THE RAPID GROWTH OF FIBERGLASS REINFORCED 

PLASTIC (FRP) IN FGD SYSTEMS 

T. Johnson 

D. Kelley 

M. Stevens 

Ashland Performance Materials 

5200 Blazer Parkway 

Dublin, Ohio 43017 

USA 

Abstract 

Globally, governments are becoming increasingly concerned about the air we breathe. 

Regulatory agencies are aggressively implementing air pollution control (APC) standards, which 

require sophisticated scrubbing equipment for flue gases emitted by energy generating boiler 

systems. The environment in these air pollution control systems is highly corrosive to stainless 

steel and even higher nickel alloys. As a result, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) composites 

made from epoxy vinyl ester resins have become the preferred material of construction in many 

facets of air pollution control equipment from a performance perspective. The demand for 

corrosion resistant composites made from epoxy vinyl ester resins increased significantly in 2006 

when nickel prices ballooned from $6/lb to $15/lb. Nickel prices continued to escalate into 

2007, surpassing $22/lb. While pricing for nickel and its related alloys has abated significantly 

since this time, these materials of construction continue to command a premium over FRP. With 

a 60-year reputation for low maintenance and relatively stable cost, FRP provides design 

engineers with a reliable, cost-effective alternative that can be employed in numerous FGD 

applications from scrubbers and stack liners to piping and wastewater treatment. Although other 

materials may be cost competitive with FRP, their use typically results in higher life cycle costs 

due to required maintenance. This paper will compare FRP with high nickel alloy and stainless 

steel in “wet process” Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) environments. Relative cost and 

corrosion performance data will be presented to provide the information necessary to facilitate 

future design engineering decisions concerning materials of construction. 

© 2011, Ashland Inc

1 
Introduction 

Over the next decade, owners of coal-fired power plants around the globe are expected to spend 

nearly $200 Billion to add flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems to existing and new 

combustion units. Most of this investment will be in China and the United States. Many 

emerging industrial nations, however, such as India and South Africa are also investing heavily 

in air pollution control (APC) technologies. The world is indeed waking up to the need to 

protect the air we breathe as a scarce resource for generations to come. 

In the past, air pollution control equipment was routinely constructed from stainless steel and 

other corrosion resistant nickel alloys due to the inherent corrosivity of the scrubbing process. 

Prior to 2006, high nickel alloy was the material of choice for many “wet process” FGD 

environments found in coal fired electric power plants. More recently, however, it has been 

found that these environments often contain very high chloride and fluoride levels which are 

highly corrosive to stainless steel. The cost of stainless steel and higher nickel alloys has also 

increased significantly, making corrosion resistant process equipment based upon these metals 

very expensive relative to other materials of construction. This has spawned a tremendous need 

for less expensive corrosion resistant materials. 

FRP has a long history of success in air pollution control processes for a range of industries. 

Typical applications include stack liners, storage tanks, limestone slurry piping and low pH/ high 

chloride scrubber systems. APC equipment made from FRP is relatively inexpensive compared 

to alloys with case histories supporting its use dating back to 1973 in flue gas desulfurization 

applications. 

Alternative materials for air pollution control environments such as rubber-lined carbon steel and 

acid brick-lined carbon steel can also be used. These materials, however, do not all have the 

same service life expectancy, nor do they have the same cost. In this paper, FRP will be used as a 

reference material compared to other materials for service life and cost in APC processes. 

FRP Cost versus Other Materials of Construction 

With the rising price of nickel, Fiber Reinforced Plastic has become a very competitive material 

of construction. The total installed cost for FRP ranges from about $50 to $70 per square foot in 

North America (prices may vary in other countries). It is considerably less expensive than 

stainless steel (Table 1) and far less expensive than C-276 alloy clad carbon steel. FRP also has 

a considerably longer service life in the high chloride and fluoride environments found in FGD 

applications. 

2 
Table 1. Material of Construction Cost Comparison 

Construction Material Cost* Cost Ratio 

Shop Fabricated FRP $50 / Sq Ft 1.00 

Field Fabricated FRP $70 / Sq Ft 1.40 

2205 stainless steel 3/8 inch plate $225 / Sq Ft 4.50 

C-276 clad carbon steel $330 / Sq Ft 6.60 

*Cost obtained from 2011 Ashland North America survey. 

