Combustible Coal Residuals Comments Ohio Department of Transportation November 17 , 2010

The Ohio Department of Transportation ( ODOT ) supports the regulation of Coal Co m bustion Residuals (CCRs) under Subtitle D of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RC RA ) . We believe that Subtitle D provides the desired protection to prevent releases such as the December 22, 2008 Kingston TVA incident and the 200 5 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 C onstruction and M aterials S pecifications (CMS) 499 Concrete

– General, 613, Low Strength Mortar Backfill and Standard Dra wing 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 embankment s as part of our recycl ed 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 surfa ce. 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 Portl a n d Cement Co ncrete (RPCC) which i s 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 wa ter table. Tufa restricts water flow in th rough 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 expansio n 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 po zzolan ic materials that may be substituted for Portland cement range from $60

- $80 per ton. If coal ash is regulated u nder Subtitl e 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

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

re d u c ed or eliminated.

2) Increased costs for disposal

– Original Federal mandates to allow the use of fly ash in concrete and continued non

- mandated u se 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 tes ting. 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 b e 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 thic k 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 1 4, 4 0 0 lane miles of concrete pavement in our roadway system

. The projected cost for testing o f 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 inclu de both items generated from the demolition of roadways and buildings. The items generated by the demolition of roadway s are listed above under current uses. Building items include concrete basement and garage floors, floor and ceiling tiles, dry wall, p orches, 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 abou t 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, t hey also use the terms “ hazardous waste ” and “ hazardous materials ” int erchangeably. 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 suppor t 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 tha t 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 areduction 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 th e 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 ag ency 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 it s experience with the solvent reuse program under Subtitle C.

ODOT does not feel this is a good comparison. The solvent reuse program is relative ly small and not well known to the public. A typical home mechanic will not have a parts washer in their g arage. 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 ty pically 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 repl acing the sol vent 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 a n 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 buil dings. 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 th at CCR containing concrete i s 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 th at 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 f or 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 additi on, 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 infor mation concerning the submitted, please contact Juliet Denniss at (614) 466

- 7942 or Juliet.Denniss@dot.state.oh.us

.