# State-of-the-Art Upgrades to Existing Wet FGD Systems to Improve SO 2 

# Removal, Reduce Operating Costs and Improve Reliability Technical Paper

BR-1909

Authors:

A.L. Moretti

Babcock & Wilcox
Power Generation Group, Inc.
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.

Presented to:
Power-Gen Europe

Date:
June 3-5, 2014

Location: Cologne, Germany1 

# State

**- of** 

**- the** 

**- Art Upgrades to Existing Wet FGD**  **Systems to Improve SO 2**  

# Removal, Reduce **Operating Costs and Improve Reliability**

BR

- 1909

Presented to Power

- Gen Europe Cologne, Germany, June 3

- 5, 2014

Albert L. Moretti

Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.
Barberton, Ohio USA

ABSTRACT

European utilities are continuously looking for ways to reduce operating and maintenance costs

of their w et f lue g as d esulfurization ( FGD ) systems while at the same time increasing sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) removal efficiency. Upgrading an existing w et FGD system may be an effective way to improve SO 2 removal, allow the use of lower cost higher sulfur coals, reduce power consumption, eliminate high pressure drop packing, allow the conversion to a forced oxidi zed system, allow for the use of an alternate reagent, and improve the reliability of the system while reducing the operating and maintenance costs. By today’s standards, older w et FGD systems

were n ot designed to achieve high SO 2 removal s and higher relia bility while at the same time minimizing operating costs . New w et FGD systems are typically designed for SO 2 removal levels of 98% and reliability of 99%+. Fortunately, the technological improvements that have been incorporated into the newest w et FGD systems can be adapted for retrofi t into older w et

FGD systems. These technological improvements include the installation of improved g as

- liquid contacting devices, wall rings, r edesigned spray headers, state

- of

- the

- art spray nozzles and upgraded mist eli minators

, conversion from natural or inhibited oxidation to in situ forced oxidation, and improved limestone preparation systems and byproduct dewatering systems. This paper discusses how state of the art w et FGD technology can be used to upgrade the perfo rmance of existing w et FGD systems.

INTRODUCTION

SO 2 is an ey e, nose and throat irritant. It is associated with respiratory illness. One of the major

effects of SO 2 emissions is acid rain. A variety of SO 2 removal technologies are available. These include wet FGD, and dry FGD utilizing a spray dryer absorber (SDA), circulating dry scrubber (CDS), or dry sorbent injection (DSI). Wet FGD is the predominate technology used

worldwide for the control of SO 2 fro m utility power plants . This technology was first introduced

to elec tric utilities over 40 years ago

.2 W et FGDs have been successfully used for a complete range of coal types including anthracite, bituminous, sub

- bituminous, lignite and brown coals. Wet FGD is also installed on systems that use heavy oil and Orimulsion for fuel. Conventional wet FGD system s utilize a wet limestone process with in situ forced oxidation to remove SO 2 and produce a gypsum byproduct.

New state

- of

- the

- art w et FGD sy stems are typically designed to achieve SO 2 removal levels of 98% and reliability levels of 99%+. The technolog y used in these modern w et FGD systems can

be retrofitted into older systems

. Upgrading an existing w et FGD system using current technology may be an effective approach to improve SO 2 removal, allow the use of lower cost higher sulfur coals, reduce power consumption, eliminate high p ressure drop packing, allow conversion to a forced oxidized system, allow for the use of an alternate reagent, and improve the reliability of the system wh ile reducing the operating and maintenance costs.

These modern day technologies include: the addition of an absorber tray for increased liquid to gas contact resulting in greater SO 2 removal; the use of wall rings, redesigned spray headers and

spray nozz le patterns for improved slurry to f lue gas contact within the absorber ; redesigned mist eliminators and mist eliminator wash systems to handle higher velocities through the absorber ; forced oxidation conversion to eliminate the need for disposal ponds, cr eating a saleable byproduct which will decrease disposal costs; and improved reagent preparation and dewatering equipment for greater system capacities and increased reliability. When upgrading an existing

Wet FGD system, both capital and operating cost b enefits are realized.

