EPA-450/3-78-043
November 1977
FLUE GAS
DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM
MANUFACTURERS SURVEY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS SURVEY
Prepared by
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute
Stamford, Connecticut 06904
Contract No. 68-02-2532
Task No. 4
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Strategies and Air Standards Division
Economic Analysis Branch
Research Traingle Park
North Carolina 27711
November 1977
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 CAPABILITIES OF MANUFACTURERS 2-1
3.0 AVAILABILITY OF MANPOWER AND EQUIPMENT FOR 3-1
DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF FGD SYSTEMS
4.0 GUARANTEES 4-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paqe
1-1 Manufacturers Responding to the Survey 1-3
and the FGD System(s) Offered by Each
2-1 Projected Number of FGD Systems That 2-3
Manufacturers Can Design and Install over
a 15-year Period
2-2 Sources of Personnel to Accomplish Various 2-4
Stages of FGD System Design and Installation
2-3 Time Required for FGD System Design, 2-5
Installation and Start-Up
2-4 Process Distribution of Planned FGD Systems 2-6
on New Coal-Fired Utility Boilers
3-1 Major Manufacturers of FGD System Components 3-3
3-2 Manufacturers Capability to Meet the 3-4
Demand for Ball Mills
3-3 Manufacturers Capability to Meet the 3-5
Demand for Clarifiers
3-4 Manufacturers Capability to Meet the 3-6
Demand for Fans
3-5 Manufacturers Capability to Meet the 3-7
Demand for Pumps
3-6 Manufacturers Capability to Meet the 3-8
Demand for Vacuum Filters
3-7 Raw Material Specifications for Various 3-9
FGD Systems
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
4-1 Guarantees Offered by Manufacturers for 4-2
SO2 Removal
4-2 Summary of Performance Guarantees Offered 4-3
by Manufacturers
4-3 Willingness of Manufacturers to Provide 4-4
Operation and Maintenance Service for
FGD Systems
IV
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to assess the capability
of manufacturers of pollution control equipment to meet
current and future demands for flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) systems. Both regenerative and nonregenerative FGD
systems are considered in the study.
A survey form was prepared and sent to 18 representa-
tive manufacturers of FGD systems. The following informa-
tion was requested:
0 Type of FGD system manufactured.
0 Capability of companies to design and install
various sizes of FGD systems.
0 Future use pattern of FGD systems.
0 Manufacturers' guarantees.
0 Raw material availability and specifications.
0 Manpower and equipment availability for installing
FGD systems.
0 Willingness of manufacturers to provide for
operation and maintenance services.
Thirteen of the 18 manufacturers contacted either
completed or partially completed the form and returned it.
1-1
-------
Table 1-1 lists them and the FGD systems they produce. The
information they furnished is found throughout the balance
of the report.
1-2
-------
Table 1-1. MANUFACTURERS RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY AND THE FGD SYSTEM(S) OFFERED BY EACH
Manufacturer
1 . Babcock & Wilcox
Company
2. Chemico Air Pollution
Control Company
3. Chiyoda International
Corp.
4. Combustion Engi-
neering. Inc.
5. Davy Powergas, Inc.
6. Environeering, Inc.
7, Flakt, Inc.
8. FMC Corp.
9. Peabody Process
Systems, Inc.
10. Pullman, Inc.
11. Research-Cottrell,
Inc.
12. UOP. Inc.
13. Zurn Air Systems
Type of FGD System Offered
Regenerative system
Magnesium
oxide
X
Phosphate
X
•
We 11 man-
Lord
X
Catalytic
oxidation
X
Citrate
X
Nonregeneratlve system
Double
alkali
X
X
i
i *
X
Lime
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Limestone
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chiyoda
thoroughbred
101
X
Sodium
carbonate
X
X
Hydro
X
I
CO
-------
2.0 CAPABILITIES OF MANUFACTURERS
Presently more than 10 different processes are available
for desulfurization of boiler flue gas (Table 1-1). These
processes can be broadly separated into two classes, regen-
erative and nonregenerative.