Differences in material costs can make a huge difference when applied to large corrosionresistant FGD structures. One recent example is an FRP outlet hood designed for an Advatech 

scrubber in a southern US coal-fired power plant (Figure 1). The hood was approximately 128 

feet long, 34 feet wide and 32 feet high. Designing the scrubber outlet hood with FRP rather 

than C-276 steel saved the utility $4.2 million. The hood was assembled on the ground and lifted 

as a single piece, which saved additional construction, labor and lifting costs. 

Figure 1. FRP Scrubber Hood Saves Utility $4.2 MM Compared to C-276 

3 
Stainless steel prices continue to trend rapidly upward in concert with the price and availability 

of nickel. As the global economy strengthens and developing nations increase their 

infrastructure build, base metal pricing – most notably copper, nickel and stainless steel are 

expected to continue their upward march (Figure 2). Moreover, the availability of stainless steels 

and higher nickel alloys is falling off and delivery times are lengthening considerably. 

Figure 2. Stainless Steel and Nickel Price Volatility – April 2009 - Present 

Source: International Monetary Fund; MEPS Ltd 

FRP Chemical Resistance versus Metals 

Chemical resistance is a key predictor of service life in wet FGD processes. Compared to metals 

(Table 2), FRP made from epoxy vinyl ester resin has as good or better chemical resistance than 

Alloy C-276 and is superior to 2205 stainless steel. FRP has an unusual resistance to dissolved 

chlorides and moderate concentrations of sulfuric acid. It is superior to alloys in aqueous acidic 

high chloride environments. Based on more than 30 years of experience and testing in wet FGD 

processes, FRP made from epoxy vinyl ester resin has the chemical resistance necessary for 

long-term service life. 

Table 2. Epoxy Vinyl Ester Resin Chemical Resistance Compared to Nickel Alloys. 

Materials Sulfuric Acid Hydrochloric Acid Acid Chloride Salts 

FRP made with epoxy 

vinyl ester resin 

100C 

to 30% 

80C 

to 15% 

100C 

All conc. 

2205 Stainless Steel 30C 

to 30% 

60C 

to 1% 

65C 

to 2000 ppm @ low pH 

Alloy C-276 100C 

to 30% 

80C 

to 15% 

65C 

to 50M ppm @ low pH 

4 
Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) 

FRP is a laminate of E-glass fiber and thermoset resin as shown in Figure 3. Corrosion resistant 

FRP is made from a premium epoxy vinyl ester thermoset resin. The corrosion barrier (CB), on 

the process side of the laminate, has high resin content for maximized corrosion resistance. The 

structural layers have high glass content for optimum strength and modulus. 

Figure 3: Typical Corrosion Resistant FRP Laminate Construction 

Exterior “Top Coat” or 

Veil as Required 90 mils of chopped glass 

mat (75% resin)

10 mil veil 

(90% Resin)

Up to 75% glass 

for strength 

Process 

Side 

Corrosion Barrier (CB) Structural Portion 

 2.7 mm (100 mils) minimum 

For most wet applications, the maximum operating temperature is 100oC (212oF) with 

excursions up to 120oC (248oF). Dry environments can operate at 177°C (350°F) with excursions 

up to 204°C (400°F). Because not all resins are suitable for processes that have thermal cycling 

or high temperature excursions, it is important to consult the resin manufacturer when designing 

for these applications. 

FRP Growth in Wet FGD Applications 

In 2005 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). CAIR intent was to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 70% and nitrogen oxide 

(NOx) emissions by 60% across 28 eastern US states by 2015. That same year EPA also 

implemented the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) to significantly reduce mercury emissions 

from coal fired power plants in those same states. These landmark statutes created an enormous 

opportunity for air pollution control projects in the coal-fired utility industry. In 2004 and 2005, 

only eight chimney stack liner projects were initiated. Between 2006 and 2008, however, 

another 118 stack liner projects were kicked off. (Thirty five were kicked off in 2006, forty nine 

in 2007 and thirty four in 2008.) 

5 
Figure 4. FRP Stack Liners with Kickoff Dates from 2004 – 2008 

Figure 2: FRP Stack Liners with Kickoff Dates from 

10

2004 to 2008

20

0

40

30

50

60

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

The utility, location, and kickoff dates of each stack liner are shown in Table 3. They are mostly 

in the Eastern United States with some in the Midwest and Southern United States. In addition to 

the many stack liner projects shown below, FRP was employed in the construction of 24 Jet 

Bubbling Reactor type scrubbers, 75 limestone slurry piping systems, dozens of FGD ducting 

systems and the internals of more than 50 standard absorber towers. 

