CD A U-S- Environmental Protection Agency Industrial Environmental Research EPA-600/7-78~044b
^T ป Office of Research and Development Laboratory . HO7Q
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711 nlQTCn 19/O
CONTROLLING SO2 EMISSIONS
FROM COAL-FIRED
STEAM-ELECTRIC GENERATORS:
SOLID WASTE IMPACT
(Volume II. Technical Discussion)
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-78-044b
March 1978
CONTROLLING SOa EMISSIONS FROM
COAL-FIRED STEAM-ELECTRIC
GENERATORS: SOLID WASTE IMPACT
(Volume II. Technical Discussion)
by
P. P. Leo and J. Rossoff
The Aerospace Corporation
P.O. Box 92957
Los Angeles, California 90009
Contract No. 68-01-3528
W. A. 6
Program Element No. EHE624A
EPA Project Officer: Julian W. Jones
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Durham, North Carolina, is reviewing the
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
from coal-fired steam electric generators. A number of control strategies
are defined, e.g., increased scrubbing efficiency and coal washing, for
achieving several levels of SO2 emission control with emphasis on levels
more stringent than the current NSPS. In support of that review, this study
is aimed at providing an assessment of technological, economic, and environ-
mental impacts, projected to 1998, of the increased solid wastes resulting
from the application of the various more-stringent controls as well as the
current NSPS.
The study considers three alternative strategies (1.2 Ib SC>2/
Btu, 90 percent SO2 removal, and 0.5 Ib SC^/IO^ Btu), three plant sizes
(1000, 500, and 25 MW), and five flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems
(lime, limestone, double alkali, magnesium oxide, and Wellman-Lord).
Typical eastern and western coals containing 3.5 percent and 0.8 percent
sulfur, respectively, as well as coal washing are included. The range of
variability of sulfur content in coals, while not considered explicitly, was
assumed to result in the typical values defined when considered in a national
aggregate. Additionally, the ground rules include the following: (a) the inter-
val for the nationwide survey (1978 through 1998), (b) the new plant installed
capacity during that interval (Federal Power Commission projection), (c) the
establishment of 1980 as the effective date for the more stringent standards
for purposes of this study, and (d) the quantity of western coal burned during
the 1980-1998 period to be 45 percent of the total burned on a nationwide basis.
The application of more stringent standards would possibly affect
the percentage of western coal burned. Because predictions of the impacts of
these standards on western coal usage were not available, the quantities and
volumes of wastes that woold be produced nationally as a result of burning dif-
ferent fractions of western coal were computed on a parametric basis.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
Figures viii
Tables x
Acknowledgments xiii
Conversion Table xiv
I. INTRODUCTION ............................. 1
II. SUMMARY ................................. 3
2. 1 Quantification of Solid Wastes ............... 11
2. 1. 1 Effect of 0. 5 Ib SO2/106 Btu Standard .... 11
2. 1.2 Effect of 90-Percent Scrubbing ........ 11
2. 1.3 Effect of Coal Washing .............. 11
2. 1.4 Plant Size Effects on Waste Quantities .... 12
2. 1. 5 Effect of Coal Sulfur Content .......... 12
2.1.6 Effect of Various Scrubbing Processes ... 12
2.1.7 Nationwide Projections to 1998 ......... 13
2.2 Characterization of Untreated Wastes .......... 17
2.2. 1 Effect of Scrubbing Process Variables
on Sludge Chemistry .............. . . 17 .
2.2.2 Trace Element Content ..............
2.2.3 Physical Properties ................ 19
v
2.2.4 Chemical Properties ............... 19
2. 3 Potential Environmental Impact .............. 20
2.4 Waste Disposal ......................... 20
2. 5 Utilization ............................ 20
2. 6 Economics ....................... ..... 21
iii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
III. QUANTIFICATION OF SOLID WASTES 23
3. 1 Basis for the Study 23
3.1.1 Plant Installation Basis 23
3. 1.2 Nationwide Basis .................. 32
3.2 Implications of Current and Stricter NSPS
Emissions Regulations on SO2 Removal 39
3.20 1 Current Federal Standards:
1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu 39
3.2.2 Ninety-Percent SO2 Removal 43
3.2.3 More-Stringent Emissions
Standard: 0. 5 Ib SO2/106 Btu 44
3.3 Implications of NSPS Regulations on Quantities
of Waste Produced 44
3.3. 1 Nonregenerable Scrubbing Processes .... 44
3.3.2 Regenerable Processes 46
3.4 Effect of Plant Size on Quantities of Waste
Produced . 46
3. 5 Effects of the Scrubbing Process on
Quantities of Waste Produced 46
3.5.1 Nonregenerable Processes 49
3.5.2 Regenerable Processes 49
3. 6 Effects of Coal Sulfur on Quantities of
Waste Produced 49
3. 7 Effects of Coal Washing on Quantities of
Waste Produced 53
3. 8 Nationwide Effects 61
3.8. 1 Quantities Produced 61
3.8.2 Land Requirements 65
iv
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
IV. CHARACTERIZATION OF FLUE GAS
DESULFURIZATION WASTES 69
4. 1 Effects of Control System Process 70
4. 1. 1 Design Parameters 70
4. 1.2 Operating Parameters 70
4.2 Chemical Characteristics 72
4.2. 1 Major Chemical Constituents 78
4.2.2 Minor Chemical Constituents 78
4.2.3 Leaching Characteristics 81
4.3 Physical Characteristics 83
4.3. 1 Water Retention and Bulk Density 83
4.3.2 Compressive and Load Bearing
Strength 86
4. 3.3 Permeability 89
4.3.4 Viscosity 90
4.3. 5 Compaction 90
4.3,6 Porosity 92
4.3.7 Regenerable Processes 92
4.4 Potential Environmental Impacts 95
4.4. 1 Water Pollution 96
4.4. 1. 1 Pollution by Runoff ........ 96
4.4. 1. 2 Pollution by Groundwater .... 97
4.4.1.3 Impact Assessment 100
4.4.2 Ability to Support Vegetation 101
V. ASSESSMENT OF WASTE DISPOSAL AND
UTILIZATION TECHNOLOGY 103
5. 1 Environmental Impacts of Disposal Processes
and Practices 103
5. 1. 1 Ponding 106
5. 1.2 Chemical Treatment 107
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
5. 1. 3 Mine Disposal .................... 108
5. 1. 4 Ocean Disposal .... ........ ., ..... J09
5.1,5 Conversion to Gypsum .............. 1 10
5.1.6 Conversion to Sulfuric Acid or Sulfur .... 1H
5. 1. 7 Use as Synthetic Aggregate ...... ..... 113
5. 2 Economic Evaluation of Disposal Processes
and Practices .......................... 113
5. 2. 1 Economics Related to Power Plant
Operating Conditions ............... 113
5. 2. 2 Economics of Disposal Processes ....... 1 14
5. 2. 2. 1 Ponding of Untreated
Wastes .................. 114
5. 2. 2. 2 Chemical Treatment and
Disposal ................ 117
5.2.2.3 Mine Disposal ............. 118
5.2.2.4 Ocean Disposal .......... . . 119
5.2.2.5 Cost Comparison ........... 121
5.2.3 Economics of Utilization Processes ..... 121
5. 2. 3. 1 Conversion to Gypsum ....... 122
5.2.3.2 Conversion to Sulfur or
Sulfuric Acid .............. 123
5.2.4 Nationwide Cost Estimates for
Various Disposal Processes .......... 123
REFERENCES ................................... 127
APPENDIXES
A. EMISSIONS AND SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES
FOR ALTERNATIVE CONTROL SYSTEM MODEL
PLANTS ................................... 131
B. NATIONWIDE SUMMARY OF PREDICTED
TOTAL WASTES PRODUCED BY NON-
REGENERABLE SCRUBBING PROCESSES ............ 149
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
C. PROJECTED NATIONWIDE QUANTITIES OF
SULFURIC ACID OR ELEMENTAL SULFUR
PRODUCED FROM REGENERABLE SYSTEMS . . 191
D. CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA . . 193
vii
-------
FIGURES
1. Effect of Eastern Coal Use on the Fraction of Waste Quantities,
Including Ash, Produced Nationally 15
2. Lime and Limestone Scrubbing: Block Diagram 26
3. Double Alkali Scrubbing: Block Diagram 27
4. Magnesium Oxide and Wellman-Lord Processes: General-
ized Block Diagram 28
5. Generalized Diagram and Algorithms for Coal Washing
Process 35
6. Annual and Cumulative Installed Coal-Burning Plant
Capacity 37
7., Effect of Eastern Coal Use on Nationwide Waste Quantities ... 38
8. Flow Diagram Describing Computation of Nationwide SO2
Scrubber By-Products 40
9. Nomograph: Relationship Between Coal Properties and
SO2 Emissions, With and Without SC>2 Scrubbing 42
10. Effect of Sulfur Content on Emissions for 90-Percent SC>2
Removal . . . . . 43
11. Effect of Power Plant Size and Equivalent Capacities on
the Amount of Solid Wastes Produced (Includes Ash) 48
12. Solid Waste, Including Ash, and Useable By-Products (Non-
regenerable and Regenerable Systems) 51
13. Quantities of Waste, Including Ash, Produced by New Plants
for Alternative Standards 56
14. Relative Quantities of Waste, Including Ash, Produced by
New Plants as a Function of Coal Sulfur Content and
Alternative NSPS Emission Standards 57
15. Relative Quantities of Solid Wastes from Scrubbing and
Coal Washing from a 500-MW Plant Burning 7-Percent
Sulfur Coal to Meet 0. 5 Ib SOz/106 Btu Emissions
Standard 60
viii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
16. Total Annual Waste Quantities, Including Ash, Produced
Nationwide by New Plants Coming on Line Beginning
in 1978 64
17. Total Acreage Required Annually for Disposal of Scrubber
Wastes, Including Ash, Produced Nationwide by New
Plants Coming on Line Beginning in 1978 67
18. Average Trace Element Content of Sludge Solids 73
19- Average Trace Element Content of Sludge Liquor 74
20. Analysis of Leachate from TVA Shawnee Limestone
Sludge: Aerobic Conditions ,... 82
21. Analysis of Leachate from Duquesne Phillips Sludge:
Aerobic Conditions 82
22. Compression Strength of Sludges and Sludge/Fly A.sh
Mixtures as a Function of Solids Content 87
23. Effect of Water Removal by Underdrainage on Load-
Bearing Strength of Lime Sludges 88
24. Viscosity of Desulfurization Sludges 91
25. Mass Loading of TDS to Subsoil .for Various Disposal
Modes of Treated and Untreated FGD Wastes 98
IX
-------
TABLES
1. Alternative Control Systems for Model Plants 2
2. Summary of Solid Wastes Produced 4
3. Quantity and Volume of Nonregenerable SC>2 Scrubber
Wastes Produced in 1998 by New Coal-Burning Plants
Constructed Between 1978 and 1998 14
4. Volume of Nonregenerable SC>2 Scrubber Wastes Produced
in a 30-Year Generating Plant Lifetime 16
5. Range of Concentrations of Chemical Constituents in FGD
Sludges from Lime, Limestone, and Double Alkali
Systems 18
6. Alternative Control Systems for Model Plants 24
7. Coal Characteristics Used in Study 25
8. Cross Reference of Alternative Standards and Model
Plants With Study Case Numbers 29
9. Format for Lime and Limestone and Double Alkali
Scrubbers 33
10. Format for Magnesium Oxide and Wellman-Lord Processes . . 34
11. Basic Steam Generating Plant Characteristics Used in
Study 36
12. Basic Scrubber and FGD Process Characteristics Used in
Study 36
13. Conditions to Meet Various Performance Standards 41
14. Waste Quantities and Disposal Area for a 500-MW Plant
With Limestone Scrubbing 45
x
-------
TABLES (Continued)
15. Waste Quantities and Useable By-Products Produced from
a 500-MW Plant Applying Regenerable SC>2 Removal
Processes 47
16. Waste Quantities and Compositions from Five Flue Gas
Desulfurization Processes Meeting Current and Alternative
NSPS Standards 50
17. The Effects of Sulfur Content on the Waste and Disposal
Area Required . 52
18. Effect of High- and Low-Btu Western Coal on Waste
Generated and Disposal Area Required 54
19. Comparison of the Emissions and Wastes Produced from
Burning Low-Sulfur Coal 55
20. Effects of Coal Washing 58
21. Baseline Conditions for Nationwide Quantification of
Scrubber Waste Disposal 62
22. Scrubber and Coal Washing Conditions Used in the Nation-
wide Waste Inventory 63
23. Computed Annual Quantities of Sulfuric Acid or Elemental
Sulfur from Nonregenerable Scrubber Systems 66
24. Flue Gas Desulfurization Sampled as Data Base 71
25. Relative Change in Concentration of Constituents in the
Scrubber Circuit Liquor: Limestone Process 75
26. Change of Concentrations of Chemical Constituents in FGD
Sludges from Lime, Limestone, and Double-Alkali
Systems 76
27. Net Change in Scrubber Liquor Composition of Major,
Minor, and Trace Constituents Between Initial and Final
Stages in Scrubber System 77
XI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
28. Phase Composition of FGD Waste Solids in Weight Percent ... 79
29. Water Retention and Bulk Density Characteristics ......... 85
30. Partition of Elements by Their Tendencies for
Distribution in Coal Combustion Residues ............... 94
31. Input Data for Study Cases ......................... 99
32. Status of Magnesium Oxide Scrubbing Plants ............. 112
33. Power-Rating-Size Cost Adjustment Factors ............ 114
34. Reference Conditions for Cost Estimates ............... 115
35. Estimated Costs for Ponding Untreated Wastes With
Flexible 20-mil PVC Liner ........................ 116
36. Estimated Costs for Disposal of Untreated FGD Waste in
Ponds with Indigenous Clay Soil .................... H7
37. Estimated Costs for Chemical Treatment and Disposal
38. Estimated Costs for Disposal of Untreated FGD Sludge in
On-Site Surface and Underground Mines ................ 119
39. Estimated Costs for On-Shelf Ocean Disposal of Treated
FGD Wastes .................................. 120
40. Disposal Cost Comparisons ....... . ................ 121
41. Typical Quantities of Waste and By-Products Produced
from SO2 Scrubber Systems for 90 Percent SO2 Removal .... 1Z2
42. Estimated Costs for Forced Oxidation of Fly-Ash-Free
FGD Wastes to Gypsum .......................... 123
43. Regenerable Process Cost Data ...... ............... 124
44. Disposal Costs for Various Disposal Methods:
Nationwide Totals ........ . ..................... 125
xii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Appreciation is acknowledged for the assistance and guidance
of Mr. Julian Jones of the EPA Industrial Environmental Research Lab-
oratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, who served as Technical
Monitor, and Mr. Kenneth Woodard of the EPA Emissions Standards and
Engineering Division.
Messrs. R. B. Fling, W. J. Swartwood, and Dr. W. M. Graven
of The Aerospace Corporation made valuable technical contributions to the
study performed under this contract.
xiii
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
British
1 inch
1 foot
1 mile
1 square foot
1 acre
1 cubic foot
1 gallon
1 cubic yard
A
1 pound
1 ton (short)
1 pound per square inch
1 pound per cubic foot
1 ton per square foot
1 part per million
1 British thermal unit
(Btu)
1 pound per million Btu
1 Btu per pound
Metric
2. 54 centimeters
0.3048 meter
1. 609 kilometers
9, 290 square centimeters
4, 047 square meters
28, 316 cubic centimeters
3.785 liters
0.7646 cubic meter
0. 454 kilogram
0. 9072 metric ton
0. 0703 kilogram per square
centimeter
0.01602 gram per cubic
centimeter
9, 765 kilograms per square
meter
1 milligram per liter (equivalent)
252 calories
0.43 grams per million joules;
1.80 grams per million calories
2. 324 joules per gram; 0. 555
calories per gram
xiv
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Durham, North Carolina, is
reviewing the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions from coal-fired steam electric generators. A number of
control strategies have been defined, e.g., increased scrubbing efficiency
and coal washing, for achieving several levels of SO2 emission control -with
emphasis on levels more stringent than the current NSPS. In support of
that review, this study is aimed at providing an assessment of technological,
economic, and environmental impacts, projected to 1998, of the increased
solid wastes resulting from the application of the various more-stringent
controls as well as the current NSPS.
The study considered three alternative strategies (1.2 Ib
SO2/106 Btu, 90 percent SO2 removal, and 0.5 Ib SO2/10& Btu), three plant
sizes (1000, 500, and 25 MW), and five flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sys-
tems (lime, limestone, double alkali, magnesium oxide, and Wellman-Lord).
Typical eastern and western coals, as well as coal washing, were included.
Initially, the various study cases totalled 67; they were subsequently increased
to 93 to improve visibility into the impact of the various alternatives. The
study cases are summarized in Table 10 Additional groundrules and guide-
lines were developed in conjunction with the technical monitor during the
course of the study (1, 2). These are also outlined in Table 1 and include
the following: (a) the interval for the nationwide survey (1978 through 1998),
(b) the new plant installed capacity during that interval (Federal Power Com-
mission projection), (c) the establishment of 1980 as the effective date for
the more stringent standards for purposes of this study, and (d) the quantity
of western coal burned during the 1980-1998 period to be 45 percent of the
total burned on a nationwide basis.
The application of more stringent standards would possibly affect
the percentage of western coal burned. Because predictions of the impacts
of these standards on western coal usage -were not available, quantities and
volumes of wastes that would be produced nationally as a result of burning dif-
ferent fractions of western coal were computed on a parametric basis.
-------
TABLE 1. ALTERNATIVE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL PLANTS
a, b
Plant Sizes To
Be Considered, MW
FGD Systems
To Be Considered
Alternative Standards and Model Plant Systems
25; 500; 1000
25; 500; 1000
25; 500
25; 500
500
25; 500; 1000
25; 500
25; 500
25; 500
500
5C
Lime/lime stone
Lime /limestone
Lime /lime stone
Lime-limestone
Lime /lime stone
Lime/limestone
1. The existing NSPS of 1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu heat input.
a. 90-percent SC>2 removal on a plant burning a
typical coal of 3. 5 percent sulfur.
b. A plant burning a typical 7-percent sulfur coal
with 90-percent SC>2 removal by FGD.
c. Low-sulfur coal without FGD for a typical
eastern plant.
d. Low-sulfur coal without FGD for a typical
western plant.
e. 40-percent sulfur removal by coal washing of
a 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal followed by 65-
percent SO2 removal by FGD.
2. a. 90-percent SC>2 removal by FGD on a typical
coal of 3. 5 percent sulfur and a typical coal of
7 percent sulfur.
b. 90-percent SC>2 removal by FGD on a plant
burning a typical western coal of 0. 8 percent
sulfur (western plant).
3. 0. 5 Ib SO2 emissions/106 Btu heat input.
a. 70- to 75-percent SO2 removal by FGD on a
0. 8-percent-sulfur western coal (western plant).
b.l 40-percent sulfur removal by coal washing of a
3, 5-percent-sulfur coal and 85-percent removal
by FGD.
b.2 40-percent sulfur removal by coal washing of
a 7-percent-sulfur coal and 95-percent removal
by FGD.
Reference 3.
Per References 1 and 2.
Study encompasses 1978-1998 period.
More stringent standards to apply in 1980.
New plant installed capacity per Federal Power Com-
mission projections.
For 1980 and thereafter, 45 percent of the coal burned
nationally is western, low sulfur.
The five systems to be considered are lime, limestone, magnesium oxide, double alkali, and Wellman-Lord.
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY
Solid wastes resulting from the scrubbing of flue gases from
coal-fired steam-generating utility boilers were quantified for 1000-,
500-, and 25-MW units for nonregenerable (lime, limestone, and double
alkali) and regenerable (magnesium oxide and Wellman-Lord) processes.
Typical eastern and western coals were included in the study. A number
of control strategies -were included, such as increased scrubbing efficiency
and coal washing, to achieve several levels of emissions more stringent
than the current New Source Performance Standards. The 93 cases studied
and the resultant waste quantities and volumes are tabulated in Table 2.
Land requirements and technological, economic, and environ-
mental impacts were projected to 1998, with the application of the more
stringent controls in 1980.
Physical and chemical characteristics of the wastes were identi-
fied with respect to the potential pollution of water supplies, resulting from
disposal of the wastes.
The applicability and effectiveness of the various control strate-
gies in conjunction with existing disposal and utilization techniques to mini-
mize environmental impacts -were assessed. The status of the technological
developments for disposal and utilization methods are also discussed.
The findings developed during the study are in the categories of
Quantification of solid wastes
Characterization of untreated wastes
' Environmental impact
Waste disposal
Utilization
Economics
and are summarized below.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF SOLID WASTES PRODUCED3-
Case
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t~* A *ซ 1
Coal
%
S
3.5
3.5
3.5
3. 5
3.5
3. 5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Btu/lb
12,000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12,000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
%
Ash
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
MW
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
Absorbent
Lime
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Na2COj
Na2-C0^
Na2CO3b
MgOd
MgOd
MgOd
Absorbent
Utilized,
%
90
90
90
80
80
80
95c
95c
95c
5f
5f
5f
% s
Removed
by
Wash
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%S02
Removed
by
Scrub
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Emissions,
TU, coซ /
ID 01^2 /
106 Btu
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
By-Products, Dry,
tons X 103/yr
Ash
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
Sulfur
Sludge
210
108
6. 1
229
118
6.7
206
107
6. 0
129e
66. 9e
3.75e
Total
432
223
12.5
451
233
13. 1
428
222
12.4
42. 2e
21. 8e
1.22e
Acre-Feet
Required
for
Disposal,
Annual
448
232
13
468
242
14
444
230
13
233
121
7
Based on an average operating load factor of 50% (4380 hr/yr)
Double-alkali process
Regenerant (lime) utilization
Magnesium-oxide process
Sulfuric acid or sulfur produced, respectively-
Absorbent make-up
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Case
No.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
241
Coal
S
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
7. 0
7. 0
7.0
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
Btu/lb
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
13, 500
13, 500
10, 000
8, 000
Ash
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
6
6
8
6
MW
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
500
25
500
500
Absorbent
Na2SO^
Na2S03a
Na2SO3a
Lime
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
None
None
None
None
Absorbent
Utilized,
5C
5C
5C
90
90
90
80
80
80
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
% S
Removed
by
Wash
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% SO2
Removed
by
Scrub
80
80
80
90
90
90
90
90
90
None
None
None
None
Emissions ,
Ib S02/
106 Btu
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
By-Products, Dry,
tons X 103/yr
Ash
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
43. 8
2.45
78. 8
73. 9
Sulfur
Sludge
129b
66. 9b
3.75b
472
244
13.7
515
266
15.0
N/Ad
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
42. 2b
21.8b
1.22b
694
359
20. 1
737
381
21.4
43.8
2.45
78.8
73.9
Acre-Feet
Required
for
Disposal,
Annual
237
122
7
719
372
21
764
395
22
44
3
80
74
(Jl
d
Wellman-Lord process
Sulfuric acid or sulfur produced, respectively
"Absorbent make-up
Not applicable
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Case
No.
25
251
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Coal
%
S
0.6
0.4
3. 5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3. 5
3. 5
3.5
3.5
Btu/lb
10, 000
8, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12,000
12,000
12, 000
%
Ash
8
6
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
MW
25
25
500
500
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
Absorbent
None
None
Lime
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Na2CO3c
Na2CO3c
Na2C03c
Absorbent
Utilized,
%
N/A
N/A
90
80
90
90
90 -
80
80
80
95d
95d
95d
%S
Removed
by
Wash
0
0
40
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% S02
Removed
by
Scrub
None
None
65
65
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Emissions,
lb S02/
106 Btu
1.2
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
By-Products, Dry,
tons X 103/yr
Ash
4.42
4. 14
69
71
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
Sulfur
Sludge
N/Aa
N/A
48
50
236
122
6.9
258
133
7.5
232
120
6.8
Total
4.42
4. 14
117b
121b
458
237
13.3
480
248
13.9
454
235
13.2
Acre-Feet
Required
for
Disposal,
Annual
5
4
121b
126b
475
246
14
497
257
14
470
243
14
Not applicable
Does not include coal-wash tailings: 4. 09 X 10^ tons/yr (dry) and 28 acre-ft
Double-alkali process
Regenerant (lime) utilization
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Case
No.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Coal
S
3. 5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
7. 0
7. 0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7. 0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Btu/lb
12,000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
Ash
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
MW
1000
500
, 25
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
Absorbent
MgOa
MgOa
MgOa
Na2SO3
Na2SO3
Na2SO3
Lime
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Na2C03d
Na2CO3d
Na2CO3d
Absorbent
Utilized,
5C
5c
5C
5C
5C
5C
90
90
. 90
80
80
80
95e
95e
95e
% S
Removed
by
Wash
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% SO2
Removed
by
Scrub
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Emissions,
Ib SO2/
106 Btu
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
By-products, Dry,
tons X 103/yr
Ash
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
Sulfur
Sludge
146b
75. 3b
4.22b
146b
75. 3b
4.22b
472
245
13. 7
515
266
15. 0
464
240
13. 5
Total
47. 5b
24. 6b
1.38b
47. 5b
24. 6b
1.38b
694
359
20. 1
737
381
21.4
686
355.
19.9
Acre-Feet
Required
for
Disposal,
Annual
11
6
0.3
11
6
0.3
719
372
21
764
395
22
710
367
21
Magnesium-oxide process
Sulfuric acid or sulfur produced, respectively
Absorbent make-up
Double-alkali process
Absorbent (lime) utilization
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Case
No.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
581
59
591
60
601
602
603
6001
Coal
%
S
7.0
7. 0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
3.5
Btu/lb
12, 000
12,000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
10, 000
8, 000
10, 000
8, 000
10,000
8,000
8, 000
10, 000
12, 000
%
Ash
14
14
14
14
14
14
8
6
8
6
8
6
6
8
14
MW
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
500
500
25
25
500
500
500
500
200
Absorbent
MgOa
MgOa
MgOa
Na2SO^
Na2SO^
Na2SO^
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Absorbent
Utilized,
%
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
90
90
90
90
80
80
80
80
80
%S
Removed
by
Wash
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% so2
Removed
by
Scrub
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
40
25
80
Emissions,
Ib S02/
106 Btu
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
By-Products, Dry,
tons X 103/yr
Ash
222
115
6.4
222
115
6.4
79
74
4.42
4. 14
78
74
74
79
47
Sulfur
Sludge
291b
150b
8.43b
291b
150b
8.43b
33
42
1.87
2.34
37
46
20
10
48
Total
95b
49. 2b
2. 75b
95b
49. 2b
2.75b
112
116
6.29
6.48
115
120
94.2
89
95.4
Acre-Feet
Required
for
Disposal,
Annual
22
11
1
22
11
0.6
116
120
7
7
120
124
98
92
99
00
b
aMagnesium-oxide process
Sulfuric acid or sulfur produced, respectively
CAbsorbent make-up
Wellman-Lord process
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Case
No.
61
611
62
621
63
631
64
641
65
651
66
661
67
68
Coal
%
S
0. 8
0. 8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0. 8
0.8
0.8
3.5
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
Btu/lb
10,000
8, 000
10, 000
8, 000
10, 000
8, 000
10, 000
8, 000
10, 000
8, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
%
Ash
8
6
8
6
8
6
8
6
8
6
14
14
14
14
MW
25
25
500
500
25
25
500
500
25
25
500
500
25
500
Absorbent
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
Absorbent
Utilized,
%
80
80
90
90
90
90
80
80
80
80
90
80
90
80
%S
Removed
by
Wash
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
40
40
% S02
Removed
by
Scrub
90
90
70
75
70
75
70
75
70
75
85
91.5
85
85
Emissions,
Ib SO2/
106 Btu
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
By-Products, Dry,
tons X 103/yr
Ash
4.41
4. 14
79
74
4.41
4. 14
79
74
4.41
4. 14
69
115
3.87
69
Sulfur
Sludge
2.05
2. 56
26
35
1.46
1. 95
28
38
1.59
2. 13
63
135
3. 52
69
Total
6.46
6. 70
105
109
5.87
6.09
107
112
6. 00
6.27
132a
250
7.39b
138a "
Acre-Feet
Required
for
Disposal,
Annual
7
7
109
113
6
6
111
116
6
7
137a
260
8^
143a
aDoes not include coal wash tailings: 4. 09 X 104 tons/yr (dry) and 28 acre-ft
bDoes not include coal wash tailings: 2. 29 X 103 tons/yr (dry) and 1. 5 acre-ft
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Case
No.
69
70
701
702
71
711
712
713
714
715
716
Coal
%
S
3. 5
7. 0
7. 0
7. 0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Btu/lb
12,000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12,000
12,000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
%
Ash
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
MW
25
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
Absorbent
Limestone
Lime
Lime
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Absorbent
Utilized,
%
80
90
90
80
80
80
90
80
80
80
80
%S
Removed
by
Wash
40
40
40
0
40
40
40
30
20
40
40
% so2
Removed
by
Scrub
85
95
92. 5
96
95
92.5
92.5
93. 5
94. 5
92.0
92.0
Emissions,
Ib SC>2/
A
10b Btu
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0. 5
0.5
0.5
0.5
By-Products, Dry,
tons X 103/yr
Ash
3.87
30
30
115
30
30
30
51
72
50
69
Sulfur
Sludge
3. 84
140
136
284
153
149
136
180
214
148
149
Total
7. 71a
170b
166b
399
183b
I79b
166b
231C
286d
198e
218f
Acre-Feet
Required
r
tor
Disposal,
Annual
8a
176b
172b
414
190b
185b
172b
240C
296d
206e
226f
aDoes not include coal wash tailings: 2.29 X 103 tons/yr (dry) and 1. 5 acre-ft
Does not include coal wash tailings: 8. 58 X 104 tons/yr (dry) and 58 acre-ft
GDoes not include coal wash tailings: 6.43 X 104 tons/yr (dry) and 43 acre-ft
Does not include coal wash tailings: 4.28 X 104 tons/yr (dry) and 29 acre-ft
eDoes not include coal wash tailings: 6. 29 X 104 tons/yr (dry) and 42 acre-ft
Does not include coal wash tailings: 4. 09 X 104 tons/yr (dry) and 28 acre-ft
-------
2. 1 QUANTIFICATION OF SOLID WASTES
In response to groundrules defined by OAQPS relating to current
and more stringent emission standards, sulfur content of coal, and steam
generating plant sizes, the effects of the following conditions on the solid
wastes produced were included:
Effect of the 0. 5 Ib SOz/lO6 Btu standard
Effect of 90-percent scrubbing
Coal washing
Plant size effects
Coal sulfur content
Scrubbing processes
Nationwide projections to 1998
It should be noted that, for the various study cases, the coal
properties were considered constant. Therefore, the results represent typical
values encompassing the range of variations for eastern and western
coals.
2.1.1 Effect of 0. 5 Ib SO2/106 Btu Standard
A performance standard of 0.5 Ib SC^/IO" Btu heat input would
necessitate the scrubbing of all coal burned.
The removal of SC>2 by scrubbing that meets a standard of
0. 5 Ib SC>2/10ฐ Btu requires 91. 5 percent SC>2 removal for the case of
burning 3ซ, 5-percent- sulfur coal. For the same coal it results in approxi-
mately a 7-percent increase in solid wastes produced relative to meeting
the current standard of 1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu.
2.1.2 Effect of 90-Percent Scrubbing
Compared to the wastes that would be produced by meeting the
current NSPS of 1.2 Ib SO2/10" Btu, using nonregenerative alkali slurries to
remove 90 percent of the SO2 from flue gases, would increase solid waste
quantities by approximately 6 percent for the 3. 5-percent-sulfur case.
2.1.3 Effect of Coal Washing
Coal washing that removes 40 percent of the sulfur, combined
with 85-percent scrubbing of 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal, meets the 0. 5 Ib
11
-------
SO2/106 Btu standard and reduces solid wastes at the power plant by approxi-
mately 45 percent relative to the current NSPS condition.
The coal wash tailings [pyrites (FeS2) and ash] from a 3. 5-per-
cent sulfur coal is 15 percent of the dry solid wastes produced by a generating
plant burning the same coal, unwashed, and scrubbing SO? to meet the cur-
rent standard of 1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu.
2.1.4 Plant Size Effects on Waste Quantities
For large boiler sizes, in the 200- to 1000-MW range, waste
quantities produced are linear and proportional to size within 6 percent, the
smaller unit being less efficient. In the 25- to 200-MW range, the variation
increases to 16 percent for the 25-MW unit.
2.1.5 Effect of Coal Sulfur Content
For 90-percent SC>2 removal from flue gas from the burning of
3, 5-percent-sulfur coal, 0.6 Ib SC>2/106 is emitted. With a higher sulfur
content, the SO2 emissions increase proportionately and, at 7.0-percent
sulfur, reach the current standard of 1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu.
To meet a 0. 5 Ib SC>2/106 Btu standard with coals having sulfur
content,greater than 3. 5 percent, SC>2 removal in excess of 90 percent is
required, e. g. , 96-percent removal is required for 7. 0-percent-sulfur coal.
The waste quantities produced by scrubbing 0. 8- and 7. 0-percent-
sulfur coal to meet any of the three standards (i. e., 1.2, 0. 5, and 90 percent)
are approximately 45 percent and 155 percent, respectively, of the quanti-
ties produced from 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal.
For any standard considered, wastes produced from scrubbing
of typical western coals within the Btu ranges of high (10, 000 Btu/lb,
8 percent ash, 0. 8 percent sulfur) to low (8000 Btu/lb, 6 percent ash,
0.8 percent sulfur), are within 5 percent of each other.
2.1.6 Effect of Various Scrubbing Processes
The quantities of generating-plant wastes produced from the
limestone nonregenerable process are about 5 percent greater than the
lime and double alkali because of the stoichiometry of the limestone system.
The waste generated is directly related to the stoichiometry; therefore, the
waste quantities from typical lime scrubbing and double-alkali systems using
lime to regenerate the absorbent are virtually identical.
Since the generating plants produce the same amount of ash
regardless of the scrubbing process, steam generating plants that employ
regenerable scrubbing; i.e., magnesium oxide or Wellman-Lord processes,
produce ash that must be disposed of. The total weight of waste (ash) to be
12
-------
disposed of from a regenerable plant is about one-half the waste (ash and
sludge) from a plant using nonregenerable scrubbing. For example, if 50
percent of the SC>2 were scrubbed by a regenerable process (which produces
sulfur or sulfuric acid) and 50 percent scrubbed nonregeneratively, the total
wastes would be 75 percent of that which would be produced if all the SOz
were scrubbed nonregeneratively. Also, regenerable systems produce liquid
streams that require purging: the magnesium oxide process produces an
effluent high in chloride ion concentration, and the Wellman-Lord, a stream
containing Na?SO..
2. 1. 7 Nationwide Projections to 1998
Applying a 90-percent SC>2 removal requirement to all new plants
in 1980 will result in the production of approximately 173 million short tons
(dry) of wastes in the year 1998 (Table 3). The actual quantities of untreated
wastes that would require disposal are approximately double that quantity,
assuming that they contain approximately 50-percent moisture. This results
in a volume of 179, 000 acre-feet (wet) produced in those plants in 1998. The
estimate is based on the assumption that eastern (3. 5 percent sulfur) coal will
be burned in 55 percent of the new boiler installations and 45 percent will
consume western coal (0. 8 percent sulfur) (Table 1).
These values were computed on the basis that 45 percent of the
coal burned on a nationwide basis is western coal(4ji However, application of
more stringent standards would possibly affect the percentage used. Since
predictions of the impacts of these standards on western coal usage were not
available, the waste quantities resulting from the use of discrete fractions of
eastern coal were computed and are summarized in Figure 1. For example,
if the amount of coal from eastern sources were increased from 55 to 70 per-
cent (western coal use reduced from 45 to 30 percent), the tonnages of eastern
waste would increase from 73 to 83 percent of the nationwide total for 90 per-
cent SOฃ removal.
The wastes to be disposed of at the generating plants in the year
1998 to meet a 0. 5 Ib SC>2 standard are 118 million short tons (dry). This
considers that the eastern coal (3. 5 percent sulfur) comprises 55 percent of
the total coal used nationally and is washed to remove 40 percent of its sulfur.
Comparable quantities, if the current NSPS were maintained in
1998, are 156 million short tons (dry). Volumes produced are proportional
to those given above.
The volume in acre-feet of nonregenerable scrubber wastes,
primarily ash, produced during a 30-year steam generating plant lifetime
is shown in Table 4 for 1000-, 500-, and Z5-MW plants burning eastern
and western coal, and assuming that current and two alternative emission
standards apply.
13
-------
TABLE 3. QUANTITY AND VOLUME OF NONREGENERABLE SO2
SCRUBBER WASTES PRODUCED IN 1998 BY NEW COAL-
BURNING PLANTS CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN 1978 AND
1998a
NSPS
Alternatives
Dry Waste
Quantities13' c> d
(short tons)
Total Wet Volume6
(acre-ft)
For Sludge
Produced in 1998
90% SO2 Removal
0.5 Ib SO2/106 Btuf
1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu
172.8 x 106
118.3 x 106
156.2 x 106
1.79 x 10-
1.22 x 10-
1.62 x 105
Data derived from Appendix B, Vol II.
Quantities produced, based on:
500-MWe average plant size.
50-percent average operating load factor.
Limestone absorbent, 80% utilization.
Waste includes ash.
Eastern0 coal burned: 55% of total.
Western^ coal burned: 45% of total.
CEastern coal: 3. 5% S, 12, 000 Btu/lb, 14% ash
dWestern coal: 0.8%S, 8000 Btu/lb, 6% ash
GBased on sludge containing 50% solids.
40% of sulfur in eastern coal removed by washing prior to burning,
85% SO2 from eastern plants removed by scrubbing, and 40% SO2 from
western plants removed by scrubbing.
14
-------
1.0
0.9
s
ง 0.8
u_
110-7
lio.6
Q_ UJ
LU CO n _
5-
Jio.4
ฐg
I 2 0.3
H-
^ 0-2
u_
0.1
1.2-lb S02/106 Btu-
90% S02 REMOVAL
0.5-lb S02/106 Btu
THE 0.5 Ib S02/ 10 Btu ALTERNATIVE DOES NOT
INCLUDE COAL WASH TAILINGS
J I
I
20 40 60 80
EASTERN COAL BURNED, % OF ALL COAL
100
Figure 1. Effect of eastern coal use on the fraction of waste
quantities, including ash, produced nationally
by new plants
15
-------
TABLE 4. VOLUME (ACRE-FEET) OF NONREGENERABLE SOz SCRUBBER WASTES
PRODUCED IN A 30-YEARa GENERATING PLANT LIFETIME
Plant
Size,
MW
1000
500
25
Eastern Coalb
Western Coal'3
NSPS Alternatives
1 . 2 Ib S02
per 106 Btuc
14, 030
7, 260
405
90% S02
Removal^
14, 920
7, 720
430
0. 5 Ib SOz
per 106 Btue
Sludge
NR
4280
240
Coal wash
Tailings
830
45
1.2 Ib S02
per 106 Btuf
NR
2930
NR
90% S02
Removals
NR
3720
210
0. 5 Ib SO2
per 106 Btuh
NR
3480
195
50-percent average operating load factor; limestone absorbent, 80% utilization; waste includes ash.
bEastern coal: 3.5% S, 12, 000 Btu/lb, 14% ash; Western coal: 0.8% S, 8000 Btu/lb, 6% ash.
80% SO2 removal by scrubbing
d0.6 Ib SO2/106 Btu
40% sulfur removal by coal washing, 85% SO2 removal by scrubbing
40% SOz removal by scrubbing
g0.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu
75% SO2 removal by scrubbing
NR - Not required (see Table 3)
-------
2.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF UNTREATED WASTES
The published data available on the chemical and physical charac-
teristics of untreated sludges produced in eastern and western plants using
lime, limestone, and double-alkali scrubber systems are provided in this re-
port. The primary waste streams from plants using regenerable systems are
fly ash, the properties of which are discussed briefly in Section 4.3.7, and
purged liquid effluents, consideration of which were not within the scope of
this report. Properties of wastes from nonregenerable systems which are
discussed are: solids composition and concentrations in the liquor of major
species and trace elements; pH; total dissolved solids; leaching characteris-
tics; water retention; bulk density; compressive strength; permeability, vis-
cosity; compaction; and porosity. All properties are widely variant depending
on parameters such as types of: coal, absorbent, scrubber, scrubber operat-
ing parameters, and ash collection. The characteristics included in this
report summary are given below.
2.2.1 Effect of Scrubbing Process Variables
on Sludge Chemistry
Process variables affect the concentrations of soluble chemical
species in system liquors through changes in process chemistry:
a= The concentration of major chemical species and trace elements
in flue gas desulfurization (FGD) waste decreases as the sludge
passes from the scrubber to the clarifier underflow for disposal.
Concentrations of sludge constituents for disposal are given in
Table 5.
b. The pH in the scrubber is'responsible for trace elements leach-
ing from fly ash; the pH of the system downstream of the scrub-
ber does not affect the concentration of these trace elements in
the scrubber liquor.
2.2.2 Trace Element Content
The trace elemenj: content in FGD sludge is a direct function of
the combustion products of coal:
a. A direct correlation exists between the trace element content of
coal and the trace element content in FGD wastes.
b. Fly ash represents the major source of trace elements in all but
the most volatile elemental species (e.g., mercury and selenium)
that are scrubbed from flue gases.
17
-------
TABLE 5.
RANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL
CONSTITUENTS IN FGD SLUDGES FROM LIME,
LIMESTONE, AND DOUBLE-ALKALI SYSTEMS
Scrubber
Constituent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
Chemical oxygen
demand
Total dissolved
solids
pH
Sludge Concentration Range3-
Liquor,
(except
0. 03
<0.004 -
<0.002 -
0.004 -
180
0.015 -
<0. 002 -
0. 01
4.0
0.0004 -
5.9
< 0.0006 -
10.0
0.01
420
0.6
600
0.9
< 1
2800
4.3
rag//
pH)b
2. 0
1.8
0. 18
0. 11
2600
0.5
0.56
0.52
2750
0.07
100
2.7
29, 000
0.59
33, 000
58
35,000
3500
390
92, 500
12.7
Solid,
_
0.6
0.05
0.08
105,000
10
8
0.23
-
0.001
-
2
-
45
_
.
35, 000
1600
-
-
mg/kgc
.
- 52
- 6
- 4
- 268, 000
- 250
- 76
- 21
-
- 5
-
-17
- 48,000
- 430
- 9, 000
_
- 473,000
- 302, 000
-
_
-
aData derived from Appendix D, Vol II.
Liquor analyses were conducted on 13 samples from seven power plants
burning eastern or western coal and using lime, limestone, or double-
alkali absorbents.
GSolids analyses were conducted on 6 samples from six power plants
burning eastern or western coal and using lime, limestone, or double-
alkali scrubbing processes.
18
-------
2.2,3 Physical Properties
The behavior of FGD -wastes in a disposal site is a function of the
unique physical properties of the wastes:
a. The permeability coefficients of untreated FGD wastes are
typically lO"'* cm/sec and of treated wastes are 10"^ cm/sec or
less [based upon sample materials fixed by Chemfix, Dravo,
and IU Conversion Systems (IUCS)] .
,b0 Pumpability (<20 poise) -was found for untreated -wastes having
a solids content that ranged between 32 and 70 percent.
c. Bulk densities of untreated wastes as a function of dewatering
techniques and material characteristics varied between 1. 30
and 1. 87 g/cc.
d. Compaction of untreated sludges dewatered to about 80 percent
solids produced permanent displacement of 1 to 4 percent.
e. Treated wastes have unconfined compression strength-greater
than 1. 8 tons per square foot (25 psi).
2.2.4 Chemical Properties
Lime and limestone FGD sludge liquors typically have approximately
10, 000 mg/l total dissolved solids (TDS). Double-alkali scrubber sludge
liquors from unwashed filter cake leave a much higher TDS, in excess of
50, 000 ppm. When the cake is washed with -water to remove soluble sodium
salts, the TDS concentration tends to approach that of the lime and limestone
sludge liquors. Trace elements lie typically between 0.01 and 1 mg/f de-
pending on coal content and fly ash collection techniques.
The leachate quality of rainwater percolated through untreated
FGD waste attains a nearly constant TDS content of 2000 rag/I , primarily
sulfate salts, after passage of five pore volume displacements (PVD).
Initial leachate content is as high as the soluble chemical content and is
dependent upon the type of FGD system.
Chemical treatment has been found to have major benefits which
effectively minimize (and possibly, in some cases, virtually eliminate) the
release of leached sludge constituents to the subsoil through (a) the decreased
permeability of the treated material, and (b) the amenability of the treated
material to compaction and contouring during placement so that standing
water does not occur on the disposal site. The prevention of standing water
avoids having a hydraulic head on the site and, therefore, seepage through
the pores does not occur as a result of hydraulic pressure. This is accom-
plished by managing the site so that a major portion of the rainfall on such a
site runs off and is collected in a peripheral ditch which directs the water to
a settling pond, from which decanted liquor is disposed of in an adjacent
stream, if acceptable, or returned to the power plant water reuse system.
19
-------
2-3 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Because of high concentrations of salts and total dissolved solids,
the presence of trace elements, and, in some cases, extreme values of pH
and chemical oxygen demand (COD), untreated sludges (solids or liquids)
are not suitable for direct disposal into water supplies. Also, because of the
highly water retentive property of the material, it requires special handling,
conditioning, or chemical treatment in its disposal to make the disposal
site reclaimable. Regardless of the type of handling or treatment in disposal,
consideration must be given to seepage to groundwater, runoff to streams,
intrusion into irrigation systems, direct impact on vegetation, and impact
on ocean life if disposed oฃ at sea.
2.4 WASTE DISPOSAL
Various forms of disposal are being used and considered, and s.
selection depends on the environmental acceptability and processing cost in
combination with the following factors, which are generally site specific:
characteristics of the waste, climate, geology, topography, hydrology, and
disposal site availability and proximity. Because of environmental concerns
related to disposal of the FGD wastes, several alternatives are being studied,
including variations within each alternative. The alternatives include: ponding
on indigenous clay soil; ponding with a flexible liner of impervious soil;
ponding with underdrainage; mine disposal; ocean disposal (possibly);
and chemical treatment with landfilling. Ponding and landfill dis-
posal are both current practices, but improvements in environmental
protection and in costs associated with these methods are emerging through
a combination of EPA and private-industry efforts. Mine disposal, particu-
lary coal-mine disposal, of FGD wastes is being considered by private in-
dustry and, according to EPA studies to date, some forms of mine disposal
appear quite promising. Ocean disposal is currently under study and,
although a degree of uncertainty exists regarding its viability, several ap-
proaches appear promising. All disposal methods require monitoring, and
land disposal sites require management throughout their active life, including
special provisions such as covering the site with soil and the growth of ve-
getation to prevent either rewetting the material or runoff problems, as
applicable.
