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 2007 
DISCLAIMER

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

States Government. Neither the United States Government, 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 necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government 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 the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 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 Cooperative Agreement No. DE-AP26-06NT04745 

However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of 

the authors(s) and do not necessarily 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 University of North Dakota, as an account of work 

sponsored by DOE. Because of the research nature of the work performed, neither the EERC nor 

any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, 

product, or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. 

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement 

or recommendation by the EERC. 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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, Production, and Use in the United States ............................ 8 

 Fly Ash ........................................................................................................................ 9 

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

 FGD Material............................................................................................................. 10 

 Boiler Slag ................................................................................................................. 11 

 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 Developing Beneficial Use Regulations........................... 15 

 Regulatory Development and Status in Texas........................................................... 16 

 Regulatory Development and Status in Florida......................................................... 18 

 Regulatory Development and Status in Pennsylvania............................................... 19 

Effectiveness of Industry-Led Group Involvement in Developing Beneficial 

Use Regulations......................................................................................................... 20 

 

Continued... 
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

 State Department of Transportation (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 SO2 Control.............................................................................................. 26 

 Impacts of NOx Control............................................................................................. 27 

 Impacts of Mercury Control ...................................................................................... 27 

 Impact of the NAS Study .................................................................................................... 29 

 Communication, Education, and Perception Barriers ......................................................... 32 

 Communication During Demonstration 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 Incentives to Utilize CCPs ................................................................. 35 

 States Need Beneficial Use Policies for CCPs .......................................................... 35 

 State-Led Recycling Initiatives ................................................................................. 35 

 LEED and Other Green Building Programs Encourage the Use of CCPs ................ 37 

 CO2 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 A 
iii 

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 .................................................................... 3 
iv 

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 

C2

P2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule 

CaSO3 calcium sulfite 

CaSO4 calcium sulfate 

CCB coal combustion by-products 

CCP coal combustion products 

CH4 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 

H2 hydrogen gas 

HB House Bill 

IGCC integrated gasification combined-cycle 

LOI loss-on-ignition 

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 

NOx 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 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

TAC Texas Administrative Code 

TCAUG Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group 

TNRCC Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission 

TXDOT Texas Department of Transportation 
v 

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 different coal combustion product 

(CCP) utilization profiles across the United States, 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 barriers, 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, standards, and practices related to the use of CCPs. Individual state 

reviews were conducted in Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania. 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 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 during 

the interviews was compiled and summarized in individual state reports. This synthesis report is a 

completion of the series of individual 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 Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory. Additional individual reviews may 

take place in other states. 

 Each state had a different regulatory framework, political climate, infrastructure, economy, 

coal source, and geographic location. These characteristics contributed to differences in CCP 

production and use among the states reviewed. Despite these unique characteristics, several 

commonalities were identified and used to translate individual state review observations to a 

national perspective. The following is a brief summary of observations: 

• Organized industry-led groups can be effective in working with government agencies 

and state legislators because each one represents a unified voice on behalf 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 American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials and ASTM International for guidance on 

developing their own specifications. State DOT specifications typically set the bar for 

other CCP users in the state because the road-building industry generally views state 

DOT specifications 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, it is imperative 

that DOT specifications are noted because they set the tone for how CCPs are used 

across the state in road building and other applications. 
vi 

• To comply with 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 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 taken to protect the environment and public health. Mine 

placement was not discussed at the Texas and 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 and electric generating companies. 

• Different methods that could be taken to increase 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, CO2 credits, and the exemption of Toxic 

Release Inventory reporting for beneficial use. 

• Economics are a key factor in the beneficial use of CCPs. In most cases of beneficial 

use observed during the state review process, economics were the primary reason why 

CCPs were selected over virgin materials. 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 products (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 increase CCP utilization to 50% by 2011. As 2011 draws 

near, this goal appears to be more difficult to attain, particularly as new air emission regulations 

are implemented, resulting in larger quantities and changing 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 Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2

P2), Recycled 

Materials Research Center, Green Highways Partnership, Combustion Byproducts Recycling 

Consortium and U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED®) program. Other programs such as the newly 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 with 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, and guidelines regarding 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 environment. However, some states still lack the 

resources and information to feel comfortable with the environmental appropriateness of using 

CCPs in certain applications, particularly nonconcrete applications. In addition, changing state 

laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines can be a lengthy process, taking a number of years to 

come to fruition, which often frustrates CCP industry stakeholders. 

 To better understand the status and development of different CCP utilization profiles across 

the United States, the University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center 

(EERC) 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 barriers, 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, standards, and practices related to the use of CCPs. For the first pilot state, the effort 

was achieved with funds from EPA and Headwaters Resources, LLC. Texas was selected as the 

pilot state because of its progressive approach to CCP utilization. Additional funding was 

awarded by EPA and DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to conduct a second 

state review. Florida was selected as the second state to review, primarily because it was 

undergoing changes to its CCP regulations. The EERC subsequently received funding from EPA, 

DOE NETL, and the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) to perform a review in a third 

state that exhibited a different CCP use scenario and geographic area than the previous two 
2 

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 individual 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 practices. The preparation of this synthesis report 

is funded by EPA and DOE NETL. Additional individual reviews may take place in other states.

BACKGROUND 

U.S. Coal Production and Consumption 

 According to preliminary data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. 

coal production reached a record level 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 short 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, the interior and western regions 

had an increase in their production levels in 2006 of 1.5 percent and 5.9 percent, respectively, 

while Appalachian coal production declined by 1.7%.5 Similar trends in coal production are 

expected to continue. The Annual 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 Figure 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 coal-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-based 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. 
3 

Table 1. Coal Production and Number of Mines by State6, a,b

Coal-Producing Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Anthracite 

State and Regionc

Number 

of Mines Production 

Number of 

Mines Production 

Number 

of Mines Production 

Number 

of Mines Production 

Alabama 53 21,339 - - - - - - Alaska - - 1 1454 - - - - Arizona 2 12,072 - - - - - - Arkansas 1 3 - - - - - - Colorado 10 30,006 3 8504 - - - - Illinois 20 32,014 - - - - - - Indiana 29 34,457 - - - - - - Kansas 1 171 - - - - - - Kentucky Total 432 119,734 - - - - - -  Eastern 404 93,322 - - - - - -  Western 28 26,412 - - - - - - Louisiana - - - - 2 4161 - - Maryland 16 5183 - - - - - - Mississippi - - - - 1 3555 - - Missouri 2 598 - - - - - - Montana - - 5 40,024 1 330 - - New Mexicod 2 13,409 2 15,110 - - - - 

