While most posts to this site focus directly on coal combustion wastes and other industrial byproducts, occasionally a related issue comes up that is seemingly less directly related to industrial waste but, never-the-less, must be addressed. Anything to do with so-called “clean coal” technologies fits in this category; first, because clean coal doesn’t exist (see the numerous communities and web sites devoted to exposing the dirty truth behind mountaintop removal and other forms of coal mining, as well as environmental justice groups fighting dirty coal burning power plants, or communities concerned about coal combustion waste placement in their backyards), and second, because even if coal magically showed up without a dirty mining, processing, or transporting legacy at a new “clean” coal burning power plant, that power plant would still produce CO2 (a greenhouse gas) and what the department of energy calls “coal utilization byproducts”. Yep — so-called clean coal plants still pollute and still produce coal combustion waste.

Another blog shed light recently on a blatant administration attempt to squelch the bad news on the infeasibility of so-called carbon capture technologies that are so readily touted by government and industry.

A July 6 blog post by Gas Turbine World magazine described a DOE/NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) report that was completed in February this year but has been held up internally “pending management approval” for months. As the blog post describes it, the NETL report, “Chilled Ammonia-based Wet Scrubbing for Post-Combustion CO2 Capture”, suggests that for CO2 capture “the new technology offers no advantage over currently available amine-based absorption systems in terms of cost or performance”. <http://gasification-igcc.blogspot.com/>

This is a big deal since, as the blog post goes on to describe: “The PC (pulverised coal) sector of the industry is touting chilled ammonia as the saving technology development that will preserve the viability of coal-burning steam plants in a carbon-restrained world.” [emphasis added]

It’s also a big deal for current projects in the works to attempt to demonstrate the chilled ammonia technology for CO2 capture. Current projects are planned in a couple of states, including West Virginia. As WBOY news reported in March, AEP plans to test the Alstom technology at its Mountaineer Power Plant. WBOY.com’s March news report optimistically continued: “The chilled ammonia process may offer a solution for existing pulverized coal plants — plants that many have thought would become too expensive to operate if federal climate change legislation regulates CO2 emissions.” <http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=21919>.

A July 11 Greenwire report noted that according to NETL, the report was never intended for an external audience, and that it “would remain classified unless the agency was compelled to release it under a Freedom of Information Act request.” The Greenwire article went on to say that utility industry officials say they know of the report, but have not seen “a formal copy”. <http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=282>

Alleged “clean coal-burning” schemes are expensive and unrealistic, in addition to doing nothing to address the irreversible environmental damage that results from coal extraction in the first place. It’s time to stop mentioning coal — any type of coal, whether it’s “clean coal”, IGCC, coal-to-liquids, etc. — in any discussion of our energy future. Coal is dirty, it creates waste, and fossil fuels like coal (no matter how much you greenwash, change perceptions, or “offset” the consumption) contribute to climate destabilization.

Additional coverage of the DOE findings on chilled ammonia, including links to the DOE report:
http://gasification-igcc.blogspot.com/
http://www.environmentalnewsstand.com/epanewsstand_spclsubj.asp?s=energy
http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=282

“Chilled Ammonia-based Wet Scrubbing for Post-Combustion CO2 Capture” can be found at carbon control news. This is a subscription service, but you can register for a free trial and view the report. http://www.carboncontrolnews.com/ccndocs/jul07/ccn07182007_netl.pdf

Coal combustion wastes have numerous aliases…. According to the American Coal Ash Association, EPA started using the term “coal combustion products (CCPs)” in 2002 (1). In the past (and still on occasion), EPA used the terms “fossil fuel combustion wastes (FFCW)”, “coal combustion byproducts (CCBs), and the broader “special” and “Bevill wastes”. <See EPA’s fossil fuel combustion waste website at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/index.htm>.

DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory calls these byproducts “coal utilization byproducts (CUBs), preferring the term “utilization” over “combustion” because “it accounts for gasification, which also produces solid by-products which must be managed” (2). EPA’s Office of Research and Development studies hazards of coal combustion wastes and calls them “coal combustion residues (CCRs)”. DOI’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement uses “coal combustion byproducts”, as defined in 42 U.S.C. 13364(a), to describe coal combustion wastes in their recently published proposal for placement of coal combustion wastes in active and abandoned coal mines (3).

The above list of aliases used by various federal government agencies doesn’t include the more specific terms used to describe the different categories of coal burning waste such as fly ash, FGD sludge, bottom ash, etc., or even the list of acronyms (PFA, etc.) that can be found in use internationally. This can make it difficult for concerned communities to find relevant information on how these wastes are being used, regulated, managed, or what the potential health and environmental consequences may be from those various management or disposal schemes.

People concerned about the (mis)management of coal combustion wastes might do well to try to keep up with all these changes… otherwise, little changes in terminology here and there, department by department and agency by agency, can gradually change the landscape of regulation and public acceptance before it’s even realized.

Efforts to change perception seem to be relentless, even creating seeming internal inconsistencies between project start and final report. A recent report by the National Research Council, partly authored by the Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Wastes, and published by the National Academies Press, uses the term CCRs, stating that “although the term CCWs was used in the statement of task, after much discussion the committee chose to use the term CCR for the purposes of this report.” (Summary p. 3, <http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309100496>)

The term “CCRs” is getting closer to what industry wants, but it’s still not as preferred as “CCPs”….

In fact, the industry has written whole papers on terms that are encouraged or discouraged for their apparent bias <www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/PDF/Forums/CCB3/2-1.pdf>. According to a January 2007 presentation to EPA by David Goss of the American Coal Ash Association, “although ash and CCPs are terms often used interchangeably, CCPs is the industry preferred terminology” (4).

Oh, so you mean that we should assume all coal combustion byproducts should be reused, no matter how it’s done or where they go, and that EPA should help you promote your waste material as a product so your industry can profit by avoiding disposal costs of this enormously high volume dangerous byproduct? I’m a supporter of recycling and reuse – when it’s safe – as much as the next person. I also strongly believe in avoidance of making the waste in the first place. Just because you recycle something – anything- it doesn’t mean that its original production was good for the environment, or that it’s original raw material mining or manufacture didn’t lead to its own waste. If I recycle X number of pounds of something per year, I haven’t done as much for the environment as if I had just not consumed those materials in the first place. Reusing coal combustion waste doesn’t make coal “clean” – it doesn’t retroactively reverse the impacts of mountaintop removal mining, it doesn’t stop the coal-cleaning waste, it doesn’t change the emissions from transporting the coal or the ccw to use, and it certainly doesn’t make the combustion process any cleaner.

Let’s watch to see what the final rule on placement of CCBs in coal mines terms these wastes — will DOI in the end change their terminology and use the industry-preferred term (CCPs)? (As an aside — throwing CCWs away in active or abandoned coal mines seems to me to be about as close to disposal vs. use as you can get.)

The industry has encouraged use of the term “product” with the hopes of alleviating public and government concern and negative associations with recycling “wastes” or “byproducts” into roads and buildings and consumer products. People who care about clean water and a clean environment can watch industry actions on this one — and take action. Write letters to the editor to clarify what these wastes are when articles appear touting supposed “beneficial use of coal combustion products”. Submit comments on proposed federal regulations or at hearings, and call the agencies out for their own industry-sensitive bias when you see it.

Coal combustion and coal gasification processes produce byproducts — high volumes of extremely variable wastes that vary by combustion process, flue gas treatment type, feed coal content or mix, pollution control mechanisms, etc. Regulations are needed to improve health and safety of this industry’s waste. Calling these byproducts “products” and selling them to roadbuilders, agricultural, or other use doesn’t change what they are… waste.

Notes

1. American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) website includes a discussion of EPA’s transition to the industry-preferred terminology on these wastes: http://www.acaa-usa.org/FAQ.htm

2. DOE Topical Report 24, “Clean Coal Technology: Coal Utilization By-Products”, August 2006, p.6 http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/topicalreports/pdfs/Topical24.pdf

3. DOI OSMRE, Proposed Rule: Placement of Coal Combustion Byproducts in Active and Abandoned Coal Mines, March 14, 2007, Federal Register Vol.72, no.49, p.12025

4. Coal Combustion Products Basics: Presentation to EPA OSW, January 23, 2007, by David Goss (ACAA) www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/imr/irc-meet/05-coal.pdf

(Update: If EPA web server not properly working, click here to see text only version of above presentation. This presentation was part of a series of presentations to EPA by the Industrial Resources Council.)

