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 2008 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

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

appreciation to the North Dakota Lignite Research Council, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, 

Great River Energy, Minnkota Power Cooperative, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

National Energy Technology Laboratory through the Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium®

for the opportunity to work on the Review of North Dakota Regulations, Standards, and Practices 

Related to the Use of Coal Combustion Products project. The EERC authors would specifically 

like to thank Mr. John Sager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 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-gathering 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 prepared by the EERC, an agency of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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 UTILIZATION 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 UTILIZATION 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 Priority at Many North Dakota Coal-Based 

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

 Recommended Actions for Barrier 2......................................................................... 14 

Barrier 3: NDDH Has a Subjective Guideline for Beneficial Use...................................... 14 

 Recommended Actions for Barrier 3......................................................................... 15 

Barrier 4: NDDOT Is Not Exploring 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 Infrastructure 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 Commercial 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 Are Becoming a Public Perception Problem .... 21 

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

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION 

IN NORTH DAKOTA.................................................................................................................. 22 

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

Threat 2: New CO2 Regulations Are Expected, but the Impact to CCPs Is Not Clear ....... 23 

CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 23 

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

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

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

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

MATERIALS AND OTHER ENGINEERING PURPOSES........................................Appendix C 

LIST OF TABLES 

1 North Dakota Coal-Based Power Plant Annual Generation Capacity .................................. 4 
iii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AASHTO 

ASTSWMO 

AC 

ACAA 

AML 

AMLD 

ASTM 

AVS 

C2

P2

CAMR 

CARRC® 

CCP 

CCS 

DOE 

DOT 

EERC 

EPA 

EPRI 

FGD 

GRE 

LEED® 

LOI 

LOS 

MDU 

MW 

NDDH 

NDDOT 

OTPC 

PSC 

QA/QC 

SDA 

SO2 

SWOT 

UND 

USGBC 

American Association of State Highway and 

 Transportation Officials 

Association of State and Territorial 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 Council 
iv 

REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES 

RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL 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. Environmental 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 implemented, resulting in larger 

quantities and changing qualities of CCPs produced. 

 To better understand the status and development 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 reviews. The first was conducted in Texas in 2004, 

the second was in Florida in 2005, and the third 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 statement of work to conduct additional state reviews 

under separate funding mechanisms. 

 The EERC, with funding from the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Basin Electric 

Power Cooperative, Great River Energy, Minnkota 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 interview process, the authors estimate that North 

Dakota coal-based power plants produce in excess 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 process, the following 

items were identified as keys to successful CCP utilization in North Dakota and are discussed at 

greater length in this report: 

1. Great River Energy (GRE) has an established 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 would agree that CCS produces perhaps the best fly ash in 

the country with regard to quality and consistency of supply. 

2. The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) uses fly ash in almost all 

concrete projects at a replacement rate of 30%. Most DOTs specify a replacement rate 
v 

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 beneficial use application for fly 

ash in North Dakota. 

4. Bottom ash is classified as an inert waste 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 base and for ice control on public and private 

roads. 

5. Boiler slag meets the definition of an inert waste as defined by the North Dakota Solid 

Waste Management Rules. Slag is sold for sand blasting, ice control, 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 (SO2) emissions (Leland Olds Station is currently installing a 

SO2 control system, and Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 will install a wet scrubber in 

2011). The by-products produced are either spray dryer 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-value and high-volume applications were possible, electric 

generating companies may be more likely to pursue potential uses. 

2. The primary objective of most electric generating companies is to produce electricity, 

not to make good-quality CCPs and market them. GRE CCS has successfully done 

both, but that is an exception in the state. Electric generating companies should also 

perform a cost–benefit analysis to determine 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 demonstrate that the proposed use will not 

adversely impact the environment. NDDH believes Guideline 11 presents a flexible 

framework to facilitate the department’s evaluation of impacts to surface water, 

groundwater, soils, etc. Those requesting beneficial 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 could 
vi 

be facilitated through a state CCP program or consortium whose primary objective 

was to educate government agencies about CCPs. At a federal level, EPA could 

provide more guidance on what a “beneficial 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 stabilization or flowable fill. Conversely, the 

ready-mix suppliers interviewed believed flowable fill is a major untapped market in 

North Dakota. Industry should approach all levels of NDDOT to demonstrate the 

engineering, environmental, and economic benefits of using CCPs in flowable fill 

applications. In addition, NDDOT could 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 markets should also be explored. 

7. Green building initiatives have not gained widespread acceptance in North Dakota 

from a consumer or regulatory standpoint. Since consumers 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 national building entities to market the benefits of using 

CCPs in building materials. Government policy makers should also be encouraged to 

make green building a priority. 

8. Even though NDDH supports integrated waste management, the authors believe 

NDDH does not have the resources (i.e., time, knowledge, budget) needed to 

effectively evaluate new CCP beneficial use 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 beneficial 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 effective in assisting NDDH in education and 

information dissemination. 

9. Ready-mix suppliers interviewed indicated the national commercial 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 higher percentage of replacement of fly ash, 

but the national company would want to stick with its design. Education 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 industrial boilers do not have the cementitious or 

pozzolanic properties that coal ashes from coal-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 plants will meet 2010 mercury emission 

regulations (Clean Air Mercury Rule) as they currently operate but will likely need to 

implement new controls to meet 2018 requirements. NDDH is concerned about how 

new mercury emission controls will impact CCP utilization and disposal. NDDH has 

not evaluated by-products from plants with mercury emission controls; therefore, 

regulating the materials’ use or disposal is new territory (as will be the case for other 

state health departments). This is a nationwide concern. 

2. New CO2 regulations are expected, but the potential for impact on CCPs is not clear. 
1 

REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES 

RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

BACKGROUND 

 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. The overall CCP utilization rate is gradually rising, from 40.08% in 

2004, to 40.29% in 2005, to 43.43% in 2006 (American 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 2011. 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 qualities of CCPs produced. Given these challenges, both agencies 

are committed to reaching their utilization goals and are conducting research studies and working 

together to create and support programs that encourage CCP use. Such programs include EPA’s 

Industrial Materials Recycling Program under the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), the 

Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2

P2), the Green Highways Partnership, and the U.S. 

Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) 

Program. Other programs such as the newly formed 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 with 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, policies, and guidelines regarding the use of CCPs (American Coal 

Ash Association, 1998; Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999; Dockter and Jagiella, 2005). Some states 

have worked to develop progressive and effective guidance for CCP utilization that helps to 

increase CCP utilization while being protective of the environment. Conversely, some states still 

lack the resources and information to feel comfortable with the environmental appropriateness of 

using CCPs in certain applications, particularly with nontraditional applications. In addition, 

changing state laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines can be a lengthy process, taking a 

number of years to come to fruition, which often frustrates CCP industry stakeholders. 

 To better understand the status and development of different CCP utilization profiles 

across the United States, the University of North Dakota (UND) Energy & Environmental 

Research Center (EERC) was given a grant by EPA and Headwaters Resources, LLC, to conduct 

a pilot review of state regulations, standards, and practices related to the use of CCPs. Texas was 

selected as the pilot state because of its progressive approach to CCP utilization. A subsequent 

grant was awarded to the EERC by EPA and DOE to conduct a second state review. Florida was 

selected as the second state to review, primarily because it was undergoing changes to its CCP 

regulations. The EERC subsequently received a grant from EPA, DOE, and ACAA to perform a 

review in a third state that exhibited a different CCP use scenario 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.undeerc.org/carrc/html/review.html. 

Following the completion of the series of three state reviews, a synthesis report was prepared that 
2 

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 Dakota Industrial Commission, 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 review in North Dakota. This report contains an in-depth 

analysis of how coal ash is being used in North 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 North Dakota that have 

resulted in encouraging or prohibiting the use of CCPs in an environmentally appropriate 

manner. The specific goals are to 1) evaluate factors 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 effective 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 sections describe each step of the review process in 

more detail. Tasks are listed in order; however, many tasks were implemented concurrently. 

Task 1: Establish an Administrative Team 

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

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

Buckley, EERC Marketing Research Specialist, acted as team leader, with input from Ms. Debra 

Pflughoeft-Hassett, EERC Senior Research Advisor. 

Task 2: Form an Advisory Board 

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

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

board members included Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. David Goss, ACAA; and Ms. Kendra 

Morrison, EPA Region 8. Associated contact information is listed in the project 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 Power Cooperative. Associated contact information for review team 

members is listed in Appendix A. 

Task 4: Create a Review Guide 

 A review guide was developed for North Dakota interviewees that included an agenda, 

background information, and targeted questionnaires for each discussion group (see 

Appendix B). To facilitate appropriate discussions, the following four discussion groups were 

formed to answer questions posed by the review team: 

• Government agencies – directors and other 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 Dakota Public Service Commission (PSC) 

Task 5: Develop a List of Interviewees 

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

interviewees for each of the discussion groups identified in Task 4. The final participant list for 

the review is included in Appendix 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 prepare 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 Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

(ASTSWMO), and other state and federal agency groups and individuals. 

