CHAPTER 11
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Are flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems reliable and operable for scrubbing stack gas effluents from the combustion of high sulfur coal of the eastern United States?

It is important to consider this question both in light of the recent large increase in knowledge of FGD technologies and also with sober regard to the disappointments anad failures that have contributed to the new knowledge.

In 1970, a panel of the National Academy of Engineering (NRC 1970) advised that “…there is an urgent need for commercial demonstration of the more promising processes, to make reliable engineering and economic data available to engineers who are designing full-scale facilities to meet specific local and regional conditions. [Emphasis in orginal.] The panel’s definition of proven industrial-scale reliablility is satisfactory operation on a 100-Mw or larger unit for more than 1 year. Also, technical and economic data developed must be adequate for confident projection to full commercial scale. Pilot scale refers to investigation using flue gas in the capacity range of 10 to 25 Mw. Smaller sizes and studies



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control CHAPTER 11 FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Are flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems reliable and operable for scrubbing stack gas effluents from the combustion of high sulfur coal of the eastern United States? It is important to consider this question both in light of the recent large increase in knowledge of FGD technologies and also with sober regard to the disappointments anad failures that have contributed to the new knowledge. In 1970, a panel of the National Academy of Engineering (NRC 1970) advised that “…there is an urgent need for commercial demonstration of the more promising processes, to make reliable engineering and economic data available to engineers who are designing full-scale facilities to meet specific local and regional conditions. [Emphasis in orginal.] The panel’s definition of proven industrial-scale reliablility is satisfactory operation on a 100-Mw or larger unit for more than 1 year. Also, technical and economic data developed must be adequate for confident projection to full commercial scale. Pilot scale refers to investigation using flue gas in the capacity range of 10 to 25 Mw. Smaller sizes and studies

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control using synthetic gas mixtures are considered to be bench scale.” Spokesmen who affirm that industrial-scale reliability is now available, as well as spokesmen who deny it, often quote the NAE panel’s requirement of 1 year of operation at the 100-Mw scale. They argue whether or not this has been acheived in a particular unit, and whether or not the experience in this unit is generally applicable. Not much attention has been paid to the other important ingredient by the panel as necessary to insure industrial process availability: the requirement that technical and economic data must be available to permit design of full-scale units to meet specific local and regional conditions. The NAE panel did its work at a time when the chemistry of sulfur oxides scrubbing appeared far simpler than it does today. The panel considered 16 stack gas control procedures. A reflection of the subsequent advance in knowledge is the fact that 10 of the 16 were not represented by presentations at a meeting that EPA held in Atlanta in early November of 1974 to review the status of control technology. The Atlanta meeting considered 13 processes, of which 7 were not on the list of the 1970 NAE panel. It should also be remembered that there have been expensive large-scale development failures in sulfur oxide emission control (see Table 11–1). One process, limestone injection into a boiler followed by a scrubber, that EPA urged upon utilities as late as early 1972 (Walsh 1972), is no longer being offered for sale. The record would stand as an indictment of the engineering profession were it not for the fact, now evidient, that the engineer was compelled to press forward into design and construction of scrubbing equipment of unprecedented size in absence of adequate chemical knowledge. Never before had the chemical engineer been asked to treat such a large flow of gas even for a chemistry that was well understood. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the early disappointments involved failure of large

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control TABLE 11–1 Large-Scale Development Failures in Sulfur Oxides Emission Control Dry limestone injection processes Estimated cost 175-MW E.P.A. test at Shawnee Station of T.V.A. $4–5 million 80-MW test at Dairyland Power Co-op’s Alma Station ? Limestone injection followed by lime scrubbing   125-MW test at Meramec Station of Union Electric $10–15 million 125- and 400-MW units at Lawrence Station of Kansas Power & Light (the former is badly corroded, operating poorly, and will be replaced by a new scrubber of a different process; the latter will be converted to a limestone scrubbing unit) ? 100-MW unit at Kansas City Power & Light’s Hawthorn Station (has been converted to limestone scrubbing) ? [This system is no longer being offered for sale.]   Potassium solution scrubbing   25-MW test at Baltimore Gas & Electric’s Crane Station $3.5 million Sulfoxyl process   22-MW test at Commonwealth Edison’s State Line Station $8.5 million Molten carbonate process   10-MW test (oil fired) at Consolidated Edison’s Arthur Kill Station $4 million Rheinluft process   10- and 15-MW tests in Germany ? Manganese oxide process (DAP-Mn process)   110-MW test in Japan ?