2.5 UTILIZATION
Three major products which can be produced from flue gas scrub-
bing are gypsum from nonregenerable systems and sulfur and sulfuric acid
from regenerable systems. Although the quality of the products produced may
be equivalent to those obtained from current sources, the economics, however,
are generally not favorable when compared with current sources of supply.
Gypsum is not directly cost competitive; however, in consideration of sludge
disposal credits for disposal under certain conditions, it can be shown to be a
cost-effective commercial item. Sulfuric acid would have to compete in an
20
-------
industry that is currently capable of producing 30 percent over demand.
However, there may be site-specific instances where the production of sulfur
or sulfuric acid from regenerable scrubber systems may be economically
feasible. Attempts are being made to develop other products from sulfur
sludge, such as fertilizer and building materials.
2.6
ECONOMICS
Cost estimates have been made for disposal of sulfur sludges by
various methods, as well as projected costs on a national basis to 1998 for
the same methods considering current NSPS, and the two alternative revi-
sions, i.e., 90 percent SO2 removal and 0.5 Ib SO^/IO" Btu. A summary
of disposal costs, including conversion to gypsum and its disposal, is as
follows:
DISPOSAL COSTS (mills/kWh)a> b (1977 DOLLARS)
Untreated Waste
Liner
Added
l.OZ
Indigenous
Clay
0.70
Landfill-
Chemical
Treatment
1.33
Mine
0.37
Ocean
2.38
Gypsum
1.39
a500-MW plant, 3. 5% sulfur coal, 90% SO2 removal. Disposal site
within 1 mile from plant except as noted.
All disposal includes ash.
CUntreated waste, site located 4 miles from power plant.
Treated sludge, on the continental shelf, 25 miles from the eastern
seaboard.
eCost of forced oxidation and disposal of gypsum including fly ash
in an indigenous clay-lined pond.
21
-------
An example is given below of the costs for disposal that would be incurred
in 1998 if all new plants used nonregenerable scrubbing. Notes a through d
above apply.
CUMULATIVE COSTS TO 1998 - BILLIONS (1977 DOLLARS)
Emission Standard
1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu
90% SO2 removal
0.5 Ib SO2/106 Btu
Liner
Added
1.41
1.54
1.06
Indigenous
Clay
0.95
1.04
0.72
Landfill-
Chemical
Treatment
1.89
2.07
1.43
Mine
0.58
0.64
0.44
Ocean
2.84
3.12
2.15
22
-------
SECTION III
QUANTIFICATION OF SOLID WASTES
The solid wastes resulting from the scrubbing of flue gases from
coal-fired steam generating utility boilers were quantified for 1000-, 500-,
and 25-MW units in accordance with the study requirements (3), as shown in
Table 6, for the following types of scrubbing processes: (a) nonregenerable:
lime, limestone, and double alkali, and (b) regenerable: magnesium oxide
and Wellman-Lord.
3. 1 BASIS FOR THE STUDY
The quantities and types of wastes generated by various coal types
and scrubbing processes were computed on the basis of the individual plant as
well as national totals.
3.1.1 Plant Installation Basis
The annual quantities produced and the disposal site volume
needed as a result of the following three emission limits were calculated,
i.e., (1) current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements of
1. 2 Ib SO2 emitted per million Btu heat input, (2) 90 percent SO2 removal by
scrubbing, regardless of sulfur content in the coal, and (3) a 0. 5 Ib SOz per
million Btu. In addition to the effects of boiler size, the sulfur content of the
coal was a major input parameter. Typical western coal (0. 8 percent sulfur)
and eastern (3. 5 and 7.0 percent sulfur) were considered. Other coal
characteristics are summarized in Table 7. In meeting a standard of 0. 5 Ib
SO2/10^ Btu, coal washing that removed 40 percent of the sulfur in the coal
was also included.
Five basic scrubbing processes, i.e., lime, limestone, double
alkali, magnesium oxide, and Wellman-Lord, were modeled (see Figures 2
through 4). Calculations to determine waste quantities and volume for the
various alternative plant sizes and FGD systems were performed. These
were keyed to the model plants and standards defined in Table 6 and assigned
case numbers (Table 8) for ease of identification. This resulted in a total of
67 cases. Additionally, about 24 other cases were computed to elucidate
various aspects of the study, such as a comparison of high- and low-sulfur
coals, the effect of various degrees of coal washing, and the SO2 removal
requirements to achieve emissions of 0. 5 Ib SO2/10" Btu. These cases are
identified in Table 8 by three-digit numbers; the first two digits denote the
23
-------
TABLE 6. ALTERNATIVE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL PLANTS
a,b
Plant Sizes To
Be Considered, MW
FGD Systems
To Be Considered
Alternative Standards and Model Plant Systems
25; 500; 1000
25; 500; 1000
25; 500
25; 500
500
25; 500; 1000
25; 500
25; 500
25; 500
500
5C
Lime /lime stone
Lime /limestone
Lime/lime stone
Lime -lime stone
Lime /lime stone
Lime /lime stone
1. The existing NSPS of 1.2 Ib SC-2/106 Btu heat input.
a. 90-percent SC>2 removal on a plant burning a
typical coal of 3.5 percent sulfur.
b. A plant burning a typical 7-percent sulfur coal
with 90-percent SO2 removal by FGD.
c. Low-sulfur coal without FGD for a typical
eastern plant.
d. Low-sulfur coal without FGD for a typical
western plant.
e. 40-percent sulfur removal by coal washing of
a 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal followed by 65-
percent SOg removal by FGD.
2. a. 90-percent SC>2 removal by FGD on a typical
coal of 3. 5 percent sulfur and a typical coal of
7 percent sulfur.
b. 90-percent SC>2 removal by FGD on a plant
burning a typical western coal of 0. 8 percent
sulfur (western plant).
3. 0.5 Ib SO2 emissions/106 Btu heat input.
a. 70- to 75-percent SO2 removal by FGD on a
0. 8-percent-sulfur western coal (western plant).
b.l 40-percent sulfur removal by coal washing of a
3. 5-percent-sulfur coal and 85-percent removal
by FGD.
b.2 40-percent sulfur removal by coal washing of
a 7-percent-sulfur coal and 95-percent removal
by FGD.
Reference 3.
Per References 1 and 2.
o Study encompasses 1978-1998 period. o New plant installed capacity per Federal Power Com-
o More stringent standards to apply in 1980. mission projections.
o For 1980 and thereafter, 45 percent of the coal burned
nationally is western, low sulfur.
The five systems to be considered are lime, limestone, magnesium oxide, double alkali, and Wellman-Lord.
-------
TABLE 7. COAL CHARACTERISTICS USED IN STUDY
A. Typical Coals
Coal Type
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Typical eastern
High sulfur
Typical western low-sulfur
a. High Btu
b. Low Btu
Eastern low -sulfur
Western coal meeting or
bettering current NSPS.
a. High Btu
b. Low Btu
Percent
Sulfur
3. 5
7. 0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
Heating Value,
Btu/lb
12, 000
12, 000
10,000
8, 000
13, 500
10, 000
8,000
Percen'
Ash
14
14
8
6
6
8
6
tjl
B. Effect of Coal Washing
Coal Type
1. Typical eastern
2. High sulfur
Sulfur
Removed,
Percent
40
40
Percent Sulfur
Unwashed
3. 5
7.0
Washed
2. 1
4.2
Heating Value,
Btu/lb
Unwashed
12, 000
12, 000
Washed
13,200
13,200
Percent Ash
Unwashed
14
14
Washed
9.2
4.0
-------
EMISSIONS (To Stack)
Ib S02/10
Btu
ON
COAL B0>
lons/m
FLUE GAS
"IX tons S02/hr "
FGD
SYSTEM
j ARSORRFIMT (Slnrrv)
tons/hr
WASTE SOLIDS
bLUKKY ^ nnA)ATCD ^ TO DISPOSAL
CALCI
BOTTOM CALCI
ASH RATIO
UM SULFI
UM SULF/
IN SOLII
TE-Tฐ- '' 50% MOISTURE,
ffE SOLIDS COMPRISE:
* 3 T0 ! AซiH (Rnttnm and Flv)
CaS03 1/2 HoO
CaS04 2 H2(J
CaC07 (un reacted)
Figure 2. Lime and limestone scrubbing: block diagram.
-------
EMISSIONS (To Stack)
Ib S02/106 Btu
PO
-si
COAL
tons/hr
BOILER
FLUE GAS
tons
S02/hr
FGD
SYSTEM
T
Na2C03 ABSORBENT
MAKE-UP, tons/hr
REGENERATED
ABSORBENT
REGENER-
ATION
LIME
BOTTOM ASH
DEWATER
> WASTE SOLIDS
f TO DISPOSAL
50% MOISTURE,
SOLIDS COMPRISE:
ASH
CaS03 1/2 H20
CaS04 2 H20
CaC03 - (unreacted)
Figure 3. Double-alkali scrubbing: block diagram.
-------
EMISSIONS
1
ro
oo
COAL
BOILER
ELECTRO-
STATIC
PRECIP
1 BOTTOM
ASH
FLY
ASH
FLUE t
GAS
ABSORBER
SYSTEM
OR
ABSORBENT MAKEUP
REGENI
ABSOR
MgS03 REGENE
NaHS03 SEPARy
1
[M
N<
[RATED
BENT
RATION
D
\TION
r
gO or
32S03 (W
SV
fc^ f r\D
^^p% \j i\
ellman-Lor
SULFURI
ACID
PLANT
SULFUP
PROCE5
SOLID WASTE
Figure 4. Magnesium oxide and Wellman-Lord processes: generalized block diagram.
-------
TABLE 8. CROSS REFERENCE OF ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS AND MODEL PLANTS
WITH STUDY CASE NUMBERS
DO
Alternative Standards and
Model Plant Systems
1. Meets existing NSPS of 1.2 Ib
SO2/106 Btu heat input
a. 80% SO2 removal, plant
burning typical coal with
3. 5% sulfur, 12,000 Btu/lb,
14% ash
b. 90% SO2 removal, plant
burning coal with 7%
sulfur, 12, 000 Btu/lb,
14% ash
c. No FGD, low sulfur coal,
typical eastern plant, 0. 8%
sulfur, 13,500 Btu/lb, 6% ash
d. 1 No FGD, low -sulfur coal,
typical western plant, 0.6%
sulfur, 10,000 Btu/lb, 8% ash
d. 2 No FGD, low- sulfur coal,
typical western plant, 0.4%
sulfur, 8OOO Btu/lb, 6% ash
e. 40% sulfur removal by coal
washing of a 3. 5% sulfur coal,
followed by a 65% SOz
removal by FGD. Prewash
coal: 12,000 Btu/lb, 14% ash
Plant Sizes,
MW
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
500
25
500
25
500
25
500
FGD
Systems
Lime
Limestone
Double alkali
Magnesium oxide
Wellman-Lord
Lime
Limestone
None
None
None
Lime
Limestone
Case
Numbers
1 - 3
4-6
7-9
10 - 12
13 - 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
241
251
26
27.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 8, (Continued)
Alternative Standards and
Model Plant Systems
2, 90% SO2 removal by FGD
a. 1 Plant burning typical 3. 5%
sulfur coal, 12, 000 Btu/lb,
14% ash
a. 2 Plant burning 7% sulfur
coal, 12, 000 Btu/lb,
14% ash
b. 1 Western plant burning
typical 0. 8% sulfur
western coal, 10, 000
Btu/lb, 8% ash
b. 2 Western plant burning
typical 0. 8% sulfur western
coal, 8000 Btu/lb, .6% ash
3. Meets more stringent standard
of 0. 5 Ib SO2/106 Btu heat input
a. 1 70% SO2 removal on 0. 8%
sulfur coal, 10,000 Btu/lb,
8% ash
Plant Sizes,
MW
1000
500
25
1000
500
25
500
25
500
25
500
25
FGD
Systems
Lime
Limestone
Double alkali
Magnesium oxide
Wellman-Lord
Lime
Limestone
Double alkali
Magnesium oxide
Wellman-Lord
Lime
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
Case
Numbers
28 - 30
31 - 33
34 - 36
37-39
40 - 42
43 - 45
46 - 48
49 - 51
52 - 54
55 - 57
58 - 59
60 - 61
581 - 591
601 - 611
62 - 63
64 - 65
CO
o
(continued)
-------
TABLE 8. (Continued)
Alternative Standards and
Model Plant Systems
Plant Sizes,
MW
FGD
Systems
Case
Numbers
3. (continued)
a. 2 75%SC>2 removal on
0. 8% sulfur coal,
8000 Btu/lb, 6% ash
b. 1 40% sulfur removal
by coal washing of a
3. 5% sulfur coal,
followed by a 85% SO2
removal'by FGD.
Pre-wash coal: 12,000
Btu/lb, 14% ash
b. 2 40% sulfur removal by
coal washing of a 7%
sulfur coal, followed
by a 95%SO2 removal
by FGD. Pre-wash coal:
12, 000 Btu/lb, 14% ash
500
25
500
25
Lime
Limestone
Lime
Limestone
621-631
641 - 651
66 - 67
68 - 69
500
Lime
Limestone
70
71
-------
study case that most closely applies; the third digit, starting with 1, is the
sub-case number. The detailed results are tabulated in Appendix A. A
general discussion is provided in Section 3.2, and the effects of the various
parameters are discussed in Sections 3.3 through 3.6.
Additionally, calculations were made defining the SO2 emissions,
the amount of coal burned, the quantities of absorbent required, the quantities
of S(>> produced and scrubbed, and the composition of the wastes. For the
regenerable processes, the quantities of sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur
that could be produced were also computed. Tables 9 and 10 itemize the
various input and output parameters and illustrate the listing and format of
the computer output.
The effects of coal washing to remove inorganic sulfur prior to
burning the coal were also assessed in a number of cases. A schematic of
the process and the algorithms associated with the calculations are shown in
Figure 5; the results are discussed in Section 3.7.
Input quantities relating to plant operation, coal consumption, and
scrubber absorbent utilization are summarized in Tables 11 and 12.
3.1.2 Nationwide Basis
The waste quantities generated as a result of the nonregenerable
and regenerable processes were computed for the time span of 1978 through
1998. The total annual installation of new and modified coal-fired sources (2)
are shown in Figure 6. The reference conditions for use in the national waste
projections were a 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal for eastern use and 0.8-percent
sulfur in the west, and considering that the annual generating capacity (and
quantities of waste produced) was from 500-MW plants. As will be shown
later (Section 3.4), this base-case installation of 500 MW is not only the
approximate average size being built but also the installation that produces
waste quantities within 5 percent of the anticipated extremes. The 3.5-percent
and 0.8-percent sulfur was defined (1) as being typical levels in nationwide
(eastern and western) use. The estimated fraction of plants on a nationwide
basis using western coal in 1980 is 45 percent (4). This was based on the
referenced projection that 45 percent of the coal burned at that time would be
low sulfur from western sources. However, application of more stringent
standards would possibly affect the percent of western coal used. Since pre-
dictions of the impacts were not available, the effects resulting from the use
of discrete fractions of eastern coal were computed and are presented in
Appendix B for 25, 40, 55 (base case, 45 percent western), 70, and 85 per-
cent of the coal burned nationally from eastern sources.
The total dry waste tonnage produced in the years 1985 and 1998
for the three emission alternatives for a 500-MW plant are shown in Figure 7.
The data include only the waste produced by nonregenerable scrubber systems
at the generating plant, and therefore the 0. 5-lb SO2/10ฐ Btu case does not in-
clude the coal wash tailings left at the mine site.
32
-------
TABLE 9. FORMAT FOR LIME AND LIMESTONE AND DOUBLE-
ALKALI SCRUBBERS
INPUT:
CASE #- PROCESS TITLES AND OPTIONS
% SULFUR FUEL,BTU FUEL % CAPACITY
IN FUEL PER LB ASH MW
FUEL BTU ABSORBENT % S02 HEM % MOIST
PER KWH UTILIZ, t BY SCRUB. IN WST
SULFITE- DENSITY, SODA ASH PLANT % SULFUR DENSITY % MOIST FUEL
TO SULFATE WET WASTE MAKE UP OPERATING REMOVED OF TAILING IN WASH
RATIO LB/FT3 % HOURS IN WASH LB/FT3 TAILING FACTOR
OUTPUT:
FUEL
BURNED.
' T/H
ASH
FORMED
T/H
TOTAL
SULFUR
T/H
PRECIP
CaC03
T/H
S02
FORMED
T/H
CaS03
T/H
S02 ABSORBENT S02 S02 S02
REMOVED USED EMISSIONS EMISSIONS LB/M bTU
T/H T/H T/H LB/H
CaSOU % ASH
T/H DRY WASTE
% CaC03 > CaS03
DRY WASTE DRY WASTE DRY WASTi
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL WET TOTAL WET TOTAL
DRY WASTE WET WASTE DRY WASTE WET WASTE VOL.FT3/ VOL,ACHE BTU/HR
T/H T/H T/Y T/Y YEAR FEET/IYEAR
* TAILING
DRY ,T/H
TAILING
WET,T/H
TAILING
DRY,T/Y
TAILING
WET,T/Y
TAILING
VOL,FT3/
YEAR
TAILING
VOL .ACRE
FEET/YEAR
ASH IN
WASHED
FUEL
AMT OF
FUEL
ป SODA ASH % SODA ASH
T/H IN WASTE
These lines printed only if the options are invoked,
T/H = TONS PER HOUR (SHORT TONS)
T/Y = TONS PER YEAR (SHORT TONS)
LB/Hr POUNDS PER HOUR
SODA ASH FROM DOUBLE ALKALI OPTION
TAILINGS: FROM COAL WASHING OPTION
33
-------
TABLE 10.
FORMAT FOR MAGNESIUM OXIDE AND WELLMAN-
LORD PROCESSES
INPUT:
CASE #-
% SULFUR
IN FUEL
REGEN
EFF.J
PROCESS TITLES AND OPTIONS
FUEL.BTU FUEL % CAPACITY
PER LB ASH MW
SOLID WST
DENSITY ,
LB/FT3
ABSORB
MAKEUP
PERCENT
PLANT-
OPERATION
H/Y
FUEL BTU H/A % 302 BEM % MOIST
PER KWH BY SCRUB. IN WS'I
H2S01 SULFUR,*
% CONV. CONV.
*% SULFUR DENSITY PERCENT FUEL
REMOVED OF TAILING MOIST IN WASH
IN WASH LB/FT3 TAILING FACTOR
OUTPUT:
FUEL TOTAL S02 S02
BURNED, SULFUR FORMED REMOVED
T/H T/H T/H T/H
502 S02 TOTAL S02
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS BTU/HR LB/M 13TU
T/H LB/H
DRY .WASTE
T/H
TOTAL
DRY WASTE
T/Y
ป TAILING
DRY, T/H
WET WASTE
T/H
TOTAL
WET WASTE
T/Y
TAILING
WET, T/H
DRY ASH
T/H
TOTAL
WET VOL
FT3/Y
TAILING
DRY ,T/Y
PROCESS REGEN
SOLID DRY SOLID DRY
WASTE, T/H WASTE, T/H
TOTAL WET
,VOL, ACRE i
.FEET/ YEAR
TAILING
WET, T/Y
TOTAL
H2S04
T/H
TAILING
VOL.FT3/
YEAR
% ASH, % PROCESS
DRY SOLID, DRY
WASTE WASTE
TOTAL
H2S04
T/Y
TAILING
VOL .ACRE
FEET / YEAR
TOTAL
SULFUR,
T/H
% ASH IN
WASHED
FUEL
% KEGEN
SOLID DhY
kASTE
TOTAL
SULFUR,
T/Y
AMT OF
FUEL
1 These lines printed only if the fuel wash option is invoked.
T/H = TONS PER HOUR (SHORT TONS)
T/Y = TONS PER YEAR (SHORT TONS)
LB/H= POUNDS PER HOUR
TAILINGS: FROM COAL WASHING OPTION
PROCESS SOLID = ABSORBENT IN THE WASTE(DRY)
34
-------
TONS OF UNWASHED COAL - TONS OF COAL BURNED x
, /% S REMOVED IN WASH % S IN UNWASHED COAL
1 \ 100 100
MOL WTr
'FeS,
2 MOL WT,
-x 2.0
TONS OF UNWASHED COAL"
WASH
PROCESS
T
TONS OF COAL TO BOILER
(coal burned)
TAILINGS TO MINE DISPOSAL"
85% SOLIDS; 80 Ib/ft3
'% S REMOVED % S IN UNWASHED
:TONS OF DRY TAILINGS =
IN WASH
100
MOL WT FeS,
i
2 MOL WTr
COAL
100
x 2.0 x (TONS OF COAL WASHED)
TONS COAL BURNED PER HOUR = (PLANT CAPACITY)^ x x 1 hr x
** % S IN BURNED COAL = % S IN UNWASHED COAL x (1
'Btu/lb/
% WASH.
100 '
** % ASH IN BURNED COAL -[(r^jr- x WT UNWASHED COAL) - WT DRY TAILINGS \
I 100 _____) x 100
WEIGHT BURNED COAL
k
%
** HEAT VALUE OF BURNED COAL = (HV) UNWASHED + lO(HV) UNWASHED x
NOTE: ALL QUANTITIES CALCULATED ON BASIS OF TONS (SHORT) PER HOUR
MOL WT = MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF Fe$2 AND SULFUR; 120 AND 32, RESPECTIVELY
Figure 5. Generalized diagram and algorithms for coal washing process.
35
-------
TABLE H. BASIC STEAM GENERATING PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
USED IN STUDY
1. Energy Conversion Factors
a. 1000 MW 8,700Btu/kWh
b. 500 9,000
c. 25 10,080
2. Average Power Plant Operating Load Factor
a. 50 percent
b. 30-year operating lifetime
TABLE 12. BASIC SCRUBBER AND FGD PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS
USED IN STUDY
1. Absorbent Utilization
a. Non-Regenerable
(1) Lime 90%
(2) Limestone 80%
(3) Lime in double- 95%, with 3%
alkali process make-upa
b. Regenerable
(1) Magnesium oxide"
(a) 3% absorbent make-up (MgO)
(b) 95% separation efficiency
(2) Wellman-Lordb
(a) 3% absorbent make-up (Na2SOo)
(b) 95% separation efficiency
aPercent (molar basis) of the absorbent lost in the regeneration process.
Percentage based on the fraction of the amount of absorbent required to
scrub the SO2-
Percent (molar basis) of the absorbent lost in the absorption, regeneration,
and separation processes, including: 3% (absorbent equivalent) lost in the
absorption-re generation process due to its inefficiency and an additional
5% (absorbent equivalent) lost in the separation process due to its inef-
ficiency (see Figure 3 for a schematic of the magnesium oxide and
Wellman-Lord processes).
36
-------
78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96
YEAR
98
Figure 6. Annual and cumulative installed coal-burning plant capacity.
37
-------
vO
00
280 r-
260
240
220
X
^.200
CO
I 180
o 160
o 140
ง120
Q_
ฃ 100
Q 80
60 -
40 -
20
QUANTITIES FOR THE 0.5-lb S02/10 Btu ALTERNATIVE
DO NOT INCLUDE THE COAL WASH TAILINGS
1998
1985
90% S02 REMOVAL
1.2-lb S02/106 Btu
0.5-lb S02/10 Btu
90% S02 REMOVAL
1.2-lb S02/106 Btu
0.5-lb S02/106 Btu
10
20
30 40 50 60 70
EASTERN COAL BURNED, % OF ALL COAL
80
90
100
Figure 7. Effect of eastern coal use on nationwide waste quantities
-------
The annual eastern and western waste production and land to be
consumed by disposal were determined and then summed for the entire
nation (Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2). Since the anticipated life of each plant is
30 years, the amount of land that must be allocated on a yearly basis and
during the plants' lifetimes should be considered. Figure 8 depicts the
flow diagram of the computation process used in the nationwide study.
The results are presented on the basis of the current federal
NSPS standards being applicable through 1979- Thereafter, for 1980 through
1998, two more-stringent standards are considered alternatively; i.e.,
90 percent SO2 removal, and 0. 5 Ib SO2/lo6 Btu.
To place these results in perspective, the effect of retaining the
current standards in terms of waste generated and land-use requirements are
also shown.
3.2 IMPLICATIONS OF CURRENT AND STRICTER NSPS EMISSIONS
REGULATIONS ON SQ2 REMOVAL
3.2.1 Current Federal Standards: 1.2 Ib SO2/1Q6 Btu
Current federal standards limit SO? emissions to 1.2 Ib SO2/10
Btu. To achieve these conditions with typical 3. 5-percent-sulfur eastern coal,
80-percent SO2 removal by scrubbing is required (Table 13, Part A). If-the
coal is washed to remove 40 percent of the sulfur, only 65-percent SO2
removal is needed and the scrubber sludge quantities (disposal at the power
plant site) are reduced by 48 percent while producing tailings at the wash site
(mine) amounting to 21 percent of the waste produced in the unwashed, 80-
percent-removal case. The limitations of the coal washing process and the
wastes produced are discussed further in Section 3.7.
"With 7-percent-sulfur coal, 90-percent removal is required.
With western coal (10, 000 Btu/lb) a maximum sulfur content of 0. 6 percent
can be burned without scrubbing. With low Btu, low-sulfur coal (8, 000 Btu/lb),
a 0.4-percent sulfur content will result in emissions of 1.0 Ib SO2/10 Btu.
Eastern low-sulfur coal, because of its higher heat content (13, 500 Btu/lb),
can contain up to 0. 8 Ib SO2/10ฐ Btu and still meet current standards.
A nomograph that may be used to determine the effect on emis-
sions by various levels of scrubbing for a range of coals is provided in
Figure 9- The only basic assumption made in its construction is that all
the sulfur in the coal is oxidized to SO- and exits in the flue gas. As an
example:
1. Connect the heating value and sulfur percent value
to determine the unscrubbed emissions (line (I) ).
2. To determine the emissions after scrubbing, connect
the unscrubbed emissions determined from step 1
and the percent SO2 removed by scrubbing (line (2) ).
39
-------
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
CAPACITY
. DATA FROM
REF.2
CALCULATE
EQUIVALENT
NUMBER OF NEW
500 MW PLANTS
CALCULATE No. OF
PLANTS BURNING
EASTERN AND
WESTERN COAL
NONREGENERATIVE
TOTAL ANNUAL RATE
OF SLUDGE PRODUCED
AND TOTAL ANNUAL
DISPOSAL AREA
REQUIRED FOR
MEW PLANTS*
1978 THROUGH 1998
REGENERATIVE
ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF
SULFUR OR SULFURIC
ACID PRODUCED
1978: 35%
1979: 40%
1980-1998: 45%,
BASE CASE
SUM WASTES
FROM EASTERN
AND WESTERN
PLANTS
ADD TO
PREVIOUS
YEAR'S TOTAL
SCRUBBER SLUDGE
AND
. COAL WASH TAILINGS
MAINTAINED SEPARATELY
CALCULATE ANNUAL DRY
WEIGHT AND VOLUME
AND DISPOSAL AREA OF
WASTES FROM EASTERN
AND WESTERN PLANTS
LIMESTONE SCRUBBING
EASTERN COAL 3.5% S
WESTERN COAL 0.8% S
(8,000 Btu/lb)
SCRUB TO MEET CURRENT
NSPS (1.2 Ib S02/10ฐ Btu)
THROUGH 1979
APPLY MORE STRINGENT
STANDARDS IN 1980
. 90% (All, E&W Scrub)
S02 REMOVAL
. 0.5 Ib S02/106 Btu
(East Wash Coal & Scrub
to 85% S02 Removal &
West Scrub to 75% S02
Removal)
. FOR 5%, 25% AND 50% OF TOTAL S0? SCRUBBED
CONVERTED TO H2$04 OR ELEMENTAt SULFUR
All capacity installed during and
after 1978 is considered "New"
for computing annual quantities
Figure 8. Flow diagram describing computation of annual nationwide SO- scrubber by-products
-------
TABLE 13. CONDITIONS TO MEET VARIOUS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. Conditions Required to Meet 1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu (Max)
Coal
% S
3.5
3.5
7.0
0.6^
0.4
0.8
Btu/lb
12, 000
12,000
12, 000
10,000
8, 000
13, 500
% Ash
14
14
14
8
6
6
Study Case
Numbers
1-15
26-27
16-21
24-25
241 and 251
22-23
Percent
Removal
SO2 Required
80
60
90
None
None
None
Remarks
40% sulfur removal by
coal washing, 1.11 Ib
SO2/106 Btu
High-Btu western
coala
Low-Btu western coal,
1.0 Ib SO2/106 Btu
Low-sulfur eastern
coal
Emissions Resulting from 90% SO-> Removal
Coal
% S
3. 5
7.0
0.8
0.8
Btu/lb
12,000
12,000
10, 000
8, 000
% Ash
14
14
8
6
Study Case
Numbers
28-42
43-57
58-61
581-611
Emissions
lbSO2/106 Btu
0.6
1.2
0 16
0.2
C. Conditions Required to Meet 0. 5 Ib SO2/106 Btu (max)
Coal
% S
3. 5
3. 5
7.0
7.0
7.0
0.8
0.8
Btu/lb
12, 000
12,000
12, 000
12,000
12,000
10, 000
8, 000
% Ash
14
14
14
14
14
8
6
Study Case
Numbers
66-69
661
70-71
701 and 711
702
62-65
621-651
% S Removed
by Coal Wash
40
None
40
40
None
None
None
% S Removed
by Scrubbing
85
91-5
95(0. 32 Ib S02/10bBtu)
92. 5
96
70
75
Maximum percentage of sulfur to meet NSPS is 0.6.
41
-------
M
0.20-
0.25-
0.3-
0.4-h
0.5-
0.6-
0.7-
0.8-
n
1.2-
1.5 +
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0-
5.0-
6.0 --
ซ= =
10.0-
EMISSIONS
AFTER SCRUBBING,
Ib S02/106 Btu
OQ
% S02 R
BY SCRL
/u
r95
L90
-85
-80-
-75
-60
:!ง
E28
EMOVED
IBBING
u-
7.0_
6.0-
5.0
4.0_
3.5_
3.ฃ^
2.0-
1 5
1 0
0.9-
8-?-
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
n ^
^>_^
-20.0
-15.0
-12.0
-9.0
-H
i * \J
-6.0
-5.0^ (
-4.0 ""^
-3.0
-2.0
-1.5
-1.2
-0.9
-0.7
-0.5
n ^?R
SULFUR EMISSIONS,
PERCENT UNSCRUBBED,
IN Ib SOJ106 Btu
8.0
-8.5
-9.0
--9.5
- -10.0
- -10.5
- -11.0
.11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
-13.5
--14.0
--14.5
-15.0
4-15.5
16.0
HEATING VALUE
OF COAL, ,
Btu/lb x 10^
Figure 9. Nomograph: Relationship between coal properties and SO2 emissions, with and
without SC>2 scrubbing.
-------
Ninety-Per cent SC>> Removal
3.2.2
If 90-percent SC^ removal by scrubbing is considered, the result-
ant emissions for eastern 3. 5- and 7. 0-percent sulfur coal are 0. 6 and 1. 2 Ib
SOz/106 Btu (Table 13, Part B). It is apparent that, for 90-percent scrubbing,
a linear relationship exists between emissions and the sulfur content, pro-
viding that the Btu content of the coal remains constant (Figure 10).
For the range of western coals studied, 90-percent SC>2 scrubbing
results in emissions of 0. 16 to 0.20 Ib SO2/106 Btu.
1.5r
CO
o
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
UJ
1.0
0.5
0
090% S02 REMOVAL
12,000 Btu/lb
0123456
PERCENT SULFUR IN COAL
Figure 10. Effect of sulfur content on emissions for 90-percent SO_
removal (heat content of coal = 12, 000 Btu/lb)
43
-------
3. 2,3 More-Stringent Emissions Standard: 0.5 Ib SO^/IO6 Btu
The more-stringent requirement of 0.5 Ib SO2/10" Btu can be
met with 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal if it is scrubbed to remove 91.5 percent
SC>2 (case number 661), or if the coal is washed and the resultant flue gas
scrubbed to 85 percent (cases 66-69). See also Table 13, Part C.
With 7. 0-percent-sulfur coal, 96-percent SO2 removal is required
without coal washing (case 702), or 92. 5-percent SC>2 removal with 40-percent
sulfur removal by coal washing (cases 701 and 711).
For western coal (0. 8-percent SC>2) 70-percent scrubbing is
needed for high (10, 000 Btu/lb) coal and 75-percent scrubbing for the low,
(8, 000 Btu/lb) coal.
3.3 IMPLICATIONS OF NSPS REGULATIONS ON QUANTITIES OF
WASTE PRODUCED
3.3. 1 Nonregenerable Scrubbing Processes
The annual quantities of dry waste produced and total disposal
areas resulting from the consideration of various federal standards are sum-
marized in Table 14 for a typical 3. 5-percent-sulfur eastern coal burned in
a 500-MW plant and using a limestone scrubbing process. Tightening the
standard from the current 1.2 Ib SX^/IO^ Btu to 90-percent SO2 removal
increases the wastes produced and disposal area required by approximately
6 percent from 233,000 tons/year (dry basis) and 302 acres (30-ft waste
depth), respectively. A 0. 5 Ib SX^/IO^ requirement necessitates a 91. 5 per-
cent SO2 removal and results in a 7-percent increase in waste quantity and
disposal area over the values needed to meet the current federal NSPS. The
relative quantities produced by other processes; i.e., nonregenerable (lime
and double alkali) and regenerable processes (magnesium oxide and Wellman-
Lord) are comparable and are discussed in Section 3. 5. Actual quantities
for all the study cases are listed in Appendix A. The effects of power plant
size and coal composition are discussed in Section 3.4 and 3.6, respectively.
A potential technique for reducing the amount of waste at the power
plant to about 55 percent of that produced by meeting a standard by scrubbing
only is to wash the coal and remove 40 percent of the sulfur before burning
(cases 27 and 5, and 68 and 661). These cases produce wash tailings that
total about 16 percent of the scrubber waste (without washing) and require con-
siderably less equivalent disposal area.. The weight, and moisture content, of
the tailings is less than that of the scrubber sludge that would have been pro-
duced if the sulfur had not been washed, but had been burned in the coal and
scrubbed. It appears that coal washing may be an attractive method to signifi-
cantly reduce the amount of waste produced at the power plant and to reduce the
44
-------
TABLE 14. WASTE QUANTITIES AND DISPOSAL AREA FOR A 500-MW PLANT
WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBING
Ul
Coal
% S
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
Btu/lb
12, 000
12, 000
12,000
12, 000
12, 000
% Ash
14
14
14
14
14
Emissions
Ib SO2/106 Btu
1. 2
1. 2
0. 6
0. 5
0. 5
% SO, Removed
By Scrubbing
80
60
90
91.5
85
% S Removed
in Coal by
Washing
None
40
None
None
40
Scrubber Dry
Waste Produced,
Tons x 105/yr
2.334
1.215C
2.482
2.504
1.377ฐ
Disposal Area
Required^,
Acres
302
158C
322
324
178ฐ
Case
No.
5
27
32
661
68
Includes ash
For 30-yr plant life, 50% average load factor, disposal waste depth = 30 ft.
'0.409 x 10 typical coal wash tailings (dry basis), 34 acres not included. These are assumed to be disposed of at the mine.
-------
overall land requirement needed for the disposal of scrubber wastes. A more
detailed discussion of the effects of coal washing on different coals is provided
in Section 3.7.
3.3.2 Regenerable Processes
The wastes produced from the regenerable processes are
primarily ash and sulfates purged from the processes; estimated as
approximately 3 percent. The waste quantities produced and the areas
required for disposal are listed in Table 15. The amounts of sulfuric acid or
elemental sulfur potentially capable of being produced are also shown.
For a 500-MW plant approximately 120, 000 tons per year (dry
basis) of waste are produced, requiring slightly greater than 150 acres for
disposal over a 30-year plant lifetime. Although the increase in wastes pro-
duced is barely perceptible when scrubbing going from an 80-percent SO^
removal to a 90-percent removal, the amounts of sulfuric acid or sulfur are
directly proportional to the scrubber removal efficiency. The wastes are
primarily ash and affected only slightly by scrubber efficiency; to the extent
of the slightly higher quantities of absorbent make-up.
3.4 EFFECT OF PLANT SIZE ON QUANTITIES OF WASTE
PRODUCED
The wastes generated by power plants of different sizes are not
directly proportioned to size (Figure 11 ). This is the result of higher operating
efficiencies achieved by the larger plants. Therefore, a single 1000-MW plant
produces wastes totalling approximately 96. 5 percent of two 500-MW plants,
and two 250-MW units produce about 1,8 percent more waste than one 500-MW
unit. Therefore, in the range of most utility steam generating plants; i.e. ,
200 to 1000 MW, the amount of waste generated and disposal area required
is within +2 to -4 percent of that produced by equivalent numbers of 500-MW
units. This observation is important in the nationwide assessment of total
quantities of waste produced because it substantiates the assumption thatall
tiie installed generating capacity can be characterized by an equivalent 500-MW
plant and the study does not require a plant-by-plant summation.
3.5 EFFECTS OF THE SCRUBBING PROCESS ON QUANTITIES OF
WASTE PRODUCED
The basic types of wet scrubbing processes examined were the
nonregenerable and regenerable processes. The nonregenerable produce a
calcium sulfite/sulfate waste that is discarded, while in the regenerable the
SO2 in the flue gas is absorbed and subsequently released as SO? in the regen-
eration of absorbent. The SO2 may be processed further to form sulfuric
acid or elemental sulfur.
46
-------
TABLE 15. WASTE QUANTITIES AND USEABLE BY-PRODUCTS PRODUCED
FROM A 500-MW PLANTa APPLYING REGENERABLE SO2
REMOVAL PROCESSES
Case
No.
11
14
38
41
Emissions
Ib S02/106 Btu
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.6
SC>2 Removed
by Scrubbing,
%
80
80
90
90
Process
Magnesium Oxide
Wellman-Lord
Magnesium, oxide
Wellman-Lord
Dry Waste
Produced,
tons x 105/yrb
1. 196
1.214
1.201
1. 222
Disposal Area
Required,
acres"
151
153
152
154
By-Products
Produced, c
tons x 10^ /yr
H2S04
0. 669
0. 669
0.753
0. 753
S
0. 218
0. 218
0.246
0.246
Coal burned: 3. 5% sulfur, 12, 000 Btu/lb, 14% ash.
Load factor: 50% (4380 hr/yr)
b
30-year plant life, waste primarily ash, 30-ft depth
:Either H2SC>4 (100%) or sulfur, but not both.
-------
1.15,-
CO
Cฃ
O
d
1.10
CO
O
a.
oo
1.05
1.00
o
ID
O
O
0.95
0.90
-\
PLANT SIZE,
MW
1000
500
200
25
HEAT RATE,
Btu/kWh
8700
9000
9200
10080
I J
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
PLANT SIZE, MW
Figure 11. Effect of power plant size and equivalent capacities
on the amount of solid wastes produced (includes
ash).
48
-------
The types of nonregenerable processes studied were those using
lime and limestone absorbents. The double-alkali process uses a sodium
carbonate (Na2CO3) absorbent, which is then regenerated by lime. The
waste produced is similar to that produced by the direct lime scrubbing
except that it contains Na^COj that is equivalent to the amount of make-up
required (3 percent).
Table 16 provides the quantities and composition of waste pro-
duced from the five processes as a result of applying the current and alterna-
tive federal NSPS standards with 3. 5-percent coal. Results for other con-
ditions are provided in Appendix A.
The regenerable processes studied were the magnesium oxide and
Wellman-Lord. Typical results are shown in Table 16 and the entire study
outputs are included in Appendix A.
3. 5. 1 Nonregenerable Processes
Use of the limestone wet scrubbing process results in approxi-
mately 5 percent more scrubber waste than the lime or double-alkali proc-
esses. The slightly lower quantities are primarily the result of the higher
lime utilization in the latter two processes (Figure 12). An absorbent utiliza-
tion of 80 percent was considered typical for limestone, whereas 90 percent
was used for the lime process and 95-percent regenerative efficiency for
lime in the double -alkali application.
3.5.2 Regenerable Processes
The wastes produced as a result of applying the regenerable
processes are approximately 50 percent of those from the nonregenerable.
The wastes are primarily ash and are nearly independent of the process. A
regenerative -separation efficiency of 95 percent was assumed. Therefore,
the waste was assumed to include sulfates of magnesium and sodium equiva-
lent to 5- percent of the magnesium sulfite (MgSOs) or sodium bisulfite
(NaHSO,) which was assumed as not being regenerated.
3.6 EFFECTS OF COAL SULFUR ON QUANTITIES OF WASTE
PRODUCED
The coals specified for the study (3) were typical. The eastern
coals contained 3. 5 percent sulfur and high sulfur (7.0 percent), both con-
taining 14 percent ash and a heat content of 12, 000 Btu/lb (Table 17). The
western coals contained 0. 8 percent sulfur 1 and included both high- and
The coal sulfur values used are base-case averages. Any coals that may
contain these average sulfur contents would meet the NSPS (1.2 lb/10ฐ Btu)
on the average if subjected to appropriate scrubbing conditions, but may
violate it occasionally because of variations in the coal. This factor does
not impact the values for sludge quantities derived herein.
49
-------
TABLE 16.
WASTE QUANTITIES AND COMPOSITIONS FROM FIVE FLUE GAS
DESULFURIZATION PROCESSES MEETING CURRENT AND
ALTERNATIVE NSPS STANDARDS21
Case
No.
1.2 Ib
2
5
8
11
14
Scrubber
Process
Absorbent
SO2/106 Btu {80% SO2 Removal)
Non-Regen
Non-Regen
Non-Regen Double
Alkali (Lime)
Regen
Regen-
Wellman-Lord
90% SO2 Scrubbing (0. 6 Ib S
29
32
35
38
41
0.5 Ib
66
68
Non-Regen
Non-Regen
Non-Regen Double
Alkali (.Lime)
Regen
Regen-
Wellman-Lord
Lime
Limestone
Na2CO3
Absorbent
Consumed ,
tons x 104/yr
4.47
8.98
4.25
Magnesium oxide 0. 09
Na~SO C
02/106 Btu)
Lime
Limestone
Na-CO,,
Magnesium oxide
Na2S03g
SO2/I06 Btu (85% SO2 Removal, 40% S f
Non-Regen
Non-Regen
Lime
Limestone
0.27
5. 03
10. 10
4.76
' 0.09
0. 31
Absorbent
Utilization, %
90
80
95
N/A
N/A
90
80
95
N/A
N/A
emoval by Coal Washing)
Z. 58
5.21
90
80
Absorbent
Makeup, %
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
3
N/A
N/A
Nonregene rated
Absorbent, %
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
5
N/A
N/A
Total Dry
Waste
Produced13,
tons x 10^/yr
2.234
2. 334
2.215
1. 196
1.214
2.369
2.482
2. 348
1.201
1.222
1.319f
1.377f
Composition of Dry Solids
% Ash
51.5
49.3
51.9
96.2
94.7
48.5
46.3
49.0
95.7
94. 1
52.4
50.2
Unreacted
3. 6
7. 7
1.7
N/Ad
N/Ad
3. 8
8. 1
1.8
N/A"
N/Ae
3.5
7.6
% Ca
Sulfite
31. 1
29.8
31.4
N/A
N/A
33.0
31. 5
33.3
N/A
N/A
30. 5
29.3
% Ca
Sulfate
13.8
13.2
14.0
N/A
N/A
14.7
14.0
14.8
N/A
N/A
13.6
13.0
Absorbent
N/A
N/A
1.0
0.7
2.2
N/A
N/A
1. 1
0.8
2. 5
N/A
N/A
Ul
o
aCoal: 3. 5% Sulfur, 12, 000 Btu/lb, 14% Ash
b500-MW plant, 50% load factor (4380 hr/yr, waste includes ash)
CPotential production: 6. 69 x 104 tons/yr H2SC>4 (100%) or 2. 18 x 10* tons/yr sulfur
Waste also contains 3. 1% unregenerated scrubber solid
eWaste also contains 3.4% unregenerated scrubber solid
*Also 0.409 x 10 tons/yr coal wash tailings
fr 4 4
^Potential production: 7. 53 x 10 tons/yr H2SO4 (100%) or 2.46 x 10 tons/yr sulfur
-------
90% S02 REMOVAL
1.1
1.0
CO
O_
co
z.
| 0.9
ง
CO
S ฐ-8
0
a:
D_
LU
o 0.7
CO
UJ
Ij
2 0.6
LU
5
g 0.5
o
ID
S 0.4
o.
co
UJ
K
j"]~
1 ฐ-3
o
_J
g 0.2
^
>;
Q 0.1
n
1.2 Ib S02/106 Btu
(80% S09 removal)
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
1 1 J
^
R
CO
LU
(_
LU
i
"CD
_E
^^
^
t
LU
CO
0
LLJ
^"^
X
O
s
^D
CO
LU
O
s
o:
3
-------
TABLE 17.
THE EFFECTS OF SULFUR CONTENT ON THE WASTE AND DISPOSAL
AREA REQUIRED
01
ro
Case
No.
27
5
20
602
32
47
601
661
702
641
68
711
Coal
% S
3. 5
3. 5
7. 0
0. 8
3. 5
7. 0
0.8
3. 5
7. 0
0. 8
3. 5
7. 0
Btu/lb
12, 000
12, 000
12, 000
8, 000
12, 000
12, 000
8, 000
12, 000
12, 000
8,000
12, 000
12, 000
% Ash
14
14
14
6
14
14
6
14
14
6
14
14
Emissions ,
Ib S02
per 106 Btu
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.6
1.2
0.2
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
% S02
Scrubbed
65
80
90
25
90
90
90
91. 5
96
75
85
92. 5
% Sulfur
Removed
in .Coal Wash
40
None
None
. None
None
None
None
None
None
None
40
40
Scrubber
Dry Waste
Produced,
tons x 10 -Vyr
1.215d
0.4096
2. 334
3. 813
0. 942
2.482
3. 813
1. 196
2. 504
3. 991
1. 120
1. 377d
0.4096
1.789d
0. 858e
Disposal
area,
acres"
158d
34
302
494
115
322
494
155
324
517
145
178d
34
232d
75
Quantity -Volume
Ratio0
0. 520
0. 175
1. 000
1. 634
0.404
1. 000
1. 536
0.482.
