Environment

FLY ASH

Ready Mixed Concrete Industry Position: The ready mixed concrete industry opposes any hazardous waste classification for coal combustion residuals (CCR), such as fly ash. NRMCA however, officially supports legislation offered by Representative David McKinley (R-1-WV) H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, which will prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating fly ash as a hazardous waste, and establish minimum state disposal requirements. On Friday, October 14, 2011, the House voted in favor of the bill (267-144). A timeline on Senate consideration is currently unknown.

Background: In December 2008, 1 billion gallons of fly ash sludge spilled into the Emory River and other waterways from a retention pond located at the Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston, TN. The spill gained the attention of the EPA and spurred EPA to examine new regulations for the disposal of CCRs, including labeling fly ash as a hazardous waste material. On June 21, 2010 EPA published its proposed rule aimed at better handling and containing CCRs when destined for disposal. The proposed rule suggested two different options to achieve this goal:

1. The first proposal, known as a Subtitle C classification, would regulate CCRs as hazardous waste effectively giving the federal government control and enforcement over their disposal in special hazardous waste landfills.
2. The second, known as a Subtitle D classification, would set more stringent minimum standards for the way CCR’s are currently disposed. The enforcement however, would be left up to the states, and civil suits filed by individuals and/or groups.

How It Affects Our Industry: In 2008 alone, the concrete industry used 15.8 million tons of fly ash in the manufacturing of ready mixed concrete; making it the most widely used supplemental cementing material (SCM). Fly ash works in combination with portland cement to impart beneficial qualities to concrete and is then encapsulated itself. Supplementary materials such as fly ash contribute both to concrete’s exceptional performance and sustainability. When combined with cement in concrete SCMs improve durability, strength, constructability and economy. In the case of highways, streets, parking areas, and ocean-side structures, durability is the number one concern. Fly ash, as well as slag, and silica fume, other SCM’S, are used to enhance the durability of concrete by decreasing permeability and cracking. They help block migration of chloride ions (from deicing chemicals or seawater) to reinforcing steel, the most common cause of corrosion. In the case of buildings, SCMs help to create high strength concrete used to build some of the tallest buildings in the world. For homes, fly ash concrete provides an economical and durable alternative for foundations, patios and driveways. The environmental benefits of using these industrial byproducts in concrete results in longer lasting structures and reductions in the amount of waste materials sent to landfills, raw materials extracted, energy required for production, and air emissions, including carbon dioxide.

EPA’s primary goals should be to reduce the amount of fly ash wasted and to ensure that whatever fly ash is wasted is managed properly. A hazardous waste designation, such as Subtitle C, would undermine the primary goal. Some states forbid the beneficial reuse of hazardous wastes, which could create a “Catch 22” situation that prevents shedding the hazardous waste designation through reuse.

The adverse impact of a Subtitle C classification on the U.S. economy could be enormous. Concrete is used for nearly all forms of construction, including homes, buildings, highways, airports, domestic water systems, local roads, dams, and power generation structures. Inappropriate regulation of fly ash would render the product difficult to manage, transport and store, even for environmentally beneficial purposes, thus rendering the use of fly ash too expensive and risky to justify. It would also be devastating on the concrete industry. The industry supplements nearly 20% of the cementing materials in concrete with fly ash. Eliminating the availability of fly ash in any way would result in cost increases that could render concrete non-competitive.

The use of fly ash in concrete is safe. Once chemically bound in concrete, fly ash does not pose any environmental or health threat. Any ruling that would designate fly ash as hazardous in any form would result in a public perception that fly ash concrete is hazardous. This would result in project owners refusing to accept concrete with fly ash in the mixture. It would in effect kill the demand for fly ash in concrete. Fly ash that was once used in a beneficial way would end up in landfills.

Although both proposed classifications maintain an exemption for CCRs destined for beneficial use, such as an ingredient in ready mixed concrete, NRMCA is still determining both options’ impacts on the industry. Assessments of the rule’s effect on the industry have suggested higher priced fly ash regardless of the classification, and possibly worse; restricting or ending the use of fly ash in concrete in certain municipalities and types of projects altogether, less durable concrete, lost jobs, and a greater likelihood of insurance and litigation lawsuits.

EPA admits that fly ash does not qualify as a hazardous waste based on its toxicity. Landfill engineering standards are essentially the same under both of EPA’s “non-hazardous” and “hazardous” disposal regulations proposals. The Agency’s reason for proposing a “hazardous waste” approach is simply an attempt to gain more enforcement authority.

Fly ash shouldn’t be regulated as a hazardous waste. Fly ash should be disposed of properly and economically, and reused beneficially.

General Information:
To view EPA’s proposed rule please click here.
For more information on EPA’s proposal, including Public Listening Sessions please click here.

Industry Action:
To view letters opposing EPA action on fly ash please click here.
To learn more about industry opposition, other activated organizations, or to become involved please view these links:

American Coal Ash Association
Citizens for Recycling First
Regulate Coal Ash Right
Coal Ash Facts
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

TVA Studies:
To view the Tennessee Department of Health’s “Public Health Assessment” please click here.
To view the “Baseline Medical Screening Results” by Oak Ridge Associated Universities please click here.

House Small Business Committee Hearing:
To view NRMCA's Small Business Subcommittee Written Testimony on Fly Ash, July 22, 2010 please click here.

To view video of NRMCA's Small Business Subcommittee Testimony on Fly Ash, July 22, 2010 please click here. 

To view EPA’s Small Business Subcommittee Testimony on Fly Ash, July 22, 2010 please click here.

To view EPA’s testimony question answers please click here.

CLEAN WATER ACT EXPANSION

Ready Mixed Concrete Industry Position: The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) is committed to the protection and restoration of America’s wetland resources, however NRMCA opposes the Clean Water Restoration Act which would expand the federal authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to include all wet areas including groundwater, wash-out ponds, settlement basins and water reclaiming facilities located on ready mixed concrete plants.

How It Affects Our Industry: The current jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) provided under CWA over "navigable" waters, would be changed to "waters of the United States" and any "activities affecting these waters." These vague and loosely defined new terms hold unnecessary and overreaching regulatory implications that could adversely affect ready mixed concrete plants, trucks and operations. Not only would many activities not previously regulated require federal permits, those permits would be subject to challenge in federal court, delaying or halting these activities to the detriment of our industry and economy.

Background: The Clean Water Restoration Act would significantly change the intent of Congress when it enacted the CWA. For the first time in the 36-year history of the Act, activities that have no impact on actual rivers and lakes would be subject to full federal regulation and the burdensome permitting processes.

Because the CWA already regulates truly navigable waters and streams with both permanent and seasonal flows, the enactment of this type of legislation would open the door to the broadest possible interpretation of the CWA. Its enactment also would end claims that Congress originally intended any limits on the CWA’s regulatory reach. Further, it would impose additional unfunded mandates on state and local governments and pre-empt those governments and the use of private property.

Proponents assert that the Clean Water Restoration Act “restores” the original intent of the CWA and “clarifies” CWA jurisdiction; however, this legislation does neither. Instead, it would:

• Grant the EPA and the Corps, for the first time, jurisdiction over all “intrastate waters” – essentially all wet areas within a state, including groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, municipal storm drains, gutters, and potentially all wash out facilities at ready mixed concrete plants.
• Grant EPA and the Corps authority over all “activities affecting these waters” (private or public), regardless of whether the activity is occurring in water or whether the activity actually adds a pollutant to the water.