p. 1 

# PICK-UPDATE : 3/15/200 7 BO X O F 

# ^D Ste p 2 : FOR ASR C INTERNA LUS E ONL Y 

### (PARTB o

fB )



# EP ADOCKE TID : 102RQ-R N 1 ) 102RQ-RN-5-1 6 3 ) 102RQ-RN-5-1 8 5 ) 102RQ-RN-5-2 0 7 ) 102RQ-RN-5-2 2 9 ) 102RQ-RN-5-2 4 11 ) 102RQ-RN-5-2 6 13) 102RQ-RN-5-2 8 15 ) (f02RQ-RN-5-33^ > 17) 102RQ-RN-6- 1 19 ) 102RQ-RN-6- 3 21 ) 102RQ-RN-6- 5 23 ) 102RQ-RN-6- 7 25 ) 102RQ-RN-6- 9 27 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 1 29 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 3 31 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 5 33 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 7 35 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 9 37 ) 102RQ-RN-6-2 1 39 ) 102RQ-RN-6-2 3 Ste p 3 : FOR ASR C INTERNA LUS E ONL Y CD : OA : / 

# 2 ) 102RQ-RN-5-1 7 4 ) 102RQ-RN-5-1 9 6 ) 102RQ-RN-5-2 1 8 ) 102RQ-RN-5-2 3 10) 102RQ-RN-5-2 5 12 ) 102RQ-RN-5-2 7 14) 102RQ-RN-5-2 9 16) 102RQ-RN-5-3 2 18) 102RQ-RN-6- 2 20 ) 102RQ-RN-6- 4 22 ) 102RQ-RN-6- 6 24 ) 102RQ-RN-6- 8 26 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 0 28 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 2 30 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 4 32 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 6 34 ) 102RQ-RN-6-1 8 36 ) 102RQ-RN-6-2 0 38 ) 102RQ-RN-6-2 2 40 ) 102RQ-RN-6-2 4

Ste p 1 : FO R ASR

C INTERNA LUS E ONL Y Ar e ther e more documents fo rthi s Docke t i n anothe rbox ? *YE S /'N O J *Fil l ou t Continuatio n Shee t an d go t o Ste p 2 v.— ' Interna l SFUN D Bo

xNumbe r_3 6 O F _28 3 Initials/Date : LD S / 3-15-200 7

# vvEP A I0d*-£&'KA/-S'3d'
Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o fSoli d Wast e an d Emergenc yRespons e Washington , D C 2046 0 EPA/530-SW-88-00 2 Februar y198 8

Soli d Wast

e 

# Report t o Congres s Waste s fro m th e Combustio n o fCoa l b yElectri c Utilit

y Powe rPlant

sP. 3

TABL E O F CONTENT S

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES- 1 I . INTRODUCTION1- 1 1. 1 Legislativ e History1- 1 1. 2 Scop e an

d Source s 1- 7 1. 3 Organizatio n 1- 9 II . OVERVIE WO F TH E ELECTRI C UTILIT Y INDUSTRY 2- 1 2. 1 Th e Demand fo r Electricit y2- 1 2.1. 1 Structur e o f the U.S . Electri c

Utilit yIndustry2- 7 2.1. 2 Economi c and Environmenta l Regulatio n

o f the Electri c Utilit yIndustry2-1 1 2. 2 Importanc e o f Coa l t o Electri c Utilitie s 2-1 4 2. 3 Overvie wo f Coal-Fire d Powe r Plant s 2-1 8 2.3. 1 Regiona l Characteristic s o f Coal-Fire d

Electri c Generatin g Plant s 2-1 8 2.3. 2 Electricit yGenerating Technologie s 2-2 1 2. 4 Coa l Constituent s and By-Product s 2-2 9 III . WASTE S GENERATE D FROMCOAL-FIRE D ELECTRI C UTILIT Y POWE R PLANT S 3- 1 3. 1 Overvie wo f Electri c Utilit yWaste s . 3- 1 3. 2 High-Volum e Waste s 3- 3 3.2. 1 As h3- 3 3.2. 2 FGD Sludg e 3-2 1 3. 3 Low-Volume Waste s 3-4 1 3.3. 1 Boile r Blowdown 3-4 3 3.3. 2 Coa l Pil e Runof f 3-4 5 3.3. 3 Coolin g Towe r Blowdown
. . 3-4 7 3.3. 4 Demineralize r Regeneran t and Rinse s 3-5 0 3.3. 5 Meta l and Boile r Cleanin g Waste s 3-5 2 3.3. 6 Pyrite s 3-5 7 3.3. 7 Sum

p Effluent s 3-6 0 3. 4 Summary3-6 2 IV . COAL COMBUSTIONWAST E MANAGEMENT PRACTICE S 4- 1 4. 1 Stat e Regulatio n o f Coa l Combustio n Wast e Disposa l 4- 1 4.1. 1 Stat e Classificatio n o f Coa l Combustio n

Waste s 4- 2P. 4



### -2 -

TABL E O F CONTENT S (cont'd )

Pag e 4.1. 2 Requirement s fo r Coa l Combustio n Wast e

Disposa l 4- 6 4.1. 3 Summary4- 9 4. 2 Availabl e Wast e Managemen t Method s and Curren t Practice s 4-1 0 4.2. 1 Land Managemen t o f Coa l Combustio n Waste s 4-1 0 4.2. 2 Alternativ e Wast e Managemen t Technologie s 4-2 4 4.2. 3 Ocea n Disposa l 4-4 4 4.2. 4 Wast e Utilizatio n and Recover yo f

