SELECTION OF CORROSION RESISTANT MATERIALS & LININGS

FOR
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION (FGD) SYSTEMS

By

Raymond J. Jaworowski A. Wesley Langeland

Director of Technologies President
DUROMAR, INC. DUROMAR, INC.
706 Washington Street 706 Washington Street
Pembroke, MA 02359 Pembroke, MA 02359
TEL: 781-826-2525 TEL: 781-826-2525
FAX: 781-826=2150 FAX: 781-826-2150
e-mail: rjj@duromar.com e-mail: awl@duromar.com

Abstract:

There are many factors that need to be considered in the installation of a wet or dry FGD system, especially in
the selection of corrosion resistant materials to insure long maintenance free operation. These include initial
costs, availability of alloy and other lining materials, schedules, and future O&M expenses. In today’s market
place, alloy and other lining materials and even FGD engineering and design are difficult to obtain in reasonable
time frames as the present demand is so strong. Often, a power producer must optimize his choice between
technology and schedule. Knowing what the available best technology is will assist in the implementation of
this endeavor.

Corrosion has been a major concern when designing Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems (FGD) since the 1960’s
when the first large scale units when into service. In the 60’s, 70’s and 80‘s, most FGD systems were fabricated
using carbon steel lined with rubber, vinyl ester, epoxy, high alloy steels and occasionally borosilicate block.
Alloys such as stainless steel or nickel rich alloys were used either as solid plate or wallpapered over carbon
steel. Each of these systems had successes, some failures, and varying life performances.

Since the 80’s, and especially in the last 15 to 20 years, specially formulated, 100% solids, “0” VOC (Volatile
Organic Compounds), epoxy lining products have been used to replace and/or repair failing systems. These have
demonstrated significant improvements in long term, maintenance free, performance, ease and safety during
application and economy of application. These high performance epoxy lining systems are competitive with and
in most cases outperform all other lining materials used in respect to long term performance and installed cost.

This paper will discuss each FGD problem area and describe the current major lining and cladding systems, their
advantages, limitations and, where possible, will give applied cost comparisons.

-1-
I. Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Systems:

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) technology employs a lime or limestone slurry to remove sulfur dioxide from
the gases produced by burning fossil fuels. Use of FGD systems is now required on new plants and is becoming
required for older power plants due to the Clean Air Act (CAA). There are both wet and dry FGD system
processes. Wet systems are more effective and efficient and comprise over 75% the systems installed. Wet
systems take up less space, such that they are easier to retrofit into an existing plant. Both Wet and Dry FGD
systems have areas that operate below the sulphuric acid dewpoint temperature. These areas are exposed to
aggressive chemical and mechanical environments (fly ash and acid = wear and corrosion) as the SO2 is reduced
by the process. These areas of aggressive corrosion conditions extend from the air heater outlet ducting through
to the stack. Selecting the right materials for corrosion protection has never been more important.

II. Wet FGD System Conditions:

Figure 1 is a schematic representation of a typical Wet FGD System. Most Wet FGD designs separate the fly ash
particulate from the flue gas to allow for the production of commercial grade gypsum. Electrostatic Precipitators
are typical although Bag or Filter Houses are used occasionally. The Wet FGD System can be broken into three
different environments.

The first area of concern starts from the Air Preheater Outlet and includes the Particulate Collection Device, FD
and/or ID Fans and the ductwork from the particulate collector to the area adjacent to the Absorber Module as
shown in Figure 1 Section A. The flue gas in this area contains particulate, combustion gases, and some metallic
vapors, of which Mercury (Hg) is of current concern. The combustion gases of concern are Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), Sulfur Trioxide (SO3), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Chlorides. and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Of these, only
sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide and chlorides effect the selection of corrosion resistant materials and linings.
Under typical operating conditions, flue gas temperatures will range between 300oF to 385oF. Temperatures
outside these limits are possible and can be encountered in some designs or during upset conditions.

