Technical Paper

BR-1930

Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)

Designs to Achieve Ultra-Low
Particulate Emissions

Authors:
A.A. Silva
A.L. Moretti
T. Liu
Babcock & Wilcox
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
Presented to:
Power-Gen Asia
Date:
September 1-3, 2015
Location:
Bangkok, Thailand

BR-1930

Abstract

Achieving ultra-low particulate matter (PM) emissions is becoming more relevant to Asia. For
example, China is aggressively reducing PM emissions to levels as low as 5 mg/Nm3 or less for
coal-fired power plants. Many power plants are currently equipped with dry electrostatic
precipitators (ESP) followed by wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems for PM and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) control, respectively. New regulations that target further reductions in nitrogen
oxides (NOx) emissions will require many plants to install selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
systems which may increase sulfuric acid mist loading in the stack which contributes to visual
opacity. While this environmental equipment configuration can attain low PM levels, wet ESPs,
located as the last component of environmental equipment, are needed to continuously meet
these stringent Chinese regulations. This paper will discuss variations of horizontal gas flow
plate, vertical gas flow plate, and vertical gas flow hextube wet ESPs used for utility
applications. Considerations of design conditions, including sulfuric acid mist loading, and
arrangements will be discussed to determine which wet ESP type is more appropriate. Typical
performance and water washing impacts on materials of construction will also be discussed
along with appropriate stack testing methods for PM and sulfuric acid mist.

Background
Wet ESPs are especially suited to control filterable and condensable particulate matter less than
2.5 microns (PM2.5). Typically, utility power plants use a dry ESP followed by a wet FGD
system for particulate matter control. But, to meet new, low emission limits that are required in
China, wet ESPs are used downstream of wet FGD systems as a polishing device in the air
quality control system (AQCS). Wet ESPs are proven to reduce particulate matter to less than 5
mg/Nm3 and acid mist to below 15 mg/Nm3 as presented later in this paper. Fig. 1 shows a
proposed equipment configuration to meet PM limits less than 5 mg/Nm3.

Fig. 1 AQCS configuration in which the wet ESP is used as a polishing device.

Wet ESPs differ from dry ESPs in that they are designed to operate in saturated gas conditions
which affect design and operation. The high flue gas moisture helps to improve the resistivity of
the particles, resulting in higher power level inputs to collect particles. This higher power level
allows the wet ESP to be designed with higher velocities and lower treatment times resulting in
smaller overall dimensions compared to a dry ESP. Since wet ESPs collect acids, the
construction materials used are usually more exotic and costly. It is not unusual for a wet ESP to
use electrode materials such as Hastelloy C-276, or 6% Molybdenum (Mo) alloys, while a dry
ESP may use carbon steel materials. Major differences between wet and dry ESPs are shown in
Fig. 2.

Dry ESP

Wet ESP

Gas Temperature

121 454 C

48 54 C

Gas Humidity

< 10% typical

100% (Saturation conditions

after wet FGD)

Variable with coal sulfur

Significantly higher than dry

content and ash chemistry

ESP

Resistivity

Critical design factor

Not a design factor

Gas Velocity

~ 1.5 m/s

~ 3 m/s

Treatment Time

>10 seconds

~ 1 5 seconds

Re-entrainment

Important factor

Not a factor

Materials of Construction

Mild steel (typical)

Specialty metals, plastic or

Power Density

conductive materials
Fig. 2 Major design differences between a wet and dry ESP.

Current Demand for Wet ESP Technology

In China, the ambient air PM2.5 levels are much higher than the World Health Organizations
(WHO) recommended limit of 10 ug/Nm3 or less. In 2014, the 10th most polluted city in China
had PM2.5 levels more than 10 times higher than the WHO standard (Reference 1).
Approximately 22% of the ambient air PM2.5 emissions in Beijing are from coal combustion
(Reference 2). In response to this issue, the Chinese government is reducing the permitted PM
levels of existing and new unit utility coal-fired plants in key areas to 5 mg/Nm3, which is around
the same levels as those of natural gas-fired applications. More aggressive targets are also being
pursued in the more polluted coastal region, where the emissions limits are lower than 5
mg/Nm3. These requirements are resulting in a large demand for wet ESPs. There are hundreds
of utility units that will need to meet PM2.5 limits of 5 mg/Nm3 or less within the next five years.
3

