# 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 2007ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Energy & Environmental Research Ce nter (EERC) would like to express its appreciation to the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laborat ory (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 th ank Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. William Aljoe; DOE NETL, and Mr. David Goss, ACAA, for their fi nancial support and valu able input on this

effort.

The EERC would like to thank Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. William A ljoe, DOE NETL; Mr. David Goss, ACAA; and Ms. Mary Hunt, EPA Region 3, for helping conduct the reviews in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In addition, thank yo u 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 individua ls who participated voluntarily in the information-gathering process of the review. Those individuals are name d 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 Administrati on—are gratefully acknowledged for helpin g shape the review.

EERC DISCLAIMER

LEGAL NOTICE This research report was pr epared by the EERC, an agency of the University of North Dakota, as an account of work sponsored by EPA and DOE. Because of the research nature of the work performed, neither the EERC nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or a ssumes any legal liability or re sponsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademar k, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or recommendation by the EERC.i TABLE OF CONTENTS

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 Pr oduction and Utilization.......................................................... 8

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UTILIZ ATION IN PENNSYLVANIA...................................... 8 Key 1: Industry Drove Sound Residual Waste Regulations .................................................. 9 Key 2: PA DEP Has a Comprehensive Regul atory 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 Comm unication 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 Regul ations 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 Wa s Not Damaging, It Was a Missed Opportunity to Showcase Success Stories ........................................................................... 20

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPA CT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN

PENNSYLVANIA................................................................................................................... ..... 21 Threat 1: Industry Is Concerned about th e Impact Federal and State Air Emission Rules Will Have on CCP Management ............................................................................... 21 Threat 2: OSM Is Developing New Rules Wh ich 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 Fi nd New Markets for FGD Material......................... 24 Action 2: Improve Lines of Communication Between Industry and Government Agencies...................................................................................................................... ......... 25 Action 3: Import Fly Ash fr om 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 C 2 P 2 and the Green Highways Partnership..................... 27

Action 7: Build Off of LEED’s Succe ss 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 Penns ylvania Mine Sites ........................................................................ 11iii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Trans portation 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 Te sting and Materials) International

ASTSWMO Association of State and Territo rial Solid Waste Management Officials

BMR Bureau of Mine Reclamation BWM Bureau of Waste Management

C 2 P 2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership

CaSO 4 calcium sulfate

CaSO 3 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 Departme nt 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

NO

x nitrogen oxides ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation OSM Office of Surface Mining PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection pc pulverized coal PennDOT Pennsylvania Depart ment of Transportation PE product evaluation PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Activ SO 2 sulfur dioxide

SWAC Solid Waste Alliance Communities SWOT strengths, weaknesse s, opportunities, threats R&D research and development USGBC U.S. Green Building Council USGS U.S. Geological Surveyv REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA REGULA TIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES

RELATED TO THE USE OF CO AL 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 Associati on [ACAA], 2005). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency (EPA) set goals to increase CCP utilization to 50% by 2011. As 201 1 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 developm ent of different CCP utilization profiles across the United States, the University of North Da kota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) is conducting a series of state review s. 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 Pennsyl vania and showcases keys to su ccessful 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 fi ndings into a national perspective.

Based on information obtained during the Pennsyl vania state review process, the following items were identified as keys to successful CCP utilization in Pennsylvani a and are discussed at greater length in this report:

1. Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Mana gement Act excludes “coal as h” (defined as fly ash, bottom ash, or boiler slag resulting from th e combustion of coal) that is beneficially used in accordance with Pennsylvania Depa rtment of Environm ental Protection (PA DEP) standards and criteria from the defi nition of solid waste. The standards and criteria are incorporated into the Residual Waste Regulations.

2. The PA DEP Bureau of Mine Reclama tion and the Distri ct Mining Offices (BMR/DMO) has a comprehensive regulatory program for the beneficial use of CCPs

for mine reclamation.

3. The state’s circulating fluidi zed-bed (CFB) plants offer an ideal opportunity to remine abandoned coal refuse piles, use the remove d coal refuse as a fuel, and utilize the resulting alkaline CFB ash for mine reclamati on, often returning the ash to the original

coal refuse site.

4. The Pennsylvania Department of Transporta tion (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 fl y ash. A nominal amount of Cl ass C fly ash is imported

from other states.

6. By providing easy access to its research a nd monitoring data, PA DEP BMR is able to provide information to environmental gr oups and government ag encies 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 a dditional 4 million tons of FGD gypsum per year once more wet forced-oxidized FGD sy stems are installed. I ndustry would like to use FGD gypsum in mining, structural fill, and agriculture applications; however, PA DEP cannot approve these uses und er the current coal ash bene ficial use of the Residual Waste Regulations. FGD gypsum must be mixed w ith coal ash in order to be considered for approval with a residual wast e beneficial use general permit.

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

limited because of a lack of formal mechanis ms to facilitate su ch communication. This barrier can result in the duplication of e ffort 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 fiel d studies to alleviate any concerns it may have about the environmental approp riateness 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 a ppear to consider the environmental sustainability associated with the benefici al use of CCPs when making their rules, regulations, or policies regard ing coal ash management. There are some exceptions to

this statement.

6. Advocacy groups in Pennsylvania have been e ffective in delaying or terminating some beneficial use applications.vii 7. Although the National Academy of Sciences (N AS) report on the placement of CCPs at mine sites was not damaging, it was a misse d opportunity to showcase success stories, particularly for CFB ash. This is a poten tial national barrier b ecause if regulatory agencies blindly adhere to the NAS repor t’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 im pact federal and stat e air emission rules will have on CCP management.

2. The Office of Surface Mining is developing ne w rules which may require modifications to the PA DEP coal ash beneficial use regulations.

