# 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 2005ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Energy & Environmental Research Ce nter (EERC) would like to express its appreciation to the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) and Headwaters Resources for the opportunity to work on the Review of Texas Re gulations, Standards, a nd 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 th e authors’ travel to Texas.

The EERC would like to thank Mr. Richar d 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 al so like to express its appreciation to the many indivi duals who participated voluntarily in the information-gathering process of the review. In addition, the member s 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. Davi d Goss, ACAA; Mr. Jason Harrington, Federal Highway Administration; Mr. James Roewer, U tility Solid Waste Activities Group; Mr. Jerry Smith, Headwaters Resources; and Mr. Kimery Vo ries, Office of Surface Mining—are gratefully acknowledged for helping shape th e 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 Univ ersity of North Dakota, as an account of work sponsored by EPA and Headwaters Resources. B ecause of the research nature of the work performed, neither the EERC nor any of its empl oyees 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 di sclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specif ic 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 Specificati ons 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 Statewid e 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 a nd Infrastructure Issues ............................................................. 19 Barrier 6: Local and Abundant Asphalt Supply................................................................... 19

POTENTIAL THREATS THAT COULD IMPACT FUTURE CCP
UTILIZATION IN TEXAS .......................................................................................................... 2 0 Threat 1: New Pollution Control Requirements .................................................................. 20 Threat 2: Ability to Retain Instit utional Knowledge at TCEQ and TxDOT........................ 21
Threat 3: Class C vs. Class F Issues Related to ASR .......................................................... 21
Threat 4: EPA Could Reconsid er Its RCRA Determination................................................ 21

ROAD MAP TO INCREASED CC P UTILIZATION IN TEXAS.............................................. 21 Action 1: Adopt Performance-Ba sed Concrete Specifications............................................ 21 Action 2: Develop Profitable Market s 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 Successe s 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 FR OM 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 FI NAL AGENDA............................................................ Appendix C

1995 LETTER TO TEXAS COAL ASH UTILIZATION GROUP FROM
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSER VATION COMMISSION......................Appendix Diii LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

LIST OF TABLES

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

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

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transpor tation Officials
ACAA American Coal Ash Association ASR alkali silica reactivity ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTSWMO Association of State and Territo rial State Waste Management Officials

C 2 P 2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership CCP coal combustion products

CO 2 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 High way Administration
GLO General Land Office LCRA Lower Colorado River Authority LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design NAA National Asphalt Association

NO
x Nitrogen oxide NRM nonhazardous recyclable materials ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation
PRB Powder River Basin QA/QC quality assura nce/quality control RCRA Resource Conservation & Recovery Act RENEW Resource Exchange Netw ork for Eliminating Wastes RMDB Recycling Market Development Board
SB Senate Bill
STRONGER State Review of Oil and Natura l 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 Resource s Conservation Commission TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TWC Texas Water Code TxDOT Texas Department of Transportationv REVIEW OF TEXAS REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED
TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Texas was selected as the pilo t state for an in-depth review of its coal combustion product (CCP) programs, policies, and use practices b ecause of its progressive approach to CCP utilization and its support networ k to implement such activities. Th e review process, including state selection rationale, advisory board memb er selection, interviewee identification and confirmation, questionnaire development, a nd 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 wi th green building initiatives

6. Texas utilities generally pr oducing good-quality fly ash

7. Development of statewide online recycling resources

Although Texas has a 60%–70% CCP utilization ra te, the following barriers were identified during the review that currently prohibit increased CCP utilization in Texas:

1. Education and attitude among district a nd 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 desulfur ization (FGD) material and bottom ash
5. Transportation and infrastructure issues

6. Local and abundant asphalt supply

In addition to barriers, the fo llowing potential threats were identified during the review that
could hinder CCP utilization in the future:

1. New pollution control requirements

2. Ability to retain instituti onal knowledge at Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and TxDOT

3. Class C vs. Class F issues rela ted to alkali silica reactivity

4. EPA could reconsider its Resource Conser vation 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 fede ral 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 out side 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 st ate 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 CO AL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

BACKGROUND

About 46 million tons of coal combustion prod ucts (CCPs) are benefi cially used in the United States each year, but nearly 75 million tons are still being dispos ed 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, pol icies, 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 e nvironmental regulations or in Department of Transportation (DOT ) specifications. It is anticip ated that state reviews will provide the opportunity to identify the nonconcrete applications (i.e., c ontrolled low-strength materials, highway road base and subgrade, soil stabilization, and constr uction materials) that warrant consideration and, perhaps, development of regulations and standards and specifications
at the federal and state levels. In addition, fly ash utiliz ation in the United States is not keeping pace with coal consumption, and federal purchasi ng of fly ash concrete has decreased 50% since 1996. Although fly ash concrete is a common materi al 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, sta ndards, and use practices to provide information that can lead to the adjust ment of these barriers.

In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C 2 P 2 ) program to promote the beneficial use of CCPs and the associated environmental benefits. The participati on of EPA is a key element of this effort, as many of its efforts on the federal level filter dow n to state and local governments. Yet, despite EPA’s policy support, CCP use is often dependen t 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 eval uate 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 documenta tion 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 re lated to CCP utilizatio n. In order to focus the study on current practices, which are most readily transferable, the pilot review highlighted various CCP use practices, including highway cons truction and building practices, bu t did not consider the use of CCPs at mine sites, as originally intended by the proj ect’s administrative te am. 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 th e 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 coope ration between industry and state agencies. It was intended that this “model” state could provi de information to other states attempting to increase CCP use through examples of success ful interaction among all stakeholders. Project administrative team members agreed that the p ilot 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 pr oject 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 us es in individual states. Ideally, the potential pilot state would have an established CCP ne twork 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, polic ies, or guidance authorizing CCP utilization.

*Dates note when significan t policies were finalized.

Next, input was sought from various groups, including th e Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management (ASTSWMO ) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AAS HTO). 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 determin e 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 th e 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 th e states identified as potential model pilot
states. All states under considerat ion were coal-mining states. To further narrow the pilot state selection, the following crit eria 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 potentia l pilot state by members of the coal ash industry, allows only three use applications a nd has relatively new use au thorization. Because Colorado authorizes very few applicati ons, it was excluded from furt her consideration, but should be considered as a target state for the information transfer related to this study.5 Illinois

Illinois authorizes 11 ut ilization applications, and those auth orizations have been in place
since 1996. Illinois has a univers ity actively conducting coal ash -related research. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and the Illinois Clean Coal Institute regul arly fund research related to ash, but Illinois still appears to lack a readily availabl e and coordinated support network from the industry side. However, there is some indication that the Departments of Transportation and Environmental Prot ection may provide a support network.

Indiana

Indiana allows eight use applications, but th e public acceptance of CCP use is not very positive. Indiana’s Hoosier Environmental Counc il 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 e ffects on human health. Because the actions of
the Hoosier Environmental Council negatively affect public accepta nce of CCP use, Indiana is not considered a model pilot state.

North Dakota

North Dakota, considered primarily for EERC l ogistical 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 a nd support from the North Dakot a Industrial Commission have resulted in a large number of CCP utilization-re lated efforts in North Da kota, 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 re search program with contacts within Ohio, an extension agent focusing on CCP utilization, a nd 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 inform ation center and coordinates, spons ors, and presents at seminars and similar events; assesses the markets for CCP uses; and conducts many related activities” (CCPOhio, 2004). It has a histor y of working with industry, government, and the public to
remove CCP utilization barriers.

In addition to the positive asp ects noted, there are also politic al issues that have been brought to the forefront recently. These primar ily revolve around the Ohio Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) purch asing practices. More than 90% of ODOT’s paving work is asphalt, not concrete. The issues for this effort ar e twofold: 1) fly ash concrete in paving is a key6 use application, so ODOT may not be the best so urce of information on en couraging this use and 2) ODOT representatives may not be open to or available for inquiri es 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-H assett et al., 1999). As show n in Figure 1, Pennsylvania already authorized CCP use in 1994 or earlier. Pennsylvania authorizes ten use applications. Pennsylvania has support from ASTSWMO memb ers, but it does not have a documented industry support group. Public ac ceptance of CCP use in Pennsyl vania has been problematic recently in the mining application area. Fo r example, Pennsylvania recently experienced opposition from the public regarding coal ash use to mitigate acid mine drainage. Pennsylvania’s state environmental officials and mining compan ies 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 pot ential pilot states because it was recognized as having model activity in the development of CCP benefi cial use policies as early as the first EERC Barriers Report (Pflughoeft-Hassett et al., 1999). Te xas 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) an d Texas Coal Combustion Products Coalition, Texas has an existing support network that suppor ts coal ash utilization. TCAUG’s mission is “to work with and assist public and private agenci es, organizations, and associations to remove barriers to environmentally/techni cally sound utilization of coal combustion by-products.” This organization has worked to remove utilization ba rriers in Texas since it was established and has assembled information on coal ash for Texas regulatory agencies.

