Ash Handling, Disposal,

and Ash Pile Remediation

at Romanian Coal-fired
Power Plants

Preparedfor the
Romanian Energy and Electricity Authority
(RENEL)

U.S. Agency for International Development

ContractNo. EUR-0030-C-0-2055-00

Bechtel Corporation November 1994

San Francisco, California
 Contents

Section Page
1 Introdu ction ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Report Organization ................................................................................ 1-2
2 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ....................................... 2-1
2.1 Ash Disposal Methods ............................................................................ 2-2
2.2 Industrial and Commercial Uses for Ash........................................... 2-2
2.3 In-Plant Ash Handling Practices ........................................................... 2-5
2.3.1 Bottom Ash ................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.2 Pulverizer Rejects ........................................................................ 2-5
2.3.3 Economizer Ash ........................................................................... 2-6
2.3.4 Fly Ash System ............................................................................. 2-6
2.4 Transport to Impoundment .................................................................. 2-6
2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................. 2-7
3 Current Ash Handling and Disposal Provisions in Romanian
Power Plants...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Ash Disposal Provisions ........................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Ash collection and Transport to Disposal .......................................... 3-5
3.3 Shortcomings of the Current System .................................................. 3-5
4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation ............................................................. 4-1
4.1 Industrial and Commercial Uses of Ash ............................................ 4-1
4.1.1 High Volume - Low Technology Uses .................................... 4-3
4.1.2 Medium Technology Uses ......................................................... 4-5
4.1.3 High Technology Uses ................................................................ 4-7

RENEL - Ash Handling

94-1685c.O051/WO/sh/R2
 Contents (Cont'd)

Section Page
4.1.4 Research and Marketing Activities.......................................... 4-8
4.1.5 Economic Considerations .......................................................... 4-8
4.2 Ash Disposal by Containment .............................................................. 4-9
4.2.1 Western Ash Disposal Practices .................... 4-10
4.2.3 U.S. Environmental Regulations ............................................. 4-13
4.2.4 Current Ash Disposal Practices in the United States ........... 4-15
4.3 Modern Land Reclamation Practices ................................................... 4-16
4.3.1 Revegetation ................................................................................. 4-16
4.3.2 Engineering Considerations ...................................................... 4-19
4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................. 4-22
4.4.1 Past Disposal Sites ........................................................................ 4-23
4.4.2 Future Disposal Practices ............................................................ 4-24
4.4.3 Further Studies ............................................................................. 4-28
4.5 Bibliography .............................................................................................. 4-30
5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems ................................... 5-1
5.1 Ash Collection .......................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 History of Ash Collection Practices in North America ................... 5-2
5.3 Bottom Ash Handling ............................................................................ 5-3
5.3.1 Submerged Chain Conveyor ..................................................... 5-4
5.3.2 Dry Bottom Ash Conveyor ........................................................ 5-9
5.4 Pulverizer (Mill) Rejects ........................................................................ 5-11
5.4.1 Historic Practice ............................................................................ 5-11
5.4.2 Current Practice ............................................................................ 5-11

ENEL - Ash Handling iii

94-1685c.OOS/WO/sh/R2
 Contents (Cont'd)

Section Page
5.5 Economizer Ash....................................................................................... 5-12
5.5.1 Air-Heater Problems from Plugged Economizer
Hoppers .......................................................................................... 5-13
5.6 Fly Ash ....................................................................................................... 5-14
5.6.1 Fly Ash Systems ........................................................................... 5-15
5.6.2 Pneumatic Fly Ash Removal Systems .................................... 5-18
5.6.3 Vacuum System Controls .......................................................... 5-19
5.6.4 Positive-Pressure System Control ............................................ 5-20
5.6.5 Basic Hopper Design .................................................................... 5-22
5.6.6 Fly Ash Removal Systems and the Precipitator .................... 5-26
5.6.7 Fan Damage from Fly Ash Carryover ..................................... 5-29
5.7 Transport to Impoundment .................................................................. 5-29
5.8 Observations and Suggestions .............................................................. 5-31
5.9 Bibliography .............................................................................................. 5-33

Appendix A
Trip Report to Romania - Ash Disposal - August 9, 1993

RENEL - Ash Handling iv

94-1 685c.005/WO/sh/R2
Contents (Cont'd)

Illustrations
Figure Page
3-1 RENEL SCC with all Hydraulic Transport System ..................................... 3-7
3-2 RENEL ESP Dry Ash Removal Using Air Slides ........................................ 3-8
5-1 North American Fly Ash Handling Systems by Boiler Type ................... 5-35
5-2 North American Fly Ash Handling Systems by Boiler Size .................... 5-36

5-3 North American Fly Ash Handling Systems by Fuel Type ...................... 5-37

5-4 North American Fly Ash Handling Systems by Type of Coal ................. 5-38

5-5 Water Impounded Bottom Ash Hopper ...................................................... 5-39

5-6 Typical Bottom Ash Water Impounded Hopper Collection System ...... 5-40

5-7 Typical Bottom Ash and Economizer Ash System .................................... 5-41

5-8 Wet and Dry Collection System ...................................................................... 5-42

5-9 Typical A sh Distribution .................................................................................. 5-43

5-10a Ash Rates Based on Type of Coal - Lignite .................................................. 5-44

5-10b Ash Rates Based on Type of Coal -Bituminous .......................................... 5-45

5-10c Ash Rates Based on Type of Coal - Subbituminous .................................. 5-46

5-11a SCC Closed-Loop Cooling Requirements - Lignite .................................... 5-47

5-11b SCC Closed-Loop Cooling Requirements - Bituminous .......................... 5-48

5-11c SCC Closed-Loop Cooling Requirements - Subbituminous .................... 5-49

5-12a SCC Operating KW - Lignite ........................................................................... 5-50

5-12b SCC Operating KW - Bituminous ................................................................. 5-51

5-12c SCC Operating KW - Subbituminous ........................................................... 5-52

5-13 Dry Scraper Chain .............................................................................................. 5-53

5-14 Dry Scraper Chain Furnace Bottom Hopper ................................................ 5-54

RENEL - Ash Handling v

94-1685c.O051WO/sh/R2
Contents (Cont'd)

Figure Page

5-15 Dry Bottom Ash Extraction System ............................................................... 5-55

5-16 Carbon Content in Bottom Ash ...................................................................... 5-56

5-17 Energy Loss Wet System vs Dry System 200 MWe

Coal Feed: 35% Ash ................................................................................... 5-57

5-18 Magaldi Ash Conveyor with Mechanical Handling System .................... 5-58
5-19 Magaldi Ash Conveyor with Pneumatic Handling System ..................... 5-59
5-20 4 x 300 MWe One-Year Material Balance ...................................................... 5-60

5-21 Pulverizer Rejects Handling ........................................................................... 5-61

5-22 Water-Filled Economizer Hopper Tank ....................................................... 5-62

5-23 Typical Hopper and Vertical Shaft Air Heater Configuration ................. 5-63
5-24 Typical Weighted Wire Precipitator ............................................................. 5-64

5-25 Fly Ash Vacuum and Pressure Conveyor .................................................... 5-65

5-26 Fly Ash Pneumatic Pressure Conveyor ........................................................ 5-66

5-27 Fly Ash Hydraulic Vacuum Conveyor ......................................................... 5-67

5-28 Combined Mechanical/Pneumatic Transport System for

Continuous Removal of Precipitated Fly Ash ............................................ 5-68

5-29 Fly Ash Pneumatic Conveyor ......................................................................... 5-69

5-30 Positive Pressure Air-Lock Feeder ................................................................. 5-70

5-31 Fly Ash Hopper with Fly Ash Intake ............................................................. 5-71

5-32 Fly Ash Intakes with Shut-Off Gates in Horizontal Lines ........................ 5-72
5-33 Fly Ash Fluidizers vs Discharge Diameters ................................................. 5-73

5-34 Location of Forced Draft and Primary Air Fan Inlets Near
Precipitator Hoppers .......................................................................................... 5-74

5-35 Recessed Entry Elbow ................................................................................... 5-75

RENEL - Ash Handling Vi

94-1685c.O05/WO/sh/R2
 Contents (Cont'd)

Tables
Table Page
2-1 Potential Uses of Wastes from Pulverized Coal Firing ............................. 2-4
3-1 Ash Test Results for Type B Fuel - Craiova I Power Plant,
Rom an ia .............................................................................................................. 3-2
3-2 Typical Range of Size Distribution for Ash - RENEL, Romania ............. 3-3
3-3 Ash Storage Areas in Main Power Plants ..................................................... 3-4
4-1 Solid Wastes from U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants (1990 Production
and Utilization in millions of U.S. tons)...................................................... 4-2
4-2 Potential Uses of Wastes from Pulverized Coal Firing ............................. 4-4
4-3 Elemental Concentrations in Bulk Fly Ashes in the United States ........ 4-14
5-1 List of Submerged Scraper Conveyor Contracts .......................................... 5-8

RENEL - Ash Handling vii

94-1685c.O05/WO/sh/R2
 Section 1
Introduction

This topical report has been .prepared by the Bechtel Corporation to summarize the
results of studies for the Romanian National Electric Authority (RENEL), conducted
under contract with the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). The overall objective for the USAID support of RENEL is to improve the
efficiency of the Romanian power generating sector. In response to specific requests
by RENEL, studies were conducted in the following technical areas:
1. Heavy fuel oil combustion and gas-side corrosion
2. Boiler feedwater treatment and water quality control
3. Ash handling in coal-fired power plants, soils reclamation at full ash
storage piles
Study results in each of these technical areas are presented in separate topical
reports. This report contains the findings related to Study Area 3.
The specific objectives of Study Area 3 were to:
" Review the existing ash handling systems in RENEL's coal-burning
power plants and to suggest potential methods to upgrade these systems
" Review ash handling and storage practices in modem Western power
plants and suggest alternative ash disposal options for Romanian coal­
fired power plants
" Discuss methods for soil reclamation and remediation in already filled
ash disposal sites.

1.1 BACKGROUND
Nearly 60 percent of RENEL's thermal power plants are fueled with coal. The
Romanian domestic coal resources consist of low grade brown coal or lignite,
containing high percentages of ash and moisture. There are as much as 15 million
tons of ash produced annually in the coal-fired power plants.
Typically, the ash collected from various points in the flue gas path is pumped in
slurry form to above grade disposal sites near the power plants. Ash handling and
disposal consume significant power. The ash/water weight ratio in the slurry is
1:10. Little, if any of the water is recovered. Consequently, the plants require large
quantities of makeup water. The ash piles have no means for collecting the
conveying water, nor for isolation from Lhe groundwater table. Any chemicals
leached out of the ash are carried to the soil and the subsurface water table, causing
undesirable pollution of the water suppiy.

RENEL - Ash Handling 1-1

94-1685c.O01/WO/RO
 Section 1 Introduction

Another issue facing RENEL is that the currently available disposal sites are
expected to be full in about 5 years. While there is adequate land nearby for future
disposal sites, the land owners are reluctant to sell the land or exchange it for
restored former ash piles.
Ash usage for other industrial purposes absorbs only about 1 percent of the ash
generated in the coal plants.
RENEL has also identified several operational problems that it has encountered in
its present systems. These types of problems have led RENEL to request assistance
from the USAID to accumulate data on the following:

" Modem Western ash handling and disposal practices

" Operating experience with ash disposal systems
• Environmental remediation of abandoned ash storage piles
Information in support of the Bechtel effort was provided by RENEL's staff in the
course of meetings in the home office and visits to three different power plants.
Issues related to ash handling and disposal were covered during the visit to the
Craiova II plant in southwestern Romania.

1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The report on ash handling and disposal consists of 5 sections. In addition to this
introductory section, this report contains the following:
" Section 2 summarizes the study findings, and presents the conclusions
and recommendations derived from the study
" Section 3 describes the features and operation of the ash handling and
disposal systems in representative Romanian coal-fired power plants
" Section 4 contains information regarding Western ash disposal systems
and methods for soil remediation at ash piles that have reached their
storage capacity. Potential uses of the ash in commercial and industrial
applications are also discussed in this section
" Section 5 describes recent Western operating experience with ash
handling and disposal methods.

RENEL - Ash Handling 1-2

94-1685c.001/WO/RO
 Section 2
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Coal-fired power plants represent about 58 percent of RENEL thermal power

generating capacity. Since these plants use fuel from domestic sources, they are of
major importance to the Romanian economy. A large percentage of the coal-fired
plants use lignite as fuel. The heating value of the lignite is 1,200 and 1,700 kcal/kg.
The ash content is about 29 percent. The relatively low heating values and high ash
content result in an annual ash production of 10 to 15 million tons in the
Romanian power plants. On an equal heat input basis, the ash production is as
much as 7 times higher than that produced in a bituminous coal-fired plant.

The ash from the power plants is almost exclusively removed by means of slurry
pumping to ash piles near the plants. RENEL is experiencing some problems with
its current ash handling method, and they have been identified as follows:
m The demand for ash supply and pumping power is excessive.
m Ash piles occupy large land area and the supply of suitable land is rapidly
diminishing.
m The slurry pumps have poor reliability.
* The steel pipes used to transport the ash slurry to the ash piles are prone
to clogging, deposit buildup and corrosion/erosion damage.
m The current ash piles are environmentally harmful. Chemicals leaching
from the ash contaminate the groundwater supply. Windblown dust
contaminates the air.
Although several power plants are equipped with provisions for dry collection of
ash for sale to industry, these provisions are rudimentary and have only limited
capacity.
Recognizing the urgent need to find solutions to the above problems, RENEL has
requested assistance from the U.S. AID. The study task, covered in this topical
report and performed by Bechtel Corporation, was conducted in response to this
request. The task represents the initial step of identifying the following:
a Modern Western methods for efficient in-plant ash handling and
disposal methods
m Commercial and industrial uses for the ash
m Potential means for reclaiming the land occupied by the current ash piles
after reaching their storage capacity
n Methods for environmentally benign storage methods for ash disposal

RENEL - Ash Handling 2-1

94-1685c.OO6/LW/RO
 Section 2 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Based on the above information, promising methods for solving the ash handling
and disposal problems are to be recommended for further evaluations.

2.1 ASH DISPOSAL METHOD'S

The most desirable and environmentally least harmful way to dispose of power
plant ash is to recycle it for industrial or commercial use. Compared to the 1 percent
used in Romania for such purposes, the United States recycles an average of 25
percent of the ash. (Although some utility companies, which employ aggressive
marketing activities, have sold above 70 percent of the ash for industrial uses.) In
European countries, where land is scarce, the percentages are even higher. They
range from 92 percent in Italy to 35 percent in Great Britain. France uses about 57
percent of the ash.

Any ash that cannot be sold because of poor quality or due to market saturation is
transported off site for landfilling or is impounded at the plant site. In the United
States, power plant ash is considered as nonhazardous waste, suitable for normal
landfilling. However, groundwater monitoring is required at the disposal facilities
to confirm that the water quality is not adversely affected. In the United States,
about 48 percent of the unused fly ash is collected in temporary storage silos for
shipment to landfill sites. Instead of transportation to a landfill site, the ash has
been returned to the mine for reinjection into depleted shafts or for use in
restoration of strip mine land. This method has been used in Europe and the states.

Final ash disposal at or near the plant site is normally done in ash ponds. In the
states, about 52 percent of the ash is sluiced to disposal ponds. Ash piles are not
commonly used. The ponds usually have a primary pond and at least one discharge
pond. Water collected in the discharge ponds is sent back to the plant for reuse. As
much as 90 percent of the water is recycled in some locations. A representative
plant in the midwest United States has ponds covering 113 hectares (280 acres) for a
1,000-MW power plant. The pond has been in use for 20 years and has received 10
million cubic meters of fly ash.

Except in heavy clay soils, the ponds are lined with plastic. High-density
polyethylene liners have shown the least adverse effects to long-term exposure to
coal ash. Groundwater monitoring wells are sunk to the water table to observe any
undesirable leaching from the ponds.

Once the ponds of landfill have reached their capacity, they are capped with several
feet of dirt. Depending on the soil characteristics and expected precipitation, liners
may or may not be used. After capping, the land may be returned for use. There

RENEL - Ash Handling 2-2

94-1685c.OO6/LW/RO
 Section 2 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

have been sport centers, golf courses, parks and recreational areas established on
former pond sites.

Some sites have been revegetated to restore their natural state. Since the ash
characteristics vary significantly from coal to another, it is often required to conduct
experiments to determine the most suitable vegetation. The experimental farm on
the Craiova ash pile is a gcod example for such efforts.

A ri-aijr concern with ash ponds is the control of fugitive dust. There are now
commercially available materials that can be sprayed on the surfaces to prevent such
occurrences.

2.2 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES FOR ASH

Prompted by ever tightening environmental regulations for ash disposal and
increases in the cost of ash disposal, extensive research efforts and aggressive
marketing is in progress to broaden the field of commercial use. Table 2-1
summarizes the potential market for coal-fired plant ash. The table also indicates
the level of technology involved in a given application.

Largest ash quantities may be used in highway and levee construction. Some
700,000 tonnes of ash was used recently to build a berm behind a levee in the United
States. Similar projects have used large quantities of ash in France and England.
Because of transportation costs, the economically most attractive applications for
unimproved ash are within a 50 km radius of the power plant.

The economics become more attractive if the ash is used to manufacture portland
cement, precast concrete panels, or building blocks for the construction industry.
Such manufacturing plants should be built near the power plants. They do require
some capital investments. However, because of the added value, greater
transportation distances become feasible.

Current research is attempting to use ash as filler material for metal composites,
such as aluminum graphite and aluminum silicon carbide. Cast aluminum-fly ash
composites are under development at the University of Wisconsin.

As mentioned earlier, wide usage of the ash can be promoted by aggressive

marketing efforts. In the United States, the American Coal Ash Association
(ACAA) has been promoting coal ash use and has represented the ash producers and
marketers since 1968.

RENEL - Ash Handling 2-3

94-1 685c.006/LWRO
 Mm m
Cn
CD
g' r-C
001 Table 2-1 N3
=r Potential Uses of Wastes from Pulverized Coal Firing
_. Utilization Markets Conventional
By-Product Potential By- Technology
___jVolume
Materials Typefa) Product Requirements Market
Value Major
Advantage Major
Disadvantage Utilization
Outlook
Cement Cement BA, FA Moderate Moderate High Cost savings Quality control Good
Concrete and Sand, gravel, and BA, FA Moderate Moderate Low Cost savings Quality control Good
construction materials stone
Bituminous Sand and gravel, BA, FA High Low Low Processing Product Moderate
pavements stone economics acceptability
Structural fill/fill Soil, stone, sand, BA, FA High Low
materials Low Urban and Product Good
and gravel industrial acceptability
proximity
Soil stabilization Lime, cement FA Low Moderate High Cost savings - Moderate
Deicer/anti-skid Salt, sand, and BA Moderate-high Low Low- Non-corrosive - Good
gravel moderate
Roofing granules Stone, sand, and BA Moderate Moderate Low - Good
gravel
Grouting Cement FA Low-moderate Moderate High Cost savings Ash quality Good
Mineral wood Furnace slag, FA Low Moderate Moderate Market Atypical Moderate
wool rock proximity furnace E
Agriculture Ag-lime FA, FGD High Low
fertilizers Low - Replacement Poor­
ratio moderate
C)
Metals recovery(b) Natural ores FA High High High Costs, residue Low C7
volume
Sulfur recovery Natural sulfur FGD High High Moderate - Costs Low
Gypsum Natural gypsum FGD High Moderate Moderate - Product Low
(a) BA = bottom ash; FA = fly ash; FGD = flue gas desulfurization sludge. acceptabilityD1
a
(b) Includes aluminum, titanium, iron, and silica.
Adapted from Coal Combustion By-Products Utilization Manual,Vol. 1: Evaluating the Utilization
Option, Table 4-1, EPRI CS-3122, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, February 1984.

94-1685c.O06aLW RO/1
 Section 2 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

2.3 IN-PLANT ASH HANDLING PRACTICES

Coal-based solid wastes in power plants are collected at four locations:
" Coarse bottom ash under the furnace
" Pulverizer rejects at the pulverizing mills
" Intermediate particle size ash below the econcmizer section
" Fine particle size fly ash below the electrostatic precipitators
Because of the differing quantities and ash conditions, there are variations in the
collection methods at these locations.

2.3.1 Bottom Ash

Bottom ash was historically collected in water impounded hoppers with hydraulic
transportation. The system was usually designed for intermittent operation,
particularly in plants burning low ash coals. Starting in the 1980s, the so-called
submerged chain conveyors (SCC) came into use, particularly in Europe. These
conveyors are designed for continuous operation which is desirable with higher ash
coals. Because of the lower profile, these designs helped to save plant costs due to
lower building heights. Initially, the SCC used water for cooling of the ash. The
water was drained from the ash, cooled, and returned to the conveyor.

In a more recent development, the water was replaced with air cooling. In addition
to lower water consumption, this design improved the plant thermal efficiency,
since the air helped to combust the residual carbon and the hot air was introduced
into the furnace. Regardless of the cooling method, the SCC allowed dry handling
of the ash.
Operating experience with these conveyors brought about improvements in the
configuration and changes to more durable materials for the chains.

2.3.2 Pulverizer Rejects

Pulverizer rejects are collected at the bottom of the pulverizer mills. From here,
they are usually sluiced to a convenient part of the ash collecting system. In older
plants, the reject was sequentially sluiced to the bottom ash hopper from each mill.
In newer plants, particularly those using the SCC, each mill is equipped with a jet
pump to transport the rejects to a point outside the furnace. Either hydraulic or
pneumatic conveyance may be used.

RENEL - Ash Handling 2-5

94-1685c.O06/LW/RO
 Section 2 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

2.3.3 Economizer Ash

Economizer ash is collected in hoppers beneath the economizer section of the boiler.
Low calcium ash can be collected in water-impounded hoppers. However, with
subbituminous coals and lignite, which usually contain more calcium, such practice
could lead to plugging of the hoppers with concrete. This situation, in turn, could
lead to air preheater plugging since the economizer ash is carried on by the flue gas.
Adequate design of the evacuation system is essential to troublef-ree operation.

2.3.4 Fly Ash System

The fly ash system handles the largest fraction of the total ash. The conventional
practice in the United States is to collect the fly ash in hoppers beneath the
precipitators. From there, the ash is removed intermittently. There are several
pneumatic and hydraulic transport system designs in use. Because of the sensitivity
to malfunctions of the collection and transportation system, the American Boiler
Manufacturers Association (ABMA) has published guidelines for the design and
operation of such systems. An interesting design, aimed at preventing ash
compaction in the hoppers, introduces an air-blown fluidizer at the hopper outlet.
The currently preferred design uses vacuum transport of the ash to a nearby
temporary storage silo.

2.4 TRANSPORT TO IMPOUNDMENT

In the United States, the current practice is to transport the ash in slurry form to the
impoundment. Water-to-ash weight ratios are as low as 6:1. The slurry velocities in
the pipes are seldom higher than 2.7 m/sec (9 ft/sec). In a recent design, used in the
water-poor southwestern United States, a system with water-to-ash ratio of 1:1 was
specified. In this case, the usual centrifugal pumps were replaced with positive
displacement pumps. The advantages cited were lower water use, lower pumping
power, and less wear in the pipes. The reduced wear is the result of lower flow
velocities.
To reduce wear problem in the slurry pipes and to prolong service life, in recent
years, heavy wall carbon steel piping and piping made of abrasion-resistant
materials have been specified. Such materials include heat-treated alloy steel,
case-hardened steel, solid basalt, or basalt-lined pipes. In one United States power
plant, the pipes are made of ceramic lined, fiberglass reinforced epoxy. This material
has a life expectancy of 17 years. Urethane-lined steel pipes had successful use with
ash systems. These pipes are, however, quite costly.

REN.L - Ash Handling 2-6

94-1 685c.O06/LW/RO
 Section 2 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

2.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report presents an overview of modem Western practices for ash handling,
transportation, and final disposal. There are a number of improvements in these
areas that could benefit RENEL's system. However, specific recommendations are
not appropriate at this time, because the conditions and the coal characteristics have
major impact on the selection of the most appropriate design choices.

The next logical step will be to conduct site-specific evaluations. Such evaluations
should define the technically and economically preferred solutions to the local
problems. Considering that plant improvement projects require several years from
completion of these studies, it is recommended that the projects be prioritized
according to the urgency of completion. This is particularly applicable to finding
acceptable solutions to the shortage of ash storage capacity.

RENEL - Ash Handling 2-7

94-1685c.006/LWRO
 Section 3
Current Ash Handling and Disposal Provisions in
Romanian Power Plants

Data provided by RENEL lists 22 coal-fired power plants. The total generating
capacity is about 10,200 MW. Coal-fired power plants are located in the
mountainous regions in the north, in the plains along the Danube River, the coastal
areas along the Black Sea, and on gently rolling regions in the southwestern part
adjacent to local rivers. Ash storage information was provided for the six most
important plants, representing a generating capacity of about 7,700 MW. Site-specific
information was gathered during the plant visit at Craiova H.

