# REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO

THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

Final Report

Prepared for:

North Dakota Industrial Commission Basin Electric Power Cooperative Great River Energy Minnkota Power Cooperative

Prepared by:

Tera D. Buckley Debra F. Pflughoeft-Hassett

Energy & Environmental Research Center University of North Dakota 15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018

Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018

2008-EERC-04-04 April 2008ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Energy & Environmental Research Ce nter (EERC) would like to express its appreciation to the North Dakota Lignite Resear ch Council, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Great River Energy, Minnkota Powe r Cooperative, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory through th e Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium ®
for the opportunity to work on the Review of No rth Dakota Regulations, St andards, and Practices

Related to the Use of Coal Combustion Products project. The EERC authors would specifically like to thank Mr. John Sager, U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency (E PA); Mr. David Goss, American Coal Ash Association; and Ms. Kendra Morrison, EPA Regional 8, for their valuable input on this effort.

The EERC would also like to express its appreciation to the many individuals who participated voluntarily in the information-gather ing process of the review. Those individuals are named in the participant list located in Appendix A of this report.

EERC DISCLAIMER

LEGAL NOTICE This research report was pr epared 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. Re ference 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

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ......... ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................iii

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

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

GOAL ........................................................................................................................... .................. 2

STATE REVIEW PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 2

Task 1: Establish an Administrative Team ........................................................................... 2 Task 2: Form an Advisory Board.......................................................................................... 2

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

Task 4: Create a Review Guide............................................................................................. 3 Task 5: Develop a List of Interviewees................................................................................. 3 Task 6: Prepare the Final Report and Disseminate Information ........................................... 3

STATUS OF CCP PRODUCTION AND UT ILIZATION IN NORTH DAKOTA ...................... 4 Antelope Valley Station ........................................................................................................ 5

Coal Creek Station ............................................................................................................. ... 6 Coyote Station ................................................................................................................. ...... 6

Leland Olds Station............................................................................................................ ... 6 Milton R. Young Station ....................................................................................................... 7

R.M. Heskett Station ........................................................................................................... .. 7

Stanton Station ................................................................................................................ ...... 7

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UTILIZ ATION IN NORTH DAKOTA ..................................... 7 Key 1: GRE CCS Has One of the Best Fly Ash Utilization Programs in the Nation ........... 7 Key 2: North Dakota Department of Transportation Allows 30% Fly Ash Replacement in Concrete ...................................................................................................... 8 Key 3: Mine Grout to Fill Underground Mine Voids Is the Only Preapproved Beneficial Use for Fly Ash in North Dakota......................................................................... 9 Key 4: Bottom Ash Is Classified as an Inert Material by NDDH ....................................... 11 Key 5: Boiler Slag Is a Commodity .................................................................................... 11

REPORTED BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS THAT COULD INCREASE

CCP USE IN NORTH DAKOTA................................................................................................. 12

Barrier 1: North Dakota Coal -Based Power Plants Produce Large Quantities of

FGD Material with Limited Market Potential..................................................................... 12

Recommended Actions for Barrier 1......................................................................... 13

Continued . . .ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Barrier 2: CCP Utilization Is Not a Prio rity at Many North Dakota Coal-Based

Power Plants.................................................................................................................. ...... 13

Recommended Actions for Barrier 2......................................................................... 14 Barrier 3: NDDH Has a Subjective Gu ideline for Beneficial Use...................................... 14

Recommended Actions for Barrier 3......................................................................... 15 Barrier 4: NDDOT Is Not Explor ing Other Beneficial Uses .............................................. 16

Recommended Actions to Barrier 4 .......................................................................... 16 Barrier 5: Many Fly Ashes Are Not Managed in a Way that Produces a Consistent Quality Product ............................................................................................................... .... 17

Recommended Actions for Barrier 5......................................................................... 17 Barrier 6: Transportation and Distribution In frastructure Can Be Cost-Prohibitive........... 17

Recommended Actions to Barrier 6 .......................................................................... 18

Barrier 7: Limited Green Movement in the State................................................................ 18

Recommended Actions for Barrier 7......................................................................... 18

Barrier 8: NDDH Lacks Resources to Focus on Beneficial Use of CCPs .......................... 19

Recommended Actions to Barrier 8 .......................................................................... 19

Barrier 9: The National Co mmercial Concrete Market Has Misconceptions

About CCPs.................................................................................................................... ..... 20

Recommended Actions for Barrier 9......................................................................... 20

Barrier 10: Local Concrete Market Saturated ..................................................................... 21

Recommended Actions for Barrier 10....................................................................... 21 Barrier 11: Industrial Boiler By-Products Ar e Becoming a Public Perception Problem .... 21

Recommended Actions to Barrier 11 ........................................................................ 22

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IM PACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION

IN NORTH DAKOTA................................................................................................................ .. 22 Threat 1: Mercury Control Will Be a Concern for Utilization............................................ 22

Threat 2: New CO 2 Regulations Are Expected, but th e Impact to CCPs Is Not Clear ....... 23

CONCLUSIONS/S UMMARY..................................................................................................... 23

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... ........ 25

PARTICIPANT LIST ....................................................................................................Appendix A

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

GUIDELINE 11 – ASH UTILIZATION FOR SOIL STABILIZATION, FILL-IN

MATERIALS AND OTHER ENGIN EERING PURPOSES........................................Appendix C

LIST OF TABLES

1 North Dakota Coal-Based Power Plant Annual Generation Capacity .................................. 4iii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO

ASTSWMO

AC

ACAA

AML

AMLD

ASTM

AVS

C 2 P 2

CAMR

CARRC ®

CCP

CCS

DOE

DOT

EERC

EPA

EPRI

FGD

GRE

LEED ®

LOI

LOS

MDU

MW

NDDH

NDDOT

OTPC

PSC QA/QC

SDA

SO 2 SWOT

UND

USGBC American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Association of State and Territo rial Solid Waste Management

Officials

activated carbon

American Coal Ash Association

abandoned mine land

Abandoned Mine Land Division American Society for Testing and Materials Antelope Valley Station Coal Combustion Products Partnership Clean Air Mercury Rule

Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium ®
coal combustion product

Coal Creek Station U.S. Department of Energy Department of Transportation Energy & Environmental Research Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Electric Power Research Institute flue gas desulfurization Great River Energy Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design loss-on-ignition

Leland Olds Station

Montana–Dakota Utilities Co.

megawatt North Dakota Department of Health North Dakota Department of Transportation Otter Tail Power Company

Public Service Commission quality assurance/ quality control spray dryer absorber

sulfur dioxide strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats University of North Dakota U.S. Green Building Counciliv REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATI ONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES

RELATED TO THE USE OF CO AL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over 54 million tons of coal combustion products (CCPs) are beneficially used in the United States each year, but over 70 million tons, or 57%, are still being disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments (American Coal Ash Association [ACAA], 2006). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency (EPA) set goals to increase CCP utilization to 50% by 2011. As 2011 draws near, this goal appears to be more difficult to attain, particularly as new emission regulations are im plemented, resulting in larger quantities and changing qua lities of CCPs produced.

To better understand the status and develo pment of different CCP utilization profiles across the United States, the University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) is conducting a series of state re views. The first was conducted in Texas in 2004, the second was in Florida in 2005, and the th ird was in Pennsylvania in 2006. Following the series of three state reviews, a synthesis report was prepared that transfers the findings into a national perspective. These state reviews were funded in part by EPA and DOE. Both agencies encourage other states to follow a similar statem ent of work to conduct additional state reviews under separate funding mechanisms.

The EERC, with funding from the North Da kota Industrial Commission, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Great River Energy, Minnk ota Power Cooperative, and DOE through the

Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium ® (CARRC ® ), conducted a fourth state review in

North Dakota.

CCPs are the largest solid waste stream generated in North Dakota. According to information obtained during the state review inte rview process, the authors estimate that North Dakota coal-based power plants produce in exce ss of 8000 tons per day of CCPs (or nearly 3 million tons per year). They further estimate that North Dakota coal-based power plants currently beneficially use about 40% (or 1.2–1.3 million tons) of CCPs produced per year.

Based on information obtained during the North Dakota state review pr ocess, the following items were identified as keys to successful CCP utilization in North Dakot a and are discussed at greater length in this report:

1. Great River Energy (GRE) has an establis hed CCP utilization program at Coal Creek Station (CCS) which sells nearly 500,000 tons of fly ash (~94%–95% of total production) each year. Many woul d agree that CCS produces pe rhaps the best fly ash in the country with regard to qua lity and consistency of supply.

2. The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) us es fly ash in almost all concrete projects at a replacement rate of 30%. Most DOTs specify a replacement ratev between 15%–30% (if they specify fly ash use at all), making NDDOT’s specification on the higher end compared to other states.

3. Fly ash is beneficially used as a key cementitious component by the North Dakota

Public Service Commission Abandoned Mine Land Division for grout filling of abandoned underground mine lands. Since 1995, PSC used 32,000 tons of fly ash in 28 grout applications. Mine grout is the only preapproved benefi cial use application for fly

ash in North Dakota.

4. Bottom ash is classified as an inert wast e by the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) which allows it to be used without approval. In North Dakota, bottom ash is typically used in active mines as a road ba se and for ice contro l on public and private

roads.

5. Boiler slag meets the definition of an iner t waste as defined by the North Dakota Solid Waste Management Rules. Slag is sold for sand blasting, ice cont rol, manufacture of roofing shingles, and for base on mine roads or drainage media.

The following were identified as barriers that currently hinder increased CCP utilization in North Dakota. Recommended actions are provided for each barrier.

1. All North Dakota coal-based power plants have a system in place or have plans to control sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emissions (Leland Olds Sta tion is currently installing a

SO 2 control system, and Milton R. Young Statio n Unit 1 will install a wet scrubber in 2011). The by-products produced ar e either spray dr yer absorber material mixed with fly ash or wet sulfite-rich material/sludge . These by-products are difficult to market because they are a low-value material, have limited use potential, and are not located within close proximity to markets. Currently, it is more cost-effective to dispose of the material; however, if high-va lue and high-volume applications were possible, electric generating companies may be more likely to pursue potential uses.

2. The primary objective of most electric gene rating companies is to produce electricity, not to make good-quality CCPs and market them. GRE CCS has successfully done both, but that is an excepti on in the state. Electric ge nerating companies should also perform a cost–benefit analysis to determ ine what resources (i.e., staff, handling equipment) would be needed to improve CCP use and determine if it is a costeffective ash management solution for the company.

3. NDDH’s Guideline 11

– Ash Utilization for Soil Stabilization, Fill-In Materials, and Other Engineering Purposes summarizes the department’s approach to CCP utilization. The applicant must reasonably de monstrate that the proposed use will not adversely impact the environment. NDDH be lieves Guideline 11 presents a flexible

framework to facilita te the department’s evaluation of impacts to surface water, groundwater, soils, etc. Those requesting bene ficial use applications indicated the guideline is too subjective. Potential CCP users should work with NDDH in defining parameters (i.e., leaching method, pre- and postmonitoring). This collaboration couldvi be facilitated through a st ate CCP program or consorti um whose primary objective was to educate government agencies about CCPs. At a federal level, EPA could provide more guidance on what a “benefic ial use” is. A clear definition would be helpful to NDDH in writing new or modifying existing guidelines.

4. NDDOT representatives interviewed did not see a need to explore nonconcrete beneficial use applications such as soil stab ilization or flowable fill. Conversely, the ready-mix suppliers interviewed believed flowable fill is a major untapped market in North Dakota. Industry should approach al l levels of NDDOT to demonstrate the engineering, environmental, and economic be nefits of using CCPs in flowable fill applications. In addition, NDDOT coul d take a second look at the economics associated with using flowable fills containing CCPs.

5. Many North Dakota coal-based power plants do not have a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan for their CCPs. The implementation of a strict QA/QC plan is imperative for utilization in a variety of applications, especially concrete.

6. With the exception of GRE’s CCS, North Dakota coal-based power plants have transportation and distribution infrastructure issues that make it cost-prohibitive and difficult to transport CCPs to major markets outside of the state. Management at coalbased power plants should evaluate the cost–benefit ratio of improving the CCP

distribution infrastructure at their plants. Local market s should also be explored.

7. Green building initiatives have not gained widespread acceptance in North Dakota from a consumer or regula tory standpoint. Since consum ers are not yet pulling the green building market in North Dakota, it is recommended that approaches to push green building by government be promoted by industry. CCP industry stakeholders

should work with state and na tional building entitie s to market the benefits of using CCPs in building materials. Government polic y makers should also be encouraged to make green building a priority.

