combustion byproducts recycling consortium (cbrc) paul ziemkiewicz, director tamara vandivort,...
TRANSCRIPT
Combustion Byproducts Recycling Consortium
(CBRC)
Paul Ziemkiewicz, DirectorTamara Vandivort, Consortium Manager
National Center
CBRC Program Support
• USDOE/National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) provides technical support regarding research priorities, technical reviews of proposals and reports and provides the program’s federal funding.
• Industry and state agencies provide the program’s non-federal matching funds.
Mission Statement
To promote and support the commercially viable and
environmentally-sound recycling of coal combustion byproducts for productive
uses through scientific research, development, and field testing
Objective
To develop and demonstrate technologies to address issues related to the recycling
of byproducts associated with coal combustion processes.
Advantages ofthe Consortium
• Joint industry/government structure facilitates development of partnerships
• Exposes committee members to variety of ideas
• Projects not funded by Consortium may be supported by individual members
• Spreads risk of funding “innovative” research
Consortium Structure
National Steering Committee
National Center, West Virginia University
Eastern Regional Center
University of Kentucky
Midwestern Regional Center
Southern Illinois University
Western Regional Center
University of North Dakota
National SteeringCommittee
• Interstate Mining Compact Commission• American Coal Ash Association• Office of Surface Mining• Army Corp of Engineers• Environmental Protection Agency• Ohio Coal Development Office• Illinois Office of Coal Development• Tennessee Valley Authority• Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)
National Steering Committee
National Steering Committee• Responsibilities include:
– Identifying national research priorities– Authorizing RFP’s– Reviewing program performance annually– Ranking proposals for funding consideration– Advising National Center on strategic direction– Selecting, from its membership, chairs for regional
reviewers/advisors
Regional Advisorsand Chairs
• Responsibilities include:– Identifying regional research priorities– Evaluating proposals for funding consideration– Identifying funding opportunities for research
projects– Coordinates activities of regional
advisors/reviewers– Communicates advisors/reviewers
recommendations to NSC Chair and to National Director
– Selects advisors/reviewers
CBRC National Center
• Responsibilities include:– Program management– Research project development– Develops and initiates subcontracts– Reports to the DOE-NETL– Technology archive and transfer– Solicits members to serve on the National
Steering Committee
Regional Centers
• Responsibilities include:– Advising technical aspects of the project– Reporting regional center activities to
National Center– Providing technical information to
regulatory agencies and industry– Technology archive and transfer– Facilitating communications within the
region
Regional Map
Research PrioritiesEastern Region
• High volume utilization of ash• Impact of changing air quality standards• FGD gypsum in wallboard• Manufactured products with limited
negative environmental impacts• Ashes from co-combustion of different
coal ranks or different ash chemistries• Ashes from co-combustion of coal and
non-coal fuels
Regional PrioritiesMidwestern Region
• Large-volume beneficial use• Beneficial large-volume fill applications• Impacts of changing air quality standards• Efficient handling and transportation of
CCBs and FGD byproducts• Removing regulatory and socio-political
barriers to beneficially utilize CCBs• Characterization studies on CCBs
generated from various coal blends
Regional PrioritiesWestern Region
• Development and demonstration of high-volume utilization applications
• Environmental or product development investigations
• Development, testing, and proof-of-concept evaluations for new products
• Development, testing, and proof-of-concept evaluations related to civil and structural engineering applications
• Investigations to advance and maintain the use off CCBs in concrete
• Demonstration and testing of CCB use in high-performance concrete
• Evaluation of the impact of variability related to changing fly ash characteristics on concrete quality and performance
National Priorities• Ability to shed light on regulatory issues
across regions• Combine innovativeness with economic
potential• Relevance across CCB type, i.e., wide
usage potential• Include a component to increase usage of
FGD byproducts• Support dialogue to identify and/or remove
barriers to facilitate usage of CCBs• Might not rank high regionally but rank
high inter-regionally
Program Funding(1998-2004)
• DOE-NETL $3,741,026• Industry/Other Matching
$4,211,541• Total $7,952,567
• DOE-NETL 47%• Industry/Other Matching 53% (25%
required)
• Total 100%
CBRC Project Totals(1998-2003)
• Region CBRC Cost Share Total– Eastern $1,209,893 $2,405,154 $3,615,047– Midwestern $1,237,509 $1,666,619 $2,904,128– Western $ 645,680 $ 360,875 $1,006,555
