DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of the Broken Aro Flue-Gas Desulfurization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of the Broken Aro Flue-Gas Desulfurization EVALUATION OF THE BROKEN ARO FLUE-GAS DESULFURIZATION SLUDGE MINE SEAL PROJECT TO ABATE ACID MINE DRAINAGE LOCATED IN COSHOCTOW COUNTY, OHIO A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Fritz J. Dolores H. Russ College of Engineering and Technology Ohio University In Partial Fullfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Science by Michael T. Rudisell August, 1999 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank Dr. Ben Stuart for guiding me through these last two years. Ben has been an exceptional advisor as well as a good friend to me as he has led me down this path I chose. He has spent much time with me in the field and classroom teaching me hands-on experience as well as the theory behind it. Also, a number of hours in his office were spent working on projects, assignments, and even just philosophizing about life's problems. A special thanks goes to Dr. Kenneth Edwards for his contributions to the project and for serving on my graduate committee. I would also like to thank Dr. James Lein for being on my graduate committee and the Geography Department for allowing us to use their digitizing equipment in developing our GIs. I would also like to thank graduate student, Branko Olujic, for his many hours spent in the field at Broken Aro taking water samples and measuring flowrates. Next, I would like to thank graduate student, Rajesh Ramachandran, for all his fieldwork assistance and for helping and guiding me through the GIs software used in the Broken Aro project. Thanks also to all the engineering undergraduates at Ohio University that volunteered to help collecting water samples and measuring flowrates in the field. Also, this project would not have been possible without the funding and assistance from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and American Electric Power who provided the FGD material. Lastly, thanks to the Department of Civil Engineering at Ohio University who gave me the opportunity to work on this research project. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. BACKGROUND OF COAL MINING AND ITS PROCESSES 4 What is Coal? 4 History of Coal in Ohio 5 History of Legislation Associated with Coal Mining 7 Problem Types Associated with Coal Mining 10 Sources of Acid Mine Drainage 12 AMD Chemistry 12 Specific Conductivity of AMD 15 Reduction/Oxidation Potential of AMD 17 How AMD Is Alleviated Under SMCRA 18 NPDES Limitations for AMD 22 Duties of the Department of Mines and Reclamation 2 3 DMR's Abandoned Mine Land Programs 26 Process of Generating Electricity at Conesville Power Plant 2 7 Flue-Gas Desulfurization Sludge Production 29 FGD Chemical Composition and Material Properties 30 3. LITERATURE REVIEW 34 Introduction of FGD Applications 34 Waste Lagoon Liner 36 Use of FGD in Highway Repairs 37 FGD Livestock Pads 40 Roberts-Dawson Mine Injection Project 4 1 Hydraulic Mine Seal: An 18-year Post Audit 44 Rehoboth Reclamation Project 47 Hydraulic Mine Seals 50 Omega Mine Grout Project 53 Injection Technique for Abandoned Deep Mines 55 Chapter Page 3. GIs Utilized for Watershed Analysis 59 Passive Treatment Systems 59 4. METHODOLOGIES 66 Introduction to Sampling Procedures 66 Sampling At Stream Locations 6 7 Flowrate Measurements At Stream Locations 6 8 Notched Weirs 6 8 Cut-Throat Flume 69 Culverts 7 1 Current Meter 7 1 Water Level and Well Depth Measurements 72 Sampling At Well Locations Water Quality Field Tests Water Quality Laboratory Tests Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes Metal Concentration Determination Direct Aspiration Technique Graphite Furnace Technique Cold-Vapor Technique Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Surveying Methods 5. BACKGROUND OF THE BROKEN ARO PROJECT Site Location and Description Remining at Broken Aro FGD Mine Seal Placement The Goal of the FGD Seal Water Monitoring Program Chapter 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Results Monitoring Wells Boundary of Mining Area New Pond Used as an Indicator Discussions Collection of Infiltration Above the FGD Seal Effect of the Oxic Limestone Drain Sedimentation Pond Headwaters of Simmons Run AMD Source Outside the Study Area Deep Mine Discharges Downstream Water Quality "Roof Effect" of Mine Inundation in Streams and Wells Off-site Characterization CONLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Recommendations Non-Native Ion Tracers Continued Monitoring New Monitoring Wells Trace Metals Analysis Oxic Limestone Channel (OLC) Design REFERENCES Chapter Page APPENDICES 155 A. Geographic Information System 155 Background of GIs 155 Broken Aro GIs Features 156 B. Groundwater Monitoring Well Water Quality Data 166 April 1997 through November 1998 C. Surface Water Location Water Quality Data April 1997 through November 1998 D. Chemical Mass Loadings For Stream Locations April 1997 through November 1998 List of Tables Table I . BPT Effluent Limitations ................................................................ 23 2 . FGD Chemical Constituents ............................................................ 31 3 . FGD Leachate Characteristics.......................................................... 33 4 . Groundwater Monitoring Well Water Quality Data .................................. 166 April 1997 through November 1998 5 . Surface Water Location Water Quality Data ........................................... 203 April 1997 through November 1998 6 . Chemical Mass Loadings For Stream Locations ....................................... 272 April 1997 through November 1998 List of Figures Figure Page 1. AutoCAD Drawing of Broken Aro Reclamation site .............................. 2 2 . Stability Relations of Pyrite in Water ................................................ 17 3 . Location Map of Broken Aro site .................................................... 96 4 . Dump truck unloading FGD .......................................................... 100 5 . Backhoe compacting FGD into a mine opening .................................... 101 6 . FGD Mine Seal Plan ................................................................... 102 7. FGD seal in its final configuration ................................................... 103 8 . Water Levels in Wells vs . Time ...................................................... 108 9 . Acidity vs . Time in Wells (MW3, MW6) ........................................... 110 10. Sulfate Concentration vs . Time (MW3, MW6) ..................................... 110 1 1 . Total Iron Concentration vs . Time (MW3, MW6) ................................. 111 12 . Acidity vs . Time (MW7, MW8) ....................................................... 112 13. Total Iron Concentration vs . Time (MW7, MW8) ................................. 113 14. Sulfate Load vs . Time (D 1A) ......................................................... 115 15.IronLoadvs.Time(DlA) ............................................................. 115 16.Acidityvs. Time(NP1)................................................................. 117 17. Total Iron Concentration vs . Time (NP 1)............................................ 117 18 . Sulfate Load vs . Time (DM2Z) ....................................................... 119 1 9 . Iron Load vs . Time (DM2Z) ........................................................... 119 20 . Iron Load vs . Time (DM2, DM2Z) .................................................... 123 Figure Page 2 1 . Field pH vs . Time (DM2. DM2Z) .................................................... 123 22 . Acidity vs . Time (U6) .................................................................. 126 23 . Field pH vs . Time (U6) ................................................................. 126 24. Acid Load vs . Time (UI, U5, S4) ..................................................... 127 25 . Sulfate Load vs . Time (U 1, U5. S4) ................................................... 128 26 . Iron Load vs . Time (U 1, U5. S4) ...................................................... 128 27 . Acid Load vs . Time (S5) ............................................................... 130 28 . Iron Load vs . Time (S5) ................................................................ 130 29 . Flowrate vs . Time (DM4A, DM4B) .................................................. 132 30. Acid Load vs . Time (DM4A. DM4Bj ................................................ 132 3 1. Acid Load vs . Time (D4, U7. U9) .................................................... 134 32 . Sulfate Load vs . Time (D4. U7. U9) ................................................. 135 33. Acidity vs . Time (MW3) ............................................................... 137 34 . Total Iron Concentration vs . Time (MW3) .......................................... 137 35.FieldpHvs.Time(DI)................................................................ 139 36 . Acid Load vs . Time (D 1).............................................................. 139 37 . Sulfate Load vs . Time (Dl. Dl A) .................................................... 140 38 . Broken Aro GIs Map .................................................................. 162 39 Broken Aro GIS Elevation Model .................................................... 163 40 . Broken Aro GIs 3-D Scene #1 ........................................................ 164 41 . Broken Aro GIs 3-D Scene #2 ........................................................ 165 CHAPTER 1 Introduction The Broken Aro reclamation site is located at the Woodbury Wildlife Reserve within Jackson Township in Coshocton County, Ohio. This abandoned mine site forms the headwaters of the Simmons Run Watershed and is contaminated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (SO2) Emissions Review