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

sections were modeled after a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis 

commonly used by marketing professionals to audit an organization and the environment in 

which it operates. It is the first stage of planning and helps identify 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 surface lignite mines that supply 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 subsidiary of Westmoreland Mining LLC), 

Beulah Mine 

• Falkirk Mining Company (a subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation), Falkirk 

Mine 

 North Dakota’s mines produced 30.3 million short 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 states in the United States (Lignite Energy 

Council, 2007a). 

 North Dakota has seven coal-based power plants. These plants and their megawatt (MW) 

capacities are listed in Table 1. The total annual generating capacity for all North Dakota coalbased power plants is over 4000 MW. 

 In addition to the coal-based power plants 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 Dakota. The synfuels plant is the 

only commercial-scale coal gasification plant in the United States that manufactures natural gas. 

Table 1. North Dakota Coal-Based Power 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–Dakota 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 Electric Power Cooperative, 2007). These by-products are not 

considered traditional CCPs and, therefore, will not be considered in this review. 

 CCPs are the largest solid waste stream generated 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 solid waste, 100 tons per day of 

industrial waste, and about 6 tons per day of hazardous waste (Tillotson, 2007). However, 

according to information obtained during the state 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 North Dakota coal-based power plants currently 

beneficially use about 40% (or 1.2–1.3 million tons) 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 near Beulah, North Dakota, and is owned and 

operated by Basin Electric Power Cooperative. It is the newest coal-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 approximately 775,250 tons of CCPs per year. About 

87% (~675,250 tons) of this material is landfilled each year. AVS has one landfill for all of its 

CCPs. 

 AVS has a spray dryer absorber (SDA) system for sulfur dioxide (SO2) control.1

 The fly 

ash and SDA material are collected 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 the Freedom Mine in soil stabilization 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 material in geotechnical 

applications. 

 In February 2007, Basin Electric Power Cooperative approved installing an air-jigging 

system with a price of more than $25 million at AVS to further reduce SO2 emissions. The airjigging system consists of two different components. 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 typically contain the higher percentages of sulfur, 

mercury, pyrites, and clay in the lignite. Construction 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 product, which is a calcium sulfite (CaSO3 • 1⁄2 H2O, 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-based 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 per 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, through 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-blasting grit, in roofing shingles, and for ice control. 

CCS produces 125,000 tons of wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material,2

 and all of that 

material is landfilled. CCS is considering installing a forced-oxidized FGD system that will 

produce a marketable by-product (FGD gypsum) and 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%), Montana–Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU) (25%), 

NorthWestern Public Service (10%), and Northern Municipal Power Agency (30%). The station 

receives its coal from nearby Beulah Mine. Coyote Station produced approximately 106,000 tons 

each of dry FGD material3

 and boiler slag in 2006. All of the dry FGD material is landfilled. It 

sells about 20% (21,200 tons) of its boiler slag for use in roofing shingles and sand-blasting grit. 

In addition, 4% (4240 tons) of the boiler slag is used for ice control 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 Dakota, 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 separate 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 sells ~29% (60,000 tons) for sand blasting under the brand name 

Black Beauty®. LOS is installing a wet FGD system which 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 SO2. The material is generally a mixture of calcium 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-based power plant located near Center, North 

Dakota, owned and operated by Minnkota Power Cooperative, 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 tons 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 produces 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. Heskett 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 GRE, 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 material 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 UTILIZATION IN NORTH DAKOTA 

 Based on the information obtained at the North Dakota state review discussion group 

sessions, the authors believe the following are the 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 based on the volume of CCPs beneficially used. 

Key 1: GRE CCS Has One of the Best Fly 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 environmentally responsible effort that could reduce 

landfill disposal costs and generate a significant revenue stream for the company. To make CCP 

utilization a priority at CCS, GRE formed an internal process improvement team representing all 

areas and levels of the company (i.e., upper management, plant operators, and maintenance). 

This multifaceted team approach gave people ownership 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 would agree is the premier fly 

ash utilization program in the country, beneficially 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 technologies. CCS has strict quality assurance/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 Dakota, 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 utilization programs and associations across the country. For example, 

GRE’s ash manager is the Chairperson for ACAA. 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 activities 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 private rail cars, and an 85,000-ton fly ash storage dome. It 

loads/unloads 30 rail cars a day and can load up to 150 trucks per 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 infrastructure and dedicated to quality control, the price 

of CCS fly ash went from $0 in 1996 to $35 FOB 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 Department 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 M295 
9 

• Lime fly ash-treated subgrade – ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) 

International C593 

• Econocrete – AASHTO M295 

• Aggregate base – ASTM C593 

 The regulation also stipulates that the fly ash 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 injection process is used for controlling air pollutants 

will 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 projects. NDDOT uses fly ash in almost 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 specification 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 top layer of stabilized subgrade. 

