# 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 2006ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Energy & Environmental Research Ce nter (EERC) would like to express its appreciation to the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laborator y (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 A ljoe, 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 revi ews in Tampa. In addition, thank you to Ms. Tanya Portillo, FCG, for assisting with mee ting arrangements. The EE RC would also like to express its appreciation to the many individuals who participated voluntarily in the informationgathering process of the review. In addition, th e members of the project advisory board—Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. William Aljoe, DOE N ETL; Mr. David Goss, American Coal Ash Association; Mr. Jim Frauen, FGC; a nd Mr. Jason Harrington, Federal Highway Administration—are gratef ully 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 a ssumes any legal liability or re sponsibility 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, trademar k, 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 Utilitie s Support Coal Ash Utilization.......................................... 7 Key 7: Electric Utilities, FDEP, a nd 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 Da ta It Needs to Feel Comfortable with Nontraditional Uses, and Industry Has S ubsequently Not Provided FDEP with Appropriate Data from CCPs Generate d at Florida’s Electric Utilities .............................. 11 Barrier 4: There Is No Push for CCP Recycling ................................................................. 11

Barrier 5: FDOT is Hesitant to Em brace 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 IMPA CT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN

FLORIDA ........................................................................................................................ ............. 13 Threat 1: FDEP May Have Unwarrante d Concerns about Ash Handling and Interim Storage............................................................................................................... ..... 13 Threat 2: Mercury Emissions from Ce ment and Wallboard Manufacture May Make CCP Use Unacceptable ............................................................................................. 14

Threat 3: Florida’s CCP Utilizati on Options Are Not Diversified...................................... 15 Threat 4: Fly Ash with High Unburne d 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 C ould Provide Stronger Encouragement and Incentives to Recycle CCPs ................................................................................................ 17

Action 5: Electric Utilities Should E ducate Plant Operators about the Value of Producing Consistent, Good-Quality CCPs ......................................................... 17

Action 6: The Florida CCP I ndustry Should Develop Partners hips 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 BENEFICI AL REUSE BILLS..................................... Appendix E

CCP BENEFICIAL REUSE LETTERS ISSUED BY FDEP........................................ Appendix Fiii NOMENCLATURE

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Trans portation Officials

ACAA American Coal Ash Association ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BACT best available control technology

C 2 P 2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule

CBO carbon burnout CCP coal combustion product CFB circulating fluidized bed

CO 2 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

NO

x nitrogen oxide

NSR New Source Review RMDB Recycling Market Development Board SGLP synthetic groundwater leaching procedure

SO 2 sulfur dioxide SPLP synthetic precipitation leaching procedure TCLP toxicity character istic leaching procedure USG United States Gypsum, now USG Corporationiv REVIEW OF FLORIDA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

About 49 million tons of coal combustion prod ucts (CCPs) are benefi cially 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 techni cal barriers associated with CCP utilization have been solved, but social an d knowledge barriers still exist. One of the key

nontechnical barriers is the broa d range of state laws, regulat ions, 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 Ce nter (EERC) is conducting a series of state

reviews. The first review was conducted in Te xas in 2004, and the sec ond 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 Flor ida 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 c oncrete-grade Class F fly ash produced in the state.

2. The state’s six cement plants use large quant ities of off-spec fly ash and bottom ash in their manufacturing processes.

3. Synthetic gypsum wallboard plants are locate d 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 fl y 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 de signed to increase coal ash utilization in the state.v The following barriers that hinder increase d 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 appr oved 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 poten tial threat to human health and the

environment.

3. FDEP has not clearly defined what ash character ization data it needs to feel comfortable with reuse applications that it considers nontraditional such as structural fills and, therefore, electric utilities have not provide d 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 additi on, 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 plac ed a priority on producing consistent-quality fly ash and are naturally more c oncerned 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 co ncerns about the environmen tal contamination that may result from the handling and interim storage (stockpiling) of CCPs.

2. Mercury emission control requirements fo r cement and wallboard manufacture may

make it more difficult to beneficially use CCPs.

3. Florida’s CCP utilization options are not dive rsified and rely nearly entirely on the cement, concrete, and wallboard markets.

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

manufacture.

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

1. Industry will collectively work with FD EP to develop a beneficial use rule.vi 2. FDEP and electric utilities need to agre e on less restrictive temporary storage and management practices.

3. FDEP needs to determine what ash characteri zation data it needs in order to evaluate beneficial use applications , and industry needs to pr ovide that data to FDEP.

4. Higher-level state ini tiatives or federal programs coul d provide stronger encouragement and incentives to recycle CCPs.

5. Electric utilities should educat e plant operators on the valu e of producing consistent-, good-quality CCPs.

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

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

Using the keys, barriers, thr eats, 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 Associatio n [ACAA], 2005). The U.S. Depa rtment of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) se t goals to increase CCP utilization to 50% by 2010. Many of the technical ba rriers associated with CCP utiliza tion 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 rega rding 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 mo re progressive approach, particularly withapplications they consider to be nontraditional such as geotechnical, agriculture and other nonconfined applications (Pfl ughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999).

To address different CCP utilization situations across the United States, the University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Ce nter (EERC) was given a grant by EPA and Headwaters Resources, LLC, to conduct a pilot re view of state regulations, standards, and practices related to the use of CCPs (Buckley and Pflughoeft-Ha ssett, 2005). Texas was selected as the pilot state because of its progressive appr oach 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 subse quent 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 change s to its CCP regulations.

The EERC received a third grant from EPA, DO E, 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 succe sses, barriers, and thr eats; and 3) develop recommendations that may help Florida and ot her states increase the use of CCPs in an environmentally sound manner.2 PRE-SITE VISIT REVIEW PROCESS

The following tasks were completed prior to th e 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 ot her 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 di fferent 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 crit eria (Dockter and Jagiella, 2005). The state

selection was narrowed to Connecticut and Flor ida because both matched the criteria outlined above. At the time the state selection proc ess took place, Connecticut’s environmental department was reviewing the first formal app lication 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 st atutory 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 I ndustrial Waste Disposal and Reus e (IWDR) rule but delayed this process primarily because of workload issues brought on by two devastat ing 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; hen ce, there is more opportunity for utilization. The amount of CCPs that might be used in Fl orida 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, wa s formed to provide input to interviewee selection, assist in the development of a standa rd questionnaire, and re view findings. Advisory

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

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team

A select group of individuals from the advi sory board made up the review team. The primary role of the review team was to admini ster the meetings at the review. Review team

members and associated contact inform ation are listed in Appendix A.

Task 5: Create a Review Guide

A review guide was developed for Florid a interviewees that included background information and targeted questionnaires fo r 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 othe r key personnel of state or regional transportation and environmental agencies

• CCP generators – electric utility environmental an d ash managers

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

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

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

The review guide also included an age nda. The review took place December 6–8, 2005. The Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, In c. (FCG) hosted the interviews in Tampa, Florida. FCG is the umbrella organization in Florid a representing the majority of electric utilities in the state, including investor-owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and municipal electric

utilities.

Task 6: Develop a Li st of Interviewees

With input from the advisory board, the ad ministrative team devel oped a list of potential interviewees for each of the discussion groups id entified in Task 5. The wallboard discussion group was canceled prior to the review because t hose participants prefer red 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 fromSouth America by barge. Most co al-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 Am erica. The Energy Information Administration (EIA)(2004a), reported that Florid a’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 in dicated 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 ha ve wet scrubbers and produce approximately 1.8 million tons of FGD gypsum (CaSO 4 ). EIA (2004b) reported a production rate at 1.5 million tons of FGD gypsum and 380,000 tons of sludge (CaSO 3 ). 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 selli ng 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 ro ofing shingles; and gypsum is used primarily for wallboard manufacture. TECO’s integrated gasifi cation combined cycle (IGCC) Polk Station is unique in that it produces a sulf uric acid stream and a slag st ream. 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 ca n be directly attributed to the following key factors. The authors believe these ke ys are listed in order of importance.

Key 1: Florida Has a Robust Concrete Market

The National Ready Mixed Concrete A ssociation (2005) repor ted 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 boom ed, with an average growth ra te of 7.2% per year from 1996 to 2004. This growth has stretched the state’s ce ment 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 concre te market, and concrete producers indicated they pay $40–$50 a ton. In fact, Florid a imports 450,000–500,000 tons of fly ash a year, and some utilities are reclaiming and se lling 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 remain ing supply is imported from overseas. In addition, two new cement plants have been perm itted to Natural Resources of Central Florida and Sumter Cement Company, and more cement plan ts are expected to be built. Florida does not export cement, but a small amount does get us ed in concrete in surrounding states.

Off-spec fly ash not meeting ASTM Inte rnational (ASTM) C 618 specifications for concrete because of high unburned carbon content is us ed 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 th e need to meet carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 ty pically 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 contract s; therefore, the ceme nt plants use natural gypsum or synthetic gypsum from outside the state.

Key 3: Synthetic Wallboard Plants Loca ted 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 operate6 wallboard plants adjacent to coal-based power plan ts in Florida. Wallboard manufacture uses all of the wallboard-quality FGD gyps um produced in the state.

More FGD gypsum will be genera ted in Florida as additional we t scrubbers are installed to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions. It is estimated that th e state’s wallboard producers will be

able to absorb at least an additional 1 milli on tons of FGD gypsum. Be yond that, utilities will need to look for other ways to use the material.

Wallboard producers seem to realize the environmental adva ntages 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 purchasi ng wallboard, the Leader ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program encourages the use of products made with synthetic gypsum and awards credits towa rd satisfying this criteria. Beyond the LEED program, there does not appear to be any other consumer-based incen tives in Florida for usin g 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 (F DOT) representatives interviewed were knowledgeable and accepting of the use of fly ash in concrete a pplications. 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 as h 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 in cludes a biomass ash genera ted 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 s ubmit samples to the FDOT laboratory every

3 months. FDOT recalled one inst ance when a fly ash supplier took itself off the approved source list because of high unburned carbon content, but FDOT did not r ecall a time when it had taken a CCP supplier off the list.