1. 000
1. 594
0.447
0. 548
0. 103
0. 714
0. 343
aLimestone wet scrubbing, 500-MW plant, 80% absorbent, includes ash.
Utilization: 50% load factor,
30 years, 30-ft depth, scrubber sludge.
"Relative to 3. 5-percent sulfur, for the appropriate federal NSPS standard group.
Does not include coal wash tailings
"Coal wash tailings
-------
low-Btu: 10, 000 Btu/lb (8-percent ash) and 8, 000 Btu/lb (6-percent ash),
respectively (Table 18). Several other specific cases were computed to
define the sulfur content of western coals capable of meeting the current
NSPS emissions standard, and the emissions resulting from burning of
eastern low-sulfur coal (anthracite). These cases are summarized in
Table 19.
Since sulfur content is the primary variable, its influence on the
quantities of waste requiring disposal as a function of both current and more-
stringent NSPS federal standards is depicted in Figure 13. Limestone scrubber
wastes are represented as typical of nonregenerable processes; the quantities
being about 5 percent more than lime or double alkali (Section 3. 5). The
fraction of wastes relative to 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal is shown in Figure 14.
Because of the differences in ash and heat content, boiler heat rates, and SC>2
scrubbing requirements, the quantities and disposal area are not directly
proportional to the sulfur content. However, as a first approximation, they
may be estimated as being linearly related.
The waste quantities resulting from the application of regenerable
processes are relatively unaffected for the 3. 5- and 7,0-percent sulfur cases
studied. The wastes are primarily ash recovered from the combustion of the
coal; both coals containing 14 percent sulfur. The slightly higher quantity of
wastes for a 7-percent sulfur coal is attributed to the slightly higher quanti-
ties of absorbent make-up showing up in the waste because of the larger
quantities of SC>2 being scrubbed (the percent absorbent make-up was held con-
stant at 3 percent).
The low-Btu western coal (8000 Btu/lb) was used in all calculations
for western coal because it produces only about 5 percent more wastes than
the higher (10,000 Btu/lb) coal (Table 18). In general, these two coals repre-
sent the high and low extremes expected for western coals. Because of this
small difference in quantities produced as a result of burning these extremes
of western coal, no attempt was made in the nationwide compilation (Section 3.8)
to estimate the fraction of each that may be burned in the future, and the low-
Btu coal was used in all of the projections.
In reviewing the effects of the use of western coal, the low-Btu
coal (0. 8% sulfur, 8000 Btu/lb, 6% ash) produces scrubber waste quantities
of 40 to 50 percent of the corresponding limestone-scrubbed 3. 5-percent coal
(Table 17).
3.7 EFFECTS OF COAL WASHING ON QUANTITIES OF WASTE
PRODUCED
The amount of solid waste produced by limestone scrubbing when
a 3. 5-percent sulfur coal is burned is compared in Table 20 with the solid
53
-------
TABLE 18. EFFECT OF HIGH- AND LOW-BTU WESTERN COAL ON
WASTE GENERATED AND DISPOSAL AREA REQUIRED
A. 90% SO2 Removal, Wet Limestone Scrubbing, 0.8% Sulfur Coal
Case
No.
60
601
Coal
Btu/lb
10,000
8,000
% Ash
8
6
Emissions,
Ib SO2/106 Btu
0. 16
0.20
Scrubber
Dry Waste3-,
tons x 10^/yr
1. 154
1. 196
Disposal
Area
Req'db,
acres
150
155
Quantity and
Volume
Factor
0.965
1.000
B. Emissions = 1.2 Ib SO2/10^ Btu, Wet Limestone Scrubbing, 0.8% Sulfur Coal
Case
No.
603
602
Coal
Btu/lb
10,000
8,000
% Ash
8
6
% SO2 Scrubbed
25
40
Scrubber
Dry Wastea,
tons x 10^/yr
0.890
0.942
Disposal
Area
Req'db,
acres
115
122
Quantity and
Volume
Factor
0.945
1.000
a500-MW plant, 50-percent operating load factor, includes ash.
50-percent solids, 30 years, 50-percent load factor, 30 ft deep.
-------
TABLE 19. COMPARISON OF THE EMISSIONS AND WASTES PRODUCED FROM
BURNING LOW-SULFUR COAL
Source
Eastern
Western
Western
Western
Western
Western
Western
Coal
% S
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Btu/lb
13, 500
10, 000
8, 000
10, 000
8,000
10, 000
8,000
% Ash
6
8
6
8
6
8
6
% SO2
Removed
By Scrubber
None
None
None
25
40
90
90
Emissions,
Ib S02/106 Btu
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
0. 16
0.20
Scrubber
Dry Wastea,
tons x 10^/yr
None
None
None
0.890
0.942
1. 154
1. 196
Case No.
22-23
24-25
241-251
603
602
60
601
Ul
Ul
L500-MW plant, 50-percent operating load factor (4380 hr/yr), includes ash
-------
4.0 r
3.0
LT\
O
2.5
01
O
LU
O
Q
O
2.0
1.5
O
00
1.0
0.5
BASIS: 500 MW PLANT:
D
ALL PROCE-SSES
O LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBING
A)80% LIMESTONE UTILIZATION
O)MAGNESIUM AND WELLMAN LORD
OjPROCESSES: REGENERABLE
NON
REGENERABLE
COAL WASH (40% S REMOVAL)
TAILINGS DISPOSED AT MINE
REGENERABLE PROCESSES
-S/
-
COAL
% S
7.0
3.5
0.8
Btu/lb
12,000
12,000
8,000
% ASH
14
14
6
% S02 SCRUBBED
1.2 Ib S02/106Btu
90
80
25
0.5 Ib S02/106Btu
92.5*
85 *
75
Ib S02/106 FOR
90% S02 SCRUBBING
1.2
0.6
0.2
'Coal washed to remove 40% sulfur prior to burning
i i i i r i i
4 5
SULFUR IN COAL
Figure 13. Quantities of waste, including ash, produced
by new plants for alternative standards
56
-------
Q
LU
O
Q
0
Cฃ
ฐ-
LU
<
>
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
SYMBOL
0
D
A
V
EMISSIONS
A
Ib SOJ100 Btu
e.
1.2
0.2, 0.6, 1.2
0.5
0.5
% S02 SCRUBBED
0.8% S
25
90
75
-
3.5%
80
90
91.5
85
7.0% S
90
90
96
92.5
% S REMOVED
IN COAL WASH
NONE
NONE
NONE
40 >
0 0.8 -
o
I0'7
ฃ 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
BASIS: 500-MW PLANT. LIMESTONE
WET SCRUBS ING, 80%
LIMESTONE UTIL
0
345
PERCENT SULFUR IN COAL
Figure 14. Relative quantities of waste, including ash, produced
by new plants as a function of coal sulfur content
and alternative NSPS emission standards
57
-------
TABLE 20. EFFECTS OF COAL WASHING
00
A. Washing of 3. 5% Sulfur Coal
Case
No.
5
27
661
68
Emissions,
Ib SO2/106 Btu
1. 2
1. 2
0. 5
0. 5
Sulfur
Removed by
Washing, %
None
40
None
40
SO2
Removed by
Scrubbing, %
80
60
91.5
85
Scrubber
Dry Wasteb
Produced0,
tons x 10^/yr
2. 334
1.215
2. 504
1. 377
Scrubber
Waste
Disposal
Aread,
acres
302
158
324
178
Coal Wash
Tailings
(Dry Basis),
tons x 10 /yr
None
0.409
None
0.409
Coal
Washed
tons x 10 /yr
None
7. 853
None
7. 853
Dry Tailings
Produced,
% of Coal
Washed
None
5. 2
None
5.2
B. Washing of 7.0% Sulfur Coal6
71 1
713
714
702
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
0. 5
40
30
20
None
92.5
93. 5
94. 5
96
1. 789
2.312
2. 855
3.991
232
300
370
517
0.858
0.643
0.428
None
8. 243
8.236
8. 230
None
10.4
7. 8
5.2
None
3.5%sulfur, 12, 000 Btu/lb, 14% ash. Washed to 2. 1% sulfur, 13,200Btu, 9.2%ash
Ash plus sludge
C50-percent load factor (4380 hr/yr), 500-MW plant
30-yr plant life, 30-ft depth
67.0% sulfur, 12, 000 Btu/lb, 14% ash. Washed to 4. 2% sulfur, 13, 200 Btu, 4. 0% ash
-------
waste produced by washing the coal first and then scrubbing the flue gas.
Only the inorganic fraction, primarily iron pyrite (FeS2), of the sulfur
content can be removed by coal washing, Organic sulfur is an integral part
of the coal matrix and cannot be removed by physical separation. Organic
sulfur is 30 to 70 percent of the total sulfur for most coals (5). It appears
that the maximum sulfur removal that can be achieved by physically washing
the coal is limited to about 40 percent.
Although coal washing would not eliminate the need for flue gas
scrubbing, the required SOฃ removal could be reduced from 80 to 60 percent
for the current standard (1.2 Ib SOz/lO^ Btu) and from 91. 5 to 85 percent for
a standard of 0. 5 Ib SO2/10" Btu. Scrubber sludge and ash at a power plant
burning washed coal (40 percent sulfur removed) would be about 56 percent
(and wash tailings would be another 16 percent) of the amount of sludge,
including ash, from a plant burning unwashed coal.
Iron combined with the sulfur and other ash constituents in the
coal are removed by washing (5, 6), reducing the ash in the washed coal con-
siderably; i. e. , 14 percent to 9- 2 percent for a 3. 5-percent sulfur coal
(Table 7). Although a. loss in heating value is experienced in coal washing.it
is accompanied by a greater proportionate loss in weight (inerts) and, there-
fore, the heat content per pound of washed coal increases. Based on sulfur-
reduction data (5), a nominal upgrading of 10 percent was used in the heat
content after washing; i. e. , the removal of 40 percent sulfur by washing of
a 12, 000 Btu/lb coal increased its heating value to 13, 200 Btu/lb.
To determine the effect of coal washing on meeting the more-
stringent emission level of 0. 5 Ib SO2/10 Btu, several cases were run
(Figure 15). Decreasing the amount of sulfur removed by washing from
40 percent to 20 percent increases the quantities of scrubber waste by a
factor of 1.60 and requires an increase in scrubber efficiency from 92.5 per-
cent to 94. 5 percent. If sulfur washing were not used, the scrubber wastes
would increase by a factor of 2.23 (over the 40 percent removal), and 96 per-
cent SO2 removal by scrubbing would be required.
Although coal washing could apparently reduce solid waste (sludge
plus ash) at the power plant about 44 percent, consideration must be given to:
a. Disposal of wash tailings (assumed to take place at the mine)
b. Disposal or treatment of the wash process water
c. The increased cost of washed coal over run-of-mine coal
d. The energy required to wash the coal
e. The cost tradeoff of using flue gas desulfurization (FGD) alone
versus coal washing plus FGD.
59
-------
2. 4 - *
2.2
2.0
ฃ 1.8
i
GO
| 1.6
LJ_
GO
i i i
S= 1.2
i
< . .
^3 i n
o LU
UJ
> 0.8
5
W 0.6
Gฃ
0.4
0.2
0
96% S02 REMOVAL
OB
_
-
__
_
i
I
I
I
J
%/
i
i
i
I
i%
i
!
(CASE 702)
"LIMESTONE WET SCRUBBING,
80% ABSORBENT UTILIZATION
H SCRUBBER WASTE
r^ COAL WASH TAILINGS
^ (Disposal at Mine)
k*ซ
'*
94. 5% SO. REMOVAL
i
P
y//
y/x
p
Oyv'
XXX
yyx
yy>J
r//j>
vvyj
/^yj
1
/
L.
(CASE 714)
i$
93
p
J
.vy/
x/xv
/yx>
Xxx>
xVx>
yyyy
xyVy
VyVy
vvvj
*
.5% S02 REMOVAL
(CASE 713)
**ป
92. 5% so2 REMOVAL"
i
(CASE 711)
0 10 20 30 40
PERCENT SULFUR REMOVED BY COAL WASHING
Figure 15. Relative quantities of solid wastes from scrubbing and coal
washing from a 500-MW plant burning 7-percent-sulfur
coal to meet 0. 5 Ib SC>2/10" Btu emissions standard.
60
-------
These aspects of coal washing are covered in this and other reports prepared
as part of the EPA review process.
3.8 NATIONWIDE EFFECTS
The quantities of SC>2 scrubber wastes produced and the land
required for disposal in the period 1978-1988 were determined.
The potential production of sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur from
regenerable systems, based on assumptions that 5, 25, and 50 percent of the
SC>2 scrubbed was converted to sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur, was also
defined.
3.8.1 Quantities Produced
Both nonregenerable and regenerable cases were considered. The
baseline conditions for the national assessment included the burning of 3. 5-
percent-sulfur coal in eastern 500-MW plants and 0. 8-percent sulfur (8000 Btu/
Ib) coal in western 500-MW plants. Limestone scrubber waste quantities were
used. Other baseline conditions are defined in Tables 21 and 22. The rationale
for these conditions have been discussed in Sections 3. 1 through 3.7. The
effectivity of the more stringent alternatives of 90 percent scrubbing and
0.5 Ib SC>2 emissions per 10& Btu was 1980 (7). A reference case assuming
current federal standards of 1.2 Ib SC>2 per 10ฐ Btu heat input was also com-
puted through 1988. The annual quantities of scrubber waste produced
between 1978 and 1998 are presented in Figure 16.
If all plants employed nonregenerable scrubbing and scrubbed 90 per-
cent of the SC>2>, the installations coming on line in 1978 would produce, that
year, 5. 6 million tons (dry basis) of scrubber wastes; the annual tonnage
produced from installations coming on line in 1998 would be 172. 8 mil-
ion tons (dry basis). The corresponding quantities for the 1. 2 and 0. 5 Ib
SO2/10& Btu produced in 1998 are 156. 2 million and 118. 3 million tons
(dry basis), respectively. The annual production on a year-by-year basis is
tabulated in Appendix B.
The 90-percent scrubbing case, which results in emissions of approxi-
mately 0.6 Ib SC>2/lok Btu, produces 12 percent more wastes, which is
reflected in correspondingly larger land areas required than the current
standards of 1.2 Ib SO2/10ฐ Btu. The apparent paradox that the 0. 5 Ib SO2/
10ฐ Btu condition results not only in lower emissions but also in less total
waste than either of the two other cases is the result of the use of coal wash-
ing of eastern coal to remove 40 percent of its sulfur.
61
-------
TABLE 21. BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR NATIONWIDE QUANTIFICATION
OF SCRUBBER WASTE DISPOSAL
Plant Size:
500 MW, 30-year life, 50% average load factor (4380 hr/yr)
Coal Burned:
% S Btu/lb % Ash
Eastern 3.5 12,000 14
Western 0.8 8,000 6
Percentage of Plants Burning Eastern Coal:
1978 65% 1979 60% 1980-1998 55%
Scrubber System:
Nonregenerable: Limestone
Regenerable: Magnesium oxide or Wellman-Lord
Application of Alternative NSPS:
a) Current (1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu) 1978 through 1998
b) Current through 1979, 90% scrubbing thereafter through 1998
c) Current through 1979, 0. 5 Ib SO2 per 10b Btu heat input through 1998
Coal Washing:
a) Coal washing to meet 0. 5 Ib SO2/10ฐ Btu applied to eastern
(3. 5% sulfur) coal only
b) Scrubbing only, and no washing of western coal considered
c) Scrubbing only of eastern coal for current NSPS, and 90% scrubbing
cases
Waste Disposal:
Disposal of scrubber wastes and ash (from regenerable systems) con-
sidered and presented separately from the disposal of coal wash
tailings
Total Annual MW Installed:
See Figure 5 and Appendix B
Percentage of Regenerable Scrubber Systems:
Production of by-products assumed on a parametric basis; i. e. , 5%,
25%, and 50% of scrubbed SO2 converted to sulfuric acid or elemental
sulfur
-62
-------
TABLE 22. SCRUBBER AND COAL WASHING CONDITIONS USED IN THE
NATIONWIDE WASTE INVENTORY
Coal
Type
Eastern
Western
% S
3. 5
3. 5
3. 5
0.8
0.8
0.8
Btu/lb
12,000
12,000
12, 000
8, 000
8, 000
8, 000
% Ash
14
14
14
6
6
6
Emissions,
Ib SO2/106 Btu
1.2
0.6
0. 5
1.2
0.6
0. 5
% S02
Scrubbed
80
90
85
25
90
75
% S Removed
In Coal Washing
None
None
40
None
None
None
Case
No.
5
32
68
602
601
641
-------
1 1
X
CO
22
e
CO
CO
CD
1
o
LU
o
Q
O
o:
Q_
g
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
BASIS: NON REGENERABLE SCRUBBING
500 MW PLANTS, 50%
OPERATING LOAD FACTOR
APPLICATION OF
ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS,
ALTERNATIVE
STANDARDS
90% S02
REMOVAL
1.2 Ib S02/106 Btu
0.5 Ib S02/10 Btu
(SCRUBBER WASTE)
0.5 Ib S02/10ฐ Btu
(COAL WASH TAILINGS)
78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
YEAR
96 98
Figure 16. Total annual waste quantities, including ash, produced
nationwide by new plants coming on line beginning
in 1978 *
64
-------
Projections of the number of regenerable scrubber systems reflect
a wide range of uncertainty (8). Therefore, an attempt was made to bound the
potential application of regenerable systems. Quantities were computed of sul-
furic acid (100 percent) or sulfur that could be produced annually, assuming
that 5, 25, and 50 percent of the SC>2 scrubbed was accomplished by a regener-
able process for years during the 1978 to 1998 interval (Appendix C).
The tonnages of sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur that may be
produced annually are summarized in Table 23. As an example, if 90 percent
SC>2 removal by scrubbing were initiated in 1980, and if 50 percent of the
scrubber systems were regenerable, approximately 1.5 million tons of
1*2804 would be produced annually. It was reported (9) that the 1975 nation-
wide consumption of sulfuric acid was 33 million tons. By considering the
90-percent scrubbing scenario, the 1.5 million tons represents less than
5 percent of the 1975 demand. Furthermore, a 43-million-ton sulfuric acid
production capability (east of the Continental Divide) was available in 1975,
indicating an unused capacity in excess of 25 percent.
Considering the excess production capacity, l and the small annual
penetration of the SO? abatement acid in the sulfuric acid market, there are
many site-specific factors, such as the matching of potential producers and
users, that must be considered in the successful marketing of SC>2 abatement
acid. This has been under intensive study by EPA and TVA, and the general-
ized conditions under which beneficial match-ups occur are discussed in
Reference 9. A number of improvements to the predictive model developed
in that study; its application to specific sites is being considered and more
definitive results may be available in the future.
3.8.2 Land Requirements
The land required for disposal of the scrubber waste was also
determined. Using the quantities reported in Figure 16, the amount of land
required annually to dispose of all sludge production for plants coming on line
in any given year is shown, assuming that all the scrubber systems are non-
regenerable (Figure 17). More significantly, the total acreage, year-by-year,
needed for disposing of the sludge produced by all the new plants coming on
line during the study interval of 1978 to 1998 is also shown. This area is
shown as the upper three curves in Figure 17; e.g., 223,665 acres for the
year 1998 for 90-percent scrubbing for all new plants starting in 1978 versus
7456 acres actually needed in 1998 for plants coming on line that year. (The
acreage was determined by assuming a 30-foot depth of waste at the disposal
site.)
65
-------
TABLE 23. COMPUTED ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF SULFURIC ACID
OR ELEMENTAL SULFUR FROM NONREGENERABLE
SCRUBBER SYSTEMS
1.2 Ib S02/106 Btu
Percent of Total SO2 Scrubbed (Assumed to be Converted
to H2SO4 or S)
Year
1980
1983
1988
1993
1998
5%
Sulfur ic
Acid,
tons
112,000
95,000
105, 000
125, 000
172, 000
Sulfur ,
tons
36,000
31,000
34, 000
41,000
56, 000
25%
Sulfuric
Acid,
tons
561,000
475,000
524,000
627, 000
860,000
Sulfur ,
tons
183,000
155,000
171,000
205,000
281,000
50%
Sulfuric
Acid,
tons
1, 122,000
951,000
1,047,000
1,253,000
1,720,000
Sulfur,
tons
366, 000
310,000
342, 000
409, 000
562,000
90% SO2 Removal
1980
1983
1988
1993
1998
140,000
119, ooo
132,000
158,000
217,000
46,000
39,000
43, 000
52, 000
71, 000
701,000
597, 000
659, 000
790, 000
1,086,000
229,000
195,000
215,000
258,000
354,000
1,403,000
1, 194,000
1,319,000
1, 579,000
2, 172, 000
458,000
390, 000
431, 000
516, 000
708,000
0.5 Ib S02/106 Btu
1980
1983
1988
1993
1998
82, 000
70,000
77, 000
92,000
127,000
27,000
23,000
25, 000
30,000
41,000
412,000
350,000
386, 000
462,000
635, 000
134,000
114,000
126, 000
151,000
207, 000
824,000
701,000
771,000
924,000
1,270,000
269, 000
229,000
252,000
302,000
415, 000
66
-------
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
n
o
x 130
| 120
ef 110
LLJ
= 100
90
o;
<
UJ
Qi
^ 80
1 70
LO
5 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIRED FOR
DISPOSAL OF NONREGENERABLE
SCRUBBER WASTES PRODUCED
NATIONWIDE FOR EACH YEAR
BASIS: NONREGENERABLE, 500 MW
PLANTS, 30 yr LIFETIME,
50% OPERATING LOAD FACTOR,
30-ft DEPTH
TOTAL ANNUAL ACREAGE
' NEEDED FOR SCRUBBER
WASTES
-APPLICATION OF
ALTERNATIVE
STANDARDS
90% S02 REMOVAL,
223,665 ACRES IN 1998
1.2 Ib S02/10 Btu
0.5 Ib S02/10U Btu
ALTERNATIVE
STANDARDS
TOTAL ANNUAL ACREAGE
FOR COAL WASH TAILINGS
LAND NEEDED FOR
SCRUBBER WASTES
GENERATED BY PLANTS
COMING ON LINE EACH YEAR
/0.5 Ib S02/10U Btu
,90% S02 REMOVAL
,1.2 Ib S02/106 Btu
^0.5 Ib S02/106 Btu
84 86
88 90
YEAR
92
98
Figure 17. Total acreage required annually for disposal
of scrubber wastes, including ash, produced
nationwide by new plants coming on line
beginning in 1978
67
-------
SECTION IV
CHARACTERIZATION OF FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION WASTES
The chemical and physical characteristics relating to the disposal
of solid wastes are the result of many parameters related to the control sys-
tem process, its design, and operating variables. The properties of any
liquid-solid mixture are dependent upon the characteristics of both the liquid
and the solid constituents as well as the interaction between them. The non-
regenerable flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastes contain four principal
crystalline phases: calcium sulfite, calcium sulfate, fly ash, and unreacted
limestone or precipitated calcium carbonate. Wastes from the double-alkali
process also contain sodium carbonate (absorbent). These solid phases exist
as fine particulates suspended in an aqueous liquor that is usually saturated
with ions of these solids. In addition, sodium chloride or calcium chloride is
also present as a dissolved salt.
The relative amounts of each of the solid crystalline phases are
dependent upon many system design parameters and include (a) the sulfur con-
tent of the coal and the efficiency of scrubbing SO_, (b) the fly ash in the flue
gas entering the scrubber and the fly ash removaFefficiency of the system,
(c) the stoichiometric ratio of reactants relative to the sulfur content and the
reactant utilization efficiency, and (d) the amount of oxidation of the sulfur
products that takes place in the system. In addition, each crystalline phase
and the characteristic of each phase will have some influence on the behavior
of the waste.
Complete characterization and separation of the effects of the con-
trol system design and operating variables on the properties of the wastes
would require considerable time and expense inasmuch as it would require
many different, large developmental facilities dedicated to the attainment of
these correlations. To achieve a reasonable balance between idealized pro-
grams and the limitations of time and resources, several approaches have
been taken. Typical of these are the following:
a. A systematic evaluation of the effects of a number of operating
variables on solid waste properties is being conducted by TVA at
the Shawnee 10-MW (equivalent) scrubber test facility in a program
sponsored by EPA. A number of tests in the mist elimination,
magnesium oxide, and factorial testing program have been con-
ducted using the venturi-spray tower scrubber and the turbulent
69
-------
contact absorber with lime and limestone absorbents. The effects
on waste properties as a function of liquid-to-gas ratios, fly ash,
and degree of gypsum saturation are being analyzed.
b. In other tests (10), the effects on solids characteristics resulting
from variable loads, maximum oxidation, fly ash-free, SC>2
removal efficiency, and reliability are being determined.
c. Another approach taken by EPA contractors, and others, con-
sists of taking discrete waste samples from operating plants,
noting the conditions under which they were formed, and relating
them to the properties of the waste.
This section attempts to bring together results from the above types
of evaluations and to discern trends and draw conclusions within the approaches
outlined.
4. 1 EFFECTS OF CONTROL SYSTEM PROCESSES
Both scrubber design and operating system variables are expected
to affect solid waste characteristics. Waste property data included in this sec-
tion have been reported in varying degrees from individual lime, limestone,
and double alkali systems: venturi-spray tower, turbulent contact absorber,
marble bed absorber, bubble cap tower, and flooded disc absorber (Table 24).
Sizes have ranged from approximately 0. 1 MWe to a 410-MWe unit. Except
for the systematic testing by TVA at the Shawnee 10-MWe test facility to
determine the effects of operating parameters on waste properties, described
in this section, the operating conditions and coal in use at the time of sampling
generally comprise the maximum data base on those effects. Some data on
start-up and scrubber loop characterization are also available.
4. 1. 1 Design Parameters
After a review of the available data, the highly variable character-
istics of the wastes specifically relatable to individual scrubber system design
could not be discerned. However, the effects of the basic control system itself
(i. e. , lime, limestone, or double alkali) have been observed, and these are
discussed according to available data in Section 4.2 (chemical characteristics)
and Section 4. 3 (physical characteristics).
4. 1.2 Operating Parameters
The plant operating conditions identified by TVA (10) to be most
closely related to variations in the properties of solids are the liquid-to-gas
ratios, the presence of fly ash, and the degree of gypsum super saturation. At
this time detailed results have not been reported. TVA has stated that, in
many cases, no firm conclusions can be drawn between data trends and process
70
-------
TABLE 24.
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEMS
SAMPLED AS DATA BASE
Power Plant
EPA/TVA Shawnee
Steam Plant
EPA/TVA Shawnee
Steam Plant
Arizona Public
Service Company,
Cholla Power Plant
Duquesne Light
Company, Phillips
Power Station
General Motors
Corporation, .
Chevrolet-Parma
Power Plant
Southern California
Edison, Mo have
Generating Station
Utah Power and
Light Company,
Gadsby Station
Gulf Power Co. ,
Plant Scholz
Louisville Gas and
Electric, Paddy's
Run Station
EPA, Pilot Plant,
RTF, NC.
Scrubbing
Scrubber Capacity, MW
System Equivalent
Venturi and 10
spray tower,
prototype
Turbulent 10
contact
absorber,
prototype
Flooded-disc 120
scrubber,
wetted -film
absorber
Single- and 410
dual- stage
venturi
Double- 32
alkali
bubble -cap
tower
Turbulent <1
contact
absorber,
pilot plant
Double- <1
alkali,
venturi and
mobile bed
Venturi and 10
spray tower
Marble bed 65
absorber
Two -stage ซ0. 1
scrubber
Coal
Source
Eastern
Eastern
Western
Eastern
Eastern
Western
Western
Eastern
Eastern
Simulated
eastern
Absorbent
Lime
Limestone
Limestone,
fly ash
Lime
Lime,
soda ash
Lime stone
Lime,
soda ash
Soda ash,
lime
Carbide,
lime
Limestone
71
-------
variables. In other cases, definite relationships were noted to be emerging,
but these were still subject to further refinement or modification upon com-
pletion of the program and, therefore, not available during the preparation of
this report.
Other results (11, 12) were based on chemical analyses of samples
from ten different scrubbers having capacities ranging from 1 to 125 MW
equivalent. They were reported as a function of location within a scrubber
circuit as well as a function of time, pH, absorbent, and coal composition.
Results included the effects of time, pH, and absorbent in scrubber-liquor
trace-element concentration, as well as the effects of coal composition on
solid and liquid waste trace-element concentration. It was found that:
a. The concentration of major chemical species increases with time
from start-up until a steady-state condition is reached for all
species. Trace element concentrations reach steady-state
rapidly and are not affected by the steady-state conditions of the
major species.
b. The system pH is effective in controlling trace element species
only within a defined system where major process parameters
are controlled.
c. Western coals in general tend to have lower trace metal contents
than eastern coals, and significantly lower concentrations of
arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and zinc.
d. The major portion of trace metals found in the sludge liquor
originates from leaching of the fly ash during the more acid portion
of the scrubbing, cycle. The contribution made by the process
waters is insignificant relative to the contribution from coal, and,
in most cases, the contribution of the absorbent is slight.
e. The trace element content of sludge solids and liquors is directly
related to the trace element content in the coal (Figures 18 and
19). The concentration of the trace elements (controlled lay
drinking water criteria) in the sludge solids was approximately the
same as in the coal (11),; This relationship was applicable over a
range of concentrations of three orders of magnitude. The con-
centration of the same elements in the waste liquor was about
1/100 of the concentration in the coal.
4.2 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Chemical properties of scrubber waste and solids liquors and FGD
waste leachates have been reported (13). More data are becoming available
on FGD waste leaching characteristics as EPA-sponsored programs progress
and will be used to provide new information or augment existing data.
-------
400 r
100
10
l_lซi -
<
a:
0.1
0.01
LEGEND:
O ARSENIC MERCURY
D BERYLLIUM 0 COPPER
A CADMIUM ฎ LEAD
V CHROMIUM S SELENIUM
^ ZINC
i ill i i i i
j i i i
0.1 1 10 100
AVERAGE TRACE ELEMENT CONTENT OF SLUDGE SOLIDS, ppm
1000
Figure 18. Average trace element content of sludge solids.
-------
200
100
ฃ
o.
Q.
< 10
o
e
D
ARSENIC 0
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM ฎ
CHROMIUM B
COPPER
MERCURY
LEAD
SELENIUM
ZINC
I
I i_
0.001
0.01 0.1 1.0 10
AVERAGE TRACE ELEMENT CONTENT OF SLUDGE LIQUOR, mgtf
100
Figure 19. Average trace element content of sludge liquor.
-------
Chemical, x-ray, and scanning electron microscope analyses of
the solid fractions of the wastes have continued to show the uniqueness of the
characteristics, with properties affected by coal composition and scrubber
operating variables such as pH, liquid-to-gas ratio, and hold-tank residence
times (10).
The effect of process variables on the concentration of chemical
constituents was reported (11) as a function of the location within a scrubber
circuit, as well as a function of the scrubber process itself, i. e. , lime,
limestone, and double alkali.
The concentrations of major chemical species and trace elements
in FGD wastes decrease as the sludge passes from the scrubber to the dis-
posal point. However, the constituents are affected differently as they pro-
gress through the scrubbing process. An indication of the end-to-end
(scrubber stage to disposal stream) changes for the concentrations of various
constituents is shown for the limestone process in Table 25 by relating the
constituent concentrations of liquors in the scrubber to those in the disposal
material.
The range of concentrations of constituents found in 10 different
eastern and western scrubber liquors is shown in Table 26. A summary (11)
of the net changes in the liquor stream between the initial (scrubber) stage and
the final stage (disposal stream) for lime, limestone, and double alkali is
shown in Table 27. Analyses of liquid and solid constituents are tabulated in
Appendix D.
TABLE 25. RELATIVE CHANGE IN CONCENTRATION OF
CONSTITUENTS IN THE SCRUBBER CIRCUIT
LIQUOR: LIMESTONE PROCESS
Constituent
Direction of Change
Change from Scrubber Stage
to Disposal Stream3-
Calcium
Chloride
Sulfite
Sulfate
Trace metals
PH
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
30 to 40%
20%
10%
10 to 20%
2 units
Reference 16
75
-------
TABLE 26.
CHANGE OF CONCENTRATIONS OF CHEMICAL
CONSTITUENTS IN FGD SLUDGES FROM LIME,
LIMESTONE, AND DOUBLE-ALKALI SYSTEMS
Scrubber
Constituent
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
Chemical oxygen
demand
Total dissolved
solids
PH
Sludge Concentration Rangea
Liquor,
(except
0.03 -
<0. 004 -
<0. 002 -
0. 004 -
180
0.015 -
< 0.002 -
0.01
4.0
0.0004 -
5.9
< 0.0006 -
10.0
0.01
420
0.6
600
0.9
<1
2800
4.3
mg//
pH)b
2.0
1.8
0.18
0. 11
2600
0.5
0,56
0.52
2750
0.07
100
2.7
29,000
0.59
33,000
58
35,000
3500
390
92,500
12.7
Solid,
_
0.6
0.05
0.08
105,000
10
8
0.23
-
0.001
-
2
-
45
-
.
35,000
1600
^
-
mg/kgc
-
- 52
- 6
- 4
- 268,000
- 250
- 76
- 21
-
- 5
-
-17
- 48,000
- 430
- 9, 000
_
- 473, 000
- 302, 000
-
_
-
Data derived from Appendix D.
Liquor analyses were conducted on 13 samples from seven power plants
burning eastern or western coal and using lime, limestone, or double-
alkali absorbents.
f*
Solids analyses were conducted on 6 samples from six power plants
burning eastern or western coal and using lime, limestone, or double-
alkali scrubbing processes.
76
-------
TABLE 27.
NET CHANGE IN SCRUBBER LIQUOR COMPOSITION OF
MAJOR, MINOR, AND TRACE CONSTITUENTS BETWEEN
INITIAL AND FINAL STAGES IN SCRUBBER SYSTEM
Constituent
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silicon (Si)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Zinc (Zn)
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Sulfate (S04)
Sulfite (SO3)
TDS
PH
Limestone
Increase
X
XX
XX
XX
X
XXX
XX
X
XX
xxxx
Decrease
XXX
X
X
XX
X
XXXX
X
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
XXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
No
Significant
Change
(<20%)
XXX
XXX
XXX
XX
XXX
X
XX
XX
xxxx
X
X
xxxx
Limea
Increase
X
X
X
XX
XX
xxxx
Decrease
XX
X
XXX
X
XX
XX
XX
XXX
X
X
X
X
XXX
XX
XXX
XX
XX
XXX
XX
No
Significant
Change
(<20%)
X
XX
X
xxxx
XX
XX
XX
XX
xxxx
XX
XXX
X
XXX
X
XXX
X
XX
XX
XX
X
Double Alkalia
Increase
X
X
X
X
X
Decrease
X
X
X
No
Significant
Change
(
-------
4.2. 1 Major Chemical Constituents
The composition of the solids fraction of wastes sampled was
determined by chemical means and is presented in Table 28.
In the sludge solids, gypsum and calcium sulfite hemihydrate are
the principal sulfur products, together with a broad range of fly ash contents
(3-60%) resulting from either separate or simultaneous fly ash collection.
Several soluble phases are present as a consequence of salt formation during
drying of occluded water. The presence of limestone in all samples is a con-
sequence of both unreacted limestone absorbent and carbonate formation by
absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The wide range in com-
position for each of the major solid constituents reflects the various design
differences that exist among scrubber systems. Systems having high-efficiency
fly ash collection facilities upstream of the scrubber are contrasted sharply
with those systems having less efficient collection methods. The calcium
sulfate content of the sludge reflects in each case the capability of the calcium
sulfite to be oxidized, this reaction usually occurring in the scrubber or
reaction tank.
Verification of the constituents and their crystalline morphology
or definition of other characteristics such as size and shape is generally
obtained by x-ray diffraction or scanning electron microscope techniques.
Concentrations of major chemical species in sludge liquors depend
primarily on oxidation conditions in the scrubber and fly ash collection methods.
Generally the total dissolved solids (TDS) content does not exceed 10,000 mg/t,
except during start-up and under exceptional operating conditions, and for
double-alkali systems which generally operate at a much higher TDS content.
The chloride concentration in the liquor depends primarily on the chloride con-
tent of the coal.
4.2.2 Minor Chemical Constituents
The concentration of trace elements in system liquors tends to
range between 0.01 and 1 mg/ฃ for all elements except mercury, which is
about one-tenth that of other trace elements. In the sludge solids, concen-
trations of trace elements are approximately 100 times greater than that of
the liquor.
Generally, the concentrations of trace elements in scrubber
liquors from the limestone, lime, and double-alkali processes were highest
in the limestone system, intermediate in the lime, and lowest in the double-
alkali process; however, the actual concentration differences attributable to
the process are not considered significant relative to their pollutional poten-
tial. The data indicate that the concentration effect is a consequence of pH
within the respective scrubbers and, as such, is not a pollution control
mechanism.
78
-------
TABLE 28. PHASE COMPOSITION OF FGD WASTE SOLIDS IN WEIGHT PERCENT'
ATOMIC
FORMULA
CaS04-2H20
CaS03-l/2HzO
CaS04-l/2H20
CaCOj
MgS04-6H20
Na2S04-7H20
NaCI
CaS04b
FLY ASH
OTHER
TOTAL
TVA SHAWNEE
LIMESTONE,
2/1/73
21-. 9
18.5
38.7
4.6
20.1
103.8
TVA SHAWNEE
LIMESTONE,
7/12/73
15.4
21.4
20.2
3.7
40.9
101.6
TVA SHAWNEE
LIMESTONE,
6/15/74
31.2
21.8
4.5
1.9
40.1
99.5
TVA SHAWNEE
LIME,
3/19/74
6.3
48.8
2.5
1.9
40.5
100,0
SCE MOHAVE
LIMESTONE,
3/30/73
84.6
8.0
6.3
1.5
3.0
103.4
GM PARMA
DOUBLE ALKALI,
7/17/74
48.3
12.9
19.2
7.7
6.9
7.4
102.4
APS CHOLLA
LIMESTONE,
4/1/74
17.3
10.8
2.5
58.7
10.7ฐ
100.0
DLC PHILLIPS
LIME,
6/17/74
19.0
12.9
0.2
59.7
8.2C
100.0
UPL GADSBY
DOUBLE ALKALI,
8/9/74
63.8
0.2
10.8
17.7
8.6
101.1
SHAWNEE
LIME,
9/8/76
19.4
69.2
10.3
<1.0
99.9
LG&E
LIME
15.1
37.4
29. 5d
7.8
12. 4a
3.5d
05.7
GULF-
SCHOLZ
6/20/76
15.3
68.1
10.1
<1.0
94.5
-4
vO
aThe carbide lime used as absorbent is an acetylene manufacturing plant waste by-product and is reported to contain 2-2 1/2 percent silica and 3-8 percent CaCO,
Phase not explicitly measured; presence deduced from x-ray study
ฐSoluble salt, phase not determined; quantity by difference
Carbon
-------
An evaluation was also reported (11) of the trace element con-
tent in the system liquor at various positions in the scrubber process.
Chemical analyses indicated that the system liquor pH increased and trace
element content decreased en route from the scrubber to the disposal site.
The decrease in trace elements may be interpreted as a response to system
pH, or a response to the changes taking place in the concentration of major
chemical species. The in-process analyses revealed, for the major species,
that a rapid oxidation of sulfite ion and the precipitation of calcium sulfate
also takes place en route to the disposal site. The trace element content in
the liquor may be decreasing by precipitation in response to decreasing ionic
strength, by coprecipitation resulting from the scavenging action of the
calcium sulfate, by absorption onto newly created crystal surfaces of the
calcium sulfate phase, or by the pH changes previously discussed.
There is a direct relationship between the trace elements in
sludge and those in coal (Section 4. 1.2). The correlations that exist between
trace elements in coal and the trace elements in fly ash lead to the conclusion
that fly ash particles are the principal source of these trace elements in the
sludge for all but the most volatile elemental species (e. g. , mercury and
selenium) that are scrubbed from flue gases.
Western coal, having lower concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
mercury, and zinc than eastern coal, produces sludges having lower concen-
trations of these elements.
An interesting series of experiments was reported (12) on the
effect of collecting fly ash upstream of the scrubber on scrubber liquor trace
element concentrations. Previously reported analyses for trace elements in
liquors and leaches (Section 4. 1.2) are only for sludges produced by scrubbing
flue gas that contained some or all of the fly ash. Therefore, to determine
whether the trace elements resulted from the scrubbing of fly ash, sludge
was analyzed from scrubbing operations in which fly ash was removed from
the flue gas ahead of the scrubber. In addition, leaching tests were made
with sludge/fly ash mixtures prepared by the addition of fly ash to ash-free
FGD sludge and with fly ash alone, using leaching water with pH's ranging
from 4 to 9. An attempt was made to correlate the magnitude of the mea-
sured trace element concentrations in sludge liquors and leachates with fly
ash, pH, and conditions of scrubbing or leaching.
The results of the fly ash equilibrium/solubilization tests do not
substantiate that low-pH scrubbing of fly ash will produce higher levels of all
trace elements in sludge liquors. Also, it was reported that the concentra-
tions of trace elements in the ash-free sludge liquor were comparable either
to the lowest levels or to the median levels observed for the liquors from
sludge containing fly ash. Leachates of the ash-free lime sludge and the
sludge mixed with 40 percent fly ash showed comparable concentration levels
of the trace elements. Therefore, it is probable that removal of fly ash ahead
80
-------
of the scrubber will not significantly reduce the concentration levels of most
trace elements in the sludge liquors and leachates. Also, examination with the
scanning electron microscope of the solid phases of each of the supposedly
ash-free sludges showed the presence of some fly ash particles. Therefore,
it is probable that the finest fly ash particles, i. e. , those with the largest
relative surface area and, therefore, the highest leachability, are carried
pastthe separators by the flue gas. This may explain why the trace elements
were found in comparable concentrations in the liquors of ash-free sludge
and sludge containing fly ash.
4.2.3 Leaching Characteristics
The concentration of the major species in leachate, i. e. , sulfate
and chloride ions, and total dissolved solids (TDS), decreases rapidly during
the first three pore (void) volume displacements (PVD) where about 90 per-
cent of the decrease takes place relative to the fifth pore volume (11). The
concentrations at the 50th PVD are approximately the same as at the 5th PVD
(see Figures 20 and 21). Major species and trace elements existing at high
concentration (>0. 1 mg/i) are shown, from which typical behavior can be
observed. For most trace elements existing in low concentrations in the
liquor, the concentration in the leachate dropped below the detection limit of
the test method after only a few pore volume displacements. Some elements
showed a sustaining concentration level after the initial pore flushing, as
was seen for major species, while others did not. No clear pattern is evi-
dent for trace elements except that continued flushing of a given sample tends
to quickly reduce the concentration to less than 10 percent of its original value.
For untreated wastes, the pH of the leaching solution showed no
discernible effect on the leachate except for the trace elements lead and zinc,
which were leached more readily by acidic conditions. Solubility testing of
fly ash showed only cadmium, copper, and lead concentrations higher at an
acidic pH of 4. 0 than at 7. 0.
Untreated wastes were leached under both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions (11). The anaerobic conditions simulated the effect of wastes with
a high affinity for oxygen (as is the case for sulfite sludges) for conditions
simulating the lower layers of wastes in a covered landfill. The results
showed that, at any given displacement volume, a greater drop in concentra-
tions of major species in the leachate occurs with anaerobic conditions than
with aerobic conditions. At the fifth pore volume for aerobic conditions, the
sulfate concentrations reached 1100 to 1300 mg/ฃ, and chloride 95 to 130 mg/ฃ
irrespective of the initial concentration in the mother liquor. The correspond-
ing concentrations for the anaerobic conditions are 900 to 1100 mg/ฃ and 65 to
70 mg/ฃ for sulfate and chloride ion concentrations, respectively. When a
similar comparison was made for the trace elements, no clear trend ^was
observed except for lead where it was consistently and significantly higher
(at the 50th PVD) when leached under anaerobic conditions.
81
-------
1.0
o
>
ฃ 0.1
0.01
0.001
2
LITERS
20 30 40
PORE VOLUME DISPLACEMENTS
Figure 20. Analysis of leachate from TVA Shawnee
limestone sludge: aerobic conditions.
so.
0
0
1
10
1
1
1
X)
1
30
|
2
LITERS
1
40
1
50
1
3
1
60
I
70
|
4
1
80
PORE VOLUME DISPLACEMENTS
Figure 21. Analysis of leachate from Duquesne
Phillips sludge: aerobic conditions.
82
-------
4. 3 Physical Characteristics
The physical properties considered in the disposal of wastes
include: bulk density, water retention characteristics, bearing strength,
permeability, and viscosity of the waste slurry. The latter is important in
the transport of the waste to its disposal site, and the others affect the
weight and volume of the disposal material as well as the suitability of the
waste as a load bearing material and deterrent to seepage in a disposal site.
The physical properties of the moisture-containing wastes are
dependent upon the characteristics of both the liquid and the solid constituents
as well as the interaction between them. The lime and limestone scrubber
wastes contain four principal crystalline phases: calcium sulfite, calcium
sulfate, fly ash, and unreacted limestone or precipitated calcium carbonate.
In addition, double-alkali wastes contain Na2CO, absorbent carried over
from the absorbent regeneration process. These solid phases exist as fine
particulates suspended in an aqueous liquor. In addition, chloride ions
originating from various sources, including make-up water and coal, are
also present.
Although data to quantify the amount of each of the solid crystal-
line phases from the various sources are not available, the relative amounts
can be described as being dependent upon numerous system design and opera-
ting parameters and include (a) the sulfur content of the coal and the efficiency
of SOo removal, (b) the fly ash in the flue gas entering the scrubber and the
fly ash removal efficiency of the system, (c) the stoichiometric ratio of
reactants added relative to the sulfur content and the absorbent utilization
efficiency, and (d) the amount of oxidation of the sulfur products that takes
place in the system. In addition, each crystalline phase and the charac-
teristics of each phase will have some influence on the behavior of the waste.
These characteristics were discussed in Section 4.2.
4. 3. 1 Water Retention and Bulk Density
The water retention and, conversely, the dewatering character-
istics, of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastes are important to the various
disposal techniques in that they affect the volume of the disposal basin, the
waste handling methods, and the condition of the wastes in their final
disposal state. The water returned to the scrubbing system reduces the need
for make-up water and also reduces the pollution potential associated with
the liquid phase at the disposal site. Bulk density is then a consequence of
the dewatering characteristics of a waste.