There are coal resources in various regions of the country. Strip mining is the most
frequent recovery method with some underground mining. Rail and truck
transportation is used to deliver the coal to the power plants. Most of the plants
burn low heating value indigenous brown coal. The coal used in Craiova, for
example, has about 29 percent ash and around 41 percent moisture. The higher
heating value is 1,200 to 1,700 kcal/kg (2,200 to 3,100 Btu/lb). On an equal heat input
basis, this coal produces 7 times more ash than a medium quality bituminous U.S.
coal (Illinois No 6).

Table 3-1 lists the ash test results at the Craiova plant. The ash particle size consist
typical for six Romanian coal-fired plants is shown in Table 3-2.

3.1 ASH DISPOSAL PROVISIONS

Depending on demand for electricity, the Romanian coal-fired plants generate 10 to
15 million tons of ash annually. Only about 1 percent of this quantity is sold for
induftrial use. The remainder is stored in above ground ash piles near the plants.
Ash storage areas for the six most important power plants are listed in Table 3-3. It
has been reported that the ash pile at the Craiova II plant will be filled in about 5
years. There is an apparent resistance by owners of the surrounding land to sell or
trade their properties to be used for additional ash storage space.

The ash piles are surrounded with a 3 to 6 m (10 to 20 ft) high earthen berm to
confine the deposited ash. As the ash height reaches the top of the berm, a new
berm is constructed slightly inboard from the one below. The outside surface of the
berm has a 3:1 slope. As evident from Table 3-3, ash piles are allowed to reach
heights above 40m (130 ft). There is no water recovery provision at the ash piles.
The transport and rain water are allowed to percolate into the soil beneath the pile.
At Craiova, the outer surface of the berm had only spotty natural vegetation; no
grass mat to prevent washout was evident.

RENEL - Ash Handling 3-1

94-1685c.004/WO/sh/R 1
 =
C',

Table 3-1
Ash Test Results for Type B Fuel
0 Craiova I Power Plant, Romania

STAS* Measured Values

Denomination Symbol U.M. Limiting Value Minimum Date Maximum Date
Wetness W % Max. 1 0.05 April 1989 0.5 Oct. 1989
Retained on 0.2 mm sieve size R0 % Max. 10 1.4
2 April 1990 11.8 Mar. 1990
Calcination loss PC % Max. 3 0.6 Oct. 1989 1.4 Jan. 1989
Activity number Fzv % Min. 75 77.3 May 1989 83.0 Aug. 1989 q
Silicon dioxide SiO 2 % Min. 49 41.9 Nov. 1989 46.8 May 1989
Magnesium oxide MgO % Max. 4 2.0 Jan. 1989 4.0 Mar. 1989
Calcium oxide CaO % Min. 7 6.7 Jan. 1989 10.7 Nov. 1989 ,
Iron trioxide Fe20 2 % Min. 9 8.9 April 1990 18.7 May 1989
Aluminum oxide A120 3 % Min. 20 18.8 May 1989 25.2 April 1989
Sulphur trioxide S03 % Max. 2 1.0 Jan. 1989 3.1 Nov. 1989 C'--
IU

* STAS = Romanian Standard

NOTES: ,/
1) Fusion Temperature: 1120'C 5.
2) Melt Temperature: 1150'C
0

3) Flow Temperature: 1185C

Reference: Provided by a member of the CRAIOVA I Power Plant, July 21, 1993.

94-1685c.004a/WOshl II
 Section 3 Current Ash Handling and Disposal Provisions inRomanian Power Plants

Table 3-2
Typical Range of Size Distribution for Ash
RENEL, Romania

Grain Diameter (mm)

Maximum Minimum % By Weight
2 0.5 2 to 8
0.5 0.25 6 to 16
0.25 0.05 26 to 44
0.05 0.005 32 to 50
0.005 0.0002 4 to 16

Typical for six power plants in Romania.

RENEL - Ash Handling 3-3

94-1685c.004/WO/sh/RI
 Section 3 Current Ash Handling and Disposal Provisions inRomanian Power Plants

Table 3-3
Ash Storage Areas in Main Power Plants
Plant and Storage Area Land Area Height
Name (hectares/acres) (m/ift) Remarks
TURCENI T.P.P.
Valea Ceplea 161.7/400 0.0/0 To be reused
Storage #2 169.0 / 420 8.5 /28 In operation
ROVINARI TPP
Cicani West 65.4/160 15.0/49 90% full
Cicani East 66.0/163 17.0 / 56 90% full
Beteregea 118.0/290 0.9 / 3 In operation
ISALNITA TPP
Right-bank storage 145.0 / 360 26.0/85 In operation
Left-bank storage 136.0 / 340 32.0 / 105 In operation
MINTIA-DEVA TPP
Mures right bank 63.0 / 156 40.0 / 130 In operation
Bejan Valley 87.0 / 215 26.0 / 85 In operation
DOICESTI TPP
Storage #1 12.0 / 30 38.0 / 125 Exhausted
Storage #2 25.0 / 63 42.0 / 138 Exhausted
Storage #3 10.0/25 28.0/92 To be used
Poiana Mare 48.0 / 120 29.0 / 95 In operation
Storage #5 18.0/45 0.0 Under consideration
CRAIOVA II TPP 120.0/300 30.0/ 100 In operation

RENEL - Ash Handling 34

94•1685c.004/W0/sh/R1
 Section 3 Current Ash Handling and Disposal Provisions inRomanian Power Plants

3.2 ASH COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT TO DISPOSAL

In the power plants, the bottom ash, economizer ash, the flyash from the
electrostatic precipitators, and solids collected in dust control cyclones are typically
sluiced into a slag and ash basin. From here, the slurry is then pumped through
steel pipes to the top of the ash pile. The Bagger pumps used for this purpose have
to overcome the friction pressure drop in the pipes (which may be longer than 3 km
or 1.5 mi), and the static head of the water column at the discharge point. The in­
plant wet ash handling system is shown in Figure 3-1.

In a few instances, where RENEL is able to sell some of the ash, the fly ash from the
electrostatic precipitator is collected in a rudimentary dry system of modest capacity.
Should the industrial demand for ash increase significantly, the present system
would have to be modernized and enlarged. The dry ash handling system is shown
in Figure 3-2.

3.3 SHORTCOMINGS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM

In RENEL's assessment, the current ash handling and disposal systems have major
disadvantages:
m At concentrations of 8 to 10 kg water per kg of ash, the wet handling
system requires very large amounts of water. Little, if any, of this water is
recycled.
n The auxiliary power required to run the pumps is between 5 and 15
kWh/tonne. Using an average power requirement and an average ash
production, the annual energy consumption is 1 .25 * 1 0 A8 kWH/year.
This represents a significant loss of salable electric power.
w The Bagger pumps used for transporting the slurry to the ash pile have a
poor record of reliability.
n The ash piping is prone to clogging with ash deposits. The steel piping
used in the transfer lines are suffering severe corrosive/erosive damage,
requiring frequent maintenance.
n High-pressure drop in the piping and large static heads often require
tandem pumping, which leads to operational problems and cavitation.
n The ash piles occupy large plots of land. Acquisition of additional land is
becoming progressively more difficult.

RENEL - Ash Handling 3-5

94-1685C.0041WO/sh/R1 ,
 Section 3 Current Ash Handling and Disposal Provisions inRomanian Power Plants

m The ash storage piles are environmentally objectionable. In their present

condition, the ash piles are causing soil and groundwater contamination.
Fugitive dust from the dry ash pile surfaces is leading to atmospheric
contamination.

These problems need urgent attention to remove operational inefficiencies and

environmental contamination.

RENEL - Ash Handling 3-6

94-1685c.004/W0/shlRl
 =
M
~ C)
CD
0 C

C5,

=r

C=L)

CL

Ma q 6X En

0.
CD

Figure 3-1 RENEL SCC with Hydraulic Transport System

CD
 Co o

CA3

C,=

U2 ESP

6/7

CD

cn

Aftmaye cdtr_

CD,

Figure 3-2 RENEL ESP Dry Ash Removal Using Air Slides

000
 Section 4
Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Coal-fired power plants generate large volumes of ash which can tie up large tracts
of land for permanent storage. The land use for waste storage may be somewhat
reduced by switching to low ash, higher quality coal, and improving the plant heat
rates. However, these measures may have only limited benefits. While unused,
barren lands may still be available in some regions for permanent ash storage, land
near power plants is too valuable to permit unrestricted use for ash storage in most
of the civilized world. Shortage of land or problems associated with land acquisition
for ash disposal could significantly increase the cost of power generation and
jeopardize operation of many power plants. Proper ash disposal practices are
essential to prevent wasteful land depletion and to minimize adverse
environmental impacts.
Proper ash disposal practices include aggressive marketing to promote industrial use
of ash, proper containment of ash for ultimate disposal, efficient management of
land use, and economic reclamation of land after the ash disposal facilities are dosed.

Current Romanian ash storage practices have been outlined in Section 3 of this
report. This section contains descriptions of potential industrial/commercial use of
ash, modern methods of ash management (storage, disposal, stabilization,
remediation, and reclamation) and methods recommended to improve the current
ash management practices in Romania.

4.1 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES OF ASH

Ash from coal-fired power plants represents the fastest growing waste material in
the United States and in other countries that rely on coal as the main source of fuel.
In the United States, power plants currently produce 50 to 60 million tons of fly ash.
It is expected that this quantity may double by the year 2000. Only about 25 percent of
the ash is recycled for industrial use. The remainder is landfilled at an estimated
annual cost of $1 billion. The rate of ash utilization in European countries, where
land is quite scarce, ranges from 92 percent in Italy to 35 percent in Great Britain.
France uses about 57 percent.
Although the U.S. average indicates that about 25 percent of the generated fly ash
was marketed in 1990 (Table 4-1), the percentage was considerably higher where
aggressive marketing efforts were employed. For example, the Arkansas Power &
Light Company (AP&L) has significantly increased the sale of fly ash generated in its
White Bluff and Independence power plants. While about 33 percent of the White
Bluff coal ash was sold in the 1980s, by the 1990s, White Bluff sold approximately
70 percent of its combined ash products and 95 percent of its fly ash. This increase
was largely the result of marketing efforts by the utility company.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-1

94-1685c.002/WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Table 4-1
Solid Wastes from U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants
(1990 ProO-rlon and Utilization in millions of U.S. tons)

Fly Bottom Subtotal FGD Total Solid

Ash Ash Slag Coal Ash Solids Wastes
Production 48.9 13.7 5.23 67.83 18.9 86.73
External Utilization Markets
Cement/concrete 7.18 0.5 0.31 7.99 0 7.99
Structural fills 0.43 0.41 0 0.84 0.02 0.86
Roadbase/sub-base 0.78 0.44 0.15 1.37 0 1.37
Asphalt filter 0.13 0.003 0.02 0.153 0 0.153
Snow, ice control 0 0.81 0.89 1.7 0 1.7
Blasting grit 0 0.18 1.66 1.84 0 1.84
Grouting 0.34 0 0 0.34 0 0.34
Mining reclamation 0.06 0 0 0.06 0.04 0.1
Miscellaneous other 0.64 0.37 0.06 1.07 0.09 1.16
Subtotal 9.56 2.71 3.09 15.36 0.15 15.51

Internal Utility Uses

Cement/concrete 0.006 0 0 0.006 0 0.006
Structural fills 2.25 1.07 0.006 3.326 0.0003 3.326
Roadbase/sub-base 0.06 0.56 0.001 0.621 0.006 0.627
Snow, ice control 0 0.02 0.004 0.024 0 0.024
Miscellaneous other 0.54 1.00 0.15 1.69 0.0.53 1.743
Subtotal 2.86 2.65 0.16 5.67 0.06 5.73

Total utilization 12.42 5.36 3.25 21.03 0.21 21.24

Total utilization as a 25.4% 39.1% 62.1% 31.0% 1.1% 24.5%

percentage of production
Source: American Coal Ash Association

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-2

94-1685c.O02/WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Table 4-2 presents a summary of the potential markets for pulverized coal-fired
plant wastes. The table also provides data on the level of technology employed in
the different usages. Markets for power plant wastes may be divided into the
following categories:
" High volume - low technology uses
" Medium technology uses
• High technology uses

4.1.1 High Volume - Low Technology Uses

In addition to the large ash quantities used, the application in construction has the
advantage that it requires low technology levels and it is not sensitive to the ash
characteristics. Applications that typically require large quantities of ash include:
" Structural fills
" Highway embankments backfills
* Subgrade stabilization for highways and airport runways of real estate
developments
" Waste material stabilization
* Soil conditioning for agricultural land

Fly ash, bottom ash, and slag, alone or in mixed form, have been used in the United
States and Europe as structural fill material for roads, construction sites, dams, and
dikes. In the United Kingdom, ash has been used in highway embankments with
particular applications as fill dirt behind bridge embankments. In the United
Kingdom and in France, fly ash was used as structural fill to confine fly ash ponds.
In the United States, a 6 mile-long berm behind a levy was recently constructed with
mixed ash. Approximately 700,000 tonnes of ash, reclaimed from ash ponds, was
used. About 10,000 tonnes of ash was used to construct access ramps in the state of
Delaware. In the state of Pennsylvania, 350,000 tonnes of ash was used to build a
500-meter-long highway embankment.

"Pozzolanic mixtures," consisting of fly ash, activators, aggregate and water, have
been used for years as base layers of asphalted highways.

Controlled low-strength materials (CLSM), consisting of a mixture of fly ash and

cement (with up to 90 percent ash), are used for easily removable backfill. The
percentage of cement is used as the method to control the strength.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-3

94-1685c.002/WO/sh/Rl
Wm
s-

C. Table 4-2
Potential Uses of Wastes from Pulverized Coal Firing
-. Utilization Markets Conventional By-Product Potential By- Technology Market Major Major Utilization
__
Materials Type() Product Requirements Value
=Volume Advantage Disadvantage Outlook
Cement Cement BA, FA Moderate Moderate High Cost savings Quality control Good
Concrete and Sand, gravel, and BA, FA Moderate Moderate Low Cost savings Quality control Good
construction materials stone
Bituminous Sand and gravel, BA, FA High Low
pavements Low Processing Product Moderate
stone
economics acceptability
Structural fill/fill Soil, stone, sand, BA, FA High Low
materials Low Urban and Product Good
and gravel
industrial acceptability
proximity
Soil stabilization Lime, cement FA Low Moderate High Cost savings - Moderate
Deicer/anti-skid Salt, sand, and BA Moderate-high Low
gravel
Low- Non-corrosive ­ Good
moderate
Roofing granules Stone, sand, and BA Moderate Moderate Low
gravel
Grouting Cement FA Low-modcrate Moderate High Cost savings Ash quality Good
Mineral wood Furnace slag, FA Low Moderate Moderate Market Atypical Moderate
wool rock
Agriculture proximity furnace
Ag-lime FA, FGD High Low Low - Replacement Poor­
fertilizers
ratio moderate
Metals recovery(b) Natural ores FA High High High Costs, residue Low
Sulfur recovery Natural sulfur volume
FGD High High Moderate - Costs Low CD
Gypsum Natural gypsum FGD High Moderate Moderate - Product Low
(a) BA = bottom ash; FA = fly ash; FGD = flue gas desulfurization sludge. acceptability C.
0-
(b) Includes aluminum, titanium, iron, and silica.
Adapted from Coal Combustion By-Products Utilization Manual, Vol. 1: Evaluating
the Utilization Option, Table 4-1, EPRI CS-3122, Electric Power L
Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, February 1984. ="
4
9 -1685c.O02a/WO/sh/R 1 1­
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Fly ash alone, or mixed with cement, can be used to stabilize other materials. The
cementitious character of the mixture can be used to agglomerate loose particles,
such as soil, or to encapsulate particles. Fly ash-based mixtures have been used to
encapsulate materials, such as flue gas desulfurization scrubber sludge, metal
processing wastes, and low-level nuclear wastes.

The use of ash for soil conditioning has been a subject of research for many years.
The purpose of soil modification is to improve the absorption of nutrients, change
the soil pH (reduce acidity), and improve the drainage and water retention
characteristics or texture.

4.1.2 Medium Technology Uses

Medium technology uses require fly ash that meets more stringent requirements
such as ASTM C618-83. In such applications, fly ash constitutes 5 to 40 percent of the
product. Examples of this type of usage are the manufacture of portland cement,
substitute for portland cement in concrete, and use as filler material in asphalt. In
the past, use of such concrete has been limited to low-strength, slow-hardening
concrete. However, recent work at the Canadian Center for Mineral and Energy
Technology indicates that high-volume fly ash concrete with 58 percent ash content
has developed a 28-day compressive strength of 350 to 630 kg per square centimeter.

Fly Ash in Cement Manufacture

Fly ash has been successfully used at three points in the cement manufacturing
process: as a component added to the raw material ahead of the kiln, ground
together with cement clinker, and as an additive in the finished cement.

A typical cement kiln feed consists of 73 to 78 percent of limestone (as source of

lime), 12 to 17 percent of silica, 2 to 5 percent of alumina, 1 to 3 percent of iron oxide,
and 1 to 3 percent magnesium carbonate. Both fly ash and bottom ash are rich in
these minerals and can be added to the kiln feed.

Fly ash can also be interground with cement clinker or it can be blended directly
with portland cement. ASTM specification C595 for blended hydraulic cements,
currently recognizes three types of cements containing a pozzolan (such as fly ash):
" Type IP. Portland-pozzolan cement for general construction which may
contain 15 to 40 percent of fly ash
* Type IPM. Modified portland cement with less than 15 percent fly ash.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-5

94-1685c.0021WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

n Type P. Portland-pozzolan cement for use where early high strength is

not essential. Such cement may contain more than 40 percent fly ash.

It is noted that production of one barrel of portland cement (170 kg or 375 lb)
consumes about 22 kWh of electricity and thermal energy of about 250,000 kcal (1
million Btu). Blending the portland cement with fly ash could result in substantial
energy saving. Thus, a blend of portland cement and fly ash may be sold at
significantly lower prices.

Ash in Concrete and Construction Industry

Fly ash and bottom ash are extensively used in the construction industry. Some of
the more significant uses include:
" Fly ash as partial replacement in concrete
" Manufacture of light weight aggregate from fly ash
" Manufacture of building blocks

Fly Ash in Concrete

As much as 20 to 30 percent of the portland cement may be replaced with fly ash in
conventional concrete construction. The use is limited to applications where early
high strength is not required and where the concrete is not exposed to freezing and
thawing cycles. Typically, 2.25 kg of fly ash is used to replace I kg of portland
cement, resulting in significant cost savings. As an example, the Tennessee Valley
Authority in the United States has constructed massive dams and other concrete
structures, using fly ash as a partial substitute for portland cement.

In addition to the lower material costs, the use of fly ash to concrete mixtures results
in improved workability, lower heat of hydration, reduced water requirement, and
lower drying shrinkage. The finished concrete has reduced permeability, higher
strength, and better resistance to chemical attack (including sulfates).

Fly ash and bottom ash have been extensively used as substitutes for sand and
gravel in cement concrete and in bituminous (asphal-based) concrete.

Light Weight Aggregate

Several processes have been developed to produce aggregate from fly ash. Most
processes claim that any type of ash may be used, including those with high carbon
content.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-6

94-1685c.002/WO/sh/Ri
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

In one of the processes developed by Progress Materials Inc. of St. Petersburg,

Florida, fly ash is mixed with aqueous calcium hydroxide and pelletized in disk
pelletizers. The pellets are then cured at 70C for 12 to 16 hours. The Aardelite
Holging B. V. Company of Holland offers complete plants for the manufacture of
synthetic light weight aggregate from fly ash, using lime as binder.

Fly ash-based light weight aggregates have found application as a substitute for sand
and gravel in concrete, a substitute for gravel in asphalt road surfaces (on city
streets), and for insulating material and light weight roofs.

Wisconsin Electric Co. has built a light weight aggregate plant that will utilize all the
ash produced in its coal-fired plants. The products will be used in precast concrete
and to insulate concrete and mineral fillers.

Bricks and BuildingBlocks

Several tests have established the technical feasibility of making bricks from a
mixture of fly ash and bottom ash with some plastic clay or sodium silicate as
binder. A typical composition of ash bricks has 72 percent (by weight) fly ash, 25
percent bottom ash, and 3 percent sodium silicate. The ash bricks are formed with 6
to 8 percent moisture, compared with 20 to 25 percent used in conventional clay
bricks. In addition to water savings, the ash bricks offer energy savings in the drying
and firing steps. The firing time may be reduced by at least 50 percent. The bricks
are 10 to 20 percent lighter than the conventional clay bricks, resulting in easier
handling and lower transportation costs.
In England, fly ash was used in the manufacture of a light weight concrete, called
autoclaved cellular concrete (ACC). That material was established as a building
material in some 40 countries. It may be used in building blocks and reinforced wall
and roof panels.

4.1.3 High Technology Uses

Research and development activities are under way in U.S. government and private
laboratories aimed at economically extracting valuable or hazardous materials from
ash. At the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, research is in progress on processes that
can economically extract silica, alumina, and iron oxide. The residue from these
processes can be then disposed of in an environmentally safe manner.

Elsewhere, research is attempting to recover valuable elements, such as titanium,

manganese, vanadium, boron, and germanium from ash. While the processes are

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-7

94-1685c.O02/WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

technically feasible, they are far from economic at this time. Attempts are also
under way to extract hazardous metals, such as lead, chromium, and manganese.

Fly ash can also be used as a filler in metal composites, such as aluminum graphite
and aluminum silicon carbide. Fly ash tends to improve the wear qualities. Cast
aluminum-fly ash composites, using inexpensive casting techniques, were produced
at the University of Wisconsin. Up to 25 percent (by weight) fly ash was incorporated
in Alloy 2014 and A-356 aluminum-silicon casting alloy.

Benefits of these activities are not likely to create a massive demand for ash in the
near term.

4.1.4 Research and Marketing Activities

Mathematical models have been developed to predict performance of concrete
mixes using fly ash. A computer model can be used in selecting candidate fly ash
sources for concrete mix designs (EPRI, 1989). Physical properties of cement­
stabilized fly ash slurries were investigated by conducting a laboratory program to
identify suitable applications. The results of the laboratory studies indicate favorable
usage for fly ash in this industry (EPRI, 1988). Slurry walls are used in many
chemical facilities to control groundwater migration and could be high-volume
users of fly ash. An EPRI Proceedings Document for ash utilization (EPRI, 1987b)
presents a detailed discussion on fundamentals of ash utilization, product research,
commercial applications, and international interests in the market.

The American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) promotes uses of coal ash and has
represented coal ash producers as well as marketers since 1968. ACAA membership
is available in the United States and abroad for interested international
organizations (ACAA, 1991). In addition to the ACAA which is a trade associaion,
other commercial entities, such as fly ash cc .tractors are actively involved in
transportation, sale, utilization, and proper disposal of ash in the United States. For
example, the Trans-Ash Company has moved millions of tons of ash across the
United States since the 1970s (TA, 1993).

4.1.5 Economic Considerations

Handling and disposal of ash represent a significant operating cost item for coal­
fired power plants. In RENEL plants, the operating and maintenance labor costs and
water supply costs are affected. There is a loss of salable power due to pumping
power usage and downtime caused by breakdowns. Cost of land for permanent
waste storage is also chargeable as cost of generation. It is probable that in the future,

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-8

94-1685c.0021WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

these costs (particularly those associated with land purchases) will increase. Once all
the nearby land is used up, the ash will have to be transported over greater distances
for disposal. A more expensive mode of transportation may also have to be
employed.

The market value of unimproved ash is quite low. To the buyer, the biggest cost
item is the transportation, which limits the distance of use point from the plant.
The prospect of sales to greater distances can be improved if the plant can bear a part
of the transportation costs (to the limit of savings in operating costs).

The economics may be more attractive if the ash can be converted to more valuable
forms, such as light weight aggregate or brick or structural panels. The manu­
facturing facilities should be built near the ash piles. The value added in these
products will allow marketing further away and may even produce some profit. It
must be recognized, however, that such ventures will require capital expenditures
to construct the new manufacturing plant and to carry out certain retrofit in the
power plant itself (e.g., retrofitting for dry ash handling).

The normal process in market-driven economies is to conduct market research and

then analyze the economic merits of steps needed to meet the needs of a given
market. It is very likely that such analyses will have to be performed on a regional
basis. Favorable economics may exist only for a limited number of plants.

In most countries, it was found that successful marketing of ash involved aggressive
educational and sales efforts.

4.2 ASH DISPOSAL BY CONTAINMENT

Current western ash disposal practices are driven by two key considerations:
protection of the environment, and reduction of the cost of power generation. Sale
of ash for industrial use is very important, both environmentally and economically.
It reduces land requirement for permanent ash storage, reduces the cost of land
reclamation, and decreases the overall cost of ash disposal. Proper containment of
disposed ash to ensure protection of human health and the environment is another
serious concern. Ash is currently considered a nonhazardous solid waste by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, groundwater monitoring is
generally required in U.S. ash disposal facilities to verify or confirm that
groundwater quality is not adversely impacted by disposal of ash in lined or unlined
storage areas.

Wet ash transportation and site operation may be simpler and less expensive for
some power plants if the ash storage/disposal facility is on land owned by the plant,

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-9

94-1685c.0021WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

or is quite close to the plant. However, if ash disposal land is unavailable

immediately near the power plants, "dry disposal systems may be the only
economical disposal alternative" (EPRI, 1981). Advantages of the dry system include
the following:
" Construction cost of landfills are lower, compared to disposal ponds,
since dams and dikes are not required.
" Use of available land space is more efficient since the moisture content of
the dry ash can be adjusted for better compaction (higher densities).
" Reclamation of landfills is generally less costly than reclamation of
impoundments.
" There is more flexibility in plant operation and ash management.
" Volume of leachate is reduced, minimizing any potentially adverse
impact on groundwater.
" Dry ash is more easily accessible for sale if the market demand for
commercial use increases in the future.
These advantages not withstanding, a careful economic analysis is required to define
the most advantageous option for a given plant. In new installations, the economic
benefits of dry ash collection and transport are readily evident since the plant can be
initially equipped for dry ash handling. However, in existing plants already
operating on a wet basis, there is a significant capital expenditure to retrofit the ash
handling system.
As discussed above, only a fraction of the ash is used for industrial or commercial
purposes; the remaining captured dry ash is mainly landfilled. Moisture is added to
the ash at the landfill during compaction. This helps adjust the moisture content of
the ash to achieve better compactability. Fly ash can be compacted to higher
densities more efficiently and more economically if it is compacted at near optimum
moisture content. Higher densities of ash, in turn, allow more efficient and
economic use of the premium landfill space.

4.2.1 Western Ash Disposal Practices

Excess ash in the United States is disposed off by permanent storage in surface
impoundments or landfills. Ash piles are not commonly used. Approximately 48
percent of the coal-fired power plants in the United States convey fly ash
pneumatically to temporary storage silos for later sale or ultimate disposal at on-site
or off-site landfills. The remaining plants (52 percent of the plants in the United
States) sluice the ash to settling ponds for ultimate storage and containment (EPRI,

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-10

94-1685c.002/W0/sh/R1

21
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

1987). The impoundments are almost always on site, consisting of a primary pond
and, at least, one discharge pond. The treated water from the discharge pond is
usually recycled or discharged in the surface waters (rivers) under special permits
from the state agencies.

The sizes of these ponds are typically on the order of 50 to 400 acres ( 20 to 160
hectares), depending on the plant operation and site location. The operation of a
1000-MW power plant in the midwest United States is cited as a typical example.
The primary pond at this plant has a capacity of about 280 acres (113 hectares). This
pond received approximately 10 million cubic meters of ash (fly ash and bottom ash)
over a period of 20 years at a rate of approximately 500,000 cubic meters of ash per
year. The pond was divided into two segments by a dike and an upper and a lower
pond. The lower pond was connected to the discharge pond; both of these ponds
were unlined (EPRI, 1992).

Comanagement of Wastes
Some power plants dispose of their combustion by-products collectively in a single
disposal facility, a practice generally referred to as comanagement of wastes. The by­
product includes both the high-volume wastes (such as coal ash) and low-volume
wastes (such as boiler cleaning liquids and waste treatment sludges). Nationwide,
about 80 percent of the by-products are disposed of either in ponds or landfills.
Ponds account for approximately 44 percent of the management facilities (EPRI,
1991). This percentage has varied over the years. For example, in 1974, statistical
data indicate that 30 percent of ash was trucked to disposal sites and 70 percent was
sluiced to ponds; whereas, in 1978, the data indicate that 49 percent was trucked
offsite and 51 percent was sluiced to the ponds (EPRI, 1987). It is apparent that the
trend has been to more trucking (dry collection), and less sluicing.

Comanagement of coal combustion by-product in the southeastern the United States

is cited as another typical example of power plant operation in the region where
three pond sites were selectively studied for ash management practices (EPRI, 1991).
A disposal pond system typically consists of two settling basins (primary and
secondary ponds). The ponds at the selected sites were not lined. The ponds at one
site were located in a bedrock valley with residual soils; the ponds at another site
were situated in an alluvial valley. Ash at one site was slightly acidic to neutral,
while ash at the other site was alkaline. The ponds in the bedrock valley,
construcied in 1973, had a total surface area of approximately 60 acres (24 hectares),
receiving ash from a 400-MW power plant at an annual rate of about 30,000 cubic
yards (23,000 cubic meters). Over a period of 16 years, approximately 500,000 cubic

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-11

94-1685c.002JWO/sh/R1

'2)3
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

yards (380,000 cubic meters) of ash were sluiced in the 60-acre pond system (EPRI,
1991).

Sluice Water
The quantity of ash generated at a typical 1000-MW power plant in the United States
may vary from about 180,000 metric tons per year (tpy) if the plant is using coal to
about 340,000 tpy if the plant is using lignite (EPRI, 1987). The volume of generated
ash is difficult to estimate for a typical plant as the volume depends on many factors,
including quality of coal, plant efficiency, and plant operational features. However,
making certain assumptions, it may be estimated that the ash generated in a 1000-
MW power plant may amount to about 300,000 tons of solids per year. Wet sluicing
the ash at such a plant may generate approximately 900 million gallons per year of
sluice water: a ratio by weight of 12.5 parts water per one part ash (EPRI, 1991). This
is a large volume of water to manage, considering the quantities of ash generated
annually in the United States. In 1990 alone, the U.S. electric utilities generated
approximately 64 million metric tons of coal ash (Table 4-1).
Ash in the United States is sluiced at a solid content of 5 to 15 percent by weight.
Reduction of water may have potential savings in energy consumption, cost, and
environmental benefits. It is important to recognize that reduction of water in the
sluice should not be done without corresponding reduction of the pumping time so
as to maintain adequate flow velocity in the sluice pipes. Reduction of flow velocity
increases the chances of ash settlement during the transport which would, in turn,
plug the conduits, and could result in extra cost of delays, repairs, and replacement
of parts. Therefore, cost savings from water reduction is always weighed against risk
of ash deposition and plugging.
Another measure for cost savings and realization of environmental benefits is to
recycle most of the sluice water. For example, a midwestern utility which operates
10 power plants in the region, typically recycles 80 to 90 percent of sluice water. In
addition, the midwestern utility has retrofitted all of its power plants with dry ash
handling systems to reduce use of water and take advantag;e of dry disposal systems
(EPRI, 1987).

Dry Collection
Concern with dry collection has been mainly dust control at the plant and during
the landfilling operation. Spraying water is common for dust control measures.
However, water spraying at the plants is avoided in some cases because of the
pozzolanic nature of some fly ash which sets up as a result of moisture and makes it

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-12

94-1685c.002/WO/sh/R 1

21
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

difficult to remove the ash from temporary storage silos. In such circumstances, the
fly ash is blown dry in the temporary silos or bins, and wetting is done during or
after the ash is loaded on the trucks for shipment to the ultimate disposal site (EPRI,
1987). In some cases, other dust suppressant chemicals may be used such as the
polymeric surface binders by Chem-Jet Inc. During the placement of ash in a
landfill, it is generally required that the ash be kept covered with a layer of soil or
liner except for a limited area needed for the daily operation.

Leachate Control
When filled to capacity, ponds or landfills are capped with a layered soil system Pnd
reclaimed as described in Section 4.3. In addition to dust control, the function of the
cap is to limit direct public access to the ash, minimize precipitation leaching into
the subgrade, and reduce any potential for adverse environmental impact.
Although coal ash is considered nonhazardous, groundwater in U.S. disposal sites is
regularly monitored to ascertain the impact of ash leachate. This topic is discussed
in the next Subsection 4.2.3. The chemistry of leachate depends on various factors,
including the soil attenuation, availability of water, and the chemical content of ash
which varies from plant to plant. To develop typical values for ash chemistry
during one study, a group of 40 fly ash bulk samples was obtained from coal-burning
power plants across the continental United States. Four of these fly ash samples
were selected for detail laboratory analysis as summarized in Table 4-3. The analyses
revealed 28 trace elements in fly ash (fresh or weathered). Boron was found to be
the most mobile element. Vanadium, chromium, and arsenic and other elements
were 'also detected as shown in Table 4-3.
Leachate control in the landfills and in the ash ponds with large volumes of sluice
water has been a major consideration with ash management practices in the United
States. Although most of the ponds and landfills used for ash disposal in the United
States were unlined in the past, the modern trend is to line the ponds or to switch to
dry collection system.

4.2.3 U.S. Environmental Regulations

In late August of 1993, the U.S. EPA ruled that coal combustion by-products (fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas emission control wastes) generated at the
electric utility power plants should not be regulated as hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-13

94-1685c.O02/WOlshlR I

0O
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Table 4-3
Elemental Concentrations in Bulk Fly Ashes in the United States

Elements W102 W104 W112 W131

% by Weight
Al 10.3 12.6 9.3 14.0
Si 20.2 19.9 23.6 20.8
Fe 17.7 8.2 13.7 6.5
Ca 1.1 0.9 3.3 1.0
Mg 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6
Na 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.4
K 2.2 1.6 1.7 2.1
S 1.0 0.4 0.8 0.5
.g/g
As 126 204 16 171
Cr 294 170 441 141
Cu 139 202 90 165
Pb 82 118 48 87
Se <3 7 9 10
V 459 315 254 243
Zn 442 258 510 153

Source: EPRI, 1990

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-14

94-1685c.O02/WO/shlR I
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Approximately 70 percent of all coal ash in the United States is generated in 17 states
of which 14 regulate coal ash as solid wastes. Liner installation is a mandatory
requirement in 12 states, and 16 states have waste management requirements for
coal ash. The U.S. EPA feels that the state programs for coal ash management are
adequate and improving (DER, 1993). Therefore, local state regulations will probably
dominate management of ash as nonhazardous industrial waste, adopting the
federal regulations (Subtitle D of RCRA) as minimum requirements.

Whether the disposal facilities (ponds or landfills) are lined or unlined, a major
concern is to verify and confirm that the generated leachate, if any, does not have
statistically significant impact on the downgradient groundwater. Unless it is
certain that the subsoil is quite impermeable, the groundwater downgradient of the
ash disposal facilities is regularly monitored for indicator parameters or site-specific
constituents of concern.

4.2.4 Current Ash Disposal Practices in the United States

The current ash disposal practices in the United States are designed to satisfy the
RCRA Subtitle D requirements for reasons discussed in the previous subsection.
RCRA Subtitle D generally requires that the waste be "contained" in such a way as to
prevent migration of waste to air, soil, and groundwater to the degree that it may be
harmful to human health and the environment. Each state has its own
requirements for particulate emission standards which would mandate dust control
and covering the waste during operation and closure of the ash disposal facilities
(ponds or landfills).

Subtitle D requirements generally translate into a site-specific groundwater

monitoring program, a bottom liner, and a cap cover system over the waste once the
pond or landfill is filled to capacity. The liner, when required, has to be compatible
with the waste and chemically resistant for long-term performance. During one
investigation, 14 types of liners were studied for compatibility with ash. The
investigation results indicated that, compared to the other 13 liners, the high­
density polyethylene (HDPE) liner showed the least amount of change after long­
term exposure to coal-fire wastes (EPRI, 1989). Long-term exposure tests have been
developed for selecting compatible liners for coal-fired ash disposal facilities (EPRI,
1987a).

Depending on the local geohydrology, a synthetic liner at the bottom of the pond or
landfill may be omitted if it can be demonstrated by design and/or monitoring that
the objectives of Subtitle D can be achieved without a liner. The groundwater
monitoring system may consist of three downgradient wells and one upgradient

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-15

94-1685c.0021WO/shlRl
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

well, although number and configuration of wells are heavily dependent on the site
geohydrology.
Once the pond or landfill is filled to capacity, the facility is closed under the
minimum requirement of Subtitle D. The cap cover system generally consists of
several feet of soil with or without liner and a drainage system depending on the
climatologic conditions at the site as negotiated with the local state environmental
agencies. The cover usually consists of grass; however, asphalt or concrete may be
designed for parts or all of the cover provided the objectives of Subtitle D are
satisfied. The cover material may be designed to suit the facility owner's real estate
needs, such as parking, storage, landscape, or recreation. However, reclamation of
the closed facility may be dictated by other factors, such as the value of real estate in
the area, environmental demands imposed by the local community, and future
land-use plans.

4.3 MODERN LAND RECLAMATION PRACTICES

Modem reclamation practices consist of containing the ash and developing the
cover surface for commercial/industrial use, recreation, or wildlife habitat.
Landfills are converted to golf courses, artificial ski centers, sport centers, parks, and
recreational areas. Some disposal sites are revegetated to restore back to natural
states for wildlife support and game resorts. The disposal facilities are also
successfully converted to parking lots, shopping centers, manufacturing facilities,
and other commerciai developments where land is at a premium. One of the most
frequently desired and least expensive methods of reclaiming ash disposal sites is re­
vegetation, although some of the surface area may be paved for commercial/
industrial use.

4.3.1 Revegetation
Containment of ash, as described in Section 4.2, has precedence over any
reclamation requirements. However, reclamation activities can be performed
together with the containment activities to satisfy environmental concerns and land
use planning requirements. Combining the containment and reclamation needs
could be an attractive cost-cutting option. An ash landfill reclamation program in
the state of Arkansas is cited below (Snow, 1993) as an example of combining
reclamation and containment activities to realize cost savings.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-16

94-1685c.002/WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

AP&L Reclamation
As a result of an environmental impact study conducted for the White Bluff power
plants in the state of Arkansas, the utility company, Arkansas Power and Light
Company (AP&L), was committed to reclaim its coal ash disposal site in Arkansas
and restore the original vegetation. The state permit requirements for the White
Bluff reclamation consisted of a daily soil cover over the ash as it was disposed of in
the landfill, and a final soil cover to support vegetation; the required thickness of
the final soil cover was 30 inches. The state had estimated that the cost of this cover
system in 1982 dollar values would be approximately $7,000 per acre ($17,000 per
hectare).
As a cost-cutting measure, AP&L conducted an ash reclamation research program
which successfully demonstrated that test plots with 6-inch and 12-inch soil covers
had the best vegetation growth. As a result, the state issued a variance to the
original permit requirements, granting a reduction in thickness of the final soil
cover from the originally specified 30 inches to a revised thickness of 12 inches.
This variance was estimated to drop the cost (in 1982 dollars) from $7,000 per acre
down to $4,000 per acre ($10, 000 per hectare). This was a cost saving of more than
0.5 million dollars over the life of the ash disposal landfill site which occupied an
area of approximately 110 acres (45 hectares). The ash landfill was successfully
restored to support a luxuriant growth of perennial native Arkansas switch grass,
providing cover for the landfill and food for the wildlife (Snow, 1993).

The AP&L ash reclamation research program was the most extensive program ever
performed in the United to evaluate plant adaptability to ash reclamation sites. The
program was initiated in early 1982 by starting a greenhouse testing setup and using
potential reclamation plant materials. The program was conducted jointly by AP&L
and the Soil Conservation Service Plant Material Center of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture at Coffeyville, Mississippi. Prior to this program, the Central Electric
Generating Board (CEGB) of the United Kingdom had developed feasible and
economic methods for reclamation of coal ash wastes. The CEGB had successfully
minimized the amount of soil needed for reclamation, and identified plant species
that could grow in coal ash/soil matrix. For economic considerations and
expediency, the AP&L research program adopted most of the CEGB reclamation
methods applied previously.
The AP&L program involved screening over 100 plants to study the growth
potential in ash and soil/ash mixtures. The study revealed many species potentially
adaptable for reclamation of the White Bluff landfill site. Thirty-two types of
grass/legumes and 17 species of trees/shrubs were planted in replicates; these were
planted in five test plots occupying a 1-acre parcel of land at the White Bluff site.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-17

94-1685c.O02/WO/shlRi
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

The test plots were set up to field test the adapted materials for site reclamation,
evaluate effect of fertilizers on the selected species, and determine minimum soil
coverage required for ash reclamation.

The test plots were set up measuring 60 feet by 100 feet on plan dimensions (18 by 30
meters). Each plot was subdivided into 40 subplots and used for various selected
plants. One of the test plots was used as a control plot where no soil was added to
the ash, planting directly in the ash. In the other four test plots, the ash was disked
to break the cementitious surface before it was blended with acidic clay soils. The
thickness of blended soil (soil cover) in each test plot was different: 12 inches of soil
cover in one plot, 6 inches in the second plot, 3 inches in the third plot, and only 1
inch in the fourth plot. Each plot was fertilized using 50 pounds of fertilizer (10-20­
10 brand) per plot. Eleven grass/legume species were identified having the best
growth. Only one of the tree species (Black Locust or Robinia pseudoacacia) proved
successful in long-term survival and adaptability to ash.

As a result of the above studies, AP&L was successful in disposing of the

unmarketable coal ash in a landfill, restoring the native vegetation, and
transforming the site to a prairie recreation area covered with luxuriant grass and
wildflowers. The protected prairie habitat now supports a variety of game and non­
game animals. More than 1,600,000 tons (1,455,000 metric tons) of ash has been
landfilled on site so far. However, thanks to agg,'essive marketing, approximately 70
percent of the AP&L coal ash is sold for off-site recycling; this is much higher than
the national average of 30 percent (Table 3-1). Thus, AP&L has "turned a $300,000
annual coal ash disposal expense into a $400,000 annual profit" (Snow, 1993).

Plant Growth in Ash

Plant growth in ash is limited by five major factors: cementing properties of fly ash,
salinity, pH value, deficiency of macro nutrients, and presence of excessive trace
elements. Gas exchange and rooting depths are severely limited by fly ash
cementation. Presence of soluble salts (sodium and calcium) in the ash restrict the
plant water uptake, resulting in nutrient deficiencies. The pH of fresh coal ash is
usually greater than 12 which is outside the ideal soil pH range of 6 to 7. Although
coal ash is generally well supplied with phosphorous and potassium (two major
macro nutrients), they are not present in chemical forms easily available for the
plant. Another major macro nutrient, nitrogen, is totally lacking in ash. Finally,
trace elements in the ash are sources of concern. For example, boron is a plant
nutrient if it is present in very small amounts. However, excessive amounts of
boron found in coal ash could be the most severely limiting factor for plant growth
in ash reclamation sites.

RENEL - Ash Hand!ing 4-18

94-1685c.O02/WO/shlR1 /
-7d
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

To have long-term success, a reclamation program has to be developed for

climatologic conditions of each region. A successful reclamation program would
include selecting the right plant species, designing correct soil/ash mixture,
application of proper fertilizers, developing well-engineered landscaping, and
planning an economic irrigation scheme.

4.3.2 Engineering Considerations

Restoration of most ash disposal sites in the United States involves closure of ponds
or landfill sites, both of which contain substantial amount of ash below grade. As
discussed earlier, ash piles are not common in the United States. Engineering
considerations for most of these sites consist mainly of designing a cap for
containment/reclamation, developing erosion control measures mainly though
proper grading, designing surface and subsurface drainage systems, selecting proper
dust control measures, and providing slope protection plans. These and other
engineering considerations are discussed in the following subsections.

Cap Design
Clayey soils are generally selected for cap design to prevent excessive infiltration of
irrigation water or precipitation through the cap. The pH value and the type of top
soil are also dictated by the vegetation cover selected for the cap. A geomembrane
liner is sometimes used in combination with the clay soil to further reduce
permeability of the cap. Any excess run-off or excess infiltration is generally
collected by a surface or subsurface drainage system which may include a synthetic
geodrain or a layer of drainage material.
The cap grading is generally limited to 2 or 3 percent to control erosion caused by
surface run-off. On steeper side slopes, light weigh synthetic mats (such as Enkamat)
are sometimes used to protect erosion and promote heavy plant growth. Enkamat
(one of many brand names) is a flexible lightweight geomatrix of nylon mono
filaments fused together such that approximately 90 percent of the geomatrix is open
space. The mat is available in thickness ranges of 0.4 to 0.75 inches (1 to 2 cm). The
synthetic mat provides considerable open space for anchorage of the root system on
the slopes. Once the root system holds, the vegetation takes over and provides a
natural erosion control. The mat is then hidden underneath this thick vegetation
while still retarding the water flow and reducing erosion (AEC, 1993).

Other erosion control blankets are available in the market, such as Hi-Velocity
Curlex Blankets. If vegetation is not desirable on sloped areas, flexible concrete
revetment blocks could be used for erosion protection; one brand name for such

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-19

94-1685c.002WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

revetments is Tri-lock (AEC, 1993). Ash could be used in constructing these

revetment blocks to save costs and promote industrial use for the ash. As another
measure of control against erosion by rain or wind, the slopes may be spray coated
with special compounds. Such compounds are discussed under the dust control
measures in the next subsection.

Dust Control
Johnson March Systems Inc. is marketing a dust control product (Compound SP)
for protection of stockpiles of cinders, fly ash, and other similar dusty fine materials
stored outdoors. Compound SP is a blend of synthetic, organic, long chain of
polymers in a water base. The SP compound, when sprayed on the pile surface,
binds the top most particles to one another and develops a surface crust. The
compound acts as a surface binder forming an interlocking polymer chain to create a
flexible surface crust. The crust is tough, durable, and resistant to the wind or rain
action. Because the moisture can still penetrate the surface crust, heavy run-off is
avoided and erosion is forestalled. Thus, the crust controls gutting of the pile
surface due to heavy winds and rainstorms (JMS, 1989).

The surface crust achieves a high degree of elasticity, providing a long life
expectancy for the crust. A single application of compound SP 301 to the pile surface
will provide protection for a period of 6 months to a year. Another product (SP 400)
provides effective protection for a period of up to 4 years. The life expectancy of the
crust depends, to a large extent on the climatic conditions as long as the crust surface
is not disturbed by animals, equipment, or people. If the surface is disturbed, the
localized area is re-sprayed to patch up the surface crust. Thus, the slope surface can
be re-sprayed locally and periodically. As an alternative for re-spraying, the surface
crust can also be seeded for vegetation. Germination of seeds in the crust is'possible
since the crust is porous, allowing rainfall penetration and air flow through the
crust (JMS, 1989).
The normal application rate for Compound SP is 1 gallon per 100 square feet (0.4
liters per square meter) of surface area, costing approximately 9 cents per square foot
($1 per square meter). The compound is applied undiluted as it is received from the
supplier. It may be applied with any type of spraying equipment. To avoid wash off
and rain dilution, there should be no rainfall on the sprayed surface within 24 hours
of application (JMS, 1989).
Compound SP was first used successfully in 1982 at a refractory site in California.
Laboratory analyses performed by the product users indicated that the organic
surface binder had no adverse environmental impact. The residue and ash content

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-20

94-1685c.O02/WO/shlR1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

analyses have confirmed that the organic binder produces a non-toxic ashless
combustion residue (Zanko, 1984).
Another compound marketed by Johnson March Systems, Inc. is a dust suppressant
(Compound M-R) which dampens and agglomerates the dust particles, making
them too heavy to be airborne. The treated material can be handled for storage or
reclamation almost dust free. The compound uses less than 1 percent moisture
with a normal application rate of one part M-R to 1,000 parts water. Compound M-
R, when mixed with water, lowers the surface tension of water from 75 dynes/cm to
below 25 dynes/cm. This drop in surface tension provides tremendous wetting and
penetrating power to the mix. The dust suppression effect of Compound M-R, if
properly applied, is carried over through handling, storage, and reclamation (JMS,
1989).
Although Compound M-R acts as a dust suppressant, it does not provide protection
against rain or wind erosion since it does not provide a crust similar to what is
provided by Compound SP described earlier. Therefore, application strategy for the
two types of compounds are different. While SP is applied on the surface of a
stockpile, Compound M-R is applied on the material as it is being handled prior to
stockpiling.
The current market price for Compound M-R is approximately $6 per gallon ($1.60
per liter), depending on the size of purchase order. At this price, the material cost
would be approximately $1 per 150 tons of treated ash, using 0.5 percent moisture
content by weight of dry ash and a normal mix proportion (one part M-R to 1,000
parts water). This cost does not include shipment of material to the site or minimal
cost of spraying.
Many dust suppressant materials are available in the market to efficiently control
the dust without using excessive water. While water can be used as a dust
suppressant, it has several disadvantages, such as requiring frequent re-allocation,
acting as a vehicle for transport of possible contaminants, and contributing to
production of leachate. Under some circumstances, using dust suppressant products
may be more cost effective than using water if the long-term expenditures and
liabilities are factored in the cost/benefit analysis.

