- Thread starter tochel
- Start date
Toxics in Samana?
- Status
It never ceases to amaze me how frequently alarms get rung on this board by people who know nothing about what they are reporting. It's like Chicken Little who ran through the street shouting that "the sky is falling" after being hit on the head by a falling leaf.
The one person I trust in Samana on environmental issues is Kim Beddall, founder of whale watching in Samana Bay. Believe me, if there is any perceived threat to the Samana area, and especially to the whales, Kim is going to make a big noise.
After reading this thread, I was sure she would be up in arms. But she isn't, and sees nothing wrong with the project. It is not going into the bay but is being taken to Arroyo Barril and taken by truck to Manzanillo.
According to Kim, it comes from a large manufacturer of cement blocks in Puerto Rico and is a useful material. The idea was to send the material to a sister company in Manzanillo, and the first barge load went directly there. But that proved too costly, so they got a permit to deposit it at Arroyo Barril and take it from there by truck. It is not a loose material that blows around in the wind, but is hard and compact
There is a demand for this material among contractors, including the company building the project on Cayo Levantado. They want to put it into the foundations.
I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but I can report that the premier environmentalist in Samana is not alarmed about the deposit and temporary storage of this product at Arroyo Barril.
The one person I trust in Samana on environmental issues is Kim Beddall, founder of whale watching in Samana Bay. Believe me, if there is any perceived threat to the Samana area, and especially to the whales, Kim is going to make a big noise.
After reading this thread, I was sure she would be up in arms. But she isn't, and sees nothing wrong with the project. It is not going into the bay but is being taken to Arroyo Barril and taken by truck to Manzanillo.
According to Kim, it comes from a large manufacturer of cement blocks in Puerto Rico and is a useful material. The idea was to send the material to a sister company in Manzanillo, and the first barge load went directly there. But that proved too costly, so they got a permit to deposit it at Arroyo Barril and take it from there by truck. It is not a loose material that blows around in the wind, but is hard and compact
There is a demand for this material among contractors, including the company building the project on Cayo Levantado. They want to put it into the foundations.
I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but I can report that the premier environmentalist in Samana is not alarmed about the deposit and temporary storage of this product at Arroyo Barril.
Ken,
I agree completely: if there was an environmental danger Kim would be howling so loud it would be heard around the world. And I also agree about crying wolf. We've all seen this too many times on this board and that is exactly why I was leery of this whole thing from the git go.
And vicdj, if you had bothered to completely read the thread, you would have found my post where I described the big mound of the stuff that I drove up on several days after I made the post you referred to. That eyewitness report was what I promised.
I agree completely: if there was an environmental danger Kim would be howling so loud it would be heard around the world. And I also agree about crying wolf. We've all seen this too many times on this board and that is exactly why I was leery of this whole thing from the git go.
And vicdj, if you had bothered to completely read the thread, you would have found my post where I described the big mound of the stuff that I drove up on several days after I made the post you referred to. That eyewitness report was what I promised.
Ken & Andy,
I am glad that Kim thinks that there is nothing to worry about concerning this shipment. But I will sleep better when tests come back negative for heavy metals and toxics. Simply because it originated with a "sister cement company in PR" does not automatically make it innocuous material, and given the realities of the DR that you both know all too well, nor do the reassurances of the Enviroinment Ministry. A little application of the precautionary principle might not hurt here, especially given it is Samana. I particularly urge erring on the side of safety before I would allow anyone to make cement intended for use on Cayo Levantado, where exposure to corrosion and nearness of water sources are a factor.
I think that I have been a voice of caution on this thread about not jumping to conclusions too quickly (especially about relying on Dominican news reports), and hope you would agree. But I remain skeptical with questions. Many aspects of this whole tale do not add up.
Given the beauty, ecology & tourism importance of Samana, I would rather not jump to the conclusion it is entirely okay simply because it looks okay, the Ministry says it's okay and a local environmentalist (however sharp & good) believes the tale told by parties involved. It would not be the first time over the years of "innocuous" wastes being sent to a developing country for "recycling" or "use as an industrial input" that were duly approved by local authorities and local environmentaltists initially were not worried, only to find out later that the wastes involved were not innocuous at all and the local environment and public health paid the consequences.
