Susan Thorneloe US EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, North Carolina September 13, 2006 Susan Thorneloe US EPA National.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Getting More for Four Principles for Comprehensive Emissions Trading Jan Mazurek, Director Center for Innovation and the Environment 2002 Environmental.
Advertisements

Estimated Mercury Emission Reductions in NC from Co- control as a Result of CSA 2004 NC DENR/DAQ Hg & CO2 Workshop Raleigh, NC April 20, 2004 Steve Schliesser.
Environmental Leadership The Pursuit of Cleaner Air
Duke Power Clean Smokestacks & Mercury Efforts April, 2004.
A Software Tool for Estimating Mercury Emissions and Reductions from Coal-Fired Electric Utilities (EU) Presented at the NC Clean Smokestacks Act Sections.
Insights on Economic Impacts of Utility Mercury and CO 2 Controls Anne Smith Charles River Associates North Carolina DENR/DAQ Workshop on Mercury and CO.
The Committee and Research – Where are we and where might we be going?
Northampton Generating Company, L.P. Northampton, PA
Naser Odeh and Tim Cockerill UKCCSC Meeting Newcastle September 17, 2007 LIFE CYCLE EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANTS WITH CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE.
Mercury Issues for Coal-Fired Power Plants: Emissions, Fate and Health Effects, Controls George Offen Technical Executive Emissions/Combustion Product.
Coal Ash Use and Disposal Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett, Associate Gypsum Parameters 20 Fenton Avenue Grand Forks, North Dakota
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency April 13, 2011 Final Rules to Reduce Air Toxics from Boilers.
U.S. Energy Information Administration Independent Statistics & Analysis 2014 Electricity Forms Re-clearance Vlad Dorjets, Form EIA-860 Project.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality Report on Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units In response to 15 NCAC 02D.2509(b)
North Carolina Division of Air Quality - Mercury Regulations, Emissions, and Deposition Modeling in North Carolina Presented for 6th Annual Unifour Air.
Technical Guidance on Biomass Combustion John Abbott.
Energy Environment Human Health Analysis of Potential Quick-Fix Legislative Changes to Address Court Decision August 28 th, 2008 Clean Air Markets Division.
A laboratory study of Hg oxidation catalyzed by SCR catalysts Karin Madsen on at CHEC Annual Day Anker Degn Jensen Joakim Reimer Thøgersen Flemming.
Copyright © 2013 Cylenchar Limited breathing life back into a contaminated environment.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection David Read Cement Subproject Manager Bureau of Air Regulation Cement Mercury Subproject.
Technologies for the stabilization of elemental mercury Sven Hagemann GRS.
A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE NAS FINAL REPORT ON CCB PLACEMENT AT COAL MINES KIMERY C VORIES OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING.
Mercury Monitoring by States Robert Vollaro U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets Division (May 2009)
Coal Combustion Residuals Proposed Regulation Air and Waste Management Association Southern Section August 6, 2010.
The Proposed Part 115 Rules and Waste Utilization East and West Michigan Chapters of the Air and Waste Management Association & The Environmental Law Section.
CAIR & MATS 2012 Southern Sectional AWMA Annual Meeting & Technical Conference September 12, 2012 Chris Goodman, P.E. Environmental Strategy.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mercury from Electric Utilities: Monitoring and Emission Reductions Greg DeAngelo & Tiffany Miesel Florida.
Coal Ash Ponds The Romeo and Juliet Story of Coal Fired Power Plants Society sees them as toxic together, but currently, one cannot exist without the other.
Previous MACT Sub Categories EPA has recognized differences in other industry rules by using sub-categorization: – Differences in processes – Differences.
Recent EPA Regulation Development Presented by Bill Luthans to the 56 th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting for the Improvement of Air Quality.
By Nick Garlisch What is Coal Ash? Coal ash is what remains after coal is burned When coal is burned, roughly 10% of the coal.
Managing coal combustion residues Information from: Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Wastes,
