REVIEW OF FLORIDA REGULATIONS, 

STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO 

THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Final Report 

Prepared for: 

John Sager 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (MC 5306W) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Agreement No. XI-83228101 

EERC Fund 9027 

William Aljoe 

U.S. Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

626 Cochrans Mill Road 

PO Box 10940 MS 922-273C 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 

Cooperative Agreement No. DE-AP26-04NT40808 

EERC Fund 4294 

Prepared by: 

Tera D. Buckley 

Debra F. Pflughoeft-Hassett 

Energy & Environmental Research Center 

University of North Dakota 

PO Box 9018 

Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018 

2006-EERC-04-03 April 2006 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

 The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) would like to express its 

appreciation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) for the opportunity to work on 

the Review of Florida Regulations, Standards, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal 

Combustion Products project as a grantee. The EERC authors would specifically like to thank 

Mr. John Sager, EPA, and Mr. William Aljoe, DOE NETL for their financial support and input 

on this effort. 

 The EERC would like to thank Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. William Aljoe, DOE NETL; Ms. 

Mary Beth Van Pelt, EPA Region 4; and Mr. Jim Frauen, Florida Electric Power Coordinating 

Group, Inc. (FCG) for helping to conduct the reviews in Tampa. In addition, thank you to Ms. 

Tanya Portillo, FCG, for assisting with meeting arrangements. The EERC would also like to 

express its appreciation to the many individuals who participated voluntarily in the informationgathering process of the review. In addition, the members of the project advisory board—Mr. 

John Sager, EPA; Mr. William Aljoe, DOE NETL; Mr. David Goss, American Coal Ash 

Association; Mr. Jim Frauen, FGC; and Mr. Jason Harrington, Federal Highway 

Administration—are gratefully acknowledged for helping shape the review. 

EERC DISCLAIMER

 LEGAL NOTICE This research report was prepared by the EERC, an agency of the 

University of North Dakota, as an account of work sponsored by EPA and DOE. Because of the 

research nature of the work performed, neither the EERC nor any of its employees makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, 

completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or 

represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific 

commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise 

does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation by the EERC. 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................................iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iv 

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 

GOAL ............................................................................................................................................. 1 

PRE-SITE VISIT REVIEW PROCESS ......................................................................................... 2 

Task 1: Establish an Administrative Team ........................................................................... 2 

Task 2: Select a State ............................................................................................................ 2 

Task 3: Form an Advisory Board.......................................................................................... 3 

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team ........................................................................................ 3 

Task 5: Create a Review Guide............................................................................................. 3 

Task 6: Develop a List of Interviewees................................................................................. 3 

STATUS OF CCP PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION IN FLORIDA .................................... 4 

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UTILIZATION IN FLORIDA ................................................... 5 

Key 1: Florida Has a Robust Concrete Market ..................................................................... 5 

Key 2: Local Cement Plants Use a Large Amount of CCPs................................................. 5 

Key 3: Synthetic Wallboard Plants Located Adjacent to Power Plants 

 Use All Wallboard-Quality FGD Gypsum............................................................................ 5 

Key 4: FDOT Specifies and Supports CCP Use in Concrete................................................ 6 

Key 5: The Engineering Community Relies on Fly Ash to Produce Good-Quality 

 and Economical Concrete...................................................................................................... 7

Key 6: Florida’s Electric Utilities Support Coal Ash Utilization.......................................... 7 

Key 7: Electric Utilities, FDEP, and FDOT Share a Common Goal to 

 Write a Beneficial Use Rule.................................................................................................. 7

REPORTED BARRIERS TO INCREASING CCP UTILIZATION IN FLORIDA ..................... 8 

Barrier 1: FDEP Does Not Use a Formal Approval Process for New 

 Beneficial Use Applications.................................................................................................. 8

Barrier 2: FDEP Is Not Comfortable with CCP Use in Land Applications........................ 10 

Barrier 3: FDEP Has Not Defined What Data It Needs to Feel Comfortable with 

 Nontraditional Uses, and Industry Has Subsequently Not Provided FDEP with 

 Appropriate Data from CCPs Generated at Florida’s Electric Utilities .............................. 11 

Barrier 4: There Is No Push for CCP Recycling ................................................................. 11 

Barrier 5: FDOT is Hesitant to Embrace CCPs as a Construction Material 

 in Nonconcrete Applications............................................................................................... 12

Continued . . . 
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

Barrier 6: Plant Operators Have Not Placed a Priority on Producing 

 Consistent, Good-Quality Fly Ash ...................................................................................... 12 

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN 

FLORIDA ..................................................................................................................................... 13 

Threat 1: FDEP May Have Unwarranted Concerns about Ash Handling and 

 Interim Storage.................................................................................................................... 13 

Threat 2: Mercury Emissions from Cement and Wallboard Manufacture May 

 Make CCP Use Unacceptable ............................................................................................. 14 

Threat 3: Florida’s CCP Utilization Options Are Not Diversified...................................... 15

 Threat 4: Fly Ash with High Unburned Carbon May Become Unsuitable for 

 Use in Cement Manufacture................................................................................................ 15 

ACTIONS THAT COULD INCREASE CCP USE IN FLORIDA.............................................. 15 

Action 1: Industry Will Collectively Work with FDEP to Develop a Beneficial 

 Use Rule .............................................................................................................................. 15 

Action 2: FDEP and Electric Utilities Need to Agree on Less Stringent Temporary 

 Storage and Ash-Handling Practices................................................................................... 16 

Action 3: FDEP Needs to Determine What Ash Characterization Data It Needs, 

 and Industry Needs to Provide It......................................................................................... 16 

Action 4: State and Federal Programs Could Provide Stronger Encouragement and 

 Incentives to Recycle CCPs ................................................................................................ 17 

Action 5: Electric Utilities Should Educate Plant Operators about the 

 Value of Producing Consistent, Good-Quality CCPs ......................................................... 17 

Action 6: The Florida CCP Industry Should Develop Partnerships with Universities ....... 18 

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 18 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 19 

ADVISORY BOARD AND REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS.........................................Appendix A 

REVIEW GUIDE...........................................................................................................Appendix B 

PARTICIPANT LIST ....................................................................................................Appendix C 

FLDOT SPECIFICATIONS RELATED TO THE USE OF CCPS ..............................Appendix D 

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE CCP BENEFICIAL REUSE BILLS..................................... Appendix E 

CCP BENEFICIAL REUSE LETTERS ISSUED BY FDEP........................................ Appendix F 
iii 

NOMENCLATURE 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

ACAA American Coal Ash Association 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BACT best available control technology 

C2P2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership 

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

CBO carbon burnout 

CCP coal combustion product 

CFB circulating fluidized bed 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EERC Energy & Environmental Research Center 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FCG Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FGD flue gas desulfurization 

IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle 

IWDR Industrial Waste Disposal and Reuse 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

NOx nitrogen oxide 

NSR New Source Review 

RMDB Recycling Market Development Board 

SGLP synthetic groundwater leaching procedure 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SPLP synthetic precipitation leaching procedure 

TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 

USG United States Gypsum, now USG Corporation 
iv 

REVIEW OF FLORIDA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 About 49 million tons of coal combustion products (CCPs) are beneficially used in the 

United States each year, but over 73 million tons, or 60%, are still being disposed of in landfills 

(American Coal Ash Association [ACAA], 2005). Many of the technical barriers associated with 

CCP utilization have been solved, but social and knowledge barriers still exist. One of the key 

nontechnical barriers is the broad range of state laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines 

regarding the use of CCPs (ACAA, 1998; Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999; Dockter and Jagiella, 

2005). 

 To address different CCP utilization situations across the United States, the University of 

North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) is conducting a series of state 

reviews. The first review was conducted in Texas in 2004, and the second was in Florida in 

2005. A third state review will take place in 2006. This report takes an in-depth look at CCP use 

in Florida and reports on what Florida is doing right, what barriers still exist, what actions can be 

taken to overcome those barriers, and what threats could impact future utilization. 

 Based on information obtained during the Florida state review process, the following items 

were identified as keys to successful CCP utilization in Florida: 

1. Florida has a robust concrete market that uses nearly all of the concrete-grade Class F 

fly ash produced in the state. 

2. The state’s six cement plants use large quantities of off-spec fly ash and bottom ash in 

their manufacturing processes. 

3. Synthetic gypsum wallboard plants are located adjacent to power plants and use nearly 

all of the 1.8 million tons of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum produced by 

Florida’s electric utilities. 

4. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) specifies the use of fly ash in 

concrete and supports CCP use in concrete projects. 

5. The engineering community relies on fly ash to produce good-quality, economical 

concrete. 

6. Florida’s electric utilities support coal ash utilization because they realize the economic 

advantages of utilization versus disposal. 

7. Electric utilities, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and 

FDOT communicate with each other and share a common goal to develop proposed 

legislation or regulations designed to increase coal ash utilization in the state. 
v 

 The following barriers that hinder increased CCP utilization in Florida were identified 

during the review: 

1. FDEP does not use a formal process for new beneficial use applications, which makes 

the process to get a new beneficial use approved extremely difficult and frustrating for 

applicants. 

2. FDEP is not comfortable with CCP use in land applications because agency personnel 

believe those uses may constitute a potential threat to human health and the 

environment. 

3. FDEP has not clearly defined what ash characterization data it needs to feel comfortable 

with reuse applications that it considers nontraditional such as structural fills and, 

therefore, electric utilities have not provided FDEP with the data it needs to consider 

new applications. 

4. Industry has nearly given up on pushing CCP recycling in applications other than 

concrete, cement, and wallboard. In addition, there is no push for CCP recycling from 

the federal or state government. 

5. FDOT is hesitant to embrace CCPs as a construction material in nonconcrete 

applications. 

6. Electric utility plant operators have not placed a priority on producing consistent-quality 

fly ash and are naturally more concerned about producing electricity. 

 In addition to current barriers, the following potential threats were identified that could 

hinder CCP utilization in the future: 

1. FDEP may have unwarranted concerns about the environmental contamination that may 

result from the handling and interim storage (stockpiling) of CCPs. 

2. Mercury emission control requirements for cement and wallboard manufacture may 

make it more difficult to beneficially use CCPs. 

3. Florida’s CCP utilization options are not diversified and rely nearly entirely on the 

cement, concrete, and wallboard markets. 

4. Fly ash with high unburned carbon may become unsuitable for use in cement 

manufacture. 

 The following are suggested actions that would help increase CCP utilization in Florida: 

1. Industry will collectively work with FDEP to develop a beneficial use rule. 
vi 

2. FDEP and electric utilities need to agree on less restrictive temporary storage and 

management practices. 

3. FDEP needs to determine what ash characterization data it needs in order to evaluate 

beneficial use applications, and industry needs to provide that data to FDEP. 

4. Higher-level state initiatives or federal programs could provide stronger encouragement 

and incentives to recycle CCPs. 

5. Electric utilities should educate plant operators on the value of producing consistent-, 

good-quality CCPs. 

6. The Florida CCP industry should develop long-term partnerships with universities to 

create a useful resource for future efforts to promote the beneficial use of CCPs. 

 Using the keys, barriers, threats, and actions identified in this report, Florida and 

other states can improve CCP utilization in their states. 
1 

REVIEW OF FLORIDA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

BACKGROUND 

 About 49 million tons of coal combustion products (CCPs) are beneficially used in the 

United States each year, but over 73 million tons, or 60%, are still being disposed of in landfills 

(American Coal Ash Association [ACAA], 2005). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set goals to increase CCP utilization to 50% by 

2010. Many of the technical barriers associated with CCP utilization have been solved, but social 

and knowledge barriers still exist. One of the key nontechnical barriers is the broad range of state 

laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines regarding the use of CCPs (ACAA, 1998; PflughoeftHassett et al., 1999; Dockter and Jagiella, 2005). Some states have worked to develop 

progressive and effective guidance for CCP utilization, while other states still lack the resources 

and information to feel comfortable with a more progressive approach, particularly with 

applications they consider to be nontraditional such as geotechnical, agriculture and other nonconfined applications (Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999). 

 To address different CCP utilization situations across the United States, the University of 

North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was given a grant by EPA and 

Headwaters Resources, LLC, to conduct a pilot review of state regulations, standards, and 

practices related to the use of CCPs (Buckley and Pflughoeft-Hassett, 2005). Texas was selected 

as the pilot state because of its progressive approach to CCP utilization. The review took place in 

September 2004, and a final report was published January 2005 and can be accessed online at 

www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/review.html. A subsequent grant was awarded by EPA and DOE to 

conduct a second state review. Florida was selected as the second state to review primarily 

because it is undergoing changes to its CCP regulations. 

 The EERC received a third grant from EPA, DOE, and ACAA to perform a state review in 

a third cooperating state. The third state will exhibit a CCP use scenario and geographic area 

different from the previous two states reviewed. 