8. Even though NDDH supports integrated wa ste management, the authors believe NDDH does not have the resources (i.e., time, knowledge, budget) needed to effectively evaluate new CCP beneficial us e applications. Also, once a beneficial use rule is in place, NDDH does not appear to have any mechanisms in place to encourage use. To encourage preapproved CCP benefici al use applications, NDDH should have a list of preapproved uses on its Web site and provide access to appropriate checklists. An industry-led group could be effectiv e in assisting NDDH in education and

information dissemination.

9. Ready-mix suppliers intervie wed indicated the national comm ercial concrete market is usually the most difficult consumer group to work with to encourage CCP use. Often, the national company would give an overly prescriptive mix design that the ready-mix supplier believed would benefit from a highe r percentage of repl acement of fly ash, but the national company would want to st ick with its design. E ducation is key to overcoming this barrier.vii 10. Fly ash use in the local concrete markets is nearly saturated, so other high-value roadbuilding and construction applications should be explored such as flowable fill, backfill, and road base applications.

11. Some coal ashes from coal-fired industria l boilers do not have the cementitious or pozzolanic properties that coal ashes from co al-fired power plants have and, therefore, will not exhibit the same physical performance in applications such as soil stabilization

or flowable fill. Anecdotal evidence has been raised indicating instances where industrial coal ashes physically failed in an application and subsequently created a public perception problem for coal ashes from coal-based power plants that are well

suited for these uses.

The following potential threats were identified that could hinder CCP utilization in North

Dakota in the future:

1. Most North Dakota coal-based power pl ants will meet 2010 mercury emission regulations (Clean Air Mercur y Rule) as they currently operate but will likely need to implement new controls to meet 2018 re quirements. NDDH is concerned about how new mercury emission controls will imp act CCP utilization and disposal. NDDH has not evaluated by-products from plants wi th mercury emission c ontrols; therefore, regulating the materials’ use or disposal is new territory (as will be the case for other state health departments). Th is is a nationwide concern.

2. New CO 2 regulations are expected, but the potential for impa ct on CCPs is not clear.1 REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATI ONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES

RELATED TO THE USE OF CO AL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

BACKGROUND

Over 54 million tons of coal combustion prod ucts (CCPs) are beneficially used in the United States each year, but over 70 million tons, or 57%, are still being disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments. The overall CCP utilizat ion rate is graduall y rising, from 40.08% in 2004, to 40.29% in 2005, to 43.43% in 2006 (Ameri can Coal Ash Association [ACAA], 2006). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set goals to increase CCP utilization to 50% by 2 011. As 2011 draws near, this goal appears to be more difficult to attain, particularly as new air emission regulations are implemented, resulting in larger quantities and changing quali ties of CCPs produced. Given th ese challenges, both agencies are committed to reaching their utilization goals and are conducting resear ch studies and working together to create and support programs that en courage CCP use. Such programs include EPA’s Industrial Materials Recycling Program under th e Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C 2 P 2 ), the Green Highways Pa rtnership, and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC ) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ® ) Program. Other programs such as the newly form ed Industrial Resources Council bring together industry associations (CCPs, foundry sand, construction and demolition debris, and rubber) to achieve similar goals.

Many of the technical barriers associated wi th CCP utilization have been addressed, but social and knowledge barriers still exist. One of the key nontechnical barriers is the broad range of state laws, regulations, pol icies, and guidelines regarding the use of CCPs (American Coal Ash Association, 1998; Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999; Dockter and Jagiel la, 2005). Some states have worked to develop progressive and effect ive guidance for CCP utilization that helps to increase CCP utilization while being protective of the environment. Conversel y, some states still

lack the resources and information to feel comf ortable with the environmental appropriateness of using CCPs in certain applicatio ns, particularly with nontraditional applications. In addition, changing state laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines can be a le ngthy process, taking a number of years to come to fruition, which often frustrat es CCP industry stakeholders.

To better understand the status and develo pment of different CCP utilization profiles across the United States, the University of North Dakota (UND) En ergy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was given a grant by EPA and Headwa ters Resources, LLC, to conduct a pilot review of state regulations, standards, an d practices related to th e use of CCPs. Texas was selected as the pilot state because of its progr essive approach to CCP utilization. A subsequent grant was awarded to the EERC by EPA and DOE to conduct a second stat e review. Florida was selected as the second state to review, primar ily because it was undergoing changes to its CCP regulations. The EERC subsequently received a gr ant from EPA, DOE, and ACAA to perform a

review in a third state that ex hibited a different CCP use scenar io and geographic area than the previous two states. Pennsylvania was ultimately chosen as the third state. The final reports from

the series of state reviews can be accessed online at www.und eerc.org/carrc/html/review.html. Following the completion of the series of three stat e reviews, a synthesis re port was prepared that2 translates the results from the three in-depth state reviews into a national perspective. The preparation of the synthesis report was funded by EPA and DOE.

The EERC, with funding from the North Da kota Industrial Comm ission, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Great River Energy (GRE), Minnkota Power Cooperative, the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory through the Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium ®

(CARRC ® ), conducted a fourth state revi ew in North Dakota. This re port contains an in-depth analysis of how coal ash is being used in Nort h Dakota, describes what is being done to promote coal ash utilization, lists barriers and threats that hinder use, and recommends actions that can be

taken to overcome barriers.

GOAL

The primary objective of this effort is to assess activities in No rth Dakota that have resulted in encouraging or pr ohibiting the use of CCPs in an environmentally appropriate manner. The specific goals are to 1) evaluate fact ors related to the use of CCPs in North Dakota; 2) summarize North Dakota’s successes, barriers , and threats; and 3) develop recommendations (action items) that may help North Dakota and other states increase the use of CCPs in an environmentally sound manner.

STATE REVIEW PROCESS

The following tasks outline the steps taken to conduct this review. Experience with previous state reviews showed that the most ef fective method for conducting the review was to conduct a multiday site visit in a central location within the state. Panels of key stakeholders were assembled and interviewed during the course of this site visit which took place August 27– 29, 2007, in Bismarck, North Dakota. Information provided during the interviews was compiled and summarized in this report. The following secti ons describe each step of the review process in more detail. Tasks are listed in order; howev er, 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 Marketing Research Specialist, acted as team lead er, with input from Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett, EERC Senior Research Advisor.

Task 2: 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 included Mr. John Sager, EP A; Mr. David Goss, ACAA; and Ms. Kendra Morrison, EPA Region 8. Associated contact information is listed in the projec t participant list in Appendix A.3 Task 3: Assemble a Review Team

A select group of individuals comprised the review team. The primary role of the review team was to administer the meetings at the review. Review team members were Ms. Tera Buckley, EERC; Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett, EERC; Mr. John Sager, EPA; and Mr. Shane Vasbinder, Basin Electric Powe r Cooperative. Associated contac t information for review team members is listed in Appendix A.

Task 4: Create a Review Guide

A review guide was developed for North Da kota interviewees that included an agenda, background information, and targeted ques tionnaires for each discussion group (see Appendix B). To facilitate appr opriate discussions, the followi ng four discussion groups were formed to answer questions posed by the review team:

• Government agencies – directors and othe r key personnel of state transportation and health departments

• CCP generators – coal-based electric generating company environmental and ash

managers

• Concrete and other engineering applications – CCP marketers and ready-mix concrete suppliers

• Mining – key personnel at the North Da kota Public Service Commission (PSC)

Task 5: 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 iden tified in Task 4. The final participant list for the review is included in Appendi x A. Those on the participant list attended a discussion session, submitted written comments, or participated in a telephone interview.

Task 6: Prepare Final Report and Disseminate Information

The primary objective of this task was to pr epare a final report that could be used to encourage CCP use in North Dakota and other states. Target audiences for the final report include CCP industry representatives and users, personnel at the state government agencies,

members of the American Association of State Highway and Tran sportation Officials (AASHTO), Association of State and Territo rial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), and other state and fede ral agency groups and individuals.

The results of the report are organized into keys, barriers, threat s, and actions. These

sections were modeled after a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, oppor tunities, threats) analysis commonly used by marketing professionals to a udit an organization and the environment in which it operates. It is the fi rst stage of planning and helps id entify key issues. The SWOT terms

were modified to reflect terms that the authors felt were more applicable to the CCP industry.4 STATUS OF CCP PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION IN NORTH DAKOTA

North Dakota currently has four active surf ace lignite mines that s upply coal to all coalbased power plants in the state:

• BNI Coal Ltd. (a subsidiary of ALLETE), Center Mine

• Coteau Properties Company (a subsidiary of the North American Coal Corporation),

Freedom Mine

• Dakota Westmoreland Corporation (a subs idiary of Westmoreland Mining LLC),

Beulah Mine

• Falkirk Mining Company (a subsidiary of No rth American Coal Corporation), Falkirk

Mine

North Dakota’s mines produced 30.3 million sh ort tons of lignite coal in 2006. Since 1988, North Dakota’s lignite production has consistently been near the 30-million-ton-per-year range, which makes it one of 15 major coal-producing st ates in the United States (Lignite Energy Council, 2007a).

North Dakota has seven coal-based power pl ants. These plants and their megawatt (MW) capacities are listed in Table 1. The total annual generating capaci ty for all North Dakota coalbased power plants is over 4000 MW.

In addition to the coal-based power plan ts listed in Table 1, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, through its for-profit subsidiary, Dakota Gasification Company, owns and operates the Great Plains Synfuels Plant northwest of Beulah, North Dakot a. The synfuels plant is the only commercial-scale coal gasifica tion plant in the United States th at manufactures natural gas.

Table 1. North Dakota Coal-Based Pow er Plant Annual Generation Capacity Owner Station Capacity, MW Basin Electric Power Cooperative Antelope Valley 900 Basin Electric Power Cooperative Leland Olds 669 Great River Energy Coal Creek 1200 Great River Energy Stanton 188 Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. Milton R. Young 744

Montana–Dakota Utilities Co. R.M. Heskett 86 Otter Tail Power Company Coyote* 420

* Coyote Station is owned by Montana–Dako ta Utilities Co. (25%), NorthWestern Public Service (10%), Northern Municipal Power Agency (30%), and Otter Tail Power Company (35%).

The plant produces an array of by-products including ammonium sulfate, anhydrous ammonia, carbon dioxide, dephenolized cresylic acid, krypton and xenon gases, liquid nitrogen,5 naphtha, and phenol (Basin El ectric Power Cooperative, 2007) . These by-products are not considered traditional CCPs and, therefore, will not be consider ed in this review.

CCPs are the largest solid waste stream ge nerated in North Dakota. The North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) estimates that approximately 9900 tons per day of CCPs are generated compared to about 1400 tons per day of municipal soli d waste, 100 tons per day of industrial waste, and about 6 tons per da y of hazardous waste (Tillotson, 2007). However, according to information obtained during the stat e review interview process, the authors’ estimate was lower than NDDH at just over 8000 tons per day of CCPs (or nearly 3 million tons per year). The authors further estimate that No rth Dakota coal-based power plants currently beneficially use about 40% (or 1.2–1.3 million t ons) of CCPs produced each year. The basis for these production and use estimates is described by station below.

Antelope Valley Station

Antelope Valley Station (AVS) is located ne ar Beulah, North Dakota, and is owned and operated by Basin Electric Power Co operative. It is the newest co al-based power plant in North Dakota and is considered a minemouth facility , receiving its coal from the nearby Freedom

Mine.

It is estimated that AVS produces approxi mately 775,250 tons of CCPs per year. About 87% (~675,250 tons) of this material is landfille d each year. AVS has one landfill for all of its

CCPs.

AVS has a spray dryer absorber (S DA) system for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) control. 1 The fly

ash and SDA material are collect ed together. About 50,000 tons of AVS fly ash/SDA material is used in area oil fields to solidify waste pits and for mine subsidence each year. An additional 50,000 tons per year is used at th e Freedom Mine in soil stabili zation applications and for haul roads. AVS provides the fly ash/SDA material to the mine at no charge. AVS recently began working with Headwaters Resources to market its fly ash/SDA mate rial in geotechnical applications.

In February 2007, Basin Electric Power Coope rative approved installing an air-jigging system with a price of more than $25 million at AVS to further reduce SO 2 emissions. The airjigging system consists of two different compone nts. One involves pulsating air through the coal stream, and the second involves a vibrating slide. In combination, these two processes separate the heavier products in the coal which typica lly contain the higher pe rcentages of sulfur, mercury, pyrites, and clay in the lignite. Construc tion of the air jig is expected to start in 2008, with the system becoming operational in mid-2009 (Lignite Energy Council, 2007b).