A regenerative FGD system removes the sulfur dioxide
(SO_) and converts it to a marketable by-product, usually
elemental sulfur, sulfuric acid, or a concentrated S0_ gas
stream. Magnesium oxide (MgO) scrubbing, the Wellman-Lord
process, the citrate process, the phosphate process, the
ammonium bisulfate process, charcoal adsorption, and the
Shell FGD system are examples of regenerative systems.
A nonregenerative system removes the SO- from flue gas
by reacting it with a compound. This reaction produces a
sludge which must be disposed of in an environmentally sound
manner. Lime scrubbing, limestone scrubbing, the sodium
carbonate process, the Hydro process, the double alkali
process, and the Chiyoda Thoroughbred 101 process are
examples of nonregenerative systems.
Only the following FGD systems are considered in this
report:
2-1
-------
0 Lime scrubbing
0 Limestone scrubbing
0 Double alkali
0 Wellman-Lord
0 Magnesium oxide
Table 2-1 summarizes the projected number of FGD
systems that manufacturers can design and install over three
5-year periods. These figures are broken down into size
categories and the use of the present staff versus an
expanded staff. The manufacturers were also queried re-
garding their sources of personnel to perform various stages
of FGD system design and installation. Table 2-2 summarizes
the information they provided.
The survey form included a request for estimates of
the time required to design, install, and start up the FGD
systems. Table 2-3 presents average times and the ranges
of times submitted for various sized systems.
The future use pattern of the various FGD systems was
calculated by PEDCo. Table 2-4 presents this information.
Responses to questions in this section of the survey
were received from 12 manufacturers. The non-responding
manufacturers posses a small share of the total market.
Therefore the numbers shown in the following tables are
judged to be low by about 15 percent.
2-2
-------
ro
I
u>
Table 2-1. PROJECTED NUMBER OF FGD SYSTEMS THAT MANUFACTURERS
CAN DESIGN AND INSTALL OVER A 15-YEAR PERIOD3
Systems,
designed
5 MWC
20 MWC
50 MW
200 MW
1000 MW
Systems .
installed
5 MWC
20 MW°
50 MW
200 MW
1000 MW
Number of units
1978-1982
Present
staff
202
195
212
171
156
155
148
167
121
108
Expanded
staff
342
332
375
307
283
243
232
284
197
179
1983-1987
Present
staff
221
209
224
177
161
184
172
187
134
120
Expanded
staff
412
394
427
348
321
327
309
335
244
220
1988-1992
Present
staff
226
213
327
179
161
192
179
193
140
124
Expanded
staff
424
406
439
359
331
332
314
348
253
228
Represents the responses of 12 manufacturers. The manufacturers indicated
that the size range of 200 to 800 MW would not have a great impact on their
capability to design or install units; however, other sizes would affect
their capabilities. The capability shown in this table refers to both
regenerative and nonregenerative systems.
The difference between the number of systems designed and the number installed
results from the long lead time required for installation of FGD systems.
One of the 12 responding manufacturers indicated that they would not bid on
5- and 20-MW units, which is reflected in the fewer units shown for these two
sizes than for a 50-MW unit.
-------
Table 2-2. SOURCES OF PERSONNEL TO ACCOMPLISH
VARIOUS STAGES OF FGD SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
a ,b
Item
Number of
manufacturers
using in-house
personnel
Number of
manufacturers
using outside
labor
Process design
Detailed engineering
design
Equipment fabrication
Scrubber vessels/tanks
Fans/pumps
Sludge disposal
System installation
Supervision
Crafts
12
11
4
1
0
10
1
1
3
9
11
11
3
11
Some manufacturers indicated that they use both in-house
personnel and outside labor to accomplish the different
stages of FGD system design and installation.
Represents the responses of 12 manufacturers.
2-4
-------
Table 2-3. TIME REQUIRED FOR FGD SYSTEM DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND START-UP'
Size,
MW
<100
100-400
400-800
>800
Time required for
design and installation, months
Average
22.2
24.4
30.1
33.1
Range
6 to 36
8 to 36
18 to 42
20 to 42
Time required for start-up, months
Average
1.8
2.3
2.4
2.7
Range
0.5 to 6
0.5 to 6
0.5 to 7
0.5 to 7
to
I
a
Represents the responses of 12 manufacturers.
"Start-up" is defined as the time between completion of plant construction and
the capability of the plant to operate at an acceptable level of capacity.