Use of FGD Byproducts in Agriculture: DOE Perspective Workshop on Research and Demonstration of Agricultural Uses of Gypsum and Other FGD Materials St.
MERCURY: Air Emissions and Proposed Utility Rules Indiana Department of Environmental Management September 2004.
Wednesday, 12/12/2007, FYROM Prevention of Contamination from Mining & Metallurgical Industries in FYROM Strategic Plan for Prevention of Contamination.
EPA Regulations On Electric Utility Generating Units (EGU)
Monday, 10/12/2007, SERBIA Prevention of Contamination from Mining & Metallurgical Industries in Serbia Strategic Plan for Prevention of Contamination.
Robert L. Burns, Jr., Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC August 1, 2013 Impact of Environmental Regulation on Coal Combustion for Electrical.
The Importance of FGD Gypsum To the CCP Industry By David Goss, Executive Director American Coal Ash Association OSU – EPRI Workshop St. Louis, September.
Massachusetts’ Power Plant Mercury Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection WESTAR Fall Business Meeting - September.
OSM CCB Placement in Coal Mines - Proposed Rulemaking John R. Craynon, P.E. Chief, Division of Regulatory Support Office of Surface Mining Reclamation.
Actions to Reduce Mercury Air Emissions and Related Exposure Risks in the United States Ben Gibson Office of Air Quality and Planning and Standards U.S.
EXPERIENCE WITH ALTERNATIVE LEACHING PROTOCOLS FOR MERCURY-BEARING WASTE Florence Sanchez, Ph.D. David S. Kosson, Ph.D. Catherine H. Mattus Michael I.
Adem.alabama.gov Coal Combustion Waste Regulation Stephen A. Cobb Governmental Hazardous Waste Branch Land Division.
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) WRAP formed in 1997 as the successor organization to Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) –
CCR Rule: Consultant’s Perspective 2015 Air & Waste Management Association Meeting Callaway Gardens, GA Presented by: Randy Sullivan, Principal & Senior.
UTILITY MACT WORKING GROUP STATE AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS.
Agricultural Applications of FGD Materials Jim Roewer FGD Agricultural Use Workshop September 13, 2006.
EPA’s Proposed CCB Regulations & Morgantown STAR Project 1 Shawn A. Seaman September 27, 2010
Environmental Technology Council EPA /State / DOD Region IV Environmental Conference June 2005 Joydeb “Joy” Majumder, EPA Region 4.
NTEC -- April 24, Utility Air Toxics Regulatory Finding National Tribal Environmental Council April 24, 2001 William H. Maxwell U.S. EPA OAQPS/ESD/CG.
Massachusetts’ 4-Pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Air Innovations Conference - August.
Surveys, Proposed Mining Regulations and other things… Presented to ARIPPA on April 24, 2007 by Dave Goss, Executive Director American Coal Ash Association.
Division of Water Quality Coal Ash Storage, Use, & Disposal: Update Ted L. Bush, Chief Aquifer Protection Section Division of Water Quality “To protect.
MICHAEL E. SCOTT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT Available Information on the Beneficial Reuse of Coal Combustion Products 1.
David K. Paylor Virginia State Board of Health March 17, 2016.
1 FORMER COS COB POWER PLANT From Characterization to Redevelopment Brownfields2006 November 14, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Why is Coal Ash of Concern and how to assess potential impacts?
Presentation for Office of Surface Mines on Potential Use of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework to enhance source terms for use of CCRs in.
ANLEC R&D COMMUNICATION PACK ( ). Trace emissions from Oxy Combustions do not pose significantly higher health, environmental or operational.
All About Waste Dallas, TX ♦ May 18, 2016 Carrie Yonley, P.E.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Research on Potential Environmental Impacts of Oxy-fuel Combustion at EPA Chun.
Clean Water Act Regulations affecting Electric Utilities
EPA Options for the Federal Regulation of Coal Combustion Waste Lisa Evans Earthjustice October 22, 2010.
NSPS Rulemakings for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Air Quality & SO2.
Georgia Update Jeff Cown Land Protection Branch
Department of Environmental Quality
Chesterfield Neighborhood Coal Ash Update January 9th, 2019
Senator Dance Town Hall Coal Ash Update December 5, 2018
Presentation transcript:

