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

-------