FGD Bid Preparation and Proposal Review Guideline EPRI

Flue Gas Desulfurization Bid Preparation
and Proposal Review Guideline
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in
accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with
Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of
this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does
not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the
N
SED WARNING: export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
A L
LICE
Please read the License Agreement embedded in the document prior to publication.
on the back cover before removing
R I
E the Wrapping Material.

M AT
Technical Report
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Bid Preparation and Proposal
Review Guideline
1004706
Final Report, March 2003
EPRI Project Manager

R. Rhudy
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
Washington Group International, Inc.
URS Corporation
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,
(925) 609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2003 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Washington Group International, Inc.

7800 East Union Avenue
Denver, CO 80237
Principal Investigators
R. Keeth
I. Brodsky
URS Corporation
9400 Amberglen Boulevard
Austin, TX 78729
Principal Investigators
G. Blythe
J. Noblett
G. Maller
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Flue Gas Desulfurization Bid Preparation and Proposal Review Guideline, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2003. 1004706.
iii
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The prospect of more stringent limits for SO2 has led power producers to begin planning for the
future installation of FGD systems to meet new emission limits for their power plants. Major
activity has already begun with the announcements of system-wide FGD system installations by
many utilities in the southeastern United States. Contractor selection is a critical component to
the successful compliance with regulatory requirements. This document provides utilities with
the tools that they will need to prepare bid specification documents to be used in a Request for
Proposal (RFP) and to review proposal responses.
Results & Findings

This report is designed to assist utilities in preparing bid specification documents and reviewing
proposal responses for such FGD contracts. It describes the data that should be included in the
RFP and provides state-of-the-art FGD system operating data that can be used for comparison to
the FGD supplier proposals. This performance data will allow a company to estimate the level of
margin that suppliers provided in their response to the FGD system RFP for a specific site.
Contracting options for system-wide compliance projects, which have changed over the last
several years, are also reviewed in this document.
Challenges & Objectives

The objectives of the current report are to provide the reader with the following information:
• A summary of the data that should be included in the Request for Proposal
• Listing of the contracting options that are available for FGD installations
• A set of performance data that can be used for comparison to the data provided by the FGD
suppliers in their bid submittals
• An outline of a bid review methodology that can be used to evaluate the FGD vendor bid
packages
• Examples of the tools that can be used for the evaluation process
Applications, Values & Use

This report should serve as a useful tool for any owner considering the installation of an FGD
system. The section dealing with design basis data provides a comprehensive summary of the
data that should be collected and included in the FGD bid solicitation package. The advantages
and disadvantages of the various contracting alternatives are summarized. A bid review
methodology is provided, along with the tools that will be necessary to allow a company to
evaluate the bids on a common quantitative basis. The FGD performance section provides
guidelines for review of the technical data supplied with the FGD system bids.
v
EPRI Perspective
This guideline is an update of a previous document prepared in the early 1980s. A number of
changes have occurred in how FGD systems are designed and how contracts for their installation
are structured. The resulting guideline represents a state-of-the-art primer for developing bid
specifications and evaluating proposals for new or retrofit FGD systems. Sufficient information
is supplied so that someone unfamiliar with the process will obtain a good feel for what to put
into a bid specification and how to compare proposal responses.
Approach
The project team compiled the data necessary for an energy company to prepare a Request for
Proposal and then review the performance and design criteria proposed by vendors to meet the
emission requirements of the units involved. The team used prior EPRI R&D results, in-house
experience, and runs using the EPRI chemistry model FGDPRISM in preparing information for
inclusion into this guideline.
Keywords
SO2
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
Wet scrubbing
vi
EPRI Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
This report provides a series of tools that can be used in the preparation of a flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) bid solicitation and in the review of vendor submittals in response to a
Request for Proposal. The report provides a comprehensive review of the FGD bidding process,
including:
• A summary of the data that should be included in the Request for Proposal
• Listing of the contracting options that are available for FGD installations
• A set of performance data that can be used for comparison to the data provided by the FGD
suppliers in their bid submittals
• An outline of a bid review methodology that can be used to evaluate the FGD vendor bid
packages
Examples of the tools that can be used for the evaluation process.
vii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
2 DESIGN BASIS BID DATA ................................................................................................. 2-1

General Energy Company Information ............................................................................... 2-1
Station Operating Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-2
Base Loaded/Cycling Operation .................................................................................... 2-2
Present of Proposed Air Quality Control System............................................................ 2-3
Waste Water System ..................................................................................................... 2-3
Construction/Operation Schedule .................................................................................. 2-4
Design Basis ...................................................................................................................... 2-4
Ambient Conditions........................................................................................................ 2-4
Ambient Temperatures (Range and Design) ............................................................. 2-4
Atmospheric Pressure............................................................................................... 2-4
Humidity.................................................................................................................... 2-4
Precipitation .............................................................................................................. 2-4
Seismic and Wind Design ......................................................................................... 2-4
Indoor HVAC Requirements...................................................................................... 2-4
Available Utilities............................................................................................................ 2-5
Potable Water Analysis ............................................................................................. 2-5
Service/Makeup Water .............................................................................................. 2-5
Cooling Water ........................................................................................................... 2-6
Instrument Air............................................................................................................ 2-6
Service Air................................................................................................................. 2-6
Available Power, motor voltages ............................................................................... 2-6
Design Fuels.................................................................................................................. 2-6
Design Reagents ........................................................................................................... 2-6
Unit Design Information ................................................................................................. 2-8
FGD System Configuration ............................................................................................ 2-9
ix
FGD System Performance Requirements .....................................................................2-11

Other Design Requirements..........................................................................................2-12
System Scope of Supply...............................................................................................2-13
Equipment and Materials by FGD System Supplier..................................................2-14
Process/Mechanical ............................................................................................2-15
Civil/Structural/Architectural.................................................................................2-16
Electrical..............................................................................................................2-16
Instrumentation and Control ................................................................................2-16
Services by FGD System Supplier ...........................................................................2-17
Electrical..............................................................................................................2-17
Structural.............................................................................................................2-18
Miscellaneous......................................................................................................2-18
Requested Options ..................................................................................................2-18
Equipment and Services Provided by Others ...........................................................2-18
Electrical..............................................................................................................2-19
Structural.............................................................................................................2-19
Services ..............................................................................................................2-19
Detailed Design Requirements ..........................................................................................2-19
General.........................................................................................................................2-20
Process/Mechanical......................................................................................................2-20
Flue Gas System......................................................................................................2-20
Byproduct Production and Handling .........................................................................2-21
Material Handling .....................................................................................................2-21
FGD Wastewater Treatment System........................................................................2-21
Limestone Handling and Preparation .......................................................................2-22
Emergency Absorber Hold System...........................................................................2-22
Service/Instrument Air Systems ...............................................................................2-22
Flushing and Wash-down System ............................................................................2-22
Slurry Pumps ...........................................................................................................2-22
Water Pumps ...........................................................................................................2-22
x
Sump Pumps ...........................................................................................................2-22

Fans, Blowers, Compressors ...................................................................................2-22
Vertical Agitators ......................................................................................................2-22
Piping Systems ........................................................................................................2-22
Shop-Fabricated Tanks ............................................................................................2-22
Field-Fabricated Tanks.............................................................................................2-22
Coatings and Linings................................................................................................2-22
Civil/Structural/Architectural ..........................................................................................2-23
Electrical .......................................................................................................................2-23
Instrumentation and Controls ........................................................................................2-26
Economic Evaluation Factors ............................................................................................2-27
General Economic Criteria (see Table 2-15) .................................................................2-27
Operating Cost Criteria (see Table 2-16) ......................................................................2-28
Byproduct Sales and Credits (see Table 2-17)..............................................................2-28
Air/Wastewater Emissions Penalties (see Table 2-18) ..................................................2-29
Construction/Startup Schedule Penalties (see Table 2-19) ...........................................2-29
FGD Vendor Proposal Requirements ................................................................................2-29
Technical Requirements ...............................................................................................2-29
Commercial Terms and Conditions ...............................................................................2-30
References/Attachments List.............................................................................................2-30
3 CONTRACTING ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................... 3-1

Contracting Method Selection Factors................................................................................ 3-1
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3-1
New Plant vs. Retrofit .................................................................................................... 3-1
Stand-alone vs. Integration with Existing Units .............................................................. 3-2
In-house Capabilities ..................................................................................................... 3-2
Cash Flow Requirements............................................................................................... 3-2
Engineer and FGD Supplier Experience ........................................................................ 3-2
Energy Company Culture and Method of Doing Business.............................................. 3-2
Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................... 3-3
Contracting Entities/Options ............................................................................................... 3-3
General Contracting Method (Design-Bid-Build) ............................................................ 3-3
Advantages ............................................................................................................... 3-4
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 3-4
xi
Single Prime (Design-Build) ........................................................................................... 3-4

Advantages ............................................................................................................... 3-5
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 3-5
Multiple Prime (Owner as General Contractor)............................................................... 3-5
Advantages ............................................................................................................... 3-6
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 3-6
Construction Management............................................................................................. 3-6
Advantages ............................................................................................................... 3-6
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 3-7
Construction Management at Risk (Construction Management/General Contractor) ..... 3-7
Advantages ............................................................................................................... 3-8
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 3-8
Alliance and Partnership Arrangements......................................................................... 3-8
Advantages (in addition to those of the multiple prime contract)................................ 3-8
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 3-8
Build/Own/Operate/Maintain (BOOM) Arrangement....................................................... 3-8
Advantages ............................................................................................................... 3-9
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 3-9
Payment Options................................................................................................................ 3-9
Fixed Price (Lump Sum) ................................................................................................ 3-9
Advantages ............................................................................................................... 3-9
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................... 3-9
Cost Reimbursable Plus Fee for Overhead and Profit.................................................... 3-9
Advantages ..............................................................................................................3-10
Disadvantages .........................................................................................................3-10
Performance-Based Contracts......................................................................................3-10
Advantages ..............................................................................................................3-10
Disadvantages .........................................................................................................3-10
Cost Reimbursable Plus Incentive Fee .........................................................................3-11
Advantages ..............................................................................................................3-11
Disadvantages .........................................................................................................3-11
4 FGD PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES .................................................................................. 4-1

Wet Lime/Limestone FGD System Performance ................................................................ 4-1
SO2 Removal Performance ............................................................................................ 4-2
xii
FGDPRISM Base Case Limestone Spray Tower Design & Selection of Variable
Ranges ..................................................................................................................... 4-3
Results from FGDPRISM Simulations of Operating Parameter Variations................. 4-5
Effects of Inlet SO2................................................................................................ 4-5
Effects of Reagent Ratio....................................................................................... 4-6
Effects of Liquor Chloride Level ...........................................................................4-11
Effects of Absorber Flue Gas Velocity .................................................................4-12
Effects of Limestone Grind ..................................................................................4-13
Performance Additives.........................................................................................4-14
Mg-lime Systems .................................................................................................4-16
Tray Towers vs. Spray Towers ............................................................................4-17
Liquid Distribution Rings ......................................................................................4-19
Gypsum Properties .......................................................................................................4-20
Gypsum Chloride Concentration ..............................................................................4-20
Effect of Oxidizing Air Rates.....................................................................................4-21
Impact of Inerts from Limestone and Fly Ash ...........................................................4-22
Gypsum Dewatering.................................................................................................4-24
Hydrocyclones for Primary Dewatering................................................................4-24
Secondary Dewatering .............................................................................................4-27
Vacuum Filters ....................................................................................................4-27
Centrifuges ..........................................................................................................4-29
Mist Eliminator Systems................................................................................................4-30
Mist Eliminator Design..............................................................................................4-30
Mist Eliminator Washing ......................................................................................4-32
Spray Dryer FGD Performance .........................................................................................4-33
Effect of Major Process Control Variables.....................................................................4-35
Reagent Ratio ..........................................................................................................4-35
Approach to Adiabatic Saturation .............................................................................4-39
Other Process Design and Control Variables................................................................4-44
Solids Recycle .........................................................................................................4-44
Coal Sulfur/Spray Dryer Inlet SO2 Concentration......................................................4-48
Coal Chloride Level..................................................................................................4-50
Type of Particulate Control Device ...........................................................................4-55
Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Temperature..................................................................4-57
Coal Fly Ash Alkalinity..............................................................................................4-60
xiii
Quicklime Reagent Properties..................................................................................4-61

Effect of Slaking Water Quality and Slaking Conditions............................................4-63
Effect of System Makeup Water Quality ...................................................................4-65
Effect of Bypass Reheat...........................................................................................4-68
References........................................................................................................................4-70
5 FGD BID REVIEW METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 5-1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
Bid Submittal Documentation......................................................................................... 5-2
Technical Data Comparisions ........................................................................................ 5-3
Qualitative Factors ............................................................................................................. 5-4
Exceptions and Qualifications ........................................................................................ 5-4
Scope of Supply............................................................................................................. 5-5
Document Submittals..................................................................................................... 5-6
General Process Information ......................................................................................... 5-6
Detailed Technical Comparison ..................................................................................... 5-7
Adjustment Curves ........................................................................................................ 5-8
Control Concept............................................................................................................. 5-8
Inspection and Maintenance .......................................................................................... 5-9
Quantitative Factors ..........................................................................................................5-10
Bid Evaluation Factors ..................................................................................................5-10
Flue Gas Pressure Drop...........................................................................................5-10
Operating Power Consumption ................................................................................5-11
SO2 Removal Efficiency............................................................................................5-11
Reagent Usage ........................................................................................................5-12
Byproduct Production...............................................................................................5-12
Makeup Water Usage...............................................................................................5-12
Construction and Outage Duration ...........................................................................5-13
Capital Cost Comparisons ............................................................................................5-13
Capital Cost Adjustments .........................................................................................5-13
Fixed O&M Cost Comparisons......................................................................................5-14
Manpower Requirements .........................................................................................5-15
Total Evaluated Cost Development...............................................................................5-15
Attachments ......................................................................................................................5-17
Document Submittal Requirements...............................................................................5-18
xiv
FGD System Scope of Supply Checklist .......................................................................5-20

Bid Data Summary Sheet – FGD System (Example) ....................................................5-23
Economic Factors and Plant Data ............................................................................5-24
Bid Tabulation Example ................................................................................................5-25
FGD Specification.........................................................................................................5-28
Example Listing of FGD System Performance Guarantees...........................................5-30
Flue Gas Emissions .................................................................................................5-30
Waste/Byproduct Requirements...............................................................................5-30
Reagent Usage ........................................................................................................5-31
Power Guarantee .....................................................................................................5-31
Performance Testing................................................................................................5-32
Other Design Requirements ..............................................................................................5-33
Water Balance ..............................................................................................................5-33
Availability and Equipment Sparing Philosophy ............................................................5-33
Noise Limitations ..........................................................................................................5-34
FGD Proposal Data Sheets...........................................................................................5-36
6 FGD TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 6-1

Vendor Listing .................................................................................................................... 6-1
Technology Descriptions .................................................................................................... 6-2
Limestone with Forced Oxidation (LSFO) ...................................................................... 6-2
Wet Lime or Magnesium Enhanced Lime (Lime)............................................................ 6-4
Lime Spray Dryer (LSD)................................................................................................. 6-5
Other Modifications to Wet FGD Technologies................................................................... 6-6
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Base Case Variations for Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (25,000
ppm Cl-, 1.05 Reagent Ratio)........................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-2 Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (25,000 ppm Cl-, 1.02 Reagent Ratio)...... 4-6
Figure 4-3 Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (25,000 ppm Cl-, 1.10 Reagent Ratio)...... 4-7
-
Figure 4-4 Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (5000 ppm Cl , 1.02 Reagent Ratio)......... 4-8
-
Figure 4-5 Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (5000 ppm Cl , 1.05 Reagent Ratio)......... 4-9
Figure 4-6 Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (5000 ppm Cl-, 1.10 Reagent Ratio)......... 4-9
Figure 4-7 Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (40,000 ppm Cl-, 1.02 Reagent Ratio).....4-10
Figure 4-8 Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (40,000 ppm Cl-, 1.05 Reagent Ratio).....4-10
-
Figure 4-9 Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (40,000 ppm Cl , 1.10 Reagent Ratio).....4-11
Figure 4-10 SO2 Removal vs. L/G for Mg-lime FGD Systems.................................................4-17
Figure 4-11 Effect of Adding a Tray to a Spray Tower on L/G Requirements (3 lb/MMBtu
Inlet SO2) ........................................................................................................................4-18
Figure 4-12 Effect of Adding a Tray to a Spray Tower on L/G Requirements (6 lb/MMBtu
Inlet SO2) ........................................................................................................................4-19
Figure 4-13 Effect of Liquid Distribution Rings on L/G Requirement for Base Case
Conditions ......................................................................................................................4-20
Figure 4-14 Effects of Limestone Inerts on Gypsum Quality...................................................4-23
Figure 4-15 Effects of Fly Ash Removed in the Scrubber on Gypsum Quality ........................4-23
Figure 4-16 Typical Hydroclone Performance Curves: a. Particle Size Distribution Data
for Feed, Overflow and Underflow Slurries, and b. Percent Recovery of Particles
from Feed Slurry in Underflow Slurry as a Function of Particle Size ..............................4-26
Figure 4-17 Effect of Reagent Ratio on SO2 Removal Performance under Low-sulfur
Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter, 2:1 Recycle Ratio (Dotted Lines Denote 95%
Confidence Intervals for Data Plotted) ............................................................................4-36
Figure 4-18 Effect of Reagent Ratio on SO2 Removal Performance under High-sulfur
Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector; 20oF Approach to
Adiabatic Saturation, Maximum Achievable Recycle Ratio .............................................4-37
Figure 4-19 Effect of Reagent Ratio on SO2 Removal Performance under Medium-sulfur,
High-chloride Coal Conditions with an ESP Particulate Collector; Maximum
Achievable Recycle Ratio...............................................................................................4-38
o o
Figure 4-20 Effect of a 30 F (17 C) Approach Temperature on SO2 Removal
Performance under Low-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate
Collector; 2:1 Recycle Ratio (Dotted Lines Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for
o
20 F Approach Temperature Operation under otherwise Similar Conditions) .................4-40
xvii
Figure 4-21 Effect of a 50°F (28°C) Approach Temperature on SO2 Removal

Performance under Low-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate
Collector; 2:1 Recycle Ratio (Dotted Lines Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for
o
20 F Approach Temperature Operation under otherwise Similar Conditions) .................4-41
Figure 4-22 Effect of Approach Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal Performance
under Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (No
Solids Recycle)...............................................................................................................4-42
Figure 4-23 Effect of Approach Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal Performance
under Medium-sulfur, High-chloride Coal Conditions with an ESP Particulate
Collector (With Maximum Achievable Solids Recycle Ratios) ........................................4-43
Figure 4-24 Effect of Solids Recycle on SO2 Removal Performance under Low-sulfur
Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines and
Shading Denote 95% Confidence Levels for Baseline Operation with a 2:1 Recycle
Ratio; Data Points Denote once-through [no recycle] Operation)...................................4-45
Figure 4-25 Effect of Solids Recycle on SO2 Removal Performance under Medium-sulfur
Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector................................................4-46
Figure 4-26 Effect of Solids Recycle Ratio on SO2 Removal Performance under Low-
sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines and
Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Baseline 2:1 Recycle Ratio
Operation) ......................................................................................................................4-47
Figure 4-27 Effect of Inlet SO2 Concentration on SO2 Removal Performance under
Medium- to High-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector;
20°F (11°C) Approach Temperature and Maximum Recycle ..........................................4-49
Figure 4-28 Effect of Inlet SO2 Concentration on SO2 Removal Performance under Low-
to Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted
Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for 1000 ppmv Inlet SO2
Concentration; Data Points Denote Results at 350 ppmv inlet SO2 Concentration).........4-50
Figure 4-29 The Relationship between Coal Chloride Content and Chloride in the Spray-
dried Solids over a Range of Coal Sulfur Content...........................................................4-51
Figure 4-30 Effect of Elevated Chloride Levels on SO2 Removal Performance under
High-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector; 300°F [149°C]
Inlet Flue Gas, 20°F (11°C) Approach Temperature and Maximum Achievable
Recycle Ratio .................................................................................................................4-52
Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector; 325°F
(163°C) Inlet Flue Gas, 20°F (11°C) Approach Temperature and Maximum
Achievable Recycle Ratio...............................................................................................4-53
Low- to Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector
(280°F [138°C] Inlet Flue Gas; Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence
Intervals for Individual Baseline Tests at Low (<0.1 wt%) Chloride Levels).....................4-54
Figure 4-33 Effect of Using an ESP versus a Fabric Filter for the Downstream Particulate
Control Device on SO2 Removal Performance under High-sulfur Coal Conditions,
Maximum Recycle Ratio.................................................................................................4-56
Figure 4-34 Effect of Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Temperature on SO2 Removal
Performance under Low- to Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter
xviii
Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals
for Baseline 280°F [138°C] Inlet Temperature Operation; Data Points Denote 325°F
[138°C] Inlet Temperature Results) ................................................................................4-58
Figure 4-35 Effect of Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal
Performance Under High-sulfur Coal Conditions with an ESP Particulate Collector,
Maximum Achievable Recycle Ratios.............................................................................4-59
Figure 4-36 Effect of Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal
Performance Under High-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate
Collector, 20°F Approach Temperature and Maximum Achievable Recycle Ratio ..........4-60
Figure 4-37 Effect of Quicklime Reactivity on SO2 Removal Performance Under Low- to
Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted
Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for High-reactivity Quicklime
Slaked with Paste Slaker, Data Points Denote Results for Medium-reactivity
Quicklime and Three Slaker Types)................................................................................4-62
Figure 4-38 Effect of High-reactivity Quicklime Source on Overall SO2 Removal
Performance Under High-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate
Collector, Maximum Achievable Recycle Ratio...............................................................4-63
Figure 4-39 Effect of Using 2000-ppm Sulfate Content Slaking Water on SO2 Removal
Performance Under Low- to Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter
Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals
for Single Test Results using Low-sulfate-content [<100 ppm] Slaking Water) ...............4-64
Figure 4-40 Effect of High-sulfate-content Makeup Water on SO2 Removal Performance
Under Low- to Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate
Collector (Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Single
Test Results using Low-sulfate-content [<100 ppm] Makeup Water) .............................4-66
Figure 4-41 Effect of High-chloride-content Makeup Water on SO2 Removal Performance
under Low- to Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate
Collector (Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Baseline
Operation with Low-chloride-Content [<100 ppm] Makeup Water)..................................4-67
Figure 4-42 Effect of Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Bypass Compared to Raising the Spray
Dryer Outlet Approach Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal Performance under
(Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Single Test
o
Results at a 20 F Approach Temperature and No Bypass)............................................4-69
Figure 5-1 Adjustment Curve for SO2 Removal Efficiency vs. Inlet Gas Temperature and
Reagent Ratio for a Lime Spray Dryer System ................................................................ 5-9
xix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Plant Operating Characteristics............................................................................... 2-3

Table 2-2 Potable Water Analysis ........................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2-3 Design Service and Cooling Water Analyses .......................................................... 2-5
Table 2-4 Fuel Analysis (As Received) ................................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-5 Ash Analysis ........................................................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-6 Limestone (Lime) Analysis (Example) ..................................................................... 2-8
Table 2-7 FGD Design Flue Gas Conditions of Service........................................................... 2-9
Table 2-8 FGD System Performance Requirements (Example) .............................................2-11
Table 2-9 Gypsum Slurry Requirements (Example) ...............................................................2-12
Table 2-10 Gypsum Cake Specification (Example – Final Dewatering by FGD Supplier).......2-12
Table 2-11 Summary Tabulation of the Potential Scope Split Options for an FGD Retrofit
Project............................................................................................................................2-14
Table 2-12 Plant Motor Voltages (Example)...........................................................................2-24
Table 2-13 Plant Motor Enclosures (Example) .......................................................................2-25
Table 2-14 Motor Instrumentation (Example) .........................................................................2-25
Table 2-15 General Economic Criteria ...................................................................................2-27
Table 2-16 Operating Cost Criteria.........................................................................................2-28
Table 2-17 Byproduct Credits.................................................................................................2-28
Table 2-18 Air/Wastewater Emissions Penalties ....................................................................2-29
Table 2-19 Construction/Startup Penalties .............................................................................2-29
Table 4-1 FGDPRISM Limestone Spray Tower Base Case Design Parameters ..................... 4-3
Table 4-2 Ranges for FGD Operating Parameters .................................................................. 4-4
Table 5-1 Bid Submittal Information Checklist ......................................................................... 5-2
Table 5-2 Typical Technical Data Comparison........................................................................ 5-3
Table 5-3 Bidder Exceptions and Qualifications (Example) ..................................................... 5-5
Table 5-4 Bidder Scope of Supply Adjustments (Example) ..................................................... 5-6
Table 5-5 General Process Information for Qualitative Comparison of Bids (Example) ........... 5-7
Table 5-6 Total Evaluated Cost Comparison..........................................................................5-16
Table 6-1 Major FGD Vendors Serving the U.S. Electric Generation Market ........................... 6-1
xxi
1
INTRODUCTION
The primary goal of this report is to provide the reader with a set of tools that can be used
to produce a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the supply of a Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
system, as well as a methodology that can be used to review the bids that are received in
response to this RFP. This final report contains the following sections:
Section 2 – Compilation of the data that FGD vendors would need as part of any bid request
package. This includes all the technical data to describe current and future plant operation
(design and operating coal analyses, combustion calculations, site data, etc.), as well as minimum
requirements for equipment sparing, materials of construction, system performance/removal
efficiency, emission rates, etc. This definition of plant criteria would be summarized in the form
of a Design Basis Document. The Design Basis includes the flue gas composition, regulated
emission rates for SO2 and other plant emissions (opacity, Hg, etc.), plant location, plant size,
heat rate, ultimate fuel analysis (or analyses if a range of fuels was expected over the plant
operating life), age of the facility, definition of plant access available (rail, barge, truck),
expected load range and capacity factor, listing of current and planned air pollution control
equipment at the plant, etc. A listing is also provided that itemizes the EPRI tools that are
available to complete preliminary analyses of the plant requirements, including FGDPRISM,
FGDCOST, etc. The methodology to establish evaluation factors and economic penalties for
various FGD system performance characteristics is also addressed (bid evaluation factor
development).
Section 3 – This section deals with contracting options that are available for FGD system
installation contracts. Options discussed include multi-contract, single turnkey contract or
alliance alternatives. Positive and negative aspects of all these options are tabulated in this
section.
Section 4 – FGD Performance Guidelines are provided in this section. They consist of a set of
data that could be used to compare the technical information supplied in each bid package to the
performance estimates that would be considered the minimum necessary to meet the guarantees
provided/required. This would include reagent feed rates, slurry recycle rates (with and without
DBA for the LSFO case), wash water rates for wallboard production and mist eliminator wash,
etc. This information is applicable to a wide range of coal-fired power plants, and includes data
for both wet limestone/forced oxidation and wet lime systems, as well as lime spray dryers.
The results of this analysis are presented as a series of figures that allow the user to identify
approximate design conditions that will allow the proposed FGD system to meet the guarantee
values for plant-specific operating conditions.
1-1
Introduction
Section 5 – The final section of the report provides a methodology for reviewing FGD system
bids that are received from vendors. This material includes discussions of the development of bid
tabulations, and the process for normalizing bids to put the vendor submittals on a directly
comparable basis. Discussions are provided of how to develop and apply the bid adjustment
factors, how to compare technologies that are different from one another, etc.
Section 6 – Brief descriptions of the FGD technologies referenced in this document are provided
in this section along with a list of some of the current vendors that are active in the U.S. energy
market. This section ends with a summary of the recent advancements in FGD technology.
1-2
2
DESIGN BASIS BID DATA
The preparation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the installation of an FGD system
on a utility boiler will require that the Owner provide the vendors with an accurate summary
of the existing plant operating characteristics along with the required emission rates once the
FGD system is operational. This data package is typically referred to as the Design Basis for
the FGD system. The vendors will then use this information in the development of their
responses to the RFP. This section describes the level of detail that is necessary in the RFP.
The following is a Table of Contents from a typical Design Basis document, followed by brief
descriptions of each of the sections listed, identifying the data that should be included in the
FGD RFP. This information will allow the FGD vendors to provide the energy company with
a comprehensive system design, and the submittals received will be based on a consistent set
of system requirements.
General Energy Company Information
This section describes the new or existing facility, including location and availability of
the various modes of equipment delivery. Descriptions of existing or planned solids handling
systems are included here:
Owner/Station/Units Requiring FGD Systems - Specify the Plant, Owner, Engineer, and Units
that will require FGD systems.
Location and Site Description - Note specific site location and major site features and access.
Refer to area map and plot plan that should be provided in the Appendix of the RFP. Include
scaled general arrangement drawing(s) showing Units and areas available for FGD system
equipment.
Unit Descriptions - Describe all Units, including:

· New Units requiring FGD systems as specified
· Existing Units that already have FGD systems
· Unscrubbed existing Units that will not be retrofit with FGD
· Existing Units that will be retrofit with FGD systems as specified.
Specify type of boiler, such as Pulverized Coal-fired or Gas-Fired Combined Cycle. If available,
specify boiler manufacturer and model. If there is an existing FGD system, briefly describe
the type and configuration and if any part of the new FGD system is to be integrated with the
existing system, including reagent handling and preparation, as well as byproduct production
and handling.
2-1
Design Basis Bid Data
Type of Fuel - Specify gross fuel characteristics such as “High-sulfur Eastern Bituminous
Coal” or “4% sulfur fuel oil (No. 6)”. If fuel switching, blending or alternate startup fuels
are utilized, mention it here.
Age of Units - If this is a retrofit, give ages of Units and short history of major modifications
since original commissioning. State expected commercial operating date for each new Unit.
Site Access for Deliveries - Include requirements for equipment deliveries during construction
as well as consumables and byproducts (coal, ash, reagents, byproducts, and other chemicals).
If there is limited accessibility of rail and barge due to sharing unloading facilities with other
entities, mention it below:
· Barge - Describe new and/or existing dock and unloading facilities. Include seasonal
interruptions due to winter ice conditions, as applicable.
· Truck - Discuss weight limits, underpass clearances and other factors that could affect large
equipment deliveries. Include daily restrictions due to local community requirements, as
applicable.
· Rail - Discuss weight limits, underpass clearances and other factors that could affect large
equipment deliveries. Include daily restrictions due to fuel deliveries, etc.
Byproduct Disposal - Briefly describe the present and future storage and transport requirements
for throwaway solid wastes and commercial byproducts. If a landfill or commercial facility
accepting the byproduct is available, mention it here.
Station Operating Characteristics
Base Loaded/Cycling Operation
Describe the Unit operating hours and off-line frequency if the Units are down every day or
during weekends. For multiple Unit FGD systems, indicate if the FGD reagent and waste
systems must be in continuous operation because there will be at least one Unit in operation at
all times. Indicate the required turndown of each Unit. Include ramp-up times and load following
characteristics required by the FGD system. Specify the yearly plant capacity factor and main
reagent and byproduct storage requirements. Table 2-1 provides an example of how Unit
operating conditions can be summarized in the RFP.
2-2
Table 2-1
Plant Operating Characteristics
Parameter Unit x Unit y Unit z

Gross Rating MW
Net Output MW
6
Design Heat Input 10 Btu/hr (W)
NPHR Btu (J)/kW-hr
Boiler Design Type
Fuel Type
Design Excess Air %
Design Air Heater Leakage %
NOX Control Technology
Ramp-up Rate % MCR/min.
Turndown/Load Range MW
Annual Capacity Factor %
Present of Proposed Air Quality Control System
This section of the RFP should describe the present air pollution control equipment, including
a description of the current byproducts and how they are handled at the plant. Future plans for
additional APC equipment should also be addressed in this section, including all systems that
could impact the composition or conditions of the flue gas entering the FGD equipment. This
would include NOX control systems, mercury control, particulate equipment upgrades, opacity
reduction, etc. Where final technology selection has not been completed for these new APC
components, the RFP should include a listing of acceptable alternates based on any preliminary
screening studies that have been completed.
Waste Water System
Describe present and proposed wastewater treatment and disposal requirements,

discharge permits and wastewater recycling systems, which may include:
· Removal with ash handling systems
· Disposal with unwashed byproduct
· Dust suppression (fly ash or FGD byproduct)
· Chloride purge treatment and discharge
Specify that the FGD system vendor should characterize all byproducts and wastewater.
2-3
Construction/Operation Schedule
Include approximate time line for FGD system operation on each Unit, as well as proposed
outages to be used for system tie-ins:
· Existing Unit(s) with no provisions for future FGD installations
· Existing Unit(s) with provisions for future FGD retrofits
Design Basis
Ambient Conditions
Ambient Temperatures (Range and Design)