Susan Thorneloe US EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, North Carolina September 13, 2006 Susan Thorneloe US EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, North Carolina September 13, 2006 Evaluating Life-Cycle Environmental Trade-Offs from Use of FGD Gypsum

Research Objective  Evaluate impact of air pollution control on coal combustion residues (CCRs)  Identify potential cross-media transfers of mercury and other metals from CCR management which includes FGD gypsum and fly ash  Compare life-cycle environmental tradeoffs from use of CCR and non- CCR materials

Background  In March 2005, EPA announced a multipollutant approach to reduce power plant air emissions through the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) through cap and trade approach.  Air pollution control (APC) results in transferring metals from the flue gas to fly ash and other APC residues.  Anticipate that wet scrubber usage and production of FGD gypsum will double or triple in response to CAIR.  Primary focus on mercury but also interest in arsenic, selenium, and other constituents of concern.  Key release route for land-managed CCRs is leaching to groundwater. Concern also for release to surface waters, re-emission of mercury (e.g., cement kilns), and bioaccumulation.

Importance of Coal - Electricity Production by Fuel for 1980 – 2030 (Billion kilowatt hours) Source: DOE/EIA 2006

CCR Production and Utilization Production 122 million tons Source: ACAA 2004 CCR Survey; DOE, % Utilization 49 million tons Cement/ Concrete 36% Construction 25% Mining 5% Wallboard 17% Waste Stabilization 8% Other 9% Fly Ash 57% Bottom Ash 15% Boiler Slag 2% FGD Material 25% FBC Ash 1%

Calculating Hg Mass Balance in Response to CAIR and CAMR Implementation Source: Thorneloe, 2006

Projection of Scrubber Use at Existing Units

COAL SUPPLY BOILER SUPERHEATER SCR AMMONIA INJECTION SORBENT INJECTION ESP OR FF ASH + SORBENT REMOVAL WET FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION (FGD) SCRUBBER FGD GYPSUM OR SCRUBBER SLUDGE REMOVAL FLUE GAS STACK

9 Tracking Fate of Hg and Other Metals Through Life-Cycle Analysis  In 2004, 31 million tons of wet scrubber residues were produced. –12 million tons (or 40%) used to make gypsum. –90% of the 12 million tons used to make wall board. –Expect increased interest in other uses of FGD gypsum such as use as soil amendment (collaboration with China).  Comparing life-cycle environmental tradeoffs for production of wallboard with and without use of FGD gypsum. This is also being done for the production of cement and asphalt. –Considering potential pathways of environmental release (includes used of leaching and thermal stability studies) –Need to understand stability of Hg and track fate of Hg and other metals on a life-cycle basis. –Information will help with ensuring if intended mercury reductions are achieved in mercury cap and trade program.

Series of 4 Reports Documenting Findings 1.Enhanced sorbents for mercury capture (Jan, 2006) 2.FGD gypsum and other scrubber residues (2007) 3.Residues from other air pollution control strategies (2008). 4.Probabilistic assessment of mass release rate for a range of management scenarios, including disposal and beneficial use (2008).

Leach Testing Protocol  ORD adopted OSW’s recommended approach to evaluating the leaching potential of coal combustion residues (CCRs) anticipated to be generated as a result of CAIR & CAMR  OSW recommended the use of a leach testing framework developed by Kosson et.al, from Vanderbilt University. The detailed protocol is published at: Kosson, D.S., van der Sloot, H.A., Sanchez, F. and Garrabrants, A.C., An Integrated Framework for Evaluating Leaching in Waste management and Utilization of Secondary Materials. Environmental Engineering Science 19(3): An additional publication on using the data in probabalistic modeling is: Sanchez, F., Kosson, D.S., Probabilistic approach for estimating the release of contaminants under field management scenarios. Waste Management, 25(5),  OSW’s recommendation was based on the fact that this approach: Most fully considers the key conditions affecting leaching for a range of CCRs and their plausible management; Is appropriate for evaluating a broader range of materials, beyond fly ash; and Addresses previous concerns raised by Science Advisory Board.

Leach Testing Protocol  Considers range of values for key parameters that both affect leaching and vary with disposal and reuse:  pH: The solubility of constituents of concern vary with pH.  Liquid to Solid ratio (L/S):  Reflects rainfall infiltration  Lower L/S ratio can result in different pH and contaminant concentration  Waste form –  Fine particles (equilibrium test)  Stabilized and solid materials (mass transfer effects)  A single set of test results can be used to evaluate leaching potential for a range of management scenarios including disposal and reuse.

Data Can Support Environmental Assessment Modelling for Different Scenarios…….. Drinking water well Landfill Road base Plant Agriculture Coastal protection Contaminated soil Drinking water pipes Mining Construction sewer Drinking water well

NAS Concern for Providing Full Characterization of reuse materials …. Historically, CCRs are given special consideration because of their wide range of beneficial use applications  Since 1991, CCR utilization increased from 31 to 40%.  RCC goal is to increase CCR utilization to 50% by Recent National Academy of Science (NAS) report on CCR use in mine filling stated that full characterization should not be cut short “in the name of beneficial use”.

