EPA/600/D-89/025
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
OF EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY IN THE
UNITED STATES FOR FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION SOURCES
by:
Dennis C. Drehmel and
Charles B. Sedman
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
INTRODUCTION
This paper will discuss control of air pollution from fossil fuel
combustion. Until recently this meant abatement of smoke
(particulate), sulfur dioxide (S02), and oxides of nitrogen (NO,).
With the growing concern about global climate change, carbon
dioxide has been added to the list. This section, the
introduction, will review the state of the art for control of
each air pollutant and the following sections, covering the EPA
and other technology under development, will review primarily
near-term technology.
Particulate Control
Three types of devices—scrubbers, fabric filters, and
electrostatic precipitators—constitute conventional particulate
control. For large power plants, most boilers use electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's) but fabric filters have gained acceptance
especially for control of high resistivity fly ash. Older ESP's
were designed to collect 98 to 99% of fly ash and used three or
four electrical sections in the direction of gas flow to
accomplish it. Newer ESP's are being built with up to six
sections and can achieve 99.5 to 99.9% collection of fly ash.
Larger ESP's are also built to collect problem fly ashes such as
those from coals low in sulfur and/or low in sodium. Not
troubled by ESP-problem fly ashes, fabric filters always achieve
/•

-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii

-------
high collection efficiencies (>99.5%) but have a much lower space
velocity leading to sizes and costs larger than those for ESP's
in many applications. Scrubbers require high pressure drops (>10
in. H20 or 2.49 kPa) to achieve high collection efficiencies and
are generally more expensive than either ESP's or fabric filters.
However, in many industrial combustion applications, scrubbers
are favored because the particulate is flammable (e.g., high in
carbon) or is sticky (e.g., contains unburned oil) or because
they can provide concurrent control of gaseous pollutants.
Sulfur Dioxide Control
Of the three types of S02 control technologies—precombustion,
combustion, and post-combustion—precombustion physical coal
cleaning is the most extensively used in the United States. The
current coal-fired generating capacity in the U.S. is
approximately 308 GW produced by nearly 10,500 units. Physical
coal cleaning is used to remove from 10 to 30% of the sulfur
content of coal prior to combustion for roughly 30% (210 million
tons) of the 700 million tons of coal consumed annually.
In-combustion S02 control is one of the recent developments and
will be discussed below.
The most significant post-combustion technology in terms of S02
emission reduction for utility boilers is flue gas
desulfurization (FGD). Table 1 summarizes the number and
installed capacity of FGD-equipped units that are installed or
planned by the end of 1988. The 66,000 MWe of FGD in operation
represents slightly over 20% of the coal-fired generating
capacity.
Table 2 shows FGD systems in the U.S. as a function of throwaway
product versus saleable product, regenerable versus
nonregenerable, wet versus dry, and the chemical regent used.
The U.S. utility preference is for nonregenerable, calcium-based,
wet slurry processes that produce a waste product for disposal.
Within the sorbent category, limestone is preferred. Dry
scrubbing has recently evolved from an emerging technology to
more than 7% of the total FGD capacity.
The application of FGD systems with respect to coal sulfur
content can be characterized by three sulfur ranges:
o low-sulfur coal (<1%)
o medium-sulfur coal (1-3%)
o high sulfur coal (>3%)
Table 3 provides a breakdown on this basis. It is evident that
about 50% of FGD systems are low-sulfur coal applications.
2