ABSORBER GAS

- LIQUID CONTACT DEVICE

SO 2 removal in a l imestone f orced o xidized (LSFO) wet scrubber is controlled by how much

SO 2 can be absorbed per unit volume of recirculated slurry ( lb SO 2 per gallon , or kg per liter ).

This is referred to as absorption. SO 2 absorption is limited by the amount of solid and liquid phase alkalinity provided in each gallon of slurry. The absorption is also a function of the physical design of the absorber, which sets the gas

- slurry cont act area. Better contacting exposes more of the slurry to the gas and the increased exposure allows more of the alkalinity in each gallon of slurry to be utilized

.

T he most common type of w et FGD absorber is the spray tower . Many of these spray towers a re

open tower configuration s where the flue gas enters the tower horizontally and turns 90 degrees into a vertical open cylindrical vessel with multiple levels of spray headers. The SO 2 removal process begins as hot flue gas enters the absorber tower where it is cooled and saturated by the slurry. The flue gas then flows upward through the absorber spray zone, where slurry is sprayed countercurrent to the flue gas flow, completing the S O 2 removal process. M aldistribution of flue

gas across the cross section of the absorber is a common concern. This is caused by the high velocity of flue gas entering the absorber which causes a tendency of the flue gas to hug the

walls of the absorber re sulting in gas bypassing the spray headers

. The SO 2 removal efficien cy of

an open spray tower can be upgraded by adding wall rings or an absorber tray . The structural aspects of adding wall rings or an absorber tray must be considered in any such retrofit.3 Wall rings improve SO 2 efficiency by reducing the gas bypass in an open spray tower resulting from the tendency of the flue gas to hug the walls of the absorber. Also, wall rings push out the slurry that runs down from the walls back into the gas stre am, making a better use of the liquid

to

- gas ratio ( L/G ) from the spray headers. Figure 1 shows a typical wall ring retrofit in a w et

FGD.

Figure 1

– Typical wall ring retrofit in a w et FGD

Retrofitting an absorber tray into an open spray tower is an effective way to maximize the

contact between t he flue gas and the slurry . The tray maximizes the contact between the gas and the slurry due to the vigorous frothing action that occurs on the tray. The absorber tray also evenly distributes the flue gas fl ow across the absorber cross

- section, promoting optimum contact as the flue gas passes through the absorber spray levels. Figure 2 illustrates gas velocity profiles of the flue gas at the spray levels in an open spray tower compared to an absorber tower with a tray

.

Figure 2

- Gas velocity profiles of the flue gas at the spray levels in an open spray tower (left) compared to an
absorber tower with a tray (right)

.4 The use of an absorber tray can eliminate the need for t he addition of a spray level in the

absorber. The additional fan power required from the increased gas

- side system pressure drop of the tray is typically offset by a reduction in pumping power associated with the lower L/G required to achieve a given SO 2 removal efficiency. For modera te SO 2 removal improvements, the absorber tray retrofit can allow the plant to use one less spray level and spray pump per absorber. This results in decreased operating and maintenance costs.

Depending upon the target removal efficiency and configuration of the existing w et FGD module, installing two tray s may also be considered as a means to achieve the most optimized upgrade to the system. Full

- scale field tests have shown the benefit of adding an absorber tray to

an open spray tower. Figure 3 illustrates the SO 2 removal efficiency increase in the same absorber tower with and without an absorber tray.

Figure 3

- SO 2 removal efficiency in crease in the same absorber tower with and without an absorber tray

ABSORBER SPRAY HEADERS

O lder w et FGD absorber modules were designed with spray patterns which do not maximize contact of the flue gas with the slurry spray. O lder designs have g aps or openings in the spray pattern that allow flue gas to bypass the spray zones without having contact with the slurry. Many of these gaps are seen on the outside of the ab sorber near the absorber walls. These gaps provide a direct path for the flue gas to b ypass the slurry spray. Figure 4 is an example of an original spray pattern compared to an upgraded spray pattern design in the same

absorber. The modifications shown in Figure 4 involved replacement of the spray headers and

nozzles. Modifications to the absorber pumps and absorber discharge pumping were not necessary to realize the benefit of the spray pattern redesign.5 Figure 4