FDOT is responsible for writing specifi cations 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 a nd Transportation Officials (AASHTO) M85 specifications for cement. FDOT specifies 18 %–22% Class F fly ash replacement for portland cement in regular concrete projects. FDOT indi cated 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 shaf ts can use 35% fly ash. FDOT, ash marketers, and ready-mix suppliers interviewed agreed thes e 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. archite cts, 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 a bout 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 predominan tly based on pure economics and performance, and the green aspects of using the material are generally ove rlooked. However, it should be noted that LEED awards credits for using fly as h 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 Utilit ies Support Coal Ash Utilization

The electric utility representatives interv iewed 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 si de of the electric utility rather than the fuel

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

utilities in Florida have esta blished 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 intervie wed expressed extreme frustration in working with FDEP and indicated that they had made nu merous proposals to FDEP to beneficially use CCPs over a period of decades and had been repe atedly 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). Th ese bills were later abandoned after FDEP and FCG agreed the visi on 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 legislat ive process was a separate undertaking from the rulemaking effort on the IWDR rule that was in itiated by FDEP. A work shop to kick off this rulemaking was held in summer 2003 but was de layed primarily because of workload issues brought on by two devastating hurricane seasons a nd other rulemaking efforts. FDEP plans to work again on developing the IWDR rule that w ill address CCPs along with other industrial byproducts.8 At the state review session, electric utilitie s, ash marketers, and FDEP agreed to get together in 2006 to develop new regulations concerning industri al by-products, including CCPs. All parties agree that the new rule will likely include a list of preappr oved 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 duri ng 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 wa ste” to include any discarded material resulting from domestic, industrial, commer cial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations. This includes CCPs. Howe ver, there is another provision of the Florida statutes [Section 403.7045] that ex empts certain materials from re gulation as solid waste, if:

1. A majority of the industrial by-products are demonstrated to be so ld, used, or reused within 1 year.

2. The industrial by-products are not discharg ed, 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 otherw ise enter the environment such that a threat of contamination in excess of appli cable 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 impl ementing this section. Sometimes, FDEP points applicants to beneficial reuse guidance documents prepared for recovered screen material and waste-to-energy ash. Unt il a rule is promulgated, beneficial use projects are evaluated on a caseby-case basis. FDEP acknowledges that the curre nt 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 lette r (CCP approval letter s issued by FDEP are included in Appendix E). Those wanting to use CCP s are unsure as to when, where, and how to apply for an approval letter. Thos e interviewed said that FDEP di d not give consistent direction and sometimes did not respond to projects. FD EP 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 FDEP9 headquarters gets involved. This uncertainty has made CCP producers and ma rketers 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 ev ery beneficial use application.

When deciding whether to approve an appl ication 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-pr oducts 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 standa rds. 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 evaluati ng 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 procedure 1 (SPLP) and then compares the results to existing groundwater cleanup standa rds. If the CCP leaching test indicated no exceedances of groundwater standard s, 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 altern ative, the applicant can conduct a demonstration project involving groundwater monitoring via m onitoring wells or lysimeters. FDEP will then

review the results of the demonstration to make its determination.

In 2003, the FCG developed draft legisl ative bills SB 2338 and HB 1607 (see Appendix D). These bills were la ter abandoned after both FDEP a nd FCG agreed the vision was too broad and because they coul d not agree on interim storage requirements. This legislative process was a separate undertaking from the ru lemaking effort on the IWDR rule that was initiated by FDEP. A workshop to kick off th is rulemaking was held in summer 2003 but was delayed primarily because of workload issues brought on by two devast ating hurricane seasons and other rulemaking efforts. FDEP plans to work again on developing the IWDR rule that will address CCPs along with othe r industrial by-products.

As previously mentioned in Key 7, the FD EP 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 an d the environment be evaluated?

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

b. What leaching tests should be used, a nd 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 samp le 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 cyanid e 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 rece ive 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 applicati ons encapsulate the CCPs and, therefore, do not pose a direct threat to human health or th e environment. However, FDEP is extremely concerned, and admittedly overly cautious, about a ny CCP use in land applications (geotechnical or agricultural) because of the state’s high water table an d 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 geotec hnical 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 compri ses 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 combusti on of fossil fuels. JEA said that during the approval process, the procedures for the benefi cial 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 Di strict and Tallahassee Solid Waste Offices to determine what information needed to be generate d to obtain approval for us e. FDEP staff at all levels offered strong encouragement to procee d with a field demonstr ation and also provided input on how to capture appropriate data to accurately assess potential environmental impacts from the by-product itself relative to other comm odity construction products that the by-product would displace (JEA, 2004). The a pproval 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, JE A 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 transpor t of EZBaseTM by rail and barge, which could increase and

facilitate use both in and out of state.11 Lakeland Electric contemplated a similar demo nstration 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 demonstrati on project very costly. Lakeland Electric subsequently decided it would be more cost-e ffective to modify its FGD process to produce wallboard-quality gypsum. In the interim, Lakela nd 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 Generate d at Florida’s Electric Utilities

With the exception of the recent JEA demonstr ation 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 clearl y defined what data it needs and the data required varies with each re quest. FDEP said the limited data submitted to date displays a pronounced variability in CCP char acteristics which appear to be a function of plant type, fuel source, and opera tional procedures which makes an unrestricted use approval for CCPs difficult. (Florida’s electri c utilities burn a bout 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 applicab le to Florida because ashes generated in Florida were not used and Flor ida’s high water table was not taken into consideration in determining the environmental a ppropriateness of using th e material in specific applications. Generating these data is difficult and costly because the responsibility falls entirely to the industrial entity proposing the use, wi thout any assistance from state government or industry groups that are available in several co al-mining states. In add ition, Florida electric utilities have not yet partnered extensively wi th 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 indus trial or governmental standpoint; however, severa l electric utilities and marketer s 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 en courage 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 appr oached by an electric utility one time to get an approval letter to use CCPs in a nontradi tional 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 benefits12 of using CCPs. FDOT believes that if contractors really wanted to use CCPs, they would ask FDOT to develop specifications for nontraditiona l uses. Additionally, there isn’t a strong green building movement in Florida that recognizes th e benefits of using CCPs. The environmental benefits of using CCPs are not a factor when th e decision is made to use products that may or may not contain CCPs. If CCPs are used in a cons truction project, it is lik ely due to the economic savings associated with using the material.