Last but not least, there remains the question of whether or not this shipment was even legal, whether toxic or non-toxic. I have tried to point out the ambiguities I see on this point under existing Dominican law and its treaty obligations; I leave it to a lawyer to clarify the point for us.
Best Regards,
Keith
I am glad that Kim thinks that there is nothing to worry about concerning this shipment. But I will sleep better when tests come back negative for heavy metals and toxics. Simply because it originated with a "sister cement company in PR" does not automatically make it innocuous material, and given the realities of the DR that you both know all too well, nor do the reassurances of the Enviroinment Ministry. A little application of the precautionary principle might not hurt here, especially given it is Samana. I particularly urge erring on the side of safety before I would allow anyone to make cement intended for use on Cayo Levantado, where exposure to corrosion and nearness of water sources are a factor.
I think that I have been a voice of caution on this thread about not jumping to conclusions too quickly (especially about relying on Dominican news reports), and hope you would agree. But I remain skeptical with questions. Many aspects of this whole tale do not add up.
Given the beauty, ecology & tourism importance of Samana, I would rather not jump to the conclusion it is entirely okay simply because it looks okay, the Ministry says it's okay and a local environmentalist (however sharp & good) believes the tale told by parties involved. It would not be the first time over the years of "innocuous" wastes being sent to a developing country for "recycling" or "use as an industrial input" that were duly approved by local authorities and local environmentaltists initially were not worried, only to find out later that the wastes involved were not innocuous at all and the local environment and public health paid the consequences.
Last but not least, there remains the question of whether or not this shipment was even legal, whether toxic or non-toxic. I have tried to point out the ambiguities I see on this point under existing Dominican law and its treaty obligations; I leave it to a lawyer to clarify the point for us.
Best Regards,
Keith
1. import waste is against the law!
2. there is extrem high danger!
heavy metals or/and dioxin enters slowly into the environment...
phone greenpeace if you do not believe...
some local people and international groups are investigating.
i can't tell you more in this board, because this could bring some people in danger.
Kim, du you really know what's going on?
your email does not work!!!
Victoria Marine - Whale Saman? Kim Beddall
http://www.whalesamana.com/
Santa B?rbara de Saman?
809 - 538 2494
E-Mail: kim.beddall@usa.net (email does not work! :-( )
more relatee addressses:
http://whale.wheelock.edu/Welcome.html
whalemaster1@whale.wheelock.edu
Whale-Watching-Web - Terrestrial Environmental Actions
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/whale/action/action.html
Rauno.Lauhakangas@helsinki.fi
Fax: +358-9-19150590
Helsinki Institute of Physics
University of Helsinki, Finland
CEBSE Avenida Malecon
Centro de la Naturaleza, Saman?
Apartado 243
809 - 5 38 20 42
E-Mail: cebse@internet.codetel.net.do
2. there is extrem high danger!
heavy metals or/and dioxin enters slowly into the environment...
phone greenpeace if you do not believe...
some local people and international groups are investigating.
i can't tell you more in this board, because this could bring some people in danger.
Kim, du you really know what's going on?
your email does not work!!!
Victoria Marine - Whale Saman? Kim Beddall
http://www.whalesamana.com/
Santa B?rbara de Saman?
809 - 538 2494
E-Mail: kim.beddall@usa.net (email does not work! :-( )
more relatee addressses:
http://whale.wheelock.edu/Welcome.html
whalemaster1@whale.wheelock.edu
Whale-Watching-Web - Terrestrial Environmental Actions
http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/whale/action/action.html
Rauno.Lauhakangas@helsinki.fi
Fax: +358-9-19150590
Helsinki Institute of Physics
University of Helsinki, Finland
CEBSE Avenida Malecon
Centro de la Naturaleza, Saman?