3. Given the potential EPA ban on the use of fl y ash from sorbent in jection 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 bene ficial uses for FGD gypsum because the

wallboard and cement markets will not be ab le 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 co ntinue 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 encour age PennDOT to develop new specifications for coal ash use. This act ion 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 ma rket 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 (C 2 P 2 ) and the Green Highways Partnership could do more to increase awareness of their programs.viii 7. Pennsylvania should build upon the growing popul arity 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 REGULA TIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES

RELATED TO THE USE OF CO AL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

BACKGROUND

Over 49 million tons of coal combustion prod ucts (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 utilizati on rate only rose 0.21% from 2004 (40.08%) to 2005 (40.29%) (American Coal Ash Associati on [ACAA], 2005). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency (EPA) set goals to increase CCP utilization to 50% by 2011. As 201 1 draws near, this goal appears to be more difficult to attain, particularly as new air emission regulations are implemented, resu lting in larger quantities and changing qualities of CCPs produced. Given these challenges, both agencies are committed to reaching their utilization goals and are conducti ng research studies and working together to create and support programs that encourage CCP use. Such programs include the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C 2 P 2 ), Green Highways Initiative, and U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ® ) program. Other programs such as the newly form ed Industrial Resources Council, join indu stry associations together (CCPs, foundry sand, construction and de molition 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 rega rding the use of CCPs (ACAA, 1998; PflughoeftHassett et al., 1999; Dockter and Jagiella, 2005) . Some states have worked to develop progressive and effective guidance for CCP utiliz ation 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 nontradi tional applications. In addition, changing state laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines can be a lengthy process, taki ng a number of years to come to fruition, which often frus trates CCP industry stakeholders.

To better understand the status and developm ent of different CCP utilization profiles across the United States, the University of North Da kota 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 appro ach to CCP utilization. A subsequent grant was awarded by EPA and DOE to conduct a second stat e review. Florida was selected as the second state to review, primarily because it was underg oing changes to its CCP regulations. The EERC subsequently received a grant from EPA, DOE, and ACAA to perform a re view 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 St ate, Pennsylvania was ultimately c hosen as the third state. This report takes an in-depth look at CCP use in Pe nnsylvania and showcases keys to successful utilization, describes what barr iers exist, recommends actions that can be taken to overcome those barriers, and identifies what threats could impact future CCP utilization. The final reports2 from the series of state reviews can be accessed online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/ review.html. Following the completi on of the third review, a synthe sis report will be prepared that translates the results from the three in-dep th state reviews into a national perspective. The preparation of the synthesis report is funde d 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 take n 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 Penns ylvania’s successes, barriers, and threats; and 3) develop recommendations (act ion items) that may help Pennsyl vania and other states increase the use of CCPs in an environmentally sound manner.

STATE REVIEW PROCESS

The following tasks outline the steps taken to conduct this review. Experience with previous state reviews showed that the most ef fective method for conducting the review was to conduct a multiday site visit in a central location within the state. Panels of key stakeholders were assembled and interviewed during the course of this site visit. Information provided during the interviews was compiled and summarized in this report. The following sections describe each step of the review process in mo re 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 lead er, with input from Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett, EERC Senior Research Advisor.

Task 2: Select a State

The project’s administrative team, with assist ance from project spons ors, conducted an indepth evaluation to select the th ird state using the following criter ia. 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 belie ves selecting a model state would be most

beneficial to other states a nd 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 w ith 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 wo uld like to address the mi ning issue in a state where mining is prominent. Mining was not addresse d in the previous state reviews, as an attempt to not interfere with the ongoing NAS study.

4. The state should have diversified benefici al 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 w ith an active research community.

Based on the criteria listed a bove, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylva nia came to the forefront as potential candidates. Each of th ese states was reviewed at lengt h, 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 existe d in August 2006 when the state was selected.

Illinois

Illinois is a large producer of CCPs (including fluidized-b ed combustion [FBC] ash and wet and dry flue gas desulfurizat ion [FGD] material). It is al so a large coal producer, with numerous active and abandoned underground and surface mines.

The Illinois EPA (IL EPA) does not have an es tablished beneficial us e program or specific beneficial use rules, but it does have specific st atutory language regarding coal ash, which was recently updated. However, there is still significan t confusion as to how to apply the rule. A local electric generating company submitted its first be neficial 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, a nd the Illinois Department of Transportation (IL DOT) seems open to using recycled materials, ba sed on its previous track record.

At the time of state selecti on, Illinois did not app ear to be a good candida te because its new statute was not adequately tested.4 Ohio

Ohio is a coal-mining state and authorizes the most beneficial use appl ications for coal ash out of the three proposed states. Ohio State Univer sity offers an establis hed coal ash research program with contacts within Ohio, an extens ion agent focusing on CCP utilization, and support from the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority ’s Coal Development O ffice. It has a history of working with industry, government, and the public to remove CCP utilization barriers. However, Ohio State University has already as sembled 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 rule s that would regulate CCPs and other industrial by-products under one rule. The change came about because the original CCP policies were decl ared invalid. The Ohio EPA is looking for guidance from other states in preparation of the ne w rules. The proposed rules are expected to be released around September 2006, but a new governor will be electe d 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 conc rete in paving is a key use application, so ODOT may not be

the best source of informati on on encouraging this use.

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmen tal Protection (PA DEP) was identified as being very active in the development of CCP benefi cial 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 CCP s, including circulating fluidized bed (CFB) and FGD material. Pennsylva nia has support from the Association of State

and Territorial Solid Waste Ma nagement Officials (ASTSWMO) members, the Electric Power Generation Association (EPGA), and ARIPPA (formally known as the Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Asso ciation). Public acceptance of CCP use in Pennsylvania has been problematic, particularly in the mining a pplication area, but PA DEP, state electric generating companies, and mining companies suppor t 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 pro cess took place in August 2006.

1 The draft rules were published November 8, 2006 an d 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, wa s formed to provide input to interviewee selection, assist in the development of a standa rd questionnaire, and re view findings. Advisory board members included Mr. John Sager, 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, Federa l Highway Administration. Associated contact information is listed in the projec t participant list in Appendix A.

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team

A select group of individuals comprised the review team. The primar y role of the review team was to administer the meetings at the re view. Review team member s were Mr. John Sager, EPA; Mr. William Aljoe, DOE NETL; Mr. Da vid Goss, ACAA; and Ms. Mary Hunt, EPA Region 3. Associated contact info rmation for review team members is listed in Appendix A.