-------
As a final look at U.S. utility FGD, Table 4 compares selected
data of present (1985) and future (1990) installations. The only
observable trends are a slight decrease in coal sulfur content
(owing to increased use of low-sulfur Western U.S. coals) and an
increase in S02 removal efficiency, reflecting more stringent S02
regulations for new facilities.
Nitrogen Oxides Control
Unfortunately, the application of N0X controls in the United
States is not as successful as for SO, controls. When the first
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) were as established in
1971 for utility boilers, the impact on industry was simply to
enlarge the fireboxes for less intense combustion. By 1979, the
NSPS were revised by lowering allowable NO, emissions by 14% for
Eastern coal and 28% for Western coals, and were based on
combustion air staging and first generation low-NO„ burners.
Noticeably absent is the application of in-furnace technologies
used in Japan and post-combustion selective catalytic reduction
technology now becoming widespread in West Germany and used
extensively in Japan. As a result, the NOx control technologies
emerging in Europe are for us a recent development. Table 5
illustrates the lack of application of high NOx removal
technology in the U.S.
Inasmuch as the installed NOx technologies are all in-combustion,
the U.S. suppliers of NOx control technologies are exclusively
boiler and burner manufacturers. Low-excess air firing is likely
used for fuel efficiency and economy more than NO, control.
Reductions of up to 10% are reported. Staging the combustion air
at a cost of only $2-5 per kW also reduces NO, emissions. In
conjunction with low excess air, an EPA study1 of 22 units showed
an average of 37% NOx reduction. Low NOx burners, which delay the
fuel/air mixing, have been used in the U.S. since the late 1970's
and have shown up to 50% reduction in N0X at a cost of $5/kW.
EPA SOx/NOx TECHNOLOGIES UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Since there are numerous SOx/NOx technologies under various stages
of development in the United States, it is the intent here to
survey those being funded by major research programs, since they
are more likely to become commercial within the next 5-10 years.
Major research programs other than that of EPA are covered in the
next section. This section covers EPA activity and especially
the technology "limestone injection—multistage burners" (LIMB)
which will be available in less than 5 years.
EPA is currently operating two concepts on a pilot basis: the E-
3

-------
S0X and ADVACATE processes. The E-SOx process involves upgrade of
an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and insertion of a lime
slurry spray nozzle in the eliminated first stage. A slipstream
demonstration is scheduled for late 1988 through 1989. The
ADVACATE process avoids injection of slurries by first converting
lime and fly ash into a calcium silicate solids mixture with 20-
30% moisture. Pilot evaluations have shown 50% utilization of
sorbent in-duct and 80-90% utilization with a fabric filter. The
process is currently in negotiation for a license with one
vendor.
EPA has two processes at the demonstration scale: LIMB (which is
discussed in detail below) and reburning. Reburning is a NO,
control process which introduces a small part (up to 20%) of the
fuel after the main combustion area. The reducing zone produced
by this second fuel addition changes approximately 50% of the N0X
from the main combustion area to nitrogen. EPA is planning one
reburning demonstration in the U.S. and has recently concluded
negotiations to partially support a reburning demonstration in
Russia.
LIMB Introduction
The objective of these processes is to capture at least 50% of
the SOj in a flue gas stream at a cost which is competitive with
wet or dry FGD. In addition, LIMB is targeted to lower emissions
of N0„ by 50% with low NO, technology. While ADVACATE and E-SOX
are still being studied at the pilot scale, LIMB has progressed
to full scale demonstration. Advancement to demonstration scale
has come as the result of many years of EPA sponsored R&D
including tests at large pilot and prototype facilities. The
LIMB program has consisted of five activity areas; namely,
fundamentals, pilot and prototype scale tests, modelling, cost
analysis, and demonstration.
Fundamentals have focused on the kinetics of potential LIMB
reactions (e.g., calcination and sulfation) and on properties of
limestone and limestone products to identify and optimize
properties providing high reactivity for SO„ capture. Pilot and
prototype scale tests have provided information on the effect of
the furnace conditions on LIMB and on the effect of LIMB on
furnace operations and on the operation of the extant particulate
collection device which is almost always an ESP. Modelling is
obviously used to analyze and extrapolate test data and to
provide input to the fourth area of cost analysis which compares
LIMB to alternatives. Finally, demonstration provides the data
necessary for generalization of the technology to the private
sector.
The LIMB program calls for demonstration at two sites: a
wall-fired power plant, and a tangentially fired (T-fired) power
4

