Combustible Coal Residuals Comments

Ohio Department of Transportation

November 17, 2010

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) supports the regulation of Coal Combustion 

Residuals (CCRs) under Subtitle D of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We 

believe that Subtitle D provides the desired protection to prevent releases such as the December 22, 

2008 Kingston TVA incident and the 2005 release into the Delaware River in Pennsylvania. We 

believe that the regulation of CCRs under Subtitle C of RCRA would greatly reduce the use of CCRs 

for all beneficial uses due to public perception, increase in costs for both the use and reuse of CCR 

containing materials and lack of standards. 

Current use of CCRs by ODOT

The CCRs used by ODOT are mainly used in concrete. CCRs encapsulated in concrete have been 

used for many decades by DOTs. Their use in concrete is detailed in ODOT’s Construction and 

Materials Specifications (CMS) 499 Concrete – General, 613, Low Strength Mortar Backfill and 

Standard Drawing NBS-1-09 noise walls. The standard for noise walls is for aesthetic reasons. The 

fly ash reacts with the CaOH and reduces the white staining that may occur from the cracks and 

pores of the noise wall.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ConstructionMgt/OnlineDocs/Pages/2010CMS.aspx.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/TransSysDev/Environment/NEPA_policy_issues/NOISE/Docume

nts/nbs-1-09_07-17-09.pdf

There are many products used in the roadway construction that are composed of fly ash containing 

concrete. These items include concrete pavement, bridge structures, storm sewers, side walks, 

culverts, curbs, gutters, catch basins, noise walls, and supports for light signals, street lights, and 

traffic control.

ODOT also allows CCR use for embankments as part of our recycled materials, Supplemental 

Specification 871. As part of the specification, the CCR must be compacted and the CCR must be 

covered with a minimum of 8 feet of natural soils on the embankment slopes and a minimum of 3 feet 

of natural soil cover on the surface. Use of CCRs for embankment material is at ODOT’s Districts 

discretion and must have prior approval from Ohio EPA.

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ConstructionMgt/OnlineDocs/Pages/ProposalNotesSupplemental

SpecificationsandSupplements.aspx T

In addition, ODOT reuses the majority of concrete from roadways and bridges as Recycled Portland

Cement Concrete (RPCC) which is specified in CMS 203.03. This material may be crushed to be 

reused as embankment material. Its use is limited to above the water table because of RPCC’s 

tendency to form tufa in roadway drainage systems if placed in or below the water table. Tufa restricts 

water flow in through the drainage system causing water to stay in the road base and subbase. This 

water is subject to the freeze/thaw cycles in Ohio which in turn causes premature failure of the road

pavement due to the expansion and contraction from ice forming in the road’s base and subbase.
Concerns

1) Initial Cost of Concrete – While, ODOT does not have a mandate or requirement to use fly ash in 

concrete, Fly ash is used extensively in ODOT projects because of market forces. The current cost of 

fly ash is approximately $40 per ton in comparison to pure Portland cement at $100 per ton. Other 

pozzolanic materials that may be substituted for Portland cement range from $60 - $80 per ton. If 

coal ash is regulated under Subtitle C, the cost to manufacture concrete containing fly ash will 

increase due to increases in insurance, permitting and record keeping requirements, storage 

requirements, and disposal of any unused material. This undermines the cost effectiveness of using 

concrete containing fly ash in a competitive bid situation and makes it more likely that its use will be 

reduced or eliminated. 

2) Increased costs for disposal – Original Federal mandates to allow the use of fly ash in concrete 

and continued non-mandated use of fly ash means ODOT disposes of many concrete materials that 

are made with fly ash. Currently this material is disposed in construction and demolition debris landfill 

when it can no longer be reused. Under the RCRA, a generator must determine if the waste is 

hazardous either by generator knowledge or through testing. If coal ash is regulated a hazardous 

waste, ODOT will need to prepare a sampling protocol for the disposal of CCR containing concrete to 

prove that it is not a hazardous waste and may be either reused or disposed of in a construction and 

demolition debris landfill. By using CMS 203.03J, Use of Petroleum Contaminated Soil, as a guide, 

concrete will need to be tested for every 100 tons generated. One mile of a typical 4-lane 11-inch 

thick concrete highway will generate 17,424 tons of waste with 174 samples being required for 

testing. Analyzing each sample for TCLP RCRA metals and Semi-volatile Organic Compounds at 

$332 per sample, the total sampling cost would be $57,768 per mile. ODOT currently has over 

14,400 lane miles of concrete pavement in our roadway system. The projected cost for testing of 

these roadways as they are bring replaced is over $831 million in 2010 dollars. 

