Combustion Byproducts Recycling Consortium

1
Combustion Byproducts Recycling Consortium (CBRC)
Paul Ziemkiewicz, Director Tamara Vandivort,
Consortium Manager National Center
2
CBRC Program Support

• USDOE/National Energy Technology Laboratory
  (NETL) provides technical support regarding
  research priorities, technical reviews of
  proposals and reports and provides the programs
  federal funding.
• Industry and state agencies provide the programs
  non-federal matching funds.

3
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

4
Objective

• To develop and demonstrate technologies to
  address issues related to the recycling of
  byproducts associated with coal combustion
  processes.

5
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

6
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
7
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)

8
National Steering Committee
9
National Steering Committee

• Responsibilities include
• Identifying national research priorities
• Authorizing RFPs
• Reviewing program performance annually
• Ranking proposals for funding consideration
• Advising National Center on strategic direction
• Selecting, from its membership, chairs for
  regional reviewers/advisors

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
Regional Map
14
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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
Distribution of Projects
California 2 Colorado 3 Florida 1 Georgia 1 Illi
nois 5 Kansas 1 Louisiana 1 Maryland 1 Michigan
1 Missouri 1 New Mexico 1 North
Dakota 3 Ohio 5 Oklahoma 1 Pennsylvania 6 Tenness
ee 2 West Virginia 4 Wisconsin 2
21
Program Status

• 41 projects total to date
• 24 completed and most final reports available on
  the CBRC web page
• 17 currently active

22
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
  ONeill, 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)

23
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)

24
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.)

25
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)

26
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)

27
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)

28
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.)

29
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.)

30
Project Highlights
31
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)

32
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 EPAs
  non-toxic criteria

33
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)

34
Beneficial Use of CCPs inAgronomic and
HorticultureApplications

• Findings
• Gypsum effective as a soil conditioner to
  prevent
• Surface sealing/crusting
• Problems with seedling emergence
• Runoff/erosion
• Subsoil swelling
• Poor air exchange

35
Beneficial Use of CCPs inAgronomic and
HorticultureApplications 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

36
Beneficial Use of CCPs inAgronomic and
HorticultureApplications 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

37
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.)

38
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

39
Environmental Effects ofLarge-Volume FGD
Fillcontinued

• 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

40
Environmental Effects ofLarge-Volume FGD
Fillcontinued

• 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

41
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.)

42
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

43
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

44
U.S. Department of Energy National Energy
Technology Laboratory
Future Perspectives on Ash Research
45
Getting to 50 Ash Usage
46
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)

47
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

48
Expand ProvenApplications

• Concrete, wallboard, structural fill, road base
• Primarily industry-driven
• Develop specifications for reuse whenever
  possible
• RD to address specific barriers (i.e. carbon in
  fly ash)

49
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

50
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

51
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
52
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

53
RFPs

• 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

54
National Steering Committee hard at work
reviewing proposals
55
NewsletterAshlines

• Free quarterly publication
• Highlights CBRC projects, program news, and
  calendar of events
• To sign up to be placed on the mailing list email
  cbrc_at_nrcce.wvu.edu

56
For More Information on CBRC(or to be placed on
the mailing list for the RFP or
newsletter)Contact us at

• Log onto
• http//wvwri.nrcce.wvu.edu/programs/cbrc
• Or email cbrc_at_nrcce.wvu.edu