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control scrubbing equipment to perform properly either because poor materials of construction had been chosen or because the design failed to provide adequate contacting of gas and scrubbing medium. For some FGD processes under development (notably limestone injection followed by a scrubber), it was only after these mechanical problems began to come under control that the chemical problems began to be appreciated. Much progress can now be acknowledged. Table 11–2 provides a list of commercial scrubbing units believed to be successful. It should be noted that little time has been available to make the critical judgments needed for compiling Table 11–2, and there may well be important omissions. A feature of Table 11–2 is that many of the successful scrubbers operate on oil-fired boilers. Another feature is that many operate with an “open water loop”, a manner of operation to be explained shortly. Two broad changes in the outlook for scrubber technology have occurred since 1970 NAE panel’s study: It is now appreciated that a process successful for oil firing cannot in general be transferred wholesale to coal firing without process refinement and a new commercial demonstration on a coal-fired boiler. The trend of thinking for wet scrubbing processes has been toward providing an electrostatic precipitator for removal of most of the fly ash ahead of the scrubber, instead of relying upon the scrubber for particulate control. This is because fly ash can interfere with both scrubber chemistry (see section 2.05) and mechanical operation. The 1970 NAE panel did not distinguish between scrubbing and the products of combustion of oil and coal, nor did most of the literature on scrubbing of that time. (It should be assumed that scrubbing flue gas from oil firing is necessarily always the easier task. See Appendix 11-A for a discussion of the difficulty of removing fume particles that are produced in an oil-fired boiler.) It is also now better appreciated that new difficulties arise in the chemistry of a wet scrubbing process if it must be operated

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control TABLE 11–2 Partial List of Commercial Scrubbers Handling Boiler Flue Gas and Believed To Be Succsssful Note: The criterion for listing a unit here has been a belief that it has been continuously available for commercial service for a period of at least several months. This is not necessarily a complete list. Carbide Lime Fuel Equivalent Electricity Capacity Inlet SO2, ppm Water Loop Paddy’s Run (see 2.01) Coal 100-MW 1800–2000 Closed Mitsui Miike (see 2.02) Coal 160-MW 2000–2350 Open Lime Mohave (see 2.12) Coal 170-MW 200 Closed* Kansai Electric, Amagasaki Oil 120-MW 1100 Open Kansai Electric, Kainan Oil 120-MW 500 Open Tohoku Electric, Hachinohe Oil 115-MW 820 Open Limestone Cholla (see 3.10) Coal 115-MW 420 Closed* Will County (see 3.02) Coal 84-MW 1200** Open LaCygne (see 3.03) Coal 700-MW 4500*** Open Tokyo Electric, Hokosuka Oil 130-MW 250 Open Chugoku Electric, Mizuchima Oil 104-MW 300 Open Ishihara Chemical, Yokkaichi Oil 77-MW 2000 Open Sodium-Lime Double Alkali Showa Denko, Chiba Oil 150-MW 1200–1500 Open Tohoku Electric, Shinsendai Oil 150-MW 600–800 Open *Mohave and Cholla experience little rainfall, and water losses due to evaporation from their sludge ponds are significant. **Earlier operation at higher inlet SO2 levels was plagued by formation of deposits. ***Cleanout of deposits is necessary about every 5 days, but the operator deems the installation to be successful.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control Chiyoda (sulfuric acid-limestone double alkali) Fuel Equivalent Electricity Capacity Inlet SO2 ppm Water Loop Fuji Kosan Co., Kainan Oil 50-MW ? Open Daicel Co., Aboshi Oil 30-MW 1500 Open [Three units larger than 100-MW were scheduled to begin operating on oil-fired boil rs in Japan during 1974.] Wellman-Lord (sodium salts) Japan Synthetic Rubber, Chiba Oil 70-MW 1800 Open Chubu Electric, Nishi Nagoya Oil 220-MW 1500 Open Sumitomo Chiba Chemical Co., Chiba Oil 120-MW 1300 Open [Seven units larger than 100-MW were scheduled to begin operating on oil-fired boilders in Japan during 1974.]

