### THE RAPID GROWTH OF FI BERGLASS 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 aggressi vely implementing air pollution co ntrol (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 all oys. As a result, fiberglass rein forced 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/l b. Nickel prices continued to escalate into 2007, surpassing $22/lb. While prici ng for nickel and its related a lloys has abated significantly since this time, these materials of construction continue to command a pr emium over FRP. With a 60-year reputation for low maintenance and relatively stable cost, FRP provides design engineers with a reliable, cost-effective altern ative 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, thei r 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 Desulfuriz ation (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

1Introduction

Over the next decade, owners of coal-fired power plants around the globe are expected to spend nearly $200 Billion to add flue gas desulfur ization (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 Indi a and South Africa are al so investing heavily in air pollution control (APC) technologies. The world is in deed 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 fr om stainless steel and other corrosion resistant nickel a lloys due to the inherent corros ivity of the scrubbing process. Prior to 2006, high nickel alloy was the mate rial 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 co rrosion 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, storag e 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 fl ue gas desulfurization applications.

Alternative materials for air pollution control envi ronments such as rubber-lined carbon steel and acid brick-lined carbon steel can al so 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 material s 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 installe d cost for FRP ranges from about $50 to $70 per square foot in North America (prices may vary in other countr ies). It is considerably less expensive than stainless steel (Table 1) and fa r less expensive than C-276 alloy cl ad carbon steel. FRP also has a considerably longer service life in the high ch loride and fluoride environments found in FGD applications.

2Table 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. Desi gning 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 additiona l construction, labor and lifting costs.

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

3Stainless steel prices continue to trend rapidly upward in concert with the price and availability of nickel. As the global economy strengthe ns 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 av ailability 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 vi nyl ester resin has as good or better chemical resistance than Alloy C-276 and is superior to 2205 stainless stee l. FRP has an unusual resistance to dissolved chlorides and moderate concentratio ns of sulfuric acid. It is supe rior 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 re sin 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

4Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP)

FRP is a laminate of E-glass fiber and thermose t 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 resi n content for maximized corrosion resistance. The structural layers have high glass co ntent for optimum strength and modulus.

Figure 3: Typical Corrosion Resistant FRP Laminate Construction

Exterior “To p 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 100 o C (212 o F) with excursions up to 120 o C (248 o F). Dry environments can operate at 177°C (350°F) with excursions up to 204°C (400°F). Because not al l 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 (SO 2 ) 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 we re initiated. Between 2006 and 2008, however, another 118 stack liner projects we re kicked off. (Thirty five we re kicked off in 2006, forty nine in 2007 and thirty four in 2008.)

5Figure 4. FRP Stack Liners wi th 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

Y ea r

The utility, location, and kickoff dates of each stac k liner are shown in Table 3. They are mostly in the Eastern United States with some in the Mi dwest 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

6Utility 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 St reet #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

7Utility 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 Generati ng Station, Unit # 2, Gainsville, FL 2007
GenPower, LLC Nedham, MA Longview Power Station Maidsville, WV 2007 Indianapolis Power & Light Harding St reet 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 Ri ver Units 4 & 5 Crystal River, FL 2007 Reliant Energy Cheswick Powe r 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 Ma rtin 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

8Utility 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 L ong Leaf Project, Early County, GA 2008 Ohio Valley Electric Corp. Kyger Creek, Cheshire, Ohio 2008 Progress Energy Cape Fear Un its 1 & 2, Siler City, NC 2008 Progress Energy L.V. Su tton, Wilmington, NC 2008 Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Hudson Unit #2, Jersey City, NJ 2008 Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Me rcer 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. M iller Units 3, & 4, West Jefferson, AL 2008 Southern Company Georgia Power Mc Donough/ 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 St ation, 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 th e life of the power plant with very little maintenance. This would be equivale nt 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

9of significantly greater ongoing maintenance and shorter servi ce life compared to FRP stack liners.

Stainless Steel Experience

Since 2004, roughly 130 FGD scrubbers ha ve been installed at coal-fir ed power plants in the US. The vast majority of these scr ubbers 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 stai nless steels have shown susceptibility to crevice corrosion with the duplex stainless steel (2205) being the most vulnerable.

The FGD scrubber environment is exceptionally ch allenging 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. Dissolv ed 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 envir onment, 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 Stainle ss 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 b ack to the early 1970’s. The most prominent applications are

10limestone slurry piping (Fig. 5) followed by stack liners. With an abrasion-resistant liner, FRP pipe based on epoxy vinyl ester resin has been su ccessful in more than 150 plants sites dating back to 1977. The driving force for this growth is the high cost and ch allenging 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 ba ck to 1979. Most of them are still in service today (Table 4). As with all construction materials in corrosiv e 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.

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

Station/Unit Year Inst alled 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, dati ng 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

12Figure 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 larg est award of FRP stack liners in the history of the power industry. Figure 8 shows the installa tion of two stack liners in the eastern United States.

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

13In addition to the rapid growth of FRP in we t FGD stack liners, FRP ductwork for transporting scrubbed flue gas to the FRP stack liners ha s also grown dramatica lly. Historically, FRP ductwork in power plants has been very successf ul 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 in ternal 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 ha s all the chemical reactio ns taking place in one vessel to produce high quality gypsum. One of th e largest FRP scrubbers in North America was commissioned recently at a 950 MW power plan t 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 SO 2 from high sulfur coal flue gas.

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

14Another rapidly growing use of FRP in power pl ants is for cooling to wers. While wood has long been the predominant material used for these towe rs, FRP is now become the material of choice for cooling towers construction. The primary reason is that FRP structures ar e 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 in ternal 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 lu mber that requires splicing in 6 meter lengths. Figure 11 shows two six cell FRP towers in a 700 MW power stati on in the Midwest.

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

Summary

Properly designed, fabricated and maintained, FRP ma de with epoxy vinyl ester resins is an ideal material of construction for limestone slurry pipi ng, 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 st eels 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 th ermoset plastic, sulfur ic, vinyl ester resin

1516 References

1. B. Tossey, "Corrosion in Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization Absorbers.” Power Engineering , January 2011, p. 20.

Notice

The information in this pub lication is presented in good fa ith, 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 plas tics industry, acting on thei r own risk, and assuming the entire responsibility for the selection of ma terials, the design, the cure and fabrication, and the installation of the equipment. Having no control over these opera tions, 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