“Disclaimer of Endorsement: Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or 

service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or 

imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government.”

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Complete electronic version of this report may be downloaded 

from the following internet web site: 

http://ccpohio.eng.ohio-state.edu 

DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared by The Ohio State University with support in part by a grant from the 

Ohio Coal Development Office, Ohio Department of Development (OCDO/ODO). Neither the 

State of Ohio, no any of its agencies, nor any person acting on behalf of the State: 

1. Makes any warranties or representation, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, 

completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of 

any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe 

privately – owned rights; or 

2. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use 

of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. 

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring; nor do the view and opinions of the authors expressed herein 

necessarily state or reflect those of the State of Ohio or its agencies. 

NOTICE TO JOURNALISTS AND PUBLISHERS: Please feel free to quote and borrow from 

this report; however, please include a statement noting the Ohio Coal Development Office’s 

support for the project. 

ii 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

ABSTRACT 

This final project report presents the results of a research program conducted at The Ohio State 

University from October 1, 1996 to March 31, 2000 to investigate the use of stabilized flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) materials in the construction of low permeability liners. The objective of 

the research program was to establish field-verified time-dependent relationships for the 

performance of liners constructed from stabilized FGD by-products generated in Ohio. The 

project objective was accomplished with a coordinated program of testing and analyzing smallscale laboratory specimens under controlled conditions, medium-scale wetland mesocosms, and 

a full-scale pond facility. Although the specific uses directly addressed by this report include 

liners for surface impoundments, the results presented in this study are also useful in other 

applications including design of daily cover and liners for landfills, seepage cutoff walls and 

trenches and for nutrient retention and pollution mitigation wetlands. 

The small scale laboratory tests, medium scale mesocosm wetland experiments, and construction 

and monitoring of a full-scale FGD lined facility (capacity of one million gallons) shows that 

stabilized FGD materials can be used as low permeability liners in the construction of water and 

manure holding ponds, and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Actual permeability 

coefficients in the range of 10-7

 cm/sec (3 x 10-9 ft/sec) can be obtained in the field by properly 

compacting lime and fly ash enriched stabilized FGD materials. Leachate from the FGD material 

meets Ohio’s non-toxic criteria for coal combustion by-products, and for most potential 

contaminants the national primary and secondary drinking water standards are also met. The low 

permeability non-toxic FGD material investigated in this study poses very minimal risks, if any, 

for groundwater contamination. Constructed FGD-lined wetlands offer the opportunity for 

increased phosphorous retention giving rise to the potential use of these materials as a liners for 

wastewater treatment wetlands. While plant growth was observed to be less vigorous for FGD 

lined wetland mesocosms compared to the control, the above and below ground biomass were 

not significantly different. Cost estimates for FGD liners compared favorably with clay liners for 

varying haul distances. 

iii 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was compiled as a part of a research project entitled Re-Use of Clean Coal 

Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners (OCDO Grant CDO/D95-19) and was performed at The Ohio State University. The principal sponsor of the research 

project was the Ohio Department of Development’s Coal Development Office and The Ohio 

State University. Additional co-sponsors were American Electric Power, Dravo Lime Company, 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Pork Producers Council, Ohio 

Cattlemen’s Association, Ohio Poultry Association, and BBC&M Engineering, Inc. The 

cooperation of AEP staff is valued and appreciated. The assistance provided by the OARDC 

Western Branch staff during the construction of the full-scale facility is appreciated. The 

assistance provided by the staff of Hocking College in the construction of the facility was 

helpful. More information on this research initiative may be obtained from the Internet web 

address: http://ccpohio.eng.ohio-state.edu/liner/. Additional information on the use of coal 

combustion products can be accessed at: http://ccpohio.eng.ohio-state.edu. 

iv 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page # 

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLES xi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background and Objectives 1

1.2 Outline of Report 3

2 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 4

2.1 Introduction 4

2.2 Permeability and Strength 4

2.2.1 Laboratory Mixes 5

2.2.2 Plant Stabilized Mixes 7

2.3 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycling 11

2.4 Leaching Potential 15

3 MEDIUM-SCALE MESOCOSM EXPERIMENTS 19

3.1 Introduction 19

3.2 Background Information 20

3.3 Mesocosm Description and Treatment 22

3.4 1997 Experiments 23

3.4.1 Mesocosm Hydrology 23

3.4.2 Planting and Survey 25

3.4.3 Field Sampling and Analysis Procedures 25

3.4.4 Results and Discussion 27

3.4.4.1 Conductivity 27

3.4.4.2 PH 27

3.4.4.3 Redox 28

3.4.4.4 Turbidity 28

3.4.4.5 Total Phosphorous 29

3.4.4.6 Orthophosphate 29

3.4.4.7 Nitrate-Nitrogen 30

3.4.4.8 Mesocosm Plant Growth 30

3.4.5 Summary of 1997 Observations 31

3.5 1998 Experiments 31

3.5.1 Field Sampling and Analysis Procedures 32

v 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3.5.2 Results and Discussion 35

3.5.2.1 Conductivity 35

3.5.2.2 PH 35

3.5.2.3 Redox 35

3.5.2.4 Turbidity 36

3.5.2.5 Orthophosphate 36

3.5.2.6 Total Phosphorous 37

3.5.2.7 Nitrate, Nitrate, & Nitrogen 38

3.5.2.8 Plant Morphometry 38

3.5.2.9 Plant Biomass 39

3.5.2.10 Plant Tissue Analysis 39

3.5.2.11 Surface Soil Analysis 40

3.5.3 Summary of 1998 Observations 41

4 FULL-SCALE FGD-LINED STUDY 74

4.1 Introduction 74

4.2 Design of Facility 74

4.3 Construction of Facility 76

4.4 Monitoring of Facility 79

4.5 Monitoring Observations and Discussion 80

4.5.1 Permeability 80

4.5.2 Water Quality 82

5 COST ESTIMATES AND PRELIMINARY MARKET EVALUATION 129

5.1 Introduction 129

5.2 Cost Estimates 129

5.2.1 Wetland Creation 129

5.2.1.1 Design and Construction Process 129

5.2.1.2 Work Items and Unit Costs 130

5.2.1.3 Cost Summary 131

5.2.1.4 Comparison to Literature Cost Data 131

5.2.2 Water Supply Pond / Wasterwater Lagoon 133

5.2.2.1 Design and Construction Process 133

5.2.2.2 Work Items and Unit Costs 134

5.2.2.3 Cost Summary for Pond Construction 134

5.2.2.4 Water Supply Pond: Unit Cost of Water 135

5.2.2.5 Comparison to Literature Cost Data 136

5.3 Preliminary Market Study 138

5.3.1 Possible Market Size 138

5.3.1.1 Travel Time Contours 138

5.3.1.2 Number of Farms Within Contours 138

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 155

6.1 Summary 155

6.1.1 Laboratory Experiments 155

6.1.2 Medium-Scale Wetland Experiments 158

vi 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

6.1.3 Full-Scale Liner Facility 160 

6.1.4 Cost Estimate and Preliminary Market Evaluation 166 

6.2 Conclusions 168 

7 REFERENCES 169 

8 APPENDICES 178 

Appendix A. 

Appendix B. 

Appendix C. 

List of Technical Publications and Presentations, 

and Publicity Articles 

Draft ASTM Specification for CCB Liners (12/11/97) 

Field Permeability Testing at The Proposed Waste 

Lagoon at OARDC Western Branch, South Charleston, 

Ohio (Prepared by William L. Broskey, P.E., BBC & M 

Engineering, November 24, 1997) 

179 

182 

194 

vii 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page # 

Figure 3.1 Plan Diagram of 20 Mesocosms and French Drain System 42 

Figure 3.2 Photograph of FGD Liner Mesocosm Experimental Layout 43 

Figure 3.3 Mesocosm Hydrology During a) Growing and b) Non-Growing Season

 in 1997 44 

Figure 3.4 Conductivity of Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 45 

Figure 3.5 Conductivity of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 46 

Figure 3.6 pH of Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) Growing 

Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 47 

Figure 3.7 pH of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 48 

Figure 3.8 Redox in Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 49 

Figure 3.9 Turbidity of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 50 

Figure 3.10 Total Phosphorous of Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 51 

Figure 3.11 Total Phosphorous of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 52 

Figure 3.12 Orthophosphate of Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 53 

Figure 3.13 Orthophosphate of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 54 

Figure 3.14 Nitrate in Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During 

a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 55 

Figure 3.15 Nitrate in Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 56 

Figure 3.16 Stem Length of S. Tabernaemontani in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 57 

Figure 3.17 Number of Stems of S. Tabernaemontani in Liner vs. No-Liner 

Mesocosms During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing 

Season in 1997 58 

Figure 3.18 Number of Stems of S. Tabernaemontani with Flowers in Liner vs. 

No-Liner Mesocosms During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing 

Season in 1997 59 

Figure 3.19 Mesocosm Hydrology (Water Level and Flow Rate) in 1998 61 

Figure 3.20 Conductivity of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner 

Mesocosms in 1998 62 

Figure 3.21 pH of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

in 1998 64 

viii 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 3.22 

Figure 3.23 

Figure 3.24 

Figure 3.25 

Figure 3.26 

Figure 3.27 

Figure 4.1 

Figure 4.2 

Figure 4.3 

Figure 4.4 

Figure 4.5 

Figure 4.6 

Figure 4.7 

Figure 4.8 

Figure 4.9 

Figure 4.10 

Figure 4.11 

Figure 4.12 

Figure 4.13 

Figure 4.14 

Figure 4.15 

Figure 4.16 

Figure 4.17 

Figure 4.18 

Figure 4.19 

Figure 4.20 

Figure 4.21 

Figure 4.22 

Figure 4.23 

Figure 4.24 

Figure 4.25 

Figure 4.26 

Figure 4.27 

Figure 4.28 

Figure 4.29 

Figure 4.30 

Figure 4.31 

Figure 4.32 

Figure 4.33 

Figure 4.34 

Redox of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner 

Mesocosms in 1998 65

Turbidity of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner 

Mesocosms in 1998 66

Orthophosphate of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. 

No-Liner Mesocosms in 1998 67

Total Phosphorous of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. 

No-Liner Mesocosms in 1998 68

Nitrite and Nitrate of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. 

No-Liner Mesocosms in 1998 69

Biomass Production from the 1997-1998 Mesocosm Experiments 71

Plan View of Facility 87

Section AA of Facility 88

Section BB of Facility 88

Leachate Collection System Layout 89

Section CC of Facility 89

Compaction of Onsite Clay 90

Typical Leachate System Collection 91

Spreading of Sand 92

Truck Unloading FGD 93

Spreading the FGD 94

Compacting FGD on a Side Slope 95

Final Smooth Rolling of FGD 96

Facility Being Filled With Water 97

Facility Filled With Water 98

Full Scale Permeability Test 100

Comparison of Permeability Test Methods 102

pH of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 111

Electrical Conductivity of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 111

Alkalinity of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 112

Acidity of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 112

Residue of Evaporation of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 113

Concentration of Dissolved Aluminum for Sump, Pond, and 

Well Samples 113

Concentration of Arsenic for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 114

Concentration of Boron for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 114

Concentration of Barium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 115

Concentration of Calcium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 115

Concentration of Cadmium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 116

Concentration of Chromium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 116

Concentration of Copper for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 117

Concentration of Dissolved Iron for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 117

Concentration of Total Iron for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 118

Concentration of Potassium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 118

Concentration of Magnesium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 119

Concentration of Dissolved Manganese for Sump, Pond, and 

ix 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Well Samples 119 

Figure 4.35 Concentration of Total Manganese for Sump, Pond, and 

Well Samples 120 

Figure 4.36 Concentration of Sodium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 120 

Figure 4.37 Concentration of Nickel for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 121 

Figure 4.38 Concentration of Total Phosphorous for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 121 

Figure 4.39 Concentration of Lead for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 122 

Figure 4.40 Concentration of Total Sulfur for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 122 

Figure 4.41 Concentration of Selenium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 123 

Figure 4.42 Concentration of Silica for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 123 

Figure 4.43 Concentration of Silver for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 124 

Figure 4.44 Concentration of Vanadium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 124 

Figure 4.45 Concentration of Zinc for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 125 

Figure 4.46 Concentration of Chlorides for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 125 

Figure 4.47 Concentration of Phosphates (PO4) for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 126 

Figure 4.48 Concentration of Sulfates (SO4) for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 126 

Figure 4.49 Concentration of Nitrates for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 127 

Figure 4.50 Concentration of Ammonia for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 127 

Figure 4.51 Concentration of Total Nitrogen for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 128 

Figure 5.1 Schematic of 5-Acre Wetland Lined With FGD or Clay 140 

Figure 5.2 Schematic of Million Gallon Pond Lined With FGD or Clay 144 

Figure 5.3 Travel-Time Contours from Conesville Power Plant (15, 30, 60 minutes) 148 

Figure 5.4 Travel-Time Contours from Gavin Power Plant (15, 30, 60 minutes) 149 

Figure 5.5 Approximate Land Area Proportion in Farms in 1992 152 

Figure 5.6 Average Market Value of Farm Land and Buildings ($ per acre, 1992) 153 

Figure 5.7 Average Size of Farm in 1992 154 

x 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page # 

Table 2.1 Laboratory Mixes 9 

Table 2.2 Standard Compaction Test Results on Laboratory Mixes 9 

Table 2.3 Permeability and Unconfined Compressive Strength Results for 

Laboratory Mixes 10 

Table 2.4 Permeability and Unconfined Compressive Strength Results for 

Plant FGD Mixes 10 

Table 2.5 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycling on Permeability for 4% Lime 

FGD Samples 13 

Table 2.6 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycling on Permeability for 10% Lime 

FGD Samples 14 

Table 2.7 Modified TCLP Results 17 

Table 2.8 Comparison of Modified TCLP Results with Regulatory Standards 18 

Table 3.1 Estimated Chemical Composition (%) of FGD By-Product 43 

Table 3. 2 Statistical Comparison of Water Quality and Plant Growth in 1997 60 

Table 3.3 Water Quality and Nutrient Measurements and Changes for FGD 

Mesocosms, 1997-1998 63 

Table 3.4 Number of Stems, Number of Stems Bearing Flowers, and Stem 

Length of S. tabernaemontani 70 

Table 3.5 ICP Analysis of Plant Tissue Material 72 

Table 3.6 ICP Analysis of Surface Soil Elements 73 

Table 4.1 FGD Test Pads Constructed 99 

Table 4.2 Full Scale Permeability Test Results 101 

Table 4.3 Water Quality Monitoring 103 

Table 5.1 Cost Estimate for 5-Acre Wetland: FGD Liner 141 

Table 5.2 Cost Estimate for 5-Acre Wetland: Clay Liner 142 

Table 5.3 Construction Crew Components 143 

Table 5.4 Cost Comparison of Wetland Creation Using an FGD or Clay Liner 144 

Table 5.5 Cost Estimate for Million Gallon Pond: FGD Liner 145 

Table 5.6 Cost Estimate for Million Gallon Pond: Clay Liner 146 

Table 5.7 Cost Comparison of Pond Construction Using an FGD or Clay Liner 147 

Table 5.8 Unit Cost of Water from Pond Constructed with FGD Liner 147 

Table 5.9 Number of Farms Within Various Haul-Time Contours: Conesville 150 

Table 5.10 Number of Farms Within Various Haul-Time Contours: Gavin 151 

xi 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

xii
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background and Objectives 

In the past two decades, restrictions on the emission of sulfur dioxide from coal-fired power 

plants have been increasingly stringent in the United States. In response to these developments, 

power plants have had to remove increasing amounts of SO2 from the flue gases before releasing 

them to the atmosphere. This process typically involves the injection of a reagent into the flue 

gases to form a solid by-product, which can then be collected. This solid by-product is 

commonly referred to as Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) material. Its principal constituents are 

varying amounts of sulfates and / or sulfites of the reagent, unreacted lime and fly ash. The FGD 

material may be dry or wet depending on the desulfurization process. The wet scrubbing 

process, which is commonly used by large electric utilities in Ohio, involves the injection of a 

reagent (typically hydrated quicklime) into the flue gases. The wet product generated (commonly 

referred to as FGD filter cake) is a dewatered mixture of sulfites and sulfates of the reagent, 

unreacted reagent, and some water. Calcium sulfite content is typically greater than 70% while 

the calcium sulfate content is approximately 13%. Fly ash and additional quicklime are added to 

stabilize the FGD filter cake. This stabilized (fixated) FGD material is gray in color and looks 

like silty clay. 

In the past, FGD material has generally been treated as a waste product and landfilled. But the 

increasing cost of landfilling as well as the scarcity of landfill space have led utility companies to 

1
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

look into the beneficial re-use of this by-product. Several researchers at The Ohio State 

University have led efforts to use FGD materials for land application (Stehouwer et al. 1991, 

1998; Dick, 1998). They identified a number of agricultural and engineering properties of both 

wet and dry clean coal technology by-products. Investigations into the swelling (Adams, 1992), 

static (Hargraves, 1994; Kim et al., 1995; Chen et al., 1997) and dynamic (Roy, 1994) stressstrain response of these by-products have been carried out. Payette et al. (1997) demonstrated 

the use of FGD material in the stabilization of a portion of a failed highway embankment. 

Encouraged by the promising results obtained by the above listed studies, a research program 

was developed at The Ohio State University to study the suitability of compacted stabilized FGD 

materials as low permeability liners. 

The objective of the research program presented in this report was to establish field-verified 

time-dependent relationships for the performance of liners constructed from stabilized flue gas 

desulfurization by-products generated in Ohio. The project objective was accomplished with a 

coordinated program of testing and analyzing small-scale laboratory specimens under controlled 

conditions, medium-scale wetland mesocosms, and a full-scale pond facility. Although the 

specific uses directly addressed by this report include liners for surface impoundments, the 

results presented in this study will also be useful in other applications including design of daily 

cover and liners for landfills, seepage cutoff walls and trenches, and for nutrient retention and 

pollution mitigation wetlands. 

2
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

1.3 Outline of Report 

Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the report. The small-scale laboratory testing program 

consisting of permeability and strength testing, freeze-thaw cycling experiments, and leaching 

potential tests are presented in Chapter 2. The construction and monitoring of small-scale FGD 

lined mesocosms at the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park is discussed in Chapter 3. 

Chapter 4 presents the design, construction, monitoring, and performance evaluation of the fullscale FGD lined facility (capacity of one million gallons) at the Ohio Agricultural Research and 

Development Center Western Branch in South Charleston. Chapter 5 includes cost estimates for 

wetland creation and water supply / manure holding pond and a preliminary market evaluation in 

vicinity of two Ohio FGD generating facilities. Summary, conclusions, and recommendations for 

future work are presented in Chapter 6. The report includes a list of reference and several 

appendices. 

3
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

2 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 

2.1 Introduction 

In order to evaluate the potential use of stabilized FGD materials for liner applications, it is 

important to characterize the material under standard laboratory testing procedures so that the 

response of the material under a controlled environment can be ascertained. The four main 

technical issues relating to low permeability FGD liners are permeability, strength, leachate 

potential, and durability of the material. In this chapter, we present the results of laboratory 

investigations of the hydraulic conductivity, strength, effect of freeze-thaw cycling and leaching 

potential of stabilized FGD materials. 

2.2 Permeability and Strength 

The material used in preparing the samples was generated by American Electric Power’s Plant 

near Conesville, Ohio. At this plant, a lime enriched wet scrubbing process is used to remove the 

SO2 from the flue gases. The filter cake (FC) obtained in this process is mixed with Class F fly 

ash (FA) and lime (L) to produce the stabilized FGD. The FGD material is stored on a 

temporary curing pad for 3-4 days to reduce the moisture content and allow for some curing. 

This permits the material to be handled more easily and subsequently it can be hauled to the 

plant landfill. 

4
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

2.2.1 Laboratory Mixes 

The eight different mixes prepared in the laboratory by mixing varying amounts of fly ash, filter 

cake, lime and silica fume are shown in Table 2.1. On the basis of plant operating parameters, 

samples were prepared using two different FA:FC ratios (dry weight basis). The 1:1 mix was 

representative of the “typical mix” produced by the plant, while the 2:1 mix was a “dryer mix” 

that the plant could produce occasionally upon request. The typical mix and dryer mix produced 

by the Conesville plant were reported to have free lime content (percentage weight of free lime 

based on dry weight of fly ash and filter cake mixture) of approximately 4% and 5% 

respectively. Based on these lime estimates, the typical mix samples (1:1) were prepared with 

lime contents of 4% and 8%, while the dryer mix samples (2:1) were made with lime contents of 

5% and 8%. The 8% lime content samples were prepared in order to study the effect of 

increasing the lime content on the engineering properties of the FGD material. The effect of 

adding 5% silica fume to the design mixes was also studied. Silica fume, a commonly used 

pozzolan in concrete, primarily consists of amorphous (non-crystalline) silicon dioxide (SiO2). 

The samples with the different component combinations were designated as shown in Table 2.1. 

For example, the 66-34-8-5 sample indicates that 66 parts of fly ash and 34 parts of filter cake 

were mixed on a dry weight basis along with 8 parts of lime and 5 parts of silica fume. 

Relationships between water content and dry density for the laboratory mixes were obtained 

using the standard Proctor compaction test for 4” (10.2 cm) molds as prescribed by ASTM D698 

(1997). The optimum moisture content and maximum dry density obtained in the laboratory for 

the eight mixes are shown in Table 2.2. The optimum moisture content ranged between 27 and 

5
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

37%, while the maximum dry density ranged from 10.4 to 12.4 KN/m3 (66 to 79 lb/ft3). The 

lowest optimum moisture content and the highest maximum dry density were achieved for 

sample 5 which had 2:1 ratio of FA:FC with 5% lime. The lowest maximum dry density was 

obtained for sample 4 which consisted of equal parts of fly ash and filter cake with 8% lime and 

5% silica fume added. Increasing the amount of lime led to an increase in the optimum moisture 

content while the maximum dry density decreased. Adding silica fume resulted in a significant 

decrease in the maximum dry density. For the typical mixes (samples 1-4), adding silica fume 

resulted in slightly lower or no change in the optimum moisture content. On the other hand, the 

dryer mixes (samples 5-8) showed increased optimum moisture content with the addition of 

silica fume. 

Compacted samples for permeability tests were prepared for all the candidate mixes at moisture 

contents which were 1-2% higher than the optimum moisture contents. Falling head permeability 

tests (as per ASTM D5084, 1996; ASTM D5856, 1996) were conducted on the samples at curing 

times of 7, 28, 60 and 90 days. On the completion of the 90-day permeability test, the samples 

were tested for unconfined compressive strength. The results of the permeability and 

compressive strength tests are shown in Table 2.3. The 90-day permeability coefficients 

measured in the laboratory for samples 6 and 8 were lower than 1x10-7

 cm/sec (3x10-9 ft/sec), 

which is typically recommended by USEPA for constructing liners for waste containment 

facilities (Goldman, et al., 1988). Even the 60-day permeability value for sample 8 was less than 

1x10-7

 cm/sec (3x10-9 ft/sec). In general, all the samples showed decreasing permeability with 

increasing curing time. The addition of extra lime to the samples resulted in a decrease in 

permeability of the samples for all curing durations especially the 60 and 90-day values (which 

6
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

were reduced by an order of magnitude). The inclusion of silica fume in the samples resulted in 

only slightly lower permeabilities that would usually not justify the increased cost of using it as 

an additive to the FGD material. The sample with highest FA:FC ratio and lime content (sample 

6) would thus be the obvious choice for constructing a low permeability liner. The unconfined 

compressive strength of sample 6 at 90 days was measured to be 2.36 MPa (342 psi). 

2.2.2 Plant Stabilized Mixes 

It needs to be observed that samples 1-8 (refer Table 2.1) were prepared in the laboratory by 

mixing fly ash, filter cake, lime and silica fume in specific ratios. Since sample 6 (high FA:FC 

ratio and high lime content) exhibited lowest permeability, it was decided to obtain stabilized 

FGD materials that had been pre-mixed at the plant from the Conesville and Gavin power plants 

of AEP. The material so produced would have the highest FA:FC ratio that the plant operations 

would allow. Two types of high FA:FC ratio plant mixes with low (4%-5%) and high (8%) lime 

contents as controlled by plant operations were generated at the power plants. After 

approximately 5 days of curing at the plant, the material was picked up from the plant pad and 

brought to the laboratory for testing. Permeability samples were prepared for the four mixes at 

the moisture contents as received from the pad. Table 2.4 shows the samples prepared, their 

moisture contents, dry densities, 7, 28, 60, and 90-day permeabilities and 90-day unconfined 

compressive strengths. 

The CON(AEP)-5%L and CON(AEP)-8%L samples were obtained from American Electric 

Power’s (AEP) Conesville power plant near Coshocton, Ohio, while the GAV(AEP)-4%L and 

7
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

GAV(AEP)-8%L samples were obtained from AEP’s Gavin plant near Gallipolis, Ohio. 4%L 

and 5%L denote the lime percentage on a dry weight basis as estimated by the plant operators. 

The CON and GAV samples were compacted using standard proctor test guidelines (ASTM 

D698, 1997) at as received moisture contents. It can be observed from Tables 2.2 and 2.4 that 

moisture contents of the samples received from the power plants were higher than the optimum 

moisture contents obtained in the laboratory. Consequently, the dry densities obtained by 

compacting these samples were lower than the maximum dry densities obtained from the 

laboratory mixed samples. However, the coefficient of permeability, which was measured as a 

function of curing time (7, 28, 60, and 90 days) using a falling head test (ASTM D5084, 1996; 

ASTM D5856, 1996) is lower for the plant mixed samples than for the laboratory samples. For 

the plant mixed samples, the permeability values are in the 10-7

 cm/sec (3x10-9 ft/sec) to 10-8 

cm/sec (3x10-10 ft/sec) range at 28 days of curing. Samples with higher lime contents resulted in 

lower coefficients of permeability as well as higher unconfined compressive strengths. From 

Table 2.4 it can be observed that the permeability and strength characteristics of FGD materials 

generated at the Conesville and Gavin plants are similar. The 8% lime samples have the lowest 

permeability values that come close to 10-8

 cm/sec (3x10-10 ft/sec). It can be concluded from 

Table 2.4 that lime and fly ash enriched stabilized FGD material can be compacted in the 

laboratory using standard soil testing procedures to obtain permeability coefficients that are in 

the 10-8

 cm/sec (3x10-10 ft/sec) range, which is lower than the 1x10-7 cm/sec (3x10-9 ft/sec) value 

typically recommended by USEPA for constructing liners for waste containment facilities 

(Goldman, et al., 1988). 

8
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 2.1 Laboratory Mixes 

Sample Sample FA:FC Ratio* Lime Content** Silica Fume** 

Number Designation (%) (%) 

FA-FC-L-SF 

1 50-50-4-0 1:1 4 0 

2 50-50-8-0 Typical Mix 1:1 8 0 

3 50-50-4-5 1:1 4 5 

4 50-50-8-5 1:1 8 5 

5 66-34-5-0 2:1 5 0 

6 66-34-8-0 2:1 8 0

Dryer Mix 7 66-34-5-5 2:1 5 5 

8 66-34-8-5 2:1 8 5 

* Fly ash to filter cake ratio on a dry weight basis 

** Percentage based on dry weight of fly ash and filter cake mixture 

FA: Fly Ash FC: Filter Cake L: Lime SF: Silica Fume 

Table 2.2 Standard Compaction Test Results on Laboratory Mixes 

Sample Sample Optimum Moisture Content Maximum Dry Density 

Number Designation (%) (KN/m3

) 

FA-FC-L-SF 

1 50-50-4-0 32 11.9 

2 50-50-8-0 35 11.3 

3 50-50-4-5 32 10.9 

4 50-50-8-5 32 10.4 

5 66-34-5-0 27 12.4 

6 66-34-8-0 32 12.2 

7 66-34-5-5 36 11.7 

8 66-34-8-5 37 12.0 

FA: Fly Ash FC: Filter Cake L: Lime SF: Silica Fume 

1 KN/m3

 = 6.366 lb/ft3 

9
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 2.3 Permeability and Unconfined Compressive Strength Results for Laboratory Mixes 

Sample Sample Permeability Coefficient (cm/sec) Unconfined 

Number Designation Compressive 

FA-FC-L-SF 7 day 28 day 60 day 90 day Strength at

 90 days 

(MPa) 

2.6x10-6 2.4x10-6 2.3x10-6 1 50-50-4-0 2.9x10-5 0.98 

1.6x10-6 2.3x10-7 1.8x10-7 2 50-50-8-0 3.3x10-5 1.47 

1.5x10-6 2.4x10-6 2.5x10-6 3 50-50-4-5 7.1x10-6 -

1.4x10-6 1.7x10-7 1.6x10-7 4 50-50-8-5 2.3x10-5 1.77 

3.2x10-6 1.5x10-6 1.4x10-6 5 66-34-5-0 3.6x10-5 1.66 

 1.2x10-6 1.3x10-7 4.8x10-8 6 66-34-8-0 1.4x10-5 2.36 

3.7x10-7 3.5x10-7 4.4x10-7 7 66-34-5-5 3.3x10-6 1.37 

1.3x10-7 3.5x10-8 4.5x10-8 8 66-34-8-5 3.5x10-6 3.95 

FA: Fly Ash FC: Filter Cake L: Lime SF: Silica Fume 

1 MPa = 145 psi 1 cm/sec = 0.0328 ft/sec 

Table 2.4 Permeability and Unconfined Compressive Strength Results for Plant FGD Mixes 

Sample Moisture Dry Permeability Coefficient (cm/sec) Unconfined 

Designation Content Density Compressive 

(%) (KN/m3

) 7 day 28 day 60 day 90 day Strength at

 90 days 

(MPa) 

CON(AEP)-5%L 48 11.1 2.6x10-6 3.6x10-7 3.2x10-7 2.6x10-7 1.65 

CON(AEP)-8%L 42 11.9 1.3x10-6 6.1x10-8 3.4x10-8 3.0x10-8 4.33 

GAV(AEP)-4%L 51 10.8 2.2x10-6 2.2x10-7 1.5x10-7 1.7x10-7 2.55 

GAV(AEP)-8%L 39 12.5 1.6x10-6 1.2x10-7 2.0x10-8 1.0x10-8 4.18 

AEP: American Electric Power CON: Conesville plant GAV: Gavin plant L: Lime 

1 KN/m3

 = 6.366 lb/ft3 1 MPa = 145 psi 1 cm/sec = 0.0328 ft/sec 

10
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

2.3 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycling 

Alternating episodes of freeze and thaw can adversely affect the engineering properties of some 

FGD materials and hence the durability of the FGD material was a concern. The effect of freezethaw cycling on the static strength of stabilized FGD was studied by Hargraves (1994) and Chen 

et al. (1997). They found that if the stabilized FGD material has minimum lime content of 5% 

and is allowed to cure for 60 days before being exposed to freeze-thaw, the degradation in 

strength is quite minimal. This recommendation of OSU researchers is now accepted by Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency for the construction of FGD engineered structures. In this 

section, we present the results of a preliminary study investigating the effect of freeze-thaw 

cycling on the permeability coefficient of the FGD material. 

The stabilized FGD material for the study was obtained from the Conesville power plant of AEP. 

The fly ash to filter cake ratio for the material was estimated to be 0.8:1. The lime content of the 

material was estimated to be 4% as per plant control operations. Samples were prepared using as 

received 4% lime content material and adding additional 6% lime to bring the total lime content 

to 10%. Cylindrical Harvard miniature samples were compacted as per ASTM D698 at as 

received moisture content of 60%. The test cylinders were allowed to cure for a total of 7, 28, 60, 

and 90 days. At the completion of the designated curing period, alternating cycles of freeze-thaw 

were begun as specified in ASTM D560 (1996). In the present study, two modifications to the 

ASTM standard procedure were made. First, to simulate better the conditions to be expected 

typical of most Ohio locations, the minimum temperature was set at –18o

C rather than –23oC as 

specified in the standard. Second, the samples were not brushed after each freeze-thaw cycle to 

11
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

preserve their original shape and mass for permeability testing. Each temperature cycle consisted 

of a 24-hour freeze at –18o

C, followed by a 24-hour thaw in the moist cure box at 23oC. The 

samples were tested for permeability coefficient at 0, 5, and 10, and 15 thermal cycles by 

conducting falling head tests on the samples in flexible wall permeameters (ASTM D5084, 

1996). 