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio’s 2021 Annual Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Emissions Review Prepared by: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Air Pollution Control DRAFT April 2021 [This page intentionally left blank] Background The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgated the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010. U.S. EPA replaced the 24-hour and annual standards with a new short-term 1-hour standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb). The new 1-hour SO2 standard was published on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520) and became effective on August 23, 2010. The standard is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. On August 15, 2013, U.S. EPA published (78 FR 47191) the initial, first round, SO2 nonattainment area designations for the 1-hour SO2 standard across the country based upon areas with monitored violations (effective October 4, 2013). On March 2, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accepted as an enforceable order an agreement between the U.S. EPA and Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to resolve litigation concerning the deadline for completing designations. As explained in U.S. EPA’s March 20, 2015 memorandum Updated Guidance for Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, the court’s order directs U.S. EPA to complete the remaining designations in three steps: round two by July 2, 2016; round three by December 31, 2017 and round four by December 31, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • F a C T S H E
    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program F A C T S H E E T Regarding an NPDES Permit To Discharge to Waters of the State of Ohio for Columbus Southern Power Company, Conesville Generating Station Public Notice No.: 07-10-033 OEPA Permit No.: 0IB00013*LD Public Notice Date: October 24, 2007 Application No.: (OH #) OH0005371 Comment Period Ends: November 24, 2007 Name and Address of Facility Where Name and Address of Applicant: Discharge Occurs: Columbus Southern Power Company Columbus Southern Power Company c/o American Electric Power Conesville Generating Station 1 Riverside Plaza 47201 County Road 273 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Conesville, Ohio 43811 Coshocton County Receiving Water: Muskingum River Subsequent Stream Network: Ohio River Introduction Development of a Fact Sheet for NPDES permits is required by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 124.8 and 124.56. This document fulfills the requirements established in those regulations by providing the information necessary to inform the public of actions proposed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the methods by which the public can participate in the process of finalizing those actions. This Fact Sheet is prepared in order to document the technical basis and risk management decisions that are considered in the determination of water quality based NPDES Permit effluent limitations. The technical basis for the Fact Sheet may consist of evaluations of promulgated effluent guidelines and other treatment-technology based standards, existing effluent quality, instream biological, chemical and physical conditions, and the allocations of pollutants to meet Ohio Water Quality Standards.
    [Show full text]
  • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program
    16/SE Application No.: OH0005371 Ohio EPA Permit No.: 0IB00013*OD National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program PUBLIC NOTICE NPDES Permit to Discharge to State Waters Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Permits Section 50 West Town St., Suite 700 P. O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 (614) 644-2001 Public Notice No.: OEPA 18-04-032 DFT Date of Issue of Public Notice: Apr-25-2018 Name and Address of Applicant: AEP Generation Resources Inc. - Conesville Plant, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH, 43215 Name and Address of Facility Where Discharge Occurs: AEP Generation Resources Inc. - Conesville Plant, 47201 County Road 273, Conesville, OH, 43811, Coshocton County Outfall Flow and Location List: 001 - 22,000,000 40N 10' 52" 81W 52' 50" Receiving Stream: Muskingum River Nature of Business: ng capacity of 415 megawatts when in operation. *From Item VIII.B - Unit 4 at Conesville Plant is co-owned with AEP Generation Resources Inc. by AES and Dynegy. Key