Recycled Materials and Byproducts in Highway Applications—Coal Combustion Byproducts, Volume 2 (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

7 The Recycled Material Resource Center (RMRC) in New Hampshire was in the process of conducting a separate sur- vey on the quantities and sources of byproducts in the United States at the same time this synthesis was underway. The results on production and usage quantities from the RMRC survey had not been processed at the time this synthesis was developed. Readers are referred to the RMRC website for updated production and use information. Historical views of use and production are provided here so that the survey infor- mation can be generally compared. Historical U.s. coal combUstion byprodUct prodUction and Use More than 125 million tons of coal combustion byproducts were produced in 2007, including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and FGD (Kalyoncu 2000). Table 7 shows how these products were used. Fly ash was by far the most common of the coal combustion byproducts with 71 million metric tons being produced, followed by bottom ash (18.1 million metric tons), FGD wet scrubbers (16.6 million metrics tons), and gypsum (12.3 million metric tons). Boiler slag, FGD from dry scrubbers, and other FGD materials ranged from 1.8 to 2.5 million metric tons. Historical international coal combUstion byprodUct prodUction and Use The European Union countries are combined under the Euro- pean Coal Combustion Products Association and include Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. More than 90% of the non-U.S. coal combustion byproducts were pro- duced by the countries in the European Coal Combustion Products Association in 1999 (Kalyoncu 2000). Other coun- tries not in formal associations that produced coal combus- tion byproducts were Canada, India, Israel, Japan, and South Africa. Japan used a higher percentage of the coal combus- tion byproducts produced than the others because of the high cost of disposal. Table 8 provides some information on the international production and use of coal combustion byprod- ucts. Note that the production of coal combustion byproducts from the international community was less than half of that in the United States. coal combUstion byprodUct specifications and GUidelines In 2005, Dockter and Jagiella (2005a, b) published a summary of existing state specifications and guidelines; a report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technol- ogy Laboratory Combustion Byproducts Recycling Consor- tium with support from the ACAA and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. The information presented in this report was obtained from a rigorous Internet search of published agency specifications and guidelines. Personal contacts were also used as needed to fill in the survey content. Table 9 shows states with either specifications or guidelines used by the Federal Lands Highways as reported in this document. Requirements for the use of coal combustion byproducts varied between the states; however, most used either ASTM and AASHTO standards or state-specific variations of these standards. By far, fly ash byproducts were the most commonly speci- fied using either ASTM C618 or AASHTO M295 (Tables 10 and 11). The AASHTO version required a lower LOI and included requirements for the available alkali content. The main use for fly ash was as a cement replacement with a com- mon upper limit of 15% of cement replaced with 20% fly ash. Several states were evaluating or using higher percentages of fly ash as a cement replacement. Several states were found to have specifications and guidelines for flowable mortar fill, which were referred to as controlled low strength materials and control density fill (Dockter and Jagiella 2005a, b). cost information The bulk of coal combustion byproducts are landfilled each year. Costs for landfilling vary widely depending on whether or not the power plants have captive landfills. Power produc- ers without captive landfills will incur higher costs because of hauling and outsourcing landfilling operations. The econom- ics of landfilling versus coal combustion byproduct reuse will therefore be plant-specific and vary widely. Around the year 2000, the cost of plants with captive landfills was between $3 and $15 a ton, whereas they were between $10 and $35 a ton for plants without this capability (Butalia and Wolfe 1999). The coal combustion byproduct Ohio Extension Pro- gram at the Ohio State University developed an Excel-based software program to calculate the cost of landfilling CCPs chapter three literatUre review