Table 3. FRP Stack Liners with Kickoff Dates from 2004 to 2008 

Utility Station/Location Kickoff 

Year 

Progress Energy Asheville #1,2/Arden, NC 2004 

AEP Mitchell #1,2, Moundsville, WV 2004 

WE Energies Pleasant Prairie, WI 2004 

Dominion Chesterfield #6, Chester, VA 2005 

Progress Energy Roxboro #3, Semora, NC 2005 

DP&L Stuart #3, Aberdeen, OH 2005 

PPL Montour #1,2, Washingtonville, PA 2005 

AEP Mountaineer, New Haven, WV 2005 

Southern Bowen #4,Cartersville, GA 2006 

TVA Bull Run #1, Clinton, TN 2006 

Duke Power Belews Creek #2, Walnut Cove, NC 2006 

AEP Amos #3, Winfield, WV 2006 

6 
Utility Station/Location Kickoff 

Year 

AEP Cardinal #1, Brilliant, OH 2006 

AEP Cardinal #2, Brilliant, OH 2006 

DP&L Stuart #2, Aberdeen, OH 2006 

Indianapolis P&L Harding Street #7, Indianapolis, IN 2006 

Kentucky Utilities Ghent #3, KY 2006 

Progress Energy Roxboro #4, Semora, NC 2006 

Southern Gorgas #8,9,10, Parrish, AL 2006 

Duke Power Belews Creek #1, Walnut Cove, NC 2006 

Progress Energy Roxboro #1, Semora, NC 2006 

AEP Amos #1, Winfield, WV 2006 

PPL Brunner Island #3, York Haven, PA 2006 

Ohio Edison Sammis #6, Stratton, OH 2006 

Allegheny Energy Hatsfield Ferry #1,2, Masontown, PA 2006 

AEP Amos #2, Winfield, WV 2006 

Duke Power Allen #1-5, Belmont, NC 2006 

Kentucky Utilities Ghent #2, KY 2006 

WE Energies Elm Road #5,6, WI 2006 

Alcoa Warrick #2,3, Newburgh, IN 2006 

Indianapolis Power & Light Petersburg #3, Indiana 2006 

Cinergy/PSI Energy, Inc. Gibson #1, 2, & 3, Owensville, IN 2006 

Dayton Power & Light J.M. Stuart Unit 1,2,3,& 4 Aberdeen, OH 2006 

DTE Energy Monroe Units 3 & 4, Monroe, MI 2006 

Duke Energy Belews Creek #1, & 2 2006 

PPL Corporation Montour Station Washingtonville, PA 2006 

Santee Cooper Winyah #1 & 2 2006 

Southern Company Alabama Power E.C. Gaston Unit 5 Wilsonville, AL 2006 

Southern Company Alabama Power Gorgas Units 8, 9, & 10 Parrish, AL 2006 

Southern Company Georgia Power Bowen #1 & 2, Cartersville, GA 2006 

TVA Bull Run, Tennessee 2006 

We Energies Elm Road #1 & 2, Oak Creek, WI 2006 

Allegheny Energy Greensberg, PA Hatfield's Ferry Units 1,2,3 Masontown, PA 2006 

AEP Conesville #4, OH 2007 

DP&L Stuart #1, Aberdeen, OH 2007 

Kentucky Utilities Ghent #1, KY 2007 

Lower CO River Auth. Fayette #1, LaGrange, TX 2007 

Lower CO River Auth. Fayette #2, LaGrange, TX 2007 

Ohio Edison Sammis #1-4, Stratton, OH 2007 

Progress Energy Roxboro #2, Semora, NC 2007 

Southern Wansley #1, 2, Roopville, GA 2007 

Alcoa Warrick #1,4, Newburgh, IN 2007 

Detroit Edison Monroe #3, 4, MI 2007 

Ohio Edison Sammis #7, Stratton, OH 2007 

Basin Electric Coop. / Sargent 

Lundy Leland Olds Units 1 & 2, Stanton, ND 2007 

7 
Utility Station/Location Kickoff 

Year 

Cinergy/PSI Energy, Inc. Div. Cayuga #1, & 2,Terre Haute, IN 2007 

Cinergy/PSI Energy, Inc. Div. Miami Fort Units 7 & 8, North Bend, OH 2007 

CPS Energy J.K. Spruce Plant Unit 2, San Antonio, TX 2007 

Duke Energy C.G. Allen #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Gaston County, NC 2007 