While not all units will be retrofitted with wet ESPs, it has become the most popular option to
meet these low emissions limits. Other Asian countries, such as South Korea, may implement
PM emissions limits in the future, but the primary demand is currently China. In the United
States (U.S.), PM and acid mist are controlled by a combination of spray dryers with fabric
filters or dry sorbent injection with dry ESPs (or in some cases fabric filters) and wet FGD
systems. There are a handful of U.S. utility units that employ wet ESPs, but without a legislative
driver, there is not a significant U.S. utility demand for wet ESPs.
There is also a demand for wet ESPs in industrial plants. In the U.S., wet ESPs are becoming an
important tool for complying with the industrial boiler MACT (maximum achievable control
technology) rule, enacted in 2013. For example, paper mills in the U.S. are required to meet
emissions levels of approximately 40 mg/Nm3. Many of these plants have a wet particulate
scrubber already in place which is not suitable for fine particulate removal or the even finer
sulfuric acid mist that can be generated when firing high sulfur coal or oil. Since wet ESPs are
designed to operate in a saturated gas stream, they can effectively be installed as a polishing
device after the wet particulate scrubber to achieve the new emissions standards. In other
industrial applications, wet ESPs can be used to recover sulfuric acid and/or protection of
downstream equipment from acid corrosion. Hextube designs are typically the wet ESP of choice
for industrial applications because of the smaller design flow rates. Alloy is commonly used for
electrodes because of the acidic environment.
Wet ESP Types
Wet ESPs can be designed for either horizontal or vertical flow configurations. The choice of
which to use is usually driven by arrangement and cost. Plants with limited footprint areas
typically use a vertical design since it takes less space. With no space limitations, the horizontal
design is usually preferred as a lower cost option.
Fig. 3 shows a horizontal flow wet ESP. Flue gas enters horizontally and flows through a flow
distribution device, such as a perforated plate, then through the gas passages where the
particulate matter and acid mist are negatively charged from the corona created by the discharge
electrodes. The particulate and acid are then attracted to and collected on the grounded curtains.
The curtains or collecting plates can be up to 10 meters or higher. Wash water falls down the
4

plates, out of the gas path, and is collected in a hopper where the water is drained to a recylce
tank. The number and length of the fields depends upon how much PM removal is needed and
the amount of sulfuric acid mist present in the system.
In China, high grade alloy can be expensive, especially if it needs to be imported. As a result,
Chinese designs focus on reducing the amount of high grade alloy used in the wet ESP and tend
to use as much locally available materials as possible, such as 316L SS and carbon steel. Since
labor is relatively inexpensive, and flakeglass lining is a labor intensive process, wet ESP casings
and some support beams are commonly made of flakeglass-lined carbon steel as a lower cost
option for corrosion protection. Alloy is reserved for the electrodes and critical structural
supports. Polypropylene or other plastic materials are commonly used for the gas distribution
device and spray nozzles.
Depending on the inlet conditions and design emissions removals, the need for single or multiple
collecting fields must be evaluated. Typically, multiple wet ESPs are used per boiler. The
arrangement can be stacked or side-by-side depending on the space available. Installing the wet
ESP closer to ground level will reduce the amount of structural steel and reduce overall cost. In
that case, consideration of flue routing is essential to obtain a good gas flow distribution to the
wet ESP.

Fig. 3 Horizontal gas flow wet ESP.

Fig. 4 shows a vertical-flow, plate-type wet ESP, which is integrated with a wet FGD. In this
example, gas flows up through a three-field WESP. Similar to the horizontal flow type, the
amount of alloy is minimized in Chinese applications. Usually an expansion flue exists between
the wet FGD and wet ESP to maintain high velocities in the wet FGD (3.7 to 4.3 m/s) while
maintaining a velocity of approximately 3.0 m/s in the wet ESP. The wet ESP can either be
supported with the wet FGD or have a completely separate support system.

Fig. 4 Integrated, vertical gas flow wet ESP.