· Extremes
· Design minimum for freeze protection
· Design maximum for HVAC and outdoor equipment
· Design for material balance calculations
Atmospheric Pressure
· Plant elevation
· Design atmospheric pressure
Humidity
· Wet bulb range for temperature extremes
· Design RH or wet bulb for material balance calculations
Precipitation
· Design storm event (10-yr, 24-hr; 1-hr maximum, or similar)
· Design snow load
Seismic and Wind Design

· Design seismic load
· Design wind velocity and load
Indoor HVAC Requirements

· Equipment areas
· Control rooms
2-4
Available Utilities
For each utility connection to the FGD equipment, the interface point should be defined
so that each bidder bases his submittal on the same basis.
Potable Water Analysis

· Source and interface location
· Pressure range at grade
· Analysis in tabular form (Table 2-2).
Table 2-2
Potable Water Analysis
Parameter Range Design

Temperature
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l
Alkalinity (as CaCO3), mg/l
Calcium, mg/l
Chloride, mg/l
Sulfate, mg/l
Service/Makeup Water
· Analysis in tabular form (Table 2-3).
Table 2-3
Design Service and Cooling Water Analyses
Service Water Cooling Water

Parameter Range Design Range Design
Temperature
pH
Total Suspended Solids, mg/l
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l
Oil & Grease, mg/l
Alkalinity (as CaCO3), mg/l
Calcium, mg/l
Chloride, mg/l
Sulfate, mg/l
2-5
Cooling Water
· Design temperature
· Discharge requirements (if closed circuit)
· Analysis in tabular form (Table 2-3)
Instrument Air
· Pressure range
· Minimum pressure for instrument actuator design
· Temperature
· Dew Point
Service Air
· Pressure range
· Dew Point
Available Power, Motor Voltages

· Low Voltage
· Medium Voltage
· DC Power
· UPS
Design Fuels
For each main fuel, startup fuels, fuel blends, and any reburn ash (if applicable), include fuel
and ash analyses, providing both range and design composition. For limestone-based systems,
fluorine in the coal and aluminum in the ash must be included (see Table 2-4 and 2-5). The fuel
analysis is sometimes accompanied by a flue gas composition calculated based on combustion of
the design fuel.
Design Reagents
The RFP should include a tabulation of available reagents and design analyses for each
(see Table 2-6).
2-6
Table 2-4
Fuel Analysis (As Received)
Component Units Range Design
Moisture wt %
Ash wt %
Carbon wt %
Hydrogen wt %
Sulfur wt %
Nitrogen wt %
Oxygen wt %
Chlorine wt %
Fluorine wt %
Total wt % 100.0
HHV Btu/lb (J/kg)
SO2 lb/MM Btu (kg/GJ)
Table 2-5
Ash Analysis
Component Weight % (Dry)
Silicon (as SiO2)
Aluminum (as Al2O3)
Iron (as Fe2O3)
Calcium (as CaO)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Sulfur (as SO3)
Sodium (as Na2O)
Potassium (as K2O)
Titanium (as TiO2)
Phosphorous (as P2O5)
Undefined Components
Total 100.0
2-7
Table 2-6
Limestone (Lime) Analysis (Example)
Parameter Units Range Design
Available CaCO3 (CaO) wt%
MgCO3 (MgO) wt%
Inerts wt%
Moisture wt%
Reactivity (dissolution rate)
Grinding Index
Soluble Fraction
Unit Design Information
The RFP needs to provide the vendors with specific information on the existing and future
operating conditions for each Unit requiring an FGD system. Current and future plans for other
air pollution control components should also be restated in this section. Flue gas flow and
composition should be characterized by the Owner/Engineer and provided as a tabulation of the
expected Conditions of Service. The FGD supplier typically will perform their own calculation
of the design gas composition and flow rate based on the fuel and boiler design data supplied in
Tables 2-4 and 2-7. The results of this combustion calculation then become the conditions of
service upon which all performance guarantees are based. Table 2-7 provides and example of the
level of detail that should be included for the characterization of the flue gas. The required flue
gas pressure at the FGD system inlet is derived from FGD system and chimney pressure drop
information provided by the system suppliers, as well as plume dispersion requirements.
· Design Plant Life and Capacity Factors – this data will help the supplier to establish the
materials of construction and component sparing requirements.
· Design Fuel Blending Capability – blending fuels has a direct impact on the flue gas
composition. If the plant is blending the design coal with a waste solid fuel, liquid fuel,
petcoke, biomass, or other coals on a regular basis, then the blending options should be
itemized here.
· NOX Control Systems (Existing and Future) – NOX controls can cause specific changes
in the composition of the flue gas entering the FGD system. One example would be the
installation of an SCR NOX control system. These catalytic units tend to oxidize a fraction
of the incoming SO2, resulting in higher SO3 concentrations at the FGD inlet. In some
situations, this can cause high plume opacity downstream of the new FGD equipment.
2-8
Table 2-7
FGD Design Flue Gas Conditions of Service
Parameter Unit x Unit y Unit z

6
Design Heat Input @ MCR 10 Btu/hr (W)
Minimum Load % MCR
Fuel Feed Rate (itemize each fuel) TPH (kg/hr)
Excess Air %
Air In-leakage %
Air Heater Outlet Temperature °F (°C)
Design SO2 Loading lb/MMBtu (kg/GJ)
Design SO3 Loading lb/MMBtu (kg/GJ)
Design HCl Loading lb/MMBtu (kg/GJ)
Design Particulate Loading lb/MMBtu (kg/GJ)
3
Flue Gas Flow at Absorber Inlet Scfm (Nm /hr)
Flue Gas Temperature at Absorber Inlet °F (°C)
Maximum Temperature Excursion °F (°C) for X min.
· Particulate Control System (Existing and Future) – Upgrades to the particulate control system
can result in reduced contamination of the FGD byproducts and less chance of ash impacts
on the slurry chemistry.
· FGD Design Flue Gas Composition and Flow Rate – Specifying the conditions of service
for the FGD system will help to establish a firm set of conditions for all system performance
guarantees.
FGD System Configuration
If preliminary screening has been done, describe the plant design configuration, including
unitized vs. common equipment.
Process Selection - Specify constraints on process selection. If the technology has been
pre-selected, specify it here. If several competing technologies are to be considered, list
the allowable alternates as generically as possible:
· Wet/Dry type systems
· Available Reagents
· Preferred/allowable byproducts
· Landfill capability
· Commercially available and proven at a minimum specific size
· Proven technology capable of meeting the guaranteed performance required
· Equipment sparing philosophy
2-9
If newly developed technologies are to be considered, give reasonable limiting parameters.

Specify minimum criteria for the proposed process to be demonstrated as proven technology
(e.g. 1-year operation on a similar Unit of at least 100 MW size).
Proposed Configuration - Prior to issuing the FGD system RFP, many utilities will have already
done extensive analysis of the equipment sparing philosophy, as well as how the individual FGD
components should operate in relation to each other to best support the needs of the plant. This
analysis is particularly important in those situations where multiple FGD systems will be
installed at one site, controlling SO2 emissions from multiple boilers. The RFP can leave this
configuration design in the hands of the vendors, but that can result in wide variations in the
approach that each FGD system supplier will take to meet the performance guarantee
requirements. Some of these configuration alternatives are listed below:
· Unitized – each FGD system operating independently from the others.
· FGD modules common for two or more Units - Currently the largest module operating in
the U.S. is a 900 MW module controlling SO2 emissions from two Units at the TECO Big
Bend plant in Florida. Larger modules are operating at overseas facilities.
· Multiple trains per Unit – each train can be designed to handle any quantity of flue gas.
In some cases, utilities have decided to design parallel trains for 60-70% of the total gas flow,
so that if one train is lost, the system can still handle a significant amount of the total flue
gas. But the current trend is to install as large a single module as possible to minimize capital
costs and reduce the amount of support equipment and ductwork.
· Designing so the any Unit can be controlled by any FGD module – cross tying a multiple
train system can allow all units to continue operating in the event an FGD component failure
occurs.
Requested Line Items and Options - If, at the time of the issue of the FGD Specification, the
technology and scope split has not been finalized, list the base design and requested options. In
general, the FGD module island (absorber, primary dewatering, oxidation air system and slurry
recycle pumps as a minimum) can be the base bid and the auxiliary systems (reagent preparation,
byproduct processing, etc.) can be presented as options. The contract format will impact the
structure of this section of the RFP. Contracting options are discussed in more detail in Section 3
of this report.
Reheat - If flue gas reheat is desired, include detailed information here. Specify type and degree
of reheat and if the equipment is to be supplied by the FGD system supplier or by Others.
Bypass - If an active bypass is a viable option, include information and bypass limitations
here. The bypass can be upstream of the FGD system to a separate chimney to relieve boiler
pressure transients or around the absorber module to allow for partial scrubbing and reheat.
Environmental licensing requirements are major factors in determining the viability of these
options with bypass reheat or partial scrubbing allowed only in limited cases for low-sulfur fuels.
Chimney Design - The energy company should also provide direction to the FGD suppliers in
terms of what type of chimney design will be installed downstream of the FGD equipment. In
some cases, the chimney will be included in the FGD scope of supply, but in most cases, this
will be a separate contract administered by the energy company or its engineer. Alternatives
for the chimney can include the following:
2-10
· Unitized
· Single shell with multiple flues
· Wet/Dry
FGD System Performance Requirements
FGD System Performance – The system performance requirements will vary for each site.
A listing of typical guarantee levels is shown in Table 2-8 below. It should be noted that the
values for mercury, SO3, and opacity might not be available for all suppliers due to a lack of
field test data. Each energy company needs to define their specific requirements based on their
operating permit.
Table 2-8
FGD System Performance Requirements (Example)
Parameter Units Design
Minimum SO2 Removal Efficiency % 95.0
Maximum SO2 Emissions lb/MMBtu (kg/GJ) 0.25
Maximum SO3 Removal Efficiency % 50
Maximum Particulate Emissions lb/MMBtu (kg/GJ) 0.10

2 2
Maximum Mist Eliminator Carryover gpm/ft (l/sec/m ) 0.001
Minimum Mercury Removal % 70
Maximum Opacity % 10
Availability % 99
Power Requirements kW To be determined
Make-up Water Requirement gpm (l/sec) To be determined
Pressure Drop inches w. c. (kPa) To be determined
Waste/Byproduct Requirements - Specify requirements for waste or byproducts as negotiated

with the receiving entity. If waste or byproducts are to be further processed on-site by other
than the FGD supplier, specify the bleed stream requirements at the supplier’s interface.
The specification for the final byproduct is also tabulated (see Tables 2-9 and 2-10).
2-11
Table 2-9
Gypsum Slurry Requirements (Example)
Location Primary Dewatering Underflow
Bleed Slurry Density wt % solids 55
Minimum CaSO4•2H2O, dry basis wt % 95
Maximum CaSO3•½H2O, dry basis wt % 0.5
Minimum Gypsum Crystal Size, D50 micron 40
Table 2-10
Gypsum Cake Specification (Example – Final Dewatering by FGD Supplier)
Maximum Cake Moisture wt % 10
Minimum CaSO4•2H2O , dry basis wt % 95
Maximum Dissolved Solids ppm Cl 120
Other Design Requirements
Water Balance - Describe limitations on water usage and requirements for closed-loop
operation. Give specific plant requirements such as:
· Minimize chloride purge flow
· Air-cooled equipment and closed circuit cooling water systems
· Mechanical pump seals
Reference a preliminary plant water balance in the Appendix showing water sources and
usage, if one has been developed.
Power Requirements – The FGD system supplier should be requested to provide a specific
guarantee on the expected power consumption by the equipment within their scope of supply.
A breakdown by component will be supplied on the system data sheets that are typically
requested from each vendor as part of their submittal package. It also should be noted in the
RFP that evaluation factors for power consumption will be used to adjust the bids during the
bid review process.
2-12
Availability and Equipment Sparing Philosophy – This set of design requirements will typically
have the largest impact on the capital cost provided in each bid package. This section of the
RFP will define the FGD system availability that will be required, along with the minimum
duration between inspection and maintenance outages. If the facility is a multiple Unit plant
where common equipment must remain in continuous service because of staged Unit outages,
then this section should specify minimum FGD equipment redundancy in these common areas.
The minimum sparing philosophy for the remainder of the FGD system should also be stated in
this section of the RFP.
Noise Limitations
· Near-field limits at equipment
· Composite limits within structure and/or at plant boundary
System Scope of Supply
In this section of the RFP, the Owner clarifies the scope of supply and interfaces with the
balance-of-plant systems by listing equipment and services to be provided by the FGD system
supplier and those to be provided by Others. The following material addresses the potential
distribution of responsibilities for components and services that may be moved into or out of
the FGD Supplier’s scope, depending on plant requirements. A detailed list is highly dependent
on the technology selection. The scope may be very general for either budgetary cost estimates,
or where a detailed scope of supply is to be submitted by the FGD system supplier. For purposes
of illustration, the following example assumes that the supplier will provide a wet-limestone,
forced oxidation system, with the ductwork, balance of plant (BOP) tie-ins, foundations and
erection completed by the Owner/Engineer/Constructor. Erection by the FGD system supplier
is to be quoted as an option.
Table 2-11 provides an example of the potential scope of supply split between the Owner,
Supplier and Engineer. This tabulation provides a clear statement of the requirements for each
member of the project team. The final decision on the scope assigned to each entity will be
based on a variety of factors, including the following:
· Capabilities of each company
· Experience with similar design efforts on previous projects of equivalent size
· Interface requirements between companies
· Schedule for completion of the project and staff availability
· The extent of Owner involvement that is desired
· Job site complexity
The scope of supply should be defined in the RFP based on the project requirements of the
Owner. The following example from a previous FGD retrofit provides a breakdown of the
scope of services and equipment between the Owner and his agents and the Supplier.
2-13
Table 2-11
Summary Tabulation of the Potential Scope Split Options for an FGD Retrofit Project
Scope Split Options (Example)

FGD Subsystem Supplier Full Scope Owner/Supplier Split Owner/Supplier/Engineer
Supplier Owner Supplier Owner Supplier Engineer
FGD Island X X X
Flue Gas Path X X
Dewatering X X X
Reagent X X X
Preparation
Byproduct Handling X X X
Reagent Receiving X X X
Site Civil Work X X X
Foundations X X X
Structural Steel X X X X X
Balance of Plant X X X X
Tieins and Support
Erection X X X X X
ID Fans X X X
Power Supply X X X X
Stack Emission X X X
Monitor
Other X X X X X X
Equipment and Materials by FGD System Supplier
The following example provides a listing of major equipment and systems that can be assigned
as the responsibility of the FGD system supplier. This listing should be included in the RFP to
specifically define the vendor scope of supply. For ease of tracking, it is separated into major
disciplines. If the technology, capacities and sparing requirements have been determined prior
to issuing the RFP, then capacities as percentages of the total system flow rates and the expected
number of each component including spares should be specified.
The following discussion of the Process/Mechanical equipment provides an example of
the current sparing philosophy that has been followed in an FGD system specification. Most
commonly spared items are identified, showing where spare capacity is typically provided
within the FGD system (3-50% units indicate that one common spare is available in the event
that one of the two operating units fails). Major items in the list are followed by a listing of
equipment that is required to support the operation of that component or subsystem. The listing
of mechanical equipment is followed by a breakdown of the FGD supplier responsibilities in
other discipline areas.
2-14
Process/Mechanical
· One (1) 100% FGD Absorber Module (typical for each Unit), including:
– Inlet and outlet flue gas expansion joints
– At least one (1) installed spare slurry recycle pump per absorber
– Two (2) 100% absorber slurry bleed pumps per absorber
– Three (3) 50% oxidation air compressors, common to both absorbers
– Ones (1) 100% primary dewatering hydroclone cluster per absorber
· One (1) 100% Reagent Preparation and Distribution System (common):
– Three (3) 50% limestone silos
– Three (3) 50% limestone wet ball mill grinding systems, unitized (1) per silo
– Two (2) 100% limestone slurry storage tanks
– Two (2) 100% limestone slurry feed pumps
· One (1) 100% Byproduct Production and Handling System (common):
– Two (2) 50% vacuum filter feed tanks
– Two (2) 100% gypsum vacuum filter systems
– Two (2) 50% return water tanks
– Two (2) 100% gypsum cake discharge conveyors
· Miscellaneous Equipment and Services (common to all Units):
– One (1) 100% agitated absorber hold tank
– One (1) 100% hold tank return pump
– Cooling water distribution, as required
– All piping, fittings, valves and pipe supports and hangers
– Thermal insulation and heat tracing for Seller’s equipment and piping
– Instrument air distribution system including receivers (instrument air will be provided by
Others at the area interface)
– Design of area trenches and sumps (furnished and installed by Others)
– Sump pumps and agitator(s)
– FGD wastewater treatment system
– Service air distribution (service air will be provided by Others at the area interface)
– An automatic flushing system for all slurry piping
– Initial filling of all lubricants for equipment furnished by the Seller
– Spare parts required for start-up and testing
2-15
– Special tools and fixtures required for system operation and maintenance, and for
equipment installation and/or erection
– All delivered mechanical, electrical, and control equipment, including skid mounted
equipment, shall be prime and finish painted, in accordance with manufacturers’ standard
for the conditions of service
Civil/Structural/Architectural
· All required supports for Seller-supplied equipment, piping and ductwork.
· Access platforms to Seller-supplied equipment.
· Apply Owner’s specified inorganic zinc prime paint to all steel and piping.
Electrical
· Motors and valve/damper actuators for Seller’s driven equipment.
· 6.9 kV switchgear and 480 V Motor Control Centers for Seller’s driven equipment.
· 120 VAC power distribution system (normal and UPS-supplied).
· Above grade cables and raceway system within each area.
· Complete outdoor lighting and convenience power system within the battery limits, including
step-down transformers and distribution panels.
· Electric heat tracing system, including step-down transformers and alarm/distribution panels,
as required.
· Above-grade grounding and lightning protection systems and connections for Contractor-
furnished equipment and structures.
· Any step-down or isolation transformers, special controllers, UPS, power supplies or power
distribution equipment required by the contractor for proper operation of his equipment.
Instrumentation and Control

· All necessary instrumentation, including control valves, for process measurement and
control of the specified system.
· Westinghouse Process Control Ovation Distributed Control System (DCS) configured
for safe and reliable operation of the system.
· DCS interfacing from all local controls and control panels.
· Main plant DCS interface via Ovation data highway for monitoring the FGD system.
2-16
Services by FGD System Supplier
Process/Mechanical
· Construct and test a model of the absorbers and ductwork (option).
· Design data for pressure and flow requirements at all battery limit interface points.
· Piping specifications for all piping systems complete with pipe materials, valves and the
design pressures and temperatures.
· An equipment list, including manufacturer, model no., equipment description, insulation
requirements (including material and thickness), etc.
· Information concerning gas emissions, liquid waste discharges, quantity and quality of solid
waste (or byproduct) system design parameters, etc., as required to support the licensing
effort by the Owner and Engineer.

· Design the instrument loops, logics and control graphics for all equipment and processes
that are part of the Seller’s scope of supply.
· Develop, maintain and deliver an instrument list, DCS I/O list, and instrument data sheets.
· Complete logic diagrams.
· DCS and control system configuration, graphics design and installation design.
· Perform DCS testing and system checkout at the factory to ensure the adequacy of the
control and monitoring capabilities.
Electrical
· System short-circuit and voltage drop analysis.
· Equipment sizing calculations.
· Relay and fuse coordination studies.
· Heat tracing system calculations.
· Motor control center single line drawings.
· Schematic/elementary diagrams.
· Interconnection wiring diagrams.
· Block diagrams.
· Conduit, cable, and tray schedules.
· Equipment internal point-to-point wiring diagrams.
2-17
Structural
· Design calculations for the equipment loads, movements and foundation loads.
· Layout and size for a complete floor slab wash down and process liquid drainage system,
including trenches and a sump for each process area.
· Drawings showing all concrete embedments and anchor bolt locations required for Seller’s
equipment.
Miscellaneous
· Shop performance tests for critical specified equipment.
· Provide technical representatives to assist in the erection and start-up of Seller supplied
equipment.
· Provide pre-start-up training services including training instructors and all materials
including manuals, necessary for training the Owner’s personnel in the operation and
maintenance of the Contractor supplied equipment.
· Furnish a recommended spare parts list for all Seller supplied equipment.
· Provide Operation and Maintenance manuals for all equipment and systems.
Requested Options
Use this Section to list requested options. This can be alternate technology, expanded scope
of supply, and/or system erection.
Equipment and Services Provided by Others
Process/Mechanical
· Limestone reclaim system and forwarding conveyors.
· Gypsum forwarding and stacking conveyors.
· Supply and installation of flue gas handling and distribution equipment including induced
draft fans, fan controls, chimney, ductwork, supports, linings, lagging, and insulation up
to the Contractor’s battery limits.
· Service water to a single interface point in each area.
· Closed circuit cooling water supply and return to single interface points in each area.
· Fire protection water within each area.
· Service Air to a single interface point in each area.
· Instrument Air to a single interface point in each area.
· Model study for flue gas flow and pressure distribution throughout the absorber and duct
systems.
· Field performance testing including labor and material.
2-18

· Supply and installation of the stack Continuous Emission Monitoring System. (CEMS).
· Supply of instruments and control of other related supporting sub-systems, e.g. reagent
unloading, Balance of Plant (BOP).
Electrical
· Supply of 6900V feeder cables to Seller’s 6,900V switchgear.
· Installation of Seller-supplied 6,900 volt switchgear, MCC’s transformers, etc.
· Supply and installation of 600 volt power, control, instrumentation and alarm cables between
switchgear and control rooms and Seller’s I/O terminal cabinets.
· Cable raceway system (conduit, tray, wire-ways, etc.) for interconnecting Seller’s equipment
between the absorber, limestone preparation, gypsum dewatering, and FGD wastewater
treatment areas.
· Below grade grounding.
Structural
· Foundations sumps and trenches, for support of structures and equipment, trenches
and sumps, including all anchor bolts, embedded metals and other embedded items therein
to meet the Seller’s requirements.
· All piping racks within the FGD absorber, gypsum dewatering, FGD wastewater treatment
and limestone preparation areas.
· Ductwork, expansion joints, sliding and fixed duct support hardware.
· Buildings and pump houses (FGD system buildings/pump houses shall be quoted as
an option).
Services
· Equipment unloading and handling.
· System erection.
· Startup.
Detailed Design Requirements

The items discussed in the following material may be inserted into the detailed plant-specific
design requirements to allow for ease of integration with existing plant equipment and practices.
The design requirements identified in this section should be considered minimum design criteria
so that if the FGD supplier’s experience dictates more conservative design criteria, they could
be incorporated into the design.
2-19
In general, generic requirements should be listed in this section to allow for greater flexibility
and customization. However, if the plant has preferences for specific equipment manufacturers,
refer to a list of pre-selected manufacturers in the Appendix of the RFP.
The components of the RFP that are discussed in the following text include items that might
be considered in the system specification, and either expanded upon or reduced depending on
the function of the bid. For approximate budget costs or where detailed design is to be submitted
by the FGD system supplier, plant requirements will generally have a much smaller effect on
costs than the technology selection and design basis listed in the previous material.
General
This section provides a summary of the general plant requirements that have not been addressed
in the Design Basis section.
Process/Mechanical
This section is highly dependent on the technology selected and should be revised as appropriate.
For purposes of illustration, the following example assumes the use of wet-limestone with forced
oxidation FGD technology.
Flue Gas System

· Ductwork
· Expansion Joints
· Dampers - Isolation or Modulating
· Seal Air Fans
· Flue Gas Reheat (if required)
· Ductwork and Chimney Drains
· Absorber Module
· Absorber Vessel
– Shell materials
– Linings
– Internal supports
– Man-ways
· Mist Eliminators - Design and Materials
· Slurry Recycle and Bleed System
– Sparing
– External
– Internal piping
2-20
· Absorber Agitators
– Maintain operation with 1 agitator out of service
– Re-suspension of settled solids
· Oxidation Air System
– Sparing
– On-line sparger cleaning
– Air Stoichiometry
– Oil-free air
· Purge Air System
– Required time for man-safe entry
– Fan sparing requirements
– Safety interlocks
Byproduct Production and Handling

· Primary Gypsum Dewatering
– Primary dewatering hydroclone cluster design
– Installed spare modules
– Space for future modules
– Overflow system design and tank capacity (in hours)
– Underflow system design and tank capacity (in hours)
· Secondary Gypsum Dewatering
– Vacuum filters (belt or drum) or centrifuges
– Vacuum pumps
– Cake washing
– Filtrate collection and transfer
– Return slurry
Material Handling
· Conveyors
FGD Wastewater Treatment System

· Wastewater Sources
· Process Design
· Sizing Criteria
2-21
Limestone Handling and Preparation

· Process Design
· Material Handling
– Conveyors
– Day Silos
· Ball Mill Grinding System
· Slurry Storage and Distribution
– Sizing Criteria
– Materials
Emergency Absorber Hold System
Service/Instrument Air Systems
Flushing and Wash-down System
Slurry Pumps
· Mechanical Seals
Water Pumps
Sump Pumps
Fans, Blowers, Compressors
Vertical Agitators
Piping Systems
Shop-Fabricated Tanks
Field-Fabricated Tanks
Coatings and Linings
2-22
Civil/Structural/Architectural
· Codes and Standards
– AISC American Institute for Steel Construction – Code of Standard Practice
and Specification for Steel Buildings
– OSHA 29CFR Part 1910
– IBC
– ASTM
– AWS D1.1
· Design Criteria
· Live Loads
– Platform
– Roofs
– Floors
– Load combinations
· Materials
– Structural steel
– Bolting
– Checkered plate
– Grating
– Stairs and Rails
· Fabrication Requirements
Electrical
· General
· Scope
· Medium voltage system
– Voltage and Grounding
· Low Voltage System
– Voltage and Grounding
– Plant lighting system
– Maintenance Power
· Medium Voltage Switchgear
– Design and Construction Details
– Protective Relaying
2-23
– Spare Breaker and Starter Space

– Locations
· Low Voltage Switchgear
– Applicable Motor Sizes
– Substation Transformer Ratings
– Locations
– Spare Breaker Space
· Motor Control Centers
– Starter Unit and Contactor Design
– Spare Starters and Feeder Space
– Bus, Feeder Cable and Supply Breakers design future load growth
· Motors and Motor Protection
· Design Requirements
– Codes and Standards
– Motor Efficiencies
– Insulation and Temperature Rise
– AC Motor Starting and Acceleration
– DC Motor Starting Current
– Low Voltage Motor In-rush Characteristics
– Medium Voltage Motor Starting Currents
– Bus Voltage Drop
· Motor Voltages (see Table 2-12).
Table 2-12
Plant Motor Voltages (Example)
Motor Size Voltage Source Rating

Above 9,000 HP 13.2 kV, 3 phase, 60 Hz
200 HP to 8,000 HP 6.6 kV, 3 phase, 60 Hz
0.5 HP to 200 HP 460 V, 3 phase, 60 Hz
Below 0.5 HP, non-reversing 115 V, 1 phase, 60 Hz
Below 0.5 HP, reversing 460V, 3 phase, 60 Hz
All DC motors 115 VDC
2-24
· Motor Enclosures (see Table 2-13).
Table 2-13
Plant Motor Enclosures (Example)
Motor Type, Location Protection Class

Medium, low voltage; Outdoor NEMA TE/TEFC water-proof
Low voltage; Indoor NEMA TE/TEFC guarded, splash-proof
Medium voltage, Indoor NEMA WP-II or TE/TEFC
Medium, low voltage; Coal, Dust area NEMA TEFC/DIP/EP
Hazardous area Explosion proof
· Space Heaters
– Design
· Motor Instrumentation (see Table 2-14).
Table 2-14
Motor Instrumentation (Example)
Motor Temperature Current
Medium Voltage Six (6) 100 ohm platinum stator

RTD’s (two per phase)
Motors with sleeve Two (2) 100 ohm platinum

bearings bearing RTD’s (one per bearing)
Motors ≥ 1500 HP Three (3) zero-sequence

differential current transformers
· Cable and Raceway Systems

– Cable Design and Materials: Conductor, Insulation, Shielding
– Power
– Control and Instrumentation
– Thermocouple
– Cable Sizing Criteria
– Grounding
– Raceway and Tray Materials
2-25
– Routing and Segregation

– MV/LV/Instrumentation
– Units
– Common Equipment
· Installation
– On Structural Steel
– In Duct Banks
– Directly buried
– Entrance into Buildings
– Final cable route to equipment
· Lighting, Maintenance and Small Power System
– System Design
– Lighting system
– Convenience Receptacles
– Maintenance Power and Welding Receptacles
· Grounding Grid Design
– Grid Resistance
– Grounding Conductors
· Lightning Protection System
Instrumentation and Controls

· Control System Design
· Control System Architecture
· DCS/PLC Design Requirements
· Control Locations
· Plant/Subsystem Interfacing
· Control Concept
· Degree of Automation
· Interlocks and Alarms
· Operator-Initiated Sequences
· Automatic Start of Standby Equipment
· Automatic Flush/Drain Sequences
2-26
· Instrumentation
– General
– Transmitters
– Temperature
– Pressure
– Flow
– Analyzers
Economic Evaluation Factors
Each FGD system bid package will require some adjustments to normalize the quotations and
put them on the same basis in terms of scope of supply and economics. The following material
provides a summary of the information that will be used to generate these economic adjustment
factors. The criteria used for the generation of these evaluation factors should also be included in
the RFP package to allow them to optimize their system designs.
General Economic Criteria (see Table 2-15)
Table 2-15
General Economic Criteria
Parameter Value (Examples)

Basis Date 2005
Construction Period (Base) 3 years
Plant Life after Construction 30 years
Escalation Rates - Capital 2%/yr.
- O&M/Chemicals 2%/yr.
- Fuel/Power 3%/yr.
Discount Rate 8%
Inflation Rate 8%
Nominal AFUDC Rate 9%
Tax Rate 5%
Other To be determined
2-27
Operating Cost Criteria (see Table 2-16)
Table 2-16
Operating Cost Criteria

Auxiliary Power $0.04/kWhr
Replacement Power $0.05/kWh
Steam – Medium Pressure $3.5/1000 lbs (8 mills/kg)
Makeup Water $0.60/1000 gal (2 mills/l)
Reagents:
3
· Limestone $15/ton ($16.5/10 kg)
3
· Hydrated Lime $65/ton ($72/10 kg)
· Pebbled Lime
3
$55/ton ($60/10 kg)
· Ammonia $160/ton ($176/10 kg)
3
· Other To be determined
3
Landfill Disposal $10/ton ($11/10 kg)
Waste Water Treatment $/gpm ($/l/sec)
3
Gypsum Sales $/ton ($/10 kg)
Pressure Drop $/inch w.c. ($/kPa)
Byproduct Sales and Credits (see Table 2-17)
Table 2-17
Byproduct Credits

3
Bottom Ash $2/ton ($2.2/10 kg)
3
Fly Ash $4/ton ($4.4/10 kg)
FGD Byproducts:
· Unwashed Gypsum
3
$1/ton ($1.1/10 kg)
3
· Wallboard Gypsum $3/ton ($3.3/10 kg)
3
· Ammonium Sulfate $90/ton ($99/10 kg)
3
· Sulfuric Acid $25/ton ($27.5/10 kg)
· Other To be determined
2-28
Air/Wastewater Emissions Penalties (see Table 2-18)
Table 2-18
Air/Wastewater Emissions Penalties

SO2 Absorber Outlet, lbs/MMBtu $/0.1 lbs/MMBtu (kg/MJ)
3
Particulate Loading, grains/acf $/grain/acf (m )
3
Droplet Carryover, ml/acf $/ml/acf (m )
The calculated penalties would be added to the adjusted capital cost estimate for each bidder.
Construction/Startup Schedule Penalties (see Table 2-19)
Table 2-19
Construction/Startup Penalties

