overview on fgd gypsum
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
A review at the science,
research, economics, and
history in America
By Justin Tang
Case Western Reserve University ‘16
Civil Engineering Major
Includes source material
![Page 2: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Abstract:
With coal being a fossil fuel, the side effects include the emission of “greenhouse gases” and
other wasteful toxins into the atmosphere. Fortunately, many means have been used to reduce the
amount of emissions from waste gas from power plants and industrial facilities using coal as an
energy source. One of these methods is Flue Gas Desulfurization.
The air pollution caused by the combustion of coal has been well known since the day of
industrialization. China has rapidly developed in recent decades, and is also the world’s leading
consumer of coal, with the United States of America not too far behind, now is facing the same
issue.
This is not unfamiliar to the United States, however. This report and the subsequent documents
included are meant to provide a look at the legislation, development, and cost of Flue Gas
Desulfurization within the U.S. and how it has battled the air pollution caused by the combustion
of coal and turning its waste products into something useful.
FGD and its related research have been around for roughly 150 years, but didn’t arise as a
practical mechanism until the 1940s. It is currently implemented in a number of industrial
facilities, such as coal-fired power plants, to remove the Sulfur Dioxide from the waste gas
produced. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a major waste product from the combustion of coal. It has a
detrimental effect on the environment, as it is one of the components of acid rain.
This paper talks about the history, costs, and benefits of Flue Gas Desulfurization and all its
different forms. I have split the paper into several sections, each one describing the Historical
context, Government Policies, Byproducts, Costs, and Safety.
Historical context and statistics:
Before 1970, America’s major cities were covered in smog from industrial facilities, and there
was widespread harm to many ecological systems. Facing the severe deteriorating situation, the
U.S. Legislature passed many laws and bills, including what are now called the Clean Air Act to
help clear up the environment and skies of pollutants.
The United States had become one of the most industrialized nations in the wake of the
Twentieth Century, but it was after World War II that it became the top industrial power.
Unfortunately, big side effects came as a result of where the U.S. was getting its electrical power
necessary to power itself: burning coal. This led to the release of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and
Nitrous oxides (labeled with the general equation NOx), the two gases most associated with acid
rain, when the two dissolve into rain droplets.
When these compounds dissolve into rainwater, it changes the properties of the water, and as a
result, ponds, lakes, and rivers become more acidic. Sulfur and nitrogen are essential nutrients
![Page 3: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
for many life forms, but when there is a surplus the soil, the resulting over-fertilization can have
drastic effects. When this happens, native life forms that fail to adjust to the newfound acidity die
off, and new, invasive species come in. Not to mention, the toxicity can be too much for aquatic
ecosystems to handle, and there have been so-called “Dead-zones” that have emerged in the
water where very little life is found.
In addition, other problems have been caused by the release of additional substances such as
Ozone (O3) spurred by NOx being released, as well as Mercury (Hg) that somehow is emitted.
Mercury is known to be a poisonous element for many life-forms, and it, like nitrogen, is prone
to seeping into rainwater as it can be released as a vapor. On the other hand, Ozone is very
beneficial to the planet when present in the right place. The substance is known as one of the
forms of oxygen mostly located in the earth’s Stratosphere that shield the planet from harmful
ultraviolet rays, but when it is present in the lower atmosphere, it has other effects. Too much
ozone in the lower atmosphere can lead to damage in plants, ecosystems, and even humans.
Breathing it in can cause asthma, lung damage, and premature death in those afflicted with
cardiovascular disease.
As being showed in above charts, the power sector sulfur dioxide emission has accounted for
most part of total sulfur dioxide emission; 70%, but only accounted for 20% total nitrogen oxides
emission. Other sources such as automobile emission, etc. has contributed most of nitrogen
oxides pollution. Therefore power sector de-sulfurization has become the most efficiency way
for reducing the sulfur dioxide pollution. The following charts
![Page 4: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Other greenhouse gases emitted have led to many scientists becoming concerned with global
climate change as well, as the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
has documented climate change within the last two hundred years. CO2 levels had risen from 280
parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times all the way up to 382 ppm in 2006. Methane levels
had also risen by an astonishing 148 percent in the same time frame. This may or may not have
coincided with a 1.4 degree rise in average global temperature that also happened in this time
frame.
US Power Sector and Government Policies
To combat all these unfortunate trends, the U.S. government became concerned with the
environment and started up new research efforts and laws. As technology advanced, the U.S.
would only see more emissions as a result of increased power needs, which led to scientists
doing more research in reducing the wasteful components of emissions, as well as finding better
uses for them. This was especially true for coal.
Like China, the United States is another world power that heavily uses coal to obtain energy,
although much of the country’s 97.5 quadrillion (1015, or one thousand trillion) Btu comes from
Petroleum, which accounts for 36 percent of total energy. Natural Gas is second at 27 percent
followed by Coal at 19. Other U.S. energy sources come from Nuclear energy (8%) and
Renewable sources (10%), which include solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectric.
![Page 6: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
When accounting for domestic energy production, however, coal takes up 24 percent of the
power source, and 49 percent in electricity generation, making the significance of coal that much
more important when talking about U.S. energy production.
A diagram below from a paper documenting the U.S’s experience in dealing with such problems
shows the U.S. power distribution as I described them, as of the year 2005:
![Page 7: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
On the following page is a more comprehensive set of data and statistics on U.S. electricity:
![Page 8: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
As mentioned earlier, coal comprises of a large chunk of American energy, not including the
energy utilized for transportation. This pie chart mentions just how much the U.S. depends on
coal:
Even though there are other gases that come out of flue gas, this paper will focus specifically on
Flue Gas Desulfurization in its efforts to extract sulfur dioxide out of the air.
Flue Gas Desulfurization came to prominence after the Clean Air Act was passed into Federal
law in 1970. It was revised several times in 1977 and in 1990. It covered multiple pollutants in
the air and multiple forms of energy, such as petroleum for transportation as well as industrial
and domestic use. The 1990 revision specifically touched down on the issue of acid rain, and
encouraged the use of flue-gas scrubbers in coal plants to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide
emitted.
While Wet Flue-gas Desulfurization had actually been developed during World War II, it was
not widely used until the Clean Air Act was implemented in the 1970s. It was immediately put to
use because it was the only solution available. The “dry” FGD systems, also known as the
Circulating Dry Scrubber (CDS) were developed by the 1980s to be put to use in smaller
facilities where wet FGD was too costly to be implemented.
![Page 10: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Implementation of such legislature has proven rather effective at decreasing SO2 levels in the
country, as seen on the maps above.
In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency published a review of the Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides and Sulfur - Final Rule. The rule went into effect in
June 2012. More information about U.S. legislation and reasoning behind such legislation can be
found in that document.
![Page 11: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The Desulfurization Process
The United States has implemented FGD for a while to not only clear up the skies from air
pollution, but to create synthetic gypsum.
So anyways, this is a little rundown on how FGD works. Exhaust gas from the coal-burning
facility is brought into a device called a “scrubber” before being released into the atmosphere.
The flue gas reacts with a compound (in this case limestone or calcium carbonate) in order to
extract the Sulfur Dioxide. Normally this is done in a scrubber separate from one used to weed
out ash, but there are currently efforts to combine the two processes into one scrubber for
convenience.
The equation to first desulfurize the flue gas from factories is as follows:
CaCO3 (solid) + SO2 (gas) → CaSO3 (solid) + CO2 (gas)
However, there are further steps to turn the byproducts into the desired byproduct, gypsum. The
one used to create gypsum from the reaction is as follows:
CaSO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) + ½O2 (gas) → CaSO4 (solid) + H2O
This requires a lot more effort on behalf of the absorber than other methods, as the CaSO3 from
previous reactions is “re-watered” into a process called “forced oxidation”, but this is the
primary way of creating the compound gypsum (chemical formula CaSO4*H2O).
