EPRI CCP Research Update University of · PDF fileLexington, KY April 19, 2012 Ken Ladwig [email protected] 262-754-2744 EPRI CCP Research Update University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY

April 19, 2012

Ken Ladwig

[email protected]

262-754-2744

EPRI CCP Research Update

University of Kentucky

mailto:[email protected]

2 © 2012 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

About EPRI

•Established in 1973

• Objective, tax-exempt, collaborative research

•Participating companies provide over 90% of North American electricity generated.

• Independent, nonprofit center for public interest energy and environmental research


EPRI Coal Combustion Product Research

• CCP Research initiated in 1980

– 30 years of experience and results

• Provides utilities with information and

technologies for management of CCPs

• Provides scientific information to inform

policy regulatory decisions

• Current focus is to help ensure

sustainable CCP management practices

combining environmentally sound

disposal and continued beneficial use


EPRI CCP Research Portfolio

Characterization

Disposal

Environmental

Risk

Utilization CCP

Management


EPRI Research to Support the Regulatory

Process: 2009 – 2011

• Washington Meetings

• Several Reports and Assessments

– Hazardous waste costs

– CCP characteristics

– Damage cases

– Risk assessment/receptor analysis

– Leaching protocols/pH evolution

– CCP use (benefits/fills/ag)

– Seismic risk

• Comments on Proposed Rule (2010)

• Comments on NODA (2011)

Research was designed to provide technical information in advance of the proposed rule


EPRI Research to Support the Regulatory

Process: 2011+

• Non-hazardous Waste Disposal Costs

• Liners and Caps

• Pond Closure

– Dewatering/Liquefaction

– Landfills over closed ponds

– Remediation

• CCP Use

– EPA/USDA risk assessment for FGD gypsum in agriculture

– EPA risk assessment for ash used in concrete

• CCP Characterization/LEAF

• Regulatory Support

Research is designed to provide technical information to assist

with implementation of the final rule


Non-hazardous Disposal Site Costs for CCRs

Objective

• Develop planning level costs for compliance with

proposed Subtitle D non-hazardous waste rule

Status

• Cost estimates (URS)

–Report in review

Deliverables

• Report, 2012



• Four Scenarios

–Closure of existing impoundment

–New impoundment construction

–Closure of existing landfill

–New landfill construction

• Baseline Costs

– Typical sites

–Good site conditions

–Well defined assumptions



Cost Impact for Site-Specific Factors

• Environmental/cultural permitting

– Wetland Mitigation

– Historical Site Remediation

• Site improvements

– Road/bridge construction

– Structural walls

• Subsurface improvements

– Karst mitigation

– Soft subgrade/weak layers

• Other design considerations

– Property acquisition

– Deep excavation


Liners and Caps

Objective

• Evaluate liners and caps for use at CCP disposal sites

Status

• State of the science review (NRT)

–Report in preparation

• Use of GCLs (UW)

–Project just starting

Deliverables

• Report (Review), 2012

• Interim Report (GCL), 2012

Drainage Layer

Cap Barrier

Leachate Collection

Liner Barrier

Topsoil

CCP

Native Soil


Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs)

• Clay (sodium bentonite)

between two geotextiles

• Very low permeability

(<5 x 10-9 cm/sec)

• <15 mm thick

• Self-healing if punctured

• Performs better than

compacted clay


GCL Performance

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate

Leakage R

ate

(lp

hd)

After

Final Cover

Subsequent

Filling

Initial

Filling

0

100

200

300

400

GM

GM/CCL

GM/GCL

Sand

Leak Detection

(30)

(31)

(19)

(32)

(19) (4)

(8,15)

(41)

“GCL technology is an alternative that performs at or

above standard federal performance levels.”

EPA/530/F-97/002


Composite Liner – EPA CCR Proposal

EPA “reluctant” to allow GCLs, but “interested in

receiving data and information”


GCL Research Plan

• Standard and Treated GCLs

• Characterize CCP Leachates

- ionic strength and pH

monovalent vs multivalent

cations

• Index Tests

- Composition, XRD,

swell, fluid loss

• Hydraulic Conductivity Tests

- Pre-hydrated

- 20 kPa to 450 kPa

• Alternative Hydration Conditions


Pond Closure

Objective

• Development/documentation of cost-effective and

environmentally protective closure in compliance with

new CCP rule

Status

• Static Liquefaction

(Geosyntec, Georgia Tech)

–Report in preparation

• Other projects initiating

Deliverables

• Liquefaction Report, 2012


Pond Closure

Static Liquefaction

– Geotechnical properties

– Mechanisms, prediction

Dewatering

– Methods

– Pore pressures, rate of filling

– Leachate handling/treatment

Special Conditions

– Landfill over pond

– Partial closures

– Accelerated closures


Pond Closure

Groundwater

– Monitoring

– Saturated ash

– Risk assessment

– Remediation

Caps

– Alternative designs,

ET caps

– Runoff management

– Settlement/slope stability


Leaching of Fly Ash Concrete

Objective

• Determine the relative leaching characteristics of

concrete with and without fly ash

Status

• Lab leaching (VU)

–Concrete samples cast

Deliverables

• Interim Report, 2012


Leaching of Fly Ash Concrete

• Screening Source Materials

– 3 ash types

• Cast Specimens

–Mortar and concrete

– 28-day cure

• Leaching

–Batch vs pH (1313)

–Batch vs L/S (1314)

–Monolith (1315)

