack of demand and of manufacturing and installation experience
severely limit the information available for this survey.
After a wide-ranging telephone survey of potential manufac-
turers of flue gas treatment systems, survey forms were sent to
eight companies and five responded. Envlrotech/Chemico Air
Pollution Control completed the survey .form, Exxon refused to
participate due to work pressure, and Research Cottrell refused
to participate due to;a confidentiality agreement with the licenser
(Exxon). Two other companies did respond, but could not complete
the survey form because they did not produce flue gas treatment
systems to control NO- emissions from industrial boilers.
Bec'ause of the limited response, restricted data are pre-
sented to- maintain the manufacturer's confidentiality. Where
appropriate, data from the literature are used;,to supplement data
from the survey.
84
-------
4.2 MANUFACTURERS1 PRODUCTS
4.2.1 System Description
Table 4-1 lists the companies involved in flue gas treatment
for NO control.
X
Envirotech/Chemico Air Pollution Control produces a cataly-*
tic reduction system under license from Hitachi Zosen of Tokyo,
Japan. The process operate's at a ratio of about 1 mole of
ammonia (NH3) to 1 mole of nitrogen oxide (NO) and a temperature
from 350° to 400°C (662° to 752°F). The NO removal efficiency
5 x
ranges up to 95 percent.
Exxon is the licenser of a thermal denitrification process.
.Generally, this type of process involves the injection of ammonia
into flue gases at roughly 1000°C. Rapid mixing of the gases is
achieved by a refractory structure. Exxon has found that addi-
tion of hydrogen with the ammonia can reduce the reaction temper-
ature to 730°C. Laboratory tests have achieved 80 percent
reduction in NO at carefully controlled conditions. In a large
A
scale operation, approximately 50 percent NO removal is expected
6
at an NH^/NO mole ratio of. 1.5 to 2.0. Research Cottrell markets
the Exxon process under license.
Both processesnproduce nitrogen and water as byproducts.
4.2.2 Limiting Item Analysis
None of the manufacturers listed in Table 4-1 supplied
*'
information for a limiting item analysis. The Tennessee Valley
Authority, however, through an interagency agreement with the
Cft 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has performed•• a study
on the impact of ammonia utilization in FGT technologies. If FGT
were only required on new industrial boilers with heat inputs
greater than 73.3 MW thermal, the ammonia generating industry
could readily adapt to the development of the FGT industry, and
ammonia supply would be no problem. . Requiring FGT on all ex-
isting large boilers would significantly distort the NH^ market
g J .
and adversely affect the fertilizer industry.
85
-------
4.3 OTHEF SYSTEMS
Apart from the two systems listed in Table 4.1, many other
systems are used in foreign countries or are still being de-
veloped. These processes have been reviewed in the litera-
. .„ _ 4,9,10,1] . 1?
4.4 SIMULTANEOUS REMOVAL OF S02 AND N0x
The initial telephone survey indicated that no companies
were willing to provide data about systems to remove SO, and NO
t, *• X
simultaneously. The literature, however, reports that Universal
' Oil Products has carri.ed out a pilot-scale investigation of a
:.: catalytic process developed by Shell. The test unit was con-
nected to coal-fired boilers at Tampa Electric Company's Big Bend
Station in Florida. The Shell process was expected to remove 90
percent Of both SO- and NO . this level was achieved for SO-,
.. X j- »
0 but not for NO from the coal-derived flue gas.
Chiyoda has made a simple modification to the Thoroughbred
101 FGD process to rem'pve NO . The modified system can remove 60
o T ^ •
percent of NO and 90 percent of SO-. ;
-------
TABLE 4-1. MANUFACTURERS OF SYSTEMS FOR
THE TREATMENT OF NOY IN FLUE GAS
A
Company
Envirotech/Chemico Air
Pollution Control
Exxon
Research Cottrell
System
Catalytic reduction with ammonia
Thermal reduction with ammonia
Thermal reductipn with ammonia3
Exxon licensee.
87
-------
SECTION 5
COMBUSTION MODIFICATIONS FOR NO CONTROL
X
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Some techniques of combustion modification for NO control
"j X.
are well established,'''but others are still in early development.
o . i) •
The present and proposed utility boiler NSPS allow combustion
*>
,, modifications to meet,"the regulations. If mor^ stringent limits
u •
are established for NO emissions from industrial boilers, the
i **
boiler industry may have to use flue gas treatment in addition
to, or in place of, combustion modifications.
' A telephone survey was made of 15 companies with a potential
interest in combustion modification, some of which are listed in
• • 14
the literature, as using or developing combustiQh modifications.
A poor response was obtained, and some companies denied any
involvement in the field. Ten survey forms were issued to manu-
facturers. Two completed the form, and a third.supplied some
data by letter. These responses are summarized below.
5.2 MANUFACTURERS' PRODUCTS
'';" 5.2.1 System, fiescr.jptiORS \
Table 5-1 lists'the systems supplied by the manufacturers
that responded to the" survey. The following information was
provided by the manufacturers: '•
0 All systems are available for new and retrofit
applications, but the latter can be limited by
boiler configuration.
0 One manufacturer's system was only suitable for
oil- and gas-^fired boilers.
•
c3
88
-------
0 Most systems are custom-designed, but some off-the-
~ shelf systems are available for small package boilers.
0 Half of the equipment'is manufactured under license.
0 Combustion modifications are available for boilers
with heat inputs from 1 to 73.3 MW thermal. Finan-
cial, not technical, considerations limit the range.
5.2.2 Manpower Requirements
Manufacturers reported that no additional manpower would be
required for operation, maintenance, and supervision of combus-
tion modification systems. All these functions could be carried
out by existing personnel. No manufacturer is willing to provide
maintenance services, but one might do so if production increased
enough.
5.3 MANUFACTURERS' GUARANTEES
Table 5-2 presents the guarantee data reported by the manu-
facturers. Both manufacturers that responded are willing to
guarantee a reduction in NO levels.
*»
5.4 CAPABILITIES OF MANUFACTURERS
The reported manufacturing capabilities are presented in
Table 5-3. The survey form stated: "Indicate the number and
total equivalent MW of new systems, operating at the maximum
efficiency previously stated, that you can design and install in
the periods indicated with current and planned staff additions.