The results of the 4% and 10% lime enriched FGD material exposed to freeze-thaw cycling as 

elaborated above are shown in Tables 2.5 and 2.6, respectively. The samples were tested at 0, 5, 

and 10 freeze-thaw cycles for permeability coefficient. The 5 and 10 cycle samples tested for 

permeability (near saturation) were cycled for additional 5 thermal cycles and then tested for 

permeability. These samples are represented as 5+5 and 10+5 samples in the Tables 2.5 and 2.6. 

The higher lime content samples exhibited lower permeability coefficient values (in 10-6

 cm/sec 

range) compared to lower lime content samples. The permeability coefficient was not 

significantly affected by the number of freeze-thaw cycles as long as additional water was not 

added to the sample via an intermediate permeability test. For the 4% lime samples, the effect of 

adding additional water during freeze-thaw cycling resulted in an increase in the permeability 

coefficients by one to two orders of magnitude. However, for the 10% lime samples, the 

permeability, in general, increased by one order of magnitude. Higher lime content of the FGD 

material resulted in a smaller increase of permeability coefficient value due to freeze-thaw 

cycling. 

Curing of samples did not significantly affect the permeability coefficients because the fly ash to 

filter cake ratio of the material was low (0.8:1) and its moisture content was quite high (60%). It 

12
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

is the hypothesis of the authors that although enough lime was available in the samples, the fly 

ash content was low. The laboratory results presented in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 provide evidence for 

this hypothesis. It can be seen from these Tables that samples with fly ash to filter cake ratio of 

2:1 and much lower moisture contents resulted in permeability values in 10-7 cm/sec (3x10-9 

ft/sec) to 10-8 cm/sec (3x10-10 ft/sec) range. Additional freeze-thaw testing is necessary at higher 

lime content (8-10%), higher fly ash to filter cake ratio (2:1), and lower moisture content (about 

30-45%) so that the effect of thermal cycling on permeability of stabilized FGD material can be 

accurately characterized. 

Table 2.5 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycling on Permeability for 4% Lime FGD Samples 

Curing Time 

Sample 

Number 

of freezethaw 

cycles 

7 days 28 days 60 days 90 days 

gd 

(kN/m3) k (cm/sec) gd (kN/m3) k (cm/sec) gd 

(kN/m3) k (cm/sec) gd (kN/m3) k (cm/sec) 

4%Lime0Cycles 0 9.11 1.27x10-5 9.21 2.21x10-6 9.17 2.24x10-6 9.2 5.29x10-6 

4%Lime5Cycles 5 8.98 1.02x10-5 9.04 1.13x10-5 9.06 9.09x10-6 9.06 4.01x10-6 

4%Lime5+5Cycles 5+5 8.98 Sample too 

soft 9.04 2.07x10-4 9.06 1.66x10-4 9.06 1.01x10-4 

4%Lime10Cycles 10 9.27 6.28x10-6 9.1 4.86x10-6 9.05 5.42x10-6 9.28 1.54x10-5 

4%Lime10+5Cycles 10+5 9.27 9.34x10-6 9.1 1.23x10-4 9.05 9.02x10-5 9.28 2.95x10-5 

Initial moisture content = 60%

1 KN/m3 = 6.366 lb/ft3 1 cm/sec = 0.0328 ft/sec

13 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 2.6 Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycling on Permeability for 10% Lime FGD Samples 

Curing Time 

Sample 

Number 

of freezethaw 

cycles 

7 days 28 days 60 days 90 days 

gd 

(kN/m3) k (cm/sec) gd (kN/m3) k (cm/sec) gd (kN/m3) k (cm/sec) gd (kN/m3) k (cm/sec) 

10%Lime0Cycles 0 9.49 3.75x10-6 9.25 1.45x10-6 9.29 2.13x10-6 9.1 3.38x10-6 

10%Lime5Cycles 5 9.27 4.13x10-6 9.42 3.75x10-6 9.22 1.97x10-6 9.18 2.29x10-6 

10%Lime5+5Cycles 5+5 9.27 1.76x10-5 9.42 1.32x10-4 9.22 1.15x10-5 9.18 8.85x10-5 

10%Lime10Cycles 10 9.33 5.33x10-6 9.30 6.30x10-6 9.20 2.71x10-6 9.14 3.76x10-6 

10%Lime10+5Cycles 10+5 9.33 2.39x10-5 9.30 2.58x10-5 9.20 3.90x10-5 9.14 3.03x10-5 

Initial moisture content = 60%

1 KN/m3 = 6.366 lb/ft3 1 cm/sec = 0.0328 ft/sec

14
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

2.4 Leaching Potential 

The leaching potential of the stabilized FGD material was evaluated using standard 20:1, 18 hour 

leaching tests as per USEPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) dilute acetic 

acid method 1311 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). Two liters of the 

extractant was added to 100g of FGD material in a Teflon bottle. The extractant consisted of 5.7 

ml of glacial acetic acid diluted to 1 litre with de-ionized water (pH = 2.88–0.05). Bottles were 

placed on a rotary shaker (30 rpm) for 18 hours at 25o

C. Leachates were filtered and analyzed for 

pH, total dissolved solids, acidity, alkalinity, conductivity, and 20 elements by ICP and graphite 

furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) spectrophotometry. 

A total of five stabilized FGD material samples from Conesville power plant were collected over 

a four-week period, and analyzed according to USEPA TCLP Method 1311. The results are 

presented in Table 2.7. For constituent, its range and mean value were calculated and are 

reported in Table 2.8. The Table also presents a comparison of the TCLP results with appropriate 

regulatory levels. Two types of regulatory levels are listed for comparison. First, Ohio EPA’s 

non-toxic criteria (DSW 0400.007, 1994), which is generally 30 times selected national primary 

drinking water standards, is the regulatory level needed for the FGD material to be considered as 

non-toxic in the state of Ohio. Second, the national drinking water standards are also listed in 

Table 2.8. These consist of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR or 

primary standards) and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR or 

secondary standards). The primary standards are legally enforceable standards that apply to all 

public water systems that protect drinking water quality by limiting the levels of specific 

15
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

contaminants that can adversely affect public health. The secondary standards are nonenforceable non-health related guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic 

effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as color, odor, or taste) in 

drinking water. 

It can be observed from Table 2.8 that the FGD leachate data for various constituents studied do 

not vary over a wide range and are bracketed within a reasonably small range of values. The 

mean values calculated for the potential contaminants are very low. A comparison of the FGD 

leachate data with Ohio EPA non-toxic beneficial use policy (DSW 0400.007, 1994) shows that 

for the contaminants studied, the FGD material meets all the criteria specified by the Ohio EPA 

beneficial use policy by a large factor of safety and hence the stabilized FGD material used in the 

study can be characterized to be non-toxic. The range and mean values for all constituents are 

lower than the primary standards (NPDWR). As an example, for Arsenic, the concentration 

values ranged from 0.004 to 0.008 mg/l with a mean value of 0.006 mg/l, which is less than oneeighth the primary standard value of 0.05 mg/l. Hence, the leachate from stabilized FGD material 

studied in this investigation meets all the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. In 

general, the FGD leachate concentration levels are also lower than the secondary (non-health and 

unenforceable) standards. The exceptions being pH (mean value of 11.08) and Aluminum (mean 

value of 5.114 mg/l). The TCLP testing program conducted on the stabilized FGD material 

indicates that the stabilized FGD material tested in the laboratory is a relatively clean material, 

non-toxic and poses very minimal risks, if any, for groundwater contamination. 

16
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 2.7 Modified TCLP Results 

Analyte Units Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 

Acidity mg/L <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

Alkalinity mg/L 198 174 268 149 212 

Aluminum mg/L 5.54 5.72 4.66 4.37 5.28 

Arsenic mg/L 0.005 0.008 0.004 0.005 0.008 

Barium mg/L 0.188 0.047 0.204 0.151 0.214 

Beryllium mg/L < 0.0002 <0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 

Cadmium mg/L < .0005 0.001 < 0.0005 0.001 < 0.0005 

Chloride mg/L 36 46 30 34 43 

Chromium mg/L 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.002 

Conductivity umhos/cm 946 950 1320 828 1120 

Copper mg/L < 0.001 < 0.001 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001 

Flouride mg/L 0.2102 0.1387 0.2102 0.1605 0.2129 

Iron mg/L 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 < 0.01 

Lead mg/L < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 < 0.002 <0.002 

Manganese mg/L < 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 

Mercury mg/L < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 

Nickel mg/L < 0.003 0.014 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 

pH s.u. 11.0 11.0 11.2 11.0 11.2 

Filterable TDS mg/L 430 402 447 404 450 

Selenium mg/L 0.014 0.007 0.006 0.008 < 0.005 

Silver mg/L <0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 

Sodium mg/L 10.5 11.1 9.1 9.6 12.2 

Sulfate mg/L 79 71 49 94 68 

Vanadium mg/L 0.028 0.033 0.021 0.029 0.03 

Zinc mg/L 0.025 0.022 0.028 0.024 0.029 

17
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 2.8 Comparison of Modified TCLP Results with Regulatory Standards 

Constituent Units Range for FGD 

materials tested 

Mean value for 

FGD materials 

tested 

Ohio EPA NonToxic Criteria 

(DSW 

0400.007, 1994) 

National Drinking 

Water Standards 

Acidity mg/L - <1 - -

Alkalinity mg/L 149 - 268 200 - -

Aluminum mg/L 4.37 - 5.72 5.11 - 0.05 - 0.2** 

Arsenic mg/L 0.004 - 0.008 0.006 1.5 0.05* 

Barium mg/L 0.047 - 0.214 0.161 60 2* 

Beryllium mg/L - < 0.0002 - 0.004* 

Cadmium mg/L < 0.0005 - 0.001 - 0.15 0.005* 

Chloride mg/L 30 - 46 38 - 250** 

Chromium mg/L 0.002 - 0.004 0.003 3 0.1* 

Conductivity umhos/cm 828 - 1320 1033 - -

Copper mg/L - < 0.001 - 1.0** 

Fluoride mg/L 0.1387 - 0.2129 0.1865 - 4.0* , 2.0** 

Iron mg/L < 0.01 - 0.03 <0.018 - 0.3** 

Lead mg/L - <0.002 1.5 0.015*** 

Manganese mg/L - < 0.01 - 0.05** 

Mercury mg/L - < 0.0002 0.06 0.002* 

Nickel mg/L <0.003 - 0.014 - - -

pH s.u. 11.0 - 11.2 11.08 - 6.5 - 8.5** 

Filterable TDS mg/L 402 - 450 427 - 500** 

Selenium mg/L < 0.005 - 0.008 < 0.008 1 0.05* 

Silver mg/L - < 0.0002 - 0.1** 

Sodium mg/L 9.1 - 12.2 10.5 - -

Sulfate mg/L 49 - 94 72 - 250** 

Vanadium mg/L 0.021 - 0.033 0.028 - -

Zinc mg/L 0.022 - 0.029 0.026 - 5.0** 

* : National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) 

** : National Secondary (Non-health related) Drinking Water Regulation (NSDWR) 

***: Action Level 

18
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3 MEDIUM-SCALE MESOCOSM EXPERIMENTS 

3.1 Introduction 

The retention of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen is one of the most well-known 

functions of wetlands constructed for water quality improvement (Nichols, 1983; Mitsch and 

Gosselink, 1993; Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Recently, the construction of wetlands for 

wastewater treatment including acid mine drainage and agricultural runoff has been more 

common. Constructed wetlands have been shown in a number of situations to be low-cost 

structures for controlling wastewater pollution when naturally low-permeability clays are 

plentiful. But, often, it is practical to have them where no naturally low-permeability clay exists. 

Thus, artificial liners must be used. 

The construction of artificial wetlands for wastewater treatment often needs low-permeability 

clays for their liners. Liners or relatively impervious site soils are very important to the success 

of constructed treatment wetlands in areas where ground water levels are typically below the 

ground surface (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Most soil, except excessively drained sands and 

gravels, can be loaded with enough water to result in saturated conditions and establishment of 

wetland vegetation (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). However, if water inflow column is limited or if 

the flow will be periodic, an undrained constructed treatment wetland can be desiccated and 

unable to support wetland vegetation. If site soil naturally has low permeability (clays, fine 

silts, and clayey loams) due to site topography, liners are not necessary for constructed 

19
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

treatment wetland success. But it is not easy to have plentiful natural clays where the wetlands 

are to be constructed. 

3.2 Background Information 

When necessary to hold water or to protect groundwater quality, the most frequently used liners 

for treatment wetlands are imported clays, clay bentonite mixtures, polyvinylchloride (PVC), 

and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) synthetic materials (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). 

Synthetic liners must be well protected from construction and root development damage by 

overlying soils or gravels (typically 0.3 to 1 m). Synthetic liners are expensive and are prone to 

more damage than clay or clay-bentonite liners (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). Substrata tried in 

constructed wastewater treatment wetland include local gravel, soil/sand and peat as well as 

bentonite, asphalt, concrete, granite, limestone, gold slime waste, crushed rock and power 

station fly ash (Steiner and Freeman, 1989; Wood and Hensman, 1989; Batchelor et al., 1990; 

Mann, 1990; Wood, 1990). 

Stehouwer et al. (1995) examined the potential use of FGD material for the reclamation of 

acidic mine spoils and observed no phytotoxicity of the FGD material on plant growth. They 

found that when applied in amounts equivalent to spoil neutralization needs, dry FGD byproducts can benefit acidic soil revegetation with little potential for introduction of toxic 

elements into the food chain. Stehouwer et al. (1996) also evaluated FGD by-product as 

effective substitutes for agricultural limestones with little potential for adverse environmental 

impacts through greenhouse experiments using alfalfa (Medicago setiva, L). 

20
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Fly ash has been reported for its capacity to retard phosphorus release from lake sediment 

(Theis and Peter, 1978). Usually lake sediments are known to act as significant sources of 

phosphorus even after eternal sources have been eliminated. Theis and Peter (1978) found that 

the application of fly ash as a phosphorus sealant of eutrophic lake sediments effectively 

brought about reduced release of phosphorus during anoxic periods. The use of coal combustion 

by-products was also investigated to remove phosphate from water column (Hisashi et al., 1986; 

Mann and Bavor, 1993). Substratum adsorption is suggested as a significant mechanism in 

phosphorus removal in a constructed wetland system (Steiner and Freeman, 1989; Mann, 1990; 

Wood, 1990). Mann (1990) also suggested that substratum should be selected which have a high 

phosphorus adsorption capacity. Mann and Bavor (1993) examined the phosphorus removal 

efficiency of constructed wetland systems lined with gravel or industrial by-products such as 

boiler slag and fly ash by-products in a two-year study in which secondary sewage effluent was 

treated. Phosphorus adsorption was variable and indicated that further investigations into the 

inclusion of industrial waste substrata in a constructed wetland system were warranted to 

optimize phosphorus removal, prior to full-scale construction. 

Some previous researches done through mesocosm experiments have offered a means of 

predicting the effectiveness of the wetland at removing nutrients and metals (Johengen and 

Paul, 1993; Max et al., 1992; Wieder et al., 1990; Busnardo et al., 1992) and others have 

showed the usefulness of mesocosm experiments in the research of wetland function (DeSzalay 

et al., 1996) and in restoration works (Callaway et al., 1997). One of the long-range plans for 

the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park (ORWRP) at The Ohio State University is to set up 

21
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

experimental mesocosms in replication to investigate, with scientific rigor, questions that arise 

on the design, construction, or function of wetlands (Laspidou et al., 1994). Mesocosm are 

miniature ecosystems. In all of these studies, the use of mesocosms allowed statistical 

replication so that stronger conclusions could be drawn. 

In the present study, mesocosm experiments were conducted to investigate the potential effects 

of stabilized FGD liner materials in constructed wetlands on water quality, plant growth, and 

nutrient composition. The study provides useful information on water quality of constructed 

wetlands lined with FGD by-product and presents the results of nutrient analyses and 

physicochemical investigation of leachate and outflow water samples collected from the 

mesocosm experiments. The objectives of the mesocosm study were to, 1) investigate the 

effects of FGD by-product on water quality in wetland systems, 2) investigate the effects of 

FGD by-product on ecosystem health, e.g. plant growth, and 3) understand the dynamics of the 

wetland system having FGD liner through the development of ecological model. 

3.3 Mesocosm Description and Treatment 

In March 1997, a set of 20 flow-through mesocosms (1 m x 1 m x 0.6 m polyethylene tubs) 

were positioned at the ORWRP, which is a 22-acre research site located on the Columbus 

campus of The Ohio State University, to investigate the effect of FGD liner on ecological 

functions of constructed wetlands. Stabilized FGD by-products were randomly assigned to the 

mesocosms, which resulted in half of them with no FGD liner in the tubs as control (Figure 3.1). 

Mesocosms were completely buried into the ground to insulate against freezing. Each 

22
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

mesocosm received 10 cm of non-calcareous river pea gravel (completely covering the drain to 

the standpipe) overlain by 10 -15 cm of field compacted stabilized FGD by-product generated 

from AEP’s Conesville electric power plants, on top of which 15-20 cm of soil obtained during 

the excavation of the mesocosm site was placed (Figure 3.1). The FGD by-product used in the 

experiment had an estimated fly ash to filter cake ratio of 1.25 :1 and a lime content of 5 %. 

The chemical composition of the stabilized FGD material used is shown in Table 3.1. The FGD 

by-product placed on the mesocosms was compacted in each mesocosm, but soil was not 

compacted and substantial settling of the soil was observed. Microtopographic variations (1 -3 

cm) within the mesocosms were observed after wetting although the bottom was smoothed with 

hand. 

3.4 1997 Experiments 

3.4.1 Mesocosm Hydrology 

A water delivery system was constructed which would simulate natural flows of contaminated 

surface runoff into natural or constructed wetlands. This was accomplished through a series of 

manifolds and valves, which distributed similar volumes of water pumped from the Olentangy 

River to each of the twenty mesocosms. This water, which is contaminated mostly by 

agricultural runoff, was first stored in two 425 gallon tanks. These tanks were connected in 

such a way that they could be isolated or run in series. This allowed the chemistry of the water 

delivered to half of the mesocosms to be varied, while using the other half as a control. Water 

levels and the resulting flow to the mesocosms were constantly maintained by a mercury float 

23
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

switch. A # 20 mesh pre-filter was installed and cleaned daily during data collection to prevent 

clogging in the numerous pipes and valves involved in the water distribution system (Figure 

3.2). A continuous inflow rate of 70 ml /minute was chosen as the target inflow rate into each 

mesocosm during the growing season. This rate is scale simulation of the ORWRP experimental 

wetlands, which are also fed by river water and have an average inflow of approximately 150 

gallons per minute. It was found that steady flow rates from a continual flow system at this 

scale was difficult to maintain. To solve this problem, a pulse system was used which delivered 

a similar, per-day volume, but instead flowed rapidly for one hour per day. A common 

sprinkler system timer was used to uniformize the pulse time and duration. Water level and 

water flow were measured for maintaining uniform hydrology throughout the 20 mesocosms 

with no difference between liner and no-liner treatments. Water levels were checked three times 

a week during the growing season experiment and flow rates of river water into the mesocosms 

were also measured with a graduated cylinder and a timer. It was difficult to achieve a uniform 

inflow for each mesocosm in the growing season experiment, but the hydrology between liner 

and no-liner mesocosms were similar. The comparison of hydrology between the treatments did 

not show any significant difference (p = 0.45 for growing season measured by water level and p 

= 0.82 for non-growing season measured by water flow rate) (Figure 3.3). The hydrology 

difference measured by water level or water flow rate among each of the 20 mesocosms was 

within 20 % . 

24
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3.4.2 Planting and Survey 

Macrophytes were planted on May 17, 1997. Three Scirpus tabernaemontani rhizomes were 

introduced into each of 20 mesocosms. Rhizomes were equally spaced lengthwise in the 

mesocosm, and pressed just below the surface of moist soil. Rhizomes were shallowly buried 

(3 cm depth), then the water levels in the mesocosms were adjusted by adding sufficient water 

to each mesocosm to cover the soil with approximately 10 cm of standing water. These water 

depths were changed by the introduction of inflow with the start of the experiment. 

The experiment was conducted for four weeks during the growing season (July – August 1997) 

and for another four weeks in the non-growing season (October, 1997). Three items such as 

number of stems, number of stems bearing flowers and stem length were investigated weekly on 

every mesocosm during the growing season experiment and once in the middle of non-growing 

season. In case of stem length, randomly chosen 20 stems were measured for each mesocosm 

with stick ruler. Number of stems bearing flowers was investigated only during the growing 

season due to the loss of flowers or unrecognizably withered flowers in non-growing season. 

3.4.3 Field Sampling and Analysis Procedures 

In growing season, three times-per-week water sampling was done for four weeks. Surface 

outflows were collected directly from the mesocosm outlets and leachates were obtained from 

the standpipe connected to the bottom layer of the mesocosms. Two mesocosms, which were 

not hydrologically sound in leachate collection due to the lack of leachate coming up in the 

25
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

standpipe, were removed from the study. Therefore, only 18 mesocosms were included in the 

leachate analysis and all of 20 mesocosms were included in the analysis of outflow. Water 

samples were collected in 500 ml polyethlene bottles. Prior to sample collection, all bottles were 

hand-washed with 50 % HCl followed by a thorough triple rinse with distilled water. Sample 

bottles were transported to the field in a cooler and all samples were kept in a freezer at 4 �C 

until analysis. One sample was filtered through 0.45 mm filter and placed in a freezer for 

orthophosphate analysis. Filters were soaked for approximately 24 hr in distilled water to 

remove contamination. The others were preserved by acidification with 2 mL 36 N H2SO4 per L 

of sample (to pH < 2) immediately upon return to the Ecosystem Analytical Laboratory at OSU. 

A Hydrolab H20G Multiparameter Water Quality Data Transmitter was used to collect pH, 

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and oxidation-reduction potential measurements 

through the period of experiment except the first two weeks of non-growing season due to the 

H20G malfunctioning. The H20G was calibrated on a weekly basis during the experiment. 

Turbidity was determined on the day of sampling with a Hach Model 18900 Ratio 

Turbidimeter. Nitrate samples were also analyzed on the day of sampling for growing season 

experiment with Solamet 520 C monitor and Orion ion selective electrode (APHA, 1992) and 

the samples for non-growing season were frozen and analyzed later by a Latchat QuickChem IV 

Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) System with total phosphorus (Prokopi, 1993) and 

orthophosphate (Diamond, 1994) in water samples. All samples and standards were at room 

temperature and were vigorously mixed by inversion for analysis. Five prepared standards, a 

check standard and distilled water blank were run each time an analysis was conducted. 

Standards were always within 10 % of the prescribed values. 

26
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Averages of the parameters measured in both ten FGD liner and ten no-liner mesocosms were 

calculated and compared via two sample unpaired t-test assuming unequal variance. Analyses 

were run for each sampling days and for each sampling season using the statistical software 

package, Minitab. 

3.4.4 Results and Discussion 

3.4.4.1 Conductivity 

Conductivity data for growing season experiment showed no significant difference between liner 

and no-liner treatment, but the conductivity of leachates diverged over time and showed 

significantly higher values in the leachate from FGD liner mesocosms in the non-growing season 

(Figure 3.4). In the case of surface outflow, no differences were observed between the treatments 

for the growing season; data for the non-growing season is not available statistically (Figure 3.5). 

3.4.4.2 pH 

The pH values of leachates in FGD liner mesocosms were significantly different from those in 

no-liner mesocosms (p < 0.01) (refer to Figure 3.6). The liner mesocosms showed much higher 

pH throughout the experiments. The difference could be observed between the treatments even in 

the stabilized values of pH in the non-growing season. This indicates the alkaline nature of the 

27
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

FGD material and the possibility of using it to treat acid mine drainage. Surface outflow pH 

values between the treatments were statistically equivalent (Figure 3.7). 

3.4.4.3 Redox 

As the experiment developed, the redox values of the leachate became more and more reduced as 

expected with no difference between the liner and no-liner mesocosms in both seasons (Figure 

3.8). In the non-growing season, most of the mesocosms showed redox values under 100 mV 

where nitrogen, iron and manganese are known to exist in reduced forms. A black color coating 

developed inside the standpipes where leachate samples were collected, probably due to the 

oxidation of manganese contained in the FGD by-product (Table 3.1). This lowered redox is 

thought to have stimulated nitrate removal in the leachate through denitrification. The nitrate 

concentration of leachate in the non-growing season was almost zero. Usually, nitrate becomes 

reduced and is lost into the atmosphere by denitrification when the redox potential is below 225 

mV (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). 

3.4.4.4 Turbidity 

Outflow samples were investigated for turbidity (Figure 3.9). Turbidity decreased significantly 

from inflow to outflow in all 20 mesocosms (p < 0.01) during the growing season, showing the 

same tendency observed from the two experimental basins of ORWRP (Nairn and Mitsch, 1997). 

The data showed the same tendency in the non-growing season even though sufficient data were 

not available for statistical analysis. 

28
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3.4.4.5 Total phosphorus 

Total phosphorus concentrations were measured for surface outflow and leachate samples from 

the mesocosms in both seasons (Figures 3.10 and 3.11). The average inflow concentration was 

greater than the average outflow concentration in every wetland during the growing season (p < 

0.01), but little difference between inflow and outflow was seen in the non-growing season. 

Differences between the liner treatments and control were not observed in surface outflows or 

leachate. 

3.4.4.6 Orthophosphate 

Orthophosphate concentrations were also measured for all outflow and leachate samples to 

evaluate the effect of FGD liner on water quality improvement (Figures 3.12 and 3.13). More 

effective Ca-P precipitation was expected since the FGD liner contains more Ca in its 

composition than natural clay soils (Nairn, 1996). The results showed significant differences 

between the liner treatments in leachates during the growing season (p < 0.01). More 

orthophosphate removal was observed in the mesocosms containing FGD liner. Compared to 

inflow concentrations, all outflows showed significant reduction in phosphate concentrations (p 

< 0.01), following the pattern observed in two wetland basins at the ORWRP (Mitsch and Nairn, 

1995; Nairn and Mitsch, 1996). No significant differences were observed between the liner 

treatments in surface outflows. 

29
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3.4.4.7 Nitrate-Nitrogen 

Nitrate concentrations were measured for outflows and leachate samples in both seasons (Figures 

3.14 and 3.15). The reduction of nitrate in both outflow and leachate was significant (p < 0.01) 

and is the usual pattern observed in wetland treatment systems (Gersberg et al., 1985; Brodrick et 

al., 1988; Gumbright, 1992; Gale et al., 1993). Nitrogen removal occurs in part through the 

uptake of nitrogen in vegetation, but the majority of nitrogen removal often occurs through 

denitrification. Anaerobic sediments are the perfect habitat for various denitrifying bacteria to 

reduce nitrates and transform them into nitrogen gas (N2

), which is then lost to the atmosphere 

(Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). Other losses from the nitrate pool may be through runoff and 

leaching (Cronk, 1992). Nitrate tends to leach through soil easily due to its negative charge. The 

nitrate concentration was almost zero in the leachate during the non-growing season. 

Denitrification seemed to be more stimulated by the development of a reduced soil environment. 

No differences between the liner treatments were observed in nitrate concentrations. 

3.4.4.8 Mesocosm Plant Growth 

Mean stem lengths in liner mesocosms were lower than those in no-liner mesocosms in both 

growing and non-growing season (p < 0.01) (Figure 3.16). Mean number of stems showed the 

same significant tendency during the growing season although the significant difference was 

marginal during non-growing season (p = 0.056) (Figure 3.17). Mean numbers of stems bearing 

flowers was lower in the liner mesocosms during the growing season (p = 0.05) (Figure 3.18). 

FGD by-products placed in the mesocosms showed a potential negative impact on plant growth, 

30
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

which was investigated further based on mesocosm productivity through plant harvesting in the 

1998. 

3.4.5 Summary of 1997 Observations 

Summary statistics for all the parameters measured from the FGD mesocosm experiments in 

1997 are presented in Table 3.2. FGD liner material placed with natural site soil was considered 

to be effective in removing phosphate in the leachate. Since the data for plant growth showed 

potential negative impact of FGD liner, phytotoxicity needed to be investigated based on 

productivity through harvesting and element analysis in the second year of study. Other 

chemical items measured in water samples showed no significant difference between the FGD 

liner and no liner treatments. The significantly higher pH of water samples in FGD liner 

mesocosms indicate that the FGD liner can be beneficial in treating acid mine drainage, which 

can be also added to treatment wetlands. 

3.5 1998 Experiments 

In 1998, the experiments begun in 1997 were continued but with plants now consisting of a 

much greater biomass than in the 1997 study. In the second-year study, we added phosphorus as 

super phosphate (P2O5, 46%) to one tank to provide high-P loading to 10 of the mesocosms, 

simulating the phosphorus concentration of treated wastewater going to a treatment wetland. 

Hence, the experimental design of the second-year study included four different treatment 

31
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

schemes such as liner plus riverwater (L+R), no-liner plus riverwater (N+R), liner plus P-spike 

water (L+P), and no-liner plus P-spiked water (N+P). 

The second-year mesocosm tests were conducted from June 30, 1998 to September 13, 1998. 

Water levels and water flow were measured to maintain uniform hydrology in the 20 mesocosms 

with no differences between liner and no-liner treatments. Water level was checked three times a 

week during the experiment. The flow rate of riverwater into the mesocosms was measured with 

a graduated cylinder and a timer. Similar hydrology in liner and no-liner mesocosms was 

maintained. Comparison of hydrology among the treatments in the second-year experiments did 

not show any significant differences (p = 0.52 by flow rate, 900 mL/min) (Figure 3.19). 

3.5.1 Field Sampling and Analysis Procedures 

In general, the field sampling and water quality analyses procedures outlined in Section 3.4.3 

were followed. Water sampling was done three times-per-week for four weeks. Surface outflow 

samples were collected directly from the mesocosm outlets and leachate was obtained from the 

standpipe connected to the bottom layer of the mesocosms. Two mesocosms which were not 

hydrologically sound in leachate collection due to the lack of leachate coming up in the 

standpipe were removed from the study. Therefore, only 18 mesocosms were included in the 

leachate analysis and all 20 mesocosms were included in the analysis of outflow. 

Turbidity was determined on the day of sampling with a Hach Model 18900 Ratio Turbidimeter. 

Samples were analyzed later by a Lachat QuickChem IV Flow Injection Analysis (FIA) System. 

32
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

All analyses for total phosphorus (APHA, 1992 4500-PF), orthophosphate (APHA, 1992 

Method4500-PF) and NO2+NO3-N (APHA, 1992 4500-NO3E) were done on the Lachat 

autoanalyzer. All samples and standards were at room temperature and were vigorously mixed 

by inversion for analysis. Five prepared standards, a check standard and distilled water blank 

were run each time that an analysis was conducted. Standards were always within 10 % of the 

prescribed values. 

Survey for the growth of wetland vegetation was similar to that employed for the 1997 

experiments as elaborated in Section 3.4.2. Number of stems, number of stems bearing flowers 

and stem lengths were investigated weekly in each mesocosm during the second year 

experiment. For stem length, 20 randomly chosen stems were measured for each mesocosm with 

a ruler. 

After two growing seasons, plant biomass harvesting was carried out at the end of second-year 

experiment (August 20 through September 13, 1998). All aboveground stems were cut at the soil 

surface. The plant samples were placed in plastic bags and weighed in the field with a hanging 

balance (accuracy to 40 g). Sub-samples were taken to a laboratory where both wet weight and 

dry weight were determined to estimate dry/wet ratios. Ratios were multiplied by total wet 

weight of the biomass from each mesocosm to estimate each dry weight production afterward. 

Sub-samples were allowed to dry until constant weight at 60°C, and some of them were ground 

to pass a 1 mm screen using Wiley Mill. Five grams of each sample kept in a paper coin 

envelope was sent for analysis of plant tissue elements by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) 

emission spectrometry to Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center’s (OARDC’s) 

33
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Star Laboratory in Wooster, Ohio. The samples included above- and below-ground biomass of 

the plants. 