Variou s Wast e By-Product s 4-4 5 4. 3 Summary4-5 3 V . POTENTIAL DANGER S T O HUMA NHEALT H AND TH E ENVIRONMENT 5- 1 5. 1 RCR

ASubtitl e C Hazardou s Wast e Characteristic s and Listin g Criteri a 5- 2 5.1. 1 Corrosivit yo f Coa l Combustio n Waste s 5- 4 5.1. 2 Extractio n Procedur e Toxicit yo f Coa l

Combustio n Waste s . 5- 5 5. 2 Effectivenes s o f Wast e Containmen t a t Utilit y Disposa l Site s 5-2 8 5.2. 1 AD L Stud

yo f Wast e Disposa l a t Coal-Fire d Powe r Plant s 5-2 9 5.2. 2 Frankli n Associate s Surve yo f Stat e

Ground-Wate r Dat a 5-4 4 5.2. 3 Envirospher e Ground-Wate r Surve y5-4 8 5.2. 4 Summary5-5 2 5. 3 Evidenc e o f Damag e 5-5 3 5.3. 1 Envirospher e Cas e Stud yAnalysi s 5-5 4 5.3. 2 Dame s & Moor e Stud yo f Environmenta l Impact s 5-5 6 5.3. 3 Cas e Studie s o f th e Environmenta l

Impac t o f Coa l Combustio n By-Produc t Wast e Disposa l 5-6 3 5.3. 4 Summary5-6 7 5. 4 Factor s Affectin g Exposur e and Ris k a t Coa l Combustio n Wast e Site s 5-6 8 5.4. 1 Environmenta l Characteristic s o f

Coa l Combustio n Wast e Site s 5-6 9 5.4. 2 Populatio n Characteristic s o f Coa l

Combustio n Wast e Disposa l Site s 5-8 3 5.4. 3 Ecologi c Characteristic s o f Coa l

Combustio n Wast e Disposa l Site s 5-8 9 5.4. 4 Multivariat e Analysi s 5-9 3 5. 5 Summary5-9 5P. 5



### •3 -

TABL E O F CONTENT S (cont'd )
Page VI . ECONOMI C COST S AND IMPACT S 6- 1 6. 1 Wast e Disposa l Cost s Associate d Wit h Curren t Disposa l Method s 6- 2 6.1. 1 Cost s o f Wast e Placemen t an d Disposa l 6- 5 6.1. 2 Cost s Associate d wit hLine d

Disposa l Facilitie s 6-1 1 6. 2 Cost s o f Alternative Disposa l Option s 6-1 2 6.2. 1 Regulator

y Alternative s Unde r Subtitl e C 6-1 3 6.2. 2 Cos t Estimate s fo r Individua l RCR A Subtitl e C Disposa l Standard s 6-1 7 6.2. 3 Potentia l Cost s t o the Industryo f RCR A Subtitl e C Wast e Managemen t 6-3 0 6. 3 Impac t o f Regulator yAlternative s o n Utilizatio n o f Coa l Combustio n Waste s .. . 6-3 3 6. 4 Economi c Impact s o f Alternativ e Wast e Disposa l Option s 6-3 7 6. 5 Summary6-4 3 VII . CONCLUSION S AND RECOMMENDATION S 7- 1 7. 1 Scop e o f Repor t 7- 1 7. 2 Summaryo f Repor t 7- 2 7.2. 1 Locatio n and Characteristic s o f Coal

Fire d Powe r Plant s 7- 2 7.2. 2 Wast e Quantitie s and Characteristic s 7- 3 7.2. 3 Wast e Managemen t Practice s 7- 5 7.2. 4 Potentia l Hazardou s Characteristic s 7- 6 7.2. 5 Evidenc e o f Environmenta l Transpor t

o f Potentiall yHazardou s Constituent s 7- 7 7.2. 6 Evidenc e o f Damag e 7- 9 7.2. 7 Potentia l Cost s o f Regulatio n 7- 9 7. 3 Recommendation s 7-1 1TABL E O F CONTENT S (cont'd ) P. 6

Page Bibliograph

y Glossary Appendi xA :

Appendi xB : Appendi xC : Appendi xD : Lette r fromGaryN . Dietrich , EPA , t o Pau l Emler , Jr. ,

USWAG , January13 , 198 1 and Memorandu mfromEPA Headquarter s t

o EP ARegiona l Directors , February 18 , 198 1 MethodologyFo r Estimatin g Volum e o f As hand FGD Sludg e Generatio n Regulatio n o f Coa l Combustio n Wast e Disposa l I n Seventee n Hig hCoal-Burnin g State s Wast e Flui d Studie s A- 1

B- l

C- l D- 1 Appendi xE : Appendi xF : Appendi xG : Arthu r D . Littl e Stud yo f Wast e Disposa l A t Coal-Fire d Powe r Plant s E- 1 Dat a O n Sampl e o f Coal-Fire d Combustio n Wast e Disposa l Site s F- l MethodologyFo r Calculatin g Th e Cos t o f Alternativ e Wast e Managemen t Practice s G- 1

2923 CP. 7

2-2 2

EXHIBI T 2-1 0 RANGE O F COAL-FIREDPOWE RPLANT SIZE S (number o f plants )

Powe r Plan t Siz e EP ARegio n 

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 U.S . Tota l <10 0 

### M W 

### 1 6 6 1 5 6 3 1 0 2 5 1 8 

### 5 2 

### 15 1 101-50 0



### M W 

### 4 6 2 3 3 1 5 1 

### 4 2 4 1 4 

### 2 0 

### 15 9 501-100 0



### M W 

### 0 5 1 1 1 7 2 3 1 0 

### 8 1 0 

### 4 1 

### 8 9 1001-200 0



### M W 

### 1 0 1 4 2 3 2 9 1 2 

### 7 4 1



## _ i 9 2 >200 0



### M W 

### 0 0 3 7 5 3 2 2 1 0 

### 2 3 Tota l



### 6 1 7 5 7 9 3 

### 17 1 3 9 6 6 4 8 1 3 4 

### 51 4

Source : Utilit yDat a Institut e Powe r Statistic s Database
.P. 8

4-1 0

4. 2 AVAILABL E WAST E MANAGEMEN T METHOD S AN

DCURRENT PRACTICE S

Ther e ar e a variet yo f method s availabl e fo r managin g coa l combustio n wastes . Waste s ma yb e land manage d i n impoundments , landfills , mines , and quarrie s o r mayb e reuse d fo r variou s purposes / Thi s sectio n describe s type s
o f land managemen t o f coa l combustio n waste s and thei r prevalenc e withi n th e te n EPA-designate d region s o f th e Unite d States . Th e second par t o f th e sectio n review s availabl e wast e managemen t technologyalternative s (suc ha s lining , leachat e collection , and pre-disposa l treatment) , and explore s ho w thes e differen t technologie s ar e currentl yuse d i n differen t part s o f th e U.S . an d ho wthes e technologie s hav e change d ove r time
. Th e thir d par t o f thi s sectio n describe s the potentia l fo r ocea n disposa l t o b e use d t o manag e coa l combustio n wastes . Th e fina l sectio n describe s coa l combustio n wast e recycling
. Th e wast e managemen t method s discusse d i n thi s sectio n appl yt o high-volum e and low-volume utilit ywast e stream s sinc e thes e waste s ar e ofte n co-dispose d i n th e same facility
.

4.2. 1 Ijan

dManageoen t o f Coa l CombustionWaste s

8 0 percen t o f coa l combustio n wast e i s treated , stored , and/o r dispose d b y
mean s o f land management , wit hth e remainin g 2 0 percen t recycle d (se e Sectio n 4.2.4) . Thi s sectio n describe s thre e commo n method s o f land managemen t currentl yuse d fo r coa l combustio n wastes . I t als o present s dat a o n us e o f thes e managemen t method s geographicall yand ho wlan d managemen t practice s hav e change d ove r time
.P. 9



### 4-1 1

4.2.1. 1 Type s o f Coa l CombustionWast e LandManagemen t

Thre e type s o f utilit ywast e lan d managemen t facilitie s ar e commonl yuse d today: '

* Surfac e Impoundment s • - ofte n calle d we t ponds , i n

whic hcoa l combustio n waste s ar e dispose d a s a slurryo r sludge , allowing solid s t o settl e and accumulat e a t th e botto mo f th e pond
.
* Landfill s - - facilitie s use d fo r disposing o f dry o r dewatere d coa l combustio n wastes ; landfill s ar e typicall ymanage d lik e a n earth-movin g operatio n i n whic hthe waste s ar e dispose d i n the excavate d area .
* Mine s an

dQuarrie s - - abandone d pit s i n whic hwe t o r drywaste s ar e disposed
.

Surfac e Impoundment s

Surfac e impoundment s ar e use d t o treat , store , and dispos e o f coa l combustio n wastes . Slurrie d coa l as hand othe r waste s ar e introduce d int o the impoundment ; th e solid s settl e ou t and graduall yaccumulat e a t the botto mo f th e pond , leaving relativel yclea r wate r a t the surface , whic hi s ofte n discharge d t o surfac e water . Byusin g thi s method , certai n type s o f wast e treatment , suc ha s neutralizatio n o f acids , ca n b e accomplishe d concurrentl y wit hdisposal
. Exhibi t 4- 2 illustrate s the differen t stage s i n the lif e o f a typica l impoundment
.
Historically , we t pondin g ha s bee n on e o f the mos t widel yuse d disposa l method s fo r coa l as hand FGD waste s becaus e i t i s simpl e and easil y implemented
. I n 1983 , abou t 8 0 percen t o f th e wast e managemen t facilitie s use dP.1 0


### 4-1 2

EXHIBI T4- 2 TYPICA L SURFAC E IMPOUNDMEN T(POND ) STAGE S

SLURRIE D COA L WAST E 

# !*±k ACTIV E PON D EFFLUEN T



## JfcaiLkt i CLOSE D STORAG E PON D

(wit h waste s removed ) 

## !.__.__•* . g__,_._<_tf__

_ CLOSE D DISPOSA L PON D (wit h waste s remaining ) 

## \i i

*.^^ ; __^:>^Y, ? .__?, >P.1 1

4-1 3

byutilitie s employe d some typ e o f sedimentatio n treatmen t pond ; mos t o f thes e treatmen t pond s wer e use d directl ya s fina l disposa l impoundment s (abou t 4 5 percen t o f al l facilities ; se e sectio n 4.2.1.2) . Th e remainde r o f the impoundment s wer e use d onl yfo r treatmen t and temporarystorag e o f waste , i n par t t o compl ywit hthe Nationa l Pollutan t Discharg e Eliminatio n System establishe d i n Sectio n 40 2 o f th e Clea n Wate r Act . I n recen t years , some stat e and loca l regulation s concerning we t pond s hav e becom e mor e restrictive , requirin g liner s and ground-wate r monitorin g a t thes e facilities
. Thes e type s
o f restriction s wil l ten d t o increas e we t pondin g costs , makin g i t les s attractiv e a s a disposa l option
.

Utilitie s ma yus e a singl e pond o r a serie s o f pond s t o facilitat e the settling o f solids
. Chemical s o r differen t waste s ca n b e adde d a t differen t point s i n the pondin g systemt o produc e desire d chemica l reactions , suc ha s metal s precipitatio n o r neutralization
. Fl yash , botto mash , and FGD waste s
ar e usuall ysluice d wit hwate r t o the impoundments
. Th e as hsolid s mayb e allowe d t o accumulat e i n a pond unti l i t i s full , o r the pond mayb e draine d
and th e solid s dredge d periodicall yand take n t o a n alternativ e disposa l site , suc ha s a landfill
.

Pond design s var ywidel ydepending upo n loca l sit e conditions , the regulation s tha t gover n desig n o f th e impoundment , and whethe r botto mash , fl yash , FGD wastes , o r a combinatio n o f waste s ar e t o b e dispose d and/o r treate d i n the ponds
. Becaus e utilit ywaste s ar e generate d i n larg e volumes , a pond' s tota l surfac e are a maycove r u p t o severa l hundre d acres , an d the initia l dept ho f a pond mayb e anywher e betwee n 1 0 and 10 0 feet
. Th e tota lP.1 2

4-1 4

volum e o f a n impoundmen t systemdepend s o n severa l factors , including th e tota l quantit yo f as ht o b e dispose d (bot hdryand slurrie d volumes) , the liqui d and soli d retentio n times , the typ e and degre e o f treatmen t performed , and th e desire d qualit yo f th e discharg e o r effluent
. Th e numbe r o f pond s i n a system
and th e specifi c use s t o whic heac hi s pu t ca n als o influenc e th e tota l volum e require d fo r we t ponding
.

Landfill s

Landfill s ar e use d t o dispos e o f coa l combustio n waste s suc ha s fl yash , botto mash , and FGD sludge s whe n theyar e produce d o r afte r theyar e dredge d fromsurfac e impoundment s tha t ar e use d a s interi mtreatmen t facilities
. Th e . typica l desig n o f a landfil l durin g it s activ e stag e and afte r closur e i s depicte d i n Exhibi t 4-3 .

Landfill s ar e constructe d i n a somewha t simila r fashio n t o surfac e impoundments
. Excavatio n i s require d i hbot hcases , bu t mayb e ongoing throughou t a landfill' s activ e lif e becaus e mos t larg e landfill s ar e divide d int o sections , o r cells , o f whic honl yon e o r two mayb e activ e a t an ygive n time
. Alandfil l cel l i s define d a s th e are a (u p t o severa l hundre d squar e feet ) ove r whic hwast e i s place d t o a dept hrangin g fromon e t o te n fee t (industrypractic e refer s t o eac hlaye r o f cell s a s a lift)
. Severa l lift s may b e stacke d atop on e anothe r i n the landfill
. Acel l mayb e ope n fo r period s rangin g froma dayt o a fe wweeks , afte r whic hi t i s usuall ycovere d wit hsi x inche s t o severa l fee t o f soil
. Th e wast e and soil s ar e ofte n sprinkle d wit h wate r throughou t the fil l operatio n t o mitigat e potentia l dus t problems
.P.1 3

4-1 5



### EXHIBI T4- 3 DIAGRAM S O F ACTIV E AN D CLOSE D LANDFILL S

* " \ 

## ACTIVE LANDFIL L

Cell S / A;; , \ !\':'^? T 

# ^^ftr-e ^

> %%«%x»«_««%«%%»M«^r M TT^\ V

WAST E SOIL S


## CLOSE D LANDFIL LP.1 4

4-1 6

Excavatio n ma yb e initiate d i n phases ; fo r example , a s on e cel l i s filled , anothe r i s prepare d fo r wast e placement , whil e ye t anothe r i s bein g excavated
. Road s ar e buil t i n t o provid e acces s fo r waste-haulin g equipmen t a s wel l a s fo r th e earth-movin g and earth-compactin g equipmen t tha t prepare s th e wast e afte r i t ha s bee n place d i n th e landfil l cell
. Afte r a cel l i s filled , th e acces s
roa d frequentl ybecome s par t o f the containmen t systema s a wal l separating on e cel l fromth e next .

Landfillin g o f coa l as han d FGD sludge s ha s increase d ove r th e pas t fe w year s a s th e cost s o f we t pondin g hav e increase d (se e sectio n 4.2.1.2) . Mos t electri c utilitie s tha t us e landfill s currentl ydispos e thei r high-volum e waste s i n Subtitl e D (non-hazardou s waste ) landfills
. Landfill s i n complianc e wit hRCR

ASubtitl e C standard s mayb e use d occasionall yfo r disposa l o f smal l quantitie s o f hazardou s waste .

Min e an dQuarry

Disposa l

Some utilitie s us e abandone d mine s o r quarrie s a s as hand FGD sludg e disposa l sites
. Abandone d min e disposa l include s th e us e o f min e shaft s a s wel l a s strip-mine d areas . Waste s dispose d t o abandone d min e shaft s ca n b e dumpe d int o th e shaf t o r carefull yplace d withi n the min e t o fil l the area s remainin g afte r th e coa l o r othe r materia l ha s bee n removed
. Strip-mine d area s
ma yb e fille d lik e a landfill
. Regulatoryagencie s ma yconside r waste s dispose d i n thi s manne r t o pos e les s o f a threa t tha n the runof f and potentia l 1 2 contaminatio n fromth e abandone d min e itself
. I n som e cases , a chemica l reactio n betwee n th e wast e and th e min e runof f an d leachat e migh t actuall yP.1 5

4-1 7

reduc e the toxicit yo f the runof f (fo r example , a n alkalin e sludg e coul d neutraliz e aci d min e drainage)
. However , th e likelihoo d o f suc ha mitigativ e effec t i s verysite-specifi c and woul d no t necessaril yoccu r uniforml y throughou t an

ygive n min e disposa l site
.

I n a fe wcases , utilit ywastes , particularl yacidi c wastes , hav e bee n dispose d i n quarries
. Limeston e quarrie s ar e considere d th e bes t setting fo r thi s typ e o f disposa l becaus e the yprovid e a natura l aci d bufferin g capacit y
and th e capacit yfo r th e metal s presen t i n th e wast e t o b e attenuate d by 1 3 chemicall ycombinin g wit hmaterial s i n the quarry . Quarr ydisposa l o f waste s work s wel l fo r lime o r limeston e slurrywastes , whic hharde n t o forma concrete-typ e floo r a t the botto mo f th e quarry , thereb ypluggin g an

ypotentia l leakag e paths
. Th e probabilit yo f achievin g succes s wit hthi s metho d mus t b e evaluate d o n a case-by-cas e basi s prio r t o it s use .

4.2.1. 2 Prevalenc e o f Variou s LandManagemen t Method s

Us e o f th e wast e managemen t method s describe d abov e ca n var yfromplan t t o plan t and , i n some cases , among individua l generating unit s a t a singl e powe r plant
. Thi s sectio n present s informatio n o n ho wthes e utilit ywast e managemen t method s ar e employe d nationwid e and withi n EPAregions
. I t als o discusse s ho w thes e utilit ywast e managemen t method s hav e change d ove r time
. Th e emphasi s i s
o n surfac e impoundment s and landfill s becaus e thes e two wast e managemen t method s ar e the mos t commonly-use d utilit ywast e managemen t practice s i n the Unite d States .P.1 6

4-1 8

The informationpresentedi nthi s sectionwa s derivedfro m th e Ediso n Electri c Institut e Powe r Statistic s Database , currentl y maintainedb

y th e Utility Dat a Institute . Thi s databas e contain s informationo npowe r plant characteristic s for al l electri c utility generatin

g plant s i nth

e U.S . Thes e dat a include numbe r o f powe r plants , number o f generatin g unit s at eac

hpowe r plant site , typ

e o f fuel , plan t capacity , a s wel l a s othe r information . I t als o contain s informatio no nth e typ e o f wast e managemen t method s currentl y
usedb y powe r plant s throughout th e country , includin g typ e o f disposa l facility

an dwhethe r th

e waste s wer e disposedat th e powe r plan t or inoff-sit e facilities . Becaus e eachgeneratin g uni t at a powe r plan t ma y hav e it s ow

n wast e managemen t practice , th e databas e give s wast e disposa l informatio nfor al l generatin

g units .

Dat a wer e no t availabl e for al l generatin g unit s i nth

e database . When informationi s no t available , th e extent o f dat a coverage i s indicated . I n
som e instance s th

e numbe r o f generatin g unit s onwhic hno informatio nwa s availabl e wa s quit e high . Althoug hEP A recognize s th

e possibility

o f som e statistica l bia s du e to lacko f dat a o nsom e generatin

g units , thi s databas e i s th e mos t comprehensiv e sourc e availabl e o nutility

wast e managemen t practices . EP A ha s n o reaso nt o believ

e tha t suc

hbia s i s seriou s enoug hto cal l int o questionconclusion s draw ni nthi s analysis .

Exhibi t 4- 4 displays , for eacho f th e te nEP A region s o f th

e U.S . (se

e Exhibi t 2- 4 fo

r a mapo f thes e regions) , th e number o f generatin g unit s whos e wast e i s managedi nsurfac e impoundments , i nlandfills , or mines . Th e mos tP.1 7

4-1 9

EXHIBI T 4- 4 UTILITYHAST E MANAGEMEN T FACILITIE S B YEP A REGIO N (number o f generatin g units ) a /

EPAReelo nr-i 

### 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 U.S . Tota l Surfac e

Impoundment s
1 

### 0 3 3 

### 19 5 16 0 1 9 5 5 

### 9 1 1 0 48 3 Landfill s

1 0 

### 2 2 

### 10 3 5 5 

### 19 8 4 8 6 1 5 6 1 6 

### 9 57 8 Minefill s

0 

### 0 1 0 4 2 1 2 3 

### 0 2 3 3 Other /

Unknown
7 

### 1 7 

### 7 4 5 

### 13 0 1 8 3 2 2 1 

### 7 0 28 4 Tota l



### 1 8 3 9

- 14 4 

### 29 5 49 2 8 7 

### 14 9 10 9 3 4 1 1 137 8

Source : Utilit yDat a Institut e Powe r Statistic s Databas e
a / Th e dat a ar e provide d b ygeneratin g uni t becaus e eac hgenerating uni t a t a powe r plan t ma yhav e it s own managemen t facility
. Agenerating uni t typicall yrefer s t o a singl e boiler , turbine , and generato r se t a t a powe r plant
. Apowe r plan t ma yhav e mor e tha n on e generating uni t a t th e site
. Fo r th e databas e use d here , dat a wer e availabl e fo r 1,37 8 generatin g unit s locate d a t 51 4 powe r plants
.4-2 0

commo n type s o f facilitie s use d b yth e electri c utilit yindustryar e surfac e impoundment s and landfills :

* Landfill s ar e the mos t commo n typ e o f disposa l facilit y used
. O f the 1,09 4 generating unit s fo r whic hdat a wer e availabl e (fo r 28 4 units,typ e o f wast e disposa l metho d wa s unknown) , 57 8 unit s (abou t 5 3 percent ) use d landfill s fo r wast e disposal
. Landfill s ar e use d throughou t th e Unite d States , wit hthe larges t numbe r (ove r one-hal f o f al l landfills ) locate d i n the hig h coal-consuming , industrialize d area s o f th e Eas t and Midwes t (Region s 3 and 5) .
* Surfac e impoundment s ar e als o commonl yused ; approximatel y4 4 percen t o f th e generatin g unit s (48 3 ou t o f 1,094 ) use d thi s typ e o f managemen t facility
. O f th e 48 3 generatin g unit s tha t plac e waste s i n surfac e impoundments , nearl y7 5 percen t ar e locate d i n Region s 4 and 5 . (I n th e past , acces s t o abundant , inexpensiv e supplie s o f wate r i n thes e Region s ofte n mad e i t economica l t o us e thi s managemen t option. )

* Min e disposa l i s use d fo r abou t thre e percen t o f al l generatin g unit s (3 3 unit s ou t o f 1,094) . Thi s disposa l techniqu e i s use d mos t frequentl yi n the wester n U.S. , particularl yRegio n 8 . Powe r plant s i n thi s are a ar e ofte n locate d a t o r nea r the coa l min e tha t i s supplying the plant
. Sinc e th e coa l min e i s locate d nearby , disposa l o f wast e i n the min e i s ofte n economic
.
Whe n managin g coa l combustio n wastes , electri c utilitie s maytreat , store , o r dispos e o f th e waste s a t th e powe r plan t o r a t facilitie s locate d off-site
. EPAcoul d no t determin e fromthe dat a availabl e ho wfa r the waste s ar e transporte d whe n manage d off-site , althoughthe cos t o f transporting the waste s woul d ten d t o encourag e disposa l nea r the powe r plant
. Asummaryo f industrypractice s i s provide d i n Exhibi t 4-5 , whic h show s fo r eac hEPAregion , b ytyp e o f facility , whethe r the waste s ar e manage d on-sit e o r off-site
.4-2 1

EXHIBI T 4- 5 LOCATIO N O F UTILITYWAST E MANAGEMEN T FACILITIES : ON-SIT E VERSU S OFF-SIT E (number o f generatin g units) * P.1 9

S? ARegi,o

q On-Sit e Off-Sit e Unknown Tota l
Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s Other/Unknown Tota l 1 0 0 0

8 0 0

2 7 1

1 0



## _ 2 1 8

Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s Oth e r/Unknow

n Tota l

Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s 0 th e r/Unknow

n Tota l

Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s 0 th e r/Unknow

n Tota l

Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s 0 th e r/Unknow

n Tota l

Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s 0 th e r/Unknow

n Tota l 

### 0 3 0 3

2 5 6 2 

### 0 8 7



### 18 6 2 6 

### 0 21 2

14 1 4 1 

### 0 18 2

1 8 3 6 

### 0 5 4 

### 0

1 8 

### 0 1 8



### 3 3 7 

### 1 4 1



### 4 8 0 1 2



### 5 14 0 

### 6 15 1



### 0 3 6 9 0r-i



### 1 7 1 8



### 5 4 

## 7 1 6



### 5 2 1 4 5 7 1

1 4 1 7 

### 12 8 15 9



### 1 9 1 4 2 4 

### 0

2 2 

# u 3 9

3 3 

### 10 3 

### 8 14 4

19 5 5 5 4 5 

### 29 5

16 0 19 8 13 4 49 2

1 9 4 8 2 0 8 74-2 2

EXHIBI T 4- 5 (continued ) LOCATIO N O F UTILIT YWAST E MANAGEMEN T FACILITIES : ON-SIT E VERSU S OFF-SIT E (number o f generating units) * P.2 0

EPARee l o n 7 Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s Other/Unknown Tota l
8 Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s 0 the r/Unknow

n Tota l
9 Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s Other/Unknown Tota l


### 1 0 Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s Other/Unknown Tota l

Tota l U.S . Surfac e Impoundment s Landfill s 0 the r/Unknow

n Tota l On-Sit e


### 4 2 2 0 

### 7 6 9



### 6 2 8 

### 2 3 6



### 9 1 6 

### 0 2 5



### 0 5 0 5

42 8 23 7 

### 9 67 4 Off-Sit e



### 0 2 6 

### 1 2 7



### 2 1 1 

### 2 3 3 6



### 2 0 0 2

0 4 2 6

1 6 

### 25 5 3 9 

### 31 0 Unknown



### 1 3 1 5 2 5 5 3



### 1 1 7 1 9 3 7



### 0 0 

### 7 7

0 0 0 0

3 9 8 6 

### 26 9 39 4 Tota l



### 5 5 6 1 _ 3 3 

### 14 9



### 9 5 6 4 4 

### 10 9

1 1 1 6 

### 7 3 4



### 0 9 2 1 1



### 48 3 57 8 31 7 137 8

Th e dat a ar e provide d bygeneratin g uni t becaus e eac hgenerating uni t a t a powe r plan t ma yhav e it s own managemen t facility
. Agenerating uni t typicall yrefer s t o a singl e boiler , turbine , and generato r se t a t a powe r plant
. Apowe r plan t mayhav e mor e tha n on e generating uni t a t the site
. Fo r th e databas e use d here , dat a wer e availabl e fo r 1,37 8 generatin g unit s locate d a t 51 4 powe r plants
.P.2 1

4-2 3

Nearl y7 0 percen t o f al l generatin g unit s i n the U.S . manag e thei r coa l combustio n waste s on-sit e (base d o n informatio n fo r 98 4 units , 67 4 unit s dispos e on-site)
. Abou t two-third s o f th e on-sit e facilitie s ar e surfac e impoundments ; mos t o f the othe r on-sit e facilitie s ar e landfills
. Landfill s ar e use d fo r abou t 9 5 percen t o f al l off-sit e disposa l i n the U.S . Thi s i s no t surprising considering tha t surfac e impoundment s ar e typicall y use d whe n waste s ar e transporte d a s a we t slurry ; the cos t o f disposa l coul d becom e prohibitiv e i f a utilit y transporte d the slurryoff-site
. Coa l combustio n wast e managemen t practice s als o diffe r byregion : I n th e Northeas t (Region s 1 and 2) , wher e fe wcoal-fire d generatin g unit s ar e located , managemen t tend s t o occu r off-sit e i n landfills
. Th e highes t percentag e o f on-sit e managemen t i s found i n th e Sout h(Regio n 4) , wher e abou t 9 5 percen t o f al l unit s manag e thei r wast e on-sit e (21 2 units , base d o n informatio n from22 4 units)
. On-sit e managemen t i s commo n becaus e utilitie s i n thi s regio n ofte n us e surfac e impoundments , whic har e typicall ylocate d a t th e powe r plant
. I n the Rockie s and norther n Grea t Plain s are a (Regio n 8) , mos t o f the off-sit e disposa l (2 3 o f 3 6 units ) occur s i n mine s tha t ar e generall yadjacen t t o the powe r plant
.
Thes e trend s i n utilit ywast e managemen t method s hav e bee n changin g i n recen t years , wit ha shif t toward s greate r us e o f disposa l i n landfill s locate d on-site
. Fo r example , fo r generatin g unit s buil t sinc e 1975 , nearl y6 5 percen t currentl ydispos e o f coa l combustio n waste s i n landfills , compare d wit hjus t ove r 5 0 percen t fo r unit s constructe d befor e 1975 . Similarly , ove r 8 0 percen t o f al l unit s buil t sinc e 197 5 us eP.2 2

4-2 4

on-sit e managemen t facilities , compare d wit hjus t unde r 6 5 percen t o f al l unit s buil t befor e 197 5 tha t manag e waste s on-site
.

4.2. 2 Alternative Wast e Managemen t Technologie s

Sectio n 4.2. 1 describe d th e type s o f land managemen t facilitie s use d byutilitie s and pattern s o f use . Thi s sectio n describe s th e additiona l technologie s tha t utilitie s mayemplo ya t th e facilitie s describe d abov e i n orde r t o reduc e potentia l environmenta l ris k associate d wit hwast e management . Fo r example , some utilitie s us e line r system s fo r impoundment s and landfills , leachat e collectio n systems , and ground-wate r monitorin g system s t o contro l and monito r wast e constituen t migration
. Pre-treatmen t technologies , byalterin g physica l and chemica l properties , ca n als o rende r waste s mor e amenabl e fo r certai n disposa l methods
. Thi s sectio n als o present s dat a o n th e prevalenc e o f thes e variou s technologies
. Th e alternativ e technologie s discusse d i n thi s section , althoughno t necessaril ythe same a s technologie s require d fo r RCR A Subtitl e C facilities , mayb e require d b ycurren t stat e regulation s (describe d i n Sectio n 4.1 ) and coul d b e mor e widel yuse d i n the futur e t o furthe r mitigat e potentia l environmenta l impact s a t utilit ywast e disposa l site s no t currentl yemploying thes e technologies
.

4.2.2. 1 Installationo f Liner s

Unti l recently , mos t surfac e impoundment s and landfill s use d fo r utilit ywast e managemen t hav e bee n simple , unline d systems . Linin g i s

### B- 6 P.2 3

EXHIBI T B - 3
TOTA L AMOU ROF
___

_GENERATE

DB YELECTBI C OIXUT T FOHE RFUR S

Stat e Maine/Veimant/Ne

w Hampshir

e Massachusetts/Connecticut/Rhod e Islan d Ne w Yor k Pennsylvani a Ne w Jerse y Maryland/Delaware/Distric t o f Colunfei a Virgini a Wes t Virgini a NorthCarolina/Sout hCarolin

a Georgi a Florid a Ohi o Michiga n Illinoi s Indian a Wisconsin Kentuck y Tennessee Alabam a Mississipp i Minnesot a NorthDakota/Sout

hDakot a Iow a Missour i Kansa s /Nebrask

a Arkansa s Oklahom a Louisian

a Texa s Montan a Wyomin g . Colorad o Ne w Mexico Uta h Arizon a Nevad a Washington/Orego

n Californi a Tota l U.S.e / 198 S Millio n —lass o s O. S 0. 8 S. O 0. 4 1. 0 0. 9 3. 2 3. 9 3. 0 2. 0 6. 0 3. 2 3. 1 4. 1 1. 4 2. 6 3. 4 1. 6 0. 5 0. 8 1. 8 1. 3 2. 7 1. 5 0. 8 0. 9 0. 6 8. 2 0. 4 1. 5 1. 3 2. 8 0. 5 1. 7 0. 8