Also indicate your capacity using an expanded staff or more
extensive use of subcontractors. Design or installation work
that has already been started is excluded from these figures."
The one manufacturer that supplied data in response to this
question reported that production was independent of emission
control efficiency. One manufacturer did not respond, and the
third stated only that the maximum annual increase in staff would
be no more than 10 percent, because of the company objective of
controlled growth.
89
-------
Table 5-4 presents data about the increased manpower re-
quired to meet the expanded production shown in Table 5-3.
Table 5-5 presents data supplied about the time required for
design and installation of various combustion modifications. One
manufacturer's leadtime is twice that of the other. Table 5-6
presents the data supplied about the time required for startup of
combustion modification systems. Most startups are less than
3 months, and the startups of smaller units are faster than those
of larger units.
Table 5-7 presents data on the distribution of personnel in
0
the manufacture and construction of combustion modification
systems. All process-'design is done internally; one manufacturer
contracts much of the fabrication. Installation is always super-
vised by company personnel; the construction labor is contracted.
i
5.5 LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS
Table 5-8 is a limiting item analysis of the basic elements
associated with the development and construction of a combustion
modification system. . The data are very limited, and conclusions
drawn from them may be misleading. Long leadtimes and delays do
not appear to be problems. Variations between the two manufac-
turers appear to be small.
Table 5~9 presents key factors listed by the manufacturers
as delaying in the design, construction, and startup of combus-
tion modification systems for NO control. This table also .lists
J*i
one suggested corrective action.
&
90
-------
TABLE 5-1. MANUFACTURERS OF COMBUSTION
MODIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR NOV CONTROL
Company
System description
CEA Combustion, Inc.
Combustion modifications consisting of one or
more of the following:
1. Off-stoichiometric (0/S) combustion
2. Two-'stage combustion
3. Leaving burners out of service
4. Biased firing
5. Low excess air
6. Flame temperature reduction
7. Flue gas recirculation
8. Air preheat reduction
Coen Company
Combustion modifications consisting of one or
more of the following:
1. NOX ports
2. Off-ratio firing
3. Biased firing
4. Flue gas recirculation
5. Low excess air
TRW Energy Systems Grodp
Low NQX emissions burner that fires convention-
ally over load range
91
-------
TABLE 5-2. GUARANTEES FOR COMBUST ION MODIFICATION
SYSTEMS FOR NO CONTROL
Company
vo
NO reduction.
Efficiency.-
Yes—percent reduc-
tion or absolute
minimum value * which-
ever is less strin-
gent, subject to in-
stallation and opera-
tion in accordance
with design specifi-
cations
Yes—qualified by
fuel characteristics,
manual operation at
full load only; nego-
tiated maximum lia-
bility
Predetermined
installation cost
Yes—fixed price
with escalation
clause, subject to
installation and
operation in ac-
cordance with design
specifications
No
MR
Availability
Yes--to meet design
rating of fixed
equipment, subject
to installation
and operation in
accordance with
design specifica-
tions
No
NRL
Other
Standard . -irranty for
defects . • J workmanship
for 1 ye r from date of
shipment, subject to
installation and oper-
ation in accordance
with design specifica-
tions
No
NR
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
3WR = No response-- * - ' • *-••
-------
'TABLE 5-3. PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF MANUFACTURERS
' OF MODIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR NO CONTROL3
x\
Design capability
Number
Capacity, MW equivalent^
Installation capability
Number
Capacity » MW equivalent
1981-1985
Present
staff
30
330
25
280
Expanded
staff
„
300
3,300
250
2,750
1986-1990
Present
staff
40
880
35
770
Expanded
staff
550
12 , 100
450
9,900
1991-1995
Present
staff
45
990
40
880
Expanded
staff
700
15 ,400
600
13,200
This table represents the response of one manufacturer whose name is deliberately
withheld.
-Thermal MW.
-------
TABLE 5-4. ADDITIONAL STAFF REQUIRED
TO ACHIEVE EXPANDED PRODUCTION3 "
(man-years/year)
Design
Engineering ,
Craft
Administration
1981-1985
12
28
b
9
1986- 1990 .
19
45
b
25
1991-1994
• 24
i
* 56
•'• b
'. 18
Manufacturers' name deliberately withheld.!0
^Subcontracted. '°
'3
94
-------
TABLE 5-5. TIME FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
OF COMBUSTION MODIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR HO CONTROL
(months) x
Company3
A
B
C
2.9 to 7.3 MW5
Average
4
8
NRC
Range
3-5
4-9
NR
7.3 to 14.7 MW5
Average
4
8
NR
Range
3-5
4-9
NR
14.7 to 29.3 MWb
Average
4
8
NR
Range
3-6
6-9
NR
29.3 to 73.3 MWb
Average
6
12
NR
Range
4-7
9-16
NR
>73.3 MM**
Average
7
12
NR
RafKje
5-8
9-16
W
VO
en
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
bThermal MW.
CNR = No response.
-------
•tABtE 5-6. TIME FOR STARTUP OF COMBUSTION
MODIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR NO CONTROL
(months)
Coflipanya
A
B
e
2.9 to 7.3 MWb
Average
0.5
2
. NRC
Range
0.5-T
T-3
m
'7.3 to 14.7 MWb
Average
0.4
2
. NR
Range
0.5-T
1-3
NR
14.7 to 29.3 MWb
Average
0.5
3
NR
Range
0.5-1
2-5
NR
29.3 to 73.3 MW&
Average
0.5
3
NR
Range
0.5-1
2-5
NR
>73.3 MWb
Average
1
3
NR
Range
0.5-2
2-5
NR
b
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
thermal MVf.
= No response.
-------
TABLE 5-7. LABOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE MANUFACTURE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF COMBUSTION MODIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR NO CONTROL
(percentages) x
Company3
A
B
C
Process design
lnb
100
NRd
100
OutC
0
NR
0
Detailed design
In
100
NR
100
OutC
0
NR
0
Equipment. fabrication
lnb
20
NR
100
Outc
80
NR
0
System installation
-Supervision
lnb
100
NR
100
OutC
0
NR
0
Craft
lnb
0
NR
0
OutC
100
NR
160
Manufacturers' names deliberately withheld.