A second version of the vertical wet ESP is a standalone configuration and can be either an
upflow or downflow design. The casing can be square or round. The collecting electrodes come
in different shapes, such as hextube, plate, rectangular, etc. Fig. 5 shows the internals of an all
alloy hextube design.

Fig. 5 Internals of a hextube wet ESP.

7

For vertical flow applications, hextube wet ESPs are commonly used in China. The tubes are
typically constructed of conductive fiberglass reinforced plastic (CFRP). Hextube wet ESPs are
mostly single field (mechanical and electrical) systems. A mechanical field is defined as a
singular group of parallel collecting plates or tubes in the direction of gas flow. An electrical
field is defined as a singular group of discharge electrodes in the direction of gas flow supported
and energized by the bus section. These definitions apply to both the horizontal and vertical gas
flow wet ESPs.
Multiple wet ESPs are typically used in parallel to limit the overall size. This is gas flow
dependent. If multiple fields are needed, then another wet ESP will be added in series. This is
common in U.S. industrial designs, but in Chinese utility applications, it is typical to have a
single field system wet ESP to keep reduce capital costs. With a single field system, the tube
length is usually about 6 m and the wet ESP has 6 to 8 bus sections to minimize the effect of
powering one down for water washing. A bus section is defined as the smallest subdivision of
the wet ESP internal high voltage system that can be de-energized independently by
sectionalization of the high voltage system. One of the major drawbacks to the single field
system is that gas flow is bypassed during water washing. This will result in increased emissions
during this time. Thus, it is advantageous to have as many bus sections as possible in this design.
With both the vertical flow integrated and standalone designs, the internal water washing
collection is more complex than with the horizontal gas flow design. But, unlike a horizontal
continuous wash design, the collected water usually does not need to be neutralized. The spent
water goes directly to the scrubber where it is neutralized with limestone slurry, resulting in a
simpler design. For plate-type collecting electrodes, a water collection system is typically
installed beneath the plates to allow for adequate drainage and to prevent moisture droplet
carryover.
Other types of wet ESPs consist of a non-conductive collecting electrode. In these designs, water
is used as the means to ground the electrodes. High water flow irrigation has been used on FRP
coated collection electrodes. This design uses much water on a continuous basis and is not often
used because of water balance concerns. A membrane collecting electrode is one made of a
8

material that absorbs water readily, such as polypropylene mesh, and is placed over a material
such as FRP. Water flow is introduced to the top of the plate and flows down, keeping the
electrode wet and providing a grounded surface for the negatively charged particulate.

WESP Washing and Materials of Construction

Water washing in a wet ESP is comparable to rapping in a dry ESP. Dry ESPs utilize rapping to
remove dry particualte from the collector plates on a timed sequence while wet ESPs wash the
electrodes to clean particulate matter and acid mist.
Continuous and intermittent washing of the wet ESP are the most common types of water
washing methods used. Continuous washing is most commonly used for horizontal flow, platetype wet ESPs. Atomized water is continuously sprayed in the gas passage or on the plate to
create a film of water on the collector plate during the continuous wash process. This film of
water will flow down, keeping the plate wetted to maintain the pH above 5, and reducing the
chloride concentration, which allows a lower-grade alloy, such as 316L or alloy 2205, to be used.
Since the amount and size of the water droplets sprayed is small, power levels in the wet ESP are
not affected, which allows the wet ESP to be energized at all times. This benefit removes the
need for oversizing the wet ESP because the fields are not de-energized for washing as compared
to an intermittent wash design in which a bus section is out of service during washing, resulting
in decreased performance. While a continuous wash can use more water than an intermittent
wash, the wash water can be recycled. To have an effective recycle system, a caustic addition
system is added as well as a blowdown stream, which sends water back to the wet FGD for use
as make-up water. (See Fig. 6.)

Fig. 6 Schematic of wash water recycle system.

