Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

EPA/310-R-97-007 

EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project 

Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry 

September 1997

Office of Compliance

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M St., SW (MC 2223-A)

Washington, DC 20460

Sector Notebook Project September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

This report is one in a series of volumes published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to provide information of general interest regarding environmental issues associated with 

specific industrial sectors. The documents were developed under contract by Abt Associates 

(Cambridge, MA), Science Applications International Corporation (McLean, VA), and Booz-Allen 

& Hamilton, Inc. (McLean, VA). This publication may be purchased from the Superintendent of 

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. A listing of available Sector Notebooks and 

document numbers is included on the following page. 

All telephone orders should be directed to: 

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

(202) 512-1800

FAX (202) 512-2250

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST, M-F

Using the form provided at the end of this document, all mail orders should be directed to: 

U.S. Government Printing Office

P.O. Box 371954

Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954

Complimentary volumes are available to certain groups or subscribers, such as public and 

academic libraries, Federal, State, and local governments, and the media from EPA’s National 

Center for Environmental Publications and Information at (800) 490-9198. For further 

information, and for answers to questions pertaining to these documents, please refer to the 

contact names and numbers provided within this volume. 

Electronic versions of all Sector Notebooks are available free of charge at the following web 

address: www.epa.gov/oeca/sector. Direct technical questions to the “Feedback” button at the 

bottom of the web page. 

Cover photograph courtesy of Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 

Sector Notebook Contacts 

Sector Notebook Project September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

The Sector Notebooks were developed by the EPA’s Office of Compliance. Questions relating to the 

Sector Notebook Project can be directed to: 

Seth Heminway, Coordinator, Sector Notebook Project

US EPA Office of Compliance

401 M St., SW (2223-A)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-7017

Questions and comments regarding the individual documents can be directed to the appropriate specialists 

listed below. 

Document Number Industry 

EPA/310-R-95-001. Dry Cleaning Industry

EPA/310-R-95-002. Electronics and Computer Industry*

EPA/310-R-95-003. Wood Furniture and Fixtures Industry

EPA/310-R-95-004. Inorganic Chemical Industry*

EPA/310-R-95-005. Iron and Steel Industry

EPA/310-R-95-006. Lumber and Wood Products Industry

EPA/310-R-95-007. Fabricated Metal Products Industry*

EPA/310-R-95-008. Metal Mining Industry

EPA/310-R-95-009. Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry

EPA/310-R-95-010. Nonferrous Metals Industry

EPA/310-R-95-011. Non-Fuel, Non-Metal Mining Industry

EPA/310-R-95-012. Organic Chemical Industry*

EPA/310-R-95-013. Petroleum Refining Industry

EPA/310-R-95-014. Printing Industry

EPA/310-R-95-015. Pulp and Paper Industry

EPA/310-R-95-016. Rubber and Plastic Industry

EPA/310-R-95-017. Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Industry

EPA/310-R-95-018. Transportation Equipment Cleaning Ind.

EPA/310-R-97-001. Air Transportation Industry

EPA/310-R-97-002. Ground Transportation Industry

EPA/310-R-97-003. Water Transportation Industry

EPA/310-R-97-004. Metal Casting Industry

EPA/310-R-97-005. Pharmaceuticals Industry

EPA/310-R-97-006. Plastic Resin and Man-made Fiber Ind.

EPA/310-R-97-007. Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Ind.

EPA/310-R-97-008. Shipbuilding and Repair Industry

EPA/310-R-97-009. Textile Industry

EPA/310-R-97-010. Sector Notebook Data Refresh-1997

EPA/310-R-98-001. Aerospace Industry

EPA/310-R-98-002. Agricultural Chemical, Pesticide, and

Fertilizer Industry

EPA/310-R-98-003. Agricultural Crop Production Industry

EPA/310-R-98-004. Agricultural Livestock Production Ind.

EPA/310-R-98-005. Oil and Gas Exploration and Production

Industry

EPA/310-R-98-008. Local Government Operations

*Spanish translations available.

Contact Phone (202) 

Joyce Chandler 564-7073 

Steve Hoover 564-7007 

Bob Marshall 564-7021 

Walter DeRieux 564-7067 

Maria Malave 564-7027 

Seth Heminway 564-7017 

Scott Throwe 564-7013 

Jane Engert 564-5021 

Anthony Raia 564-6045 

Jane Engert 564-5021 

Rob Lischinsky 564-2628 

Walter DeRieux 564-7067 

Tom Ripp 564-7003 

Ginger Gotliffe 564-7072 

Seth Heminway 564-7017 

Maria Malave 564-7027 

Scott Throwe 564-7013 

Virginia Lathrop 564-7057 

Virginia Lathrop 564-7057 

Virginia Lathrop 564-7057 

Virginia Lathrop 564-7057 

Jane Engert 564-5021 

Emily Chow 564-7071 

Sally Sasnett 564-7074 

Rafael Sanchez 564-7028 

Anthony Raia 564-6045 

Belinda Breidenbach 564-7022 

Seth Heminway 564-7017 

Anthony Raia 564-6045 

Shruti Sanghavi 564-4158 

Ginah Mortensen (913)551-7864 

Ginah Mortensen (913)551-7864 

Dan Chadwick 564-7054 

John Dombrowski 564-7036 

Sector Notebook Project September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

Sector Notebook Project iii September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

FOSSIL FUEL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION INDUSTRY

(SIC 4911, 493)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................. vii

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SECTOR NOTEBOOK PROJECT .................. 1

A. Summary of the Sector Notebook Project ................................. 1

B. Additional Information ............................................... 2

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOSSIL FUEL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION 

INDUSTRY .......................................................... 3

A. Introduction, Background, and Scope of the Notebook ...................... 3

B. Characterization of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry .......... 4

1. Product Characterization ........................................ 5

2. Industry Size and Geographic Distribution of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power

Generation Industry ........................................ 5

3. Industry Size and Geographic Distribution of Traditional Utilities ........ 7

4. Industry Size and Geographic Distribution of Nonutilities .............. 13

5. Economic Trends ............................................ 19

III. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................. 23

A. Industrial Processes in the Fossil Fuel Electric Generation Industry ............ 23

1. Steam Turbine Generation ...................................... 23

2. Internal Combustion Generation ................................. 32

3. Gas Turbine Generation ....................................... 33

4. Combined-Cycle Generation .................................... 34

5. Cogeneration ................................................ 35

6. Supporting Operations ......................................... 36

B. Raw Material Inputs and Pollution Outputs .............................. 38

1. Fossil Fuels and Other Raw Material Inputs ........................ 38

2. Pollutant Outputs ............................................ 40

Sector Notebook Project i September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

IV. WASTE RELEASE PROFILE .......................................... 47

A. Available Solid Waste Release Data for the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

Industry ...................................................... 47

B. Available Water Release Information for the Fossil Fuel Electric Power 

Generation Industry ............................................. 51

C. Available Air Emissions Data for the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

Industry ................................................ 53

1. Annual Emissions Estimated by the Department of Energy,

Energy Information Administration .......................... 53

2. AIRS Database Annual Estimated Releases for the Electric

Power Generation Industry .................................. 54

3. Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates for Fossil Fuel Electric Utility

Steam Generating Units .................................... 56

V. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES ........................... 71

A. Pollution Prevention Technologies in the DOE Clean Coal Technology

Demonstration Program ......................................... 72

1. Emerging Technologies ........................................ 72

2. Coal Processing for Clean Fuels ................................. 76

B. Other Pollution Prevention Technologies ................................ 77

C. Other Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Opportunities ............ 79

1. Process or Equipment Modification Options ........................ 79

2. Inventory Management and Preventative Maintenance for

Waste Minimization ....................................... 85

3. Potential Waste Segregation and Separation Options .................. 86

4. Recycling Options ............................................ 87

5. Facility Maintenance Wastes .................................... 89

6. Storm Water Management Practices .............................. 92

7. Training and Supervision Options ................................ 94

8. Demand-Side Management Programs ............................. 94

VI. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS . . . 95

A. General Description of Major Statutes ................................. 95

B. Industry-Specific Requirements ..................................... 106

C. Pending and Proposed Regulatory Requirements ......................... 116

VII. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT HISTORY ......................... 119

A. Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry Compliance History .......... 123

B. Comparison of Enforcement Activity Between Selected Industries ........... 125

C. Review of Major Legal Actions ...................................... 130

1. Review of Major Cases ....................................... 130

2. Supplemental Environmental Projects ............................ 131

Sector Notebook Project ii September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

VIII. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES ............. 133

A. Sector-Related Environmental Programs and Activities .................... 133

B. EPA Voluntary Programs ........................................... 134

C. Trade Association/Industry Sponsored Activity .......................... 137

1. Environmental Programs ...................................... 138

2. Summary of Trade Associations ................................ 138

IX. CONTACTS/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/RESOURCE MATERIALS/

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................... 143

Sector Notebook Project iii September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Comparison of Utility and Nonutility Electric Power Generation (1995) ...... 6

Table 2: Revenues From Major Utility Generators (1995) ........................ 9

Table 3: Top Ten Investor-Owned Utilities Ranked by Revenue From Sales to 

Ultimate Consumers (1995) ........................................ 9

Table 4: Top Ten Publicly Owned Generator Utilities Ranked by Megawatt Sales 

to Ultimate Consumers (1994) ..................................... 10

Table 5: Existing Capacity of All U.S. Utilities by Prime Mover (fossil fuels, 

renewable fuels, and other fuels) (1995) .............................. 12

Table 6: Fossil-Fueled Utility Capacity by Prime Mover (1995) .................. 12

Table 7: Utility Generating Capability and Net Generation by Energy Source (1995) . . 13

Table 8: Major SIC Codes and Industrial Categories Where Nonutility Power 

Generation Activities Are Found ................................... 16

Table 9 : Existing Capacity of Nonutilities by Prime Mover (1995) ................ 18

Table 10: Nonutility Capacity by Fossil Fuel Energy Source (1995) ................ 18

Table 11: 1995 Nonutility Net Generation by Primary Fossil Fuel Energy Source and 

Type of Producer (thousand megawatthours) .......................... 19

Table 12: Characteristics of Various Types of Stokers ........................... 26

Table 13: Summary of Typical Waste Streams and Pollutants Generated at Fossil 

Fuel Electric Power Generation Facilities Based on Fuel Type ............ 43

Table 14: Generation and Disposition of Utility Fly and Bottom Ash, 1994 (thousand 

short tons) .................................................... 48

Table 15: Generation and Disposition of Utility FGD Sludge, 1994 (thousand short 

tons) ......................................................... 49

Table 16: Estimated Nonutility Generation of Coal Ash, 1990 ..................... 50

Table 17: List of Pollutants Reported in 1992 PCS Data from Steam Electric Facilities . . 52

Table 18: Estimated 1995 Emissions From Fossil Fuel Steam Electric Generating 

Units at Electric Utilities by Fuel Type (thousand short tons) .............. 53

Table 19: Criteria Pollutant Releases (short tons/year) ........................... 55

Table 20: Estimated Releases of TRI Chemicals ............................... 58

Table 21: Median Emission Factors Determined From Test Report Data, and Total 

1990 and 2010 HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor 

Program for Inorganic HAPs From Coal-Fired Units .................... 61

Table 22: Median Emission Factors Determined From Test Report Data, and Total 

1990 and 2010 HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program 

for Inorganic HAPs From Oil-Fired Units ............................ 62

Table 23: Median Emission Factors Determined From Test Report Data, and Total 

1990 and 2010 HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program 

for Inorganic HAPs From Gas-Fired Units ............................ 63

Table 24: Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010

HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic 

HAPs From Coal-Fired Units ...................................... 64

Table 25: Median Emission Factors from Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 

Sector Notebook Project iv September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

HAP Emissions, Projected with the Emission Factor Program for Organic 

HAPs from Oil Fired Units ....................................... 68

Table 26: Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 

HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic 

HAPs From Gas-Fired Units ...................................... 70

Table 27: Summaries of Clean Coal Technologies Under DOE’s Clean Coal 

Technology Demonstration Program ................................ 73

Table 28: Pollution Prevention Opportunities for Reducing Cooling Tower Emissions . . 81

Table 29: Pollution Prevention Options for Fireside Washes ...................... 82

Table 30: Pollution Prevention Options for Boiler Cleaning Wastes ................ 85

Table 31: Inventory Management and Preventative Maintenance Waste Minimization

Opportunities .................................................. 87

Table 32: Current and Potential Uses for Fly Ash .............................. 88

Table 33: Pollution Prevention Opportunities For Facility Maintenance Wastes ........ 91

Table 34: Common Pollution Prevention Practices for Managing Runoff at Coal 

Storage and Handling Areas ....................................... 92

Table 35: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Opportunities at Fossil Fuel Electric 

Power Generation Facilities ...................................... 93

Table 36: New Source Performance Standards ............................... 109

Table 37: Waste Streams and Pollutants Regulated Under National Effluent Limitation

Guidelines for the Steam Electric Generating Point Source Category ....... 113

Table 38: Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Fossil Fuel 

Electric Power Generation Industry ................................ 124

Table 39: One-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for Selected Industries . . . 126

Table 40: Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for Selected Industries . . 127

Table 41: Five-Year Inspection and Enforcement Summary by Statute for Selected

Industries .................................................... 128

Table 42: One-Year Inspection and Enforcement Summary by Statute for Selected

Industries .................................................... 129

Table 43: List of Power Plants That Participated in the Environmental Leadership 

Program For 1995 and 1996 ...................................... 135

Sector Notebook Project v September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Total Utility and Nonutility Electric Power Net Generation Based on Fuels (1995) . 7

Figure 2: Total Utility Electricity Sales to Ultimate Consumers ....................... 8

Figure 3: Geographic Distribution of U.S. Utility Electric Power Net Generation ......... 11

Figure 4: Nonutility Capacity by Type of Producer ................................ 15

Figure 5: Geographic Distribution of U.S. Nonutility Electric Power Net Generation ...... 17

Figure 6: Steam Turbine Generation ........................................... 25

Figure 7: Stoker Coal Feeder ................................................ 27

Figure 8: Typical Cyclone Coal Burners ........................................ 28

Figure 9: Tangential Firing Pattern ............................................ 29

Figure 10: Flow Pattern of Horizontal Firing ..................................... 30

Figure 11: Flow Pattern of Arch Firing .......................................... 31

Figure 12: Typical Bubbling Fluidized-Bed Boiler ................................. 32

Figure 13: Simple Gas Turbine Cycle ........................................... 33

Figure 14: Combined Cycle with Heat Recovery ................................... 34

Figure 15: Cogeneration Plant Schematic ........................................ 36

Figure 16: Waste Streams Generated at a Typical Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

Plant ........................................................... 44

Sector Notebook Project vi September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

ACAA American Coal Ash Association

AEE Association of Energy Engineers

AEPCO Arizona Electric Power Cooperative

AFS AIRS Facility Subsystem (CAA database)

AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System (CAA database)

APPA American Public Power Association

ANL Argonne National Laboratory

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BIFs Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (RCRA)

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

BPJ Best Professional Judgment

BTU British Thermal Unit

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CaCl2 Calcium Chloride

CAPI Clean Air Power Initiative

CCGT Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine

CCP Coal Combustion Product

CCT Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Project (DOE)

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLIS CERCLA Information System

CEQ Council for Environmental Quality

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon

CHIEFs Clearing House of Inventory Emissions Factors

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CP&L Carolina Power and Light 

CSI Common Sense Initiative 

CWA Clean Water Act

D&B Dun and Bradstreet Marketing Index

DOE Department of Energy

DSA Dimensionally stable

DSM Demand Side Management

EA Environmental Assessment

EDS Effluent Data Statistics System

EEI Edison Electric Institute

EIA Energy Information Administration (DOE)

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELP Environmental Leadership Program

EMS Environmental Management System 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Sector Notebook Project vii September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

EPACT Energy Policy Act of 1992

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

EPSA Electric Power Supply Association

EWG Exempt Wholesale Generators

FAC Free Available Chlorine

FBC Fluidized Bed Combustion

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FINDS Facility Indexing System

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants (CAA)

HCFC Hydrochloroflourocarbon

HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

IDEA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis

ICCR Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking

IGCC Integrated Coal Gasification Combined-cycle

IPP Independent Power Producer

KW Kilowatt

LAER Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions (RCRA)

LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology (CAA)

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 

MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

MW Megawatt 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAA)

NAFCOG North American Fuel Cell Owner Group

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NCDB National Compliance Database (for TSCA, FIFRA, EPCRA)

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERC North American Reliability Council

NEIC National Enforcement Investigation Center 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NGFC Natural Gas Fuel Cell

NMHC Non-Methane Hydrocarbon

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOV Notice of Violation 

NOX Nitrogen Oxide 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (CWA)

Sector Notebook Project viii September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

NPL National Priorities List

NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

NRC National Response Center 

NSR New Source Review 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards (CAA)

OAR Office of Air and Radiation

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OIT Office of Industrial Technology (DOE)

OPA Oil Pollution Act

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSW Office of Solid Waste

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OTAG Ozone Transport Assessment Group

OW Office of Water

P2 Pollution Prevention

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon

Pb Lead

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PCS Permit Compliance System (CWA Database)

PEPCO Potomac Electric Power Company

PETC Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center

PM Particulate Matter

PMN Premanufacture Notice

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration (CAA)

PSES Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

PSNS Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

PSE&G Public Service Electric and Gas

PT Total Particulate Emissions

PUHCA Public Utility Holding Company Act

PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act

QF Qualifying Facility (PURPA)

RACT Reasonably Achievable Control Technology

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS RCRA Information System

RDF Refuse Derived Fuel

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEP Supplementary Environmental Project 

SERC State Emergency Response Commission 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SIP State Implementation Plan (CAA)

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SOX Sulfur Oxides

Sector Notebook Project ix September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Sector Notebook Project 

TCRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System

TDSS Total Dissolved Suspended Solids

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TRC Total Residual Chlorine 

TRI Toxic Release Inventory

TRIS Toxic Release Inventory System

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSDF Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility (RCRA)

TSS Total Suspended Solids

UARG Utility Air Regulatory Group 

UIC Underground Injection Control (SDWA)

UST Underground Storage Tanks (RCRA)

USWAG Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

UWAG Utility Water Act Group

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Sector Notebook Project x September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section I. Intro. to the Sector Notebook Project 

FOSSIL FUEL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION INDUSTRY 

(SIC 4911, 493) 

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SECTOR NOTEBOOK PROJECT 

I.A. Summary of the Sector Notebook Project 

Integrated environmental policies based upon comprehensive analysis of air, 

water, and land pollution are a logical supplement to traditional single-media 

approaches to environmental protection. Environmental regulatory agencies 

are beginning to embrace comprehensive, multi-statute solutions to facility 

permitting, enforcement and compliance assurance, education/outreach, 

research, and regulatory development issues. The central concepts driving the 

new policy direction are that pollutant releases to each environmental medium 

(i.e., air, water, and land) affect each other and that environmental strategies 

must actively identify and address these inter-relationships by designing 

policies for the "whole" facility. One way to achieve a whole facility focus is 

to design environmental policies for similar industrial facilities. By doing so, 

environmental concerns that are common to the manufacturing of similar 

products can be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Recognition of the 

need to develop the industrial “sector-based” approach within the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Compliance led to the 

creation of this document. 

The Sector Notebook Project was originally initiated by the Office of 

Compliance within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA) to provide its staff and managers with summary information for 18 

specific industrial sectors. As other EPA offices, states, the regulated 

community, environmental groups, and the public became interested in this 

project, the scope of the original project was expanded to its current form. 

The ability to design comprehensive, common sense environmental protection 

measures for specific industries depends on knowledge of several interrelated 

topics. For the purposes of this project, the key elements chosen for inclusion 

are general industry information (economic and geographic); a description of 

industrial processes; pollution outputs; pollution prevention opportunities; 

Federal statutory and regulatory framework; compliance history; and a 

description of partnerships that have been formed between regulatory 

agencies, the regulated community, and the public. 

For any given industry, each topic listed above could alone be the subject of 

a lengthy volume. However, in order to produce a manageable document, 

however, this project focuses on providing summary information for each 

topic. This format provides the reader with a synopsis of each issue and 

references where more in-depth information is available. Text within each 

profile was researched from a variety of sources and was usually condensed 

Sector Notebook Project 1 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section I. Intro. to the Sector Notebook Project 

from more detailed sources pertaining to specific topics. This approach 

allows for a wide coverage of activities that can be further explored based 

upon the citations and references listed at the end of this profile. To check the 

information included, each notebook went through an external review process. 

The Office of Compliance appreciates the efforts of all those who participated 

in this process who enabled the development of more complete, accurate, and 

up-to-date summaries. Many of those who reviewed this notebook are listed 

as contacts in Section IX and may be sources of additional information. The 

individuals and groups on this list do not necessarily concur with all 

statements within this notebook. 

I.B. Additional Information 

Providing Comments 

The OECA Office of Compliance plans to periodically review and update the 

notebooks and will make these updates available both in hard copy and 

electronically. If you have any comments on the existing notebook, or if you 

would like to provide additional information, please send a hard copy and 

computer disk to the EPA Office of Compliance, Sector Notebook Project 

(2223-A), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments can also 

be uploaded to the Enviro$en$e World Wide Web for general access to all 

users of the system. Follow instructions in Appendix A for accessing this 

system. Once you have logged in, procedures for uploading text are available 

from the on-line Enviro$en$e Help System. 

Adapting Notebooks to Particular Needs 

The scope of the industry sector described in this notebook approximates the 

national occurrence of facility types within the sector. In many instances, 

industries within specific geographic regions or states may have unique 

characteristics that are not fully captured in these profiles. The Office of 

Compliance encourages state and local environmental agencies and other 

groups to supplement or repackage the information included in this notebook 

to include more specific industrial and regulatory information that may be 

available. Additionally, interested states may want to supplement the 

"Summary of Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations" section with state 

and local requirements. Compliance or technical assistance providers may 

also want to develop the "Pollution Prevention" section in more detail. Please 

contact the appropriate specialist listed on the opening page of this notebook 

if your office is interested in assisting us in further development of the 

information or policies addressed within this volume. If you are interested in 

assisting in the development of new notebooks for sectors not covered in the 

original 18, please contact the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-2395. 

Sector Notebook Project 2 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOSSIL FUEL ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION 

INDUSTRY 

This Sector Notebook addresses the fossil fuel electric power generation 

industry, which comprises the majority of the total electric power generation 

industry. This subset of the industry includes only facilities that use either 

coal, petroleum, or gas as the energy source to generate electricity and does 

not include facilities that use nuclear or renewable (e.g., wood, solar) energy 

sources exclusively. However, this subset would include power generation 

activities at facilities that use both fossil fuels and another energy source. In 

addition, the scope of this profile is further limited to address only those 

facilities that generate electricity either as a primary activity or as an 

ancillary activity. The profile does not include facilities and activities 

associated with the transmission and distribution of electricity. 

II.A Introduction, Background, and Scope of the Notebook 

Fossil fuel electric power generation facilities are classified under Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) code 49, which includes establishments 

engaged in electric, gas, and sanitary services. These facilities can be further 

classified under the following three- and four-digit SIC codes from the 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual of the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

�SIC 4911 - Electric Services: Establishments that are engaged in the 

generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale. 

�SIC 493 - Combination Electric and Gas, and Other Utility Services: 

Establishments providing electric or gas services in combination with other 

services. Establishments are classified here only if one service does not 

constitute at least 95 percent of revenues. 

It should be noted that these SIC codes do not make the necessary 

distinctions between fuels used and generation versus transmission and 

distribution activities. Data available to characterize the fossil fuel electric 

power generation industry that use these SIC codes also may not distinguish 

between these categories of facilities. Where these categories of facilities 

and/or activities cannot be distinguished in the available data, it will be so 

noted within the profile. 

Fossil fuel electric power generation facilities are also classified under a new 

system called the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 

which replaced the existing SIC codes in January 1997. The NAICS 

classification code for fossil fuel electric power generation is 221112. 

Sector Notebook Project 3 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Power generation facilities and activities exist in association with both 

traditional utilities or nonutility power producers. Traditional utilities are the 

regulated industry that produces and provides electricity for public use. Prior 

to 1980, nonutilities consisted of industrial manufacturers that produced 

electricity for their own use. Currently, nonutilities not only consist of 

industrial manufacturers, but also other industrial groups that provide 

electricity and other services for their own use and/or for sale to others. 

These categories are discussed further below. 

This section provides background information on the size, geographic 

distribution, electricity production, sales, and economic condition of the 

fossil fuel electric power generation industry. The type of facilities described 

within the document are also described in terms of their SIC codes. 

Additionally, this section lists the largest companies in terms of sales. 

II.B Characterization of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) collects, evaluates, and disseminates information on the fossil fuel 

electric power generation industry. This information is published annually. 

In addition, industry trade associations collect information. 

Available statistics on the fossil fuel electric power generation industry 

typically characterize the industry in terms of capacity, generating capability, 

net generation, and revenues. These terms are defined as follows: 

�Capacity is the amount of electric power delivered or required for which 

a generator, turbine, or system has been rated by the manufacturer. 

�Capability is the maximum load that a generating unit can be expected to 

carry under specified conditions for a given period of time without exceeding 

approved limits of temperature or stress. The net capability of a generating 

unit is always less than the rated capacity. 

�Net generation is the total amount of electricity generated minus the 

electricity used by the facility itself. 

�Revenue is the total amount of money received by a firm from sales of its 

products and/or services, gains from the sales or exchange assets, interest and 

dividends earned on investments, and other increases in the owner’s equity 

except those arising from capital adjustments. 

The following sections briefly summarize information available to 

characterize the industry. 

II.B.1 Product Characterization 

Sector Notebook Project 4 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

The product in fossil fuel electric power generation is electricity. Ancillary 

activities associated with the generation of electricity may generate other 

products, however. For example, cogeneration systems produce electricity, 

as well as another form of usable energy (i.e., steam or heat). In addition, 

utilities with SIC code 493 may produce other products, such as gas. These 

other products are beyond the scope of this profile. 

II.B.2 Industry Size and Geographic Distribution of the Fossil Fuel Electric 

Power Generation Industry 

In general, the power generation industry comprises both traditional and 

nontraditional electric-producing companies. They are called "utility" and 

"nonutility" power producers, respectively. A key difference between 

utilities and nonutilities is that utilities own generation, transmission, and 

distribution functions. Thus, utilities are "vertically" oriented. Nonutilities, 

on the other hand, generally own only generation capabilities. Often, the 

nonutilities must rely on utilities to sell the electricity they produce. 

A utility power producer is generally defined as any person, corporation, 

municipality, State political subdivision or agency, irrigation project, Federal 

power administration, or other legal entity that is primarily engaged in the 

retail or wholesale sale, exchange, and/or transmission of electric energy. In 

1995, there were 3,199 utilities in the United States; however, only 700 of 

these utilities generated electric power. The remainder were electric utilities 

that purchased wholesale power from others for the purpose of distribution 

over their lines to the ultimate consumer. The 700 utilities that generated 

power had a total of 3,094 power plants or stations.1 

A nonutility power producer is defined as any person, corporation, 

municipality, State political subdivision or agency, Federal agency, or other 

legal entity that either (1) produces electric energy at a qualifying facility 

(QF)a

 as defined under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) 

or (2) produces electric energy but is primarily engaged in business activities 

other than the sale of electricity. In 1995, there were 4,190 nonutility powergenerating facilities. Generation by nonutility power producers accounted 

for approximately 12 percent of the total U.S. electric generation. Fifty-six 

percent of the electricity generated by nonutilities was sold to electric 

utilities.2 

a To receive status as a QF under PURPA, a facility must meet certain ownership, thermal output size, and 

efficiency criteria established by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). QFs are guaranteed that 

electric utilities will purchase their output at a reasonable price. 

Sector Notebook Project 5 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Table 1 provides electric power generation statistics for the year 1995 that 

allows comparison between electric power generation by both utilities and 

nonutilities based on the fuels used. 

Table 1: Comparison of Utility and Nonutility Electric Power Generation (1995) 

Energy 

Source 

Utility Generation 

(thousand megawatthours) 

Nonutility Generation 

(thousand megawatthours)*** 

Total U.S. Generation 

(thousand megawatthours)

*** 

Fossil 2,021,064 287,696 2,308,760 

Nuclear 673,402 �(�) 673,402 

Hydroelectric

* 293,653 14,515 308,168 

Renewable 

and other** 

6,409 98,295 104,704 

Total 2,994,528 400,505 3,395,033 

* Includes hydroelectric, conventional, and pumped storage. ** Includes geothermal, solar, waste, wind, photovoltaic, and biomass; projects for which there were two primary 

energy sources; and projects that did not identify the primary energy source. Nonutility data includes nuclear. 

*** Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. 

� Nonutility facilities using nuclear are including under "Renewable and other." 

Sources: (a) Electric Power Annual, 1995, Volume 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 

Washington, DC. July 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95/1); and (b) 1995 Capacity and Generation of Non-Utility Sources of 

Energy. Prepared by the Edison Electric Institute, Washington, DC. November 1996. 

Based on these numbers and as shown in Figure 1, fossil fuel electric power 

generation represented 68 percent of the total U.S. electric power generation 

industry’s total production of electricity in that year (both utility and 

nonutility combined). Nuclear energy represented 20 percent, renewable 

energy sources represented about 12 percent, and other energy sources 

represented less than 1 percent of the electricity production. 

Sector Notebook Project 6 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Figure 1: Total Utility and Nonutility Electric Power Net 

Generation Based on Fuels (1995) 

In general, statistics on utility and nonutility electric power production are 

not aggregated. The following sections provide a more in-depth discussion 

of the information available to characterize the utility and nonutility electric 

power generators. 

II.B.3 Industry Size and Geographic Distribution of Traditional Utilities 

Ownership Categories and Revenues 

Electric utilities are divided into four ownership categories: investor-owned, 

publicly owned, cooperative-owned, and Federally owned. These categories 

are described as follows: 

�Investor-owned utilities produce a return for investors. They either 

distribute profits to stockholders as dividends or reinvest the profits. 

Investor-owned utilities are regulated entities that are granted a service 

monopoly in certain geographic areas and are obliged to serve all consumers 

and charge reasonable prices. 

�Publicly-owned utilities are non-profit local government agencies (e.g., 

municipalities, counties, States, and public utility districts) that serve 

communities and nearby consumers at cost, returning excess funds to the 

consumer in the form of community contributions, economic and efficient 

facilities, and lower rates. 

�Cooperative utilities are owned by their members and are established to 

provide electricity to those members. Cooperatives typically provide electric 

service to small rural communities of 1,500 or less. 

�Federal electrical utilities do not generate power for profit. The Federal 

government is primarily a producer and wholesaler of electricity, and 

Sector Notebook Project 7 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry

Sector Notebook Project 8 September 1997

preference in the purchase of the electricity is given to publicly owned and

cooperative electric utilities.

In 1995, there were 244 investor-owned, 2,014 publicly owned, 10 Federal,

and 931 cooperative utilities. Figure 2 shows the percentage of 1995 U.S.

electricity salesto ultimate consumers based on ownership type. Total sales

were 1,013 billion kilowatthours. Only a portion of these utilities own

and/or operate fossil fuel electric power generation capacity.

Figure 2: 3

Among he ownership classes,

investor-owned utilities account for more than 75 percent of all retail sales

and revenues. In 1995, revenues from major utility generators totaled 208

billion dollars. Table 2 provides the revenues from major utility generators

based on ownership category. Tables 3 and 4 list the 1995 top ten investorowned and publicly owned utilities based on revenues from sales and

megawatts sales to ultimate consumers, respectively. It should be noted that

these data are for all electric utility activities, not just those that generate

electricity.

Total Utility Electricity Sales to Ultimate Consumers 

t
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Table 2: Revenues From Major Utility Generators (1995) 

Ownership Category Revenue (billion $) 

Investor-Owned 164 

Publicly Owned 26 

Cooperative 17 

Federal 1 

Total 208 

Source: Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 

Washington, DC. July 1996. DOE/EIA-0384(95)/2. 

Table 3: Top Ten Investor-Owned Utilities Ranked by Revenue From Sales 

to Ultimate Consumers (1995) 

Utility Name Revenue (thousand dollars) % of Total 

Southern California Edison Co. 7,575,448 4.64 

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 7,569,507 4.63 

Commonwealth Edison Co. 6,634,832 4.06 

Texas Utilities Electric Co. 5,450,444 3.34 

Florida Power & Light Co. 5,325,258 3.26 

Consolidated Edison Co. - NY, Inc. 5,005,860 3.07 

Virginia Electric & Power Co. 3,979,071 2.44 

Georgia Power Co. 3,972,189 2.43 

Public Service Electric & Gas 3,886,566 2.38 

Duke Power Co. 3,843,227 2.35 

Subtotal 53,242,403 32.61 

Source: Financial Statistics of Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities - 1995. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Washington, DC. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0437/(95)/1. 

Sector Notebook Project 9 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Table 4: Top Ten Publicly Owned Generator Utilities Ranked by Megawatt Sales 

to Ultimate Consumers (1994) 

Utility Name Megawatt Sales % of Total 

City of Los Angeles (CA) 20,430,075 8.61 

Salt River Project (AZ) 16,058,298 6.77 

Power Authority of State of NY 13,212,615 5.57 

San Antonio Public Service Board (TX) 13,027,064 5.49 

City of Seattle (WA) 8,874,039 3.74 

Jacksonville Electric Authority (FL) 8,817,618 3.72 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (CA) 8,458,156 3.57 

South Carolina Public Service Authority 7,423,460 3.13 

City of Austin (TX) 7,308,134 3.08 

Omaha Public Power District (NE) 7,066,940 2.98 

Subtotal 110,676,399 46.65 

Source: Financial Statistics of Major U.S. Publicly-Owned Electric Utilities - 1994. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Washington, DC. December 1995. DOE/EIA-0437/(94)/2. 

Geographic Distribution of Utilities 

Fossil fuel electric power generation by utilities occurs across the United 

States. Figure 3 provides the total electric power net generation for each 

State. Higher values for net generation from utilities generally mirror higher 

population densities and industrial centers. The States with the highest utility 

net generation included were California, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

and Florida. The amount and geographical distribution of capacity by energy 

source are a function of availability and price of fuels and/or regulations. 

Energy sources used by utilities generally show a geographical pattern, such 

as significant coal and petroleum-fired capacity in the East and gas-fired 

capacity in the Coastal South.4 

Sector Notebook Project 10 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Figure 3: Geographic Distribution of U.S. Utility Electric Power Net Generation 

2668 

13 936 

4 840 

26 97 2 

269 32 

65 3 

101161 

1 6894 2 

832 4 

270 88 

44 659 

527 27 189

96 11 0 

13 78 60 

92 479 

1 451 65 

51 01 2 

86 16 2 

82 27 8 

78 44 0 

10 20 16 99 58 9 26 39 5 

1 4715 7 

6 555 5 

26 17 09 

479 55 39 527 

38 23 0 654 00

25 279 

33 502 

88 1 2 

425 03 

28 842 254 11 

396 84 

1 006 3 

95 67 1 

440 31 

19 997 

3 210 1 

32 674 

29 43 2 68 96 7 

484 7 

61 91 

12 18 81 

10 518 9 

77 322 

Source: Electric Power Annual, 1995, Volume I and II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Washington, DC. July 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1&2. 

Existing Utility Capacity and Electricity Generation 

In general, electric power generation utilities use several technologies to 

generate electric power. These technologies, known as prime movers, are 

steam turbines, gas turbines, internal combustion engines, combined-cycle, 

hydraulic turbines, and others (e.g., geothermal, solar, and wind). 

Combined-cycle facilities use a technology in which electricity is produced 

from otherwise lost heat exiting from one or more gas(combustion) turbines. 

The exiting heat is routed to a conventional boiler or to a heat recovery steam 

generator for utilization by a steam turbine in the production of electricity. 

This process increases the efficiency of the generating unit. Table 5 shows 

the 1995 existing capacity that employs these technologies and the percent 

of total U.S. utility capacity. Steam turbines are associated with 77 percent 

of the total U.S. utility capacity. 

Sector Notebook Project 11 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Table 5: Existing Capacity of All U.S. Utilities by Prime Mover 

(fossil fuels, renewable fuels, and other fuels) (1995) 

Prime Mover Generating Capacity 

(megawatts)** 

Percent of Total U.S. 

Capacity 

Steam Turbines* 579,647 77 

Gas Turbines 58,329 7 

Internal Combustion 4,985 >1 

Combined-Cycle (gas and steam) 14,578 2 

Hydraulic Turbines (hydroelectric) 91,114 12 

Others 1,888 >1 

Total 750,542 100 

* Includes nuclear generators. 