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control subatantially without discharge of salty water to the environment. That is to say, it is more difficult to operate if all water leaving the scrubber must be returned to the scrubber except the water that is discharged along the wet solid waste or sludge. Operation without discharge of salty water is termed “closed loop”, and an operation that discards salty water is said to have an “open water loop”. Although operation with a closed water loop is not a recent concept, the 1970 NAE panel did not mention its special problems. These developments reinforce the 1970 NAE panel’s judgment that an adequate technical data base must be available on which to rest a commercial design for each given specific situation. An ideal base in support of a new commercial design for a sulfur oxides scrubbing process would include: complete and detailed knowledge of the scrubber chemistry selected, understanding of the mechanical and process performance of the scrubbing hardware selected as well as the proper materials of construction, adequate correlations between performance of bench scale, pilot scale, and commercial scale scrubbers of the selected hardware and chemistry, and adequate numbers of chemists who share and agree upon the relevant chemical knowledge, as well as adequate numbers of chemical engineers who understand the scrubbing hardware, in the employ of engineering firms that supply scrubbing systems. As Table 11–2 shows, only lime and limestone scrubbers have yet operated successfully on coal at the commercial scale for extended periods of time. The question of scrubber reliability and operability must be addressed here in detail only for these alternatives. The status of other FGD processes is discussed briefly in Section 4.0. Lime and limestone scrubber experience will be discribed in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 with

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control emphasis upon the question, is a design support basis available to allow engineering firms to build large-scale scrubbers for medium and high sulfur coal with confidence? It may be noted that “medium sulfur coal”, containing between 1 and 3 percent sulfur, accounted for 33 percent of all deliveries of coal in the United States in 1973. “High sulfur coal”, with more than 3 percent sulfur, constituted 29 percent. The remaining “low sulfur coal” delivered, containing less than 1 percent sulfur, were mostly taken by the steel industry. The discussion in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 is written on the assumption that most locations in the eastern United States are such as to require operation of a scrubber in the closed loop mode. The discussion also emphasizes scrubbers of the vertical design characteristic of the great majority of scrubbing installations now undergoing commercial trials or under construction (however, see Sections 2.12, 2.15, and 3.12). In reference to the foregoing ideal base, item (b) need be considered only briefly. Although there is room for improvement and especially need for wider dissemination of the available knowledge, there have been major advances during the past five years in knowledge of scrubber performance and of materials of construction. The chemical engineer judges a scrubber’s performance in terms of its efficiency in the contacting of gas and liquor. In a large scrubber, the engineer can expect to see some local variation in performance, since it is a practicable impossibility to effect an absolutely uniform distribution of gas and liquor moving through the scrubber, so that each small quantity of liquid would come into contact with exactly the same small quantity of gas. Often, one of the points to be settled by a large trial is a determination whether or not the efficiency of contacting that is afforded by the practicable scrubber is adequate for the inherent requirements of the chemistry of the process under trial. As a result of recent advances, a failure in a large-scale test will probably not result from a design failure that

