REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA REGULATIONS, 

STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO 

THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Final Report 

Prepared for: 

John Sager 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest (MC 5306W) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Contract No. X1-83275601 

William Aljoe 

U.S. Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

626 Cochrans Mill Road 

PO Box 10940 MS 922-273C 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 

Agreement No. DE-AP26-05NT51864 

David Goss 

American Coal Ash Association 

15200 East Girard Avenue, Suite 3050 

Aurora, CO 80014 

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 

2007-EERC-03-04 March 2007 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

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

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

Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and the American Coal Ash 

Association (ACAA) for the opportunity to work on the Review of Pennsylvania Regulations, 

Standards, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal Combustion Products project as a grantee. 

The EERC authors would specifically like to thank Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. William Aljoe; 

DOE NETL, and Mr. David Goss, ACAA, for their financial support and valuable input on this 

effort. 

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

David Goss, ACAA; and Ms. Mary Hunt, EPA Region 3, for helping conduct the reviews in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In addition, thank you to Ms. Ann Kulp, Electric Power Generation 

Association, for assisting with meeting arrangements. 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. In addition, the members of the project advisory board—Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. 

William Aljoe, DOE NETL; Mr. David Goss, ACAA; Mr. Kim Vories, Office of Surface 

Mining, and Mr. Jason Harrington, Federal Highway Administration—are gratefully 

acknowledged for helping shape the review. 

EERC DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ v 

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

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

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

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

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

Task 3: Form an Advisory Board........................................................................................... 5 

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team......................................................................................... 5 

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

Task 6: Develop a List of Interviewees ................................................................................. 5 

Task 7: Prepare Final Report and Disseminate Information.................................................. 6 

STATUS OF CCP PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION IN PENNSYLVANIA....................... 6 

Coal Production ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Conventional Pulverized-Coal-Fired CCP Production and Utilization ................................. 7 

Circulating-Fluidized-Bed Production and Utilization.......................................................... 8 

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UTILIZATION IN PENNSYLVANIA...................................... 8 

Key 1: Industry Drove Sound Residual Waste Regulations .................................................. 9 

Key 2: PA DEP Has a Comprehensive Regulatory Program for the Beneficial Use 

 of CCPs for Mine Reclamation............................................................................................ 10 

Key 3: CFB Plants Produce Ash That Is Well Suited for Reclaiming Abandoned 

 Mine Land............................................................................................................................ 12 

Key 4: PennDOT Regulations Allow CCP Use in Concrete and Flowable Backfill 

 Applications ......................................................................................................................... 12 

Key 5: Nearly All Poured Concrete for Commercial and Residential Construction 

 Contains Class F Fly Ash, Which Helps Mitigate ASR ...................................................... 14 

Key 6: PA DEP Presents Its Research and Monitoring Data in a Readable Format ........... 15 

REPORTED BARRIERS TO INCREASING CCP UTILIZATION IN PENNSYLVANIA...... 15 

Barrier 1: FGD Material Is Not Included in the Definition of Coal Ash Under the 

 Solid Waste Management Act ............................................................................................. 15 

Continued . . . 
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

Barrier 2: Lack of Internal Communication at Government Agencies................................ 17 

Barrier 3: Costly Long-Term Field Studies May Be Needed to Get New Beneficial 

 Use Applications Approved................................................................................................. 17 

Barrier 4: Interpretation of PA DEP Regulations Varies Among Districts/Regions........... 17 

Barrier 5: Government Agencies Did Not Appear to View CCPs as a Means for 

 Achieving Sustainability...................................................................................................... 18 

Barrier 6: Advocacy Groups Can Be Effective in Delaying or Terminating Beneficial 

 Use Applications.................................................................................................................. 19 

Barrier 7: Although the NAS Report Was Not Damaging, It Was a Missed 

 Opportunity to Showcase Success Stories ........................................................................... 20 

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN 

PENNSYLVANIA........................................................................................................................ 21 

Threat 1: Industry Is Concerned about the Impact Federal and State Air Emission 

 Rules Will Have on CCP Management ............................................................................... 21 

Threat 2: OSM Is Developing New Rules Which May Require Modifications to PA 

 DEP Regulations.................................................................................................................. 23 

Threat 3: EPA Could Prohibit the Use of FGD Gypsum in Cement Production................. 24 

ACTIONS THAT COULD INCREASE CCP USE IN PENNSYLVANIA................................ 24 

Action 1: Develop Regulations and Find New Markets for FGD Material......................... 24 

Action 2: Improve Lines of Communication Between Industry and Government 

 Agencies............................................................................................................................... 25 

Action 3: Import Fly Ash from States with High Disposal Costs and Limited 

 Beneficial Use Options ........................................................................................................ 25 

Action 4: Industry Could Approach PennDOT to Encourage CCP Use ............................. 26 

Action 5: Reclassify CCPs as a Product .............................................................................. 27 

Action 6: Increase Awareness of C2

P2 and the Green Highways Partnership..................... 27 

Action 7: Build Off of LEED’s Success in Government-Funded Projects.......................... 27 

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 28 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 29 

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

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

LIST OF TABLES 

1 Coal Ash Used at Pennsylvania Mine Sites ........................................................................ 11 
iii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

ACAA American Coal Ash Association 

ACI activated carbon injection 

AEA air-entraining admixtures 

AMD acid mine drainage 

AML abandoned mine land 

ASR alkali silica reactivity 

ASTM ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) International 

ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

BMR Bureau of Mine Reclamation 

BWM Bureau of Waste Management 

C2

P2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership 

CaSO4 calcium sulfate 

CaSO3 calcium sulfite 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

CARRC® Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium 

CCP coal combustion product 

CFB circulating fluidized bed 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DMO District Mining Offices 

IL DOT Illinois Department of Transportation 

EERC Energy & Environmental Research Center 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPGA Electric Power Generation Association 

FBC fluidized-bed combustion 

FGD flue gas desulfurization 

IMCC Interstate Mining Compact Commission 

LEED® Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MW megawatt 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation 

OSM Office of Surface Mining 

PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

pc pulverized coal 

PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

PE product evaluation 

PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 

SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
iv 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SWAC Solid Waste Alliance Communities 

SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats 

R&D research and development 

USGBC U.S. Green Building Council 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
v 

REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES 

RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 Over 49 million tons of coal combustion products (CCPs) is beneficially used in the United 

States each year, but over 73 million tons, or 59%, is still being disposed of in landfills or surface 

impoundments (American Coal Ash Association [ACAA], 2005). 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. This report takes an indepth look at CCP use in Pennsylvania and showcases keys to successful utilization, describes 

what barriers exist, recommends actions that can be taken to overcome those barriers, and 

identifies what threats could impact future CCP utilization. Following this series of three state 

reviews, a synthesis report will be prepared that transfers the findings into a national perspective. 

 Based on information obtained during the Pennsylvania state review process, the following 

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

greater length in this report: 

1. Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Management Act excludes “coal ash” (defined as fly ash, 

bottom ash, or boiler slag resulting from the combustion of coal) that is beneficially 

used in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA 

DEP) standards and criteria from the definition of solid waste. The standards and 

criteria are incorporated into the Residual Waste Regulations. 

2. The PA DEP Bureau of Mine Reclamation and the District Mining Offices 

(BMR/DMO) has a comprehensive regulatory program for the beneficial use of CCPs 

for mine reclamation. 

3. The state’s circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) plants offer an ideal opportunity to remine 

abandoned coal refuse piles, use the removed coal refuse as a fuel, and utilize the 

resulting alkaline CFB ash for mine reclamation, often returning the ash to the original 

coal refuse site. 

4. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) regulations allow CCP use 

in concrete and flowable backfill applications. Class F fly ash plays an important role in 

mitigating alkali silica reactivity in concrete because 70% of PennDOT aggregate 

sources are reactive. 
vi 

5. Nearly all concrete poured for commercial and residential construction in Pennsylvania 

contains 10%–20% Class F fly ash. A nominal amount of Class C fly ash is imported 

from other states. 

6. By providing easy access to its research and monitoring data, PA DEP BMR is able to 

provide information to environmental groups and government agencies to verify 

whether environmental damage has or has not occurred as a result of placing CCPs in 

mine sites. 

 The following were identified as barriers that currently hinder increased CCP utilization in 

Pennsylvania: 

1. Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Management Act does not include flue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) material in the definition of “coal ash.” Pennsylvania electric generating 

companies are expected to produce an additional 4 million tons of FGD gypsum per 

year once more wet forced-oxidized FGD systems are installed. Industry would like to 

use FGD gypsum in mining, structural fill, and agriculture applications; however, PA 

DEP cannot approve these uses under the current coal ash beneficial use of the Residual 

Waste Regulations. FGD gypsum must be mixed with coal ash in order to be considered 

for approval with a residual waste beneficial use general permit. 

2. Internal communication and technology transfer among bureaus within state agencies is 

limited because of a lack of formal mechanisms to facilitate such communication. This 

barrier can result in the duplication of effort and/or contradicting opinions among 

bureaus. 

3. PA DEP is sometimes perceived by industry as being overly conservative in accepting 

new beneficial uses and wants long-term field studies to alleviate any concerns it may 

have about the environmental appropriateness of using CCPs over time. 

4. Industry indicated that the interpretation of PA DEP regulations varies among DMOs, 

which make it difficult to beneficially use CCPs in some applications. DMOs said 

interpretation varies because of different geographic conditions in each district/region 

and specific conditions at each mine site. Although industry generally agrees that sitespecific exceptions are needed, they contend that the requirements are not consistent 

and they never know what to expect, making it difficult to plan projects. 

5. Pennsylvania government agencies do not appear to consider the environmental 

sustainability associated with the beneficial use of CCPs when making their rules, 

regulations, or policies regarding coal ash management. There are some exceptions to 

this statement. 

6. Advocacy groups in Pennsylvania have been effective in delaying or terminating some 

beneficial use applications. 
vii 

7. Although the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on the placement of CCPs at 

mine sites was not damaging, it was a missed opportunity to showcase success stories, 

particularly for CFB ash. This is a potential national barrier because if regulatory 

agencies blindly adhere to the NAS report’s suggestions, they would be missing the 

opportunity to beneficially use CCPs in some applications that have been successfully 

demonstrated in Pennsylvania. 

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

Pennsylvania in the future: 

1. CCP stakeholders are concerned about the impact federal and state air emission rules 

will have on CCP management. 

2. The Office of Surface Mining is developing new rules which may require modifications 

to the PA DEP coal ash beneficial use regulations. 

3. Given the potential EPA ban on the use of fly ash from sorbent injection for mercury 

control as a cement kiln feed, there is some concern that EPA will also prohibit the use 

of FGD gypsum produced at coal-fired power plants using sorbents for mercury control 

for use in cement manufacture. 

 The following are suggested actions that could help increase CCP utilization in 

Pennsylvania: 

1. PA DEP should develop regulations for beneficial uses for FGD gypsum because the 

wallboard and cement markets will not be able to absorb the expected 4-million-tonper-year surplus. 

2. Industry and state agencies should improve lines of communication to define what 

information and data are needed to make regulatory decisions. 

3. When economically feasible, fly ash should continue to be imported from states where 

landfill costs are high for use in concrete and mine reclamation projects. 

4. Industry should engage in a cohesive effort to encourage PennDOT to develop new 

specifications for coal ash use. This action could have a large impact on CCP use 

because PennDOT’s specifications set the bar for other coal ash users in the state. 

5. PA DEP should consider classifying CCPs as “products” and subsequently grant CCP 

producers the authority to market CCPs as products. Some pulverized-coal-fired power 

plant representatives indicated that this would enable them to use more CCPs in 

nontraditional applications. 

6. National programs such as the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2

P2) and the 

Green Highways Partnership could do more to increase awareness of their programs. 
viii 

7. Pennsylvania should build upon the growing popularity of the Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED®) Program by actively promoting CCP use in 

Pennsylvania government construction projects and transferring the LEED® principles 

to residential and commercial construction. 
1 

REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES 

RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

BACKGROUND 

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

United States each year, but over 73 million tons, or 59%, are still being disposed of in landfills 

or surface impoundments. The overall CCP utilization rate only rose 0.21% from 2004 (40.08%) 

to 2005 (40.29%) (American Coal Ash Association [ACAA], 2005). 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 the Coal 

Combustion Products Partnership (C2

P2), Green Highways Initiative, and U.S. Green Building 

Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) program. Other 

programs such as the newly formed Industrial Resources Council, join industry associations 

together (CCPs, foundry sand, construction and demolition debris, and rubber) to achieve similar 

goals. 