In my last post (Industrial wastes are really “valuable commodities”, “like newspapers”, says EPA), I noted that EPA relegated a qualifying statement on the inherent unsuitability of some foundry sands for reuse projects to a footnote on its website <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/foundry/index.htm>. Specifically, after discussing its support for various foundry sand recycling applications, EPA adds the footnote:

Foundry sands also come from other types of foundries, such as from brass and bronze foundries, that are often characteristically hazardous and are therefore not included in this statement.

This is noteworthy to me, because EPA also has posted on its website a brochure about industrial materials recycling that states:

Foundry sand (spent sand used in metal casting) can be recycled in road embankments, flowable and structural fill, and base and sub-base for road construction.

The full color promotional brochure that the above statement is taken from includes no information or disclaimer that some foundry sands may be hazardous and unsuitable for reuse applications. Why would EPA post information that at best is misleading, and at worst is conflicting, on its website?

As EPA and its trade association partners try to encourage state and local governments to use more industrial wastes in their projects, local decisionmakers and the public will increasingly be looking to EPA for guidance on what is safe and acceptable risk, and what is just unknown. If EPA can’t be trusted to disclose all of the truth about industrial waste reuse risk, then the public health can’t afford to be the guinea pig in this experiment of increasing industrial waste recycling.

The brochure also lists a few projects that have used recycled industrial wastes, as well as EPA’s website that promotes industrial materials recycling, and several trade associations (representing the coal ash, construction and demolition debris, and spent foundry sand recycling industries). Obvious omissions from this list of supporters are independent researchers, environmental advocates, environmental justice groups, etc.

Citizen groups, independent testing centers, and health and ecological risk analysis experts need to be involved in these EPA decisions and have access to all the information that EPA is sharing with its trade association partners. Otherwise, the decisions, publications, and projects that come out of EPA public-private partnerships like this one, will be stongly biased toward industry interests and will not adequately protect human health and the environment.

“But it’s our job to try to sell everything our plants produce every day. Trying to find uses for materials that don’t necessarily meet specifications is a big challenge.” – Cheri Miller, market development specialist at TVA

“NEARLY EVERY industrial process, from manufacturing consumer goods, to generating energy, produces many different types of usable materials. These industrial materials can be recycled just like newspapers—both are valuable commodities.” – EPA’s Industrial Material’s Recycling Website

Recycling or reusing some byproducts may make sense, but only when the material in question will not result in greater harm through its reuse. Industrial wastes are generated in massive quantities in the U.S. — some by large coal-fired power plants, and some by smaller businesses that produce relatively high-volume waste (like foundries). There’s no doubt that these wastes are an indication of unsustainability of our system, and that we should aim to reduce virgin material consumption through source reduction and reuse whenever we can – safely. But what about all the industrial wastes that are untested, unquantified, lack quality controls, go unlabeled, etc.? Unfortunately, in a rush to promote so-called beneficial use of these industrial byproducts, industries and regulators are skipping some important product testing and risk management and quality control stages.

Standards for some materials do exist — but these standards are mostly engineering standards, not environmental or human health risk management plans. For example, Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today (FIRST) <http://foundryrecycling.org/> includes examples on their website of foundry sand applications in highway construction. Compaction and moisture content recommendations are given, but there is no mention of which foundry sands might be unsafe… what about leaching of contaminants from the foundry sands, or degradation through use or construction projects on the road base…. what additional precautions should be taken when handling this material versus the usual material? How will workers be advised of potential hazards from contact?

EPA’s website for industrial waste recycling includes a footnote stating that some foundry sands are often characteristically hazardous and are not included in EPA’s goals for reuse and recycling of industrial byproducts. However, EPA keeps this as a footnote on a page that otherwise is all about extolling the virtues of recycling industrial wastes. EPA needs to be more clear about the types of waste that may not be safe in these applications, and the public will need to be vigilant about industrial waste recycling projects to ensure that additional and unnecessary hazardous wastes are not added to roads, used as soil amendments, or added to cement kiln raw materials or concrete products.

USDA is currently exploring benefits and risks of using waste foundry sand in agricultural and horticultural applications. In the meantime, hazardous foundry sands may be lumped into categories with all foundry sands when people casually discuss the issue <http://www.afsinc.org/pdfs/Final_Beneficial_Reuse_Guide.pdf>.

