p.1 

PICK-UPDATE: 3/15/2007 

BOX OF ^D 

Step 2: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE 

ONLY 

(PART B of B) 

EPA DOCKET ID: 102RQ-RN 

1) 102RQ-RN-5-16 

3) 102RQ-RN-5-18 

5) 102RQ-RN-5-20 

7) 102RQ-RN-5-22 

9) 102RQ-RN-5-24 

11) 102RQ-RN-5-26 

13) 102RQ-RN-5-28 

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-6-11 

29) 102RQ-RN-6-13 

31) 102RQ-RN-6-15 

33) 102RQ-RN-6-17 

35) 102RQ-RN-6-19 

37) 102RQ-RN-6-21 

39) 102RQ-RN-6-23 

Step 3: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE 

ONLY 

CD: 

OA: / 

2) 102RQ-RN-5-17 

4) 102RQ-RN-5-19 

6) 102RQ-RN-5-21 

8) 102RQ-RN-5-23 

10) 102RQ-RN-5-25 

12) 102RQ-RN-5-27 

14) 102RQ-RN-5-29 

16) 102RQ-RN-5-32 

18) 102RQ-RN-6-2 

20) 102RQ-RN-6-4 

22) 102RQ-RN-6-6 

24) 102RQ-RN-6-8 

26) 102RQ-RN-6-10 

28) 102RQ-RN-6-12 

30) 102RQ-RN-6-14 

32) 102RQ-RN-6-16 

34) 102RQ-RN-6-18 

36) 102RQ-RN-6-20 

38) 102RQ-RN-6-22 

40) 102RQ-RN-6-24 

Step 1: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE ONLY 

Are there more documents for this Docket in another box? *YES /'NO J 

*Fill out Continuation Sheet and go to Step 2 v.—' 

Internal SFUND Box Number _36 OF _283 

Initials/Date: LDS / 3-15-2007 
vvEPA 

I0d*-£&'KA/-S'3d' 

United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response 

Washington, DC 20460 

EPA/530-SW-88-002 

February 1988 

Solid Waste 

Report to 

Congress 

Wastes from the Combustion 

of Coal by Electric Utility 

Power Plants 
P.3 

TABL E O F CONTENT S 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 

I. INTRODUCTION 1-1 

1.1 Legislative History 1-1 

1.2 Scope and Sources 1-7 

1.3 Organization 1-9 

II. OVERVIEW OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY 2-1 

2.1 The Demand for Electricity 2-1 

2.1.1 Structure of the U.S. Electric 

Utility Industry 2-7 

2.1.2 Economic and Environmental Regulation 

of the Electric Utility Industry 2-11 

2.2 Importance of Coal to Electric Utilities 2-14 

2.3 Overview of Coal-Fired Power Plants 2-18 

2.3.1 Regional Characteristics of Coal-Fired 

Electric Generating Plants 2-18 

2.3.2 Electricity Generating Technologies 2-21 

2.4 Coal Constituents and By-Products 2-29 

III. WASTES GENERATED FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY 

POWER PLANTS 3-1 

3.1 Overview of Electric Utility Wastes . 3-1 

3.2 High-Volume Wastes 3-3 

3.2.1 Ash 3-3 

3.2.2 FGD Sludge 3-21 

3.3 Low-Volume Wastes 3-41 

3.3.1 Boiler Blowdown 3-43 

3.3.2 Coal Pile Runoff 3-45 

3.3.3 Cooling Tower Blowdown. . 3-47 

3.3.4 Demineralizer Regenerant and Rinses 3-50 

3.3.5 Metal and Boiler Cleaning Wastes 3-52 

3.3.6 Pyrites 3-57 

3.3.7 Sump Effluents 3-60 

3.4 Summary 3-62 

IV. COAL COMBUSTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 4-1 

4.1 State Regulation of Coal Combustion 

Waste Disposal 4-1 

4.1.1 State Classification of Coal Combustion 

Wastes 4-2 
P.4 

-2-

TABL E O F CONTENT S (cont'd) 

