WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 16 |

«February 2014 Final United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Office of Resource Conservation and ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

Coal Combustion Residual

Beneficial Use Evaluation:

Fly Ash Concrete and

FGD Gypsum Wallboard

February 2014

Final

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response and reviewed by appropriate offices within the Agency. Any opinions, findings,

conclusions, or recommendations do not change or substitute for any statutory or regulatory provisions.

This document does not impose legally binding requirements, nor does it confer legal rights, impose legal obligations, or implement any statutory or regulatory provisions. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Executive Summary Purpose The goal of this document is to use sound science based on accepted and standard practices to determine whether the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or ”the Agency”) should support the beneficial use of coal fly ash in concrete and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum in wallboard. Coal fly ash used as a direct substitute for portland cement in concrete (hereafter referred to as “fly ash concrete”) and FGD gypsum used as a replacement for mined gypsum in wallboard (hereafter referred to as “FGD gypsum wallboard”) are the two largest encapsulated beneficial uses of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) in the United States.

In addition, this document provides an example of how to conduct similar analyses using EPA’s Methodology for Evaluating Encapsulated Beneficial Uses of Coal Combustion Residuals (US EPA, 2013a). This example also demonstrates an appropriate level of documentation for such analyses.

Conclusions Based on the analysis set forth in this document, the evaluation concludes that environmental releases of constituents of potential concern (COPCs) from CCR fly ash concrete and FGD gypsum wallboard during use by the consumer are comparable to or lower than those from analogous non-CCR products, or are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors.

The beneficial use of CCRs, when conducted in an environmentally sound manner, can contribute significant environmental and economic benefits. Environmental benefits can include reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced need for disposing of CCRs in landfills, and reduced use of virgin resources. Economic benefits can include job creation in the beneficial use industry, reduced costs associated with CCR disposal, increased revenue from the sale of CCRs, and savings from using CCRs in place of other more costly materials.

Based on the conclusion of the analysis in this document stated above, and the available environmental and economic benefits, EPA supports the beneficial use of coal fly ash in concrete and FGD gypsum in wallboard. The Agency believes that these beneficial uses provide significant opportunities to advance Sustainable Materials Management (SMM).

Background Beneficial use of industrial materials has the potential to provide economic benefits, preserve virgin resources, and avoid negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition and processing of virgin materials. Beneficially using these materials presents significant opportunities to advance SMM and the Agency’s SMM Program. The SMM Program supports the productive and sustainable use/reuse of resources throughout all stages of their lifecycles, from resources acquisition through disposal. The SMM Program seeks to avoid or minimize impacts to the environment while accounting for economic i efficiency and social considerations. CCRs are one of the industrial materials produced in the greatest quantity each year. The beneficial use of CCRs when conducted in a manner protective of human health and the environment can advance these SMM goals.

While the beneficial use of CCRs has been shown to have economic and material benefits, the environmental impacts associated with their use must also be considered. To do this, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) developed the Methodology for Evaluating Encapsulated Beneficial Uses of Coal Combustion Residuals (US EPA, 2013a). While in this document the Agency has used the methodology to evaluate the beneficial use of CCRs in certain encapsulated uses, this methodology can be useful to states, tribes, local governments, the public, and the regulated community for making informed decisions about any encapsulated beneficial uses of CCRs. The methodology has undergone an independent external letter peer review. A summary of the comments received from peer reviewers is available in the document Peer Review Summary Report: Independent External Peer Review of the Preliminary Draft Report Methodology for Evaluating Encapsulated Beneficial Uses of Coal Combustion Residuals (US EPA, 2012a). Responses to these comments are available in the document Responses to External Peer Review Comments: Methodology for Evaluating Encapsulated Beneficial Uses of Coal Combustion Residuals (US EPA, 2013b).

The methodology establishes a series of five steps that can be used to determine whether environmental releases of COPCs from an encapsulated beneficial use product made with CCRs are comparable to or lower than those from an analogous product made without CCRs, or are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks developed for human and ecological receptors, during use by the consumer. The methodology allows evaluation of the range of possible encapsulated beneficial uses for any CCR. As developed, the methodology is quite flexible. The party conducting the evaluation can choose to begin at the first step and follow the methodology in the order presented or, based on the type and amount of data available on the CCR and corresponding product, can choose to begin the evaluation at any other step of the methodology. If releases of COPCs from the CCR beneficial use are found to be comparable to or lower than those from an analogous non-CCR product, or are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks at any step of the methodology, then no further evaluation is necessary for those particular COPCs.