' O. B _J> / 75. 0 Z

Ash 12. 0 12. 0 11. 2 12. 4 12. 0 9. 7 12. 0 11. 2 12. 0 11. 6 11. 8 11. 8 10. 6 9. 0 9. 8 8. 2 12. 0 11. 6 12. 6 10. 7 7. 0 9. 1 7. 4 10. 3 7. 1 6. 0 6. 0 6. 0 12. 5 6. 9 7. 8 8. 3 18. 1 8. 3 12. 6 9. 7 13. 9 8. 0 10. 5 199 0

Millio n Ton s 0. 1 0. 9 0. 9 5. 1 0. 4 0. 9 1. 0 3. 8 3. 8 3. 4 2. 5 6. 0 3. 3 2. 8 4. 6 1. 6 3. 9 3. 3 1.9 - 0. 5 0. 9 2. 1 1. 3 2. 8 1. 6 0. 7 1. 1 1. 0 10. 0 0. 6 1. 5 1. 3 2. 6 0. 9 2. 2 0. 8 0. 8 b / 83. 1 X

Ash 12. 0 12. 0 10. 5 12. 3 12. 0 10. 4 12. 0 11. 2 12. 0 11. 7 11. 8 11. 8 10. 2 8. 8 9. 9 7. 6 12. 0 11. 4 12. 5 10. 7 7. 0 9. 1 7. 5 10. 4 7. 2 6. 0 6. 0 7. 8 12. 8 6. 9 7. 8 8. 3 17. 8 8. 2 14. 1 9. 7 14. 0 8. 0 10. 5 —

198 5 t o 2000a / 199 5 Millio n Tons 0. 2 0. 9 1. 6 5. 1 0. 6 1. 2 1. 2 3. 5 4. 1 3. 8 3. 1 6. 3 3. 4 3. 1 4. 8 1. 7 4. 1 3. 0 2. 2 0. 6 1. 1 2. 1 1. 3 3. 0 1. 6 0. 8 1. 1 1. 0 15. 7 0. 6 1. 9 1. 4 2. 9 1. 3 2. 1 1. 0 1. 0 0. 1 94. 5 l

Ash 12. 0 12. 0 11. 5 12. 4 12. 0 10. 3 11. 7 11. 3 12. 0 11. 8 11. 8 11. 9 10. 3 8. 9 9. 7 7. 6 12. 0 11. 3 12. 4 10. 5 7. 1 9. 1 7. 5 9. 6 7. 2 6. 0 6. 0 7. 6 13. 6 6. 9 7. 3 8. 2 17. 0 8. 1 13. 0 9. 8 13. 8 9. 0 10. 6 200 0 Millio n Ton s 0. 4 0. 9 1. 5 4. 9 1. 0 2. 0 2. 7 3. 7 4. 8 4. 3 5. 0 7. 8 3. 4 3. 3 4. 9 1. 6 4. 0 4. 6 2. 0 0. 6 1. 1 3. 3 1. 2 3. 6 1. 7 0. 8 1. 8 2. 0 23. 9 0. 8 2. 1 1. 8 3. 2 1. 5 2. 3 1. 0 1. 9 0. 3 119. 1 Z

Ash 11. 6 12. 0 10. 2 12. 4 12. 0 10. 0 11. 8 11. 5 12. 0 11. 9 11. 9 10. 9 10. 3 8. 3 9. 7 7. 8 12. 0 11. 5 12. 4 11. 1 7. 1 8. 3 7. 5 8. 5 7. 1 6. 0 6. 0 9. 1 13. 3 6. 9 7. 1 7. 7 16. 2 8. 1 11. 9 9. 9 9. 5 9. 6 10. 5

a / Fo r eac hyear , th e number s i nth e lef t colum nindicat e th e amoun t o f as hgenerate dby coa l fixe d electri c utilit y

powe r plant s i nth e indicate dstateCs) ; th e niaiber s i nth e righ t colunnar e th e averag e percentage s o f as hconten t i nth e coa l receive dby utilitie s i nth e indicate dstate(s) . b / Amoun t o f as hi s les s tha n0. 1 millio ntans . _/ Total s ma y

no t ad ddu e t o independen t roundin g Source : Se e Attachmen t B- l fo r th e majo r assumption s use dt o develo pthes e estimates . Thes e

assumption s wer e use di nth e analysi s summarize di nAnalysi s o f 6 an d8 Millio nTo nan

d3 0 Year/NSP S an

d3 0 Year/1. 2 lb . Sulfu r Dioxid e Emissio nReductio nCases , prepare dby IC F Incorporate dfo r th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Februar y 1986 .P.2 4



### B- 8

EXHIBI T B- 5 PERCENTAGE OF EAC

HTYP E O F AS H GENERATEDB YEACHBOILERTYP E

Wet-BottomPulverizer s Dry-BottomPulverizer s Cyclone s Stoker s Fl vAs h 

### 50 % 80 % 25 % 50 % BottomAs h

- - 

### 20 %

- - 

### 50 % Boile r Slag



### 50 %

- - 

### 75 %

. _.

Source : Babcoc k & Wilcox , Steam : It s Generatio n an d Use . Ne wYork : Th e Babcoc k & Wilco xCompany , 1978 , pp . 15- 7 - 15-8 .



# J