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

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

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

progressive and effective guidance for CCP utilization that helps to increase CCP utilization 

while being protective of the environment. On the contrary, 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 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 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. As 

described in Task 2: Select a State, Pennsylvania was ultimately chosen as the third state. This 

report takes an in-depth look at CCP use in Pennsylvania and showcases keys to successful 

utilization, describes what barriers exist, recommends actions that can be taken to overcome 

those barriers, and identifies what threats could impact future CCP utilization. The final reports 
2 

from the series of state reviews can be accessed online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/ 

review.html. Following the completion of the third review, a synthesis report will be prepared 

that translates the results from the three in-depth state reviews into a national perspective. The 

preparation of the synthesis report is funded by EPA and DOE. Additional reviews may take 

place in other states.

GOAL 

 The overall goal of the state reviews is to highlight successes in CCP utilization and move 

toward the development of a national analysis of actions that can be taken to remove barriers to 

increase CCP use. The specific goals of this third review are to 1) evaluate factors related to the 

use of CCPs in Pennsylvania; 2) summarize Pennsylvania’s successes, barriers, and threats; and 

3) develop recommendations (action items) that may help Pennsylvania 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. 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: Select a State 

 The project’s administrative team, with assistance from project sponsors, conducted an indepth evaluation to select the third state using the following criteria. The criteria are listed in 

order of importance: 

1. The state should serve as a role model for other states. It should have established 

beneficial use rules in place. The EERC believes selecting a model state would be most 

beneficial to other states and that the information gained from a model state would be 

most beneficial in preparing the national synthesis report. 
3 

2. The state should be a northern-tier state with seasonal markets. The geographic area and 

climatic conditions offered by a northern state are different than the previous two 

southern states reviewed. 

3. Because the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued its position on using CCPs in 

mining applications, the EERC would like to address the mining issue in a state where 

mining is prominent. Mining was not addressed in the previous state reviews, as an 

attempt to not interfere with the ongoing NAS study. 

4. The state should have diversified beneficial use markets, which include small, 

nontraditional use applications and produce a variety of CCPs. The EERC does not 

want to select a state where CCP use is dominated by one or two industries. 

5. To facilitate a smooth state review, the state’s environmental and transportation 

departments must be willing to participate in the review. 

6. Preference would be given to a state with an active research community. 

 Based on the criteria listed above, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania came to the forefront as 

potential candidates. Each of these states was reviewed at length, and the following information 

was gathered from various discussions with key CCP stakeholders in each state and a review of 

literature on current regulations and use practices in these three states. It should be noted that this 

information reflects the conditions that existed in August 2006 when the state was selected. 

 Illinois 

 Illinois is a large producer of CCPs (including fluidized-bed combustion [FBC] ash and 

wet and dry flue gas desulfurization [FGD] material). It is also a large coal producer, with 

numerous active and abandoned underground and surface mines. 

 The Illinois EPA (IL EPA) does not have an established beneficial use program or specific 

beneficial use rules, but it does have specific statutory language regarding coal ash, which was 

recently updated. However, there is still significant confusion as to how to apply the rule. A local 

electric generating company submitted its first beneficial use determination to IL EPA and has 

not heard comments yet, so it is not known how effective the new statute is. 

 IL EPA has expressed significant interest in beneficial use, e.g., by participating in 

previous by-product summits, and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IL DOT) seems 

open to using recycled materials, based on its previous track record. 

 At the time of state selection, Illinois did not appear to be a good candidate because its new 

statute was not adequately tested. 
4 

 Ohio 

 Ohio is a coal-mining state and authorizes the most beneficial use applications for coal ash 

out of the three proposed states. Ohio State University offers an established coal ash research 

program with contacts within Ohio, an extension agent focusing on CCP utilization, and support 

from the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority’s Coal Development Office. It has a history 

of working with industry, government, and the public to remove CCP utilization barriers. 

However, Ohio State University has already assembled information similar to that obtained 

during the previous state reviews (Butalia and Wolfe, 2000), so new information gained from an 

in-depth review may be limited. 

 The Ohio EPA is in the process of issuing new beneficial use rules that would regulate 

CCPs and other industrial by-products under one rule. The change came about because the 

original CCP policies were declared invalid. The Ohio EPA is looking for guidance from other 

states in preparation of the new rules. The proposed rules are expected to be released around 

September 2006, but a new governor will be elected in November 2006, with the subsequent 

appointment of a new Ohio EPA director, which will delay the legislative process.1

 A review in 

Ohio is not recommended until the new rules are passed. 

 More than 90% of the Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) paving work is 

asphalt, not concrete. Fly ash concrete in paving is a key use application, so ODOT may not be 

the best source of information on encouraging this use. 

 Pennsylvania 

 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) was identified as 

being very active in the development of CCP beneficial use policies, particularly with regard to 

its mining regulations. Pennsylvania authorized CCP beneficial use with the passage of an act in 

1986, suggesting that the current regulations have been tested over time. Pennsylvania currently 

authorizes eleven beneficial use applications and produces a range of CCPs, including circulating 

fluidized bed (CFB) and FGD material. Pennsylvania has support from the Association of State 

and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) members, the Electric Power 

Generation Association (EPGA), and ARIPPA (formally known as the Anthracite Region 

Independent Power Producers Association). Public acceptance of CCP use in Pennsylvania has 

been problematic, particularly in the mining application area, but PA DEP, state electric 

generating companies, and mining companies support this use. Penn State University has an 

ongoing CCP research program. 

 Ultimately, Pennsylvania was selected because it best met the criteria outlined above at the 

time the state selection process took place in August 2006. 

 

1

 The draft rules were published November 8, 2006 and the comment period was open until February 6, 2007 

(www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/rules/industrial_waste_beneficial_use.html). 
5 

Task 3: Form an Advisory Board 

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

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

board members included Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. William Aljoe, DOE National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL); Mr. David Goss, ACAA; Mr. Kim Vories, Office of Surface 

Mining (OSM), and Mr. Jason Harrington, Federal Highway Administration. Associated contact 

information is listed in the project participant list in Appendix A. 

Task 4: 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 Mr. John Sager, 

EPA; Mr. William Aljoe, DOE NETL; Mr. David Goss, ACAA; and Ms. Mary Hunt, EPA 

Region 3. Associated contact information for review team members is listed in Appendix A. 

Task 5: Create a Review Guide 

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

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

B). To facilitate appropriate discussions, the following five discussion groups were formed to 

answer questions posed by the review team: 

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

transportation and environmental agencies 

• CCP generators – electric generating company environmental and ash managers 

• Concrete and other engineering applications – CCP marketers, engineering/consulting 

firms, ready-mix concrete suppliers 

• Wallboard – users of synthetic gypsum for wallboard production2

• Mining – Bureau of Mine Reclamation (BMR) officials and engineering/consulting firms 

 The review took place December 13–15, 2006. EPGA hosted the interviews in Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania, although the PA DEP and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

(PennDOT) sessions were held at their respective offices. 

Task 6: Develop a List of Interviewees 

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

interviewees for each of the discussion groups identified in Task 5. Over 150 individuals were 

invited to participate in the review. The final participant list for the review is included in 

 

2

 The wallboard session was cancelled because of lack of interest from wallboard producers in the state. 
6 

Appendix A. Those on the participant list attended a discussion session, submitted written 

comments, or participated in a telephone interview. 

Task 7: Prepare Final Report and Disseminate Information 

 The primary objective of this task was to prepare a final report that can be used to 

encourage CCP use in Pennsylvania and other states. Target audiences for the final report 

include CCP industry representatives and users, members of American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 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. 

STATUS OF CCP PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION IN PENNSYLVANIA 

Coal Production 

 The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that Pennsylvania produced over 

67 million short tons of coal in 2005. Of that, 97.6% was bituminous, and 2.4% was anthracite 

coal. Pennsylvania used over 54 million short tons of coal to produce electricity in 2005. A 

nominal amount of coal was imported to Pennsylvania (EIA, 2006). 

 Expansion of coal-mining operations in eastern and interior U.S. coal basins is currently on 

the rise. As more and more eastern coal-fired power plants retrofit their boilers with pollution 

control equipment to reduce sulfur oxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, mediumand high-sulfur coal grades are once again usable and, in most cases, cheaper and closer to the 

end user. This is one factor that is creating increased demand for coal from the Illinois Basin and 

Appalachian regions. CONSOL Energy announced plans for a $500 million expansion of its 

Pennsylvania coal operations. This is a good example of an ongoing trend in the United States, 

where coal-mining companies are looking at expanding production to meet forecasted growth in 

domestic and international coal consumption (Industrial Outlook, 2006). It should be noted that 

this magnitude of projected expenditure for coal mine expansion is unprecedented. Furthermore, 

Pennsylvania’s coal-fired power plants may elect to burn low-sulfur coal instead of installing 

emission control technologies, thus requiring the import of coal from other states or international 

sources. However, it is unknown if the installation of SO2 emission controls, even with burning 

low-sulfur coal, can be avoided with the next phase of SO2 mandated emission reductions. 
7 

Conventional Pulverized-Coal-Fired CCP Production and Utilization 

 Pennsylvania has nine electric generating companies with conventional pulverized-coal 

(pc)-fired power plants. These companies include AES Beaver Valley Cogeneration; Allegheny 

Energy Supply; Cogentrix Energy, Inc.; Edison Mission Group; Exelon Power; FirstEnergy 

Generation Corporation; PPL Generation; Reliant Energy; and UGI Development Company. 

According to EPGA (Kulp, 2004), these companies own and operate more than 130,000 

megawatts (MW) of electric generating capacity in the United States. Approximately half of this 

capacity is located in Pennsylvania or surrounding states. These plants burn primarily bituminous 

coal and produce fly ash, bottom ash, slag, FGD gypsum, and sulfite-rich FGD material. Annual 

CCP production varies depending on the electric generation demand, coal vs. boiler fuel prices, 

combustion efficiency, emission control technologies, and coal ash content. EPGA (Biden, 2004) 

estimates that a typical pc-fired generation station in Pennsylvania produces 300,000 tons of fly 

ash and 50,000 tons of bottom ash annually. A small one-unit plant may produce as little as 

45,000 tons, and a large multiunit plant could generate in excess of 1,000,000 tons of CCPs 

annually. Based on information provided by EPGA (Biden, 2004) and information gained from 

the review process, it is estimated that pc-fired power plants in Pennsylvania produce more than 

10 million tons of coal ash a year.3

 This number is expected to dramatically increase in the near 

future, and many Pennsylvania electric generating companies are considering installing wet FGD 

forced-oxidized systems to control SO2 and will subsequently be producing in excess of 

4 million tons of FGD gypsum per year. 

 Beneficial use of CCPs produced by pc-fired power plants in Pennsylvania is estimated to 

be 60%–70%. Class F fly ash meeting ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) 

International C618 (Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural 

Pozzolan for Use in Concrete) is used in concrete. It is estimated that 240,000 tons of fly ash was 

imported to Pennsylvania from Ohio and Illinois for use in concrete applications. Fly ash not 

meeting concrete specifications is used to manufacture cement, for structural fill and flowable fill 

applications, and for mining applications. Most bottom ash is used as antiskid material, 

lightweight aggregate, or for protective cover and dust suppression at disposal sites. Some 

bottom ash is commingled with fly ash for mining applications. It is estimated that 1.4 million 

tons of fly ash and bottom ash were used in mining applications in Pennsylvania in 2002 

(Dalberto and others, 2004). Connecticut is providing a very small amount (4000–5000 tons) of 

fly ash and bottom ash for mine reclamation applications. One electric generating company is 

converting about one-third of its sulfite-rich FGD material to gypsum for wallboard manufacture. 

Other sulfite-rich FGD material is being used in mine applications when stabilized with lime and 

fly ash for mine reclamation, subsidence control and underground mine fire control. Currently, 

most FGD gypsum produced in Pennsylvania is used for wallboard manufacture, although 

supply is expected to exceed demand as more electric generating companies install wet FGD 

systems. A small amount of FGD gypsum is interground with cement clinker during cement 

production. One electric generating company has two plants that are scrubbed with magnesium 

oxide and produce a unique magnesium-rich by-product. This material was beneficially used to 

stabilize sewage sludge and sold as a raw ingredient to manufacture fertilizer. 

 

3

 This production statistic includes fly ash, bottom ash, FGD gypsum, and sulfite-rich FGD material only. It does 

not include slag. 
8 

Circulating-Fluidized-Bed Production and Utilization 

 Fourteen of the nineteen CFB electric generating plants in the United States are located in 

Pennsylvania. Owners of these plants include Cambria Cogen Company; Cogentrix; Ebensburg 

Power Company; Gilberton Power Company; Inter-Power/Ahlcon Partners, L.P.; Northhampton 

Generating Company, L.P.; Northeastern Power Company; Panther Creek Partners; Piney Creek, 

L.P.; Reliant Energy; Schuylkill Energy Resources, Inc.; Wheelabrator Frackville Energy 

Company, Inc.; and WPS Westwood Generation, LLC. The Kimberly Clark CFB plant was not 

included in this list because it is an industrial site power plant, and the remaining power plants 

are commercial power producers. Some are also cogeneration4

 facilities in that they supply heat 

to one or more customers. These facilities range in size from 32 to 520 MW. In Pennsylvania, 

three new CFB plants are in various stages of permitting, obtaining regulatory approvals at the 

local level and financing. 

