DOE/EA-1498



### Advanced Coal Utilization Byproduc t Beneficiation Processing Plant Ghent Power Station, Carroll County, Kentucky

Final

Environmental Assessment

January 2005Note: No comments were received during the publi c comment period from September 25 to October 25, 2004. Therefore, no changes to the Draft Environmental Assessment were

necessary.National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

Cover Sheet

Proposed Action:

The proposed Federal action is to provide fundi ng, through a cooperative agreement with the University of Kentucky Research Foundation ( UKRF), Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER), for the design, construction, and operati on of an advanced coal ash beneficiation processing plant at Kentucky Utilities (KU) Ghent Power Station in Carroll County, Kentucky. DOE would provide $4,492,008, and the industrial par ticipant will provide th e remaining 50% of the project costs.

The proposed coal ash beneficiation process is based on a hydraulic classification and froth floatation technology. The demonstration plant woul d use an existing waste stream of ash to

manufacture concrete additives and construction materials. By utilizing the pozzolan material produced by the beneficiation process, reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions would be realized as compared to that resulting from Portland cement manufacturing. Beneficial use of fly ash

would also decrease the need fo r storage capacity, thereby reducing or eliminating the creation of additional fly ash storage impoundments.

Type of Statement: Draft Environmental Assessment

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Energy; Na tional Energy Technology Laboratory

DOE Contacts:

Project Information : NEPA Information : Janice Bell Lloyd Lorenzi NEPA Document Manager NEPA Compliance Officer U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory National Energy Technology Laboratory Mail Stop 58-247A P.O. Box 10940 626 Cochrans Mill Road Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 Pittsburgh, PA 15236 412-386-6159; 412-386-4604 (fax) (412) 386-4512 lorenzi@netl.doe.gov

Janice.Bell@NETL.DOE.GOV

Abstract:

The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is a cost-shared partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and industry to demonstrate advanced coal-based power generation technologies. Through the CCPI, candi date technologies ar e demonstrated at commercial-scale facilities to foster widespread application. The goals of the program are to

realize environmental and economic benefits th rough DOE and industry partnerships, as well as to move promising, yet commercially risky, advanced coal energy systems to market.

DOE proposes to provide funding, through a cooper ative agreement with the University of Kentucky Research Foundation (UKR F), Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER), for the design, construction, and operation of an advanced coal ash beneficiati on processing plant atKentucky Utilities (KU) Ghent Power Station in Carroll County, Kentucky. The proposed project would contribute to CCPI program goals by demons trating a means to reduce the net costs of particulate control technologies through the conversion of ash in to salable products. DOE would provide $4,492,008, approximately 50 per cent of total project cost.

The proposed demonstration plant would process 200,000 tons per year of fly ash generated at

the Ghent Power Station into:

• 156,000 tons per year of pozzolan for concrete

• 16,000 tons per year of high-quality block sand

• 16,000 tons per year of graded fill sand

• 1,500 tons per year of high-quality polymer filler

• 8,000 tons of carbon fuel

Because the proposed project woul d utilize an existing waste to produce concrete and masonry materials, which could replace Portland cement, overall CO 2 emissions resulting from concrete manufacturing could be reduced. Furthermore, the need for additional storage areas for fly ash

would be reduced.

The findings of this Environmental are that no sign ificant impacts to human health and safety or the environment from construction and operatio n of the proposed demonstration plant are anticipated. Because the project would be constructed within the confines of an inactive ash impoundment at the Ghent Power Station, no imp acts to unspoiled areas would occur. Further significant degradation of soils and groundwater is unlikely. Cultu ral resource investigations have been conducted and conclude that no culturally or historically importa nt features would be affected. Impacts to ecological resources, su rface water resources, and land use would be insignificant. Construction and operation of th e proposed project would not be expected to impact any federal- or state-lis ted threatened or endangered speci es. Increases in truck traffic over existing traffic conditions would be small. On ly minor increases in noi se and dust would be expected in the area near the project.

Public Participation:

DOE encourages public participation in the NEPA process. This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was released for public revi ew and comment. The public was invited to provide oral, written, or e-mail comments on this draft Environmental Assessment to DOE by the close of the comment period on October 2 5, 2004. Copies of the draft EA were also distributed to Federal and State agencies. Comments received by the close of the comment period have been considered in preparing the final Environmental Assessment for the proposed DOE action.Table of Contents

Summary......................................................................................................................................................1

1.0 Back ground

................................................................................................................. ..........................2

2.0 Purpose and Ne ed for Action

................................................................................................ ..............3

3.0 Description of Proposed Action and Al ternatives

............................................................................ .4

3.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................

..................... 4
3.2 No Action Alternat ive

...................................................................................................... ....................9

4.0 Affected En vironment....................................................................................................... ..................11

4.1 Geology and So ils..........................................................................................................

................... 13
4.2 Cultural Res ources ......................................................................................................... ..................13 4.3 Ecological Resourc es ....................................................................................................... ................14
4.4 Threatened and En dangered Speci es.......................................................................................... ....14
4.5 Water Re s ources............................................................................................................ ..................14 4.6 Air Q ualit y ................................................................................................................ .........................15
4.7 Noise......................................................................................................................

........................... 16
4.8 Land Use

................................................................................................................... .......................16
4.9 Socioeconomic Conditions

................................................................................................... ............16 4.10 Transp ortation

............................................................................................................ .....................17

5.0 Environmen tal Impa cts......................................................................................................

................. 17

5.1 Geology and So ils..........................................................................................................

................... 17
5.2 Cultural Res ources ......................................................................................................... ..................17 5.3 Ecological Resourc es ....................................................................................................... ................18
5.4 Threatened and En dangered Speci es.......................................................................................... ....18 5.6 Air Q ualit y ................................................................................................................ .........................19
5.7 Noise......................................................................................................................

........................... 21
5.8 Land Use

................................................................................................................... .......................23
5.9 Socioeconom ic Effects ...................................................................................................... ...............23 5.10 Transp ortation

............................................................................................................ .....................23

6.0 Conc lusions

................................................................................................................ .........................24

FIGURES

Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram.................................................................................................

.................. 5 Figure 2. Current and Potent ial Ash Pond Locations

............................................................................. .....10 Figure 3. Ghen t Loc ation....................................................................................................... ......................11 Figure 4. Carro ll County, KY

................................................................................................... ....................12 Figure 5. Proj ec t Location ..................................................................................................... ......................12 Figure 6. Aerial View of Ghent Powe r Stat ion.