GOAL 

 The goal of these reviews is to move toward the development of a national analysis of 

what actions can be taken to remove barriers to increased CCP use. The reviews will share 

information on the programs and actions undertaken by states in fostering the beneficial use of 

CCPs. The specific goals of this second review are to 1) evaluate factors related to the use of 

CCPs in Florida; 2) summarize Florida’s successes, barriers, and threats; and 3) develop 

recommendations that may help Florida and other states increase the use of CCPs in an 

environmentally sound manner. 
2 

PRE-SITE VISIT REVIEW PROCESS 

 The following tasks were completed prior to the site visit. Tasks are listed in order; 

however, many tasks were implemented concurrently. 

Task 1: Establish an Administrative Team 

 A project administrative team was established to perform the majority of the administrative 

work, including organizing the review, compiling findings, and writing reports. Ms. Tera 

Buckley, EERC, acted as team leader, and other team members were Ms. Debra PflughoeftHassett, EERC; Mr. John Sager, EPA; and Mr. William Aljoe, DOE. 

Task 2: Select a State 

 The project’s administrative team conducted an evaluation to select the second state. The 

team looked for a pilot state matching the following criteria: 

1. The state must exhibit geographic conditions different from Texas. Only states east of 

the Mississippi will be considered. 

2. The state must have CCP beneficial use policies different from Texas. 

3. Preference will be given to states undergoing changes to their current CCP regulations. 

4. State environmental and transportation departments must be willing to participate. 

 The administrative team used a report entitled “Engineering and Environmental 

Specifications of State Agencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products” to 

determine which states best matched these criteria (Dockter and Jagiella, 2005). The state 

selection was narrowed to Connecticut and Florida because both matched the criteria outlined 

above. At the time the state selection process took place, Connecticut’s environmental 

department was reviewing the first formal application under state law for coal ash reuse in 

cement and concrete products and asphalt subbase. The agency expected to submit a draft permit 

for first public notice and comment in spring 2005. In Florida, the current statutory beneficial use 

provisions are considered inadequate to clearly authorize many coal ash uses. To address these 

ambiguities, in 2003, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) began the 

process of developing a new Industrial Waste Disposal and Reuse (IWDR) rule but delayed this 

process primarily because of workload issues brought on by two devastating hurricane seasons 

and other rulemaking efforts. FDEP plans to actively pursue a new IWDR rule in 2006. 

 Ultimately, the administrative team selected Florida for the second state review mainly 

because more CCPs are generated in Florida; hence, there is more opportunity for utilization. 

The amount of CCPs that might be used in Florida with the proper regulatory environment 

undoubtedly surpasses the amount that would be used in Connecticut. 
3 

Task 3: Form an Advisory Board 

 A second team, the project advisory board, was formed to provide input to interviewee 

selection, assist in the development of a standard questionnaire, and review findings. Advisory 

board members and associated contact information are listed in Appendix A. 

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team 

 A select group of individuals from the advisory board made up the review team. The 

primary role of the review team was to administer the meetings at the review. Review team 

members and associated contact information are listed in Appendix A. 

Task 5: Create a Review Guide 

 A review guide was developed for Florida interviewees that included background 

information and targeted questionnaires for each discussion group (see Appendix B). To 

facilitate appropriate discussions, the following five discussion groups were formed to answer 

questions posed by the review team: 

• Government agencies – directors and other key personnel of state or regional 

transportation and environmental agencies 

• CCP generators – electric utility environmental and ash managers 

• CCP suppliers – CCP marketers and suppliers of ash beneficiation systems 

• Cement and concrete – ready-mix concrete suppliers and cement producers 

• Wallboard – users of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum for wallboard production 

 The review guide also included an agenda. The review took place December 6–8, 2005. 

The Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG) hosted the interviews in Tampa, 

Florida. FCG is the umbrella organization in Florida representing the majority of electric utilities 

in the state, including investor-owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and municipal electric 

utilities. 

Task 6: Develop a List of Interviewees 

 With input from the advisory board, the administrative team developed a list of potential 

interviewees for each of the discussion groups identified in Task 5. The wallboard discussion 

group was canceled prior to the review because those participants preferred to submit written 

comments. The final participant list for the review is included in Appendix C. 
4 

STATUS OF CCP PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION IN FLORIDA 

Florida is not a coal-producing state. Coal is transported to Florida’s coal-based power 

plants on water-borne vessels via the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico, as well as from the 

Appalachian area by rail and from South America by barge. Most coal-based power plants in the 

state burn a blend of 80% bituminous coal and 20% petcoke. Petcoke is supplied from domestic 

Gulf Coast oil refineries, Aruba, and South America. The Energy Information Administration 

(EIA)(2004a), reported that Florida’s electric utilities consumed 27.644 short tons of coal in 

2004. 

 The following is a list of Florida’s electric generating companies (of these, eight have coalbased power plants, as indicated by the asterisks): 

• City of Lakeland* 

• City of Tallahassee 

• City of Vero Beach 

• Florida Municipal Power Agency 

• Florida Power & Light* 

• Gainesville Regional Utilities* 

• Greater Lake Worth 

• Gulf Power Company 

• JEA* 

• OUC, The Reliable One* 

• Progress Energy* 

• Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.* 

• TECO Energy, Inc.* 

 Interviewers reported that Florida’s coal-based power plants produce approximately 

2 million tons of Class F fly ash and 300,000–400,000 tons of bottom ash a year. On the 

contrary, EIA (2004b) reported nearly 3 million tons of fly ash and over 500,000 tons of bottom 

ash was produced in Florida. Four generating stations have wet scrubbers and produce 

approximately 1.8 million tons of FGD gypsum (CaSO4). EIA (2004b) reported a production rate 

at 1.5 million tons of FGD gypsum and 380,000 tons of sludge (CaSO3). Production statistics on 

boiler slag are not available. 

 It is estimated that Florida uses 60%–70% of the CCPs it produces; however, EIA (2004b) 

reported a utilization rate of 54% in 2004. Florida imports 450,000–500,000 tons of concretegrade fly ash per year, and some utilities are reclaiming and selling previously disposed fly ash. 

Fly ash and bottom ash are sold predominantly into the cement and concrete markets; boiler slag 

is used as a blasting grit and to manufacture roofing shingles; and gypsum is used primarily for 

wallboard manufacture. TECO’s integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) Polk Station is 

unique in that it produces a sulfuric acid stream and a slag stream. JEA produces a circulating 

fluidized-bed (CFB) material, and it is used in roadbeds and highway embankments in 

surrounding states. 
5 

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UTILIZATION IN FLORIDA 

 The 60%–70% CCP utilization rate in Florida can be directly attributed to the following 

key factors. The authors believe these keys are listed in order of importance. 

Key 1: Florida Has a Robust Concrete Market 

 The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (2005) reported that 41,326,000 cubic 

yards of concrete were used in Florida in 2005, up 16% from 2004. Since the mid 1990s, 

Florida’s concrete market has boomed, with an average growth rate of 7.2% per year from 1996 

to 2004. This growth has stretched the state’s cement supply and made fly ash an economical and 

necessary substitute for portland cement. The vast majority of ready-mix companies in Florida 

replace 18%–22% of portland cement with Class F fly ash in their mix designs. Nearly all of the 

state’s supply of concrete-grade Class F fly ash is used in the local concrete market, and concrete 

producers indicated they pay $40–$50 a ton. In fact, Florida imports 450,000–500,000 tons of fly 

ash a year, and some utilities are reclaiming and selling previously disposed fly ash for use in 

concrete. The concrete demand is not expected to slow down and will continue to demand more 

concrete-grade Class F fly ash. 

Key 2: Local Cement Plants Use a Large Amount of CCPs 

Florida will use about 10 million tons of cement in 2005 and has experienced about a 10% 

growth rate since the mid-1990s. The state’s six cement plants—owned and operated by Cemex, 

Titan America, Rinker, Florida Rock Industries, and Suwannee American Cement—produce 

5–6 million tons of cement each year. The remaining supply is imported from overseas. In 

addition, two new cement plants have been permitted to Natural Resources of Central Florida 

and Sumter Cement Company, and more cement plants are expected to be built. Florida does not 

export cement, but a small amount does get used in concrete in surrounding states. 

 Off-spec fly ash not meeting ASTM International (ASTM) C618 specifications for 

concrete because of high unburned carbon content is used as raw feed in Florida’s cement plants. 

One plant is new and cannot use high unburned carbon fly ash (greater than 30% carbon) 

because of operational problems and the need to meet carbon dioxide (CO2) emission 

requirements and total hydrocarbon limits. Bottom ash is also used as a replacement for bauxite 

as a cement kiln feed material. FGD gypsum is typically not used in Florida’s cement plants 

because the wallboard plants pay a higher price for FGD gypsum than cement plants and existing 

supplies in the state are under long-term contracts; therefore, the cement plants use natural 

gypsum or synthetic gypsum from outside the state. 

Key 3: Synthetic Wallboard Plants Located Adjacent to Power Plants Use All 

Wallboard-Quality FGD Gypsum 

At present, 8.1 million tons of FGD gypsum is used to manufacture wallboard in the 

United States (ACAA, 2005). Of that, 1.8 million tons of FGD gypsum is being used by 

wallboard producers in Florida. Lafarge Gypsum, BPB, and USG Corporation own and operate 
6 

wallboard plants adjacent to coal-based power plants in Florida. Wallboard manufacture uses all 

of the wallboard-quality FGD gypsum produced in the state. 

 More FGD gypsum will be generated in Florida as additional wet scrubbers are installed to 

reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. It is estimated that the state’s wallboard producers will be 

able to absorb at least an additional 1 million tons of FGD gypsum. Beyond that, utilities will 

need to look for other ways to use the material. 

 Wallboard producers seem to realize the environmental advantages of using FGD gypsum 

versus natural gypsum, but economics are really the driving force behind choosing to use FGD 

gypsum over natural gypsum. For those purchasing wallboard, the Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) Program encourages the use of products made with synthetic 

gypsum and awards credits toward satisfying this criteria. Beyond the LEED program, there does 

not appear to be any other consumer-based incentives in Florida for using wallboard made from 

FGD gypsum versus natural gypsum, and wallboard producers do not make that distinction in 

marketing their products. 

Key 4: FDOT Specifies and Supports CCP Use in Concrete 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) representatives interviewed were 

knowledgeable and accepting of the use of fly ash in concrete applications. Ash marketers also 

indicated that FDOT has been a long-time supporter of using fly ash in concrete. Nearly all of 

FDOT’s experience with CCPs is related to fly ash as a cement replacement in concrete and the 

use of fly ash and bottom ash as feedstocks to produce cement. 

 FDOT has an approved source list of concrete sources (cement, slag, and fly ash) that are 

routinely used in state projects. The list also includes a biomass ash generated from burning tree 

bark and coal. To get on the approved source list, a CCP supplier must follow strict quality 

assurance/quality control procedures and submit samples to the FDOT laboratory every 

3 months. FDOT recalled one instance when a fly ash supplier took itself off the approved source 

list because of high unburned carbon content, but FDOT did not recall a time when it had taken a 

CCP supplier off the list. 

 FDOT is responsible for writing specifications for the use of CCPs in highway 

applications, but if often defers to ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash in concrete and to 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) M85 

specifications for cement. FDOT specifies 18%–22% Class F fly ash replacement for portland 

cement in regular concrete projects. FDOT indicated that there had been instances where the 

need for fast-setting concrete limited the amount of fly ash that was used in some projects. Mass 

concrete can use up to 50% fly ash and drill shafts can use 35% fly ash. FDOT, ash marketers, 

and ready-mix suppliers interviewed agreed these percentages allow for the best durability in 

marine environments and create a superior product. 
7 

Key 5: The Engineering Community Relies on Fly Ash to Produce Good-Quality and 

Economical Concrete 

The Florida engineering community (i.e. architects, contractors, and ready-mix suppliers) 

is generally accepting of the use of fly ash to replace portland cement in concrete. Ash marketing 

companies educated the engineering community about 20 years ago about the benefits of using 

fly ash in concrete, and the engineering community is comfortable with using fly ash in concrete 

now. The acceptance is predominantly based on pure economics and performance, and the green 

aspects of using the material are generally overlooked. However, it should be noted that LEED 

awards credits for using fly ash in concrete and Florida does have active LEED chapters. 

Nevertheless, the engineering community relies on fly ash to supply good-quality and 

economical concrete and is happy to use the material. 

Key 6: Florida’s Electric Utilities Support Coal Ash Utilization 

 The electric utility representatives interviewed were middle-level managers at their 

companies and said that convincing upper management to make ash utilization a priority was 

possible once they saw the economic advantages. These economic advantages are best realized 

when they are shown in the operations and planning side of the electric utility rather than the fuel 

side because the revenue stream from selling by-products gets lost in the fuel cost. Some electric 

utilities in Florida have established and extremely successful ash utilization programs, while 

others are just starting their ash utilization efforts. All electric utility representatives interviewed 

said they had the support of upper management to implement ash utilization programs. 