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control causes the test scrubber to fall far short of the best for the scrubber’s type. Item (d) of the ideal technical base will be treated in Section 8.0. Sections 2.0 and 3.0 will concentrate upon (a), availability of chemical knowledge, and (c), the adequacy of performance comparisons among bench, pilot, and commerical scrubbers. A technical data base falling somewhat below the ideal may be adequate, to the extent that a good empirical knowledge in respect to (c) may be used to offset some ignorance in respect to (a). However, (c) is a sine qua non, and the comparisons of commercial experience with bench and pilot units should cover the range of variables important for meeting the desired range of specific local and regional conditions. The discussion to follow might seem to imply criticism of some industrial operators who may not have sufficiently appreciated the experimental nature of their scrubbers. The discussion might also seem to imply criticism of some designers who may not have appreciated problems that now seem obvious. Further, the discussion might sometimes seem to imply criticism of experimentalists, whom only the naive critic might expect to have mounted an earlier attack on the unobvious problems that are only now coming clearly into view. No criticism is intended here. Hindsight is easy, and the questioning of motives, cheap. Progress in a complex technological art is often crabwise. The need today is for a keener appreciation of the difficulties and the fastest possible dissemination of information, bad as well as good. Fortunately, the power industry is geared for rapid exchange of information. It is accustomed to attacking its problems through industrial committees. Historically, it found need to hire relatively few chemical engineers, and so it has been far better prepared for exchange of information concerning electrical or mechanical arts than chemical. The industry has recently begun to hire more chemical engineers, and this fact along with the advent of the Electric Power Research Institute should greatly improve the transfer of scrubbing experience.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control The large number of scrubbers now on order (see Appendix B) is often cited as proof of commerical availability. It is of course no such thing. Their owners must regard the units as experimental, needing to be staffed in expectation of discoveries and of need for revision. In view of the record, it will be remarkable if at least a few of the installations do not experience serious difficulties. The record also justifies an optimistic view of the future of scrubbing technologies. The issue of scrubber availability on power plants burning high sulfur coals can be resolved in the near future by a program of experimentation that can now be specified with reasonable confidence. There is a reasonable expectation that scrubbers will become available for routine purchase for a wide range of specific conditions, if an analysis of cost versus benefit shows a purchase to be justified. It may also be noted that both lime and limestone scrubbers appear to be reliable for application on power plants burning low-sulfur western coals (See Sections 2.12 and 3.10). 2.0 LIME SCRUBBING FOR MEDIUM AND HIGH SULFUR COAL The chemistry of lime scrubbing is too complex (Hollinden 1974, Borgwardt 1974) to summarize briefly. It will be sufficient here to understand that the alkalinity needed to scrub sulfur dioxide from the flue gas stream is supplied by the dissolving of calcium sulfite particles in the scrubbing liquor as it passes through the scrubber. Although the solubility of calcium sulfite in water is relatively small, the liquor is unsaturated in respect to this species. As the calcium sulfite enters solution, sulfite ions react with sulfur dioxide to form bisulfite ions: (1) (2)

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control Removal of sulfite ions by reaction (2) tends to cause additional sulfite ions to enter the solution by reation (1), and the ions further react with Sulfur dioxide. Typically, about 3 percent of the entering calcium sulfite particles might be expected to dissolve as the liquor flows through the scrubber. The spent liquor that leaves the scrubber is rich in bisulfite ion, and is conducted to a tank where it is mixed with a slurry of lime. In a rapid reaction, bisulfite ions in the liquor are neutralized by the lime to form calcium sulfite: (3) (4) The calcium sulfite precipitates to form small crystals of CaSo3·0.5 H2O. The greater part of the scrubbing liquor, carrying a burden of these crystals, is returned to the scrubber. A small part is sent to a step for clarifying the liquor to provide a concentrated sludge of calcium sulfite particles for discard. The clarifier returnes a clear stream to the scrubber. Early problems of lime scrubbing relating to corrosion of materials of construction are now largely solved, provided the process is controlled to maintain the pH of the scrubbing liquor within the proper range. Problems of formation of scale and deposits remain a major concern in scrubbers of designs typical of most existing and pending installations. These problems are related to the degree of oxidation of sulfite to sulfate in the scrubber, a subject that will be treated more fully below. Critical points are the passages in spray nozzles for introducing the liquor into the scrubber and the passages in the mist eliminator that must be provided beyond the active scrubbing zone in order to prevent droplets of scrubbing liquor from leaving the system. The danger at these critical points is that they will become plugged by either soft mud-like