** Total may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. 

Source: Inventory of Power Plants in the United States, as of January 1, 1996. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0095(95). 

Not all of the existing capacity uses fossil fuels. Only a subsection of steam 

turbine, gas turbine, internal combustion, and combined-cycle capacity 

(657,539 megawatts) uses fossil fuels. More than 75 percent of the total 

existing capacity is fossil-fueled. Table 6 presents the 1995 capacity that 

used fossil fuels for each prime mover. In 1995, approximately 86 percent 

of the fossil-fueled electric power generation capacity was from steam 

turbine systems. 

Table 6: Fossil-Fueled Utility Capacity by Prime Mover (1995)* 

Prime Mover Generating Capacity 

(megawatts) 

% of Fossil-Fueled Capacity 

Steam Turbine 475,860 86 

Gas Turbine/Internal Combustion 73,166 14 

Total 549,026 100 

* Includes combined-cycle capacity. 

Source: Inventory of Power Plants in the United States, As of January 1, 1996. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0095(95). 

Fossil fuel-fired steam electric utilities had the capability to produce 445,627 

megawatts of electricity, or more than 50 percent of the net generating 

capability at U.S. electric utilities. Gas turbine and internal combustion 

Sector Notebook Project 12 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

facilities combined had the capability to produce 61,424 megawatts of 

electricity, or 11.5 percent of generating capability at U.S. electric utilities 

in 1995. 

In 1995, coal was used as the energy source to generate the most electricity 

in the utility industry, accounting for net generation of 1,652,914 thousand 

megawatthours of electricity, consuming 829,007 thousand short tons of 

coal. Gas-fired generators generated 307,306 thousand megawatthours, 

consuming 3,196,507 million cubic feet of gas, and petroleum-fired 

generators generated 60,844 thousand megawatthours of electricity, 

consuming 102,150 thousand barrels of petroleum (not including petroleum 

coke). Many utility generators have the flexibility to switch fuel sources in 

response to market conditions. Table 7 provides the 1995 U.S. utility 

generating capacity and net generation for each fossil fuel energy source. 

Table 7: Utility Generating Capability and Net Generation by Energy Source (1995) 

Energy Source Generating Capability 

(megawatts) 

Net Generation 

(thousand megawatthours) 

Coal 301,484 1,652,914 

Gas 135,749 307,306 

Petroleum 70,043 60,844 

Total 507, 276 2,020,822 

Source: Electric Power Annual, 1995, Volume 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, DC. July 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95/1). 

II.B.4 Industry Size and Geographic Distribution of Nonutilities 

Nonutility Classifications 

There are three categories of nonutilities: 

�Cogeneration is the major technology used among nonutility power 

producers. This technology, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 

III, is the combined production of electric power and another form of useful 

energy (e.g., heat or steam). To receive QF status under PURPA, a 

cogeneration facility must meet certain operating criteria to "produce 

electrical energy and another form of useful thermal energy through the 

sequential use of energy." Depending upon the technology used, a facility 

may also be required to meet specific efficiency criteria. QFs are guaranteed 

that electric utilities will purchase their output at the incremental cost that an 

electric utility would incur to produce or purchase an amount of power 

equivalent to that purchased from QFs. QFs are also guaranteed that electric 

utilities will provide backup service at prevailing (non-discriminatory) rates. 

Sector Notebook Project 13 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Fossil-fueled steam turbine systems are used in most industrial 

applications of cogenerating processes, while gas turbine systems are 

used in most other processes (e.g., commercial). Diesel engine systems 

are limited in their application to cogeneration because they provide less 

useable process heat per unit of electric power input. 

�Small Power Producers are designated under PURPA regulations based on 

fuel consumption of a renewable energy source greater than 75 percent. This 

means that most nonutility fossil fuel electric power generators are not likely 

to carry this designation. In limited cases however, a facility may use fossil 

fuel in conjunction with a renewable energy source. 

�Other Nonutility Generators are facilities not classified in the previous 

categories that produce electric power for their own use and for sale to 

electric utilities. These facilities include: 

- Independent power producers (IPPs)

- Nonqualifying cogenerators

- Exempt wholesale generators (EWGs)

- Other commercial and industrial establishments.

FERC defines IPPs as producers of electric power other than QFs that are 

unaffiliated with franchised utilities in the IPP’s market area and that for 

other reasons lack significant market power. The IPPs may lack market 

power due to siting or access to transmission. The EWGs are engaged 

exclusively in the business of wholesale electric generation and are exempt 

from corporate organizational restrictions under the Public Utility Holding 

Company Act of 1935. 

In 1995, the makeup of the nonutility industry, based on capacity, included 

76.2 percent cogenerators, 15.8 percent small power producers, and 8 percent 

other nonutility producers. Figure 4 illustrates the percent capacity of the 

different classes of nonutility power producers.5 

Sector Notebook Project 14 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry

Sector Notebook Project 15 September 1997

Figure 4: 

Qualified facilities comprised 78 percent of the total nonutility capacity in

1995. 

Nonutility power generation facilities and activities may be found in

association with commercial and industrial facilities. Table 8 lists SIC codes

and industries where power generation facilities and activities may be found.

In 1995, nonutility generation capacity within the chemical industry (SIC

Code 28) accounted for 21 percent of the nonutility capacity and 23 percent

of the total nonutility generation. The paper industry (SIC Code 26)

accounted for 17 percent of the nonutility capacity and 18 percent of the

generation. he coal, oil, and gas mining and refining industries (SIC Codes

12, 13, and 29) accounted for 12 percent of the total nonutility capacity and

13 percent of the generation.6

 

Nonutility Capacity by Type of Producer

Non-qualified facilities were 12.9 percent of the capacity.

T
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Table 8: Major SIC Codes and Industrial Categories Where Nonutility 

Power Generation Activities Are Found 

Major SIC Code Industrial Category 

01, 02 

07 

10 

12 

13 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

42, 45, 47, 48, 49 

53, 54, 55, 58 

60, 65 

70, 72, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87 

91, 92, 97 

Agricultural Production - Crops, Livestock, and Animals 

Agricultural Services 

Metal Mining 

Coal Mining 

Oil and Gas Extraction 

Food and Kindred Products 

Tobacco Products 

Textile Mill Products 

Apparel & Other Finished Fabric Products 

Lumber and Wood Products (Except Furniture) 

Furniture and Fixtures 

Paper and Allied Products 

Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries 

Chemicals and Allied Products 

Petroleum Refining and Related Industries 

Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products 

Leather and Leather Products 

Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products 

Primary Metal Industries 

Fabricated Metal Products (Except Machinery) 

Industrial and Commercial Machinery/Computer Equipment 

Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment 

Transportation Equipment 

Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments 

Jewelry, Silverware, and Plated Silver 

Transportation, Communications , Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services 

Retail Trade 

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 

Services 

Public Administration 

Source: Directory of U.S. Cogeneration, Small Power, and Industrial Power Plants. June 1995.. Giles, Ellen and Fred Yost. Twelfth 

Edition. Utility Data Institute, A Division of McGraw- Hill Company. UDI-2018-95. 

Geographic Distribution of Nonutilities 

Fossil fuel electric power generation by nonutilities occurs all across the 

United States. Figure 5 provides the total nonutility electric power net 

generation for each State. As with the utilities, higher values for net 

generation for nonutilities generally mirror higher population densities and 

industrial centers. The States with the highest nonutility net generation 

included were California, Texas, Virginia, New York, Florida, and New 

Jersey. 

Sector Notebook Project 16 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Sector Notebook Project 17 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry

Sector Notebook Project 18 September 1997

3 86 7 120

4 1 9 4

4 7 8 3

337 8 1

159 7 0

186

1 6 3 2

1 9 240 2 1

4 3 6 3

136 4 8

171 8

1 641 6

4 199

3 10 8

5 2

3 7 1 4

3 198

6 634 6 696 2 9 2 0

21216

178 6 6

6 0 3 11

4 65 8 2 7 5 9

9 8 4 52

7 9

182 7

0

357 7

149 5 6 7

3 38

1 860

5 904

7 1 5

3 480

7 22

4 105

1 5 12

2 80 0

4 1 4 6

61 98 3

7 4

684 3

1 5 4 9

11 43 6

2 071 3

Source: Electric Power Annual Volume I and II. July 1995. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information

Administration, Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1&2.

Figure 5: 

Existing Nonutility Capacity and Electricity Generation

As in the traditional utilities, nonutilities use steam turbines, gas turbines,

internal combustion engines, hydraulic turbines, and combined-cycle systems

to generate electricity. Steam turbines accounted for 42 percent of all the

capacity and combined-cycle generating systems accounted for 27 percent.

Table 9 provides existing 1995 nonutility generating capacity by prime

mover technology.

The majority (more than 68 percent) of existing 1995 nonutility capacity is

attributed to fossil-fueled electricity production.7

 Many facilities are able to

switch from one fossil fuel to another if the fuel supply is interrupted or the

economics warrant it. Some facilities are even able to switch from fossil

fuels to renewable energy sources, while still others can use combustors that

Geographic Distribution of U.S. Nonutility Electric Power Net Generation
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

can burn two or more different fuels simultaneously, in varying 

combinations, to generate a desired heat output. Thus, the nonutility industry 

can be very adaptable, depending upon the type of equipment at a facility and 

based on economic conditions. Table 10 provides the 1995 nonutility 

capacity associated with each fossil fuel energy source. 

Table 9 : Existing Capacity of Nonutilities by Prime Mover (1995) 

Prime Mover Generating Capacity 

(megawatts) 

Percent of Total U.S. 

Capacity 

Steam Turbines 28,192 42 

Combined-Cycle 17,417 27 

Gas Turbines 12,081 18 

Internal Combustion 2,018 3 

Hydraulic Turbines 3,410 5 

Others* 3,297 5 

Total 66,415 100 

* Includes nuclear generators. 

Source: 1995 Capacity and Generation of Nonutility Sources of Energy. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, 

DC. November 1996. 

Table 10: Nonutility Capacity by Fossil Fuel Energy Source (1995) 

Fossil Fuel Generating Capacity 

(megawatts) 

Percent of Total Fossil Fuel 

Nonutility Capacity 

Gas 33,221 73 

Coal 10,324 23 

Petroleum 1,657 4 

Total 45,202 100 

Source: 1995 Capacity and Generation of Nonutility Sources of Energy. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, 

DC. November 1996. 

The majority of the nonutility power producers use fossil fuels to generate 

electricity. Fossil fuels accounted for more than 287 million megawatthours, 

which was 72 percent of the total electricity produced by nonutilities in 

1995.8 

Gas was the fossil fuel used to generate the most electricity in the nonutility 

industry, providing a total of 213 million megawatthours of electricity in 

1995. Coal was used to produce 70 million megawatthours of electricity, 

Sector Notebook Project 19 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

and petroleum was used to produce 4 million megawatthours of electricity. 

Table 11 provides 1995 nonutility generation by power producer class and 

energy source. 

Table 11: 1995 Nonutility Net Generation by Primary Fossil Fuel Energy Source and Type 

of Producer (thousand megawatthours) 

Energy Source Cogenerators Small Power 

Producers 

Other Nonutility 

Power Producers 

Total U.S. 

Nonutility 

Generation 

Gas 200,080 0 13,357 213,437 

Coal 63,440 0 6,740 70,180 

Petroleum 3,957 0 121 4,079 

Total 267,477 0 20,218 287,696 

Source: 1995 Capacity and Generation of Nonutility Sources of Energy. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, 

DC. November 1996. 

II.B.5 Economic Trends 

Change in Structure of the Utility Electric Power Industry 

Utility electric power generation is one of the largest industries that remains 

regulated in the United States. Change is rapidly occurring in this industry 

due to the issuance by the FERC of Orders 888 and 889 (dated April 24, 

1996), which encourage wholesale competition. Order 888 deals with issues 

of open access to transmission networks and stranded costs; Order 889 

requires utilities to establish systems to share information on the availability 

of transmission capacity. To date, many States have initiated activities 

related to retail competition, and legislative proposals have been introduced 

into the U.S. Congress on restructuring the electric power industry. 

With a competitive industry structure eminent, investor-owned utilities have 

been downsizing staff and reorganizing their company structures to lower 

costs. They have lowered costs by taking advantage of lower fuel prices and 

modifying fuel acquisition procedures. This has resulted in lower operation 

and maintenance costs. Some large investor-owned utilities have begun to 

expand their business investments into such areas as energy service 

companies; oil and gas exploration, development, and production; foreign 

ventures; and telecommunications. Numerous utilities are planning to 

improve their position in a competitive market through mergers and 

acquisitions. In 1995, 13 investor-owned utilities merged or had mergers 

pending.9 

Sector Notebook Project 20 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

Publicly owned and cooperative utilities are expected to be affected by the 

posturing of the investor-owned companies. Although they can sell 

electricity at a competitive price, increased competition from investor-owned 

utilities and electricity marketing companies may require them to lower 

costs. Many have already begun to reduce staff and engage in other costcutting measures. Mergers are also expected to occur among public utilities, 

however, not at the same rate as the investor-owned. 

Stranded costs are a major concern for this industry as they move to a 

competitive market. Stranded costs are costs that have been incurred by the 

utilities to serve their consumers but cannot be recovered if the consumers 

choose other electricity suppliers. Estimates of stranded costs have been 

from $10 to $500 billion. Currently, utilities are looking for ways to 

mitigate stranded costs, and regulators are looking at alternatives for 

recovering these costs.10 

The structure of the electric power industry is undergoing other changes. In 

the past, the electric power industry has been dominated by utilities, 

especially regulated investor-owned utilities. It is expected that utility 

generators will continue to dominate capacity in the United States, increasing 

from 703 gigawatts in 1995 to 724.4 gigawatts in 2015. In addition, 

nonutilities will continue to increase their role in the industry. Recent 

legislation has had an effect. For example, PURPA in 1978 has allowed QF 

status, and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) has removed 

constraints on utility ownership of significant shares of nonutility producers. 

In 10 years (1985-1995), the nonutility role in U.S. electric power industry 

has grown from 4 percent to 11 percent of the total generation.11 

With the advent of a more competitive market, a new type of firm called 

"power marketers" has arisen in the electric power generation industry. 

Power marketers buy electric energy and transmission and other services 

from utilities, or other suppliers, and resell the products for profit. This 

practice started in the late 1980s, and growth in this market has increased 

competition in the wholesale market. Nine wholesale marketers existed in 

1992; 180 existed by the end of 1995. The growth and success of power 

marketers signal a potential for fundamental change in the wholesale 

electricity business. 

Projected Growth in the Power Generation Industry 

Demands for electricity have slowed in recent years due to several factors. 

These factors include market saturation of electric appliances, improvements 

in equipment efficiency, utility investments in demand-side management 

programs, and legislation establishing more stringent equipment efficiency 

standards. In the 1960s, electricity demand grew by more than 7 percent a 

Sector Notebook Project 21 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

year. By the 1980s, this growth had slowed to only 1 percent per year. A 

further decline in growth is expected into the next century.12 

Despite the slower demand growth, 319 gigawatts of new generating capacity 

are expected to be needed by 2015. This need is both a result of the demand 

and because of the amount of capacity that is expected to be retired. In 

particular, approximately 38 percent of the existing nuclear capacity is 

expected to be retired, in addition to 16 percent of the existing fossil-fueled 

steam turbine capacity. Of the new capacity needed, 81 percent is projected 

to be combined-cycle or combustion turbine technology expected to be 

fueled with natural gas or both oil and gas. Both of these technologies 

supply peak and intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle units can also be 

used to meet baseload requirements. 

Before building new capacity, many utilities are exploring other alternatives 

to meet the growth demand. Some of these alternatives are life extension and 

repowering, power imports, demand-side management programs, and 

purchase from cogenerators. Even with these alternatives, a projected 1,063 

new plants (assuming approximately 300 megawatts capacity per plant) will 

be needed by 2015 to meet the growing demand and to offset the 

retirements.13 

Sector Notebook Project 22 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section II. Introduction to the Industry 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

Sector Notebook Project 23 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

III. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

This section describes the major industrial processes within the fossil fuel 

electric power generation industry, including the materials and equipment used 

and the processes employed. The section is designed for those interested in 

gaining a general understanding of the industry and for those interested in the 

interrelationship between the industrial process and the topics described in 

subsequent sections of this profile -- pollutant outputs, pollution prevention 

opportunities, and Federal regulations. This section does not attempt to 

replicate published engineering information that is available for this industry. 

Section IX lists available resource materials and contacts. 

This section describes commonly used production processes, associated raw 

materials, the by-products produced or released, and the materials either 

recycled or transferred offsite. This discussion, coupled with schematic 

drawings of the identified processes, provide a concise description of where 

wastes may be produced in the process. This section also describes the 

potential fate (via air, water, and soil pathways) of these waste products. 

III.A Industrial Processes in the Fossil Fuel Electric Generation Industry 

The majority of the electricity generated in the United States today is 

produced by facilities that employ steam turbine systems.

14 Other fossil fuel 

prime movers commonly used include gas turbines and internal combustion 

engines. Still other power generation systems employ a combination of the 

above, such as combined-cycle and cogeneration systems. The numbers of 

these systems being built are increasing as a result of the demands placed on 

the industry to provide economic and efficient systems. 

The type of system employed at a facility is chosen based on the loads, the 

availability of fuels, and the energy requirements of the electric power 

generation facility. At facilities employing these systems, other ancillary 

processes must be performed to support the generation of electricity. These 

ancillary processes may include such supporting operations as coal 

processing and pollution control, for example. The following subsections 

describe each system and then discuss ancillary processes at the facility. 

III.A.1 Steam Turbine Generation 

The process of generating electricity from steam comprises four parts: a 

heating subsystem (fuel to produce the steam), a steam subsystem (boiler and 

steam delivery system), a steam turbine, and a condenser (for condensation 

of used steam). Heat for the system is usually provided by the combustion 

of coal, natural gas, or oil. The fuel is pumped into the boiler’s furnace. The 

boilers generate steam in the pressurized vessel in small boilers or in the 

Sector Notebook Project 24 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

water-wall tube system in modern utility and industrial boilers. Additional 

elements within or associated with the boiler, such as the superheater, 

reheater, economizer and air heaters, improve the boiler’s efficiency. 

Wastes from the combustion process include exhaust gases and, when coal or 

oil is used as the boiler fuel, ash. These wastes are typically controlled to 

reduce the levels of pollutants exiting the exhaust stack. Bottom ash, another 

byproduct of combustion, also is discharged from the furnace. 

High temperature, high pressure steam is generated in the boiler and then 

enters the steam turbine. At the other end of the steam turbine is the 

condenser, which is maintained at a low temperature and pressure. Steam 

rushing from the high pressure boiler to the low pressure condenser drives the 

turbine blades, which powers the electric generator. Steam expands as it 

works; hence, the turbine is wider at the exit end of the steam. The 

theoretical thermal efficiency of the unit is dependent on the high pressure and 

temperature in the boiler and the low temperature and pressure in condenser. 

Steam turbines typically have a thermal efficiency of about 35 percent, 

meaning that 35 percent of the heat of combustion is transformed into 

electricity. The remaining 65 percent of the heat either goes up the stack 

(typically 10 percent) or is discharged with the condenser cooling water 

(typically 55 percent). 

Low pressure steam exiting the turbine enters the condenser shell and is 

condensed on the condenser tubes. The condenser tubes are maintained at a 

low temperature by the flow of cooling water. The condenser is necessary for 

efficient operation by providing a low pressure sink for the exhausted steam. 

As the steam is cooled to condensate, the condensate is transported by the 

boiler feedwater system back to the boiler, where it is used again. Being a 

low-volume incompressible liquid, the condensate water can be efficiently 

pumped back into the high pressure boiler. 

A constant flow of low-temperature cooling water in the condenser tubes is 

required to keep the condenser shell (steam side) at proper pressure and to 

ensure efficient electricity generation. Through the condensing process, the 

cooling water is warmed. If the cooling system is an open or a once-through 

system, this warm water is released back to the source water body. In a 

closed system, the warm water is cooled by recirculation through cooling 

towers, lakes, or ponds, where the heat is released into the air through 

evaporation and/or sensible heat transfer. If a recirculating cooling system is 

used, only a small amount of make-up water is required to offset the cooling 

tower blowdown which must be discharged periodically to control the buildup of solids. Compared to a once-through system, a recirculated system uses 

about one twentieth the water.

15 Figure 6 presents a typical steam generation 

process. 

Sector Notebook Project 25 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

There are several types of coal-fired steam generators. A description of each 

follows. The classification of these generators is based on the characteristics 

of the coal fed to the burners and the mode of burning the coal. Coal-fired 

steam generation systems are designed to use pulverized coal or crushed coal. 

Before the coal is introduced to the burners, it must be processed, as 

discussed in Section III.A.6. 

Figure 6: Steam Turbine Generation 

Stoker-Fired Furnace 

Stoker-fired furnaces are designed to feed coal to the combustion zone on a 

traveling grate. Stokers can be divided into three general groups, depending 

on how the coal reaches the grate of the stoker for burning. The three 

general types of stokers are (1) underfeed, (2) overfeed, and (3) spreader 

configurations. Table 12 presents the general characteristics of these three 

general types of stokers. Figure 7 presents a schematic of a stoker coal 

feeder. 

Sector Notebook Project 26 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Table 12: Characteristics of Various Types of Stokers 

Stoker Type and Subclass Burning Rate * 

(BTU/hr/ft 2) 

Characteristics 

Spreader 

Stationary 

Traveling grate 

Vibrating grate 

450,000 

750,000 

400,000 

Capable of burning a wide range of coals, best 

in handling fluctuating loads, high fly ash 

carry over, low load smoke. 

Overfeed 

Chain grate and 

traveling grate 

Vibrating grate 

600,000 

400,000 

Low maintenance but difficult in burning 

caking coals. 

Low maintenance but difficult in burning 

weakly caking coals, smokeless operation. 

Underfeed 

Single or double 

retort 

Multiple retort 

400,000 Capable of burning caking coals and a wide 

range of coals, high maintenance, low fly ash 

carry over, suitable for continuous load 

operation. 

* Maximum amount of British thermal units per hour per square foot of grate in the stoker. 

Source: Coal Handbook, Robert Meyers (Ed.). Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, NY, 1981 as referenced in 

Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. Report to Congress. US. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. February 1988. EPA/530-SW88-002. 

Sector Notebook Project 27 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Figure 7: Stoker Coal Feeder 

Source: Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C. ed. 

McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York NY. 1989. Reproduced with permission of the 

McGraw-Hill Companies. 

In a cyclone-fired furnace, fuel is fired under intense heat and air is injected 

tangentially to create a swirling motion as shown in Figure 8. The resulting 

hot gases exit through the cyclone bore into the cyclone in the furnace. Ash 

becomes a molten slag that is collected below the furnace. Coal is the 

primary cyclone fuel, but oil and gas are used as startup, auxiliary, and main 

fuels. 

Sector Notebook Project 28 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Figure 8: Typical Cyclone Coal Burners 

Source: Steam, Its Generation and Use; 40th Edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock 

and Wilcox, Barbeton, OH. 1992. Reproduced with permission from the Babcock and 

Wilcox Co. 

Sector Notebook Project 29 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Tangential-Fired Furnace 

In a tangential-fired furnace, both air and fuel are projected from the corners 

of the furnace along lines tangent to a vertical cylinder at the center. A 

rotating motion is created, allowing a high degree of mixing. This system 

provides great flexibility for multiple fuel firing (see Figure 9).16 

Figure 9: Tangential Firing Pattern 

Source: Standard Handbook of Power Plant 

Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C. ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

New York, NY. 1989. Reproduced with permission of 

the McGraw-Hill Companies. 

Horizontal or Wall-Fired Furnace 

In horizontal or wall-fired systems, pulverized coal and primary air are 

introduced tangentially to the coal nozzle. The degree of air swirl and the 

contour of the burner throat establish a recirculation pattern extending 

several throat diameters into the furnace. The hot products of combustion 

are directed back toward the nozzle to provide the ignition energy necessary 

for stable combustion. In this system, burners are located in rows on the 

front wall (see Figure 10) or both front and rear walls.17 

Sector Notebook Project 30 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Figure 10: Flow Pattern of Horizontal Firing 

Source: Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, 

Thomas C. ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 1989. 

Reproduced with permission of the McGraw-Hill Companies. 

Arch-Fired Systems 

Vertical-fired systems are used to fire solid fuels that are difficult to ignite, 

such as coals with moisture and ash-free volatile matter of less than 13 

percent. In this system, the pulverized coal is discharged through a nozzle 

surrounded by heated combustion air. High-pressure jets are used to prevent 

fuel-air streams from short circuiting. The firing system produces a looping 

flame with hot gases discharging at the center (see Figure 11).18 

Sector Notebook Project 31 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Figure 11: Flow Pattern of Arch Firing 

Source: Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, 

Thomas C. ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 1989. 

Reproduced with permission of the McGraw-Hill Companies. 

Fluidized-Bed Combustors 

In fluidized-bed combustors, fuel materials are forced by gas into a state of 

buoyancy. The gas cushion between the solids allows the particles to move 

freely, thus flowing like a liquid. By using this technology, SO2 and NOX 

emissions are reduced because an SO2 sorbent, such as limestone, can be 

used efficiently. Also, because the operating temperature is low, the amount 

of NOX gases formed is lower than those produced using conventional 

technology. 

Fluidized-bed combustors are divided into two categories: circulating 

fluidized-beds and bubbling fluidized-beds (see Figure 12). Fluidized-bed 

combustors can operate at atmospheric pressure or in a pressurized chamber. 

In the pressurized chamber, operating pressures can be 10 to 20 times the 

atmospheric pressure. Pressurized fluidized-bed furnaces provide significant 

gain in overall thermal efficiency over atmospheric fluidized-bed furnances. 19 

Sector Notebook Project 32 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Figure 12: Typical Bubbling Fluidized-Bed Boiler 

Source: Adapted from Steam, Its Generation and Use; 40th Edition. 

Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock and Wilcox, Barbeton, OH. 1992. 

Reproduced with permission from the Babcock and Will Cox. Co. 

Fluidized-bed combustion allows for the use of high sulfur coals, high 

fouling and slagging fuels, and low British Thermal Unit (BTU) fuels. High 

ash coals burned in fluidized-beds require less preparation than in pulverized 

coal combustors. Additionally, fluidized-bed combustors require less 

maintenance than pulverized coal combustors. 

III.A.2 Internal Combustion Generation 

Internal combustion generating units, also known as diesel engines, have one 

or more cylinders in which fuel combustion occurs. Internal combustion 

generating units convert the chemical energy of fuels into mechanical energy 

in a design similar to an automobile engine. Attached to the shaft of the 

generator, the engine provides the mechanical energy to drive the generator 

Sector Notebook Project 33 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

to produce electricity. Internal combustion generating units for power plants 

are typically designed to operate on either four- or two-stroke cycles. 

Internal combustion generators are small and range in capacity from 2 to 6 

megawatts. They are more efficient than gas turbines.

20 In addition, capital 

costs are low, they are easily transported, and they can generate electricity 

almost immediately upon startup. For this reason, internal combustion 

generators are often used for small loads and for emergency power.21 

III.A.3 Gas Turbine Generation 

Gas turbine systems operate in a manner similar to steam turbine systems 

except that combustion gases are used to turn the turbine blades instead of 

steam. In addition to the electric generator, the turbine also drives a rotating 

compressor to pressurize the air, which is then mixed with either gas or 

liquid fuel in a combustion chamber. The greater the compression, the 

higher the temperature and the efficiency that can be achieved in a gas 

turbine. Exhaust gases are emitted to the atmosphere from the turbine. 

Unlike a steam turbine system, gas turbine systems do not have boilers or a 

steam supply, condensers, or a waste heat disposal system. Therefore, capital 

costs are much lower for a gas turbine system than for a steam system. 

In electrical power applications, gas turbines are typically used for peaking 

duty, where rapid startup and short runs are needed. Most installed simple 

gas turbines with no controls have only a 20- to 30-percent efficiency. 

Figure 13 presents a schematic of a simple gas turbine system. 

Figure 13: Simple Gas Turbine Cycle 

Source: Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, 

Thomas C. ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, N.Y. 1989. 

III.A.4 Combined-Cycle Generation 

Sector Notebook Project 34 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Combined-cycle generation is a configuration using both gas turbines and 

steam generators. In a combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT), the hot exhaust 

gases of a gas turbine are used to provide all, or a portion of, the heat source 

for the boiler, which produces steam for the steam generator turbine. This 

combination increases the thermal efficiency over a coal- or oil- fueled steam 

generator. The system has an efficiency of about 54 percent, and the fuel 

consumption is approximately 25 percent lower. Combined-cycle systems 

may have multiple gas turbines driving one steam turbine (see Figure 14).

22 

Figure 14: Combined Cycle with Heat Recovery 

There are four major classifications of combined-cycle facilities: 

�Gas Turbine Plus Unfired Steam Generator: A steam generator is 

installed at the discharge of a gas turbine to recover the heat in the gas 

turbine exhaust so as to create steam in the steam generator. The fuel is fired 

only in the gas turbine. 

Sector Notebook Project 35 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

�Gas Turbine Plus Supplementary-Fired Steam Generator: A portion 

of the oxygen in the gas turbine exhaust is used to support further 

combustion in a supplementary firing system in the connecting duct between 

the gas turbine and the steam generator. 

�Gas Turbine Plus Furnace-Fired Steam Generator: This generator isthe 

same as the gas turbine plussupplementary-fired steam generator, except that 

essentially all of the oxygen from the gas turbine exhaust is used to support 

further combustion. 

�Supercharged Furnace-Fired Steam Generator Plus Gas Turbine: A 

steam generator is placed between the air compressor and the gas turbine. 

The air compressor is used to pressurize the boiler where the fuel is fired. 

The products of combustion that have been cooled within the boiler are then 

discharged through a gas turbine. 

In addition, integrated coal gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) units are 

combined systems that are in the demonstration stage, but are expected be in 

commercial operation by the year 2000. In an IGCC system, coal gas is 

manufactured and cleaned in a "gasifier" under pressure, thereby reducing 

emissions and particulates. The coal gas then is combusted in a CCGT 

generation system. 

III.A.5 Cogeneration 

Cogeneration is the merging of a system designed to produce electric power 

and a system used for producing industrial heat and steam. Cogeneration 

accounted for 75 percent of all nonutility power generation in 1995.23 This 

system is a more efficient way of using energy inputs and allows the 

recovery of otherwise wasted thermal energy for use in an industrial process. 

Cogeneration technologies are classified as "topping cycle" and "bottoming 

cycle" systems, depending on whether electrical (topping cycle) or thermal 

(bottoming cycle) energy is derived first. 

Most cogeneration systems use a topping cycle. This is shown as a steam 

turbine topping system in Figure 15. The process steam shown in Figure 15 

is condensed as it delivers heat to an industrial process, and the resulting 

return condensate is returned back to the boiler as shown. 

Facilities that cogenerate may be eligible for QF status under PURPA. To 

qualify, the facility must produce electric energy and "another form of useful 

thermal energy through sequential use of energy," and meet certain 

ownership, operating, and efficiency criteria established by FERC (See 18 

CFR Part 292). In a topping cycle system, the fuel is used to generate power 

with a steam boiler or gas turbine cycle combustor. The waste heat from the 

power generation process is then used in an industrial process.24 

Sector Notebook Project 36 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Figure 15: Cogeneration Plant Schematic 

III.A.6 Supporting Operations 

Many operations associated with fossil fuel electric power generation 

facilities are not directly involved in the production of electricity but serve 

Source: Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C. ed. 

McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 1989. Reproduced with permission of the 

McGraw-Hill Companies. 

in a supporting role. This section discusses some of the major supporting 

processes. 

Coal Processing 

Fifty-seven percent of coal used in power plants is transported from mines 

by rail.25 Coal is also transported by truck and barge. Once coal arrives at 

the plant, it is unloaded to live storage, dead storage, or directly to the stoker 

or hopper. Live storage is an enclosed silo or bunker next to conveyors 

leading to the pulverizer. Dead storage is exposed outdoors and is the 

backup supply. Coal unloading devices depend on the size and type of plant. 

Coal arriving by rail may be unloaded directly into the storage area or to 

conveyors leading directly to generation units. Coal arriving by barge is 

unloaded by buckets, which are part of coal towers or unloading bridges.

26 

Coal shipped by truck generally needs little equipment for unloading. 

Precautions must be taken in the transportation and storage of coal. In 

transporting coal during warmer months and in dry climates, dust 

suppression may be necessary. Dust suppression is typically accomplished 

through the use of water, oil, or calcium chloride (CaCl2). In winter months, 

Sector Notebook Project 37 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

antifreeze chemicals are applied to the coal. Because coal oxidizes easily in 

open air, it should be stored in layered piles to minimize air flow. Hot areas 

should be removed from the pile to prevent fire; water should not be added 

to reduce the heat, since the water increases the air flow and, therefore, 

would increase the oxidation of the coal. 

Coal may be cleaned and prepared before being either crushed or pulverized. 

Impurities in coal, such as ash, metals, silica, and sulfur, can cause boiler 

fouling and slagging. Coal cleaning can be used to reduce sulfur in the coal 

to meet sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions regulations. Cleaning the coal is a 

costly process that increases its fuel efficiency, yet reduces the size of the 

particles. Coal cleaning is typically performed at the mine by using gravity 

concentration, flotation, or dewatering methods. Some smaller stoker plants 

purchase pre-cleaned, pre-crushed coal.27 

Coal is transported from the coal bunker or silo to be crushed, ground, and 

dried further before it is fired in the burner or combustion system. Many 

mechanisms can be used to grind the coal and prepare it for firing. 

Pulverizers, cyclones, and stokers are all used to grind and dry the coal. 

Increasing the coal’s particle surface area and decreasing its moisture content 

greatly increases its heating capacity. Once prepared, the coal is transported 

within the system to the combustion system, or boiler. Devices at the bottom 

of the boilers catch ash and/or slag. 

Air Pollution Control Processes 

Air pollution control devices found in fossil fuel-fired systems (particularly 

steam electric power facilities) include particulate removal equipment,sulfur 

oxide (SOX) removal equipment, and nitrogen oxide (NOX) removal 

equipment. Particulate removal equipment includes electrostatic 

precipitators, fabric filters, or mechanical particulate collectors, such as 

cyclones. SOX removal equipment includes sorbent injection technologies 

and wet and dry scrubbers. Both types of scrubbers result in the formation 

of calcium sulfate and sulfite as waste products. NOX emission control 

systems include low NOX burners and selective catalytic or non-catalytic 

reduction technologies. The selective catalytic and non-catalytic reduction 

technologies convert oxides of nitrogen into nitrogen gas and water. 

Sector Notebook Project 38 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Other Processes to Mitigate Environmental Impacts 

Control technologies are used at many utility electric power generation 

facilities to mitigate the environmental impacts of cooling water intake 

structures. These technologies may include intake screening systems, passive 

intake system (physical exclusion devices), or fish diversion and avoidance 

systems. Technologies used to mitigate thermal pollution include cooling 

towers, cooling ponds or lakes, and sprinklers. Other control technologies 

may include recycling and reuse equipment formetalsrecovery; evaporators; 

and physical, chemical, and biological wastewater treatment. 

III.B Raw Material Inputs and Pollution Outputs 

The primary raw material used in fossil fuel electric power generation is the 

fossil fuel needed as the energy source to drive the prime mover (i.e., 

turbine). Fossil fuels employed in the United States predominantly include 

coal, petroleum, and gas. Other inputs include water (for cooling and steam 

generation) and chemicals used for equipment cleaning and maintenance. 

Pollution outputs include solid waste pollution, wastewater pollution, air 

pollution, and thermal pollution. The following subsection discusses the 

major sources of raw materials and the sources of emissions associated with 

the power generation industry. 

III.B.1 Fossil Fuels and Other Raw Material Inputs 

The major types of fossil fuels used for electricity generation in the United 

States are coal, petroleum, gas. Other fossil fuels used include petroleum 

coke, refinery gas, coke oven gas, blast furnace gas, and liquefied petroleum 

gas. These latter fuels are used much less frequently and, therefore, will not 

be discussed in this notebook. 

Coal 

Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the United States and the most 

frequently used energy source for U.S. electricity generation. More than 

one-half of all electricity generated by utilities comes from coal-fired 

facilities.28 Although the use of coal has decreased since the 1970s, some 

areas of the country use coal almost exclusively. 

Coals used for electric power generation are very heterogeneous and vary in 

content, depending on the location of the mine. The major chemical makeup, 

which includes carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, also contains impurities, such 

as minerals and sulfur. These impurities are a major concern because they 

contribute to the pollutants produced during combustion of the coal. 

Sector Notebook Project 39 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Of all the fossil fuel used for electricity generation, coal requires the most 

extensive processing, handling, storage, and loading and unloading facilities. 

