REVIEW OF TEXAS REGULATIONS, 

STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO 

THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Final Report 

Prepared for: 

John Sager 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest (MC 5306W) 

Washington, DC 20460 

John Ward 

Vice President Marketing & Communications 

Headwaters Resources 

10653 South Riverfront Parkway, Suite 300 

South Jordan, UT 84095 

Prepared by: 

Tera D. Buckley 

Debra F. Pflughoeft-Hassett 

Energy & Environmental Research Center 

University of North Dakota 

PO Box 9018 

Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018 

2005-EERC-01-01 January 2005
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) would like to express its 

appreciation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Headwaters Resources for 

the opportunity to work on the Review of Texas Regulations, Standards, and Practices Related to 

the Use of Coal Combustion Products project as a subcontractor. The EERC authors would 

specifically like to thank Mr. John Sager, EPA, and Mr. John Ward, Headwaters Resources, for 

their financial support and input on this effort. In addition, thank you to the American Coal Ash 

Association (ACCA) for supporting the authors’ travel to Texas. 

 The EERC would like to thank Mr. Richard Bye, Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group 

(TCAUG); Mr. John Sager, EPA; and Ms. Lisa Kost, Lloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle & 

Townsend, P.C., for helping conduct the reviews in Texas. The EERC would also like to express 

its appreciation to the many individuals who participated voluntarily in the information-gathering 

process of the review. In addition, the members of the project advisory board—Mr. William 

Aljoe, U.S. Department of Energy; Mr. Richard Bye TCAUG; Ms. Susan Ferguson, Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality; Mr. David Goss, ACAA; Mr. Jason Harrington, Federal 

Highway Administration; Mr. James Roewer, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group; Mr. Jerry 

Smith, Headwaters Resources; and Mr. Kimery Vories, Office of Surface Mining—are gratefully 

acknowledged for helping shape the review process and providing comments on the draft report. 

EERC DISCLAIMER

LEGAL NOTICE This research report was prepared by the Energy & Environmental 

Research Center (EERC), an agency of the University of North Dakota, as an account of work 

sponsored by EPA and Headwaters Resources. Because of the research nature of the work 

performed, neither the EERC nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied, 

or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or 

service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or 

imply its endorsement or recommendation by the EERC. 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................iii 

LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................iii 

NOMENCLATURE ...................................................................................................................... iv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ v 

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 

OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................... 1 

SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 2 

PRE-SITE VISIT REVIEW PROCESS ......................................................................................... 2 

 Task 1: Establish an Administrative Team ............................................................................ 2 

 Task 2: Select a Pilot State..................................................................................................... 2 

State Selection Rationale by State ................................................................................ 4 

 EERC State Selection Conclusions............................................................................... 6 

 Task 3: Form an Advisory Board........................................................................................... 7 

 Task 4: Assemble a Review Team......................................................................................... 7 

 Task 5: Create a Review Guide ............................................................................................. 7 

 Task 6: Develop a List of Interviewees ................................................................................. 7 

 Task 7: Prepare an Agenda .................................................................................................... 9

STATUS OF CCP PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION IN TEXAS......................................... 9 

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UTILIZATION IN TEXAS...................................................... 10 

 Key 1: Formation and Perseverance of TCAUG ................................................................. 10 

 Key 2: Proactive Regulatory Development in Texas........................................................... 11 

Amendment to 30 TAC Chapter 335 – Industrial Solid Waste 

and Municipal Wastes................................................................................................. 12 

 Key 3: Legisltative Provisions............................................................................................. 13 

 Texas Water Code 26.12 – Unauthorized Discharges Prohibited............................... 13 

 SB 1340 – CCP Use in Road and Bridge Construction.............................................. 13 

 SB 1051 – Establishment of the Recycling Market Development Board................... 14 

 Key 4: Newly Adopted TxDOT Specifications................................................................... 14 

DMS-4610 – Fly Ash.................................................................................................. 14 

 DM-4615 – Fly Ash for Soil Treatment ..................................................................... 15 

 DMS-11000 – Evaluating and Using Nonhazardous Recyclable Materials............... 15 

 Product Application Specifications and Special Provisions ....................................... 15 

 Key 5: Strong Building Industry Coupled with Green Building Initiatives ........................ 15 

continued... 
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

 Key 6: Texas Utilities Generally Produce Good-Quality Fly Ash ...................................... 16 

 Key 7: Development of Statewide Online Recycling Resources......................................... 16 

REPORTED BARRIERS TO INCREASING CCP UTILIZATION IN TEXAS........................ 17 

 Barrier 1: Education and Attitude........................................................................................ 17 

 Barrier 2: Consistency of Supply......................................................................................... 18 

 Barrier 3: Liability ............................................................................................................... 18 

 Barrier 4: Limited Markets for FGD Material and Bottom Ash.......................................... 19 

 Barrier 5: Transportation and Infrastructure Issues ............................................................. 19 

 Barrier 6: Local and Abundant Asphalt Supply................................................................... 19 

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP 

UTILIZATION IN TEXAS .......................................................................................................... 20 

 Threat 1: New Pollution Control Requirements .................................................................. 20 

 Threat 2: Ability to Retain Institutional Knowledge at TCEQ and TxDOT........................ 21 

 Threat 3: Class C vs. Class F Issues Related to ASR .......................................................... 21 

 Threat 4: EPA Could Reconsider Its RCRA Determination................................................ 21 

ROAD MAP TO INCREASED CCP UTILIZATION IN TEXAS.............................................. 21 

 Action 1: Adopt Performance-Based Concrete Specifications............................................ 21 

Action 2: Develop Profitable Markets for FGD Material and Bottom Ash 

That Consider Transportation Costs .................................................................................... 22 

 Action 3: Exempt Beneficial Reuse from Federal Toxic Release Inventory Reporting...... 22 

 Action 4: Change How the Material Is Perceived ............................................................... 22 

 Action 5: Build Off of LEED’s Success.............................................................................. 23 

 Action 6: Promote Industry Successes Outside of the CCP Industry .................................. 23 

 Action 7: Produce a Hybrid Blended Fly Ash ..................................................................... 24 

 Action 8: Develop Markets for Low-Quality Fly Ash......................................................... 24 

 Action 9: Provide Economic Incentives for Using Recycled Materials .............................. 24 

TRANSFERRING THE INFORMATION FROM THE TEXAS EXPERIENCE 

TO OTHER STATES ................................................................................................................... 25 

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 26 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 27 

ADVISORY BOARD AND REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS.........................................Appendix A 

TEXAS REVIEW GUIDE............................................................................................. Appendix B 

PARTICIPANT LIST AND FINAL AGENDA............................................................ Appendix C 

1995 LETTER TO TEXAS COAL ASH UTILIZATION GROUP FROM 

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION......................Appendix D 
iii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1 States with laws, regulations, policies, or guidance authorizing CCP utilization.................. 3 

2 Production and utilization of CCPs in Texas from 1996 to 2002........................................ 10 

LIST OF TABLES 

1 Uses of Coal Ash by State ..................................................................................................... 4 

2 Potential Interviewees............................................................................................................ 8 
iv 

NOMENCLATURE 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

ACAA American Coal Ash Association 

ASR alkali silica reactivity 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial State Waste Management Officials 

C2

P2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership 

CCP coal combustion products 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EERC Energy & Environmental Research Center 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FAQMP Fly Ash Quality Monitoring Program 

FGD flue gas desulfurization 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

GLO General Land Office 

LCRA Lower Colorado River Authority 

LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design 

NAA National Asphalt Association 

NOx Nitrogen oxide 

NRM nonhazardous recyclable materials 

ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation 

PRB Powder River Basin 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RCRA Resource Conservation & Recovery Act 

RENEW Resource Exchange Network for Eliminating Wastes 

RMDB Recycling Market Development Board 

SB Senate Bill 

STRONGER State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations Inc. 

TAC Texas Administrative Code 

TBPC Texas Building and Procurement Commission 

TCAUG Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TNRCC Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission 

TRI Toxic Release Inventory 

TWC Texas Water Code 

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 
v 

REVIEW OF TEXAS REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Texas was selected as the pilot state for an in-depth review of its coal combustion product 

(CCP) programs, policies, and use practices because of its progressive approach to CCP 

utilization and its support network to implement such activities. The review process, including 

state selection rationale, advisory board member selection, interviewee identification and 

confirmation, questionnaire development, and other logistical issues, are described. 

Based on information obtained during the Texas state review processes, the following items 

were identified as keys to successful CCP utilization in Texas: 

1. Formation and perseverance of the Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group 

2. Proactive regulatory developments in Texas 

3. Adaptable federal and state legislative provisions 

4. Newly adopted Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) specifications 

5. Strong building industry coupled with green building initiatives 

6. Texas utilities generally producing good-quality fly ash 

7. Development of statewide online recycling resources 

Although Texas has a 60%–70% CCP utilization rate, the following barriers were identified 

during the review that currently prohibit increased CCP utilization in Texas: 

1. Education and attitude among district and local highway personnel, architects, 

engineers, and contractors 

2. Consistency of CCP supply 

3. Liability issues among generators and users 

4. Limited markets for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material and bottom ash 

5. Transportation and infrastructure issues 

6. Local and abundant asphalt supply 

In addition to barriers, the following potential threats were identified during the review that 

could hinder CCP utilization in the future: 

1. New pollution control requirements 

2. Ability to retain institutional knowledge at Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ) and TxDOT 

3. Class C vs. Class F issues related to alkali silica reactivity 

4. EPA could reconsider its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act determination 

The following activities were suggested during the review as actions that would help 

increase CCP utilization in Texas: 
vi 

1. Adopt performance-based concrete specifications 

2. Develop profitable markets for FGD material and bottom ash that consider 

transportation costs 

3. Exempt beneficial reuse from federal Toxic Release Inventory reporting 

4. Change how the material is perceived 

5. Build off of Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design’s (LEED’s) success 

6. Promote industry success outside of the CCP industry 

7. Produce a hybrid/blended fly ash 

8. Develop markets for low-quality fly ash 

9. Provide economic incentives for using recycled materials 

Using the keys, barriers, threats, and actions identified during the state review process, 

other states with less successful CCP utilization can learn from what Texas has done right and 

implement similar activities in their own states. This report provides an analysis of how the 

Texas experience can be transferred to other states. 
1 

REVIEW OF TEXAS REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES 

RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

BACKGROUND 

About 46 million tons of coal combustion products (CCPs) are beneficially used in the 

United States each year, but nearly 75 million tons are still being disposed of in landfills 

(American Coal Ash Association, [ACAA], 2003). A few key barriers and trends need to be 

addressed in order to increase the utilization rate. A frequent barrier that hinders the use of CCPs 

is the broad range of state laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines regarding the use of CCPs 

(ACAA, 1998). Some states (Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999) have worked to develop 

progressive and effective guidance for CCP utilization, while other states still lack the resources 

and information to feel comfortable with a more progressive approach. For example, the use of 

CCPs in nonconcrete applications is not well addressed in state environmental regulations or in 

Department of Transportation (DOT) specifications. It is anticipated that state reviews will 

provide the opportunity to identify the nonconcrete applications (i.e., controlled low-strength 

materials, highway road base and subgrade, soil stabilization, and construction materials) that 

warrant consideration and, perhaps, development of regulations and standards and specifications 

at the federal and state levels. In addition, fly ash utilization in the United States is not keeping 

pace with coal consumption, and federal purchasing of fly ash concrete has decreased 50% since 

1996. Although fly ash concrete is a common material used by various federal and state DOTs, 

these trends are alarming and show that the use of this material needs to be improved. It is 

important to review existing state regulations, standards, and use practices to provide information 

that can lead to the adjustment of these barriers. 

 In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the Coal 

Combustion Products Partnership (C2

P2) program to promote the beneficial use of CCPs and the 

associated environmental benefits. The participation of EPA is a key element of this effort, as 

many of its efforts on the federal level filter down to state and local governments. Yet, despite 

EPA’s policy support, CCP use is often dependent on state and local environmental regulations 

and construction. 

OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this pilot effort was to develop an interdisciplinary team to work 

with a cooperating state to evaluate regulations and use practices within the state’s government 

and private sectors pertaining to CCP use. The deliverable was to develop a deployment package 

of a presentation, final report, and other documentation for distribution to the project’s advisory 

board and EPA. This review was intended to be a pilot program that may provide impetus to 

EPA to perform additional state reviews. 
2 

SCOPE

The scope of the pilot review, as identified by the project’s advisory board members, was to 

evaluate the various factors related to CCP utilization. In order to focus the study on current 

practices, which are most readily transferable, the pilot review highlighted various CCP use 

practices, including highway construction and building practices, but did not consider the use of 

CCPs at mine sites, as originally intended by the project’s administrative team. This was not to 

diminish the significance or use of CCPs at mine sites as a high-volume application but to recognize 

the national regulatory debate on the use of CCPs at mine sites, which is being conducted 

independently of this review. 

PRE-SITE VISIT REVIEW PROCESS 

The following tasks were completed prior to the site visit. Tasks are listed in order; 

however, many tasks were implemented concurrently. 

Task 1: Establish an Administrative Team 

A project administrative team was established to perform the majority of the administrative 

work, including organizing the review, compiling findings, and writing reports. Ms. Tera 

Buckley, Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), acted as team leader, and other 

team members were Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett, EERC; Mr. John Sager, EPA; and Mr. John 

Ward, Headwaters Resources. 

Task 2: Select a Pilot State 

 The project’s administrative team conducted an extensive evaluation to select the pilot 

state. The team looked for a pilot state with an existing and successful CCP beneficial use 

program and infrastructure that allowed good cooperation between industry and state agencies. It 

was intended that this “model” state could provide information to other states attempting to 

increase CCP use through examples of successful interaction among all stakeholders. Project 

administrative team members agreed that the pilot state should be progressive, without being 

aggressive to the point of exhibiting a model that would be difficult to replicate in other states. 

The pilot state selected needed to be a realistic prototype. For example, California would not be a 

good choice because it produces very limited supplies of coal ash and tends to have a reactionary 

response to environmental issues. Further, it was agreed that the pilot state should be 

successfully implementing beneficial use policies that can be, in part, assessed by the acceptance 

of citizen and environmental groups. Finally, the project administrative team agreed that a range 

of issues should be addressed by the potential pilot state. The range of issues could be 

represented by the authorized or allowed CCP uses in individual states. Ideally, the potential 

pilot state would have an established CCP network and demonstrated successful communication 

between industry and state agencies. 

 Based on this rationale, the administrative team first determined which states have rules, 

regulations, or polices authorizing or allowing CCP use (see Figure 1). 
3 

Figure 1. States with laws, regulations, policies, or guidance authorizing CCP utilization. 

*Dates note when significant policies were finalized. 

Next, input was sought from various groups, including the Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management (ASTSWMO) and the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). States that were recommended or 

volunteered to participate as the pilot state included the following: 

• Colorado 

• Illinois 

• Indiana 

• North Dakota 

• Ohio 

• Pennsylvania 

• Texas 

These states were further analyzed to determine which beneficial uses were allowed in each 

state. Table 1 presents CCP use by the potential states summarized from the ACAA’s State Solid 

Waste Regulations Governing the Use of CCPs (ACAA, 1998). 
4 

 Table 1. State Uses of Coal Ash by State 

IL IN ND OH PA CO TX

Cement/Concrete Products ijiiiji

Flowable Fill ii i i

Structural Fill iijii

Road Base/Subbase iijii i

Mineral Filler in Asphalt i i

Snow and Ice Control ii ii

Roofing Shingles iii

Blasting Grit i i

Grouting i ji

Mining Applications iijii

Waste Stabilization ii i

Filler in Plastics/Paints/Metals iii

Mineral Recovery ii ii

Soil Amendment i jii

Ingredient in Product i ii i

Aggregate ii i

Landfill Cover

Walking/Driving Surface iii

Bricks/Ceramics/Insulation i i

Artificial Reefs i

Well Construction j i

 i = Authorized j = Allowed

State Selection Rationale by State 

The following is a state-by-state review of the states identified as potential model pilot 

states. All states under consideration were coal-mining states. To further narrow the pilot state 

selection, the following criteria were evaluated: 

• Public acceptance of state CCP use policy 

• Established support network 

• Demonstrated ongoing industry, government, and public communication 

It should be noted that the state selection process was conducted prior to the project’s 

advisory board revising the scope to exclude mining applications. 

 Colorado 

Colorado, suggested as a potential pilot state by members of the coal ash industry, allows 

only three use applications and has relatively new use authorization. Because Colorado 

authorizes very few applications, it was excluded from further consideration, but should be 

considered as a target state for the information transfer related to this study. 
5 

 Illinois 

Illinois authorizes 11 utilization applications, and those authorizations have been in place 

since 1996. Illinois has a university actively conducting coal ash-related research. Southern 

Illinois University at Carbondale and the Illinois Clean Coal Institute regularly fund research 

related to ash, but Illinois still appears to lack a readily available and coordinated support 

network from the industry side. However, there is some indication that the Departments of 

Transportation and Environmental Protection may provide a support network. 

Indiana 

Indiana allows eight use applications, but the public acceptance of CCP use is not very 

positive. Indiana’s Hoosier Environmental Council is an example of an organization whose 

actions have had long-term effects on CCP use and public opinion. The Hoosier Environmental 

Council is an adamant opponent to the use of CCPs, touting numerous cases of CCP ground and 

surface water contamination and CCP’s negative effects on human health. Because the actions of 

the Hoosier Environmental Council negatively affect public acceptance of CCP use, Indiana is 

not considered a model pilot state. 

North Dakota 

North Dakota, considered primarily for EERC logistical reasons, only allows five use 

applications and, as noted in Figure 1, did not have authorization in 1998, implying that these 

authorizations are relatively new. North Dakota does not have a track record of productive 

interaction between the utility industry and the North Dakota Department of Health. The EERC’s 

coal ash research program and support from the North Dakota Industrial Commission have 

resulted in a large number of CCP utilization-related efforts in North Dakota, yet resistance is 

noted from regulatory agencies. North Dakota is not a candidate for a model pilot state and 

should be considered as a target state for the information transfer of the results of this study. 

Ohio 

Ohio authorizes the most beneficial use applications (18) for coal ash. Ohio State 

University offers an established coal ash research program with contacts within Ohio, an 

extension agent focusing on CCP utilization, and support from the Ohio Coal Development 

Office. Ohio State University’s CCP Pilot Extension program works “to develop and promote 

standardized practices and procedures acceptable to private sector end users and government 

regulators; serves as an information center and coordinates, sponsors, and presents at seminars 

and similar events; assesses the markets for CCP uses; and conducts many related activities” 

(CCPOhio, 2004). It has a history of working with industry, government, and the public to 

remove CCP utilization barriers. 

In addition to the positive aspects noted, there are also political issues that have been 

brought to the forefront recently. These primarily revolve around the Ohio Department of 

Transportation’s (ODOT’s) purchasing practices. More than 90% of ODOT’s paving work is 

asphalt, not concrete. The issues for this effort are twofold: 1) fly ash concrete in paving is a key 
6 

use application, so ODOT may not be the best source of information on encouraging this use and 

2) ODOT representatives may not be open to or available for inquiries on their practices because 

of upcoming hearings on the issue. While Ohio would otherwise be ranked very high in the 

selection process, these items could significantly impact the outcome of the state review if Ohio 

were selected. 

Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania was high on the list of potential pilot states because it was identified as 

having model activity in the development of CCP beneficial use policies as early as the first 

EERC Barriers Report (Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999). As shown in Figure 1, Pennsylvania 

already authorized CCP use in 1994 or earlier. Pennsylvania authorizes ten use applications. 

Pennsylvania has support from ASTSWMO members, but it does not have a documented 

industry support group. Public acceptance of CCP use in Pennsylvania has been problematic 

recently in the mining application area. For example, Pennsylvania recently experienced 

opposition from the public regarding coal ash use to mitigate acid mine drainage. Pennsylvania’s 

state environmental officials and mining companies support the use, but neighbors to the site 

bitterly oppose the use, fearing the coal ash will leach into the groundwater and contaminate 

wells (Rubinkam, 2003). 

Texas 

Texas was high on the list of potential pilot states because it was recognized as having 

model activity in the development of CCP beneficial use policies as early as the first EERC 

Barriers Report (Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999). Texas established authorization of CCP use 

between 1994 and 1996 and is second only to Ohio with the number of authorized uses. With the 

Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group (TCAUG) and Texas Coal Combustion Products Coalition, 

Texas has an existing support network that supports coal ash utilization. TCAUG’s mission is “to 

work with and assist public and private agencies, organizations, and associations to remove 

barriers to environmentally/technically sound utilization of coal combustion by-products.” This 

organization has worked to remove utilization barriers in Texas since it was established and has 

assembled information on coal ash for Texas regulatory agencies. 

EERC State Selection Conclusions 

The selection process was easily narrowed to Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas based 

on the assembled information. Illinois and Pennsylvania have significantly fewer approved or 

authorized use applications than Ohio and Texas, so the selection was further narrowed to Ohio 

and Texas. 

 In comparing and contrasting Ohio and Texas, Ohio has the advantage of accepting the 

somewhat controversial uses of CCPs in mining applications, soil amendment, and structural 

fills. Recent developments in use practices in Ohio may significantly impact the future of CCP 

use in concrete, a major beneficial use application, and may prohibit a smooth state review 

process. The project administrative team agreed that with the TCAUG, Texas offered the best 

support network to facilitate the review process. Anecdotal information indicates that CCP use in 
7 

mine settings and soil amendment was recently instituted in Texas. For these reasons, the project 

team selected Texas as the pilot state for review. 

Task 3: Form an Advisory Board 

A second team, the project advisory board, was formed to provide input to interviewee 

selection, assist in the development of a standard questionnaire, and review findings. Advisory 

board members and associated contact information are listed in Appendix A. 

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team 

A select group of individuals from the advisory board and administrative team comprised 

the review team. The primary role of the review team was to administer the meetings at the 

review. Review team members and associated contact information are listed in Appendix A. 

Task 5: Create a Review Guide 

 Similar review processes including STRONGER (State Review of Oil and Natural Gas 

Environmental Regulations Inc.) and the Federal Highway Administration’s Recycled Aggregate 

Review were evaluated. Using frameworks developed under these independent reviews, a review 

guide was developed for Texas that included background information for interviewees and 

targeted questionnaires for each discussion group (see Appendix B). It became apparent as the 

interview list began to form that targeted questionnaires were needed for different review sessions 

because various issues applied to the wide cross section of interviewees. To facilitate appropriate 

discussions, the following four discussion groups were formed to answer questions posed by the 

review team: 

• Government agencies – directors and other key personnel of state or regional transportation 

and environmental agencies 

• Marketers/end users – CCP marketers and ready-mix suppliers 

• CCP generators – utilities/producers of CCPs 

• Special interest – environmental and citizen groups, research institutions 

The project’s administrative team and advisory board members carefully selected questions 

for each discussion group. All questions are in keeping with the scope of the review defined by 

the project’s advisory board members. 

Task 6: Develop a List of Interviewees 

 With input from the advisory board, the administrative team developed a list of potential 

interviewees for each of the discussion groups identified in Task 5. Table 2 lists all potential 

companies/associations/organizations to be reviewed. Key contacts were identified for each of 

these companies/associations/organizations, and all contacts were asked to participate in the 
8 

Table 2. Potential Interviewees 

Government Agencies 

 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality* 

 Texas Department of Transportation* 

 Texas Recycling Market Development Board 

Marketers 

 Boral Material Technologies, Inc.*

 Headwaters Resources*

 Lafarge North America*

 Mineral Resource Technologies, Inc.*

End Users 

 Alamo Concrete Products, Ltd.* 

 Association of General Contractors of Texas 

 Austin Energy’s Green Building Program 

 Centex Materials, LLC* 

 Lattimore Materials Company* 

 Lone Star Ready Mix 

 Southern Star Concrete* 

 Texas Building and Procurement Commission 

 Texas Concrete and Aggregates Association 

 Texas Mining & Reclamation Association** 

 Texas Railroad Commission, Surface Mining and Reclamation Division** 

 TXI Operations, LP 

 Transit Mix Concrete 

CCP Generators 

 American Electric Power* 

 Lower Colorado River Authority* 

 Sempra Energy Resources 

 Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group* 

 Texas Coal Combustion Products Coalition* 

 TXU Energy Company* 

Special Interest 

 BRIDGES to Sustainability 

 Neighbors for Neighbors 

 Potts & Reilly L.L.P.** 

 Public Citizen–Texas Office** 

 Rice University 

 Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter* 

 Texas Clean Air Working Group 

 Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University* 

 The North American Coal Corporation** 

 * Participated in the review. 

**Accepted invitation but was uninvited once the scope was revised to exclude mining 

applications. 
9 

review. Some declined because their mission did not fit the scope of this effort, and others 

declined because of scheduling conflicts. The final list of interviewees and associated contact 

information is located in Appendix C. 

 Special interest groups were highly debated by the project’s advisory board members. After 

the study’s scope was redirected to not include mining applications, several special interest 

groups originally identified as interviewees were no longer candidates to participate (i.e., 

Neighbors for Neighbors and Public Citizen). 

Task 7: Prepare an Agenda 

 The review was scheduled for September 13–15, 2004, to coincide with a C2

P2 Workshop 

in Austin, Texas, on September 16, 2004. Lloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., 

in Austin, Texas hosted the interviews, with the exception of Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), which took 

place at their offices. 

 The final agenda is included in Appendix C. The open meeting was scheduled on the last 

day for interviewees not able to attend their scheduled meeting time. In addition, a conference 

call was held on September 23, 2004, for interviewees who wanted to participate but had 

scheduling conflicts. Written comments were also accepted. 

STATUS OF CCP PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION IN TEXAS 

 Texas ranks fifth nationally among states with coal production and is the largest producer 

of lignite coal. Lignite constitutes approximately 97% of the near-surface coal resources in 

Texas. The most significant bituminous resources are in the north-central and southern parts of 

the state. Recoverable coal reserves in Texas are estimated to be 673 million tons, about 3% of 

U.S. recoverable coal reserves (Railroad Commission of Texas, 2004).

According to ACAA (2003), 121.7 million tons of CCPs were produced in the United 

States in 2003, and 38% of those materials were used. Texas is the largest consumer of coal in 

the United States consuming 105,376 short tons in 2003 (Energy Information Administration, 

2004) and, consequently, is the largest producer of coal ash (TCAUG, 1994), producing about 15 

million tons of coal ash per year, or about 12% of the national total. In fact, 83% of the Texas 

industrial solid waste stream is made up of coal ash. Currently, 60%–70% of coal ash produced 

in Texas is beneficially used, up from 15% in 1992. In some instances, Texas utilities are using 

100% of the ash they produce and are reclaiming material from their landfills to recycle. Fly ash 

produced in Texas is exported to Florida, New Mexico, and Georgia. Small amounts are 

imported from Arizona and Oklahoma. 

 Figure 2 shows the production and utilization of CCPs in Texas in from 1996–2002 (Akers, 

2004a). 
10 

Figure 2. Production and utilization of CCPs in Texas from 1996 to 2002. 

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL CCP UTILIZATION IN TEXAS 

 The dramatic increase (~55%) in CCP utilization in Texas over the past 10 years can be 

directly attributed to the following key factors. The authors believe the “keys” are listed in order 

of importance. 

Key 1: Formation and Perseverance of TCAUG 

 In 1990, the Texas utilities, ash marketers, environmental consultants, and university 

professors formed TCAUG to promote the use of CCPs and remove the barriers prohibiting 

utilization, such as deed recording in highway road construction projects. TCAUG was 

instrumental in getting state legislation passed in 1991 (Senate Bill [SB] 1340) that encouraged 

recycling and required state and local governments to amend their specifications for road and 

bridge construction to include CCPs. In 1993, TCAUG was again influential in getting language 

added to SB 1051 which established the Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB) and 

charged this body with developing a study to identify economic and regulatory incentives and 

disincentives for recycling and identifying existing and potential markets for, among other 

materials, CCPs. As part of SB 1051, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) prepared two 

market studies entitled “Texas Recycles: Marketing Our Neglected Resources” and “Texas 

Recycles II: Marketing Our Neglected Resources,” to lay the groundwork for strategies to 

develop and expand recycling industries and markets in Texas (Akers, 2004b). 

 
11 

 The GLO report issued in 1994 identified regulatory barriers at the Texas Natural 

Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) (predecessor agency to TCEQ) as one of the 

major impediments to increased CCP utilization. As a result, the TNRCC, GLO, TCAUG, and 

TxDOT formed a task force to study the issue. TCAUG hired EPRI to present technical 

information to the task force, and Texas university professors provided case studies where CCPs 

were used successfully. The result of this cumulative effort was an issuance of a coproduct 

regulatory guidance letter in 1995 by the TNRCC that recognized that CCPs utilized in many 

construction applications could be best accomplished if the materials were not considered a solid 

waste (see Appendix D). With this letter, recycling of CCPs in Texas began to increase 

substantially (Akers, 2004b). 

 Finally in 2001, TCEQ formed a working group to meet with TCAUG to draft an agency 

rule that would convert the 1995 guidance letter into an agency rule. This effort took several 

months of negotiation and drafting and ultimately produced what is commonly referred to as the 

“Eight Waste Criteria Rule” (30 Texas Administrative Code [TAC] Chapter 335) (Akers, 

2004b). 

 The collaborative effort between TCAUG, TCEQ, TxDOT, and the GLO resulted in 

proactive regulations that cleared the way for coal ash recycling in Texas. TCAUG used a push–

pull strategy in its approach, by consulting many levels at each of the state agencies. In addition, 

TCAUG presented one universal voice from industry to state agencies. TCAUG attributes its 

success to these strategies and its tenacity over a 10-year period. 

Key 2: Proactive Regulatory Developments in Texas 

 TCEQ is the second largest environmental agency in the world, second only to EPA. TCEQ 

1) regulates the disposal of solid waste; 2) enforces prohibitions against unauthorized discharges 

of contaminants to any water in the state; 3) enforces prohibitions against unauthorized 

emissions of air contaminants or activities that contribute to or that cause air pollution; and 

4) promotes waste minimization and pollution prevention activities throughout the state of 

Texas. 

 Under previous TCEQ regulations, a facility that provided written notification of a 

particular beneficial use was not required to provide additional notification. In some cases, 

numerous uses were recognized by the state as the result of research presented by industry 

groups (see Appendix D) or individual companies. Those approved uses are still valid under 

current regulations. 

In an effort to develop a single beneficial use rule for solid wastes, TCAUG and a similar 

association from the steel industry approached TCEQ to revise its solid waste rules. It was 

decided that taking a statewide approach would be the most effective way to get a solid waste 

rule approved that applied to a number of industries. As a result of these efforts, the following 

proactive regulation was adopted by TCEQ. 
12 

Amendment to 30 TAC Chapter 335 – Industrial Solid Waste and Municipal Wastes 

Proposed on October 27, 2000, and adopted on April 20, 2001, the amendment to TAC 

Title 30 Chapter 335, commonly referred to in Texas as the “eight-waste criteria rule” but 

through rulemaking became a seven-waste criteria rule, was perhaps the most influential rule that 

opened the doors for coal ash use in Texas by omitting utilized CCPs from the state’s definition 

of solid waste so long as the material continues to meet all of the following criteria: 

1. A legitimate market exists for the recycling material as well as its products. 

2. The recycling material is managed and protected from loss, as would be raw materials 

or ingredients or products. 

3. The quality of the product is not degraded by substitution of raw material or product 

with the recycling material. 

4. The use of the recycling material is an ordinary use, and it meets or exceeds the 

specifications of the product it is replacing without treatment or reclamation. Or if the 

recycling material is not replacing a product, the recycling material is a legitimate 

ingredient in a production process and meets or exceeds raw material specifications 

without treatment or reclamation (note: treatment may impact future flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) utilization; this is in another section of the report). 

5. The recycling material is not burned for energy recovery, used to produce a fuel, or 

contained in a fuel. 

6. The recycling material is a legitimate ingredient in a production process and meets or 

exceeds raw material specifications without treatment or reclamation. 

7. The recycling material must not present an increased risk to human health, the 

environment, or waters of the state when applied to the land or used in products which 

are applied to the land (Akers, 2004a). 

The rule (30 TAC 335.1 Subchapter R) classifies industrial solid wastes into the following 

three categories: 

• Class I – Any industrial waste that is toxic; corrosive; flammable; a strong sensitizer or 

irritant; a generator of sudden pressure by decomposition, heat, or other means; or may 

pose a substantial present or potential danger to human health or the environment. 

Besides nominal exceptions, CCPs produced in Texas are not categorized as Class I 

wastes. 

• Class II – Any industrial waste which cannot be described as hazardous under Class I or 

does not meet the criteria for Class III. The majority of CCPs produced in Texas are 

categorized as Class II wastes. 
13 

• Class III – Inert and essentially insoluble industrial waste. Some bottom ashes produced 

in Texas are categorized as Class III and are, therefore, not subject to the TCEQ’s eightwaste criteria rule. 

 TCEQ’s classification is a self-classification system, meaning utilities classify their own 

materials. Data generated by the utility to classify its materials are subject to TCEQ audit. The 

vast majority of CCPs produced in Texas are exempt from solid waste classification. As a result, 

CCPs are able to compete in the marketplace like any other raw or manufactured material. No 

permits or prior approvals are required as long as the CCPs meet the eight-waste criteria rule. 

 If CCPs are stored or disposed as wastes, the General Prohibitions in 30 TAC 335.4 apply 

along with other solid waste regulations in Chapter 335. All wastes must be properly tested and 

classified (30 TAC 335.503). All wastes disposed of must be deed-recorded (30 TAC 335.5), 

and related waste management units must be listed on the facility Notice of Registration. 

Technical guidelines (30 TAC 335.3) provide the basis for proper siting and design of landfills. 

The TCEQ requires groundwater monitoring for landfills and surface impoundments. 

Key 3: Legislative Provisions 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., and its 

state counterparts regulate the generation, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes. 

Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i) of RCRA, the Bevill Exemption, excluded certain large-volume wastes, 

including CCPs, from regulation under Subtitle C as hazardous wastes. EPA is currently drafting 

regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA (nonhazardous solid wastes) for CCPs disposed of in 

landfills or surface impoundments. The need for and scope of RCRA regulation of CCPs used 

as fill in surface or underground mines are still being evaluated. 

The majority of state requirements regarding CCPs are designed to regulate disposal. A 

few states have adopted laws governing CCP use, but requirements vary widely among states. 

Applications for permission to use CCPs are frequently handled on a case-by-case basis or under 

generic state recycling regulations. States that do specify acceptable use applications for CCPs 

are the states where the most progress has been made regarding ash utilization. The Texas 

legislature adopted the following three provisions that drastically impacted coal ash utilization in 

Texas. 

Texas Water Code 26.12 – Unauthorized Discharges Prohibited 

Texas has a prohibition in its Texas Water Code (TWC) 26.121 that allows TCEQ to take 

corrective action if any action (e.g. the use of a product like CCPs) harms the waters of the state. 

The law states that no person may discharge waste that causes pollution of any water in the state. 

Corrective action is taken in the enforcement of the prohibition. 

SB 1340 – CCP Use in Road and Bridge Construction 

 Texas SB 1340 was passed in 1991 to encourage recycling and the use of recycled 

products, with the objective to minimize the landfilling or incineration of solid wastes. One of 

the waste streams cited for minimization in this bill is “fossil fuel combustion recycled material” 
14 

(Section 15) or, herein, CCPs. The bill required that state, county, and municipal entities amend 

their specifications by January 1, 1992, to allow CCP use in road and bridge construction if 

technically appropriate and economically justified (TCAUG, 1994). 

SB 1051 – Establishment of the Recycling Market Development Board 

 Texas SB 1051 was passed in 1993 and established the RMDB, which consists of heads of 

the TCEQ, Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC), and TxDOT. The board was 

charged with coordinating the recycling activities of all state agencies and pursuing an economic 

development strategy that focuses on the state’s waste management priorities and development 

of recycling industries and markets (RMDB, 2004). RMDB efforts regarding CCPs are primarily 

focused on fly ash use in concrete. 

Key 4: Newly Adopted TxDOT Specifications 

TxDOT’s role is to write specifications for construction defining how CCPs are to be 

incorporated into TxDOT projects. TxDOT was one of the last state agencies to adopt coal ash 

specifications, adopting its rules in August 2004. Until that time, TxDOT granted special 

specifications and provisions on a district and statewide basis. From 1982 to 1996, TxDOT only 

incorporated CCPs into 41 roadway applications (Year of the Recycled Roadway Materials, 

1999). However, a dramatic increase in fly ash utilization was observed once TxDOT made the 

materials use a priority. Since January 1996, TxDOT used fly ash in approximately 2600 

projects. In 8 months of 2004, it used fly ash in about 80 projects. 

The coal ash industry generally agrees that once TxDOT decided to write specifications, it 

adopted specifications that helped incorporate CCPs into more TxDOT projects. However, there 

was some concern from industry regarding TxDOT’s specification of a minimum of 20% fly ash 

and maximum of 35% fly ash use in concrete. Some in the coal ash industry would like TxDOT 

to move toward adopting more performance-based specifications. There were also some 

reservations from industry about TxDOT allowing its specifications to be used at the discretion 

of its 25 district engineers. TxDOT believes this approach is effective because each district has 

its own issues that need to be addressed on an individual, case-by-case basis. 

DMS-4610 – Fly Ash 

 This product qualification specification was revised in August 2004 (formally DMS-8900) 

and establishes the requirements, test methods, and the Fly Ash Quality Monitoring Program 

(FAQMP) for Class C, Class F, and ultrafine fly ash used in concrete products. 

TxDOT has a prequalified list of suppliers of 35 Class C and Class F fly ashes. TxDOT 

accepts the product suppliers’ certifications of fly ash quality; however, it does reserve the right 

to conduct random sampling of prequalified materials for testing and to perform random audits 

of test reports. 
15 

DMS-4615 – Fly Ash for Soil Treatment 

 This product qualification specification was adopted in August 2004 and establishes the 

requirements and test methods for Class C and Class F fly ash used in subgrade or base 

treatment. It also describes the FAQMP. 

DMS-11000 – Evaluating and Using Nonhazardous Recyclable Materials 

 This specification was adopted in August 2004 and covers the process for evaluating the 

environmental factors associated with nonhazardous recyclable materials (NRM) not addressed 

in other department specifications. Fly and bottom ash are considered NRMs because they have 

established histories of use by the TxDOT. 

Product Application Specifications and Special Provisions 

TxDOT adopted several product application specifications in June 2004 allowing CCP use. 

Some of those applications include the following: 

• Item 247 – Flexible Base 

• Item 265 – Fly Ash or Lime–Fly Ash Treatment (Road-Mixed) 

• Item 334 – Hot-Mix Coal-Laid Asphalt Concrete Pavement 

• Item 341 – Dense-Graded Hot-Mix Asphalt (QC/QA) 

• Item 344 – Performance-Designed Mixtures 

• Item 346 – Stone-Matrix Asphalt 

• Item 401 – Flowable Backfill 

• Item 421 – Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

In addition, TxDOT issued special specifications and provisions for CCP use including the 

following: 

• Special Specification 3157 – Cold Processed – Recycled Paving Material for Use as 

Aggregate Base Course (1993) 

• Special Provision to Item 421 Portland Cement Concrete (1993) 

Key 5: Strong Building Industry Coupled with Green Building Initiatives 

According to the U.S. Census (2004), Texas populations in 1980, 1990, and 2000 were 

14,229,000, 16,986,000, and 20,852,000, respectively. Overall construction activity in Texas was 

low in the 1990s, but as the recession lifted, the construction industry flourished. The cement 

shortage and building boom in the 1990s helped make fly ash concrete widely accepted 

throughout the state. In addition, the state has a long construction cycle because of its warm 

climate, which in turn abates long-term fly ash storage issues. 

 Coupled with the strong building industry and demand for building materials such as 

concrete, the state is rather progressive with regard to green building. Austin is leading the green 
16 

building movement in Texas with its Austin Energy Green Building program. The city wanted 

to promote energy conservation, and thus the green building movement was born. Austin offers 

incentives such as rebates for energy conservation in buildings and technical support to those 

wanting to build green. In addition, the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in 

Energy & Environmental Design) program is gaining popularity in the state. Texas has 55 

registered LEED projects and ranks ninth in the country for the number of LEED-accredited 

projects (Folliard, 2004). The LEED program encourages CCP recycling by offering points for 

products containing recycled materials. It has become a benchmark for sustainability, and 18 of 

LEED’s 69 possible assessment points are related to concrete. 

Key 6: Texas Utilities Generally Produce Good-Quality Fly Ash 

 Quality requirements for fly ash vary from state-to-state depending on the intended use. Fly 

ash quality is affected by fuel type and various aspects of the combustion and emission control 

processes. Texas utilities primarily burn Powder River Basin (PRB) subbituminous and Texas 

lignite coals, which generally produce high-quality Class C and Class F fly ashes appropriate for 

use in concrete. By producing a consistent, high-quality product, Texas has been able to develop 

a mature fly ash concrete market in most areas of the state. However, as the state implements the 

federal government’s pollution control requirements, the quality of the fly ash, particularly those 

produced from burning Texas lignite, may be negatively impacted and may no longer be suitable 

for use in certain applications. 

Key 7: Development of Statewide Online Recycling Resources 

TxDOT and TCEQ developed the following programs online recycling resources that 

promote the use of recycled materials, including CCPs. These resources demonstrate the 

agencies’ willingness to promote CCPs as a recycled material. 

• TxDOT’s Road to Recycling Initiative – In 1999, TxDOT highlighted CCPs in its “Year 

of the Road to Recycling” campaign. The campaign included the development of a 

46-page CCP summary document that includes a material overview, research 

summaries, case studies, a list of TxDOT specifications currently allowing use of CCPs, 

material sources, and a summary of TxDOT experience with the material 

(www.dot.state.tx.us/gsd/recycle/mat.htm). 

• TCEQ’s Resource Exchange Network for Eliminating Wastes (RENEW) – This 

network assists industries and business to market their surplus materials and byproducts to other areas (www.renewtx.org). 

• TCEQ’s Recycle Texas Online – This database allows companies who handle recycled 

materials to post product information (www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/sbea /rtol/). 
17 

REPORTED BARRIERS TO INCREASING CCP UTILIZATION IN TEXAS 

The following barriers were identified during the Texas state review process. The authors 

believe the barriers are listed in order of significance. 

Barrier 1: Education and Attitude 

Attitude and education were mentioned as key barriers by virtually all of the utilities, ash 

marketers, and ready-mix producers interviewed. Ignorance or unwarranted negative feelings 

toward CCPs were cited among district and local highway personnel, architects, engineers, and 

contactors. The lack of education can be attributed to the fact that engineers coming out of 

college receive, on average, less than 18 hours of concrete training in their materials class. In 

those 18 hours, CCPs are briefly mentioned, and professors often reference old data. It was 

suggested that negative feelings could often be attributed to one bad experience using the 

material. In most instances, if CCPs were used in a project that failed, the CCPs were typically 

blamed for the failure even if CCPs were not the cause. This reaction typically occurs when users 

are not educated about the material. Negative feelings and lack of education are interconnected 

and can have detrimental impacts on coal ash use. For example, at one time, the Austin concrete 

market almost turned to an all-cement market because of one misuse resulting from a lack of 

education about the material. However, TxDOT did cite instances where CCPs were initially 

blamed for a failure, and TxDOT’s laboratory subsequently confirmed the correct reason for the 

failure. These types of corrections are imperative to overcoming education and attitude barriers. 

 During the review, TxDOT did note that it was interested in increasing education efforts 

among district offices because large variations of use were noted between offices. This could be 

because highway personnel tend to be more familiar with lime and cement and, therefore, use 

these materials more often. TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) influence 

local offices by setting specifications and offering technical assistance as requested. TxDOT and 

FHWA have conducted demonstration projects and made the results available to local offices. 

TxDOT and FHWA also perform outreach activities such as technical presentations and host 

annual short courses for local offices. Educational tools used by FHWA include its “Fly Ash 

Facts for Highway Engineers” manual and “User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials 

in Pavement Construction” located online at www.rmrc.unh.edu/Partners/UserGuide/begin.htm. 

 A contradictory statement regarding education was heard between ash marketers and readymix producers. The ash marketers stated that ready-mix producers themselves were sometimes a 

barrier, but the ready-mix producers interviewed appeared to have a technical knowledgebase on 

proper CCP use and stated they did not require technical support from their ash marketers. 

 Individual conflicts among architects, engineers, and contractors are where ash marketers 

and ready-mix producers are making the most progress in overcoming attitude and education 

barriers. Ready-mix producers, in particular, feel this group is easier to approach than 

municipalities and state agencies. An effective method used by ready-mix producers to get fly 

ash concrete incorporated into a project is to hold a joint meeting with the architect, engineer, 

contractor, and buyer and describe the economic, performance, and environmental benefits of 

using the material. One ready-mix producer even goes as far as to say that decision makers have 
18 

an ethical obligation to use fly ash concrete because it reduces CO2 emissions. At this meeting, 

decision makers should describe how they want the concrete to perform, and the ready-mix 

producer will design a mix to meet those performance specifications. 

Barrier 2: Consistency of Supply 

Recently, plants burning lignite coals are beginning to blend lignite with western coals. 

Plants burning predominantly lignite coals generally produce Class F ash, and those burning 

predominantly western coals produce Class C ash. Both generally produce high-quality ashes 

appropriate for use in concrete, but consistency varies from plant to plant. 

CCP generators and ash marketers each have stringent quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) protocols, yet TxDOT and ready-mix producers indicated that fly ash storage is limited 

and the quality on a truck-by-truck basis is inconsistent. If there is a change on the combustion 

side, there is a resulting change in ash quality, making it difficult to produce a consistent product. 

In addition, TxDOT noted instances when fly ash was specified for a project but was not 

available. The limited storage capacity could be attributed to the fact that Texas has a long 

construction cycle and typically sells ash as it is produced. 

A blended ash (Class C and Class F) may alleviate these issues. Marketers and ready-mix 

producers said they were pursuing the possibility of producing a blended ash and expect one to 

enter the marketplace in the next 18 months. 

Barrier 3: Liability 

Liability was a prevailing word mentioned in all of the review sessions. By classifying 

CCPs as products, the material has the same advantages as all other recycled materials. However, 

liability lies primarily with generators and users because generators assume the responsibility of 

classifying the material in accordance with 30 TAC 335.4 Subchapter R and users take on the 

liability of using the material properly. 

TCEQ tends to be more risk tolerant than other state environmental agencies because it has 

a rule in place that allows it to take corrective action if waters of the state are harmed (see Texas 

Water Code § 26.121 page 13). This law moves the liability from TCEQ to the persons 

responsible for using the material. 

In certain applications (i.e., remediation activities), liability concerns are more prevalent 

than others. CCP generators will not allow their by-products to be sold for applications they do 

not approve of because of liability. If someone misuses their product, they fear they will be liable 

for cleanup costs and damages. These fears are warranted because there have been cases in Texas 

where builders were awarded “future damages” in cases where the material may have been 

misused. 
19 

Barrier 4: Limited Markets for FGD Material and Bottom Ash 

The fly ash concrete market in Texas is mature; however, FGD material and bottom ash are 

not fully utilized. Bottom ash competes with the state’s abundant natural resources (i.e., sand, 

gravel, aggregates), and because of transportation costs, bottom ash is often more expensive than 

natural resources. West Texas is an exception because it does not have an abundance of these 

resources. The presence of pyrite in bottom ash also limits the potential for beneficial use. 

Marketing bottom ash for some applications requires process changes to prevent pyrites from 

being intermingled with bottom ash. Bottom ash is used for structural fill on a limited basis, but 

this application is not as widely accepted in Texas because the use constitutes disposal. Some 

bottom ash is also used in clay brick manufacturing and other commercial products. It is 

estimated that 25% of CCPs produced in Texas are FGD materials. There is an effort under way 

on the combustion side of utilities to make wallboard-ready FGD gypsum (lower moisture and 

chloride contents). However, TCEQ’s eight-waste criteria rule prohibits any treatment of 

recycled materials. This stipulation could dramatically impact the use of FGD material if, for 

instance, the chlorides in the material have to be removed to make the material suitable for 

wallboard. Removing the chlorides is a simple process but could be interpreted by TCEQ as 

treatment, thereby preventing the material from being recycled under the exemption. 

Barrier 5: Transportation and Infrastructure Issues 

Transportation costs are often the deciding factor to use CCPs in a potential project. Power 

plants are located in areas that are not heavily populated, so transportation is necessary to get 

CCPs to major markets. Some utilities also have poor infrastructure, making it difficult to 

transport their material by anything other than trucks. In many instances, it is simply not 

economical to use CCPs. For example, in the case of using CCPs in road building, it is not 

economically advantageous to use CCPs if the ash has to be hauled a long distance. 

In some remote areas of Texas, fly ash is not available through small local ready-mix 

suppliers. Ready-mix producers interviewed were large-volume producers and did state that it is 

not economically feasible for some smaller producers to have a fly ash silo. 

Barrier 6: Local and Abundant Asphalt Supply 

Texas leads the United States in on-shore oil and natural gas production and, therefore, has 

a plentiful supply of asphalt. According to the National Asphalt Association (NAA) (2004), 

about 94% of the nation’s roads and highways are surfaced with asphalt. NAA also concludes 

that numerous studies within the United States and Europe have shown that asphalt pavements 

generally have a lower life cycle cost than concrete. Conversely, ready-mix producers in Texas 

agree that although asphalt has a lower initial cost, it has a longer life cycle cost because asphalt 

has to be replaced more often than concrete. Regardless of cost, Texas has an abundant and local 

supply of asphalt, and its big oil industry promotes the use of asphalt paving in Texas. 
20 

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP UTILIZATION IN 

TEXAS 

Texas currently has a thriving coal ash industry, but several potential threats were 

identified during the review that could hinder the future of CCP utilization in Texas. Based on 

review discussions, the authors believe the following threats are listed in order of importance. 

Threat 1: New Pollution Control Requirements 

 The U.S. electric utility industry has been addressing air emission issues for many years, 

and the coal-fired power plants in Texas are no exception. When federal regulation requires 

reduction of various air emissions, power plants have necessarily responded. The responses 

frequently have had a subsequent impact to the type, quantity, and quality of the solid materials 

produced at a specific power plant. One example of these types of impacts is the requirement to 

reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, which has primarily been accomplished through installations of 

FGD systems. These FGD systems generally produce a high-volume CCP, but the quality and 

characteristics of the product are dependent on the specific system. More recently, many coalfired power plants have had to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and a variety of NOx

control technologies have been implemented across the United States. It was noted that several 

Texas power plants that previously produced a high-quality ash currently produce a fly ash with 

a noticeable decline in quality, namely, the presence of unburned carbon at varying levels. 

Typical of the broader U.S. experience, the fly ash exhibiting increased levels of unburned 

carbon inhibits the production of concrete with the air entrainment needed to produce concrete 

that performs well under freeze–thaw conditions. Plants burning subbituminous coal have not 

exhibited an increase in unburned carbon even where NOx reduction strategies have been 

implemented, but plants burning Texas lignite have had varied results. Already, the reduced 

supply of quality fly ash has been noted as a threat to inclusion in TxDOT projects where high 

volumes of consistent fly ash are needed over the duration of large, long-term projects. 

Potential threats to the quality and quantity of fly ash available in Texas include the 

implementation of controls for mercury emissions. While the technologies for each of these types 

of controls are still in development and demonstration phases, the utility industry indicated some 

concerns about how the installation of these new technologies will impact the Texas CCP 

markets, especially the fly ash market for concrete. Typical demonstration-scale mercury 

emission controls incorporate the addition of an activated carbon sorbent to collect mercury 

present in flue gases. If this activated carbon is combined with the fly ash at a power plant, it is 

expected to result in an even greater impact to the quality of the fly ash as it relates to concrete 

use with similar technical issues as noted above. It should be noted, however, that there are 

mercury capture technologies that do not use activated carbon. In many mercury control 

technology scenarios, various CCP streams will have increased concentrations of mercury. 

Questions regarding whether this material will continue to meet the TCEQ’s exemption criteria 

and the ultimate fate and transport of entrained contaminants will need to be addressed. 
21 

Threat 2: Ability to Retain Institutional Knowledge at TCEQ and TxDOT 

It may be difficult for TCEQ and TxDOT to retain institutional knowledge of CCPs as staff 

is turned over. TCEQ’s rules, in particular, are subjective in their interpretation, and TCAUG 

worries that regulations may be interpreted differently by new staff who are not as educated on 

CCP issues as the current staff. Unless a specific rule is adopted, staff knowledge and acceptance 

of the benefits from these materials may be lost when staff turnover occurs. Reeducation may be 

required in the future.

Threat 3: Class C vs. Class F Issues Related to ASR 

 Classifications (Class C vs. Class F) play a large role in the ability to use fly ash for 

concrete applications. Sulfate attack has significantly reduced the use of Class C fly ash as a 

portland cement replacement in Texas concrete. Last year, a Texas ready-mix supplier switched 

to all Class F fly ash because of alkali silica reactivity (ASR) issues. Class C fly ash is no longer 

being used in areas of Texas that have sulfate-rich soils. However, it is important to note that, in 

some cases, more Class C ash may mitigate ASR. For example, a 10%–15% use of Class C can 

pass American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C618 requirements for sulfate 

resistance. A 1997 study also indicated that the use of Class C fly ash, rather than contributing to 

ASR, actually reduces ASR to acceptable levels when using high-alkali cements (Styron, 1997). 

Threat 4: EPA Could Reconsider Its RCRA Determination 

 Additional pressure from special interest groups and studies evaluating the health effects of 

coal ash utilization could prompt EPA to reconsider its RCRA determination of CCP 

classification as nonhazardous wastes. EPA’s active Deputy Administrator stated, “If the states 

and industry do not take steps to address these wastes adequately in a reasonable amount of time 

or if EPA identifies additional risks to public health, EPA will revisit this decision to determine 

whether a hazardous waste approached is needed” (Schimmoller, 2000). 

ROAD MAP TO INCREASED CCP UTILIZATION IN TEXAS 

 The following activities were suggested during the reviews as actions that would help 

increase CCP utilization in Texas. The proposed actions are to be implemented by a variety of 

CCP players, including governments at the federal, state, and local level; utilities; ash marketers; 

ready-mix producers; academia; and industry groups. The suggested actions were generated by 

interviewees and are listed in order of significance. 

Action 1: Adopt Performance-Based Concrete Specifications 

Texas ready-mix producers indicated a strong need to develop performance-based concrete 

specifications, rather than having material-based specifications that do not consider performance. 

 Initiatives on the federal, state, and local level will be required to adopt performance-based 

concrete specifications. Federal entities such as AASHTO and ASTM, as well as private and 
22 

government entities, must first demonstrate the long-term substantiality of concrete developed 

according to performance specifications. Following the demonstrations, an education process 

from industry to government will need to be initiated. 

Action 2: Develop Profitable Markets for FGD Material and Bottom Ash That 

Consider Transportation Costs 

The fly ash market is well developed in Texas, but FGD material and bottom ash are 

underutilized. Ash marketers find it difficult to find profitable markets for these materials 

considering the transportation costs involved with getting the material to the end user. The cost 

to transport bottom ash to markets it often cost-prohibitive because bottom ash has to compete 

with locally available natural resources. In addition, FGD material has numerous handling issues 

that can be costly. Wet FGD has a moisture content from 30% to 60%, thus requiring the 

transportation of water along with solid particles. To alleviate this issue, the moisture content at 

the time of transport should be minimized. 

One way to resolve transportation issues is for manufacturing facilities (i.e., bricks, 

aggregate, wallboard) that use CCPs as a primary raw material to locate manufacturing facilities 

in close proximity to the power plant. This practice is conducted in Texas on a limited basis. 

During the reviews, it was suggested that C2

P2 could help identify markets where bottom ash and 

FGD material could be used as raw materials to manufacture products. 

Action 3: Exempt Beneficial Reuse from Federal Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) 

Reporting 

During the review, the question was raised, “Why do you have to report beneficial uses of 

CCPs as ‘releases to land’ under federal TRI?” It was suggested that TRI should exempt 

beneficially reused material and only require reporting of material that is sent to a disposal site. 

EPA offers site-specific exemptions but said that in order to get an exemption for all utilities, 

there would have to be a large test case from a large utility with support from industry groups 

such as ACAA. Some industry representatives interviewed believe this change is necessary 

because some definitions of release contradict the goals of C2

P2. In addition, TRI reporting takes 

considerable effort, and this change would be an incentive for the power plant manager to reuse 

more material. 

Action 4: Change How the Material Is Perceived 

CCPs can be defined using a variety of terms, such as coal combustion and utilization byproducts, coal combustion wastes, or just simply coal ash. The industry debates that since 

utilities are not in business to produce coal ash (a product), then coal ash must be considered a 

by-product. Others proclaim that if a material is used or recycled, then it must be a product. 

Conversely, others believe that the material should be termed a waste, no matter whether it is 

disposed of or beneficially utilized. Nevertheless, the names “by-product” and “waste” have 

powerful effects on consumers. TCEQ was able to develop a rule that puts CCPs in the same 

category as other recycled materials such as plastic, aluminum, and paper by defining any reused 

CCP as a product. However, there are situations in Texas where the material, whether it is reused 
23 

or disposed of, is still perceived of as a waste. If the industry as a whole could change how 

legislative bodies perceive coal ash, it could put coal ash on the same platform as other recycled 

materials. 

Action 5: Build Off of LEED’s Success 

The LEED program has been successful in the United States by simply defining what it 

means to “build green” and by offering recognition to those who build green. It was suggested 

that the coal ash industry should develop a similar program led by FHWA which defines what is 

means to build green roads and offer recognition to those who do it successfully. Some 

interviewed believe that to build green roads, the contractor must use every “environmentally 

friendly” source available, while considering the performance specifications and economics. 

It was further suggested that the current LEED system does not favor the use of fly ash in 

concrete from a percent content standpoint. The ready-mix producers noted several projects that 

were LEED certified that did not use fly ash as portland cement replacements in the concrete. In 

addition, a popular green building conference held in Austin did not address coal ash. Ready-mix 

producers do not understand why LEED does not say that concrete must contain fly ash. To 

address these issues, it was suggested that there should be a coal ash voice in the LEED program, 

perhaps the American Concrete Institute or ACAA. 

Action 6: Promote Industry Successes Outside of the CCP Industry 

The Texas coal industry has an abundance of success stories, so many, in fact, that many 

groups interviewed did not identify any particular success stories. Large-scale, high-profile 

success stories noted in a document provided by TCAUG (Akers, 2004a) include the following: 

• The City of San Antonio’s new multipurpose sports and convention arena (Alamo 

Dome) was constructed using more than 6000 tons of fly ash as a substitute for portland 

cement in structural concrete. Construction was completed in 1993. 

• The Lower Colorado River Authority’s (LCRA’s) new headquarters as built in 1992 

and included 20% direct replacement of portland cement in construction concrete. 

• Fly ash was used to replace portland cement in concrete during the construction of the 

Hemisfair Arena Parking Garage in San Antonio. 

• About 2300 tons of fly ash concrete was used to construct the River Center Marriott 

Hotel, located on the Riverwalk in San Antonio. 

• Fly ash (7200 tons) was used as a direct replacement for portland cement for the 

construction of taxiways for the San Antonio International Airport. An additional 

600 tons of fly ash was used to backfill the open trench around the drainage culvert. 

• Direct replacement of portland cement with fly ash in concrete was used to construct 

several roadways in Texas, including State Highway 71 and Dallas Central Expressway. 
24 

• The 10,475-foot-long cable-stayed bridge over the Houston Ship Channel will be 

constructed using 8000 tons of fly ash. The use of Class F fly ash will reduce the cost of 

the concrete and improve the workability and sulfate resistance of the finished product. 

• Fly ash and FGD gypsum were used in Harris County to form a solid roadbase for street 

repairs. 

• Other noteworthy projects include the use of 12,100 yd3

 of CCP pellets to stabilize reef 

substrate and enable attachment of oyster spat by Reliant Energy, the Port of Houston 

Authority, and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

Promoting successes should go beyond successful utilization projects. The overall benefits 

associated with CCP use should also be promoted, including decrease in the demand for landfill 

space, conservation of natural resources, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, economic savings 

for end users, reduced overall cost of generating electricity, and production of better products. 

Success may be commonplace to those intimately involved with coal ash in Texas, but 

there are audiences that have not heard the message yet. The green building movement in Texas 

has helped to promote successes outside of the immediate coal ash industry; however, more can 

be done to reach other audiences. 

Federal programs are doing more to promote the industry’s successes. For example, EPA’s 

C2

P2 program plans to highlight successful case studies online and reward the industry for its 

achievements in promoting, using, and researching CCPs. The C2

P2 program strives to bring the 

industry together to reduce barriers and promote increased CCP use. 

Action 7: Produce a Hybrid Blended Fly Ash 

 

 Texas has experienced issues with Class C fly ash causing ASR; thus the product cannot be 

marketed to the concrete industry. Interviewees said that, within the next 18 months, it is 

anticipated that a hybrid ash will be introduced into the marketplace that will not meet ASTM 

C618 but will be sold as a performance-based concrete admixture. There may be acceptance 

issues, particularly by TxDOT, with regard to using a hybrid blended ash. It is not known yet if 

the new material will be accepted in the marketplace. 

Action 8: Develop Markets for Low-Quality Fly Ash 

 As the quality of fly ash produced declines as a result of new emission control 

technologies, new markets need to be developed that use lower-quality CCPs. It was suggested 

that high-volume, low-quality markets such as flowable fill should be pursued. 

Action 9: Provide Economic Incentives for Using Recycled Materials 

 

The environmental benefits of utilizing CCPs are well known, but perhaps more could be 

done to promote using recycled materials. It was suggested that end users could receive emission 

credits for using fly ash as a partial replacement for portland cement because by using fly ash, 
25 

the user is preventing CO2 emission from cement production. During the review, the consensus 

was that economic incentives would need to be subsidized by the federal government. However, 

one might argue that state governments can and should provide such economic incentives on 

their own. Montana already provides such tax incentives. If California can restrict CO2

emissions in the absence of federal mandates, then it follows that states can also provide tax 

incentives in the absence of federal action (Aljoe, 2004). 

TRANSFERRING THE INFORMATION FROM THE TEXAS EXPERIENCE TO 

OTHER STATES

 With the information gained from the review of CCP stakeholders in Texas, it is reasonable 

to initiate a description of how the successes in Texas may be translated to other states. 

Preliminary recommendations can be made, understanding that the following caveats hold true in 

Texas and may not be true in other states: 

• Texas experienced a building boom in the 1990s, helping to make fly ash concrete 

widely accepted throughout the state. In addition, the state has a long construction cycle 

because of its warm climate, which, in turn, abates long-term fly ash storage issues. 

• CCPs can be recycled as long as the application does not present an increased risk to 

human health, the environment, or waters of the state when applied to land or used in 

products applied to the land. Texas has regulations in place that require remediation of 

activities, including CCP utilization, where damage to waters of the state has occurred. 

• A relatively large number of coal-fired power plants in Texas produce good-quality 

CCPs. 

Actions that were noted as key to successful CCP utilization in Texas that may translate to 

other states are summarized as follows: 

• The formation of a CCP industry group provides a forum for industry to work together 

to educate government agencies, potential users, and other CCP stakeholders. The CCP 

industry group can seek and coordinate with other state industry groups working on 

recycled material issues. 

• The CCP industry group can develop a comprehensive guide to beneficial uses for 

CCPs within the state and use the guide to educate both the environmental and 

transportation departments to initiate the development of environmental regulations and 

transportation specifications that promote the beneficial use of CCPs. 

• The CCP industry can support demonstration projects to develop the type of technical 

information that government agencies identify as necessary for CCP use to move from 

the demonstration to the commercial phase. 
26 

The actions noted require commitment and leadership by the CCP industry. It is less likely 

that a state environmental department will take the initiative to develop approvals, policies, or 

regulations to facilitate CCP utilization without the impetus of an industry-sponsored effort to 

bring the opportunity of CCP utilization to the attention of the agency. DOTs may be more 

assertive in evaluating applications that incorporate CCPs because of the potential for improved 

performance and cost savings, but industry participation and support in these potential DOT 

efforts are likely to guarantee successful projects and experience from which DOT 

representatives can draw upon to develop specifications. 

The reviewers can make the following recommendations to environmental and 

transportation officials in states where CCPs are underutilized: 

• Review the environmental regulations governing recycled materials that are currently in 

place in Texas. 

• Evaluate the types of CCP applications allowed by TxDOT and the TxDOT 

specifications for CCPs. 

• Refer to the Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers published by FHWA for information 

on transportation-related applications for CCPs. 

• Relay questions on CCP utilization to local or national industry groups or a universitybased research group that specializes in the area of CCP utilization. 

CONCLUSIONS 

 Based on the review sessions and supplemental information presented in this report, the 

following conclusions can be drawn: 

• The formation of TCAUG was the driving force for increased CCP utilization in Texas. 

TCAUG approached groups at numerous levels at state agencies and pursued them for 

over 10 years. It was this multilevel approach and its tenacity that TCAUG attributes to 

its success. 

• TCEQ’s eight-waste criteria rule and its ability to enforce the state water code paved the 

way for increased CCP utilization by putting CCPs on the same level as other recyclable 

materials. 

• TCEQ’s TWC 26.121 allows it to be more flexible on exempting coal ash from the 

definition of solid waste by serving as a safety net. If coal ash is used improperly, 

TCEQ can go back to TWC 26.121 and correct the problem. 

• TxDOT adopted new specifications in 2004 that specify CCP use on a percent 

replacement basis. TxDOT said the largest barrier to using more coal ash is an air 

entrainment issue from too much carbon in the ash and an inconsistent supply. 
27 

• The utilities and ash marketers said the most beneficial action C2

P2 could take is to find 

more beneficial use applications for FGD material and bottom ash. This group also felt 

strongly that TRI reporting requirements are overly burdensome and inappropriate in 

many instances. 

REFERENCES 

Akers, P. Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) General Information, Pictures, Recycling 

Applications, Presented at the EPA Listening Meeting, April 13, 2004a, Dallas, TX. 

Akers, P. Review of State Regulations, Standards, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal 

Combustion Products, TCAUG Responses, Unpublished work, 2004b. 

Aljoe, B. U.S. Department of Energy. Personal Communication, 2004. 

American Coal Ash Association. 2003 Coal Combustion Product Production and Use Survey. 

Oct 2004. 

American Coal Ash Association. State Solid Waste Regulations Governing the Use of Coal 

Combustion Products (CCPs); Aug 1998. 

CCPOhio Extension Program. The Ohio State University. http://ccpohio.eng.ohio-state.edu/ 

ccpohio (accessed Aug 2004). 

Energy Information Administration, Coal Use by State – 2003, October 2004. 

Folliard, K. Coal Ash and Sustainability. Presented at the C2

P2 Workshop, Sept 16, 2004, Austin, 

TX. 

National Asphalt Association. Aphalt Industry Update and Overview. Jan 2002, 

www.hotmix.org/view_article.php?ID=10 (accessed Oct 2004). 

Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.P.; Sondreal, E.A.; Steadman, E.N.; Eylands, K.E. Dockter, B.A. Barriers 

to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/Desulfurization By-Products by Government 

and Commercial Sectors – Update 1998; Topical report for U.S. Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Center Cooperative Agreement No. DE FC21-93MC30097; 

EERC Publication No. 99-EERC-07-08; July 1999.

Railroad Commission of Texas, Texas Energy Planning Council. Texas Energy Overview; March 

2004, http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/tepc/TexasEnergyOverview.pdf (accessed Oct 2004). 

Recycling Market Development Board. www.rmdb.state.tx.us/ (accessed Sept 2004). 

Rubinkam, M., Associated Press. Pennsylvania Agency Backs Plan to Dump River Muck and 

Coal Ash into Abandoned Mines. Environmental News Network, Nov 11, 2003. 
28 

Schimmoller, B. Not Hazardous. . . for Now. Power Engineering, 2000 June. 

Styron, R.W.; Dixon, D.E.; Manz, O. Use of Class C Fly Ash & Alkali Silica Reaction, 

Presented at the American Concrete Institute 1997 Fall Convention, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group. Responses to General Land Office Questions Regarding Coal 

Combustion By-Product Utilization. Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group, June 1994. 

U.S. Census Statistical Abstract. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 

www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-02.html (accessed Sept 2004). 

Year of the Recycled Roadway Materials, November Coal Combustion Products, 

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/gsd/pdf/yrr_nov.pdf (accessed Sept 2004). 
APPENDIX A 

ADVISORY BOARD AND REVIEW TEAM 

MEMBERS 
A-1

REVIEW OF STATE REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Texas State Review 

September 13–15, 2004 

Advisory Board Members 

Mr. William Aljoe 

Project Manager 

U.S. Department of Energy 

National Energy Technology Laboratory 

626 Cochrans Mill Road 

PO Box 10940 MS 922-273C 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940 

Phone: (412) 386-6569 

Fax: (412) 386-5917 

E-mail: aljoe@netl.doe.gov 

Mr. Richard Bye 

President 

Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group 

c/o Texas Genco 

12301 Kurland Drive 

Houston, TX 77034 

Phone: (713) 945-8201 

Phone 2: (713) 817-0272 

Fax: (713) 945-8069 

E-mail: rbye@txgenco.com 

Ms. Susan (Susi) Ferguson 

Manager, Environmental Policy, Policy 

 and Regulations Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

PO Box 13087, MC 205 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-2320 

Fax: (512) 239-6195 

E-mail: sferfuso@tceq.state.tx.us 

Mr. David Goss 

Executive Director 

American Coal Ash Association 

15200 East Girard Avenue Suite 3050 

Aurora, CO 80014-3988 

Phone: (720) 870-7897 

Fax: (720) 870-7889 

E-mail: dcgoss@acaa-usa.org 

Mr. Jason Harrington 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Pavement Technology 

400 7th Street Southwest Room 3118 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 366-1576 

Fax: (202) 493-2070 

E-mail: Jason.Harrington@fhwa.dot.gov 

Mr. James Roewer 

Executive Director 

Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

701 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest 

Washington, DC 20004-2696 

Phone: (202) 508-5645 

Fax: (202) 508-5150 

E-mail: jim.roewer@uswag.org 

Mr. Jerry Smith 

Area Vice President 

Headwaters Incorporated 

157 West Shadowpoint Circle 

The Woodlands, TX 77381 

Phone: (281) 298-9359 

Mobile: (713) 865-0910 

Fax: (281) 367-1713 

E-mail: jsmith@isgresources.com 

Mr. Kimery Vories 

Office of Surface Mining 

501 Belle Street 

Alton, IL 62002 

Phone: (618) 463-6463, ext. 103 

E-mail: kvories@osmre.gov 
A-3

REVIEW OF STATE REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Texas State Review 

September 13–15, 2004 

Review Team Members 

Ms. Tera Buckley 

Marketing Research Specialist 

Energy & Environmental Research Center 

PO Box 9018 

Grand Forks, ND 58202 

Phone: (701) 777-5296 

Fax: (701) 777-5181 

E-mail: tbuckley@undeerc.org 

Mr. Richard Bye 

President 

Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group 

c/o Texas Genco 

12301 Kurland Drive 

Houston, TX 77034 

Phone: (713) 945-8201 

Phone 2: (713) 817-0272 

Fax: (713) 945-8069 

E-mail: rbye@txgenco.com 

Ms. Lisa Kost 

Lloyd, Gosselink, Blevins Rochelle and 

Townsend, P.C. 

111 Congress Avenue Suite 1800 

Austin, TX 78701 

Phone: (512) 322-5859 

E-mail: lkost@lglawfirm.com 

Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett 

Senior Research Advisor 

Energy & Environmental Research Center 

PO Box 9018 

Grand Forks, ND 58202 

Phone: (701) 777-5161 

Fax: (701) 777-5181 

E-mail: dphassett@undeerc.org 

Mr. John Sager 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest 

 (MC 5306W) 

Washington, DC 20460 

Phone: (703) 308-7256 

Fax: (703) 308-8686 

E-mail: sager.john@epa.gov 
APPENDIX B 

TEXAS REVIEW GUIDE 
B-1 

REVIEW OF STATE REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

TEXAS REVIEW GUIDE 

SEPTEMBER 13–15, 2004 

Purpose 

The primary goal is to review factors related to the use of coal combustion products (CCPs) in Texas and 

develop a roadmap/model that may help Texas and other states increase the use of CCPs in an 

environmentally sound manner. Texas was selected as the pilot state for an in-depth review of its CCP 

programs, policies, and use practices because of its progressive approach to CCP utilization and its 

support network to implement such activities. Following the review, a deployment package of 

presentations, reports, and other documentation will be assembled for distribution to the projects’ advisory 

board members. This review is intended to be a pilot program and may provide impetus to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform additional state reviews. 

Scope 

The scope of the Texas review, as identified by the project’s advisory board members, is to evaluate the 

various factors related to CCP use in Texas. In order to focus the study on current practices, which are most 

readily transferable, the Texas review will highlight various CCP use practices including highway 

construction and building practices and will not consider the use of CCPs at mine sites. This is not to diminish 

the use of CCPs at mine sites but to recognize the national regulatory debate on the use of CCPs at mine sites, 

which is being conducted independently of this review. 

Process 

The review team will travel to Texas to visit state agencies and other key players involved in CCP utilization. 

Five discussion groups will be formed to answer questions posed by the review team. The discussion groups 

include the following: 

• Government agencies – directors and other key personnel of state or regional transportation and 

environmental agencies 

• Marketers/end users – CCP marketers and ready-mix suppliers 

• CCP generators – utilities/producers of CCPs 

• Special interest – environmental and citizen groups, research institutions 

• Open meeting – open 

Instructions 

Please come to the review prepared to answer the following list of questions, and assemble all applicable 

information prior to the review. Your participation will help provide a fair and balanced characterization of 

the state’s CCP issues. Please answer the questions as completely as is reasonably possible without stating 

proprietary information. For questions that do not apply to your specific situation, answer not applicable. If 

you would prefer to answer questions in writing as well, please provide written comments to Tera Buckley at 

tbuckley@undeerc.org. The time allotted for the review is noted at the beginning of each questionnaire. All 

questions must be answered within the scheduled time frame. The corresponding role call (to be provided at 

the review) must be completed at the beginning of the review. The review will be recorded.
B-2 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

Time allotted: 3 hours 

1.What is your agency’s role in the use of CCPs? 

2.What type of infrastructure (i.e., employees, programs) does your agency have dedicated to 

CCP management? 

3. Please list and explain any successful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they 

successful? 

4. Please list and explain any problematic projects/applications using CCPs. Explain the 

problems encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a 

project. 

5. Please list and explain any cases in Texas where the use of CCPs has caused environmental 

damage or resulted in violations of environmental requirements. Describe any corrective 

actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address the issue. 

6.In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Texas? How could this obstacle be addressed? 

7. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your 

agency’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, new air pollution 

control requirements may increase the mercury content of CCPs. 

8. For which of the following CCPs does your agency have guidelines, guidance documents, 

material specifications, regulations, orders, or statutes? If applicable, provide references 

for and dates of the specific guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, 

regulations, orders, or statutes related to CCPs. 

a. Fly ash 

b. Bottom ash 

c. Flue gas desulfurization material 

d. Boiler slag 

 

e. Cenospheres 

f. Fluidized-bed combustor ash 

 

h. Other ______________ 

i. Other ______________ 
B-3 

9.Which of the following sources of information does your agency rely on in approving the 

use of CCPs in particular applications? 

a.________ Surveys of current practices (federal or state) 

b.________ Demonstration projects 

c.________ Internal (agency) testing and evaluations 

d.________ Technical report submitted by qualified consultants 

e.________ Research projects or reports by other agencies, research institutions, 

 or consultants 

f. ________ Other ______________________________ 

g.________ Other ______________________________ 

10. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to assist 

your agency in overcoming barriers? 

11. In general, how do you perceive the position Texas has taken toward CCPs in comparison 

to other states? 
B-4 

CCP GENERATORS 

Time allotted: 3 hours 

1. Are there any operational or business issues that impact the way you process or handle 

CCPs? 

2. What types of quality assurance/quality control procedures are employed at your 

company with regard to CCPs? 

3. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your 

company’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, new air 

pollution control requirements may increase the mercury content of CCPs. 

4. Are there any environmental policies, permits, regulations, or statutes that impact the way 

you process and handle CCPs? 

5. Are you or your CCP users (marketers/contractors) provided the flexibility to make the 

decision to utilize CCPs when the material meets standard specification requirements or 

does the state require additional approvals and testing? 

6. Please list and explain any successful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they 

successful? 

7. Please list and explain any problematic projects/applications using CCPs. Explain the 

problems encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a 

project. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address 

the issue. 

8. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research and demonstration projects 

regarding CCPs. 

9. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Texas? How could this obstacle be addressed? 

10. What barriers has your company overcome to increase the use of CCPs? How? 

11. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to assist 

your company in overcoming barriers? 

12. In general, how do you perceive the position Texas has taken toward CCPs in comparison 

to other states? 
B-5 

MARKETERS/END USERS 

Time allotted: 3 hours 

1. Provide a general description of CCP use in Texas, including production, markets, and 

prices. Specifically, describe the current state of CCP use in road building and 

commercial and residential building construction projects. 

2. Please indicate your thoughts on the current specifications or guidelines that you are 

aware of in the state of Texas related to CCPs. Are there any environmental policies, 

permits, regulations, or statutes that impact the way you process and handle CCPs? What 

specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What 

changes would you like to see made to the current specifications and guidelines? 

3. Please list and explain any successful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they 

successful? 

4. Please list and explain any problematic projects/applications using CCPs. Explain the 

problem encountered and any instances where the use of CCPs was precluded in a 

project. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address 

the issue. 

5. How would you describe the competition between traditional raw materials and CCPs? 

(i.e., portland cement vs. fly ash; natural gypsum vs. flue gas desulfurization [FGD] 

gypsum)? 

6. What is the use ratio between spec and nonspec ash? What barriers do you encounter in 

selling nonspec ash? 

7. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your 

company’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, new air 

pollution control requirements may increase the mercury content of CCPs. 

8. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Texas? How could this obstacle be addressed? 

9. What barriers exist that prohibit the use of CCPs in Texas? What state or federal 

regulations could be implemented to overcome these barriers? 

10. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to 

overcoming barriers to CCP utilization? 

11. In general, how do you perceive the position Texas has taken toward CCPs in comparison 

to other states? 
B-6 

SPECIAL INTERST 

Time allotted: 90 minutes 

1. In your experience, what are the significant factors impacting the use of CCPs in Texas? 

2. Please indicate your thoughts on the current specifications or guidelines that you are 

aware of in the state of Texas related to CCPs. What specifications or guidelines do you 

feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to the 

current specifications and guidelines? 

3. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your 

association’s/company’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, 

new air pollution control requirements may increase the mercury content of CCPs. 

4. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research or demonstration projects regarding 

CCPs. Specify any successes or problems. 

5. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Texas? How could this obstacle be addressed? 

6. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to 

overcoming barriers to CCP utilization? 

7. In general, how do you perceive the position Texas has taken toward CCPs in comparison 

to other states? 
B-7 

OPEN MEETING 

Time allotted: 2 hours 

1. In your experience, what are the significant factors impacting the use of CCPs in Texas? 

2. Please indicate your thoughts on the current specifications or guidelines that you are 

aware of in the state of Texas related to CCPs. What specifications or guidelines do you 

feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to the 

current specifications and guidelines? 

3. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your 

association’s/company’s role in the generation, use, or disposal of CCPs? For example, 

new air pollution control requirements may increase the mercury content of CCPs. 

4. Provide details of any ongoing or completed research or demonstration projects regarding 

CCPs. Specify any successes or problems. 

5. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in 

Texas? How could this obstacle be addressed? 

6. What further research, laboratory work, or policy initiatives would be necessary to 

overcoming barriers to CCP utilization? 

7. In general, how do you perceive the position Texas has taken toward CCPs in comparison 

to other states?
APPENDIX C 

PARTICIPANT LIST AND FINAL AGENDA
C-1 

REVIEW OF STATE REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED 

TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS 

Texas State Review 

September 13–15, 2004 

Final Participant List* 

ALAMO CONCRETE PRODUCTS, LTD. 

Mr. Chris Slate 

Director – Quality Assurance 

Alamo Concrete Products, Ltd. 

PO Box 34210 

San Antonio, TX 78265-4210 

Phone: (210) 208-1780 

Fax: (210) 208-1786 

Pager: (800) 537-2431 ID#1088 

E-mail: cslate@alamoconcrete.com

AMERICAN COAL ASH ASSOCIATION 

Mr. David Goss 

Executive Director 

American Coal Ash Association 

15200 East Girard Avenue Suite 3050 

Aurora, CO 80014-3988 

Phone: (720) 870-7897 

Fax: (720) 870-7889 

E-mail: dcgoss@acaa-usa.org

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER 

Mr. Gregory H. Keenan 

Manager, CCP Marketing 

American Electric Power 

PO Box 16036 

Columbus, OH 43216-0036 

Phone: (614) 583-7459 

Mobile: (614) 204-2017 

Fax: (614) 583-1619 

E-mail: ghkeenan@aep.com 

BORAL MATERIAL TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC. 

Mr. Russell L. Hill 

Vice President, Technology 

 Development and Marketing 

Boral Material Technologies Inc. 

45 Northeast Loop 410, Suite 700 

San Antonio, TX 78216 

Phone: (210) 349-4069 

Fax: (210) 979-6110 

E-mail: russell.hill@BORAL.com 

Mr. Harry C. Roof 

Manager, Utility Services 

Boral Material Technologies Inc. 

45 Northeast Loop 410, Suite 700 

San Antonio, TX 78216 

Phone: (210) 349-4069 

Mobile: (210) 241-9857 

Fax: (210) 349-8512 

E-mail: harry.roof@BORAL.com 

Mr. Gary D. Shelton 

Senior Vice President, Sales 

Boral Material Technologies Inc 

45 Northeast Loop 410, Suite 700 

San Antonio, TX 78216 

Phone: (210) 349-4069 

Phone 2: (800) 292-5354 

Fax: (210) 349-2986 

E-mail: gary.shelton@BORAL.com 

CENTEX MATERIALS LLC 

Mr. Doug Farrell 

Technical Director 

Centex Materials LLC 

3801 South Capital of Texas Highway 

Suite 250 

Austin, TX 78704 

Phone: (512) 693-2710 

Mobile: (512) 422-3874 

Fax: (512) 444-9809 

E-mail: ctxdirector@aol.com 
C-2 

Mr. Bryon Piper 

Concrete Production Manager 

Centex Materials LLC 

3801 South Capital of Texas Highway 

Suite 250 

Austin, TX 78704 

Phone: (512) 460-3003, ext. 231 

Mobile: (512) 751-3299 

Dispatch: (512) 460-3033 

Fax: (512) 444-9809 

E-mail: bpiper@eaglematerials.com 

Mr. Doug Westbrook 

Vice President – Sales 

Centex Materials LLC 

3801 South Capital of Texas Highway 

Suite 250 

Austin, TX 78704 

Phone: (512) 460-3003 

Mobile: (512) 422-5915 

Fax: (512) 444-9809 

E-mail: dwestbrook@eaglematerials.com 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. Jim Cravens 

Federal Highway Administration 

300 East 8th Street 

Austin, TX 78701 

Mr. Jason Harrington 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Pavement Technology 

400 7th Street Southwest Room 3118 

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: (202) 366-1576 

Fax: (202) 493-2070 

E-mail: Jason.Harrington@fhwa.dot.gov 

HEADWATERS RESOURCES, INC.

Mr. Perry Bryan 

Headwaters Resources

10653 South Riverfront Parkway, Suite 300 

South Jordan, UT 84095

LATTIMORE MATERIALS COMPANY 

Dr. Richard S. Szecsy 

Vice President of New Product 

 Development and Risk Management 

Lattimore Materials Company 

1700 Redbud Boulevard, Suite 200 

McKinney, TX 75069 

Phone: (972) 221-4646 

Mobile: (214) 202-1379 

Fax: (972) 221-9647 

E-mail: szecsy1@lmctx.com 

LOWER COLORADO RIVER 

AUTHORITY

Mr. Joe Bentley 

Environmental Program Manager, 

 Wholesale Power Services 

Lower Colorado River Authority 

PO Box 220, MS L320 

Austin, TX 78767-0220 

Phone: (800) 776-5272 ext 3272 

Phone 2: (512) 473-3272 

Fax: (512) 473-3579 

E-mail: jbentley@lcra.org 

Mr. Monte Gottier 

Senior Engineering Associate 

Environmental Supervisor, 

 Fayette Power Project 

Lower Colorado River Authority 

PO Box 519 

La Grange, TX 78945 

Phone: (800) 776-5272, ext. 8340 

Phone 2: (979) 249-8340 

Pager: (512) 205-7256 

Fax: (979) 473-249-8392 

E-mail: mgottier@lcra.org 
C-3 

MINERAL RESOURCE 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Mr. Jim Hicks 

Mineral Resource Technologies, Inc. 

2700 Research Forest Drive 

Suite 150 

The Woodlands, TX 77381-4226 

Phone: (281) 362-1060 

Phone 2: (800) 615-1100 

Fax: (281) 362-1809 

E-mail: jhicks@mrtus.com 

SIERRA CLUB 

Dr. Neil J. Carman 

Clean Air Program Director 

Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club 

54 Chicon Street 

Austin, TX 78702-5431 

Phone: (512) 472-1767 

Fax: (512) 477-8526 

E-mail: Neil_Carman@greenbuilder.com 

SOUTHERN STAR CONCRETE, INC. 

Mr. Tim Kaiser 

Manager of Quality Services 

Southern Star Concrete, Inc. 

240 Singleton Boulevard 

Dallas, TX 75212 

Phone: (214) 651-8020 

Mobile: (214) 674-4774 

Fax: (214) 651-1810 

E-mail: tim.kaiser@southernstarconcrete.com 

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY 

Dr. Don Saylak 

Director Byproduct Utilization & Recycling 

Transportation & Materials 

Engineering Division 

Texas A&M University 

College Station, TX 77843-3136 

Phone: (979) 845-9962 

Fax: (979) 845-0278 

E-mail: d-saylak@tamu.edu 

TEXAS COAL ASH UTILIZATION 

GROUP 

Ms. Patty Akers 

Attorney at Law 

Bickerstaff, Heath, Smiley, Pollan, Kever & 

McDaniel LLP 

1700 Frost Bank Plaza 

816 Congress Avenue 

Austin, TX 78701-2443 

Phone: (512) 472-8021 

Fax: (512) 404-7758 

E-mail: pakers@bickerstaff.com

TEXAS COAL COMBUSTION 

PRODUCTS COALITION 

Mr. Michael J. Nasi 

Attorney at Law 

Lloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle & 

 Townsend, P.C. 

111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1800 

Austin, TX 78701 

Phone: (512) 322-5800 

Phone 2: (512) 322-5859 

Fax: (512) 472-0532 

E-mail: mnasi@lglawfirm.com

TEXAS COMMISSION ON 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Ms. Susan (Susi) S. Ferguson 

Manager, Environmental Policy, Policy and 

 Regulations Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

MC-205, PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-2320 

Fax: (512) 239-4808 

E-mail: sferguso@tceq.state.tx.us 
C-4 

Mr. Pat Fontenot 

Waste & Emergency Response Program 

 Manager 

Office of Compliance and Enforcement 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

MC-174, PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-2220 

Fax: (512) 239-0404 

E-mail: pfonteno@tceq.state.tx.us 

Mr. M. Scott Green 

Waste Analyst 

Technical Analysis Team 

Waste Evaluation Section 

Registration & Evaluation Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

MC-129, PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-6381 

Fax: (512) 239-6383 

E-mail: sgreen@tnrcc.st.tx.us 

Mr. Conrad A. Kuharic 

Project Manager 

Industrial and Hazardous Waste Permits 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

MC-130, PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-0998 

Fax: (512) 239-6383 

E-mail: ckuharic@tceq.state.tx.us 

Mr. G. Michael Lindner 

Program Specialist 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

MC-112, PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-3045 

Fax: (512) 239-1065 

E-mail: mlindner@tnrcc.state.tx.us 

Ms. Merrie Smith 

Waste Program Liaison 

Field Operations Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

MC-174, PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-5051 

Fax: (512) 239-0404 

E-mail: mersmith@tceq.tx.us 

Ms. Sharon J. Smith 

Senior Attorney 

Environmental Law Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

MC-173, PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-3672 

Fax: (512) 239-0606 

E-mail: ssmith@tnrcc.state.tx.us 

Mr. Les Trobman 

Staff Attorney 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

 Quality 

MC-173, PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Phone: (512) 239-6056 

Fax: (512) 239-0626 

E-mail: ltrobman@tceq.state.tx.us 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. Rodney Concienne 

Operations and Maintenance 

Environmental Division 

Texas Department of Transportation 

125 East 11th Street 

Austin, TX 78701-2483 

E-Mail: env-spec.rconcie@dot.state.tx.us 
C-5 

Ms. Caroline H. Herrera 

Geotechnical, Soils and Aggregates 

 Branch Director 

Materials and Pavements Section 

Construction Division 

Texas Department of Transportation 

125 East 11th Street 

Austin, TX 78701-2483 

Phone: (512) 506-5907 

Fax: (512) 506-5915 

E-mail: cherrer@dot.state.tx.us 

Ms. Elizabeth Lukefahr 

Concrete/Cement Engineer 

Materials and Pavements Section 

Construction Division 

Texas Department of Transportation 

125 East 11th Street 

Austin, TX 78701-2483 

Phone: (512) 506-5858 

Fax: (512) 506-5865 

Pager: (888) 787-0621 

E-mail: elukefa@dot.state.tx.us 

Mr. A.A. “Tony” Tijerina Jr. 

Recycling Program Specialist 

Recycling & Recycled Products Program 

General Services Division 

Texas Department of Transportation 

125 East 11th Street 

Austin, TX 78701-2483 

Phone: (512) 302-2423 

Fax: (512) 302-2428 

E-mail: ttijerin@dot.state.tx.us 

TXU ENERGY COMPANY 

Mr. Greg Jackson 

Project Engineer 

TXU Energy Company 

1601 Bryan Street Suite 18118 

Dallas, TX 75201-3411 

Phone: (214) 812-8894 

E-mail: greg.jackson@txu.com 

*Participants either attended a review session 

in Texas, participated in the makeup 

conference call, or provided written 

comments. 
C-6 

Review Team A Review Team B Review Team A Review Team B Review Te

8:00 a.m.8:30 a.m.9:00 a.m.9:30 a.m.10:00 a.m.10:30 a.m.11:00 a.m.11:30 a.m.12:00 p.m.12:30 p.m.1:00 p.m.1:30 p.m.2:00 p.m.2:30 p.m.3:00 p.m.3:30 p.m.4:00 p.m.4:30 p.m.5:00 p.m.Review Team A: Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett, Rick Bye, Lisa KostReview Team B: Tera Buckley, John Sager

Review Team Wrap-Up Meeting

Review Team Kick-Off Meeting

Special Interest 

Texas Sierra Club

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Government 

Texas Department of Transportation

Government 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

CCP Generators/Marketers 

American Electric Power, Boral Mateial 

Technolgies, Inc., Lower Colorado River 

Authority, Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group, 

Texas Coal Combustion Products Coalition

Review Team Lunch

Review of State Regulations, Standards, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal Combustion 

Texas State Review Agenda

Lloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle and Townsend, P.C.

111 Congress Ave., Suite 1800

Austin, Texas

Review 

Wednes

Users 

Alamo Concrete 

Products, Centex 

Materials, Lattimore 

Materials Company, 

Southern Star 

Concrete

American Co

Ash Utilization 

En

Monday, September 13, 2004
APPENDIX D 

1995 LETTER TO COAL ASH UTILIZATION 

GROUP FROM TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE 

CONSERVATION COMMISSION
D-1 
D-2 
D-3 
D-4 
D-5