Barrier 5: FDOT is Hesitant to Embra ce 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 re quest 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 environmenta l appropriateness of this application.

Like FDEP, FDOT would be unlikely to propo se 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 constr uction contractors would be comp letely aware of any engineering

or environmental issues asso ciated with the CCP use.

Adding to FDOT hesitance to use CCPs in n onconcrete applications, is the pressure in Florida to build roads quickly. This has made FDOT and its contractors relu ctant 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 c onstruction methods. The pe rception 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 c onstruction 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. Howeve r, 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 electrici ty, not ash, and reuse values have historically been low.

Eliminating this barrier would not necessa rily 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-qua lity ash in Florida may become essential.13 Florida electric utilities have the support of upper mana gement to embrace coal ash utilization. One utility has alre ady used this company support to initiate a formal training program to teach plant operators about the va lue of producing consistent-quality ash, while meeting emission requirements. Other utilities h ope to implement similar education programs to teach plant operators about ash production, ma nagement, and the value of beneficial use opportunities.

In addition, some Florida electric utilitie s 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 as sociated with the use of carbon burnout (CBO) systems may be categorized by FDEP as a new NO

x source. If categorized in this manner, the installation of CBO sy stems 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 i ndustry, but the following potential threats could

hinder the future of CCP utilization in the state. Based on review discussi ons, 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 contam ination that may result from interim storage (stockpiling) of CCPs. In some cases, FDEP has required end users to in stall 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 inte rviewees considered to be of greater threat of environmental contamination, such as coal or li merock. CCPs are essentia lly being treated as a regulated solid waste by FDEP in this regard.

FDEP believes utilities want to avoid disposal if at all possi ble, not just because of the direct cost of developing a Cl ass I double-lined disposal site, but because of vehement public opposition to new landfills. To avoid landfilling a nd 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-s ite storage is viewed by FDEP as waste disposal.

If electric utilities were to try to avoid re gulation by implementing interim storage in lieu of long-term disposal, FDEP would take the nece ssary steps to reprimand violators. If a case such as this occurred, FDEP will take proactive measures to make certain that interim storage14 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 Ceme nt 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 modifi ed air pollution source will be as clean as possible and that advances in pollution control o ccur 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 emi ssion reduction technologies being installed at coal-based power plants. Sinc e fly ash and FGD material are used in cement and wallboard manufacturing, elec tric 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 cont aining 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 wa llboard manufacture and that tighter mercury limits could restrict the use of FGD gypsum in wallboard. Wallboard manufactures are conducting independent studies on th is 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 cont rol technology (BACT) fo r 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 Natio nal Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturi ng Industry (Federal Re gister, 2005) suggests that one possible solution to reduce mercury emi ssions 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 explici tly define the term “utility boiler that is controlling mercury”; therefore, environmental advoc ates are likely to claim that all coal utility boilers with particulate collection devices are cont rolling mercury to some extent via capture of mercury on fly ash, even when no efforts to enha nce 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 entire ly on three uses: 1) concrete, 2) cement, and 3) wallboard. If any of these uses became unec onomical, unacceptable, or inappropriate for the types of CCPs being produced, other options fo r use have not been well evaluated by industry

and the state does not ha ve rules or policies in place th at would allow it to quickly and effectively look into other beneficial use options.

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

Cement Manufacture

Florida electric utilities that have installed low-NO

x (nitrogen oxide) burners have subsequently produced a fly ash with high unbur ned carbon content. These fly ashes are no longer suitable for use in concrete and, therefor e, 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 CO 2 emission requirements and total hydrocarbon limits. It is unknown if the proposed new cement plants in Florida will experience similar issues.

ACTIONS THAT COULD INCREA SE CCP USE IN FLORIDA

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

increase CCP utilization in Florida and are be lieved 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 i ndustrial 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 spec ific applications. In addition, the new rule will establish a process for evaluating beneficial use a nd set clear criteria for evaluati ng proposed projects. Beneficial use applications not on the preapproved list will n eed 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 utili ties, 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 co mplicated and will look to key CCP stakeholders16 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 N eed to Agree on Less Stringent Temporary Storage and Ash-Handling Practices

When FCG drafted legislation an d presented it to FDEP in 2003, the effort was abandoned, in part, because the two parties could not agree to reasonable te mporary storage and ash-handling practices. The regulatory oversight and restrictions placed on gene rators and end users of CCPs need to contain flexibility with respect to tem porary storage locations an d practices so that the respective costs associated with such practices do not preclude beneficial use opportunities. CCP generators, in turn, must estab lish temporary storage locations and adopt management practices that clearly demonstrate their intent to store a nd not dispose of the CCPs. Temporary storage and management concepts that are flexible, scientif ically based, and protectiv e of human health and the environment should be developed. Existing university research a nd 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 th e necessary ash charac terization 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 be cause the fuel source and combustion systems are different; hence, the CCPs will be different. It woul d 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 da ta 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 FD EP 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 beca use it does not know what leaching protocol would be the best predictor of what would happen in the fiel d. FDEP tends to favor the SPLP method; however, it is open to using the t oxicity characteristics leaching procedure 2 (TCLP) and