Summary of the Analysis The Agency used the methodology to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with fly ash concrete and FGD gypsum wallboard. These beneficial use products may be variable in their composition. However, this evaluation only addressed those products that meet relevant physical and performance standards established by voluntary consensus standard bodies; that conform to specific design criteria identified in this evaluation (e.g., ≤ a 40 percent fly ash replacement rate); and that incorporate fly ash and FGD gypsum from common pollution control devices used in the United States.

This evaluation also did not address products that contain additional additives or industrial materials that may alter releases from the products. In this specific evaluation, the Agency began with the first step and followed subsequent steps in the order presented in the methodology. The findings at each step of this specific conservative evaluation are summarized below.

ii Step 1 (Literature Review and Data Collection): From the available literature, the evaluation identified the following releases that may occur during use of fly ash concrete and FGD gypsum wallboard: 1) generation of dust, 2) emanation to air, 3) leaching to ground and surface water, and 4) decay of naturally occurring radionuclides (also referred to simply as radioactive decay). In addition, this literature review found several existing evaluations to be of sufficient applicability and quality to rely upon in the current evaluation. For fly ash concrete, the findings from these evaluations were used to eliminate radioactive decay from further consideration. For FGD gypsum wallboard, the findings from these existing evaluations were used to eliminate all releases from further consideration, except for emanation to air. The evaluation then used the available literature to identify COPCs for each of the remaining releases.

Step 2 (Comparison of Available Data): The Step 2 evaluation used the data identified in Step 1 to compare releases from fly ash concrete and FGD gypsum wallboard to releases from their respective analogous products (i.e., portland cement concrete and mined gypsum wallboard) during use by the consumer. The evaluation found that concentrations of silver and manganese in dust from fly ash concrete were comparable to or lower than those in dust from portland cement concrete. The evaluation also found that concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, molybdenum, and thallium in leachate from fly ash concrete and portland cement concrete were comparable. Therefore, the evaluation did not carry these COPCs forward for further consideration, but retained all other COPCs from fly ash concrete and FGD gypsum wallboard for further consideration.

Step 3 (Exposure Review): The Step 3 evaluation reviewed the releases carried forward from Step 2 to identify exposures that may occur during use of the product. Where multiple exposure pathways associated with a given release were identified, the evaluation retained only those pathways likely to drive exposures for further consideration. The evaluation did not eliminate any releases or associated COPCs at this step.

Step 4 (Screening Assessment): The Step 4 evaluation conducted a screening assessment for each exposure pathway carried forward from Step 3 of the evaluation. The evaluation used conservative (i.e., likely to overestimate exposures) environmental, fate and transport, and exposure data to estimate COPC exposures that may occur during use of the CCR beneficial use products. The evaluation then compared these conservative exposure concentrations to relevant screening benchmarks to determine whether to conduct more in-depth evaluation. At the end of this step, the evaluation found that all remaining COPCs were below relevant screening benchmarks. Therefore, this evaluation did not proceed to the final Step 5 (Risk Assessment).

Conclusion: At the end of Step 4 the analysis was concluded as all identified COPCs had been eliminated in Steps 1 through 4. Thus, based on application of the methodology and the lines of evidence set forth in this document, the evaluation concludes that environmental releases of COPCs from CCR fly ash concrete and FGD gypsum wallboard during use by the consumer are comparable to or lower than those from analogous non-CCR products, or are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors.

iii Table of Contents Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Introduction