Dynegy Midwest / Sargent Lundy Havana Unit 6, Havana, IL 2007 

Dynegy Midwest / Sargent Lundy Baldwin #1, 2, & 3, Baldwin, IL 2007 

Gainsville Regional Utilities (GRU) Deerhaven Generating Station, Unit # 2, 

Gainsville, FL 2007 

GenPower, LLC Nedham, MA Longview Power Station Maidsville, WV 2007 

Indianapolis Power & Light Harding Street Station Indianapolis, IN 2007 

LG&E -KUC E.W. Brown Unit 3 2007 

LG&E -KUC Ghent Station Unit 1, 3 & 4, Ghent, KY 2007 

LG&E -KUC Cummins & 

Barnard Trimble County Unit #2, Bedford, KY 2007 

Minnesota Power, Duluth, MN Boswell, Unit 3, Cohasset, Minn. 2007 

PacifiCorp - Utah Power Huntington Canyon Plant Unit #2, Huntington, 

Utah 2007 

Plumb Point Power (LS Power) Plumb Point Energy Station Osceola, AR 2007 

PPL Corporation Brunner Island #3,York County, PA 2007 

Progress Energy Lee, Goldsboro, NC 2007 

Progress Energy / Worley Parsons Mayo #1 & 2, Roxboro, NC 2007 

Progress Energy / Worley Parsons Crystal River Units 4 & 5 Crystal River, FL 2007 

Reliant Energy Cheswick Power Station Springdale, PA 2007 

Reliant Energy Keystone Station Units #1 & 2 Shelocta, PA 2007 

Salt River Project Washington 

Group Springerville Station, Unit 4 Springerville, AZ 2007 

SCE&Ga SCANA Corp. Wateree Units 1 & 2, Eastover, SC 2007 

Southern Company Georgia Power Hammond #1, 2, 3, & 4, Coosa, GA 2007 

TVA Kingston, Tennessee 2007 

TVA Colbert, Alabama 2007 

TXU Corp. Sandow Plant, Unit 5, Milam County, TX 2007 

TXU Corp. - Oak Grove Mgt. 

Co. 

Oak Grove, Units 1 & 2, Robertson County, 

TX 2007 

Western Farmers & Brazos Elec. 

Co-op Hugo Unit 2, Anadarko, OK 2007 

AEP Conesville Plant Unit #4, Conesville, OH 2007 

AEP Kyger Creek 1 – 5, Gallipolis, OH 2007 

AEP Cliffy Creek 1 – 5, Madison, IN 2007 

Allegheny Energy Greensberg, PA Fort Martin Units 1&2, Maidsville, WV 2007 

Ameren Coffeen Plant, Coffeen, IL 2007 

Ameren Duck Creek Plant, Canton, IL 2007 

Constellation Energy Brandon Shores Units 1&2, Baltimore, MD 2007 

Dominion Chesterfield Unit # 6, Chester, VA 2007 

Alabama Electric Coop Lowman Station, Leroy, AL 2008 

8 
Utility Station/Location Kickoff 

Year 

Allegheny Energy Pleasants, Pleasants WV 2008 

DP&L Stuart #4, Aberdeen, OH 2008 

Duke Power Marshall, Terrel, NC 2008 

City of Sringfield, IL Dallman, Springfield, IL 2008 

Alabama Power Gaston #1, Wilsonville, AL 2008 

Kentucky Utilities Ghent #4, KY 2008 

Duke Energy Cliffside Plant Units 6 & 7, Cliffside, NC 2008 

LS Power East Brunswick, NJ Long Leaf Project, Early County, GA 2008 

Ohio Valley Electric Corp. Kyger Creek, Cheshire, Ohio 2008 

Progress Energy Cape Fear Units 1 & 2, Siler City, NC 2008 

Progress Energy L.V. Sutton, Wilmington, NC 2008 

Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Hudson Unit #2, Jersey City, NJ 2008 

Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Mercer Plant Units 1 & 2, Trenton, NJ 2008 