Apartado 243
809 - 5 38 20 42
E-Mail: cebse@internet.codetel.net.do
Last edited:
Cadmium
Chronic exposure to cadmium, a toxic metal, causes a wide range of adverse effects in humans, including "cardiovascular [heart, arteries], endocrine [hormone], hepatic [liver], bone, hematological [blood], immunological [immune system], respiratory [lung], renal [kidney], reproductive and teratogenic [birth defect] effects." Furthermore, "There is strong evidence of an association between cadmium exposure and an increased risk of respiratory [lung] cancer.
Chronic exposure to cadmium, a toxic metal, causes a wide range of adverse effects in humans, including "cardiovascular [heart, arteries], endocrine [hormone], hepatic [liver], bone, hematological [blood], immunological [immune system], respiratory [lung], renal [kidney], reproductive and teratogenic [birth defect] effects." Furthermore, "There is strong evidence of an association between cadmium exposure and an increased risk of respiratory [lung] cancer.
ignorants
They will use it for building blocks
http://www.hoy.com.do/(vdufre55yygovgn5pvqyra45)/aspx/article.aspx?id=10476
They will use it for building blocks
http://www.hoy.com.do/(vdufre55yygovgn5pvqyra45)/aspx/article.aspx?id=10476
Keith R., I certainly wasn't talking about you. In fact, you were the first to try to calm things down.
tochel is making the same mistake that is often made by people with a cause, no matter how worthy it is. They keep hammering listeners with such extreme statements they lose rather than gain support.
Lucky for Kim that her email isn't working. Last thing she needs is to be spammed by tochel and others.
tochel is making the same mistake that is often made by people with a cause, no matter how worthy it is. They keep hammering listeners with such extreme statements they lose rather than gain support.
Lucky for Kim that her email isn't working. Last thing she needs is to be spammed by tochel and others.
HW or HM
Waste and Material are two different things depending on end use. Just because the ash is a waste of one process does not mean it can not be renamed materail if it is an ingrediant in another. If the end user is makign blocks with it then the exporter gets around US law.
So tha tis my legalistic view of the loopholes used. No knowlege of what is goign on in Samana just in my work we fall under different regulations depanding on how we classify HM.
John
Waste and Material are two different things depending on end use. Just because the ash is a waste of one process does not mean it can not be renamed materail if it is an ingrediant in another. If the end user is makign blocks with it then the exporter gets around US law.
So tha tis my legalistic view of the loopholes used. No knowlege of what is goign on in Samana just in my work we fall under different regulations depanding on how we classify HM.
John
Cough! COUGH! Cough! hisssssssssss Cough!
CoUgH!!!!!!!
Aaaarrrrrrrghhhhh! sneezeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
You said that the air what?
cough....
CoUgH!!!!!!!
Aaaarrrrrrrghhhhh! sneezeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
You said that the air what?
cough....
I don't care what they claim this to be...it's still very suspicious to me that they would go through all the expenses to import this stuff into the DR. What? they can't find building material in the DR? I don't believe it one bit. The one thing that bothers me the most about this is that everyone is talking about it, but why in the hell can't we get a sample of the darn thing analyzed by an independent lab that could tell us once and for all what this stuff really is... What is the holdup with this stupid @ss government and it's non-functioning enviromental agency?
These people better start doing their job, before I get really pissed off...I'm not the target champion in this board for no reason.
These people better start doing their job, before I get really pissed off...I'm not the target champion in this board for no reason.
John, you're talking US law. The importing state was the DR, and its law differs. I might also point out that while claiming use of such ash as a material input to make something like cement blocks is "green lighted" under the OECD waste trade regime that the US utilizes (the US signed but never ratified the Basel Convention), the DR is a party to the Basel Convention, not the OECD regime. Under Basel, you have to apply the steps and considerations I outlined earlier in this thread. Altogether different.jsizemore said:
Regards,
Keith
Basel Action Network Entering your Forum // Questions
Dear all:
I have just heard about the dumping of material from Puerto Rico to Samana, DR. The Basel Action Network (BAN) is an international network of organizations working to fight Toxic Trade. More can be found out about our work by visiting our website at www.ban.org.
