p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

314) IV-B-18 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:59 AM Sheet 314 of 325 
P.2 

RADIAN A-83-27 

CORPORATIO N 

IV-B-18 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: April 23, 1987 

TO: Jim Eddinger, EPA/ISB 

FROM: J. Thomas Waddell, Radian Corporation 

SUBJECT: Demonstration Status of Industrial Fluidized Bed Combustion Units 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This memorandum presents the results of a recent survey conducted to 

reexamine the demonstration status of fluidized bed combustion (FBC) units 

in the industrial sector (defined herein to include institutional and 

commercial uses). Recent literature discussing FBC technology was surveyed, 

and telephone contacts were made with FBC unit vendors and State 

environmental agencies. The information gathered was used to address the 

two following questions: 

1) Is FBC a demonstrated sulfur dioxide (SO-) control technology for 

industrial purposes? 

2) Can FBC units achieve 90 percent removal of SO- on a sustained 

basis? 

2.0 DEMONSTRATION STATUS OF FBC UNITS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Table 1 presents data on existing industrial coal-fired FBC units in 

the United States of greater than or equal to 75 million Btu/hour heat 

input capacity; one 50 million Btu/hour Canadian FBC unit is also included. 

Of the 25 boilers listed, 9 are designed with bubbling beds, 14 have 

circulating beds, and 2 have a 2-stage bed design. The SO- removal 

efficiencies for these units range from 71 to 92 percent and average 

Progress Center/3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy./P.O. Box 13000/Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709/(919)541-9100 
TABLE 1. EJISTING INDUSTRIAL COAL-FIRED FBC UNITS IN THE U.S. 0 75 MMBtu/hr Heat Inout) 

ro 

Conoanv 

Georgetowi Univ. Ial 

Kentucky Agricultural Energy 

Corporation 

Idaho National 

Enoineerino Lab.la) 

Midwest Grain 

Products 

Iona Beef 

Processors 

Anderson Clavton 

California 

Portland Cetent 

B.F. Goodrich 

6eneral Motors 

Central Sova 

Sohio 11) 

Quaker State 

Archer-DanielsMidland 

Steal Heat 

Authority 111 

Scott Paoer 

lone Enerov 

Nuaber 

of 

Location Manufacturer Units 

Nashinpton. DC 

Franklin. KY 

Idaho Falls. ID 

Pekin. IL 

Aiarillo. T> 

Jacksonville, IL 

Cotton, CA 

Henrv, IL 

Pontiac. NI 

Chattanooga, TN 

Lua, OH 

Ne.ell. NV 

Decatur. IL 

Nilles-Firre. PA 

Chester. PA 

lone. CA 

FN 1 

FN 2 

FN 2 

FN 1 

Noriser 1 

Noriser 1 

Pvrooower 1 

Pyroponer 1 

Pvrooo«er I 

Pvroponer 1 

CDO 1 

roo . 2 

I'DO 5 

COO 1 

CE 1 

CE 1 

Heat 

Inout 

(MMBtu/hr) 

120 

75 

ei 

171 

BB 

106 

22? 

149 

443 

U3 

102 

150 

530 

75 

815 

182 

Bed 

Tvoe 

Bub. 

Bub. 

Bub. 

Bub. 

2-staae 

2-stape 

Cir. 

Cir. 

Cir. 

Cir. 

Bub. 

Bub. 

Ctr. 

Cir. 

Cir. 

Cir. 

Coal S 502 

Content Regulation 

(xt.Z) (Ibs/miBtu 

3.3 

3.1 

0.68 

2.7 

4.16 

3-3.5 

0.55-0.75 

3.5 

2.5 

2.8 

2.8 

2.5-4.0 

4.1 

0.7 (n) 

(ol 

1.2 

N.A. 

1.2 

0.6 and 

701 Red. 

1.2 

0.65 

1.2 

0.13 

1.2 

1.2 

0.44 

1.2 

1.2 

1.2 

N.A. 

N.A. 

0.26 

IS02 

Reaoval 

91 

861b) 

86(d.el 

82(d.el 

84(d,g) 

78(h) 

84-88(hl 

85(d) 

90 (k.) 

90.7 (kl 

B7(d.e) 

7|-82(hl 

90-92(i1 

N.A. 

90(i) 

92(h) 

Ca:S 

Ratio 

3.0 

3.0 

10.3 

2.2 

2.8 

N.A. 

3.5(i) 

2.5U) 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

2.0-2.5(1 

N.A. 

N.A. 

1.5 

Start-Up 

Date 

7/79 

10/82 

5/84 

5/84 

9/82 

9/B6 

5/85 

10/85 

11/86 

1985 

10/84 

9/85 

) 12/86 

1984 

1984 

1/87 

Reliability 

(II 

N.A. 

99(c) 

92(f) 

96.1 

N.A. 

N.A. 

. N.A. 

I00(j) 

N.A. 

N.A. 

90 

43U) 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

Reference 

1 

2.3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8,9 

10 

11 

11 

12,13 

14 

IS 

16 

17 

18 

General Motors Ft. Navne, IN 

Canadian Forces. Prince Edna'd 

Base Island. Canada 

RS 

FH 

190 

50 Bub. 

N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 12/86 N.A. 19 

5.5 N.A. 93.5!nl 4.0(a) 12/82 91(o) 21 
P.4 

.9. 

. jxSYMBOLS AND FOOTNOTES 

FW = Foster Wheeler 

KDO = Keeler Oorr-Oliver 

CE = Coabustion Engineering 

RS = Riley Stoker 

Bub. - Bubbling Bed 

Cir. = Circulating Bed 

(a) Deaonstration unit, 

ib) Coagliance test data. 

(c) Estiaate since early 1986, 

(d) Actual operating data. 

(e) Long-ten (i.e., 25 days or longer) CEM data. 

(f) Reliability calculated for 1 of the 2 units. 

(g) Two-day test. 

(h) Percent reaoval reguired to aeet eaissions liait. 

(i) Design inforaation. 

ij) Reliability for firt quarter of 1986. 

(k) Based on State perait estiaate. 

(1) No longer in operation. Caapany snitched fuels for econoaic reasons. 

(a) Reliability for first 3 aonths of operation. 

(n) Anthracite eula. 

(o) Designed for 7 fuel types; aain fuel is anthracite eula. 

(p) 30-day eaissions test conducted by U.S. EPA. 

J 
P.5 

87 percent. The fuels burned range in sulfur content from 0.55 to 4.16 

weight percent. Sulfur dioxide emission rates range from 0.13 to 1.2 

lbs/million Btu. 

The bubbling bed FBC units range in size from 75 to 171 million 

Btu/hour. These units have SOp removal efficiencies ranging from 71 to 91 

percent and averaging about 84 percent. The two 2-stage boilers have heat 

inputs of 88 and 106 million Btu/hour, and SO- removal efficiencies of 84 

and 78 percent, respectively. The circulating bed FBC's range in heat input 

from 75 to 815 million Btu/hour. Sulfur dioxide removal efficiencies for 

these boilers range from 84 to 92 percent and average 90 percent. 

Table 2 lists industrial FBC units that are currently being planned or 

are under construction in the U.S., and which burn sulfur-bearing fuels. 

Twenty-six boilers are listed representing 15 different sites. Of the 26 

FBC units, 22 are designed with circulating beds; the remaining boilers have 

a 2-stage design. The circulating bed units range in size from 190 to 625 

million Btu/hour with an average of 304 million Btu/hour. These FBC units 

are designed to burn fuels with sulfur contents ranging from 0.25 to 6.0 

weight percent. Design SOp removal efficiencies were obtained from the 

boiler vendors for 17 units. These efficiencies range from 83 to 97 percent 

and average 93 percent. Sulfur dioxide emission rates range from 0.04 to 

1.2 lb/million Btu. 

3.0 ACHIEVABILITY OF 90 PERCENT S02 REMOVAL 

Emission test data for five FBC units, including four short-term and 

two long-term tests, are presented in the Summary of Regulatory Analysis. 

Although the boilers listed were not generally operated to maintain 90 

percent SOp removal on a long-term basis, four of the five boilers attained 

greater than 90 percent SOp removal (up to 99 percent) for short periods 

during the tests. These test data demonstrate that greater than 90 percent 

20 SOp removal can be achieved when burning low- or high-sulfur coal. 

As listed in Table 1, a 30-day emission test was conducted on a 

bubbling bed FBC unit at the Canadian Forces Base in Summerside, Prince 
TABLE 2. INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL FBC UNITS PLANNED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION 

Sulfur SO. Design Design 

No. of Heat Input Bed Design Fuel Content Regulation SO. Removal Ca:S Estimated 

Company/Location Manufacturer Units (MWtu/hr) Type Type (wt. X) (lb SO,/MMBtu) IS) Ratio Start-up Reference 

U i 

McPherson Oil Pyropower 

Kern Co., CA 

Cogeneration National CPC 

Corp. 

Stockton, CA 

Blogen Power CPC 

Ivanpah, CA 

Archer-Daniels-Midland KDO 

Cedar Rapids, IA 

University of Missouri RS 

Columbia, MO 

University of North N.A. 

Carolina 

Chapel Hill , NC 

A. E. Staley Mfg. RS 

Decatur, IL 

Iowa State University Pyropower 

Ames, IA 

Lauhoff Grain B.M. 

Danville, IL 

GWF Power Systems CPC 

Fresno. CA 

GMF Power Systems CPC 

Contra Costa County, CA 

Archer-Daniels-Mldland Hormser 

Des Moines, IA 

Archer-Oanlels-Mtdland Mormser 

Mankato. MN 

Archer-Daniels-Mldland Wormser 

Kansas City . MO 

S.E. Missouri University Mormser 

Cape Girardeau, MO 

625 Cir. Western Coal 0.5-0.6 

255 

190 

600 

250 

315 

200 

425 

288 

265 

Cir. Canadian Coal 0.25 

Cir. Coal Fines 0.58 

Cir. Bit. Coal 3.5-4.0 

Cir. Bit. Coal 

Cir. Bit. Coal 

Cir. Bit. Coal 

190 

190 

150 

100 

75 

Cir. 

2-

Stage 

2-

Stage 

2-

Stage 

2-

Stage 

Petroleum 

Coke 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

4.0 

2.5 

Cir. Bit. Coal 4.0-6.0 

3.0 

Cir. Bit. Coal 2.0-3.0 

Cir. Western Coal 0.4 

2.1 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

0.1° 

0.05 

0.05 

N.A. 

1.2 

1.2" 

0.6 b 

1.2 

0.04 

0.08 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

93-94 

88 

97 

90-92 

83 

N.A. 

90 

N.A. 

95 

97 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

N.A. 

1.5-2.0 9/89 

1.8 12/87 

1.8 10/87 

2.0-2.5 1987 

1.5-2.0 9/87 

N.A. 8/90 

2.2 12/88 

1.5-2.0 1988 

N.A. 12/88 

1.8 1990 

2.5 1990 

N.A. N.A. 

N.A. N.A. 

N.A. N.A. 

N.A. N.A. 

23 

24 

24 

15 

25 

26 

27 

23 

28 

24 

24 

29 

29 

29 

29 

^ D O = Keeler Dorr-Oliver, CPC = Combustion Power Co., RS = Riley Stoker, BW = Babcock 4 Wilcox. 

Based on a State requirement for 90S SO- reduction and the sulfur content of the design coal. 

cStlll In planning stages. Will be designed to meet NSPS. 

"Also subject to 80S S02 reduction. 
P.7 

21 Edward Island, Canada. The boiler, designed by Foster Wheeler, has a heat 

input capacity of about 50 million Btu/hour. The FBC unit was tested for 23 

days and was operated at about 70 percent of full load. Coal with an 

average sulfur content of 5.5 percent was burned during the test. The SOp 

removal efficiency averaged 93.5 percent. This demonstrates that greater 

than 90 percent SOp reduction can be achieved with high-sulfur coals on a 

sustained basis. 

During short-term tests at the Canadian Forces Base, the FBC unit 

attained very high SOp removal efficiencies (>99 percent) and very low 

outlet SOp emissions (approaching 0 ppm). This indicates that SOp removal 

is not mass transfer limited at high Ca:S ratios and that 90 percent SO, 

21 

removal or greater should be achieved when burning low-sulfur coal. This 

conclusion is supported by pilot-scale, bubbling bed tests conducted by the 

University of North Dakota Energy Research Center which has shown 90 percent 

22 

and greater SOp removal on low-sulfur western coals. 

Although the above data are based on bubbling bed designs, equal or 

better performance is expected from circulating and 2-stage systems because 

of more rapid carbon burnout, higher limestone particle densities in the 

freeboard area, and more uniform gas-solid contact between SOp and 

limestone. 

4.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Given the numbers of FBC units both currently operating and in the 

planning/construction stages, as well as the performance levels of those in 

operation, FBC is considered a demonstrated technology for the control of 

SOp emissions. The available data demonstrate that FBC units can be 

designed, constructed, and operated to achieve 90 percent SOp removal on a 

sustained basis. This finding is supported by comments from FBC engineers 

and users at a recent technical conference stating that FBC could "meet and 

beat" the proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) of 90 percent SO, 

30 reduction from all coal- and oil-fired industrial boilers. 
P.8 

REFERENCES 

1. Power. 129 (2): Sl - S16 (85). 

2. Trip Report from May, P. A., Radian Corporation, to Neuffer, W. J., 

EPA/ISB, November 27, 1985. Kentucky Agricultural Energy Corporation 

Fluidized Bed Combustion Boiler. 

3. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with Braden, J., Kentucky 

Agricultural Energy Corporation, November 4, 1986. FBC Reliability 

Information. 

4. Trip Report from Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, to Eddinger, 

J. A., EPA/ISB, June 11, 1986. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

Fluidjized Bed Combustion Boilers. 

5. Trip Report from Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, to Eddinger, 

J. A., EPA/ISB, June 11, 1986. Midwest Grain Products of Illinois 

Fluidized Bed Combustion Boiler. 

6. Peduto, E. F., et al. (GCA Corporation), Continuous Monitoring of 

Wormser Fluidized Bed Combustor, prepared for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C , June 1984. 

7. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with Harper, B., Wormser, 

October 31, 1986. Information on Wormser FBC Units. 

8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Permit to Construct -

California Portland Cement Co., Application No. 104231, El Monte, Ca., 

April 28, 1983. 

9. Power. 130 (10): 43 (86). 

10. Glueck, N. S. (B. F. Goodrich), Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion 

Boiler Case History, from Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on 

Evaluating the Fluidized Bed Combustion Option, Government Institute, 

Inc., Rockville, Maryland. June 1986. 

11. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with Tesfai, M., 

Pyropower Corporation, October 29, 1986. Information on Pyropower FBC 

Units. 

12. Trip Report from May, P. A., Radian Corporation, to Neuffer, W. J., 

EPA/ISB, August 1, 1985. Keeler/Dorr-Oliver Fluidized Bed Combustion 

Boiler. 

13. Letter from Shah, J. S., Keeler/Dorr-Oliver, to Farmer, J., U.S. EPA, 

February 18, 1986. Response to request for FBC data. 
P.9 

14. Ussia, A. P. (Quaker State Oil Refinery Corporation), Case History: 

Quaker State's Two FBC Boilers at the Newell, West Virginia Refinery, 

from Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Evaluating the 

Fluidized Bed Combustion Option, Government Institute, Inc., Rockville, 

Maryland. June 1986. 

15. Telecon. Elliot, J. A., Radian Corporation, with Linch, B., 

Keeler/Dorr-Oliver, April 8, 1987. Information on Keeler/Dorr-Oliver 

FBC Units. 

16. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with Hintz, D., 

Keeler/Dorr-Oliver, October 31, 1986. Information on Keeler/Dorr 

Oliver FBC Units. 

17. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with Wolfe, B., 

Combustion Engineering, November 4, 1986. Information on Combustion 

Engineering FBC Unit at Scott Paper. 

18. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with Buzzuto, C , 

Combustion Engineering, April 9, 1987. Information on Combustion 

Engineering FBC Units. 

19. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with Coulthard, J., Riley 

Stoker Corporation, November 4, 1986. Information on Riley Stoker FBC 

Unit at General Motors. 

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of Regulatory Analysis 

for New Source Performance Standards: Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units of Greater than 100 million Btu/hr 

Heat Input, EPA-450/3-86-005, June 1986. 

21. Radian Corporation, Statistical Analysis of Emission Test Data from the 

Fluidized Bed Boiler at Prince Edward Island, Canada (Draft Report), 

prepared for EPA/OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1986. 

22. Mann, M. D., et al. (University of North Dakota Energy Research 

Center), Fluidized Bed Combustion of Low-Rank Coals, Prepared for U.S. 

Department of Energy, September 1986. 

23. Telecon. Elliot, J. A., Radian Corporation, with Tesfai, M., Pyropower 

Corporation, April 8, 1987. Information on Pyropower FBC Units. 

24. Telecon. White, D. M., Radian Corporation, with Vander Molen, B., 

Combustion Power Co., April 14, 1987. Information on Combustion Power 

FBC Units. 

25. Telecon. Elliot, J. A., Radian Corporation, with Coulthard, J., Riley 

Stoker Corporation, April 7, 1987. Information FBC Unit at the 

University of Missouri. 
P.10 

'V 

26. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with DuBose, R., 

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, April 13, 1987. 

Information on Planned FBC Units at UNC-Chapel Hill. 

27. Telecon. Waddell, J. T., Radian Corporation, with Davidson, M., A. E. 

Staley Manufacturing Co., April 13, 1987. Information on FBC units 

being built at A. E. Staley. 

28. Telecon. Elliot, J. A., Radian Corporation, with Arkett, A., Babcock & 

Wilcox, April 7, 1987. Information on FBC Unit at Lanhoff Grain. 

29. Government Institutes, Inc., Proceedings of the 4th National Conference 

on Evaluating the Fluidized Bed Combustion Option, Rockville, Maryland, 

June 1986. p. XIII-159. 

30. Coal & Svnfuels Technology. 7(22):1(86).