Page 

4.1.2 Requirements for Coal Combustion Waste 

Disposal 4-6 

4.1.3 Summary 4-9 

4.2 Available Waste Management Methods and 

Current Practices 4-10 

4.2.1 Land Management of Coal Combustion Wastes 4-10 

4.2.2 Alternative Waste Management Technologies 4-24 

4.2.3 Ocean Disposal 4-44 

4.2.4 Waste Utilization and Recovery of 

Various Waste By-Products 4-45 

4.3 Summary 4-53 

V. POTENTIAL DANGERS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT 5-1 

5.1 RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Characteristics 

and Listing Criteria 5-2 

5.1.1 Corrosivity of Coal Combustion Wastes 5-4 

5.1.2 Extraction Procedure Toxicity of Coal 

Combustion Wastes . 5-5 

5.2 Effectiveness of Waste Containment at Utility 

Disposal Sites 5-28 

5.2.1 ADL Study of Waste Disposal at 

Coal-Fired Power Plants 5-29 

5.2.2 Franklin Associates Survey of State 

Ground-Water Data 5-44 

5.2.3 Envirosphere Ground-Water Survey 5-48 

5.2.4 Summary 5-52 

5.3 Evidence of Damage 5-53 

5.3.1 Envirosphere Case Study Analysis 5-54 

5.3.2 Dames & Moore Study of Environmental 

Impacts 5-56 

5.3.3 Case Studies of the Environmental 

Impact of Coal Combustion By-Product 

Waste Disposal 5-63 

5.3.4 Summary 5-67 

5.4 Factors Affecting Exposure and Risk at 

Coal Combustion Waste Sites 5-68 

5.4.1 Environmental Characteristics of 

Coal Combustion Waste Sites 5-69 

5.4.2 Population Characteristics of Coal 

Combustion Waste Disposal Sites 5-83 

5.4.3 Ecologic Characteristics of Coal 

Combustion Waste Disposal Sites 5-89 

5.4.4 Multivariate Analysis 5-93 

5.5 Summary 5-95 
P.5 

•3-

TABL E O F CONTENT S (cont'd) 

Page 

VI. ECONOMIC COSTS AND IMPACTS 6-1 

6.1 Waste Disposal Costs Associated With 

Current Disposal Methods 6-2 

6.1.1 Costs of Waste Placement and 

Disposal 6-5 

6.1.2 Costs Associated with Lined 

Disposal Facilities 6-11 

6.2 Costs of Alternative Disposal Options 6-12 

6.2.1 Regulatory Alternatives Under 

Subtitle C 6-13 

6.2.2 Cost Estimates for Individual RCRA 

Subtitle C Disposal Standards 6-17 

6.2.3 Potential Costs to the Industry of RCRA 

Subtitle C Waste Management 6-30 

6.3 Impact of Regulatory Alternatives on 

Utilization of Coal Combustion Wastes .. . 6-33 

6.4 Economic Impacts of Alternative Waste 

Disposal Options 6-37 

6.5 Summary 6-43 

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7-1 

7.1 Scope of Report 7-1 

7.2 Summary of Report 7-2 

7.2.1 Location and Characteristics of CoalFired Power Plants 7-2 

7.2.2 Waste Quantities and Characteristics 7-3 

7.2.3 Waste Management Practices 7-5 

7.2.4 Potential Hazardous Characteristics 7-6 

7.2.5 Evidence of Environmental Transport 

of Potentially Hazardous Constituents 7-7 

7.2.6 Evidence of Damage 7-9 

7.2.7 Potential Costs of Regulation 7-9 

7.3 Recommendations 7-11 
TABL E O F CONTENT S (cont'd) 

P.6 

Page 

Bibliography 

Glossary 

Appendix A: 

Appendix B: 

Appendix C: 

Appendix D: 

Letter from Gary N. Dietrich, EPA, to Paul Emler, Jr., 

USWAG, January 13, 1981 and Memorandum from EPA 

Headquarters to EPA Regional Directors, February 

18, 1981 

Methodology For Estimating Volume of Ash and FGD 

Sludge Generation 

Regulation of Coal Combustion Waste Disposal In 

Seventeen High Coal-Burning States 

Waste Fluid Studies 

A-1 

B-l 

C-l 

D-1 

Appendix E: 

Appendix F: 

Appendix G: 