 Fly ash suppliers, with support from contractors, drove the current fly ash regulations. As 

an example, prior to the specifications mentioned 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, subsequently, it performed its own research 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 placement. 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 request. If the data look promising, NDDOT will 

try a higher percentage in one or two demonstration projects before modifying 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 Reclamation Program operates under the 

guidelines of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the approved State Reclamation 

Plan, the Federal Assistance Manual, and associated rules, regulations, and policy decisions. The 

state program is administered by the Abandoned Mine Land Division (AMLD) of the PSC. 

Oversight of the program is conducted by the Casper 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 the other half are wet. Since 1995, PSC used 32,000 tons of fly ash 

in 28 grout applications. More fly ash could be used, but the PSC has limited funding. Program 

funding comes from a $0.10 per ton production tax on lignite 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 raised 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 for 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 yield 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 reviewed and approved by NDDH for use in underground 

mine-grouting projects. Although quantities of aggregate 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 cubic 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 grout and all components meet specifications. 

 From an environmental standpoint, PSC and NDDH were concerned about the leachate of 

elements contained in fly ash. On a laboratory scale, 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 for groundwater monitoring and establishment of 

groundwater-monitoring programs is site 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, seeps, or natural water bodies that could 

potentially be affected by grouting. These would 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 also 
11 

include monitoring private domestic wells, screened in or near the mined coal, near the project 

area. Groundwater monitoring is usually conducted 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 very 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 from 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 loading), although AVS fly ash makes 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 the 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 North Dakota cities, it can often disrupt the 

citizens’ lifestyles. AMLD is careful to establish relationships with city officials and holds 

several public meetings to keep citizens informed on the process. From a public relations 

standpoint, PSC believes the general public accepts 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 back to where it came from. 

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

 In North Dakota, all bottom ash generated from 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 consent 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 cyclone furnace designs, a relatively competitive 

market for boiler slag has developed in the United States. Slag is used for sand blasting, ice 

control, manufacture of roofing shingles, and for 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 boiler slag products located in Glen Ullin, North 

Dakota. The company distributes product in North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, 

New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah as well as in Canada. Abrasives Inc. sells 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 Inc. 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 (Roth, 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 Minerals, has been making inquiries 

on material availability in North Dakota. 

REPORTED BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDED 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 stakeholder’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 utilization. The proposed actions could be implemented by a variety of 

CCP stakeholders, including government at the federal, state, and local level; electric generating 

companies; ash marketers; ready-mix producers; academia; and industry groups. The authors 

believe the barriers are listed in order of significance. 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 

SO2 emissions (LOS is currently installing a SO2 control system, and MYRS Unit 1 will install a 

wet scrubber in 2011). The specific FGD technologies employed in North Dakota produce by--

products that are difficult to market because they are a low-value material, have limited use 

potential, and are not located within close proximity to markets. 

 Two North Dakota coal-based power plants (AVS and SS) have SDA systems for SO2

control and produce a fly ash that is mixed with SDA material. At AVS, fly ash is used as part of 

the SDA sorbent, while at SS, the fly ash and SDA 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 oil) solidification applications in North Dakota. The sludge is 

put into lined pits and mixed with 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 successfully 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 prefer to use CCS fly ash 

because of the ease of loading the material at the 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 materials beneficially used may require a research and 

development expense that many are not willing to spend. 

 CCS is considering installing a wet forced-oxidation 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 conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI), North Dakota State University, and Ohio State University to evaluate the use of FGD 

gypsum as a soil conditioner for agriculture applications which would soften the soil and allow 

water to be adsorbed more readily. The experiment involves FGD gypsum being applied at 1, 5, 

and 10 tons per acre to wheat fields in Dickinson, North Dakota. NDDH indicated it would need 

to evaluate this new proposed beneficial use. 

 Recommended Actions for Barrier 1 

 A literature review conducted by the EERC (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, synthetic aggregate, and mining applications. Fly 

ash/SDA material has the most potential to be used in applications that take advantage of the fly 

ash component of the SDA material, can tolerate relatively high sulfur content, and have limited 

susceptibility to expansion or reduced expansion potential in the production process. 

 Agriculture applications have a moderate potential for SDA/fly ash material produced in 

North Dakota because there is currently no competing 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 that SDA material or sulfite-rich FGD material could be used for 

agriculture crops, especially nonfood crops such as energy crops (i.e., corn, switchgrass). 