The effectiveness of the dewatering method and the ability of a
sludge to be dewatered is a function of a number of solid characteristics
including the size and distribution of particles, and the crystalline structure
of the particles, which are a function of the system as well as its operating
83
-------
parameters, including the type of coals. Generally, four dewatering methods
are used: settling, settling by free drainage, vacuum filtration, and centrifu-
gation; the results are almost exclusively based on laboratory experiments.
The effectiveness of a dewatering operation, i.e., the relative
quantity of water that remains with the solid after performing the dewatering
operation, is characterized by the wet bulk density of a sludge.
, The sludges with the best overall dewatering characteristics are
those with coarse particle size distributions, generally those produced
by the limestone scrubber systems. The double-alkali systems produce the
finest particle size distributions and have the poorest dewatering
characteristics.
The highest density is obtained principally by vacuum assisted
filtration in most sludges and by centrifugation in a few cases. In all cases,
there are relatively small density differences resulting from these two
dewatering methods.
In most sludges, there is very little difference in the density
when dewatered by settling or settling followed by free drainage, although the
latter always exhibits higher densities due to the lower retention from its free
draining condition. While free draining may not produce a significant improve-
ment in bulk density, the slight gain coupled with its associated solids content
in some cases may significantly affect its load bearing strength, as discussed
in Section 4. 3. 2.
Generally, the wet bulk density ranges from a low of approximately
1.48 g/cm3 (92 pcf), for settled sludges, to a high of 1. 76 g/cm3 (110 pcf) for
vacuum filtered (see Table 29). Drained and centrifuged values were inter-
mediate to these extremes, with drained being slightly higher than the settled
and centrifuged slightly lower than the filtered. These values were obtained
under laboratory conditions and may not be representative of results using
commercial equipment. However, it is expected that the defined trends will
apply.
No general relationship has yet been determined between slurry
solids content and settling rates because of the strong influence of solids
morphology on this property.
An interesting phenomenon was reported (12) with freely drained
Shawnee lime sludge to which fly ash had been added. The solids content was
adjusted to approximately 25 percent to simulate clarifier underflow. When
poured into a test container, the coarser fly ash particles (typically 50 urn in
diameter) settled.more rapidly than the sulfur-phase particles (typically
20 urn in diameter) and formed a fly ash layer on the filter paper used as a
retainer. Although supernate drained through the paper as in all other cases
84
-------
TABLE 29. WATER RETENTION AND BULK DENSITY CHARACTERISTICS (10)
Dewatering Method
Scrubber System
Lime
Lime stone
Double alkali
Settled
Percent
Solids
40-48
47-67
37-40
Density,
g/cc
1.34-
1.40
1.39-
1.65
1.30-
1.35
Settled and
Drained
Percent
Solids
43-53
56-67
41-44
Density,
g/cc
1.36-
1.50
1.44-
1.67
1.33-
1.44
Centrifuged
Percent
Solids
50-57
60-77
50-62
Density,
g/cc
1.39-
1. 52
1.56-
1.86
1.38-
1. 62
Vacuum Filtered
Percent
Solids
56-57
53-80
55-58
Density,
g/cc
1.48-
1.54
1.48-
1.78
1. 50-
1.61
00
(J\
-------
without the fly ash layer, the presence of a fly ash layer beneath the sludge
appeared to aid the dewatering process. The resultant process was nearly as
effective as vacuum filtration. Because water retention in fly ash is rela-
tively low, supernate water passes freely through the fly ash layer, creating
air voids. It was postulated that, since the fly ash is contiguous with the
sulfur-phase particles, surface tension forces between the fly ash particles
and water are capable of overcoming the surface tension between the sulfur-
phase particles and water. Thus, water is also removed from the sludge as
it passes through the fly ash layer. The net consequence of this action is that
more effective dewatering takes place.
4.3.2 Compressive and Load Bearing Strength
The structural characteristics of wet FGD sludge affects its use
where land reclamation is desired. Therefore, the load-bearing strength
of the sludge is an important factor in planning for acceptable disposal of
FGD waste.
Unconfined compressive strengths of untreated wastes are low,
and generally no specific values are reported because the material is usually
too soft to measure.
Chemically treated sludges exhibit unconfined compressive
strengths ranging from approximately 25 psi to 4500 psi in laboratory studies.
However, commercial processes being used at power stations today produce
values in the range of 25 to 400 psi (see Section 5. 1.2).
Recently, load bearing strengths as a function of the solids content
of wastes dewatered by settling, with underdraining such that surface drying
occurs, have been reported (12) for a number of power plant FGD sludges,
Figure 22. These results reinforce previous observations (13) that sludges
may be dewatered to critical and narrow ranges of solids content, above
which the load-bearing strengths increase rapidly to values well above the
minimum for safe access of personnel and equipment. However, the critical
concentration appears to be unique for each waste tested, and correlation with
other physical or morphological characteristics was not apparent. Field
evaluations (14) of underdrained ponds of lime and limestone sludges have
shown these materials to be capable of supporting light construction equip-
ment. Load bearing strengths in excess of 20 psi were reached.
The development of load bearing strength of various TVA Shawnee
power plant lime sludge and fly ash mixtures as a function of the time the
waste was allowed to dewater by settling, and with the water removed in an
underdrained condition, is shown in Figure 23. The strength of settled
wastes without draining is also illustrated. In the latter case, low bearing
strengths are exhibited even after an extended settling period. As a result of
underdrainage, high strengths were developed within several days. With
limestone underdrained wastes, high load bearing strengths, e.g. , 12 kg/cm ,
-------
CXI
O SHAWNEE LIME, NO FLY ASH
SHAWNEE LIME, 40% FLY ASH
A SCHOLZ. NO FLY ASH
A SCHOLZ, 30% FLY ASH
D PADDY'S RUN
0 PHILLIPS
O CHOLLA
GADSBY
ฎ SHAWNEE LIMESTONE, NO FLY ASH
O SHAWNEE LIMESTONE 40% FLY ASH
60 70
SOLIDS CONTENT, weight %
80
90
Figure 22. Compression strength of sludges and sludge/fly ash mixtures
as a function of solids content.
-------
250
200
o
2 150
oo
CO
a 100
Q
o
50
0
30% 55/60
EFFECT OF WATER REMOVAL BY
UNDERDRAINAGE ON LOAD-BEARING
STRENGTH OF LIME SLUDGES
NOTE:
a. PERCENTAGES REFER TO THE
AMOUNT OF ASH AS A
FRACTION OF THE SOLIDS
b.
SOLIDS CONTENT OF
NON DRAINED SLURRY:
0
45%
WATER REMOVAL BY
UNDER DRAINAGE-
55/60 REFERS TO INITIAL
AND FINAL SOLIDS CONTENT
NON-
DRAINED
5 10
SLUDGE SETTLING TIME, DAYS
Figure 23. Effect of water removal by .underdrainage on load-bearing
strength of lime sludges.
-------
were developed approximately 5 to 10 days after the same values were
attained for lime wastes handled in a similar manner.
The effect of rewetting dewatered wastes with the equivalent of 1/2
inch of rainfall is also reported (12). A loss in load bearing strength was
observed. However, its recovery, when allowed to drain, appeared to be
comparable to the initial buildup.
4. 3. 3 Permeability
The pollution potential of sludge liquor into groundwaters is
governed by the mobility of leaching waters, which is limited by the coefficient
of permeability of the various media through which this leachate must pass.
Permeability of leaching waters through the waste defines an
upper limit to the amount of leachate that enters the subsoil. The amount of
liquid and the level of contamination of this liquid are jointly responsible for
the pollution potential of any given waste disposal site.
;
c The permeability coefficients of untreated wastes range from 2X10
to 5 X 10 cm/sec (10). The permeability coefficient of untreated sludges
has been shown to be a function of the volume fraction of solids in the waste.
These values are intermediate to typical values for silty sand and sandy clay,
which are 10~4 cm/sec and 5 X 10"" cm/sec, respectively. Values as low
as 6 X 10 cm/sec have been reported for Louisville Gas and Electric
carbide-lime untreated wastes. Sludge without fly ash has been found to have
permeabilities about five times greater than the sludge with fly ash, with the
solids fraction nearly identical for both materials. The difference is
believed to be related to agglomeration of the fine sludge particles, which
respond in a manner similar to coarser materials. When fly ash replaces
the sludge particles, the solids fraction does not change, but the fly ash,
having a broad particle size distribution, fills pore passages such that the
rate of water passage through the waste is reduced.
Consolidation of untreated wastes under pressures of 30 to 100 psi
reduces the void fraction and also reduces permeability coefficients by factors
of from 2 to 5. The higher solid volume fraction, resulting from compaction
or consolidation, and the decrease in permeability appear to be a function of
the size of the sludge particles and the size and distribution of the fly ash
particles. Consolidation of sludge at the base, of a 40-foot-deep disposal site _4
will decrease permeabilities to about 1 X 10"5 cm/sec as compared to 1 X 10
cm/sec at the surface. This value appears to represent the lower limit of
untreated waste permeabilities expected in the field.
Chemical treatment tends to reduce permeability by less than a
factor of 2 in some cases and several orders of magnitude in others
(Section 5. 1.2).
89
-------
Weathering, such as freezing and thawing, has been reported to
break up the monolithic structure of certain treated wastes (15). The per-
meability of several treated wastes that were mechanically fractured and
powdered to simulate extensive weathering exhibited permeability values
approximately the same as for untreated wastes. Fracturing (but not powder-
ing) and compacting resulted in about one order of magnitude reduction of
permeability relative to the powdered condition (11).
4.3.4 Viscosity
The viscosity of the liquid waste is a measure of its pumpability,
which affects both the mode and cost of sludge transport.
The results of viscosity tests for ten sludges (12) show that easily
pumpable mixtures (20 poise) range from a high solids content of 70 percent
to a low solids content of 30 percent (Figure 24).
The waste materials produced in FGD systems contain finely
divided particulate materials suspended in an aqueous medium and consist of
three major phases having markedly different morphologies; calcium sulfite,
calcium sulfate, and fly ash. It is both the particle size distributions and
phase morphologies that are believed to influence the viscosity of the sludges.
Both calcium sulfate and calcium sulfite scrubber waste products
tend to have particle sizes in the same range as fly ash; between 1 and 100 p.m.
However, fly ash is formed as spheres, while sulfite wastes are platey or
rosettes, and sulfates are blocky in shape. Unreacted precipitated CaCOo
from the limestone (or lime process) is usually present in the waste and con-
tributes an additional shape parameter.
Whereas particle shape, particularly platey sulfite particles, has
been suggested as the cause of the rheological nature of sludge, in the viscous-
fluid behavior of these sludges it is not apparent that the sulfite phase plays a
decisive role. On the other hand, the data clearly suggest that fly ash
decreases the viscosity of a sludge and high pH (of a double-alkali system)
increases it. Although particle shape, size, and distribution appear to
influence viscosity behavior, the precise effect each may have is not clear
from published results. In an instance with double-alkali sludge, the results
tended to suggest that agglomeration of the fine particles, rather than their
presence, also affected viscosity.
Considering the lack of characterization data, the importance of
experimentally determined data for system design parameters is apparent.
4.3.5 Compaction
Questions may arise as to whether the compaction of FGD sludges
may provide a means of increasing the mass of waste disposed of within a
90-
-------
CURVE SLUDGE FLY ASH, %
1 GM PARMA DOUBLE ALKALI 7.4
2 UPL GADSBY DOUBLE ALKALI 8.6
3 TVA SHAWNEE LIME 40.5
4 DLC PHILLIPS LIME 59.7
5 TVA SHAWNEE LIMESTONE 20.1
6 TVA SHAWNEE LIMESTONE 40.1
7 TVA SHAWNEE LIMESTONE 40.9
8 SCE MOHAVE LIMESTONE 3.0
9 APS CHOLLA LIMESTONE 58.7
10 TVA SHAWNEE LIME 0
11 TVA SHAWNEE LIMESTONE 0
12 LG&E PADDY'S RUN 12.4
13 GPC SCHOLZ SODA ASH 30
14 GPC SCHOLZ SODA ASH 0
15 TVA SHAWNEE LIME 40
30
40 50 60
SOLIDS CONTENT, WE IGHT %
Figure 24. Viscosity of desulfurization sludges,
91
-------
specified volume. Moreover, if compacted sludge behaves like fly ash,
significantly reduced permeabilities and increased strength can be expected
and these may increase the environmental acceptability of the sludge. The
particle size distribution and crystalline morphology are the two most
important parameters influencing the compactability of FGD sludges.
Compaction tests were reported (11) on lime, limestone, and
double alkali sludges that had been dewatered to greater than 75 percent solids.
Reduction in volume in the range of 7 to 15 percent was observed if pressures
of 100 psi were maintained with lime and limestone wastes. Under comparable
conditions, double-alkali wastes compacted 4 to 5 percent. However, upon
release of the compressive load, permanent volume reductions of 1 to 4 per-
cent were noted. In contrast, fly ash has been shown to compact from7 to
20 percent.
These tests suggest that some benefit in untreated sludge volume
reduction may be gained by compaction, but any method other than compaction
by natural settling may not be practical for this purpose only.
4. 3. 6 Porosity
Porosity (void fraction) of untreated wastes was found to be in
the range of 50 to 75 percent (16). Double-alkali waste data grouped at
approximately 75 percent, and the lime and limestone wastes ranged from
50 to 65 percent. This property is an important characteristic of the waste
because it defines the fraction of the volume of the sludge that contains
occluded (retained) liquor after dewatering.
4. 3. 7 Regenerable Processes
The regenerable scrubbing processes do not produce solid
scrubber wastes. However, these processes do not tolerate fly ash and,
therefore, the scrubber must be preceded by an electrostatic precipitator to
remove the fly ash, which generally is disposed of in ponds. Bottom ash is
formed and must be disposed of also. A summary of ash properties (17) is
given below. Inefficiencies in the regeneration processes, which may or may
not be located within the generating plant battery limits, are losses of MgSO
and NaHSC>3 and are reflected as makeup of MgO and Na2SOo for the mag-
nesium oxide and Wellman-Lord processes, respectively. The solids and
liquids leaving the separation step in each of the processes can be recycled
into the regeneration step and, effectively, no solid wastes are produced.
92
-------
The distribution of ash between the bottom ash and fly ash frac-
tions is a function of the following:
a. Boiler type (firing method). The type of firing is perhaps the
most important factor in determining ash distribution. Stoker-
fired units emit the smallest proportion of fly ash. In cyclone
units, 80 to 85 percent of the ash is melted and collected as slag.
Pulverized coal units produce 60 to 85 percent fly ash and the
remainder bottom ash.
b. Coal type (ash fusion temperature). Ashes with lower fusion
temperatures tend to melt within the furnace and, therefore, to
be collected as bottom ash.
c. Wet or dry bottom furnace. Wet bottom boilers are designed to
produce and process a much larger proportion of bottom ash than
are dry bottom boilers.
Fly ash makes up from 10 to 85 percent of the coal ash residue
and occurs as spherical particles, usually ranging in diameter from 0. 5 to
100 nm. Color varies from light tan to black, depending on the carbon con-
tent. A portion of fly ash is made up of very lightweight particles called
cenospheres, which comprise up to 20 percent by volume of the fly ash.
These cenospheres are spheres of silicate glass filled with nitrogen and car-
bon dioxide which range from 20 to 200 jim in diameter. They are "floaters, "
which create a suspended solids problem in pond disposal of ash. The
chemical composition of cenospheres is very similar to that of fly ash.
The bottom ash, composed primarily of coarser, heavier particles
than the fly ash, ranges from gray to black in color and is generally angular
with a porous surface. If it is collected as a slag, these slag particles usually
are black, angular, and have a glass-like appearance.
Petrographic analysis has shown that glass is the primary component of ash,
constituting 50 to 90 percent of the total weight. Finer particles generally
contain a higher proportion of the glass constituent than the coarser ones.
Other components of the ash include magnetite, hematite, carbon, mullite,
and quartz.
The chemical characteristics of ash depend largely on the geologic and geo-
graphic factors related to the coal deposit. The major constituents of ash
primarily silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium- make up 95 to 99 percent of
the total composition. Minor constituents, such as magnesium, titanium,
sodium, potassium, sulfur, and phosphorus, comprise 0. 5 to 3. 5 percent.
Ash also contains trace concentrations of from 20 to 50 elements, including,
for example: antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, copper, fluorine,
lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, tellurium,
thallium, tin, titanium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc.
93
-------
Several studies have been made recently to determine the con-
centrations of these trace elements in the coal combustion residues. These
studies were conducted on different sizes and types of systems with respect
to megawatt output, collector configuration, boiler type, and operating con-
ditions. Even the purposes of the studies.differed. Yet, they were in fairly
close agreement as to their findings on the distribution of elements among
different fractions of the combustion residues.
Most of these studies agreed that elements were distributed into
the fractions of coal combustion residue (bottom ash, fly ash, and vapors)
according to definite patterns. The elements appeared to be divided into
three main classes, as follows.
a. Elements that are approximately equally concentrated in the
bottom ash and fly ash.
b. Elements that are enriched in the fly ash relative to their con-
centrations in the bottom ash.
c. Elements that are primarily discharged to the environment as
gases.
Results from an analytical study conducted at the Tennesses Valley
Authority (Table 30) partitioned elements into the above categories. The
elements Cr, Cs, Na, Ni, U, and V were not placed into one of these three
groups but were judged to exhibit behavior intermediate between the first two
groups.
TABLE 30. PARTITION OF ELEMENTS BY THEIR TENDENCIES FOR
DISTRIBUTION IN COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUES
Group I
Elements Concentrated Approximately Equally in Bottom Ash and Fly Ash
Al
Ba
Ca
Ce
Co
Eu
Fe
Hf
K
La
Mg
Mn
Rb
Sc
Si
Sm
Sr
Ta
Th
Ti
Group II
Elements Preferentially Concentrated in the Fly Ash
As
Cd
Cu
Ga
Mo
Pb
Sb
S
Zn
Group III
Elements Tending to be Discharged to Atmosphere as Vapors
_ _^
Br
94
-------
Results from a study of three Northern Great Plains plants
showed that As, Sb, Se, V, Pb, Mo, Ni, B, Zn, Cd, Cr, Cu, Co, U, Ag, S,
Hg, Cl, and F were enriched in the fly ash plus flue gas samples, with S, Hg,
and Cl appearing to be emitted from the plant as gaseous species. Thus, in
examining just one category, i. e. , elements preferentially concentrated in
the fly ash, the conclusions of several studies are generally consistent.
This agreement of results is notable, considering the differences in the
furnace types, coaltypes, and sampling and analytical procedures.
Elements named by one or more studies as primarily emitted to
the atmosphere in the vaporous phase include Cl, F, Br, Hg, S, and Se. Most
sulfur is emitted as SOX and the halogens as hydrogen halides, all of which are
scrubbed in an alkaline SOX scrubber (CaO, CaCO_, or NaSCs)
Obtaining representative samples for coal and ash characteriza-
tion is often difficult because of variations in coals and complications in
stack sampling, particularly for fine particulate. Comparisons in charac-
terization also are impeded by differences in the analytical methods chosen.
4.4 Potential Environmental Impacts
The environmental impact of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludge
disposal depends not only on the properties of the sludge but also on the site's
climatological and hydrological conditions and its geographic location.
Therefore, a sludge's environmental impact may be determined on the basis
of its anticipated behavior under various alternative methods of disposal.
The following sections discuss the expected impact of FGD sludges
on the environment with respect to the range of properties referenced in this
study. It is assumed that the range of properties summarized are repre-
sentative of the sludges that are being and will be produced. In the data base
available for this study, an attempt was made to separate the effects of
eastern and western coals; lime, limestone, and double-alkali systems;
sludges with and without fly ash; and systems operating at both high and low
pH. Although results for every combination of variables were not available,
it is believed that the following discussions will be applicable to a major
portion of the sludges that will require disposal.
To evaluate the environmental impact of alternative disposal
techniques for FGD wastes, it is necessary to assess various routes by which
chemical pollutants may enter the environment from a disposal site and to
determine the relative mobility of the various chemical species with respect
to their availability and accessibility to water supplies. Thus, in addition
to chemical characterization of FGD sludges, the physical properties that
control the mobility and manner that the pollutants may enter the aquatic
environment must be considered.
95
-------
4.4.1 Water Pollution
The disposal of FGD wastes make possible several alternative
routes by which chemical constituents in the desulfurization wastes may enter
and pollute surface and underground waters. Untreated waste is generally
disposed of in an impoundment as a mixture of solids and occluded liquor.
Pollutant transfer may take place as a result of rainwater displacing liquors
occluded in the sludge and containing chemical constituents, and leaching
constituents out of the sludge itself, or by rainwater running off the sludge
surface and dissolving and entraining chemical constituents. Water may be
polluted by leachate seeping through the soil below the disposal site into
groundwater or uncollected runoff seeping into the soil surrounding the disposal
site and then into groundwater, or the runoff draining directly into surface
streams and rivers.
4.4. 1. 1 Pollution by Runoff
The potential environmental pollution by rainwater runoff from
the surface of FGD sludges exists through the action of surface leaching of
chemical constituents and from erosion of particulates from the surface. Sub-
sequently it can affect either surface waters, if the runoff flows directly into
streams, or groundwater, if the runoff is allowed to percolate through
adjacent land. This applies to sludges that are disposed of as a landfill,
either above or below grade. At this time, only chemically treated sludges
are being disposed of operationally as described above. When treated sludge
is disposed of by this method and the site is managed to facilitate landfill
operations such as placement and compaction, rainwater is not allowed to
stand on the surface, and therefore runs off. The potential environmental
effects of this runoff would be of concern.
The environmental concern for these sites results from the fact
that freshly treated sludges could produce relatively high concentrations of
suspended and dissolved solids in the runoff compared to those from a cured
material. Since freshly treated material is added to the site continuously,
the concern for the quality of the runoff would exist throughout the development
period of the landfill. Currently, a runoff collection ditch leading to a silta-
tion pond is used to prevent pollution from suspended solids; the collection of
water from a major portion of the landfill area allows for dilution of excessive
dissolved solids from local areas of the site containing freshly treated sludge.
Freeze-thaw cycling may periodically create runoff problems by exposing new
surface areas to rainwater; therefore, a compacted overburden of soil is
desirable for completed portions of the landfill.
These observations represent only a limited examination of runoff
conditions. Current programs by private firms and the EPA are expected to
produce a better understanding of these potential problems.
96
-------
4.4.1.2 Pollution of Ground water
A potential for the pollution of groundwater exists as a conse-
quence of the action of rainwater leaching through untreated waste in a disposal
basin. For untreated sludge, this pollution potential can exist because the
disposal basin is generally designed to impound sludge liquors and rainwater.
Water percolates through sludge whenever free standing water collects on its
surface. The amount of leachate that percolates through the sludge depends
upon the permeability of the sludge, the permeability of the basic subsoil, and
the quantity of water entering the basin either by rainfall or other sources.
The quality of the leachate depends on the availability of chemical species to
the percolating waters.
Untreated sludge normally contains occluded liquor from the
scrubbing process in an amount representing 35 to 80 percent by weight of the
total sludge, depending upon the extent of dewatering. Most of this occluded
liquor is flushed from the sludg-e by the first three to five pore volume dis-
placements (PVD) of percolating water (see Section 4. 2. 4). Thereafter, the
leachate attains a nearly constant total dissolved solids (TDS) content of
2000 mg/j?, which primarily represents the solubility of calcium sulfate.
Initial leachate content is as high as the soluble chemical content of the
sludge liquor and is dependent upon the type of FGD system.I
The rate at which water passes through untreated FGD wastes is
approximately 10" - cm/sec, equivalent to silty sand soils. A method of
quantifying the pollutant potential is to calculate the mass loading (mass per
unit area) of constituents into the subsoil.
Calculations were reported (11) for an untreated FGD waste con-
taining 6000 mg/C dissolved solids in the occluded mother liquor, and the
impact of disposal by alternative techniques was considered. Chemically
treated wastes are also presented to illustrate the effects of this alternative.
The rate of leachate seepage through the untreated sludge would be 10~4
cm/sec, and 10"^ cm/sec for treated sludge. In these examples, the waste
was assumed to be placed to a depth of 30 feet during a 5-year fill period.
In comparison, leachate through treated FGD waste has an initial TDS con-
tent of nominally one-half that of untreated waste, and after five PVD it
attains a level of one-half to one-fourth that of the leachate from untreated
wastes (see Section 5. 1. 2).
97
-------
The results of this assessment are presented in Figure 25 for
cases described in Table 31. Cases 1 and 2 represent the ponding technique
of disposal in which the site is continuously inundated with water, which may
include runoff from surrounding areas. Case 1 is for untreated FGD waste,
and Case 2 is for treated waste. Cases 3 and 4 represent pond disposal of
untreated and treated waste, respectively, in which rainfall is trapped in the
impoundment, and the disposal site is retired by grading and landscaping. In
these cases, the amount of water recharged to the subsoil represents a
normal recharge for indigenous soil. Case 5 is the condition in which
treated FGD waste is disposed of in a landfill managed such that 1 inch of the
assumed normal available recharge of 10 inches is allowed to penetrate the
waste because runoff from the surface has been maximized. Figure 26
illustrates the mass loading of the total dissolved solids (TDS) that is
expected to reach the disposal site subsoil per year as a function of time.
Each curve also indicates the point in time at which the flushing action of the
leachate reaches five PVD; i. e. , when the occluded water is flushed out and
solubility becomes important.
CASE 1
A END OF 5th PORE VOLUME
0.001
Figure 25. Mass loading of TDS to subsoil for
various disposal modes of treated*
and untreated FGD wastes
98
-------
TABLE 31. INPUT DATA FOR STUDY CASES'
Case
1
2
3
4
5
Disposal
Method
Lake
Lake
Pond
Pond
Landfill
Surface
Water
Constant
supernate
Constant
supernate
10 in/yr
recharge
10 in/yr
recharge
1 in/yr
recharge
FGC Waste, 5-Year Fill
Waste
Condition
Untreated
Treated
Untreated
Treated
Treated
Depth
ft
30
30
30
30
30
Permeability,
cm/secฐ
ID'4
c
10
io-4
io"5
io-5
Fractional
Pore
Volume
0. 67
0.67
0.67
0. 67
0.67
Assumed maximum hydraulic head of 6 ft during filling, including depth of wastes;
1-ft constant water cover thereafter.
b -5
For all cases, subsoil permeability = 10 cm/sec.
-------
This evaluation shows that the mass loading of pollutants to
the subsoil from an untreated site which is continuously covered with water
can be reduced by one order of magnitude if runoff is prevented from enter-
ing the site (only rainfall enters), and several orders if wastes are treated
and the site is managed to shed water. Additionally, the significance of
disposal site management as a means of preventing chemical pollution to the
environment is illustrated. For example, chemical treatment reduces
solubility by one-half or more. Also, with the permeability reduced by at
least one order of magnitude, runoff from the site is increased, thereby
reducing the recharge rate by a factor of 10.
The implications of chemical treatment of wastes in conjunction
with other techniques of FGD disposal are discussed in Section 5. 1.
4.4.1.3 Impact Assessment
In summary, it has been determined that untreated waste chemical
properties tend to be a function of the coal and scrubbing process variables.
Furthermore, the waste characteristics are also a function of the treatment
process itself. Prime factors to be considered in evaluating the environ-
mental impacts of disposing FGD wastes are provided below. Untreated
waste characteristics and impacts are discussed in conjunction with
chemically treated wastes to provide a frame of reference.
a. Strength. Because of the rheological nature and structural
characteristics of untreated wastes, personnel and equipment
safety cannot be ensured unless specific measures are taken,
such as pond underdraining (see Section 4. 3. 2). Treated
material, depending on the chemical treatment process and
the solids content, can be expected to achieve strengths in
excess of those considered minimal for supporting personnel
and equipment and, in some cases, building structures. The
long-range effect of weathering, i. e., wet-dry and freeze-thaw
cycling, is yet to be defined.
b. Permeability. The permeability coefficient of untreated
material is approximately 10~4 to 10~5 cm/sec. Chemical
treatment tends to reduce these values over a broad range,
from negligible to several orders of magnitude, depending on
the process selected. The long-range effect of weathering
on permeability of wastes is yet to be determined.
100
-------
c. Leachate Concentration. Laboratory and field leaching data have
shown that leachate concentrations of major species in the
leachate from chemically treated materials are about 25 to 50
percent of the concentrations of major species in untreated
materials.
d. Leachate Mass Release. The mass release of major constituents
into the soil from chemically treated materials is reduced as a
result of lower permeability of the treated wastes, a reduction of
the solubility of major pollutant constituents, and elimination of
hydraulic head via runoff. The treatment process and mode of
disposal, i. e. , pond, landfill, or lake, determine the mass load-
ing of pollutants into the soil, which can amount to a reduction of
one to many orders of magnitude when compared to untreated
materials.
4.4.2 Ability to Support Vegetation
There is a general lack of published information on the ability of
FGD waste materials to support vegetation. This may be expected, however,
because the anticipated modes of reclaiming disposal sites do not consider
their use in such a manner, i. e. , without a soil cover.
Insight on the consequences of effect of FGD waste constituents on
vegetation, however, can be obtained from a number of sources. Use of
gypsum as a soil amendment is well known. Also, the use of fly ash is
being studied extensively (18, 19) and the effects of the plant uptake of various
trace elements from the ash is being assessed.
EPA and the State of Illinois (16) have funded programs to use
FGD wastes in the production of fertilizer. Emphasis to date has been on
processing, with plant uptake experiments to follow. However, preliminary
small-field-plot application of FGD-produced fertilizer on rye grass by TVA
was encouraging and formed a basis for pursuing pilot plant production
studies under EPA funding.
101
-------
SECTION V
ASSESSMENT OF WASTE DISPOSAL AND
UTILIZATION TECHNOLOGY
5. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DISPOSAL
PROCESSES AND PRACTICES
It has been determined that the chemical and morphological
properties of untreated waste tend to be a function of the coal and, more
importantly, a function of the scrubbing process variables. The mor-
phology tends to establish the settling and dewatering characteristics of a
particular slurry. Detailed characterization of scrubber solids as a
function of scrubber operating parameters on the properties and work in that
area is being conducted (10) under EPA funding. Furthermore, chemically
treated waste characteristics are also dependent on the treatment process
itself. Prime factors to be considered in the disposal of FGD wastes are as
follows.
a. Structural Strength. Because of the rheological and structural
characteristics of untreated wastes, personnel and equipment
safety cannot be ensured. Treated material, depending on the
treatment process and the solids content, can be expected to
achieve strengths in excess of those considered minimal for
supporting personnel and equipment and, in some cases, build-
ing structures. The long-range effect of weathering on strength,
i. e. , wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycling, is yet to be defined.
b. Permeability. Permeability coefficients of untreated materials
range from 2 X 1Q-4 to 5 X 10~5 cm/sec. Chemical treatment
tends to lower these values over a broad range (from negligible
to several orders of magnitude) depending on the process,
chemical additive, and the solid content of the treated material.
The long-range effect of weathering on permeability is yet to be
determined.
c. Leachate Concentration. Laboratory and field leaching data
show that leachate concentrations of major species in the
leachate from fixed materials are about 25 to 50 percent of the
concentrations of major species in untreated materials.
103
-------
d. Leachate Mass Release. The mass release of major con-
stituents into the soil from chemically fixed materials is reduced
as a result of lower permeability of the treated wastes, a reduc-
tion of the solubility of major pollutant constituents, and, in
some cases, a minimization of seepage by controlled runoff.
The treatment process and mode of disposal, i. e. , landfill or
lake, determine the mass loading of pollutants into the soil,
which can amount to reductions of one to several orders of mag-
nitude when compared to untreated materials.
e. Soil Attenuation Effects. The extent that trace elements and
other chemical constituents of FGD wastes may be attenuated in
soils or their mobility to migrate through soils at land disposal
sites is being studied by the U.S. Army under EPA sponsorship
(10). Soil and waste characterization tests are complete. How-
ever, work has not progressed to the point where quantitative
information on the migration and attenuation of FGD waste con-
stituents has been determined.
f. Liner Evaluation. An experimental program to determine the
compatibility and effectiveness of 18 liner materials with FGD
wastes, liquors, and leachates is under way. Material screen-
ing tests have been conducted. Materials have been selected,
and testing has begun in test cells. Since the exposure of mate-
rials to various wastes has been limited and definitive informa-
tion is not available at present, a 2-yr exposure is planned.
The economics of FGD disposal by ponding will also be assessed.
g. Waste Dewatering Methods. Studies are being conducted to
determine dewatering characteristics of FGD wastes and to
define areas where improvements can be made in dewatering
equipment or techniques. Since the program is in its early
stages, quantitative information is not available. However,
results from this work are expected to be used in assessing
benefits derived from a reduction of: dewatering equipment
size, waste volume handled, disposal acreage, and chemical
additives.
h. Field Disposal Evaluation. A project to evaluate and monitor
the field-site disposal in indigenous soil impoundments of
untreated and treated FGD wastes has been under way for over
3 yr at the TV A Shawnee power plant site (14). Its purpose is
to determine the effects of several scrubbing operations, waste
treatment methods, disposal techniques, soil interactions, and
field operation procedures. Test samples of treated and
untreated wastes, groundwater, surface water, leachate, and
soil cores are being analyzed in order to evaluate the environ-
mental acceptability of current disposal technology.
104
-------
The analysis of groundwater shows no indications of increases in
concentration levels attributable to the presence of any of the
ponds.
The total dissolved solids (TDS) and the concentration of major
constituents in the supernates of the untreated ponds decreased
with time from initial values corresponding to the values
measured in the input liquor. After the initial decrease, fluctu-
ations were observed in which concentrations increased during
dry weather and decreased again when increased rainfall caused
additional dilution. For the treated ponds the concentrations of
major constituents and TDS in the supernate varied as a function
of dry and wet weather during the monitoring period and did not
exceed values of one-half to two-thirds of the corresponding
concentration of the constituents in the input liquor.
Generally, the TDS, SO4, Ca, and Cl in the leachate from
untreated ponds reached the input concentration and decreased
steadily thereafter to a level approximately one-half the concen-
tration of the input liquor. Minor constituents whose concentra-
tions span a range of six orders of magnitude were relatively
constant over the period monitored. The analyses of leachate
from the ponds containing treated sludge show data trends similar
to the untreated ponds; however, TDS levels consistently remain
at a level approximately one-half of the levels found in the input
liquor. Six minor constituents remained at relatively constant
levels throughout the monitoring period, with the exception of
the boron level in one treated site which increased steadily to a
level approaching that of the input liquor.
An evaluation of the environmental effects of settling and the
structural characteristics of disposing of untreated lime wastes
in underdrained field impoundments at the Shawnee site were
initiated in late 1976. Monitoring of underdrained limestone and
gypsum evaluation sites started in early 1977.
Other field evaluations of FGD waste test impoundments and full
scale disposal sites are in early stages of implementation by Louis-
ville Gas and Electric and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (10).
It is apparent that each disposal site and the material placed in
it have individual characteristics different from most others. These include
waste material properties, weather, topography, soil characteristics, and
nearby stream quality and flow characteristics. Therefore, the disposal
method chosen for any site will generally be selected on site-specific
conditions. Because of this, the establishment of a single criterion for all
cases may be overly conservative in one location and not stringent enough
in another.
105
-------
Various disposal and waste conversion processes and practices
are capable of minimizing environmental impacts on aquifers and ground-
waters. These are discussed in subsequent sections and include:
a. Ponding of untreated waste, with various alternatives
b. Chemical treatment of waste, and landfill disposal
c. Mine disposal of untreated waste
d. Ocean disposal of treated waste
Processes that produce useable products that minimize or reduce the dis-
posal of wastes include:
a. Conversion of gypsum for wallboard and other uses
b. Production of sulfur or sulfuric acid
c. Use as a synthetic aggregate
5. 1. 1 Ponding
The method that represents the least deviation from state-of-the-
art fly ash disposal is direct ponding of untreated wastes into a disposal basin.
The environmental impact of pond disposal is strongly dependent upon the abil-
ity (a) to contain the components of a sludge so as to prevent environmental
pollution, and(b) to retire the disposal site in a manner that does not create a
safety hazard or nuisance in subsequent land use. For pond disposal, the
environment can be protected from chemical pollution, principally from leach-
ate contamination of groundwater, by lining the pond basin with elastomeric
material or impermeable clay. Some natural clay deposits have sufficiently
low permeabilities (effectively impermeable) that sludge disposal can be safely
contained in a natural basin. If an impermeable base is not used, it is
expected that not all trace elements will be attenuated by the subsoil. Addi-
tionally, soils do not significantly attenuate chloride or sulfate ions.
The disposal site may be reclaimed either by maintaining the pond
as a lake or by allowing the sludge to dry and covering it with soil overburden.
To maintain the retired disposal basin as a lake, it is necessary to provide a
balance between water loss and water input. The water loss will be by evapo-
ration, and, when no liner is used or when a breach is developed in the liner,
loss also occurs by percolation through the subsoil. Precipitation in excess of
loss requires a means for eliminating excess water, which must be monitored.
If a pond is reclaimed by air-drying the sludge and covering it with
a soil overburden, certain restrictions may limit reuse of the land. Proper
contouring to control rainfall runoff to minimize percolation of water through
the overburden will be necessary to avoid resaturating the sludge. Therefore,
using site management, it may be possible to dispose of untreated FGD sludge
by ponding in an environmentally acceptable manner.
106
-------
Another ponding alternative to dispose of untreated FGD waste
is by including provision for pond underdrainage. This method retains the
advantage of transferring the sludge to the disposal site by liquid transfer.
The leachate from the base of the sludge is returned to the scrubber. The
advantages of this method may be economic and environmental. By elimi-
nating a supernate head above the sludge most of the time, and minimizing
it for short periods after rainfalls, percolation of sludge leachate into the
subsoil can be avoided during the active fill period. Tests have shown
drained sludge to have structural qualities adequate to support lightweight
construction equipment. To retire the disposal site, only several days of
air drying after a rainfall are needed before covering with topsoil. Sub-
sequent cover contouring is necessary for the reasons discussed in ponding,
but the underdrainage system provides a means of sampling and elimination
of leachate if required to prevent groundwater contamination. Significant
economic advantages of this method could be its relative reclamation poten-
tial and the elimination of the requirement for a disposal basin liner.
Evaluation of this technique is continuing in EPA programs (12, 14).
On the basis of the potentially favorable environmental and eco-
nomic benefits discussed above, cost estimates for two ponding methods of dis-
posing of FGD wastes are discussed in Section 5.2.2.1, i.e., use of (a) an elasto-
meric liner or an added clay liner, and (b) indigenous clay (impervious) soil.
5.1.2 Chemical Treatment
FGD sludge maybe treated chemically by several processes, and
can typically be used in landfill applications. Chemical treatments such as
those offered by IU Conversion Systems, Inc. (IUCS), Dravo, Inc., and the
Chemfix process vary in terms of the chemical additives used to physically
stabilize the sludge, reduce its permeability, and also reduce the release of
chemical constituents into water permeating through the treated material.
Currently, FGD sludge from, seven sites using lime-limestone
scrubbing processes totalling 2690 MW are being chemically treated (34). Full-
scale sludge treatment at these locations was started in 1972 with one 200-MW
site. In 1976, an additional unit of 825 MW started up. The remainder began
treatment in 1977. -Four additional sites totalling 2773 MW are expected to
initiate chemical treatment of FGD wastes in the near future. In addition, full-
scale evaluation work has been conducted since 1972 at a number of locations
including Duquesne's El Rama and Phillips Stations, and Southern California
Edison Mohave Nos. 1 and 2, as well as prototype evaluations at the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) Shawneee site (16, 21).
An evaluation of these three processes (21) indicates that the solu-
ble salt content in the leachate from treated sludges is typically about one-half
that of the untreated sludge. Additionally, the permeability of the treated
sludge appears to be at least one order of magnitude less than that of the un-
treated sludge. Therefore, the dissolved salts that may be leached from
107
-------
chemically treated sludge and available to the environment are considerably
less in concentration and mass than from untreated sludge.
For every process examined, the structural stability of the
treated sludge exceeded that of the untreated sludge. The treated sludge
texture ranged from soil-like to concrete-like and developed strength equal
to or in excess of natural soils. Restrictions on subsequent land use will
depend upon local conditions and the long-time stability of the treated sludge.
Laboratory data have not been developed by any source from which it would
be possible to predict the time-dependent stability of treated sludge.
Chemically treated sludges can be used as landfill in submerged
and above-grade conditions. In the submerged condition, the sludge may
serve as a lake bottom; however, the constant hydraulic head requires a
continuing monitoring of local streams to detect any possible leakage from
the site. In an above-grade condition, the material can be placed and com-
pacted such that rainwater does not penetrate the surface and a leachate is
not produced. However, provisions are generally required to manage runoff
from these sites. The potential environmental impact of treated sludge is
less than that of untreated sludge under most disposal methods, although
the added assurance afforded by the chemical process increases the cost of
disposal.
The cost effectiveness of chemical treatment must be evaluated
in the context of specific land use limitations and disposal site restrictions
that exist as unique conditions at each power plant facility. Cost estimates
for treatment by a typical chemical process and -with landfill disposal are
provided in Section 5.2.2.2.
5. 1. 3 Mine Disposal
In a study (22) assessing the technical, environmental, and eco-
nomic factors associated with mine disposal of FGD wastes, four general
categories of mines were examined: active surface-area coal mines, active
underground coal mines, inactive or mined-out portions of lead or zinc
mines, and inactive or mined-out portions of active underground limestone
mines. In addition to the environmental impacts, each category was
reviewed with regard to: the alternatives for placement, the physical prop-
erties of FGD wastes that would be suitable, the operational impacts, the
capacities, and the availability and accessibility (via transportation sys-
tems) for FGD waste disposal. As a result of this review, the following
mines were determined most promising:
a. Active Interior Region surface-area coal mines
b. Active Eastern and Interior Region room-and-pillar underground
coal mines
108
-------
In general, Interior region surface-area coal mines appear to
be more promising than western (Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast) surface-
area coal mines. However, surface-area mines both in the Interior and
the West were considered much more promising than eastern surface con-
tour mines, because of the latter's relatively low capacity for FGD wastes
and, in many cases, the difficulty for waste placement in contour mines.
Individual Interior region surface-area mines have substantial
capacity for receiving FGD wastes, and disposal is considered technically
feasible within existing mine operations. The wastes must be dewatered
to the extent necessary for landfill operations, so that they can be dumped
into a mined-out strip (which can be adjacent to one being mined) and covered
with overburden. Placing FGD waste in the mine void assists in returning
the terrain to its original elevation.
The principal environmental impact anticipated from this disposal
method is an increase in total dissolved solids (TDS) in waters that are
recharged by leachate from the disposal site. This impact may be lessened
by placing part of the overburden in the mined-out strip prior to placing the
FGD waste, thereby elevating the waste above the groundwater table. In
addition, dilution to acceptable TDS levels can be encouraged by maintaining
a suitable distance between the disposal site and the stream, or by ensuring
that the receiving streams have a sufficiently high flowrate.
Based on the potential environmental acceptability of mine dis-
posal discussed above, cost estimates for disposing of untreated FGD wastes
in active surface and underground mines are discussed in 5.2.2.3.
5.1.4 Ocean Disposal
In a study assessing the ocean disposal of FGD wastes (22) vari-
ous methods of transportation and disposal were examined, including surface
craft (e.g., bottom-dump barge and slurry dispersion) and pipeline (outfall).
Various chemical and physical forms of the FGD wastes were also consid-
ered, i.e., sulfite-rich wastes, sulfate-rich wastes, and chemically treated
wastes in both "soil-like" and "brick-like" forms. Both continental shelf
and deep ocean disposal of the wastes were examined.
Until more definitive data are available, disposal of sulfite-rich
FGD wastes on the Continental Shelf or in the deep ocean was not considered
to be advisable. In addition, the study concluded that all soil-like FGD
wastes, whether sulfite or sulfate and treated or untreated, should not be
disposed of by quick-dumping surface craft or pipeline (outfall) on the Conti-
nental Shelf. Several options using surface craft appeared promising:
109
-------
a. Dispersed disposal of sulfate-rich FGD wastes on the Continental
Shelf
b. Concentrated disposal of chemically treated brick-like FGD
wastes on the Continental Shelf
c. Dispersed disposal of sulfate-rich FGD wastes in the deep ocean
d. Concentrated disposal of both sulfate-rich and chemically treated
FGD wastes in the deep ocean
However, the environmental effects of layering the bottom with wastes
described in a, c, and d above have yet to be defined. In addition, their .
environmental effect while traveling down the water column is also unknown.
A more promising method is considered to be item b above. This
is based on the favorable characteristics of treated materials in laboratory
leaching and permeability tests. Long-term effects on the volumetric and
structural integrity of the material as affected by submergence in sea water
are unknown.
Experiments sponsored by the New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority (NYSERDA) are evaluating the physical, chemical,
and biologic characteristics of blocks of chemically treated scrubber wastes
(23). Laboratory experiments have been encouraging, and a 10 ft 3 reef con-
structed of blocks of chemically treated wastes will be placed in Long Island
Sound. The physical stability of the reef and its effects on the local marine
biology will be studied, and other related assessments will be made.
Based on the results of the various studies showing the potential
feasibility for ocean disposal, cost estimates for disposing of chemically
treated FGD wastes on the eastern seaboard Continental Shelf are provided
in Section 5.2.2.4.
5. 1. 5 Conversion to Gypsum
Experiments on the forced oxidation of sulfite sludges to form
gypsum for potential use in wallboard were conducted by EPA at Research
Triangle Park and by Southern Services at Plant Scholz using the Chiyoda
process. Wallboard has been fabricated using a 50/50 blend of Chiyoda
gypsum and the natural material (24). However, evaluations of the properties
of FGD gypsum specifically related to manufacturing wallboard and its appli-
cation were not available.
Wallboard produced from SC>2 scrubbing processes has had exten-
sive application in Japan, and properties relative to this material have been
reported (25). However, the material has been produced from scrubbing of
110
-------
flue gases from oil-fired boilers, and the relationship between SO? concen-
tration in the flue gas and scrubber operating conditions on the properties
of the gypsum from the oil-fired units in Japan and from the coal-fired
applications in the U.S. are unknown. Estimates for the cost increment
required to adapt to new scrubber systems during construction have been
made (24) and reported in Section 5. 2.3.1. Since no data were available,
in that analysis it was assumed that the resultant properties of the ash-free
gypsum would be satisfactory for wallboard use.
5.1.6 Conversion of Sulfuric Acid or Sulfur
Regenerable FGD processes are, in reality, chemical process-
ing plants which, if applied to power plants, add new dimensions to the plant
operating and marketing programs.
Both the magnesium oxide and Wellman-Lord processes require
a complex plant to regenerate the SO2 from the absorbent, and to reduce the
SO2 to sulfur or convert it to sulfuric acid. The Wellman-Lord process uses
an evaporator to regenerate the absorbent and form SO2. It then requires
methane and H2S in the plant devoted to the reduction of SO2 to sulfur. The
magnesium oxide process requires a fluidized bed reactor and coke to regen-
erate the SO2, which then must be processed further to form the sulfur or
sulfuric acid by-products.
Formidable problems identified with regenerable processes (26)
include: (a) lack of good material balance data from pilot plants, the
absorbents are expensive, and the economics are significantly affected; (b)
hazards of employing a toxic reductant like H2S around power plants which
have not been subject to such practices: and (c) the availability and genera-
tion of H2S. This includes process technology problems that have not been
demonstrated; such as a high-temperature catalytic generation process,
lack of experimental data on the catalyst life and durability, and reactor
corrosion.
A brief discussion of the technology based on recent surveys and
operational status of existing plants is provided below.
5. 1. 6. 1 Magnesium Oxide
Three MgO plants have been tested (Table 32). Two have shut
down completely as SO2 scrubbers, and a third is in a particulate scrubber
mode only since February 1976 because of the difficulty in locating a chemical
plant to process the spent absorbent (it is scheduled to start up again as an
SO2 scrubber in mid-1977). The two shut-down plants experienced the same
problem (8). In general, it is considered (26), that the scrubbing process
111
-------
TABLE 32. STATUS OF MAGNESIUM-OXIDE
SCRUBBING PLANTS
Installation Site, Size, and Fuel
Status
Boston Edison, Mystic No. 6, 150 MW, oil, 2. 5%
sulfur
Potomac Electric, Dickerson No. 3, 95 MW, coal,
2% sulfur
Philadelphia Electric, Eddystone No. 1, 120 MW,
coal, 2. 5% sulfur
Start-up 4/72,
shutdown since
6/74
Start-up 9/73,
shutdown since
8/75
Start-up 9/75,
shutdown SO2
scrubber
2/76a
Shutdownacid plant regeneration facility ceased operations. Another
facility located. Expect to resume SO2 scrubbing and MgSO3 regener-
ation in mid-1977.
has been demonstrated; experiencing the usual corrosion and mechanical
problems typical of placing a scrubber system into operation (8). The major
problem has been in the accessibility of a MgSO3 regenerating plant. To
operate effectively, an on-site or central regenerating plant servicing nearby
scrubber operations may be needed.
5. 1.6.2
W ellman- Lord
The Wellman-Lord system has been successfully operated on
tail gas from Glaus and H2SO4 plants and an oil-fired flue gas, but not
coal-fired boiler flue gas (26).
A retrofit system is scheduled to go into operation in mid-1977
on the 115-MW boiler at the Dean Mitchell Station of Northern Indiana Public
Service burning 3- to 3.5-percent sulfur coal. Elemental sulfur (99.5 percent
purity) is expected.
Public Service of New Mexico is installing Wellman-Lord systems
at its San Juan No. 1 and 2 stations, which generate in excess of 700 MW.
Start-up is expected in November 1977. Low sulfur (0.8 percent) coal will
be used in the boilers.
112
-------
5.1.7 Use as a Synthetic Aggregate
Chemically treated waste has been used in limited instances as
synthetic aggregate for road base materials.
Poz-o-tecฎ is a process that is used by IU Conversion Systems
Inc., to chemically treat wastes capable of being processed as synthetic
aggregate. Its application has been used primarily in road base construction
materials, with some application as dikes and liner material at a disposal
site (27) in the greater Pittsburgh area and in Mohave County, Arizona. It
has also been used to reclaim land in a housing tract. Ross Township,
Pennsylvania, has approved a specification for its use in road base
construction.
The economics of its use appear to be highly site specific rela-
tive to its source and end use; however, no cost data have been published.
5.2 ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL PROCESSES
AND PRACTICES
Capital and operating cost estimates for six FGD waste disposal
methods, and one process producing saleable gypsum, were compiled from
several sources (12, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30).
The methods considered were: (a) pond disposal of untreated
waste, using a flexible liner and clay soil indigenous to the site, (b) chemical
treatment of the wastes, with landfill disposal, (c) coal mine disposal of
untreated waste, (d) ocean disposal of chemically treated wastes, and (e)
production of oxidized sulfite sludge (gypsum) as a commercial product.
Since cost data obtained from the references noted above had been prepared
for differing plant sizes and based on various time periods, the estimates
were adjusted to reflect July 1977 dollars and, where applicable, to reflect
a range of power plant ratings from 25 to 1000 MW. Also, the cost of land
considered for disposal purposes was uniformly estimated to be $5000 per
acre. Ninety percent SC>2 removal efficiency was the basis for these cases.
5.2.1 Economics Related to Power Plant Operating Conditions
The adjustments in disposal costs resulting from variations in
power plant unit size were made using data developed by TVA for advanced
desulfurization processes (28). After examining both capital and operating
cost data for new power station equipment, factors were calculated for unit
size variations as shown in Table 33.
113
-------
TABLE 33. POWER-RATING-SIZE COST ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Unit Size, MW
1000
500
25
Adjustment Factors
Capital Costs ($/kW)
0.76
1.00
1. 56
Annual
Operating Costs ($ /ton)
0. 72
1.00
1. 38
The above factors were applied in each of the disposal modes, as
appropriate, for which estimates were made. However, in some instances,
such as ponding, where land costs were a major capital cost item, the sizing
factors were only applied to equipment investment costs. In all cases the
operating cost factors were applied uniformly for each disposal mode.
Other specific baseline conditions for the cost estimates reported
in this study are shown in Table 34.
5.2.2
Economics of Disposal Processes
The six FGD waste disposal processes selected for economic
evaluation were:
a. Ponding of untreated wastes, using a flexible elastomeric liner
and indigenous clay soil
b. Chemical treatment and landfill disposal
c. Mine disposal of untreated wastes
d. Ocean disposal of chemically treated wastes
These are discussed in the folio-wing sections.
5.2.2.1 Ponding of Untreated Wastes
A number of ponding alternatives encompassing a wide range of
potentially acceptable modes included use of flexible elastomeric liners and
indigenous clay (impervious) soil. The disposal site is assumed to be within
1 mile of the power plant.
5.2.2.1.1 Flexible Liner
A detailed cost analysis of the disposal of FGD wastes in
ponds equipped with flexible liners was conducted in 1973 (13). Since
114
-------
TABLE 34. REFERENCE CONDITIONS FOR COST ESTIMATES3
Dollar base:
Plant and disposal site lifetime:
Annual average operating hours:
Average annual capital charges,
30-yr average:
Cost of land used for disposal:
Land depreciation:
Coal burned:
SO2 removal:
Sludge generated:
July 1977
30 yr
4380 hr/yr (30-yr avg)
18% of total capital
investment
$5000/acre, all land assumed
purchased initially; sludge
depth, 30 ft
Total depreciation in 30 yr,
straight-line basis
3. 5% sulfur, 12, 000 Btu/lb,
14% ash
Limestone absorbent, 90%
removal, 80% limestone
utilization
2.5 X 105 short tons/yr (dry)
(disposed waste assumed to
contain 50% solids) for
500-MW plant
Appendix A: Cases 31, 32, 33.
that time costing updates were made in 1974 and 1976 (29) using several
liner materials considered to be representative of their price cate-
gory, i.e., PVC (20-mil thickness) and Hypalon (30-mil thickness). The
least expensive of these two materials, i.e., PVC-20, was selected for this
analysis, and costs have been adjusted in accordance with the general
guidelines listed in Section 5.2. 1. Since previous work has shown that the
optimum pond depth for this type of disposal is 30 feet, which is the depth
at which pond construction and land costs are optimum with respect to the
cost of liner material, it was used in this analysis.
115
-------
Using current economic indices (31), it was determined that
costs for this type of capital equipment have risen 11 percent since the previ-
ous estimates were made in January 1976. Therefore, the total capital
investment for a lined pond having a 30-year capacity for a 1000-MW station,
including 622 acres of land at $5000 per acre, is $18,757,200, or $18.76 per
kilowatt. The adjusted investment costs for power plant sizes of 500 MW and
25 MW are shown in Table 35.
In estimating the annual costs it was assumed that the land
used for ponded sludge disposal would depreciate totally over the 30-year
filling period. This assumption was made because it has not been demon-
strated that the land will be useful for any other purpose after the filling
has been completed. Therefore, the annual capital charges were applied
to the total capital investment, including land. The annual costs also
include labor at an estimated $102, 000 annual rate for operation and main-
tenance of the disposal site. For a 1000-MW station, the total average
annual cost is $3, 609, 050 or $7.06 per dry ton of sludge. This annual
cost is equivalent to 0.80 mills per kilowatt-hour. These operating costs
and those for 500-MW and 25-MW stations are shown in Table 35.
5.2.2.1.2 Clay (Impervious) Indigenous Soil
The estimated costs for untreated FGD waste disposal in unlined
ponds have been reported previously (13). This mode of disposal applies
when the soil indigenous to the power plant is considered to be sufficiently
impermeable to provide environmental protection to the groundwaters
because of the negligible permeation of sludge liquors into the subsoil. The
costing assumptions used for this disposal mode'are the same as those
used for the lined ponds, i.e., a sludge depth of 30 feet was assumed. A
15-foot sludge depth was determined to be the optimum costing point for this
disposal mode, when considering the cost of land at $5000/acre versus the
cost of construction; however, the total land area required is doubled,
thereby reducing the practicality of using such a shallow depth.
TABLE 35.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR PONDING UNTREATED
WASTES WITH FLEXIBLE 20-MIL PVC LINER
Unit Size,
MW
1000
500
25
Capital Investment
sb
9
18,757, 200
11,901, 200
768, 533
$/kW
18.76
23.80
30.74
Average
Annual Costs
$/ton(dry)
7.25
9.01
17.30
mills /kWh,
0.80
1.02
2.19
116
-------
Using the same economic indices previously applied for this
type of construction (31), the capital costs were found to have increased
11 percent from January 1976 to July 1977. This, combined with the cost
of land at $5000 per acre, results in a total capital investment of $12,477, 300,
or $12.48 per kilowatt. Estimates were made for plant sizes of 500 MW and
25 MW and are shown in Table 36. Adjustments for power plant size were
made to construction only, because it was assumed that no benefits of size
would apply to the cost of land required.
Again, it was assumed that the land used for disposal would
depreciate totally over the 30-year service life of the plant. Therefore,
average annual charges were applied to the total capital investment, and,
for a 1000-MW plant, the average cost per dry ton of sludge was $4.89, or
0.54 mills per kilowatt-hour. Estimates made for 500-MW and 25-MW
power plants are summarized in Table 36.
5.2.2.2 Chemical Treatment and Disposal
The cost of chemical treatment and disposal of FGD wastes in
a landfill was estimated in March 1976 (21). At that time, estimates of
total disposal costs were made for three chemical treatment processes,
i.e., Dravo, IU Conversion Systems, and Chemfix, for a 1000-MW plant
based on 1975 dollars. Using this work as a basis, cost estimates have been
updated for the current conditions summarized in Section 5.2. 1. Specific
costing items that have been revised in the present estimates are the cost
of land, now $5000 per acre (previously $1000 per acre), and adjustments
in capital and operating costs as a function of power plant unit size.
The land necessary for sludge disposal totaled 460 acres, based
on a sludge depth of 30 feet at a treated solids content of 60 percent by weight.
It was also predicated on the disposal site being within 1 mile of the power
plant. For a 1000-MW power plant adjusted to July 1977, the total capital
TABLE 36.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DISPOSAL OF UNTREATED FGD
WASTE IN PONDS WITH INDIGENOUS CLAY SOIL
Unit Size,
MW
1000
500
25
Capital Investment
$
12,477, 300
7,796, 300
572,913
$/kW
12.48
15.60
22.92
Average
Annual Costs
$/ton(dry)
4.89
6.07
14.76
mills /kWh
0.54
0.70
1.87
117
-------
investment required for the assumed conditions is $13, 595,440, or $13.60
per kilowatt. These estimates include an increase of approximately 13 per-
cent in prices of capital equipment from July 1975-
The annual operating costs include labor, maintenance, mate-
rials, spare parts, operating power, the cost of transporting the sludge to the
disposal site, and annual capital charges at a rate of 18 percent of the initial
capital investment (Tables 33 and 34). The annual capital charges represent
approximately half of the estimated annual costs. Based on current economic
indices (31), the combined annual costs were increased by 13 percent,
reflecting changes over the period of July 1975 to July 1977. For a 1000-MW
power plant, the total average annual charges are estimated to be $9. 70 per
dry ton, or 1.06 mills per kilowatt-hour.
The capital and annual charges for chemical treatment and dis-
posal, adjusted for power plant unit size, are summarized in Table 37.
*
5.2.2.3 Mine Disposal
The economics of disposal of untreated FGD wastes in coal
mines has been reported (22) for both on-site and off-site disposal. Although
on-site disposal (within 4 miles of the power plant) and off-site (within 200
miles of the plant) was reported, for purposes of this cost estimate the on-
site mode was selected. Many key variables in off-site disposal costs, such
as rail rates and special equipment, are quite site-specific and tend to make
it difficult to arrive at a representative estimate. Both surface mine and
underground mine disposal resulted in the same costs for the on-site case.
For surface mine disposal, filtered untreated sludge mixed with fly ash
would be transferred to an intermediate storage area by conveyor. The sludge
would then be loaded into dump trucks and transported 4 miles to the disposal
site, dumped, and covered with overburden. For underground disposal it
was considered that the scrubber bleed would be pumped to a thickener area
TABLE 37.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CHEMICAL TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL
Unit Size,
MW
1000
500
25
Capital Investment
$
13, 595,440
8,645,000
648, 300
$/kW
13.60
17.30
25.90
Average
Annual Costs
$/ton(dry)
9.70
12. 10
18.50
mills /kWh
1.06
1.33
2.06
118
-------
located near the mine mouth. The thickened underflow would then be pumped
into boreholes at a solids content between 20 and 30 weight percent and the
overflow would be pumped back to the scrubber system.
The investment required for either surface mine or underground
mine disposal was reported to range up to 1. 85 million dollars on a mid-
1976 basis for a 500-MW plant. Correcting to July 1977 using current eco-
nomic indices (31), the investment increases to $1, 968, 000. With this as a
basis, estimates were made for the total investment required for both a
1000-MW and 25-MW station. These estimates are summarized in Table 38.
The operating costs for on-site disposal, on a dry ton basis, was
reported as $3. 50 per ton for a 500-MW plant. Allowing for increased prices
since mid-1976 to July 1977, this value was increased to $3.71 per ton.
Making adjustments for power plant unit size, estimates were also made for
1000-MW and 25-MW plants. These annual costs include average annual
capital charges at 17 percent on a 30-year basis, interest, insurance, taxes,
plant overhead, maintenance, labor, materials, and electric power. The
total annual charges are summarized in Table 38.
5.2.2.4 Ocean Disposal
An analysis of ocean disposal of FGD sludge was reported in
July 1976 (22) for power plants located on the eastern seaboard. Two poten-
tially acceptable options were considered: (a) on-the-Continental-Shelf
(within 25 nmi of the shoreline) disposal of treated (brick-like) wastes, and
(b) off-shelf (100 nmi from shore) disposal of untreated sulfite-rich wastes.
For each of these alternatives the cost of self propelled ships with bottom
dump-delivery was included. The reported study discussed chemical treat-
ment for the on-.shelf disposal, but did not include the cost of the treatment
itself. However, in this estimate the cost of treatment was included since
TABLE 38.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DISPOSAL OF UNTREATED FGD
SLUDGE IN ON-SITEa SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND
MINES
Unit Size,
MW
1000
500
25
Capital Investment
$
2,982,000
1,968,000
153,000
$/kW
2.98
3.94
6. 14
Average
Annual Costs
$/ton(dry)
2. 67
3.71
5.08
mills /kWh
0.27
0.37
0. 51
Power plant located within 4 miles of mine.
119
-------
it was selected as the option for the economic analysis and should include
all aspects of the disposal process. Also, since the dumping of sulfite-rich
sludge would very likely be considered environmentally unacceptable, treat-
ment was considered mandatory.
The on-shelf disposal operation would involve storage of treated
sludge in stabilization ponds and subsequent transfer to barges for transport
to the dumping site. For this costing analysis the on-shelf option using self-
propelled ships was assumed, including provisions for sludge treatment and
stabilization prior to disposal.
For a 500-MW plant, the investment for facilities, ships, and
treatment equipment, on a July 1977 basis, was $17, 966, 800, or $35. 93 per
kilowatt. Estimates for 1000-MW and 25-MW stations were made on a
similar basis and include cost adjustments for purchasing in larger or
smaller quantities. The estimates of capital costs for ocean dumping are
summarized in Table 39.
The annual charges for operating at a 500-MW level, updated to
July 1977 and supplemented with the costs associated with sludge treatment
from Section 5.2.2.2, are presented in Table 39. In this case, however,
the sludge treatment costs do not include the costs for a land disposal site
and considers the need for a small area of approximately 2 acres for sludge
stabilization. The resultant total average annual operating cost, for a
30-year average operating lifetime, is $18.20 per dry ton, or 2.28 mills
per kilowatt-hour. Estimates for 1000-MW and 25-MW plants were also
made and are summarized in Table 39.
TABLE 39.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ON-SHELF3- OCEAN DISPOSAL
OF TREATED FGD WASTES
Unit Size,
MW
1000
500
25
Capital Investment
$
24,915,000
17,967,000
1,349,000
$/kW
24.92
35.93
53.97
Average
Annual Costs
$/ton(dry)
13. 10
18.20
24.89
mills/kWh
1. 64
2.28
3.11
aPlant located on the eastern seaboard and disposal site located within
25 nautical miles of the coast.
120
-------
5.2.2.5 Cost Comparison
A comparison of annual costs for the various forms of disposal is
given in Table 40. Units of mills/kWh are used for ease of comparison. It
should be noted that the disposal cost for gypsum includes the cost of forced
oxidation of the sulfite slurry.
5.2.3
Economics of Utilization Processes
Whether nonregenerable or regenerable scrubbing processes are
used, ash (which, for example, constitutes approximately 50 percent of the
total nonregenerable systems dry waste, see Appendix C) would still require
disposal at an estimated $3. 50 per dry ton. For nonregenerable systems,
the remaining 50 percent is available for production of useable gypsum; the
by-products of regenerable systems are sulfur or sulfuric acid. The eco-
nomics of these processes are discussed in the next two sections. Typical
quantities from a 500-MW plant burning 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal are pro-
vided in Table 41. Data for other fuel characteristics and FGD alternatives
are given in Appendix A.
TABLE 40.
DISPOSAL COST COMPARISONS3" b (MID-1977 BASIS)
(mills/kWh)
Untreated Waste
Liner
Added
1.02
Indigenous
Clay
0.70
Landfill -
Chemical
Treatment
1.33
Minec
0.37
Ocean^
2.28
Gypsum6
1.39
a500-MWe plant, 3. 5% sulfur coal, 90% SO2 removal. Disposal
site within 1 mile from plant except as noted
DAll wastes include ash
"Mine located 4 miles from plant; untreated waste
1Plant located on eastern seaboard and disposal site located on the
Continental Shelf within 25 nautical miles from the coast; chemi-
cally treated waste
^Reference Table 42 for disposal in an indigenous clay-lined pond
121
-------
TABLE 41. TYPICAL QUANTITIES OF WASTE AND BY-PRODUCTS
PRODUCED FROM SOz SCRUBBER SYSTEMS* FOR
90-PERCENT SO2 REMOVAL
Limestone scrubbing,
forced oxidation to
gypsum
Magnesium Oxide
(Case No. 38)
Wellman Lord
(Case No. 41)
Wasteb
Tons/Yr
Dry Basis
1. 15 X 105
1. 20 X 105
1.22 X 105
By-Productc
ash-free
gypsum
sulfuric acid
sulfur
sulfuric acid
sulfur
Quantity
Produced
Tons/Yr (Dry)
1.37 X 105
7. 53 X 104
2.46 X 104
7. 53 X 104
2.46 X 104
L500-MW plant, 3.5%, 12, 000 Btu/lb coal, 14%
Primarily ash
'Quantities of either sulfuric acid and sulfur, but not both
100% absorbent utilization
5. 2. 3. 1 Conversion to Gypsum
The cost of producing gypsum as a by-product from lime-
stone 500-MWe scrubbing processes has been reported (12) for mid-1977.
The estimate included the costs required to incorporate the forced oxidation
processing to a. basic lime or limestone scrubber system. To be useable,
the gypsum cannot contain appreciable quantities of fly ash, therefore the
power plant was assumed to have electrostatic precipitators. The cost of
these was not charged to the cost of producing the gypsum. The capital
equipment costs to produce gypsum in a new 500-MWe installation that scrubs
flue gas from 3. 5-percent-sulfur coal and removes 90 percent SO2 is
$6, 640,000, or $13.28 per kilowatt. The estimates for a 1000- and 25-MW
plant are shown in Table 42. The total operating cost, including annual
charges on capital, for a typical 500-MW plant producing ash-free gypsum
with 100-percent absorbent utilization is $1, 920, 000, or $14. 03 per ton of
dry gypsum produced. This also includes an estimated charge of $3. 50 per
ton for disposal of the power plant ash. A summary of costs for the produc-
tion and sale of gypsum, and disposal of ash, is given in Table 42.
122
-------
TABLE 42.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FORCED OXIDATION
OF FLY-ASH-FREE FGD WASTES TO GYPSUM*
(MID-1977 DOLLARS)
Unit
Size
MW
1000
500a
25
Capital
Investment
$xio6
10.09
6.64
0.52
$/kW
10.09
13.28
20.72
Average Annual
Costs for
Gypsum Production
Plus Ash Disposal,
$/ton Ash-Free
Gypsum (dry)
10.92
14. 03
18.25
Average Annual
Costs for
Producing Gypsum
and Disposing
of Ash, mills /kWh
0.66
0.88b
1.37
Tons per year gypsum produced:
Tons per year ash:
1.37 X
1. 15 X
Equivalent to 0.70 mills/kWh for producing (only) a sludge containing gypsum
and ash. This cost is included when computing disposal of gypsum sludge
(with ash); e.g., for ponding in indigenous clay, add 0.70 mills/kWh (Ref.
Table 40) to 0.70 for a 500-MW plant; totalling 1.40 mills /kWh.
5.2.3.2
Conversion to Sulfur or Sulfuric Acid
Cost projections for the Wellman-Lord and magnesium oxide
regenerable processes (32, 33) include estimates for the complete systems
since breakdowns into by-product costs are not available. In this context,
a direct comparison with the costs for nonregenerable waste disposal is not
possible. Published capital and operating cost estimates for regenerable
processes are provided in Table 43.
5.2.4
Nationwide Cost Estimates of Various Disposal Processes
The estimated costs of disposing of nonregenerable 803 scrubber
wastes produced during the 1978 to 1998 period are presented in Table 44.
The waste quantities computed in Section 3. 8. 1 are for 90-percent SO2
removal and for meeting emission standards of 1. 2 and 0. 5 Ib SOฃ per mil-
lion Btu heat input; the quantities are for the installations predicted for that
20-year period using the 500-MW reference plant outlined in Tables 21 and 22.
Estimates of total annual costs (in mid-1977 dollars) for the five disposal
123
-------
TABLE 43. REGENERABLE PROCESS COST DATA
Process
Wellman-Lorda
Magnesium oxidec
Wellman-Lorde
Wellman-Lordf
By-Product Produced
Sulfur ic Acid
Capital Cost
$55. 5 X 106
($83/kW)
$140.0 X 106
($98. 5/kW)
Annual
Operating
21.05 X 106b
(3. 4 mills/
kWh)
44. 8 X lo6d
(5. 10 mills/
kWh)
Sulfur
Capital Cost
$58. 5 X 106
($87/kW)
$14.8 X 106
($129/kW)
$89. 5 X 106
($127.9/kW)
Annual
Operating
$22.37 X 106b
(3.7 mills/kWh)
6.01 X 106
(8. 1 mills /kWh)
7.24X106
(5.0 mills /kWh)
aFor 670-MW plant, 8100 Btu/lb, 1.3% S coal, 8000 hr/yr, 1976 dollars
(Ref. 32).
Credit .for by-product not taken, estimated as $60/ton for sulfur and $24/ton
for H2SO4.
cFor 1420-MW plant, 6570 hr/yr, 1975 dollars (Ref. 33).
Operating costs of acid plant not included. Assumed sales of acid will offset
those costs.
eNorthern Indiana Public Service, D. H. Mitchell Station No. 11, 177 dollars,
115MW, 3.2-3. 5% S coal, load factor 73. 5% (Ref. 8).
Public Service of New Mexico, San Juan Stations No. 1 and 2, 1977 dollars
capital, operating 1978, 700 MW (net), 0. 8% S coal, load factor 77% (Ref. 8).
124
-------
TABLE 44. DISPOSAL COSTS FOR VARIOUS DISPOSAL METHODS: NATIONWIDE TOTALS9-
Emission
Standard Year
Unit cost $/ton (dry basis)6
1.2 Ib SO2/106 Btu 1980
(80% SO2removal) 1983
1988
1993
1998
0.6 Ib SO2/106 Btu 1980
(90% SO2 removal) 1983
1988
1993
1998
0. 5 Ib SO2/106 Btu 1980
(85% SO2 removal and 1983
40% S removal by 1988
coal washing eastern 1993
coal) 1998
Total Dry
Waste, b'f
tons X 106
18.38
36. 00
67. 02
105.96
156. 16
19. 13
38. 57
72. 80
115. 77
171. 17
16. 50
29. 51
52.43
81. 19
118. 27
Pond,
Flex
Liner
$9.01
165.60
324.36
603.85
954.70
1407.00
172.36
347. 51
655.93
1043.09
1542.24
148.67
265.89
472. 39
731. 52
1065.61
Total Annual Cost, Dollars in Millions (Mid- 1977 dollars)
Pond,
Clay
$6.07
111.57
218. 52
406.82
643. 18
947.89
116. 12
234. 12
441.90
702.72
1039.00
100. 16
179. 13
318.65
429.82
717.90
Chemical
Treat,
Landfill
$12. 10
222.40
435.60
810.94
1282. 12
1889. 57
231.47
466.70
880.88
1400.82
2071. 16
199.65
357.07
634.40
982.40
1431.07
Mine,
On-
Site
$3.71
68.21
133. 56 :'
248. 65
393. 10
579.36
70. 98
143.08
270. 10
429. 50
635. 03
61.23
109.49
194. 51
301.20
438. 79
Ocean,
On-
Shelf
$18.20
334. 61
665.20
1219.78
1928.40
2842. 13
348. 18
701.92
1325.01
2106.96
3115.26
300.35
537. 12
954. 19
1477. 60
2152. 53
Coal
Wash
Tailings, ,
tons X 10b
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0. 95
3.27
7.36
12.48
19. 09
Washd
Tailings
Disposal
Costs
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$ 3. 52
12. 13
27. 29
46.31
70. 82
a500-MW plant, 3. 5% S eastern and 0.8% S western coal. For other conditions, see
Tables 21 and 22.
All wastes include ash.
f\
Clay is indigenous soil.
May be added to sludge process costs to determine total disposal cost (disposal of tailings at mine
assumed'as $3. 50/ton dry)
eAssumes that the unit cost is unaffected by alternative emission standards.
Totals are the annual quantities (tonnages or dollars) for the years shown for the new plants
operating beginning with the base year of 1978.
-------
methods described in Section 5. 2. 2 are shown. One of the least expensive
disposal methods is ponding of untreated -waste on indigenous soil. Assuming
it were universally acceptable, it would result in expenditures of $878 million,
$962 million, and $665 million in the year 1998 to meet, respectively, the
current NSPS standard of 1. 2 lb SC>2/106 Btu, and the other alternatives, i. e.,
90-percent SC>2 removal and 0. 5 lb SOz/lO" Btu. Because of the overall
lower sludge quantities having been produced as a result of the coal washing
to meet the 0. 5 lb SC>2/106 emission requirements (Section 3. 8. 1) that method
results in a lower overall cost; the coal wash tailings having been disposed of
at the mine. Correspondingly, if chemical treatment and landfill disposal of
all the waste were assumed, it results in expenditures in the year 1998 of
$1. 92 billion, $2. 10 billion, and $1,45 billion-'- to meet current emission
standards and the two alternative standards, respectively. Costs of ocean
and mine disposal of all wastes are presented on a national scale solely to
place those modes of disposal in perspective with the others. These costs
assume all plants, in one instance, to be adjacent to the ocean on the eastern
seaboard, and, in the other case, within a few miles of the mine; obviously
all plants do not meet these criteria. However, these totals are presented
for further consideration of regional and modal alternatives.
Cost of coal wash disposal not included (see Table 44).
126
-------
REFERENCES
1. Meeting of 27 May 1977: J. W. Jones andK. Woodard (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency) and P. Leo and J. Rossoff (The Aerospace
Corp.).
2. Letter from: K. Woodard (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) to
P. Leo (The Aerospace Corp.), dated 15 June 1977.
3. "Assessment of the Effects, on Steam-Electric Plant Solid Wastes, of
More Stringent New Source Performance Standards for Sulfur Dioxide, "
U.S. EPA. Contract No. 68-01-3528, Work Assignment No. 6, dated
5 May 1977, with The Aerospace Corp.
4. "Utilities Scrub Out SOX, " Chemical Engineering, 23 May 1977.
5. J. A., Cavallaro, M. T. Johnston, and A. W, Deurbrouch. Sulfur
- Reduction Potential of U.S. Coals: A Revised Report of Investigation,
EPA-600/2-76-091, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. (April 1976).
6. D. C. Nunenkamp, Coal Preparation Environmental Engineering
Manual, EPA-600/2-76-138, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, B.C. (May 1976).
7. Letter from K. Woodard (Environmental Protection Agency) to P. P.
Leo (The Aerospace Corp.), dated 15 June 1977.
8. Summary Report: Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems, Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, Contract No. 68-02-1321, by PEDCo Environmental
Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio (January-March 1977).
9. J. I. Bucy, et aL , "Potential Utilization of Controlled SOX Emissions
from Power Plants in Eastern United States, " Presented at the EPA
Symposium on Flue Gas Desulfurization, New Orleans, March 1976;
EPA-600/2-76-136b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. (May 1976).
' 127
-------
10. P. P. Leo and J. Rossoff, Control of Waste and Water Pollution from
Power Plant Flue Gas Cleaning Systems; Second Annual R and D
Report, The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California (to be
published), prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
11. J. Rossoff, et al., Disposal of By-Products from Nonregenerable
Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems; Second Progress Report. EPA-
600/7-77-052, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C. (May 1977).
12. J. Rossoff, et al., Disposal of By-Products from Nonregenerable
Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems: Final Report, The Aerospace
Corporation, Los Angeles, California (to be published), prepared
for U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina (Contract 68-02-1010).
13. J. Rossoff and R. C. Rossi, Disposal of By-Products from Non-
regenerable Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems: Initial Report,
EPA-650/2-74-037a, (NTIS No. PB 237-114/AS), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. (May 1974).
14. R. B. Fling, et al. , Disposal of Flue Gas Cleaning Wastes: EPA
Shawnee Field Evaluation - Second Annual Progress Report, The
Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California (to be published),
prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina.
15. M. J. Bartos and M. K. Palermo, The Physical and Engineering
Properties and Durability of Raw and Chemically Fixed Hazardous
Industrial Wastes and Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludges, Interim
Report, Interagency Agreement IAG-D-4-0569 with U.S. Army Engi-
neers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
16. P. P. Leo and J. Rossoff, Control of Waste and Water Pollution from
Power Plant Flue Gas Cleaning Systems: First Annual R and D
Report, EPA-600/7-76-018, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, B.C. (October 1976).
17. S. S. Ray and F. G. Parker, Characterization of Ash from Coal-
Fired Power Plants, EPA-600(7-77-010), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. (January 1977).
18. Z. S. Wochok, et al., "Analysis of Plant Growth in Fly Ash Amended
Soils, " Paper presented at the Fourth International Ash Utilization
Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri (24-25 March 1976).
128
-------
19. D. C. Marteus and B. R. Beahm, "Growth of Plants in Fly Ash
Amended Soils, " Paper presented at the Fourth International Ash
Utilization Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri (24-25 March 1976).
20. J. Wo Jones, "Research and Development for Control of Waste and
Water Pollution from Flue Gas Cleaning Systems, " Proceedings:
Symposium on Flue Gas Desulfurization - New Orleans, March 1976;
EPA.-600/2-76-136a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C.
21. R. B0 Fling, et al. , Disposal of Flue Gas Cleaning Wastes: EPA
Shawnee Field Evaluation - Initial Report, EPA-600/2-76-070,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C. (March 1976).
22. R. R. Lunt, et al., An Evaluation of the Disposal of Flue Gas Desul-
furization Wastes in Mines and the Ocean: Initial Assessment,
EPA-600/7-77-051, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. (May 1977).
23. Coal Waste Disposal at Sea, Information pamphlet, New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority.
24. P. P. Leo and J. Rossoff, Control of Waste and Water Pollution from
Power Plant Flue Gas Cleaning Systems: Second Annual Research and
Development Report, The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles,
California (to be published), prepared for U0S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Contract
No. 68-02-1010).
25. J0 Ando and G. A. Isaacs, SO;? Abatement for Stationary Sources in
Japan, EPA-600/2-76-013a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C. (January 1976).
26. K. S. Murthy, et al., "Status and Problems of Regenerable Flue Gas
Desulfurization Process, " J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 26 (9),
851(1976).
27. Personal communication: R. Basckai, (IU Conversion Systems, Inc.)
with P. P. Leo (The Aerospace Corp. ).
28. Detailed Cost Estimates for Advanced Effluent Desulfurization Processes,
EPA-600/2-75-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. (January 1975).
129
-------
29. Letter, R. B. Fling (The Aerospace Corp.) to Julian W. Jones
(Environmental Protection Agency), 76-3310-RBF-10, dated
11 June 1976, w/enclosures.
30. J. Rossoff and R. C. Rossi, "Flue Gas Cleaning Waste Disposal,
EPA Shawnee Field Evaluation, " Presented at EPA. Flue Gas Desul-
furization Symposium, New Orleans (March 1976).
31. "Economic Indicators, " Chem. Eng. 84 (11), 7(23 May 1977).
32. R.I. Pedroso, "An Update of the Wellman-Lord Flue Gas Desul-
furization Process," Paper presented at the EPA Flue Gas Desulfuri-
zation Symposium, New Orleans (March 1976).
33. Ro B. Taylor, et al. , "Summary of Operations of the Chemico-Based
MgO FGD System at the Pepco Dickerson Generating Station," Paper
presented at the EPA Flue Gas Desulfurization Symposium, New
Orleans (March 1976).
34. Summary Report: Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems, PEDCO Environ-
mental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio (August-September 1977),
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina (Contract No. 68-01-4147, Task No. 3).
130
-------
APPENDIX A
EMISSIONS AND SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES FOR ALTERNATIVE
CONTROL SYSTEM MODEL PLANTS
TABLE A-l.
FORMAT FOR LIME AND LIMESTONE
AND DOUBLE-ALKALI SCRUBBERS
INPUT:
CASE #- PROCESS TITLES AND OPTIONS
% SULFUR FUEL,BTU FUEL $ CAPACITY
'IN FUEL PER LB ASH MW
FUEL BTU ABSORBENT % S02 REM % MOIST
PER KWH UTILIZ,JE BY SCRUB. IN WST
SULFITE- DENSITY, SODA ASH PLANT % SULFUR DENSITY % MOIST FUEL
TO SULFATE WET WASTE MAKE UP OPERATING REMOVED OF TAILING IN WASH
RATIO LB/FT3 % 'HOURS IK WASH LB/FT3 TAILING FACTOR
S02 S02 ABSORBENT S02 S02 S02
FORMED REMOVED USED EMISSIONS EMISSIONS LB/M bTU
T/H T/H T/H T/H LB/H
CaS03 CaSOU % ASH % CaC03 * CaS03 % CaSOt
T/H T/H DRY WASTE DRY WASTE DRY WASTE DRY WASTi
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL WET TOTAL WET TOTAL
DRY WASTE WET WASTE DRY WASTE WET WASTE VOL.FT3/ VOL.ACKE BTU/HR
T/H T/H T/Y T/Y YEAR FEET/YEAR'
OUTPUT:
FUEL
BURNED,
' T/H
ASH
FORMED
T/H
TOTAL
SULFUR
T/H
PRECIP
CaC03
T/H
* TAILING TAILING TAILING TAILING TAILING TAILING % ASH IN
DRY,T/H WET,T/H DRY,T/Y WET,T/Y VOL.FT3/ VOL,ACRE WASHED
YEAR FEET/YEAR FUEL
SODA ASH % SODA ASH
T/H IN WASTE
* These lines printed only if the options are invoked.
T/H = TONS PER HOUR (SHORT TONS)
T/Y = TONS PER YEAR (SHORT TONS)
LB/H= POUNDS PER HOUR
SODA ASHrFROM DOUBLE ALKALI OPTION
TAILINGS: FROM COAL WASHING OPTION
AMT OF
FUEL
131
-------
TABLE A-2.
FORMAT FOR MAGNESIUM OXIDE AND
WELLMAN-LORD PROCESSES
INPUT:
SULFUR
IN FUEL
REGEN
EFF, J
FUEL.BTU
PER LB
SOLID WST
DENSITY,
LB/FT3
FUEL %
ASH
ABSORB
MAKEUP
PERCENT
CAPACITY
MW
PLANT-
OPERATION
H/Y
FUEL BTU
PER KWH
H2S04
% CONV.
N/A
SULFUR
CONV
% SO 2 REM
BY SCRUB.
% MOIST
IN WST
*'* SULFUR DENSITY PERCENT FUEL
REMOVED OF TAILING MOIST IN WASH
IN WASH LB/FT3 TAILING FACTOR
OUTPUT:
FUEL TOTAL
BURNED, SULFUR
T/H T/H
DRY WASTE WET WASTE
T/H T/H
TOTAL TOTAL
DRY WASTE WET WASTE
T/Y T/Y
* TAILING
DRY.T/H
TAILING
WET,T/H
S02
FORMED
T/H
DRY ASH
T/H
TOTAL
WET VOL
FT3/Y
TAILING
DRY ,T/Y
S02 S02 S02
REMOVED EMISSIONS EMISSIONS
T/H T/H LB/H
PROCESS
SOLID DRY
WASTE, T/H
TOTAL WET
VOL, ACRE
FEET /YEAR
TAILING
WET, T/Y
REGEN
SOLID DRY
WASTE, T/H
TOTAL
H2S04
T/H
TAILING
VOL ,FT3/
YEAR
TOTAL S0.2
BTU/HR LB/M BTU
% ASH, % PROCESS
DRY SOLID, DRY
WASTE WASTE
TOTAL
H2S04
T/Y
TAILING
VOL, ACRE
|FEET/'*EAR
TOTAL
SULFUR,
T/H
% ASH IN
WASHED
FUEL
% REGEN
SOLID DRY
WASTE
TOTAL
S U L K U R ,
T/Y
AMT OF
FUEL
* These lines printed only if the fuel wash option is invoked.
T/H = TONS PER HOUR (SHORT TONS)
T/Y = TONS PER YEAR (SHORT TONS)
LB/Hr POUNDS PER HOUR
TAILINGS: FROM COAL WASHING OPTION
PROCESS SOLID = ABSORBENT IN THE WASTE(DRY)
132
-------
TABLE A-3. STUDY CASES: EMISSIONS AND WASTE QUANTITIES
CASE 1- LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 1000.
3.0:1. 88.60 o.O 4380.
8700.
0.0
90.00
80.00
80.00
15.00
50.00
2.00
OUTPUT:
362.500
50.750
98.601
12.687 25-375 20.300 19.736
3.524 30.688 13.639 51.470
197.202 4.319E 05 8.637E 05 1.950E 07
5.075 10150. 1.167
3.574 31.123 13.833
447.604 8.700E 09
CASE 2- LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. 90.00 80.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
51 .001
6.562 13.125 10.500 10.208
1.823 15.873 7.055 51.470
102.001 2.234E 05 4.468E 05 1.006E 07
2.625 5250. 1.167
3.574 31.123 13.833
231.520 4.500E 09
CASE 3- LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 25. 10080. 90.00 60.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT :
10.500
1 .470
2.856
0.367 0.735 0.588 0.572
0.102 0.889 0.395 51.470
5.712 1.251E 04 2.502E 04 5.648E 05
0.147 294. 1.167
3.574 31.123 13.833
12.965 2.520E 08
CASE 4-
3.50
3.0:1.
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
12000 14.00 1000. 8700. 80.00 80.00 50.00
88 60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
362.500
50.750
103.007
12.687 25.375 20.300 39.648
7.930 30.688 13.639 49.269
206.013 4.512E 05 9.023E 05 2.037E 07
5.075 10150. 1.167
7.698 29.792 13.241
467.603 ซ.700E 09
CASE 5- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. 80.00 80.00 50.00
3.0:1. 86.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
53.279
6.562 13.125 10.500 20.508
4.102 15.873 7.055 49.269
106.558 2.334E 05 4.667E 05 1.054E 07
2.625 5250. 1.167
7.698 29.792 13.241
241.864 4.500E 09
CASE 6- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 25. 10080. 80.00 80.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
10.500
1 .470
2-984
0.367 0.735 0.588 1.146
0.230 0.889 0.395 49.269
5.967 1.307E 04 2.614E 04 5-900E 05
0.147 294. 1.167
7.696 29-792 13.241
13.544 2.520E 08
133
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 7- DOUBLE ALKALI WITH LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 1000. 8700. 95.00 80.00 50.00
3.0-1. 88.60 3.00 4380. 0.0 80.00 15-00 2.00
OUTPUT:
362.500
50.750
97.755
1 .009
12.687 25.375 20.300 18.697
1.669 30.688 13.639 51.916
195.510 4.282E 05 8.563E 05 1.933E 07
1 -032
5.075 10150. 1.167
1.708 31.393 13.952
443.763 8.700E 09
CASE 8- DOUBLE ALKALI WITH LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. 95.00 80.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 3.00 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
50.563
0.522
6.562 13.125 10 .500 9.671
0.863 15.873 7.055 51.916
101.126 2.215E 05 4.429E 05 9.998E 06
1 .032
2.625 5250. 1.167
1.708 31.393 13.952
229.533 4.500E 09
CASE 9- DOUBLE ALKALI WITH LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 25. 10080, 95.00 80.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 3.00 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
10.500
1 .470
2.832
0.029
0.367 0.735 0.586 0.542
0.048 0.889 0.395 51-916
5.663 1.240E 04 2.480E 04 5.599E 05
1 ,032
0.147 294. 1.167
1.708 31.393 13.952
12.854 2.520E 08
CASE 10- MAGNESIUM OXIDE
3.50 12000. 14.00 1000. 8700. 0.0
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380. 100.00 100.00
80.00
35,00
OUTPUT:
362.500 12.687 25.375 20.300
52.780 81.200 50.750 0.381
2.312E 05 3.557E 05 1.016E 07 233.278
5.075 10150. 8.700E 09 1 . 167
1.649 96.154 0.721 3.125
29.530 1.293E 05 9.642 4.223E 04
CASE 11- MAGNESIUM OXIDE
3.50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. 0.0
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380. 100.00 100.00
80.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
187.500 6.562 13.125 10.500
27.300 42.000 26.250 0.197
1.196E 05 1.840E 05 5.256E 06 120.661
2.625 5250. 4.500E 09 1.167
0.853 96.154 0.721 3.125
15.274 6.690E 04, 4.987 2.185E 04
CASE 12- MAGNESIUM OXIDE
3.50 12000. 14.00 25. 10080.
95.00 70.00 3.00 4360. 100.00
0.0
100.00
80.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
10.500 0.367 0.735 0.588
1.529 2.352 1.470 0.011
6.696E 03 1.030E 04 2.943E 05 6.757
0.147 294. 2.520E 08 1.167
0.048 96.154 0.721 3.125
0.855 3.746E 03 0.279 1.223E 03
134
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 13-WELLMAN LORD
3.50 12000. 14.00 1000. 8700. 0.0
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380. 100.00 100.00
80.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
362.500 12.687 25.375 20.300
53.598 82.459 50.750 1.199
2.348E 05 3.612E 05 1.032E 07 236.895
5.075 10150 . 8.700E 09 1.167
1.649 94.6H6 2.237 3.077
29.530 1.293E 05 9.642 4.223E 04
CASE 14-WELLMAN LORD
3.50 12000. 14.00 500.
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380.
9000.
100.00
0.0
100 .00
80.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
187.500 6.562 13.125 10.500
27.723 42.651 26.250 0.620
1.214E 05 1.868E 05 5.337E 06 122.532
2.625 5250. 4.500E 09 1.167
0.853 94.686 2.237 3.077
15.274 6.690E 04 4.987 2.185E 04
CASE 15-WELLMAN LORD
3.50 12000. 14.00 25. 10080. 0.0
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380. 100.00 100.00
80.00
35-00
OUTPUT :
10.500 0.367 0.735 0.588
1.553 2.388 1.470 0.035
6.800E 03 1.046E 04 2.989E 05 6.862
0.147 294. 2.520E 08 1.167
0.048 94.686 2,237 3.077
0.855 3.746E 03 0.279 1.223E 03
CASE 16- LIME SCRUBBER
7.00 12000. 14.00 1000. 8700. 90.00 90.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT :
362.500
50.750
158.415
25.375 50.750 45.675 44.406
7.930 69.048 30.688 32.036
316.830 6.939E 05 1.388E 06 3.133E 07
5.075 10150. 1.167
5.006 43.587 19.372
719.132 8.700E 09
CASE 17- LIME SCRUBBER
7.00 12000. 14.00 500. 9000- 90.00 90.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
81 -939
13.125 26.250 23.625 22.969
4.102 35.714 15.873 32.036
163.878 3.589E 05 7.178E 05 1.620E 07
2.625 5250. 1.167
5.006 43.587 19.372
371.965 4.500E 09
CASE 18-
7.00
3.0:1.
LIME SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00 25. 10080. 90.00 90.00 50.00
88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
10.500
1 .470
4.589
0.735 1.470 1.323 1.286
0.230 2.000 0.889 32.036
9.177 2.010E 04 4.020E 04 9.074E 05
0.147 294. 1.167
5.006 43.587 19.372
20.830 2.520E 08
135
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
7 .00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
362.500
50.750
168.327
CASE 20
7 .00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT :
187.500
26.250
87 .066
CASE 21
7 .00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
10.500
1 .470
4.876
CASE 22-
0.80
3-0:1.
OUTPUT :
166.667
10 .000
10 .000
CASE 23-
0 .80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT :
9.333
0.560
0.560
CASE 24-
0.60
3.0:1.
OUTPUT :
225 .000
18.000
18.000
12000 . 14.00
88.60 0.0
25.375 50.750
17 . 842 69-048
336.654 7.373E 05 1.
- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00
88.60 0.0
13.125 26.250
9.229 35.714
174. 132 3.813E 05
- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00
88.60 0.0
0.735 1.470
0.517 2.000
9.751 2 . 136E 04
NO SCRUBBER
13500. 6.00
70 .00 0.0
1.333 2.667
/ 0 .0 0.0
15.385 4 ,360E 04 6
NO SCRUBBER
13500. 6.00
70.00 0.0
0 .075 0.149
0.0 0-0
0.862 2 .453E 03 3.
NO SCRUBBER
10000. 8.00
70.00 0.0
1.350 2.700
0.0 0.0
27.692 7.884E 04 1 .
1000.
4380.
45.675
30.688
475E 06 3.
500.
4380.
23-625
15.873
7.627E 05
25.
4380.
1.323
0.869
4.271E 04
500 .
4380.
0.0
0.0
.738E 04 1
25.
4380.
0.0
0.0
774E 03 1 .
500 .
4380.
0.0
0.0
213E 05 3.
8700.
0.0
89.209
30. 150
329E 07
9000 .
0.0
46.143
30 . 150
1 .722E 07
10080 .
0.0
2.584
30.150
9.641E 05
9000 .
0.0
0.0
100 .000
.925E 06
10080.
0.0
0.0
100 .000
078E 05
9000 .
0.0
0.0
100.000
465E 06
80.00
80. 00
5.075 '
10.599
764. 128 8.
80.00
80.00
2.625
10.599
395.239
80 .00
80.00
0.147
10.599
22.133
0.0
60.00
2.667
0.0
44. 198 4
0.0
80.00
0.149
0.0
2.475 2.
0.0
80.00
2.700
0.0
79.557 4.
90.00
15.00
10150.
4 1 .020
700E 09
90.00
15.00
5250.
4 1 . 020
4.500E 09
90.00
15.00
294.
41 .020
2.520E 08
0.0
15.00
5333.
0.0
500E 09
0 .0
15.00
299.
0.0
520E 08
0.0
15.00
5400.
0.0
500E 09
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
18.231
50.OQ
2.00
1 .16?
18.231
50.00
2.00
1.167
18.231
35.00
2.00
1 . 185
0.0
35.00
2.00
1 . 185
0.0
35.00
2.00
1 .200
0.0
136
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 241-
0 .40
3.0:1.
OUTPUT :
281 .250
16.875
16.875
CASE 25-
0.60
3.0: 1.
OUTPUT:
12 . 600
1 .008
1 .008
CASE 251-
0 .40
3.0: 1.
OUTPUT:
15.750
0.945
0-945
NO SCRUBBER
8000. 6.00
70.00 0.0
1.125 2.250
0.0 0.0
25.962 7 .391E 04
NO SCRUBBER
10000. 8.00
70.00 0.0
0.076 0.151
0.0 0.0
1 .551 4.4 15E 03
NO SCRUBBER
8000. 6.00
70.00 0.0
0.063 0.126
0.0 0.0
1 .454 4 . 139E 03
500 .
4380.
0.0
0.0
1 .137E 05
25.
4380.
0.0
0.0
6.792E 03
25.
4380.
0 .0
0.0
6.368E 03
9000 .
0.0
0.0
100 .000
3.249E 06
10080.
0.0
0 .0
100 .000
1 . 941E 05
10060-
0 .0
0 .0
100.000
1 .819E 05
0.0
80.00
0,0
15.00
2.250 4500.
0.0 0.0
74.584 4.500E 09
0.0
80.00
0.0
15.00
0.151 302.
0.0 0.0
4.455 2.520E 08
0 .0
80.00
0.0
15.00
0.126 252.
0.0 0.0
4.177 2.520E 08
35.00
2.00
1 .000
0.0
35.00
2.00
1 .200
0.0
35.00
2.00
1 .000
0.0
CASE 26- COAL WASH WITH LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 13200. H.OO 500. 9000. 90.00 65.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
170.455
15.770
26.739
9.336
3.580 7.159 4.653 4.524
0.808 7.035 3.127 58.977
53.477 1.171E 05 2.342E 05 5.287E 06
10.984 4.089E 04 4.811E 04 1.203E 06
2.506 501 1 . 1.114
3.021 26.309 11.693
121.382 4.500E 09
27.611 9.252 179.329
CASE 27- COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3.50 13200. 14.00 500. 9000. 80.00 65.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
170,455
15.770
27 .749
9.336
3.580 7.159 4.653 9.089
1.818 7.035 3.127 56.831
55.497 1.215E 05 2.431E 05 5.487E 06
10.984 4.089E 04 4.811E 04 1.203E 06
2.506 5011. 1.114
6.551 25.351 11.267
125.966 4.500E 09
27.611 9.252 179.329
CASE 28-
3.50
3.0:1.
LIME SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00 1000. 8700. 90.00 90.00 50.00
88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
362 .500
50.750
104.583
12.687 25.375 22.837 22.203
3.965 34.524 15.344 48.526
209.165 4.581E 05 9.161E 05 2.068E 07
2.538 5075. 0.583
3.791 33.011 14.672
474.757 8.700E 09
137
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 29- LIME SCRUBBER
3 50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. 90.00 90.00 50.00
3.OJ1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
187 . 500
26.250
54.094
6.562 13.125 11.812 11.484
2.051 17.857 7.937 48.526
108.189 2.369E 05 4.739E 05 1.070E 07
1.313 2625. 0.503
3.791 33.011 14.672
245.564 4.500E 09
CASE
30-
3.50
3.0: 1.
LIME SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00 25. 10080. 90.00 90.00 50.00
88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT :
10.500
1 .470
3.029
0.367 0.735 0.661 0.643
0.115 1.000 0.444 48.526
6.059 1.327E 04 2.654E 04 5-990E 05
0.074 147. 0.583
3.791 33-011 14.672
13.752 2.520E 08
CASE
31-
3.50
3.0:1.
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00 1000. 8700. 80.00 90.00 50.00
88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
362.500
50.750
109.539
12.,687 25.375 22.837 44.604
8.921 34.524 15.344 46.331
219.077 4.798E 05 9.596E 05 2.166E 07
2.538 5075. 0.563
8.144 31.517 14.008
497.255 8.700E 09
CASE 32- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. 80.00 90.00 50.00
3.0:1. 86.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT :
187.500
26.250
56.658
6.562 13.125 11.812 23.071 1-313 2625. 0.583
4.614 17.857 7.937 46.331 8.144 31-518 14.008
113.316 2.482E 05 H.963E 05 1.120E 07 257.201 4.500E 09
CASE 33- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3-50 12000. 14.00 25. 10080. 80.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00
90.00
15.00
50.00
2.00
OUTPUT:
10.500
1 .470
3.173
0.367 0.735 0.661 1.292
0.258 1.000 0.444 46.331
6.346 1.390E 04 2.779E 04 6.274E 05
0.074 147. 0.563
8.144 31.517 14.008
14.403 2.520E 08
CASE 34- DOUBLE ALKALI WITH LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 1000. 8700. 95.00 90.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 3.00 4380. 0-0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
362.500
50.750
103.630
1.135
12.687 25.375 22.837 21.034 2.538 5075. 0.5SJ3
1.878 34.524 15.344 48-972 1.812 33.314 14.806
207.261 4.539E 05 9.078E 05 2.049E 07 470.435 8.700E 09
138
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 35- DOUBLE ALKALI WITH LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. 95.00 90.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 3.00 4380. 0.0 80-00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
53.602
0.587
6.562 13.125 11.612 10.880
0.971 17.857 7-937 48.972
107.204 2.348E 05 4.696E 05 1.060E 07
1.095
1.313 2625. 0.583
1.812 33-314 14.806
243.329 4.500E 09
CASE 36- DOUBLE ALKALI WITH LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 25. 10080. 95.00 90.00 50.00
3-0:1. 88.60 3.00 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
10 .500
1 .470
3.002
0.033
0.367 0.735 0.661 0.609
0.054 1.000 0.444 48.972
6.003 1.315E 04 2.629E 04 5.936E 05
1 -095
0.074 147. 0.583
1.812 33.314 14.806
13.626 2.520E 08
CASE 37- MAGNESIUM OXIDE
3.50 12000. 14.00 1000.
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380.
8700 . 0.0
100.00 100.00
90.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
362.500 12.687 25.375 22.837
53-034 81.590 50.750 0.428
2.323E 05 3.574E 05 1.021E 07 234.399
2.530 5075. 8.700E 09 0.583
1.856 95.694 0.807 3.499
33.221 1.455E 05 10.848 4.751E 04
CASE 38- MAGNESIUM OXIDE
3.50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. 0.0
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380. 100.00 100.00
90.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
187.500 6.562 13.125 11.812
27.431 42.202 26.250 0.221
1.201E 05 1.848E 05 5.281E 06 121.241
1.313 2625. 4.500E 09 0.563
0.960 95.694 0.807 3.499
17.183 7.526E 04 5.611 2.458E 04
CASE 39- MAGNESIUM OXIDE
3.50 12000. 14.00 25.
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380.
10080. 0.0
100 .00 100.00
90. 00
35.00
OUTPUT:
10,500 0.367 0.735 0.661
1.536 2.363 1.470 0.012
6.728E 03 1.035E 04 2.958E 05 6.7&9
0.074 147. 2.520E 08 0.583
0.054 95.694 0.807 3.499
0.962 4.215E 03 0.314 1.376E 03
CASE 40-WELLMAN LORD
3.50 12000. 14.00 1000.
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380-
OUTPUT:
362.500 12.687 25.375 22.837
53.954 83.007 50.750 1.349
2.363E 05 3.636E 05 1.039E 07 238.468
8700.
100.00
2.538
1 .856
33.221
0.0
100.00
5075.
94.061
1 .455E 05
90.00
8.700E 09
2.500
10.848
35.00
0.583
3.439
4 . 75 1E 04
139
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
L..H.OE, -r i -
3.50
95.00
OUTPUT:
18Y.500
27 .907
1 .222E 05 1
12000. 14.00
70.00 3.00
6.562 13.125
42.934 26.250
.881E 05 5.373E 06
CASE 42-WELLMAN LORD
3.50 12000. 14.00
95.00 70.00 3.00
OUTPUT:
10.500
1 .563
6.845E 03 1
CASE 43-
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT :
362.500
50.750
158.415
CASE 44-
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
81.939
CASE 45-
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
10.500
1 .470
4.589
CASE 46-
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
362.500
50.750
168.327
0.367 0.735
2 . 404 1 .470
.053E 04 3.009E 05
LIME SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00
88.60 0.0
25.375 50.750
7-930 69.048
316.830 6.939E 05
LIME SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00
88.60 0.0
13.125 26.250
4.102 35.714
163.878 3.589E 05
LIME SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00
88.60 0.0
0.735 1.470
0.230 2.000
9. 177 2.010E 04
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00
88.60 0.0
25.375 50-750
17.842 69.048
336.654 7-373E 05
500.
4380.
11.812
0.698
123.346
25.
4380.
0.661
0.039
6.907
1000.
4380.
45.675
30.688
1 .388E 06
500.
4380.
23.625
15.873
7. 178E 05
25.
4380.
1.323
0.889
4.020E 04
1000.
4380.
45.675
30.688
1.475E 06
9000 .
100.00
1.313
0.960
17.183
10080.
100.00
0.074
0.054
0.962
8700.
0.0
44.406
32.036
3. 133E 07
9000.
0.0
22.969
32.036
1 .620E 07
10080.
0.0
1.286
32.036
9.074E 05
8700.
0.0
89.209
30. 150
3.329E 07
0.0
100 .00
2625.
94.061
7.526E 04
0.0
100.00
147.
94.061
4.215E 03
90 .00
80.00
5.075
5.006
719- 132
90.00
80.00
2.625
5.006
371.965
90.00
80.00
0. 147
5.006
20 .830
80.00
80.00
5.075
10.599
764. 128
90 .00
4.BOOE 09
2.500
5.611
90.00
2.520E 08
2.500
0.314
90.00
15.00
10150.
43.587
8.700E 09
90.00
15.00
5250.
43.587
4.500E 09
90.00
15.00
294-
43.587
2.520E 08
90.00
15.00
10150 .
41 .020
8.700E 09
35.00
0.583
3.439
2.458E 04
35.00
0.583
3.439
1 .376E 03
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
19.372
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
19.372
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
19.372
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
18.231
140
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 47-
7 .00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
187 .500
26.250
87.066
CASE 48-
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
10 .500
1 .470
U.876
CASE 49-
7.00
3.0: 1 .
OUTPUT:
362.500
50.750
156.51 1
2.269
CASE 50-
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
80-954
1.174
CASE 51-
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
10.500
1 .470
4.533
0.066
CASE 52-
7.00
95.00
OUTPUT:
362.500
55.317
2.423E 05 3
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
12000. 14.00
88.60 0.0
13.125 26.250
9.229 35.714
174. 132 3.813E 05
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
12000 . 14.00
88.60 0.0
500. 9000.
4380. o .0
23.625 46.143
15.873 30.150
7-.627E 05 1 .722E 07
25. 10080.
4380. 0.0
0.735 1.470 1.323 2.584
0.517 2 .000 0.889 30 . 1 50
9.751 2.136E 04 U.271E 04 9.641E 05
DOUBLE ALKALI WITH
12000 . 14.00
88.60 3.00
25.375 50.750
3.756 69.048
313.022 6.855E 05 1
1.450
DOUBLE ALKALI WITH
12000 . 14.00
88.60 3.00
13.125 26.250
1 .943 35 .714
161 .908 3.546E 05 7
1.450
DOUBLE ALKALI WITH
12000. 14.00
88.60 3-00
0.735 1.470
0.109 2 .000
9.067 1 .986E 04 3
1 . 450
MAGNESIUM OXIDE
12000. 14.00
70.00 3.00
25.375 50.750
85.104 50.750
.728E 05 1 .065E 07
LIME SCRUBBER
1000. 8700.
4380. 0.0
45.675 42.069
30.688 32.426
.371E 06 3.095E 07
LIME SCRUBBER
500. 9000.
4380 . o.o
23.625 21.760
15.873 32.426
.092E 05 1 .601E 07
LIME SCRUBBER
25. 10080.
4380. 0.0
1.323 1.219
0.889 32.426
-971E 04 8.965E 05
1000. 8700.
4360. 100.00
45.675 5.075
0.856 3.711
244.493 66.443
80 .00
80.00
90.00
15.00
2.625 5250.
10.599 41.020
395.239 4.500E 09
80.00
80.00
90. 00
15.00
0.147 294.
10.599 41 .020
22.133 2.520E 08
95.00
80.00
90.00
15.00
5.075 10150.
2.400 44.117
710.488 8.700E 09
95.00
80 .00
90-00
15-00
2.625 5250.
2.400 44.117
367.494 4.500E 09
95.00
80.00
90.00
15.00
0.147 294.
2.400 44.117
20.580 2.520E 08
0.0
100.00
90.00
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
18.231
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
18.231
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
19.607
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
19.607
50.00
2.00
1 . 167
19.607
35.00
10150. 8.700E 09 1.167
91.743 1,548 6.709
MOE 05 21 .696 9 . 503E 04
141
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 53- MAGNESIUM OXIDE
7.00 12000. 11.00 500. 9000. 0.0
95.00 70.00 3.00 4360. 100.00 100.00
90.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
187.500 13.125 26.250 23.625
28.612 44.019 26.250 0,443
1.253E 05 1.928E 05 5.509E 06 126.462
2.625 5250 . 4.500E 09 1.167
1.920 91.743 1.548 6.709
34.36-7 1.505E 05 11.222 4.915E 04
CASE 54- MAGNESIUM OXIDE
7.00 12000. 14.00 25. 10080. 0.0
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380. 100.00 100.00
90.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
10.500 0.735 1.470 1.323
1.602 2.465 1.470 0.025
7.018E 03 1.080E 04 3.085E 05 7.082
0.147 294. 2.520E 08 1 . 167
0.107 91.743 1.548 6.709
1.925 8.430E 03 0.628 2.752E 03
CASE 55-WELLMAN LORD
7.00 12000. 14.00 1000. 8700. 0,0
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380. 100.00 100.00
90.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
362.500 25.375 50.750 45.675
57.159 87.936 50.750 2.698
2.504E 05 3.852E 05 1.100E 07 252.631
5.075 10150. 8.700E 09 1 . 167
3.711 88.788 4.720 6.493
66.443 2.910E 05 21.696 9.503E 04
CASE 56-WELLMAN LORD
7.00 12000. 14.00 500. 9000.
95.00 70.00 3.00 4380. 100.00
0.0
100.00
90.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
187.500 13.125 26.250 23.625
29.565 45.484 26.250 1.395
1.295E 05 1-992E 05 5.692E 06 130.671
2.625 5250. 4.500E 09 1.167
1.920 88.788 4.720 6.493
34.367 1.505E 05 11.222 4.915E 04
CASE 57-WELLMAN LORD
7-00 12000. 14.00 25.
95.00 70.00 3.00 4330.
10080.
100 .00
0.0
100.00
90.00
35.00
OUTPUT:
10.500 0.735 1.470 1.323
1.656 2.547 1.470 0.078
7.252E 03 1.116E 04 3.188E 05 7.316
0.147 294. 2.520E 08 1.167
0-107 88.788 4.720 6.493
1.925 8.430E 03 0.628 2.752E 03
CASE 58- LIME SCRUBBER
0.80 10000. 8.00 500. 9000,
3-0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0
90,00
80.00
90.00
15.00
50.00
2.00
OUTPUT:
225.000
18.000
25.637
1.800 3.600 3.240 3.150
0.562 4.898 2.177 70.210
51.275 1.123E 05 2.246E 05 5.070E 06
0.360 720. 0.160
2.194 19. 105 8.491
1 16.382 4 .500E 09
142
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
0.80
3.0: 1.
OUTPUT:
281 .250
16.875
26.422
CASE 59
0 .80
3.0: 1.
OUTPUT:
12.600
1 .008
1 ,436
CASE 591
0 .80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
15.750
0.945
1 .480
CASE 60
0 .80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT :
225.000
18.000
26.340
CASE 601
0.80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
281 .250
16.875
27.301
CASE 602-
0.80
3.0: 1.
OUTPUT:
281 .250
16.875
21.509
8000. 6-00
88.60 0.0
500.
4380.
2.250 4.500 4.050
0.703 6.122 2.721
52.843 1 . 157E 05 2.315E 05 5.
- LIME SCRUBBER
10000 . 8 .00
88.60 0.0
0.101 0 .202
0.031 0.274
2.871 6 .288E 03 1
- LIME SCRUBBER
8000. 6.00
88.60 0.0
0.126 0.252
0.039 0.343
2.959 6.481E 03 1
- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
10000. 8.00
88.60 0.0
1.800 3.600
1.266 4.898
52.681 1 . 154E 05 2
- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
8000. 6.00
88.60 0.0
25.
4380.
0.181
0.122
.25&E 04
25.
4380.
0.227
0.152
.296E 04
500.
4380.
3.240
2. 177
.307E 05
500.
4380.
2.250 4.500 4.050
1.582 6.122 2.721
54.601 1 . 196E 05 2.392E 05
LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
8000. 6.00
88.60 0.0
2.250 4.500
0.703 2.721
43.017 9.ซ21E 04 1.
500.
4380.
1 .800
1.209
884E 05 4
9000.
0.0
3.937
63.868
225E 06 1
10080.
0.0
0.176
70.210
2.839E 05
10080.
0.0
0.220
63.868
2.926E 05
9000.
0.0
6.328
68.336
5.209E 06
9000 .
0 .0
7.910
61 .812
5.398E 06
9000.
0.0
3.516
78.457
.253E 06
90.00
80.00
90.00
15.00
0.450 900.
2.661 23.172
19.942 4.500E 09
90 .00
80.00
0.020
2. 194
6.517
90 .00
80.00
0.025
2.661
6.717
80.00
80.00
0.360
4.805
119.573
80.00
80.00
0.450
5.795
123.932
80.00
80.00
2.700
3.269
97.639 4
90.00
15.00
40.
19.105
2.520E 08
90.00
15.00
50.
23.172
2.520E 08
90.00
15.00
720 .
18.595
4.500E 09
90.00
15.00
900.
22.426
4.500E 09
40.00
15.00
5400.
12.651
.500E 09
50.00
2.00
0 .200
10 .299
50.00
2.00
0 . 160
8.491
50.00
2.00
0.200
10.299
50.00
2.00
0. 160
8.264
50.00
2.00
0.200
9.967
50.00
2.00
1. ZOO
5.623
143
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 603- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
0.80 10000. 8.00 50ฐ- 9000. 80.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00
25.00
15.00
50.00
2.00
OUTPUT:
225.000
18.000
20.317
1 .800
0.352
40.633
3.600 0.900 1.758
1.361 0.605 88.597
8.899E04 1.780E 05 4.017E 06
2.700 5400. 1.200
1.730 6.697 2.976
92.229 4.500E 09
CASE 6001- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 200. 9200. 80.00 80.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
76.667 2.683 5.367 4.293
10.733 1.677 6.490 2.885
21.785 43.571 9. 542E 04 1.908E 05 4.
CASE 61-
0.80
3.0: 1.
OUTPUT:
12.600
1 .008
1.475
CASE 611-
0.80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
15.750
0.945
1.529
CASE 62-
0.80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
225 .000
18.000
23.940
LIMESTONE
10000.
88.60
0.101
0.071
2.950 6
LIMESTONE
8000.
88.60
0.126
0.089
3.058 6
SCRUBBER
8.00
0.0
0 .202
0.274
.461E 03 1
SCRUBBER
6 .00
0.0
0.252
0.343
.696E 03 1
LIME SCRUBBER
10000. 8.00
88 . 60 0.0
1 .800
0.437
47.880 1
3.600
3.810
.049E 05 2
25.
4380-
0.181
0. 122
.292E 04
25.
4380.
0.227
0. 152
.339E 04
500.
4380.
2.520
1.693
.097E 05
8.385
49.269
,308E 06
10080.
0.0
0.354
68.336
2.917E 05
10080.
0.0
0.443
61.812
3.023E 05
9000.
0.0
2.450
75.188
4.734E 06
1.073 2147.
7.698 29.792
98.895 1.840E 09
80.00
80.00
90.00
15.00
0.020 40.
4.805 18.595
6.696 2.520E 08
80.00
80.00
90.00
15.00
0.025 50.
5.795 22.426
6.940 2.520E 08
90.00
80.00
70.00
15.00
1.080 2160.
1.827 15.913
108.677 4.500E 09
1. 167
13.241
50.00
2.00
0. 160
8.264
50.00
2.00
0.200
9.967
50.00
2.00
0.480
7.072
CASE 621- LIME SCRUBBER
0.80 8000. 6,00 500. 9000. 90.00 75.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
281 .250
16.875
24.831
2.250 4.500 3.375 3.281
0.586 5.102 2.268 67.961
49.661 1.088E 05 2.175E 05 4.910E 06
1.125 2250. 0.500
2.360 20.547 9.132
112.719 4.500E 09
144
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 63-
0 .80
3.0:1 .
OUTPUT:
12.600
1 .008
1 .341
CASE 631-
0.80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
15.750
0.945
1.391
CASE 64-
0.80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
225 .000
18 .000
24.487
CASE 641-
0.80
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
28 1 .250
16.875
25.563
LIME SCRUBBER
10000. 8.00
88.60 0.0
0.101
0.024
2.681 5.
0.202
0.213
872E 03 1
i
LIME SCRUBBER
8000. 6.00
88.60 0.0
0.126
0.033
2.781 6.
LIMESTONE
10000.
88.60
1 .800
0.984
48.974 1.
LIMESTONE
8000.
88.60
2.250
1.318
51 .126 1.
0.252
0.286
090E 03 1
SCRUBBER
8.00
0.0
3.600
3.810
073E 05 2
SCRUBBER
6.00
0.0
4.500
5. 102
120E 05 2
25.
4380.
0.141
0.095
. 174E 04
25.
4380.
0. 189
0.127
.218E 04
500.
4380.
2.520
1.693
. 145E 05
500.
4380.
3.375
2.268
.239E 05
10080.
0.0
0. 137
75. 188
2.651E 05
10080.
0.0
0. 164
67-961
2.750E 05
9000.
0 .0
4.922
73.508
4.842E 06
9000.
0.0
6.592
66.013
5.055E 06
90.00
80.00
70.00
15.00
0.060 121.
1.827 15-913
6.086 2.520E 08
90 .00
80.00
75.00
15.00
0.063 126.
2.360 20.547
6.312 2.520E 08
80.00
80.00
70.00
15 .00
1.080 2160.
4.020 15.557
111.160 4.500E 09
80.00
80.00
75.00
15.00
1-125 2250.
5.157 19.959
116.044 4.500E 09
50.00
2.00
0.480
7.072
50.00
2.00
0.500
9.132
50 .00
2.00
0.480
6.914
50.00
2.00
0.500
8.871
CASE 65- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
0.80 10000. 8.00 25. 10080.
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0
80 .00
80.00
70.00
15.00
50.00
2.00
OUTPUT:
12.600
1 .008
1.371
0.101 0.202 0.141 0.276
0 055 0.213 0.095 73.508
2.743 6.006E 03 1.201E 04 2.712E 05
0.060 121. 0.480
4.020 15.557 6.914
6.225 2.520E 08
CASE 651- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
0 80 8000. 6.00 25. 10080.
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0
80.00
80.00
75.00
15.00
50.00
2.00
OUTPUT:
15.750
0.945
1.432
0.126 0.252 0.189 0.369
0.074 0.266 0.127 66.013
2.863 6.270E 03 1.254E 04 2.831E 05
0.063 126. 0.500
5.157 19.959 8.871
6.498 2.520E 08
145
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 66- COAL WASH WITH LIME SCRUBBER
> 50 13200. 14.00 500. 9000. 90.00 85.00
30-1 88.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 80.00 15.00
50.00
2.00
OUTPUT:
170 .455
15.770
30.114
9.336
3.580 7.159 6.065 5.916
1.056 9.199 4.089 52.367
60.228 1.319E 05 2.638E 05 5.955E 06
10.984 4.089E 04 4.811E 04 1.203E 06
1.074 '2148. 0.477
3.508 30.548 13.577
136.703 4.500E 09
27.611 9.252 179.329
CASE 661- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3.50 12000. 14.00 500. 9000. SO.O'O 91.50 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 0.0 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
57.165
6.562 13.125 12.009 23.456
4.691 18.155 8.069 45.920
114.329 2.504E 05 5.008E 05 1.130E 07
1.116 2231. 0.496
8.206 31.759 14.115
259.502 4.500E 09
CASE 67- COAL WASH WITH LIME SCRUBBER
3.50 13200. 14.00 25. 10080. 90.00 85.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
9.545
0.883
1 .686
0.523
0.200 0.401 0.341 0.331
0.059 0.515 0.229 52.367
3.373 7.386E 03 1.477E 04 3.335E 05
0.615 2.290E 03 2.694E 03 6.735E 04
0.060 120. 0.477
3.508 30.548 13.577
7.655 2.520E 08
1.546 9 . 252 10 .042
CASE 68- COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3.50 13200. 14.00 500. 9000. 80.00 85.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
170.455
15.770
31.434
9.336
3.580 7.159 6.085 11.885
2.377 9.199 4.089 50.167
62.869 1.377E 05 2.754E 05 6.216E 06
10.984 4.089E 04 4.811E 04 1.203E 06
1.074 2148. 0.477
7.562 29.265 13.006
142.698 4.500E 09
27.611 9-252 179.329
CASE 69- COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
3.50 13200. 14.00 25. 10080. 80.00 85.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
9.545
0.883
1 .760
0.523
0.200 0.401 0.341 0.666
0.133 0.515 0.229 50.167
3.521 7.710E 03 1.542E 04 3.481E 05
0.615 2.290E 03 2.694E 03 6.735E 04
0.060 120. 0.477
7.562 29.265 13.006
7.991 2.520E 08
1.546 9.252 10.042
CASE 70- COAL WASH WITH LIME SCRUBBER
7.00 13200. 14.00 500. 9000. 90.00 95.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
170.455
6.752
38.815
19.597
7.159 14.318 13.602 13.224
2.362 20.563 9.139 17.395
77.630 1.700E 05 3-400E 05 7.675E 06
23.055 8.583E 04 1.010E 05 2.525E 06
0.716 1432. 0.310
6.084 52.976 23.545
176 .203 4.500E 09
57.955 3.961 188.203
146
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 701- COAL WASH WITH LIME SCRUBBER
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
170.455
6.752
37.971
19.597
13200. 14.00 500. 9000.
88.60 0.0. 4380. 40.00
7.159 14.318 13.244 12.876
2.299 20.022 8,899 17,781
75.943 1.663E 05 3.326E 05 7.509E 06
23.055 8.583E 04 1.010E 05 2.525E 06
CASE 702- LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
7.00 12000. 11.00 500. 9000.
3.0:1. 88,60 0.0 4380. 0.0
OUTPUT:
187.500
26.250
91 . 120
CASE 7
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
170.455
6.752
41 .767
19.597
CASE 711-
7.00
3.0:1 .
OUTPUT:
170 .455
6.752
40 .846
19.597
CASE 712-
7.00
3.0: 1.
OUTPUT :
170.455
6.752
37.971
19.597
CASE 713-
7.00
3.0:1.
OUTPUT:
174.419
11.641
52.782
14.685
13.125 26.250 25.200 49.219
9.844 38.095 16.931 28.808
182.240 3.991E 05 7.982E 05 1 .802E 07
1- COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
13200. 14.00 500. 9000.
88 .60 0.0 4380 . 40.00
7.159 14.318 13.602 26.567
5.313 20.563 9-139 16.165
83.534 1.829E 05 3.659E 05 8.259E 06
23.055 8.583E 04 1.010E 05 2.525E 06
COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
13200. 14.00 500. 9000.
88.60 0.0 4380 . 40 .00
7.159 14.318 13.244 25 .868
5.174 20.022 8.899 16.530
81.691 1.789E 05 3.57&E 05 &.077E 06
23.055 8.583E 04 1.010E 05 2.525E Ofa
COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
13200. 14.00 500. 9000.
88 . 60 0.0 4380 . 40.00
7.159 14.318 13.244 22.994
2.299 20.022 8.899 17.781
75.943 1.663E 05 3.326E 05 7.509E 06
23.055 8.583E 04 1.010E 05 2.525E 06
COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
12900. 14.00 500. 9000.
88.60 0.0 4380. 30.00
8.547 17.093 15.982 31.215
6.243 24.160 10.738 22.055
105.564 2.312E 05 4.624E 05 1.044E 07
17.276 6.432E 04 7.567E 04 1.892E 06
90.00
80.00
1 .074
6.056
172.373 4.
57.955
80.00
80.00
1 .050
10.803
413.644
80.00
80.00
0.716
12.721
189.603
57.955
80.00
80.00
1 .074
12.666
185.420 4
57.955
90 .00
80.00
1 .074
6.055
172.373 4
57-955
60 .00
80.00
1.111
11 .828
239.606 4
43.428
92.50
15.00
2148.
52.728
500E 09
3.961
96.00
15.00
2100.
11.808
4.500E 09
95-00
15.00
1432.
49.232
4.500E 09
3.961
92.50
15.00
2148.
49.018
.500E 09
3-961
92.50
15.00
2148.
52.728
.500E 09
3.961
93.50
15.00
2222.
45.774
.500E 09
6.674
50 .00
2 .00
0.477
23.435
188.203
50.00
2.00
0.467
18.581
50 .00
2.00
0.318
21 .881
185.203
50 .00
2.00
0.477
21 .786
188.203
50.00
2.00
0.477
23-435
180.203
50.00
2.00
0.494
20.344
188.040
147
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
CASE 714- COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
7.00 12600. 14.00 500. 9000. 80.00 94.50 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 20.00 80.00 15.00 2.00
OUTPUT:
178.571
16.521
65.173
9.781
10.000 20.000 18.900 36.914
7.383 28.571 12.698 25.349
130.347 2.855E 05 5.709E 05 1.289E 07
11.507 4.284E 04 5.040E 04 1.260E 06
1.100 ' 2200. 0.489
11.328 43.839 19.484
295.857 4.500E 09
28.926 9.252 187.868
CASE 715- COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
7.00 13200. 14.00 500. 9000. 80.00 92.00 50.00
3.0:1. 88.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 ' 80.00 15.00 1.50
OUTPUT:
170.455
11 .376
45.286
14.351
7.159 14.318 13.173 25.728
5.146 19-913 8.850 25.121
90.571 1-984E 05 3-967E 05 8-955E 06
16.883 6.286E 04 7-395E 04 1.849E 06
1.145 2291. 0.509
11.362 43.973 19.544
205.576 4.500E 09
42.441 6.674 183.766
CASE 716- COAL WASH WITH LIMESTONE SCRUBBER
7.00 13200. 14.00 500. 9000. 80.00 92.00 50.00
3.0:1. 86.60 0.0 4380. 40.00 80.00 15.00 1.00
OUTPUT:
170.455
15.770
49.679
9.336
7.159 14.318 13.173 25.728
5.146 19.913 8.850 31.743
99.358 2.176E 05 4.352E 05 9.824E 06
10.984 4.089E 04 4.811E 04 1.203E 06
1.145 2291. 0.509
10.358 40.084 17.815
225.521 4.500E 09
27.611 9.252 179.329
148
-------
APPENDIX B
NATIONWIDE SUMMARY OF PREDICTED TOTAL WASTES PRODUCED
BY NONREGENERABLE SCRUBBING PROCESSES
The following applies to Tables B-la through B-3d:
a. See Tables 21 and 22 for baseline conditions, pages 62
and 63.
b. "Annual" refers to those quantities, i.e., tons, acres,
acre-ft, generated or required in each specific year
denoted.
c. "Total annual" refers to the sum of each specific year
with the previous years, up to and including 1978.
d. See also Figure 6, page 37.
149
-------
TABLE B-la. 1.2-LB SO2/10 BTU: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
26000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
23.21
17.20
19.64
19.89
17.95
21 .47
19.80
18.70
22.00
20.90
23.10
30.00
24.20
26.40
33.00
26.40
33.00
33.00
36.30
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
5.417
4.015
4.584
4.642
4. 190
5.010
4.621
4.365
5. 135
4.876
5.392
7. 1ป9
5.648
6. 162
7.702
6. 162
7.702
7.702
6.472
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
14.414
18.429
23.013
27.655
31 .845
36.855
41 .470
45 . 64 1
50.975
55.854
61 .245
66.434
74 .062
60.244
87.946
94. 10b
101.610
109.512
1 17.985
ANNUAL
bET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4614.
4514.
5617.
4163.
4753.
4613.
4344.
5195.
4792.
4525.
5324.
5056.
5590.
7454.
5850.
6369.
7966.
b369.
7966.
7966.
6705.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
166.
234.
173.
190.
201 .
161 .
216.
200.
169.
222.
21 1 .
233.
31 1 .
244.
2bb .
333.
266.
333.
333.
366.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
623.
796.
994.
1195.
137b.
1592.
1792.
1960.
2202.
2413.
2b46 .
2y5b.
3201 .
34b7.
3799.
4066.
4390.
4731 .
50y7.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE,
REQUIRED
6016.
1 1 DbO .
16602 .
236ob.
29627.
35645.
41273.
4 7 7 6 b .
5375b.
59413.
66066 .
72390.
793?o.
6oby5.
9b015.
1040U2.
1 13964.
121970.
I3iy53.
141935.
152910.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 45: 55
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET X
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb)
1978-1998 = 2.334 x 105 tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern) - 242
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-la. 1.2-LB SO0/10 BTU: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000 .
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
.31.1
42.2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
30.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
4o .0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
18.99
14.0fa
16.07
16.27
14.69
17.56
16.20
15.30
18.00
17. 10
10.90
25.20
19.80
21.60
27.00
21 .60
27.00
27.00
29.70
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 .172
1.789
1 .326
1.514
1.535
1 .384
1 .655
1 .526
1.441
1 .69b
1.611
1 .781
2.374
1 .865
2.035
2.544
2.035
2.544
2.544
2.798
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
3.970
5.296
6.610
6.343
9.726
1 1 .361
12 . 907
14.349
16.044
17.655
19.436
21.810
23.675
25.710
28.254
30.259
32.832
35.376
38.174
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
1654.
1374.
1569.
1589.
1434.
1715.
1502.
1494.
1758.
1670.
1845.
2461 .
1933.
2109.
2636 .
2109.
2636.
2636.
2900.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51 .
77.
57.
btj.
6b.
bO .
71 .
6b.
62.
73.
70.
77.
103-
01 .
Ob.
110.
88.
110.
1 1C.
121 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
HEQU1RED
44.
94.
171 .
229.
294.
360.
420 .
491 .
557.
b20 .
b93.
7b2.
"39 .
94ซc.
1022.
- 1110.
1220.
1300 .
1410.
1520.
1649.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307 .
2825.
5143.
6b61 .
a t>22 .
1 0008.
12b01 .
14744 .
167^ 1 .
105oy .
2070C .
22073.
25 1 60 .
26255.
50672.
33300.
5obU3 .
39240.
42535.
45031 .
49455.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 - 35: 65
1979 - 40: 60
1980-1998 45: 55
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - WESTERN COAL
(0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb)
9.421 x 104 tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
97.64
(concluded)
-------
TABLE B-la.
i. 2-LB S02/10
BTU: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
tv
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MM
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
46.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
14.414
18.429
23.013
27.655
31.845
36.855
41.476
45.841
50.975
55.854
61.245
68.434
74.082
80.244
87.946
94.108
101.810
109.512
117.985
ANNUAL
ACRES
201.
389.
623.
796.
994.
1 195.
1376.
1592.
1792.
1980.
2202.
2413.
2646.
2956.
3201 .
3467.
3799.
4066.
4398.
4731 .
5097.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6016.
1 1660.
18682.
23886.
29027.
35043.
41273.
477bb.
53756.
59413.
66068.
72390.
79378.
8b695.
96015.
104002.
1 13984.
121970.
131953.
141935.
152916.
ViES'IhRN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1.009
2.181
3.970
5.296
6.010
8.343
9.726
11.381
12.907
14.349
1b.044
17.655
19.436
21.810
23.b75
k5.710
25.254
30.289
32.832
35.376
38. 174
ANNUAL
ACHES
44.
94.
171.
229.
^94 .
360.
420.
491 .
t>57.
620.
693.
762.
039.
942 .
1022.
1110.
1220.
130S.
1418.
1526.
1 b49.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1507.
2825.
5143.
606 1 .
8822.
10008.
1260 1 .
1 4 '( 4 4 .
16721 .
16509.
20700.
22073.
25100.
28255.
3 0 b ? 2 .
33300.
36b03.
39240.
42535.
45031 .
4^455.
NATlOhhlbt
TOTAL ANNUAL
OR* WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
b.
1 1 .
10.
24.
30.
30.
42.
40.
54.
00 .
t>7.
74.
01 .
90.
yo.
106.
1 1b.
124 .
135.
145.
15b.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACHES
244 .
483.
794.
1025.
12oB .
1555.
.1790.
2004 .
2349.
260u .
20y5.
3175.
3405.
iOyO.
4t<;3.
4577.
5020.
5374.
581b.
0259 .
b 7 4 b .
TOTAL
A h h U A L
AChtAGb
ntwU Itttb
7 i <: 5 .
1 44oi> .
2 j0^5 .
30747 .
jdb4y .
4bb51 .
53073.
0^51 1 .
? 0 4 7 7 .
7 0 0 0 'a .
ooo53 .
952bj.
104557 .
1 1095U.
12bbo7 .
137310.
1505oo .
1b1i10.
174400.
107760.
20^37 1 .
-------
TABLE B-lb.
1. 2-LB S02/10
BTU: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
01
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000 .
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000 .
30000 .
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EAS1ERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
35.87
26.59
30.35
30.73
27.74
33.18
30.60
28.90
34.00
32.30
35.70
47.60
37.40
40.80
51 .00
40.80
51 .00
51 .00
56. 10
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
8.372
6.205
7.084
7. 173
6.475
7.743
7. 142
6.745
7.936
7.539
8.332
11.110
8.729
9.523
11 .903
9.523
1 1 .903
11.903
13.094
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
a. 997
17.369
23.574
30.659
37.b32
44.307
52.050
59.192
65.937
73.873
81.412
89.744
100.854
109.583
1 19. 106
131 .009
140.532
152.435
164. 53^
177.432
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACfiE-FT
4614 .
4514.
6661 .
6434.
7345.
7436.
b714.
8028.
7405.
5994.
8228.
7617.
8639.
11519.
9051 .
9874.
12342.
9874.
12342.
12342.
13576.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
166.
362.
268.
306.
310.
260.
335.
309.
291 .
343.
326.
360.
4bO .
377.
411.
514.
411.
514 .
514.
5bb .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACHES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
750.
1018.
1325.
1634.
1914.
2249.
2557.
2o49.
3191 .
3517.
3877.
4357.
4734.
5146.
56bO .
607 1 .
6bob .
7100.
7ob5 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
KtQUlRfcD
0016.
11660.
22512.
30554.
39736.
49033.
57425.
67461 .
76717.
65459.
95745.
105515.
110315.
130714.
142027.
154369.
16y797.
162139.
197567.
212^94.
229965.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 15: 85
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb)
1978-1998 = 2.334 x 105 tons ง 80% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern) = 242
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-lb. 1
2-LB SO /10
LJ
BTU: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL, (continued)'
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY ,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000 .
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31 .1
42.2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
30.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
46.0
60.0
60 .0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
6.33
4.69
5.36
5.42
4.90
5.65
5.40
5. 10
6.00
5.70
6.30
8.40
6. 60
7.20
9.00
7.20
9.00
9.00
9.90
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 .172
0.596
0.442
0.505
0.511
0.461
0.552
0.509
0 .480
0.565
0.537
0.594
0.791
0.622
0.678
0.848
0.676
0.646
0.040
0.933
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.161
2.777
3.219
3.724
4.235
4.696
5.247
5.756
6.237
6.802
7.339
7.932
0.724
9.346
10.024
10.o72
1 1 .550
12.390
13.246
14.179
ANNUAL
WKT VOL,
AGRC.-FT
1046.
1214.
610.
458 .
523.
530.
470.
572.
527.
490.
506 .
557.
615.
620.
644.
703.
679.
703.
679.
679.
967.
ANNUAL
' ACHES
44.
51 .
26 .
19.-
22.
22.
20.
24 ,
22.
21 .
24.
23 .
26.
34.
27.
29.
37.
29.
37.
37 .
40.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
120.
139.
161.
103.
203.
22 Y.
249.
269.
294,
517.
343.
377.
404.
433.
469.
499.
535.
572.
612.
TOTAL
ANMUAL
ACRhAGh
REQUIRED
1307.
26^5.
3590.
4170.
4624.
5466 .
6004 .
6796.
7457.
0000 .
0012.
9500.
10277.
1 1302.
12107.
1 29oD .
14065.
14.903.
16062.
17100.
16369.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 15 : 85
2. ACRES REQUIRED - ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - WESTERN COAL
(0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb)
9.421 x 104 tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL AC RE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
97.64
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-lb. 1.2-LB
so2/i 9 1 .
1420 10.
1541 3b.
107355.
103002 .
197 10^ .
2 1 3b2o.
2501 55.
24033J.
-------
TABLE B-lc.
1. 2-LB SO /10
L*
BTU: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
Ln
0s-
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101 .
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000,
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
46.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
29.54
21 .89
25.00
25.31
22.85
27.32
25.20
23.80
28.00
26.60
29.40
39.20
30.60
33.60
42.00
33.60
42.00
42.00
46.20
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
6.895
5.110
5.834
5.907
5.332
6.377
5.882
5.555
6.535
6.208
6.862
9. 149
7. 109
7.642
9.803
7.642
9.803
9.803
10.763
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
15.892
21 .002
26.836
32.743
38.076
44.452
50.334
55.689
62.424
68.633
75.495
84.644
91.833
99.675
109.476
1 17.320
127. 123
136.925
147.709
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4814.
4514.
7149.
5298.
6049.
6125.
5529.
6612.
6098.
5760.
6776.
6437.
7115.
9466.
7454.
8131 .
10164.
8131 .
10164.
1 0 1 b4 .
1 1 1oO.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
168.
298.
221 .
252.
255.
230.
275.
254.
240.
282.
268.
296.
395.
311.
339.
424.
339.
424.
424.
4fa6.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
369.
607.
907.
1159.
1415.
1645.
1920.
2175.
2415.
2697.
2965.
3262.
3657.
3967.
430b.
4730.
5066.
5492.
5915.
6301 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
601 6 .
1 1b60.
20597.
27220.
34761 .
4243t).
49349.
57613.
65237.
72436.
80906.
65953.
97646.
109704.
1 19021 .
129185.
14 1 690.
152054.
164759.
177464.
191440.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 35: 65
1979 40: 60
1980-1998 = 30: 70
1. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb)
1978-1998 2.334 x 105 tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern) = 242
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-lc.
1.2-LB S02/1CT
BTU: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL {continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
1530-3.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000 .
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31 .1
42.2
31.3
35.7
"36.2
32.6
39.0
3b.O
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48 .0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
12.66
9.3b
10.71
10.85
9.79
11.71
10.80
10.20
12.00
11.40
12.60
16. bO
13.20
14.40
18.00
14.40
18.00
18.00
19.80
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 . 172
1.193
0.884
1 .009
1 .022
0.922
1.103
1.017
0.961
1.131
1 .074
1 . 187
1.583
1 .244
1 .357
1 .696
1 .357
1 .696
1 .696
1.865
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
; 3.373
- 4.257
5.267
6.289
7.21 1
8.314
9.332
10.293
1 1 .423
12.497
13.684
15.267
16.510
17.867
19.563
20.919
22.615
24.31 I
26.176
ANNUAL
WET VQL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
1236.
916.
1046.
1059.
956.
1 143.
1055.