1 SDA material is a dry powder produc t, which is a calcium sulfite (CaSO 3 • 1⁄2 H 2 O, or hannebachite)-rich material. SDA material and fly ash are often collected together in a particulate control device.6 Coal Creek Station

Coal Creek Station (CCS) is North Dakota’s largest coal-bas ed power plant and is owned and operated by GRE. The plant is located near Underwood, North Dakota. The adjoining Falkirk Mine supplies CCS with coal.

CCS produces about 520,000 tons of fly ash pe r year, with an outstanding beneficial use rate of 94%–96%. CCS fly ash is used primarily as a cement replacement in concrete and is sold to ready-mix suppliers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa and in Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, Canada, throug h its marketer, Headwaters Resources. GRE estimates that North Dakota uses about 120,000 tons of CCS fly ash in concrete each year. CCS is the state’s only fly ash source for concrete . CCS produces 300,000 tons of bottom ash per year, and the majority is used as aggregate, sand-blasti ng grit, in roofing shingl es, and for ice control. CCS produces 125,000 tons of wet flue ga s desulfurization (FGD) material, 2 and all of that material is landfilled. CCS is considering inst alling a forced-oxidized FGD system that will produce a marketable by-product (FGD gypsum) a nd is exploring its use in agriculture applications.

Coyote Station

Coyote Station, located near Beulah, North Dakota, has multiple owners including Otter Tail Power Company (OTPC) (35%), Mont ana–Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) (25%), NorthWestern Public Service (10%), and Northe rn Municipal Power Agency (30%). The station receives its coal from nearby Beulah Mine. Coyote Station produced approximately 106,000 tons each of dry FGD material 3 and boiler slag in 2006. All of th e dry FGD material is landfilled. It sells about 20% (21,200 tons ) of its boiler slag for use in roofing shingl es and sand-blasting grit. In addition, 4% (4240 tons) of the boiler slag is used for ice c ontrol on mining and public roads. The remaining 76% (80,560 tons) of the boiler slag is disposed of in a landfill. The fly ash produced is mixed with lime and recycled back into the dry FGD system. All of the resulting

material is landfilled because it is not reactive.

Leland Olds Station

Leland Olds Station (LOS) is located near Stanton, North Dakot a, and is owned and operated by Basin Electric Power Cooperative . It receives coal from Freedom Mine.

LOS has a landfill for its fly ash and a se parate sluice pond for its bottom ash. LOS produces about 150,000 tons of fly ash, and all of it is landfilled. It produces about 210,000 tons of bottom ash per year and se lls ~29% (60,000 tons) for sand blasting under the brand name Black Beauty ® . LOS is installing a wet FGD system wh ich will require the landfill to double in

size.

2 Wet FGD material is also commonly known as scrubber sludge. It is a material produced from a wet unoxidized system to control SO 2 . The material is generally a mixture of cal cium sulfate, calcium sulfite, and fly ash.

3 Dry FGD material is a dry powder material that is generally a calcium sulfate-rich material.7 Milton R. Young Station

Milton R. Young Station (MRYS) is a coal-bas ed power plant located near Center, North Dakota, owned and operated by Minnkota Power Coope rative, Inc. It is a minemouth plant, receiving its coal from the nearby Center Mine . It has two units, and both are cyclone-fired. MRYS produces 180,000 tons of bottom ash per year, and it is anticipated that 80%–90% will be recycled in 2008 and continue thereafter. MRYS produces 175,000 to ns of fly ash per year and uses 60% (105,000 tons) of its fly ash as a reagent in its wet FGD system. All fly ash not used as a reagent is disposed of dry. The plant also pr oduces 240,000 tons of wet FGD material per year, and all is disposed of. In 2010, MRYS will have a new lime system, and all fly ash will be disposed of dry; in 2011, a wet scrubber will be operational for Unit 1, producing a wet FGD material/sludge.

R.M. Heskett Station

Montana–Dakota Utilities Co.’s R.M. Heske tt Station (RMHS) is a bubbling fluidized-bed combustor designed to operate with river sand as its bed material. The plant is located north of Mandan, North Dakota, and receives its coal from the Beulah Mine. In 2006, RMHS produced 35,970 tons of fly ash, and all of that material was disposed of. It also produced 4782 tons of bottom ash and used 17% (800 tons) in road base/subbase applications.

Stanton Station

Stanton Station (SS), owned and operated by GR E, was named for its proximity to Stanton, North Dakota. SS has an SDA system in place for sulfur control which produces about 15,000 tons of fly ash/SDA mate rial per year. That material is currently being marketed in the soil stabilization market. The plant also produces between 20,000 and 29,000 tons of bottom ash,

which is landfilled.

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UT ILIZATION IN NORTH DAKOTA

Based on the information obtained at the No rth Dakota state revi ew discussion group sessions, the authors believe the following are th e keys to successful CCP utilization in North Dakota. The keys highlight “strengths” or positive aspects. The keys are listed in order of importance. The measure of importance is base d on the volume of CCPs beneficially used.

Key 1: GRE CCS Has One of the Best Fl y Ash Utilization Programs in the Nation

In the 1980s, GRE’s CCS landfilled a vast majority of CCPs it produced. In 1995, GRE

came to realize that CCP utilization is an envi ronmentally responsible e ffort that could reduce landfill disposal costs a nd generate a significan t revenue stream for the company. To make CCP utilization a priority at CCS, GRE formed an in ternal process improvement team representing all

areas and levels of th e company (i.e., upper management, pl ant operators, and maintenance). This multifaceted team approach gave people ow nership over their areas and created a working

environment focused on utilization. At the time the internal process improvements team was created, CCP utilization at CCS was 90,000 tons per year.8 During the past decade, GRE’ s CCS established what many w ould agree is the premier fly ash utilization program in the country, beneficia lly using 94%–96% of the fly ash it produces. CCS takes great care to ensure that fly ash quality is not impaired by fuel changes, plant outages, or new emission control technolog ies. CCS has strict quality a ssurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures in place that supersede all other electric generating companies in the state and, perhaps, the nation. CCS fly ash is used primarily as a cement replacement in concrete and is sold to ready-mix suppliers in North Dakota, South Da kota, Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Iowa and in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Canada.

GRE’s commitment to CCP utilization has taken considerable staff effort and monetary

resources. GRE invests in research to explore new beneficial use applications for its CCPs and is very involved in CCP utiliza tion programs and associations acr oss the country. For example, GRE’s ash manager is the Chairperson for AC AA. It also supports education and outreach efforts that encourage CCP utilization on a local , regional, and national scale. GRE hosted a workshop, “ CCP Beneficial Use Training, ” in March 2006 to educate government representatives and end users about the use of fly ash in North Dakota. GRE has also been a long-time supporter of education and outreach ac tivities organized through the EERC’s Coal Ash Research Center including the Coal Ash Professionals Training Course. All of these activities

allow GRE to remain on the forefront of CCP utilization and help pave the way for others.

As part of their commitment to CCP utilization, GRE and its ash marketer Headwaters Resources, LLC, have invested over $27 million in infrastructure at CCS. Today, CCS has two weight scales for trucks, 200 pr ivate rail cars, a nd an 85,000-ton fly ash storage dome. It loads/unloads 30 rail cars a day and can load up to 150 trucks pe r day. It also has a method for dealing with overloading trucks. GRE has fly ash terminals in Minnesota and Colorado. After seeing the positive effects of infrastructure at CCS, GRE is in the process of updating loading

facilities at SS as well.

With its investment in distribution infrastructu re and dedicated to qual ity control, the price of CCS fly ash went from $0 in 1996 to $35 FO B in 2007. Considering that CCS sold about 494,000 tons of fly ash in 2006, this represents a revenue stream of over $17 million and a significant savings in disposal costs.

Key 2: North Dakota Department of Transportation Allows 30% Fly Ash Replacement in Concrete

According to the North Dakota De partment of Transportation (NDDOT) Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (Section 820) adopted in 2002, fly ash must meet the following specification for the specific type of work:

• Portland cement replacement in concrete – AASHTO M2959 • Lime fly ash-treated subgrade – ASTM (Ame rican Society for Testing and Materials)

International C593

• Econocrete – AASHTO M295

• Aggregate base – ASTM C593

The regulation also stipulates that the fly as h shall be from an electric generating plant using a single coal source. This is generally a nonissue for North Dakota coal-based power plants because they are minemouth plants or use only one coal source. However, from a functional perspective, there is no compelling reason why stations that burn more than one coal cannot produce fly ash that is perfectly suitable for use in concrete. An additional stipulation is that fly ash produced at plants where the limestone injecti on process is used for c ontrolling air pollutantswill be considered unacceptable for use in portland cement concrete. The maximum loss-onignition (LOI) of 2.0% is based on AASHTO M295.

Fly ash replacement of cement is allowed on a 1:1 ratio, up to a maximum of 30% by weight for standard concrete pr ojects. NDDOT uses fly ash in almo st all concrete projects at a replacement rate of 30%. Most DOTs specify a replacement rate between 15% and 30% (if they specify fly ash use at all), making NDDOT’s speci fication on the higher end compared to other states. For mass pours, a replacement rate of 40% is allowed and is more typical. Fly ash is not allowed as a cement substitute when high-early-strength concrete is used. Lime or lime–fly ash mixtures may be used in the t op layer of stabilized subgrade.

Fly ash suppliers, with support from contractors, drove the cu rrent fly ash regulations. As an example, prior to the specifications menti oned above, NDDOT specified that 20% of fly ash would replace 15% of cement in concrete. NDDOT was approached by fly ash suppliers to change this specification, subse quently, it performed its own rese arch and looked at what other states were doing and modified the specification to the current 1:1 ratio. NDDOT also specified that, after September 15, a contractor would have to ask to use fly ash in a project because NDDOT was concerned about cold weather pla cement. NDDOT performed freeze–thaw testing

with UND and determined that concern was not an issue and removed the time constraint.

Fly ash suppliers are continuing to approach NDDOT to get more fly ash used in DOT projects. Recently, fly ash suppliers requested higher fly ash percent replacement and are providing test data to NDDOT to support this re quest. If the data l ook promising, NDDOT will try a higher percentage in one or two demonstrat ion projects before modi fying the specification.

Key 3: Mine Grout to Fill Underground Mine Voids Is the Only Preapproved Beneficial Use for Fly Ash in North Dakota

The North Dakota Abandoned Mine Land R eclamation Program operates under the guidelines of the Surface Mining Control and R eclamation Act, the approved State Reclamation Plan, the Federal Assistance Manual, and associat ed rules, regulations, and policy decisions. The state program is administered by the Aba ndoned Mine Land Division (AMLD) of the PSC. Oversight of the program is conducted by the Ca sper Field Office of the Office of Surface Mining.10 Fly ash is beneficially used as a partial replacement for cement by AMLD for grout filling of underground abandoned mine lands (AMLs). North Dakota has 600 documented underground AMLs, but the PSC estimates North Dakota actually has between 1000 and 2000 AMLs. About half of the mines are dry and th e other half are wet. Since 1 995, PSC used 32,000 tons of fly ash in 28 grout applications. More fly ash could be used, but th e PSC has limited funding. Program funding comes from a $0.10 per ton production tax on lig nite coal mined within the state. For the last 15 years, PSC operated on a budget of $1.5 million per year; however, in 2007, with the passing of Senate Bill S.2616, the budget will be ra ised to $3 million per year and the program

extended until 2021.

In developing its grout mix design, PSC wanted a very flowable and strong material that did not segregate. PSC prefers using fly ash in the mix because it improves flowability and does not flash set like cement and will gain strength fo r a year or more after placement. Although PSC

has no state laws or administrative rules specifying grout mix design for AML underground mine-grouting projects, the grout specifications in PSC Invitations for Bids require that the grout

consist of:

• Portland cement: 100 pounds per cubic yard.

• Fly ash: 600 pounds per cubic yard.

• Aggregate: as required to achieve a yi eld of 27 cubic feet per cubic yard.

• Superplasticizer: (high-range water reducer) 70 ounces per cubic yard.

• Water: as required to achieve the specified slump range. Slumps will be measured 5 minutes after superplasticizer has been mixed into the grout.

This grout formulation has been review ed and approved by NDDH for use in underground mine-grouting projects. Although quantities of a ggregate and water may vary, a typical grout includes approximately 2500 lb of aggregate and 50 gallons of water (in addition to cement, fly ash and superplasticizer) per cu bic yard. The grout is required to achieve a minimum unconfined compressive strength of 150 psi within 28 days . The PSC requires material testing (under separate contract) to ensure that the gr out and all components meet specifications.

