![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Power
Protocol
Truth: When you take pollutants out of the smoke, you end up with contaminants concentrated in the ash and other solid residues that have to be properly managed so they don’t end up in our drinking water or in our fish. Solving one problem can create another, if you’re not careful.
David Kosson
and Florence Sanchez are advising the U.S.
government on
how to reduce mercury emissions and other pollutants from power
plants without creating even more health problems in the process.
Kosson, who
chairs the Vanderbilt Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, and Sanchez, an Assistant Professor in the same
department, have been collecting data to help the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulate power plant mercury emissions
control in ways that will protect human health at every stage of the
process, from power production to waste disposal. The EPA issued its
final Clean Air Mercury Rule on March 15, 2005, which the agency
estimates will result in the reduction of mercury emissions from
coal-fired plants by nearly 70 percent per year by 2018.
Indeed, the
technology exists that can accomplish this feat. But Congress asked
the EPA to research whether the mercury extraction technology might
adversely impact groundwater, streams and rivers. Kosson and Sanchez
were asked to provide technical management of this research in
conjunction with ARCADIS, Inc, a contractor for EPA Office of
Research and Development.
Half-way through
the summer, the results of the first report to the EPA were in:
Doing a better job of removing mercury from smoke is not likely to
result in dangerous releases of mercury into the groundwater after
waste disposal.
But there may be
difficulties with arsenic and selenium.
Arsenic is one of
our most notorious toxins, although it takes a concentrated amount
to have a deleterious effect on health and most of us have trace
amounts of arsenic in our bodies. Selenium, a highly beneficial
mineral in small amounts, is poisonous in larger concentrations.
The arsenic and
selenium results in the research were a bit surprising, Kosson said,
and will require additional research.
He and Sanchez
studied coal combustion residues from selected power plant
facilities that use new mercury emissions reduction equipment,
subjecting them to a series of tests to get a good sense of how much
mercury and other contaminants of interest might leach out into
groundwater.
The good news is
that Kosson and Sanchez also found, much to their satisfaction, that
the testing series and interpretation software they have developed
to evaluate and predict how contaminants will behave under various
environmental and waste-management scenarios is as valid as they had
hoped it would be.
“The protocol is
very solid,” Kosson smiled.
Napkins and
coffee grounds
Kosson and
Sanchez have reason to be proud. The leaching protocol they
developed, along with Vanderbilt colleague Andrew Garrabrants and
H.A. van der Sloot of the Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, is
a powerful, highly adaptable tool for power engineers and
environmental engineers.
“The protocol
considers the range of known coal combustion residue chemistry and
management conditions,” Kosson said. “The method also permits
development of data that are comparable across U.S. coal and residue
types. The approach has also been demonstrated to be applicable for
evaluating potential environmental impacts from a wide range of
solid materials for beneficial use and disposal.”
Published in
Environmental Engineering Science 2002, the protocol had its
beginnings in the 1980s, when Kosson was on the faculty at Rutgers
and was trying to help the state of New Jersey figure out what to do
with the solid waste after incineration. Kosson happened to meet van
der Sloot during a conference in Europe, and they discovered they
had similar frustrations with the existing frameworks for assessing
leaching.
“Leaching” is the
action of a liquid passed over and through a solid. Kosson likes to
use drip coffee as an example of a leaching process.
Leaching is a
very important thing to consider when planning what to do with
wastes, because most waste disposal properties, such as landfills
and impoundment ponds, are subjected to rain. The amount of rain
water will vary from place to place and from day to day, which is
one reason why predicting how much pollutant might leach out from
the waste can get a little tricky.
Another factor
complicating the prediction process is the wide variety of pH levels
in the disposal site soils and in the waste material, itself. The
degree of acidity or alkalinity affects the rate of leaching and
hence the amount of contaminant released.
Add those
difficulties to the variations in waste management techniques and
blending of materials, and it gets, well, messy.
