United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-84-019 Aug. 1984
Project Summary
Marketing of Byproduct Gypsum
from Flue Gas Desulfurization
W.E. O'Brien, W.L Anders, R.L Dotson, and J.D. Veitch
The 1985 marketing potential of
byproduct gypsum from utility flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) was evaluated 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 market-
able gypsum was less expensive than
disposal by chemical fixation and
landfill for many power plants in the
area, including all those used in the
study. With this savings to offset freight
costs, the power plants could market
4.35 million ton/yr 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 on the marketing model
indicated that: (1) drying and briquettirfg
had little effect on the marketing
potential; (2) sales were reduced 25%
when the savings in FGD cost were not
used to offset freight costs; and (3)
relocation of wallboard plants to sources
of byproduct gypsum appeared eco-
nomically feasible in some cases.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park. NC. to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
This study investigated the marketing
of byproduct gypsum as a more economical
means of operating flue gas desulfuriza-
tion (FGD) processes at utility power
plants. In the past few years, prospects
for marketing FGD gypsum have improved.
Simple and effective variations on low-
cost limestone FGD processes that
incorporate forced oxidation to produce
gypsum have been developed and have
become economically competitive with
the more conventional limestone process-
es that have increasingly expensive
waste treatment costs. Forced oxidation
processes, now offered by several ven-
dors, are being adopted by utilities seeking
to reduce waste treatment and handling
problems or, in some cases, to produce
marketable gypsum.
Rapidly increasing transportation costs
have also improved the prospects for FGD
gypsum because of the nonuniform
distribution of natural gypsum, which
sometimes requires the shipment of
natural gypsum or gypsum products over
long distances. FGD gypsum is one of the
better candidates among byproduct
gypsums for replacement of natural
gypsum because of its chemical and
physical properties. Wallboard is commer-
cially produced from FGD gypsum in
Japan and West Germany. It has also
been evaluated in several wallboard
manufacturing tests in the U.S. that were
reportedly successful, an important
factor since wallboard manufacture has
the most stringent quality requirements
and is the largest use of gypsum. The
manufacture of Portland cement, which
contains a small percentage of gypsum, is
the only other market that utilizes enough
-------
gypsum to support the marketing of FGD
gypsum.
In 1981, about 19 million tons of
gypsum was used in the U.S.: 3.6 million
tons for the manufacture of portland
cement, 1.5 million tons in agriculture,
and most of the rest to manufacture
wallboard and plaster products. About
11.5 million tons was produced at 70
mines in 22 states; the rest was imported.
The unusually large import trade is
largely the result of a lack of gypsum
deposits in the eastern U.S. It is more
economical to import gypsum by sea from
Canada than to ship it overland from
domestic mines, a situation with impor-
tant implications for marketing byproduct
gypsum in the eastern U.S.
In the 37 states east of the Rocky
Mountains, the study area of this investi-
gation, gypsum deposits occur in the
inland coastal plains from Arkansas to
eastern Texas, in a broad belt from
western Texas into Iowa, and in the area
around the lower Great Lakes. Except for
a mine in southwestern Virginia, there
are no gypsum mines east of the Miss-
issippi River and south of the Ohio River.
In 1981, an estimated 8 million tons of
gypsum was produced at 36 mines in 12
of the 37 states. An additional 6.2 million
tons was imported through 13 ports of
entry on the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf
Coast.
Marketing Model
The marketing model used in this study
was based on the premises that utilities
that use FGD to meet S02 emission
control requirements would adopt FGD
gypsum production and marketing if this
were the lowest cost FGD option, and
that cement and wallboard manufacturers
would use the byproduct gypsum if it cost
less than their natural gypsum supply.
The study area was limited to the 37
states east of the Rocky Mountains, and
sales were limited to cement and wall-
board plants. All of the costs, quantities',
power plant conditions, and marketing
structures were projected to 1985 using
information available through mid-1982.
Gypsum Market
The cement plant market consisted of
114 cement plants projected to be in
operation in 1985. The geographic
distribution of the plants is quite uniform
and bears little relationship to natural
gypsum sources, as shown in Figure 1.
The total cement plant gypsum require-
ments were projected to be 3.42 million
ton/yr. The requirements of most indi-
vidual plants ranged from 10,000 to
• Gypsum Mines
» Gypsum Import Points
• Cement Plants
Figure 1.