From an environmental standpoint, PSC a nd NDDH were concerned a bout the leachate of elements contained in fly ash. On a laboratory s cale, PSC used aquariums to simulate a mine leachate scenario. PSC is not required to install groundwater-monitoring wells for all AML underground mine-grouting projects. The need fo r groundwater monitoring and establishment of groundwater-monitoring programs is s ite specific and, therefore, determined and developed on a site-by-site basis. Some circumstances that may determine the usefulness of groundwater monitoring include:

• Whether the underground mine contains water.

• Whether there are domestic wells, stock ponds, se eps, or natural water bodies that could potentially be affected by grouting. These w ould need to be near the project area and associated in some way with water in the mine or the mined coal seam.

Groundwater-monitoring programs for AML grouting projects may include placing monitor wells in the mined coal seam, especially downgradient from the project area. It may also11 include monitoring private domestic wells, screened in or near the mined coal, near the project area. Groundwater monitoring is usually c onducted in consultation with a groundwater hydrologist and includes measurements of water quantity and quality regularly over a period of months or years. PSC also consults with NDDH regarding grouting projects and groundwater monitoring. Most environmental impacts are highly localized near the entry hole and are shortterm (seen within 3 days of placement). Once the grout sets, it is ve ry stable and of little environmental concern from a leachate standpoint.

Mine grout to fill underground mine voids is the only preapproved beneficial use application for fly ash in North Dakota. Once fly ash sources are approved for this application, they do not need to get consent from NDDH for each application. In order for a fly ash source to be approved, an electric generating company must request approval fr om PSC, which approves the physical performance of the fly ash source and works with NDDH to ensure it is an environmentally appropriate material. Approved fly ash sources include CCS, AVS, and LOS. CCS fly ash is preferred by PSC contractors because CCS has an excellent infrastructure at the plant to obtain the fly ash (i.e., ease of loadi ng), although AVS fly ash ma kes a harder grout and is less costly. PSC has not used AVS fly ash since 2002. However, CCS fly ash is becoming more expensive as it is marketed outside of th e state for concrete applications, and PSC suspects AVS fly ash will become a more attractive option. But, even at the higher cost for CCS fly ash, PSC is seeing an 18% reduction in grout cost by using fly ash in place of cement and believes the grout is actually leaching fewer elements because it is denser with fly ash.

When mine reclamation is conducted in No rth Dakota cities, it can often disrupt the citizens’ lifestyles. AMLD is careful to establ ish relationships with c ity officials and holds several public meetings to keep citizens informed on the process. From a public relations standpoint, PSC believes the general public accept s the use of fly ash in mine grouts because they prefer to have the AMLs filled and stable. The general public also seems to think it is a good idea to return material b ack to where it came from.

Key 4: Bottom Ash Is Classified as an Inert Material by NDDH

In North Dakota, all bottom ash generated fr om coal-based electric generating companies is classified as an inert material by NDDH. The designation allows bottom ash to be used in beneficial use applications without seeking c onsent from NDDH. Bottom ash is used in active mines as a road base and for ice control on public and private roads. Inadequate information was gleaned from the discussion group sessions and supplemental materials to estimate the amount of bottom ash beneficially used.

Key 5: Boiler Slag Is a Commodity

Boiler slag meets the definition of an inert material as defined by the North Dakota Solid Waste Management Rules. Boiler slag is only produced in systems with cyclone furnaces, and since there are limited power plants with cy clone furnace designs, a relatively competitive market for boiler slag has deve loped in the United States. Slag is used for sand blasting, ice control, manufacture of roofing shingles, and fo r base on mine roads or drainage media. The market for sand blasting, in particular, has increased.12 Most of the boiler slag used in North Dakota is used by Abrasives Inc., a fully integrated manufacturer, processor, and marketer of boile r slag products located in Glen Ullin, North Dakota. The company distributes product in No rth Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah as well as in Canada. Ab rasives Inc. se lls its product under the brand name Black Magic ® , which is packaged in supersacks weighing approximately 3800 lb, 50-lb bags, or 80-lb bags. Abrasives In c. indicated that it sold approximately 125,000 tons of boiler slag from North Dakota coal -based power plants in 2007 and expects to sell much larger quantities in coming years (Rot h, 2007). The slag market for sand-blasting grit is increasing. Even with the transportation issues that had previously limited the use of North Dakota slag, another national boiler slag distributor, Reed Minera ls, has been making inquiries

on material availabil ity in North Dakota.

REPORTED BARRIERS AND RECO MMENDED ACTIONS THAT COULD

INCREASE CCP USE IN NORTH DAKOTA

The following barriers were identified during the North Dakota state review process. The

barriers or “weaknesses” detract from a CCP stak eholder’s ability to increase CCP utilization. Following each barrier is the recommended action that could be taken to overcome the barrier and, thus, increase CCP u tilization. The proposed actions coul d be implemented by a variety of CCP stakeholders, including government at the fede ral, state, and local le vel; electric generating companies; ash marketers; ready-mix producer s; academia; and industry groups. The authors

believe the barriers are listed in order of si gnificance. Significance was determined by the quantity of CCPs impacted by the barrier.

Barrier 1: North Dakota Coal-Based Power Plants Produce Large Quantities of FGD

Material with Limited Market Potential

All North Dakota coal-based power plants have a system in place or have plans to control

SO 2 emissions (LOS is currently installing a SO 2 control system, and MYRS Unit 1 will install a wet scrubber in 2011). The specific FGD tec hnologies employed in No rth Dakota produce by-- products that are difficult to ma rket because they are a low-value material, have limited use potential, and are not located with in close proximity to markets.

Two North Dakota coal-based power plants (AVS and SS) have SDA systems for SO 2 control and produce a fly ash that is mixed with S DA material. At AVS, fly as h is used as part of the SDA sorbent, while at SS, the fly ash and S DA material are combined after the SDA system. Approximately 78,000–104,000 tons of fly ash/SDA material is used per year in oil field waste sludge (drilling mud mixed with o il) solidification applications in North Dakota. The sludge is put into lined pits and mixed wi th about 300–500 tons of fly ash/SDA material per pit. However, horizontal drilling is decreasing the amount used because less sludge is created with this new drilling technique. AVS has succes sfully marketed 13% of its fly ash/SDA material to solidify oil field waste sludge and for soil stabilization in mines. AVS fly ash/ SDA material is also approved for use in grout applications in mines; however, contractors pref er to use CCS fly ash because of the ease of loading the material at th e plant. Stanton only produces 15,000 tons of fly ash/SDA material per year, and that material is currently being marketed into the soil

stabilization market.13 Other plants with dry or wet FGD systems in place also produce an FGD material that is not readily marketed because of quality issues with the material and cost issues related to transportation. Most electric generating companies appeared to favor the disposal of FGD materials in the near future. To get FGD material s beneficially used may require a research and development expense that many are not willing to spend.

CCS is considering installing a wet forced-o xidation system that would produce a usable FGD gypsum by-product. FGD gypsum is typically sold to the wallboard market; however,

because there are no wallboard manufacturers in or near North Dakota, other beneficial uses must be explored. GRE funded a study conducte d by the Electric Powe r Research Institute (EPRI), North Dakota State University, and Ohio State University to evaluate the use of FGD gypsum as a soil conditioner for agriculture appli cations which would soften the soil and allow water to be adsorbed more readily. The experi ment involves FGD gypsum being applied at 1, 5, and 10 tons per acre to wheat fields in Dickinson, North Dakot a. NDDH indicated it would need to evaluate this new pr oposed beneficial use.

Recommended Actions for Barrier 1

A literature review conducted by the EE RC (Heebink et al., 2007) indicated that applications for fly ash/SDA material use in the United States with the highest potential included cementitious products, masonry, flowable fill, synt hetic aggregate, and mining applications. Fly ash/SDA material has the most potential to be used in applications that ta ke advantage of the fly ash component of the SDA material, can tolerate relatively high sulfur content, and have limited susceptibility to expansion or reduced expans ion potential in the production process.

Agriculture applications have a moderate pot ential for SDA/fly ash ma terial produced in North Dakota because there is currently no comp eting FGD gypsum produced in the state. The northwest part of the state has sodic soils and could benefit from the use of FGD material as a soil conditioner. It is possible th at SDA material or sulfite-rich FGD material could be used for agriculture crops, especially nonfood crops such as energy cr ops (i.e., corn, switchgrass).

Investments in research and development will be needed to explore these potential applications. Currently, it is more cost-effectiv e to dispose of FGD mate rial produced in North Dakota; however, if high-value and high-volume applications we re possible, el ectric generating companies may be more likely to research potential uses. Because North Dakota is an agriculture-rich state, the U.S. Department of Ag riculture could be engage d to explore potential

uses for FGD material.

Barrier 2: CCP Utilization Is Not a Priori ty at Many North Dakota Coal-Based

Power Plants

The primary objective of most electric genera ting companies is to produce electricity, not to make good-quality CCPs and market them. GR E CCS has successfully done both, but that is an exception in the state. CCP utilization is no t a major focus for most North Dakota electric generating companies because there is not an immediate need or cl ear monetary be nefit for using the material. Disposal costs are relatively inexpe nsive (estimated cost is $15/ton), and landfills have space for more material.14 Recommended Actions for Barrier 2

Electric generating companies should also pe rform a cost–benefit analysis to determine what resources (i.e., staff, handling equipmen t) would be needed to improve CCP use and determine if it is a cost-effective ash management solution for the company. It is determined that

utilization could be a cost-effective solution to ash management; the electric generating company may want to consider working with an ash-marke ting company to help facilitate utilization. Ashmarketing companies have expertise in ash handli ng, storage, and distributi on as well as industry insight into what beneficial use applications would garner the greatest economic return.

Barrier 3: NDDH Has a Subjective Gu ideline for Beneficial Use

The NDDH Division of Waste Management Solid Waste Program administers the disposal

and utilization of CCPs. The North Dakota Solid Waste Management Rules, Chapter 33–20 of the North Dakota Administrative Code, written pursuant to North Dakota Century Code Chapter 23–29, include standards fo r various types and sources of solid waste. CCPs are called “special waste” which is defined in the state law as follows:

“Special waste means solid waste that is not a hazardous waste regulated under Chapter 33-20.3 and includes waste generated from ener gy conversion facilities; waste from crude oil and natural gas explor ation and production; waste from mineral and ore mining, beneficiation, and extraction; and waste generated by surface coal-mining operations. The term does not include municipa l waste or industrial waste.”

North Dakota has developed modern standard s and facilities for management of solid waste, including CCPs. NDDH’s disposal requirements address location restrictions, operating criteria, facility design, groundwat er monitoring and corrective action, closure and postclosure care, and financial assurance (Tillotson, 2007) . NDDH’s disposal requirements exceed EPA recommendations, and the electric generating companies generally agreed the disposal requirements are appropriate.

In addition to disposal, NDD H has worked with a number of energy companies as well as with some food processors using coal as a fu el to develop benefici al uses for CCPs.

Guideline 11

– Ash Utilization for Soil St abilization, Fill-In Materi als and Other Engineering Purposes (see Appendix C) summarizes NDDH’s approach to CCP utilization. In essence, the proposed uses for CCPs must reasonably demonstrate that the proposed use will not adversely impact the environment. The project’s potential impact to surface water, groundwater, air, and soil quality should be evaluated. Background information on the s ource, quality, and quantity of ash as well as appropriate analysis must be provided (Tillotson, 2007).

NDDH believes Guideline 11 presents a flexible framework to facilitate the department’s evaluation of potential impacts to surface wate r, groundwater, soils, and the environment. Guideline 11 requires proposers to work closel y with NDDH as needed to assess the proposed

use and how it can be assessed. Those requesting beneficial us e applications indicated the guideline is too subjective. For example, what NDDH considers “reasona bly demonstrate” tends to vary depending on the application and who is requesting the application. In addition, those

interviewed indicated th at they do not know what standard they will be measured against for15 each application. The leachate quality must meet water standards based on the proposed application. The state’s drinking water standard s and the state’s surface water standards are codified in state law and rule; some of which are based on federal law. The rules and law that apply will vary based on the proposed use.

The subjectivity of Guideline 11 is a barrier to electric generating companies in the state because they are reluctant to request a benefici al use. They are not sure how much time and money it will take to reasonably de monstrate a potential beneficial use to NDDH or if it is even possible to meet NDDH’s requirements. Those in terviewed noted instances where they could

have used CCPs in a beneficial use application but did not want to hassle with the approval process, so they disposed of the material instead.

