AN EVALUATION OF FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION GYPSUM FOR ABANDONED MINE LAND ...

165 Pages·2009·1.09 MB·English

by  Rachael Pasini

AN EVALUATION OF FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION GYPSUM FOR
ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION
THESIS
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in
the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Rachael A. Pasini, B.A
Civil Engineering Graduate Program
The Ohio State University
2009
Thesis Committee:
Professor Harold Walker, Advisor
Professor Linda Weavers
Dr. Tarunjit Butalia

ABSTRACT
The goal of this study is to understand the environmental impacts associated with
using FGD gypsum for abandoned mine land reclamation (AMLR) in Ohio. There are
over 200,000 acres of abandoned strip mines and over 600,000 acres of abandoned
underground mines throughout Ohio that cause physical and chemical hazards to
surrounding waterways, soil systems, and wildlife. Ten abandoned mine lands (AMLs) in
eastern Ohio were reviewed in order to classify the different types of AMLs and build
model scenarios. FGD gypsum samples from two different coal combustion power plants
were tested in order to characterize the leaching behavior of the material under a variety
of conditions. The USEPA Methods 1311 (TCLP) and 1312 (SPLP) were used alongside
a three-tiered framework developed by Kosson et al. In order to assess the overall
impacts of using FGD gypsum for AMLR, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was
conducted to calculate output emissions and energy consumption. A combination of
conventional, ecological, and economic input-output LCA were used in this study.
The TCLP and SPLP results yielded concentrations of regulated constituents well
below Ohio standards for beneficial use application. Thus, according to such standards
the FGD gypsum samples can be classified as nonhazardous substances that present no
significant impact on groundwater or risk to public health. The results from the three-
ii
tiered Kosson et al. framework provided evidence that the leaching of Ca, S, and SO is
4
not necessarily affected by pH, but is mainly dependent on the solubility of gypsum.
Some constituents, such as Mg and Mn, were dependent upon pH while other showed
trends as a function of time. For instance, a majority of the available B was extracted in
each experiment and concentration increased over 8 days, but did not change in response
to varying pH. Less than 0.02% of Hg was available for leaching in each experiment and
decreased over time, suggesting that long-term leaching of Hg is potentially not a
concern. Overall, the leaching results demonstrate that the FGD gypsum samples do not
present significant impacts on surrounding waters.
The LCA results showed that using FGD gypsum for AMLR is a better option
than landfilling in terms of overall negative environmental impacts. In addition, it
showed that there are only slight differences between reclaiming abandoned highwalls,
highwall pits, and underground mine entranceways; though, due to high unit costs gob
pile reclamation was shown to be the least favorable option. The results from this
analysis do not include the positive impacts associated with reclamation, however, such
as acid mine drainage abatement and reduced sedimentation runoff. Thus, stakeholders
must weight the trade-offs between cost, benefits of reclamation, and overall negative
impacts when developing AMLR plans.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents for always supporting my
goals and encouraging my education. Next, I thank Dr. Harold Walker for providing the
opportunity to study environmental engineering and gain valuable research and field
experience. Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Tarunjit Butalia and Dr. Linda
Weavers, for supporting my research.
I would like to thank members of the environmental engineering lab group,
especially Ruiyang Xiao, Yuan Gao, Mengling Li, Xuan Li, and Qing Le for their
friendship and sharing their knowledge in the laboratory. I thank the process system
engineering group, especially Bob Urban and Dr. Bhavik Bakshi, for assisting me and
inviting me to learn about their research.
Thank you to Dr. John Lenhart, Dr. William Wolfe, Robert Baker (Baker
Consultants), Richard Warden (ODNR), and Bill Richardson (AEP) for providing
instruction and information for my research. To Kevin Jewell at OARDC for performing
many laboratory tests and answering my many questions.
Last, but not least, I thank my close friends and companions, especially Alex
Morison, that make me laugh and encourage me to grow.
iv
VITA
March 1984……………………………… Born
June 2002………………………………… Magnificat High School
June 2007………………………………… B.S. Industrial and Systems Engineering,
The Ohio State University
June 2008 to present……………………… Graduate Research Associate, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering and
Geodetic Sciences, The Ohio State
University
Field of Study
Major Field: Civil Engineering
Environmental Engineering
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................................xi
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. ............................................................................................xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
1.1 Scope of Work. ............................................................................................................1
1.2 Changes in FGD Material Production ........................................................................2
1.3 Abandoned Mine Lands in Ohio. ................................................................................3
1.4 Leaching Experiments ................................................................................................6
1.5 Life Cycle Assessment ...............................................................................................8
1.6 Outline of Chapters. ....................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 2: ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND FGD MATERIAL UTILIZATION
IN OHIO ............................................................................................................................11
2.1 History of Mining and Legislation in Ohio ..............................................................11
2.2 History of FGD Material Production in Ohio. ..........................................................15
2.3 FGD Material Usage at Mine Sites. ..........................................................................22