EERC State Selec tion Conclusions

The selection process was easily narrowed to Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylva nia, and Texas based on the assembled information. Illinois and Pennsyl vania 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 amendm ent, and structural fills. Recent developments in use practices in Ohio may significantly impact the future of CCP use in concrete, a major beneficial use appl ication, and may prohibit a smooth state review process. The project administrative team agreed that with the TCAUG, Texas offered the best support network to facilitat e the review process. Anecdotal info rmation indicates that CCP use in7 mine settings and soil amendment was recently instit uted 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, wa s formed to provide input to interviewee selection, assist in the development of a standa rd questionnaire, and re view findings. Advisory
board members and associated contact in formation are listed in Appendix A.

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team

A select group of individuals from the advi sory 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 co ntact information are listed in Appendix A.

Task 5: Create a Review Guide

Similar review processes including STRONGE R (State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations Inc.) and the Federa l Highway Administration’s Recycled Aggregate Review were evaluated. Using fr ameworks 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 we re needed for different review sessions
because various issues a pplied to the wide cross section of interviewees. To facilitate appropriate discussions, the following four di scussion 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 – utiliti es/producers of CCPs

• Special interest – envir onmental 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 keep ing with the scope of the review defined by the project’s advisory board members.

Task 6: Develop a Li st of Interviewees

With input from the advisory board, the admi nistrative team devel oped a list of potential interviewees for each of the discussion groups id entified in Task 5. Table 2 lists all potential companies/associations/organizations to be review ed. Key contacts were identified for each of these companies/associations/organizations, and a ll contacts were asked to participate in the8 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 Genera l 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, Surfac e 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 co nflicts. The final list of interv iewees 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, seve ral 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 Sept ember 13–15, 2004, to coincide with a C 2 P 2 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 Tran sportation (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 intervie wees 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 approximate ly 97% of the near-surface coal resources in Texas. The most significant bituminous resources ar e in the north-central and southern parts of
the state. Recoverable coal reserves in Texas ar e estimated to be 673 mill ion tons, about 3% of U.S. recoverable coal reserves (R ailroad 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 us ed. Texas is the largest consumer of coal in the United States consuming 105,3 76 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 co al ash. Currently, 60%–70% of coal ash produced in Texas is beneficially used, up from 15% in 1992. In some inst ances, Texas util ities are using 100% of the ash they produce and are reclaiming ma terial 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 utiliza tion 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 utiliza tion 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 th e barriers prohibiting utilization, such as deed r ecording in highway road cons truction projects. TCAUG was instrumental in getting state legislation passe d in 1991 (Senate Bill [SB] 1340) that encouraged recycling and required state and local government s to amend their specifications for road and bridge construction to include CCPs. In 1993, TC AUG was again influential in getting language added to SB 1051 which established the Recyc ling Market Development Board (RMDB) and charged this body with developi ng a study to identify economic and regulatory incentives and disincentives for recycling a nd identifying existing and potent ial markets for, among other materials, CCPs. As part of SB 1051, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) prepared two market studies entitled “Texas Recycles: Ma rketing 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 Commi ssion (TNRCC) (predecessor agency to TCEQ) as one of the major impediments to increased CCP utilizati on. As a result, the TNRCC, GLO, TCAUG, and TxDOT formed a task force to study the issu e. TCAUG hired EPRI to present technical information to the task force, and Texas univers ity professors provided case studies where CCPs were used successfully. The resu lt 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 accomplishe d if the materials were not considered a solid waste (see Appendix D). With this letter, r ecycling of CCPs in Texas began to increase substantially (Akers, 2004b).

Finally in 2001, TCEQ formed a working grou p to meet with TCAUG to draft an agency
rule that would convert the 1995 guidance letter in to an agency rule. Th is 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 TCAU G, TCEQ, TxDOT, and the GLO resulted in proactive regulations th at cleared the way for coal ash recy cling 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 industr y 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 larges t environmental agency in the world, second only to EPA. TCEQ 1) regulates the disposal of solid waste; 2) enforces prohibit ions against unaut horized discharges of contaminants to any water in the state; 3) enforces prohibition s 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 companie s. Those approved uses are still valid under current regulations.