-------
plant. The wall-fired plant is described below. The T-fired
plant is a nominal 140 MWe unit constructed by Combustion
Engineering and located in Yorktown, Virginia. Because of the
difference in firing systems, the flow patterns in wall- and
T-fired boilers are significantly different. The flow pattern
affects the mixing and the temperature history of injected
sorbent particles. Thus, it is essential to test LIMB with these
two types of firing systems which are the only two major types
of firing systems for large scale utility boilers.
Conclusions from pilot and prototype testing which preceded the
demonstration projects are:
1)	Calcium hydroxide is a superior S02 sorbent to either
calcium carbonate (limestone) or calcium oxide; the performance
of calcium hydroxide can be enhanced by the addition of calcium
lignosulfonate (a surfactant).
2)	The optimum injection temperature into a typical boiler
furnace for calcium hydroxide is 2300°F (1260°C); incorporation
of calcium lignosulfonate allows injection at slightly higher
temperatures without adverse effects.
3)	Deposits formed in the furnace in high temperature zones as a
result of sorbent injection are soft and are usually removable
with normal or increased sootblowing operation typical of a power
boiler furnace.
4)	Injection of calcium hydroxide increases the resistivity of
the fly ash and thus decreases the efficiency of an ESP; the
resistivity and efficiency can be restored by huraidification
which will also reactivate unused calcium oxide for further S02
capture at low temperatures.
5)	The reactivity of commercial calcium hydroxide varies enough
to affect attainment of S02 capture objectives; the most reactive
calcium hydroxide in the area of the LIMB demonstration was found
to be that supplied by Marblehead Lime Co.
LIMB Demonstration
The site for the LIMB demonstration is the Edgewater Unit 4 of
Ohio Edison Company located in Lorain, Ohio. The boiler is a
nominal 105 MWe unit made by Babcock & Wilcox. It is a radiant,
wall-fired, Carolina furnace burning eastern bituminous coal. It
has been in operation since June 1, 1957. The boiler has 12
burners fired from a single wall in a three column by four row
array. The burners were B&W circular burners until recently
changed to B&W XCL low NO„ burners for the "MB" (multistage
burner) part of the LIMB program. Particulate is collected by a
six field Lodge Cottrell ESP which is only 4 years old.
With respect to the "LI" (limestone injection) part of LIMB, the
system for injection delivers sorbent to three levels in the
boiler. These levels are elevations 181, 187, and 191 which have
eight nozzles each in the front wall. In addition, there are two
5

-------
nozzles on each side wall at elevation 187 and 3 ft (91 cm) from
the front wall. Elevation 181 is slightly below and elevation
187 is slightly above the "nose" of the boiler. It is in this
regime that the injection temperature of 2300°F (1260°C) is
available on average. Obviously, the temperature varies across a
horizontal cross-section of the boiler because of heat transfer
to the wall-cooled walls.
Accurate determination of LIMB effectiveness is dependent on
measurements of sorbent feed rate, outlet S03 concentration, and
inlet sulfur concentration as determined by coal feed rate and
coal sulfur concentration. Sorbent feed rate was measured by
differential weight loss feeders. For the outlet sulfur
concentration, a continuous emission monitor analyzes the flue
gas between the stack and the induced draft fan after the ESP.
In this monitor, gas is extracted through a filter in the stack
and another filter in a heated box before being drawn to a UV
analyzer. Both filters are hot (approximately 300°F or 150°C) to
avoid reactions of unused sorbent on the filter, and contami-
nation is slight because the boiler's ESP located upstream is
highly efficient. The coal feed rate is determined by
computation from the boiler heat rate using equations for the
design of the Edgewater boiler which B&W considers proprietary.
The coal sulfur content is determined by sampling of the coal
just before injection into the furnace. As noted above, coal
feed rate and coal sulfur concentration are used to compute the
inlet S02 concentration which is verified by the outlet monitor
during periods without sorbent injection and well after any
periods of sorbent injection.
All the elevation 181 capture data taken are shown in Figure 1
versus the calcium to sulfur molar ratio. By dividing the S02
capture by the calcium to sulfur ratio, the utilization of
calcium oxide is obtained and is plotted in Figure 2. Note that
utilization decreases slightly with calcium to sulfur ratio in an
approximately linear fashion. Figure 3 shows the data for the
Marblehead commercial sorbent only and Figure 4 the data for
sorbent modified with calcium lignosulfonate. These two figures
present both the S02 capture and the calcium oxide utilization as
a function of the calcium to sulfur ratio.
Statistical analysis of the data provides a useful interpretation
of the results of the Edgewater demonstration to date. Figures 5
and 6 show the predicted S02 captures for untreated and treated
sorbents, respectively. The middle line is the average
prediction and the outside lines show the prediction for upper
and lower bounds as defined by two standard deviations from the
average. These figures show that LIMB easily meets its objective
of 50% sulfur capture at a calcium to sulfur ratio of less than
2.0. The average lines for both untreated and treated sorbents
are shown together in Figure 7. The sorbent treated with calcium
lignosulfonate is more effective than the untreated sorbent
6

