Not all flyash is bad

Approximately 170 million tonnes of fly ash was produced in 2010 in India from the combustion of coal of which @ 35% is used for commercial purpose whereas in the United States about 131 million tons of fly ash are produced annually and 43 % is used for commercial purpose. The rest of the flyash that is not recycled is currently disposed off in landfills, requiring large tracts of land and water. In India currently 65,000 acres of land occupied by ash ponds where as in the US that number is around 28,000 acres-ft of land. Ponding or impoundments of flyash is termed as unbenificated use of flyash or uncapsulated flyash. There are no strict regulations on usage of flyash or its ponding in USA or India. 

Currently, in the US beneficial use of fly ash is excluded from federal regulation under EPA’s May 2000 regulatory determination that the Bevill amendment applies to such uses. Tomorrow a vote is set in US of House of Representatives on H.R. 2273, the coal Residual Reuse and Management Act. The EPA is proposing to regulate usage of all fly ash 

“EPA wants to ensure the safe management of coal ash that is disposed in surface impoundments and landfills. Without proper protections, the contaminants in coal can leach into groundwater and often migrate to drinking water sources, posing significant health public concerns. 

Structural stability concerns associated with fly ash impoundments came to national attention in 2008 when an impoundment holding disposed ash waste generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority broke open, creating a massive spill in Kingston, TN, that covered millions of cubic yards of land and river, displacing residents, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs and damaging the environment.

EPA believes that additional fly ash specificfederal regulations are necessary to protect human health and theenvironment.  This is the first time national rules have been issuedspecifically to manage coal ash disposal.”

Currently, fly ash is considered a non-hazardous, solid waste material and thus its disposal and beneficial use is left up to individual states in US. However, EPA has decided that such a classification is no longer sufficient and in 2009 decided to move forward with regulating fly ash as a hazardous waste.

Doing so could prove to be disastrous and we would be going backwards in terms of research and education carried out on using flyash as a resource in the building industry. 
Flyash generated by the coal power plants is used worldwide as an additive in concrete and cement based infrastructure products. Typically it is used in the encapsulated form i.e. flyash is bound in to products such as wall board, roofing products, concrete, cement mortar blocks or bricks, in soils for soil stabilization. Environmental benefits from these types of uses include greenhouse gas reduction, energy conservation, reduction in land disposal, and reduction in the need to mine/process virgin materials.

The most widely recognized beneficial application of flyash is its use as a partial substitute for portland cement in the manufacture of concrete.  The use of flyash increases the durability of concrete and the process generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions.  For each ton of fly ash that is substituted for portland cement, approximately one ton of greenhouse emissions are avoided. 

Assessments of the rule’s effect on the industry have suggested possibly higher priced fly ash, restricting or ending the use of fly ash in concrete in certain municipalities and types of projects, less durability concrete, lost jobs, and a greater likelihood of insurance and litigation lawsuits.

While fly ash, depending on the coal source, may contain various heavy metals, the amounts are "trace," which in analytical chemistry terms means the average concentration is less than 100 parts per million measured in atomic count, or less than 100 micrograms per gram. Heavy metal content in fly ash is comparable to soil (results of studies by the USGS, NIST, EPA, EPRI, and industry) and poses an infinitesimal risk to public health and the environment as evidenced by decades of safe use and sound scientific field study of this material. In addition, the ability of fly ash to "leach" or "leak out" toxic substances requires very specific soil and environmental conditions. Even when spilled in massive quantities as a result of a major disposal/ containment failure the impact in terms of toxicity has proven infinitesimal. Coal ash is not "toxic" nor is it "hazardous" by any sound scientific research methodology.

Interest groups focused on ending coal-fueled power have embarked on a national fear campaign intended to drive up the cost of coal as an energy source. They are targeting fly ash and pressuring the EPA through the threat of lawsuits and negative media/political pressure to enact expensive hazardous waste regulations. These groups gain large amounts of funding and support by promoting fear of coal ash and other CCPs. They have received extensive political interest and media coverage as a result the billion-gallon coal ash slurry spill in Kingston, Tenn., in December 2008.

Responding to EPA’s attempt to unnecessarily further regulate an important concrete ingredient, Representative David McKinley (R-1-WV) introduced H.R. 2273 which aims to pull back the reins on the rule by prohibiting the EPA from regulating fly ash as a hazardous waste, and instead establish minimum state disposal requirements.

Regulations to reduce the number of coal power plants are essential. But until we are able to truly develop sufficient alternative sources of energy that produce same quantum as those produced by coal power plants we will continue to depend on the later. Prudence would be in developing alternative non-hazardous uses of fly ash rather than bringing harsher rulings on its current status.

India can learn from the current debacle in US. The Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests advocates compulsoryusage of fly ash in all building projects within a 100km radius of coal power plant. But strict standards are not being laid down for ash ponding. Regulations particularly in fly ash ponding would benefit the cause of usage of ash as resource in building industry. This may reduce a risk for ash spills like the Tennessee Valley spill.

In order to develop a sustainable world a good marriage between resources, demand & regulations are necessary. Unnecessary regulation will not halt building of more coal power plants but may truly hurt the planet. I urge those in the US to send or call your representatives and ask them to vote in favor of HR 2273.