In an effort to develop a si ngle beneficial use rule for so lid wastes, TCAUG and a similar association from the steel industry approached TCEQ to revise its soli d waste rules. It was decided that taking a statewide a pproach would be the most eff ective way to get a solid waste rule approved that applied to a number of industr ies. As a result of these efforts, the following proactive regulation was adopted by TCEQ.12 Amendment to 30 TAC Chapte r 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 Te xas 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 omitti ng utilized CCPs from the state’s definition of solid waste so long as the material conti nues to meet all of th e following criteria:

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

2. The recycling material is managed and protec ted 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 withouttreatment or reclamation. Or if the recycling material is not re placing a product, the recyclin g material is a legitimate ingredient in a production process and meet s 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 ener gy recovery, used to produce a fuel, or
contained in a fuel.

6. The recycling material is a legitimate ingr edient 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 a pplied 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 so lid 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 dange r 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. Th e majority of CCPs produced in Texas are categorized as Class II wastes.13 • Class III – Inert and essentia lly 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 se lf-classification system, meani ng utilities classify their own materials. Data generated by the utility to classi fy its materials are subject to TCEQ audit. The vast majority of CCPs produced in Texas are exempt from solid wa ste classification. As a result, CCPs are able to compete in the marketplace lik e 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 Chap ter 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 siti ng 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 regul ation of CCPs used as fill in surface or underground mi nes are still being evaluated.

The majority of state requirements regardi ng 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 fr equently 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 b een made regarding ash utilization. The Texas legislature adopted the following th ree provisions that dr astically impacted co al ash utilization in

Texas.

Texas Water Code 26.12 – Unauth orized Discharges Prohibited

Texas has a prohibition in its Texas Water C ode (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 th e 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 land filling or incineration of solid wastes. One of
the waste streams cited for minimization in this b ill is “fossil fuel combustion recycled material”14 (Section 15) or, herein, CCPs. Th e bill required that state, count y, and municipal entities amend their specifications by January 1, 1992, to allow CCP use in road and br idge construction if technically appropriate and econom ically justified (TCAUG, 1994).

SB 1051 – Establishment of the Recycling Market Development Board

Texas SB 1051 was passed in 1993 and establishe d the RMDB, which consists of heads of the TCEQ, Texas Building and Procurement Co mmission (TBPC), and TxDOT. The board was charged with coordinating the recy cling activities of all state agencies and pursuing an economic development strategy that focuses on the state’ s waste management prio rities and development of recycling industries and markets (RMDB, 2004). RMDB e fforts 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 roadwa y applications (Year of the Recycled Roadway Materials, 1999). However, a dramatic increase in fly ash utilization was observe d 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 help ed incorporate CCPs into more TxDOT projects. However, there was some concern from industry regarding TxDO T’s specification of a minimum of 20% fly ash and maximum of 35% fly ash use in concrete. So me 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 be cause each district has
its own issues that need to be addresse d on an individual, case-by-case basis.

DMS-4610 – Fly Ash

This product qualification specification wa s revised in August 2004 (formally DMS-8900) and establishes the requirements, test methods , and the Fly Ash Qual ity Monitoring Program (FAQMP) for Class C, Class F, and ultrafin e 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’ certif ications of fly ash quality; how ever, it does reserve the right to conduct random sampling of prequalified materi als 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 200 4 and covers the process for evaluating the
environmental factors associated with nonhazard ous recyclable materials (NRM) not addressed in other department specificati ons. Fly and bottom ash are considered NRMs because they have established histories of use by the TxDOT.

Product Application Specificat ions and Specia l Provisions

TxDOT adopted several product application sp ecifications in June 2004 allowing CCP use. Some of those applicatio ns 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 specifica tions and provisions for CCP use including the following:

• Special Specification 3157 – Cold Processe d – Recycled Paving Material for Use as Aggregate Base Course (1993)

• Special Provision to Item 421 Por tland 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 cons truction activity in Texas was low in the 1990s, but as the recession lifted, th e 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 constructi on 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 rega rd to green building. Aus tin is leading the green16 building movement in Texas with its Austin En ergy Green Building program. The city wanted to promote energy conservation, an d thus the green building moveme nt was born. Austin offers incentives such as rebates for energy conservati on in buildings and tec hnical support to those wanting to build green. In addition, the U.S. Green Building Council’ s LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) program is ga ining popularity in the state. Texas has 55 registered LEED projects and ranks ninth in the country for the num ber of LEED-accredited projects (Folliard, 2004). The LEED program encourages CCP recycling by offering points for products containing recycled materi als. It has become a benchmar k for sustainability, and 18 of LEED’s 69 possible assessment point s 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 Powd er 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-qua lity 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 pr ograms online recycling resources that promote the use of recycled materials, in cluding 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 incl udes a material overview, research summaries, case studies, a list of TxDOT speci fications currently allowing use of CCPs, material sources, and a summary of Tx DOT experience with the material (www.dot.state.tx.us/gsd/ recycle/mat.htm).

• TCEQ’s Resource Exchange Network for Eliminating Wastes (RENEW) – Thisnetwork assists industries and business to market their surplus materials and byproducts to other ar eas (www.renewtx.org).

• TCEQ’s Recycle Texas Online – This databa se 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 th e 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 ba rriers 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 educati on can be attributed to the fact that engineers coming out of college receive, on average, less than 18 hours of concrete training in thei r materials class. In those 18 hours, CCPs are briefly mentioned, and professors ofte n 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 typica lly occurs when users
are not educated about th e material. Negative feelings and l ack 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 subs equently confirmed the correct reason for the failure. These types of corrections are imperative to overcoming e ducation and attitude barriers.

During the review, TxDOT did note that it was interested in increasing education efforts among district offices because larg e 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 Fede ral Highway Administration (FHWA) influence local offices by setting specifications and offeri ng technical assistance as requested. TxDOT and
FHWA have conducted demonstrati on projects and made the results available to local offices. TxDOT and FHWA also perform outreach activiti es such as technical presentations and host
annual short courses for local offices. Educatio nal tools used by FHWA include its “Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers” manual and “Use r Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials
in Pavement Construction” located online at www.rmrc.unh.edu/Partners/UserGuide/begin.htm.

A contradictory statement regarding educati on was heard between ash marketers and readymix producers. The ash marketers stated that r eady-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 ar chitects, engineers, and contra ctors are where ash marketers and ready-mix producers are making the most pr ogress in overcoming attitude and education barriers. Ready-mix producers, in particular, f eel 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 have18 an ethical obligation to use fly as h concrete because it reduces CO 2 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 begi nning to blend lignite with western coals. Plants burning predominantly lignite coals ge nerally produce Class F ash, and those burning predominantly western coals produce Class C as h. Both generally produce high-quality ashes appropriate for use in concrete, but cons istency 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 produ cers indicated that fly ash storage is limited and the quality on a truck-by-truck basis is incons istent. 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 Cl ass F) may alleviate these issues. Marketers and ready-mix producers said they were pursui ng 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 othe r recycled materials. However, liability lies primarily with generators and user s 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 ot her state environmental agencies because it has a rule in place that allows it to take corrective ac tion if waters of the state are harmed (see Texas
Water Code § 26.121 page 13). This law moves the liab ility from TCEQ to the persons responsible for using the material.

In certain applications (i.e., remediation acti vities), 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 warra nted 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 ma ture; however, FGD material and bottom ash are not fully utilized. Bottom ash competes with th e 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 requi res 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 manuf acturing and other comme rcial products. It is estimated that 25% of CCPs produced in Texas ar e FGD materials. There is an effort under way
on the combustion side of utilities to make wa llboard-ready FGD gypsum (lower moisture and chloride contents). However, TCEQ’s eight-waste criteria rule prohibits any treatment of recycled materials. This stipulation could drama tically 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 pr ocess 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 th e deciding factor to use CCPs in a potential pr oject. Power plants are located in areas that are not heavily populated, so tran sportation is necessary to get CCPs to major markets. Some utilities also ha ve 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 th e 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 la rge-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 road s 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 lo wer initial cost, it has a longer life cycle cost because asphalt has to be replaced more often th an concrete. Regardless of cost, Texas has an abundant and local supply of asphalt, and its big oil industry pr omotes 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 indu stry, but several poten tial threats were identified during the review that could hinder the future of CCP utilization in Texas. Based on review discussions, the authors be lieve the following threats are li sted in order of importance.

Threat 1: New Pollution Control Requirements

The U.S. electric utility industry has been a ddressing 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 plan ts 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 plan t. 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 th e specific system. More recently, many coalfired power plants have had to reduce nitrogen oxide (NO

x ) emissions, and a variety of NO

x control technologies have been implemented across the United States. It was noted that several Texas power plants that previ ously 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 increa sed levels of unburned carbon inhibits the production of c oncrete 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 NO

x reduction strategies have been implemented, but plants burning Texas lignite ha ve had varied results. Already, the reduced supply of quality fly ash has been noted as a threat to inclusi on 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 demonstr ation phases, the utility industry indicated some
concerns about how the installation of thes e new technologies will impact the Texas CCP markets, especially the fly ash market for concrete. Typical demons tration-scale mercury emission controls incorporate th e addition of an activated car bon 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 gr eater impact to the quality of the fly ash as it relates to concrete
use with similar technical issues as noted abov e. 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 c ontinue to meet the TCEQ ’s exemption criteria and the ultimate fate and transport of entrai ned contaminants will need to be addressed.21 Threat 2: Ability to Retain Institut ional Knowledge at TCEQ and TxDOT

It may be difficult for TCEQ and TxDOT to reta in 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 diffe rently by new staff who are not as educated on CCP issues as the current staff. Unless a specif ic 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 at tack 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 Mate rials (ASTM) C618 requirements for sulfate resistance. A 1997 study also indicate d that the use of Class C fly as h, rather than contributing to ASR, actually reduces ASR to acceptable levels when using high-alkali cements (Styron, 1997).

Threat 4: EPA Could Recons ider Its RCRA Determination

Additional pressure from special interest groups and studies ev aluating 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 st ated, “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 he alth, 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 durin g 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, st ate, 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 n eed to develop performance-based concrete specifications, rather than having material-based sp ecifications that do not consider performance.

Initiatives on the federal, state, and local le vel will be required to adopt performance-based concrete specifications. Federa l entities such as AASHTO and AS TM, as well as private and22 government entities, must first demonstrate the long-term substantiality of concrete developed according to performance specifications. Follow ing 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 Te xas, but FGD material and bottom ash are
underutilized. Ash marketers find it difficult to find profitable markets for these materials considering the transportation cost s involved with getting the materi al 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 ad dition, FGD material has nu merous handling issues that can be costly. Wet FGD has a moisture content from 30% to 60%, thus requiring the transportation of water along with so lid 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 fac ilities (i.e., bricks, aggregate, wallboard) that use CCPs as a primary raw material to locate ma nufacturing facilities in close proximity to the power plant. This pr actice is conducted in Te xas on a limited basis. During the reviews, it was suggested that C 2 P 2 could help iden tify markets where bottom ash and
FGD material could be used as ra w materials to ma nufacture products.

Action 3: Exempt Benefici al 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’ unde r federal TRI?” It was suggest ed that TRI should exempt beneficially reused material and only require reporti ng of material that is se nt 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 larg e utility with support from industry groups such as ACAA. Some industry re presentatives interviewed believ e this change is necessary because some definitions of release contradict the goals of C 2 P 2 . 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 combus tion and utilization byproducts, coal combustion wastes, or just simply coal ash. Th e industry debates that since
utilities are not in busin ess to produce coal ash (a product), th en coal ash must be considered a by-product. Others proclaim that if a material is used or recy cled, then it must be a product. Conversely, others believe that the material sh ould be termed a waste, no matter whether it is disposed of or beneficially utilized. Neverthe less, 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 pl astic, aluminum, and paper by defining any reused CCP as a product. However, there ar e situations in Texas where the material, whether it is reused23 or disposed of, is still perceived of as a wast e. 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 recognit ion to those who build green. It was suggested that the coal ash industry shoul d develop a similar program led by FHWA which defines what is means to build green roads and offer recogn ition 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 perf ormance 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 conten t standpoint. The ready-mix producer s 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 co nference 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 voi ce 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) in clude the following:

• The City of San Antonio’s new multipurpos e 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 (L CRA’s) new headquarters as built in 1992
and included 20% direct re placement 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 Ri ver 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 Antoni o International Airport. An additional 600 tons of fly ash was used to backfill th e open trench around the drainage culvert.

• Direct replacement of portla nd cement with fly ash in concrete was used to construct several roadways in Texas, including Stat e Highway 71 and Dallas Central Expressway.24 • The 10,475-foot-long cable-stayed bridge over the Houst on Ship Channel will be constructed using 8000 tons of fl y 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 yd 3 of CCP pellets to stabilize reef substrate and enable attachment of oyster spat by Reliant Energy, the Port of Houston Authority, and the National Ma rine Fisheries Service

Promoting successes should go beyond successful u tilization projects. Th e overall benefits associated with CCP use should also be promot ed, including decrease in the demand for landfill space, conservation of natural resources, redu ced carbon dioxide emissions, economic savings for end users, reduced overall cost of genera ting electricity, and produc tion 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 messa ge yet. The green building movement in Texas has helped to promote successes outside of the immediate coal as h 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

C 2 P 2 program plans to highlight successful case st udies online and reward the industry for its achievements in promoting, using, and researching CCPs. The C 2 P 2 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 pe rformance-based concrete admixt ure. There may be acceptance issues, particularly by TxDOT, w ith regard to using a hybrid ble nded 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 Incent ives for Using Recycled Materials

The environmental benefits of utilizing CCP s 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 replacem ent for portland cement because by using fly ash,25 the user is preventing CO 2 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 a nd should provide such ec onomic incentives on their own. Montana already provides such tax incentives. If California can restrict CO 2 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 FR OM 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 translat ed to other states. Preliminary recommendations can be made, understa nding that the following caveats hold true in Texas and may not be true in other states:

• Texas experienced a building boom in the 199 0s, 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 tur n, 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 regulati ons in place that require remediation of activities, including CCP utilizat ion, where damage to waters of the state has occurred.

• A relatively large number of coal-fired pow er 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 provide s a forum for industry to work together to educate government agencies, potential us ers, and other CCP stakeholders. The CCP industry group can seek and coordinate wi th other state industry groups working on recycled material issues.

• The CCP industry group can develop a compre hensive guide to beneficial uses for CCPs within the state and use the guide to educate both the environmental and transportation departments to initiate the de velopment of environm ental regulations and transportation specifications that pr omote the beneficial use of CCPs.

• The CCP industry can support demonstration proj ects 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 lead ership 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 utili zation without the impetus of an industry-sponsored effort to bring the opportunity of CCP utilization to th e attention of the agency. DOTs may be more assertive in evaluating applica tions that incorporate CCPs becau se of the potential for improved performance and cost savings, but industry particip ation 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 re commendations to environmental and transportation officials in stat es where CCPs are underutilized:

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

• Evaluate the types of CCP applicat ions allowed by TxDOT and the TxDOT specifications for CCPs.

• Refer to the Fly Ash Facts for Highway E ngineers 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 supplementa l 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 abilit y to enforce the state water code paved the way for increased CCP utilization by putting CCP s on the same level as other recyclable
materials.

• TCEQ’s TWC 26.121 allows it to be more fl exible on exempting coal ash from the definition of solid waste by serving as a safe ty 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 sa id the most beneficial action C 2 P 2 could take is to find more beneficial use applications for FGD material and bottom ash. This group also felt strongly that TRI reporting requirements ar e overly burdensome and inappropriate in many instances.

REFERENCES

Akers, P. Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) General Information, Pictures, Recycling Applications, Presented at the EPA List ening Meeting, April 13, 2004a, Dallas, TX.

Akers, P. Review of State Regulations, Standard s, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal Combustion Products, TCAUG Re sponses, 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 Stat e University. http://cc pohio.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 C 2 P 2 Workshop, Sept 16, 2004, Austin,

TX.

National Asphalt Association. Aphalt I ndustry Update and Overview. Jan 2002, www.hotmix.org/view_article.php?ID=10 (accessed Oct 2004).

Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.P.; Sondreal, E.A.; Steadma n, E.N.; Eylands, K.E. Dockter, B.A. Barriers
to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combus tion/Desulfurization By-Products by Government and Commercial Sectors – Upda te 1998; Topical report for U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Center Coopera tive 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/Texas EnergyOverview.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 Cl ass C Fly Ash & Alkali Silica Reaction,
Presented at the American Concrete Institu te 1997 Fall Convention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group. Responses to General Land Office Questions Regarding Coal Combustion By-Product Utilization. Texa s Coal Ash Utilization Group, June 1994.

U.S. Census Statistical Abstract. Sta tistical Abstract of the United States. www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abst ract-02.html (accessed Sept 2004).

Year of the Recycled Roadway Material s, 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
MEMBERSA-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.govA-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 GUIDEB-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 th e 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 documen tation 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 high light various CCP use pr actices 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 inde pendently 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 ques tions posed by the review team. The discussion groups include the following:

• Government agencies – directors and other key pers onnel of state or region al transportation and environmental agencies

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

• CCP generators – utilit ies/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 si tuation, 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 allott ed 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 succe ssful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they
successful?

4. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problems encountered and any instances wh ere 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 envir onmental requirements. Describe any corrective actions, monitoring, and follow-up em ployed to address the issue.

6. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in
Texas? How could this ob stacle be addressed?

7. How would changes to the chemical or physical composition of CCPs impact your agency’s role in the generation, use, or dis posal 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, regulat ions, orders, or statutes? If applicable, provide references for and dates of the specific guidelines, guidance documents, material specifications, regulations, orders, or stat utes 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 informati on 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) te sting 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, laborator y work, or policy initiatives w ould 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 incr ease the mercury content of CCPs.

4. Are there any environmental polic ies, permits, regulations, or st atutes that impact the way you process and handle CCPs?

5. Are you or your CCP users (marketers/contract ors) provided the flexibility to make the
decision to utilize CCPs when the material m eets standard specification requirements or does the state require additional approvals and testing?

6. Please list and explain any succe ssful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they
successful?

7. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problems encountered and any instances wh ere the use of CCPs was precluded in a project. Describe any correc tive actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address
the issue.

8. Provide details of any ongoi ng or completed research a nd demonstration projects regarding CCPs.

9. In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle hindering the increased use of CCPs in
Texas? How could this ob stacle be addressed?

10. What barriers has your company overcome to increase the use of CCPs? How?

11. What further research, laborator y work, or policy initiatives w ould 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 bu ilding 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 statut es that impact the way you pr ocess and handle CCPs? What specifications or guidelines do you feel prom ote or restrict CCP utilization? What changes would you like to see made to th e current specifications and guidelines?

3. Please list and explain any succe ssful projects/applications using CCPs. Why were they
successful?

4. Please list and explain any pr oblematic projects/applicatio ns using CCPs. Explain the problem encountered and any instances wher e the use of CCPs was precluded in a project. Describe any correc tive actions, monitoring, and follow-up employed to address
the issue.

5. How would you describe the competition betw een 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 nonsp ec 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 incr ease 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 ob stacle 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, laborat ory work, or policy initiati ves 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 th e 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 CCP s. What specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? Wh at 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 generati on, 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 de monstration 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 ob stacle be addressed?

6. What further research, laborat ory work, or policy initiati ves 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 th e 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 CCP s. What specifications or guidelines do you feel promote or restrict CCP utilization? Wh at 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 generati on, 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 dem onstration 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 ob stacle be addressed?

6. What further research, laborat ory work, or policy initiati ves 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 AGENDAC-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.comC-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.orgC-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.usC-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 Hazar dous 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.usC-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-6Review TeamAReview Team B Review TeamAReview Team B Review TeamAReview Team B8:00 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 SagerReview Team Wrap-Up MeetingReview Team Kick-Off MeetingSpecial InterestTexas Sierra ClubTuesday, September 14, 2004GovernmentTexas Department of TransportationGovernmentTexas Commission on Environmental QualityCCP Generators/MarketersAmerican Electric Power, Boral MateialTechnolgies, Inc., Lower Colorado RiverAuthority, Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group,Texas Coal Combustion Products CoalitionReview Team LunchReview of State Regulations, Standards, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal Combustion ProductsTexas State Review AgendaLloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle and Townsend, P.C.111 Congress Ave., Suite 1800Austin, TexasReview Team Re-Cap MeetingWednesday, September 15, 2004UsersAlamo ConcreteProducts, CentexMaterials, LattimoreMaterials Company,Southern StarConcreteOpen MeetingAmerican Coal Ash Assocation, Texas CoalAsh Utilization Group, Texas Commission onEnvrionmental QualityMonday, September 13, 2004

# APPENDIX D

1995 LETTER TO COAL ASH UTILIZATION
GROUP FROM TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE
CONSERVATION COMMISSIOND-1D-2D-3D-4D-5