Recommended Actions for Barrier 3

NDDH should consider revising its Guideline 11 to define what it means to reasonably demonstrate a potential use. Requestors need to know in advance what the parameters of the proposed use in order to know if they should go forward with the re quest. To make the guideline less subjective, a specifi c leachate method should be defined, the parameters the leachate must meet (i.e., ground water or drinking water sta ndards) should be listed, and any pre- or postmonitoring should be mentioned. Making Guideline 11 more explicit would take a

considerable dedicated amount of time and res ources upfront on behalf of NDDH, but it is believed that the approval process would be smoo ther for all parties involved in the long term.

To assist NDDH in the revision or developm ent of new guidelines and/or regulations, potential CCP users could work with NDDH to help lessen its workload (i.e., assemble existing data) and educate them about poten tial beneficial use applications (i.e., provide case studies on beneficial use). This collabo ration could be facilitated through a state CCP program or consortium whose primary objective was to e ducate government agencies about CCPs. In previous state reviews, the states had an i ndustry group whose membership consisted primarily of the state’s electric generating companies – Texas was represented by the Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group; Florida by the Florida El ectric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.; and Pennsylvania by the Electric Power Generation Association. These groups were extremely effective in promoting the use of CCPs and addr essing barriers prohibiting utilization, such as the lack of regulations allowi ng the beneficial use of CCPs. Organized industry-led groups can be effective in working with government agen cies and state legislators because each one represents a unified voice on beha lf of its members and allows industry to pool its collective knowledge base and monetary resources to addr ess key issues. North Da kota does not have an industry group similar to the past states revi ewed. The North Dakota I ndustrial Commission does offer funding for research; however, its primar y objective is not to educate government and influence policy.

At the federal level, EPA could provide gui dance on the definition of “beneficial use.”

EPA has a definition for waste but not for benefi cial use of CCPs. EPA’ s Industrial Materials Recycling Program defines industrial materials recyc ling, also referred to as beneficial use, as a means for reusing or recycling by-product material s generated from industrial processes. These

materials can be used as subst itutions for raw materials in the manufacture of consumer products, roads, bridges, buildings, and other construc tion projects (U.S. Environmental Protection16 Agency, 2008). A clear definition for the benefici al use of CCPs would be helpful to NDDH in writing new or modifying existi ng guidelines. In addition, Toxi c Release Inventory reporting could be modified to exempt bene ficially reused material and onl y require reporting of material that is sent to a disposal site.

Barrier 4: NDDOT Is Not Explorin g Other Beneficial Uses

Although NDDOT is comfortable with using fly ash in concrete and appeared to have a clear understanding of the benefits of using fly ash in concrete, it di d not appear to be interested in exploring other beneficial use applications su ch as soil stabilization or flowable fill. NDDOT uses soil stabilization techniques with reactive cl ays to dry wet soil; however, it indicated that this practice is expensive because it takes a lot of labor to mix fly ash 6 inches into the soil or base. NDDOT indicated that flowable fill has been used in urban utility trenches and referenced an instance when the city of Fargo used flowab le fill in pipes and bridge approaches. NDDOT believes existing dirt at the site is usually used in stead of flowable fill so that material does not have to be hauled away and did not see a need to use an engineered fill material.

Contrary to the NDDOT representatives in terviewed, the ready-mix suppliers believed flowable fill is a major untapped market in No rth Dakota. Just in the repair market alone, flowable fill could be used for a quick fix dur ing winter months. Those interviewed said that oftentimes the existing dirt (i.e., clay) is not a good fill material and needs to be mixed with gravel and sand.

It is important to note that in 1996, th e EERC conducted a research study to evaluate eleven CCPs produced at North Dakota coal-based power plants for use in road-building applications including concrete, flowable fill, soil stabilization, and permeable base course. All fly ashes examined were likely candidates for flow able fill applications (Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1996).

Although flowable fill is a la rge potential market, it is importan t to note that Montana–

Dakota Utilities Co. did have a fl owable fill plant that is no l onger in operati on because of product acceptance issues among city engineer s. The MDU flowable fill was approved by NDDH. Some city engineers simply do no want to use flowable fill and, in some instances, do not want to use flowable fill material that contains CCPs. Instances were noted where city engineers believed that the use of CCPs in cementi ng applications, including flowable fill, could hurt product performance and cause environmenta l problems such as the leaching of trace

metals.

Recommended Actions to Barrier 4

CCP generators should approach potential us ers of flowable fill material, including all levels of NDDOT, to demonstrate the engineeri ng, environmental, and economic benefits of using CCPs in flowable fill applications. This can be accomplished by hosting a workshop and inviting industry and NDDH repres entatives to learn about flowab le fill. NDDH, having already approved the Montana–Dakota Utilities flowable f ill, could also be a good resource for NDDOT and others in the state. CCP generators could also use flowable fill containing CCPs for their own use (i.e., fill gas or water lines). It would be most effect ive if the workshop included visiting17 an in-state demonstration using CCP-contai ning flowable fill. North Dakota Ready Mix Association (NDRMA) has hosted lunch box seminars for private engineers on flowable fill.

NDDOT could take a second l ook at the economics associated with using flowable fills containing CCPs. Perhaps it may find that, in the long-term, engineered materials such as

flowable fills are more cost-effective.

Barrier 5: Many Fly Ashes Are Not Manage d in a Way that Produces a Consistent Quality Product

QA/QC is an important factor that greatly influences the marketability of CCPs. Quality

control involves contin uous measure of process and produ cts to determine performance and consistency of supply. Quality assurance provides assurance that the customer is receiving material that meets specifications and performa nce expectations. Factors important to a QA/QC plan include consistency of fuel, utility plant process, stable combustion conditions, and CCP handling and storage practices. Mo st QA/QC plans for fly ash incl ude testing for carbon content (LOI), fineness, moisture, color, specific gr avity, and a full ASTM C 618 analysis (Majors, 2004).

Many North Dakota coal-based pow er plants do not have a QA/QC plan for their CCPs. Fly ash has to be more closely monitored for optimal performance in concrete. In some instances, if measures were taken to control the va riability of carbon conten t (LOI) in fly ashes, it

would be suitable for use in concrete.

In addition to QA/QC plans, fly ashes produc ed at plants with SDA systems are mixed with the SDA residues. The fly as h–SDA material blend has little potential for use in concrete applications. These materials c ould be collected separately.

Recommended Actions for Barrier 5

The implementation of a strict QA/QC plan is imperative for fly as h to be used in concrete. This could be facilitated through an ash marketer with experi ence in developi ng and executing QA/QC plans for utilities. Also, fl y ash and SDA material could be collected separately so that the fly ash is not contaminated by the SDA material.

Barrier 6: Transportation and Distribution Infrastructure Can Be Cost-Prohibitive

North Dakota is a landlocked state and is not located near major metropolitan areas, so transportation is necessary to get CCPs to majo r markets. No plants have access to waterways and some do not have rail access, so trucking is the only mode of transportation available for some North Dakota coal-based power plants. This limits the distance the material can be shipped and still be cost-competitive. With the exception of CCS fly ash, it is cost-prohibitive to transport CCPs to major markets outside of the state.

Again with the exception of CCS , North Dakota coal-based power plants lack distribution

infrastructure needed to load CCPs into trucks or rail cars. The ready-mix suppliers and NDDOT18 representatives indicated that th ey would rather pay a premium price for CCS fly ash because it is so easy to load the material.

Recommended Actions to Barrier 6

Because high-value (i.e., concrete) markets are not locally available to take significant quantities of CCPs and it is not cost-effective to transport the material to these markets, local markets for low-quality/low-value materials sh ould be explored. Agriculture, mining, and oil field applications already use some CCPs in North Dakota, and continued evaluation and marketing in these areas may result in increased opportunity for use.

Management at coal-based pow er plants should evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of improving the CCP distribution infrastructure at the plants . CCS made a significant up-front investment in its infrastructure; however , it is expected to be economically beneficial through increased sales in fly ash, avoided costs for disposal, and for CO 2 credits associated with the use of fly ash as a cement replacement.

Barrier 7: Limited Green Movement in the State

There are several products th at contain CCPs that could be more widely used in green construction practices (see Buyer’s Guide to Coal Ash-Containing Products for more information at www.undeerc.org/carrc/BuyersGuide/default.as p), but the USGBC’s LE ED program and other green initiatives have not gained widespread acceptance in North Dakota. Ther e are beginning to be more green commercial buildings in North Da kota; however, these buil dings are certainly not the norm. Those interviewed indicated that, in general, North Dakotans view green building as too expensive, and the benefits of green building are not well understood.

In addition, the architectura l and building industries in No rth Dakota are slow to accept green building practices that could incorporate CCP-containing products. As an example, the North Dakota Ready-Mix Association hosted a green concrete workshop for architects and contractors, and only f our architects attended.

From a regulatory standpoint, there has been no initiative or mandate by the state legislature to encourage state gove rnment agencies to promote CCP recycling or the benefits of using CCPs. NDDH supports the green buildi ng movement; however, as a health and environmental regulatory agency, it has limite d input on actual building construction or design.

Recommended Actions for Barrier 7

Since many consumers are not yet supporting th e green building market in North Dakota, it is recommended that approaches to push green building by govern ment be promoted by industry. Government policy makers in North Dakota c ould be encouraged by electric generating companies, green advocacy groups (i.e., Green Cities), and other entities to develop tax incentives, mandates, regulations, or policies that promote green building. The potential CO 2 savings associated with using CCPs should be a major focus of lobbying efforts. Other environmental benefits such as saving landfill space and saving virgin resources should also be

considered.19 Other states have been successful in gett ing government policy makers to encourage CCP use. For example, the California DOT requires that mineral admixtures like fly ash comprise at least 25% of the cementitious material in any c oncrete used in state-funded paving projects. Montana provides tax incentives for companies that install equipment to begin utilizing material like fly ash.

CCP industry stakeholders should work with state building entities such as the North

Dakota Association of Builders and national ent ities such as the USGBC LEED program and the

National Home Builders Association to market the benefits of using CCPs in building materials. This can be accomplished by speaking or exhibiti ng at events, working with board members to develop legislative language, se rving on association boards, or providing outreach materials.

Barrier 8: NDDH Lacks Resources to Focus on Beneficial Use of CCPs

NDDH supports and promotes integrated wast e management and beneficial use at all regulated facilities including CCPs. The NDDH Solid Waste Program also works with publicly and privately owned and operated landfills in the st ate to ensure that all land disposal operations are conducted in accordance with state regul ations. However, despite NDDH’s support of beneficial use, the authors believe NDDH does not have the resources (i.e., time, knowledge, budget) needed to effectively evaluate new CC P beneficial use applications. Also, once a beneficial use rule is in place, NDDH does not appear to have any mechanisms in place to encourage the use.

To illustrate the lack of resources to fo cus on beneficial use of CCPs, consider the following examples brought forth during the di scussion group sessions. NDDH was approached by electric generating companies in the state to approve the use of CCPs in road and feedlot soil stabilization applications. Afte r extensive reviews of each application, NDDH approved the use of preapproved CCPs in road and feedlot soil stab ilization applications. For CCPs to be used in either application, one must complete a checklist , and the form must be submitted and kept on file at NDDH. NDDH does not promote these us es and leaves it up to the electric generating company to provide access to the forms and encourag e the use. OTPC indicated it tried to obtain the soil stabilization checklist from NDDH, but NDDH said it would have to get the checklist from a CCP supplier. OTPC then had to identi fy who the CCP supplier was and the appropriate contact person. As another example, NDDH i ndicated that use of CCPs in surface mine

reclamation would not be considered a beneficial use (although CCP use in grout mixtures used in underground abandoned mines is a preapproved benefi cial use) and that di sposal facilities are currently being managed in at l east one North Dakota surface mine.

Recommended Actions to Barrier 8

To encourage preapproved CCP beneficial us e applications, NDDH s hould have a list of preapproved applications and materials on it s Web site and provide access to appropriate

checklists. NDDH noted that it does not normally endorse or promote specific products, marketers, or manufacturers.20 As previously mentioned in Recommended Actions for Barrier 3, an industry-led group could be effective in assisting NDDH in the distri bution of information. It could also assist in educating NDDH about CCP utilization.

Those interested in increasing CCP beneficial use in North Dakota should make an effort

to better understand the Solid Waste Mana gement Rules, the NDDH position and integrated waste management and beneficial use, and look for opportunities to faci litate environmentally sound beneficial use and development of preapproved uses for CCPs.