parameters to be limited in the permit are as follows: pH, Total (Low Level) Mercury, Total Suspended Solids, Oil and Grease-Hexane Extr Method, Total Recoverable Zinc, Total Recoverable Chromium, Total Recoverable Chlorine, Chlorination/Bromination Duration-Minutes, Fecal Coliform, CBOd 5-day, Total Recoverable Iron, Total Recoverable Copper On the basis of preliminary staff review and application of standards and regulations, the director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will issue a permit for the discharge subject to certain effluent conditions and special conditions. The draft permit will be issued as a final action unless the director revises the draft after consideration of the record of a public meeting or written comments, or upon disapproval by the administrator of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Title V Chapter 3745-77 Permit 06-16-00-0000 Conesville Power Plant
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Street Address: Mailing Address: 1800 WaterMark Drive TELE: (614) 644-3020 FAX: (614) 644-2329 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, OH 43215-1099 Columbus, OH 43216-1049 12/18/97 CERTIFIED MAIL RE: Proposed Title V Chapter 3745-77 permit 06-16-00-0000 Conesville Power Plant Attn: Genevieve Damico AR-18J United States Enviromental Protection Agency Region V 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3590 Dear Ms. Damico: The proposed issuance of the Title V permit for Conesville Power Plant, has been created in Ohio EPA's State Air Resources System (STARS) on 12/18/97, for review by USEPA. This proposed action is identified in STARS as covering the facility specific terms and conditions, and covering the general terms and conditions. This proposed permit will be processed for issuance as a final action after forty- five (45) days from USEPA's receipt of this certified letter if USEPA does not object to the proposed permit. Please contact Mike Ahern, DAPC Permit Management Unit supervisor at (614) 644-3631 by the end of the forty-five (45) day review period if you wish to object to the proposed permit. Very truly yours, Thomas G. Rigo, Manager Field Operations and Permit Section Division of Air Pollution Control cc: Southeast District Office Ohio EPA State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency TITLE V PERMIT Date: 12/18/97 PROPOSED Effective Date: Expiration Date: This document constitutes issuance to: Conesville Power Plant 47201 County Road 273 Conesville, OH 43811 of a Title V permit for Facility ID: 06-16-00-0000 Emissions Unit ID (Company ID)/ Emissions Unit Activity Description: B001 (Unit 1 Main Boiler) Electric Generation.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control
    Evaluation of Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control Final Report for Sunflower Electric’s Holcomb Station AmerenUE’s Meramec Station American Electric Power’s Conesville Station Detroit Edison’s Monroe Power Plant Missouri Basin Power Project’s Laramie River Station and AmerenUE’s Labadie Power Plant Reporting Period: January 1, 2000 – September 30, 2008 Principal Author: Sharon Sjostrom Submitted: December 2008 DOE Award Number DE-FC26-03NT41986 Report Number 42307R27 ADA-ES, Inc. 8100 SouthPark Way, Unit B Littleton, Colorado 80120 (303) 734-1727 DISCLAIMER This technical report was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy, under Award No. DE-FC26-03NT41986. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Dioxide Capture from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants
    Carbon Dioxide Capture from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants DOE/NETL-401/110907 Final Report (Original Issue Date, December 2006) Revision Date, November 2007 Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Carbon Dioxide Capture from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants DOE/NETL-401/110907 Final Report (Original Issue Date, December 2006) Revision Date, November 2007 NETL Contact: Jared P. Ciferno Office of Systems Analysis and Planning Division Prepared by: Massood Ramezan, Project Manager Timothy J. Skone, Project Engineer Research and Development Solutions, LLC Nsakala ya Nsakala, and Gregory N. Liljedahl, Project Co-Leaders Alstom Power Inc. With Support From: Loren E. Gearhart, Principal Investigator ABB Lummus Global, Inc. Rolf Hestermann, Principal Investigator Alstom Power Generation AG Barry Rederstorff, Host Site Advisor American Electric Power National Energy Technology Laboratory www.netl.doe.gov This Page Intentionally Left Blank Carbon Dioxide Capture from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants, Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category