 The CFB industry began in Pennsylvania in response to the oil and gasoline shortages 

during the 1970s and passage of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) in 1978. 

This act required that electric generating companies buy the electricity produced by facilities that 

met certain qualifications, such as the use of nontraditional fuel. The piles of coal mine refuse 

(otherwise generically referred to as waste coal, culm in anthracitic fields, or gob in bituminous 

fields) in Pennsylvania met the criteria for nontraditional fuel under PURPA. At about the same 

time, the CFB technology was being developed which was capable of burning a low-heatingvalue carbonaceous material and had emission controls that met regulations mandated by the 

Clean Air Act of 1970. The first CFB plant in Pennsylvania became operational in 1987, and 

since that time, the plants have collectively burned 110 million tons of refuse and used over 

73 million tons of CFB ash for reclamation of abandoned mine lands. ARIPPA estimates that the 

state’s CFB plants now burn 10.7 million tons of refuse coal annually and consequently produce 

approximately 7.9 million tons of alkaline-rich by-products per year. More than 90% of these byproducts are used for mine reclamation projects, filling mine pits, and the reclamation of coal 

refuse areas. Another 5%–8% is used as a replacement for lime for acid mine drainage 

prevention or as a soil amendment/replacement at mining sites. The remaining 2% is used for 

other beneficial uses such as antiskid material for roadways, pipe bedding, and other uses (Joint 

Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, 2004). 

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UTILIZATION IN PENNSYLVANIA 

Based on the information obtained at the Pennsylvania state review discussion group 

sessions, the authors believe the following are the keys to successful CCP utilization in 

Pennsylvania. The keys highlight “strengths” or positive aspects. The keys are listed in order of 

importance. 

 

4

 A CFB power plant is considered a cogeneration project if it markets at least 5% of its steam to a thermal energy 

user (Dalberto and others, 2004). 
9 

Key 1: Industry Drove Sound Residual Waste Regulations 

 A significant development in the history of beneficial use of coal ash in Pennsylvania 

occurred in 1986 with the introduction and passage of House Bill No. 2274, commonly referred 

to then as “the coal ash bill.” 

 Mr. Douglas Biden (2004), EPGA, in written comments to the PA DEP, summarized the 

history of the bill. He indicated that HB 2274 originated in 1985 with the House Mines and 

Energy Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) requesting testimony 

from the electric power industry on House Resolution No. 19, which directed the Committee to 

explore ways to promote the use of Pennsylvania coal and its by-products. At this time, electric 

generating companies were planning to install air pollution control devices that would 

significantly increase the amount of CCPs produced and quickly take up precious landfill space. 

The industry made considerable research and development (R&D) investments in developing 

beneficial uses for CCPs. So much progress was made that questions arose among policymakers 

as to why CCPs were considered a “waste,” rather than the “resource” they had become. 

However, industry efforts to beneficially use the material were frequently frustrated by the PA 

DEP (then Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources) solid waste regulations, 

which governed the disposition of coal ash. Using CCPs required a permit from PA DEP, a 

process that could take a year or more to obtain. PA DEP staff appeared sympathetic; however, 

they said their hands were tied by the Solid Waste Management Act which defined coal ash as a 

solid waste, so that all materials thus defined had to be handled and disposed of according to the 

regulations (Biden, 2004). 

 Proposed legislation excluded coal ash from the definition of solid waste and established 

provisions for the beneficial use of coal ash. The proposed legislation defined “coal ash” as fly 

ash, bottom ash, or boiler slag resulting from the combustion of coal, that is or has been 

beneficially used, reused, or reclaimed for a commercial, industrial, or governmental purpose. 

The term includes such materials that are stored, processed, transported, or sold for beneficial 

use, reuse, or reclamation. After thorough legal and environmental research, HB 2274 was 

signed into law as Act 168 of 1986 as an amendment to the Pennsylvania Solid Waste 

Management Act of 1980. In 1992, provisions describing standards for the beneficial use of coal 

ash were placed in the residual waste management regulations and were revised in 1997. 

 Today, Pennsylvania regulates the beneficial use of coal ash under Pennsylvania’s 

Residual Waste Management Regulations (Title 25 PA Code, Chapter 287, Sections 661–666) 

(PA DEP, 2001). These regulations define the following eleven beneficial uses for coal ash and 

do not require a permit: 

1. As a structural fill material (287.661) 

2. As a soil substitute or additive (287.662) 

3. For defined uses at active coal-mining sites (287.663) 

4. For use at abandoned coal or noncoal surface mine sites (287.664) 
10 

5. In the manufacture of concrete (287.665.1) 

6. To extract or recover minerals and compounds contained within the coal ash 

(287.665.2) 

7. As a fly ash-stabilized product (287.665.3) 

8. Use of bottom ash or boiler slag as an antiskid material (287.665.4) 

9. As a raw material for a product with commercial value, including the use of bottom 

ash in construction aggregate (287.665.5) 

10. For mine subsidence control, mine fire control, and mine sealing (287.665.6) 

11. As a drainage material or pipe bedding (287.665.7) 

 The beneficial uses defined above are generally accepted by industry and have cleared the 

way for increased CCP utilization in the state. The exception to this is FGD material,5

 which was 

not included in the regulations because it was not readily available as a product when the 

regulations were put in place. The elimination of FGD material is discussed at length in Barrier 1 

of this report. 

Key 2: PA DEP Has a Comprehensive Regulatory Program for the Beneficial Use of 

CCPs for Mine Reclamation 

 CCP placement in Pennsylvania mines began in the 1970s. The use was initially regulated 

jointly by the Bureau of Waste Management (BWM) and BMR programs of the PA DEP. In the 

1980s, the Secretary of the PA DEP delegated the right to issue approvals for the placement of 

CCPs in coal mines to the BMR. Today, PA DEP has a comprehensive regulatory program 

concerning the use of CCPs in mines. The PA DEP’s BMR/District Mining Offices (DMO) 

regulates coal ash placement at mine sites under the Solid Waste Management Act and BWM 

residual waste management regulations, Pennsylvania Surface Mining Conservation and 

Reclamation Act, and federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Further, the 

BMR/DMO has developed comprehensive technical and permitting guidance on the use of CCPs 

in mine reclamation. 

BMR/DMO has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the BWM as of 1990 to 

approve the beneficial use of coal ash at mine sites. BMR/DMO coordinates coal ash beneficial 

use at mine sites with BWM. The BWM handles the beneficial use of coal ash at sites other than 

coal-mining operations. This MOU allows for coordinated regulations and for mutual 

conversations to take place between the two departments. 

 

5

 FGD material is defined as material generated from various wet forced-oxidized systems or unoxidized systems 

producing an either sulfate-rich (calcium sulfate [CaSO4], commonly referred to as FGD gypsum) or sulfite-rich 

(calcium sulfite [CaSO3], also know as scrubber sludge). Dry FGD systems are not presently used in 

Pennsylvania. 
11 

 The beneficial use of coal ash at active coal mine operations is accomplished through the 

coal mine permitting process outlined in the following: 

• Residual Waste Management Regulations (287.663-287.664) – Defines the beneficial 

uses for coal ash at active coal-mining sites and abandoned coal or noncoal surface 

mine sites. 

• Beneficial Use of Coal Ash at Active Coal Mine Sites (563-2112-206) – This document 

describes the procedure for the DMOs to review requests for the beneficial use of coal 

ash at active mine sites. 

• Certification Guidelines for Beneficial Use of Coal Ash (563-2112-224) – This 

document provides the guidelines for certifying coal ash for beneficial uses and the 

forms with instructions that are necessary for the department to certify coal ash for 

beneficial use. 

• Technical Guidance Document for Beneficial Use of Coal Ash (563-2112-225) – This 

document describes the four beneficial uses – 1) placement, 2) soil substitute or 

additive, 3) alkaline addition, and 4) low-permeability material of coal ash – that can be 

approved in active coal mine permits or that can be approved as part of the department’s 

mine reclamation contracts or other department-approved mine reclamation projects. 

 Two additional permit application modules were developed for use with the coal mine 

permit application for evaluating proposals for beneficial use of coal ash. Module 25 was 

developed for placement of coal ash as fill material and Module 27 for use of coal ash as a soil 

substitute or additive. These documents and permit application modules, in conjunction with 

Pennsylvania’s residual waste management regulations, very clearly outline how coal ash is to be 

used in mine settings in Pennsylvania. 

 Coal ash utilization in mine settings continues to rise, as shown in Table 1. In 2005, over 

8 million tons of coal ash was used in mine settings in Pennsylvania, a quantitative indication of 

a successful and growing beneficial use program. 

Table 1. Coal Ash Used at Pennsylvania Mine Sites (PA DEP, 2006) 

DMO 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Pottsville 3,014,992 3,208,899 3,856,633 3,875,422 3,805,578 4,352,868 3,505,009 3,385,458 

Cambria 1,489,327 1,308,652 1,107,077 1,188,684 1,195,144 1,171,469 1,291,000 1,295,773 

Moshannon 165,343 159,240 130,254 145,599 208,805 155,477 213,037 183,752 

Greensburg 279,076 251,168 283,900 350,957 260,465 293,015 211,733 265,266 

Knox 224,046 213,182 170,764 264,239 201,540 141,018 294,793 258,217 

California 895,807 823,958 911,804 803,768 718,759 1,025,105 1,670,770 2,984,313 

Total 6,068,591 5,965,099 6,460,432 6,628,669 6,390,291 7,138,952 7,186,342 8,372,779 

 The comprehensive and dependable program developed by PA DEP may be more stringent 

and costly in the short-term than other states, but industry believes the strict policies and 

enforcement will actually save them money in the longterm by not having any damage cases. In 
12 

the review sessions, industry representatives indicated that they appreciated that PA DEP 

reached out to electric generating companies, the mining industry, and academia to develop a 

program that outlines what is expected in order for coal ash to be beneficially used in mine sites.6

For these reasons, many consider Pennsylvania to have model regulations for the beneficial use 

of CCPs in mine reclamation, particularly for abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation. 

Key 3: CFB Plants Produce Ash That Is Well Suited for Reclaiming Abandoned Mine 

Land 

 According to BMR, Pennsylvania has more than 5000 abandoned, unreclaimed mine 

problem areas and over 820 abandoned coal refuse piles. It is estimated that Pennsylvania suffers 

from up to 3100 miles of streams degraded by acid mine drainage (AMD) as a result of AML’s 

(Dalberto and others, 2004). 

 Coal refuse piles represent a significant subset of AML sites in Pennsylvania. The piles are 

typically toxic to plant life, and thus are barren and highly erosive. They are expensive to 

reclaim, and standard reclamation techniques do little to address the extremely poor water quality 

(Dalberto and others, 2004). 

 CFB plants produce an ash that is an exceptional material for AML reclamation. The 

conditions of combustion and ash formed by CFB plants differ from pc combustion plants. CFB 

plants are capable of burning fuels that contain as little as one-quarter of the heating value of 

commercial coal while controlling sulfur oxide and NOx emissions. In CFB plants, the 

temperature of combustion is 800°–900°C, compared to 1200°–1450°C in pc plants. Limestone 

is added to the CFB fuel to capture SO2, producing a highly alkaline CFB ash. During 

combustion, the limestone is burned to calcium oxide, which forms CaSO3 and CaSO4 by 

combining with SO2. The particles of CFB fuel are fed at a 1-cm size, compared with 74 μm at a 

pc plant. The ash particles circulate or are captured and recirculated in the CFB furnace for 

minutes to hours, compared with combustion in a few seconds in the pc process. The trace 

elements in the CFB ash are strongly bound because of annealing due to the lower temperature in 

the furnace and longer time in the furnace (Rose and others, 2001); (Dalberto and others, 2004). 

 The state’s CFB plants offer an ideal opportunity to remine abandoned coal refuse piles, 

use the recovered coal refuse as a fuel, and return the resulting alkaline CFB ash often to the 

original site for reclamation. This is a classic recycling success story. As an added benefit, this 

process only uses private funding and thus preserves the AML funds for other sites. 

Key 4: PennDOT Regulations Allow CCP Use in Concrete and Flowable Backfill 

Applications 

 PennDOT is the largest purchaser of concrete in the state. It does not track statistics on 

how much concrete it purchases but estimates that approximately 80% of PennDOT projects are 

asphalt and 20% are concrete. There are no records or documents on the quantity of CCPs used 

in PennDOT projects. 