• Longer Cure Times


Treat Island HVFA Concrete Performance

• US Army Corp outdoor exposure site

• Long-term performance of concrete blocks

• Blocks placed 1978-1994

• Retrieve at 25 years

• 3 HVFA sets

– 1987, 1990, 1992

• Tests (minimum)

– Strength

– Cl permeability


Dry Sorbent Injection Products

Objective

• Evaluate effect of sodium

sorbent injection for acid gas

(SO2/SO3/Cl) control on disposal

and use of CCPs

Status

• Analyzing samples

• Injection rate dependent

Deliverables

• Report, 2012

• PeerLit, 2011, leaching

• Report 1017577, Dec 2010, screening characterization


FGD Gypsum in Agricultural Network

Objective

• Develop environmental and agronomic data for use of

FGD gypsum in agricultural applications

Summary/Status

• Network: 13 test sites in 7 states

• Field work completed

• Reports in preparation

Deliverables

• Site Reports, 2011 & 2012

• Earthworm Report, 2012

• Report 1010385, Mar. 2006, lit review

• Workshops, 2006, 2007, 2009

http://kosmoi.com/Technology/Agriculture/Pictures/044.jpg


FGD Gypsum in Agricultural Network

Objective

• Develop environmental and agronomic data for use of

FGD gypsum in agricultural applications

Summary/Status

• Network: 13 test sites in 7 states

• Field work completed

• Reports in preparation

Deliverables

• Site Reports, 2011 & 2012

• Earthworm Report, 2012

• Report 1010385, Mar. 2006, lit review

• Workshops, 2006, 2007, 2009

http://kosmoi.com/Technology/Agriculture/Pictures/044.jpg


FGD Gypsum in Ag Greenhouse Study

Objective

• More detailed evaluation of mercury and other constituents in a

controlled environment

Summary/Status

• 65 tubs, 3 soils

• Hg volatilization, leaching,

worm & plant uptake

• Experiments completed

• Compiling results

Deliverables

• PeerLit, 2012

• PeerLit, 2012


FGD Gypsum in Ag Risk Assessment

Objective

• Evaluate environmental risk of FGD gypsum application and

establish guidelines for application rate and concentrations

Summary/Status

• Joint USDA & EPA

• Incorporating data from

EPRI and others

Deliverables

• Report, 2012

Draft expected in April 2012


FGD Gypsum to Control Phosphorus in Runoff

Objectives

• Demonstrate use of FGD gypsum for P control

• Develop BMP

• Outreach and education

Summary/Status

• Developing funding base

• September 2012 to August 2015

Deliverables

• Annual Progress Reports

• Final Technical Reports

• Best Management Practice

• Webcasts, Workshops

Photo Courtesy of ACAA


FGD Gypsum for Phosphorus Mitigation

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3019/


Purpose

Development of FGD gypsum application as an agricultural

Best Management Practice to control nutrient loading in

sensitive watersheds


Objectives

• Perform Field Demonstrations

• Work with States to Develop BMPs

• Work with NRCS to Develop National Practice Standards

• Perform Regional Education/Outreach Activities

• Explore Connection to Water Quality Trading


Collaborators

Project Team

• EPRI

• Warren Dick (OSU)/ Darrell Norton (USDA, Purdue)

• Greenleaf Advisors/Beneficial Reuse Management

• Local Ag Advisors

• We Energies/Funders

Potential Funding Sources

• USDA-NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant

• Supplemental Funding

• EPA/Great Lakes

• Foundations (e.g., Joyce Foundation, ACAA Educational)

• States

• In-Kind Support


ICR Data Analyses Project:

Ongoing EPRI Project

• Obtain the data; have as much as EPA would have

• Requested power plants send non-CBI data to EPRI

• Synthesize data before EPA issues the proposed rule

– FGD cost/benefit analyses, extrapolating the

available data to broader industry

– Landfill leachate treatability

–Dry bottom ash

–Metal cleaning wastes

–Others?

• Finalize EPRI analyses after the rule and final data are

publicly released


Effluent Guidelines ICR: 9 Parts

• A – Plant Operations

• B – FGD

• C – Ash Handling

• D – Ponds/Water Treatment

• E – Metal Cleaning Wastes

• F - Ponds/Landfills Leachate

• G – Leachates (includes sampling)

• H – Nuclear

• I - Finances


Development of High Volume Uses of Ash in

Road Applications

• Documentation of case

histories, economics, and

engineering performance

• Lab & field projects –

engineering properties and

environmental performance

• Life-cycle analyses on

common basis – costs and

benefits

Demonstrate large market for “non-spec” ash


Development and Demonstration of High Volume

Uses for Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA) Solid Products

• Develop use applications for SDA

by-products

• Lab and field studies

• Address SDA retrofits (most post-ESP)

• Engineering performance, economics, and

environmentally safety

SDA products currently have low use potential


ASHphalt

• Research on the practical use of fly

ash in asphalt

• Lab and test section studies

• Engineering performance, handling

and mixing procedures, and

environmentally safety

“Encapsulated” use for non-spec fly ash


Additional Projects

• Leaching Assessment

– LEAF

– Oxyanions

– Metals Immobilization

• Groundwater Quality Signatures

– Isotope field study

– Tiered Analysis

• Chemical Profiles

–Selenium

–Chromium

• Fugitive Dust

– Health impacts

– Control


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

Documents

EPRI CCP Research Update University of · PDF fileLexington, KY April 19, 2012 Ken Ladwig [email protected] 262-754-2744 EPRI CCP Research Update University of Kentucky