Task 5: Create a Review Guide

A review guide was developed for Pennsylva nia interviewees that included an agenda, background information, and targeted questionnai res for each discussion group (see Appendix B). To facilitate appropriate discussions, the fo llowing five discussion groups were formed to answer questions posed by the review team:

• Government agencies – dir ectors and other key personnel of state or regional transportation and environmental agencies

• CCP generators – electric generating co mpany 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 production 2

• 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 Li st of Interviewees

With input from the advisory board, the ad ministrative team devel oped a list of potential interviewees for each of the discussion groups id entified in Task 5. 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 at tended 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 st ates. Target audiences for the final report include CCP industry representatives and users, members of American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHT O), ASTSWMO, and othe r state and federal agency groups and individuals.

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

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

were modified to reflect terms that the authors felt were more applicable to the CCP industry.

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 to ns of coal to produce electricity in 2005. A nominal amount of coal was impor ted 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 re duce sulfur oxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxide (NO

x ) 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 incr eased 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 ex ample 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 expe nditure 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 unknow n if the inst allation of SO 2 emission controls, even with burning low-sulfur coal, can be avoide d with the next phase of SO 2 mandated emission reductions.7 Conventional Pulverized-Coal-Fired CCP Production and Utilization

Pennsylvania has nine electr ic generating companies with conventional pulverized-coal (pc)-fired power plants. These companies incl ude 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 comp anies 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. Th ese plants burn pr imarily bituminous coal and produce fly ash, bottom ash, slag, F GD gypsum, and sulfite-ric h FGD material. Annual CCP production varies depending on the electric generation demand, coal vs. boiler fuel prices, combustion efficiency, emission control technolo gies, and coal ash content. EPGA (Biden, 2004) estimates that a typical pc-fired generation st ation in Pennsylvania produces 300,000 tons of fly ash and 50,000 tons of bottom ash annually. A sm all one-unit plant may produce as little as 45,000 tons, and a large multiunit plant could ge nerate 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-fir ed 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 generati ng companies are considering installing wet FGD forced-oxidized systems to control SO 2 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 (Ame rican 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 ap plications. Fly ash not meeting concrete specifications is used to manufact ure 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 suppressi on at disposal sites. Some bottom ash is commingled with fly ash for mini ng 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 pr oviding a very small amount (4000–5000 tons) of fly ash and bottom ash for mine reclamation a pplications. One electric generating company is converting about one-third of its sulfite-rich FGD materi al to gypsum for wallb oard manufacture. Other sulfite-rich FGD material is being used in mine applications when stabilized with lime and fly ash for mine reclamation, subsidence contro l 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 tw o 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 ra w ingredient to manu facture 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 generati ng plants in the United States are located in Pennsylvania. Owners of these plants include Cambria Cogen Company; Cogentrix; Ebensburg Power Company; Gilberton Power Company; In ter-Power/Ahlcon Partners, L.P.; Northhampton Generating Company, L.P.; Northeas tern Power Company; Panther Creek Partners; Piney Creek, L.P.; Reliant Energy; Schuylkill Energy Res ources, 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 cogeneration 4 facilities in that they supply heat

to one or more customers. Thes e 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 a nd gasoline shortages during the 1970s and passage of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) in 1978. This act required that electric generating compan ies 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 nontra ditional 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 cont rols 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 bu rned 110 million tons of refuse and used over

73 million tons of CFB ash for r eclamation of abandoned mine lands. ARIPPA estimates that the state’s CFB plants now burn 10.7 million tons of refuse coal annually an d 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 re placement for lime for acid mine drainage prevention or as a soil amendmen t/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 Cont rol and Conservation Committee, 2004).

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UT ILIZATION IN PENNSYLVANIA

Based on the information obtained at the Pe nnsylvania 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 passa ge of House Bill No. 2274, commonly referred

to then as “the coal ash bill.”

Mr. Douglas Biden (2004), EPGA, in written co mments 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 referre d to as the Committee) requesting testimony from the electric power industry on House Reso lution No. 19, which directed the Committee to explore ways to promote the use of Pennsylvania coal and its by-pr oducts. At this time, electric generating companies were planning to insta ll 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 que stions arose among policymakers as to why CCPs were considered a “waste,” ra ther 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 Enviro nmental 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 obt ain. PA DEP staff appear ed sympathetic; however, they said their hands were tied by the Solid Wa ste Management Act which defined coal ash as a solid waste, so that all materials thus defined ha d 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 legisla tion defined “coal ash” as fly ash, bottom ash, or boiler slag resulting from th e combustion of coal, that is or has been beneficially used, reused, or reclaimed for a commercial, indus trial, or governmental purpose.

The term includes such materials that are store d, processed, transported, or sold for beneficial use, reuse, or reclamation. After thorough le gal and environmental research, HB 2274 was signed into law as Act 168 of 1986 as an am endment to the Penns ylvania Solid Waste Management Act of 1980. In 1992, pr ovisions describing standards for the beneficial use of coal ash were placed in the residual waste manage ment regulations and were revised in 1997.

Today, Pennsylvania regulates the benefici al use of coal ash under Pennsylvania’s Residual Waste Management Regulations (T itle 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 co mpounds 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 ma terial (287.665.4)

9. As a raw material for a pr oduct 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 gene rally accepted by industry and have cleared the way for increased CCP utilization in the stat e. 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 Regula tory 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 (B WM) 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, Pe nnsylvania Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act, and federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Further, the BMR/DMO has developed comprehensive techni cal 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 co al 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 fo r 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 [CaSO 4 ], commonly referred to as FGD gypsum) or sulfite-rich (calcium sulfite [CaSO 3 ], 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 revi ew 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 certifyi ng 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 perm its or that can be approved as part of the department’s mine reclamation contracts or other depart ment-approved mine reclamation projects.

Two additional permit application modules we re 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 pe rmit 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 conti nues to rise, as shown in Table 1. In 2005, over

8 million tons of coal ash was used in mine setti ngs in Pennsylvania, a quantitative indication of a successful and growing beneficial use program.