Locations of gypsum mines, gypsum import points, and cement plants in the 37
eastern states.
60,000 ton/yr; the average for all plants
was 30,000 ton/yr.
The wallboard plant market consisted
of the 52 wallboard plants projected to be
in operation in 1985. The geographic
distribution of the plants is almost
entirely related to sources of gypsum,
either mines or import points, as shown
in Figure 2. The total wallboard plant
gypsum requirements were projected to
be 10.4 million ton/yr. Most wallboard
plants have requirements of 100,000 to
500,000 ton/yr, with an average of about
250,000 ton/yr. Since individual wall-
board plant requirements are proprietary
information, the requirements used in
this study were determined and verified
by indirect methods.
Power Plants
To provide an accurate representation
of the production of FGD gypsum by
utilities, the fuel, operating conditions, and
emission regulations of 14 power plants
were used to determine the gypsum
production rates and FGD costs used in
the marketing model. Their locations,
relative to cement and wallboard plants.
are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respective-
ly. These were screened from all coal-
fired power plants in the study area with
boilers over 100 MW in size that were, or
are scheduled .to be, started up between
1960 and 1985 (104 power plants). The
14 power plants selected were among
those best suited economically for use of
gypsum-producing FGD strategy. All 14
power plants were calculated to have
lower FGD costs for a gypsum-producing
FGD process than for a waste-producing
FGD process. The screening process
consisted of comparing computer-gen-
erated costs of two limestone FGD
systems based on the individual power
plant fuel, boiler design, and emission
regulations. One FGD system was a
conventional limestone process produc-
ing a high-sulfite waste that was fixed
with fly ash and lime and disposed of in a
landfill. The other was an adipic-acid-
enhanced limestone process incorpora-
ting in-loop forced oxidation in which the
gypsum produced was washed and
filtered to 90% solids. The process
included stockpiling and loading facilities
for 85% of the gypsu m produced. Costs for
-------
* Gypsum Mines
• Gypsum Import Points
tWallboard Plants
Figure 2.
Locations of gypsum mines, gypsum import points, and wallboard plants in the
eastern 37 states.
• Cement Plant
Power Plant
Figure 3. Geographic relationship of study power plants to cement plants.
landfill disposal of the remaining gypsum
(representing off-quality production) and
all of the fly ash (to make disposal costs
comparable with the waste-producing
process) were included. The cost differ-
ences, expressed as an "incremental
cost" in $/ton of gypsum, were used in
most of the evaluation as an important
economic factor in the marketability of
the FGD gypsum. The incremental costs
was negative (i.e., the gypsum process was
less expensive) for the power plants used
in this study.
Gypsum Costs
Almost without exception, wallboard
manufacturers control the source of their
gypsum (rather than purchase from
independent producers) whether domes-
tic or foreign. The cost of gypsum is re-
garded as an opening cost passed on as a
portion of the total manufacturing costs.
Consequently, the cost of gypsum used
in wallboard manufacture is low. Cement
plants more commonly purchase gypsum
from suppliers at a higher cost. The 1985
cost of domestic gypsum at the mine was
projected to be $8.20/ton for wallboard
plants and $15.607ton for cement plants.
The 1985 cost of imported gypsum for
wallboard was projected to average
$15.15/ton at the port of entry and
ranges from $10.50 to $18.00/ton for
individual ports. The same port-of-entry
cost for cement plant gypsum, increased
by estimated brokerage fees, was pro-
jected to average $19.71/ton and range
from $18.00 to $21.00/ton.
Freight Costs
Freight costs for both natural and FGD
gypsum are based on shipments by truck
as far as 250 miles and by railroad farther
than 250 miles. Truck freight rates of
$1.30/ton were used as far as 10 miles,
and $0.13/ton-mile for farther than 10
miles, based on a 23-ton load. Beyond
short distances, truck freight rates do not
differ greatly in terms of ton-miles, so no
adjustment for the distance shipped was
made. Railroad freight rates decrease
with distance, however. The railroad
freight rates used varied from $0.13 to
0.10/ton-mile between 250 and 500
miles.
In contrast to those from bulk gypsum,
freight rates for wallboard differ consid-
erably for the six railroad rate territories
in the study area. For the evaluation of
wallboard shipments, therefore, freight
rates based on rates developed by TVAfor
the various intra- and interterritory
shipments were used. These differ by a
maximum of 125%, depending on the
source and destination of the shipments.
-------
* Wallboard Plant
Jt Power Plant
Figure 4. Geographic relationship of study power plants to wallboard plants.
Marketing Evaluations
The primary evaluation consisted of a
determination of the extent to which the
FGD gypsum could be marketed to
cement and wallboard plants as a lower
cost replacement of their natural gypsum
supplies. A delivered cost of natural
gypsum was established for each cement
and wallboard plant. This served as the
basis for an "allowable cost" for delivered
FGD gypsum. If the FGD gypsum could be
delivered at a cost less than the allowable
cost, it was regarded as successfully
replacing the natural gypsum supply.
Several variations of this model were
evaluated. In most, the delivered cost of
the FGD gypsum was based on the
premise that the objective of producing
and marketing FGD gypsum was to
reduce FGD costs and that the savings in
using the gypsum-producing FGD process
could be used in part to ensure sale of the
gypsum, thus making use of the lower-
cost process practical.
The variations of this model evaluated
are summarized below. Also listed is a
different evaluation in which an aspect of
the economic feasibility of manufacturing
wallboard at sources of FGD gypsum was
examined.
Marketing of as-produced gypsum
containing 10% water, with the
incremental cost offsetting the
freight costs and an allowable cost
equal to 90% of the cost of the
natural gypsum supply (to account for
possible resistance to the water
content). The individual marketing
potential of each power plant (with-
out competition from other FGD
gypsum) and the marketing potential
of all 14 power plants when marketing
simultaneously were evaluated for
three marketing conditions: sales
only to cement plants, sales only to
wallboard plants, and sales to both
cement and wallboard plants.
Marketing under all of the conditions
above but without the incremental
cost offsetting freight costs. This
assumed that the gypsum-producing
FGD process had no cost advantage
over the waste-producing process. In
this case, freight costs alone deter-
mined the delivered cost of the FGD
gypsum.
Marketing of gypsum dried to a water
content of 2.5%, with the incremental
cost offsetting the freight costs and
an allowable cost equal to the cost of
the natural gypsum supply. The cost
of drying was added to the FGD
costs, reducing the incremental
costs by $4-6/ton, depending on the
quantity dried. Only the marketing
potential of all 14 power plants
marketing simultaneously to both
cement and wallboard plants was
evaluated.
• Marketing of dried gypsum as above
but with the portion of the gypsum
sold to cement plants pressed into
briquettes (to simulate natural lump
gypsum). The briquetting costs were
added to the FGD costs, further
reducing the incremental costs.
• A different marketing model in which
a stochastic array of distribution cen-
ters in wallboard marketing areas
was used to represent wallboard
marketing in the study area. The
freight costs of wallboard from exis-
ting wallboard plants and from the
power plant locations were com-
pared to examine the economics of
locating wallboard plants at sources
of FGD gypsum.
Discussion of Results
In contrast to most byproduct FGD
processes, the gypsum process used in this
study was less expensive than the
alternate waste-producing process for
many power plants, a result of advances
in forced-oxidation limestone FGD tech-
nology, the improved handling properties
of gypsum, and the reduced disposal
costs resulting from marketing the
gypsum. The lower cost of the gypsum
process greatly enhanced the marketabil-
ity of the gypsum. Conditions that favored
the adoption of a gypsum marketing
strategy were a high flue gas SO2Content
and high SOa removal rates—typified by
boilers with stringent emission limits
that burn high-sulfur coal. FGD process-
es incorporating fixation and landfill were
generally more economical for boilers
with less-stringent emission limits or
that burned lower-sulfur coal.
Market Characteristics
The cost of gypsum to cement plants
averaged about twice that to wallboard
plants. There were also wide differences
in gypsum costs among different geo-
graphical areas. These differences were
an important factor in the marketability of
the FGD gypsum. The inland trans-
Mississippi and Great Lakes areas had the
lowest gypsum costs, the Eastern Sea-
board and Gulf Coast had higher costs,
and the Appalachian area had the highest
costs. In general, using incremental cost
to offset freight costs, gypsum could be
-------
marketed to cement plants as far away as
500 miles, with little difference in
marketability between power plants in
different areas. Gypsum could be marketed
to wallboard plants under the same
conditions as far away as 250 miles, with
the longer distances representing power
plants with access to wallboard plants
with higher gypsum costs.
Marketing Model Results
A summary of the gypsum marketing
model and study results is shown in Table
1. Without competition, each power plant
could market all of its product to cement
plants. Together, all plants could reach
almost the entire cement plant market.
However, the cement plant market has a
limited capacity to absorb FGD gypsum;
10 power plants typical of those used
in this study could supply the entire
cement plant market. This is evident in
the marketing model of the 14 power
plants marketing simultaneously: gypsum
was marketed to 95 cement plants,
supplying 83% of the total cement plant
requirement, but only 4 power plants
could market all of their production, 2 had
Table 1. Summary of Gypsum Marketing Results
no sales, and only 60% of the total power
plant production was marketed.
Without competition all power plants
also had sales to wallboard plants, but
only 11 could market all of their produc-
tion. In contrast to the cement plant
market, only a portion of the wallboard
plant market could be reached; the power
plants could market to only 20 of the 52
wallboard plants in the study area
because of the shorter economical trans-
portation distance. With the 14 power
plants marketing simultaneously to
wallboard plants, 12 power plants had
sales to 17 wallboard plants, and 6 were
to market all of their production. Compe-
tition was less important in limiting sales,
but location was more important than in
the cement plant market.
With incremental cost off setting freight
costs and the 14 power plants marketing
simultaneously to both cement and wall-
board plants, the results were largely
additive, compared to the individual
markets; 4.35 million ton/yr of gypsum
was marketed to 79 cement plants and 14
wallboard plants at a savings of $110 mil-
lion/yr. Twelve plants marketed all of
Sales with incremental cost, kton*/yr
their production, and only one had
insignificant sales. The sales met 63% of
the cement plant requirements and 20%
of the wallboard plant requirements, with
both volume and savings divided almost
equally between the markets.
Without the incremental cost to offset
freight costs, sales to distant cement
plants and wallboard plants were sub-
stantially reduced. Without competition
only about half of the power plants were
able to market all of their production to
either the cement plant market alone or
the wallboard plant market alone. In the
combined market, 3.23 million ton/yr of
gypsum was marketed to 52 cement
plants and 10 wallboard plants at a
savings of $30 million/yr. All power
plants had sales, and seven marketed all
of their production. The primary effect of
the elimination of incremental cost was
to eliminate the more distant markets,
particularly in the cement plant market.
Location became much more important in
marketing success since proximity to a
wallboard plant was necessary to market
all of the production of most of the power
plants.
Sales without incremental cost, kton'/yr
Power plant location
County, State
(Gypsum production/"
Pleasants. WV
(307 kton/yr)
Coshocton, OH
(483 kton/yr)
Monroe, Ml
(7OO kton/yr)
Boone, KY
(197 kton/yr)
Trimble, KY
(166 kton/yr)
Jefferson. KY
(577 kton/yr)
Muhlenberg, KY
(544 kton/yr)
Pike. IN
(254 kton/yr)
Sullivan. IN
(282 kton/yr)
Randolph, MO
(363 kton/yr)
Atascosa, TX
(222 kton/yr)
Hillsborough. FL
1160 kton/yr)
Putnam. FL
(271 kton/yr)
Duval. FL
(182 kton/yr)
Total (4.708 kton/yr)
% of total market
Incremental
cost, $/ton
-19
-20
-18
-13
-23
-24
-18
-20
-21
-16
-22
-20
-26
-22
Ce/Tnf"' Wan£nt*d Cement and wallboard plants
only
292
483
357
None
53
206
165
None
235
363
222
160
242
60
2.838
83
only
None
128
700
None
85
163
170
254
282
170
153
160
271
182
2.718
25
Cement
307
355
156
29
81
334
186
None
80
302
222
89
28
None
2.169
63
Wallboard
None
128
544
None
85
243
170
254
202
61
None
71
243
182
2.183
20
Total
307
483
700
29
166
577
356
254
282
363
222
• 160
271
182
4.352
31
Dried*
307
483
700
None
166
577
444
254
282
363
222
160
271
182
4.411
31
Cement Wallboard
Dried and plants plants
briquetteo" only only
307
483
700
None
166
577
356
254
282
363
222
160
271
182
4.323
30
108
162
156
32
51
53
243
32
too
273
222
89
None
63
1.584
46
None
128
452
None
None
None
170
254
282
None
None
160
271
182
1.899
18
Cement and wallboard plants
Cement
108
162
156
32
51
53
271
32
54
273
222
89
None
None
1.503
44
Wallboard
None
128
452
None
None
None
170
222
228
None
None
71
271
182
1,724
16
Total
108
290
608
32
51
53
441
254
282
273
222
16O
271
182
3.227
23
* All gypsum quantities are dry weight, 100% gypsum Except as noted, all sales are as-produced gypsum containing 1O% water, and the allowable cost is 90% of the cost of
the natural gypsum supply
"Sales of gypsum (dried to 2 5% water) to cement and wallboard plants with an allowable cost equal to the cost of the natural gypsum supply.
c Sates of gypsum (dried to 2 5% water) to wallboard plants and dried and briquetted gypsum to cement plants with an allowable cost equal to the cost of the natural gypsum
supply
-------
Drying the gypsum produced had little
effect on sales or total savings. Drying
reduced freight costs, which for the more
distant markets sometimes offset the
drying costs. Similarly, briquetting the
dried gypsum sold to cement plants had
little effect on sales volume although it
reduced the savings.
Location of Wallboard Plants at
Power Plant Gypsum Sources
Locating wallboard plants at power
plant sources of gypsum is appreciably
more complicated and hypothetical than
marketing gypsum in the conventional
marketing structure evaluated in the
foregoing studies. It depends on, for
example, not only the economics of the
gypsum supply but also the economics of
marketing the finished product, which
need not be a part of a gypsum marketing
study. Only one aspect of the potential for
relocation of wallboard plants to power
plant gypsum sources was investigated in
this study: the freight costs for wallboard
from power plants to marketing areas
were compared with those from existing
wallboard plant locations to the same
marketing areas. This was accomplished
by developing a model using the 14 power
plants and a system of 43 hypothetical
regional wallboard distribution centers,
shown in Figure 5.
The model results, shown in Table 2,
indicate that in some cases the manufac-
ture of wallboard at power plant locations
has the potential for substantial reduc-
tions in freight costs. About half of the
total power plant production could be
used to manufacture wallboard competi-
tive with wallboard from existing wall-
board plant locations. In most cases, the
power plant wallboard replaced wall-
board from distant wallboard plants,
either because there were no wallboard
plants in the marketing area or because
the local supply was inadequate. The re-
sults appear to indicate a moderate
economic potential for the relocation of
wallboard plants, but it is apparent that
they were influenced by the power plant
locations—which in some cases were not
particularly well suited to serve as
gypsum sources in areas without natural
gypsum deposits (note, in Figure 4, the
absence of gypsum producing power
plants in the inland Southeast). Nor do
the results indicate the full potential for
wallboard plant relocation since they do
not reflect the possible additional advan-
tages of a more economical gypsum
supply.
* Wallboard plants
Power plants
Distribution centers
Figure 5.
Geographic relationship of existing wallboard and power plants to regional
distribution centers.
Conclusions
Advanced limestone FGD gypsum-
producing processes are economically
competitive with processes that produce
a chemically fixed waste. These processes
have enhanced the prospects for marketing
FGD gypsum, because the gypsum
process does not necessarily require
sales revenue, to make it economically
competitive with other FGD processes for
which waste disposal is difficult and
expensive. The sales revenue—and
savings from the use of the gypsum
process itself in some cases—can be an
added economic inducement to gypsum
marketing or used in part to offset
marketing costs.
The only gypsum markets capable of
supporting a general production of FGD
gypsum are the port land cement and
wallboard industries. The 114 cement
plants east of the Rocky Mountains could
consume the production of about 10
power plants typical of those used in this
study, and the 52 wallboard plants in the
same area could consume the production
of about 32 similar power plants. With the
FGD cost savings offsetting freight costs,
gypsum could be marketed to cement
plants within a radius of about 500 miles
and to wallboard plants within a radius of
about 250 miles.