Corrosion and abrasion can be encountered in the ductwork from the air preheater outlet to the particulate
collection device including any FD fans, and corrosion can be encountered in the particulate collector itself
(usually outside walls), ID Fans, and ductwork from the collection device to the area close to the absorber
module. These areas are usually fabricated form carbon steel or Corten steels. Corrosion is usually due to cool
spots on the walls, expansion joints, access doors, or air in leakage. Corrosion protective linings must be able to
resist the constant higher temperatures (including unexpected temperature excursions), high acid potential and
the expansion and contraction of the metal substrates during startup and shutdown.

The second area, as shown in Figure 1 Section B, is the absorber module with consists of the inlet duct, outlet
duct and the absorber module which contains the reaction tank, absorber, spray zone, and the demister area. Flue
gas temperatures range from 300oF to 385oF in the inlet mixing zone to 120oF to 140oF at the absorber outlet. At
the absorber inlet the use of a pre-saturator and/or the back spray from the mixing zone inside the absorber
causes a difficult condition of expansion and contraction and acid attack from the moving wet/dry interface.
This is probably the most difficult area to protect and linings need to be able to resist a variety of strong acid
conditions, high temperatures and temperature variations.

The absorber consists of four separate areas which have different corrosion/abrasion characteristics. These
consist of the Reaction Tank, Mixing Zone, Spray Header Zone and Demisters.

At the bottom of the absorber is the “Reaction Tank”. In this area slurry is collected which contains the excess
lime or limestone, Calcium Sulfite. Calcium Sulfate, small amounts of fly ash, and the soluble Chlorides and
Fluorides as the main products of concern. Corrosion from the low pH of the slurry is compounded by the
abrasion from the Calcium salts. Corrosion protection must also include protection against the serious abrasive
conditions present.

The Mixing Zone is from the top of the Reaction Tank to the bottom of the Spray Headers. In this area Flue Gas
is mixed with Slurry to absorb the Sulfur Dioxide gases and start the reaction with the Lime or Limestone in the
slurry. Corrosion is the main problem in this area.
-2-
Closer to and within the spray header area abrasion can be a serious problem as the sprays are directed to insure
the walls are completely covered and prevent bypassing of any unmixed flue gases. Any leakage or plugging in
and around the spray nozzles can cause serious abrasion on the surrounding walls.

Once past the Spray Headers, the concern in again corrosion as uncollected acidic gases, especially Sulfur
Trioxide, now cooled to form Sulfuric Acid Vapor, are present. As the demisters are usually fabricated of FRP,
the corrosion is limited to the walls and supports.

The Outlet Duct sees the same environment as the outlet of the demisters and can experience severe to moderate
corrosion from the acidic vapors and liquids passed by the demisters.

The end of the FGD system is the stack. As shown in Figure 1 Section C. Stacks and/or stack liners may be
fabricated from a variety of materials each with its own corrosive environment. These include concrete stacks
with steel or brick liners, steel stacks, and FRP Composite stacks or liners.

III. Dry FGD Systems Conditions

From a corrosion/abrasion concern, Dry FGD systems are simpler to describe. As shown in Figure 2, the
ductwork from the air preheater to the spray tower has the same conditions as the Wet FGD System inlets. The
problems there are as described above.

Figure 3 is a more detailed schematic of a typical dry FGD/Bag House System. The Inlet to the Spray Tower is
exposed to the abrasive effects of the fly ash but little corrosion as the temperatures are still in the 300-375oF
temperature range. As the particulate laden flue gas is mixed with the atomized lime or limestone slurry at the
top of the spray tower, corrosion and abrasion can be a severe problem as the mixtures contacts the tower walls
and the flue gas slurry mixtures cools to around 140oF. The sulfur gases are absorbed into the slurry droplets and
the drying “mud” can have fairly acidic properties as the drying/neutralization process continues. If this “mud”
impacts the walls, dog house, etc. It can be a source of serious corrosion. Once dry the particulate is usually
caustic and not corrosive due to the excess lime /limestone in the slurry. However, any condensable acidic gases,
specifically sulfuric acid is not absorbed and still can be source of corrosion downstream of the spray tower.
This usually shown up as wall corrosion on the clean gas side of the bags and in the ash hoppers where any
unreacted acids in contact with the hopper walls can be corrosion sites.

