http://smbiz.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Ward_Testimony.pdf
The information - - concerning the immense value which we should ascribe to the solid residua arising from our economically essential use of Coal in the generation of truly affordable electric power - - we submit herein isn't, as we actually much prefer, a fully-vetted and formal United States patent disclosure of specific technology, or, some other impeccably objective and peer-reviewed exposition of facts and data.
It is, however, the interesting and compelling official testimony of a genuine expert in the field of Coal Ash recycling and reuse, as presented to the United States Congress.
In it, much of what we have been, and continue, documenting for you as a component of our contributions to the West Virginia Coal Association's Research and Development web site is summarized and confirmed:
Coal Ash, in it's various forms, is a valuable mineral resource which can serve as a more economical raw material for the manufacture of a number of commodity and specialty products; most especially Cement and Concrete. Such productive reuse avoids excessive and unnecessary costs for disposal and prevents the unneeded disruption of our natural environment for the extraction of the traditional raw materials for which Coal Ash can substitute; often with the added benefit, as can be the case in Cement and Concrete, of improved durability and performance of the finished product.
The expert whose testimony concerning Coal Ash we present in this dispatch is:
John Ward | LinkedIn; "John N. Ward, President of John Ward Inc. - - a marketing and public affairs consultancy focusing on energy issues. He was formerly Vice President, Marketing and Government Affairs, for Headwaters Incorporated - - a leading provider of pre-combustion and post-combustion clean coal technologies and services. He is a former board member and past president of the American Coal Council. He served on the National Coal Council as appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy. He is Chairman of the American Coal Ash Association’s Government Relations Committee. He also serves as Chairman of Citizens for Recycling First. Specialties: Marketing and public affairs for pre-combustion and post-combustion clean coal technologies, including waste coal reclamation, coal to liquids, and coal ash recycling.
Concerning Ward's resume affiliations, see:
ACAA - Promoting & Advancing Coal Combustion Products; "The American Coal Ash Association, established in 1968, is a nonprofit trade association devoted to recycling the materials created when we burn coal to generate electricity. Our members comprise the world's foremost experts on coal ash (fly ash and bottom ash), and boiler slag, flue gas desulfurization gypsum (FGD or "synthetic" gypsum), and other flue gas materials captured by emissions controls"; and:
Coal Ash | Home | Citizens for Recycling First; "Supporting recycling coal ash as a safe, environmentally preferable alternative to disposal. Citizens for Recycling First has succeeded in gathering 5,000 signatures for its petition on a new White House website that promises a response from the Obama Administration. A total of 5,133 signatures were gathered by the October 24 deadline. According to the White House website, the administration must now formally respond to the petition which reads: 'We believe the Obama Administration should protect coal ash recycling by promptly enacting disposal regulations that do NOT designate coal ash a ‘hazardous waste.’”
So, though admittedly a partisan, John Ward knows what he's talking about when it comes to Coal Ash.
And, in the following excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch, we learn what he told our United States House of Representatives about it:
"Testimony of John N. Ward, Chairman; Citizens for Recycling First
Before the: U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Regulations
May 12, 2011
Almost half of America’s electricity is generated by burning coal. That figure is not likely to change much in the future.
Because Americans continue to consume more electricity every year, renewable energy sources will do well just to keep up with increases in demand. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that in 2030, we will actually generate 19 percent more electricity from coal than we did in 2007.
Generating that much electricity produces large volumes of coal ash - solid materials left over from the combustion process. According to the American Coal Ash Association, about 135 million tons of this material was produced in 2009. The good news is that over 41 percent of it was recycled rather than disposed.
There are many good reasons to view coal ash as a resource, rather than a waste. Recycling it conserves natural resources and saves energy. In some cases, products made with coal ash perform better than products made without it. For instance, coal ash makes concrete stronger and more durable.
(West Virginia Coal Association | US Government Coal Ash Cement Stronger than Portland Cement | Research & Development;
West Virginia Coal Association | Coal Ash Concrete More Durable, Resists Chemical Attack | Research & Development.)
