BridgeGap Engineering Blog » Uncategorized

Union Bridge Plant Ready to Test Engineered Fuel

Hannah — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:10:31 +0000

Lehigh Cement Company’s Union Bridge Plant is aiming to reduce its environmental impact in the area of consumption as well as emissions. Rather than being content to implement technology that will remove a higher percentage of pollutants from the emitted air, the Union Bridge plant is also looking at alternative fuels – engineered fuel in particular. At one point the plant tried burning old tires and even cocoa bean shells, however neither proved to be sufficiently successful to warrant being continued.

However, biosolids and processed or dried sludge currently constitute a small percentage of the fuel used in the plant. According to the plant manager, both biosolids and sludge have proven to be very efficient and environmentally friendly. With this experience behind them, Union Bridge is looking to follow the example set by many European cement plants and begin using fuel engineered from waste products. At this point, Lehigh Cement has fully developed their specifications for the engineered fuel and the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) has issued a 6-month trial permit. The problem is the lack of abundance of the engineered fuel to begin the trial!

Although Lehigh Cement Company’s intentions seem good, nearby community members are suspicious. However, during the trial, emissions will be carefully monitored to check for mercury, carbon monoxide, and other emissions that may result from this waste-based fuel. At the end of the trial period, Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) will examine the collected data and determine whether to grant or deny Lehigh Cement a permit to use engineered fuel. In the mean time, Lehigh Cement Company, Union Bridge wishes to be open about the change and invites anyone to visit the plant to discuss concerns and learn more about this initiative.

Could Stricter Regulations be Counter-Productive?

Hannah — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:56:25 +0000

Although some cement companies are prepared and able to meet the new emissions standards by the 2013 deadline, many will be forced to lay off workers, reduce production, or even close down entirely. In fact, according to Keith Williams, managing environmental process engineer for Buzzi Unicem USA in Stockertown, 20% of U.S. plants will go out of business when the new emissions standards take effect.

Whether this estimate is high or low, the U.S. will take a double hit. Not only will national cement yield decrease, but the price of that which is still produced will rise due to the increased cost resting on the cement industry. As a result, the price of cement on the market threatens to rise on two accounts – in accordance with supply and demand as well as due to transferred costs. This being the case, the natural result will be a spike in cement imports – especially in light of the growing cement industries in other countries (see Ethiopia Cement Boom) and the U.S.’s looming infrastructural overhaul (see Infrastructure and Cement). Although it is true that this situation poses a problem in regards to the further out-sourcing of jobs in an already suffering job-market, the real irony comes from another angle. If the U.S. is forced to import more cement, much of this cement will be coming from countries with emissions levels that are significantly higher than those currently met by U.S. cement companies. Add to this the emissions from cross-ocean transport, and the result is a definite net increase in worldwide emissions. Although it is true that the U.S. cannot control emissions outside its own borders, if the EPA truly wishes to effect a reduction in emissions, then it must act based on an awareness of world-wide impact. The world is increasingly global and, as a result, NIMBY (not in my back yard) needs to take a back seat to the issue of “leakage”.

European Union’s Regulations Threaten to Backfire

Hannah — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:01:47 +0000

As society has become increasingly aware of the damaging effects of toxic emissions on the environment and public health, various methods have been employed to limit industries’ impact. While in the United States the EPA simply sets standards that must be met by all companies, the European Union establishes a set number of emissions allowances that are issued to each country and, in turn, granted to each various companies as deemed wise and necessary. Furthermore, if a company’s annual emissions are below the level granted, this credit is carried over to the next year and added to their new grant – in essence rewarding the company for a job well done and promoting the growth of the low-impact companies. While this arrangement seems logical, effective, and easy to manage, the built-in reward system is threatening to back-fire. In fact, between the top 10 holders of excess allowances – including Cemex, Holcim, Heidelberg Cement, and Italcementi – the total surplus of carbon permits alone has reached 240 million tons. With so much ‘available’ emissions, the incentive to implement new technologies and to further reduce emissions is low. While some businesses are pushing for lower fewer annual allowances, others oppose such a change. However, as more and more allowances are available for sale between companies, the reins held by the EU authority become longer and longer. It remains to be seen when and how will they pull them back in.

Glenn Falls Feels the Crunch of New EPA Standards

Hannah — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 18:10:37 +0000

As time continues to tick by and July 2013 approaches, cement companies like Lehigh Cement are starting to feel the pressure of the new EPA emissions standards – standards they must meet by that date. Lehigh’s Glenn Falls plant, however, refuses to simply stand by. While still in the process of arriving at a final number, the plant estimates the cost of attaining these standards to be in the millions. According to the plant manager, the company would need to revamp much of the process line as well as purchase new equipment to monitor the emissions levels to ensure that the new standards were being met. With these expenses the plant may even be forced to lay off more workers – a blow to the community, especially considering that the Glenn Falls plant already laid off one third of its workers just 5 months ago.

Although the Glenn Falls plant has several member of Congress on its side, it faces opposition from New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and Massachusetts – states that played a role in leading the EPA to issue the new standards. However, Glen Falls is not the only one trying to take a stand. The Portland Cement Association recently filed legal briefs with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in order to challenge the new NESHAP rule issued by the EPA (see PCA case as well as Titan Cement Caught in Crossfire).

Calera Lands First Project

Lehigh Ben — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 22:29:32 +0000

All eyes, and feet, are on Calera’s first project—a four hundred foot long sidewalk in Santa Cruz, California. Calera has been repeatedly debated within this blog forum as they’ve tried to perfect a way to use greenhouse gas emissions from power or cement plants to make cement/cement additives. This project is being coordinated with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission as part of an expansion of Highway 1 through the area. The sidewalk is the first part of the expansion, and if all goes well, Calera may be able to secure more contracts as the expansion continues.

It’s a good way for Calera to remain in the news. “We’re at the point where we want to start using our materials in the built-in environment. It’s part of the process of getting your material accepted in the concrete industry,” said Martin Devenney, vice president of materials development at Calera. Calera has still yet to reveal exactly how much carbon dioxide is being captured during the creation of their concrete, but they affirm that as the process is perfected it will definitely be carbon negative. Until then, the cement industry will be watching, waiting, and debating.

Confirmed Delay of Congressional Climate Bill

Lehigh Ben — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:10:14 +0000

The tri-partisan climate bill was expected to be unveiled in Congress yesterday after months of work, debate, and re-work. However, due to mixed signals from the White House and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the bill has been postponed pending immigration reform. Members of Congress, including a co-writer of the bill, are infuriated by this delay and blame President Obama and Reid for side-stepping the pressing climate issue in order to win Latino votes in November’s midterm election. Sen. John Kerry, a major proponent of the climate bill, feels that the window of opportunity for this bill is closing and that action is needed soon. If passed, this bill will cut greenhouse emissions by 17% in 2020 compared to 2005 levels. Heavy polluters like the cement and steel industries can expect to see emissions caps by 2016.

Calera back in the news

Demosthenes — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:17:42 +0000

One of our more frequent subjects, Calera, was back in the news recently, graduating from press releases and blogs like this one to The New York Times. Calera’s process is starting to get a lot of attention in spite of continued skepticism. The attention is more than warranted if Calera can live up to its claims of recovering 86% of CO2 from power plant (or cement plant) exhaust and converting it to a viable building material. Potentially solving two carbon problems with one process is a game changer.

Calera is thinking differently about the problem. Rather than the conventional wisdom of the green lobby that says we need to scrap everything and build a complete new energy infrastructure, they believe that the existing energy can be made as clean or cleaner than renewables. This kind of thinking is needed, even if it doesn’t lead to commercially viable products, because without it, we will never make the leaps needed to solve the most important challenges of our times.

Life’s How It Is, Not How It Ought To Be

GEARS — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:24:30 +0000

Have you ever heard the expression “Life’s how it is, not how it ought to be?”

An enterprise that wants to implement a standard reliability strategy across multiple sites must confront the implication of this statement.

Most mining enterprises do not have cookie-cutter plants or facilities. The locations will vary in age of equipment and workers. The quality of regional raw materials may be different. Plants near metropolitan centers may have high turnover while those in small towns may be staffed with “lifers.” Cultures can be different. Some plants are union free and historically have had good relations between hourly and management. Others have histories filled with mistrust and arbitrary rule enforcement.

Non-standard plant circumstances force the enterprise to find the right balance between centralization and decentralization. When do you standardize in the name of the enterprise and when must decision-making be left to local management?

Before some of these balances can be discovered, an enterprise must face the truth of “how it is.” Confronting the brutal facts of reality can be more difficult than it sounds.

If a company has spent millions of dollars on a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS), it may not be pleasant to find out that most of the collected data is jumbled. If hundreds of thousands of dollars has been spent on vibration equipment & training, it may be painful to learn that the well-intentioned but part-time vibration specialist did not develop sophisticated time waveform analysis capabilities. If a loyal, friendly, experienced worker has been functioning as a planner for years, it’s hard to confront the fact his actual contribution is clerical in nature – and clerical contributions do not yield the productivity gains of planners who actually plan.

So – how does an enterprise face these brutal facts?

(1) Differentiate process from people. Remember that workers – especially long-time employees – are usually well intentioned. Organizations must consciously create work processes that focus on productivity & proactivity; these things do not naturally emerge without guidance and direction. A planner who focuses on non-productive behaviors is not necessarily a bad employee. The proper routines, tasks, and rules may not have been properly defined for him. When you view your organization through a process lens rather than a people lens, it is easier communicate without your employees feeling defensive or attacked.

(2) Hire a consulting firm. The reality is – the objective, third party gaze can often see things more clearly. Consultants aren’t smarter. They aren’t more knowledgeable about the operation of the plant. But if they are experienced, they are able to quickly zoom in on things that are indicative of a healthy reliability system. (Can the plant easily print a sorted list of Ready to Schedule work? Are the Preventive Maintenance tasks specifically defined?) As outsiders, consultants also have the luxury of remaining emotionally detached from existing relationship & histories between people & departments. This clinical disposition means they won’t be as easily swayed by charisma, earnestness, anger, or old wounds that won’t heal. Good consultants know they cannot add value to an enterprise if they are simply telling their clients what they may want to hear – or if they are ignoring the white elephant in the room. They know that a reliability initiative has to be built on a foundation of transparency and a clear assessment of current conditions.

(3) Establish norms around honest and respectful communication. Respect is important, as snippy exhortations about “ugly babies” and “garbage-in, garbage-out” data will get old real fast if the feedback has a tattle-tale quality. Stick to observations, not judgments about personalities. Accumulate multiple observations before drawing firm conclusions. Don’t just ask about problems that have occurred – ask about the frequency of those problems. Are parts/materials really never available when jobs are assigned, or did this only happen one time, three years ago? And never, ever retaliate against someone after you have given them permission to speak freely. If you do, you will never hear another honest observation again.

Reliability is a data driven field. It is a science. It has objective metrics. Although it may fail in the short-term (a vibration test may fail to identify a loose bolt) – over time, consistent application of reliability concepts produce huge dollar savings. Sycophantic relationships will destroy reliability. Transparent, data-driven decision making must be the norm; otherwise, reliability is just a meaningless label to smack onto old habits. But before an enterprise can begin its reliability journey, it must have an honest assessment of where it is at.

What are other ways an organization can get a good assessment of its current reliability situation?

Welcome to BridgeGap Engineering

experts@bridgegap — Sat, 30 May 2009 17:33:55 +0000

BridgeGap Engineering – Where your Cement, Minerals or Aggregate challenge is our opportunity to provide solutions.

We hope you can take some time to surf the site and get an idea what BridgeGap Engineering is about. This site and blog are going ‘live’ at the end of May 2009. It may take a bit to perfect, but enjoy the changes as time goes by.

Thanks for investing the time – make a call or send and e-mail. We’d love to make contact more directly.