2 Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Pr ocedure (TCLP): The TCLP was designe d 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 TC LP 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 procedure 3 (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 Co uld Provide Stronger Encouragement and Incentives to Recycle CCPs

Offices such as FDEP and FDOT will likely c ontinue on the same path if they are not approached to change policies. Both offices indi cated that they do not ha ve a push from the state or federal government to use CCPs. The only pu sh to recycle industria l by-products in Florida

was in 1974 when the Florida Resource Reco very and Management Act (Chapter 403.701.) required each county to prepare a Solid Waste Ma nagement 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 recycli ng 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 e nvironmental departments had programs that promoted the use of recycled materials, incl uding CCPs. These programs were a result of the state senate passing a bill to es tablish the Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB). The RMDB was charged with coordina ting 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 mark ets. Programs such as EPA’s Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C 2 P 2 ) could encourage CCP use at th e state level by showing state legislators how initiatives such as the RMDB encouraged recycling in other states. The promotion of Comprehensive Procurements Guidelin es may also be helpful in encouraging states to recycle.

Action 5: Electric Utilities Should Educ ate Plant Operators about the Value of Producing Consistent, Good-Quality CCPs

Utilities mentioned that one of their biggest hur dles is to educate their own plant operators about how to produce good-quality CCPs on a consis tent basis. One utility interviewed said it already has an internal educat ion program for plant operators under way. External educational programs could be developed by universities, with funding fr om utilities and the federal government, to teach plant operato rs about how to produce electric ity efficiently while meeting emission control requirements and still maintaini ng a consistent by-product. Colleges educating future plant operators could al so integrate ash production and ma nagement 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 sa me as those performed in the TCLP, except synthetic groundwat er 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 reco rd of conducting performance tests and

environmental evaluations of CCP s are often viewed by state regul ators as a relatively unbiased source of CCP data. By establishing and maintain ing long-term partnershi ps 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 deve lop an enhanced level of expertise in CCPs

and could establish an infrastructu re that may 1) facilitate the collection of scientific data to support the development of regula tions and 2) attract federal, state, and priv ate 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 framewor k 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 utiliza tion rate is directly attributed to the st ate’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 co uld 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 envi ronment. 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. Als o, if thermal beneficiation systems such as CBO are used at Florida coal-based power plants , these systems could be viewed as new NO

x sources by air regulatory agencies. In tu rn, this designation would subject the host facilities to increased regulatory burdens and could trigger the imposition of NO

x emission restrictions on their main pulverized coal boilers that are much more stringen t than if the CBO system were not present. If CCPs became unacceptable to use in one of thes e key industries, Florida does not have the framework in place to readily explor e new beneficial use applications.

Perhaps the most enlightening part of th e Florida review came when FDEP acknowledged it wants to support CCP use in prin ciple, but that the actual possi bility of use w ith the current regulatory framework is difficult at best. FDEP has a cautious and informal approach to beneficial use, which limits the amount of appli cations submitted to FDEP because users are not sure how to approach FDEP, nor are they sure of what is requ ired to get a beneficial use application approved. FDEP ge nerally 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 st ep 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 cheaper19 than the cost to conduct large- scale demonstrations with the hope that FD EP may approve an application. However, it may be possible to de velop less restrictive provisions for temporary CCP storage and management that reduces the imp act of this barrier to CCP use. In addition, federal and state governments could help Florid a 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 Environmenta l Specifications of State Agencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products ; Final Report Prepared for the Combustion By-Products Recycli ng 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 Perf ormance 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%20 Rule%20as%20Certified.pdf (accessed Feb 2006).

Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection, Technical Evaluation Preliminary

Determination Draft BACT Determinati ons, DEP File No. 1190042-001-AC (PSD-FL-361), Dec. 15, 2005, www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/perm itting/construction/american/TEPD361.pdf (accessed Feb 2006).

Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, In c. (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, Pitt sburgh, PA, Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC26-04NT42080, www.netl.doe.gov/co al/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.; Stead man, E.N.; Eylands, K.E. Dockter, B.A. Barriers To the Increased Utilization of Coal Combusti on/Desulfurization By-Products by Government and Commercial Sectors – Update 1998 ; Topical Report for U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Center Coope rative Agreement No. DE FC21-93MC30097; EERC Publication No. 99-EERC-07-08; July 1999.

Sorini, S.S. A Summary of Leaching Methods. Prep ared 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 Develo pment Workshop, Orlando, FL, July 30, 2003.

# APPENDIX A

ADVISORY BOARD AND REVIEW TEAM

MEMBERSA-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 GUIDEB-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 & E nvironmental Research Center (EERC), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, is conducting a second review of st ate regulations, standards, and pr actices related to the use of coal combustion products (CCPs). The first stat e review was conducted in Texas in September 2004. The final report from the Texas stat e review can be accessed online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/review.html.

