Combustion Byproducts Recycling Consortium (CBRC)

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 program’s federal funding. • Industry and state agencies provide the program’s 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 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

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 Illinois 5 Kansas 1 Louisiana 1 Maryland 1 Michigan 1 Missouri 1 New Mexico 1 North Dakota 3 Ohio 5 Oklahoma 1 Pennsylvania 6 Tennessee 2 West Virginia 4 Wisconsin 2

21. Program Status • 41projects 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 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)

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 EPA’s “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 HorticultureApplicationscontinued • 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 HorticultureApplicationscontinued • 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 “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)

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