 

6

 As further discussed in Barrier 4, the interpretation of PA DEP regulations can vary among district offices. 
13 

 In order for CCPs to be used in PennDOT projects, they must be preapproved. Bulletin 14 

lists all approved bottom ash sources, and Bulletin 15 lists all approved fly ash sources that can 

be used on PennDOT projects. To get on an approved list, one must fill out an application and 

provide a quality control plan. Usually an ash marketer approaches PennDOT to get a material 

approved, but sometimes a specific unit or plant manager will make a request. PennDOT has 

Class F and Class C fly ashes on its list from many states, including Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West 

Virginia. Fly ash is often imported because most fly ash sources in Pennsylvania do not meet 

specifications for use in concrete because of high unburned carbon content. 

 Most Class F fly ashes are approved by PennDOT for alkali silica reactivity (ASR) 

mitigation. Class F fly ash plays an important role in PennDOT projects because about 70% of 

its aggregate sources are reactive. ASR occurs when reactive aggregates chemically react with 

alkaline components of portland cement, forming ASR gel. The gel adsorbs water and expands, 

damaging the concrete. Class F fly ash is effective in controlling expansion due to ASR, but 

Class C fly ash and other materials can also be used in certain applications. PennDOT 

specifications allow the portland cement portion of concrete to be reduced by 15% of fly ash and 

by 25% of ground granulated blast furnace slag for ASR mitigation. 

 PennDOT has material specifications for fly ash utilization which include: 

1. Fly ash used with lime for soil stabilization. Fly ash must be tested in accordance with 

AASHTO T 135 (Wetting-and-Drying Test of Compacted Soil-Cement). Physical 

requirements for fly ash are also established in ASTM C 593 (Standard Specification 

for Fly Ash and Other Pozzolans for Use with Lime for Soil Stabilization) (Publication 

408, Section 724.2). 

2. Fly ash used as a pozzolan in portland cement concrete mixtures. Fly ash must be tested 

in accordance with ASTM C 311 (Standards and Test Methods for Sampling and 

Testing Fly Ash or Natural Pozzolans for Use in Portland-Cement Concrete). According 

to Publication 408, Section 724.2, fly ash must meet specifications set forth in 

AASHTO M 295 (Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a 

Mineral Admixture in Concrete). Loss on ignition is limited to 6%. 

3. Fly ash used to mitigate the effects of reactive aggregate associated with ASR in 

concrete. Fly ash must conform to the optional chemical requirements of AASHTO M 

295 (Publication 408, Section 704.1[g]3.c). 

 Fly ash, slag, and bottom ash meeting material specifications set by PennDOT can be used 

for the following types of flowable backfill applications as long as they come from approved 

sources (Publication 408, Section 220): 

• Where future excavation of the backfill may be necessary, such as at utility trenches, 

pipe trenches, bridge abutments, and around box or arch culverts. 
14 

• Where excavation of backfills is not anticipated, including replacing unsuitable soils 

below structure foundations; filling abandoned conduits, tunnels, and mines; and 

backfilling around pipe culverts where extra strength is required. 

• In construction areas requiring low-density backfill material as in abutments over highly 

deformable soils, backfilling retaining walls, filling vaults, and backfilling on top of 

buried structures. 

 PennDOT allows the use of ground granulated blast furnace slag as a pozzolan 

(Publication 408, Section 724.3). Ground granulated blast furnace slag must be tested in 

accordance with AASHTO M 302/ASTM C 989 (Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag for Use 

in Concrete and Mortars). In addition, bottom ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag are 

allowed for use as an antiskid material and are often mixed with salt. 

 Materials not meeting the specifications or standards covered in Publication 408 will 

require testing in accordance with PennDOT’s Product Evaluation (PE) process. This process 

can take years because it is a case-by-case review. 

 PennDOT looks first to AASHTO and then to ASTM for guidance on developing its own 

specifications. PennDOT’s specifications set the bar for other coal ash users in the state because 

industry sees the specifications as cautious and stringent, thus lessening the potential for failure. 

Contractors are also familiar with PennDOT specifications and are more willing to accept a 

practice that has been approved by PennDOT. For example, the Turnpike Commission typically 

defers to PennDOT specifications. 

Key 5: Nearly All Poured Concrete for Commercial and Residential Construction 

Contains Class F Fly Ash, Which Helps Mitigate ASR 

 According to the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (2006), Pennsylvania readymixed suppliers produced over 12 million cubic yards of concrete in 2005. This ranks 

Pennsylvania seventh in the nation with regard to ready-mixed concrete production. 

 Nearly all concrete poured for commercial and residential construction in Pennsylvania 

contains 10%–20% Class F fly ash. This percentage tends to work best for ASR mitigation and 

does not interfere with set time. The exception to this percentage is if a slow strength gain or 

other special conditions are required for a particular project. A nominal amount of Class C fly 

ash is imported, but most ready-mixed suppliers exclusively use Class F fly ash. Particularly in 

the western part of the state, Pennsylvania has very reactive aggregate and needs Class F fly ash 

to mitigate ASR. Although other nonash materials may also mitigate ASR, they are generally 

more expensive than fly ash. 

 In general, commercial and residential consumers do not know or care if their concrete 

contains fly ash. More savvy ready-mixed consumers understand that fly ash produces better 

concrete and is an environmentally friendly material, but for the most part, end users are unaware 

of the benefits of using fly ash in concrete. This lack of knowledge does not appear to impact the 

concrete market in Pennsylvania. The market is using as much concrete-grade Class F fly ash as 
15 

it can when taking into account current market conditions. Fly ash demand is expected to 

continue to parallel that of cement. 

Key 6: PA DEP Presents Its Research and Monitoring Data in a Readable Format 

 The use of CCPs in mine applications is a contentious issue on local, state, and national 

levels. PA DEP believes it has a responsibility to make its monitoring data and related research 

available in a readable form for scrutiny and use by the scientific community, government 

agencies, environmental groups, and the general public. As a result of this philosophy, the PA 

DEP published a book titled Coal Ash Beneficial Use in Mine Reclamation and Mine Drainage 

Remediation in Pennsylvania in 2004. The publication is an in-depth, peer-reviewed analysis on 

the use of CCPs for mine reclamation and contains over 20 years of research and data. 

 The information presented in the report demonstrates that PA DEP is effectively regulating 

the use of CCPs in mine sites, while ensuring that the opportunities for beneficial use are not 

unduly restricted. The report documents numerous case studies of successful applications in 

great detail. In particular, it shows how coal ash is successfully being used to alleviate AMD 

problems by removing refuse coal from the environment, a key source of AMD. 

 By providing easy access to its research and monitoring data, PA DEP has been able to 

provide information to environmental groups and government agencies demonstrating that no 

environmental damages have occurred as a result of putting CCPs in mine sites.7

 

REPORTED BARRIERS TO INCREASING CCP UTILIZATION IN PENNSYLVANIA 

 The following barriers were identified during the Pennsylvania state review process. The 

barriers or “weaknesses” detract from a CCP stakeholder’s ability to increase CCP utilization. 

The authors believe the barriers are listed in order of significance. 

Barrier 1: FGD Material Is Not Included in the Definition of Coal Ash Under the 

Solid Waste Management Act 

 When Pennsylvania’s solid waste regulations were put into place by an act in 1986, the 

coal ash beneficial use regulations did not include FGD material because FGD material was not 

available for beneficial use. Since that time, electric generating companies have installed or are 

planning to install FGD systems and are marketing their FGD material. Managing FGD materials 

under the current regulatory framework has become problematic because it is not afforded the 

same permit-by-rule beneficial use applications given to coal ash. Therefore, FGD material must 

be managed as a residual waste and can only be beneficially used under a specially issued 

permit, such as a general permit. Industry does not want to be required to apply for a general 

permit for each beneficial use because it is a lengthy process. 

 

7 The McDermott site was a damage case because of AMD. CCPs were used in the backfill, but it was not a 

damage case because of the ash. The damage was caused from past mining practices in the area, additional 

remining and partial reclamation. 
16 

This barrier is an immediate concern to the state’s electric generating companies because 

of the expected surplus of more than 4 million short tons of FGD gypsum per year in 

Pennsylvania alone. Nationally, Bruce (2004) predicts that over the next 20 years the North 

American supply of FGD gypsum is going to exceed the demand by a wide margin, with a 

surplus of 10–15 million tons a year by 2015. Electric generating companies do not want to be 

dependent on wallboard and cement plants to use all of their FGD gypsum because plants may 

shut down temporarily or close and the markets for wallboard and cement fluctuate based on 

building trends. Also, the wallboard and cement markets may soon be oversupplied with 

synthetic gypsum. In addition, the potential for mercury captured in FGD gypsum to be released 

during wallboard production is still unknown. There is also some concern that mercury contained 

in FGD gypsum wallboard may leach into the groundwater at municipal landfills once the 

wallboard reaches the end of its life cycle and is disposed of. 

 This predicted surplus suggests a need to develop new markets for FGD gypsum and for 

PA DEP to write new regulations that would include FGD gypsum in its definition of coal ash 

and designate new beneficial use applications for the material. This would require a revision to 

the Solid Waste Management Act. 

 Through EPGA, industry started working with PA DEP in 2004 to find uses for the 

anticipated surplus of FGD gypsum. Industry would like to be able to use FGD gypsum in 

mining, structural fill, and agriculture applications. Mine applications are preferred because there 

is a local need for reclamation materials, and it is a large-volume application. Electric generating 

companies are also concerned that PA DEP may require a lined landfill for the disposal of FGD 

gypsum, making it even more important to secure a beneficial use for the material. 

 PA DEP cannot approve FGD gypsum for use in coal or non-coal mine sites under current 

regulations (287.611 [e] [3]) unless it is combined with fly ash. PA DEP is working on 

combining the municipal and residual waste regulations into one regulatory package. PA DEP is 

also reviewing a general permit application submitted by EPGA for the beneficial use of FGD 

gypsum in a coal ash–lime mixture for use in mine reclamation. At the time of the review 

meetings, this process was expected to take approximately 2 years, from the initial proposal to 

implementation. EPGA proposed a number of different blends to PA DEP. It originally proposed 

100% FGD gypsum, next 90% FGD gypsum–10% fly ash, and then 74% FGD gypsum–24% fly 

ash–2% lime. After repeated laboratory tests on a variety of blends, PA DEP stated at one point 

it would like a 50% FGD gypsum–45% fly ash–5% lime blend and encouraged industry to use 

less FGD gypsum, more fly ash, and more hydrated lime. PA DEP is concerned about the 

hydraulic conductivity and solubility of FGD gypsum, which could result in high concentrations 

of calcium and sulfate and, possibly, boron and result in the development of karstlike features. 

Electric generating companies do not want to blend concrete-grade fly ash with FGD gypsum 

because it does not make economic sense, and they do not want to contaminate pure FGD 

gypsum with fly ash in case it could be recovered again for future use. Also, some electric 

generating companies would have to import fly ash from external sources. 

 Following the review meetings in December 2006, PA DEP, with cooperation from 

industry, agreed that a performance-based standard would be the best option, rather than 

dictating the exact mixture of FGD gypsum, fly ash, and alkaline fixative. PA DEP requested 
17 

that industry achieve a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 10-6 cm/sec within 56 days of 

placement to reduce leachate generation. EPGA provided testing information to PA DEP 

showing that a 3:1 ratio of FGD gypsum to fly ash with 4% alkaline additive (lime) will produce 

this permeability and result in a compressive strength of more than 1400 pounds per square inch. 

This information along with the FGD gypsum/fly ash/alkaline agent testing, groundwater 

quarterly monitoring, and appropriate placement methods are incorporated in the draft general 

permit that was issued in February 2007. 

Barrier 2: Lack of Internal Communication at Government Agencies 

 Internal communication and technology transfer among departments within state agencies 

are limited. At PA DEP, BWM and BMR/DMO communicate regularly and work together to 

develop rules, guidance, and special conditions needed for the coal ash beneficial use program. 

However, BWM, the Bureau of Air Quality, and the Bureau of Water Standards and 

Facility Regulation do not appear to communicate as effectively. Similarly, at PennDOT, the 

14 bureaus did not appear to be familiar with each other’s activities. These communication 

barriers appeared to be due to a lack of formal mechanisms to facilitate such communication 

with departments or districts and are not due to lack of interest among departments to work 

together. 

 The lack of communication between bureaus is a barrier because, instead of developing a 

cohesive approach to issues, these bureaus may be duplicating efforts or have contradicting 

opinions. 

Barrier 3: Costly Long-Term Field Studies May Be Needed to Get New Beneficial Use 

Applications Approved 

 PA DEP is sometimes perceived as being overly conservative in accepting new beneficial 

uses and wanting long-term field studies to alleviate any concerns it may have about the 

environmental appropriateness of using CCPs over time. Although the need for long-term field 

studies is often valid, these studies can be costly, may result in substantial project delays, and are 

not always cost-effective for industry to conduct (i.e., the cost of the study is more than the 

avoided disposal cost or the potential revenue to be earned via the beneficial use). 

 Unfortunately, Pennsylvania does not have a governmental entity or state-derived R&D 

funds to help fund these studies like other coal-mining states, such as North Dakota (Lignite 

Energy Council), Ohio (Ohio Coal Development Office), and Illinois (Illinois Clean Coal 

Institute). These R&D organizations provide funding for projects that preserve and enhance the 

development of their states’ coal resources, which include projects focused on CCP utilization. 

Barrier 4: Interpretation of PA DEP Regulations Varies Among Districts/Regions 

 The PA DEP DMO has five surface mining and one refuse district offices, and the BWM 

has six regional offices. The PA DEP central office has general oversight on beneficial use and 

provides technical support to the district/regional offices. The districts/regions issue permits. 
18 

 An example of a difference in the interpretation of regulations among DMOs is for the 

amount of growing medium required after a mine has been filled in. The regulations call for 

1 foot of growing medium for planting grass and 3 feet for planting trees. If coal ash placement 

occurs, 4 feet of growing medium is required. The districts indicated that each district has 

exclusive geographic conditions and that the growing medium required is dependent on what the 

land is intended to be used for in the future. Although industry generally agrees that site-specific 

exceptions are needed, they contend that the requirements are not consistent, making it difficult 

to plan and budget for these projects. 

Barrier 5: Government Agencies Did Not Appear to View CCPs as a Means for 

Achieving Sustainability 

 The government agency representatives interviewed did not appear to consider the 

environmental sustainability associated with the beneficial use of CCPs when making their rules, 

regulations, or policies regarding coal ash management. There are some noteworthy exceptions 

to this statement: 

• The environmental benefits of using CCPs for mine reclamation were very well 

understood and promoted by PA DEP BMR. 

• The state requires all new government buildings to be LEED®-certified, which could 

indirectly encourage the use of CCP-containing products. 

• The PA DEP in conjunction with the Environmental Technology Evaluation Center at 

the Civil Engineering Research Foundation in Washington, D.C., has established a 

national program to increase the use of innovative cement technologies, which includes 

the increased use of fly ash. An initial outcome of this work is the acceptance of the 

ASTM performance specification within the commonwealth. 

 Despite these exceptions and potentially others that were not revealed during this review 

process, the discussion groups did not relieve a green movement (whether that be from the 

development of legislation on green building or sustainable development groups approaching 

state agencies) that was making a major impact on directly encouraging the increased use of 

CCPs. 

 To illustrate this barrier, the use of fly ash as a mineral admixture in concrete should be 

considered (generally at 15%–35% replacement for portland cement nationwide). This practice 

offers significant engineering, economic, and environmental benefits. Engineering benefits 

include improved performance for placement and in the final product. Electric generating 

companies and end consumers realize economic benefits by avoiding fly ash disposal costs and 

saving money by using fly ash as a supplementary cementitious material. Environmental benefits 

include reduced greenhouse gas emissions (approximately 1 ton of carbon dioxide saved for 

every 1 ton of fly ash used to replace portland cement), reduced need for landfills, and 

conservation of virgin resources. The environmental benefits associated with using CCPs in 

concrete applications were not considered by Pennsylvania government agencies. The coal ash 

beneficial use section of the solid waste regulations set forth by PA DEP were included mainly 
19 

because PA DEP believes it is environmentally safe to use CCPs in certain applications. The 

PennDOT specifications were in place primarily because Class F fly ash is effective in mitigating 

ASR. PennDOT’s specifications, in particular, are focused on the physical benefits of using 

CCPs and did not place value on the environmental benefits of using CCPs. 

 As an other example, government agencies interviewed have programs that encourage 

using recycled materials, but they do not focus on CCPs. Since 1998, PennDOT and PA DEP 

have operated under a MOU to promote and support recycled materials in state highway 

construction and maintenance projects. PennDOT’s Strategic Environmental Management 

Program focuses on recycled material use in maintenance projects, and the Strategic Recycling 

Program evaluates and helps implement recycling opportunities for new projects. These 

programs are spearheaded by PennDOT, with support from PA DEP. Both of these programs 

consider CCPs to be recycled materials; however, they are not actively encouraging the use of 

CCPs. In order for these programs to look more closely at CCPs, they would likely need to be 

approached by industry. 

Barrier 6: Advocacy Groups Can Be Effective in Delaying or Terminating Beneficial 

Use Applications 

 National and local advocacy groups such as the Clean Air Task Force, Hoosier 

Environmental Council, and the Army for a Clean Environment representing the people of 

Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, have attacked the beneficial use of CCPs in Pennsylvania. Advocacy 

groups such as these have stated that they believe that government agencies fail to protect 

humans by caving to political pressure and that the people are left to defend themselves against 

what they see as dirty coal-burning power plants. 

 CCP industry stakeholders interviewed believe these advocacy groups attack mine 

reclamation with CCPs in an indirect way to stop the burning of coal to produce electricity. 

Those interviewed believe that these groups understand that if they can prevent a coal-fired 

power plant from hauling its CCPs back to a mine site for reclamation, they will be hurting the 

power plant, thereby protecting the public from the pollution (air and water) they perceive to be 

associated with the plant. Advocacy groups have cited outliers in monitoring data provided by 

PA DEP or the presence of AMD-related contaminants as evidence of environmental damage, 

even though the alleged environmental damage cannot be linked to the placement of CCPs. 

 Despite the efforts of these advocacy groups, the general public seems to accept the 

beneficial use of CCPs in mine sites and understands the logic that the land is better off with 

reclamation than without. In particular, the general public understands that AML represent a 

physical safety hazard and are pleased when the land is returned to a productive and safe state. 

Nevertheless, these groups are still effective in delaying or terminating some beneficial use 

applications, simply because potential project proponents may wish to avoid the hassle of dealing 

with these groups. 

 It is important to note the advocacy groups named in this report were not invited to 

participate in this review. The opinions reflected in this barrier were brought forth by those who 

participated in the discussion group sessions. 
20 

Barrier 7: Although the NAS Report Was Not Damaging, It Was a Missed 

Opportunity to Showcase Success Stories 

 In recent years, the beneficial use of coal ash on mine sites has become a controversial 

topic on local, state, and national levels. As a result, EPA was tasked to review the adequacy of 

coal ash beneficial use programs nationwide to determine if federal regulation, guidelines, or 

other requirements are needed to help ensure that the beneficial use of coal ash on mine sites 

does not cause groundwater contamination. NAS was commissioned to perform this evaluation 

and published a report titled Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines (2006). 

 Everyone interviewed in the discussion groups stated that the NAS report was “middle of 

the road.” They felt that although the report contained no information that would prohibit the use 

of CCPs in mines, it was a missed opportunity to showcase the benefits of using CCPs in mines. 

 No damage cases were reported by NAS about the use of CCPs in mine applications. Some 

of the sites identified as alleged damage cases by critics of coal ash beneficial use were 

Pennsylvania sites. In reviewing the concerns over the Pennsylvania sites, it became apparent to 

those who participated in the discussion groups that many of them were generated by 

misinterpretation of data and a lack of in-depth analysis of the sites. Industry and PA DEP 

defended these allegations of damage cases. 

 PA DEP is considering making the following minor modifications to its monitoring 

requirements based on recommendations in the NAS report: 

• Broaden the parameters it monitors in groundwater and leachate. 

• Require the recording of landowner consent forms. These were only recommended to 

be recorded in the past. 

• Increase monitoring of heavy metals quarterly instead of annually in order to provide 

information on seasonal information and to allow for more rigorous analysis and 

interpretation of the data. 

• Require more conditions in permits. 

• Investigate specific compaction techniques and fugitive dust issues. 

• Require risk assessments. 

 Industry is generally accepting of these increased monitoring requirements, although some 

industry representatives indicated that the increase in monitoring may be more costly but would 

not preclude the practice of placing CCPs in mines. In addition to the monitoring requirements, 

PA DEP is trying to make its monitoring data easier to review by providing it in an electronic 

format. It will use forums such as ASTSWMO, Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC), 

and Solid Waste Alliance Communities (SWAC) to exchange information with other states. On a 

federal level, EPA plans to begin regional state calls for industrial material reuse/recycling, 
21 

which will include CCP use for mine filling. These should be considered positive outcomes of 

the NAS report. 

 The “barrier” of the NAS report is that it did not recognize the vast differences between the 

highly alkaline CCPs produced by CFB plants and the less alkaline fly ash produced by pc-fired 

plants. The CFB ash generators believed their success story was missed by the NAS report 

because this distinction was not made and the beneficial use of CFB ash in particular should have 

been prominently showcased. For example, the NAS report indicated that coal ash should not be 

placed in direct contact with standing water or groundwater. However, the Big Gorilla project 

demonstrated the engineering and environmental appropriateness of placing fly ash and bed ash 

from a CFB plant directly into a surface mine pool.8

 This was a demonstration project with 

closely monitored groundwater proving the successful reclamation for a nearly 15-acre mine pit 

containing 135 million gallons of acidic water. Such highly beneficial reclamation projects could 

be prohibited in the future if regulatory agencies blindly adhere to the NAS report’s suggestions 

in this regard. 

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 The following potential threats could hinder the future of CCP beneficial use in 

Pennsylvania. 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 order of importance.

Threat 1: Industry Is Concerned about the Impact Federal and State Air Emission 

Rules Will Have on CCP Management 

 In March 2005, EPA announced new clean air regulations that will reduce emissions of 

NOx, SO2, and mercury from coal-fired power plants. These regulations seek to lower levels 

using a cap-and-trade mechanism by which power plants are assigned emission limits but can 

exceed those limits by purchasing credits from companies whose emissions are below their 

assigned limits. EPA lists both of these rules as a part of the Clean Air Rules of 2004: 

• The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) applies to SO2 and NOx emissions in 28 eastern 

states and Washington, D.C. (this includes Pennsylvania). CAIR calls for selected states 

to have a 70% reduction of SO2 emissions and a 60% reduction of NOx emissions 

compared to 2003 levels by the year 2015. 

 

8

 More information about the Big Gorilla demonstration project can be found in Coal Ash Beneficial Use in Mine 

Reclamation and Mine Drainage Remediation in Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, 5600-UK-DEP3132, 2004. 
22 

• The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) is the first federal rule to limit mercury 

emissions from coal-fired power plants. This rule calls for a 70% reduction of mercury 

emissions by 2018. 

 In addition to federal regulations, the PA DEP submitted its own proposed rulemaking to 

EPA to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in November 2006. The 

proposed rule stated that new and existing coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania will meet an 

annual mercury budget of 1.779 tons per year for Phase 1, which begins January 1, 2010. The Phase 

2 requirements will begin January 1, 2015, and will require an annual mercury budget of 0.702 tons 

per year and each year thereafter. PA DEP’s proposed rule does not allow participation in the CAMR 

cap-and-trade program. The regulation will be codified in 25 PA Code 123.201–123.215. 

 Industry is concerned about the Pennsylvania mercury regulation because it: 

• Does not allow for cap-and-trade. 

• Reduces mercury emission by more than 95%, which will force electric power 

generators to consider switching to low-mercury (non-Pennsylvania) coal. 

• Forces controls on all units regardless of cost–benefit. For many units, it is believed that 

the incremental environmental and health benefits are not proportional to the increased 

cost of mercury control, which will be borne by either utility shareholders or consumers 

(Davis, 2006). 

 Some concerns brought forth by industry related to the impact these federal and state air 

emission regulations will have on CCP management include the following: 

1. CFB plants burn coal refuse with a high sulfur content. To achieve the SO2 emission 

levels designated by CAIR, CFB plants would have to add a considerable amount of 

limestone, resulting in additional costs and an ash with an even higher pH. 

2. Bituminous coals burned by Pennsylvania’s pc-fired power plants tend to produce high 

proportions of soluble, oxidized mercury in the flue gas; thus the primary technology 

for reducing mercury emissions is wet FGD systems. This allows mercury removal to 

be achieved as a “cobenefit” of compliance with CAIR; however, the amount of 

mercury removal achievable with wet FGD systems varies from plant to plant. There is 

great concern that some units, even after wet FGD systems are installed, may not be 

able to achieve the high levels of mercury removal required by the Pennsylvania law. 