Coal firing requires the use of crushers, pulverizers, ash handling equipment, 

dust control, emissions control equipment, and soot blowers. 

Petroleum 

Petroleum, or crude oil, is the source of various fuel oils used as the energy 

source for power generation. As an energy source, petroleum accounts for 

less than five percent of all electricity receipts in the United States. 

However, numerous utilities in the New England States, New York, Florida, 

and Hawaii still rely on petroleum as an energy source.29 

Most petroleum used for power generation is refined prior to use. Typical 

fuel oils include fuel oil numbers 4, 5, and 6 (heavy oil) and constitute the 

majority of all petroleum receipts at electric utilities. Smaller amounts of 

fuel oil number 2 (light oil) are used typically for startup and flame 

stabilization of the boilers.

30 Other less frequently used sources include 

topped crude, kerosene, and jet fuel. 

Fuel oils used for electricity generation require special handling, storage, and 

loading and unloading facilities. Oil requires ash handling equipment, dust 

control, emissions control equipment, soot blowers, and, in some instances, 

warming and heating facilities. 

Gas 

Gas is used less than coal as a primary fuel source at power generation 

utilities. Gas is widely used for industrial electric power generation, 

however. Gas is used in those areas of the United States where it is readily 

accessible or in States in which environmental laws for air emissions are 

stringent (e.g., California). Many of the facilities that use gas also use 

petroleum in dual-fired generating units. The use of one fuel over the other 

is based on economics. 

Natural gas must be treated to produce commercial fuel. Natural gas 

comprises primarily methane and ethane. Natural gas suitable for use as a 

fuel in power generation facilities must be at least 70-percent methane, 

60-percent propane, or 25-percent hydrogen. The fuel may come in either 

a gaseous or liquid form.31 

Gas has one advantage over other fuels in that it is a cleaner burning fuel. 

Therefore, some electric utilities use gas in order to comply with 

environmental regulations. Gas used for generating electricity requires 

relatively little special handling (piping) and may or may not require storage 

facilities. 

Sector Notebook Project 40 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Other Inputs 

In addition to fossil fuels, electric power generation requires other material 

inputs. These inputs include (1) water for steam condensation and equipment 

cooling, (2) lime or limestone, as a sorbent for pollution control equipment, 

(3) chlorine and/or biocides to prevent biofouling of steam condensers and 

cooling towers, (4) chemical solvents, oils, and lubricants for equipment 

cleaning and maintenance. 

III.B.2 Pollutant Outputs 

Pollutants are generated as byproducts from the burning of fossil fuels to 

generate electricity. The combustion process releases highly regulated 

pollutants, such as NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), 

SO2, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), organic hydrocarbons, and trace 

metals, into the air. Combustion waste, the majority of which is ash waste, 

is created during combustion processes using coal or oil for fuel. Noncombustion wastes, such as cooling, process, and storm waters, that are 

discharged from fossil fuel electric power generation facilities have the 

potential to release pollutants (e.g., chlorine, heavy metals, and thermal 

pollution) into surface waters. The following discussion highlights each of 

the waste streams created during the generation of fossil fuel electric power. 

Air Emissions 

Air emissions from the stack gases from coal- and oil-fired boilers include 

four of six criteria pollutants regulated through the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended: 

NOX, CO, SO2, and PM. Amounts of SO2 emitted depend largely on the 

amount of sulfur present in the coal or oil and the method used to generate 

steam. 

Other emissions regulated by the CAA commonly contained in emission 

gases are total organic carbon (TOC) as methane, non-methane hydrocarbons 

(NMHC), and VOCs. Traces of lead, another criteria pollutant, and other 

metals and minerals are also found. These metals are present in the coal and 

oil. Sulfur is also found in these fuels (more in coal than in oil), and fly ash 

is the product of sulfur and other mineral materials that do not combust. 

Fugitive dust from coal piles and fuel handling equipment is another source 

of particulates. In addition, fugitive emissions of VOCs can arise from coal 

piles during low temperature devolatilization. Thermal rise plumes are also 

discharged from cooling towers. These plumes contain such pollutants as 

heat and some trace materials in the water vapor. 

Sector Notebook Project 41 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Compared to a fossil-fueled steam turbine generating system with no air 

pollution controls, a gas-fired power generation system with no controls 

emits less tonnage of NOX and SO2 and trace amounts of TOC, particulate 

matter, and CO. 

Combined-cycle gas turbines have virtually no SO

purity of natural gas. Because oil and coal are not used, solid waste is 

2, NOX

2 emissions because of the 

eliminated, and CO , and thermal pollution are cut by 60 percent. 

Cogeneration is considered a pollution prevention technology. Other 

benefits of cogeneration are reduced fuel consumption and lower air 

emissions. Because of their smaller size, however, cogeneration systems in 

the United States tend to have lower stack heights. Therefore, air emissions 

to the immediate atmosphere contribute to increased local pollution. 

Combustion Wastes 

Two principal wastes are associated with the combustion of fossil fuels: ash 

waste and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastes. The quantities of these 

wastes generated depend upon the fossil fuel burned. 

Ash waste -Two types of ash are generated during combustion of fossil 

fuels: bottom ash and fly ash. Ash that collects at the bottom of the boiler is 

called bottom ash and/or slag. Fly ash is a finer ash material that is borne by 

the flue gas from the furnace to the end of the boiler. Bottom ashes are 

collected and discharged from the boiler, economizer, air heaters, 

electrostatic precipitator, and fabric filters. Fly ash is collected in the 

economizer and air heaters or is collected by the particulate control 

equipment. Coal-fired facilities generate the largest quantity of ash; gas 

facilities generate so little that separate ash management facilities are not 

necessary. Fly and bottom ash may be managed separately or together in 

landfills or in wet surface impoundments. 

Ashes differ in characteristics depending upon the content of the fuel burned. 

For coal, the chemical composition of ash is a function of the type of coal 

that is burned, the extent to which the coal is prepared before it is burned, 

and the operating conditions of the boiler. These factors are very plant- and 

coal-specific. Generally, however, more than 95 percent of ash is made up 

of silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium in their oxide forms, with 

magnesium, potassium, sodium, and titanium representing the remaining 

major constituents. Ash may also contain a wide range of trace constituents 

in highly variable concentrations. Potential trace constituents include 

antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, 

strontium, zinc, and other metals. 

Sector Notebook Project 42 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Flue gas desulfurization waste - If coal or oil is the fuel source, the FGD 

control technologies result in the generation of solid wastes. Wet 

lime/limestone scrubbers produce a slurry of ash, unreacted lime, calcium 

sulfate, and calcium sulfite. Dry scrubber systems produce a mixture of 

unreacted sorbent (e.g., lime, limestone, sodium carbonates, calcium 

carbonates), sulfur salts, and fly ash. Sludges are typically stabilized with fly 

ash. Sludges produced in a wet scrubber may be disposed of in 

impoundments or below-grade landfills, or they may be stabilized and 

disposed of in landfills. Dry scrubber sludges may be managed dry or wet. 

Non-Combustion Wastes 

Non-combustion wastes can be categorized into contact and noncontact 

wastes. Contact wastes come in contact with combustion wastes and, 

therefore, contain the same constituents as the combustion wastes. In many 

cases, these contact wastes are managed with the combustion wastes. Noncontact wastes do not come in contact with ashes or FGD wastes and may be 

managed separately. Table 13 summarizes the typical waste streams, 

potential pollutants, and ways of managing these pollutants. Figure 16 shows 

where the waste streams are generated at a typical steam electric power plant. 

Sector Notebook Project 43 September 1997 
�

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Table 13: Summary of Typical Waste Streams and Pollutants Generated at Fossil Fuel Electric 

Power Generation Facilities Based on Fuel Type 

Fuel Type Wastes/Pollutan 

t 

Air Emissions Combustion Wastes Non-Combustion Wastes 

Coal Process wastes 

Pollutants 

Flue gas and heat -

thermal rise plume. 

SO2, NOX, CO2, CO 

(more from small 

boilers), VOCs, TOC, 

PM, metals, sulfur. 

Bottom ash, fly ash, and 

FGD wastes 

desulfurization, and fly 

ash. 

Heavy metals, ferrous 

sulfate, sulfuric acid, 

sulfate, CaSO3, and 

CaO. 

Contact�

: ash transport, gas-side 

boiler cleaning,* FGD blowdown, 

coal pile runoff, pyrite waste, floor 

drains. 

Noncontact: once-through cooling 

water,* cooling system blowdown,* 

boiler blowdown,* water-side boiler 

cleaning,* demineralizer regenerent.* 

Chlorine, organic chemicals, metals, 

pH, TSS, TDSS, ferrous sulfate, 

sulfuric acid, metals, pyrite. 

Oil Process wastes 

Pollutants 

Flue gas and heat -

thermal rise plume. 

Low SO2, NOX (as 

NOX particulate), CO2 , 

sulfur, and PM 

compared to coal. 

Metals and TOC. 

Bottom ash and fly ash. 

VOCs and heavy metals. 

Contact�

: ash transport, gas-side 

boiler cleaning,* FGD blowdown, 

floor drains. 

Noncontact: once-through cooling 

water,* cooling system blowdown,* 

boiler blowdown,* water-side boiler 

cleaning,* demineralizer regenerent.* 

Chlorine, organic chemicals, metals, 

pH, TSS, TDSS, ferrous sulfate, 

sulfuric acid, metals. 

Gas Process wastes 

Pollutants 

Flue gas. 

Low NoX, and SO2 

compared to oil and 

coal. Thermal 

pollution is 60% less 

than coal. 

None. 

None. 

Contact�

: infrequent gas-side boiler 

cleaning,* floor drains. 

Noncontact: once-through cooling 

water,* cooling system blowdown,* 

boiler blowdown,* water-side boiler 

cleaning,* demineralizer regenerent.* 

Chlorine, organic chemicals, metals, 

pH, TSS, TDSS, metals. 

* Waste streams at facilities with steam turbines. � In contact with combustion wastes. 

Sector Notebook Project 44 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Figure 16: Waste Streams Generated at a Typical Fossil Fuel Electric 

Power Generation Plant 

Source: Adapted from Steam, Its Generation and Use, 40th Edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock and Wil 

Barbeton, OH. 1992. Reproduced with permission from the Babcock and Wilcox Co. 

Contact, Non-Combustion Wastes 

Metal and boiler cleaning waste (gas-side) - Gas-side metal and boiler 

cleaning wastes are produced during maintenance of the gas-side of the 

boiler, including the air preheater, economizer, superheater, stack, and 

ancillary equipment. Residues from coal combustion (soot and fly ash) build 

up on the surfaces of the equipment and must be removed periodically. This 

buildup is typically removed with plain, pressurized water containing no 

chemical additives. Wastewaters are sometimes neutralized and metals 

precipitated. At coal plants, the wastewater is most often put into the ash 

ponds without treatment. 

Sector Notebook Project 45 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section III. Industrial Process Description 

Ash transport wastewater - Ash produced from the combustion of coal or 

oil is typically collected in a sluice water that is then sent to settling ponds 

for disposal. The ash settling pond discharge may contain dissolved and 

suspended solids, heavy metals (nickel, iron, vanadium), organometalic 

compounds, and magnesium compounds when magnesium oxides are used 

for corrosion control. 

Flue gas desulfurization blowdown - Blowdown from FGD systems is 

discharged when the recycled liquor begins to build up chlorine. The 

discharge contains calcium sulfate, calcium chloride, and sodium chloride. 

Depending upon fly ash carryover, the wastewater may contain metal ions. 

Coal pile runoff - Open storage of coal allows contact with rain and/or other 

precipitation. These storm waters react with the minerals in the coal to 

produce a leachate contaminated with ferrous sulfate and sulfuric acid. The 

low pH of the leachate reacts with the coal, thereby accelerating dissolution 

of metals in the coal. 

Pyrite waste - Coal mills or pulverizers reduce the size of the feed coal 

going into the boiler. During this process, various impurities, such as hard 

coal, rocks, and pyrites (an iron-based mineral), are mechanically separated 

from the feed stream. This solid waste is typically collected and fed into the 

bottom ash transport system and eventually co-disposed with the ash in either 

a landfill or an impoundment. 

Floor drains - Floor and yard drains collect rainfall, seepage, leakage 

wastewaters from small equipment cleaning operations, process spills, and 

leaks. As a result, the pollutants found in the wastewaters are variable. The 

waste streams may contain coal dust, oil, and detergents. 

Noncontact, Non-combustion Wastes 

Once-through cooling water - When a steam turbine is used to drive the 

electric generator the process is called “steam electric.” Steam electric units 

require large amounts of cooling water for steam condensation and efficient 

thermal operation. The cooling water flow rate through the condenser is by 

far the largest process water flow, normally equating to about 98 percent of 

the total process water flow for the entire unit. In a once-through cooling 

water system, water is usually taken into the plant from surface waters, but 

sometimes ground waters or municipal supplies are used. The water is 

passed through the condenser where it absorbs heat and is then discharged to 

a receiving water. Chlorine, which is added intermittentlyto the cooling water 

to control biofouling, is a pollutant of concern in cooling water discharge. 

Heat is also a concern. 

Sector Notebook Project 46 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Cooling tower blowdown - Cooling water is recirculated when the water 

supply is inadequate to sustain a once-through system or when thermal 

discharges are regulated or undesirable. In a system that recirculates cooling 

water, heat from the water is transferred to the atmosphere via cooling 

towers, cooling ponds, or spray facilities. The recirculated water eventually 

builds up dissolved solids and suspended matter. Cooling tower blowdown 

(a percentage of the recirculated water) is discharged regularly and additional 

fresh makeup water is treated and added into the recirculating system to 

relieve this buildup of solids. Pollutants of concern in cooling tower 

blowdown discharges include chlorine, organic chemicals, and trace metals 

from biofouling and corrosion control. 

Boiler blowdown - Water to make steam may be recirculated and eventually 

build up impurities in the boiler. This water is periodically purged from the 

system. Boiler blowdown is typically alkaline, is low in total dissolved solids, 

and contains chemical additives used to control scale and corrosion. 

Blowdown also contains trace amounts of copper, iron, and nickel. 

Metal and boiler cleaning waste (water-side) - Metal cleaning wastes are 

produced during cleaning of the boiler tubes, superheater, and condenser 

located on the water-side or steam-side of the boiler. Scale and corrosion 

products build up in the boiler and must be removed with chemical cleaning 

using an acid or alkaline solution. The composition of the waste solvents 

depends on the construction material of the feedwater system, but largely 

consists of iron with lesser amounts of copper, nickel, zinc, chromium, 

calcium, and magnesium. Spent solvents may be treated in numerous ways: 

(1) neutralization and then discharge, (2) evaporation in other operating 

boilers onsite, (3) dedicated holding ponds, (4) mixing with rinsate and 

sending to ash impoundments, or (5) disposal offsite. 

Demineralizer Regenerant - Boiler systems may require treatment of boiler 

makeup water prior to use. Ion exchange resins used in the treatment of the 

water accumulate cations and anions removed from the raw water. These 

resins are regenerated using a strong acid, such as sulfuric acid, or a strong 

base, such as sodium hydroxide. Regenerant wastes contain dissolved ions 

removed from the raw wastewater and excess acid or base. Often, the waste 

is directed into the ash impoundment for disposal or to a settling pond with 

other liquid wastes prior to discharge. 

IV. WASTE RELEASE PROFILE 

Sector Notebook Project 47 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

This section provides estimates and reported quantities of wastes released 

from the fossil fuel electric power generation industry. Currently, this 

information is not available from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) under 

the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). 

However, regulations promulgated on May 1, 1997, would require facilities 

that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for 

distribution in commerce to begin reporting in 1999 (for the period from 

January 1 to December 31, 1998). Because TRI reporting is not currently 

required, other sources of waste release data have been identified for this 

profile. 

This section comprises three subsections. The first section provides available 

data on releases of solid wastes from fossil fuel electric power generation 

facilities. The second section provides available data on releases to surface 

waters. A third section provides available data on releases of criteria 

pollutants and hazardous pollutants to the air. 

IV.A Available Solid Waste Release Data for the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation 

Industry 

As described previously, the primary solid waste releases from coal- and oilfired steam electric facilities are fly ash and bottom ash produced during the 

combustion process. An increasing number of facilities must condition flue 

gases to remove sulfur compounds, which results in the generation of another 

solid waste typically referred to as FGD sludge. The following tables present 

aggregated ash and FGD sludge generation estimates for utility and 

nonutility steam electric facilities. 

Table 14 presents the estimated quantity of fly and bottom ash (combined) 

for utility boilers in 1994. Coal ash figures have been derived from 1994 

DOE, EIA Form EIA-767 utility survey responses. These responses are 

compiled by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) in their Power Statistics 

Database.32 The oil ash figures were developed by the Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) based on utility-provided estimates, as well as 

extrapolations based on oil consumption and particulate collection 

efficiencies for individual plants. Gas-fired facilities are not presented in the 

table because gas combustion does not generate measurable quantities of 

particulate ash. In general, coal-fired utilities produce ash at approximately 

10 percent of the fuel consumption rate. This high rate of production 

confirms that ash management can represent an important operational 

consideration at coal plants. In contrast, oil-fired utilities produce much less 

than 0.1 percent of the total ash produced by the coal-fired facilities. This 

figure reflects the low ash content of oil compared with coal, the typically 

lower requirements for particulate collection devices at coal-fired facilities, 

the small average particle size of oil ash, and the small contribution that oil 

currently makes to total U.S. electricity generation. 

Sector Notebook Project 48 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 14: Generation and Disposition of Utility Fly and Bottom Ash, 1994 (thousand short tons) 

Fuel Type Number 

of 

Plants 

Quantity 

Sold 

Quantity 

Removed by 

Contractor 

Quantity 

Landfilled 

Quantity 

Ponded 

Quantity 

Used Onsite, 

Given Away, 

or Disposed 

of in Other 

Ways 

Total 

Quantity 

Collected 

for the 

Record 

Year (1994) 

Coal* 404 12,122 8,762 24,849 19,929 4,014 69,676 

Coal/Gas 32 830 546 636 133 83 2,228 

Coal/Nuclear 2 279 0 0 26 29 334 

Coal/Oil 26 368 401 303 470 180 1,722 

Coal/Oil/Gas 2 1 41 45 0 0 87 

Coal/Wood 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal Coal 467 13,600 9,750 25,833 20,558 4,306 74,047 

Oil** 73 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 23 

Totals 540 13,600 9,750 25,833 20,558 4,306 74,070 

*

 Coal ash values provided in EEI Power Statistics Database (1994 Data). Prepared by Utility Data Institute, McGrawHill, Washington, DC. 1995. Plants include only those reporting coal as primary or secondary fuel. Includes 88 facilities 

reporting zero waste generation: 26 facilities reported zero fuel consumption and 62 facilities did not exceed the capacity 

and/or ash generation reporting thresholds for the DOE EIA 767 Survey. 

** Oil ash values are for 1995. Source: Oil Combustion By-Products -- Chemical Characteristics and Management 

Practices: Draft Report. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. March 1997. 

Table 14 also indicates the range of management options employed by 

utilities in managing coal ash. While the figure varies considerable between 

operators and sites, roughly one-third of all U.S. utility coal ash finds its way 

to some type of beneficial use project. Of the material remaining in 

traditional disposal environments, the majority is managed in onsite 

impoundments or landfills. These units vary in size, design, and 

environmental controls, depending on the age, the State, and the operator. 

Table 15 presents similar findings for utility FGD sludge generation and 

management. Again, the data reflect utility responses to the Form EIA-767, 

as compiled by EEI in the Power Statistics Database. Note that there are no 

oil-fired utility boilers equipped with FGD scrubbers. The quantity of FGD 

sludge generated at a given plant is a function of the sulfur content of the 

coal consumed, the total quantity of coal consumed, the type of scrubber 

Sector Notebook Project 49 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 15: Generation and Disposition of Utility FGD Sludge, 1994 (thousand short tons) 

Fuel Type Number 

of 

Plants 

Quantity 

Sold 

Quantity 

Removed by 

Contractor 

Quantity 

Landfilled 

Quantity 

Ponded 

Quantity 

used onsite, 

given away, 

or disposed 

of in other 

ways 

Total 

Quantity 

Collected 

for the 

record year 

(1994) 

Coal 71 118 759 8,286 4,082 708 13,953 

Coal/Gas 4 106 6 479 0 5 596 

Coal/Nuclear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Coal/Oil 2 18 5 55 0 0 78 

Coal/Oil/Gas 1 0 0 33 0 0 33 

Coal/Wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Totals 78 242 770 8,853 4,082 713 14,660 

Source: EEI Power Statistics Database (1994 Data). Prepared by Utility Data Institute, McGraw-Hill, Washington, DC. 

1995. 

employed, the efficiency of reaction of the scrubber, and other factors. The 

majority of FGD sludge is managed in onsite landfills or impoundments. 

Table 16 presents an estimate of the 1990 coal ash generation by nonutility 

fossil fuel combustors, broken out by major industrial category. Based on 

EPA Office of Air and Radiation’s 1990 Particulate Inventory Database 

(Version 3), the ash figures are derived from the estimated 1990 coal 

consumption and coal ash content for the boiler population. The table 

includes all coal combustors permitted as major sources of criteria pollutants 

under the CAA and, therefore, includes many combustors that do not 

produce electricity. The electric generators, however, may be expected to 

represent the largest of the nonutility combustors and the greatest portion of 

the fuel usage by that population, such that the estimates shown provide at 

least a fair picture of the ability of the population to generate ash. 

Compared with the utility coal ash estimates presented above, the nonutility 

universe represents only roughly 5 percent of the total U.S. ash generation. 

This fact reflects the generally small boiler size and the small aggregate coal 

consumption represented by nonutility combustors. Two industry categories, 

paper and chemicals manufacturing, represent 50 percent of all nonutility 

coal consumption, with only five industry categories accounting for more 

than 80 percent of all nonutility coal consumption. 

Sector Notebook Project 50 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 16: Estimated Nonutility Generation of Coal Ash, 1990 

Standard Industrial Classification 

Number 

of 

Facilities 

Number 

of 

Boilers 

Total 

Capacity 

(MMBTU) 

Estimated 

Ash 

Generation 

(1,000 tons) 

2600-2699, Paper and Allied Products 139 243 61,348 1,189 

2800-2899, Chemicals and Allied Products 116 276 54,031 1,025 

3300-3399, Primary Metals Industries 45 85 20,344 500 

2000-2099, Food and Kindred Products 94 151 21,391 402 

4900-4999, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services 29 83 30,234 392 

3700-3799, Transportation Equipment 57 162 14,581 125 

2200-2299, Textile Mill Products 58 101 7,272 107 

1400-1499, Mining and Quarrying of Non-Metallic 

Minerals, Except Fuels 

7 15 6,620 76 

3800-3899, Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling 

Instruments 

1 3 1,976 66 

3000-3099, Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products 20 37 3,779 63 

TOTALS (Top Ten Ash Producing SIC Categories) 566 1,156 221,576 3,945 

Percentage of Total Universe 76 79 89 93 

TOTALS (Complete Nonutility universe) 749 1,467 249,437 4,263 

Source: Nonutility Fossil Fuel Combustion: Sources and Volumes - Revised Draft Report. Prepared for U.S.EPA, Office of 

Solid Waste by Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA. December 1996. 

As discussed previously, steam electric facilities may generate a variety of 

other solid wastes. These may include boiler and cooling water treatment 

wastes, coal mill rejects, boiler cleaning wastes, and a variety of smaller 

waste streams incidental to power generation of ancillary activities. At coal 

plants, these waste streams typically are small compared with ash and sludge 

generation. At oil- and gas-fired plants, they may represent the largest solid 

wastes present at the site. Unfortunately, available data sources do not 

provide credible estimates of the total quantity of these materials generated 

at utility and nonutility steam electric sites. 

IV.B Available Water Release Information for the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation 

Industry 

The EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering 

and Analysis Division, has collected water release data in evaluating the need 

for revisions to the 1982 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 

the Steam Electric Point Source Category. The EPA has identified 53 

Sector Notebook Project 51 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

chemicals (29 priority and 24 nonconventional) as pollutants of interest in 

wastewaters discharged from steam electric power generation facilities. 

These pollutants were identified in the EPA Permit Compliance System 

(PCS) database. The PCS is a computerized information management 

system maintained by the EPA Office of Enforcement. The PCS contains 

data on permit conditions, monitoring, compliance, and enforcement data for 

facilities regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Program. The information contained in the database is generally 

limited to only those facilities that have been classified as "major" by EPA 

based on factors such as effluent design flow and physical, chemical, and 

locational characteristics of the discharge. Information on facilities 

designated as "minor" is not required to be entered into the PCS database. 

The data collected included 1992 records of pollutant releases from facilities 

with primary SIC codes 4911 and 4931. Approximately 512 facilities were 

identified in PCS as "major" steam electric facilities. Please note that 

facilities that use nuclear energy to drive steam turbines are also covered in 

the universe evaluated under this study. An option in the PCS system called 

Effluent Data Statistics (EDS) was used to generate the annual loading 

values. For the purposes of the effluent guideline study, the EDS-derived 

data were subjected to numerous refinements in an attempt to overcome 

limitations in the database. These refinements included review of the data 

by monitored facilities, as arranged by the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) 

and the EEI. The industry still contends, however, that the loadings of 

pollutants in these data are over estimated.33 Therefore actual loadings 

cannot be provided in this Sector Notebook. 

Table 17 provides a list of the pollutants found in the 1992 PCS data for 

steam electric effluents. 

Sector Notebook Project 52 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 17: List of Pollutants Reported in 1992 PCS Data from Steam Electric Facilities* 

Priority 

Pollutant 

Pollutant Priority 

Pollutant 

Pollutant 

Iron X Trichloromethane 

Chlorine X Beryllium 

Aluminum Ethylene glycol 

Boron Nitrosomorpholine, NFluoride X Mercury 

Boric Acid X Pentachlorophenol 

X Zinc X Silver 

Barium X Thallium 

Magnesium X Antimony 

X Copper Molybdenum 

Ammonia Benzonitrile 

Iron Sulfate Titanium 

Manganese Polychlorinated biphenyls, NOS 

X Chromium, trivalent X Dichloromethane 

X Nickel X Tetrachloroethane 

X Lead Dibenzofuran 

X Arsenic X Toluene 

X Chromium Xylene 

X Selenium Lithium 

Bromine X Benzene 

Hydrogen Sulfide X Ethylbenzene 

X Chromium, hexavalent X Phenanthrene 

X Cadmium X Pyrene 

Vanadium X PCB-1254 

X Cyanide X PCB-1260 

X Phenol X Chlorophenol, 2-

Hydrazine 

* Based on estimated data supplied by members (representing 80 facilities) of the electric utility industry. 

Source: Preliminary Data Summary for the Steam Electric Point Source Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, D. C. July 1996. (EPA-921-R-96-010). 

Sector Notebook Project 53 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

IV.C Available Air Emissions Data for the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation 

Industry 

Three existing sources of data for estimating the releases to the air from the 

fossil fuel electric power generation industry were identified. The following 

sections discuss the available data and associated limitations. 

IV.C.1 Annual Emissions Estimated by the Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration 

Emissions data for traditional utility steam electric facilities that generate 10 

or more megawatts electricity using fossil fuels are derived or obtained 

directly from information collected in an annual survey by the DOE EIA. 

This survey (Form EIA-767) is a restricted-universe census used to collect 

boiler-specific data from almost 900 electric utility power plants. The 

emissions are calculated based on fuel consumption data and using emission 

factors from the EPA report AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors and reduction factors for control equipment, where applicable. The 

CO2 emissions are estimated using additional information about fuel quality. 

Table 18 provides the estimated 1995 emissions for utility fossil fuel steam 

electric generating units that generate 10 or more megawatts electricity. 

Table 18: Estimated 1995 Emissions From Fossil Fuel Steam Electric Generating Units at 

Electric Utilities by Fuel Type (thousand short tons) 

Fuel Net Generation 

(thousand megawatts) 

SO2 NOX CO2 

Coal 1,652,914 11,248 6,508 1,752,527 

Gas 307,306 1 533 161,969 

Petroleum 60,844 321 92 50,878 

Source: Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume 2. Energy Information Administration, Department of 

Energy, Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/2. December 1996. 

As indicated in the table, the majority of the emissions from utility fossil 

fuel steam electric generating units come from coal-burning facilities. This 

is due in part because there is more coal-fired capacity than other fossilfueled capacity in use. SO2 emissions are higher in coal-burning facilities 

due to the higher sulfur content in coals than in other fuels. The average 

sulfur content in coals ranges from 0.3 percent in the West to approximately 

2.5 percent in the East. Petroleum burned at utility power plants ranges from 

almost no sulfur to about 3.5 percent. The amount of sulfur contained in 

natural gas is relatively small. 

Sector Notebook Project 54 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

The Form EIA-767 does not collect data for facilities employing internal 

combustion engines, gas turbines, or combined-cycle systems or steam 

electric plants generating less than 10 megawatts electricity. The EIA 

conducted a study in 1991 to estimate air emissions from these generating 

units, using a methodology similar to that used on the larger steam electric 

facilities. The study indicated that emissions of SO2, NOX,, and CO2 are less 

than 0.1, 1.2, and 1.1 percent, respectively, of total utility air emissions.34 

The EIA collects similar fuel consumption and quality information for 

nonutility power producers. However, EIA provides only aggregate 

statistics on estimated emissions for all fuels (fossil and renewable energy 

sources) and does not separate out emissions for fossil-fueled facilities. 

These statistics are not provided in this document since the capacity of 

nonutility generation using nonrenewable energy sources is large. 

IV.C.2 AIRS Database Annual Estimated Releases for the Electric Power 

Generation Industry 

The Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) is an air pollution data 

delivery system managed by the Technical Support Division in EPA’s Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), located in Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. The AIRS is a national repository of data 

related to air pollution monitoring and control. It contains a wide range of 

information related to stationary sources of air pollution, including the 

emission of a number of air pollutants that may be of concern within a 

particular industry. States are the primary suppliers of data to AIRS. Data 

are used to support monitoring, planning, tracking, and enforcement related 

to implementation by EPA staff, the scientific community, other countries, 

and the general public. The following criteria pollutant emissions and 

estimated TRI pollutant release data for the fossil fuel electric power 

generation industry were extracted from this database. 

AIRS Estimated Criteria Pollutant Emissions 

The AIRS database contains data on criteria pollutants: CO, NOX, particulate 

matter (PM) of 10 microns or less (PM10), total particulate emissions (PT), 

SO2, and VOCs. Criteria pollutant releases for the fossil fuel electric power 

generation industry were accessed using SIC codes 4911 and 4931. It should 

be noted that accessing the data using SIC codes does not allow the 

segregation of emissions for facilities that use fossil fuels from facilities that 

use nuclear, renewable, or a combination of fuels. Therefore, the annual 

emissions taken from the AIRS database will overestimate the emissions 

from the fossil fuel subsector of the power generation industry. Table 19 

presents the criteria pollutant data available for this industry. Pollutant 

releases for other industries are also included in the table. 

Sector Notebook Project 55 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 19: Annual Air Pollutant Releases (tons/year) 

Industry Sector CO NO 2 PM 10 PT SO 2 VOC 

Metal Mining 4,670 39,849 63,541 173,566 17,690 915 

Nonmetal Mining 25,922 22,881 40,199 128,661 18,000 4,002 

Lumber and Wood Production 122,061 38,042 20,456 64,650 9,401 55,983 

Furniture and Fixtures 2,754 1,872 2,502 4,827 1,538 67,604 

Pulp and Paper 566,883 358,675 35,030 111,210 493,313 127,809 

Printing 8,755 3,542 405 1,198 1,684 103,018 

Inorganic Chemicals 153,294 106,522 6,703 34,664 194,153 65,427 

Organic Chemicals 112,410 187,400 14,596 16,053 176,115 180,350 

Petroleum Refining 734,630 355,852 27,497 36,141 619,775 313,982 

Rubber and Misc. Plastics 2,200 9,955 2,618 5,182 21,720 132,945 

Stone, Clay and Concrete 105,059 340,639 192,962 662,233 308,534 34,337 

Iron and Steel 1,386,461 153,607 83,938 87,939 232,347 83,882 

Nonferrous Metals 214,243 31,136 10,403 24,654 253,538 11,058 

Fabricated Metals 4,925 11,104 1,019 2,790 3,169 86,472 

Electronics and Computers 356 1,501 224 385 741 4,866 

Motor Vehicles, Bodies, Parts and Accessories 15,109 27,355 1,048 3,699 20,378 96,338 

Dry Cleaning 102 184 3 27 155 7,441 

Transportation 128,625 550,551 2,569 5,489 8,417 104,824 

Metal Casting 116,538 11,911 10,995 20,973 6,513 19,031 

Pharmaceuticals 6,586 19,088 1,576 4,425 21,311 37,214 

Plastic Resins and Synthetic Fibers 16,388 41,771 2,218 7,546 67,546 74,138 

Textiles 8,177 34,523 2,028 9,479 43,050 27,768 

Fossil Fuel ElectricPower Generation 366,208 5,986,757 140,760 464,542 13,827,511 57,384 

Ship Building and Repair 105 862 638 943 3,051 3,967 

Source: U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, AIRS Database, 1997. 

AIRS Estimated TRI Pollutant Emissions 

Data were collected from the AIRS database by the EPA Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Assistance Division, Toxics Release 

Inventory Branch in support of the TRI expansion project discussed 

previously. The data set that was downloaded included the most recent data 

available for each facility up to and including 1995 data. The data presented 

in Table 20 are estimates of TRI releases based on air releases reported in the 

Sector Notebook Project 56 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) from facilities within SIC codes 4911 and 

4931. The data contain quantities of directly reported TRI chemicals, as well 

as quantities of additional TRI chemicals extrapolated from reported releases 

of PM and VOCs. The PM and VOC releases were matched with chemical 

profiles contained in the SPECIATE database (Version 1.5). The 

SPECIATE is a computerized format of the EPA Air Emissions Species 

Manual and is available for download from the Clearing House of Inventory 

and Emissions Factors (CHIEFs). The data presented are based only on 

apportionment of "original" species profiles in the SPECIATE database --

those species profiles that were developed specifically for the source of the 

release where it has been applied. Despite the use of only the highest quality 

profiles in the SPECIATE database, these data should only be used as a 

preliminary indication of potential releases and not as actual air releases. 

These data have been provided for illustrative purposes only and should not 

be used in comparisons with other release data. 

IV.C.3 Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates for Fossil Fuel Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units 

Estimates of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from fossil fuel 

electric utility steam generating units have been developed by OAQPS and 

are reported in a report entitled, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions 

from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - Interim Final Report 

(Volumes 1-3).35 These estimates are based on emissions test data from 52 

units obtained from extensive emission tests by the EPRI, DOE, the Northern 

States Power Company, and EPA. The testing program covered a wide 

range of facility types with a variety of control scenarios. Therefore, the 

data are considered to be generally representative of fossil fuel utility steam 

electric generating units as a whole. This study estimated the average annual 

emissions for each of 684 power plants. A total of 67 HAPs were identified 

in the emission testing program as potentially being emitted from these 

facilities. 

It should be noted that the report states that because of the small sample sizes 

for specific boiler types and control scenarios, there are uncertainties in the 

data. Therefore, the data for individual plants may either underestimate or 

overestimate the actual emissions. According to the report, the average 

annual emissions estimates will be roughly within a factor of plus or minus 

three of the actual annual emissions. However, it is recognized that the 

analysis had numerous limitations, such as not including data on potential 

upsets or unusual operating conditions, and it is possible that the range of 

uncertainty is greater. Tables 21, 22, and 23 present data on estimated 

inorganic HAPs from coal-fired, oil-fired, and gas-fired utility steam electric 

facilities. Tables 24, 25, and 26 present data on estimated organic HAPs 

from coal-fired, oil-fired, and gas-fired utility steam electric facilities. 

Sector Notebook Project 57 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 20: Estimated Releases of TRI Chemicals * 

CAS 

NO. 

