Title: Minimizing FGD Costs

Author: Mr. Bryan D. Hansen, P.E., Burns & McDonnell

With nearly every utility in the United States adding or upgrading their Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system, it is
crucial that the utilities understand key issues in reducing the cost of these new systems. At the same time utilities
are also facing increased pressure to eliminate wastewater discharge and to move toward a zero emission or near
zero emission facility.

This paper discusses the water balance impacts of a wet FGD system and ways to minimize the overall project cost
of the FGD system and new wastewater treatment facilities. The addition of a wet FGD system can significantly
affect the water balance of the facility. In many cases significant new wastewater treatment systems may need to be
installed to handle the FGD blowdown.

Major topics include:

Plant water balance impacts with a new wet FGD system at an existing plant.
Impact of producing saleable grade gypsum versus land filling gypsum.
Zero liquid discharge technologies applicable for treating FGD blowdown.
Minimizing quantity of FGD blowdown by using higher grade materials of construction such as 317LMN,
Duplex 2205, Duplex 255, 6% Moly, Hastelloy C, etc.
Impact of switching to a higher or lower chloride content fuel.

The cost information section of the paper will discuss the trade off between the increased costs of the FGD system
materials of construction verses building a larger wastewater treatment facility. Comparative analysis of these costs
for bituminous, sub-bituminous, and lignite fuels will be included.

FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEM WATER BALANCE IMPACTS

When designing a wet FGD system there are many issues to consider. One important issue is trying to determine
where to obtain the makeup water supply and how to dispose of the FGD wastewater.

The wet FGD process requires a significant quantity of makeup water for reagent preparation, mist eliminator wash,
evaporative losses, and dewatering needs. A portion of this makeup water can come from poor quality water such as
cooling tower blowdown and other plant wastewater streams. However, there is always a need for some good quality
makeup water for lime slaking (if using lime instead of limestone), mist eliminator wash, and to wash the gypsum
produced to achieve the desired gypsum quality.

The quantity of wastewater produced by the FGD process is directly related to the fuel characteristics and makeup
water quality. Chloride concentration is the primary characteristic evaluated when selecting materials of
construction for the wet FGD system. The concentration of chlorides in the fuel source contributes the majority of
the chlorides present in the FGD wastewater stream. Typically, fuels have chloride contents ranging from 0.01
percent up to 0.28 percent (see Table 1).

Page 1 of 9
 Table 1 - Chloride Maximum Values by Coal

Coal 95th Percentile 98th Percentile Average Basis

Sub-bituminous 0.07 0.08 0.01 Dry
Bituminous 0.25 0.28 0.10 Dry
Lignite 0.05 0.06 0.02 Dry
Data obtained from EPAs Mercury Information Collection Request Database

By comparison, the concentration of chlorides in most makeup water streams is several orders of magnitude smaller.
Therefore, small changes in the fuel chloride content can have a major impact on chloride concentration in the FGD
system whereas; small changes in the makeup water supply chloride content are hardly even noticeable.

For this paper a variety of fuels were modeled to determine what impact that fuel selection has on the overall cost of
the FGD system and wastewater treatment equipment. Table 2 lists the characteristics of the fuels examined in this
paper.

Table 2 - Coal Analysis Basis

COAL ULTIMATE ANALYSIS Wyoming Jefferson, No. 6 Illinois Rosebud, MT Lignite, ND

(ASTM, as recd, wt%) PRB OH
Moisture 30.24 5.00 12.00 25.20 32.00
Carbon 48.18 65.72 55.35 51.52 45.06
Hydrogen 3.31 4.53 4.00 3.29 2.80
Nitrogen 0.70 1.21 1.08 0.69 1.50
Chlorine 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Sulfur 0.37 3.43 4.00 0.56 0.94
Ash 5.32 13.00 16.00 8.15 5.90
Oxygen 11.87 7.01 7.47 10.49 11.70
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Modified Mott Spooner HHV 8,227 11,922 10,100 8,789 7,500
(Btu/lb)
Data taken from EPAs Cue Cost program

Figure 1 indicates the relative FGD system makeup water requirements using a No. 6 Illinois coal with various
chloride concentrations. Appendix A contains similar information for the other fuels in this evaluation.