Mechanical Completion Date $/day in excess of schedule
Turnover Date/Commercial Operation $/day in excess of schedule
The calculated penalties would be added to the adjusted capital cost estimate for each bidder.
FGD Vendor Proposal Requirements
This Section lists all information that should be included with the bidders proposal to ensure
a complete understanding of the design and scope of the offering.
Technical Requirements
· Process Flow Diagram with Material Balances
· Proposed plant General Arrangement
· Preliminary or typical P&I Diagrams showing major control loops
· Electrical single line diagram showing interfacing
· Equipment/Motor list with installed and total operating power
· Control system architecture block diagram
· Filled out technical data questionnaire (included with the Specification)
· Technical exceptions and clarifications
2-29
Commercial Terms and Conditions
This section will provide each vendor with the energy company’s normal terms and conditions
for the FGD installation contract. Vendors should be asked to provide a summary of their
exceptions to this T&C package.
References/Attachments List
The following materials are typically referenced and/or attached to the RFP bid package sent to
the FGD vendors. This additional information will aid the vendors in their submittal of an
accurate bid that will provide the information necessary to allow the bids to be normalized and
directly compared to one another in the bid review tabulation:
· Process Screening Study Summary
· Combustion Calculations
· Area Map
· Site Plan
· Unit General Arrangement
· Plant Water Balance
· Consumables Listing
· Technical Data Sheets (to be filled out with Bid)
2-30
3
CONTRACTING ALTERNATIVES
For each FGD installation contract, the energy company must decide which type of contract
will best suit the needs of their company. The following section outlines a variety of contracting
options that have been employed for FGD projects in the past:
Contracting Method Selection Factors
Introduction
This section describes several factors that should be considered by an energy company when
selecting the best contracting option for the installation of an FGD system on a new or existing
Unit. The preferred option will depend on many parameters including the following:
· New plant vs. retrofit of existing Units
· Stand-alone vs. integration with an existing FGD system
· Energy company in-house engineering capability and experience
· Energy company contract management resources
· Capital and yearly operating cash flow requirements
· Risk assessment
· Required degree of “hands-on” control of projects
· Working experience with the engineer and the FGD system suppliers
· Engineer and FGD system supplier’s experiences with similar projects
· Experience with previous FGD projects within the Owner’s generation system.
Normally, the owner will determine the preferred contracting option after internal and external
consultations during the early phases of the project. A matrix of the factors listed above can
be developed to aid in the selection of the best format for the FGD contract(s).
New Plant vs. Retrofit
Retrofit FGD systems are difficult to fully characterize at the start of a project. They are
subject to scope changes due to variations in assumptions regarding environmental licensing,
underground structures, interferences with existing aboveground equipment and scope changes
to ensure that the existing facilities can support the new equipment. As such, these types of
projects can benefit from a cost-plus-incentives type of contract, which is described in more
detail later in this section. New power plants are more easily characterized and are better suited
to a fixed price approach.
3-1
Contracting Alternatives
Stand-alone vs. Integration with Existing Units
For those plants that already have FGD systems and plan to retrofit additional Units not presently
being scrubbed, a decision must be made on the extent of integration with the existing Units,
most notably reagent and byproduct handling systems. The required studies, cost estimates and
construction sequencing of an integrated project are best handled either in-house by a dedicated
engineering group or by a single-source engineering contractor, or by the FGD supplier if they
have already been identified for the project. For stand-alone systems that do not require
extensive integration with an existing system, the FGD supplier may take the lead role, with
the external or in-house engineering group acting as the Owner’s agent in a review capacity.
In-house Capabilities
For utilities without extensive in-house resources to engineer, coordinate and administer
contracts, these activities are typically assigned to a single source, engineering contractor or
to the responsible FGD system supplier who will then typically subcontract the required work.
If resources are adequate and experienced, then the Owner, potentially with an external Owner’s
Engineer acting in a review and advisory role, can administer and coordinate several major
contracts at once.
Cash Flow Requirements
Cash flow requirements will have an affect on the selection of the preferred contracting option.
Build-Own-Operate-Maintain (BOOM) contracts may be most suitable for plants with limited
financial and manpower resources (contractor provides full turnkey installation and operation
for a negotiated cost per ton of SO2 removed or other terms). There is a tradeoff between lower
capital outlay and labor costs against potentially higher total cost over the life of the facility, as
well as an overall lack of control as the project progresses from award to commercial operation.
The various contracting options are discussed later in this section, including a listing of the
advantages and disadvantages of each.
Engineer and FGD Supplier Experience
The experience and expertise of the FGD system Supplier and the Engineer may affect the
choice of contracting option. Single prime contracts require firms that have proven track records
of successful projects with similar scope (grass roots or retrofit) and equipment sizes as would be
expected in the future project. Partnership arrangements can benefit the energy company by the
sharing of expertise among the project partners.
Energy Company Culture and Method of Doing Business
This general factor considers intangibles such as the amount of control the owner normally
decides to exercise during the course of large projects, and the energy company’s capacity
to farm out work to multiple contractors.
3-2
Risk Assessment
The contracting method should take into account the ability to minimize and share risks and
liabilities. The contract should be structured so that specific risks can be allocated to the party
best able to foresee and control the risk. The following is a sample of risks that should be
considered:
· Physical - Site conditions, obstructions, underground services, climate & weather, defective
materials, defective design.
· Delay - Late site access; shortages of staff, labor, materials, time, financing.
· Direction & Supervision - Lack of communication, incompetence, inefficiency,
incompatibility, poor measurement and value assessment procedures, acceleration or
suspension of the work
· Government Policy - Changes in law, permitting and licensing, legal action by external
parties that object to the project.
· Labor - Labor disputes, work rules, stoppages, and labor quality
· Payment - Inflation/escalation, currency exchange, insolvency of one of the parties or
subcontractors, cash flow or funding constraints.
· Disputes - Delay and cost of resolving disputes, uncertainty of results due to lack of records
or an ambiguous contract, legal limits on recovery of damages.
Contracting Entities/Options
Various options exist for contracting large new or retrofit FGD projects. It is assumed that
“force account work”, in which all work is done without contract by the owner’s organization,
is not feasible for these larger-scale jobs. Therefore, outside agencies will be placed under
contract for the duration of the FGD installation contract. The following contract arrangements
have been used for previous FGD contracts. Each option is discussed in more detail in the
material that follows:
· General Contracting Method – Design/Bid/Build
· Single Prime – Design/Build
· Multiple Prime – Owner as General Contractor
· Construction Management at Risk – CM/GC
· Alliances and Partnership Arrangements
· Build/Own/Operate/Maintain (Boom) Arrangements
General Contracting Method (Design-Bid-Build)
Single prime Design-Bid-Build contracts provide for single entities in both the design and
construction phases of a project. The owner has a separate contract with the Engineer, who is
responsible for the design and preparation of contractor bid documents, and one with the general
contractor who would be responsible for the construction and administration of subcontracts.
This contracting option is the most traditional and well-understood contracting method.
3-3
Single Prime contracts are usually implemented in two stages. A pre-qualification process is
used to select a shortlist of firms (usually 2-4) deemed capable of performing the project. The
qualified firms are allowed to bid or offer a proposal for final contractor selection. If qualified,
the prime general contractor may be the FGD system supplier or an engineer/constructor.
General Contracting contracts have the characteristic that the design has to be essentially
complete before the bid and selection of the prime contractor, thereby extending the project
duration. This method is best suited for those projects where the Owner and Engineer do not
have the expertise or resources for construction management. However, this contract option
is being superseded by other contracting methods that can overcome the disadvantages of long
schedules and conflicting interests.
Advantages
· Administrative functions are transferred to the contractor.
· The role of each party is clearly defined and the bid process can lead to lower negotiated
prices.
· This is the only contracting method that gives a firm idea of the total project cost prior
to construction.
Disadvantages
· The owner must administer two contracts, Engineer and General Contractor, neither of
which acts as the Owner’s agent in contractual matters.
· The project must be very well defined before contractor selection, lengthening the project
duration.
· Care must be taken to prevent the general contractor from transferring all work to
subcontractors, thereby minimizing his cost at the expense of overall project coordination.
· The inherent inflexibility of this approach and the bid process creates adversarial
relationships between parties and incentives to cut corners and look for loopholes to raise
profits. The Owner has greater exposure to claims than with other contracting methods.
· Contractors have concerns for high cost to bid and inflexible limits to innovation if the
project design is already complete.
Single Prime (Design-Build)
A Design-Build prime contract provides for a single entity for both design and construction
phases of a project. This construction input and control at the beginning of the project can
significantly shorten the project duration and reduce constructibility-related problems.
Construction related issues could include site accessibility, crane movement, sizes of
components, construction sequencing, foundation and structural steel installation, etc. It is
most often a single Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC) contract with an engineering firm,
an FGD system supplier, or a consortium between these two entities that has capability of
completing all phases of a project. The contract is “turnkey” from initial conception through
to completion.
3-4
Advantages
· Single source responsibility for the entire project eliminates conflict between design
and construction functions.
· All administrative functions are transferred to the contractor.
· Design-Build saves time by allowing construction to begin before the final design is
completed.
· Allows maximum contractor flexibility.
· Provides additional construction expertise that may not have been available during
the preliminary design phase.
Disadvantages
· Not cost effective for “cookie-cutter” type projects that can be done in-house.
· Less effective for those projects that do not have tight time constraints.
· Owner may lose control of detailed project design unless these issues have been meticulously
described in the bid documents. Traditional checks and balances can be lost. Owner should
have oversight during design and construction, leading to potential for conflict.
· Requires an open and continuous communication environment between the Owner and
contractor, since there are no built-in checks and balances.
· Contractor’s concerns for high costs to bid, and limits to innovation if project is already
30-50% complete.
· When one entity is taking responsibility for the design and construction of the entire system,
that company is assuming higher risk over the duration of the contract. This high risk to one
company will typically result in a higher total fee than with traditional methods due to the
inability to spread the risk of a major loss over a team of partners. If used with the lump sum
payment approach, the contractor must include higher contingencies in their budgets to cover
areas of uncertainty, leading to higher project costs.
Multiple Prime (Owner as General Contractor)
The construction management type of project requires that the owner contract separately for
all major engineering, design, equipment, and construction services. The individual contractors
may subcontract their work. The owner, functioning as general contractor, must assume the total
management of the project.
This method is appropriate for small, simple, projects (if the Owner has the necessary in-house
capability) since the Owner keeps all profit that would ordinarily be earned by the general
contractor. A variation is for the Owner to let a contract to a firm to perform the management
functions for the whole project. All other contractors are then bound by the coordination from
the management firm. This option is not recommended because the power of the management
firm is not as strong as that with a general contractor, which can lead to increased friction and
legal entanglements.
3-5
Advantages
· Owner keeps the cost normally associated with the general contractor.
· Greater owner control and efficiencies for small, simple projects.
Disadvantages
· Not well suited for large FGD contracts.
· Greater risks for the Owner than with the single prime contractor methods. The Owner is
taking on the responsibility for coordination of all contractor activities in this scenario. If
conflicts arise, the Owner can then become entangled in discussions of responsibility for
negative impacts on project schedule or system performance during startup.
Construction Management
The construction management contracting method requires that the Owner contract separately
for engineering and design services, construction management, and a general contractor for
actual construction services. It addresses one of the major disadvantages of the General
Contracting (GC) method (Design-Bid-Build) in that it allows construction input into the design
phase for fast track jobs. It also addresses shortcomings of the Design-Build and Multiple Prime
approaches in that it allows owner control throughout the job while limiting the owner’s risk,
and this method is suitable for large projects.
The construction manager does not perform the construction work and, therefore, acts as an
agent for the owner without guaranteeing construction cost or schedule. Guarantees are held
by the firms that have direct contracts with the owner, similar to the multiple prime approach.
This contracting method lends itself to the cost-plus-fixed-fee method of payment to the
construction manager since it allows for major project changes as the job evolves. The owner,
architect/engineer, FGD system supplier and construction manager function more as a
collaborative team with each entity taking the lead in various stages of the project. The
construction manager becomes responsible for overall coordination.
Advantages
· There is less of a tendency to develop adversarial relationships than with single prime format.
· A separate construction manager may be more knowledgeable and experienced than the
FGD system supplier functioning in a turnkey single prime contract environment.
· Because of the collaborative nature of the project, all records and estimates are “open book”.
Schedule and construction costs can be reliably predicted during the design phase.
· Competitive bidding is retained for all work. There will be increased input by the owner
in the selection of subcontractors.
· Savings generated from value purchasing and engineering revert to the owner. Value
purchasing can be defined as savings related to bulk procurement of similar items from one
supplier, potentially under a blanket agreement where price reductions are negotiated prior
3-6
to placement of the first order. Value engineering is loosely defined as the focus on up-front
system design before system components are purchased. In many cases, design and
procurement are forced to proceed in parallel, leading to rework and redesign activities
to make allowance for variations in detailed equipment design from the original design
conditions. By investing in significant design up front, rework and redesign efforts are
minimized, and savings typically more than offset the additional expenditures at the start
of the project.
· System of checks and balances exists.
· Ability to pre-order long-lead items.
Disadvantages
· Duplication of some costs between contractors (may be offset by value engineering).
· Owner may be exposed to many change orders if project is not fully designed at start of
construction.
· Construction contractor may be qualified to perform construction tasks. If the owner requests
construction tasks, then the construction contractor loses the role of being an agent of the
owner.
Construction Management at Risk (Construction Management/General

Contractor)
The traditional construction management type contract has recently undergone some changes
to allow the construction manager to function as a general contractor and be at risk for the
guarantees instead of being just an agent of the Owner. The major difference between the
General Contractor (Design-Bid-Build) and Construction Management at Risk approach is that,
in this case, the CM enters the project before the design has been completed. Therefore, the firm
can have input from the start of the job and absorbs the risk inherent in multiple prime contracts.
There can be several variations of the CM/GC contract. One of the more popular has been
cost-plus-fixed-fee with a guaranteed maximum price (GMP). If the GMP is exceeded, the
CM/GC contractor is responsible for the overrun. If the actual cost is less than the GMP, the
savings are returned to the owner so that the firm can easily act as the owner’s agent. This
requires open book accounting so that the integrity of the CM/GC is assured.
Recent power industry contracts include variations utilizing an open book target price with
contingency instead of GMP. Some, or all, of the EPC contractor’s fee is at risk based upon cost,
schedule, quality, safety and performance. Incentives, most often related to early completion,
are also included. There is also an incentive to limit the cost since the contractor can share in the
savings of the contingency account if the original allotment is not exceeded.
3-7
Advantages
• Same as with the Construction Management method, with the additional advantage that
the CM shares in the risk while savings are returned to the owner. The CM is responsible for
the direction of the activities of the constructor and all other companies performing work
under his contracts.
Disadvantages
• Agreement and coordination of cost accounting procedures and additional resources
are required by all parties to maintain the open book approach. In many cases, different
companies will use various means of cost accounting, which can lead to misunderstandings
when completing open book audits. Most companies will resist changing their internal
procedures for one specific project because the data produced would not be directly
integrated into the rest of their annual accounting results.
• Some issues, such as rework and warranty, are difficult to ascertain as to whether they are
a normal part of the reimbursable cost or if they are excessive and should be penalized.
Alliance and Partnership Arrangements
Alliances and partnerships are an extension of the multiple prime form of contracting. It is
similar to the Construction Management at Risk type of contract with the CM being a consortium
of the major participants (owner, engineer, constructor and FGD system supplier). The partners
have a formalized, almost equivalent relationship and share in both the risks and incentives to
bring a project to completion in the most timely and cost effective manner. Team building is a
critical component of the arrangement. Direct contact at all levels between organizations is
encouraged.
Advantages (in addition to those of the multiple prime contract)

• Consensus building leads to everyone pulling in the same direction.
• Conflicts and potential litigation between partners are minimized.
• Incentives are spread to all parties so the project’s interests become a priority.
Disadvantages
• Major decisions tend to require negotiation and consensus.
Build/Own/Operate/Maintain (BOOM) Arrangement
The BOOM arrangement can be suitable when up-front capital and operating personnel are
limited and future annual operating costs must be stable and predictable. The FGD system
supplier becomes the prime contractor and takes all responsibility of ownership and operation
of the FGD system once it is constructed. In this arrangement the owner pays a fee based on
system performance, and has no input into the day-to day operation by the FGD system supplier.
3-8
Advantages
· FGD system supplier takes all risk.
· Large capital investment is not required by the energy company.
Disadvantages
· The energy company has no control over the FGD supplier’s operation.
Payment Options
There are two main classes of contracts: Cost and Fixed Price, with several variations possible
for each case. In general, Fixed Price contracts are usually better suited to projects that are
completely defined before contract initiation. Cost contracts are more suitable when tight
schedules, emerging technologies, and unknown retrofit problems cannot be resolved before
initiation of the contract. A variation on the fixed price contract is the payments based on
performance scenario that is described at the end of this section.
Fixed Price (Lump Sum)
Fixed price contracts are suitable for those projects that are well-understood and defined, such as
new plant construction. Competitive bids for clearly defined scopes can lead to very competitive
prices.
Advantages
· Best competitive price.
· Most understood traditional approach.
· Costs are fixed at beginning of job with cost changes definable.
· Responsibility and liability for design and construction issues are more easily defined.
Disadvantages
· Possibility of many costly scope changes to the owner’s account as retrofit jobs progress.
· Probability of adversarial relationship due to scope changes and complex problem solving.
· Owner can lose control over the quality of the components.
Cost Reimbursable Plus Fee for Overhead and Profit
This method of pricing a project is based on the actual direct costs incurred by the main
contractor(s) plus markups with an agreed overhead and profit margin. Cost plus fee can be fixed
or based on a percentage. In addition, modifications to cap the fee at a maximum amount can be
added. The fee does not vary with actual costs, but may be adjusted as a result of changes to the
scope of work performed under the contract. This method is sometimes preferred when a project
has to start immediately, but the scope has not yet been completely determined. Guaranteed
Minimum Price contracts are a variation to allow the contractor a minimum profit.
3-9
Advantages
· Scope changes are easily handled as the job progresses.
Disadvantages
· Limited incentives for the contractor to improve project schedule and costs.
Performance-Based Contracts
Performance-based payment and incentives support fixed-price contracts by focusing on results

rather than level of effort. Project goals and methods to measure attainment of the goals are
clearly defined in the contract. Payments of incentives for meeting and exceeding the goals are
strictly defined by a formula based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target
costs.
Typical goals include cost, schedule and performance. While schedule and performance can be
clearly defined, target cost is somewhat nebulous since all costs are not known at the start of the
job. The “Open Book” target price is used to totally define the baseline project cost. This method
allows development, input and review of all costs by all contract entities during the first months
of a project. At the end of that time period, all parties agree on the target price, the book is
“closed” and the contractor(s) is (are) free to undercut the baseline cost so long as all other
contract requirements are maintained. The incentive is a percentage payment based on the cost
savings.
Advantages
· The principal’s goals will be addressed by all entities.
· A win-win partnership between contractor and principal is established with shared risks
and rewards. There is more potential for cost savings than with a fixed price contract.
· Expectations and accountability are clearly defined.
· Efficient contract management and innovation by the contractor is encouraged.
· Industry standards and government regulations are easily applied since they can be used
as performance standards.
Disadvantages
· Much up front work is required to define specific milestones, tasks, target price and
performance standards.
· Detailed risk analysis is required up front. The greater the unknowns at the start of a project,
the more care has to be taken to allocate the risks between principal and contractor.
3-10
Cost Reimbursable Plus Incentive Fee

An alternative to the target price plus incentives would be a fully cost reimbursable contract with
previously established milestones that are used to establish fee incentives. This type of contract
would have a similar structure to the previous Performance Based Contract, but the fee would be
based on key aspects of the project performance. These could include cost, schedule, etc.
Advantages
· Scope changes are easily handled as the job progresses.
· Incentive based fee provides additional cost control and motivation for improved
performance.
Disadvantages
· Schedule is established based on consensus decision-making.
3-11
4
FGD PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES
This section provides information that can be used to review design specifications in vendor bid
packages for a new FGD system to provide some assurance that performance requirements can
be achieved. The material is divided into two major subsections. The first subsection addresses
the performance of wet lime/limestone FGD systems, and the second subsection addresses the
performance of lime-based spray dryer FGD systems.
For wet lime/limestone FGD systems, the section includes information to evaluate performance
objectives and claims for three critical areas of a proposed FGD system: SO2 removal, gypsum
properties (where appropriate), and mist eliminator performance.
For SO2 removal, the information is presented in the form of graphs that allow the reader to
predict liquid-to-gas ratios required to achieve a given SO2 removal level for a range of coal
sulfur, coal chloride, and reagent ratio values. Curves are provided for magnesium-enhanced
lime (Mg-lime) and limestone reagents, and for three absorber design types. The types of
absorbers include conventional open spray towers, with and without liquid distribution rings,
and tray towers. Other processes that employ non-conventional design aspects such as jet
bubbling reactors or co-current absorbers are not included.
For gypsum properties, the information provided includes a combination of written guidelines
and graphical information. For expected mist eliminator performance, a general design guideline
is provided for parameters such as the typical number of stages, blade spacing, number of passes,
and blade profile. For the mist eliminator wash system, parameters such as coverage ratio, wash
intensity and wash pressure are discussed.
Minimum design requirements are also addressed for spray dryer FGD systems. This section
primarily compiles and presents previous results from EPRI-sponsored pilot-scale testing, such
as at the Environmental Control Technology Center (ECTC) and Arapahoe Research Center.
These previous results show SO2 removal performance as a function of variables such as system
inlet SO2 concentration, particulate control device type, recycle rate, chloride level, and approach
to adiabatic saturation. General guidelines are also included for design issues such as lime
reactivity, corrosion protection, and spray dryer vessel flue gas residence time.
Wet Lime/Limestone FGD System Performance
This subsection addresses three major components of wet FGD system performance:
SO2 removal, gypsum/byproduct properties, and mist eliminator performance.
Each is discussed below.
4-1
FGD Performance Guidelines
SO2 Removal Performance
This subsection describes how SO2 removal performance is affected by a number of operating
parameters, reagent choice, and absorber design. Specific operating parameters considered
include liquid-to-gas ratio (L/G), FGD inlet SO2 concentration, reagent ratio, and FGD liquor
chloride concentration. Other parameters including absorber gas velocity, limestone grind and
the use of performance additives are also discussed qualitatively. Reagents considered include
limestone and Mg-lime. Absorber designs considered include spray towers, spray towers with
liquid distribution rings, and tray towers.
The results are presented in graphical form, so the reader can readily determine a reasonable L/G
requirement for achieving a desired SO2 removal percentage with a specified system design. For
a limestone system, the critical operating parameters that must be known to use the graphs in this
section include:
· The expected scrubbing liquor chloride concentration, which can be estimated by material
balance.
· The reagent addition rate (in terms of reagent ratio, or moles calcium added per mole
SO2 removed).
· The inlet gas SO2 concentration (expressed in lb SO2/MM Btu of heat input, which can be
calculated from the design coal sulfur and heat contents).
Additional graphs are presented to allow adjustments to be made to the L/G requirement
determined for a spray tower to account for the use of a tray inside the absorber, or for designs
that use liquid distribution rings (used to improve liquid-gas contact within a spray tower).
To develop these graphs, a base case was chosen, and EPRI’s FGDPRISM computer model
was used to develop a limestone spray tower design. Then, additional cases were run to
quantify the impacts of variations to operating parameters and tower design on performance.
The FGDPRISM computer model is a first-principles model of wet lime and limestone FGD
systems. The model can predict SO2 removal given certain operating parameters, including
reagent ratio, inlet gas composition, absorber design details, L/G, and others. The model uses
standard two-film mass transfer theory, where the user inputs a gas and a liquid film coefficient.
A limestone dissolution rate constant is also used. These coefficients can be determined from
full-scale operating data. The values used in the calculations presented here are based on typical
values for full-scale, spray absorber systems for which the FGDPRISM model has been
calibrated.
Although the model coefficients used are based on previous full-scale calibration results,
the actual calibration values for a particular absorber can vary significantly from the values
used here. Such calibration changes can markedly change the relationship between L/G and SO2
removal at a given set of operating conditions. Consequently, the graphs presented in this section
should be considered as guidelines and not as absolute predictors of the performance of a given
FGD design.
4-2
The bulk of this effort was focused on limestone FGD systems, but some calculations were
also made for a Mg-lime FGD system as well. The operating variables that affect the L/G
requirement for Mg-lime systems are mainly mechanical design features and are highly specific
to a particular design. However, the calculations made here are based on typical operating
conditions from full-scale systems.
FGDPRISM Base Case Limestone Spray Tower Design & Selection of Variable Ranges
A typical design basis was chosen based on experience with recent FGD system designs.
Table 4-1 summarizes the design basis used for the FGDPRISM cases.
Table 4-1
FGDPRISM Limestone Spray Tower Base Case Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Coal/Flue Gas Analysis:
% Sulfur 1.97
HHV, Btu/lb (kg-cal/kg) 13,100 (7280)
Scrubber Inlet Gas SO2, lb/MMBtu (g/GJ) 3.0 (1290)
Absorber Design:
Number of spray levels 3
Header spacing, ft (m) 6 (1.8)
Gas Velocity, ft/sec (m/s) 12 (3.7)
Reagent Specifications:
Limestone Grind, %<325 mesh (% <44 mm diameter) 90 (90)
Limestone % CaCO3 95
Limestone % Inerts 5
Other Operating and Design Parameters:
Reagent Ratio (mole Ca/mole SO2 removed) 1.05
Liquor Chloride level, ppm 25,000
Forced Oxidation Level, % 99
Gypsum Product % solids 90
Circulating Slurry, %solids 12

3
L/G (calculated for 98% removal) gal/1000 acf (l/m ) 153 (20.4)
Slurry pH (calculated by FGDPRISM) 5.45
4-3
The coal analysis was chosen to result in an inlet gas SO2 level of 3 lb/MMBtu (1290 g/GJ).
The absorber was designed for a gas velocity of 12 ft/sec (3.7 m/s) with three spray levels, each
6 ft (1.8 m) apart. A typical limestone grind of 90% < 325 mesh (90% < 44 mm diameter) was
chosen and a reagent ratio of 1.05 moles calcium added per mole SO2 removed was specified.
The coal chloride level was adjusted to result in a buildup in the scrubbing liquor to 25,000 ppm.
The system was specified to be a forced oxidation design with 99% oxidation of the scrubbed
SO2 being achieved, and producing a 90 wt% solids dewatered gypsum product. A solids content
of 12 wt% was specified for the circulating absorber slurry.
Based on these specifications for the base case, the default FGDPRISM mass transfer parameters
(gas and liquid film coefficients) were used to calculate the required L/G and the resulting
slurry pH for various SO2 removal levels. These default mass transfer parameters are based on
numerous calibrations that have been made for existing full-scale forced oxidation FGD systems.
For 98% removal, an L/G of 153 gal/1000 acf (20.4 l/m3) was calculated by FGDPRISM, and the
circulating slurry pH was predicted to be 5.45.
Once the base case design was completed, a range of variation for each operating parameter was
chosen to establish the bounds for the FGDPRISM predictions. The range was selected to be
large enough to encompass virtually all situations that are likely to be encountered with new
FGD systems. This range was established based on interviews with URS Corporation in-house
FGD experts.
Table 4-2 shows the ranges selected for investigation for each of the critical design parameters.
The effects of limestone grind and gas velocity were not quantified using FGDPRISM, but are
discussed qualitatively later in this section. The impacts of limestone inerts content and inlet gas
fly ash on gypsum quality were determined by using FGDPRISM to make overall FGD system
material balances. Those results are included later in this section. In all other cases, at least three
levels of each parameter were simulated using the FGDPRISM model, and plots were made to
allow interpolation.
Table 4-2
Ranges for FGD Operating Parameters
Parameter Range of Values
Inlet SO2, lb/MMBtu (g/GJ) 1.0 – 9.0 (430 – 3870)
Reagent Ratio 1.02 – 1.10
Liquor Chloride level, ppm 5,000 – 40,000
% SO2 Removal (L/G’s to be calculated to