3Work done in-house.
"Work contracted out.
NR = No response.
-------
TABLE 5-8. LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS FOR COMBUSTION
MODIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR NOV CONTROLS
A
Process design
Detailed engi-
neering design
Equipment
fabrication
Unspecified
Registers
Burners
Control
system
Equipment
installation
Leadtime,
months
Range
0.5-1
1-2
3
3
3
4
0.5-2
Mean
0.75
1.5
3
3
3
4
1.25
Critical path
item, %a
Yes
33
33
33
0
0
0
33
No
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Delay frequency, %*
High
33
33
33
0
0
0
0
Average
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Values indicate the percentage of the manufacturers listed in Table 5-1 that re-
sponded to each question.
-------
TABLE 5-9. KEY FACTORS DELAYING COMBUSTION MODIFICATIONS SYSTEMS FOR
NO CONTROL AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY MANUFACTURERS
A
Company
Delay cause
Corrective action
B
C
Installation dependent ort subcontractor with
insufficient manpower
NRb
Lack of clear understanding by Government
agencies of what is required to satisfy
requirements; lack of adequate manpower to
custom-design each unit
Develop in-house construction eapa-bilHy
NR
NR
VO
Manufacturers8 names deliberately withheld.
3NR = No response.
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS
6.1 FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEMS
Figure 6-1 summarizes the data reported about FGD systems.
This figure indicates the number of systems that manufacturers
stated they could design and install in each 5-year period from
B
1981 through 1995 with the present and expanded production capa-
bilities discussed in Section 2.4. The number 'of new coal-fired
boilers that will be installed during each peripd is also shown;
units with., heat inputs from 2.9 to 7.3 MW thermal a-nd from 7.3 to
14.7 MW thermal are differentiated from larger 'boilers.
Only 75 percent of the manufacturers surveyed about FGD sys-
tems responded. Figure 6-2 estimates the total*.production capa-
bility of FGD system manufacturers on the assumption that the
nonresponding manufacturers can produce proportionately as many
systems as the responding ones. This figure suggests that even
with expanded staffs, the manufacturers could design FGD systems
i-
for only about 50 percent of the new coal-fired boilers from 1980
to 1985 and can install even less. In subsequent periods, the
situation would be worse. The overall position would drastically
improve if FGD systems were not required for smaller boilers.
The production capabilities in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 are based
on an 85 percent SO, rsmoval efficiency. The data for a 90 per-
cent SO- removal efficiency differ only marginally from these
capabilities. If an efficiency of at least 95 percent were re-
quired, however, the capability of manufacturers would decline by
about 50 percent in each 5-year period from the capability shown
in the figures.
-------
6.2 PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS
figure 6-3 summarizes the data reported'.'about ESP' s and
fabric filters. The results are presented in the format used in
Figure 6-1„ The data represent the responses of 44 percent of
the ESP manufacturers that were sent survey forms and 50 percent
of the fabric filter manufacturers that were sent survey forms.
The number of systems that the manufacturers can design is of
greater significance than the number of systems they can install
because manufacturers usually do not install particulate control
systems, especially on small industrial boilers.
Figure 6-4 suggests that if allowance is made for the non-
responding companies, which included a few major manufacturers,
and assuming sufficient installation contractors, enough partic-
ulate control systems will be available for new coal-fired
boilers. Several manufacturers stated that production capability
would be sufficient, and one manufacturer predicted that production
would fall from 1991 to 1995 because of market saturation.
6.3 N0v EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
^t
The two methods of NOX emission control reviewed in this
survey are FGT and combustion modification. An FGT system can
reduce NOX emissions by up to 95 percent. A combustion modifi-
cation system can reduce NOX emissions by up to 85 percent, 15
although the common removal efficiency is about 50 percent.
The technology of FGT is slowly developing, and a few manu-
facturers are entering the field. Insufficient data were ob-
tained concerning the future production capability of FGT system
manufacturers. Because these manufacturers also make FGD systems,
a rapid expansion in FGT system production could detrimentally
affect the production of FGD units. In addition, a rapid expan-
sion in FGT system production would significantly affect the
ammonia market and consequently the fertilizer and food indus-
tries.
101
-------
Combustion modification technology is more firmly estab-
lished than FGT technology, although only limited data concerning
production capabilities could be obtained. The data suggest an
extreme shortage of combustion modification systems, especially
if controls were required on oil- and gas-fired boilers in addi-
tion to c: -.' - ...red boilers. If low-NO burners were required,
X
many burner manufacturers might produce them, possibly under
special license because the standard burners would become obso-
lete.
One manufacturer commented that unnecessarily strict NO
X
emission limits would jeopardize the existence of independent
burner companies. The comment was:
"If the new EPA NO limits are set unnecessarily
low, such that there is a small margin between the
limit and that what can be obtained with the best bur-
ner technology, there will be a real possibility that
the limit will not always be achieved. Not achieving
a limit could result in forced boiler shutdown, loss
of production, expensive boiler modifications and re-
sulting lawsuits. When independent burner manufac-
turers sell their burners to the boiler companies,
it is industry practice for the burner company to
limit their liability to the price of the burner order
or to some negotiated higher amount. It is very possi-
ble that a 30,000 dollar burner order could result in
hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, if an
emission limit were not met. Because of this poten-
tial risk, there will be resistance by the boiler
manufacturer to carry an independent burner manufac-
turer, even if specified by the ultimate customer.
The. point I am making is that unnecessarily or
unrealistically strict emission limits may force
the -boiler companies to try to 'control' their
risks by using their own burners and not those
of ..independent burner manufacturers. This would
significantly change the market place as it
exists today."
If strict NO emission limits were set, a combined FGT and
x
combustion modification system could be used. Such a system
could achieve the same emission reduction with lower operating
costs than an FGT system alone and would affect the ammonia
market less. A combined system, however, woulpl still depend on
the very limited production capability of FGT system manufacturers,
-------
ssoo
sooo-
PRODUCTION CAPABILITY.,^ WO SYSTEM
MANUFACTURERS MTH PRESENT STAfFS
PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF FSO SYSTEM
MANUFACTURERS WITH EXPANDED STAFFS
I' " I MEM COAL-FIRED BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS FWN 2.9 TO 7.3 MU THERMAL
NEW COAL-FIRED BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS FROM 7.3 TO 14.7 MU THERMAL
NEW COAL-FIRED BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS' >14.7 MW THERMAL
500 -
1981-1985
1986-1990
1991-1995
Figure 6-1. Reported production capability of FGD system manufacturers
and projected number of new coal-fired boilers.
