BridgeGap Engineering Blog » mercury

Lehigh Cement Reduces Hg Emissions with Activated Carbon

Lehigh Ben — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:09:33 +0000

On June 3, the Lehigh Permanente Cement Company, located in Cupertino, California, announced the launch of a new system to reduce mercury emissions at the plant by ninety percent. The system utilizes a powdered activated carbon (PAC) injection system to capture the mercury and ultimately trap it in the resultant concrete. The move comes in anticipation of the 2013 effective date for recent Environmental Protection Agency’s legislation on mercury emissions. The new regulation limits companies to producing only fifty-five pounds of mercury for every one million pounds of clinker.

Lehigh Permanente is the first in California and one of the first in the nation to make use of such technology. Plant manager Henrik Wesseling said at a news conference, “We are the first cement plant in California using this progressive technology to proactively reduce our mercury emissions.” The plant also plans to install a continuous monitoring system in the fall to collect emissions data in real time.

Some people of Cupertino and the surrounding towns still question what else the plant may be emitting. Cupertino is gathering data and information and has a plan to hire an outside expert to analyze the results.

In response, Wesseling has said, “We take our responsibility to the community very seriously, and that’s why this project has been my top priority since my first day on the job in 2008. I’m proud of our 70-year history here in Cupertino, and we will continue to invest in our environmental performance at this facility.”

New MACT Proposal for Electric Utilities Follows Cement Industry

Hannah — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:26:54 +0000

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed another Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule – this time targeting the Electric Utility Industry. The proposal was issued March 16, 2011, and outlines new emissions standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs). Primarily, the new rule will lead to a reduction in the emission of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, and other heavy metals, as well as hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and other acid gases.

This proposed ruling follows on the heels of the August 2010 ruling for Portland cement kilns. Just as in the case of cement, the rule will apply to both new and existing EGU’s. For power, the compliance period will deadline in 2015, whereas for cement, the compliance deadline is August 6, 2013. For cement, the new standards were immediately applicable to kilns built after May 6, 2009, which according to the EPA will result in an estimated return of $7-$19 in health benefits per dollar spent in meeting these standards. In addition, the EPA touts several additional benefits. One benefit is that, in power plants, these new standards would prevent 91% of the mercury in coal from being emitted into the air, reduce acid gas emissions by 91%, and reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 55%. A second advantage would be the creation of 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs. A third advantage can be seen by the EPA’s estimate regarding the health benefits of the proposed rule: $59-$140 billion in 2016 (2007$).

During the next few weeks, the EPA will hold three public hearings regarding the proposal, and will declare its decision following the 60-day comments period, which began the day of the proposal.

Beginning of an Era

Demosthenes — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:45:30 +0000

As widely reported this week, the EPA has passed a long anticipated set of rules regulating the emission of mercury and other pollutants from cement plants. Reactions have been predictable: dire predictions that the regulations “can’t be met” with existing technologies for certain plants and claims of the billions of dollars the new regulations will cost the industry.

Industry spokespersons would be wise to study the historical statements of those who have come before them, such as the US automakers in 1972 fighting against catalytic converters. GM’s Earnest Starkman famously claimed that introducing converters on 1975 model cars could result in “complete stoppage of the entire production”…”obvious tremendous loss to the company, shareholders, employees, supplier and communities.” Local Allentown hero Lee Iacocca, then head of Ford, went even farther, claiming that the rule would cause Ford to shut down and result in a reduction to the GNP of $17 billion and the collapse of some local governments. Well, automakers may be dying today but it certainly wasn’t catalytic converters that killed them, nor did they cause the collapse of society.

There will, in fact, be tremendous cost to the industry and this should be considered in the context of a current weak U.S. economy. Catalytic converters did not come for free (although they initially cost about one third of the projections given by the industry), and neither will reducing mercury and other pollutants from cement plants. The significant difference here is that the catalytic converter regulations applied to all cars brought into the United States, making a level playing field. This is not the case for cement! As a fungible commodity, cement can be imported theoretically from anywhere (at a cost) including from sources where no emissions regulations apply. This is the ”missing link” from the EPA-imposed regulations: the topic of harm/compensation should be used to minimize the impact on sectors, such as cement, that are exposed to “leakage” from other parts of the world. The industry should be fighting for a “Mercury tax” on imported cement. This is not protectionism, it is simply making an economic adjustment for the projected environmental cost of higher mercury emissions. These “taxes” should then fund R&D activities to reduce emissions even further and to drive costs down through economies of scale. Under this scenario, importers could choose to meet the same requirements and avoid the tariffs (or have them imposed by their own governments), but in the meantime US companies would do well to focus their efforts on reducing mercury emissions at the lowest possible cost.

Alas, this approach may not find many allies in the industry because most cement producers are multi-national and have the option of importing cement from their non-US facilities. The multi-nationals are not inclined to support taxes against themselves to protect higher cost production in the US. Still this the type of visionary leadership that is needed because the cost of mercury emissions is not currently reflected in the cost of U.S. cement. It is treated as an “externality” and, therefore, the economics do not reflect the realities.

This is a watershed moment. Mercury and the other pollutants covered by these new regulations are the latest, perhaps largest, but certainly not the last emissions challenges that will be faced by the US cement industry. How the industry chooses to meet these challenges will define the next era.

Lehigh tests mercury reduction

Demosthenes — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:30:15 +0000

Lehigh Cement will begin voluntarily testing of activated carbon injection technology, commonly used to reduce mercury at power plants, to reduce the emissions at its plant in Union Bridge Maryland. The mercury will be permanently sequestered in the final product. Lehigh believes it can meet the EPA proposal for 2013 mercury levels without negatively impacting the quality of its cement.

More mercury news

Demosthenes — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:29:33 +0000

Two new studies released today will only serve to increase the public pressure on the EPA to regulate mercury emissions from cement kilns.

The first, a USGS study, found mercury contamination in every fish tested from 291 streams across the country and levels in more than two thirds of them were “a concern to fish eating mammals”. The study was conducted from 1998-2005 and represented bodies of water in undeveloped areas as well as those more directly influenced by industry. This alarming news has been called “irresponsible” and “deeply flawed” by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition representing the food service industry.

Compounding this was another study released by Duke University describing how natural processes help turn industrial mercury into methylmercury, a far more toxic form of the element.

At BGE we don’t know if the methodology or the conclusions of the USGS study are flawed, but we do know that 600+ Google News items today will assure that the findings are put in front of the eyeballs of tens of millions of consumers who will increase the pressure on lawmakers, flawed conclusions or not. The cement industry needs to prepare itself for the reality of impeding mercury regulation, and it needs to do it now.