IV. Auxiliary Systems

Depending on the system being “wet” or “dry” the auxiliary systems can be a combination of oxidation tanks,
spent slurry tanks, clarifiers, thickeners, lime slakers, limestone slurry tanks, trenches, sumps, and structural
steel. The auxiliary systems include the water treatment systems which usually handle the scrubber blowdown
materials. Figure 4 is a schematic of a typical wastewater treatment system. In many of the areas, abrasion is
more of a concern than corrosion as the solution and slurries are usually caustic. The one main exception of
external structural steel where acidic spray and spillage can be a problem.

V. Corrosion Resistant Material Selection.

For Wet FGD Systems, Table I lists the areas described above and the typical corrosion resistant materials
which can be used. In this Table, 100% Epoxy refers to either Novolac Epoxy or specially formulated bis-
phenol-A epoxy trowel grade. Vinyl Ester is either a reinforced or traditional Vinyl Ester products. FRP
Composite are field fabricated fiberglass/vinyl ester composites. Borosilicate Block refers to the field lay-up of
blocks within an existing Carbon Steel (CS) or Concrete structure. Alloy Wallpaper and Plate are generic for
various alloys. Actual selection will depend on the specific environment especially the Chloride concentration in
the recirculating liquors and temperatures.

Rubber Linings have been used in the earlier FGD systems with mixed results. In the newer systems being
proposed in the United States, there are few, if any, rubber lined systems specified and therefore are not
included in this discussion.
-3-
 TABLE I
WET FLUE GAS SYSTEM MATERIAL SELECTION

AREA PROTECTED LINING SYSTEM LINING (mils) APPLICATION APPLIED COST/ft2

Air Heater Outlet CS + 100% Epoxy Novolac 60 mils Spray – 2 Coats $17-231
Particulate Collector CS + Vinyl Ester N/A2
Duct to FGD Inlet FRP Composite N/A
CS + Borosilicate Block N/A
CS + Alloy Wallpaper N/A
Alloy Plate N/A

FGD inlet CS + 100% Epoxy Novolac 60 mils Spray – 2 coats $17-231

CS + Vinyl Ester N/A
FRP Composite N/A
CS + Borosilicate Block N/A
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $60-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Reaction Tank CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 80-100 mils Grout Pump – 1 coa t $17-231
CS + Vinyl Ester 125 Trowel – 3-5 coats $34-491
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80
CS + Borosilicate Block Yes Site Applied $90-1101
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $60-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Absorber CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 80 mils Grout Pump – 1 coat $11-171

Mixing Zone CS + Vinyl Ester 90 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $34-491
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80
CS + Borosilicate Block Yes Site Applied $90-1101
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $90-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Spray Header Zone CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 125 mils Grout Pump – 1 coat $11-171
CS + Vinyl Ester 125-150 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $34-491
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80
CS + Borosilicate Block Yes Site Applied $90-1101
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $90-1101
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Demister Area CS + 100% Epoxy Novolac 40-60 mils Spray 2 coats $17-23
CS + Vinyl Ester 40-60 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80
CS + Borosilicate Block Yes Site Applied $90-1101
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $90-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Outlet Duct CS + 100% Epoxy Novolac 40-60 mils Spray 2 coats $17-231
CS + Vinyl Ester 40-60 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80
CS + Borosilicate Block Yes Site Applied $90-1101
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $90-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Stack CS + 100% Epoxy Novolac 40-60 mils Spray 2 coats $20-281

CS + Vinyl Ester 40-60 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $35-451
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound + $80
Concrete + Borosilicate Block Yes Site Applied + $110
CS + Alloy Wallpaper N/A
Alloy Plate N/A

