Rock ash and Puerto Rico

Dolores1

DR1
May 3, 2000
8,215
37
48
www.
DR1 News 21 March 2006:

Veteran Puerto Rico-based journalist John Collins writes to share the article he wrote on rock ash from Puerto Rico deposited in the DR.

"I think people in the DR would be very interested in the lawyer's opinion regarding the role of the GovtPR in not monitoring the toxic material exported from PR. In fact he stated that both US & PR govt agencies have to share the blame for this problem. I can assure you that the position of AES is that they had permission from the US & PR govts to ship it. The lawyer is also going to insist that if AES thought it was nontoxic then why didn't they process it in PR rather than ship it to the DR?," he asks.

He recently covered the issue for Trinidad-based Caribbean Investor publication: http://caribbeaninvestor.com/article.shtml?browser_query=varticle&field=4762
 

Mirador

On Permanent Vacation!
Apr 15, 2004
3,563
0
0
Other developments from today's local news:


1) The Governor of San Cristobal had to call in the National Police when the Environmental Vice Minister and other officials were held against their will at the Palenque City Hall, after a meeting with municipal authorities including the Mayor, Mr. Jos? Tam?rez, who said there was a city ordinance prohibiting the transportation of the infamous "rock ash" through their town. The mayor exclaimed that central authorties would have to go over his dead body to bring the toxic waste through Palenque ("tendr?n que pasar por encima de mi cad?ver para llevar el material hasta aqu?").

EL LISTIN ON LINE

2) Enco International, headquarted in the US, has made a formal offer to the DR government to clean up the "rock ash" and transport it safely to the US for disposal for US$13 million.

EL CARIBE ON LINE

-
 

Dolores1

DR1
May 3, 2000
8,215
37
48
www.
We compile some of these recent issues in today's DR1 Daily News brief on rock ash--

21 March 2006:

Communities against rock ash decision
Yesterday, separate resolutions against the incineration of rock ash (also known as fly ash) in their communities were issued by the municipal councils of San Pedro de Macoris and Sabana Grande de Palenque, in response to the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources announcement that the toxic waste material would be transferred to Portland cement factories in those two areas. The council in San Pedro de Macoris declared itself in "permanent session" until the ministry provides the community with an explanation of the possible effects the processing of the material could have. Environment Minister Max Puig informed that AES Corporation would be indicted in the United States for its responsibility in the case. The state is seeking US$80 million in damages to health, the economy and the environment of the provinces where the toxic waste material was dumped (see DR1 Daily News 16 March 2006).
El Caribe reports that US company Enco International has offered to remove and transport the rock-ash to the United States for US$13 million. Enco would provide the number of ships required for the job and pay port fees, employees, storage, container operators, security expenses and US port fees. The firm has said it has not received any reply from the Ministry of the Environment.
 

gardito

New member
Jan 15, 2004
142
0
0
Dolores said:
DR1 News 21 March 2006:

"The lawyer is also going to insist that if AES thought it was nontoxic then why didn't they process it in PR rather than ship it to the DR?," he asks.


I was going to give a facetious reply, but naaaaah ..... :tired:

E.
 

steven9len

New member
Mar 21, 2006
2
0
0
Ash in Puerto Rico

The main lawyer working on the case is a man named Bart Fisher, a graduate of Harvard.There are also many others working between Dominican and American officials ex: Manfred Schweitzer. The man responsible for transporting the ash is named Roger Fina. He is already convicted and is sentenced to a Dominican jail. Unfortunately the case has not yet entered legal stages and is in the very early processes of negotiating. I was included in the document entitling us to go ahead and sue AES on behalf of the Dominican goverment. I want to ask all of you in this forum and anyone who reads it to please spread the news and post more articles because it is vital for a member of congress or the senate to step up in front of the house and make a statement regarding the ash. News of this is already very well spread and we are working on putting on tv on shows like 60 minutes but it would be a tremendous help if this could be spread across the internet.
 

Hillbilly

Moderator
Jan 1, 2002
18,948
514
113
I have been hearing a lot of different things about this stuff.
1) it's proper name is "fly ash" not rock ash.
2) it is not considered toxic under the Bevill Amendment of the EPA Act of 1970
3) it is considered to be a high volume-low toxicity waste
4) it contains probably in the neighborhood of 100 ppm of Pb (lead) which will leach out as a result of acid rain-which does not exist in the DR
5) it contains calcium carbonate, calcium aluminate, some ferrous materials and silicates
6) it is used in cement is the United States. In fact 60% of cement poured in the US uses Fly Ash.

-A lot of the composition of fly ash depends on the coal used to produce energy.
-The amount of fly ash in Manzanillo has been calculated to be less than 10,000 tons
-It was originally brought in to set the base for a container parking lot.
-The coal fired units at Itabo and Barahona: Where does their fly ash go? Apparently, according to my sources, it is used by the cement factories of the DR

Somehow, I am getting the feeling that this may well be a tempest in a teapot, and the result of savvy use of press and environmental worries in a nearly defenseless (environmentally speaking, that is, nation. And one hell of a government move to get money (US$80 million = RD$2.5 billion) out of AES?? Or let a juicy contract to someone, a contract bartered by certain government employees for, say, 10% of the deal? US$13 million x 10% = US$1.3 million into someone's pocket?