Barrier 9: The National Commercial Concre te Market Has Misconceptions About

CCPs

Ready-mix suppliers interviewed indicated that they classify their customers into three different classes which each perceive concrete mix designs differently:

1. National commercial market – large nationa l companies (i.e., Menards and Wal-Mart) provide a prescriptive mix design based on company policy to the local ready-mix supplier. The prescriptive mix designs are standard and do not take into account local availability of virgin materials, climate, or fly ash quality. These designs typically do not favor a higher percentage of fly ash and, in some instances, require that no fly ash be used in the mix design.

2. Local commercial market – local commercia l projects typically specify performance criteria and allow the ready-mix supplier to come up with a mix design to meet that need. This provides the opportunity for ready- mix suppliers to creat e a design that could potentially use up to 70% fly ash; however, 25% is most common.

3. Residential market – the residential market is driven by price, and performance is a secondary consideration. Most consumers in the residentia l classification do not know

or care if their concrete contains CCPs.

The national commercial market is usually the most difficult consumer group for readymix suppliers to work with to encourage CCP use. Often the national company would give an overly prescriptive mix design that the ready- mix supplier believed would benefit from a higher percentage of replacement of fly ash, but the na tional company would want to stick with its design.

Recommended Actions for Barrier 9

Education is key to overcoming this barrier. Education is typically most effective if done on a case-by-case basis directly between the ready-mix supplier a nd/or fly ash marketer and the end user and may take several attempts. However, indirect education efforts such as workshops and online courses for engineers and specifiers are also an opti on for reaching larger audiences.

Previous successful outreach to th is audience is described below:

• ACAA, with industry stakeholders, made advan ces with Wal-Mart to get fly ash used in all concrete poured in the constr uction of new Wal-Mart stores.21 • NDRMA is having lunch box semina rs for private engineers.

• Colleges could be encouraged to offer more e ducation to engineers about the benefits of using CCPs.

Barrier 10: Local Concrete Market Saturated

In 2006, about 1.2 million cubic yards of conc rete was poured in North Dakota, with an average fly ash replacement rate of about 25%. Th e demand for concrete is expected to remain about the same in the coming years because the population of the state is not growing (population decreased 1% from 2000 to 2006 [U.S. Census, 2007]) and the building industry is stable. The fly ash percent replacement rate is al so expected to remain about the same, resulting in very little increase in fly ash use in concrete in the state. However, with recent concerns about bridge safety, it is possible that North Dakota could find additional bridge replacements and repair needs that could increase concrete demand.

Recommended Actions for Barrier 10

Other high-value road-building and construction applications should be explored such as flowable fill, backfill, and road base applicatio ns. Workshops for contract ors, architects, city engineers, and government agencies would be helpful to educate them on CCP use in nonconcrete applications. GRE hosted a work shop on soil stabilization in which NDDH participated, and it was successful. It may be bene ficial to engage the American Public Works

Association and Associated Genera l Contractors of North Dakota in future educational efforts.

Barrier 11: Industrial Boiler By-Products Are Becoming a Public Perception

Problem

Coal ashes from coal-fired industrial boilers (i.e., sugar beet plants, University boilers) have been used in soil stabilization applications in North Dakota. Some applications were approved by NDDH, but others were done with out NDDH knowing they occurred and, therefore, were done without NDDH approval. The authors are unaware of an instance when NDDH has

taken a corrective action toward those who conduc ted unapproved uses of industrial boiler coal

ash in a soil stabiliza tion application. Coal ash from industrial boilers is typically not well suited for soil stabilization because it frequently does not have the same cementitious reactivity as coal ashes from electric coal-based power plants.

Industrial boilers are typically stokers, so they do not pulveri ze the coal prior to combustion, and the resulting ash is generally coarser, exhibiting lo wer reactivity. Some industrial operators also sluice the ash which further reduces th e reactivity because reactions occur before the ash is incorporated into the so il stabilization applicati on. Stokers may also result in incomplete combustion of the coal because of the larger size of the coal going through the

combustion zone.

When coal ash from an industrial boiler is used in an application and physically fails, this creates a public perception problem for utility coal ashes that may be better-suited for these uses. Often end users and NDDH do not distinguish betw een coal ashes from an industrial versus a22 utility boiler. Beneficial use of these ashe s can produce very differe nt environmental and engineering results.

Recommended Actions to Barrier 11

Industrial boilers producing coal ash may be unaware that thei r ash is different than ash produced from coal-fired power plants. An e ducational effort could be implemented by NDDH in order to inform industrial CCP generators of what testing and permissions would be needed to get their ashes used. This effort could take pl ace in the form of sending them fact sheets on proper protocol.

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN

NORTH DAKOTA

The following potential threats could hinder the future of CCP beneficial use in North Dakota. For the purpose of this report, a threat is defined as an external challenge that could negatively impact the use of CCPs. Because thr eats are external, CCP stakeholders have no

direct control over them but ma y benefit by having contingency plans to address them should they occur. The threats are based on informat ion gathered at the discussion groups, and the

authors believe the threats are list ed in the order of importance.

Threat 1: Mercury Control Will Be a Concern for Utilization

At the time this state review was conducte d in August 2007, the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) was calling for coal-based power plants to meet certain air emission standards for mercury. Most North Dakota coal-based power plants would have met the 2010 mercury emission regulations under CAMR as they currently operate but would have likely needed to implement new controls to meet 2018 requirem ents. Options for meeting those requirements include injecting activated carbon (AC), using an oxidized catalyst as a sorbent, installing a

COHPAC TM /TOXECON TM system (EPRI-licensed technologies) , purchasing allowances, or coal drying. 4 Each of these options, with the exception of purchasing allowances, has different impacts on the CCPs.

On February 8, 2008, the courts vacated CA MR. EPA will develop a new rule regarding mercury emissions from coal-based power plants. It is unclear what EPA will do next or what the states should do regarding their own mercury rule s. North Dakota does not have its own mercury rule and was planning to follow regulations set forth under CAMR.

Regardless of what rule comes to fruition and when those regulations need to be met, mercury is still expected to be regulated. NDDH and several othe r state and federal regulatory agencies are concerned about how new mercury emission controls will impact CCP utilization and disposal. NDDH has not evalua ted by-products resulting from co al-based power plants with

4 Coal drying is a process that uses low-grade heat rejected fro m the steam condenser and waste he at from the flue gas leaving the boiler to evaporate a portion of the fuel moisture from the lignite feedstock in a fluidized

- bed dryer. This process was developed in the United States by a team led by GRE, with funding from DOE (DOE Award Number: DE-CF26-04NT41763) (Bullinger and Sarunac, 2007).23 mercury emission controls; therefor e, regulating material use or di sposal is new territory (as will be the case in other state health departme nts). During the NDDH disc ussion group session, EERC representatives indicated that NDDH s hould not be concerned about total mercury concentrations but should evaluate mercury mob ility. The EERC further noted that mobility of mercury from CCPs generated with mercury emi ssion controls has been shown to be very low and is not expected to impact dispos al requirements (Hassett et al., 2007).

Threat 2: New CO 2 Regulations Are Expected, but the Impact to CCPs Is Not Clear

At present, there is a voluntary program for utilities to reduce the production of greenhouse gases, especially CO 2 . In the future, it is antici pated that the reduction of CO 2 will be required, and coal-based electric generating pow er plants will need to employ CO 2 capture and sequestration technologies.

Aqueous amines are the state-of-the-art tec hnology for pulverized-coal (pc) power plants

to reduce CO 2 . While this technology is no t expected to directly imp act CCP quantity or quality, one of the requirements for CO 2 capture using aqueous amines is that the gas stream must have very low particulate matter present. It is not currently known how the by-products from additional gas cleaning will be managed at power pl ants, but those particulates could either be managed with the by-products of the amin e process or with other CCP streams.

Oxycombustion is another approach to producing a clean CO 2 stream for CO 2 capture. If oxycombustion is implemented at an existing powe r plant, it is possible that the resulting ash

characteristics could be differe nt from the materials produced using standard pc combustion.

Each coal-based power plant station will need to determine the best strategy for reducing

CO 2 emissions in the future, whic h could include trading of CO 2 credits. At this time, it is important for coal-based power plants to keep abreast of CO 2 capture and sequestration technologies and for impacts to CCP s to be evaluated as part of the only research in this area.

CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY

It is estimated that North Dakota coal-based power plants produce nearly 3 million tons of CCPs per year. Of that amount, 40% (or 1.2–1.3 million tons) is beneficially used. The following is a summary of highlights brought forth during th e state review process and presented in this

report.

Most North Dakota Coal-Based Power Plants Dispose Fly Ash – With the exception of GRE’s CCS, North Dakota coal-based power plan ts generally dispose of the fly ash they produce. Possible reasons for di sposal include the following:

1. Some fly ash is not suitable for use in conc rete (i.e., high LOI, inconsistent supply, and quality).

2. Plant owners do not place a priority on utilization.24 3. Two plants mix fly ash with SDA ma terial, limiting its use potential.

4. CCS fly ash has saturated the market.

5. Plants lack the distribution infrastr ucture needed to supply the material.

Most Concrete Poured in North Dakota Contains CCS Fly Ash – The fly ash used in North Dakota concrete projects is predominantly supplied by GRE CCS. NDDOT uses fly ash in almost all concrete projects at a replacement ra te of 30%. Ready-mix s uppliers generally use a replacement rate of 25%.

Inert Classifications Allow Beneficial Use – Bottom ash and boiler slag produced by North Dakota coal-based power plan ts are classified as inert mate rials by NDDH. This allows the

materials to be used without prior approval from NDDH.

Underground Mine Grout Fill Is Considered a Beneficial Use – In some states, using fly ash to fill underground AMLs is not considered a beneficial us e; however, in North Dakota, it is the only preapproved benefici al use application for fly ash. North Dakota’s mine reclamation program could serve as a model for other states.

Currently Produced FGD Materi als Are Difficult to Utilize –All North Dakota coalbased power plants have a system in place to control SO 2 emissions (LOS is currently installing a wet FGD system) and produce a subsequent by- product. These by-products are difficult to market because they are a low-value material, have limited use potenti al, and are not located within close proximity to markets. Applicatio ns for fly ash/SDA mate rial with the highest potential included cementitious products, masonry, flowable fill, synthetic aggregate, and mining applications. Agriculture applications are th e most promising for other FGD materials.

Flowable Fill Is a Promising Untapped Market – Because the local concrete market is already saturated by CCS fly ash, those wishing to use fly ash will likely need to explore other markets, and flowable fill appears to be the be st immediate option with the greatest demand.

Barriers to overcome to enter this market include obtaini ng NDDH approval, getting NDDOT acceptance, and educating contract ors/engineers about the use.

The Establishment of an Industry Group Focused on CCPs Would Be Beneficial – Organized industry-led groups can be effective in working with government agencies and state legislators because they represen t a unified voice on behalf of their members and allow industry to pool its collective knowledge base and monetary resources to address key issues. Issues that a North Dakota industry-led group could addre ss include working with NDDH to clarify Guideline 11, educating NDDOT on nonconcrete us es, and educating commercial concrete users (i.e., contractors, engineers, and arch itects) about the be nefits of CCPs.

Mercury and CO 2 Emission Regulations Are of Minimal Concern – Pending mercury regulations and expected CO 2 restrictions will impact fly ash ch aracteristics. However, because no power plants, aside from GRE CCS, are currently selling large volumes of fly ash, the impact may be minimal. Because fly ash sales are a sign ificant revenue stream fo r CCS, it will take all25 necessary precautions to select emission control technologies that will not negatively impact the quality of the fly ash. Emission controls are not expected to impact disposal.

The Green Movement Needs a Push – Green building has not gained widespread acceptance in North Dakota from a consumer or regulatory standpoint. Opportunities exist to work with government policy makers to encourag e legislation that woul d offer incentives for using green materials (i.e ., CCP-containing materials).

REFERENCES

American Coal Ash Association. 2006 Production and Use Survey; 2006.

American Coal Ash Association. State Solid Waste Regulations Governing the Use of Coal Combustion Products (CCPs); Aug 1998.

Basin Electric Power Cooperative. Natural Ga s. www.basinelectric.com/EnergyResources/ Gas/index.html (accessed Sept 2007).

Bullinger, C.W.; Sarunac, N. Lignite Fuel Enhancement ; Final Technical Report: Phase 1 for Reporting Period, July 9, 2004 – Aug 1, 2006; DOE Award No. DE-CF26-04NT41763; Issue Nov 30, 2006; Revised Feb 6, 2007.