When any environmental testing is recommended in this arena, it is usually limited to the TCLP test. The TCLP test simulates engineered landfill conditions and is designed to determine if certain listed contaminants identified by US EPA are present in landfill leachate. This test may be appropriate for characterizing the waste in an engineered landfill, but it is not a sufficient safety test to determine other exposure risks from inhaling, handling, or trace element volatilization from industrial byproducts. Communities and project engineers will need to be careful when determining appropriate and safe uses for industrial byproducts if they are going to bring them into contact with people or food. We cannot just listen to the industry line on this one, and unfortunately, we can’t count on EPA to keep the facts transparent here either. We need to keep the pressure on EPA and industries to demonstrate the safety of their projects, or else to keep their industrial waste out of places where we might come into contact with it.  Wikipedia defines the precautionary principle as “a moral and political principle that states if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, then in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” We should encourage EPA to follow a precautionary principle approach to applications/uses of these wastes.  Let’s err on the side of caution and make sure that we don’t let the real testing of these waste applications happen in a manner that is irreversibly harmful to humans and the environment.

Sources for quotes:

http://www.eei.org/magazine/editorial_content/nonav_stories/2003-07-01-ccp.htm

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/resources/ind-mat.htm

Coal-burning utilities must be pretty excited about all the buzz they’re getting these days from the most unlikely of sources: green building enthusiasts. Somehow, with a lot of promotion and a little help from the government, coal-fired power plants are able to avoid costly disposal and waste management of their toxic byproduct, fly ash, by increasing the use of coal fly ash in cement admixes and concrete construction projects. Incredibly, after extracting the coal from the earth, processing it, burning it, and then hauling the captured solid leftovers from the coal smoke to cement and concrete suppliers, coal-burning industries are getting an environmental credit for reducing greenhouse gases and recycling a waste product. Let’s review how this happened….

Activities like coal mining and coal burning emit tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So does the process of making cement for concrete. Coal fly ash, a waste byproduct from burning coal, has certain cementitious properties (in addition to mutiple toxic elements like mercury) that mean that in some applications, it can be used as a partial replacement for energy-intensive Portland cement used in concrete. The American Coal Ash Association estimates that over 71 million tons of coal fly ash were produced in the U.S. in 2005 (1), making this toxic industrial waste an expensive waste management liability, unless someone else can be convinced to buy or use the waste (2) . This is where EPA and DOE weigh in. EPA conducted a skewed “comparison” of the greenhouse gas emissions from Portland cement raw material mining and manufacture, and the greenhouse gas emissions from using the coal burning byproduct fly ash (while specifically not including emissions from burning the coal to make the fly ash or from mining activities to obtain the coal in the first place)(3). EPA omitted greenhouse gas emissions from hauling, burning, or mining coal in their skewed comparison between coal burning and virgin cement manufacture emissions, resulting in a popular false claim that replacing Portland cement with coal fly ash reduces greenhouse gas emissions by one ton for every ton of Portland cement replaced (4).

While this analysis on its own is inherently flawed (see related page on the calculations), it also avoids discussion of the risk involved in adding a toxic industrial waste material to infrastructure and consumer products. Buildings and other projects constructed with coal fly ash cement are not labeled. People may not know what toxics could be volatilizing into the air from within the cement walls of their school or workplace, nor will demolition or construction crews be advised during building tear-down or construction that the dust coming up from the work site may contain fine particles laced with mercury, selenium, radium, chromium, lead, etc. There are no plans to label or treat infrastructure projects that handle drinking water sources differently, just as there are no health-based testing standards for these materials (current ASTM standards only address engineering properties of fly ash cement projects).

In addition, the entire process is built upon the continued burning of the dirtiest fossil fuel – coal. Increasing fly ash use and promoting fly ash cement as a “green” product ignores (greenwashes) enormous quantities of greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal, as well as the health of people who live near coal burning power plants, the people who will handle the fly ash cement, and the people who will be exposed to these fly ash cement construction projects. Giving environmental credit to these industries promotes polluting practices at the expense of the global climate and human and ecological health.

Coal fly ash is not a green construction material.