Caustic- or magnesium-based systems are controlled by maintaining pH levels in the recycle

tank between 5 and 7. The blowdown flow rate is set to control the chloride concentration and/or
the total suspended solids in the system. The blowdown is then sent to the wet FGD as a source
of makeup water. The rate is set to a reasonable level that does not affect the overall wet FGD
water balance at full-load operation.
Continuous washing is not commonly used in a multi-field vertical gas flow design, since
droplets sprayed to coat the collecting surface will be re-entrained into the flue gas and can be
suspended in the collecting zone. This causes excessive sparks, which decreases wet ESP
performance.
Intermittent washing can be used on both vertical and horizontal wet ESP configurations. The
wash system is commonly activated every shift for the front fields, and every 12 to 24 hours for
the later fields, but times are usually adjusted to account for the actual loading concentrations.
Since the transformer/rectifier (T/R) usually needs to be turned off during washing, the wash
system is sectionalized with the electrical fields. This is because the electrodes are washed with a
10

high flow of water to clean off the particulates and any acid that has been collected, and keeping
the T/R on will result in excessive power loss from sparking as well as droplet carryover.
Since the electrodes are washed infrequently, acid buildup and chlorides from wet FGD
carryover result in a very corrosive environment on the collection plates. Thus, this chlorideladen acidic solution requires the use of expensive alloys such as 6% Mo or Hastelloy C276/C22
in the front fields. Water is typically drained back to the wet FGD or can be recycled, similar to
Fig. 6.
With intermittent washing, the pH inside the wet ESP can fall below 1 with chloride
concentrations of 10,000 ppm or higher, and under-deposit corrosion can form in areas where
build-up occurs. Continuous washing, by contrast, keeps the pH high (>5) and the chlorides low
(<1000 ppm), which means less corrosion-resistant grade alloys can be used. These low-grade
alloys, 316L and alloy 2205, can be one-third the price of Hastelloy C276/C22 and half the price
of 6% Mo alloys.
CFRP is also used as a substitute for alloys in China. This is used in a hextube design and, while
corrosion resistant, it is more susceptible to the formation of holes due to its low resistance to
electrical arcing. Currently, there is limited long-term operating data of CFRP in the Chinese wet
ESP industry to fully understand its material life.
Conductive composite material (CCM), developed by MEGTEC Systems Inc./Turbosonic, a
division of The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W), is another alternative material that can be
used in a wet ESP. This product has currently been in operation over 2 years as a collecting
electrode in a hextube wet ESP in a U.S industrial application. No deterioration of the CCM
tubes has been observed during a recent inspection, even though it is used in a highly corrosive
environment where the pH level is < 0.5 and washing of the tubes is done intermittently. Prior to
installation, the material was tested on a test bench for arc resistance and the results showed little
spark corrosion even though it was subjected to over 10,000 arcs.

11

Wet ESP Performance

A well-designed wet ESP must consider various operating parameters that can affect the
performance, including inlet flue gas composition (especially particulate and acid mist loading),
gas flow distribution, electrical energization, specific collection area (SCA), gas velocity, and
corona power.
Utilizing electric forces to separate suspended particles from the flue gas onto the collection
surface, the actual precipitation process occurs in the space between the discharge electrodes and
collecting electrodes. This process consists of charging the particles, through the corona
discharge region, and then collecting the particles on the collection surface which has opposite
polarity.
When a high concentration of fine particles and/or sulfuric acid mist enters the wet ESP (i.e.,
when the number density of ions are comparable to that of the particles), the corona current is
greatly diminished. This is due to low mobility of the charged particles which migrate relatively
slowly toward the collecting electrodes, and, as a result, reduces the rate of charging in the field.
This phenomenon is referred to as corona suppression. (See Fig. 7.) If present, corona
suppression will decrease overall collection efficiency in the wet ESP. Factors that cause or
aggravate this condition in a wet ESP which follows a wet FGD are large concentrations of fine
sulfuric acid mist droplets and a high degree of water droplets. Fig. 8 shows a comparison of data
from wet ESPs with different inlet SO3 concentrations. Plant B has a higher SO3 inlet
concentration and the overall power effect is lower than Plant A. Corona suppression is
suspected to be present past the first field at Plant B because of the lower current density as
compared to Plant A.

12

Fig. 7 Corona suppression in a wet ESP.