-------
although the difference is small. Comparison of the upper bound
of the untreated sorbent with the lower bound of the treated
sorbent shows that there is a positive difference at calcium to
sulfur ratios above 1.5.
OTHER TECHNOLOGY UNDER DEVELOPHENT
Particulate Control
Considerable effort has been directed toward improvement of ESP
technology. The primary reason was the application of ESP's to
fly ashes from low sulfur coals which had become more popular to
lower S0„ emissions. At first the development of the hot-side
ESP (on the hot side of the air preheater) was successful.
However, performance degraded with time because of depletion of
charge carriers (mostly sodium) in the residual fly ash layer on
the collection plate. The depletion problem, combined with
mechanical problems, has eliminated most interest in this
approach.
Another approach is the two stage precipitator. The concept is
to separate the charging and collecting functions of the ESP in
order to optimize both. The problem is that the precharger can
suffer from the same electrical condition—back corona—that can
limit a normal ESP. A number of solutions have been proposed and
tested but the most successful has been the cold pipe precharger.
By cooling the electrodes which ordinarily have back corona, the
electrical conditions are improved and back corona is avoided.
This concept has been successfully tested at the large pilot
scale but to date no large scale demonstrations are planned.
Progress has also been made in improving fabric filter
technology. The key to improvement has been new fabrics which
allow the use of pulse-jet baghouses having higher space
velocities (air-to-cloth ratios) leading to smaller size and
lower cost. Conventional technology for power plants uses
cleaning methods such as reverse air or reverse air/shake which
lead to low air-to-cloth ratios. Pulse-jet cleaning would lead
to higher air-to-cloth ratios but generally require felt fabric
filters. Until recently only fibrous glass, Nomex, and Teflon
felt were available. However, fibrous glass bags often yield
poor bag life, Nomex is susceptible to hydrolysis in flue gas,
and Teflon is expensive. There are now available felts of
homopolymer acrylic (Dralon T) and polyphenylene sulfide (Ryton)
which have been successfully used in power plant application.
While the acrylic appears suitable only for lower temperature
7

-------
applications, the Ryton perforins well in flue gas environments
up to 400°F (204"C). The Ryton felt can be on a Ryton scrim or
on some other scrim. The former has been successfully developed
and tested in Japan and the latter in the U.S.
S0X Control
America's clean coal commitment is a national effort involving
the federal government, state governments, and private sponsors.
Between 1986 and 1992, the nation will likely invest more than $6
billion to develop and demonstrate the emerging new generation of
clean coal concepts. Slightly more than $2 billion of this
funding will be provided by the U.S. Department of Energy in its
Clean Coal Program. Nearly double that—$3.86 billion—will be
invested by private sources. Two states alone, Illinois and
Ohio, are expected to commit more than $800 million.
Approximately 80%, or $4.9 billion of the $6 billion, will be
committed to specific field projects that are intended to
demonstrate the large-scale viability of these new technologies.
The remainder consists of privately and publicly financed
research and development programs that are focused specifically
on the cleaner use of U.S. coal. The nine projects in Table 6
were a result of the Clean Coal I Program administered by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). These projects represent a
nearly $1 billion investment and is the first of three planned
phases in clean coal demonstration.
For SOa control a considerable effort is underway in low capital
cost retrofit technologies. The DOE has embraced several
alternate in-duct slurry injection concepts including two-nozzle
delivered lime slurry systems and a rotary atomizer system. The
Confined Zone Dispenser (CZD) by Bechtel, Hydrate Addition at Low
Temperature (HALT) by Dravo, and In-Duct Scrubbing (IDS) have all
completed pilot slipstream evaluation and await funding for
larger scale demonstrations. The Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) completed evaluation of dry sodium injection at
their Arapaho pilot units and have published results2 with
anticipated costs.
Other innovative concepts (e.g., ammonia-enhanced spray drying,
circulating limestone bed absorbers, and limestone-injection
fabric filters) are under evaluation funded by the Ohio Coal
Development Office (OCDO) who is also funding the E-S0X
slipstream evaluation.
NOx Control
New NOx technology again lags SO, technology. The EPRI is co-
funding some evaluations of in-furnace reburning with the Gas
8