Sources:
1. http://www.acaa-usa.org/PDF/2005_CCP_Production_and_Use_Figures_Released_by_ACAA.pdf
2. The U.S. Department of Energy and EPA are funding projects to increase or promote utilization of coal combustion waste in many applications, including building, road construction, carpet backing, agricultural soil application, FGD gypsum wallboard, etc. DOE’s website cites a goal of increasing coal utilization byproduct use by 50% by 2010, in order to realize potential economic benefits in the range of $500 million to $1 billion < http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_coalbyproducts.html>.
3. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/FlyAsh_11_07.pdf
4. Actually, EPA’s claims on ghg savings vary… see EPA Office of Solid Waste Director’s speech to American Coal Ash Association 2003 Annual Conference citing ton-for-ton savings <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/speeches/c2p2.pdf> and C2P2 factsheet citing .8 tons CO2 saved per ton Portland cement replaced with fly ash <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/cases/burnout.pdf>, while the Department of Energy cites savings of .8 tons of CO2 for every ton of fly ash used in concrete <http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_coalbyproducts.html>.

Recently, while researching Radium-226 incidence in fly ash, I discovered a green building (buildinggreen.com) website that had posted the following excerpt from EPA’s “Cement and Concrete Containing Fly Ash; Guideline for Federal Procurement” as published in the Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules and Regulations:

Regarding hazards of using flyash in concrete:

“Findings to date indicate that little, if any, fly ash exhibits characteristics defined as hazardous in the Federal regulations. Therefore, Subtitle C regulations will have no significant impact of the use of fly ash in cement and concrete.

A few commenters suggested that EPA limit the use of fly ash in concrete, restricting its use in potable water sources or in storage areas for food. The rationale given for these suggestions was the potential for leaching of trace metal elements out of the fly ash. The commenters provided no documentation as to the likelihood or extent of leaching when fly ash is used in concrete.

While it is true that fly ash contains trace amounts of certain elements, which can be toxic in larger concentrations, it is unlikely that fly ash as used in concrete would exhibit leaching characteristics. First, the permeability of concrete containing fly ash is negligible compared to the permeability of fly ash as typically disposed. This reduced permeability prevents water or other liquids from penetrating concrete and providing a leaching medium through which contaminants could travel.

Second, when used in concrete, fly ash becomes an integral part of the final product. The surface area of individual fly ash particles, from which leaching of trace constituents takes place, is so greatly reduced in this application as to be almost nonexistent. It is not possible through conducting leaching tests or raw fly ash to estimate the leaching, if any, which would take place in a concrete containing fly ash. Thus, the commenters suggestion that dams and pipes not be constructed using fly ash appears to have no technical basis.

(c) Radioactivity Issues. At the same time as original proposal of the hazardous waste regulations (December 18, 1978), EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that it was considering establishing 5 picocuries per gram [pCi/g] of radium-226 as a criterion for listing wastes as hazardous. The notice also requested comment on other criteria which might tend to affect the radiation hazard. Among these is the emanation rate of radon from the waste. The agency has, at this date, taken no further action on this proposed rulemaking to establish general criteria for hazardous radioactivity levels in wastes.

Where resource recovery is practiced, an important consideration in assessing the hazard is the proposed use of the waste material. While some proportion of fly ash generated in the U.S. has more than 5 pCi/g of radium-226, the physical structure of fly ash is such that its contribution to radiation exposure is probably less than that of most normal constituents of concrete which generally fall below this level. This is explained below.

A few commenters expressed concern to EPA that fly ash used in the construction of habitable structures could pose a threat to public health due to radioactivity. The source of the radiation threat is due to radium-226, a radioactive isotope which occurs naturally in soil, sand, and mineral deposits as well as in fly ash. The radium-226 content of soil generally ranges from .2 to 3 pCi/g. Limited measurements of radioactivity in cement show that the redium-226 content of cement can be as high as 5 pCi/g, but typically averages close to 1 pCi/g. Limited measurements of fly ash presently generated in the U.S. show a radium-226 content ranging from 1 to 8 pCi/g with an average of roughly 4 /Ci/g.

There are two pathways of radiation exposure from radium-226 in building materials. The pathway of primary concern is from inhalation of radon-222 and its short-lived decay products. Radon-222, an inert gas with a radioactive half-life of 3.8 days, is the first generation decay product of radium-226. Because it is an inert gas, it can readily migrate from the building material into the indoor air of a home. Although the rate at which radon is created within a building material is proportional to its radium content, the intrinsic structure of the material may, in some cases, prevent most of the radon from escaping. When air containing radon and its radioactive decay products is breathed for long periods of time, a person’s risk of lung cancer is increased.