 Investments in research and development will be needed to explore these potential 

applications. Currently, it is more cost-effective to dispose of FGD material produced in North 

Dakota; however, if high-value and high-volume applications were possible, electric generating 

companies may be more likely to research potential uses. Because North Dakota is an 

agriculture-rich state, the U.S. Department of Agriculture could be engaged to explore potential 

uses for FGD material. 

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

Power Plants 

 The primary objective of most electric generating companies is to produce electricity, not 

to make good-quality CCPs and market them. GRE CCS has successfully done both, but that is 

an exception in the state. CCP utilization is not a major focus for most North Dakota electric 

generating companies because there is not an immediate need or clear monetary benefit for using 

the material. Disposal costs are relatively inexpensive (estimated cost is $15/ton), and landfills 

have space for more material. 
14 

 Recommended Actions for Barrier 2 

 Electric generating companies should also perform a cost–benefit analysis to determine 

what resources (i.e., staff, handling equipment) 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-marketing company to help facilitate utilization. Ashmarketing companies have expertise in ash handling, storage, and distribution as well as industry 

insight into what beneficial use applications would garner the greatest economic return. 

Barrier 3: NDDH Has a Subjective Guideline 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 for 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 energy conversion facilities; waste from crude 

oil and natural gas exploration and production; waste from mineral and ore mining, 

beneficiation, and extraction; and waste generated by surface coal-mining operations. The 

term does not include municipal waste or industrial waste.” 

 North Dakota has developed modern standards and facilities for management of solid 

waste, including CCPs. NDDH’s disposal requirements address location restrictions, operating 

criteria, facility design, groundwater 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, NDDH has worked with a number of energy companies as well as 

with some food processors using coal as a fuel to develop beneficial uses for CCPs. 

Guideline 11 – Ash Utilization for Soil Stabilization, Fill-In Materials 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 source, 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 water, groundwater, soils, and the environment. 

Guideline 11 requires proposers to work closely with NDDH as needed to assess the proposed 

use and how it can be assessed. Those requesting beneficial use applications indicated the 

guideline is too subjective. For example, what NDDH considers “reasonably demonstrate” tends 

to vary depending on the application and who is requesting the application. In addition, those 

interviewed indicated that they do not know what standard they will be measured against for 
15 

each application. The leachate quality must meet water standards based on the proposed 

application. The state’s drinking water standards 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 beneficial use. They are not sure how much time and 

money it will take to reasonably demonstrate a potential beneficial use to NDDH or if it is even 

possible to meet NDDH’s requirements. Those interviewed 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 request. To make the guideline 

less subjective, a specific leachate method should be defined, the parameters the leachate must 

meet (i.e., ground water or drinking water standards) 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 resources upfront on behalf of NDDH, but it is 

believed that the approval process would be smoother for all parties involved in the long term. 

 To assist NDDH in the revision or development 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 potential beneficial use applications (i.e., provide case studies on 

beneficial use). This collaboration could be facilitated through a state CCP program or 

consortium whose primary objective was to educate government agencies about CCPs. In 

previous state reviews, the states had an industry 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 Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.; and 

Pennsylvania by the Electric Power Generation Association. These groups were extremely 

effective in promoting the use of CCPs and addressing barriers prohibiting utilization, such as 

the lack of regulations allowing the beneficial use of CCPs. Organized industry-led groups can 

be effective in working with government agencies and state legislators because each one 

represents a unified voice on behalf of its members and allows industry to pool its collective 

knowledge base and monetary resources to address key issues. North Dakota does not have an 

industry group similar to the past states reviewed. The North Dakota Industrial Commission does 

offer funding for research; however, its primary objective is not to educate government and 

influence policy. 

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

EPA has a definition for waste but not for beneficial use of CCPs. EPA’s Industrial Materials 

Recycling Program defines industrial materials recycling, also referred to as beneficial use, as a 

means for reusing or recycling by-product materials generated from industrial processes. These 

materials can be used as substitutions for raw materials in the manufacture of consumer products, 

roads, bridges, buildings, and other construction projects (U.S. Environmental Protection 
16 

Agency, 2008). A clear definition for the beneficial use of CCPs would be helpful to NDDH in 

writing new or modifying existing guidelines. In addition, Toxic Release Inventory reporting 

could be modified to exempt beneficially reused material and only require reporting of material 

that is sent to a disposal site. 

Barrier 4: NDDOT Is Not Exploring 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 did not appear to be interested 

in exploring other beneficial use applications such as soil stabilization or flowable fill. NDDOT 

uses soil stabilization techniques with reactive clays 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 flowable fill in pipes and bridge approaches. NDDOT 

believes existing dirt at the site is usually used instead 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 interviewed, the ready-mix suppliers believed 

flowable fill is a major untapped market in North Dakota. Just in the repair market alone, 

flowable fill could be used for a quick fix during 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, the 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 flowable fill applications (Pflughoeft-Hassett et 

al., 1996). 