I don't know..this stinks.

HB :D:D:D
 

gardito

New member
Jan 15, 2004
142
0
0
Hillbilly said:
Somehow, I am getting the feeling that this may well be a tempest in a teapot, and the result of savvy use of press and environmental worries in a nearly defenseless (environmentally speaking, that is, nation. And one hell of a government move to get money (US$80 million = RD$2.5 billion) out of AES?? Or let a juicy contract to someone, a contract bartered by certain government employees for, say, 10% of the deal? US$13 million x 10% = US$1.3 million into someone's pocket?


The idea of Govt. extorting money from gringos???? I thought only the PN did that !

On another note, the suit says that permissions were granted that were later revoked. Sounds like something from another thread on residencias granted during the last administration. What's it going to be: Every four years the next govt will invalidate what the past administration did??

E.
 

gardito

New member
Jan 15, 2004
142
0
0
Upon further reading of the AES suit ....

"79. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew that, at the time, the particular shipments of fly ash that were being dumped in Dominican Republic had ?failed? the chemical testing required to establish that the fly ash could be used as a building aggregate. At present, fly ash from the AES Puerto Rico coal-fire plant can be used as a building aggregate." DR vs AES lawsuit filed in US District Court, VA.

Now I ask: Why did it "fail" chem testing before and now, "at present", it does not "fail" ? From what I understand, power generation is a pretty straightforward thing. The same process has been used since the beginning of that plant's operation.

E.
 

Hillbilly

Moderator
Jan 1, 2002
18,948
514
113
I think that they probably did not test it. It can't really "fail" a test since fly ash is one of several exceptions under the Bevill Amendment to the EDP Act.

The lawyers in the US are gonna have a field day. They charge for hours, no matter what. The Dr loses, but ends up paying millions in lawyer's fees.HAHA

Somebody in the DR government will get a fee for moving the DR government to certain law offices, wanna bet? A "local consultant's fee", perhaps?

This is silly.

HB
 

gardito

New member
Jan 15, 2004
142
0
0
Not only lawyer fees ...

I wonder if the defending party can counter-sue for libel ....

E.
 

hi-tec

New member
Jun 15, 2004
154
0
0
Last thing I read in PR press a few days ago was that the bloody thing, fly ash or whatever, is being utilized in PR as some kind of aggregate, or construction material.

I have the feeling that they are utilizing it now because they started to proccess the stuff so it can be used under usa federal regulations.

Prior to that, seem they could not utilize the stuff and shipped it to you know where...

At present time much more of the stuff has been utilized in PR than the amount shipped to RD.

the tow main newspaper in PR

www.endi.com

www.vocero.com

btw
fly ash and rock ash seem to be two different byproducts depending on the way it was proccessd or burned.

new technology permits that about 70 percent of the toxic material produced by coal power plant can be eliminated,

that being the reason for the surge in new coal power plant in the usa

prio to that no governor wanted those mosnter in their state
 

gardito

New member
Jan 15, 2004
142
0
0
hi-tec said:
I have the feeling that they are utilizing it now because they started to proccess the stuff so it can be used under usa federal regulations.


The fact is they are utilizing it more because they are becoming more educated in what this thing can be used in. Notwithstanding, some environmentalists are still against its use, although, the communities where the roads are being built are grateful for it.

E.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
What remains to be seen is---

Whether or not the proper seperation of the "rock ash" (the benign product) and the "fly ash" (the sometimes toxic product" will be effectively kept seperate and disposed of in a safe manner.
With the TWO coal fired generating plants being instaled in the Dominican Republic, this wil be a political and environmental football being tossed about for an indefinite period of time.
The answer is proper "scrubbers" being installed in the smoke stacks of the new plants.
Then you have the profusion of the coal dust being spread during the unloading and transport of the coal from the offloading point to the holding area at the plant. If they "slurry" the coal, then the problem is severly mitigated since the product is in a semi-liquid form and not prone to producing the dust which can cause "black-lung" disease.
It will be interesting to observe the machinations of the government AND the owners/operators ofthe new plants in this matter.
The "rock ash" is mixed with cement in the manufacture of "cinder blocks" which are lighter and stronger than those manufactured solely with sand and cement, so i am told.
I'm not the expert, so take all this with the "grain of salt" with which offered.

Texas Bill
 

gardito

New member
Jan 15, 2004
142
0
0
It's all in plant design

Plant designs for NEW coal fired power plant (should) include emmissions control and particulate controls. Scrubbers are normally used to remove SO2 & NoX. Precipitators and/or baghouses control stack opacity. For coal dust during unloading and transfer, dust collectors on the conveyor belts take care of this.

It is in the proposal stages that these issues are resolved. Govt HAS to DEMAND in the contract that strict adherence to environmental standards for these emmisions be observed. It also has to state penalties for non-compliance. If the DR has an EPA-type of board, these are the persons that need to get involved.

On the rock-ash issue, this aggregate is a mixture of bed ash & fly ash, so no separation of both products is present. Bed ash, Flyash & aggregate rock ash all have different uses.

E.
 

Conchman

Silver
Jul 3, 2002
4,586
160
63
57
www.oceanworld.net
Hillbilly, thanks for providing a balanced point of view with some facts and interesting comments. When it comes to environmental matters, logic often goes out the window.