Key 7: Electric Utilities, FDEP, and FDOT Share a Common Goal to Write a 

Beneficial Use Rule 

 Electric utilities and ash marketers interviewed expressed extreme frustration in working 

with FDEP and indicated that they had made numerous proposals to FDEP to beneficially use 

CCPs over a period of decades and had been repeatedly rejected. Despite their frustrations, 

everyone who participated in this review appeared to be open to each others’ ideas and willing to 

work with each other to develop a beneficial use rule that would benefit industry, consumers, and 

the environment. 

 Two previous attempts have been made to develop a beneficial use rule. In 2003, the FCG 

developed draft legislative bills SB 2338 and HB 1607 (see Appendix D). These bills were later 

abandoned after FDEP and FCG agreed the vision was too broad and because they could not 

agree on interim storage requirements. Although this effort did not result in new CCP 

regulations, this exercise was still valuable in that all parties got to know each other and 

understand each other’s viewpoints. This legislative process was a separate undertaking from the 

rulemaking effort on the IWDR rule that was initiated by FDEP. A workshop to kick off this 

rulemaking was held in summer 2003 but was delayed primarily because of workload issues 

brought on by two devastating hurricane seasons and other rulemaking efforts. FDEP plans to 

work again on developing the IWDR rule that will address CCPs along with other industrial byproducts. 
8 

 At the state review session, electric utilities, ash marketers, and FDEP agreed to get 

together in 2006 to develop new regulations concerning industrial by-products, including CCPs. 

All parties agree that the new rule will likely include a list of preapproved uses and a list of uses 

that will need to be evaluated by FDEP on a case-by-case basis. 

REPORTED BARRIERS TO INCREASING CCP UTILIZATION IN FLORIDA 

 The following barriers were identified during the Florida review process. The authors 

believe the barriers are listed in order of significance. 

Barrier 1: FDEP Does Not Use a Formal Approval Process for New Beneficial Use 

Applications 

 Florida statutes [Section 403.703(13)] generally define “solid waste” to include any 

discarded material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or 

governmental operations. This includes CCPs. However, there is another provision of the Florida 

statutes [Section 403.7045] that exempts certain materials from regulation as solid waste, if: 

1. A majority of the industrial by-products are demonstrated to be sold, used, or reused 

within 1 year. 

2. The industrial by-products are not discharged, deposited, injected, dumped, spilled, 

leaked, or placed upon any land or water so that such industrial by-products, or any 

constituent thereof, may enter other lands or be emitted into the air or discharged into 

any waters, including groundwater, or otherwise enter the environment such that a 

threat of contamination in excess of applicable department standards and criteria is 

caused. 

3. The industrial by-products are not hazardous wastes as defined under Section 403.703. 

 Currently, FDEP does not have a rule implementing this section. Sometimes, FDEP points 

applicants to beneficial reuse guidance documents prepared for recovered screen material and 

waste-to-energy ash. Until a rule is promulgated, beneficial use projects are evaluated on a caseby-case basis. FDEP acknowledges that the current case-by-case approval procedure for CCP 

beneficial reuse is unclear. 

 FDEP does not issue permits for beneficial use but will provide an approval letter if 

requested. The approval letter affirms that the CCP will not be viewed by the state as a solid 

waste when managed as specified in the letter (CCP approval letters issued by FDEP are 

included in Appendix E). Those wanting to use CCPs are unsure as to when, where, and how to 

apply for an approval letter. Those interviewed said that FDEP did not give consistent direction 

and sometimes did not respond to projects. FDEP prefers those requesting permission to 

approach them with a well-defined use for the CCP and characterization data on the specific 

material that will be used; however, there is no clear process for requesting permission from 

FDEP. Sometimes the FDEP district office deals with a request, and sometimes FDEP 
9 

headquarters gets involved. This uncertainty has made CCP producers and marketers reluctant to 

continue requesting FDEP approval for uses outside of concrete, wallboard, and cement 

manufacture because they fear they will have to go through a lengthy and expensive 

demonstration process for each and every beneficial use application. 

 When deciding whether to approve an application for beneficial reuse, FDEP must 

determine whether or not the use will create “a significant impact to human health or the 

environment” and that the “by-products are not managed so as to create a threat of environmental 

contamination.” FDEP has definitive criteria on what constitutes pollution as described in its 

groundwater and surface water standards. FDEP does not have standards for determining impacts 

on human health but has developed soil cleanup target levels for contaminated site rehabilitation. 

These target levels can be used as a starting point for evaluating the potential threat to human 

health from direct contact with CCPs. Typically, FDEP requires applicants to supply results of 

CCP leaching tests conducted with the synthetic precipitation leaching procedure1

 (SPLP) and 

then compares the results to existing groundwater cleanup standards. If the CCP leaching test 

indicated no exceedances of groundwater standards, FDEP would not impose any limitations on 

the use of the CCP. FDEP acknowledged that not many CCPs can pass this very stringent test, 

although one bottom ash, when segregated from other CCPs and washed, came close to meeting 

the criteria and is used as an aggregate. Most CCPs will indicate exceedances and therefore, their 

beneficial use options are limited. As an alternative, the applicant can conduct a demonstration 

project involving groundwater monitoring via monitoring wells or lysimeters. FDEP will then 

review the results of the demonstration to make its determination. 

 In 2003, the FCG developed draft legislative bills SB 2338 and HB 1607 (see 

Appendix D). These bills were later abandoned after both FDEP and FCG agreed the vision was 

too broad and because they could not agree on interim storage requirements. This legislative 

process was a separate undertaking from the rulemaking effort on the IWDR rule that was 

initiated by FDEP. A workshop to kick off this rulemaking was held in summer 2003 but was 

delayed primarily because of workload issues brought on by two devastating hurricane seasons 

and other rulemaking efforts. FDEP plans to work again on developing the IWDR rule that will 

address CCPs along with other industrial by-products. 

 As previously mentioned in Key 7, the FDEP will reconvene its process to develop an 

IWDR rule within the next 1 to 2 years. To write the new rule, it is important that FDEP is able 

to answer the following questions (Tedder and McGuire, 2003): 

1. How should risks to human health and the environment be evaluated? 

a. What risk targets, or risk ranges, should be used? 

b. What leaching tests should be used, and how should results be interpreted? 

c. How will this be implemented for beneficial use? 

 

1

 Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP): This method (EPA Method 1312) was developed for use in 

evaluating the impact that contaminated soils may have on groundwater. This is an agitated extraction method that 

uses simulated acid rain as an extraction fluid. If the sample is a soil, the extraction fluid used is a function of the 

region of the United States where the sample site is located; if the sample is waste or wastewater, the extraction fluid 

is a solution having a pH of 4.2; and if volatile or cyanide leachability is being evaluated, reagent water is used as 

the extraction fluid (Sorini, 1997). 
10 

2. How should FDEP balance beneficial use with waste cleanup concerns? 

3. If used, does a material cease to be a solid waste? When does a waste become a 

product? 

4. Should risks be balanced with expected benefits (cost-benefit analysis)? 

Barrier 2: FDEP Is Not Comfortable with CCP Use in Land Applications 

FDEP does not require that a CCP generator receive an individual approval to use CCPs in 

cement, concrete, or wallboard applications even though FDEP regulations do not explicitly 

authorize these uses. FDEP said these applications encapsulate the CCPs and, therefore, do not 

pose a direct threat to human health or the environment. However, FDEP is extremely 

concerned, and admittedly overly cautious, about any CCP use in land applications (geotechnical 

or agricultural) because of the state’s high water table and extensive use of groundwater for 

potable use. FDEP believes there is too much of a “potential threat” to allow CCPs to be used in 

an application that does not encapsulate the material. 

 FDEP’s hesitance to use CCPs in any geotechnical application spills over to FDOT. FDOT 

stated it would probably approve CCP use in road-building applications based on engineering 

performance, but it would not recommend or develop specifications for CCP use in those 

applications because FDEP is not comfortable with the environmental appropriateness of using 

CCPs in that manner. 

 There is one exception to this barrier. FDEP recently approved the use of a CCP in a 

geotechnical application after JEA invested over $400,000 on a series of field demonstrations. 

JEA produces a CFB by-product generated from burning 70% petcoke and 30% coal. The byproduct is now marketed as EZBaseTM and comprises a mixture of hydrated sorbent mixed fly 

and bed ash. The chemical composition is primarily lime and gypsum, with less than 10% by 

weight being derived as ash from the combustion of fossil fuels. JEA said that during the 

approval process, the procedures for the beneficial use designation were not well defined, nor 

were approval requests reviewed by FDEP in a timely manner. Numerous meetings were held 

with various FDEP personnel from the Northeast District and Tallahassee Solid Waste Offices to 

determine what information needed to be generated to obtain approval for use. FDEP staff at all 

levels offered strong encouragement to proceed with a field demonstration and also provided 

input on how to capture appropriate data to accurately assess potential environmental impacts 

from the by-product itself relative to other commodity construction products that the by-product 

would displace (JEA, 2004). The approval letter to use EZBaseTM for road surfacing and base 

course is included in Appendix E. However, JEA is concerned that similar costly demonstrations 

might be required by FDEP if it tried to use the material in projects where conditions deviated 

only slightly from those in the demonstration. Partly because of this, and partly because of 

general market conditions, JEA is primarily using EZBaseTM in road-building application 

projects in other states while a local market is being developed. Additionally, JEA is currently 

seeking FDOT approval. If obtained, this approval is expected to facilitate use in Florida. JEA is 

also pursuing the bulk transport of EZBaseTM by rail and barge, which could increase and 

facilitate use both in and out of state. 
11 

 Lakeland Electric contemplated a similar demonstration effort for using its off-spec FGD 

by-product as a subbase for roads but would have had to install an extensive set of monitoring 

wells that would have made the demonstration project very costly. Lakeland Electric 

subsequently decided it would be more cost-effective to modify its FGD process to produce 

wallboard-quality gypsum. In the interim, Lakeland Electric is using its off-spec FGD gypsum as 

a soil amendment in Florida. The Florida Department of Agriculture supports this use, but FDEP 

has not issued a formal approval letter for this application. 

Barrier 3: FDEP Has Not Defined What Data It Needs to Feel Comfortable with 

Nontraditional Uses, and Industry Has Subsequently Not Provided FDEP with 

Appropriate Data from CCPs Generated at Florida’s Electric Utilities 

 With the exception of the recent JEA demonstration project, FDEP said it has not been 

presented with the characterization data it needs to be comfortable with using CCPs in 

nontraditional applications. It is important to note that FDEP has not clearly defined what data it 

needs and the data required varies with each request. FDEP said the limited data submitted to 

date displays a pronounced variability in CCP characteristics which appear to be a function of 

plant type, fuel source, and operational procedures which makes an unrestricted use approval for 

CCPs difficult. (Florida’s electric utilities burn about 20% petcoke and, therefore, produce a 

different ash than many other utilities outside of the state). FDEP does not believe that 

demonstration projects conducted in other states are applicable to Florida because ashes 

generated in Florida were not used and Florida’s high water table was not taken into 

consideration in determining the environmental appropriateness of using the material in specific 

applications. Generating these data is difficult and costly because the responsibility falls entirely 

to the industrial entity proposing the use, without any assistance from state government or 

industry groups that are available in several coal-mining states. In addition, Florida electric 

utilities have not yet partnered extensively with universities to develop the experience and 

expertise needed to perform CCP research or establish extensive databases of CCP project 

results. 

Barrier 4: There Is No Push for CCP Recycling 

 Statewide, there is no push to recycle CCPs from either an industrial or governmental 

standpoint; however, several electric utilities and marketers indicated that numerous requests 

were made to FDEP in years past, but monitoring and other requirements were so restrictive that 

beneficial use requests in recent years have not been pursued. The efforts required to get a 

beneficial use approved by FDEP appear to be so insurmountable to electric utilities and 

marketers that they have nearly given up. Although JEA did get an approval from FDEP after it 

invested $400,000 in a demonstration project, the electric utilities and marketers interviewed 

indicated that the outcome of this study didn’t encourage them to consider similar studies. FDEP 

and FDOT could each only recall one recent instance when they were asked to approve the use 

of CCPs in a nontraditional manner. FDEP was approached by an electric utility one time to get 

an approval letter to use CCPs in a nontraditional application (JEA, 2004), and FDOT could 

recall one instance when a contractor wanted to use a flowable fill material containing fly ash 

inside an underground pipe. FDEP reported that there had been environmental impacts due to 

runoff in at least one utility CCP disposal site, making it difficult to cite environmental benefits 
12 

of using CCPs. FDOT believes that if contractors really wanted to use CCPs, they would ask 

FDOT to develop specifications for nontraditional uses. Additionally, there isn’t a strong green 

building movement in Florida that recognizes the benefits of using CCPs. The environmental 

benefits of using CCPs are not a factor when the decision is made to use products that may or 

may not contain CCPs. If CCPs are used in a construction project, it is likely due to the economic 

savings associated with using the material. 