Soil samples were also taken after aboveground biomass harvesting from the approximately top 

5 cm of the surface of the mesocosm soil surface to see if FGD material buried on the bottom of 

the mesocosms translocates into the upper layer of soil, which may have impacts on surface 

water quality of the wetlands. Three small samples were taken from each mesocosm and made 

into a composite sample to represent each mesocosm. Soil samples were air-dried and ground 

using a mortar and pestle to pass a 2 mm screen to sieve out stones. The samples prepared were 

sent to Star Laboratory at OARDC in Wooster, Ohio for analysis of the elements by ICP. 

Data analyses were conducted as a two-way analysis of variance using the General Linear Model 

(GLM) procedure in SAS (SAS Institute, 1988) with FGD liner and phosphorus addition as main 

effects for all the items measured in water quality, plant morphometric measurements, plant 

biomass and element analysis. In case of plant morphometry and water quality data, averages of 

the parameters measured were calculated for each treatment for each sampling day and then used 

for statistical analysis. Orthophosphate concentration of leachate obtained below the detection 

limit was treated as 0. Thus, calculated concentrations represent minimum estimates. Duncan’s 

multiple tests were used to test all pairwise contrasts of means for significance at P < 0.05 and 

LSD (least significant difference) test was also run for elemental analysis among the treatments 

to detect the difference, if any, more vigorously (Steel et al., 1997). 

34
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3.5.2 Results and Discussion 

3.5.2.1 Conductivity 

Conductivity data showed a significant difference in leachate conductivity between lined and 

unlined mesocosms (p < 0.05) (Figure 3.20). Liner treatment increased the conductivity of 

leachate significantly, which was also much higher than the values from previous year (Table 

3.3). No difference between the treatments was observed for surface outflow. 

3.5.2.2 pH 

Generally, the pH of water samples was lower and more stabilized in the second year compared 

to the first-year (Table 3.3). It seems that the high pH caused by FGD liner treatment reduced 

over time for surface outflow, whereas the pH of leachate was still significantly higher (p < 0.05) 

in lined mesocosms than that of unlined mesocosms (Figure 3.21). No difference was observed 

between the two different phosphorus loadings. 

3.5.2.3 Redox 

The redox values in both outflow and leachate were much lower during the second-year 

experiment compared to the first year, reflecting much reduced conditions developed in soil over 

time (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.22). Most of the leachate redox values were below 100 mV, 

indicating it was reduced enough for ferric iron (Fe3+) to be reduced into ferrous iron (Fe2+). Iron 

35
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

reduction would influence phosphorus dynamics in the system because the inorganic phosphorus 

adsorbed with iron and aluminum oxyhydroxide can be released back to the water from 

sediments (Reddy and D’Angelo, 1994). In addition, nitrogen and manganese are known to be 

reduced fewer than 100mV of redox potential. The lowered redox is thought to have stimulated 

nitrate removal of the leachate through denitrification. Usually, nitrate becomes reduced and is 

lost into the atmosphere by denitirification when the redox potential is below 225 mV (Mitsch 

and Gosselink, 1993). The FGD liner treatment caused significant differences in redox potential 

(p < 0.05) of leachate showing much lower values in the mesocosms lined with FGD. FGD liner 

material consists of mostly CaSO3 which is known to be very strong antioxidant that consumes 

available oxygen (Hao, 1998), which may have resulted in lower redox values in lined 

mesocosms. No difference was observed among the treatments in surface outflow. 

3.5.2.4 Turbidity 

Outflow and leachate samples were investigated for turbidity analysis (Figure 3.23). Turbidity 

decreased significantly from surface inflow to surface outflow in all 20 mesocosms (p < 0.01) 

during the experiment, showing the same tendency observed from the two experimental basins of 

ORWRP (Mitsch et al., 1998). 

3.5.2.5 Orthophosphate 

More than 80 % of orthophosphate input was removed from mesocosms fed by river water 

inflow, the same pattern as observed in the previous year’s study (Table 3.3). There was no 

36
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

difference between the FGD liner treatment and the control in the orthophosphate concentration 

of surface outflow (Figure 3.24). The surface outflow from the mesocosms that had P-spiked 

inflow during the experiment also showed a decrease in the concentration. The FGD liner 

treatment showed much better performance in orthophosphate retention compared to no-liner 

treatment (p < 0.05). More effective Ca-P precipitation may have resulted from the addition of 

liner material since FGD liner contains more calcium in its composition than do natural clay soils 

(Ahn et al. 1998). All leachate showed significant reduction in phosphate concentrations (p < 

0.01) compared to inflow concentrations. Especially, under the high-P loading, phosphate 

removal efficiency was 100 % whether or not they were lined with FGD. Most of the 

orthophosphate concentrations of leachate remained under the detection limit resulting in more 

than 90 % removal rate regardless of the treatments in the second year (Figure 3.24). 

3.5.2.6 Total Phosphorus 

Total phosphorus was more effectively removed from P-spiked surface water passing through 

wetland mesocosms lined with FGD by-product than through those with no FGD liner (Figure 

3.25). The same tendency was observed in the mesocosms with river water inflow, but the 

difference in phosphorus removal between lined and unlined mesocosms was not significant. 

Compared to the pattern of the first year, the removal efficiency of total phosphorus from the 

mesocosms fed by river water dropped and the system seemed to start becoming a source of 

phosphorus rather than a sink in the second year. Interestingly, this tendency was also vivid in 

the leachate. The leachate samples from the mesocosm fed by river water showed tremendous 

increase in their concentration of total phosphorus compared to inflow (Table 3.3). It seems that 

37
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

the system was adding more phosphorus to the water while the water was passing through the 

soil plus FGD liner complex. 

3.5.2.7 Nitrite, Nitrate, & Nitrogen 

The reduction of nitrate from inflow to both outflow and leachate was significant (p < 0.01) 

(Table 3.3). Lower redox in the leachate (Figure 3.22) indicates that redox was low enough for 

nitrates to be reduced by denitrification because anaerobic sediments are the perfect habitat for 

various denitrifying bacteria. Uptake of nitrate by the plants also partially contributes to the 

removal of nitrogen out of water. No significant difference in nitrogen removal was observed in 

both outflow and leachate among the treatments (Figure 3.26). 

3.5.2.8 Plant Morphometry 

Wetland vegetation (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) for 1998 showed fewer stems and fewer 

stems bearing flowers in mesocosms using FGD by-product as liners (Table 3.4), which was also 

observed in 1997. However, average stem growth was not significantly different between the 

FGD lined and unlined mesocosms (Table 3.3) showing that the plants may have overcome the 

possible phytotoxicity or growth retardation which might have been caused by FGD by-product 

in the first-year. 

38
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3.5.2.9 Plant Biomass 

There was no difference in biomass (belowground, aboveground, and total) of wetland plant 

between lined and unlined mesocosms in either river water or phosphorus-spiked inflows at the 

end of two years’ experiments (Figure 3.27). Aboveground biomass showed slightly lower 

values in lined mesocosms compared to unlined mesocosms, but the difference was not 

significant (p = 0.094). 

3.5.2.10 Plant Tissue Analysis

The ICP analysis for plant tissue material is summarized in the Table 3.5 according to the 

treatments. In the analysis of aboveground tissue, significantly higher concentration of Fe, Li, 

and lower concentration of Mo, Na were observed in the mesocosms lined with FGD (p < 0.05). 

There were several elements that showed significant difference in the tissue concentration of 

belowground biomass between liner treatments (Table 3.5). Al, B, Ba, Ca, Co, Cr, Fe, Li, Mg, S, 

Si, Sr, V, and Zn were increased significantly in the plants grown on the mesocosms lined with 

FGD (p < 0.05). Above and belowground biomass indicated that these major and trace elements 

supplied by the addition of FGD liner did not exert any significantly negative impact on the 

production of biomass (Figure 3.27). 

Boron, which was concerned as an element causing phytotoxicity at high dosage although an 

element essential for plant growth (Aitken and Bell, 1985; Pierzynski et al., 1994; McLeod and 

Ciravolo, 1997; Mcleod and Ciravolo, 1998), was not different in the aboveground tissue of the 

39
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

plants in both lined and unlined wetlands. However, boron content in belowground tissue was 

significantly higher in the lined mesocosms compared to unlined mesocosms (p < 0.05). The 

higher tissue content of boron in the belowground from liner mesocosms did not seem to affect 

negatively on the biomass because there was no difference in the aboveground biomass (p 

=0.094) as well as in the belowground biomass (p =0.68) of the plants between lined mesocosms 

and unlined mesocosms. Boron can be phytotoxic to some plants (Nable et al., 1997) and can 

cause serious problems to these plants grown on soils irrigated with high-boron water (Gupta et 

al., 1985), some saline soils (Sankary, 1985), and plants growing on some pulverized fly ashes 

(El-Mogazi et al., 1988). Boron toxicity has been well-studied in agricultural crops and fruit 

trees, but research on wetland plants is rare (Sposito, 1988). McLeod and Ciravolo (1998) 

recently tested bottomland tree seedlings for boron tolerance and potential boron removal. 

3.5.2.11 Surface Soil Analysis 

The elemental analysis of surface soil is summarized in Table 3.6. Al, Ca, and Ni showed 

significant treatment effect of liner (p < 0.05). Soil Ca was higher in the lined mesocosms, 

whereas the Al and Ni were lower in the lined mesocosms. Higher Ca content of the surface soil 

in the lined treatment seemed to contribute to the immobilization of phosphorus lowering the 

phosphorus concentration of outflow water through the increased Ca-P precipitation (Figure 

3.25). Low Al concentration in the soil may be attributed mainly to leaching and partially to 

plant uptake since there was significantly higher content of Al in the tissues of plants grown (p = 

0.005) in the lined. Wendell and Ritchey (1996) found that high-calcium FGD by-products 

reduced aluminum toxicity in soil through decreased Al solubility due to increased pH (Hsu, 

40
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

1977) and precipitation of soil Al-sulfates, which could be a contributing factor to the lower 

concentration of Al in the surface soil, if the precipitation occurred in the bottom layer of soil 

near the FGD liner. Soil amendment with CaSO4 or CaSO3 FGD by-products reduced Al toxicity 

and overcame Ca deficiency in their investigation. In our study, Ni was also higher in the tissue 

of plant grown in the FGD lined mesocosms, but the difference was not significant (p = 0.093). 

Some other mechanisms such as leaching may have contributed to the decreased concentration of 

this element in the soil. In the mesocosms with high-P inflow, the phosphorus concentration of 

the surface soil was significantly higher as expected. Vanadium (V) concentrations were also 

higher in high–P mesocosms relative to the low-P loading mesocosms. 

3.5.3 Summary of 1998 Observations 

The FGD mesocosm experiments for the second year showed that stabilized FGD by-product can 

be used in constructed wetlands as a liner. The small mesocosm studies indicated increased 

orthophosphate retention by the FGD lined mesocosms compared to the controls for phosphorous 

spiked inflow experiments. Total phosphorous was more effectively removed from phosphorous 

spiked surface water passing through FGD lined wetland mesocosms than controls. No 

difference in biomass of wetland plant between FGD lined and unlined mesocosms was observed 

although lower average stem length and fewer stems bearing flowers were observed in 

mesocosms with FGD material as liner. A larger-scale, long-term wetland experiment close to 

full-scale is suggested to better predict what would happen if FGD liner material were used on 

full-scale wetland basins in real situation. 

41
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

North 

L 

N 

L 

N 

N 

L 

N 

N 

L 

L 

L 

L 

N 

N 

N 

L 

N 

L 

N 

L 

63 

62 61

64 

66 65

68 67

70 69

72 71

74 73

76 75

78 77

80 79

0.60 m 

0.77 m 

0.60 m 

French drain 

Adjustable stand pipes 

Gravel 

Soil 

Outer pipe w/protective cap 

0.30 m 

0.10 m 

FGD liner 

Mesocosms are identified by numbers and by the existence of liner material (L =liner, N= No liner) 

Figure 3.1 Plan Diagram of 20 Mesocosms and French Drain System 

42
_____________________________________ 

_____________________________________ 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 3.1 Estimated Chemical Composition (%) of FGD By-Product 

Moisture Content (105 oC) 23.78% 

Calcium Oxide as CaO 21.55% 

Magnesium Oxide as MgO 1.51% 

Silicon Oxide as SiO2 26.2% 

Iron Oxide as Fe2O3 12.07% 

Alumina as Al2O3 10.94% 

Total Sulfur as S 5.97% 

Sulfate as SO3 1.67% 

Sulfite as SO2 10.58% 

CO2 4.24% 

Loss on ignition (1100 °C) 12.85% 

Figure 3.2 Photograph of FGD Liner Mesocosm Experimental Layout 

43
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

14

12

water level (cm)

10

8

6

4

2

0

29-Jul 31-Jul 2-Aug 5-Aug 7-Aug 9-Aug 12-Aug 

liner 

no liner 

Date 

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 

7-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 

Water flow (ml/mn) 

liner no liner 

Date 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.3 Mesocosm Hydrology During a) Growing and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

44
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

liner 

no liner 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 uS 

7/29 7/31 8/2 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/12 8/14 8/16 8/19 8/21 

Sampling day 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

uS 

liner 

no-liner 

4-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 25-Oct Sampling days 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.4 Conductivity of Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) Growing 

Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

45
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 uS 

inflow 

liner 

no liner 

7/29 7/31 8/2 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/12 8/14 8/16 8/19 8/21 

Sampling day 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

uS 

11-Oct 

Inflow Liner No-liner 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.5 Conductivity of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) 

Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

46 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

6 

6.5 

7 

7.5 

8 

8.5 

9 

9.5 

10 

10.5 

11 

pH 

liner 

no liner 

7/29 8/2 8/7 8/12 8/16 8/21 

Sampling days 

6 

6.5 

7 

7.5 

8 

8.5 

9 

9.5 

10 

10.5 

11 

pH 

liner 

no-liner 

4-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 25-Oct 

Sampling days 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.6 pH of Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) Growing Season and 

b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

47
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

7.5 

8.5 

9.5 

10.5 pH 

inflow 

liner 

no liner 

7/29 7/31 8/2 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/12 8/14 8/16 8/19 8/21 

Sampling day 

7.5 

8.5 

9.5 

10.5 

Inflow Liner No-liner 

pH 

11-Oct 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.7 pH of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) Growing 

Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

48 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

liner 

no liner 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

Redox (mV) Redox(mV) 

7/29 8/2 8/7 8/12 8/16 8/21 

Sampling days 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

4-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 25-Oct 

liner 

no-liner 

Sampling days 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.8 Redox in Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) Growing Season 

and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

49
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

NTU 

inflow liner no liner 

7/29 7/31 8/2 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/12 8/14 8/16 8/19 8/21 

Sampling day 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

NTU 

11-Oct 

Inflow Liner No-liner 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.9 Turbidity of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) 

Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

50 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.05 

0.10 

0.15 

0.20 

0.25 

0.30 

0.35 

liner 

no liner 

7/31 8/2 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/12 8/14 8/16 8/19 8/21 

Sampling days 

0.40 

0.35 

0.30 

0.25 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

4-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 25-Oct 

liner 

no-liner 

Sampling days 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.10 Total Phosphorous of Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) 

Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

51
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.05 

0.10 

0.15 

0.20 

inflow 

liner 

no liner 

7/29 8/2 8/7 8/12 8/16 8/21 

Sampling day 

0.20 

0.18 

0.16 

0.14 

0.12 

0.10 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

11 Oct 

Inflow Liner No-liner 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.11 Total Phosphorous of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During 

a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

52
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.000 

0.005 

0.010 

0.015 

0.020 

liner 

no liner 

7/31 8/2 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/12 8/14 8/16 8/19 8/21 

Sampling day 

0 

0.005 

0.010 

0.015 

0.02 

liner 

no-liner 

4-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 25-Oct 

Sampling days 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.12 Orthophosphate of Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) 

Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

53
8/7

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.02 

0.04 

0.06 

0.08 

0.10 

7/29 8/2 8/12 8/16 8/21 Sampling day 

inflow 

liner 

no liner 

0.00 

0.02 

0.04 

0.06 

0.08 

0.10 

11 Oct 

Inflow Liner No-liner 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.13 Orthophosphate of Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) 

Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997

54
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.20 

0.40 

0.60 

0.80 

1.00 

1.20 

1.40 

1.60 

1.80 

liner 

no liner 

7/31 8/2 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/12 8/14 8/16 8/19 8/21 

Sampling days 

0.00 

0.50 

1.00 

1.50 

2.00 

liner 

no-liner 

4-Oct 11-Oct 18-Oct 25-Oct 

Sampling days 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.14 Nitrate in Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) Growing Season 

and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

55
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.50 

1.00 

1.50 

2.00 

2.50 

inflow 

liner 

no liner 

7/29 8/2 8/7 8/12 8/16 8/21 

Sampling day 

0.00 

0.50 

1.00 

1.50 

2.00 

2.50 

11 Oct 

Inflow Liner No-liner 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.15 Nitrate in Surface Outflow in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) Growing 

Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

56
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

3-Aug 11-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 

Sampling day 

liner no liner 

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 

liner no liner Treatment 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.16 Stem Length of S. Tabernaemontani in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms During a) 

Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997

57
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

liner 

no liner 

3-Aug 11-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 

Sampling day 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

liner no liner 

Treatment 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.17 Number of Stems of S. Tabernaemontani in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997 

58
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

liner 

no liner 

3-Aug 11-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 

Sampling day 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.18 Number of Stems of S. Tabernaemontani with Flowers in Liner vs. No-Liner 

Mesocosms During a) Growing Season and b) Non-Growing Season in 1997

59
_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 3. 2 Statistical Comparison of Water Quality and Plant Growth in 1997 

Growing season (July-August) Non-growing season(October) 

Leachate 

DO (mg/L) NS NS 

Cond.(mS) NS L > N** 

pH L > N** L > N** 

Redox (mV) NS NS 

Total-P (mg-P/L) NS NS 

Ortho-P (mg-P/L) L > N** NS 

NO3-N (mg-N/L) NS NS 

Outflow 

DO (mg/L) NS 

Cond. (mS) 

pH 

Redox (mV) 

Turbidity (NTU) 

NS 

NS 

NS 

NS 

Not available for 

statistical treatment due 

to the lack of data 

Total-P (mg-P/L) NS 

Ortho-P (mg-P/L) NS 

NO3-N (mg-N/L) NS 

Plant growth 

Number of stems L < N** L < N (p=0.056) 

Number of stems w/flower L < N**

Stem length (CM) L < N** L < N**

L: Liner N: No liner 

* significant at the 0.05 level 

** significant at the 0.01 level

60 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

L+R 

N+R 

L+P 

N+P 

Date in 1998 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

L+R 

N+R 

L+P 

N+P 

7/6 7/10 7/14 7/16 7/18 7/21 7/25 7/28 8/6 

Date in 1998 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Note: Bars indicate standard errors 

Figure 3.19 Mesocosm Hydrology (Water Level and Flow Rate) in 1998 

61
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

L+R (ab) 

N+R (a) 

L+P (c) 

N+P (bc) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 

Date in 1998 

Surface Outflow 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 7/29 

L+R (a) 

N+R (b) 

L+P (a) 

N+P (b) 

Date in 1998 

Leachate 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Notes: 1. Bars indicate standard errors 

2. The same letters among the treatments indicates no statistical difference

Figure 3.20 Conductivity of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms 

in 1998 

62
c 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 3.3 Water Quality and Nutrient Measurements and Changes for FGD Mesocosms, 

1997-1998 a 

Percentage change, Percentage change 

Year and Inflow Surface outlfow inflow to outflow t-test b leachate inflow to leachate t-test b 

parameter liner no-liner liner no-liner liner no-liner liner no-liner 

First year (1997) 

riverwater 

Temperature, o C 23.92 22.67 22.40 -4.7 -5.8 NS 23.93 23.51 +0.8 -1.0 NS 

Turbidity, NTU c 27.8 9.4 7.7 -64.2 -69.5 NS 

Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L 6.19 7.11 6.20 +26.8 +10.3 NS 0.44 0.33 -92.8 -94.4 NS 

pH 8.72 9.34 9.08 +7.2 +4.2 NS 9.79 7.85 +13.9 +8.6 * 

Conductivity, uS/cm 503 548 557 +10.24 +12.32 NS 934 902 +86.8 +83.3 NS 

Redox potential, mV 448 409 415 -8.5 -7.0 NS 169 211 -60.1 -51.3 NS 

Orthophosphate, mg/L 0.062 0.010 0.008 -83.4 -86.3 NS 0.008 0.012 -87.9 -81.0 * 

Total Phosphorus, mg/L 0.140 0.062 0.065 -55 -53.7 NS 0.226 0.201 +71.2 +57.6 NS 

Nitrate, mg/L 1.39 0.58 0.52 -56.7 -60.8 NS 0.75 0.58 -41.0 -57.2 NS 

Second year (1998) 

riverwater 

Temperature, o C 25.01 24.09 23.83 -3.5 -4.5 NS 23.75 23.19 -4.6 -7.0 NS 

Turbidity, NTU 11.66 5.88 5.39 -41.1 -44.9 NS 

Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L 4.90 2.40 2.14 -50.1 -56.4 NS 0.57 0.54 -88.3 -88.8 

pH 7.41 7.67 7.52 +3.6 +1.5 * 7.60 6.81 +2.7 -8.0 * 

Conductivity, uS/cm 513.11 505.16 490.90 -2.1 -5 NS 1719.7 847.8 +244.6 +71.9 * 

Redox potential, mV 340.89 199.50 201.13 -40.4 -39.9 NS -10.3 61.3 -104.4 -82.2 * 

Orthophosphate, mg/L 0.057 0.011 0.011 -80.9 -81.3 NS 0.002 0.001 -94.9 -97.1 * 

Total Phosphorus, mg/L 0.126 0.116 0.157 -5.7 +30.1 NS 0.840 0.717 +584.6 +518.2 NS 

Nitrate plus nitrite, mg/L 1.96 0.89 0.74 -47.9 -59.8 NS 0.25 0.23 -83.1 -85.2 NS 

P-spiked water 

Temperature, o C 25.56 24.23 24.13 -5.1 -5.5 NS 23.76 23.55 -6.8 -7.6 NS 

Turbidity, NTU 17.44 5.36 6.44 -61.3 -54.3 NS 

Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L 4.79 2.99 2.30 -37.1 -51.0 0.60 0.30 -86.8 -93.4 

pH 7.25 7.59 7.48 +4.7 +3.3 NS 7.46 6.88 +2.8 -5.1 * 

Conductivity, uS/cm 519.78 533.17 529.13 +1.8 +1.6 NS 1719.9 676.7 +242.1 +34 * 

Redox potential, mV 345.56 227.80 230.85 -32.6 -31.1 NS 19.4 42.7 -95.0 -87.8 NS 

Orthophosphate, mg/L 2.169 1.082 1.506 -49.1 -29 * 0.000 0.000 -99.9 -100 NS 

Total Phosphorus, mg/L 2.850 1.472 2.032 -48.6 -28.6 * 0.313 0.324 -89.6 -88.7 NS 

Nitrate plus nitrite, mg/L 2.11 0.66 0.88 -63.2 -54.6 NS 0.27 0.33 -84.2 -79.6 NS 

a

 Numbers shown in the table are presented as average of all data collected during the experiment period. 

b liner versus no-liner; NS, no significant difference at a = 0.05; * significant difference at a = 0.05

NTU, Nephelometric Turbidity Units.

63
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

6.0 

6.5 

7.0 

7.5 

8.0 

8.5 

9.0 

9.5 

10.0 

L+R (a) 

N+R (b) 

L+P (ab) 

N+P (b) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 

Date in 1998 

Surface Outflow 

6.0 

6.5 

7.0 

7.5 

8.0 

8.5 

9.0 

9.5 

10.0 

L+R (a) 

N+R (b) 

L+P (c) 

N+P (b) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 7/29 

Date in 1998 

Leachate 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Notes: 1. Bars indicate standard errors 

2. The same letters among the treatments indicates no statistical difference

Figure 3.21 pH of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms in 1998 

64
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 L+R (a) 

N+R (a) 

L+P (ab) 

N+P (b) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 

Date in 1998 

Surface Outflow 

-200 

-100 

0 

100 

200 

300 

7/7 7/14 7/21 7/28 

L+R (a) 

N+R (b) 

L+P (c) 

N+P (bc) 

Date in 1998 

Leachate 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Notes: 1. Bars indicate standard errors 

2. The same letters among the treatments indicates no statistical difference

Figure 3.22 Redox of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms in 

1998

65
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.0 

10.0 

20.0 

30.0 

40.0 

50.0 

NTU 

Inflow 

L+R (a) 

N+R (a) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 

Date in 1998 

Surface Outflow 

0.0 

10.0 

20.0 

30.0 

40.0 

50.0 

NTU 

Inflow 

L+P (a) 

N+P (a) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 

Date in 1998 

Leachate 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Notes: 1. Bars indicate standard errors 

2. The same letters among the treatments indicates no statistical difference 

Figure 3.23 Turbidity of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner Mesocosms in 

1998

66
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.50 

1.00 

1.50 

2.00 

2.50 

mg-P/L 

L+R (a) 

N+R (a) 

L+P (b) 

N+P (c) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 

Date in 1998 

Surface Outflow 

mg-P/L 

0.10 

L+R (a)

N+R (b)

0.08 L+P (b)

N+P (b)

0.06 

detection limit 0.04 

0.02 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 7/29 0.00 

Date in 1998 

Leachate 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Notes: 1. Bars indicate standard errors 

2. The same letters among the treatments indicates no statistical difference

Figure 3.24 Orthophosphate of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner 

Mesocosms in 1998 

67
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.50 

1.00 

1.50 

2.00 

2.50 

3.00 

3.50 

mg-P/L 

L+R (a) 

N+R (a) 

L+P (b) 

N+P (c) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 

Date in 1998 

Surface Outflow 

0.00 

0.50 

1.00 

1.50 

2.00 

2.50 

3.00 

mg-P/L 

L+R (a) 

N+R (a) 

L+P (b) 

N+P (b) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 7/29 

Date in 1998 

Leachate 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Notes: 1. Bars indicate standard errors 

2. The same letters among the treatments indicates no statistical difference

Figure 3.25 Total Phosphorous of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner 

Mesocosms in 1998 

68
mg-N/L mg-N/L

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

2.00 

4.00 

6.00 

8.00 

10.00 

L+R (a) 

N+R (a) 

L+P (a) 

N+P (a) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 

Date in 1998 

Surface Outflow 

0.00 

2.00 

4.00 

6.00 

8.00 

10.00 

L+R (a) 

N+R (a) 

L+P (a) 

N+P (a) 

7/7 7/9 7/11 7/13 7/15 7/17 7/19 7/21 7/23 7/25 7/27 7/29 

Date in 1998 

Leachate 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Notes: 1. Bars indicate standard errors 

2. The same letters among the treatments indicates no statistical difference 

Figure 3.26 Nitrite and Nitrate of Surface Outflow and Leachate in Liner vs. No-Liner 

Mesocosms in 1998 

69
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 3.4 Number of Stems, Number of Stems Bearing Flowers, and Stem Length of S. 

tabernaemontani 

 Treatment 

Variable L + R N + R L + P N + P 

No. of stems 282 (20) a 304 (22) a 255 (17) b 289 (9) a

 No. of stems (with flowers) 266 (17) b 299 (19) a 232 (15) c 284 (8) ab

 Stem length (cm) 102.2 ( 2.2) c 112.5 (2.1) a 107.6 (3.6) b 113.4 (3.4) a 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Standard error is shown following mean in ( ). Means in each row followed by the same letter are 

not significantly different across the treatments at the p < 0.05 level. 

70
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Above biomass of S.tabernaemontani 

0 

400 

800 

gDW/m2 

L = liner 

N = No liner 

a 

a 

a a 

L N L N 

riverwater P-spiked 

Below biomass of S.tabernaemontani 

0 

400 

800 

1200 

gDW/m2 

L = liner 

N = No liner a 

a 

b b 

L N L N 

riverwater P-spiked 

Total biomass of S.tabernaemontani 

0 

400 

800 

1200 

1600 

gDW/m2 

L = liner 

N = No liner a a 

b 

b 

L N L N 

riverwater P-spiked 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

Notes: 1. Bars indicate standard errors 

2. The same letters among the treatments indicates no statistical difference

Figure 3.27 Biomass Production from the 1997-1998 Mesocosm Experiments 

71
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 3.5 ICP Analysis of Plant Tissue Material (average – std error) 

Unit L+R N+R L+P N+P 

Above groundtissue analysis 

N % 0.93±0.03 0.98±0.02 1.04±0.02 0.96±0.07 

Al ppm 53±17 51±16 106±31 69±13 

As ppm 2.69±0.37 2.37±0.16 1.51±0.33 2.19±0.40 

B ppm 11.9±1.0 14.3±1.8 14.7±2.0 11.4±0.3 

Ba ppm 42.4±7.3 35.3±2.9 31.9±3.4 38.1±1.8 

Ca ppm 5141±493 5391±365 5703±613 4877±166 

Co ppm 0.331±0.070 0.161±0.158 0.210±0.116 0.069±0.083 

Cd ppm ND* ND ND ND 

Cr ppm 1.20±0.35 0.48±0.04 0.90±0.08 0.59±0.02 

Cu ppm 23.88±9.91 4.78±0.87 8.09±4.17 12.60±9.28 

Fe ppm 382±95 167±37 331±79 233±40 

K ppm 14777±495 13689±996 14725±1003 15424±563 

Li ppm 0.835±0.034 ND 1.167±0.204 0.813** 

Mg ppm 804±61 852±71 930±110 870±43 

Mn ppm 1543±184 1210±101 1395±169 1382±231 

Mo ppm 2.77±0.38 10.80±3.66 3.72±2.21 10.45±2.82 

Na ppm 407±69 597±88 385±63 494±45 

Ni ppm 45.2±22.6 3.7±1.1 20.3±16.0 23.3±21.6 

P ppm 1285±31 1229±59 1752±125 1661±146 

Pb ppm 13.68±3.80 7.08±0.01 13.35±11.79 8.69±4.41 

S ppm 2521±179 2216±249 2604±243 2229±239 

Si ppm 31.30±0.98 33.92±1.39 34.67±1.51 30.98±2.23 

Sr ppm 40.77±5.28 41.04±4.05 44.01±6.41 46.85±1.74 

V ppm 0.592±0.151 0.472±0.061 0.543±0.056 ND 

Zn ppm 34.69±9.95 20.30±2.24 13.01±0.42 12.98±1.25 

Belowground tissue analysis 

N % 0.53±0.04 0.52±0.04 0.55±0.02 0.54±0.04 

Al ppm 2832±745 1399±332 2560±718 1355±256 

As ppm 27.23±2.76 20.59±5.03 28.61±8.70 27.19±4.76 

B ppm 11.1±1.5 8.2±0.6 9.2±2.7 7.7±0.5 

Ba ppm 42.6±7.1 26.8±4.1 39.1±12.5 31.0±3.6 

Ca ppm 3317±447 2436±256 3135±994 2543±225 

Co ppm 1.227±0.139 1.253±0.217 1.244±0.336 1.260±0.072 

Cd ppm 3.654±0.535 2.958±0.383 3.789±1.113 3.010±0.364 

Cr ppm 4.43±0.99 3.20±0.91 4.16±1.08 2.48±0.43 

Cu ppm 8.25±0.91 7.49±0.66 7.83±2.04 8.10±0.35 

Fe ppm 14952±1527 9941±1955 13867±4291 12017±1994 

K ppm 11208±574 10543±852 7864±2030 10124±1110 

Li ppm 2.778±0.379 1.333±0.218 2.044±0.594 1.513±0.205 

Mg ppm 1486±148 1287±87 1156±320 1121±57 

Mn ppm 596±51 576±39 565±165 598±28 

Mo ppm 4.58±0.50 4.43±0.53 4.48±1.28 6.61±1.55 

Na ppm 916±28 1161±116 839±226 957±132 

Ni ppm 9.7±1.9 6.9±1.5 10.4±3.7 7.5±2.4 

P ppm 1724±198 1818±146 1391±365 1985±71 

Pb ppm 7.17±1.26 8.64±4.95 7.10±0.95 14.57±9.85 

S ppm 2088±248 1704±131 1806±567 1495±101 

Si ppm 47.03±7.91 33.75±2.79 38.10±10.49 30.51±3.09 

Sr ppm 44.85±4.13 35.51±2.98 41.39±12.45 39.99±3.35 

V ppm 7.603±1.808 4.276±0.784 7.466±2.189 4.547±0.705 

Zn ppm 45.39±10.63 26.21±2.11 29.44±9.51 25.10±1.26 

The sample size was five for all treatments except L+P, of which sample size was four. 

