Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog


Main Title Marketing of byproduct gypsum from flue gas desulfurization
Author O'Brien, W. E. ; Anders, W. L. ; Dotson, R. L. ; Veitch, J. D.
Other Authors
Author Title of a Work
O'Brien, W. E.
CORP Author Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL. Div. of Energy Demonstrations and Technology.;Industrial Environmental Research Lab., Research Triangle Park, NC.
Publisher Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology ;
Year Published 1984
Report Number TVA/OP/EDT-83/15 ; EPA-600/7-84-019 ; TVA/OP/EDT-83/15
Stock Number PB84-215805
OCLC Number 11872115
Subjects Flue gases--Desulphurization--By-products ; Gypsum industry--Economic aspects--United States
Additional Subjects Gypsum ; Electric power plants ; Air pollution control ; Byproducts ; Marketing ; Industrial wastes ; Flue gases ; Cost analysis ; Combustion products ; Waste utilization ; Solid wastes ; Flue gas desulfurization
Internet Access
Description Access URL
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
EKBD  EPA-600/7-84-019 Research Triangle Park Library/RTP, NC 02/20/2004
NTIS  PB84-215805 Some EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. 07/26/2022
Collation xii, 14, 144 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
The report gives results of an evaluation of the 1985 marketing potential of byproduct gypsum from utility flue gas desulfurization (FGD), for the area east of the Rocky Mountains, using the calculated gypsum production rates of 14 selected power plants. The 114 cement plants and 52 wallboard plants in the area were assumed to be the potential market for FGD gypsum sales. Assuming use of an in-loop, forced-oxidation, limestone FGD process, results showed that producing marketable gypsum was less expensive than disposal by chemical fixation and landfill for many power plants in the area, including those used in the study. With this savings to offset freight costs, the power plants could market 4.35 million tons/year of gypsum (92% of their production), filling 63% of the cement plant requirements and 20% of the wallboard plant requirements. Cement plants are a geographically disperse market available to most power plants, but able to absorb the production of only a few power plants; wallboard plants are a larger market but, for them, power plant location is a more important marketing factor. Other variations of the marketing model indicated that: drying and briquetting had little effect on marketing potential; and sales were reduced 25% when the savings in the FGD cost were not used to offset freight costs.
"February 1984." "EPA interagency agreement no. 79-D-X0511." Bibliography: p. 139-144.