Dockter, B.A; Jagiella, D.M. Engineering and Environmental Spec ifications of State Agencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products; Final Report for the Combustion By-Products Recycling Consortium; CBRC Pr oject No. 02-CBRC-WI2; EERC Publication No. 2005-EERC-07-04; July 2005.

Hassett, D.J.; Heebink, L.V.; Pflughoeft-Ha ssett, D.F.; Buckley, T.D.; Zacher, E.J. Mercury and Air Toxic Element Impacts of Coal Combus tion By-Product Disposal and Utilization ; Final Report for U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-02NT41727; EERC Publication 2007-EERC-10-03; Energy & Environmental Research Center: Grand Forks, ND, Oct 2007.

Heebink, L.V.; Buckley, T.D.; Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F.; Hassett, D.J. A Review of Literature Related to the Use of Spray Dryer Absorb er Material: Production, Characterization, Utilization Applications, Barriers, and Recommendations ; Technical Report for EPRI; EPRI Report No. 1014915; Sept 2007.

Lignite Energy Council. Lignite Update, Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan 2007, www.lignite.com/Information %20Center/Lignite%20Update/Januaryo1o202007.pdf (accessed Sept 2007a).

Lignite Energy Council. Lignite Update, Vo l. 14, No. 2; April 2007, www.lignite.com/ Information%20Center/Lignite%20Update /April%202007.pdf (accessed Sept 2007b).

Majors, R. Coal Fly Ash QA/QC and Perfor mance Testing, Presented at the Coal Ash Professionals Training Cour se, Bloomington, MN, May 10–14, 2004.26 Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F.; Dockter, B.A.; Eylands, K.E.; and Hassett, D.J. Survey and Demonstration of Utilization Potential of North Dakota Lignite Ash Resources ; Final Report Prepared for the Industrial Commission of North Dakota and Cooperative Power Association; EERC Report N o. 96-EERC-04-01; April 1996.

Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F.; Sondreal, E.A; St eadman, E.N.; Eylands, K.E.; Dockter, B.A. Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/Desulfurization By-Products by Government

and Commercial Sectors

– Update 1998 ; Topical Report for U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Center Coopera tive Agreement No. DE FC21-93MC30097; EERC Publication No. 99-EERC-07-08; July 1999.

Roth, L. Personal communication, Dec 2007.

Tillotson, S.J. North Dakota Regulatory Pers pective. www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/PDF/Forums/ CCB3/5-5.pdf (accessed Sept 2007).

U.S. Census. http://quickfacts.census.gov/ qfd/states/38000.html (accessed Sept 2007).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Indus trial Materials Recy cling. www.epa.gov/rcc/ priorities/bene-use.htm (accessed March 2008).

# APPENDIX A

PARTICIPANT LIST1 REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATI ONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES

RELATED TO THE USE OF CO AL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS Bismarck, North Dakota

August 27–29, 2007

Participant List

Mr. Jim Braley Ready Mix General Manager Atlas, Inc.

2370 Vermont Ave. Bismarck, ND 58504 Phone: (701) 530-1323 Phone 2: (701) 202-8748 E-Mail: Jim.Braley@atlasinc.us

Mr. Bruce Beechie Project Manager

Abandoned Mine Lands Division

North Dakota Public Service Commission 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 408 Bismarck, ND 58505-0480 Phone: (701) 328-4104 Fax: (701) 328-2410 E-Mail: bebeechie@nd.gov

Mr. Adrian Benz

Environmental Scientist Division of Waste Management North Dakota Department of Health

918 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: (701) 328-5166 Fax: (701) 328-5200 E-Mail: abenz@nd.gov

Ms. Tera Buckley Marketing Research Specialist University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center 15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018 Phone: (701) 777-5296 Fax: (701) 777-5181 E-Mail: tbuckley@undeerc.org Mr. Al Christianson Business Developer Great River Energy

2875 3rd Street Southwest Underwood, ND 58576-9659 Phone: (701) 442-7031 Phone 2: (701) 220-4881 Fax: (701) 442-7231 E-Mail: achristianson@grenergy.com

Mr. William Dodd

Assistant Director

Abandoned Mine Lands Division

North Dakota Public Service Commission 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 408 Bismarck, ND 58505-0480 Phone: (701) 328-4101 Fax: (701) 328-2410 E-Mail: wdodd@nd.gov

Mr. Tim Duncan

Headwaters Resources

3317 Westmoor Drive Moorhead, MN 56560 Phone: (218) 220-8936 Fax: (701) 235-5782

E-Mail: tduncan@headwaters.com

Ms. Darlene Eckert Otter Tail Power Company

215 South Cascade

PO Box 496 Fergus Falls, MN 56538-0496 Phone: (218) 739-8475 Fax: (218) 739-8629

E-Mail: DEckert@OTPCo.com2 Mr. Henry Hauge

Technical Services Strata Corporation

12th Avenue Northwest

PO Box 102 West Fargo, ND 58078 Phone: (701) 277-1432 Phone 2: (701) 238-6556 E-Mail: hhauge@strata-corp.com

Mr. Ron Henke Director – Office of Project Development North Dakota Department of Transportation

608 East Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505-0700 Phone: (701) 328-4445 E-Mail: rhenke@nd.gov

Mr. Scott Hopfauf Civil Engineer Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. Milton R. Young Station

3401 24th Street Southwest

PO Box 127 Center, ND 58530-0127 Phone: (701) 794-8711 ext. 220 Fax: (701) 794-7258 E-Mail: shopfauf@minnkota.com

Mr. Ron Horner

Materials and Research Lab 300 Airport Road Bismarck, ND 58504 Phone: (701) 328-6904 Fax: (701) 328-0310 E-Mail: rhorner@nd.gov Mr. John Grassel Territory Sales Manager Lafarge Dakota Inc.

714 East Front Avenue

PO Box 2594 Bismarck, ND 58504 Phone: (701) 222-8400 Phone 2: (701) 202-0003 Fax: (701) 222-8402 E-Mail: John.Grassel@lafarge-na.com

Mr. Vernon Laning Vice President, Plant Operations Basin Electric Power Cooperative

1717 East Interstate Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501-0564 Phone: (701) 223-0441 ext. 5650 Fax: (701) 255-5144 E-Mail: vlaning@bepc.com

Mr. Stuart Libby Plant Manager – Operations Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc Milton R. Young Station

3401 24th Street Southwest

PO Box 127 Center, ND 58530 Phone: (701) 794-7215 Fax: (701) 794-7258 E-Mail: slibby@minnkota.com

Mr. Dean Moos

Assistant Director

Reclamation Division

North Dakota Public Service Commission 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Department 408 Bismarck, ND 58505-0480 Phone: (701) 328-4099 Fax: (701) 328-2410 E-Mail: dmoos@nd.gov3 Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett

Senior Research Advisor University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center 15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018 Phone: (701) 777-5261 Fax: (701) 777-5181 E-Mail: dphassett@undeerc.org

Mr. Scott Radig

Director Division of Waste Management North Dakota Department of Health

918 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: (701) 328-5158 Fax: (701) 328-5200 E-Mail: sradig@nd.gov

Mr. Darcy Rosendahl Director – Office of Operations North Dakota Department of Transportation

608 East Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505-0700 Phone: (701) 328-4408 Fax: (701) 328-1404 E-Mail: drosendahl@nd.gov

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 Mr. David Sethre Marketing Director North Dakota Ready Mix and Concrete

Products Association

422 North 2nd Street

PO Box 1076 Bismarck, ND 58502 Phone: (701) 371-4497 Fax: (701) 223-6719

E-Mail: dsethre@ndconcrete.com

Ms. Diane Stockdill

Environmental Coordinator Great River Energy

Coal Creek Station

2875 Third Street Southwest

HC 1 Box 112 Underwood, ND 58576-9659 Phone: (701) 442-3211 Fax: (701) 442-7212 E-Mail: dstockdill@grenergy.com

Mr. Brad Torgerson

Environmental Scientist Division of Waste Management North Dakota Department of Health

918 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: (701) 328-5166 Fax: (701) 328-5200 E-Mail: btorgers@nd.gov

Ms. Diana Trussel Environmental Engineer Division of Waste Management North Dakota Department of Health

918 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: (701) 328-5164 Fax: (701) 328-5200 E-Mail: dtrussell@nd.gov4 Mr. Shane Vasbinder Civil Engineer Basin Electric Power Cooperative

1717 East Interstate Avenue Bismarck, ND 58503 Phone: (701) 355-5779 E-Mail: SVasbinder@bepc.com

# APPENDIX B

REVIEW GUIDE1 REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

Review Guide August 27–29, 2007 Bismarck, North Dakota

Background The University of North Dakota Energy & Envir onmental Research Center (EERC) is conducting a review of North Dakota regulations, standards, and practices related to the use of coal combustion products (CCPs). Funding is provided by the North Dakota Lignite Research Council; Basin Electric Power Cooperative; Great River Energy; Minnkota Powe r Cooperative, Inc.; and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium.

Previous reviews were conducted in Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania. The final report from those reviews

can be accessed online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/ html/review.html . A national synthesis report from these individual state reviews is in prep aration and will be published in 2007.

Objectives

• Highlight successes to CCP utilization

• Identify barriers to increased CCP utilization

• Develop recommendations that may help North Dako ta and other states increase the use of CCPs

Process A review team will pose a list of predetermined questi ons to key stakeholders involved in CCP utilization. The following discussion groups will be formed:

• Government agencies – directors and other key personnel of state transportation and health departments

• CCP generators – coal-fired electric generating company environmental and ash managers

• Concrete and other engineering applications – CCP marketers, ready-mix concrete suppliers

• Mining – North Dakota Public Serv ice Commission, mining companies

Separate telephone interviews or e-mail correspondence may also take place with individuals unable to

attend their scheduled session or those who have expertise outside of the major discussion groups.

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 re asonably possible without stating proprietary information. Wri tten responses to the questions are greatly appreciated but not expected. Any written documentation you can provide will ensure that exact citations are included in the final report. Please provide written comments to Tera Buckley at tbuckley@undeerc.org.

Reporting A draft final report will be prepared and distributed to all interviewees. You will be given a 30-day review period to review the report and provide comments to the EERC. A final report will be published on or before December 31, 2007.2 AGENDA

Monday, August 27, 2007

1:30 – 4:00 p.m. North Dakot a Public Service Commission

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

9:00 – 11:30 a.m. Electric Generating Companies*

1:30 – 4:00 p.m. North Dakota Department of Transportation

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

9:00 – 11:30 a.m. North Dakota Department of Health

1:00 – 3:30 p.m. Concrete and Other Engineering Applications*

*Meeting will be held at the Fort Totten meeting room in the state capitol building on the ground floor, west end.

If you are unable to attend your scheduled se ssion, please contact Tera Buckley at (701) 777-5296 or tbuckley@undeerc.org.3 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

1. What is your agency’s role in the management (use and/or disposal) of coal combustion products (CCPs)?

2. What type of infrastructure (i.e., employees , programs) has your agency dedicated to CCP management? How does the state headquarters in teract with local, regional, and federal

offices?

3. For which of the following CCPs does your agency have guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, regulations, orders, or statutes? How were they developed and adopted? If applicable, provide references for, and dates of, the specific guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, regulations , orders, or statutes related to CCPs.

a. Fly ash

b. Bottom ash

c. Flue gas desulfurization material

d. Boiler slag

e. Other ______________

4. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your agency’s role in the management of CCPs? For exampl e, new air pollution control requirements may increase the 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 exp ected in the near future?

6. What process does your agency undergo to ma ke changes to its policies, rules, or regulations? Has this proce ss ever changed over time?

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

successful?

8. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problems encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a project.

9. Please list and explain any cases in Nort h Dakota where the use of CCPs has caused environmental damage or resulted in violations of environmental requirements. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and follo w-up employed to address the issues.

10. In your opinion, what are the biggest obstacles hindering the increased use of CCPs in North

Dakota? How could these obs tacles be addressed?4 11. Which of the following sources of information does your agency rely on in approving the use of CCPs in particular applications?

a. Surveys of current practi ces (federal or state)

b. Demonstration projects

c. Internal (agency) te sting and evaluations

d. Technical reports submitte d by qualified consultants

e. Research projects or reports by other agenci es, research institutions, or consultants

f. 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 position th at North Dakota has taken toward CCP use in comparison to other states?5 COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCT ( CCP) GENERATORS

1. Please describe or provide written docu mentation on the type, amount, and current management practices employed for a ll CCPs produced at your facility.

2. Provide a general description of the CCP ma rket in North Dakota, including supply and demand, and identify the major use applications . Are any CCPs being imported or exported?