A simple diagram of the process can be displayed in the following diagram of a scrubber (from
Wikipedia):
![Page 12: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
This following diagram, found on FGDProducts.org, shows a more comprehensive look at
limestone- forced oxidation, showing the different chambers for “scrubbing” the waste gas. Note
the sophistication involved with the overall process, including the chambers “forcing” the
oxidation and facilitating water reclamation from the gypsum:
![Page 13: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Below is a close up of the dewatering “hydroclone”, courtesy of French company Alstom:
There are actually two ways in which companies decide to dispose their byproducts. One way is
to dispose their byproduct gypsum into a pond in order to dewater it to about 5% moisture levels
by evaporation. It can then be reclaimed by a hydraulic dredge, re-watered, then set back into use.
Otherwise it can be sent to a mechanical dewatering system.
After dewatering, the final product may or may not be mixed with other additives such as ash.
The resulting gypsum looks a little like this: a powdered substance ready to be shipped out. (the
adjacent picture depicts dried gypsum within the pond)
(Image by the University of Kentucky)
![Page 14: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
While the U.S. still lags behind other countries in terms of Gypsum production, it is still the
fourth largest producer of the mineral, just behind countries like China, Russia, and Iran. Thanks
to FGD, the US has been catching up with its competitors. By 2015 the U.S. should be able to
crank out 20 million tons.
My research has shown that the U.S. has taken steps to put to use this synthetic gypsum, and
with great use. There are multiple ways of obtaining gypsum, including mining and FGD.
However, over the years, the U.S. has continued to see its amount of synthet ic gypsum increase,
and as of the year 2011, synthetic gypsum accounted for an astonishing 54 percent of domestic
supply in the country4.
The Desulfurization Profitable Byproducts
Now Gypsum is an important component in creating drywall, a crucial part to home construction,
but can also be utilized in the crafting of other construction materials such as gypsum blocks,
plaster, as well as mixing into concrete. Most of the synthetic gypsum is utilized to create
drywall and would be a welcome alternative to using gypsum from the mines. There have been
announcements for five new “wallboard plants” dedicated solely to drywall manufacturing, and
plans call for the plants to run mostly on FGD gypsum. Most of these plants figure to be located
on the East Coast:
![Page 15: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Gypsum obtained from FGD has been shown to be a lot more pure than mined gypsum, as the
synthetic version has fewer impurities (the synthetic version is 96 percent pure as opposed to 80
percent in naturally occurring gypsum). Much of the gypsum obtained from wet FGD processes
is strong enough to be used in construction materials, whereas gypsum and other byproducts
obtained from dry FGD processes are not.
In that case, it is also widely used in agriculture, usually as a fertilizer. Gypsum provides plants
with two vital plant nutrients, calcium and sulfur, and it also plays a role in balancing salts in the
ground, as calcium ions from gypsum can scatter excess sodium in the soil and cause it to
dissolve. In some other cases, gypsum can be applied to manure in order to decrease the
solubility of harmful agents such as phosphorous, which, if dissolved into runoff water, can
cause problems such as excess algae growth in lakes and ponds.
According to a brochure from the US Department of Agriculture from 2006, the mineral
provides stability to plants, as it easily dissolves with rainwater and promotes root growth that is
necessary to hold soil in place, thus combating erosion. Sulfur, one of the two nutrients needed,
is essential to protein formation in plants. An experiment conducted by the USDA in 2003
determined that corn plants yielded nearly twice as much corn than corn plants in the control
group.
Actual statistics from another test, run over three years, can back up this claim. Though the
numbers are not as dramatic as described in the previous paragraph, they still are rather
impressive:
![Page 16: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
The following figure shows what gypsum can do not only to crop yield, but also to soil structure.
Note how the fields with gypsum applied to them have greater yield AND have less soil erosion:
(From the USDA factsheet on Gypsum)
This next chart shows the effects on infiltration rate that gypsum has on ground soil:
![Page 17: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Here is a chart showing gypsum’s effects on alfalfa as it supplies vital sulfur to the plants, from a
test done in 1975:
It can also be utilized in many cosmetic and food products. In some cases it can be used in food
additives, or in breweries, beet farms, or pharmaceuticals.
In 2004, a study in North American [the US and Canada combined] production showed factories
churning out 12 million tons. Of these 12 million, 8.1 M was designated towards wallboard
construction. 0.74 M was designated to mixing into concrete, 0.13 M was designated to
agriculture, and the remaining 0.025 M was sent off to other uses. As the years pass, the latter
two figures will surely comprise of a larger segment of the total with further research.
FGD gypsum has been surprisingly profitable, as shown on the following chart:
![Page 18: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Different Desulfurization Systems and Operation Costs:
There are three different types of scrubbers involved with FGD removal of Sulfur Dioxide: wet,
dry, and semi-dry.
Wet scrubbers utilize a funnel where flue gas reacts with a wet slurry based out of limestone or
lime, with limestone being significantly cheaper than lime despite lime being slightly more
effective at 95% compared to 90%. Essentially the flue gas is tossed into a solution of water and
lime/limestone, in which the water washes out the SO2 so that it more easily reacts with the
calcium ions and thus precipitates out. A lot of water and resources are required to facilitate
reaction, however, and thus it is the costliest of all three models. Nonetheless, its high turnout of
gypsum and scrubbing efficiency make it the preferred choice for heavy duty coal-fired facilities.
Semi-dry scrubbers are similar to wet scrubbers, but instead spray the solvent into the flue gas to
facilitate the scrubbing process. The tiny droplets of water evaporate easily, allowing for the
formation of a solid deposit in mid-air. Lime-based sorbents are more than often used in this case
due to their higher reactivity and cheaper cost than sodium-based sorbents. Typical users of
![Page 19: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Semi-dry absorbers include electric facilities burning low to medium sulfur coal, industrial
boilers, and incinerators requiring 80 percent control efficiency.
For both of these scrubbers, the slurry may include magnesium sulfate, which serves to “buffer”
the pH of the slurry as it goes into contact with and absorbs the SO2 from the flue gas, leading to
better absorption. This is in part due to the constant pH (around 6.0) being optimal for better
solubility in the water. These magnesium salts also serve to prevent buildups on the surfaces in
the absorber.
Dry scrubbers essentially use a powdered form of the sorbent (usually limestone or lime). It can
either be the wet form of the powder to absorb SO2 in a dry environment, or the dry form of the
powder in a humid environment. There are two forms that come to mind when ta lking about “dry”
scrubbers: the lime dry sprayer (LDS) and the circular dry scrubber (CDS). They have an
efficiency of about 70 to 80 percent removal.
Alstom started manufacturing Dry scrubbers back in the year 1980, and have been working to
develop them to better efficiency. Babcock and Wilcox, another company, specializes more in
manufacturing wet FGD systems. They are
Either way, the byproducts of wet FGD, namely gypsum, is dewatered to 10% moisture, and they
are either sent to the landfill or sold, and can be mixed with fly ash or left alone. The water
obtained from the dewatering chambers contains the excess magnesium sulfate, and can be sent
to a waste treatment plant afterwards.
![Page 20: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
This picture above depicts a general lime/limestone FGD system, regardless of the system being
a “wet”, “semidry” or “dry” system. The next diagram should show a picture of a more specific
system: the wet FGD Limestone absorber:
![Page 21: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Next is a diagram of a similar system that utilizes forced oxidation, also a “wet” or “semidry”
system:
Now take a look at a “dry” system. Notice that there is still water present in the process, and that
the sorbent is sent in as a dry powder, only to be mixed in with the water inside of the absorber
itself:
![Page 22: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Power usage:
The following is a table showing each different process of scrubbing, as well as their byproducts
and percentage of total Megawatts, as of December 1989. It is found in the document “Lesson 9:
Flue Gas Desulfurization (Acid Gas Removal) Systems:
![Page 23: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Process By-products Percent of total MW (as of 12/89)
Wet FGD technology clearly uses significantly more electricity than its dry counterpart,
especially for forced oxidation.
![Page 24: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Costs:
The cost for the specific scrubbers, such as lime, limestone, and others, differ in magnitude,
especially over the long term. Firstly, although FGD works at a power station, there are some
minor energy needs to power the booster ID fans needed to overcome draft loss as well as the
recirculation pumps.