The inability to trade mercury reduction credits in Pennsylvania could force such units 

to install additional mercury controls, which will increase cost and could have negative 

impacts on the quality of CCPs. Other options include adding more limestone to the 

boiler but since most boilers can only handle a defined amount of material; there is an 

inability to add limestone to reduce SO2 emissions while maintaining the level of 

generation mandated. Plants could also switch to a higher-Btu/lower-sulfur coal; 

however, the availability of this type of coal is uncertain. 
23 

3. Other than wet FGD systems, the leading technology to comply with CAMR and/or the 

Pennsylvania mercury rule is activated carbon injection (ACI). ACI may lead to 

increased concentrations of mercury-containing sorbents and higher carbon contents in 

fly ash. Fly ash will likely no longer be able to be used in concrete because ACI impacts 

air-entraining admixtures (AEAs). Both industry and PennDOT are concerned that their 

mix designs rely on fly ash as an admixture and changes in the chemical and physical 

properties of the fly ash could adversely impact its effectiveness. More specifically, 

they are concerned about the impact of the AC on AEAs in concrete. They are also 

concerned about any changes that influence the material’s ability to increase strength 

and reduce permeability. Units that choose to burn lower-sulfur coal as a means of 

complying with CAIR may also produce fly ashes that are less advantageous as a 

concrete admixture than current Class F ashes. PennDOT may also not be able to list fly 

ash sources contaminated with AC on Bulletin 15. In order for it to approve 

contaminated fly ash, it would need long-term data indicating that the fly ash works 

over time and is a consistent material. These data would need to come from an 

independent source. PennDOT does not have the monetary or personnel resources to 

conduct its own testing. 

4. Fly ash from units using sorbent injection for mercury control may no longer be able to 

be used in cement manufacture unless the manufacturer demonstrates that the use of 

such ash will not lead to increased mercury emissions from the cement kiln (National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry, 2006). EPA has voluntarily taken reconsideration on the ban 

on fly ash where sorbent injection for mercury control is practiced and has been 

petitioned (Pew, 2007) to reconsider its decision not to place restrictions on the current 

use of fly ash. EPA plans to complete these reconsiderations by the end of 2007. 

 Numerous beneficiation technologies have been developed to address these ash 

management concerns; however, the applicability of beneficiation technologies is very sitespecific to each power plant, and there is limited information available on the potential rerelease 

of ACI-captured mercury from ash beneficiation operations. There is not a one-size-fits-all 

technology, and in many instances, it is not economically advantageous to employ beneficiation 

technologies because the plant has low-cost disposal options. Some Pennsylvania electric 

generating companies are in the process of installing or are considering installing beneficiation 

technologies to improve CCP quality. 

Threat 2: OSM Is Developing New Rules Which May Require Modifications to PA 

DEP Regulations 

 The U.S. Department of the Interior OSM sets standards for the operation of surface coal 

mines and reclamation of the land following mining. Currently, OSM is developing national 

rules for active Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) coal mines and 

abandoned mines that receive federal funding for reclamation. The new rules will utilize existing 

SMCRA authorities. The current schedule is to have a proposed rule during 2007, with a final 

rule during 2008, although OSM stated this is an optimistic time line. OSM will publish an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register formalizing its intentions. Once 
24 

these rules become final, OSM will write Part 732 notification letters to each of the mining states 

(including Pennsylvania) telling them that if they want to continue permitting CCP placement 

under SMCRA, they must adopt rules that are equivalent to the federal rules. The OSM rules will 

not be modeled after Pennsylvania residual waste beneficial use coal ash rules but will designate 

all of the existing SMCRA rules which must be complied with in order to conduct CCP 

placement at a SMCRA mine. Some new rules may be necessary such as addition of a definition 

of terms. These rules will not apply to AML sites where no federal funding is involved (Vories, 

2007). In Pennsylvania, the ARIPPA program to reclaim AMLs does not receive funding from 

the federal SMCRA AML program and, therefore, does not fall under SMCRA regulatory 

authority.

Threat 3: EPA Could Prohibit the Use of FGD Gypsum in Cement Production 

 With the predicted surplus of FGD gypsum, cement manufacturers are expecting to get 

FGD gypsum at a lower price and, subsequently, will be using more FGD gypsum. FGD gypsum 

requires special handling equipment; however, this will not be cost-prohibitive. Given the 

potential EPA ban on the use of fly ash from sorbent injection for mercury control as a cement 

kiln feed (see Threat 1 above), there is some concern that EPA will also prohibit the use of FGD 

gypsum produced at coal-fired power plants using sorbents for mercury control. EPA 

understands that FGD gypsum is generally not used in the high-temperature portion of the 

cement-manufacturing process that would be conducive to mercury release but is investigating 

worker safety and mercury emission information that may influence such future restrictions. 

ACTIONS THAT COULD INCREASE CCP USE IN PENNSYLVANIA 

 The following actions are suggested by the authors as methods for overcoming barriers and 

threats identified in this report by taking advantage of the opportunities for increasing CCP 

utilization. The proposed actions are to 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 actions are listed in order 

of significance. 

Action 1: Develop Regulations and Find New Markets for FGD Material 

 Several high-volume applications could use FGD gypsum and take advantage of its 

inherent chemical properties. One of the most promising high-volume applications is the lowcost production of alpha hemihydrate/gypsum cement (otherwise known as high-strength 

plaster). Other end uses that are expected to be economically viable are fertilizers and fillers 

(Bruce, 2004). Although the amount of FGD gypsum required as fertilizer at any one site may be 

somewhat limited, the collective agricultural market is quite large and appears to be worthy of 

further investigation. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is currently working with 

Pennsylvania State University to develop uses for FGD gypsum in agricultural uses. 

Pennsylvania also has several high-volume mining application opportunities. 

 In order to facilitate the development of regulations that are conducive to large-volume 

uses of FGD gypsum, both PA DEP and industry should seek out the advice and experience of 
25 

persons and agencies in other states (e.g., Tennessee Valley Authority) that are familiar with 

large-volume FGD gypsum placement in monofills. Real-world data from existing FGD gypsum 

monofills would provide PA DEP with evidence it needs to determine whether or not solution 

channeling within the FGD gypsum is or is not likely to occur and provide some insight as to 

how to design structural fills containing high volumes of FGD gypsum. 

Action 2: Improve Lines of Communication Between Industry and Government 

Agencies 

 Government agencies, legislators, and industry generally agree that making modifications 

to current regulations or writing new regulations is a lengthy process. Government agencies 

indicated this process could be expedited if industry would provide them with the 

information/data they need up-front; whereas, industry indicated that the government agencies 

should say what information/data they need and then industry will provide it. Industry further 

indicated that, in some instances, government agency staff do not have the technical knowledge 

base needed to completely understand the issues. These roadblocks can delay the regulation 

process for years. 

 The PA DEP representatives interviewed indicated that their primary job is to protect the 

public, not to represent the interests of industry. PA DEP stated that industry should take a 

proactive, not reactive, approach to providing information/data. For example, if industry wants 

the PA DEP to consider including FGD gypsum in its definition of CCPs, it needs to do its part 

in providing PA DEP with the information/data it needs to make that determination. Likewise, 

industry indicated the PA DEP needs to do a better job of deciding up-front what 

information/data it needs. 

 A potential solution to this issue is for industry and government to work together toward 

advancing the beneficial use of coal through a research consortium. For example, the EERC’s 

Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium® (CARRC®) has offered a forum for industry to work 

with DOE NETL on a multitude of coal-ash related issues. Government participation on a state 

level could also be incorporated into consortium efforts such as CARRC. Industry support 

groups, such as EPGA, also offer an excellent forum for industry to pool its intellectual and 

monetary resources and collectively approach state agencies as one unified voice for the mutual 

benefit of all parties involved. 

Action 3: Import Fly Ash from States with High Disposal Costs and Limited 

Beneficial Use Options 

 Several fly ash-marketing companies contacted to participate in the discussion groups were 

not currently selling fly ash in Pennsylvania but were interested in getting into the market. To do 

so, they would likely have to import fly ash into Pennsylvania. Some are already doing so, but 

there is opportunity to import more for beneficial use. In some instances, it is economically 

feasible to import fly ash from states where landfill costs are high. Transportation costs may be 

limiting in some areas; however, some marketing companies have managed to import ash for 

high-volume, low-value applications such as mine reclamation. It is anticipated that more fly ash 
26 

will be imported into the Pennsylvania market for use in concrete (if the concrete market 

continues to grow) and mine reclamation projects. 

 It should be noted, however, that the import of fly ash from other states may be perceived 

by local citizens and environmental groups as problematic. Pennsylvania has had instances in the 

past where local groups have tried to stop the transportation of coal ash in their townships/cities 

and could look at the import of coal ash for beneficial use applications as a way for other states 

to use their “waste material” elsewhere. These potential negative perceptions could spill over 

into the regulatory and legislative arena. In addition, the import of fly ash from other states will 

not directly benefit Pennsylvania coal ash producers but will benefit the coal ash industry as a 

whole. 

Action 4: Industry Could Approach PennDOT to Encourage CCP Use 

 As previously mentioned, PennDOT’s specifications set the bar for other coal ash users in 

the state because industry sees the specifications as cautious and stringent, thus lessening the 

potential for failure. Thus new PennDOT specifications that encourage CCP use have the 

potential to have a large impact on all coal ash users in the state. 

 If industry approached PennDOT to request changes to current specifications or write new 

specifications, PennDOT would be compelled to respond, although it noted this process takes 

time. PennDOT seemed to be rarely approached by industry to try new beneficial use 

applications or to make changes to its current specifications. It also did not seem to be proactive 

in developing its own specifications to increase the use of CCPs in highway projects. It is 

important to note, however, that PennDOT is currently investigating high-performance concrete 

and self-consolidating concrete applications. Some of these mix designs rely on fly ash as an 

admixture. Fly ash is being considered because it may be advantageous from an engineering 

standpoint. 

 To make modifications or write new specifications, industry would need to provide 

PennDOT with a PE, which would be considered a research project by PennDOT. PennDOT 

would not be agreeable to evaluating a material itself, but may check data internally. A 

demonstration process could also be considered, but industry should ask PennDOT prior to the 

processes so that any of its questions or concerns could be answered during the demonstration 

process. 

 A possible reason why Pennsylvania electric generating companies do not appear to be 

approaching PennDOT to increase CCP use is because all concrete-grade fly ash produced in 

Pennsylvania is being used, and many companies are producing a fly ash that is not suitable for 

concrete because of high unburned carbon contents. Electric generating companies need 

research, beneficiation technologies, and operational changes that will help to produce fly ash 

that is suitable for the concrete market. Nonetheless, fly ash not meeting concrete specifications 

could be used in other applications such as flowable fills and embankments. These high-volume 

uses provide an opportunity to use non-concrete-grade fly ash; however, they are low-value 

applications and it may be more cost-effective for some electric generating companies to dispose 

of the material than to find uses. 
27 

Action 5: Reclassify CCPs as a Product 

 Some pc-fired power plant representatives indicated that they would be able to use more 

CCPs in nontraditional applications if PA DEP classified CCPs as a product and subsequently 

granted CCP producers the authority to market CCPs as products. The current classification 

system limits the beneficial use options for CCPs. CCP producers would like PA DEP to 

simplify the process to qualify CCPs for use. In some instances, the process is too lengthy for 

CCP producers to bother with a low-value, low-volume use, and it is easier and cheaper to 

dispose of the material. 

Action 6: Increase Awareness of C2P2 and the Green Highways Partnership 

 Most participants in the discussion groups were not aware of the Green Highways 

Partnership or C2

P2. Some had heard of the programs but did not think they could be members if 

they were not doing something significant with CCP utilization and did not understand what was 

expected of members. In addition, they did not know who at their company/organization had the 

authority to sign the registration form. 

 Both of these programs offer a method of promoting beneficial use success stories and earn 

national recognition for those successes. Those interviewed indicated that these programs could 

offer a means of educating the general public about these success stories, so that they hear about 

the positive aspects of CCP utilization. These programs would likely be perceived by the general 

public as more credible than industry. Also, more outreach needs to be done by these programs 

to get industry involved. 

Action 7: Build Off of LEED’s Success in Government-Funded Projects 

 The LEED® program has been successful in the United States for many reasons, but 

perhaps its greatest accomplishment thus far was to simply define what it means to “build green” 

and offer recognition to those who build green. LEED® is gaining popularity in Pennsylvania, 

particularly with government-funded projects. All government buildings now require some level 

(gold, silver, or platinum) of certification from LEED®. Using coal ash-containing products in 

LEED® projects can help earn points toward achieving LEED® certification. Pennsylvania 

concrete producers do make a “green” mix with 40%–50% slag to help projects earn LEED®

credits. Other green concrete mixes are gaining popularity in Pennsylvania. One example is 

pervious concrete used to construct parking lots which uses supplementary cementitious 

materials such as silica fume, fly ash, and slag in the mix design. Pervious concrete offers several 

advantages: reducing the level of pollution contained in runoff, reducing the overall runoff from 

an area, reducing the need for large detention ponds, and improving driving safety during wet 

weather conditions. 