Gamma radiation from radium-226 and its decay products is the other exposure pathway. The amount of gamma radiation emission from a building material is proportional to its radium content, but the total exposure a person receives will also depend on other factors such as shielding, distance from the material, and exposure time. Exposure to gamma radiation results in an increased risk of many types of cancer.

When fly ash is used as a partial cement replacement in concrete, the fly ash content of the final concrete product is between 2 and 3 percent (assuming a 15-25 percent cement replacement rate and an 8 to 1 ratio of aggregate and water to cementitious material). Since the average radium-226 content of fly ash exceeds that of cement by a few pCi/g, the use of fly ash as a cement replacement in habitable structures will, on the average, result in a slight increase in the gamma radiation exposure to people (less than a milliroentgen per year). However, in some instances, where fly ash with a lower than average radium content replaces a cement with a higher than average radium content, the result would be less gamma radiation exposure.

The use of fly ash as a cement replacement will also affect the quantity of radon emitted by the building material. Although the rate at which radon is created is directly proportional to the radium content, other factors may inhibit radon emanation from a material. Because fly ash is produced at high temperatures, it has a glassy structure which keeps most of the radon from escaping. The fraction of radon which escapes from fly ash (emanation fraction) has been measured at no more than a few percent. In contrast, typical soil and soil like materials tend to have an emanation fraction in the neighborhood of 20 percent. Thus, although fly ash on the average, has a greater radium content than the cement it replaces, the use of fly ash as a partial cement replacement is likely to reduce the radon gas contribution of the final concrete product.

During the proposal period for this guideline EPA has been investigating this issue more thoroughly. Tests recently conducted for EPA substantiate the conclusions above, i.e., that the radon emanation rate of fly ash in its raw state and as used in concrete is only a few percent compared to the absolute radium concentration. Thus, while fly ash use in cement would, on the average, result in a small increase in gamma radiation exposure, this small increase in gamma exposure is likely to be offset by a decreased radon exposure. In light of this, EPA believes that the use of typically-occurring fly ash in concrete does not constitute a significantly different radiation risk, than the risk from the cement it replaces, and neither of these is significantly different from the radiation risk posed by common soil.”

While I was familiar with the USGS statements on radiation in coal fly ash, I was not familiar with many instances where EPA had discussed the potential radiation exposure to people in buildings constructed of fly ash concrete. My curiosity piqued, I visited EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement Guideline website for cement and concrete products. There, I found a few standards for engineering properties and a link to a database of manufacturers and suppliers of fly ash containing materials, but the links to additional product specifications and technical background were missing. A copy of the site from April 2006 reveals that EPA used to link to additional technical background, including information on the Federal Register notice excerpted above. Why would EPA remove this background information from its website?

EPA and coal-related industries are practicing magic… all they have to do is say a few words and it seems the entire regulatory scheme has changed, not to mention public perception. How did we go from a world where, just a few years ago, there were hearings to determine whether coal combustion waste should be regulated as a hazardous waste, to today where coal combustion wastes are being promoted as a *product*, ready to be mixed into the cement walls or carpet backings of your school, blended into the soil that grows our food, or used to build the highway embankments that you drive on?

So much of the data and information on this topic is industry-generated (including the information and data that EPA uses in some of its regulatory determinations), that we thought it might be useful to present some of the industry players in this area. These are the groups, manufacturers, trade associations, or industry-funded research entities that are active in exploring and marketing the use of industrial waste in new applications. This page will be updated on an ongoing basis.
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

American Coal Ash Association

Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today (FIRST)

EPA and Industry’s Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2)

American Coal Council (www.americancoalcouncil.org, www.clean-coal.info/)

Center for Byproducts Utilization

Electric Power Research Institute

Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium (http://www.undeerc.org/carrc/)

Center for Energy and Economic Development (http://ceednet.org/ceed/)

American Concrete Institute (http://www.aci-int.org/general/home.asp)

European Coal Combustion Products Association (http://www.ecoba.com/index.html)

Ash Development Association of Australia (http://www.adaa.asn.au/default2.htm)

Center for Applied Energy Research (http://www.caer.uky.edu/)

Canadian Industries Recycling Coal Ash (http://www.circainfo.ca/)

Western Region Ash Group (http://wrashg.org/)

Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (http://www.uswag.org/)