2.3.1 Otsego Gob Pile .................................................................................................24
vi
2.3.2 Fleming Surface Mine. .......................................................................................24
2.3.3 Freeport Gob Pile ...............................................................................................25
2.3.4 Broken Aro Remining ........................................................................................26
2.3.5 Roberts-Dawson Injection Project .....................................................................26
2.3.6 Rehoboth Refuse Pile .........................................................................................27
2.3.7 Rock Run Gob Pile. ............................................................................................28
2.3.8 Central Ohio Coal Company Coal Refuse Impoundment .................................28
2.3.9 Conseville Prep Plant Refuse Pile. .....................................................................29
2.3.10 Conesville Highwall. ........................................................................................29
2.3.11 Summary of AML Sites. ...................................................................................30
CHAPTER 3: CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF FGD GYSPUM ........32
3.1 Chemical Properties. .................................................................................................32
3.1.2 Mercury. .............................................................................................................35
3.1.3 Boron. .................................................................................................................36
3.1.1 Elemental Analysis. ............................................................................................37
3.2 Physical and Mechanical Properties .........................................................................40
3.3 Overview of Leaching Experiments .........................................................................41
3.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................41
3.4.1 Toxicity Characterization Leaching Procedure ..................................................41
vii
3.4.2 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure ......................................................42
3.4.3 Integrated Framework ........................................................................................43
3.4.3.1 Tier 1 ..........................................................................................................43
3.4.3.2 Tier 2 ..........................................................................................................43
3.4.3.3 Tier 3 ..........................................................................................................45
3.4.4 Chemical analysis ..............................................................................................47
3.4.5 Visual MINTEQ .................................................................................................47
3.5 Results and Discussion .............................................................................................47
3.5.1 TCLP and SPLP .................................................................................................48
3.5.1.1 pH. ..............................................................................................................50
3.5.1.2 Geochemical speciation .............................................................................51
3.5.1.3 Calcium and sulfur .....................................................................................52
3.5.1.4 Mercury. .....................................................................................................53
3.5.1.5 Boron. .........................................................................................................53
3.5.2 Kossen et al. Integrated Framework Results. .....................................................57
3.5.2.1 Tier 1 Results .............................................................................................57
3.5.2.2 Tier 2 ..........................................................................................................61
3.5.3.3 Tier 3 ..........................................................................................................67
3.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................73
viii
CHAPTER 4: LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW AND METHODOLOGY ....75
4.1 Overview of Life Cycle Assessment ........................................................................75
4.1.1 Types of LCAs ...................................................................................................76
4.1.1.1 Conventional LCA .....................................................................................77
4.1.1.2 Economic Input-Output LCA ....................................................................77
4.1.1.3 Ecological LCA .........................................................................................78
4.1.2 Limitations of LCAs ..........................................................................................78
4.2 Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. ......................................................................79
4.2.1 Goal Definition and Scope .................................................................................79
4.2.1.1 Goal definition ...........................................................................................79
4.2.1.2 Level of specificity ....................................................................................80
4.2.1.3 Functional unit ...........................................................................................80
4.2.1.4 Scope and system boundaries ....................................................................81
4.2.2 Life Cycle Inventory. .........................................................................................85
4.2.2.1 Flow Diagram. ............................................................................................85
4.2.2.2 Data Quality Goals. ....................................................................................87
4.2.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment. ..........................................................................87
4.2.4 Life Cycle Interpretation ....................................................................................89
CHAPTER 5: LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...............90
ix