Barrier 5: FDOT is Hesitant to Embrace CCPs as a Construction Material in 

Nonconcrete Applications 

 FDOT had very limited knowledge on the use of fly ash in nonconcrete applications. It did 

recall one recent instance when it approved a request from a contractor to use a CCP-based 

flowable fill inside an abandoned underground pipe. FDOT issued an approval after close 

consultation with FDEP on the environmental appropriateness of this application. 

 Like FDEP, FDOT would be unlikely to propose new specifications based on the results of 

demonstrations conducted in other states and hasn’t been presented with the information needed 

to propose new specifications or endorse the use CCPs in a nonconcrete application. FDOT 

wants to be sure that the construction contractors would be completely aware of any engineering 

or environmental issues associated with the CCP use. 

 Adding to FDOT hesitance to use CCPs in nonconcrete applications, is the pressure in 

Florida to build roads quickly. This has made FDOT and its contractors reluctant to deviate from 

tried-and-true road construction methods. In fact, because of the relatively mild Florida climate, 

FDOT has made speed and practicality a higher priority than all-weather durability when 

reviewing and approving new road design and construction methods. The perception that using 

new materials such as CCPs could slow down the construction process (via blending, dusting, 

etc.) has made FDOT and its contractors hesitant to embrace CCPs as a construction material in 

applications other than using fly ash as a replacement for portland cement in concrete. 

Barrier 6: Plant Operators Have Not Placed a Priority on Producing Consistent, 

Good-Quality Fly Ash 

 Any ready-mix supplier would agree that having a consistent quality and supply of fly ash 

is essential to producing good concrete. However, producing a good-quality, consistent CCP is 

not easy when plant operators at the utilities have not placed a priority on producing good fly 

ash. Naturally, the plant operator’s main priority is to produce electricity, not ash, and reuse 

values have historically been low. 

 Eliminating this barrier would not necessarily increase the amount of CCPs used in 

Florida; however, producing a consistent, high-quality fly ash would increase the overall 

economic value of the fly ash because it could be sold to the higher-value ready-mix concrete 

market. Furthermore, if mercury air emission regulations render off-spec ash unsuitable for 

cement kilns, then the production of concrete-quality ash in Florida may become essential. 
13 

 Florida electric utilities have the support of upper management to embrace coal ash 

utilization. One utility has already used this company support to initiate a formal training 

program to teach plant operators about the value of producing consistent-quality ash, while 

meeting emission requirements. Other utilities hope to implement similar education programs to 

teach plant operators about ash production, management, and the value of beneficial use 

opportunities. 

 In addition, some Florida electric utilities are using or are considering investing in 

beneficiation systems to produce concrete-grade fly ash which will allow some fly ashes with 

either high unburned carbon or ammonia content to meet ASTM C618 specifications for use in 

concrete. However, the combustion facility associated with the use of carbon burnout (CBO) 

systems may be categorized by FDEP as a new NOx source. If categorized in this manner, the 

installation of CBO systems may trigger New Source Review (NSR) requirements under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Clean Air Act. The overall impact of 

this designation is currently unclear, and the permitting process needs revision. 

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN 

FLORIDA 

Florida currently has a thriving coal ash industry, but the following potential threats could 

hinder the future of CCP utilization in the state. Based on review discussions, the authors believe 

the following threats are listed in order of importance. 

Threat 1: FDEP May Have Unwarranted Concerns about Ash Handling and Interim 

Storage 

 CCP producers, ash marketers, and ready-mix suppliers believe FDEP is overly and 

unnecessarily concerned about environmental contamination that may result from interim storage 

(stockpiling) of CCPs. In some cases, FDEP has required end users to install expensive liners 

under temporary CCP storage areas as a precautionary measure. FDEP also requires the material 

to be covered. These requirements were viewed as unfair because they do not apply to 

comparable materials or even to materials that interviewees considered to be of greater threat of 

environmental contamination, such as coal or limerock. CCPs are essentially being treated as a 

regulated solid waste by FDEP in this regard. 

 FDEP believes utilities want to avoid disposal if at all possible, not just because of the 

direct cost of developing a Class I double-lined disposal site, but because of vehement public 

opposition to new landfills. To avoid landfilling and limit the need for siting and constructing 

new disposal facilities, some electric utilities are storing CCPs on-site with the intent of 

eventually selling the materials for use. However, long-term on-site storage is viewed by FDEP 

as waste disposal. 

 If electric utilities were to try to avoid regulation by implementing interim storage in lieu 

of long-term disposal, FDEP would take the necessary steps to reprimand violators. If a case 

such as this occurred, FDEP will take proactive measures to make certain that interim storage 
14 

does not become a pseudo landfill. If FDEP decided to impose strict temporary storage 

requirements, transport and use of CCPs may become uneconomical because the material will 

have to be handled as a regulated solid waste rather than as a product like cement. 

Threat 2: Mercury Emissions from Cement and Wallboard Manufacture May Make 

CCP Use Unacceptable 

 FDEP’s NSR air permit program is designed to ensure that air quality is not significantly 

degraded by the addition of new, and modification of existing, sources of air pollution. NSR 

provides assurance that any large new or modified air pollution source will be as clean as 

possible and that advances in pollution control occur concurrently with facility expansion. The 

implementation of the U.S. Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) may result in increased mercury 

associated with fly ash and FGD material as a result of mercury emission reduction technologies 

being installed at coal-based power plants. Since fly ash and FGD material are used in cement 

and wallboard manufacturing, electric utilities and cement and wallboard manufacturers are 

concerned that FDEP’s NSR may limit or even eliminate the use of CCPs in these products. 

Similar impacts may also occur for fly ash containing higher levels of unburned carbon or other 

components resulting from changes in operations, fuel, or emission controls. 

 Wallboard producers are well aware that there are potential issues regarding the ultimate 

fate of mercury from FGD gypsum used in wallboard manufacture and that tighter mercury 

limits could restrict the use of FGD gypsum in wallboard. Wallboard manufactures are 

conducting independent studies on this issue, but USG Corporation publicly reports its research 

in this area (Marshall et al., 2005). 

 Likewise, FDEP’s state permitting rules specify an emission threshold of 0.1 tons of 

mercury per year on cement plants (Florida Administrative Code, 2005), limiting the amount of 

fly ash that can be used. At that level or beyond, applicants must propose, with final 

determination from FDEP, the best available control technology (BACT) for mercury control. To 

avoid mercury control technologies, most Florida cement plants agree to emit less than 200 lb of 

mercury per year. FDEP reviews are typically for one kiln at a time, so a cement plant can have a 

limit greater than 200 lb of mercury per year. Following the FDEP review session, FDEP 

proposed a limit on mercury emissions of 122 lb per year for a new cement plant (FDEP, 2005). 

Furthermore, EPA’s proposed rule on National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (Federal Register, 2005) suggests 

that one possible solution to reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns would be to “ban the 

use of fly ash from a utility boiler that is controlling mercury as an additive to cement kiln feed.” 

Importantly, the proposed rule does not explicitly define the term “utility boiler that is 

controlling mercury”; therefore, environmental advocates are likely to claim that all coal utility 

boilers with particulate collection devices are controlling mercury to some extent via capture of 

mercury on fly ash, even when no efforts to enhance such capture are being made by the utility. 

The proposed ban could eliminate all current and future use of fly ash as a cement kiln feed.
15 

Threat 3: Florida’s CCP Utilization Options Are Not Diversified 

 CCP utilization in Florida relies nearly entirely on three uses: 1) concrete, 2) cement, and 

3) wallboard. If any of these uses became uneconomical, unacceptable, or inappropriate for the 

types of CCPs being produced, other options for use have not been well evaluated by industry 

and the state does not have rules or policies in place that would allow it to quickly and 

effectively look into other beneficial use options. 

Threat 4: Fly Ash with High Unburned Carbon May Become Unsuitable for Use in 

Cement Manufacture 

 Florida electric utilities that have installed low-NOx (nitrogen oxide) burners have 

subsequently produced a fly ash with high unburned carbon content. These fly ashes are no 

longer suitable for use in concrete and, therefore, are sold to cement manufactures. As reported 

in Key 2, one new cement plant in Florida is new and cannot use high unburned content fly ash 

(greater than 30% carbon) because of operational problems and the need to meet CO2 emission 

requirements and total hydrocarbon limits. It is unknown if the proposed new cement plants in 

Florida will experience similar issues.

ACTIONS THAT COULD INCREASE CCP USE IN FLORIDA 

 The following activities were suggested during the reviews as actions that would help 

increase CCP utilization in Florida and are believed to be listed in order of significance. 

Action 1: Industry Will Collectively Work with FDEP to Develop a Beneficial Use 

Rule 

 FDEP does not have a beneficial use rule to evaluate the reuse of CCPs, and projects are 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. An attempt was made in 2003 by FCG to develop legislation 

on this issue, but the effort was abandoned. FDEP tried in 2003 to develop an IWDR rule, but 

that process was delayed and hasn’t been a top priority for FDEP. As a collective group, the FCG 

and ash marketers plan to revisit this issue in 2006 and work with FDEP to develop an IWDR 

rule within the next 1 to 2 years. 

 The new rule is expected to apply to all industrial by-products and will have a specific 

subsection that applies to CCPs. It is likely that the new rule will include a list of approved CCP 

sources that can be used in specific applications. In addition, the new rule will establish a process 

for evaluating beneficial use and set clear criteria for evaluating proposed projects. Beneficial 

use applications not on the preapproved list will need to apply for an approval letter and will 

likely require a demonstration. The new rule should also outline the requirements for a 

demonstration. 

 It is imperative that Florida’s electric utilities, ash marketers, end users, and the FDOT are 

involved in this rulemaking effort and continue to push FDEP to make this rule a priority. FDEP 

realizes this process will be cumbersome and complicated and will look to key CCP stakeholders 
16 

for guidance. If the CCP stakeholders are able to collectively approach FDEP with one universal 

message, much like the Texas Coal Ash Users Group did in Texas, it is more likely that a rule 

will be written that will increase the beneficial use of CCPs in Florida. 

Action 2: FDEP and Electric Utilities Need to Agree on Less Stringent Temporary 

Storage and Ash-Handling Practices 

When FCG drafted legislation and presented it to FDEP in 2003, the effort was abandoned, 

in part, because the two parties could not agree to reasonable temporary storage and ash-handling 

practices. The regulatory oversight and restrictions placed on generators and end users of CCPs 

need to contain flexibility with respect to temporary storage locations and practices so that the 

respective costs associated with such practices do not preclude beneficial use opportunities. CCP 

generators, in turn, must establish temporary storage locations and adopt management practices 

that clearly demonstrate their intent to store and not dispose of the CCPs. Temporary storage and 

management concepts that are flexible, scientifically based, and protective of human health and 

the environment should be developed. Existing university research and reports should be 

consulted in this regard (FCG, 2006). 

Action 3: FDEP Needs to Determine What Ash Characterization Data It Needs, and 

Industry Needs to Provide It 

 FDEP said it does not have the necessary ash characterization data to be comfortable with 

the use of CCPs in applications other than cement, concrete, and wallboard. It also said that data 

generated from other states are not sufficient because the fuel source and combustion systems are 

different; hence, the CCPs will be different. It would use out-of-state data with in-state data to 

analyze the acceptability of a beneficial use. 

 Electric utilities and ash marketers argued that FDEP has not identified what data it is 

concerned with or what specific data it would need to be able to make a decision on a beneficial 

use. Based on previous experience working with FDEP, electric utilities and ash marketers 

believe field data would be required because FDEP is not certain laboratory leaching is a good 

predictor of what will happen in the real world. 

 To address this issue, FDEP said it would like a statewide CCP characterization database. 

It would use this database to develop an approved ash source list, similar to FDOT’s list. Those 

ashes could be used in preapproved applications. FDEP indicated that total metals analysis and 

leaching analysis would be useful information for the database. FDEP is not sure how this 

characterization data should be generated because it does not know what leaching protocol 

would be the best predictor of what would happen in the field. FDEP tends to favor the SPLP 

method; however, it is open to using the toxicity characteristics leaching procedure2

 (TCLP) and 

 

2

 Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP): The TCLP was designed to determine the mobility of 40 

toxicity characteristics constituents in liquid, solid, and multiphasic waste. TCLP is the regulatory method EPA uses 

for classifying wastes as hazardous or nonhazardous. The TCLP was designed to simulate the leaching a waste will 

undergo if disposed in an unlined sanitary landfill. It is an agitated extraction test using extraction fluid that is a 

function of the alkalinity of the solid phase of the waste (Sorini, 1997). 
17 

the synthetic groundwater leaching procedure3

 (SGLP). The EERC is currently working on an 

ASTM procedure that would allow one to select the appropriate leaching procedure. FDEP said 

it would likely use this ASTM method to select a leaching procedure. 