• TOTAL $3,093,082 $4,432,648 $7,525,730
Distribution of ProjectsCalifornia 2Colorado 3Florida 1Georgia 1Illinois 5Kansas 1Louisiana 1Maryland 1Michigan 1Missouri 1New Mexico 1North Dakota 3Ohio 5Oklahoma 1Pennsylvania 6Tennessee 2West Virginia 4Wisconsin 2
Program Status
• 41 projects total to date• 24 completed and most final
reports available on the CBRC web page
• 17 currently active
Newest Round of Projects• East
– Prediction of the Effects of Placing CCBs in Contact with Mine Spoil (Rick Herd, West Virginia University)
– Commercialization of Production Foundry Molds Made from CCBs for High Volume Automotive Applications (Robert Purgert, Energy Industries of Ohio)
• Midwest– Manufacturing Fired Bricks with Class F Fly Ash from Illinois
Basin Coals (Melissa Chou, Illinois State Geological Survey)
• West– Power Plant Combustion Byproducts for Improved Crop
Productivity of Agricultural Soils (Mike O’Neill, New Mexico State University)
– Engineering and Environmental Specifications of State Agencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products (Bruce Dockter, University of North Dakota)
ActiveEastern Region Projects
• Economical Treatment of High Carbon Fly Ash to Produce a Low Foam Index Product with Carbon Content Retained (Robert LaCount, Waynesburg College)
• Use of Clean Coal Technology Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners (William Wolfe, Ohio State University)
• Full-Scale Testing of Coal Combustion Product Pavement Sections Subjected to Repeated Wheel Loads (Tarunjit Butalia, Ohio State University)
CompletedEastern Region Projects
• Use of Large Scale CCB Applications on Groundwater: Case Studies (Louis McDonald, West Virginia University)
• Environmental Effects of Large-Volume FGD Fill (Phillip Glogowski, GAI Consultants, Inc.)
• Development of Fly Ash Derived Sorbents to Capture CO2 from Flue Gas of Power Plants (Mercedes Maroto-Valer, Pennsylvania State University)
• Siege of Acre (Paul Petzrick, Maryland DNR)• Laboratory and Field Demonstration of the Control of Ettringite
Swelling (Barry Scheetz, Pennsylvania State University)• The Use of Fly Ash as an Aggregate of Foundry Sand Mold and Core
Production (J. Sobczak, Energy Industries of Ohio)• Effects of Ammonia Absorption on Fly Ash Due to Installation of SCR
Technology (Gary Brendel, GAI Consultants, Inc.)
CompletedEastern Region Projects
• Flue Gas Desulfurization By-Products Provide Sulfur and Trace Element Nutrition for Alfalfa and Soybean (Warren Dick, Ohio State University)
• Utilization of Fly Ash/Urban Yard Waste Compost as Soil Amendments to Improve Soil Fertility (Peter Stofella, University of Florida)
• Odor and HAP Control in Waste Treatment Processes Using Coal Combustion Ash (K. C. Das, University of Georgia)
• Water Quality at an Abandoned Mine Site Reclaimed with Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion Byproducts (Ralph Haefner, U.S. Geological Survey)
• Ammonia Removal from Fly Ash in a Bubbling Fluidized Bed (Ed Levy, Lehigh University)
• Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Strata Above the North Lobe of the Omega Mine (Dave Broschart, WV DEP)
ActiveMidwestern Region Projects
• Development of Coal Combustion Products Based Transmission Poles (Paul Chugh, Southern Illinois University)
• Crushed Aggregates from Class C Fly Ash (Anil Misra, University of Missouri)
• Environmental Performance Evaluation of Filling and Reclaiming a Surface Coal Mine with Coal Combustion Byproducts (Ishwar Murarka, Ish, Inc.)
• The Effect of Mercury Controls on Wallboard Manufacture (Sandra Meischen, TVA)
• The Impact of Adsorption on the Mobility of Arsenic and Selenium Leached from CCPs (Bradley Paul, Southern Illinois University)
• Quantifying CCBs for Agricultural Land Application (Dave Hassett, University of North Dakota)
• Development of Structural Materials from Sulfate-Rich Wet Scrubber Sludge (Vivak Malhotra, Southern Illinois University)
CompletedMidwestern Region Projects
• Long Term Excavatability of Flowable Fill Containing Coal Combustion Byproducts (L. K. Crouch, Tennessee Technological University)
• Development of CCB Fill Materials for Use as Mechanically Stabilized Marine Structures (Kelly Rusch, Louisiana State University)
• High Performance Masonry Units from 100% Fly Ash: Synergistic Approach (H. Wu, Wayne State University)
• Boron Transport from Coal Combustion Product Utilization and Disposal Sites (Bradley Paul, Southern Illinois University)
• Soil Stabilization and Drying by Use of Fly Ash (Tuncer Edil, University of Wisconsin)
• Development and Demonstration of High-Carbon CCPs and FGD By-products in Permeable Roadway Base Construction (Tarun Naik, University of Wisconsin)
ActiveWestern Region Projects
• The Use of CCBs for Insitu Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage (Geoffrey Canty, Oklahoma Conservation Commission)
• Promote Increased Use of CCPs to State Regulators and Government Agencies (Ishwar Murarka, Ish, Inc.)