North Dakota - - - - 4 29,956 - - Ohio 54 24,718 - - - - - - Oklahoma 9 1856 - - - - - - Pennsylvania Total 198 65,849 - - - - 68 1645  Anthracite - - - - - - 68 1645  Bituminous 198 65,849 - - - - - - Tennessee 28 3217 - - - - - - Texas - - - - 13 45,939 - - 

a Totals 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 Health Administration, Form 7000-2, "Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report." c For a definition of coal-producing regions, see Glossary. d One mine in New Mexico periodically produces both bituminous and subbituminous coal. When this occurs, it is double-counted as a 

 subbituminous and bituminous mine but is not double-counted in the total. 
4 

Table 1. Coal Production and Number of Mines by State6, a,b (continued)

Coal-Producing Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Anthracite 

State and Regionc

Number 

of Mines Production 

Number of 

Mines Production 

Number 

of Mines Production 

Number 

of Mines Production 

Utah 13 24,521 - - - - - - Virginia 132 27,743 - - - - - - Washington - - 1 5266 - - - - West Virginia Total 277 153,650 - - - - - -  Northern 50 42,628 - - - - - -  Southern 227 111,022 - - - - - - Wyoming - - 18 404,319 - - - - Appalachian Total 1162 395,022 - - - - 68 1645  Northern 318 138,379 - - - - 68 1645  Central 790 235,297 - - - - - -  Southern 54 21,347 - - - - - - Interior Total 90 95,510 - - 16 53,655 - -  Illinois Basin 77 92,883 - - - - - - Western Total 27 80,008 30 474,675 5 30,287 - -  Powder River  Basin 

- - 16 429,996 - - - - 

 Uinta Region 21 53,641 3 8504 - - - - East of Miss.  River 

1239 487,905 - - 1 3555 68 1645 

West of Miss.  River 

40 82,635 30 474,675 20 80,386 - - 

U.S. Subtotal 1279 570,540 30 474,675 21 83,942 68 1645 Refuse Recovery 14 637 - - - - 3 59 U.S. Total 1293 571,177 30 474,675 21 83,942 71 1704 a Totals 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 Health Administration, Form 7000-2, "Quarterly Mine Employment and Coal Production Report." c For a definition of coal-producing regions, see Glossary. d One mine in New Mexico periodically produces both bituminous and subbituminous coal. When this occurs, it is double-counted as a 

 subbituminous 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 firing, and stoker firing, with 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 system, 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 configurations for commonly used pc furnaces, 

which can impact ash formation, but the primary advantage 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 (dry-bottom boiler) or boiler 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, SO2, and NOx. Technologies to control mercury and other air toxic 

elements as well as CO2 emissions are also being investigated. 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 installed on 79% of all fossil-fueled steam-electric generators 

over 10 MW.10 Particulate collectors are typically either electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or 
6 

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 SO2

in the flue gas stream: 1) use of compliance fuel (achieved by burning a low sulfur coal, coal 

blending or washing) or 2) install flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. FGD systems can be 

classified as either wet or dry, and both produce a by-product generically referred to as FGD 

material. As of 2005, 16% of fossil-fueled steam-electric generators over 10 MW had FGD 

systems installed.10 In the United States, approximately 85% of FGD systems on coal-based 

power plants are wet, 12% are spray dryer absorber (SDA) systems, and 3% are dry injection 

systems.11

Control of NOx emissions is complicated since these emissions are related both to the 

nitrogen content of the fuel and to the formation of various NOx species during the combustion 

process. NOx controls include combustion modifications such as use of overfire air or low-NOx

burners. Selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) are 

used as postcombustion NOx control.3

 As a result of the installation of these technologies, NOx

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 higher 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 classes of fuel. The result is a 

turbulent mixing of gas and solids, which provides effective chemical reactions and heat transfer. 

The technology burns fuel at temperatures of 1400°–1700°F, well below the temperature where 

NOx forms (at approximately 2500°F).5
7 

FBC systems fit into two major groups: atmospheric fluidized-bed combustors (AFBCs) 

and pressurized fluidized-bed combustors (PFBCs) and two minor subgroups, bubbling or 

circulating fluidized bed (CFB). These systems are described below: 

• AFBCs use a sorbent such as limestone or dolomite to capture sulfur. Jets of air suspend 

the mixture of sorbent and fuel during combustion, converting the mixture into a 

suspension of red-hot particles 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 that can drive a gas 

turbine. The compressed air used contains more oxygen per unit volume and, therefore, 

sustains a higher intensity of combustion, allowing for the design of smaller 

combustors.5

• CFB combustors use higher air flows to entrain and move the bed material, recirculating 

nearly all of the bed material with adjacent high-volume, hot cyclone separators. The 

relatively clean flue gas goes on to the heat exchanger. This approach simplifies feed 

design, extends the contact between sorbent and flue gas, reduces the likelihood of heat 

exchanger tube erosion, and improves SO2 capture and combustion efficiency.5 

 The solids in FBCs are typically fuel ash, bed material, sorbent used to control pollutants, 

and reaction products formed by sulfur capture and other sorbent–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 unreacted 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 United 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 characteristics of the sorbent and coal used. 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 feedstocks (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 synthesis gas, commonly referred to as “syngas.” 