8 Coal Com bustion Byproduct Applications Production of Coal Com bustion Byproducts, Metric Tons Gross Weight Fly Ash Botto m Ash Boiler Slag FGD Gypsu m FGD Material Wet Scrubbers FGD Material Dry Scrubbers FGD Other FBC Ash Production Use 63,000,000 16,600,000 2,176,054 18,000,000 11,700,000 10,622,601 76,288 12,524,796 Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout 9,796,483 555,996 0 239,376 0 18,555 0 0 Blended Cem ent/Raw Feed for Clinker 2,435,904 720,828 0 420,994 0 0 0 0 Flowable Fill 264,611 113,395 0 0 0 16,997 192 20,000 Structural Fills/Embankm ents 4,646,626 2,944,354 64,727 413,790 484,379 162,997 53,982 145,000 Road Base/Subbase 198,507 765,181 0 0 0 0 160 4 ,443 Soil Modification/Stabilization 670,035 188,504 1,200 0 0 3 ,332 0 94,045 Mineral Filler in Asphalt 0 0 45,275 0 0 0 0 0 Snow and Ice Control 0 207,250 45,275 0 50,302 0 0 0 Blasting Grit/Roofing Granules 47, 710 78,156 1,617,755 0 0 0 0 0 Mining Applications 2,148,171 480,180 43,511 195,526 567,049 124,320 0 11,425,386 Gypsu m Panel Products 0 0 0 7 ,286,404 0 0 0 0 Waste Stabilization/Solidification 3,515,289 5,867 0 108,869 0 35,937 13,337 59,500 Agriculture 102,908 3,696 0 282,386 0 0 0 0 Aggregate 87,317 452,066 34,700 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous/Other 803,104 467,192 27,089 3 ,970 0 0 0 0 Category Use to Production Rate 39.2% 43.7% 84.2% 50.3% 7.7% 3.3% 88.7% 93.8% Source : ACAA (2007). TABLE 7 2007 COAL COMBUSTION ByPRODUCT PRODUCTION AND USE ( Butalia and Wolfe 1999). This is a large multi-worksheet Excel program with inputs for state regulations, annual quan- tity of coal combustion byproducts, life of landfill, scrubber inputs (type and operating details), landfill geometry (flat terrain, valley fill, and side hill), capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, post-closure costs, and economic inputs. ccp History • 1937 First research on fly ash reported in Proceed- ings of the American Concrete Institute. • 1949 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation used fly ash on large scale in the construction of Hungry Horse Dam in Montana. • 1968 ACAA founded in Alexandria, Virginia to advance the use and management of CCPs. • 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enacted and is the primary statute govern- ing the use of CCPs. • 1985 Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium (CARRC) founded. • 1990 Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments regulated SO2 emissions. • 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments restricted sulfur oxide emissions. • 1997 Combustion Byproducts Recycling Consortium (CBRC) established. • 2000 EPA published regulatory determination that CCPs did not pose a significant danger to the envi- ronment under 3001(b)(3)(C) but determined regu- lations under (D) when disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments. • 2008 Tennessee Valley Authority reported breach in coal combustion byproduct impound, which resulted in a spill estimated at about 1 billion gallons. • 2010 EPA released two proposed options to imple- ment stricter requirements. The program outputs include an itemized list of capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and post-closure costs for the selected landfill geometry. The input and output infor- mation are comprehensive; however, the macros to run the Excel program may or may not work as designed with the newest versions of Excel.