1 – Applied Cost without CS Cost

2 – N/A – Not currently used for this application

The “Applied Cost/ft2” is a variable which depends on a number of factors including the complexity of
the project, project size, and availability and current pricing of raw materials to name a few. Epoxies,
and Borosilicate Block tend to most price stable while Alloys and FPR Composites, which include
Vinyl Esters, have been subject to problems with raw material availability and rapidly rising and
unpredictable costs. The applied cost estimates are based on data available in 2005 and 2006. Current
indications are that the raw material costs for alloys and FRP Composites are continuing to escalate as
noted in the article by George Sharp in the July 2007 issue of POWER.
-4-
Table II lists the Chloride Limits used when selecting various alloys for FGD applications. The 100% Epoxy,
Vinyl Ester, and Borosilicate Block linings are not affected by any concentration of Chlorides.

TABLE II
CHLORIDE LIMITATIONS OF VARIOUS ALLOYS

Material of Construction Design Chloride Limits(ppm)

317LM Stainless Steel (S31726) 8,000 – 12,000
Duplex 2205 SS (S32205) 12,000 – 18,000
Super Duplex 255 SS (S32550) 20,000 – 30,000
Super Austenitic 6% Mo SS (N08367) 40,000 – 60,000
C-276 (N10276) 50,000 – 75,000

For Dry FGD Systems, Table III lists the areas and corrosion/abrasion materials which can be used in these
applications.

TABLE III
DRY FLUE GAS SYSTEM MATERIAL SELECTION

AREA PROTECTED LINING SYSTEM LINING (mils) APPLICATION APPLIED COST/ft2

Air Heater Outlet CS + 100% Epoxy Novolac 60 mils Spray – 2 Coats $17-231
To Dry FGD inlet CS + Vinyl Ester N/A2
FRP Composite N/A
CS + Borosilicate Block N/A
CS + Alloy Wallpaper N/A
Alloy Plate N/A

Atomizer Mixing Zone CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 80-100 mile Grout Pump – 1 coat $17-231
CS + Vinyl Ester 125-150 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $34-491
FRP Composite N/A
CS + Borosilicate Block N/A
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $60-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Absorber below CS + 100% Epoxy Bis-A 40 mils Spray - 2 coats $17-231

Mixing Zone and CS + Vinyl Ester 125 Trowel – 3-5 coats $34-491
Dog House FRP Composite N/A
CS + Borosilicate Block N/A
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $60-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Bag House CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 40 mils Spray– 2 coats $11-171

Dirty Gas Side CS + Vinyl Ester 60 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
Hoppers FRP Composite N/A
CS + Borosilicate Block N/A
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $90-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

Bag House CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 20 mils Spray– 2 coats $10-151

Clean Gas Side CS + Vinyl Ester 60 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite N/A
CS + Borosilicate Block N/A
CS + Alloy Wallpaper Yes Seam Welding $90-1201
Alloy Plate Yes Welding + $120

The recommended products for the auxiliary system are listed in Table IV. Tanks with abrasion concerns
include oxidation tanks, spent slurry tanks, clarifiers, thickeners, lime slakers, and limestone slurry tanks. The
water treatment systems handling the scrubber blowdown materials usually do not see much from abrasion but
have corrosion concerns. In many of these applications usually a spray applied Bis-phenol-A applied at 20-40

-5-
mils DFT is used. External surfaces and structural steel and concrete surfaces such as trenches and sumps, floors
and containment areas are also included in Table IV.