We would like to help as we can. Keith R. is correct in many of his statements regarding fly ash and the legality of the situation. I would like to list some questions we have remaining that hopefully somebody could ask and then suggest some possible lines of action.
1. Are we certain that the waste is dumped on land and not in the bay or at sea.
2. Have samples been taken yet? (BAN stands ready to run samples here in the USA).
3. The Dominican Republic used to have one of the world's strictest pieces of legislation banning importation of wastes. Indeed it was the first such ban. It was entitled Law number 218, and was published May 31, 1984. It covered everything and would surely have covered this waste. If this law is still in effect this import is illegal. Can somebody please look into this law and its current effect?
4. Was this waste shipped with the pretext of re-use (e.g. for roadbuilding?
5. Can somebody please send me an email with all of the names of the principle players and their addresses if possible?
6. Is the information about health impacts being documented by medical professionals? We will likely need to know who these doctors are in future.
------------
Possible Next Steps:
1. Take samples and have them analysed for mercury, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals. Do a TCLP test on the waste. (standard USA leach test). BAN stands ready to fund, receive and run these tests. However they will need to be taken properly and shipped properly. Please contact us for information on how to do this. If the material is hazardous or fails the leach test then the import is illegal under the Basel Convention and the importer can be held criminally liable.
2. See if Law 218 (see above) is still in effect. If so, criminal liability again for importer.
3. If we can prove illegality then our demands for "Return to Sender" will be stronger and we can pressure the USA to take it back.
4. I will look into the RCRA statutes to see if they exempted this material from RCRA export controls.
5. We should probably form a small coalition of groups that demand action on this including local as well as international groups such as BAN and Greenpeace. This coalition should consider issuing a press release very soon calling for the following:
5. Dominican Republic as well as all Basel Parties in the Caribbean region, should be called on to ratify the Basel Ban Amendment at once to send a strong message that this type of dumping can not be tolerated. For more information on the Basel Ban Amendment please visit www.ban.org.
6. We should probably form a small coalition of groups that demand action on this including local as well as international groups such as BAN and Greenpeace. This coalition should consider issuing a press release very soon calling for the following:
-- Return to Sender
-- Prosecution of all participants if the shipment proves illegal.
-- Ratification of the Basel Ban Amendment
7. BAN will bring this case to the Basel meeting in Geneva at end of April.
--------
All for now, anxiously await word and please send email addresses of all of you who are concerned with the issue.
Thanks,
Jim Puckett
Coordinator
Basel Action Network
Dear all:
I have just heard about the dumping of material from Puerto Rico to Samana, DR. The Basel Action Network (BAN) is an international network of organizations working to fight Toxic Trade. More can be found out about our work by visiting our website at www.ban.org.
We would like to help as we can. Keith R. is correct in many of his statements regarding fly ash and the legality of the situation. I would like to list some questions we have remaining that hopefully somebody could ask and then suggest some possible lines of action.
1. Are we certain that the waste is dumped on land and not in the bay or at sea.
2. Have samples been taken yet? (BAN stands ready to run samples here in the USA).
3. The Dominican Republic used to have one of the world's strictest pieces of legislation banning importation of wastes. Indeed it was the first such ban. It was entitled Law number 218, and was published May 31, 1984. It covered everything and would surely have covered this waste. If this law is still in effect this import is illegal. Can somebody please look into this law and its current effect?
4. Was this waste shipped with the pretext of re-use (e.g. for roadbuilding?
5. Can somebody please send me an email with all of the names of the principle players and their addresses if possible?
6. Is the information about health impacts being documented by medical professionals? We will likely need to know who these doctors are in future.
------------
Possible Next Steps:
1. Take samples and have them analysed for mercury, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals. Do a TCLP test on the waste. (standard USA leach test). BAN stands ready to fund, receive and run these tests. However they will need to be taken properly and shipped properly. Please contact us for information on how to do this. If the material is hazardous or fails the leach test then the import is illegal under the Basel Convention and the importer can be held criminally liable.