Kosson and van
der Sloot put their heads together to design a more comprehensive
and adaptable protocol than the traditional method. “A lot of the
initial design work was
sketched out on
napkins while riding the train to and from Washington, D.C.,” Kosson
said.
Their idea was to
determine the intrinsic leaching properties of contaminants of
interest and to develop computer simulation models that use the
intrinsic properties to predict contaminant behavior under various
conditions in the field. The traditional protocol attempted to mimic
conditions in the field, which basically required “re-inventing the
wheel” for each facility. The new protocol is based on intrinsic
data and known dynamics, and variations from site to site are
accounted for using the simulation modeling.
“The leaching
protocol we developed, and continue to refine, is based on
characterizing fundamental parameters of leaching dynamics of
contaminants and then modeling them to predict outcomes in different
field scenarios,” Kosson said.
As part of this
project, Kosson and Sanchez ran tests to check the validity of their
protocol in predicting actual results in the field.
“The Leaching
Framework was able to fully satisfy our quality assurance and
quality control requirements,” Sanchez said.
Mercury rising
The
protocol, which is being adopted in Europe and is being used by the
EPA in several situations, can be employed in a variety of
industrial and public utility situations. Kosson and his associates
have been working with the agency to replace the traditional method
with the new protocol, so this summer’s research that validates the
approach represents a welcome milestone.
The EPA announced
its intention to require reduction of mercury and other contaminant
emissions from coal-fired power plants in December 2000. Reduction
of mercury emissions was a primary goal of the new regulations to be
developed.
Mercury, as an
element and as part of various compounds, has known adverse health
effects, particularly on neurological development. Most people in
the U.S. are exposed to mercury through eating fish and shellfish
containing methylmercury.
Mercury
is one of the metals in coal that do not burn and are released as
coal combustion residues. Coal-fired utilities produce approximately
105 million tons of coal combustion residues per year. The some
1,250 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. provide more than half of
all electrical power generated in the U.S.
Coal combustion
constituents that do not remain in the bottom of the boiler are
released in fly ash or are removed by a wet scrubbing process using
sulfur dioxide. Some 68 million tons of fly ash were produced in
2001.
Arsenic and
Selenium
Although the U.S.
Congress was focused on the potential for mercury extracted from
power plants to cross into groundwater as a result of new emission
control practices, the EPA wanted to look at other contaminants, as
well.
The agency
contracted with ARCADIS of Durham, N.C., to sample fly ash and
sludge from power plants the agency selected because it considers
them to be representative of the range of power plant waste
management practices across the nation and to test the waste for
mercury, lead, cadmium, selenium, arsenic, and other pollutants.
ARCADIS
subcontracted most of this work to Vanderbilt. Kosson and Sanchez,
and ARCADIS, being trained on the leaching protocols, ran a battery
of tests of sample fly ash produced both with and without new
mercury emissions control technology. Tests included assessments of
alkalinity, solubility and release as a function of pH; solubility
and release as a function of the liquid-to-solid ratio; electrical
conductivity; surface area and pore size distribution; carbon
content; moisture content; mercury content; and content of other
metals. These and other tests gave the researchers the raw data they
needed to feed into software models that can give a comprehensive
analysis and prediction of contaminant behavior across a range of
waste management and environmental conditions.
“We found that
leaching of arsenic may be of concern for some land disposal
scenarios, independent of whether activated carbon injection is in
use,” Kosson said. Activated carbon injection is the new technology
used to reduce mercury and other contaminant emissions.
“We also found
that leaching of selenium may be a concern for some facilities using
activated carbon injection,” Sanchez said.
Future research
will delve further into the problematic areas and will examine
wastes produced by other types of coal-fired power plant facilities,
using other types of coal.
Pull quote:
“What
we found was that mercury concentrations remained below the mercury
drinking water maximum contaminant level, but the arsenic and
selenium concentrations present the potential for adverse
environmental impacts with and without the new controls” he said.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2007 Vanderbilt University. For more information, please contact the webmaster. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||