Chemical Name Total Releases 

(pounds per year) 

71556 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl chloroform) 52,923,638 

79005 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 422,954 

95636 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 264,682 

106934 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide) 1,820,797 

95501 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 22,292 

107062 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) 35,222,942 

106990 1,3-Butadiene 7,443,883 

541731 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 672 

106467 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 378,018 

112345 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol 103,100 

124174 2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol acetate 0 

111900 2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)ethanol 885,978 

111773 2-(2-Methoxyethoxy)ethanol 0 

111762 2-Butoxyethanol 21,929,191 

110805 2-Ethoxyethanol 998,125 

111159 2-Ethoxyethyl acetate 111,202 

109864 2-Methoxyethanol 60 

90437 2-Phenylphenol 8,507 

101779 4,4'-Methylenedianiline 43 

75070 Acetaldehyde 2,010,699 

107028 Acrolein 1,528,324 

79107 Acrylic acid 3,657 

107131 Acrylonitrile 783,041 

7429905 Aluminum (fume or dust) 75,792,629 

7664417 Ammonia 43,518,590 

62533 Aniline 311,982 

120127 Anthracene 139,265 

7440360 Antimony 1,789,097 

7440382 Arsenic 9,329,119 

1332214 Asbestos (friable) 8,123 

7440393 Barium 1,435,995 

56553 Benz(a)anthracene 1,839 

71432 Benzene 149,967,605 

218019 Benzo(a)phenanthrene 1,609 

50328 Benzo(a)pyrene 1,381 

100447 Benzyl chloride 0 

7440417 Beryllium 10,997 

92524 Biphenyl 85,493 

7726956 Bromine 949,230 

141322 Butyl acrylate 11,240 

123728 Butylaldehyde 110,921 

Sector Notebook Project 58 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

7440439 Cadmium 13,733,816 

Table 20 (continued): Estimated Releases of TRI Chemicals * 

CAS 

NO. Chemical Name Total Releases 

(Pounds per Year) 

75150 Carbon disulfide 27,330,674 

56235 Carbon tetrachloride 81,376 

7782505 Chlorine 71,501,754 

108907 Chlorobenzene 171,894 

75456 Chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) 162,070 

75003 Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride) 31,182,710 

67663 Chloroform 13,340 

74873 Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) 178,484 

126998 Chloroprene 57,294 

75729 Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC-13) 9,053 

7440473 Chromium 2,632,999 

7440484 Cobalt 211,262 

7440508 Copper 3,058,579 

8001589 Creosote 0 

1319773 Cresol (mixed isomers) 239,994 

98828 Cumene 725,684 

110827 Cyclohexane 96,418,561 

108930 Cyclohexanol 6,031 

84742 Dibutyl phthalate 1,248,555 

75718 Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) 97,414 

75092 Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 1,414,455,336 

76142 Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114) 5,847 

131113 Dimethyl phthalate 669,536 

106898 Epichlorohydrin 66,000 

140885 Ethyl acrylate 117,509 

100414 Ethylbenzene 68,347,539 

74851 Ethylene 53,298,159 

107211 Ethylene glycol 76,627 

75218 Ethylene oxide 541,571 

7782414 Fluorine 6,068,173 

50000 Formaldehyde 61,211,875 

64186 Formic acid 467,279 

76131 Freon 113 [Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2,-trifluoro-] 7,587,241 

7647010 Hydrochloric acid 5,809,931 

78842 Isobutyraldehyde 109,758 

67630 Isopropyl alcohol (mfg-strong acid process) 32,059,970 

7439921 Lead 72,091,837 

108383 m-Xylene 32,874,142 

108316 Maleic anhydride 324,171 

7439965 Manganese 2,969,118 

Sector Notebook Project 59 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

7439976 Mercury 394,924 

67561 Methanol 44,028,966 

Sector Notebook Project 60 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 20 (continued): Estimated Releases of TRI Chemicals * 

CAS 

NO. 

Chemical Name Total Releases 

(Pounds per Year) 

96333 Methyl acrylate 0 

78933 Methyl ethyl ketone 91,926,327 

108101 Methyl isobutyl ketone 20,020,683 

80626 Methyl methacrylate 16,208 

74953 Methylene bromide 52,241 

101688 Methylenebis(phenylisocyanate) (MBI) 130 

101688 Methylenebis(phenylisocyanate) (MDI) 130 

76153 Monochloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115) 6,199 

68122 N,N-Dimethylformamide 2,700,310 

71363 n-Butyl alcohol 12,653,277 

110543 n-Hexane 107,548,181 

91203 Naphthalene 434,275 

7440020 Nickel 7,884,920 

7697372 Nitric acid 214,564 

98953 Nitrobenzene 0 

95476 o-Xylene 41,115,640 

106423 p-Xylene 2,327,391 

85018 Phenanthrene 84,032 

108952 Phenol 15,017,545 

7723140 Phosphorus (yellow or white) 7,980,941 

85449 Phthalic anhydride 2,491,887 

123386 Propionaldehyde 49,400 

115071 Propylene (Propene) 45,955,707 

75569 Propylene oxide 183,593 

78922 sec-Butyl alcohol 990,420 

7782492 Selenium 173,886 

7440224 Silver 289,686 

100425 Styrene 28,155,503 

7664939 Sulfuric acid 1,320,503 

75650 Tert-Butyl alcohol 4,660 

127184 Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) 14,623,885 

7440280 Thallium <1 

108883 Toluene 421,985,085 

79016 Trichloroethylene 27,838,379 

75694 Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) 1,315,878 

7440622 Vanadium (fume or dust) 7,256,367 

108054 Vinyl acetate 1,011,166 

75014 Vinyl chloride 10,200,715 

1330207 Xylene (mixed isomers) 191,013,108 

7440666 Zinc (fume or dust) 20,353,738 

* Data in this table should not be used for comparison with other environmental data from other sources. It is only provided for illustrative 

purposes. Please note the limitations of the data explained in the text. 

Sector Notebook Project 61 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 21: Median Emission Factors Determined From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 

2010 HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Inorganic HAPs 

From Coal-Fired Units * 

Coal-Fired Units: 

Inorganic HAPs 

Number of 

Stack 

Factors: 

PM 

Control ** 

Median 

Stack 

Factor: PM 

Control 

(lb/trillion 

Btu)*** 

Number of 

Stack 

Factors: 

PM and 

SO2 

Control** 

Median Stack 

Factor: PM 

and SO2 

Control 

(lb/trillion 

Btu)** 

Estimate 

d Total 

1990 

Emission 

s (tons) 

Estimated 

Total 2010 

Emissions 

(tons) 

Antimony 7 1.4 4 0.13 11 14 

Arsenic 21 2.9 8 0.9 54 62 

Beryllium 12 0.45 5 0.14 6.6 7.6 

Hydrogen Chloride 15 21,000 9 1,290 137,000 150,000 

Hydrogen Cyanide 

(HCN) �

All HCN 

factors were 

combined 

Number of 

Factors: 5 

Median 

Factor: 28 

lb/trillion Btu 

240 320 

Hydrogen Fluoride 14 4,200 6 106 19,500 25,600 

Cadmium 18 0.72 9 1 1.9 2.3 

Chromium 22 8.4 10 4 70 83 

Cobalt 10 2.7 6 1 21 27 

Lead 21 4.8 9 5.8 72 83 

Manganese 21 15 9 15 180 232 

Mercury 20 3.9 10 3.4 51 65 

Nickel 21 8.3 10 5.2 48 57 

Phosphorous (P)��

All P Factors 

were 

Combined 

Number of 

Factors: 10 

Median Factor 31 lb/trillion Btu 270 350 

Selenium 19 62 9 8 190 230 

* Compounds are listed in the following sequence: inorganic, organic, and dioxin/furan/polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs). Median emission factors were determined from organic HAP concentrations at the 

stack, control device outlet, or boiler outlet when at least one of typically three measured flue gas 

concentrations was detected. 

** Stack factors for inorganic HAPs were taken from test reports when at least one of typically three measured 

flue gas concentrations was detected. These factors were not used to develop the estimated emissions. *** Since the inorganic emissions were not directly estimated from stack factors, total emissions of inorganic 

HAPs projected with the computer program and from median stack factors will vary. 

� Nationwide hydrogen cyanide emissions were detected from stack emission factors and not from emission 

median factors. 

�� Nationwide phosphorous emissions were detected from stack emission factors and not from emission median 

factors. 

Source: Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units--Interim Final 

Report, Volumes 1-3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-453/R-96-013b. October 1996. 

Sector Notebook Project 62 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 22: Median Emission Factors Determined From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 HAP 

Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Inorganic HAPs From Oil-Fired Units * 

Oil-Fired Units: 

Inorganic HAPs 

Number of 

Stack 

Factors: PM 

Control ** 

Median 

Stack 

Factor: PM 

Control 

(lb/trillion 

Btu)*** 

Number of 

Stack 

Factors: No 

PM Control ** 

Median 

Stack 

Factor: No 

PM Control 

(lb/trillion 

Btu) *** 

Estimated 

Total 1990 

Emissions 

(tons) 

Estimated 

Total 2010 

Emissions 

(tons) 

Arsenic 2 0.32 8 5.3 5 2.5 

Beryllium 2 0.33 4 0.21 0.45 0.23 

Cadmium 1 0.32 9 1.6 1.7 0.87 

Chromium 4 3.7 8 5.7 4.7 2.4 

Cobalt 2 6.1 3 27 20.3 10.3 

Hydrogen Chloride 4 2900 2 2300 2870 1456 

Hydrogen Fluoride 3 230 2 140 144 73 

Lead 3 2.6 8 9 10.6 5.3 

Manganese 3 15 9 16 9.5 4.8 

Mercury 3 0.24 3 0.48 0.25 0.13 

Nickel 4 180 9 410 389 197 

Phosphorous (P)�

All P 

Factors 

were 

Combined 

Number of 

Factors: 3 

Median Factor 110 lb/trillion 

Btu 

68 34 

Selenium 1 1.4 8 3.8 1.7 0.84 

* Compounds are listed in the following sequence: inorganic, organic, and dioxin/furan/polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs). Median emission factors were determined from organic HAP concentrations at the 

stack, control device outlet, or boiler outlet when at least one of typically three measured flue gas 

concentrations was detected. ** Stack factors for inorganic HAPs were taken from test reports when at least one of typically three measured 

flue gas concentrations was detected. These factors were not used to develop the estimated emissions. *** Since the inorganic emissions were not directly estimated from stack factors, total emissions of inorganic 

HAPs projected with the computer program and from median stack factors will vary. 

� Nationwide phosphorous emissions were detected from stack emission factors and not from emission median 

factors. 

Source: Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units--Interim Final 

Report Volumes 1-3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-453/R-96-013b. October 1996. 

Sector Notebook Project 63 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 23: Median Emission Factors Determined From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 

HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Inorganic HAPs From Gas-Fired Units

* 

Gas-Fired Units: Inorganic 

HAPs 

Number of Stack 

Factors: No PM 

Control 

Median Stack 

Factor: No PM 

Control 

(lb/trillion Btu) 

Estimated Total 

1990 Emissions 

(tons) 

Estimated Total 

2010 Emissions 

(tons) 

Arsenic 2 0.14 0.16 0.25 

Cadmium 1 0.044 0.054 0.086 

Chromium 2 0.96 1.2 1.9 

Cobalt 1 0.12 0.14 0.23 

Lead 2 0.37 0.44 0.68 

Manganese 2 0.3 0.37 0.59 

Mercury 2 <0.38 0.0016 0.0024 

Nickel 2 2.3 2.3 3.5 

Phosphorous 1 2.2 1.3 2 

* Compounds are listed in the following sequence: inorganic, organic, and dioxin/furan/polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs). Median emission factors were determined from organic HAP concentrations at the 

stack, control device outlet, or boiler outlet when at least one of typically three measured flue gas 

concentrations was detected. 

Source: Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units--Interim Final 

Report Volumes 1-3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-453/R-96-013b. October 1996. 

Sector Notebook Project 64 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 24: Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 HAP Emissions, 

Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic HAPs From Coal-Fired Units 

Coal-Fired Units: Organic HAP Number 

of 

Emission 

Factors 

Median 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/trillion 

Btu) 

Computer 

Program: 

1990 Total 

Tons 

Computer 

Program: 

2010 Total 

Tons 

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1 4.7 40 53 

2-chloroacetophenone 3 0.29 2.4 3.2 

2,4 -Dinitro toluene 3 0.015 0.13 0.17 

Acetaldehyde 12 6.8 58 76 

Acetophenone 7 0.68 5.8 7.7 

Acrolein 6 3.3 28 37 

Benzene 20 2.5 21 28 

Benzyl chloride 1 0.0056 0.048 0.063 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 9 4.1 35 46 

Bromoform 1 6.6 57 75 

Carbon disulfide 8 4.3 37 48 

Carbon tetrachloride 2 3.3 28 37 

Chlorobenzene 2 3.2 27 36 

Chloroform 2 3.2 28 36 

Cumene 1 0.29 2.5 3.2 

Dibutyl phthalate 5 2.8 24 32 

Ethylbenzene 5 0.40 3.5 4.6 

Ethylchloride 1 2.4 20 27 

Methylchloroform 4 3.4 29 38 

Ethylenedichloride 3 3.1 27 35 

Formaldehyde 15 4.0 35 45 

Hexane 2 0.82 6.9 9.1 

Hexachlorobenzene 1 0.079 0.68 0.89 

Isophorone 2 24 200 270 

Methylbromide 6 0.88 7.7 10 

Methylchloride 3 5.9 51 67 

Methylethylketone 6 8.0 69 90 

Methyliodide 1 0.40 3.4 4.5 

Methylisobutyl ketone 3 4.9 42 53 

Methylmethacrylate 1 1.1 9.3 12 

Methyltertbutylether 1 1.4 12 16 

Methylenechloride 5 13 110 150 

Sector Notebook Project 65 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 24 (continued) : Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 HAP 

Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic HAPs From Coal-Fired Units 

Coal-Fired Units: Organic HAP Number 

of 

Emission 

Factors 

Median 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/trillion 

Btu) 

Computer 

Program: 

1990 Total 

Tons 

Computer 

Program: 

2010 Total 

Tons 

n-nitrosodimethylamine 1 0.68 5.9 7.7 

Naphthalene 11 0.77 6.6 8.7 

n,p-cresol 2 0.68 5.8 7.6 

o-cresol 3 1.7 14 19 

p-cresol 1 0.95 8.2 11 

perylene 1 0.075 0.65 0.85 

Pentachlorophenol 1 0.0082 0.070 0.093 

Phenol 10 6.1 52 69 

Phthalicanhydride 1 4.9 42 56 

Propionaldehyde 4 10 89 120 

Quinoline 1 0.053 0.46 0.61 

Styrene 7 3.1 27 35 

Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) 5 3.1 27 35 

Toluene 17 3.6 31 41 

Trans 1,3-dichloropropene 1 4.7 40 53 

Trichloroethylene 1 3.1 27 35 

Vinyl acetate 1 0.42 3.5 4.6 

Vinylidnechloride 2 9.7 84 110 

Xylene 2 4.7 40 53 

o-xylene 5 0.82 6.9 9.1 

m,p-xylene 8 1.5 13 17 

Total TEQ * for 2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin - - 1.5 x 10-4 2.0 x 10-4 

2,3,7,8-tetrachloride-benzo-p-dioxin 4 1.6 x 10-6 1.4 x 10-5 1.9 x 10-5 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 3 4.3 x 10-6 3.7 x 10-5 4.8 x 10-5 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 4 9.7 x 10-6 8.3 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-4 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 4 5.8 x 10-6 5.0 x 10-5 6.6 x 10-5 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 4 7.3 x 10-6 6.3 x 10-5 8.3 x 10-5 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 9 5.7 x 10-6 4.9 x 10-5 6.5 x 10-5 

Heptachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 6 1.1 x 10-4 9.2 x 10-4 1.2 x 10-3 

Hexachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 8 2.4 x 10-5 2.1 x 10-4 2.7 x 10-4 

Octachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 6 5.8 x 10-5 5.0 x 10-4 6.6 x 10-4 

Pentachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 6 9.8 x 10 -6 8.5 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-4 

Sector Notebook Project 66 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 24 (continued) : Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 HAP 

Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic HAPs From Coal-Fired Units 

Coal-Fired Units: Organic HAP Number 

of 

Emission 

Factors 

Median 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/trillion 

Btu) 

Computer 

Program: 

1990 Total 

Tons 

Computer 

Program: 

2010 Total 

Tons 

Tetrachloride-benzo-p-dioxin 9 7.1 x 10-6 6.1 x 10-5 8.0 x 10-5 

2,3,7,8-tetrachloride-benzofuran 8 3.9 x 10-6 3.4 x 10-5 4.5 x 10-5 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodi-benzofuran 5 2.4 x 10-6 2.1 x 10-5 2.8 x 10-5 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodi-benzofuran 5 1.0 x 10-5 9.0 x 10-5 1.2 x 10-4 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzofuran 6 1.3 x 10-5 1.1 x 10-4 1.5 x 10-4 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzofuran 5 4.0 x 10-6 3.4 x 10-5 4.5 x 10-5 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodi-benzofuran 4 8.5 x 10-6 7.3 x 10-5 9.6 x 10-5 

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzofuran 5 1.6 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-4 1.8 x 10-4 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodi-benzofuran 8 2.0 x 10-5 1.7 x 10-4 2.2 x 10-4 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodi-benzofuran 4 1.7 x 10-4 1.5 x 10-3 2.0 x 10-3 

Heptachlorodi-benzofuran 8 2.4 x 10-5 2.1 x 10-4 2.7 x 10-4 

Hexachlorodi-benzofuran 8 1.9 x 10-5 1.6 x 10-4 2.1 x 10-4 

Octachlorodi-benzofuran 10 1.7 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-4 1.9 x 10-4 

Pentachlorodi-benzofuran 9 1.8 x 10-5 1.6 x 10-4 2.1 x 10-4 

Tetrachloride-benzofuran 10 1.2 x 10-5 1.0 x 10-4 1.3 x 10-4 

1-methylnaphthalene 2 0.0085 0.076 0.1 

2-chloronaphthalene 2 0.04 0.35 0.46 

2-methylnaphthalene 6 0.024 0.2 0.26 

Acenapthene 6 0.008 0.07 0.09 

Acenapthylene 5 0.0042 0.036 0.047 

Anthracene 4 0.0042 0.036 0.047 

Benz(a)anthracene 4 0.0021 0.018 0.002 

Benzo(a)pyrene 6 0.001 0.0088 0.012 

Benzo(e)pyrene 1 0.0012 0.01 0.014 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 0.0081 0.07 0.092 

Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene 1 0.0016 0.014 0.018 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 0.0036 0.031 0.04 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 0.0032 0.028 0.036 

Biphenyl 1 0.34 3.1 4 

Chrysene 4 0.0026 0.022 0.03 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthacene 1 0.0003 0.003 0.004 

Sector Notebook Project 67 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Fluoranthene 6 0.007 0.06 0.082 

Table 24 (continued) : Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 HAP 

Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic HAPs From Coal-Fired Units 

Coal-Fired Units: Organic HAP Number 

of 

Emission 

Factors 

Median 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/trillion 

Btu) 

Computer 

Program: 

1990 Total 

tons 

Computer 

Program: 

2010 Total 

tons 

Fluorene 5 0.013 0.11 0.15 

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 2 0.0064 0.054 0.072 

Phenanthrene 7 0.032 0.031 0.36 

Pyrene 4 0.009 0.081 0.103 

* Toxic equivalent emissions. 

Source: Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units--Interim Final Report, Volumes 1-3. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. October 1996. EPA-453/R96-013b. 

Sector Notebook Project 68 September 1997 
-- --

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 25: Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 HAP 

Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic HAPs From 

Oil-Fired Units 

Oil-Fired Units: Organic HAPs Number of 

Emission 

Factors 

Median 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/trillion 

Btu) 

Computer 

Program: 

1990 Total 

Tons 

Computer 

Program: 

2010 Total 

Tons 

Acetaldehyde 1 8.2 5 2.6 

Benzene 6 1.4 0.88 0.45 

Ethylbenzene 2 0.49 0.29 0.15 

Formaldehyde 9 30 19 9.5 

Methylchloroform 3 7.6 4.6 2.4 

Methylenechloride 2 32 20 10 

Naphthalene 4 0.33 0.21 0.1 

Phenol 2 24 15 7.5 

Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) 1 0.55 0.34 0.17 

Toluene 6 8 4.9 2.5 

Vinyl acetate 2 5.2 3.2 1.6 

o-Xylene 1 0.84 0.51 0.26 

m,p-Xylene 2 1.4 0.82 0.42 

Total TEQ*

 for 2,3,7,8-tetra-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1.1 x 10-.5 5.4 x 10-6 

2,3,7,8-tetrachloride-benzo-p-dioxin 1 6.5 x 10-6 4.5 x 10-6 2.0 x 10-6 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 2 5.8 x 10-6 3.5 x 10-6 1.8 x 10-6 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 1 1.2 x 10-5 7.6 x 10-6 3.9 x 10-6 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 2 5.4 x 10-5 3.3 x 10-6 1.7 x 10-6 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 2 8.3 x 10-6 5.1 x 10-6 2.6 x 10-6 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 2 2.0 x 10-5 1.2 x 10-5 6.2 x 10-6 

Heptachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 2 2.0 x 10-5 1.2 x 10-5 6.2 x 10-6 

Hexachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 2 8.1 x 10-6 5.0 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-6 

Octachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 1 2.3 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-5 7.3 x 10-6 

Pentachlorodi-benzo-p-dioxin 2 5.8 x 10-6 3.5 x 10-6 1.8 x 10-6 

Tetrachloride-benzo-p-dioxin 2 5.7 x 10-6 3.4 x 10-6 1.8 x 10-6 

2,3,7,8-tetrachloride-benzofuran 2 4.6 x 10-6 2.9 x 10-6 1.4 x 10-6 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodi-benzofuran 2 4.3 x 10-6 2.6 x 10-6 1.3 x 10-6 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodi-benzofuran 2 4.8 x 10-6 3.0 x 10-6 1.5 x 10-6 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzofuran 2 6.1 x 10-6 3.7 x 10-6 1.9 x 10-6 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzofuran 2 3.8 x 10-6 2.3 x 10-6 1.2 x 10-6 

Sector Notebook Project 69 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IV. Chemical Releases and Transfers 

Table 25 (continued): Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 and 2010 

HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic HAPs From 

Oil-Fired Units 

Oil-Fired Units: Organic HAPs Number of 

Emission 

Factors 

Median 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/trillion 

Btu) 

Computer 

Program: 

1990 Total 

Tons 

Computer 

Program: 2010 

Total Tons 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodi-benzofuran 2 5.8 x 10-6 3.5 x 10-6 1.8 x 10-6 

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodi-benzofuran 1 4.8 x 10-6 3.0 x 10-6 1.4 x 10-6 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodi-benzofuran 1 9.4 x 10-6 5.7 x 10-6 3.0 x 10-6 

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodi-benzofuran 1 1.0 x 10-5 6.2 x 10-6 3.2 x 10-6 

Heptachlorodi-benzofuran 1 1.5 x 10-6 8.8 x 10-7 4.4 x 10-7 

Hexachlorodi-benzofuran 2 9.6 x 10-6 5.8 x 10-6 3.0 x 10-6 

Octachlorodi-benzofuran 1 1.0 x 10-5 6.2 x 10-6 3.2 x 10-6 

Pentachlorodi-benzofuran 2 7.3 x 10-6 4.4 x 10-6 2.2 x 10-6 

Tetrachloride-benzofuran 2 5.0 x 10-6 3.1 x 10-6 1.5 x 10-6 

2-methylnaphthalene 4 0.017 0.01 0.0052 

Acenaphthene 2 0.38 0.22 0.11 

Acenaphthylene 1 0.017 0.01 0.0052 

Anthracene 2 0.015 0.0093 0.0047 

Benz(a)anthracene 3 0.03 0.018 0.0092 

Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene 2 0.033 0.02 0.01 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2 0.021 0.013 0.0065 

Chrysene 3 0.021 0.013 0.0066 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 2 0.0081 0.005 0.0025 

Fluoranthene 6 0.016 0.0097 0.0049 

Fluorene 5 0.021 0.013 0.0065 

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 2 0.024 0.014 0.0073 

Nitrobenzofluoranthene 1 0.015 0.0092 0.0047 

Nitrochrysene/benzanthracene 1 0.016 0.0098 0.005 

Phenanthrene 9 0.025 0.015 0.0077 

Pyrene 6 0.037 0.022 0.011 

* Toxic equivalent emissions 

Source: Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units--Interim Final Report, Volumes 1-3. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. October 1996. EPA-453/R-96-

Sector Notebook Project 70 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Table 26: Median Emission Factors From Test Report Data, and Total 1990 

and 2010 HAP Emissions, Projected With the Emission Factor Program for Organic HAPs From 

Gas-Fired Units 

Gas-Fired Units: Organic HAPs Number of 

Emission 

Factors 

Median 

Emission 

Factor 

(lb/trillion 

Btu) 

Computer 

Program: 

1990 Total 

Tons 

Computer 

Program: 2010 

Total Tons 

Benzene 1 1.4 1.8 2.7 

Formaldehyde 8 35.5 55 83 

Naphthalene 2 0.7 0.66 1 

Toluene 2 10 13 19 

2-methylnaphthalene 2 0.026 0.025 0.038 

Fluoranthene 1 0.0028 0.0034 0.0055 

Fluorene 1 0.0026 0.0034 0.0051 

1-phenanthrene 2 0.013 0.016 0.024 

Pyrene 1 0.0049 0.0061 0.0094 

Source: Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units--Interim Final Report, 

Volumes 1-3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle 

Park, NC. October 1996. EPA-453/R-96-013b. 

Sector Notebook Project 71 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

V. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES 

The best way to reduce pollution is to prevent it in the first place. Some 

companies have creatively implemented pollution prevention techniques that 

improve efficiency and increase profits while at the same time minimizing 

environmental impacts. This can be done in many ways, such as reducing 

material inputs, re-engineering processes to reuse byproducts, improving 

management practices, and employing substitution of toxic chemicals. Some 

smaller facilities are able to actually get below regulatory thresholds just by 

reducing pollutant releases through aggressive pollution prevention policies. 

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established a national policy of 

managing waste through source reduction, which means preventing the 

generation of waste. The Pollution Prevention Act also established as national 

policy a hierarchy of waste management options for situations in which source 

reduction cannot be implemented feasibly. In the waste management 

hierarchy, if source reduction is not feasible the next alternative is recycling 

of wastes, followed by energy recovery, and waste treatment as a last 

alternative. 

In order to encourage these approaches, this section provides both general 

and company-specific descriptions of some pollution prevention advances that 

have been implemented within the fossil fuel electric power generation 

industry. While the list is not exhaustive, it does provide core information that 

can be used as the starting point for facilities interested in beginning their own 

pollution prevention projects. This section provides summary information 

from activities that may be, or are being implemented by this sector. When 

possible, information is provided that gives the context in which the technique 

can be used effectively. Please note that the activities described in this section 

do not necessarily apply to all facilities that fall within this sector. Facilityspecific conditions must be carefully considered when pollution prevention 

options are evaluated, and the full impacts of the change must examine how 

each option affects air, land and water pollutant releases. 

Coal is considered the primary energy source for power generation now and 

in the future. Coal is relatively abundant and inexpensive. However, 

environmental impacts associated with coal combustion, most notably, acid 

rain, represent a cost to the environment and human health. This section 

emphasizes technologies for coal-fired electric power generation plants, but 

includes pollution prevention practices that apply to other fossil fuel electric 

plants as well. Many of the technologies and practices may be employed in 

existing plants, in the repowering of existing plants, and in the design and 

construction of new plants. 

V.A Pollution Prevention Technologies in the DOE Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program 

Sector Notebook Project 72 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

The DOE is charged with protecting the Nation’s energy interests. In 

recognition of the vital role of coal as a sustainable energy source, DOE 

vigorously researches and promotes ways to reduce the environmental 

impacts associated with coal combustion under the Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration (CCT) Program. Specific goals of the CCT Program include 

(1) increasing the efficiency of electricity production and (2) enhancing the 

efficient and cost effective use of U.S. coal reserves, while ensuring 

achievement of national and environmental goals. 

One way in which the CCT Program progresses towards these goals is by 

building a portfolio of advanced, coal-based technology demonstration 

projects. Included in the portfolio are technologies that result in improved 

efficiency with fewer environmental consequences. The technologies 

demonstrated under the CCT Program include commercially viable 

processes, as well as projects whose commercial viability is still being 

explored. These technologies may be categorized as (1) power systems, (2) 

environmental control devices, and (3) clean coal processing. Pollution 

prevention technologies being demonstrated under the CCT Program are 

included under the categories labeled "power systems" and "clean coal 

processing." Technologies categorized as "environmental control devices" 

may not be considered pollution prevention technologies; however, they 

may enable the recovery of pollutants for subsequent reuse/resale in 

products. 

A brief discussion of emerging power systems and coal processing 

technologies being demonstrated under the CCT Program is provided below. 

DOE’s Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program, Program Update 

1995 (April 1996) provides a more detailed discussion. 

V.A.1 Emerging Technologies 

Pollution prevention opportunities in advanced coal-fired power systems are 

realized by the increase in overall efficiency of the combustion (electricity 

produced per amount of fuel) resulting in the reduction of environmental 

pollutants released. Efficiency of a technology is determined by the portion 

of energy in fuel that is converted into electricity. Thus, the process of 

combustion and heat transfers are critical variables. In considering advanced 

technologies, one must consider the environmental transfer of wastes from 

one media to another. Unless the transfer represents a more manageable 

form of the waste, there may be little or no environmental gain. 

A brief description of power system technologies is provided below. While 

none of the technologies described are currently commercially viable, they 

may be in the future. Table 27 summarizes demonstration projects for power 

system technologies funded by DOE and participating companies. 

Sector Notebook Project 73 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Table 27: Summaries of Clean Coal Technologies Under DOE’s Clean Coal Technology 

Demonstration Program 

Demonstration: Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Combustion Combined-cycle, Tidd Project-The Ohio Power 

Company 

Status: Completed on the 70 MW scale, future testing on 340 MW scale planned. 

Size: 55 MW steam turbine, 15 MW gas turbine 

Efficiency: Combustion efficiency of 99.6%. Heat rate efficiency of 33.2 percent 

Environmental Benefits: SO2 removal of up to 95%. Resulting NOX emissions of 0.15-0.33lb/million Btu. 

Demonstration: Integrated Gasification Combined-cycle Repowering Project 

Status: Currently still in design stage. 

Size: 65 MW 

Projected Efficiency: Heat efficiency of approximately 43%. 

Environmental Benefits: Expected CO2 reduction, improved efficiency over coal-fired plant with flue gas 

desulfurization. 

Demonstration: Indirect Fired Cycle-Repowering, Pennsylvania Electric Co. Warren Station, Unit No. 2 

Status: Currently still in design stage. 

Size: 62.4 MW 

Projected Heat Rate: 9,650 BTU/KWh (31.3% improvement over existing). 

Environmental Benefits: Eliminates the need for hot gas cleanup systems. 

Demonstration: Coal Diesel Combined-Cycle Project, Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

Status: Currently in design stage. 

Size: 14 MW 

Projected Efficiency: Heat efficiency of approximately 48%. 

Environmental Benefits: Emissions reductions to levels of 50%-70% below NSPS. 

Demonstration: Slagging Combustor, Heavy Clean Coal Project, Alaska Industrial Development and Export 

Authority, Golden Valley Electric Association 

Status: Currently in construction stage. 

Size: 50 MW 

Projected Efficiency: Projected SO2 removal of 90%, NOX emissions/million BTU emissions of less than 0.015 

lb/million BTU, particulates of 0.0015 lb/million BTU. 

Environmental Benefits: SO2, NOX , particulates emissions reductions. 

Sector Notebook Project 74 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Fluidized-Bed Combustion 

Fluidized bed combustion (FBC) technology includes three designs: 

atmospheric, pressurized, and two-stage bubbling bed. Although FBC 

technology is not yet widespread in the industry, it allows any kind of fuel 

to be burned while controlling the emission of SO2 without the use of a flue 

gas scrubbing device. In the FBC process, a sorbent, such as crushed 

limestone, is introduced with pulverized coal in the combustion chamber. 

Air forced into the combustion chamber suspends the coal-limestone 

mixture. Sulfur, released from the coal, combines with the sorbent to form 

a solid waste that is relatively easy to handle and dispose of. The advantage 

of FBC technology is that it creates a turbulent environment conducive to a 

high rate of combustion and a high rate of sulfur capture and allows for 

lower operating temperatures than conventional boilers. Because operating 

temperatures are below the threshold of thermally induced NOX formation, 

NOX emissions are reduced. In addition, the operating temperature tends to 

be below the ash fusion range for coal, resulting in less wastes present in 

fireside wash waters and less frequent cleaning requirements. 

Integrated Gasification Combined-cycle 

In the IGCC, coal is converted into a gaseous fuel, purified, and combusted 

in a gas turbine generator to produce electricity. The constituents react to 

produce a fuel gas. Heat from the exhaust gas is recovered and used to 

generate steam, which produces additional electricity. Gasification is a 

process in which coal is introduced to a reducing atmosphere with oxygen or 

air and steam. In some systems, a limestone sorbent is added to the gasifier 

for sulfur removal. The environmental advantages of IGCC include: 

�High efficiency

�Removal of nitrogen, sulfur, and particulates prior to the addition of

combustion air, thereby lowering the volume of gas requiring treatment

�Sulfur in the gas is in the form of hydrogen sulfide, which is removable to

a greater extent than SO2

�NOX removal of more than 90 percent

�Reduced CO2 emissions compared to traditional coal-fired boilers.

Currently, gas cleanup in IGCC requires the gas to be cooled; however, hot 

gas cleanup systems are being developed that will remove 99.9 percent of the 

sulfur and result in a saleable sulfur product. The IGCC system is well 

suited for repowering because it can use the existing steam turbine, electrical 

generator, and coal-handling facilities in most cases. 

Sector Notebook Project 75 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Indirect-Fired Cycle 

An indirect-fired cycle operates such that coal or biomass combustion 

products do not come in direct contact with gas turbine components. Instead, 

heated gases pass on the shell side of an air heater. On the tube side of the 

air heater, compressed gas is heated and passes through a gas turbine. The 

environmental advantage is that this eliminates the need for hot gas cleanup 

since the corrosive and abrasive fuel products do not come into direct contact 

with the turbines. Heat is recovered from air heater exhaust and is used to 

produce steam, which powers a steam turbine. In addition, corrosive gas 

products do not come into direct contact with the turbine, thereby eliminating 

the need for hot gas cleanup. Although the technology is still in the design 

stage, the efficiency is expected to be 20 percent greater than that of a 

pulverized coal plant. Furthermore, SO2 reductions of 90 percent, as well as 

reduced NOX and particulate emissions, are expected. 

Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell 

An integrated gasification fuel cell system consists of a coal gasifier with a 

gas cleanup system, a fuel cell, an inverter, and a heat recovery system. Coal 

gas, made through the reaction of steam, oxygen, and limestone, is 

introduced to a fuel cell composed of an anode and a cathode and separated 

by an electrolytic layer. The fuel cell converts the chemical energy of the 

gas to direct current electrical energy and generates heat, and an inverter 

converts direct current to alternating current. A heat recovery system 

delivers heat to a bottoming steam cycle for further generation of electricity. 

Pollution prevention is realized by improved emissions reduction associated 

with the gas cleanup system and solid waste reduction. 

Coal-Fired Diesel 

Diesel generators are modified to accept a coal/water slurry as a fuel source. 

Environmental control systems are typically installed to remove NOX, SO2, 

and particulates. The advantage of a coal-fired diesel system is that it is well 

suited to small generators (below 50 megawatts). In addition, it is estimated 

to result in emissions reduction of 50 percent below New Source 

Performance Standards. Similarly, coal-oil mixture technology can replace 

up to 50 percent of fuel oil with pulverized coal for burning in conventional 

oil or gas burners. 

Slagging Combustor 

In a slagging combustor, coal is burned at very high combustion 

temperatures outside the furnace cavity, and combustion gasses pass into the 

boiler, where heat exchange takes place. In a conventional boiler, the ash 

enters the boiler and collects on boiler tubes, thus decreasing the efficiency 

Sector Notebook Project 76 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

of heat exchange. Alternatively, the high temperature of the slagging 

combustor causes ash to form slag, which is collected in cyclones. The 

advantage of the slagging combustor is that it prevents a loss in heat 

exchange efficiency that would occur from ash accumulation on boiler tubes. 

V.A.2 Coal Processing for Clean Fuels 

Pollution prevention entails removal of the pollutants from coal in the 

precombustion stage. This is accomplished through coal cleaning, whereby 

pollutants are removed without altering the solid state of the coal, or by 

conversions (gasification or liquefaction), which represent transformations 

in the state of the coal. 

Coal Cleaning 

Most coal cleaning occurs at the mouth of the mine. The cleaning method 

depends on the size of the coal pieces. Typically, coal is cleaned by pulsing 

currents of water through a bed of coal in a jig to separate the impurities 

from the coal. Coal cleaning can be achieved through physical, biological, 

or chemical means. Physical cleaning is the most common method and 

involves the separation of coals to obtain coals with lower ash content. A 

lower ash content helps in meeting particulate emissions standards and 

results in lower operating and maintenance costs associated with ash 

handling. Coal cleaning can also reduce the trace metal content, thus 

reducing trace metal content in ashes. Furthermore, cleaning is effective in 

removing sulfur from coal. This is sulfur that may otherwise end up as SO2 

emissions. There is a tradeoff between sulfur reduction and energy 

recovery.36 It should be noted, however, that a reduction in energy recovery 

is associated with sulfur removal. 