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control APPENDIX 11-B This appendix contains tables presenting a summary of electric utility flue gas desulfurization facilities in the United States, and a breakdown of the installed FGD systems and those under construction.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control TABLE App. 11–1 Summary of Electric Utility Flue Gas Desulfurization Facilities in the United States MW Capacity (No. of Plants) PROCESS CURRENTLY INSTALLED(1) UNDER CONSTRUCTION PLANNED TOTALS Limestone Scrubbing 1,904(8) 2,950(7) 8,897(20) 13,351(35) Lime Scrubbing 715(4) 2,944(6) 4,651(17) 8,310(27) Limestone or Lime 30(1) 650(1) 6,100(10) 6,780(12) Magnesium Oxide Scrubbing 370(3) — 576(2) 946(5) Catalytic Oxidation 110(1) — — 110(1) Wellman-Lord — 115(1) 715(2) 830(3) Aqueous Sodium Base Scrubbing 250(2) 125(1) 125(1) 500(4) Double Alkali 32(1) 20(1) — 52(2) Process Not Selected — — 6,140(11) 6,140(11) TOTAL 3,411(20) 6,404(17) 27,204(63) 31,019(100) (1) Not necesaarily in operation. Some are plants which have recently been shut down.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control TABLE App. 11–2 Summary of Installed Electric Utility Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems in the United States FGD PROCESS/POWER STATION NEW OR RETROFIT SIZE MW FUEL TYPE % ASH % S LIMESTONE SCRUBBING   Arizona Public Service Cholla No. 1 R 115 Coal 5–15 0.4–1.0 City of Key West N 37 Oil - 2.75 Commonwealth Edison Will County No. 1 R 167 Coal 10 2.0(1) Kansas City Power & Light   La Cygne No. 1 N 820 Coal 10–20 4.0 Hawthorne 3 & 4 R 240 Coal - 0.6–3.0 Lawrence 4 & 5 R/N 525 Coal - 3.5 LIME SCRUBBING   DuQuesne Light Phillips R 410 Coal 10 2.3 Louisville Gas & Electric Paddy’s Run No. 6 R 65 Coal 14 3.7 Southern California Edison Mohave No. 2 R 160 Coal   0.5–0.8 LIME/LIMESTONE SCRUBBING   TVA Shawnee No. 10(2) R 30 Coal 12–15 3.0 MAGNESIUM OXIDE SCRUBBING   Boston Edison Mystic No. 6 R 150 Oil - 2.8 Potomac Electric, Dickerson 3 R 95 Coal 10–20 2.0

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control FGD PROCESS/POWER STATION NEW OR RETROFIT SIZE MW FUEL TYPE % ASH % S SODIUM CARBONATE SCRUBBING   Nevada Power   Reid Gardner No. 2 R 125 Coal 9 0.6 Reid Gardner No. 1 R 125 Coal 9 0.6 DOUBLE ALKALI   General Motors   Chevrolet Parma 1 1, 2, 3, 4 R 32 Coal 10–12 20.25 CATALYTIC OXIDATION   Illinois Power Wood River No. 4 R 110 Coal 10 3.3 Notes: 1. Will County is now (1974) burning low sulfur Montana coal at least part of time. 2. EPA sponsored facility operated by Bechtel. Used as experimental facility. 3. Not all systems are now in operation.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control TABLE App. 11–3 Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems Under Construction in the United States Size, MW New or Retrofit Fuel Process Contractor Location   %S Type   250 N 0.44 Coal Limestone Research Cottrell Arizona Public Service Cholla No. 2 100 N 2.5–3 Coal Limestone Riley Stoker Central Illinois Light Co., Duck Creek No. 1 375 N   Coal Lime UOP Columbus and Southern Ohio, Conesville 5 375 N   Coal Lime UOP Conesville 6 180 R 3.7 Coal Limestone Peabody Detroit Edison St. Clair No. 6 510 R   Coal Lime Chemico Duquesne Light Elrama 64 R 3.8 Coal Lime American Air Filter Kentucky Utilities Green River 1, 2, 3 178 R 3.5–4.0 Coal Lime American Air Filter Louisville Gas & Elect. Cane Run 4 425 R 3.5–4.0 Coal Lime American Air Filter Mill Creek 3 360 N 0.8 Coal Lime C.E.A. Montana Power Colstrip 1 360 N 0.8 Coal Lime C.E.A. Colstrip 2 125 R 0.5–1.0 Coal Sodium Carbonate C.E.A. Nevada Power Reid Gardner 3 115 R 3.2–3.5 Coal Wellman Lord Davy Powergas NIPSCO Mitchell 11