GOAL

The primary goal is to review factors relate d to the use of CCPs in Florida and develop recommendations that may help Florida and ot her 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, eas tern location, and current regulation status. It is anticipated that at least one additional stat e 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 relate d to CCP use in Florid a. 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 buildi ng practices, and will not consider the use of

CCPs at mine sites. This is not to diminish th e use of CCPs at mine s ites 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 w ill be formed to answer questions posed by the review team. The discussion groups include the following:

• Government agencies – directors and othe r key personnel of state or regional transportation and environmental agencies

• CCP generators – utility envi ronmental and ash managersB-2 • CCP suppliers – CCP marketers and supp liers of ash beneficiation systems

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

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

• Open meeting conference call – open to an yone who is unavaila ble 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 sta ting proprietary information. If you would prefer to answer questions in writing, as well, please provide written comm ents 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. Revi ew Team Kickoff Meeting

9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. CCP Generators

1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Florida Depart ment 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 Wednesd ay, December 14, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. (EST) for

those who are unable to attend thei r 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., employ ees, programs) has your agency dedicated to CCP management?

3. For which of the following CCPs does your ag ency have guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, regulat ions, orders, or statutes? If applicable, provide references for, and dates of, the specific guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, regulations, orders, or stat utes 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 dis posal of CCPs? For example, new air pollution control requirements may increase th e carbon and mercury content of CCPs.

5. Are there any plans to implement any new polic ies, rules, or regul ations regarding CCPs currently in process or expected in the near future? For example, some Florida utilities are considering increasing the amount of pe tcoke they burn which will impact the CCPs produced. Does your agency foresee and changes to the current regula tions as a result of this change in fuel source?

6. What process does your agency undergo to ma ke changes to its policies, rules, or regulations?

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

successful?B-5 8. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problems encountered and any instances wh ere 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 violati ons of environmental requirements. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and fo llow-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 informati on 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) te sting 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, laborator y work, or policy initiatives w ould be necessary to assist your agency in overcoming barriers?

13. In general, how do you perceive the positi on 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 requirement s 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 prom ote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to th e current specifications and guidelines?

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

the decision to utilize CCPs when the material meets standard specification requirements, or does the state require addi tional approvals and testing?

6. Please list and explain any succe ssful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they

successful?

7. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problems encountered and any instances wh ere the use of CCPs was precluded in a project. Describe any correc tive actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address

the issues.

8. Provide details of any ongoi ng or completed research a nd demonstration projects regarding CCPs.

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

Florida? How could this obsta cle be addressed? Would any changes to state or federal regulations help you ad dress this obstacle?

10. What barriers has your company overcome to increase the use of CCPs? How?

11. What further research, laborator y work, or policy initiatives w ould be necessary to assist your company in overcoming barriers?

12. In general, how do you perceive the positi on 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 applicati ons. Specifically, descri be the current state of CCP use in road building and commerci al 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 e nvironmental policies, permits, regulations, or statut es that impact the way you pr ocess and handle CCPs? What specifications or guidelines do you feel prom ote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to th e current specifications and guidelines?

3. Please list and explain any succe ssful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they

successful?

4. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problem encountered and any instances wher e the use of CCPs was precluded in a project. Describe any correc tive 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 CC Ps? 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 obsta cle be addressed? Would any changes to state or federal regulations help you ad dress this obstacle?

8. What further research or laboratory work w ould 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 a nd 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 cons truction)? 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 e nvironmental policies, permits, regulations, or st atutes that impact the way you utilize CCPs? What specifications or guidelines do you feel prom ote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to th e current specifications and guidelines?

4. Please list and explain any succe ssful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they

successful?

5. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problem encountered and any instances wher e the use of CCPs was precluded in a project. Describe any correc tive actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address

the issues.

6. How would changes to the chemical or phys ical composition of CC Ps 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 obsta cle be addressed? Would any changes to state or federal regulations help you ad dress 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 manuf acture? Is any FGD gypsum being imported or exported?

2. What is the general feeling toward F GD gypsum in your industry? How would you describe the competition between natural gyps um and FGD gypsum? Does the wallboard industry encounter any product acceptance issu es 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 e nvironmental policies, permits, regulations, or stat utes that impact the way you utilize FGD gypsum? What specifications or guidelines do you feel prom ote 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 SO 2 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 mercur y contained in FGD gypsum will be released during wallboard production or di sposal. 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 obstacl e be addressed? What state or federal regulations could be implemented to overcome these obstacles?

8. What further research, laborat ory work, or policy initiati ves 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 th e 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 Flor ida related to CCPs. What speci fications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? Wh at 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 generati on, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, new air pollution control requirements may in crease the carbon and mercury content of

CCPs.

4. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research or dem onstration 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, laborat ory work, or policy initiati ves 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 LISTC-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.usC-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.usC-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.she lton@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 33601-0111C-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.comC-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.comC-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 CCPSD-1 FLDOT SPECIFICATIONS RELA TED TO THE USE OF CCPS

Excerpted from:

Dockter, Bruce A.; Jagiella, Diana M. Engineering and Environmen tal Specifications of StateAgencies for Utilization and Di sposal of Coal Combustion Products ; Final Report Prepared for the Combustion By-Products Recycli ng Consortium; CBRC Proj ect No. 02-CBRC-W12, EERC Publication No. 2005-EERC-07-04; July 2005.

Unless a specific type of cement is designate d 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 conditi on in structural concrete. A mix design for a more aggressive environment may be substi tuted for a lower environmental condition.