CompletedWestern Region Projects
• Development of a Database of CCB Publications (Tera Berland, University of North Dakota)
• Varra Coal Ash Burial Project (Joby Adams, Varra Companies, Inc.)• Pilot Testing of Fly Ash-Dervied Sorbents for Mercury Control in
Coal-Fired Flue Gas (James Butz, ADA Technologies, Inc.)• Evaluation of Fly Ash Admixtures for Final Cover and Composite
Liner Applications (James Carlson, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation)
• Fiber Fly Ash Based Wall Panel Development (John Hunt, AeRock, Inc.)
ActiveEastern Region Projects
• Economical Treatment of High Carbon Fly Ash to Produce a Low Foam Index Product with Carbon Content Retained (Robert LaCount, Waynesburg College)
• Use of Clean Coal Technology Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners (William Wolfe, Ohio State University)
• Full-Scale Testing of Coal Combustion Product Pavement Sections Subjected to Repeated Wheel Loads (Tarunjit Butalia, Ohio State University)
Use of Clean Coal TechnologyProducts in the Constructionof Low Permeability Liners
• Findings– Low permeability of FGD material suited for
liner use– Cost effective substitute for clay and
synthetic liners– Effective liner for ponds, wetlands, and
semi-liquid storage facilities– Quality of FGD leachate meets Ohio EPA’s
“non-toxic” criteria
CompletedEastern Region Projects
• Flue Gas Desulfurization By-Products Provide Sulfur and Trace Element Nutrition for Alfalfa and Soybean (Warren Dick, Ohio State University)
• Utilization of Fly Ash/Urban Yard Waste Compost as Soil Amendments to Improve Soil Fertility (Peter Stofella, University of Florida)
• Odor and HAP Control in Waste Treatment Processes Using Coal Combustion Ash (K. C. Das, University of Georgia)
• Water Quality at an Abandoned Mine Site Reclaimed with Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion Byproducts (Ralph Haefner, U.S. Geological Survey)
• Ammonia Removal from Fly Ash in a Bubbling Fluidized Bed (Ed Levy, Lehigh University)
• Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Strata Above the North Lobe of the Omega Mine (Dave Broschart, WV DEP)
Beneficial Use of CCPs inAgronomic and Horticulture
Applications• Findings
– Gypsum effective as a soil conditioner to prevent:• Surface sealing/crusting• Problems with seedling emergence• Runoff/erosion• Subsoil swelling• Poor air exchange
Beneficial Use of CCPs inAgronomic and Horticulture
Applications continued
• Findings– Soils might benefit from gypsum
applications if• Soil or plant tissue tests reveal a Ca or S
deficiency• Subsoil pH is less than 5.5• Surface crusts form after rain or irrigation• Water transmission to subsurface is poor
Beneficial Use of CCPs inAgronomic and Horticulture
Applications continued• Findings
– How much gypsum should be applied?• 1-2 tons per acre every 1-2 years
– Where does the gypsum come from?• Quarried or mined• Recycled wallboard• Flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) byproducts
CompletedEastern Region Projects
• Use of Large Scale CCB Applications on Groundwater: Case Studies (Louis McDonald, West Virginia University)
• Environmental Effects of Large-Volume FGD Fill (Phillip Glogowski, GAI Consultants, Inc.)
• Development of Fly Ash Derived Sorbents to Capture CO2 from Flue Gas of Power Plants (Mercedes Maroto-Valer, Pennsylvania State University)
• Siege of Acre (Paul Petzrick, Maryland DNR)• Laboratory and Field Demonstration of the Control of Ettringite
Swelling (Barry Scheetz, Pennsylvania State University)• The Use of Fly Ash as an Aggregate of Foundry Sand Mold and Core
Production (J. Sobczak, Energy Industries of Ohio)• Effects of Ammonia Absorption on Fly Ash Due to
Installation of SCR Technology (Gary Brendel, GAI Consultants, Inc.)
