An explanation is in oreder
Hi there! First of all, I have been a lurker here at DR1 for about 2 years. I have been visiting the DR at least yearly since 1994. I?m the kind of person that likes to go ?local?. I don?t like the AI?s because they tend to alienate you from the ?real? people.
Enough said about me. Now to the matter at hand. I may have a biased opinion on ?rockash? as you call it, but I have the inside skinny on what is and what it is not, not to mention what we perceive to be the ?real? reasons for all the hoopla around it in Samana.
I have researched coal ash and its uses for the past year and have attended seminars on it. There are different types of ash as there are different types of boilers and different types of fuels for these boilers.
Flyash is the most common to be recycled. By recycling I mean that it is used as part of something else, the most common being as an additive in concrete. Flyash has two or three types depending on who you talk to: Class F, Class C, and Class N. Class F flyash usually comes from pulverized coal (PC) boilers and is the one listed in ASTM C-316 for use as a concrete additive.
Bed ash has lesser chances of being recycled, but can be used for its mechanical properties in applications such as road beds and filling materials. Boiler Slag is also considered for these applications. They may also be used for manufacturing Cement.
Scrubber Sludge may be used in any high gypsum application such as manufacturing drywall panels.
AES Guayama is a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler using Colombian low-sulphur coal. Ash content for this coal is around 5-7 % . It has the strictest environmental limits in the US, (at least until the next power generating unit come on line in the US).
As with any coal fired boiler, ash is generated. And as with anything generated it must stored and then disposed of or RECYCLED. CFB ash is misunderstood and only recently has research been done on its uses. PC ash on the other hand has been extensively used for the better part of last century (ie. Hoover Dam).
Do you generate toxic waste at home by throwing away food leftovers or paper/plastic trash? Not really. How about storing all of what you dispose at home for a year, would you do that? I don?t think so. The most environmentally safe thing to do would be to compost your organic trash and to recycle paper/plastic/aluminum, right? How many of us do that? Not many.
AES needs to dispose this ash in the most environmentally safe way possible. Options were and are still being sought out for this aspect of the business.
Multigestiones Valencia came in with an offer to haul this ash, which is composed of flyash and bed ash mixed together, which was considered and found to be cost-effective. They had all their paperwork in order, so a contract was set up. Like it?s said ?the rest is history?.
As to why the ash is not used in Puerto Rico, this is a misstatement. At the time different permits were being sought here for local use, but in the land of red tape, this takes time, a really long time. Today, a couple of companies want to use this ash and the permits are forthcoming, so expect local use soon.
On the million dollar investment of Carmelo Group for flyash use in Puerto Rico and why it is being imported from the states, two things. First, it demonstrates that ash is not toxic and can be imported/exported. Second, remember the different kinds of flyash and their uses. They are bringing in Class F flyash from Georgia for use in concrete. They are also enlightening the construction industry and the local government on the uses of flyash. Something that probably hasn?t been done in DR.
Now for the inside scoop on the fracas. I will not use names as I do not wish to be hit with a defamation/slandering lawsuit.
Multigestiones Valencia (MV) had this dream of putting rockash to beneficial use and make a profit while at it. Please remember the uses for ash. When they brought to the DR, they specified the intended uses for it. They also claimed that they were going to slash cement/concrete prices with their product. The cement/concrete interests on the island, which I hear has their loading docks also in Samana, found this not to be, well, in their interest.
They get the ears of some local watch groups, and tell them about this garbage being dumped on their land. The local Sindico, which by the way I believe was PLD, saw a way to make the national government (PRD) look bad since they authorized the shipment in the first place. So, here is where we stand. Tests, other than the ones made by UASD, have not been published. UASD test results are suspect to me since I have seen the test results made in the states for the same material around the same time frame, and these conform to EPA standards. Toxicity levels are neglible.
Rounding up, I believe MV did not have the business sense to do business in DR the right way. I also believe that they should not have brought the material over if they didn?t have everything squared away on the receiving end.
/emages/news/12616_7825_640.jpg)