Action 4: State and Federal Programs Could Provide Stronger Encouragement and 

Incentives to Recycle CCPs 

 Offices such as FDEP and FDOT will likely continue on the same path if they are not 

approached to change policies. Both offices indicated that they do not have a push from the state 

or federal government to use CCPs. The only push to recycle industrial by-products in Florida 

was in 1974 when the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act (Chapter 403.701.) 

required each county to prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan. In 1988, this Act was amended 

by the Solid Waste Management Act to establish state goals, regulations, and programs for a host 

of solid waste activities. The Act sets recycling goals and requires counties to develop recycling 

programs to meet these goals. It also creates programs to encourage the recycling of specific 

materials such as waste tires, compost, and batteries. However, the Act does not address or 

encourage the beneficial use of CCPs. 

 In Texas, both the transportation and environmental departments had programs that 

promoted the use of recycled materials, including CCPs. These programs were a result of the 

state senate passing a bill to establish the Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB). The 

RMDB was charged with coordinating the recycling activities of all state agencies and pursuing 

an economic development strategy that focuses on the state’s waste management priorities and 

the development of recycling industries and markets. Programs such as EPA’s Coal Combustion 

Products Partnership (C2

P2) could encourage CCP use at the state level by showing state 

legislators how initiatives such as the RMDB encouraged recycling in other states. The 

promotion of Comprehensive Procurements Guidelines may also be helpful in encouraging states 

to recycle. 

Action 5: Electric Utilities Should Educate Plant Operators about the Value of 

Producing Consistent, Good-Quality CCPs 

Utilities mentioned that one of their biggest hurdles is to educate their own plant operators 

about how to produce good-quality CCPs on a consistent basis. One utility interviewed said it 

already has an internal education program for plant operators under way. External educational 

programs could be developed by universities, with funding from utilities and the federal 

government, to teach plant operators about how to produce electricity efficiently while meeting 

emission control requirements and still maintaining a consistent by-product. Colleges educating 

future plant operators could also integrate ash production and management into their course 

curriculum. 

 

3

 Synthetic Groundwater Leaching Procedure (SGLP): The SGLP was developed by the EERC to 1) simulate natural 

groundwater conditions with respect to groundwater chemistry, 2) be flexible enough to be site-specific, and 3) be 

directly comparable to the TCLP. The steps involved in the SGLP are the same as those performed in the TCLP, 

except synthetic groundwater is used in place of the specified acetic acid solution or sodium acetate buffer solution 

(Sorini, 1997). 
18 

Action 6: The Florida CCP Industry Should Develop Partnerships with Universities 

Universities that have a long track record of conducting performance tests and 

environmental evaluations of CCPs are often viewed by state regulators as a relatively unbiased 

source of CCP data. By establishing and maintaining long-term partnerships with universities, 

the Florida CCP industry could help create a useful resource for future efforts to promote CCP 

beneficial use. The universities would be able to develop an enhanced level of expertise in CCPs 

and could establish an infrastructure that may 1) facilitate the collection of scientific data to 

support the development of regulations and 2) attract federal, state, and private funding to 

support future research, development, and demonstration projects related to CCPs. 

CONCLUSIONS 

 Florida is a perfect example of how economics play a crucial role in utilizing CCPs. Even 

without the regulatory framework in place to encourage CCP use, Florida has managed to 

successfully utilize 60%–70% of the CCPs it produces and even imports fly ash from 

surrounding states. This high utilization rate is directly attributed to the state’s large number of 

cement and wallboard manufacturers and its high and growing demand for concrete. These three 

markets depend on CCPs to economically produce their products. 

 Although it is expected that these industries will continue to grow and demand more CCPs, 

there are some potential threats that exist that could negatively impact these markets. The biggest 

threat is mercury. It is still unknown if mercury captured on fly ash and FGD materials as a result 

of clean air emission regulations will be rereleased into the environment. Using fly ash or FGD 

gypsum from power plants with mercury control technologies in the manufacture of cement or 

wallboard could be prohibited in the future. Also, if thermal beneficiation systems such as CBO 

are used at Florida coal-based power plants, these systems could be viewed as new NOx sources 

by air regulatory agencies. In turn, this designation would subject the host facilities to increased 

regulatory burdens and could trigger the imposition of NOx emission restrictions on their main 

pulverized coal boilers that are much more stringent than if the CBO system were not present. If 

CCPs became unacceptable to use in one of these key industries, Florida does not have the 

framework in place to readily explore new beneficial use applications. 

 Perhaps the most enlightening part of the Florida review came when FDEP acknowledged 

it wants to support CCP use in principle, but that the actual possibility of use with the current 

regulatory framework is difficult at best. FDEP has a cautious and informal approach to 

beneficial use, which limits the amount of applications submitted to FDEP because users are not 

sure how to approach FDEP, nor are they sure of what is required to get a beneficial use 

application approved. FDEP generally accepts encapsulated uses (cement, concrete, and 

wallboard) but wants vast amounts of data to meet its subjective criteria for other applications. 

 To increase utilization in Florida, the first step Florida may take is to develop a beneficial 

use rule for CCPs. Based on information presented, it is not anticipated that FDEP will adopt a 

substantively less restrictive approach toward CCP use in land applications. Electric utilities are 

not expected to push for this use because the cost to dispose the material will likely be cheaper 
19 

than the cost to conduct large-scale demonstrations with the hope that FDEP may approve an 

application. However, it may be possible to develop less restrictive provisions for temporary 

CCP storage and management that reduces the impact of this barrier to CCP use. In addition, 

federal and state governments could help Florida make strides toward beneficial use in 

nontraditional applications by providing outside funding to conduct large-scale demonstrations. 

REFERENCES 

American Coal Ash Association. 2004 Coal Combustion Product Production and Use Survey; 

Sept 2005. 

American Coal Ash Association. State Solid Waste Regulations Governing the Use of Coal 

Combustion Products (CCPs); Aug 1998. 

Buckley, T.D.; Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F. Review of Texas Regulations, Standards, and Practices 

Related to the Use of Coal Combustion Products; EERC Publication No. 2005-EERC-01-01; 

Jan 2005. 

Dockter, Bruce A.; Jagiella, Diana M. Engineering and Environmental Specifications of State 

Agencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products; Final Report Prepared 

for the Combustion By-Products Recycling Consortium; CBRC Project No. 02-CBRC-W12, 

EERC Publication No. 2005-EERC-07-04; July 2005. 

Energy Information Administration. U.S. Coal Consumption by End Use Sector, by Census 

Division and State, 2004a. www.eia.doe.gov (accessed March 2006). 

Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-7767, Database, 2004b. www.eia.doe.gov 

(accessed March 2006). 

Federal Register, Air Pollution; Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources: Portland 

Cement Manufacturing Industry, 40 CFR Part 63, Vol. 70, N. 231, Friday December 2, 2005, 

p. 72334. 

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-210 Stationary Sources-General Requirements, 

www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/rules/recent/62-210%20Rule%20as%20Certified.pdf (accessed Feb 

2006). 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Technical Evaluation Preliminary 

Determination Draft BACT Determinations, DEP File No. 1190042-001-AC (PSD-FL-361), 

Dec. 15, 2005, www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/permitting/construction/american/TEPD361.pdf 

(accessed Feb 2006). 

Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FGC). Personal communication, Feb 2006. 
20 

JEA. Notice of Industrial Byproduct Exemption Claim and Beneficial Use Demonstration; 

Submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection by JEA, Oct 2004. 

Marshall, J.; Blythe, G.; Richardson, M. Fate of Mercury in Synthetic Gypsum Used for 

Wallboard Production; U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, PA, Cooperative Agreement 

Number DE-FC26-04NT42080, www.netl.doe.gov/coal/E&WR/cub/index.html (accessed 

Dec 2005). 

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. Industry Fact Sheet. www.nrmca.org (accessed 

March 2006). 

Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.P.; Sondreal, E.A.; Steadman, E.N.; Eylands, K.E. Dockter, B.A. Barriers 

To the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/Desulfurization By-Products by Government 

and Commercial Sectors – Update 1998; Topical Report for U.S. Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Center Cooperative Agreement No. DE FC21-93MC30097; 

EERC Publication No. 99-EERC-07-08; July 1999. 

Sorini, S.S. A Summary of Leaching Methods. Prepared for the American Coal Ash Association, 

April 1997. 

Tedder, R.; McGuire, C. Florida’s Plans for an Industrial Waste Disposal and Reuse Rule. 

Presented at the IWDR Rule Development Workshop, Orlando, FL, July 30, 2003. 
APPENDIX A 

ADVISORY BOARD AND REVIEW TEAM 

MEMBERS
A-1 

REVIEW OF FLORIDA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Advisory Board and Review Team Members

Mr. William Aljoe* 

Project Manager 

US Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

626 Cochrans Mill Road 

PO Box 10940 MS 922-273C 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 

Phone: (412) 386-6569 

Fax: (412) 386-5917 

E-mail: aljoe@netl.doe.gov 

Ms. Tera D. Buckley* 

Marketing Research Specialist 

University of North Dakota 

Energy & Environmental Research Center 

15 North 23rd Street 

PO Box 9018 

Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018 

Phone: (701) 777-5296 

Fax: (701) 777-5181 

E-Mail: tbuckley@undeerc.org 

Mr. Jim Frauen* 

Manager of Environmental Affairs 

Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

16313 North Dale Mabry Highway 

Tampa, FL 33618 

Phone: (813) 739-1213 

Fax: (813) 264-7906 

E-mail: jfrauen@seminole-electric.com 

Mr. David Goss 

Executive Director 

American Coal Ash Association 

15200 East Girard Avenue Suite 3050 

Aurora, CO 80014-3988 

Phone: (720) 870-7897 

Fax: (720) 870-7889 

E-mail: dcgoss@acaa-usa.org 

Mr. Jason Harrington 

Federal Highway Adminstration 

Office of Pavement Technology 

400 7th Street Southwest Room 3118 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 336-1576 

Fax: (202) 493-2070 

E-mail: Jason.Harrington@fhwa.dot.gov 

Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett* 

Senior Research Advisor 

University of North Dakota 

Energy & Environmental Research Center 

15 North 23rd Street 

PO Box 9018 

Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018 

Phone: (701) 777-5261 

Fax: (701) 777-5181 

E-Mail: dphassett@undeerc.org 

Mr. John Sager* 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest (MC 

5306W) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Phone: (703) 308-7256 

Fax: (703) 308-8686 

E-mail: sager.john@epa.gov 

Ms. Mary Beth E. Van Pelt* 

Environmental Scientist 

US EPA – Region 4 

Waste Division/RCRA Branch 

61 Forsyth Street 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Phone: (404) 562-8615 

Fax: (404) 562-8686 

E-mail: vanpelt.marybeth@epa.gov 

*Review team members.
APPENDIX B 

REVIEW GUIDE
B-1 

REVIEW OF FLORIDA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Florida Review Guide 

December 6–8, 2005

BACKGROUND 

 The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in 

cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, 

is conducting a second review of state regulations, standards, and practices related to the use of 

coal combustion products (CCPs). The first state review was conducted in Texas in September 

2004. The final report from the Texas state review can be accessed online at 

www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/review.html. 

GOAL 

 The primary goal is to review factors related to the use of CCPs in Florida and develop 

recommendations that may help Florida and other states increase the use of CCPs in an 

environmentally sound manner. Florida was selected as the second state for an in-depth review of 

its capacity to generate coal-based electricity, eastern location, and current regulation status. It is 

anticipated that at least one additional state review will be conducted after Florida’s. 

SCOPE 

 The scope of the Florida review, as identified by the project’s advisory board members, is to 

evaluate the various factors related to CCP use in Florida. In order to focus the study on current 

practices, which are most readily transferable, the Florida review will highlight various CCP use 

practices, including highway construction and building practices, and will not consider the use of 

CCPs at mine sites. This is not to diminish the use of CCPs at mine sites but to recognize the 

national regulatory review on the use of CCPs at mine sites, which is being conducted independently 

of this review. 

PROCESS 

 The review team will travel to Florida to visit state agencies and other key stakeholders 

involved in CCP utilization. Six discussion groups will be formed to answer questions posed by the 

review team. The discussion groups include the following: 

• Government agencies – directors and other key personnel of state or regional 

transportation and environmental agencies 

• CCP generators – utility environmental and ash managers 
B-2 

• CCP suppliers – CCP marketers and suppliers of ash beneficiation systems 

• Cement and concrete – ready-mix concrete suppliers and cement producers 

• Wallboard – users of synthetic gypsum for wallboard production and suppliers of FGD 

beneficiation systems 

• Open meeting conference call – open to anyone who is unavailable to attend their 

scheduled session 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 Please come to the review prepared to answer the following list of questions, and assemble 

all applicable information prior to the review. Answer the questions as completely as is 

reasonably possible without stating proprietary information. If you would prefer to answer 

questions in writing, as well, please provide written comments to Tera Buckley at 

tbuckley@undeerc.org. Any written documentation or responses you can provide will ensure that 

exact citations are included in the final report and are extremely helpful to the review team. The 

time allotted for the review is noted in the enclosed agenda. The review will be recorded. 
B-3 

AGENDA 

The Towers at Westshore 

1408 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 1002 

Tampa, FL 33607 

Phone: (813) 289-5644 

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 

8:15 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. Review Team Kickoff Meeting 

9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. CCP Generators 

1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

4:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Review Team Meeting 

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 

10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Florida Department of Transportation 

1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Cement and Concrete 

4:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Review Team Meeting 

Thursday, December 8, 2005 

8:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. CCP Suppliers 

11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Review Team Meeting 

Open Meeting Conference Call 

A conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, December 14, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. (EST) for 

those who are unable to attend their scheduled review session. If you would like to participate in 

this conference call, contact Tera Buckley by e-mail at tbuckley@undeerc.org or phone at (701) 

777-5296. Written comments will also be accepted until December 14, 2005. 
B-4 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

1. What is your agency’s role in the use of CCPs? 

2. What type of infrastructure (i.e., employees, programs) has your agency dedicated to 

CCP management? 