SCE&G. Williams Station, Charleston, SC 2008 

Southern Company Alabama Power Plant Barry, Bucks, AL 2008 

Southern Company Alabama Power J.H. Miller Units 3, & 4, West Jefferson, AL 2008 

Southern Company Georgia Power McDonough/ Atkinson #1, 2, Smyrna, GA 2008 

Sunbury Generation LLC Sunbury Units 1 & 2, Shamokin Dam, PA 2008 

Wisconsin Public Service Corp. Weston Plant, Unit #3, Wausau, WI 2008 

XcelEnergy Comanche Unit #3, Pueblo, CO 2008 

Alliant Energy - Wisconsin Power 

& Light Columbia Energy Center, Portage, WI 2008 

CWLP, Springfield, IL Dallman Station, Unit # 4, Springfield, IL 2008 

East Kentucky Power John Sherman Cooper Plant, Unit 2, Burnside, 

KY 2008 

Otter Tail Power Co. Big Stone II, Milbank, SD 2008 

Public Service of New Hampshire Merrimack Station, Units 1 & 2, Bow, NH 2008 

Salt River Project / Sargent & 

Lundy SRP Coronado Plant, Saint Johns, AZ 2008 

Sithe Global Power, LLC Houston, 

TX Desert Rock Energy Co., Farmington, NM 2008 

We Energies South Oak Creek Retrofit, Units 7 & 8, Oak 

Creek, WI 2008 

XcelEnergy Sherco Plant Units 1&2, Becker, Minn. 2008 

NRG Energy Indian River Units 1,2,3 & 4, Millsboro, DE 2008 

Power4Georgians Coop Washington County Power Station, 

Sanderville, GA 2008 

Southern Company, Georgia Power Scherer Plant Units 1,2,3,4, Juliette, GA 2008 

CMS Energy Karn / Weadock Complex, Bay City, MI 2008 

The service life of stack liners made from FRP is expected to be the life of the power plant with 

very little maintenance. This would be equivalent or superior to the expected performance of C276 clad steel stack liners. Flake glass coatings over carbon steel typically require inspection and 

maintenance very 8 years and replacement after 15 - 18 years. Brick lined stacks have a history 

9 
of significantly greater ongoing maintenance and shorter service life compared to FRP stack 

liners. 

Stainless Steel Experience 

Since 2004, roughly 130 FGD scrubbers have been installed at coal-fired power plants in the US. 

The vast majority of these scrubbers have been constructed from stainless steel. A number of 

these scrubbers have experienced severe corrosion problems after short term operation – in some 

cases less than one year. Both austenitic and duplex stainless steels have shown susceptibility to 

crevice corrosion with the duplex stainless steel (2205) being the most vulnerable. 

The FGD scrubber environment is exceptionally challenging for metals. The immersion zone in 

the scrubber operates at about 125 F (52 C), and a pH of 5. Chloride concentrations typically 

range around 5000 ppm but have been reported as high as 20,000 ppm in some systems 

depending upon the coal source in use. Dissolved fluorides further compound the challenge to 

metal durability. Recent work done by DNV(1) established that Alloy 2205 does not have 

sufficient corrosion resistance in the absorber environment, particularly in the presence of scale. 

It is anticipated that a great many of these FGD scrubber shells will have to be lined or replaced 

within the next 5 years or less. 

Figure 5. Heavily Pitted Duplex Stainless Steel with Epoxy Vinyl Ester Flake Glass 

Repair Lining – Courtesy of Blome International 

FGD Case Histories 

Case histories of FRP for wet FGD processes in absorber towers or vessels, slurry piping, 

ductwork, and stack liners date back to the early 1970’s. The most prominent applications are 

10 
limestone slurry piping (Fig. 5) followed by stack liners. With an abrasion-resistant liner, FRP 

pipe based on epoxy vinyl ester resin has been successful in more than 150 plants sites dating 

back to 1977. The driving force for this growth is the high cost and challenging procurement of 

specialty steels, the relatively stable cost of FRP and the proven durability of FRP in these 

aggressive corrosive applications. 

Figure 5. Limestone Slurry Piping for an FGD Process in a Power Plant 

in the Eastern United States 

The use of FRP in wet FGD stack liners dates back to 1979. Most of them are still in service 

today (Table 4). As with all construction materials in corrosive environments, FRP has specific 

design and fabrication requirements which will ensure its success. These requirements consist of 

the following: 

 Proper resin selection and corrosion barrier design to maximize corrosion resistance 

to the FGD environment. 

 Proper design by experienced and qualified FRP engineers. 

 Proper fabrication and installation by knowledgeable and experienced personnel. 

 Proper inspection and maintenance by qualified inspectors. 