-------
Table 2-4. PROCESS DISTRIBUTION OF PLANNED
FGD SYSTEMS ON NEW COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS'
FGD process
Lime
Limestone
Double alkali
Wellman-Lord
Magnesium oxide
Other
Total
Percent distribution
38
52
3
3
2
2
100
The following assumptions were used to calculate
this distribution:
0 Units coming on line through 1980 have been
committed to a specific SO2 control device
due to the long lead times for FGD system
installation.
0 All New England (U.S. EPA, Region I) utilities
will use regenerable systems.
0 The distribution is applied to new units
through year 2000.
2-6
-------
3.0 AVAILABILITY OF MANPOWER AND EQUIPMENT
FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF FGD SYSTEMS
Construction of power plants and their FGD systems
requires the services of the same types of craftsmen. The
key crafts required for power plant and FGD system installa-
tion are:
0 Boilermakers
0 Carpenters
0 Electricians
0 Ironworkers
0 Laborers
0 Millwrights
0 Pipe fitters
0 Welders
The domestic construction industry is currently in a
slump. Therefore, short-term growth requirements could be
met with few problems in most regions, except for the highly
skilled mechanical craftsmen (including welders). As of
mid-summer 1977, the following selected areas reported
existing or anticipated shortages of skilled craftsmen:
3-1
-------
Location Craftsmen
Denver, Colorado Carpenters
Ironworkers
Detroit, Michigan Boilermakers
Pipe fitters
Boston, Massachusetts Electricians
Missouri and Nebraska Boilermakers
Pipe fitters
North Carolina Carpenters
A selected number of large national power plant contractors
who were contracted indicated that a shortage of skilled
craftsmen in all disciplines is possible, indeed probable
even under the present New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). Unskilled laborers, on the other hand, will be
plentiful. Even a 10 percent annual increase in the number
of craftsmen would be very difficult to maintain over an
extended period of time. Moreover, the shortage of crafts-
men is anticipated to be more acute in areas remote from
high-population centers.
Another survey was made of major component manufac-
turers to determine if the future demand for FGD system
components could be met under the alternative new source
performance standards. The following components were of
concern:
0 Ball mills
0 Clarifiers
3-2
-------
0 Fans
0 Pumps
0 Vacuum filters
Table 3-1 lists the manufacturers contacted and the
equipment they manufacture. The demand for additional FGD
system components for various sized plants was projected
through the year 1998 using standard engineering calcula-
tions. Tables 3-2 through 3-6 present data on each com-
ponent. In calculating the demand, a 500-MW capacity was
assumed for power plants coming on line in 1986 or later,
which would make the demand negligible for certain smaller
sized equipment. This is evident in Tables 3-2 through
3-6.
The results of this latter survey indicate that the
capacTty to manufacture components far exceeds the demand.
Table 3-4 shows a shortfall in the supply of large fans
during the 1978-82 and 1988-92 periods. The shortages
would not be as great as the data indicate, however, because
all the manufacturers did not respond. The data are further
qualified by the assumption used in calculating demand that
all new units coming on line after 1986 will be 500 MW or
greater in capacity. This assumption slants the requirements
for equipment to larger capacities, whereas the manufacturers'
responses covered a wide size range. An examination of the
3-3
-------
Table 3-1. MAJOR MANUFACTURERS OF FGD SYSTEM COMPONENTS
Manufacturers
1. Allis-Chalmers
2. American Air Filter
3. Bird Manufacturing
Co.
4. Buffalo Forge Co.
5 . Combustion
Engineering
6. Denver Equipment
Co.
7. Dorr-Oliver Inc.
8. Environeering Inc.
9. Envirotech Corp.
10. FMC Corp.
11. Goulds Pump Inc.
12. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
13. Joy Manufacturing
Co.
14. Kennedy Van Saun
Corp.
15. Koppers Co. Inc.
16. UOP Engineering
Products Corp.
17. Worthington Pump
Inc.
18. Zurn Industries
Inc.