.................................................................................. ..........13

TABLES

Table 1. Concentration of Criteria Pollutants for the Air Quality Monitoring Sites in Northern Kentucky ... 15
Table 2. Industrial Criteria Pollutants – Particulate Matter PM 10 - Carroll Count y, Kentucky ..................... 15 Table 3. Summary of Emissions from Po z zolan Dryer using Na tural Gas Fuel. ........................................ 20 Table 4. Comparison of Emissions for Port land Cement and Pozzol an Manufact uring............................. 21 Table 5. Operating E quipment Nois e Lev els. ..................................................................................... ........ 21 Table 6. Permissible Noise Exposure Levels in Kent ucky......................................................................... . 22

Appendix A Agency CorrespondenceSummary

The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is a cost-shared partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and industry to demonstrate advanced coal-based power generation technologies. Through the CCPI, candi date technologies ar e demonstrated at commercial-scale facilities to foster widespr ead application. The goals of the program are

to realize environmental a nd economic benefits through DOE and industry partnerships, as well as to move promising, yet commercia lly risky, advanced coal energy systems to

market.

DOE proposes to provide funding, through a coop erative agreement w ith the University of Kentucky Research Foundation (UKRF), Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER), for the design, construction, a nd operation of an advanced coal ash beneficiation processing plant at Kentucky Ut ilities (KU) Ghent Power Station in Carroll County, Kentucky. The proposed project would contribute to CCPI program goals by demonstrating a means to reduce the net costs of particulate contro l technologies through

the conversion of ash into salabl e products. DOE would provide $4,492,008, approximately 50 percent of total project cost.

The proposed demonstration plant would process 200,000 tons per year of fly ash generated at the Ghent Power Station into:

• 156,000 tons per year of pozzolan for concrete

• 16,000 tons per year of high-quality block sand

• 16,000 tons per year of graded fill sand

• 1,500 tons per year of high-quality polymer filler

• 8,000 tons of carbon fuel

Because the proposed project would utilize an existing waste to produce concrete and masonry materials, which could replace Portland cement, overall CO 2 emissions resulting from concrete manu facturing could be reduced. Furthermore, the need for additional storage areas for fly ash would be reduced.

The findings of this Environmental are that no significant impacts to human health and safety or the environment from constructi on and operation of the proposed demonstration plant are anticipated. Because the project would be constructe d within the confines of an inactive ash impoundment at the Ghent Powe r Station, no impacts to unspoiled areas would occur. Further significant degradati on of soils and groundwater is unlikely. Cultural resource investigations have been c onducted and conclude that no culturally or historically important featur es would be affected. Imp acts to ecological resources, surface water resources, and land use would be insignificant. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not be expected to impact any federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species. Increas es in truck traffic over existing traffic conditions would be small. Only minor increas es in noise and dust would be expected in the area near the project.

11.0 Background

The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) is a cost-shared partnership between government and industry to demonstrate advanced coal-based power generation technologies. Initiated in 2002 by the Bush Administration, the goal of the CPPI is to foster more efficient clean coal technologi es for use in new and existi ng power plants. Proposals are selected by the Department of Energy (DOE), through a competitive bidding process, to demonstrate new technologies for commercial applications. The CCPI solicited proposals from the power industry, equipment manuf acturing industry, service corporations, R&D firms, software developers, academia and other interested parties. Candidate technologies would be demonstrated at comm ercial-scale facilitie s to help promote widespread application. The goals of the program are to realize environmental and economic benefits through DOE and industry pa rtnerships, as well as to move promising, yet commercially risky, advanced coal energy systems to market.

Under the CCPI, the installation of an advan ced coal ash beneficiation processing plant was proposed by the University of Kentuc ky Research Foundation (UKRF) to be hosted at KU’s Ghent Power Station in Ghent, Kentuc ky. The plant would demonstrate coal ash beneficiation in a process a ddressing the entire ash str eam. The project would process coal ash, separating it by size or type for different applicatio ns. Coarse ash would be used to produce a lightweight aggr egate for masonry and graded-fill sand for construction applications. Unburned carbon would be used as a supplemental fuel. And, clean, finesize materials would be produced, which would be suitable for use as a polymer filler and specialized pozzolan.

The proposed project represents 10 years of research and development work at UKRF, to deal with observed changes in the quality of ash produced by several regional utilities. By fitting boilers with low-NO

x burners, the fly ash produced is generally coarser and contains higher levels of unburned carbon. These two factors make the fly ash less marketable as an admixture in concrete and masonry products.

The advanced coal ash beneficiation process proposed by UKRF is based upon a hydraulic classification and fr oth floatation technology. The technology would be capable of processing both ash stored in existing disposal ponds and new ash generated at the plant. The raw feed is classified by size in to a fine stream and a coarse stream. The

coarse material is then further classified and concentrated into block-sand and coarsecarbon products. The fine stream is then treate d with a reagent system and the fine carbon removed by froth flotation. The remaining fi ne (non-carbon) fracti on is concentrated, filtered, and dried for use as a pozzolan. Fi nally, a portion of the non-carbon fraction is further sorted hydraulically to produce a material with a finer particle size. This material

would be suitable for use in a number of a pplications including a polymer additive.

22.0 Purpose and Need for Action

Through the CCPI program, candidate technologies are demonstrated at commercialscale facilities to foster widespread applic ation. The goals of the program are to realize environmental and economic benefits through DOE and industry partnerships, as well as to move promising, yet commercially risky, ad vanced coal energy systems to market. The program, by merging public and private sector interests, wi ll benefit the environment, help to sustain or enhance elec tricity reliability, bolster energy security, or help to ensure an affordable supply of electricity. Th e technologies developed through the CCPI program will potentially lower fuel costs due to higher plant efficiency, lower capital costs for construction of new plants and re- powered facilities, lowe r capital and operating costs for existing plants, reduce costs of e nvironmental compliance, avoid environmental costs, enhance industrial competitiveness leading to increased domestic sales and technology exports, and cr eate additional jobs.

Power plants in the United States produce millio ns of tons of coal fly ash annually. The industry beneficially uses more than 35 per cent of its annual production in a variety of applications, while the remainder is placed in landfills. Fly ash products are used to supplement or replace Portland cement, a primar y ingredient in concrete in order to reduce raw material costs and to strengthen th e concrete. Experts estimate that using 1 ton of fly ash in concrete will avoid approximately 1 ton of CO 2 being emitted from cement production. Furthermore, changes in the utility industry in the 1990s have adversely affected the quality of coal ash. For example, the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA) required power plants to reduce nitrogen oxide (NO

x ) emissions, but these mandated

reductions in NO

x have complicated the use of fly as h in ready-mix concrete, the largest market for fly ash. To achieve the CAA-specified NO

x reductions, power plants often

use low NO

x burners, which restrict oxygen durin g combustion. Unfortunately, this allows unburned carbon to remain in the fly as h, as well as resulting in larger particles in the ash,. Both of these factors make the fly ash less suitable for use in concrete.

The proposed project represents the next st ep in ash beneficiation because it addresses the entire ash stream and a wide array of quality issues. Research into hydraulic

classification has lead to ne w technology development to contend with changes in ash quality for various applications.

The process, referred to as the FastFloa t technology, generates an ash-based cement substitute (i.e., pozzolan) that can be used fo r higher levels (30 per cent versus the current 20 percent) of Portland cement substitution in concrete. Pozzolan from the FastFloat technology provides more strengt h and performs better than unprocessed ash. In addition, the FastFloat process produces a clean, very fine (~3 to 4 μm average particle size) material suitable for use as a polymer filler or specialized pozzolan. The plant would produce lightweight aggregate and graded fill sand from the bottom ash. Lightweight aggregate is a desirable com ponent in the manufacture of concrete blocks since the blocks are lighter, but the strength is not compromised, and the graded-fill sand can be

used as an alternative to washed-river sand in a variety of construction applications.

3Unburned carbon would also be se parated, concentrated, and re turned to the boiler as a

fuel.

DOE’s programmatic purpose and need for this project is to demonstrate a means to reduce the net costs of particulate cont rol technologies (and compliance with environmental regulations) through the conversion of ash into salable products. The proposed project would also contribute to the program goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by demonstrating an alternative to Portland cement manufacturing, which is a large source of CO 2 emissions. Furthermore, the pr oject would recove r an otherwise

wasted fuel.

UKRF proposes installing an advanced coal as h beneficiation proces sing plant at the KU

Ghent Power Station. Ash stored in an inactive ash pond at Ghent Station would be utilized as feed to the processing plant. At the present time, Ghent Station produces over 500,000 tons of ash each year, but none of the as h can be directly marketed, primarily due to quality considerations. It is estimated that by utilizing ash from the inactive pond at Ghent Station, nearly 200,000 tons per year of ash can be beneficially utilized. This would reduce ash storage needs, produce mark etable cement and masonry materials, and

create an additional fuel source.

3.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

3.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action is for the DOE to provi de cost-shared financ ial support through a cooperative agreement with UKRF for the de sign, construction, and operation of an advanced coal ash beneficiation proc essing plant at KU’s 2,200 MW Ghent Power Station in Carroll County, Kentucky. As a pa rt of the CCPI, the DOE would provide $4,492,008, approximately 50 percent of total project cost. This money would be repaid to the DOE over a predetermined period, if the project is economi cally successful.

The proposed demonstration plant facility w ould process 200,000 tons per year of fly ash generated at the Ghent Power Station to produce:

• 156,000 tons per year of pozzolan for concrete;

• 16,000 tons per year of high-quality block sand;

• 16,000 tons per year of graded-fill sand;

• 1,500 tons per year of high-quality polymer filler; and

• 8,000 tons of carbon fuel.

4Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram

56 The process would involve dre dging fly ash (from an inactive ash pond), to be processed through classification, flotation, dewatering a nd drying phases. The process is based upon a hydraulic classification and froth flotation technology de veloped at UKRF, whereby raw feed is classified by size into a pozzola n (fine) stream and a coarse stream. The pozzolan stream is treated using a reagent to separate the fine car bon by froth flotation. The pozzolan stream is then concentrated, filtered and dried. A sm all stream from the froth cell is further processe d hydraulically to produce a mate rial with a finer particle size, while the unburned carbon (tailings) would be concentrated and returned to the

boiler as fuel. The coarse material is furthe r classified and concentrated into block sand and coarse carbon products.

The process is designed to operate with esse ntially a closed-water balance, meaning that

there are no direct water effl uent streams leaving the process; the primary means for water to leave the process is as absorbed mo isture in the various products. As a result, this process is considered a net consumer of water. A dre dge located within the existing ash pond would feed ash to the process, although it is possible for a backhoe to feed the

ash as well. In order to maintain a constant water balance, it w ould be necessary to dredge ash at a minimum of 30 percent solids by weight, which is well within the design specifications of the dredges unde r consideration. The feed slu rry is diluted to 16 percent solids and fed into the hydraulic classifier . Coarse solids are removed and sent to concentrating spirals where coarse carbon and lightweight aggregate products are separated. These products are dewatered on hi gh-frequency dewatering screens with 100 mesh openings. The <100 mesh solids and water can be either pumped into the classifier overflow, in order to recover any misplaced fine s, or returned to the pond. If the solids in this stream are coarse (near-sized 100 mesh), it may be more desirable to return the solids to the pond so as not to diminish the quality of the pozzolan produc t. In any case, the

amount of <100 mesh solids should be minimal.

The hydraulic classifier overflow reports to fl otation where reagen ts are added to the circuit. The resulting froth product is dewa tered by vacuum filtrati on and the filtrate is recycled back to the flotation feed. Depending on the type of frother used, the filtrate may have as much as 10 ppm frother in it, and recycling back to flotation would reduce the

amount of frother that would need to be adde d to achieve effective flotation. The flotation tailings would be thickened, and filtered to 20 percent moisture. Clarified thickener overflow and filtrate water would be recycled back to the feed mix tank. The filler circuit operates similarly to the pozzolan circuit, wh ere a portion of the fl otation tailings is diverted into the filler circuit to produce an ultra-fine product that is thickened, filtered and dried. All effluent streams from the filler circuit report back to the pozzolan filter so that no ultra-fine pa rticles are lost.

Based on this operating arrang ement, the only means for water removal from the system

would be as moisture as it adheres to the products. (A possible ex ception would be the lightweight aggregate and co arse carbon dewatering effluent s). As a best management practice, all products would be stored on c oncrete pads or roll-off boxes so that any additional water drainage could be collected a nd pumped back into the processing plant.A total of 35,000 gallons of r eagent would be used per year in continuous, full-scale operation. This would include 20,000 gallons of collector and 15,000 gall ons of frother.

The function of the collector is to adsorb onto the carbon pa rticles in order to induce hydrophobicity. Most of this collector re mains adsorbed onto the carbon, which is

collected for eventual combustion as s upplemental fuel. Previous mass balance investigations using radioactiv e tracers at UKRF demonstrated that most of the collector (99.3 percent) remained adso rbed onto the solid products (i.e. carbon and ash). The majority (55.4 percent) was adsorbed onto the carbon while the remainder was adsorbed onto the ash. The testing was conducted at ex cessive dosages to simulate a worst-case scenario, as evidenced by collector adsorption onto the ash fraction. Nevertheless, even at excessive dosage, the collector adsorbs ont o the solid phases. Any trace amounts present

in the water would be adsorbed onto the solids since all of the water would be recycled in the processing plant. Collector present on th e froth product would be combusted in the boiler when the froth is consumed as supplem ental fuel while any collector adsorbed on the pozzolan would be volat ilized during thermal drying.

Similar investigations with the frother ha ve shown that approximately 70 percent is adsorbed into the pore structure of the froth product and would be burned during

combustion of the carbon fraction. The remainder would be present in the recycled water. As a result, the amount of frother that need s to be added for eff ective flotation would decrease until the solution concentration is at equilibrium, (approximately 20 mg/l). Because of the frother present in the recycled water, it is likely that the total amount of frother used should be approximately 30 percent less than the originally estimated 15,000 gallons/year.

The anticipated excavating plan would be to initially focus mining on a small section (<5 acres) of the pond. While the exact location wo uld be determined from coring, it would most likely be near the center of the exis ting pond. The site would be prepared using a backhoe to excavate only a small area of approximately 500 by 500 feet to a depth of 10 feet, sufficient to float and maneuver the dred ge. A trench would be excavated to divert water from the overflow of the active pond into the area to be mined. With this arrangement, a small pond would be created w ithin the existing ash pond. The site for the small pond would be isolated from the exis ting ash pond overflow to avoid any potential adverse impact on overflow turbidity. As mining commences, material would first be removed from the bottom of the mining area to increase the depth of the excavation and minimize the need to maneuver the dredge. As the volume of the excavation increases, water level would be maintained by channe ling overflow water from the active ash pond.

Coarse lightweight aggregate w ould be stockpiled in a manner consistent with that used at other sites where this type of product is generated. Since fines (i.e.-100 mesh) are removed from the lightweight aggregate, dust generation has not been a problem at these sites. Coarse and fine carbon products woul d be stored in roll-off boxes to simplify handling and transport to the utility stoc kpile. Both carbon products would be stored damp. Roll-off boxes would be changed when they are filled and hauled to the utility fuel stockpile, so a minimum amount of carbon pr oducts would be stored on site. Once the roll-off boxes are dumped on the utility stockp ile, the carbon would be mixed with coal

7and compacted to minimize dusting, in the same manner that coal is routinely compacted. It may become necessary to pelletize the carbon before it can be used as fuel in order to meet utility handling requirements. In this case, dusting would be less of a problem.

The pozzolan would be stored as a damp pr oduct in a covered storage area. Since the pozzolan must eventually be dried, it woul d be desirable to minimize any additional

moisture that can result from rainfall. When the pozzolan is to be transported for barge loading, it would be transported in dump tr ucks equipped with re tractable tarps. The trucks would dump at the barge-loading site in a covered building where the barge would be loaded by conveyor. The barge would be e quipped with sliding covers for each berth to keep rain from adding additional moisture.

While the products would be processed and stored wet, plants that would be utilizing the pozzolan are accustomed to storing and hand ling ash in a manner similar to Portland cement, that is, as a dry powder. Ther efore, the ash pozzola n product would likely require drying. Fuel burning in the pozzolan dryer would result in CO 2 , NO X , SO 2 , VOC,

and CO emissions. The emission f actors were selected from the EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources,

Section 1.4: Natural Gas Combustion , which vary depending on the size (i.e. heat input) of the combustor. The dryer for the proces sing plant would have a maximum design feed rate of 50 tons of pozzola n per hour and utilize 701 ft 3 of natural gas/ton of pozzolan or 35,050 ft 3 /hr. Using natural gas with an HHV of 1000 Btu/scf, the maximum heat input to the dryer would be 35 x 10 6 Btu/hr. This heat in put is within the range specified for Small Industrial Boilers (10 to 100 x 10 6 Btu/hr).

The collector is a mixture of 90 percent #2 fu el oil, and 10 percent oil-soluble petroleum sulfonate. The primary component of the fuel oil (>95 percent) is a liphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons (CAS# 68476-30-2) with the re mainder being biphe nyl (CAS# 92-52-4), naphthalene (CAS# 91-20-3) and xylene mixture (CAS# 1330-20-7). The primary component of the petroleum sulfonate is sodium sulfonate (CAS#68608-26-4). The vapor pressure of the fuel oil is <1mm Hg at 77 F o ,while that of the petroleum sulfonate is reported as negligible on the supplier MSDS . The frother is comprised primarily of polypropylene glycol (CAS#25322-69-4), wh ich has a vapor pressure of <0.01 mm Hg at

20 C. o

The emission rate to the air by volatilization of the collector and frot her reagents is not known. However, based on technical data provide d in the literature, the rate would likely be very slow. Propylene glycol, the main co mponent of the frother, has an equilibrium vapor pressure (at 25 o C) of 0.129 mm Hg and an evaporatio n rate of .01 relative to butyl acetate (rate = 1). For comparison, gasoline has a vapor pressure of 275 to 475 mm Hg (at 20 o C) and a rate of 10-11, whereas diesel fu el has a vapor pressure of 0.465 mm Hg and a rate listed as "slow". The vapor pressure of water at similar temperatures is 19 - 22 mmHg.

The collector, which is composed of No. 2 fuel oil and petroleum sulfonate, is likewise a liquid of low volatility. The fuel oil component has a vapor pressure and evaporation rate

8similar to diesel fuel, whereas the petroleum sulfonate vapor pressure is negligible. A survey of the literature did not reveal any relevant kinetic data for the collector in aqueous solution, and the evapora tion rate cannot be ca lculated from vapor pressure data. However, considering that the steady state conc entration of collector in the process water would be on the order of 1 ppm, it is reasonabl e to assume that the project emission rate to the air by volatilizatio n would be minimal.

Given the low vapor pressures of the flotati on reagent components, it is not likely that escape into the air would be a significant i ssue. Precautions would be taken to minimize exposure of these chemicals to the air by pr oper storage in closed vessels and metering into enclosed pipes.

3.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the DOE would not provide funding for the coal ash beneficiation processing plant at the Ghen t Power Station in Carroll County, Kentucky. The demonstration plant would not be cons tructed under the CCPI program. As a result, the Ghent Power Station would eventually require a dditional disposal areas for ash

.

Figure 2 shows the location of the existing ac tive and inactive ash st orage ponds at Ghent Station, as well as the loca tion of a future ash pond. The inactive ash pond was operational from 1973 until 1993 when it was filled to capacity. A second pond (Current Ash Pond) became operational in 1993, was expanded to increase capacity in 2004 and is expected to have an additiona l 10 years of storage capacity. At that time, it will be necessary to have adequate ash storage capacity available which will entail the construction of yet another pond. Presently, th e most likely location under consideration

is to the south east of the current ash pond.

9

## Inactive

Ash Pond

Likely Site

of Future

Ash Pond Current

Ash Pond

Figure 2. Current and Potential Ash Pond Locations

At the present time, Ghent Station produces 620,000 tons per year of ash (495,000 tons per year of fly ash and 125,000 tons per year of bottom ash). With a bulk density of 65

lb/ft 3 , the volume of ash produced is 19 million ft 3 /year or 438 acre ft/year. With a projected useful life of 10 years for the cu rrent ash pond, the volume of ash that will be emplaced is 4380 acre ft. At an average depth of 40 ft, the land area that will be used for storage in the current pond is 110 acres or 11 acres per year.

The future ash pond is projected to have a total useful life of 15 y ears and will have the capacity to store 438 acre ft of ash per year for a total volume of 6570 acre ft. With an average depth of 40 ft., the future ash pond w ill be required to be 164 acres, or 11 acres

per year.

104.0 Affected Environment

The proposed project would be located at the Ghent Power Station in Carroll County, Kentucky. The facility would be approximately 44,800 ft 2 (280 ft x 160 ft) with a maximum height of 30 feet. The facility would be built on the existing inactive ash pond.

The power station is northeas t of the community of Ghent , adjacent to the Ohio River between Cincinnati, OH, and Louisville, KY. U. S. Highway 42 runs parallel to the river, and separates the Ghent power station from the proposed pr oject site at the ash pond.

Figure 3. Ghent Location

Carroll County is located in north-central Kentuc ky in the Outer Blue Grass region. The Ohio River, with normal pool elevation of 420 feet, is the northern boundary of the county. The Kentucky River enters Carroll County at Worthville, and joins the Ohio

River between Carrollton and Prestonville. Th e normal pool level of the Kentucky River below Lock No. 1, 4 miles upstream from the Ohio River, is 420 feet; normal pool level

above Lock No. 1 is 428 feet.

11Figure 4. Carroll County, KY

Figure 5. Project Location

12The area is well dissected a nd is characterized by narrow valleys (except along major streams), steep slopes, and narrow ridges . Ridge tops with elevations between 800 and 900 feet are common. The highest elevation is 940 feet on a ridge located about 11⁄2 miles

north of Worthville. The eleva tion of the alluviated valley of the Ohio River ranges

between 450 and 490 feet. The elev ation of Ghent is 495 feet.

4.1 Geology and Soils

In Carroll County, water is obtained from c onsolidated sedimentar y rocks of Ordovician age and unconsolidated sediments of Quaternary age. Over the last one million years, unconsolidated Quaternary sediments have b een deposited along the larger streams and rivers. The bedrock beneath the project site is comprised mainly of limestone and shale.

The majority of the soils in Carroll County are well-drained to moderately well-drained clays and loams, derived from siltstone, shale, and limestone, on gentle to very steep slopes. Data from boreholes drilled in the vici nity of the project site, as well as the Ghent plant, indicate that the alluvium beneath the ash impoundment is mainly composed of silty clay, sand, and gravel.

4.2 Cultural Resources

Review of the Environmental Impact Stat ement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. EPA for Ghent Units 3 and 4 in 1978, reveals only one pot ential historically si gnificant feature, a cemetery located in the coal stoc kpile area of the power station ( See Figure 1, below)

. The project would be constr ucted and operated within a filled ash pond located where there are no historical, cultural, or archeological resources. No scenic vistas or protected settings have been identified within the area of potential effect for this project.

Figure 6.. Aerial View of Ghent Power Station.

134.3 Ecological Resources

The proposed project area is located in a tran sition region called the Western Mesophytic Forest Region. Land use and the resultant ve getation cover at the site are greatly influenced by topography. Woodlands be tween normal water level and normal highwater level bordering the Ohio River ar e dominated by American sycamore ( Platanus

occidentalis ), cottonwood ( Populus deltoides ), silver maple ( Acer saccharinum ), and American elm ( Ulmus americana ). Above the normal high-water mark, but below the floodplain, dominance is assumed by hackberry ( Celtis occidentalis ), sugar maple ( Acer

saccharum ), American elm, and black locust ( Robinia pseudoacacia ). The floodplain proper is mostly in farmland and pastureland, with black locust, American sycamore, and American elm along edges and small drainage ways. Adjacent to and above the floodplain, on the more gentle slopes, are pasturelands which have been invaded by black locust, eastern red cedar ( Juniperus virginianus ), and honey locust ( Gleditsia

triacanthos ). Blackberry ( Rubus sp .), prairie rose ( Rosa setigera ), and snowberry ( Symphoricarpos orbiculatus ) grow along fencerows and edges. Upper slopes above the floodplain are either cut-over (in most areas) or mature (locally in very steep areas) forests. Dominants here are hardwoods such as sugar maple, bitternut hickory ( Carya cordiformis ), black walnut ( Juglans nigra ), yellow-poplar ( Liriodendron tulipifera ), black locust, box elder ( Acer negundo ), and hackberry.

The Ohio River is a migratory pathway, feed ing area, and resting area for waterfowl and shorebirds. Streamside animals, such as raccoons and mink, are abundant along its edge. Riverside forests harbor a variety of reside nt and migratory birds. The river floodplain provides open pastureland and farmland areas, extensive brushy edges, and woodlots as

habitat for animals such as cotton-tailed rabbits, bobwhite, and opossums. Woody and brushy hillsides rising to the uplands from the floodplains provide habitat for gray squirrels and fox squirrels, ruffed grouse, white -tailed deer, and a variety of songbirds. Approximately 32 amphibian, 30 reptile, 255 bird, and 40 mammal species are listed as

aving anges encompassing the area. h r 4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

According to the Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Service, there are no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species wi thin the impact area of the project. The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) states that there are three federally listed endangered species of mussels lo cated in the Ohio River in the vicinity of the Ghent Plant. The KSNPC also recogni zes six mussel species, one fish species ( Ictiobus niger, “Black Buffalo”), and one amphibian ( Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, “Eastern Hellbender”) as endangered or of special concern in the area.

4.5 Water Resources

The project area is located adjacent to th e Ohio River, which is 2550 feet from the potential location of the plant. Water drainage in the area is generally northwest into the

Ohio River. Surface water from the site’s ash pond area accumulates in a natural basin area between the two ash ponds, and then flow s to a stream which goes northwest into

14Table 1. Concentration of Criteria Po llutants for the Air Quality Monitoring Sites in Northern Kentucky

Black Rock Creek, and eventually the Ohio River. The Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Service reports that there are no indications of wetlands present at the site. At the eastern section of the ash pond there is some open wa ter, the fringe of which has developed aquatic habitat common to pond margins.

4.6 Air Quality

The Kentucky Division for Air Quality operates the Air Quality Surveillance Network to generate monitoring data. The network in cludes 117 monitors in 33 counties, and has been operational since 1967. M onitoring stations, which are selected based on U.S. EPA guidance, have been estab lished near high population area s, as well as air pollution sources. The monitoring data is used to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality standards, to show progress to wards meeting standards, and to identify pollution trends. Data are also used to evaluate public health impacts and emergency control procedures. Based on data from 2002, there were nine criteria pollution source facilities within Carroll County, KY, but there were no monito ring stations placed in the county. Air quality data for Northern Kentucky is presente d in Table 1. According to the table, no standards were exceeded for any criteria pollutant in the northern Kentucky region in

2002.

Table 2, below, shows two industrial criteria poll utant sites located rela tively close to the proposed project site. For example, North Am erican Stainless is located approximately 2 miles west of the Ghent Power Station on U.S. Highway 42.

Table 2. Industrial Criteria Pollutant – Particulate Matter PM 10 – Carroll County, Kentucky

15In addition, of the 156 Mandatory Class I Federa l Areas monitored for visibility, only one is located in Kentucky,. This area, Ma mmoth Cave National Park, is located approximately 120 miles southwest of Ghent. Other Class I areas in close proximity to the Ghent Station are Great Smokey Mountai ns National Park, in Tennessee and North Carolina (230 miles southeast), Dolly Sods W ilderness Area in West Virginia (340 miles east), and Shenandoah National Par k, Virginia (360 miles east).

4.7 Noise

The existing noise sources in the general ar ea of the proposed project site are the Ghent Power Station, traffic along U.S. Highway 42, and sporadic rail traffic on the tracks parallel and adjacent to U.S. Highway 42. However, because the general area is already highly industrialized, no noise sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, or

churches exist in the immediate area. The n earest point of public access to the proposed site is across U.S. Highway 42 from th e main entrance to Ghent Power Station, approximately 1600 ft from the proposed site.

4.8 Land Use

Carroll County, Kentucky is a rural area with an average population density of about 78 people per square mile, and no metropolitan area. 1 Regionally, the Ohio Valley is primarily of agricu ltural land interspersed with industrial facilities and small

communities.

4.9 Socioeconomic Conditions

Carroll County, Kentucky is located in the no rth-central area of the state. In 2000, the county had a population of 10,155, with a median age of 35. There were 3,940 households, and 2,722 families residing in the county. The racial makeup of the county is 95.16 percent White, 1.94 percent Black or African American, 0.23 percent Native American, 0.17 percent Asia n, 0.05 percent Pacific Island er, 1.42 percent from other races, and 1.04 percent from two or more races. Of the population, 3.25 percent are Hispanic or Latino. 2

The median income for a household in the county is $35,925, and the median income for a family is $44,037. The per capita income for the county is $17,057, with 14.90 percent of the population being below th e poverty line. Of the tota l people living in poverty, 19.80 percent are under the age of 18, while 21.60 percent are 65 or older.

Carroll County's economy is based on both agriculture and industry. Farms produce crops, such as tobacco, corn, soybeans, garden vegetables, and fruit, as well as livestock. Combined agricultural receipts in 1986 to taled $10.29 million, including $8.27 million in crops, and $2.02 million in livestock. Accord ing to the 2000 Census, the manufacturing industry employs the highest percentage of Carroll County workers, with almost 30

16 1 U.S. Census 2000

2 Carroll County Kentucky Demographics http://www .encyclopedia4u.com/c/carroll-county-kentucky.htmlpercent of the workforce. Industrial manufacturers incl ude: Atochem, Dow Corning, Kentucky Ladder, North American Stainle ss, Teledyne, and Woodmaster Foundations.

4.10 Transportation

The project site is located near U.S. 42, a two-lane road, extending from Warsaw to Carrollton, KY. Access to Interstate 71 is available at both towns. U.S. 42 accommodates a large amount of commercial tra ffic from the industries located along the route, with approximately 6,000 vehicle movements per day.

5.0 Environmental Impacts

5.1 Geology and Soils Proposed Alternative No direct impacts to geol ogical resources are expected from the construction and operation of the proposed project due to th e facility location. The site would be constructed entirely within the confines of the inactive ash pond and would use the existing access roads, and would not impact any undisturbed area.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would eventually require the creation of additional storage impoundments to accommodate coal ash at th e Ghent Power Station. This could include

construction and excavation of additiona l land in order to create additional impoundments, which would disturb soil and geological resources or isolate these resources from other productive uses.

5.2 Cultural Resources

Proposed Alternative No cultural resources would be impacted by the proposed project. Review of the EIS prepared by the U.S. EPA for Ghent Un its 3 and 4 in 1978, id entified only one historically significant feature in the area, a cemetery loca ted in the current coal stockpile area of the Ghent plant. Consequently, b ecause excavation and c onstruction activities associated wit the proposed project are not expe cted to impact the coal stockpile are, no impacts to this historical feature are anticipated. Additionally , the Kentucky State

Historic Preservation Office does not list any historic or cult ural resources in the area. The proposed project would be located w ithin the inactive ash pond and would not impact any cultural resources.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would eventually re quire the creation of additional storage to accommodate coal ash produced at the Ghent Power Station. While the existing impoundments do not impact cultural resources, a cultural resource surv ey would need to be conducted to assess the potential impacts of future ash pond sites or to determine the optimum place to construct a new impoundment, if it were necessary to avoid cultural

17resources. Construction of additional ash stor age facilities would increase the potential to

encounter cultural resources.

5.3 Ecological Resources

Proposed Alternative Impacts to ecological resources would be minimal. The proposed project site was previously disturbed to establish the two existing ash ponds. While areas of the existing pond do contain vegetation suitable for wildlife habitat (in the shallow-water portion of the impoundment), these areas would not be im pacted by the project because the ash in these areas is contaminated with clay a nd silt and is not suitable for processing.

Success of the proposed project could result in the construction of additional facilities that utilize the ash byproducts. As a result, this growth in indu stry could indirectly impact ecological resources by causing a loss of habitat due to construction.

No Action Alternative Without alternatives to utilize ash generate d by the Ghent Power Station, eventually the creation of additional storage impoundments would be necessary. Consequently, the additional impoundments would disp lace the terrestrial ecosystem at the site of the ash ponds, resulting in loss of habitat. Asso ciated surface water impacts and ground water impacts would probably degrade aquatic and te rrestrial habitats located downstream of these ponds.

5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Proposed Alternative Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species located in the Ohio River would be

limited to the effects of sedimentation duri ng construction activities. However, such sediment transport is unlikely because runo ff must flow through open-water clarifying

zones in the eastern end of the impoundment. These zones were designed to prevent ash from flowing into the Ohio River.

According tot the KSNPC, the Northern Leopard Frog ( Rana pipiens ) is listed as a species of concern and may use portions of the impoundment as a breeding area in the spring. However, leopard frogs have not been heard or observed at the pond during spring and summer visits. In addition, while othe r frogs are generally observed and breeding calls are heard on the eastern end of the pond, th is is not an area lik ely to be disturbed during the project since it is a shallow, the water-covered area cont aining clay-rich soils not suitable for processing.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would require the creation of additional storage impoundments to accommodate coal ash produced at the Ghent Power Station. While no

area has been identified for additional st orage impoundments, the area selected could

18impact threatened or endange red species or their habitats . Site locations would need to

be selected with due care and in coordinati on with state and federal resource agencies.

5.5 Water Resources

Proposed Alternative Because the proposed processing plant would be constructed within the confines of the existing ash impoundment, it is expected that minimal impacts to surface water or ground

water would occur. The proposed plant would involve limited construction of impermeable surfaces, such as roofing and conc rete pads. Impacts to storm water runoff within the ash impoundment am expected to be negligible and entire ly contained within the impoundment. Spill control structures w ould be built around the containers that storing the collecting and frothing agents to minimize risks associated with accidental

releases.

There are no public or domestic water wells in the vicinity of the Ghent Power Station, although there are wells in the nearby town of Ghent, approximately 2 miles west of the project site. Any leakage of collector from the impoundment would be detected by existing impoundment monitoring wells.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would eventually require the construction of additional ash storage for the Ghent Power Station. Impacts to water resources would probably result from the construction, with the de gree and nature of the impact depending on the location of the impoundments

.

5.6 Air Quality

Proposed Alternative Based on the proposed project, three sources of air emissions were considered: fugitive dust resulting from excavation and construction activities; em issions from combustion of the collector and frothing agents; and emi ssions from thermal drying of the pozzolan prior to distribution.

Escape of fugitive dust from the site during the construction phase would be controlled based on best management practices already in place for excavation and hauling at the Ghent Station. For example, excavated ash w ould be heaped into short piles, and then moistened with water sprays to minimize surface dust generation. Leveled construction areas would be disked to create furrows, thereby minimizing runoff during rains, which would aid in keeping the surface moistened. Construction roads would also be sprayed as necessary, to minimize dust. IImpacts from fu gitive dust are expected to be minimal.

As part of the byproduct rec overy, carbon in the ash pond is collected using collecting and frothing agents and then burned as a s upplemental fuel. Over 50% of the collector and over 70% of the frother remain adsorbed to the carbon after processing. While this

19supplemental carbon would be combusted, minimal hazardous air emissions are expected. The adsorbed collecting/frothing agents comprise mainly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and

small amounts of sulfur.

Table 3. Summary of Emissions from Pozzolan Dryer using Natural Gas Fuel.

Emissions from the pozzolan dryer for the pr oposed project (See Table 3) were calculated using U.S. EPA Emission Factors for Small Industrial Boilers, (assuming the use of natural gas with a HHV of 1000 Btu/scf a nd average sulfur content of 2000 gr/10 6 scf). For comparative purposes, the emissions were calculated for both c ombustion with no

additional controls and combustion with low NO burners.

x Uncontrolled combustion or

combustion with low NO

x burners has no influence on SO 2 emissions which were

calculated to be 0.033 to ns/year. Use of low NO

x burners would reduce annual NO

x emissions from 7.66 tons/year to 4.37 t ons/year. However, the reduction of NO

x emissions resulting from the use of low NO

x burners would result in an increase in CO emissions to 3.39 tons/year compared to 1.95 tons/year with uncontrolled combustion. Using low NO

x burners would reduce annual N 2 O emissions from 0.12 tons/year to 0.03 tons/year. As with SO 2 , combustor type has no influence on emissions of CO 2 , Total Organic Compounds (TOC) nor eith er filterable or condensab le Particulate Matter (PM).

missions of EPA-designated HAPs would be negligible. E

No Action Alternative

On average, 2,000 lbs of CO is emitted for every ton of Portland cement produced. By using the pozzolan product in concrete , a net reduction of 1,910 lbs of CO per every ton of Portland cement would be achieved (90 lbs of CO /ton Portland cement). 2

2

2 However, no

offset in CO 2 emissions would be realized w ith the No Action Alternative.

20PM SO 2 NO

x CO CO 2 TOC

Cement 0.078 0.540 2.10 1.80 900.0 0.059

Pozzolan

Uncontrolled

Low-NO

x Burners 0.005

0.005 0.003

0.003 0.056

0.036 0.014

0.023 42.3

42.3 0.003

0.003 * Emissions are in kg/metric ton of cement clinker or pozzolan produced *Source: US EPA Clearinghouse for Inve ntories & Emissions Factors www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html * PM data includes all particulate matter, because EPA data set is incomplete for PM 10

.

Table 4. Comparison of Emissions for Portland Cement and Pozzolan Manufacturing

5.7 Noise

Proposed Alternative The proposed processing plant would be compri sed of a variety of equipment configured in an elevated open structure. Surface ope rations, such as loading and hauling would occur outside throughout the working shift. Noise levels generated by this type of equipment and activity were compiled from a variety of manufacturers and users and are

tabulated below.

Table 5. Operating Equipment Noise Levels.

Operating Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Operating Frequency Noise Level @ 50 ft. (dB)

Loader Intermittent 79 Truck (empty) Intermittent 81-85
Truck (loaded) Intermittent 87-91 Pumps (Centrifugal) Continuous 81-85 Compressor Continuous 91-98 Vibrating Screens Continuous 74

Operating equipment activities relevant to loading and m oving processed product would occur intermittently th roughout the working shift. Each of loading cycles would occur approximately 5 times per hour. Loader and truc k operators would be enclosed in cabs to reduce sound exposure. These activities would o ccur at a distance of not less than 200 ft from the processing plant in order to minimi ze the noise exposure of plant operators not

associated with these activities to less th an 80 dB in accordance with OSHA Permissible Noise Exposure Levels.

The primary noise sources within the proces sing plant itself would be from centrifugal pumps, vibrating screens and air compressors . Since these specific pieces of equipment would be operating continually during the production shift, persona l hearing protection

21would be required for the plant operators. The most signific ant source of noise would be from the compressor, which would be encl osed in a room constructed with sound

abatement material to reduce noise levels. Normal plant operation would be from an enclosed control room, which would also be constructed with sound abatement material. Worker exposure to noise levels in excess of 80 dB would be limited to less than 1 hr/8 hr. shift during routine maintenance and clea nup while noise levels from the plant during normal operation would be less than 70 dB at a distance of 100 ft.

Permissible occupational noise exposure levels allowed in Kentucky are described under Kentucky Occupational Safety and Hea lth (KY OSH) Regulation 29 CFR 1910.95 and are summarized in Table 5, below.

Table 6. Permissible Noise Exposure Levels in Kentucky

Employee exposure levels are determined by a time-weighted exposure method, which considers the amount of time during the day th at an employee is exposed to a given sound level. If the daily exposure is greater than th e permissible levels, regulations stipulate that feasible administrative or engineering contro ls shall be utilized . Otherwise, personal protection equipment must be prov ided to reduce noise exposure.

Off-site impacts from noise would be limited due to the lack of receptors. The nearest potential receptor would be lo cated 1600 feet from the propose d site at the main entrance to the Ghent Power Station. Considering that noise from a localized source decreases 6 dB with each doubling of distance from source to receptor, the noise level at the nearest off-site receptor would be approximately 60 dB when construction site noise levels are 90 dB. The acceptable residential limit of 60 dB is not likely to be exceeded during construction or operation at th e point of public access.

Due to the distance to off-site receptors and sa fety practices for on-site receptors, impacts

from noise would be minimal.

No Action Alternative

22The creation of additional storage impoundments as a result of the No Action Alternative would have only temporary impacts to noise r eceptors during the construction of the impoundment.

5.8 Land Use

Proposed Alternative There are no impacts to land use expected as a result of the constr uction or operation of the proposed project. The proposed project is located on property for the Ghent Power Station that is already used for industrial purposes, and the proposed project would not

alter or affect land use at the site or in the area.

Indirectly, success of the proposed project coul d result in the cons truction of additional

facilities that utilize the products. This growth in indus try could impact land use in the area by increasing industrial land use and limiting agriculture.

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would eventually require the creation of additional storage impoundments to accommodate coal ash at th e Ghent Power Station. The creation of new impoundments would displace the existing land uses in the areas of the new ponds . Most likely, the new ponds would be located within or adjacent to the indus trial setting of the Ghent power plant.

5.9 Socioeconomic Effects

Proposed Alternative There would be a limited number of temporar y jobs created through construction of the proposed project and several permanent pos itions for its continued operation. These positions would not have significant socioeconomic impacts to the area.

The operation of the plant would continue after the DOE-sponsored efforts are completed and would employ 3 plant operators, 3 assist ant plant operators, 1 dispatcher/clerk, 1 manager/sales representative, and 1 loader/ope rator (or dredge operator), for a total of 9 employees. The annual payroll for the plan t is estimated at approximately $400,000.

No Action Alternative Minimal socioeconomic impacts to the area are expected from the No Action Alternative. As more land is committed to ash disposal in the future, this land is removed from other, potentially higher value uses.

5.10 Transportation

Proposed Alternative Impacts to transportation resulting from the proposed action would be minimal. During the commercial phase of operations, trucks would use U.S. Highway 42 to transport products within the local market. Limited tr uck traffic is anticipated to transport

23lightweight aggregate and fill sand. With ta rgeted production of 16,000 tons per year (tpy) of lightweight aggregate and 16,000 t py graded fill sand, the amount of products trucked directly to consumers is estimated to be 32,000 tpy. Using 240 days as a base for product shipment with 20 ton trucks, the an ticipated traffic woul d be 6 to 8 truck movements per day. Current plans do not include barge transportation for construction or operation of the proposed project.

Indirectly, success of the proposed project coul d result in the cons truction of additional

facilities that utiliz e the products produced. This gr owth in industry could impact transportation by increasing truck traffic a nd/or through the construction of a barge loading facility with additional river traffic.

No Action Alternative No impacts to transportation are expected as a result of the No Action Alternative.

6.0 Conclusions

The proposed project would use an existing wa ste stream of ash to manufacture concrete additives and construction materials. By utili zing the pozzolan material produced by the beneficiation process, reduction in CO 2 emissions would be reali zed as compared to that resulting from Portland cement manufacturing. Beneficial use of fly ash also reduces the need for storage capacity, thereby reducing or eliminating the creation of additional fly ash storage impoundments.

No significant impacts to human health and safety or the environment are anticipated from the construction and operation of the proposed ash beneficiation plant. The proposed project would be constructed on a previously disturbed site, so significant impacts to geology or soils are unlikely. Cultu ral resource investigations have been conducted and additional investigation was not warranted; theref ore no further action pursuant to Section 106 of th e National Historic Preserva tion Act is required. No significant impacts are expected to ecological resources, surface water resources, ground water resources, or land use. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not be expected to impact any federal- or stat e-listed threatened or endangered species.

Increases in truck traffic w ould be minor given the existi ng traffic conditions; therefore impacts to transportation would be small. Mi nor increases in noise and dust may occur, in comparison to the No Action Alternative.

Under the No Action alternative, greater impact s to health and safety or the environment are anticipated. Given current ash production rates, it is estimated that additional storage impoundments would need to be constructed in approximately 10 years when the current pond reaches its maximum capacity. The addi tional impoundment would most likely be

located near the southeastern end of the current pond. Due to the disturbed nature of the site, impacts to geology and soils, cultural resources, ecological resources, surface or groundwater, land use, or threatened or endangered species would be small.

24Appendix A

Agency Correspondence

25