95 – 98+
nominally achieve these removal levels)
4-4
Results from FGDPRISM Simulations of Operating Parameter Variations
The following sections summarize the results of the FGDPRISM model runs to predict variations
in SO2 removal performance, and required L/G changes for maintaining desired SO2 removal in
the range of 95% to 98% when those variations are encountered. The results of the FGDPRISM
simulations for a tray tower and for using a magnesium-enhanced lime reagent are also presented
and discussed.
Effects of Inlet SO2
Figure 4-1 summarizes the FGDPRISM model predictions for variations in inlet SO2 around the
base case (25,000 ppm Cl, 1.05 reagent ratio). Inlet SO2 levels corresponding with coal sulfur
levels of 1.0, 3.0, 6.0, and 9.0 lb/MMBtu were considered (430, 1290, 2580, and 3870 g/GJ). For
each inlet SO2 level, a series of runs was made to show the variation in SO2 removal performance
as a function of L/G. As expected, increases in inlet SO2 require increases in L/G to maintain
removal. For example, at a 1.0 lb/MMBtu inlet SO2 level (430 g/GJ), 95% removal is predicted
to be achieved with an L/G of about 70 gal/1000 acf (9.3 l/m3), but at a 6.0 lb/MMBtu inlet SO2
level (2580 g/GJ), an L/G of about 170 gal/1000 acf (23 l/m3) is needed. These curves show that
the increase in L/G is not directly proportional to the increase in inlet SO2 (i.e. increasing inlet
SO2 by a factor of six required less than a three-fold increase in L/G).
25000 ppm Cl-, 1.05 Reagent Ratio
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
93.0
1 lb/MMBtu
92.0 3 lb/MMBtu
6 lb/MMBtu
91.0 9 lb/MMBtu
90.0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Scrubber L/G (gal/1000acf)
Figure 4-1
Base Case Variations for Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal
-
(25,000 ppm Cl , 1.05 Reagent Ratio)
Note: 1 gal/1000 acf = 0.134 l/m3, 1 lb/MM Btu = 430 g/GJ
4-5
Note that for each of these curves, the removal asymptotically approaches a very high level
(>99%), which represents an upper limit determined by the physical design of the absorber
(i.e., number and layout of spray stages, the percentage gas sneakage around the sprays, etc.).
The upper limit can only be approached with a large excess of alkalinity through either a very
high L/G or the use of additives such as dibasic acid. The curves in Figure 4-1 show that the
required L/G increases dramatically as removal approaches 99%. These curves suggest that the
extra costs (larger pumps, more energy consumption) associated with very high removals
(above 98%) may not be warranted, or at least approach a point of diminishing returns.
Effects of Reagent Ratio
Figures 4-2 and 4-3 show the predicted impact of varying reagent ratio from 1.02 to 1.10 for
varying levels of inlet SO2 at 25,000 ppm chloride in the scrubbing liquor (base case level).
Figures 4-4 through 4-6 summarize similar predicted results for the three reagent ratio values
at a 5,000 ppm chloride concentration, and Figures 4-7 through 4-9 illustrate the effect of reagent
ratio at 40,000 ppm chloride.
-
25000 ppm Cl , 1.02 Reagent Ratio
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
93.0
1 lb/MMBtu
92.0
3 lb/MMBtu
91.0 6 lb/MMBtu
9 lb/MMBtu
90.0
75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Figure 4-2
-
Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (25,000 ppm Cl , 1.02 Reagent Ratio)
Note: 1 gal/1000 acf = 0.134 l/m3, 1 lb/MM Btu = 430 g/GJ)
4-6
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
1 lb/MMBtu
93.0 3 lb/MMBtu
6 lb/MMBtu
92.0
9 lb/MMBtu
91.0
90.0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Figure 4-3
-
Note that the reagent ratios shown in these figures are based on the amount of excess
limestone present in the slurry fed to the absorber nozzle headers. As described later in this
section, systems that use hydrocyclones for primary dewatering can be designed to operate at
higher reagent ratios in the absorber feed slurry than is reflected in the overall system reagent
ratio. This is because the hydrocyclones can be designed to separate a stream rich in the smaller
reagent solids for return to the absorber, while allowing the larger gypsum solids to leave the
system as a byproduct.
As shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3, designing a system for very low reagent ratio can require
very high values for L/G, particularly for the higher inlet SO2 levels. The L/G requirement for a
reagent ratio of 1.02 can be more than 50% higher than the required L/G for a reagent ratio of
1.10. Designing a system with a high L/G provides more flexibility in terms of operation, but at
an increase in capital and/or operating costs. For example, if a system is designed for a reagent
ratio of 1.02 but can operate at a higher reagent ratio, then pumps may be turned off to save
energy. This requires a higher cost for limestone, but saves energy costs. The relative costs of
these resources will determine the optimum mode of operation. On the other hand, if a system is
designed for 1.10 reagent ratio, then there may not be sufficient pump capacity to operate at a
lower limestone addition rate. This would limit the flexibility of the system for minimizing the
costs of operation.
4-7
Another consideration in the choice of a reagent ratio for the design of a forced-oxidation
limestone FGD system is whether the gypsum byproduct will be sold for wallboard manufacture.
If so, the wallboard manufacturer’s specifications for the gypsum must be considered.
Those specifications typically include a minimum gypsum percentage and a maximum chloride
content, among others. A system must be designed for operation at a low enough reagent ratio
that there is not too much excess limestone in the product. Material balance calculation results
are presented later in this section that address these limits. Alternately, the system may be
designed with hydrocyclones to separate excess limestone reagent from the larger gypsum
particles that are sent to byproduct recovery. This allows operation of the absorbers at higher
reagent ratio while still achieving the required gypsum quality.
Figures 4-4 through 4-6 show that at lower chloride levels (5,000 ppm) the increase in L/G
requirement for operating at a lower reagent ratio is slightly reduced from that when operating
at a 25,000 ppm chloride concentration. However, there is still nearly a 50% difference in the
L/G requirement between a design for 1.02 reagent ratio and 1.10 reagent ratio. The results in
Figures 4-7 through 4-9 show similar results for the impact of reagent ratio on L/G requirement
at 40,000 ppm chloride as were shown for a 25,000 ppm chloride concentration.
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
1 lb/MMBtu
93.0
3 lb/MMBtu
92.0 6 lb/MMBtu
9 lb/MMBtu
91.0
90.0
50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325
Figure 4-4
-
Scrubber L/G vs. Percent SO2 Removal (5000 ppm Cl , 1.02 Reagent Ratio)
4-8
-
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
93.0
1 lb/MMBtu
92.0
3 lb/MMBtu
91.0 6 lb/MMBtu
9 lb/MMBtu
90.0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Figure 4-5
-
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
1 lb/MMBtu
93.0 3 lb/MMBtu
6 lb/MMBtu
92.0
9 lb/MMBtu
91.0
90.0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Figure 4-6
-
4-9
-
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
93.0
1 lb/MMBtu
92.0
3 lb/MMBtu
91.0 6 lb/MMBtu
9 lb/MMBtu
90.0
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375
Figure 4-7
-
-
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
1 lb/MMBtu
93.0 3 lb/MMBtu
6 lb/MMBtu
92.0 9 lb/MMBtu
91.0
90.0
50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325
Figure 4-8
-
4-10
100.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
96.0
% Removal
95.0
94.0
1 lb/MMBtu
93.0 3 lb/MMBtu
6 lb/MMBtu
92.0 9 lb/MMBtu
91.0
90.0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Figure 4-9
-
Effects of Liquor Chloride Level
A comparison of the results in Figures 4-1, 4-5 and 4-8 shows the predicted effects of liquor
chloride concentration on SO2 removal performance at the base case reagent ratio of 1.05. For the
lower inlet SO2 levels, the removal versus L/G curves are very similar for all chloride levels. At a
1.0 lb/MMBtu inlet SO2 level (430 g/GJ), the required L/G increases only by approximately 5
gal/1000 acf (0.7 l/m3) as the chloride level increases from 5,000 to 40,000 ppm. However, at the
higher inlet SO2 levels, increased chloride concentrations markedly increase the L/G requirement
for a specified removal. At a 6.0 lb/MMBtu inlet SO2 level (2580 g/GJ), the predicted L/G
required to achieve 95% removal increases from about 160 gal/1000 acf (21 l/m3) to nearly 200
3
gal/100 acf (27 l/m ) as the chloride concentration increases from 5,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm.
One possible explanation for this is that at higher inlet SO2 levels, more alkalinity must be
obtained from limestone dissolution as the slurry falls through the absorber. At higher chloride
levels, the dissolved calcium level is also elevated, which tends to retard limestone dissolution,
thus requiring a higher L/G to supply the needed alkalinity. This effect can be overcome at lower
inlet SO2 levels since more of the alkalinity necessary for SO2 absorption can come from the
liquid phase as opposed to dissolution of limestone.
4-11
A comparison of results plotted in Figures 4-2, 4-4 and 4-7 shows the predicted effects of
chloride concentration at a reagent ratio of 1.02. The trends are similar to those for a 1.05
reagent ratio. That is, the L/G requirement increases markedly with increasing chlorides
at higher inlet SO2, but less significantly at lower inlet SO2 levels. Overall, though, the effects
of increasing chloride concentration on L/G requirements are greater at the 1.02 reagent ratio.
For example, at a 6.0 lb/MMBtu inlet SO2 level (2580 g/GJ) and a 1.02 reagent ratio, the
predicted L/G required to achieve 95% removal increases by about 50 gal/1000 acf (6.7 l/m3)
as the chloride concentration increases from 5,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm. At a 1.05 reagent ratio
the corresponding increase is about 40 gal/1000 acf (5.3 l/m3).
A comparison of results plotted in Figures 4-3, 4-6 and 4-9 shows that at the higher reagent
ratio of 1.10, elevated chloride concentrations have a reduced effect on the L/G requirement
for achieving a specified SO2 removal level. For the 6.0 lb/MMBtu inlet SO2 level (2580 g/GJ)
example, at a 1.10 reagent ratio the predicted L/G required to achieve 95% removal increases
by only 20 gal/1000 acf (2.7 l/m3) as the chloride concentration increases from 5000 ppm to
40,000 ppm. This is probably a result of having a large excess of limestone in the circulating
slurry. Also, the higher reagent ratio significantly increases the scrubbing slurry pH, which
increases the liquid phase alkalinity available for reacting with absorbed SO2.
Effects of Absorber Flue Gas Velocity
Absorber performance can be approximately described by the following expression:
Number of Transfer Units
(NTU) = ln (SO2in/SO2out) = K x A/G [4-1]
Where:
SO2in and SO2out = absorber inlet and outlet SO2 concentrations;
2 2
K (lb/hr-ft or kg/h-m ) = average overall gas-phase mass transfer coefficient;
2 2
A (ft or m ) = total interfacial area for mass transfer; and
G (lb/hr or kg/hr) = total gas flow rate.
This expression assumes that the equilibrium partial pressure of SO2 above the FGD liquor is
small compared to the inlet and outlet concentrations.
All of the absorber performance correlations plotted previously in this section were for a flue gas
velocity of 12 ft/sec (3.7 m/s) through the absorber. Equation 4-1 suggests that if K and A are
relatively independent of gas velocity, the SO2 removal across the absorber expressed as NTU
would decrease in direct proportion to increased velocity, and increase in direct proportion to
decreased velocity if the liquid rate (i.e., interfacial area for mass transfer) was held constant.
However, data collected in two EPRI-funded test programs showed that, on average, the NTU
across a spray absorber changed by only approximately ±0.2 NTU, or by about 5%, as the flue
gas velocity through the absorber varied between 10 and 15 ft/sec (3.0 and 4.6 m/s) and the
liquid rate was held constant [1, 2]. Under some conditions the NTU increased as the velocity
increased, and at others the NTU decreased as velocity increased, within the range of ±0.2 NTU.
4-12
These increases or decreases with a 50% increase in velocity (from 10 to 15 ft/sec [3.0 to 4.6
m/s]) with no change in liquid rate are small relative to what Equation 4-1 predicts. The equation
predicts a 33% decrease in NTU with this velocity increase, if K and A were independent of
velocity, whereas the observed impact was 5% or less in either direction. These data suggest that
the overall gas-phase mass transfer coefficient, K, is very dependent on gas velocity over this
range. It is also possible that the effective interfacial area, A, improves with velocity, due to
possibly improved gas flow distribution across the absorber cross section and due to increased
droplet holdup in the absorber at higher gas velocities.
Over a typical range of design absorber flue gas velocity (e.g., from approximately 9 ft/sec
to 15 ft/sec [2.7 to 4.6 m/s]) the predicted performance at 12 ft/sec (3.7 m/s) for a given liquid
rate would likely change by only a small percentage with velocity (within ±5% of the predicted
NTU). The direction of any such change with velocity could be either positive or negative,
depending on specifics of the absorber design.
The performance curves in Figures 4-1 through 4-9 show predicted SO2 removal as a function
of L/G. At a given L/G, the liquid rate would vary in direct proportion with the gas velocity,
whereas the effects of gas velocity on removal are considered to be small when the liquid
rates are held constant. Consequently, to use the curves in Figures 4-1 through 4-9 to estimate
performance at other gas velocities, the L/G values in the figures need to be corrected by a factor
of 12 divided by the new velocity (or 3.7 divided by the new velocity in m/s). For example,
if the predicted L/G value in one of these figures to achieve 95% SO2 removal at a gas velocity of
12 ft/sec (3.7 m/s) is 100 gal/1000 acf (13.4 l/m3), an estimate of the L/G required at the same
conditions but 10 ft/sec (3.0 m/s) gas velocity would be 120 gal/1000 acf (16.0 l/m3).
Effects of Limestone Grind
First generation FGD systems were typically designed to prepare and use relatively coarse
limestone reagent grinds, such as 90% minus 200 mesh (90% by weight less than 74 microns in
diameter). However, when operated at high SO2 removal levels, these early systems were often
plagued with poor limestone utilization, resulting in increased limestone consumption, increased
waste disposal quantities, and related mist eliminator scaling and plugging. In this early system
experience, finer limestone grinds were determined to greatly improve FGD system operation.
For example, at Central Illinois Light Company’s Duck Creek Generating Station, it was
determined that improving the feed limestone fineness from 86% minus 200 mesh to 87% minus
325 mesh (87% by weight less than 44 microns in diameter) improved limestone utilization at a
scrubber pH set point of 5.8 from 58% to 92% [3]. Based on this early experience, later
generation FGD systems have been designed to prepare and use much finer limestone grinds,
typically 90% minus 325 mesh (90% by weight less than 44 microns in diameter).
EPRI evaluated the effects of even finer limestone grind fineness in pilot-scale tests conducted
at their Environmental Control Technology Center [4]. In those tests they saw little change in
either limestone utilization or SO2 removal performance when increasing the grind fineness
from 90% minus 325 mesh to 98% minus 325 mesh. However, the EPRI tests were conducted
at a maximum chloride concentration in the FGD liquor of approximately 21,000 ppm. At higher
chloride levels (e.g., the 40,000 ppm level used in some of the figures presented above) there
may be some benefit of limestone grinds finer than 90% minus 325 mesh. This potential benefit
4-13
is due to the elevation of calcium levels in the liquor at high chloride concentrations and the
common ion effect on limestone dissolution.
The limestone reagent performance estimates presented earlier in this section are based on a
typical current-generation limestone slurry particle size distribution that is 90% minus 325 mesh.
However, it is possible that a finer limestone grind (e.g., 95% minus 325 mesh) could improve
the predicted performance for the 40,000 ppm chloride cases.
Performance Additives
A number of limestone reagent FGD systems use organic acid buffers to enhance SO2 removal
performance and/or to improve reagent utilization. These organic acid buffers provide increased
liquid phase alkalinity, so the scrubber SO2 removal performance is not as dependent on
limestone dissolution within the absorber. The use of organic acid buffers can allow an FGD
system to operate at higher SO2 removal levels, or to maintain a given SO2 removal level at
reduced reagent ratio and/or reduced L/G.
An organic acid buffer commonly used as an FGD performance additive is dibasic acid (DBA).
DBA is a trade name for a mixture of adipic, glutaric, and succinic acids available as a byproduct
from the production of nylon monomers. Some chemical vendors call this mixture “AGS.” Other
organic acid buffers can be used, including pure adipic acid, formic acid, and the sodium salt of
formic acid, sodium formate, although these purer chemicals are generally more expensive than
the byproduct when put on an equivalent performance enhancement basis.
The price of the byproduct can fluctuate over a wide range, depending on the markets for nylon
monomers and for other uses of the byproducts. Because of the uncertainty in the price of these
additives, it is unlikely that a new FGD system would be designed to rely on performance
additives to achieve desired SO2 removal levels. However, it is likely that a new system would be
designed with the ability to use organic acid buffers, to take advantage of their benefits when
cost effective.
Performance additives may not increase SO2 removal in absorbers that already operate at or near
the gas film mass transfer limit. In these systems SO2 removal is limited by the rate at which SO2
diffuses from the bulk gas to the droplet surface, such that increasing liquid-phase alkalinity in
the droplet has little effect on overall SO2 removal. These are typically FGD systems that already
achieve high (e.g., >95%) SO2 removal across the absorbers, and/or FGD systems that treat
flue gas with a very low inlet SO2 concentration. However, even in these systems, performance
additives may allow the current SO2 removal to be achieved at lower reagent ratio or a reduced
L/G.
Also, performance additives are typically not cost effective in systems that operate with a
relatively open water loop (once-through water usage or low cycles of concentration), as the
additives are lost with the blowdown liquor. These so-called “solution” losses occur in all FGD
systems with the water that remains adhered to dewatered FGD solids. Solution loss rates can be
calculated by material balance.
4-14
“Non-solution” losses also occur in all FGD systems to a varying extent. These include oxidative
degradation (to species that do not provide buffering capacity), coprecipitation with solids
forming in the absorber recirculating slurry, and vaporization into flue gas and/or oxidation air.
DBA does not vaporize to any significant extent in FGD systems. The relative importance of
DBA degradation and coprecipitation losses depends on the FGD system oxidation mode. In
forced oxidized systems, DBA coprecipitation losses have been found to be insignificant;
degradation is the primary non-solution loss mechanism. In inhibited or low percent natural
oxidation systems, coprecipitation is typically the primary non-solution DBA loss mechanism,
but degradation can also be significant. Performance additive consumption due to non-solution
losses can vary widely from site to site, though.
The overall cost effectiveness of performance additives is very site specific, depending on the
amount of benefit realized, the additive consumption rate, and delivered additive costs. This cost
effectiveness varies by the type of additive considered, as each will produce different levels of
benefit, be consumed at different rates, ship from different locations (different freight costs), and
have different f.o.b. prices.
To estimate of the effectiveness of performance additives at a particular site, the results of

Department of Energy (DOE) and EPRI funded testing at five energy company sites can be used
as a guideline [5]. However, this is only an estimate; the effectiveness of additives can vary
widely from system to system.
In the DOE/EPRI study, four of these sites were tested for performance improvement and
additive consumption rate at additive concentrations of 1050 ppm to 1200 ppm as DBA or
as formate ion in the absorber recirculating slurry liquor. The observed improvement in SO2
removal performance was in the range of 1.0 to 1.5 NTU (defined below), and the average
additive consumption rate was 11 lb of additive per ton of SO2 removed by the system
(5.5 kg/metric ton removed). Additive consumption is expressed as weight of DBA or formate
ion consumed on a dry basis.
The actual additive consumption rates ranged from 9 lb/ton to 17 lb/ton (4.5 to 8.5 kg/metric
ton), and included both solution and non-solution losses. These were all systems that operate
with closed water balances (no liquor blowdown) and that dewater byproduct solids to
approximately 70 wt%. For systems that blow down liquor or that dewater less effectively,
those additional solution losses should be factored into this estimate. Conversely, for systems
that dewater to a higher wt% solids level, the reduced solution losses should be factored.
The SO2 removal performance improvement is expressed in NTU because mass transfer theory
predicts and test data confirm that at lower additive concentrations (approximately 1000 ppm
or less), the effects of additive concentration on SO2 removal performance is linear when the
latter is expressed at NTU. The term NTU (number of transfer units) can be calculated as:
NTU = ln([SO2 concentration in]/[SO2 concentration out]), or [4-2]
NTU = ln(100/[100 – Absorber % SO2 Removal]) [4-3]
4-15
The performance benefit from using performance additives can be estimated by calculating
a baseline NTU across the FGD absorber(s), then calculating a new outlet SO2 concentration
or percent removal at an NTU value one unit higher. This estimate is for a 1000 ppm additive
concentration. For lesser target additive concentrations, the NTU benefit should be reduced by
the target concentration in ppm divided by 1000. Again, this is only a first estimate; the results
for a particular FGD system could vary significantly.
Mg-lime Systems
All of the previous discussions have centered on the use of limestone as a reagent in a forced-
oxidation FGD system producing a gypsum solid. However, a significant number of FGD
systems have been designed to use a high-magnesium lime (Mg-lime) reagent. The advantages
of this reagent are that the absorbers can be smaller, and require less pumping power. Thus, the
capital cost of such a system is considerably less, and the energy required for pumping the
absorber liquor is less, but the cost of the reagent is considerably more than for limestone.
The actual levelized cost for a Mg-lime system may or may not be less than that for a limestone
system, depending on the availability and cost of the reagents, actual capital costs, byproduct
disposal costs (if relevant), and other evaluated cost considerations.
This section presents results from using the EPRI FGDPRISM model to estimate L/G
requirements for a Mg-lime reagent based FGD system. These systems typically produce a
predominantly calcium sulfite waste product that must be landfilled or otherwise disposed of,
because much of the alkalinity for SO2 removal is derived from liquid phase sulfite. If the sulfite
is forced-oxidized to sulfate within the absorber loop, then that alkalinity is lost. However, some
Mg-lime systems utilize ex-situ forced oxidation (oxidation of the FGD byproduct in a separate
vessel, after blow down from the absorber) to produce a saleable gypsum byproduct.
For the FGDPRISM simulations presented here, it was assumed that the Mg-lime system would
have only two spray levels, as compared to the three spray levels assumed for the limestone
simulations. The results of those simulations are presented in Figure 4-10. As shown, the L/G
requirements are greatly reduced from the values seen in the previous limestone reagent results.
One result plotted in Figure 4-10 might be unexpected. For the higher inlet SO2 level cases
(approximately 96% removal and greater, the L/G requirement to achieve a given SO2 removal
level does not increase as inlet SO2 concentration increases as might seem intuitive. This is
because Mg-lime systems have a high level of liquid phase alkalinity. At the higher L/G values
corresponding with high SO2 removal percentages, there is sufficient liquid phase alkalinity
available that the SO2 removal performance becomes gas film limited. When gas film limited, the
SO2 removal performance is independent of inlet SO2 concentration. At the lower SO2 removal
percentages and lower L/G values, the L/G requirement becomes more sensitive to inlet SO2
level as might be expected.
4-16
100.0
98.0
96.0
94.0
% Removal
1 lb/MMBtu
92.0
3 lb/MMBtu
6 lb/MMBtu
90.0 9 lb/MMBtu
88.0
86.0
84.0
20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
Scrubber L/G (gal/1000 acf)
Figure 4-10
SO2 Removal vs. L/G for Mg-lime FGD Systems
Tray Towers vs. Spray Towers
Some FGD systems have been designed with a flow-through tray installed in the absorber to
increase mass transfer characteristics of the absorber, resulting in lower L/G requirements for
a specified SO2 removal percentage. The EPRI FGDPRISM model was used to estimate L/G
requirements for a typical spray tower design with a tray added. The base case scenario of
3 lb/MMBtu (1290 g/GJ) inlet SO2, 25,000 ppm chloride, and 1.05 reagent ratio was used.
The tray design was set to resemble many full-scale limestone FGD systems that have a tray.
The tray holes were set at 1-3/8-in. (35-mm) diameter, with spacing such that the estimated
pressure drop across the tray was between 1.5 and 2 in. H2O (0.38 to 0.50 kPa).
For a 12 ft/sec (3.7 m/s) absorber gas velocity, this corresponded to about a 40% open area on
the tray. The pressure drop across the tray was estimated to increase from about 1.5 in. H2O
(0.38 kPa) at the lowest L/G to about 2 in. H2O (0.50 kPa) at the highest L/G. The tray tower
was assumed to have two spray levels, one above and one below the tray, as compared to the
three levels assumed for the spray tower cases.
4-17
The results of the FGDPRISM tray simulations for the base case are shown in Figure 4-11.
For comparison, the predicted L/G requirements for the limestone spray base case are also
shown on this plot. The shapes of the two curves are similar, with an L/G differential of about
50 gal/1000 acf (6.7 l/m3) between the spray and tray towers at 95% removal. The differential
increases to about 60 gal/1000 acf (9.3 l/m3) at 98% removal.
-
3 lb/MMBtu Inlet SO2, 25000 ppm Cl , 1.05 Reagent Ratio
100
99
98
97
96
% Removal
95
94
93 Spray tower
92 Tray Tower
91
90
60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Scrubber L/G (gal/1000 acf)
Figure 4-11
Effect of Adding a Tray to a Spray Tower on L/G Requirements (3 lb/MMBtu Inlet SO2)
For comparison purposes, a series of tray cases were also run with a higher inlet SO2 level of
6 lb/MMBtu (2580 g/GJ). The results are shown in Figure 4-12, and at this inlet SO2 level the
slope of the predicted L/G curve is “steeper” for the tray case. At 95% removal the predicted L/G
differential between the spray and tray cases is about 50 to 55 gal/1000 acf (6.7 to 7.3 l/m3), but
at 98% the differential increases to 80 gal/1000 acf (11 l/m3).
4-18
-
6 lb/MMBtu Inlet SO2, 25000 ppm Cl , 1.05 Reagent Ratio
100
99
98
97
96
% Removal
95
94
93 Spray tower
Tray Tower
92
91
90
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
L/G (gal/1000 acf)
Figure 4-12
Effect of Adding a Tray to a Spray Tower on L/G Requirements (6 lb/MMBtu Inlet SO2)
Liquid Distribution Rings
Another recent design modification that has been used in full-scale FGD systems is the use of
liquid distribution rings. These are simply rings placed around the internal circumference of the
absorber to take slurry from the walls and redistribute it into the gas stream. These rings also
tend to push gas away from the absorber walls and toward the center of the absorber. These rings
therefore improve liquid-gas contact and result in increased SO2 removal for an existing design.
Alternatively, if these rings are incorporated into the design, a lower L/G requirement should be
observed for a specified SO2 removal.
The FGDPRISM model does not have provisions to account for liquid distribution rings.
Therefore, a proprietary empirical model was used to estimate the impact on L/G requirement
for an example absorber. The results of those calculations are shown in Figure 4-13. The figure
also shows the comparable L/G requirements for cases without the liquid distribution rings. As
shown, the required L/G is reduced by about 20 to 30 gal/1000 acf (2.7 to 4.0 l/m3) by use of the
liquid distribution rings. Note that the results plotted in Figure 4-13 represent estimates for a
specific absorber diameter and ring design. The impacts of liquid distribution rings can be very
absorber specific; these results are included as an example only.
4-19
-
3 lb/MM Btu Inlet SO2, 25000 ppm Cl , 1.05 Reagent Ratio
100.0
99.0
98.0
% Removal
97.0
96.0
95.0 Base Removal

Removal with LDR
94.0
93.0
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Figure 4-13
Effect of Liquid Distribution Rings on L/G Requirement for Base Case Conditions
Gypsum Properties
FGD systems that produce gypsum as a salable byproduct are often required to meet certain
gypsum quality specifications as part of the sales contract. Gypsum properties that are typically
specified include maximum chloride content, gypsum purity (minimum percent gypsum
and maximum percent calcium sulfite), maximum moisture content, and minimum particle
size. These gypsum quality parameters can be impacted by FGD system design features.
The following described how a number of FGD design features impact gypsum properties,
and how the FGD design can be optimized or altered to adjust gypsum properties.
Gypsum Chloride Concentration
When gypsum from a forced oxidation FGD system is used in wallboard manufacture,
the wallboard plant may place restrictions on the amount of chloride that is contained
in the gypsum product. There is a simple relationship between the scrubbing liquor
chloride concentration and the amount of chloride in the dried gypsum product:
4-20
Clgyp = Clscrub * (100 - %solid)/100 [4-4]
Where:
Clgyp = ppm chloride in the dry gypsum
Clscrub = ppm chloride in the scrubber liquor
%solid = wt. percent solids in the gypsum filter cake
Equation 4-4 can be used to estimate the amount of chloride that will be present in the gypsum
byproduct based on the design FGD liquor steady state chloride concentration and dewatered
byproduct solids content. In many cases, the gypsum filter cake will have to be washed to
remove the absorber liquor and replace a portion of it with fresh wash water. The type of filter
equipment, the wash water rate, and the wash arrangement all can influence the efficiency of the
wash operation in replacing the entrained absorber liquor with fresh water. If the chloride
limitation of the wallboard manufacturer is known, and the scrubber liquor chloride is known,
then the required wash efficiency, E (%), can be calculated:
E = 100 - (Clgyp/Clscrub) * 100/(1 - %solid/100) [4-5]
Where the wash efficiency is defined as the percent displacement of entrained absorber liquor
with fresh wash water. If the calculation summarized in Equation 4-4 indicates that washing will
be required to meet the gypsum chloride specification, Equation 4-5 can then be used to estimate
the required wash efficiency.
Effect of Oxidizing Air Rates
The relative amounts of gypsum and calcium sulfite hemihydrate in the byproduct solids
are generally a function of the oxidizing air rate. Higher rates favor gypsum formation and
minimizing the amount of calcium sulfite hemihydrate remaining in the byproduct. Oxidizing
air rates are typically expressed in terms of O:SO2 ratio (atoms of O in the oxidizing air
introduced to the reaction tank per mole of SO2 removed in the absorber). The following
describes typical oxidizing air rate designs for two reaction tank designs.
The typical design value for recently built, conventional limestone, forced oxidation FGD
systems is for an O:SO2 ratio of 3.0 for a tank slurry height of 24 ft (7.3 m), based on introducing
the oxidizing air through spargers in the tank bottom. This would be considered a conservative
design condition for oxidizing air. Some reaction tank designs instead introduce the oxidizing air
through the sides of the tank, near high-energy, side-mount agitators to help break up the air
bubbles. This in turn should lower oxidizing air rate requirements, which can produce savings in
compressor size and power requirements. As an example of the air rate requirement for this type
of tank design, the design oxidizing air rate for the LS-2 “advanced” wet FGD system at the
Niles Station is 2500 scfm (4000 m3/h) and for the tank slurry level to be held at 21 ft (6.4 m).
For typical inlet SO2 levels, 90+% SO2 removal, and 15 ft/sec (4.6 m/s) operation, this air rate
results in an O:SO2 ratio of approximately 1.7:1 to 2.0:12. Even with the revised air sparging
approach in this configuration, an O:SO2 ratio of 2.0 or less would be considered an aggressive
design with little margin.
4-21
Impact of Inerts from Limestone and Fly Ash
As described above, when gypsum from a FGD system is to be used for wallboard manufacture,
the wallboard plant may require that the gypsum byproduct contain a minimum gypsum
percentage. Of course, any inerts added to the FGD system will exit the system with the gypsum
byproduct. Care must be taken to keep inerts out of the system to the extent possible, to ensure
that the gypsum quality specification is met.
Inerts may enter the FGD system from the limestone reagent, or as fly ash that can be the result
of poor ESP operation and/or an ESP upset. This section illustrates how inerts that enter the FGD
system as impurities in the limestone reagent or as fly ash can impact gypsum purity. If the
figures included in this section predict that either or both of these sources of inerts will adversely
affect the ability to meet the gypsum purity specification, changes may be required to improve
the gypsum purity, or a lower purity specification may have to be negotiated. Example changes
could include a switch to a higher purity limestone source or upgrades to the existing ESP.
Alternately, as described below, the system primary dewatering system may be designed to use
hydrocyclones to separate limestone inerts and fly ash from the gypsum byproduct on the basis
of particle size and density. The use of hydrocyclones to achieve this separation was not
considered in generating the relationships shown in the figures below.
To generate these figures, the EPRI FGDPRISM model was used to make several material
balances to quantify the effect of limestone inerts and fly ash on gypsum quality. The results
for the material balances that show the impact of limestone inerts are shown in Figure 4-14.
Results are shown for reagent ratios varying from 1.02 to 1.10 moles calcium added per mole
SO2 removed. The impact of limestone inerts is not a function of inlet SO2 because the reagent
ratio is expressed as moles calcium added per mole of SO2 removed. As the limestone addition
rate increases to match the increase in inlet SO2, the amount of gypsum formed increases
proportionately because of the increase in SO2 removed.
As shown in Figure 4-14, when the inerts in the limestone increase, the percent gypsum in the
product decreases. So for example, if the wallboard requirement is 95 wt% gypsum, a system
should not be designed for a reagent ratio of greater than 1.02 if the limestone inerts are 5 wt%.
In that case, a limestone source with less inerts might be advised to provide some margin for
variations. If the wallboard requirement is only 90 wt% gypsum, then the limestone inerts level
can be as high as 6 wt% for a 1.10 reagent ratio, or even higher for lower reagent ratios.
Figure 4-15 shows the results of FGDPRISM material balances to demonstrate the impact of
fly ash removed by the FGD system on gypsum quality. Unlike limestone inerts, the effect of
fly ash is dependent on the inlet SO2 level. The ratio of fly ash to SO2 removed determines the
amount of dilution that the fly ash causes in the gypsum product. The results in Figure 4-15
are plotted for fly ash levels ranging from 0 to 0.2 grains/dscf (0 to 0.001 g/Nm3 [dry]) being
removed from the flue gas scrubbed. As shown, the impact of the fly ash is much greater for the
1.0 lb/MMBtu inlet SO2 (430 g/GJ) cases, with the 0.2 grain/dscf (0.001 g/Nm3) fly ash removal
level diluting the gypsum product from over 92% to about 82%. The impact is much less for the
higher inlet SO2 cases.
4-22
6
Wt% Inerts in LS
3 1.02 RR
1.05 RR
2 1.10 RR
0
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
Wt% Gypsum in Byproduct
Figure 4-14
Effects of Limestone Inerts on Gypsum Quality
95% Limestone Utilization
0.25
Amount of Fly Ash Removed in Scrubber
0.2
0.15
(gr/dscf)
0.1 1 lb/MMBtu SO2