Arsenic Leaching as a Function of pH for Coal Fly Ash Facility LFacility CBrayton Point

Coal Fly Ash Results For Facilities Using Sorbents for Enhanced Hg Capture  Mercury: Low totals and leach  Total: mg/kg  Leach: Most 0.1 ug/L or lower MCL=2 ug/L TC= 200 ug/l  Low leach variability relative to pH  Results do not include modeling of transport from landfill site to drinking water well (i.e, no DAF applied)

Ranges of Hg Leachate Concentrations (From Report 1 on Use of Enhanced Sorbents)

Coal Fly Ash Results For Facilities Using Sorbents for Enhanced Hg Capture Arsenic: Totals and leach high/variable  Total: mg/kg  Leach: ug/L MCL=10 ug/L TC=5000 ug/L  Leach variability is moderately to highly pH dependent  Results will be used in modeling of transport from disposal or management site to drinking water well

Ranges of As Leachate Concentrations (From Report 1 on Use of Enhanced Sorbents)

Coal Fly Ash Results For Facilities Using Sorbents for Enhanced Hg Capture Selenium: Totals moderate; leach high/variable  Total: mg/kg  Leach: 1-10,000 ug/L MCL=50 ug/L TC=1000 ug/L)  Leach variability moderately pH dependent  Results will be used in modeling of transport from disposal or management site to drinking water well

Ranges of Se Leachate Concentrations (From Report 1 on Use of Enhanced Sorbents)

What do the CCR Leach Test Results Mean for CCRs Evaluated to Date?  For CCRs evaluated in Report 1, found apparent low release potential for Hg from CCRs that are land applied or landfilled  Current emphasis is on wet scrubber residues including FGD gypsum  Arsenic and Selenium showed higher potential for release by leaching:  Highest As leach values at 20% of TC  Highest Se leach value is 10 x TC  Arsenic was identified as a concern in the 1999 Report to Congress on coal combustion wastes  Indicate importance of evaluating full range of CCRs and use of results in risk assessment modeling.

How Is This Information To be Used?  Beneficial use programs to help clarify appropriate practices and quantify potential benefits  RCC program for coal combustion products  State, Federal (DOE, DOT, DOI), and industry programs that promote beneficial use  Regulatory efforts including  Effluent guidelines (OW),  RCRA Subtitle D for coal combustion waste (OSW),  Cap and trade programs through implementation of CAIR and CAMR (OAR) Identifying potential cross media transfers Helping to ensure that intended reductions are achieved  Cement kilns (MACT) – issue raised regarding use of CCRs (OAR) Helping to quantify life-cycle environmental tradeoffs

Development of a CCR Management Decision Support Tool LeachXS is a set of integrated software tools under development to provide: Guidance on the selection of test methods to answer specific management option questions Database of leaching characteristics, lysimeter and field data for wide range of materials for performance comparison Database of management scenarios (disposal, beneficial use), case studies and prior experience Data management, evaluation and presentation to communicate scenarios and results Geochemcial speciation and coupled reaction - mass transfer models to estimate long-term release for specific combinations of CCR material and use or disposal scenario Quality control for materials production and use – tracking CCR material conformance with use criteria

FGD Gypsum is Under Evaluation for these Scrubber Facilities Facility Code Coal Rank Scrubber Type Oxidation Type SCRParticulate Control O,NBitWetForcedYesESP-CS O,NBitWetForcedNoESP-CS B,KSub-BitWetNaturalYesESP-CS BSub-BitWetNaturalNoESP-CS MBitWetInhibitedYesESP-CS MBitWetInhibitedNoESP-CS ABitWetNaturalSNCR -On Fabric Filter

Conclusions  Working to develop information that will provide understanding of impact of air pollution control on FGD gypsum and coal fly ash; current emphasis is on FGD gypsum  Conducting life-cycle analysis that allows comparison of environmental tradeoffs from use of CCR and non-CCR materials  Providing information to help determine if intended reductions of CAMR cap and trade programs are being achieved  Developing leach testing protocol into official EPA method in SW846  Identifying potential CCR management practices of concern resulting from application of new air pollution control technology at coal-fired power plants