Syngas is comprised primarily of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen gas (H2); however, 

depending on the gasification technology employed, significant quantities of water, CO2, and 

methane (CH4) can be present in the synthesis gas as well as several minor and trace 

components. These contaminants are cleaned using chemical and physical solvents. Once the 

synthesis gas is cleaned, various options exist for its utilization including production of 

electricity via IGCC or the production of chemicals, H2, and reformable liquid fuels.12
8 

 In the IGCC process, the clean synthesis gas is sent to a combustion turbine, where it is 

combusted to produce electricity. The energy contained in the exhaust 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 which 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. Characteristics of gasification by-products are described in a 

previous EERC report available online at www.undeerc.org/carrc/Assets/IGCCandPFBC.pdf.14

 CCP Terminology, Properties, Production, and Use in the United States 

 The combustion of coal to generate electricity results in the formation of a variety of solid 

materials, collectively referred to as CCPs. CCPs 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-products 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 coal combustion by-products (CCBs), coal combustion 

wastes, coal utilization by-products, coal combustion residues, and fossil fuel combustion 

wastes. 

 As noted in Figure 3, the production and use 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 annual survey data comparison (1966–2005).1 
9 

 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 equipment used. The coal grinding equipment, 

furnace, and combustion process impact phase association, morphology, and particle size. The 

primary chemical composition of fly ash, includes 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 temperatures. 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 cementitious material, also contains silicon, aluminum, 

and iron but is high in calcium (reported as CaO) and hardens when mixed with water. 

 Fly ash is the largest-volume CCP with respect to both production and utilization (71.1 and 

29.2 million short tons in 2005, respectively). The overall utilization rate for fly ash in 2005 was 

40.9%. The largest beneficial use (15 million short 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 mining applications.1

 Superior-quality fly ash is in high demand for 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 product quality, the plant’s proximity to the 

market, and product availability. 

 Bottom Ash 

 Bottom ash falls to the bottom of the furnace 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 material 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 produced 
10 

from the same coal can be very different. Also, 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. Major 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, raw feed for clinker, aggregate 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 transportation distance. Profitable beneficial use of bottom ash typically 

occurs when a local market (within 30 miles) is available or can be developed. 

 FGD Material 

 FGD materials are derived from a variety of processes to control sulfur emissions. These 

systems include wet, dry, and semidry systems, which produce vastly different by-products 

comprised of primarily either calcium sulfate (CaSO4) or calcium sulfite (CaSO3). The physical 

nature of FGD materials varies from a wet thixotropic sludge-like material to a dry powdered 

material depending on the process. Wet systems can produce either oxidized or unoxidized 

material. Forced-oxidized systems produce gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate [CaSO4 · 2H2O]), 

whereas unoxidized systems, typically referred to as inhibited oxidation or natural oxidation 

systems, will produce a wet material that is comprised primarily of calcium sulfite with varying 

levels of calcium sulfate. Dry FGD systems include duct sorbent injection, lime injection 

multistage burner, and FBC systems. Dry FGD materials can vary widely in their properties. 

SDA systems are semidry but produce a dry powdered 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 categories in 2005: 1) FGD gypsum, 2) FGD 

material wet scrubbers, and 3) FGD material dry 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 production and use of FGD gypsum is expected to 

continue to increase as more coal-based power plants convert their desulfurization 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 uses 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 and 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 average values (free on board from 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 and in cement production was about $17.89 per ton. 

 Boiler Slag 

 Boiler slag is the molten inorganic material from 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 boiler slag produced was beneficially used in 

2005, primarily as blasting grit and roofing granules.1

 

 The market value of boiler slag is highly dependent on transportation distance and 

application. 

 FBC Material 

 FBC material is a mixture of unburned coal, 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 of the FBC boiler. Some FBC material is selfcementing and has a tendency to swell. 

 Over 69% of the 1,366,438 short tons of FBC material produced was beneficially used in 

2005. Major beneficial use applications, listed in order of short tons used, included soil 

modification/stabilization, road base/subbase/pavement, flowable fill, waste stabilization/ 

solidification, and structural fills/embankments.1

 Gasification By-Products 

By-products from gasification systems vary widely. IGCC systems produce elemental 

sulfur or sulfuric acid and slag as their primary by-products. IGCC slag is generally a black, 

angular, vitreous material having the appearance of coarse black sand. 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 statistics for gasification by-products; however, 

the management of gasification by-products from U.S. IGCC plants is known and described 

below: 

• TECO Energy’s IGCC Polk Station produces a sulfuric acid and slag stream. The plant 

produces 92% H2SO4 and is currently selling the entire 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 “black diamond,” and all of it is used to 
12 

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 River 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. Several states have adopted laws 

governing CCP utilization, but requirements vary widely among states. Requests for permission 

to beneficially use CCPs are frequently handled 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 determine if federal regulation, 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 commissioned 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 during 
13 

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 implemented concurrently. 

Task 1: Establish an Administrative Team 

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

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

Buckley, EERC Marketing Research Specialist, acted as team leader, with input from Ms. Debra 

Pflughoeft-Hassett, EERC Senior Research Advisor. 

Task 2: Select a State 

 The project’s administrative team, with assistance from project sponsors, conducted an indepth evaluation to select each state. Each state selection 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 beneficial to other states and that the information gained 

from a model state would be most beneficial in preparing this 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 conditions 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 participate in the review. State government agency 

participation was critical to the success 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 state reviews were not to address mining because 

the NAS was in the process of issuing its position on using CCPs in mining 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 was given to a state with 

prominent mining beneficial use applications. Another special consideration was what the 

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

be considered model beneficial use regulations in place, meaning that it had regulations 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 administrative team to better understand the thought 

process behind the regulation development process. Then, for the third review, it was ultimately 

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

time. 
14 

 Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania were ultimately selected for review because each of these 

states has a CCP utilization rate significantly higher (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, was formed to provide input to interviewee 

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

board members serving on one or more state reviews 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 primary 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 – directors and other key personnel of state or regional 

transportation and environmental agencies 

• CCP generators – environmental and ash managers at electric generating companies 

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

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

• Engineering/consulting firms – firms specializing in CCP use in various applications 

• Wallboard – users of FGD gypsum for wallboard production 

• Mining – mining officials from state government agencies 

• Special interest – environmental and citizen groups and research institutions 

 

∗

 Each review had different discussion groups representing key stakeholders in that state. The groups listed represent all 

of the discussion groups held during the series of state reviews 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 guided discussion; however, an open 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 participate in a telephone interview. Everyone who participated in 

the state reviews was provided a copy of the draft final report 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 other states. Target audiences for the individual 

state review final reports included CCP industry representatives and users, members of American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and other state and federal agency groups and 

individuals. 