A study cited in a report written by the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality compared two FBC conceptual plant designs using 

mine-run coal versus washed coal. The washed coal facility reduced SO2 

emissions by more than 50 percent on the basis of equivalent heat input and 

sulfur removal. The NOX emissions from the washed coal are about onethird lower in comparison to mine-run coal based on equivalent heat input. 

In addition, the washed coal facility was physically smaller, had lower 

installation costs, required less storage area for limestone and ash, used less 

water, and generated less high-volume wastes. 

Sector Notebook Project 77 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Coal Gasification 

Gasification is the process of converting coal to a gaseous fuel�coal gas�

followed by chemical cleaning. Coal gas has the benefit of burning as 

cleanly as natural gas. The process entails coal gas reacted with steam and 

an oxidant in a reducing atmosphere. If air is the oxidant, a low-BTU gas 

results; if oxygen is the oxidant, a medium-BTU gas results. 

Mild Gasification 

In mild gasification, coal is heated in a oxygen-free reactor, which produces 

gaseous, solid, and liquid products. The environment in the reactor drives 

off the condensed, volatile hydrocarbons and leaves behind carbon. The 

benefit of mild gasification is that it produces multiple fuels and feedstocks 

using medium temperature treatment of coal. 

Coal Liquefaction 

Hydrogen added to coal increases the fuel’s ratio of hydrogen to carbon to 

a level similar to that of petroleum-based fuels. Coprocessing is a 

liquefaction process, whereby heavy petroleum residue combined with coal 

produces a liquid fuel. The liquids can be cleaned of sulfur and ash prior to 

use as a fuel and have higher thermal efficiencies (60-70 percent range), high 

product yield, and potentially marketable byproducts, such as gasoline. 

V.B Other Pollution Prevention Technologies 

Cogeneration 

Cogeneration is the production of electricity and heat from a single power 

plant unit. Because of the heat recovery aspect, cogeneration itself is a 

pollution prevention strategy. In cogeneration, heat that would otherwise be 

released from a steam turbine, gas turbine, or diesel engine is recaptured and 

used to heat buildings or other industrial processes or to generate additional 

electricity. In fact, whereas the typical efficiency at a fossil fuel electric 

plant is around 33 to 38 percent, cogenerators can obtain up to 80-percent 

efficiency because of the heat recaptured. The heat recovered comes mainly 

from the flue gases.37 

Cogeneration plants were originally industrial applications. They are still 

used primarily to provide power for industries, hotels, universities, etc., yet 

they are increasingly being designed for larger capacities and are competing 

with utilities for power production. Cogeneration plants may be owned by 

an industrial company, supplying its own power, or they may be owned by 

small entrepreneurial companies. Besides size requirements, factors such as 

Sector Notebook Project 78 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

type of fuel to burn, methods of recapturing heat, and control of emissions, 

should be considered when evaluating cogeneration as a power source. 

DOE’s Office of Industrial Technology (OIT) has several projects underway 

to promote cogeneration, which is a commercially available technology. For 

example, OIT teamed up with Riegel Textile Corporation to design and test 

an innovative 4.3 MW high-back-pressure steam cogeneration system using 

a modified coal-fired boiler. The turbine exhaust (225 psig at 570 degrees 

Fahrenheit) is hot enough to be used for process heating and can also be used 

to drive an existing low-pressure turbine to generate additional electricity. 

In 1994, 17 such systems were in operation.38 

Repowering 

Repowering is a way in which power generation facilities can improve and 

increase both the production and efficiency of standard thermal generating 

facilities. Repowering options include expanding a unit’s size or changing 

the type or quality of the fuel used. In most cases, it involves partial or 

complete replacement of the steam supply system and usually a more or less 

complete retention, refurbishment, and reuse of the turbine/generator. Many 

of the technologies listed above are appropriate for repowering. 

Fuel Cells 

Natural gas fuel cell (NGFC) energy systems improve gas utilization and 

efficiency. Like batteries, fuel cells are based on the principles of 

electrochemistry, except that they consume fuel to maintain the chemical 

reaction. The most common electrochemical reaction in a fuel cell is that of 

hydrogen with oxygen. The oxygen is usually derived from the air, and the 

hydrogen is usually obtained by steam-reforming fossil fuel. Natural gas is 

the most common fuel; however, other fuels can be used: peaked-shaved gas, 

air-stabilized gas from local production such as landfills, propane, or other 

fuels with high methane content. Fuel Cells, being electrochemical, are more 

efficient than combustion systems. In addition, emissions are reduced from 

typical gas systems because there is no combustion of fossil fuel. Although 

many fuel cells are being researched, developed, and demonstrated around 

the world, only one system is commercially available at this time. It is a 200 

kW phosphoric acid fuel cell system.39 

Because emissions are reduced, State and local air quality regulating agencies 

have begun to grant and/or consider exemptions from air quality permitting 

requirements. For example, after extensive emissions testing, the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District has granted NGFC’s exemption in 

the Los Angeles area. Exemptions have also been granted by the Santa 

Barbara Air Quality Management District, the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District, and the State of Massachusetts. These exemptions may 

Sector Notebook Project 79 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

create economic incentives to install NGFC systems to avoid permitting fees 

and violation fines, or to take advantage of emissions credits. A Federal 

incentive program is being managed by the DOE Morgantown Energy 

Technology Center to reduce the cost of the fuel cell by $1,000 per kW.40 

Additional information on this technology may be obtained from the North 

American Fuel Cell Owner Group (NAFCOG), an independent users group 

comprised of owners and operators of NGFCs. 

V.C Other Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Opportunities 

In addition to the technologies discussed previously, several other pollution 

prevention methods can be employed. Some of the methods are common 

solutions applicable to a wide range of facilities; others are more tailored to 

site-specific situations. Some of the methods are relatively simple, whereas 

others require more technological modifications. This section includes not 

only physical tasks, but management and training steps that foster pollution 

prevention. 

V.C.1 Process or Equipment Modification Options 

Fuel Sources 

As discussed under the CCT Program, the initial fuel source may be 

examined as a potential pollution prevention opportunity. Clean coal 

technologies remove the pollutants prior to the major processes of electrical 

generation. But on a case-by-case basis, one can also consider the option of 

using fuels that are naturally lower in pollutants. Low-sulfur coals produce 

less SO2 emissions, and there is less pollution associated with coal pile 

runoff. However, a tradeoff exists in that most low-sulfur coal in the United 

States is "low rank" (i.e., it has a higher ash and moisture content). Several 

operational difficulties stem from switching from high-rank to low-rank coal. 

Nonetheless, processing techniques to improve the BTU and remove sulfur 

from low-rank coals are being developed. For example, SynCoal (Western 

Energy Company) is a technology that produces a fuel with a 0.5 percent 

sulfur content, a moisture content of greater than 5 percent, a heating value 

of 11,800 Btu per pound, and ash content of approximately 9 percent. 

Another related technology that has been researched extensively is co-firing 

using refuse derived fuel (RDF) pellets and coal in power plants. In 1992, 

DOE’s OIT, in cooperation with several organizations, operated a power 

plant with a mixture of coal and up to 25 percent RDF pellets. The project 

found that the mixture resulted in reduced acid gas emissions. The CAA 

amendments of 1990 allow the combustion of up to 30 percent municipal 

solid waste in coal plants. The results of this project are facilitating 

commercialization of the co-combustion technology. 

Sector Notebook Project 80 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Cooling Water 

Cooling water is used in steam turbine electric power plants and is circulated 

through the condenser to condense the steam left after the generation of 

electricity. The resulting condensate can then be pumped back into the highpressure boiler. Cooling systems may be once-through, where cooling water 

is discharged into a receiving water body after use, or recirculating, which 

involves the use of cooling towers, lakes, or ponds. Scaling of heat exchange 

equipment and piping occurs from cooling water contact and reduces the 

efficiency of the equipment. To prevent scaling, chemical additives, such as 

polyphosphates, polyester, phosphates, and polyacrylates, are added to 

cooling water. In the past, cooling tower treatment chemicals contained 

hexavalent chromium. Recent regulations have restricted the use of chromebased treatment to reduce the associated public health and environmental 

impacts. As a result, industry has switched to non-chrome treatment 

chemicals. 

Corrosion, fostered through aeration of cooling water in cooling towers, is 

another problem. A number of different chemicals such as zinc, molybdate, 

silicate, polyphosphate, aromatic azole, carboxylate, and sometimes 

chromate are added to cooling water for corrosion control. Fouling and 

biological growth are commonly controlled through the addition of polyester, 

phosphates, polyacrylates, non-oxidizing biocides, chlorine, and bromine. 

Pollution prevention opportunities for cooling water address minimizing 

chemical additives and conserving water. Table 28 presents a few general 

pollution prevention recommendations for reducing cooling tower emissions. 

First and foremost, a facility can determine the optimum chemicals for the 

prevention of biologic growth and corrosion. In general, chlorinated 

biocides are less toxic than brominated biocides, and polyphosphate and 

organophosphate inhibitors are less toxic than chromate corrosion inhibitors. 

Another possible means to reduce the need for chemical additives for control 

of scaling is magnetic water conditioning. 

Widespread attention has focused on ozone treatment in lieu of common 

biocide use. Ozone acts to rupture bacterial cells through oxidation. 

Reductions in scaling, biofouling, and overall toxics may be realized from 

ozone. It has been successful mainly in once-through cooling water systems 

for power plants. Drawbacks in the use of ozone treatment include (1) the 

potential for corrosion in cooling towers, unless careful dosing is practiced 

to maintain the oxidation-reduction potential rate and (2) ozone treatments 

have been shown to exhibit rapid fouling on high temperature surfaces such 

as would be found in recirculating systems. In addition, health and safety 

issues associated with worker exposure to ozone must be considered. 

Sector Notebook Project 81 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Table 28: Pollution Prevention Opportunities for Reducing Cooling Tower Emissions 

Pretreat makeup water: Pretreating the makeup water to cooling towers reduces the chemical treatment 

requirements for scale and corrosion control and can increase the number of times cooling water may be 

recycled before blowdown. 

Use inert construction materials: Polyethylene, titanium, and stainless steel are relatively nonreactive 

compared to carbon steel and require lesser quantities of scale and corrosion inhibitors. 

Install automatic bleed/feed controllers and bypass feeders: By installing this equipment on the cooling 

towers, facilities have reduced volumes of cooling tower chemicals, as well as energy costs, labor, and water. 

Recirculate the cooling water: When possible, cooling tower water should be recirculated instead of cycling 

once-through the system. 

Use chlorinated biocides: Facilities can use chlorinated biocides instead of brominated biocides to reduce the 

toxicity of biocides. 

Sources: Fact Sheet: Eliminating Hexavalent Chromium from Cooling Towers. City of Los Angeles Board of 

Public Works, Hazardous and Toxic Materials Office. Undated; Fact Sheet: Water and Chemicals Reduction 

for Cooling Towers. North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Pollution 

Prevention Program. May 1987; Pollution Prevention/Environmental Impact Reduction Checklist for CoalFired Power Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities. Undated. 

Fireside Washes 

In the combustion offossil fuels, products of incomplete combustion will rise 

with gas and collect on boiler tubes and heat transfer units. Fireside wastes 

consist primarily of bottom ash and damaged refractory brick, which may be 

contaminated with heavy metals from the ash. As the buildup increases, the 

heat exchange efficiency decreases. Periodically, the buildup is removed by 

applying a large volume of water to the boiler surfaces. The wash water 

contains trace metals (nickel, chromium, iron, vanadium, and zinc), calcium, 

sodium, chlorides, nitrates, sulfates, and organics contained in suspended 

soot. The resulting waste is a wet ash sludge. This sludge may be comanaged for disposal with large volume combustion waste (fly ash, bottom 

ash, FGD sludge) or managed separately with other low-volume wastes and 

treated through physical or chemical precipitation, as well as pond 

evaporation. 

Soot blowers use steam, air, or water to clean fireside fouled heat transfer 

surfaces. The removed soot and ash deposits are either reintroduced into the 

combustion process, redeposited for easier removal, or captured by 

particulate control equipment. Sonic horns generate sound waves that cause 

the heat transfer surface to vibrate and dislodge soot and ash. Manual 

cleaning includes brushing, sweeping, and vacuuming. 

Sector Notebook Project 82 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Abrasive cleaning methods remove contaminants by blasting a compound at 

the substrate. Typical blasting compounds are sand, walnut shells, or carbon 

dioxide pellets. The abrasive cleaning technology field is changing rapidly. 

New materials that may remove soot and ash without damaging the boiler 

tubes and refractory include plastic beads, sodium bicarbonate, and, 

potentially, liquid CO2. 

Table 29 provides some examples of pollution prevention opportunities for 

fireside washes. 

Table 29: Pollution Prevention Options for Fireside Washes 

Options Comments 

Use cleaner fuels Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, but availability limits 

widespread use. Cleaner burning fuel oils and coals are available 

but may be cost-prohibitive. 

Use alternative cleaning methods Soot blowers and sonic horns may be used to reduce the need for 

washing. Dry ash has higher potential for reuse. Abrasives may be 

used but add to waste created. 

Recycle or reuse fireside wastes Lime sludge from treatment may be sold to copper smelters. 

Vanadium recovery from fuel oil ash may be feasible. Coal ash can 

be used as a substitute for cement in concrete or as structural fill. 

Source: Industrial Pollution Prevention Handbook. Freeman, Harry M., ed. McGraw Hill, Inc. 1995. 

Boiler Chemical Cleaning Wastes 

The purpose of boiler cleaning is to remove scale from the inside (waterside)

of boiler tubes. The waste generated contains spent cleaning solution and the

scaling components: copper, iron, zinc, nickel, magnesium, and chromium.

Certain cleaning agents target certain types of boilers and deposits. Boiler

cleaning wastewaters may be difficult to treat and, in some cases, fall under

the jurisdiction of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as

a hazardous waste.

One way to minimize the volume of boiler cleaning wastes is to optimize the

cleaning frequency. Specific practices that help to optimize cleaning

frequency include: 

�Maintaining records of operations

�Conducting biweekly chemical analysis to define normal cycle chemistry

�Sampling tubes annually

�Determining the location and/or type of deposits through ultrasonic

imaging, thermocouples, removable test strips, and fiberscopic inspections.

Sector Notebook Project 83 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Controlling the chemistry of the boiler feed water is a significant way to 

control the rate of scaling. Generally, boiler water is treated through fine 

filtration, chemical treatment, reverse osmosis, and/or ion exchange to 

remove minerals. Other constituents in the boiler water targeted for removal 

may include oxygen and carbon dioxide. 

While most utilities use hydrazine and morpholine in the chemical treatment 

of boiler feed water, an elevated oxygen treatment process has been 

demonstrated that results in the accumulation of a finer-grained, more 

unified, magnetite layer that necessitates less frequent cleaning. To create 

this condition, oxygen or hydrogen peroxide is added to condensate at a pH 

of 7 to 7.5, oxygen and ammonia are added at a pH of 8 to 8.5, and 

ammonia is added at a pH of 9 or greater, until ammonia concentrations of 

250 parts per billion are reached. 

The boiler cleaning frequency may be decreased by reducing the amount of 

oxygen entering the boiler due to leaks in the system. Leaks can be corrected 

through inspection and replacement of seals on steam cycle components. 

Maintenance schedules and monitoring techniques are effective practices in 

preventing leaks. Furthermore, maintaining high quality performance of the 

oxygen deaerators will also help to prevent oxygen ingress. 

Another effective pollution prevention technique is determining the optimum 

frequency of boiler cleanouts. Utilities should clean the boilers based on the 

actual deposit thickness instead of according to a predetermined schedule. 

According to a survey performed by EPRI, one California utility monitors 

both scale thickness and composition by means of small, retrievable test 

strips placed inside the boiler. Base unit boilers are now cleaned about once 

every 72 months, and cycling units are cleaned once every 48 months. Other 

California utilities report cleaning schedules as often as once every 24 

months.41 

On-line cleaning involves boiler cleaning while the boiler remains in 

operation. This can be done by injection of a sodium poly-acrylate additive 

into the boiler feedwater to a concentration of 400 mg/L. The most critical 

outer layer of magnetite is removed, but an inner layer remains. This method 

requires less cleaning time than traditional boiler cleaning, uses less 

hazardous chemicals, and results in a more easily handled waste. The 

drawbacks of on-line cleaning include the risk of contaminating the steam 

turbine, less deposits removed, and potentially poor copper removal. Cost 

savings associated with the use of this technology at a 300-MW unit have 

been estimated to be $25,000 to $30,000 per year.42 

Sodium bicarbonate-based blast media can be used in association with 

specifically designed delivery systems to meet a wide range of cleaning 

needs, including general facility maintenance (e.g., floor cleaning, paint 

Sector Notebook Project 84 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

stripping and boiler tube cleaning). Sodium bicarbonate blasting is 

becoming increasingly common in the electric utility industry.43 

In areas where water costs are high, utilities may choose to reuse their boiler 

chemical cleaning wastewater as makeup for cooling towers, fly ash 

scrubbers, or flue gas desulfurization systems.

44 Also, depending on the 

composition of the chemical cleaning sludge, it may be economically feasible 

to recycle the sludge for its metal content. Arizona Electric Power 

Cooperative (AEPCO), Incorporated, for example, uses this cleaning 

material, rather than face potentially expensive disposal costs. The EPA, the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the California Department 

of Toxic Substances Control, and the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration approved the use of by products from chemical cleaning from 

AEPCO’s boilers. AEPCO sells the by-product to Pacific Gas & Electric 

Company for hydrogen sulfide gas abatement at its Geysers Power Plant, a 

geothermal power generation facility.45 

Table 30 lists pollution prevention opportunities for boiler cleaning wastes. 

Fly Ash 

Fly ash is typically collected in the flue of the combustion unit and 

transported to a centralized containment area for treatment and storage. Both 

wet ash transport and dry collection are commonly practiced. Some facilities 

use wet ash, creating a slurry as the mechanism for transport. The 

disadvantage of wet ash transport is that it increases the volume of the ash 

waste and it must eventually be separated out and treated. In contrast, a dry 

process control electrostatic precipitator avoids the added volume due to 

water and allows the collection of a dry product for recycling and/or 

beneficial reuse. 

Chemical Substitutions 

Several process modifications described previously have required material 

substitution (e.g., switching fuels). However, material substitutions are not 

Sector Notebook Project 85 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Table 30: Pollution Prevention Options for Boiler Cleaning Wastes 

Options Comments 

Improve boiler water supply Regenerate ion exchange resins promptly. Install reverse osmosis 

equipment ahead of ion exchange systems to reduce mineral 

loading and reduce regeneration frequency. 

Control boiler water chemistry Use hydrazine to control dissolved oxygen and morpholine to 

control carbon dioxide. 

Reduce contaminant ingress Improve equipment seals to prevent air and cooling water leaks into 

the boiler. 

Base cleaning on fouling Use coupons to measure scale buildup and schedule cleaning 

accordingly. 

Use on-line cleaning Sodium polyacrylate injection may be used to remove deposits 

without having to shut down boiler. Further research required. 

Reuse wastewater Wastewater may be used for cooling tower makeup or as feedwater 

to ash scrubbers and flue gas desulfurization units. Some 

pretreatment and/or segregation may be required. 

Reuse lime sludge Sludges from lime treatment of chemical cleaning wastes may be 

sold to copper smelters for reuse. 

Control H2S Ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid (EDTA)-based cleaning processes 

can produce Fe-EDTA, which is an effective chelating agent for 

H2S control. 

Source: Adapted from Industrial Pollution Prevention Handbook. Freeman, Harry M., ed. McGraw Hill, Inc. 1995. 

limited to major processes. Sometimes, toxic chemicals are used 

unnecessarily on a wide-scale basis for a variety of operations and 

maintenance activities (e.g., cleaning, lubrication). By substituting less 

toxic chemicals, a facility can avoid unnecessary risks associated with worker 

exposure and the potential for release into the environment. The first step in 

determining the viability of material substitutions is to inventory the 

chemicals used at the site. The chemical can be evaluated as to its hazard 

potential, its necessity, and possible alternatives. For example, San Diego 

Gas and Electric Company determined several different solvents onsite could 

be replaced by just a few different solvents. By eliminating the wide array 

of solvents, the company is now able to install a solvent recovery unit, which 

will reduce the amount of solvent waste. 

V.C.2 Inventory Management and Preventative Maintenance for Waste 

Minimization 

Fossil fuel electric power generation facilities, like many industrial facilities, 

use solvents and other chemicals for everyday operations. Everyday 

Sector Notebook Project 86 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

operations include parts washing, lubricating, general cleaning, and 

degreasing application during plant and equipment maintenance activities. 

Often, chemical wastes generated by these operations are made up of out-ofdate, necessary, off-specification, and spilled or damaged chemical products. 

Actual costs for materials used include not only the cost of the original 

product, but also the costs of disposal. Inventory management and 

preventative maintenance are ways these facilities can decrease the amounts 

of chemical wastes generated in a cost-effective manner. 

There are two categories of inventory management including inventory 

control and material control. Inventory control includes techniques to reduce 

inventory size, reduce toxic and/or hazardous chemical use, and increase 

current inventory turnover. Material control includes the proper storage and 

safer transfer of materials. Proper material control will ensure that materials 

are used efficiently to reduce waste and preserve the ability to recycle the 

wastes. 

Corrective and preventative maintenance can reduce waste generation. A 

well run preventative maintenance program will serve to identify the 

potential for releases and correct problems before material is lost and/or 

considered a waste. New or updated equipment can use process materials 

more efficiently, producing less waste. Table 31 provides examples of 

inventory management and preventative maintenance waste minimization 

techniques that can be used at fossil fuel electric power generation facilities. 

V.C.3 Potential Waste Segregation and Separation Options 

Fossil fuel electric power generation facilities can reduce their waste disposal 

costs by carefully segregating their waste streams. In particular, facilities 

should segregate RCRA nonhazardous wastes from hazardous wastes to 

reduce the quantity of waste that must be disposed of as a hazardous waste. 

For example, facilities should segregate used oil from degreasing solvents 

because uncontaminated used oil can be recycled or fed into the boiler as a 

supplemental fuel. Oil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

should be segregated from other used oils. Absorbent material that is not 

fully saturated with oils, etc., should be stored separately from saturated 

material so that it can be reused. Recycling companies typically offer a 

higher price for segregated recyclables (e.g., clean office paper, scrap metal) 

than mixed waste streams. 

Sector Notebook Project 87 September 1997 
�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Table 31: Inventory Management and Preventative Maintenance Waste Minimization 

Opportunities 

Inventory Management 

Inventory Control 

�Purchase only the quantity of material needed for the job or a set period of time 

�Evaluate set expiration date on materials, especially for stable compounds, to determine if they could be extended. 

�Search the inventory at other company sites for available stock before ordering additional material 

�Purchase material in the proper quantity and the proper container size. If large quantities are needed, purchase in bulk. If the material has a 

short shelf-life or small quantities are needed, purchase in small containers 

�If surplus inventories exist, use excess material before new material are ordered 

�Contact supplier to determine if surplus materials can be returned. If not, identify other potential users or markets 

�Evaluate whether alternative, non-hazardous substitutes prior to purchase and checked for acceptance at the facility. 

Material Control 

�Reduce material loss through improved process operation, increased maintenance and employee training to identify sources of loss 

�Handle and manage wastes to allow recycling. 

Maintenance Programs 

Operational and Maintenance Procedures 

�Reduce raw material and product loss due to leaks, spills, and off-specification products 

�Develop employee training procedures on waste reduction 

�Evaluation the need for operational steps and eliminate practices that are unnecessary 

�Collect spilled or leaked material for re-use whenever possible 

�Consolidate like chemicals and segregate wastes to reduce the number of different waste streams and increase recoverability. 

Preventive Maintenance Programs 

�Perform maintenance cost tracking 

�Perform scheduled preventive maintenance and monitoring 

�Monitor closely "Problem" equipment or processes that are known to generate hazardous waste (e.g., past spills). 

Source: Adapted from "ComEd Operation and Maintenance Manual" and "Pollution Prevention Success" Fact Sheets. Received From Edison 

Electric Institute. July 1997. 

V.C.4 Recycling Options 

With the exception of cooling water and used oil, fly ash represents the 

greatest waste component at fossil fuel plants. For this reason, recycling 

options for fly ash present a significant opportunity for pollution prevention. 

Typical uses include incorporating fly ash into construction materials, such 

as asphalt or cement. However, new uses are being found every day. Table 

32 lists existing and potential marketable uses for fly ash. More information 

about the production and use of fly ash and other coal combustion materials 

can be obtained from the American Coal Ash Association.46 

Sector Notebook Project 88 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Table 32: Current and Potential Uses for Fly Ash 

Current Uses for Fly Ash 

Flowable fill 

Soil stabilization 

Lightweight aggregate building material 

Roofing materials 

Roofing granules 

Plastics, paint 

Filter cloth precoat for sludge dewatering 

Pipe bedding 

Structural fills 

Concrete and block Portland cement 

Mine reclamation 

Agricultural enhancement 

Road paving: as a sub-base or fill material under a paved road 

Potential Uses for Fly Ash 

Ingredient of golf ball coverings 

Flue gas reactants 

An additive to sewage sludge for use as a soil conditioner 

An alkali reactivity minimizer in concrete aggregate 

The footprint of a structure, a paved parking lot, sidewalk, walkway, or similar structure 

The Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) is successful in selling 80 to 100 

percent of the fly ash generated at three coal-fired power plants. The CP&L 

estimates capital costs to be $1 to $2/ton of fly ash and operation and 

maintenance costs to be $3 to $4/ton of fly ash. The ash sales revenues have 

resulted in reduced disposal costs. Duke Power has experienced similar 

success. Duke Power has sold more than 230,000 tons of fly ash and 65,400 

tons of bottom ash for use in concrete production. Other markets for the fly 

ash included plastic manufacturing and asphalt production. In addition, 

Duke Power donated 30,000 tons of bottom ash to the State of North 

Carolina to use as a base in road construction. 

It should be noted that uses for fly ash vary greatly according to market 

conditions and transportation costs. In addition, for most uses, the ash must 

have a low carbon content. However, available commercial technologies can 

separate the ash into carbon-rich and carbon-poor fractions. 

Pollution prevention associated with boiler blowdown was discussed 

previously; however, boiler blowdown water may potentially be recycled 

and used as makeup to cooling tower waters and flashing blowdown to 

generate additional steam. This is accomplished through the regeneration of 

demineralizer waters. 

Sector Notebook Project 89 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Sulfur is produced through the cleaning of fuels and ores and the use of clean

scrubbers. Recycling options include the following:

�Substituting sulfur for Portland cement and water to act as a binding agent

to produce a durable, acid-resistant concrete

�Using sulfur in protective coatings to improve the resistance of conventional

building materials to chemical and other stresses; fabric can be impregnated

with sulfur and additive materials to produce flexible or rigid lining materials

�Using sulfur as an asphalt extender or as an asphalt replacement to totally

eliminate the need for asphalt.

The FGD units can produce sulfur, sulfuric acid, gypsum, or some nonsaleable sludge material. Select FGD units can produce saleable materials,

as indicated in the following examples:

�Gypsum can be processed into a quality gypsum grade for resale to wall

board producers or sold for use in cement manufacturing.

�Sodium sulfate and sulfuric acid can be produced for resale.

�An electron beam scrubbing system can be used to produce ammonium

sulfate and ammonium nitrate for sale as a fertilizer supplement.

�A pozzolanic stabilization reaction process can be implemented where limebased reagent is added to scrubber sludge and fly ash to create a mineral

product suitable for roadway base course. (Pozzolans are siliceous or

siliceous/aluminous materials that, when mixed with lime and water, form

cementitious compounds.)

V.C.5 Facility Maintenance Wastes 

In addition to the wastes associated with the power production operations,

fossil fuel electric power generation facilities also generate wastes from

support operations, such as facility and equipment maintenance, storage

areas, transportation, and offices. Pollution prevention techniques can

greatly reduce many of these waste streams for relatively little cost.

Table 33 highlights several basic pollution prevention options for equipment

and facility maintenance. All of the options involve the use of commercially

available equipment that is already in widespread use. In addition to the

options described in Table 33, common pollution prevention optionsinclude:

�Establishing preventive maintenance programs for equipment

�Testing fluids prior to changing them

�Purchasing equipment to enable recycling of antifreeze, solvents, and

oil/water mixtures

�Purchasing longer lasting/reusable absorbent materials and rags

�Laundering rags offsite instead of disposing of them 

Sector Notebook Project 90 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

�Using steam cleaning equipment or sodium bicarbonate blast systems for

general facility cleaning 

�Purchasing electric-powered vehicles for onsite use

�Upgrading bulk storage equipment and spill prevention practices

�Improving spill containment equipment and equipment for transferring

fluids 

�Using low- or no-VOC paints for facility maintenance and restricting color

choices

�Recycling office paper, cardboard, plastics, scrap metals, wood products,

etc.

�Purchasing products with recycled content

�Finding alternatives to replace ozone depleting substances (e.g., refrigerants,

fire suppression, degreasers)

�Practicing integrated pest management to reduce the use of pesticides in

grounds maintenance operations

�Using less toxic products for custodial operations.

Sector Notebook Project 91 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Table 33: Pollution Prevention Opportunities For Facility Maintenance Wastes 

Options Comments 

Rotating Equipment Maintenance 

Use high quality fluids While costing more initially, high quality fluids may last twice as 

long in service. 

Routinely monitor fluid condition Waste fluid generation can be reduced by switching to a 

replacement schedule based on fluid condition. Low-cost testing 

services can provide detailed information. 

Use nonleak equipment Use dry disconnect hose couplings, self sealing lock nuts, and 

elastomeric flange gaskets to reduce oil leakage. Canned or 

magnetically driven pumps, bellow valves, and bellow flanges are 

also effective. 

Clean and recycle dirty fluids Dirty fluids may be cleaned for extended use by small filtration 

devices. More complex systems may use centrifugation or vacuum 

distillation. 

Use waste oils as boiler fuel This depends on boiler size, PCB content, and halogen content of 

the waste oil. Would not apply to synthetic hydraulic fluids. 

Facility Maintenance 

Eliminate use of hazardous materials Major accomplishments have been made in this area, including 

eliminating the use of PCBs, asbestos insulation, chromium-based 

cooling water treatment chemicals, and leaded paints. 

Replace tricarboxylic acid (TCA) and 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) with nonODS cleaners 

Petroleum distillate and D-limonene blends are effective cleaners 

for electrical equipment. Detergents are good for general purpose 

cleaning but must be kept out of yard drains and oil water 

separators. 

Use high transfer efficiency painting 

equipment 

Brushes, rollers, and hand mitts are very efficient but laborintensive. Airless spray is common for field use since a source of 

clean, dry air is not required. 

Use an enclosed cleaning station Several air districts mandate the use of enclosed gun cleaners and 

prohibit the spraying of cleanup solvent into the air. 

Avoid the removal of leaded paint Removal of lead-based paint should only be performed when the 

paint fails to provide adequate protection. Use wet blasting or 

vacuum collective devices to prevent the generation of leaded paint 

dust. 

Source: Industrial Pollution Prevention Handbook. Freeman, Harry M., ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1995. 

Sector Notebook Project 92 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

V.C.6 Storm Water Management Practices 

An important pollution prevention consideration at fossil fuel electric power 

generation plants is the management of runoff. Coal pile runoff is perhaps 

the most significant. Coal pile runoff results from precipitation coming into 

contact with coal storage piles. The most effective way to eliminate coal pile 

runoff is to store coal indoors. In many instances, this is not feasible, at 

which point, pollution prevention turns to managing runoff. A facility’s 

storm water pollution prevention plan should address storm water controls 

(e.g., dikes, levies) and the potential for reuse of storm water. Coal-handling 

areas also represent potential for coal pollutants to contaminate storm water. 

Table 34 lists practices that can prevent pollutants in coal from 

contaminating storm water. 

Table 34: Common Pollution Prevention Practices for Managing Runoff at 

Coal Storage and Handling Areas 47 

�Consider rail transport of coal over barge transport, because the potential impacts to water are lessened. 

�Cover coal off-loading areas, crushers, screens, and conveyors to reduce dust emissions. 

�Cover coal storage piles or store in silos to prevent contact with precipitation and to minimize dust. 

�Spray coal piles with anionic detergents. This will reduce the acidic content of the pile by reducing 

bacterial oxidation of sulfide minerals. 

�Configure a storm water collection system based on slopes, collection ditches, diversions and storage, 

and treatment ponds. 

�If settling ponds exist, consider recycling the dredgings. 

Some of the practices listed in the table are applicable to fly ash storage and 

handling areas, as well as coal pile runoff. For example, if dry ash transport 

is employed, covers will prevent dust and contact with precipitation. Other 

areas of concern with respect to storm water pollution prevention include 

fuel and chemical handling and storage areas where there is potential for 

spills. Table 35 provides some recommended practices that apply to these 

areas. Ideally, these practices should be addressed in a facility’s storm water 

pollution prevention plan. 

Sector Notebook Project 93 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Table 35: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Opportunities at 

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Facilities 

Areas of Concern Storm Water Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

Fuel Oil Unloading Areas �Use containment curbs to contain spills 

�Station personnel familiar with spill prevention and response 

procedures at areas during deliveries to ensure quick response for 

leaks or spills 

�Use spill and overflow protection technologies 

Chemical Unloading/Loading Areas �Use containment curbs to contain spills 

�Cover area 

�Station personnel familiar with spill prevention and response 

procedures at areas during deliveries to ensure quick response for 

leaks or spills 

Miscellaneous Loading/Unloading Areas �Use grading, berming, and curbing to minimize runon 

�Locate equipment and vehicles so leaks can be controlled in 

existing containment and flow diversion system 

�Cover area 

Liquid Storage Tanks �Use dry cleanup methods 

�Use containment curbs to contain spills 

�Use spill and overflow protection technologies 

Large Bulk Fuel Storage Tanks �Use containment curbs to contain spills 

Oil-Bearing Equipment Storage Areas �Use level grades and gravel surfaces to retard flow and limit 

spread of spills 

�Collect storm water in perimeter ditches 

Ash-Loading Areas �Establish procedures to reduce or control tracking of ash or 

residue from ash loading areas 

�Clear ash from building floor and immediately adjacent roadways 

of spillage, debris, and excess water before each loaded vehicle 

departs 

Areas Adjacent to Disposal Ponds �Reduce ash residue, which can be tracked onto access roads 

traveled by residue trucks or residue handling vehicles 

�Reduce ash residue on exit roads leading into and out of residuehandling areas 

Material Storage Areas �Use level grades 

�Collect runoff in graded swales or ditches 

�Implement erosion protection measures at steep outfall sites 

�Provide cover for material 

Source: Preamble to NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities (60 FR 50974 Friday, 

September 29, 1995). 

Sector Notebook Project 94 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section V. Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

V.C.7 Training and Supervision Options 

While the major pollution prevention gains are achieved through process 

controls and reuse/recycling, many day-to-day common sense practices are 

relatively easy and inexpensive to incorporate. Through training, these 

practices can become effective means of pollution prevention. Examples of 

proactive employee behavior includes training for careful use and disposal 

of cleaners and detergents to prevent them from entering floor and yard 

drains. If these substances do enter the drains, they may interfere with 

oil/water separators. Good housekeeping will ensure optimum performance 

of these treatment units. 

V.C.8 Demand-Side Management Programs 

In the past, electric utilities have implemented demand-side management 

(DSM) programs to achieve two basic objectives: energy efficiency and load 

management. Through these demand-side programs, the utilities have 

successfully reduced toxic air emissions and achieved cost effectiveness for 

both the utility and the consumer, mainly by deferring the need to build new 

power plants.

48 The energy efficiency goal has been achieved primarily by 

reducing the overall consumption of electricity from specific end-use devices 

and systems by promoting high-efficiency equipment and building design. 

With the advent of deregulation and restructuring in the utility power 

generation industry, DSM programs appear to be diminishing. The industry 

is reducing DSM spending and experiencing a reduction in the rate of growth 

on energy savings. Among other factors, the potential for restructuring could 

affect the utilities interest in energy savings or may create new types of DSM 

activities. 

Sector Notebook Project 95 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

VI. SUMMARY OF FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 

This section discusses the Federal regulations that may apply to this sector. 

The purpose of this section is to highlight and briefly describe, the applicable 

Federal requirements, as well as to provide citations for more detailed 

information. This sections includes: 

�Section VI.A, a general overview of major statutes 

�Section VI.B, a list of regulations specific to this industry 

�Section VI.C, a list of pending and proposed regulations. 

The descriptions within Section VI are intended solely for general 

information. Depending upon the nature or scope of the activities at a 

particular facility, these summaries may or may not necessarily describe all 

applicable environmental requirements. Moreover, they do not constitute 

formal interpretations or clarifications of the statutes and regulations. For 

further information, readers should consult the Code of Federal Regulations 

and other state or local regulatory agencies. This section also provides EPA 

hotline contacts for each major statute. 

VI.A General Description of Major Statutes 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

The Resource Conservation And Recovery Act of 1976, which amended the 

Solid Waste Disposal Act, addresses solid (Subtitle D) and hazardous 

(Subtitle C) waste management activities. The Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 strengthened RCRA’s waste management 

provisions and added Subtitle I, which governs underground storage tanks 

(USTs). 

Regulations promulgated pursuant to Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR Parts 

260-299) establish a “cradle-to-grave” system governing hazardous waste 

from the point of generation to disposal. RCRA hazardous wastes include the 

specific materials listed in the regulations (listed wastes). Listed wastes are 

designated with a specific code. Hazardous wastes designated with the code 

“P” or “U” are commercial chemical products including technical grades, pure 

forms, off-specification products, sole-active-ingredient products, or spill or 

container residues of these products. “P” wastes are considered acutely 

hazardous and are subject to more stringent requirements. Hazardous wastes 

from specific industries/sources are designated with the code “K” and 

hazardous wastes from non-specific sources are designated with the code “F.” 

Materials that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic (i.e., ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) are designated with the code “D.” 

Sector Notebook Project 96 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

Regulated entities that generate hazardous waste are subject to waste 

accumulation, manifesting, and record keeping standards. Facilities generally 

must obtain a permit either from EPA or from a State agency that EPA has 

authorized to implement the permitting program if they store hazardous 

wastes for more than 90 days before treatment or disposal. Facilities may 

treat hazardous wastes stored in less-than-ninety-day tanks or containers 

without a permit. Subtitle C permits contain general facility standards, such 

as contingency plans, emergency procedures, record keeping and reporting 

requirements, financial assurance mechanisms, and unit-specific standards. 

RCRA also contains provisions (40 CFR Part 264 Subpart S and §264.101) 

for conducting corrective actions that govern the cleanup of releases of 

hazardous waste or constituents from solid waste management units at RCRA 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. 

Although RCRA is a Federal statute, many States implement the RCRA 

program. Currently, EPA has delegated authority to implement various 

provisions of RCRA to 47 of the 50 States and two U.S. territories. 

Delegation has not been given to Alaska, Hawaii, or Iowa. 

Most RCRA requirements are not industry specific but apply to any company 

that generates, transports, treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste. The 

following list highlights important RCRA regulatory requirements: 

�Identification of solid and hazardous wastes (40 CFR Part 261) lays out 

the procedure every generator must follow to determine whether the material 

in question is considered a hazardous waste or a solid waste or is exempted 

from regulation. 

�Standards for generators of hazardous waste (40 CFR Part 262) 

establishes the responsibilities of hazardous waste generators including 

obtaining an EPA ID number, preparing a manifest, ensuring proper 

packaging and labeling, meeting standards for waste accumulation units, and 

fulfilling record keeping and reporting requirements. Providing they meet 

additional requirements described in 40 CFR Part 262.34, generators may 

accumulate hazardous waste for up to 90 days (or 180 or 270 days depending 

on the amount of waste generated and the distance the waste will be 

transported) without obtaining a Subtitle C permit. 

�Land disposal restrictions (LDRs) (40 CFR Part 268) are regulations 

prohibiting the disposal of hazardous waste on land without prior treatment. 

Under the LDRs program, materials must meet LDR treatment standards prior 

to placement in a RCRA land disposal unit (landfill, land treatment unit, waste 

pile, or surface impoundment). Generators of waste subject to the LDRs must 

provide notification of such to the designated treatment, storage, and disposal 

(TSD) facility to ensure proper treatment prior to disposal. 

Sector Notebook Project 97 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

�Used oil management standards (40 CFR Part 279) impose management 

requirements affecting the storage, transportation, burning, processing, and 

re-refining of the used oil. For parties that merely generate used oil, 

regulations establish storage standards. For a party considered a used oil 

processor, re-refiner, burner, or marketer (i.e., one who generates and sells 

off-specification used oil directly to a used oil burner), additional tracking and 

paperwork requirements must be satisfied. 

�RCRA contains unit-specific standards for all units used to store, treat, or 

dispose of hazardous waste, including tanks and containers. Tanks and 

containers used to store hazardous waste with a high volatile organic 

concentration must meet emission standards under RCRA. Regulations (40 

CFR Part 264-265, Subpart CC) require generators to test the waste to 

determine the concentration of the waste, to satisfy tank and container 

emissions standards, and to inspect and monitor regulated units. These 

regulations apply to all facilities that store such waste, including large quantity 

generators accumulating waste prior to shipment off-site. 

�Underground storage tanks containing petroleum and hazardous 

substances are regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA. Subtitle I regulations (40 

CFR Part 280) contain tank design and release detection requirements, as well 

as financial responsibility and corrective action standards for USTs. The UST 

program also includes upgrade requirements for existing tanks that must be 

met by December 22, 1998. 

�Boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that use or burn fuel containing 

hazardous waste must comply with design and operating standards. The BIF 

regulations (40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H) address unit design, provide 

performance standards, require emissions monitoring, and restrict the type of 

waste that may be burned. 

The EPA RCRA, Superfund and EPCRA Hotline, at (800) 424-9346, 

responds to questions and distributes guidance regarding all RCRA 

regulations. The RCRA Hotline operates weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 

p.m. ET, excluding Federal holidays. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), a 1980 law known commonly as Superfund, authorizes EPA 

to respond to releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances that 

may endanger public health, welfare, or the environment. In addition, 

CERCLA enables EPA to force parties responsible for environmental 

contamination to clean it up or to reimburse the Superfund for response costs 

Sector Notebook Project 98 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

(including remediation costs) incurred by EPA. The Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 revised various sections of 

CERCLA, extended the taxing authority for the Superfund, and created a 

free-standing law, SARA Title III, also known as the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act. 

The CERCLA hazardous substance release reporting regulations (40 CFR 

Part 302) direct the person in charge of a facility to report to the National 

Response Center (NRC) any environmental release of a hazardous substance 

that equals or exceeds a reportable quantity. Reportable quantities are listed 

in 40 CFR §302.4. A release report may trigger a response by EPA or by one 

or more Federal or State emergency response authorities. 

The EPA implements hazardous substance responses according to procedures 

outlined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances PollutionContingency 

Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part 300). The NCP includes provisions for permanent 

cleanups, known as remedial actions, and other cleanups referred to as 

removals. The EPA generally takes remedial actions only at sites on the 

National Priorities List (NPL), which currently includes approximately 1,300 

sites. Both EPA and states can act at sites; however, EPA provides 

responsible parties the opportunity to conduct removal and remedial actions 

and encourages community involvement throughout the Superfund response 

process. 

The EPA RCRA, Superfund and EPCRA Hotline, at (800) 424-9346, answers 

questions and references guidance pertaining to the Superfund Program. 

The CERCLA Hotline operates weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Emergency Planning And Community Right-To-Know Act 

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 created 

EPCRA, a statute designed to improve community access to information 

about chemical hazards and to facilitate the development of chemical 

emergency response plans by State and local governments. The EPCRA 

required the establishment of State emergency response commissions 

(SERCs), which are responsible for coordinating certain emergency response 

activities and for appointing local emergency planning committees (LEPCs). 

The EPCRA and the EPCRA regulations (40 CFR Parts 350-372) establish 

four types of reporting obligations for facilities that store or manage specified 

chemicals: 

�EPCRA §302 requires facilities to notify the SERC and LEPC of the 

presence of any extremely hazardous substance (the list of such substances is 

Sector Notebook Project 99 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B) if it has such substance in excess 

of the substance's threshold planning quantity and directs the facility to 

appoint an emergency response coordinator. 

�EPCRA §304 requires the facility to notify the SERC and LEPC in the event 

of a release equaling or exceeding the reportable quantity of a CERCLA 

hazardous substance or an EPCRA extremely hazardous substance. 

�EPCRA §311 and §312 require a facility at which a hazardous chemical, as 

defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, is present in an amount 

exceeding a specified threshold to submit to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire 

department material safety data sheets (MSDSs) or lists of MSDS's and 

hazardous chemical inventory forms (also known as Tier I and II forms). This 

information helps the local government respond in the event of a spill or 

release of the chemical. 

�EPCRA §313 applies to facilities covered in SIC major groups 10 (except 

1011, 1081, and 1094), 12 (except 1241), or 20 through 39; SIC codes 4911, 

1193, and 4939 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the 

purposes of generating power for distribution in commerce); or 4935 (limited 

to facilities regulated under RCRA, Subtitle C), or 5169, or 5171, and 7389 

(limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a 

contract or fee basis). These facilities must also have 10 or more employees 

and manufacture, process, or use specified chemicals in amounts greater than 

threshold quantities. Facilities that meet these criteria must submit an annual 

toxic chemical release report. This report, commonly known as the Form R, 

covers releases and transfers of toxic chemicals to various facilities and 

environmental media and allows EPA to compile the national TRI database. 

All information submitted pursuant to EPCRA regulations is publicly 

accessible, unless protected by a trade secret claim. 

The EPA RCRA, Superfund and EPCRA Hotline, at (800) 424-9346, answers 

questions and distributes guidance regarding the EPCRA regulations. The 

EPCRA Hotline operates weekdays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Clean Water Act 

The primary objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly 

referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's surface waters. 

Pollutants regulated under the CWA include "priority" pollutants, including 

various toxic pollutants; "conventional" pollutants, such as biochemical 

oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, oil and 

Sector Notebook Project 100 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

grease, and pH; and "nonconventional" pollutants, including any pollutant not 

identified as either conventional or priority. 

The CWA regulates both direct and indirect discharges. The NPDES 

Program (CWA §502) controls direct discharges into waters of the U.S. 

Direct discharges or "point source" discharges are from sources such as pipes 

and sewers. NPDES permits, issued by either EPA or an authorized State 

(EPA has authorized 42 States to administer the NPDES Program), contain 

industry-specific, technology-based limits and may also include additional 

water quality-based limits, and establish pollutant monitoring requirements. 

A facility that intends to discharge into the Nation's waters must obtain a 

permit prior to initiating its discharge. A permit applicant must provide 

quantitative analytical data identifying the types of pollutants present in the 

facility's effluent. The permit will then set the conditions and effluent 

limitations on the facility discharges. 

A NPDES permit may also include discharge limits based on Federal or State 

water quality criteria or standards that were designed to protect designated 

uses of surface waters, such as supporting aquatic life or recreation. These 

standards, unlike the technological standards, generally do not take into 

account technological feasibility or costs. Water quality criteria and standards 

vary from State to State and site to site, depending on the use classification 

of the receiving body of water. Most States follow EPA guidelines, which 

propose aquatic life and human health criteria for many of the 126 priority 

pollutants. 

Storm Water Discharges 

In 1987, the CWA was amended to require EPA to establish a program to 

address storm water discharges. In response, EPA promulgated the NPDES 

storm water permit application regulations. These regulations require facilities 

with the following storm water discharges to apply for a NPDES permit: (1) 

a discharge associated with industrial activity, (2) a discharge from a large or 

medium municipal storm sewer system, or (3) a discharge that EPA or the 

State determines to contribute to a violation of a water quality standard or is 

a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. 

The term "storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" is a storm 

water discharge from 1 of 11 categories of industrial activity defined at 40 

CFR 122.26. Six of the categories are defined by SIC codes, while the other 

five are identified through narrative descriptions of the regulated industrial 

activity. If the primary SIC code of the facility is one of those identified in the 

regulations, the facility is subject to the storm water permit application 

requirements. If any activity at a facility is covered by one of the five 

narrative categories, storm water discharges from those areas where the 

Sector Notebook Project 101 September 1997 
�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

activities occur are subject to storm water discharge permit application 

requirements. 

Those facilities/activities that are subject to storm water discharge permit 

application requirements are identified in the following list: 

�Category I: Facilities subject to storm water effluent guidelines, new source 

performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards. 

�Category ii: Facilities classified as SIC 24-lumber and wood products 

(except wood kitchen cabinets); SIC code 26-paper and allied products 

(except paperboard containers and products); SIC code 28-chemicals and 

allied products (except drugs and paints); SIC code 291-petroleum refining; 

and SIC code 311-leather tanning and finishing; SIC code 32 (except 323)­

stone, clay, glass, and concrete, 33-primary metals, 3441-fabricated 

structural metal, and 373-ship and boat building and repairing. 

�Category iii: Facilities classified as SIC code 10-metal mining; SIC code 

12-coal mining; SIC code 13-oil and gas extraction; and SIC code 14-

nonmetallic mineral mining. 

�Category iv: Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. 

�Category v: Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that receive 

or have received industrial wastes. 

�Category vi: Facilities classified as SIC code 5015-used motor vehicle 

parts; and SIC code 5093-automotive scrap and waste material recycling 

facilities. 

�Category vii: Steam electric power generating facilities. 

�Category viii: Facilities classified as SIC code 40-railroad transportation; 

SIC code 41-local passenger transportation; SIC code 42-trucking and 

warehousing (except public warehousing and storage); SIC code 43-U.S. 

Postal Service; SIC code 44-water transportation; SIC code 45-transportation 

by air; and SIC code 5171-petroleum bulk storage stations and terminals. 

�Category ix: Sewage treatment works. 

�Category x: Construction activities except operations that result in the 

disturbance of less than five acres of total land area. 

�Category xi: Facilities classified as SIC code 20-food and kindred products; 

SIC code 21-tobacco products; SIC code 22-textile mill products; SIC code 

Sector Notebook Project 102 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

23-apparel related products; SIC code 2434-wood kitchen cabinets 

manufacturing; SIC code 25-furniture and fixtures; SIC code 265-paperboard 

containers and boxes; SIC code 267-converted paper and paperboard 

products; SIC code 27-printing, publishing, and allied industries; SIC code 

283-drugs; SIC code 285-paints, varnishes, lacquer, enamels, and allied 

products; SIC code 30-rubber and plastics; SIC code 31-leather and leather 

products (except leather and tanning and finishing); SIC code 323-glass 

products; SIC code 34-fabricated metal products (except fabricated structural 

metal); SIC code 35-industrial and commercial machinery and computer 

equipment; SIC code 36-electronic and other electrical equipment and 

components; SIC code 37-transportation equipment (except ship and boat 

building and repairing); SIC code 38-measuring, analyzing, and controlling 

instruments; SIC code 39-miscellaneous manufacturing industries; and SIC 

code 4221-4225-public warehousing and storage. 

To determine whether a particular facility falls within one of these categories, 

consult the regulation. 

Pretreatment Program 

Another type of discharge that is regulated by the CWA is one that goes to 

a publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). The national pretreatment 

program (CWA §307(b)) controls the indirect discharge of pollutants to 

POTWs by "industrial users." Facilities regulated under §307(b) must meet 

certain pretreatment standards. The goal of the pretreatment program is to 

protect municipal wastewater treatment plants from damage that may occur 

when hazardous, toxic, or other wastes are discharged into a sewer system 

and to protect the quality of sludge generated by these plants. Discharges to 

a POTW are regulated primarily by the POTW itself, rather than the State or 

EPA. 

The EPA has developed technology-based standards for industrial users of 

POTWs. Different standards apply to existing and new sources within each 

category. "Categorical" pretreatment standards applicable to an industry on 

a nationwide basis are developed by EPA. In addition, another kind of 

pretreatment standard, "local limits," are developed by the POTW in order to 

assist the POTW in achieving the effluent limitations in its NPDES permit. 

Regardless of whether a State is authorized to implement either the NPDES 

or the pretreatment program, if it develops its own program, it may enforce 

requirements more stringent than Federal standards. 

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plans 

The 1990 Oil Pollution Act requires that facilities that could reasonably be 

expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities prepare and implement more 

Sector Notebook Project 103 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

rigorous Spill Prevention Control andCountermeasure (SPCC) Plan required 

under the CWA (40 CFR §112.7). There are also criminal and civil penalties 

for deliberate or negligent spills of oil. Regulations covering response to oil 

discharges and contingency plans (40 CFR Part 300), and Facility Response 

Plans to oil discharges (40 CFR §112.20) and for PCB transformers and PCBcontaining items were revised and finalized in 1995. 

EPA’s Office of Water, at (202) 260-5700, will direct callers that questions 

about the CWA to the appropriate EPA office. EPA also maintains a 

bibliographic database of Office of Water publications which can be 

accessed through the Ground Water and Drinking Water Resource Center, 

at (202) 260-7786. 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that EPA establish 

regulations to protect human health from contaminants in drinking water. 

The law authorizes EPA to develop national drinking water standards and to 

create a joint Federal-State system to ensure compliance with these standards. 

The SDWA also directs EPA to protect underground sources of drinking 

water by controlling underground injection of liquid wastes. 

The EPA has developed primary and secondary drinking water standards 

under its SDWA authority. The EPA and authorized States enforce the 

primary drinking water standards, which are contaminant-specific 

concentration limits that apply to certain public drinking water supplies. 

Primary drinking waterstandards consist of maximum contaminant level goals 

(MCLGs), which are non-enforceable, health-based goals, and maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs), which are enforceable limits set as close to 

MCLGs as possible, considering cost and feasibility of attainment. 

The SDWA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program (40 CFR Parts 

144-148) is a permit program that protects underground sources of drinking 

water by regulating five classes of injection wells. The UIC permits include 

design, operating, inspection, and monitoring requirements. Wells used to 

inject hazardous wastes must also comply with RCRA corrective action 

standards in order to be granted a RCRA permit and must meet applicable 

RCRA land disposal restrictions standards. The UIC permit program is 

primarily State-enforced, since EPA has authorized all but a few States to 

administer the program. 

The SDWA also provides for a Federally-implemented sole source aquifer 

program, which prohibits Federal funds from being expended on projects that 

may contaminate the sole or principal source of drinking water for a given 

area, and for a State-implemented wellhead protection program which is 

designed to protect drinking water wells and drinking water recharge areas. 

Sector Notebook Project 104 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

The EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline, at (800) 426-4791, answers questions 

and distributes guidance pertaining to SDWA standards. The Hotline 

operates from 9:00 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. ET, excluding Federal holidays. 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) granted EPA authority to create 

a regulatory framework to collect data on chemicals in order to evaluate, 

assess, mitigate, and control risks that may be posed by their manufacture, 

processing, and use. TSCA provides a variety of control methods to prevent 

chemicals from posing unreasonable risk. 

The TSCA standards may apply at any point during a chemical’s life cycle. 

Under TSCA §5, EPA has established an inventory of chemical substances. 

If a chemical is not already on the inventory and has not been excluded by 

TSCA, a premanufacture notice (PMN) must be submitted to EPA prior to 

manufacture or import. The PMN must identify the chemical and provide 

available information on health and environmental effects. If available data 

are not sufficient to evaluate the chemical’s effects, EPA can impose 

restrictions pending the development of information on its health and 

environmental effects. The EPA can also restrict significant new uses of 

chemicals based upon factors such as the projected volume and use of the 

chemical. 

Under TSCA §6, EPA can ban the manufacture or distribution in commerce 

of, limit the use of, require labeling for, or place other restrictions on 

chemicals that pose unreasonable risks. Among the chemicals EPA regulates 

under §6 authority are asbestos, CFCs, and PCBs. 

The EPA TSCA Assistance Information Service, at (202) 554-1404, answers 

questions and distributes guidance pertaining to TSCA standards. The 

Service operates from 8:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. ET, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Clean Air Act 

The Clean Air Act and its amendments, including the Clean Air Act 

Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, are designed to “protect and enhance the 

nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the 

productive capacity of the population.” The CAA consists of six sections, 

known as titles, that direct EPA to establish national standards for ambient air 

quality and for EPA and the States to implement, maintain, and enforce these 

standards through a variety of mechanisms. Under the CAAA, many facilities 

will be required to obtain permits for the first time. State and local 

Sector Notebook Project 105 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

governments oversee, manage, and enforce many of the requirements of the 

CAAA. The CAA regulations appear at 40 CFR Parts 50-99. 

Pursuant to Title I of the CAA, EPA has established NAAQS to limit levels 

of criteria pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), NO2, PM, 

ozone, SO2 , and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Geographic areas that 

meet NAAQS for a given pollutant are classified as attainment areas; those 

that do not meet NAAQS are classified as non-attainment areas. Under 

section 110 of the CAA, each State must develop a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to identify sources of air pollution and to determine what reductions are 

required to meet Federal air quality standards. Revised NAAQS for 

particulates and ozone were proposed in 1996 and may go into effect as early 

as late 1997. 

Title I also authorizes EPA to establish new source performance standards 

(NSPS), which are nationally uniform emission standards for new stationary 

sources falling within particular industrial categories. NSPS are based on the 

pollution control technology available to that category of industrial source. 

Under Title I, EPA establishes and enforces national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs), which are nationally uniform standards 

oriented towards controlling particular HAPs. Title I, section 112(c) of the 

CAA further directed EPA to develop a list of sources that emit any of 188 

HAPs and to develop regulations for these categories of sources. To date, 

EPA has listed 174 categories and developed a schedule for the establishment 

of emission standards. The emission standards will be developed for both 

new and existing sources based on maximum achievable control technology 

(MACT). The MACT is defined as the control technology achieving the 

maximum degree of reduction in the emission of the HAPs. 

Title II of the CAA pertains to mobile sources, such as cars, trucks, buses, 

and planes. Reformulated gasoline, automobile pollution control devices, and 

vapor recovery nozzles on gas pumps are a few of the mechanisms EPA uses 

to regulate mobile air emission sources. 

Title IV of the CAA establishes a SO2 and NO2 emissions control program 

designed to reduce the formation of acid rain. Reduction of sulfur dioxide 

releases will be obtained by granting to certain sources limited emissions 

allowances, which, beginning in 1995, will be set below previous levels of SO2 

sulfur dioxide releases. Reduction of nitrogen will be obtained by required 

reduction of nitrogen oxides from power plants and new cars. 

Title V of the CAA of 1990 created a permit program for all "major sources" 

(and certain other sources) regulated under the CAA. One purpose of the 

operating permit is to include in a single document all air emissions 

Sector Notebook Project 106 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

requirements that apply to a given facility. States are developing the permit 

programs in accordance with guidance and regulations from EPA. Once EPA 

approves a State program that state will issue and monitor permits. 

Title VI of the CAA is intended to protect stratospheric ozone by phasing out 

the manufacture of ozone-depleting chemicals and restrict their use and 

distribution. Production of Class I substances, including 15 kinds of CFCs 

and chloroform, were phased out (except for essential uses) in 1996. 

The EPA Clean Air Technology Center, at (919) 541-0800, provides general 

assistance and information on CAA standards. The Stratospheric Ozone 

Information Hotline, at (800) 296-1996, provides general information about 

regulations promulgated under Title VI of the CAA, and the EPA EPCRA 

Hotline, at (800) 535-0202, answers questions about accidental release 

prevention under CAA §112(r). In addition, the Clean Air Technology 

Center’s website includes recent CAA rules, EPA guidance documents, and 

updates of EPA activities (http://www.epa.gov/ttn then select Directory and 

then CATC). 

VI.B Industry Specific Requirements 

Since the 1960s, there has been an increased public awareness that industrial 

growth, as well as its inherent need for energy produced using fossil fuels, 

is accompanied by the release of potentially harmful pollutants into the 

environment. Hence, the fossil fuel electric power generation industry has 

become one of the most highly regulated industries. In addressing 

environmental issues, the industry has moved from providing not only the 

lowest cost energy, to providing the lowest cost energy with an acceptable 

impact on the environment. Air pollution control has been of most concern, 

with a significant percentage of the cost of a power plant going towards the 

purchase of air pollution control equipment. However, control of hazardous 

effluent discharges and proper management and disposal of solid wastes have 

also been key concerns. This section summarizes the current major Federal 

regulations affecting the fossil fuel electric power generation industry. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) applies to all 

Federal agencies and to Federal actions that may significantly impact the 

environment. The NEPA requires that all Federal agencies prepare detailed 

statements assessing the environmental impact of, and alternatives to, major 

Federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment. Implementing regulations are issued by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. NEPA 

implementing regulations that are most applicable to the fossil fuel electric 

Sector Notebook Project 107 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

power generation industry can be found at 40 CFR Part 6 (EPA) and 10 CFR 

Part 1021 (DOE). Each government agency has issued its own 

implementing regulations under NEPA. The types of Federal activities 

associated with fossil fuel electric power generating facilities that may be 

subject to NEPA requirements include siting, construction, and operations 

of federally owned facilities, federally issued NPDES, RCRA, and air 

permits, and federally issued operation licenses. 

Each Federal activity subject to NEPA must follow certain environmental 

review procedures. If there is enough information to determine at the outset 

that the Federal action will cause a significant effect on the environment, 

then an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared. If there is 

insufficient information available, an environmental assessment (EA) must 

be prepared to assist the agency in determining if the impacts are significant 

enough to require an EIS. If the assessment shows the impacts not to be 

significant, the agency must prepare a finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI). Further stages of the Federal activity may then be excluded from 

the NEPA requirements. 

Clean Air Act 

Numerous existing standards and programs under the Clean Air Act may 

affect the fossil fuel electric power generation industry. These regulations 

and programs include Title I New Source Performance Standards, Title III 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Title IV Acid 

Rain Program, and Title V Operating Permits Program. The NAAQS under 

Title I may affect the industry indirectly through permits. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Regulations for NAAQS do not directly affect the fossil fuel electric power 

generation industry because they are not applied to sources. Rather, these 

standards are applied to the ambient air in a particular area. Fossil fuel 

electric power generators may be indirectly affected by these standards if 

they are located in or near an area with nonattainment status. In meeting 

NAAQS, States develop and implement SIPsthat prescribe use of reasonably 

available control technologies (RACTs) for major sources. In addition, as 

fossil fuel electric power generation facilities are typically one of the largest 

emitters of criteria pollutants, they may be targeted for more stringent 

controls implemented through operating permits. 

The NAAQS currently exist for the following criteria pollutants (40 CFR 

10, SO2 Part 50): PM , CO, Pb, ozone, and NOX. 

On July 16, 1997, new and/or revised standards for particulate matter and 

ozone were promulgated. The regulations revise the current primary 

Sector Notebook Project 108 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

standard by adding a new annual PM2.5 (or PM "fine") standard set at 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) and a new 24-hour PM2.5 standard set 

at 65 μg/m3. These regulations revise the current 1-hour primary standard for 

ground level ozone by adding an 8-hour standard set at 0.08 ppm (the 1-hour 

standard will eventually be phased out). 

Among the tools proposed for implementing these new ambient standards is 

a trading plan for emissions from utilities. The new standards will require 

local controls in 2004 for ozone and 2005 for particulate matter, with 

compliance by 2007 and 2008, respectively. 

A group called the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) wasformed 

between EPA, the Environmental Council of States, and variousindustry and 

environmental groups. The primary objective of OTAG is the collective 

assessment of the ozone transport problem and the development of a strategy 

for reducing ozone pollution on a regional scale. 

New Source Review and New Source Performance Standards 

New source review (NSR) requirements in 40 CFR §52.21(b)(1)(I)(a)-(b) 

apply to all new facilities and may apply to expansions of existing facilities 

or process modifications. The NSRs are typically conducted by State 

agencies in accordance with their SIP. SIPs are the primary tool for meeting 

NAAQS and are administered through State and local agencies. 

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) reviews are performed for 

areas meeting NAAQS. Nonattainment reviews are performed for areas 

violating the NAAQS. In nonattainment areas, permits may be issued to 

require new sources to meet lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) 

standards. Operators of the new sources must procure reductions in emission 

of the same pollutants from other sources in the nonattainment area in equal 

or greater amounts to the emissions from the new source. These "emission 

offsets" may be banked and traded through the State agencies. In PSD areas, 

permits require the best available control technology (BACT), and the 

operator must conduct continuous air monitoring for one year prior to the 

startup of the new source to determine the effects that the new emissions 

may have on air quality. 

Under NSPS, given at 40 CFR Part 60, EPA sets standards for LAER and 

BACT for the following subcategories of the fossil fuel electric power 

generation industry: 

�Subpart D: Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam 

Generators for Which Construction Is Commenced After 

August 17, 1971 

Sector Notebook Project 109 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

�Subpart Da: Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam 

Generators for Which Construction Is Commenced After 

September 18, 1978 

�Subpart Db: Standards of Performance for Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units 

�Subpart Dc: Standards of Performance for Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units 

�Subpart GG: Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines. 

The standards in each subcategory apply to units of a specified size and 

age. Table 36 provides the NSPS. 

Table 36: New Source Performance Standards 

Emission Standards 

SO2 General standard for various levels of ng/J (lb/mm Btu) heat input and % 

reduction, depending on fuel type and sulfur content (see 40 CFR Subparts D, Da, 

Db, and Dc). 

For gas turbines, no gases in excess of 0.015% by volume (at 15% O2 by volume) 

or with sulfur contents in excess of 0.8% by weight shall be burned. 

NOX Between 0.2 and 0.8 lb/mm BTU, depending on category of combustion. For gas 

turbines, NOX standards specified in equation in 60.332(a)(1) or (2) as directed in 

60.332(b), (c), and (d). 

PM Between 0.05 and 0.20 lb/mm BTU, unless a low nitrogen fuel is used, in which 

case compliance is based on results of performance tests. 

Opacity 20%. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Current regulations at 40 CFR Part 61 provide standards for eight substances 

identified as air toxics: vinyl chloride, mercury, beryllium, radon, 

radionuclides, benzene, asbestos, and arsenic. Under Title III of the CAA, 

EPA is required to identify source categories of 188 HAPs or toxic air 

pollutants and then issue (at 40 CFR Part 63) MACT standards for each 

source category according to a prescribed schedule. The standards are to be 

based on best demonstrated control technologies or practices within the 

regulated industry. Eight years after a MACT is installed on a source, EPA 

is required to evaluate the risk levels remaining at the facilities and 

determine whether additional controls are needed to reduce the risk to 

acceptable levels. 

Sector Notebook Project 110 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

The EPA has issued an initial list of categories of major and area sources that 

will be subject to regulation under Section 112 (57 FR 31576). The list 

contains numerous sources from the fossil fuel electric power generation 

industry, and standards are currently being developed under the Industrial 

Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (see Section VI.C.). 

Acid Rain Program 

The 1990 amendments to the CAA added a new provision (Title IV) to 

control acid deposition. Title IV of the CAAA sets primary goals to reduce 

2 and NO2 annual emissions of both SO .

Upwards of 20 million tons of SO2 are emitted annually in the United States. 

Most of this amount is from the burning of fossil fuels by electric utilities. 

Because acid rain is a problem, Title IV requires EPA to reduce SO2 

emissions to 10 million tons below the 1980 level. Reduction in SO2 will be 

attained in two phases by a marketable emission allowance program (40 CFR 

Part 73). Phase I, which became effective in January 1995, required 110 

power plants to reduce their emissions to a level equivalent to the product of 

an emissions rate of 2.5 pounds (lbs) of SO2/mmBtu times an average of 

their 1985-1987 fuel use. Plants that use certain control technologies to meet 

the Phase I reduction requirements received a 2-year extension of 

compliance until 1997. The new law also allows for special allocation of 

200,000 annual allowances per year, in each of the 5 years of Phase I, to 

power plants in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. 

Under the new requirements, utilities may trade allowances within their 

systems and/or buy or sell allowances to and from other affected sources. 

Phase I facilities were allocated allowances based on historic fuel 

consumption and a specific emission rate. One allowance equals the right to 

emit one ton of SO2. Affected facilities are required to turn into the EPA 

one allowance for each ton emitted in a calendar year. Unused allowances 

may be sold, traded, or banked by the facilities. Power plants that do not 

have sufficient allowances to cover annual emissions are subject to fees and 

requirements to offset the excess emissions the following year. 

Power plants that emit less than 1.2 lbs of SO2/mmBtu are allowed to 

increase emissions by 20 percent until the year 2000. 

Phase II of the CAAA SO2 reduction requirement becomes effective January 

1, 2000, and affects all utilities generating at least 25 MW of electricity. 

These requirements require approximately 2,128 electric power utilities to 

reduce emissions to a level equivalent to the product of an emissions rate of 

1.2 lbs of SO2/mmBtu times the average of their 1985-1987 fuel use. SO2 

emissions from electric utilities will be capped at 8.95 million tons per year. 

Sector Notebook Project 111 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

Title IV of the CAAA requires a 2 million ton reduction in NOX emissions 

from 1980 levels. The EPA has developed regulations to help reduce NOX 

emissions that may affect the fossil fuel electric power generation industry. 

As in the SO2 reduction program, the NOX Emission Reduction Program is 

being implemented in two phases for two categories of coal-fired electric 

utility boilers. The NOX program differs from the SO2 program in that it 

neither "caps" the NOX emissions, nor utilizes an allowance trading system. 

Phase I of the program for "Group I" boilers was effective on January 1, 

1996, and affected dry-bottom wall fired boilers and tangentially fired 

boilers that are required to meet NOX performance standards (40 CFR Part 

76). Regulations for Phase II of the NOX reduction program were 

promulgated in December 1996. These rules become effective in the year 

2000. These regulations set lower emission limits for Group 1 boilers. In 

addition, the regulation establishes initial NOX emission limitations for 

Group 2 boilers. Group 2 boilers include boilers applying cell burner 

technology, cyclone boilers, wet bottom boilers, and other types of coal-fired 

boilers. 

Facilities covered by the Acid Rain Program must apply for an Acid Rain 

Permit. Most utilities must apply for permits in either Phase I or Phase II of 

the program. Two categories of utility units may be eligible for exemption: 

small new units burning clean fuels and retired units. Some cogeneration 

units are not covered under the program. 

To support the mandated reductions in SO2 and NOX, the 1990 CAAA also 

required EPA to issue regulations requiring facilities to install continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (40 CFR Part 75). Fossil fuel electric power 

generation units over 25 megawatts and new units under 25 megawatts that 

use fuel with a sulfur content greater than .05 percent by weight are required 

to measure and report emissions under the Acid Rain Program. 

Federal/State Operating Permits Programs 

Title V of the CAAA requires the development of a comprehensive 

permitting program to control air emissions from major stationary sources. 

Major sources include those that emit 100 tons/year or more of VOCs or 

criteria pollutants, 10 tons/year or more of any single toxic air pollutant, or 

25 tons/year or more of a combination of toxic air pollutants. This program 

is modeled after the NPDES program under the CWA and serves to bring 

together all of the requirements concerning air emissions that apply to 

affected sources. Like the NPDES program, administration of the operating 

permit program is also delegated to States with approved programs. 

This program requires all significant sources of air emissions to obtain 

permits. In general, utility fossil fuel steam electric power plants are all 

Sector Notebook Project 112 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

considered major sources, so they will most likely be required to obtain 

permits. Other types of fossil fuel electric power generation facilities, such 

as those employing small gas turbines, may not be considered a major source 

and may not be required to apply for a permit. Any operational change that 

increases emissions above specified limits will most likely necessitate permit 

modifications. Permit terms are determined by State regulations for 

delegated programs but may not exceed 5 years. 

Clean Water Act 

Wastewater discharges from fossil fuel electric power generation facilities 

released to waters of the United States are covered under the CWA. Any 

point source discharge is required to apply for, and obtain, an NPDES permit 

(40 CFR Part 122). Permits may be issued by EPA or a State, depending 

upon whether the State has a delegated program. The NPDES permits serve 

to regulate point source discharges by establishing pollutant limitations and 

other special conditions. Facilities discharging to a POTW may be required 

to obtain a permit from a POTW that has an approved pretreatment program. 

Current technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 

standards for discharges from the steam electric generating point source 

category were promulgated in 1982 (40 CFR Part 423). The waste streams 

covered and parameters limited are summarized in Table 37 below. 