3 lb/MMBtu SO2
6 lb/MMBtu SO2
9 lb/MMBtu SO2
0.05
0
80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
Wt% Gypsum in Byproduct
Figure 4-15
Effects of Fly Ash Removed in the Scrubber on Gypsum Quality
Note: 1 gr/dscf = 0.005 g/Nm3 (dry), 1 lb/MM Btu = 430 g/GJ)
4-23
It should also be noted that elevated fly ash levels in the FGD slurry can lead to the
phenomenon of aluminum fluoride blinding. Aluminum fluoride blinding adversely affects
limestone dissolution and can lead to suppressed slurry pH, reduced SO2 removal performance,
and out-of-specification gypsum due to poor limestone utilization. This blinding occurs when
aluminum fluoride precipitates from the FGD liquor due to elevated alumina levels resulting
from increased fly ash content in the FGD slurry, and the normal removal of hydrofluoric acid
from the flue gas in the absorber.
Gypsum Dewatering
This section describes how the design of the byproduct dewatering system affects the amount
of residual moisture remaining in the byproduct shipped to the wallboard or cement producer.
That wallboard or cement producer may have a maximum moisture specification for the gypsum
byproduct as a means of limiting the energy required to dry the byproduct or because of
byproduct handling properties.
Most FGD systems have a both a primary and a secondary dewatering device. Hydrocyclones
are most commonly used as primary dewatering devices in FGD systems that produce gypsum
byproduct. Secondary dewatering can be accomplished either with vacuum belt filters or
centrifuges. Design of primary and secondary dewatering devices to ensure gypsum quality is
discussed below.
Hydrocyclones for Primary Dewatering
Hydrocyclones, more commonly referred to as hydroclones, are devices that use centrifugal
forces to classify and concentrate FGD slurry solids. For the recent generation of scrubbers,
they are commonly used as the first dewatering step to concentrate the absorber module bleed
stream slurry prior to secondary dewatering by a filter or centrifuge. In a typical hydroclone,
slurry enters the inlet section tangential to the centerline, inducing swirling. Centrifugal forces
direct the largest and densest particles that leave the hydroclone through its apex. This stream
is referred to as the hydroclone “underflow”. The finer particles and those with a lower specific
gravity are less affected by the centrifugal forces and, as a result, do not move to the hydroclone
walls. Rather they exit the hydroclone through its vortex finder. This stream is referred to as the
hydroclone “overflow”.
There are several factors that determine the performance of a hydroclone, including diameter,
cylinder length, cone angle, and vortex and apex diameters. Normally, hydroclones are installed
in a cluster with several identical hydroclones operating in parallel. This allows the hydroclone
system to achieve a consistent performance over a range of process conditions. Each of the
hydroclones is equipped with an inlet isolation valve so individual hydroclones can be removed
from service without affecting the operation of the others.
As mentioned above, hydroclones are used to perform the primary dewatering of the scrubber
slurry bleed stream prior to a final dewatering step. The objective is to concentrate a feed slurry
stream containing 10 to 20 wt% solids to a stream with 40 to 50 wt% solids or more. Typically,
the overflow stream, which is normally returned to the process, contains 1 to 5 wt% solids or
4-24
less. This low solids stream can also be directed to a discharge location to purge chlorides from
the system. Often this is done through a secondary hydroclone system to obtain a discharge
stream even lower in solids.
Use of hydroclones for primary dewatering offers a secondary benefit, in addition to dewatering,
especially for systems producing a wallboard-grade gypsum byproduct. This benefit is a result of
the fact that smaller and less dense solid particles in the slurry, which include unreacted
limestone, inert materials from fly ash and limestone, and fine gypsum particles, will report to
hydroclone overflow rather than the underflow. As a result, the underflow stream, which is sent
to secondary dewatering and becomes the gypsum byproduct, will primarily contain the larger
and denser gypsum particles. This permits the process to produce a low moisture-content,
relatively pure gypsum byproduct suitable for wallboard production or other commercial reuse.
Segregating the unreacted limestone to the overflow stream and returning this stream to the FGD
process also allows the FGD system to maintain a higher level of limestone, or reagent ratio, in
the absorber slurry than in the byproduct solids. This allows the process to maximize SO2
removal while still achieving high overall limestone utilization.
Finally, incorporating the capability to purge a slipstream of the hydroclone overflow from the
process affords a means to remove undesirable materials such as gypsum fines, inerts, fly ash,
and chlorides. The advantage of separating the larger gypsum particles from the finer gypsum,
unreacted limestone and inert particles is not realized with thickeners, the other common primary
dewatering system used in FGD processes. In a thickener, greater than 99% of the solids in the
feed stream report to the more concentrated solids stream, the underflow, so there is little
opportunity to segregate undesired solids. As a result, few, if any, thickeners are being installed
with new FGD systems designed to produce wallboard-grade gypsum.
The classification effect of FGD particles by particle size and density is illustrated in Figures
4-16a and 4-16b. These figures provide typical data on the particle size ranges in the feed,
overflow and underflow for a typical limestone-based forced oxidized process. Figure 4-16b
presents a curve of the recovery percentage (the fraction of the total feed that leaves in the
underflow) for each particle size. The particle size at which 50% of the slurry particles report to
the underflow is termed the D50 cut point.
The FGD system vendor or manufacturer typically sizes hydroclones on the basis of their
experience or results of pilot testing. In the design, consideration must be given to classification
and separation requirements as well as composition and particle size of the feed slurry solids.
There are several aspects of the hydroclone design that impact performance, including the size
of the inlet chamber area, the hydroclone diameter, the size of the vortex finder, the length of the
hydroclone, and the size of the apex. In addition, slurry feed rate and pressure affect hydroclone
performance.
4-25
Figure 4-16
Typical Hydroclone Performance Curves: a. Particle Size Distribution Data for Feed,
Overflow and Underflow Slurries, and b. Percent Recovery of Particles from Feed Slurry
in Underflow Slurry as a Function of Particle Size
4-26
Secondary Dewatering
A number of devices are used for final dewatering of the FGD byproduct solids, to lower
the solids moisture content below what can be achieved with a hydroclone or thickener
alone. Several of these device types and their ability to achieve gypsum byproduct moisture
specifications are discussed below.
Vacuum Filters
Vacuum filters are commonly used for final dewatering of byproduct solids from FGD processes.
Normally the feed slurry to a vacuum filter has been partially dewatered in a hydroclone or
thickener, although several FGD system designs eliminate this step and bleed directly from the
absorber to a vacuum filter. There are two types of filters normally used for dewatering FGD
slurry: rotary drum filters and horizontal belt filters. Each filter type operates on the same general
principal. Slurry is fed to the filter, and a vacuum pump is used to draw air and process liquor
through a permeable filter medium while the separated solids are retained on the surface of the
filter. Both types of filters can be equipped with a wash system to displace adhering liquor, to
reduce the concentrations of chloride and other soluble ions in the process solids.
The design of a vacuum filtration system is based on the filtration properties of the feed slurry.
For systems already in service, these properties may be determined from a number of laboratory
tests. For new systems, the filtration properties are estimated based on slurry properties for
operating FGD systems that are similar in design.
The primary design parameter for vacuum filters is the specific filtration rate (lb/hr-ft2 or kg/h-
m2) for the slurry. This parameter defines the amount of filter surface area required to process a
given amount of slurry solids per unit time. The total surface area required is the sum of the areas
required for each of the sequential steps in the filtration cycle:
· Cake formation, the rate at which the initial solid cake is formed;
· Cake washing, the rate at which residual liquor in the cake is displaced by clean water; and
· Cake dewatering, the rate at which moisture is removed form the cake to reach a minimum
content.
The required surface area for each step is inversely proportional to the rate of each step.
The thickness of the filter cake, another important design parameter, is determined by a number
of factors. These include the solids content of the slurry, the magnitude of the applied vacuum,
the formation time, the viscosity of the filtrate, and the resistance of the cake to filtrate flow.
The cake resistance is primarily a function of the size and shape of the solids. In general, the
cake thickness increases with increasing slurry solids content, applied vacuum magnitude, and
formation time, and decreases with increasing viscosity and cake resistance. This suggests that
the time required to obtain a given cake thickness (cake formation time) can be minimized by
operating with the highest slurry density that is practical.
4-27
The first design objective for a filtration system is to determine the cake formation rate required
to obtain the desired cake thickness. Typical design cake thickness values will depend on the
type of filter being used. For rotary drum filters, cake thickness values of 4 to 5 mm are normally
used. Design values in the range of 20 to 25 mm are used for horizontal belt filters. The reason
the cake is much thinner in a drum filter is because thicker cakes will tend to fall from the drum
before the solids reach the discharge point. As a result, more filter surface area is required for a
drum filter, compared to a belt filter, to dewater the same quantity of solids.
It is common for FGD systems designed to produce wallboard-quality gypsum to incorporate

a wash system in the filtration step. Normally fresh water is used for the wash system.
The objective of the wash system is to displace process liquor that contains chloride and
other dissolved ions. The time required for the wash step depends on the time required for
the wash water to pass through the cake. This, in turn, is proportional to the cake thickness
and is a function of the ratio of the volume of wash water to the volume of residual moisture
in the cake. This ratio, n, depends on the ratio of the required final salt content of the filter cake
to the initial salt content (R), and on the wash efficiency (E) after a single displacement (n = 1)
R = [1-E/100]n [4-6]
As an example, with a typical wash efficiency of 70%, a tenfold reduction in the soluble salt
content of the cake (R = 0.1) would require a wash ratio of 1.9.
The final step in the filtration process is to reduce the amount of remaining moisture to reach
some minimum level. This drying step is done by drawing air through the filter cake with the
vacuum pump. The minimum level of residual moisture that can be achieved is a function of the
size, and shape of the solid particles, as well as the thickness of the filter cake. The temperature
of the wash water used also impacts the product dryness, with hot water washes promoting drier
product than cold water. The rate that moisture is removed from the cake will be rapid at the
beginning of this step, but will slow as the inherent residual moisture level of the cake is
approached. Design dry times are normally chosen to be long enough so that minimum or nearly
minimum levels of residual moisture can be achieved.
The required filtration capacity depends on the quantity of solids that the filtration system will be
required to process, and the expected filtration rates for the particular slurry the FGD system will
produce. Depending on the process, FGD slurries can vary greatly in filtration rate. Rates range
from as low as 70 lb/hr-ft2 (340 kg/h-m2) for slurries that are difficult to dewater, such as from a
Mg-lime process, to as high as 800 lb/hr-ft2 (3900 kg/h-m2) for slurries from forced oxidation
limestone processes with well-designed hydroclone systems for initial dewatering.
Variability in filtering properties for the slurry from a specific system must also be considered.
It is normal to expect some variability in the filtration properties of the slurry as a result of
process changes such as variations in unit load, fuel and inlet flue gas properties, or changes
in reagent properties. Also, filtration systems are rarely designed or expected to operate around
the clock. Rather, they are operated on a batch basis, processing solids only during part of the
day. As a result, a good deal of excess filtration capacity is normally designed into the system.
4-28
Both rotary drum and horizontal belt filters are commonly used in new FGD systems.
In general, drum filters are less expensive; however, the cost differential is a function of
capacity. Costs are much closer for smaller filters with a total surface area of less than about
120 ft2 (11 m2). Horizontal belt filters are often preferred for applications where wallboard-
quality gypsum is produced because the filtration is faster, the cake can be washed more
effectively, and, in general, a dryer solid product can be produced.
Filtration systems are critical to an FGD system’s overall reliability. They also require
frequent maintenance to continue top performance. As a result, some sparing of equipment
is recommended. FGD suppliers typically recommend 100% sparing capacity; however, a
less conservative sparing approach, such as 67% or 50% sparing capacity, can be considered,
especially if the system has a one- or two-day surge capacity for filter feed slurry.
Common materials used for the filter cloth include polypropylene, polyethylene and Dacron.
The cloth selected should have as open a weave as possible, consistent with the required feed
slurry solids content and properties, and the ability of the system to produce a clear filtrate.
An open cloth is less subject to blinding from fine solids; blinding can increase the residual
moisture levels of the final product. Use of hydroclones for primary dewatering is often helpful
in minimizing solid fines, allowing use of cloths with a more open weave. As with many
equipment choices, the initial cost of the filter cloth material must be weighed against its
projected service life.
Centrifuges
Centrifuges offer an alternative to vacuum filters for the secondary dewatering of byproduct
solids, and typically can produce a solid byproduct with significantly lower residual moisture
content. Two general types of centrifuges are used for FGD applications: sedimentation
centrifuges and centrifugal centrifuges. An example of a sedimentation-type design is a solid-
bowl decanter centrifuge. This centrifuge has a solid-bowl that spins on a horizontal axis. The
solid-bowl centrifuge usually operates with a continuous feed of slurry. As the bowl spins, solids
are forced against the bowl’s inside wall. A helical-scroll conveyor inside the centrifuge turns at
a slower speed than the bowl, pushing the solids up the bowl’s “breach” section and out of the
process liquor. The dewatered solids leave the centrifuge at the conical end while the separated
liquid discharges at the opposite end.
Another common type of centrifuge used for FGD applications is a vertical-basket centrifuge.
This is a batch-type machine with a top-suspended cylindrical or conical basket and a variable-
speed drive. The basket is lined with a fine wire mesh to retain the solids. The operation of this
centrifuge proceeds in several steps with increasing basket speed to process and separate the
solids and the liquid.
The type of centrifuge that is selected is based on such factors as the properties of the feed solids,
the use of primary dewatering equipment and the residual moisture requirements for the
byproduct solids. In general, the solid-bowl decanter centrifuge is best suited for small solids,
such as those produced by lime-based or inhibited oxidation processes. This is because the fine
solids produced by these systems tend to plug or pass through the screens of centrifugal basket
centrifuges. The vertical-basket centrifuge is more suited for FGD systems producing gypsum.
4-29
Both types of centrifuges are capable of processing slurries without a primary dewatering step;
however, the trade-off of doing this is that a greater number of centrifuges will be required to
handle the increased volume of slurry. Normally the higher capital and operating costs for the
increased number of centrifuges makes this approach unattractive. In addition, the use of
hydroclones as a primary dewatering step will reduce the number of gypsum fines in the feed
slurry. This is important because it will reduce the solids concentration of the centrate. Even with
hydroclones, however, it is common for the centrate from a basket centrifuge to contain up to
about 2 wt% solids. These solids originate from fines that pass through the screens or from slurry
that overflows the baskets. Systems that require a solids-free or nearly solids-free centrate will
need to include some type of sedimentation or gravity separation step.
Solid-bowl decanter centrifuges used in FGD applications typically have a maximum capacity
of 12 to 15 tons/hr (11 to 14 metric tons). The capacity of vertical-basket centrifuges is about
1 ton (1 metric ton) per batch. As a result of these small capacities, multiple centrifuges running
in parallel are normally required to process solids from a typical FGD system. It is also standard
practice to include at least one spare centrifuge in the design for a new system.
The key advantage of centrifuges over filters for the final dewatering step in an FGD process
is that a lower residual moisture level can be obtained in the byproduct. Gypsum solids with
moisture levels as low as 5 wt% can often be achieved. This can be important for systems
designed to produce gypsum for wallboard production because the value of the byproduct will
be greater and the transportation costs lower with a lower residual moisture level. However,
the increased value for the byproduct has to be evaluated in light of the increased capital and
operating costs associated with a centrifuge dewatering system compared to a filtration system.
Mist Eliminator Systems
The purpose of the mist eliminator (ME) in an FGD system is to remove slurry droplets entrained
in the flue gas. Not removing these droplets will cause a number of problems downstream
of the FGD system including accumulation of solids in the ductwork and stack, corrosion of
downstream ducts, and stack “rain” (emission of liquid droplets). Historically, the operation of
the ME system has been a difficult challenge for utilities and has had a large negative impact on
overall FGD system reliability. A well designed system, including a well designed wash system,
is critical for a power generator to maintain high availability of their FGD system. Because of the
importance of the ME design and operation in achieving high absorber availability, ME design
guidelines have been included in this section.
EPRI has conducted a considerable amount of research on what constitutes a well designed
ME and ME wash system, resulting in the publication of a design and specification guide [6].
That guide serves as the basis for much of the discussion provided below.
Mist Eliminator Design
Mist eliminators are installed in panels oriented perpendicular to the gas flow. These panels are
either installed with the gas flowing in a vertical direction, referred to as a vertical flow ME, or
with the gas flowing in a horizontal direction, referred to as a horizontal flow ME. Often the type
4-30
of absorber will dictate whether a horizontal or vertical flow ME is used; however, this is not
always the case. Both ME orientations have characteristic advantages and disadvantages.
Horizontal flow ME’s can be designed for a significantly higher gas velocity, 20 ft/s (6.1 m/s)
or greater, than vertical flow ME’s, which are normally designed for gas velocities no greater
than 12 to 14 ft/s (3.7 to 4.3 m/s). The reason has to do with the drainage path for liquid droplets
removed by the ME. In a horizontal flow ME, the droplets removed will drain down the length
of the ME blade, perpendicular to the gas flow. This reduces the potential for re-entrainment of
the liquid in the gas stream. The droplets removed by a vertical flow ME drain down the width
of the ME blade, counter-current to the gas flow. These droplets are much more prone to be
re-entrained into the gas.
Some of the advantages of better liquid drainage in horizontal flow ME’s can be incorporated
into vertical flow ME’s by “peaking” the ME blades. Peaked ME’s have been shown, in pilot
testing, to handle gas velocities up to about 20 ft/s (6.1 m/s) with no carryover. “Peaking” the
ME improves the liquid drainage and also increases the surface area for mist removal. However,
the peaked ME design is more expensive, requires more space for installation, is difficult to fit
into a round tower cross-section, and needs a more elaborate wash system.
The higher design gas velocity for a horizontal flow ME means that the ME can be smaller
and therefore less expensive. In addition, they are normally located in the outlet duct while the
vertical flow ME is placed in the absorber module. Locating the horizontal flow ME in the outlet
duct provides an important advantage, in that it is much easier to access the ME for maintenance
and panel replacement. Maintenance and panel removal for a vertical flow ME is much more
difficult and labor-intensive.
One drawback of horizontal flow ME’s is that pressure drop across the stages will be greater
because of the higher gas velocity and smaller cross-sectional area. A typical pressure drop for a
two-stage horizontal ME operating at a gas velocity of 20 ft/s (6.1 m/s) will be about 1 in. H2O
(0.25 kPa) compared to about 0.3 in H2O (0.08 kPa) for a two-stage vertical flow ME operated at
12 ft/s (3.7 m/s).
It is very important for both horizontal and vertical flow ME’s that the gas distribution across
the face of the blades be as even as possible. The droplet removal performance of the ME
deteriorates very rapidly as the gas velocity reaches and exceeds the point where re-entrainment
begins. This point is often referred to as the critical carryover gas velocity. Exposing even a
small area of the ME to gas velocities that exceed the critical carryover value can result in a large
quantity of liquid carryover. Therefore, it is recommended that the gas flow distribution for an
ME system not vary by more than +/- 15% from the average at any point.
The chevron-style ME is by far the most common style used for FGD applications. Chevron
ME’s are capable of removing essentially all entrained liquid droplets greater than about 30 to 40
microns in diameter. The chevrons drain well and are relatively open, which makes them easy
to wash online. Chevrons also produce relatively low pressure drop compared to other styles
of ME’s.
4-31
Chevron ME’s come in a wide range of blade design in terms of profile and number of passes
(changes in gas flow direction). They can also include such design features as hooks, drainage
channels and extended exit sections to straighten the gas. The number of passes is an important
design specification for an ME because it involves a trade-off between droplet removal
efficiency and the ability to keep the ME clean while it is on-line. In general, the ME should
have no less than two passes and no more than three passes. Blade spacing also presents trade-
offs between carryover, pressure drop and the ability to keep the ME clean. Closer spacing
makes the ME more efficient at the cost of high pressure drop and greater difficulty in washing
off adhering slurry. It is now common to design ME systems with two stages of ME’s. The first
stage, where the liquid loading will be the highest, will have a wider blade spacing than the
second stage, where the liquid loading will be much lower so washing becomes less critical.
A typical blade spacing for a first-stage ME is on the order of 1.5 to 3 in. (38 to 76 mm).
The second-stage will generally have a blade spacing of 0.75 to 1.25 in. (19 to 32 mm).
Hooks and other surface features such as grooves and slots are sometimes placed on the ME
blade to enhance performance. Experience has shown, however, that these features can provide
locations where solids accumulate, especially for vertical flow ME’s. As a result, a smooth
surface ME is recommended for a vertical flow ME application.
A final important aspect of the chevron blade design is the length of the exit-gas straightener
section, especially for the first-stage ME. If the exit section of blade is not long enough to
straighten out the gas, it can leave at an angle and cause maldistribution of the gas at the next
stage. This can result is high localized gas velocities, which can degrade performance.
The spacing of the ME stages relative to each other and to other features of the absorber,
such as the spray levels, is very important for good performance, especially for vertical flow
ME systems. The first ME stage should be far enough away for the uppermost spray level to
provide plenty of space for gravity to reduce the liquid loading to the ME. Usually 5 to 6 feet
(1.5 to 1.8 m) is a minimum spacing. There should also be sufficient room for wash header
piping and nozzles so that the nozzles can be placed far enough away from the blade surface
to provide good wash coverage. Finally, there should be a minimum of 5 to 6 feet (1.5 to 1.8 m)
between ME stages to allow large droplets that have been re-entrained from the first stage to
drop away. Having adequate spacing between stages also facilitates inspection and maintenance
of the ME’s.
Mist Eliminator Washing
Many first-generation FGD systems have to bring absorbers off line at regular intervals to
manually clean ME internals, due to scale buildup and plugging over time. Sometimes this need
for manual cleaning is due to operating at low limestone utilization (high reagent ratio).
When operating absorbers at low limestone utilization, the droplets carried up to the ME surfaces
contain a significant fraction of unreacted reagent. This reagent continues to react with flue gas
SO2 while in the ME, at conditions of relatively low pH and high flue gas O to SO2 molar ratios.
These conditions lead to the formation of gypsum on the ME surface, and can cause scaling and
plugging. This mechanism for ME plugging has been addressed in newer generation systems by
improving reagent utilization.
4-32
However, many times ME scaling and plugging are caused (or exacerbated) by inadequate
washing of the ME surfaces. Inadequate washing is often a result of incomplete coverage
of the ME face with wash nozzles, and/or washing rates that result in too low a wash intensity.
EPRI has previously studied the requirements for effective ME washing, and has recommended
guidelines. The EPRI guidelines call for:
· Washing the front face of a single-stage ME or of the first stage of a two-stage ME
at an intensity equivalent to 1.5 gpm of wash water flow per ft2 of ME cross sectional
area (61 l/min-m2).
· Washing the back side of the first stage of a vertical flow, two-stage ME at an intensity
of 0.5 gpm/ft2 (20 l/min-m2), or 1.5 gpm/ft2 (61 l/min-m2) for a horizontal flow ME.
·
2
Washing the front face of the second stage of a vertical flow, two-stage ME at 0.5 gpm/ft
2 2 2
(20 l/min-m ), or no more than 1.0 gpm/ft (40 l/min-m ) for a horizontal flow ME.
· Not washing the back side of a single stage ME or of the second stage of a two-stage ME.
· Washing the ME for a duration of at least 45 to 60 seconds each wash cycle
(at least 30 seconds of full wash water flow and pressure).
· Washing each face at a frequency of once every 30 to 60 minutes.
· Using 90o, full-cone, round spray pattern nozzles with a large minimum solids passage
diameter, in sufficient number to provide at least 150% coverage of the ME face
(180% to 200% is typically recommended). The nozzle pressure should be 20 to 40 psig
(140 to 280 kPa), and the nozzle tip should be no more than 4 feet (1.2 m) from the ME face.
The need to manually, off-line clean ME surfaces at a regular interval can generally be avoided
by designing the ME wash system to conform with the EPRI guidelines. Many absorbers have
been designed without the amount of wash nozzle overlap called for in the EPRI guidelines, and
many wash at too low a wash intensity but at a more frequent rate than needed.
Also, the ME wash water should be subsaturated with respect to gypsum, to ensure that the wash
water can effectively remove any gypsum deposits that collect on ME surfaces. Supersaturated
wash water can actually have an adverse effect in contributing to scale growth. If the ME is
washed with FGD process water (usually dewatering system overflow) and this water source is
not subsaturated with respect to gypsum, some fresh water or other subsaturated makeup water
source should be blended with this stream to make it subsaturated. A gypsum relative saturation
value of 0.5 or less is recommended.
Spray Dryer FGD Performance
This section describes the effects of key control variables and of other design features on spray
dryer SO2 control performance, and includes a number of figures used to illustrate the effects of
each on performance.
As discussed previously, for wet FGD systems there is a numerical model based on engineering
principles (FGDPRISM) available to predict the effects of key process and design variables on
4-33
SO2 removal performance. No such model is available for spray dryer FGD systems, so only
empirical data are presented here, representing results from EPRI-funded research conducted in
the 1980s through early 1990s. The available data are not comprehensive enough to allow the
prediction of spray dryer FGD system performance for the entire range of possible operating
conditions. These empirical data are therefore used only to illustrate effects of control variables
and process design features, and in general cannot be used to predict spray dryer FGD
performance at a particular set of conditions.
The figures used to illustrate control variable and process design feature effects come from six
different EPRI reports, representing pilot- to full-scale spray dryer FGD performance results
collected over the time period 1982 through 1993 [7-12]. Rather than list the source of each
figure in the text, a key to the figure sources is included in the reference list at the end of the
section. Because the figures come from a number of sources, they vary somewhat in how the
data are presented and in the level of detail about operating conditions provided on each figure.
Also, given that some of these data were collected two decades ago, it is possible that some of
the figures, while useful for illustrating variable effects, represent operating conditions that are
not offered commercially in current spray dryer FGD designs.
Given this caveat on the available data and how they should be used, the remainder of this
section provides information about key variables in the design and control of spray dryer
FGD systems.
The SO2 removal by spray-dryer-based FGD systems is typically controlled by two variables,
the reagent ratio and approach to adiabatic saturation, as defined below:
· The reagent ratio is the molar ratio of fresh slaked lime reagent added to the FGD system
per mole of SO2 in the spray dryer FGD inlet flue gas. This convention is different than for
wet FGD systems, where the reagent ratio compares the molar rate of fresh reagent used per
mole of SO2 removed by the FGD system.
· The approach to adiabatic saturation is the difference between the spray dryer outlet
temperature and the moisture adiabatic saturation temperature of the flue gas treated.
The adiabatic saturation temperature is typically in the range of 115 to 125oF (46 to 52oC)
for bituminous and subbituminous coals, and 130 to 140oF (54 to 60oC) for lignite.
The adiabatic saturation temperature is a function of the inlet flue gas temperature
and flue gas moisture content, and the absolute pressure of the flue gas (atmospheric
pressure plus or minus the pressure differential at the spray dryer).
Other plant or system design features can affect SO2 removal performance, though, particularly:
· Whether or not solids recycle is employed, and the amount of material recycled,
· The coal sulfur/spray dryer inlet SO2 concentration,
· The coal chloride level, and
· The type of particulate control device downstream of the spray dryer.
4-34
Additional parameters that can affect SO2 removal performance include the:
· Spray dryer inlet flue gas temperature,
· Coal fly ash alkalinity,
· Quicklime reagent properties,
· Lime slaking water quality, and other slaking conditions (primarily slaking temperature),
· System makeup water (other than lime slaking water) quality, and
· Whether or not bypass reheat is employed to raise the stack exit flue gas temperature.
Other design parameters may have a minor effect on SO2 removal performance, such as the
spray dryer vessel residence time or the atomized slurry droplet size distribution. However,
these design features are typically set by the FGD system vendor to ensure adequate droplet
drying within the spray dryer vessel, and are not manipulated to control SO2 removal
performance. Most spray dryer FGD vessels are sized for somewhere in the range of 12 to
15 seconds of flue gas residence time at outlet flue gas conditions. Similarly, with fabric filter
particulate collection devices, parameters such as the air-to-cloth ratio and the bag cleaning
frequency can impact overall SO2 removal performance. These parameters are more typically
selected to optimize fabric filter size, bag life and pressure drop than for their effects on SO2
removal performance, though.
Effect of Major Process Control Variables
Reagent Ratio
The reagent ratio is typically the primary variable adjusted to control SO2 removal performance.
However, the reagent ratio is generally not measured regularly for full-scale systems – the fresh
lime feed rate is simply varied as needed to meet the required SO2 removal performance.
Since the reaction stoichiometry between lime and SO2 is 1:1, the reagent ratio required to
achieve 70 to 90+% SO2 removal can range from 0.7 (or somewhat less with an alkaline ash)
to 2.0 or greater. Corresponding lime utilization percentages could range from 100% to less
than 50%, depending on other process conditions.
Figure 4-17 illustrates an example of the relationship between reagent ratio and overall SO2
removal for low-sulfur-coal operation and with a fabric filter particulate collection device. Most
EPRI research efforts for spray dryer FGD systems have reported results in the form of Figure
4-17, with SO2 removal on the “y” axis and reagent ratio as the “x” axis. In Figure 4-17, the SO2
removal plotted includes the overall percent removal, the percent removed across the spray dryer
vessel, and the percentage contribution of the particulate control device to the overall removal.
The latter is calculated as the change in SO2 concentration across the particulate control device
divided by the spray dryer FGD system inlet SO2 concentration. In most full-scale installations,
only the overall removal or just the stack SO2 concentration is measured, though.
4-35
Figure 4-17
Effect of Reagent Ratio on SO2 Removal Performance under Low-sulfur Coal Conditions
with a Fabric Filter, 2:1 Recycle Ratio (Dotted Lines Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for
Data Plotted)
Note: convert approach temperature to oC by dividing by 1.8; convert inlet temperature by using the formula oC = (oF – 32)/1.8
Figures 4-18 and 4-19 show this relationship under different process conditions. Figure 4-18 is
for high-sulfur-coal conditions with a fabric filter particulate control device, and Figure 4-19 is
for medium-sulfur, high-chloride coal with an ESP particulate collector. The effects of coal
sulfur level, recycle ratio, coal chloride level, and downstream particulate control device are
discussed later in this section. The results in Figure 4-19 show decreasing SO2 removal
contribution by the ESP at high overall SO2 removal levels. This is because at high overall
removals, there is little SO2 remaining in the spray dryer outlet gas to be removed.
4-36
Figure 4-18
Effect of Reagent Ratio on SO2 Removal Performance under High-sulfur Coal Conditions
o
with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector; 20 F Approach to Adiabatic Saturation, Maximum
Achievable Recycle Ratio
4-37
Figure 4-19
Effect of Reagent Ratio on SO2 Removal Performance under Medium-sulfur, High-chloride
Coal Conditions with an ESP Particulate Collector; Maximum Achievable Recycle Ratio
4-38
Approach to Adiabatic Saturation
This is the second primary control variable for spray dryer FGD systems, although it is typically
the spray dryer outlet temperature and not the differential between the outlet temperature and
adiabatic saturation temperature that is measured and controlled. The approach to adiabatic
saturation is commonly called the “approach temperature.”
The approach temperature affects spray dryer performance in two ways. First, for a given inlet
flue gas temperature and flow rate, it controls how much water can be added in the spray dryer.
This affects the droplet surface area produced per volume of flue gas, which, in turn, affects SO2
mass transfer. Higher surface areas can improve mass transfer. Second, the approach temperature
affects droplet drying. At closer (smaller numerically) approach temperatures, the atomized
slurry droplets take longer to dry, and retain higher residual moisture content. The longer drying
time improves SO2 removal performance within the spray dryer vessel, while the increased
residual moisture primarily enhances SO2 removal performance across the downstream
particulate control device.
However, a minimum approach temperature must be maintained to ensure adequate droplet

drying, to avoid buildup of damp solids within the spray dryer. For spray dryer FGD systems, the
lower limit, under ideal conditions, is typically in the range of 18 to 20oF (10 to 11oC). In actual
practice many systems operate at higher values, with the spray dryer outlet temperature
controlled 30 to 40oF (17 to 22oC) above the adiabatic saturation temperature.
Figures 4-20 through 4-23 illustrate the effect of approach temperature on SO2 removal
performance. Figure 4-20 is for low-sulfur-coal conditions, and shows the effect of raising the
approach temperature from 20oF to 30oF (11oC to 17oC). Figure 4-21 is at similar conditions,
but shows the effects of raising the approach temperature from 20°F to 50oF (11°C to 28oC).
The figures show little effect of raising the approach temperature to 30oF (17oC), but a large
adverse effect from increasing the approach temperature to 50oF (28oC). Figure 4-22 is for
medium-sulfur coal conditions with a fabric filter but without solids recycle, and Figure 4-23 is
for medium-sulfur, high-chloride coal and an ESP (with solids recycle). Under these conditions
the effects of each 10oF (5.6oC) increase in approach temperature above 20oF (11oC), or 18oF
(10oC) in Figure 4-23, on the overall SO2 removal performance is substantial. The spray dryer
and particulate control device contributions to overall removal are not plotted in Figures 4-22
and 4-23.
4-39
Figure 4-20
o o
Effect of a 30 F (17 C) Approach Temperature on SO2 Removal Performance under
Low-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector; 2:1 Recycle Ratio
o
(Dotted Lines Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for 20 F Approach Temperature Operation
under otherwise Similar Conditions)
4-40
Figure 4-21
Effect of a 50°F (28°C) Approach Temperature on SO2 Removal Performance under
Low-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector; 2:1 Recycle Ratio
o
(Dotted Lines Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for 20 F Approach Temperature Operation
under otherwise Similar Conditions)
4-41
Figure 4-22
Effect of Approach Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal Performance under
Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector
(No Solids Recycle)
4-42
Figure 4-23
Effect of Approach Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal Performance under
Medium-sulfur, High-chloride Coal Conditions with an ESP Particulate Collector
(With Maximum Achievable Solids Recycle Ratios)
4-43
Other Process Design and Control Variables
Solids Recycle
In some spray dryer FGD systems, part of the spray dried solids are recycled back to the
atomizers as a means of enhancing droplet drying characteristics and improving overall reagent
utilization. Typically, the solids collected in the downstream particulate device are recycled
rather than solids that drop out in the spray dryer bottom, because the particulate control solids
have a smaller mean particle size, are drier, and easier to handle.
Improved droplet drying characteristics result because with recycle the atomizer feed slurry
has an increased wt% solids content. This produces atomized droplets that reach their “critical
moisture” content more rapidly than droplets with a lower solids content. With solids recycle,
a spray dryer of a given flue gas residence time can typically operate at a closer approach to
adiabatic saturation than one without, with benefits to SO2 removal performance as described
above.
Also, recycling solids increases the number of passes a given lime particle makes through the
spray dryer, providing additional opportunities to react with flue gas SO2. Solids recycle can
improve overall lime utilization, which for a given fresh-lime reagent ratio, corresponds with
higher overall SO2 removal.
Furthermore, if the coal ash is very alkaline, such as with Powder River Basin (PRB) coals,
solids recycle provides an opportunity to hydrate any lime content in the ash and feed it to
the spray dryer as part of the atomizer feed slurry. The alkalinity in the coal ash can therefore
supplement the alkalinity provided by the fresh lime, and improve overall SO2 removal at a
given fresh-lime reagent ratio. This effect is described in more detail later in this section.
Figures 4-24 and 4-25 illustrate the effects of solids recycle on SO2 removal performance,
under low-sulfur-coal and medium-sulfur-coal conditions, respectively, both with fabric filter
particulate collectors. Both show substantially greater reagent ratio requirements to achieve
a given level of SO2 removal if solids recycle is not employed.
4-44
Figure 4-24
Effect of Solids Recycle on SO2 Removal Performance under Low-sulfur Coal
Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines and Shading
Denote 95% Confidence Levels for Baseline Operation with a 2:1 Recycle Ratio;
Data Points Denote once-through [no recycle] Operation)
4-45
Figure 4-25
Effect of Solids Recycle on SO2 Removal Performance under Medium-sulfur Coal
Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector
Figure 4-26 shows the effect of recycle ratio on SO2 removal performance for low-sulfur-coal
conditions, with a fabric filter particulate control device. At low inlet SO2 concentrations, the
amount of fresh lime that must be added to the flue gas is relatively low, and high recycle rates
are possible. In the tests summarized in Figure 4-26, the recycle ratio was varied from a minimal
level of 2:1 (lbs recycle material per lb of fresh slaked lime solids) to the maximum possible of
12:1 under these conditions.
4-46
Figure 4-26
Effect of Solids Recycle Ratio on SO2 Removal Performance under Low-sulfur Coal
Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines and Shading Denote
95% Confidence Intervals for Baseline 2:1 Recycle Ratio Operation)
4-47
The figure shows that under low-sulfur-coal conditions, maximizing the recycle rate can
substantially improve SO2 removal performance at a given reagent ratio, with 100% utilization
being achieved at up to 96% overall SO2 removal. The benefits of solids recycle, including
enhanced droplet drying, are best realized by operating at as high a wt% solids content in the
atomizer feed slurry as practical. This maximum may vary with lime and fly ash properties
from site to site, and may be affected by equipment design details such as mix tank agitator
effectiveness, vibrating-screen solids-separator diameter and vibrating screen mesh size.
In general, recycle slurries are limited to about 30 to 40 wt% solids. Also, the feed slurry tank
configuration can impact the maximum recycle ratio achievable. Systems that mix fresh lime
slurry, recycle solids and makeup water to produce the atomizer feed slurry in single tank can
generally achieve a higher recycle ratio than systems that mix and feed recycle slurry separately
from the lime slurry. However, the single tank design significantly slows the response of the
FGD system to changes in inlet flue gas conditions, and thus is less commonly used in
commercial systems than “dual tank” designs.
Coal Sulfur/Spray Dryer Inlet SO2 Concentration
In general, if other conditions are held constant, spray dryer SO2 removal performance at a given
reagent ratio decreases as the spray dryer inlet SO2 concentration increases. This is most likely
due to two effects. As mentioned above, the droplet surface area per unit volume of flue gas that
is available for mass transfer is typically a function of the spray dryer inlet and outlet flue gas
temperatures, i.e., the amount of water added. As the inlet SO2 concentration increases, the
amount of fresh lime solids that must be added to achieve a given reagent ratio increases, but
overall the amount of water added stays essentially the same. Thus, the surface area available
for mass transfer is not increased substantially as the inlet SO2 concentration increases while
the droplet drying time decreases (for systems without recycle), negatively impacting the SO2
removal percentage that can be achieved.
In spray dryer FGD systems with solids recycle, as the inlet SO2 concentration increases
and the reagent ratio is held constant, the amount of solids that can be recycled must decrease
due to constraints on the atomizer feed slurry solids content. That is, for a given solids content
in the feed slurry, more fresh lime addition means that fewer solids can be recycled. The lower
effective recycle rate also adversely affects SO2 removal performance.
Figure 4-27 illustrates the effect of inlet SO2 concentration for medium- to high-sulfur
coals for a spray dryer FGD system with a fabric filter particulate collector. The effect is
substantial as the inlet SO2 concentration increases from 1500 ppmv to 2500 ppmv. The effect
of inlet SO2 concentration is generally less pronounced at lower coal sulfur levels, though.
Figure 4-28 compares spray dryer FGD performance for a 350 ppmv vs. a 1000 ppmv inlet SO2
concentration. This figure shows little effect of inlet SO2 concentration. However, the tests at
both inlet SO2 concentrations were conducted with recycle ratios controlled at 2:1. If both series
of tests had been conducted at maximum recycle ratios (e.g., about 12:1 for the 350 ppmv tests),
the observed effect of inlet SO2 concentration would have likely been greater.
4-48
Figure 4-27
Effect of Inlet SO2 Concentration on SO2 Removal Performance under
Medium- to High-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate
Collector; 20°F (11°C) Approach Temperature and Maximum Recycle
4-49
Figure 4-28
Effect of Inlet SO2 Concentration on SO2 Removal Performance under Low- to
Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines
and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for 1000 ppmv Inlet SO2 Concentration;
Data Points Denote Results at 350 ppmv inlet SO2 Concentration)
Coal Chloride Level