All of the marketing model evaluations
in this study can be regarded as success-
ful. With the FGD cost savings offsetting
freight costs and without direct competi-
tion, all the power plants could market all
their production. With all power plants
marketing simultaneously, all but two of
the power plants were able to market all
of their production in spite of extensive
competition. Drying and briquetting had
little effect on the marketability of the
gypsum. Without FGD cost savings
offsetting freight costs, total sales were
reduced by about 25% and savings by
about 75%, but seven power plants were
able to market all of their production. As
an alternate to marketing to existing
wallboard plants, relocation of wallboard
plants to sources of power plant gypsum
would, in some cases, reduce the costs of
shipping wallboard to marketing areas.
Without competition from other power
plants, most of the power plants in the
study area for which a gypsum process is
more economical than a waste-producing
process could successfully market to
-------
cement plants, regardless of the power
plant location, and some could market
successfully to wallboard plants, al-
though power plant location would be a
factor in marketing to wallboard plants.
In a competitive situation with several
power plants marketing FGD gypsum,
competition would limit sales in some
cases. The cement plant marketing
structure would be quite fluid, subject to
the activities of other, often distant,
power plants. Competition in the wall-
board plant market would be more
localized and, in some cases, less severe
because of the large gypsum requirements
of wallboard plants and the tendency in
some cases for wallboard plants to be
clustered at sources of gypsum, creating
very large localized gypsum requirements.
FGD gypsum marketing differs from the
marketing of other FGD byproducts such
as sulfur and sulfuric acid. For example,
gypsum-producing FGD processes do not
depend on sales revenue for their
economic justification. In many cases,
simple removal of the gypsum at no cost
is sufficient to justify adoption of the
process; in some cases, the savings in
FGD costs by adopting a gypsum-pro-
ducing process could be used to supple-
ment freight costs, thus enhancing the
marketability of the gypsum. On the other
hand, other FGD byproduct processes
usually involved much higher costs, to
the point that sales revenue is an integral
and important factor in their economics,
making them more vulnerable to market
conditions. However, even widespread
adoption of byproduct processes that
produce sulfur and sulfuric acid would
supply only a small portion of the market
requirements. This is in contrast to the
situation which could exist by a similar
adoption of gypsum processes. In this
case the FGD gypsum supply would
saturate the market (exceed the market
requirements) and would result in intense
competition.
rower plant location
County, State (Gypsum production)
Pleasants. WV
(307 kton/yr)
Coshocton, OH
(483 kton/yr)
Monroe, Ml
(700 kton/yr)
Boone, KY
(197 kton/yr)
uypsur
kton/yr
203
483
94
None
n equivalent snippea
Distribution center
Pittsburgh, PA
Roanoke, VA
Charleston. SC
Pittsburgh, PA
Columbus, OH
Detroit, Ml
Freight Savings,
$1000/yr
2,415
4.629
489
Jefferson. KY
(577 kton/yr)
Muhlenberg. KY
(544 kton/yr)
Pike. IN
(254 kton/yr)
-Sullivan. IN
(282 Kton/ys}
Randolph, MO
(363 kton/yr)
Atascosa, TX
(222 kton/yr)
Hillsborough, FL
(160 kton/yr)
Putnam. FL
(271 kton/yr)
Duval, FL
(182 kton/yr)
Total (4.708 kton/yr)
135
207
None
148
275
222
160
271
None
2,198
Louisville, KY
Knoxville, KY
Nashville, TN
Birmingham, AL
Chicago, IL
St. Louis, MO
Springfield, MO
San Antonio, TX
Tampa, FL
Tampa, FL
Miami, FL
1,020
3,748
385
1.926
5.484
3.536
884
24.516
W. E. O'Brien, W. L. Anders, R. L. Dotson. andJ. D. Veitch are with TVA's Office of
Power, Muscle Shoals. AL 35660.
Julian W. Jones is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Marketing of Byproduct Gypsum from Flue Gas
Desulfurization," (Order No. PB 84-215 805; Cost: $16.00, subject to change)
will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road ~~
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
*U9SeO: 1984-759-102-10651
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
••AID
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
C^S tA-VIK' PWUTbCTlUN AGfcNCY
^rbluN 5 LJ^*AKY
i>!) ) S DEMKttU^N STRfcb T
------- |