According to an analysis of wet FGD processes, the capital cost estimates include:
·Equipment and material (FGD system and balance-of-plant)
·Direct field labor
·Indirect field costs and engineering
·Contingency
·Owner's cost
·Allowance for funds during construction (AFUDC)
·Initial inventory and spare parts (1% of the process capital)
·Startup and commissioning
There can also be some transportation costs as well, as companies also need to pay for the
transportation of gypsum to other parts of the country far away from the base.
Below is a chart showing the changing prices for limestone and lime:
![Page 25: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
The biggest issue with wet FGD systems is the amount of water they take up as a result of the
process. In recent years, though, Alstom has been working on an absorber that takes in seawater
as opposed to fresh water, so that they would no longer worry about taking in public water.
Though at the minute they have lower efficiency than conventional wet FGD absorbers, the
scrubbing efficiency still goes up to 95%.
The bottom line is this: wet FGD systems that utilize a wider range of equipment needed to
create gypsum wind up being costlier to maintain, but the profits shown from the sales of
gypsum should be able to offset these costs.
In addition, one of the biggest issues for cost is that, in the quotes of a 2007 report, “it is
impossible to determine capital cost of an FGD system until the contract is signed with the
supplier”. The report goes on to say that there are multiple factors in determining “total plant
cost”, such as:
![Page 26: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Disposing of FGD gypsum in the rim ditch ponds is actually rather cheap, at just $1 USD per ton.
However, once disposed, the cost cannot be recovered, so to avoid paying this cost, there must be
a way to divert the material away from disposal, but according to the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), even doing that appears to be hard, as the relationship between tons and cost of disposal
is not linear:
![Page 27: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
The only way to divert the gypsum is by mechanically dewatering it. The TVA assumes the cost
of building such a facility to be anywhere from $3 M to $6 M, and operating such a facility cost
about $3 per ton. On the other hand, transporting the gypsum from the plant to the ponds
depends on the distance, as it estimated to be $1 per ton loaded on the truck, $1 for the first mile,
and $0.1 for each additional mile travelled. Thus a mechanical dewatering facility would only
make sense if the nearest pond is more than eleven miles away from the plant, and in that case, it
probably makes more sense for such facilities to market their gypsum to agricultural users.
As for operational costs, the following charts describe the overall capital cost for equipment, for
Wet scrubbers and dry scrubbers respectively, over the course of three years from 2008 to 2010:
The wet scrubber cost curve
![Page 28: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Operational cost is described below:
![Page 29: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Operational cost really depends on the cost of SO2 removal, which varies by how much sulfur
dioxide is present within the coal. The chart below takes into account the different costs between
coal from Pennsylvania and coal from Ohio, which means that different parts of the country have
different amounts of sulfur within each of their coal reserves.
Safety of Byproducts:
In the early years of the twenty-first century, there were some complaints from imported gypsum
wallboards, and that these wallboards utilized in American-built homes between 2001 and 2010
caused a wide range of problems in many homes in the American South. There were reports of
carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and hydrogen sulfide emissions from the drywall. Problems
such as health problems, corrosion of metal parts and appliances in homes, and ultimately, toxic
conditions were among the side effects, and lawsuits were filed.
The question is this: how can FGD-produced gypsum avoid the problems that occurred with the
gypsum used in the ill-fated drywall panels? How do we know that it is safe to use? For one, the
laws/guidelines for synthetic gypsum are generally much stricter when it comes to being put to
![Page 30: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
use in wallboard manufacturing. The federal limit as of 2014 for drywall gypsum is now at 1
percent fly ash.
However, other reports suggest that there is quite a large amount of ash placed into the gypsum
boards, which may lead to some concerns regarding what was inside the ash. Dust seems to be a
big problem, as it forms easily from the boards and in many cases, can be breathed in.
The EPA did a comprehensive study through the toxicity of fly ash and other emissions from
FGD gypsum drywall boards. Based on a lot of data, they were able to prove that FGD gypsum
was comparatively as toxic as mined gypsum. The organization published their report in 2014.