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control Size, MW New or Retrofit Fuel Process Contractor Location   %S Type   680 N 1.0 Coal Limestone Combustion Engineering Northern States Power Sherburne 1 680 N 1.0 Coal Limestone Combustion Engineering Sherburne 2 880 N 4.3 Coal Lime Chemico Pennsylvania Power Co. Bruce Mansfield 1 800 N 4.3 Coal Lime Chemico Bruce Mansfield 2 120 R 2.5 Coal Magnesium Oxide United Engineering Philadelphia Electric Eddystone 1 (now in startup phase) 160 R 0.5–0.8 Coal Limestone UOP Southern Calif. Edison Mohave 1 345 N 0.5 Coal Lime/Limestone Combustion Engineering Southwest Public Serv. Harrington 1 200 N   Coal Limestone UOP Springfield Utility Bd. Southwest 1 550 R 3.7 Coal Limestone TVA TVA Widows Creek 8 793 N 0.4 Coal Limestone Research Cottrell Texas Utilities Martin Lake 1 793 N 0.4 Coal Limestone Research Cottrell Martin Lake 2 650 N 1.5 Coal Lime/Limestone Combustion Engineering Pub. Serv. Co. of Ind. (Gibson #2)

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control LITERATURE CITED Archbold, M.J. (1961) Combustion, May, pp. 22–32. Barrett, R.E., J.D.Hummell, and W.T.Reid (1966) Trans. ASME, J. Eng. Power, vol. 88, Series A, no. 2, April, pp. 165–172. Bell, B.A., T.A.LiPuma, and K.Allison Lime/Limestone Scrubbing in a Pilot Dustraxtor, EPA Report 65012–74–077. Borgwardt, Robert H. (1974) EPA/RTP pilot studies related to unsaturated operation of lime and limestone scrubbers, paper presented at EPA symposium on flue gas desulfurization, Atlanta, Georgia, November 4–7. Borgwardt, Robert H. (1975) Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, personal communication, February. Brown, T.D. (1966) Combustion, April, pp. 40–45. Corbett, P.F. (1953) J. Inst. Fuel, vol. 26, pp. 92–106. Crumley, P.H. and A.W.Fletcher J. Inst. Fuel, vol. 29, pp. 322–327. Diehl, H. and F.Luksch (1964) Mitteilungen der Vereinigung der Grosskesselbesitzer, No. 92, October, pp. 366–373. Dismukes, E.B. (1975) Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Alabama, personal communication, February 1975. Epstein, M., L.Sybert, S.C.Wang, and C.C.Leivo. EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility: Limestone Wet Scrubbing Test Results, EPA-650/2–74–010. Epstein, M., L.Sybert, S.C.Wang, C.C.Leivo, and R.G.Rhudy (1974) Limestone and lime test results at the EPA alkali scrubbing test facility at the TVA Shawnee power plant, paper presented at EPA Symposium on Flue Gas Desulfurization, Atlanta, Georgia, November 4–7. Eriksson, Erik (1971) The Fate of Sulfur Dioxide and NOx in the Atmosphere, chapter in Power Generation and Environmental Change, David A.Berkowitz and Arthur M.Squires, editors. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 289–301.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control Flocchini, R.G., T.A.Cahill, D.J.Shadoan, S.Lange, R.A.Eldred, P.J.Feeney, G.Wolfe, D.Simmeroth, and J.Suder (1974) Monitoring California’s Aerosols by size and Elemental Composition, Part I: Analytical Techniques, paper submitted to Environmental Science and Technology. Gimitro, J.I. and T.Vermeulen (1964) AIChE Journal, vol. 10, pp. 740–746. Grob, John J. (1961) Consolidated Edison company of New York, personal communication, January. Gundry, J.T.S., B.Lees, L.K.Rendle, and E.J.Wicks (1964) Combustion, October, pp. 39–47. Heller, Austin (1975) State of New York Council of Environmental Advisers, personal communication, February. Hesketh, H.E. (1974) Sulfur Dioxide Scrubbing Technology, testimony presented before Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, November 19. Hollinden, Gerald A. (1974). Chemistry of lime/limestone scrubbing liquor from power plant stack gases, paper presented at 35th annual meeting of International Water Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 30–November 1. Hollinden, Gerald A. (1975) Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee, personal communication, January. Jackson, P.J., W.E.Langdon, and P.J.Reynolds (1969) Automatic Continuous Measurement of Sulfur Trioxide in Flue Gases, American Jain, L.K. (1972) Preliminary Problem Definition SO2 Control Process Utilization, EPA Contract 68–02–0241. Catalytic Inc., Charlotte, N.C. Kapo, G., L.Gomez, F.Pena, E.Torres, J. Bilbao, and K.Mazeika (1973) The Vanox Process for Stack Desulfurization and Vanadium Recovery, paper presented at International Symposium on Vanadium and Other Metals in Petroleum, University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela, August 19–22. Kapo, George (1975) Caracas, Venezuela, personal communication, February.