The amount of chloride in the coal can have a significant impact on SO2 removal performance,
due to the formation of calcium chloride, a deliquescent salt, in the spray dryer. The chloride in
the coal produces HCl in the flue gas, which is removed at high efficiency in the spray dryer to
form calcium chloride. The presence of calcium chloride at elevated levels in the spray dried
droplets slows the droplet drying rate in the spray dryer vessel, and increases the residual
moisture levels in the solids collected in the particulate control device. Both of these changes
improve SO2 removal performance as described previously.
4-50
The benefits of elevated chloride levels come with potential adverse effects, though.
For example, insufficient droplet drying in the spray dryer may require an offsetting increase
in the outlet flue gas temperature to prevent deposition of damp solids onto the vessel walls.
Also, increased corrosion may be experienced in the downstream particulate control device,
and increased failure rates for 300-series stainless steels due to stress corrosion cracking.
The impacts of coal chloride are typically quantified as a function of the resulting chloride
level in the spray dried solids. This, in turn, is a function of the relative amounts of sulfur,
chlorine and fly ash associated with the coal, and the fresh lime reagent ratio. The chloride
enhancement effect starts to be measurable as chloride levels in the solids collected in the
downstream particulate control device are elevated by a few tenths of a percent. At 1 wt%
chloride in the solids, the chloride effect on SO2 removal performance can be quite significant.
Figure 4-29 illustrates how the chloride content in the spray-dried solids varies with coal sulfur
and coal chloride level. The figure is based on 10% ash in the coal (80% as fly ash), a 1.1 reagent
ratio, and 80% lime utilization. The effects of coal chloride can also be realized by adding
chlorides to the spray dryer from other sources, such as high-chloride-content makeup water.
This effect is discussed later in this section.
Figures 4-30 through 4-32 illustrate the effects of varied coal chloride level on SO2 removal
performance. Figures 4-30 and 4-31 are for medium- to high-sulfur coal conditions with a fabric
filter particulate collector, and show that the magnitude of the effects of elevated chloride levels
on SO2 removal performance vary with other conditions. Figure 4-32 shows the effects of
chloride addition for low- to medium-sulfur coal conditions.
3.0%
0.01 wt% Cl in coal

2.5% 0.05% Cl in coal
Wt% Chloride in Spray Dried Solids
0.1 wt% Cl in coal

0.2 wt% Cl in coal
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Coal Sulfur, wt%
Figure 4-29
The Relationship between Coal Chloride Content and Chloride in the Spray-dried Solids
over a Range of Coal Sulfur Content
4-51
Figure 4-30
Effect of Elevated Chloride Levels on SO2 Removal Performance under High-sulfur Coal
Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector; 300°F [149°C] Inlet Flue Gas, 20°F
(11°C) Approach Temperature and Maximum Achievable Recycle Ratio
4-52
Figure 4-31
Effect of Elevated Chloride Levels on SO2 Removal Performance under Medium-sulfur
Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector; 325°F (163°C) Inlet Flue Gas,
20°F (11°C) Approach Temperature and Maximum Achievable Recycle Ratio
4-53
Figure 4-32
Effect of Elevated Chloride Levels on SO2 Removal Performance under Low- to Medium-
sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (280°F [138°C] Inlet Flue
Gas; Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Individual Baseline
Tests at Low (<0.1 wt%) Chloride Levels)
4-54
Figure 4-30 shows data for a 2500-ppmv inlet SO2 (about 4% sulfur) and a 300°F [149°C] spray
dryer inlet flue gas temperature. There is a dramatic increase in SO2 removal performance as the
chloride in the solids increases from 0.4% (about 0.1% Cl in coal) to 1.0% (0.25% Cl in coal).
Figure 4-31 is for a lower, 1500-ppmv inlet SO2 concentration (about 2.5% sulfur) and a higher,
325°F [163°C] inlet temperature. At these conditions that favor higher SO2 removal performance,
the effect of increasing the spray-dried solids chloride content from 0.5% (about 0.08% Cl in
coal) to 1.0% (about 0.16% Cl in coal) was negligible.
Figure 4-32 illustrates the effect of going from essentially no chloride in the spray-dried solids to
0.4%, for a 1000 ppmv inlet SO2 concentration. Under these conditions, the overall removal is
increased to just beyond the 95% confidence interval for individual baseline (no chloride) tests,
but the fabric filter contribution to overall removal is increased substantially.
Type of Particulate Control Device
The type of particulate control device used to collect the spray-dried solids also can have a
significant impact on overall SO2 removal performance. SO2 removal across the particulate
control device contributes approximately 5 to 25 percentage points to the overall system SO2
removal performance. Fabric filter devices serve as fixed bed reactors, where the flue gas passes
through spray dried solids collected on the filter bags. With ESP particulate control devices, the
contact between the spray dryer outlet flue gas and collected spray dried solids is less intimate.
Consequently, ESP devices typically contribute less to overall system SO2 removal performance
than do fabric filter devices.
Figure 4-33 illustrates the effect of particulate control device type on SO2 removal performance
for otherwise identical operating conditions. The figure compares performance with a reverse-
gas fabric filter versus an ESP for the downstream particulate control device, under high-sulfur-
coal conditions. Under these conditions, the overall removal at a given reagent ratio is about 3 to
6 percentage points higher with the fabric filter than with the ESP.
The type of fabric filter used (reverse gas versus pulse-jet) and design parameters such as air-to-
cloth ratio could also impact on SO2 removal performance, as they impact the contact time
between the flue gas and collected solids. However, under high-sulfur-coal, recycle conditions,
EPRI testing indicated no measurable impact of using a reverse-gas versus a pulse-jet fabric filter
[10]. Similarly, no effect was measured when increasing the air-to-cloth ratio in the pulse-jet
from 3:1 to 3.5:1 [10].
4-55
Figure 4-33
Effect of Using an ESP versus a Fabric Filter for the Downstream Particulate Control
Device on SO2 Removal Performance under High-sulfur Coal Conditions, Maximum
Recycle Ratio
4-56
Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Temperature
Increased spray dryer inlet flue gas temperature allows more water to be added in the spray dryer
to achieve a given approach to adiabatic saturation temperature. However, for a given inlet flue
gas moisture content, the adiabatic saturation temperature increases slightly with the inlet
temperature, partially offsetting the effect. With the increased amount of water that can be added
at the spray dryer, increased droplet surface area is available for mass transfer, and for systems
with solids recycle, higher recycle rates are possible. Both of these effects can enhance SO2
removal by the spray dryer FGD system. The effects of inlet temperature on SO2 removal
performance can vary with other conditions, though. For example, the effects of inlet
temperature are typically greater at high-sulfur-coal conditions than for low-sulfur coal.
Figure 4-34 illustrates the effect of spray dryer inlet flue gas temperature on SO2 removal
performance, for low- to medium-sulfur-coal conditions (1000 ppmv inlet SO2). At these
conditions, the effect of increasing the spray dryer inlet flue gas temperature from 280°F [138°C]
to 325°F [163°C] on overall SO2 removal is not significant. The removal across the spray dryer
itself appears to be enhanced at higher inlet temperature, but at the expense of the fabric filter
contribution to the overall removal. Figures 4-35 and 4-36 illustrate the inlet temperature effect
on overall removal at high-sulfur-coal conditions, with ESP and fabric filter particulate
collectors, respectively. At high-sulfur-coal conditions, the effect of inlet temperature on overall
SO2 removal is greater with the fabric filter downstream, where a 25°F (14°C) increase in inlet
temperature was observed to increase overall SO2 removal by 5 to 8 percentage points.
4-57
Figure 4-34
Effect of Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Temperature on SO2 Removal Performance
under Low- to Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector
(Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Baseline 280°F [138°C]
Inlet Temperature Operation; Data Points Denote 325°F [138°C] Inlet Temperature Results)
4-58
Figure 4-35
Effect of Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal Performance
Under High-sulfur Coal Conditions with an ESP Particulate Collector, Maximum Achievable
Recycle Ratios
4-59
Figure 4-36
Effect of Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal Performance
Under High-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector, 20°F Approach
Temperature and Maximum Achievable Recycle Ratio
Coal Fly Ash Alkalinity
When spray dryer FGD systems are applied to boilers that fire low-sulfur coal with an alkaline
ash (e.g., PRB coal), the ash alkalinity can contribute to the overall SO2 removal achieved. This
is particularly the case when solids recycle is employed, where the ash makes more than one pass
through the FGD system and there is an opportunity for the calcium oxide content of the ash to
be hydrated. The effect is also more likely to be realized in spray dryer FGD systems that operate
at relatively close approach to adiabatic saturation.
4-60
An example of the utilization of fly ash alkalinity was documented in full-scale tests of a spray
dryer FGD system at the Riverside Station in 1983 [8]. This FGD system had a fabric filter for
particulate control and the spray dryer outlet was operated at a 20oF (11oC) approach to adiabatic
saturation as measured at the baghouse outlet. In low-sulfur-coal tests conducted there, the
reagent ratio was typically lower than the SO2 removal fraction measured. For example, for an
average of 89% overall SO2 removal at full load, the measured reagent ratio for fresh lime feed
was only 0.82. That reagent ratio should theoretically only be capable of achieving 82% removal,
so the remainder was apparently enabled by fly ash alkalinity. In this example, the low-sulfur
coal was actually a mixture of 88% PRB and 12% petroleum coke, with a composite sulfur
content of about 1.2%. With 100% PRB and a lower sulfur content, the effect of ash alkalinity
would have most likely been greater, since greater recycle ratios would have been achievable and
the recycled material would have contained a higher percentage of alkaline ash.
Quicklime Reagent Properties
Spray dryer FGD SO2 removal performance is to some extent dependent on qualities of the
quicklime reagent used. In general, the quicklime should be at least 90% available calcium
oxide, and should qualify as high reactivity using the ASTM slaking rate test. In that test,
high-reactivity quicklimes achieve at least a 40oC temperature rise due to heat of hydration
reactions within three minutes, when mixed with 25oC water at a 1:4 mass ratio. Limes with a
lower reactivity and/or lower purity could require more reagent to achieve a given SO2 removal
level, and produce more “grits” or inerts that can build up and cause plugging or erosion within
the FGD system.
However, even among high-reactivity quicklimes, some quicklime sources produce slaked lime
slurries that are more effective when used as a spray dryer reagent. The effect of quicklime
properties is more pronounced for scrubbing on higher-sulfur coals than for low-sulfur coals.
Figures 4-37 and 4-38 illustrate the impact of varied quicklime source on SO2 removal by
spray dryer FGD systems, under low- to medium-sulfur-coal and high-sulfur-coal conditions,
respectively. Figure 4-37 compares SO2 removal results for a high-reactivity quicklime (45 to
o o
50 C temperature rise) to those for a medium-reactivity quicklime (30 to 35 C temperature rise),
for three lime slaker types. For a 1000 ppmv inlet SO2 concentration, the effect of reduced
quicklime reactivity on overall SO2 removal was not significant, although results for two of
seven tests do show lower performance. Figure 4-38 compares the overall SO2 removal
performance of several high-reactivity quicklimes at high-sulfur-coal conditions with a fabric
filter particulate collector. Under these conditions, the performance of the high-reactivity limes
varies significantly, with Bellefonte lime showing measurably better performance than the
others. The only consistent explanation for the range of performance is that, at least for high-
sulfur-coal conditions, the best spray dryer FGD reagents produce a very rapid temperature rise
in the ASTM test (greater than 40oC in 30 seconds) and produce slaked lime particles with a high
specific surface area (greater than 40 m2/g).
4-61
Figure 4-37
Effect of Quicklime Reactivity on SO2 Removal Performance Under Low- to Medium-sulfur
Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines and Shading
Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for High-reactivity Quicklime Slaked with Paste Slaker,
Data Points Denote Results for Medium-reactivity Quicklime and Three Slaker Types)
4-62
Figure 4-38
Effect of High-reactivity Quicklime Source on Overall SO2 Removal Performance Under
High-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector, Maximum Achievable
Recycle Ratio
Effect of Slaking Water Quality and Slaking Conditions
Besides the quality of the quicklime itself, the conditions under which the lime is slaked
can impact SO2 removal performance. Low quality slaking water (e.g., water with sulfate
concentrations of 1000 ppm or greater) can produce coarse lime particles that are less reactive
for SO2 removal in the spray dryer FGD system. Figure 4-39 shows the effects of using a
simulated and an actual cooling tower blowdown water, each with approximately 2000 ppm of
sulfate content, for slaking water and for the remaining system makeup water. These tests were
4-63
conducted at low- to medium-sulfur coal conditions (1000 ppmv inlet SO2). The use of these
waters for slaking severely reduced the system SO2 removal performance, particularly at higher
reagent ratios (>0.9).
Figure 4-39
Effect of Using 2000-ppm Sulfate Content Slaking Water on SO2 Removal Performance
Under Low- to Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector
(Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Single Test Results using
Low-sulfate-content [<100 ppm] Slaking Water)
4-64
Low slaking temperatures (less than 180oF [82oC]) may also produce coarser lime particles that
adversely affect SO2 removal performance. Since the quicklime slaking reactions are exothermic,
the slaking temperature is typically a function of the quicklime reactivity and purity, and the
water-to-lime mass ratio in the slaker. However, the effects of reducing the slaking temperature
from 180oF to 150oF (82oC to 66oC) were tested by EPRI under low- to medium-sulfur-coal
conditions and were not found to be statistically significant in the test results [9]. At high-sulfur-
coal conditions, the effect of slaking temperature may be greater, but no performance data are
available for such conditions.
Effect of System Makeup Water Quality
A portion of the water evaporated in the spray dryer to lower the flue gas to the desired outlet
temperature/approach to adiabatic saturation is introduced to the atomizer feed slurry with the
fresh lime slurry reagent, which is typically prepared at 15 to 25 wt% solids. The remainder is
makeup or dilution water. In systems without solids recycle, makeup water is added to
supplement water coming in with the lime slurry. The makeup water rate is controlled to achieve
the desired outlet flue gas temperature while the fresh lime slurry feed rate is controlled to
achieve the desired SO2 removal level. In systems with solids recycle, this makeup water is used
to prepare recycle slurry, which is mixed with fresh lime slurry to produce the atomizer feed
slurry. The relative proportions of fresh lime slurry and recycle slurry are adjusted to control
both the outlet temperature and SO2 removal percentage.
Typically, spray dryer FGD SO2 removal performance is less sensitive to makeup water quality
than to slaking water quality. Figure 4-40 shows the effects of using 2000-ppm sulfate-content
water for makeup water, but using high-quality slaking water. The high-sulfate-content waters
were the same simulated and actual cooling tower waters that showed an adverse effect on SO2
removal when used for lime slaking, as illustrated in Figure 4-39. When used for makeup water
only, these high-sulfate waters showed no effect on SO2 removal performance.
In fact, makeup waters with elevated chloride concentrations can improve SO2 removal
performance in the same manner as does elevated coal chloride levels. As for coal chloride
impacts, the effect of chlorides in the makeup water is typically a function of the resulting
chloride level in the spray-dried solids. Figure 4-41 illustrates the benefits of using high-
chloride-content makeup water on SO2 removal performance under low- to medium-sulfur coal
conditions. In three tests, a simulated cooling tower blowdown water containing 2000 ppm of
chloride was used for both lime slaking and makeup water, and in one test the water was used for
makeup only (fresh water was used for slaking). The results in the figure show a substantial
benefit to SO2 removal. In the three tests where the high-chloride water was used for slaking and
makeup, the corresponding chloride content in the spray-dried solids was in the range of 0.5 to
0.7 wt%. In the test where it was used for makeup only, the chloride in the solids was only 0.3%.
The benefits to SO2 removal performance appear to be directly proportional to the amount of
high-chloride water used and the resulting chloride content in the solids.
4-65
Figure 4-40
Effect of High-sulfate-content Makeup Water on SO2 Removal Performance Under
(Dotted Lines and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Single Test Results
using Low-sulfate-content [<100 ppm] Makeup Water)
4-66
Figure 4-41
Effect of High-chloride-content Makeup Water on SO2 Removal Performance under Low- to
Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines and
Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Baseline Operation with Low-chloride-
Content [<100 ppm] Makeup Water)
There are two major concerns when using lower quality makeup waters. One is whether gypsum
scale formation will be a problem in equipment downstream of where the water is mixed with
lime slurry and/or recycle solids, due to high sulfate levels in the makeup water. The other
concern is over impacts of elevated chloride levels in the makeup water on droplet drying and
corrosion. If low quality makeup waters are to be used, the spray dryer FGD system should be
designed to address these issues, and/or the spray dryer outlet flue gas temperature may have to
be increased somewhat.
4-67
Effect of Bypass Reheat
In some installations the scrubbed flue gas must be reheated before discharge from the stack, for
plume buoyancy or dispersion reasons or because the plant is located near a highway or airport,
where the presence of a water vapor plume would be undesirable. Spray dryer FGD systems are
somewhat advantageous for these situations, because although all of the gas is scrubbed, the
scrubbed gas is not completely saturated with moisture. In spite of this advantage, the outlet flue
gas from some spray dryer FGD systems may require reheating.
One way to increase the flue gas temperature at the stack is by increasing the spray dryer outlet
temperature to correspond with the required stack temperature. However, this has adverse
impacts on SO2 removal across the spray dryer and downstream particulate control device, since
spray dryer outlet temperature is a primary control variable for SO2 removal performance.
Some wet scrubber designs employ regenerative reheat, where gas-gas heat exchangers are used
to recover heat from the FGD inlet flue gas to reheat the exit gas. However, gas-gas heat
exchangers are not feasible for most spray dryer installations because lowering the inlet flue gas
temperature would adversely affect spray dryer SO2 removal performance.
Another approach is to bypass some of the flue gas. In units with wet scrubbers, it is possible to
bypass some flue gas around the scrubber module(s) and use the hot unscrubbed gas to reheat the
scrubbed gas. The percentage of unscrubbed gas correspondingly lowers the overall SO2 removal
performance, though. In spray dryer FGD systems, the flue gas going to the FGD absorbers has
typically not had all of the particulate matter removed as is usually the case with wet FGD.
Consequently, if flue gas is bypassed around the spray dryer, it must be combined with the
scrubbed gas and pass through the downstream particulate control device.
Bypass reheat adversely affects the SO2 removal achieved across the particulate control device,
because the mixing of the hot gas raises the approach to adiabatic saturation of the combined gas
stream. Thus, bypass reheat has two adverse effects on spray dryer FGD SO2 removal
performance. First, the percentage bypassed sees no SO2 removal in the spray dryer, and second,
the removal across the downstream particulate control device is reduced for the entire gas stream
because of the higher temperature.
For either wet or spray dryer FGD systems, bypass reheat would only be considered an option
where lower overall SO2 removal levels are required (e.g., less than 90% removal).
Figure 4-42 illustrates the effects of bypass reheat on overall SO2 removal performance
compared to baseline 95% confidence levels for overall removal with a 20oF [11oC] approach
temperature. Two types of bypass reheat were evaluated at a 20oF [11oC] reheat level. “Warm
gas” bypass refers to bypassing a portion of the spray dryer inlet flue gas and mixing that gas
with the spray dryer outlet gas before it enters the particulate control device. “Hot gas” bypass
would involve bypassing a lesser amount of hotter, economizer outlet flue gas around both the
air heater and spray dryer, and mixing it upstream of the particulate control device in the same
manner. The idea was that with hot bypass, less flue gas would have to be bypassed around the
spray dryer and not have SO2 removed there. However, this approach has an associated boiler
heat rate penalty (about a 0.5% fuel efficiency penalty under the conditions tested).
4-68
Figure 4-42
Effect of Spray Dryer Inlet Flue Gas Bypass Compared to Raising the Spray Dryer
Outlet Approach Temperature on Overall SO2 Removal Performance under Low- to
Medium-sulfur Coal Conditions with a Fabric Filter Particulate Collector (Dotted Lines
o
and Shading Denote 95% Confidence Intervals for Single Test Results at a 20 F
Approach Temperature and No Bypass)
4-69
From these test results, it was concluded that for these test conditions it would be better to raise
the spray dryer outlet temperature by 20oF [11oC] than to employ either form of bypass reheat to
achieve the same stack temperature. The advantage of just raising the approach temperature to
40oF [22oC] is that all of the flue gas is treated for SO2 removal in the spray dryer, and the need to
run bypass ducts is eliminated. However, as can be seen in the data plotted in Figure 4-42, none
of these approaches for increasing the stack flue gas temperature by 20oF [11oC] was able to
achieve 90% overall SO2 removal over the range of reagent ratios tested.
References
1. EPRI Environmental Control Technology Center: FGD Wet Scrubber Performance at

High Flue Gas Velocities. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1996. TR-107131.
2. Evaluation of LS-2 Advanced Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA and First Energy, Akron, OH: 1999. TR-113473.
3. Field Investigation of FGD System Chemistry. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:1984. EPRI CS-3796.
4. ECTC Pilot Fine Grind Limestone Test Block Report. Unpublished report submitted to EPRI
by Radian International, March 3, 1997.
5. FGD Mist Eliminator System Design and Specification Guide. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1993.
EPRI TR-102864.
6. High SO2 Removal Efficiency Testing, Final Report, Contract No. DE-AC22-92PC91338,
U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA: 1997.
7. Evaluation of a 2.5-MW Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter SO2 Removal System, Interim Report,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1985. CS-3953. (Figures 4-24, 4-26, 4-28, and 4-41)
8. Field Evaluation of a Utility Spray Dryer System, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1985. CS-3954.
9. Evaluation of a 2.5-MW Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter SO2 Removal System, Final Report,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1991. GS-7449. (Figures 4-17, 4-20, 4-21, 4-32, 4-34, 4-37, 4-39,
4-40, and 4-42)
10. Spray Dryer Flue Gas Desulfurization for Medium- and High-Sulfur-Coal Applications,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1992. TR-100330. (Figures 4-33 and 4-38)
11. Spray Dryer Flue Gas Desulfurization for Medium- and High-Sulfur-Coal Retrofit
Applications, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1992. TR-100494. (Figure 4-19, 4-23, and 4-35)
12. ECTC Pilot-Scale Spray Dryer FGD Test Results: 4/89 – 8/93, Final Report, Radian
Corporation, Austin, TX: September 1995. Unpublished draft final report, EPRI RP 2880-01.
(Figures 4-18, 4-22, 4-25, 4-27, 4-30, 4-31, 4-36)
4-70
5
FGD BID REVIEW METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The final selection of the FGD system supplier will require the evaluation and comparison of the
vendor proposals that are received in response to the Request for Proposal. The energy company
will have previously completed a review of the FGD technologies that were available, and
already selected those systems that met the requirements of the initial screening criteria.
There are typically multiple suppliers for the commercial FGD processes currently available
on the market; it is the responsibility of the energy company to reduce this list of multiple
companies to a short list. This reduction in the number of potential bidders is typically based on
assessments of each supplier’s latest technical offering, previous installations at energy company
plants that were operating under similar sets of conditions, recommendations received from other
entities, etc. A typical shortlist will include 3-4 suppliers. The vendors have a limited amount of
funds available to prepare the bid responses, and most suppliers would prefer to participate in a
short-listing effort based on qualitative review of capabilities, prior to committing a significant
amount of money to the full fledged proposal. If their chances of winning are narrowed upfront,
then the economic incentive will be higher for them to assemble a competitive bid. If the list of
potential vendors is too long (five or more), then some of the major suppliers may chose to invest
their limited proposal budgets in projects with better odds of receiving the project award.
Bid evaluations should be done using a consistent set of criteria. Each bidder will interpret
the RFP in their own way, typically resulting in some variations in the scope of supply or
performance guarantees. Some systems may also have inherent performance limitations or
advantages that should be considered when comparing one quote versus another. Economic
factors can be developed that will allow the energy company to take into account these system
performance variations, normalizing the proposals by applications of cost adders and deducts
based on such items as SO2 removal, power consumption, reagent usage, pressure drop, etc.
These adjustments are added to the Bid Data Tabulation document that will be constructed as
part of this Bid Review Process. Much of the bid data will be extracted from the technical data
sheets and pricing forms that are typically included in the Bid Request support package.
If proposals are received from suppliers offering alternate FGD processes, then the review
and selection should be based on the lowest Present Worth or levelized equivalent cost
that incorporates both installed capital cost and expected O&M costs over the operating
life/evaluation period for the FGD equipment. If only one technology is being considered,
such as the case where only limestone with forced oxidation systems are included in the RFP
solicitation, then the review process will be simplified.
5-1
FGD Bid Review Methodology
Since direct numerical comparisons of different technologies are difficult, particularly for
retrofit applications, the methodology to review FGD system bids must incorporate qualitative
assessments to rank bids for competing technologies. This conceptual cost analysis can be
completed using the EPRI cost-estimating model titled FGDCOST. The qualitative results
(±30% cost estimates and approximate usage rates for chemicals, power, water, etc. are
calculated in the FGDCOST model) need to be converted into numerical rating factors, which
are then transferred to the summary tables to determine the lowest site-specific levelized cost
system for a given site.
Bid Submittal Documentation
As they are received, the bids are first checked to make sure all the requested information has
been submitted in support of the proposal. The data requested from each FGD system supplier
normally includes the following components listed below in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Bid Submittal Information Checklist
Proposal Number Bidder - 1 Bidder - 2 Bidder - 3

Submittal Date
Technical Data Sheets (Electronic)

Pricing Form Completed
Process Flow Diagrams
Technical Discussion
Performance Curves
References
General Arrangements/Plot Plan
Single Line Diagram
Typical P&I Diagrams
Equipment and Motor Lists
Guarantees
Exceptions and Qualifications
to the Specification
Fabrication, Delivery,
and Erection Schedule
Consumable Items
The information provided should allow a complete understanding of the offering. The level
of detail included in any response to an RFP will depend on the purpose of the proposal:
(e.g. budget pricing vs. purchase) and the amount of data that was included in the RFP package.
5-2
Technical Data Comparisions
A “Bid Tabulation” is typically constructed that includes direct comparisons of all the technical
data included in the vendor submittals. Most of this information will come directly from the
datasheets that were submitted with the bid as requested in the original RFP. Some of the
information provided by the vendors may require interpretation by the reviewer due to variations
in the way some vendors interpret data requests, as well as limitations on the information that
they are willing to provide in the bid package. Including an electronic copy of the technical data
sheets with the RFP and system specification, along with a specific request to the bidder to return
the completed file, will significantly reduce the effort required to complete the Bid Tabulation of
the technical data.
The Bid Tabulation is usually constructed in an Excel spreadsheet format, using one column
per bidder plus a “Notes” column to indicate any non-compliance or special considerations
items. An example of a typical Bid Tab is provided at the end of this section. Table 5-2 shows
an example of some of the information and level of detail that might be included in the technical
data area of the bid tab. The notes column provides the initial assessment of the specific data
supplied by each bidder. The requirements “Specified in RFP” are typically derived from
previous energy company experience or initial design studies performed by the energy company
or its contractors. Preliminary contacts with vendors or other energy company contacts can also
help to establish the minimum requirements for the system design.
Table 5-2
Typical Technical Data Comparison
Specified
Parameter Bidder 1 Bidder 2 Notes
in RFP
Wallboard Wallboard
FGD Byproduct Landfill Bidder 2: must conform to spec.
Gypsum Gypsum
Module Size 300 MW (2) x 150 MW 300 MW Bidder 1: potential fatal flaw
Piping Insulation,
By Others By Others Included Bidder 2: remove from scope
Heat Tracing
Reagent Tank
8 hrs (2) x 4 hrs (1) x 8 hrs Conform to (2) x 4 hr design
Capacity
Should any item not meet the specification requirements, adjustments must be made to the
evaluated cost to equalize the bids. If technical exceptions by the supplier cannot be eliminated,
they must be addressed on an item-by-item basis to determine if that item is grounds for
disqualification of the bid package, or whether an economic penalty must be added to the
evaluated cost to allow its further consideration even though it does not comply with the system
specification included in the RFP. It will be important to insure that each engineering discipline
reviews the applicable sections of the bid submittal, and that they provide specific statements of
concerns and questions that need further resolution.
5-3
Qualitative Factors
The specification accompanying the RFP will typically limit vendor submittals to those
technologies that have passed initial screening and meet the following criteria:
· Commercially proven and available
· Compatible with the selected fuels
· Meets the required emission limits
· Produces an acceptable waste for disposal or sale
· Reagent availability
The qualitative bid review methodology confirms that the process adheres to the general
requirements set in the specification, including:
· Bidder’s scope of supply
· System redundancy
· Equipment design and capacity
When several different technologies are compared, the initial screening criteria are revisited in
more detail for the specific site, including:
· Vendor qualifications
· Process performance and design features
· Plot plan and general arrangements
· Economic evaluation
Because it is difficult to quantify differences between technologies for many of the subjective
criteria, the methodology requires that supplier selection be based on the lowest evaluated cost
that meets the specification requirements. Subjective preferences are translated into preferred
design features to allow for direct comparisons and, should the evaluated costs between
technologies be essentially equal, can be the tie-breaking factors in the vendor selection.
Exceptions and Qualifications
The bid review process assumes that all specification requirements are implemented in the
bidders’ designs and pricing. Each bidder must list all exceptions to the RFP specification in his
proposal package. All exceptions and qualifications should be listed in spreadsheet format and
addressed with the goal of eventually eliminating them through discussions of compliance with
the requirements of the specification. If technical exceptions cannot be resolved or if discussions
with the bidders lead to compromises that violate portions of the specification, all bids should be
equalized by allowing relief from the specification or penalizing those bidders that cannot
comply.
5-4
Qualifications stated in the bid response are normally associated with those issues that claimed to
meet the intent of the specification, but have not been specifically addressed in the specification.
Internal conflicts within the specification are also usually handled by clarifications issued to all
bidders. In general, exceptions should be handled separately from clarifications, and commercial
issues should be handled separately from technical issues. Table 5-3 provides an example of a
summary table that could be used to summarize the exceptions and qualifications submitted by
each vendor with their bid packages.
Based on the magnitude of the exceptions and clarifications stated in the vendor bid packages,
the energy company may chose to develop cost adjustment factors for each item based on their
importance to the overall project. These cost adjustments would be used in the quantitative
comparison of the capital and operating costs provided in each submittal (presented later in this
section). In many cases, the exceptions and clarifications provided in the first submittal may be
negotiated away during the bid review process.
Table 5-3
Bidder Exceptions and Qualifications (Example)
Explanation Resolution
I. Technical Exceptions
1.
2.
II. Technical Clarifications
1.
2.
III. Commercial Exceptions/Clarifications
1.
2.
Scope of Supply
The scope of supply (equipment and services) for each bidder is compared to the requirements
listed in the specification. As with the methods for handling exceptions and clarifications stated
above, only those items that deviate from the specification are listed in any summary table of
adjustments (see Table 5-4). Adjustments must be made in the evaluated cost to include items
that were left out of the original bids, or to give credit for those items that were included by some
bidders and excluded in the pricing submitted by other suppliers.
Adjustments to the scope of supply are normally handled by requesting additions and deletions
from the bidders directly, rather than through adjustments calculated by an in-house estimating
department. Other parties must be asked to make these adjustments only where the FGD system
supplier cannot or will not comply, or where the adjustments can be handled by another entity in
5-5
a more cost-effective manner or within the allotted time frame. Cost adjustments for each bidder
are totaled and transferred to the evaluated cost spreadsheet during the quantitative comparison
of the capital and operating costs for each submittal.
Table 5-4
Bidder Scope of Supply Adjustments (Example)
Item Explanation Cost Adjustment ($)
I. Process/Mechanical
II. Civil/Structural
III. Electrical/I&C
IV. Services
Document Submittals
As part of the proposal, each bidder should list all documentation that will be submitted during
the course of the contract, or specifically confirm that the documentation requirements stated in
the specification will be met. Requirements include specific statements regarding the types of
document, format of submittal (electronic vs. hard copy), quantity, and schedule for completion.
During the review of the bid submittals, particular attention should be placed on the quantity of
bound O&M manuals and compliance with the request for submittal of the manual on CD-ROM.
A typical vendor document submittal sheet, to be completed and filled out by each bidder, is
typically included with the RFP specification.
General Process Information
The first parts of the technical data sheets that are supplied as part of the RFP package should
include the general process information, critical evaluation factors and process guarantees.
The Bid Tabulation spreadsheet, provided at the end of this section, will include the basis
for calculating penalties and credits. Table 5-5 provides an example of how the data sheet
information can be tabulated for the initial qualitative comparison of the vendor offerings.
5-6
Table 5-5
General Process Information for Qualitative Comparison of Bids (Example)
Parameter Units Specified Bidder-1 Bidder-2 Notes
MEL*/
Process Technology N/A Multiple external LSFO
oxidation
Type N/A Wet Wet Wet
Lime or Hydrated
Reagent N/A Limestone
Limestone Lime
Gypsum +
Byproduct N/A Gypsum Gypsum
MgSO4
Calculate cost
penalty associated
SO2 Removal Efficiency % 96 98 96
with reduced efficiency
in quantitative analysis
Number Modules/Unit N/A 1 1 1
Calculate penalty for

in. w.c. increased pressure
Flue Gas Pressure Drop Unspecified 5.2 6.1
(kPa) drop and add to
evaluated $
Tph
Reagent Usage Unspecified
(kg/hr)
Power, Max 24-hr avg. KW Unspecified
* MEL = Magnesium Enhanced Lime
Detailed Technical Comparison
Each item included on the completed bid tabulation of the technical data (data extracted form
the technical datasheets completed by the vendors and submitted with bid package – an example
of the datasheets issued with the RFP can be found at the end of this section) must be compared
for design, redundancy and sizes/capacities in order to equalize the bids. Because of the
complexity involved when comparing different process technologies, some judgment is required
to determine where one system will have an advantage over another. Where adjustments are
required for one or more of the bidders, they should be discussed with each bidder and/or
technical discipline for resolution. Any resulting pricing differences are accounted for in the final
evaluated cost comparison.
5-7
Adjustment Curves
Adjustment curves for various modes of operation should be requested in the RFP and the bid
specification documents that are sent to the FGD system suppliers. These adjustment curves will
be used if the actual Unit operating conditions after FGD system startup fall outside the range of
the Conditions of Service that are specified in the RFP specification. Adjustment curves an be
requested for many different parameters, including the following items as an example:
· Power
· Reagent
· Water
· Byproduct
· Removal efficiency
These curves are normally submitted for changes in fuel sulfur content and Unit load. The Unit
load curve can also be used to confirm the turndown capability of the system. In addition, water
balances for a range of chloride content in the fuel are submitted for wet systems so that the
BOP costs for water and wastewater treatment can be estimated. If different technologies are
compared, the normalized costs are used to determine the levelized annual costs. If a single
technology is specified and bid by all system suppliers, then these curves are used for technical
comparisons only.
An example of an adjustment curve (extracted from Section 4) can be found in Figure 5-1.
If the initial Conditions of Service were expected to be a flue gas temperature of 325°F (163°C)
at the LSD inlet, then in order to achieve 90% removal, the reagent ratio would have been
approximately 1.2. If the facility could only produce an inlet gas temperature of 300°F (149°C)
during the performance test, then it would be expected that the reagent ratio would have to
increase to approximately 1.5 in order to achieve the 90% removal efficiency with all other
operating conditions held constant.
Control Concept
Each bidder’s control concept should include detailed discussions of the level of automation,
instrumentation interface requirements with the existing plant control system, as well as
locations of the main panel, auxiliary panels and local controls. The number of operating
personnel recommended for the system should also be submitted for review and, if necessary,
adjusted based on the operating philosophy of the energy company. This system description
information will then be added to the Bid Tabulation Sheets (example provided at the end of
this section). The other primary use of the Quantitative Analysis is to confirm that the system
designs offered by each vendor are in compliance with the requirements of the specification.
5-8
Figure 5-1
Adjustment Curve for SO2 Removal Efficiency vs. Inlet Gas Temperature and Reagent
Ratio for a Lime Spray Dryer System
Note: 300°F = 149°C and 325°F = 163°C
Inspection and Maintenance
Each supplier should be requested to supply their expectations for the frequency and duration
of system and equipment outages that will be required for inspection, normal maintenance and
major equipment repairs. These outage requirements should be reviewed for compliance with
plant operational requirements (which should be stated specifically in the RFP package). If the
outage requirements do not comply with the plant operating requirements, then changes in
equipment sparing should be discussed with the bidders and adjustments made to the system
design and pricing.
5-9
Quantitative Factors
Once a qualitative comparison of the bid packages has been tabulated, then the energy company
or its agent can proceed with a quantitative comparison of the bid based on total cost of installing
and operating the FGD system proposed by each vendor. The cost data (with operating costs
calculated using the guaranteed consumption rates) supplied in the vendor bid documents will
typically be divided into installed capital, fixed operating & maintenance, and variable operating
costs. The installed capital cost should include all evaluation factor penalties that are assessed to
each bid where the design proposed does not conform with the specification documents. The
penalty calculations are discussed in more detail later in this section. The individual cost
components can then be combined, generating a Levelized Annual Cost or Net Present Worth
cost for each vendor. This combined cost can then be used to determine which submittal will
provide the energy company with the lowest overall cost over the expected operating life of the
FGD system.
Bid Evaluation Factors
The evaluation factors listed in the bid specification documents should be applied to each
supplier’s proposal and then added to the evaluated capital cost. The penalties and credits can
be applied to all competing technologies. If the evaluation factors were not calculated prior to
the issue of the RFP bid package, then FGDCOST can be used to determine the levelized cost
impact for each parameter. In this case the levelized O&M costs for each bid are calculated
in the FGDCOST spreadsheet using the data supplied in the FGD supplier bid packages.
The evaluation factors themselves (cost per unit of performance such as added inches of water
column pressure drop or kW of auxiliary power consumption) are typically developed during
the completion of the preliminary design studies. These studies are an integral part of the FGD
process selection and finalization of design decisions that will become part of bid specification
documents.
Flue Gas Pressure Drop
If the levelized cost of flue gas pressure drop, in terms of $/²wc, was predetermined and
included in the bid specification, then the penalty may be added to the evaluated capital cost.
For comparative purposes, it should be assumed that the lowest pressure drop proposed by
a bidder for this project has a penalty of zero and calculate the penalties of all other bidders
as a differential cost:
Penalty = (∆PBidder - ∆PDatum) x $/²w.c. (kPa)
Note: The cost associated with additional pressure drop ($/”w.c. [kPa]) and other evaluation
factors are typically developed during initial design studies that are completed prior to
issuing the RFP package.
In addition to the increased power penalty, excessive pressure drop across the FGD system
may affect the capital costs of flue gas induced draft (ID) or booster fans, as well as potential
requirements for additional structural upgrades to the existing boiler, ductwork or particulate
5-10
collection equipment. This is particularly important in the case of retrofit systems that require
new fans in lieu of fan upgrades to handle the new conditions of service. If modification/-
replacement costs have not been factored into the penalty, it should be added as an adjustment
for out-of-scope equipment.
Operating Power Consumption
The power consumption guarantee for all FGD equipment within the bidder’s scope of supply
should be provided in two ways:
· Maximum 24-hr average power consumption at 100% design load
· Maximum instantaneous power draw.
The average power draw over 24 hours should be the basis for the calculation of operating power
cost penalties. If the levelized cost of replacement power, in $/kW, has been predetermined and
inserted in the bid specification, the penalty may be added as a capital cost. For comparative
purposes, it should be assumed that the lowest 24-hour power consumption supplied by one
of the bidders has a penalty of zero, and then calculate the penalties for all other bidders as a
differential capital cost:
$Penalty = (kWBidder - kWDatum) x $/ kW
In addition to the increased power penalty, the maximum instantaneous power draw may affect
the capital costs of the plant electrical equipment and distribution system. If the electrical
distribution equipment is outside the scope of the bidder, the cost of upgrading the system
must be determined and added as an adjustment to the evaluated capital cost for each bid.
SO2 Removal Efficiency
Because of licensing requirements for each generating plant, a vendor guarantee of an SO2
removal efficiency (η) less than the requirement specified in the RFP is generally not acceptable.
Therefore, the bidder’s offering must meet the requirement or be eliminated from consideration.
Instead of a penalty, a credit for SO2 removal above the specified efficiency may be given.
This amount may reflect the cost of SO2 credits ($/ton [103 kg]), the increased production of a
byproduct, or some combination of these two items. The byproduct may be a credit if salable, or
an additional cost if a throwaway material is produced. Adjustments for SO2 removal efficiency
are germane to competing technologies where some FGD processes are inherently more efficient
than others.
$Credit = cf × (h Bid - h Specified ) × (tpy inlet SO 2 ) × ($ / ton (1000 kg ) SO 2 - $ D R ± $ D B )
Where:
cf = plant capacity factor, fraction
h = SO2 removal efficiency, fraction
5-11
é lb (kg )reagent ù
$D R = ê ú ´ ($ / ton reagent ) or ($ / 10 kg reagent)
3
ë lb (kg ) SO2 removed û

é lb (kg ) Byproduct ù
$D B = ê ú ´ ($ / ton byproduct ) or ($ / 10 kg byproduct)
3
ë lb ( kg ) SO 2 removed û
+ = credit to bid due to sale of material generated by FGD system
- = deducted cost due to need to dispose of an FGD system product
When comparing bids for a single technology, this parameter should be eliminated since
increased removal efficiency is offset by increases in capital cost, reagent usage, and power
consumption. Therefore, all bids for a single technology should be compared at the same
removal efficiency.
Reagent Usage
Reagent usage is directly related to the stoichiometric feed rate when comparing bids for a single
technology. If multiple technologies are being considered, then the costs of various reagents will
impact the levelized plant operating costs at different rates, and the feed rates will not be directly
comparable.
The reagent cost can be added to the capital costs by arbitrarily assuming one year of operation
at the specified plant capacity factor and design SO2 removal efficiency as the basis for
calculation of the reagent cost impact. Alternately, the FGDCOST program can be run to
produce a levelized cost for input into the final evaluated cost spreadsheet. The most accurate
method is to calculate the Present Worth of the differential cost of the reagent over the expected
operating life of the FGD system.
Byproduct Production
Byproduct production produces a credit if it is salable or a penalty if it must be landfilled.

It should be noted that if the byproduct purity and water content does not meet the buyer
specifications, then the cost differential will be added to the Supplier bid. The credit or penalty
can be added to the capital costs assuming one year of operation at the specified plant capacity
factor and design SO2 removal efficiency. Alternately, the FGDCOST program can be run to
produce a levelized cost/credit for input into the final evaluated cost spreadsheet. This variable
may be eliminated from consideration if only one technology is being evaluated.
If the byproduct is marketable, but a purchaser has not been identified, temporary storage
facilities may have to be considered as an addition to the cost of the project.
Makeup Water Usage
The cost of makeup water ($/1000 gpm [l/sec]) can be added to the FGD system capital cost
assuming that this value has been predetermined for the bid specification. The cost impact
of water usage will be a major factor only when comparing wet FGD systems, in which most
makeup water evaporates into the flue gas, to dry FGD systems. Some processes can tolerate
5-12
higher levels of contamination than other systems, and that may allow the use of existing
wastewater streams to meet most of the demand for FGD system makeup. Other systems may
require significant quantities of fresh water to meet the needs for reagent preparation and/or
byproduct washing.
The cost for large volumes of fresh water can have a large impact at some plants that are already
using their permitted allowances from fresh water sources. It could result in the installation of
water treatment equipment to meet the requirements of the FGD system. For retrofit projects, the
capital cost of water treatment equipment upgrades and distribution systems should be added to
the listing out-of-scope items, especially in those cases where there are significant differences
between technologies and for those sites where the capacity of existing plant water supply
system is limited.
Construction and Outage Duration
The duration of construction affects the total cost of the project in two ways: the cost of capital
during construction and loss of power production during outages. Construction and outage
durations may be based on the bidder’s schedule supplemented by BOP estimates from the
constructor.
Construction Penalty = (Cost of Capital During Construction) + (Cost of Replacement Power

During Outages)
Capital Cost Comparisons
Each bidder’s pricing sheet should include line item breakouts for major subsystems and erection
costs. In general, line item pricing is used only as a general gauge of the relative costs for each
bidder. Individual line items should not be used to compare the bids since each bidder may have
different internal multipliers associated with each line item and may have lumped together
subsystem costs differently than the other bidders.
Capital Cost Adjustments
Adjustments to each supplier’s capital cost quotation must be made to equalize or normalize the
bids to reflect a complete system from each bidder. The adjustment method involves a line-by-
line spreadsheet comparison with the specification requirements utilizing the technical data
sheets (see end of this section for partial example) submitted with each quotation. For those
items that fall outside of a supplier’s scope of supply, estimates by the A/E or energy company
in-house staff must be added to the bidder’s quotation to make the bids directly comparable. The
following is a list of areas where capital cost adjustments may be required based on previous
experience with review of FGD bid packages:
· Scope of Supply – Adders/deducts for adjustments to the scope of supply as determined
in the previous discussion.
· Detailed Equipment Design – The detailed design requirements, including preferred
suppliers of components, subsystem and other subcontracts, should be compared with the
requirements of the specification using the technical data spreadsheet. Equipment capacities
5-13
and redundancy requirements also should be included here. Variations from the specification
should be addressed once again as adders or credits where the proposed system varies from
the specification.
· Adjustments for System Control Concept – Each supplier should have submitted a control
concept detailing the level of automation for their system. Adjustments may be required,
depending on the availability and functions of plant operating personnel, to include hardware
and programming for the following:
– Automatic Flush/Drain system
– Automatic Start/Stop of spares
– Semi-automatic startup and shutdown of equipment trains.
· Adjustments for Out-of-Scope Items – Out-of-scope items are derived from a technical
review of the bids by the various disciplines. Where equipment is provided in one bid that
will provide better system performance or reliability, then the other bids may be required to
add these same components or a cost adder will be added to their total capital cost.
· Systems and Equipment – Additional costs for new or upgraded balance of plant (BOP)
equipment, i.e., components that will be required that are outside the scope of supply for the
FGD vendor should be added to the evaluated cost spreadsheet. These may include:
– Booster fans and ductwork
– Chimney
– Particulate removal system
– Makeup water treatment and distribution system
– Wastewater treatment system
– Services - Design studies
– Installation
– Equipment and building foundations
– Buildings
– Pipe racks
– Trenches and sumps
– Piping insulation and heat tracing
– Electrical cable to supplier interfaces
– Control system I/O and interfacing from supplier boundary limits
Fixed O&M Cost Comparisons
In addition to the consumables and evaluation factors listed above, the following items should be
considered when comparing different technologies.
5-14
Manpower Requirements
Each bidder should be requested to submit their estimate of the manpower required to operate
the new FGD equipment. Labor requirements will reflect the complexity of the system and level
of automation as defined in the control concept and can include:
· Supervisory
· Operators
· Maintenance
· Laboratory technicians
· I&C staff
· Reagent and Byproduct handling staff
Manpower can be levelized using the FGDCOST model to quantify the differentials between
bidders; the cost differential can then be added to the evaluated cost for each bid.
Total Evaluated Cost Development
The pricing summary provided by the vendor will include line item pricing as requested in the
bid documentation. The total evaluated cost includes additions and deductions that will bring
all bidders into equivalent technical compliance with the specification. Penalties and credits
are assessed to equalize the offerings from different technologies. Table 5-6 provides the
framework for calculating the total evaluated cost for each bid. The winning bid is then based
on a combination of the results of the technical and commercial evaluations, along with the
lowest evaluated cost.
5-15
Table 5-6
Total Evaluated Cost Comparison
Bidder - 1 Bidder - 2 Bidder - 3

Proposal Number
Proposal Date
Technology
I. Base Bid
1. FGD Absorber Island
2. Reagent Handling & Preparation
3. Byproduct Processing & Handling
4. Erection
Subtotal: Base Bid [A]
II. Adjustments to Bid
1. Adjustments for Scope
2. Adjustments for Equipment Design
3. Adjustments for Control Concept
Subtotal: Adjustments To Bid [B]
FGD Supplier Capital Cost [A+B]
III. Out-of-Scope Costs
1. Process/Mechanical System Upgrades
2 Out of Scope Services
3. New BOP Equipment
4. BOP Electrical System
5. BOP I&C System
6. Out-of-Scope Installation
Subtotal: Out of Scope Costs [C]
Total Installed Cost [A+B+C]
IV. Variable O&M Evaluation Factors
1. Flue Gas Pressure Drop Penalty
2. FGD System Operating Power Penalty
3. Levelized Reagent Cost Penalty
4. SO2 Removal Efficiency (Credit)
5. Levelized Byproduct [Penalty/(Credit)]
6. Construction/Tie-in Penalties
7. Levelized Manpower Requirements
Subtotal: Variable Factors [D]
Total Evaluated Cost [A+B+C+D]
5-16
Attachments
· Document Submittal Requirements – Provides a tabulation of the types of documents and
quantities of each that should be included as part of the bid submittal and also establishes
the requirements for the future contract.
· Scope of Supply Check List – This table provides a working tool that can be used for
comparison of the scope of work stated in the bid package for each vendor. This listing
can then provide easy comparison to the specification requirements.
· Bid Data Summary Sheet – This table can be the final summary of the comparison of the
bids received n response to the RFP.
· Bid Tabulation Example – This bid tabulation should be an all-inclusive summary of
the technical data and costs provided by each vendor.
· FGD Specification – Example Table of Contents for the specification that normally
accompanies the RFP package. The level of detail included in the specification will depend
on the generating company’s philosophy on various aspects of the installation process. In
many cases, the specific minimum requirements for all support equipment are included,
such as piping, electrical cable, instrumentation, structural steel, concrete, painting, etc.
· Example Listing of FGD System Performance Guarantees – This table when completed
will provide a brief summary of the performance guarantees offered by each FGD system
supplier. Consumption rate calculations will also be stated for utilities and chemicals, as
well as specification of the testing methods that will be used for measurement of system
performance.
· RFP Datasheet Example – These datasheets are attached to the RFP with blanks identified
for completion by each FGD Vendor. A typical set of datasheets can amount to 30-50 pages
of material, which provides the energy company with a submittal format that will help to
minimize the effort needed to retrieve specific technical information from each bid package.
5-17
Document Submittal Requirements
(typical)
Required data schedule for Seller’s submission after receipt of order (ARO) to Purchaser is as follows:
Certified
Initial Issue
Category No./Description Weeks Notes
Weeks ARO
ARO
1.0 Project Controls
Update as required
1.1 Drawing Submittal List 2 NA
(Note 1)
1.2 Project Organization With bid NA
1.3 Engineering & Production Schedule 2 NA Update as required
1.4 Progress Reports 4 NA Submit Monthly
2.0 Process/Mechanical
2.1 PFD, P&I Diagrams 3 Prelim with Bid
2.2 Chemical usage details 3 10 Prelim with Bid
2.3. Outline dimensions and General
2 8 Prelim with Bid
Arrangements
2.4 Performance Curves and Data Sheets 4 10 Prelim with Bid
2.5 Detailed component arrangement, piping
6 14
materials and interfacing.
2.6 Mechanical Equipment Detail Drawings 4 8
2.7 Line List and Valve List. 8 12
2.8 Insulation & heat tracing material takeoff. 10 14
2.9 Name Plate Details 8 14
2.10 Spare Parts List With bid with O&M
2.11 Lubrication Requirements 10 with O&M
3.0 Civil/Structural
3.1 Foundation design loading information 3 6
3.2 Anchor bolt pattern, size and locations 3 6
4.0 Electrical
4.1 Electrical one-line diagram and load list 4 8 Prelim load list with bid
4.2 Motor data sheets. 4 8
4.3 Electrical equipment drawings
4.4 Control Panel Drawings 6 12
4.5 Electrical Control Schematics 6 12
4.6 Interconnection cable block diagrams 6 12
5-18
Certified
Initial Issue
Category No./Description Weeks Notes
Weeks ARO
ARO
5.0 Instrumentation & Control
Prelim with
5.1 Control philosophy 4 8
Bid
5.2 Instrument List 3 8
5.3 Instrument Data Sheets, Catalog Cuts 4 8
5.4 Instrument hookup, installation details 8 14
5.5 Control Logic Diagrams 5 10
5.6 Control Wiring Diagrams 5 12
6.0 QA and Misc. Documentation
6.1 Quality Assurance Program 3 8
6.2 Welding & NDE
6 12
procedures/Qualifications reports
6.3 Painting specs, procedures, lists 4 8
6.4 Inspection & Test plans, schedules 4 8
6.5 QA/QC documentation As completed
6.6 Shipping & Storage Requirements 4 12
10 before
6.7 Installation Instruction Manual 8
shipping
6 before
6.8 O&M Manual 6 (typical + TOC)
shipping
4 before
6.9 Materials manifest NA
shipping
Note 1: Seller shall submit a list of drawings broken into the categories listed above.
Receipt of Order (ARO) is defined as receipt of Letter of Intent, award letter, or Purchase Order.
The “Initial Issue” submittal documents shall be such that the data (e.g. dimensions, weights, performance data, etc.) represent,
to a good approximation, the equipment that will be supplied. “Not-to-Exceed” data is preferred where the data is estimated or where
final equipment selection has not yet been made.
5-19
FGD System Scope of Supply Checklist

A = Architect/Engineer
C = Constructor
F = FGD System Supplier
O = Owner
N/A = Not Applicable
Category or Area
Engineer/ Fabricate/
Discipline Specify Install
Design Supply
Item
Site Preparation & General Site Work
Process/Mechanical
Site Equipment
Civil/Structural
Relocation of Existing Power/Piping
Demolition
Geological Surveys
Temporary Structures
Roadways
Fencing
Other Site Prep Work
Electrical
Grounding Grid
Plant DCS
Data Highway
Underground Utilities
Electrical
Service Water
Potable Water
Fire Water
Sewage
Storm Drainage
Oil/Gas
5-20
Category or Area
Engineer/ Fabricate/
Discipline Specify Install
Design Supply
Item
Foundations
Excavation
Caissons
Piling
Forming
Rebar
Concrete
Utilities
Process/Mechanical
Raw/Service Water Distribution
Cooling Water Distribution
Instrument Air System
Service Air System
Fire Protection
Electrical
6.6 kV Power Distribution
480 VAC Power Distribution
Low Voltage Power Distribution
Lighting
DC Power/UPS/Batteries
Communications
FGD System Control System
Local Equipment Controls
Flue Gas
Process/Mechanical
ID Fans and Control Dampers
ID Fan Motors
Booster Fans and Control Dampers
Booster Fan Motors
Upstream Particulate Collection System
5-21
Category or Area
Discipline Engineer/ Fabricate/
Item Specify Design Supply Install
Civil/Structural
Flue Gas Ductwork - Inlet
Flue Gas Ductwork - Outlet
Ductwork Support and Access
Duct Linings
Chimney with Access
Support Plates and Foundation Anchor Bolts
Electrical
6.6 kV Power Distribution
480 VAC Power Distribution
Control System
Local Equipment Controls
Flue Gas SO2 Monitors
Flue Gas Instruments
CEMS System
Reagent Delivery and Storage
Reagent Preparation
Fgd Module Area

Downstream Particulate Collection System
Byproduct Processing
Byproduct Storage and Removal
Wastewater Treatment
5-22
Bid Data Summary Sheet – FGD System (Example)

Plant Information
New/Retrofit
Total MW
Fuel type, %S
Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3
Process
Name
Wet/Dry SO2 Control
Method of SO3 Control
Number of FGD modules
Size each Module, MW
Reagent
Byproduct
Salable/Landfill
Construction Duration
Unit Outage Duration
Capital Costs
FGD Capital Costs
FGD Modules
Reagent Handling/Prep
Byproduct Handling
Subtotal
Auxiliary Capital Costs
Wastewater Treatment
New/Upgraded Fans
New/Upgraded Chimney(s)
New/Upgraded Particulate Collection
New/Upgraded HAPS
Upgraded Electrical Distribution
Upgraded Control System
Upgraded Service/Instrument Air Distribution
Upgraded Makeup Water Distribution
Subtotal
Construction Costs
Demolition & Relocation
FGD Modules
Reagent Handling/Prep
Byproduct Handling
Subtotal
Total Installed Capital Cost
5-23
Economic Factors and Plant Data

Total Gross Rating MW 500 (English) 500 (SI)
Gross Plant Heat Rate (GPHR) Btu (kJ)/kWhr 9,600 10,130
Plant Capacity Factor % 65 65
Technical Inputs For Boiler:
Total Air Downstream of Economizer % 120 120
Air Heater Leakage (% of econ. flue gas) % 13.7 13.7
Air Heater Outlet Gas Temp. °F (°C) 280 138
Pressure After Air Heater in. H2O (kPa) -12 -3
Particulate in Gas Downstream of ESP lb/MMBtu 0.03 13
(g/GJ)
Discount Rate (MAR) % 8.78 8.78
AFUDC Rate % 10.3 10.3
Construction Period years 3 3
Levelized Fixed Charge Rate (FCR) % 14.4 14.4
Service Life years 30 30
Start-Up Date year 2002 2002
Inflation Rate % 3 3
General Facilities (% of installed cost) % 10 10
Engineering Fees (% of installed cost) % 10 10
Materials/Operating Cost Inputs:
Construction Labor Rate $/hr $35 $35
Prime Contractor’s Markup (% of equip. cost) % 10% 10
Reagent Bulk Storage days 60 60
FGD Operating Labor Rate $/hr $31.30 $31.30
Power Cost Mills/KWh 40 40
Replacement Power Cost Mills/KWh 40 40
Steam Cost - medium pressure $/1000 lbs (kg) $3.86 $4.25
Water Cost:
Fresh $/1000 gal (l) $0.40 $0.11
Blowdown $/1000 gal (l) $0.00 $0.00
Cooling $/1000 gal (l) $0.16 $0.04
Particulate Control Inputs
Outlet Particulate Emission Limit lbs/MMBtu 0.03 13
(g/GJ)
Fabric Filter:
Pressure Drop in. H2O (kPa) 6 1.5
2
Gas-to-Cloth Ratio ACFM/ft 3.5 1.3
3 2
((m /min)/m )
Bag Life Years 5 5
5-24
Bid Tabulation Example
Power Generating Stations – FGD Retrofit Project

Wet FGD Summary
Vendor Name
Address
Telephone Number
Fax Number
e-Mail Address
Contact Name
Pricing (Total Capital Cost as Bid)
Station/Unit 1 $ $ $
Station/Unit 2 $ $ $
Schedule (from contract award

to commercial operation): Unit 1 weeks weeks weeks
Unit 2 weeks weeks weeks
Generating Station 1 Data:
Type: LSFO Open Spray Tower DCFS Wet Limestone FGD Wet CC Absorber with Tray
SO2 Removal (%) - Guarantee 97% 97% 97%
SO2 Removal (%) - Maximum >97% >98% 98.5%
Particulate Removal (%) - Guarantee
Number of vessels One (1) One (1) One (1)
Vessel Dimensions _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.) _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.) _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.)
FGD Absorber Materials of Construction
Estimated FGD installed weight _________ empty _________ empty _________ empty
Reagent Consumption ________per hour ________per hour ________per hour
Stoichiometry (mol CaCO3/mol SO2 removed)
Gypsum Production ________per hour ________per hour ________per hour
FGD Outlet Temp. (°F or °C)
5-25

FGD Pressure Drop
FGD Auxiliary Power Consumption (kW) ________ kW ________ kW ________ kW
FGD Water Consumption _______gpm _______gpm _______gpm
Exclusions Excludes: Foundations, Reagent Excludes: Foundations, Excludes: Foundations, Ductwork,
Receiving and Unloading, Power, Ductwork, ID Fans, ID fans, Stack, Elec. Distribution
Inlet/Outlet Ductwork, ID Fans, and Buildings. Equipment, DCS, Lighting, and
Chimney, Spare Parts. Demolition
Generating Station 2 Data
Type: LSFO Open Spray Tower DCFS Wet Limestone FGD Wet CC Absorber with Tray
SO2 Removal (%) – Guarantee 97% 97% 97%
SO2 Removal (%) – Maximum >97% >98% 98.5%
Particulate Removal (%) – Guarantee
Number of vessels One (1) per Unit (3 Total) One (1) per Unit (3 Total) One (1) per Unit (3 Total)
Vessel Dimensions
Unit 1 _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.) _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.) _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.)
Unit 2 _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.) _ Diam x _ High (_’ rxn tank diam.) _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.)
Unit 3 _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.) _ Diam x _ High (_’ rxn tank diam.) _ Diam x _ High (_ rxn tank diam.)
FGD Material
Estimated FGD installed weight
Unit 1 _________empty _________empty _________empty
Reagent Consumption
Unit 1 ________per hour ________per hour ________per hour
Stoichiometry (mol CaCO3/mol SO2 removed)
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
5-26

Gypsum Production
FGD Outlet Temp. (°F or °C):
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
FGD Pressure Drop
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
FGD Power Consumption (kW)
Unit 1 ________ kW ________ kW ________ kW
Unit 2 ________ kW ________ kW ________ kW
Unit 3 ________ kW ________ kW ________ kW
FGD Water Consumption
Unit 1 _______per min. _______per min. _______per min.
Exclusions Excludes: Foundations, Reagent Excludes: Foundations, Excludes: Foundations, Ductwork,
Receiving and Unloading, Power, Ductwork, ID Fans, ID Fans, Stack, Elec. Distribution
Inlet/Outlet Ductwork, ID Fans, and Buildings. Equipment, DCS, Lighting, and
Chimney, Spare Parts. Demolition
5-27
FGD Specification
TABLE OF CONTENTS (EXAMPLE)
GENERAL INFORMATION ..........................................................................................................

Plant Information ......................................................................................................................
Station Operating Characteristics .............................................................................................
DESIGN BASIS ............................................................................................................................

Ambient Conditions (Range and Design)..................................................................................
Design Fuel(s) ..........................................................................................................................
Design Reagent(s) ...................................................................................................................
Design Unit Information ............................................................................................................
FGD System Configuration.......................................................................................................
Guaranteed Performance Requirements ..................................................................................
Other Design Requirements .....................................................................................................
System Scope of Supply ..........................................................................................................
DETAILED DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................

General ....................................................................................................................................
Process/Mechanical .................................................................................................................
Civil/Structural/Architectural......................................................................................................
Electrical...................................................................................................................................
Instrumentation and Controls....................................................................................................
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS ........................................