- Original spray pattern compared to an upgraded spray pattern design in the same absorber

Current w et FGD systems now use self

- supporting spray headers with up to 60 ft (18.3 m) spans.
T he older generation spray header designs used a support sy stem that was prone to breakage

which causes the header sections to fail and fall to the bottom of the absorber. As a result, repla cing the spray headers with a modern day self

- supporting design can result in reduced maintenance costs and outage time. These new generation spray headers can be fabricated from

either fiber

- reinforced plastic ( FRP ) or alloy material.

CHEMICAL ADDITIVE S

One method of increasing SO 2 removal is to improve gas

- slurry contacting. This is accomplished by increasing the residence time on the tray or by adding a second tray as discussed above. Another means of increasing removal is to increase the L/G. Th e absorption per volume of liquid does not increase, there is just more slurry to provide more contacting. The third means of increasing removal is to increase the alkalinity in the slurry. This can be done by increasing the stoichiometry, but gypsum pur ity requirements usually limit the stoichiometry. Increasing the stoichiometry provides more liquid phase alkalinity and also more solid phase alkalinity. Both react in the absorption zone but dissolved alkalinity is much more effective.

Limestone

- based systems can also use an organic acid additive to enhance SO 2 removal. (See Figure 5.) The dissolved (liquid phase) alkalinity can also be increased by a number of additives. The least expensive additives are organic acids that buffer the slurry liquor by acting as an acid or a base to help dissolve limestone or to directly neutralize the sulfurous acid formed by the absorption of SO 2

. Dibasic acid ( DBA ) is t he most economical acid which is a mixture of three

acids : adipic, glutaric and succinic. This is produced as a byproduct in the manufacture of nylon.

The DBA is not consumed in the absorption reaction; it is involved in intermediate reactions but is regenerated when the overall reactions are complete. The same is true of other organic acids

used t o enhance performance, such as pure adipic acid or formic acid.

The capability of these organic acids to enhance removal has been know n for over 4 0 years. Considerable testing of each of these has been performed in both pilot plants and field

installations . A number of operating units use acid on a continual basis. Others use it to achieve removal when burning higher than design sulfur fuels. Acid has also been used for units in6 which the design performance could not be achieved. In fact, t his was the primary focus of acid

use in the U.S. in the mid to la te 19 70s. Today the use of acid is a common method of reducing power consumption, limestone co sts and earning emissions credits.

Using DBA allows flexibility in the design by allowing one or more of the following:

1. Reducing L/G and/or pressure drop to lower capital and operating costs.

2. Using DBA as a backup and allowing the absorber to be designed without a spare spray header and pump.

3. Designing the unit for the expected (design) sulfur concentration and using DBA at a range concentration or for future higher sulfur fuel.

The savings in capital and operating costs for the above have to be compared to the cost of the DBA and its storage and transfer system.

Figure 5

- Typical SO 2 Removal vs. DBA Concentration

MIST ELIMINATORS AND MIST ELIMINATOR WASH SYSTEM

Mist eliminators (ME) remove entrained scrubbing liquids to minimize fouling of downstream equipment before the flue gas enters the stack and to minimize fallout from the stack. The ME is a momentum separation device that separates the high momentum liquid droplets from the gas as it passes through the tortuous path of the mist eliminator chevrons. Mist from the abs orber spray zone is collected by two stages of che vron type mist eliminators or a combination of chevron and tubular style mist eliminators . The first stage

, which is closest to the spray headers

, captures the larger particles while the second stage captures finer particles including the ME wash water 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

DBA ConcentrationRemoval, %7 droplets. The mist eliminators require washing to prevent solids which are formed by evaporation and slurry particle deposits from accumulating on the blades. An array of wash

headers and wash nozzles a re provided. The top and bottom sides of the first stage are washed, but typically only the bottom side of the second stage is washed

.

