EPA to Make Coal Ash Hazardious Waste

Re: EPA to Make Coal Ash Hazardious Waste

PostBy: freetown fred On: Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:11 pm

Seems like damn near everybody used to date girls from Beverly, Beverly Farms, Hamilton, etc etc :clap: toothy
freetown fred
Hand Fed Coal Stove: HITZER 50-93
Coal Size/Type: BLASCHAK Nut

Visit Hitzer Stoves

Re: EPA to Make Coal Ash Hazardious Waste

PostBy: DePippo79 On: Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:23 pm

FF, glad I ended up with the farm girl. Her family are dairy farmers from Michigan. Matt
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood Oak 40, Stanley Argand No. 30, Glenwood Modern Oak 114, Stanley Argand No. 20 missing parts.
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite. Stove and nut size.
Other Heating: Oil hot water.

Re: EPA to Make Coal Ash Hazardious Waste

PostBy: freetown fred On: Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:24 pm

I hear that Matt. NICE :)
freetown fred
Hand Fed Coal Stove: HITZER 50-93
Coal Size/Type: BLASCHAK Nut

Re: EPA to Make Coal Ash Hazardious Waste

PostBy: ONEDOLLAR On: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:39 am

jhenryw49 wrote:Hi Saugus, yes not to many burn the rock, it has done wonders in keeping the family warm where do you buy your coal I get mine at agway.

Northeast Nursery in Peabody and Craigslist finds have worked for me. A couple of years ago I bought a few bags from Agway in Danvers and they wanted over $10.00 a bag. Haven't been back since.

There is another forum member here who is in Danvers. He also burn Nut. That is about it for those of us on the North Shore. This summer if you are interested we three could see if we could work out placing a decent order with someone and perhaps save some $$ on the shipping at least. PM me if you are interested.
Hand Fed Coal Stove: 2014 Chubby Prototype
Coal Size/Type: Nut/Anthracite

Re: EPA to Make Coal Ash Hazardious Waste

PostBy: Yanche On: Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:08 pm

Berlin wrote:
Yanche wrote:Guys get a grip. It's FLY ASH, FLY ASH not bottom ash. How much FLY ASH does your residential coal appliance produce in a year? A small bucket full? A small canister vacuum full? Even if it's declared hazardous waste such a small amount would likely not be regulated. The huge quantities of power plant FLY ASH should be regulated and safely stored or made inert. Again it's not BOTTOM ASH!

It's only not flyash because of how it's burned in a home appliance or stoker. Most of our "flyash" is mixed with the bottom ash.

As far as powerplant flyash being regulated, it shouldn't be any more regulated than any other pile of dirt, sand, or earth.

Berlin, educate me. I always thought the significant hazard from burning coal was the pollution control system that captures the combustion gases and the byproducts it produces, e.g. bag houses, etc. If I understand it correctly it's this fly ash product that has cement like properties and some safe uses are to use it mixed with Portland cement to make concrete. The bottom ash on the other hand is far less of a problem. What I'm I missing?

Yes I can see how some of our fly ash in our residential coal burning appliances would become a small portion of the bottom ash. In fact my AHS 130's flu gas cyclone separator would ideally cause that to happen.

Locally we have had several bituminous burning power plants have ash disposal problems. Usually because of some failure, often cause by excessive rain, causes the bottom ash to go where it wasn't intended to go. I've got a electrical engineer friend that operates a local bituminous operating plant, next time I see him I'll ask the hazards of each.

As far as not regulating fly ash because it's just like any pile of dirt it depends on what's in the dirt. One could argue a pile of dirt with mercury ore (Cinnabar) in it would be a hazard if ground to a powder, heated and then blown up a stack and distributed.
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Re: EPA to Make Coal Ash Hazardious Waste

PostBy: Berlin On: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:22 pm

Yanche, it's a waste (but not hazardous waste) product and is treated as such. Typically it's stored in retention ponds or silos to keep dust emission down until a beneficial reuse or disposal site is located and it's shipped to those locations; Often the supplying mines take a certain amount for free for fill. The reason for baghouses and such are to reduce the particulate in the exhaust stream of the plant - with older, spreader or other stoker plants it reduces opacity as it removes soot/flyash, w/ newer, larger, pulverized plants it removes mostly flyash particulate from the exhaust stream. The problem isn't and hasn't been what comprises the flyash entering the air (few exceptions - recently w/ mercury regs etc.) but, rather, that the particulate is entering the air at all. It's filtered out to reduce opacity and PM.

As far as well water contamination, it has been documented. Many of the cases documented by the EPA and "other" organizations have been subject to legal battles and legitimate disagreements as to the "cause". Much well water has never been tested, until someone's looking for something, and, many wells exceed thresholds for arsenic selenium and other things simply due to the nature of the soil and rock.
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: Will-Burt Combustioneer 77B
Coal Size/Type: Ohio BITUMINOUS pea stoker coal

Re: EPA to Make Coal Ash Hazardious Waste

PostBy: Sunny Boy On: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:41 pm

What rarely comes out in these cases, is how much is too much.

When all the screaming and demonstrations were going on about closing down the Shorum Nuclear Power plant project on Long Island. The reporting was very one-sided.

I attending a local meeting that a LILCO rep was going to speak at and answer all questions. They invited the public and personally contacted and invited the local public officials. Not one bothered to show up. Not even protestors. I suspect because they knew someone would be there that knew the truth about their many wild claims.

And, some very interesting info was brought out at the meeting about how safe nuclear power is when done right. None of which I ever heard reported in the papers.
Things such as the people living in Denver receive far more radiation than plant workers. And people working in Wall Street also receive more radiation in an 8 hour work day then if they were on-site at a nuclear plant for 24 hours a day.

Denver has a mile less atmosphere to shield it, and the stone used to build the buildings in lower Manhattan has naturally occurring, higher than normal back ground radiation count.

And the sushi eating libs will get far more mercury from their blue fin tuna then they would from being around any coal ash ! ;)

Sunny Boy
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Visit Hitzer Stoves