-------
Research Institute (GRI). Reburning consists of combustion of
about 80% of fuel in one combustion zone, followed by injection
of 20% of the fuel in a fuel rich zone, where the majority of
fuel-borne N0X is reduced to N2. Burnout in a final combustion
zone follows. If the secondary zone fuel is nitrogen-free (e.g.,
natural gas), the resultant N0X emissions should be near those
for thermal NOx. In-house evaluation by EPA shows that at least
50% NOx reduction is possible irrespective of inlet conditions.
EPRI is intending to fund construction and operation of 5 to 10
slipstream (1-5 MWe) units for evaluation of selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) on U.S. coals. [EPA previously conducted a 5 MWe
pilot evaluation in 1979 and EPRI a 10 MWe evaluation in 1982.]
Since two SCR projects were submitted for Clean Coal II, EPRI is
awaiting the outcome before formal action will be taken.
Combined SOx/NOx technologies (other than LIMB) have not received
enthusiastic support due to the perceived complexity of operation
and solid waste disposal problems. Wet SOx/NO„ removal has been
studied by Argonne National Laboratories and awaits further
interest. Combined SOx/NOx control in spray drying is currently
being evaluated by Argonne for DOE. NOXSO and Copper Oxide
processes, regenerable systems using sorbent/catalyst, have
completed pilot evaluation by DOE at the Pittsburgh Energy
Research Center and are candidates for future clean coal
demonstrations. In like manner, the Electric Beam Irradiation
(E-BEAM) process has received considerable attention and is a
potential future clean coal demonstration.
Carbon Dioxide Control
Direct control of carbon dioxide from combustion does not appear
to be promising. The key to this problem is prevention or
removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by techniques such
as reforestation. Prevention can take the form of a complete
substitution for fossil fuels or the substitution of fossil fuels
with a higher ratio of hydrogen to carbon. Thus the combustion
of natural gas instead of coal would significantly reduce carbon
dioxide emissions.
SUMMARY AND CLOSING REMARKS
Particulate is controlled with scrubbers, electrostatic
precipitators, and fabric filters. Two stage precipitators and
pulse jet fabric filters with special media are new technologies
which will increase cost-effectiveness.
Conventional wet and dry FGD is well established S02 control
9

-------
technology in the U.S., while N0X technology is confined to
combustion modifications. Many S0s technologies, a few NO,
technologies, and even fewer combined SC^/NO, technologies are
under evaluation by EPA, by DOE (especially in its Clean Coal
Demonstration Program), or by other leading U.S. research
programs (e.g., those of EPRI, GR1, Ohio Coal Development Office
(OCDO), and other state agencies). One of the most promising of
these is LIMB which is being demonstrated on a wall-fired utility
boiler. The advantage of LIMB is its ease of retrofit leading to
low capital cost and high effectiveness for the cost.
10

-------
TABLE 1. NUMBER AND INSTALLED CAPACITY OF UTILITY FGD SYSTEMS
NO. Of
units
Total
controlled
capacity. MW'
Equivalent
scrubbed
Status
capacity. MM"	
Operational or
under construction
150
66,219
62,283
Planned
56
33,989
33,404
TOTAL
206
100,208
95,687
8 Summation of the gross unit capacities brought into compliance
by the use of FGD systems regardless of the percentage of the
flue gas scrubbed by the FGD system(s).
b Summation of the effective scrubbed flue gas in equivalent MW,
based on the percentage of flue gas scrubbed by the FGD
system(s).
11