2. See if Law 218 (see above) is still in effect. If so, criminal liability again for importer.
3. If we can prove illegality then our demands for "Return to Sender" will be stronger and we can pressure the USA to take it back.
4. I will look into the RCRA statutes to see if they exempted this material from RCRA export controls.
5. We should probably form a small coalition of groups that demand action on this including local as well as international groups such as BAN and Greenpeace. This coalition should consider issuing a press release very soon calling for the following:
5. Dominican Republic as well as all Basel Parties in the Caribbean region, should be called on to ratify the Basel Ban Amendment at once to send a strong message that this type of dumping can not be tolerated. For more information on the Basel Ban Amendment please visit www.ban.org.
6. We should probably form a small coalition of groups that demand action on this including local as well as international groups such as BAN and Greenpeace. This coalition should consider issuing a press release very soon calling for the following:
-- Return to Sender
-- Prosecution of all participants if the shipment proves illegal.
-- Ratification of the Basel Ban Amendment
7. BAN will bring this case to the Basel meeting in Geneva at end of April.
--------
All for now, anxiously await word and please send email addresses of all of you who are concerned with the issue.
Thanks,
Jim Puckett
Coordinator
Basel Action Network
Email of BAN
Regular Email for Basel Action Network:
jpuckett@ban.org
Please send me your email addresses if you are concerned about this issue.
Jim Puckett
Regular Email for Basel Action Network:
jpuckett@ban.org
Please send me your email addresses if you are concerned about this issue.
Jim Puckett
Welcome, Jim, to our Forum.
For those of you who do not know him or his history, Jim Puckett has worked tirelessly on the waste trade issue now for some 20 odd years, and in my estimation (and those of many others) has much to do with getting the Basel Convention adopted and certainly with getting the "Basel Ban" Amendment adopted.
Best Regards,
Keith
For those of you who do not know him or his history, Jim Puckett has worked tirelessly on the waste trade issue now for some 20 odd years, and in my estimation (and those of many others) has much to do with getting the Basel Convention adopted and certainly with getting the "Basel Ban" Amendment adopted.
Best Regards,
Keith
Good summary on toxicology of Fly ashes and reasons for concern
Background
Disposal of coal combustion wastes presents potential environmental and public health concerns that justify imposition of rigorous design and monitoring standards. The 1988 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report to Congress concerning coal combustion wastes (including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes) acknowledged the range of toxicity and potential for causing groundwater contamination among and within the categories of coal combustion waste. According to the EPA Report Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, EPA/530-SW-88-002:
The primary concern regarding the disposal of wastes from
coal-fired power plants is the potential for waste leachate to cause ground-water contamination. Although most of the materials found in these wastes do not cause much concern (for example, over 95 percent of ash is composed of oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron and calcium), small quantities of other constituents that could potentially damage human health and the environment may also be present. These constituents include arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and selenium. At certain concentrations these elements have toxic effects. Id., at ES-4.
While the findings of the EPA Report and review of industry-generated studies indicated generally that metals did not leach out of coal combustion waste (CCW) at hazardous (100 x drinking water standards) levels, hazardous levels of cadmium and arsenic were found in ash and sludge samples, and boiler cleaning wastes sometimes contained hazardous levels of chromium and lead. Id.
While acknowledging that coal combustion wastes (fly ash and scrubber sludge) do not usually exhibit sufficiently high toxic properties to be classified as hazardous based on TCLP toxicity, a recent study of CCW in Indiana indicated that CCW does contain high enough concentrations of leachable toxic elements to create significant environmental concern. Boulding, J. Russell, Disposal of Coal Combustion Waste in Indiana: An Analysis of Technical and Regulatory Issues (1991).
