Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Or".')' <br />lJ j. L' I '. <br /> <br />Particulate Control <br /> <br />Proposals have been requested by the Company and an analysis and <br /> <br />appraisal are being nade by Stearns-Roger on three types of particulate <br /> <br />removal equipment: <br /> <br />1. Electrostatic (hot end) <br /> <br />2. Electrostatic (cold end) <br /> <br />3. Scrubbers <br /> <br />In each case a design efficiency of at least 99.5 percent is speci- <br /> <br />fied which the Company expects will meet Federal and state air quality <br /> <br />standards. <br /> <br />In this connection, TVA commented in a letter of November 12, 1970: <br /> <br />"We have no knowledge of precipitator manufacturers who can <br />supply equipment to remove 99.5 per cent of the fly ash in <br />power generating facilities, particularly when the sulfur <br />content of the coal is only 0.5 per cent. With the ranges <br />Of B.t.u. and ash content of the coal indicated for this <br />plant, about 99 per cent will be required to meet the <br />emission criterion. It is highly unlikely that sustained <br />performance at this high level of efficiency can be at- <br />tained with the best operational efforts possible." <br /> <br />On the other hand, DHEW in its publication, "Control Techniques for Par-. <br /> <br />ticulate Air Pollutants" (Jan. 1969), states in reference to electro- <br /> <br />static precipitators that, "Such devices are capable of collection ef- <br /> <br />ficiencies of at least 99.5 per cent, and it is quite possible that <br /> <br />even more efficient systems can be provided if necessary." There ap- <br /> <br />pears to be some doubt, however, that the DHEW study considered units <br /> <br />as large as the Huntington Canyon units and operations over extended <br /> <br />periods of time. <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />,I <br />