In bridge superstructures, blended cements are allowed in slabs, barriers, precast, and prestressed applications exposed to moderate ly aggressive environments. In extremely aggressive environments, the recommended cement itious mixtures are Type II cement with fly ash or GGBF slag. For bridge substructures, dr ainage 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 fu me, Metakaolin, other pozzolans, a nd slag materials as a partial cement replacement in all classes of c oncrete, 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 cemen t 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 cem ent replaced with sl ag 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 cemen t replaced with slag is 25% to 70% for slightly and moderately aggressive envi ronments 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 po zzolan 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 sl ag or pozzolan(s), all applications that require Type II cement plus po zzolan(s), and prestresse d concrete, there is a table specifying the maximum chloride content li mits 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 yar d, 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 Cla ss 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 requirement s 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 incinera tors. 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. Mi crosilica 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 equiva lent 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 te st results shall verify improved or comparable strength, sulfate resistance, co rrosion protective properties, a nd other durability performance properties of concrete, as compared to the performance of silica fume concrete.

The suppliers of fly ash, GGBF slag, and micros ilica are required to furnish, at the time of shipment, certification of test results from sa mples 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 re quired 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 laborat ory 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 aggressi ve environments, tests made by the supplier shall verify improved sulfate resistance of th e concrete in accordance with ASTM C1012 and improved corrosion protective pr operties as compared to similar concrete made with the Class F fly ash. No mix designs will be approved in a dvance of satisfactory completion of such tests.

For sources where the fly ash is not deri ved solely from ground or powdered coal combustion, certified test results performed by an independent approve d 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 T ype IP or Type IS cements. Acceptance of fly ash, slag, microsilica, and metakaolin from sources operating under an approved quality control plan sh all be based on certified testin g 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 CC P BENEFICIAL REUSE

BILLSHB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken

are deletions; words underlined are additions. Page 1 of 7 F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

A bill to be entitled 1

An act relating to environmental protection ; creating s. 2

403.7047, F.S.; exempting beneficial use of fossil fuel 3

combustion products from specified regulations; defining 4

"fossil fuel combustion products," "beneficial use," 5

"structural fill," "pavement aggregate," "pipe bedding 6

aggregate," and "fossil fuel

- fired electric or steam 7

generation facility"; providing requirements and 8

procedures for certain projects to be considered 9

beneficial use; requiring the Department of Transportation 10

to maintain certain plans; requiring that department to 11

notify the Department of Environmental Protection where 12

said plans are located; providing an effective date. 13

14

WHEREAS, fossil fuel combustion products are currently 15

utilized in a variety of beneficial applications, and 16

WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 17

reduces the volume of materials placed in disposal facilities, 18

and 19

WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 20

allows certain industries and end

- users to avoid th e mining and 21

processing of virgin materials through substitution of fossil 22

fuel combustion products

, which preserves natural resources and 23

minimizes environmental emissions, and 24

WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 25

ultimately lowers overall energy consumption required for 26

processing and disposing of fossil fuel combustion products, and 27

WHEREAS, beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 28

promotes economic activity while replacing limited natural 29

resources, and 30HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken

are deletions; words underlined are additions. Page 2 of 7 F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

WHEREAS, benefic ial use of fossil fuel combustion products 31

is consistent with and furthers the purpose of Florida’s 32

Resource Recovery and Management Act by encouraging the 33

development of waste reduction and recycling as a means of 34

managing solid waste and conserving resou rces, and 35

WHEREAS, the Legislature has determined that it is in the 36

state’s best interest to conserve natural resources, reduce 37

overall energy consumption, reduce or eliminate the need to 38

dispose of fossil fuel combustion products in disposal 39

facilities, and facilitate the development of readily available 40

markets for fossil fuel combustion products, and 41

WHEREAS, the Legislature is taking this action after 42

balancing all the competing needs of the state, NOW, THEREFORE, 43

44

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 45

46

Section 1. Section 403.7047, Florida Statutes, is created 47

to read: 48

403.7047 Regulation of fossil fuel combustion products.

-- 49

(1) The beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion products 50

as provided in this section is exempt from regulation pursuant 51

to part IV of chapter 403 and rules adopted thereunder. Nothing 52

in this section shall be construed to limit any other 53

requirements that are applicable to the beneficial use of fossil 54

fuel combustion products that are established under c hapter 376 55

or chapter 403 or under local or federal laws, including, 56

without limitation, requirements governing air pollution control 57

permits, national pollutant discharge elimination system 58

permits, and water quality certifications pursuant to s. 401 of 59

t he Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq. 60HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken

are deletions; words underlined are additions. Page 3 of 7 F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

(2) As used in this section : 61

(a) "Fossil fuel combustion products" means fly ash, 62

bottom ash, slag, flue gas desulfurization system products, 63

gasified products, fluidized bed combustion system products, an d 64

other combustion products from the operation of a fossil fuel

65

fired electric or steam generation facility, any material from a 66

clean coal or other innovative technology process at a fossil 67

fuel

- fired electric or steam generation facility, or any 68

combinat ion thereof. 69

(b) "Beneficial use" means the use or the handling, 70

processing, transportation, or temporary storage for such use of 71

fossil fuel combustion products or materials which incorporate 72

fossil fuel combustion products as provided below: 73

1. Uses for structural fill, pavement aggregate, pipe 74

bedding aggregate, aggregate, asphalt, concrete products, cement 75

products, roofing materials, wallboard products, plastics, 76

paint, metallurgical applications, insulation products, flowable 77

fill and roller compa cted concrete, fertilizer products, 78

blasting grit, filter cloth precoat for sludge dewatering, waste 79

stabilization, extraction or recovery of materials and compounds 80

contained within fossil fuel combustion products, and drainage, 81

capping, or cover material for lined Class I, Class II, or Class 82

III landfills

. 83

2. Discrete, controlled land application uses for 84

agronomic value, land reclamation, and pilot demonstration 85

projects that: 86

a. Are not likely to cause contamination in excess of 87

applicable departmen t air or water quality standards or can be 88

demonstrated to have equivalent environmental impacts to those 89

raw products or materials other than fossil fuel combustion 90HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken

are deletions; words underlined are additions. Page 4 of 7 F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

products currently used in discrete, controlled land application 91

uses for agronomic value, land reclamation, and pilot 92

demonstration projects; and 93

b. Meet the requirements set forth in subsection (3). 94

95

The beneficial uses of fossil fuel combustion products outlined 96

in this subsection have been evaluated only with regard to the 97

protection of h uman health and the environment. In the case of 98

roadway applications, the beneficial use of fossil fuel 99

combustion products shall be in accordance with Department of 100

Transportation specifications, American Society for Testing and 101

Materials specifications, or other generally recognized 102

construction standards. 103

(c) "Structural fill" means the use of a fossil fuel 104

combustion product as a substitute for a conventional aggregate, 105

raw material, or soil under or immediately adjacent to a 106

building or structure. "S tructural fill" does not include uses 107

that involve general filling or grading operations or valley 108

fills. 109

(d) "Pavement aggregate" means the use of a fossil fuel 110

combustion product as a sub

- base material under or immediately 111

adjacent to a paved road, sid ewalk, walkway, or parking lot 112

where the fossil fuel combustion product is a substitute for a 113

conventional aggregate, raw material, or soil. 114

(e) "Pipe bedding aggregate" means the use of a fossil 115

fuel combustion product as a substitute for a conventional 116

aggregate, raw material, or soil under, around, or immediately 117

adjacent to a water, sewer, or other pipeline. 118

(f) "Fossil fuel

- fired electric or steam generation 119

facility" includes any electric or steam generation facility 120HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken

are deletions; words underlined are additions. Page 5 of 7 F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

that is fueled with coal, alon e or in combination with petroleum 121

coke, oil, natural gas, other fossil fuels, or renewable energy 122

materials. 123

(3) In order for discrete, controlled land application 124

uses for agronomic value, land reclamation, and pilot 125

demonstration projects to be consid ered beneficial uses

, the 126

following requirements must be met: 127

(a) N otification.

-- 128

1. A minimum of 30 days before using fossil fuel 129

combustion products for land application for agronomic value, 130

land reclamation, or pilot demonstration projects, the pers on 131

proposing the use shall submit a written notice to the 132

d epartment. The notice shall contain, at a minimum: 133

a. A description of the nature, purpose

, and location of 134

the project, including the name of the Unites States Geological 135

Survey seven and one

- ha lf minute map on which the project is 136

located and a Department of Transportation map or an 8 1/2 inch 137

by 11 inch topographic map showing the project. 138

b. The estimated start and completion dates for the 139

project. 140

c. An estimate of the volume of fossil fu el combustion 141

products to be used for the project. 142

d. A signed and dated statement by the owner s of the site 143

on which the fossil fuel combustion products are used 144

acknowledging and consenting to the use of fossil fuel 145

combustion products for land applica tion for agronomic value, 146

land reclamation, or pilot demonstration projects. 147

e. The notification shall include: 148

(I) The n ame of the fossil fuel combustion products 149

generator

. 150HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken

are deletions; words underlined are additions. Page 6 of 7 F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

(II) The p hysical location of the generating facility

. 151

(III) The a ddress of the generator

. 152

(IV) The n ame of contact for the generator

. 153

(V) T he t elephone number of the generator

. 154

155

Changes to such information will require subsequent notification 156

to the d epartment. 157

2. In addition to the notification requirements under 158

sub

par agraph 1

. , at least 30 days before using fossil fuel 159

combustion products for land reclamation or pilot demonstration 160

projects in volumes of more than 10,000 cubic yards, the person 161

proposing the use shall submit a written notice to the 162

d epartment containin g construction plans for the facility, 163

including a stability analysis when necessary, which shall be 164

prepared, signed

, and sealed by a registered professional 165

engineer in accordance with sound engineering practices. The 166

Department of Transportation is not required to submit 167

construction pl ans with the written notice. The Department of 168

Transportation shall maintain a complete set of construction 169

plans and shall notify the d epartment where the construction 170

plans are located. 171

(b) Storage.

-- Fossil fuel combus tion products used for 172

land application for agronomic value, land reclamation, or pilot 173

demonstration projects may not be stored or speculatively 174

accumulated at the immediate area where they will be put to 175

beneficial use for a period of time longer than ne cessary to 176

complete the project. Fossil fuel combustion products used for 177

land application for agronomic value, land reclamation, or pilot 178

demonstration projects are not being speculatively accumulated 179

when a minimum of 51 percent of the fossil fuel combus tion 180HB 1607 2003

CODING: Words stricken

are deletions; words underlined are additions. Page 7 of 7 F L ORIDA HOUSE OF REPRE SENTATIVE S

products at the project site are beneficially used annually. 181

Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2003

. 182Florida 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