Among the significant findings of this report, which was based on extensive literature review and analysis of coals burned in Indiana utilities (including Kentucky coals), and which should instruct the imposition of final conditions on this permit, were:
l. Neither EP nor TCLP tests provide a good indication of leachability of CCW in natural disposal settings. Long-term leaching tests conducted until equilibrium has been achieved for each element of concern, using a leaching solution that approximated percolating groundwater, would give a more accurate depiction of ground-water contamination potential at a disposal site.
2. l7 potentially toxic elements are commonly present in CCW: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc.
3. Fluidized bed combustion (FBC) wastes retain volatile and semi-volatile elements in the bottom ash to a greater extent than conventional pulverized coal combustion, thus enhancing the leachability of FBC waste elements.
4. Leachates from coal power plant ash and flue gas desulfurization wastes typically exceed drinking water standards, but by a factor less than hazardous levels (i.e. 100 x DWS). The major leaching studies on CCW indicate that drinking water standards are typically exceeded by CCW ash leachate at a factor of 1.1 to 10, and often by a factor greater than 10 for one or more elements.
5. Disposal of CCW in mine workings may be of particular concern, due to the increase in surface area available for leaching of elements resulting from fracturing of overburden and confining layers; and due also to the higher total dissolved solids levels in mine spoils that compete for sorption sites on solids with toxic elements released from the buried ash.
The EPA Report and Boulding study suggest that the management of special wastes at the proposed site must be attuned to the variability of the concentrations of potentially toxic elements in the waste, and to the unique problems presented by the previously-mined nature of the site, and by the fact that the type of special waste is from a fluidized bed combustor.
The 1988 EPA Report concluded preliminarily that CCW need not be regulated under RCRA Subpart C as hazardous, but rather that the wastes should continue to be regulated under Subpart D as solid wastes. This conclusion was recently reaffirmed by the agency on an interim basis. In so recommending, EPA determined that while field observations detected off-site migration of potentially hazardous constituents from utility waste disposal sites, reflecting a potentially larger problem than laboratory analyses would suggest, the use of mitigative measures under Subpart D such as installation of liners, leachate collection systems, and ground-water monitoring systems and corrective action to clean up ground-water contamination, would be adequate for protecting public health and the environment. The EPA recommendation was predicated on the application of such measures to the management of CCW. Id. at ES 4-5. This permit, consistent with the problems posed by this type of waste stream and disposal site identified by the literature, and consistent with EPA?s recommendations, should include rigorous controls on placement of the waste, strict limits on concentrations of contaminants in discharge water, and liners in all disposal cells and leachate storage or management ponds or lagoons.
Note: The above is borrowed from another organization working on similar issues in Kentucky...
Jim Puckett
Background
Disposal of coal combustion wastes presents potential environmental and public health concerns that justify imposition of rigorous design and monitoring standards. The 1988 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report to Congress concerning coal combustion wastes (including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes) acknowledged the range of toxicity and potential for causing groundwater contamination among and within the categories of coal combustion waste. According to the EPA Report Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, EPA/530-SW-88-002:
The primary concern regarding the disposal of wastes from
coal-fired power plants is the potential for waste leachate to cause ground-water contamination. Although most of the materials found in these wastes do not cause much concern (for example, over 95 percent of ash is composed of oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron and calcium), small quantities of other constituents that could potentially damage human health and the environment may also be present. These constituents include arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and selenium. At certain concentrations these elements have toxic effects. Id., at ES-4.
While the findings of the EPA Report and review of industry-generated studies indicated generally that metals did not leach out of coal combustion waste (CCW) at hazardous (100 x drinking water standards) levels, hazardous levels of cadmium and arsenic were found in ash and sludge samples, and boiler cleaning wastes sometimes contained hazardous levels of chromium and lead. Id.
While acknowledging that coal combustion wastes (fly ash and scrubber sludge) do not usually exhibit sufficiently high toxic properties to be classified as hazardous based on TCLP toxicity, a recent study of CCW in Indiana indicated that CCW does contain high enough concentrations of leachable toxic elements to create significant environmental concern. Boulding, J. Russell, Disposal of Coal Combustion Waste in Indiana: An Analysis of Technical and Regulatory Issues (1991).
Among the significant findings of this report, which was based on extensive literature review and analysis of coals burned in Indiana utilities (including Kentucky coals), and which should instruct the imposition of final conditions on this permit, were:
l. Neither EP nor TCLP tests provide a good indication of leachability of CCW in natural disposal settings. Long-term leaching tests conducted until equilibrium has been achieved for each element of concern, using a leaching solution that approximated percolating groundwater, would give a more accurate depiction of ground-water contamination potential at a disposal site.
2. l7 potentially toxic elements are commonly present in CCW: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc.
3. Fluidized bed combustion (FBC) wastes retain volatile and semi-volatile elements in the bottom ash to a greater extent than conventional pulverized coal combustion, thus enhancing the leachability of FBC waste elements.
4. Leachates from coal power plant ash and flue gas desulfurization wastes typically exceed drinking water standards, but by a factor less than hazardous levels (i.e. 100 x DWS). The major leaching studies on CCW indicate that drinking water standards are typically exceeded by CCW ash leachate at a factor of 1.1 to 10, and often by a factor greater than 10 for one or more elements.
5. Disposal of CCW in mine workings may be of particular concern, due to the increase in surface area available for leaching of elements resulting from fracturing of overburden and confining layers; and due also to the higher total dissolved solids levels in mine spoils that compete for sorption sites on solids with toxic elements released from the buried ash.
The EPA Report and Boulding study suggest that the management of special wastes at the proposed site must be attuned to the variability of the concentrations of potentially toxic elements in the waste, and to the unique problems presented by the previously-mined nature of the site, and by the fact that the type of special waste is from a fluidized bed combustor.
The 1988 EPA Report concluded preliminarily that CCW need not be regulated under RCRA Subpart C as hazardous, but rather that the wastes should continue to be regulated under Subpart D as solid wastes. This conclusion was recently reaffirmed by the agency on an interim basis. In so recommending, EPA determined that while field observations detected off-site migration of potentially hazardous constituents from utility waste disposal sites, reflecting a potentially larger problem than laboratory analyses would suggest, the use of mitigative measures under Subpart D such as installation of liners, leachate collection systems, and ground-water monitoring systems and corrective action to clean up ground-water contamination, would be adequate for protecting public health and the environment. The EPA recommendation was predicated on the application of such measures to the management of CCW. Id. at ES 4-5. This permit, consistent with the problems posed by this type of waste stream and disposal site identified by the literature, and consistent with EPA?s recommendations, should include rigorous controls on placement of the waste, strict limits on concentrations of contaminants in discharge water, and liners in all disposal cells and leachate storage or management ponds or lagoons.
Note: The above is borrowed from another organization working on similar issues in Kentucky...
Jim Puckett
Samana Fly Ash
Hello Forum Members:
I finally got to read your posts and concerns regarding the imported fly ash or sludge from Puerto Rico cand I would like to put forth the following comments because this issue affects all of us environmentally and some of us financially (eg Andy B) due to its' proximatey to the Samana area:
a) If the fly ash is hazardous waste it needs to be returned to Puerto Rico immediately since its presense would be in violation of both D.R. and U.S. law. I believe we must be pessimistic at this time about the reason given for this form of fly ash to be in the D.R.
First, proper fly ash used in the manufacturing of most concrete must be moisture free, contaminent free, properly sized and kept dry and clean at all time, just as cement is. If not, then its value is minimal at best. According to the posted photos this is not the case and in order to make it so, the fly ash must be subjected to very high temperatured and expensive heat, expensive equipment, expensive trucking, expensive enclosures and a high-end ready market. All this makes for a fairly expensive product that would best be manufactured near or at an existing cement plant.
Last spring (before the shipping of this new fly ash) a new company in Puerto Rico spent $10.5 million USD to start up an operation to manufacture cement quality fly ash for Peurto Rico. The raw material from coal generated plants was coming the mainland U.S.A. Why would Puerto Rico ship fly ash to the D.R.?
This type of recycling of products has been done in the past but usually only after the sender has paid the shipping, storage, and disposal cost to the receiver.
At this point if this is any other than a disposal only scheme by some Puerto Rico company, wouldn't the fly ash be much more valuable back in Puerto Rico being recycled instead of them importing it from the U.S. mainland? Unless of course there is something unknown about the raw fly ash.
b) Under the E.P.A. (U.S.A.), fly ash must be recycled under the Resource Recovery and Management Act (federal law). Does exporting raw fly ash to the D.R. consitute recycling under federal law? Probably not.
c) The information regarding fly ash use, manufacturing, recycling and laws etc. can be read in the April 24, 2003 edition of the Caribbean Business Journal published in Puerto Rico. Pages 46, 47 and 48. I believe it may be accessed through www.puertorico.wow.com. This would best be done by a more experienced web-surfer than myself and reported back if valid or not. I personally read the article on hard copy one year ago.
Best regards,
Skipper
Hello Forum Members:
I finally got to read your posts and concerns regarding the imported fly ash or sludge from Puerto Rico cand I would like to put forth the following comments because this issue affects all of us environmentally and some of us financially (eg Andy B) due to its' proximatey to the Samana area:
a) If the fly ash is hazardous waste it needs to be returned to Puerto Rico immediately since its presense would be in violation of both D.R. and U.S. law. I believe we must be pessimistic at this time about the reason given for this form of fly ash to be in the D.R.
First, proper fly ash used in the manufacturing of most concrete must be moisture free, contaminent free, properly sized and kept dry and clean at all time, just as cement is. If not, then its value is minimal at best. According to the posted photos this is not the case and in order to make it so, the fly ash must be subjected to very high temperatured and expensive heat, expensive equipment, expensive trucking, expensive enclosures and a high-end ready market. All this makes for a fairly expensive product that would best be manufactured near or at an existing cement plant.
Last spring (before the shipping of this new fly ash) a new company in Puerto Rico spent $10.5 million USD to start up an operation to manufacture cement quality fly ash for Peurto Rico. The raw material from coal generated plants was coming the mainland U.S.A. Why would Puerto Rico ship fly ash to the D.R.?
This type of recycling of products has been done in the past but usually only after the sender has paid the shipping, storage, and disposal cost to the receiver.
At this point if this is any other than a disposal only scheme by some Puerto Rico company, wouldn't the fly ash be much more valuable back in Puerto Rico being recycled instead of them importing it from the U.S. mainland? Unless of course there is something unknown about the raw fly ash.
b) Under the E.P.A. (U.S.A.), fly ash must be recycled under the Resource Recovery and Management Act (federal law). Does exporting raw fly ash to the D.R. consitute recycling under federal law? Probably not.
c) The information regarding fly ash use, manufacturing, recycling and laws etc. can be read in the April 24, 2003 edition of the Caribbean Business Journal published in Puerto Rico. Pages 46, 47 and 48. I believe it may be accessed through www.puertorico.wow.com. This would best be done by a more experienced web-surfer than myself and reported back if valid or not. I personally read the article on hard copy one year ago.
Best regards,
Skipper
unbelivable check this photo
I found this phot of cows eating at the wastedump. O my god!
http://www.domrep.ch/news/images/1081272934_Vacas_material.jpg
I found this phot of cows eating at the wastedump. O my god!
http://www.domrep.ch/news/images/1081272934_Vacas_material.jpg
Michael, as I pointed out a while ago in another thread about waste dumps in the DR, this is hardly a novel occurence.
http://dr1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=172971
67% of the dumps are right next to agricultural & animal husbandry activities such as farms for plantains, yuca & yautia. Think about that for a
second!
Despite strong recommendations from PAHO/WHO against it, animals -- principally cows, pigs, dogs & horses -- are allowed to graze in all of the dumps. In the case of the dump in Santiago Rodriguez, there is actually a pig farm next to the dump!
http://dr1.com/forums/showthread.php?p=172971
- Status