(Based on actual survey responses.)
103
-------
5500 -
5000-
PROOUCTION CAPABILITY OF F6D SYSTEM
MANUFACTURERS WITH PRESENT STAFFS
PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF FED SYSTEM
MANUFACTURERS WITH EXPANDED STAFFS
BEH COAL-FIRED BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS FROM 2.9 TO 7.3 MM THERMAL
NEW COAL-FIRED BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS FROM 7.3 TO 14.7 HW THERMAL
NEW COAL-FIRED BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS >14.7 MM THERMAL
1981-1385
1986-1990
1991-1995
Figure 6-2. Estimated total production capability of FGD system
manufacturers and projected number of new coal-fired
boilers projected from survey responses and total number of manufacturers.
$
104
-------
5500
5000 -
COMBINED PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF ESP
AND FABRIC FILTER MAN^FACTIWERS
COMBINED PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF ESP
AND FABRIC FILTER MANUFACTURERS
WITH EXPANDED STAFFS
NEW COAL-FIRED BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS FROM 3.9 TO 7.3 NU THERMAL
HEW COAL-FIREfl BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS FROM 7.3 to 14.7 MW THERMAL
NEW COAL-FIRED BOILERS WITH HEAT
INPUTS >14.7 MW THERMAL
1981-1985
1986-1990
1991-1995
Figure 6-3. Reported production capability of fabric filter and ESP
manufacturers and projected number of new coal-fired boilers.
(Based on actual survey responses.)
105
-------
5500 -
3000 -
4500 -
SCOO-
3500
3000 - £
S
&
cr
COMBINED PRODUCTION CAPABILITY OF
ESP AKD FABRIC FILTER HANUFACTIBIERS
PSJDUCTie?) CAPABILITY OF
SSP fiHD FABRIC FILTER KMJUFACTU8ERS
MITH ESPABDH) STAFFS
MEH COftL-FIRED IOILERS HITH HEAT
I .1 INPUTS FR03 2.9 TO 7.3 KH THERMAL
HEW COAL-FIRED BOILERS HITH HEAT
itjpirrs Faca 7.3 TO i«.7 tcu THERMAL
NEM COAL-FIRED BOILERS OITH HEAT
INPUTS >W.7 t« THERMAL
2SOO-!
2000 -
iSOO-
1000 H
Figure 6*4. Estimated total production capability of fabric filter and
ESP manufacturers and projected nysnber of new coal°f1red boilers
projected from stsrv@y responses and total nuraber of ruanufaetyrars.
106 ,f
-------
REFERENCES
1. Personal communication from R. E. Jenkins, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, November 1978.
2. Laseke, B. A. Task 2 Summary of Industrial Boiler Popu-
lation. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-2603,
Task 19, September 1978.
3. Personal communication from M. Patel, Environeering, Inc.,
March 1979.
4. Ando, J., H. Tohata, K. Nagata, and B. A. Laseke. NOX
Abatement for Stationary Sources in Japan*
EPA^600/7-77-103 b.
5. Acurex Corporation. NO Control Review, 3 (4):3-4,
EPA-68-02-2160, 1978. X
6. Op. cit. No. 4, .pp. 91-92.
7. Lyon, R. K. , and. J. P. Longwell. Selective Noncatalytic
Reduction of NO 'by NH3- Presented at EPRI NOX Seminar,
San Francisco, February 1976.
8. Burnett, T. A., and H. L. Faucett. Impact of Ammonia
Utilization by NO Flue Gas Treatment Processes.
EPA-600/7-79-11.:
9. Acurex Corporatibn. NO Control Review, 2(2):3-4,
EPA-68-02-2160, 1977.
10. Acurex Corporation. NO Control Review, 2(4):6-7,
EPA-68-02-2160, 1977. X
11. Acurex Corporation. NO Control Review, 3'(1):5, EPA-68-02-2160,
1978. x
12. Acurex Corporation. NO Control Review, 4(l):7-8,
EPA-68-02-2160, 1979. X
107
-------
13. Op. cit. No. 4, pp. 129-130
14. Op. cit. No. 10, pp. 3-4.
15. Op. cit. No. 9, p. 2.
108
-------
APPENDIX A
SURVEY FORM SENT TO MANUFACTURERS OF
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEMS
A-l
-------
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Manufacturer's name:
Address:
Name(s) c_ person(s) completing survey:
Telephone number(s) of above person(s):
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
(1) Type of system (attach additional sheets of description,
if necessary):
(2) Wet or dry process:
(3) Applicability of system (delete as applicable)
New units: yes/no
Existing units: yes/no
Coal fired: yes/no
Oil: yes/no
Gas: yes/no
(4) Size range: from MW to MW
(5) Maximum SO- removal efficiency:
(6) Will, the system remove particulates: yes/no
•'"' maximum efficiency:
(7) Custom-designed systems or off~the*-shelf:
(8) Own process or licensed:
(9) Regenerative or nonregenerative: *
*
-------
u
(10) FGP raw material considerations?
Raw materials
Manufacturer
Specifications
Availability
0
(11) FGD system byproducts
Complete either lla or lib.
lla = Regenerable systems
(i) What products can be produced (S, H SO.,
etc.):
(ii) Is the regeneration facility supplied as
part of the process or must the company
make separate arrangements:
(iii)What is the demand for the recovered by-
product :
(iv) Will you market the recovered sulfur
products for company clients:
lib - Nonregenerable Systems
(i) Amount of sludge produced per Ib of SO-
removed from the flue gas:
(ii) What methods do you offer for sludge treatment:
(iii)Is the sludge potentially toxic or inert:
(iv) Is the final sludge product dry or thixotropic
A-3
-------
o o o o o o
(v) Can the sludge be recovered as a by-product
(vi) Can the system operate on a totally closed
loop mode:
oooooococooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
VENDOR GUARANTEES
(12) Indicate the type of guarantees you will provide and
briefly describe their conditions and qualifications;
S02 removal efficiency: yes/no. Terms:
Particulate removal efficiency: yes/no. Terms:
Predetermined installation cost: yes/no. Terms:
Performance (availability) guarantee: yes/no. Terms;
Other (describe): yes/no. Terms:
Comments (example of qualifications to guarantees):
OOOOOOOOOOOOO6OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO6OOOOOOOOOOOO6OOOOOOOOOOOO
FGD OPERATING PERSONNEL .RfeQUISEMEMTS
(13) identify the manpower required for effective operation of
the following size FGD systems. Actual numbers will
depend on specific company's operating practice:
Position .