*ND indicates the concentration of the element was below the detection limit. 

** indicates the number of samples detected for the element was one.

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water

72 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 3.6 ICP Analysis of Surface Soil Elements (average – std error) 

L = FGD Liner; N = No Liner; P = Phosphorous-Spiked River Water; R = River Water 

73
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

4 FULL-SCALE FGD-LINED STUDY 

4.1 Introduction 

Permeability of a field compacted FGD structure is likely to be a function of the construction 

process, and hence the field validation of the properties obtained in the laboratory is an important 

part of the documentation process. In this chapter, we present the design, construction and 

monitoring of a full-scale testing facility, to evaluate the performance of a field-compacted FGD 

liner. The full-scale facility was constructed to address two critical questions about the behavior 

of stabilized FGD products constructed in the field, i.e. what is the permeability of a compacted 

engineered liner of known thickness and density, and what is the quality of the water that flows 

through the FGD liner. 

4.2 Design of Facility 

The full-scale facility was designed and constructed at The Ohio State University’s Ohio 

Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) Western Branch in South Charleston 

(Clark County), Ohio. This site was chosen over other university sites because it had an 

abundance of clay onsite that was suitable for use as a secondary or outer liner to contain the 

primary FGD liner. The OARDC Western Branch facility is a swine and agronomic research 

facility and, hence, it was decided to build a livestock manure storage facility that could be used 

by the center for storing swine manure after the completion of this research. The facility was 

74
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

designed for a capacity of approximately one million gallons (150,000 ft3) to provide six months 

storage for all liquid wastes from the swine onsite. A double-layered design was chosen with 

compacted stabilized FGD as the primary inner liner and the onsite clay (about 80 feet of grey 

glacial till) as the secondary outer liner. A leachate system was designed to be placed between 

the primary FGD liner and secondary clay liner to collect in a sump any water passing through 

the FGD fill. The sump was designed so that it could be used to collect leachate samples with 

ease and for conducting field permeability tests on the pond liner. 

The facility is essentially rectangular in shape with overall dimensions of approximately 150 feet 

by 250 feet (including 8-foot wide berms), as shown in Figure 4.1. Three sides of the pond were 

constructed at 3:1 slope and the fourth (east) side slope at 7:1. The east side slope was designed 

to be less steep so as to allow for easy access to the pond bottom during and after construction. 

Cross-sections AA and BB which are presented as Figures 4.2 and 4.3, respectively, show the 

final elevations of the facility. As seen in Figures 4.2 and 4.3, the pond is 9 feet deep with a 

liquid freeboard of 2 feet. A berm of minimum 8-foot top width was added around the periphery 

of the pond to minimize the inflow of surface water. The natural clay at the site provided an 

outer liner that was at least 5 feet thick. The leachate collection system, which consisted of 

corrugated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) perforated pipes (with socks) and protected 

against crushing using #57 washed river gravel, was placed over the re-compacted clay. The 

bottom of the pond was then covered with 9 inches of sand. On top of the sand layer, an 18-inch 

thick layer of compacted FGD material was placed. A plan view of the leachate collection 

system is shown in Figure 4.4. A typical detail of the perforated pipe embedded in the sand layer 

is shown in Figure 4.5. The proposed design of the facility was submitted to Ohio EPA for 

75
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

review and approval. Prior to project construction, a Permit to Install was issued by Ohio EPA 

for the installation of the demonstration facility (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). 

4.3 Construction of Facility 

Excavation of the site began on July 30, 1997. The top layer of soil containing organic matter 

was removed and hauled away from the site. The re-compaction of onsite glacial till to form the 

secondary clay liner was completed on August 7, 1997. The onsite glacial till clay had an 

average moisture content of 11.6% and maximum proctor dry density of 18.6 KN/m3

 (118 lb/ft3). 

A sheepsfoot roller (with vibration) was used to compact the onsite clay (refer Figure 4.6) to 

99.4% of the proctor density. The laboratory permeability of the onsite compacted clay was 

measured to range between 3.04 x 10-7

 cm/sec (9.97 x 10-9 ft/sec) and 7.24 x 10-8 cm/sec (2.37 x 

10-9 ft/sec). The locations of the leachate collection system pipes were marked and excavated to a 

trench depth of 6 to 8 inches. A geofabric (to separate the secondary clay liner and sand 

particles) was spread over the clay with at least one foot of overlap at the geofabric joints. The 

leachate system pipes were then placed over the geofabric (see Figure 4.7). The leachate 

collection system was connected to an 18-inch diameter vertical sump (20 feet height). About 50 

tons of crushed #57 washed river gravel was then placed around and on top of the leachate 

collection system pipes to avoid crushing due to later compaction of FGD on top of it. The 

crushed river gravel can be seen on the right hand side of Figure 4.8. The bottom of the facility 

was then covered with approximately 300 tons of silicious round natural fine sand (refer Figure 

4.8). The permeability of the sand used in the drainage layer was evaluated in the laboratory to 

be 3.12 x 10-3

 cm/sec (1.02 x 10-4 ft/sec). A layer of geofabric was laid over the sand layer. 

76
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Lime and fly ash enriched stabilized FGD material was delivered by truck (starting August 11, 

1997) from American Electric Power’s Conesville Station near Coshocton, Ohio (Figure 4.9) to 

the site. Placement and compaction of FGD in 4-6 inch lifts on top of the geofabric layer were 

accomplished using two dozers and one sheepsfoot roller (see Figures 4.10 and 4.11). 

Approximately 2,700 tons of lime-enriched stabilized FGD material was used in the construction 

of the primary liner. The fly ash to filter cake ratio of the FGD material ranged from 1.48:1 to 

2.40:1 with an average ratio of 1.81:1. The lime content varied from 6.79% to 8.44% with an 

average lime content of 7.98%. The moisture content of the FGD material received at the site 

during construction ranged from 49% to 62%, while the proctor dry density varied between 9.6 

kN/m3

 (61 lb/ft3) and 11.6 kN/m3 (74 lb/ft3). Wet weather during the liner placement resulted in 

several delays but construction at the site was completed by August 26, 1997. The site was 

smooth rolled before completion of the project (Figure 4.12). Filling of the pond with water 

from an existing nearby pond began on September 12, 1997 and was completed on September 

23, 1997. Figure 4.13 is a photograph of the partially filled facility. The pond was filled with 

water up to a depth of approximately 9 feet as shown in Figure 4.14. 

To avoid coring holes in the full-scale FGD liner for obtaining permeability samples, several 

FGD test pads were constructed in vicinity of the full-scale facility. Four rectangular test pads 

(approximately 15 feet wide, 25-30 feet long and 3-4 feet deep) were installed. Each test pad was 

initially backfilled with 6 inches of sand to provide a permeable layer for drainage. The 

remainder of the excavation was filled with stabilized compacted FGD material. Due to the 

small size of the test pads compared to the large dimensions of the sheepsfoot roller, adequate 

77
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

compaction of the FGD material in the test pads could not be obtained. Three of the test pads 

(TP1, TP2, and TP3) were constructed using the 1.25:1 (FA:FC) and 8% lime mix, which was 

the typical mix used in the construction of the full-scale facility. TP4 was constructed using a 

0.8:1 (FA:FC) and 4% lime FGD mix, which is the typical material generated at the power plant. 

This weaker mix was not used in the construction of the full-scale facility. An outline of the test 

pads constructed is shown in Table 4.1. Each of the test pad was instrumented for Boutwell field 

permeability testing apparatuses (Boutwell, 1992). The instrumentation and monitoring of the 

test pads was conducted by BBC & M Engineering of Columbus, Ohio. A detailed report 

prepared and submitted by them is attached as Appendix C. 

The actual cash cost of constructing the full-scale facility was estimated to be $46,623.50. The 

FGD material was made available at the site free of charge by American Electric Power’s 

Conesville power plant. Thus the actual cash cost does not include the cost of adding additional 

lime to the material (approximately $13,500) and the associated transportation costs (estimated 

to be $25,000) for transporting the FGD material from Coshocton to the South Charleston project 

site. The cash cost of sand, gravel, drainage pipes, geofabric, and other miscellaneous materials 

was $4567.50. The cash cost of construction of the facility was $42,056. The construction cost 

included equipment and operator costs for a backhoe (Kebelco 300), two bull dozers (Kamatsu 

D-6 and John Deere J 450), roller (sheepsfoot / smooth), trenching machine, Bobcat loader, two 

dump trucks, rotovator with farm tractor, and a farm tractor with front end loader. 

78
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

4.4 Monitoring of Facility 

The facility was used to store water for the first year. In early September of 1998, some of the 

water was replaced with swine manure. Since then swine manure has continued to be added and 

removed from the facility on a regular basis depending on the manure storage vs. field spreading 

needs of the research farm. Monitoring of the site for field permeability and water quality was 

carried out for a period of 2 years and 5 months (September 1997 through January 2000). The 

average monitoring frequency was three months. The monitoring program consisted of two main 

activities: 

1) Field Permeability Testing: Full-scale falling head permeability tests on the facility were 

conducted by lowering the water level in the sump to create a head difference across the FGD 

liner. The amount of time taken to increase the water in the sump to specific levels was 

observed. Knowing the thickness of the FGD liner and its plan view area, the effective 

permeability of the field compacted FGD-lined facility was calculated (refer Figure 4.15). 

2) Water Quality Monitoring Program: Testing of water samples from the pond, the sump, and 

a well about 1,000 feet from the site was carried out on a regular basis. Samples were 

collected in 250 ml polyethylene bottles that had been prewashed with acid and triple rinsed 

with deionized water. Acidified samples were obtained by adding 2.5% nitric acid by volume 

to the samples in the field. Filtered samples were passed through a 0.45 mm filter. The water 

quality analysis was performed by the Star Laboratory of The Ohio State University’s School 

of Natural Resources at OARDC, Wooster. Tests conducted on the water samples included 

pH, electrical conductivity, alkalinity, acidity, total dissolved solids, 24 elements by 

79
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Emission Spectrometry Mineral Analysis, 4 anions using 

Ion Chromatography (IC) Analysis, and ammonia as well as nitrogen by Micro-Kjeldahl 

Distillation. Although the vicinity well was about 1,000 feet from the site and not necessarily 

hydrologically connected to the site, the well samples were investigated so that potential 

contamination of the farm water supply from the FGD lined facility could be detected. 

4.5 Monitoring Observations and Discussion 

4.5.1 Permeability 

After filling the full-scale facility with water, the actual field permeability of the FGD liner was 

measured by lowering the water level in the sump and taking readings of the water level rising in 

the sump at various time intervals (refer to Figure 4.15). The permeability coefficients were 

calculated using the bottom area of the pond as the effective leaching area for the FGD-liner. 

Table 4.2 shows the effective coefficients of permeability obtained from full-scale permeability 

tests conducted on the pond facility. The permeability coefficient values listed in Table 4.2 are 

the average of several test readings that were measured at each curing time. The full-scale 

permeability of the facility was evaluated to be 9.1x10-7

 cm/sec (2.9x10-8 ft/sec) at a curing time 

of one month. The permeability coefficient continued to reduce over time (due to curing of FGD) 

and has stabilized at approximately 4x10-7 cm/sec (1x10-8 ft/sec). The FGD permeability 

coefficient data range obtained from the full-scale tests is comparable to typical clays used in the 

construction of compacted liners. The data presented in Table 4.2 includes the effect of freezethaw cycling on the actual permeability of the FGD liner. The actual area over which water flows 

through the FGD liner is greater than the bottom area of the pond (i.e., a significant amount of 

80
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

water may flow through the sides of the pond). Hence the full-scale permeability values 

presented in Table 4.2 should be taken to be an upper bound to the actual permeability of the 

field-compacted FGD liner. The addition of swine manure to the facility (at 370 days of curing 

and thereafter) did not affect the actual permeability of the liner. 

The specific seepage rate (seepage volume below liner per unit liner area per unit time) for the 

full-scale facility can be obtained by multiplying the actual average coefficient of permeability 

with the hydraulic gradient across the liner. If no secondary liner were present at the site, the 

specific seepage rate for the 9 feet deep manure storage pond having an 18-inch thick FGD liner 

was calculated to be 0.0952 in3/in2/day. Although currently Ohio does not provide guidance on 

maximum design seepage rate from lagoons, many states do specify maximum seepage rate 

values. For example, Kansas state regulations (Ham et al., 1998, 1999,2000) allow for a 

maximum seepage rate of 0.25 in3

/in2/day. Specific seepage rates less than 0.1 in3/in2/day are 

considered to be very low seepage values. The value for the full-scale FGD lined pond facility is 

0.0952 in3/in2/day. Hence, it can be concluded that if there was no secondary clay liner 

constructed for the facility (as would be the norm for typical FGD-lined pond and manure 

storage facilities), the seepage rate loss from such FGD facilities would be very low. 

The actual field permeability data obtained from the full-scale pond tests was compared with a) 

laboratory tests conducted on several laboratory compacted samples collected during pond 

construction, b) laboratory tests conducted on field compacted samples cored from test pads 

installed at the site, and c) field permeability tests (Boutwell) conducted on the test pads TP1, 

TP2, and TP3. TP4 was not considered for comparison because this test pad was constructed 

81
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

using FGD material that was lower in lime content and fly ash to filter cake ratio compared to the 

material used in the construction of the full-scale facility. Figure 4.16 shows the time history 

comparison of the full-scale permeability test values with averaged permeability coefficients 

obtained from a) laboratory tests on laboratory compacted samples, b) field tests (Boutwell) 

conducted on test pads, and c) laboratory tests conducted on samples cored from test pads. All 

the test procedures showed decreasing permeability coefficient with increasing curing time. It 

was observed that the laboratory compacted samples had permeability coefficients which were 

an order of magnitude lower than the full-scale testing values. Permeability values obtained from 

Boutwell tests and cored samples tested in the laboratory were in close agreement with each 

other but were one to three orders of magnitude higher than the full-scale tests. The test pad 

sample permeability values (Boutwell tests and cored sample testing) indicated a large scatter in 

the data. The permeability coefficients varied from 10-4

 cm/sec (3x10-6 ft/sec) to 10-7 cm/sec 

(3x10-9

 ft/sec) with average permeability value in range of 10-5 cm/sec (3x10-7 ft/sec). This may 

be due to the unsuitable compaction achieved for the test pads. Furthermore, the Boutwell test 

procedure relates infiltration rate with permeability coefficient by assuming certain direction and 

boundary conditions of flow, which are nearly impossible to control in the field. However, it is 

important to note that the actual measured field permeability values of the full-scale FGD liner 

are an order of magnitude higher than laboratory measured values. 

4.5.2 Water Quality 

Water quality monitoring of the site was conducted by collecting water samples from the pond, 

sump (leachate) and a vicinity well. The first baseline water samples were collected on 

82
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

September 12, 1997 before any water was added to the facility. Only well and sump samples 

were collected. After the pond had been filled with water on September 23, 1997, water samples 

were collected from the pond, sump and well on a regular basis. The water sampling program 

was conducted while the pond held water (until September 1998) and beyond, at which time 

swine manure was added to the facility on a regular basis (project monitoring ended January, 

2000). It needs to be noted that the addition and removal of swine manure from the FGD-lined 

facility continued throughout the duration of the project. Swine manure was added to the facility 

in Summer and Winter and partially removed in Fall for spreading on farm fields as per the 

agronomic needs of crops. 

All samples were tested for several constituents and properties including pH, electrical 

conductivity, alkalinity, acidity, total dissolved solids, aluminum, arsenic, boron, barium, 

calcium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, 

phosphorous, lead, sulfur, selenium, silica, silver, vanadium, zinc, chloride, phosphate, sulfate, 

nitrate, ammonia and nitrogen. 

Table 4.3 lists the measured concentration levels of the above listed elements. The time history 

for various water quality measurement parameters is shown in Figure 4.17 through Figure 4.51. 

The concentration level of various analytes in the sump (leachate) increased suddenly following 

the filling of the facility with water. Thereafter, the concentration levels reduced rapidly. The 

leachate from the FGD lined facility needs to meet OEPA’s non-toxic criteria (DSW 0400.007, 

1994). All the non-toxic parameters (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium) 

measured for the FGD facility while holding water and swine manure were much lower than 

83
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

OEPA’s non-toxic criteria. For many elements measured (barium, cadmium, chromium, and 

nitrate), the leachate concentration levels were generally lower than the National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR). 

Arsenic concentration levels for the pond and sump samples were very low for the first year 

(Figure 4.23). Upon addition of swine manure to the facility (in early September, 1998), the 

concentration level of arsenic in the pond has increased. However, the sump samples indicate 

little increase in arsenic concentrations (which are slightly higher than the NPDWR level of 0.05 

mg/ml). Arsenic levels in the sump and pond have always been lower than OEPA’s non-toxic 

regulatory value of 1.5 mg/ml. Barium concentrations were significantly lower than the primary 

drinking water standards (Figure 4.25). Cadmium concentrations (Figure 4.27) have generally 

been at the detection limit and much lower than the NPDWR for the monitoring duration. The 

sudden increase in all cadmium concentration values for 10/2/98 seems to be erroneous. 

Chromium concentration in sump and pond samples has been lower than NPDWR except when 

the facility was just filled with water (Figure 4.28). Copper concentrations have been 

significantly lower than the USEPA Action Level of 1.3 mg/ml and NSDWR limit of 1.0 mg/ml 

(Figure 4.29). Lead concentration levels for sump and pond have been at the detection limit 

(Figure 4.39). The lead level in well samples is elevated due to the use of lead pipes to convey 

water from the bottom of the well to the sampling point. Selenium concentration levels have 

generally been slightly above the NPDWR value of 0.05 mg/ml (Figure 4.41). A sudden increase 

in all selenium measurements for 3/16/99 seems erroneous. Nitrate, a highly soluble form of 

nitrogen, had low concentration for pond and sump samples, except when the facility was filled 

84
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

with water (Figure 4.49). In general, nitrate levels in the leachate are extremely low compared to 

NPDWR value of 10 mg/ml. 

It can be observed from Figure 4.17 that the pH of the well sample has been decreasing slightly 

according to seasonal groundwater variations. The pH of the pond sample was within the Ohio 

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (OSMCL). The pH of the sump water rose sharply to 

12 on filling the facility with water and has been dropping since then. The last pH level reading 

for the sump was 8.4, which is within the OSMCL range of 7.0 to 10.5 and slightly lower than 

the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR) upper limit of 8.5. The dissolved 

aluminum concentrations in the sump samples increased significantly during the filling of the 

pond (Figure 4.22). However soon after filling the facility, the sump aluminum concentrations 

dropped significantly and have generally been around the NSDWR limit. Total iron levels for 

the pond and sump samples are quite low (Figure 4.31). Total manganese level for the sump is 

lower than or comparable to the NSDWR limit value (Figure 4.35). However, pond samples 

indicate a steady increase in manganese concentrations due to the addition of swine manure to 

the pond. Silver concentrations reduced significantly after filling of facility with water and for 

the last year or so have been at the detection limit (Figure 4.43). Concentration level of zinc in 

sump and pond was much lower than NSDWR limit for the complete duration of project 

monitoring (Figure 4.45). On filling the pond, the chloride concentration in the sump increased 

to about four times the NSDWR limit, but has decreased since then to a level lower or slightly 

higher than the NSDWR regulation limit (Figure 4.46). Sulfate levels in the sump have generally 

been within the NSDWR limit (Figure 4.48). It should be noted that the leachate from the fullscale FGD-lined facility meets most of the NSDWR limits. NSWDR limits are non-enforceable 

85
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

non-health related guidelines regulating potential contaminants that may cause cosmetic or 

aesthetic effects in drinking water. From a regulatory perspective, the leachate from the FGD 

material is not required to meet any of the NSDWR limit values, yet the leachate concentration 

levels measured from the FGD lined facility are generally lower or comparable to the NSDWR 

limits for most potential contaminants of concern. 

Boron, elevated levels of which can be phytotoxic to plant growth, generally had lower 

concentration levels in the sump than the pond (Figure 4.24). This may be due to absorption of 

some boron by the FGD liner. Calcium level in the pond has continued to increase rapidly, while 

the sump indicates much lower concentration levels, which have not increased significantly 

(Figure 4.26). Phosphorous concentration in the sump increased on addition of swine manure to 

the facility (Figure 4.38) but the sump phosphorous levels have remained close to the detection 

limit. Phosphate levels in the pond increased on addition of swine manure, while the 

concentration levels in the sump remained relatively unchanged (Figure 4.47) at the detection 

limit. Ammonia levels increased in pond with addition of swine manure. This resulted in an 

increase in the concentration of ammonia in the leachate (Figure 4.50). Ammonia, which can be 

converted to soluble nitrate in the presence of oxygen (non-saturated conditions), may be a 

concern during the cleaning and removal of manure storage facilities (irrespective of whether the 

facility is constructed with clay or FGD). The concentrations of highly soluble constituents, such 

as nitrates and phosphates, were observed to be relatively low in the sump. 

86
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

124 ft. 

62 ft. 

250 ft. 

8 

ft. 

Section AA 

Section AA 

6 

ft. 

27 

ft. 

8 ft. 

6 ft. 

27 ft. 

8 ft. 

6 ft. 

27 ft. 

 8 ft. 14 ft. 63 ft.

Section Section

BB BB

144 ft.

Figure 4.1 Plan View of Facility (not to scale) 

87
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Liquid Depth = 9 ft. 

Liquid Freeboard = 2 ft. 

62 ft. 

116 ft. 

6 ft. 6 ft. 8 ft. Wide Berm 

9 ft. 

Existing Ground 

Liquid Level 

18 in. Compacted FGD 

9 in. Sand Layer With Drain Pipes 3:1 Side Slope 

Compacted Clay 

Re-compacted 

Clay Berm 

Figure 4.2 Section AA of Facility (not to scale) 

Liquid Depth = 9 ft. 

Liquid Freeboard = 2 ft. 

124 ft. 

214 ft. 

14 ft. 6 ft. 8 ft. Wide Berm 

9 ft. 

Existing Ground 

Liquid Level 

18 in. Compacted FGD 

9 in. Sand Layer With Drain Pipes 3:1 Side Slope 

Compacted Clay 

7:1 Side Slope 

Re-compacted 

Clay Berm 

Figure 4.3 Section BB of Facility (not to scale) 

88
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

18 in. Collection Sump 

124 ft. 

20 ft. 

40-50 ft. 

62 ft. 

2% 

2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 

Section 

CC 

Section

 CC typ. 

4 in. Perforated Collection Pipe 

6 in. Transmission Pipe 

Figure 4.4 Leachate Collection System Layout (not to scale) 

18 in. Compacted FGD

 9 in. Sand Layer 

Compacted Clay 

#57 Washed River Gravel

 4 in. Perforated Pipe with Sock 

Geofabric 

Figure 4.5 Section CC of Facility (not to scale) 

89
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.6 Compaction of Onsite Clay 

90
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.7 Typical Leachate System Collection 

91
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.8 Spreading of Sand 

92
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.9 Truck Unloading FGD 

93
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.10 Spreading the FGD 

94
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.11 Compacting FGD on a Side Slope 

95
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.12 Final Smooth Rolling of FGD 

96
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.13 Facility Being Filled With Water 

97
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 4.14 Facility Filled With Water 

98
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.1 FGD Test Pads Constructed 

Pad Thickness Stabilized FGD 

Number of Sand Approx. Approx. 

(inches) Thickness FA:FC Lime Moisture 

(inches) ratio content (%) content (%) 

TP1 6 27 1.25:1 8 62 

TP2 6 36 1.25:1 8 69 

TP3 6 30 1.25:1 8 58 

TP4 6 36 0.8:1 4 84 

99
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Sump 

FGD Liner 

Leachate Collection System 

Secondary Clay Liner 

Water Level 

Final Level (t2) 

Initial Level (t1) 

h1 

h2 

L ln�

�

Ł

h1

h2

�

�

ł

L = Thickness of FGD liner 

a = Area of sump 

A = Effective area of FGD liner 

a k =

(t 2 - t1 ) A

Figure 4.15 Full Scale Permeability Test (not to scale) 

100
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.2 Full Scale Permeability Test Results 

Curing Time Coefficient of Permeability * 

(days) (cm/sec) 

31 9.1 x 10-7

63 6.8 x 10-7

153 4.1 x 10-7

202 4.3 x 10-7

317 3.8 x 10-7

402 4.2 x 10-7

456 3.9 x 10-7

567 4.0 x 10-7

693 3.8 x 10-7

869 4.3 x 10-7

1 cm/sec = 0.0328 ft/sec 

* Effective area of FGD liner = Bottom area of pond 

101 
.

0 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Coefficient of Permeability (cm/sec) 

Curing Time (days) 

180 360 540 720 900 

1.0E-03 

1.0E-04 

1.0E-05 

1.0E-06 

1.0E-07 

1.0E-08 

Full Scale Test 

Laboratory Test on Laboratory Compacted Sample

Boutwell(TP1)

Boutwell(TP2)

Boutwell(TP3)

Cored(TP1)

Cored(TP2)

Cored(TP3)

1 cm/sec = 0.0328 ft/sec 

Figure 4.16 Comparison of Permeability Test Methods 

102
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.3 Water Quality Monitoring 

Date Sample 

Collected 

Location of 

Sample pH 

Electrical 

Conductivity 

Alkalinity Acidity 

Residue of 

Evaporation at 

180oC 

(mS/cm) (mg/L CaCO3) (meq/L CaCO3) (mg/L) 

9/12/97 Sump 

Well 

7.94 

8.25 

1,460 

702 

227.83 

331.06 

0.14 

0.02 

1,103 

427 

9/28/97 

1/26/98 

3/16/98 

7/9/98 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Sump 

Pond 

Well (Tap) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

12.05 

8.39 

8.62 

11.23 

7.85 

7.96 

11.28 

7.57 

7.77 

9.12 

8.22 

7.54 

6,894 

780 

629 

3,260 

988 

642 

2,954 

1,166 

662 

2,537 

1,659 

683 

772.64 

82.24 

317.50 

254.76 

44.97 

301.36 

251.24 

42.99 

310.60 

143.69 

31.06 

308.19 

0.00 

0.06 

0.00 

0.00 

0.04 

0.00 

0.00 

0.04 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.13 

3,703 

607 

430 

1,962 

764 

420 

1,736 

952 

426 

1,499 

1,420 

400 

10/2/98 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

9.52 

8.98 

7.65 

2,650 

2,030 

640 

167.28 

158.59 

305.06 

0.00 

0.00 

0.18 

1,661 

2,604 

396 

11/25/98 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

9.77 

6.68 

7.64 

2,905 

2,244 

672 

138.41 

137.74 

310.39 

0.00 

0.49 

0.13 

1,777 

2,156 

404 

3/16/99 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

7.62 

7.02 

7.40 

1,756 

2,134 

701 

312.44 

57.77 

299.02 

0.28 

0.20 

0.26 

1,227 

1,913 

434 

7/20/99 

Sump 

Pond (Center) 

Pond (Edge) 

Well 

8.92 

8.24 

8.35 

7.54 

2,721 

3,556 

3,295 

650 

71.24 

1,436.48 

1,363.44 

304.88 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

1,707 

2,600 

2,511 

383 

1/12/00 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

8.38 

7.56 

7.35 

3,079 

4,726 

672 

283.80 

1,433.79 

303.90 

0.00 

1.76 

0.00 

1,863 

2,850 

399 

Regulatory Standards 6.6 - 8.5** 

7.0 - 10.5$

* Primary Drinking Water Standard 

** Secondary (Non-health related) Drinking Water Standard 

*** Action Level 

$ Ohio Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level 

# Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria (OEPA DSW 0400.007 policy) 

103 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.3 (contd.) Water Quality Monitoring 

Date Sample Location of Al (Dissolved) As B Ba Ca 

Collected Sample 

(mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 

9/12/97 Sump 

Well 

0.157 

0.248 

<0.035 

<0.035 

0.059 

0.214 

0.100 

0.080 

169.11 

51.30 

9/28/97 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

5.505 

0.713 

0.151 

0.049 

<0.035 

<0.035 

1.154 

0.742 

0.204 

0.035 

0.028 

0.078 

39.84 

114.77 

53.13 

1/26/98 

Sump 

Pond 

1.033 

0.489 

<0.035 

<0.035 

0.552 

0.635 

0.027 

0.028 

36.85 

132.89 

3/16/98 

Well (Tap) 

Sump 

Pond 

<0.040 

0.737 

0.305 

<0.035 

<0.035 

<0.035 

0.203 

0.455 

0.692 

0.058 

0.030 

0.031 

43.05 

48.30 

161.68 

Well <0.040 <0.035 0.205 0.069 45.43 

7/9/98 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

0.809 

0.403 

<0.040 

<0.035 

<0.035 

<0.035 

0.374 

0.952 

0.187 

0.017 

0.049 

0.077 

2.87 

268.39 

44.95 

Sump 0.465 <0.035 0.478 0.018 2.60 

10/2/98 Pond 0.118 0.046 1.435 0.043 337.53 

Well 0.048 <0.035 0.173 0.072 48.22 

Sump 0.270 0.038 0.779 0.026 10.57 

11/25/98 Pond 0.090 0.086 1.753 0.010 363.88 

Well <0.027 <0.035 0.194 0.079 50.25 

Sump <0.040 <0.045 0.354 0.077 98.63 

3/16/99 Pond 0.080 0.052 1.271 0.046 384.44 

Well <0.040 <0.045 0.208 0.071 47.10 

Sump 0.106 <0.045 0.840 0.042 42.75 

7/20/99 Pond (Center) 

Pond (Edge) 

0.158 

0.147 

0.114 

0.074 

2.071 

2.035 

0.008 

0.012 

187.01 

174.95 

Well 0.050 <0.045 0.194 0.073 51.00 

Sump 0.197 0.059 1.670 0.089 96.48 

1/12/00 Pond 1.291 0.124 2.762 0.049 301.88 

Well 0.081 <0.045 0.233 0.078 50.18 

Regulatory Standards 0.05 - 0.2** 0.05* 2.0* 

1.5# 60.0# 

* Primary Drinking Water Standard 

** Secondary (Non-health related) Drinking Water Standard 

*** Action Level 

$ Ohio Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level 

# Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria (OEPA DSW 0400.007 policy) 

104
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.3 (contd.) Water Quality Monitoring 

Date Sample Location of Cd Cr Cu Fe (Dissolved) Fe (Total)

Collected Sample 

(mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 

9/12/97 Sump 

Well 

<0.001 

<0.001 

0.080 

0.125 

0.018 

0.026 

0.026 

0.260 

0.043 

0.267 

Sump <0.001 0.087 0.014 0.120 0.150 

9/28/97 Pond <0.001 0.188 0.019 0.081 0.048 

Well <0.001 0.127 0.034 0.301 0.039 

Sump 0.001 <0.005 <0.004 0.022 0.019 

1/26/98 Pond <0.001 <0.005 <0.004 0.065 0.142 

Well (Tap) 0.001 <0.005 0.039 1.315 1.313 

Sump 0.001 <0.005 <0.004 0.008 <0.006 

3/16/98 Pond <0.001 <0.005 <0.004 0.008 0.016 

Well <0.001 <0.005 <0.004 0.539 0.546 

Sump <0.001 <0.005 <0.004 <0.006 <0.006 

7/9/98 Pond <0.001 0.006 <0.004 <0.006 <0.006 

Well <0.001 0.006 <0.004 0.026 0.083 

Sump 0.0042 <0.002 <0.002 <0.010 <0.010 

10/2/98 Pond 0.0035 <0.002 0.050 0.074 0.097 

Well 0.0029 <0.002 <0.002 0.263 0.302 

Sump <0.001 <0.002 0.003 <0.010 0.037 

11/25/98 Pond <0.001 <0.002 0.003 0.242 0.323 

Well 0.001 0.002 <0.002 0.183 0.187 

Sump <0.002 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 0.024 

3/16/99 Pond <0.002 <0.005 <0.010 0.024 0.048 

Well <0.002 <0.005 <0.010 0.534 0.603 

Sump <0.002 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 0.034 

7/20/99 Pond (Center) 