Other Considerations
Other engineering and design considerations for site restoration may include slope
stability problems, liquefaction potential due to earthquakes, and additional
containment features such as installation of slurry walls or subsurface groutirig.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-21

94- 1685c.002/W0/sh/R 1

_7C3
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Postconstruction slope failures (after restoration is complete) could be of main

concern for ash piles as they are constructed above grade. Concerns over such slope
failures are much less pronounced if the ash is buried underground in a dosed pond
or a landfill. However, postconstruction slope failures are considered for landfills or
ponds, especially if they are constructed partially above ground; for example, where
a dam is placed at one side of a valley to provide enclosure for the pond or where a
berm is constructed on the side of a hill to create a landfill.

If the disposal facility is restored for commercial/industrial developments,

settlement of the ash under anticipated future loading is evaluated and incorporated
in the design. In active seismic areas, damages due to liquefaction of the ash have to
be evaluated also.
In addition to capping, other containment measures may be required if the disposal
facility is suspected to be a potential source of contamination. A likely source of
contamination could be an unlined ash disposal site constructed close to the
groundwater table or close to a body of water. These containment measures may
include slurry walls or partial subsurface grouting to cut off the contamination
source or reduce rates of contaminant migration. However, such containment
measures are the exception rather than the rule at the U.S. ash disposal facilities.

4.4 CONCLUSIONS AWD RECOMMENDATIONS

Ash generated by the coal-fired power plants in Romania is mostly stockpiled
outdoors for ultimate disposal. A detailed inventory of the existing ash disposal
facilities is not available at this time. However, it is estimated that the total area of
the existing ash disposal sites for the entire country (20 coal-fired power plants) may
be on the order of 6,000 acres (2,400 hectares). Most of these past disposal sites have
not been successfully reclaimed for land re-utilization. The surrounding land
owners are now unwilling to sell land for ash disposal, and the power plant
industry is facing a shortage of land for future ash disposal. In some areas of the
country, the land shortage is threatening the continued operation of the power
plants. This problem will continue unless drastic modifications are made to the
current ash management practices within the next few years.

The current rate of ash generated by Romanian coal-fired power plants is

approximately 15 million metric tons per year. Ash generated at this rate would
take up nearly 150 acres (60 hectares) of land per year using current disposal
practices. Because of land shortage, such a rate of land consumption cannot be
tolerated unless the land is reclaimed at similar rates for successful reuse and/or the

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-22

94-1685c.002/W0/sh/R1

6
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

ash management practices are significantly improved to reduce the future land
needs for ash disposal.
This section presents general and conceptual plans recommended to improve the
current ash management practices of coal-fired power plants in Romania. These
conclusions and recommendations are based on limited data and, therefore, cannot
be used as detailed design. Although detailed cost analysis is not within the scope of
this report, cost values are provided in some cases for comparison and discussion
purposes only. Obviously, material and labor costs vary significantly depending on
many factors including geographic location, design details, project size, market
conditions, and contractual details.
The past ash management practices generally favor minimum capital expenditure
even if the long-term costs a,e high or unknown; this tendency is specially
pronounced in cash-starving economies. However, initial capital investment is
unavoidable if the current ash management practices are to be modernized in order
to realize considerable long-term cost savings. In developing our recommendations,
we have tried to avoid capital intensive options and considered only the practical
options appropriate for Romania. Minimum modifications are recommended for
the past ash disposal sites to avoid excessive capital expenditure. However,
significant changes are recommended for future ash disposal practices to alleviate the
majority of ash management problems currently facing the coal-fired power plants in
Romania. The proposed plans for the past disposal sites are discussed in Subsection
4.4.1. Recommendations for future ash disposal practices are presented in Subsection
4.4.2. The last subsection (4.4.3) provides a list of follow-on studies and steps required
to implement the recommended improvements.

4.4.1 Past Disposal Sites

The past disposal sites consist mainly of ash piles approximately 100 feet high with
side slopes roughly at 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). It is recommended to revegetate
the entire surface of these piles as a measure to control dust and minimize erosion.
Use of special mats (such as Enkamats) may be required on some steep slopes to
anchor the initial root systems. Several inches of clayey soil cover will be required
to blend in with the surface ash to minimize excessive loss of irrigation water. Ash
is very permeable and direct irrigation on ash is not only wasteful because of
excessive water loss, but it could also contribute to leachate production and transport
of soluble chemicals to the groundwater.

If properly applied, farming the ash piles as a method of land reclamation could be
more economical than revegetation. To have long-term success, a reclamation

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-23

94-1685c.002/WO/shlRi
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

program has to be developed for climatologic conditions of each region. In addition,

the program should also adopt the right plant species, use correct blend of soil/ash
mixture, select proper fertilizers, and develop well-engineered landscapes with
economic irrigation schemes. Also, in Romania, farming the ash piles should be
encouraged by conducting special public relations (PR) programs and promoting
community awareness. The farmers' concerns over the potential carcinogenic effects
of radioactive materials in the ash deposits should be corrected by presenting data to
the community through public meetings and special educational documentaries, and
by investing in PR efforts through the public telecommunication systems (direct
telephone, radio, and television). Public education and participation are crucial in
promoting farming and agriculture on the ash piles.
Some of the ash piles can be reclaimed by the utility companies as pilot projects,
restoring the land to recreational parks or wildlife habitats as discussed in the earlier
Section 4.3. Such reclamation projects may be more costly than farming, but the
investment would pay off by gaining the public confidence and encouraging
farming. These pilot project sites could also be used as test plots to select the most
feasible reclamation methods for the particular local geographic conditions.
The height of the ash piles can be increased, the slopes can be cut back by using
special engineering materials, and some of the ash could be relocated to provide
more open space. However, such measures could be very costly and the cost may
not be justified unless the land is exceptionally expensive. Therefore, such drastic
measures are not recommended for the past ash piles. However, such measures
could be further explored for exceptional site conditions.

4.4.2 Future Disposal Practices

Landfillsand Impoundments
The use of landfills and impoundments, rather than ash piles, is recommended for
future ash disposal. This would be a major deviation from the current practice of
disposing of ash almost exclusively at ash pile disposal sites. While most of the ash
is kept above ground at ash pile disposal sites, ash is cointained and buried mainly
below ground in impoundments and landfill sites. There are s.veral advantages
and long-term benefits to disposal by containment (landfills or impoundments).
Construction of a landfill or an impoundment requires a relatively high initial
capital expenditure for excavation and soil stockpiling. However, cons Tuction of
ash pile disposal facilities is not substantially cheaper, considerini, the cost of labor
and material required to complete the perimeter berms which are constructed in
stages. Furthermore, excavation could be minimized in most sites by taking

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-24

94-1 685c.002/W0/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

advantage of the natural topography. For example, some containment sites are
constructed by berming up the side of a hill or placing a dike at lower point of a
valley.
The soil excavated for construction of a landfill or an impoundment could be used
for on-site construction or landscaping, sold or given away for free haul-off, easily
seeded for reclamation, and/or used for closure of the ash disposal facility (landfill
or impoundment) when the storage capacity is depleted. While some surplus
stockpile of soil may remain above grade at a landfill or impoundment site, huge
piles of ash remain above grade at an ash pile disposal site. Reclamation, removal
or reuse of surplus soil stockpiles would be considerably easier and less expensive
than maintenance or reclamation of a huge pile of ash. None of the above options
for soil stockpiles can be easily implemented for ash piles which could be a constant
source of pollution requiring costly remedies and taking up a large tract of land with
little or no use.

ReclaimingAsh Piles
Reclamation of an ash pile is considerably more expensive than reclamation of a
landfill or an impoundments since considerable slope areas are involved with the
ash piles. Once reclamation is completed, the reclaimed ash pile has several
disadvantages over the reclaimed landfill or impoundment. The elevation at the
top of the pile is considerably higher than the adjacent farm lands, requiring
additional cost of pumping for irrigation water. Farming on a hill side is more
difficult than on the flat farm lands. Furthermore, the major elevation difference is
a psychological barrier to the farmers who are not willing to swap their flat farm
lands and move on to cultivate on top of anomalous hills in the landscape which
are created by the ash piles. On the other hand, reclaimed landfills and
impoundments are generally flat and blend in well with the natural topography
without creating anomalous hills.

Sluicingthe Ash
Sluicing the ash (slurry) to the impoundments and landfills requires considerably
less energy and costs much less than pumping the slurry uphill to top of the ash
piles. Pumping gets progressively more difficult as the ash piles build up and the
disposal facility reaches near capacity. No such progressive pumping load is
developed as the impoundments or landfills approach their capacities. Therefore,
cost of pumping and maintenance is considerably higher for the ash piles. The ratio
of water to ash has to be higher and the slurry has to be more fluid at the ash pile
disposal sites to facilitate more strenuous pumping demands. Higher water ratios

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-25

94-1685c.O02/WO/sh/R1

q41
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

increase pumping costs, result in additional wasteful water loss, and create extra
leachate for potential transport of more contaminants.

It is more feasible to recycle sluice water from an impoundment than from an ash
pile facility because water is contained better in a pond. Landfills have the
additional advantage that the ash can be transported dry and compacted. During the
placement of the ash in the landfill, the moisture on the dry ash can be adjusted to
achieve higher compaction and reduce storage space requirements. One ton of
loosely dumped coal ash requires approximately 1.25 cubic yards (0.95 cubic meters)
of storage space. The same ash, properly compacted at its optimum moisture
content, requires only about 0.8 cubic yards (0.60 cubic meters) of space (Loftus, 1976).
This is a saving of approximately 35 percent in the required storage space, a
tremendous benefit over a long-term operation.

Dry Handling at DisposalFacilities

Dry handling of ash at the disposal facilities eliminates the cost of water
consumption, recycling, and leachate control. This is a significant cost saving
although some capital investment will be necessary for dust control measures, such
as spraying dust suppressants. Another advantage of the dry handling system is that
the dry ash disposal operations can be easily adjusted to match the ash market
fluctuations. As discussed in Subsection 4.2.1, the trend in U.S. ash management
practices has been increasingly towards the dry system as the power plants were
modernized. Obviously, dry ash landfill operation cannot be an optimal economic
option for every power plant. Therefore, it is recommended to assess individual
cases for each power plant to select an appropriate disposal option. Wherever
possible, it is recommended to convert the future operations from ash piles to
impoundments or landfills, using wet or preferably dry collection systems. The ash
handling system within the power plant facility has to be coordinated with the
operation at the selected disposal facility.

Transportation/Disposal
Dry transportation of ash and disposal at an independent off-site landfill may be an
economically attractive option when land acquisition immediately close to the
power plant is not feasible. Long-term independent transporters may be used for
hauling ash in dumper trucks or pneumatic pressurized tankers. Similar
independent transport companies in the United States (TA, 1993) haul ash for utility
companies at rates of about 10 to 50 cents per ton per loaded mile, depending on the
location, distance, and volume.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-26

94-1 685c.O02AWO/sh/R 1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Another significant improvement for ash disposal problems can be realized by using
the dedicated trucks delivering coal to the power plants. Rather than leaving the
plants empty, these trucks could be used to haul off ash to the coal mines and use
ash for land restoration. This can be accomplished only if the coal mines are strictly
required to reclaim the mined areas. The enforcement of reclamation at the coal
mines may be encouraged by promoting public awareness, impacting local policies,
preparing stricter specifications for mining, and aggressive marketing.

Commercial/Industrial Use
It is also recommended to invest on aggressive marketing effort to promote
commercial/industrial use for the dry ash. As described earlier, the U.S. national
average for industrial use of ash is approximately 30 percent of the coal ash
generated by the power plants (Table 4-1). Through aggressive marketing, a U.S.
utility company was successful in selling approximately 70 percent of its generated
coal ash for industrial use, as discussed earlier in Section 4.1.

The available information indicates that the national average for industrial use of
ash in Romania is less than 1 percent of the generated coal ash by the country's
power plants. This is extremely low and does not compare with either 30 percent or
70 percent values cited above. It is clear that investment in aggressive marketing is
needed to promote industrial use of ash in Romania. The impact of establishing a
larger market for industrial use of ash could be major savings in disposal cost of ash,
significant reduction in storage space requirements, and major decrease in land
needs for future ash disposal.
In the United States, independent companies such as Trans Ash (TA, 1993) bid to
haul off fly ash from the utility sites. The price of fly ash in the eastern United
States is currently about $5 per ton for class F ash (non cementitious) and $10 per ton
for Class C (cementitious). The cost varies with the market fluctuations and
sometimes utilities take bids for free haul. These independent companies help
develop markets for the ash, buy it from the utilities, transport the ash, and sell it to
the end users. Also, as a trade association, the ACAA promotes markets for
industrial and commercial use of coal ash. The ACAA has international members
and represents many entities, including utility and coal companies (ACAA, 1991).

RENEL could promote market for coal ash use in Romania by seeking membership
with trade associations such as ACAA and by assisting or encouraging independent
contractors to engage in ash marketing. Companies, such as Trans Ash (TA, 1993),
may be solicited to initiate an ash transport and marketing network in the country.
A list of potential markets for industrial use of ash was provided in Section 4.1.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-27

94•1685c.002[WO/shlR1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

This list should be aggressively explored in Romania, updated, and regularly

adjusted for suitable market in the country.

4.4.3 Further Studies

A detailed inventory of the existing ash disposal facilities would be necessary to
assess the required extent of land restoration and plant modification. The inventory
should be prepared using aerial photos and/or topographic maps to indicate land
features immediately surrounding each facility site. The geology and geohydrology
of each site has to be determined to evaluate excavation conditions, permeabilities
of the subsurface soils, and groundwater conditions including groundwater flow
direction, flow rates, and water table fluctuation ranges. Sites with shallow
groundwater tables should collect sufficient chemical data on the groundwater
samples to assess potential contamination and establish basis f6r future
groundwater monitoring. Samples from ash pile leachate should be analyzed to
determine soluble chemicals of concern, if any. Specific information on production
rates and ash properties will be required from each power plant. Based on these
data, a site assessment report (SAR) has to be developed for each power plant
requiring modernization.
The SAR should also include sufficient information on the regional geography,
climatic conditions, agriculture, ecology, and pertinent environmental conditions.
Based on the SAR, engineering plans can be developed for modification of each
power plant to implement recommended improvements to the ash management
practices. An initial cost estimate could then be developed for the engineering plans
and presented for approval of the RENEL authorities. Based on comments from the
RENEL authorities, the engineering plans would have to be finalized. A set of
construction specifications and drawings could then be developed to accompany the
bid documents for selecting contractors and vendors to execute the project.

The follow-on studies and steps required to implement the recommended

modifications are briefly listed below:
1) Prepare an SAR for each power plant which requires modernization
2) Conduct soil exploration and install monitoring wells if necessary
3) Identify specific modifications for each plant based on SAR and specifics
of the plant operation
4) Develop engineering plans
5) Develop initial cost estimate for the engineering plans
6) Present the engineering plans and cost estimate for RENEL approval

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-28

94-1685c.O02/WO/sh/R1
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

7) Finalize the engineering plans based on comments from RENEL

8) Develop specifications and construction drawings
9) Develop bid documents and select contractors/vendors
10) Implement the final engineering plans

Activities preceding the actual implementation of plans (Items 1 through 9 above)

may take 1 or 2 years, depending on the extent of modifications required for any
particular site. Additional time would be required for actual implementation of
work which could take from 6 months to 24 months to complete, depending on the
extent of modifications planned. Therefore, it may be several years before
implementation of work is completed at some of the power plants.

As discussed earlier in this report, some power plants have less than 5 years to
continue operation before the available land for ash disposal is depleted.
Implementation of the approved plan has to be completed within this critical period
of 5 years if the power plan operation is to continue without interruption.
Therefore, any site assessment and engineering planning should be initiated
expeditiously considering the estimated schedule of activities provided above. Also,
the power plants should be prioritized on the basis of their needs for modernization.
This prioritization would help allocate appropriate schedule time and budget for
reclamation of the existing disposal facilities and modernization of ash
management practices at each plant.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-29

94-1685c.002/WO/sh/Ri
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

4.5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Coal Ash Association, Inc. (ACAA, 1991), "1991 Coal Combustion By­
product Production and Consumption," Washington, DC 20006.

American Coal Ash Association, Inc. (ACAA, 1993), "American Coal Ash
Publication List," Washington, DC 20006, April 1993.

American Excelsior Company (AEC, 1993), Manufacturing Data on Erosion Control

Materials, Arlington, Texas, 76005-5067, 1993.
Daily Environmental Report (DER, 1993), "Regulations, Economics and Law," The
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Washington, DC 20037, August 4, 1993.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1992), "Comanagement of Coal Combustion
By-products and Low-volume wastes, A Midwestern Site," EPRI TR-100955,
Interim Report, August 1992.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1992a), "The Ability of Subsoils to Attenuate
Metals in Coal Pile Leachate," EPRI TR- 101086, Final Report, September 1992.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1991), "Comanagement of Coal Combustion
By-products and Low-volume Wastes: A Southeastern Site," EPRI EN-7545,
Project 2485-9, Final Report, November 1991.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1990), "Environmental Research Conference
on Groundwater Quality and Waste Disposal," EPRI EN-6749, Project 2485,
Proceedings, March 1990.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1990a), "Synthetic Lightweight Aggregate
from Cool Water slag: Bench-Scale Confirmation Tests," GS-6833, PR1654-38,
Final Report, May 1990.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1989), "Liner Waste Compatibility Studies
for Coal-fired Power Plants," GS-6381, RP 1457-01, Interim Report, May 1989.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1989a), "Ash Utilization in Highways:

Pennsylvania Demonstration Project," GS-6431, PR2422-19, Interim Report, June
1989.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-30

94-1685c.002/WO/dllR2 A l
 Section 4 Ash Disposal and Soil Reclamation

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1989b), "Use of Ash in Highway

Construction: Delaware Demonstration Project," GS-6540, PR2422-04, Final
Report, November 1989.
ElectricPower Research Institute (EPRI, 1989c), "Use of Ash in Highway
Construction: Delaware Demonstration Project," GS-6481, PR2422-03, Interim
Report, August 1989.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1989), "Ash-in-Concrete Model
Development," GS-6129, PR2422-16, Final Report, January 1989.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1988), "Laboratory Testing of Fly Ash Slurry,"

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1987), "Water Management in Ash

Handling Systems," EPRI CS-5369, Project TPS 80-740, Final Report, August 1987.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1987a), "Liner Waste Compatibility Studies
for Coal-Fired Power Plants," CS-5426, PR1457-01, Interim Report, September 987.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1987b), "Proceedings: Eighth International
Ash Utilization Symposium," Volumes 1 and 2, American Coal Ash
Association, CS-5362, PR2422, Proceedings, October 1987.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, 1981), "Coal Ash Disposal Manual," Second
Edition, EPRI CS-2049, Research Project 1685-3, Final Report, October 1981.
Federal Register (58 FR, 1993), "Final Regulatory Determination on Four Large-
Volume Wastes From the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants,"
Volume 58, No 151, August 9, 1993.
Johnson March Systems Inc. (JMS, 1989), Manufacturing Data on Dust Suppressant
Materials, Ivyland, PA 18974, 1989.
Loftus, W. E. of Sargent & Lundy of Chicago, "Ash Handling, Storage, and
Utilization," Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Volume 38, 1976.

Trans-Ash Commercial (TA, 1993), Power Magazine, July 1993.

Snow, Barry L. of Arkansas Power & Light Co., "Reclamation Program Cuts Coal
Ash Disposal Costs," Power EngineeringMagazine,January 1993.
Zanko, Mark of Kaiser Refractories, "Polymeric Surface Binder Controls Chromium
Ore Dust," Chemical Process, December 1984.

RENEL - Ash Handling 4-31

94-1685C.O02/WO/dIVR2
 Section 5
Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

This section discusses experience and practices with ash handling in coal-fired
power plants in the United States and in other western countries. The evolution of
systems and practices for ash collection and handling. Also discussed are the
characteristics and operation of modern methods.

5.1 ASH COLLECTION

Coal furnished as fuel to power plants contains varying proportions of
incombustible materials. Some of these materials are intimately dispersed in the
carbon matrix, others are mixed in during mining operations and are shipped to the
power plants. These materials form a residue in the combustion process. In a
typical pulverized coal burning furnace, ash is generated mainly in the furnace. A
portion of this ash is collected in the furnace bottom. This fraction usually
constitutes approximately 20 percent of the total and is appropriately called "bottom
ash." Some ash is also collected in hoppers below the economizer and air heater
and finally in the precipitator. This ash is referred to as fly ash. Rocks, pyrites, and
other metallic objects are usually segregated from the coal at the pulverizer. These
materials are also added to the ash handling system installation.
In coal-fired power plants, the quantity of ash generated is a function of the type of
coal being used. Some coals have a very low ash content on the order of 2 to
4 percent. Such coals are also characterized by high heating values on the order of 36
to 36.7 MJ/kg H-V (15,500 to 15,750 Btu/lb). Conversely, there are coals, or lignites,
having high ash content and low heating values. Consequently, burning a coal with
high ash content and low heating value generates considerably more ash for a given
amount of heat required. This ash must be collected, transported, and disposed of in
a proper manner.
For example, a 300-MW unit burning a 32 MJ/kg (13,000 Btu/lb) coal with a 7 percent
ash content would produce 15 t/hr of ash. The same unit burning a 20 MJ/kg (8000
Btu/lb) coal with a 7 percent ash content would generate 24 t/hr of ash, or 60 percent
more. Therefore, fuel type is a key factor in the selection and design of the ash
handling system. Fuel type affects mainly those parameters associated with the
sizing of the equipment and the means of transport.

In addition to the quantity of ash, the type of ash also has a bearing on the ash
handling equipment. The type (chemical constituents) can affect the distribution of
the ash within the boiler and its auxiliaries as well as the means of transport. Coals
with low ash fusion temperatures, usually referred to as slagging coals, will deposit a
greater amount of ash in the furnace and subsequently produce a greater amount of
bottom ash. Coals with high calcium and magnesium ash can cause pipe scaling

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-1

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

problems. In addition, they are cementitious and thereby solidify in collection

equipment.

5.2 HISTORY OF ASH COLLECTION PRACTICES IN NORTH AMERICA

At the outset, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the terms "wet" and "dry"
often used in the context of ash handling systems. These terms are used to define
the ultimate disposal methods and do not necessarily refer to the collection system.
For example, bottom ash is often collected in a wet system, but it can be dewatered
and mixed with fly ash and transported dry for ultimate disposal.

In the United States, the ash handling systems are typically designed for intermittent
operation, usually once per shift, allowing time for maintenance between
operations. In other Western countries, particularly where lower grade coals with
high ash content are burned, the systems are designed for continuous removal.

There are three major transport system options for disposal: wet impoundment, dry
impoundment, and off-site ash transport. These options have been site and end-use
dependent. The type of transport utilized is dependent on the disposal option.
Wet impoundment of ash was common in North America until the 1970's when
environmental regulations presented problems to this method of disposal. With
this type of system, the ash is hydraulically sluiced to the wet impoundment.

The numerous variations on this system are listed below:

n. All ash is sluiced to a water impoundment with no water recovery.
" All ash is sluiced and the transport water is recycled.
" Some of the bottom ash and/or the fly ash is collected dry in bins for off­
site disposal, with the remainder of the ash going to a wet impoundment.
• All of the ash is collected dry and transported by truck to a dry
impoundment. The term "dry" is a relative one because there is water in
the ash.
The more common method of disposal since the 1970's has been dry impoundment.
Again, a number of variations occur as follows:
" Dry transport of all ash either by truck or conveyor.
" Hydraulic sluicing of the ash with drain collection and recycling of the
transport water.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-2

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

n Pneumatic conveyance of the ash to the disposal area. Both dense and
dilute-phase systems are economically limited to distances of about 500
meters because of the high transport velocities required for longer
distances. Typically, a velocity of 1800 mr/min. is required for a 500m
long transport.
Off-site disposal, the final option, always uses a c. y transport system with storage
hoppers or bins for temporary ash storage, awaiting transport off site by either truck
or rail.
Figures 5-1 through 5-4* show the statistical distribution of ash handling system uses
as functions of boiler type, boiler size, fuel type and coal type.

5.3 BOTTOM ASH HANDLING

Bottom ash is a slag or deposit that builds up primarily on the surfaces of the
furnace and also on the superheater when located within the furnace. It eventually
falls by its own weight, by load changes, or by sootblowing into the furnace bottom
hopper.
Up until 1980, virtually all bottom ash systems in North America used a water
impounded hopper with hydraulic transportation to disposal. This method was
universally true with utility boilers. Figure 5-5 shows a typical wet bottom ash
hopper. Figure 5-6 is a schematic representation of a water-impounded bottom ash
collection system.

