DOE/EA-1498 

 

 

Advanced Coal Utilization Byproduct Beneficiation Processing Plant 

Ghent Power Station, Carroll County, Kentucky 

Final 

Environmental Assessment 

January 2005 
Note: 

No comments were received during the public 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 funding, through a cooperative agreement with the 

University of Kentucky Research Foundation (UKRF), Center for Applied Energy Research 

(CAER), for the design, construction, and operation 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 participant will provide the 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 would 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 for 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; National 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, candidate technologies are demonstrated at 

commercial-scale facilities to foster widespread application. 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, advanced coal energy systems to market. 

DOE proposes to provide funding, through a cooperative agreement with the University of 

Kentucky Research Foundation (UKRF), Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER), for the 

design, construction, and operation of an advanced coal ash beneficiation processing plant at 
Kentucky Utilities (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 control technologies through the conversion of ash into salable 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 CO2 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 significant impacts to human health and safety or 

the environment from construction and operation 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 impacts to unspoiled areas would occur. Further 

significant degradation of soils and groundwater is unlikely. Cultural resource investigations 

have been conducted and conclude that no culturally or historically important features would be 

affected. Impacts 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. Increases in truck traffic 

over existing traffic conditions would be small. Only minor increases in noise 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 review 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 25, 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 Background ...........................................................................................................................................2

2.0 Purpose and Need for Action ..............................................................................................................3

3.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives.............................................................................4

3.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................4 

3.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................................9 

4.0 Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................11

4.1 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................................13 

4.2 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................13 

4.3 Ecological Resources .......................................................................................................................14 

4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species..............................................................................................14 

4.5 Water Resources..............................................................................................................................14 

4.6 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................................15 

4.7 Noise.................................................................................................................................................16 

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

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

4.10 Transportation.................................................................................................................................17 

5.0 Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................17

5.1 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................................17 

5.2 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................................................17 

5.3 Ecological Resources .......................................................................................................................18 

5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species..............................................................................................18 

5.6 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................................19 

5.7 Noise.................................................................................................................................................21 

5.8 Land Use ..........................................................................................................................................23 

5.9 Socioeconomic Effects .....................................................................................................................23 

5.10 Transportation.................................................................................................................................23 

6.0 Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................24

FIGURES 

Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram...................................................................................................................5 

Figure 2. Current and Potential Ash Pond Locations..................................................................................10 

Figure 3. Ghent Location.............................................................................................................................11 

Figure 4. Carroll County, KY.......................................................................................................................12 

Figure 5. Project Location ...........................................................................................................................12 

Figure 6. Aerial View of Ghent Power Station.............................................................................................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 PM10 - Carroll County, Kentucky ..................... 15 

Table 3. Summary of Emissions from Pozzolan Dryer using Natural Gas Fuel. ........................................ 20 

Table 4. Comparison of Emissions for Portland Cement and Pozzolan Manufacturing............................. 21 

Table 5. Operating Equipment Noise Levels. ............................................................................................. 21 

Table 6. Permissible Noise Exposure Levels in Kentucky.......................................................................... 22 

Appendix A Agency Correspondence 
Summary 

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, candidate technologies are demonstrated at 

commercial-scale facilities to foster widespread application. 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, advanced coal energy systems to 

market. 

DOE proposes to provide funding, through a cooperative agreement with the University 

of Kentucky Research Foundation (UKRF), Center for Applied Energy Research 

(CAER), for the design, construction, and operation of an advanced coal ash 

beneficiation processing plant at Kentucky Utilities (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 control technologies through 

the conversion of ash into salable 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 CO2 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 significant impacts to human health and 

safety or the environment from construction and operation 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 impacts to unspoiled areas 

would occur. Further significant degradation of soils and groundwater is unlikely. 

Cultural resource investigations have been conducted and conclude that no culturally or 

historically important features would be affected. Impacts 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. Increases in truck traffic over existing traffic 

conditions would be small. Only minor increases in noise and dust would be expected in 

the area near the project. 

1 
1.0 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 technologies for use in new and existing 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 manufacturing industry, service corporations, R&D 

firms, software developers, academia and other interested parties. Candidate 

technologies would be demonstrated at commercial-scale facilities to help promote 

widespread application. 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, advanced coal energy systems to market. 