Plant A

Plant B

SO3, ppm

20 30

30 40

PM, mg/Nm3

40 60

10 25

Inlet Temperature, C

~51

~51

Gas Velocity, m/s

2.0

3.0

WESP

No. of collecting fields

Inlet field

Secondary voltage (Avg) kV

58

70.7

Current density A/m2

1.2 x 10-4

0.8 x 10-4

Secondary voltage (Avg) kV

60

70.5

Current density A/m2

7.3 x 10-4

2.4 x 10-4

Secondary voltage (Avg) kV

52

71.2

Current density A/m2

9.6 x 10-4

3.4 x 10-4

SO3, ppm

<3

<5

PM, mg/Nm3

<4

<4

Wet FGD Inlet

WESP Inlet

Center field
Outlet field
Stack

Fig. 8 Wet ESP power comparison with different inlet SO3 concentrations.
13

To effectively deal with anticipated corona suppression, proper and effective designs of wet ESP
collection and discharge electrode geometries must be made. By carefully determining the
optimum distance between the discharge and collecting electrodes, corona current can be
established and maintained at adequate levels. Other options, such as optimizing the upstream
environmental equipment to further reduce the inlet loading of fine particulates to the wet ESP,
selecting the optimum SCA and gas velocity in the wet ESP, and sectionalizing the wet ESP into
multiple electrical bus sections or fields to ensure sufficient corona current for particle charging
can also overcome corona suppression. Managing corona suppression is possible from
knowledge gained in past experiences, not only with wet ESPs but also with dry ESPs on other
applications that exhibit a corona suppression problem, such as paper mill recovery units
(principally sodium sulfate salts) and dry cement kilns (where fine particulates are found in high
concentrations).
The relationship between specific corona power and collection efficiency is well understood
through past experiences. Corona power, usually expressed in Watts/m2 or Watts/actual m3/s of
gas flow, is the product of secondary current and secondary voltage. Current is needed to charge
the particles in the flue gas stream and voltage is needed to transfer the charged particles to the
collecting plates. The achieved electrical field is the key to maximizing collection efficiency.
There are several factors that can affect the corona power of the wet ESP, such as physical
design of the wet ESP, discharge electrode type/style, inlet loading (mist, droplet and/or
particulate), particle size, and process condition changes. The electrical energizing system for the
wet ESP must be designed to increase the corona delivered to the field and must be able to
maintain power at a constant level even when process conditions change. Achieving uniform
power distribution per collecting area or gas volume in the wet ESP is essential to optimal
performance. Figs. 9 and 10 depict the voltage-current (V-I) curves between different discharge
electrode geometries, styles and gas passage lengths.

14

Fig. 9 V-I curve of different electrode styles at 300 mm gas passage spacing.

15

1 Vpin at 230 mm
2 Vpin at 300 mm

Fig. 10 V-I curve of a V-pin discharge electrode at 230 mm and 300 mm gas passage spacing.
Spark rates can also significantly affect the wet ESP performance. Spark rate for a given wet
ESP compartment geometry is a function of the inlet loading and alignment of the electrodes.
When a spark occurs, the energy stored is dissipated in the ESP field and then the spark
extinguishes. In response to the spark, the power supply quenches or turns off for a period of
time and then reapplies power to recharge the field. Care should always be exercised when
selecting the T/R and automatic voltage controller for the wet ESPs. The proper selection of both
components can optimize the corona power and boost the wet ESP performance.
Gas flow uniformity at the wet ESP inlet is another key design factor to allow sufficient
performance. To optimize the collection efficiency across the wet ESP, similar flow and gas
conditions should be achieved at the inlet of each collecting section. Overloading any section of
the wet ESP will negatively impact the overall performance.
16

Potential causes of gas flow distribution imbalances are improper flow balance from the
upstream wet FGD, short radius bends in the flues immediately upstream of the wet ESP, short
wet ESP inlet nozzle, and wet ESP outlet flue arrangement issues. The most effective way to
decrease the impact of these potential issues is to address them early in the design phase.
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models are routinely used to assist the designer in locating
turning vanes and perforated plates in the system to provide proper flue gas distribution to the
wet ESP.