Table 37: Waste Streams and Pollutants Regulated Under National Effluent Limitation 

Guidelines for the Steam Electric Generating Point Source Category 

Type of Waste Stream BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines 

All discharges pH , PCBs 

Bottom ash transport waters and low volume waste 

sources 

TSS, oil and grease 

Chemical boiler metal cleaning wastes TSS, oil and grease, iron, and copper 

Non-chemical metal cleaning wastes Reserved (low volume wastewater limits apply) 

Fly ash transport water (including economizer ash) No discharge allowed (based on the availability of dry 

disposal methods and the potential for reuse of fly ash 

transport water) 

Once-through cooling water Total residual chlorine (TRC) or free available chlorine 

(FAC), depending on facility’s generating capacity 

Cooling tower blowdown FAC, chromium, zinc, other 126 priority pollutants 

where they are found in chemicals used for cooling tower 

maintenance 

Coal pile runoff TSS 

In general, steam electric facilities built after 1982 are considered new 

sources and must comply with the 1982 effluent limitations. Less stringent 

Sector Notebook Project 113 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

guidelines may apply for facilities constructed between 1974 and 1982 (see 

1974 guidelines and standards). Steam electric generating facilities that have 

been repowered are considered new sources. 

Steam electric facilities that discharge to a POTW may be required to meet 

pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) or for new sources 

(PSNS). General pretreatment standards applying to most industries 

discharging to a POTW are described in 40 CFR Part 403. Pretreatment 

standards applying specifically to the steam electric generating point source 

category are listed in 40 CFR §§423.16 and 17. 

Beyond the applicable technology-based effluent limitations described 

above, permits may also establish technology-based limits for other 

pollutants based on the application of best professional judgement (BPJ). 

Permit limits and special conditions may also be established based on water 

quality considerations. Thermal limitations are often placed in permits for 

steam electric power plants based on Section 316(a) of the CWA and water 

quality considerations. Additionally, permits may require the performance 

of a demonstration study and implementation of control technologies to 

minimize adverse environmental impacts from cooling water intake 

structures. 

Storm water discharges associated with any industrial activity onsite at a 

fossil fuel electric power generation facility are covered under the National 

Storm Water Program. Steam electric power generating activities are listed 

as one of the categories of industrial activities subject to the storm water 

permit application requirements (category vii). The regulations at 40 CFR 

Part 122.26 require facilities discharging storm water from 1 of the 11 

categories of industrial activities to apply for a storm water permit if the 

storm water discharges to waters of the United States. In most permits, 

facilities are required to develop and implement a storm water pollution 

prevention plan. However, limitations and other special conditions may be 

included on a case-by-case basis. Some permits may include the numeric 

effluent limitation guideline for coal pile runoff. Storm water discharges 

associated with other industrial activities at fossil fuel electric power 

generation facilities are typically not subject to numeric limits, however. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

The 1980 Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments conditionally exempted 

from regulation under Subtitle C large volume wastes, including fly ash 

waste, bottom ash waste, boiler slag waste, and flue gas emission control 

waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels 

(RCRA §3001). Section 8002(n) of RCRA directed EPA to study these 

wastes. 

Sector Notebook Project 114 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

In 1993, EPA issued a regulatory determination addressing large volume 

wastes (fly ash, bottom ash, boiler ash, boiler slag, and flue gas emission 

control wastes) generated by coal-fired utility power plants, including 

independent power producers not engaged in any other industrial activity. 

The regulatory determination stated that these wastes should not be regulated 

as Subtitle C wastes when they are managed separately from other wastes. 

A similar determination for other large volume fossil fuel combustion wastes 

and co-managed wastes was deferred pending additional studies. 

Wastes exempt from hazardous waste regulation (currently all wastes from 

fossil fuel combustion) are addressed by Subtitle D of RCRA (for 

nonhazardous solid wastes). There are currently no Federal nonhazardous 

waste regulations. As a result, fossil fuel electric power generation waste 

management is addressed solely by the States, either through their general 

industrial solid waste programs or through specific programs for fossil fuel 

combustion wastes. These State programs vary considerably. 

Subtitle I of RCRA has stringent requirements for underground petroleum 

and hazardous substances storage tank (UST) systems with 110-gallon or 

greater capacity. Any storage of fuels in USTs onsite at a fossil fuel electric 

power generation facility would be covered under these regulations at 40 

CFR Part 280. 

Subtitle C of RCRA provides for a comprehensive cradle to grave system of 

management for hazardous waste and includes rules governing waste 

disposal on land; recycling and generators; and treatment, storage, or 

disposal facilities (TSDFs). Low volume fossil fuel combustion wastes not 

co-managed with ash, slag, or flue gas desulfurization wastes and other 

wastes that are not directly associated with the combustion process are not 

exempted from hazardous waste regulation. As such, they are hazardous 

wastes if they are listed as hazardous wastes from non-specific sources (e.g., 

spent solvents) or if they exhibit one or more of the RCRA hazardous waste 

characteristics of toxicity, corrosivity, reactivity, and ignitability. The 

identification of specific listed wastes and the definitions of the hazardous 

waste characteristics are listed in 40 CFR Part 261. 

Fossil fuel electric power generating plants do not typically generate large 

quantities of hazardous waste. Furthermore, the requirements and costs of 

operating an onsite hazardous waste TSDF are extensive. Therefore, most 

electric power generating facilities send any generated hazardous waste to 

offsite RCRA-permitted commercial TSDFs for permanent disposal. 

Some steam electric power generating plants co-fire their boilers with 

hazardous wastes (e.g., spent solvents), along with their primary fossil fuel 

source. Such facilities are subject to RCRA regulation under the BIF Rule 

(40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H). The BIF Rule includes operating condition 

Sector Notebook Project 115 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

requirements, as well as testing requirements, for air emissions and residuals 

to ensure adequate destruction of toxic constituents. 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

In a recent rulemaking (62 FR 23834, May 1, 1997), EPA expanded the list 

of industry groups subject to reporting requirements under Section 313 of 

EPCRA (61 FR 33587). The expanded list of industry groups includes 

electric utilities classified in the following SIC codes: 4911 Electric Services, 

4931 Electric and Other Services Combined, and 4939 Combination Utilities, 

Not Elsewhere Classified. EPCRA Section 313 now requires electric 

generating facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of 

generating electricity for distribution in commerce to evaluate their chemical 

use and management activities to determine potential reporting 

responsibilities. Section 313 establishes annual requirements for amounts 

released and otherwise managed of "section 313 chemicals" (a list of more 

than 650 chemicals and chemical categories). 

For each Section 313 chemical or chemical category, covered facilities must 

report total routine and accidental amounts entering each environmental 

media, as well as onsite waste management via, and offsite transfers for, 

disposal, waste treatment, energy recovery and recycling, and onsite source 

reduction activities. This information is submitted on the TRI reporting 

form called Form R if the facility has met or exceeded certain thresholds. 

The first period of reporting for this industry will be on or before July 1, 

1999, for the period from January 1 to December 31, 1998. Reporting will 

be required annually thereafter. For additional information on these new 

TRI reporting requirements, contact the Emergency Planning and Right-toKnow Hotline at (800) 535-0202 (in Virginia and Alaska (703) 412-9877; 

TDD (800) 553-7672). 

VI.C Pending and Proposed Regulatory Requirements 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

In response to requirements under Section 112 of the CAA as well as Section 

129, EPA is developing a unified set of Federal air emission regulations for 

industrial combustion sources. This rulemaking effort is being called the 

Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR). 

The ICCR will cover sources from industrial/institutional/commercial boiler, 

process heaters, industrial/commercial and other solid waste (not including 

hazardous, medical, or large municipal) incinerators, stationary gas turbines, 

Sector Notebook Project 116 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

and stationary internal combustion engines. These sources are not limited to 

use of fossil fuels and have the potential to emit both HAPs and criteria 

pollutants. This rulemaking effort will produce approximately seven separate 

regulations, six of which are expected to be finalized by November 2000. For 

additional information on the ICCR, contact Fred Porter, U.S. EPA Office of 

Air and Radiation, at (919) 541-5251. 

Section 112(n) requires that EPA perform studies to evaluate the health risks 

associated with emissions of toxic air pollutants from electric utility steam 

generating units. Electric utility steam generating units are defined as any 

fossil fuel-fired combustion unit of more than 25 MW electric that serves a 

generator that produces electricity for sale. Cogenerators that supply more 

than one-third of their potential electric output capacity and more than 25 

MW output to any utility power distribution system for sale will also be 

covered. A preliminary study has been completed and was issued as an 

interim final in October 1996. Additional studies will be performed, as well 

as an in-depth study of potential public health concerns due to mercury 

emissions from utilities. These findings will be published in a report to 

Congress at a later date and will include costs and technologies available to 

control these emissions and recommendations as to whether regulations are 

needed for air toxics emissions from this industry. For additional information 

on this study, contact Bill Maxwell, U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, at 

(919) 541-5430. 

Clean Water Act 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment Standards for 

the Steam Electric Point Source Category 

The existing 1982 effluent limitations guidelines and standards and 

pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from the Steam Electric 

Point Source Category are currently being reviewed by the Office of Water. 

A preliminary study has been completed by the Office of Water to evaluate 

the guidelines and standards based on current technical feasibility, 

environmental factors, economic impacts, and utility to permit writers. The 

study was performed because the steam electric power generating industrial 

category is considered as a candidate for possible regulatory revisions in the 

future. For additional information, contact Joe Daly, U.S. EPA Office of 

Water, at (202) 260-7186. 

Cooling Water Intake Structure Regulations 

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that “...any standard 

established pursuant to Section 301 or 306... and applicable to a point source 

shall require that the location, design construction, and capacity of cooling 

Sector Notebook Project 117 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VI. Federal Statutes and Regulations 

water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing 

adverse environmental impact.” Since fossil fuel electric power generators 

with steam turbines withdraw by far the greatest quantity of cooling water of 

any single industrial sector, it is expected that this industry will be the most 

affected by this requirement. Although some EPA regions and States have 

developed programs to minimize impacts from cooling water structures, no 

uniform national standards or implementing regulations are currently in force. 

As set forth in a consent decree (Cronin v. Browner), EPA has initiated the 

information collection activities needed to develop proposed regulations to 

address impacts from the intake of cooling water by 1999. Final EPA action 

is scheduled for the year 2001. For additional information on the Section 

316(b) rulemaking effort, contact Deborah Nagle, U.S. EPA Office of Water, 

at (202) 260-2656. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

A regulatory determination on whether large volume wastes at utility oil-fired, 

nonutility coal- and oil-fired, and fluidized bed combustion power plants and 

co-managed large volume wastes at all utility and nonutility coal- and oil-fired 

electric generation facilities should be considered hazardous wastes under 

Subtitle C is expected to be finalized in 1998, pending additional data 

collection. For additional information, contact Dennis Ruddy, U.S. EPA 

Office of Solid Waste, at (703) 308-8430. 

Sector Notebook Project 118 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

VII. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT HISTORY 

Until recently, EPA has focused much of its attention on measuring 

compliance with specific environmental statutes. This approach allows the 

EPA to track compliance with CAA, RCRA, CWA, and other environmental 

statutes. Within the last several years, the EPA has begun to supplement 

single-media compliance indicators with facility-specific, multimedia 

indicators of compliance. In doing so, EPA is in a better position to track 

compliance with all statutes at the facility level and within specific industrial 

sectors. 

A major step in building the capacity to compile multimedia data for industrial 

sectors was the creation of EPA's IDEA system. The IDEA has the capacity 

to "read into" EPA’s single-media databases, extract compliance records, and 

match the records to individual facilities. The IDEA system can match air, 

water, waste, toxics/pesticides/EPCRA, TRI, and enforcement docket records 

for a given facility and generate a list of historical permit, inspection, and 

enforcement activity. IDEA also has the capability to analyze data by 

geographic area and corporate holder. As the capacity to generate 

multimedia compliance data improves, EPAwill make available more in-depth 

compliance and enforcement information. Additionally, sector-specific 

measures of success for compliance assistance efforts are being developed. 

Compliance and Enforcement Profile Description 

Using inspection, violation and enforcement data from the IDEA system, this 

section provides information regarding the historical compliance and 

enforcement activity of this sector. In order to mirror the facility universe 

reported in the Toxic Chemical Profile, the data reported within this section 

consist of records only from the TRI reporting universe. With this decision, 

the selection criteria are consistent across sectors with certain exceptions. 

For the sectors that do not normally report to the TRI program, data have 

been provided from EPA's Facility Indexing System (FINDS) which tracks 

facilities in all media databases. Please note, in this section, EPA does not 

attempt to define the actual number of facilities that fall within each sector. 

Instead, the section portrays the records of a subset of facilities within the 

sector that are well defined within EPA databases. 

As a check on the relative size of the full sector universe, most notebooks 

contain an estimated number of facilities within the sector according to the 

Bureau of Census. For the fossil fuel electric power generation industry, 

statistics about the industry are collected by the DOE EIA (see Section II). 

With sectors dominated by small businesses, such as metal finishers and 

printers, the reporting universe within EPA databases may be small in 

Sector Notebook Project 119 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

comparison to Census data. However, the group selected for inclusion in this 

data analysis section should be consistent with this sector's general make-up. 

Following this introduction is a list defining each data column presented 

within this section. These values represent a retrospective summary of 

inspections and enforcement actions, and reflect solely EPA, State, and local 

compliance assurance activities that have been entered into EPA databases. 

To identify any changes in trends, the EPA ran two data queries: one for the 

past five calendar years (April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1997) and the other for 

the most recent 12-month period (April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997). The 

5-year analysis gives an average level of activity for that period for 

comparison to the more recent activity. 

Because most inspections focus on single-media requirements, the data 

queries presented in this section are taken from single media databases. These 

databases do not provide data on whether inspections are state/local or led by 

EPA. However, the table breaking down the universe of violations does give 

a crude measurement of EPA's and States' efforts within each media program. 

The presented data illustrate the variations across EPA regions for certain 

sectors.a This variation may be attributable to state/local data entry 

variations, specific geographic concentrations, proximity to population 

centers, sensitive ecosystems, highly toxic chemicals used in production, or 

historical noncompliance. Hence, the exhibited data do not rank regional 

performance or necessarily reflect which regions may have the most 

compliance problems. 

Compliance and Enforcement Data Definitions 

Facility Indexing System - This system assigns a common facility number 

to EPA single-media permit records. The FINDS identification number 

allows EPA to compile and review all permit, compliance, enforcement, and 

pollutant release data for any given regulated facility. 

Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis - This data integration system 

can retrieve information from the major EPA program office databases. 

IDEA uses the FINDS identification number to link separate data records 

from EPA’s databases. This allows retrieval of records from across media 

or statutes for any given facility, thus creating a �master list” of records for 

that facility. Some of the data systems accessible through IDEA are: AIRS 

(Office of Air and Radiation), PCS (Office of Water), RCRIS (Resource 

a EPA Regions include the following states: I (CT, MA, ME, RI, NH, VT); II (NJ, NY, PR, VI); III (DC, DE, MD, 

PA, VA, WV); IV (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN); V (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI); VI (AR, LA, NM, OK, 

TX); VII (IA, KS, MO, NE); VIII (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY); IX (AZ, CA, HI, NV, Pacific Trust Territories); X 

(AK, ID, OR, WA). 

Sector Notebook Project 120 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

Conservation and Recovery Information System, Office of Solid Waste), 

NCDB (National Compliance Data Base, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and 

Toxic Substances), CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental and Liability 

Information System, Superfund), and TRIS (Toxic Release Inventory 

System). IDEA also contains information from outside sources such as Dun 

and Bradstreet and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA). Most data queries displayed in Sections IV and VII of this 

notebook were conducted using IDEA. 

Data Table Column Heading Definitions 

Facilities in Search are based on the universe of TRI reporters within the 

listed SIC code range. For industries not covered under TRI reporting 

requirements (metal mining, nonmetallic mineral mining, electric power 

generation, ground transportation, water transportation, and dry cleaning), or 

industries in which only a very small fraction of facilities report to TRI (e.g., 

printing), the notebook uses the FINDS universe for executing data queries. 

The SIC code range selected for each search is defined by each notebook's 

selected SIC code coverage described in Section II. 

Facilities Inspected indicates the level of EPA and state agency inspections 

for the facilities in this data search. These values show what percentage of 

the facility universe is inspected in a one-year or five-year period. 

Number of Inspections measures the total number of inspections conducted 

in this sector. An inspection event is counted each time it is entered into a 

single media database. 

Average Time Between Inspections provides an average length of time, 

expressed in months, between compliance inspections at a facility within the 

defined universe. 

Facilities with One or More Enforcement Actions expresses the number 

of facilities that were the subject of at least one enforcement action within the 

defined time period. This category is broken down further into federal and 

state actions. Data are obtained for administrative, civil/judicial, and criminal 

enforcement actions. Administrative actions include Notices of Violation 

(NOVs). A facility with multiple enforcement actions is only counted once 

in this column, e.g., a facility with three enforcement actions counts as one 

facility. 

Total Enforcement Actions describes the total number of enforcement 

actions identified for an industrial sector across all environmental statutes. A 

facility with multiple enforcement actions is counted multiple times, e.g., a 

facility with three enforcement actions counts as three. 

Sector Notebook Project 121 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

State Lead Actions shows what percentage of the total enforcement actions 

are taken by state and local environmental agencies. Varying levels of use by 

states of EPA data systems may limit the volume of actions recorded as state 

enforcement activity. Some states extensively report enforcement activities 

into EPA data systems, while other states may use their own data systems. 

Federal Lead Actions shows what percentage of the total enforcement 

actions are taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

This value includes referrals from state agencies. Many of these actions result 

from coordinated or joint state/federal efforts. 

Enforcement to Inspection Rate is a ratio of enforcement actions to 

inspections, and is presented for comparative purposes only. This ratio is a 

rough indicator of the relationship between inspections and enforcement. It 

relates the number of enforcement actions and the number of inspections that 

occurred within the one-year or five-year period. This ratio includes the 

inspections and enforcement actions reported under the CWA, CAA, and 

RCRA. Inspections and actions from the TSCA/FIFRA/ EPCRA database 

are not factored into this ratio because most of the actions taken under these 

programs are not the result of facility inspections. Also, this ratio does not 

account for enforcement actions arising from non-inspection compliance 

monitoring activities (e.g., self-reported water discharges) that can result in 

enforcement action within the CAA, CWA, and RCRA. 

Facilities with One or More Violations Identified indicates the percentage 

of inspected facilities having a violation identified in one of the following data 

categories: In Violation or Significant Violation Status (CAA); Reportable 

Noncompliance, Current Year Noncompliance, Significant Noncompliance 

(CWA); Noncompliance and Significant Noncompliance (FIFRA, TSCA, and 

EPCRA); Unresolved Violation and Unresolved High Priority Violation 

(RCRA). The values presented for this column reflect the extent of 

noncompliance within the measured time frame, but do not distinguish 

between the severity of the noncompliance. Violation status may be a 

precursor to an enforcement action, but does not necessarily indicate that an 

enforcement action will occur. 

Media Breakdown of Enforcement Actions and Inspections -- four 

columns identify the proportion of total inspections and enforcement actions 

within EPA air, water, waste, and TSCA/FIFRA/EPCRA databases. Each 

column is a percentage of either the �Total Inspections,” or the �Total 

Actions” column. 

Sector Notebook Project 122 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

VII.A Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry Compliance History 

This section examinesthe historical enforcement and compliance data on the 

fossil fuel electric power generation sector. As noted earlier, these data were 

obtained from EPA’s IDEA system. The five exhibits within this section 

provide both a 5-year and a 1-year review of the data from the sector and 

also provide data from other sectors for comparison purposes. It should be 

noted that the data are accessed in the IDEA database system through SIC 

codes. Therefore, only those facilities whose primary SIC codes indicate the 

potential for power generation activities can be accessed (see Section II). 

This means that the data retrieved from IDEA may be more inclusive (e.g., 

include transmission and distribution facilities). Other industry facilities that 

have associated power generation activities cannot be identified because their 

primary SIC codes do not indicate power generation. 

Table 38 provides an overview of the reported compliance and enforcement 

data for the fossil fuel electric power generations sector over the past 5 years 

(April 1992 to April 1997). These data are also broken out by EPA Regions 

thereby permitting geographical comparisons. A few points evident from the 

data are listed below. As shown, 3,270 facilities were identified through 

IDEA with SIC codes that indicate power generation may be occurring (see 

discussion above). Of those, approximately 66 percent (2,166) were 

inspected in the last 5 years. Other points of interest include: 

�14,210 inspections were conducted over the last 5 years. Of the 3,166 

facilities inspected, on average, each received over 6 inspections in the past 

5-year period. 

�The 14,210 inspections resulted in 403 facilities having enforcement actions 

taken against them. At those 403 facilities, there were a total of 789 

enforcement actions; therefore, each facility averaged nearly 2 enforcement 

actions over the 5-year period. 

�The average enforcement to inspection rate is 0.06, with the rate across the 

regions ranging from 0.02 to 0.13. There appears to be no correlation 

between State versus Federal lead on the inspections and the enforcement to 

inspection rate. 

Sector Notebook Project 123 September 1997 
Sect

or Notebook Project 

Table 38: Five-Year Enforcement and Compliance Summary for the Fossil Fuel Electric Pow

A B C D E F G H I 

Region Facilities 

in Search 

Facilities 

Inspected 

Number of 

Inspections 

Average 

Months 

Between 

Inspections 

Facilities with 1 or 

More 

Enforcement 

Actions 

Total 

Enforcement 

Actions 

Percent 

State Lead 

Actions 

Percent Federal 

Lead 

Actions 

I 250 140 664 23 36 55 84% 16% II 269 199 1,455 11 75 187 84% 16% III 305 221 1,997 9 57 130 87% 13% IV 559 353 3,039 11 45 84 82% 18% V 552 344 2,287 14 76 134 69% 31% VI 315 222 1,079 18 30 61 54% 46% VII 409 259 1,170 21 22 28 36% 64% VIII 134 91 643 13 15 35 60% 40% IX 273 251 1622 10 38 57 84% 16% X 204 86 254 48 9 18 61% 39% TOTAL 3,270 2,166 14,210 14 403 789 76% 24% 

124September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

VII.B Comparison of Enforcement Activity Between Selected Industries 

Tables 39 and 40 allow the compliance history of the fossil fuel electric power 

generation sector to be compared to the other industries covered by the 

industry sector notebooks. Comparisons between Tables 39 and 40 permit 

the identification of trends in compliance and enforcement records of the 

various industries by comparing data covering the last 5 years (April 1992 to 

April 1997) to that of the past year (April 1996 to April 1997). As shown in 

the data, the 3,270 fossil fuel electric power generation facilities is the sixth 

largest number of facilities identified through IDEA, with ground 

transportation having the most facilities with 7,786. However, while 

approximately 66 percent of the fossil fuel electric power generation 

facilities have been inspected in the past 5 years, only 41 percent of the 

ground transportation facilities have been inspected. Other points of interest 

from the 5-year summary include: 

�The number of inspections over the past 5 years for fossil fuel electric 

power generation facilities (14,210) is more than 3 times the amount 

conducted in most other sectors. 

�The enforcement to inspection rate of 0.06 over the past 5 years is one of 

the lower rates of the listed sectors. 

Points of interest from the 1-year summary include: 

�The 1,318 fossil fuel electric power generation facilities inspected in the 

past year places this sector among the top four sectors for number of 

facilities inspected. 

�The total number of inspections in this sector is 2,430 which compares with 

the number of inspections performed in the ground transportation and nonmetallic mining sectors, but is 1.5 to 17 times more than the other sectors 

which range from 1,436 down to 141. 

�The enforcement to inspection rate of 0.06 is about average among all the 

sectors, with the lowest being 0.01 (dry cleaning) and the highest being 0.23 

(petroleum refining). This is relatively constant with the 5-year average for 

the fossil fuel electric power generation sector. 

Tables 41 and 42 provide a more in-depth comparison between the fossil fuel 

electric power generation sector and others by organizing inspection and 

enforcement data by environmental statute. As in the previous Tables 

(Tables 39 and 40), the data cover the last 5 years (Table 41) and the last 

Sector Notebook Project 125 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

Table 39: Five-Year E

nforcement and Com

pliance Sum

mary for Selected Industries 

J 

Enforcement 

to 

Inspection 

Rate 

0.07 

0.04 

0.05 

0.05 

0.06 

0.10 

0.04 

0.10 

0.06 

0.08 

0.09 

0.10 

0.11 

0.08 

0.25 

0.06 

0.08 

0.07 0.08 

0.11 

0.08 

0.06 

0.07 

0.13 

0.06 

0.09 0.10 

0.06 

0.02 

I 

Percent Federal 

Lead 

Actions 

47% 

11% 

21% 

23% 

10% 

30% 

19% 

20% 

12% 

26% 

24% 

20% 

35% 

26% 

32% 

18% 

25% 

29% 29% 

22% 

25% 

20% 

18% 

16% 

16% 

39% 12% 

24% 

5% 

H 

Percent 

State Lead 

Actions 

53% 

89% 

79% 

77% 

90% 

70% 

81% 

80% 

88% 

74% 

76% 

80% 

65% 

74% 

68% 

82% 

75% 

71% 

71% 

78% 

75% 

80% 

82% 

84% 

84% 

61% 88% 

76% 

95% 

G 

Total 

Enforcement 

Actions 

111 

132 

309 

622 

83 

265 

91 

478 

428 

235 

219 

122 

468 

102 

763 

276 

277 

305 191 

174 

600 

251 

413 

32 

774 

70 97 

789 

66 

F 

Facilities with 1 

or More 

Enforcement 

Actions 

63 

88 

149 

385 

53 

134 

65 

150 

238 

89 

93 

35 

153 

47 

124 

178 

97 

121 113 

68 

365 

150 

253 

20 

375 

36 48 

403 

55 

E 

Average 

Months 

Between 

Inspections 

46 

52 

46 

25 

15 

15 

13 

6 

46 

9 

8 

8 

6 

12 

3 

25 

11 

5 

16 

7 

22 

17 

13 

9 

36 

38 27 

14 

95 

D 

Number of 

Inspections 

1,600 

3,748 

6,071 

12,826 

1,465 

2,767 

2,379 

4,630 

7,691 

3,087 

2,430 

1,201 

4,294 

1,293 

3,081 

4,383 

3,474 

4,476 

2,535 

1,640 

7,914 

4,500 

5,912 

243 

12,904 

816 973 

14,210 

3,813 

C 

Facilities 

Inspected 

378 

741 

1,902 

2,803 

267 

473 

386 

430 

2,092 

286 

263 

129 

355 

164 

148 

981 

388 

275 424 

161 

1,858 

863 

927 

37 

3,263 

192 231 

2,166 

2,360 

B 

Facilities 

in Search 

1,232 

3,256 

4,676 

5,256 

355 

712 

499 

484 

5,862 

441 

329 

164 

425 

263 

156 

1,818 

615 

349 669 

203 

2,906 

1,250 

1,260 

44 

7,786 

514 444 

3,270 

6,063 

A 

Industry Sector 

Metal Mining Coal Mining Oil and Gas Extraction Non-Metallic Mineral Mining Textiles Lumber and Wood Furniture Pulp and Paper Printing Inorganic Chemicals Resins and Manmade Fibers Phar

maceuticals 

Organic Chemicals Agricultural Chemicals Petroleum Refining Rubber and Plastic Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete Iron and Steel Metal Castings Nonferrous Metals Fabricated Metal Products Electronics Automobile Assembly Shipbuilding and Repair Ground Transportation Water Transportation Air Transportation Fossil Fuel Electric Power Dry Cleaning 

Sector Notebook Project 126 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

Table 40: O

neYear E

nforcement and Com

pliance Sum

mary for Selected Industries 

H 

Enforcement to Inspection Rate 

0.05 

0.03 

0.03 

0.04 

0.04 

0.10 

0.02 

0.09 

0.04 

0.06 

0.09 

0.07 

0.07 

0.05 

0.23 

0.05 

0.04 

0.04 

0.06 

0.09 

0.06 

0.06 

0.04 

0.08 

0.04 

0.08 

0.08 

0.06 

0.01 

G 

Total 

Enforcement 

Actions 

10 

22 

34 

91 

12 

52 

11 

74 

53 

31 

36 

14 

56 

11 

132 

41 

27 

34 

26 

28 

83 

43 

47 

4 

103 

11 

12 

135 

16 

F 

Facilities with 1 or more 

Enforcement Actions 

Percent* 

6% 

6% 

3% 

5% 

6% 

16% 

4% 

14% 

3% 

10% 

15% 

10% 

16% 

5% 

44% 

7% 

7% 

11% 

10% 

16% 

7% 

6% 

7% 

14% 

5% 

12% 

8% 

8% 

1% 

Number 

9 

20 

26 

73 

10 

44 

9 

43 

28 

19 

26 

8 

42 

5 

58 

33 

19 

22 

24 

17 

63 

27 

35 

3 

85 

10 

8 

100 

12 

E 

Facilities with 1 or More 

Violations 

Percent* 

72% 

25% 

15% 

26% 

56% 

69% 

54% 

78% 

65% 

78% 

88% 

105% 

94% 

97% 

98% 

83% 

59% 

88% 

103% 

91% 

94% 

96% 

85% 

86% 

43% 

63% 

72% 

61% 

25% 

Number 

102 

90 

127 

384 

96 

192 

136 

248 

577 

155 

152 

84 

243 

102 

129 

389 

151 

174 

240 

98 

796 

402 

431 

19 

681 

53 

69 

804 

314 

D 

Number of 

Inspections 

211 

765 

1,173 

2,451 

295 

507 

459 

788 

1,363 

548 

419 

209 

837 

206 

565 

791 

678 

866 

433 

310 

1,377 

780 

1,058 

51 

2,499 

141 

151 

2,430 

1,436 

C 

Facilities 

Inspected 

142 

362 

874 

1,481 

172 

279 

254 

317 

892 

200 

173 

80 

259 

105 

132 

466 

255 

197 

234 

108 

849 

420 

507 

22 

1,585 

84 

96 

1,318 

1,234 

B 

Facilities in 

Search 

1,232 

3,256 

4,676 

5,256 

355 

712 

499 

484 

5,862 

441 

329 

164 

425 

263 

156 

1,818 

615 

349 

669 

203 

2,906 

1,250 

1,260 

44 

7,786 

514 

444 

3,270 

6,063 

A 

Industry Sector 

Metal Mining Coal Mining Oil and Gas Extraction Non-Metallic Mineral Mining Textiles Lumber and Wood Furniture Pulp and Paper Printing Inorganic Chemicals Resins and Manmade Fibers Phar

maceuticals 

Organic Chemicals Agricultural Chemicals Petroleum Refining Rubber and Plastic Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete Iron and Steel Metal Castings Nonferrous Metals Fabricated Metal Electronics Automobile Assembly Shipbuilding and Repair Ground Transportation Water Transportation Air Transportation Fossil Fuel Electric Power Dry Cleaning 

Sector Notebook Project 127 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

Table 41: Five-Year I

nspection and E

nforcement Sum

mary by Statute for Selected Industries 

FIFR

A/TS

C

A/ 

EPCRA/Other 

% of 

Total 

Actions 

17% 

1% 

3% 

3% 

6% 

16% 

14% 

4% 

4% 

5% 

6% 

5% 

6% 

11% 

7% 

11% 

4% 

8% 

14% 

10% 

13% 

7% 

9% 

3% 

3% 

4% 0% 

5% 

0% 

% of Total 

Inspections 

1% 

1% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

4% 

5% 

4% 5% 

2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

1% 

1% 0% 

1% 

0% 

RCRA 

% of 

Total 

Actions 

12% 

8% 

18% 

4% 

14% 

31% 

43% 

10% 

29% 

30% 

23% 

20% 

28% 30% 

21% 

34% 

30% 

31% 

31% 

31% 

43% 

50% 

43% 

47% 

45% 

33% 48% 

10% 

71% 

% of Total 

Inspections 

8% 

4% 

8% 

3% 

18% 

44% 

34% 

15% 

35% 

34% 

38% 

45% 

44% 

28% 

36% 

35% 

31% 

28% 32% 

33% 

45% 

47% 

43% 

42% 

29% 

37% 48% 

11% 

41% 

Clean Water Act 

% of 

Total 

Actions 

52% 

28% 

14% 

13% 

25% 

6% 

0% 

28% 

3% 

21% 

28% 

25% 

25% 

20% 

13% 

11% 

9% 

26% 10% 

17% 

11% 

11% 

9% 

25% 

11% 

34% 20% 

26% 

6% 

% of Total 

Inspections 

52% 

38% 

16% 

14% 

22% 

6% 

3% 

32% 

5% 

27% 

23% 

15% 

16% 24% 

20% 

12% 

13% 

26% 11% 

18% 

12% 

13% 

8% 

14% 

12% 

23% 27% 

32% 

3% 

Clean Air Act 

% of 

Total 

Actions 

19% 

64% 

65% 

81% 

54% 

47% 

42% 

59% 

64% 

44% 

43% 

49% 

42% 39% 

59% 

44% 

57% 

35% 44% 

43% 

33% 

32% 

39% 

25% 

41% 

29% 32% 

59% 

23% 

% of Total 

Inspections 

39% 

57% 

75% 

83% 

58% 

49% 

62% 

51% 

60% 

38% 

35% 

35% 

37% 

43% 

42% 

51% 

56% 

45% 55% 

48% 

40% 

38% 

47% 

39% 

59% 

39% 25% 

57% 

56% 

Total 

Enforcement 

Actions 

111 

132 

309 

622 

83 

265 

91 

478 

428 

235 

219 

122 

468 102 

763 

276 

277 

305 191 

174 

600 

251 

413 

32 

774 

70 97 

789 

66 

Total 

Inspections 

1,600 

3,748 

6,071 

12,826 

1,465 

2,767 

2,379 

4,630 

7,691 

3,087 

2,430 

1,201 

4,294 1,293 

3,081 

4,383 

3,474 

4,476 

2,535 

1,640 

7,914 

4,500 

5,912 

243 

12,904 

816 973 

14,210 

3,813 

Facilities 

Inspected 

378 

741 

1,902 

2,803 

267 

473 

386 

430 

2,092 

286 

263 

129 

355 164 

148 

981 

388 

275 424 

161 

1,858 

863 

927 

37 

3,263 

192 231 

2,166 

2,360 

Industry Sector 

Metal Mining Coal Mining Oil and Gas Extraction Non-Metallic Mineral Mining Textiles Lumber and Wood Furniture Pulp and Paper Printing Inorganic Chemicals Resins and Manmade Fibers Phar

maceuticals 

Organic Chemicals Agricultural Chemicals Petroleum Refining Rubber and Plastic Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete Iron and Steel Metal Castings Nonferrous Metals Fabricated Metal Electronics Automobile Assembly Shipbuilding and Repair Ground Transportation Water Transportation Air Transportation Fossil Fuel Electric Power Dry Cleaning 

Sector Notebook Project 128 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

Table 42: OneYear Inspection and Enforcement Summary by Statute for Selected Industries 

FIFR

A/TSCA/ 

EPCRA/Other 

% of 

Total 

Actions 

30% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

40% 

9% 

1% 

0% 

6% 

5% 

0% 

0% 

9% 

10% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

7% 

0% 

5% 

0% 

0% 

1% 

9% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

% of Total 

Inspections 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

RCRA 

% of 

Total 

Actions 

30% 

5% 

24% 

2% 

8% 

25% 

45% 

7% 

23% 

25% 

5% 

14% 

34% 

36% 

15% 

23% 

30% 

24% 

35% 

30% 

57% 

53% 

47% 

50% 

44% 

45% 

25% 

5% 

38% 

% of Total 

Inspection 

s 

8% 

4% 

9% 

3% 

17% 

44% 

32% 

14% 

33% 

39% 

38% 

45% 

47% 

30% 

34% 

35% 

28% 

26% 

30% 

41% 

43% 

43% 

41% 

35% 

26% 

38% 

57% 

9% 

30% 

Clean Water Act 

% of 

Total 

Actions 

40% 

14% 

9% 

9% 

17% 

5% 

0% 

19% 

0% 

9% 

38% 

14% 

13% 

0% 

8% 

13% 

7% 

29% 

8% 

20% 

2% 

5% 

6% 

50% 

10% 

36% 

42% 

21% 

6% 

% of Total 

Inspections 

40% 

40% 

10% 

10% 

17% 

6% 

2% 

32% 

4% 

26% 

24% 

11% 

13% 

22% 

17% 

10% 

10% 

23% 

10% 

15% 

11% 

14% 

7% 

11% 

11% 

24% 

15% 

32% 

1% 

Clean Air Act 

% of 

Total 

Actions 

0% 

82% 

68% 

89% 

75% 

30% 

45% 

73% 

77% 

59% 

51% 

71% 

54% 

55% 

67% 

64% 

63% 

47% 

58% 

43% 

41% 

37% 

47% 

0% 

46% 

9% 

33% 

73% 

56% 

% of Total 

Inspections 

52% 

56% 

82% 

87% 

66% 

51% 

66% 

54% 

63% 

35% 

38% 

43% 

40% 

48% 

49% 

55% 

62% 

52% 

60% 

44% 

46% 

44% 

53% 

54% 

64% 38% 28% 

59% 

69% 

Total 

Enforcement 

Actions 

10 

22 

34 

91 

12 

52 

11 

74 

53 

31 

36 

14 

56 

11 

132 

41 

27 

34 

26 

28 

83 

43 

47 

4 

103 

11 12 

135 

16 

Total 

Inspections 

211 

765 

1,173 

2,451 

295 

507 

459 

788 

1,363 

548 

419 

209 

837 

206 

565 

791 

678 

866 

433 

310 

1,377 

780 

1,058 

51 

2,499 

141 151 

2,430 

1,436 

Facilities 

Inspected 

142 

362 

874 

1,481 

172 

279 

254 

317 

892 

200 

173 

80 

259 

105 

132 

466 

255 

197 

234 

108 

849 

420 

507 

22 

1,585 

84 96 

1,318 

1,234 

Industry Sector 

Metal Mining Coal Mining Oil and Gas Extraction Non-Metallic Mineral Mining Textiles Lumber and Wood Furniture Pulp and Paper Printing Inorganic Chemicals Resins and Manmade Fibers Phar

maceuticals 

Organic Chemicals Agricultural Chemicals Petroleum Refining Rubber and Plastic Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete Iron and Steel Metal Castings Nonferrous Metals Fabricated Metal Electronics Automobile Assembly Shipbuilding and Repair Ground Transportation Water Transportation Air Transportation Fossil Fuel Electric Power Dry Cleaning 

Sector Notebook Project 129 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

one year (Table 42) to facilitate the identification of recent trends. Points of 

interest from the 5-year summary include: 

�Compared to other sectors, the fossil fuel electric power generation sector 

has one of the higher percentages of CAA inspections (57%) and one of the 

lower percentages of RCRA inspections (11%), when measured against the 

total number of inspections conducted. As a result, it has one of the higher 

percentages of CAA enforcement actions (59%) and one of the lowest 

percentages of RCRA enforcement actions (10%), when measured against 

total enforcement actions. 

The 1-year inspection and enforcement summary reflects similar numbers to 

those from the past 5 years. No notable exceptions are apparent. 

VII.C Review of Major Legal Actions 

Major Cases/Supplemental Environmental Projects 

This section provides summary information about major cases that have 

affected thissector, and a list of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). 

VII.C.1 Review of Major Cases 

As shown in the previous tables, the number of enforcement actions taken 

over the past 5 years, when compared to the number of inspections 

conducted, is minimal. Even though there have been 871 total enforcement 

actions, major cases involving fossil fuel electric power generation facilities 

are rare. Since 1992, however, there have been at least 13 actions against 

such facilities. 

The 13 cases were broken out as follows: 

�6 cases under the CAA (asbestos NESHAPs, NOX monitoring violations,

and SO2 violations)

�2 cases under the CWA (NPDES permit violation, wetlands)

�2 cases under TSCA (PCBs)

�2 cases under EPCRA (release in excess of reportable quantities)

�1 multimedia case (CWA, EPCRA, and TSCA).

The average penalty associated with these cases was just more than 

$150,000. In addition, two SEPs were associated with the 13 cases. Those 

are discussed in more detail in the following section. 

The two most significant cases against fossil fuel electric power generation 

facilities included CWA violations by Potomac Electric Power Company 

(PEPCO) and CAA violations by Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G). 

In the PEPCO case, the violations occurred from 1988 to 1993, during which 

Sector Notebook Project 130 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

time a site supervisor either pumped or oversaw the pumping of polluted 

water from holding ponds into an adjacent swamp. PEPCO discovered the 

illegal discharge and informed EPA. The consent decree provides for a 

penalty of $975,000. Because the violation was self-disclosed, no criminal 

charges were brought against the company or its officers. 

In United States v. Public Service Electric & Gas, PSE&G was charged with 

violating the CAA, specifically the asbestos NESHAP. While commuting 

home from work, an off-duty EPA inspector noticed a pile of old pipes 

laying in a yard. A subsequent inspection of the old gas-cracking operation 

revealed the NESHAP violations. The PSE&G was required to pay a civil 

penalty of $230,000 and complete an extensive worker training and 

notification program. 

VII.C.2 Supplementary Environmental Projects (SEPs) 

SEPs are compliance agreements that reduce a facility's non-compliance 

penalty in return for an environmental project that exceeds the value of the 

reduction. Often, these projects fund pollution prevention activities that can 

reduce the future pollutant loadings of a facility. Information on SEP cases 

can be accessed via the internet at EPA’s Enviro$en$e website: 

http://es.inel.gov/sep. 

As mentioned above, there were two SEPs at fossil fuel electric power 

generation facilities. The SEPs were negotiated with IES Utilities, 

Incorporated, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Consumers Power Company of 

West Olive, Michigan. 

The case against IES Utilities, Incorporated, was the first acid rain 

administrative penalty action in the country. The complaint alleged IES 

failed to complete timely certification testing of the acid rain continuous 

emission monitors required for SO2, NOX, CO2, and volumetric flow at 

several of its generating stations. As part of the settlement, IES agreed to a 

SEP involving the purchase and permanent surrender by the utility to EPA 

of 589 SO2 allowances. Each allowance constitutes an authorization to emit 

during or after a specified calendar year one ton of SO2. The value of the 

allowances permanently removed from the market was $76,570 at the time 

of the settlement. IES was also required to pay a penalty of $25,630 to settle 

the claims. 

In the Consumers Power Company case, the company agreed to carry out 

three SEPs at a total estimated cost of $247,742. The projects include (1) 

converting heat exchangers from ethylene glycol to propylene glycol, which 

is 300 times less toxic, (2) sending information on EPCRA requirements to 

an estimated 3,000 facilities in Michigan, and (3) conducting an outreach 

program on the EPCRA Section 302 notification requirement to rural 

Sector Notebook Project 131 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VII. Compliance and Enforcement History 

communities. The company must also certify its compliance with EPCRA. 

In its complaint, EPA alleged that the company failed to notify authorities 

about an accidental release of 1,400 pounds of sodium hypochlorite. 

Sector Notebook Project 132 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

VIII. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES AND INITIATIVES 

This section highlights the activities undertaken by this industry sector and 

public agencies to voluntarily improve the sector's environmental 

performance. These activities include those initiated independently by 

industrial trade associations. In this section, the notebook also contains a 

listing and description of national and regional trade associations. 

VIII.A. Sector-related Environmental Programs and Activities 

Clean Air Power Initiative 

The goal of the Clean Air Power Initiative (CAPI) is to improve air pollution 

control efforts within the electric power generating industry by developing 

an integrated regulatory strategy for three major pollutants emitted by 

electric power generators: SO2, NOX, and air toxics (specifically, mercury). 

The project was initiated in 1995 by EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation. Through the Initiative, EPA hopes to provide the electric 

power industry with greater regulatory flexibility and cost savings while 

achieving environmental goals for ozone, fine particles, regional haze, and 

toxics. The Initiative will use existing CAA authority where possible, 

although ultimately new congressional authority may be required. The EPA 

believes focusing on regional reductions of the pollutants and implementing 

a “cap and trade” approach for some pollutants, such as NOX, SO2, and 

mercury, would be most effective. The EPA is meeting with representatives 

of the power industry, State and local officials, environmental groups, and 

pollution control vendors to obtain their views and input for the regulatory 

framework for the Initiative. (Contact: Linda Reidt Critchfield, at (202) 233-

9087. Website: http://www.epa.gov/capi). 

EPA Regional Compliance And Enforcement Activities 

The EPA Region VIII has focused on enforcement and compliance activities 

for coal-fired power plants. This industrial sector was targeted by Region 

VIII because they have 38 significant operating plants (i.e., generate greater 

than 25 MW electricity). The region has experienced ongoing compliance 

issues related to the new Acid Rain Program, impacts from plants in PSD 

Class I areas, and impacts in nonattainment areas. The goal of this EPA 

regional compliance and enforcement initiative is to comprehensively 

evaluate the compliance status of the facilities. The region is also evaluating 

any environmental justice issues due to the location of the facilities. States 

in Region VIII are participating in the sector initiative by performing annual 

air program and NPDES permit inspections on a yearly basis. South Dakota 

has conducted multimedia inspections at two coal-fired power plants. 

Sector Notebook Project 133 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

Department of Energy Environmental Research Programs 

The DOE maintains numerous laboratories and field facilities that perform 

research and development type activities. The following facilities are of 

interest to the fossil fuel electric power generation industry and 

environmental compliance: 

�Argonne National Laboratory: The Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) 

conducts applied research and engineering development in energy and 

environmental technologies, high performance computing, and scientific 

research in physical and life sciences. The Energy Systems Division of ANL 

focuses its expertise on controlling environmental impacts of industrial 

energy use. The division is committed to a revitalized competitiveness in the 

national economy. (Website: http:\\www.anl.gov). 

�Oak Ridge National Laboratory: The Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

performs research on a broad range of energy-related problems and provides 

technical information and assistance on energy research for State and local 

governments and the private sector. Areas of research include waste 

management, fossil, fuel power generation technology, nuclear power 

generation technologies, fusion technology, conservation, and environment. 

(Website: http:\\www.ornl.gov). 

�Federal Energy Technology Center: The Federal Energy Technology 

Center (FETC), one of the government’s principal fossil fuel energy research 

centers, is responsible for research and development programs in the 

technical and administration management of fossil energy. The FETC is part 

of the Bruceton Research Center, which is the Nation’s largest governmental 

lab devoted to coal research and development. The center’s program 

responsibilities include clean coal technology, coal preparation, combustion 

technology, alternative fuels utilization, flue gas cleanup, coal liquefaction, 

advanced research and technology development in direct utilization and 

liquefaction, and solids transport. (Website: http:\\www.fetc.doe.gov). 

VIII.B EPA Voluntary Programs 

Environmental Leadership Program 

The Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is a national initiative 

developed by EPA that focuses on improving environmental performance, 

encouraging voluntary compliance, and building working relationships with 

stakeholders. EPA initiated a one year pilot program in 1995 by selecting 12 

projects at industrial facilities and federal installations that demonstrate the 

principles of the ELP program. These principles include: environmental 

management systems, multimedia compliance assurance, third-party 

verification of compliance, public measures of accountability, pollution 

Sector Notebook Project 134 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

prevention, community involvement, and mentor programs. In return for 

participating, pilot participants received public recognition and were given a 

period of time to correct any violations discovered during these experimental 

projects. Four fossil fuel electric power generation facilities proposals were 

accepted and are listed in Table 43. Progress reports and fact sheets from 

these pilot programs are now available from EPA or off the web. 

Table 43: List of Power Plants That Participated in the Environmental Leadership 

Program For 1995 and 1996 

1. Arizona Public Service, Deer Valley Facility (Phoenix, AZ) 

2. Duke Power Riverbend Steam Station (Mt. Holly, NC) 

3. Ocean State Power (Burrillville, RI) 

4. Salt River Project (Phoenix, AZ) 

EPA is making plans to launch its full-scale Environmental Leadership 

Program in 1997. The full-scale program will be facility-based with a 6-year 

participation cycle. Facilities that meet certain requirements will be eligible 

to participate, such as having a community outreach/employee involvement 

programs and an environmental management system (EMS) in place for 2 

years. (Contact: Debby Thomas, ELP Deputy Director, (202)564-5041. 

Website: http://es.inel.gov/elp). 

Project XL 

Project XL was initiated in March 1995 as a part of President Clinton’s 

Reinventing Environmental Regulation initiative. The projects seek to 

achieve cost effective environmental benefits by providing participants 

regulatory flexibility on the condition that they produce greater environmental 

benefits. EPA and program participants will negotiate and sign a Final Project 

Agreement, detailing specific environmental objectives that the regulated 

entity shall satisfy. EPA will provide regulatory flexibility as an incentive for 

the participants’ superior environmental performance. Participants are 

encouraged to seek stakeholder support from local governments, businesses, 

and environmental groups. EPA hopes to implement fifty pilot projects in 

four categories, including industrial facilities, communities, and government 

facilities regulated by EPA. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis. 

For additional information regarding XL projects, including application 

procedures and criteria, see the May 23, 1995 Federal Register Notice. 

(Contact: Fax-on-Demand Hotline 202-260-8590, or Christopher Knopes at 

Sector Notebook Project 135 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (202)260-9298. Website:

Web: http://www.epa.gov/

ProjectXL)

Climate Wise Recognition Program 

The Climate Change Action Plan was initiated in response to the U.S. 

commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the 

Climate Change Convention of the 1990 Earth Summit. As part of the 

Climate Change Action Plan, the Climate Wise Recognition Program is a 

partnership initiative run jointly by EPA and DOE. The program is designed 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging reductions across all 

sectors of the economy, encouraging participation in the full range of 

Climate Change Action Plan initiatives, and fostering innovation. Program 

participants are required to identify and commit to actions that reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. The program, in turn, gives organizations early 

recognition for their reduction commitments; provides technical assistance 

through consulting services, workshops, and guides; and provides access to 

the program’s centralized information system. At EPA, the program is 

operated by the Air and Energy Policy Division within the Office of Policy 

Planning and Evaluation. (Contact: Pamela Herman, (202)260-4407. 

Website: http://www.oit.doe.gov/Access/climate). 

Green Lights Program 

EPA’s Green Lights program was initiated in 1991 and has the goal of 

preventing pollution by encouraging U.S. institutions to use energy-efficient 

lighting technologies. The program saves money for businesses and 

organizations and creates a cleaner environment by reducing pollutants 

released into the atmosphere. The programhas over 2,345 participants which 

include major corporations, small and medium sized businesses, federal, state 

and local governments, non-profit groups, schools, universities, and health 

care facilities. Each participant is required to survey their facilities and 

upgrade lighting wherever it is profitable. As of March 1997, participants had 

lowered their electric bills by $289 million annually. EPA provides technical 

assistance to the participants through a decision support software package, 

workshops and manuals, and an information hotline. EPA’s Office of Air and 

Radiation is responsible for operating the Green Lights Program. (Contact: 

Green Light/Energy Star Hotline at 1-888-STARYES or Maria Tikoff Vargar, 

EPA Program Director, at (202)233-9178. Websit e: 

http://www.epa.gov/greenlights.html). 

Sector Notebook Project 136 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

WasteWi$e Program 

The WasteWi$e Program was started in 1994 by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. The program is aimed at reducing municipal solid 

wastes by promoting waste prevention, recycling collection and the 

manufacturing and purchase of recycled products. As of 1997, the program 

had about 500 companies as members, one third of whom are Fortune 1000 

corporations. Members agree to identify and implement actions to reduce 

their solid wastes setting waste reduction goals and providing EPA with 

yearly progress reports. To member companies, EPA, in turn, provides 

technical assistance, publications, networking opportunities, and national and 

regional recognition. (Contact: WasteWi$e Hotline at 1-800-372-9473 or 

Joanne Oxley, EPA Program Manager, (703)308-0199. Website: 

http://www.epa.gov /epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise/ 

index.html) 

NICE 3 

The U.S. Department of Energy is administering a grant program called The 

National Industrial Competitiveness through Energy, Environment, and 

Economics (NICE3). By providing grants of up to 45 percent of the total 

project cost, the program encourages industry to reduce industrial waste at its 

source and become more energy-efficient and cost-competitive through waste 

minimization efforts. Grants are used by industry to design, test, and 

demonstrate new processes and/or equipment with the potential to reduce 

pollution and increase energy efficiency. The program is open to all 

industries; however, priority is given to proposals from participants in the 

forest products, chemicals, petroleum refining, steel, aluminum, metal casting 

and glass manufacturing sectors. (Contact: Chris Sifri, DOE, (303)275-4723 

or Eric Hass, DOE, (303)275-4728. Website: http//www.oit.doe.gov/access/ 

nice3). 

VIII.C Trade Association/Industry Sponsored Activity 

Trade associations, in conjunction with their industry members, sponsor 

activities that serve to further regulatory compliance initiatives. This section 

describes a major environmental compliance assistance program being 

sponsored by the utilities in the fossil fuel electric power generation industry, 

as well as some of the major trade associations serving the fossil fuel electric 

power generation industry. 

Sector Notebook Project 137 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

VIII.C.1 Environmental Programs 

Climate Challenge Program 

The Climate Challenge Program is a joint initiative of DOE and the electric 

utility industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Electric utilities 

voluntarily commit to undertake actions to reduce, avoid, or sequester more 

than 47 million metric tons of carbon equivalent by the year 2000. These 

commitments are formalized in individual utility participationaccords for large 

utilities, and letters of participation for utilities with less than 50,000 

customers. Utilities report greenhouse gas emissions data and submit annual 

reports, which describe their achievements, to DOE. The Climate Challenge 

Options Workbook describe more than 50 options for utilities to implement 

to meet their participation commitments. The workbook was jointly 

developed by the electric power industry and DOE.(Contact: Larry Mansueti, 

Program Director, Office of Utility Technologies, EE-10, U.S. DOE, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Website: http://bejing. 

dis.anl.gov/ ee-cgi-bin/ccap.pl) 

The utility industry has also developed a set of initiatives to help utilities meet 

their commitments. These include: 

�EnviroTech Investment Fund, which fund invests in companies focusing 

on regenerating energy technologies that are more energy efficient than those 

currently in use. 

�International Utility Efficiency Projects that support energy development 

in a way that is environmentally beneficial. 

�Utility Forest Carbon Management Program, which comprises domestic 

and international forestry projects to manage CO2 emissions. 

VIII.C.2 Summary of Trade Associations 

Trade associations and professional organizations that serve the fossil fuel 

electric power generation industry are numerous and varied in their focus. 

They range from serving a relatively small portion of the industry (e.g., 

independent power producers) to serving the industry as a whole. This 

section briefly describes some major trade and professional organizations for 

this industry. 

Sector Notebook Project 138 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) 

2760 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 304 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Phone: (703) 317-2400 

Fax: (703) 317-2409 

Website: http://www.acaa-usa.org 

Members: 110 

Staff: 5 

Contact: Samuel S. Tyson 

Founded in 1968, ACAA’s mission is to advance the management and use of 

Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) in ways that are technically sound, 

commercially competitive, and environmentally safe. 

American Public Power Association 

(APPA) 

2301 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Phone: (202) 467-2900 

Fax: (202) 467-2910 

Website: http://www.appa.org/ 

Members: 2,000 

Staff: 60 

Contact: Alan H. Richards 

Founded in 1940, APPA’s members include public utility systems, State- and 

county-owned electric systems, and rural cooperatives. The APPA maintains 

a library on the electric power industry and publishes a bimonthly magazine. 

The APPA also conducts research programs, compiles statistics, and offers 

utility education courses in electric power. The association holds an annual 

conference and workshops. 

Association of Energy Engineers (AEE) 

4025 Pleasantville Road., Suite 420 

Atlanta, GA 30340 

Phone: (770) 447-5083 

Fax: (770) 446-3969 

Website: http://www.aeecenter.org/ 

Members: 8,500 

Staff: 9 

Contact: Ruth M. Bennett 

Founded in 1977, the members of the AEE are engineers, architects, and other 

professionals interested in energy management and cogeneration. The AEE 

promotes advancement of the profession and contributes to the professional 

development of its membership. The AEE provides scholarships for students 

in energy engineering, supports the National Energy Policy Council, and 

sponsors the Cogeneration and Competitive Power Institute, a research 

organization. The AEE publishes journals and newsletters and sponsors 

several technical and managerial congresses each year. 

Sector Notebook Project 139 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2696 

Phone: (202) 508-5000 

Fax: (202) 508-5360 

Website: http://www.eei.org/ 

Members: 202 

Staff: 262 

Contact: Thomas Kuhn, 

President 

Founded in 1933, EEI members are investor-owned electric utility companies 

operating in the United States. Some affiliated members are from Canada, 

Mexico, and Central and South America. The EEI acts as a representative for 

the shareholder-owned electric power industry on subjects of public interest 

and provides a medium for the exchange of ideas and information within the 

electric power industry. The institute maintains a library and database and 

compiles statistics. The EEI provides educational programs and publishes 

surveys, which provide statistical and factual information about operation, 

rates, regulation, and environmental practices. 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

3412 Hillview Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Phone: (415) 855-2000 

Fax: (415) 855-2041 

Website: http://www.epri.com/ 

Members: 700 

Staff: 500 

Contact: Kurt Yeager, 

Exec. Officer 

The EPRI was founded in 1972 and serves all sectors of the electric utility 

industry. The EPRI mission is to conduct a broad economically and 

environmentally acceptable program of research and development in 

technologies for electric power production, distribution, transmission, and 

utilization. The EPRI primary research areas are advanced power systems, 

coal combustion systems, electrical systems, energy analysis, and environment 

and energy management and utilization. The institute maintains a library and 

a database of current and completed research in the electric power industry. 

The institute also publishes a guide and a journal. 

Electric Power Supply Association 

(EPSA) 

1401 H Street NW, Suite 760 

Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: (202) 789-7200 

Fax: (202) 789-7201 

Members: 90 

Staff: 12 

The EPSA was formed by a merger of two former trade associations: the 

Electric Generating Association and the National Independent Energy 

Producers (NIEP). (The Electric Generation Association was formed by the 

merger of the Independent Power Producers Working Group and the 

Sector Notebook Project 140 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

Cogeneration and Independent Power Coalition of America.) The EPSA 

mission is to advance the interests of its members: competitive generators, 

power marketers, and other suppliers. The EPSA advocates domestic and 

international policies that will result in a fully competitive electric power 

supply marketplace. The EPSA supports the development of a market in 

which existing commitments, such as independent power contracts, are 

honored and in which all customers have a choice of electric suppliers by a 

certain date. 

National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association (NRECA) 

4301 Wilson Boulevard 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Phone: (703) 907-5500 

Fax: (703) 907-5521 

Website: http://www.nreca.org/ 

Members: 1000 

Staff: 600 

Contact: Glenn English 

The NRECA, founded in 1942, represents rural electric cooperatives, public 

power districts, and public utility districts in 46 States. The NRECA is an 

advocate for energy and operational issues, as well as rural electric 

development. The association maintains a library of 20,000 volumes, holds 

professional conferences, and publishes a magazine and newsletter. Other 

activities include legislative representation; energy, regulatory, and legal 

expertise; industry public relations; management institutes; training and energy 

researchand development consulting services; insurance and safetyprograms; 

wage and salary surveys; and an international program. 

North American Electric Reliability 

Council (NERC) 

Princeton Forrestal Village 

116-390 Village Boulevard 

Princeton, NJ 08540-5731 

Phone: (609) 452-9550 

Fax:(609) 452-7669 

Website: http://www.nerc.com/ 

Members: 9 Regional 

Councils 

Contact: Michehl R. Gent 

The NERC is a nonprofit company owned by nine regional councils. The 

members of the regional councils and one affiliate are individual utilities 

representing all ownership categories of the electric utility industry, including 

investor-owned, municipal, rural electric cooperatives, Federal, independent 

power producers, power marketers, and power brokers. The principal 

purpose of NERC is to coordinate, promote, and communicate the reliability 

of North American electric utilities. The organization annually reviews the 

reliability and adequacy of the bulk electricity systems in North America and 

maintains several databases. In addition, the organization facilitates 

Sector Notebook Project 141 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section VIII. Compliance Activities and Initiatives 

development of reliability-related planning and operating criteria and 

standards, and publishes reports and reference documents. 

Utility Air Regulatory Group 

(UARG) 

c\o Hunton & Williams 

1900 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Phone: (202) 955-1500 

Fax: (202) 778-2201 

Members: 74 

The UARG is a voluntary, nonprofit, unincorporated, ad hoc group of 74 

electric utilities, the EEI, the NRECA, and the APPA. The UARG’s purpose 

is to participate on behalf of its members collectively in Federal air pollution 

control regulatory activities and in related litigation. 

Utility Solid Waste Activities 

Group (USWAG) 

c\o EEI 

701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Phone: (202) 508-5645 

Fax: (202) 508-5150 

Members: 83 

Contact: Jim Roewer 

The USWAG is an informal consortium of the EEI, the APPA, the NRECA 

and approximately 80 electric utility companies. Together, USWAG members 

represent more than 85 percent of the total electric generating capacity of the 

United States and service more than 95 percent of the Nation’s consumers of 

electricity. The mission of USWAG is to help member companies manage all 

utility wastes and byproducts in a manner that is protective of human health 

and the environment and is of reasonable cost. 

Utility Water Act Group 

(UWAG) 

c\o Hunton & Williams 

1900 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Phone: (202) 955-1500 

Fax: (202) 778-2201 

Members: 78 

Contact: John (Jack) F. Mackenzie, 

Chair 

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 

Phone: (415) 973-6901 

Fax: (415) 973-9201 

The UWAG is an association of 75 individual utilities and three national trade 

associations of electric utilities--the EEI, the NRECA, and the APPA. The 

UWAG purpose is to participate on behalf of its members in EPA’s 

rulemakings under the CWA and in litigation arising from those rulemakings. 

Sector Notebook Project 142 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IX. Contacts/Acknowledgments/Resources 

IX. CONTACTS/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/RESOURCE MATERIALS 

For further information on selected topics within the fossil fuel electric power generation industry a 

list of contacts and publications are provided below. 

Contacts 

Name Organization Telephone Subject 

Rafael Sanchez EPA/OECA/METD (202) 564-7028 Compliance assistance 

Chris Oh EPA/OECA/METD (202) 564-7004 Compliance assistance 

Joe Daly EPA/OST/EAD (202) 260-7186 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines 

Acknowledgments 

The contacts listed below have provided valuable background information and comments during the

development of this document. EPA appreciates this support and acknowledges that the individuals

listed do not necessarily endorse all statements made within this sector notebook.

Joseph Daly - EPA/Office of Water (EPA/OW)

Rafael Sanchez - EPA/Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (EPA/OECA)

Bill Maxwell - EPA/Office of Air Quality Standards and Planning (EPA/OAQSP)

Samuel S. Tyson - American Coal Ash Association (ACAA)

Bill Wemhoff - American Public Power Association (APPA)

Kara M. Downey - Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.(AEPC)

Ruth M. Bennett - Association of Energy Engineers (AEE)

Alice Meyer - Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

Richard W. Sternberg - National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

Anthony Riai - EPA/Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (EPA/OECA)

General Profile 

1995 Capacity and Generation of Non-Utility Sources of Energy. Prepared by the Edison Electric 

Institute, Washington, D.C. November 1996. 

Annual Energy Outlook 1997 - With Projections to 2015. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0383(97). 

Directory of U.S. Cogeneration, Small Power, and Industrial Power Plants. Giles, Ellen, and Fred 

Yost. Twelfth Edition. Utility Data Institute, A Division of McGraw-Hill Company. June 1985. 

UDI-2018-95. 

Electric Power Annual, 1995, Volume 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, D.C. July 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95/1). 

Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/2. 

Sector Notebook Project 143 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IX. Contacts/Acknowledgments/Resources 

Federal Technology Alert. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. May 1997. 

Financial Statistics of Major U.S. Publicly-Owned Electric Utilities - 1994. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1995. DOE/EIA0437/(94)/2. 

Financial Statistics of Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities - 1995. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA0437/(95)/1. 

Inventory of Power Plants in the United States, As of January 1, 1996. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0095(95). 

The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry: An Update. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0562(96). 

The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry, 1970-1991. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. March 1993. DOE/EIA-0562. 

Process Descriptions and Chemical Use Profiles 

Clean Power From Fossil Fuels. Energy and the Environment, the Linacre Lectures 1991-1992. 

Chester, Peter. Bryan Cartledge, ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1993. 

Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment 

Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 1982. EPA 440/1-82/029. 

EIA Guidelines for New Source Fossil Fueled Steam Electric Generating Stations. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities by SAIC, Falls Church. VA, 1994. 

Electric Power Annual 1995. Energy Information Administration. U.S. DOE Office of Coal, 

Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, Washington, D.C. 1996. 

Energy, Electric Power and Man. Healy, Timothy J. Boyd & Fraser Co. San Francisco, CA. 1974. 

Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C., ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New 

York, NY. 1989. 

Steam and its Generation and Use, 40th edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock & Wilcox, 

Barbeton, OH. 1992. 

Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - Interim 

Final Report, Volume 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning & 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1996. EPA-453/R-96-013a. 

Sector Notebook Project 144 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IX. Contacts/Acknowledgments/Resources 

Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Remediation, Washington, D.C. 1988. 

EPA 530-SW-88-002. 

Regulatory Profile 

Development Document For Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Pretreatment 

Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, D.C. November, 1982. 

EIA Guidelines for New Source Fossil Fueled Steam Electric Generating Stations. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities by SAIC, Falls Church, VA, 1994. 

Electricity Generation and Environmental Externalities: Case Studies. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C.. September 1995. DOE/FE-0598 

Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C., ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New 

York, NY. 1989. 

Steam and its Generation and Use, 40th edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock & Wilcox, 

Barbeton, OH. 1992. 

Pollution Prevention 

Case Summaries of Waste Reduction by Industries in the Southeast. Gary Hunt, et al., eds. North 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. July 1989. 

Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program, Program Update 1995. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C. April 1996. DOE/FE-0346. 

Coal Combustion Product Production and Use: 1966-1994, Report for Coal Burning Electric 

Utilities in the United States. American Coal Ash Association, Inc. Alexandria, VA. May 1996. 

Enviro$ense, Fact Sheet: Pollution Prevention: Strategies for Fossil Fuel Electric Power 

Generation. Center for Hazardous Material Research (CHMR). Pittsburg, PA. Online, Available: 

http://es.inel.gov.com. Last updated January 9, 1996. 

Enviro$ense, Cogeneration of Steam and Electric Power: Pollution Prevention Opportunities and 

Options, Report 49-1, September 1994, Prepared by: Commonwealth of Virginia Department of 

Environmental, Quality Office of Pollution Prevention. Richmond, VA. Online, Available: 

http://es.inel.gov.com, Last updated January 29, 1996. 

Enviro$en$e, Pollution Prevention Opportunities in Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation. October 

1990. Online, Available: http://es.inel.gov.techinfo/facts/epa/fosilful.html. 

Fact Sheet: Eliminating Hexavalent Chromium from Cooling Towers. City of Los Angeles, Board 

of Public Works, Hazardous and Toxic Materials Office. Undated. 

Sector Notebook Project 145 September 1997 
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Section IX. Contacts/Acknowledgments/Resources 

Fact Sheet: Water and Chemicals Reduction for Cooling Towers. North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Pollution Prevention Program. May 1987. 

Industrial Pollution Prevention Handbook. Harry M. Freeman, ed. McGraw-Hill Inc. 1995. 

Pollution Prevention/Environmental Impact Reduction Checklist for Coal-Fired Power Plants. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C. Undated. Online, 

Available: http://es.enel.gov./oeca/ofa/pollprev/coal.html. 

Preamble to NPDES Storm Water Multi-sector General Permit for Industrial Activities (60 FR 

50974, Friday, September 29, 1995). 

Summary of Results from Programs Conducted by the Office Of Industrial Technologies. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Industrial 

Technologies, Washington, D.C. October 1995. 

U.S. Electric Utility Demand-Side Management 1994. Energy Information Administration. Office 

of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. 

December 1995. DOE/EIA-0589(94). 

Sector Notebook Project 146 September 1997 
147 

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Endnotes 

ENDNOTES

1. Inventory of Power Plants in the United States, As of January 1, 1996. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA0095(95). 

2. 1995 Capacity and Generation of Non-Utility Sources of Energy. Prepared by the Edison 

Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. November 1996. 

3. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0384(95)/2. 

4. Inventory of Power Plants in the United States, As of January 1, 1996. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA0095(95). 

5. 1995 Capacity and Generation of Nonutility Sources of Energy. Edison Electric Institute, 

Washington, D.C. November 1996. 

6. 1995 Capacity and Generation of Nonutility Sources of Energy. Edison Electric Institute, 

Washington, D.C. November 1996. 

7. 1995 Capacity and Generation of Nonutility Sources of Energy. Edison Electric Institute, 

Washington, D.C. November 1996. 

8. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0384(95)/2. 

9. The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry: An Update. U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0562(96). 

10. The Changing Structure of the Electric Power Industry: An Update. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA0562(96). 

11. Annual Energy Outlook 1997 - With Projections to 2015. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0383(97). 

12. Annual Energy Outlook 1997 - With Projections to 2015. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0383(97). 

13. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume I. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, D.C. July 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1. 

14. Energy, Electric Power and Man. Healy, Timothy. J. Boyd & Fraser Co., San Francisco, CA. 

1974. 

Sector Notebook Project 147 September 1997 
148 

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Endnotes 

15. Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C. Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

New York, NY. 1989. 

16. Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C. Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

New York, NY. 1989. 

17. Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C. Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

New York, NY. 1989. 

18. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volumes I and II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Washington, D.C. July and December 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1&2. 

19. Energy, Electric Power and Man. Healy, Timothy. J. Boyd & Fraser Co., San Francisco, CA. 

1974, and Electric Power Annual 1995, Volumes I and II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Washington, D.C. July and December 1996. 

20. Energy, Electric Power and Man. Healy, Timothy. J. Boyd & Fraser Co., San Francisco, CA. 

1974, and Electric Power Annual 1995, Volumes I and II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Washington, D.C. July and December 1996. 

21. Clean Power From Fossil Fuels. Chester, Peter, and Bryan Carteledge, eds. Linacre Lectures 

1991-1992. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1974. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1&2. 

22. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volumes I and II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Washington, D.C. July and December 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1&2. 

23. Steam, Its Generation and Use, 40th Edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock & Wilcox, 

Barbeton, OH. 1992. 

24. Steam, Its Generation and Use, 40th Edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock & Wilcox, 

Barbeton, OH. 1992. 

25. Standard Handbook of Power Plant Engineering. Elliot, Thomas C. Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

New York, NY. 1989. 

26. Steam, Its Generation and Use, 40th Edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock & Wilcox, 

Barbeton, OH. 1992. 

27. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volumes I and II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Washington, D.C. July and December 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1&2. 

28. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volumes I and II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Washington, D.C. July and December 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1&2. 

29. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volumes I and II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration. Washington, D.C. July and December 1996. DOE/EIA-0348(95)/1&2. 

Sector Notebook Project 148 September 1997 
149 

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Endnotes 

30. Steam, Its Generation and Use, 40th Edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock & Wilcox, 

Barbeton, OH. 1992. 

31. Steam, Its Generation and Use, 40th Edition. Stultz and Kitto, eds. Babcock & Wilcox, 

Barbeton, OH. 1992 

32. Power Statistics Database (1994 Data). Edison Electric Institute. Prepared by the Utility Data 

Institute, McGraw-Hill, Inc. Washington, D.C. 1995. 

33. Personal communication with Joe Daly, EPA Office of Science and Technology, Engineering 

and Analysis Division. March 14, 1997. 

34. Electric Power Annual 1995, Volume II. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration, Washington, D.C. December 1996. DOE/EIA-0384(95)/2. 

35. Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units --

Interim Final Report. U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. October 1996. EPA-453/R-96-013a. 

36. Enviro$ense, Cogeneration of Steam and Electric Power: Pollution Prevention Opportunities 

and Options, Report 49-1. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality 

Office of Pollution and Prevention. September 1994. Online, Available: http://es.enel.gov.com. Last 

updated January 29, 1996. 

37. Case Summaries of Waste Reduction by Industries in the Southeast. Gary M. Hunt et. al., eds. 

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. July 1989. 

38. Summary of Results from Programs Conducted by the Office Of Industrial Technologies. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Industrial 

Technologies. October 1995. 

39. Federal Technology Alert. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. May 1997. 

40. Federal Technology Alert. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. May 1997. 

41. IndustrialPollution Prevention Handbook. Freeman, Harry M. Ed. McGraw Hill Inc. 1995. 

42. Pollution Prevention/Environmental Impact Reduction Checklist for Coal-Fired Power Plants. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities. Undated. Online, Available: 

pollprev/coal.html. 

43. Personal Communication. Leonard Swann, Specialty Products Inc. Distributor for Armex 

Accustrip systems. March 7, 1997. 

44. Industrial Pollution Prevention Handbook. Freeman, Harry M. Ed. McGraw Hill Inc. 1995. 

45. "Boiler Chemical Cleaning Waste Can Make Money." Electric Co-op Today. May 2, 1997. 

Sector Notebook Project 149 September 1997 
150 

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Endnotes 

46. Coal Combustion Product Production and Use: 1966-1994, Report for Coal Burning Electric 

Utilities in the United States. American Coal Ash Association, Inc. Alexandria, VA. May 1996. 

47. U.S. Electric Utility Demand-Side Management 1994. Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and 

Alternate Fuels. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Washington, 

D.C. December 1995. DOE/EIA-0589(94). 

Sector Notebook Project 150 September 1997