Under the CCPI, the installation of an advanced coal ash beneficiation processing plant 

was proposed by the University of Kentucky Research Foundation (UKRF) to be hosted 

at KU’s Ghent Power Station in Ghent, Kentucky. The plant would demonstrate coal ash 

beneficiation in a process addressing the entire ash stream. The project would process 

coal ash, separating it by size or type for different applications. Coarse ash would be used 

to produce a lightweight aggregate 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-NOx 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 froth 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 into 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 treated with a reagent system and the fine carbon 

removed by froth flotation. The remaining fine (non-carbon) fraction is concentrated, 

filtered, and dried for use as a pozzolan. Finally, 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 applications including a polymer additive. 

2 
2.0 Purpose and Need for Action 

Through the CCPI program, candidate technologies are demonstrated at commercialscale facilities to foster widespread application. 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, advanced coal energy systems to market. The 

program, by merging public and private sector interests, will benefit the environment, 

help to sustain or enhance electricity reliability, bolster energy security, or help to ensure 

an affordable supply of electricity. The 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, lower capital and operating 

costs for existing plants, reduce costs of environmental compliance, avoid environmental 

costs, enhance industrial competitiveness leading to increased domestic sales and 

technology exports, and create additional jobs. 

Power plants in the United States produce millions of tons of coal fly ash annually. The 

industry beneficially uses more than 35 percent 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 primary ingredient in concrete in order to 

reduce raw material costs and to strengthen the concrete. Experts estimate that using 1 

ton of fly ash in concrete will avoid approximately 1 ton of CO2 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 (NOx) emissions, but these mandated 

reductions in NOx have complicated the use of fly ash in ready-mix concrete, the largest 

market for fly ash. To achieve the CAA-specified NOx reductions, power plants often 

use low NOx burners, which restrict oxygen during combustion. Unfortunately, this 

allows unburned carbon to remain in the fly ash, 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 step in ash beneficiation because it addresses 

the entire ash stream and a wide array of quality issues. Research into hydraulic 

classification has lead to new technology development to contend with changes in ash 

quality for various applications. 

The process, referred to as the FastFloat technology, generates an ash-based cement 

substitute (i.e., pozzolan) that can be used for higher levels (30 percent versus the current 

20 percent) of Portland cement substitution in concrete. Pozzolan from the FastFloat 

technology provides more strength 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 component 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. 

3 
Unburned carbon would also be separated, concentrated, and returned 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 control 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 CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the project would recover an otherwise 

wasted fuel. 

UKRF proposes installing an advanced coal ash beneficiation processing 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 ash 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 marketable 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 provide cost-shared financial support through a 

cooperative agreement with UKRF for the design, construction, and operation of an 

advanced coal ash beneficiation processing plant at KU’s 2,200 MW Ghent Power 

Station in Carroll County, Kentucky. As a part 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 economically successful. 

The proposed demonstration plant facility would 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. 

4 
Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram 

5 
6 

The process would involve dredging fly ash (from an inactive ash pond), to be processed 

through classification, flotation, dewatering and drying phases. The process is based upon 

a hydraulic classification and froth flotation technology developed at UKRF, whereby

raw feed is classified by size into a pozzolan (fine) stream and a coarse stream. The 

pozzolan stream is treated using a reagent to separate the fine carbon by froth flotation. 

The pozzolan stream is then concentrated, filtered and dried. A small stream from the 

froth cell is further processed hydraulically to produce a material with a finer particle 

size, while the unburned carbon (tailings) would be concentrated and returned to the 

boiler as fuel. The coarse material is further classified and concentrated into block sand 

and coarse carbon products. 

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

there are no direct water effluent streams leaving the process; the primary means for 

water to leave the process is as absorbed moisture in the various products. As a result, 

this process is considered a net consumer of water. A dredge 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 would be necessary to 

dredge ash at a minimum of 30 percent solids by weight, which is well within the design 

specifications of the dredges under consideration. The feed slurry 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 high-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 fines, 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 product. In any case, the 

amount of <100 mesh solids should be minimal. 

The hydraulic classifier overflow reports to flotation where reagents are added to the 

circuit. The resulting froth product is dewatered by vacuum filtration 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 added 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, where a portion of the flotation 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 particles are lost. 

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

would be as moisture as it adheres to the products. (A possible exception would be the 

lightweight aggregate and coarse carbon dewatering effluents). As a best management 

practice, all products would be stored on concrete pads or roll-off boxes so that any 

additional water drainage could be collected and pumped back into the processing plant. 
A total of 35,000 gallons of reagent would be used per year in continuous, full-scale 

operation. This would include 20,000 gallons of collector and 15,000 gallons of frother. 