11 
Table 4. FRP Stack Liners in FGD Service Installed between 1979 and 1986. 

Station/Unit Year Installed Current Status 

Coronado 1 1979 min. maintenance 

Winyah 3 1980 min. maintenance 

Coronado 2 1980 min. maintenance 

Winyah 4 1981 min. maintenance 

Laramie R. 3 1982 little maintenance 

Holcomb 1 1983 min. maintenance 

Cross 2 1983 excellent condition 

North Valme 2 1985 no maintenance 

Intermountain 1 1986 min. maintenance 

Intermountain 2 1986 min. maintenance 

Some of the stack liners, dating from 1994, are shown in Figures 6 and 7. They are located in 

New York and Germany respectively. 

Figure 6. Milliken Power Station Stack Liners Operating in 

Western New York since 1994 

12 
Figure 7. Two FRP Liners Operating in Ingolstadt, Germany since 1994 

The use of FRP in North American power plants increased dramatically in 2006. That year 63 

FRP stack liners were awarded for construction at 49 power plant sites. With more than three 

million square feet of laminate, this was the largest award of FRP stack liners in the history of 

the power industry. Figure 8 shows the installation of two stack liners in the eastern United 

States. 

Figure 8. Stack Liner Installation in a Power Plant on the East Coast. 

13 
In addition to the rapid growth of FRP in wet FGD stack liners, FRP ductwork for transporting 

scrubbed flue gas to the FRP stack liners has also grown dramatically. Historically, FRP 

ductwork in power plants has been very successful dating back to the 1970s. Figure 9 shows the 

FRP ductwork, made with brominated epoxy vinyl ester resin in a 600 MW power plant. 

Brominated resins are used when stack and duct specifications call for fire retardancy. 

Figure 9. Scrubber and Ductwork in a 600MW Power Plant. 

The construction of FRP absorber vessels and internal components grew rapidly starting in 2006. 

The most common FRP absorber vessels are known as Jet Bubbling Reactors (JBR). A JBR is 

part of a limestone slurry FGD process that has all the chemical reactions taking place in one 

vessel to produce high quality gypsum. One of the largest FRP scrubbers in North America was 

commissioned recently at a 950 MW power plant in the southern US. Figure 10 shows the 

massive JBR that is 120 feet in diameter and 60 feet tall. This JBR is currently removing 99% of 

the SO2 from high sulfur coal flue gas. 

Figure 10. Scrubber and ductwork in a 950MW power plant. 

14 
Another rapidly growing use of FRP in power plants is for cooling towers. While wood has long 

been the predominant material used for these towers, FRP is now become the material of choice 

for cooling towers construction. The primary reason is that FRP structures are anticipated to last 

more than twice as long as wood structures (50 years plus versus 25 years for wood). FRP 

requires little or no maintenance over its lifespan while wood towers often require a considerable 

amount of maintenance. FRP is not subject to internal deterioration or biological attack, and it 

can withstand corrosive chemical exposure by choosing a suitable resin and fabrication 

technique. Because FRP structural members can be manufactured in lengths up to 18 meters long 

and beyond, labor costs are reduced compared to lumber that requires splicing in 6 meter lengths. 

Figure 11 shows two six cell FRP towers in a 700 MW power station in the Midwest. 

Figure 11. FRP Cooling Towers at 700 MW Midwest Power Plant. 

Summary 

Properly designed, fabricated and maintained, FRP made with epoxy vinyl ester resins is an ideal 

material of construction for limestone slurry piping, stack liners, absorber vessels and ductwork. 

FRP delivers the following advantages in FGD systems: 

 More than 30 years of proven performance 

 Much lower cost than stainless steels or higher nickel alloys 

 Considerably less maintenance than alternative materials of construction 

Key Words 

Derakane, Hetron, corrosion, desulfurization, epoxy vinyl ester resin, fiberglass-reinforced, flue 

gas, high nickel alloy, plastic, reinforced thermoset plastic, sulfuric, vinyl ester resin 

15 
16 

References 

1. B. Tossey, "Corrosion in Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Absorbers.” Power 

Engineering, January 2011, p. 20. 

Notice 

The information in this publication is presented in good faith, but no warranty is given, 

expressed or implied, nor is freedom from any patent to be inferred. Also, it is intended for use 

by persons skilled in the fiber reinforced plastics industry, acting on their own risk, and assuming 

the entire responsibility for the selection of materials, the design, the cure and fabrication, and 

the installation of the equipment. Having no control over these operations, ASHLAND does not 

guarantee the quality of the end product. NO WARRANTIES ARE GIVEN: ALL IMPLIED 

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE ARE 

EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED. 

®Registered trademark andTM trademark of Ashland Inc. 

© 2011, Ashland Inc