It also reduces the need to manufacture cement, resulting in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
(West Virginia Coal Association | Coal Ash Conserves Energy, Reduces CO2 and Saves Trees | Research & Development; "U.S. Geological Survey; Fact Sheet 076-02; Coal Combustion Products; Coal combustion products (CCP's) are the inorganic residues that remain after pulverized coal is burned. Coarse particles (bottom ash and boiler slag) settle to the bottom of the combustion chamber), and the fine portion is removed from the flue gas by electrostatic precipitators or other gas-scrubbing systems.The largest use of CCP's (mostly fly ash) is in cement and concrete. The CCP's displace portland cement and significantly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that may be associated with global warming. Portland cement manufacture requires the burning of fossil fuels and decomposition of carbonates, which release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Use of CCP's can potentially reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10-14 Mt annually.")
In the decade from 1999 to 2009, our nation successfully recycled 519 million tons of coal ash - some 38 percent of the 1.35 billion tons of coal ash produced. We decreased greenhouse gas emissions by more than 138 million tons during that period through the use of coal fly ash in concrete products.
(Further,) thousands of companies rely on coal ash as an ingredient in the products they manufacture. In some cases, such as the production of concrete, coal ash is a key ingredient used to improve concrete quality while reducing costs. The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association notes that 85 percent of its 1,500 member companies are small businesses. In other cases, such as the manufacturing of coal ash bricks or agricultural soil amendments, coal ash is the primary ingredient. All of these are small businesses that were created specifically to recycle coal ash.
'Green isn’t always gold.' In the case of EPA’s coal ash regulations, the Agency’s actions are not only “not gold,” they are not very “green” either. In the Agency’s single-minded quest to gain more enforcement authority over the disposal of coal ash, EPA appears resolved to ignore the negative impacts of its actions on an entire recycling industry and the small businesses that comprise it. If EPA succeeds in getting the regulations it wants, our nation will end up putting hundreds of millions of tons more material into landfills rather than safely recycling it - hardly a “green” result. Furthermore, EPA appears content to create regulatory uncertainty that is already harming the recycling industry even though formal regulations have not been finalized. A year ago, EPA formally proposed labeling coal ash as “hazardous waste” when it is disposed. When the idea was confronted by a wall of opposition from all manner of other government agencies, academicians, recyclers, coal ash users and more, the EPA responded by simply slowing the process down. EPA officials have been quoted as saying it may now be 2013 before the Agency gets around to proposing a final rule. In the meantime, the coal ash recycling industry is twisting in the wind with the unresolved question: 'Will it be hazardous waste or not?'
(And,) how toxic is “toxic coal ash?” It falls well short of the levels defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to qualify as a hazardous waste. Coal ash is also far more benign than municipal solid waste - a material regulated by states and safely handled by communities big and small. (More than 250 million tons of household waste is disposed in more than 1,600 landfills around the United States every year.) Municipal solid waste leachate is more noxious than ash leachate, is biologically active, emits explosive gases, contains sewage sludge ash as a component, attracts rodents and birds, and so on. None of these conditions can be found in coal ash.
Consumers of recycled coal ash are already beginning to remove the materials from their specifications because of uncertainty regarding the safety of the material or because of concern over potential legal liability from using it. Let me give you one example of each. The Los Angeles Unified School District has prohibited the use of coal fly ash in its concrete, and I quote: “until the EPA confirms fly ash to be a non-hazardous toxic waste.”
A Member of Congress, Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia - who is a civil engineer by trade - has
indicated that before being elected he removed coal fly ash from his concrete specifications because of liability concerns. It is important to remember that it doesn’t matter whether health or legal liability concerns are scientifically or legally justified. What matters is that people do not want to take the risks created by the potential “hazardous” designation and they can choose not to use coal ash to avoid those risks.
Manufacturers of products that compete with recycled coal ash have been fanning the stigma flames by citing the potential EPA “hazardous waste” designation. This has already occurred in markets for blasting grit, brick manufacturing, lightweight aggregate production, and concrete block manufacturing. One particularly egregious magazine advertisement featured a skull and crossbones for an illustration. We are now beginning to see commercial liability insurance policies that contain exclusions for companies using products that contain fly ash.