The function of the collector is to adsorb onto the carbon particles in order to induce 

hydrophobicity. Most of this collector remains adsorbed onto the carbon, which is 

collected for eventual combustion as supplemental fuel. Previous mass balance 

investigations using radioactive tracers at UKRF demonstrated that most of the collector 

(99.3 percent) remained adsorbed 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 excessive dosages to simulate a worst-case 

scenario, as evidenced by collector adsorption onto the ash fraction. Nevertheless, even at 

excessive dosage, the collector adsorbs onto 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 the froth product would be combusted in the 

boiler when the froth is consumed as supplemental fuel while any collector adsorbed on 

the pozzolan would be volatilized during thermal drying. 

Similar investigations with the frother have 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 needs to be added for effective 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 would be determined from coring, it would 

most likely be near the center of the existing 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 dredge. 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 within the existing ash pond. The site for the 

small pond would be isolated from the existing 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 channeling overflow water from the active ash pond. 

Coarse lightweight aggregate would 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 would be stored in roll-off boxes to simplify 

handling and transport to the utility stockpile. 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 products would be stored on site. Once the 

roll-off boxes are dumped on the utility stockpile, the carbon would be mixed with coal 

7 
and 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 product in a covered storage area. Since the 

pozzolan must eventually be dried, it would 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 trucks equipped with retractable 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 equipped 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 handling ash in a manner similar to Portland 

cement, that is, as a dry powder. Therefore, the ash pozzolan product would likely 

require drying. Fuel burning in the pozzolan dryer would result in CO2, NOX, SO2, VOC, 

and CO emissions. The emission factors 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 processing plant would have a maximum design feed 

rate of 50 tons of pozzolan per hour and utilize 701 ft3 of natural gas/ton of pozzolan or 

35,050 ft3/hr. Using natural gas with an HHV of 1000 Btu/scf, the maximum heat input to 

the dryer would be 35 x 106

 Btu/hr. This heat input is within the range specified for Small 

Industrial Boilers (10 to 100 x 106 Btu/hr). 

The collector is a mixture of 90 percent #2 fuel oil, and 10 percent oil-soluble petroleum 

sulfonate. The primary component of the fuel oil (>95 percent) is aliphatic and aromatic 

hydrocarbons (CAS# 68476-30-2) with the remainder being biphenyl (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), which 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 frother reagents is not 

known. However, based on technical data provided in the literature, the rate would likely 

be very slow. Propylene glycol, the main component of the frother, has an equilibrium 

vapor pressure (at 25oC) of 0.129 mm Hg and an evaporation rate of .01 relative to butyl 

acetate (rate = 1). For comparison, gasoline has a vapor pressure of 275 to 475 mm Hg 

(at 20oC) and a rate of 10-11, whereas diesel fuel 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 

8 
similar 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 evaporation rate cannot be calculated from vapor pressure data. 

However, considering that the steady state concentration of collector in the process water 

would be on the order of 1 ppm, it is reasonable to assume that the project emission rate 

to the air by volatilization would be minimal. 

Given the low vapor pressures of the flotation reagent components, it is not likely that 

escape into the air would be a significant issue. Precautions would be taken to minimize 

exposure of these chemicals to the air by proper 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 Ghent Power Station in Carroll County, Kentucky. 

The demonstration plant would not be constructed under the CCPI program. As a result, 

the Ghent Power Station would eventually require additional disposal areas for ash. 

Figure 2 shows the location of the existing active and inactive ash storage ponds at Ghent 

Station, as well as the location 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 additional 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, the 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/ft3, the volume of ash produced is 19 million ft3/year or 438 acre ft/year. With a 

projected useful life of 10 years for the current 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 years 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 will be required to be 164 acres, or 11 acres 

per year. 

10 
4.0 Affected Environment 

The proposed project would be located at the Ghent Power Station in Carroll County, 

Kentucky. The facility would be approximately 44,800 ft2

 (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 northeast 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 project site at the ash pond. 

Figure 3. Ghent Location 

Carroll County is located in north-central Kentucky 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. The 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. 

11 
Figure 4. Carroll County, KY 

Figure 5. Project Location 

12 
The area is well dissected and 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 elevation of the alluviated valley of the Ohio River ranges 

between 450 and 490 feet. The elevation of Ghent is 495 feet. 