Operators
Maintenance
Supervisor
2.9-
.7.3 MW
Men/shift
7.3-
14.7 MW
14.7-
29.3 MW
29.3-
.73.3 MW
>73.3 MW
. ^
. , S'O'Wl roap-hours/yeaj:
2.9-
7.3-.MH.
7.3-
14,7 KW
0
14.7-
29.3 MW
29.3-
73.3 MW
>73.3 MW
-------
(14) Are you willing to cpntraet for operation and maintenance
of the FGD system after installation: yes/no
If yes, comment on effects-' this will have on system
guarantees:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
VENDOR CAPABILITIES
(15) Indicate the number and total equivalent MW of new systemsx
operating at the maximum efficiency stated in question 5,
you can design and install in the periods indicated with
current or planned staff additions (do no include any
systems that you are currently designing or installing -
See question 18). Also indicate your capability with
expanded staff or by more extensive use of subcontractors:
Syateaa Designed
Number
NW (Equivalent)
Syateni Installed
Number
MM (Equivalent!
1981-1985
Praient
SUff
Expended
st.tr
1986-1990
Pr«»«nt
Staff
Expended
Staff
1991-1995
i>r««ent
Staff
Expanded
Staff
•.
(16) Estimate the manpower increase required to meet the
expanded staff capability information provided in (15)
above:
Category
Designers
Engineers
Crafts
Administrative
Man-years
A-5
-------
Do you anticipate any problems in meeting such an expanded
staff requirement. If so, how would this modify the above
"expanded staff" capability figures:
(17) Indicate the number and total equivalent MW of new
systems you can install in the following periods
wit; brth current staff and the expanded staff
indicated in question 16 if the control efficiency
stated in question 5 was reduced by 5 percent and
by 10 percent
Five percent reduction
Syetea* Designed
Hunter
MM (Equivalent)
Syatant Installed
Nunber
KM (equivalent)
1981-1985
Preeent
Guff
Cxpendad
Stiff
1986-1990
Preeant
Stiff
Expended
Staff
1991-1995
Prevent
Staff
Expended
Staff
Ten percent reduction
Syatea* Designed
Mustier
MW (Equivalent)
Syaten* Installed
Hifatoer
KW (equivalent)
1981-1985
Preeent
. Staff
Expended
Staff
1986*1990
Present
Staff
••
., ,
Expanded
Staff
A
1991*1995
Preeent
Staff
BxpanHed
Staff
. • . '
-------
(18) Identify your present manpower distribution practices for
the following phases of., FGD system design, fabrication and
installation:
Process Design
Detailed Engineering Design
Equipment fabrication
Scrubber Vessel3/Tank3
ran/Pumps
Sludge Disposal
System Installation
Supervision
Crafts
Percent In-House Personnel
Percent Outside Labor*
For example, subcontractors, job shops, licensee, etc.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000*0
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(19) Estimate the costs of the following size FGD systems,
operating at the efficiency stated in question 5 on both
high sulfur (4.0%) and low sulfur (0.8%) applications:
Size
(KW thermal)
Total Installed Costs
(S/XW electrical)
Operating/Maintenance costs
(Excludes Capital Charges)
(mills/kWh).
2.9-7.3
7.3-14.7
14.7-29.3
29.3-73.3
>73.3
(20) Describe the extent to which payment method(s) limit
the number of FGD system design/installation jobs your
firm is willing to undertake (e.g., payment by company,
only upon completion of specified project phases may limit
A-7
-------
the number of systems undertaken because of .cash flow
considerations). Also describe the impact the various
payment methods have on the time required to design and
install FGD systems:
(21) To what extent do available capital resources of the FGD
control system manufacturers restrict the number of systems
these suppliers are willing to design and the time required
to install these systems:
(22) What corrective measures by government and industry do you
think are necessary to alleviate financing related
problems % •
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS
(23) Identify the time required to design, install and start-up
various size FGD systems:
Size MW
( thermal)
2.9-7.3
7.3-14.7
14.7-29.3
29.3-73.3
>73v1
Tirae Required for
Design -and Installation
Ave/age
. , . . iftonths
_____ months
•'•'' ••• •_ months
months
____^_. months
.-, , . Rarvge
_^.,_.^_._ taonths to j^
. . ... months to
_______ months to ;
. months to ,
' months to _____
_____ months
___ months
. months
months
months
Titte Required .for Start-up . . . •
Average
•. months
..... months
, months
_________ months
_._ ^ ftwJntfts
Range
months to , .
..... months to .
•_..__... months tt>
. months to ..
. months to ^ ^
_ months
__ months
months
__ months
__ months
(24) Estimate the time required to perform the various phases
of FGD system design and installation by phase. Also
indicate whether the item listed is usually on the critical
path and categorize the frequency with vhich each item
leads to overall schedule delays:
-------
Process Design
Detailed Engineering pesign
Equipment Fabrication
* Structural Steel i:;:
• Scrubfcer Vessel/Tanks
• Pans
o Pumps
* Instrumentation
• Motors
• Piping
Equipment Installation
Reactant Procurement
(e.g. , limestone)
Uad Ti«e
(nonths)
Critical Path Item
1 y»»
r
no
Delay frequency
""rilg'h
'i •
Average
tav
External Supplier
y«"«
no
namu
(25) Identify the key items or factors leading to delay in the
design, construction or start-up of FGD systems:
(26) Identify corrective actions that can be taken by industry,
the government and others to overcome delay related
problems:
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
SURVEY FORM SENT TO MANUFACTURERS OF
PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS
B-l
-------
Particulate Control Systems
Manufacturer's name:
Address:
Name (s) of _.son(s) completing.survey:
Telephone number(s) of above person(s):
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
(1) Type of system (attach additional sheets of description,
if necessary):
(2) Wet or dry process:
[3) Applicability of system (delete as applicable)
New units: yes/no
Existing units: yes/no
Coal fired: yes/no
Oil: yes/no
Gas: yes/no
(4) Size range: from
MW to
MW
(5) Maximum particulate removal efficiency:
(6), Custom-designed systems or off-the-shelf
(7) Own process or licensed:
(8) Particulate control system.raw material considerations:
, materials.r Manufacturer. . .... Specif icat-JLons.;. .Avail ability
-------
(9) Particulate control system byproducts: indicate method of
disposal: ,..