Pond (Edge) 

<0.002 

<0.002 

0.006 

0.007 

0.015 

0.026 

0.072 

0.080 

0.675 

0.947 

Well <0.002 0.006 0.080 0.374 9.205 

Sump <0.002 <0.005 0.021 0.104 0.153 

1/12/00 Pond <0.002 0.009 0.217 2.000 1.757 

Well <0.002 <0.005 <0.010 0.539 2.524 

Regulatory Standards 0.005* 0.1* 1.0** 

0.15# 3.0# 1.3*** 

* Primary Drinking Water Standard 

** Secondary (Non-health related) Drinking Water Standard 

*** Action Level 

$ Ohio Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level 

# Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria (OEPA DSW 0400.007 policy) 

105 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.3 (contd.) Water Quality Monitoring 

Date Sample Location of K Mg Mn (Dissolved) Mn (Total) Na 

Collected Sample 

(mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 

9/12/97 Sump 

Well 

42.53 

2.26 

68.42 

31.74 

0.114 

0.019 

0.115 

0.012 

26.79 

43.08 

9/28/97 

1/26/98 

3/16/98 

7/9/98 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Sump 

Pond 

Well (Tap) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

1069.29 

44.28 

2.80 

581.90 

59.33 

2.00 

480.11 

64.35 

1.75 

451.83 

81.97 

1.74 

0.34 

18.33 

32.98 

0.53 

10.87 

35.77 

0.43 

11.27 

35.05 

0.06 

8.14 

33.27 

<0.002 

0.003 

0.011 

<0.002 

0.002 

0.075 

<0.002 

<0.002 

0.089 

<0.002 

<0.002 

0.054 

<0.002 

0.002 

0.044 

<0.002 

0.002 

0.072 

<0.002 

0.002 

0.094 

<0.002 

<0.002 

0.048 

317.55 

32.94 

42.17 

189.08 

28.75 

45.58 

158.07 

30.71 

45.46 

139.55 

32.65 

45.15 

10/2/98 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

447.32 

122.06 

2.56 

0.17 

17.90 

30.08 

<0.001 

0.044 

0.002 

<0.001 

0.054 

0.002 

143.53 

48.41 

38.29 

11/25/98 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

499.17 

141.70 

2.19 

0.19 

18.88 

30.69 

<0.001 

0.073 

0.002 

0.001 

0.074 

0.002 

163.07 

55.44 

41.22 

3/16/99 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

256.82 

128.71 

1.47 

37.46 

13.05 

34.99 

0.028 

0.012 

0.060 

0.028 

0.020 

0.058 

55.10 

46.31 

45.34 

7/20/99 

Sump 

Pond (Center) 

Pond (Edge) 

Well 

484.12 

389.20 

366.22 

1.54 

4.68 

61.22 

57.73 

33.27 

<0.002 

0.017 

0.015 

0.030 

0.002 

0.136 

0.175 

0.036 

159.76 

121.93 

136.73 

43.14 

1/12/00 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

412.23 

407.73 

2.03 

26.87 

68.28 

36.77 

0.052 

0.410 

0.093 

0.060 

0.395 

0.098 

172.05 

159.53 

50.58 

Regulatory Standards 0.05** 

* Primary Drinking Water Standard 

** Secondary (Non-health related) Drinking Water Standard 

*** Action Level 

$ Ohio Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level 

# Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria (OEPA DSW 0400.007 policy) 

106 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.3 (contd.) Water Quality Monitoring 

Date Sample Location of Ni P (Total) Pb S (Total) Se 

Collected Sample 

(mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 

9/12/97 Sump 

Well 

0.006 

0.008 

0.044 

0.043 

<0.020 

<0.020 

137.26 

20.18 

<0.100 

<0.100 

Sump 0.007 0.075 <0.020 228.92 <0.100 

9/28/97 Pond 0.007 0.054 <0.020 126.76 <0.100 

Well 0.003 0.054 <0.020 20.45 <0.100 

Sump <0.009 <0.030 <0.020 183.96 <0.100 

1/26/98 Pond <0.009 <0.030 <0.020 146.95 <0.100 

Well (Tap) <0.009 0.083 0.029 20.16 <0.100 

Sump <0.009 0.042 <0.020 176.41 <0.100 

3/16/98 Pond <0.009 <0.030 <0.020 175.99 <0.100 

Well <0.009 0.034 0.023 20.40 <0.100 

Sump <0.009 <0.030 <0.020 149.93 <0.100 

7/9/98 Pond <0.009 0.098 <0.020 263.87 <0.100 

Well <0.009 0.118 0.021 19.65 <0.100 

Sump <0.005 <0.020 <0.020 154.37 <0.100 

10/2/98 Pond 0.009 1.131 <0.020 337.15 <0.100 

Well <0.005 0.030 <0.020 18.32 <0.100 

Sump <0.005 0.073 <0.020 179.26 <0.100 

11/25/98 Pond <0.005 1.600 <0.020 374.67 <0.100 

Well <0.005 0.029 0.029 19.44 <0.100 

Sump <0.010 <0.100 <0.020 149.31 0.187 

3/16/99 Pond 0.012 0.370 <0.020 382.24 0.341 

Well <0.010 <0.100 0.034 20.58 0.573 

Sump <0.010 <0.100 <0.020 224.45 <0.100 

7/20/99 Pond (Center) 

Pond (Edge) 

<0.010 

0.011 

7.448 

6.024 

<0.020 

<0.020 

96.81 

92.45 

<0.100 

<0.100 

Well <0.010 <0.100 <0.020 21.39 <0.100 

Sump <0.010 0.812 <0.020 216.48 <0.100 

1/12/00 Pond 0.013 50.453 <0.020 208.23 <0.100 

Well <0.010 <0.100 <0.020 19.70 <0.100 

Regulatory Standards 0.015*** 0.05* 

1.5# 1.0# 

* Primary Drinking Water Standard 

** Secondary (Non-health related) Drinking Water Standard 

*** Action Level 

$ Ohio Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level 

# Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria (OEPA DSW 0400.007 policy) 

107 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.3 (contd.) Water Quality Monitoring 

Date Sample Location of Si Ag V Zn 

Collected Sample 

(mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 

9/12/97 Sump 

Well 

2.383 

3.872 

<0.008 

<0.008 

0.010 

<0.005 

0.043 

0.271 

Sump 6.037 0.104 0.035 <0.005 

9/28/97 Pond 0.935 0.012 0.056 <0.005 

Well 4.052 0.008 0.059 <0.005 

Sump 3.374 0.044 0.021 0.009 

1/26/98 Pond 0.508 0.018 0.004 <0.005 

Well (Tap) 3.405 0.010 0.965 <0.005 

Sump 3.169 0.028 0.008 <0.005 

3/16/98 Pond 0.426 0.018 <0.004 <0.005 

Well 3.869 0.008 0.261 <0.005 

Sump 1.675 <0.008 <0.004 0.531 

7/9/98 Pond 0.893 <0.008 <0.004 0.623 

Well 1.998 <0.008 0.165 0.933 

Sump 3.476 <0.003 0.011 <0.001 

10/2/98 Pond 4.039 0.008 0.010 0.055 

Well 3.787 0.006 <0.005 0.035 

Sump 3.715 0.004 0.020 <0.001 

11/25/98 Pond 3.863 <0.001 0.035 <0.001 

Well 3.881 0.004 0.016 <0.001 

Sump 1.929 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 

3/16/99 Pond 1.495 <0.005 0.013 <0.005 

Well 2.569 <0.005 <0.010 0.095 

Sump 1.091 <0.050 <0.010 <0.005 

7/20/99 Pond (Center) 

Pond (Edge) 

4.196 

4.093 

<0.050 

<0.050 

0.026 

0.034 

0.019 

0.037 

Well 2.121 <0.050 <0.010 0.029 

Sump 2.646 <0.050 0.016 0.039 

1/12/00 Pond 8.633 <0.050 0.038 0.598 

Well 4.751 <0.050 <0.010 0.239 

Regulatory Standards 0.10** 5.0** 

* Primary Drinking Water Standard 

** Secondary (Non-health related) Drinking Water Standard 

*** Action Level 

$ Ohio Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level 

# Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria (OEPA DSW 0400.007 policy) 

108
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.3 (contd.) Water Quality Monitoring 

Date Sample Location of Cl­ PO4 - SO4 - NO3 -

Collected Sample 

(mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) (mg/ml) 

9/12/97 Sump 

Well 

85.38 

6.91 

0.00 

0.00 

125.25 

21.82 

11.41 

0.00 

Sump 976.92 53.71 182.11 0.81 

9/28/97 Pond 16.80 0.00 104.46 0.17 

Well 5.77 0.00 18.95 0.26 

Sump 480.08 1.36 185.05 0.41 

1/26/98 Pond 32.69 0.00 141.25 0.51 

Well (Tap) 5.46 0.00 20.45 0.25 

Sump 377.50 0.00 171.19 0.33 

3/16/98 Pond 34.33 5.51 183.79 0.35 

Well 5.18 0.00 20.63 0.00 

Sump 38.93 0.00 262.31 0.00 

7/9/98 Pond 239.67 0.00 120.82 0.00 

Well 4.83 0.00 16.00 0.00 

Sump 381.08 0.00 159.67 0.00 

10/2/98 Pond 82.71 0.00 364.31 0.82 

Well 5.80 0.00 17.48 0.14 

Sump 462.53 0.00 197.75 0.00 

11/25/98 Pond 83.85 3.86 421.48 0.14 

Well 5.25 0.43 18.63 0.00 

Sump 59.28 0.00 155.68 3.78 

3/16/99 Pond 84.88 0.18 397.69 0.25 

Well 5.08 0.00 19.01 0.00 

Sump 346.77 <0.10 199.19 <0.10 

7/20/99 Pond (Center) 

Pond (Edge) 

226.34 

219.00 

6.58 

3.94 

71.71 

69.16 

<0.10 

<0.10 

Well 13.30 <0.10 29.95 <0.10 

Sump 362.14 <0.10 219.16 <0.10 

1/12/00 Pond 249.30 23.78 183.35 <0.10 

Well 5.36 <0.10 18.69 0.39 

Regulatory Standards 250** 250** 10* 

* Primary Drinking Water Standard 

** Secondary (Non-health related) Drinking Water Standard 

*** Action Level 

$ Ohio Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level 

# Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria (OEPA DSW 0400.007 policy) 

109 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 4.3 (contd.) Water Quality Monitoring 

Date Sample 

Collected 

Location of 

Sample 

Ammonia 

(NH4 as mg N 

/ ml ) 

Total Nitrogen 

(mg N / ml ) 

9/12/97 Sump 

Well 

1.80 

0.00 

13.21 

0.00 

Sump 43.02 43.83 

9/28/97 Pond 0.57 0.74 

Well 0.87 1.13 

Sump 29.68 30.09 

1/26/98 Pond 0.08 0.59 

Well (Tap) 0.00 0.25 

Sump 25.28 25.61 

3/16/98 Pond 0.08 0.43 

Well 0.08 0.08 

Sump 16.80 16.80 

7/9/98 Pond 0.40 0.40 

Well 0.00 0.00 

Sump 23.00 23.00 

10/2/98 Pond 10.25 11.07 

Well 0.30 0.44 

Sump 24.20 24.20 

11/25/98 Pond 0.00 0.14 

Well 0.50 0.50 

Sump 1.00 4.78 

3/16/99 Pond 0.00 0.25 

Well 0.40 0.40 

Sump 24.21 24.21 

7/20/99 Pond (Center) 

Pond (Edge) 

115.71 

109.53 

115.71 

109.53 

Well 0.00 0.00 

Sump 58.25 58.25 

1/12/00 Pond 250.04 250.04 

Well 1.06 1.45 

110
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

pH 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

OSMCL 

OSMCL 

NSDWR = 6.6 - 8.5 

7.0 

10.5 

Date 

Figure 4.17 pH of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

Electrical Conductivity(uS/cm)

10000 

8000 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Figure 4.18 Electrical Conductivity of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

111
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

400 

800 

1200 

1600 

2000 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Alkalinity (mg/L)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Date 

Figure 4.19 Alkalinity of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0.0 

0.4 

0.8 

1.2 

1.6 

2.0 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Acidity (meq/L)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Date 

Figure 4.20 Acidity of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

112
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Residue of Evaporation (mg/L)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Date 

Figure 4.21 Residue of Evaporation of Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

g/ml)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Detection 

0.2 

Aluminum - Dissolved ( 

NSDWR 

Limit 

Figure 4.22 Concentration of Dissolved Aluminum for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

113 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Arsenic ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

NPDWR 

Detection 

Limit 

Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria = 1.5 mg/ml 

0.05 

Figure 4.23 Concentration of Arsenic for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Boron ( g/ml)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Figure 4.24 Concentration of Boron for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

114 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria = 60 mg/ml 

3.0 

2.5 

Barium ( g/ml)2.0 2.0

1.5 Sump 

Pond 

1.0 Well 

NPDWR 

0.5 

0.0 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Figure 4.25 Concentration of Barium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

500 

400 

Calcium ( g/ml)

300 Sump 

Pond 

Well 200 

100 

0

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00

Date 

Figure 4.26 Concentration of Calcium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

115 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria = 0.15 ug/ml

0.008 

0.006 

Cadmium ( g/ml)

0.005 

0.004 

Sump 

Pond 

0.002 Well 

NPDWR 

Detection 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 Limit 

0.000 

Date 

Figure 4.27 Concentration of Cadmium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria = 3.0 mg/ml 

0.20 

0.16 

Chromium ( g/ml)

0.12 

0.1 

Sump 

0.08 

Pond 

Well 0.04 

NPDWR 

Detection 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 Limit 

0.00 

Date 

Figure 4.28 Concentration of Chromium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

116 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.0 

0.3 

0.6 

0.9 

1.2 

1.5 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Copper ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

NSDWR 

USEPA Action 

Level = 1.3 mg/ml 

1.0 

Figure 4.29 Concentration of Copper for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

3.0 

Iron - Dissolved ( g/ml)

2.0 Sump 

Pond 

Well 

1.0 Detection 

Limit 

0.0 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Figure 4.30 Concentration of Dissolved Iron for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

117 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

10 

8 Sump

Iron - Total ( g/ml)

Pond 

6 Well 

NSDWR 

Detection 

Limit 

4 

2 

0.3 

0 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Figure 4.31 Concentration of Total Iron for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

1200

1000

Potassium ( g/ml)

800 

Sump 

600 Pond 

Well 

400 

200 

0

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00

Date 

Figure 4.32 Concentration of Potassium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

118 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Magnesium (

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

g/ml) 

Figure 4.33 Concentration of Magnesium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Manganese - Dissolved ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Detection 

Limit 

Date 

Figure 4.34 Concentration of Dissolved Manganese for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

119 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Manganese - Total ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Detection 

0.05 

NSDWR 

Limit 

Figure 4.35 Concentration of Total Manganese for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Sodium ( g/ml)

Pond 

Well 

Sump 

Figure 4.36 Concentration of Sodium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

120 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.000 

0.004 

0.008 

0.012 

0.016 

0.020 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Detection 

Nickel ( 

Limit 

Figure 4.37 Concentration of Nickel for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Phosphorus - Total ( g/ml)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Limit 

Detection 

Figure 4.38 Concentration of Total Phosphorous for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

121 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.01 

0.02 

0.03 

0.04 

0.05 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Lead ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

USEPA AL 

Detection 

Limit 

Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria = 1.5 mg/ml 

0.015 

Figure 4.39 Concentration of Lead for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Sulfur - Total ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Figure 4.40 Concentration of Total Sulfur for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

122 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

0.6 

0.7 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Selenium ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

NPDWR 

Detection 

Limit 

Ohio Non-Toxic Criteria = 1.0 mg/ml) 

0.05 

Figure 4.41 Concentration of Selenium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Silica ( g/ml)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Figure 4.42 Concentration of Silica for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

123 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0.00 

0.03 

0.06 

0.09 

0.12 

0.15 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Silver ( g/ml)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

0.10 

NSDWR 

Detection 

Limit 

Figure 4.43 Concentration of Silver for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0.0 

0.2 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1.0 

1.2 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Vanadium ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Detection 

Limit 

Figure 4.44 Concentration of Vanadium for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

124 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

g/ml)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Detection 

5.0 

Zinc ( 

NSDWR 

Limit 

Figure 4.45 Concentration of Zinc for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Chloride ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

250 

NSDWR 

Figure 4.46 Concentration of Chlorides for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

125 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Phosphate ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Detection 

Limit 

Figure 4.47 Concentration of Phosphates (PO4) for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Sulfate ( g/ml) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

250 

Date 

NSDWR 

Figure 4.48 Concentration of Sulfates (SO4) for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

126 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

3 

6 

9 

12 

15 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Nitrate ( g/ml)

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Limit 

10 

NPDWR 

Detection 

Figure 4.49 Concentration of Nitrates for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

400 

Ammonia ( NH4 as g N / ml ) 300 

Sump 

200 Pond 

Well 

100 

0

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00

Date 

Figure 4.50 Concentration of Ammonia for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

127 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

9/7/97 2/4/98 7/4/98 12/1/98 4/30/99 9/27/99 2/24/00 

Date 

Total Nitrogen ( m g N / ml ) 

Sump 

Pond 

Well 

Figure 4.51 Concentration of Total Nitrogen for Sump, Pond, and Well Samples 

128
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

5 COST ESTIMATES AND PRELIMINARY MARKET EVALUATION 

5.1 Introduction 

The purpose of this Chapter is to present and compare cost estimates for the creation of wetlands 

and ponds using FGD and clay liners, and to examine certain macro-features (such as market 

size, travel time, farm density, etc.) of the potential market for FGD when used as a low 

permeability liner material. For the cost estimates, a consistent data set published by R. S. 

Means Company, Inc., was used to allow meaningful comparisons. Typical designs are 

developed for wetlands and ponds using FGD or clay as a liner material, and a listing of specific 

construction work items and unit cost data are provided to form a basis for discussion. 

Modifications, if any, to the work items or unit costs can then be made to adapt them more 

closely to conditions likely to be found in eastern and southeastern Ohio. 

5.2 Cost Estimates 

5.2.1 Wetland Creation 

5.2.1.1 Design and Construction Process 

Figure 5.1 shows a typical cross-section of a wetland to be created through use of a low 

permeability liner composed of FGD or clay. It is assumed that the created wetland is to be of 

129
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

the "freshwater emergent" type, wherein the depth of water is rather shallow, from 6 to 12 

inches. A 6-inch depth is shown in Figure 5.1. It is further assumed that a five-acre (AC) 

wetland in the shape of a square is to be constructed and that the liner, when made of either 

material, will be 12 inches thick. An earthen berm 4 ft. high and 35 ft. wide will be constructed 

with side slopes 2:1. The total footprint of the site is 6.6 acres. 

The design and construction process begins with engineering services, site surveying and 

clearing, and excavation of 24 inches of earth by dozer, with an average 150 ft. haul to clear the 

site. The liner is then installed by transporting either FGD or clay, spreading this material on-site 

with a dozer, and compacting in 6-inch lifts with three passes using a riding sheepsfoot roller. 

Following liner placement (and a suitable time for FGD curing), earth 12 inches thick is placed 

on the liner for plant rooting. Storm drainage piping, erosion control, and seeding complete the 

process. For a clay liner, the additional step of clay excavation with a crawler backhoe is 

required. 

5.2.1.2 Work Items and Unit Costs 

Tables 5.1 and 5.2 summarize work items, assigned crews, unit costs, quantity of each work 

item, and estimates of total cost for a five-acre wetland lined with FGD and clay, respectively. 

The precise make-up of assigned crews is provided in Table 5.3. The cost of additional lime that 

needs to be added to the FGD material is assumed to be borne by the FGD generator. Cost 

estimates are provided for a range of alternative haul distances for FGD or clay: 1, 2, 4, 10, 20, 

and 100 miles round-trip. In addition, the no-cost option for hauling FGD is included to reflect 

130
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

the case wherein no charge is levied by the utility to haul FGD. A location factor is applied to 

arrive at the final cost estimate. The factor is provided in the Means cost data to account for 

local cost variations; the factor for Athens, Ohio, is used to most closely represent conditions to 

be found in eastern and southeastern Ohio. The sub-factor for "installation" was used to adjust 

for equipment and labor costs, because wetland and pond creation involves only minor cost for 

materials. The adjustment is large; total costs are reduced by approximately 25 percent 

compared to the 30-city average upon which the Means cost data is based. The final cost 

estimate is expressed in January 2000, dollars. 

5.2.1.3 Cost Summary 

Table 5.4 is a cost comparison of the two methods of wetland creation for a five-acre wetland. If 

the full cost of hauling FGD or clay to the site (by the same haul distance) are included in the 

cost analysis, the cost savings in using FGD are $19,754, regardless of haul distance. In this 

case, all work items are identical in the two options except excavation cost of clay, $25,492. The 

cost savings of $19,754 is arrived at by multiplying $25,492 by 1.025 to include the cost of 

engineering, then multiplying by 0.756 to adjust for location. If no cost is assigned to hauling 

FGD, cost savings increase dramatically with round-trip haul distance for clay. 

5.2.1.4 Comparison to Literature Cost Data 

Cost of wetland creation as computed herein can be compared to recently developed literature 

data. King and Bohlen (1994a, b) report the cost of wetland enhancement, restoration, and 

131
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

creation for a wide variety of wetland types. For freshwater emergent wetlands, present worth 

cost (excluding land cost) can be computed as: 

Cost1993 = 49742 A0.6167 

where cost is in 1993 dollars and A is wetland area, in acres. The exponent on A demonstrates 

considerable economies of scale for wetland creation. Cost can be adjusted to January 2000 by 

multiplying by 1.176, based on the Means Historical Cost Index (R.S. Means, 1999, p. 419). 

This results in 

Cost2000 = 58497 A0.6167 

For a five-acre wetland, cost is estimated to be $157,830, of which post-construction costs (site 

monitoring and maintenance) comprise 28 percent, on average. Removing this component 

produces an estimated construction cost of $113,637. This figure is further impacted by the 

inclusion of projects that undertook wetland planting, a work item not included in current 

estimates. Although it is not possible to adjust the literature data exactly for the effect of 

planting, a 10 percent reduction would not be unreasonable, and results in a final literature 

construction cost estimate of $102,274, quite close to the cost of using FGD with a four-mile 

round-trip haul, or clay with a one-mile round-trip haul. It is concluded that the cost of wetland 

creation estimated herein for short haul distances compares reasonably well to literature data. 

132
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

5.2.2 Water Supply Pond / Wastewater Lagoon 

5.2.2.1 Design and Construction Process 

Figure 5.2 shows a typical cross-section of a water supply pond or wastewater lagoon to be 

created through use of a low permeability liner composed of FGD or clay. It is assumed that a 

1.0 million gallon (3.07 acre-feet, AF) storage capacity is desired and that the liner, when made 

of either material, will be 18 inches thick. Further, a depth of nine feet is assumed at the center 

of the pond, and a 4:1 side slope is selected to minimize the overall footprint of the facility while 

ensuring ease of construction. For safety, two light fences are recommended, one on top of the 

berm, and one at the water's edge. The storage capacity of 1.0 million gallons was selected to 

correspond to the volume installed at the South Charleston, Ohio, facility of the OARDC, which 

can accommodate about a half-year of onsite swine waste. 

Bottom elevation of the pond is raised to reduce excavation volume and to produce a reasonably 

sized berm. The resulting water surface elevation is two feet above original grade, and a 

freeboard of three feet is provided. The FGD liner is carried 12 feet horizontally at top of berm. 

The clay liner is carried only two feet horizontally at top of berm to permit grass seeding on an 

earthen berm. The footprint of the facility is 288' x 288', or 1.90 acre, and the water surface is 

158' x 158', or 0.57 acre. 

The design and construction process begins with engineering services, site surveying and 

clearing, and excavation with a crawler backhoe. The berm is graded with a 200 H. P. dozer. 

133
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Pumping of any infiltration water is allowed for. The liner is installed by transporting either 

FGD or clay in 20 cubic-yard dump-trailers, spreading the material on-site with a dozer, and 

compacting in 6-inch lifts with three passes using a riding sheepsfoot roller. Storm drainage 

piping, erosion control, and seeding complete the process. Clay is obtained off-site using a 

crawler backhoe. 

5.2.2.2 Work Items and Unit Costs 

Tables 5.5 and 5.6 summarize work items, unit costs, quantity of each work item, and estimates 

of total cost for the 1.0 million-gallon pond lined with FGD or clay, respectively. The cost of 

additional lime that needs to be added to the FGD material is assumed to be borne by the FGD 

generator. Cost estimates are provided for a range of alternative haul distances for FGD or clay; 

1, 2, 4, 10, 20, and 100 miles round-trip. In addition, the no-cost option for hauling FGD is 

included to reflect the case wherein no cost is charged by the utility to haul FGD. A location 

factor for Athens, Ohio, is applied to arrive at the final cost estimate. The sub-factor for 

"installation" from the Means cost data was used to adjust for equipment and labor costs, as was 

done in the cost estimates for wetland creation. The final cost is expressed in January 2000, 

dollars. 

5.2.2.3 Cost Summary for Pond Construction 

Table 5.7 is a cost comparison of the two methods of pond construction. If the full cost of 

hauling FGD to the site is included, the cost savings in using FGD are $3,323 for a 1-mile round134
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

trip but become successively smaller at longer haul distances, and are slightly negative at a 100­

mile round-trip. This is caused by the fact that more FGD than clay is used at the site, due to 

having the perimeter paved with 12 ft. of FGD, but only 2 ft. of clay. With longer haul distances, 

the initial cost savings from using FGD is gradually consumed. If only 2 ft. of paved perimeter 

is installed with FGD, the cost differential would remain about $3,323 in favor of FGD, even at 

longer haul distances. In any case, this represents a rather small cost savings (about 10 percent at 

a 1-mile round-trip haul, less at longer hauls). If no haul cost for FGD is incurred by the 

consumer, cost savings are large ($8,396) at a one-mile round-trip and increase steadily as the 

haul distance increases. 

5.2.2.4 Water Supply Pond: Unit Cost of Water 

The unit cost of stored water can be calculated if a project life of 20 years and an interest rate of 

8 percent are assumed. The procedure is to calculate the equivalent annual cost and divide by the 

amount of water used each year. Table 5.8 shows unit cost as a function of FGD haul distance if 

it is assumed that the pond fills and is completely used only once per year. With no cost for 

hauling FGD, unit cost per thousand gallons is $2.32, or $757 per AF. This is somewhat more 

than the average retail cost of residential drinking water, and far above the average value of 

water for irrigation (about $35 per AF in Western states, less in the East). Even with multiple 

fill-and-draw cycles per year, pond construction for crop irrigation is not viable. However, water 

used for livestock drinking water in the absence of other sources is a possibility. The value of 

water when used as a water supply for dairy and beef cattle has not been investigated and needs 

additional investigations. 

135
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

5.2.2.5 Comparison to Literature Cost Data 

The primary use contemplated for the pond designed herein is for storage of animal manure. 

Indeed, the construction process as described herein for a lined pond is similar to that for a 

domestic wastewater stabilization pond, also called an oxidation pond or oxidation lagoon. 

Theoretically, the cost estimated in this study can therefore be compared to the literature value 

for a stabilization pond of similar size. As a practical matter, however, domestic wastewater 

stabilization ponds tend to be larger in surface area and volume than that corresponding to the 

1.0 million-gallon design size chosen herein, therefore extrapolation of cost data found in the 

literature is necessary. Further, only one reference expresses the cost of stabilization ponds in 

terms of surface area of the pond (Patterson and Banker, 1971). Other references express cost as 

a function of design flow of the facility, in million gallons per day (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1980) or population equivalents (Butts and Evans, 1970). The latter two 

cases make it necessary to go through a multi-step calculation involving the assumption of a 

BOD loading rate for the pond (in pounds per day) and a wastewater flow concentration. 

Because the design loading rate varies widely among ponds, the resulting calculation can be used 

only to make rough comparisons. The data of Patterson and Banker (1971) are more reliable, 

because they express cost directly as a function of pond surface area, eliminating the need to go 

through a multi-step calculation to determine surface area. 

Data for non-aerated ponds are provided by Patterson and Banker (1971, p. 210). However, the 

smallest pond size reported in their data is 6.0 acres. Extrapolating their line of best fit to a pond 

surface area of 0.57 acres and converting the resulting cost to January 2000, for Athens, Ohio, 

136
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

using the appropriate Means Historical Cost Index and Location Factor results in a predicted cost 

of $28,167. Because stabilization ponds are generally sited in areas of favorable soil conditions 

(underlying clay), the proper point of comparison would be a pond lined with FGD involving no 

haul cost. The corresponding cost was estimated to be $22,809, which is reasonably close 

considering errors involved in updating cost data and transferring from one location to another. 

Other possible points of comparison would be the case of a 1-mile round-trip haul cost for FGD, 

for which the cost was estimated to be $27,882, or a 1-mile round-trip haul cost for clay, 

$31,205, both of which are very close to $28,167. It should be noted that the data of Patterson 

and Banker include some items not included in the current cost estimate; an access road, outfall 

sewer, and fencing. Including such items would make the cost estimated herein closer to the 

$28,167 figure. 

To test the sensitivity of updated costs to the cost index used, the Engineering News Record 

(ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) was applied to the cost data of Patterson and Banker. This 

resulted in a predicted cost of $29,314 at Athens, Ohio, and compares well to the $28,167 value 

found using the Means Historical Cost Index. It is concluded that the cost of a water supply pond 

/ wastewater lagoon as estimated herein compares reasonably well to available literature data. 

137
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

5.3 Preliminary Market Study 

5.3.1 Possible Market Size 

It is critical to determine the size of possible market for FGD when used in agricultural water 

supply ponds or waste lagoons. The market in this case is the number of farms within a 

reasonable haul time or distance from the power plant. This preliminary market study does not 

include a detailed analysis of clay availability in vicinity of the power plants. 

5.3.1.1 Travel Time Contours 

Figures 5.3 and 5.4 illustrate travel time contours (isochrones) for 15, 30, and 60 minutes from 

the Conesville and Gavin power plants, respectively, as determined from field studies. Travel 

time depends upon the quality of road infrastructure and basic topography of a region. Instate 

contours for the Conesville power plant are somewhat wider in geographic coverage than the 

corresponding ones for Gavin, principally because the highway infrastructure near Conesville is 

of somewhat higher quality. The 60-minute contour for Conesville covers almost an equal 

number of miles, while that for Gavin covers only about 49 miles. 

5.3.1.2 Number of Farms Within Contours 

The contour lines can be used to determine the area encompassed by them in each county. 

Tables 5.9 and 5.10 summarize this data. If it is assumed that farms are evenly distributed 

138
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

throughout a county, farm density for a county (farms per square mile) can be multiplied by 

county area within a contour to get an estimate of the number of farms in each county that are 

included. The Census of Agriculture: 1992 (U..S. Department of Commerce, Census of 

Agriculture, 1994) was used to obtain farm density by county. Calculations carried out in Tables 

5.9 and 5.10 show that the density of farms within the 15-minute contour is about the same for 

the two power plants, but that farm density is much higher at Conesville for the 30 and 60­

minute contours. This, coupled with the exclusion of areas outside the state of Ohio, results in a 

much larger market (number of farms) for the Conesville power plant (23, 64, and 221 percent 

greater for the 15, 30, and 60 minute contours, respectively). 

Figure 5.5 illustrates differences in farm density by county in Ohio. Farms comprise a much 

higher percent of land area near the Conesville plant than near Gavin. In addition, farms near 

Conesville tend to have a higher market value of land and buildings, as illustrated in Figure 5.6. 

By contrast, Figure 5.7 shows that average farm size is about the same in the vicinity of the two 

plants. Market density, volume, and ability to pay tends to be higher in the vicinity of the 

Conesville power plant as compared to Gavin. 

139
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Sides 2:1 

4' 

8' 19' 8' 

6" water 

12" soil 

12" FGD or clay 

Figure 5.1 Schematic of 5-Acre Wetland Lined With FGD or Clay (not to scale). 

140
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.1 Cost Estimate for 5-Acre Wetland: FGD Liner 

Work Item Crew 

Daily 

Output 

LaborHours Unit Mat Labor Equip Total 

Total 

incl 

O&P Qty. 