 Although flowable fill is a large potential market, it is important to note that Montana–

Dakota Utilities Co. did have a flowable fill plant that is no longer in operation because of 

product acceptance issues among city engineers. 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 cementing applications, including flowable fill, could 

hurt product performance and cause environmental problems such as the leaching of trace 

metals. 

 Recommended Actions to Barrier 4 

 CCP generators should approach potential users of flowable fill material, including all 

levels of NDDOT, to demonstrate the engineering, environmental, and economic benefits of 

using CCPs in flowable fill applications. This can be accomplished by hosting a workshop and 

inviting industry and NDDH representatives to learn about flowable fill. NDDH, having already 

approved the Montana–Dakota Utilities flowable fill, 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 effective if the workshop included visiting 
17 

an in-state demonstration using CCP-containing flowable fill. North Dakota Ready Mix 

Association (NDRMA) has hosted lunch box seminars for private engineers on flowable fill. 

 NDDOT could take a second look 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 Managed 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 continuous measure of process and products to determine performance and 

consistency of supply. Quality assurance provides assurance that the customer is receiving 

material that meets specifications and performance expectations. Factors important to a QA/QC 

plan include consistency of fuel, utility plant process, stable combustion conditions, and CCP 

handling and storage practices. Most QA/QC plans for fly ash include testing for carbon content 

(LOI), fineness, moisture, color, specific gravity, and a full ASTM C 618 analysis (Majors, 

2004). 

 Many North Dakota coal-based power 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 variability of carbon content (LOI) in fly ashes, it 

would be suitable for use in concrete. 

 In addition to QA/QC plans, fly ashes produced at plants with SDA systems are mixed 

with the SDA residues. The fly ash–SDA material blend has little potential for use in concrete 

applications. These materials could be collected separately. 

 Recommended Actions for Barrier 5 

 The implementation of a strict QA/QC plan is imperative for fly ash to be used in concrete. 

This could be facilitated through an ash marketer with experience in developing and executing 

QA/QC plans for utilities. Also, fly 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 major 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 NDDOT 
18 

representatives indicated that they 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 should 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 power 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 CO2 credits associated with the use of fly ash as a 

cement replacement. 

Barrier 7: Limited Green Movement in the State 

 There are several products that 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.asp), but the USGBC’s LEED program and other 

green initiatives have not gained widespread acceptance in North Dakota. There are beginning to 

be more green commercial buildings in North Dakota; however, these buildings 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 architectural and building industries in North 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 four architects attended. 

 From a regulatory standpoint, there has been no initiative or mandate by the state 

legislature to encourage state government agencies to promote CCP recycling or the benefits of 

using CCPs. NDDH supports the green building movement; however, as a health and 

environmental regulatory agency, it has limited input on actual building construction or design. 

 Recommended Actions for Barrier 7 

 Since many consumers are not yet supporting the green building market in North Dakota, it 

is recommended that approaches to push green building by government be promoted by industry. 

Government policy makers in North Dakota could 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 CO2

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 getting 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 concrete 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 entities 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 exhibiting at events, working with board members to 

develop legislative language, serving on association boards, or providing outreach materials. 

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

 NDDH supports and promotes integrated waste 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 state to ensure that all land disposal operations 

are conducted in accordance with state regulations. 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 CCP 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 focus on beneficial use of CCPs, consider the 

following examples brought forth during the discussion 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. After extensive reviews of each application, NDDH approved the use 

of preapproved CCPs in road and feedlot soil stabilization 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 uses and leaves it up to the electric generating 

company to provide access to the forms and encourage 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 identify who the CCP supplier was and the appropriate 

contact person. As another example, NDDH indicated 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 beneficial use) and that disposal facilities are 

currently being managed in at least one North Dakota surface mine. 

 Recommended Actions to Barrier 8 

 To encourage preapproved CCP beneficial use applications, NDDH should have a list of 

preapproved applications and materials on its 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 distribution 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 Management Rules, the NDDH position and integrated 

waste management and beneficial use, and look for opportunities to facilitate environmentally 

sound beneficial use and development of preapproved uses for CCPs. 

Barrier 9: The National Commercial Concrete 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 national 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 commercial 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 create 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 residential 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 national 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 and/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 option for reaching larger audiences. 

Previous successful outreach to this audience is described below: 

• ACAA, with industry stakeholders, made advances with Wal-Mart to get fly ash used in 

all concrete poured in the construction of new Wal-Mart stores. 
21 

• NDRMA is having lunch box seminars for private engineers. 