3. How is coal ash utilization handled and percei ved at your company? For example, at some electric generating companies, CCP utilization is a priority for upper management but not for plant operators.

4. What types of quality assurance/quality cont rol procedures are employed at your company with regard to CCPs? Are efforts taken to ensure a consistent -quality product?

5. How would changes to the chemical or physic al properties of CCPs impact your company’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, new air pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. Do you foresee beneficiation technologies as a new tr end to deal with these changes?

6. Please indicate your thoughts on the current CCP specifications or guidelines that you are aware of in North Dakota. Are there any envi ronmental policies, permits, regulations, or statutes that impact the way you process and ha ndle CCPs? What specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to the current specifications and guidelines?

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

decision to utilize CCPs when the material m eets standard specificat ion requirements, or does the state require additional approvals and testing?

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

successful?

9. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problems encountered and any instances where th e use of CCPs was precluded in a project. Describe any corrective actions , monitoring, and follow-up empl oyed to address the issues.

10. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research and dem onstration projects regarding

CCPs.

11. In your opinion, what are the biggest obstacles hindering the increased use of CCPs in North

Dakota? How could these obstacles be addresse d? Would any changes to state or federal regulations help you addr ess these obstacles?

12. What barriers has your company overcome to increase the use of CCPs? How?6 13. What further research, laborator y work, or policy initiatives w ould be necessary to assist your company in overcoming barriers?

14. In general, how do you perceive the position th at North Dakota has taken toward CCP use in comparison to other states?7 CONCRETE AND OTHER ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS

1. Provide a general description of the coal com bustion product (CCP) mark et in North Dakota, including supply and demand, and identify the major use applications. Are any CCPs being imported or exported? How much concrete is be ing used in various segments of the market (i.e., residential, commercial, highway construction)?

2. What is the general feeling toward CCPs in your industry? How would you describe the competition between fly ash and portland cemen t? Are there any product acceptance issues among consumers with concrete containing fly ash?

3. Please indicate your thoughts on th e current specifications or gui delines that you are aware of

in North Dakota related to CCPs. Are there a ny environmental policies, permits, regulations, or statutes that impact the way you proce ss and handle CCPs? What specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to the current specifications and guidelines?

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 inst ances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a project. Describe any corrective actions , monitoring, and follow-up empl oyed to address the issues.

6. What role do other alternative materials (i.e ., natural aggregate) play in your business?

7. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your company’s role in the use of CCPs? For exampl e, new air pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. Do you foresee beneficiation technologies as a new trend to deal with these changes?

8. In your opinion, what are the biggest obstacles hindering the increased use of CCPs in North

Dakota? How could these obstacles be addresse d? Would any changes to state or federal regulations help you address thes e obstacles? Could coal-fired power plants do something to

overcome these obstacles?

9. What further research or laboratory work woul d be necessary to overcome barriers to CCP

utilization?

10. In general, how do you perceive the positi on North Dakota has taken toward CCPs in comparison to other states?8 NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

1. What is your agency’s role in the management (use and/or disposal) of coal combustion products (CCPs)?

2. What type of infrastructure (i.e., employees , programs) has your agency dedicated to CCP use in mining applications? How does the state headquarters interact w ith district, regional,

and federal offices?

3. For which of the following CCPs does your agency have guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, regulations, orders, or statutes? How were they developed and adopted? If applicable, provide references for, and dates of, the specific guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, regulations , orders, or statutes related to CCPs.

a. Fly ash

b. Bottom ash

c. Flue gas desulfurization material

d. Other ______________

4. Would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact the requirements for CCP use in mining applications? For example, new air pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs.

5. Are there any plans to implement any new polic ies, rules, or regul ations regarding CCPs currently in process or exp ected in the near future?

6. What process does your agency undergo to ma ke changes to its policies, rules, or regulations? Has this proce ss ever changed over time?

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

successful?

8. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problems encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a project.

9. The National Academy of Sciences recently pub lished a report entitled “Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines.” What is your op inion of that report? Do you think the report will have an impact on the way CCPs are used in mines in North Dakota?

10. How does the general public perceive CCP use in mining applications?

11. In your opinion, what are the biggest obstacles hindering the increased use of CCPs in North

Dakota? How could these obs tacles be addressed?9 12. Which of the following sources of information does your agency rely on in approving the use of CCPs in particular applications?

a. Surveys of current practi ces (federal or state)

b. Demonstration projects

c. Internal (agency) te sting and evaluations

d. Technical reports submitte d by qualified consultants

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

f. Other ______________________________

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

14. In general, how do you perceive the position th at North Dakota has taken toward CCP use in mining applications in comparison to other states?

# APPENDIX C

GUIDELINE 11 – ASH UTILIZATION FOR SOIL STABILIZATION, FILL-IN MATERIALS AND

OTHER ENGINEERING PURPOSES265 GUIDELINE 11 - ASH UTILIZATION FOR SOIL STABILIZATION, FILLER

MATERIALS AND OTHER ENGINEERING USES North Dakota Department of Health - Division of Waste Management Telephone 701-328-5166 ! Fax 701-328-5200 ! Website

www.health.state.nd.us
Rev: 04/01

Attachment: Parameters and Methods for Assessing Leachability* of Fly Ash and Runoff from Fly Ash Utilization Sites in North Dakota (Parameters may be reduced based upon review.)

North Dakota Department of Health is working with a number of power plants, coal-fined boiler operators, coal mines, and other entit ies wishing to utilize waste materials such as coal-fired fly ash and/or bottom ash for engineering purposes. Some projects such as road stabilization, underground mine stabilization, controlled strength flowable fill, and other uses have been reviewed and approved by the Department based on an evaluation of the material = s engineering and environmental properties. Persons proposing use of waste materials for beneficial reuse need to demonstrate that the material will be beneficially used without adversely impacting the environment.

Beneficial reuse must be carefully considered to ensure it is not simply A use constituting disposal @

or A sham recycling. @ Proposers should be familiar with the state = s environmental laws and rules, including the North Dakota Solid Waste Law, Chapter 23-29 North Dakota Century Code (NDCC); the North Dakota Solid Waste Management Rules, Article 33-20 North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC); as well as the state = s Water Pollution laws, Chapter 61-28 NDCC, which includes Section 61-28-06 which states in part:

A It shall be unlawful for any person:

a. To cause pollution in any waters of the state or to place or cause to be placed any waters in a location where they are likely to cause pollution of any waters of the state . .

. A

The Department needs to review important aspects of any proposal, including, but not limited to, the ash quality and quantity, the proposed use of the ash, site characteristics, potential receptors, how the material will be handled, contingency plans in ca se adverse environmental conditions arise, how

the site will be monitored to ensure environmental protection, what will be done when use of the material is completed, any local health or zoning issues, site closure and reclamation, etc. At a minimum, any proposal should address the following:

1. Background information on the source, quality, and quantity of the ash including the generator of the ash; the type of facility, the boilers, the pollution control equipment, etc., used in generating and collecting the ash; the source and the type of fuel used in the process; the variability of the ash; whether it is a mixture of other materials or waste streams, how it is stored and handled prior to any disposal or use, and any other information

necessary.

2. Analysis of the ash, including both existing information and, as necessary, some leach analysis. Information that might be provided would include mineralogical properties and total analysis plus an assessment of the environmental leachability of the ash materials. At a minimum, an ash leach test on one or more representative samples utilizing either: (1) a266 modified EPA Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) Method 1312, with a

solution to solid ratio 4:1 , or (2) A modified ASTM D-3987 procedure with a solution to solid
ratio of 4:1 . A list of chemical parameters is attached to this memorandum. The detection limits for analysis must be substantially below the safe drinking water standards.

3. A discussion and details on the proposed use of the ash , including any admixtures, fill materials, soil, etc., should be provided. Information that is essential for review includes a description of the actual beneficial use; the mix ratio and design lift thickness; type and quality of fill materials, moisture levels, compaction, and engineering properties (including the strength and durability of materials), and what the material will be covered with, assessment of weathering, material breakup, etc., should be provided.

4. A laboratory simulation of the environmental properties of the proposed use should be addressed. Laboratory simulation testing to r eplicate field conditions determine leachability of the material as-placed should be provided. Upon discussion with the Department, a field simulation test should be agreed upon that will be adequate to determine any impact on the environment from initial waste placement, and any impact through continued weathering, mechanical abrasion, erosion, field runoff, etc. Various simulation tests have been approved by the Department, including kinetic tests simulating infiltration of water through fill

materials.

One publication that has been utilized for evaluating ash utilization in a mine setting is the publication A Draft Guidelines and Recommended Methods for the Prediction of Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage at Mine Sites in British Columbia @ by Dr. William A. Price, Reclamation Section, Energy and Minerals Division, Ministry of Employment and Investment, Bag 5000, Smithers, British Columbia, V0J2N0. Other information is available in Departmental files or may be proposed by the applicant based on the conceptual field application. Laboratory simulation of the field application methods might also entail testing of the materials due to its fate in the environment through weathering, breakup, erosion, abrasion, excavation, etc.

5. The site characteristics , including soils, topography, geology, hydrogeology, groundwater quality, surface water conditions and flow, vegetation, etc.

6. Potential receptors , including nearby communities, residences, parks, natural areas, neighboring land use, waterways, site drainage, groundwater conditions and quality groundwater wells, and any other information necessary to assess potential impacts to

health and the environment.

7. Description of the material handling and conceptual construction , including transport and storage of materials, placement of materials, equipment, construction techniques, moisture application and monitoring, mixing, testing, etc., as well as controls and monitoring of windblown dust, stormwater and/or any ponded water must be described.

8. The proposal should address reasonable contingencies such as discontinuance of the application methods, cleanup of the site shoul d environmental damage occur, final disposal of placed materials after the life of the project, etc.

9. Approval by any local health, environmental, and permitting authorities must be obtained before the project is conducted. Any Departmental approval is contingent upon and does not supersede compliance with all local environmental, health, and building code requirements.267 10. Monitoring of surface, groundwater, air, and soil may be required.

11. The proposer should provide routine reports on construction and operation progress, monitoring results, final construction details and, for ongoing projects, periodic re-analysis of the ash material on an annual basis or, more often, under the following circumstances:

a. The process generating that waste changes, such as the installation of different boilers, burners, pollution control equipment, or any other process change which might influence the character of the waste being utilized;

b. In the event that the raw material or type of fuel changes; and

c. Any other changes or variances which may influence the characteristics of the ash/product or the mixture used in the construction project.

This outline is provided for guidance purposes only. Additional requirements or conditions may be stipulated by the Department, dependent on the particular application, site characteristics, or other regulatory requirements.

Should you have any questions regarding these matters, please feel free to contact the Department at (701) 328-5166. More information on the state = s environmental laws and rules are available at

our Website www.state.nd.us268 North Dakota Department of Health - Division of Waste Management

Parameters and Methods for Assessing Leachability* of Fly Ash and Runoff from Fly Ash Utilization Sites in North Dakota (parameters may be reduced based upon review)

a. Basic water parameters:

(1) Appearance (including color, foaming, and odor) (2) pH 1 (3) Specific conductance 2 (4) Temperature

b. General geochemical parameters:

(1) Ammonia nitrogen (11) Chloride (2) Total hardness (12) Fluoride (3) Iron (13) Nitrate + Nitrite, as N (4) Calcium (14) Total phosphorus (5) Magnesium (15) Sulfate (6) Manganese (16) Sodium (7) Potassium (17) Total dissolved solids (TDS) (8) Total alkalinity (18) Total suspended solids (TSS) (9) Bicarbonate (19) Cation/anion balance (10) Carbonate (20) Sodium Adsorption Ratio SAR)

c. Heavy Metals:

Group A: Group B:

(1) Arsenic (10) Antimony (2) Barium (11) Beryllium (3) Boron (12) Cobalt (4) Cadmium (13) Copper (5) Chromium (14) Nickel (6) Lead (15) Thallium (7) Mercury (16) Vanadium (8) Selenium (17) Zinc (9) Silver

d. For Fly Ash waste analysis, naturally occurring radionuclides:

(1) Gross Alpha Particle Radioactivity (pCi/1) (2) Radium 226 and 228 (pCi/1) (3) Uranium

*Ash leach test on one or more representative sample(s) using a modified EPA Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) method 1312 with a solution to solid ratio of 4:1. A modified ASTM D-3987 procedure with a solution to solid ratio of 4:1 may also be used. Laboratory detection limits must be substantially below the level of any state or federal drinking water standard or goal.
Rev: 04/01