-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF FGD PROCESS DESIGN
Under	Contract
Operational construction awarded	Total

No.
MW
No.
MW
No.
MW
No.
MW
Throwaway product








Wet








Nonregenerable








Limestone
60
26,008
9
5,564
8
5,406
77
36,978
Lime
39
17,112
-
-
2
2,036
41
19,148
Sodium carbonate
6
1,505
1
550
2
1,100
9
3,155
Regenerable








Dual alkali
5
1,963
1
265
—
—
6
2,228
Dry (nonregenerable)








Lime
12
3 , 893
3
1,510
1
720
16
6,123
Sodium carbonate
1
440
-
—
-
-
1
440
Saleable product








Wet








Nonregenerable








Limestone
2
624
1
165
-
-
3
789
Regenerable








Wellman Lord
7
1,959
-
-
-
-
7
1,959
Magnesium oxide
3
724
—
—
—
—
3
724
TOTAL THROWAWAY PRODUCT
123
50,921
14
7 , 889
13
9,262
150
66,072
TOTAL SALEABLE PRODUCT
12
3 ,307
1
165
-
-
13
3,472
TOTAL WET
122
49,895
12
6, 544
12
8,542
146
64 ,981
TOTAL DRY
13
4,333
3
1,510
1
720
17
6,56 3
TOTAL NONREGENERABLE
120
49,582
14
7,789
13
9,262
147
66,633
TOTAL REGENERABLE
15
4 ,646
1
265
-
-
16
4 ,911

-------
TABLE 3. FGD SYSTEMS BY COAL SULFUR CONTENT
Coal	Under	Contract	Committed
sulfur Operational construction	awarded	projections	Total
content
No.
MW
No.
MW
No.
MW
No.
MW
No.
MW
Low
68
30,420
7
4 ,470
7
4,820
13
8,125
95
47 ,835
Medium
29
11,008
5
2,890
4
2,480
9
5,131
47
21,509
High
38
16,471
3
960
2
1,961
6
3 ,620
49
23,012
Undecided
-
-
-
-
-
-
15
7,852
15
7 ,852
TOTAL
135
57,899
15
8 ,320
13
9,261
43
24 ,728
206
100 , 208

-------
TABLE 4. SELECTED DATA COMPARISON OF PRESENT AND FUTURE UTILITY FGD
INSTALLATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
	December 1985	December 1990
Number of operational units	135	159
Capacity, MW	57,899	71,782
Avg. coal sulfur content, percent	1.90	1.87
Avg. SOj removal efficiency, percent	81.1	82.4
Scrubbing process, percent by
capacity
Wet systems (throwaway product)
Lime"	31	27
Limestoneb	48	50
Dual alkali	4	4
Sodium carbonate	3	5
Dry systems (throwaway product)c	8	9
Wet systems (saleable product)11	6	5
TOTAL	100	100
Regulatory classification,
percent by capacity
Regulatory class
More stringent
than 6/79 NSPS	21	24
6/79 NSPS	10	14
More stringent than 12/71
NSPS, but less stringent
than 6/79 NSPS	33	30
12/71 NSPS
Less stringent than 12/71
NSPS
TOTAL
32	28
4	4
100	100
" Includes lime/alkaline fly ash.
b Includes limestone/alkaline fly ash.
c Includes lime and sodium carbonate processes.
" Includes magnesium oxide and Wellman Lord scrubbing processes and limestone
processes where a high-grade gypsum byproduct is sold.
14

-------
TABLE 5. COAL-FIRED UTILITY SCR APPLICATIONS
_M£_t	Tpt^l me
West Germany"	57	28,700
Japan5	26	6,118
United States	0	0
' Operating or under construction.
b Operating as of 12/87.
15