Arthur D. Little Study of Waste Disposal At Coal-Fired 

Power Plants E-1 

Data On Sample of Coal-Fired Combustion Waste Disposal 

Sites F-l 

Methodology For Calculating The Cost of Alternative 

Waste Management Practices G-1 

2923C 
P.7 

2-22 

EXHIBIT 2-10 

RANGE OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT SIZES 

(number of plants) 

Power Plant Size 

EPA Region 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

U.S. Total 

<100 

MW 

1 

6 

6 

15 

63 

10 

25 

18 

5 

2 

151 

101-500 

MW 

4 

6 

23 

31 

51 

4 

24 

14 

2 

0 

159 

501-1000 

MW 

0 

5 

11 

17 

23 

10 

8 

10 

4 

1 

89 

1001-2000 

MW 

1 

0 

14 

23 

29 

12 

7 

4 

1 

_i 

92 

>2000 

MW 

0 

0 

3 

7 

5 

3 

2 

2 

1 

0 

23 

Total 

6 

17 

57 

93 

171 

39 

66 

48 

13 

4 

514 

Source: Utility Data Institute Power Statistics Database. 
P.8 

4-10 

4.2 AVAILABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT METHODS AND CURRENT PRACTICES 

There are a variety of methods available for managing coal combustion 

wastes. Wastes may be land managed in impoundments, landfills, mines, and 

quarries or may be reused for various purposes/ This section describes types 

of land management of coal combustion wastes and their prevalence within the 

ten EPA-designated regions of the United States. The second part of the 

section reviews available waste management technology alternatives (such as 

lining, leachate collection, and pre-disposal treatment), and explores how 

these different technologies are currently used in different parts of the U.S. 

and how these technologies have changed over time. The third part of this 

section describes the potential for ocean disposal to be used to manage coal 

combustion wastes. The final section describes coal combustion waste 

recycling. The waste management methods discussed in this section apply to 

high-volume and low-volume utility waste streams since these wastes are often 

co-disposed in the same facility. 

4.2.1 Ijand Manageoent of Coal Combustion Wastes 

80 percent of coal combustion waste is treated, stored, and/or disposed by 

means of land management, with the remaining 20 percent recycled (see Section 

4.2.4). This section describes three common methods of land management 

currently used for coal combustion wastes. It also presents data on use of 

these management methods geographically and how land management practices have 

changed over time. 
P.9 

4-11 

4.2.1.1 Types of Coal Combustion Waste Land Management 

Three types of utility waste land management facilities are commonly used 

today:' 

* Surface Impoundments •- often called wet ponds, in 

which coal combustion wastes are disposed as a 

slurry or sludge, allowing solids to settle and 

accumulate at the bottom of the pond. 

* Landfills -- facilities used for disposing of dry 

or dewatered coal combustion wastes; landfills are 

typically managed like an earth-moving operation in 

which the wastes are disposed in the excavated 

area. 

* Mines and Quarries -- abandoned pits in which wet 

or dry wastes are disposed. 

Surface Impoundments 

Surface impoundments are used to treat, store, and dispose of coal 

combustion wastes. Slurried coal ash and other wastes are introduced into the 

impoundment; the solids settle out and gradually accumulate at the bottom of 

the pond, leaving relatively clear water at the surface, which is often 

discharged to surface water. By using this method, certain types of waste 

treatment, such as neutralization of acids, can be accomplished concurrently 

with disposal. Exhibit 4-2 illustrates the different stages in the life of a 

typical impoundment. 

Historically, wet ponding has been one of the most widely used disposal 

methods for coal ash and FGD wastes because it is simple and easily 

implemented. In 1983, about 80 percent of the waste management facilities used 
P.10 

4-12 

EXHIBIT 4-2 

TYPICAL SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT (POND) STAGES 

SLURRIED 

COAL WASTE 

!*±k ACTIVE POND 

EFFLUENT 

JfcaiLkti CLOSED STORAGE POND 

(with wastes removed) 

!.__.__•*. g__,_._<_tf___ 

CLOSED DISPOSAL POND 

(with wastes remaining) 

\ii 

*.^^ ; __^:>^Y, ? .__?, > 
P.11 

4-13 

by utilities employed some type of sedimentation treatment pond; most of these 

treatment ponds were used directly as final disposal impoundments (about 45 

percent of all facilities; see section 4.2.1.2). The remainder of the 

impoundments were used only for treatment and temporary storage of waste, in 

part to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

established in Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. In recent years, some 

state and local regulations concerning wet ponds have become more restrictive, 

requiring liners and ground-water monitoring at these facilities. These types 

of restrictions will tend to increase wet ponding costs, making it less 

attractive as a disposal option. 