Environmental Effects ofLarge-Volume FGD Fill
• Findings: Construction Monitoring– Compaction tests were conducted on CCP
blends to establish compaction criteria– Field density tests were conducted
continuously to check compaction quality– Areas were re-compacted if compaction
criteria were not met– The most recent embankment installed was
constructed to meet the desired degree of compaction and necessary strength
Environmental Effects ofLarge-Volume FGD Fill
continued• Findings: Water Quality Residence
Monitoring– Monitored 5 wells, 4 springs, 2 ponds and 1
cistern– Collected 5 background samples from each– Background data showed secondary drinking
water standards exceeded for iron, aluminum, and manganese
– Collected samples quarterly for 2 years– Standards for arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
mercury, or selenium were not exceeded– Comparison of background data to quarterly
monitoring indicate no impact on water quality due to use of CCPs
Environmental Effects ofLarge-Volume FGD Fill
continued• Findings: Water Quality Surface
Monitoring– 4 streams, 1 spring, 1 pond– 18 background samples for 4 locations; 6 for
the other 2– Background data showed secondary drinking
water standards exceeded for iron, aluminum, and manganese
– Standards for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, or selenium were not exceeded
– Comparison of background data versus quarterly monitoring show no impact on the water quality due to the use of CCPs
CompletedWestern Region Projects
• Development of a Database of CCB Publications (Tera Berland, University of North Dakota)
• Varra Coal Ash Burial Project (Joby Adams, Varra Companies, Inc.)
• Pilot Testing of Fly Ash-Dervied Sorbents for Mercury Control in Coal-Fired Flue Gas (James Butz, ADA Technologies, Inc.)
• Evaluation of Fly Ash Admixtures for Final Cover and Composite Liner Applications (James Carlson, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation)
• Fiber Fly Ash Based Wall Panel Development (John Hunt, AeRock, Inc.)
Varra Coal Ash Burial Project
• Findings:– Coal Ash used for reclaiming open
gravel quarry ponds:• Augmented groundwater• Enhanced land utilization• Enhanced landform ecology• Reduced stress on dry impoundments
Varra Coal Ash Burial Projectcontinued
• Findings– Geochemical changes within ash cells could
not be attributed to groundwater mixing– No heavy metal concerns for the ashes used– Geometry of ash placement affects water
quality– Potential of large scale ash placement
appears viable– No violations of water quality standards
U.S. Department of Energy – National Energy Technology
Laboratory
2002 Survey ofCCP Production and Use
(ACAA)
• Fly Ash: 76.5 million tons (35% used)• Bottom Ash: 19.8 million tons (39% used)• FGD Gypsum: 11.4 million tons (68% used)• FGD Wet Scrubber
Material: 16.9 million tons (17% used)
• TOTAL CCPs: 125 million tons (34% used)
Getting to 50% Usage
• Expand reuse in “proven” applications
• Remove or reduce perceptual and regulatory barriers
• Develop new or under-used large-volume markets
• Greater emphasis on FGD byproducts
Expand “Proven”Applications
• Concrete, wallboard, structural fill, road base
• Primarily industry-driven– Develop specifications for reuse
whenever possible
• R&D to address specific barriers (i.e. carbon in fly ash)
Remove/Reduce Perceptualand Regulatory Barriers
• DOE and EPA Role– Cooperate with each other– Encourage beneficial reuse by
States– Help make public “comfortable”
with CCBs• Small-volume, high-tech applications
may help reduce perceptual barriers
Develop New or Under-UsedLarge-Volume Markets
• Mining and structural fill applications (will require removal or perceptual & regulatory barriers)
• Will necessarily be site-specific (transportation costs)
• Reuse market development must be top priority for utility executives when planning new or expanded coal-fired generation capacity
Greater Emphasis on FGD Byproducts
• US Coal-fired Generating Capacity with wet FGD, MW*
• Year 2000: 77,356• Year 2010: 116,857
• Wet FGD Byproduct Production, tons
• Year 2000: 25,652,994#• Year 2010: 38,752,416+
* Based on Energy Information Administration analysis of Clear Skies Act of 2003
#ACAA Year 2000 CCP Production & Use Survey
+ Based on Year 2000 Tons/MW ratio
Upcoming Events
• CBRC National Steering Committee to meet in April at World of Coal Ash (WOCA) meeting in Louisville, KY to finalize Request for Pre-Proposals
• Request for Pre-proposals expected to be released in summer 2005
RFP’s
• A minimum cost-share of 25% required• The applicant required to provide some
portion of the minimum 25% cost-share• Two-stage process
– Pre-proposals solicited– Full proposals invited
• Announcements sent out to all on CBRC list serve
• RFP placed on CBRC web page
National Steering Committee hard at work reviewing proposals
NewsletterAshlines
• Free quarterly publication
• Highlights CBRC projects, program news, and calendar of events
• To sign up to be placed on the mailing list email [email protected]
For More Information on CBRC(or to be placed on the mailing list for the RFP
or newsletter)Contact us at:
Log ontohttp://wvwri.nrcce.wvu.edu/programs/cbrc
Or email [email protected]