Selection of Beneficial Uses for Evaluation

Properties of Fly Ash and FGD Gypsum

Fly Ash

Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum

Overview of Methodology Steps

Step 1: Literature Review and Data Collection

1.1 Fly Ash Concrete

1.1.1 Existing Evaluations for Fly Ash Concrete

1.1.2 Data Collection for Fly Ash Concrete

1.1.3 Summary of Releases Identified for Fly Ash Concrete

1.2 FGD Gypsum Wallboard

1.2.1 Existing Evaluations for FGD Gypsum Wallboard

1.2.2 Data Collection for FGD Gypsum Wallboard

1.2.3 Summary of Releases Identified for FGD Gypsum Wallboard

1.3 Conclusions of Step 1

Step 2: Comparison of Available Data

2.1 Releases from Fly Ash Concrete and Portland Cement Concrete

2.1.1 Generation of Dust

2.1.2 Leaching to Ground and Surface Water

2.1.3 Emanation to Indoor Air

2.2 Releases from FGD Gypsum Wallboard and Mined Gypsum Wallboard

2.2.1 Emanation to Indoor Air

2.3 Conclusions of Step 2

Step 3: Exposure Review

3.1 Fly Ash Concrete

3.1.1 Potential Exposure Pathways for Fly Ash Concrete

3.1.2 Potential Receptors for Fly Ash Concrete

3.2 FGD Gypsum Wallboard

3.2.1 Potential Exposure Pathways for FGD Gypsum Wallboard

iv 3.2.2 Potential Receptors for FGD Gypsum Wallboard

3.3 Conclusions of Step 3

Step 4: Screening Assessment

4.1 Fly Ash Concrete

4.1.1 Exposure to Concrete Dust

4.1.2 Exposure to Ground and Surface Water

4.1.3 Exposure to Indoor Air

4.2 FGD Gypsum Wallboard

4.2.1 Exposure to Indoor Air

4.3 Conclusions of Step 4

Section 5: Results, Uncertainties, and Conclusions

5.1 Summary of Results

5.1.1 Fly Ash Concrete

5.1.2 Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum Wallboard

5.2 Sources of Uncertainty

5.2.1 Uncertainties for Dust Exposures

5.2.2 Uncertainties for Ground and Surface Water Exposures

5.2.3 Uncertainties for Air Exposures

5.2.4 General Uncertainties

5.3 Final Conclusions

References

–  –  –

Appendix B: Identification of Relevant Screening Benchmarks Appendix C: Ground Water Modeling List of Tables Table 1-1: Releases from Fly Ash Concrete and Associated COPCs

Table 1-2: List of COPCs Remaining Following Step 1

Table 2-1: Comparison of COPC Concentrations in Fly Ash and Portland Cement (mg/kg)................. 2-2 Table 2-2: Comparison of Mercury Emanation Rates from Concretes (ng/m2-hr)

Table 2-3: Comparison of Mercury Emanation Rates from Wallboards (ng/m2-hr)

Table 2-4: List of COPCs Remaining Following Step 2

Table 3-1: List of COPCs Remaining Following Step 3

Table 4-1: Comparison of the Fly Ash Contribution to Concrete Dust Concentrations to Human Health and Ecological Screening Benchmarks for Soil (mg/kg)

Table 4-2: Comparison of Undiluted Leachate to Human Health Screening Benchmarks for Ground and Surface Water (µg/L)

Table 4-3: Comparison of Undiluted Leachate to Ecological Screening Benchmarks for Surface Water (µg/L)

Table 4-4: Comparison of Modeled Well Concentrations to Remaining Human Health Screening Benchmark for Ground Water (µg/L)

Table 4-5: Comparison of Indoor Air Mercury Concentration from Fly Ash Concrete to Human Health Screening Benchmark (ng/m3)

Table 4-6: Comparison of Indoor Air Mercury Concentrations from FGD Gypsum Wallboard to Human Health Screening Benchmark (ng/m3)



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 16 |


Similar works:

«SongLink is one of the most acclaimed and widely-used tipsheets for music publishers and songwriters around the world, providing up-to-date and accurate who's looking leads and information to its hundreds of satisfied subscribers, many of whom have successfully placed songs and made valuable industry contacts through the London and LA-based service. Edited and published by music business veteran David Stark since 1993, SongLink's subscribers include all the major music publishers, independent...»

«U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division Review of ATF’s Actions in Revoking the Federal Firearms License of Guns & Ammo September 2013 I-2013-008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to a congressional request, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) examined whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) followed its administrative action policy throughout the revocation process in a case involving a Federal Firearm...»

