Are you a subscriber but don’t have an online account?

Register for full online access.

 
 
 
 
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SF Bay Area (East Bay)
    Posts
    2,025

    Default Re: Coal ash in building products, news from Healthy Building Network

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMc View Post
    And...that means there's no fly ash in gyp products - or that there's nothing to worry about under the NIOSH/OSHA PEL?
    That has nothing to do with NIOSH, it's table 3 and 4 from your second link, from the University of Wisconsin.

    I'm still waiting for any evidence that there is any fly ash in any NatGyp or USG drywall. Your first link says they have tested fly ash in drywall and it works well, but it doesn't say anything about production of said drywall.

    Link two tells you what's in FDG gypsum, which you seemed confused about earlier.

    Link three describes what has already been said about the sulfur capturing process: "The wet product from limestone based reagent wet scrubbing processes is predominantly calcium sulfate. ...Calcium sulfate FGD material, once it has been dewatered, can be used in wallboard manufacturing and in place of gypsum for the production of cement. The largest single market for FGD material is in wallboard manufacturing."

    Again, if you have any evidence that fly ash is being put in general purpose drywall, please post it. So far it's all obfuscation.

    Seriously guys, is some level of academic standard for backing up claims with sources that actually provide evidence for them too much to ask? This is the Building Science forum, not trade talk.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    midwestish
    Posts
    7,123

    Default Re: Coal ash in building products, news from Healthy Building Network

    Seriously Kevin? I mean I enjoy the doubting, the devils advocate position myself, but really...

    History handily informs us coal ash has made its' way in to the drywall arena both as finished sheet and as sundry product. Link one tells you that there's a huge lobby for CCR; that industry is still working with FA as ingredient [please could you look up whether that product is on the market now, or perhaps similar from competitors]; that there are many incentives for using CCR be it FA or FGD in their various and many forms. Link three informs you that, "The physical nature of these materials varies," as does what it's called. If you look a bit harder you'll see why and a fair starting point may be the OIG looksee in to the EPA over CCR. Linky two, since you seem to be all picky about my umm confusion, read table 5 [again ?] and we'll skip other particulars for later, Decemeber perhaps.

    Now the OP was concerned about workplace exposure to CCR's found in cement products and drywall products - neither of which are singulars. If you think this has nothing to do with REL/PEL you've been sleeping for a decade or three. Now circle back to the EPA and CCR classification/listing.

    Lastly, if you'd like to chastise for the lacking "some level of academic standard for backing up claims" on an internet sub-forum with "science" in its name, you could strive a little higher than a company PR release and selective reading of what you're pointing at as incredible.
    Last edited by MarkMc; 02-02-2014 at 10:18 AM. Reason: italicize
    “I find the curiosity of our men with respect to this animal is pretty much satisfied.”
    ~ Meriwether Lewis

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SF Bay Area (East Bay)
    Posts
    2,025

    Default Re: Coal ash in building products, news from Healthy Building Network

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMc View Post
    Seriously Kevin?

    ...Lastly, if you'd like to chastise for the lacking "some level of academic standard for backing up claims" on an internet sub-forum with "science" in its name, you could strive a little higher than a company PR release and selective reading of what you're pointing at as incredible.
    Yeah, seriously.

    Op states that he is especially concerned because he has heard that fly ash is now in drywall. I say "huh, I don't think that's generally true (with some specific "green" wallboard exceptions)".

    Then I say: "Source please?"

    And I'm still waiting.

    Your links say that coal producers would like to put fly ash in lots of products. I expect they would indeed. But has anyone posted any evidence that fly ash is actually in FGD or in generally produced drywall? No, no one has.

    And you're going to take me to task for posting an industry statement?

    It's not my job to prove a negative.

    If you think that FA is in general drywall, present your evidence. And no, "They would like to put it in" is not evidence that it is in fact in. I'd like to put various things in Lucy Liu*, but...

    So, last call for any, I mean ANY evidence that fly ash is actually in synthetic gypsum or in generally produced drywall. Bueller? Bueller?..