Page 2 of 9
 Figure 1 - FGD System Makeup Rate versus Unit Size
with No. 6 Illinois Coal

1400
Makeup Rate (gpm)

1200
8,000 ppm Cl
1000
12,000 ppm Cl
800
20,000 ppm Cl
600
40,000 ppm Cl
400
50,000 ppm Cl
200
0

00
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
10

20
30

40
50

60
70

80
90
10
Plant Size (MW)

BASIS OF EVALUATION

For this paper we wanted to determine what combination of wet FGD system and wastewater treatment system
would result in the most economical combination. Particularly, we want to look at a brine concentrator/crystallizer
type wastewater treatment system. The brine concentrator/ crystallizer system produces a high purity distillate that
can be reused in the plant to reduce the overall plant makeup water needs. The waste stream from the brine
concentrator/crystallizer is a solid, landfillable material. Essentially, any other plant wastewater streams can be
disposed of by directing most of the wastewater to the wet FGD system for makeup and directing the FGD system
blowdown to the brine concentrator/crystallizer system.

So the question we have is for any given fuel, what combination of wet FGD system materials of construction and
brine concentrator/crystallizer sizing will result in the lowest overall cost to the utility.

MATERIAL LIMITATIONS

For the wet FGD system, various materials of construction can be used. The limiting factor of each material is the
concentration of chlorides the material can withstand. Table 3 indicates some common materials of construction and
their associated design chloride concentrations.

Page 3 of 9
 Table 3 - Chloride Limitations for Various Materials

Materials of Construction Design Chloride Limits (ppm)

317LMN Stainless Steel (S31726) 8,000
Duplex 2205 Stainless Steel (S32205) 12,000
Super Duplex 255 Stainless Steel (S32550) 20,000
Super Austenitic 6% Mo Stainless Steel (N08367) 40,000
C-276 (N10276) 50,000

As can be seen from Table 3, the allowable chloride concentration can vary significantly. The primary disadvantage
is that as you go down the table, material costs increase dramatically. For this evaluation we only wanted to consider
metallic alloy options to simplify the evaluation. Figure 2 shows the impact that materials of construction have on
the wastewater blowdown concentration from the FGD system using No. 6 Illinois coal. Appendix A contains
similar figures for the other fuels in this evaluation.

Figure 2 - FGD System Blowdown Rate versus Unit

Size with No. 6 Illinois Coal

300
Blowdown Rate (gpm)

250
8,000 ppm Cl
200 12,000 ppm Cl
150 20,000 ppm Cl
100 40,000 ppm Cl
50,000 ppm Cl
50
0
00
0

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90
10

Plant Size (MW)

EQUIPMENT COSTS

Equipment pricing was obtained for a variety of brine concentrator/crystallizer systems. FGD system pricing was
modeled using a modified version of EPAs Cue Cost program. Current material pricing was obtained for the
various metals under consideration. Table 4 indicates the material pricing used in this evaluation.

Page 4 of 9
 Table 4 - Construction Material Pricing

Materials of Construction Material Costs Erection Costs Installed Costs

($/ft) ($/ft) ($/ft)
317LMN Stainless Steel (S31726) $19 $39 $58
Duplex 2205 Stainless Steel (S32205) $25 $39 $64
Super Duplex 255 Stainless Steel (S2550) $48 $39 $88
Super Austenitic 6% Mo Stainless Steel (N08367) $45 $39 $84
C-276 (N10276) (wallpaper) $70 $47 $117
C-276 (N10276) (solid) $98 $51 $148

Figure 3 shows the relative costs of a brine concentrator/crystallizer system versus wastewater treatment rate. For
this evaluation, any treatment rate less than 10 gpm was not included. Typically, with these low flow rates, a spray
dryer or evaporation ponds will provide a more economical solution.

Figure 3 - Brine Concentrator / Crystallizer

Equipment Costs versus Treatment Rate

7.0
6.0
Cost (Millions $)

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
25

5
0
10

17

25

32

40

47

55

62

70

77

85

92
10

Treatment Rate (gpm)

Figure 4 shows the relative installed costs of the brine concentrator/crystallizer systems versus treatment rate.