Starting in the 1980's, drag conveyors appeared on the North American continent
but largely in applications involving non-slagging ash. An example of this
application is the fluid bed boilers that became common in the late 1980's.

In the early 1980's, the submerged chain conveyor (SCC) (see Figures 5-7 and 5-8)
began to replace water impounded hoppers and sluicing systems for bottom ash
collection in new and retrofitted installations. However, during that period, there
was also a large decline in the number of pulverized coal-fired boilers constructed,
so the benefits of this change may be yet to be confirmed.

To gain some perspective on the reasons leading up to this change, a look at the
factors immediately preceding this period is helpful. Prior to the Clean Air
legislation of the 1970's in the United States, most of the power generated by coal­
fired plants using Eastern United States coal. Much of these coals have a high sulfur

All figures for this section have been placed at the end of the text.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-3

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

content and tendency for slagging (i.e., have low ash fusion temperatures). These
coals produce a very fluid ash in the furnace that tends to flow into the ash
collection hopper. When the ash does not flow and adheres to the furnace walls
(and this is more the rule than the exception), it has a tendency to break from the
walls and fall in large pieces, called clinkers, into the bottom ash hopper. Many
operators believed that the SCC would not be suitable for handling this type of ash.
Several elements needed to be considered. A large amount of water was required
for quenching. Large pieces of ash occasionally dropped into the hopper. A breaker
for these large pieces was needed.

However, several factors combined to increase the interest in SCCs for bottom ash
removal. These included:
" An increased number of installations in Europe and other Western
countries.
" Longer North American experience time with earlier installations.
" The appearance of the fluid bed boiler on the U.S. power market with its
need for continuous ash removal.
" A change in the U.S. coal usage from Eastern to Western coals because of
the lower sulfur content of the Western coals.
The switch to Western coals forced a retrofit of the ash handling systems. Boilers
designed to burn Eastern coals had to be changed to allow handling the greater
amount of ash, typical for Western coals. Because of space limitations imposed by
the clearance under the boiler, the continuous removal of ash afforded by the SCC
made it a logical choice for retrofit applications. Because of the simultaneous
decline in the construction of large coal-fired boilers in North America, a true test of
the SCC method of ash removal has not occurred in ,heNorth American market.
This is not th,ecase in Europe where submerged scraper chains have been the
standard for years.

The greatest amount of coal burned in North America is classified as Eastern

bituminous coal. Western coals have increased in usage in the last 15 to 20 years,
because of their lower sulfur content. The tonnage burned, however, is still
considerably less than that of the Eastern coals.

5.3.1 Submerged Chain Conveyor

The SCC holds the same market dominance in Germany and other parts of Europe
that the water-impounded sluicing system currently does in North America. This
SCC system is used on most types of firing systems, including pulverized coal fired

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-4

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

dry and wet bottom boilers, crushed brown coal fired boilers, stoker fired boilers,
prepared refuse fuel, and municipal solid waste plants. The style of submerged
conveyor is adapted to suit the ash characteristics. In the North American utility
market, most SCCs employ a water filled upper trough with an exposed lower
return trough.
European equipment has evolved from small power boilers to the current large
utility installations. In North America, the specifications are more stringent for
large boilers. The equipment is designed for higher peak loads and startup with
stored ash. The result is more costly installations than their European counterparts.
Ash capacities of the SCC will depend upon furnace size, the method of firing,
slagging characteristics of the coal, fineness of pulverized coal, washing of coal, etc.
For bituminous coals, 10 to 15 percent of the total ash is typically collected in the
furnace bottom, although in many installations bottom ash exceeds 20 percent.
Figure 5-9 shows the typical ash distribution within a boiler as a function of coal
type. The estimate on lower rank coals is calculated from dust loadings. The peak
ash rates on dry bottom furnaces, resulting from soot blowing or load shedding, can
be three to four times the normal rates. Experience in firing oil shale and high ash
content brown coals with higher specific weight ash show approximately a 30
percent bottom ash collection rate. Figures 5-10a through 5-10c present the
distribution of ash collection rates as a function of coal type and unit size.
Water depths in the upper trough of SCCs are normally 1.0 to 1.5 meters. The drive
size, based on continuous removal, is specified at chain speeds of up to 6 m/min.
SCCs are not normally designed for startup with an ash load. Therefore, the system
must be emptied after a shutdown.
The SCC housing is designed to carry stored ash loads while being moved sideways
from beneath the boiler for maintenance. It should be noted that modern
submerged-chain conveyors do allow maintenance while the boiler is in operation.
The water-impounded hoppers have sliding plates immersed in water troughs to
create a furnace seal for normal operation and for maintenance.

SCC Improvements
Over the years, improvements have been made in the chain, idlers, and the chain
tension stations. Except for units cooled by sea water, the chain has changed from
high-tensile mining chain to carburized alloy chain. This alloy has greater abrasion
resistance. Through shafts and overhung jack-shaft idlers with water seals have

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-5

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

been replaced by mounted overhung idlers. Manually adjusted chain tensioners

have been replaced by spring-loaded tensioners.
Normally, 1.25 cm carbon steel trough liners are installed in the upper and incline
trough sections, and basalt grouted tiles installed in the lower trough. For extremely
abrasive ash (i.e., high silica, slag tap-wet bottom furnaces), basalt or ceramic is also
used on the incline portion of the upper trough. In selecting the liners, the erosion
factors of various ashes are evaluated and ranked in comparison with sand (silica).
SCC scrapers use abrasion-resistant wear surfaces to support the chain system
weight. On SCCs with small incline angles, or with ashes which have a tendency to
retain water, the inclines wear liner is supplied with chevron-shaped de-watering
grooves.
Various styles of cooling-water overflow boxes are used. Small straight-edge weirs,
long serrated-edge weirs, and full parallel plate settlers with serrated-edge weirs are
used for suspended solid reduction in the overflow from the SCC.
A variety of designs for transition chutes are employed for the connection between
the boiler and the SCC. The styles used vary from alloy steel uninsulated metal
chutes, suspended from the boiler, to floor-supported water-cooled metal chutes
with water cooling in the annulus. Some chutes incorporate hydraulically operated
closure flaps to allow on-line maintenance.

$CC Cooling System

The pool of water in the conveyor absorbs the heat from the hot bottom ash fallen
from the furnace. This heat is removed by the SCC cooling system. A typical system
design is shown in Figure 5-7. The water discharge is routed by flumes to a gravity
settler for solids' removal and treatment. From the settlers the water is pumped
through heat exchangers and recirculated to the conveyor. In current SCC designs,
the cooling water overflow discharges through a parallel plate settler to reduce
suspended solids. Treated river water or cooling tower blowdown water may be
used as makeup water source.
Concentration of elements such as Cl (1000 mg/i to 1500 mg/1) and free CO 2 in the
cooling water can cause corrosion, and scale may form due to high levels of CaO.
The pH level can be controlled by the manual addition of caustic, and cathodic
protection can be provided, either by simple anodes properly placed or by impressed
voltage. Generally, the pH level will stabilize in the range of 7.5 to 9.0 without
chemical treatment.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-6

94-1685c.003/WO/wolR3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

At the end of the SCC, the ash is sized by a stationary grate and then crushed to a
suitable size for conveyance. Economizer ash can be sluiced into the SCC but, in
most cases, the economizer ash is kept separate from the SCC system. After sizing,
the ash is conveyed to temporary storage silos in preparation for offsite
transportation or is sluiced to on-site impoundment. The conveying means and the
location of the final disposal will determine the size of the silos and transfer
structures.

Economic Benefits of the SCC

The SCC continuous removal system can provide economic benefits over a water
pool hopper with intermittent sluice. A recent study for a lignite-fired 690 MW
boiler compared the cost of an SCC arrangement, utilizing a 2.5-meter water depth
and 4.5-meter boiler clearance, with a 10.5-meter boiler clearance for a water­
impounded system. The SCC system was found to be less expensive because of the
following elements:

" Lower building height

" Smaller foundations
" Reduced platforming
" Lower erection costs
" Reduced amounts of ash in storage
" Reduced water inventory
" Improved furnace access duriAg shutdown
The water volume of the water-impounded hopper was approximately 475 m3 or
four times the volume in the SCC. The ash storage of the water-impounded hopper
was 14 hours, whereas the SCC has 4 hours of storage. The foundation
requirements were less for the SCC because of reduced water, ash, and hopper
weights. Operator attention during sluicing periods was approximately 2 hours out
of the 8 required to empty the water-impounded hopper, whereas the SCC is
operating continuously and requires only a periodic inspection by the operator.
Figures 5-11a though 5-11c show SCC closed-loop cooling water requirements as
functions of plant size. Figures 5-12a through 5-12c show the operating kilowatts
also as functions of plant size.
Table 5-1 is a list of recently installed SCCs in North America by one manufacturer.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-7

94-1 685c.O03IWO/wolR3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Table 5-1
UST OF SUBMERGED SCRAPER CONVEYOR CONTRACTS

SCC Maximum
No. of Boiler Discharge
Company Units Capacity Capacity (t/h)
Southwestern Public Service Two (2) 520 MW 45
Roy Tolk Station
Electric Geherating Authority of Thailand - Four (4) 150 MW 44
Mah-Moh Station
Alton Packaging Corporation One (1) 350,000 lb/hr 6.6
Alberta Power Company - Battle River No. 4 One (1) 150 MW 21
Container Corporation One (1) 700,000 lb/hr 15
Electricity Supply Commission (South Six (6) 600 MW 125
Africa)
A.E. Staley Mfg. Company, Decatur, IL Three (3) 125,000 lb/hr 5.6
City of Edmonton - Genesee Station Two (2) 400 MW 55
Lower Colorado River Authority One (1) 450 MW 100
Fayette No. 3
Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY One (1) 550,000 lb/hr 4
National Thermal Power Corp. Two (2) 500 MW
Uttar Pradesh India
Israel Electric Two (2) 550 MW 40
China Steel Corporation Three (3) 440,000 lb/hr 5
Franco Tosi for Bophuthatswana One (1) 60 MW 10
Connecticut Resource - Recovery Authority Three (3) 230,000 lb/hr 9
Honolulu Resource - Recovery Authority Two (2) 245,000 lb/hr 9
Electric Generating Authority of Thailand Two (2) 300 MW 32
Mah-Moh Station
CPS of San Antonio - J.K. Spruce Station One (1) 520 MW 45
Old Dominion Elec. Co. - Clover Station Two (2) 400 MW 30
Tex-Mex - CFS Unit Two (2) 80 MW 30

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-8

94-1685c.003/WO/wolR3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

5.3.2 Dry Bottom Ash Conveyor

A new system for handling bottom ash has become available in Europe and recently
in the United States. This new system was installed on several boilers, some as large
as 575 MW. The system uses a dry conveyor cooled by air. By utilizing air instead of
water, the ash is handled completely in the dry state, which offers many advantages
over a wet system.
The system uses a fully enclosed, stainless steel conveyor that continuously
removes bottom ash. The ash is transported to a primary crusher where it is
crushed and collected in a tank. From the tank, it is pneumatically conveyed either
by pressure or vacuum to a collection silo where it can be disposed of either off site
or on site by truck. See Figures 5-13 and 5-14.

Conveyor Housing
The conveyor housing contains air ports, which can be adjusted, that allow air to
enter. The air cools the ash and the conveyor, and exits to the boiler through the
furnace bottom opening. The air amounts to 0.5 to 1.0 percent of the boiler's
combustion air requirement. The combustion air is reduced accordingly. The ash
exits the conveyor at a temperature of approximately 1351C.
Hydraulically operated doors are used to isolate the furnace bottom hopper such that
maintenance can be performed on the conveyor. Typically, 8 hours of storage are
provided in the hopper for the maintenance work to be done.

The belt is a stainless steel mesh covered with stainless steel plates, fastened with
rivets and arranged to form a continuous plate. The mesh is supported on steel
rollers along the forward and return runs and guided around steel drums at each
end (see Figure 5-15). One drum is the drive wheel and the other maintains tension
on the belt. Rollers and drums have exterior supports and bearings, isolated from
the heat within, and can be changed from outside the unit without dismantling the
unit. The belt speed is in the order of 15 to 18 m/min.
Because the ash is not quenched in water, it can continue to burn on the conveyor as
it is being transported, thereby reducing the unburned carbon in the ash and
allowing this heat to return to the boiler. This produces two desirable results, one is
an increase in boiler efficiency and the second, is an ash that is more suitable for use
in cement making. By screening, different size products may be obtained and sold
for various end uses such as cement production. Since the system uses no water,
impoundment is simplified and transport costs are reduced.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-9

94-1685c.003/W0/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience wilh Ash Handling Systems

Plant Efficiency
An increase in plant efficiency is realized because:
" No heat is lost to water in the conveying system.
" No pumping power is used for supplying water to the collection system
" The water does not have to be pumped as part of the transport system
and
" Water does not have to be pumped back in the reclaim system.
The system eliminates settling ponds; therefore, there is no ash contaminated water.
This eliminates problems concerning environmental regulations. Other advantages
are no water treatment chemicals or equipment and elimination of water freezing
problems in cold climates.
In addition, there is no auxiliary cooling water system requiring piping, pumps, or
heat exchangers. This, of course, eliminates corrosion, erosion, and scaling
problems.
Figure 5-16 depicts the amount of unburned carbon in bottom ash for various coals
and for wet and dry collection systems. It is this carbon that accounts for losses in
the furnace and makes the ash unsuitable for cement making purposes. Figure 5-17
compares the sources of various losses between the dry and wet collection systems.

Figure 5-18 shows a typical dry ash conveyor with a mechanical handling system,
while Figure 5-19 shows the same system with a pneumatic handling system. Plant
specific factors and economic considerations govern the implementation of one
system over the other.
Figure 5-20 shows the materials balance for a dry and a wet system for a 4 x 300 MWe
plant. This arrangement was used for an economic study that resulted in the
payback period being as short as 1.7 years.
A study performed for a U.S. utility generating 5 t/h of bottom ash compared a wet
hopper with hydraulic sluicing to a de-watering bin. In addition, trucking to an on­
site impoundment with a dry ash conveyor showed a net saving in operating costs
of U.S. $ 1.1 million for 1 year.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-10

94-1685c.O03IWO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

5.4 PULVERIZER (MILL) REJECTS

5.4.1 Historic Practice

Pulverizer rejects consist of pyrites and tramp iron or other materials too heavy to
be conveyed by the pulverized coal transport air or too large to pass through the mill
classifier. This material is collected in a hopper located at the bottom of the
pulverizer.
In some plants where the amount of rejects is extremely small, the hopper contents
are collected manually and disposed of with the bottom ash. The more common
practice is to collect the material and hydraulically sluice it to some other location in
the ash collection systems.

The practice on many of the older plants was to collect the reject material on a
sequential basis, and hydraulically sluice, using jet pumps, to the bottom ash
hopper. This method was discontinued in favor of providing a jet pump for each
pulverizer hopper. This practice allows emptying more than one hopper at a time,
and discharging into a collection tank.
The discharge of the material directly into the bottom ash hopper was discontinued
when it was found that the mater splashing onto the lower furnace tubes was
causing stress corrosion cracking. With an SCC, it is possible to introduce mill
rejects outside the water seal plates eliminating the problem. This is also true for
the dry bottom ash conveyor.

5.4.2 Current Practice

Today, a system designed for a lignitic or subbituminous coal would have
individual jet pumps for each hopper and hydraulically sluice the material to a
transfer tank for a water impounded bottom ash hopper system. In the case of a
mechanical conveyor bottom ash system, the material would be sluiced to the chain
conveyor at a point outside the furnace bottom ash transition chute (see
Figure 5-21). If the mechanical chain conveyor were not to discharge to a second
removal conveyor, but instead hydraulically sluice the material to disposal, the
reject material could be discharged at this point instead of onto the chain conveyor.

Mill rejects gathered by the dry collection and transport systems are conveyed by
either pneumatic or mechanical means. The amount of material and the distance
transported would dictate the choice.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-11

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/RI
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

5.5 ECONOMIZER ASH

The particle size of economizer ash is somewhere between bottom ash and fly ash.
It is a high-temperature (usually over 370°C) coarse ash and can contain combustible
material. It may have the physical characteristics of hygroscopic fly ash. Economizer
ash is collected in a row of hoppers beneath the boiler economizer section. When
stored in these hoppers and exposed to in-leaking air, the ash may sinter and
agglomerate, making it impossible for it to flow.
In North America, the practice is to remove the economizer ash continuously, in a
method analogous to the continuous removal of bottom ash, so as to cool it and
prevent combustion of any residual unburned carbon. For bituminous coals, water­
filled tanks are used beneath each economizer-hopper outlet. The ash is stored in
these tanks, for intermittent removal by hydraulic eductors, rather than in the
economizer hoppers (see Figure 5-22.)
The wet collection method is not practical with ash from burning lignite or
subbituminous coal that contains a high percentage of calcium. Such ash shows
pozzolanic and cementitious properties when mixed with water, and requires
frequent evacuation from the wet tanks to avoid the possibility of plugging. Some
utilities burning cementitious coals have used dry transfer tanks below the
economizer hoppers achieving the desired continuous removal without tank or
line plugging problems.
The lack of an effective economizer hopper evacuation system can result in
excessive ash loadings in the hopper. High loadings have caused structural failures
of hoppers in North American operations. Economizer hoppers are designed for a
full load of ash, but incidents of failure have occurred when large quantities of ash
were deposited above the top of a full hopper. In these instances, the hopper
support system failed, and the hopper dropped on the air heater below. Hopper
evacuation systems must be designed with sufficient removal capacity so that
overloading does not occur.
During boiler startup, when pulverizer classifiers are not yet set or combustion air
dampers may not be in their optimum positions, ash from the rear-pass can contain
high percentages of carbon. When exposed to temperatures above 340'C to 370'C
and leaking air, the carbon will burn slowly. If the ash is not evacuated from the
hoppers continuously, it becomes so compacted that it cannot flow out of a 200 mm
or even 300 mm diameter opening which is the usual size of that opening.
In some installations, a solution to this problem has been attempted by the addition
of small clinker grinders below the economizer-hopper outlets. A better solution is

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-12

94-1685c.003/W0/wolR1
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

to enlarge the hopper opening to between 400 mm and 450 mm in diameter and put
an ash-receiving tank, dry or wet, depending upon the calcium content of the ash,
below the hoppers to get the ash out of the boiler gas stream as expeditiously as
possible. In a design such as this with receiving tanks below, the hoppers have
essentially zero holdup time and act only as chutes.

5.5.1 Air-Heater Problems from Plugged Economizer Hoppers

When firing high-calcium subbituminous coal, and using water-impounded tanks
to continuously collect the ash from the economizer hoppers, the ash depositing in
the wet tanks can coalesce and the tanks can become full of concrete. Also, the
moisture evaporating from the surface of the water in the tanks can react with the
falling ash and cause plugging of the down-spouts in the economizer hoppers. In
such cases, the ash is carried along with the flue gas stream to the air preheaters and
is deposited on the surfaces, causing blockage of the air-heater gas passages. This
results in an increase in the gas-side draft loss. There are cases where this has
doubled the normal draft loss. Refer to Figure 5-23 for configuration.

Regenerative Air Heater Fouling

The usual mechanism of regenerative air heater fouling is by two means. Acid
condensation on the plates caused by sulfur in the coal and ambient temperature
below the acid dew-point temperature. The acid combining with the ash forms a
solid mass that occludes the spaces between the baskets' plates. The second
mechanism is one in which larger ash particles become lodged between the plates,
accumulate, and then have the smaller particles begin to fill the gaps between the
plates eventually causing complete blockage of a path.
Air-heater blockage is not unusual, particularly when burning high-calcium coals
(above 15 to 20 percent CaO+MgO in the ash). Since the plugging greatly increases
both the total gas draft loss and the air-side pressure drop of the air heater, the boiler
no longer can carry full load. When this fouling becomes severe enough to cause an
excessive pressure drop across the air heater the boiler must be tripped for cleaning.
Clearing of such plugging calls for severe cleaning procedures, generally a high­
pressure water jet wash.

Gas Flow Field and Ash Particles Trajectories

Recently, methods have been developed and utilized on a number of power plants
to define the gas flow field in the hopper region and predict the ash particles'
trajectories. The goal is to capture a greater percentage of particles in the economizer

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-13

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

hoppers. The objective is to minimize the number of larger particles (500 microns
or greater) going to the air heater and causing blockage. On units where this
numerical simulation has been applied and corrective measures applied, the capture
rate of 500 microns and larger particles improved by 10 to 24 percent.

Corrective procedures involve the addition of baffles in the gas stream and plates to
prevent rebounding of particles already in the hopper area. Of course, the capacity of
the economizer ash handling system must be evaluated to determine its adequacy.

5.6 FLY ASH

The fly ash system collects the largest amount of ash and also accounts for the
majority of problems in ash collecting systems.
Electrostatic precipitators, used for the collection of fly ash from steam generators,
are mostly of the dry, horizontal-flow, plate type (Figure 5.24). The flue gas flows
through parallel passages formed by parallel rows of collecting surfaces. Each
passage contains centrally located discharge electrodes, which are energized with
negative-polarity, high-voltage, direct-current electricity. Particles suspended in the
gas are charged electrically and then forced to the collecting electrodes by an electrical
field.
During operation, the fly ash deposited on the collecting surfaces of the precipitator
is periodically shaken loose (by rapping the electrodes) and dropped into the
collection hoppers. The level of ash in each hopper will rise until that hopper is
emptied. If, for any reason, emptying the hopper is delayed until the ash level
approaches the bottom of the discharge electrodes, those electrodes will be
electrically short-circuited to ground through the mass of collected ash.

If the ash and flue gas entering the precipitator are well distributed, all precipitator
hoppers in any row perpendicular to the gas flow will collect the same quantity of
ash per unit time. More fly ash will be collected in the rows of hoppers closer to the
precipitator inlet than in the rows toward the rear of the precipitator. The inlet row
of hoppers can collect from 40 to 100 times as much fly ash as does the rearmost row.

Boilers burning high volatile subbituminous and lignitic coals, with a high
percentage of calcium oxide and magnesium oxide in their ash, produce ash that is
made up of small particles. The small particle size contributes to compaction in the
hoppers, while the high calcium content can lead to the rapid formation of fly ash
concrete in hoppers that are contacted by moisture.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-14

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/RI
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Most pulverized-coal fly ash is hygroscopic. In the hopper outlets, the ash particles
are surrounded by stagnant flue gas. On startup, shutdown, at low boiler loads, or
during the ash-removal process, the local gas temperature in the hoppers can be
below the acid dew-point (120-150'C) or below the water dew-point (approximately
55-60 0 C). Under such conditions, in which acid or water is produced by
condensation, agglomeration and/or cementing of the particles can take place,
resulting in hopper plugging and the inability to remove the collected ash from the
hoppers.

5.6.1 Fly Ash Systems

The conventional practice in North America is to remove fly ash from precipitator
hoppers on an intermittent basis. To reduce the amount of power required for ash
handling, fly ash removal systems are sized to collect ash for long periods between
hopper emptying.
In the West, the types of collection systems most commonly used are:
m Combination vacuum and pressure conveyor
a Hydraulic vacuum conveyor
a Pneumatic vacuum conveyor
n Pneumatic pressure conveyer (dilute and dense-phase)

Combination Vacuum and Pressure Conveyor

A combination vacuum and pressure conveyor system is shown in Figure 5-25.
This arrangement is used where there are a large number of precipitator hoppers
and the fly ash is conveyed to a remote silo. This system offers the economy of the
vacuum fly ash intakes under the hoppers and the pressure system for long distance
transportation.
An important alternative method to the pressure systems, shown in Figure 5-26, is
to pressure convey the fly ash to a local storage pond. The fly ash is moved dry and
water sprays (wetting heads) are injected into the pipeline discharge at the pond for
dust control.
For all of the above systems that include silos, rotary wet unloaders are utilized for
mobile transport of the ash to a fill area. If the dry fly ash is to be sold and
transported off site, then discharge spouts to covered mobile vehicles are used.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-15

94-1685c.003WO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Hydraulic Vacuum Conveyor System

In a hydraulic vacuum conveyor system, the fly ash is vacuum conveyed to a dry fly
ash silo, or alternately, wet sluiced to a fill area as shown on Figure 5-27. Many
recently installed units utilize this type of wet fly ash-handling system because of the
simplicity of operation, and both the bottom ash and fly ash can be discharged to the
impoundment area through common pipelines. This method also has the
advantage of utilizing a common high-pressure sluice water pump for both the
bottom and fly ash conveyor systems.
This hydraulic vacuum arrangement has applications where ash volumes are small
and the water supply is plentiful. However, most new units would not meet
current U.S. EPA effluent regulations with this type of system. In addition, this
system would not be applicable for plants burning the typical low-sulfur U.S.
Western coals with high calcium oxide where plugging problems can occur.
Dry fly ash silos, which sluice to fill areas, can be retrofitted to meet environmental
requirements or to market fly ash. Figure 5-25 shows how these existing
installations can be retrofitted.