-------
TABLE 6. PROJECTS IN THE CLEAN COAL PROGRAM
Sponsor
Technology
Location
American Electric
Power
Babcock & Wilcox
Coal Tech
Energy & Environmental
Research
Energy International
General Electric
Ohio Ontario
M.W. Kellogg
Weirton Steel
Pressurized Fluid-
Bed Combustion Combined
Cycle
LIMB/Sorbent Injection
Advanced Combustor
Gas Reburn/Sorbent
Injection
In-Situ Gasification
Gasification with
Power Turbine
Coal-Oil Coprocessing
Combined Cycle
Gasification
Direct Iron Ore
Reduction
Ohio
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Three sites
in Illinois
Wyoming
Ohio
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
16

-------
REFERENCE
1.	Ponder, Wade H., "Technologies for Controlling Pollutants
from Coal Combustion," presented at the Clean Coal
Technology Conference, Arlington, VA, October 7-8, 1985.
2.	Economic Evaluation of Dry-Injection Flue Gas
Desulfurization Technology EPRI cs-4373, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, January 1986.
17

-------
FIGURE 1
ELEVATION 181 SULFUR CAPTURE AT THE EDGE WATER DEMONSTRATION
T
—i	1	1	1	1	1	1	1 i—
0.8 1.2 1.6	2.0 2.4
CALCIUM TO SULFUR RATIO
—I—
2.8
0.4

-------
FIGURE 2
CALCIUM UTILIZATION AT THE EDGEWATER DEMONSTRATION
¦f	1	1	1	1	1	r
t	1	1	1 i	1	r

-------
ro
o

70
? 60-
<
N
r 50 -
3
O
n 40 -
<
o
g 30
LU
cc
I-
0.
<
o
z>
Ui
20 -
10 -
FIGURE 3
RESULTS FOR MARBLEHEAD HYDRATE
CAPTURE
1.2 1.6
CALCIUM TO SULFUR RATIO
—I—
2.4

-------
FIGURE 4
RESULTS FOR MODIFIED HYDRATE
CAPTUR
i
i
+
UTILIZATION

—I—
0.4
—I—
0.8
—I—
1.2
~~r~
1.6
—I—
2.4
2.0
CALCIUM TO SULFUR RATIO
2.8

-------
FIGURE 5
STATISTICAL FIT FOR UNTREATED SORBENT
ISJ
to
¦ UNTREATED
+ LOWER BOUND
o UPPER BOUND
t	1	1	1	r
1.2	1.6	2.0
CALCIUM TO SULFUR RATIO

-------
FIGURE 6
STATISTICAL FIT FOR TREATED SORBENT
CALCIUM TO SULFUR RATIO

-------
FIGURE 7
STATISTICAL FIT COMPARING THE TWO SORBENTS
CALCIUM TO SULFUR RATIO

-------
t, TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
A E ER L~ P~ 494 (Please read lauructions on the reverse before c
-
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/D-89/025
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Recent Developments of Emission Control Technology
in the United States for Fossil Fuel Combustion
Sources
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOfllSI
Dennis C. Drehmel and Charles B. Sedman
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING OPOANI2ATION NAME AND ADDRESS
See Block 12.
10. PRC'GRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
NA (Inhouse)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published Paper; 12/88
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. supplementary notes Author Drehmel's Mail Drop is 4; his phone number is 919/541"
7505. Presented at Taiwan EPA Workshop on Air Pollution Control Policy/Strate-
gies. TaiDei. Taiwan, 1/17-lQ/ftQ.
1^. ABSTRACT "
The paper discusses control of air pollution from fossil fuel combustion.
Until recently, this meant abatement of smoke (particulate), sulfur dioxide, and ox-
ides of nitrogen. With growing concern about global climate change, carbon dioxide
has been added to the list. The paper includes Discussions of such controls and con-
trol systems as wet and dry scrubbers, fabrit filters, electrostatic precipitators,
physical coal cleaning, flue gas desulfurization, selective catalytic reduction, lime-
stone injection multistage burners (LIMB), reburning, E-SCx and ADVACATE.
/
)
/
17. KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTI FIE RS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cosati Field/Gtoup
Pollution Nitrogen Oxides
Emission Carbon Dioxide
Fossil Fuels
Combustion
Particles
Sulfur Dioxide
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Particulate
13B
14G
21D
2 IB
07B
13. D STRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
27
20. SECURITY CLASS /This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------