The EPA has refused formal requests to evaluate the impacts on small business of its proposed coal ash disposal rulemaking. The Agency’s explanation was that because beneficial use was technically exempt from the rulemaking, the agency was under no obligation to evaluate impacts of the regulation on the beneficial use industry, which is predominantly comprised of small businesses.
EPA Deputy Administrator Lisa Feldt ... admits that EPA’s “extensive economic analysis” completely omitted any consideration of economic impacts on recycling.
Coal Ash Regulations are Part of a Larger EPA Agenda: Perhaps the reason EPA has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of small business recyclers of coal ash is that this debate is not about coal ash at all.
It may be all about coal.
EPA has launched a multi-pronged attack against every level of coal production and use.
The Agency is aggressively pursuing new regulations on mining, increased standards for emissions, entirely new regulations on greenhouse gases and more. Draconian coal ash disposal regulations fit within that overall picture.
EPA denies that it is waging a war on coal. An EPA spokesman, Brendan Gilfillan, was quoted in The New York Times on October 29, 2010, as saying:
'EPA. does not have a problem with coal, or any other industry. EPA. is committed to doing its job, which is to minimize the pollution that might come from these industries… EPA.’s actions are firmly grounded in both the best available science and the law - in fact, in many cases EPA. is operating under legal deadlines after rules from the previous administration were thrown out by the courts.”
Applying Mr. Gilfillan’s standards to the coal ash issue gives us a different picture, however. The science concludes that coal ash does not qualify as a hazardous waste based on its toxicity, yet EPA continues to pursue a “hazardous waste” regulation.
The law has established through two prior EPA regulatory determinations that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste, yet EPA continues to try to overturn those determinations (which were made, by the way, under another Democratic Administration.) Finally, EPA has no deadlines from either Congress or the courts to do anything with coal ash regulation.
What Congress Can Do to Help: Since EPA appears content to consider the small businesses in the coal ash recycling industry as collateral damage in its larger fight against coal, help from Congress is needed as
soon as possible to resolve the regulatory uncertainty surrounding a potential “hazardous waste” designation.
Citizens for Recycling First strongly endorses two House bills that were recently filed to prohibit EPA from regulating coal ash as a “hazardous waste.” HR 1391, authored by Representative David McKinley and HR 1405, authored by Representative Bob Latta, would resolve the regulatory uncertainty that is damaging coal ash recycling today. These bills would not prevent EPA from moving forward with improving coal ash disposal regulations.
These bills are supported by a wide array of people.
(Not, sadly, insofar as we have been able to determine, so much so by the Coal Country press.)
The EPA’s extensive public comment process during 2010 showed that those who are actually involved in recycling coal ash – from producers to marketers to specifiers to users – are unanimous in the opinion that a
“hazardous” designation for coal ash would be disastrous for recycling.
In announcing the Agency’s proposed coal ash disposal rule on May 4, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said: "The time has come for common-sense national protections to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash." Citizens for Recycling First agrees with the Administrator.
Common sense tells us that utilities will be reluctant to allow a material classified as “hazardous waste” on their own property to be distributed for recycling at literally thousands of locations around the countryside.
Common sense tells us that architects and engineers who are sworn to put human health and safety first will be reluctant to require use of a material that is classified as “hazardous waste” in another location.
Common sense tells us that users of coal ash will be reluctant to take on the potential liabilities and additional operational requirements that may come with using a material that is classified as 'hazardous waste' in another location.
Common sense tells us that everyday citizens will be greatly alarmed if they find out that a building material used in their homes, schools, offices and roadways is classified as a 'hazardous waste' on the property of the people who made it.
Common sense says that risking an entire recycling industry over a regulatory turf battle is a bad idea.
Common sense says that new coal ash disposal regulations should be enacted under Subtitle D and EPA should work to promote safe and environmentally beneficial recycling as a preferred alternative to disposal.
We believe that the best solution to coal ash disposal problems is to stop throwing coal ash away."
-----------------------
In other words, if we can't agree on how to throw our Coal Ash away, then just don't.
Use it. Put it to work.
Put Coal Ash - - and consequently more Coal People - - to work, in jobs where it's superior performance has already been proven.
Common sense.