Utilities may use a single pond or a series of ponds to facilitate the 

settling of solids. Chemicals or different wastes can be added at different 

points in the ponding system to produce desired chemical reactions, such as 

metals precipitation or neutralization. Fly ash, bottom ash, and FGD wastes 

are usually sluiced with water to the impoundments. The ash solids may be 

allowed to accumulate in a pond until it is full, or the pond may be drained 

and the solids dredged periodically and taken to an alternative disposal site, 

such as a landfill. 

Pond designs vary widely depending upon local site conditions, the 

regulations that govern design of the impoundment, and whether bottom ash, 

fly ash, FGD wastes, or a combination of wastes are to be disposed and/or 

treated in the ponds. Because utility wastes are generated in large volumes, a 

pond's total surface area may cover up to several hundred acres, and the 

initial depth of a pond may be anywhere between 10 and 100 feet. The total 
P.12 

4-14 

volume of an impoundment system depends on several factors, including the total 

quantity of ash to be disposed (both dry and slurried volumes), the liquid and 

solid retention times, the type and degree of treatment performed, and the 

desired quality of the discharge or effluent. The number of ponds in a system 

and the specific uses to which each is put can also influence the total volume 

required for wet ponding. 

Landfills 

Landfills are used to dispose of coal combustion wastes such as fly ash, 

bottom ash, and FGD sludges when they are produced or after they are dredged 

from surface impoundments that are used as interim treatment facilities. The . 

typical design of a landfill during its active stage and after closure is 

depicted in Exhibit 4-3. 

Landfills are constructed in a somewhat similar fashion to surface 

impoundments. Excavation is required ih both cases, but may be ongoing 

throughout a landfill's active life because most large landfills are divided 

into sections, or cells, of which only one or two may be active at any given 

time. A landfill cell is defined as the area (up to several hundred square 

feet) over which waste is placed to a depth ranging from one to ten feet 

(industry practice refers to each layer of cells as a lift). Several lifts may 

be stacked atop one another in the landfill. A cell may be open for periods 

ranging from a day to a few weeks, after which it is usually covered with six 

inches to several feet of soil. The waste and soils are often sprinkled with 

water throughout the fill operation to mitigate potential dust problems. 
P.13 

4-15 

EXHIBIT 4-3 

DIAGRAMS OF ACTIVE AND CLOSED LANDFILLS 

* " \ 

ACTIVE LANDFILL 

CellS / A;; ^^ftr-e , \ !\':'^?T ^ > %%«%x»«_««%«%%»M«^r M TT^\ V 

WASTE SOILS 

CLOSED LANDFILL 
P.14 

4-16 

Excavation may be initiated in phases; for example, as one cell is filled, 

another is prepared for waste placement, while yet another is being excavated. 

Roads are built in to provide access for waste-hauling equipment as well as for 

the earth-moving and earth-compacting equipment that prepares the waste after 

it has been placed in the landfill cell. After a cell is filled, the access 

road frequently becomes part of the containment system as a wall separating one 

cell from the next. 

Landfilling of coal ash and FGD sludges has increased over the past few 

years as the costs of wet ponding have increased (see section 4.2.1.2). Most 

electric utilities that use landfills currently dispose their high-volume 

wastes in Subtitle D (non-hazardous waste) landfills. Landfills in compliance 

with RCRA Subtitle C standards may be used occasionally for disposal of small 

quantities of hazardous waste. 

Mine and Quarry Disposal 

Some utilities use abandoned mines or quarries as ash and FGD sludge 

disposal sites. Abandoned mine disposal includes the use of mine shafts as 

well as strip-mined areas. Wastes disposed to abandoned mine shafts can be 

dumped into the shaft or carefully placed within the mine to fill the areas 

remaining after the coal or other material has been removed. Strip-mined areas 

may be filled like a landfill. Regulatory agencies may consider wastes 

disposed in this manner to pose less of a threat than the runoff and potential 

12 contamination from the abandoned mine itself. In some cases, a chemical 

reaction between the waste and the mine runoff and leachate might actually 
P.15 

4-17 

reduce the toxicity of the runoff (for example, an alkaline sludge could 

neutralize acid mine drainage). However, the likelihood of such a mitigative 

effect is very site-specific and would not necessarily occur uniformly 

throughout any given mine disposal site. 

In a few cases, utility wastes, particularly acidic wastes, have been 

disposed in quarries. Limestone quarries are considered the best setting for 

this type of disposal because they provide a natural acid buffering capacity 

and the capacity for the metals present in the waste to be attenuated by 

13 chemically combining with materials in the quarry. Quarry disposal of wastes 

works well for lime or limestone slurry wastes, which harden to form a 

concrete-type floor at the bottom of the quarry, thereby plugging any potential 

leakage paths. The probability of achieving success with this method must be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis prior to its use. 

4.2.1.2 Prevalence of Various Land Management Methods 

Use of the waste management methods described above can vary from plant to 

plant and, in some cases, among individual generating units at a single power 

plant. This section presents information on how these utility waste management 

methods are employed nationwide and within EPA regions. It also discusses how 

these utility waste management methods have changed over time. The emphasis is 

on surface impoundments and landfills because these two waste management 

methods are the most commonly-used utility waste management practices in the 

United States. 
P.16 

4-18 

The information presented in this section was derived from the Edison 

Electric Institute Power Statistics Database, currently maintained by the 

Utility Data Institute. This database contains information on power plant 

characteristics for all electric utility generating plants in the U.S. These 

data include number of power plants, number of generating units at each power 

plant site, type of fuel, plant capacity, as well as other information. It 

also contains information on the type of waste management methods currently 

used by power plants throughout the country, including type of disposal 

facility and whether the wastes were disposed at the power plant or in off-site 

facilities. Because each generating unit at a power plant may have its own 

waste management practice, the database gives waste disposal information for 

all generating units. 

Data were not available for all generating units in the database. When 

information is not available, the extent of data coverage is indicated. In 

some instances the number of generating units on which no information was 

available was quite high. Although EPA recognizes the possibility of some 

statistical bias due to lack of data on some generating units, this database is 

the most comprehensive source available on utility waste management practices. 

EPA has no reason to believe that such bias is serious enough to call into 

question conclusions drawn in this analysis. 

Exhibit 4-4 displays, for each of the ten EPA regions of the U.S. (see 

Exhibit 2-4 for a map of these regions), the number of generating units whose 

waste is managed in surface impoundments, in landfills, or mines. The most 
P.17 

4-19 

EXHIBIT 4-4 

UTILITY HASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES BY EPA REGION 

(number of generating units) a/ 

EPA Reelon r-i 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

U.S. Total 

Surface 

Impoundments 

1 

0 

33 

195 

160 

19 

55 

9 

11 

0 

483 

Landfills 

10 

22 

103 

55 

198 

48 

61 

56 

16 

9 

578 

Minefills 

0 

0 

1 

0 

4 

2 

1 

23 

0 

2 

33 

Other/ 

Unknown 

7 

17 

7 

45 

130 

18 

32 

21 

7 

0 

284 

Total 

18 

39 

- 144 

295 

492 

87 

149 

109 

34 

11 

1378 

Source: Utility Data Institute Power Statistics Database 

a/ The data are provided by generating unit because each generating unit at 

a power plant may have its own management facility. A generating unit 

typically refers to a single boiler, turbine, and generator set at a 

power plant. A power plant may have more than one generating unit at 

the site. For the database used here, data were available for 1,378 

generating units located at 514 power plants. 
4-20 

common types of facilities used by the electric utility industry are 

surface impoundments and landfills: 

* Landfills are the most common type of disposal facility 

used. Of the 1,094 generating units for which data were 

available (for 284 units,type of waste disposal method 

was unknown), 578 units (about 53 percent) used 

landfills for waste disposal. Landfills are used 

throughout the United States, with the largest number 

(over one-half of all landfills) located in the high 

coal-consuming, industrialized areas of the East and 

Midwest (Regions 3 and 5). 

* Surface impoundments are also commonly used; 

approximately 44 percent of the generating units (483 

out of 1,094) used this type of management facility. Of 

the 483 generating units that place wastes in surface 

impoundments, nearly 75 percent are located in Regions 4 

and 5. (In the past, access to abundant, inexpensive 

supplies of water in these Regions often made it 

economical to use this management option.) 

* Mine disposal is used for about three percent of all 

generating units (33 units out of 1,094). This disposal 

technique is used most frequently in the western U.S., 

particularly Region 8. Power plants in this area are 

often located at or near the coal mine that is supplying 

the plant. Since the coal mine is located nearby, 

disposal of waste in the mine is often economic. 

When managing coal combustion wastes, electric utilities may treat, 

store, or dispose of the wastes at the power plant or at facilities 

located off-site. EPA could not determine from the data available how far 

the wastes are transported when managed off-site, although the cost of 

transporting the wastes would tend to encourage disposal near the power 

plant. A summary of industry practices is provided in Exhibit 4-5, which 

shows for each EPA region, by type of facility, whether the wastes are 

managed on-site or off-site. 
4-21 

EXHIBIT 4-5 

LOCATION OF UTILITY WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: 

ON-SITE VERSUS OFF-SITE 

(number of generating units)* 

P.19 

S?A Regi,oq On-Site Off-Site Unknown Total 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

Other/Unknown 

Total 

1 

0 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

2 

7 

1 

10 

_2 

18 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

Othe r/Unknown 

Total 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

0 the r/Unknown 

Total 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

0 the r/Unknown 

Total 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

0 the r/Unknown 

Total 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

0 the r/Unknown 

Total 

0 

3 

0 

3 

25 

62 

0 

87 

186 

26 

0 

212 

141 

41 

0 

182 

18 

36 

0 

54 

0 

18 

0 

18 

3 

37 

1 

41 

4 

8 

0 

12 

5 

140 

6 

151 

0 

3 

6 

9 

0 r-i 

17 

18 

5 

4 

7 

16 

5 

21 

45 

71 

14 

17 

128 

159 

1 

9 

14 

24 

0 

22 

u 

39 

33 

103 

8 

144 

195 

55 

45 

295 

160 

198 

134 

492 

19 

48 

20 

87 
4-22 

EXHIBIT 4-5 (continued) 

LOCATION OF UTILITY WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: 

ON-SITE VERSUS OFF-SITE 

(number of generating units)* 

P.20 

EPA Reel on 

7 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

Other/Unknown 

Total 

8 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

0 the r/Unknown 

Total 

9 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

Other/Unknown 

Total 

10 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

Other/Unknown 

Total 

Total U.S. 

Surface Impoundments 

Landfills 

0 the r/Unknown 

Total 

On-Site 

42 

20 

7 

69 

6 

28 

2 

36 

9 

16 

0 

25 

0 

5 

0 

5 

428 

237 

9 

674 

Off-Site 

0 

26 

1 

27 

2 

11 

23 

36 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

4 

2 

6 

16 

255 

39 

310 

Unknown 

13 

15 

25 

53 

1 

17 

19 

37 

0 

0 

7 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

39 

86 

269 

394 

Total 

55 

61 

_ 3 3 

149 

9 

56 

44 

109 

11 

16 

7 

34 

0 

9 

2 

11 

483 

578 

317 

1378 

The data are provided by generating unit because each generating unit 

at a power plant may have its own management facility. A generating 

unit typically refers to a single boiler, turbine, and generator set 

at a power plant. A power plant may have more than one generating 

unit at the site. For the database used here, data were available for 

1,378 generating units located at 514 power plants. 
P.21 

4-23 

Nearly 70 percent of all generating units in the U.S. 

manage their coal combustion wastes on-site (based on 

information for 984 units, 674 units dispose on-site). 

About two-thirds of the on-site facilities are surface 

impoundments; most of the other on-site facilities are 

landfills. 

Landfills are used for about 95 percent of all 

off-site disposal in the U.S. This is not surprising 

considering that surface impoundments are typically 

used when wastes are transported as a wet slurry; the 

cost of disposal could become prohibitive if a utility 

transported the slurry off-site. 

Coal combustion waste management practices also differ 

by region: 

In the Northeast (Regions 1 and 2), where 

few coal-fired generating units are located, 

management tends to occur off-site in 

landfills. 