 The results of the state reviews were organized as follows: 

• Keys – highlight strengths or positive aspects 

• Barriers – issues that detract 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 (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) 

analysis commonly used by marketing professionals to audit an organization and the 

environment in which it operates. It is the first stage of planning and helps identify key issues. 

The SWOT terms were modified to reflect terms that the authors felt were more applicable to the 

CCP industry. 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

 Each state had a different regulatory framework, political climate, infrastructure, economy, 

coal source, and geographic location. These characteristics contributed to differences in CCP 

production and use among the states reviewed. Despite these unique characteristics, several 

commonalities were identified and used to translate individual state review observations to a 

national perspective on the status of CCP regulations, standards, and practices. 

 Industry Group Involvement in Developing Beneficial Use Regulations 

 Each state had an industry group whose membership consisted primarily of the state’s 

electric generating companies — Texas was represented by the Texas Coal Ash Utilization 
16 

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 prohibiting utilization, such as the lack of 

regulations allowing the beneficial use of CCPs. Organized industry-led groups can be effective 

in working with government agencies and state legislators because each one represents a unified 

voice on behalf of its members and allows industry to pool its collective 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 regulations in each of the states reviewed and 

describes the resulting specifications. 

 An overview of state solid waste laws and regulations governing the beneficial use of CCP 

in all fifty states can be found in Volume 2 of Engineering and Environmental Specifications of 

State Agencies for Utilization and Disposal 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 recycling and required state and local governments to amend their 

specifications for road and bridge construction to include CCPs. In 1993, TCAUG was again 

influential in getting language added to SB 1051 which established the Recycling Market 

Development Board (RMDB) and charged this body with developing a study to identify 

economic and regulatory incentives and disincentives for recycling and identifying existing and 

potential markets for, among other materials, CCPs. As part of SB 1051, the Texas General Land 

Office (GLO) prepared two market studies, entitled “Texas Recycles: Marketing Our Neglected 

Resources” and “Texas Recycles II: Marketing Our Neglected Resources,” to lay the 

groundwork for strategies to develop and expand recycling industries and markets in Texas.20

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

Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC, predecessor agency to the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality [TCEQ]) as one of the major 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 present technical information to 

the task force, and Texas university professors provided case studies where CCPs were used 

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

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

applications could be best accomplished if the materials were not considered a solid waste. With 

this letter, recycling of CCPs in Texas 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 solid waste rules. It was 

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

rule approved that applied to a number of industries. In 2001, TCEQ formed 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 Chapter 335, commonly referred to in Texas as the 

eight-waste criteria rule but through rulemaking became a seven-waste criteria rule, was perhaps 

the most influential rule that opened the doors for coal ash use in Texas by omitting utilized 

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

the following criteria: 

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

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

or ingredients or products. 

3. The quality of the product is not degraded by substitution of 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 without treatment or reclamation. Or if the 

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

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

without treatment or reclamation. (Note: treatment may impact future FGD utilization; 

this is in another section of the report.) 

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

contained in a fuel. 

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

exceeds raw material specifications without treatment or reclamation. 

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

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

are applied to the land.21

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

three categories: 

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

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

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

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

wastes. 

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

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

categorized as Class II wastes. 
18 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requires groundwater monitoring for landfills and surface impoundments. 

 In Texas, the collaborative effort between TCAUG, TCEQ, TxDOT, and the GLO resulted 

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

push–pull strategy in its approach by consulting many levels at each of the state agencies 

because it believed it needed all levels of state agencies to work together. In addition, TCAUG 

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

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

 Regulatory Development and Status in Florida 

 Unlike the other two states, Florida did not have beneficial use rules for CCPs in place at 

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

basis. Electric utilities and ash marketers interviewed expressed extreme frustration in working 

with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and indicated that they had 

made numerous proposals to FDEP to beneficially use CCPs over a period of decades and had 

been repeatedly rejected. Despite their frustrations, everyone who participated 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 the environment. FDEP realized 

that adopting beneficial use rules for CCPs would be cumbersome and complicated and stated it 

would look to the Florida Electric Power Coordinating 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 mutually agreed the vision was too broad and 

because they could not agree on interim storage requirements. Although 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 issues and viewpoints resulted. This legislative 

process was a separate undertaking from the rulemaking effort on the Industrial Waste Disposal 

and Reuse (IWDR) rule that was 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 two 
19 

devastating hurricane seasons and other rulemaking 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 utilities, ash marketers, and FDEP agreed to get 

together in 2006 to develop new regulations concerning industrial by-products, including CCPs. 

All parties agree that the new rule will likely include a list of preapproved 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 introduction and passage of HB 2274, commonly referred to then as 

“the coal ash bill.” 

 Mr. Douglas Biden, EPGA, in written comments 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 testimony 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 significantly increase the amount of 

CCPs produced and quickly take up precious landfill space. The industry made considerable 

research and development investments in developing beneficial uses for CCPs. So much progress 

was made that questions arose among policymakers as to why CCPs were considered a “waste,” 

rather than the “resource” they had become. However, industry efforts to beneficially use the 

material were frequently frustrated by the PA DEP (then Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Resources) solid waste regulations, which governed the disposition of coal ash. 

Using CCPs required a permit from PA DEP, a process that could take 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 legislation defined “coal ash” as fly 

ash, bottom ash, or boiler slag resulting from the combustion of coal that is or has been 

beneficially used, reused, or reclaimed for a commercial, industrial, or governmental purpose. 

The term includes such materials that are stored, processed, transported, or sold for beneficial 

use, reuse, or reclamation. After thorough legal and environmental research, HB 2274 was 

signed into law as Act 168 of 1986 as an amendment to the Pennsylvania Solid Waste 

Management Act of 1980. In 1992, provisions describing standards for the beneficial use of coal 

ash were placed in the residual waste management regulations and were revised in 1997. 

 Today, Pennsylvania regulates the beneficial use of coal ash under Pennsylvania’s 

Residual Waste Management Regulations (Title 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, industry is generally accepting of the resulting 
20 

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 compounds 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 material (287.665.4) 

9. As a raw material for a product with commercial value, including the use of bottom ash 

in construction aggregate (287.665.5) 

 10. For mine subsidence control, mine fire control, and mine sealing (287.665.6) 

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

 The beneficial uses defined above are generally accepted by industry and have cleared the 

way for increased CCP utilization in the state. 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 Involvement in Developing Beneficial Use 

Regulations 

 Based on the cumulative experience of the industry groups participating in the state 

reviews, it is clear that using industry groups to facilitate the development of new regulations, 

revise existing regulations, or to encourage legislation is a very effective way of getting 

industry’s voice heard and understood. An education process is typically required to help state 

agencies and/or legislators understand the complicated issues associated with CCP utilization. 

This effort can require a considerable commitment of time and money by industry. Experience 

assembled from the state reviews indicated that the education process and 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 [CaSO4], commonly referred to as FGD gypsum) or sulfite-rich 

(calcium sulfite [CaSO3], also know as scrubber sludge). Dry FGD systems are not presently used in 

Pennsylvania. 
21 

with state agencies and/or legislators should be ongoing because 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 responsibility to write specifications for road construction and other 

transportation applications that define acceptable 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 other CCP users in the state because the roadbuilding industry generally views state DOT specifications 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 spectrum of construction practices. 

 Many state DOTs have specifications that prescribe a minimum and maximum amount of 

fly ash that can be used in concrete. However, industry would like state DOTs to consider 

performance-based standards, rather than prescriptive standards (i.e., same mix design for each 

application), because they provide flexibility for the concrete supplier, can produce a better 

quality concrete, may be more economical, and allow higher quantities of fly ash to be used. 

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

concrete specifications. National 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 performance specifications. Following the demonstrations, an education 

process from industry to DOTs will be needed. 

 In the states reviewed, each DOT office has different 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 fifty states can be found in Volume 1 of Engineering 

and Environmental Specifications of State Agencies 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 granted 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 was revised in August 2004 (formally DMS-8900) 

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

(FAQMP) for Class C, Class F, and ultrafine fly ash used in concrete products. 
22 

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

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

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

of test reports. 

 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 nonhazardous recyclable materials (NRM) not addressed 

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

established histories of use by TxDOT. 

 Product Application Specifications and Special Provisions 

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

Some of those applications include the following: 

• Item 247 – Flexible Base 

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

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

• Item 341 – Dense-Graded Hot-Mix Asphalt 

• Item 344 – Performance-Designed Mixtures 

• Item 346 – Stone-Matrix Asphalt 

• Item 401 – Flowable Backfill 

• Item 421 – Hydraulic Cement Concrete 

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

following: 

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

Aggregate Base Course (1993) 

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

 DOT Status in Florida 

Florida Department of Transportation (FLDOT) has a source list of supplementary 

cementitious materials (slag, silica fume, metakaolin, 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 and 
23 

petroleum coke. To get on the source list, a cementitious supplier must use a quality control plan 

accepted by the State Materials Office (Section 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 materials 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 replacement 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 cementitious 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 cement replaced with slag is 25% to 70% for 

slightly and moderately aggressive environments 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 are 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 slag. For bridge substructures, 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 prestressed 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 per cubic yard and have a maximum 28-day 

strength of 100 psi. A flowable fill mixture designed to be nonexcavatable is to contain 

75–100 pounds of cement and 150–600 pounds of fly ash 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 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) 

projects, they must be preapproved. Bulletin 14 lists all approved bottom ash sources, and 

Bulletin 15 lists all approved fly ash sources that can be used on PennDOT projects. To get on an 

approved list, one must fill out an application and 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 Virginia. Fly ash is often imported because most 

fly ash sources in Pennsylvania do not meet specifications for use in concrete because of high 

unburned carbon content. 

 Most Class F fly ashes are approved by PennDOT 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 when 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 effective in controlling expansion due to ASR, but 

Class C fly ash and other materials can also be used in certain applications. PennDOT 
25 

specifications allow the portland cement 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. Fly 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 established 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 Use in Portland-Cement Concrete). According 

to Publication 408, Section 724.2, fly ash must meet specifications set forth in 

AASHTO M 295 (Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a 

Mineral Admixture in Concrete). LOI is limited to 6%. 

3. Fly ash used to mitigate the effects of reactive aggregate associated with ASR in 

concrete. Fly ash must conform to the optional chemical requirements of AASHTO 

M 295 (Publication 408, Section 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 applications 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 where extra strength is required. 

• In construction areas requiring low-density backfill 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). Ground 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 ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag are 

allowed for use as an antiskid material 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 Product Evaluation process. This process can take 

years because it is a case-by-case review. 
26 

 Air Emission Regulations Impact on CCP Use 

 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required large reductions in emissions of nitrogen 

oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from coal-based power plants. In March 2005, EPA 

announced the following new clean air regulations that will further reduce emissions of NOx and 

SO2 and require limits on mercury emissions from coal-based power plants: 

• The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) applies to SO2 and NOx emissions in 28 eastern 

states and Washington, D.C. CAIR calls for selected states to have a 70% reduction of 

SO2 emissions and a 60% reduction of NOx 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 using cap-and-trade mechanisms by which power 

plants are assigned emission limits but can exceed those limits by purchasing credits from 

companies whose emissions are below their assigned limits. 

 In addition to federal regulations, several states are proposing their own regulations that 

would require further reductions in SO2, NOx, 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 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 below. 

 Impacts of SO2 Control 

 

 Coal-based power plants generally employ one of two strategies to control SO2 emissions: 

1) burn compliance fuels or 2) install FGD systems. Compliance fuels can be obtained by 

burning low-sulfur coal (coals with sulfur content below 2% by weight), blending low- and highsulfur coals, and washing coal. Most modern power plants, and all plants built after 1978, are 

required to have a FGD system.25 To further reduce SO2, 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 where coal based-power plants 

burn low- to medium-sulfur coals, dry FGD systems (primarily SDAs) are expected to be 

installed resulting in an increase in the 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 installation of wet FGD systems. Nationally, Bruce 

predicts that over the next 20 years, the North American supply of FGD gypsum is going to 
27 

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 shut down temporarily or close, and the markets 

for wallboard and cement fluctuate based on building 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 utilization rate (11.15%) in the United States. Most states have 

regulations, policies, and rules that apply to fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag beneficial use; 

however, products from FGD systems are relatively 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 generating companies find it more economically feasible to dispose the 

material rather than dedicate resources (i.e., employees and infrastructure) to utilize it.25

 Impacts of NOx Control 

 Many coal-based power plants have had to reduce NOx emissions, and a variety of NOx

control technologies (low-NOx burners, SCR, and SNCR units) have been implemented across 

the United States. This has resulted in the production 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 manufacture. 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 (CO2) emission requirements and total 

hydrocarbon limits. Separation and high-temperature 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 cement and concrete markets. 

 Impacts of Mercury Control 

 Many coal-based power plants are expected to rely on the cobenefits of SO2 and NOx

controls for mercury control. Other than wet FGD systems, the leading technology to comply 

with mercury emission regulations 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 elements 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 stability of these elements under 

disposal and utilization conditions.27 The EERC recently concluded an in-depth 4-year 
28 

investigation on the potential for mercury and other air toxic element releases from CCPs under a 

variety of management scenarios and made the following conclusions28: 

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

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

FGD materials. Leachate mercury concentrations were below the 0.01-μg/L analytical 

reporting limit for most samples evaluated. 

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

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

either released or sorbed small amounts of mercury. Samples containing unburned 

carbon or AC tended to sorb mercury in ambient-temperature vapor-phase experiments. 

• Laboratory data indicated that the potential for ambient-temperature vapor-phase 

mercury releases from CCPs are unlikely to impact atmospheric mercury loading. 

• Mercury was not released to the vapor phase at temperatures below 250°C in elevatedtemperature experiments, but for most samples, 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 leachate, although more elemental 

mercury was released. 

• Field experiments at a lignite CCP disposal site indicated low-level vapor-phase 

releases of mercury, as was generally noted in laboratory experiments for lignite fly ash 

samples. Releases from FGD materials were noted both in laboratory and field 

measurements. 

 Investigations by the research community continue on the potential for mercury to be 

released under a variety of management situations; however, the current state of the science 

indicates that mercury associated with CCPs is stable and has low potential to be released under 

most management conditions, including disposal. The 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 facility. Questions still 

remain regarding how much mercury is released into the atmosphere during the rest of 

the life cycle of wallboard (e.g., via dust when 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 municipal landfills once the wallboard reaches the 

end of its life cycle and is disposed. In addition, the potential for mercury captured in 
29 

FGD gypsum to be released during wallboard production is still under investigation. A 

study conducted by URS investigated this question and determined that the wallboard 

industry would emit less than one ton of mercury compared to the current coal-based 

electric generating company emissions of 48 tons per year.29 

• Cement Manufacture – Fly ash from units using sorbent 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 reconsideration on the ban on fly ash 

where sorbent injection for mercury control is practiced and has been petitioned to 

reconsider its decision not to place restrictions 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 challenge 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. Beneficiation 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 mercury from these operations. 

 According to DOE, significant economic impacts are expected to result as a result of 

CAMR. DOE estimates a loss of $908 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 that the beneficial use of coal ash on mine sites 

does not cause groundwater contamination. NAS was commissioned to perform this evaluation 

and published a report entitled Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines.

19

As an attempt to not interfere with the ongoing NAS study, mining was not addressed in 

the Texas or Florida state reviews. However, the NAS report was completed in time for the third 

review, and thus state mining 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 operations 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 sites 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 mining 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 certifying 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 permits or that can be approved as part of the department’s 

mine reclamation contracts or other department-approved mine reclamation projects. 

 Two additional permit application modules were 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. These 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 findings or recommendations under 12 categories and concluded 

that using CCPs for mine reclamation is a viable option, as long as precautions are taken to 

protect the environment and public health. 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. 

Furthermore, the report did not recognize the vast differences between the highly alkaline CCPs 

produced by CFB plants and the less alkaline fly ash produced by pc-based plants. 

 Mr. Kim Vories, Office of Surface Mining, issued his technical review of the NAS report

and concluded he was in agreement with the following findings that support33: 

• The use of CCPs in mine reclamation. 

• The need for specific Federal regulations 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 address 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 differences between regulatory 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 following minor modifications to its monitoring 

requirements based on recommendations in the NAS report: 

• Broaden the parameters it monitors 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 abandoned 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 each 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 beneficial use coal ash rules but will 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 the 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 funding 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 barriers were found among the general public, end users, and within 

government agencies and electric generating companies. The following sections describe specific 

barriers pertaining to communication and perception. 

 Communication During Demonstration Projects 

 Government agencies, legislators, and industry generally agree that making modifications 

to current regulations or writing new regulations is a lengthy process. This process often requires 

the completion of one or more field-scale demonstration projects to provide government agencies 

with the data they need to feel comfortable with the environmental and engineering 

appropriateness of using specific CCPs in beneficial use applications. Based on the states 

reviewed, government agencies do not appear to make regulatory decisions based on research 

performed outside of their own state because they do not believe external studies use CCPs that 

are identical to those produced by their electric generating companies or take into account their 

state’s unique geographic, geologic, or climatic conditions. Also, laboratory experiments were 

not viewed as capable of replicating what will happen in the field. 

 Industry often takes on the responsibility and cost of conducting field-scale demonstration 

projects with the intention of generating the data government agencies need to make decisions. 

However, the demonstration process gets complicated 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 expedited if industry would provide them with the 

information/data they need up front; whereas, industry indicated that the government agencies 

should say what information/data they need and then industry would conduct the demonstration 

in a way to provide it. Turnover of government agency personnel during the course of a 

demonstration can also be a challenge, especially when a new government decision maker wants 

to see additional or different data that wasn’t planned for at the onset of the demonstration. In 

some cases, it is difficult or impossible to provide these data without repeating the entire 

demonstration. Industry further indicated that, in some instances, government agency staff do not 

have the technical knowledge base or time needed to completely understand the issues. These 

roadblocks can delay the regulation process for years. 

 Another hurdle when conducting demonstration projects is the inconsistency of testing 

procedures used. For example, some environmental departments prefer that the toxicity 

characteristic leaching procedure be used for all leaching tests, whereas other departments prefer 

to select a leaching procedure depending on how the CCP is to be used. The inconsistency of 

testing procedures makes it difficult to compare data. 

 To help facilitate communications between industry and governmental agencies, it is 

recommended for industry to partner with a university or consulting firm with experience and 

expertise in the specific area to be addressed when conducting a demonstration project. 

Oftentimes, a third party can provide an unbiased technical perspective on what the field 

demonstration project can accomplish and aid in the interpretation of data. Industry support 
33 

groups such as TCAUG, FCG, or EPGA also offer an excellent forum for industry to pool its 

intellectual and monetary resources and collectively 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 specifically 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 companies are not in business to produce coal ash, then 

coal ash must be considered a by-product. Others proclaim that if a material is used or recycled, 

then it must be a product. Conversely, others believe that the material should be termed a waste, 

no matter whether it is disposed of or beneficially used. Nevertheless, the names by-product and 

waste have powerful effects on consumers and regulators/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 bodies perceive coal ash 

and market coal ash as a product, it could put coal 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-based power plants, thus further 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 quality is not a factor during the combustion 

process at other companies. 

 External educational programs could be developed 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 and still maintaining a 

consistent by-product. Colleges educating future plant operators could also integrate ash 

production and management into their course curriculum. 
34 

 Advocacy Groups 

 Some advocacy groups34–41 have criticized the beneficial use and disposal requirements of 

CCPs. Those interviewed during the individual state 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 stop the burning of coal to produce 

electricity. These groups have been effective in delaying or terminating some beneficial use 

applications, simply because potential project proponents may wish to avoid the hassle of dealing 

with these groups. 

 It is important that CCP stakeholders continue to present factual information to advocacy 

groups and the audiences of advocacy groups. Facilitating 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 aware of the Green Highways 

Partnership, the Industrial Resources Council, or C2

P2. 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 C2P2 member if they were not doing something significant with 

CCP utilization and did not understand what was expected of members. In addition, they did not 

know who at their company/organization had the authority to sign the C2

P2 registration form. 

 These nation-wide programs offer a method of promoting beneficial use success stories 

and earn national recognition for those successes. Those interviewed indicated that these 

programs could offer a means of educating the general public about these success stories so that 

they hear about the positive aspects of CCP utilization. These programs would likely be 

perceived by the general public as more credible than information from industry alone. Also, 

more outreach needs to be done by these programs to get industry involved. 

 Education of Specifiers/Engineers 

 Lack of knowledge or negative perceptions toward CCPs was cited among district and 

local highway personnel, architects, engineers, and contactors. The lack of knowledge could be 

attributed to the fact that engineers coming out of college receive, on average, less than 18 hours 

of concrete training in their materials class. In those 18 hours, CCPs are briefly mentioned, and 

professors often reference old data. It was suggested that negative 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 typically occurs when users 

are not educated about the material. Negative 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 all-cement market because of one misuse resulting 
35 

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 may require different road building techniques based 

on geographic conditions. This could also be because some district engineers have more negative 

or positive opinions of CCP use in road building applications. 

 Local educational efforts, such as technical presentations or short courses targeted 

specifically toward specifiers and engineers, are an effective method for educating this audience. 

State specifiers and engineers typically do not have funding available to travel long distances. It 

is imperative that the educational effort be held at a convenient location. The Federal Highway 

Administration and EPA have several effective educational materials that are available free-ofcharge and include its “Fly Ash Facts for Highway 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 utilization were discussed at the 

individual state reviews. The following is a summary 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 individual 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 currently do not have CCP beneficial use policies in 

place, such as the FDEP, will likely continue on the 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 were intended to increase the 

use of industrial by-products; however, only Texas had a program that focused specifically on 

CCPs. Based solely on the information obtained during the review process, statewide recycling 

initiatives that specifically encourage the use of CCPs are effective in gaining acceptance of 
36 

CCPs as a recycled material among government agency 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 recycling incentives in each of the state’s 

reviewed. 

 Texas-Led Recycling Incentives 

 TxDOT’s Road to Recycling Initiative was successful in encouraging and promoting CCP 

use. In 1999, TxDOT highlighted CCPs in its “Year of the Road to Recycling” campaign. The 

campaign included the development of a 46-page CCP summary document that includes a 

material overview, research summaries, case studies, a list of TxDOT specifications currently 

allowing use of CCPs, material sources, and a summary of TxDOT’s experience with the 

material. TxDOT used this tool to educate its staff 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 with coordinating the recycling 

activities of all state agencies and pursuing an economic development strategy that focuses on 

the state’s waste management priorities and the development of recycling industries 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 (Chapter 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, regulations, and programs for a host of solid waste activities. The 

Act sets recycling goals and requires counties to develop recycling programs to meet these goals. 

It also creates programs to encourage 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 operated 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 projects. These programs are spearheaded by 

PennDOT, with support from PA DEP. Both of these programs consider CCPs to be recycled 

materials; however, they are not actively encouraging the use of CCPs. In order for these 

programs to look more closely at CCPs, they would likely need to be approached by industry. 
37 

 Federal Encouragement of State-Led Recycling Initiatives 

 Programs such as EPA’s C2P2 could encourage CCP use at the state level by showing state 

legislators how initiatives such as the Texas RMDB encouraged recycling in other states. The 

promotion of Comprehensive Procurements Guidelines 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 sustainability by providing the building industry with 

consistent, credible standards for what constitutes a green building. Various LEED initiatives 

including legislation, executive orders, resolutions, ordinances, policies, and incentives 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 steady progression of non-LEED-related green 

building initiatives from various municipalities, federal government, and states around the 

country. 

 The LEED program indirectly encourages CCP recycling by offering points for products 

containing recycled materials, locally available 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 containing 15% fly ash replacement versus a highvolume fly ash replacement rate of 50% would receive the same amount of credits. Even in 

Texas, where the LEED program is popular, there have been several LEED-certified buildings 

that did not incorporate fly ash into their concrete. Furthermore, a major green building 

conference in Austin did not address CCPs, indicating to the authors and those who participated 

in the Texas state review that the CCP industry is not doing enough to promote 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 products that may or may not contain CCPs. Often, if 

CCPs are used in construction projects, it is likely because of the economic savings associated 

when using the material and not because of the fact that CCPs are a recycled material offering 

environmental and engineering benefits over virgin resources (i.e., decreased need for landfill 

space, conservation of natural resources, reduced CO2 emissions, reduced overall cost of 

generating electricity, and production of better products). 

 Because the LEED program is growing and becoming the most highly recognized and 

credible national green building program, the authors 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 audiences tend to be more receptive to appeals to 

use recycled products than the traditional clients 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 will 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. 

 CO2 Credits 

With air emission regulations in place for SO2, NOx, and mercury, the coal ash industry is 

anticipating the implementation of more stringent federal CO2 controls. Some states are also 

considering or have adopted their own CO2 emission restrictions in the absence of federal 

mandates. These controls will place increased importance on carbon trading. As an example, it is 

estimated that 0.8–1 ton of CO2 is saved for every 1 ton of fly ash used to replace cement in 

concrete because by using fly ash, the user is preventing CO2 emissions from cement production. 

With nearly 15 million tons of fly ash used in concrete and concrete products alone, there is a 

significant amount of potential CO2 emission credits available for concrete applications. The 

question still remains on who will receive these 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 question was raised, “Why do you have to report beneficial uses of 

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

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

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

interviewed believe this change is necessary because some definitions of release contradict the 

goals of C2

P2. In addition, TRI reporting takes considerable effort, and this change would be an 

incentive for the power plant manager to reuse more material. 

 Economics 

 Economics are a key factor in the beneficial use of CCPs. In most cases of beneficial use 

observed during the state review process, economics were the primary reason why CCPs were 

selected over virgin materials. Engineering 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 CO2 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 generating company representatives interviewed were middle-level 

managers and said that convincing upper management 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 plentiful disposal options 

often find it difficult to make the case that resources (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 successes in the states reviewed can be translated to other states. 

This paper presented a brief summary of commonalities 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, guidelines, or policies that support the beneficial use 

of CCPs.

• Be proactive and support state agencies in developing new rules, guidelines, regulations, and 

policies that encourage the beneficial use of CCPs. 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 involvement typically leads to policies that both parties agree 

on while still being protective of the environment. 

• Support educational activities for government agency staff and specifiers/engineers that focus 

on the environmental, engineering, and economic 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 demonstration projects. 

Local, long-term demonstration projects are perceived 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 states. 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 misuse 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 utilization. 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 considerations (i.e., high water table) in 

their individual states. 

• Participate in educational events at local, state, regional, and national levels as able. 

• Review existing resources from industry groups, federal agencies, and universities to better 

understand use options. Oftentimes, new data does not need to be generated to support new 

uses. 

• Communicate concerns to industry and participate in research and demonstration projects. 

• Develop straightforward guidelines to qualify CCPs for specific use applications using 

guidelines in other states or federal guideline recommendations. 

• Implement recycling initiatives that encourages state agencies to use CCPs, and educate them 

on the benefits of using CCPs. 

Recommendation to Federal Agencies 

• Provide state agencies with technical guidance 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 entity or consumer along the utilization 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 quality 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 state agencies and end 

users. Federal agencies tend to be perceived as offering unbiased information, so educational 

efforts supported by federal agencies can be seen as more credible. 

• Cooperate with federal green-building initiatives (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.; Steadman, E.N.; Eylands, K.E.; Dockter, B.A. 

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

Government and Commercial Sectors – Update 1998; Topical Report for U.S. Department 

of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory Cooperative Agreement No. DE FC21-

93MC30097; EERC Publication No. 99-EERC-07-08; July 1999. 

 4. Dockter, B.A.; Jagiella, D.M. Engineering and Environmental Specifications of State 

Agencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products; Final Report for the 

Combustion By-Products Recycling Consortium; 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/special/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.html (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/quarterly/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/electricity/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 National 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 Advanced 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: Generation, 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 Power Station. Personal communication, Feb 10, 

2005. 

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

2005. 

19. National Academy of Sciences. Managing Coal Combustion 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 (CCPs) General Information, Pictures, Recycling 

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

22. Biden, D.L. Listening Session on the Practices of Placing Coal Combustion Byproducts in 

Coal Mines and at Surface Disposal 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 Environmental Protection. Residual Waste. Title 25. 

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

24. Year of the Recycled Roadway Materials, November Coal Combustion Products; 

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/gsd/pdf/yrr_nov.pdf (accessed Sept 2004). 

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 Hazardous Air Pollutants from Electric Utility 

Steam-Generating Units. Fed. Regist. 2000, 65 (245), 79825–79831. 

28. Hassett, D.J.; Heebink, L.V.; Pflughoeft-Hassett, D.F.; Buckley, T.D.; Zacher, E. J. Mercury 

and Air Toxic Element Impacts of Coal Combustion By-Product Disposal and Utilization; 

Draft Final Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology 

Laboratory Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-02NT41727; March 2007.

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

Wallboard Production; Topical Report, Task 5 Wallboard Plant Test Results, Prepared for 

the U.S. Department of Energy National 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 Final Report of the National Academy of Sciences 

Managing Coal Combustion 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 Pennsylvania 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 Environmental Council. Power Plant Waste. March 

2004, www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/archive/facts/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.catf.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/092702great_lakes_coal_ash.htm (accessed Dec 

2007). 

40. Sierra Club. Clean Air & Energy Campaign, Kansas City Area and Missouri. 

http://missouri.sierraclub.org/misc/CEC_KansasCity.pdf (accessed Dec 2007). 

41. Citizens Coal Council. Waste from Coal-Fired 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?DocumentID=1741 (accessed March 13, 2007). 
APPENDIX A 

LIST OF ALL PARTICIPANTS
A-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.org 
A-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.com 
A-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.us 
A-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.com 
A-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.us 
A-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.org 
A-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.us 
A-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.net 
A-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.edu 
A-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.shelton@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.com 
A-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.gov 
A-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@eaglematerials.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