996.
1 172.
1113.
1230.
1640.
1259.
1406.
1758.
1406.
175b.
1758.
1933.
ANNUAL
ACHES
44.
51.
52.
38.
44.
44.
40.
48.
44.
41 .
49.
4o.
51.
68 .
54.
59.
73.
59.
73.
73.
01 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
146.
184.
227.
272.
31 1 .
359.
403.
444.
493.
540.
591 .
659.
713.
772.
845.
903.
977.
1050.
1 130.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
13-07.
2825.
4370.
5516.
6823.
0147 ,
9342.
10771 .
12009.
13334.
14799.
16190.
17728.
19779.
21390.
23147.
25344.
27102.
29298.
31495.
33912.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 40: 60
1980-1998 - 30: 70
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - WESTERN COAL
(0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb)
9.421 x 1(T tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
= 97.64
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-lc.
1.2-LB SO2/10
BTU: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
15.892
21 .002
26.836
32.743
38.076
44.452
50.334
55.889
62.424
68.633
75.495
64. 644
91 .633
99.675
109.478
117.320
127.123
136.925
147.709
ANNUAL
ACRES
201.
389.
687.
907.
1159.
1415.
1645.
1 920.
2175.
2415.
2697.
2965.
3262.
3657.
3967.
4306.
4730.
5068.
5492.
5915.
6361 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6016.
1 1660 .
20597.
27220.
34781 .
4243B.
49349.
57613.
65237.
72436.
60906.
86953.
97846.
109704.
1 19021 .
129165.
141890.
152054.
1o4759.
177464.
1 9 1 440 .
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.161
3.373
4.257
5.267
6.209
7.211
6.314
9.332
10.293
1 1 .423
12.497
13.664
15.267
16.510
17.667
19.563
20.919
22 .615
24.311
26.176
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
94.
146.
164.
227.
272.
311.
359.
403.
444.
493.
540.
591 .
659.
713.
772.
645.
903.
977.
1050 .
1130.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
4370.
5516.
6823.
8147 .
9342.
10771 .
120b9.
13334.
14799.
10190.
17726.
19779.
21390.
23147.
25344.
27102.
29296 .
31495.
33912.
NATIONWIDE
TOTAL ANNUAL
DR1 WAS1E,
MILLION
TONS
6.
1 1 .
19.
25.
32.
39.
45.
53.
60.
66.
74.
01 .
09.
100.
106.
110.
!2y .
130.
150.
161 .
174.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
^44 .
463.
032 .
1091 .
1307.
1 bob .
1956.
22 7 9 .
2576.
2059 .
3190.
3505.
3b52.
43 1 b .
4660 .
5070.
5574.
5 y 7 2 .
b4by .
0965.
7 5 U .
TOTAL
ANN UAL,
ACrtfiAbc,
REWU J-hLf
7 3 ฃ 3 .
144bb .
24967 .
32730.
41 604 .
505bi>.
50691 .
60 j05 .
7 7 3 <; b .
05770.
y 5 7 o 5 .
105143.
1 15574.
12y4o3 .
14041 1 .
152333.
167234.
179150.
1 9 4U t> o
ki 0 d ^ t>u *
^2535^.
Ul
00
-------
TABLE B-ld.
1.2-LB SO2/10
BTU: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
16000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000 .
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
10.55
7.82
8.93
9.04
8.16
9.76
9.00
8.50
10.00
9.50
10.50
14.00
11 .00
12.00
15.00
12.00
15.00
15.00
16.50
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
2.462
1 .825
2.064
2.110
1 .904
2.277
2. 101
1.984
2.334
2.217
2.451
3.268
2.567
2.801
3.501
2.601
3.501
3.501
3.851
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
h ILL ION
TONS
4.643
8.997
11 .459
13.264
15.368
17.476
19.382
21 .660
23.760
25.744
28.078
30.295
32.746
36.014
38.581
41 .302
44.603
47.664
51 . 185
54.066
50.537
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4814.
4514.
2553.
1892.
2160.
2168.
1975.
2361 .
2178.
2057.
2420.
2299.
2541 .
3368.
2662.
2904.
3630.
2904.
3630.
3630.
3993.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
16d.
106.
79.
90.
91.
82.
96.
91 .
d6.
101 .
96.
106.
141 .
111.
121 .
151 .
. 121 .
151 .
151 .
1o6.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
495.
574.
664.
755.
837.
936.
1026.
1112.
1213.
1309.
1415.
1556.
1667.
1788.
1939.
2060.
2211.
2363.
2529.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGh
HEw'lilffti/
6016.
1 1 obO .
14652.
17217.
1 y y 1 o .
2^o52 .
25121.
20072.
30795.
333bu.
3b391.
39265.
42441 .
46676.
50004 .
53634.
58171 .
61601.
bb339.
70670.
75666.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 75: 25
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb)
1978-1998 = 2.334 x 105 tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern) 242
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-ld. 1.2-LB SO /10 BTU: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
199^
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY ,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
-36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
36.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
31 .65
23.46
26. 70
27.12
24.48
29.27
27.00
25.50
30.00
28.50
31.50
42.00
33.00
36.00
45.00
36.00
45.00
45.00
49.50
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 .172
2.982
2.210
2.523
2.555
2.306
2.750
2.544
2.402
2.826
2.685
2.968
3.957
3.109
3.392
4.239
3.392
4.239
4.239
4.663
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1.009
2.181
5. 165
7.373
9.896
12.450
14.757
17.514
20.056
22.460
25.287
27.972
30.939
34.89b
38.005
41.397
45.636
49.028
53.267
57.50b
62.170
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACHE-FT
1046.
1214.
3090.
2290.
2615.
2648.
2390.
2858.
2636.
2490.
2929.
2783.
3076.
4101 .
3222.
3515.
4394.
3515.
4394.
4394.
4ซ33.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51 .
129.
95.
109.
110.
100.
119.
110.
104.
122.
116.
126.
171 .
134.
140.
183.
14b.
183.
183.
201 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
223.
310.
427.
538.
637.
756.
066.
970.
1092.
1200.
1336.
1507.
1641 .
176o.
1971.
2117.
2300.
2483.
2685.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2025.
66bo .
9551 .
12020.
16130.
19117.
22690.
259ob.
290^0 .
j 2 7 } 9 .
3 b c. j o =
400o? .
45209.
4923b.
53630.
59122.
b3516.
69000.
74501 .
00542.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 35: 65
1979 40: 60
1980-1998 = 75:25
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - WESTERN COAL
(0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb)
9.421 x 104 tons ง 40% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
97.64
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-ld.
l.Z-LB S02/10C
BTU: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000 .
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
46.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
11 .459
13.284
15.366
17.478
19.382
21 .660
23.760
25.744
28.078
30.295
32.746
36.014
38.581
41.382
44,663
ซ 7 . 6 d 4
51 .185
54.686
58.537
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
495.
574.
664.
755.
837.
936.
1026.
1112.
1213.
1309.
1415.
1556.
1667.
1788.
1939.
2060.
2211.
2363.
2529.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1660.
14852.
17217 .
199 1 & .
22652.
25121 .
28072.
30795.
33366.
36391 .
39265.
4244 1 .
46676.
50004.
53634.
58171.
61801.
66339.
70676.
75866.
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
5. 163
7.373
9.896
12.450
14.757
17.514
20.058
22.460
25.287
27 .972
30.939
34.896
38.005
41.397
45 .636
49.028
53.267
57.506
62. 170
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
94.
223.
318.
427 .
538.
637.
756.
866.
970.
1092.
1206.
1336.
1507.
1641 .
1788.
1971.
2117.
2300.
2463.
2b85.
TOTAL
ANJvUAL
ACntAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
6688.
9551 .
12620 .
16130.
19117.
22690.
25966.
29098.
32759.
36238.
40062.
45209.
49236.
53630.
59122.
63516.
6900B .
74501 .
60542.
NATlONtvlDt
TOTAL ANNUAL
Dhi WASTfc,
MILLION
TONS
6.
1 1 .
17.
21 .
25.
30.
34.
39.
44 .
48.
53.
58.
64.
71.
77.
63.
91.
97.
104.
112.
121 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACKc,^
244.
4b3.
710.
092.
1091.
1293.
1475.
1692.
1093.
2062 .
2305.
2517.
2751 .
3063.
3300.
3575.
3y1G.
4177.
4512.
4046.
5214.
T01AL
ANNUAL
AChtAUt,
RHQbllibD
73^5.
144oo.
2 1 5 4 o ,
267o? .
3275C.
30762.
44230.
50762.
50780.
62464 .
09150.
75503.
02524.
9 1005.
99240.
107264 .
1 17294 .
125317.
13^347.
145377.
150410.
-------
TABLE B-2a. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48,0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
23.21
17.20
19.64
19.89
17.95
21 .47
19.80
18.70
22.00
20.90
23.10
30.80
24.20
26.40
33.00
26.40
33.00
33.00
36.30
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
5.761
4.270
4.874
4.936
4.455
5.328
4.914
4.641
5.460
5.167
5.733
7.645
6.006
6.552
8.191
6.552
8.191
8.191
9.010
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
14.758
19.028
23.902
28.838
33.293
38.b21
43.536
46.177
53.637
58.825
64.556
72.203
78.209
84.7b2
92.952
99.505
107.695
1 15.866
124.895
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4614.
4514.
5965.
4421 .
5047.
5111.
4613.
5517.
5069.
4806.
5654.
5371.
5937.
7916.
6219.
6765.
6461 .
b765.
6461 .
b481 .
9329.
ANNUAL
ACRES
20 1 .
166.
249.
164 .
210.
213.
192.
230.
212.
200.
236.
224.
247.
330.
259.
283.
353.
263.
353.
353.
369.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
637.
821 .
1032.
1245.
1437.
1667.
1879.
2079.
2315.
253ซ.
278o.
3116.
3375.
3656.
401 1 .
4294.
4647.
5000.
5369.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
60 1 o .
1 1b60.
191 17.
24644.
30953.
37341.
43108.
50004 .
56365.
62373.
69440.
76154.
63575.
93470.
101244.
109725.
120326.
126807 .
139409.
150010.
161671 .
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980 - 1998 = 45: 55
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb)
1978 - 1979 = 2.334 x 10^ tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
1980 - 1998 = 2.482 x 105 tons ง 90% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern)
1978 - 1979 = 242
1980 - 1998 = 257
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2a. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL, (continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANT-S
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
18.99
14.08
16.07
16.27
14.69
17.56
16.20
15. 3u
18.00
17.10
18.90
25.20
19.80
21 .60
27.00
21 .60
27.00
27.00
29.70
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 .172
2.271
1 .6ซ3
1 .922
1 .946
1 .757
2.101
1.938
1 .830
2.153
2.045
2.260
3.014
2.366
2.583
3.229
2.583
3.229
3.229
3.552
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
4.452
6. 135
8.057
10.003
1 1 .760
13.860
15.796
17.626
19.781
21 .826
24.086
27.100
29.46B
32.052
35.201
37.8b4
41 .093
44.322
47.675
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
2353.
1744.
1991 .
2016.
1820.
2176.
2007.
1b96.
2230.
2119.
2342.
3122.
2453.
2676.
3345.
2676.
3345.
3345.
3bdO.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51.
9*3.
73.
83.
84.
76.
91 .
84.
79.
93.
88.
98.
130.
102.
1 '\d.
139.
- 112.
139.
139.
153.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
192.
265.
346.
432.
50tt.
596.
652.
761 .
654.
942.
1040.
1170.
1272.
13B 4.
1523.
1634.
1774.
1913.
2067.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACKh-AGE
REQUihtD
1307.
2625.
57bb.
7946.
10435.
1^955.
15230.
17950.
20459.
22626.
25616.
26265.
31192.
35095.
36161 .
41506.
456ot>.
49033.
53215.
57397.
61997.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 - 35: 65
1979 40: 60
1980-1998 45: 55
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - WESTERN COAL
(0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb)
1978 - 1979 = 9.421 x 104 tons i 40% SCRUBBING
1980 - 1998 = 1.196 x 105 tons ง 90% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
1978 - 1979 = 97.64
1980 - 1998 = 123.9
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2a. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1981
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15514.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
21000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42 .2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
12.0
56.0
11.0
48.0
60.0
18.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
14.758
19.028
23.902
28.838
33.293
38.621
43.536
46.177
53.637
58.825
64.558
72.203
78.209
84.762
92.952
99.505
107.695
1 15.886
124.695
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
637.
821.
1032.
1215.
1137.
1667.
1879.
2079.
2315.
2536.
2786.
31 16.
3375.
3658.
4011.
4294.
4617.
5000.
5389.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
601b.
1 1660.
19117.
21611.
30953.
3734 1 .
13108.
50004 .
56365.
62373.
69110.
76151.
83575.
93170.
101211 .
109725.
120326.
120807 .
139109.
150010.
161671 .
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2. 181
4 .452
6.135
8.057
10.003
1 1 .760
1 3 .860
15.79S
17.628
19.781
21 .ซ2b
24 ,08fa
27.100
29.468
32.052
35.281
37 .661
11 .093
11.322
17.B75
ANNUAL
ACRES
44 .
94.
192 .
265.
348.
432.
508.
598.
682 .
761 .
8b4.
942 .
1040.
1170.
1272.
1 384.
1523.
1634 .
1774.
1913.
2067.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2625 .
5766.
7916.
10435.
12955.
15230.
17950.
20459.
22b28.
2bb1fo.
2b26b .
311^2.
35095.
3b 1 b 1 .
415U6.
45680 .
19033.
53215.
57397.
bly97.
NATIONWIDE
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY VvAS'iE,
MILLION
IONS
6 .
1 1 .
19.
25.
32.
39.
45.
52.
59.
66.
73.
61 .
09.
99.
100.
117.
12b.
137.
149.
160 .
17 3.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACHES
244 .
403.
029.
10bb.
13oO .
1677.
1945.
22b5 .
25bl .
2S40 .
31 oy.
340 1 .
3o2b .
1265 .
404? .
5041.
5534.
592b .
6421 .
6914.
'( 4 5 6 .
101 AL
ANNUAL
ACKbAGh,
REQUIRED
7325.
14400.
2400J.
325^0 .
4 1 3ou .
bG2<30 .
5b33o.
b 7 9 "J 4 .
7 6 b ฃ 4 .
o52u 1 .
ybUbb.
1 044 1 y .
1 1 4 ( 0 f .
1 20504 .
139405.
151232.
1660 1b .
17704 1 .
Iy2b24.
207407.
22jbbO .
0s-
-------
TABLE B-2b. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
Ui
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
35.87
26.59
30.35
30.73
27.74
33.18
30.60
28.90
34.00
32.30
35.70
47.60
37.40
40.80
51.00
40.80
51.00
51.00
56.10
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
8.903
6.599
7.533
7.628
6.886
8.234
7.595
7.173
8.439
8.017
8.861
11 .814
9.283
10.127
12.658
10.127
12.658
12.658
13.924
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
17.900
24.499
32.032
39.660
46.546
54.780
62.375
69.548
77.987
86.004
94.864
106.679
115.961
126.088
138.746
148.873
161.531
174. 189
188.1 13
ANNUAL
WET VOL ,
ACRE-FT
4814.
4514.
9219.
6833.
7800.
7899.
7130.
8526.
7864.
7427.
6738.
8301.
9175.
12233.
9612.
10486.
13107.
10486.
13107.
13107.
14410,
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
188.
384.
285.
325.
329.
297.
355.
328.
309.
364.
346.
382.
510.
400.
437.
546.
437.
546.
546.
601 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
773.
1058.
1383.
1712.
2009.
2364.
2692.
3001 .
3365.
3711.
4093.
4603.
5004.
5440.
5987.
6424.
6970.
7516.
81 17.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
11660.
23164.
31725.
41476.
51349.
60262.
70919.
80750.
90034.
100956.
111333.
122801 .
138093.
150108.
163215.
179599.
192706.
209090.
225474.
243496.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 35-. 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980 - 1998 = 15: 85
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb)
1978 - 1979 = 2.334 x 10-? tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
1980 - 1998 = 2.482 x 105 tons ง 90% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern)
1978 - 1979 = 242
1980 - 1998 257
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2b. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL, (continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1981
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
46.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
6.33
4.69
5.36
5.42
4.90
5.85
5.40
5. 10
6.00
5.70
6.30
6.40
6.60
7.20
9.00
7.20
9.00
9.00
9.90
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 . 172
0.757
0.561
0.641
0.649
0.586
0.700
0.646
0.610
0.718
0.682
0.753
1 .005
0.789
0.861
1 .076
0.861
1 .076
1 .076
1. 184
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
2.938
3.499
4.140
4.788
5.374
6.074
6.720
7.330
8.047 "
8.729
9.4ซ3
10.487
1 1 .277
12.13b
13.214
14.075
15. 152
16.220
17.412
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
784.
581 .
664.
672.
607.
725.
669.
632.
743.
706.
781 .
1041 .
818.
892.
1 1 15.
892.
1115.
1115.
1227.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51.
33.
24.
28.
28.
25.
30.
28.
26.
31.
29.
33.
43.
34.
37.
46.
37.
46.
46.
51.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
127.
151 .
179.
207.
232.
262.
290.
316.
347.
377.
409.
453.
4b7.
524.
570.
608.
654.
701 .
752.
TOTAL '
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2b2b.
3&0o.
4532.
5362.
6202.
6960.
7867.
0703.
9493.
10422.
1 1305.
12251 .
13582.
14b04.
15719.
171 1b.
1d228.
19622.
21016.
22549.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 35: 65
1979 - 40: 60
1980-1998 = 15:85
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - WESTERN COAL
(0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb)
1978 - 1979 = 9.421 x 104 tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
1980 - 1998 = 1.196 x 105 tons @ 90% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
1978 - 1979 = 97.64
1980 - 1998 = 123.9
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2b. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
NSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15511.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
17.900
24.499
32.032
39.660
46.546
54.780
62.375
69.548
77.987
86.004
94.864
106.679
115.961
126.086
138.746
148.673
161 .531
174.189
188. 1 13
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
773.
1058.
1383.
1712.
2009.
2364.
2692.
3001 .
3365.
3711 .
4093.
4603.
5004.
5440.
5987.
6424 .
6970.
7516.
.6117.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1660.
23184.
31725.
41476.
51349.
60262 .
70919.
80750.
90034.
100956.
111333.
122801 .
13H093.
150108.
163215.
179599.
192706.
209090.
225474.
243496.
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION-
TONS
1 .009
2.181
2.938
3.499
4. 140
4.760
5.374
6.074
6.720
7.330
6.04?
8.729
9.463
10.487
1 1 .277
12.138
13.214
14 ,07b
15.152
16.228
17.412
ANhUAL
ACHES
44.
94.
127.
151.
179.
207.
232.
262.
290.
316.
347.
377.
409.
453.
467 .
524.
570.
606.
bb4.
701 .
752.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
3806.
4532.
5302.
6202.
0960 .
7867.
6703.
9493.
10422 .
1 1305.
12261 .
13582.
14604 .
15719.
17113.
1ซS22b .
19622.
21016.
22549.
NATIONWIDE
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
6.
1 1 .
21.
2b .
36.
44.
52.
61 .
69.
77.
ob .
95.
104.
117.
127.
13o.
152.
163.
177.
190.
206.
10TAL
ANNUAL
A C h t a
244.
463.
900.
1209.
15.61.
1y10.
2241 .
2620.
2yo2.
3310.
3713.
4006.
4505.
5056.
5490.
5964 .
0557.
7031 .
7624.
0216.
OB60 .
TOl AL
ANhOAL
ACfifcAGfa
REQUlKhD
7325.
14400 .
20990.
36257.
46<33o .
57551 .
o V 2 2 2 .
70706.
09453-
99527.
1 1 1 3 "I o .
1i;203o .
13500^.
151075.
1 0 4 7 1 * .
17t>yj
-------
TABLE B-Zc. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
00
NOTES:
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
29.54
21.89
25.00
25.31
22.85
27.32
25.20
23.80
28.00
26.60
29.40
39.20
30.80
33.60
42.00
33.60
42.00
42.00
46.20
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
7.332
5.434
6.204
6.282
5.671
6.781
6.255
5.907
6.950
6.602
7.297
9.729
7.645
8.340
10.424
8.340
10.424
10.424
11 .467
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
16.329
21 .763
27.967
34.249
39.920
46.701
52.955
58.863
65.812
72.414
79.711
89.441
97.085
105.425
1 15.849
124.189
134.613
145.037
156.504
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4814.
4514.
7592.
5627.
6424.
6505.
5872.
7021 .
6476.
6117.
7196.
6836.
7556.
10074.
7916.
8635.
10794.
8635.
10794.
10794.
1 1873.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201.
188.
31b.
234.
266.
271 .
245.
293.
270.
255.
300.
285.
315.
420.
330.
360.
450.
360.
450.
450.
495.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
705.
939.
1207.
1478.
1723.
2015.
2285.
2540.
2640.
3125.
3440.
3859.
4169.
4549.
4999.
5359.
5808.
6255.
6753.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
601b.
1 1660.
21151.
26184.
36214.
44345.
51685.
60462.
68557.
76203.
85196.
93744.
103166.
115761.
125676.
136470.
149963.
160757.
174249.
187742.
202563.
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980 - 1998 = 30 .- 70
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
13.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb)
1978 - 1979 = 2.334 x 10;? tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
1980 - 1998 = 2.482 x 105 tons i 90% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern)
1978 - 1979 = 242
1980 - 1998 = 257
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-Zc. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
o-
vD
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
155411.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31 .1
42.2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
' 34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60 .0
46.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
12.66
9.38
10.71
10.85
9.79
1 1 .71
10.80
10.20
12.00
1 1 .40
12.60
16.80
13.20
14.40
18.00
14.40
18.00
18.00
19.80
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 .172
1 .514
1 . 122
1 .261
1.297
1.171
1 .400
1 .292
1 .220
1 .435
1.363
1.507
2.009
1.579
1.722
2. 153
1 .722
2.153
2.153
2.366
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
3.695
4.817
6.098
7.396
8.567
9.967
1 1 .259
12.479
13.914
15.277
16. 784
18.794
20.372
22.095
24.247
25.970
28. 122
30.275
32.643
ANNUAL
WET VUL,
ACRE-F1
1046.
1214.
1569.
1 163.
1327.
1344.
1213.
1451 .
1338.
1264.
1487.
1412.
1561 .
2082.
1035.
1764.
2230.
1764.
2230.
2230.
2453.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51.
65.
48.
55.
56.
51 .
60.
56.
53.
62.
59.
65.
87.
68.
74.
93.
74.
93.
93.
102.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
160.
206.
263.
319.
370.
430.
466.
539.
601 .
659.
725.
81 1.
879.
954.
1047.
1121.
1214.
1307.
1409.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2625.
4706.
o239.
709*3.
9578.
1 1095.
12908.
145ป1 .
16161 .
18019.
19705.
21736.
24336.
26382.
26615.
31400.
33631.
36416.
39206.
42273.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 35: 65
1979 40: 60
1980-1998 " 30: 70
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - WESTERN COAL
(0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb)
1978 - 1979 = 9.421 x 104 tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
1980 - 1998 - 1.196 x 105 tons @ 90% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
1978 - 1979 = 97.64
1980 - 1998 = 123.9
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2c. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
16.329
21.763
27.967
34.249
39.920
46.701
52.955
58.863
65.812
72.414
79.711
89.441
97.085
105.425
1 15.849
124.189
134.613
145.037
156.504
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
705.
939.
1207.
1478.
1723.
2015.
2285.
2540.
2840.
3125.
3440.
3859.
4 189.
4549.
4999.
5359.
5808.
6258.
6753.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1660.
21151.
28184.
36214.
44345.
51665.
60462.
68557.
76203.
85198.
93744.
103188.
1 15781 .
125676.
136470.
149963.
160757.
174249.
187742.
202583.
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
3.695
4.817
6.098
7.396
8.567
9.967
11 .259
12.479
13.914
15.277
16 .784
10.794
20.372
22.095
24.247
25.970
2(3. 122
30.275
32.643
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
94.
160 .
206.
263.
319.
370.
430.
406.
539.
601 .
659.
725.
811.
879.
954.
1047.
1121.
1214.
1307.
1409.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2025 .
4706.
6239.
7898.
9578.
11095.
12900.
14581 .
1t>1 61 .
10019.
19785.
21736.
24338.
26382.
20613 .
31400.
33631.
36418.
59206.
42273.
NATIONWIDE
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY HASTE,
MILLION
TONS
6 .
1 1 .
20 .
27.
34.
42.
40.
57.
64.
71 .
00 .
6b.
96.
100 .
117.
128.
140 .
150.
163.
175.
109.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
AChtS
244 .
4&3.
865.
1147.
1470 .
1797.
2093.
2446.
2771.
3079.
3441 .
37o4.
4164.
467 1 .
5009.
5503.
6045.
6400 .
7022.
7505.
o 1 ok .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
Ki.QUIKfc.Li
7325.
1 4406.
25937.
34424.
44113.
53924.
D2700 .
73370.
03130.
92364 .
105217.
115520.
124924 .
14012U .
152050.
1 o50oj.
101303.
194307 .
2 1 0 b b ? .
226940 .
^44o5o .
-J
o
-------
TABLE B-2d. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY ,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
10.55
7.82
8.93
9.04
8.16
9.76
9.00
8.50
10.00
9.50
10.50
14.00.
1 1 .00
12.00
15.00
12.00
15.00
15.00
16.50
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
2.619
1 .941
2.216
2.244
2.025
2.422
2.234
2.110
2.482
2.358
2.606
3.475
2.730
2.978
3.723
2.978
3.723
3.723
4.095
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
11 .615
13.556
15.772
18.016
20.041
22.462
24.696
26.806
29.288
31 .646
34.252
37.727
40.457
43. '435
47.158
50.137
53.860
57.583
61 .678
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4814.
4514.
2711 .
2010.
2294.
2323.
2097.
2506.
2313.
2185.
2570.
2442.
2699.
3598.
2827.
3084.
3855.
3084.
3855.
3855.
4241 .
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
188.
113.
84.
96.
97.
87.
104.
96.
91 .
107.
102.
1 12.
150.
118.
129.
161 .
129.
161 .
161 .
177.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
502.
565.
681.
778.
865.
970.
1066.
1 157.
1264.
1366.
1478.
1626.
1746.
1875.
2035.
2164.
2324.
2485.
2662.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6016.
1 1660.
15050.
17562.
20430.
23334.
25955.
29090.
31961 .
34711 .
37924.
40976.
44349.
48847.
52360.
56235.
61054.
64909.
69728.
74547.
79847.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980 - 1998 = 75 : 25
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb)
1978 - 1979 = 2.334 x 105 tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
1980 - 1998 = 2.482 x 105 tons @ 90% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern)
1978 - 1979 = 242
1980 - 1998 = 257
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2d. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY ,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6"
. 31.1
42.2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
' 60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
31.65
23.46
26.78
27.12
24.46
29.27
27.00
25.50
30.00
28.50
31 .50
42.00
33.00
36.00
45.00
36.00
45.00
45.00
49.50
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 .172
3.786
2.80b
3.203
3.243
2.928
3.501
3.229
3.050
3.566
3.409
3.767
5.023
3.947
4.306
5.382
4.306
5.382
5.382
5.920
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
5.966
8.772
1 1 .975
15.216
18.146
21 .647
24.87b
27.926
31 .514
34.922
38.690
43.713
47.660
51 .965
57.347
61 .553
b7.035
72.417
78.337
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
3922.
2907.
3318.
3360.
3033.
3627.
3345.
3159.
3717.
3531.
3903.
5204.
4069.
4460.
5575.
4460.
5575.
5575.
6133.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51 .
163.
121 .
138.
140.
126.
151 .
139.
132.
155.
147.
1b3.
217.
170.
186.
232.
166.
232.
232.
256.
TCI AL
ANNUAL
ACHhi
REQulhED
44 .
94.
25b.
379.
517.
657.
763.
934.
1074.
1205.
1360.
1507.
1670.
1867.
2057.
2243.
2475.
2661.
2B94.
3126.
3381 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2d^5 .
7727.
1 1 jbO.
15500.
19706.
23499.
28033.
32215.
3b1 1>4 .
40810.
45224.
50103.
56607.
61716.
67294.
74263.
79639.
66608.
9377ซ.
101444.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 - 35: 65
1979 - 40: 60
1980-1998 - 75: 25
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x -
3. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - WESTERN COAL
(0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb)
1978 - 1979 = 9.421 x 104 tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
1980 - 1998 = 1.196 x 105 tons @ 90% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
1978 - 1979 = 97.64
1980 - 1998 = 123.9
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-2d. 90-PERCENT SCRUBBING: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15544.
21101 .
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
11.615
13.556
15.772
18.016
20.041
22.462
24.696
26.806
29 .288
31.646
34.252
37.727
40.457
43.435
47.158
50.137
53.860
57.583
61 .678
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
502.
585.
681 .
776.
865.
970.
1066.
1157.
1264.
1366.
1478.
1628.
1746.
1875.
2035.
2164.
2324.
2465.
2662.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1660.
15050.
17562.
2043Q.
23334.
25955.
29090.
31981.
34711 .
37924.
40976.
44349 .
48847.
52380.
56235.
61054.
64909.
69728.
74547.
79847.
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL ^
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
5.966
8.772
1 1 .975
15.218
18.146
21 .647
24.876
27.926
31 .514
34.922
3b .690
43.713
47.660
51.965
57.347
61 .653
67.035
72.417
78.337
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
94.
258.
379.
517.
657.
783.
934.
1074.
1205.
1360.
1507.
1670.
1d87.
2057.
2243.
2475.
2661 .
2894.
3126.
3381.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
7727.
1 1360.
15508.
19708.
23499.
28033.
32215.
36164.
40010 .
45224.
50103.
56b07.
fa1718.
67294.
74263.
79039.
ObtiOfa .
9377B.
101444.
NATIONWIDE
TOTAL ANNUAL
JJftI WASTE,
MILLION
TOWS,
6.
1 1 .
18.
22.
28.
33.
38.
44.
50.
55.
61 .
67.
73.
81 .
80 .
95.
105.
112.
1*1 .
130.
140 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
244 .
463.
759.
984.
1 198.
1435.
164o.
1904.
2140.
^363.
2624 .
2673.
3148 .
3515.
3003.
4110.
451 1 .
4625 .
5210.
5611.
604J.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
AChhAGE
hEQUlhfcD
7325.
14406.
22777.
28922.
35936.
43042.
49454.
57122.
64195.
70875.
7o734 .
06200 .
9445^.
105454.
1 14099 .
123529.
135317.
144?4b.
156536.
166324 .
101291.
-------
TABLE B-3a.
0.5-LB SO2/10
BTU: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
199^
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21 101 .
15639.
17854.
18079,
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
23.21
17.20
19.64
19.89
17.95
21 .47
19.80
18.70
22.00
20.90
23.10
30.80
24.20
26.40
33.00
26.40
33.00
33.00
36.30
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
3.196
2.369
2.704
2.738
2.472
2.956
2.726
2.575
3.029
2.878
3.181
4.241
3.332
3.635
4.544
3.635
4.544
4.544
4.999
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
12.193
14.562
17.266
20.005
22.476
25.432
28.159
30.734
33.763
36.641
39.822
44.063
47.395
51.031
55.575
59.210
63.754
68.29b
73.297
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4014.
4514.
3312.
2455.
2803.
2838.
25.62.
3063.
2825.
266b.
3139.
2982.
3296.
4395.
3453.
3767.
4709.
3767.
4709.
4709.
5180.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
188.
136.
102.
117.
116.
107.
128.
115.
111.
131 .
124.
137.
183.
144.
157.
196.
157.
196.
196.
216.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
527.
629.
746.
664 .
971 .
1098.
1216.
1327.
1458.
1582.
1720.
1903.
2047 .
2204.
2400.
2557.
2753.
2949.
31t>5.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
RfiQUlflED
6010.
1 1660.
15801 .
18809.
22373.
25920.
29122.
32951 .
36483.
39818.
43743.
47471 .
51591 .
57085.
61402.
661 1 1 .
71996.
76707.
82595.
88480.
94955.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 45: 55
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x ^p
3. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern)
1978-1979 = 242
1980-1998 = 142.7
4. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
1978-1979 = 2.334 x 105 tons ง 80% SCRUBBING
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb; No Wash)
1980-1998 = 1.377 x 105 tons @ 85% SCRUBBING
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 13,200 Btu/lb;
40% of Sulfur Removed By Wash)
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3a.
0.5-LB S02/10C
BTU: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL WITH 40% WASH
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
23.21
17.20
19.64
19.89
17.95
21 .47
19.80
18.70
22.00
20.90
23.10
30.80
24.20
26.40
33.00
26.40
33.00
33.00
36.30
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
0.0
0.0
0.949
0.703
0.803
0.813
0.734
0.878
0.810
0.765
0.900
0.855
0.945
1 .259
0.990
1.079
1.349
1 .079
1.349
1 .349
1.484
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
0.0
0.0
0.949
1 .653
2.456
3.269
4.003
4.881
5.690
6.455
7.354
8.209
9.154
10.413
1 1 .402
12.402
13.831
14.911
16.260
17.610
1 9 .094
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
0.
0.
641 .
475.
542.
549.
495.
592.
546.
516.
607.
577.
638.
850.
668.
729.
911.
729.
911.
911 .
1002.
ANNUAL
ACRES
0.
0.
,..27.
20.
23.
23.
21 .
25.
23.
22.
25.
24.
27.
35.
20.
30.
38.
-30.
38.
3ป.
42.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
0.
0.
27.
46.
69.
92.
113.
137.
160.
182.
207.
231.
257.
293.
321.
351.
389.
419.
457.
495.
537.
IOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
0.
0.
501 .
1394.
2072.
2758.
3377.
4116.
4801 .
5446.
6205.
6920.
7723.
878o.
9b21 .
10531.
1 1670.
12581 .
13719.
14850.
1b1 10.
-o
(SI
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
' 1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 45: 55
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
3. 40% COAL WASH:
ANNUAL DRY WASTE
ACRE-FEET = 27.6
4.089X
104 tons
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3a.
0.5-LB S02/10
BTU: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (Continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
198^
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17851.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
3^.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
18.99
14. Ob
16.07
16.27
14.69
17.56
16.20
15.30
18.00
17. 10
18.90
25.20
19.80
21 .60
27.00
21 .60
27.00
27.00
29.70
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1.172
2. 127
1 .576
1 .800
1 .822
1 .645
1 .967
1 .b 14
1.714
2.016
1.915
2.117
2.822
2.218
2.419
3.024
2.419
3.024
3.024
3.32b
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
4.308
5 .884
7.684
9.506
11.151
13.118
14.933
16.646
18.662
20.577
22.694
25.517
27.734
30.153
33. 177
35.597
38 .620
41.644
44.971
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
2203.
1633.
1864 .
1887 .
1704.
2037.
1879.
1775.
2U88.
1984.
2192.
2923.
2297.
2506.
3132.
2506.
3132.
3132.
3445.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51 .
92.
68.
78.
79.
71 .
85.
78.
74.
87 .
83.
91 .
122.
96.
104 .
131 .
104 .
131 .
131 .
144.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
I8b.
254.
332.
410.
461 .
5b6.
644 .
716.
805 .
888.
979.
1101.
1 197.
1301 .
1432.
1536.
1667.
1797.
1941 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825 .
5579.
7620.
9950.
12309.
14439.
16985.
19334.
21553.
24163.
26642.
29383.
33037.
35908.
39040.
42955.
46067.
50002.
53917.
58224.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 * 45: 55
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
3. (0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 80
1978-1979 = 9.421 x 10^
1980-1998 = 1.120 x 10
0 Btu/lbl WESTERN COAL
tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
tons @ 75% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
1978-1979 = 97.64
1980-1998 = 116.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3a.
0.5-LB SO-/1CV
Lt
BTU: 55 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1991
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
4a.O
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
12.193
14.562
17.266
20.005
22.476
25.432
28.159
30.734
33.763
36.641
39.822
44.063
47.395
51 .031
55.575
59.210
63.754
68.296
73.297
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
527.
629.
746.
864.
971 .
1098.
1216.
1327.
1458.
1582 .
1720.
1903.
2047.
2204.
2400.
2557.
2753.
2949.
3165.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1660.
15801 .
18869.
22373.
25920.
29122.
32951.
36483.
39818.
43743.
47471 .
51591 .
57085.
61402.
661 1 1 .
71996.
76707.
82593.
B6480.
94955.
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.161
4.308
5.884
7.664
9.506
11.151
13.11ซ
14.933
16. 64b
18 .662
20.577
22 .694
25.517
27.734
30.153
33. 177
35.597
38.620
41 .644
44.97 1
ANNUAL
ACRES
44 .
94.
186.
254.
332.
410.
481 .
566.
644.
710.
805.
B88.
979.
1101.
1197.
1301 .
1432.
1536.
1667.
1797 .
1941 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
5579.
7620.
9950.
12309.
14439 .
16985.
19334.
21553.
24163.
26642.
29363.
33037.
3590B.
39040.
42955.
46067 .
50002.
53917.
58224.
NATIONWIDE
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
6 .
1 1 .
17.
20.
25.
30.
34.
39.
43.
47.
52.
57.
63.
70.
75.
01 .
o9.
95.
102.
110.
118.
10TAL
ANNUAL
ACHES
244 .
403.
713.
003
1077.
1274.
1452.
"1605.
1801.
2046.
2264 .
2470.
26y9 .
3004 .
3244 .
3505.
3032.
4093.
4420 .
4747.
5106 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
AChhAGt,
RbQulhbD
7325.
14400.
21 300.
204oy .
32322.
3022S/ .
43561 .
<*y93t> .
55817 .
01371 .
67906 .
7411 j.
bOy74 .
9U 12^ .
97310.
105151 .
1 T*yt>3.
1227y4 .
13^595.
142397 .
153178.
-J
--J
-------
TABLE B-3b.
0.5-LB SO-/10
Lt
BTU: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
-o
CO
NOTES:
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
35.87
26.59
30.35
30.73
27.74
33.18
30.60
28.90
34.00
32.30
35.70
47.60
37.40
40.80
51 .00
40.80
51 .00
51 .00
56. 10
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
4.940
3.661
4.179
4.232
3.820
4.56b
4.214
3.980
4.682
4.448
4.916
6.555
5.150
5.618
7.023
5.618
7.023
7.023
7.725
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
13.936
17.597
21 .777
26.009
29.829
34.397
38.61 1
42.590
47.272
51 .720
56.636
63. 190
68.340
73.958
80.981
86.599
93.622
100.644
108.369
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4614.
4514.
5119.
3794.
4331 .
4386.
3959.
4734.
4367.
4124.
4852.
4609.
5094.
6793.
5337.
5822.
7278.
5822.
7276.
7278.
8005.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
188.
213.
158.
180.
183.
165.
197.
182.
172.
202 .
192.
212.
283.
222.
243.
303.
243.
303.
303.
334.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
602.
760.
941 .
1 123.
1288.
1485.
1667.
1639.
2041 .
2233.
2446.
2729.
2951.
3194.
3497.
3740.
4043.
4346.
4680.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6010.
1 1660.
18059.
22801 .
25216.
33698.
38646.
44564.
50022.
55177.
&1242.
67004.
73372.
61063.
88534.
95812.
104909.
112186.
121264.
130381 .
140386.
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 - 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 15: 85
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x ^
3. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern)
1978-1979 = 242
1980-1998 = 142.7
4. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
1978-1979 = 2.334 x 105 tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb; No Wash)
1980-1998 = 1.377 x 105 tons @ 85% SCRUBBING
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 13,200 Btu/lb;
40% of Sulfur Removed By Wash)
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3b.
0.5-LB S02/10!
BTU: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
-o
vO
NOTES:
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30. "6
31.1
42.2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL WITH 40% WASH
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
35.87
26.59
30.35
30.73
27.74
33.18
30.60
28.90
34.00
32.30
35.70
47.60
37.40
40.80
51 .00
40.80
51 .00
51 .00
56.10
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
0.0
0.0
1 .467
1 .087
1 .241
1 .257
1 .134
1 .357
1 .251
1.182
1 .390
1 .321
1 .460
1 .946
1 .529
1 .668
2.065
1 .666
2.055
2. 085
2.294
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
0.0
0.0
1 .467
2.554
3.795
5.052
6. 186
7.543
8.794
9.976
1 1 .366
12.687
14.146
16.093
17.622
19.290
21 .376
23.044
25.129
27.215
29.509
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRfi-FT
0.
0.
990.
734.
838.
848.
766.
916.
845.
798.
938.
891 .
985.
1314.
1032.
1 126.
1408.
1126.
1408.
1408.
154B.
ANNUAL
ACRES
0.
0.
41 . -
31.
35.
35.
32.
36.
35.
33.
39.
37.
41 .
55.
43.
47.
59.
47.
59.
59.
65.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
0.
0.
41 .
72.
107.
142.
174.
212.
247.
281 .
320.
357.
390.
453.
496.
543.
601 .
64b.
707.
765.
830.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
0.
0.
1230.
2155.
3202.
4262.
5219.
b364 .
7420.
8417.
9590.
10704.
1 1936.
13570.
14b'6o.
16276.
10035.
19443.
21203.
22962.
24697.
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 15: 85
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x
3. 40% COAL WASH:
ANNUAL DRY WASTE = 4.089 x 104 tons
ACRE-FEET = 27.6
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3b. 0.5-LB SO0/10 BTU: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31 .1
42.2
31 .3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
3b.O
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
6.33
4.69
5.36
5.42
4.90
5.85
5.40
5.10
6.00
5.70
6.30
8.40
6.60
7.20
9.00
7.20
9.00
9.00
9.90
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1.009
1 .172
0.709
0.525
0.600
0.607
0.548
0.656
0.605
0.571
0.672
0.638
0.706
0.941
0.739
0.806
1 .008
0.806
1 .008
1.008
1 .109
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
2.890
3.415
4.015
4.623
5.171
5.827
6.431
7.003
7.675
&.313
9.019
9.959
10.699
1 1 .505
12.513
13.319
14.327
15.335
16.444
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
734.
544.
621 .
629.
568.
679.
626.
592.
696.
661 .
731 .
974.
766.
835.
1044.
835.
1044.
1044.
1 148.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51 .
31.
23.
26.
26.
24.
2B.
26.
25.
29.
28.
30.
41 .
32.
35.
44.
35.
44. _
44.
46.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
125.
147.
173.
200.
223.
252.
278.
302.
331 .
359.
389.
430.
462.
497.
540.
575.
618.
662.
710.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2S25.
3743.
4423.
5200.
59b6.
6696.
7545.
8328.
9066.
9938.
10764.
1 167b.
12S96.
13b53.
14b97.
16202.
17246.
18551 .
19b5b.
21291 .
oo
o
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40= 60
1980-1998 15: 85
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
3. (0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash,
1978-1979 = 9.421 x
1980-1998 = 1.120 x 10-
10 Btu/lb) WESTERN COAL
tons ง 40% SCRUBBING
tons ง 75% SCRUBBING
4.
ANNUAL ACRE- FEET/PLANT (Western)
1978-1979 = 97.64
1980-1998 = 116.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3b. 0. 5 -LB SO- / 10 BTU: 85 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
oo
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60 .0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
13.936
17.597
21 .777
26.009
29.829
34.397
38.611
42.590
47.272
51.720
56.636
63.190
68.340
73.958
60.981 "
86.599
93.622
100.644
108.369
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
602.
760.
941.
1123.
1288.
1485.
1667.
1839.
204 1 .
2233.
2446.
2729.
2951 .
3194.
3497.
3740.
4043.
4346.
4680.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1660.
18059.
22801 .
28216.
33696.
38646.
44564.
50022 .
55177.
61242.
67004 .
73372.
81863.
88534.
95812.
104909.
112186.
121264.
130381 .
140386.
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
2.890
3.415
4.015
4.623
5.171
5.827
6.431
7.003
7.675
8.313
9.019
9.959
10.699
1 1 .505
12.513
13.319
14.327
15.335
16.444
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
94.
125.
147.
173.
200.
223.
252.
276.
302.
331.
359.
389.
430.
462.
497.
540.
575.
618.
662.
710.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
3743.
4423.
5200.
5986.
6696.
7545.
6326.
9068.
9938.
10764.
1 1676.
12696.
13653.
14897.
16202 .
17246.
18551 .
19856.
21291.
NATIONWIDE
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
6.
1 1 .
17.
21.
26.
31.
35.
40.
45.
50.
55.
bO .
66.
73.
79.
05.
93.
100 .
106.
116.
125.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRLS
244 .
463 .
727.
907.
1114.
1323.
1511.
1737.
1945.
2142.
2373.
2592.
2635 .
3159.
3413.
3690.
4037.
4314.
4bb1 .
5000.
5369.
TU1AL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
HbQUIhED
7325.
14466.
21002.
27225.
33*10.
39664.
45343.
5^:109.
5o351 .
64245.
71160.
77766.
65050.
94756.
102367 .
110700.
1*1110.
12^432 .
139634.
150237.
101679.
-------
TABLE B-3c.
0.5-LB S02/10
BTU: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
oo
tv
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
199^
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
3&.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
29.54
21.89
25.00
25.31
22.85
27.32
25.20
23.80
28.00
26.60
29.40
39.20
30.80
33.60
42.00
33.60
42.00
42.00
46.20
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
4.066
3.015
3.442
3.485
3.146
3.762
3.470
3.277
3.856
3.663
4.048
5.398
4.241
4.627
5.783
4.627
5.783
5.783
6.362
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
13.065
16.080
19.521
23.007
26.153
29.915
33.385
36.662
40.518
44.180
48.229
53.627
57.868
62.494
68.278
72.905
78.688
84.471
90.833
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4814.
4514.
4216.
3124.
3567.
3612.
3260.
3899.
3596.
3396.
3996.
3796.
4195.
5594.
4395.
4795.
5993.
4795.
5993.
5993.
6593.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
188.
176.
130.
149.
150.
136.
162.
150.
142.
166.
158.
175.
233.
183.
200.
250.
200.
250.
250.
275.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACHES
REQUIRED
201 .
389.
564.
695.
843.
994.
1129.
1292.
1442.
1583.
1750.
1908.
2083.
2316.
2499.
2699.
2948.
3148.
3398.
3648.
3922.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
b01b.
1 1660,
16930.
20835.
25294.
29809.
33884.
3b75b.
43253.
47498.
52493.
57237.
62482.
69474.
74968.
80961 .
88453.
94447.
101938.
109430.
1 17671 .