Pneumatic Vacuum Conveyor

Figure 5-25 also presents a method of pneumatically conveying fly ash with vacuum
created by mechanical exhausters. At the top of the surge transfer silo, the fly ash is
removed from the air stream by various stages of separating equipment and
dropped into the silo. The last stage of separation, usually a bag filter, collects any
remaining ash, which would tend to wear out the exhausters. The system is simple;
however, it is limited by the vacuum pressure (approximately 458 mm Hg),
temperature (which may preclude its use with a hot precipitator), elevation, and the
proximity (within approximately 250 m) of the ash silos.

Pressure Conveyor (Dilute and Dense-Phase)

For higher ash-handling capacities, or to transport fly ash a longer distance to
storage, a pressure conveyor system, as shown in Figure 5-26 can be used. The
higher capacities are achieved through the use of 2.6 bar and higher operating
pressures. This system empties more hoppers at a time, as opposed to individual
hoppers with the vacuum system. Another advantage is that the blower handles
clean air. The pressure system hardware (especially air-lock feeders) is more costly
and becomes a major consideration when large numbers of hoppers are involved.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-16

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R3
( L(
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

In pressure systems, an air-lock feeder transfers fly ash from the hoppers at low
pressure to a transport pipeline at a higher pressure. Compressors or blowers
provide the airflow and pressure to convey the ash. All such systems presently in
operation in North American power plants are of the dilute-phase type. Dense­
phase systems are used extensively in other industries and a great deal of experience
is available.

Pneumatic ash-removal systems are not designed to handle wet material. It is

necessary inthe operation of hopper systems to maintain collected material
temperature sufficiently higher than the water or acid dew-point to keep it dry, so
that it will be free-flowing.
Dry ash in hoppers ordinarily will flow freely by gravity and can be transported
pneumatically without difficulty. To do this, the dry ash
" must be kept ,.t the temperature at which it was collected
" must not be exposed to moisture
" must not compact from its own weight, causing bridging above the
hopper outlet, and
" must not form clinkers as the result of oxidation of combustibles.

Hopper flow problems result from the compaction of the material in the hoppers.
The degree of compaction in a hopper is affected by the moisture content of the
solid, the size and shape of the particles, the height of the material, and vibration
caused by external plant equipment. Compaction in a gravity-flow hopper will
manifest itself as arching and "rat-holing." Externally mounted hopper vibrat.ors, if
operated incorrectly, will increase compaction and worsen the problem.

It is frequently difficult to maintain the ash freely flowing if it has been stored after
exposure to flue gases containing moisture and sulfur. Therefore, the storage of ash
in collection hoppers should be avoided.

Continuous removal of fly ash from precipitator fly ash outlets can help to reduce
power consumption. However, the primary purpose of continuously removing fly
ash from precipitator hoppers is to avoid shorting of precipitator plates by
accumulated ash. Whatever type of continuous removal equipment is used, it
should provide for continual emptying of hoppers without significant residence
time to avoid cooling and subsequent plugging problems.

Mechanical flight conveyors have been successfully used in Europe for the
continuous removal of fly ash from precipitator hoppers. Such devices have the

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-17

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/R3
/
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

return run above the carrying run, with the conveying elements confined in a
totally enclosed casing to minimize the possibility of air infiltration. The flights are
not in contact with the bottom of the trough, which eliminates wear of the trough
floor.
Figure 5-27 is a conceptual arrangement of such equipment, combined with a
conventional pneumatic conveying system.

5.6.2 Pneumatic Fly Ash Removal Systems

Vacuum systems use mechanical blowers, water or steam exhausters to create a
vacuum that removes the fly ash from the hoppers (Figure 5-28). A fly ash intake
valve located at each hopper regulates the flow of the fly ash. Fly ash intake valves
have carbon steel or cast iron bodies and a swing disc that seals against a hardened
seat. For maintenance, the outlet of each hopper has a manual isolation gate.

In some types of systems, this valve is fully opened or closed on a signal from the
downstream vacuum switches. This ensures that the fly ash will leave the hopper
at the proper flow rate and that excessive ash will not flow from the hopper and
plug the discharge line. The air is provided to the system through check valves
located at the inlet of each branch of hoppers.
The positive-pressure dilute-phase system connects to each hopper using an airlock
type feeder (Figure 5-29). Theoretically, due to its cycle of operation, the positive
pressure is never communicated to the hopper. Practically, this is not true; the
feeder can be considered as a chamber separated from the hopper by an inlet gate and
from the conveying line by a discharge gate. The chamber is alternatively
pressurized to conveying line pressure or vented to hopper pressure or less to allow
the chamber o be emptied or filled. Although there are several modes of operation,
the above can take place on a 2-minute cycle and continuously. To obtain a
continuous flow of material into the conveying line, a minimum of two feeders
working in sequence must be maintained.
There are two commonly used types of intakes: the first (Figure 5-30) uses a disc­
type gate between the intake and conveying line; full-load control is accomplished
by opening and closing the gate with full conveying air flow supplied through an air
intake in each conveying line. The second type (Figure 5-31) introduces most of the
conveying air either through the intake itself or from the hopper above. This type
of intake, which in effect is a 90-degree elbow, isolates the hopper from the
conveying line by virtue of its shutoff gate being in the horizontal line. The air
intake at the end of the conveying line is normally restricted and requires a fairly

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-18

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/Rl
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

large pressure drop to admit full conveying air. A scavenger valve, located
downstream of the ash intakes and before any riser, is used for full-load regulation.
With both types of intake, after the initial discharge of material from a hopper,
almost all the conveying air or gas comes from the hopper and not from an outside
source.

5.6.3 Vacuum System Controls

Negative-pressure pneumatic conveying systems can have several different types of
material intakes, various combinations of separating equipment, and different types
of exhausters. As a result, there is no single control system for all applications.

The majority of vacuum systems use full-load control, whether by valves using a
scavenger valve or the method employing opening and closing of the fly ash
intakes. Each provides equal results. "Full load" is defined as the system design
vacuum measured at the inlet to the vacuum producer.

When a hopper is empty of all material, the system vacuum drops to a level
approaching that of air flow alone. A no-load vacuum switch is set to close between
no load and full load vacuum and is used to energize the transfer mechanism. The
contacts of the no-load vacuum switch are in series with a time-delay relay. When
the no-load vacuum remains for a time, the sequence switch is energized which
transfers operation from one hopper to the next. The sequence switch also controls
the branch line gates and the water supply valve. The use of the time-delay
prevents transfers due to momentary low-vacuum readings.

Power (vacuum), for system operation, is produced by a water exhauster or by a

mechanical blower. To create the cycling effect, both the material intake and the
airflow are cycled constantly. A vacuum breaker alternately open and closed to the
atmosphere is used to cycle the airflow.

No-load vacuum is defined as a vacuum at or above an empty-line vacuum to and

below full-load vacuum. The total operating time of a system can vary greatly; it
depends on how well the material is feeding from the hopper and the value at
which the no-load switch is set. When a hopper is emptied to where full-load
vacuum cannot be achieved, it is considered empty. When a system consists of
several branch lines, especially with branch lines far apart, more than one full-load
or no-load switch is necessary. The full-load vacuum, the length of the line and the
material temperature, will d&Xrmine capacity from one location to another in the
system.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-19

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R1
(01
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

5.6.4 Positive-Pressure System Control

A positive-pressure conveying system can have many configurations. Although
there is no theoretical limit to the pressure at which they can operate, 10 to 12 bar
(for dense-phase conveying) is the practical limit for most systems.

An airlock feeder is required to introduce fly ash into the conveying line.

Dilute-Phase, Positive-Pressure Systems

Dilute-phase, positive-pressure feeders containing a single compartment airlock,
isolated by inlet and outlet valves, are the type commonly used in utility ash
systems. They can be charged with material or they can discharge material, but do
not do both simultaneously. To obtain a continuous flow of material into the
conveying line, two or more feeders are operated on offset cycles. Two methods of
discharging dilute-phase air-lock feeders are commonly used.

In the first method, one-half of the total number of feeders in one branch line
discharges material to the conveying line. During this time the other feeders are in
the process of venting, filling and pressurizing. Each feeder operates on a cycle of
about two minutes and is continuous until all the material stored in the hoppers
has been discharged. When this occurs, the operating pressure drops to a no-load
value. A no-load pressure switch, in series with a time-delay transfers operation to
the next branch line or to shutdown.

In the second mode, only one feeder per branch line is active at any one time. A
second feeder is vented, filled and pressurized just prior to the end of the active
feeder's cycle. The bottom gate of the active feeder closes and that of the second
feeder opens. Operation continues in this manner until each feeder of the branch
line has operated a set number of times. When this occurs, operation is transferred
to the next branch line or to shutdown.

For a feeder to receive material, it is at a pressure equal to or less than the hopper to
which it is connected. This is accomplished by a vent system that allows the air in
the feeder compartment and the displaced air from the incoming material to be
vented.

For a feeder to discharge material, its chamber is at a pressure equal to or slightly

higher than the conveying line. This is accomplished by supplying air from the
blower discharge to each feeder on a controlled cycle.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-20

94-1685c.0031WO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

With dilute-phase pressure systems, a full-load pressure switch, located at the

discharge of the blower, is used to regulate the amount of material in the conveying
line so that it does not exceed system design. When the full-load pressure setting is
reached, all open lower gates are closed until the operating pressure drops below
design.

Dense-Phase, Positive-Pressure Systems

Dense-phase, positive-pressure pneumatic transport systems use the same hardware
as described for dilute-phase systems. A significant difference in the mode of
operation is that the air-lock feeders are kept open in the receiving position
whenever they do not contain ash up to the desired level of accumulation. In the
open position, the air-lock becomes an extension of the hopper under which it is
mounted.
Comparisons between dilute and dense-phase systems indicate a lower capital,
operating and maintenance cost associated with the dense-phase system. The
levelized costs being about 10 percent less. Notwithstanding, the dilute system
continues to be the choice of Western utilities.

Dense-phase conveyance of ash is used in other industries and on industrial boilers

and in time will probably be used for utility boilers. The dense-phase requires less
air to move a comparable amount of material. Because a lesser quantity of air is
required for a given amount of material transported, power consumption is
reduced, the velocities in the system are lower and the distance that material can be
transported, without booster stations, is greater. In this way, it is more economical
in operation even though the initial installed costs are higher.
Dense-phase transport can be used in conjunction with dilute-phase systems, air
slides, mechanical conveyors, and vacuum collector systems.
The lower transport velocity produces less abrasion in the piping system and allows
the use of more common piping materials. Some manufactures of this equipment
claim transport distances of up to 1.5 km by the use of booster fittings. These fittings
inject small quantities of air along the transport pipe at locations where friction
increases such as at an elbow. These fittings allow air to be introduced at points in
the line where it can most effectively be used, rather than at one point such as the
blow tank where usually too much air is injected. One installation of interest
utilized continuous removal air slides discharging to a dense-phase transporter
which in turn conveyed the material to a storage silo for ultimate disposal.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-21

94-1685cO03/WOIwolR3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Dense-phase transport systems show much promise for future ash collection uses
because of the economies of operation and the longer expected life for the transport
piping.

5.6.5 Basic Hopper Design

In 1980, a joint paper was presented by an ABMA/IGCTCommittee (Joint Technical
Committee of the American Boiler Manufacturers Association and the Industrial
Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc. on precipitator Hopper Operations).
The hopper as it is installed on a precipitator (Figure 5-32) is triangular in cross­
section, with sides of 60 degrees or higher to the horizontal, with valley angles of 50
degrees or higher. It is usually insulated from the neck above the discharge flange,
with the insulation covering the entire hopper area. The lower one-quarter to one­
third of the hopper wall is heated.
The ABMA/IGCT Committee recommended that there be no specified storage time
in collecting hoppers. When a high hopper ash level is indicated, the precipitator
field(s) over that hopper should be shut off.
The ABMA/IGCT Report suggests that the following hopper hardware and
auxiliaries be considered in the design:
1) Hopper vibrators, to be used to eliminate bridging and rat-holing, but not
with damp ash where their use may compact the ash. With automatic
operation, vibrators are to be operated only with the conveying system in
operation.
2) Fly ash fluidizers, which have porous membranes that uniformly
distribute airflow through the material above, filling voids between
particles and changing the angle of repose of the material. This
promotes gravity flow. Fluidizing devices assist in hopper emptying,
provided they are supplied with dry air above the dew-point, and
delivered to the fluidizers without a drop in temperature. Fluidizers can
aggravate evacuation problems by caking the ash and providing
additional surface area for ash accumulation if the air is not dry. Where
high percentages of combustibles are present in the collected fly ash, the
gas supply to the fluidizers must be non-oxidizing to prevent hopper
fires.
Fluidizers establish an effective discharge diameter large enough so that ratholes or
arches cannot form. This diameter is different for each hopper and material. The

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-22

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R1
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

effective area of a fluidizer is directly (vertically) above the fluidizing membrane

(Figure 5-33). For material outside that area, flow must be induced by gravity which
results in funnel flow pattern. In a conical hopper, there is virtually nothing to stop
this type of flow once established, whereas in a rectangular or square section hopper,
this flow can be affect, d by compaction in the valleys.
There are precautions to be taken when initial firing with pulverized coal.
Condensation may form because of low hopper temperatures present during the
startup of a boiler. To prevent this, the following precautions should be observed:
" Initiate hopper heating in advance of fuel firing.
" Place the steam or hot-water air duct heater in operation ahead of the
boiler air heater at as high a temperature as possible.
" Advance temperature rapidly and operate above 15°C whenever possible
" Operate fluidizing devices supplied with heated air.
During boiler shutdown, the ash system should be operated to clean all material
from the hoppers and ensure that hopper walls are dry.

Recent U.S. Design Developments

Since the publication of the ABMA/IGCI Joint Committee in 1980, there have been
relatively few fly ash removal systems specified and purchased in the United States,
due to the small number of utility steam generators purchased. Several existing
boilers have been converted to coal firing and retrofits of particulate-collection
equit~ment have also taken place. In these projects, there has been interest in
following the recommendations.
Since the report, one utility has specified continuous (mechanical) removal systems
on a large number of new precipitators, as well as retrofitting older equipment with
similar systems.
One U.S. utility has specified a pneumatic fly ash-removal system that is considered
to be of a most advanced design, adhering to the committee recommendations. The
utility is attempting to improve the availability of its pneumatic fly ash removal
systems so that precipitator equipment downtime is minimized. In this system, fly
ash handling is divided into two separate systems:

m Fly ash collection system: to remove ash by vacuum from the

precipitator and air heater for transports to the transfer silo

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-23

94-1 685c.O03/WO/wolR3

-I
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

a Fly ash transport system: to take the ash from the transfer silos and
convey it to ash storage silos for loading into mobile equipment.
The maximum continuous fly ash production is expected to be 128 tons per hour.
The fly ash collection system is designed to collect 300 tons per hour, and the
transport system, to transport 240 tons per hour.
The fly ash collection system must remove sufficient material from 8 air preheater
and 60 precipitator hoppers such that ash buildup will not interfere with operation.
It uses a vacuum system for removal of the fly ash from the air heater and
precipitator hoppers, with transport to an intermediate transfer silo. From the
transfer silo, a positive-pressure pneumatic system conveys the ash to disposal.

The vacuum system was selected for the following reasons: .

" Lower cost than airlock feeders required for a pressure system.
" Lower maintenance cost because of the reduction of 50 percent of the fly
ash valves.
" Positive removal from hoppers by vacuum and of gravity instead of
gravity only.
" Less height required with vacuum system hardware.
" Automatic vibration of hoppers is feasible.
" External indication of the interior hopper conditions is possible.
" Lower reverse flow through worn intake valves because of the low
differential pressure across the valves (on the order of 50 to 75 cm H20
instead of 1 to 2 bar with a dilute-phase pressure system or 3 to 7 bar with
a dense-phase system).
" No venting of air-lock feeders is required.
" Removal time is optimized. With a pressure system, removal of ash is
determined by level indicators and/or timers, because of the airlocks'
finite size.
The system has six separate, simultaneously operating vacuum branches, allowing
for a continuously operating system. Each vacuum header has a design capacity of
50 tonnes per hour each. The vacuum is produced by mechanical vacuum pumps.

A disadvantage of vacuum systems is that airleaks cannot be easily detected.

Conversely, with positive-pressure airlock feeders, leakage of air into the hoppers
can be high. A properly erected and tested vacuum system will have minimum

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-24

94-1685c.0031WO/wolRl
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

inleakage. In pressurized systems, greater damage is done by high-pressure air

leaking across fly ash intake valve seats than by the leaking in a vacuum system.

The system is designed for six hoppers to be emptied simultaneously. Vacuum to

pressure transfer takes place at two separate transfer silos. These transfer locations
are within 150m of the most distant precipitator hopper, and are capable of
independent operation.
Each precipitator and air preheater outlet has a manually operated slide gate valve
and a pneumatically operated hopper outlet valve. Swing gate valves for hopper
application have knife-edge replaceable metal seats, with provisions for access,
cleanout and disc replacement without removing the valve body. The shut-off slide
gates are installed so that all apparatus can be removed for maintenance. Each
pneumatically operated valve has a proximity type limit switch at each extreme of
travel, to indicate "fully open," or "fully closed" valve position.
Means are provided to continuously fluidize the ash in all hoppers. The fluidizing
system is intended to keep the collected ash in a non-compacted state, drive off the
high moisture flue gas, and supplement the heating provided by the hopper heaters.
To facilitate ash removal, the blowers supply hot (140'C) dry air for fluidizing in the
hoppers. The system has sufficient air capacity to empty six hoppers
simultaneously. All hoppers and fluidizing air piping are insulated.

The trend in North America is to dry transport and disposal (impoundment) with
off-site removal, for either sale or landfilling. Environmental regulations have also
contributed significantly to the choice of dry and off-site disposition of ash.

New Collection Systems

Most current work deals with retrofitting of existing systems. New coal-fired units
require flue gas de-sulfurizing which alters the collection of ash, most notably that
of fly ash.
Currently, the preferred means of collection employs vacuum collection at the
precipitator hopper and short distance conveyance to an intermediate transfer silo.
Mechanical blowers are preferred to produce the negative pressure. Cost analyses
have demonstrated the economic advantage of using mechanical blowers rather
than water or steam exhausters.
For high ash loadings, mechanical conveyors will be utilized to perform the
collection and short distance transport functions.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-25

94-1685c.0031/WOwo/R3

'1)1
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Pneumatic conveyance will have greater use of dense-phase transport due to the
favorable economics involved.

Pumping to disposal will use low ash/water ratios to minimize the amount of water
in the disposal area. The 1:1 ratio described later will become common.

5.6.6 Fly Ash Removal Systems and the Precipitator

In the latter part of 1974, the TC-1 Committee of the Air Pollution Control
Association made a survey of the major users of electrostatic precipitators.
Maintenance requirements and problems were investigated. The 174 responses
received represented experience with 243 precipitators of various manufacturers, the
bulk of which were the "American" weighted-wire discharge-electrode types with an
average service life of 7 to 10 years.

The survey reviewed operation and maintenance and detailed specific problems.
From the respondents, 36.4 percent indicated that the precipitators had "frequent
failures,", 42.0 percent reported "infrequent," and 20.5 percent indicated that the
precipitators have "very seldom" failed. Discharge electrode failures, raper/vibrator
failures, and collecting-plate failures were documented. The report indicated that
35.2 percent of the problems were with discharge electrodes and 31.8 percent were
with dust removal systems. It was assumed that some of the emitting electrode
failures were caused by hopper blockage and shorting of high voltage bus sections.

The report stated that, "the removal of ash, once precipitated, has historically been
one of the major causes of precipitator malfunction, as well as a contributory factor
to other problems such as discharge electrode failure." Ash hopper plugging caused
the majority of problems.

Studies have attributed 50 percent of precipitator downtime to problems with ash

removal systems. Precipitator malfunction can result in high stack opacity and ash
carryover to the induced draft fans, both of which can force a boiler out of service.

Fly ash flows as a liquid above the dew-point, but when cooled below 120'C to 150'C
for coal fly ash and 175°C for oil fly ash, its hygroscopic nature causes agglomeration
and caking. To avoid problems, fly ash must be maintained above its dew point
temperature.

Even if flue gas temperatures are above the dew-point, hopper skin temperatures at
the throat area can be lower, because of the heat-sink effect of the ash system
hardware and deteriorated insulation. The agglomeration problem can be
aggravated by severe weather conditions and exposed hoppers facing a prevailing

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-26

94-1685c.OO3/WO/wo/Rl
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

wind. Condensation, corrosion, and plugging problems are also caused by gas leaks
in the hopper, leaks at the inlet and outlet breaching, and the shell.

Flue gas conditioning with sulfur trioxide and ammonia for enhanced precipitator
collection can aggravate evacuation problems by producing increased agglomeration
of the fly ash.
Electrostatic precipitator maintenance costs may be as high as 10 percent of the
installed cost per year, making it economically justifiable to correct hopper blockage.

Hopper plugging may result in the following problems:

" High voltage bus sections can short circuit.
" Collecting and emitting system components can become misaligned
which will lower electrical power input.
" Ash fusion caused by high-voltage current can form large clinkers that
are difficult to remove and can obstruct a hopper throat.
If a plugged hopper cannot be emptied through the ash system in a normal manner,
then the ash must be discharged to the ground and manually removed. The
problem can be minimized with the following steps:
" Add heat to the hopper walls, especially at the throat area, to counteract
the heat-sink effect of the ash evacuation system. Install thermal
insulation between the hopper throat flange and valve assemblies.
" Insulate doors, poke holes, strike pad shafts, and vibrator-mounting
plates.
" Install level alarms to prevent precipitator damage from high ash levels.
With center hopper dividing baffles, two (2) level indicators are needed
since ash can plug one side while the other evacuates normally. With
electrostatic precipitators, the first indication of full hoppers is an
abnormal decrease in electrical power readings and increased sparking on
adjacent high-voltage sets over the plugged hopper(s). If not detected, the
electrical voltage will continue to decrease to the point that the primary
and secondary voltages will go to zero or nearly zero, depending on the
ash quality as an insulator. The transformer primary and secondary
currents will return to normal levels after sparking subsides and a short
circuit condition is established. The power supply should be turned off
automatically before this occurs.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-27

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/Ri
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

" Use alarms to detect high-voltage grounds and hopper ash levels that
have made contact with the high-voltage system. High-voltage current
can heat the fly ash to fusion temperatures and form large glass-like
clinkers when the ash fills the area between the electrodes. Ash fusion
temperatures typically range far higher than the temperature necessary to
cause failure of emitting electrodes. In extreme instances, large areas of
collecting plates can melt.
" Increase the discharge-valve and associated piping sizes from 200 mm to
300 min diameter where high dust-collection rates are expected. The
increased throat diameter of 300 mm reduces plugging problems.
Low internal temperatures do occur in precipitator hoppers. In one instance
reported, internal gas temperatures of 37°C were measured in operating precipitator
hoppers while the temperature of flue gas passing over the collecting plates was
150'C, and an outside (ambient) temperature of 25 to 32°C. The rear-end hoppers in
a precipitator cool down because of the smaller amounts of ash they collect, and
temperature measurements have shown that these hoppers can have essentially
ambient temperatures. Leakage of air through the fly ash intake valves at the
bottom of the hoppers is also a reason for the low internal hopper temperature.

Fly ash intake valves may open and close nearly 250,000 times per year. Under such
conditions, valve seats will wear, resulting in air leakage into the hopper. With a
pressure pneumatic system, air can be forced into the hopper at pressures as high as
100 psig (in a dense-phase system). With vacuum systt:c.s, the motive force for
inducing air into precipitator hoppers is the suction maintained in the precipitator
by the induced-draft fans. This suction can create a vacuum of about 50 cm H20 in
the precipitator. With either system, there is a pressure differential that can result
in leakage of cool air into precipitator hoppers, leading to condensation of moisture
in the flue gas.
A European utility, burning a 40 to 50 percent ash coal for over 25 years, experienced
leaky fly ash intake valves that had been worn by the passage of abrasive fly ash.
This condition resulted in leakage of air and cooling of the inside of the hoppers.
The leaking valves caused the interiors of the hoppers to cool below the water dew­
point. This cooling led to flue gas condensation and accumulations of fly ash in the
hoppers, causing precipitator electrodes to short circuit. The high calcium fly ash
formed large pieces of concrete like material that required manual removal.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-28

94-1685c.003IWO/wo/R3
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

5.6.7 Fan Damage from Fly Ash Carryover

There are two categories in this problem area. The first category is the recycle of fly
ash that has been collected in a precipitator where the ash is spilled or blown out of
the hoppers or the transport system and is re-entrained by the forced draft or
primary air fans and carried back to the furnace, damaging the fans in the process.
Primary air and forced draft fans can have their inlets close to the hoppers of a
precipitator. Any fly ash not transported out of the boiler area by the fly ash
transport system can be drawn into the primary air fan inlet. This can cause extreme
wear to a fan that is equipped with high efficiency blading, since such blading is not
designed for use in particulate laden air.
The second category is fly ash that escapes collection by the precipitator, or is picked
up from the hoppers after precipitation, and passes from the precipitator into the
induced-draft fan (see Figure 5-34). Erosion of induced-draft fans caused by
particulate carryover from precipitators has been a problem. Incidents of induced­
draft fans being destroyed because of excessive dust loading to the fans have
occurred. This problem has been addressed by installing fans that can experience
reasonable life considering the efficiency of the collection equipment ahead of the
fans.