FGD System Component Manufactured
Fans
X
X
X
X
X
Ball
mills
X
X
X
X
Pumps
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vacuum
filters
X
X
X
X
X
Clarif iers
X
X
X
X
X
3-4
-------
Table 3-2. MANUFACTURERS CAPABILITY TO MEET
THE DEMAND FOR BALL MILLSa
Years
(Inclusive)
1978
to
1982
1983
to
1987
1988
to
1992
Size (tons/hr)
0-8
Demand*3
131
20
1
Capacity
662
860
860
8-16
Demand13
99
13
0
Capacity
594
710
710
16-24
Demand
186
86
426
Capacity
448
560
560
Represents the responses from 2 manufacturers.
The very low demand during certain time periods was derived based
on the assumption that the plants coming on line after 1986 will
be 500 MW units; therefore these plants will require larger
equipment.
3-5
-------
Table 3-3. MANUFACTURERS CAPABILITY TO MEET
THE DEMAND FOR CLARIFIERS3'b
Years
(Inclusive)
1978
to
1982
1983
to
1987
1988
to
1992
Size (diameter-ft)
0-50
Demand^
50
2
0
Capacity
200
250
250
50-100
Demand0
119
21
2
Capacity
360
450
450
100-150
Demand
130
64
426
Capacity
400
500
500
Assume maximum height of 10 foot.
Represents the response of 1 vendor.
The very low demand during certain time periods was derived based
on the assumption that the plants coming on line after 1986 will
be 500 MW units; therefore these plants will require larger equip-
ment.
3-6
-------
Table 3-4. MANUFACTURERS CAPABILITY TO MEET THE
DEMAND FOR FANSa'b
Years
(Inclusive)
1978
to
1982
1983
to
1987
1988
to
1992
Size (acfm)
180,000
Demand0
19
1
0
Capacity
450
625
625
300,000
Demandc
66
9
3
Capacity
410
575
575
360,000
Demandc
287
41
13
Capacity
370
525
525
420,000
Demand
800
263
852
Capacity
330
475
475
U)
I
Assume AP = 18", temperature = 300°F.
Represents the response from 1 manufacturer.
The very low demand during certain time periods was derived based on the assumption
that the plants coming on line after 1986 will be 500 MW units; therefore these plants
will require larger equipment.
-------
Table 3-5. MANUFACTURERS CAPABILITY TO
MEET THE DEMAND FOR PUMPS3'b
Years
(Inclusive)
1978
to
1982
1983
to
1987
1988
to
1992
Size (gpm)
0-5
Demand0
56
3
0
rooo
Capacity
112
6
112
5,000-10,000
Demand
3,132
850
2,342
Capacity
6,264
1,700
4,684
Assume specific gravity = 1.06 and AH = 150 ft.
Represents the responses of 2 manufacturers.
The very low demand during certain time periods was
derived based on the assumption that the plants coming
on line after 1986 will be 500 MW units; therefore
these plants will require larger equipment.
3-8
-------
U)
I
Table 3-6. MANUFACTURERS CAPABILITY TO MEET
THE DEMAND FOR VACUUM FILTERS3
Years
(Inclusive)
1978
to
1982
1983
to
1987
1988
to
1992
Size, ft2
0 to 279
Demand*3
141
21
1
Capacity
244
340
352
279 to 588
Demand13
47
8
1
Capacity
260
260
260
588 to 833
Demand
114
46
212
Capacity
260
260
260
Represents the responses from two manufacturers; 1 of the 2 manufac-
turers did not predict the capacity in the size range 279 to 833
sq. ft.
The very low demand during certain time periods was derived based
on the assumption that the plants coming on line after 1986 will
be 500 MW units; therefore these plants will require larger
equipment.
-------
capacities on a total volume basis shows a demand of 954
million acfm, whereas the capacity is 1822 million acfm.
Most manufacturers stated that the demand could be met
without expanding the number of production shifts or hours.
It should be noted that a response was received from only
half of the manufacturers contacted.
The manufacturers responding to the FGD survey reported
ample availability of the raw materials used in their FGD
systems. Table 3-7 shows raw material specifications for
the five FGD systems.