The highest percentage of on-site management 

is found in the South (Region 4), where 

about 95 percent of all units manage their 

waste on-site (212 units, based on 

information from 224 units). On-site 

management is common because utilities in 

this region often use surface impoundments, 

which are typically located at the power 

plant. 

In the Rockies and northern Great Plains 

area (Region 8), most of the off-site 

disposal (23 of 36 units) occurs in mines 

that are generally adjacent to the power 

plant. 

These trends in utility waste management methods have been changing 

in recent years, with a shift towards greater use of disposal in landfills 

located on-site. For example, for generating units built since 1975, 

nearly 65 percent currently dispose of coal combustion wastes in 

landfills, compared with just over 50 percent for units constructed before 

1975. Similarly, over 80 percent of all units built since 1975 use 
P.22 

4-24 

on-site management facilities, compared with just under 65 percent of all 

units built before 1975 that manage wastes on-site. 

4.2.2 Alternative Waste Management Technologies 

Section 4.2.1 described the types of land management facilities used 

by utilities and patterns of use. This section describes the additional 

technologies that utilities may employ at the facilities described above 

in order to reduce potential environmental risk associated with waste 

management. For example, some utilities use liner systems for 

impoundments and landfills, leachate collection systems, and ground-water 

monitoring systems to control and monitor waste constituent migration. 

Pre-treatment technologies, by altering physical and chemical properties, 

can also render wastes more amenable for certain disposal methods. This 

section also presents data on the prevalence of these various 

technologies. The alternative technologies discussed in this section, 

although not necessarily the same as technologies required for RCRA 

Subtitle C facilities, may be required by current state regulations 

(described in Section 4.1) and could be more widely used in the future to 

further mitigate potential environmental impacts at utility waste disposal 

sites not currently employing these technologies. 

4.2.2.1 Installation of Liners 

Until recently, most surface impoundments and landfills used for 

utility waste management have been simple, unlined systems. Lining is 
B-6 

P.23 

EXHIBIT B -3 

TOTAL AMOUR OF ____ GENERATED BY ELECTBIC OIXUTT FOHER FUR S 

State 

Maine/Veimant/New Hampshire 

Massachusetts/Connecticut/Rhode Island 

New York 

Pennsylvania 

New Jersey 

Maryland/Delaware/District of Colunfeia 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

North Carolina/South Carolina 

Georgia 

Florida 

Ohio 

Michigan 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Wisconsin 

Kentucky 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Minnesota 

North Dakota/South Dakota 

Iowa 

Missouri 

Kansas /Nebraska 

Arkansas 

Oklahoma 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Montana 

Wyoming . 

Colorado 

New Mexico 

Utah 

Arizona 

Nevada 

Washington/Oregon 

California 

Total U.S.e/ 

198S 

Million 

—lasso 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 

1990 

Million 

Tons 

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 

— 1985 to 2000a/ 

1995 

Million 

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 

2000 

Million 

Tons 

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/ For each year, the numbers in the left column indicate the amount of ash generated by coal fixed 

electric utility power plants in the indicated stateCs); the niaibers in the right colunn are the 

average percentages of ash content in the coal received by utilities in the indicated state(s). 

b/ Amount of ash is less than 0.1 million tans. 

_/ Totals may not add due to independent rounding 

Source: See Attachment B-l for the major assumptions used to develop these estimates. These 

assumptions were used in the analysis summarized in Analysis of 6 and 8 Million Ton and 30 

Year/NSPS and 30 Year/1.2 lb. Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reduction Cases, prepared by ICF 

Incorporated for the Environmental Protection Agency, February 1986. 
P.24 

B-8 

EXHIBIT B-5 

PERCENTAGE OF EACH TYPE OF ASH 

GENERATED BY EACH BOILER TYPE 

Wet-Bottom Pulverizers 

Dry-Bottom Pulverizers 

Cyclones 

Stokers 

Flv Ash 

50% 

80% 

25% 

50% 

Bottom Ash 

--

20% 

--

50% 

Boiler Slag 

50% 

--

75% 

. _. 

Source: Babcock & Wilcox, Steam: Its Generation and Use. New York: The 

Babcock & Wilcox Company, 1978, pp. 15-7 - 15-8. 

J