5.7 TRANSPORT TO IMPOUNDMENT

The practice in North America for hydraulic sluicing of ash is for a slurry having a
weight percentage of ash of about 15 to 16 percent by weight or a water-to-ash ratio of
6:1.
Pipeline velocities range from 1.4 m/s (4.5 ft/sec) to 3.6 m/s (12 ft/sec) with the
lower part of the range for fly ash and the upper end for bottom ash.

In general, bottom ash slurry velocities rarely exceed 2.7 m/s (9 ft/sec).
It must also be kept in mind that these figures are for segregated sluicing of ash and
that if bottom and fly ash are mixed for a common system, then other criteria must
be observed. It has been reported that ash volumes on the order of 50 percent by
volume of the ash/water slurry have been successfully sluiced in Poland and
Russia. However, the number of installations and the type of piping material used
as well as the type of pump utilized is unknown.
Recently, two U.S. utilities in the arid Southwestern part of the country have
installed ash transport systems using a 1:1 ratio of water to ash in an effort to
conserve water. Unlike most other ash transport pumping systems, these use

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-29

94-1685c.O03/WO/wolR1
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

positive displacement reciprocating pumps. These pumps find extensive

application in oil field recovery and in slurry pipelines.
The mixture of ash and water has a consistency somewhat like toothpaste. With the
lower velocities required, since fallout is not a problem, the impact wear on elbows
and other fittings are not as severe. Plain carbon steel or select plastic materials are
used for pipes to transport the ash for disposal. Long radius elbows with provision
for wear resistance complete the system. It is not known if surfactants, to enhance
the transport, are used.
Another U.S. utility has retrofitted a fly ash transport system to reduce the amount
of water content of the ash pond. The systems utilizes a 1:1 ratio of ash to water.
This is being done primarily for environmental reasons. The success of these
installations, all retrofits, demonstrates the feasibility of reducing the amount of
water required for ash transport.
Approximately 50 percent of the plants in North America sluice the ash
hydraulically to impoundment. The other 50 percent convey the ash by pneumatic
means or by truck to the final landfill. This practice is changing because of
environmental regulations. In plants constructed since 1980, the ash is impounded
dry.
It is curious that of the plants that sluice the ash hydraulically to disposal, only about
10 percent recycle the water. Pipe scaling and pump wear are the main objections to
recycling the water.
Several industrial plants and at least one utility have attempted to reduce the
amount of water used to transport ash to ultimate disposal. In this effort, the plants
and utility installed transport systems, utilizing viscous shear pumps for conveying
the ash.

Viscous shear pumps operate in a manner analogous to viscous shear variable

speed couplings. The fluid to be pumped is introduced between two parallel discs
that are flat. The fluid is accelerated from the center portion of the disc to the outer
periphery, by centripetal force, where it is discharged into a pipe.
The theory is that a boundary layer that does not move ("no-slip condition") exists
at the face of the disc, and that the fluid adjacent to it does move by viscous shear
without contacting the surface. By doing so, the discs experience little or no wear.
The advantages claimed for this design are the capability to pump higher solids
content fluids with reduced wear and subsequently lower maintenance costs.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-30

94-1685c.0031WO/wo/R1
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

The disadvantages are high initial cost and low efficiencies compared to other types
of materials handling pumps. Typically, these efficiencies are less than 50 percent.

These pumps can be configured with multiple disc sets and can achieve high
capacities and discharge pressures.

So far, the results with pumping ash are mixed. One utility has discontinued the
experiment. This is not to imply that without more testing, they cannot successfully
be used in this service, since they have been successful in pumping other slurry
materials.

Over the years, many types of piping materials and wear resistant fittings have been
used in an attempt to reduce the wear from abrasions and prolong the life of the
systems. Heavy wall steel pipe, heat treated alloy steels, case hardened steel, solid
basalt, basalt lined, and various plastic piping materials have been used in transport
systems with varying degrees of success. The ash composition, size, the transport
water quality and the velocity within the system are all contributing conditions in
selecting a suitable material.
Fittings, most notably elbows, have also had various materials and configurations
investigated. Extra long sweep, wear backs that are replaceable and recessed entry
areas have all been utilized. See Figure 5-35.

Recent experience in the United States with a ceramic-lined fiberglass reinforced

epoxy pipe has demonstrated that it is well suited for ash handling applications.
Used with suitable elbows, it has proven to be a good solution for most ash services.
First introduced in the mid-1970s, this particular material has given good service in
bottom and fly ash transportation, with a typical expected life being 17 years.

Another material, urethane-lined steel pipe, has given excellent service in handling
abrasive bottom ash. It should be noted that this material is expensive.

5.8 OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

For a high ar-' lignite, the use of a submerged scraper chain for continuous bottom
ash removal i,: a good choice. The dry chain system should be investigated for all of
the obvious advantages it offers.

When burning coal with such a high ash content, it is good practice to continuously
remove ash from the economizer, air preheater, and in applicable cases, the
precipitator.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-31

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R I
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Although plants utilizing air slides were not observed, it is assumed the air slides
operated intermittently (i.e., not continuously conveying). If compressed air
consumption is not excessive, these slides can be fitted with rotary air locks at the
hopper discharge and operated in a continuous mode.

Air slides present elevation difficulties since the slide must decline to the top of the
intermediary hoppers, limiting their height and, to that extent, capacity. It also
requires dual handling systems and several additional dust collection devices.

If the ash is to be transported hydraulically, there are environmental as well as

economic conditions to consider, including runoff water collection, impounding,
recycling of the transport water, and dust, although, the dust problem is common to
any of the means of disposal. Other considerations are those of the pumps, piping,
pipe fittings, and the availability and quality of the sluicing water.

Increasing the size of the existing ash disposal pile will entail extending the area of
the ash pile, or increasing the height of the pile, or both, which will require
increased head from the pumps. With dry transport of fly ash, the required flow
capacity for the existing pumps will decrease. This decrease may allow the pumps to
be used without modification for an extended ash pile for some time.

With continued hydraulic transport of the ash, the piping as it wears out from
erosion, can possibly be replaced with pipe of a different material having improved
wear ability and a longer service life than steel pipe.

Two such pipe materials that were reviewed are basalt-lined steel pipe and ceramic
core fiberglass reinforced epoxy pipe. Both have been used extensively for ash
transport in power plants, and both give significantly longer service life compared to
steel.
On-site disposal utilizing trucks rather than other means of conveyance should
certainly be studied.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-32

94-1685c.003/WO/wolRi
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

5.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Combustion, Fossil Power Systems, Joseph G. Singer, Editor, Comb.
Engineering, Inc., 1981.

2. Singer, Jos. G., et. al., Design for Continuous Ash Removal: Alternative
Concepts in Ash Handling, American Power Conf., Chicago, Ill., April 23,
1979.
3. Caron, M.B., et. al., Steam-Generator Availability as Affected by Ash-Handling
Equipment, Amer. Power Conf., Chicago, Ill., April 26, 1982.

4. Singer, Jos, C., Design for Better ESP/Fabric-Filter Hopper Operation and
Maintenance, Air Pollution Control Assn. 76th Annual Meeting, Atlanta,
GA., June 19, 1983.
5. Loftus, W.E., Ash Handling, Storage & Utilization, Amer. Power Conf.,
Chicago, Ill., April 1976.
6. Morgan, J.C. and Flandermeyer, G.L., Ash Handling Conversion: Labadie
Plant, Power-Gen Americas '93, Dallas, TX., November 1993.

7. Paul, J.C., et. al., Economizer Hopper Design Improvements to Reduce Ash
Pluggage of Regenerative Air Preheaters, Power-Gen Americas '93, Dallas,
TX., November 1993.

8. Materials Handling Handbook, 2nd Edit., R.A. Kulwiec, Editor, John Wiley &
Sons, NY, NY, 1985.
9. Bayles, Jr., W.H., Andrew, W.D., Ash-Handling Systems-Applications to
Industrial Plants, Amer. Power Conf., Chicago, Ill., April, 1982.

10. Dynamic Air Conveying Systems, St. Paul, MN., Sales literature.

1!. Macawber Engineering, Inc., Sales brochure and personal correspondence.

12. Trans-Flo Corporation, Fort Wayne, IN., Sales Literature.

13. Carrea, A., et. al., Bottom Ash Dry Extraction Helps to Achieve Zero Water
Discharge and Gives Additional Benefits, Power-Gen '93, Dallas, TX.,
November, 1993.

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-33

94-1685c.OO3/WOIwolRI

p,
 Section 5 Weslern Experience with Ash Handling Systems

14. Dry system improves ENEL bottom ash handling, R. Tarli and M. Voltan,
Power Engineering, November, 1993.

15. Technology of dry removal of heavy ashes, United Conveyor Corp., Magaldi
Industrie Srl, technical publication.

16. United Conveyor Corp., Waukegan, IL., Sales brochure.

17. HammerTek Corp., Sales brochure.

18. Progressive Products, Inc., Lawrence, KS., Sales brochure.

19. Discflo Corporation, Santee, CA., Sales brochure.

20. EIMCO Process Equipment, Inc., Mississippi, Ontario, Canada.

21. Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc., Little Rock, AR.

22. Electrical World, November, 1993.

23. W.A. Kitchen and R.E. Lawrence, "Operating Experience and Design
Consideration Of Continuous Bottom Ash Removal Systems For Utility
Boilers," Proceedings of the America Power Conference, Vol. 44 488-499 (1982)

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-34

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R1
Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems
c
a. -m E
*~0
- OZ (.D
0 CD
C'
(I) a) U-.
5.,
0 El0 m
~ U )
0
______cc c
o -a --- .:-
CD8
0-
CL
0 03
o4-185c000W,/o/R
(1) X
IS
I.
C U)=
Iq R Cf) CI)
sweeASOulPuD
pelojsl 4WAl
o eoluwe
RENE - Ah Hadlin 5-3
94-165c.03/WOwo/R
Co
Cl,
= CD

CL 20-/
18-/
~E
"

14-1

12-r" Dry Flyash Handling

__ [I Mixed System, Part Wet & Part Dry
1'IM
Wet Once-Through Flyash Handling
System
LI Wet Flyash Handling System With

LI
____

6- Recycled Water
4 Mixed System, Part Wet & Part Dry with
4-
Recycled Water
2-
CD

CD)

25 MW 26MW 101MW More _

to to Than Fr
100MW 500MW 500MW U'
Nameplate Capacity In Megawatts

Figure 5-2 North American Fly Ash Handling Systems by Boiler Size
LA
CD
 0 mC)
CA

=r

El Dry Flyash Handling

LI Mixed System, Part Wet & Part Dry
* Wet Once-Through Flyash Handling
15- System
* Wet Flyash Handling System With
1 XRecycled Water
D C,,
0
CD

mm CD

Co

Coal OiD
Fuel Type :
0.
=3

Figure 5-3 North American Fly Ash Handling Systems by Fuel Type
-,sa1 CD

\SA
 = CD

=
0
= 3
CI
30___
," I

25­

// __-__L
Dry Flyash Handlinp
l Mixed System, Part Wet & Part Dry

CSystem
, Wet Once-Through Flyash Handling

U Wet Flyash Handling System With

Recycled Water
0 CD
2 I I[llN/A

CD

C-1
_5.
CD

Unspecified Bituminous Lignite Subbituminous C.

Coal Type

FCg
Figure 5-4 North American Fly Ash Handling Systems by Type of Coal
00 r
 CD
0,
High -n
Water Norma, Mean
0
CL
Jetting Nozzles Level
Lewe
Water Ash Level

i.h

q ~ 0:

-"10/ Clinker
,Ilk Grinder

0 CD

Weir Box
Sluice Jet isharg
Access Door High-Pressure Water Inlet C­

=D

Combustion Fossil Power Systems, Combustion Eng., Inc.

Figure 5-5 Water Impounded Bottom Ash Hopper =3

ce)

C,)
C~m= CD

01
S ,"­
-a=.
co Chem
D DDosing
ewatringSystem

Bottom Ash Hoppers

Settling Tank
, Make Up
Water

Sludge Buffer Tank

Removal

Clarified Water C

Eductor Pump

HP Water Pumps
CD

CD
----
C")

Figure 5-6 Typical Bottom Ash Water Impounded Hopper Collection System _

CD
0 Cd-3
" Submerged Scraper Chain _"

Typical for all Typical for all

3=
Economizer Hoppers Rear Pass Ash Hoppers
~~~Expanson :
o to
_"
Pyrites from Joints
E Pulverizer Mechanical Mechanical
I Typical for each Rotary Conveyor ,,- Ro Conveyor
High PresePyrites Coal Pulverizer Feeder Feder
Hn Pressure ;oReject
Pyrites Sluice Hopper
Pumps Storage Silo Water
"Line Spray
_....
nL
hNormal Ash
Wash Screw Conveyor
Ash Discharge
Transition Chute ! jl to Belt Conveyor
l
_. Cooling
---- -------:.. -- Submerged Chain ConveyorJ Emergency

...- Discharge
'
Flushing Water Crusher
I , / tt !tationaryl
Grid -
_ -- -
a-
W urte "

Drain Normal Discharge S

Heal Exchangers B C CD

Drain

2-100% Capacity-­ n
Recircuiaon Pumps

Cn

LFigure 5-7 Typical Bottom Ash and Economizer Ash System

Cdn
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems
z00
E0.9
C. t
CL 0
* E
.LX CL
E. a.
a..
E
0
C -W
00
U cc
LMm
CM=
RENEL - Ash Handling 5-42
94-1685c.003/WO/wo/Ri
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Bottom Ash
20% Bituminous
30% Subbituminous
&Lignite
Econ. and Rear Pass
Ash 3 to 5 %

Mill Rejects
1/2% Coal Flow

Submerged
C-ain
Conveyor

Figure 5-9 Typical Ash Distribution

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-43

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R1
 m cn

co

:=

caa
35­
w~
30-
15 ". LIGNITE.i

15­
0

5­

I-- g D
CI 101 11 - -- I i i IC -i)I

101

10-r

5.-
0)

MW"

co

C3
M
- C/3

30­

.25­
20­
35­
15­
w___
lO­
00

O3 04C1 ')OO8 l
CR
MW

=3

cn

r/3
L,
to =
m C

Cl'

S=

35­
b.30­

20­

215 SUBBITUMINOUS
:E
10­
5­

0~ 0N1-, 77-T-
mC) 00 00C)0 NNcl~ 0 m m 0 >0 0C

Figure 5-10c Ash Rates Based on Type of Coal - Subbituminous_ CD

=3
co
0 C=
C.)D

m
gm
0­

1000
2U20

3000­
000­

00 C) 0400
0~ oL 0
MWW .=,
­

0--

CD

Figure 5-11a SCC Closed-Loop Cooling Requirements - Lignite_

Uf)

CD

-FJ
tow

.b.=
m~
-,CD
•n A
m-
0 2c, co

ca U

3500­
3000­
2500­
2-2000-

C-

Figure 5-11b SCC Closed-Loop Cooling Requirements - Bituminous 5

CL

0_c 00 42C

0.
oM

0
=
n

=r

Ca0

3500­
3000-
CL 2500­
2000­

500­
0-
O-)

MW

CD
Figure 5-11c SCC Closed-Loop Cooling Requirements - Subbituminous -5.
=

U)

..

2CD
 =
T
M~
C/)
C­

o=
Moo­

=.

025
a'

t)
C 150­
2

0
50- LIGNITE .
----------­
........................
. . . _, . .

MW --

CD

Figure 5-12a SCC Operating KW - Lignite C3

C

_0.
CL,

CD-
LAn
 =
~
m co M CD

817
*m

0 =r

300­

250­

_o2001 Bituminous Impounded Hopper (114 KW)

aoo
0
50­
o- BITUMINOUS

MW
CD
CD
CD
Figure 5-12b SCC Operating KW - Bituminous_

Cd,

LA
i
 m
M
o

10

8'

300­

250­
o 200-Sub-Bitumlnous Water Impounded Hopper (89.4 KWN)
S150-
~250
S100- SUBBITUMINOUS
00
30­

o0 S4
200g W m H O
nous(9 n1(W)
SCCB

C1

MWM

cn

Fiue51cSC prtn W- ubtmnu CD

 *
mD =o

o: = Bottom Ash

0=

Furnace
Hopper

Crusher +-..x~. Seal TroughWalI

AII ! I ii
- - . --­
t-------
II ---- l"
---­
_.--"--- -- _

" j -- - - -- - - -I

-. Tensioner
"

CR

United Conveyor Corp. CD

C-,
CD

Figure 5-13 Dry Scraper Chain -

-I­
=r
C3.

5.

CD,

0CA
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems
'OuQ
/m
CD
ca
o
• / =
C
T
U..T. S a..
CD
L&
0)
•8 3
I/x
I--
RENEL - Ash Handling 5-54
94-168Sc.O031WO/wolR2
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems
2
CO
r -­ cD­
u
h.
U.
L_--
RENEL - Ash Handling 5-55
94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/R2
 M r-
iCD
to

01
0

:b=
CL 14­
-- -----
------ --
----------
----------
---------
Dry System Wet System
12 -------------------

12----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

8 ----------- - --- -­ -------------­ --------­ -----­ ---­ - ----­

•~~ ~~~~ ......-.. . ... .C..

---------------­
4-------- ---------
CD

-C.:--;;;illll~i;;'i; ;iii CD

0___ CD

South African American All Data

Coal
Data from United Conveyor Corp. 9-65.0

C,

LCD
Figure 5-16 Carbon Content InBottom Ash V
0% C,,
Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems
.. |.
So°o
3 D 3o
oc
E P
*~ 3O 0
E E
* % sso-IA eu
-EEL--shHndin 55
g4165
O3/iwoR
' 0
|j
." !D 3 o
=
Do%
- . . 5-5
* Cu 3 3 3 3
in
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

10

[]~ ~ ! 9 ...
0

Magaldi ash conveyor with mechanical handling system

1 - Boiler 6 - Primary crusher I1 - Filter
2 - Hydraulic seal 7 - Drag chain conveyor 12 - Blower
3 - Ash hopper 8 - Shutoff valve 13 - Rotary air lock
4 - MAC extractor 9 - Saieiy valve 14 - Silo
5 -Cleaning drag chain 10 - Crusher 15 - Telescopic loader

United Conveyor Corp.

Figure 5-18 Magaldi Ash Conveyor with Mechanical Handling System

REINZL - Ash Handling 5-58

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R2

10 1
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

4~ 12

6 1

. . .. ... . . .

Magaldi ash conveyor with pneumatic handling system

I - Boiler 6 - Primary crusher I11 - Pneumatic
2 - Hydraulic seal 7 - Secondary crusher conveying pipes
3 - Ash hopper 8 - Change-over valve 12 - Cyclone separator
4 - MAC extractor 9 - Compressor 13 - Double flap valve
5 - Cleaning drag chain 10 - Screw pump 14 -Sio

United Conveyor Carp.

Figure 5-19 Magaldi Ash Conveyor with Pneumatic Handling System

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-59

94-1 685c.0031W0/wa/R2
t0

com

:CCD
J

2C0oo Cor.vo luc CD

620

2 0 4200.

1oooo~~8100 400000 20 ,,d~l,._

c, 42 mafkwu i.ararm

Figure x30 MeOn-YarMaeia BlaceI u-0 Quantites ae

mT in .

United Conveyor Corp.

- * -3
__ .
(0

0
*o 0I

Pulverizer Pulverizer

.. ....... To Dewatering Bin

Or Mechanical Chain -C
High PressureCo vy r1
Rejgcts R-1Plererejcstadln

CD,

& C-­
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Maintenance Economizer
Gate Hopper
Water Seal
Baffle - Trough

Overflow |Sizing Grid

Seal
Tank

Isolation Gate Jetting Nozzle

Transport Nozzle

Water-filled tank beneath economizer hopper

for low-calcium-content ash
Combustion
Fossil Power Systems
Combustion eng., Inc.

Figure 5-22 Water-Filled Economizer Hopper Tank

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-62

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R2
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

FEconomizer Hoppers

Carryover to Air
" P Heater

Figure 5-23 Typical Hopper and Vertical Shaft Air Heater Configuration

RENEL - Ash Handling

5-63
94-1685c.O03/WO/wolR2

I
 M
Cn

SB uRapper Insulator
uoIsltrCompartment
aTransformer-Rectifier Set
a* . Collecting Surface Rapper
UDischarge
Rapper Electrode
High-Voltage
System
InsulatorSupport i!.' ' i

Gas Flow

Gas Distribution
Device
(Perforated Plates)

Weighted-Wire Discharge Electrode

Dust Receiver Collecting Surface

:E
Combustion
Fossil Powcr Systems
Combustion Eng., Inc.

Figure 5-24 Typical Weighted Wire Precipitator

C,.
*= M
CD ,
LI­
C.
Ln

*=r
0

S* Vent:
PRECIPITATOR
Bag Filters

~Fly Separators Discharge

Ash
Silo Retrofit

Air Intake Fly Ash Intakes Surge

Transfer
Silo \ -
Inak Me
Intake Air Lock SioMechanical Exhaus te
.
i ,I Feeders ER'

Mechanical Blower C

To Fill Area _

U)

Figure 5-25 Fly Ash Vacuum and Pressure Conveyor

0.

C,
LA
 wn
a M C,,
CD

C,

Vent To Precipitator

PRECIPITATOR
FLY
ASH
SILO
SL

Air Intake

Air-Lock Feeders C

CD

CD
C-2

To Fill Area , CD

Figure 5-26 Fly Ash Pneumatic Pressure Conveyor M,

C,,
tA
CD
w =
mn
M
M CD

0)0

0 =r Sea"tr ""''

SepartorsWater

PRECIPITATOR Exhauster

FLY
~ASH

SILO E Air Separators

jCD
Air Intake Fly Ash Intakes E
To Fill Area q

C3

CD

C,,

Figure 5-27 Fly Ash Hydraulic Vacuum Conveyor

C,
C,,
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

Figure 5-28 Combined Mechanical/Pneumatic Transport System for Continuous Removal

of Precipitated Fly Ash

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-68

94-1685c.O03/WO/wo/R2
CD
CD
0 1,
CT

CKJ

PRECIPITATOR

Silo mechanical Exhauster

Air IntakeFly Ash Intakes ,

CD,
CaI

Figure 5-29 Fly Ash Pneumatic Conveyor ca

C/3
CD,

~ro
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

PRECIPITATOR OR 7
V 'BAGHOUSE
-"-.

HOPPER
-~-----TANK VENT PIPE

* FLYASH VALVE

- ~ LEVEL
INDICATOR

PR ESSURE
______ _____ TANK _ _ _

FLUIDIZING AIR

FLYASH VALVE

4" C1 CONVEYING PIPELINE -"-

Figure 5-30 Positive Pressure Air-Lock Feeder

RENEL - Ash Handling

5-70
94-1685c.003/W0/wo/R2
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

(disc-type gate vacuum removal system)

• . •. _

AIRSPACE

MATERIAL AND INSULATION

SUAj T
GAS FLOW
ELECTRIC HEATERS

FLYASH
INTAKE FLUIDIZING AIR PLENUM

POWER-OPERATED
VALVE DISC CONVEYING PIPELINE
WITH SPRING-LOADED
AIR INTAKE AT
BEGINNING OF EACH
BRANCHLINE

Figure 5-31 Fly Ash Hopper with Fly Ash Intake

RENEL - Ash Handling

5-71
94-1685c.0031WO/wo/R2
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

AIR CYLINDER

OPER. GATE

VIEWS B

FLOW/
t

Sm. A-A A

FLYASH INTAKE

TYPICAL BRANCHLINE

Figure 5-32 Fly Ash Intakes with Shut-Off Gates In Horizontal Lines

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-72

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R2

\
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

FUNNEL
FLOW

Af- EFFECTIVE
FLUIDIZING

AREA
DRY AIR FLOW

EQUIVALENT TO
DISCHARGE DIA.

~I' AIR SUPPLY

FLOW PRODUCING
CRITICAL D~ISCHARGE DIAMETERS
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE DIAMETERS
DIAMETER SUPPORTING ARCHES
AND RAT HOLES

Figure 5-33 Fly Ash Fluidizers vs Discharge Diameters

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-73

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R2
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

C
/Electrostatic

Precipitator

Air
Heater 0 0 0

Hoppers
o~ V,

Fans

Figure 5-34 Location of Forced Draft and Primary Air Fan Inlets Near Precipitator Hoppers

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-74

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R2
 Section 5 Western Experience with Ash Handling Systems

HammerTek Vortice Ell* Elbow

Typical Materials

Aluminum ASTM SC-6-4C

Socket Weld/Flanged
Cast Iron ASTM A-48-74
Flanged Only Class 25-30
Carbon Steel ASTM A-216
Socket Weld/Flanged Grade WC.B
Stainless Steel 304 ASTM A-743
Socket Weld/Flanged Grade CF-8
Stainless Steel 316 ASTM A-743
Socket Weld/Flanged Grade CF-8M
HammerLast TM' ASTM A-48-74
Flanged Only Class 50-60 Acicular
Ductile" ASTM A-897-90
Socket Only Grade 5
HammerTek Corp. "ipe size only;**Tube size only
Landisville, PA., USA Note:125 lb flanges to ANSI specifications are standard: other sizes by request

Figure 5-35 Recessed Entry Elbow

RENEL - Ash Handling 5-75

94-1685c.003/WO/wo/R2
 APPENDIX A

Trip Report To Romania - Ash Disposal

August 9, 1993
 TRIP REPORT

Trip to BtchAUest, Roma-Iria

Week of JWy 19 t.-ough 73, 1993
Romanian Energy and Electric (RENEL) Power
Project No.: 21978-000

Report By: Phil M Chopan

Environmental Technology
Bechtel Env-ironrtme" a inc. (BED
50 Beale Street, SF, CA, 94119-3965
Tel. (415) 768-6305, Fax.-7299

Copies to: Joseph H Westsik

Files

Under US AID Contract, Bechtel is to ,espo.d ".o ,peciic requests from RENEL for
technical assistance in the ayea:, crit2cia to inp'.ving operational efficiency of
Romanian power generating plants. A:; a initi~i s.ep in identifying specific areas of
concern, a trip was arrainged for th, 5e.J-'-l tec',ni :a1 team to meet with the RENEL
personnel and visit one or two typical plant s.:te&. The Bechtel technical team on
this trip consisted of Roy, Murrhrk; Bol.. STeigerwald; Joe, Westsik; and myself. Joe
was the task leader.

The scope of my trip was to coilect rJov-ation ih ;. area of specialty which relates
to ash storage, containirertL, and r.clar;atior.. Th- other members of the trip were
to address issue" such as ash handtir, corroiic,, cavitaion, and fuel combustion
efficiencies.
This report incdudes orly what wa.; ob.:kred _d Lhe pertinent data provided to us

by the RFNIEL persor-el; no ;rpiir.Jrals-:. were conducted during the trip.

:ar
This trip report, together with the fmip reports Lcu%the other specialists, will be used
to develop a Teciuical Report vn'd-. hE Ror-,ani.an Task R-1 (Generating System
Efficiency). The pertinent ste dc ta. .c",u.ions, and recommendations will be
included in the Techmical Report to be i,;sued later.
BUCHAREST MEETING

On Monday and Tuesday (July 10 an.' 2..w w:. wilh RENEL Technical Director,
Ing. Ion Barbiesacu and a grouy .- b. .,:.: .taff representing RENEL, Institute
of Power Studies and Design (ISP.. and thE:..Aergy Research and Modernizing
Institute (ICEMENERG) 1"he foilr..:. pa.ag~aphs present a summary ofmy

Report Date: August 9,1993 page I of 6

 the subject of the ash
discussion with the members of the ine -n pary concerning
specific questions
storage/reclamation. Bechtel had previo.xisly faxed RE.NEL sixteen
as described
on ash storage and reclamation. These questior.s w;'ere also discussed
are presented in
below. RENEL written response to heee sFecific questions
Attachment 1 to this trip report.
disposed
The ash generated at the coal-firIng powr plantU ir, Romania are generally
adjacent to the
off as ash piles which take up conside.able arouni of land at or
but
plant. The size of each ash storage area var~ez dejpending or, the plant operation
historically it has been on the order of '," to 17/0 hectares (25 to 420 acres). The height
storage
of the piles is on the order of 20 to 40 ..me-ers (55 to 130 fee). Some of these
or
areas are near capacity and land acquisition for future ash piles is very difficult
of land owners to sell
impossible because of recent land restrictions and :eluctance
or lease their land for ash storage. R..-la-ation cf the existing ash piles has been
successfuldy tried in limited areas. However, such. reclamation has been costly.
Further-more, the reclaimed ash piles cannot be exchanged with the adjacent farm
lands for storage of ':.itw'e ash because farmers a:e reluctant to accept the exchange.

Approximately 20 coal-firing power plants are currently operating in various

counties of Romania, all have electrostatic precipitators. The ash generated at these
plants is approximately 10 to 15 miiaCn ton.-, per year of which only about one
percent (150,000 tons per year) could be marketed for industrial use. The use of fly
ash has been limited to mairly the following industries:

cement/concrete plants,
brick kilns,
lime kilns,
drilling mud production, aund
construction.

The use of ash in construction industr-i (as fill material) is generally limited by the
transportation cost over a distance of approximately 20 Kilometers (12.5 miles).
Attempts to find more industrial use for the a5h has been unsuccessful. Ash is not
returned to the coal mines for a variety of reasons including distance, lack of
demand, and/or absence of dedicated transportation systems.

The ash is generally mixed with to water on a i0: 1 weight ratio (water: ash), and the
resulting mix (slurry) is pumped thc- sto'age area (ash piles). Only about 8 percent
of the water is recycled mainly because of drainage loss; the ash is relatively
permeable and the storage area has nr. lining. The ash in these piles is generally
cohesionless with partidcle size in the range of flne sandy silts (fine sand: 0.1 to 5 mm;
silt: 0.1 to 0.002 mam; ). The dry u:it weight of the ash is on the order of 0.75 tons per
cubic meters (50 pounds per cubic fe . .arge p,.mps and steel pipes are used for
pumping the ash from the plant to the storage area. The diameter of these pipes is
on the order of 25 to 50 centimeters ('10 to 20 inches).

Report Date: August 9,1993 page 2 of 6

The slurry is dumped in the storage area which is confined by perimeter berms
roughly 3 to 6 meters (10 to 20 feet) high. The berms are generally composed of soil
materials with slopes on the order of 1 (vertical: horizontal). Once the slurry level
*'

is near the top of the berm and after "lae slui-y is drained, another ring of perimeter
• bi-rms and the storage operation
berm is constructed on top of the p~evio
continues. Several berms may be buii, on tor of .ne another in an almost pyramid
fashion until the storage capac.ty is reached; a, dictated by a variety of factors
including pumping capacity to lift: the sur- . to the top of the final berm, slope
stability of individual beris, and slopc of the entire ash pile. For an overall
&abii'iy
slope of 1: 5 (vertical: horizontal) RENIEL has reported a safety factor of 1.2 to 1.3
(based on Fellenius method of analysis) for the storage operation. Only one slope
failure has been reported at the Turcenii Thermal Power Plant which occurred in
April 8, 1993 (See Attachment 1 to this trip report).

Any leachate (water or liquid) collected from tpe piles, if not recycled, is disposed at
surface waters without any special t catment. The leachate is not monitored for
chemical makeup. The typical chemical centent of the ash is provided in
Attachment 1. Based on the RENE% respoase, the ash contains no significant
amount (nil) of toxic elements, carcinogenic su-bstances, or other chemicals of health
concern. The only radioactive materL1 in the ash is Ra 226 which may be in the
range of 3.25 to 8.10 pico Curie per g cam. According to one member of the
ICEMENER, Institute, the levels of doactivit, in coal is about 10 pico Curie per
gram, consisting of Ra 226 and K40 .

Mr. Barbulescu emphasized that considering the restrictions in obtaining land for
future ash piles, RENEL needs technical assistace and recommendations on
measures to accomplish the following:

* reduce ash generation,

* improve ash handling,
• reduce land use by improving ash storage efficiency,
* enhance ash pile reclamation, and
• properly contain the ash.

Mr. Barbulescu suggested that we i,..it two power plants after conclusion of the
meeting: Craiova 1, and Brazi power plants. He indicated that these plants are
neither typical nor the worst pian3. Howew-r, they do have a fair amount of
problems discussed in the mteet:.', and their proximity to Bucharest would
accommodate our schedule. CraiovrTlant operates on coal and has substantial
problems with ash storage. Bra7z P!nt does. not have ash storage problems as it is
not a coal-firing plant, but it doe,; have substant.al problems associated with
corrosion, cavitation of water feed pumps, fuel combustion efficiency, sulfur
removal technology, and breakage of .ome cl czolers (for details of Brazi problems
see trip reports by the other speciali.>ts). Te rneeting was concluded on Tuesday
afternoon on July 20.

Report Date: August 9,1993 page 3 of 6

CRAIOVA POWER PLANT
coal-fired power
On Wednesday July 21, we drove from bucharest io the Craiova I
Bucharest. It took
plant which is located approximately 250 Kilcmeters west of
low
about 5 hou's to drive on a two-lane highway ,,,,whi:ch cu+s across the Romanian
farm lands. The plant is
lying plains and passes through !x'era! smail mtowns and
and his staff
situated outside the City of Craiova. Ve met with the Plant director
who provided us with the informatiorn smu.marized below. .- ,.,,, "
has over six
Craiova I is a 1000 mega-watt pn-we" plant consisting of 8 units. \It
of 510
turbines and ten boilers. Four of the bciiers are i.rge, each with apcapacity
tons per hour. The capacity of the sa;-l aler bcilers is on the order of 300 tons per
hour. The first boiler started operation in 1964. T1he lignite used at the plant burns
at approximately 1200 to 1700 Kilo calories per kilogram. The chemical breakdown
of the coal is typically as follows:

Constituent Weight Percentage

Ash 29
Sulfur 0.8
Carbon 19
Hydrogene I
Moisture 41
Others ??? 9.2

Total 100

The analytical data for the ash, measured in 1989, are presented in Table A of
Attachment 1. The annual production of ash at the plant is approximately 3 million
tons per year. The captured dry ash 1-only about 24,000 tons per year. Less than
about 20 percent of the ash consts of the c<onornizer ash and bottomrash. The
particle sizes of the bottom ash and the econo.i.uzer ash are mostly small and mostly
within size ranges of sands (0.1 to 5 m-llimeters), although gravel size particles may
be encountered occasionally. Avprcx"na~ely 99 to 96 percent of the ash has particle
size smaller than 0.2 mm. The e.o.or-.z~r as:, bottom ash and fly ash are generally
mixed together with water and made ""to a Sturr which is then pumped to the ash
storage area. Steel pipes with ar,approx'mat- diameter of 30 centimeters (12 inches)
are used for pumping the slur.y to thc s~trage area which is located approximately 2
kilometers (1.25 miles) away from tfl..e plant site.

Four pumping stations ar used to piump !he slurry approximately 2 kilometers

away and 40 meters (130 feet) high. E,,Icl sta ie. has four large capacity pumps two
of which are operating and the othe tt..-o are kept for spare. The slurry is generally
made with a 10: 1 ratio by weight (water: ash). Acid is added to the water to remove
deposits from inside the pipes. A.t.mpts haw. been made to reduce the ratio of

Report Date: August 9,1993 page 4 of 6

N?
water in order to economize in pumping volumne, water usage, and storage room.
However, these attempts have not been successful mainly because of problems
associated with particle segregation in the pipes and pumping difficulties. They
have not tried adding surfaftants or fue-u!ating agerts to the slurry, or separating
the bottom a~h before pumping the shrry.->"
Coal is brought in the plant by dedicated ra-d cal-s ffhat open at the bottom. The 60­
ton capacity rail cars are not lined or ccered al the top. The rail cars return to the
coal mines empty. Ash is not sent back to thr- Minss because the miners do not
want it. Strip mining is used for coal miring iine land reclamation is required in
/

the specifications. However, land redki-mation inthe mines is not strictly.,fllewed­

and, therefor, use of the ash as redamaion mat.ri.? .s not much in demand_),,.,,

The ash storage near the plant .asu±.began in 1964. The closest available low lying
land (river bed?) was selected for the ash storage area about 2 kilometers from the
plant. The current occupied storage area is appr. x".1ate!y 136 hectares (336 acres). It
is projected that within the next 5 years the ash storage will take up an area of over
175 hectares (432 acres) which is the full storage: capacity of the Criova power plant.
Therefore, the plant operation would ha.ve to shut down in 5 years unless new land
is aquired or the ash disposal/storage problem isTesolved. Acquisition of new land
seems very unlikely. Thus, the ash storage problem has to be resolved and
implemented before the end of the fv-,year period.

After discussing the above issues, we .sited tILe plant facilities and drove up on a
dirt road to see the ash storage area. The ash piles and berms are sometimes
indistinguishable as the berms are coveed with dust (ash). Grab samples from the
berm in several locations appeared to be clayey silt with some fine sands. Grab
samples from the ash appeared like silt with some fine sands. Both the berm
material and the ash depos.ts seemad lcl be relatively permeable and easy to drain.
All the ash piles we saw were we 1. ained ,- and relatively or completely dry. We
could not see the actual wet disposal poinat where slurry is dumped off the pipes. It
was explained to us that the actual d.,mp point looks like a shallow pond where the
water drains or it is pumped back for rF.cling.

I could not see any drainage blankets on the slopes of the berms. it seemed that
most of the water would permeate thyough and very little water could be collected
even if there was a drainage blanket. There were no dust control measures and we
were told that dust clouds are cozr na-n on windy days. Dust has been a source of
complaints from the residents in the surrounLding area. Traffic with light-weight
vehicles is possible on the dry em*.nkmeni. Four-wheeL light-weight vehicles
ash deposits; almost like driving on sand
could be tried on the dryvisite- dunes. The
height of te ash pies we w ., the o;de; of 30 meters (100 feet). However,
these piles were still being use.d and could go higher. We were told that the
pumping capacity is a major facto: 1;: Oeterninhig the final height of the piles.
Stage pumping is not used to increase the height imits for the piles.

Report Date: August 9,1993 page 5 of 6

N'
 for
We then visited an experimental plot of Iand where the ash pile was reclaimed
agriculture. The plot of land was problbly about 0.5 hectares (1.2 acres) situated
on
grade.
top of an ash pile approximately 40 meters (130 feet) above the surrounding
tomatoes;
The plot had healthy crops of cotton, peanuts, strawberries, tobacco, and
fruit-bearing rees including apricots, and apples; grape vines; and other shrubberies.
of
We were told that the only reclamation ,,ik perrormed on the ash pile consisted
were
adding fertilizers directly to the ash near the sui-face. All the crops and trees
grown directly on the ash pile with no top soil. T.he wonderful garden appeared like
the reclamation project was very success-u*. Howev'er, there were several problems.
The land was too high up from the irrigation wrte source and the water had to be
pumped at additional costs. Most of the irrigation water was wasted by rapid
drainage into the ash pile as there was ro liner or relatively impermeable soil layer
to retain the moisture. Also, farmers w.re reluctant to try cultivation because they
were suspicious of possible radioactivity in the ash and possible long-term
carcinogenic effect through the agriculti..al prodticts. We tried some of the fruits
and the left the site.
BRAZI POWER PLANT

On Wednesday July 21, we drove from Bucharest to the Brazi Plant which is a fuel­
burning power plant situated in the nc.rthern -mountainous region of the country.
Because the winding two-lane highvwray runs fthrough hills and small resort areas, it
tool-,approximately three hours to dri,e to the plant even through it is only about
80 Kilometers north of Bucharest. We .net wit.'.- the plant director, Ing. Dumitrescu
Mircea and visited the plant.

Mr. NMircea explained that this plant I.az been operating since 1961. Several units
have been added to it since. The plian opnrate.. on fuel oil, on gas, or a mixture of
both depending on fuel availability. hig, sulfur content has been a major source of
is
problem at this plant. The sulfur content of fue! oil from the Romanian crude oil
approximately 1 to 2 percent. However, since !982 fuel oil available to the plant has
had higher sulfur contents on the o;-der of 3.5 percent. Because of short fuel supply,
some of the units which are designed to operate. only on gas have had to operate on
fuel oil intermittently. This has comp.unded problems associated with high sulfur
contents, corrosion, and cavitation. After dhe ,:-.eeting, we visited the plant facilities
and left the site. Since the Brazi Pl2:;t operates on fuel, there are no ash pile
problems at this site. Therefore, this pl,-it is not discu.ssed further in my trip report
which is concerned with ash pile stornage prob:erns. Detail discussion of this plant
and its specific problems :nay be four in trip reports by the other members of the
trip.

Report Date: August 9,1993 page 6 of 6

 ATTACHMENT 1
to Appendix A

Bechtel Initial Questions on Ash Storage and Reclamination

and

RENEL Response
 Bechtel's Initial Qestions n Ash Storage and Reclamation
(Soil Reclamation and Remediation Studies)
I - provide
Please pile=, a the fc.-.,w'., :r . , c the
.n r-d,-eight
v 43., by %each of each ash
(H) pile:
pile and the size of the area, ,yp.-, cbe pi

Typical values of A and H

Maximum values of A and 1H
Minimum values of A and H

2 What are the engineering propcitics of the ash within the ash piles in
general? Please provide typic. values, maximum and minimum
values. Include the following fiorma.ion aS much as possible:

Dry unit weight (W)

Saturated unit weight (Ws)
Moisture content (M)
Specific gravity (S)
Cohesion or shea',r ;trngth (C)
Friction angle (F)
Angle of repose (Ar)
SiZe classifiCation and/or gradation (G)

3 What is the chemical make up af the ash in the piles in general?

Please provide typical values. ma-xium. and minimum values.
Include the following informatinr, as ,nuch as possible:

Toxic elements
Carcinogenic substance
Radioactive material
Other chemicals of health concern

4 What size equipment, if a.ny, czri be. used on top of these piles? Please
indicate small vehicles, 4-w-,. vehi.,..:,' rubber-tihed vehicles, small
trucks, heavy equipment etc.

5 What are the possibilities of r'mipli t!:ese ash piles and analysis for
chemical and physical propries?

6 - How old are these piles? Giv. 0g.'i' -tmate and range.

Page 1 of 2
7 - Is any historical information av'ailable on any slope failures and /or
sloughing? Please explain.

8 - What are the engineering properties of the berms containing these

piles? Please provide geotechni-al information similar to item 2
above.

9 What is the safety factor agairs s!ope failure through the base of or
throgh the mass of these bernis?

10 - What is the overall safety fac;cr agains, gross s!ope failure of the
entire ash pile inclusive of one or more berms?

11 - What is the current production rate of ash in tons per year per plant?
Is this rate to continue?

12 - Has the ash ever been stabijiz:3d chemically? Please explain and
provide details.

13 - What are the past and present practices of ash stabilization in the
country?
14 - What are the past and presc-., practices of ash pile reclamation in the
country?

15 Are annual precipitation data ,vailable for each location for the past
40 years? Please indicate the sourc; address and phone number.

16 - Are seismic data available for the diffe"ent localities? Please indicate
the source address and phone n.umber.

Page 2 of 2 \A
 RENEL RESPONSE (July 20)

SOIL RECLAMATION ANU RE EDIAIlON STUDIES

Ine 'an-es .i'cfl in !:'c fl" c ii 9e-iI rccr to 6 tnern-1

. !o,
1 n '.i t .L ,-

e.aocnp I" nrn: p.t ln

F!oloau' anfort.-or, onl tile nci;,,t (H) of

eacn asn -l~e arlu s-ic sli~a ot the -area (A) typialy coverej b _

Al: I e N_iues of hc,;.:hts 1,E) an;, sie of, tsl

areas tA) cuver-:z oy tne asn "i.1cS or eac:h ash, st(.raje ore as it.
Loliows:

Denoarncition of tne Area heint Remar. s

dsn p1ie storo, je- .. .aJ (m_

TURCENI T.P.P.

Valea Ceplea 161.7 0.00 is to be reused.

Storage No.2 169.0 8.5 In operation.

ROVINARI T.P.P.

Cicani West 15.0 10% still avala,­

ole for storage.
Cicani East 66.0 17.0 Ditto.
Beteregea i18.0 0.9 In operation.

ISALNITA T.P.P.
Right-bank storage 145.0 26.0 In operation.
Left-hand storage 136.0 32.0 In operation

MINTIA-DEVA T.F.P.

Mures-right-bank 63.0 40.0 In oDeration.

Bejan Valley 87.0 26.0 in operation.

DOICESTI T.P.P.

Storage No.1 12 38.0 Exhausted.

Storage No.2 25 42.0 Exhausted.
Storage No.3 10 26.0 Still to be used.
Poiana Mare 48 9.0 In operation.
Storage No.5 18 . Under construction
CRAlOVA Ii T.P.P.

Valea f'anastirii 120 30.0 in operation.

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

 •n....~*
Q2; ~re ~ ~ . , .. '.thlfn
. .s:,: the asn

#ii36 ~ I y C,: .'! C";i

. Al
L rl un ic,,)
sn .r tsi
r c h.

£C)" = ; , L
Cohes6on

Size classification (example)

Grain size d mm] Percentage (%

0.002 6 0.004- 16
0.05 d 0.05 32
65
U.u5 (. 0.4-5 2
0.2 .5 6 16
0.5 Z + 8

is ci-be :r, ,nice . up cf h ash in the ei1

s in
Q-.. ,nsc.
j neca 1?

AS. ,,atnun REEL ypo.,e- psnr., the asi n th' piles has not been
trea eccQi ai
lypiCal va-utJs are - -s it PtDIl0s:

iyXic ieliencs: nil

f I
_-c -,
r~i -.
C, nil

Cc.,ec chermcals of ncaitn .. ',,-e hi.

Q':Ar~aa size of equipment, if any, can ce usec on tne top of these

A4: On tne top of the pile banks, traf-ic is practicaole. W'idth:

st. age ter.T.:n.ation on tne top dry-areas of
5 T. Usually after
psneles, ra "'c s prac tsi-d norm& I3

the pOSsib jt s o: i n&.r_tn-nse asn iles anc

'5K ,,eat ',
'
analy sis or cne .cai acd [.--sca!.jor.1eS

A5: n. t s-inq .'nes; 1d2 are by exC.v-t-ion.

7'4U.L/iC coPY ­

/
Analysis for Dt.VA I.E'.P. azh pile5

C3C ?ecLL ,1

.>.a,, t

SiC' t.56.0 4

A6:5ucri -1sfj. ic
s~ ar~ 3e4 3 ;c-1 .~ ~ nL ftcond

5-n or Ap.ril, L5>3- 1.1_ ;oi_±

c. Ze for Sucn in
dfl ven'- is t.11Ge
uneven LtIi 1111 OLf ~ ~ e .,ell F-.s tne occur.-'i'.a of
~C!r i iyer Of &bOut i;es n,; erod~ed lrom ~s~
CQLs . nat are t iie ner o~r o r .es o foot.-ea aicon a.in i
tn.-se Piles­

£8~ecmsare ~
:CCL& Lf

Q9+li?4..at is trie Bafeu fozti: aq --irist siope failure tnr~u,.; tcne

r)s of or trgu r r qn.~;s berms? .':h-t is tn- overa17

A 1.u: At an. cvcrall1 slo~pe (;E .5 r~ie s-afety f -1cto- Fellen.1 cs)
is GE 1 2: 1. (for tcie se a z~a.p)

."'Japir-t -'s 'nei cite ono Ofa",r__c zr e

L'O~uctZo ece 1_ na~ ;

islit oer * 4.;Q~y~ ua

fle~ tne f;Ueterl cazur ei-

Ciacl!_rits,.C.r

so~
d±2 r c1 ozc1.pz z S a tn 0:1vr,--:~1r. iDe~n
ae.t s

eESTAVfLABL
Cr copy ,­
 L' j

A, i Lr~ 3~ ±- .:j r' z L;r~ -i. LCn

L ...
rS c uLO uC z U.~
1.tL r*i i

-.6 y 6 6 il C n... 7C., L. AISTI1UIUL. NA1I1ONAL DL

EoRoLjCGIE
"EI 51 8 1DCLCG 1E , ,u nres , Romnia 'lelephone No.

b3 J.O.1
&/--I

6: .~SJ'-'51.1CJ, . N$~'1'1U IUL DE; GEGLOG1E, SI

GEOFZIC oa- n, ja Sunarst, N . '65. 4.9

Uj
 . X
'1Ti 4:&
Q,
K
O~j '~7'
*.-3
It I -, -
,ig
~ rr­
CO~ I -''­