The items that would need to be tested are many and include both items generated from the 

demolition of roadways and buildings. The items generated by the demolition of roadways are listed 

above under current uses. Building items include concrete basement and garage floors, floor and 

ceiling tiles, dry wall, porches, sidewalks, patio pavers, and retaining wall block. In fact, this testing 

will not only be required for ODOT but for other contractors, federal, state and local agencies as well 

as the general public.

3) Public Stigma – ODOT is also concerned about the public stigma of CCRs being used in concrete. 

Many blogs and newspaper articles explain that difference between a hazardous waste and a special 

waste under Subtitle C. However, they also use the terms “hazardous waste” and “hazardous 

materials” interchangeably. In addition, for the general public, the key word is hazardous and they do 

not understand the difference between a “hazardous material” and a “hazardous waste”. To the 

general public, a special waste under the hazardous waste rules is still hazardous.

While USEPA determined that the reuse of CCRs under Subtitle C would increase because of 

increasing federal use, there are no required Federal mandates for use. ODOT’s contacts with the 

concrete manufacturing and repair industry do not support the USEPA determination but actually take 

the opposite position of less or no use. ODOT agrees with our contacts and feels that the stigma of 

CCRs being a hazardous material would lower and/or eliminate CCR’s use in Ohio. 

In addition, ODOT feels that the stigma of CCRs being a hazardous material would present itself 

during the studies required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which all federal 

agencies must conduct. The negative stigma would cause public controversy and may lead to a 
reduction in CCR reuse. Public comments received during the NEPA process concerning the use of 

CCRs by an agency must be documented and addressed. These comments may be from the public, 

local civic groups or environmental groups. This may increase the amount of public consultation that 

must occur and the number of comments that must be addressed. The controversy may actually 

elevate the level of the environmental document, If there is enough controversy, the agency may 

commit not to use CCRs. An agency that uses CCRs amid this controversy will generate negative 

perception of that agency

4) Comparison of Solvent Reuse for Solvent Parts Washer under Subtitle C to Beneficial Reuse of 

CCRs – USEPA predicted an increase in the reuse of CCRs based on its experience with the solvent 

reuse program under Subtitle C. 

ODOT does not feel this is a good comparison. The solvent reuse program is relatively small and not 

well known to the public. A typical home mechanic will not have a parts washer in their garage. In 

addition, automotive repair shops have been consolidating since the 1980s with the passage of 

regulations for the management of various wastes. The gas station which conducts repairs is no 

longer the norm. In addition, the general public is typically barred from entering the repair area of a 

repair shop because of liability and insurance issues for the repair shop. Many repair shops are 

replacing their solvent parts washers with hot water parts washers saving them the cost of replacing 

the solvent by the solvent reuse firm, reduced regulatory documentation and management, and 

eliminating the possibility of having a reportable release. The public is not likely to encounter a 

solvent parts washer in the reuse program unless they work for an auto mechanic repair shop.

On the other hand, CCR containing concrete is found in many homes, businesses, buildings and 

roadways. It may be purchased from home improvement stores in many forms and is used in the 

building of homes, schools and commercial buildings. However, the public’s knowledge of where 

CCRs are being reused is increasing because of articles and blogs attempting to sway public opinion 

toward its regulation under Subtitle C. With this knowledge comes awareness that CCR containing 

concrete is more ubiquitous and is present in their homes, schools, places of employment and 

recreation and is leading to the public’s rejection of these materials. Examples of this rejection 

include Disney character jewelry and glasses distributed by McDonald’s that were recalled by the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission because of high cadmium content and MMR vaccinations 

which were publicized as being a cause for autism. These concerns have persisted even though the 

Consumer Product and Safety Commission raised the limits on cadmium and the doctor who 

published the link between the MMR vaccine and autism did so to profit from lawsuits against vaccine 

makers and the marketing of products to cure autism and is currently facing criminal charges. During 

the search for information on the internet, ODOT found sites which linked the cadmium in the recalled 

jewelry and glasses http://lansingonlinenews.com/news/5077/ and the mercury in MMR vaccinations

http://www.safeminds.org/mercury/SM-EPA-Public-Comment-91010-pdf.html to the presence of 

these elements in coal ash as reason to regulate CCRs as a hazardous waste. In addition, we found 

that Scientific American published an article dated December 13, 2007 which is titled “Coal Ash Is 

More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste” which states that it is more dangerous to live near a coal 

burning power plant than a nuclear power plant. As a number of comments for this article noted, the 

title is misleading while the article compared the amount of radiation around each type of plant. The 

nuclear plant was from actual readings while the coal plant was from an estimated amount. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

If you have any questions or require additional information concerning the submitted, please contact 

Juliet Denniss at (614) 466-7942 or Juliet.Denniss@dot.state.oh.us.