SUBJECT: Notes from Meeting with Beneficial Reuse Industry 

FROM: Matt Straus, Advisor 

TO: CCR Docket 

 On March 3, 2010, a meeting was held between EPA and 

certain companies that beneficially use coal combustion 

residuals (CCRs), as well as the American Coal Ash 

Association (ACAA). Present at the meeting were: Mathy 

Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Barry Breen, Deputy 

Assistant Administrator of OSWER, Matt Straus, OSWER, David 

Cohen and Stephanie Owens from EPA’s Public Affairs Office, 

Thomas Adams from ACAA, Lisa Cooper, PMI Ash Technologies, 

and Charles Price, PriceLite. This meeting is a followup 

to a meeting that the beneifical use industry had with the 

Administrator of EPA in January 2010. The following are a 

summary of the points raised/discussed at the meeting: 

• It was noted that there are many green jobs 

created by those companies that beneficially use 

CCRs, many of which are small businesses, and that 

if one took a narrow view of defining “green jobs” 

to the use of fly ash in concrete and fludized gas 

desulfurization (FGC) sludge in wall board, the 

industry today has about 4,000 green jobs; the 

number of green jobs would double in a year to a 

year and a half if the CCR rule “goes the right 

way.” If one took a more expansive view of “green 

jobs,” the beneficial use industry has about 

10,000 to 15,000 green jobs. 

• They indicated that they are beginning to see the 

markets being affected by the uncertainty, and 

that some of their customers are not willing to 

use such materials containing CCRs due to the 

uncertainty; they also noted that their 

competitors, who use other secondary materials, 

are claiming that their materials are not 

hazardous and using that against them. 

Furthermore, they noted that contracts they have 

signed, at least in some cases, include clauses 

which suggest that if CCRs are identified as a 

hazardous waste, or they may be identified as a 

hazardous waste, that that may be reason to cancel 

the contract. 
• EPA representatives noted that EPA strongly 

supports the sound beneficial use of CCRs and that 

based on increased costs alone, the amount of CCRs 

that are beneficially used should increase and 

that the Agency does not see what this “stigma” 

issue is based on. 

• It was noted that they see the utility industry 

moving away from the use of impoundments, and 

indicated that from what they have seen, the 

utility industry (or most of the industry) will 

not be using this method of management in about 10 

years. They also noted that new landfills are 

being built with composite liners (and they 

pointed to the new Maryland regulations as a 

model) and thus, the industry is moving in the 

right direction. (It was noted by EPA 

representatives that this may be the case for new 

units, but still much of the CCRs are managed in 

unlined units and will continue to be used in the 

future.) 

• The beneficial use industry has looked at a number 

of approaches for regulation of CCRs, such as 

contingent management (identify CCRs as nonhazardous and give the states some amount of time 

to adopt the regulations, such as two years, and 

if they do not adopt them, regulate CCRs under the 

hazardous waste provisions), retain the Bevill 

waste for CCRs, and indicate that CCRs that are 

beneficially used are not “solid wastes,” and a 

listing scheme where CCRs are given a different 

label. Based on discussions with standards 

setting organizations and an attorney they hired 

who is expert in RCRA, they believe the solution 

is subtitle D of RCRA. They indicated that they 

were told, particularly by the standard setting 

organizations, that if CCRs had the label or were 

regulated under subtitle C of RCRA, it would have 

a severe impact on the beneficial use of CCRs. 

The primary reasons they provided were: (1) legal 

liability and (2) if managed as a hazardous waste 

will be considered a hazardous waste no matter 

what it is called. They also identified other 

issues, but they appeared to be secondary. 

• EPA representatives asked if the CCRs were not 

called hazardous waste, but were labeled 

differently, whether that would have an impact; 

they indicated that they were told no. The fact 
that they are subject to subtitle C regulation 

would be enough to impact the beneficial use of 

CCRs. 

• EPA representatives then noted that the record is 

fairly clear that the mismanagement of CCRs does 

present a risk, and that even under a subtitle D 

scheme, if that is the approach that is 

considered, the regulations would be tight and the 

Agency would need to indicate that these wastes 

present a risk, based on the risk assessment, the 

damage cases, etc (and not that they are nonhazardous) and whether that would impact the 

beneficial use of CCRs. They said that they would 

support tight regulation, and indicated that they 

were informed by the standard setting 

organizations that if it would not be considered 

or labeled or managed as a hazardous waste, it 

would be seen differently. 

• They did indicate that they believe that federal 

oversight of the management of CCRs is important, 

and that if CCRs were subject to the same 

management scheme as municipal solid waste, 

wouldn’t that be protective and wanted to know if 

EPA would support subtitle D if the RCRA was 

amended. We indicated that we were not prepared 

nor was it appropriate to discuss legislation. 

• They did suggest that they believed that they were 

caught in the middle of the dialogue and suggested 

that EPA sit down with the standard setting 

organizations, such as ACI, ASTM International, 

and AASHTO and have the dialogue with them. 

• It was also noted that the sister organization to 

ACAA in other countries were asked how such a 

designation would impact the beneficial use of 

CCRs in their countries, and that once that 

information is obtained, that they would provide 

it to EPA.