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 cbrc@nrcce.wvu.edu

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 cbrc@nrcce.wvu.edu