Page 5 of 9
 Figure 4 - Brine Concentrator / Crystallizer
Installed Costs versus Treatment Rate

25.0
Cost (Millions $)

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

00
25

5
10

17

25

32

40

47

55

62

70

77

85

92
10
Treatment Rate (gpm)

Figure 5 shows the relative installed costs of the FGD system for No. 6 Illinois coal versus plant size for various
materials of construction. Appendix A contains similar installed cost data for the other fuels in this evaluation.

Figure 5 - FGD System Costs versus Unit Size

with Various Materials Firing No. 6 Illinois Coal

$200,000,000
Installed Costs ($)

317LMN
$150,000,000 Duplex 2205
Duplex 255
$100,000,000
6% Mo
$50,000,000 C-276 Wallpaper
C-276 Solid
$0
0

0
10

30

50

70

90

Plant Size (MW)

Figure 6 shows the relative annual operating and maintenance costs of the FGD system versus plant size for various
fuels.

Page 6 of 9
 Figure 6 - FGD System Annual Operating Costs
versus Unit Size

$18,000,000
Operating Costs ($)

$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000 Wyoming PRB
$10,000,000 Armstrong, PA
$8,000,000 Jefferson, OH
$6,000,000
Logan, WV
$4,000,000
$2,000,000 No. 6 Illinois
$0 Rosebud, MT
Lignite, ND
0

0
10

30

50

70

90
Plant Size (MW)

As we can see from Figure 2, better FGD materials of construction can reduce the amount of FGD blowdown which
subsequently reduces the required size of the wastewater treatment equipment. The problem is how to optimize
higher FGD equipment costs, due to better materials of construction, versus the size of the brine
concentrator/crystallizer equipment. If we look at the total system installed costs of a wet FGD system plus its
corresponding brine concentrator/ crystallizer we can compare the incremental costs of installation. Likewise, we
can compare the total operating and maintenance costs of the wet FGD system plus its corresponding brine
concentrator/crystallizer equipment. Figure 7 shows the incremental installation costs of the total wet FGD system
plus brine concentrator/crystallizer for a No. 6 Illinois coal versus plant size with various materials of construction.
The base case was for the 317LMN materials. Appendix A contains similar data for the other fuels under
consideration.

Page 7 of 9
 Figure 7 - Incremental Installed Costs of FGD
System and Brine Concentrator versus Unit Size
for No. 6 Illinois Coal
Incremental Costs ($)

$50,000,000
$40,000,000 Duplex 2205
Duplex 255
$30,000,000
6% Mo
$20,000,000
C-276 Wallpaper
$10,000,000 C-276 Solid
$0
0

0
10

30

50

70

90

Plant Size (MW)

Putting all this data together we can calculate the present worth of each system versus each fuel for a range of plant
sizes. Figure 8 shows the present worth of the wet FGD/brine concentrator system versus the various material of
construction over a range of plant sizes. Appendix A contains similar data for the other fuels under consideration.

Figure 8 - Present Worth of Installed FGD System

and Brine Concentrator versus FGD Materials
Firing No. 6 Illinois Coal

$400.0 100 MW
Present Worth

$350.0
(Millions $)

$300.0 200 MW
$250.0 300 MW
$200.0
$150.0 400 MW
$100.0
$50.0 500 MW
$0.0
600 MW
317LMN

6% Mo

C-276
Duplex

Duplex

Wallpaper

Solid
2205

255

700 MW
C-276

800 MW
900 MW
FGD Materials 1000 MW

Page 8 of 9
 CONCLUSIONS

From the shape of the curves in Figure 8 we can clearly see that the present worth decreases with increasing
materials of construction until we get to the 6% Mo materials. At this point, using higher materials of construction
results in an increased overall present worth. This is true for all the various coals under consideration and over all
the plant sizes under consideration. Therefore, we would conclude that for any given combination of fuels, a wet
FGD system with 6% Mo materials of construction followed by a brine concentrator/crystallizer system would result
in the lowest life cycle costs for any plant size.

Obviously, the scope of this comparison was limited to a very specific case and other alternatives must be
considered for each installation to ensure the utility gets the best value for their investment.

Page 9 of 9