A variety of MEs and mist eliminator wash systems can be found on older generation w et FGD systems. Common old genera tion ME designs include a bulk entrainment separator followed by two levels of “teepee”

- style mist eliminators or two levels of early generation flat chevron style

MEs

. Figure 6 compares an old generation ME system to a typical modern set of MEs

.

Older generation ME wash system designs tended to not effectively wash all of the surfaces of

the MEs when compared to modern day designs. Fixed grid ME wash headers can be retrofitted in place of retractable lance

- style wash systems or fixed grids that were i neffective in washing

the ME surfaces.

Figure 6

- C omparison of an old generation ME system to a typical modern set of MEs.

LIMESTONE FORCED OXIDIZED SYSTEM UPGRADES

The l imestone f orced o xidiz ation (LSFO) s ystem w et FGD is the most common system in use today. A stable gypsum byproduct is produced by the LSFO system which is typically sold for use in the manufacture of wallboard or to the cement industry. In some cases, a disposable gypsum product is produced for landfi ll if there are no wallboard or cement plants within a

reasonable distance.8 The differences between gypsum products depend on the amount of impurities or the degree of dewatering. In addition, the LSFO system is less prone to scaling compared to a natu ral oxidization system and as a result

, requires less outage time

. The LSFO w et FGD process incorporates air injection to ensure a fully oxidized gypsum product. The i ntroduction of air into

the absorber reaction tank creates calcium sulfate (gypsum) as a marketable byproduct

.

The absorber reaction tank, sometimes referred to as the recirculation tank, serves several functions. It is a reservoir of slurry to supply the absorber recirculation pumps and the absorber bleed pumps. The reaction tank is where th e oxidation of the calcium sulfite to gypsum takes place. It serves as a storage tank to allow the limestone to dissolve and to promote gypsum crystal growth.

A w et FGD can be converted to forced oxidation using the existing reaction tank

, or in some

cas es , an external oxidation tank can be used. This conversion will minimize scaling from utilization of stable system chemistry and creating a saleable byproduct which will decrease disposal costs

.

Air sparge grids and air lances with mechanical agitator s are the two generally applied methods

of injecting oxidation air into the process. The method to inject oxidation air has an impact on plant costs and system operating requirements.

The sparge grid is a multiple air header arrangement with even ly spa c ed bubble stations across the vessel plan area. The sparge grid is prone to nozzle plugging if the oxidation is not constantly passing through the absorber tank whenever it contains slurry. The lance system consists of air pipes directed to a region in the liquid jet created by side entry mixers. Figure 7 shows a typical air lance injection system.

The performance of the lance system is influenced by the energy of the fluid jet (mixer po wer) and the submergence depth (air blower power). The performance of the sparge grid is less dependent on the mixer power and is, to a much greater degree, influenced by submergence depth.

Figure 7

- The lance system consists of air pipes directed t o a region in the liquid jet created by side entry mixers9 When upgrading an existing w et FGD , a general review of the capacity available in the existing absorber recirculation tank is required. In some cases

, a sparge grid or lance system can be

retrofi t into the existing tank. If there is not enough residence time available, an external oxidation air tank may be required.

REAGENT PREP A RATION AND DEWATERING

When SO 2 removal is increased by equipment upgrades and/or when burning higher sulfur coals

, the amount of w et FGD byproduct will increase. Wet FGD systems that use natural oxidation could be potentially impacted from this increas ed demand on the system. As a result, the disposal pond may reach its capacity . Additionally, the use of disposal p onds may not likely be allowed by future regulations.

If limestone consumption must be increased to improve SO 2 removal, the reagent preparation and dewatering systems may be undersized. In most cases , higher SO 2 removal requires a finer grind than what the older systems were originally designed to achieve. The standard grind on

modern w et FGD systems is 95% passing through a 325 mesh.

T he components of some existing milling systems can potentially be upgraded to handle the new
quantity and grinding requirements. Optimizing the grind of the limestone milling system can
have a significant positive impact on limestone utilization. However, i t is typically not possible
to vary the speed of the mill to increase/decrease its capacity.