Line Item 

Total Notes 

Surveying, Conventional Topographic A-7 3.3 7.273 AC. 16 217 233 360 6.6 2376 

Site Clearing; dozer; trees to 4" diameter B-11A 8 2 AC. 51 101 152 190 3 570 Assumes only part of site needs treatment 

Mobilization B-34K 6 1.33 Ea. 30.5 153 183.5 215 4 860

 2 dozers, 200 HP; 1 tractor; 1 riding sheepsfoot 

roller; up to 50 miles 

Excavating, bulk, dozer; common earth B-10B 516 0.023 C.Y. 0.62 1.56 2.18 2.67 16,133 43,075 1 dozer, 200 HP; 150 ft. haul; 5 AC site 

Compaction, reiding sheepsfoot roller B-10G 1735 0.007 C.Y. 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.64 8067 5163 6" lifts; 3 passes; embankment berm 

*Hauling FGD: 1 mi round-trip B-34D 325 0.025 C.Y. 0.56 1.73 2.29 2.77 8067 22,346* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 2.5 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD: 2 mi round-trip B-34D 260 0.031 C.Y. 0.7 2.17 2.87 3.45 8067 27,831* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 2 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD: 4 mi round-trip B-34D 195 0.041 C.Y. 0.94 2.89 3.83 4.61 8067 37,189* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 1.5 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD: 10 mi round-trip B-34D 110 0.073 C.Y. 1.66 5.1 6.76 8.2 8067 66,149* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 0.75 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD: 20 mi round-trip B-34D 78 0.103 C.Y. 2.34 7.25 9.59 11.55 8067 93,174* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 0.50 loads/hr 

*Hauling FDG: 100 mi round-trip B-34D ` mile 2 16,120 125,414*

 20 C.Y. dump trailer; price is per loaded mile for 

hauling beyond 20 miles round-trip 

Grading FGD: at dump site, dozer B-10B 1000 0.012 C.Y. 0.32 0.81 1.13 1.38 8067 11,132 

Compaction of FGD; riding sheepsfoot roller B-10G 1735 0.007 C.Y. 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.64 8067 5163 6" lifts; 3 passes; 

Fill; spread stockpiled earth into wetland B-10B 1000 0.012 C.Y. 0.32 0.81 1.13 1.38 8067 11,132 1 dozer, 200HP; no compaction 

Storm drainage piping; corrugated metal B-14 190 0.253 L.F. 14.35 5.95 1.07 21.37 26 140 3640

 (4) 18" dia, 16 gauge, 35' length (2) upstream, 

(2) downstream 

Erosion control; paper biodegradable mesh B-1 2500 0.01 S.Y. 0.07 0.22 0.29 0.43 8250 3548 Entire berm 

Seed berm; bluegrass, tractor spreader B-66 52 0.154 MSF 14 4.25 3.6 21.85 26 75 1950 4 lbs/MSF (MSF=1000 sq. ft.) 

Subtotals: 

Without FGD haul cost 88,609 

1 mi round-trip 110,955 

2 mi round-trip 116,440 

4 mi round-trip 125,798 

10 mi round-trip 154,758 

20 mi round-trip 181,783 

100 mi round-trip 214,023 

Engineering fees; landscaping/site development at 2.5 percent 

Without FGD haul cost 90,824 

1 mi round-trip 113,770 

2 mi round-trip 119,351 

4 mi round-trip 128,943 

10 mi round-trip 158,627 

20 mi round-trip 186,328 

100 mi round-trip 219,374 

Location factor, Athens, Ohio, multiply by 0.756 for installation (labor and equipment) only 

Total Cost 

Without FGD haul cost 68,663 

1 mi round-trip 86,010 

2 mi round-trip 90,229 

4 mi round-trip 97,481 

10 mi round-trip 119,922 

20 mi round-trip 140,864 

100 mi round-trip 165,846 

*Alternative haul cost figures 

141 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.2 Cost Estimate for 5-Acre Wetland: Clay Liner

 Work Item Crew 

Daily 

Output 

LaborHours Unit Mat Labor Equip Total 

Total 

Incl 

O&P Qty. 

Line Item 

Total Notes 

Surveying, Conventional Topographic A-7 3.3 7.273 AC. 16 217 233 360 6.6 2376 

Site clearing; with dozer; trees to 4" diameter B-11A 8 2 AC. 51 101 152 190 3 570 Assumes only part of site needs treatment 

Mobilization B-34K 6 1.33 Ea. 30.5 153 183.5 215 4 860

 2 dozers, 200 HP; 1 tractor; 1 riding sheepsfoot 

roller; up to 50 miles 

Excavating, bulk, dozer, common earth B-10B 516 0.023 C.Y. 0.62 1.56 2.18 2.67 16,133 43,075 1 dozer, 200 HP; 150 ft. haul; 5 AC site 

Compaction; riding sheepsfoot roller B-10G 1735 0.007 C.Y. 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.64 8067 5163 6" lifts, 3 passes for embankment berm 

Clay Excavation; off-site, crawler backhoe B-12C 1040 0.15 C.Y. 0.51 2.58 3.16 8067 25,492

 2 C.Y. capacity; 130 C.Y./hr; includes additional 

15% for loading and 60% for heavy clay 

*Hauling Clay: 1 mile round-trip B-34D 325 0.25 C.Y. 0.56 1.73 2.29 2.77 8067 22,346* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 2.5 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 2 mile round-trip B-34D 260 0.031 C.Y. 0.7 2.17 2.87 3.45 8067 27,831* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 2 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 4 mile round-trip B-34D 195 0.041 C.Y. 0.94 2.89 3.83 4.61 8067 37,189* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 1.5 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 10 mile round-trip B-34D 110 0.073 C.Y. 1.66 5.1 6.76 8.2 8067 66,149* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 0.75 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 20 mile round-trip B-34D 78 0.103 C.Y. 2.34 7.25 9.59 11.55 8067 93,174* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 0.50 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 100 mile round-trip B-34D ` mile 2 16,120 125,414*

 20 C.Y. dump trailer; price is per loaded mile for 

hauling beyond 20 miles round-trip 

Grading Clay; at-site, dozer B-10B 1000 0.012 C.Y. 0.32 0.81 1.13 1.38 8067 11,132 

Compaction of Clay; riding sheepsfoot roller B-10G 1735 0.007 C.Y. 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.64 8067 5163 6" lifts; 3 passes 

Fill; spread stockpiled earth into wetland B-10B 1000 0.012 C.Y. 0.32 0.81 1.13 1.38 8067 11,132 1 dozer, 200HP; no compaction 

Storm Drainage Piping; corrugated metal B-14 190 0.253 L.F. 14.35 5.95 1.07 21.37 26 140 3640

 (4) 18" diameter, 16 gauge, 35' length, (2) 

upstream, (2) downstream 

Erosion Control; paper biodegradable mesh B-1 2500 0.01 S.Y. 0.07 0.22 0.29 0.43 8250 3548 Entire berm 

Seed berm; bluegrass, tractor spreader B-66 52 0.154 MSF 14 4.25 3.6 21.85 26 75 1950 4 lbs/MSF (MSF=thousand sq. ft.) 

Subtotals: 

1 mile round-trip 136,447 

2 mile round-trip 141,932 

4 mile round-trip 151,290 

10 mile round-trip 180,250 

20 mile round-trip 207,275 

100 mile round-trip 239,515 

Engineering Fees; landscaping/site development at 2.5 percent 

1 mile round-trip 139,858 

2 mile round-trip 145,480 

4 mile round-trip 155,072 

10 mile round-trip 184,756 

20 mile round-trip 212,457 

100 mile round-trip 245,503 

Location factor: Athens, Ohio, multiply by 0.756 for installation (labor and equipment) only 

Total Cost 

1 mile round-trip 105,733 

2 mile round-trip 109,983 

4 mile round-trip 117,234 

10 mile round-trip 139,676 

20 mile round-trip 160,617 

100 mile round-trip 185,600 

*Alternative haul cost figures 

142 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.3 Construction Crew Components 

Crew # Components 

A-7 1 chief of party; 1 instrument man; 1 rodman/chainman 

B-1 1 labor foreman (outside); 2 laborers 

B-10B 1 equipment operator (med); 0.5 laborer; 1 dozer, 200 HP 

1 equipment operator (med); 0.5 laborer; 1 sheepsfoot roller, 130 

B-10G HP 

1 equipment operator (med); 0.5 laborer; 1 diaphragm water pump, 

B-10H 2"; 1-20' suction hose, 2"; 2-50' discharge hoses, 2" 

B-11A 1 equipment operator (med); 1 laborer; 1 dozer, 200 HP 

1 equipment operator (crane); 1 equipment operator, oiler; 1 hyd. 

B-12C excavator, 2 C.Y. 

1 labor foreman (outside); 4 laborers; 1 equipment operator (light); 

B-14 1 backhoe loader, 48 HP 

1 truck driver (heavy); 1 truck tractor, 40 ton; 1 dump trailer, 20 

B-34D C.Y. 

B-34K 1 truck driver (heavy); 1 truck tractor, 240 HP; 1 low bed trailer 

B-66 1 equipment operator (light); 1 backhoe ldr w/attachment 

143
--- --- ---

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.4 Cost Comparison of Wetland Creation Using an FGD or Clay Liner 

Haul Assumption 

Cost of Created Wetland Using FGD Cost Savings 

FGD Clay 

without haul 

cost for FGD 

with haul cost 

for FGD 

without haul cost $68,663 

1 mile round-trip 86,010 $105,733 $37,070 $19,723 

2 mile round-trip 90,229 109,983 41,320 19,754 

4 mile round-trip 97,481 117,234 48,571 19,753 

10 mile round-trip 119,922 139,676 71,013 19,754 

20 mile round-trip 140,864 160,617 91,954 19,753 

100 mile round-trip 165,846 185,600 116,937 19,754 

288' 

28' 13' 12' 12' 36' 86' 36' 12' 12' 13' 28'

9' 

sides 4:1 

Figure 5.2 Schematic of Million Gallon Pond Lined With FGD or Clay (not to scale) 

144 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.5 Cost Estimate for Million Gallon Pond: FGD Liner 

Work Item Crew 

Daily 

Output 

LaborHours Unit Mat Labor Equip Total 

Total 

incl 

O&P Qty. 

Line Item 

Total Notes 

Surveying; conventional topographic A-7 3.3 7.273 AC. 16 217 233 360 1.9 684 

Site Clearing; with dozer; trees to 4" diameter B-11A 8 2 AC. 51 101 152 190 1 190 assumes only half the site needs treatment 

Mobilization B-34K 6 1.33 Ea. 30.5 153 183.5 215 4 860

 2 dozers, 200 HP; 1 tractor; 1 riding 

sheepsfoot roller; 1 crawler backhoe 

Excavating; crawler backhoe B-12C 1040 0.015 C.Y. 0.42 0.98 1.4 1.72 4979 8564

 common earth; 2.0 C.Y. capacity; 130 

C.Y./hr 

Dewatering; pumping B-10H 4 3 day 80 11.65 91.65 136 5 680

 2" diaphragm pump, used 8 hrs/day, 

includes hoses 

Grading Berm; dozer B-10B 1000 0.012 C.Y. 0.32 0.81 1.13 1.38 4979 6871 

Compaction of Berm; riding sheepsfoot roller B-10G 1735 0.007 C.Y. 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.64 4979 3187 6" lifts, 3 passes 

*Hauling FGD: 1 mile round-trip B-34D 325 0.025 C.Y. 0.56 1.73 2.29 2.77 2363 6546* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 2.5 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD: 2 mile round-trip B-34D 260 0.031 C.Y. 0.7 2.17 2.87 3.45 2363 8152* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 2 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD; 4 mile round-trip B-34D 195 0.041 C.Y. 0.94 2.89 3.83 4.61 2363 10,893* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 1.5 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD; 10 mile round-trip B-34D 110 0.073 C.Y. 1.66 5.1 6.76 8.2 2363 19,377* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 0.75 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD; 20 mile round-trip B-34D 78 0.103 C.Y. 2.34 7.25 9.59 11.55 2363 27,293* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 0.50 loads/hr 

*Hauling FGD; 100 mile round-trip B-34D ` mile 2 4726 36,745* 

20 C.Y. dump trailer; price is per loaded mile 

for hauling beyond 20 miles round-trip 

Grading FGD; dozer B-10B 1000 0.012 C.Y. 0.32 0.81 1.13 1.38 2363 3261 

Compaction of FGD; riding sheepsfoot roller B-10G 1735 0.007 C.Y. 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.64 2363 1512 6" lifts, 3 passes 

Storm Drainage Piping; corrugated metal B-14 190 0.253 L.F. 14.35 5.95 1.07 21.37 26 50 1300 (1) 18" dia, 16 gauge 

Erosion Control; paper biodegradable mesh B-1 2500 0.01 S.Y. 0.07 0.22 0.29 0.43 3505 1507 on exposed berm 

Seed Berm; bluegrass, tractor spreader B-66 52 0.154 MSF 14 4.25 3.6 21.85 26 31.5 819

 on exposed berm; 4 lbs/MSF (MSF=1000 

sq. ft.) 

Subtotals: 

Without FGD haul cost 29,435 

1 mile round-trip 35,981 

2 mile round-trip 37,587 

4 mile round-trip 40,328 

10 mile round-trip 48,812 

20 mile round-trip 56,728 

100 mile round-trip 66,180 

Engineering Fees; landscaping/site 

development at 2.5 percent 

Without FGD haul cost 30,171 

1 mile round-trip 36,881 

2 mile round-trip 38,527 

4 mile round-trip 41,336 

10 mile round-trip 50,032 

20 mile round-trip 58,146 

100 mile round-trip 67,835 

Location Factor: Athens, Ohio, multiply by 0.756 

Without FGD haul costs 22,809 

1 mile round-trip 27,882 

2 mile round-trip 29,126 

4 mile round-trip 31,250 

10 mile round-trip 37,824 

20 mile round-trip 43,958 

100 mile round-trip 51,283 

*Alternative haul cost figures 

145 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.6 Cost Estimate for Million Gallon Pond: Clay Liner 

Work Item Crew 

Daily 

Output 

LaborHours Unit Mat Labor Equip Total Total Incl 

O&P Qty. 

Line Item 

Total Notes 

Surveying; conventional topographic A-7 3.3 7.273 AC. 16 217 233 360 1.9 684 

Site Clearing; with dozer; trees to 4" diameter B-11A 8 2 AC. 51 101 152 190 1 190 assumes only half the site needs treatment 

Mobilization B-34K 6 1.33 Ea. 30.5 153 183.5 215 4 860

 1 dozer, 200 HP; 1 tractor; 1 riding sheepsfoot 

roller; 1 crawler backhoe 

Excavating; crawler backhoe B-12C 1040 0.015 C.Y. 0.42 0.98 1.4 1.72 4979 8,564 common earth; 2.0 C.Y. capacity; 130 C.Y./hr 

Dewatering; pumping B-10H 4 3 day 80 11.65 91.65 136 5 680

 2" diaphragm pump, used 8 hrs/day, includes 

hoses 

Grading Berm; dozer B-10B 1000 0.012 C.Y. 0.32 0.81 1.13 1.38 4979 6,871 

Compaction of Berm; riding sheepsfoot roller B-10G 1735 0.007 C.Y. 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.64 4979 3187 6" lifts, 3 passes 

Clay Excavation; off-site, crawler backhoe B-12C 1040 0.015 C.Y. 2.58 3.16 1946 6,149

 2 C.Y. capacity; 130 C.Y./hr; includes additional 

15% for loading and 60% for heavy clay 

*Hauling Clay: 1 mile round-trip B-34D 325 0.25 C.Y. 0.56 1.73 2.29 2.77 1946 5390* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 2.5 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 2 mile round-trip B-34D 260 0.031 C.Y. 0.7 2.17 2.87 3.45 1946 6714* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 2 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 4 mile round-trip B-34D 195 0.041 C.Y. 0.94 2.89 3.83 4.61 1946 8971* 20 C.Y. dump trailer, 1.5 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 10 mile round-trip B-34D 110 0.073 C.Y. 1.66 5.1 6.76 8.2 1946 15,957* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 0.75 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 20 mile round-trip B-34D 78 0.103 C.Y. 2.34 7.25 9.59 11.55 1946 22,476* 20 C.Y. dump trailer; 0.50 loads/hr 

*Hauling Clay: 100 mile round-trip B-34D ` mile 2 3892 30,260*

 20 C.Y. dump trailer; price is per loaded mile for 

hauling beyond 20 miles round-trip 

Grading Clay; dozer B-10B 1000 0.012 C.Y. 0.32 0.81 1.13 1.38 1946 2,685 

Compaction of Clay; riding sheepsfoot roller B-10G 1735 0.007 C.Y. 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.64 1946 1245 6" lifts, 3 passes 

Storm Drainage Piping; corrugated metal B-14 190 0.253 L.F. 14.35 5.95 1.07 21.37 26 50 1300 (1) 18" dia, 16 gauge 

Erosion Control; paper biodegradable mesh B-1 2500 0.01 S.Y. 0.07 0.22 0.29 0.43 3714 1597 treat entire berm 

Seed Berm; bluegrass, tractor spreader B-66 52 0.154 MSF 14 4.25 3.6 21.85 26 33.4 868 treat entire berm 

Subtotals: 

1 mile round-trip 40,270 

2 mile round-trip 41,594 

4 mile round-trip 43,851 

10 mile round-trip 50,837 

20 mile round-trip 57,356 

100 mile round-trip 65,140 

Engineering Fees; landscaping/site 

development at 2.5 percent 

1 mile round-trip 41,277 

2 mile round-trip 42,634 

4 mile round-trip 44,947 

10 mile round-trip 52,107 

20 mile round-trip 58,790 

100 mile round-trip 66,769 

Location Factor: Athens, Ohio, multiply by 

0.756 for installation (labor and equipment) only 

1 mile round-trip 31,205 

2 mile round-trip 32,231 

4 mile round-trip 33,980 

10 mile round-trip 39,393 

20 mile round-trip 44,445 

100 mile round-trip 50,477 

*Alternative haul cost figures 

146 
--- --- ---

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.7 Cost Comparison of Pond Construction Using an FGD or Clay Liner 

Haul Assumption 

Cost of Construction Using FGD Cost Savings 

FGD Clay 

without haul 

cost for FGD 

with haul cost 

for FGD 

without haul cost $22,809 

1 mile round-trip 27,882 $31,205 $8396 $3323 

2 mile round-trip 29,126 32,231 9422 3105 

4 mile round-trip 31,250 33,980 11,171 2730 

10 mile round-trip 37,824 39,393 16,584 1569 

20 mile round-trip 43,958 44,445 21,636 487 

100 mile round-trip 51,283 50,477 27,668 (806) 

( ) = negative savings 

Table 5.8 Unit Cost of Water from Pond Constructed with FGD Liner 

Haul 

Condition 

Construction 

Cost Annual Cost* 

Single Use Per Year 

Cost per 

1000 gallons 

Cost per 

Acre-Foot 

w/o Haul Cost $22,809 $2323 $2.32 $757 

1 mile round-trip 27,882 2840 2.84 925 

2 mile round-trip 29,126 2967 2.97 966 

4 mile round-trip 31,250 3183 3.18 1037 

10 mile round-trip 37,824 3852 3.85 1255 

20 mile round-trip 43,958 4477 4.48 1458 

100 mile round-trip 51,283 5223 5.22 1701 

* 8 percent interest rate, 20-year life. 

147 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 5.3 Travel-Time Contours from Conesville Power Plant (15, 30, 60 minutes)

148
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 5.4 Travel-Time Contours from Gavin Power Plant (15, 30, 60 minutes)

149
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.9 Number of Farms Within Various Haul-Time Contours: Conesville 

15-MIN CONTOUR 

County Area(mi2) Farms/mi2 Farms 

Coshocton 149.78 1.44 215.68 

Muskingum 38.32 1.58 60.55 

188.10 1.51 276 

Total Avg. Total 

30-MIN CONTOUR (includes 15-min contour) 

County Area(mi2) Farms/mi2 Farms 

Coshocton 513.77 

Guernsey 53.99 

Holmes 27.87 

Knox 19.16 

Licking 94.05 

Muskingum 330.9 

Tuscarawas 41.8 

1.44 739.83 

1.47 79.37 

3.41 95.06 

2.09 40.04 

1.83 172.11 

1.58 522.82 

1.62 67.72 

1081.54 1.92 1717 

Total Avg. Total 

60-MIN CONTOUR (includes 30 min contour) 

County Area(mi2) Farms/mi2 Farms 

Ashland 85.34 

Belmont 66.18 

Carroll 43.54 

Coshocton 560.79 

Delaware 10.45 

Fairfield 212.47 

Franklin 6.97 

Guernsey 491.13 

Harrison 205.51 

Hocking 12.19 

Holmes 414.5 

Knox 468.49 

Licking 639.16 

Morgan 235.11 

Morrow 3.48 

Muskingum 664.28 

Noble 146.29 

Perry 384.89 

Richland 71.4 

Stark 24.38 

Tuscarawas 562.53 

Wayne 142.81 

2.25 192.02 

1.12 74.12 

1.75 76.20 

1.44 807.54 

1.55 16.20 

2.09 444.06 

0.9 6.27 

1.47 721.96 

0.97 199.34 

0.84 10.24 

3.41 1413.45 

2.09 979.14 

1.83 1169.66 

1.34 315.05 

1.84 6.40 

1.58 1049.56 

1.38 201.88 

1.41 542.69 

1.86 132.80 

1.94 47.30 

1.62 913.55 

2.85 407.01 

5451.89 1.71 9726 

Total Avg. Total 

150
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Table 5.10 Number of Farms Within Various Haul-Time Contours: Gavin 

15-MIN CONTOUR 

County Area (mi2) Farms/mi2 

Gallia 101.01 1.7 

Meigs 45.28 1.15 

146.29 1.43 

Total Avg. 

30-MIN CONTOUR (includes 15-min contour) 

County Area (mi2) Farms/mi2 

Athens 55.73 0.99 

Gallia 329.16 1.7 

Jackson 6.97 0.92 

Meigs 365.73 1.15 

Vinton 17.42 0.5 

775.01 1.05 

Total Avg. 

60-MIN CONTOUR (includes 30-min contour) 

County Area (mi2) Farms/mi2 

Athens 

Gallia 

Hocking 

Jackson 

Lawrence 

Meigs 

Morgan 

Perry 

Pike 

Ross 

Scioto 

Vinton 

Washington 

55.73 0.99 

459.78 1.7 

184.61 0.84 

424.95 0.92 

397.08 1.12 

416.24 1.15 

55.73 1.34 

36.57 1.41 

24.38 0.86 

10.45 1.18 

87.08 0.99 

402.31 0.5 

208.99 1.36 

2763.9 1.10 

Total Avg. 

Farms 

171.72 

52.07 

224 

Total 

Farms 

55.17 

559.57 

6.41 

420.59 

8.71 

1050 

Total 

Farms 

55.17 

781.63 

155.07 

390.95 

444.73 

478.68 

74.68 

51.56 

20.97 

12.33 

86.21 

201.16 

284.23 

3037 

Total 

151
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 5.5 Approximate Land Area Proportion in Farms in 1992

152
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 5.6 Average Market Value of Farm Land and Buildings ($ per acre, 1992) 

153
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Figure 5.7 Average Size of Farm in 1992

154
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

6.1 Summary 

This project report presents the results of a research program conducted at The Ohio State 

University from October 1, 1996 to March 31, 2000 to investigate the use of stabilized flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) materials in the construction of low permeability liners. The objective of 

the research program presented in this report was to establish field-verified time-dependent 

relationships for the performance of liners constructed from stabilized FGD by-products 

generated in Ohio. The project objective was accomplished with a coordinated program of 

testing and analyzing small-scale laboratory specimens under controlled conditions, mediumscale wetland mesocosms, and a full-scale pond facility. Although the specific uses directly 

addressed by this report include liners for surface impoundments, the results presented in this 

study will also be useful in other applications including design of daily cover and liners for 

landfills, seepage cutoff walls and trenches and for nutrient retention and pollution mitigation 

wetlands. The results of this study can provide constructive technical input into the current draft 

ASTM specification under consideration for use of CCB liners (refer to Appendix B for the text 

of the ASTM draft specification). 

6.1.1 Laboratory Testing Program 

Small-scale laboratory permeability, strength, freeze-thaw cycling, leachate potential tests were 

conducted. Permeability and strength testing were conducted on compacted samples of stabilized 

155
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

FGD material obtained from two Ohio power plants (Conesville and Gavin). Samples pre-mixed 

at the power plant and mixed in the laboratory were investigated. The fly ash to filter cake ratio 

of samples mixed in the laboratory was 1:1 and 2:1 on a dry weight basis. Two lime contents 

were investigated. The coefficient of permeability for the compacted samples was measured at 7, 

28,60, and 90 days of curing using a falling head test procedure. On completion of 90-day 

permeability test, the samples were tested for unconfined compressive strength. All samples 

exhibited decreasing permeability with increasing curing time. The addition of extra-lime and fly 

ash to the laboratory mixed samples resulted in a decrease in permeability of the samples for all 

curing times especially the 60 and 90-day values (which were reduced by an order of 

magnitude). The 90-day permeability of high lime content (8%) samples mixed in the laboratory 

ranged from 10-7

 cm/sec (3x10-9 ft/sec) to 10-8 cm/sec (3x10-10 ft/sec). The unconfined 

compressive strength ranged between 1.47 MPa (213 psi) and 3.95 MPa (573 psi) at 90 days of 

curing. Plant mixed samples had lower permeability coefficient and higher unconfined 

compressive strength values than laboratory mixed samples. The high lime content (8%) 

Conesville and Gavin plant mixed samples exhibited permeability values in the 10-8

 cm/sec 

(3x10-10 ft/sec) range at 28 to 60 days of curing. The strength of the high content lime samples 

ranged from 4.18 MPa (606 psi) to 4.33 MPa (628 psi). The laboratory permeability and strength 

testing program showed that quicklime and fly ash enriched stabilized FGD material can be 

compacted in the laboratory using standard soil testing procedures to obtain permeability 

coefficients that are in 10-8

 cm/sec (3x10-10 ft/sec) range, which is lower than the 1 x 10-7 cm/sec 

(3x10-9 ft/sec) value typically recommended by USEPA and OEPA for constructing liners for 

waste containment facilities. 

156
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Durability of stabilized FGD material was evaluated in the laboratory as per ASTM D560. The 

effect of thermal cycling on permeability coefficient of Conesville FGD material was 

investigated. Samples tested had a fly ash to filter cake ratio of 0.8:1 (typical mix generated at 

the power plant). Sample lime contents of 4% and 10% (dry weight basis) were investigated. 

Test cylinders were allowed to cure for 7, 28, 60, and 90 days before being exposed to freezethaw cycling. One cycle consisted of a 24-hour of freeze at –18o

C, followed by a 24-hour thaw in 

moist cure box at 23oC. The samples after curing were tested for permeability using the falling 

head procedure at 0, 5, 10, and 15 freeze-thaw cycles. The permeability coefficient was not 

significantly affected by the number of freeze-thaw cycles as long as additional water was not 

added to the sample via an intermediate permeability test. For high lime content samples, in 

general, addition of moisture during freeze-thaw cycling resulted in increase of permeability 

coefficient by an order of magnitude. Higher lime content samples exhibited a smaller increase 

in permeability values due to freeze-thaw cycling coupled with moisture addition. However, 

curing time of the samples did not significantly affect the permeability coefficients because the 

fly ash content of the samples was very low and the moisture content (about 60%) was very high. 

Additional freeze-thaw testing may be necessary at high lime (8-10%) and fly ash to filter cake 

ratio (2:1) and lower moisture content (about 35-40%). 

The leachate potential of five stabilized FGD samples from the Conesville power plant were 

investigated by conducting USEPA TCLP dilute acetic acid method (Method 1311). Leachates 

were analyzed for pH, total dissolved solids, acidity, alkalinity, conductivity, and 20 elements by 

ICP and GFAA spectrophotometry. Leachate concentrations were compared with Ohio EPA 

non-toxic criteria and national primary and secondary drinking water standards. The leachate 

157
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

data for various constituents studied did not vary over a wide range but was limited to a 

reasonably small range of values. The measured mean values for all potential contaminants from 

the FGD leachate were much lower than Ohio EPA non-toxic criteria. Measured leachate 

concentration levels were consistently lower than the national primary drinking water standards. 

In general, the concentration of elements in the leachate was also lower than the national 

drinking water standards expect for pH (mean value of 11.08) and Aluminum (mean value of 

5.114 mg/l). The laboratory TCLP testing program conducted on the stabilized FGD material 

indicates that the stabilized FGD material tested in the laboratory is a relatively clean material, is 

non-toxic, and poses very minimal risks, if any, for groundwater contamination. 

6.1.2 Medium-Scale Mesocosm Experiments 

The construction of artificial wetlands for wastewater treatment often requires low permeability 

clay liners. In this portion of the study, the potential effect of using stabilized FGD in place of 

clay for constructed wetlands was investigated. The parameters of the study included effect of 

FGD liner on water quality, plant growth, nutrient composition, and physiochemical 

investigations of the leachate and surface outflow. In March, 1997 a set of 20 flow-through 

mesocosms (1 m x 1 m x 0.6 m polyethylene tubs) were positioned at the Olentangy River 

Wetland Research Park, which is a 22-acre research site located on the Columbus campus of The 

Ohio State University, to investigate the effect of FGD liner on ecological functions of 

constructed wetlands. Stabilized FGD by-products were randomly assigned to the mesocosms, 

which resulted in half of them with no FGD liner in the tubs as control. Mesocosms were 

completely buried into the ground to insulate against freezing. Each mesocosm received 10 cm 

158
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

of non-calcareous river pea gravel (completely covering the drain to the standpipe) overlain by 

10 -15 cm of field compacted stabilized FGD by-product generated from Conesville electric 

power plant, on top of which 15-20 cm of soil obtained during the excavation of the mesocosm 

site was placed. The FGD by-product used in the experiment had an estimated fly ash to filter 

cake ratio of 1.25 :1 and a lime content of 5 %. The FGD by-product placed inn the mesocosms 

was compacted, but soil (growing medium) was not compacted. A water delivery system was 

constructed which simulated natural flows of contaminated runoff into natural or constructed 

wetlands. A continuous inflow rate of 70 ml/minute was chosen as the target inflow rate into 

each mesocosm. Macrophytes were planted on May 17, 1997. Three Scirpus tabernaemontani 

rhizomes were introduced into each of 20 mesocosms. 

Experiments were conducted for several weeks during 1997 and 1998. The 1997 experiment was 

conducted for four weeks during the growing season (July – August 1997) and for another four 

weeks in the non-growing season (October, 1997). Three items such as number of stems, number 

of stems bearing flowers and stem length were investigated weekly on every mesocosm during 

the growing season experiment and once in the middle of non-growing season. Orthophosphate 

removal in the leachate was observed to be much more significant in the FGD lined mesocosms 

than the controls. pH values of leachate for FGD lined mesocosms were higher than controls due 

to the alkaline nature of FGD. Total phosphorous concentrations were similar for FGD liner and 

control mesocosms for surface outflow and leachate. No significant differences were measured 

between Nitrate levels of FGD liner and control mesocosms. Mean stem length and mean 

number of stems bearing flowers were observed to be lower in the FGD liner mesocosms. This 

indicated a potential negative impact on plant growth for FGD lined mesocosms, which was 

159
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

investigated further in 1998 through mesocosm productivity through plant harvesting. In 1998, 

the experiments begun in 1997 were continued but with plants now consisting of a much greater 

biomass than in the 1997 study. For 1998 investigations, high phosphorous loading was applied 

to 10 mesocosms, simulating the phosphorous concentration of treated wastewater going to a 

treatment wetland. Experiments were conducted June through September 1998. In addition to the 

monitoring carried out in 1997, the above- and below-ground plant biomass was harvested at the 

end of the experiment for analysis of plant tissue. Soil samples were also taken from the top 5 cm 

of the soil surface for elemental analysis. FGD lined mesocosms showed much better 

performance in orthophosphate retention compared to control mesocosms possibly due to Ca-P 

precipitation. Total phosphorous was more effectively removed from phosphorous spiked surface 

water passing through FGD lined wetland mesocosms than controls. There was no difference in 

the above- or below-ground biomass for FGD lined and control mesocosms, although lower 

average stem length and fewer stem bearing flowers were observed in mesocosms with FGD 

material as a liner. 

