Coal Combustion Waste Management at - DOE - Fossil Energy ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

34 FIGURE 4 Liner Types Reported for Surface Impoundments The 1999 RTC categorized liner types differently than does this study, so direct comparisons are not possible. Nonetheless, it appears that liner materials and types have improved since 1994. For example, the 1999 RTC reported that 43% of the landfills and 74% of the surface impoundments constructed between 1985 and 1995 had no liners or soil-only liners. Since 1994, only one landfill (less than 3%) was constructed without a liner (and only because the State within which the landfill is located has classified the waste-managed bottom ash as inert). All of the surface impoundments reported a liner other than compacted in situ soil. While about 9% of the units in the 1999 RTC used compacted ash, no units used solely compacted ash since 1994. The percentage of clay liners remained about the same or decreased slightly, to about 29% for landfills and 17% for surface impoundments. The percentage of double liners increased slightly for landfills, from 1% to 5%. Finally, the percentage of combination and multiple liners increased for landfills, from less than 10% in the 1999 RTC to more than 50% in the newly constructed/expanded units. For impoundments, the percentage of combination/multiple liners increased from 2% to more than 50% since 1994. 3.1.7 Groundwater Monitoring The vast majority (91%) of the 56 identified newly constructed or expanded units (landfills and surface impoundments) monitor groundwater. All but one of the 38 landfills (97%) conduct groundwater monitoring, and because this landfill manages only bottom-ash waste, which the State has classified as inert, groundwater monitoring is not required. Of the 18 surface impoundments, 14, or 78%, monitor groundwater. 17 Table 14 shows the percentage of identified 17 Two surface impoundments that were not surveyed—and, therefore, are not included in Section 3.1.5.2, which addressed only the 45 surveyed units (29 landfills and 16 surface impoundments)—reported groundwater monitoring. Thus, of the total 18 identified surface impoundments (surveyed and nonsurveyed), 14 conduct groundwater monitoring.
TABLE 14 Disposal Units with Groundwater Monitoring by State State Total Landfills Units with Groundwater Monitoring % Units with Ground- water Monitoring Total 35 Surface Impoundments Units with Groundwater Monitoring % Units with Ground- water Monitoring Total Total Units with Groundwater Monitoring % Units with Ground- water Monitoring FL 1 1 100 0 0 – a 1 1 100 GA 1 1 100 0 0 – 1 1 100 IL 2 2 100 8 8 100 10 10 100 IN 4 4 100 1 0 0 5 4 80 MI 1 1 100 0 0 – 1 1 100 MN 2 2 100 1 1 100 3 3 100 MO 1 1 100 3 0 0 4 1 25 NC 2 2 100 0 0 – 2 2 100 ND 8 7b 88 2 2 100 10 9 90 NH 1 1 100 0 0 – 1 1 100 NM 0 0 – 1 1 100 1 1 100 OH 6 6 100 1 1 100 7 7 100 PA 3 3 100 0 0 – 3 3 100 TX 0 0 – 1 1 100 1 1 100 VA 3 3 100 0 0 – 3 3 100 WI 1 1 100 0 0 – 1 1 100 WV 2 2 100 0 0 – 2 2 100 Total 38 37 97 18 14 78 56 51 91 a − = not applicable. b Inert bottom ash (as defined by the State) in one landfill; groundwater monitoring not required. landfills and surface impoundments that monitor groundwater for each State. While the percentage of surface impoundments that monitor groundwater is less than the percentage of landfills, it is higher than the percentage reported in the 1999 RTC for units constructed between 1985 and 1995 (65%). The percentage of landfills in the 1999 RTC with groundwater monitoring was 88%; thus, there has been an increase in groundwater monitoring for both landfills and surface impoundments since 1994. Table 14 also shows that the surface impoundments that did not report groundwater-monitoring were in two States, Indiana and Missouri. These two States impose groundwater monitoring requirements for surface impoundments on a case-specific basis in water pollution control permits. The unit in Indiana is permitted under the NPDES program. Missouri regulates CCW settling basins as wastewater treatment units subject to the Missouri Clean Water Law. The Clean Water Law requires such units to obtain construction and operating permits from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Protection Program, but does not require them to obtain solid waste permits (10 CSR 80-2.020(9)(A)7). The Missouri DNR Water Protection Program has authority to impose groundwater-monitoring requirements for wastewater treatment facilities on a case-specific basis (10 CSR 20-6.010), but did not do so for these three units. For the surveyed units, information was obtained on the groundwater constituents monitored, the monitoring frequency, and the number of monitoring wells and their locations. Appendix I presents detailed data on groundwater monitoring; key findings are highlighted below.