• Colleges could be encouraged to offer more education to engineers about the benefits of 

using CCPs. 

Barrier 10: Local Concrete Market Saturated 

 In 2006, about 1.2 million cubic yards of concrete was poured in North Dakota, with an 

average fly ash replacement rate of about 25%. The 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 also 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 applications. Workshops for contractors, architects, city 

engineers, and government agencies would be helpful to educate them on CCP use in 

nonconcrete applications. GRE hosted a workshop on soil stabilization in which NDDH 

participated, and it was successful. It may be beneficial to engage the American Public Works 

Association and Associated General 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 without 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 conducted unapproved uses of industrial boiler coal 

ash in a soil stabilization 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 pulverize the coal prior to 

combustion, and the resulting ash is generally coarser, exhibiting lower reactivity. Some 

industrial operators also sluice the ash which further reduces the reactivity because reactions 

occur before the ash is incorporated into the soil stabilization application. 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 between coal ashes from an industrial versus a 
22 

utility boiler. Beneficial use of these ashes can produce very different environmental and 

engineering results. 

 Recommended Actions to Barrier 11 

 Industrial boilers producing coal ash may be unaware that their ash is different than ash 

produced from coal-fired power plants. An educational 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 place 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 threats are external, CCP stakeholders have no 

direct control over them but may benefit by having contingency plans to address them should 

they occur. The threats are based on information gathered at the discussion groups, and the 

authors believe the threats are listed in the order of importance. 

Threat 1: Mercury Control Will Be a Concern for Utilization 

 At the time this state review was conducted 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 requirements. Options for meeting those requirements 

include injecting activated carbon (AC), using an oxidized catalyst as a sorbent, installing a 

COHPACTM/TOXECONTM 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 CAMR. 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 rules. 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 other state and federal regulatory 

agencies are concerned about how new mercury emission controls will impact CCP utilization 

and disposal. NDDH has not evaluated by-products resulting from coal-based power plants with 

 

4 Coal drying is a process that uses low-grade heat rejected from the steam condenser and waste heat 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; therefore, regulating material use or disposal is new territory (as will 

be the case in other state health departments). During the NDDH discussion group session, 

EERC representatives indicated that NDDH should not be concerned about total mercury 

concentrations but should evaluate mercury mobility. The EERC further noted that mobility of 

mercury from CCPs generated with mercury emission controls has been shown to be very low 

and is not expected to impact disposal requirements (Hassett et al., 2007). 

Threat 2: New CO2 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 CO2. In the future, it is anticipated that the reduction of CO2 will be required, 

and coal-based electric generating power plants will need to employ CO2 capture and 

sequestration technologies. 

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

to reduce CO2. While this technology is not expected to directly impact CCP quantity or quality, 

one of the requirements for CO2 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 plants, but those particulates could either be 

managed with the by-products of the amine process or with other CCP streams. 

 Oxycombustion is another approach to producing a clean CO2 stream for CO2 capture. If 

oxycombustion is implemented at an existing power plant, it is possible that the resulting ash 

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

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

CO2 emissions in the future, which could include trading of CO2 credits. At this time, it is 

important for coal-based power plants to keep abreast of CO2 capture and sequestration 

technologies and for impacts to CCPs 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 the 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 plants generally dispose of the fly ash they 

produce. Possible reasons for disposal include the following: 

1. Some fly ash is not suitable for use in concrete (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 material, limiting its use potential. 

4. CCS fly ash has saturated the market. 

5. Plants lack the distribution infrastructure 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 rate of 30%. Ready-mix suppliers generally use a 

replacement rate of 25%. 

 Inert Classifications Allow Beneficial Use – Bottom ash and boiler slag produced by 

North Dakota coal-based power plants are classified as inert materials 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 use; however, in North Dakota, it 

is the only preapproved beneficial use application for fly ash. North Dakota’s mine reclamation 

program could serve as a model for other states. 

 Currently Produced FGD Materials Are Difficult to Utilize –All North Dakota coalbased power plants have a system in place to control SO2 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 potential, and are not located 

within close proximity to markets. Applications for fly ash/SDA material with the highest 

potential included cementitious products, masonry, flowable fill, synthetic aggregate, and mining 

applications. Agriculture applications are the 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 best immediate option with the greatest demand. 

Barriers to overcome to enter this market include obtaining NDDH approval, getting NDDOT 

acceptance, and educating contractors/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 represent 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 address include working with NDDH to clarify 

Guideline 11, educating NDDOT on nonconcrete uses, and educating commercial concrete users 

(i.e., contractors, engineers, and architects) about the benefits of CCPs. 