TABLE IV
LININGS FOR AUXILIARY FGD SYSTEMS

AREA PROTECTED LINING SYSTEM LINING (mils) APPLICATION APPLIED COST/ft2

Lime/Limestone Feed & Mix Tanks; Filtrate Feed Tanks; Reagent/Aux. Storage:
Lower 1/3 & Floor CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 80 mils Grout – 1 Coat $17-231
CS + Vinyl Ester 125 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80

Upper 2/3 & Ceiling CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 30-40 mils Spray - 2 Coats $11-171
CS + Vinyl Ester 125 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80

Wastewater Treatment Tanks:

Lower 1/3 & Floor CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 30-40 mils Spray – 2 coats $11-171
CS + Vinyl Ester 125 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80

Upper 2/3 & Ceiling CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 30-40 mils Spray - 2 Coats $11-171
CS + Vinyl Ester 125 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80

Water Storage CS + 100% Epoxy – Novolac 20 mils Spray - 1 Coats $11-171

CS + Vinyl Ester 30-40 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite Yes Site Wound $70-80

Lime Slaker:
Lower 1/3 & Floor CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 80 mils Grout – 1 Coat $17-231
CS + Vinyl Ester N/A
FRP Composite N/A

Upper 2/3 & Ceiling CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 30-40 mil s Spray - 2 Coats $11-171
CS + Vinyl Ester N/A
FRP Composite N/A

External Tanks; Structural Steel:

All Surfaces CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-a 10-15 mils Spray – 2 coats $10-15

Concrete Surfaces:
Sumps CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 60 mils Spray – 2 coats $8-121
Lower 1/3 & Floor CS + Vinyl Ester 125 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite N/A

Upper 2/3 & Ceiling CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 30-40 mils Spray - 2 Coats $4-81
CS + Vinyl Ester 125 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite N/A

Concrete Trenches CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 30-60 mils Spray - 2 Coats $4-81
CS + Vinyl Ester 125 mils Trowel – 3-5 coats $32-411
FRP Composite N/A

Containments CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 25-35 mils Spray - 2 Coats $4-81

CS + Vinyl Ester 30-40 mils Spray – 3-4 coats $32-411
FRP Composite N/A

Floors CS + 100% Epoxy – Bis-A 30-35 mils Spray - 2 Coats $4-81

CS + Vinyl Ester N/A
FRP Composite N/A

VI. Selection of Lining Products:

-6-
Depending on the area within the Power Plant, the lining system selected will depend on a number of factors.
Applied Cost, Long Term Performance, Maintenance Costs, and Manufacturers Warranty are foremost but other
areas which should be considered are listed in Table V.

Applied cost are estimated in the pervious tables and these can change from project to project due to complexity
of the application, lining availability, lead time required, and raw material costs. Lining availability can be a
serious concern. In a new FGD system, scheduling is dependent on timely delivery of all required materials.
Epoxy and Vinyl Ester Lining products are easily and quickly manufactured to meet almost any delivery
schedule. Currently this is not the case for silicate block linings, FRP Composites and the metal alloys currently
under consideration.

In a recent paper by George W. Sharp in the July 2007 issue of POWER he reports on a survey of 49 FGD
systems in various states of completion. His data shows that in general completed units were built at an average
cost of about $208/kW and new units in the preliminary engineering state are being costed out at $535/kW while
others are different states of completion coming between the two amounts. In addition, the newer units are
finding it difficult to get a “fixed-price, turnkey price” for these units. A significant reason for this is the large
demand for equipment and materials from all the units being planned both in the United States and overseas,
especially China. Of special interest for lining selection is the increased cost for alloy steel which shows an
increase of 88% and FPR Materials, which include Vinyl Esters, showing an increase of 44% since 2005.

While Organic linings will not last indefinitely as claimed by the suppliers of Alloys and Borosilicate Block, a
15 to 20 year, fairly maintenance free performance is to be expected. Maintenance Costs for all the systems
discussed are initially low, increasing as the expected lifetime of the system approaches. Warranties vary from 0
years for Alloys and Borosilicate Block, 2 years for FRP Composite, 5 to 10 years for Vinyl Esters and 5 to 20
years for 100% Epoxies.

Evaluation of the lining systems discussed in this paper, using the criteria listed in Table V, clearly show that the
most cost effective system offering the best long term performance are the 100% solids epoxy products.