Page 5:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS (Cont.) 3.1.9 Testing for
Page 10 and 11:
TABLES (Cont.) 7 Trends in Construc
Page 12 and 13:
TABLES (Cont.) A.14 Chronological C
Page 14 and 15: xii
Page 16 and 17: MCL maximum contaminant level MoDNR
Page 18 and 19: xvi
Page 20 and 21: S-2 the National Rural Electric Coo
Page 22 and 23: S-4 Groundwater-monitoring requirem
Page 24 and 25: S-6 receives only material that the
Page 26 and 27: TABLE S-2 Summary Results from Chro
Page 28 and 29: S-10 − In the area of groundwater
Page 30 and 31: S-12
Page 32 and 33: 2 Air heater and precipitator wash
Page 34 and 35: 4 wastes, and 17% were bottom ash.
Page 36 and 37: TABLE 1 (Cont.) State a Total CCWs
Page 38 and 39: 8 The remainder of this report cont
Page 40 and 41: 10 (NRECA) and the American Public
Page 42 and 43: 12 Information collected during the
Page 44 and 45: 14 − Type of variance (e.g., clos
Page 46 and 47: 16 potential duplication with the s
Page 48 and 49: TABLE 2 (Cont.) ID a Unit Name 18 S
Page 50 and 51: 20 Because new power plants built d
Page 52 and 53: 22 the number of new and expanded u
Page 54 and 55: 24 TABLE 7 Trends in Construction C
Page 56 and 57: 26 TABLE 8 Percentages of Wastes Di
Page 58 and 59: 28 TABLE 9 Numbers and Types of Per
Page 60 and 61: TABLE 11 Liner and Groundwater-Moni
Page 62 and 63: FIGURE 2 Liners in Identified New o
Page 66 and 67: 36 Constituents monitored. Landfill
Page 68 and 69: 38 impoundments). The analysis does
Page 70 and 71: 40 (Class I) wastes for which no li
Page 72 and 73: 42 States (Alabama, Florida, Georgi
Page 74 and 75: 44 TABLE 20 Solid Waste Permitting
Page 76 and 77: 46 United States in 2004. The one S
Page 78 and 79: 3.2.2 Findings 48 Table 22 summariz
Page 80 and 81: TABLE 22 (Cont.) Category of Regula
Page 82 and 83: 52 the surveyed units was conducted
Page 84 and 85: TABLE 23 Variance Requests and Disp
Page 86 and 87: 56 request, the State regulatory ag
Page 88 and 89: TABLE 26 Variance Requests by Surve
Page 90 and 91: TABLE 27 (Cont.) Variance Request S
Page 92 and 93: 62 variance. However, the State (Vi
Page 94 and 95: TABLE 28 (Cont.) Variance Request S
Page 96 and 97: TABLE 29 Variance Requests by Surve
Page 99 and 100: 69 5 REFERENCES ACAA 2004 American
Page 101 and 102: A-1 APPENDIX A: STATE-SPECIFIC REGU
Page 103 and 104: A.1 APPROACH A-3 APPENDIX A: STATE-
Page 105 and 106: A-5 For each State reviewed, an eff
Page 107 and 108: TABLE A.2 Summary of Regulatory Des
Page 109 and 110: A-9 addition, the regulations in Al
Page 111 and 112: TABLE A.3 Chronological Comparison
Page 113 and 114: A-13 A disposal facility in Indiana
Page 115 and 116:
TABLE A.4 Permits Required for CCW
Page 117 and 118:
TABLE A.4 (Cont.) a The pilot study
Page 119 and 120:
A-19 landfills. Otherwise, surface
Page 121 and 122:
TABLE A.5 (Cont.) a “On-site” m
Page 123 and 124:
A-23 groundwater and surface water
Page 125 and 126:
A-25 discharge), the facility may s
Page 127 and 128:
A-27 Wisconsin—Wisconsin designat
Page 129 and 130:
TABLE A.6 (Cont.) State a Illinois
Page 131 and 132:
TABLE A.6 (Cont.) State a Landfills
Page 133 and 134:
TABLE A.6 (Cont.) State a Landfills
Page 135 and 136:
TABLE A.7 Chronological Comparison
Page 137 and 138:
TABLE A.7 (Cont.) State EPA 1988 EP
Page 139 and 140:
A-39 Illinois—In Illinois, landfi
Page 141 and 142:
A-41 The design standards for utili
Page 143 and 144:
A-43 According to Technical Guideli
Page 145 and 146:
TABLE A.13 Summary of Groundwater-M
Page 147 and 148:
TABLE A.13 (Cont.) State a Groundwa
Page 149 and 150:
A-49 such as a commercial industria
Page 151 and 152:
A-51 The Indiana regulations do not
Page 153 and 154:
A-53 developed guidance documents,
Page 155 and 156:
A-55 groundwater. Table A.15 summar
Page 157 and 158:
TABLE A.15 (Cont.) State Leachate-C
Page 159 and 160:
A-59 TABLE A.16 Chronological Compa
Page 161 and 162:
A-61 quality standards, or otherwis
Page 163 and 164:
A-63 A.7 CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE REQUI
Page 165 and 166:
TABLE A.17 (Cont.) State Closure/Po
Page 167 and 168:
A-67 Type III restricted waste site
Page 169 and 170:
TABLE A.19 Summary of Corrective Ac
Page 171 and 172:
A-71 the plume (329 IAC 10-29-9). T
Page 173 and 174:
TABLE A.20 Summary of Siting Contro
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
A-77 The Virginia regulations speci
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
TABLE A.24 Summary of Additional In
Page 183 and 184:
A.12 FINDINGS A-83 Table A.26 summa
Page 185 and 186:
TABLE A.26 (Cont.) States with Chan
Page 187 and 188:
TABLE A.26 (Cont.) Description of C
Page 189 and 190:
A-89 TABLE A.27 Summary of States w
Page 191 and 192:
B-1 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR N
Page 193 and 194:
B-3 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR N
Page 195 and 196:
Compacted ash Compacted in-situ soi
Page 197 and 198:
7.0 Monitoring B-7 7.1 Is groundwat
Page 199 and 200:
C-1 APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESPONSE RAT
Page 201 and 202:
C-3 APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESPONSE RAT
Page 203 and 204:
C-5 USWAG asked for a response from
Page 205 and 206:
C-7 nonsurveyed units). The capacit
Page 207 and 208:
D-1 APPENDIX D: RECONCILIATION OF U
Page 209 and 210:
TABLE D.1 Reconciliation of Units I
Page 211 and 212:
E-1 APPENDIX E: UNIT COMPLETION DAT
Page 213 and 214:
TABLE E.1 Trends in Unit Completion
Page 215 and 216:
F-1 APPENDIX F: MATERIALS DISPOSED
Page 217 and 218:
TABLE F.1 Materials Disposed of at
Page 219 and 220:
TABLE F.1 (Cont.) Coal Bottom Ash (
Page 221 and 222:
TABLE F.1 (Cont.) Coal Other Unit C
Page 223 and 224:
G-1 APPENDIX G: PERMITS ISSUED FOR
Page 225 and 226:
TABLE G.1 Permits Issued for Survey
Page 227 and 228:
TABLE G.1 (Cont.) Unit ID State Typ
Page 229 and 230:
H-1 APPENDIX H: LINER DATA
Page 231 and 232:
TABLE H.1 Liner Data Unit Is Unit N
Page 233 and 234:
TABLE H.1 (Cont.) Unit Is Unit New
Page 235 and 236:
TABLE H.1 (Cont.) Unit Is Unit New
Page 237 and 238:
I-1 APPENDIX I: GROUNDWATER-MONITOR
Page 239 and 240:
TABLE I.1 Groundwater-Monitoring Da
Page 241 and 242:
TABLE I.1 (Cont.) ID GWM Conducted
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
J-1 APPENDIX J: VARIANCE REQUESTS B
Page 249 and 250:
TABLE J.1 Variance Requests by Stat
Page 251 and 252:
K-1 APPENDIX K: VARIANCE REQUEST DE
Page 253 and 254:
TABLE K.1 Variance Request Descript
Page 255 and 256:
TABLE K.1 (Cont.) Variance Variance
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
TABLE K.1 (Cont.) ID State Granted
Page 265 and 266:
L-1 APPENDIX L: VARIANCE GRANTING R
Page 267 and 268:
TABLE L.1 Variance Granting Rationa
Page 269 and 270:
TABLE L.1 (Cont.) ID State Variance
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
show all

Coal Combustion Waste Management at - DOE - Fossil Energy ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?