||Economics of disposal of lime/limestone scrubbing wastes : sludge/flyash blending and gypsum systems /
Barrier, J. W. ;
Faucett, H. L. ;
Henson, L. J.
||National Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, AL.;Industrial Environmental Research Lab., Research Triangle Park, NC.
|| Tennessee Valley Authority, National Fertilizer Development Center ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory ; National Technical Information Service [distributor],
Electric power-plants--Waste disposal. ;
Flue gases--Desulfurization--By-products. ;
Scrubber (Chemical technology) ;
Solid waste disposal ;
Air pollution control ;
Sludge disposal ;
Economic analysis ;
Electric power plants ;
Industrial wastes ;
Combustion products ;
Flue gases ;
Earth fills ;
Fly ash ;
Sulfur oxides ;
Performance evaluation ;
Field tests ;
Capitalized costs ;
Process charting ;
Calcium oxides ;
Limestone scrubbing ;
||Region 4 Library/Atlanta,GA
||Research Triangle Park Library/RTP, NC
||Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy.
||xxxi, 178 pages : illustrations ; 28 cm.
The report, the second in a series of economic evaluations of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) waste disposal systems, gives results of a study of two processes that produce a soil-like landfill material without using purchased additives: (1) separately collected flyash is blended with dewatered FGD sludge from a limestone scrubbing system; and (2) air-oxidation modifications to a limestone scrubber, which also collects the flyash, produce a high-sulfate sludge (gypsum) which is dewatered and discarded without further treatment. Both processes are being developed; neither has been fully demonstrated. The sludge/flyash blending process had a higher capital investment ($36.40/kW) than the other (as well as untreated ponding and three of four chemical processes evaluated in an earlier study) primarily because of high electrostatic precipitator and process equipment costs; however, the process had lower annual revenue requirements (1.64 mills/kWh) than three of the four chemical processes. The gypsum process had the lowest capital investment ($15.40/kW) of all processes studied to date because of lower process equipment cost and higher waste bulk density; its annual revenue requirements (1.18 mills/kWh) were lower than all processes studied except untreated ponding. Capital investment costs are for mid-1979; annual revenue requirements are for mid-1980.
"February 1979." "EPA/600-7-79-069." Includes bibliographical references. "EPA interagency agreement D8-E721-B1, program element no. INE624A."