 Mercury and CO2 Emission Regulations Are of Minimal Concern – Pending mercury 

regulations and expected CO2 restrictions will impact fly ash characteristics. 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 significant revenue stream for CCS, it will take all 
25 

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 encourage legislation that would 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 Gas. 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 Specifications of State Agencies 

for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products; Final Report for the Combustion 

By-Products Recycling Consortium; CBRC Project No. 02-CBRC-WI2; EERC Publication 

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

Hassett, D.J.; Heebink, L.V.; Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F.; Buckley, T.D.; Zacher, E.J. Mercury and 

Air Toxic Element Impacts of Coal Combustion 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 Absorber 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, Vol. 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 Performance Testing, Presented at the Coal Ash 

Professionals Training Course, 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 No. 96-EERC-04-01; April 1996. 

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

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

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

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

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

Roth, L. Personal communication, Dec 2007. 

Tillotson, S.J. North Dakota Regulatory Perspective. 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, Industrial Materials Recycling. www.epa.gov/rcc/ 

priorities/bene-use.htm (accessed March 2008). 
APPENDIX A 

PARTICIPANT LIST
1 

REVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES 

RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL 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.com 
2 

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.gov 
3 

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.gov 
4 

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 GUIDE
1

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 & Environmental 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 Power 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 preparation and will be published in 2007. 

Objectives 

• Highlight successes to CCP utilization 

• Identify barriers to increased CCP utilization 

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

Process 

A review team will pose a list of predetermined questions 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 Service 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 reasonably possible without 

stating proprietary information. Written 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 Dakota 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 session, 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 interact 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 example, new air pollution control requirements may 

increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. 

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

currently in process or expected in the near future? 

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

regulations? Has this process ever changed over time? 

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

successful? 

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

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

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

environmental damage or resulted in violations of environmental requirements. Describe any 

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

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

Dakota? How could these obstacles 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 practices (federal or state) 

b. Demonstration projects 

c. Internal (agency) testing and evaluations 

d. Technical reports submitted by qualified consultants 

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

f. Other ______________________________ 

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

your agency in overcoming barriers? 

13. In general, how do you perceive the position that North Dakota has taken toward CCP use in 

comparison to other states? 
 

5

COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCT (CCP) GENERATORS 

1. Please describe or provide written documentation on the type, amount, and current 

management practices employed for all CCPs produced at your facility. 

2. Provide a general description of the CCP market 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 perceived 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 control 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 physical properties of CCPs impact your company’s 

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

requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. Do you foresee 

beneficiation technologies as a new trend 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 environmental policies, permits, regulations, or 

statutes that impact the way you process and handle CCPs? What specifications or guidelines 

do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to 

the current specifications and guidelines? 

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

decision to utilize CCPs when the material meets standard specification requirements, or 

does the state require additional approvals and testing? 

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

successful? 

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

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

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

10. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research and demonstration 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 addressed? Would any changes to state or federal 

regulations help you address these obstacles? 

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

6

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

your company in overcoming barriers? 

14. In general, how do you perceive the position that 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 combustion product (CCP) market in North Dakota, 

including supply and demand, and identify the major use applications. Are any CCPs being 

imported or exported? How much concrete is being 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 cement? Are there any product acceptance issues 

among consumers with concrete containing fly ash? 

3. Please indicate your thoughts on the current specifications or guidelines that you are aware of 

in North Dakota related to CCPs. Are there any environmental policies, permits, regulations, 

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

guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to 

see made to the current specifications and guidelines? 

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

successful? 

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

problem encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a project. 

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

6. 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 example, 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 addressed? Would any changes to state or federal 

regulations help you address these obstacles? Could coal-fired power plants do something to 

overcome these obstacles? 

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

utilization? 

10. In general, how do you perceive the position 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 with 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 policies, rules, or regulations regarding CCPs 

currently in process or expected in the near future? 

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

regulations? Has this process ever changed over time? 

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

successful? 

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

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

9. The National Academy of Sciences recently published a report entitled “Managing Coal 

Combustion Residues in Mines.” What is your opinion 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 obstacles 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 practices (federal or state) 

b. Demonstration projects 

c. Internal (agency) testing and evaluations 

d. Technical reports submitted by qualified consultants 

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

f. Other ______________________________ 

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

your agency in overcoming barriers? 

14. In general, how do you perceive the position that 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 PURPOSES 
265 

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 entities 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 Ause constituting disposal@ 

or Asham 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: 

AIt 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 case 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) a 
266 

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 replicate 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 ADraft 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 should 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.us
268 

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) pH1

 (3) Specific conductance2

 (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