6.1.3 Full-Scale FGD-Lined Facility 

A full-scale FGD lined facility (capacity of one million gallons) was constructed, in Summer of 

1997 at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) Western Branch, 

South Charleston, to evaluate the performance of a field-compacted FGD liner. The full-scale 

facility was constructed to addresses two critical questions about the behavior of stabilized FGD 

products constructed in the field, i.e. what is the permeability of a compacted engineered liner of 

known thickness and density, and what is the quality of the water that flows through the FGD 

160
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

liner. This OARDC site was chosen over other university sites because it had an abundance of 

clay onsite that was suitable for use as a secondary or outer liner to contain the primary FGD 

liner. The OARDC Western Branch facility is a swine and agronomic research facility and, 

hence, it was decided to build a livestock manure storage facility that could be used by the center 

for storing swine manure after the completion of the research. 

The facility was designed for a capacity of approximately one million gallons to provide six 

months storage for all liquid wastes from the swine onsite. A double-layered design was chosen 

with 18 inches of compacted stabilized FGD as the primary inner liner and the onsite clay (about 

80 feet of grey glacial till) as the secondary outer liner. A leachate system was designed to be 

placed between the primary FGD liner and secondary clay liner to collect in a sump any water 

passing through the FGD fill. The sump was designed so that it could be used to collect leachate 

samples with ease and for conducting field permeability tests on the pond liner. 

Approximately 2,700 tons of lime and fly ash enriched stabilized FGD material from Conesville 

power plant was used in the construction of the 18-inch primary liner for the full-scale facility. 

Placement and compaction of FGD in 4-6 inch lifts on top of the geofabric layer were 

accomplished using two dozers and one sheepsfoot roller. The fly ash to filter cake ratio of the 

FGD material ranged from 1.48:1 to 2.40:1 with an average ratio of 1.81:1. The lime content 

varied from 6.79% to 8.44% with an average lime content of 7.98%. The moisture content of the 

FGD material received at the site during construction ranged from 49% to 62%, while the proctor 

dry density varied between 9.6 kN/m3

 (61 lb/ft3) and 11.6 kN/m3 (74 lb/ft3). Wet weather during 

the liner placement resulted in several delays. The site was smooth rolled before completion of 

161
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

the project. The newly constructed facility was filled with water from an existing nearby pond 

and was completed on September 23, 1997. The pond was filled with water up to a depth of 

approximately 9 feet. To avoid coring holes in the full-scale FGD liner for obtaining 

permeability samples, four rectangular FGD test pads were constructed in vicinity of the fullscale facility. Each test pad was initially backfilled with 6 inches of sand to provide a permeable 

layer for drainage. The remainder of the excavation was filled with stabilized compacted FGD 

material. Due to the small size of the test pads compared to the plan dimensions of the 

sheepsfoot roller, adequate compaction of the FGD material in the test pads could not be 

obtained. Each of the test pad was instrumented for Boutwell field permeability testing 

apparatuses. The instrumentation and monitoring of the test pads was conducted by BBC & M 

Engineering of Columbus, Ohio. The actual cash cost of constructing the full-scale facility was 

estimated to be $46,623.50. The FGD material was made available at the site free of charge by 

American Electric Power’s Conesville power plant. 

The facility was used to store water for the first year. In early September of 1998, some of the 

water was replaced with swine manure. Since then swine manure has continued to be added and 

removed from the facility on a regular basis depending on the manure storage vs. field spreading 

needs of the research farm. Monitoring of the site for field permeability and water quality was 

carried out for a period of 2 years and 5 months (September 1997 through January 2000). The 

average monitoring frequency was three months. The monitoring program consisted of two main 

activities a) field permeability testing and b) water quality monitoring. Field permeability tests 

were conducted by lowering the water level in the sump to create a head difference across the 

FGD liner. The amount of time taken to increase the water in the sump to specific levels was 

162
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

observed. Knowing the thickness of the FGD liner and its plan view, the actual effective 

permeability of the field compacted liner was evaluated. Water quality testing samples were 

collected from the pond, sump, and a well about 1,000 feet from the site. 

Actual permeability coefficients were calculated using the bottom area of the pond as the 

effective leaching area for the FGD-liner. The full-scale permeability of the facility was 

evaluated to be 9.1x10-7 cm/sec (2.9x10-8 ft/sec) at a curing time of one month. The permeability 

coefficient continued to reduce over time (due to curing of FGD) and has stabilized at 

approximately 4x10-7 cm/sec (1x10-8

 ft/sec). The FGD permeability coefficient data range 

obtained from the full-scale tests is comparable to typical clays used in the construction of 

compacted liners. The full-scale permeability of the field constructed FGD liner includes the 

effect of freeze-thaw cycling on the actual permeability of the FGD liner. The actual area over 

which water flows through the FGD liner being greater than the bottom area of the pond, the fullscale permeability values calculated are an upper bound to the actual permeability of the fieldcompacted FGD liner. The addition of swine manure to the facility (at 370 days of curing and 

thereafter) did not affect the actual permeability of the liner. If no secondary liner were present at 

the site, the specific seepage rate for the 9 feet deep manure storage pond having an 18-inch thick 

FGD liner was calculated to be 0.0952 in3

/in2/day. Specific seepage rates less than 0.1 in3/in2/day 

are considered to be very low seepage values. It can be concluded that if there was no secondary 

clay liner constructed for the facility (as would be the norm for typical FGD-lined pond and 

manure storage facilities), the seepage rate loss from such FGD facilities would be very low. 

163
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

The actual field permeability data obtained from the full-scale pond tests was compared with a) 

laboratory tests conducted on laboratory compacted samples collected during pond construction, 

b) laboratory tests conducted on field compacted samples cored from test pads installed at the 

site, and c) field permeability tests (Boutwell) conducted on the test pads. All the test procedures 

showed decreasing permeability coefficient with increasing curing time. It was observed that the 

laboratory compacted samples had permeability coefficients which were an order of magnitude 

lower than the full-scale testing values. Permeability values obtained from Boutwell tests and 

cored samples tested in the laboratory were in close agreement with each other but were one to 

three orders of magnitude higher than the full-scale tests. The test pad sample permeability 

values (Boutwell tests and cored sample testing) indicated a large scatter in the data. The test pad 

permeability coefficients varied from 10-4

 cm/sec (3x10-6 ft/sec) to 10-7 cm/sec (3x10-9 ft/sec) 

with average permeability value in range of 10-5 cm/sec (3x10-7 ft/sec). This may be due to the 

unsuitable compaction achieved for the test pads. Furthermore, the Boutwell test procedure 

relates infiltration rate with permeability coefficient by assuming certain direction and 

boundaries conditions of flow, which are nearly impossible to control in the field. However, it is 

important to note that the actual measured field permeability values of the full-scale FGD liner 

are an order of magnitude higher than laboratory measured values. 

The water sampling program was conducted while the pond held water (until September 1998) 

and beyond at which time swine manure was added to the facility on a regular basis (project 

monitoring ended January, 2000). All samples were tested for several constituents and 

properties including pH, electrical conductivity, alkalinity, acidity, total dissolved solids, 

aluminum, arsenic, boron, barium, calcium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, potassium, 

164
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

magnesium, manganese, sodium, nickel, phosphorous, lead, sulfur, selenium, silica, silver, 

vanadium, zinc, chloride, phosphate, sulfate, nitrate, ammonia and nitrogen. The concentration 

level of various measurements in the sump (leachate) increased suddenly following the filling of 

the facility with water. Thereafter, the concentration levels reduced rapidly. All the OEPA DSW 

0400.007 non-toxic parameters (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium) measured 

for the FGD facility while holding water and swine manure were much lower than OEPA’s nontoxic criteria. For many elements measured (barium, cadmium, chromium, and nitrate) the 

leachate concentration levels were generally lower than the National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations (NPDWR). Arsenic concentration levels for the pond and sump samples were very 

low for the first year. Upon addition of swine manure to the facility (in early September, 1998), 

the concentration level of arsenic in the pond increased. However, the sump samples indicate 

little increase in arsenic concentrations (which are slightly higher than the NPDWR level of 0.05 

mg/ml). Arsenic levels in the sump and pond have always been lower than OEPA’s non-toxic 

regulatory value of 1.5 mg/ml. In general, nitrate levels in the leachate are extremely low 

compared to NPDWR value of 10 mg/ml. The concentrations of highly soluble constituents, 

such as nitrates and phosphates, were observed to be relatively low in the sump. From a 

regulatory perspective, the leachate from the FGD material is not required to meet any of the 

NSDWR limit values, yet the leachate concentration levels measured from the FGD lined facility 

are generally lower or comparable to NSDWR limits for most potential contaminants of concern. 

165
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

6.1.4 Cost Estimates and Preliminary Market Evaluation 

Cost estimates were prepared for the creation of wetlands and ponds using FGD and clay liners 

and compared with available published data. In addition, certain macro-features of the potential 

market for FGD when used as a low permeability liner material were analyzed. For the cost 

estimates, a consistent data set published by R. S. Means Company, Inc., allowed meaningful 

comparisons. 

Cost estimates were made for a range of alternative haul distances for FGD or clay: 1, 2, 4, 10, 

20, and 100 miles round-trip. In addition, the no-cost option for hauling FGD was included to 

reflect the case wherein no charge is levied by the utility to haul FGD. For a five-acre wetland 

creation, if the full cost of hauling FGD or clay to the site (by the same haul distance) are 

included in the cost analysis, the cost savings in using FGD are $19,754, regardless of haul 

distance. If no cost is assigned to hauling FGD, cost savings increase dramatically with roundtrip haul distance for clay. The calculated cost of wetland creation for short haul distances 

compared well with published literature data. 

Cost calculations were also carried out for a water supply / waste water storage pond, If the full 

cost of hauling FGD to the site is included, the cost savings in using FGD are $3,323 for a 1-mile 

round-trip but become successively smaller at longer haul distances, and are slightly negative at 

a 100-mile round-trip. With longer haul distances, the initial cost savings from using FGD can 

be gradually consumed. If no haul cost for FGD is incurred by the consumer, cost savings are 

large ($8,396) at a one-mile round-trip and increase steadily as the haul distance increases. The 

166
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

cost estimates for a water supply pond / wastewater lagoon compared reasonably well to 

available literature data. 

A preliminary market study was carried out to obtain an estimate of the possible market size. The 

market in this case was the number of farms within a reasonable haul time or distance from the 

power plant. Travel time contours (isochrones) for 15, 30, and 60 minutes from the Conesville 

and Gavin power plants, as determined from field studies, were constructed. Contours for the 

Conesville power plant were somewhat wider in geographic coverage than the corresponding 

ones for Gavin, principally because the highway infrastructure near Conesville is of higher 

quality. The 60-minute contour for Conesville covered almost an equal number of miles, while 

that for Gavin covered only about 49 miles. The contour lines were used to determine the area 

encompassed by them in each county. The Census of Agriculture of 1992 was used to obtain 

farm density by county. Calculations carried out showed that the density of farms within the 15­

minute contour is about the same for the two power plants, but that farm density is much higher 

at Conesville for the 30 and 60-minute contours. This, coupled with the exclusion of areas 

outside the state of Ohio, resulted in a much larger market (number of farms) for the Conesville 

power plant (23, 64, and 221 percent greater for the 15, 30, and 60 minute contours, 

respectively). Farms comprise a much higher percent of land area near the Conesville plant than 

near Gavin. In addition, farms near Conesville tend to have a higher market value of land and 

buildings. The average farm size is about the same in the vicinity of the two plants. Market 

density, volume, and ability to pay tends to be higher in the vicinity of the Conesville power 

plant as compared to Gavin. 

167
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

6.2 Conclusions 

A coordinated small-scale laboratory, medium-scale wetland, and full-scale pond testing research 

program conducted at The Ohio State University for over three years has shown that stabilized 

FGD materials can be used as low permeability liners in the construction of water and manure 

holding ponds, and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Actual permeability 

coefficients in the range of 10-7

 cm/sec (3 x 10-9 ft/sec) can be obtained in the field by properly 

compacting lime and fly ash enriched stabilized FGD materials. Leachate from the FGD material 

meets Ohio’s non-toxic criteria for coal combustion by-products, and for most potential 

contaminants the national primary and secondary drinking water standards are also met. The low 

permeability non-toxic FGD material investigated in this study poses very minimal risks, if any, 

for groundwater contamination. Constructed FGD-lined wetlands offer the opportunity for 

increased phosphorous retention giving rise to the potential use of these materials as a liners for 

wastewater treatment wetlands. While plant growth was observed to be less vigorous for FGD 

lined wetland mesocosms compared to the control, the above and below ground biomass were 

not significantly different. Cost estimates for FGD liners compared favorably with clay liners for 

varying haul distances. 

168
7 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

REFERENCES 

Adams, D.A., 1992, Swelling Characteristics of Dry Sulfur Dioxide Removal Waste Products, 

M.S. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Ahn, C., W. J. Mitsch, W. E. Wolfe and W. T. Acton, 1998, Ecological engineering of wetlands 

with recycled FGD liner: first year of a mesocosm experiment. In: W.J. Mitsch and V. Bouchard 

(ed.), The Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 

1997, pp. 297 – 314. 

Ahn, C., W. J. Mitsch, W. E. Wolfe, 1999, FGD Liner Experiments With Wetlands: SecondYear Results, In: W.J. Mitsch and V. Bouchard (ed.), The Olentangy River Wetland Research 

Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 1998, pp. 191 – 200. 

Aitken and Bell, 1985, Plant uptake and phytotoxicity of boron in Australian fly ashes, Plant and 

Soil 84: 25 – 257. 

APHA, 1992, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18th Edition, 

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution 

Control Federation, Washington, DC. 

ASTM D560, 1996, Standard Test Method for Freezing and Thawing Compacted Soil-Cement 

Mixtures, ASTM, U.S.A. 

ASTM D698, 1997, Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using 

Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3

 (600 kN-m/m3)), ASTM, U.S.A. 

ASTM D5084, 1996, Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated 

Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter, ASTM, U.S.A. 

ASTM D5856, 1996, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of 

Porous Materials Using a Rigid-Wall Compaction Mold Permeameter, ASTM, U.S.A. 

ASTM D6035, 1996, Standard Test Method for Determining the Effect of Freeze-Thaw on 

Hydraulic Conductivity of Compacted or Undisturbed Soil Specimens Using a Flexible Wall 

Permeameter, ASTM, U.S.A. 

ASTM, Draft Standard Guide for Use of Coal Combustion Products for Low Permeability 

Barriers, Liners, and Encapsulations, 12/11/97 draft under consideration by ASTM, USA. 

Batchelor, A., Scott, W. E. and Wood, A., 1990, Constructed wetland research programme in 

South Africa. In: Construction Wetlands in Water Pollution Control, P. F. Cooper and B. C. 

Findlater (eds). Pergamon Press. pp. 373-382. 

169
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Beeghly, Joel H., Dick, Warren A., Wolfe, William E., 1995, Developing Technologies for High 

Volume Land Application Uses of Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Combustion (PFBC) Ash, 

Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion v 2, pp.1243-1257. 

Boutwell, G.P., 1992, The STEI Two-Stage Borehole Field Permeability Test, Presented at 

Containment Liner Technology and Subtitle D Seminar, Houston Branch of ASCE, Houston, 

Texas, March 12, 1992. 

Brodrick, S. J., P. Cullen, and W. Marher, 1988, Denitrification in a natural wetland receiving 

secondary treated effluent. Water Research 22 (4): 431-439. 

Busnardo, M. J., R. M. Gersberg, R. Langis, T. L. Sinicrope and J. B. Zedler, 1992, Nitrogen and 

phosphorus removal by wetland mesocosms subjected to different hydroperiods. Ecological 

Engineering. 1: 287-307. 

Butalia, T.S. and W.E. Wolfe, 1997, Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the 

Construction of Impervious Liners, 1997 International Ash Utilization Symposium, Lexington, 

Kentucky, October 20-22. 

Butalia. T.S., Mafi, S. and Wolfe, W.E., 1997, Design of Full Scale Lagoon Using Clean Coal 

Technology By-Products, 13th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and 

Management, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 16-19. 

Butalia, T.S,. 1998, Use of CCPs as Liners and Feedlots, Educational Program for Managers of 

Coal Combustion Products (CCPs), ACAA, Morgantown, West Virginia, June 11. 

Butalia, T.S., Wolfe, W.E., 1999, Evaluation of Permeability Characteristics of FGD Materials, 

FUEL, Volume 78, pp. 149-152. 

Butalia, T.S., Wolfe, W.E, Fortner, C.A., 1999, Preliminary Performance Assessment of An 

FGD-Lined Pond Facility, 13th International Conference on Use and Management of CCPs, 

Orlando, Florida, January 11-15. 

Butalia, T.S., and Wolfe. W.E., Use of Coal Combustion By-Products as Low Permeability 

Liners for Manure Storage Facilities, Chapter for proposed Monograph on Animal Waste 

Management / Containment, ASCE Environmental Engineering Division (in peer review) 

Butts, Thomas A., and Ralph L. Evans, 1970, Cost of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants in 

Illinois (Urbana, Illinois: Illinois State Water Survey, Circular 99, 1970), 37 pp. 

Callaway, J. C., J. B. Zedler and D. L. Ross, 1997, Using tidal salt marsh mesocosms to aid 

wetland restoration. Restoration Ecology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 135-136. 

Chen, X., W.E. Wolfe and M.D. Hargraves, 1997, The Influence of Freeze-Thaw Cycles on the 

Compressive Strength of Stabilized FGD Sludge, Fuel, 76, 755. 

170
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Collins, R. J., Colussi, J. J, Jones, R. E. and Ruggiano, L. M., 1995, Beneficial reuse of stabilized 

wastewater treatment biosolids using fly ash and alkaline reagents. Proceedings: 11th 

International Symposium on Use and Management of Coal Combustion By-products (CCBs), 

EPRI TR-104657, January. 

Crews, J. T., 1993, Use of FGD by-product as a limimng substitute on an acidic forest soil. 

Dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 

Cronk, J. K., 1992, Spatial water quality and aquatic metabolism in four newly constructed 

freshwater riparian wetlands. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, pp. 2-3. 

Diamond, D. , 1994, Determination of ortho-phosphate in waters by flow injection colorimetry. 

LATCHAT QuikChem Method 10-115-01-1-A. Latchat Instrument, Milwaukee, WI.22pp. 

Dick, W., J. Bigham, L. Forster, F. Hitzhusen, R. Lal, R. Stehouwer, S. Traina and W. Wolfe, 

1998, Land Application Uses of Dry FGD By-Product (Phase 3 Report), The Ohio State 

University. 

DSW 0400.007, 1994, Beneficial Use of Nontoxic Bottom Ash, Fly Ash, and Spent Foundry 

Sand, and Other Exempt Waste, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface 

Water policy DSW 0400.007, November 7, 1994. 

Fowler, R. K., Bigham, J. M., Traina, S., Soto, U. I., Stehouwer, R. C. and McCoy, E. L., 1992, 

Properties of clean coal technology by-products. Agronomy Abstracts. 

DeSzalay, F. A., D. P. Batzer, and V. H. Resh, 1996, Mesocosm and macrocosm experiments to 

examine effects of mowing emergent vegetation on wetland invertebrates. Environmental 

Entomology, Vol. 25, no. 2, pp.303-309. 

El-Mogazi, D., D. J. Lisk, and L. H. Weinstein, 1988, A review of physical, chemical and 

biological properties of fly ash and effects on agricultural ecosystems. Sci. Total Envrion. 74; 1 – 

37. 

Gale, P. M., J. R. Reddy and D. A. Graetz, 1993, Nitrogen removal from reclaimed water applied 

to constructed and natural wetland microcosm. Water Environment Research 65(2): 162-168. 

Gersberg, R. M., B. V. Elkins and C. R. Goldman, 1985, Wastewater treatment by artificial 

wetlands. Water Science and Technology 17: 443-450. 

Goldman, L.J, et. al., 1988, Design, Construction, and Evaluation of Clay Liners For Waste 

Management Facilities, EPA Report, EPA/530/SW-86/007F, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

Gumbright, T., 1992, Tertiary wastewater treatment using the root-zone method in temperate 

climates. Ecological Engineering 1: 199-212. 

171
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Gupta, U.C., Y.W. Jame, C.A. Campbell, A. J. Leyshon, and D. J. Lisk, 1985, Boron toxicity and 

deficiency. A review. Can. J. Soil.Sci. 65: 381 – 409. 

Ham J.M., et al., 1998, Evaluation of Lagoons for Containment of Animal Waste, Technical 

Research Report, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 

Ham J.M., et al., 1999, Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study, Technical Research Report, 

Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 

Ham J.M., et al., 2000, Evaluation of Lagoons for Containment of Animal Waste, Technical 

Research Report, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 

Hao, Y. L., 1998, Inhibition of acid production in coal refuse amended with calcium sulfite and 

calcium sulfite-containing flue gas desulfurization by-products. Dissertation, The Ohio State 

University, Columbus, 127 pp. 

Hargraves, M.D., 1994, The Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycles on the Strength of Flue Gas 

Desulfurization Sludge, M.S. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 

Hishahi Yamada, Mitsu Kayama, Kazuo saito and Masakazu Hara, 1986, A fundamental 

research on phosphate removal by using slag. Water Research 20 (5): 547-557. 

Hsu, P. H., 1977, Aluminum hydroxides and oxyhydroxides. P. 99 – 142. In J. B. Dixon and S. 

B. Weed (Ed.) Minerals in soil environment. SSSA, Madison, WI. 

Johengen, T. H. and Paul A. LaRock, 1993, Quantifying nutrient removal processes within a 

constructed wetland designed to treat urban stormwater runoff. Ecological Engineering 2: 347 ­

366. 

Kadlec, R. H. and R. L. Knight, 1996, Treatment Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 

893. 

Kim, S. H., Wolfe, W. E., Wu, T. H., 1992, Permeability of FGD By-Products, 9th Annual 

International Coal Conference, October, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 218-223 

Kim, S. H., Nodjomian, S. and Wolfe, W. E., 1995, Field demonstration project using clean coal 

technology by-products. Proceedings. Eleventh American Coal Ash Association Symposium, 

Orlando, FL. 

King, Dennis M., and Curtis C. Bohlen, 1994a, A Technical Summary of Wetland Restoration 

Costs in the Continental United States (Solomons, Md.: Center for Environmental and Estuarine 

Studies, University of Maryland, Technical Report UMCEES-CBL-94-048, January, 1994). 24 

pp. 

172
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

King, Dennis M., and Curtis C. Bohlen, 1994b, Making Sense of Wetland Restoration Costs 

(Solomons, Md.: Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, University of Maryland, 

Technical Report UMCEES-CBL-94-045, Review Copy, January, 1994), 11 pp. 

Krizek, R. J., Chu, S. C., Atmatzidis, D. K., 1987, Geotechnical Properties and Landfill Disposal 

of FGD Sludge, Geotechnical Special Publication n 13, pp.625-639. 

Laspidou C., Paul Weihe, Xinyuan Wu, and W. J. Mitsch, 1994, Present and future mesocosm 

experiments at the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park. In: W. J. Mitsch (ed.) The 

Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 1994, 

pp.95-98. 

Mann, R. A., 1990, Phosphorus removal by constructed wetlands: substratum adsorption. In: 

Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control, P. F. Cooper and B. C. Findlater (eds). 

Pergamon Press, pp. 97-105. 

Mann, R. A. and H. J. Bavor, 1993, Phosphorus removal in constructed wetlands using gravel 

and industrial waste substrata. Water Science and Technology 27(1): 107--113. 

Max, J. Busnardo, R. M. Gersberg, Rene Langis, Theresa L. Sinicrope and Joy B. Zedler, 1992, 

Nitrogen and phosphorus removal by wetland mesocosms subjected to different hydroperiods. 

Ecological Engineering 1: 287-307. 

McLeod and Ciravolo, 1997, Differential sensitivity of Nyssa Aquatica and Taxodium Distichum 

seedlings grown in fly ash amended sand. Wetlands 17(2): 330 – 335. 

Mcleod and Ciravolo, 1998, Boron tolerance and potential boron removal by bottomland tree 

seedlings. Wetlands 18(3): 431 – 436. 

Midwest Plan Service, 1979, Outside Liquid Manure Storage, AED-23, Agricultural Engineer’s 

Digest, Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 

Midwest Plan Service, 1991, Swine Housing and Equipment Handbook, Midwest Plan Service, 

Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 

Miller, M.M., Kramer, D.A., Vagt, G.O., 1993, Flue Gas Desulfurization and Industrial 

Minerals, Special Publication, U.S. Department of Interior: Bureau of Mines, October, 1993. 

Mitsch, W. J. and G. J. Gosselink, 1993, Wetlands, 2nd Ed. NewYork : Van Nostrand Reinhold. 

722pp. 

Mitsch, W. J. and Nairn, R. W., 1995, Nitrogen and Phosphorus retention by Olentangy River 

experimental wetlands, 1994-1995. In: W. J. Mitsch (ed.) The Olentangy River Wetland 

Research Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 1995, p.91-102. 

173
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Mitsch, W. J., X. Wu, R. W. Nairn, P. E. Weihe, N. Wang, R. Deal, and C. E. Boucher, 1998, 

Creating and Restoring Wetlands: A whole-ecosystem experiment in self-design. Bioscience 48 

(12): 1019 – 1030. 

Mitsch, W., Wolfe, W.E., 1999, FGD Liner Experiments with Wetlands, 15th Annual 

International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 11-15. 

Moretti, C.A., Wentz, C.A., Wiken, K.W., 1987, Development of Fly Ash Liners for Waste 

Disposal Sites, Proceedings of Eighth International Ash Utilization Symposium, October, 

American Coal Ash Association, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. 

Moretti, C.J., Development of Fly Ash-Based Liner Materials for Waste Disposal, Topical 

Report prepared by Energy and Environmental Research Center for US Department of Energy’s 

Morgantown Energy Technology Center, November, 1989. 

Nable, R. O., G. S. Banuelos, and J. G. Paull, 1997, Boron toxicity. Plant and Soil 193: 181 – 

198. 

Nairn, R. W., 1996, Biogeochemistry of newly created riparian wetlands: evaluation of water 

quality and soil development. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, p. 162. 

Nairn, R. W. and W. J. Mitsch, 1996, Water quality changes of the experimental riparian 

wetlands at the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, 1994-95. In: W. J. Mitsch (ed.) The 

Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 1996, 

p. 139-148. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000, Part 651 - Agricultural Waste Management Field 

Handbook, United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service Ohio, June 2000, Conservation Practice Standard: 

Waste Storage Facility, Code 313, United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Ohio. 

Nichols, D. S., 1983, Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients from wastewater. J. Water 

Poll. Control Fed. 55(5): 495-504. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Permit to Install for Application No. 05-8909, 

Issued June 4, 19997. 

Parks, John C., Ruf, John A., 1985, Lime and Other Additives in Optimizing FGD Sludge 

Stabilization, Coal Technology, International Coal Utilization Conference and Exhibition, v III 

& IV, pp. 201-206. 

Parks, John C.; Ruf, John A., 1985, Optimizing Ash Used in FGD Sludge Stabilization to 

Increase the Potential or Reuse, Proceedings of the Seventh International Ash Utilization 

Symposium and Exposition. v 2, pp. 806-810. 

174
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Patterson, W. L., and R. F. Banker, 1971, Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for 

Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, October, 1971), 251 pp. 

Payette, R.M., W.E. Wolfe and J. Beeghly, 1997, Use of Clean Coal Combustion By-Products in 

Highway Repairs, Fuel, 76, 749. 

Pierzynski, G. M., J. T. Sims and G. F. Vance, 1994, Soils and Environmental Quality. CRC 

Press Inc.. 313 pp. 

Prokopi, W. R., 1993, Determination of total phosphorus in persulfate digests. Latchat 

QuickChem Method 10-115-01-1-F. Latchat Instruments, Milwaukee WI, 19pp. 

Reddy, K. R. and E. M. D’Angelo, 1994, Soil processes regulating water quality in wetlands. In: 

W. J. Mitsch (ed.), Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier Science, B. V. pp. 309-324. 

Ringwald, Richard C., 1993, Means Heavy Construction Handbook (Kingston, Mass.: R.S. 

Means Company, Inc., 1993), 433 pp. 

Roy, B.L., 1994, The Effect of Freeze-Thaw Cycling on the Resilient Modulus of Clean Coal 

Technology By-Products, M.S. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 

R .S. Means Company Inc., 1999, Heavy Construction Cost Data: 2000 (Kingston, Mass.: R.S. 

Means Company, Inc., 1999), 470 pp. 

Sankary, M. N., 1985, Species distribution and growth on salt-affected land in Syria. Proc. 

Research for Development Seminar on Forage and Fuel Production from Salt-Affected 

Wastelands, Cunderlin, W. Australia. 

SAS Institute Inc.. 1988. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA. 

Smith, C.L., 1993, FGD Waste Compositions as Landfill Liner, Proceedings of EPRI-EPA SO2 

Control Symposium, Boston, Massachusetts. 

Smith, C. L., Wasserman, H. A., 1993, Landfill Liner From Fixated FGD Waste Meets 

Regulations, 6th International Conference For the Power Generating Industries, November, 

Dallas, Texas, pp. 39-52. 

Smith, C. L., 1995, Technical Considerations in Fly Ash - Fixated FGD Wastes as Landfill 

Liners, 11th International Symposium on Use and management of coal combustion by-products 

(CCBs), American Coal Ash Association, January, Orlando, Florida, Electric Power Research 

Institute, Palo Alto, 1995. 

Sposito, G., 1988, Boron uptake and accumulation by higher plants: a literature review. 

University of California. Riverside, CA, USA. EPRI/EA-5817. 

175
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Steel R. G. D., J. H. Torrie and D. A. Dickey, 1997, Principles and Procedures of Statistics, a 

Biometrical Approach, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 666 pp. 

Stehouwer, R., W. Dick, J. Bigham, L. Forster, F. Hitzhusen, E. McCoy, S. Traina and W. 

Wolfe., 1991, Land Application Uses of Dry FGD By-Products (Phase 1 Report), Electric Power 

Research Institute, Report # EPRI TR-105264. 

Stehouwer, R. C., P. Sutton, and W. A. Dick, 1995, Minespoil amendment with dry flue gas 

desulfurization by-products: plant growth. Journal of Environmental Quality 24: 861-869. 

Stehouwer, R. C., P.Sutton and W. A. Dick, 1996, Transport and plant uptake of soil-applied dry 

flue gas desulfurization by-product. Soil Science, Vol. 161, No.9. pp. 562-574. 

Stehouwer, R., W. Dick, J. Bigham, L. Forster, F. Hitzhusen, E. McCoy, S. Traina and W. 

Wolfe, 1998, Land Application Uses of Dry FGD By-Product (Phase 2 Report). Electric Power 

Research Institute, Report # EPRI TR-109652. 

Steiner, G. S. and Freeman, R. J., 1989, Configuration and substrate design considerations for 

constructed wetlands wastewater treatment. In: Constructed Wetlands in Wastewater Treatment. 

D. Hammer (ed). Lewis Publishers Inc. Michigan. pp. 363-377. 

Thies, T. L. and Peter J. McCabe, 1978, Retardation of sediment phosphorus release by fly ash 

application. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 50: 2666-2676. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Agriculture, 1994, Washington, D.C.: U. S.

Government Printing Office, Volume 1: Geographic Area Series, Part 35: State and County Data 

for 1992: Ohio, March, 1994. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, Construction Costs for Municipal 

Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1978, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing 

Office, Technical Report EPA/430/9-80-003, April, 1980, 94 pp. + Appendices. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, Identification and Listing of Hazardous 

Waste, Appendix II, Method 1311 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), Code of 

Federal Regulations 40, Part 261, pp. 66-81. 

Wendell, R. R. and K. D. Ritchey, 1996, High-calcium Flue Gas Desulfurization products reduce 

aluminum toxicity in an Appalachian soil. J. Environ. Qual. 25: 1401 – 1410. 

Wieder, R. K., M. L. Linton, and K. P. Heston, 1990, Laboratory mesocosm studies of Fe, Al, 

Mn, Ca, and Mg dynamics in wetlands exposed to synthetic acid coal mine drainage. Water, Air, 

and Soil Pollution 51: 181-196. 