    Otherwise, I'm out. You can have the thread for any implications you like. Maybe there's DU in there! Maybe Soylent Green too.

    *Some of my killer french toast, maybe a mimosa...
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    midwestish
    Posts
    7,123

    Default Re: Coal ash in building products, news from Healthy Building Network

    Bueller? You should have been helping Denver with the goal post rearrangement, they sure needed it.

    From the ACAA:
    While the material may vary in purity, which is defined as the percentage of CaSO4?2H2O, it is generally over 94% when it is used in wallboard manufacturing.
    &
    There are many technical, economic, regulatory, and institutional barriers to increased use of CCPs. A lack of standards and guidelines for certain applications and new applications heads the list of technical barriers. Transportation costs lead the economic barriers, which limit the shipment of CCPs to within about a 50-mile (80 kilometer) radius of the power plants.
    I realize you don't need to prove a negative, that's tricky. Proving a positive however should be a simple task. Please. Recall BP & Co said the first 2[?] versions of Corexit applied in the Gulf were safe and that the leak was no big deal; what was that original [public] estimate for the Iraq war? It wasn't until about 1990 that serious efforts was put towards removing smoke stack sulfur, and it didn't quite happen voluntarily by the industry as I recall.

    Since then the system has gotten tremendously better both in terms of efficacy and efficiency - the ability to re-task the outputs. It's not perfect yet, and human nature will always leave room for the need to question. Did you read up on the OIG v EPA bit; it's just a small part, an undertone. Do you know the chemical composition of FA? Or of FA that has been "treated" and it's new name[s]; how to differentiate the silica quartz that came off the face of Mt Rushmore from that which was produced as a byproduct of burning coal?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by MarkMc; 02-03-2014 at 09:43 PM. Reason: attach
    “I find the curiosity of our men with respect to this animal is pretty much satisfied.”
    ~ Meriwether Lewis

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    SF Bay Area (East Bay)
    Posts
    2,025

    Default Re: Coal ash in building products, news from Healthy Building Network

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMc View Post

    I realize you don't need to prove a negative, that's tricky. Proving a positive however should be a simple task. Please.
    So prove it. Please.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMc View Post
    Recall BP & Co said the first 2[?] versions of Corexit applied in the Gulf were safe and that the leak was no big deal; what was that original [public] estimate for the Iraq war? It wasn't until about 1990 that serious efforts was put towards removing smoke stack sulfur, and it didn't quite happen voluntarily by the industry as I recall.
    Not really proof of the chemical composition of a given building product, is it.


    The only reason I'm responding to this at all is you finally posted a factual argument, i.e. "table 5".

    Here's the preface to table 5:

    " Table 5 lists the major components of FGD scrubber material prior to fixation for different sorbent materials and natural or forced oxidation processes (Smith 1992). Except for FGD material subjected to forced oxidation, sludges from the scrubbing of bituminous coals are generally sulfite-rich, whereas forced oxidation sludges, and sludges generated from scrubbing of subbituminous and lignite coals, are sulfate-rich. Fly ash is a principal constituent of FGD
    scrubber material only if the scrubber serves as a particulate control device in addition to SO2 removal or if separately collected fly ash is mixed with the sludge (Smith 1992)."
    Last edited by kfc510; 02-04-2014 at 11:59 AM.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    midwestish
    Posts
    7,123

    Default Re: Coal ash in building products, news from Healthy Building Network

    Quote Originally Posted by kfc510 View Post
    So prove it. Please.

    Not really proof of the chemical composition of a given building product, is it.

    The only reason I'm responding to this at all is you finally posted a factual argument, i.e. "table 5".

    Here's the preface to table 5:
    So table 5 gets read, finally. Didn't realize it had to be placed as such to be factual, etc. Oh gosh am I honored, and when you post something that shows the average maintenance cycle efficiency of the two predominate ash scrubber/separating systems we can go forward to gyp precipitate sourcing by plant and whether or not FGD and "coal ash" are the same, similar or disparate [by]products. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640 may help you there.
    “I find the curiosity of our men with respect to this animal is pretty much satisfied.”
    ~ Meriwether Lewis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts