CCW State Lobby - Recently Updated Pages

Negative Impacts of CCW

rjohns04 — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:17:54 CDT

COAL ASH CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND POTENTIAL INFLUENCE ON WATER QUALITY

Coal Ash Basics

When brought in contact with water, coal ash can be seen as being comprised of three different types of solids; chemically stable solids, relatively stable solids, and reactive metal oxides (Evangelou, pgs.120-121). Due to differences of chemical composition existing between different sources and grades of coal, there is significant variability in the chemical properties that coal ash can exhibit; ranging from acidic to alkaline. Coal fly ash makes up 65%-85% of coal ash and comprises the finer material of the overall coal ash, exhibiting the same chemical variability as the coal ash itself (Evangelou, pg 120). Generally, fly ash is a low grade source of potassium, phosphorus, sulfur, boron, and other metals or metalloids such as mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic and selenium (Evangelou, pg. 120). Fly ash generally contains the highly water reactive oxides of Ca , Mg, K, Na, Ba, as well as gypsum (Evangelou, pg.121). Some fly ash from bituminous coal is acidic while fly ash derived from lignite coal is mostly alkaline (Evangelou, pg. 121).

It was found through experimentation that increasing the acidity within the water through the introduction of carbon dioxide (CO2), such as found in natural systems, the levels of heavy metals released from the fly ash increased (Evangelou, pg. 121).

Environmental Effects

Due to the toxic substances found within fly ash, there is potential for negative environmental effects, especially as it pertains to the movement of heavy metals leachates from the fly ash to the groundwater (Evangelou, pg.123). Within the results of this experiment the Levels of heavy metals or metalloids such as selenium, chromium, boron, and in some instances, mercury and barium, exceeded EPA’s public water supply guidelines (Evangelou, pg 123). Due to this potential for negative environmental consequences measures such as the close monitoring of the deposal site to detect of the build up of heavy metals, alkalinity, and salts, as well as maintaining the soil of a disposal site at a pH above 6 in order to immobilize most of the heavy metals present within fly ash (Evangelou, pg.123)

Agricultural Effects Although there is potential for fly ash to be used in agriculture in various ways, such as a for nutrient source (namely for K, P, Ca, Mg, S), bioaccumulation of heavy metals can occur within plants grown in soils amended with fly ash (Evangelou, pg.123). This potential is highly dependent on the type of fly ash applied to the soil. To reduce this potential, it is recommended that the fly ash be allowed to age, which helps reduce the levels of heavy metals, aikaline oxides, boron, and selenate (Evangelou, pg.123).

Evangelou, V.P. (Unknown). Coal Ash Chemical Properties and Potential Influence On Water Quality. Session V: Environment: Land and Water [Electronic Version]. Office of Surface Mining. Pgs119-135. Received January 28, 2008 from http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/PDF/Forums/CCB/5-1.pdf

This University of Kentucky research paper conducted by V.P. Evangelou, seeks to understand the chemistry of fly ash in order to create a methodology of predicting the release rates of environmentally negative chemicals so that surface and groundwater can be more adequately protected. Although this paper examines chemical and physical components of Limestone Scrubber Sludge, Fluidized Bed Wastes, the majority focuses on Fly Ash. Due to the large chemical variability found within fly ash the results varied on the type of coal examined. It was found that all fly ash samples are mainly composed of glass-like porous beads that vary in chemical composition with respect to Al/Si/Fe ratio and pH. The release rates of chemicals within fly ash seemed to depend on the pH of the fly ash itself. Alkaline fly ash was found to have less of a pH buffering capacity and greater boron release, but acid fly ash showed a greater metal absorption potential after a pH adjustment then alkaline fly ash. The results also pointed to the fact that some heavy metals are most likely chemisorbed. The potential for negative environmental effects is reviewed as well as methods of reducing the negative effects. Possible agricultural uses for fly ash are also briefly discussed, all of which are dependent on the type of fly ash utilized.

The Impacts on Water Quality From Placement of Coal Combustion Waste In Pennsylvania Coal Mines.

As part of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Coal Ash Beneficial Use Program, coal combustion waste (CCW) has been placed within active and abandoned mines for over 20 years in order to mitigate acid mine drainage, improve soil fertility, and fill large pits and voids within mines (CATF; Earth Justice pg.1). However, in a multi-year study conducted by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) of 15 such mines, it was discovered that the streams or groundwater at 10 of the sites had become contaminated with such substances as cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, and arsenic at levels that were many times higher then the current water quality standards (CATF; Earth Justice pgs.1-2).

This study cites that CCW contain many hazardous chemicals such as iron, aluminum, chloride, manganese, and sulfate, as well as toxic the trace elements such as nickel arsenic, selenium, lead, chromium, mercury, cadmium, copper, zinc, molybdenum and boron (CATF; Earth Justice pg.1).

Unknown (2006). The Impacts on Water Quality From Placement of Coal Combustion Waste In Pennsylvania Coal Mines. Clean Air Task Force (CATF); Earth Justice. Received on February 1, 2008 from http://www.catf.us/publications/factsheets/Impacts_on_Water_Quality_from_Placement_of_Coal_Combustion_Waste_in_PA_Coal_Mines.pdf

This site, sponsored by earth justice and the clean air task force, reports on a multi-year study conducted by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), which examined 15 coal mines where coal ash was placed under the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) Coal Ash Beneficial Use Program. This study concludes that the effort had extreme negative consequences on the environment, forming a direct link to serious water contamination in 10 of the 15 mines. This site provides an adequate example, essentially of an unlined landfill and the negative environmental consequences that can result.

Heavy metal release from different ashes during serial batch tests using water and acid.

It has been shown that hard coal ash has a very low acid buffering capacity, resulting in a high potential for the leaching of heavy metals. In fact it has been shown that even with the addition of small amounts of acid (2 mmol g−1), very high fractions of the total Cd, Cu, Ni, and Cr were released (Ludwig pgs.1064-1065)

Ludwig, Bernard., Khanna, Partap., Prenzel, Ju¨rgen.,& Beese, Friedrich. (2005). Heavy metal release from different ashes during serial batch tests using water and acid. Waste Management, Volume 25, Issue 10. (Pages 1055-1066). Received February 1, 2008 from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFR-4GG2HY4-2&_user=513551&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000025338&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=513551&md5=f43c8ce509e46edfdd86d49bdc8b104d.

This 2005 study describes the patterns of heavy metal release from ash materials in context with results from the German standard extraction method DIN-S4 (DIN 38 414 S4). Four ashes were examined (municipal solid waste incineration ash, wood ash, brown coal ash and hard coal ash). It was found that although hard coal ash usually had a low content of heavy metals, it had a low proton buffering capacity. The results showed that with an addition of small amounts of acid (2 mmol g−1), very high fractions of total Cd, Cu, Ni, and Cr were released. Of these the Ni, Cu, and particularly Cr were thought to be a concern.

Coal Ash: Its Origin, Disposal, Use, and Potential Health Issues

It has been found that the highest arsenic concentrations found in coal ash comes from the combustion of bituminous coal in the eastern United States (EPRI pg.6).

In a long term study of roads constructed with CCW as structural fill, low quantities of coal ash leachate were detected (EPRI pg.7). It was further discovered that the vegetation growing in the immediately location of this structural fill readily absorbed and bioaccumulated higher levels of boron, magnesium, and molybdenum and showed a reduction in phosphorous (EPRI pg.10).

Unknown. (1998). Coal Ash: Its Origin, Disposal, Use, and Potential Health Issues. Environmental Division of the Electric Power Research Institute. (Pgs. 1-12). Received February 8, 2008 from http://www.ecosmartconcrete.com/kbase/filedocs/trepricoalash98.pdf

This report was published by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in 1998. The report highlights all known beneficial uses of CCW, however in doing so highlights some of the negatives. These negative health impacts include the presents of toxic substances within coal ash and coal ashes potential to leach these toxic chemicals within the water table and into the surrounding soil. However it was concluded that the potential negative health impacts derived from exposure to coal ash were generally negligible. This conclusion was supported by documents formulated by the EPA, DEQ, USGS, US Department of Energy, OSHA, and the ACGIH.

Cumberland Park Project: Economic and Environmental Considerations

Coal combustion wastes are mainly composed of silica, calcium, aluminum, and iron oxides as well as the oxides from other naturally occurring substances found with in coal such as barium, arsenic, copper, cadmium, chromium, cadmium, lead, zinc, selenium, and mercury (Johnson pg.3).

The application to land and the practice of land filling with coal combustion wastes (CCW) have shown to pose serious environmental and human health risks, including soil contamination and water contamination (Johnson pg.4). Soils contaminated by CCW leachate pose an indirect threat to animals due to the bioaccumulation of heavy metals that can occur within plants growing in the affected area (Johnson pg.4). Any animal consuming these plants risk adverse health effects from this heavy metal toxicity (Johnson pg.4).

Coal Combustion Wastes (CCW) can pose a substantial risk to aquatic life if high concentrations of metals leach into surface or ground water. Among these, Selenium and arsenic have been found to be particularly toxic to aquatic life (Johnson pg.4-5).

Johnson, Jason., Pavlick, Meredith. (2007 November 13). Cumberland Park Project: Economic and Environmental Considerations. CEE 4344 Water Resource Planning. Concerned Citizens of Giles County. Received on February 8, 2008 from http://www.concernedgilescitizens.org/

This paper focuses almost exclusively on the Cumberland Park Project located in Giles County Virginia. The report shows the benefits that can be derived from the use of CCW as structural fill as well as the negative aspects of doing so. The report mainly focuses on the negative aspects of using CCW as structural fill, utilizing EPA reports and other scholarly documents to show the negative impacts that CCW’s pose to the aquatic life, human life, as well as some plant/animal life. The report concludes that the Cumberland Park Project poses significant risks to both humans and the environment within Giles County. Further it calls for revisions within state and federal laws which allow this sort of project to be undertaken.

Memo of Correspondence

rjohns04 — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:12:34 CDT

TO: Members of Citizens for Beneficial Change.
FROM: Ryan Johnson, member of Citizens for Beneficial Change.
DATE: 4/15/08
SUBJECT: Summary of correspondence with Delegate Anne Crockett-Stark and Delegate Jim Shuler.

The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of the insight provided by Delegate Anne Crockett-Stark and Delegate Jim Shuler on SB717.

The insight offered will be presented in the following order:
1. Delegate Shuler
2. Delegate Crockett-Stark

Delegate Jim Shuler.

On March 31, 2008 Delegate Shuler stated in a phone interview:

He was not part of the committee that debated SB717, but was familiar with SB717 and the Cumberland Park Project.
The Cumberland Park Project followed all legal requirements found within the state of Virginia.
To the best of his knowledge a clay liner was being implemented at the Cumberland Park Project.
A major source of contention surrounding current state regulations is the lack of accommodation for public input.
The lack of accommodation for public input intensified public mistrust of AEP’s actions and helped spread misinformation.
In his opinion, major resistance to SB717 would probably originate from the coal industry.

Delegate Ann Crockett-Stark

On April 7, 2008 Delegate Crockett-Stark stated in an email:

She introduced a bill similar to SB717.
This bill was revised several times with help form the director of the DEQ.
The bill was defeated in the house committee for Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources.
The bill was defeated because of the unforeseen, far reaching effects the law would have on all parts of Virginia.
The Cumberland Park Project means jobs for Giles County citizens.
When considering issues of water contamination one should consider the fact that the coal-rich mountains of Southwest Virginia are already rich in lead and arsenic.

Summary

This incite should be utilized in order to more effectively design the lobbing packet and revised legislation.

Brochure

etburke — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:06:24 CDT

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/etburke/CBCpamphlet.pdf

Lobby Packet

etburke — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:04:59 CDT

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/etburke/CfBC_lobbypacket.pdf

Letter from Delegate Crockett-Stark

rjohns04 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:11:50 CDT

Ryan,

I applaud your efforts. If you are concentrating on the state level, I suggest that you stick with one side of the issue. Have you actually spoken to DEQ and asked their process for okay-ing the fly ash? I put in a bill similar to SB 717 at the beginning of the session which was revised several times (as was SB 717). The final version - same as SB 717 - was something that myself and David Paylor, Director of the DEQ, sat down and worked out. Only after consulting with the Department were we able to find a compromise bill.

However, this bill, and SB 717 were both defeated in the House Committee for Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources. The reason for this was the unforeseen, far-reaching effects that this new law would have on all parts of Virginia. It would affect many similar projects that are going on right now in other areas of the state. And remember - Celanese and the Glen Lyn power plant mean jobs for Giles County!

Just something to think about - what do you think happened to fly ash 50 years ago? Was it buried?

Lastly, I simply want to point out an argument for the use of fly ash. Opponents argue that fly ash puts harmful lead and arsenic into the soil, which could contaminate our water. One must remember that the coal comes from the ground anyway, and therefore lead and arsenic are already in the ground. The coal-rich mountains of Southwest Virginia are also - already - rich in lead and arsenic.

Hope this was helpful. Here is a link to my version of the fly ash bill:http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+HB514

Anne B. Crockett-Stark
Member, Virginia House of Delegates
Sixth District
Office: 276-227-0247
Fax: 276-227-0248

Interview with Delegate Jim Shuler

rjohns04 — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:04:29 CDT

In an effort to gain incite on Virginias state level of governance, professional opinions were sought on the proposed legislation drafted by Citizens for Beneficial Change. Several of Virginia’s legislator’s were contacted, including Delegate Jim Shuler, Delegate Anne Crockett-Stark, Senator John Edwards, and Senator Frank Wagner. Unfortunately, due to time restrictions faced by both the members of Citizens for Beneficial Change and these distinguished representatives, only the incite of Delegate Jim Shuler was able to be obtained by the time of this publication.

Delegate Jim Shuler is the democratic representative of the Twelfth District of Virginia, representing the Counties of Alleghany, Bath, Craig, Giles (part), and Montgomery (part), as well as the City of Covington. Delegate Shuler first took office in January of 1994 and servers in the committees of Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources committee, Education, and the Militia, Police and Public Safety. When asked about SB717, Delegate Shuler was very familiar with the document, especially as it pertained to the Cumberland Park Project and the projects effect on his constituents in Giles County.

According to Delegate Shuler, the Cumberland Park Project located in Giles County, Virginia, has closely followed every regulation issued by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all other legal requirements found within the state of Virginia. Delegate Shuler stated that because of this, at the time when SB717 was proposed, nothing could be done legislatively to reverse the project. He seemed both well informed and very much aware of the potential negative environmental consequences that could result from such a project, but brought attention to the fact that numerous experts were consulted and their conclusions were such that they allowed for the Cumberland Park Project to proceed. Delegate Shuler stated further that it is his understanding that extensive environmental monitoring is being conducted at the Cumberland Park site and that he was fairly certain of a heavy clay liner was being utilized to help mitigate any leaching that might occur from the fly ash itself.

For Delegate Shuler, a major issue found within the current regulations concerns the current lack of accommodation to public input. According to Shuler, in both the Code of Virginia and the regulations set forth by the DEQ, there is no requirement that mandates a public hearing to be conducted before such a project, such as the one at Cumberland Park, can be undertaken. For Delegate Shuler, this was one of the main areas of contention that his office encountered once the populace started to find out the details of the Cumberland Park Project. He stated that this initial lack of communication helped to fuel the controversy surrounding the project because it allowed for the formulation of rumors and intensified the feeling among the populace that AEP was trying to pull something on them. “On any issue there is always two sides to the story, the trick is to try and separate fact from fiction”, stated Shuler.

When an inquiry was made as to what sorts of objections he encountered at the state level of governance to SB717, Delegate Shuler stated that he could not answer that question with any certainty because he was not actually part of the committee which examined the bill. However, based off his experiences in the past, he made the educated guess that anyone who has any sort of business related to the production of, or use of, fly ash from coal fired power plants would be sure to make their voice is heard. This too would be the case for the legislation purposed by Citizens for Beneficial Change. Delegate Shuler stressed that this voice from the coal industry was by no means unanimous across the board, stating that each player has their own personal ties to the issue. Delegate Shuler then relayed the story of how his office has been visited by several representatives from different areas of coal industry, all inquiring about various aspects of SB717 and the events transpiring within Giles County. Interestingly however AEP was not one of the visitors to his office.

Combined Research Memo

mscott22 — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:56:11 CDT

TO: State Lobbying Group Members

FROM: Will Drake, Whitney Marley, Ryan Johnson. State Lobbying Group Members

DATE: February 20, 2008

SUBJECT: Coal Combustion Waste Synopsis.

Intro: The purpose of this memo is to provide a brief synopsis of the research we've completed with respect to coal combustion waste.

In order, we will discuss...

1. The beneficial uses for coal waste

2. The hazards of coal waste combustion utilization.

3. Conclusions from our research, weighing the risks with the rewards of coal waste utilization.

Beneficial Uses for CCW:

-roughly 30% of coal combustion waste is currently utilized.

-the forms of coal waste include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flu-gas desulfurization.

-50% of utilized coal waste is of the fly ash form.

-the most economical use of fly ash is as an additive for structural fill and Portland cement aggregate.

Ways coal waste utilization can be beneficial:

-makes use of a substance which would otherwise be land-filled

-reduces the carbon output by reducing the amount of virgin aggregate extracted from the earth

-structural fill with fly ash is safer and quicker to pour.

Beneficial Use Summary:

Fly Ash is the most commonly used coal combustion waste. Most fly ash is used in the manufacture of Portland cement. In general, coal combustion waste is used for fill material in the construction of roadways or buildings, or as an aggregate substitute

Negatives of CCW Use:

Human Health Impact

- Contamination of groundwater from coal waste leachate generates the primary risk for human health.

- Coal Combustion Wastes (CCW) have been found to contain hazardous substances such as aluminum, chloride, iron, manganese, sulfate and toxic trace elements such as arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, nickel, copper, chromium, boron, molybdenum and zinc.

Environmental Impact

- Lechette containing the toxic substances of selenium and arsenic pose the greatest threat to aquatic life.

- Bituminous coal found in the eastern US has been shown to contain the highest arsenic concentrations.

- Heavy metals found within Coal Combustion (CCW) are easily absorbed by plants in fairly high concentrations.

- Negative health effects to terrestrial wildlife can result if plants containing these elevated levels of heavy metals are consumed.

Regulation Recommendations:

Having studied CCW regulations in place in other states, current proactive laws provide guidelines for building more stringent beneficial use laws in Virginia. In summary, based on various states' laws, CCW beneficial use projects should:
- include measures to eliminate pollution, public nuisance, health hazards, and contamination of water, land, or air;
- include measures for monitoring leachate test results; and
- include measures for erosion and sediment control.

Most importantly, the regulation should restrict use of CCW within flood plains. North Carolina's legislation has the most inclusive limits on use of CCW within specific distances of water bodies. The most stringent regulation should be that CCW reuse must be at least 100 feet from a stream and 300 feet from wells, wetlands, and flood plains.

Conclusions:

There are many economical applications of coal combustion waste, however our research shows that there are considerable risks involved with these uses.

The EPA's 2000 decision on CCW should not be interpreted as a green light to use CCWs. Currently the EPA is considering revising its policy.

VA Revised Memo

DCAaron — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:56:15 CDT

Revised Recs

DCAaron — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:51:54 CDT

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Recommendations for Virginia

DCAaron — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:47:30 CDT

MEMO

TO: State Lobbying Group
FROM: Desiree Aaron and Mary Ambler, State Lobbying Group Members
Date: February 26, 2008
Re: Recommendations for Virginia CCW Regulations

Having studied regulation of CCW in other states, we have discovered proactive laws that provide guidelines for building more stringent beneficial use laws in Virginia. From these studies, we recommend that:

1. Based on Missouri CCW legislation; it must be shown that pollution, public nuisance, and health hazards will not occur from the proposed application(s);

2. Based on Ohio CCW legislation; nature, purpose and location of the project and the leachate test results should be monitored when applying CCW as structural fill;

3. Based on Kentucky legislation the CCW reuse may not create a nuisance; erosion and sediment controls must be undertaken; the CCW reuse must be at least 100 feet from a stream and 300 feet from potable wells, wetlands or flood plains; The ash must be "non-hazardous;"

4. Based on Michigan legislation: as a road base or construction fill which is covered with asphalt, concrete, or other material approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and which is placed at least 4 ft above the seasonal groundwater table;

5. Based on North Carolina legislation: CCW used in structural fills may not be located within 50 feet of a jurisdictional wetland (absent additional regulatory approvals), a perennial stream or other water body, within 25 feet of any property boundary or bedrock outcrop, within two feet of the seasonal high groundwater table, within 100 feet of any drinking water source, or within a 100 year floodplain;

6. Based on New Hampshire Legislation, other proposed reuses may be certified by application to and approval by the state agency based on the condition that there is an identifiable benefit to sites upon which the product is land applied;

7. Based on Maine Legislation: CCW is exempt from regulation as hazardous waste so longs as the CCW does not exhibit any characteristic for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity;

8. Based on Arkansas Legislation, the beneficial use may not result in contamination to water, land or air.

The following regulations come from these aforementioned state laws:
a. It must be shown that pollution, public nuisance, and health hazards will not occur from the proposed application(s);
b. The nature, purpose and location of the project and the leachate test results should be monitored when applying CCW as structural fill;
c. Erosion and sediment controls must be undertaken;
d. The ash must be "non-hazardous”
e. CCW used in structural fills may not be located within 50 feet of a jurisdictional wetland (absent additional regulatory approvals), a perennial stream or other water body, within 25 feet of any property boundary or bedrock outcrop, within two feet of the seasonal high groundwater table, within 100 feet of any drinking water source, or within a 100 year floodplain;
f. There must be an identifiable benefit and the benefit may not result in the contamination to water, land or air and
g. CCW must not exhibit any characteristic for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity

Therefore, please review and consider these recommendations. Please see additional documentation summarizing other states’ laws on citizensforbeneficialchange.org for reference.

Schedule

carriehileman — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:39:51 CDT

Jan. 23

Sample Annotations Sent Out

Jan. 30

Schedule Written

Wiki Up and Running

Feb. 6

Lobbyist Packet Examples

Feb. 13

Coal Fly Ash Positives-Will
Negatives-Whitney and Ryan
Current VA Laws on Coal Ash - Carrie
Specific Law to Ammend - Carrie
Update on related legislation in current VA General Assembly session - Carrie

Other States' Examples of Beneficial Use with Summaries -- Des & Mary

Feb. 20

Detailed/specific bill to push - Carrie

Feb. 27

Outline - Thomas
Recommendations from Other States Practices -- Des & Mary

Web site design and function finished - Erik

Summary memo of coal waste research-Will, Whitney, Ryan

Mar. 5

Mar. 12

Contact local representatives after GA session for feasibility of legislative change - Carrie/Erik
Eventual recommendation for regulatory change to Chapter 85, DEQ Regulations - Carrie/Erik

Mar. 19

Mar. 26

Working Content

Apr. 2

Apr. 9

Presentation Content

Apr. 16

Cleaning

Apr. 23

Apr. 30

Due

Letter to Delegates

rjohns04 — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:29:55 CDT

Dear Delegate Shuler,

My name is Ryan Johnson and I am a senior Environmental Policy and Planning student at Virginia Tech. I am currently enrolled in a Senior Planning Seminar which is offered through the school of Urban Affairs and Planning and is under the direction of Dr. Diane Zahm. This class is designed to offer students a real world orientation to urban planning and in accordance to this prerogative the class traditionally adopts a real world planning issue as a case study. This year the class has adopted an issue concerning Chapter 85 of Virginia Administrative Code, which addresses coal combustion byproduct regulations. Specifically our class has chosen to focus on section 9VAC20-85-110 of this chapter, which exempts a landowner or operator of a site from the disposal requirements found in Chapter 85 for fossil fuel combustion wastes, granted that the waste is used as structural fill directly underneath some beneficial use project.

In order to effectively address section 9VAC20-85-110, my group has directed its focus to the state level of governance. We are currently in the process of creating mock lobbying packets as well as drafting mock revisions to the current state law. I must stress that we are not an official lobbying organization and that all work conducted within this class is meant solely for educational purposes within our classroom.

As a group, we realize that you are a very busy professional, but we were hoping you might be able to look at our latest proposal in order to offer insight on the changes we have proposed within the given documents. We are particularly interested in which points you feel would be deemed unfavorable under the current political climate at the state level, and for what reasons legislation to change the beneficial use loophole or coal combustion byproduct waste disposal methods may be opposed. I have included a revised version of SB717 as well as the memo we have created under our group name, Citizens for Beneficial Change. I thank you for your time and consideration on this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Ryan Johnson

Beneficial Use Research

willdrake86 — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:44:48 CST

TO: State Lobbying Group
FROM: Will Drake, State Lobbying Group Member
DATE: February 11, 2008
SUBJECT: Utilizing Coal Combustion Wastes

Intro:
The purpose of this memo is to provide the group with a summary of the research pertaining to the utilization of coal combustion wastes.

The uses of each waste will be summarized in the following order:

Fly Ash
Bottom Ash
Boiler Slag
Flue-Gas Desulfurization Material

Findings:

Fly Ash
80%-90% of the coal combustion waste produced is fly ash. Of this fly ash, 30% is utilized while the rest is landfilled. Fly ash accounts for more than half of all utilized coal waste. Portland cement is the most common and economically beneficial practice. Other applications include:

Flowable fill for construction
Mining backfill
Waste stabilization
Manufactured aggregate substitute
Snow and ice control
Filler for plastic compounds
Fuel source
Sorbent materials

Bottom Ash
Bottom ash is more porous than fly ash. It can not be added to cement. Because of its high porosity, using bottom ash leads to lighter weight materials. Common Uses are:

Structural fills
Road base and sub-base pavements
Snow and ice control
Cinderblock aggregate

Boiler Slag
Almost 90% of the boiler slag utilized is used for roofing grit and blasting granules. Boiler slag is also used in roadway construction. It is mixed into the hot asphalt and improves the life of the road surface.

Flue-Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
FGD material is derived from the “scrubbers” being installed in the smokestacks as a means to make coal burning more environmentally friendly. The scrubber process produces gypsum. This synthetic gypsum has several applications:

Wallboard
Road base constructing
Cement manufacturing
Plaster
Soil additive

*As more plants are installing scrubbers, the amount of gypsum collected is expected to quickly rise.

Summary

Fly Ash is the most commonly used coal combustion waste. Most fly ash is used in the manufacture of Portland cement. In general, coal combustion waste is used for fill material in the construction of roadways or buildings, or as an aggregate substitute.

Attachments:
See annotated bibliography.

Truini, Joe."Study backs filling mines with coal ash."Waste News.11.24(March 13,
2006):4.General OneFile.Gale.Virginia Tech.6 Feb. 2008
A report from the National Resource Council, titled, “Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines,” finds that coal combustion waste, primarily coal ash, can serve as infill for old mines as part of the reclamation process. The report stresses that while this practice is generally safe, more oversight is needed to guard against the potential contamination threat. Steps need to be taken to better identity the composition of the coal ash and the Federal government is called upon to establish mine-filling guidelines.

"Editorial: Coal ash sparks bright ideas."Waste News.7.10(Sept 17, 2001):8.General OneFile.Gale.Virginia Tech.6 Feb. 2008
Article cites generic researchers from Ohio and the Dakotas who are experimenting with the use of fly ash on animal feedlots. The destructive nature of vast congregations of animals, coupled with the limited carrying capacity of the ground, leads to feeds which tend to be muddy and susceptible to massive erosion. The intent is to use the ash to harden and stabilize the soils.

Changwoo, Ann and William Mitsch. “Evaluating the use of recycled coal combustion products in constructed wetlands: an ecologic-economic modeling approach.” Ecological Modelling. 150. (2002) 117-140.
Scientists from Ohio State Universty have conducted experiments showing the benefits of using flue-gas desulfurization, a coal combustion waste, for liner material in constructed wetlands for such applications as municipal water treatment. The researchers constructed scale model wetlands and measured the results. Simulations showed increases in phosphorous retention by amounts of 10%, which translates into substantial cost savings.

"Coal ash promotes plant growth."Israel Business Today.6.n257(Dec 27,
1991):5(1).General OneFile.Gale.Virginia Tech.6 Feb. 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=I
ACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=ITOF&docId=A11861043&source=gale&srcprod=ITOF&userGroupName=viva_vpi&version=1.0>.
The Hebrew University’s agriculture department has found coal ash can be added to the soil for use as a growth additive. When properly mixed with cow manure, the ash becomes a fertile soil base for plants. The findings claim 20%-30% faster growth rates. Professor Yone Chen has hopes of this method being beneficial in areas of nutrient-poor or depleted soils.

United States. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Coal Utilization By-
Products. Topical Report Number 24. August 2006.
<http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/topicalreports/pdfs/Topical2
4.pdf>
This report was commissioned by the Department of Energy and was put together by the National Energy Technology Laboratory. It provides a detailed breakdown of the major components of coal combustion waste and the specific utilization of the by-products of each group. The report highlights uses for fly ash, bottom ash, flue-gas desulfurization, and boiler slag. The report does not ignore the potential risks of using coal waste, but it mainly glosses over such concerns. It comes to the conclusion that utilization of coal waste is both an economically and environmentally beneficial.

Other State Laws

mscott22 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:37:52 CST

Beneficial Use Summaries by Total Coal Use LARGEST AMOUNT OF COAL CONSUMED

Texas

Classification: industrial waste; exempt from regulation as hazardous waste Beneficial Use Regulation?: Yes Allowable CCB Uses: a) concrete, concrete products, cement/fly ash blends, pre-cast concrete products, lightweight and concrete aggregate, roller compacted concrete, soil cement, flowable fill, roofing material, insulation material, artificial reefs, and as mineral filler (fly and bottom ash) b) as a raw feed for concrete manufacture and in masonry (fly ash, bottom ash, and FGD material) c) in oil well cementing and waste stabilization and solidification (fly ash) d) as roadbase when covered by a wear surface e) as an unsurfaced road construction material, road surface traction material, and blasting grit (bottom ash) f) in wall board and sheetrock (FGD material).

2. Indiana Classification: exempt from regulation as hazardous waste Beneficial use regulation?: Yes Allowable CCB Uses: a) a raw material in manufacturing another product b) mine subsidence, fire control, or sealing c) structural fill when mixed with sand, cement, or water d) road construction base e) as an anti-skid material f) compounds extracted from the ash Notes: Specific written approval from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for other uses not specified as beneficial use

Missouri

Classification: exempt from regulation as hazardous waste, unless fly ash fails testing Beneficial use regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: a) snow and ice control (bottom ash and boiler slag) b) concrete/flowable fill additive (fly ash) Notes: a) Other proposed applications may be authorized by DEQ under the agency's authority to exempt solid waste beneficial reuse applications from permit requirements. The exemption must be requested in writing from the state and it must be shown that pollution, public nuisance, and health hazards will not occur b) State regulations also authorize the Missouri Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) o grant a general exemption from solid waste permitting requirements for c) use of type C fly ash and associated bottom ash and boiler slag as road base or structural fill d) Use of type C fly ash as solid amendment for soil stabilization a e) daily cover in a landfill (bottom ash or boiler slag)

4. Ohio Classification: Not regulated as hazardous waste Beneficial use regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: a) as a raw material in manufacturing a final product b) as a stabilization/solidification agent for other wastes that will be disposed c) as a part of a composting process d) in uses subject to USEPA procurement guidelines e) for extraction or recovery of materials and compounds in CCBs f) as an anti-skid material or road preparation material g) for use in mine subsidence stabilization, mine fire control, and mine sealing h) As an additive in commercial soil blending operations, where the product will be used for growth of ornamentals (no food crops or grazed land) i) as daily cover at a landfill j) as structural fill, defined as an engineered use of waste material as a building or equipment supportive base or foundation and does not include valley fills or filling of open pits from coal or industrial mineral mining k) as pipe bedding, for uses other than transport of potable water l) as a construction material for roads or parking lots (subbase or final cover) m) other single beneficial uses of less than 200 tons Notes: a) The above uses have guidelines: written notice must be submitted to OEPA before commencement of a beneficial use project involving structural fill applications An annual report submitted summarizing each beneficial use project involving structural fill, road base, and pipe bedding applications, including a description of the nature, purpose, and location of the project, the type and volume of wastes used, and leachate test results. b) Reuse of CCBs is not specifically authorized under state law, but reuse of “non-toxic” CCBs is authorized by regulations from the Ohio Environmental Ptrotection Agency

5. Illinois Classification: exempt from regulation as hazardous waste Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: a) for the extraction and recovery of materials and compounds within the ash b) as a raw material in the manufacture of cement and concrete products c) for roofing shingles d) in plastic products, paints, and metal alloys e) in conformance with the specifications and with approval from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) f) as antiskid material, athletic tracks or foot paths (bottom ash) g) as a lime substitute for soils so long as the CCBs meet the IDOT specifications for agricultural lime as a soil conditioner h) in non-IDOT pavement base, pipe bedding, or foundation backfill (bottom ash) i) as structural fill when used in an engineered application or combined with cement, sand, or water to produce a controlled-strength material j) for mine subsidence, mine fire control, mine sealing, and mine reclamation (must meet requirements of both the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Mines and Minerals) Notes: a) Illinois law specifically authorizes the reuse of CCBs, classified into two different groups: coal combustion waste (CCW) and coal combustion byproduct (CCB). CCW reuse is regulated more stringently than CCB. CCW can be classified as CCB under certain conditions and reused, based on the classification. b) Certain restrictions apply to reuse of CCBs. The user of CCBs in certain applications must notify the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") of each project utilizing CCBs, document the quantity of CCBs that will be utilized and certify that the CCBs have not been mixed with hazardous waste prior to use and that the CCBs do not exceed Class I groundwater quality standards for metals when tested utilizing ASTM method D3987-85. c) Other CCB applications may be authorized upon IEPA's written determination that the proposed use has no greater adverse environmental impact that the beneficial uses specified in the law

6. Pennsylvania Classification: exempt from regulation as hazardous waste, regulated as residual waste Beneficial use regulation?: No

Allowable CCB Uses: a) as a structural fill b) as a soil substitute or additive
c) for reclamation at an active surface coal mine site, a coal refuse reprocessing site, or a coal refuse disposal site d) for reclamation at an abandoned coal or an abandoned non-coal (industrial mineral) mine site e) in the manufacture of concrete f) for the extraction or recovery of one or more materials and compounds contained within the coal ash g) as an anti-skid material or road surface preparation material (bottom ash or boiler slag only) h) as a raw material for a product with commercial value i) for mine subsidence control, mine fire control, and mine sealing j) as a drainage material or pipe bedding k) As a stabilized product where the physical or chemical characteristics are altered prior to use or during placement so that the potential of the coal ash to leach constituents into the environment is reduced Notes: All of these uses must comply with specified State regulations.
7. Kentucky Classification: Special waste; exempt from regulation as hazardous waste Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: a. As an ingredient in manufacturing a product; b. As an ingredient in cement, concrete, paint and plastics; c. As anti-skid material; d. As highway base course; e. Structural fill; f. As blasting grit; g. As roofing granules; and h. For disposal in an active mining operation if the mine owner/operator has a mining permit which authorizes disposal of special waste. (See also KY. REV. STAT. ANN. §350.270.) Notes: a. The CCP reuse may not create a nuisance; b. Erosion and sediment controls must be undertaken; c. The CCP reuse must be at least 100 feet from a stream and 300 feet from potable wells, wetlands or flood plains; d. The ash must be "non-hazardous;" and e. The generator must submit an annual report identifying the type and amount of waste released for reuse, the name and address of the recipient of the waste intended for reuse, and the specific use, if known, each waste recipient made of the CCP

* From the National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy website: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/coal_utilization_byproducts/states/select_state.html See section on Environment & Water: Coal Utilization
By-Products: “Current Regulations governing Coal Combustion By-Products”

8. Georgia Classification: Exempt from Hazardous Waste Classification; Classified as Industrial Solid Waste Beneficial Use?: No Allowable CCB Uses: n/a Notes: Currently, reuse of CCPs is not specifically authorized under Georgia law or regulation

9. West Virginia Classification: Exempt from Hazardous Waste Classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: Beneficial use (including structural fill and as soil amendment) will be addressed in future rule making Allowable CCB Uses: a) as a material in manufacturing another product or as a substitute for a product or natural resource; b) for the extraction or recovery of materials and compounds contained within the CCBs; c) as a stabilization/solidification agent for other wastes if used singly or in combination with other additives or agents to stabilize or solidify another waste product; d) under the authority of the West Virginia Department of Energy; e) as pipe bedding or as a composite liner drainage layer; f) as an anti-skid material (bottom ash, boiler slag); g) as a daily or intermediate cover for certain solid waste facilities; h) as a construction base for roads or parking lots that have asphalt or concrete wearing surfaces.

10. Alabama Classification: Non-regulated solid waste or special wastes Beneficial Use Regulation?: N/A Allowable CCB Uses: N/A Notes: a) Currently, use of CCPs is not regulated under Alabama law; b) Fly ash and bottom ash may be require specific processing, handling or disposal techniques

11. Michigan Classification: Beneficial Use Regulation?: See Notes Allowable CCB Uses: a) with a maximum of 6% unburned carbon as a component of concrete, grout, mortar, or casting molds; b) with a maximum of 12% unburned carbon passing Michigan Department of Transportation test method MTM 101 when used as a raw material in asphalt for road construction; c) as aggregate, road, or building material which in ultimate use will be stabilized or bonded by cement, lime, or asphalt; d) as a road base or construction fill which is covered with asphalt, concrete, or other material approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and which is placed at least 4 ft above the seasonal groundwater table, e) as the sole material in a depository designed to reclaim, develop, or otherwise enhance land, subject to the approval of DEQ. Notes: a) coal ash may be used to reclaim, develop, or enhance land following submission of a plan and approval of the plan by the DEQ

12. North Carolina Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: Yes Allowable CCB Uses: a) Structural fill; b) As soil nutrient additive or other agricultural purpose under the authority of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture; c) Bottom ash or boiler slag as traction control material or road surface material if the use is approved by the North Carolina Department of Transportation; c) As material in the manufacturing of another product, such as concrete products, lightweight aggregate, roofing materials, plastics, paint, flowable fill and roller compacted concrete or as a substitute for a product or material resource, including but not limited to, blasting grit, roofing granules, filter cloth, precoat for sludge dewatering and pipe bedding; d) As a structural fill for the base or subbase under a structure, paved road, parking lot, sidewalk, walkway or similar structure; e) For the extraction or recovery of materials and compounds contained within the CCPs. (Note: residuals from the processing operations remain solid waste and are subject to regulation); and f) As a stabilized structural fill product when processed with a cementitious binder and spread and compacted for the construction of a project with a planned end use. Notes: a) Structural fill restrictions: CCPs used in structural fills may not be located within 50 feet of a jurisdictional wetland (absent additional regulatory approvals), a perennial stream or other water body, within 25 feet of any property boundary or bedrock outcrop, within two feet of the seasonal high groundwater table, within 100 feet of any drinking water source, or within a 100 year floodplain

SMALLEST AMOUNT OF COAL CONSUMED

42. New Hampshire Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: See “Notes” Allowable CCB Uses: a) Coal ash (boiler slag) is specifically deemed certified for distribution and use as a raw material for industrial and commercial purposes; b) Waste derived products that meet a published standard are also deemed certified for distribution and use; c) Fly ash used as a lightweight aggregate in concrete masonry units meeting the standard published in ASTM C-331-89 are specifically deemed certified for distribution and use Notes: Other proposed reuses may be certified by application to and approval by the state agency based on the following criteria: a) The waste derived product: (1) is comparable in form and function to an existing non-waste derived product and performs as effectively or more effectively, or (2) satisfies an identifiable and unfulfilled need without violating the Env-Wm 2702 standards; b) A buyer or user has been identified; and c) There is an identifiable benefit to sites upon which the product is land applied.

43. Oregon Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: Currently, the use of CCPs is not specifically authorized under Oregon Law

44. Alaska Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: a "General Permit" effective through 1 June 2001, has been developed to authorize CCB use as fill for local construction projects and landfill cover. Approval must take place before the project proceeds, and ash must be tested for total metals and TCLP

45. Hawaii Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: a) Reuse of CCBs is not specifically authorized under Hawaii law; b) Applications may be approved by the Hawaii Office of Solid Waste Management on a case by case basis after TCLP and total metals testing.

46. Idaho Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification; regulated as industrial solid waste Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: Reuse of CCPs is not specifically authorized under Idaho law or regulations

47. Maine Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification; Regulated as “Special Waste.” Special wastes require special handling, transportation and disposal procedures Beneficial Use Regulation?: Yes Allowable CCB Uses: a) CCBs are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste so longs as the CCBs do not exhibit any characteristic for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity; b) The CCPs must be stored and handled in enclosed buildings or other covered areas; c) The beneficial use may not result in contamination to water, land or air.

COAL CONSUMERS SIMILAR TO VIRGINIA’S CONSUMPTION
29. Arkansas Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification; “Special Waste” Beneficial Use Regulation?: Yes Allowable CCB Uses: a) Maine has established a permit by rule under which CCPs may be utilized to manufacture flowable fill at concrete batch plants and cement kilns; 1. Permit by rule requirements include maintaining records which identify the origin of the CCPs, the quantities accepted, dates of acceptance, dates of processing, and dates and locations of final disposition; 2. The CCPs must be stored and handled in enclosed buildings or other covered areas; 3. The beneficial use may not result in contamination to water, land or air Notes: CCBs are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste so longs as the CCBs do not exhibit any characteristic for ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.

30. Nebraska Classification: “Special Waste” Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: a) in the construction or manufacture of products; b) for hazardous waste stabilization; c) for ice control in rivers (with NPDES permit); d) as stabilizing agent and soil modification; e) as aggregate for roads, including armor coat and chip seal aggregate; f) as structural fill including backfill of utility trenches and behind foundation walls, buildup of grade or as an embankment for roadways/overpasses; g) as controlled density/slurry fill for closure of pipelines, tanks, and sewers; h) as a soil amendment (fly ash) under specific conditions; and i) feedlot applications, with advance review and approval of plans by NDEQ Notes: Other CCB uses may be approved by the NDEQ on a case-by-case basis

31. Maryland Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: 1) for landfill in a manner which complies with sound engineering practices and applicable permit requirements; and 2) as structural building, soil improvement, agriculture soil conditioning, or land reclamation in compliance with all silt control regulations and permit requirements of the Department of the Environment. Notes: a) Maryland law authorizes certain beneficial reuses of "pozzolans." Pozzolans are defined as "the finely divided residue which results from the combustion of ground or powdered coal and is released by combustion gases. b) Dust and erosion minimization is required. c) If there is a threat to water quality, an NPDES or state permit may be necessary.

27. Louisiana Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: Specific applications for reuse must be approved by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Notes: CCBs are regulated as industrial solid wastes

26. New Mexico Classification: Exempt from “Hazardous Waste” Classification Beneficial Use Regulation?: No Allowable CCB Uses: Reuse of CCBs is not specifically authorized under New Mexico law, but CCBs have been reused in cinder blocks and other applications

All information was received from National Energy Technology Laboratory: Coal Utilization By-Products; http://www.netl.doe.gov:80/technologies/coalpower/ewr/coal_utilization_byproducts/states/select_state.html

Home

ebenoist — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:03:59 CST

CCW State Lobby's Mission:

"To better refine the state's role in coal combustion waste, to educate law makers, and to create a better plan"

http://citizensforbeneficialchange.org

Other Lobby Packets

ebenoist — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:22:18 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Current Va State Codes

ebenoist — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:21:14 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

CCW Hazards

ebenoist — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:20:32 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.

Reference Format

ebenoist — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:19:05 CST

There is no abstract available for this page revision.