176
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Wolfe, W.E. and T.S. Butalia, 1998, Use of FGD as an Impervious Liner, Proceedings of the 23rd 

International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, Clearwater, Florida, 

March 9-13. 

Wolfe, W.E., Butalia, T.S., 1999, Design and Construction of a Full-Scale Demonstration 

Facility Using CCBs, Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, Volume 25. 

Wolfe. W.E., Butalia, T.S., and Stowell, R., Preliminary Performance Assessment of an FGDLined Pond Facility, Applied Engineering in Agriculture Journal (accepted for publication). 

Wood, A., 1990, The application of artificial wetlands in South Africa. In: Constructed Wetlands 

in Water Pollution Control. P. F. Cooper and B. C. Findlater (eds.). Pergamon Press. pp. 235­

244. 

Wood, A. and Hensman, L. C., 1989, Research to develop engineering guidelines for 

implementation of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in South Africa. In: 

Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control., P. F. Cooper and B. C. Findlater (Eds.). 

Pergamon Press. pp. 581-589. 

Zamorska-Wojdyla, Dorota, Trzepierczynska, Irena, 1999, On Solidification of By-products 

from Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization Methods: WAWO and Fluidized Bed Combustion as a Way 

of Waste Management Utilization of Safe Disposal, Environmental Protection Engineering v 25 

n 4, pp 61-70. 

Zhou, Z., Dayal, R., 1990, Characterization and Leaching Studies of FGD Waste By-products, 

Waste Management v 10 n 1, pp 53-59. 

177
8 

Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

APPENDICES 

178
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Appendix A 

List of Technical Publications and Presentations, and Publicity Articles 

Journal Articles & Book Chapters 

Butalia, T.S., Wolfe, W.E., 1999, Evaluation of Permeability Characteristics of FGD Materials, 

FUEL, Volume 78, pp. 149-152. 

Wolfe, W.E., Butalia, T.S., 1999, Design and Construction of a Full-Scale Demonstration 

Facility Using CCBs, Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, Volume 25. 

Wolfe. W.E., Butalia, T.S., and Stowell, R., Preliminary Performance Assessment of an FGDLined Pond Facility, Applied Engineering in Agriculture Journal (accepted for publication). 

Butalia, T.S., and Wolfe. W.E., Use of Coal Combustion By-Products as Low Permeability 

Liners for Manure Storage Facilities, Chapter for proposed Monograph on Animal Waste 

Management / Containment, ASCE Environmental Engineering Division (in peer review) 

Conference Proceedings and Presentations 

Butalia, T.S. and W.E. Wolfe, 1997, Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the 

Construction of Impervious Liners, 1997 International Ash Utilization Symposium, Lexington, 

Kentucky, October 20-22. 

Butalia. T.S., Mafi, S. and Wolfe, W.E., 1997, Design of Full Scale Lagoon Using Clean Coal 

Technology By-Products, 13th International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and 

Management, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 16-19. 

Wolfe, W.E. and T.S. Butalia, 1998, Use of FGD as an Impervious Liner, Proceedings of the 23rd 

International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, Clearwater, Florida, 

March 9-13. 

Fortner, C., 1998, Beneficial Re-Use of a Coal Combustion Waste Product, 1st Place Award 

Wining Engineering Poster, OSU Undergraduate Research Forum, May 15, 1998. 

Butalia, T.S,. 1998, Use of CCPs as Liners and Feedlots, Educational Program for Managers of 

Coal Combustion Products (CCPs), ACAA, Morgantown, West Virginia, June 11. 

Ahn, C., W. J. Mitsch, W. E. Wolfe and W. T. Acton, 1998, Ecological engineering of wetlands 

with recycled FGD liner: first year of a mesocosm experiment. In: W.J. Mitsch and V. Bouchard 

179
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

(ed.), The Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 

1997, pp. 297 – 314. 

Butalia, T.S., Wolfe, W.E, Fortner, C.A., 1999, Preliminary Performance Assessment of An 

FGD-Lined Pond Facility, 13th International Conference on Use and Management of CCPs, 

Orlando, Florida, January 11-15. 

Mitsch, W., Wolfe, W.E., 1999, FGD Liner Experiments with Wetlands, 15th Annual 

International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 11-15. 

Ahn, C., W. J. Mitsch, W. E. Wolfe, 1999, FGD Liner Experiments With Wetlands: SecondYear Results, In: W.J. Mitsch and V. Bouchard (ed.), The Olentangy River Wetland Research 

Park at the Ohio State University, Annual Report 1998, pp. 191 – 200. 

Publicity Articles & Displays 

Farmers Await Demonstrations at Science Review, Columbus Dispatch, August 19, 1997 

Coal Alternative for Waste-Lagoon Lining, AG Answers, Purdue University, September 3, 1997 

Coal Byproduct Used in Waste Lagoons, Farm and Dairy, September 11, 1997 

Poster at Farm Science Review, London, Ohio, September 16-18, 1997 

Coal Byproducts Promising as Lining in Livestock Waste Lagoons, Ohio Country Journal, 

September 1997 

Waste Not, Want Not, Ohio State Agriculture, Fall/Winter, 1997 

Coal By-Product Possible For Lagoon Liners, Illinois AgriNews, October 24, 1997 

Poster at OTEC Conference, Columbus, Ohio, November 18-19, 1997 

Ohio - A By-Product From Coal Burning Power Plants, Progressive Farmer, November 1997 

New Uses for Old Wastes, News in Engineering, Ohio State University, January, 1998 

Research has Found Several Uses for Scrubber Material, Zanesville Times Recorder, May 16, 

Recycling of Coal Combustion Products (CCPs), Interchange, Cincinnati, Summer, 1998 

Coal Project to Host Open House, Farm and Dairy, Columbus, July 23, 1998 

180

1998 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Coal By-Products Will Help Both Farmers and the Environment, Ohio Country Journal,

Columbus, November, 1998

Poster at Farm Science Review, London, Ohio, September 21-23, 1998

Poster at Swine Day, OARDC-Western Branch, South Charleston, Ohio, September 3, 1998

By-Products Consortium Funds R&D Proposals, Clean Coal Today, Winter, 1999.

Coal Combustion Products, Display Booth, Farm Science Review, London, Ohio, September 21-23, 

1999.

181
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Appendix B 

Draft ASTM Specification for CCB Liners (12/11/97) 

ASTM Designation: 

Standard Guide for 

Use of Coal Combustion Products for Low Permeability Barriers, Liners, and 

Encapsulations 

This standard is issued under the fixed designation ___________; the number immediately 

following the designation indicates the year of original adoption. 

1 Scope 

1.1 This Guide addresses procedures for the design and construction of low permeability 

barriers, liners, and encapsulations using Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) and mixtures 

thereof. 

1.2 The utilization of CCPs under this guide is a component of a pollution prevention 

program; Guide E 1609 describes pollution prevention activities in more detail. Utilization of 

coal combustion products in this manner conserves land, natural resources, and energy. 

1.3 This guide provides general guidelines for CCPs produced primarily from the combustion 

of coal. Where appropriate, guidelines specific to different types of CCPs (fly ash, bottom ash, 

stabilized flue gas desulfurization material) are included. 

1.4 The testing, engineering, environmental, and construction practices for CCP barriers are 

similar to generally accepted practices for natural soil barriers. Specific practices are included 

for cementitious and stabilized CCPs. CCP barriers, liners, and encapsulations should be 

designed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. 

1.5 Laws and regulations governing the use of CCPs vary by state. The user of this 

standard has the responsibility to determine and comply with applicable requirements. 

1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. English units are given 

in parentheses are for information only. 

1.7 This standard does not purport to address all safety concerns, if any, associated with its 

use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health 

practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 

182
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

2 Referenced Documents 

2.1 ASTM Standards 

C25 Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Limestone, Quicklime, and Hydrated Lime 

C311 Sampling and Testing Fly ash or Natural Pozzolans for Use as A Mineral Admixture in 

Portland-Cement Mixtures. 

C305 Standard Method for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of 

Plastic Consistency. 

C472 Test Methods for Physical Testing of Gypsum, Gypsum Plasters, and Gypsum Concrete 

C593 Specification for Fly Ash and other Pozzolans for Use with Lime 

C617 Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens 

C702 Standard Practice for Reducing Field Samples of Aggregate to Testing Size 

C75 Practice for Sampling Agggregates 

D653 Standard Terminology Relating to Soil, Rock and Contained Fluids 

D698 Standard Testing for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soils-Aggregate Mixtures 

5.5 lb (2.49 -kg) Rammer and 12 in. (305-mm) Drop 

D1140 Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Sieve 

D427 Test Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by the Wax Method 

D4943 Test Method for Shrinkage Factors of Soils by the Mercury Method 

D1556 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Sand-Cone 

Method 

D1557 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soils using 

Modified Effort 

D1635 Test Method for Flexural Strength of Soil-Cement Using Simple Beams with Third-Point 

Loading 

D2166 Standard Test Methods for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil 

D2216 Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content Soil, and Rock 

D2167 Standard Test Method for Density and Unit weight of Soils in Place by the Rubber 

Balloon Method 

D2487 Classification of Soils for Engineering Responses (Unified Soil Classification System) 

D3080 Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils under Consolidated Drained Conditions 

D3282 Classification of Soils and Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes 

D3987 Test Method for Shake Extraction of Solid Waste with Water 

D4318 Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils 

D 4767 Test Method for Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Tests on Cohesive Soils 

D2922 Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil Aggregates in Place by Nuclear Methods 

(Shallow Depths) 

2.2 Other Methods 

United States Army Corp of Engineers, EM 1110-2-1906 Falling Head Permeability Test 

United States Army Corp of Engineers, EM 1110-2-1906, App. VII Constant Head Permeability 

Test 

U.S. EPA Method SW-846 Method 9081 Cation-Exchange Capacity of Soils 

183 
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3 Terminology 

3.1 Definitions - Definitions are in accordance with Terminology D 653. 

3.2 Descriptions of Terms Specific to This Standard: 

3.2.1 beneficial reuse - projects promoting public health and environmental protection, offering 

equivalent success relative to other alternatives, and preserving natural resources. 

3.2.2 binder - anything that provides or results in cohesion or cementitious properties in loosely 

assembled substances, such as clay or cement. 

3.2.3 bottom ash - agglomerated ash particles formed in pulverized coal boilers that are too 

large to be carried in the flue gases and that impinge on the boiler walls or fall through open 

grates to an ash hopper at the bottom of the boiler. Bottom ash is typically grey to black in color, 

angular and has a porous surface texture. 

3.2.4 cation - an ion that moves, or would move, toward a cathode, thus nearly always 

synonymous with positive ion. 

3.2.5 cation exchange capacity (CEC) - a measurable amount of potential for holding the 

exchange of positively charged ions resulting from dissociation of molecules in solution 

(leachate) with the CCP barrier. 

3.2.6 coal ash - material produced from the combustion of coal. 

3.2.7 coal combustion products - fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, or flue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) material resulting primarily from the combustion of coal. 

3.2.8 coefficient of permeability - the rate of discharge under laminar flow conditions through 

a unit cross-sectional area of a porous medium under a unit hydraulic gradient and standard 

temperature conditions (20oC). 

3.2.9 encapsulation - the complete enclosure of a material in another material in such a way as 

to isolate it from external effects such as those of water or air. 

3.2.10 fixation - a physical immobilizing of particulates achieved by development of chemical 

cementitious bonds. 

3.2.11 flexural strength - the maximum load sustained by a standard specimen of a sheet 

material when subjected to a bending force. 

3.2.12 flue gas desulfurization material - (FGD) material products resulting from sulfur dioxide 

removal from combustion emissions. Stabilized FGD is produced from the mixture of lime, fly 

ash, or other binder to produce products such as synthetic gypsum. 

184
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3.2.13 fluidized bed combustion ash - (FBC) a fly ash produced from the combustion of coal in 

a fluidized bed combustion unit. 

3.2.14 fly ash � the finely divided residue resulting from the combustion of ground or powdered 

coal and which is transported from the firebox through the boiler by flue gases. 

3.2.15 fly ash to flue gas desulfurization material ratio - a ratio of the amount fly ash to FGD 

material calculated on a dry weight basis. 

3.2.16 guide - a series of options or instructions that do not recommend a specific course of 

action. Discussion: Whereas a practice describes a general usage principle, a guide only 

suggests an approach. The purpose of a guide is to offer guidance, based on a consensus of 

viewpoints, but not to establish a fixed procedure. A guide is intended to increase the awareness 

of the user to available techniques in a given subject area and to provide information from which 

subsequent evaluation and standardization can be derived. 

3.2.17 hydraulic conductivity - see definition for coefficient of permeability. 

3.2.18 liquefaction - The process of transforming any material from a solid state to a liquid 

state, usually as a result of increased pore pressure and reduced shearing resistance. 

3.2.19 optimum density - the maximum density obtainable in the laboratory using a specific 

compactive effort and while varying the material moisture content. 

3.2.20 pozzolans � siliceous or siliceous and aluminous materials that in themselves possess 

little or no cementitious value but will, in finely divided form and in the presence of moisture, 

chemically react with calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperatures to form compounds possessing 

cementitious properties. 

3.2.21 practice - a definitive procedure for performing one or more specific operations or 

functions that does not produce a test result. Discussion: A practice is not a downgraded test 

method. Examples of practices include procedures of interlaboratory testing programs or other 

statistical procedures; for writing statements on sampling or precision and accuracy; and for 

selection, preparation, application, inspection, necessary precautions for the use, disposal, 

installation, maintenance, and operation of testing equipment. 

3.2.22 quicklime - a lime oxide formed by calcining limestone so that carbon dioxide is 

liberated. It may be high calcium, magnesium, or dolomitic of varying degrees of chemical 

purity. 

3.2.23 stabilization - The conversion of a material from it's original form to a physically and 

chemically more stable material. Stabilization typically includes chemical reactions that 

generate products that are less volatile, soluble, and reactive. 

185
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

3.2.24 standard - as used in ASTM, as document that has been developed and established within 

the consensus principles of the Society and that meets the approval requirements of ASTM 

procedures and regulations. Discussion: the term "standard" serves in ASTM as an adjective in 

the title of documents such as test methods or specifications, to connote specified consensus or 

approval. The various types of standard documents are based on the needs and usages as 

prescribed by the technical committees of the Society. 

3.2.25 thixotropic - material which exhibits the property of thixotropy. 

3.2.26 thixotrophy - the property of a material that enables it to stiffen in a relatively short time 

on standing, but, upon agitation or manipulation, can change to a very soft consistency or to a 

fluid of high viscosity, the process being completely reversible. 

4 Significance and Use 

4.1 General - Coal combustion products (CCPs) can be used effectively for the construction 

of engineered low permeability barriers, liners, and encapsulations. CCP's may be used as caps, 

liners or barriers, for landfills, storm water runoff basins, and other applications requiring a 

barrier to minimize fluid migration. CCPs low permeability, relatively low unit weight, 

compressive strength, flexural strength, ion exchange capability, and uniform properties make it 

an effective barrier material. Also, because CCPs are abundantly produced products, they are 

readily available for large volume applications. Use of CCPs encourages the preservation of 

natural materials and minimizes the environmental impact associated with the acquisition of 

conventional barrier materials. 

4.1.1 Compatibility of Liner Product and Infiltrate - A primary concern in the selection and the 

ultimate performance of a barrier is it's compatibility characteristics with the leachate of the 

material it is isolating from the environment. The issue of compatibility focuses on barriers, and 

liners rather than surface encapsulations since the potential for adverse chemical interactions is 

much greater. The compatibility of a liner is dependent on many variables which can alter a 

CCP liner's coefficient of permeability. US EPA SW846 Method 9100 can be used to evaluate a 

CCP's compatibility. Laboratory tests should be performed to evaluate this relationship on a 

case specific basis. 

4.1.2 Expansion and Shrinkage - CCP's generally exhibit little shrinkage if placed at the 

optimum density. Expansion is a concern for CCPs that are produced from fluidized bed 

combustion units (FBC). CCPs from some FBC units are known to have greater expansion 

potential than CCPs generated from pulverized coal units. Laboratory testing of CCPs can be 

used to determine the expected extent of expansion and shrinkage. 

4.2 Engineering Properties and Behavior 

4.2.1 Alternatives for Conventional Materials - Conventional materials such as clays or 

synthetic plastics have been used for low permeability barriers. Materials typically used for 

landfill barriers are required to have a coefficient of permeability equal to or less than 1x10-7 

186
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

cm/sec. CCP liners can achieve coefficient permeability values in the same order of magnitude 

and in addition offer other physical and operational benefits. 

4.2.2 Coefficient of Permeability - The coefficient of permeability for synthetic barriers 

utilizing plastics are typically less than 1x10-9 cm/sec. Natural soils such as liner grade clays 

range from 1x10-6 cm/sec to 1x10-9 cm/sec. Liner grade CCPs range from 1x10-6 cm/sec to 

1x10-7 cm/sec. Stabilized and pozzolanic CCP barriers develop a low coefficient of 

permeability as a result of compaction and chemical fixation or curing. Stabilized CCPs ultimate 

permeability levels are not achieved upon placement but after the cementitious chemistry 

progresses, usually within 30 to 60 days. 

4.2.2.1 State agencies that currently recognize and permit the use of these materials in liner 

construction recognize the difficulties in collecting undisturbed representative samples for testing 

and therefore require additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures. A 

QA/QC program is necessary to insure the production and placement of material is conducted in 

a manner that the materials perform as determined in the laboratory. 

4.2.3 Flexural Strength - Liner materials typically are required to allow a certain amount of 

settlement. CCPs exhibit consistent flexural strength and can be designed to accommodate 

predicted settlement. 

4.2.4 Ion Exchange Capacity - Regulatory programs may require containment systems for 

waste disposal facilities to exhibit some degree of cation exchange capability. Water in time will 

migrate through most barrier materials. Leachate above a liner may have dissolved cations (e.g. 

lead, or iron) which can be captured from the water medium passing through the barrier if the 

barrier has cation exchange capacity. A similar phenomenon is anion exchange (e.g. sulfates, 

iron, chlorides, and borates). Stabilized FGD barriers typically exhibit a cation exchange 

capacity which conforms to regulatory requirements. The anion ion exchange capacity for CCPs 

is typically in excess of two magnitudes higher than clay minerals. 

4.2.5 Erosion potential - CCPs vary in their ability to resist erosion. Bottom ash, boiler slag, 

and Stabilized FGD materials which have been properly placed and compacted according to 

good engineering practice can be resistant to wind and rain erosion. Fly ash materials are 

generally highly erodible and require a protective cover. CCP liners exposed to water wave 

action typically require additional protection. CCP barriers that are designed with binders or 

additives, such as quicklime, develop shear, compressive, and flexural strength from the 

mineralogical phase change. The cured material exhibits a low liquefaction potential and 

generally is resistant to erosion and useful for controlling stormwater runoff quality. 

4.3 Environmental Consideration 

4.3.1 Regulatory Framework 

4.3.1.1 Federal � The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has completed a study 

of CCPs for the U.S. Congress and has issued a formal regulatory determination (1,2). EPA 

187
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

"encourages the utilization of coal combustion byproducts and supports state efforts to promote 

utilization in an environmentally beneficial manner" (3). There currently are no regulatory 

requirements at the federal level on the use of CCPs. 

4.3.1.2 State and Local � There is considerable variation in state and local regulati ons. 

Regulatory requirements in most states have specific barrier provisions. 

4.4 Economic Benefits - The use of CCPs as low permeability materials can have economic 

benefits. These benefits are affected by local and regional factors including: production rates, 

processing and handling costs, transportation costs, availability of competing materials, 

environmental concerns, and the experience of materials specifiers, design engineers, 

purchasing agents, contractors, legislators, regulators, and other professionals. In many areas 

CCPs are available in bulk quantities. Use of CCPs reduces the expenditures for the purchase, 

permitting, and operation of a soil borrow pit and the associated environmental impact. 

5 Laboratory Test Procedures 

5.1 General - Laboratory testing of the barrier materials is needed to determine and confirm 

material properties for design. Test results also provide documentation that may be requested or 

required by site owners and regulatory agencies. The tests to be conducted should be determined 

based on site conditions, knowledge of the CCPs, end use, and local environmental 

considerations. Laboratory testing procedures should account for changes in properties over 

time as CCP material cures and gains strength. 

5.2 Sampling - a sampling protocol is recommended that ensures representative samples are 

collected of the CCP for quality control of the CCP source, and to verify proper placement of 

material. 

5.2.1 Bulk Sampling - Two recommended ASTM sampling procedures for bulk sampling of 

CCPs are C311 and C702. 

5.2.2 Sampling and Handling � Sampling CCPs for testing purposes should conform to 

Practice D 75 or Test Method C 311 as appropriate. Sampling of in-place CCPs should consider 

ASTM D 420 for site characterization and D1452, D1586, or D3550 for sampling methods. 

Proper laboratory protocols for handling fine material should be followed. 

5.3 Physical and Engineering Characteristics � Standard tests developed for soils may be 

used to determine CCP properties for use in CCP barriers. Test methods include ASTM D 2487, 

D 3282, D 4318, and D2216. These methods define physical and engineering parameters for use 

in design, construction control, and for comparison to other materials. 

5.3.1 Coefficient of Permeability - United States Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-2-1906 

Falling Head Permeability Test, or EM 1110-2-1906, App. VII Constant Head Permeability Test 

can be used. 

188
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

5.3.2 Compaction - Test method D 698 or D 1557 may be used to determine the relationship 

between water content and dry unit weight of CCP and to establish the maximum dry density for 

the CCP material. For non-cementitious CCPs testing can be performed as the material is 

placed. For cementitious CCPs the time interval between placement and testing in the laboratory 

should account for the influence of the rate of hydration on compaction characteristics. 

Compaction criteria should consider the thixotropic properties of uncured stabilized FGD 

material because of the potential for liquefaction due to excess vibration. The tests 

recommended for in-place density testing are D 2167, D 2922, and D1556. 

5.3.2.1 Optimum Density - ASTM Standard D 698 or D 1557 are used depending on the 

specified compactive effort. 

5.3.3 Strength - A CCP's material properties can be defined by shear strength, flexural strength, 

and compressive strength. Fly ash and stabilized FGD material typically develop additional 

strength through a mineralogical phase change resulting from the pozzolanic reaction which 

occurs over time. Testing of pozzolanic CCPs should be conducted on samples that have been 

cured at different intervals to determine the strength gain over time. 

5.3.3.1 Shear Strength - Test Method D 3080 can be used to determine the shear strength 

parameters of compacted CCP specimens for drained conditions. Test Method D 4767 can be 

used to determine the shear strength parameters for undrained conditions. 

5.3.3.2 Flexural Strength - Test Method D 1635 Standard Method for Flexural Strength of SoilCement Using Simple Beam with One-Third-Point Loading is used to determine flexural 

strength of cured CCPs. 

5.3.3.3 Compressive Strength - Test Method D 2166 can be used to determine the unconfined 

compressive strength at various stages of curing to evaluate short-term and long-term strength 

development. C 617 Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens is used in 

conjunction with the above standard in preparation of samples. 

5.3.3.4 Ion Exchange Capacity - U.S. EPA Method SW-846 Method 9081 Cation-Exchange 

Capacity of Soils is used for determining the cation exchange capacity for CCP barriers or D 

4943. 

5.3.3.5 Shrinkage and Expansion - Test method D 427 can be used to determine the shrinkage 

properties of CCPs. Test method D 4829 can be used to determine the expansive properties of 

CCPs. 

5.4 Production Quality Control for Stabilized FGD Material 

5.4.1 General - Testing during production of stabilized FGD material is recommended to 

ensure that proper proportions of materials are maintained. This section includes suggested 

parameters. 

189
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

5.4.2 Water Content - (% solids) Test Method D 2216 is recommended for determining the 

water content of stabilized FGD material. The drying temperature should be lowered to 60oC 

(140oF) to avoid driving off the water of hydration. ASTM Test C 472 can also be used when 

testing synthetic gypsum and similar materials produced from stabilized FGD material. 

5.4.3 Fly ash to FGD Material Ratio - After the determination of optimum water content, a 

completely dried sample of the barrier material mixture is tested to determine total fly ash 

content. The ratio of fly ash to FGD material is then calculated on a dry weight basis. 

5.4.4 Binder - C 25 Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Limestone, Quicklime, 

and Hydrated Lime can be used to determine the total amount of binder. 

6 Design Considerations 

6.1 General - A barrier should be constructed to provide the required amount of material 

isolation from the surrounding environment as established by the user and other regulatory 

requirements. Before the design of a barrier can begin, it is necessary to review all federal, state, 

and local regulations. The regulations address standards to which the barrier must conform. 

These standards can include, but are not limited to, the permeability coefficient, thickness, and 

integrity of construction. 

6.2 Design Specifications - Specifications should define the properties, preparation, 

placement, testing and performance of CCP's used in barriers. Barriers constructed of stabilized 

FGD material or CCPs with natural pozzolanic properties will develop different strengths and 

permeability values depending on the mix design, production, placement, and time of curing. A 

quality control program is recommended to ensure that materials used for barrier construction 

satisfy the requirements of the specification. For all CCPs, specifications should include 

requirements for subgrade preparation, in-place density, allowable range of water content, lift 

thickness, cover material, and field testing frequency. In addition for stabilized FGD materials, 

specifications should include allowable material ratios and the amount of stabilizing agent or 

other binders required. A test pad may be used to demonstrate construction specifications and 

verify lab based permeability predictions. 

6.2.1 Requirements for Stabilized FGD and Other Pozzolanic Materials 

6.2.1.1 Optimization of Mix Design - The optimum mixture of CCP, water, and binder (if 

needed) shall be determined by varying the ratios of the different components and testing for the 

material properties. Once the optimum mixture is determined, allowable component ranges 

which produce acceptable material properties are determined. 

6.2.1.2 Quality Control Plan and Quality Assurance Plan (QA/AC) - This guide recommends 

that specific plans to be followed after the optimum mix designs are determined: a Quality 

Control Plan for the production of the CCPs, and a Quality Assurance Plan for the construction 

of the CCP barrier. The nature of barrier constructed using pozzolanic material, specifically that 

it's properties improve with time (typically requiring a curing period of up to 60 days), precludes 

using in-place testing alone to verify material properties meet specified values. Implementing a 

190
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

QA/QC plan ensures that the performance of the barrier will exhibit the properties predicted in 

the laboratory. 

7 Construction 

7.1 General - Construction procedures for CCP barriers are similar to conventional earthwork 

operations. Routine methods employed with soil barriers to control dusting, erosion, and 

sedimentation are similarly required. When binders such as quicklime are mixed in-place 

additional environmental precautions maybe required. 

7.2 Construction Controls 

7.2.1 Site Preparation �The subgrade should be stripped of vegetation and organic soils. The 

subgrade should be compacted to the specified density. 

7.2.2 Placement and Compaction - CCPs should be placed and spread in uniform layers not 

exceeding the thickness specified. Tracking the CCPs with a bulldozer or truck can provide a 

portion of the compactive effort. Typically use of a vibratory or pneumatic tired roller is 

necessary to achieve the required density. CCP materials should not be placed on saturated or 

frozen material. Water added to adjust the CCP moisture content should be applied uniformly. 

Compaction should be completed after adequate time is allowed for the entire lift to equilibrate 

but before the surface of the material dries. 

7.2.3 Erosion Control - CCPs typically do not require additional sedimentation and erosion 

control measures beyond those normally employed for soil barriers to comply with state and 

local requirements.

 7.2.4 Weather Restrictions - Construction should be suspended during severe weather 

conditions. Operations may proceed during moderately wet periods by reducing the amount of 

water added to compensate for precipitation. Barrier construction should not be conducted 

during temperatures below freezing. When unprotected material is exposed to freezing 

temperatures, the material should be removed to the depth of frost penetration. After thawing, 

the frozen material typically may be reincorporated into the barrier construction. 

7.2.4.1 In various areas of the country, the daily mean air temperatures may fall below freezing 

for significant period of time during the winter. It is important to adequately protect a CCP 

barrier from freeze/thaw cycling effects. As with any constructed barrier, placing a protective 

soil cover or insulating material on top of the constructed barrier ensures that no deterioration 

will occur from freeze/thaw cycling. Typically, materials contained by the barrier can be shown 

to provide the required protective insulation. 

7.2.4.2 Stabilized CCPs - The effect of temperature on rate of strength gain should be considered 

during cooler temperatures. The hydration reaction and associated strength gain will continue at 

temperatures above freezing and will accelerate as temperatures rise. 

191
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

7.2.5 Dust Controls - As with conventional materials CCPs when exposed to the elements and 

allowed to dry, are susceptible to dusting. Dust control measures routinely used on earthwork 

projects are effective in minimizing airborne particulates. Typical controls include appropriate 

hauling methods, use of wind breaks, moisture conditioning of the CCP, wetting or covering of 

exposed CCP surfaces, chemically treating CCP surfaces and paving, wetting, and covering of 

high traffic haul roads with non-dusting materials. 

7.2.6 Requirements for Stabilized FGD and Other Pozzolanic Materials 

7.2.6.1 Field Implementation of the Quality Assurance Program - A stabilized CCP barrier's 

expected performance level is not achieved until it has undergone adequate curing. To ensure 

that the material will perform as designed in the laboratory, strict adherence to a QA plan is 

recommended. Representative sampling of the CCP material is collected as it is placed during 

barrier construction. Laboratory testing is used to verify that the material is produced according 

to design specifications, and determines the optimum density at which the uncured CCP 

materials must be placed. In place density testing can be conducted on the CCP barrier to ensure 

curing conditions meet those defined in the specifications. An additional layer of CCP barrier 

material can be used as a protective cover to ensure optimum conditions are maintained for 

curing the primary barrier layer. The QA plan should specify the frequency and quantity of 

laboratory testing required. 

8 Keywords 

8.1 Flue Gas Desulfurization materials, liners, coal ash, coal combustion products, barrier, 

utilization, pollution prevention, beneficial reuse 

REFERENCES 

1. Report to Congress, Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power 

Plants, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/530-SW-88-002, February 1988. 

2. Final Regulatory Determination on Four Large Volume Wastes from the Combustion of 

Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants," Federal Register, Aug. 9, 1993, pp. 42466-42482. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: 

Physical/ Chemical Methods (SW846), Vol. 1C, 3rd Edition 1990. 

4. Electric Power Research Institute, TR 103322 Guidelines for the Design and Installation 

of By - product Containment Facilities, Baker Environmental, Inc., November 1994 

5. Bacher, J.R.; Collins, R.J.; Taylor, J.A.; Miller, M. A.; Coal Combustion Fly ash 

Construction Material in a Sanitary Landfill Project, VFL Technology, October 1996. 

6. Chen, X.; Wolfe, W.E.; The Durability of Stabilized Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludge, 

Ohio State University, Civil Engineering Dept., October 1995. 

7. Electric Power Research Institute Report TR 104137 Coal Ash Disposal Manual, third 

edition, GAI Consultants Inc., January 1995. 

8. Electric Power Research Institute Report TR 104947 Liner-Waste Compatibility Study 

for Coal-Fired Power Plants, December 1996. 

9. Kuster, T.; Kula, J.R.; Kramer M.K.; "The Potential Use of Coal Ash in the Construction 

and Operations of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill", In Proceedings: 11th International 

192
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Symposium on Use and Management of Coal Combustion By-products (CCBs), Vol 2. 

January 1995. 

10. Amaya, P.J., Booth, E.E., Collins, R. J. "Design and Construction of Roller Compacted 

Base Courses Containing Stabilized Coal Combustion By Products Materials". In 

Proceeding: 12th International Symposium on Use and Management of Coal Combustion 

By Products (CCBs), January 1997. 

11. Amaya, P.J., and Beeghly, J.H. "Durability of Base Course Construction Using Lime 

Stabilized Fly Ash and Flue Gas Desulfurization By Product." Proceedings: 13th Annual 

International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh, PA September 1996. 

193
Re-Use of Clean Coal Technology By-Products in the Construction of Low Permeability Liners December 2000 

Appendix C 

Field Permeability Testing at The Proposed Waste Lagoon 

at OARDC Western Branch, South Charleston, Ohio 

(Prepared by William L. Broskey, P.E., BBC & M Engineering, November 24, 1997) 

194