 Although LEED® is encouraging CCP use in government-funded projects, LEED® is not as 

popular for other construction projects. Most contractors in Pennsylvania are driven by price and 

performance, and fly ash helps them meet both of those requirements. Contractors are typically 

not concerned and/or aware of the environmental benefits associated with using fly ash. 
28 

 In order for LEED® to become more accepted for residential and commercial construction, 

thus potentially increasing the amount of coal ash-containing products in construction projects, it 

was suggested that the coal ash industry should do more to become involved in the LEED®

program. 

CONCLUSIONS 

 Pennsylvania’s estimated 60%–70% CCP utilization rate is due largely to the fact that CCP 

use in mining applications is defined as a beneficial use in Pennsylvania, unlike many other 

states that consider it to be disposal. PA DEP residual waste coal ash beneficial use regulations 

and program implementation policies are perhaps the most comprehensive and dependable in the 

country, particularly for abandoned mine reclamation. These regulations coupled with the state’s 

14 CFB power plants successfully using CCPs in mine applications make Pennsylvania a model 

state for the use of CCPs in mine applications. 

 PA DEP BWM excludes coal ash used for beneficial use from the definition of solid waste 

and establishes provisions for the beneficial use of coal ash. The eleven approved beneficial uses 

are generally accepted by industry and have cleared the way for CCP use in those applications. 

The exception to this is FGD material because it was not readily available as a product when the 

regulations were put in place. Through EPGA, industry is working with PA DEP to find 

approved beneficial uses for the expected 4-million-ton surplus of FGD gypsum which will be 

produced as more Pennsylvania electric generating companies install wet FGD systems. 

 PennDOT has specifications for the use of CCPs in concrete and flowable backfill 

applications. Class F fly ash plays an important role in mitigating ASR because about 70% of 

PennDOT’s aggregate sources are reactive. PennDOT’s specifications set the bar for other 

concrete users in the state because industry sees the specifications as cautious and stringent, thus 

lessening the potential for failure. Although PennDOT has approved beneficial uses for CCPs, 

PennDOT’s specifications would not be considered progressive compared to other states with 

regard to encouraging CCP use. 

 Industry is concerned about the effect that pending federal and state air emission rules will 

have on CCP management. CFB plants are concerned that they will have to add a considerable 

amount of limestone to reduce sulfur emissions, resulting in an ash with an even higher pH. 

Pulverized-coal-fired plants are primarily concerned that ACI for mercury control may lead to 

increased concentrations of mercury-containing sorbents and higher carbon contents in fly ash, 

thus prohibiting fly ash beneficial use in cement and concrete applications. 

 The action items presented are methods for overcoming barriers and threats identified in 

this report. The most pressing action item is to develop regulations for the beneficial use of FGD 

material. Significant progress was made on this action item following the state review discussion 

group sessions and the release of this report in draft format to project participants. 
29 

REFERENCES 

American Coal Ash Association. 2005 Production and Use Survey; 2005.

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

Combustion Products (CCPs); Aug 1998. 

Biden, D.L. Listening Session on the Practices of Placing Coal Combustion Byproducts in Coal 

Mines and at Surface Disposal Impoundments and Landfills; Electric Power Generation 

Association Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Harrisburg, PA, 

March 2004.

Bruce, B. Balancing Supply and Demand of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum in USA/Canada. 

In Proceedings of the Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control MEGA Symposium; 

Washington, DC, Aug 30 – Sept 2, 2004: pp 1491–1501. 

Butalia, T.S.; Wolfe, W.E. Market Opportunities for Utilization of Ohio Flue Gas 

Desulfurization (FGD) and Other Coal Combustion Products (CCPs); The Ohio State 

University Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, May 

2000. 

Dalberto, A.D.; Scheetz, B.E.; Hornberger, R.J.; Kania, T.C.; Menghini, M.J.; Walters, S.C. 

Chapter 1. Overview: Coal Ash Beneficial Use and Mine Land Reclamation. In Coal Ash 

Beneficial Use in Mine Reclamation and Mine Drainage Remediation in Pennsylvania; 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 5600-UK-DEP3132, 2004. 

Davis. S. A Perspective on Mercury Regulation Policy in Pennsylvania. Presented at the 

American Coal Ash Association Milwaukee Meeting, June 2, 2006. 

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-W12, EERC Publication 

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

Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Coal Data, www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html 

(accessed Dec 2006). 

Industrial Outlook 2006, United States Forecast, Metals & Minerals, 

www.industrialinfo.com/outlook_2006/demo/index.jsp?pagerequest=industry08 (accessed 

Jan 2007). 

Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee. Report on A 

Proposed Moratorium on the Use of Fly Ash in Mine Reclamation Projects; Report prepared 

for the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Feb 2004. 
30 

Kulp, A. Listening Session on the Practices of Placing Coal Combustion Byproducts in Coal 

Mines and at Surface Disposal Impoundments and Landfills; Electric Power Generation 

Association Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Harrisburg, PA, 

May 2004. 

National Academy of Sciences, Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines, The National 

Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement 

Manufacturing Industry; Final Rule and Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 244, 

Dec 20, 2006. 

National Ready-Mixed Concrete Association. Ready-Mixed Concrete Production Statistics. 

http://nrmca.org/concrete/2006%20Statistics/2006_Prod_Stats.htm (accessed Jan 2006). 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Residual Waste. Title 25. Environmental 

Protection; Chapters 287–299, Effective Jan 13, 2001. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Unpublished data, 2006. 

Pew, J.S. Letter to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency on 

behalf of the Sierra Club, Feb 20, 2007. 

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

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

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

of Energy National Energy Technology Center Cooperative Agreement No. DE FC21-

93MC30097; EERC Publication No. 99-EERC-07-08; July 1999. 

Rose, A.W.; Voigt, D.; Noll, D.A. Chemical Mobility of Selected Trace Elements in Ash from 

Plants Burning Coal Refuse by Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion. Presented at the 14th 

International Symposium on Management and Use of Coal Combustion Products (CCPs), 

2001; Vol. 1, No. 26, pp 1–18. 

Vories, K. Personal communication, Jan 2007. 
APPENDIX A 

PARTICIPANT LIST
A-1 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE REVIEW PARTICIPANT LIST

December 13–15, 2006 

Mr. William Aljoe 

Project Manager 

U.S. Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

626 Cochrans Mill Road 

PO Box 10940, MS 922-273C 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 

Phone: (412) 386-6569 

Fax: (412) 386-5917 

E-Mail: aljoe@netl.doe.gov 

Mr. Jeffrey Ankrom 

Vice President 

Quality Aggregates, Inc. 

200 Neville Road 

Neville Island, PA 15225 

Phone: (724) 290-2100 

Fax: (412) 777-6684 

E-Mail: jankrom@quality-aggregates.com 

Mr. Harvie Beavers 

Project Manager 

Piney Creek, L.P. 

428 Power Lane 

Clarion, PA 16214 

Phone: (814) 226-8001 

Fax: (814) 226-7909 

E-Mail: harvie-pclp@csonline.net 

Ms. Tera Buckley 

Marketing Research Specialist 

University of North Dakota 

Energy & Environmental Research Center 

15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018 

Grand Forks, ND 58202 

Phone: (701) 777-5296 

Fax: (701) 777-5181 

E-Mail: tbuckley@undeerc.org 

Mr. Gary Cline* 

Environmental Manager 

Homer City Station 

EME Homer City Generation, LP 

1750 Power Plant Road 

Homer City, PA 15748 

Phone: (724) 479-6255 

Fax: (724) 479-6300 

E-Mail: gcline@mwgen.com 

Mr. Tom Collins 

Sales Representative 

Separation Technologies (Pro-Ash) 

109 Stonybrook Lane 

New Oxford, PA 17350 

Phone: (717) 514-0186 

E-Mail: tcollins@proash.com 

Dr. Charles Cravotta 

Hydrologist/Geochemist 

Water Resources Division 

U.S. Geological Survey 

215 Lime Kiln Road 

New Cumberland, PA 17070 

Phone: (717) 730-6963 

Fax: (717) 730-6997 

E-Mail: cravotta@usgs.gov 

Mr. Alfred Dalberto 

Bureau of Mining and Reclamation 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

PO Box 8461 

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8461 

Phone: (717) 783-8845 

E-Mail: adalberto@state.pa.us 
A-2 

Mr. Timothy Danehy 

BioMost, Inc. 

3016 Unionville Road 

Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

Phone: (724) 776-0161 

Fax: (724) 776-0166 

E-Mail: bmi@biomost.com 

Mr. Thomas D'Annunzio 

Exelon Corporation 

200 Exelon Way 

Kennett Square, PA 19345 

Phone: (610) 765-5831 

Fax: (610) 765-5561 

E-Mail: tom.dannunzio@exeloncorp.com 

Mr. Al DePaoli* 

Environmental Manager 

AES Beaver Valley LLC 

395 Frankfort Road 

Monaca, PA 15061 

Phone: (724) 773-2966 

E-Mail: al.depaoli@aes.com 

Dr. Anthony DiGioia* 

President 

DiGioia, Gray & Associates, LLC 

11 Wisteria Drive 

Pittsburgh, PA 15235 

Phone: (412) 372-4500 

Fax: (412) 372-1972 

E-Mail: tony@digioia.org 

Mr. Stephen Dixon 

Reliant Energy 

121 Champion Way, Suite 200 

Canonsburg, PA 15317 

Phone: (724) 597-8205 

Fax: (724) 597-8870 

E-Mail: sdixon@reliant.com 

Ms. Donna Fabrizio 

Environmental Affairs 

Exelon Power 

300 Exelon Way, Suite 320 

Kennett Square, PA 19348 

Phone: (610) 765-5891 

E-Mail: donna.fabrizio@exeloncorp.com 

Mr. Jeff Fair* 

Fly Ash Projects Manager 

Lafarge North America 

6109 Beverly Hills Road 

Coopersburg, PA 18036 

Phone: (610) 751-7367 

Fax: (610) 261-9020 

E-Mail: jeff.fair@lafarge-na.com 

Mr. Bruce Golden* 

Regional Coordinator 

Western PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine 

 Reclamation 

226 Donohoe Road 

Suite 110 

Greensburg, PA 15601 

Phone: (724) 832–3625 

E-Mail: bruce@wpcamr.org 

Mr. David Goss 

Executive Director 

American Coal Ash Association 

15200 East Girard Avenue, Suite 3050 

Aurora, CO 80014 

Phone: (720) 870-7897 

Fax: (720) 870-7889 

E-Mail: dcgoss@acaa-usa.org 

Mr. Thomas Gray* 

GAI Consultants, Inc. 

385 East Waterfront Drive 

Homestead, PA 15120-5005 

Phone: (412) 476-2000 ext. 1406 

Fax: (412) 476-2020 

E-Mail: t.gray@gaiconsultants.com 

Mr. Gary Haney 

Coal Combustion By-Product Program 

 Administrator 

FirstEnergy Corp. 

76 South Main Street 

Akron, OH 44308 

Phone: (330) 384-4676 

E-Mail: haneyg@firstenergycorp.com 
A-3 

Mr. Ron Hassinger 

Chief 

General Permits/Beneficial Use Section 

Division of Municipal and Residual Waste 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

400 Market Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8472 

Phone: (717) 787-7381 

E-Mail: rhassinger@state.pa.us 

Ms. Jennifer Hazen McCloskey 

Environmental Engineer 

Environmental Performance 

Allegheny Energy, Inc. 

800 Cabin Hill Drive 

Greensburg, PA 15601 

Phone: (724) 838-6066 

Fax: (724) 830-5142 

E-Mail: jmcclos@alleghenyenergy.com 

Ms. Mary Hunt 

Beneficial Use Coordinator 

Waste & Chemicals Management Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1650 Arch Street – 3WC22 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Phone: (215) 814-3425 

Fax: (215)814-3113 

E-Mail: hunt.mary@epa.gov 

Mr. Joseph Johnson 

Operations 

Pozzi-Tech, Inc. 