Wet ESP Performance Testing

It is essential that the wet ESP operate as designed to achieve the targeted emissions limits. Once
first gas through the unit occurs, proper tuning and testing of the wet ESP is critical, and
important design data must be measured and interpreted. At a minimum, gas flows, power levels
and emissions should be measured. This data, along with the wet ESP design information, such
as collecting surface area, etc., should be analyzed to verify the unit is operating as predicted.
Flue gas data that should be collected from field testing includes:

Flue gas flow

Inlet and outlet PM concentrations

Inlet and outlet H2SO4 (sulfuric acid) concentrations

Inlet and outlet pressure drop

Inlet and outlet water droplet concentrations

Fig. 11 lists the U.S. EPA test methods associated with collection of the above flue gas data. In
China, GB/T 16157-1996 (National Standard of the Peoples Republic of China) has been used,
but it does not address non-sulfuric acid particulate matter or sulfuric acid mist concentration
procedures.

17

Test

Method

Comment

Flue gas flow

US EPA Method 2G

Two dimensional probe

PM concentration

US EPA Method 5B

Non-sulfuric acid mist PM

H2SO4 concentration

US EPA CTM 13

Controlled condensation

Pressure drop

US EPA Method 2G

Water droplet concentration

US EPA Method 4

Measure difference between

theoretical moisture and actual

Fig. 11 Typical U.S. EPA flue gas measurement methods.

Real-time instruments such as a PM meter can yield real time data that usually takes 1 to 2 weeks
when done during a stack test. If a PM meter is used, then it is important to use a non-sulfuric
acid detecting meter.
Instrument data that should be collected from the distributed control system (DCS), automatic
voltage controller (AVC), or other locations, includes:

Secondary milliamps

Secondary kilovolts, peak and average

Sparks per minute

Power

Power factor

Boiler load

Flue gas temperature

Water flow (continuous wash wet ESPs only)

Particulate concentration (if meter available)

By obtaining the above data along with critical wet ESP design data, it is possible to calculate
important design parameters such as gas velocities, current density, power density, SCA,
treatment times, migration velocities and emissions removal efficiencies. This data is essential in
tuning the wet ESP during initial operation.
18

When gathering the data, the tests should be run at normal steady load operation (full load, all
fields in service, no water washing intermittent wash designs) as well as other conditions such
as one or two fields out of service, with water washing in service intermittent design, different
gas flows, etc.
If the wet ESP does not meet performance requirements, then the actual conditions must be
compared against the design values and potential solutions implemented as discussed earlier in
this paper.

Summary
Wet ESPs are being used in China to polish PM emissions to very low levels, < 5 mg/Nm3 or
lower. Testing on various applications has proven that this technology is well suited to meet
these low emissions. Horizontal and vertical flow wet ESPs are the options available, with the
selection typically based on the footprint available at site. There are multiple wet ESP
configurations available. Horizontal wet ESPs almost exclusively use continuous wash with low
grade alloys, such as 316L SS or Alloy 2205, used for the electrodes. In China, vertical flow wet
ESPs are typically CFRP hextube and intermittently washed. The growing need for ultra-low
emissions control will demand greater reliability and removal efficiency of the wet ESP and
other particulate removal devices. A clear understanding of the parameters that can affect
performance is important to successfully design a wet ESP. It is critical to account for the
amount of sulfuric acid mist in the system since high concentrations can cause corona
suppression in the first field. This will inhibit the amount of PM removal in the initial field,
requiring a larger surface area (more fields and treatment time) to compensate for the sulfuric
acid mist levels. Required design parameters must be achieved to ensure reliable performance for
the various types of plant operating and flue gas conditions. Tuning and testing the wet ESP is
critical to ensure the very low PM emissions limits can be met continuously over a long period of
time.

19

References
1. Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection, American Lung Association and WHO /
Simon Denyer and Richard Johnson / The Washington Post, February 2, 2014.
2. Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau.

Hastelloy is a trademark of Haynes International, Inc.

Copyright 2015 by The Babcock & Wilcox Company 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, The Babcock & Wilcox
Company, P.O. Box 351, Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. 44203-0351. Or, contact us from our website 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 The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) 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 nor any of its employees make any warranty, guarantee or
representation, 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 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 discussed in this
work.

20