Here is some of the data regarding products made from FGD gypsum:
![Page 31: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Here is an analysis of the ash content from a coal plant in the state of Alaska, detailing all the
different chemicals from the ash:
![Page 32: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
From the concrete that is created with this gypsum, some are concerned that it may leech its
toxins into the environment easily, affecting humans, animals, and plants alike. The 2014 EPA
report shows just a few ways that this is possible:
![Page 33: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
However this may sound, the real problem was finding whether the chemicals leaked out of the
drywall boards posed any actual hazard to human and environmental health. Some more stats on
fly ash are listed on the next table, showing the amounts in the ash and their detection.
Once this was calculated, some more equations were put into place, and the amounts of each
element were evaluated multiple times to ensure that they posed no threat to human health. This
next table shows that most of the elements screened were no threat.
![Page 34: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
The full report goes 91 pages long, but by the use of statistics, uncertainties, and other
mathematical techniques, the EPA determined that FGD gypsum wallboards posed no more of a
threat than their mined counterparts.
To further address the safety issue of desulfurization byproducts beneficial usages, EPA
developed and published the methodology for evaluating (included in section 7 of this report)
and has committed to continue examining available information. Independent external institute
has provided peer review on the methodology for evaluating. EPA used the methodology to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated from fly ash used as a direct substitute
for portland cement in concrete, and from FGD gypsum used as a replacement for mined gypsum
in wallboard. EPA’s evaluation concluded that the beneficial use of encapsulated CCRs in
concrete and wallboard is appropriate because they are either comparable to analogous products
![Page 35: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
or below the relevant benchmarks. This methodology supports beneficial use decisions by
allowing the user to determine whether releases from an encapsulated beneficial use of coal
combustion residuals are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made
without CCRs, or are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks, during use.
American Coal Ash Association also has conducted its own study on coal ash material safety and
the report is also included here in section 8.
Future uses/efficiency of uses:
In the year 2006, the American Coal Ash Association conducted a survey that recorded put the
amount of U.S.-synthesized gypsum at around 12 million tons, of which 9 million of it was used
and the rest dumped into landfills. But in the future, there have been talks about gypsum being
utilized in plastics and fiberglass, as well as reconstituting soil in mining areas and fields to make
it sturdier.
As FGD is more widely implemented in coal-burning electric facilities, FGD gypsum production
will continue to increase, perhaps double, in the next ten years. By 2015, the number is estimated
to rise up to 15 million tons per year, perhaps even 20 million. Currently more research is being
done on it to explore different uses of the mineral.
The deciding factor in where FGD gypsum will be used will continue to depend on the demand
for it. Currently, the construction sector in the United States is going through a rebirth, as not
only are more areas just starting to be redeveloped, but also homes in areas previously devastated
by natural disasters such as Hurricanes Sandy (2012) and Katrina (2005). But there are also new
buildings, such as schools, hospitals, and office buildings being constructed, as well as gypsum
being a component in concrete, and thus the need for gypsum should continue to go up.
Agriculture appears to be the most promising window of expansion for FGD gypsum usage, as
application rates are expected to average between 1 ton/acre to 5 tons/acre (or between
0.224170231 kg / m2 and 1.12085116 kg / m2). However, the heavy metals present in the gypsum
remain a concern, as more tests are likely to be done to study their affects and bolster acceptance
in this market.
Summary:
Air pollution has always been a problem as a result of coal combustion, but thanks to Flue Gas
Desulfurization, one pollutant has not only been taken care of, but it also has been proven to be
recycled into a useful product. The gypsum that is produced can be utilized in many ways, is
profitable, and helps clear the skies of sulfur dioxide. There remains a lot of research on the part
of scientists to ensure FGD gypsum’s future success, but the sky looks bright for this industry.
![Page 36: Overview on FGD gypsum](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052304/55a444301a28abfd2b8b45ad/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank Professor Tang Qing for giving me this opportunity to do research away
from an academic institution, and thus help a cause within China.