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control Kellogg, M.W., Applicability of Sulfur Dioxide Control Processes to Power Plants, EPA R2–72–100. Kellogg, M.W., Evaluation of the Controllability of power Plants Having a Significant Impact on Air Quality Standards, EPA 450/3–74–002. Krause, H.H. (1959) Oxides of Sulfur in Boilers and Gas Turbines, chapter in Corrosion and Deposits in Boilers and Gas Turbines, report of ASME Research Committee on Corrosion and Deposits from Combustion Gases, prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute, ASME, New York, pp. 44–77. Lisle, E.S. and J.D.Sensenbaugh (1965) Combustion, pp. 12–16. Martin, J.R., A.L.Plumley, and B.M.Minor (1974) The C.E. Lime Wet Scrubbing Process from Concept to Commercial Operation, paper presented at National Coal Association Symposium on Coal and the Environment, Louisville, Kentucky, October 23. McGlamery, C.G. and R.L.Torstrick (1974) Cost Comparisons of Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems, paper presented at FGD Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia, November. Moore, Neal (1975) Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee, personal communication, February. National Research Council (1970) Ad Hoc Panel on Control of Sulfur Dioxide from Stationary Combustion Sources, Committee on Air Quality Management, Committees on Pollution Abatement and Control, Division of Engineering, Abatement of sulfur oxide emissions from stationary combustion sources, COPAC-2, PB 192887, Washington, D.C. Princiotta, Frank T. (1975) Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., personal communication, January. Radian Corporation, Factors Affecting Ability to Retrofit Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems, EPA-450/3–74–015; NTIS PB-232376. Ramsdell, Roger (1975) Consolidated Edison Company of New York, personal communication, February. Rendle, L.K. and R.D.Wildsdon (1956) J. Inst. Fuel, vol. 29, pp. 372–380.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control Rochelle, Gary (1975) Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, personal communication, January. Rosohl, O. (1956) Mitteilungen VIK. (Vereinigung Industrielle Kraftwirtschaft) Essen, No. 4, pp. 53–61; see Krause (1959), p. 66. Ruch, R.R., H.J.Gluskoter, and N.F.Shimp (1974) Occurrence and distribution of potentially volatile trace elements in coal: a final report, Environmental Geology Notes, No. 72, Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois, August. Selmeczi, J.G. and H.A.Elnagger, Properties and Stabilization of Sulfur Dioxide Scrubbing Sludges, paper presented at Coal and the Environment Meeting—National Coal Association, October 22–24, Louisville, Kentucky. Simon, Jack (1975) Illinois State Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois, personal communication, January. Society of Mechanical Engineers Paper 69-WA/APC-2 (ASME Winter Annual Meeting, November, Los Angeles, California). SOCTAP (Sulfur Oxide Control Technology Assessment Panel) (1973) Projected Utilization of Stack Gas Cleaning Systems by Steam-Electric Plants, Final Report, April. Van Mersbergen, Ronald (1972) testimony for Illinois Pollution Control Board, Chicago, Illinois, January 5. Walsh, Robert T. (1971) Chief of Source Control Branch, EPA, testimony for West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission, Charleston, West Virginia, December 15. Walsh, Robert T. (1972) testimony for Illinois Pollution Control Board, Chicago, Illinois, January 26. Weir, A., J.M.Johnson, D.G.Jones, and S.T.Carlisle (1974) The Horizontal Cross Flow Scrubber, paper presented at FGD Symposium, Atlanta, Georgia, November 4. Weir, Alexander, Jr. (1975) Southern California Edison Co., Rosemead, California, personal communication, February. Widell, Torsten (1953) Combustion, June, pp. 53–55.

OCR for page 385
Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control Widersum, G.C. (1967) Corrosion and Deposits from Combustion Gases—A Review, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Paper 67-PWR-8 (ASME-IEEE Joint Power Generation Conference, Detroit, Michigan, September. Williams, D.J. (1964) Oxidation of Sulfur Dioxide in Combustion Processes, Coal Research in CSIRO, No. 23, July, pp. 7–14