    United States Office of Water EPA-821-R-15-006 Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 September 2015 Agency Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category EPA-821-R-15-006 September 2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4303T) Engineering and Analysis Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Acknowledgements and Disclaimer This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warrant, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such party would not infringe on privately owned rights. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. VIII GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... XI SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1 SECTION
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
    Case 1:19-cv-01334-RGA-CJB Document 281 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 64 PageID #: 4346 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP. and MES INC., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-01334-RGA-CJB v. VISTRA ENERGY CORP., IPH, LLC, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DYNEGY INC., ILLINOIS POWER PATENT INFRINGEMENT RESOURCES GENERATING, LLC, DYNEGY MIDWEST GENERATION LLC, DYNEGY MIAMI FORT, LLC, AEP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GENERATION RESOURCES INC., SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER CO., CARDINAL OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, AEP TEXAS INC., NRG ENERGY, INC., NRG TEXAS POWER LLC, MIDWEST GENERATION EME, LLC, MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC, TALEN ENERGY CORPORATION, TALEN ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC., BRANDON SHORES LLC, TALEN GENERATION LLC, AND H. A. WAGNER LLC, ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., GALLAGHER CLEAN ENERGY, LLC, AND AJG COAL, LLC, DTE REF HOLDINGS, LLC, DTE REF HOLDINGS II LLC, CERT COAL HOLDINGS LLC, CERT HOLDINGS LLC, CERT HOLDINGS 2018, LLC, CERT OPERATIONS LLC, CERT OPERATIONS II LLC, CERT OPERATIONS III LLC, CERT OPERATIONS IV LLC, CERT OPERATIONS V LLC, CERT OPERATIONS RCB LLC, CHEM-MOD LLC, AJG IOWA REFINED COAL LLC, JOPPA REFINED COAL LLC, THOMAS HILL REFINED COAL LLC, WAGNER COALTECH LLC, WALTER SCOTT REFINED COAL LLC, LOUISA REFINED COAL, LLC, BELLE RIVER FUELS COMPANY, LLC, ARBOR FUELS COMPANY, LLC, PORTAGE FUELS COMPANY, LLC, AND JOHN DOE LLCS Defendants. Case 1:19-cv-01334-RGA-CJB Document 281 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 64 PageID #: 4347 Plaintiff Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. and MES Inc. (collectively, “ME2C”) files this Original Complaint against Defendants AEP Generation Resources Inc., Southwestern Electric Power Co., and AEP Texas Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 10/6/2017 Mr. John Hendricks Conesville Power Plant 1 Riverside
    John R. Kasich, Governor Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor Craig W. Butler, Director 10/6/2017 Certified Mail No TOXIC REVIEW Yes PSD Mr. John Hendricks No SYNTHETIC MINOR TO AVOID MAJOR NSR Conesville Power Plant Yes CEMS 1 Riverside Plaza Yes MACT/GACT Columbus, OH 43215 No NSPS No NESHAPS RE: FINAL AIR POLLUTION PERMIT-TO-INSTALL No NETTING No MAJOR NON-ATTAINMENT Facility ID: 0616000000 Yes MODELING SUBMITTED Permit Number: P0120809 No MAJOR GHG Permit Type: Administrative Modification No SYNTHETIC MINOR TO AVOID MAJOR GHG County: Coshocton Dear Permit Holder: Enclosed please find a final Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Pollution Permit-to-Install (PTI) which will allow you to install or modify the described emissions unit(s) in a manner indicated in the permit. Because this permit contains several conditions and restrictions, we urge you to read it carefully. Because this permit contains conditions and restrictions, please read it very carefully. In this letter you will find the information on the following topics: How to appeal this permit How to save money, reduce pollution and reduce energy consumption How to give us feedback on your permitting experience How to get an electronic copy of your permit What should you do if you notice a spill or environmental emergency? How to appeal this permit The issuance of this PTI is a final action of the Director and may be appealed to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission pursuant to Section 3745.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. The appeal must be in writing and set forth the action complained of and the grounds upon which the appeal is based.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Potential PM2.5 Reductions by Improving Performance of Control Devices: PM2.5 Emission Estimates.” Final Report, September 2005
    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PM2.5 REDUCTIONS BY IMPROVING PERFORMANCE OF CONTROL DEVICES: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DRAFT REPORT PECHAN Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Prepared by: 5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 3622 Lyckan Parkway, Suite 2002 703-813-6700 telephone Durham, NC 27707 703-813-6729 facsimile and 3622 Lyckan Parkway RTI International Suite 2002 3040 Cornwallis Road Durham, NC 27707 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 919-493-3144 telephone 919-493-3182 facsimile EPA Contract No. 68-D-00-265 Work Assignment 4-52 P.O. Box 1345 Pechan Report No. 05.09.011/9012-452 El Dorado, CA 95623 530-672-0441 telephone 530-672-0504 facsimile September 30, 2005 [This page intentionally left blank.] PECHAN September 30, 2005 CONTENTS Page TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ iv FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................v EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PM2.5 REDUCTIONS ..............................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................4 2. BACKGROUND ON PM2.5 AMBIENT AIR CONCENTRATIONS .........................4 2.1
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Utilization of Fgd Gypsum for Reclamation Of
    POTENTIAL UTILIZATION OF FGD GYPSUM FOR RECLAMATION OF ABANDONED HIGHWALLS THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Deepa Modi Graduate Program in Civil Engineering The Ohio State University 2010 Thesis Committee Dr. William E. Wolfe, Advisor Dr. Tarunjit S. Butalia, Co-Advisor Dr. Fabian H. Tan Copyright by Deepa Modi 2010 Abstract In order to reduce air pollution resulting from the combustion of coal in electric utility boilers, utilities that operate coal-fired power plants have installed air pollution control technologies. While airborne pollution has been significantly curtailed, these methodologies have significantly increased the amount of solid byproducts generated, most of which are currently landfilled. In the Appalachian region of the US, a large number of abandoned coal mines exist, many with dangerous highwalls and pits. These abandoned highwalls pose a safety risk and many are sources of acid mine drainage that can compromise the quality of the ground water and nearby streams. In this thesis, the above two issues are addressed and the utilization of coal combustion by-products in mine reclamation work has been studied. This study is focused on the use of FGD (Flue Gas Desulfurization) gypsum in the reclamation of abandoned coal mine highwalls. The main objective of this research is to investigate the potential use of FGD gypsum (in the combination with fly ash and lime) as a backfill material for reclaiming abandoned highwalls. FGD gypsum and a mixture of FGD gypsum, fly ash, and lime are studied as a potential highwall backfill material.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 State Solid Waste Management Plan, Represents the Third Revision and - a Web Site, Fourth Iteration of the State Plan
    Environmental Protection Agency Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management State Solid Waste Management Plan 2009 Ted Strickland, Governor Lee Fisher, Lt. Governor Chris Korleski, Director Pam Allen, Chief 2009 Solid Waste Management Plan i.i. Director’s Comments The passage of House Bill 592 in 1988 by Ohio’s General Assembly forever changed how Ohio addresses the management of the solid waste that Ohioans generate. That landmark legislation provided the state of Ohio with the tools necessary to not just improve its solid waste management regulatory program, but also to conduct needed solid waste management planning. Today, I am proud to say that Ohio has a comprehensive regulatory program that has resulted in the safe management of solid waste from both environmental and human health perspectives. Even more exciting to me, however, are the great strides we have made as a state to divert material away from disposal in landfill to more appro- priate management options like recycling and composting. Since adoption of the 2001 State Solid Waste Management Plan, Ohio has achieved a number of notable solid waste related successes, including: • In 2007, Ohio achieved a statewide reduction and recycling rate for the residential/commercial sector of almost 26 percent. Furthermore, 23 of Ohio’s solid waste management districts achieved reduction and recycling rates of 25 percent or greater for the residential/commercial sector. • Ohio’s solid waste management districts provided at least one million additional people with the opportunity to recycle by ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is available. • Through Ohio’s scrap tire program, the State was able to remediate one of the biggest scrap tire accumulations in the nation – the Kirby Tire Recy- cling site in Wyandot County.
    [Show full text]