3. For which of the following CCPs does your agency have guidelines, guidance documents, 

material specifications, regulations, orders, or statutes? If applicable, provide references 

for, and dates of, the specific guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, 

regulations, orders, or statutes related to CCPs. 

a. Fly ash 

b. Bottom ash 

c. Flue gas desulfurization material 

d. Boiler slag 

e. Cenospheres 

f. Fluidized-bed combustor ash 

g. Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) residuals 

h. Other ______________ 

4. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your 

agency’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, new air pollution 

control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. 

5. Are there any plans to implement any new policies, rules, or regulations regarding CCPs 

currently in process or expected in the near future? For example, some Florida utilities 

are considering increasing the amount of petcoke they burn which will impact the CCPs 

produced. Does your agency foresee and changes to the current regulations as a result of 

this change in fuel source? 

6. What process does your agency undergo to make changes to its policies, rules, or 

regulations? 

7. Please list and explain any successful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they 

successful? 
B-5 

8. Please list and explain any problematic projects/applications using CCPs. Explain the 

problems encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a 

project. 

9. Please list and explain any cases in Florida where the use of CCPs has caused 

environmental damage or resulted in violations of environmental requirements. Describe 

any corrective actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address the issues. 

10. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Florida? How could this obstacle be addressed? 

11. Which of the following sources of information does your agency rely on in approving the 

use of CCPs in particular applications? 

a.________ Surveys of current practices (federal or state) 

b.________ Demonstration projects 

c.________ Internal (agency) testing and evaluations 

d.________ Technical reports submitted by qualified consultants 

e.________ Research projects or reports by other agencies, research institutions, 

 or consultants 

f. ________ Other ______________________________ 

g.________ Other ______________________________ 

12. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to assist 

your agency in overcoming barriers? 

13. In general, how do you perceive the position that Florida has taken toward CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
B-6 

CCP GENERATORS 

1. Are there any operational or business issues that impact the way you process or handle 

CCPs? 

2. What types of quality assurance/quality control procedures are employed at your 

company with regard to CCPs? 

3. How would changes to the chemical or physical properties of CCPs impact your 

company’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, new air 

pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. 

4. Please indicate your thoughts on the current CCP specifications or guidelines that you are 

aware of in the state of Florida. Are there any environmental policies, permits, 

regulations, or statutes that impact the way you process and handle CCPs? What 

specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What 

changes would you like to see made to the current specifications and guidelines? 

5. Are you or your CCP users (marketers/contractors) provided with the flexibility to make 

the decision to utilize CCPs when the material meets standard specification requirements, 

or does the state require additional approvals and testing? 

6. Please list and explain any successful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they 

successful? 

7. Please list and explain any problematic projects/applications using CCPs. Explain the 

problems encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a 

project. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address 

the issues. 

8. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research and demonstration projects 

regarding CCPs. 

9. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Florida? How could this obstacle be addressed? Would any changes to state or federal 

regulations help you address this obstacle? 

10. What barriers has your company overcome to increase the use of CCPs? How? 

11. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to assist 

your company in overcoming barriers? 

12. In general, how do you perceive the position that Florida has taken toward CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
B-7 

CCP SUPPLIERS 

1. Provide a general description of the CCP market in Florida, including supply and 

demand, and identify the major use applications. Specifically, describe the current state 

of CCP use in road building and commercial and residential building construction 

projects. 

2. Please indicate your thoughts on the current specifications or guidelines that you are 

aware of in the state of Florida related to CCPs. Are there any environmental policies, 

permits, regulations, or statutes that impact the way you process and handle CCPs? What 

specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What 

changes would you like to see made to the current specifications and guidelines? 

3. Please list and explain any successful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they 

successful? 

4. Please list and explain any problematic projects/applications using CCPs. Explain the 

problem encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a 

project. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address 

the issues. 

5. What role do other alternative materials (i.e. foundry sand) play in your business? 

6. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your 

company’s role in the management of CCPs? For example, new air pollution control 

requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. 

7. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Florida? How could this obstacle be addressed? Would any changes to state or federal 

regulations help you address this obstacle? 

8. What further research or laboratory work would be necessary to overcome barriers to 

CCP utilization? 

9. In general, how do you perceive the position Florida has taken towards CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
B-8 

CEMENT AND CONCRETE 

1. Provide a general description of the cement and concrete markets in Florida. Is supply 

meeting demand? How much concrete is being used in various segments of the market 

(i.e. residential, commercial, highway construction)? How much fly ash or FGD gypsum 

is being used for cement and concrete manufacture? 

2. What is the general feeling toward CCPs in your industry? How would you describe the 

competition between fly ash and portland cement? 

3. Please indicate your thoughts on the current specifications or guidelines that you are 

aware of in the state of Florida related to CCPs. Are there any environmental policies, 

permits, regulations, or statutes that impact the way you utilize CCPs? What 

specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What 

changes would you like to see made to the current specifications and guidelines? 

4. Please list and explain any successful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they 

successful? 

5. Please list and explain any problematic projects/applications using CCPs. Explain the 

problem encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a 

project. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address 

the issues. 

6. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact how your 

company uses CCPs? For example, new air pollution control requirements may increase 

the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. 

7. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Florida? How could this obstacle be addressed? Would any changes to state or federal 

regulations help you address this obstacle? 

8. What further research or laboratory work would be necessary to help your company 

overcome barriers to CCP utilization? 

9. In general, how do you perceive the position Florida has taken towards CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
B-9 

WALLBOARD 

1. Provide a general description of the wallboard market in Florida. Is supply meeting 

demand? How much FGD gypsum is being used for wallboard manufacture? Is any FGD 

gypsum being imported or exported? 

2. What is the general feeling toward FGD gypsum in your industry? How would you 

describe the competition between natural gypsum and FGD gypsum? Does the wallboard 

industry encounter any product acceptance issues with regards to purchasing wallboard 

made from FGD gypsum vs. natural gypsum? 

3. Please indicate your thoughts on the current specifications or guidelines that you are 

aware of in the state of Florida related to CCPs. Are there any environmental policies, 

permits, regulations, or statutes that impact the way you utilize FGD gypsum? What 

specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict FGD gypsum utilization? 

What changes would you like to see made to the current specifications and guidelines? 

4. As the government continues to reduce SO2 emissions and thereby increase FGD gypsum 

production, how will these changes impact they way your company does business? 

5. Research is underway to determine if mercury contained in FGD gypsum will be released 

during wallboard production or disposal. What approach is your company taking to deal 

with this issue? 

6. Can you offer any advice to utilities looking to utilize their FGD gypsum? 

7. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Florida? How could this obstacle be addressed? What state or federal regulations could 

be implemented to overcome these obstacles? 

8. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to 

overcome barriers to CCP utilization? 

9. In general, how do you perceive the position Florida has taken towards CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
B-10 

MAKE-UP CONFERENCE CALL 

1. In your experience, what are the significant factors impacting the use of CCPs in Florida? 

2. Please indicate your thoughts on the current specifications or guidelines that you are 

aware of in the state of Florida related to CCPs. What specifications or guidelines do you 

feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to the 

current specifications and guidelines? 

3. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your 

association’s/company’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, 

new air pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of 

CCPs. 

4. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research or demonstration projects regarding 

CCPs. Specify any successes or problems. 

5. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Florida? How could this obstacle be addressed? 

6. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to 

overcome barriers to CCP utilization? 

7. In general, how do you perceive the position Florida has taken toward CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
APPENDIX C 

PARTICIPANT LIST 
C-1 

REVIEW OF FLORIDA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO 

THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Participant List 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Mr. Richard Tedder 

Program Administrator 

Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste 

Division of Waste Management 

Solid Waste Section 

Florida Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4565 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 

Phone: (850) 245-8735 

Fax: (850) 245-8811 

E-mail: richard.tedder@dep.state.fl.us 

Mr. William “Lee” Martin 

Solid Waste Section 

Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste 

Florida Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4565 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

Phone: (850) 245-8734 

Fax: (850) 245-8734 

E-mail: lee.martin@dep.state.fl.us 

 

Mr. Allen Hubbard 

Supervisor, Power Plant NPDES Permitting 

Industrial Wastewater Section 

Florida Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4565 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

Phone: (850) 245-8592 

E-mail: allen.hubbard@dep.state.fl.us 

Mr. William “Bill” Kutash 

Professional Geologist Administrator 

Waste Management Division 

Southwest District 

Florida Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

3804 Coconut Palm Drive 

Tampa, FL 33619 

Phone: (813) 744-6100 

E-mail: William.Kutash@dep.state.fl.us 

Mr. Chris McGuire 

Assistant General Counsel 

Office of General Counsel 

Waste-Air Section 

Florida Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 35 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 

Phone: (850) 245-2291 

Fax: (850) 245-2302 

E-mail: Chris.McGuire@dep.state.fl.us 

Mr. Al Linero 

Program Administrator 

Air Resources Management 

Florida Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 5505 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

Phone: (850) 921-9523 

E-mail: Alvaro.Linero@dep.state.fl.us
C-2 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. Michael Bergin 

State Structural Materials Engineer 

State Materials Office 

Florida Department of Transportation 

Materials Research Park 

5007 Northeast 39th Avenue 

Gainseville, FL 32609 

Phone: (352) 955-6666 

Fax: (352) 955-6680 

E-mail: michael.bergin@dot.state.fl.us 

Mr. Charles Ishee 

State Materials Office 

Florida Department of Transportation 

Materials Research Park 

5007 Northeast 39th Avenue 

Gainseville, FL 32609 

Phone: (352) 955-6667 

E-mail: charles.ishee@dot.state.fl.us 

Mr. John Shoucair, P.E. 

Geotechnical Materials Engineer 

Florida Department of Transportation 

Materials Research Park 

5007 Northeast 39th Avenue 

Gainesville, FL 32609 

Phone: (352) 955-2925 

Cell: (352) 339-1799 

Fax: (352) 955-2940 

E-mail: john.shoucair@dot.state.fl.us 
C-3 

CCP GENERATORS 

Mr. Jim Frauen 

Manager of Environmental Affairs 

Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. 

16313 North Dale Mabry Highway 

Tampa, FL 33618 

Phone: (813) 739-1213 

Fax: (813) 264-7906 

E-mail: jfrauen@seminole-electric.com 

Mr. Robert Stafford 

Senior Environmental Specialist 

Environmental Services Section 

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 

100 Central Avenue 

CX 1B 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

Phone: (727) 820-5538 

E-mail: robert.stafford@pgnmail.com 

Mr. Matthew McClure 

Environmental Permitting & Regulatory 

 Conformance 

JEA 

21 West Church Street 

Jacksonville, FL 32202-3139 

Phone: (904) 665-6253 

Cell: (904) 919-9611 

Fax: (904) 666-7376 

E-mail: mcclmr@jea.com 

Ms. Tanya Portillo 

Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 

1408 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 1002 

Tampa, FL 33607-4512 

Phone: (813) 289-5644 

Fax: (813) 289-5646 

E-mail: TanyaP@frcc.com 

Mr. Michael Petrovich 

Attorney 

Hopping Green & Sams 

PO Box 6526 

Tallahassee, FL 32314 

Phone: (850) 425-2254 

Fax: (850) 224-8551 

E-mail: petrovichm@hgslaw.com 

Ms. Farzie Shelton 

Manager of Environmental Affairs 

Lakeland Electric 

501 East Lemon Street 

Lakeland, FL 33801 

Phone: (863) 834-6603 

Fax: (863) 834-8187 

E-mail: farzie.shelton@lakelandgov.net

Ms. Elaine Farrington 

Account Manager – Combustion Byproducts 

Tampa Electric Company 

PO Box 111 

Tampa, FL 33601-0111 

Phone: (813) 228-1627 

Cell: (813) 924-6411 

Fax: (813) 228-1033 

E-mail: ehfarrington@tecoenergy.com 

Ms. Dru Latchman 

Environmental Engineer 

Tampa Electric Company 

PO Box 111 

Tampa, FL 33601-0111
C-4 

CCP SUPPLIERS 

Mr. Rick Haverland 

Director of Business Development 

Mineral Resource Technologies, Inc./Cemex 

506 East Xenia Drive 

Fairborn, OH 45324 

Phone: (937) 879-8376 

Cell: (937) 609-8745 

Fax: (937) 879-8429 

E-mail: rhaverland@mrtus.com 

Ms. Lisa Cooper 

Vice President 

Progress Materials, Inc. 