Table V.
Lining Product Selection Criteria

1) Chemical compatibility to the operating system.

2) Chemical compatibility to EPA and OSHA limitations on emissions.
3) Safe to apply, No Carcinogens (organic linings).
4) Adhesion to all substrates.
5) Resistance to Galvanic Potentials in use.
6) Easy to apply by hand or with conventional spray equipment
7) Fast and easy touch-ups when necessary.
8) Ambient or low temperature curing capability.
9) Flexibility
10) Moisture tolerant.
11) Abrasion Resistant.
12) Low or No Flammability Potential
13) Offers maximum protection with one or two coats.
14) Ability to withstand both normal temperatures and excursions.

VI. Safety and Application

A major consideration in this list is the ease and safety of application. The skill and dedication of the
applicator has a significant, and some will say major, impact on overall performance. Therefore, the
simpler and safer the products are to use, the fewer problems for the applicator and the better the resulting
applied system. Safety includes having no volatiles, solvents, or flammable vapors. And in the case of
organic linings, No Carcinogens or other harmful ingredients. Ease of Application means the ability to
-7-
 apply with conventional spray equipment in one or two coats rather than many and simple disposal of all
lining waste products.

VII. Conclusion:

Long lasting, maintenance free, high performance Epoxy Linings offer cost effective, safe, alternatives to
the organic, inorganic and alloy systems being considered today. The newer epoxy products offer a
variety of benefits such as flexibility, fast curing, extreme acid and caustic resistance, high temperature
(500oF) temperature resistance, and high abrasion resistance even in 40-60 mil films. Another distinct
advantage of epoxy linings is they are easily spot repaired when necessary or refurbished when that time
comes.

New resin systems have made many of these 100% solids epoxy products more sprayable and many can
be applied in a single coat (up to 150 mils DFT) with almost pinhole free surfaces. Improvements in spray
application techniques makes the historically trowel-applied materials competitive with spray-applied
systems and these offer the additional benefits of excellent abrasion resistance in areas where required.

In the lining selection process, if the benefits of lower applied cost, long term performance, long
warranties, safety, and ease of application and maintenance are important, then the use of 100% solids
epoxy systems should be given strong consideration.

References

1) George W. Sharp, “What’s that scrubber going to cost?”, POWER, July 2007
2) Raymond J. Jaworowski, A. Wesley Langeland – “Applications for 100% Solids Epoxy Products in Wet
and Dry FGD Scrubber Systems”, AirPol 2007, Louisville, KY
3) Jeffery Stewart, “Protecting Wet FGD Units at Power Plants – Know the Exposures and the Options”,
JPCL, June 2007
4) Thomas E. Higgins, “Coal Combustion and Emissions Control”, Industrial Waterworld,
November/December 2006
5) Richard E. Avery, William L. Mathey, “Cleaning and inspection of stainless steels and alloys for FGD
service”, Power, September, 2006
6) K. A. Deshmukh, S.N. Diwakar, “Technology Evaluation of Flue Gas Desulphurization for a Power
Plant”, TCE World, April 2003
7) Robert E. Moore, Washington Group International, Princeton, NJ, Private Communication.
8) Bryan E. Hanson, “Minimizing FGD Costs”, Burns & McDonnell Publication
9) Bruce Woodruff of Corr-Coat Consulting, Private Communication
10) TRC Company Bulletin, “Emission Controls Retrofit Strategies” Irvine, CA 92618

-8-
-9-
- 10 -
- 11 -
- 12 -
 HydroClyclone
Separator Lime Primary Equalization Organo- Ferric
Clarifier Tank sulfide Chloride Flocculent

Vacuum
Belt Filter
Sand
Filter

Solids
Blending Filter Sludge Treated
Tank Press Disposal Effluent
FGD or
Scrubber Backwash

Gypsum
Solids

Figure 4 – Schematic of Typical Wastewater Treatment System

- 13 -