4.1 Geology and Soils 

In Carroll County, water is obtained from consolidated sedimentary rocks of Ordovician 

age and unconsolidated sediments of Quaternary age. Over the last one million years, 

unconsolidated Quaternary sediments have been 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 vicinity 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 Statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. EPA for 

Ghent Units 3 and 4 in 1978, reveals only one potential historically significant feature, a 

cemetery located in the coal stockpile area of the power station (See Figure 1, below). 

The project would be constructed 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. 

13 
4.3 Ecological Resources 

The proposed project area is located in a transition region called the Western Mesophytic 

Forest Region. Land use and the resultant vegetation cover at the site are greatly 

influenced by topography. Woodlands between normal water level and normal highwater level bordering the Ohio River are 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, feeding 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 resident 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 

h r aving anges encompassing the area.

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 within the impact area of the project. The 

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) states that there are three 

federally listed endangered species of mussels located in the Ohio River in the vicinity of 

the Ghent Plant. The KSNPC also recognizes 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 the 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 flows to a stream which goes northwest into 

14 
Table 1. Concentration of Criteria Pollutants 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 water, 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 includes 117 monitors in 33 counties, and has 

been operational since 1967. Monitoring stations, which are selected based on U.S. EPA 

guidance, have been established near high population areas, as well as air pollution 

sources. The monitoring data is used to demonstrate compliance with ambient air quality 

standards, to show progress towards 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 monitoring stations placed in the county. Air 

quality data for Northern Kentucky is presented 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 pollutant sites located relatively close to the 

proposed project site. For example, North American Stainless is located approximately 2 

miles west of the Ghent Power Station on U.S. Highway 42. 

Table 2. Industrial Criteria Pollutant – Particulate Matter PM10 – 

Carroll County, Kentucky 

15 
In addition, of the 156 Mandatory Class I Federal Areas monitored for visibility, only one 

is located in Kentucky,. This area, Mammoth 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 Mountains National Park, in Tennessee and North 

Carolina (230 miles southeast), Dolly Sods Wilderness Area in West Virginia (340 miles 

east), and Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (360 miles east). 

4.7 Noise 

The existing noise sources in the general area 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 nearest point of public access to the proposed 

site is across U.S. Highway 42 from the 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 agricultural land interspersed with industrial facilities and small 

communities. 

4.9 Socioeconomic Conditions 

Carroll County, Kentucky is located in the north-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 Asian, 0.05 percent Pacific Islander, 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 the poverty line. Of the total 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 totaled $10.29 million, including $8.27 million in 

crops, and $2.02 million in livestock. According 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.html 
percent of the workforce. Industrial manufacturers include: Atochem, Dow Corning, 

Kentucky Ladder, North American Stainless, 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 traffic 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 geological resources are expected from the construction and 

operation of the proposed project due to the 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 the Ghent Power Station. This could include 

construction and excavation of additional 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 Units 3 and 4 in 1978, identified only one 

historically significant feature in the area, a cemetery located in the current coal stockpile 

area of the Ghent plant. Consequently, because excavation and construction activities 

associated wit the proposed project are not expected 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 cultural resources in the area. 

The proposed project would be located within the inactive ash pond and would not 

impact any cultural resources. 

 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would eventually require 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 survey 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 

17 
resources. Construction of additional ash storage 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 impacted by the project because the ash in 

these areas is contaminated with clay and 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 industry could indirectly impact 

ecological resources by causing a loss of habitat due to construction. 

No Action Alternative 

Without alternatives to utilize ash generated by the Ghent Power Station, eventually the 

creation of additional storage impoundments would be necessary. Consequently, the 

additional impoundments would displace the terrestrial ecosystem at the site of the ash 

ponds, resulting in loss of habitat. Associated surface water impacts and ground water 

impacts would probably degrade aquatic and terrestrial 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 during construction activities. However, such 

sediment transport is unlikely because runoff 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 other frogs are generally observed and breeding 

calls are heard on the eastern end of the pond, this is not an area likely to be disturbed 

during the project since it is a shallow, the water-covered area containing 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 storage impoundments, the area selected could 

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

be selected with due care and in coordination 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 concrete pads. Impacts to storm water runoff 

within the ash impoundment am expected to be negligible and entirely contained within 

the impoundment. Spill control structures would 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 degree 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; emissions from combustion of 

the collector and frothing agents; and emissions 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 would 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 fugitive dust are expected to be minimal. 