9 TABLE 8 PARTIAL INFORMATION ON THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF COAL COMBUSTION ByPRODUCTS INTERNATIONALLy Application Production and Use, Thousands of Metric Tons Fly Ash Bottom Ash Boiler Slag FGD Gypsum Total % Use European production of coal com bustion by products, thousands metric tons 37.14 5.62 2 .42 7.57 5 4.50 — Cement raw material 3 .74 0.05 — — 3 .79 6.8 Blended cement 1 .93 — — — 1.94 3 .5 Concrete addition 5.44 0 .02 0.16 — 5 .65 10.2 Aerated concrete blocks 0 .67 0.07 — — 0 .74 1.3 Non-aerated concrete blocks 0 .59 1.23 — — 1 .83 3.3 Light weight aggregate 0 .24 0.08 — — 0 .32 0.6 Bricks and ceramics 0 .07 — — — 0.07 0 .1 Grouting 0.52 — 0 .16 — 0.68 1 .2 Asphalt filler 0.09 — — — 0 .24 0.4 Subgrade stabilization 0.33 0 .03 — — 0.36 0 .7 Pavem ent base course 0.21 0 .33 1.25 — 1 .78 3.2 General engineering fill 1.30 0 .37 — — 1.70 3 .1 Structural fill 1.39 0 .18 — — 1.57 2 .8 Soil am endm ent — — — — 0 .09 0.2 Infill 1.38 — — — 2 .05 3.7 Blasting grit — — 0.73 — 0 .73 1.3 Plant nutrition — — 0.04 — 0 .07 0.1 Set retarder for cem ent — — — 0.47 0 .47 0.8 Projection plaster — — — 0.62 0 .62 1.1 Plaster boards — — — 4 .04 4.04 7 .3 Gypsum blocks — — — 0 .24 0.24 0 .4 Self leveling floor screeds — — — 1 .25 1.25 2 .3 Other uses 0 .20 0.13 0 .09 — 0.65 1 .2 Total 18.17 2.50 2.42 6.62 30.86 55.6 Landfill, reclamation, and restoration 15.43 2.07 — 0 .42 18.35 33.0 Tem porary stockpile 0 .72 0.03 — 0 .45 1.19 2 .1 Disposal 3 .81 1.06 — 0 .09 5.12 9 .2 Production by Country Canada Production Use 5.0 1.10 1.60 0.20 — — 0.42 0.57 7.02 1.87 — 27.0 India Production Use — — — — — — — — 90.0 11.7 — 13.0 Israel Production Use — — — — — — — — 1 .20 1.05 87.0 Japan Production Use 6.50 5.25 1.20 0.90 — — 1.50 1.50 9.10 7.65 — 84.0 South Africa Production Use 1.70 — — — — — — — 1.70 — — — Kaly oncu (2000) . —

TABLE 9 STATES WITH COAL COMBUSTION ByPRODUCTS SPECIFICATIONS OR GUIDELINES IN 2003 State CCP Specifications and Guidelines Federal Lands Highways Alabam a Florida New Jersey Alaska Georgia New Mexico Arizona Hawaii New York Arkansas Idaho North Carolina California Illinois North Dakota Colorado Indiana Ohio Connecticut Iowa Oklahoma Delaware Texas Kansas Oregon Kentucky Pennsylvania Louisiana Rhode Island Maine South Carolina Maryland South Dakota Massachusetts Tennessee Michigan Texas Minnesota Utah Mississippi Vermont Missouri Virginia Montana Washington Nebraska West Virginia Nevada Wisconsin New Hampshire Wyoming District of Columbia After Dockter and Jagiella (2005a, b). TABLE 10 ASTM C618-03 FOR CHEMICAL AND PHySICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FLy ASH Chemical Requirements Mineral Admixture Class N F C Silicon Dioxide, Aluminum Oxide, Iron Oxide (SiO 2 + Al 2 O 3 + Fe 2 O 3 ), m in., % 70.0 70.0 50.0 Sulfur Trioxide (SO 3 ), m ax., % 4.0 5 .0 5.0 Moisture Content, max., % 3 .0 3.0 3 .0 Loss on Ignition, max., % 10.0 6.0 6.0 The use of Class F pozzolan containing up to 12.0% loss on ignition may be approved by the user if either acceptable perform ance records or laboratory test results are ma de available. Physical Requirements N F C Fineness: Am ount Retained When Wet-Sieved on 45 µ m (No. 325) sieve, max ., % 34 34 34 Strength Activity Index: B with Portland Cement at 7 day, m in., % of control 28 day, m in., % of control 75C 75C 75C 75C 75C 75C Soundness Water Requirement, max., % of control 115 1 05 105 Autoclave Expansion or Contraction, m ax., % 0 .8 0.8 0 .8 Min. = minimum; max. = maximum. TABLE 11 AASHTO M295 FOR CHEMICAL AND PHySICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FLy ASH Chemical Requirements Mineral Admixture Class N F C Silicon Dioxide, Aluminum Oxide, Iron Oxide (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3), min., % 70.0 70.0 50.0 Sulfur Trioxide (SO3), max., % 4.0 5.0 5.0 Moisture Content, max., % 3.0 3.0 3.0 Loss on Ignition, max., % 5.0 5.0 5.0 Available Alkalis, as Na2O, max., % 1.5 1.5 1.5 Applicable only when specifically required by the purchaser for mineral admixture to be used in concrete containing reactive aggregate and cement to meet a limitation on content of alkalis. Physical Requirements N F C Fineness: Amount Retained When Wet-Sieved on 45 µm (No. 325) sieve, max., % 34 34 34 Strength Activity Index: B with Portland Cement at 7 day, min., % of control 28 day, min., % of control 75C 75C 75C 75C 75C 75C Soundness’ Water Requirement, max., % of control 115 105 105 Autoclave Expansion or Contraction, max., % 0.8 0.8 0.8