Table 1. Coal Ash Used at Pennsyl vania 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 de veloped by PA DEP may be more stringent and costly in the short-term than other stat es, but industry believes the strict policies and enforcement will actually save them money in the longterm by not having any damage cases. In12 the review sessions, industry repr esentatives indicated that th ey appreciated that PA DEP reached out to electric generating companies, the mining industry, and academia to develop a program that outlines what is expect ed 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 reclamati on, particularly for abandoned mi ne land (AML) reclamation.

Key 3: CFB Plants Produce Ash That Is We ll Suited for Reclaimi ng Abandoned Mine

Land

According to BMR, Pennsylvania has more than 5000 abandoned, unreclaimed mine problem areas and over 820 abandoned coal refuse pile s. It is estimated that Pennsylvania suffers from up to 3100 miles of streams degraded by aci d 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 barr en and highly erosive. They are expensive to reclaim, and standard reclamation techniques do l ittle to address the extremely poor water quality (Dalberto and others, 2004).

CFB plants produce an ash that is an ex ceptional 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 fuel s that contain as little as one- quarter of the heating value of commercial coal while controlling sulfur oxide and NO

x 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 SO 2 , producing a highly alkaline CFB ash. During combustion, the limestone is burned to calcium oxide, which forms CaSO 3 and CaSO 4 by combining with SO 2 . 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 ca ptured 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 str ongly bound because of a nnealing due to the lower temperature in the furnace and longer time in the furnace (Ros e 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 re turn the resulting alkaline CFB ash often to the original site for reclamation. This is a classic recycling success st ory. 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 Us e 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 th at approximately 80% of PennDOT projects are asphalt and 20% are concrete. There are no reco rds 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 pr ojects, they must be preapproved. Bulletin 14 lists all approved bottom ash source s, and Bulletin 15 lists all a pproved fly ash sources that can be used on PennDOT projects. To get on an appr oved list, one must fill out an application and provide a quality control plan. Usually an ash ma rketer approaches PennDOT to get a material approved, but sometimes a specific unit or plan t manager will make a request. PennDOT has Class F and Class C fly ashes on its list from ma ny states, including Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pe nnsylvania, and West Virginia. Fly ash is often imported because most fly ash sources in Pennsylvania do not meet specifications for use in concrete b ecause of high unburned carbon content.

Most Class F fly ashes are approved by Pe nnDOT 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 wh en 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 effec tive 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 ce ment 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. Fl y 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 establis hed 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 Us e in Portland-Cement Concrete). According to Publication 408, Section 724.2, fly ash mu st meet specifications set forth in AASHTO M 295 (Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Ca lcined 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 r eactive aggregate associated with ASR in concrete. Fly ash must conform to the op tional 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 app lications 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 wh ere extra strength is required.

• In construction areas requiring low-density b ackfill 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). Gr ound 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 as h and ground granulated blast furnace slag are

allowed for use as an antiskid mate rial 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 Pr oduct 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 ba r 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 sp ecifications 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 C oncrete Association ( 2006), Pennsylvania readymixed suppliers produced over 12 million cubi c yards of concrete in 2005. This ranks Pennsylvania seventh in the nation with re gard to ready-mixed concrete production.

Nearly all concrete poured for commercial and residential construction in Pennsylvania contains 10%–20% Class F fly ash. This percenta ge tends to work best for ASR mitigation and does not interfere with set time. The exception to th is percentage is if a slow strength gain or other special conditions are requi red for a particular project. A nominal amount of Class C fly ash is imported, but most ready-mixed suppliers ex clusively use Class F fl y 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 material s may also mitigate ASR, they are generally more expensive than fly ash.

In general, commercial and residential consum ers do not know or care if their concrete contains fly ash. More savvy ready-mixed consum ers understand that fly ash produces better concrete and is an environmentally friendly materi al, 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-g rade Class F fly ash as15 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 loca l, state, and national

levels. PA DEP believes it has a responsibility to make its monito ring data and related research available in a readable form for scrutiny a nd 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 Mi ne Reclamation and Mine Drainage Remediation in Pennsylvania in 2004. The publication is an in-d epth, peer-reviewed analysis on

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

The information presented in the report demons trates 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 repor t documents numerous case studies of successful ap plications 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 a nd 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 stak eholder’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 incl ude FGD material because FGD material was not available for beneficial use. Since that time, el ectric generating companies have installed or are planning to install FGD systems and are marke ting 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 us e applications given to coal ash. Therefore, FGD material must be managed as a residual waste and can only be beneficially used un der 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 cause d from past mining practices in the area, additional remining and partial reclamation.16 This barrier is an immediate concern to th e state’s electric generating companies because of the expected surplus of more than 4 m illion short tons of FGD gypsum per year in Pennsylvania alone. Nationally, Bruce (2004) pred icts that over the next 20 years the North American supply of FGD gypsum is going to ex ceed the demand by a wide margin, with a surplus of 10–15 million tons a year by 2015. Electri c generating companies do not want to be dependent on wallboard and cement plants to us e 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 cem ent 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 sti ll unknown. There is also some c oncern that mercury contained in FGD gypsum wallboard may leach into the groundwater at municipa l 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. Th is would requir e 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 w ould 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 applica tion. 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 s ecure 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 combin ed with fly ash. PA DEP is working on combining the municipal and residual waste regula tions into one regulatory package. PA DEP is also reviewing a general permit application su bmitted by EPGA for the beneficial use of FGD gypsum in a coal ash–lime mixtur e for use in mine reclamati on. At the time of the review meetings, this process was expected to take appr oximately 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% fl y ash, and then 74% FGD gypsum–24% fly ash–2% lime. After repeated laborat ory 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 hydr ated 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 resu lt in the development of karstlike features. Electric generating companies do not want to bl end 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 recove red again for future use. Also, some electric generating companies would have to im port fly ash from external sources.