Quality Assurance Program......................................................................................................
Shop Inspection and Testing ....................................................................................................
Equipment Marking ..................................................................................................................
Shipping, Handling and Storage Requirements ........................................................................
Field Tests................................................................................................................................
Project Documentation and Data Submission...........................................................................
ECONOMIC EVALUATION FACTORS ........................................................................................

General Economic Criteria .......................................................................................................
5-28
Operating Cost Criteria.............................................................................................................

Byproduct Sales Credits ...........................................................................................................
System Performance Penalties and Credits .............................................................................
Construction/Startup Schedule Penalties..................................................................................
PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS ..........................................................................................................

Technical..................................................................................................................................
Commercial ..............................................................................................................................
VENDOR LISTS ...........................................................................................................................
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................
FGDPRISM ..............................................................................................................................
FGDCOST................................................................................................................................
Process Screening Study Summary .........................................................................................
Combustion Calculations..........................................................................................................
Bid Evaluation Forms ...............................................................................................................
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Technical Data Sheets
Attachment B Pricing Schedule
Attachment C Project Document Submittal Requirements
Attachment D Pre-Approved Suppliers
Attachment E FGD System Scope of Supply Checklist
Attachment F Reference Drawings and Sketches
5-29
Example Listing of FGD System Performance Guarantees
The FGD system supplier shall guarantee all performance requirements listed in this Section.
Flue Gas Emissions
Flue Gas Performance Requirements (Example)
Parameter Units Design Test Method
Minimum SO2 Removal Efficiency % 95.0
Maximum SO2 Emissions lb/MMBtu (kg/GJ) 0.25 (0.12)
Minimum SO3 Removal Efficiency % 50
Maximum Particulate Emissions lb/MMBtu (kg/GJ) 0.10 (0.05)

2 2
Maximum Mist Eliminator Carryover gpm/ft (l/sec/m ) 0.001 (0.0007)
Minimum Mercury Removal % 70
Maximum Opacity % 10
Waste/Byproduct Requirements
Specify requirements for waste or byproducts as negotiated with the receiving entity. If waste or
byproducts are to be further processed on-site by other than the FGD supplier, specify the bleed
stream requirements at the supplier’s interface.
Gypsum Slurry Requirements (Example)

[Final Dewatering by Others]
Location Primary Dewatering Underflow
Bleed Slurry Density wt % solids 55
Minimum CaSO4•2H2O, dry basis wt % 95.0
Maximum CaCO3 , dry basis wt % 1.5
5-30
Gypsum Cake Requirements (Example)

[Final Dewatering by FGD Supplier]
Maximum Cake Moisture wt % 10.0
Minimum CaSO4•2H2O , dry basis wt % 95.0
Maximum CaCO3 , dry basis wt % 1.5
Maximum Dissolved Solids ppm Cl 120
Reagent Usage
Define and specify the maximum allowable reagent stoichiometry, to be guaranteed by the FGD
system supplier. Include methodology and locations for flow measurement, sampling and
analysis in the conformed contract specification.
For limestone and lime-based systems, reagent stoichiometry is defined as:
moles Ca in reagent feed

SR =
moles S removed
where 100% of the measured magnesium in the reagent is assumed to be unreactive dolomite.
Where guaranteed byproduct analysis is specified, reagent stoichiometry does not have to be
separately specified since the amount of unreacted reagent in the byproduct is directly related to
the operating stoichiometry.
Power Guarantee
The power guarantee consists of two independent components:

· The direct power draw by the FGD system equipment
· The equivalent power draw by the Unit ID/Booster fans due to the flue gas pressure drop
across the FGD system.
The cost of direct power draw (maximum 24-hour average) and the flue gas pressure drop
penalty (pre-determined $/²wc) are transferred to the bid evaluation spreadsheet. Both factors are
defined in Section 3. The total connected load, as provided by the bidders, is also factored into
the evaluation as an indirect cost for out-of-scope equipment such as transformers and electrical
distribution. The Owner/Engineer will determine the cost differential between bids based on the
single line diagram and equipment/load lists.
5-31
Performance Testing
While not required for initial technology and bidder selection, the testing methods used to
determine if the system meets the above performance guarantees should be listed in the
conformed contract specification. Include the following for each guaranteed parameter:
· Sampling locations
· Test methodology and analytical procedures
· Testing initiation, duration, and guideline protocols. (Detailed test protocols, to be developed
by the Contractor, are to be submitted and approved prior to testing)
· Performance correction curves to be used to correct from the actual operating conditions to
the design operating condition.
· Required actions and re-testing in the event of a failure to meet the guarantee
Specify the entity, normally the Owner, which is to bear the costs of the initial performance
testing. In general, the FGD system supplier should bear the cost of retesting if initial tests have
failed.
Performance Test Summary Checklist (Example)

Parameter to be Tested Methodology Sample Location
Flue Gas Inlet flow, particulate, SO2, SO3 Isokinetic sampling Absorber inlet duct
Flue Gas Inlet CO2, O2 Orsat grab sample Absorber inlet duct
Flue Gas Outlet particulate, SO3 Isokinetic sampling Absorber outlet duct
Flue Gas Outlet SO2, NOx Calibrated CEMS Chimney
Local static and velocity
Flue gas pressure drop Inlet and outlet ducts
pressure instrumentation
Integrated flow meter
Reagent Feed Flow Feed line to absorber
output
Laboratory analysis
Reagent slurry concentration Reagent Feed Tank
of grab sample
Raw reagent hardness, reactivity and Laboratory analysis
Feed to reagent prep system
composition of grab sample
Feed to FGD system
Power Draw Temporary meters
switchgear
Makeup Water Integrated flow meter FGD system interface
Byproduct moisture On-line moisture analyzer Discharge conveyor
Laboratory analysis of
Byproduct solids size and composition Absorber bleed line
grab sample
5-32
Other Design Requirements
Water Balance
Describe limitations on water usage and requirements for closed-loop operation. Give specific
plant requirements such as:
· Minimize chloride purge flow
· Air-cooled equipment and closed circuit cooling water systems
· Mechanical pump seals
The system supplier shall guarantee that the makeup water required by the FGD system will not
exceed that noted in the proposal water balance for the maximum design condition.
The system supplier shall guarantee that the chloride or other waste purge stream flow will not
exceed that noted in the proposal water balance for the maximum design condition. In order to
equalize bids for a single technology, the assumed chloride concentration in the absorber circuit
may be specified. This will tend to lead to similar equipment sizing, equipment materials of
construction and purge flow rates among the bidders, which affects the design and cost
downstream byproduct processing and wastewater treatment systems in addition to that of the
absorber module.
Reference a preliminary plant water balance in the Appendix showing water sources and usage,
if one has been developed.
Availability and Equipment Sparing Philosophy
Define required FGD system availability and the minimum duration between inspection and
maintenance outages. If, for multi-Unit plants, common equipment must remain in continuous
service because of staged Unit outages, specify minimum FGD equipment redundancy. An
example follows:
· The system shall be guaranteed to achieve a minimum 97% availability over a 12-month
operating period during the first 18 months after completion of the performance test.
System availability is normally defined as the percentage of hours operating or being capable
of operating at design conditions during a defined base period, normally a minimum of 30 days
or a calendar month. The availability is adjusted to discount approved, normally scheduled
maintenance and unscheduled maintenance performed during a Unit outage. A typical formula,
which should be included in the conformed specification for contract purposes, is as follows:
5-33
é (Hs + Hm ) + Ha - Hu ù
Availability = ê ú ´ 100
ë ( Hp - Hu ) û
Where
Hs = Hours in service meeting design requirements.
Hm = Hours out of service for regularly scheduled maintenance.
Ha = Hours available but not operating because of Unit outage.
Hu = Unscheduled maintenance hours during Unit outage.
Hp = Total number of hours in the base period.
Noise Limitations
A typical l requirement, below, includes frequency spectrum as well as total noise limitations
for the following:
· Near-field limits at equipment
· Composite limits within structure and/or at plant boundary
· Limits within office and control room environments
Near-Field Measurements – The sound levels emanating from any equipment furnished by the
Seller shall be guaranteed not to exceed the sound pressure level criteria listed below with all
equipment in service. The equipment should include sufficient acoustical mitigation required to
meet the noise criteria. The sound pressure level of equipment shall not exceed limits when
measured at the locations in the following table:
Noise Measurement Locations

Equipment Description Primary Measurement Location
Compressors, Pumps, Speed 3 feet (0.91 m) from equipment @ ½ vertical height of equipment*
Reducers, Engines
Fans, Blowers 3 feet (0.91 m) from inlet casing @ ½ vertical height of equipment*
Control Valves 3 feet (0.91 m) downstream @ 3 feet (0.91 m) from pipe wall
Vents, Silencers, Intakes, Exhausts 3 feet (0.91 m) from opening @ 90° to the flow
The noise measurement techniques, instrumentation, noise measuring equipment (real time
analyzer) and test conditions utilized to acquire sound level data that is reported per this
specification shall comply with ANSI S1.4 and S1.11 and the procedure contained in ANSI
S1.13, S12.31 and S12.32.
5-34
Overall A-weighted and Octave Band Sound Power Level (PWL) Criteria for Equipment,
in dBA ref. 20 pW
Octave Bands (Hz)
Equipment 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dBA
Compressor 87.8 88.9 94.4 91.8 100.0 106.2 100.0 85.9 109
Far-Field Measurements – In addition to all equipment meeting the allowable overall and
individual octave band Sound Power Level (PWL) criteria, the entire facility may be subject to
noise limitations at the boundary. In this case, include the octave band criteria at the boundary.
Noise guarantees at the plant boundary for equipment not supplied by the contractor will
probably not be accepted. However, the method of calculating the contribution of new equipment
to noise at the boundary and a report may be specified as a service within the scope of the FGD
supplier.
Overall A-weighted and Octave Band Sound Pressure Level (SPL) Criteria for Equipment
at 400’ (122 m), in dBA ref. 20 mPa
Octave Bands (Hz)
Equipment 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dBA
Compressor 32.1 33.2 38.7 36.1 44.3 50.5 44.3 30.2 53
5-35
Date___________________________
Contractor_______________________
Example
FGD Proposal Data Sheets
1 General
A The CONTRACTOR shall complete all the information and design data requested in the
Technical Data Sheets. If, in the CONTRACTOR’s opinion, these forms do not allow
him to adequately describe equipment and materials being offered, he shall submit
supplementary data, and shall make reference thereto in his proposal. Any estimated
quantity information furnished by the CONTRACTOR as part of his proposals is only for
the OWNER’s information and use in review of proposals, and does not in any way affect
the CONTRACTOR’s responsibility with regard to performance of all work shown on
the documents.
B The CONTRACTOR shall furnish detailed specifications, descriptive literature, and
catalog cuts of equipment being offered, including name of proposed manufacturer,
sketches, drawings, and other supplemental information. If “or OWNER-approved equal”
substitutions are proposed, the CONTRACTOR shall submit a listing of affected
equipment or materials, the manufacturer’s name, and all other information required to
substantiate that the proposed material or equipment is equal to that specified in the
inquiry documents. The CONTRACTOR agrees that all equipment and materials not
included in the listing of “or OWNER-approved equal” substitutions shall be furnished as
specified.
2 Physical Description
The CONTRACTOR shall submit the following information concerning the equipment and
physical layout of his proposed system:
A Dimensional drawings showing overall dimensions and locations of major components,
including all platform and access door locations.
B Complete descriptive data, internal drawings, for the major equipment proposed to be
furnished including equipment weights.
C A detailed description of all the instrumentation and controls, including manufacturer and
catalog numbers.
3. Lime Spray Dryer (LSD)

A General
a Number of absorbers _______________________
b Number of atomizers per absorber _______________________
c Arrangement _______________________
5-36
B Overall Dimensions, feet-inches

a Height (including penthouse) _______________________
b Width _______________________
c Length _______________________
C Weight of Total LSD, pounds
a Excluding hopper ash _______________________

b Including hopper ash (based on
100 pcf (1300 kg/m3) ash density) _______________________
D LSD Absorber Vessels
a Material _______________________
b Wall thickness, inches(cm) _______________________
c Roof thickness, inches (cm) _______________________
d Design pressure, plus or minus
inches w.c. (kPa) _______________________
e Design temperature, oF (°C) _______________________
·
·
·
E Ductwork
a Inlet/Outlet Manifold
1 Material _______________________
2 Thickness, inches (cm) _______________________
3 Flue gas velocity at design flow rate, fpm (m/sec)

– Inlet manifold _______________________
– Outlet manifold _______________________
b Inlet/Outlet Ducts
1 Material _______________________
2 Thickness, inches (cm) _______________________
3 Velocity at design flow _______________________
5-37
6
FGD TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
This section provides a listing of the major vendors currently serving the U.S. FGD market for
energy companies. The processes offered by these suppliers are briefly described later in this
section.
Vendor Listing
Table 6-1 provides a partial listing of those vendors who have recently pursued FGD system
solicitations in the U.S. market.
Table 6-1
Major FGD Vendors Serving the U.S. Electric Generation Market
FGD Supplier FGD Processes

Alstom Power Environmental LSFO Spray Tower
Lime Spray Dryer
FlowPac Absorber
Flash Drying Absorber
Babcock Borsig Power LSFO Spray Tower
LSFO Dual Loop
Babcock & Wilcox LSFO Tray Tower
Lime Spray Dryer
Airborne
Chiyoda International CT-121 Jet Bubbling Reactor
FLSmidth AirTech LSFO Packed Tower
Gas Suspension Absorber
Hamon Research Cottrell LSFO Spray Tower
Lime Spray Dryer
Lurgi Ljentes Bischoff LSFO Spray Tower
Circulating Fluid Bed Absorber
Marsulex Ammonium Sulfate Scrubber
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/Advatech LSFO Grid Packed Tower
LSFO Spray Tower
Double Contact Absorber
Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control LSFO Spray Tower
Corp. LSFO Tray Tower
Lime Spray Dryer
6-1
FGD Technology Overview
Technology Descriptions
The following material provides a brief description of the technologies listed in Table 6-1.
Limestone with Forced Oxidation (LSFO)
Limestone with forced oxidation (LSFO) FGD is a modification of a traditional wet limestone
FGD process. This process alleviated former problems such as gypsum scaling and dewatering
that plagued early natural oxidation, wet limestone processes. Consequently, the LSFO process
has become the preferred wet FGD technology worldwide. LSFO offers the advantage of
controlled oxidation of reaction products and potentially scale-free operation of the wet scrubber
(scale-free operation has been maintained at many of the latest FGD installations according to
published data). Depending on site-specific conditions, LSFO may produce a salable byproduct
in the form of commercial-grade gypsum that can be used for wallboard manufacturing or other
industrial applications.
In the LSFO process, hot flue gas exiting the ESP enters a spray tower where it is contacted with
a dilute calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate slurry (typically 15%-20% by weight suspended
solids). The dissolved SO2 reacts with the calcium carbonate in the limestone particles and the
slurry drains into the absorber sump.
The SO2 reaction with calcium carbonate initially forms calcium sulfite, which is subsequently
oxidized to calcium sulfate (gypsum) in the absorber sump. The formation of gypsum crystals in
the slurry helps to reduce scaling potential by providing suspended crystal surface for crystal
growth and reducing the calcium sulfate saturation level in the slurry. A certain level of sulfate
super-saturation is required for gypsum formation.
The chemistry for this process begins with limestone (CaCO3), the absorbing reagent, being
fed to the open spray tower absorber in an aqueous slurry at a molar feed rate of 1.03-1.05 moles
of CaCO3/mole of SO2 removed. The major product of SO2 reaction with limestone is the
formation of hydrated calcium sulfite (CaSO3 · 1/2H2O(s)) according to the following reaction:
CaCO3(s) + SO2(g) + 1/2H2O à CaSO3 · 1/2H2O(s) + CO2
The sulfite is oxidized by the injection of air into the bottom of the absorber sump, and then
hydrated to form calcium sulfate (CaSO4 · 2H2O) through the following reaction:
CaSO3 · 1/2H2O(s) + 1/2O2 + 3/2H2O à CaSO4 · 2H2O
Gas contact with the limestone slurry is accomplished in a variety of ways, depending on the
vendor designs offered. Absorber design alternatives include:
· Chiyoda CT-121 Jet Bubbling Reactor –In this design, the contact of flue gas with slurry is
accomplished by injecting the gas into the slurry through sparging pipes. As the gas rises, it
forms a froth layer where the transfer of SO2 to the slurry occurs. Oxidation is accomplished
in the in the integral tank below the froth layer by the injection of air. A bleed stream is
extracted from the tank and dewatered to produce the gypsum product. This process
eliminates the need for the mulitple internal spray levels and recycle pumps. The power
savings from the pump elimination is offset by the higher gas-side, pressure drop across
the CT-121 vessel, resulting in increased power consumption by the ID fans.
6-2
· Packed Tower – Packed towers also provided an alternate method for gas liquid contact.
Only one spray level is typically used in a packed tower design, spraying scrubber slurry on
the top of a layer of packing or grids that are supported within the scrubber vessel. The flue
gas passes up through the packing or grid, contacting the slurry as it flows down through the
packing. The wetted surface of the packing material provides the gas-liquid contact surface
for SO2 transfer. These designs typically have much lower liquid to gas recycle rates, and
therefore, lower pump power consumption. But once again, the pump power savings are
offset in part by the higher pressure drop across the absorber vessel. Slurry exiting the
packing falls into an integral reaction tank, where air is injected to complete the sulfite to
sulfate oxidation. A bleed stream is again extracted from the tank and subsequently
dewatered to form the gypsum product.
· Tray Tower – In this design, a perforated tray is installed in the absorber vessel to enhance
SO2 removal. A froth layer forms on the top of the tray as slurry is sprayed on top of the try
and flue gas passes up through the holes in the tray. The tray also provides a way to better
distribute the flue gas flow across the absorber cross-section by adding a perforated barrier in
the gas path. These improvements in gas-liquid contact typically result in a smaller absorber
vessel, but again at the expense of somewhat higher pressure drop.
· FlowPac Absorber – The FlowPac absorber offered by Alstom consists of an absorber tank
surrounded by a sieve tray, with eight return pipes taking slurry flow from the outside of the
tray down to the bottom of the absorber tank. The flue gas enters the absorber through the
sieve tray. The scruber slurry enters the tank near the bottom and is pushed up through the
vessel by the oxidation air. The slurry then flows over the sieve tay where it combines with
the flue gas in a turbulent mixture. The slurry is then recycled from the top of the sieve tray,
back to the bottom of the tank and then back to the sieve tray, providing the gas-liquid
contact. Once again the large recycle pumps are eliminated and the power savings are offset
in this case by the added power consumption of the oxidation air blowers and added pressure
drop across the vessel.
· Double Contact Flow Scrubber (DCFS) is offered by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)
and marketed in parts of the U.S. under the agreement between MHI and URS (company
called Advatech). In the Double Contact absorber design, flue gas enters at the middle of
the absorber below a level of slurry nozzles. These nozzles are large diameter pipes. The
recycle slurry is sprayed upward (co-current with the flue gas) as overlapping fountains,
creating a dense fluid-filled zone. As the fountain reaches its mazimum height, the large
droplets fall back into the gas flow, creating counter-current contact between the slurry and
flue gas. Once again, the slurry falls back into the integral reaction tank below the sprays,
where air is injected to complete the sulfite oxidation. A bleed stream is dewatered to form
the gypsum product.
· Dual Loop Absorber – This LSFO spray tower separates the vessel into two zones. The lower
zone typically operates with a lower pH slurry sprayed into the flue gas at the bottom of the
absorber. The sulfite slurry falls into the reaction tank below, where the lower pH helps to
improve the oxidation efficiency. The flue gas then passes into the second zone that is fed
with a higher pH slurry from a separate feed tank. The higher pH in the second loop is
designed to achieve high SO2 removal efficiency and increased reagent utlilization efficiency.
6-3
Wet Lime or Magnesium Enhanced Lime (Lime)
Most of the vendors offering LSFO spray and tray towers will also offer spray and tray
tower absorber vessel that use lime instead of limestone. The wet lime process can be either
a throwaway system that produces a calcium sulfite/sulfate sludge that is disposed of in a
landfill, or can include equipment (FOG system) that will converted the unoxidized sludge to a
marketable gypsum byproduct. The process chemistry can also be promoted with magnesium or
operated with a high calcium lime. Lime slurry is recycled through an open spray or tray tower to
absorb SO2.
In the wet lime process, flue gas leaving the particulate control system enters the FGD absorber.
Lime slurry is pumped to the absorber reaction tanks as required to maintain the slurry pH in the
proper range for efficient absorption (pH – 6 to 8). The SO2 is removed by direct contact with a
continuous and countercurrent spray of an aqueous suspension of finely ground slaked/hydrated
lime. Scrubbed flue gas passes through the mist eliminator and exits from the stack. Reaction
products are withdrawn from the absorber and are sent for dewatering and further processing.
The following equations represent the chemistry of the wet lime process. Slaking of pebble lime
with water produces calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) according to the following reaction:
CaO + H2O à Ca(OH)2 + heat
The following reactions summarize the absorption reaction and its by-products. The major
product is calcium sulfite (CaSO3 · ½ H2O). A portion of the sulfite is oxidized by free oxygen in
the flue gas to a calcium sulfate (CaSO4 · 2 H20) product.
Ca(OH)2 + SO2 à CaSO3 · ½ H2O (s) + ½ H2O (l)
CaSO3 · ½ H2O + ½ O2 + 3/2 H2O à CaSO4 · 2 H2O
Magnesium enhanced lime is a calcium-based wet scrubbing system with magnesium added to
promote SO2 removal efficiency. The alkalinity of the scrubber is increased by the high
concentrations of sulfite ion that are possible in the presence of magnesium. Magnesium is
typically added with the lime as magnesium oxide at a concentration of 5-8% by weight.
Previous research has also indicated that the presence of magnesium sulfite will help to reduce
scale formation by suppressing the concentrations of dissolved calcium in the scrubber slurry.
Magnesium sulfite in solution tends to absorb the free hydrogen ions, increasing the relative
concentration of HSO3- ions in solution and thereby increasing the alkalinity of the solution and
its ability to absorb SO2. The magnesium remains dissolved in the liquid phase at concentrations
of 3000-7500 ppm. Without the magnesium in the scrubber liquor, the HSO3- ions would quickly
+
tend to reach equilibrium with the H ions, reducing the available alkalinity in the solution.
6-4
Lime Spray Dryer (LSD)
The lime spray drying process is a semi-dry FGD process that produces a relatively dry mixture
of fly ash and reaction products. In this process the hot flue gas exiting the boiler air heaters
enters a spray dryer vessel (cylindrical, conical bottom, or horizontal box). Within the vessel, an
atomized slurry of lime and recycled solids contacts the flue gas stream. The sulfur oxides in the
flue gas react with the lime and fly ash alkali to form calcium salts. The water entering with the
slurry vaporizes, lowering the temperature and raising the moisture content of the scrubbed gas.
In some spray dryer designs, the scrubbed gas leaves from the side of the vessel, and a portion of
the dried reaction products and fly ash drop out in the conical bottom.
The spray dryer outlet temperature is typically controlled within 1-2°F of the operating set point
(normally 25-35°F above the gas saturation temperature). A closer approach to the saturation
temperature would allow the LSD system to achieve higher removal efficiency for a short period,
but at the same time risking the buildup of solids on internal surfaces. A particulate control
device will be required downstream of the spray dryer. A fabric filter or ESP operating
downstream of the LSD vessels will remove the dry solid reaction products, unreacted reagent,
and fly ash before the scrubbed gas is released to the atmosphere. In most new installations, a
baghouse (FF) would be used as the particulate device downstream of the spray dryer to enhance
SO2 removal efficiency. The FF bags collect a layer of solids on their surfaces between
cleanings, and the movement of the flue gas through this layer enhances the gas-solid contact
compared to an ESP where the solids collect on the plates and the flue gas only flows past the
external surface of the solids. A portion of the collected reaction product and fly ash solids is
typically recycled to the slurry feed system to increase utilization and SO2 removal. The
remaining solids are transported to a landfill for disposal.
The following chemical reactions define how the sulfur dioxide is removed from the flue gas in
the lime spray drying process:
· Raw lime is slaked with an excess of water to form a calcium hydroxide slurry:
CaO + H2O à Ca(OH)2

· The sulfur oxides in the flue gas are absorbed into the slurry and react to form the salt
products:
Ca(OH)2 + SO2 à CaSO3 · 1/2H2O + 1/2H2O
Ca(OH)2 + SO3 + H2O à CaSO4 · 2H2O

· Any HCl in the flue gas, present because of the chloride content of the fired coal, also
absorbs into the slurry and reacts with the slaked lime by:
Ca(OH)2 + 2HCl à CaCl2 + 2H2O

· A fraction of the sulfite product may also be oxidized to the sulfate form by reaction with
oxygen in the flue gas:
Ca(OH)2 + SO2 + 1/2O2 + H2O à CaSO4 · 2H2O
6-5
The majority of the water evaporates in the spray dryer, leaving dry particles composed of the
reaction products, unreacted absorbent, and fly ash. In the particulate control device, the
remaining SO2 continues to react with the residual lime in the collected solids, although, at a
much slower rate.
Alternate dry FGD systems are also marketed in the U.S., including the following:
· FLS GSA Absorber – FLSmidth has installed more than 40 GSA units on a variety of
industrial and small boiler facilities. They now offer the system for energy company
applications. This system relies on a low density circulating fluid bed to provide intimate
contact between the flue gas and the hydrated lime particles. Solids are recycled from a
cyclone positioned downstream, used to reduce the particulate loading to the existing
particulate matter loading to the existing ESP or FF to close to the same level as it was
originally designed to handle. The GSA fluid bed is responsible for essentially all of the SO2
capture, unlike the LSD designs that rely on the gas solid contact time that occurs in the FF
or ESP to achieve high SO2 removal efficiency. The GSA design operates with
approximately double the pressure drop of the LSD vessel alone, but since it can in some
cases eliminate the need for any new particulate collection equipment, the overall addition to
the system gas-side pressure drop may be lower than a LSD/FF retrofit. The system produces
a dry solid waste material.
· The Lurgi Circulating Fluid Bed (CFB) design is similar in many ways to the GSA system.
Most recent offerings by Lurgi in the U.S. have included a new particulate collector
downstream to handle the increased solids loading (typically an ESP). Once again, lime
slurry is injected into the fluid bed or upstream of the vessel and the fluid bed provides the
mechanism for gas-solid contact. A large fraction of the solids collected in the ESP or FF
downstream are recycled back to the CFB to improve reagent utilization. A dry waste
product is produced by the system.
· Flash Dryer Absorber (FDA) – Alstom is currently marketing the FDA for installations
requiring up to 90% removal efficiency. A long vertical run of ductwork is used to form a
low-density, gas-solid contact zone between the flue gas and the lime solids. The reaction
products and unused lime are collected in the existing particulate collector. A dry solid waste
is produced.
Other Modifications to Wet FGD Technologies
Recent FGD technology advancements have focused on improving the performance of the
existing equipment, and providing sufficient instrumentation and control capability so that the
system chemistry can be maintained at the optimum levels to avoid scaling while maintaining
high removal efficiency. The addition of liquid distribution rings to the inside surface of the
absorber has reduced the potential for flue gas sneakage along the walls of the absorber vessel,
which can allow the flue gas to avoid contact with the slurry spray and reduce overall SO2
removal efficiency. Improvements in mist eliminator designs have allowed higher gas velocities
within the absorber vessel, reducing the diameter of the vessel shell and overall cost.
The elimination of the thickeners, replacing them with hydroclones for primary dewatering,
has also allowed significant reduction in the plan area required for an FGD retrofit.
6-6
Additives are another area that has seen extensive research and development to enhance wet
FGD performance. The use of organic acids has demonstrated the ability to reduce the slurry
recycle rate while maintaining SO2 removal efficiency. Some facilities have incorporated the
use of organic acid into their original design, allowing them to reduce the size of their recycle
pumps and height of the absorber vessel by the elimination of a spray level. There is also the
potential to improve reagent utilization efficiency while operating at the reduced pH that can
be maintained in an organic acid enhanced FGD system.
Fertilizer Production - The other major change in FGD designs is modifying the system
chemistry to allow the production of higher value byproducts. Systems offered by Marsulex,
Airborne/B&W, and others can be used to produce a variety of materials, including ammonium
sulfate, potassium sulfate, and in some instances, regenerate their initial feed reagent for sale
or reuse:
· Airborne – This system uses a sodium scrubbing process to remove SO2, and then regenerates
the sodium compounds for reuse in the absorption system. During regeneration, a variety of
byproducts can be produced, including ammonium or potassium sulfate depending on the
local demand for these materials.
· Ammonium Sulfate – Marsulex is offering the ammonium sulfate with forced oxidation
(ASFO) system. This system has been installed commercially in the U.S. and another project
is currently underway in the Southeast. An open spray tower is typically used to provide gas-
liquid contact. SO2 dissolves into the slurry to form ammonium sulfite. Air is injected into the
bottom of the reaction tank to complete the oxidation reaction, forming the ammonium
sulfate fertilizer slurry. The slurry is processed through a number of crystallization and
drying steps to form the fertilizer product that has demonstrated its ability to be sold for high
prices to fertilizer distributors. The demand for the byproduct is somewhat driven by the
regional usage and seasonal variations in demand due to agricultural requirements.
6-7
Target: SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTI-
Integrated Environmental Controls (Hg, SO2, TUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL.
NOx, & Particluate
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO
THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT,PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL
BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package only for your own
benefit and the benefit of your organization.This means that the following may use this package: (I) your company (at any site owned
or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities,
if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for
its own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between most U.S.EPRI mem-
ber utilities and EPRI.Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
About EPRI This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by United States
and international copyright laws.You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce, translate or modify this pack-
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for age, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
the global energy and energy services industry. U.S. 3. RESTRICTIONS
electric utilities established the Electric Power You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information contained in this
package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless such use is with the prior written
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this package. Except as speci-
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their fied above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other
intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this package.
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
4.TERM AND TERMINATION
the company provides a wide range of innovative This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this package. EPRI has
products and services to more than 1000 energy- the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement.
Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
related organizations in 40 countries. EPRI’s
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
NEITHER EPRI,ANY MEMBER OF EPRI,ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF
draws on a worldwide network of technical and OF ANY OF THEM:
business expertise to help solve today’s toughest (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE
OF ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING
energy and environmental problems.
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
EPRI. Electrify the World INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS
PACKAGE IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSE-
QUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS,
METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and you agree not to
export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign gov-
ernment approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California
between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between you
and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different
terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
© 2003 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights

reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
1004706
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com

FGD Bid Preparation and Proposal Review Guideline EPRI

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FGD Bid Preparation and Proposal Review Guideline EPRI

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Flue Gas Desulfurization Bid Preparation

and Proposal Review Guideline

E the Wrapping Material.

Final Report, March 2003

EPRI Project Manager

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Washington Group International, Inc.

This report was prepared by

Washington Group International, Inc.

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

Results & Findings

Challenges & Objectives

Applications, Values & Use

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1

2 DESIGN BASIS BID DATA ................................................................................................. 2-1

FGD System Performance Requirements .....................................................................2-11

Sump Pumps ...........................................................................................................2-22

3 CONTRACTING ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................... 3-1

Single Prime (Design-Build) ........................................................................................... 3-4

4 FGD PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES .................................................................................. 4-1

Quicklime Reagent Properties..................................................................................4-61

5 FGD BID REVIEW METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 5-1

FGD System Scope of Supply Checklist .......................................................................5-20

6 FGD TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 6-1

Figure 4-21 Effect of a 50°F (28°C) Approach Temperature on SO2 Removal

Table 2-1 Plant Operating Characteristics............................................................................... 2-3

General Energy Company Information

Unit Descriptions - Describe all Units, including:

Design Basis Bid Data

Station Operating Characteristics

Base Loaded/Cycling Operation

Design Basis Bid Data

Parameter Unit x Unit y Unit z

Present of Proposed Air Quality Control System

Waste Water System

Describe present and proposed wastewater treatment and disposal requirements,

Design Basis Bid Data

Ambient Temperatures (Range and Design)

Seismic and Wind Design

Indoor HVAC Requirements

Design Basis Bid Data

Potable Water Analysis

Parameter Range Design

Service Water Cooling Water

Design Basis Bid Data

Available Power, Motor Voltages

Design Basis Bid Data

Component Units Range Design

HHV Btu/lb (J/kg)

SO2 lb/MM Btu (kg/GJ)

Component Weight % (Dry)

Silicon (as SiO2)

Aluminum (as Al2O3)

Iron (as Fe2O3)

Calcium (as CaO)

Magnesium (as MgO)

Sulfur (as SO3)

Sodium (as Na2O)

Potassium (as K2O)

Titanium (as TiO2)

Phosphorous (as P2O5)