PO Box 111 

Tampa, FL 33601-0111 

Phone: (919) 546-4619 

Cell: (919) 632-6853 

Fax: (919-546-4940 

E-mail: lisa.cooper@pgnmail.com 

Mr. Rob Olivia 

Sales Manager 

Progress Materials, Inc. 

PO Box 1551 

PEB 9 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Phone: (919) 546-5120 

Cell: (919) 630-1915 

Fax: (919) 546-4940 

E-mail: Robert.oliva@pgnmail.com 

Mr. Paul Bieber 

Vice President, Eastern Regions 

Boral Material Technologies, Inc. 

1343 Canton Road, Suite C 

Morietta, GA 30066 

Phone: (770) 423-1883 

Cell: (954) 445-1820 

E-mail: paul.bieber@boral.com 

Mr. Chad Melita 

Sales Manager, Southeastern Region 

Boral Matetial Technologies Inc. 

1343 Canton Road, Suite C 

Marietta, GA 30066 

Phone: (813) 376-6337 

Fax: (770) 423-1613 

E-mail: chad.melita@boral.com 

Mr. Kevin Foody 

Manager, Technical Service Eastern Region 

Boral Material Technologies, Inc. 

1343 Canton Road, Suite C 

Marietta, GA 30066 

Phone: (770) 423-1883 ext. 111 

Cell: (404) 394-6386 

Fax: (770) 423-1613 

E-mail: kevin.foody@boral.com 

Mr. Jason Jones 

Mid-Atlantic Sales Representative 

Separation Technologies LLC 

6071 Catawba Road 

Troutville, VA 24175 

Cell: (540) 819-1998 

E-mail: jjones@titanamerica.com 

Dr. Steve Gasiorowski 

Laboratory Manager/Quality Control 

Separation Technologies LLC 

101 Hampton Avenue 

Needham, MA 02494 

Phone: (781) 972-2307 

Fax: (781) 433-0289 

E-mail: sgasiorowski@proash.com 

Mr. Craig Wallace 

Technical Sales Representative 

Headwaters Resources 

1217 East Cape Coral Parkway 

PMB 190 

Cape Coral, FL 33904 

Phone: (239) 540-9143 

Cell: (239) 565-2338 

Fax: (239) 540-9748 

E-mail: cwallace@headwaters.com
C-5 

CEMENT AND CONCRETE 

Mr. Rick Haverland 

Director of Business Development 

Cemex/Mineral Resource Technologies, Inc. 506 

East Xenia Drive 

Fairborn, OH 45324 

Phone: (937) 879-8376 

Cell: (937) 609-8745 

Fax: (937) 879-8429 

E-mail: rhaverland@mrtus.com 

 

Mr. Jerry Haught 

Vice President Technical Services 

Rinker Materials Corporation 

1557 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1 

Jupiter, FL 33458 

Phone: (561) 745-5253 

Fax: (561) 746-1727 

E-mail: jhaught@rinker.com 

Mr. Joe Horton 

Environmental Manager 

Suwannee American Cement 

PO Box 410 

Branford, FL 32008 

Phone: (386) 935-5039 

Fax: (386) 935-5080 

E-mail: jbhorton@suwanneecement.com 

Ms. Melissa Williams 

Quality Control Engineer 

Florida Rock Industries, Inc. 

TS Baker Cement Plant 

4000 Northwest CR 235 

Newberry, FL 32669 

Tampa Bay, FL 

Phone: (352) 472-4722 ext. 131 

Phone 2: (800) 282-9171 ext. 131 

Fax: (352) 472-2449 

E-mail: mwilliams@flarock.com
C-6 

WALLBOARD 

Mr. Padam Chheda 

Director, Materials & Process Development 

National Gypsum 

2001 Rexford Road 

Charlotte, NC 28211 

Phone: (704) 365-7328 

E-mail: phchheda@nationalgypsum.com 

Mr. John Gaynor 

Manager, Synthetic Gypsum 

U.S. Gypsum 

125 South Franklin Street 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Phone: (312) 606-3735 

Fax: (312) 606-5672 

E-mail: jgaynor@usg.com 
APPENDIX D 

FLDOT SPECIFICATIONS RELATED TO THE 

USE OF CCPS
D-1 

FLDOT SPECIFICATIONS RELATED TO THE USE OF CCPS 

Excerpted from: 

Dockter, Bruce A.; Jagiella, Diana M. Engineering and Environmental Specifications of 

StateAgencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products; Final Report Prepared

for the Combustion By-Products Recycling Consortium; CBRC Project No. 02-CBRC-W12,

EERC Publication No. 2005-EERC-07-04; July 2005.

 Unless a specific type of cement is designated elsewhere, use Type I, Type IP, Type IS, 

Type IP (MS), Type II, or Type III cement in all classes of concrete. Use only the types of 

cements designated for each environmental condition in structural concrete. A mix design for a 

more aggressive environment may be substituted for a lower environmental condition. 

 In bridge superstructures, blended cements are allowed in slabs, barriers, precast, and 

prestressed applications exposed to moderately aggressive environments. In extremely 

aggressive environments, the recommended cementitious mixtures are Type II cement with fly 

ash or GGBF slag. For bridge substructures, drainage structures, and other structures, the 

recommendations are basically the same. 

 Pozzolans and slags can be used as desired on an equal weight replacement basis. It is 

allowable to use fly ash, silica fume, Metakaolin, other pozzolans, and slag materials as a partial 

cement replacement in all classes of concrete, with the following limitations: 

• Mass concrete: 

− Fly ash – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with fly ash is 18% to 50% by 

weight. 

− Slag – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with slag is 50% to 70% by 

weight. Ensure that slag is 50% to 55% of total cementitious content by weight of 

total cementitious materials when use in combination with silica fume and/or 

metakaolin. 

• Drilled shaft: 

− Fly ash – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with fly ash is 33% to 37% by 

weight. 

− Slag – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with slag is 58% to 62% by 

weight. 
D-2 

• For all other concrete uses not covered in “mass concrete” and “drilled shaft” above: 

− Fly ash – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with fly ash is 18% to 22% by 

weight. 

− Slag – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with slag is 25% to 70% for 

slightly and moderately aggressive environments and 50% to 70% by weight when 

used in extremely aggressive environments. Ensure that slag is 50% to 55% of total 

cementitious content by weight of total cementitious materials when used in 

combination with silica fume and/or metakaolin. 

• Type IP (MS): Ensure that the quantity of pozzolan in Type IP (MS) is in the range of 

15% to 40% by weight. 

• Silica fume and metakaolin

− Cure in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation and approved by the 

engineer. 

− Silica fume – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with silica fume is 7% to 

9% by weight. 

− Metakaolin – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with metakaolin is 8% to 

12% by weight. 

 For reinforced concrete that does not require Type II cement plus slag or pozzolan(s), all 

applications that require Type II cement plus pozzolan(s), and prestressed concrete, there is a 

table specifying the maximum chloride content limits for each of the concrete applications. 

 A flowable fill mixture, which is designed to be excavatable, is not allowed to contain fly 

ash, contain 75–100 pounds of cement per cubic yard, and have a maximum 28-day strength of 

100 psi. A flowable fill mixture, designed to be nonexcavatable is to contain 75–100 pounds of 

cement and 150–600 pounds of fly ash per cubic yard and have a maximum 28-day strength of 

125 psi. 

 Fly ash derived from the combustion of ground or powdered coal shall meet the 

requirements of ASTM C618 for Class C or Class F. Sampling and testing shall follow the 

requirements of ASTM C311. Fly ash resulting from the combustion of coal and petroleum coke 

shall meet the physical and chemical requirements of ASTM C618 Class F fly ash. Fly ash shall 

not include the residue resulting from the burning of municipal garbage or any other refuse with 

coal or the burning of industrial or municipal garbage in incinerators. Fly ash resulting from the 

combustion of timber bark ash and coal shall meet the physical and chemical requirements of 

ASTM C618 Class F fly ash. 
D-3 

 GGBF slag shall meet the requirements of ASTM C989. Sampling and testing procedures 

shall follow the requirements of ASTM C989. Microsilica shall meet the requirements of ASTM 

C1240 using the referenced test methods and frequencies. 

 Metakaolin shall meet the requirements of ASTM C618 Class N with the following 

modifications: 

• The sum of SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 shall be at least 85%. 

• The loss on ignition shall be less than 3.0%. 

• The available alkalies, as equivalent Na2O, shall not exceed 1.0%. 

• The amount of material retained on a No. 325 mesh sieve shall not exceed 1.0%. 

• The strength activity index, at 7 days, shall be at least 85%. 

 When metakaolin is used in concrete, the test results shall verify improved or comparable 

strength, sulfate resistance, corrosion protective properties, and other durability performance 

properties of concrete, as compared to the performance of silica fume concrete. 

 

 The suppliers of fly ash, GGBF slag, and microsilica are required to furnish, at the time of 

shipment, certification of test results from samples of the material taken during production or 

transfer to ensure compliance to applicable ASTM requirements. In the case of the fly ash, the 

laboratory performing the fly ash testing is required to be inspected by the CCRL on a regular 

basis as a fly ash testing laboratory and shall have corrected any deficiencies noted at the 

previous inspection. The laboratory must authorize the CCRL to send a copy of the inspection 

report to the state Materials Office. 

 When a Class C fly ash is used in moderately or extremely aggressive environments, tests 

made by the supplier shall verify improved sulfate resistance of the concrete in accordance with 

ASTM C1012 and improved corrosion protective properties as compared to similar concrete 

made with the Class F fly ash. No mix designs will be approved in advance of satisfactory 

completion of such tests. 

 For sources where the fly ash is not derived solely from ground or powdered coal 

combustion, certified test results performed by an independent approved laboratory shall be 

submitted by the supplier. Only GGBF slag grade 100 or better (28-day index) will be permitted. 

For slurried or densified microsilica, tests shall be made on the raw microsilica from which these 

products were made. 

 Neither fly ash nor slag shall be used in conjunction with Type IP or Type IS cements. 

Acceptance of fly ash, slag, microsilica, and metakaolin from sources operating under an 

approved quality control plan shall be based on certified testing meeting the appropriate ASTM 

requirements for each material. When the loss on ignition exceeds 5% for fly ash, the uniformity 

requirements in the supplementary optional physical requirement shall be mandatory. 
APPENDIX E 

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE CCP BENEFICIAL REUSE 

BILLS 
 

HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Page 1 of 7

F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

1 A bill to be entitled

2 An act relating to environmental protection; creating s. 

3 403.7047, F.S.; exempting beneficial use of fossil fuel 

4 combustion products from specified regulations; defining 

5 "fossil fuel combustion products," "beneficial use," 

6 "structural fill," "pavement aggregate," "pipe bedding 

7 aggregate," and "fossil fuel-fired electric or steam 

8 generation facility"; providing requirements and 

9 procedures for certain projects to be considered 

10 beneficial use; requiring the Department of Transportation 

11 to maintain certain plans; requiring that department to 

12 notify the Department of Environmental Protection where 

13 said plans are located; providing an effective date.

14

15 WHEREAS, fossil fuel combustion products are currently 

16 utilized in a variety of beneficial applications, and

17 WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 

18 reduces the volume of materials placed in disposal facilities, 

19 and

20 WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 

21 allows certain industries and end-users to avoid the mining and 

22 processing of virgin materials through substitution of fossil 

23 fuel combustion products, which preserves natural resources and 

24 minimizes environmental emissions, and

25 WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 

26 ultimately lowers overall energy consumption required for 

27 processing and disposing of fossil fuel combustion products, and

28 WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 

29 promotes economic activity while replacing limited natural 

30 resources, and
 

HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Page 2 of 7

F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

31 WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 

32 is consistent with and furthers the purpose of Florida’s 

33 Resource Recovery and Management Act by encouraging the 

34 development of waste reduction and recycling as a means of 

35 managing solid waste and conserving resources, and 

36 WHEREAS, the Legislature has determined that it is in the 

37 state’s best interest to conserve natural resources, reduce 

38 overall energy consumption, reduce or eliminate the need to 

39 dispose of fossil fuel combustion products in disposal 

40 facilities, and facilitate the development of readily available 

41 markets for fossil fuel combustion products, and

42 WHEREAS, the Legislature is taking this action after 

43 balancing all the competing needs of the state, NOW, THEREFORE,

44

45 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

46

47 Section 1. Section 403.7047, Florida Statutes, is created 

48 to read:

49 403.7047 Regulation of fossil fuel combustion products.--

50 (1) The beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 

51 as provided in this section is exempt from regulation pursuant 

52 to part IV of chapter 403 and rules adopted thereunder. Nothing 

53 in this section shall be construed to limit any other 

54 requirements that are applicable to the beneficial use of fossil 

55 fuel combustion products that are established under chapter 376 

56 or chapter 403 or under local or federal laws, including, 

57 without limitation, requirements governing air pollution control 

58 permits, national pollutant discharge elimination system 

59 permits, and water quality certifications pursuant to s. 401 of 

60 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq.
 

HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Page 3 of 7

F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

61 (2) As used in this section:

62 (a) "Fossil fuel combustion products" means fly ash, 

63 bottom ash, slag, flue gas desulfurization system products, 

64 gasified products, fluidized bed combustion system products, and 

65 other combustion products from the operation of a fossil fuel66 fired electric or steam generation facility, any material from a 

67 clean coal or other innovative technology process at a fossil 

68 fuel-fired electric or steam generation facility, or any 

69 combination thereof.

70 (b) "Beneficial use" means the use or the handling, 

71 processing, transportation, or temporary storage for such use of 

72 fossil fuel combustion products or materials which incorporate 

73 fossil fuel combustion products as provided below:

74 1. Uses for structural fill, pavement aggregate, pipe 

75 bedding aggregate, aggregate, asphalt, concrete products, cement 

76 products, roofing materials, wallboard products, plastics, 

77 paint, metallurgical applications, insulation products, flowable 

78 fill and roller compacted concrete, fertilizer products, 

79 blasting grit, filter cloth precoat for sludge dewatering, waste 

80 stabilization, extraction or recovery of materials and compounds 

81 contained within fossil fuel combustion products, and drainage, 

82 capping, or cover material for lined Class I, Class II, or Class 

83 III landfills.

84 2. Discrete, controlled land application uses for 

85 agronomic value, land reclamation, and pilot demonstration 

86 projects that:

87 a. Are not likely to cause contamination in excess of 

88 applicable department air or water quality standards or can be 

89 demonstrated to have equivalent environmental impacts to those 

90 raw products or materials other than fossil fuel combustion 
 

HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Page 4 of 7

F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

91 products currently used in discrete, controlled land application 

92 uses for agronomic value, land reclamation, and pilot 

93 demonstration projects; and

94 b. Meet the requirements set forth in subsection (3).

95

96 The beneficial uses of fossil fuel combustion products outlined 

97 in this subsection have been evaluated only with regard to the 

98 protection of human health and the environment. In the case of 

99 roadway applications, the beneficial use of fossil fuel 

100 combustion products shall be in accordance with Department of 

101 Transportation specifications, American Society for Testing and 

102 Materials specifications, or other generally recognized 

103 construction standards.

104 (c) "Structural fill" means the use of a fossil fuel 

105 combustion product as a substitute for a conventional aggregate, 

106 raw material, or soil under or immediately adjacent to a 

107 building or structure. "Structural fill" does not include uses 

108 that involve general filling or grading operations or valley 

109 fills.

110 (d) "Pavement aggregate" means the use of a fossil fuel 

111 combustion product as a sub-base material under or immediately 

112 adjacent to a paved road, sidewalk, walkway, or parking lot 

113 where the fossil fuel combustion product is a substitute for a 

114 conventional aggregate, raw material, or soil.

115 (e) "Pipe bedding aggregate" means the use of a fossil 

116 fuel combustion product as a substitute for a conventional

117 aggregate, raw material, or soil under, around, or immediately 

118 adjacent to a water, sewer, or other pipeline.

119 (f) "Fossil fuel-fired electric or steam generation 

120 facility" includes any electric or steam generation facility 
 

HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Page 5 of 7

F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

121 that is fueled with coal, alone or in combination with petroleum 

122 coke, oil, natural gas, other fossil fuels, or renewable energy 

123 materials.

124 (3) In order for discrete, controlled land application 

125 uses for agronomic value, land reclamation, and pilot 

126 demonstration projects to be considered beneficial uses, the 

127 following requirements must be met:

128 (a) Notification.--

129 1. A minimum of 30 days before using fossil fuel 

130 combustion products for land application for agronomic value, 

131 land reclamation, or pilot demonstration projects, the person 

132 proposing the use shall submit a written notice to the 

133 department. The notice shall contain, at a minimum:

134 a. A description of the nature, purpose, and location of 

135 the project, including the name of the Unites States Geological 

136 Survey seven and one-half minute map on which the project is 

137 located and a Department of Transportation map or an 8 1/2 inch

138 by 11 inch topographic map showing the project.

139 b. The estimated start and completion dates for the 

140 project.

141 c. An estimate of the volume of fossil fuel combustion 

142 products to be used for the project.

143 d. A signed and dated statement by the owners of the site 

144 on which the fossil fuel combustion products are used 

145 acknowledging and consenting to the use of fossil fuel 

146 combustion products for land application for agronomic value, 

147 land reclamation, or pilot demonstration projects.

148 e. The notification shall include:

149 (I) The name of the fossil fuel combustion products 

150 generator.
 

HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Page 6 of 7

F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

151 (II) The physical location of the generating facility.

152 (III) The address of the generator.

153 (IV) The name of contact for the generator.

154 (V) The telephone number of the generator.

155

156 Changes to such information will require subsequent notification 

157 to the department.

158 2. In addition to the notification requirements under 

159 subparagraph 1., at least 30 days before using fossil fuel 

160 combustion products for land reclamation or pilot demonstration 

161 projects in volumes of more than 10,000 cubic yards, the person 

162 proposing the use shall submit a written notice to the 

163 department containing construction plans for the facility, 

164 including a stability analysis when necessary, which shall be 

165 prepared, signed, and sealed by a registered professional 

166 engineer in accordance with sound engineering practices. The 

167 Department of Transportation is not required to submit 

168 construction plans with the written notice. The Department of 

169 Transportation shall maintain a complete set of construction 

170 plans and shall notify the department where the construction 

171 plans are located.

172 (b) Storage.--Fossil fuel combustion products used for 

173 land application for agronomic value, land reclamation, or pilot 

174 demonstration projects may not be stored or speculatively 

175 accumulated at the immediate area where they will be put to 

176 beneficial use for a period of time longer than necessary to 

177 complete the project. Fossil fuel combustion products used for 

178 land application for agronomic value, land reclamation, or pilot 

179 demonstration projects are not being speculatively accumulated 

180 when a minimum of 51 percent of the fossil fuel combustion 
 

HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

Page 7 of 7

F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

181 products at the project site are beneficially used annually.

182 Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2003.
 Florida Senate - 2003 SB 2338

 By Senator Peaden

 2-1153B-03

 1 A bill to be entitled

 2 An act relating to resource recovery and

 3 management; creating s. 403.7047, F.S.;

 4 providing for the regulation of certain fossil

 5 fuel combustion products; providing

 6 definitions; providing use requirements,

 7 notification requirements, and exceptions;

 8 providing an effective date.

 9 

10 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

11 

12 Section 1. Section 403.7047, Florida Statutes, is

13 created to read:

14 403.7047 Regulation of fossil fuel combustion

15 products.--

16 (1) The beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion

17 products is exempt from regulation under this part. However,

18 this section does not limit any other requirements under

19 chapter 376 or other parts of this chapter or local or federal

20 laws, including, without limitation, requirements governing

21 air pollution control permits, national pollutant discharge

22 elimination system permits, and water quality certifications

23 pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

24 (2) As used in this section, the term:

25 (a) "Fossil fuel combustion products" means fly ash,

26 bottom ash, slag, flue gas desulfurization system products,

27 gasified products, fluidized bed combustion system products,

28 and other combustion products from the operation of fossil

29 fuel-fired electric or steam generation facilities, or

30 material from clean coal or other innovative technology

31 

 1

CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
 Florida Senate - 2003 SB 2338

 2-1153B-03

 1 processes at fossil fuel-fired electric or steam generation

 2 facilities.

 3 (b) "Beneficial use" means the use, handling,

 4 processing, transportation, or temporary storage of products

 5 or materials that incorporate fossil fuel combustion products

 6 as provided below:

 7 1. Uses for structural fill, pavement aggregate, pipe

 8 bedding aggregate, lightweight aggregate, asphalt, concrete

 9 products, cement products, roofing materials, wallboard,

10 plastics, paint, flowable fill and roller compacted concrete,

11 fertilizer products, gypsum used as a soil amendment, blasting

12 grit, filter cloth precoat for sludge dewatering, drainage,

13 capping, or cover material for lined Class I, II, or III

14 landfills, and extraction or recovery of materials and

15 compounds in fossil fuel combustion products; and

16 2. Discrete, controlled land application uses for

17 agronomic value, land reclamation, and pilot demonstration

18 projects that:

19 a. Are not likely to cause contamination in excess of

20 applicable department air or water quality standards or that

21 can be demonstrated to have equivalent environmental impacts

22 to raw products or materials other than fossil fuel combustion

23 products currently used in discrete, controlled land

24 application uses for agronomic value, land reclamation, and

25 pilot demonstration projects; and

26 b. Meet the requirements in subsection (3).

27 

28 The beneficial uses of fossil fuel combustion products

29 specified in this subsection have been evaluated only with

30 regard to the protection of human health and the environment.

31 The beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products in

 2

CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
 Florida Senate - 2003 SB 2338

 2-1153B-03

 1 roadway applications must be pursuant to specifications of the

 2 Department of Transportation, specifications of the American

 3 Society for Testing and Materials, or other generally

 4 recognized construction standards.

 5 (c) "Structural fill" means fossil fuel combustion

 6 products used as a substitute for a conventional aggregate,

 7 raw materials, or soil under or immediately adjacent to a

 8 building or structure, but does not include uses that involve

 9 general filling or grading operations or valley fills.

10 (d) "Pavement aggregate" means fossil fuel combustion

11 products used as subbase material under or immediately

12 adjacent to a paved road, sidewalk, walkway, or parking lot as

13 a substitute for conventional aggregate, raw material, or

14 soil.

15 (e) "Pipe bedding aggregate" means fossil fuel

16 combustion products used as a substitute for conventional

17 aggregate, raw material, or soil under, around, or immediately

18 adjacent to a water, sewer, or other pipeline.

19 (f) "Fossil fuel-fired electric or steam generation

20 facility" means an electric or steam generation facility that

21 is fired with coal, alone or in combination with, petroleum

22 coke, oil, natural gas, other fossil fuels, or renewable

23 energy materials.

24 (3) Discrete, controlled land application uses for

25 agronomic value, land reclamation, and pilot demonstration

26 projects are considered beneficial uses if:

27 (a) A minimum of 60 days before using fossil fuel

28 combustion products for such land application, the user

29 submits written notice to the department, which notice

30 contains:

31 

 3

CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
 Florida Senate - 2003 SB 2338

 2-1153B-03

 1 1. A description of the nature, purpose, and location

 2 of the project, including the name of the United States

 3 Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute map on which the project is

 4 located and a Department of Transportation map or an 8 1/2 by

 5 11 inch topographic map showing the project.

 6 2. The estimated start and completion dates for the

 7 project.

 8 3. An estimate of the volume of fossil fuel combustion

 9 products to be used for the project.

10 4. A signed and dated statement by the property owner

11 where the fossil fuel combustion products are used,

12 acknowledging and consenting to the use of the products for

13 such land applications.

14 5. The name of the fossil fuel combustion products

15 generator.

16 6. The physical location and address of the generating

17 facility.

18 7. The name and telephone number of contact for the

19 generator.

20 8. Acknowledgement that any changes that occur will

21 require subsequent notification to the department.

22 

23 In addition to the notification requirements under this

24 paragraph, at least 30 days before using fossil fuel

25 combustion products for land reclamation or pilot

26 demonstration projects in volumes of more than 10,000 cubic

27 yards, the person proposing the use must submit a written

28 notice to the department containing construction plans for the

29 facility, including a stability analysis when necessary,

30 prepared, signed, and sealed by a registered professional

31 engineer. The Department of Transportation is not required to

 4

CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
 Florida Senate - 2003 SB 2338

 2-1153B-03

 1 submit construction plans with the written notice, but must

 2 maintain a complete set of construction plans and notify the

 3 department where the plans are located.

 4 (b) Such products are not stored or speculatively

 5 accumulated at the immediate area where they will be used

 6 longer than is necessary to complete the project. They are

 7 speculatively accumulated when a minimum of 51 percent of such

 8 products at the project site are beneficially used annually.

 9 Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2003.

10 

11 *****************************************

12 SENATE SUMMARY

13 Provides for the regulation of fossil fuel combustion

 products and exempts from regulation the beneficial use

14 of such products. Provides definitions, notification

 requirements, and exemptions. (See bill for details.)

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

 5

CODING:Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
APPENDIX F 

CCP BENEFICIAL REUSE LETTERS ISSUED BY 

FDEP