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
VENDOR GUARANTEES
(10) Indicate the type of guarantees you will, provide and
briefly describe their conditions and qualifications:
Particulate removal efficiency: yes/no. Terms:
Predetermined installation cost: yes/no. Terms:
Performance (availability) guarantee: yes/no. Terras
Other (describe): yes/no. Terms:
Comments (example of qualifications to guarantees)
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATING PERSONEL REQUIREiMENTS
(11) Identify the manpower required for effective operation of
the following size systems. Actual numbers will depend on
specific company's operating practice.
Position
Operators
Maintenance
Supervisor
Men/shift
2.9-
7.3 MW
7.3-
14.7 MW
14.7-
29.3 MW
29.3-
73.3 MW
>73.3 MW
Total man-hours/year
' 2.9-
7.3 MW
7.3-
14.7 MW
14.7-
29.3 MW
29. 3 =
73.3 MW
>73.3 MW
(12) Are you willing to contract for operation and maintenance
of the particulate control system after installation: yes/no.
If yes, comment of effects this will have on system
guarantees:
B-3
-------
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
VENDOR CAPABILITIES
tl3) Indicate the number and total equivalent MW of new systems,
operating at the maximum efficiency stated in question 5,
the periods indicated with current or planned staff additions
(do not include any systems that you are currently designing
or installing - See question 16). Also indicate your capa-
bility with expanded staff or by more extensive use of
subcontractors:
Byetetto Deelgned
Number
MW (Equivalent)
Eyatent Installed
Number
MW (Equivalent)
1981-1985
Preaent
Stiff
Expanded
Staff
1986-1990
Present
Staff
Expended
Staff
1991-1995
Preeent
Staff
Expanded
Staff
(14) Estimate the manpower increase required to meet the
expanded staff capability information provided in (13)
above:
Category Man-years
Designers ._.. .
Engineers ______^_^_
Crafts . • _.
Administrative .a _
Do you anticipate any problems in meeting such an expanded
staff requirement. If so, how would this modify the above
"expanded staff" capability figures:
B-4
-------
(15) Indicate the number and total equivalent MW of new
systems you can install in the periods indicated,
with both current staff find the expanded staff
indicated irj- question 14, if the control efficiency
stated in question 5 was reduced by 5 percent or
by 10 percent.
Five percent reduction
Syateaa Designed
Number
MW (Equivalent)
Syttens Installed
Number
MW (Equivalent)
1981-1985.
Praiene
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1986-1990
Preeent
8t»tt
Expanded
Staff
1991-1995
Present
Staff
Expanded
Staff
Ten percent reduction
Syetaa* Oealgned
Number
MW (Equivalent)
Syatana Installed
Numbar
Ml (Equivalent)
1981-1985
Pr»««nt
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1986-1990
Pr«««nt
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1991-1995
Present
Staff
expanded
Staff
B-5
-------
(16) Identify your present manpower distribution practices for
the following phases of system design, fabrication and
installation;
Item
Process Design
Detailed Engineering Dcoign
Equipmen' Fabr - .ation (list)
System Installation
Supervision
Crafts
Percent In-House Personnel
Percent Outside Labor*
For example, subcontractors, job shops, licensee, etc.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooeo
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(17) Estimate the costs of the following size pairticulate control
systems operating at the efficiency stated in question 5 on
both high ash (15%) and low ash (6%) applications:
Size
(MW thermal)
Total Installed Costs
($/kW electrical)
Operating/Maintenance costs
(Excludes Capital Charges)
(mills/kW|) .
2.9-7.3
7.3-14.7
14.7-29.3
Z9.3-73.3
>73.3
(18) Describe the extent to which payment method (s) limit
the number of system design/installation jobs your
firm is willing to undertake (e.g., payment by company,
only upon completion of specified project phases may limit
numbers of systems undertaken because of cash flow 'consid-
erations) . Also describe the impact the various payment
methods have on the time required to design and install
systems:
(19) To what extent do available capital resources of the part-
iculate control system manufacturers restrict the number
of systems these suppliers are willing to design and the
tifoe required to install these systems: (3
B-6 °
-------
(20)• What corrective measures by government and industry do you
think are necessary to alleviate financing related
problems: 9
(,0000900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS
(21) Identify the time required to design, install and start-up
various size particulate control systems:
Size MW
(thermal)
2.9-7.3
7.3-14.7
H. 7-29. 3
29.3-73.3
>73.3
Time Required for
Design and Installation
Average
• months
months
months
______ months
months
Range
• months eo .
months to
______ months to .
^_^__^ months to
' months to
months
months
_ months
months
•^i»
months
••^* '
Time Required for Start-up
Average
' months
_^^^__ months
_^_^_ months
______ months
______ months
Range
.^_^__^ months
_^_^___ months
__ months
______ months
_^____ months
to _____
to
to
to ___
to ___
months
• 1IT li
months
_____ months
months
i .
months
(22) Estimate the time required to perform the various phases
of system design and installation by phase. Also
indicate whether the item listed is usually on the critical
path and categorize the frequency with which each item
leads to overall schedule delays:
Process Design
Detailed Engineering Design
Equipment Fabrication (list)
*
a
*
*
*
»
•
Equipment Installation
Lead Time
(months)
Critical Path It«m
y«*
no
Del*
High
' frequency
Xvvrage
Low
External Supplier
y«»
no
• name
3-7
-------
(23) Identify the key items or factors leading to delay in the
derign, construction or start-up of particulate control
systems:
(24) Identify corrective actions that can be taken by the
utility industry, the government and others to overcome
delay-related problems:
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
SURVEY FORM SENT TO MANUFACTURERS OF SYSTEMS
FOR NO FLUE GAS TREATMENT
C-l
-------
NO Flue Gas Treatment
A - : —'l — ' ' "™ • '"' '* '
Manufacturer's name:
Address:
Name(s) 01 person(s) completing survey:
Telephone number(s) of above person(s):
ooooooocooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooeoooooooooooooocoooooooo
SYSTEM. DESCRIPTION
(1) Type of system (attach additional sheets of description,
if necessary):
(2) Wet or dry process:
(3) Applicability of system (delete as applicable)
New units: yes/no
Existing units: yes/no
Coal fired: yes/no
Oil: yes/no
Gas: yes/no
(4) Size range: from MW to MW
(5) Maximum NO removal efficiency:_
(6) Will the system remove
particulates: yes/no, maximum efficiency;
£0. : yes/ho, maximum efficiency: .: .... ,
(7) Custom-designed systems or off-the-shelf:
(8) Own process or licensed:
(9) Regenerative or nonregenerative: e
C-2 '
-------
(10) Raw material considerations
Raw materials
Manufacturer
Specifications
Avail ab'i 111 y
(11) System byproducts
Complete either lla or lib.
lla - Regenerable systems
(i) What products can be produced
(ii) Is the regeneration facility supplied as
part of the process or must the company
make separate arrangements:
(iii)What is the demand for the recovered by-
product :
(iv) Will* you market the recovered
products for company clients:
lib - Nonregenerable Systems
(i) Amount of waste products per Ib of
NO removed from the flue gas:
•A
(ii) What form are the products in:
(iii)Is the waste potentially toxic or inert
(iv) Can it be further treated:
C-3
-------
(v) Can the system operate on a totally closed
loop mode:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
VENDOR GUARANTEES
(12) Indicate the type of guarantees you will provide and
briefly describe their conditions and qualifications:
NO removal efficiency: yes/no. Terms:
Particulate removal efficiency: yes/no. Terms:
Predetermined installation cost: yes/no. Terms:
Performance (availability) guarantee: yes/no. Terms:
Other (describe): yes/no. Terms:
Comments (example of qualifications to guarantees):
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
OPERATING PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
(13) Identify the manpower required for effective operation 6f
the following size PGT systems. Actual numbers will depend
on specific company's operating practice:
Position •
Operators
Maintenance
Supervisor
Men/shift
2.9-
7-. 3 MW
7.3-
J4.7 MW
14.7-
29.. 3 MW
29.3-
73.3 MW
>73.3 MW
... *&^l man-hott^s/year
2.9-
7.3 MW
7.3-
. 14.7 MW
14.7-
29.3 MW
29.3-
73.3 MW
>7.3.3 MW
C-4
-------
(14) Are you willing to contract for operation and maintenance
of the system after installation: yes/no
If yes, comment on effects this will have on system
guarantees:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
VENDOR CAPABILITIES
(15) Indicate the number and total equivalent MW of new systems
operating at the maximum efficiency stated in'question 5,
you can design and install in periods indicated with
current or planned staff additions (do not include any
systems that you are currently designing or installing -
See question 18). Also indicate your capability with
expanded staff or by more extensive use of subcontractors:
lyeteae Oeaigned
Number
MW (Equivalent)
SyitBRi Initalled
Number
NW (Equivalent)
1981-1985
Preaent
Staff
Expended
Staff
19.86-1990
Prceent
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1991-1995
Preeant
Staff
Expended
Staff
(16) Estimate the manpower increase required to meet the
expanded staff capability information provided in (15)
above:
Category
Designers
Engineers
Crafts
Administrative
Man-years
C-5
-------
Do you anticipate any problems in meeting such an expanded
staff requirement. If so, how would this modify the above
"expanded staff" capability figures:
Indicate the number and total equivalent MW of new systems
you could install in the periods indicated, with both
curre"1" staff and the expanded staff stated in question 16,
if t.he control efficiency stated in question 5 was reduced
by five percent and by 10 percent.
Five percent reduction
Syateas Designed
Number
MW (Equivalent)
Syiterei Installed
H umber
KW (Equivalent)
1981-1985
Praiant
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1985-1990
Present
Stiff
Expanded
Staff
1991-1995
Present
Staff
Expanded
Staff
Ten percent reduction
Syetee* Designed
Number ,.
KW (Equivalent)
System Installed
Hunber
KW (Equivalent)
1981-1985
Preaent
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1985-1990
Preaent
St.tf
Expended
Staff
1991-1995
Preient
Staff
Expanded
Staff
-------
(18) Identify your present manpower distribution practices for
the following phases of system design, fabrication and
installation:
Item
Process Design
Detailed Engineering Design
Equipment Fabrication
Scrubber Vessels/Tanks
ran/Pumps
waste Treatment
System Installation
Supervision
Crafts
Percent In-House Personnel Percent Outside Labor3
a For example, subcontractors, job shops, licensee, etc.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(19) Estimate the costs of the following size systems, operating
at the efficiency stated in question 5 on both high nitrogen
heavy oil or coal, and low nitrogen applications:
Size
(MW thermal)
Total Installed Costs
(SAW electrical)
Operating/Maintenance costs
(Excludes Capital charges)
(mills/XWh).
2.9-7.3
7.3-14.7
14.7-29.3
29.3-73.3
>73.3
(20) Describe the extent to which payment method (s) limit
the number of system design/installation jobs your
firm is willing to undertake (e.g., payment by company,
only upon completion of specified project phases may limit
C-7
-------
number of systems undertaken because of cash flow consid-
erations) . Also describe the impact the various payment
methods have on the time required to design and install
the systems:
(21) To what extent do available capital resources of the
control system manufacturers restrict the number of systems
these suppliers are willing to design and the time required
to install these systems:
(22) What corrective measures by government and industry do you
think are necessary to alleviate financing related
problems:
ooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS
«
(23) Identify the time required to design, install and start-up
various size systems:
Size MW
(thermal)
2.9-7.3
7.3-14.7
14.7-P9.3
29.3-73.3
>73.3
Time Required for
Design and Installation
Average
months
months
months
months
, months
Range
months to
months to
months to
months to
' months to
months
months
months
months
___ months
Time Required for Start-up
Average
months
months
months
_________ months
. . months
Range
months to
________ months to _____
months to
morths to
_______ months to
months
. months
months
months
months
(24) Estimate the time required to perform the various phases
of system design and installation by phase. Also
indicate whether the item listed is usually on the critical
path and categorize the frequency with which each item
leads to overall schedule delays:
C-8
-------
Month*)'
P
-------
APPENDIX D
SURVEY FORM SENT TO MANUFACTURERS
OF COMBUSTION MODIFICATION SYSTEMS
FOR NO CONTROL
D-l
-------
Combustion Modifications for NO Control
^•"•«"•—«^_^_^«*«^_>«>.v_ •n«H^^ta^H»«H^MMH^Hai».^£^•
Manufacturer's name:
Address:
Name(s) of person(s) completing survey:
Telephone number(P^ ~c '
-------
VENDOR GUARANTEES
(8) Indicate the type of guarantees you will provide and
briefly describe their conditions and qualifications;
NOV removal efficiency: yes/no. Terms:
A
Predetermined installation cost: yes/no. Terms:
Performance (availability) guarantee: yes/no. Terms;
Other (describe): yes/no. Terms:
Comments (example of qualifications to guarantees):
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGO
OPERATING PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
[9) Identify the manpower required for effective operation
of the following size systems. Actual numbers will
depend on specific company's operating practice:
Position
Operators
Maintenance
Supervisor
Men/shift
2.9-
7.3 MW
7.3-
14.7 MW
14.7-
29.3 MW
29.3-
73.3 MW
>73.3 MW
Total man-hours/year
2.9-
7.3 MW
7.3-
14.7 MW
14.7-
29.3 MW
29.3-
73.3 MW
>73.3 MW
(10) Are you willing to contract for operation and maintenance
of the system after installation: yes/no.
If yes, comment on effects this will have on system
guarantees:
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
D-3
-------
VENDOR CAPABILITIES
(11) Indicate the number and total equivalent MW of new systems,
operating at the efficiency indicated in question 4, you
can design ,and install in the periods indicated with current
or planned staff additions (do not include any systems that
you are currently designing or installing (see question .14).
Also ir^'Lc^o your capability with expended staff or by more
exter.. .ve use of subcontractors:
Syateo* Designed
Number
MW (Equivalent)
Byitems Installed
Hvaaber
KM (Equivalent)
1981-1985
Preaent
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1986-1990
Freeent
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1991-1995
Preaent
Staff
Expanded
Staff
(12) Estimate the manpower increase required to meet the
expanded staff capability information provided in (11)
above:
Category
Designers
Engineers
Crafts
Administrative
Man-years
Do you anticipate any problems in meeting such an expanded
staff requirement. If so, how would this modify the above
"expanded staff" capability figures:
D-4
-------
(13) Indicate the number and total equivalent MW of new
systems you can design and install in the periods
indicated with your current staff and the increased
staff indicated in question 12, if the control
efficiency indicated in question 4 was reduced by
5 percent and by 10 percent:
Five percent reduction
Q'/etema Daelgned
Wunber
KM (equivalent)
Syitera* Installed
Number
MW (Equivalent)
1981-1985
Preaent
Stuff
Expanded
Staff
1986-1990
Preeent
Staff
Expanded
• Staff
1991-1995
Preaant
Staff
Expanded
Staff
Ten percent reduction
Byateae Oaalgnad
Munber
KW (Equivalent)
SyBtouc Xnocalled
Muabar
MW (Equivalent)
1981-1985
Preeant
Staff
Expandad
Stiff
1986-1990
Present
Staff
Expanded
Staff
1991-1995
Present
Staff
Expanded
Staff
D-5
-------
(14) Identify your present manpower distribution practices for
.the following phases of system design, fabrication and
' installation:
Item
Process D^cigr.
Detail:" tngir.<:~.ring Design
Equipment Fabrication (list)
System Installation
Supervision
Crafts
Percent In-House Personnel Percent Outside Labor
Tor example, subcontractors, job shops, licensee, etc.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(15) Estimate the costs of the following size systems, operat-
ing at efficiency indicated in question 4;
Size
(MW thermal)
Total Installed Costs
(S/kW electrical)
Operating/Maintenance costs
(Excludes Capital Charges)
(mills/kWh).
2.9-7.3
7.3-14.7
14.7-29.3
29.3-73.3
>73.3
(16) Describe the extent to which payment method(s) limit
the number of system design/installation jobs your firm is
willing to undertake (e.g., payment by utility, only upon
completion of specified project phases may limit number
of systems undertaken because of cash flow consid-
erations). Also describe the impact the various payment
methods have on the time required to design and install
systems •.
D-6
-------
(17) To what extent do available capital resources of the
control system manufacturers restrict the number of systems
these suppliers are willing to design and the time required
to install these systems:
(IS) What corrective measures by government and industry do you
think are necessary to alleviate financing related
problems:
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
LIMITING ITEM ANALYSIS
(19) Identify the time required to design, install and start-up
various size systems;
Size MW
(thermal)
2.9-7.3
7.3-14.7
14.7-29.3
29.3-73.3
>73.3
Time Required for
Design and Installation
Average
______ months
months
months
months
months
Range
months to
months to
months to
months to
' months to
months
months
months
months
months
Tine Required for Start-up
Average
months
months
months
months
months
Range
months to
months to
months to
months to
months to
months
months
months
months
months
D-7
-------
(20) Estimate the time required to perform the various phases
of system design and installation by phase. Also
indicate whether the item listed is usually on the critical
path and categorize the frequency with which each item
lea'3.? to overall schedule delays:
Lead Time
(months)
Critical Path Item
yes
no
Dels
High Avcr«9« Low
frequency
External Supplier
yes noi
name
Process Design
Detailed Engineering Design
Equipment Fabrication (list)
Equipment Installation
Reactant Procurement
(e.g., ammonia)
(21) Identify the key items or factors leading to delay in the
design, construction or start-up of systems:
(22) Identify corrective actions that can be taken by
industry, the government and others to overcome
delay-related problems;
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooocoooooooooooooooo
D-8
------- |