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 30': 70
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x ^
3. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern)
1978-1979 = 242
1980-1998 = 142.7
4. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
1978-1979 = 2.334 x 105 tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb; No Wash)
1980-1998 = 1.377 x 105 tons @ 85% SCRUBBING
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 13.200 Btu/lb;
40% of Sulfur Removed By Wash)
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3c. 0.5-LB
so2/io
BTU: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
00
uo
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
19&7
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21 101 .
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31 .1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL WITH 40% WASH
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
29.54
21.89
25.00
25.31
22.85
27.32
25.20
23.80
28.00
26.60
29.40 .
39.20
30.80
33.60
42.00
33.60
42.00
42.00
46.20
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
0.0
0.0
1 .206
0.895
1 .022
1 .035
0.934
1.117
1 .030
0.973
1.145
1 .088
1 .202
1.603
1 .259
1.374
1 .717
1 .374
1 .717
1 .717
1.889
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
0.0
0.0
1 .206
2.103
3.125 .
4. 160
5.094
6.212
7.242
8.215
9.360
10.448
1 1 .650
13.253
14.512
15.866
17.604
18.977
20.695
22.412
24.301
ANNUAL
V
-------
TABLE B-3c.
0.5-LB SO2/10
BTU: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
oo
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
12.66
9.38
10.71
10.85
9.79
11 .71
10.80
10.20
12.00
1 1 .40
12.60
16.80
13.20
14.40
18.00
14.40
18.00
18.00
19.80
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1.172
1.418
1 .051
1 .200
1.215
1 .097
1 .31 1
1.210
1.142
1.344
1 .277
1 .411
1 .882
1 .478
1.613
2.016
1.613
2.016
2.016
2.21B
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1.009
2.181
3.599
4.650
5.849 '
7.064
8.161
9.472
10.682
1 1 .824
13.168
14.445
15.856
17.738
19.216
20.829
22.845
24.458
26.474
28.490
30.708
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
1469.
1088.
1243.
1258.
1 136.
1358.
1253.
1183.
1392.
1322.
1462.
1949.
1531 .
1670.
2088.
1670.
2088.
2088.
2297.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51 .
61.
45.
52.
52.
47.
57.
52.
49.
58.
55.
61.
81.
64.
70.
87.
70.
87.
87.
96.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
155.
201 .
252.
305.
352.
409.
461 .
510.
568.
623.
654.
766.
829.
899.
986.
1056.
1143.
1230.
1325.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
4661.
6022.
7575.
9148.
10566.
12265.
13831.
15310.
17050.
18703.
20530.
22966.
24880.
2696b.
29578.
31666.
34276.
36887.
39758.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 30: 70
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
3. (0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb) WESTERN COAL
1978-1979 = 9.421 x 104 tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
1980-1998 = 1.120 x 105 tons @ 75% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
1978-1979 = 97.64
1980-1998 = 116.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3c. 0.5-LB SO,/10 BTU: 70 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
15514.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
13.065
16.080
19.521
23.007
26.153
29.915
33.365
36.662
40.518
44.180
48.229
53.627
57.868
62.494
68.278
72.905
78.688
84.471
90.833
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
564.
695.
843.
994.
1 129.
1292.
1442.
1583.
1750.
1908.
2083.
2316.
2499.
2699.
2948.
3148.
3398.
3648.
3922.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1660.
16930.
20835.
25294.
29809.
33884.
38758.
43253.
47498.
52493.
57237.
62482.
69474.
74966.
80961 .
88453.
94447 .
101938.
109430.
1 17671 .
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
3.599
4.650
5.849
7.064
8.161
9.472
10 .682
1 1 .824
13. 16b
14.445
15.856
17.736
19.216
20.829
22.845
24.458
2b .474
28.490
30.700
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
94.
155.
201 .
252.
305.
352.
409.
461 .
510.
568.
623.
664.
766.
829.
899.
966 .
1056.
1143.
1230.
1325.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
4661 .
6022.
7575.
9148.
10560.
12265.
13031 .
15310.
17050.
18703.
20530.
22966.
24000.
26966.
29578.
31666.
34276.
360B7 .
39758.
NATIONWIDE
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
6.
1 1 .
17.
21 .
25.
30.
34.
39.
44.
46.
54.
59.
64.
71.
77.
03.
91.
97.
105.
113.
122.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
244.
403.
720.
095.
1096.
1299.
1402.
1701 .
1903.
2094.
231o.
2531 .
2767.
3061 .
3320.
3596.
3934.
4204 .
4540.
4077 .
524B .
1GIAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
hECjUlhhD
7325.
14406 .
21591 .
26057.
32069.
30957.
44452.
51023.
57004 .
DiOOO.
69543.
75941 .
03012.
92440.
99040.
107b.30.
1 100j2.
120113.
130215.
140317.
15742y.
00
-------
TABLE B-3d.
0.5-LB S02/10
BTU: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL
oo
NOTES:
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101,
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
10.55
7.82
8.93
9.04
8.16
9.76
9.00
8.50
10.00
9.50
10.50
14.00
11 .00
12.00
15.00
12.00
15.00
15.00
16.50
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
4.354
1 .453
1.077
1 .229
1 .245
1 .124
1.344
1.239
1 .170
1.377
1 .308
1.446
1 .928
1.515
1 .652
2.065
1 .652
2.065
2.065
2.272
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
10.450
1 1 .526
12.756
14.000
15. 124
16.467
17.707
18.877
20.254
21 .562
23.008
24.936
26.451
28.103
30.169
31.821
33.886
35.952
38.224
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
4814.
4514.
1506.
1116.
1274.
1290.
1164.
1392.
1264.
1213.
1427.
1356.
1498.
1998.
1570.
1712.
2140.
1712.
2140.
2140.
2355.
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
188.
63.
46.
53.
54.
49.
58.
54.
51 .
59.
56.
62.
83.
65.
.71.
89.
71 .
89.
89.
98.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
201 .
3&9.
451 .
49ซ .
551.
605.
653.
711.
765.
815.
875.
931 .
994.
1077.
1 142.
1214.
1303.
1374.
1463.
1553.
1651 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1 660 .
13542.
14937.
16530.
1b142.
19597.
21338.
22943.
24460.
26243.
27938.
29811 .
3230&.
34270.
36411 .
390B6.
41227.
43903.
4657ป.
49521.
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 - 75: 25
2. ACRES REQUIRED ACRE-FEET x ^
3. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Eastern)
1978-1979 = 242
1980-1998 = 142.7
4. ANNUAL DRY WASTE/PLANT - EASTERN COAL
1978-1979 = 2.334 x 105 tons @ 80% SCRUBBING
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 12,000 Btu/lb; No Wash)
1980-1998 = 1.377 x 105 tons @ 85% SCRUBBING
(3.5% Sulfur, 14% Ash, 13,200 Btu/lb;
40% of Sulfur Removed By Wash)
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3d. 0. 5-LB SO /10 BTU: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
oo
NOTES:
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31 .1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
EASTERN COAL WITH 40% WASH
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
19.89
18.65
10.55
7.82
8.93
9.04
8.16
9.76
9.00
8.50
10.00
9.50
10.50
14.00
1 1 .00
12.00
15.00
12.00
15.00
15.00
16.50
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
0.0
0.0
0.431
0.320
0.365
0.370
0.334
0.399
0.368
0.348
0.409
0.388
0.429
0.572
0.450
0.491
0.613
0.491
0.613
0.613
0.675
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
0.0
0.0
0.431
0.751
1.116
1.486
1.819
2.218
2.586
2.934
3.343
3.731
4.161
4.733
5.183
5.674
6.287
6.778
7.391
8.004
8.679
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
0.
0.
291 .
216.
246.
249.
225.
269.
248.
235.
276.
262.
290.
386.
304.
331.
414.
331.
414.
414.
455.
ANNUAL
ACRES
0.
0.
12.
9.
10.
10.
9.
11 .
10.
10.
12.
1 1 .
12.
16.
13.
14.
17.
14.
17.
17.
19.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
0.
0.
12.
21 .
31 .
42.
51 .
62.
73.
83.
94.
105.
117.
133.
146.
160.
177.
191 .
20tt.
225.
244.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
0.
0.
364.
634.
942.
1254.
1535.
1872.
2182.
2476.
2&21 .
3148.
351 1 .
3994.
4373.
4787.
5305.
5719.
6236.
6754.
7323.
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 75: 25
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET X
3. 40% COAL WASH:
ANNUAL DRY WASTE
ACRE-FEET 27.6
4.(
104 tons
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3d.
0.5-LB SO-/10
L*
BTU: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (continued)
00
oo
YEAR
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY,
MN
15303.
15544.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000.
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000.
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40.0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48.0
60.0
48.0
60.0
60.0
66.0
WESTERN COAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
10.71
12.44
31.65
23.46
26.78
27.12
24.48
29.27
27.00
25.50
30.00
28.50
31.50
42.00
33.00
36.00
45.00
36.00
45.00
45.00
49.50
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
1 .172
3.545
2.627
2.999
3.037
2.742
3.279
3.024
2.856
3.360
3.192
3.528
4.704
3.696
4.032
5.040
4.032
5.040
5.040
5.544
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1 .009
2.181
5.726
8.353
11 .352
14.390
17.131
20.410
23.434
26.290
29.650
32.842
36.370
41 .074
44.770
48.802
53.842
57.874
62.914
67.954
73.498
ANNUAL
WET VOL,
ACRE-FT
1046.
1214.
3672.
2721 .
3107.
3146.
2840.
3396.
3132.
2958.
3460.
3306.
3654.
4872.
3828.
4176.
5220.
4176.
5220.
5220.
5742.
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
51 .
153.
113.
129.
131.
1 1b.
141 .
131 .
123.
145.
138.
152.
203.
160.
174.
218.
174.
218.
218.
239.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACRES
REQUIRED
44.
94.
247.
361 .
490.
621.
739.
881 .
1011 .
1135.
1280.
1417.
1570.
1773.
1932.
2106.
2324.
2498.
2715.
2933.
3172.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2825.
7415.
10816.
14699.
16632.
22181 .
26426.
30341.
34038.
36388.
42521 .
47088.
53178.
57963.
63183.
69706.
74928.
81453.
87979.
95156.
NOTES:
1. COAL BURNING RATIO (West: East)
1978 = 35: 65
1979 = 40: 60
1980-1998 = 75:25
2. ACRES REQUIRED = ACRE-FEET x
1.25
30
3. (0.8% Sulfur, 6% Ash, 8000 Btu/lb) WESTERN COAL
1978-1979 = 9.421 x UT tons @ 40% SCRUBBING
1980-1998 = 1.120 x 105 tons @ 75% SCRUBBING
4. ANNUAL ACRE-FEET/PLANT (Western)
1978-1979 = 97.64
1980-1998 = 116.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-3d.
0.5-LB SO2/10
BTU: 25 PERCENT EASTERN COAL (concluded)
oo
YEAH
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
ANNUAL
INSTALLED
GENERATING
CAPACITY
MW
15303.
155*41.
21101.
15639.
17854.
18079.
16319.
19515.
18000.
17000 .
20000.
19000.
21000.
28000.
22000.
24000.
30000.
24000.
30000 .
30000.
33000.
ANNUAL
NUMBER
OF EQUIV
PLANTS
30.6
31.1
42.2
31.3
35.7
36.2
32.6
39.0
36.0
34.0
40 .0
38.0
42.0
56.0
44.0
48. 0
60.0
48.0
60 .0
60 .0
66.0
EASTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
4.643
8.997
10.450
1 1 .526
12.756
14.000
15.124
16.467
17.707
18.877
20.254
21 .562
23.006
24.936
26.451
28. 103
30. 169
31 .821
33.886
35.952
38.224
ANNUAL
ACRES
201 .
389.
451.
498.
551 .
605.
653.
711.
765.
815.
875.
931.
994.
1077.
1142.
1214.
1303.
1374.
1463.
1553.
1651 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
6018.
1 1660.
13542.
14937.
16530.
18142.
19597.
21338.
22943.
24460.
26243.
27938.
2981 1 .
32308.
34270.
3641 1 .
39086.
41227.
43903.
46578.
49521 .
WESTERN COAL
ANNUAL
DRY WASTE,
MILLION
TONS
1.009
2.181
5.726
8.353
11.352
14 .390
17.131
20.410
23.434
26.290
29.650
32.842
36.370
41 .074
44.770
48.802
53.842
57.874
62.914
67.954
73.498
ANNUAL
ACRES
44.
94.
247.
361.
490.
621 .
739.
881.
1011 .
1135.
1280.
1417.
1570.
1773.
1932.
2106.
2324.
2498.
2715.
2933.
3172.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ACREAGE
REQUIRED
1307.
2S25.
7415.
1 0 8 1 6 .
14699.
18632.
22181 .
26426.
30341.
34038.
38386.
42521 .
470b8.
53178.
57963.
63183.
69706.
74928.
81453.
87979.
95150.
NATiOwViIlJE
TOTAL ANNUAL
DRY hASTE,
.MILLION
TONS
6.
1 1 .
16 .
20.
24 .
28.
32.
37.
41 .
45.
50.
54.
59.
bb.
71 .
77.
04.
90.
97 .
104.
112.
T01AL
ANNUAL
ACKtS
k!44 .
483.
b99.
058.
1041.
1226.
1393.
1592.
1776.
1950.
2154.
2549.
25b3.
2050.
3074.
3320.
3b2b .
3072.
4179.
4455 .
4023 .
TOTAL
ANNUAL
AChhAGa
RiwUlKhD
7325.
14406.
20957 .
25753.
31229 .
36774.
41779.
477b4 .
53204.
58490.
64o3 1 .
7045*.
76099.
o^40b .
9^234 .
99594.
10b793.
1 1blDi>.
125350 .
134557.
144b77 .
-------
APPENDIX C
PROJECTED NATIONWIDE QUANTITIES OF SULFURIC
ACID OR ELEMENTAL SULFUR PRODUCED
FROM REGENERABLE SYSTEMS
Projections of the number of regenerable scrubber systems
reflect a wide range of uncertainty. 1 Therefore, estimates were made to
bound the potential application of regenerable systems. The cumulative
amounts of sulfuric 100% acid or sulfur produced assuming 5, 25, and 50 per-
cent regenerable scrubbing during the 1978-1998 interval were used to cal-
culate the quantities produced of either of the two chemicals based on conditions
defined in Table 22 and quantities in Appendix B. The cumulative totals of
100% sulfuric acid, or sulfur capable of being produced as a result from this
assumption and applying the three alternative NSPS standards, are tabulated
in Table C-l.
1Summary Report; Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems, Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, Contract No. 68-02-1321, by FED Co Environmental
Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio (January-March 1977).
191
-------
TABLE C-l.
PROJECTED ANNUAL NATIONWIDE QUANTITIES OF SULFURIC ACID OR
ELEMENTAL SULFUR PRODUCED FROM VARIOUS ASSUMED FRACTIONS
OF THE TOTAL SO2 SCRUBBED
PERCENT OF SCRUBBERS THAT ARE REGENERABLE
0%
Year
Non- r egenerable
Waste Produced, a
tons X 106
%K
Ashb
5%
Non-Regen
Waste, c
tons X 106
Sulfuric
Acid,
tons X 10"
Sulfur,
tons X 106
25%
Non-Regen
Waste,
tons X 106
Sulfuric
Acid,
tons X 106
Sulfur,
tons X 106
50%
Non-Regen
Waste,
tons X 106
Sulfuric
Acid,
tons X 10ฐ
Sulfur,
tons X 106
Current NSPS: 1. 2 Ib SO2/ 10ฐ Btu
1980
1983
1988
1993
1998
7.205
6. 175
6.830
8. 195
11. 270
55. 5
56.0
56.2
56. 3
56.4
7. 045
6. 039
6. 680
8. 016
11. 025
0. 112
0.095
0. 105
0. 125
0. 172
0. 036
0. 031
0. 034
0. 041
0.056
6.403
5.496
6.082
7. 300
10. 042
0.561
0.475
0. 524
0.627
0.860
0. 183
0. 155
0. 171
0. 205
0. 281
5. 602
4. 817
5. 334
6.404
8.814
1. 122
0. 951
1. 047
1.253
1.720
0.366
0.310
0.342
0.409
0. 562
[V
Alternative NSPS: 90% SC>2 Removal
1980
1983
1988
1993
1998
8. 032
6.880
7.613
9. 135
12. 562
50. 1
50.4
50. 5
50. 6
50. 6
7. 832
6.709
7.433
8. 909
12. 252
0. 140
0. 119
0. 132
0. 158
0.217
0.046
0. 039
0. 043
0. 052
0. 071
7. 030
6. 027
6.671
8. 007
11. Oil
0. 701
0. 597
0.659
0. 790
1. 086
0. 229
0. 195
0. 215
0. 258
0. 354
6.028
5. 174
5. 729
6.879
9.460
1.403
1. 194
1. 319
1. 579
2. 172
0. 458
0. 390
0. 431
0. 516
0. 709
Alternative NSPS: 0. 5 Ib SO2/106 Btu
1980
1983
1988
1993
1998
5.323
4. 560
5. 045
6. 054
8.325
55. 8
56. 1
56.3
56. 4
56. 4
5.205
4. 460 .
4. 935
5. 922
8. 144
0.082
0. 070
0. 077
0. 092
0. 127
0. 027
0. 023
0. 025
0.030
0. 041
4. 735
4. 060
4.494
5. 394
7.417
0.412
0. 350
0. 386
0.462
0. 635
0. 134
0. 114
0. 126
0. 151
0. 207
4. 147
3. 559
3. 943
4. 734
6. 510
0.824
0.701
0. 771
0.924
1. 270
0.269
0. 229
0. 252
0.302
0.415
Total dry waste from 100% nonregenerable scrubbing (including ash) from Appendix B, short
Average percent ash in the nonregenerable waste
Solid waste (dry tons) from the fraction of nonregenerable processes (including ash)
tons
-------
APPENDIX D
CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA
The results from the chemical analyses* performed on the
liquid and solid portions of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludge samples
taken at various locations within the waste streams of FGD scrubbing systems
are presented. The concentration values, as presented, represent either
the mean or median of a minimum of three and a possible maximum of nine
independent measurements.
Tables D-l through D-13 present results from chemical analyses
of the liquid sampled from various locations within five scrubbing systems.
Tables D-14 through D-17 summarize the results for four of the scrubbing
systems. Tables D-18 through D-27 are the solids analyses available from
these scrubber systems.
J. Rossoff et al., Disposal of By-Products from Nonregenerable Flue Gas
Desulfurization Systems: Second Progress Report, EPA-600/7-77-052,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. (May 1977)
193
-------
TABLE D-l. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 1 Feb 1973
_ ,. TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
Cone: mg/*
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chr onnium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
pH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
<0.2
< 0.0005
<0. 0005
< 0.001
0. 012
< 0.005
0. 007
-
< 0.01
-
< 0.2
_
-
-
-
-
7.4
Scrubber
Effluent
(Separated)
1.7
1.2
0. 006
0.009
1800
0.025
0. 041
0. 030
100
-
-
0.35
-
4
_
-
-
460
5800
2.3
Scrubber
Effluent
(Retained)
0.7
0.8
0. 015
0.001
1600
0.006
0. 021
0. 026
53
-
24
0. 15
12
10
1000
-
2500
160
5400
7.8
Clarifier
Effluent
(Retained)
0.2
1.7
0.012
0.004
860
0. 015
0.051
0.039
42
-
28
0.54
10
11
900
3.4
1280
180
3200
7.2
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
194
-------
TABLE D-2. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 12 Jul 1973
Cone; nrig/jj
TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
PH
Process
Makeup
Water
0.04
0. 02
0.0012
0.0005
-
0.001
0.005
0.005
-
0.0001
-
0.01
-
0.4
20
1.2
-
-
7.3
Sampling Locations
Scrubber
Effluent
(Separated)
1.5
2. 0
0. 020
0.0072
2200
0. 13
0. 060
0. 19
100
0. 11
-
2.0
-
29
4800
0.4
-
-
2.44
Scrubber
Effluent
(Retained)
0.5
2. 0
0.028
0.0092
3100
0. 17
0.064
0. 32
50
0. 14
37
3. 1
80
38
6000
0.25
2100
110
11, 500
8.4
^"g
Clarifier
Effluent
(Retained)
0. 3
1.8
0.026
0.0089
2600
0.20
0.052
0.28
160
0. 04
43
2.7
87
27
5000
3.1
1800
90
10,200
9.01
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
195
-------
TABLE D-3. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 27 Nov 1973
Cone: mg/?
TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
pH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
.
< 0.001
-
-
-
-
-
0.0005
-
-
-
-
-
0. 13
_
-
-
-
-
-
Scrubber
Effluent
(Separated)
0. 14
0. 01
0.04
1600
0. 040
0. 05
0. 006
-
-
6.3
0.2
63
0.84
3100
2. 3
2400
1. 7
8500
6.7
Scrubber
Effluent
(Retained)
.
0. 31
0. 01
0. 013
1800
0. 12
0.45
0.06
900
-
5.4
0.2
67
0. 62
3700
2.0
3000
3. 0
12,000
5.9
Clarifier
Effluent
(Retained)
_
0.28
0.004
0. 004
1600
0.51
0.41
0. 12
600
0.05
5. 9
0.2
59
0.35
3100
2.4
2100
2. 1
11,000
9.5
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
196
-------
TABLE D-4. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 15 Jun 1974
Cone: mg/-C
TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium.
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
pH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
-
0. 004
0. 004
0.005
-
0.002
0.01
0. 006
<0. 05
-
_
-
-
7.1
Scrubber
Effluent
(Separated)
_
0.39
0.068
0.006
660
0. 16
0.02
0.35
2800
<0. 05
<0.2
-
0.04
3600
2.3
9000
1550
16,500
4.6
=====
Scrubber
Effluent
(Retained)
2.7
0. 39
0. 074
0. 004
840
0. 13
0.02
0.30
2800
<0. 05
0.08
-
0.03
3300
2.2
10, 000
1150
17,800
5.5
======
Clarifier
Effluent
(Separated)
_
0. 13
0.052
0. 004
520
0.09
0.01
0.21
2600
<0. 05
32
0.1
76
0.03
2300
6.5
10,000
55
15,000
8.0
Clarifier
Effluent
(Retained)
0.6
0. 14
0.054
0.003
600
0.09
0.01
0.25
2750
<0. 05
41
<0. 2
79
0.02
2250
6.2
9800
110
15,500
8.3
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
197
-------
TABLE D-5. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUOR FROM SCE
MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
Date: 30 Mar 1973
Cone: mg/X
TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Sulfate
TDS
pH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
_
0.01
0.011
0.07
6.10
0.03
-
0. 003
230
< 0.05
130
< 0.0005
2700
-
4050
2500
12,700
9.1
Scrubber
Effluent
0.03
0. 03
0.05
200
0.23
0. 08
0. 06
310
0.0012
100
0. 12
30,000
0. 12
30,600
22,000
95,000
7.8
Scrubber
Recirculation
0. 04
0. 038
0. 03
0.05
300
0. 3
0.2
0. 11
300
0.00037
100
0. 11
29,000
0. 18
28,000
24,000
94,800
7. 5
Centrifuge
Effluent
0. 028
0. 02
0. 05
180
0.25
0.56
0. 04
390
< 0.005
100
0. 1
29,000
0. 18
33,000
16,650
92,500
6.7
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
198
-------
TABLE D-6. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 19 Mar 1974
Cone: mg/4
Venturi-Spray Tower-Lime System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
pH
Process
Makeup
Water
-
< 0. ฎ04
0.003
-
-
0.004
0.01
0.03
-
0.001
-
0.003
-
0.03
-
-
_
-
7.8
Scrubber
Effluent
(Separated^
0.22
0.15
0.050
0.02
980
0.02
0.08
0.03
53
0. 10
8.4
0.08
71
0.09
1230
<0.3
1000
450
3500
5.2
Sampling Locations
Scrubber
Effluent
(Retained)
0.06
0.21
0. 0.023
0.01
900
0.03
0.10
0.008
56
0.04
8.6
0.10
33
0.07
1290
<0. 3
800
0.8
3300
5.4
Clarifier
Effluent
(Separated)
0.12
0.17
0.020
0.02
840
0.01
0.04
0.04
28
0.09
6.8
0.08
36
0.02
1210
1.4
1350
1.8
3500
9.5
Clarifier
Effluent
(Retained)
0.03
0.30
0.027
0.03
800
0.02
0.07
0.06
25
0.07
13
0.09
28
0.01
1040
1.4
1000
2.2
3200
9.0
Filter
Effluent
(Filtrate)
0.08
0. 15
0.026
0.03
660
0.03
0.05
0.01
24
0.07
11
0.09
36
0.01
1050
1.4
900
1.7
2800
9.4
Lime
Slurry
"0.21
0. 10
0. 004
0.01
720
0.01
0.02
0.009
1
0.07
29
0.08
88
0.01
720
40
100
-
1800
12.7
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample
199
-------
TABLE D-7. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 16 May 1974
Cone: mg/j?
Venturi-Spray Tower-Lime System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
pH
Sampling Locations
Scrubber
Effluent
(Separated)
0. 12
0. 15
0.05
0.04
2360
0.02
0.03
0. 13
220
<0. 05
21
1.9
108
0.02
4400
1.5
1500
3.0
8700
5.6
Scrubber
Effluent
(Retained)
0.5
0.04
0.04
0.006
2500
0.008
0.02
0. 11
215
<0. 05
24
1.7
106
0.03
4400
2.2
1400
1.8
8200
7.0
Clarifier
Effluent
(Separated)
0.5
0.06
0.20
0.004
2340
0.03
0.06
0. 14
210
<0. 05
30
1.5
108
0.02
4300
2.6
135C
4.6
8000
8.4
Clarifier
Effluent
(Retained)
0.3
0.03
0.07
0.004
2580
0.01
0.07
0. 13
220
<0. 05
29
1.9
104
0. 02
4200
4.5
1350
2.3
7800
9.1
Filter
Effluent
(Filtrate)
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.013
2420
0.02
0.04
0. 13
200
<0. 05
27
1.9
109
0.02
4200
3.0
1250
2.7
8400
8.8
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
200
-------
TABLE D-8. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 27 Jun 1974
Cone: mg/4
Venturi-Spray Tower-Lime System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
pH
Sampling Locations
Scrubber
Effluent
(Separated)
1.54
0.04
<0.002
0. 12
3000
0. 04
0.01
0.33
420
<0. 001
25
< 0.02
126
0. 18
5800
0.2
800
12
10,800
2.7
?
Scrubber
Effluent
(Retained)
<0. 01
<0. 002
0. 12
3060
0.04
0.005
0. 37
410
< 0.001
27
< 0. 02
122
0. 14
5200
0.9
700
< 0. 6
10,000
5.4
Clarifier
Effluent
(Retained)
<0. 1
0. 02
< 0. 002
0. 11
2820
0.04
< 0.002
0.39
450
< 0. 001
32
< 0.02
125
0. 11
5900
4.0
800
0.8
10,400
9.0
:,
Filter
Effluent
(Filtrate)
0.24
0.02
< 0. 002
0. 11
2520
0.03
0.002
0.33
420
< 0.001
28
< 0. 02
127
0.08
4900
3. 3
800
0.9
9400
8.7
=
Z01
-------
TABLE D-9. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM APS
CHOLLA POWER PLANT
Date:
Cone:
1 April 1974
Venturi- Absorber -Lime stone System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
PH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
_
< 0.004
0. 10
0.08
140
0.02
0.04
0.004
5.8
0.04
-
1.2
-
0.05
_
-
300
<1
-
-
Slurry
Tank
(Separated)
2
<0. 004
0. 14
0.011
680
0. 14
0.20
0.01
3
0.07
14
2.2
2150
O.J1
1700
0.7
4000
0.9
8700
3.04
Slurry
Tank
(Retained)
2
< 0.004
0. 18
0.009
700
0.21
0. 19
0.01
6
0. 13
16
2.5
2250
0.07
1430
0.6
4000
<1
9100
4.3
Absorbent
Tower
Effluent
0.6
< 0.004 .
0.08
0.007
580
0.02
0.03
0.02
7
0.007
-
1.0
800
0.02
620
2.4
2200
1
4300
6.6
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
202
-------
TABLE D-10. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM APS
CHOLLA POWER PLANT
Date:
Cone:
7 Nov 1974
mg/4
Venturi-Absorber-Limestone System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
pH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
_
< 0.004
<0.003
0.0065
27
< 0.004
0.014
0.07
-
0.0015
9-
0.0006
570
0.027
940
1.1
250
2.5
2438
8.4
========
Slurry
Tank
(Separated)
_
-
0.038
0.044
770
0.024
0. 16
0.37
4
<0. 05
28
< 0.0006
1650
0.47
4200
1.5
3750
3500
14, 000
3.4
=======
Absorbent
Tower
Effluent
2.1
0.02
< 0.003
0. 012
390
0.004
0.010
0. 15
9
<0. 5
8
0.033
370
0.036
760
1.0
1360
21
3300
6.8
.
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
203
-------
TABLE D-il. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM DLC
PHILLIPS STATION
Date: 4 Oct 1973
Cone: mg/jt
Venturi-Lime System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
PH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
_
<0.001
< 0.0005
0.003
50
<0.001
0.003
0.0012
40
0.003
-
<0.01
-
0.013
_
-
-
-
-
Thickener
Overflow
_
0.085
0.012
0.022
1300
0.037
0.06
0.08
220
0.09
20
0.8
1680
0.12
1800
4.8
4500
<1
9400
9.2
Thickener
Underflow
_.
0.09
0.012
0.023
1400
0.040
0.07
0.18
410
0.05
22
0.8
2400
0.09
2700
2.6
6450
27
14,000
7. 1
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample.
204
-------
TABLE D-12. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM DLC
PHILLIPS STATION
Date: 17 Jun 1974
Cone: mg/4
Venturi-Lime System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
pH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
_
< 0.004
< 0.0002
-
-
-
-
< 0.006
-
0. 0002
-
0.005
-
-
.
-
_
-
-
Scrubber
Effluent
_
0.06
0.002
0. 1
660
-
-
0.05
-
0.0004
10
0.33
440
-
540
8
2700
1.7
4600
8.9
Thickener
Overflow
_
< 0.004
0.002
-
680
-
-
0.06
-
0.0002
2.6
0.20
380
-
350
2
2800
0.8
4400
4.1
=====
Thickener
Underflow
_
< 0.004
0.003
0. 05
600
-
-
<0. 04
-
0.0002
26
0.028
320
~
470
10
2720
20
4200
10.7
=====
Pond
Sludge
Liquid
_
< 0.004
0.002
-
600
-
-
0.04
-
0.0004
22
0.095
340
*
420
7
1000
4.8
4000
10.4
===
205
-------
TABLE D-13.
ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FOR GM
UTILITY BOILER
Date:
Cone:
18 Jul 1974
mg/l
Bubble Cap Tray-Double Alkali System
Scrubber
Liquor
Constituents
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfite
TDS
PH
Sampling Locations
Process
Makeup
Water
_
<0.004
<0.002
< 0.005
-
<0.005
< 0.005
<0. 02
-
0.0004
-
0.002
-
0.07
-
-
-
-
-
Mix Tank
No. 2
Underflow
_
< 0.004
< 0.005
<0. 02
420
<0. 02
0.06
0.42
-
0.002
95
0.15
-
0.06
3500
58
25, 000
400
51,000
12.6
Clarifier
No. 1
Overflow
_
< 0.004
< 0.005
<0. 02
640
<0.02
0.02
0.56
-
< 0.0002
140
0. 14
-
0.09
3700
96
34, 000
250
67,000
12ซ6
Clarifier
No. 1
Underflow
_
-
< 0.005
<0. 02
640
<0. 02
0.06
0.55
-
0.0009
110
0.087
20,000
0.63
4400
82
30,000
160
59,000
12.8
Clarifier
No, 2
Overflow
_
< 0.004
< 0.005
<0. 02
290
<0.02
0.05
0.55
-
0. 0002
120
0.19
20,000
0.05
3100
92
33,000
340
62,000
12.5
Clarifier
No. 2
Underflow
-
< 0.004
< 0.005
<0. 02
300
<0.02
0.06
0.53
-
0.0014
160
0.26
-
0.06
4300
46
30,000
260
68,000
12.5
Filter
Effluent
(Filtrate)
_
<0.004
< 0.005
<0.02
470
<0. 02
0.06
0.52
0.005
-
0.075
20,000
0.59
5200
58
35,000
140
65,000
12.7
Dash indicates sample not analyzed or insufficient sample
206
-------
TABLE D- 14. ANALYSES OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT: TCA SCRUBBER SYSTEM
Scrubber
liquor
constituents3"
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)'
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr) (total)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silicon (Si)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (NaJ
Tin (Sn)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Total carbonate
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Sulfite
Sulfate
Phosphate
Total nitrogen
Chemical oxygen demand
Total dissolved solids
Total alkalinity
Conductance, mho/cm
Turbidity, Jackson
units
PH
In-process data
Potential discharge point data
Sample location
Scrubber effluent
Clarifier underflow
Sample date
11/27/73
..
--
0.2
0.01
--
0.04
1800
0.04
-_
0.05
..
0.06
900
:"
__
0.16
6.3
0.2
--
'
63
--
0.84
3400
2.3
2700
<0. 1
<0.005
12000
<3
5.90
6/15/74
2.7
2.0
0.4
0.07
--
0.005
840
0. 16
0. 16
0.02
0.35
0.35
2800
<0.5
--
0.44
--
--
0.008
--
--
0.03
3300
2.3
1400
9500
<0.1
<0.005
17800
0.027
<3
4.64
11/27/73
..
--
0.3
0.004
--
0.004
1600
0.5
--
0.4
0.12
600
0.05
--
0.50
5.9
0.2
~
--
59
- -
0.35
3100
2.4
2100
<0.1
<0.005
11000
150
<3
9.50
6/15/74
0.6
1.4
0.1
0.05
--
0.004
520
0.09
0. 10
0.01
0.02
0.23
2750
<0.05
--
0.33
41
0. 1
""
0.005
""
~"
0.02
2300
6.5
80
10000
<0.1
<0.005
15000
0.015
< 3
7.96
Concentration in milligrams per liter unless otherwise indicated.
207
-------
TABLE D-15.
ANALYSES OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT (VENTURI AND SPRAY
TOWER SCRUBBER SYSTEM)
Scrubber
liquor
cons tituents
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr) (total)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silicon (Si)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Tin (Sn)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Total carbonate
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Sulfite
Sulfate
Phosphate
Total nitrogen
Chemical oxygen demand
Total dissolved solids
Total alkalinity
Conductance, mho/ cm
Turbidity, Jackson
units
PH
In-process data
Potential discharge point data
Sample location
Scrubber effluent
Clarifier underflow
Drum vacuum filter filtrate
Sample date
3/19/74
0.22
0.39
0. 15
0.05
--
0.02
980
0.02
__
0.08
0.77
0.03
53
--
0. 10
0.5
8.4
0.08
0.4
0.09
33
--
__
0.09
<10
1230
<0.3
450
1000
<0. 1
<0.001
220
3500
54
0.006
<3
5.19
5/16/74
0.12
2. 1
0. 15
0.05
--
0. 04
2360
0.02
0.6
0.03
0. 14
0.12
220
0.4
<0. 05
0.25
21
1.9
1.8
0.01
108
--
--
0.02
<10
4400
1.5
3. 0
1500
<0. 1
<0.001
--
8700
--
0.013
<3
5.67
6/27/74
1. 54
1.01
0.04
<0. 002
56
0. 12
3000
0.04
0.31
0.01
1.81
0.33
420
--
<0. 001
6. 1
0.29
25
<0.02
2. 1
0.03
126
3. 5
--
0. 18
<10
5400
0.2
12
1800
<0. 1
<0.001
149
10800
63
0. 019
<3
5.41
3/19/74
0.03
0.55
0.30
0. 027
0. 03
800
0. 02
--
0.07
0. 08
0.06
25
--
0.07
_-
0. 08
13
0. 09
0.4
0.06
36
--
<0. 001
0.01
<10
1040
1.4
2.2
1000
<0. 1
<0.001
160
3200
49
0.004
<3
9.02
5/16/74
0.3
2.3
0.03
0.07
0.004
2580
0.01
0.6
0.07
0.27
0. 13
220
0.09
<0.05
._
0.23
29
1.9
1.8
0.01
104
--
--
0.02
<10
4200
4.5
2.3
1350
<0.1
<0.001
--
7800
--
0.014
<3
9. 12
6/27/74
<0. 1
1.11
0.02
<0.002
46
0. 11
2820
0.04
0.32
<0.002
0. 10
0.39
450
0.46
<0.001
6.3
0.24
32
<0.02
1.0
0. 03
125
3.5
--
0. 11
<10
5900
4.0
0.8
800
<0. 1
<0. 001
98
10400
82
0.014
<3
8.99-
3/19/74
0.08
0.46
0. 15
'0.026
0.03
660
0.03
--
0.05
0.02
0.01
24
--
0.07
-.
0.05
11
0.09
0.2
0. 06
36
--
--
0. 01
<10
1050
1.4
1.7
900
<0. 1
<0.001
85
2800
57
0.004
<10
9.43
5/16/74
0.1
1.6
0.01
0.05
--
0.013
2420
0.02
0.7
0.04
0. 10
0. 13
200
-0.2
<0.05
.-
0.31
27
1.9
1.6
0.01
109
--
--
0.02
<10
4200
3.0
2.7
1250
<0. 1
<0.00:
--
8400
--
0.012
<10
8.81
6/27/74
0.24
1.01
0.02
<0.002
41
0. 10
2520
0.03
0.35
<0.002
0.06
0.33
420
0.84
<0.001
5.3
0.21
28
<0.02
2.7
0.02
127
3. 1
--
0.08
<10
4900
3.3
0.9
800
<0.1
<0.001
89
9400
76
0.013
<10
8.68
Concentration in milligrams per liter unless otherwise indicated.
208
-------
TABLE D-16.
ANALYSES OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM APS CHOLLA
STATION (FDS AND ABSORPTION TOWER SCRUBBER
SYSTEM)
Scrubber
liquor
constituents3-
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr) (total)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silicon (Si)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Tin (Sn)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Total carbonate
Chloride (CD
Fluoride (F)
Sulfite
Sulfate
Phosphate
Total nitrogen
Chemical oxygen demand
Total dissolved solids
Total alkalinity
Conductance, mho/cm
Turbidity, Jackson units
pH
In-process data
Potential discharge data point
Sample location
Absorption tower tank |
FDS tank
Sample date
4/1/74
0.06
0.03
<0.004
0.08
--
0.007
580
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.17
0.02
7
0.30
0.007
1.0
1.0
1.7
0.01
800
--
0.02
<1
620
2.4
1 . 0
2200
**{\ A
<0. 1
<0.005
105
4300
52
0.0053
<5
6.59
11/7/74
2.1
0. 16
0.02
<0.003
3.8
0.012
390
0.004
<0.01
0.01
0. 13
0.15
9
0.48
<0.5
0.09
0.06
7.5
<0.033
--
<0.007
370
- ~
0. 07
0.04
<1
760
1f\
. 0
2 1
1360
<~n 1
^U . A
<0.005
90
3300
1 ^ n
1 J VJ
0.00299
^f-C
-------
TABLE D-17. ANALYSES OF SCRUBBER LIQUORS FROM DLC PHILLIPS
STATION: SINGLE- AND DUAL-STAGE VENTURI
SCRUBBER SYSTEMS
Scrubber
liquor
constituents*
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr) (total)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silicon (Si)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Tin (Sn)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Total carbonate
Chloride (Cl)
Fluoride (F)
Sulfite
Sulfate
Phosphate
Total nitrogen
Chemical oxygen demand
Total dissolved solids
Total alkalinity
Conductance, mho/cm
Turbidity, Jackson units
pH
In-process data
Potential discharge point data
Sample location
Scrubber effluent
Clarifier underflow
Sample date
10/4/73
.--
0.085
0.012
--
0.022
1300
0.037
--
0.06
__
0.08
220
--
0.09
_.
--
20
0.8
--
0.02
1680
--
--
0.12
<1
1800
4.8
-------
TABLE D-18. TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 1 Feb 1973
Cone: ppni
TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
4
0.2
1
20
8
30
0.6
3
180
Limestone
6
6
0. 12
10
4
0. 1
-
1
-
Fly
Ash
(In)
32
34
0.42
230
25
3
3
8
290
Fly
Ash
(Out)
50
0.2
-
440
110
7
7
2
1600
Bottom
Ash
7
30
0.4
700
220
1
0.4
16
-
Scrubber
Effluent
52
0.2
3
15
9
2
1.2
11
-
Clarifier
Effluent
33
6
1
66
9
1
1
2
110
-------
TABLE D-19. TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
t-o
Date:
Cone:
12 Jul 1973
ppm
TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample -Description
Coal
19
0.2
5
10
8
34
0.5
6
220
Limestone
7
3
0.6
9
2
1.5
1
2
-
Fly
Ash
(In)
12
34
4
9
7
4
3
7
600
Bottom
Ash
6
33
0.4
17
9
1
0.1
7
-
Scrubber
Effluent
7
0.2
2.5
180
20
27
0.4
12
-
Clarifier
Effluent
-
0.3
3.2
250
18
21
1
5
430
-------
TABLE D-20. TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
CNJ
Date:
Cone:
27 Nov 1973
ppm
TCA Scrubber-Lime stone System
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
12
0.6
1
18
15
27
-
4
100
Limestone
1
0.5
0.5
0
4
2
-
3
200
Fly
Ash
(In)
18
3
2
17
11
3
-
2
140
Fly
Ash
(Out)
-
1
6
23
2
6
-
-
230
B ottom
Ash
-
3
0.3
13
17
4
-
2
130
Scrubber
Effluent
3
5
3
140
11
2
-
5
180
Clarifier
Effluent
30
3
0.7
100
8
2
-
7
160
-------
TABLE D-21. TRACE METAL, ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 15 June 1974
TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
IN)
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
16
0.8
0.5
12
9
17
0.07
3
60
-------
TABLE D-22. TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM SCE
MOHAVE GENERATING STATION
Date:
Cone:
30 Mar 1973
TCA Scrubber-Limestone System
IN)
!-ป
(Jl
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
3
<0.1
0.6
45
50
4
0.05
1.5
10
Fly
Ash
9
2
<0.5
105
50
25
0.05
10
50
Scrubber
Effluent
0.8
0.06
0.5
9
8
0.25
0.005
5
40
Centrifuge
Effluent
(Centrate)
0.6
0.05
0.5
10
9
0.23
0.001
8
45
-------
TABLE D-23. TRACE METAL, ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM TVA
SHAWNEE STEAM PLANT
Date: 19 Mar 1974
Cone:
Venturi-Spray Tower-Lime Process
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
10
2
10
7
12
40
0.5
3.4
280
Fly Ash
(In)
75
12
40
50
80
60
0.4
4
350
B ottom
Ash
5
3
1
6
16
5
0.6
0.7
90
Scrubber
Effluent
13
8
20
25
35
25
0.2
6.5
130
Clarifier
Effluent
18
8
15
20
28
25
0.1
7.2
280
Filter
Cake
13
11
4
15
30
15
0.2
7.8
200
INI
-------
TABLE D-24. TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM APS
CHOLLA POWER PLANT
fo
h^.
-J
Date:
Cone:
1 April 1974
Venturi-Absorption Tower-Lime stone System
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
2.1
0.5
0. 1
12
39
60
0.05
5
55
Limestone
<0. 1
-
0.01
11
2
0.5
-
2
-
Fly
Ash
0.4
2
0.03
160
31
165
-
5
150
Slurry
Tank
Effluent
2
1
0.08
52
76
80
4
17
120
Absorption
Tower
Effluent
0. 8
0.2
0.06
48
6
14
5
2
60
-------
TABLE D-25. TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM DLC
PHILLIPS STATION
ro
K-ป-
00
Date: 4 Oct 1973
Cone: ppni
Venturi-Lime System
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
16
0.4
4
60
30
45
-
8
80
Lime
<2
0.02
0.03
6
3
0.1
-
22
300
-------
TABLE D-26. TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM DLC
PHILLIPS STATION
Date: 17 June 1974
cone: ppm
Venturi-Lime System
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
6
0.8
0.5
12
11
12
-
3
30
-------
TABLE D-27. TRACE METAL ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER SOLIDS FROM GE
INDUSTRIAL BOILER
IV
o
Date: 18 Jul 1974
Cone: ppm
Bubble Cap Scrubber-Double Alkali System
Scrubber
Solids
Constituents
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Sample Description
Coal
14
1
0.4
7
10
16
0.4
6
27
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
fflease read Insiructions on the reverse before completing
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-044b
4.T.TLEANDSUBT.TLE Controlling SO2 Emissions from Coal-
Fired Steam-Electric Generators: Solid Waste Impact
(Volume II. Technical Discussion)
!. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
March 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOH(S)
P. P. Leo and J. Rossoff
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
ATR-78(7550-06)-1, Vol II
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Aerospace Corporation
P.O. Box 92957
Los Angeles, California 90009
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
E HE 62 4 A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-3528, W.A. 6
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
IOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESIERL-RTP project officer is Julian W. Jones, MD-61, 919/541-
2489.
ie. ABSTRACT The gj-^y assesses the technological, economic, and environmental im-
pacts, projected to 1998, of the increased solid wastes resulting from the application
of various more-stringent controls as well as of the current New Source Perfor-
mance Standards (NSPS) for SO2 emissions from coal-fired steam-electric gener-
ators. The study supports a review of the NSPS, by EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, that defines a number of control strategies (e. g. , increased
scrubbing efficiency and coal washing) for achieving several levels of SO2 emission
control, with emphasis on levels more stringent than the current NSPS. The study
considers three alternative strategies (1.2 and 0.5 Ib SO2/million Btu, and 90% SO2
removal), three plant sizes (1000, 500. and^25 MW), and five flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) systems (lime, limestone, double alkali, magnesium oxide, and Wellman
Lord). Typical eastern and western coals, as well as coal washing, are included.
The study groundrules include: (1) the nationwide survey to be 1978-1998; (2) new-
plant-installed capacities during that interval (FPC projection); (3) 1980 as the
effective date for the more stringent standards; and (4) western coal burned during
the 1980-1998 period to be 45% of the total burned nationwide (variations in the
western coal percentage were also evaluated).
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Sulfur Dioxide
Flue Gases
Desulfurization
Wastes
Coal
Combustion
Steam-Electric
Power Generation
Scrubbers
Coal Preparation
Washing
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Solid Wastes
13B
07B
2 IB
07A,07D
08G,21D
10A
081
13H
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
235
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
221
------- |