Table 3-7. RAW MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR
VARIOUS FGD SYSTEMS
FGD system
Raw materials
Type
Specifications
1. Lime
2. Limestone
3. Magnesium oxide
4. Double alkali
5. Wellman-Lord
Calcium oxide
Calcium carbonate
Magnesium oxide
Sodium carbonate
Caustic soda
90% CaO
90% CaCO3, pass
200 mesh
98.5% MgO
98% Na2C03
50% NaOH, 50 ppm
maximum chloride
concentration
3-10
-------
4 . 0 GUARANTEES
The current new source performance standard for coal-
fired power plants is 1.2 Ib S02/10 Btu. The following
alternative standards are being considered:
0 90 percent SO- removal
0 0.5 Ib SO2/106 Btu.
The manufacturers surveyed indicate that they are willing to
offer guarantees of 90 percent S02 removal. Many of them
are prepared to offer guarantees of better than 90 percent
on a case-by-case basis. Table 4-1 presents a brief summary
of various guarantees offered.
More than half the surveyed manufacturers indicated a
willingness to guarantee the performance (availability) of
their systems. Ninety percent was the typical level of per-
formance guaranteed. Table 4-2 summarizes information on
performance guarantees.
All manufactuers responding to the survey were willing
to guarantee the cost of their FGD systems. Four manufac-
turers would guarantee their costs subject to an escalation
clause, and one would negotiate the terms of his guarantee.
None of the others specified the provisions of their guarantee,
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. GUARANTEES OFFERED BY MANUFACTURERS FOR SO REMOVAL
Company
<90%
Level of SO. removal guaranteed
90%
>90%
C
D
E
F
Would normally guarantee
80 to 85%.
Minimum guarantee given.
Minimum guarantee give.
Minimum guarantee given.
This guarantee is normally given.
This guarantee is given where
inlet concentration is 500 to
4000 ppm.
This guarantee is given where
low-sulfur coal is fired.
Minimum guarantee given.
This guarantee is usually given
when coal with 3 to 4% sulfur
is burned.
This guarantee is normally given
when either low- or high-sulfur
coal is burned.
Minimum guarantee given.
Is willing to offer 95% guarantee on
case-by-case basis.
Guarantee of >90% is based on inlet SC>2
concentration.
Would guarantee 95% in all cases.
Have guaranteed up to 92% in the past.
Have guaranteed >90% in the past.
Depending upon the process, they would
guarantee >90%.
Have guaranteed up to 95% in the past.
Are prepared to offer better than 90%
when either low- or high-sulfur coal is
burned, but would not guarantee less
than 50 ppm SO2 concentration in exit
stream.
In many cases they guarantee 95% when
high-sulfur coal is burned.
May guarantee up to 95% on a case-by-case
basis.
Represents the responses of 12 manufacturers.
Company names are deliberately withheld.
-------
Table 4-2. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE GUARANTEES OFFERED
BY MANUFACTURERS3
Company
Guarantee offered
Yes (level)
No
A
B
C
D
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Normally better than 90%
Typically 90% during performance
testing; sometimes up to 95%
Maximum of 90% based on boiler
hours
Yes (level of guarantee not dis-
closed)
Have guaranteed in excess of 90%
Normally 85 to 90% for 1 or 2 years
Maximum of 90% on a case-by-case
basis
X
X
X
X
Represents the responses of 12 manufacturers.
Company names are deliberately withheld.
4-3
-------
The manufacturers were asked whether they would be
willing to contract for the operation and maintenance of the
FGD system after installation. Table 4-3 summarizes their
responses.
Table 4-3. WILLINGNESS OF MANUFACTURERS TO PROVIDE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR FGD SYSTEMS3
Company
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Provide operation and
maintenance service
Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
X
X
X
X
Represents the responses of 12 manufacturers.
4-4
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-78-043
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Flue Gas Desulfurization System
Manufacturers Survey
5. REPORT DATE
November 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
7. AUTHOR(S)
V. P. Patel
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute
700 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 304
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2532, Task 4
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A survey of manufacturers of flue gas desulfurization equipment was conducted to
determine the industry's capability to meet the demand for control equipment
required by a change in the S0£ emission standards for boilers. The report details
the processes available, the capability of companies to design and install various
sizes of FGD systems, manufacturers' guarantees, raw material availability arid
availability of equipment and manpower.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COS AT I Field/Group
Air Pollution
Sulfur Oxides
Electric Utilities
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Coal-Fired Boilers
13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS IThis Report!
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
28
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page>
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |