# NATIONAL SYNTHESIS REPORT ON REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES

RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION

PRODUCTS

Final Report

Prepared for:

William Aljoe

U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory

626 Cochrans Mill Road

PO Box 10940 MS 922-273C Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940

Cooperative Agreement No. DE-AP26-06NT04745

John Sager

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest (MC 5306W) Washington, DC 20460

Contract No. X1-83316201-0

Prepared by:

Tera D. Buckley Debra F. Pflughoeft-Hassett

Energy & Environmental Research Center University of North Dakota 15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018

Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018

2007-EERC-12-11 December 2007DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United

States Government. Neither the United States G overnment, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not n ecessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States G overnment or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

This report is available to th e public from the National Techni cal Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springf ield, VA 22161; phone orders accepted at (703) 487-4650.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This report was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Coop erative Agreement No. DE-AP26-06NT04745 However, any opinions, findings, co nclusions, or recommendations e xpressed herein are those of the authors(s) and do not necessar ily reflect the views of DOE.

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 DOE. Because of the research natu re of the work performed, neither the EERC nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or othe rwise does not necessarily consti tute 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

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT....................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... ....... 2 U.S. Coal Production and Consumption ............................................................................... 2 Description of Coal-Based Power Plants .............................................................................. 2 Conventional Combustion Systems............................................................................. 5

Fluidized-Bed Combustion.......................................................................................... 6

Gasification................................................................................................................. . 7 CCP Terminology, Properties, Producti on, and Use in the United States ............................ 8 Fly Ash ...................................................................................................................... .. 9

Bottom Ash.................................................................................................................. 9

FGD Material............................................................................................................. 10 Boiler Slag ................................................................................................................. 1 1

FBC Material ............................................................................................................. 11 Gasification By-Products........................................................................................... 11 Regulatory Status of CCP Use in the United States............................................................ 12

STATE REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 12

Task 1: Establish an Administrative Team ......................................................................... 13

Task 2: Select a State ........................................................................................................ .. 13 Task 3: Form an Advisory Board........................................................................................ 14

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team ...................................................................................... 14 Task 5: Select Interviewees and Develop the Review Guide.............................................. 14 Task 6: Prepare Final Report and Disseminate Information ............................................... 15

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 15 Industry Group Involvement in Devel oping Beneficial Use Regulations........................... 15 Regulatory Development and Status in Texas........................................................... 16 Regulatory Development a nd Status in Florida......................................................... 18 Regulatory Development and Status in Pennsylvania............................................... 19 Effectiveness of Industry-Led Group Invol vement in Developing Beneficial Use Regulations......................................................................................................... 20

Continued...ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

State Department of Trans portation (DOT) Specifications................................................. 21

DOT Status in Texas.................................................................................................. 21

DOT Status in Florida................................................................................................ 22 DOT Status in Pennsylvania...................................................................................... 24 Air Emission Regulations Impact on CCP Use................................................................... 26 Impacts of SO 2 Control.............................................................................................. 26 Impacts of NO

x Control............................................................................................. 27 Impacts of Mercury Control ...................................................................................... 27 Impact of the NAS Study .................................................................................................... 29 Communication, Education, a nd Perception Barriers ......................................................... 32 Communication During De monstration Projects ...................................................... 32 Waste vs. Product Perception .................................................................................... 33 Plant Operator Education........................................................................................... 33 Advocacy Groups ...................................................................................................... 34 Awareness of Federal CCP Programs ....................................................................... 34 Education of Specifiers/Engineers............................................................................. 34 Encouragement and Incen tives to Utilize CCPs ................................................................. 35

States Need Beneficial Use Policies for CCPs .......................................................... 35 State-Led Recycling Initiatives ................................................................................. 35 LEED and Other Green Building Progr ams Encourage the Use of CCPs ................ 37

CO 2 Credits................................................................................................................ 38 TRI Reporting............................................................................................................ 38

Economics ..................................................................................................................... ...... 38

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... ....... 39 Recommendations to Industry............................................................................................. 39

Recommendations to State Agencies .................................................................................. 40 Recommendations to Federal Agencies .............................................................................. 40

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... ........ 41

LIST OF ALL PARTICIPANTS...................................................................................Appendix Aiii LIST OF FIGURES

1 Energy production by fuel .................................................................................................... .. 5

2 Typical pc combustion system................................................................................................ 6

3 ACAA production and use annual survey data comparison ................................................... 8

LIST OF TABLES

1 Coal Production and Number of Mines by State .................................................................... 3iv NOMENCLATURE

AC activated carbon

ACAA American Coal Ash Association ACI activated carbon injection AFBC atmospheric fluidized-bed combustors ASR alkali silica reactivity

ASTM ASTM International

C 2 P 2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule

CaSO 3 calcium sulfite

CaSO 4 calcium sulfate CCB coal combustion by-products CCP coal combustion products

CH 4 methane CFB circulating fluidized bed

CO carbon monoxide DOE Department of Energy DOT Department of Transportation EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPGA Electric Power Generation Association ESP electrostatic precipitators

FBC fluidized-bed combustion FCG Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FGD flue gas desulfurization FLDOT Florida Department of Transportation

GLO General Land Office

H 2 hydrogen gas

HB House Bill IGCC integrated gasification combined-cycle LOI loss-on-ignition NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NO

x nitrogen oxide NRM nonhazardous recyclable materials OSM Office of Surface Mining PADOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PC pulverized coal RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RMDB Recycling Market Development Board

SB Senate Bill SCR selective catalytic reduction SNCR selective noncatalytic reduction

SO 2 sulfur dioxide

TAC Texas Administrative Code TCAUG Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group

TNRCC Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission TXDOT Texas Department of Transportationv NATIONAL SYNTHESIS REPORT ON REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND

PRACTICES RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To better understand the status and development of di fferent coal combustion product (CCP) utilization profiles across the United Stat es, the University of North Dakota Energy &

Environmental Research Center conducted a series of state reviews. For each state, an in-depth review of CCP management was performed in an effort to showcase keys to successful utilization, describe existing barr iers, recommend actions that can be taken to overcome those barriers, and identify threats that could impact future CCP utilization. Each effort included a review of state regulations, sta ndards, and practices related to the use of CCPs. Individual state reviews were conducted in Texas, Florida, and Penns ylvania. The final reports from the series of

state reviews can be accessed online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/review.html.

Each state review followed the same met hodology which was very effective for conducting a multiday site visit in a central location within the state review ed. Panels of key stakeholders were assembled and interviewed during the course of each site visit. Information provided during the interviews was compiled and summarized in indi vidual state reports. This synthesis report is a completion of the series of indivi dual state reviews and was prepared to translate the results from the three in-depth state reviews into a national perspective. The preparation of this synthesis report was funded by the U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Labor atory. Additional individual reviews may take place in other states.

Each state had a different re gulatory framework, political clim ate, infrastructure, economy, coal source, and geographic location. These charac teristics contributed to differences in CCP production and use among the states reviewed. De spite these unique characteristics, several

commonalities were identified and used to transl ate individual state review observations to a national perspective. The following is a brief summary of observations:

• Organized industry-led groups can be effec tive in working with government agencies and state legislators because each one represents a unified voice on be half of its members and allows industry to pool its collective knowledge base and monetary resources to address key issues.

• State Department’s of Transportation (DOTs) often look to the Amer ican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and ASTM International for guidance on developing their own specifica tions. State DOT specifications typically set the bar for

other CCP users in the state because the ro ad-building industry generally views state DOT specifications as cautious and stringent, thus lesseni ng the potential for failure and subsequent liability. Contractors are also familiar with DOT specifications, enhancing their acceptance and use in th e construction industry. For thes e reasons, it is imperative that DOT specifications are noted because they set the tone for how CCPs are used

across the state in road build ing and other applications.vi • To comply with new federal and state air em ission regulations, it is anticipated that the nation’s coal-based power plants will empl oy a variety of technologies. Significant changes in the chemical composition, physic al properties, and morphology of CCPs may occur as a result of the application of new emission control technologies. Universal concerns brought forth during the state reviews, either directly or indirectly, related to the impact these air emission regulations will have on CCP management are described.

• The National Academy of Sciences report entitled Managing Coal Combustion

Residues in Mines ∗ concluded that using CCPs for mine reclamation is a viable option, as long as precautions are ta ken to protect the environm ent and public health. Mine placement was not discussed at the Texas an d Florida reviews, but those interviewed during the Pennsylvania state review generally agreed with this conclusion; however, they felt that the report was “middle of the road” and was a missed opportunity to showcase the benefits of using CCPs in mines.

• Several communication and perception barriers were discussed during the state reviews. These types of nontechnical barriers were found among the general public, end users, and within government agencies a nd electric generating companies.

• Different methods that could be taken to in crease CCP utilization were discussed at the

individual state reviews and included the need for state beneficial use policies, importance of state-led industry by-product recycling initiatives, promotion and acceptance of green building programs, CO 2 credits, and the exemption of Toxic Release Inventory reporti ng for beneficial use.

• Economics are a key factor in th e beneficial use of CCPs. In most cases of beneficial use observed during the state review process, economics we re the primary reason why CCPs were selected over virgin material s. Engineering performance was also considered, but the environmental benefits for using the material were rarely considered

a reason to use CCPs.

∗ National Academy of Sciences. Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines ; The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2006.1 NATIONAL SYNTHESIS REPORT ON REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND

PRACTICES RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

Over 49 million tons of coal combustion prod ucts (CCPs) are beneficially used in the United States each year, but over 73 million tons, or 59%, are still being disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments. 1 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set goals to incr ease CCP utilization to 50% by 2011. As 2011 draws near, this goal appears to be mo re difficult to attain, particularly as new air emission regulations are implemented, resulting in la rger quantities and ch anging qualities of CCPs produced. Given these challenges, both agencies are committed to reaching their utilization goals and are conducting research studies and working together to create and support programs that encourage CCP use. Such programs include the Co al Combustion Products Partnership (C 2 P 2 ), Recycled Materials Research Center, Green Highways Pa rtnership, Combustion Byproducts Recycling Consortium and U.S. Green Building Council Lead ership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ® ) program. Other programs such as the newl y formed Industrial Resources Council join industry associations together (CCPs, foundry sand, slags, pulp and paper products, construction and demolition debris, and rubber) to achieve similar goals.

Many of the technical barriers associated wi th CCP utilization have been addressed, but social and knowledge barriers still exist. One of the key nontechnical barriers is the broad range of state laws, regulations, policies, an d guidelines regardi ng the use of CCPs. 2–4 Some states have worked to develop progressive and effective guidance for CCP utilization that encourages CCP utilization while being protective of the envir onment. However, some states still lack the

resources and information to feel comfortable w ith the environmental ap propriateness of using CCPs in certain applications, particularly noncon crete applications. In addition, changing state laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines can be a lengthy process, taki ng a number of years to come to fruition, which often frus trates CCP industry stakeholders.

To better understand the status and developm ent of different CCP utilization profiles across the United States, the University of North Da kota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) conducted a series of state reviews. For each state, an in-d epth review of CCP management was performed in an effort to showcase keys to successful utilization, describe existing barriers, recommend actions that can be taken to overcome those barriers, and identify threats that could impact future CCP utilizati on. Each effort included a review of state regulations, standards, and practices related to the use of CCPs. For the first pilot state, the effort

was achieved with funds from EPA and Headwate rs Resources, LLC. Texas was selected as the pilot state because of its progressive approa ch to CCP utilizati on. Additional funding was awarded by EPA and DOE National Energy Technol ogy Laboratory (NETL) to conduct a second

state review. Florida was selected as the seco nd state to review, primarily because it was undergoing changes to its CCP re gulations. The EERC subsequently received funding from EPA, DOE NETL, and the American Coal Ash Associat ion (ACAA) to perform a review in a third

state that exhibited a different CCP use scenar io and geographic area than the previous two2 states. Pennsylvania was ultimately chosen as the third state. The final reports from the series of

state reviews can be accessed online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/review.html.

Following the completion of the series of indivi dual state reviews, this synthesis report was prepared to translate the results from the three in-depth state reviews into a national perspective on the status of CCP regulations, standards, and pr actices. The preparation of this synthesis report is funded by EPA and DOE NETL. A dditional individual reviews may take place in other states.

BACKGROUND

U.S. Coal Production and Consumption

According to preliminary data from the En ergy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. coal production reached a record leve l of 1161 million short tons in 2006. 5 Total U.S. coal production and number of mines by states are shown in Table 1. The table shows that in 2005, the United States produced 571,177 thousand shor t tons of bituminous, 474,675 thousand short tons of subbituminous, 83,942 thousand short tons of lignite, and 1704 thousand short tons of

anthracite coal. 6 Although U.S. coal production rose in 2006, not all of the coal-producing regions shared in the increase. Exclusive of refuse production, th e interior and western regions had an increase in their produc tion levels in 2006 of 1.5 percen t and 5.9 percent, respectively, while Appalachian coal production declined by 1.7%. 5 Similar trends in coal production are expected to continue. The A nnual Energy Outlook 2007 predicts that in 2030, almost 68% of domestic coal production will originate from states west of the Mississippi

⎯ particularly in states close to the Powder River Basin supply region. 7

In 2006, the U.S. electric power sector (defined by EIA as electric utilities and independent power producers) consumed 1026 million short tons of coal, 8 and coal consumption is expected

to increase to more than 1772 million short tons in 2030, with significant additions of new coalbased generation capacity. 7 Recent EIA service reports have shown that steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of an economy-wide emissions tax or cap-and-trade system could have a significant impact on coal use. 7 As illustrated in Figur e 1, coal is predicted to remain the leading energy source in the United States. Additions to coal-based generating capacity in the Annual Energy Outlook 2007 reference case are projected to total 156 gigawatts from 2005 to 2030, including 11 gigawatts at co al-to-liquids plants and 67 gigawatts at integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) plants. 7 The National Coal Council stated that of the 135 new proposed coal-based power plants, more than 110 are pulverized coal or circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) technology and 19 are IGCC. 9

Description of Coal-Based Power Plants

There are three primary types of coal-bas ed power plants employed by U.S. electric generating companies today: 1) conventional combustion, 2) fluidized-bed combustion, and 3) gasification. Below is a description of each of the technologies and the resulting by-products.3Table 1. Coal Production and Number of Mines by State6, a,bCoal-Producing Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Anthracite TotalState and RegioncNumberof Mines ProductionNumber ofMines ProductionNumberof Mines ProductionNumberof Mines ProductionNumberof Mines ProductionAlabama 53 21,339 - - - - - - 53 21,339Alaska - - 1 1454 - - - - 1 1454Arizona 2 12,072 - - - - - - 2 12,072Arkansas 1 3 - - - - - - 1 3Colorado 10 30,006 3 8504 - - - - 13 38,510Illinois 20 32,014 - - - - - - 20 32,014Indiana 29 34,457 - - - - - - 29 34,457Kansas 1 171 - - - - - - 1 171Kentucky Total 432 119,734 - - - - - - 432 119,734Eastern 404 93,322 - - - - - - 404 93,322Western 28 26,412 - - - - - - 28 26,412Louisiana - - - - 2 4161 - - 2 4161Maryland 16 5183 - - - - - - 16 5183Mississippi - - - - 1 3555 - - 1 3555Missouri 2 598 - - - - - - 2 598Montana - - 5 40,024 1 330 - - 6 40,354New Mexicod2 13,409 2 15,110 - - - - 4 28,519North Dakota - - - - 4 29,956 - - 4 29,956Ohio 54 24,718 - - - - - - 54 24,718Oklahoma 9 1856 - - - - - - 9 1856Pennsylvania Total 198 65,849 - - - - 68 1645 266 67,494Anthracite - - - - - - 68 1645 68 1645Bituminous 198 65,849 - - - - - - 198 65,849Tennessee 28 3217 - - - - - - 28 3217Texas - - - - 13 45,939 - - 13 45,939aTotals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. continued...b Energy Information Administration Form EIA-7A, "Coal Production Report," and U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, Form 7000-2, "Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report."cFor a definition of coal-producing regions, see Glossary.dOne mine in New Mexico periodically produces both bituminous and subbituminous coal. When this occurs, it is double-counted asasubbituminous and bituminous mine but is not double-counted in the total.4Table 1. Coal Production and Number of Mines by State6, a,b(continued)Coal-Producing Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Anthracite TotalState and RegioncNumberof MinesProductionNumber ofMinesProductionNumberof MinesProductionNumberof MinesProductionNumberof MinesProductionUtah 13 24,521 - - - - - - 13 24,521Virginia 132 27,743 - - - - - - 132 27,743Washington - - 1 5266 - - - - 1 5266West Virginia Total 277 153,650 - - - - - - 277 153,650Northern 50 42,628 - - - - - - 50 42,628Southern 227 111,022 - - - - - - 227 111,022Wyoming - - 18 404,319 - - - - 18 404,319Appalachian Total 1162 395,022 - - - - 68 1645 1230 396,666Northern 318 138,379 - - - - 68 1645 386 140,023Central 790 235,297 - - - - - - 790 235,297Southern 54 21,347 - - - - - - 54 21,347Interior Total 90 95,510 - - 16 53,655 - - 106 149,165Illinois Basin 77 92,883 - - - - - - 77 92,883Western Total 27 80,008 30 474,675 5 30,287 - - 62 584,970Powder RiverBasin- - 16 429,996 - - - - 16 429,996Uinta Region 21 53,641 3 8504 - - - - 24 62,145East of Miss.River1239 487,905 - - 1 3555 68 1645 1308 493,105West of Miss.River40 82,635 30 474,675 20 80,386 - - 90 637,697U.S. Subtotal 1279 570,540 30 474,675 21 83,942 68 1645 1398 1,130,802Refuse Recovery 14 637 - - - - 3 59 17 696U.S. Total 1293 571,177 30 474,675 21 83,942 71 1704 1415 1,131,498aTotals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.b Energy Information Administration Form EIA-7A, "Coal Production Report," and U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and HealthAdministration, Form 7000-2, "Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report."cFor a definition of coal-producing regions, see Glossary.dOne mine in New Mexico periodically produces both bituminous and subbituminous coal. When this occurs, it is double-counted asasubbituminous and bituminous mine but is not double-counted in the total.5 Figure 1. Energy production by fuel, 1980–2030. 7

Conventional Combustion Systems

The most common utility combustion systems in place in the United States today are pulverized coal (pc) combustion, cyclone firi ng, and stoker firing, w ith pc-fired units outnumbering the cyclone and stoker units. 3 Figure 2 shows a simple schematic diagram for a typical pc combustion system. In this type of syst em, the coal is prepared by grinding to a very fine consistency for combustion. Typically, 70% of the coal is ground to pass through a 200-mesh per unit screen. There are several conf igurations for commonly used pc furnaces, which can impact ash formation, but the primary a dvantage of pc combustion is the very fine nature of the fly ash produced. In general, pc combustion results in approximately 65%–85% fly ash, and the remainder in coarser bottom ash (d ry-bottom boiler) or bo iler slag (wet-bottom boiler). Cyclone combustion uses coarsely pulverized coal (95%

− 1⁄4 in.) and produces much higher percentages of bottom ash (up to 75%–90 %, depending on coal type) and smaller amounts of fly ash. Stoker-fired units do not require the same level of coal grinding (e.g.,

− 3⁄4 in.) because the coal generally stays in the hot zone for an extended period of time, allowing complete combustion of larger coal particles. 3

Electric generating companies use a variety of technologies to control air emissions, namely, particulate matter, SO 2 , and NO

x . Technologies to control me rcury and other air toxic

elements as well as CO 2 emissions are also being investig ated. Emission control technologies impact the quantity and quality of the CCPs produced. In addition, the use of multiple air emission technologies can impact the effect on emissions and by-products.

Particulate collectors are inst alled on 79% of all fossil-fuel ed steam-electric generators

over 10 MW. 10 Particulate collectors are typically either electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or6 Figure 2. Typical pc combustion system.

baghouses/fabric filters, whose primary function is to collect fly ash, resulting in larger quantities of fly ash collected.

U.S. electric generating companies generally employ one of two strategies to control SO 2 in the flue gas stream: 1) use of compliance fu el (achieved by burning a low sulfur coal, coal blending or washing) or 2) inst all flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. FGD systems can be

classified as either wet or dry, and both produce a by-product ge nerically referred to as FGD material. As of 2005, 16% of fossil-fueled st eam-electric generators over 10 MW had FGD systems installed. 10 In the United States, approximatel y 85% of FGD systems on coal-based power plants are wet, 12% are spray dryer abso rber (SDA) systems, and 3% are dry injection

systems. 11

Control of NO

x emissions is complicated since thes e emissions are related both to the nitrogen content of the fuel a nd to the formation of various NO

x species during the combustion process. NO

x controls include combustion modifications such as use of overfire air or low-NO

x burners. Selective noncatal ytic reduction (SNCR) and selec tive catalytic reduction (SCR) are used as postcombustion NO

x control. 3 As a result of the installa tion of these technologies, NO

x emissions decreased 51% from 1994 to 2005 at conventional and combined-heat-and-power plants. 10 However, these technologies have had a negative impact on the quality of fly ash produced, resulting in fly ashes with hi gher concentrations of unburned carbon.

Fluidized-Bed Combustion

Fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) systems use a heated bed of sandlike material suspended (fluidized) within a rising column of air to burn many types and cl asses of fuel. The result is a turbulent mixing of gas and solids, which provides effective chemical reactio ns and heat transfer. The technology burns fuel at temperatures of 1400°–1700 ° F, well below the temperature where

NO

x forms (at approximately 2500 ° F). 57 FBC systems fit into two major groups: atmo spheric fluidized-bed combustors (AFBCs) and pressurized fluidized-be d combustors (PFBCs) and tw o minor subgroups, bubbling or circulating fluidized bed (CFB). Th ese systems are described below:

• AFBCs use a sorbent such as limestone or dolom ite to capture sulfur. Jets of air suspend the mixture of sorbent and fuel during combustion, converting the mixture into a suspension of red-hot partic les that flow like a fluid. These systems operate at atmospheric pressure. 5

• PFBCs also use a sorbent and jets of air to suspend the mixture of sorbent and fuel but operate at elevated pressures and produce a high-pressure gas th at can drive a gas turbine. The compressed air used contains more oxygen per unit volume and, therefore, sustains a higher intensity of combusti on, allowing for the design of smaller

combustors. 5

• CFB combustors use higher air flows to entr ain and move the bed ma terial, recirculating nearly all of the bed material with adjacen t high-volume, hot cyclone separators. The relatively clean flue gas goes on to the heat exchanger. This approach simplifies feed design, extends the cont act between sorbent and flue gas, reduces the likelihood of heat exchanger tube erosion, and improves SO 2 capture and combustion efficiency. 5

The solids in FBCs are typically fuel ash, be d material, sorbent used to control pollutants, and reaction products formed by sulfur capture and other sorb ent–fuel interactions. The characteristics of the solid by-products produced in FBCs depend on the bed material, fuel and ash compositions, unburned carbon, desulfurization by-products, and unreact ed sorbents. The byproducts can be collected from several locations in the system, including the bed offtake, primary cyclone, and final particulate control device. In most cases in the Unite d States, the by-products are combined. High-calcium materials used for sulfur capture (i.e., limestone or dolomite) produce by-products containing high levels of calcium sulfate, free lime, and coal ash, which

reflects the chemical characterist ics of the sorbent and coal us ed. FBC systems operate at low temperatures which prevents significant fusion and melting of the ash particles, resulting in fly ash particles that are angular and very different from the spherical-fused ash particles produced in pc firing. 3

Gasification

In the gasification process, carbon-based f eedstocks (e.g., coal, biomass, petcoke, oil residual) are converted in the gasifier—in the presence of steam and air or oxygen at high temperatures and moderate pressure—to synt hesis gas, commonly re ferred to as “syngas.” Syngas is comprised primarily of car bon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen gas (H 2 ); however, depending on the gasification technology empl oyed, significant quantities of water, CO 2 , and methane (CH 4 ) can be present in the synthesis ga s as well as several minor and trace components. These contaminants are cleaned us ing chemical and physical solvents. Once the synthesis gas is cleaned, various options ex ist for its utilization including production of electricity via IGCC or the production of chemicals, H 2 , and reformable liquid fuels. 128 In the IGCC process, the clean synthesis gas is sent to a combustion turbine, where it is combusted to produce electricity. Th e energy contained in the exhaus t gas from the gas turbine is recovered in a heat-recovery steam generator for the production of additional electricity in a steam turbine. Approximately two-thirds of the total electricity produced in the IGCC plant is produced by the gas turbine. 12

Commercial gasifiers differ widely in the way in whic h they produce by-products, and either a dry ash, an agglomerated ash, char, or slag may result. Sulfur removed from the syngas at IGCC plants will range in purity from 98.5% to 99.99%. 13 Sulfur can be captured as either

elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid. Characteristic s of gasification by-produ cts are described in a previous EERC report available online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/Asse ts/IGCCandPFBC.pdf. 14

CCP Terminology, Properties, Producti on, and Use in the United States

The combustion of coal to gene rate electricity results in the formation of a variety of solid materials, collectively referred to as CCPs. CCP s include any by-product from the combustion of coal and are primarily considered to be fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and FGD material. FBC and IGCC plants also produce by-pr oducts and are considered to be CCPs. The term CCPs is used in this report to generically refer to coal ash as a whole; however, there are several other

terms used to describe coal ash such as co al combustion by-products (CCBs), coal combustion wastes, coal utilization by-products, coal co mbustion residues, and fossil fuel combustion

wastes.

As noted in Figure 3, the production and us e of CCPs has grown steadily since ACAA began tracking statistics in 1966. In 2005, ACAA reported that 123.1 million short tons of CCPs were produced. Of that, 40.29% was beneficially used, and the remainder was disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments. 1

Figure 3. ACAA production and use annua l survey data comparison (1966–2005). 19 Fly Ash

Fly ash is the inorganic portion of finely pulverized coal that is carried out of the boiler with the flue gases and collected by an ESP or a fabric filter (baghouse). Depending on the efficiency of the particulate control device, a small portion of the smallest size fraction of the fly ash may exit the stack. Fly ash has the consistency of fine powder and varies in color from tan to dark gray. The chemical composition of fly ash depends primarily on the chemical properties of

the coal burned but also on emission control e quipment used. The coal grinding equipment, furnace, and combustion process impact phase association, morphology, and particle size. The primary chemical composition of fly ash, includ es silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium present in varying associations in both amorphous (glassy) and crystalline phases. The chemical composition is usually reported as oxides. Unburned carbon may also be present in fly ash and usually a loss-on-ignition (LOI) value is used to provide an indication of the amount of unburned carbon present, although the LOI test is not designed to differentiate between loss from carbon or other changes that can occur on exposure to elevated temper atures. Generally speaking, the higher the carbon content, the darker the fly ash.

ASTM International (ASTM) classifies fly ash into two categories—Class F and Class C. Class F fly ash is pozzolanic and is made up of primarily silicon, aluminum, and iron. A pozzolanic material will harden with water but only after activation with an alkaline substance such as lime. Class C fly ash, which is a cementi tious material, also cont ains silicon, aluminum, and iron but is high in calciu m (reported as CaO) and harden s when mixed with water.

Fly ash is the largest-volume CCP with respect to both prod uction and utilization (71.1 and 29.2 million short tons in 2005, respectively). The ove rall utilization rate for fly ash in 2005 was 40.9%. The largest beneficial use (15 million shor t tons, or 21%) for fly ash was as a mineral admixture in concrete manufacturing. Other major beneficial uses for fly ash, listed in order of million short tons used, included structural fills/embankments, raw feed for cement clinker, waste stabilization/solidification, soil stabilization, and mi ning applications. 1

Superior-quality fly ash is in high demand fo r concrete products, whereas lower-quality fly ashes that may not meet ASTM C618 specification for use as a mineral admixture in concrete may have limited demand. Low-quality fly ashes not meeting ASTM C618 specifications are typically used in large-volume, low-value applications such as structural fill. The value of fly ash varies significantly among producers depending on pr oduct quality, the plan t’s proximity to the market, and product availability.

Bottom Ash

Bottom ash falls to the bottom of the furn ace and is removed as nonmolten particles (clinkers). It is composed of a range of fine to coarse angular particles, which are generally gray to black in color, with the bulk of the materi al resembling sand. Some may appear glassy, but, more commonly, the particles are porous. Bottom ash and fly ash are quite different physically; however, the bulk chemical composition of bottom ash is usually similar to fly ash, with the exception of sulfur trioxide. The trace element composition of bottom ash and fly ash produced10 from the same coal can be very different. Als o, more carbon is generally associated with bottom

ash.

In 2005, 17.6 million short tons of bottom ash was produced, and 7.5 million short tons (42.8%) was beneficially used. Majo r beneficial use applications for bottom ash, listed in order of million short tons used, included structural fills/embankments, road base/subbase/pavement, concrete/concrete products, ra w feed for clinker, aggregat e production, and snow and ice

control. 1

In general, bottom ash is a low-value, high- volume commodity, and the delivered price is highly dependent on transportatio n distance. Profitable beneficial use of bottom ash typically occurs when a local market (within 30 m iles) is available or can be developed.

FGD Material

FGD materials are derived from a variety of processes to control su lfur emissions. These systems include wet, dry, and semidry systems, which produce vastly different by-products comprised of primarily either calcium sulfate (CaSO 4 ) or calcium sulfite (CaSO 3 ). The physical

nature of FGD materials varies from a wet thi xotropic sludge-like mate rial to a dry powdered material depending on the pro cess. Wet systems can produce either oxidized or unoxidized material. Forced-oxidized systems produce gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate [CaSO 4 · 2H 2 O]), whereas unoxidized systems, typically referred to as inhibited oxidation or natural oxidation systems, will produce a wet material that is comp rised primarily of calciu m sulfite with varying levels of calcium sulfate. Dry FGD systems in clude duct sorbent injection, lime injection multistage burner, and FBC systems. Dry FGD mate rials can vary widely in their properties. SDA systems are semidry but produce a dry pow dered by-product that is either collected separately or, more commonly in the United States, collected with the fly ash to optimize sorbent use. SDA material and fly ash may also be commingled after collection for management

purposes.

ACAA reported FGD material in three ca tegories in 2005: 1) FGD gypsum, 2) FGD material wet scrubbers, and 3) FGD material dr y scrubbers. Over 77% of the nearly 12 million tons of FGD gypsum was beneficially used. The primary use for FGD gypsum are in the manufacture of gypsum wallboard. The producti on and use of FGD gypsum is expected to

continue to increase as more co al-based power plants convert th eir desulfurizati on processes to produce marketable gypsum. ACAA reported that, in 2005, 17.7 million short tons of wet FGD material was produced, of which 689,184 short tons (0.039%) was beneficially used primarily in mining applications. For dry FGD material, 1.4 million short tons was used, and 159,198 short tons (11%) was beneficially used in 2005. Major us es for dry FGD material, listed in order of most tons used, included mining applications , agriculture, concrete /concrete products, and

flowable fill. 1

Wet FGD material from unoxidized systems a nd dry FGD material are typically low-value materials. FGD gypsum, on the other hand, can be a very profitable material, typically when sold to manufacture gypsum products. Prices for FGD gypsum in merchant markets are negotiated among buyers and sellers, and published figures are not always relevant. According to the U.S.11 Geological Survey, in 2005, the av erage values (free on board fr om mine or plant) were $7.48 per metric ton for crude gypsum and $20.26 per ton for calcined gypsum. 15 The average value of uncalcined gypsum used in agriculture a nd in cement production was about $17.89 per ton.

Boiler Slag

Boiler slag is the molten inorganic material fr om coal that drains to the bottom of cyclonetype or other wet-bottom furnaces and discharges into a water-filled pit where it is cooled and removed as glassy, angular particles. However, if gases are trapped in the molten slag as it is tapped from the furnace, the slag can be somewhat porous. The particle size of boiler slag ranges

from 0.5 to 5.0 mm.

Nearly 97% of the 1,957,392 short tons of boile r slag produced was beneficially used in 2005, primarily as blasting gr it and roofing granules. 1

The market value of boiler slag is highl y dependent on transp ortation distance and application.

FBC Material

FBC material is a mixture of unburned co al, unreacted sorbent, ash, and spent bed material. FBC fly ash is collected in the flue of an FBC boiler using a particulate collection

device. Bottom ash is removed from the bottom ofthe FBC boiler. Some FBC material is selfcementing and has a tendency to swell.

Over 69% of the 1,366,438 short to ns of FBC material produced was beneficially used in 2005. Major beneficial use applic ations, listed in order of s hort tons used, included soil modification/stabilization, road base/subbase/pav ement, flowable fill, waste stabilization/ solidification, and struct ural fills/embankments. 1

Gasification By-Products

By-products from gasification systems va ry widely. IGCC systems produce elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid and slag as their prim ary by-products. IGCC slag is generally a black, angular, vitreous material having the appearance of coarse black sa nd. Char that is formed in the IGCC system is associated with the slag as it exits in the gasifier system, but in some systems, the char is separated from the slag and may be recycled as fuel.

ACAA does not report production or use sta tistics for gasification by-products; however, the management of gasification by-products fr om U.S. IGCC plants is known and described

below:

• TECO Energy’s IGCC Polk Station produces a su lfuric acid and slag stream. The plant produces 92% H 2 SO 4 and is currently selling the en tire supply to municipal water treatment facilities and is making a profit of nearly $2 million/year with that by-product

stream. 16 TECO’s IGCC slag is marketed as “bl ack diamond,” and all of it is used to12 produce cement. TECO provides the slag to a cement manufacture at no cost and subsidizes that market by providing shipping costs. 17

• SG Solutions, LLC’s IGCC plant produces 99.99% pure elemental sulfur that is sold to the fertilizer industry. Slag quality from this plant varies because of the char, but the slag by-product is moved from the Wabash Ri ver site daily, and only a small amount is stored on-site for short periods of time. 18

Regulatory Status of CCP Use in the United States

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.

Subtitle D of RCRA delegates regulation of nonhazardous solid wastes to individual states, and all states have regulations on the disposal of CCPs. Seve ral states have adopted laws governing CCP utilization, but requirements vary widely among states. Requests for permission to beneficially use CCPs are frequently handle d on a case-by-case basis or under generic state recycling regulations. States that do specify acceptable beneficial use applications for CCPs are generally the states where the most progress has been made regarding CCP utilization in a manner that is technically feasible while being protective of the environment.

The EERC 1999 Barriers Report reported that an important barrier originating in RCRA legislation is the indiscriminate designation of CCPs as solid wastes, whether they are recovered for use or disposed of in a regulated facility. 3 The “waste” designation can trigger case-by-case approval and permitting procedures that discourage CCP use. This concept will be discussed further throughout this report.

The need for and scope of RCRA regulation of CCPs used as fill in surface and underground mines is still being evaluated. In an attempt to review the adequacy of coal ash beneficial use programs nationwide to determin e if federal regulatio n, guidelines, or other requirements are needed to help ensure that the beneficial use of coal ash on mine sites does not cause groundwater contamination, the EPA commi ssioned the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform an evaluation. The result was a report entitled Managing Coal Combustion

Residues in Mines and will be further discussed later in this report (see section entitled Impact of NAS Study ). 19

STATE REVIEW PROCESS

Each state review followed the same methodology which was very effective for conducting a multiday site visit in a central location within the state reviewed. Panels of key stakeholders were assembled and interviewed during the course of each site visit. Information provided during13 the interviews was compiled and summarized in individual reports. The following sections describe each step of the review process in more detail. Tasks are listed in order; however, many tasks were implement ed 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, EERC Marketing Research Specialist, acted as team lead er, with input from Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett, EERC Senior Research Advisor.

Task 2: Select a State

The project’s administrative team, with assist ance from project spons ors, conducted an indepth evaluation to select each state. Each state se lection process used different selection criteria; however, there were three common criteria that each state met:

1. The state should serve as a role model for other states. The EERC believed selecting a

model state would be most bene ficial to other states and that the information gained

from a model state would be mo st beneficial in preparing th is national synthesis report.

2. States from different geographic areas and climatic conditions should be considered. Selecting different locations would likely mean each state would have access to a different coal source and thus produce CCPs with varying composition and performance. In addition, the market cond itions were expected to vary among geographic areas.

3. To facilitate a smooth state review, the state’s environmental and transportation departments must be willing to participat e in the review. State government agency participation was critical to the su ccess of the state review process.

In addition to these common criteria, special considerations were made during the state selection process. For example, the first two st ate reviews were not to address mining because the NAS was in the process of issuing its posit ion on using CCPs in mini ng applications, and the

state reviews were not to interfere with the NAS study. The NAS study was completed before the third state was selected, therefore, for the third state review, preference wa s given to a state with prominent mining beneficial use applications. Another special consideration was what the

administrative team considered a “model” state. Th e first state reviewed was to have what could

be considered model beneficial us e regulations in place, meaning th at it had regula tions in place that encourage CCP use while still being protective of the environment. However, for the second state review, it was decided to go to a state that was in the process of developing new regulations regarding CCP use. This would allow the admini strative team to bette r understand the thought process behind the regulation development process. Then, for the third revi ew, it was ultimately

decided to return to a state where beneficial use rules were in place an d had been tested over

time.14 Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania were ultimat ely selected for review because each of these states has a CCP utilization rate significantly high er (60%–70%) than the national average, are in different geographic locations, and have addressed an array of CCP management issues.

A fourth state, North Dakota, was reviewed in 2007; however, the results from that state review are not included in this report. A separate final report from the North Dakota state review will be available in early 2008.

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 serving on one or more state review s and their associated contact information are listed in the project participant list in Appendix A.

Task 4: Assemble a Review Team

A select group of individuals comprised the review team. The primar y role of the review team was to administer the meetings at the review. Review team members serving on one or

more state reviews and associated contact information is listed in Appendix A.

Task 5: Select Interviewees and Develop the Review Guide

To conduct the series of state reviews, discussion group sessions were held during a multiday site visit in a central location within the state. The discussion groups comprised key CCP stakeholders representing the following groups ∗ :

• Government agencies – dir ectors and other key personnel of state or regional transportation and environmental agencies

• CCP generators – environmental and ash mana gers at electric generating companies

• CCP suppliers – CCP marketers and supp liers of ash beneficiation systems

• Cement and concrete – ready-mix conc rete suppliers and cement producers

• Engineering/consulting firms – firms special izing in CCP use in various applications

• Wallboard – users of FGD gypsum for wallboard production

• Mining – mining officials fr om state government agencies

• Special interest – environmental and c itizen groups and research institutions

∗ Each review had different discussion gr oups representing key stakeholders in that state. The groups listed represent all of the discussion groups held during the series of state re views and were not included in each individual state review.15 A series of open-ended questions and background information on the purpose of the review were provided to each discussion group prior to the site visit. During the discussion group sessions, the list of questions gui ded discussion; however, an ope n forum was used and allowed for flexible interaction. Those not able to attend a session in person were given the opportunity to provide written comments or par ticipate in a telephone interview. Everyone who pa rticipated in the state reviews was provided a copy of the draft final re port for review.

Task 6: Prepare Final Report and Disseminate Information

The primary objective of this task was to prepare a final report that can be used to encourage CCP use in the state reviewed and in ot her states. Target audiences for the individual state review final reports include d CCP industry representatives a nd users, members of American Association of State Highway a nd Transportation Officials (AASHT O), Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and other state and federal agency groups and

individuals.

The results of the state review s were organized as follows:

• Keys – highlight strengths or positive aspects

• Barriers – issues that detr act from a CCP stockholder’s ability to increase CCP

utilization

• Threats – upcoming issues that could hinder future CCP utilization

• Actions – methods for overcoming barriers and threats

These sections were modeled after a SWOT (s trengths, weaknesses, opp ortunities, threats) analysis commonly used by marketing profe ssionals to audit an organization and the environment in which it operates. It is the firs t stage of planning and he lps identify key issues.

The SWOT terms were modified to reflect terms th at the authors felt were more applicable to the CCP industry.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Each state had a different re gulatory framework, political clim ate, infrastructure, economy, coal source, and geographic location. These charac teristics contributed to differences in CCP production and use among the states reviewed. De spite these unique characteristics, several

commonalities were identified and used to transl ate individual state review observations to a national perspective on the status of CCP regulations, standards, and practices.

Industry Group Involvement in Deve loping Beneficial Use Regulations

Each state had an industry group whose membership consis ted primarily of the state’s electric generating companies — Texas was re presented by the Texas Coal Ash Utilization16 Group (TCAUG); Florida by the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG); and Pennsylvania by the Electric Power Generation Association (EPGA). These groups worked to promote the use of CCPs and remove barriers pr ohibiting utilization, such as the lack of regulations allowing the benefici al use of CCPs. Organized indus try-led groups can be effective in working with government agencies and state le gislators because each one represents a unified

voice on behalf of its members and allows indus try to pool its collec tive knowledge base and monetary resources to address key issues. The following is a summary of how these industry-led groups aided in developing beneficial use regul ations in each of the states reviewed and

describes the resul ting specifications.

An overview of state solid waste laws and re gulations governing the be neficial use of CCP in all fifty states can be found in Volume 2 of Engineering and Environmental Specifications of State Agencies for Utilization and Di sposal of Coal Combustion Products

. 4

Regulatory Development and Status in Texas

TCAUG was instrumental in getting state legislation passed in 1991 (Senate Bill [SB] 1340) that encouraged recyclin g and required state and loca l governments to amend their specifications for road and br idge construction to include CCPs. In 1993, TCAUG was again influential in getting language added to SB 1051 which established the Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB) and charged this body with developing a study to identify economic and regulatory incentives and disincentiv es for recycling and identifying existing and potential markets for, among other materials, CCP s. As part of SB 1051, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) prepared two market studies, entitl ed “Texas Recycles: Marketing Our Neglected Resources” and “Texas Recycles II: Marke ting Our Neglected Resources,” to lay the groundwork for strategies to develop and expa nd recycling industries and markets in Texas. 20

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

Resources Conservation Commissi on (TNRCC, predecessor agency to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]) as one of the ma jor impediments to increased CCP utilization. As a result, the TNRCC, GLO, TCAUG, and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) formed a task force to study the issue. TCAUG hired EPRI to pr esent technical information to the task force, and Texas university professors provided case studies where CCPs were used successfully. The result of this cumulative e ffort was an issuance of a coproduct regulatory guidance letter in 1995 by the TN RCC that recognized that CCPs utilized in many construction applications could be best accomplished if the mate rials were not considered a solid waste. With this letter, recycling of CCPs in Te xas began to increase substantially. 20

In an effort to develop a single beneficial use rule for solid wastes, TCAUG and a similar association from the steel industry approached TCEQ to revise its 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 indus tries. In 2001, TCEQ fo rmed a working group to meet with TCAUG to draft an agency rule that would convert the 1995 guidance effort into an agency rule. This effort took several months of negotiation and drafting and ultimately produced the “eight-waste criteria rule,” as further described below.17 Proposed on October 27, 2000, and adopted on April 20, 2001, the amendment to the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Title 30 Chap ter 335, commonly referred to in Texas as the eight-waste criteria rule but through rulemaking became a seven-waste criteria rule, was perhaps the most influential rule that opened the doors for coal ash use in Te xas by omitting utilized

CCPs from the state’s definition of solid waste so long as the material continues to meet all of the following criteria:

1. A legitimate market exists for the 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 a 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: tr eatment may impact fu ture 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. 21

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.18 • 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 wa stes disposed of must be deed-recorded (30 TAC 335.5), and related waste management units must be listed on the facility Notice of Registration. Technical guidelines (30 TAC 335.3) provide the basis for proper siting and design of landfills. The TCEQ requires groundwater monitoring for landfills and surface impoundments.

In Texas, the collaborative effort between TCAUG, TCEQ, TxDOT, and the GLO resulted in proactive regulations that cleared the way for coal ash r ecycling in Texas. TCAUG used a push–pull strategy in its approa ch by consulting many levels at each of the st ate agencies

because it believed it needed all levels of stat e agencies to work together. In addition, TCAUG presented one universal voice from industry to st ate agencies. TCAUG attributes its success to these strategies and its ten acity over a 10-year period.

Regulatory Development and Status in Florida

Unlike the other two states, Florida did not ha ve beneficial use rule s for CCPs in place at

the time of the state review. Fl orida evaluated proposed beneficial use projects on a case-by-case

basis. Electric utilities and ash marketers inte rviewed expressed extreme frustration in working with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and i ndicated that they had made numerous proposals to FDEP to beneficially use CCPs over a period of decades and had been repeatedly rejected. Despite their frustrat ions, everyone who partic ipated in the review appeared to be open to each others’ ideas and willing to work with each other to develop a

beneficial use rule that would benefit industry, consumers, and th e environment. FDEP realized that adopting beneficial use rule s for CCPs would be cumbersome and complicated and stated it

would look to the Florida Electric Power Coor dinating Group, Inc. (FCG), for guidance.

Two previous formal attempts were made to develop a beneficial use rule in Florida. In 2003, the FCG developed draft legislative bills SB 2338 and House Bill (HB) 1607. These bills

were later abandoned after FDEP and FCG mutu ally agreed the vision was too broad and because they could not agree on in terim storage requirements. Alt hough this effort did not result in new CCP regulations, this exercise was still valuable in that working relationships were developed and a preliminary understanding of issu es and viewpoints resulted. This legislative process was a separate undertaki ng from the rulemaking effort on the Industrial Waste Disposal and Reuse (IWDR) rule that wa s initiated by FDEP. A workshop to kick off this rulemaking was held in July 2003 but was delayed primarily because of workload issues brought on by two19 devastating hurricane seasons and other rulemaki ng efforts. FDEP plans to continue work on developing the IWDR rule that will address CCPs along with other industrial by-products.

At the state review session, electric utilitie s, ash marketers, and FDEP agreed to get together in 2006 to develop new regulations concerning industri al by-products, including CCPs. All parties agree that the new rule will likely include a list of preappr oved uses and a list of uses that will need to be evaluated by FDEP on a case-by-case basis.

Regulatory Development and Status in Pennsylvania

A significant development in the history of beneficial use of coal ash in Pennsylvania

occurred in 1986 with the introdu ction and passage of HB 2274, commonly referred to then as

“the coal ash bill.”

Mr. Douglas Biden, EPGA, in written comm ents to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), summarized the history of the bill. He indicated that HB 2274 originated in 1985 with the House Mines and Energy Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) requesting testim ony from the electric power industry on House Resolution No. 19, which directed the Committee to explore ways to promote the use of Pennsylvania coal and its by-products. 22 At this time, electric generating companies were planning to install air pollution control devices that would signi ficantly increase the amount of CCPs produced and quickly take up precious landfill space. The industry made considerable research and development investments in developi ng beneficial uses for CCPs. So much progress was made that questions arose among policymaker s as to why CCPs were considered a “waste,” rather than the “resource” they had become. Howe ver, industry efforts to beneficially use the material were frequently frustrated by th e PA DEP (then Pennsyl vania Department of Environmental Resources) solid wa ste regulations, which governed the disposition of coal ash. Using CCPs required a permit from PA DEP, a process that could ta ke a year or more to obtain. PA DEP staff appeared sympathetic; however, they said their hands were tied by the Solid Waste Management Act which defined coal ash as a solid waste, so that all materials thus defined had to be handled and disposed according to the regulations. 22

Proposed legislation excluded coal ash from the definition of solid waste and established provisions for the beneficial use of coal ash. The proposed legisla tion defined “coal ash” as fly ash, bottom ash, or boiler slag resulting from th e combustion of coal that is or has been beneficially used, reused, or reclaimed for a commercial, indus trial, or governmental purpose.

The term includes such materials that are store d, processed, transported, or sold for beneficial use, reuse, or reclamation. After thorough le gal and environmental research, HB 2274 was signed into law as Act 168 of 1986 as an am endment to the Penns ylvania Solid Waste Management Act of 1980. In 1992, pr ovisions describing standards for the beneficial use of coal ash were placed in the residual waste manage ment regulations and were revised in 1997.

Today, Pennsylvania regulates the benefici al use of coal ash under Pennsylvania’s Residual Waste Management Regulations (Titl e 25 PA Code, Chapter 287, Sections 661–666). 23
The PA DEP allowed EPGA to provide input into this regulatory process. Because EPGA was allowed input into the regulation process, i ndustry is generally accepting of the resulting20 regulations. These regulations define the following eleven beneficial uses for coal ash and do not require a permit:

1. As a structural fill material (287.661)

2. As a soil substitute or additive (287.662)

3. For defined uses at active coal-mining sites (287.663)

4. For use at abandoned coal or noncoal surface mine sites (287.664)

5. In the manufacture of concrete (287.665.1)

6. To extract or recover minerals and co mpounds contained within the coal ash (287.665.2)

7. As a fly ash-stabilized product (287.665.3)

8. Use of bottom ash or boiler slag as an antiskid ma terial (287.665.4)

9. As a raw material for a product with commerc ial value, including the use of bottom ash in construction aggregate (287.665.5)

10. For mine subsidence control, mine fi re control, and mi ne sealing (287.665.6)

11. As a drainage material or pipe bedding (287.665.7)

The beneficial uses defined above are gene rally accepted by industry and have cleared the way for increased CCP utilization in the stat e. The exception to this is FGD material, ∗ which was not included in the regulations because it was not readily available as a product when the regulations were put in place.

Effectiveness of Industry-Led Group In volvement in Developing Beneficial Use Regulations

Based on the cumulative experience of the industry groups partic ipating in the state reviews, it is clear that using industry groups to fac ilitate the development of new regulations, revise existing regulations, or to encourage le gislation is a very effective way of getting industry’s voice heard and understood. An education process is typically re quired to help state agencies and/or legislators unders tand the complicated issues asso ciated with CCP utilization. This effort can require a considerable commit ment of time and money by industry. Experience

assembled from the state reviews indicated that the education process an d relationship building

∗ FGD material is defined as material generated from various wet forced-oxidized systems or unoxidized systems producing an either sulfate -rich (calcium sulfate [CaSO 4 ], commonly referred to as FGD gypsum) or sulfite-rich (calcium sulfite [CaSO 3 ], also know as scrubber sludge). Dry FGD systems are not presently used in Pennsylvania.21 with state agencies and/or le gislators should be ongoing beca use it is important to retain institutional knowledge of CCPs as staff is turned over. It is particularly important if the regulations are subjective and open to interpretation.

State Department of Transportation (DOT) Specifications

State DOTs have the responsibil ity to write specifications fo r road construction and other transportation applications that define accepta ble CCP use in DOT projects. State DOTs often look to the AASHTO and ASTM for guidance on developing their own specifications. State DOT specifications typically set the bar for ot her CCP users in the state because the roadbuilding industry generally views state DOT speci fications as cautious and stringent, thus lessening the potential for failure and subsequent liability. Contractors are also familiar with DOT specifications, enhancing their acceptance and use in the construction industry. For these reasons, DOT specifications are of particular importance because they impact not only DOT projects, but a much broader spec trum of construction practices.

Many state DOTs have specifications that pr escribe a minimum and maximum amount of fly ash that can be used in concrete. Howeve r, industry would like state DOTs to consider performance-based standards, rather than prescr iptive standards (i.e., same mix design for each application), because they provide flexibility for the concrete supplie r, can produce a better quality concrete, may be more economical, and al low higher quantities of fly ash to be used. Initiatives on the federal, state, and local leve ls will be required to adopt performance-based concrete specifications. Nationa l organizations such as AASHTO and ASTM, as well as private and government entities, must first demonstrate the long-term sustainability of concrete developed according to performa nce specifications. Following the demonstrations, an education process from industry to DOTs will be needed.

In the states reviewed, each DOT office has di fferent specifications for how CCPs could be used in DOT projects. The following is a summary of DOT specifications in each state reviewed. Summaries of DOT specifications for all fi fty states can be found in Volume 1 of Engineering and Environmental Specifications of State Agen cies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal

Combustion Products

. 4

DOT Status in Texas

TxDOT was one of the last state agencies to adopt coal ash specifications, adopting its rules in August 2004. Until that time, TxDOT grante d special specifications and provisions on a

district and statewide basis. From 1982 to 1996, TxDOT only incorporated CCPs into 41 roadway applications. 24 However, a dramatic increase in fly ash utilization was observed once TxDOT made CCP use a priority by adopting the following specifications.

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.22 TxDOT has a prequalified list of suppliers of 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.

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-11,000 – Evaluating and Using Nonhazardous Recyclable Materials

This specification was adopted in August 2004 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 TxDOT.

Product Application Specificati ons and Special 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

• 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)

DOT Status in Florida

Florida Department of Transportation (FL DOT) has a source list of supplementary cementitious materials (slag, silica fume, metakao lin, Class C or Class F fly ash, ultrafine fly ash) that are routinely used in state projects . The list also includes a Class F biomass fly ash generated from burning tree bark and a Class F fly ash generated from burning coal and23 petroleum coke. To get on the source list, a cement itious supplier must use a quality control plan accepted by the State Materials Office (Sectio n 929, Pozzolans and Slag, Revised March 14, 2007).

FLDOT specifies how portland cement concrete is to be produced in Section 346. Section 346.2.3 pertains to the supplementary cementitious ma terials listed above and reads as follows:

“Use as desired, on an equal weight replacement basis, fly ash, silica fume, metakaolin, other pozzolans, and slag materials as a cement repl acement in all classes of concrete, with the following limitations:

1) Mass Concrete:

a. Fly Ash – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with fly ash is 18% to 50% by weight.

b. Slag – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with slag is 50% to 70% by weight. Ensure that slag is 50% to 55% of total cementit ious content by weight of

total cementitious materials when used in combination with silica fume and/or

metakaolin.

2) Drilled Shaft:

a. Fly Ash – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with fly ash is 33% to 37% by weight.

b. Slag – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with slag is 58% to 62% by weight.

3) For all other concrete uses not covered in Nos. 1 and 2 above:

a. Fly Ash – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with fly ash is 18% to 22% by weight.

b. Slag – ensure that the quantity of cemen t replaced with slag is 25% to 70% for slightly and moderately aggressive envi ronments and 50% to 70% by weight when used in extremely aggressive environments. Ensure that slag is 50% to 55% of total cementitious content by weight of total cementitious materials when used in

combination with silica fume and/or metakaolin.

4) Type IP (MS) Portland-Pozzolan Cements: Ensure that the quantity of pozzolan in Type IP (MS) is in the range of 15% to 40% by weight.

5) Silica Fume and Metakaolin:24 a. Cure in accordance with the manufacturer ’s recommendation and approved by the Engineer.

b. Silica Fume – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with silica fume is 7% to 9% by weight.

c. Metakaolin – ensure that the quantity of cement replaced with metakaolin is 8% to 12% by weight.”

In bridge superstructures, blended cements ar e allowed in slabs, barriers, and precast and prestressed applications exposed to moderately aggressive environments but not slightly aggressive environments. In extremely aggressive environments, the recommended cementitious mixtures are Type II cement with fly ash or sla g. For bridge substructure s, drainage structures, and other structures, the recommendations are similar (Table 1 of Section 346).

For reinforced concrete that does not require Type II cement plus slag or pozzolan(s), all applications that require Type II cement plus pozzolan(s), and prestr essed concrete, FL DOT specifies the maximum chloride content limits for each of the concrete applications (Section 346.4.2).

A flowable fill mixture, which is designed to be excavatable, is not allowed to contain fly ash but must contain 75–100 pounds of cement pe r cubic yard and have a maximum 28-day strength of 100 psi. A flowable fill mixture de signed to be nonexcavatable is to contain 75–100 pounds of cement and 150–600 pounds of fly as h per cubic yard and have a maximum 28-day strength of 125 psi (Section 121).

DOT Status in Pennsylvania

In order for CCPs to be used in Pennsylva nia Department of Transportation (PennDOT) projects, they must be preapproved. Bulletin 14 lists all approved bottom ash sources, and Bulletin 15 lists all approved fly as h sources that can be used on PennDOT projects. To get on an approved list, one must fill out an application a nd provide a quality control plan. Usually an ash marketer approaches PennDOT to get a material approved, but sometimes a specific unit or plant manager will make a request. PennDOT has Class F and Class C fly ashes on its list from many states, including Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Vi rginia. Fly ash is often imported because most fly ash sources in Pennsylvania do not meet speci fications for use in conc rete because of high

unburned carbon content.

Most Class F fly ashes are approved by Pe nnDOT for alkali silica reactivity (ASR) mitigation. Class F fly ash plays an important role in PennDOT projects because about 70% of its aggregate sources are reactive. ASR occurs wh en reactive aggregates chemically react with alkaline components of portland cement, forming ASR gel. The gel adsorbs water and expands, damaging the concrete. Class F fly ash is effec tive in controlling expansion due to ASR, but Class C fly ash and other materials can also be used in certain applications. PennDOT25 specifications allow the portland ce ment portion of concrete to be reduced by 15% of fly ash and by 25% of ground granulated blast furnace slag for ASR mitigation.

PennDOT has material specifications for fly ash utilization which include:

1. Fly ash used with lime for soil stabilization. Fl y ash must be tested in accordance with AASHTO T 135 (Wetting-and-Drying Test of Compacted Soil-Cement). Physical requirements for fly ash are also establis hed in ASTM C 593 (Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Other Pozzolans for Use with Lime for Soil Stabilization) (Publication 408, Section 724.2).

2. Fly ash used as a pozzolan in portland cement concrete mixtures. Fly ash must be tested in accordance with ASTM C 311 (Standards and Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Fly Ash or Natural Pozzolans for Us e in Portland-Cement Concrete). According to Publication 408, Section 724.2, fly ash mu st meet specifications set forth in AASHTO M 295 (Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Ca lcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete). LOI is limited to 6%.

3. Fly ash used to mitigate the effects of r eactive aggregate associated with ASR in concrete. Fly ash must conform to the opt ional chemical requi rements of AASHTO M 295 (Publication 408, S ection 704.1[g]3.c).

Fly ash, slag, and bottom ash meeting material specifications set by PennDOT can be used for the following types of flowable backfill app lications as long as they come from approved sources (Publication 408, Section 220):

• Where future excavation of the backfill may be necessary, such as at utility trenches, pipe trenches, bridge abutments, and around box or arch culverts.

• Where excavation of backfills is not anticipated, including replacing unsuitable soils below structure foundations; filling abandoned conduits, tunnels, and mines; and backfilling around pipe culverts wh ere extra strength is required.

• In construction areas requiring low-density b ackfill material as in abutments over highly deformable soils, backfilling retaining walls , filling vaults, and backfilling on top of

buried structures.

PennDOT allows the use of ground granulated blast furnace slag as a pozzolan (Publication 408, Section 724.3). Gr ound granulated blast furnace slag must be tested in accordance with AASHTO M 302/ASTM C 989 (Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete and Mortars). In addition, bottom as h and ground granulated blast furnace slag are

allowed for use as an antiskid mate rial and are often mixed with salt.

Materials not meeting the specifications or standards covered in Publication 408 will require testing in accordance with PennDOT’s Produc t Evaluation process. This process can take years because it is a case-by-case review.26 Air Emission Regulati ons Impact on CCP Use

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required large reductions in em issions of nitrogen oxide (NO

x ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) from coal-based power plants. In March 2005, EPA announced the following new clean air regulatio ns that will further reduce emissions of NO

x and

SO 2 and require limits on mercury emissi ons from coal-based power plants:

• The Clean Air Interstate Ru le (CAIR) applies to SO 2 and NO

x emissions in 28 eastern states and Washington, D.C. CAIR calls for se lected states to have a 70% reduction of

SO 2 emissions and a 60% reduction of NO

x emissions compared to 2003 levels by the year 2015.

• The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) is the first federal rule to limit mercury emissions from coal-based power plants. This rule calls for a 70% reduction of mercury emissions by 2018.

These regulations seek to lower levels us ing cap-and-trade mechanisms by which power plants are assigned emission limits but can ex ceed those limits by purchasing credits from companies whose emissions are below their assigned limits.

In addition to federal regulat ions, several states are proposing their own regulations that would require further reductions in SO 2 , NO

x , and mercury emissions over a shorter time frame than required under the federal rules.

To comply with these new federal and state air emission regulations, it is anticipated that the nation’s coal-based power plants will employ a variety of technologies. Significant changes in the chemical composition, physical properties, and morphology of CCPs may occur as a result of the application of new emission control tec hnologies. Universal concerns brought forth during the state reviews, either directly or indirectly related to the imp act these air emission regulations will have on CCP management, are described below.

Impacts of SO 2 Control

Coal-based power plants generally empl oy one of two strategies to control SO 2 emissions: 1) burn compliance fuels or 2) install FGD systems. Complia nce fuels can be obtained by burning low-sulfur coal (coals with sulfur cont ent below 2% by weight), blending low- and highsulfur coals, and washing coal. Most modern power plants, and all pl ants built after 1978, are required to have a FGD system. 25 To further reduce SO 2 , eastern coal-based power plants are expected to install primarily wet FGD systems, resulting in a significant increase in the amount of FGD gypsum produced; whereas in the western United States wh ere coal based-power plants burn low- to medium-sulfur coals, dry FGD sy stems (primarily SDAs) are expected to be installed resulting in an increase in th e amount of dry FGD material produced.

In Pennsylvania alone, there is an expected surplus of more than 4 million short tons of FGD gypsum a year as a direct result of the installa tion of wet FGD systems. Nationally, Bruce predicts that over the next 20 years, the North American suppl y of FGD gypsum is going to27 exceed the demand by a wide margin, with a surplus of 10–15 million tons a year by 2015. 26
Electric generating companies do not want to be dependent on wallboard and cement plants to use all of their FGD gypsum because plants may s hut down temporarily or close, and the markets

for wallboard and cement fluctuate based on bu ilding trends. Also, the wallboard and cement markets may soon be oversupplied with synthetic gypsum.

The potential increase in production volume of dry FGD material also raises concern

because of its current low util ization rate (11.15%) in the Un ited States. Most states have regulations, policies, and rules th at apply to fly ash, bottom ash, a nd boiler slag beneficial use; however, products from FGD systems are relative ly new in comparison to other products, and several states do not have regulations in place that deal specifically with dry FGD material. Currently, the potential to produce revenue from the sale of dry FGD material is limited; therefore, most electric genera ting companies find it more economically feasible to dispose the material rather than dedicate resources (i.e ., employees and infrastr ucture) to utilize it. 25

Impacts of NO

x Control

Many coal-based power plan ts have had to reduce NO

x emissions, and a variety of NO

x control technol ogies (low-NO

x burners, SCR, and SNCR units) have been implemented across the United States. This has resulted in the pr oduction of fly ash with a noticeable decline in quality, namely, the presence of unburned carbon at varying levels. Some fly ash contaminated by unburned carbon are no longer suitable for use in concrete. Fly ash with a high unburned carbon content (generally at levels above 6% LOI) or with variable LOI’s are unsuitable for use

in concrete because the unburned carbon affects air entrainment in the concrete. The entrained air is required for freeze-thaw resistance. When it is economically viable, fly ash with high

burned carbon content is sold as a raw material for cement manuf acture. However, some cement plants cannot use fly ash with unburned carbon contents greater than 30% because of operational problems and the need to meet carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission requirements and total hydrocarbon limits. Separation and high-temper ature treatment technologies have been developed and installed at some power plants to allow production of a fly ash product that meets required specifications for LOI.

SCR and SNCR technologies can also result in treating fly ash and bottom ash with

ammonia. These contaminants will likely disrupt the cem ent and concrete markets.

Impacts of Mercury Control

Many coal-based power plants are exp ected to rely on the cobenefits of SO 2 and NO

x controls for mercury control. Other than wet FGD systems, the leading technology to comply with mercury emission regulatio ns is activated carbon injection (ACI). Other system configurations such as EPRI’s TOXECONTM system may be used for mercury control.

The stability of mercury and other air toxic el ements associated with CCPs as the result of mercury control has become a prominent question and has raised concern by state regulatory agencies and citizen groups about the potential environmental stab ility of these elements under disposal and utilization conditions. 27 The EERC recently concluded an in-depth 4-year28 investigation on the pote ntial for mercury and other air toxi c element releases from CCPs under a variety of management scenarios and made the following conclusions 28 :

• ACI increased the total mercury content in the test samples.

• Direct leaching tests indicated that mercur y was not readily leached from fly ash or

FGD materials. Leachate merc ury concentrations were below the 0.01-μg/L analytical reporting limit for most samples evaluated.

• Mercury leachate concentrati ons did not correlate to total mercury concentrations.

• When exposed to ambient-temperature air in laboratory experiments, fly ash samples

either released or sorbed small amount s of mercury. Samples containing unburned carbon or AC tended to sorb mercury in ambi ent-temperature vapor-phase experiments.

• Laboratory data indicated th at the potential for ambien t-temperature vapor-phase mercury releases from CCPs are unlikely to impact atmospheric mercury loading.

• Mercury was not released to the vapor phase at temperatures be low 250°C in elevatedtemperature experiments, but for most samp les, 100% of the mercury in the CCP was released by 750°C.

• Under microbiologically mediated conditions, only very low levels of elemental and organomercury were released in the vapor-phase and leach ate, although more elemental mercury was released.

• Field experiments at a lignite CCP dispos al site indicated low-level vapor-phase releases of mercury, as was ge nerally noted in laboratory ex periments for lignite fly ash samples. Releases from FGD materials we re noted both in laboratory and field

measurements.

Investigations by the research community c ontinue on the potential for mercury to be released under a variety of ma nagement situations; however, th e current state of the science indicates that mercury associated with CCPs is st able and has low potential to be released under most management conditions, including disposal. Th e exception to this is exposure to elevated temperatures such as those achieved in wallboard and cement manufacture, as further described

here:

• Wallboard Manufacture – The ultimate fate of mercury in FGD gypsum used to manufacture wallboard is uncertain and can vary from facility to faci lity. Questions still remain regarding how much merc ury is released into the a tmosphere during the rest of the life cycle of wallboard (e.g., via dust wh en wallboard is cut or crushed) and the ultimate fate of mercury once the FGD gypsum and/or wallboard is disposed of in a

landfill. There is also some concern that mercury contained in FGD gypsum wallboard may leach into the groundwater at municipa l landfills once the wallboard reaches the end of its life cycle and is disposed. In ad dition, the potential for mercury captured in29 FGD gypsum to be released during wallboard production is still under investigation. A study conducted by URS investigated this que stion and determined that the wallboard industry would emit less than one ton of me rcury compared to the current coal-based electric generating company emissions of 48 tons per year. 29

• Cement Manufacture – Fly ash from units using sorb ent injection for mercury control may no longer be able to be used in cement manufacture unless the manufacturer demonstrates that the use of such ash will not lead to increased mercury emissions from

the cement kiln. 30 EPA has voluntarily taken rec onsideration on th e ban on fly ash where sorbent injection for mercury control is practiced and has been petitioned to reconsider its decision not to place restri ctions on the current use of fly ash. 31 EPA plans to complete these reconsiderations by the end of 2007.

In addition to mercury, ACI presents a challe nge for fly ash sold to the concrete market. Fly ash containing activated carbon (AC) will likely no longer be able to be used in concrete because AC impacts air entraining admixtures. Be neficiation technologies and treatments have been developed to address this concern; however, the applicability of these technologies is very site-specific to each power plant, and there is limited information available on the potential rerelease of AC-captured me rcury from these operations.

According to DOE, significant economic impact s are expected to result as a result of
CAMR. DOE estimates a loss of $90 8 million/year for fly ash and a loss of $213 million/year for FGD materials reuse applications. 32 If RCRA were to reconsider its RCRA Subtitle C disposal determination and consider CCPs to be hazardous, it could cost more than $11 billion/year.

Impact of the NAS Study

In recent years, the beneficial use of coal ash on mine sites has become a controversial topic on local, state, and national levels. As a result, EPA was tasked to review the adequacy of coal ash beneficial use programs nationwide to determine if federal regulation, guidelines, or other requirements are needed to help ensure th at the beneficial use of coal ash on mine sites does not cause groundwater contamination. NAS was commissioned to perf orm this evaluation and published a report entitled Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines

. 19

As an attempt to not interfere with th e ongoing NAS study, mining was not addressed in the Texas or Florida state reviews. However, th e NAS report was completed in time for the third review, and thus state mini ng regulations and the NAS study were discussed during the Pennsylvania review.

The PA DEP has a comprehensive regulatory program for the beneficial use of CCPs for

mine reclamation. The beneficial use of CCPs at active coal mine opera tions is accomplished through the coal mine permitting process outlined in the following:

• Residual Waste Management Regulations (287.663-287.664) – Defines the beneficial uses for coal ash at active coal mining site s and abandoned coal or noncoal surface mine

sites.30 • Beneficial Use of Coal Ash at Active Coal Mine Sites (563-2112-206) – This document describes the procedure for the district mi ning offices to review requests for the

beneficial use of coal ash at active mine sites.

• Certification Guidelines for Beneficial Use of Coal Ash (563-2112-224) – This document provides the guidelines for certifyi ng coal ash for beneficial uses and the forms with instructions that are necessary for the department to certify coal ash for

beneficial use.

• Technical Guidance Document for Beneficial Use of Coal Ash (563-2112-225) – This

document describes the four beneficial uses – 1) placement, 2) soil substitute or additive, 3) alkaline addition, and 4) low-permeability material of coal ash – that can be approved in active coal mine perm its or that can be approved as part of the department’s mine reclamation contracts or other depart ment-approved mine reclamation projects.

Two additional permit application modules we re developed for use with the coal mine permit application for evaluating proposals for beneficial use of coal ash. Module 25 was developed for placement of coal ash as fill material, and Module 27 was developed for use of

coal ash as a soil substitute or additive. Th ese documents and permit application modules, in conjunction with Pennsylvania’s residual waste management regulations, very clearly outline

how coal ash is to be used in mine settings in Pennsylvania.

The NAS report lists 40 fi ndings or recommendations unde r 12 categories and concluded that using CCPs for mine reclam ation is a viable option, as l ong as precautions are taken to protect the environment and publ ic health. Those in terviewed during the Pennsylvania state review generally agreed with this conclusion; however, they felt that the report was “middle of the road” and was a missed opportunity to show case the benefits of using CCPs in mines. Furthermore, the report did not recognize the vast differences between the highly alkaline CCPs produced by CFB plants and the less alkali ne fly ash produced by pc-based plants.

Mr. Kim Vories, Office of Su rface Mining, issued his technical review of the NAS report and concluded he was in agreement with the following findings that support 33 :

• The use of CCPs in mine reclamation.

• The need for specific Federal regulati ons under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation (SMCRA) Act of 1977 that describes the minimum permitting, bonding, and environmental performance standard requirements when they are placed on active

coal mines.

• The research priorities to specifically a ddress the hydrogeologic fate of CCPs and any leachate generated by those CCPs in relation to public heath and environmental quality.

• Developing mine-appropriate leachate tests.31 Mr. Vories further concluded that the limitations of the NAS study were in its inability to:

• Acknowledge the profound differe nces between regu latory environments that control placement of CCPs at mines.

• Evaluate available groundwater monitoring data and scientific research within the context of the applicable regulatory environments.

• Acknowledge the volumes of scientific studies and state regulatory data that show no degradation of water quality because of the placement of CCPs at SMCRA mines for the last 29 years.

PA DEP is considering making the followi ng minor modifications to its monitoring requirements based on recommendations in the NAS report:

• Broaden the parameters it monito rs in groundwater and leachate.

• Require the recording of landowner consent forms. These were only recommended to be recorded in the past.

• Increase monitoring of heavy metals quarterly instead of annually in order to provide information on seasonal information and to allow for more rigorous analysis and interpretation of the data.

• Require more conditions in permits.

• Investigate specific compaction techniques and fugitive dust issues.

• Require risk assessments.

The U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining (OSM) sets standards for the operation of surface coal mines and reclamation of the land following mining. Currently, OSM is developing national rules for active SMCRA coal mines and ab andoned mines that receive federal funding for reclamation. The new rules will utilize existing SMCRA authorities. The

current schedule is to have a proposed rule during 2007, with a final rule during 2008, although OSM stated this is an optimistic time line. OSM published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register formalizing its intentions. Once these rules become final,

OSM will write Part 732 notification letters to eac h of the mining states (including Pennsylvania) telling them that if they want to continue permitting CCP placement under SMCRA, they must adopt rules that are equivalent to the federal rules. The OSM rules will not be modeled after Pennsylvania’s residual waste bene ficial use coal ash rules but wi ll designate all of the existing SMCRA rules which must be complied with in order to conduct CCP placement at a SMCRA mine. Some new rules may be necessary such as th e addition of a definition of terms. These rules will not apply to abandoned mine land (AML ) sites where no federal funding is involved. 33 In Pennsylvania, the ARIPPA program to reclaim AMLs does not receive f unding from the federal SMCRA AML program and, therefore, does not fall under SMCRA regulatory authority.32 Communication, Education, and Perception Barriers

Several communication and perception barriers were discussed during the state reviews. These types of nontechnical barri ers were found among the general public, end users, and within government agencies and electric generating companies. The followi ng sections describe specific barriers pertaining to co mmunication and perception.

Communication During Demonstration Projects

Government agencies, legislators, and indus try generally agree that making modifications to current regulations or writing new regulations is a lengthy pro cess. This process often requires the completion of one or more field-scale demons tration projects to provide government agencies with the data they need to feel comforta ble with the environmental and engineering appropriateness of using specifi c CCPs in beneficial use app lications. Based on the states reviewed, government agencies do not appear to make regulator y decisions based on research performed outside of their own st ate because they do not believe external studies use CCPs that are identical to those produced by their electric generating companie s or take into account their state’s unique geographic, geologi c, or climatic conditions. Als o, laboratory experiments were not viewed as capable of replicating what will happen in the field.

Industry often takes on the re sponsibility and cost of conduc ting field-scale demonstration projects with the intention of generating the data government agencies need to make decisions. However, the demonstration process gets complic ated when a government agency requests a new set of data midway through the project or after its completion. Government agencies indicated the demonstration process could be expedite d if industry would provide them with the information/data they need up front; whereas, i ndustry indicated that the government agencies should say what information/data they need an d then industry would conduct the demonstration in a way to provide it. Turnover of governme nt agency personnel during the course of a demonstration can also be a challenge, especi ally when a new government decision maker wants

to see additional or different data that wasn’t planned for at th e onset of the demonstration. In some cases, it is difficult or impossible to provi de these data without repeating the entire demonstration. Industry further i ndicated that, in some instances , government agency staff do not have the technical knowledge base or time need ed to completely understand the issues. These roadblocks can delay the re gulation process for years.

Another hurdle when conducting demonstration projects is the inconsistency of testing procedures used. For example, some environm ental departments prefer that the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure be used for all leaching tests, whereas ot her departments prefer to select a leaching procedure depending on how th e CCP is to be used. The inconsistency of testing procedures makes it difficult to compare data.

To help facilitate communications between industry and government al agencies, it is recommended for industry to partner with a univ ersity or consulting firm with experience and expertise in the specific area to be addre ssed when conducting a demonstration project. Oftentimes, a third party can pr ovide an unbiased technical perspective on what the field demonstration project can accomplish and aid in the interpretation of data. Industry support33 groups such as TCAUG, FCG, or EPGA also offe r an excellent forum for industry to pool its intellectual and monetary resources and collectiv ely approach state agencies for the mutual benefit of all parties involved, providing the project benefits the majority of members. In addition, state-derived research and development (R&D) funds may be available in some states to partially fund large-scale demonstrations and other projects. For example, coal-mining states often have R&D funds set aside sp ecifically for CCP issues. Examples of these programs include the North Dakota Lignite Research Council, Ohio Coal Development Office, and Illinois Clean

Coal Institute.

Another way to help bridge the communication gap is for industry to present data to government agency staff in an easy to read format that provides concise interpretations of the data. Government agencies should not be expected to analyze volumes of data.

Waste vs. Product Perception

As previously mentioned, there are various terms used to refer to coal ash. The industry debates that since electric generating companie s are not in business to produce coal ash, then

coal ash must be consider ed a by-product. Others pr oclaim that if a material is used or recycled, then it must be a product. Conversely, others believ e that the material should be termed a waste, no matter whether it is disposed of or benefici ally used. Nevertheless, the names by-product and waste have powerful effects on consumers and regul ators/legislators. To illustrate this point, TCEQ was able to develop a rule that puts CCPs in the same category as other recycled materials such as plastic, aluminum, and paper by defining any reused CCP as a product. However, there are situations in Texas where the material, whether it is reused or disposed of, is still perceived of as a waste. If the industry as a whole could change how legislative b odies perceive coal ash and market coal ash as a product, it could put co al ash on the same platform as other recycled

materials.

Plant Operator Education

Today, CCP quality is becoming increasingly important as new air emission control technologies are installed on coal-b ased power plants, thus furthe r impacting the quality of CCPs produced. However, the quality of CCPs can be improved depending on how the plant is operated.

Power plant ash managers mentioned that one of their biggest hurdles is to educate their own plant operators about how to produce good- quality CCPs on a consistent basis. Some electric generating companies have internal education programs for plant operators that specifically address ash quality, whereas CCP qua lity is not a factor during the combustion process at other companies.

External educational programs could be de veloped by universities, with funding from electric generating companies and government, to teach plant operators about how to produce electricity efficiently while meeting emission control requirements a nd still maintaining a consistent by-product. Colleges educating future plant operators coul d also integrate ash production and management into their course curriculum.34 Advocacy Groups

Some advocacy groups 34–41 have criticized the beneficial use and disposal requirements of CCPs. Those interviewed during the individual stat e review sessions stated that some advocacy groups believe that government agencies fail to protect humans by caving to political pressure and that the people are left to defend themselves against what they see as dirty coal-burning power plants. CCP industry stakeholders interviewed believe these advocacy groups attack the beneficial use and disposal of CCPs in an indirect way to st op the burning of coal to produce electricity. These groups have be en effective in delaying or te rminating some beneficial use applications, simply because potential project pr oponents may wish to avoid the hassle of dealing with these groups.

It is important that CCP stakeholders conti nue to present factual information to advocacy groups and the audiences of advocacy groups. F acilitating discussions among the CCP industry and advocacy groups may be more successful if a third party was used to moderate the

discussions.

Awareness of Federal CCP Programs

Most participants in the discussion groups were not aw are of the Green Highways Partnership, the Industrial Resources Council, or C 2 P 2 . Some had heard of the programs but did know what they could do to become involved or support these programs. For example, many did not think they could become a C 2 P 2 member if they were not doing something significant with CCP utilization and did not understand what was exp ected of members. In addition, they did not know who at their company/organizati on had the authority to sign the C 2 P 2 registration form.

These nation-wide programs offer a method of promoting benefici al use success stories and earn national recognition for those successes. Those interv iewed indicated that these programs could offer a means of ed ucating the general public about these success stories so that they hear about the positive aspects of CCP utilization. These pr ograms would likely be perceived by the general public as more credib le than information from industry alone. Also, more outreach needs to be done by thes e programs to get industry involved.

Education of Specifiers/Engineers

Lack of knowledge or negative perceptions toward CCPs was cite d among district and local highway personnel, architect s, engineers, and contactors. The lack of knowledge could be

attributed to the fact that e ngineers coming out of college rece ive, on average, less than 18 hours of concrete training in their ma terials class. In those 18 hours , CCPs are briefly mentioned, and professors often reference old data. It was sugge sted that negative perceptions could often be attributed to one bad experience that could have happened several decades ago 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 the material. Negati ve perceptions and lack of knowledge are interconnected and can have detrimental impacts on coal ash use. For example, at one time, the

Austin concrete market almost turned to an a ll-cement market because of one misuse resulting35 from a lack of education about the material. However, TxDOT did cite instances where CCPs were initially blamed for a failure, and TxDOT’s laboratory subsequently confirmed the correct cause for the failure. These types of corrections are imperative to overcoming education and

attitude barriers.

Some DOT offices have large variations of CCP use between district offices. This could be due in part because different areas of states ma y require different road building techniques based on geographic conditions. This could also be because some district engin eers have more negative or positive opinions of CCP use in road building applications.

Local educational efforts, such as techni cal presentations or short courses targeted specifically toward specifiers a nd engineers, are an effective me thod for educating this audience. State specifiers and engineers typically do not ha ve funding available to tr avel long distances. It is imperative that the educatio nal effort be held at a conveni ent location. The Federal Highway

Administration and EPA have seve ral effective educational materi als that are available free-ofcharge and include its “Fly Ash Facts for Highw ay Engineers,” “User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction,” and “Using Coal Ash in Highway Construction: A Guide to Benefits and Impacts.”

Encouragement and Incentives to Utilize CCPs

Different methods that could be taken to increase CCP uti lization were discussed at the individual state reviews. The following is a summar y of direct and indirect methods that can be taken to encourage CCP use.

States Need Beneficial Use Policies for CCPs

Based on the information obtained during the i ndividual state reviews, it is clear that not having state CCP beneficial use policies in place is a major barrier for increased CCP use. It also became apparent that state agencies that curren tly do not have CCP bene ficial use policies in place, such as the FDEP, will likely continue on th e same path if they are not approached to change policies. FDEP indicated that it did not have a push from the state or federal government or the general public to use CCPs and, therefore, had not dedicated the resources required to get those policies in place.

Mandates from state legislators can be an effective way of getting environmental departments to develop and adopt beneficial use policies; however, input from industry typically leads to policies that both parties (government and industry) agree will increase CCP utilization while still being protective of the environment.

State-Led Recycling Initiatives

Each state reviewed had state- led recycling initiatives that we re intended to increase the use of industrial by-products; how ever, only Texas had a program that focused specifically on CCPs. Based solely on the information obtained dur ing the review process, statewide recycling initiatives that specifically encourage the use of CCPs are effective in gaining acceptance of36 CCPs as a recycled material among government agen cy staff, end users, and the general public. Recycling program’s that do not specify CCP use are not effective in directly encouraging CCP

utilization.

The following is a summary of state-led re cycling incentives in each of the state’s

reviewed.

Texas-Led Recycling Incentives

TxDOT’s Road to Recycling Initiative was successful in encourag ing and promoting CCP use. In 1999, TxDOT highlighted CCPs in its “Y ear of the Road to Recycling” campaign. The campaign included the development of a 46-pa ge CCP summary document that includes a material overview, research summ aries, case studies, a list of TxDOT specifications currently allowing use of CCPs, material sources, and a summary of TxDOT’s experience with the

material. TxDOT used this tool to educate its st aff and contractors about the benefits of using CCPs in TxDOT projects.

The Texas transportation and environmental departments had programs that promoted the use of recycled materials including CCPs. These programs were a result of the state senate passing a bill to establish the RMDB. The RMDB was charged w ith coordinating the recycling

activities of all state agencies and pursuing an economic de velopment strategy that focuses on the state’s waste management priorities and the de velopment of recycling i ndustries and markets.

Florida-Led Recycling Incentives

The only push to recycle industrial by-products in Florida was in 1974 when the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act (Chapt er 403.701) required each county to prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan. In 1988, this Act was amended by the Solid Waste Management Act to establish state goals, re gulations, and programs for a host of solid waste activities. The Act sets recycling goals and requi res counties to develop recycling programs to meet these goals. It also creates programs to enc ourage the recycling of specific materials such as waste tires, compost, and batteries. However, the Act does not address or encourage the beneficial use of

CCPs.

Pennsylvania-Led Recycling Incentives

Since 1998, PennDOT and PA DEP have ope rated under a Memorandum of Understanding to promote and support recycled materials in state highway construction and maintenance projects. PennDOT’s Strategic Environmental Management Program focuses on recycled material use in maintenance projects, and the Strategic Recycling Program evaluates and helps implement recycling opportunities for new pr ojects. These programs are spearheaded by PennDOT, with support from PA DE P. Both of these programs consider CCPs to be recycled materials; however, they are not actively enco uraging the use of CCPs. In order for these programs to look more closely at CCPs, they w ould likely need to be approached by industry.37 Federal Encouragement of State-Led Recycling Initiatives

Programs such as EPA’s C 2 P 2 could encourage CCP use at th e state level by showing state legislators how initiatives such as the Texas RMDB encouraged recycling in other states. The promotion of Comprehensive Procurements Guidelin es may also be helpful in encouraging states to recycle.

LEED and Other Green Building Programs Encourage the Use of CCPs

The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Green Building Rating System was created to

transform the built environment to sustainabi lity by providing the building industry with consistent, credible standards for what constitutes a green building. Various LEED initiatives including legislati on, executive orders, resolutions, ordinanc es, policies, and in centives are found in 53 cities, 10 counties, 17 states, 33 schools, and 11 federal agencies across the United States

and Canada. 42 In addition, there has been a stea dy progression of non-LEED-related green building initiatives from various municipali ties, federal government, and states around the

country.

The LEED program indirectly encourages CCP recycling by offering points for products containing recycled materials, locally availabl e products, and energy-efficient products (i.e., concrete blocks, autoclaved cellular concrete). It is estimated that 18 of LEED’s possible 69 assessment points are related to CCP-containing products, namely concrete. However, the current LEED system does not favor the use of fly ash in concrete from a percent content standpoint. For example, standard concrete co ntaining 15% fly ash replacement versus a highvolume fly ash replacement rate of 50% would re ceive the same amount of credits. Even in Texas, where the LEED program is popular, there have been several L EED-certified buildings that did not incorporate fly ash into their concrete. Furthermore, a major green building conference in Austin did not address CCPs, indica ting to the authors and those who participated

in the Texas state review that the CCP industr y is not doing enough to pr omote CCP recycling in the green building industry.

The environmental and engineering benefits of using CCP-containing products should be a factor when the decision is made to use produc ts that may or may not contain CCPs. Often, if CCPs are used in construction projects, it is like ly because of the economic savings associated when using the material and not because of the fact that CCPs ar e a recycled material offering environmental and engineering benefits over virg in resources (i.e., decr eased need for landfill space, conservation of natural resources, reduced CO 2 emissions, reduced overall cost of generating electricity, and pr oduction of better products).

Because the LEED program is growing a nd becoming the most highly recognized and credible national green building program, the aut hors suggest that the CCP industry do more to become involved in LEED. LEED offers a forum for the CCP industry to promote its successes to new audiences who may not have heard about the benefits of using CCPs or considered CCPs to be a valuable recycled material. These new audi ences tend to be more receptive to appeals to use recycled products than the traditional clie nts of the CCP industry and may be able to publicize and promote the merits of CCP use to new end users. ACAA recently joined LEED,38 and it is anticipated that many industry leaders w ill follow. More work also needs to be done on state and local levels to encourage governments to adopt LEED initiatives that will either directly or indirectly encourage CCP use.

CO 2 Credits

With air emission regula tions in place for SO 2 , NO

x , and mercury, the coal ash industry is anticipating the implementation of more stringent federal CO 2 controls. Some states are also considering or have adopted their own CO 2 emission restrictions in the absence of federal mandates. These controls will place increased im portance on carbon trading. As an example, it is

estimated that 0.8–1 ton of CO 2 is saved for every 1 ton of fly ash used to replace cement in concrete because by using fly ash, the user is preventing CO 2 emissions from cement production. With nearly 15 million tons of fly ash used in c oncrete and concrete products alone, there is a significant amount of potential CO 2 emission credits available fo r concrete applications. The question still remains on who will receive th ese carbon credits. Everyone from the CCP generator, CCP marketer, ready-mix supplier, and ultimate end user will be vying for these

credits.

TRI Reporting

During the reviews, the questio n 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 exempti ons but said that in order to get an exemption for all electric generating companies, there would have to be a large test case from a large electric generating company with support from industry groups such as ACAA. Some indus try representatives interviewed believe this change is necessary becau se some definitions of release contradict the goals of C 2 P 2 . In addition, TRI reporting takes considerab le effort, and this change would be an incentive for the power plant manager to reuse more material.

Economics

Economics are a key factor in th e beneficial use of CCPs. In most cases of beneficial use observed during the state review process, econ omics were the primary reason why CCPs were selected over virgin materials. Engineerin g performance was also considered but the environmental benefits for using the material were rarely considered a reason to use CCPs. Oftentimes, end users are not even aware that their product contains CCPs. Economics may

become less of a factor in the future as CO 2 credits become more valuable and the green building movement gains more wide-spread acceptance.

The economic viability of CCP use is expected to become even more important as more requirements are placed on CCP disposal and the permitting process for new landfills or surface impoundments becomes more difficult. For example, EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) to inform the public on the disposal of CCPs in landfills and surface impoundments.

This NODA is in review.39 Economics are also a critical factor within the electric generating company management structure. The electric gene rating company representatives interviewed were middle-level managers and said that convincing upper manage ment to make ash utilization a priority was possible once they saw the economic advantages. These economic advantages are best realized when they are shown in the operations and planning side of the company rather than the fuel side because the revenue stream from selling by-products gets lost in the fuel cost. However, ash managers at electric generating companies that have inexpensive and plen tiful disposal options

often find it difficult to make the case that reso urces (i.e., employees and infrastructure) should

be dedicated to ash utilization when it is cheaper to dispose of the material.

CONCLUSIONS

With the information gained from conducting the series of state reviews, it is reasonable to perform an analysis on how the succ esses in the states reviewed can be translated to other states. This paper presented a brief summary of common alities that appeared when the three state reviews were analyzed. The following is a list of recommendations that can be applied to industry and state agencies that would encourage the use of CCPs.

Recommendations to Industry

• Use existing or institute new industry groups to facilitate communication with state agencies on the development of rules, regulations, guideline s, or policies that support the beneficial use

of CCPs.

• Be proactive and support state agencies in deve loping new rules, guidelines, regulations, and policies that encourage the beneficial use of CCP s. State agencies that currently do not have CCP beneficial use policies in place will likely continue on the same path if they are not approached to change. Industry i nvolvement typically le ads to policies that both parties agree on while still being protective of the environment.

• Support educational activities for government agen cy staff and specifiers/engineers that focus on the environmental, engineering, and econom ic benefits of using CCPs. This can be accomplished by sponsoring or hosting workshops and educational activities. Case studies highlighting economic savings and enhanced product performance using CCPs can also be

documented and disseminated.

• Take advantage of state and federal programs to facilitate and fund de monstration projects. Local, long-term demonstration projects are per ceived as being extremely valuable to state agencies.

• Use existing resources (DOE, EPA, ACAA, Western Region Ash Group, other state groups, university groups) to promote CCP use in stat es. These agencies have numerous outreach tools, research reports, and data available that support the beneficial use of CCPs.40 • Continue to ensure quality CCP -containing products because one mi suse can be detrimental to

future CCP use.

• Foster new relations, particularly between electric generating companies and cement and concrete producers, to work collaboratively to increase CCP utiliza tion. For example, joint investments could be made to develop infrastructure at the plant site.

• Launch your own public relations campaign to promote your company as being a good steward of the environment by using CCPs in an environmentally appropriate manner.

Recommendations to State Agencies

• Look to available resources, including those in other states, for guidance on use applications. Beneficial use applications that work in one state can generally work in another; however, state agencies should still remain cautious of special c onsiderations (i.e., high water table) in

their individual states.

• Participate in educational events at local, st ate, regional, and nati onal levels as able.

• Review existing resources from industry groups , federal agencies, and universities to better understand use options. Oftentimes, new data do es not need to be generated to support new

uses.

• Communicate concerns to industr y and participate in research and demonstration projects.

• Develop straightforward guidelines to qualif y CCPs for specific use applications using guidelines in other states or federal guideline recommendations.

• Implement recycling initiatives th at encourages state agencies to use CCPs, and educate them on the benefits of using CCPs.

Recommendation to Federal Agencies

• Provide state agencies with technical guida nce on developing cautious guidelines for use.

Successful case studies could be used to highlight potential applications.

• Provide economic incentives for using CCPs. These incentives could come in the form of tax credits or subsidies to any en tity or consumer along the utili zation chain, including electric generating companies, ash marketers, ready-mix suppliers, and end users.

• Continue to provide grants and other funding opportunities for research and development to address new technical challenges (i.e., CCP qua lity after new air emissions regulations are adopted).

• Track and promote the quantity of CCPs used in federal projects.41 • Continue to offer educational opportunities and learning materials to st ate agencies and end users. Federal agencies tend to be perceived as offering unbias ed information, so educational efforts supported by federal agencies can be seen as more credible.

• Cooperate with federal green-b uilding initia tives (i.e., USGBC LEED , EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines) to promote CCPs as a green material and develop standards that

encourage greater use.

• Work toward consistent messages regarding CCP utilization within and between federal agencies, including definitions of beneficial use, releases, and use of terms (i.e., coal combustion products vs. fossil fuel waste).

REFERENCES

1. American Coal Ash Association. 2005 Coal Combustion Product Production and Use Survey ; Sept 29, 2006.

2. American Coal Ash Association. State Solid Waste Regulations Governing the Use of Coal Combustion Products (CCPs); Aug 1998.

3. Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.P.; Sondreal, E.A.; St eadman, E.N.; Eylands, K.E.; Dockter, B.A. Barriers to the Increased Utilization of C oal Combustion/Desulfurization By-Products by Government and Commercial Sectors – Update 1998 ; Topical Report for U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laborat ory Cooperative Agreement No. DE FC21- 93MC30097; EERC Publication N o. 99-EERC-07-08; July 1999.

4. Dockter, B.A.; Jagiella, D.M. Engineering and Environmenta l Specifications of State Agencies for Utilization and Dis posal of Coal Combustion Products ; Final Report for the Combustion By-Products Recycling Consor tium; CBRC Project No. 02-CBRC-W12; EERC Publication No. 2005-EERC-07-04; July 2005.

5. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Coal Supply and Demand: 2006 Review ; Released April 2007; www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/speci al/feature.html (accessed April 2007).

6. Energy Information Administration. Annual Coal Report for 2005 ; www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr _sum.html (accessed April 2007).

7. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 ; Released February 2007; www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.h tml (accessed April 2007).

8. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Coal Consumption by End-Use Sector ; Released March 23, 2007; www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/qu arterly/html/t28p01p1.html (accessed April 2007).42 9. The National Coal Council. Coal: American’s Energy Future ; Library of Congress Catalog No. 2006924747; March 2006; Vol. 1.

10. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Annual with Data for 2005 ; Released October 4, 2006; www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elect ricity/epa/epa_sum.html (accessed April 2007).

11. Berland (Buckley), T.D.; Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F.; Dockter, B.A.; Eylands, K.E.; Hassett, D.J.; Heebink, L.V. Review of Handling and Use of FGD Material ; CARRC Topical Report for U.S. Department of Energy Nationa l Energy Technology Laboratory Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-98FT40321; April 2003.

12. Stiegel, G.J.; Ramezan, M. The Case for Gasification. Air & Waste Management

Association 2004, Dec, 27–33.

13. Dalton, S. Cost Comparison IGCC and Advan ced Coal. Presented at the Round-Table on Deploying Advanced Clean Coal Plants, Washington, DC, July 29, 2004.

14. Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F. IGCC and PFBC By-Products: Gene ration, Characteristics, and Management Practices ; Energy & Environmental Research Center: Grand Forks, ND, Sept

1997.

15. Founie, A. Gypsum, 2005 Minerals Yearbook ; U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, D.C.,

Feb 2007.

16. Wolfe, B., The Andersons Inc. Personal communication, Feb 16, 2005.

17. Berry, T., Tampa Electric Company Polk Po wer Station. Personal communication, Feb 10,

2005.

18. Lynch, T., SG Solutions, LLC, Wabash Rive r Plant. Personal communication, March 15,

2005.

19. National Academy of Sciences. Managing Coal Combusti on Residues in Mines ; The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2006.

20. Akers, P. Review of State Regulations, Standards, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal Combustion Products, TCAUG Responses ; Unpublished work, 2004.

21. Akers, P. Coal Combustion Products (CCP s) General Information, Pictures, Recycling Applications. Presented at the EPA Li stening Meeting, Dallas, TX, April 13, 2004.

22. Biden, D.L. Listening Session on the Prac tices of Placing Coal Combustion Byproducts in Coal Mines and at Surface Dis posal Impoundments and Landfills ; Electric Power Generation Association Report Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Harrisburg, PA, March 2004.43 23. Pennsylvania Department of Envir onmental Protection. Residual Waste. Title 25.

Environmental Protection ; Effective Jan 13, 2001; Chapters 287–299.

24. Year of the Recycled Roadway Materi als, November Coal Combustion Products; ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/ gsd/pdf/yrr_nov.pdf (accessed Sept 2004).

25. Heebink, L.V., Buckley, T.D. A Review of Literature Related to the Use of Spray Dryer Absorber Material: Production, Characterization, Utilization Applications, Barriers, and

Recommendations ; Draft Final Report Prepared for EPRI, Unpublished work, Dec 2006.

26. Bruce, B. Balancing Supply and Demand of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum in

USA/Canada. In Proceedings of the Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control MEGA Symposium ; Washington, D.C., Aug 30 – Sept 2, 2004, p 1491–1501.

27. Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazar dous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam-Generating Units. Fed. Regist. 2000, 65 (245), 79825–79831.

28. Hassett, D.J.; Heebink, L.V.; Pflughoeft-Ha ssett, D.F.; Buckley, T.D.; Zacher, E. J. Mercury and Air Toxic Element Impacts of Coal Co mbustion By-Product Disposal and Utilization ; Draft Final Report Prepared fo r the U.S. Department of En ergy National Energy Technology Laboratory Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-02NT41727; March 2007.

29. Sanderson, J; Blythe, G.M.; Richardson, M. Fate of Mercury in Synt hetic Gypsum Used for

Wallboard Production ; Topical Report, Task 5 Wallboard Plant Test Results, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Nationa l Energy Technology Laboratory Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-04NT42080; June 2006.

30. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. Final Rule and Proposed Rule. Federal Register 2006

, 71 (244).

31. Pew, J.S. Letter to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the Sierra Club, Feb 20, 2007.

32. Aljoe, W.W. DOE’s Perspective and Research on Mercury in Coal Utilization By-Products (CUBs). Presented at the American Coal Ash Association 2007 Winter Meeting, Jacksonville, FL, Jan 30, 2007.

33. Vories, K. A Technical Review of the Fina l Report of the National Academy of Sciences Managing Coal Combusti on Residues in Mines ; Presented at the World of Coal Ash Conference, Covington, KY, May 7–10, 2007.

34. Clean Air Task Force. The Impacts on Water Quality from Placement of Coal CombustionWaste in Pennsylva nia Coal Mines. July 2007,

35. www.catf.us/projects/power_sector/power _plant_waste/paminefill (accessed Dec 2007).44 36. Hoosier Environmental Council, Ash and Groundwater. The Indianapolis Star / The Indianapolis News – November 27, 1998, www.hecweb.org/ProgramsandInitatives/CCW /indianapolis_star_nov_27_98.htm (accessed Dec 2007).

37. Citizens Coal Council and Hoosier Environm ental Council. Power Plant Waste. March 2004, www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/archive/fact s/0304PPWNewsletter.doc (accessed Dec 2007).

38. Clean Air Task Force. Laid to Waste: The Dirty Secret of Combustion Waste from America’s Power Plants. March 2000, www.cat f.us/publications/view/6 (accessed Dec 2007).

39. Bruggers, J. The Debate Over Toxic Coal Ash. The Courier-Journal, Sept 27, 2002, www.greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/092702gr eat_lakes_coal_ash.htm (accessed Dec 2007).

40. Sierra Club. Clean Air & Energy Campai gn, Kansas City Area and Missouri. http://missouri.sierraclub.org/misc/C EC_KansasCity.pdf (accessed Dec 2007).

41. Citizens Coal Council. Waste from Coal-F ired Power Plants. Spring 2004 Power Plant News, www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/archive/ facts/coalwaste.htm (accessed Dec 2007).

42. U.S. Green Building Council

. LEED Initiatives in Government by Type ; Feb 2007; www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?Docume ntID=1741 (accessed March 13, 2007).

# APPENDIX A

LIST OF ALL PARTICIPANTSA-1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

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

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. Jeffrey Ankrom

Vice President Quality Aggregates, Inc.

200 Neville Road Neville Island, PA 15225 Phone: (724) 290-2100 Fax: (412) 777-6684 E-Mail: jankrom@quality-aggregates.com

Mr. Harvie Beavers Project Manager Piney Creek, L.P.

428 Power Lane Clarion, PA 16214 Phone: (814) 226-8001 Fax: (814) 226-7909 E-Mail: harvie-pclp@csonline.net 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. Michael Bergin State Structural Materials Engineer

State Materials Office Florida Department of Transportation

Materials Research Park

5007 Northeast 39th Avenue Gainseville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 955-6666 Fax: (352) 955-6680 E-mail: michael.bergin@dot.state.fl.us

Mr. Paul Bieber Vice President, Eastern Regions Boral Material Technologies, Inc. 1343 Canton Road, Suite C Morietta, GA 30066 Phone: (770) 423-1883 Cell: (954) 445-1820 E-mail: paul.bieber@boral.com

Mr. Perry Bryan

Headwaters Resources 10653 South Riverfront Parkway, Suite 300 South Jordan, UT 84095

Ms. Tera Buckley Marketing Research Specialist University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center 15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202 Phone: (701) 777-5296 Fax: (701) 777-5181 E-Mail: tbuckley@undeerc.orgA-2 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

Mr. Padam Chheda Director, Materials & Process Development National Gypsum

2001 Rexford Road Charlotte, NC 28211 Phone: (704) 365-7328 E-mail: phchheda@nationalgypsum.com

Mr. Gary Cline Environmental Manager Homer City Station EME Homer City Generation, LP

1750 Power Plant Road Homer City, PA 15748 Phone: (724) 479-6255 Fax: (724) 479-6300 E-Mail: gcline@mwgen.com

Mr. Tom Collins Sales Representative Separation Technologies (Pro-Ash) 109 Stonybrook Lane New Oxford, PA 17350 Phone: (717) 514-0186 E-Mail: tcollins@proash.com

Mr. Rodney Concienne Operations and Maintenance

Environmental Division Texas Department of Transportation

125 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701-2483 E-Mail: env-spec.rconcie@dot.state.tx.us Ms. Lisa Cooper

Vice President Progress Materials, Inc.

PO Box 111 Tampa, FL 33601-0111 Phone: (919) 546-4619 Cell: (919) 632-6853 Fax: (919-546-4940 E-mail: lisa.cooper@pgnmail.com

Mr. Jim Cravens Federal Highway Administration

300 East 8th Street Austin, TX 78701

Dr. Charles Cravotta Hydrologist/Geochemist

Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey

215 Lime Kiln Road New Cumberland, PA 17070 Phone: (717) 730-6963 Fax: (717) 730-6997 E-Mail: cravotta@usgs.gov

Mr. Alfred Dalberto Bureau of Mining and Reclamation Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection

PO Box 8461 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8461 Phone: (717) 783-8845 E-Mail: adalberto@state.pa.us

Mr. Timothy Danehy BioMost, Inc.

3016 Unionville Road Cranberry Township, PA 16066 Phone: (724) 776-0161 Fax: (724) 776-0166 E-Mail: bmi@biomost.com

Mr. Thomas D'Annunzio Exelon Corporation 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19345 Phone: (610) 765-5831 Fax: (610) 765-5561 E-Mail: tom.dannunzio@exeloncorp.comA-3 Mr. Al DePaoli Environmental Manager AES Beaver Valley LLC

395 Frankfort Road Monaca, PA 15061 Phone: (724) 773-2966 E-Mail: al.depaoli@aes.com

Dr. Anthony DiGioia

President DiGioia, Gray & Associates, LLC

11 Wisteria Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15235 Phone: (412) 372-4500 Fax: (412) 372-1972 E-Mail: tony@digioia.org

Mr. Stephen Dixon Reliant Energy 121 Champion Way, Suite 200 Canonsburg, PA 15317 Phone: (724) 597-8205 Fax: (724) 597-8870 E-Mail: sdixon@reliant.com

Ms. Donna Fabrizio

Environmental Affairs

Exelon Power 300 Exelon Way, Suite 320 Kennett Square, PA 19348 Phone: (610) 765-5891 E-Mail: donna.fabrizio@exeloncorp.com

Mr. Jeff Fair Fly Ash Projects Manager Lafarge North America 6109 Beverly Hills Road Coopersburg, PA 18036 Phone: (610) 751-7367 Fax: (610) 261-9020 E-Mail: jeff.fair@lafarge-na.com Mr. Doug Farrell

Technical Director

Centex Materials LLC 3801 South Capital of Texas Highway

Suite 250 Austin, TX 78704 Phone: (512) 693-2710 Mobile: (512) 422-3874 Fax: (512) 444-9809 E-mail: ctxdirector@aol.com

Ms. Elaine Farrington Account Manager – Combustion Byproducts Tampa Electric Company

PO Box 111 Tampa, FL 33601-0111 Phone: (813) 228-1627 Cell: (813) 924-6411 Fax: (813) 228-1033 E-mail: ehfarrington@tecoenergy.com

Ms. Susan (Susi) S. Ferguson Manager, Environmental Policy, Policy and Regulations Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MC-205, PO Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Phone: (512) 239-2320 Fax: (512) 239-4808 E-mail: sferguso@tceq.state.tx.us

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.usA-4 Mr. Kevin Foody Manager, Technical Service Eastern Region Boral Material Technologies, Inc. 1343 Canton Road, Suite C Marietta, GA 30066 Phone: (770) 423-1883 ext. 111 Cell: (404) 394-6386 Fax: (770) 423-1613 E-mail: kevin.foody@boral.com

Mr. Jim Frauen Manager of Environmental Affairs Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. 16313 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, FL 33618 Phone: (813) 739-1213 Fax: (813) 264-7906 E-mail: jfrauen@seminole-electric.com

Dr. Steve Gasiorowski Laboratory Manager/Quality Control Separation Technologies LLC 101 Hampton Avenue Needham, MA 02494 Phone: (781) 972-2307 Fax: (781) 433-0289 E-mail: sgasiorowski@proash.com

Mr. John Gaynor Manager, Synthetic Gypsum U.S. Gypsum

125 South Franklin Street Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 606-3735 Fax: (312) 606-5672 E-mail: jgaynor@usg.com

Mr. Bruce Golden Regional Coordinator

Western PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine

Reclamation

226 Donohoe Road

Suite 110 Greensburg, PA 15601 Phone: (724) 832–3625 E-Mail: bruce@wpcamr.org Mr. David Goss

Executive Director

American Coal Ash Association 15200 East Girard Avenue, Suite 3050 Aurora, CO 80014 Phone: (720) 870-7897 Fax: (720) 870-7889 E-Mail: dcgoss@acaa-usa.org

Mr. Monte Gottier Senior Engineering Associate Environmental Supervisor, Fayette Power Project Lower Colorado River Authority

PO Box 519 La Grange, TX 78945 Phone: (800) 776-5272, ext. 8340 Phone 2: (979) 249-8340 Pager: (512) 205-7256 Fax: (979) 473-249-8392 E-mail: mgottier@lcra.org

Mr. Thomas Gray GAI Consultants, Inc.

385 East Waterfront Drive Homestead, PA 15120-5005 Phone: (412) 476-2000 ext. 1406 Fax: (412) 476-2020 E-Mail: t.gray@gaiconsultants.com

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. Gary Haney Coal Combustion By-Product Program

Administrator FirstEnergy Corp.

76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 Phone: (330) 384-4676 E-Mail: haneyg@firstenergycorp.comA-5 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. Ron Hassinger

Chief

General Permits/Beneficial Use Section Division of Municipal and Residual Waste Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection

400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17105-8472 Phone: (717) 787-7381 E-Mail: rhassinger@state.pa.us

Mr. Jerry Haught

Vice President Technical Services Rinker Materials Corporation 1557 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1 Jupiter, FL 33458 Phone: (561) 745-5253 Fax: (561) 746-1727 E-mail: jhaught@rinker.com

Mr. Rick Haverland Director of Business Development Mineral Resource Technologies, Inc./Cemex

506 East Xenia Drive Fairborn, OH 45324 Phone: (937) 879-8376 Cell: (937) 609-8745 Fax: (937) 879-8429 E-mail: rhaverland@mrtus.com

Ms. Jennifer Hazen McCloskey Environmental Engineer

Environmental Performance Allegheny Energy, Inc.

800 Cabin Hill Drive Greensburg, PA 15601 Phone: (724) 838-6066 Fax: (724) 830-5142 E-Mail: jmcclos@alleghenyenergy.com 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

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

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. Joe Horton Environmental Manager

Suwannee American Cement

PO Box 410 Branford, FL 32008 Phone: (386) 935-5039 Fax: (386) 935-5080 E-mail: jbhorton@suwanneecement.com

Mr. Allen Hubbard Supervisor, Power Plant NPDES Permitting

Industrial Wastewater Section Florida Department of Environmental

Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4565 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Phone: (850) 245-8592 E-mail: allen.hubbard@dep.state.fl.usA-6 Ms. Mary Hunt

Beneficial Use Coordinator Waste & Chemicals Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1650 Arch Street – 3WC22 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 814-3425 Fax: (215)814-3113 E-Mail: hunt.mary@epa.gov

Mr. Charles Ishee

State Materials Office Florida Department of Transportation

Materials Research Park

5007 Northeast 39th Avenue Gainseville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 955-6667 E-mail: charles.ishee@dot.state.fl.us

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

Mr. Joseph Johnson Operations Pozzi-Tech, Inc.

637 Fowler Avenue Berwick, PA 18603 Phone: (570) 854-3618 Fax: (570) 759-3836 E-Mail: grayman@sunlink.net

Mr. Jason Jones Mid-Atlantic Sales Representative Separation Technologies LLC

6071 Catawba Road Troutville, VA 24175 Cell: (540) 819-1998 E-mail: jjones@titanamerica.com 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

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

Mr. Winson King Manager Chemistry Lab Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

1118 State Street

PO Box 2926 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone: (717) 783-6716 Fax: (717) 783-5955 E-Mail: wiking@state.pa.us

Mr. Conrad A. Kuharic Project Manager

Industrial and Hazardous Waste Permits

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MC-130, PO Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Phone: (512) 239-0998 Fax: (512) 239-6383 E-mail: ckuharic@tceq.state.tx.us

Ms. Ann Kulp

Electric Power Generation Association 800 North 3rd Street, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: (717) 909-3742 Fax: (717) 909-1941 E-Mail: ann@epga.orgA-7 Mr. Dave Kuniega

Chief Chemist Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

1118 State Street

PO Box 2926 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone: (717) 787-3966 Fax: (717) 783-5955 E-Mail: dkuniega@state.pa.us

Mr. William “Bill” Kutash Professional Geologist Administrator Waste Management Division

Southwest District Florida Department of Environmental

Protection

3804 Coconut Palm Drive Tampa, FL 33619 Phone: (813) 744-6100 E-mail: William.Kutash@dep.state.fl.us

Mr. Larry LaBuz Supervisor of Coal Combustion Products PPL Generation, LLC

Two North Ninth Street

GENPL6 Allentown, PA 18101-1179 Phone: (610) 774-5340 Fax: (610) 774-4759 E-Mail: lllabuz@pplweb.com

Ms. Dru Latchman Environmental Engineer Tampa Electric Company

PO Box 111 Tampa, FL 33601-0111

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 Mr. Al Linero Program Administrator Air Resources Management Florida Department of Environmental

Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 5505 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Phone: (850) 921-9523 E-mail: Alvaro.Linero@dep.state.fl.us

Mr. Milan Lipensky Quality Assurance Manager Pennsy Supply 1001 Paxton Street, PO Box 3331 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Phone: (717) 236-7029 Fax: (717) 236-7087 E-Mail: mlipensky@oldcastlematerials.com

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. William “Lee” Martin

Solid Waste Section

Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste Florida Department of Environmental

Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4565 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Phone: (850) 245-8734 Fax: (850) 245-8734 E-mail: lee.martin@dep.state.fl.usA-8 Mr. Matthew McClure Environmental Permitting & Regulatory

Conformance

JEA

21 West Church Street Jacksonville, FL 32202-3139 Phone: (904) 665-6253 Cell: (904) 919-9611 Fax: (904) 666-7376 E-mail: mcclmr@jea.com

Mr. Chris McGuire

Assistant General Counsel

Office of General Counsel

Waste-Air Section Florida Department of Environmental

Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Phone: (850) 245-2291 Fax: (850) 245-2302 E-mail: Chris.McGuire@dep.state.fl.us

Mr. Jeff McNelly

Executive Director

ARIPPA

2015 Chestnut Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 763-7635 Fax: (717) 763-7455 E-Mail: jamcnelly1@arippa.org

Mr. Chad Melita Sales Manager, Southeastern Region Boral Matetial Technologies Inc. 1343 Canton Road, Suite C Marietta, GA 30066 Phone: (813) 376-6337 Fax: (770) 423-1613 E-mail: chad.melita@boral.com

Mr. Michael Menghini Environmental Group Manager Pottsville District Mining Office Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection

5 West Laurel Boulevard Pottsville, PA 17901-2454 Phone: (570) 621-3118 Fax: (570) 621-3110 E-mail: mmenghini@state.pa.us Mr. Gary Merritt

Vice President Inter-Power Development 100 High Tower Blvd., Suite 101 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 Phone: (412) 788-2400 Fax: (412)788-0270 E-mail: glmerritt@interpower.org

Ms. Patricia Miller Concrete, Cement, Soils and Aggregate Testing Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

1118 State Street

PO Box 2926 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone: (717) 787-2489 Fax: (717) 783-5955 E-Mail: pimiller@state.pa.us

Mr. Ajoy Mukherjee

President Environmental Mining Services

865 Marion Road Indiana, PA 15701-1400 Phone: (724) 357-8650

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

Mr. Dennis Noll

President Earthtech, Inc. 336 Bloomfield Street, Suite 201 Johnstown, PA 15904 Phone: (814) 266-6402 E-Mail: etidennis@atlanticbb.netA-9 Mr. Rob Olivia Sales Manager Progress Materials, Inc.

PO Box 1551

PEB 9 Raleigh, NC 27602 Phone: (919) 546-5120 Cell: (919) 630-1915 Fax: (919) 546-4940 E-mail: Robert.oliva@pgnmail.com

Mr. Michael Petrovich Attorney Hopping Green & Sams

PO Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Phone: (850) 425-2254 Fax: (850) 224-8551 E-mail: petrovichm@hgslaw.com

Ms. Debra Pflughoeft-Hassett

Research Advisor University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center 15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018 Grand Forks, ND 58202 Phone: (701) 777-5261 Fax: (701) 777-5181 E-Mail: dphassett@undeerc.org

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

Ms. Tanya Portillo Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 1408 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 1002 Tampa, FL 33607-4512 Phone: (813) 289-5644 Fax: (813) 289-5646 E-mail: TanyaP@frcc.com Mr. Troy Quebbeman Contracts Manager Lehigh Cement Company 7660 Imperial Way Allentown, PA 18195 Phone: (610) 366-4708 E-Mail: tquebbeman@leighcement.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

Dr. Arthur Rose Pennsylvania State University 726 Edgewood Circle State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 865-7261 E-Mail: rose@ems.psu.edu

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

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.eduA-10 Mr. Thomas Schmaltz Corporate Environmental Manager Headwaters Incorporated

1160 Millstone Run Bogart, GA 30622 Phone: (706) 549-7903 E-Mail: tschmaltz@headwaters.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

Ms. Farzie Shelton Manager of Environmental Affairs

Lakeland Electric

501 East Lemon Street Lakeland, FL 33801 Phone: (863) 834-6603 Fax: (863) 834-8187

E-mail: farzie.she lton@lakelandgov.net

Mr. John Shoucair, P.E. Geotechnical Materials Engineer Florida Department of Transportation

Materials Research Park

5007 Northeast 39th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 955-2925 Cell: (352) 339-1799 Fax: (352) 955-2940 E-mail: john.shoucair@dot.state.fl.us

Mr. Zahur Siddiqui Pavement & Materials Engineer Pennsylvania Division Federal Highway Administration Phone: (717) 221-3410 E-Mail: Zahur.Siddiqui@fhwa.dot.gov 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

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. Robert Stafford Senior Environmental Specialist

Environmental Services Section Progress Energy Service Company, LLC

100 Central Avenue

CX 1B St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Phone: (727) 820-5538 E-mail: robert.stafford@pgnmail.com

Mr. Jeff Steeber Staff Engineer UGI Development Company

390 Route 11

PO Box 224 Hunlock Creek, PA 18621-0224 Phone: (570) 830-1267 E-Mail: jsteeber@ugidc.comA-11 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

Mr. Richard Taylor Robindale Energy Services, Inc.

7 Riverside Plaza

PO Box 38 Blossburg, PA 16912 Phone: (570) 638-0219 E-Mail: rusty.taylor@resfuel.com

Mr. Richard Tedder Program Administrator

Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste Division of Waste Management

Solid Waste Section Florida Department of Environmental

Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4565 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Phone: (850) 245-8735 Fax: (850) 245-8811 E-mail: richard.tedder@dep.state.fl.us

Ms. Margo Thomson Manager Concrete Testing Lab Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

1118 State Street

PO Box 2926 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone: (717) 787-1931 Fax: (717) 783-5955 E-Mail: mthomson@state.pa.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

Mr. Dan Traynor Northhampton Generating Co., L.P.

1 Horwith Drive

PO Box 460 Northhampton, PA 18067 Phone: (610) 261-3073 Fax: (610) 261-3075 E-Mail: danieltraynor@cogentrix.com

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

Mr. Roy Trout Manager Soils and Cement Testing Labs Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

1118 State Street

PO Box 2926 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone: (717) 787-1910 Fax: (717) 783-5955 E-Mail: rtrout@state.pa.us

Mr. Kimery Vories Ecologist USDI Office of Surface Mining Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center

501 Belle Street Alton, IL 62002 Phone: (618) 463-6463 ext. 103 Fax: (618) 463-6470 E-Mail: kvories@osmre.govA-12 Mr. Craig Wallace Technical Sales Representative

Headwaters Resources 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway

PMB 190 Cape Coral, FL 33904 Phone: (239) 540-9143 Cell: (239) 565-2338 Fax: (239) 540-9748 E-mail: cwallace@headwaters.com

Mr. Terry Watson

President Pozzi-Tech, Inc. 4700 Vestal Parkway East Vestal, NY 13850 Phone: (607) 798-0655 E-Mail: tewatson@pozzitech.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@eag lematerials.com

Ms. Melissa Williams Quality Control Engineer Florida Rock Industries, Inc.

TS Baker Cement Plant

4000 Northwest CR 235 Newberry, FL 32669 Tampa Bay, FL Phone: (352) 472-4722 ext. 131 Phone 2: (800) 282-9171 ext. 131 Fax: (352) 472-2449 E-mail: mwilliams@flarock.com