«Key Professions at CATS College Canterbury Key at CATS College Canterbury At CATS College Canterbury we aim to support you in every stage of your future life as you embark on your journey to university and beyond. As you know, some universities require you to take additional tests such as LNAT (Law), TSA, SAT as well as our Medics needing to take UKCAT or BMAT. It is important that you have someone to help and advise you with these as you go through the year. There are special ‘Oxbridge...»

«GLOBAL BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION MAPPING THE GLOBAL FUTURE: EVOLUTION THROUGH INNOVATION AND EXCELLENCE ISBN: 1-932917-08-X Editors: Nejdet Delener, Ph.D Leonora Fuxman, Ph.D. F. Victor Lu, Ph.D. Susana Rodrigues, Ph.D. GLOBAL BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION FOURTEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE READINGS BOOK ISBN: 1-932917-08-X MAPPING THE GLOBAL FUTURE: EVOLUTION THROUGH INNOVATION AND EXCELLENCE Editors: Nejdet Delener, Ph.D Leonora Fuxman, Ph.D. F. Victor Lu, Ph.D. Susana...»

«Learn about city jobs from the people who have them! Laura Katie Xenia Office of Technology Information Mayor’s Office Saint Paul Public Library Lao Daley Tyler Human Rights and Equal Office of Financial Services Parks and Recreation Economic Opportunity Check out what these City employees and others are saying about their careers! This document is a learning tool for Saint Paul students to explore more about local government jobs, specifically with the City of Saint Paul. The project was put...»

«Journal of Accounting and Finance North American Business Press Atlanta – Seattle – South Florida Toronto Journal of Accounting and Finance Dr. Samanthala Hettihewa Co-Editor Dr. Christopher Wright Co-Editor Dr. David Smith, Editor-In-Chief NABP EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Dr. Andy Bertsch MINOT STATE UNIVERSITY Dr. Jacob Bikker UTRECHT UNIVERSITY, NETHERLANDS Dr. Bill Bommer CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO Dr. Michael Bond UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Dr. Charles Butler COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY...»

«ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Accounting and Economics 38 (2004) 51–64 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Discussion of: ‘‘Testing behavioral finance theories using trends and sequences in financial performance,’’ (by Wesley Chan, Richard Frankel, and S.P. Kothari)$ Kent Danielà Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridam Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA Received 20 September 2004; received in revised form 5 October 2004; accepted 7 October 2004 Available...»

«Copyright American Economic Association; reproduced with permission of the Journal of Economic Perspectives Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 28, Number 4—Fall 2014—Pages 149–168 Tax Morale Erzo F. P. Luttmer and Monica Singhal F or over 40 years, the benchmark economic model of tax evasion has been the Allingham and Sandmo (1972) model, in which self-interested taxpayers choose how much income to report to the tax authority by trading off the benefits of evasion (lower tax...»

«Citation: 67 Tex. L. Rev. 659 1988-1989 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Sep 8 12:34:55 2010 Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use:...»

«FINANCE RESEARCH SEMINAR  SUPPORTED BY UNIGESTION      ʺCorporate Cash Holdings and Credit Line Usageʺ    Prof. Nathalie MOYEN   University of Colorado, Leeds School of Business        Abstract      We investigate the economic factors driving the unprecedented rise of  corporate liquidities  since the 1970s. We document that US firms face higher earnings volatility and manage this ...»

«International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 3, No. 2 Body Language in Business Negotiation Hui Zhou & Tingqin Zhang Daqing Petroleum Institute at Qinhuangdao, Qinhuangdao 066004, China Abstract Human beings communicate through a variety of channels. Language is not the sole means by which humans exchange information. In conversation, we express our ideas and feelings not only with words but also through facial expressions, voice tones, and gestures. These non-verbal languages are...»

«The Diversity Value How to Reinvent the European Approach to Immigration WWELL (Welfare, Work, Enterprise, Lifelong Learning) Research Centre is based at the Department of Sociology of Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore of Milan (www.unicatt.it). WWELL brings together faculty from different academic fields (sociology, economy, psychology, organizational studies) and promotes multidisciplinary research on labour, organizations, education and lifelong learning, welfare and international...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.