As part of the byproduct recovery, carbon in the ash pond is collected using collecting 

and frothing agents and then burned as a supplemental fuel. Over 50% of the collector 

and over 70% of the frother remain adsorbed to the carbon after processing. While this 

19 
supplemental 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 proposed 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 and average sulfur content of 2000 gr/106

 scf). 

For comparative purposes, the emissions were calculated for both combustion with no 

additional controls and combustion with low NOx burners. Uncontrolled combustion or 

combustion with low NOx burners has no influence on SO2 emissions which were 

calculated to be 0.033 tons/year. Use of low NOx burners would reduce annual NOx

emissions from 7.66 tons/year to 4.37 tons/year. However, the reduction of NOx

emissions resulting from the use of low NOx 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 NOx burners would reduce annual N2O emissions from 0.12 tons/year to 0.03 

tons/year. As with SO2, combustor type has no influence on emissions of CO2, Total 

Organic Compounds (TOC) nor either filterable or condensable Particulate Matter (PM). 

Emissions of EPA-designated HAPs would be negligible. 

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 CO2 emissions would be realized with the No Action Alternative. 

20 
PM SO2 NOx CO CO2 TOC 

Cement 0.078 0.540 2.10 1.80 900.0 0.059 

Pozzolan 

 Uncontrolled 

 Low-NOx 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 Inventories & Emissions Factors 

 www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html 

* PM data includes all particulate matter, because EPA data set is incomplete for PM10. 

Table 4. Comparison of Emissions for Portland Cement and Pozzolan 

Manufacturing 

5.7 Noise 

Proposed Alternative 

The proposed processing plant would be comprised of a variety of equipment configured 

in an elevated open structure. Surface operations, 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 moving processed product would 

occur intermittently throughout the working shift. Each of loading cycles would occur 

approximately 5 times per hour. Loader and truck operators would be enclosed in cabs to 

reduce sound exposure. These activities would occur at a distance of not less than 200 ft 

from the processing plant in order to minimize the noise exposure of plant operators not 

associated with these activities to less than 80 dB in accordance with OSHA Permissible 

Noise Exposure Levels. 

The primary noise sources within the processing 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, personal hearing protection 

21 
would be required for the plant operators. The most significant source of noise would be 

from the compressor, which would be enclosed 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 cleanup 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 Health (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 that an employee is exposed to a given sound 

level. If the daily exposure is greater than the permissible levels, regulations stipulate that 

feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized. Otherwise, personal 

protection equipment must be provided to reduce noise exposure. 

Off-site impacts from noise would be limited due to the lack of receptors. The nearest 

potential receptor would be located 1600 feet from the proposed 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 the point of public access. 

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

from noise would be minimal. 

No Action Alternative 

22 
The creation of additional storage impoundments as a result of the No Action Alternative 

would have only temporary impacts to noise receptors 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 construction 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 could result in the construction of additional 

facilities that utilize the products. This growth in industry 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 the 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 industrial setting of the 

Ghent power plant. 

5.9 Socioeconomic Effects 

Proposed Alternative 

There would be a limited number of temporary jobs created through construction of the 

proposed project and several permanent positions 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 assistant plant operators, 1 dispatcher/clerk, 1 

manager/sales representative, and 1 loader/operator (or dredge operator), for a total of 9 

employees. The annual payroll for the plant 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 truck traffic is anticipated to transport 

23 
lightweight aggregate and fill sand. With targeted production of 16,000 tons per year 

(tpy) of lightweight aggregate and 16,000 tpy 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 anticipated traffic would 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 could result in the construction of additional 

facilities that utilize the products produced. This growth in industry could impact 

transportation by increasing truck traffic and/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 waste stream of ash to manufacture concrete 

additives and construction materials. By utilizing the pozzolan material produced by the 

beneficiation process, reduction in CO2 emissions would be realized 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. Cultural resource investigations have been 

conducted and additional investigation was not warranted; therefore no further action 

pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 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 state-listed threatened or endangered species. 

Increases in truck traffic would be minor given the existing traffic conditions; therefore 

impacts to transportation would be small. Minor increases in noise and dust may occur, 

in comparison to the No Action Alternative. 

Under the No Action alternative, greater impacts 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 additional 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. 

24 
Appendix A 

Agency Correspondence 

25