637 Fowler Avenue 

Berwick, PA 18603 

Phone: (570) 854-3618 

Fax: (570) 759-3836 

E-Mail: grayman@sunlink.net 

Mr. Winson King 

Manager 

Chemistry Lab 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

1118 State Street 

PO Box 2926 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Phone: (717) 783-6716 

Fax: (717) 783-5955 

E-Mail: wiking@state.pa.us 

Ms. Ann Kulp 

Electric Power Generation Association 

800 North 3rd Street, Suite 303 

Harrisburg, PA 17102 

Phone: (717) 909-3742 

Fax: (717) 909-1941 

E-Mail: ann@epga.org 

Mr. Dave Kuniega 

Chief Chemist 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

1118 State Street 

PO Box 2926 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Phone: (717) 787-3966 

Fax: (717) 783-5955 

E-Mail: dkuniega@state.pa.us 

Mr. Larry LaBuz 

Supervisor of Coal Combustion Products 

PPL Generation, LLC 

Two North Ninth Street 

GENPL6 

Allentown, PA 18101-1179 

Phone: (610) 774-5340 

Fax: (610) 774-4759 

E-Mail: lllabuz@pplweb.com 

Mr. Milan Lipensky 

Quality Assurance Manager 

Pennsy Supply 

1001 Paxton Street, PO Box 3331 

Harrisburg, PA 17105 

Phone: (717) 236-7029 

Fax: (717) 236-7087 

E-Mail: mlipensky@oldcastlematerials.com 
A-4 

Mr. Jeff McNelly 

Executive Director 

ARIPPA 

2015 Chestnut Street 

Camp Hill, PA 17011 

Phone: (717) 763-7635 

Fax: (717) 763-7455 

E-Mail: jamcnelly1@arippa.org 

Mr. Michael Menghini 

Environmental Group Manager 

Pottsville District Mining Office 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

5 West Laurel Boulevard 

Pottsville, PA 17901-2454 

Phone: (570) 621-3118 

Fax: (570) 621-3110 

E-mail: mmenghini@state.pa.us 

Mr. Gary Merritt 

Vice President 

Inter-Power Development 

100 High Tower Blvd., Suite 101 

Pittsburgh, PA 15205 

Phone: (412) 788-2400 

Fax: (412)788-0270 

E-mail: glmerritt@interpower.org 

Ms. Patricia Miller 

Concrete, Cement, Soils and Aggregate Testing 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

1118 State Street 

PO Box 2926 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Phone: (717) 787-2489 

Fax: (717) 783-5955 

E-Mail: pimiller@state.pa.us 

Mr. Ajoy Mukherjee* 

President 

Environmental Mining Services 

865 Marion Road 

Indiana, PA 15701-1400 

Phone: (724) 357-8650 

Mr. Dennis Noll 

President 

Earthtech, Inc. 

336 Bloomfield Street, Suite 201 

Johnstown, PA 15904 

Phone: (814) 266-6402 

E-Mail: etidennis@atlanticbb.net 

Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett 

Research Advisor 

University of North Dakota 

Energy & Environmental Research Center 

15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018 

Grand Forks, ND 58202 

Phone: (701) 777-5261 

Fax: (701) 777-5181 

E-Mail: dphassett@undeerc.org 

Mr. Troy Quebbeman 

Contracts Manager 

Lehigh Cement Company 

7660 Imperial Way 

Allentown, PA 18195 

Phone: (610) 366-4708 

E-Mail: tquebbeman@leighcement.com 

Dr. Arthur Rose* 

Pennsylvania State University 

726 Edgewood Circle 

State College, PA 16801 

Phone: (814) 865-7261 

E-Mail: rose@ems.psu.edu 

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 
A-5 

Mr. Thomas Schmaltz 

Corporate Environmental Manager 

Headwaters Incorporated 

1160 Millstone Run 

Bogart, GA 30622 

Phone: (706) 549-7903 

E-Mail: tschmaltz@headwaters.com 

Mr. Zahur Siddiqui 

Pavement & Materials Engineer 

Pennsylvania Division 

Federal Highway Administration 

Phone: (717) 221-3410 

E-Mail: Zahur.Siddiqui@fhwa.dot.gov 

Mr. Jeff Steeber* 

Staff Engineer 

UGI Development Company 

390 Route 11 

PO Box 224 

Hunlock Creek, PA 18621-0224 

Phone: (570) 830-1267 

E-Mail: jsteeber@ugidc.com 

Mr. Richard Taylor 

Robindale Energy Services, Inc. 

7 Riverside Plaza 

PO Box 38 

Blossburg, PA 16912 

Phone: (570) 638-0219 

E-Mail: rusty.taylor@resfuel.com 

Ms. Margo Thomson 

Manager 

Concrete Testing Lab 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

1118 State Street 

PO Box 2926 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Phone: (717) 787-1931 

Fax: (717) 783-5955 

E-Mail: mthomson@state.pa.us 

Mr. Dan Traynor 

Northhampton Generating Co., L.P. 

1 Horwith Drive 

PO Box 460 

Northhampton, PA 18067 

Phone: (610) 261-3073 

Fax: (610) 261-3075 

E-Mail: danieltraynor@cogentrix.com 

Mr. Roy Trout 

Manager 

Soils and Cement Testing Labs 

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

1118 State Street 

PO Box 2926 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

Phone: (717) 787-1910 

Fax: (717) 783-5955 

E-Mail: rtrout@state.pa.us 

Mr. Terry Watson 

President 

Pozzi-Tech, Inc. 

4700 Vestal Parkway East 

Vestal, NY 13850 

Phone: (607) 798-0655 

E-Mail: tewatson@pozzitech.com 

Mr. Kimery Vories* 

Ecologist 

USDI Office of Surface Mining 

Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center 

501 Belle Street 

Alton, IL 62002 

Phone: (618) 463-6463 ext. 103 

Fax: (618) 463-6470 

E-Mail: kvories@osmre.gov 

* Indicates that this participant did not attend a group discussion session but contributed to the state 

review either by submitting written comments or participating in a telephone conversation with the 

administrative team. 
APPENDIX B 

REVIEW GUIDE
B-1 

REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO 

THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Review Guide 

December 13–15, 2006 

Background 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Coal Ash 

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

coal combustion products (CCPs). Previous reviews were conducted in Texas and Florida. The final report 

from those reviews can be accessed online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/review.html. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this review is to highlight successes and identify barriers to increased utilization in 

Pennsylvania. 

Goal 

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

recommendations that may help Pennsylvania and other states increase the use of CCPs. Pennsylvania was 

selected because of its capacity to generate coal-based electricity, northern location, established CCP 

regulations, diversified beneficial use markets, and use of CCPs in mining applications. 

Process 

The review team will travel to Pennsylvania to visit state agencies and other key stakeholders involved in CCP 

utilization. Five discussion groups will be formed to answer questions posed by the review team. The discussion 

groups include the following: 

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

environmental agencies 

• CCP generators – utility environmental and ash managers 

• Concrete and Other Engineering Applications – CCP marketers, engineering/consulting firms, readymix concrete suppliers 

• Wallboard – users of synthetic gypsum for wallboard production 

• Mining – Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation officials and engineering/consulting firms 

Separate telephone interviews 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 before December 31, 2006. 

Reporting 

A draft final report will be prepared and distributed to all interviewees on or before February 1, 2007. 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 April 2007. Following the completion of the Pennsylvania review, a synthesis report will 

be prepared that translates the results from the three in-depth state reviews into a national perspective.
B-2 

AGENDA 

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 

8:30 – 10:15 a.m. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

 Bureau of Mining and Reclamation 

 Location: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

10: 30 – 12:00 p.m. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

 Bureau of Waste Management 

 Location: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

 Protection 

1:30 – 4:00 p.m. Electric Power Generation Association (EPGA) Members 

 Location: EPGA Offices 

4:15 – 5:00 p.m. Review Team Meeting 

Thursday, December 14, 2006 

9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Concrete and Other Engineering Applications 

 Location: EPGA Offices 

1:30 – 4:00 p.m. Mining 

 Location: EPGA Offices 

4:15 – 5:00 p.m. Review Team Meeting 

Friday, December 15, 2006 

9:00 – 11:30 a.m. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and District 

 Federal Highway Administration 

 Location: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

1:00 – 3:30 p.m. ARIPPA (Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers 

Association) Member Utilities 

 Location: EPGA Offices 

NOTE: Other sessions may be scheduled via conference call. 

If you are unable to attend your scheduled session, please contact Tera Buckley at 

(701) 777-5296 or tbuckley@undeerc.org.
B-3 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

1. What is your agency’s role in the management (use and disposal) of 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. Fluidized-bed combustor ash 

f. Other ______________ 

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

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

increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. 

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

currently in process or expected in the near future? 

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 Pennsylvania 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. 
B-4 

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

Pennsylvania? How could these obstacles be addressed? 

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

of CCPs in particular applications? 

a. Surveys of current practices (federal or state) 

b. Demonstration projects 

c. Internal (agency) testing and evaluations 

d. Technical reports submitted by qualified consultants 

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

f. Other ______________________________ 

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 Pennsylvania has taken toward CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
B-5 

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. How is coal ash utilization handled and perceived at your company? For example, at some 

utilities, CCP utilization is a priority for upper management but not for plant operators. 

3. 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? 

4. 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. 

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

aware of in the state of Pennsylvania. 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? 

6. 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? 

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. 

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

9. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research and demonstration projects regarding 

CCPs. 

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

Pennsylvania? How could these obstacles be addressed? Would any changes to state or 

federal regulations help you address these obstacles? 

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

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

your company in overcoming barriers? 

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

comparison to other states? 
B-6 

CONCRETE AND OTHER ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS 

1. Provide a general description of the CCP market in Pennsylvania, 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)? How much fly ash or FGD gypsum is being used for 

cement and concrete manufacture? 

2. What is the general feeling toward CCPs in your industry? How would you describe the 

competition between fly ash and portland cement? 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 the state of Pennsylvania 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., foundry sand) 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 

Pennsylvania? How could these obstacles be addressed? Would any changes to state or 

federal regulations help you address these obstacles? Could utilities 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 Pennsylvania has taken toward CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
B-7 

WALLBOARD 

1. Provide a general description of the wallboard market in Pennsylvania. Is supply meeting 

demand? How much FGD gypsum is being used for wallboard manufacture? Is any FGD 

gypsum being imported or exported? 

2. What is the general feeling toward FGD gypsum in your industry? How would you describe 

the competition between natural gypsum and FGD gypsum? Does the wallboard industry 

encounter any product acceptance issues with regard to purchasing wallboard made from 

FGD gypsum vs. natural gypsum? 

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

in the state of Pennsylvania related to CCPs. Are there any environmental policies, permits, 

regulations, or statutes that impact the way you utilize FGD gypsum? What specifications or 

guidelines do you feel promote or restrict FGD gypsum utilization? What changes would you 

like to see made to the current specifications and guidelines? 

4. As the government continues to reduce SO2 emissions and thereby increase FGD gypsum 

production, how will these changes impact they way your company does business? 

5. Research is under way to determine if mercury contained in FGD gypsum will be released 

during wallboard production or disposal. What approach is your company taking to deal with 

this issue? 

6. Can you offer any advice to utilities looking to utilize their FGD gypsum? 

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

Pennsylvania? How could this obstacle be addressed? What state or federal regulations could 

be implemented to overcome these obstacles? 

8. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to overcome 

barriers to CCP utilization? 

9. In general, how do you perceive the position Pennsylvania has taken toward CCPs in 

comparison to other states? 
B-8 

BUREAU OF MINING AND RECLAMATION 

1. 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? 

2. The 2003 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Site Visit Report titled “Coal Combustion 

Waste Minefill Management Practices – Pennsylvania” described the requirements for using 

CCPs in mine settings set forth by the Bureau. Have any changes or modifications been made 

to these requirements since the EPA report was published? How were the current 

requirements adopted? 

3. 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. 

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

currently in process or expected in the near future? 

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

regulations? Has this process ever changed over time? 

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

successful? 

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

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

8. The U.S. EPA report indicated that, at the time, there were no damage cases related to the use 

of CCPs in mining applications. Have there been any damage cases since that report was 

published? 

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

10. The National Academy of Sciences recently published a report titled “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 Pennsylvania? 

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

Pennsylvania? How could these obstacles be addressed? 
B-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 Pennsylvania has taken toward CCP use in 

mining applications in comparison to other states? 
B-10 

MINING 

1. Provide a general description of how CCPs are being used in mine settings in Pennsylvania. 

How much material is being used in mining applications and for what purpose? 

2. What is the general feeling toward CCPs used in mine settings? Have you experienced, or 

know of, opposition to the use? 

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

in the state of Pennsylvania related to CCP use in mine settings. What regulations or statutes 

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

the current regulations and statutes? 

4. 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 Pennsylvania? 

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

successful? 

6. 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. 

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. 

8. If CCPs were no longer available for use in mine settings (i.e., the marketplace changed and 

CCPs were sold to high-value applications), how would that impact reclamation plans? 

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

Pennsylvania? How could these obstacles be addressed? Would any changes to state or 

federal regulations help you address these obstacles? Could utilities do something to 

overcome these obstacles? 

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

utilization? 

11. In general, how do you perceive the position Pennsylvania has taken toward CCPs in 

comparison to other states?