Following the review meetings in Decem ber 2006, PA DEP, with cooperation from industry, agreed that a performance-based sta ndard would be the best option, rather than dictating the exact mixture of FGD gypsum, fly ash, and alkaline fixati ve. PA DEP requested17 that industry achieve a hydrauli c 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 re sult in a compressive strength of mo re than 1400 pounds per square inch. This information along with the FGD gypsum /fly ash/alkaline agen t testing, groundwater quarterly monitoring, and appropri ate placement methods are incorp orated in the draft general permit that was issued in February 2007.

Barrier 2: Lack of Internal Communi cation at Government Agencies

Internal communication and technology transf er among departments within state agencies are limited. At PA DEP, BWM and BMR/DMO co mmunicate regularly and work together to develop rules, guidance, and spec ial conditions needed for the coal ash beneficial use program. However, BWM, the Bureau of Air Qualit y, and the Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation do not appear to communicat e 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 form al mechanisms to facilitate such communication with departments or districts a nd are not due to lack of interest among departments to work together.

The lack of communication between bureaus is a barrier because, inst ead of developing a cohesive approach to issues, these bureaus may be duplicating efforts or have contradicting opinions.

Barrier 3: Costly Long-Term Field Studies M ay Be Needed to Get New Beneficial Use Applications Approved

PA DEP is sometimes perceived as being ove rly conservative in accepting new beneficial uses and wanting long-term fiel d studies to alleviate any con cerns it may have about the environmental appropriateness of using CCPs over time. Although the need for long-term field studies is often valid, these studie s can be costly, may result in s ubstantial 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 earne d 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, su ch as North Dakota (Lignite Energy Council), Ohio (Ohio Coal Developmen t Office), and Illinois (Illinois Clean Coal Institute). These R&D organizatio ns provide funding for projects th at preserve and enhance the development of their states’ coal resources, which include projects focused on CCP utilization.

Barrier 4: Interpretation of PA DEP Regu lations Varies Amon g Districts/Regions

The PA DEP DMO has five surface mining a nd one refuse district offices, and the BWM has six regional offices. The PA DEP central offi ce has general oversight on beneficial use and provides technical support to the district/regional offices. The di stricts/regions issue permits.18 An example of a difference in the interpretation of regul ations among DMOs is for the amount of growing medium require d after a mine has been filled in. The regulations call for 1 foot of growing medium for pl anting grass and 3 feet for planti ng trees. If coal ash placement occurs, 4 feet of growing medium is required. The districts indi cated that each district has exclusive geographic conditions and that the grow ing medium required is dependent on what the

land is intended to be used for in the future. Although industry generally ag rees that site-specific exceptions are needed, they contend that the requ irements 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 inte rviewed did not appear to consider the environmental sustainability associated with the beneficial use of CCPs when making their rules, regulations, or policies regardi ng coal ash management. There are some noteworthy exceptions

to this statement:

• The environmental benefits of using CCPs for mine re clamation were very well understood and promoted by PA DEP BMR.

• The state requires all new govern ment buildings to be LEED ® -certified, which could indirectly encourage the us e of CCP-containing products.

• The PA DEP in conjunction with the Envi ronmental 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 di d 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, th e use of fly ash as a mineral admixture in concrete should be considered (generally at 15%–35% replacement for portland cemen t nationwide). This practice offers significant engineering, economic, and e nvironmental benefits. Engineering benefits include improved performance for placement and in the final product. Electric generating companies and end consumers realize economic be nefits 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 (appr oximately 1 ton of carbon dioxide saved for every 1 ton of fly ash used to replace port land cement), reduced need for landfills, and conservation of virgin resources. The environmen tal benefits associated with using CCPs in concrete applications were not considered by Pennsylvania government agencies. The coal ash

beneficial use section of the so lid waste regulations set forth by PA DEP were included mainly19 because PA DEP believes it is environmentally safe to use CCPs in certain applications. The PennDOT specifications were in place primarily b ecause Class F fly ash is effective in mitigating ASR. PennDOT’s specifications, in particular, ar e focused on the physical benefits of using CCPs and did not place value on the envi ronmental 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 s upport recycled materials in state highway construction and maintenance projects. Penn DOT’s Strategic Environmental Management Program focuses on recycled material use in ma intenance projects, and the Strategic Recycling Program evaluates and helps implement recy cling opportunities for new projects. These programs are spearheaded by PennDOT, with suppor t 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 cl osely 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 Cl ean Environment representing the people of Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, have attacked the bene ficial use of CCPs in Pennsylvania. Advocacy groups such as these have stated that they believe th at 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 unders tand 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 prot ecting the public from the pollution (air and water) they perceive to be associated with the plant. Advo cacy groups have cited outliers in monitori ng data provided by PA DEP or the presence of AMD-related contam inants 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 gr oups, the general public seems to accept the

beneficial use of CCPs in mine sites and understa nds 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 terminati ng some beneficial use applications, simply because potential project pr oponents may wish to avoid the hassle of dealing with these groups.

It is important to note th e advocacy groups named in this report were not invited to participate in this review. The opinions reflecte d 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 th at the beneficial use of coal ash on mine sites does not cause groundwater contamination. NAS was commissioned to perf orm 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 cont ained 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 th e 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 gr oups that many of them were generated by misinterpretation of data and a lack of in-dep th analysis of the sites. Industry and PA DEP defended these allegatio ns of damage cases.

PA DEP is considering making the followi ng minor modifications to its monitoring requirements based on recommendations in the NAS report:

• Broaden the parameters it monito rs 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 pl acing CCPs in mines. In addition to the monitoring requirements, PA DEP is trying to make its monitoring data ea sier to review by providi ng 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 be gin regional state calls for indus trial material reuse/recycling,21 which will include CCP use for mine filling. Th ese should be consider ed positive outcomes of the NAS report.

The “barrier” of the NAS report is that it di d not recognize the vast differences between the highly alkaline CCPs produced by CF B plants and the less alkaline fly ash produced by pc-fired plants. The CFB ash generators believed th eir success story was missed by the NAS report

because this distinction was not made and the bene ficial 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 environmenta l 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 successf ul 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 agenci es blindly adhere to th e NAS report’s suggestions in this regard.

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN

PENNSYLVANIA

The following potential threat s could hinder the future of CCP beneficial use in Pennsylvania. For the purpose of this report, a th reat is defined as an external challenge that could negatively impact the use of CCPs. Because threats are exte rnal – CCP stakeholders have no direct control over them, but may benefit by having contingency plans to address them should they occur. The threats are ba sed 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 re gulations that will reduce emissions of

NO

x , SO 2 , and mercury from coal-fired power plants . These regulations s eek to lower levels using a cap-and-trade mechanism by which power plants are assigned em ission 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 Ru le (CAIR) applies to SO 2 and NO

x emissions in 28 eastern states and Washington, D.C. (t his includes Pennsylvania). CAIR calls for selected states

to have a 70% reduction of SO 2 emissions and a 60% reduction of NO

x 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 propose d 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 Penn sylvania 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-Pe nnsylvania) coal.

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

the incremental environmental and health be nefits are not proportional to the increased cost of mercury control, which will be borne by either utility shar eholders or consumers (Davis, 2006).

Some concerns brought forth by industry relate d 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 SO 2 emission levels designated by CAIR, CFB plants woul d 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 sy stems. This allows mercury removal to be achieved as a “cobenefit” of complia nce with CAIR; however, the amount of mercury removal achievable with wet FGD system s 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 mercur y removal required by the Pennsylvania law. The inability to trade mercury reduction cred its in Pennsylvania could force such units to install additional mercury controls, which will increase cost and could have negative impacts on the quality of CC Ps. Other options include ad ding more limestone to the boiler but since most boilers can only handle a defined amount of ma terial; there is an inability to add limestone to reduce SO 2 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 t echnology to comply with CAMR and/or the Pennsylvania mercury rule is activated ca rbon injection (ACI). ACI may lead to

increased concentrations of mercury-containing sorbents an d higher carbon contents in fly ash. Fly ash will likely no longe r be able to be used in concrete because ACI impacts air-entraining admixtures (AEAs). Both i ndustry 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 im pact its effectiveness. More specifically, they are concerned about the impact of th e AC on AEAs in concrete. They are also concerned about any changes that influence th e 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. Th ese 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 ma nufacturer demonstrates that the use of such ash will not lead to increased mercury emissions from the ce ment kiln (National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industr y, 2006). EPA has voluntarily take n reconsideration on the ban on fly ash where sorbent injection for merc ury control is practiced and has been petitioned (Pew, 2007) to reconsid er 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, a nd there is limited information available on the potential rerelease of ACI-captured mercury from ash beneficiati on operations. There is not a one-size-fits-all technology, and in many instances, it is not econo mically advantageous to employ beneficiation technologies because the plant has low-cost di sposal options. Some Pennsylvania electric generating companies are in the process of insta lling 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 se ts standards for the ope ration of surface coal mines and reclamation of the land following mi ning. Currently, OSM is developing national rules for active Surface Mining Control an d 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 Fede ral Register formalizing its intentions. Once24 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 equiva lent 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 site s where no federal funding is involved (Vories, 2007). In Pennsylvania, the ARI PPA program to reclaim AMLs does not receive funding from the federal SMCRA AML program and, theref ore, 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 so rbent 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 us ed in the high-temperature portion of the cement-manufacturing process that would be conduc ive 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 au thors as methods for overcoming barriers and threats identified in this report by taking a dvantage of the opportuni ties for increasing CCP utilization. The proposed actions are to be implemented by a variety of CCP stakeholders, including government at the federal, state, a nd local level; electric generating companies; ash marketers; ready-mix producers; academia; and i ndustry 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 mostpromising high-volume applications is the lowcost production of alpha hemihydrate/gypsum cement (otherwise known as high-strength plaster). Other end uses that ar e expected to be economically vi able are fertiliz ers and fillers (Bruce, 2004). Although the amount of FGD gypsum required as fertilizer at any one site may be somewhat limited, the collective agricultural mark et is quite large and a ppears to be worthy of further investigation. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agri culture is currently working with Pennsylvania State University to develop uses for FGD gypsum in agricultural uses. Pennsylvania also has several high-volu me mining application opportunities.

In order to facilitate the development of regulations that are conducive to large-volume uses of FGD gypsum, both PA DE P and industry should seek out the advice and experience of25 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 an d provide some insight as to how to design structural fills c ontaining high volumes of FGD gypsum.

Action 2: Improve Lines of Communicati on Between Industry and Government Agencies

Government agencies, legislators, and indus try generally agree that making modifications to current regulations or writi ng new regulations is a lengthy process. G overnment agencies indicated this process could be expedited if industry w ould provide them with the information/data they need up-front; whereas, in dustry indicated that the government agencies should say what information/data they need an d then industry will provide it. Industry further indicated that, in some instan ces, government agency staff do not have the technical knowledge base needed to completely unde rstand the issues. These roadbl ocks can delay the regulation process for years.

The PA DEP representatives interviewed indicat ed that their primary job is to protect the public, not to represent the inte rests 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 in formation/data it needs to make that determination. Likewise, industry indicated the PA DEP needs to do a better job of decidi ng up-front what

information/data it needs.

A potential solution to this issue is for indus try 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 relate d issues. Government participation on a state level could also be incorporat ed into consortium efforts su ch as CARRC. Industry support groups, such as EPGA, also offer an excellent fo rum for industry to pool its intellectual and monetary resources and co llectively 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 Pe nnsylvania but were interested in getting into the market. To do so, they would likely have to import fly ash in to Pennsylvania. Some are already doing so, but there is opportunity to import mo re for beneficial use. In some instances, it is economically feasible to import fly ash from states where la ndfill costs are high. Tran sportation costs may be limiting in some areas; however, some marketi ng companies have managed to import ash for high-volume, low-value applications such as mine reclamation. It is antici pated that more fly ash26 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, th at the import of fly ash from other states may be perceived by local citizens and envi ronmental groups as problematic. Penns ylvania 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 applica tions as a way for other states to use their “waste material” elsewhere. These potential negative perceptions could spill over into the regulatory and legislativ e arena. In addition, the import of fly ash from other states will not directly benefit Pennsylvania coal ash prod ucers but will bene fit the coal as h industry as a

whole.

Action 4: Industry Could Approach PennDOT to Encourage CCP Use

As previously mentioned, PennDOT’s specificati ons 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 specif ications 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 ch anges 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 appro ached by industry to try new beneficial use applications or to make changes to its current sp ecifications. It also did not seem to be proactive in developing its own specifications to increase the use of CCPs in hi ghway projects. It is important to note, however, that PennDOT is cu rrently investigating hi gh-performance concrete and self-consolidating concrete ap plications. Some of these mix de signs rely on fly ash as an admixture. Fly ash is being cons idered because it may be adva ntageous from an engineering standpoint.

To make modifications or write new speci fications, industry would need to provide PennDOT with a PE, which woul d be considered a research project by PennDOT. PennDOT would not be agreeable to evaluating a materi al 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 conc erns could be answered during the demonstration

process.

A possible reason why Pennsyl vania electric generating comp anies do not appear to be approaching PennDOT to increase CCP use is b ecause all concrete-grade fly ash produced in Pennsylvania is being used, and many companies ar e producing a fly ash that is not suitable for concrete because of high unburned carbon conten ts. Electric generating companies need research, beneficiation technologi es, and operational changes that will help to produce fly ash

that is suitable for the concrete market. Nonethel ess, fly ash not meeting concrete specifications could be used in other applications such as flowable fills and embank ments. These high-volume uses provide an opportun ity 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 indi cated 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 C 2 P 2 and the Green Highways Partnership

Most participants in the discussion groups were not aw are of the Green Highways Partnership or C 2 P 2 . Some had heard of the programs but di d 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 additi on, 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 pr omoting beneficial use success stories and earn national recognition for those successes. Those inte rviewed 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 prog rams would likely be perceived by the general public as more credible than industry. Also, mo re outreach needs to be done by these programs to get industry involved.

Action 7: Build Off of LEED’s Su ccess in Government-Funded Projects

The LEED ® program has been successful in th e United States for many reasons, but perhaps its greatest accomplishment thus far was to si mply define what it means to “build green” and offer recognition to those who build green. LEED ® is gaining popularity in Pennsylvania, particularly with govern ment-funded projects. All government buildings now require some level (gold, silver, or platinum ) of certification from LEED ® . Using coal ash-c ontaining products in

LEED ® projects can help earn points toward achieving LEED ® certification. Pennsylvania concrete producers do make a “green” mix w ith 40%–50% slag to help projects earn LEED ®
credits. Other green concrete mixes are gain ing popularity in Pennsylva nia. 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 contai ned in runoff, reducing the overall runoff from an area, reducing the need for large detenti on 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 cont ractors 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 asso ciated with using fly ash.28 In order for LEED ® to become more accepted for reside ntial and commercial construction, thus potentially increasing the amount of coal as h-containing products in construction projects, it was suggested that the coal ash industry s hould 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 be neficial use in Pennsyl vania, unlike many other states that consider it to be disposal. PA DEP residual waste coal ash be neficial use regulations and program implementation policies are perhaps th e most comprehensive and dependable in the country, particularly for abandone d mine reclamation. These regula tions 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 bene ficial 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 mate rial 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-m illion-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. Pe nnDOT’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 Penn DOT has approved benefi cial uses for CCPs, PennDOT’s specifications would notbe considered progressive compared to other states with regard to encouraging CCP use.

Industry is concerned about th e effect that pending federal and state air emission rules will have on CCP management. CFB plants are concerne d that they will have to add a considerable

amount of limestone to reduce sulf ur emissions, resulting in an ash with an even higher pH. Pulverized-coal-fired plants are primarily concer ned that ACI for mercury control may lead to

increased concentrations of me rcury-containing sorbents and hi gher carbon contents in fly ash, thus prohibiting fly ash be neficial use in cement a nd concrete applications.

The action items presented are methods for ov ercoming barriers and threats identified in this report. The most pressing action item is to de velop regulations for the beneficial use of FGD material. Significant progress was made on this action item followi ng the state revi ew 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 Placi ng Coal Combustion Byproducts in Coal Mines and at Surface Dispos al Impoundments and Landfills ; Electric Power Generation Association Report prepared for the U.S. Envi ronmental 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 Plan t Air Pollutant Control MEGA Symposium ; Washington, DC, Aug 30 – Sept 2, 2004: pp 1491–1501.

Butalia, T.S.; Wolfe, W.E. Market Opportuni ties for Utilization of Ohio Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) and Ot her Coal Combustion Product s (CCPs); The Ohio State University Department of Civil and Environm ental 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 Benefici al Use and Mine Land Reclamation. In Coal Ash Beneficial Use in Mine Reclamation and Mi ne Drainage Remediation in Pennsylvania ; Pennsylvania Department of Enviro nmental Protection, 5600-UK-DEP3132, 2004.

Davis. S. A Perspective on Mercury Regulati on Policy in Pennsylvani a. Presented at the American Coal Ash Association Milwaukee Meeting, June 2, 2006.

Dockter, B.A.; Jagiella, D.M. Engineering and Environmental Spe cifications of State Agencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products ; Final Report for the Combustion By-Products Recycling Consortium; CBRC Pr oject No. 02-CBRC-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/inde x.jsp?pagerequest=i ndustry08 (accessed Jan 2007).

Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollu tion Control and Conservation Committee. Report on A Proposed Moratorium on the Use of Fl y Ash in Mine Reclamation Projects ; Report prepared for the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Feb 2004.30 Kulp, A. Listening Session on the Practices of Plac ing Coal Combustion Byproducts in Coal Mines and at Surface Dispos al Impoundments and Landfills ; Electric Power Generation Association Report prepared for the U.S. Envi ronmental 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 C oncrete Production Statistics. http://nrmca.org/concrete/2006%20Statistic s/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 Environm ental Protection, Unpublished data, 2006.

Pew, J.S. Letter to Stephen L. Johnson, Admini strator, Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the Sierra Club, Feb 20, 2007.

Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.P.; Sondreal, E.A.; St eadman, E.N.; Eylands, K.E.; Dockter, B.A. Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal Co mbustion/Desulfurization By-Products by Government and Commercial Sectors – Update 1998 ; Topical Report for U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Cent er Cooperative Agreement No. DE FC21- 93MC30097; EERC Publication N o. 99-EERC-07-08; July 1999.

Rose, A.W.; Voigt, D.; Noll, D.A. Chemical Mob ility of Selected Trace Elements in Ash from Plants Burning Coal Refuse by Circulating Fl uidized 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 LISTA-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.usA-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.comA-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.comA-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.govA-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 pa rticipating in a telephone conversation with the

administrative team.

# APPENDIX B

REVIEW GUIDEB-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 & Environmen tal Research Center (EERC), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. De partment of Energy, and the American Coal Ash Association, is conducting a third review of state regul ations, standards, and practices related to the use of coal combustion products (CCPs). Previous reviews we re conducted in Texas and Florida. The final report

from those reviews can be acce ssed online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/review.html.

Purpose The purpose of this review is to highlight succes ses 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-b ased electricity, northern location, established CCP regulations, diversified beneficial use market s, 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 pose d by the review team. The discussion groups include the following:

• Government agencies – directors and other key pers onnel of state or region al transportation and environmental agencies

• CCP generators – utility environmental and ash managers

• Concrete and Other Engineering Applications – CC P marketers, engineering/consulting firms, readymix concrete suppliers

• Wallboard – users of synthetic gypsum for wallboard production

• Mining – Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamatio n officials and engineering/consulting firms

Separate telephone interviews may also take place wi th 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 reasonab ly possible wi thout stating proprietary information. Written responses to the questi ons are greatly appreciated but not expected. Any written documentation you can provide will ensure that exact cita tions are included in the final report. Please provide

written comments to Tera Bu ckley at tbuckley@undeerc.or g before December 31, 2006.

Reporting A draft final report will be prepared and distributed to all interviewees on or befo re February 1, 2007. You will be given a 30-day review period to review the re port 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 r esults 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 Depa rtment of Environmental Protection Bureau of Mining and Reclamation Location: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection

10: 30 – 12:00 p.m. Pennsylvania Depa rtment of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Management Location: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection

1:30 – 4:00 p.m. Electric Power Gene ration 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 Depart ment 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 se ssion, 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 mana gement (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 in teract with local, regional, and federal

offices?

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

a. Fly ash

b. Bottom ash

c. Flue gas desulfurization material

d. Boiler slag

e. 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 exam ple, new air pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs.

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

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

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

successful?

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

9. Please list and explain any cas es in Pennsylvania where the use of CCPs has caused environmental damage or resulted in violations of environmental requirements. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and follo w-up employed to address the issues.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 practi ces (federal or state)

b. Demonstration projects

c. Internal (agency) te sting and evaluations

d. Technical reports submitte d by qualified consultants

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

f. Other ______________________________

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

13. In general, how do you perceive the position that Pennsylvania has taken toward CCPs in comparison to other states?B-5 CCP GENERATORS

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

2. How is coal ash utilization handled and percei ved 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 cont rol 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 physic al properties of CCPs impact your company’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, new air pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs.

5. Please indicate your thoughts on the current CCP specifications or guidelines that you are aware of in the state of Pennsylvania. Ar e there any environmen tal 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 cu rrent 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 m eets standard specificat ion requirements, or does the state require additional approvals and testing?

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

successful?

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

9. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research and dem onstration 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 y ou address these obstacles?

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

12. What further research, laborator y work, or policy initiatives w ould 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 ma rket in Pennsylvania, including supply and demand, and identify the major use applicati ons. 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 cemen t? Are there any product acceptance issues among consumers with concrete containing fly ash?

3. Please indicate your thoughts on th e current specifications or gui delines that you are aware of in 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 cu rrent specifications and guidelines?

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

successful?

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

6. What role do other alternative materials (i.e., 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 exampl e, new air pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs. Do you foresee beneficiation technologies as a new trend to deal with these changes?

8. In your opinion, what are the biggest obstacles hindering the increased use of CCPs in Pennsylvania? How could these obstacles be addressed? Would any changes to state or federal regulations help you address thes e obstacles? Could utili ties do something to

overcome these obstacles?

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

utilization?

10. In general, how do you perceive the 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 manuf acture? Is any FGD gypsum being imported or exported?

2. What is the general feeling toward FGD gyps um in your industry? How would you describe the competition between natu ral 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 th e current specifications or gui delines 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 gyps um? 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 SO 2 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 mercur y contained in FGD gyps um will be released during wallboard production or disp osal. 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 addres sed? What state or federal regulations could be implemented to overcome these obstacles?

8. What further research, laborator y work, or policy initiatives w ould 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 w ith 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 polic ies, rules, or regul ations regarding CCPs currently in process or exp ected in the near future?

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

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

successful?

7. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problems encountered and any instances 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 b een 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 ti tled “Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines.” What is your op inion of that report? Do you think the report will have an impact on the way CCPs are used in mines in 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 practi ces (federal or state)

b. Demonstration projects

c. Internal (agency) te sting and evaluations

d. Technical reports submitte d by qualified consultants

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

f. Other ______________________________

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

14. In general, how do you perceive the position th at 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 be ing used in mine settings in Pennsylvania. How much material is being used in mi ning 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 th e current specifications or gui delines that you are aware of in the state of Pennsylvania related to CCP use in mine settings. What re gulations 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 pub lished a report entitled “Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines.” What is your op inion of that report? Do you think the report will have an impact on the way CCPs are used in mines in Pennsylvania?

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

successful?

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

7. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your company’s role in the use of CCPs? For exampl e, new air pollution control requirements may increase the carbon and mercury content of CCPs.

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 th at 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 thes e obstacles? Could utili ties do something to

overcome these obstacles?

10. What further research or laboratory work woul d 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?