Early generation w et FGD systems used thickeners for primary dewatering and rotary drum filters for secondary dewatering. Modern w et FGD systems have replaced thickeners with hydroclones which are able to achieve u p to 55% solids , compared to 35 to 45% for t hickeners

which a lso require a substantial amount of plant real estate. Increased moisture removal from the hydroclones can reduce the required size of the vacuum filters.

Thickeners are prone to m aintenance problems. The r akes tend to stick and the large mechanical equipment can be expensive to maintain or replace. Also, a conversion to forced oxidation can make thickeners difficult to operate because of the rapid settling of gypsum in the center well of

the thickener.

Hydroclone s require minimal maintenance with little do wntime because of the use of spare s

. The use of h ydroclones in forced oxidized s ystem is a proven technology. Figure 8 shows a hydroclone cluster in a w et FGD application

.10 Figure 8

– Hydroclones require substantially less real estate compared to a t hickener.

Many older w et FGD systems use rotary drum filters

. (See Figure 9.) These filter s may not have the capacity to handle increased SO 2 removal and the subsequently greater byproduct from the

ab sorber. T he existing rotary drum filters must be assessed to determine if it can handl e the increased demand. One possib le solution to handle this increase d demand is to increase the

amount of time per day that the rotary drum filter operates

. W orn par ts of the system may need replace d to ensure adequate reliability. In some case, replacement of the existing drum filters may be required. New generation rotary drum filter technology can also achieve levels of 10%

moisture or better.

Figure 9

– Rotary d rum f ilter11 The majority of new w et FGD systems use vacuum belt filters (Figure 10) to reach moisture

levels of less than 10%. Decreased gypsum moisture levels can allow for gypsum sales to wallboard and cement companies

, or a decrease in landfil l transportation costs.

Figure 10

– Vacuum b elt f ilter

CONCLUSION

With the recent advancements in w et FGD technology, utilities have many ways to upgrade their existing syste ms . These upgrades can be effective for compliance with the latest environmental regulations, a s well as reducing operating and maintenance costs, increas ing the length of time

between maintenance outages

, and reduc ing forced outages

.

These upgrade technolog ies include: retrofitting wall rings or an absorber tray for increased liquid to gas contact resulting in greater SO 2 removal; the use of organic acids to enhance SO 2 removal; redesigned spray he aders for improved flue gas contact with the slurry within the

absorber module ; redesigned mist elimina tors and wash systems to handle higher absorber

velocities and improve mist elimination ; conversion to forced oxidation for e limination of the need for disposal ponds and creating a saleable byproduct which will decrease disposal costs; and improved perfor mance of the reagent prep aration and dewatering system for greater capacities and reliability.

When upgrading a w et FGD system, the absorber

, reagent preparation and dewatering equipment , and materials of construction must be reviewed to e nsure compatib ility with the new operating conditions.12 European utilities are continuously looking for ways to reduce operating and maintenance costs

of their w et FGD systems while at the same time increasing SO 2 removal efficiency. Upgrading an existing w et FGD may be the method of choice for applying proven technology to achieve this goal.

Copyright © 201 4 by Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.
All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be published, translated or reproduced in any form or by any means, or incorporated into any information retrieval system, without the written permission of the copyright
holder. Permission requests should be addressed to: Marketing Communications, Babcock & Wilcox
Power Generation Group, P.O. Box 351, Barberton , Ohio, U.S.A. 44203

- 0351. Or, contact us from our

Web site at www.babcock.com.

Disclaimer
Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published with
the understanding that Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Gr oup, Inc. (B&W PGG) and the authors
and contributors to this work are supplying general information and are not attempting to render or
provide engineering or professional services. Neither B&W PGG nor any of its employees make any

warranty, guarantee or r epresentation, whether expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, product, process, method or apparatus discussed in this
work, including warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular or intended purpose. Neither
B&W PGG nor any of its officers, directors or employees shall be liable for any losses or damages with
respect to or resulting from the use of, or the inability to use, any information, product, process, method
or apparatus discus sed in this work.